Hunting was only saved because of parliamentary self-interest. Hunting is for the rich whilst Badger Baiting and Cock Fighting were for the poor. - MYTH

This is a common fallacy, much promoted by the ant-hunting lobby, that actually has no basis in history whatsoever.

In fact, both Badger Baiting and, especially, Cock Fighting (and even dog fighting too, for that matter) were patronised in great style by the Nobility.

So much so, indeed, that the "champions" in the field were being bought and sold for sums that the common man would not have dared even to dream about.

The belief usually stems from the modern idea that in order to follow a hunt on horseback, you have to be "rich" enough to be able to own and keep (or hire) a horse. Therefore, all hunters are rich, and always have been.

This assessment conveniently ignores the fact that (a) there were foot packs in those days, just as there are now and (b) in those days many more people owned horses. They were much cheaper.

However, you do not have to take my word for this. Let us leave the last word to Charles Dickens, an actual inhabitant of Victorian England. His testimony is less prone to accusations of bias then either the anti-hunt lobby’s or mine.

In Chapter 35 of "Oliver Twist", Mr Blathers, of the Bow Street Runners, states :

"This here Conkey Chickweed, miss, kept a public-house over Battlebridge way, and had a cellar, where a good many young lords went to see cock-fighting and badger-drawing, and that, and a wery intellectual manner the sports was conducted in, for I’ve seen ‘em off’en."