THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



339 



identify him — "I shall allude to hares in the first in- 

 stance, considering them to be the most objectionable ; 

 they are in the habit of congregating together, and may 

 be seen as many as one, two, and three hundred or more 

 in fields of from twenty lo forty acres, feeding on the 

 produce of the land, and I need scarcely say they prefer 

 the best and sweetest herbage. Game abounds chiefly on 

 light soils, and dry seasons greatly favour their de- 

 structive habits. The cereals being of kinder growth, and 

 naturally of sweeter quality, it is here that irreparable 

 injury is done to the growing crop, be it wheat, barley, 

 or clover — constantly eating dny and night, and all the 

 year round, does it not become evident they must con- 

 sume and destroy what would and should have been 

 additional food for man and beast? But hares are so 

 destructive to crops in the months of May and June : 

 always on the move, they cut their way through the 

 corn and clovers, and to such serious extent do they 

 clear off roods, and in some instances acres together, 

 that literally I have smelt the jierfume arising from the 

 withering influence of hot weather in those months. 

 Independently of the loss just mentioned, which ajipears 

 as it were sheer mischief, the corn thus prematurely cut 

 off" will attempt to grow again, and if some of it should 

 be fortunate enough to get partially into e;!r, will always 

 be so far behind the other portion of the field at harvest, 

 as to greatly injure the sample of produce already 

 diminished in yield. It may be considered a pretty 

 and novel sight to sec two or three hundred hares in an 

 enclosure as we travel through the country, just as we 

 view a herd of deer; but does it strike the beholder they 

 are eating the farmer's produce ? Is it just, I ask, that 

 land capable of providing food for the country should be 

 allowed, I may say , to be monopolised by game .' Is it not 

 sickening to the farmer, after his best endeavours, to see 

 this sad destruction of his hopes and management, by 

 consumption in excess of game .' But let me be under- 

 stood. There cannot like myself be a man, I am sure, 

 but what delights to see the sudden start of a hare from 

 his land, or has less objection to meet such on his table 

 after legitimate sport. No ; I am sure as " sons of the 

 soil," we would never wish to see the extermination of 

 game : it is the abuse I have endeavoured to expose, but 

 fear I cannot fully express the very great amount of 

 loss that is occasioned throughout the country from the 

 great ' over-preservation of game.' Of course, game 

 more or less must look to the land for its subsistence, 

 and, like many of its productions, it forms, at seasonable 

 times, a welcome addition to our epicurean appetites. 

 Norfolk, Suffolk, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, York- 

 shire, Cambridgeshire, and Cheshire may be considered as 

 special over-preserving game counties, and I believe it 

 is a fact, that in spite of great vigilance, the poachers 

 are known to carry off a large percentage of hares and 

 pheasants and partridges, far more than is ever con- 

 ceived by the proprietor, which at once demonstrates 

 the folly of such extravagant hordes of game. Yet I 

 believe there is a growing disposition to reduce this 

 great evil to agriculture among landowners ; late years 

 have given us proof of much modification in this re- 

 spect, and I firmly believe it would be carried out much 

 more extensively, were it not for neighbouring pre- 

 servers vying with each other to prove who can keep 

 up and kill the most game. And to take another point 

 of view : we know how difficult it is to eradicate a long- 

 established prejudice. We are great sticklers for our 

 own ideas, and to succumb or give way to change is 

 always a tardy and unwilling act, nor can we do so 

 without a certain amount of chaff' which invariably 

 follows as a matter of course. But for these obstacles, I 

 believe we should find many of the great extensive 

 game preservers reducing it to such a point as would 

 create for themselves more rtal sport, and remove what 



is severely felt to be a great impediment to profitable 

 and good farming. I am thoroughly convinced that the 

 great amount of droppings as well as urine from these 

 animals is of the most poisonous and obnoxious nature, 

 and exceedingly detrimental to the development of 

 wheat, particularly. We have all noticed, where such is . 

 made — hillocks being a favourite spot for deposits — that 

 the herbage is bleached, or as it were scorched and ap- 

 parently lifeless : from this we may fairly conclude how 

 offensive such must be to vegetation. It may be said 

 we must be aware of the character of our occupation, 

 before accepting. We conceive we do; but it is only by 

 exju^'ricnce that we gain any idea of the destruction 

 that an over-supply of game will create. Looking over 

 the hedge is one thing, and walking through your in- 

 fested fields is another. It is there that strangers and 

 others unaccustomed to game become at once astonished 

 and disgusted with its effects. Hares are much attached 

 to swedes, particularly in severe weather, and the 

 amount they destroy is again greater in this crop than 

 what is consumed ; they do not confine themselves to a 

 single bulb, but attack so many, and as soon as the 

 opening is made, the crows, wet, and subsequent frosts 

 complete the havoc. The only preventive in this 

 particular instance is to pull the swedes and cover down ; 

 yet here we have an extra expense, and throughout the 

 whole system of farming the cost of your preparation 

 and following operations are equal to the occupation, 

 free from such a tux as superabundance of game. We 

 must not forget to mention, that with all cropping, from 

 its early growth to maturity, an additional mischief is 

 caused by the constant traffic of game, in breaking 

 down the corn, which from want of air invariably 

 proves abortive. Rabbits may bo said to be less de- 

 structive than hares : the damage is local, feeding on the 

 produce near their burrows, they to that extent crop off 

 everything before them. They are extremely injurious 

 to hedges : wherever we see an excess, there surely will 

 be found dilapidated hedgerows ; becoming so thoroughly 

 undermined, a weakness is communicated, which ends 

 in their dying away, or becoming thin and weak. Rab- 

 bits are very troublesome with underdrains, often run- 

 ning up the tiles, and not unfrequently becoming jam- 

 med on being pursued by vermin, they die there, and of 

 course stop the water-course and occasion a vast amount 

 of inconvenience. Ditches are continually filled with 

 soil from their fresh earthings, and as far as their pere- 

 grinations go there is nothing but a complete annihilation 

 of all vegetation. Everybody is aware of their greedy 

 appetites, and the same remarks relative to their offen- 

 siveness to all productions is fully as strong if not greater 

 than in the case of hares. Pheasants I cannot say much 

 about ; but there is no doubt, in Norfolk particularly, 

 the loss in barley crops is in some lordships alarmingly 

 extensive, feeding and treading down that grain, or if 

 naturally lodged, they make it much worse ; and then its 

 close proximity to the soil renders it impossible to fill or 

 mature beyond a weak and worthless grain." — 

 My correspondent, you see, also dwells mostly on the 

 injary effected by hares. In fact, the evils of rabbits 

 are so apparent, that no man going into business with 

 his eyes open should barter away his power over such 

 pests of the farm. Indeed this is seldom insisted on. 

 The feeling is commonly the other way. It is only a 

 very sharp agent who stipulates for a right to " the 

 coneys;" and the Legislature very properly regards 

 them as vermin. At least, it did so until the appear- 

 ance of Mr. Gladstone's budget, and the new sliding-scale 

 certificate. On first hearing of this I was inclined to 

 look at the diminution of price as a matter of but small 

 consideration to the farmer, either one way or the other. 

 It reads chiefly as a boon to the occasional sportsman, 

 and as an effort to catch a few straj pounds by such a 



