THE GROUND GAME ACT 175 



to hatch off often become so wild as to be almost 

 unapproachable. Hares there are none, or so few in 

 comparison to what there were, that the shooting 

 tenant is woefully disappointed. Nor can rabbits be 

 found in anything like their accustomed number. 

 On many farms, excepting those which adjoin large 

 coverts not included in the letting to the tenant 

 farmer, rabbits are almost cleared off; and every 

 shooting man knows how coneys tell up^ in the bag 

 at the end of a day's shooting. It is not the loss of 

 their intrinsic value that is deplored, but the loss of 

 sport which is implied by their absence. 



Nor are the tenant farmers much better pleased 

 than the landlords with the result of the new legislation, 

 although the Act was passed ostensibly in their in- 

 terest — ' to protect their crops from injury and loss 

 by ground game.' Formerly if a standing crop was 

 damaged by the depredations of hares and rabbits, 

 the farmer made a claim against the landlord, a 

 valuer was appointed to look into the matter, and an 

 amount of compensation was agreed upon which was 

 generally deducted from the rent. In some cases a 

 landlord who had paid, or allowed, compensation for 

 some years on this score would perhaps lose patience, 

 and in order to relieve himself for the future of this 

 annual claim, would consent to reduce the rent at 



