DUTY OF A WHIPPER-IN 183 



huntsman should seldom rate, and never flog, a hound. 

 In short, I consider the first whipper-in as a second 

 huntsman ; and, to be perfect, he should be not less 

 capable of hunting the hounds than the huntsman 

 himself. 



You cannot too much recommend to your whipper- 

 in to get to the head of his hounds before he attempts 

 to stop them. The rating behind is to little purpose, 

 and, if they should be in cover, may prevent him from 

 knowing who the culprits are. When your hounds 

 are running a fox, he then should content himself with 

 stopping such as are riotous, and should get them 

 forward. They may be condemned upon the spot ; 

 but the punishment should be deferred till the next 

 day, when they may be taken out on purpose to 

 commit the fault, and suffer the punishment. I agree 

 with you, that young hounds cannot be awed too much ; 

 yet suffer not your punishment of them to exceed their 

 offence. I could wish to draw a line betwixt justice 

 and barbarity. 1 



A whipper-in, while breaking-in young hounds, 

 sometimes will rate them before they commit the fault : 

 this may, perhaps, prevent them for that time ; but 

 they will be just as ready to begin the next opportunity. 

 Had he not better let them quite alone, till he see 

 what they would be at ? The discipline then may be 



1 I am sorry that it should be necessary to explain what I mean by 

 barbarity. I mean that punishment which is either unnecessarily inflicted, 

 which is inflicted with severity, or from which no possible good can arise. 

 Punishment, when properly applied, is not cruelty, is not revenge — it is 

 justice, it is even mercy. The intention of punishment is to prevent 

 crimes, and consequently to prevent the necessity of punishing. 



