INTRODUCTION 21 



and, though it is not my intention to argue that 

 shooting should be arbitrarily sacrificed in the 

 interests of fox-hunting, yet, as the fox-preserving 

 covert owner confers more benefits upon agriculture, 

 and gives greater pleasure to his neighbouring farmers 

 than the non-resident shooting tenant, it is right that 

 he should be protected against the malpractices of 

 the latter and his servants — malpractices which con- 

 stitute a heinous crime against the orthodoxy of 

 sport. It is not within the scope of this volume to 

 discuss the details of the feud between hunting men 

 and non-resident shooting-tenants. The question 

 before us is, whether these tenants have such a 

 beneficial influence upon agriculture as to authorise 

 them in undermining the fox-hunting influence. It 

 is argued that they put money into the pocket of the 

 landowner, which money he spends upon the im- 

 provement of the land. If the landowner did spend 

 his shooting rents upon the improvement of the land, 

 the argument would be unanswerable ; but in the 

 cases which have come within my knowledge such is 

 not the case. On the contrary, the landowners, 

 unable to get their sporting pleasure at home, seek 

 it abroad, and consequently spend less money in their 

 native country than they spent before they let their 

 shooting. Lincolnshire, especially the Blankney 

 division of the county, has suffered severely from the 

 custom. The farmers complain that they reap no 

 benefit from the shooting -tenants, and not even the 

 courtesy which, in the case of landowners, assumes 



