51 



harm in writing a polite note to the master, explaining 

 the circumstances afterwards, but nothing excuses an 

 argument with him in the field. 



However much or Httle you may know about the 

 science of hunting, it is as well to keep your private 

 opinion of the huntsman locked up in the sacred places of 

 your heart, and not give the world at large your ideas on 

 his quaUfications for the post. The master who engages 

 a huntsman does his best to get the best available man, 

 and he naturally does not appreciate outside criticism 

 of his servant. 



All who take interest in the sport are entitled to their 

 own opinions as to the way a fox should be hunted and 

 hounds handled, but spectators should never express 

 them in public. In the interests of the huntsman alone 

 it is unfair to criticise adversely, as a few idle words may 

 injure his reputation, on which he depends for a living. 

 A few good gallops with the luck to bring foxes to hand 

 at the finish, and the huntsman would be proclaimed a 

 marvel, whereas a succession of bad scenting days and 

 unsatisfactory runs would bring on the same man a 

 general verdict of incompetence. A huntsman's reputa- 

 tion should stand on the performance of his pack, but 

 unfortunately many of the profession seem to think 

 more of exhibiting their o^ti skill. They want by clever 

 casts and anticipating of the fox's movements to bring a 

 run to a successful conclusion instead of trusting to their 

 hounds. However expert they may be, the time will 

 come when their knowledge is at fault and the pack which 

 has never been allowed to solve a problem unaided will 

 be looking for assistance when it ought, with heads down, 

 to be searching for the lost clue. This fault in huntsmen 

 can be set down as the result of indiscriminate criticism 

 by the field, who look on a pack of hounds as a machine, 



