67 



to the service of a hunt, there is no need to think of a 

 paid master, but there is httle doubt the latter would 

 prove more satisfactory than the man whose only quali- 

 cation is an abundance of wealth. 



Having already dwelt on the allegiance and unswerving 

 loyalty which is due from the field to the master, it may 

 be as well to point out that he in return owes a duty 

 to his field. The subscribers to the hunt, the landowners, 

 farmers and inhabitants of the district have certain 

 rights which must not be ignored. We may conclude 

 the master has been elected to that position by the 

 committee on behaK of everyone concerned, so that he 

 starts v/ith the goodwill of the community. Whilst he 

 occupies that position the residents in the country must 

 either hunt with him or not at all, a fact he would do 

 well to bear always in mind when his views do not happen 

 to coincide mth those of the field. Although the master 

 must be given free rein to hunt the country in the way 

 he thinks best, he ought not to take advantage of his 

 position to adopt a line of action which is contrary to 

 the wishes of the majority. 



Even the man who takes no subscription and is hunting 

 the country entirely at his omu expense, owes the same 

 duty to the residents as one who is dependant on what 

 the committee may give him. He may pay for the 

 keep of hounds and horses, for wages, rent of coverts 

 and many other incidental expenses, but he does not 

 pay for the right of hunting the country, and it is a 

 right which camiot be bought. 



This is the point the moneyed autocrat might possibly 

 forget, and it is as well to emphasize it here. Such an 

 individual with the desire to take hounds and with the 

 idea of hunting a country solely for his own pleasure, 

 might possibly exist, but is purely imaginary and we 



