156 THE SPORT OF KINGS 



And it may be said that, on the whole, public 

 opinion exercises a very salutary effect on the 

 question of subscriptions. 



Then our recent reformer tells us how, in his 

 opinion, much of this money should be spent. 

 He says in the first place the farmer should be 

 subsidised, i.e. he should be paid a certain sum of 

 money to allow hounds to cross his land, and that 

 on his part he should take down all wire, etc. 

 " Then," says he, " the hunting man would have 

 a right to cross the land, instead of being as now 

 only a guest, and sometimes an unwelcome one." 

 I don't think I ever came across a more impracti- 

 cable suggestion. The whole question absolutely 

 bristles with impossibilities. In the first place, 

 supposing sufficient money were raised to subsidise 

 the farmers in a hunt, which is not by any means 

 a certainty, how is it to be distributed ? Is the 

 man whose land is crossed twice in a season to 

 have the same amount per acre as the man on 

 whose farm is situate a favourite covert, which is 

 drawn some once a fortnight, or oftener, from 

 November to March ? Is the man over whose 

 farm hounds never run to be left out altogether ? 

 If so, he will be dissatisfied, and if he is not left out 

 some of his neighbours will be discontented. Is 

 the farmer who hunts to be treated in the same 

 way as the farmer who does not ? In either case 

 there would be grievous heartburnings. 



But supposing these matters were settled, how 

 would the field "who had a right" be likely to 

 behave. They would naturally be more careless 

 about leaving gates open, they would not be so 

 amenable to the Master's orders about damaging 

 crops, they would in a majority of cases consult 



