278 THE NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE HOUNDS. 



may help to popularize the cause of fox-hunting with the 

 farmino- class to a material extent. We are well aware 



O 



of the old stock argument, that fox-hunting is a source 

 of profit to the farmers of this country, and that if fox- 

 hunting were abolished farmers would be the greatest 

 sutferers. To a certain extent this is undoubtedly true, 

 but it is an argument which has not quite as much force 

 as some writers appear to think. The pecuniary loss which 

 would ensue from the abolition of fox-huntinsj would be 

 more of a general than an individual kind, while the 

 damage done by fox-hunting is emphatically an individual 

 damage brought home to the mind of the particular farmer 

 whose crops are damaged, whose fowls are taken, Avhose 

 lambs are killed, whose fences are ruined, or whose seeds 

 are ridden over, and in many cases without any compensa- 

 tion being either asked for or bestowed. 



The damage, as we have just said, is very direct and 

 visible, and there is no doubt about it in the mind of the 

 farmer who suffers ; whilst the profit, if any, arising from 

 the higher price of corn and horseflesh by reason of fox- 

 hunting is extremely difficult to trace to its source, and 

 more often than not does not affect the individual farmer 

 whose crops or fences or stock have suffered from the 

 hounds and horsemen crossing his fields. The following 

 extract from the Manchester Courier of March 24th, 1902, 

 shows what the feeling of the farmers of the Cheshire 

 Hunt (which adjoins the North Stafford country) is on 

 the subject, and we do not think very much fault can be 

 found with the farmers' views as there reported. 



FARMERS AND FOX-HUNTING. 



NANTWICH AGRICULTURISTS AND THEIR GRIEVANCES. 



The Nantwich Farmers' Club, on Saturday evening, discussed the question of 

 hunting grievances. 



Mr. Jos. Furber said in preferring reasonable grievances for settlement by the 

 Hunt they should be united. A person who could afford to hunt regularly could 

 afford to pay for the privilege. The question was one for the Hunt to tackle 

 with a view to the .settlement of the amount of subscription which should be paid, 

 and he suggested that claims for the loss of poultry, stock, and exceptional 



