EXPENSES 303 



a total of £25 for the season, not a great deal for 

 the sport provided. But to this must be added another 

 £50 for other funds connected with the hunt, of which 

 £20 or so, distributed as a well-earned Christmas gift 

 among the hunt servants of the different hunts, will 

 occur to every one as in no way extravagant. A 

 man hunting from Market Harborough would probably 

 subscribe to but two hunts, and £100 for the season 

 would suffice for everything. But those who have 

 a large number of horses would be expected to give 

 more, and should do so cheerfully. A rich man should 

 not be taxed indeed because he is rich, but he should 

 pay more because he has a larger share of the sport 

 to which all contribute. 



In practice, however, very few people pay much 

 more than the minimum. The poor sportsman who 

 drags his " pony " out of a shallow purse and goes 

 without something in order to find it does not grudge 

 the money, but he does feel a little aggrieved that 

 when money is wanted no more is to be obtained 

 from the owner of ten horses than from the master 

 of one. If a certain sum constitutes membership of 

 the hunt, as it does in most cases, it is difficult to 

 enforce a larger payment, yet there is no doubt the 

 payments in such cases are disproportionate. To 

 this we can only respond that it is a universal law 

 that the poor man's pleasures are more " costly " 

 than those of the rich. " If he can't afford it, he 

 ought not to have it," says Dives. But if Lazarus 

 were to give up hunting, the sport would very soon 

 come to an end. The genteel " beggar on horse- 

 back " is the backbone of most hunts. Perhaps if 

 we knew everything, the " pauper of the Pytchley " 

 is not the only one of his class who has hunted in 

 the Shires. 



