HUNTING IN GRASS COUNTRIES 313 



to meet all just demands. There should be a minimum 

 subscription, which might be fixed at £10 for a man 

 who took out one horse a day and £20 for two. There 

 is no greater mistake than to fix a minimum which is 

 not within the power of every man who can hunt at 

 all to pay. For if you refuse to take less under any 

 circumstances, people will either come out without 

 paying, or you must be rude to them and make enemies. 

 The remedy is the cap of £2, say some people, and this 

 is probably true where the subscription is £10, but 

 when that is combined with a minimum of £2$ there 

 is an obvious opening for the cry that hunting is the 

 sport of the rich. " So it ought to be," say some 

 people ; yet I am convinced that the raising of that 

 cry will be fatal to hunting. Those who fail to see 

 this take short views and have never realised what 

 hunting depends on for its existence. 



It rests, as we have said, on prescription and on its 

 own popularity. The right of hunting is not a thing 

 that can be bought and sold. The hunt has no 

 definite right to offer, because the thing people wish 

 to do is to ride over another person's land. But this 

 privilege is in no sense the property of the hunt, and 

 can neither be given to an individual to whom the 

 farmers objected nor taken away from one to whom 

 they are willing to grant it. It is wise, then, to see 

 that rules as to subscription and capping are applied 

 impartially to those who ought to be made to pay. 

 But they must not be considered so sacred as to admit 

 of no exception. The people to whom they chiefly 

 apply are those who come into the country and take 

 houses or stables for the purpose of hunting. Such 

 people have no particular interest or loyalty for the 

 country side, apart from the sport it affords, and 

 are no more to be considered " residents " than a 



