of these peripatetics-that many of them did not subscribe through ignorance of the amount which they ought to subscribe; but the ingenuity of the defence was ruined by the publication of a Fox Hunting Directory, in which the minimum subscription to the various packs of hounds was stated. Another defence, so weak as to amount to a plea of guilty without extenuating circumstances, is that they have never been asked to subscribe. We have always understood that the hunt subscription was a debt of honour, and until hunting subscriptions are placed upon the same legal basis as, for example, game licenses and fishing rights, they must be regarded as coming within the category of debts of honour, and defaulters must pay the penalty of that social ostracism which is usually meted out to dishonourable men. The primary object of racing is the promotion of horse-breeding, and, if a man does not pay his racing debts, he is prohibited from taking any active part in racing until his debts are paid. We do not allude to gambling debts, but to the debts, such as forfeits, over which the Jockey Club holds control. It would incur difficulties almost insurmountable to apply the same rules to hunting, though we are convinced that if these rules had been applied when hunting by rail first became fashionable we should have heard little of the present grievance. But till within the last five years the number of these non-subscribing visitors was so small that it was possible for the M.F.H. to know them by sight, and by a judicious exercise of his authority to prevent them from causing mischief in the hunting field. Now increased railway facilities have added to their ranks to such an extent, that we doubt whether in the home countries and the fashionable, shires the M.F.H. knows even the names of a quarter of his field, while it is certain that the names of half the field do not appear on the subscription list. The tenant farmers are perfectly aware of this, and are consequently indignant that they should be expected to promote sport for the sake of men who do not expend a penny in the country, and whom they regard with that contempt which the English yeoman has always felt for the shopkeeper. In those countries which are beyond the reach of the non-subscribing visitor the farmers are, almost without exception, friendly to hunting; but when the country is invaded by foxpoachers, who wear the outward garb of gentility in the shape of a pink coat, and by their conduct betray the breeding of the profanum vulgus, the farmer resents their delinquencies and becomes either an open or a secret enemy to hunting. Yet, in spite of vigorous appeals in the press, accompanied by vigorous denunciations, in spite of stern measures, almost amounting to arbitrary conduct, adopted towards them by masters, such as Lord Lonsdale, in spite of the attitude of social ostracism assumed towards them by the local supporters of hunting, these enemies to sport and agriculture thrive and increase.

Our contention is that any custom which causes fox-hunting to have an adverse influence on agriculture should be destroyed before the commencement of the next hunting season. The method of destruction must be decided by the masters of hounds, who may be regarded as forming the legislative body in all matters appertaining to the hunting field, and as the authorised representatives of their sportloving constituents. We, as constituents, can only suggest a method. Our suggestion is that every M.F.H. should make it publicly known that any person following his hounds without subscribing to his or some other pack will be prosecuted for trespass; for we are convinced that if only one or two of these non-subscribers were expelled from the hunting field by means of such a prosecution, the remainder would either subscribe or betake themselves to the pursuit of some cheaper sport, since the odium attaching to such a prosecution would be greater than any self-respecting man would care to encounter.

We have suggested this method because to our mind it appears to be easier of accomplishment than any other scheme which we have heard advocated. The suggestion that licenses should be issued by the hunt secretary upon an agreed scale of prices, so that a stranger hunting with a pack to which he did not subscribe might be required to show that he was a member of some other hunt, would be admirable, if it could only be placed on a workmanlike basis. But at present there are two insurpassable objections to it. The one is, that it would be impossible to ask hunt servants to fulfil the duties of excise officers, so that there would be difficulty in finding people to undertake the inevitable task of scrutinising the licenses; the other consists in the just division of the money obtained from the issue of the licenses. Besides, we believe that it would be contrary to the best interests of agriculture for the supporters of fox-hunting to seek the assistance of Parliament, and we do not understand how hunting licenses could be issued without the sanction of the Legislature, inasmuch as there must be a penalty, capable of being enforced by law, for hunting without holding a license. Therefore we adhere to our original suggestion, with this proviso, that in the event of legal proceedings being taken, the costs should be defrayed by the hunt funds. It would be unreasonable to expect a small farmer in the Midlands to incur the expense of prosecuting for trespass a stockbroker in Threadneedle Street. The law may be no respecter of persons, but there are certain persons to whom the penalties of the law are a matter of little consequence; therefore to these prosecutions every publicity should be attached. During the past season the daily press has found it to be their interest to publish fox-hunting reports therefore it must also be their interest to defend foxhunting from its enemies, and to brand with infamy the names of peripatetic fox-poachers who are found guilty in those actions for trespass which we have advocated. To those who disagree with us

our opinions may appear to savour of blackmailing, since we insist that a hunting man who does not subscribe to hounds should not only be forced by a court of law to pay a subscription, but should also be paraded in the pillory of the press as an example of unsportsmanlike meanness. But our opinions are expressed upon the conviction that strong diseases require strong remedies, and, when we find a discordant element in fox-hunting influence, we feel it to be our duty to do our utmost to eradicate it.

We must now allude to another matter which may occasion a decline in the influence of fox-hunting upon agriculture. Let it be clearly understood, however, that we do not admit that there has been any decline during the past season, and that we are urging pessimistic arguments with the sole motive of averting any decline in the future. This explanation is necessary, as it is our present purpose to draw attention to the customs of shooting tenants and syndicates of shooting tenants. Agricultural depression has affected the large landowners in the same degree as it has affected the tenant farmers, with the result that many of them have been tempted to accept the big rents offered to them for their shootings by the prosperous money-mongers of London and the large towns. Thus in many hunting countries there has been an influx of non-resident shooting tenants, whose only object is to obtain a big head of game without regard to the hunting proclivities of their neighbours. These tenants will profess to do all in their power to promote the welfare of local hunting; but, even if the professions were made in good faith, the power to carry them into effect is infinitesimal, since they are not on the spot to control the practices of their keepers. Vulpicide is still considered a crime in most hunting countries, and the man who shoots a fox, whether he be master or keeper, has to suffer the pains and penalties of social ostracism, which can be enforced in the village alehouse as well as in the country-house smoking-room. The keeper is aware of this, so he invented a more deadly and a more cruel form of destruction than shooting, by 'stopping in' the earths during the day-time in such a manner that the strongest dog-fox could not possibly dig himself out, and so ex necessitate rei must rot to death with all the horrors of slow starvation. Comment upon such inhumanity is unnecessary; nor do we believe that any non-resident shooting tenant would sanction the practice of stopping-in.' Unfortunately, non-resident tenants are ignorant of the doings of their keepers, who regard the fox as their natural enemy. There is an old distich which says:

One fox on foot more diversion will bring

Than twice twenty thousand cock pheasants on wing;

and, though it is not our intention to argue that shooting should be arbitrarily sacrificed in the interests of fox-hunting, yet, as the foxpreserving covert owner confers more benefits upon agriculture, and gives greater pleasure to his neighbouring farmers than the non

resident shooting tenant, it is right that he should be protected against the malpractices of the latter and his servants, malpractices which constitute a heinous crime against the orthodoxy of sport. It is not within the scope of our text to discuss the details of the feud between hunting men and non-resident shooting tenants. The question before us is whether these tenants have such a beneficial influence upon agriculture as to authorise them in undermining the fox-hunting influence. It is argued that they put money into the pocket of the landowner, which money he spends upon the improvement of the land. If the landowner did spend his shooting rents upon the improvement of the land the argument would be unanswerable; but in the cases which have come within our knowledge such is not the case. On the contrary, the landowners, unable to get their sporting pleasure at home, seek it abroad, and consequently spend less money in their native country than they spent before they let their shooting. Lincolnshire, especially the Blankney division of the county, during the past season has suffered severely from the custom. The farmers complain that they reap no benefit from the shooting tenants, and not even the courtesy which, in the case of landowners, assumes the practical shape of a present of game. Briefly, the experience of the season has taught us that shooting tenancies confer no benefit upon agriculture, and are detrimental to fox-hunting. It would be futile to suggest any arbitrary remedy, as the shooting tenant would reply that he pays his money for the right to shoot, and is not concerned with either agriculture or fox-hunting. The remedy must be a legal one, operating so mildly as not to cause any friction between shooting and hunting. We suggest that there should be a combination of the landowners in any particular county in which shooting tenancies are prevalent-which combination could easily be effected at Quarter Sessions-in order that they may agree amongst themselves to insert a clause in the leases of all shooting tenancies, under which the tenant should be liable to a fine whenever his coverts failed to hold a fox, providing that hounds did not visit them more than a specified number of times, with specified intervals, during the season. This portion of our subject immediately concerns only landowners and shooting tenants, between whom the controversy must be fought, though the issue of the controversy will be awaited with anxiety by every member of the farming and hunting classes.

History teaches us that any institution can be destroyed by an excess of popularity, and the same lesson is applicable to sport. We have alluded to the popular sport of shooting, though it was beyond our province to intimate that the popularity of shooting has increased the number of poachers; but it is within our province to prove how the popularity of fox-hunting, fostered by enterprising journalists and editors, has been detrimental to agriculture. We confess that we approach this portion of our subject with much diffidence, for we believe that the public interest in fox-hunting, if directed into proper

channels, would contribute towards agricultural prosperity. Unfortunately, this interest has been directed into improper channels. It has been a constant complaint that the fashionable meets of hounds are attended by crowds of foot-people and cyclists, whose only motives are idle curiosity and the éclat of saying afterwards that they have been out with hounds. We commend their ambition to see hounds, though we wish that they would learn the rudiments of the noble science.' There was a time, not more than five years ago, when the foot-people were the sons and daughters of the soil: now they are the outpourings of excursion trains. It is hardly necessary for us to state that these outpourings spoil sport, but it is necessary to state that they spoil land, and that their spoliations are considered as the result of hunting. It is futile to argue that the consideration is illogical. The stern fact remains that these people attend the meets and cause damage to the land through ignorance. We do not suggest that their actions, which arouse the animosity of the farmer, are done with any sinister intention, and we believe that if any method could be devised by which their ardour could be kept under control, the farmer would encourage their presence. To follow hounds on foot in the early spring is the first practical lesson in agriculture that the agricultural student can be taught; but he should try to learn his lesson before he comes up for the practical examination of the hunting field. If it had not been for articles which were published during February in the leading organs of the daily press, we should not have drawn the attention of our readers to foot-people; but these articles and the complaints of farmers make it imperative that we should call attention to their delinquencies and their enthusiasm. We feel sure that their delinquencies will be abolished and their enthusiasm will become a source of agricultural welfare, if we as agricultural and hunting enthusiasts take as our motto, suaviter in modo. As cyclists are admitted to be enemies to horse-breeding, fortiter in re can be the only modus operandi by which their absence from the hunting field can be assured.

There are certain occasions upon which it is a wise policy for an optimist to issue pessimistic statements to his constituents. The end of the hunting season is such an occasion. Pessimistic statements are only words of warning, but they form the text of a sermon which many hunting agriculturists will preach. During the summer months we are hunting optimists. We believe that fox-hunting will exist so long as there is a grass field between London and York. We do not belong to that class of preachers of whom Juvenal wrote—

Obiter aut leget, aut scribet, vel dormiet intus;

for our preaching has for its text practical experience. We have stated our arguments, and hope that the verdict may be delivered before the commencement of the next hunting season.

GEORGE F. UNDERHILL.