" IN DEFENCE OF HUNTING " [To the Editor of
the SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—Your correspondent, " Whipper-In," has made out such an excellent case for the fox-hunter that one almost hesitates to draw attention to another aspect of hunting as it affects one of the " agricultural community " who happens to farm a small property about forty miles from London.
The Hunt who gratuitously takes its exercise over my fields does consist mostly of rich men (London financiers and stock- brokers) who have large houses anywhere within twenty miles of here. True, they may " snatch " a day's hunting after five days' money-making in the City, but they neither know nor care anything about the people nor the country over which they ride.
Most of them would come in the category of the " sports- man " recently depicted in Punch, who thought that " beans were the- things which grew up sticks," and they seem to think that it is a privilege for property owners to be allowed to mend gates and fences after each visitation. If they were my " neighbours " I might have something to say about their making me " happy," but as they are all entire strangers, and usually ill-mannered at that, it can well be imagined that they are not welcome visitors, and not a single farmer in this neigh- bourhood has a good word to say for them.
We cannot afford to " snatch " a day's hunting, though we work seven days in the week, and after a visit from the Hunt often wish there were eight. It is different in the Shires, perhaps, but there people are usually country-bred.
I am no defender of " Mr. Reynard," but I am quite capable of dealing with his depredations by a more speedy and economic process than horses and hounds financed by Throg- ,morton Street magnates.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
