CHAPTER IV
THE HUNT SECRETARY’S PROBLEMS, FINANCIAL AND OTHERWISE
By Sir Charles Frederick, Baronet
Jorrocks.
FINANCE
FINANCE is an aspect of hunting that seems to have been almost entirely ignored by our happy forefathers. Every other detail incidental to the chase from the breeding and feeding of hounds to the death of the fox has been dealt with again and again, but the question of “paying the piper” is scarcely referred to. One might as easily imagine a gourmet descanting upon the payment of his butcher’s book as Beckford writing on such a topic as ways and means. Delme Radcliffe (The Noble Science) gives us the budget of a Master of Hounds in 1839, and quotes a bit of some advice which he received when he was about to take hounds. “Remember you will never have your hand out of your pocket and must always have a guinea in it.” On the whole, however, the question of expense was dismissed with a facility which is impossible to-day, much as we may wish it otherwise.
The geographical features of the various hunting countries in these isles scarcely differ more widely than the financial problems which agitate the minds of the Hunt Secretaries up and down the land. One effort is common to all, that of balancing the accounts at the end of the year and making “both ends meet.” All the inequalities which the social reformer deplores would be found if search were made far enough and bank-books compared. Here in the Shires may be a fashionable pack with an income running into five figures and the prospect of a deficit staring the Committee in the face, while there just as likely is a less known Hunt existing comfortably on subscriptions amounting to one tenth of the other sum. When drawing up their subscription rules and tariffs a Hunt Committee will do well to ask themselves what, precisely, they wish to achieve—is it their aim to make their terms so attractive to the world and his wife that visitors will flock to them from far and wide, each bringing his or her contribution to the Hunt exchequer? Or do they desire to set up a barrier which will exclude the peripatetic fox-hunter altogether? In nine cases out of ten their regulations are designed with the view to a compromise. We do not want crowds of strangers, they may say, swarming over our country and doing damage for which we have to pay. We would much rather have it all to ourselves. Yet without them and their money we could not carry on.
Conditions, as I have said, are nowhere quite the same, and there are certain packs so fashionable and so attractive to the visitors from overseas or elsewhere that there is practically no limit to the tariffs that can be charged. On the other hand there are still, I hope and believe, countries where the welcome accorded to a visitor is not measured by his ability to pay. With the majority of packs, however, the main purpose is to enlarge their receipts and yet keep the hunting field within reasonable limits. The defining line in such questions needs to be drawn with a light hand. Ten subscribers of (let us say) £10 apiece, yield £100, but it does not therefore follow that a raising of the scale to £15 will produce £150, still less that by doubling it, £200 will be forthcoming. With every increase there are some subscribers who will drop out, through unwillingness or inability to pay more. Far from being parsimonious, fox-hunters are as a rule very free with their money,1 but it would be quite wrong to suppose that the possession of a red coat necessarily has its counterpart in a bottomless purse. Here is another problem that unfolds itself. What in the light of these ever rising tariffs is to be the fate of those of us who live and hunt at home? Are the same exactions which may or may not preclude a visitor from coming down upon the scene to apply to us also? There is a likelihood, or at all events a possibility, that some of us may render good service to the cause of fox-hunting in the country where our home lies. If that were so we should be ill requited if the privilege of going out with the hounds when they visit us were placed beyond our means. If this is conceded, as I hope it may be, then the advisability should be considered of discriminating in your levy between those who come to the hounds and those to whom the hounds come. This is a principle which has already been adopted in some countries, and I am inclined to prophesy that it will be further extended within the next few years. Should the fox-hunter be taxed by the number of days in the week that he hunts, by the number of horses that he keeps, or is there any other principle that is fairer and better? For my part I would advocate leaving the horses out and sticking to the first method. It is not necessary that a man’s stud should continually remain stationary in its numbers. He may buy some more horses after Christmas or find himself compelled to be a seller. There is always, besides, the case of the borderland dweller who follows two or more packs. To make a truthful and conscientious return to each Hunt Secretary will puzzle his ingenuity. I am aware that opinion is not unanimous. Mr. and Mrs. A keeping only three horses between them manage to go out hunting twice a week and are heard asking why they are mulct in the same subscription as Mr. and Mrs. B, who seem to need eight horses to do the same work. Still, I contend that the other is the fairer and the simpler plan. To levy toll on a man’s horses will probably result in his keeping fewer, whereas it is in the best interests that he should keep more. More horses mean more hay and corn consumed and extra money circulated in wages. With each year that passes the hunting field becomes in a greater measure the source of the nation’s horse supply, and, remembering what has been in the past, it would seem undesirable in the extreme to impose anything like an arbitrary horse tax.
A rich and generous Master can, of course, shoulder most of the financial burden of a Hunt, and the discovery of such a one may seem the height of good fortune. Attractive as the idea may seem, it has its drawbacks in practice. So long as people can get their sport paid for as was formerly the case nearly everywhere, they will not part with money themselves. In a few years the habit of subscribing is lost, and if the benefactor dies or betakes himself and his riches elsewhere, the Hunt finances fall into a parlous plight. The best service that those who are responsible for such matters can render to their country is to make it so far as is possible self-supporting and independent of outside patronage. Since Masters of Hounds take or relinquish office on May Ist, it is to be recommended that the financial year shall commence on the same date. Where this is not customary it is ordinarily due to inability to complete the hunting season’s accounts by then; or in other words (with shame, be it said) to the fact that there are subscriptions still unpaid on that date. The fox-hunter must have an elastic conscience who can complacently hunt throughout the season and, ignoring all reminders, still owe his subscription in the following May. Were I not familiar with many such cases, it might be thought an imaginary picture. The Master of Hounds who we will assume to have been promised a grant towards hunting the country will by then have been in office a year, feeding hounds and horses and paying his weekly wage book. How, one may well ask, would he have fared during this period if all the subscribers claimed a similar latitude. Few Hunts have any substantial surplus left at the end of a year’s working and the M.F.H. must normally expect to wait until the following November before anything substantial is transferred to his credit. By the custom in many countries Hunt subscriptions used to fall due at Christmas, but considerations such as the foregoing are sufficient to justify a request for payment at the beginning of November. Indeed, this is now becoming, and quite rightly, a general rule. A friend of mine who is responsible for collecting subscriptions for a famous and popular pack tells me he is often surprised by the question, coming not from novices but from people who have hunted for many years, “What do you do with all the money?” From the point of the Hunt officials, as he truly says, a more natural question would be, “How on earth do the Master and the Committee contrive to settle all the innumerable calls upon them from the funds at their disposal?” A glance through any Hunt balance-sheet should be sufficient to show the number and urgency of the claims that must be met. Provision for hunting the country as referred to above probably constitutes a first charge and will probably absorb nearly half the total revenue. Next come the maintenance of kennels with Hunt stables and cottages and the rates and taxes thereon. Covert rents, with rates and taxes on these, and provision for annual cutting and planting. Earth-stopping is an important item, too. Then there is the removal of wire and its replacement at the end of the season, together with repairs to fences, compensation for loss of poultry and damage to crops. In connection with the last named, it should be remembered that in an average four days a week country there are between 2000 and 3000 farmers, and that in these days it is impossible and indeed impertinent to expect anyone over whose land you ride to suffer pecuniary damage or loss without giving him the chance of compensation from the Hunt funds. To take two or three of these items in more detail, it is scarcely fair in these times of serious depression to tell an occupier of land that he must not make use of wire, that he is a bad sportsman and so forth if he does so, provided he is willing that it shall be removed during the hunting season, subject to fencing being provided in lieu of it in places where this is necessary, at the expense of the Hunt. There are of course plenty of countries where no such assistance is asked for and such problems do not arise. We are concerned mainly with the Shires and with those Hunts which, by reason of attracting large numbers of visitors, are faced with something of the same problem as their cousins in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire.
It follows, then, that provided the necessary goodwill exists, the extent to which such countries can be cleared of wire is limited only by the depth of the official purse.
Poultry Claims.
To take another instance of how the money goes—Poultry claims. Human nature being what it is, no one can doubt that excessive claims are occasionally made, but taking an average there must be many more fowls destroyed by foxes than are ever claimed for. Foxes, for one thing, are far more numerous than they were in old days. Do we not read of Mr. Tailby killing only four brace of foxes during his first season in Leicestershire? The number of fowls, too, has increased enormously of late years, and with it their pecuniary value. The old barn-door fowl that satisfied another generation, has been supplanted by a more ornamental race of birds for which the poulterers and the public are willing apparently to pay a higher price, so that the scale of compensation payable has, as a general rule, been raised accordingly. The maintenance of a Hunt poultry farm, from which replacements could be made in kind, is a project often mooted, but I have no knowledge of the actual working of such a one.
Fences.
The question of repairs to fences while not affecting the smaller countries when the Field is principally composed of local landowners and their tenants, is quite another matter in the “fashionable” areas where the company consists of hundreds upon hundreds of ladies and gentlemen who are entire strangers to the occupiers of land and are frequently unknown even to the owners. When you think of a country perhaps 250,000 acres in extent ridden over four days a week by large crowds the majority of whom measure the success of the day’s hunting by the number of fences they have jumped, it can be imagined that the damage is often considerable. To make this good and leave no ill-feeling behind at an average cost of say ten shillings per farm per annum calls for no little economy and tact on the part of the Hunt officials. It is not advisable, I may mention, to spend much time or money in repairs to fences until the hunting season is over. Foxes have a habit of taking the same line time after time, and fences that have been carefully mended on Monday may be broken again on Tuesday. If there be stock in the fields and something needs to be done at once, gaps can be stopped effectually with thorns until such time as they are dealt with more permanently.
In the Pytchley country where I live the fencing problem is felt more acutely than in almost any of the hunting countries of England, since three-fourths of its area carries cattle, and heavy cattle at that. These brutes will go through the fences like a tank, and although, fortunately, the majority are disposed of by the time the hunting season begins, there is always a considerable residue left, either from choice or from the graziers’ inability to market them. Thus there are miles of fence which need expensive overhaul before the wire (which I need hardly say takes the place of the ox-rail of old) can be dispensed with. The cost to the Hunt is here appreciably mitigated by the existence of a special Fencing Fund for which a daily “cap” of half-a-crown is levied at the Meet. This brings in about £800 in a normal season, a sum sufficient to enable the accumulation of quite a nice little nest-egg composed of posts and rails to be distributed at the Secretary’s discretion. To any Hunt that needs funds for this or any special purpose, such a “cap,” which I believe is commonly taken in Ireland, can be thoroughly recommended. A few people grumbled when it was first inaugurated, but they quickly got used to it and it soon came to be regarded as a matter of course. Everyone contributes from the largest to the smallest subscriber, and to farmers only is left the option of paying or not as they like. Some people dislike the necessity of fumbling in their pockets for a coin which may or may not be there, and I am one of these. We are permitted, however, and indeed encouraged to compound with the officials at the beginning of the season, so even this little grievance is eliminated.
No Hunt balance-sheet can be deemed wholly satisfactory, even when all the various charges aforementioned have been met, unless a certain sum is paid in to a reserve fund. Fox-hunting does not nowadays contend only against its old enemies, frost and snow; foot-and-mouth disease has, as the saying is, “come to stay.” The standard regulations designed to combat the evil have been in force some years without stamping it out, and so far as the ordinary man can judge they are not likely to succeed any better in the future than they have done in the past. Hunt Committees, therefore, in common with the whole agricultural community, must face the fact that this menace to their prosperity is liable to recur at any moment. Certain Hunts have for several years past been in the habit of insuring against loss through this cause. Local conditions combined with the nature of the premium demanded must decide that question. What it is desired to emphasise here is the need of some preparedness, and I submit that the possession of a reserve fund, gradually and wisely built up, affords just the security that is needed.
A tendency which the Hunt Secretary will do well to avoid is that of propitiating people whom he is inclined to distrust at the expense of his own supporters. It is a failing that is certainly not confined to the hunting world. Let us suppose that two similar claims are put in for the loss of poultry through foxes. One sent in by a friend of the Hunt is worded in terms of apology for the hard times that necessitate its submission. Satisfaction is expressed at the presence of a good litter of cubs and the hope is voiced that these will provide good sport in the future. The other is in the nature of a demand, and there is a scarcely veiled threat that if satisfaction is not obtained he will not be averse to retaliation. Which of these claims is likely to receive the more favourable response? In fairness they should both be treated alike, but I have more than a suspicion that if discrimination be made by the Secretary it will not be in favour of his ally. Tact and consideration will always command a farmer’s respect, but bribery never. Enemies of hunting may not be numerous, but clearly such exist and always must exist. Law and order, Church and State have enemies, and it would be strange if British sport, however much honoured by time and tradition, were able to claim a monopoly of goodwill. Some people are opposed to hunting because they conscientiously regard it as cruel or immoral, but as a rule the avowed enemy of the local pack is an anti-social being with whom the sentiment is merely part and parcel of his dislike of the world in which he lives and the people who inhabit it. The consciousness that his feeling is cordially reciprocated in the parish, the county, and the market-place does not tend towards amiability, and the defences of such a man are as difficult to penetrate as the quills of the common hedgehog.
Despite such exceptions a Hunt Secretary will find his lot cast in pleasant places and amongst men who cannot fail to earn his friendship and regard. If the personnel of an average hunting field were divested of their red coats and set to earn their living on the land over which they had previously ridden, would hounds receive a better welcome from them than from their predecessors? I have always doubted it.
Every Hunt Secretary will realise the importance of dealing promptly with all claims and complaints as these come to hand, delay in obtaining acknowledgment or redress being a ready source of grievance. I know of one case, and one only, where a little procrastination is to be recommended. The wise farmer does not look at his wheatfield immediately after a field of horsemen have crossed it, but should he do so a complaint may be launched post-haste. Acknowledgment will be made at once and a joint inspection suggested, but the longer the latter can be postponed the better. A few weeks will probably remove nearly all marks of damage and long before harvest time it will in most cases be quite impossible to detect any trace of mischief.
The fact that this is so constitutes no excuse, however, for carelessness on the rider’s part. Be the damage real or imaginary, it looks bad at the time and the farmer is quite entitled to resent it.
In most countries nowadays some representatives of the farming industry sit upon the Hunt Committee, and these gentlemen should, in the part of adviser and mediator, render the Secretary valuable assistance. Friends he will need in every part of his country, reporting to him constantly on all matters which affect hunting interests. There is in short no help and no helper that the Secretary can afford to dispense with, seeing that upon his success in the gentle arts of his calling depends in great measure the smooth working of the whole machine.
