Now concealing a Stumble-now hiding a Trip, Peer*, A Sportsman so keen, that he rides Miles to Cover To look at a Place-that he dares not ride over: But why this great Distance, my Lord, should you roam, When as much might you see, staying quiet at Home; * Lord CLONMELL. Tho' his Lordship asserts, and its true without Doubt, That Michaelmas alway was awkward to lead; Who the Pipes of so many, of course must have stopp'd; And for once in his Life, was not in at the Death. } The HUNTSMAN. + Style, means the best possible Manner of doing any Thing. As for Instance, when a Man rides his Horse full Speed, at double Posts and Rails, with a Squire-Trap on the other Side, (which is a moderate Ditch of about two yards wide, cut on purpose, to break Gentlemen's Necks)-he is then reckoned, at MELTON, to have rode at it, in Style—especially if he is caught, in the said Squire-Trap. Mr. STUBBS, a great Sportsman no doubt in his Time, See the veteran SQUIRE, in the midst of his Hounds; That he saw it, 'tis clear, and what more, could old MEY NELL, And beheld the Effects, of his Care, in the Kennel; Speed, Let them Jostle and Cross, for a Start or a Lead, Upon Selling their Nags, more than Hunting, intent, And scarce knowing the Meaning, of what is called Scent; * To explain this Passage of the Poem, it is necessary to inform the Reader, of an Anecdote recorded of this Gentleman, who, long, kept a Pack of Hounds which were the Terror of all Foxes, and the Delight of all Sportsmen in the Neighbourhood; so fearful was he, of a Blank Day, that he kept several Foxes to afford Amusement. On feeding them, upon a Sunday, one of them made his Escape, though not unobserved by this keen Sportsman, who exclaimed, "What, you thought you had Me; but I'll be a Match for You;" He immediately let loose the Pack, and poor Reynard was killed, after a Chase of above Twenty Miles, in a Village, where the Inhabitants were just returning, from Evening Service, All declaiming at once, such a Shout, such a yell, So give Me the Hounds, of the WARWICKSHIRE For the Annihilation of For Hunting, (and which till this invidious Attempt to suppress it, there has been manifested an UNIVERSAL ACQUIESCENCE, throughout ENGLAND, for its SUPPORT,) not less than half a Score AcTIONS have been brought, against the different MEMBERS of the BERKLEY HUNT, and also against their Huntsman and Whipper In. We shall mention, that, tried at the Summer HERTFORD Assizes, 1809. The Earl of Essex, v. the Hon. and Rev. WM. CAPEL, his Lordship's BROTHER, and Verdicts were obtained, upon similar Arguments, in most of the Others. The Plaintiff declared in Trespass, for breaking and entering certain Closes of the Plaintiff, and that with Hounds, Dogs, and Horses, he hunted, sported, and went in, along, and over, the said Closes, and trod down and destroyed, the Grass and Herbage, of the Plaintiff. The Defendant pleaded, several Pleas. 1st. The general Issue, which he afterwards withdrew. 2d. That as to breaking • Mr. CORBETT. and entering the Close, called Cashiobury Park, the Defendant, with divers other Persons, who, as well as the Defendant, were qualified to keep Hounds, had found a Fox in a certain place, called Bricket Wood, not being the Close of the Plaintiff, and that a Fox being a noxious Animal, he hunted it with his Dogs, Hounds, and Horses, and that the Hunting the For with Dogs, Hounds, and Horses, was the only way of killing the Fox. In the Sd Plea, it was stated, that such Pursuit of the For, with Dogs, Hounds, and Horses, was the most effectual and proper way, of killing the Fox. To these Pleas, the Plaintiff replied, that hunting the Fox, was not the only, or the most effectual Way, of killing and destroying it; and further stated, that the Trespasses were committed, for the Sport and Diversion of the CHASE, and for the purpose of Amusement and Pleasure, only. To these Replications, the Defendant rejoined, that the Trespasses were not committed, for Diversion and Amusement, but as the only and most effectual and proper way, of killing and destroying the Fox.-SHEPHERD, Serjeant, for the Plaintiff, contended, that the only Question was, whether it was the Defendant's Object, to rid the Country of noxious Vermin, or whether he hunted, for the Sake of Amusement. If it was merely for Amusement, the LAW does not sanction it. Even in the Enjoyment of a Man's own Property, the Maxim of Law is, that every Man must so use his own, as not to injure his Neighbours; if that is the Law, with respect to the Enjoyment of Property, then, unquestionably, as to the Enjoyment of an Amusement, the Principle is doubly applicable, and no one can say, that under the Pretence of destroying a noxious Animal, it is lawful to trespass over every Species of Property a For may go through. I should extremely doubt, whether, after starting a For on one piece of Land, Persons have a Right |