34 THE EPPING HUNT.
note in the MS. tells us that, as against this, it was objected that
the hunting was only in a wood belonging to the City, and not over
the Forest at large ; and that no claim on behalf of the Corporation
was ever made at any Justice Seat, when charters of privilege were
wont to be put in, enrolled, and allowed.
At the beginning of the seventeenth century Mr. Common Hunt,
as he is civically styled, was in a bad way. First he gets an allow-
ance of £20 "in regard of the charge he hath bene at in remedying
the annoyance of the stinking smelles at the dogg house, and
towards his relief, his house being now visited with the plague."
Then the dog-house is found "verie old and reuinous and not fit
for habitation." But not much was done, for a year later Mr.
Common Hunt complains "that it doth rayne into the rooms of the
Dogge house throughout, and that the same will, in short time, fall
downe." However, some repairs must have been finally executed,
since, in 1687, the house and stable were still standing, though found
to be "irreparable" ; and the rebuilding them is estimated to cost
£300, "after the rate of second-rate building, the house containing
20 ft. by 49 ft," Passing over a few other notices, we come to one,
dated 1746, when complaint was made that Mr. Common Hunt did
not keep a pack of hounds for the use of the City ; and, a few days
afterwards, a committee was appointed "to enquire into the nature
of his office," etc. The report, dated a month or two later, stated,
among other things to be gleaned from the extracts already given,
that the remuneration attaching to the office included "a house and
garden at the Dog Bar, with a proper kennel . . , with coppers,"
etc., and a salary and allowances amounting in all to something like
£180 a year. It appeared that a gentleman huntsman provided,
on occasion, a pack of hounds, and was paid £7 per annum in con-
sideration thereof, as had, it was alleged, been for some time
customary. Mr. Common Hunt exhibited a great disinclination to
being obliged to keep a pack at his own expense, "the proffits of
his office being not sufficient to defray the charge thereof, and the
purchase of his place lost [sic] him two thousand guineas." In spite
of this a hard-hearted committee reported "that a pack of hounds
ought to be kept, in order to support this City's antient right of
hunting "; and the report, moreover, "was well liked of and agreed
to" by the Court.
More than half a century later on, counsel's opinion was sought
on the question of abolishing the office of Common Hunt. The