G A M

,538

GAM

ot' which the laws of society have in most instances very justly andreasonably deprived him. Yet, however defensible these provi-sions in general may be, on the looting of reason, or justice, or ci-vil policy, we must, notwithstanding, acknowledge, that, in theirpresent shape, they owe their immediate original to slavery. It isnot till after the irruption of the northern nations into the Romanempire, that we read of any other prohibitions, than that naturalone of not sporting on any private grounds without the owner’sleave. With regard to the rise and original of our present civilprohibitions, it will be found, that all fore.-t and game Jaws wereintroduced into Europe at the same time, and by the same policy,that gave birth to the feodal system; when those swarms of barba-rians issued from their northern hive, and laid the foundation ofmost of the present kingdoms of Europe on the ruins of the west-ern empire. For when a conquering general came to settle theeconomy of a vanquished country, and to part it out among hissoldiers or feudatories, who were to render him military service forsuch donations; it behoved him, in order to secure his new acqui-sitions, to keep the rustic! or natives of the country, and all whowere not his military tenants, in as low a condition as possible, andespecially’to prohibit them the use of arms. Nothing could dothis more effectually than a prohibition of hunting and sporting:and therefore it was the policy of the conqueror to reserve thisright to himself, and such on whom he should bestow it; whichwere only his capital feudatories, or greater barons. And, accord-ingly, we find, in the feodal constitutions, one and the same lawprohibiting the nistici in general from carrying arms, and also pro-scribing tin: use of nets, snares, or other engines for destroying thegame. This exclusive privilege well suited the martial genius ofthe troops, who delighted in a sport, which in its pursuit andslaughter bore some resemblance to war. Vita omnis (says Caisar,speaking of the ancient Germans ) in venalionibus atque in studiisrei militaris consistit. And Tacitus in like manner observes, thatquoties bella non ineunt, multum venatibus, plus per otium transi-gunf. And indeed, like some of their modern successors, theyhad no other amusement to entertain their vacant hours; thay de-spising all arts as effeminate, and having no other learning than wascouched in sucli rude ditties as were sung at the solemn carousals,which succeeded these ancient huntings. And it is remarkable,that in those nations where the feodal policy remains the most un-altered, the forest or game laws continue in their highest rigour.In France , before the revolution, all game was properly tiie king’s;and in some parts of Germany it is death for a peasant to be foundhunting in the woods of the nobility. With us in Britain , also,hunting has ever been esteemed a most princely diversion and ex-ercise. The whole island was replenished with all sorts of gamein the times of the Britons; who lived in a wild and pastoral man-ner, without inclosing or improving their grounds; and derivedmuch of their subsistence from the chace, which they all enjoyedin common. But when husbandry took place under the Saxongovernment, and lands began to lie cultivated, improved, and in-dosed, the beasts naturally tied into the woody and desert tracts,which were called the forests; and, having never been disposed ofin the first distribution of lands, were therefore held to belong tothe crown. These were filled with great plenty of game, whichour royal sportsmen reserved for their own diversion, on pain ofpecuniary forfeiture for such as interfered with their sovereign,llut every freeholder had the full liberty of sporting upon his ownterritories, provided he abstained from the king’s forests. How-ever, upon the Norman conquest , a new doctrine took place; andthe right of pursuing and taking all beasts of chace or vertary, andsuch other 3 nimals as w ere accounted game, was then held to be-long to the king, or to such only as were authorised under him.And this, as well upon the principles of the feodal law, that theking is the ultimate proprietor of all the lands in the kingdom,they being all held of him as the chief lord, or lord paramount ofthe fee, and that therefore lie has the right of the universal soil, toenter thereon, and to chase and take such creatures at his pleasure:at also upon another maxim of the common law, that these animalsare bona vacantiaj and, having no other owner, belong to the kingby his prerogative. As therefore the former reason was held tovest in the king a right to pursue and take them any where, thelatter was supposed to give the king, and such as he should autho-rise, a sole and exclusive right. This right, thus vested in thecrown, was exertgd with the utmost rigour, at and after the time of

the Norman establishment; not only in the ancient forests, but inthe new ones which the Conqueror made, by laying together vasttracts of country, depopulated for that purpose, and reservedsolely for the king’s royal diversion ; in which were exercised themost horrid tyrannies and oppressions, under colour of forest-lawsfor the sake of preserving the beasts of chace; to kill any of which*within tiie limits of the forest, was as penal as the death of a man.And, in pursuance of the same principle, king John laid a total in-terdict upon tiie winged as well as the four-footed creation; eaptu-ram avium per tot am Angliam interdixit. The cruel and unsup-portable hardships, which these forest-laws created to tiie subject,occasioned our ancestors to lie as zealous for their reformation, asfor the relaxation of tiie feodal rigours and the other exactions in-troduced by tiie Norman family; and accordingly we find the im-munities ot charta de foresta as warmly contended for, and extort-ed from the king with as much difficulty, as those of magna chartaitself. By this charter, confirmed in parliament, ( ( J lien. 111.)many forests were disafforested, or stripped of their oppressive pri-vileges, and regulations were made in tiie regimen ot such as re-mained; particularly killing the king’s deer was made no longer acapital offence, but only punished by a fine, imprisonment, or ab-juration, of the realm. And by a variety of subsequent statutes,together with the long acquiescence of the crown without exertingthe forest-laws, this prerogative is now become no longer a griev-ance to tiie subject. But as the king reserved to himself tiie fo-rest for his own exclusive diversion, so lie granted out from timeto time other tracts of land to his subjects under tiie names ofcliaces or parks; or gave them licence to make such in their owngrounds; which indeed are smaller forests in the hands of a sub-ject, but not governed by tiie forest-laws; and by the common lawno person is at liberty to take or kill any beasts of chace, but suchas hath an ancient chace or park; unless they be also beasts otprey. As to all inferior species of game, called beasts and fowls ofwarren; the liberty of taking or killing them is another franchise,or royalty, derived likewise from the crown, and called free war-ren; a word which signifies preservation or custody: as the exclu-sive liberty of taking and killing fish in a public stream or river iscalled a free fishery; of which, however, no new franchise can atpresent be granted by tiie express provision of magna charta ,

16. The principal intention of granting a man these franchises, orliberties, was in order to protect tiie game, by giving him a soleand exclusive power of killing it himself, provided lie preventedother persons. And no man but lie who has a chace or free war-ren, by grant from the crown, or prescription, which supposes one,can justify hunting or sporting upon another man’s soil; nor in-deed, in thorough strictness of common law, either limiting orsporting at all. However new this doctrine may seem, it is a re-gular consequence from what has been before deliveied, that thesole right of taking and destroying game belongs exclusively tothe king. This appears, as well from the historical deduction heremade, as because he may grant to his subjects an exclusive rig'Wof taking them; which he could not do, unless such a right v- lSfirst inherent in himself. And hence it will follow, that no personwhatever, but he who has such derivative right from the crown, ■*by common law infilled to take or kill any beast of chace, or othergame whatsoever. It is true, that, by tiie acquiescence of tl ,ecrown, the frequent grants of free warren in ancient times, and theintroduction of new penalties of late by certain statutes for pr e "serving tiie game, this exclusive prerogative of the king is httfeknown or considered; every man tiiat is exempted from Hiese mo-dern penalties looking upon himself as at liberty to do what hopleases with the game: whereas the contrary is strictly true, ai'J 1that no man, however well qualified he may vulgarly be esteemed,lias a right to encroach on tiie royal prerogative by the killing 0game, unless lie can shew a particular grant of free warren; ° r aprescription which presumes a grant; or some authority under adact of parliament. As to the latter, there are but two instant*-’wherein an express permission to kill game was ever given by sta 'tute; tiie one by 1 Juc. I. c. 27, altered by y Jac. I. c. 11, a ” _virtually repealed by 22 and 23 Ca. H. c. 23, which gave auth 0 ^rity, so long as they remained in force, to the owners of free ' v;irren, to lords of manors, and to alt freeholders having 40/. per anj’jin lands of inheritance, or 80/. for life or lives, or 400/. person- 1estate, (and their servants), to take partridges and pheasants ll P j.their own, or their masters free warren, inheritance, or frech ol ‘J