The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-28 00:00:00

GAME LAWS.

The NOBLE BAll.6l4ihen presented a petition I
from the Magistrates of the County of Suffolk, assembled at
Bury Saint-Edmunds, praying their Lordships to take into
consideration the state of the Game Laws. This Peti-
tion, the Noble Baron said, related to the subject to which
it was his duty to call their Lordships' attention. He ought,
perhaps, to apologize to their Lordships, when he had
been so lately called to a seat in that House, for bringing the
subject bike them, but it was one which he had anxiously de-
liberated on for many years, and had, while he was a Mem-
ber of the other House of Parliament, proposed two measures—
one of which, after much consideration, and many discussions,
was sent up to their Lordships, and by them rejected. He did
not expect to be able to remove all the evils, or even a greater part
of them, which spring from the Game Laws, but with those laws
no man was satisfied. He was himself a country gentleman—fond
of the sports of the field, and wished on no account to do any
thing to injure or destroy them. No man was more sensible
than he was of the advantage of country gentlemen residing
on their estate; but if that advantage were to he purchased
at the expellee of retaining all the gross evils of the present
laws, he should say it would be too dearly bought—(Hear, hear.)
He would go at once to the foundation of these laws, and Inquire
who were the persons to whom the game originallybelonged.—
There was nothing snore likely to do mischief than a popular
author adopting an error. By means of his authority it was al-
lowed to pass uncontradicted, and the dictum of such a IT-m3117.s
taken to be the law. He found a dictum of this description in
Judge Blackstone's Commentaries. That was the most popular
law book in the English language, and the errors of that Judge
might do a great deal of harm. He was deservedly ranked high
as authority, but he had laid down a plition. which was false law.
He says that game a' e ffernnaturas—wi d things, not pro-
perty, and belonging to nobody but the King, which he gave
the subjecis liberty to kill. For this there was no foundation
but the dictum of that learned person. It was not the law
of the land ; it never had been the law ; the King never had,
and never claimed, any such power in this country. By the
old Common Law, the subjects had a right to kill all wild
animals ; and that right, till it was limited by Statute Law,
was full and complete. Whoever owned the land owned the
game, and might do with it what they liked. Cujus est so-
lum ejus est esque ad coelum et ad inferos. This was the
old state of things under the Common Law. Not to enter
into all the details of the subject, he would come next to
the qualifications which were subsequently established, and under
which game was now killed. The first law which established
these qualifications—for they were unknown before—was the
Statute of the 22d and 23d of Charles 11. and he would trespass
on their Lordships while he called their attention to those quail&
tions. Unless a person were qualified, he could not preserve nor
kill game. But there were a number of unqualified persons who
might wish to get game for their own table, and who, he thought,
should be able to procure it if they liked ; and though he was dis-
posed to look favourably on the principle of allowing game to be