SOME 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 GAME LAWS, 
 
 SUGGESTED BY THE 
 
 LATE MOTION of Mr. CURWEN 
 
 FOR 
 
 THE REPEAL 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PRESENT SYSTEM. 
 
 QUI N,qN VETAT PECCAREi CUM POSSIT, JUBET. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR T. EGERTON, AT THE MILITARY 
 LIBRARY, NEAR WHITEHALL. 
 
 MDCCXCVI.
 
 WWIVERSITYOPriirr. 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS, &:c. 
 
 X ERH APS there is nothing more charafterlftic of the 
 noble mind of an Englifhman than the indignation uni- 
 formly excited, and as uniformly exprefled, not onlyagainft 
 thofe marks of oppreflion, but even of apparent hardfliips, 
 which are to be met with in the Laws of the beft con- 
 ftituted Governments j and which arife from circumftances 
 not within the controul of human power, nor reflecSl dif- 
 grace on the legiflative capacity of thofe who framed a 
 Conftitutional Machine fubjed to fuch occafional aber- 
 rations, from, the uniformity of its movements, and the 
 confiftency of its parts. It is one of the great and import- 
 tant duties of the Reprefentatives of the People, to watch 
 
 B with
 
 /^.-.>-" 
 
 ( 1 ) 
 
 "W'ith jealoufy the progrefs of, and to redrcfs with fteady 
 caution, as far removed from the flavery of ancient pre- 
 judices, as the influence of popular clamour, thofe abufes 
 to which all human inftitutions are liable; and which, in 
 this well-fabricated Conftltution, from the complicated 
 texture of the machine, may have, in fome degree, tended 
 to obftrucSl the regular motion of all its parts. No enemy 
 to that I'pecies of innovation founded o» the pure bafis of 
 reform^ not the carious and rotten foundation of revolution^ 
 that man will always excite my admiration, who with an 
 attention to tinui (no unimportant confideration in all 
 cafes) fliall exert himfelf, to remove one grievance^ one 
 ahufe.y which has fpurioufly crept into, and contaminated 
 the noble ftock of, the conftitutional liberty of my 
 countrymen. The moft ardent zealot in the caufe of 
 liberty loves not to drink more copioufly of its pure un- 
 contaminated ftream than the vi^rlter of this ; and if in the 
 courfe of the following pages, the produdtion of hafte, and 
 confequently incorredl, I fhould appear not to be actu- 
 ated by fimilar fentiments, I fhall appear what I really 
 am not. My intention in fuch cafe will be ill exprefled; 
 and I muft invoke the candour of my readers to put to the 
 account of inadvertency, what I fhould grieve were any 
 one to fufpeCl was defign. 
 
 Amidft
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
 Amidft all the claims, which reform has lately made, 
 none probably, have prefented themfelves with more allure- 
 ments in their train, than the late motion of Mr. Curwen, 
 for the abolition of the Game Laws : nofyftem has excited 
 more enemies ; no application for redrefs feems to have 
 obtained greater fupport. Many of the refpedlable cha- 
 racSlers of all parties have embraced the propofition with a 
 warmth, generated, I am convinced, by ignorance of its 
 confequences : they have joined in the general obloquy 
 attempted to be raifed againft the fyftem ; and have, in a 
 great degree, fucceeded in propagating thofe fentiments 
 without doors. Not content with beftowing on it every 
 epithet which can hold it up to public contempt and 
 abhorrence, they have travelled into the records of hiftory, 
 to trace out the origin of this code, from the remoter 
 periods of feudal barbarifm; have with unaccountable in- 
 genuity fearched out an affinity, which never exifted but 
 in the creative fancy of their own imaginations; and have 
 deduced a body of Laws, increafing in extent and appli- 
 cation with the liberty of the fubje6t, and " wantoning 
 in their utmoft vigour" in the prefent advanced ftage of 
 liberty, from thofe early periods, when freedom was a 
 ftranger to the land, when feodal barbarifm reared his de- 
 fpotic banners, and promifcuoufly fubje£led to the caprice 
 of One J the freedom of aU. Without wafting the time and 
 
 B 2 attention
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 attention of the Public, by an impartial analyfts of 
 thefe cbje<5lionable laws, by a candid ftatement of thofe 
 principles on which they were really founded, and which 
 havefo long reconciled a fyftcm, in their minds inconfiftent 
 with the liberty of the fubje6t, to the warmeft Patriots and 
 moft virtuous ftatefmen of this and the laft century ; they 
 have confidered asfufficient to ftate, that they are " branches 
 of the feudal fyftem, generated by Tyranny and Oppref- 
 fion, and repugnant to the principles of the conftitution." 
 Thefe are heavy and ferious charges : but furely in this 
 genial foil— in this land of pure liberty, a verdidt of con- 
 demnation will not be given without a trial •.—hzvA names 
 will not be confidered as evidence, nor heavy charges as 
 convidlion: — Candour claims a hearing — common fenfe 
 demands an enquiry. It furely will not be thought pre- 
 fumptuous, I truft, it vi'ill not be found unnecefTary, to 
 enter on this trial, to commence this examination. The 
 public will, I am fure, fpare one hour on a fubjeil fo 
 ferious, fo important to the happinefs, to the profperity (I 
 had almoft faid the exiftence) of this country, as the de- 
 ftruction of a large fyjlctn of Municipal Latvs mojl materially 
 contributing to the ejlahlijhment of peace and good order — of 
 a body of Laws, which, with all their imputed imper- 
 fedions (and imperfedions they have, which I truft I 
 fhall be found ingenuous enough to acknowledge, and to 
 
 fupport
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
 fupport the removal of) no bold hand has yet attempted 
 wholly to erafe from the Statute Book. 
 
 Perhaps it will not be amifs, before I enter upon 
 the expediency of the diiToIution of the Fabric, to examine 
 the foundation of the edifice, whether it really has that 
 rotten bafe on which it is faid to reft ; and whether with 
 any fhadow of Juftice its legitimate confanguinity can be 
 traced to that which is called its Parent Stock, the ex- 
 ploded (and juftly exploded) fyftem of feudal flavery. If 
 it can be fo traced, if the affinity can be eftablifhed, the 
 fyftem fhall no longer have my fupport :— from a trunk fo 
 carious and difeafed, no goodly branches can by poflibilfty 
 Ihoot out; let it in fuch cafe be committed to eternal 
 oblivion, no longer to contaminate the rich and beautiful 
 foil of liberty, and fit gueft only for thofe regions where 
 proud defpotifm has erefted his bloody ftandard, where 
 Nature's deareft rights are held in feudal vaflalage, and 
 v.'here the form of manhood prefents the only fymptoms of 
 its exiftence. But if, on the contrary, it fliould appear that 
 not only in ages anterior to the feudal fyftem— -to its 
 operations or natural rights, but in periods fucceeding the 
 abolition of its reign, in thofe moments, when the Rights 
 of Man were more difcufled, more defined, more a£led 
 upon, than at any former or later period, thefe laws were 
 exifting in different fhapes, under various modifications, 
 
 were
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 were fandioned by the wife, were deemed neceflary by the 
 patriotic, by all ranks and all partie<;, fhall the mere cir- 
 cumftance of an interregnum of difgraceful tyranny and of 
 unmanly oppreflion, obtained by conqueft, and fupported 
 by power, in which the nation groaned under a fyftem of 
 Game Laws, too intolerant for human fufterings, and too 
 degrading to human nature long to maintain her empire, 
 and which but in ?iame prefents not to human ingenuity the 
 fainted fhade of refemblance, be deemed fufficient for the 
 deftruftion of laws, at leaft fanilioned by Time (which 
 though not always the beft of fan6lions, ftill is too refpec- 
 table a one, not to deferve fome attention) and I hope to 
 be able to prove, not militating againft, not in the rc- 
 moteft degree infringing upon thofe Rights, that Liberty 
 which has fo long and fo happily for the Nation, taken up her 
 lovely abode here — and that where thofe Principles on which 
 the Game Laws are founded, have appeared to invade, or 
 have adually invaded the Rights of Man — it has been a 
 necefTary furrender of rights incompatible with the well- 
 being of Society, and inconfiftent with thofe fundamental 
 and acknowledged Principles on which all good Governi- 
 ments are eftablifhed. 
 
 Without entering upon a metaphyfical difcuflion of thofe 
 Natural Rights, the peculiar province of the philofophers — 
 of thofe Abflra6l Rights of Man, often brought forward, and 
 
 as
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 as often by defign or ignorance mifreprefented or mlfun- 
 derftood, but of which in the Abftraft there cannot be 
 two opinions — it will be fufficient to remind the reader, 
 that in the earlieft ftages of civilization, we find the natural 
 Rights of Man in many inftances rendered fubordinate to 
 thofe municipal regulations, which in confidering Man as 
 an ufeful Member of Society, have from time to time de- 
 prived him of thofe Rights ; which though the fit companions 
 of a rudeftate of Nature, are frequently incompatible with a 
 ftate of focial Exiftence. — Amongft thefe Sacrifices at the 
 altar of Society, the Natural Right of Man to the pro- 
 perty of animals. Ferae Naturae, without reftridlion have 
 been among the earlieft — Exclufive Property, the Main 
 Pillar, the Corner Stone of Society, made the firft en-* 
 croachment on this Natural Right — it prefcribed to man 
 this benevolent, this ufeful lefTon, the leading precept of 
 morality, " Sic utere tuo, ut non alienum laedas" — it 
 ventured to fubftitute expediency for right — die happinefs 
 of all, for the caprice or inclination of one. Thus we find 
 the Jewifh Right of occupancy, over Birds, Beafts, and 
 Fifties, fettered with reftridions as to the place and man- 
 ner of exercifing fuch Right. The property of Man, in 
 thofe remote ages, was confidered not undeferving of Le- 
 giflative Protedlion, the invafion of it fubje£led to fevere 
 Penaltie?, however that Invafion might have the fupport 
 
 of
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 of Nature's acknowledged Right. For though the Jewlfli 
 Laws reftralned not Individuals from purfuing and killing 
 the beads of the field, though it recognized the Principle 
 of Occupancy in its fuUeft Extent " Qiiod nullius eft, id 
 naturali ratione occupantl conceditur" yet it permitted no 
 man to hunt or hawk on the Ground of Another — an early, 
 and fatisfaclory recognition of the facred Right of Pro- 
 perty. The Roman Laws preferved the fame right, fub- 
 jecSl to fimilar reftri<Stions " Qui alienum fundum ingre- 
 ditur, venandi aut occupandi gratia, poteft a domino pro- 
 hiberi, ne ingrediatur." Thefe were the Laws which li- 
 mited the Privilege of Sporting in the earlieft periods of 
 civilization. They were deduced from the Grand Code of 
 Reafon—Yfhok mild and perfuafive Doctrines have in-* 
 fluenced Mankind, in proportion as Barbarifm and Preju- 
 dice have taken their leave — in proportion to the progrefs 
 of happinefs and comfort. To come to our own hiftory in 
 thofe periods preceding the Conqueft, when though the 
 true Principles of Liberty were little known \ the perfonal 
 Freedom of the Subject formed no immaterial objed of 
 the Government : we may obferve the recognition of Pro- 
 pert)\ not the imperious claim of Defpotifm, in the exclu- 
 five Right of the Sovereign to purfue and kill Game, in 
 thofe Wilds and Forefts, to which it was driven by the 
 progrelHve increafe of Population, by the increafing art 
 
 of
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 of Agriculture. Thefe Wilds and Forefls never having 
 been portioned out, were retained by the Monarch ; and on 
 the Principle, which has at all times governed, and at this 
 moment governs property, preferved to the Sovereign an 
 exclufive Right of enjoyment, of that which no other laid 
 claim to. Thus we find in the laws of King Edward the 
 Confeflbr (a Prince, whom but to name, is to excite the 
 efteem and veneration of Englifhmen, for thofe laws, which 
 raifed the glorious fabric of our envied conftitution, and on 
 which the Rights of Magna Charta vi^ere founded) a refer- 
 vation of the Right to the exclufive property of the Foreft, 
 for the purpofe of purfuing Game — a mere acknowledge- 
 ment, (derived from the Jewifh and Imperial Laws) of the 
 facrednefs of property. At the Norman Conqueft-, new 
 and unheard of dodlrines arofe. — The wild and military 
 fpirit of the Conquerors, to which in all ages have been 
 attached the Manly Love of the Chace, foon fubjefted both 
 the natural Rights of Man, and the acquired right of Pro- 
 perty, to the indifcriminatc furor of conquefh To the 
 Sovereign and his favourites alonc^ were referved the fports 
 of the field — Towns and Villages were deftroyed to lay 
 together immenfe trafts of land — for the purpofes of the 
 Royal Diverfion — foreft laws, the grievous badge of fo- 
 reign fervitude, were introduced in all their feverity — the 
 killing of Animals, " ferae naturae," was punifhed by the 
 
 C lofs
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 lofs of eyes, of limbs, and of Manhood ; — and no perfony 
 who had not from the King a Grant of Free Chace, or 
 Free Warren, was permitted to enjoy the diverfions of the 
 field. It was not to be expected that laws of fo fanguine 
 a hue, could be long tolerated by Englifhmen — Amongft 
 the earlieft and ftrongeft complaints of the Nation after the 
 Conqueft, we find, the feverity of the Foreft Laws, which 
 were occafionally mitigated and occafionally increafed by 
 the fuccefTors of the Norman Conqueror, more in pro- 
 portion to the inclination of the Sovereign for field diver- 
 fions, and we may add, to the greater or lefs power of the 
 Monarch, than to the real grievance of the People. 
 
 In the reign of King John, and in that of Henry the Third, 
 the weaknefs of the Monarchy, and the difcovered ftrength 
 of the People, efFcdled the Charta Foreftae, that which was 
 confidered at the time as no lefs important to the liberty of 
 the Subjeft, than the palladium of all our Rights, Magna 
 Charta^for whilft the later fecured the Ecclefiaftical Li- 
 berties of the Nation, and removed many of the grievous 
 burdens incident to feodal tenure, and proteded the rights 
 of perfon, and property, the former redrefled in a great de- 
 gree thofe grievances, which the Foreft Laws had occa- 
 fioned ; thofe encroachments on the liberty of the Subje6l> 
 which Conqueft had introduced, ^y this charter certain 
 Grounds and Forefts were difafForefted ; the Punifhment 
 
 of
 
 ( II ) 
 
 of Death, for killing the King's Deer, commuted for im- 
 prifonment — and liberty granted to the Nobility, on parti- 
 cular occafions, to kill Deer in the Foreft — and what was 
 of more real importance when conlidered in a national 
 view — the right of Property in the Forefts themfelves, 
 fecured to Individuals. Thefe were the leading Features 
 of a Charter, extorted, it muft be confefTed, by the weak- 
 nefs of two Monarchs, though confirmed by the formal and 
 voluntary recognition of a third, the Englifh Juftinian 
 as he has been aptly termed, in whofe happy reign, it 
 has been wifely obferved by a great Author, " more was 
 done to fettle and eftablifh the diftributive Juftice of the 
 Country, than in all the ages fince that time put together. 
 Thus flood the Laws refpedling game, at the aufpicious 
 aera of the reign of Edward the Firft; the alterations fince 
 introduced, growing with the progrefs of conftitutional 
 liberty, and increafing in bulk with the increafe of civi- 
 lized population, I ftiall briefly enumerate. — By the 3d 
 of Edward the Firft, an a6l was pafTed, infli6ling a fevere 
 penalty on TrefpafTers in Ponds and Parks— The 13th of 
 Richard the Second prohibited Artificers, Labourers, and 
 Clergy of a certain defcription from keeping dogs, or 
 fporting, under pain of a year's imprifonment.— By the 
 nth of Henry the Seventh— -the Private Property of 
 C 2 Game
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 Game was rccognlzeJ, and the breed of Hawks and 
 Swans confidered as deferving of Legiflative prote6tion — 
 The 14th and 15th of Henry the Eighth enaded a fine 
 againft all who (hould trace Hares in the Snow — By the 
 5th of Elizabeth, the^ftealing of Fifh, and Hawks, was 
 made punifhabie both by a civil, and criminal profecution— 
 By the 23d of the fame reign the deftroying of Pheafants, 
 and Partridges in the Nighty was made liable to a pecuniary 
 muldl, and the hunting in (landing Corn prohibited under 
 a large penalty— The ift of James the Firft inflidted a 
 penalty on all who Jhat Game : though a favour was re- 
 ferved to thofe pofTtfled of a certain qualification, to take 
 Game in Nets— By the yth of the fame reign the time of 
 fporting was limited : one reafon affigned in the Title 
 being " To prevent the Spoil of Corn and Grain by un- 
 timely Hawking."— By the 22d and 23d of Charles the 
 Second, Lords of Manors are authorifed to appoint Keep- 
 ers, who may feize Guns, Dogs, Snares, &c. and keep 
 them for the ufe of the Lord of the Manor; or deftroy 
 them :— and by the 3d Section of the fame A61, " Every 
 perfon not having an Eftate of Inheritance of lool. per 
 annum in his own or his v/ife's right, or for term of life, 
 or on a leafe for 99 years, of the value of 150I. (excepting 
 perfons enjoying particular privileges) are deprived of keep- 
 ing Guns, Dogs, Nets, Snares, &c. — and the next claufe 
 
 prohibits
 
 ( 13 ) 
 
 prohibits all from killing Conies in a warren, under pain 
 of treble damages, and three months imprifonment.-— Sub- 
 fequent claufes in the fame aft, made the fetting of fnares, 
 and harepipes by any perfon, liable to the fame penalties — 
 fubjecled perfons guilty of depredations on Fifh, &c. Ponds, 
 and Rivers, the Property of others^ to the forfeiture of tre- 
 ble damages, and to the further penalty of lOs. to the Poor. 
 —By the 4th and 5th of William and Mary, c. 23, it 
 was ena6led, " that every law now in force for the prefer- 
 vation of the Game, ftiall be put in execution." Confta- 
 bles, by the Authority of Juftices of the Peace, were em- 
 powered to enter, and fearch the houfes of fufpefted per- 
 fons if unqualified ; and infli6l a penalty of 20s. for every 
 kind of Game, there found— -Unqualified Perfons keeping 
 or ufing Dogs, Nets, or Snares _/or the ckjhuSflon ofGame^ 
 were fubje6led to a like penalty.— The 5th of Anne con- 
 firmed thefe, and all former provifions— impofed a penalty 
 of 5I. on Higlers, Carriers, and Publicans buying or felling, 
 or having Game in their pofl'efli on— Empowered Lords of 
 Manors to feize fuch Game — and to take away Dogs or 
 Nets from unqualified perfons — and to appoint Game- 
 keepers to kill Game for the fule ufe of the Lord of the 
 Manor. 
 
 The yth of Anne confirmed the laft mentioned Aft, 
 affixing certain reftriftions to Deputations. — By the 3d of 
 
 Georfre
 
 ( u ) 
 
 George the Firft further regulations were enadtcd rcfpe£l- 
 ing Game-keepers ; and all the preceding A6ts, relating 
 to the Game confirmed. — The 8th of the fame reign gave 
 a power to profecutors to fue by adtion of debt, limiting 
 however the time of fuch a6lion ; which time was extended 
 one term by the 26th of George the Firft. — The 28th of 
 George the Second inflidled a penalty on all perfons felling 
 Game. — The 2d of the prefent reign, limited the time of 
 killing Game — infli£ted a penalty on all tranfgrefling it ; 
 at the fame time that it confirmed the powers given by the 
 8th of George the Firft, as to the mode of recovering 
 penalty, limited the a£lion further as to the time. — The 
 1 3th of George the Third took under its prote6lion the 
 Black Game, Red Game, and Buftards; — and by the fame 
 hOi all perfons were prohibited under the penalty of 2ol^ 
 for the firft offence; 30I. for the fecond, and 50I. for the 
 third, from attempting tokill Deer in a Park.—- Where Deer 
 were adually killed, the fecond offence was made punifti- 
 able by Tranfportation for feven years. — The Rangers and 
 Keepers were empowered to feize Guns, Dog«, Nets, 
 &c. in the fame manner as Game-keepers ; and to carry 
 the perfons before Maglftrates who might commit them to 
 Gaol. — Appeals were allowed to the Quarter Sefllons. — 
 Thefe (excepting the fubfequent ail affixing a pecuniary 
 onus on all qualified Sportfmen, by rendering alicenfe ne- 
 
 ceflary)
 
 ( IS ) 
 
 ceflary) are the refl:ri(5live powers, eftabliftied by the Legif- 
 lature, and adted upon for fo extenfive a period. The fub- 
 ftance of every a6l for the prefervation of the Game is 
 compofed in this brief Epitome. If any obnoxious part has 
 been concealed, inadvertency and extreme hurry, not de- 
 fign, has occafioned it. 
 
 It is not I prefume very difficult to perceive what the 
 legiflature had in contemplation in the framing of thefe 
 Laws. And perhaps an Honourable Member of the Legif- 
 lature wandered not far from the truth, when he confidered 
 the effect of thofe adls, as by no means correfponding with 
 the title. For if the prefervation of the Game was ihtfole 
 objedl: of the Legiflature, I am ready to concede, that the 
 eiFefl has been in no degree proportionate to the intention. 
 I fay if^ becaufe no man who confiders this fubje£t with 
 attention, can doubt, that however many of thefe a6ls may 
 have met with the fupport of fome country gentlemen, con- 
 fidering the prefervation of the Game as their ultimate 
 objeft, yet the great body of the nation, the bulk of thofe 
 who have confented to the continual and immenfe additions 
 made to this code of Laws, have had an objedt in view 
 more praife- worthy, more interefting :— -no lefs an objedl 
 than the maintenance of peace and good order :— the pre- 
 fervation of private property, perhaps, from the hands of 
 Agrarian Levellers ; certainly from thofe of the idle, the 
 
 dilTolute
 
 ( i6 ) 
 
 diflb'ute and unprincipled. Had the Legiflatureno fuperior 
 confideration than the prefervatlonof an Hare, a Pheafant, or 
 a Partridge, it would not have deferved, I am fure it would 
 not have met with, the fupport of thofe great men, who 
 filled the national councils at that period of our hiftory 
 immediately fucceeding the Revolution. I do not mean to 
 fay that the peculiar refervation of the game formed no part 
 of their object : I only mean to infift that it was a fub- 
 ordinate confideration ; and that thofe parts of the fyftem, 
 held up to contempt and abhorrence as rigid beyond ne- 
 ceflity, as violating the noble principle of perfonal freedom, 
 were facrifices demanded of the nation, founded on views 
 more ufeful, more extenfive, more patriotic than the per- 
 fonal motives attributed to the framers of thefe Laws- 
 Would the able Statefmen, the enlightened Patriots of that 
 aera, labouring with that energy and activity of mind fo 
 chara6teriftic of their principles, in the prefervation of our 
 Rights and Liberties, in ereding that great Conftitutional 
 Pillar, the Bill of Rights, the fecond Magna Chartaj at 
 the fame time, leave this immenfurable chafm in Political 
 Liberty, without attempting to fill it up?— Could our 
 Patriotic Anceftors, tremblingly alive to the invafion even 
 of imaginary rights, exploding with juft warmth every 
 remnant of the feodal fyftem, which could attach on the 
 perfon of Man :— who, metaphyfically refining on the 
 
 abftrad
 
 C 17 ) 
 
 abftracl Rights of mankind, have defcended in their difquifi- 
 tions to fcan, to define, and afterwards to fettle, the nice doc- 
 trine of refiftance to Government, to eftablifti that principle, 
 now forming part of our envied conftitution :— I fay, is it to 
 be credited that fuch men would have permitted this badge 
 (as it is termed) of Norman Servitude to have remained an 
 eternal monument of their inconfiftency and indifference to 
 the Rights of their Countrymen ? They did not, they 
 could not, confider thofe laws on which they ftamped their 
 approving fiat, as connected either in their origin, or their 
 moft remote confequences, with thofe arbitrary imports on 
 the liberty and property of the fubj eft- --thofe perfonal fet- 
 ters, the offspring of foreign conqueft and fubjugation — 
 that feodal Syflem, which, as it accompanied a Monarch 
 uninvited, and wading to the throne through the blood of 
 Englilhmen, took its eternal farewell of this Country at 
 the reftoration of a Monarch, invited by his Subje£ls, 
 peaceably to re-occupy the feat of his anceftors. Indeed it 
 would puzzle the moft refined cafuift to difcover in the 
 Principle of any one Aft, a fliade of Affinity to that op- 
 preffive fyftem I have alluded to, as Introduced by the Nor- 
 man Conqueror, aited upon by his Succeffors, and indu- 
 bitably founded on the imperious laws of Conqueft. 
 Where in the prefent code of Alunicipal Laws (the real 
 and only light in which this fyftem can be viewed ) are we 
 
 D to
 
 ( i8 ) 
 
 to find the boafted Affinity ? Is the exdiifxve right given 
 to every man to pofTefs his property unmolefted, and un- 
 injured by his bittereft and moft powerful enemy, the ofF- 
 fpring of that fcodal tyranny, which fubjecled the whole 
 Country to the dominion, and the people to the whim and 
 caprice, not only of a Sovereign, but of his Minions ? 
 Is the regulation of that property, as to quality and quan- 
 tity, now deemed neceflary by the Legiflature (certainly 
 the moft obnoxious, and apparently the moft rigid of the 
 Game Laws) a badge of that flavery which admitted of m 
 qualification but perfonal favour^ often conferred unwor- 
 thily, and always embracing few obje£ls ? Is the facred- 
 nefs of property, which takes from the greateft the power 
 of oppreffing the leaft, which ere£ts a man's caftle on his 
 every Acre, which renders oppreffion weak and malice im- 
 potent, a branch of that fyftem which confidered the will 
 of the Monarch as paramount to all law, which at its fo- 
 vereign pleafure disforefted whole trails of Country for 
 the Royal Diverfion, eftabliihing the throne of arbitrary 
 pleafure on the ruins of ufeful induftry. Are the whole- 
 fome regulations, the neceffary corre£lions eftabliflied by 
 law, for the punifhment of thofe, who forgetful of the du- 
 ties their families are entitled to claim from them, incon- 
 fideratc of that Actuation in which providence has placed 
 them, expend thofe moments in indolence, or (if I may be 
 
 allowed
 
 ( 19 ) 
 
 allowed the expreflion) the aftive Idlenefs of the chace, or 
 in the more pernicious or more extenfively dangerous em- 
 ployment of Nightly Trefpafs upon, if not robbery of, the 
 property of others (for furely it will not be faid, whilft 
 peace and good order are the objefts of government, that 
 the Nightly Poacher deferves either the fupport or tolera- 
 tion of Society) connected by the fainteft refemblance 
 with thofe fevere corporal penalties introduced by that 
 feodal Syftem which fubje6led the killing of game, to the 
 monftrous penalties of lofs of Limbs and of Manhood? 
 Where indeed are we to trace out the refemblance ? from 
 what hidden recefs, impenetrable to common obfervation 
 or refearch, will the favourers of the abolition draw to 
 invidious light their wonderful traits of affinity ? Thank 
 God, they are "not to be found, they exift no where. I 
 know, full well, that this is no novel do6trine, it has 
 been before prefled on the public attention, and lif- 
 tened to with avidity ; it has too powerful charms not to 
 engage the fupport of many, becaufe it is founded on po- 
 pular complaint. Not content, however, with addrelling 
 the paffions of mankind, they have attempted to convince 
 their judgments, they have brought forward in their fup- 
 port the weighty and refpedtable name of Mr. Juftice 
 Blackftone, a name never brought before the public with- 
 out the juft claim of refpeftable attention, due to found, 
 D 2 legal.
 
 ( 20 ) 
 
 legal, and conftitutlonal knowledge, to the attainments 
 which adorn the fchular, to the feelings and principles 
 which dignify the man. On a mind fo conftituted, the 
 flightefl: appearance of invaded Rights, would roufe to 
 arms his noble fpirit, would excite the indignant Murmurs 
 of Freedom's Champion, might draw forth even from his 
 mild pen, the bitternefs of invedlives, in fome degree juf- 
 tified by the feverity of the Game Penalties, if abftrafSlcdly 
 confideredj but when relatively viewed, with all their con- 
 necting links, with every motive for their foundation, with 
 every end the legiflature had in view in their eftablifliment, 
 (furely the only candid and fair mode to form any impar- 
 tial judgment on a large and comprehenfive fyftem) will 
 be found more the offspring of feeling than of judgment. 
 From fuch influence the wifeft and beft of men are not 
 exempt. They are fpecks in that luminous orb, which fo 
 often, and almoft fo unceafingly cheers us with its bene- 
 ficent rays, and from which, for one enveloping cloud, 
 which robs us momentarily of its benign influence, and it of 
 its wonted fplendour, it becomes not us to withold our ho- 
 mage and adoration. 
 
 But let not the advocates of this plan of abolition hope 
 to build their tottering edifice on fuch a foiinriation, let 
 them notafTure themfelves of fuch refpe£lable aid---Iet not 
 a hafly fentence mifreprefented, or mifconftrued— at the 
 
 moft
 
 ( 21 ) 
 
 moft created by the exquifitenefs of feeling, unaccompa- 
 nied by judgment — be felefted as fupporting the bold, un- 
 juft (and 1 might add dangerous) pofition, attributed to this 
 refpedlable lawyer—" That the Game Laws were laws 
 of Tyranny and Oppreflion, and repugnant to the Princi- 
 ples of the Conftitution," a fentence I have not been 
 able to find in Blackftone. But we will not quarrel about 
 words, and though we cannot concede in all the required 
 extent, we will allow the general tenor of his fentiments on 
 this fubjedt to have countenanced fuch an afiertion. We 
 will cite the moft forcibly exprefled opinion in favour of 
 thefe Gentlemen that his Commentaries afford. Treating 
 of the rigour of thofe laws which verted the fole property of 
 the Game in the Sovereign and his Creatures, to whom, 
 indeed, as he properly obferves, the favour was conceded, 
 more with a view to the prefervation of the Game for the 
 Grantor, than from a motive of indulgence to the Grantee, 
 tf he adds, " From a fimilar principle to which, though the 
 foreft laws are now mitigated, and by degrees grown en- 
 tirely obfolete, yet from this root has fprung a baftard flip, 
 known by the name of the Game Laws, now arrived to 
 and wantoning in its utmoft vigour, both founded on the 
 fame unreafonable notions of permanent property in wild 
 creatures, and both produdlive of the fame tyranny to the 
 Commons — but with this difference, that the Forefl Laws 
 
 efla-
 
 ( 22 ) 
 
 elbbliflicd one mighty Hunter throughout the land, the 
 Game Laws have ereded a little Nimrod in every parifh, 
 and in one refpe£l the ancient Law was much lefs unrea- 
 fonable than the modern, tor the King's Grantee of a 
 Chafe or FreeWarren, might kill Game on every part of 
 his franchife, but though a freeholder of lefs than lool. a 
 year, is forbidden to kill a partridge on his own eftate, yet 
 nobody elfe (not even the Lord of the Manor,) unlefs he 
 has a grant of free chafe or free Warren can do it without 
 committing a trefpafs and fubjedting himfclf to an a6lion." 
 After this quotation I do not think I fliall be accufed of 
 any wifh to avoid a difcuffion of the Principle of the Game 
 Laws both in a Conftitutional and Reafonable view. It 
 would be uncandid not to allow that this is a fliort, but 
 
 ftrong and pithy Philippic againll the Game Laws On a 
 
 fuperficial view, it may appear plaufible, it may procure 
 advocates — on a cool and difpafllonate view, it will, in my 
 opinion, be found neither in its premifes warranted by fadt, 
 nor in its inference by reafon. The former part which re- 
 gards the fimilarity of the principle of the Game Laws, 
 and the feodal fyftem of the Forelt Laws, I have already 
 treated of— I have already acknowledged my inability to 
 difcover it — to trace its remotefl affinity. If from the 
 fame root this '• Baftard Slip" has fprung, the refemblance 
 is fo faint, fo almoft imperceptible, it muft have been the 
 
 offspring
 
 ( 23 ) 
 
 offspring of that extreme degree of promifcuous intercourfe, 
 which leaves at leafl: no trace of one of its progenitors— fa 
 fpurious indeed in its origin (if I may be allowed the hy- 
 perbole) as to have baftardized baftardy. But had I not 
 already fuiEciently argued on its difTimiiarity, I need not 
 have recourfe to further argument. The learned Judge, 
 in the very fentence I have brought forward, has not only 
 acknowledged the diffimilarity, but has given the moft con- 
 vincing inftance of it. Inftead of coming forward, as 
 might have been expedled, with proofs of this fimilitude, 
 of this imputed origin, he has furnifhed in the fhort com- 
 pafs of a few concluding words, the bafe on which one 
 ftriking difference refts. '' The foreft laws (he obferves)' 
 eftablifhed One mighty Hunter ; the game laws a little 
 Nimrod in every Manor." Or, in other words, " The 
 exclufive power over unpermanent property was referved 
 to the Monarch by the Forcfl Laws ; no reftridlions 
 arifing from the facred Right of Property, or from the 
 liberty of the fubjed, were to controul the abfolute will of 
 the Sovereign. To this mighty Hunter were not only to 
 be fubjeded the Beafts of the Field and the Fowls of the 
 Air, but the toil of the Hiifbandman, the fweat of the 
 Peafant. At his powerful nod, the fruitful corn-field, the 
 verdant mead, defpoiled of their honours, were converted 
 into the dreary foreft and defolate plain. The modeft 
 
 manfion
 
 ( 24 ) 
 
 manfion of the Yeoman, the lowly cot of the labourer, at 
 his Caprice were to be levelled with the du(i, and the 
 miferable owner turned out to endure the " wild winds of 
 Heaven," or committed to the compafTionate charity of an 
 unfeeling world; and if bereft of property and home, a 
 prey to mifery and want, the timid hare perchance fhould 
 crofs his lucklefs path, fhould irrefiftibly tempt his im- 
 perious want, the bloody knife, the fearing iron is at 
 hand, to end his woes, or at lead to curtail the means of, 
 or the wifli for exiftence. This ivas the power of the 
 Mighty Hunter under the Foreft Laws. Under the Game 
 Laws, a little Nimrod (we will ufe the invidious name) 
 afluming the right of defending immediately his own pro- 
 perty, mediately that of others, arifes in every Manor — 
 To himfelf and his friends he referves the unrcafonable 
 privilege of trefpafTing over his own grounds — to others, at 
 his pleafure, he denies it. In a Country and under a Con- 
 flitution where the property of the meanejl is confidered as 
 facred as that of the mofl exalted, he claims an equal right, 
 with the humbleji, to difcriminate in the delegation of his 
 power. Perhaps in this fele<£lion he confults his whim 
 and caprice — perhaps even ill-riature more than rcafon and 
 good temper have influence on his determination ; but he 
 confiders it as his ovon, and he claims the right of doing 
 with that ozvn what he pleafes. With unceafing induftry, 
 
 he
 
 ( 25 } 
 
 he purfues that peil of foclety, the Village Poacher : the 
 prote£lion of his property may be the only objeft of his 
 purfuit ; but it is pojfible, he may have the beneficent hope 
 of reftoring to the bofom of his deferted family, to the 
 pra£lice of induftry, to the laws of fobriety, and to the in- 
 fluence of morality, the Truant, the Idler, the Drunkard, 
 and abandoned. This rigid Nimrod by turns employs 
 advice and correction ; he reforts to the latter, vs'here the 
 former produces not efFe6l; ; and when compelled to feve- 
 rity, hedeferves, he frequently receives, the jufl thanks of 
 the induftrious part of that Community, who have been 
 long groaning under the lawlefs depredation of the poacher, 
 and to whofc exertions and induftry he has been a tedious 
 and fevere weight. To men of this defcription, the little 
 Nimrod is a terror ; the laws of Society call upon his ex- 
 ertions : but to the honeft; and induftrious Farmer he excites 
 no terror, he gives no alarm. In him, the confcioufnefs 
 of that equality of rights (the only rational equality) fecured 
 to him by the laws of his Country, leaves no room for ap- 
 prehenfion from ufurped authority, or aflumed confequence. 
 He well knows, that if, in the infolence of imaginary 
 power, under a mifconceived idea of Manerial Privilege, 
 the miftaken Lord fliould attempt the exercife of fuch 
 controul, the firm and equal voice of the Law will arrefl 
 his progrefs j and in the perfon of the lowlieft yeoman, will 
 
 E teach
 
 ( --6 ) 
 
 teach him this important leflbn, that the equality of Engl'iJIi 
 La-MS recognizes no envious diJiin£lion of "Mealth or title — 
 even fhould Whim and Caprice, fhould enduring obftinacy 
 or momentary pique (though the companions of elevated 
 fituation, to be found in the moft lowly) influence the con- 
 dud of the Farmer, he may give full fcope to it— the lav7 
 furnifhes him with the power of exercifing it, not only to 
 fliitld his property from the wilfully incautious and hurtful 
 trefpaffer, but to humble the confequence, and to interrupt 
 the convenience of his great fuperior. By the law he is 
 empowered, if he can prove no injury, can fubftantiate no 
 grievance, but the infringement of his fovereign will and 
 plcafure, to bring before a Court of Juftice proofs of that 
 infringement, and before the tribunal of the Public receive 
 at the hands of even the proudeft Peer of the realm redrefs, 
 not for real, but pretended injury, not for lofsof property, 
 but for dif obedience of Commands. In this high and lofty 
 tone can he fpeak and a£l. If in the temptation of the 
 moment the unqualified renter of land, or the imprudent 
 peafant fhould violate the Game laws, a code eftablilhed by 
 the Reprefentativcs of his Anccdorsj whilft he knows the 
 ultimatum of his punifhmcnt, which extends not beyond 
 temporary corporal penalties, he feels the improbability of 
 profecution, the difficulty of convi£lion ; he feels that if 
 the law is fevere, its feverify fcldom appears \ if it is fo to 
 ' him,
 
 ( 27 ) 
 
 him, it is fo to all his equals in fituation, to many of his 
 fuperiors. He feels confcious that if deprived of thofe 
 pleafures, (pleafures fo unfuitable to his rank, that if not 
 prohibited, he would have felt little inclination for) which 
 appertain to the fports of the field, by the fcridnefs of law; 
 by the courtefy and interpretation of it, is referved to 
 him the qualified enjoyment of it. He moft probably 
 has fome friend, with whom he may enjoy thofe diverfions, 
 and for whom on his own land he can monopolize the 
 means. He at leaft has this confolation (an ingenuous mind 
 would defpife it, but experience prefents too many in- 
 dulging it) that the fame laws, which eftablifli a reftri6live 
 power over his incUnation, fecure to him a prohibitory 
 right over that of another, as far as relates to his own property ; 
 he finally knows and feels that his property is fecure from 
 the invafion of the village Nimrod, and he fecurely enjoys 
 the fruits of his labour, the profits of his induftry, unmo- 
 lefted by prefent evil, and undifturbed by apprehenfion of 
 future." 
 
 Stript of all its ornaments, of all its difguife, addrefled 
 in plain language, to the plain underftanding of Englifh- 
 men, fuch is the real difference, on which the learned Au- 
 thor of the Commentaries on the Laws of England is to 
 found hhjimilitude, is to eftablifli his refemblance between 
 the Foreft and Game Laws. I fhall leave to my readers, 
 
 E 2 to
 
 ( 28 ) 
 
 to draw what inference they pleafe from thefe premifes— 
 Confiftently I cannot think (but I may be miftaken) they 
 will not draw it as the learned Author would have them. 
 They will be guided by reafon, not paffion ; by fafts, not 
 opinion. Much as I diflike controverfy, mighty as is the 
 Authority of this able writer, had the prefent occafion 
 obtruded itfelf upon me at an earlier period, I (hould not 
 have hefitated to fubmit to the candor of his enlarged, and 
 the judgment of his enlightened mind, a revifion of this 
 fhort Philippic, the produce (I am well aflbred) of mo- 
 mentary Impulfe, an hafty inconfiderate tribute at the 
 Shrine of Imaginary Freedom. I would not have fhrunk 
 from the unpleafing Talk of appealing in this inftance from 
 his fenfibility to his reafon, from his warm heart to his 
 fober head. I would have afked this enlightened Patriot, 
 this learned and eloquent Commentator on the laws of his 
 Country ; this able tracer of the progrefTive liberty of his 
 Countrymen, and this firm Advocate in the caufe of Order, 
 how he would have reconciled (except on the principle of 
 a lelTer abufe juftifying a greater) to the laws of reafon, 
 much lefs to thofe of civilization, or of the fecurity of Per- 
 fon and Property, the invafion of another's property at the 
 Will of the Lord of the Manor. On what foundation, 
 with what confiftency, whilft he ftands forth the friend of 
 Liberty, and of the facrcJ Right of property, he can build 
 
 that
 
 f 29 ) 
 
 that reafonable preference he would make us perceive, in 
 the Ancient over the Modern Law; becaufe by the for- 
 mer the Grantee of a Chafe or Free Warren could invade 
 the property of all with impunity ; and by the later, not 
 even the Lord of the Manor can exercife oppreffion over 
 a-ny. I would have afked him, from what poflible Motives 
 arofe thofe Exertions of our Anceftors, which obtained 
 the Carta de Forejla ? what could induce that energy they 
 difplayed, that unremitting induftry they manifefted, to 
 procure a reftoration of the Saxon laws, which eftablifhed 
 the right of property and its confequent efFe6l, protedion 
 from the inroads of others. Recurring flightly to the pre- 
 tended affinity of origin, I would have demanded, where, 
 in thofe Municipal Regulations, which include not only 
 the confervation of the Game, but the Confervation of the 
 Peace and Happinefs of a great and powerful Nation 
 (Great no lefs by its permifiive, than reftridlive Laws) he 
 had found one Branch fpringing from the rotten Trunk 
 of that defpotic fyftem, which confidered Sovereign WiH 
 as paramount to the Laws of Nature, Reafon, or Society. 
 Where, in thofe reftriftions, (unreafonable perhaps in fome 
 refpccts) which affix to a peculiar fpecies of property, and 
 to a particular defcription of perfons, a privilege from 
 which it debars others, thofe tyrannical conllitutions which 
 gave the Monopoly to One ? Where, in the infli£lion of a 
 
 temporary
 
 f 30 ) 
 
 temporary punlfhment on the idle and abandoned, that fan- 
 giiinary code, which in taking from man the Rights oi 
 Nature, gave him not. the rights of Society, which degraded 
 human Nature, to the lownefs of the wild Beaft of the 
 Field, which eflabliflied between them the fevere law of 
 retaliation, the dodtrine of Blood for Blood— which expi- 
 ated the death of the Hare by the Blood of the Man ? But 
 I will no longer tire my reader with appeals to reafon and 
 impartiality againft prejudice and paflion. I will lead him 
 to another part of this able Commentator's Work, where 
 he has made ample amends for the adulatory incenfe offered 
 to Enthufiaftic Liberty, where he will find this fubjefl: dif- 
 cufTed in its true and juft light; where the favourers of 
 the abolition of the Game Laws will have little reafon to 
 build their fupport on his Arguments ; where the true prin- 
 ciples on which I have infided they are founded, the mo- 
 tives, which the framers had in view in the eftablifliment 
 of them, are traced by his able Pen. Treating of that 
 Species of Property, we term prerogative property, he fays 
 •' It cannot be denied that by ihtlaws of Nature any Man, 
 from the Prince to the Pcafant, has an equal rig/it of pur- 
 fuing and taking to his own ufe all fuch creatures as are 
 /era natura, and therefore the property of nobody, but 
 liable to be feized by the firft occupant ; and fo it was held 
 by the Imperial Law, even as late as Juftinian's time: 
 
 fera
 
 ( 31 ) 
 
 fera igitur bejiia et volucres^ et omnia animalia, qua 
 mari, ccelo et terra nafcuntur^ fimul atque ab al'iquo capta 
 fuerint jure gentium Jlat'im illlus ejfe Incipiunt. But it 
 follows from the very end and conftitution of Society^ 
 that this natural right, as well as many others belonging to 
 man as an individual, may be reflrained by politive laws, 
 enadted for reafons of State, or for the fupppofed benefit 
 of the Community. This reftridlion may be either with 
 refpedl to \)^t place in which this right may or may not be 
 exercifed; with refpedl to the animals that are the fubjefl; 
 of this right, or with refpedl to the perfons allowed or for- 
 bidden to exercife it. And in confequence of this au- 
 thority we find the Afunicipal Laws' of many Nations have 
 exerted fuch power of reflraint, have in general for- 
 bidden the entering on another Man's ground, for any 
 caufe, without the owner's leave ; have extended their pro- 
 tedlion to fuch particular animals as are ufually the objedls 
 of purfuit, and have invefted the prerogative of hunting 
 and taking fuch animals in the Sovereign of the State only, 
 and fuch as he fhall authorize." Here we find the true and 
 undoubted Origin of the Game Laws, the genuine princi- 
 ples of that fyftem, to which has been attached the odious 
 epithets of tyranny, opprejfion, invajion of the Rights of 
 Ji^an, repugnancy to Conjlltut'ional Principles— m fine all 
 thofe harfh terms, which, if likely to attradl the Public 
 Notice, if to make a fenfible impreiFion on the Populace, 
 
 have
 
 ( 32 ) 
 
 have been in all periods on different occafions had recourfe 
 to, without any very minute attention being had either to 
 truth or reafon. Who, that attentively and impartially 
 confiders the juftiy exploded Do6lrine of Natural Rights, 
 in the Primitive Simplicity in which they exiUed in times 
 antecedent to the edablifliment of Society, and the intro- 
 dudion of Property, can doubt, that the partial facrifice of 
 fuch right in the very early periods of civilization became 
 neccffary ? that Man, in claiming the benefits of Social life, 
 ftipulated to furrender in return a portion of thofe rights, 
 which in a rude ftate of Nature, where it interfered not 
 with the happinefs of his fellow Creatures (the ultimate end 
 of all human iaftitutions) he was permitted to fubftantiate ? 
 Who, in the examination of the Municipal Laws of all 
 Countries, will not perceive, that thefe facrifices increafed 
 in all, in proportion to the increafe of civilization, and in 
 many to the mere increafe of population r Where there 
 are many to enjoy, and Utile Space for enjoyment, the 
 wants of civilized life increafe; the natural Rights of man 
 neceflarily diminifli ; — artificial wants arife, natural ones 
 lofe their value. Can we doubt the force of this, as ap- 
 plicable to the Game Laws. A paucity of Inhabitants 
 occafions an abundance of Game ; every addition diminilhes 
 it. Whilfl the lordly Beaft of the Field ranged uncon- 
 trouled over his dreary and extenfive domain, felf-preferva- 
 
 tion
 
 ( 33 ) 
 
 tion pointed out to man the Necefllty of abridging his 
 Power, of reducing his Numbers. In thofe early and rude 
 ftages, he was the only enemy. Ambition, Wealth, Domi- 
 nion were then unknown ; or if known, Ambition was 
 confined to the emulation of excelling in the Sports of the 
 Field : if wealth exifted, it was on its fpoils : or if dominion 
 reared his lofty head, it was that of valorous and refpe<Stable 
 Patriarchy, over the Children of its Tutorage, the offspring 
 of its care. If Man was not the enemy of Man, he could 
 hardly be termed his friend; the warm impallioned fenti- 
 ment of friendfhip, the balm of civilized life, extended not 
 beyond the narrow limits of confanguihity : in fuch a (tate 
 of Nature, its warm operations were unknown, or unfelt. 
 To guard againft the encroachment of the Wild Beaft, 
 conftituted at firfl Man's duties; his employment in after 
 periods, contributed to his pleafures. The limited ftate of 
 Agriculture, confined to aftual want, and that want con - 
 trailed within flender bounds, gave full excrcife to the 
 rights of Occupancy in all its capricious fancy. The 
 wild uncultivated defart, the extenfive foreft, and fruitful 
 plain, were alike by turns, the cafual refidence of wander- 
 ing, unfeitled Man; occupied by him for his momentary 
 convenience, or by his capricious choice, and deferted by him 
 when the reftlefs inquietude of his nature, or the rude call 
 of Want prompted him to leave it. In fuch a ftate fevere 
 
 F indeed
 
 ( 3+ ) 
 
 indeed would have been his lot, if the Rights of Nature and 
 of Occupancy had not been recognifed. But when a lefs 
 wandering fpirit prevailed, when the benefit of colledlive 
 and aflbciated numbers began to be felt and acknowledged, 
 when Society produced her charms, and conquered the reft- 
 lefs Nature of Man ; when a few of thofe incalculable en- 
 dearments of Social life found their way to the heart of 
 Man ; Property its conftant and obfequious follower, led in 
 his train, thofe laws, thofe neceflary regulations, which 
 whilft they abridge Man of his Natural Rights^ give him 
 thofe acquired ones, which become the Social Being. With 
 Property it gave him that, without which all is chaotic 
 confufion, the Right to the exclufive enjoyment of it. As 
 the benefits of Society were more known, they were more 
 courted ; men were daily more willing to add to the facri- 
 fices they had already made to it. Perhaps fome reftlefs, 
 perturbed fpirits in the failure of their wicked and deftruc- 
 tive projefts, may have had reafon to complain of the ex- 
 change—of the barter, which their anceflors have made 
 them heirs to; and which their perverted and crooked 
 minds are ill calculated to enjoy the benefits of. They may 
 have been, in the depravity of their hearts, unwilling to ac- 
 knowledge that wholefome, found principle, aflented to by 
 the wifeft, and moft virtuous of all ages, that every State 
 has an undDubtcd right to abridge the Natural Rights of its 
 
 Subjefls, 
 
 \
 
 ( 35 ) 
 
 Subje^s, for the benefit of the Community. Not to flat- 
 ter however the inclinations of fiich men ; not to give 
 power to their depraved intentions ; but to curb, by the 
 firm, yet moderate corredlive of the Law, that malignant 
 fpirit which would run riot in deeds of Extravagance and 
 Bloodfhed, has this falutary principle been ellabliflied, been 
 a£led upon. 
 
 Who indeed (coming to the immediate application of 
 thefe principles} can confider the Game Laws of this king- 
 dom but as a branch of that Municipal Syftem, which So- 
 ciety at firfl: introduced, which property encouraged, and 
 which population, increafing the value of property, and 
 with it the artificial wants of Man, has extended to its 
 prefent bulk. A fyftem founded on the great fundamental 
 principles of Society ; the happinefs and profperity of 
 its members. For even the great authority whom we 
 have fo often mentioned (and who was introduced by the 
 friends to the repeal of the Game Laws, for a very diffe- 
 rent purpofe than to eftablifh the reafonablencfs, the jufiice^ 
 of the exercife of this power) was convinced that the origin 
 of thefe laws was deduced not from the arbitrary fpirit of 
 iinjuft reftridions on the Rights of Man ; but on the fa- 
 cred and eftimable laws of Society ; from which flow thofe 
 wholefome, reftriftive powers, the very objedl of its infti- 
 tution. If after what has been quoted, we wanted any 
 further proof on this head, we may adduce the four reafons 
 
 F 2 in
 
 ( 36 ) 
 
 in his opinion influencing the framers of the Conftitutions 
 relating to Game— reafons which, if I had never read his 
 excellent work, with the flender knowledge of the laws and 
 Conftiiution of my country I poflefs, with the flender 
 power for argumentative reafoning I enjoy, muft have 
 forced themfelves on my obfervation, and obtruded 
 themfelvcs on my mind, as fome of the principle ends 
 the Legiflature had in view. I (hould not perhaps have 
 fubmitted them fo concifely, or fo dcmonftrably, but 
 in fubftance they would have been the fame. It muft 
 have appeared to me, as it did to the learned Judge, that 
 thofe nobie perfons, to whofe patriotic exertions we are in- 
 debted for thofe Conflitutional bleflings we enjoy ; who ac- 
 tuated by the warmeft difpofuion to confolidate liberty, by 
 the afliflance of order, in the fupport of abftrafl rights for- 
 gat not focial ones : who in the formation of the Noble 
 Palladium of our Happinefs and Freedom, felt the la- 
 mented, but inevitable neceffity of abridging us of a Por- 
 tion of our Rights, were confiftently led to adopt a fimilar 
 conduct arifing from a fimilar principle, in the Game 
 Laws ; and carting behind them, as unworthy their fage de- 
 liberations, and their manly views, the petty interefts of 
 pleafure or of fancy ; the paltry ccnfideration of the pre- 
 fervation of the Hare, the Pheafantor the Partridge, when 
 the fole obje£l of Legiflative Care, muft have been nobly 
 and fteadily led to enad thofe prohibitory edifts with fome- 
 
 thing
 
 ( 37 ) 
 
 thing like the following views : ifl, " To encourage Agri- 
 culture, and the Improvement of Lands, by giving every 
 man an exclufive dominion over his own foil. 2dly, For 
 the prefervation of the feveral fpecies of animals, which 
 would foon be extirpated by a general libeny. 3dly, For 
 prevention of idlenefs and diflipation in hufbandmen, and 
 others of lower rank, which would be the unavoidable con- 
 fequence of Univerfal Licenfe. 4thly, For the prevention 
 of popular infurreSllonSy and rejjjla?ice to Government, by 
 dijarming the bulk of the People— znd our author adds, 
 " which laji is a reafon oftner meant than avowed by the 
 Makers of Foreft or Game Laws— nor certainly (fays 
 he) in thefe prohibitions is there any Natural Injujiice, as 
 fome have w/fa/^/y enough fuppofed, fince as PufFendorffob- 
 ferves, the law does not hereby take from any man his 
 private property, or what was already his own, but barely 
 abridges him of one means of acquiring a future property, 
 that of occupancy ; which indeed the law of Nature would 
 allow him, but of which the laws of Society have in moft 
 inilances very jujily deprived him." After what I have 
 juft cited, no argument furely with a Hiadow oF reafon can 
 be drawn from this refpeftable quarter in favour of a total 
 repeal of the Game Laws-.-and though in candour I muft 
 allow, that with all his merit, this able writer appears to 
 me not quite free from the charge of inconfiftency on this 
 
 fubjedl,
 
 ( 38 ) 
 
 fubjefl, 'and perhaps an inftance might be adduced in the 
 very fame page) yet his conceflions on this head, the mo- 
 tives he has afiigned for the fandtion our Anceftors have 
 Invariably given to laws, now thought fo defcrving of re- 
 probation, are fufficient to eftabliih my pofition, that 
 though our Anceftors muft have had in view fomething 
 beyond the mere prefervation of Game, yet the Reftridlions 
 to be found in the Game Laws are not the offspring of 
 Tyranny or Oppreflion, nor repugnant to the Principles of 
 Conftitutional Liberty— -that they are not unneceffary and 
 arbitrary infringements en the Natural Rights of Man ; but 
 wholefome regulations arifing out of thofe Laws of Soci- 
 ety, which we all recognize. 
 
 That thefe were the fentiments of Mr. Juftice Black- 
 ftone in the fober reflecting moments of reafon, I could 
 adduce further proof of ; but it would be an unneceffary 
 detention of my readers. That they were fentiments re- 
 ceiving the fupport of the moft learned Civilians, the ableft 
 Commentators on the Rights of Man, which time has 
 produced, we have only to refer to the works Grotius, of 
 Puffendorff, not to omit our refpe^table Countryman, the 
 learned Selden. But they have a higher, a fuperior autho- 
 rity, that of Reafon and Good iSf«/^,— qualities not always 
 allied to the fplendor of talent, not inviolably united to tran- 
 fcendancy of abilities.— And to prove the corrednefs of 
 
 this
 
 ( 39 ) " 
 
 this opinion, I muft appeal to the good fenfe of my readers, 
 in the very brief examination of thefe motives (which I 
 verily believe to have been the principal objects our An- 
 ceftors had in view in the framing of the Laws) by the 
 fcale of reafon. 
 
 By the firft, " the encouragement of Agriculture, the 
 Improvement of Lands, the exclullve dominion over his 
 own foil," are referved to Englifhmen. Is there any Man 
 bold enough to advance the fliadow of an oblecSlion to the 
 found good fenfe, and reafon, which dicStated fuch a mo- 
 tive, or to the law which enforces it ? It furely will not 
 be contended that this is an innovation on the moft refined 
 principles of freedom, in a ftate of Society. Surely the 
 Right of poflefllon with the affurance of enjoyment- —the 
 Encouragement of Agriculture — the Improvement of one's 
 Country, demand at our hands the tribute of Approbation. 
 — The Spirit of Cavil would in vain affall the purity, the 
 Juftice, the Patriotifm, of thefe Motives.— - 
 
 Bythefecond, " The prefervation of the feveral fpecies 
 of Game, which would foon be extirpated by a general 
 Liberty," appears the Motive.— Though I confider this, 
 and I believe our Anceftors did the fame, as a fubordinate 
 Consideration in the framing thefe laws :— -yet I will not 
 {brink from a difcuffion of the reafonable grounds of fuch 
 a motive.-— Will the moft virulent enemy of this Syftem 
 
 contend
 
 ( 40 ) 
 
 contend that no attention deferves to be paid to the prefer- 
 vation of the Game ? that no regard ought to be had by a 
 wife Legidature, in fecuring to thofe ftations in life, ex* 
 empt from the toils of labour, the manly amufement, the 
 wholefome recreations, fuitabie to their rank, and fortune? 
 Is it wholly wandering from the objedl of good govern- 
 ment, to enacl regulations for the Comfort and Happinefs 
 of its Members ? But I need not wafte my time by appeals 
 on this head.— The very Innovaters of, and enemies to 
 the prefent fyftem, acknowledge this principle, arraign 
 not the motive ; they only condemn the means to enforce 
 it.-— They bring forwards as an argument to obtain fup- 
 port, that the repeal of the Laws would efFedl that which 
 the prefent fyftem is incompetent to do; thus acknowledg- 
 ing in its utmoft extent, the Juftice of the Principle :— 
 But I {hall trefpafs no farther than to obferve, that though 
 my enemies have given the fanftion of their approving 
 voice to this Motion y it Is one I fhould be leaft inclined 
 to fupport, viewed in any other light, than as attached 
 and fubordinate to motives more important, and following 
 them as a neceflary and inevitable confequence. 
 
 By the third, " The prevention of Idlenefs and Difli- 
 pation in Hufbandmen, Artificers, and others of Lower 
 Rank : the unavoidable confequence of Univerfal Licence.^* 
 appears to be the objeft. 
 
 In
 
 ( 41 ) 
 
 In this great and flourifliing Nation, whofe prob ible 
 exiftence, whofe certain profperity and greatnefs, depend's 
 on the Art, the Induftry, and Exertions of its Inhabitants, 
 can a wife and enlighted Legiflature promote too earneftly, 
 thofe means which, as far as experience is convincing, in- 
 evitably lead to the defirable end.— Can ufeful Induflry be 
 too warmly encouraged ? Can the Progrefs of Arts, Ma- 
 nufa6lures, and Commerce be too forcibly upheld by the 
 foftering hand of Legiflative approbation P or can " Idle- 
 nefs and DiHIpation," with all the dreadful Vices in their 
 train, be too carefully difcouraged by Municipal Reftraints 
 or Legiflative Corredlion ? What indeed fhould we think 
 of the wifdom of thofe meafures, the conduct of thofe Se- 
 nators, who in framing a grand Code of Laws for the 
 happinefs of Social Man, Ihould not only have been content 
 to leave to the free and unreftrained exercife of his Sove- 
 reign Will, but fhould hold out incentives, fhould offer 
 encouragement to^ fhould furnifh opportunities for thediflb- 
 lute and idle, to abandon the plain and honefl path of com- 
 mendable Induftry, and of ufeful exertion, for a life of 
 Vain diffipation^ of a6live wickednefs, or immoral idlenefs? 
 In an Agricultural Nation, would you feduce by temp- 
 tation the Peafant from his Plough, or his Flail ? In a 
 commercial one, would you intice the Manufadturer from 
 his Loom, or his Shuttle ? Would you, by recalling Man 
 
 G to
 
 ( 42 ) 
 
 to the Rights of Nature, deprive him of thofe fecial ad- 
 vantage?, which Induftry, and exerted talent, under the 
 falutary and encouraging influence of a good government^' 
 have obtained for him, and remit him to thofe Natural 
 Rights which civilization has unfitted him to enjoy, con- 
 fiftently with the happinefs of his fellow Creatures ? Would 
 vou be fo truly his enemy, as to recall him to the exercifc 
 of thofe rights, for which he muft facrifice all thofe rela- 
 tive and Social Duties he has engaged to perform j muft 
 violate that Compa6l, that folemn obligation impofed upon 
 him by thofe Social Laws, under the benign protedlon of 
 which he has fo long and (o happily lived? — Thanks to 
 the exalted genius of true Liberty ; the falutary, unerring 
 guide of our anceftors, — their manly underftandings 
 faw through the fllmfy artifice which attempted to blend 
 two qualities fo incongruous, as Social Order., and the 
 extreme of Natural Right. Where the exiftence of one 
 was not incompatible with the other, they eflayed not to 
 rob the latter of the minuteft particle : — where the furren- 
 der was neceflary, they made it with a chcarful confciouf- 
 nefs of the neceflity. For this, " thoufands yet unborn" 
 fhall blefs them :---for this the genuine difinterefted Patri- 
 ot, the real friend to his Country, will feel not lefs grateful, 
 than for thofe magnanimous efforts, which refcued us from 
 the gloomy horrors of Popifh tyranny, from the exercife of 
 
 the
 
 ( 43 ) 
 
 the defpotlfm of Prerogative, and reftored to us thofe con- 
 ftitutions, the undoubted birth-right and moft facred privi- 
 leges of Englifhmen ; purged from all the drofs, purified 
 from all the alloy, with w^hich the pure conftitutional 
 metal had been abafed by the wickednefs of one part, and 
 the fupinenefs of the other. 
 
 But will the warmefl votaries at Liberty's fair fhrine, 
 impeach the propriety of negative precepts, of prohibitory 
 Laws r Will they in the deep refearch of comprehenfive 
 Hiftory difcover one Nation^ one fpecies of Government 
 pretending to the form of civilization, where prohibitory 
 Laws were unknown ? Will they find them in the annals 
 of the Grecian or Roman Empires, in thofe periods when 
 Liberty was carried to an excefs of refinement, by experi- 
 ence found to be inconfiftent with human happiaefs and 
 mortal imperfeftion ? Was Man at that time left to the 
 free, uncontrouled exercifeof his Paflions ; fubjedl to no per- 
 miffive Laws, generated by prohibitory ones ? Defcending 
 from ancient to modern Hiftory, does the later furnifh one 
 jnftance amidft the leaft civilized of Governments, where 
 the Will of Man reigns paramount to the Law? Where 
 inclination i« the only guide of condu6l ? Or where Laws 
 appropriate to the fituation, or the views of each Govern- 
 ment, have not been deemed neceflary, to prohibit man 
 from injuring his neighbour ? I confefs my mind has 
 
 G 2 travelled
 
 ( 44 ) 
 
 travelled back with fome attentive recollection, over thefe 
 fccnes, with which 1 was once more converfant ; and, Idei- 
 clare, my memory prefcnts not the hideous, deformed pi<Slure 
 of fuch a Government, " if Government it can be called, 
 that Government hath none" (I will not add diftinguifli- 
 able) fo conftituted, (o framed. Amidft the enthufiafm of 
 fpeculative Projedtors, the wildeft of them all, the Mores 
 and Harringtons of the day (for fuch characters have in all 
 ages been found) never entertained a projedt fo chimerical, 
 an idea fo wild as Government without re/irainty the pre- 
 f<.Mvation of every Natural Right under the enjoyment of 
 afiy Social one. 
 
 ' Pfohibitory, reftri(5tive Laws, have ih all periods of the 
 hiftory of the World formed part of the municipal code of 
 each country. They have been founded on the grand 
 principle, which we all recognize, — " the happinefs of 
 mankind :-— on the protedlion which Communities claim a 
 preference to, over Individuals. The licentious, the pro- 
 flisjate, and the idle, have in fome degree been committed 
 to the eternal punifliment of their own minds, of their own 
 confciences ; to the temporal punifhment of a deprivation 
 of thofe enjoyments which virtue adds to the mind, which 
 induftry procures for the body. Where the evil has /ingiy 
 been confined to them^ where its influence has not been 
 more extended, where Society has not been the fufFerers, 
 
 the
 
 ( 45 ) 
 
 the Law has advanced no further : but when the malignant 
 Peflilence threatens in its progrefs to contaminate the fur- 
 rounding neighbourhood, to loo fen the virtuous bands of 
 fociety, to endanger by its efredls or example man's focial 
 happinefs, to deprive him of thofe focial enjoyments, for 
 which he has ftipulated ; to lefTen the means of acquiring 
 thofe advantages, for which he has furrendered his natural 
 Rights, he is intitled to call on Government (he has called 
 upon it, and has been heard) to guarantee his happinefs ; to 
 defend it from invafion. In no country, under no Go- 
 vernment, has this right been denied : — it has been in- 
 variably liftened to, and allovv^ed, adapted (as I have before 
 faid) to the peculiar fituatlon of each. Thus we find, in 
 one of the oldeft Empires we know, the fevere penalty of 
 Death inflicted on all who are found idle, and without 
 employment : founded on the confcioufnefs of the extenfive 
 population of the country ; and the fcarcely proportionate 
 means of exiftence, fubje6ling to extreme diftrefs, perhaps 
 to abfolute want, fome one at leaft as worthy, perhaps 
 morefo than the difcovered indolent. And this in a country, 
 the mildnefs of whofe Laws Father Amiott, the Abbe 
 Grofier, every other author who has written, fpeak in 
 terms of rapturous praife ; not unjuftified by the fubfequent 
 knowledge of their Inftitutlons and Laws, which Europe- 
 ans in later times have acquired. 
 
 The
 
 ( 46 ) 
 
 The origin of fuch apparent feverity is there, what it 
 always fliould be — Necefilty. 
 
 Was it ever contended that any fevere hardfhip, any ac- 
 cufation of unnecefTary feverity attached to that provident 
 law, which fubjc£ls the Vagrant to corredlion ; the idle 
 dilTolute Father of a family to the pains of imprifonment ? 
 In the benevolent intention of the Legiflature of remedy- 
 ing that defcdlive fyftem, under which the poor have been 
 fo long governed, it cannot be their intention to take from 
 the Magiftrate the power of punifhing the profligate and 
 ufelefs members of fociety : it is the infufHciency of the 
 poor Laws for this purpofe ; the want of a difcriminating 
 power, whicli is complained of ; the abufe of the principle 
 of ihefe laws, which meant on the one hand to prote£l the 
 unmerited wretchednefs of the aged pauper, or the acci- 
 dental misfoitunc of unafTuming worth; on the other to 
 punifh the (turdy infolence, or profligate idlenefs of the lufty 
 Beggar, or indolent Peafant, which is now the avowed ob- 
 jeft of Legiflative interference. With a knowledge of the 
 fungous excrefcences which have difgraced the (lock—with a 
 confcioufnefs of all thofe rotten branches, which have dif- 
 graced the (lately trunk— -its Sap Root, its leading (tbres will 
 ftill remain untouched—the beneficent principle of its authors 
 is recognized :— -the rude hand of democratic violence— the 
 wild and boundlefs fpirit of innovation, has not yet dared to 
 
 attack 
 
 I
 
 ( 47 } 
 
 ^itack'ws principle. The extent of Legiflative ambition, ii 
 to decorate the trunk with new branches, more pure, more 
 appropriate. May thefe efforts meet with, as they deferve, 
 the warm admiration, the adive affiftance of Virtue, of 
 Talent, and of Power ! But let us not term that unconftitu- 
 tional reftraint in the Game Laws, which in the Poor 
 Laws is confidered as municipal regulation. Are the 
 Rights of Man endangered lefs in the one cafe than in the 
 other ? No, thanks to our anceftors ! they are not endan- 
 gered in either. 
 
 After fo much unnecefTarily faid, on a motive fo ob- 
 Vioufly wife and reafonable, I fhall add no more : and I 
 ought to apologize for having faid fo much. 
 
 Proceed we now to the fourth and laft motive : — " For 
 prevention of popular infurreftion, and refiftance to the 
 Government, by difarming the bulk of the People," 
 to which our author adds, ♦* which laft is a reafon 
 oitner meant than avowed by the makers of Forefl 
 and Game Laws." — Acknowledging myfelf no portiort 
 of that qualifying fpirit, which in feeling the neceflity of 
 meafures, daies not to juftify them, I can ill admit them in 
 others. No elevation of rank or fituation will fcreen men, 
 a<Sluated by fuch motives, and purfuing fuch conduft, from 
 my contempt, or will prote£l them from my open reproba- 
 tion. To Governments I confider the fame rule as appli- 
 cable; collectively endued with the famepaflions of huma- 
 \ nity
 
 ( 48 ) 
 
 iy\ly — fubjecl tathofd Ji£latcs which individuals obey, why 
 fliould not they be judiTcd by the fame ruler Sophids may 
 argue, Metaphyficians may refine, Politicians may diftin- 
 guifii— -but I fhall never be able to brijig my mind to fepa- 
 rate public Irom private vice :— to erc6l one (tandard of 
 right for the humble individual, another for the great Mi- 
 nifler. What is "jurong, is icroA/^— fituation cannot change 
 it one iota. 
 
 With thefe principles, what muft be the indigriatibn my 
 mind muft feel, did I unite in opinion with the refpedta- 
 ble Lawyer I have fo often cited, that through the long 
 period in which thefe fevere reftri6lions (as they aTe termed) 
 on the liberty of the fubjedl have (to ufe fimilar language) 
 difgraced the Statute Book, there have been found Mi- 
 nilters, ---there have exifted men, who in the exercife of 
 their power, in the difchnrge of their funftions, have fa 
 grofly, fo impudently belied the Public confidence, as un- 
 der falfe pretences, and difguifed motives, to have taken ad- 
 vantage of the manly, and open temper of their Country- 
 men, to ftcal from them one particle of that Freedom, of 
 thofe rights, which to fecure and confirm, their Anceftors 
 have been ^o lavilh of their treafures and of their blood. 
 Imagination cannot conceive, nor the mind ofmancontain,^ 
 a projeft fo contemptible, fo diabolical. But furely an 
 objedl more important than the mere plcafure of deceit, 
 
 muft
 
 ( 49 ) 
 
 muft have produced a condudl fo unworthy. Men do not 
 furrender the finer feelings of the heart, do not forfake the 
 virtuous path of Truth, and Honor, for the intricate laby- 
 rinths of Guile, and Wickednefs ; where the objeiEl is not 
 in fome degree commenfurate to the facrifice. The mere 
 pleafure of Deceit, of the attaining his ends, by the ex- 
 change of Virtue for Vice, for the pleafure of appearing 
 vicious, never fo operated on any public or private character. 
 The mod impure and corrupt heart is often veiled under 
 the femblance of purity and honor : but no man, ever 
 covered himfelf with a mafic, when concealment could 
 anfwer no pofllble end : when no Inducement could influ- 
 ence his inind, but the pleafure of dctcul'ion and expofure. 
 The facred voice of Truth has fo many powerful charms, 
 even to the moll abanded and obdurate, that her Votaries 
 will not defert her, if either intereft, or fome as powerful 
 incentive does not prefent itfelf. Judging by this teft of 
 the prefent cafe (I am perfuaded no untrue one) where 
 could be the intereft ? what could be the incentive ? what 
 one Motive for Deceit-— what fingle inducement to fub- 
 ftitute falfhood for truth-— to conceal the real grounds of 
 a condu£l fo juftifiable on every fair, on every honourable, 
 on every conllitutional principle, could in this cafe pof- 
 fibly exift ? The v^ildeft imagination cannot conceive one. 
 The learned author of the Commentaries on the Laws of 
 
 H England,
 
 ( so ) 
 England, educated in all the refinement of Freedom's fair 
 fchool, fcnfitivcly alive to the every pofTible infringement of 
 her Laws ; accuftomed to regard the invafion of Man's 
 Sacred Rights, where abfolute neceflity appeared not to call 
 for fuch encroachment, as the extremefl acme of Political 
 Herefy : in fuch a mind diftruft and fufpicion are natural 
 attendants ; a polTible motive is confidered as a probable 
 one ; that which may be, as that which is. If a thoufand 
 juft, a thoufand rational and probable incentives prefent 
 themfelves for an a£lion, they are all quickly abforbed in, 
 and exchanged for fome one improbable, Irrational, andun- 
 juftobjeft, if the temper of mind is prepared for fuch an 
 admiflion. The moft naturally generous difpofltion is moil 
 alive to this imprefllon in Political life. To fuch feelings do 
 I attribute the fentiments of the learned Judge :— for who 
 that knew his found conftitutional knowledge, his elevated 
 underftanding, can for a moment doubt, that he muft be 
 perfuaded of the abfurdity of having recourfe to the mean 
 art of fubterfuge, when the aft itfelf would bear the bold 
 front of open day light : — when (as I (hall contend) if the 
 motive really was as imputed, it was fuch as is juftified by 
 every found conftitutional principle r Without recurring at 
 much length to thofe opinions I have before advanced, on 
 the origin of all Government, it will be fufficient to obferve, 
 that amidft the component parts of that Bafe, which fup- 
 
 ports
 
 ( 51 ) 
 ports the noble fuperftrudure of a well regulated Society, 
 are to be found the important ones of Peace and Good Or- 
 der. The firft duty cxpeded from, and juftly claimed of, 
 the Executive Power, is the prefervation of it— it is the 
 price for which we barter much of our liberties : and thofe 
 Legiflators would betray the facred truft repofed in them by 
 their Conftituents, if, by any falfe notions of Liberty, any 
 unreafonable preference to names above things, any ufelefs 
 refinement on Natural Rights, they fhould neglecl this im- 
 portant duty. I fcruple not to avow, that confidering this 
 to be the Primary Obje61; of all Governments, no facrifice 
 of Natural Rights is too great to obtain it — I mean no un- 
 avoidable facrifice on the principles, which fupportyoc;V/y. 
 Hoping for this conceffion from every candid and difpaf- 
 fionate man ; let us, with fuch allowance, confider the 
 Juftice of the motive imputed, as one reafon for the efta- 
 blifhment of the Game Laws, viz. ** For preventing po- 
 pular infurre61ion, and refinance to the Government by dif- 
 arming the bulk of the People." I am not a caviller at 
 words ; but here I mud take exception (an exception war- 
 ranted by fads) to the words rcjljlancc to Government and 
 difarm'ing — I know what they are meant to convey— and 
 I as well know that fuch a meaning is incompatible with 
 truth, and muft have been (taken in the imputed fenfej in- 
 compatible with the views, if not of the Framers, (fill of 
 
 H 2 tlie
 
 ( 52 ) 
 
 ihe fupporters of thefe Laws. If it is meant refijlance to 
 thofe arbitrary and tinjujl mcafures of Government, which 
 are (ubverfive of the fundamental principles of the Confti- 
 tution, common fcnfe revolts at an idea fo incongruous with 
 the apparent views, and undifguifed conduit of the great 
 Whig Leaders of the Revolutionary asra, under whofe 
 happy aufplces this Nation was refcued from the tyranny 
 and ufurpation of abfolute Monarchy, and remitted to its 
 ancient and undoubted rights— (for mofl certainly, except 
 as applicable to the perfon of the Monarch — no revolution 
 of political Rights took place at that sera). Could it pof- 
 fibly enter into the minds of fuch men as Halifax, Shrewf- 
 biiry, and Danby-— could it be conceived by the followers 
 of thefe political heroes to fan£lify the right of refiftance by 
 a language impofTible to be mifconftrued, and in the fame 
 moment confirm thofe Game Laws, which (as it is faid) 
 took away the means of it? Did they declare refiftance 
 lawful— the taking up arms to inforce it unlawful ? No, we 
 have not fo learned, we cannot fo learn them. They did 
 fanflion refiftance in certain extreme cafes — they did fanc- 
 tion theufe of arms where refiftance was lawful : the prin- 
 ciple they recognifed in its fulleft extent ; they only modi- 
 fied the powers. In the fame breath that they made this 
 manly recognition, that they fet for ever at reft that quef- 
 tion, which had fo long employed the pens of, and furniflied 
 difputation for, the ingenuity of politicians — for fo long a 
 
 period
 
 ( S3 ) 
 
 period fupplied food, not only for verbal controverfy, but 
 perfonal conteft, (and which is that extreme point that 
 ought never to be agitated without the mod evident necef- 
 fity) in the true fpirit of wifdom, which keeps in view 
 every poffible confequence, they affixed thofe reftriflions, 
 which they deemed neceflary even to the privilege of I'Jiyig 
 Arms, They declared, •♦ That the fubjeds which are 
 Proteftants, might have arms for their defence, fuitable to 
 their conditions ; and as allowed by Laiu," They never 
 dreamt of difarming the People by fuch reflriftions ; they 
 could have no conception of a refidance without means— 
 they could not put arms into the hands of Man for his de- 
 fence, and reftrain him from the ufe of them, when an at- 
 tack was made on his beft birthright— -on his unalienable 
 Privilege — on every thing dear to him as a man— as an 
 Englilhman. But they confidered the dreadful confe- 
 quences of an abfolute uncontrouled right, which would 
 fanftion the converfion of the Ploughfhare into the Sword— 
 which would exchange the valuable talent of the hufband- 
 man, for the ufelefs fkill of the fportfman. They affixed 
 to the ufe of arms, areflri£lion as to perfon. They confi- 
 dered (and I doubt not wifely) rank and fituation as not unim- 
 portant objects : they did not difarm the nation ; they only de- 
 nied the promifcuous and unreftrained ufe of arms. So much 
 for our anceftors for that perioJ— and for that declaration of 
 
 Rights
 
 ( 54 ) 
 
 Rights (I muft here beg the Reader's attention) which was 
 to aflert our liberties '* in the moft clear and emphatical 
 terms :" and which coiifidered the rcjirained ufe of JrmSy 
 even for a mans own defence^ as a necejfary part of the 
 valuable Bill of Rights. 
 
 I think it has been fatisfadorily proved, that it was im- 
 pofTible our anceftors at the Revolution could have meant 
 to difarm the People, with a view of preventing refiftance to 
 Government on Revolutionary Principles (the only light 
 in which the Icnrncd Judge could poflibly entertain fuch 
 power of refiftance). But if the Bulk of the people were 
 aflualiy meant to be difarmed, under the vague defcription 
 of perfons unfuitable as to rank to bear arms, where is to 
 be found that law, which contains this prohibition ? Who 
 has been deprived by it of keeping arms for his own de- 
 fence? What law forbids the verieft pauper, if he can 
 raife a fum RjfHcient for the purchafe of it, from mounting 
 his Gun oh his Chimney Piece, with which he may not 
 only defen(J his Perfonal Property from the Ruffian, but 
 his Perfon^ Rights, from the invader of them, and with 
 which he may flock to Freedom's Standard when erected 
 againft Defpotic Power r It is true the Game Laws have 
 faid, This engine of felf-defence you {hall not ufe for the 
 deftrudtion of the Hare, the Pheafant or the Partridge, 
 which, fed and maintained at the expence of another, can 
 
 by
 
 by no means be' fubjedl to any claims from you ; and in 
 purfuing wh^dh yoiir^time, the Public Property^ will be 
 exhaufted, to the 'detriment of your family or yourfelf, and 
 confequently to its detriment. The Rules of good Govern- 
 ment, in the fpirit of careful watchfulnefs over the Public 
 weal, have added, you (hall not have the power to^ make 
 the killing of Game a pretence for fuffering this dangerous 
 weapon to be the companion of your daily excurfions. 
 They have thus vi^ifely and benevolently addrefl'ed the 
 labourer : the honeft man feels and yields to the propriety 
 of the precept •, the vicious and bad member of fociety 
 fets it as far as he can at defiance. He knows the law 
 denies him not the power of making his mufket the com- 
 panion of his walks ; he knows that how^ever fufpicion ac- 
 companies his progrefs, the law has no means of arrefting 
 it. The moft pov/erful noble of the land cannot deprive 
 him of this Self-guard, even at a moment whefi it is im- 
 poflible that felf-prefervation can be the obje61: otlhis carry- 
 ing it. If prefumption of no good intent fhould induce 
 the queftion as to motive, fometimes the ccn{(|^iiptuous 
 filence, often the unbluftiing falfhood, the trite excufe, of 
 purfuing Rooks, Larks, or Birds not fubje£l: to the Game 
 Laws, meet your enquiry. But if it excites your watchful- 
 nefs, even if it ends in detection, it has no means of 
 putting bounds to the power, feldom to the inclination to 
 
 carrv
 
 ( 56 ) 
 
 carry a gun, In the dete«£led. In vain may the friend of 
 freedom attempt to convince him that, that by the Spirit 
 of the Law, he is difarmed : he flies to the letter of it, and 
 finds no fuch power. He feels and knows that where 
 he can take himfelf, no law prevents him from taking his 
 Gun. 
 
 If fuch therefore have been the Motives of our Ancef- 
 tors, how ftrange that feme pofitive Law has not been 
 cnadled to enforce this motive' how inadequate are the 
 means of praiSlifmg thefe fubjugatory maxims ! If indeed 
 (the only motive 1 contend they could have had) in the 
 confirmation of liberty, in the remiflion of man to this noble 
 Birth-right, they forgat not the Protedtion of Property, 
 the Peace of Society ; if they fubjefled the Labourer to the 
 penalties of the Law, when ufing his Gun for the deftruc- 
 tion of Game, confidering this reftriftion as neceflTary to 
 ftrengthen the Bands of Good Order, what man friendly 
 to thofe eftimable Ingredients in Civilized Society, can 
 deny his aflent to the Principle, or his approbation to thofe 
 who eftablifhcd it ? It is a reafon to reftrain the exercife 
 of Natural Rights, which they may openly avow, without 
 fear of imputation from the wife or the virtuous— the 
 warmeft Patriot, or the verieft votary of Freedom's lovely 
 Caufe. They could not mean to conceal, they could not 
 wlfh to fupprefs a motive fo praifeworthy, and for which 
 
 they 
 
 II
 
 ( 57 ) 
 
 they have a right to claim, and will I am fatisfied receive, 
 the warmeft applaufe of pofterity. 
 
 I have nov/ exatiiined the origin of thofe laws, which 
 have been prefented to the public in fo obnoxious a 
 view. I have in a brief manner traced them to civilized, 
 not barbarous times — to the elementary principles of fo- 
 cicty. I truft to have proved, that their fources have nor, 
 cannot be drawn from the impure, exhaufted fpring oi feo- 
 dal tyrany^ but from the pure, uncontaminated fount of 
 Social Freedom, I have, even with the fupport of fuch able 
 champions as Truth and Reafon, not arrogantly, but with 
 that firmnefs my caufe gives me, and that diffidence, 
 which a confcioufnefs whofe opinions I am combating, 
 naturally excites, ventured to condemn the language, and 
 arraign the arguments and inferences of the able Author of 
 the Commentaries on the Laws of England. Whilft I 
 feel regret at the neceffity for it, I could not have avoided 
 the conteft — a conteil fo unequal, without the aids I have 
 before mentioned. I have laid before the juft Tribunal of the 
 Public the grounds on which I differ from from the learned 
 judge. I wifh no conqueil, I feek no triumph— I have 
 fatisfied my confcience ; and I aPrC no further reward. If 
 his refpeclable name had not been brought forward in fup- 
 port of the apparent enemies to Good Order, and Good 
 Government} tojuftify their bold and unprovoked attacks 
 
 I on
 
 ( 58 ) 
 
 on that venerable, and hitherto facrcd Barrier of the Conftitu- 
 t\oi\— Social Order-, to fan£tify their exorbitant claims 
 on the good fenfe of my countrymen ; to enable them to 
 hold up to invidious light, the latent v/eaknefles, the partial 
 defedls, to which this, in common with every other human 
 fyftem, is liable; and to imprefs on the minds of Britons 
 this degrading pofTibility, that with all his efforts (fuccefs- 
 ful as he has been taught to believe) in the caufe of Liberty, 
 fupported by the explicit declaration of his Rights, under 
 every regulation made to protedl thofe Rights, the exer- 
 tions of his Anceftors have been imbecile, their blood 
 and treafures ufelefsly expended; and he is at this inftant, 
 " the wretched flave of Tyranny and Oppreflion, and 
 groaning under the tyranny of Laws of Fcodal Orign." 
 
 When fuch ufe is made of fo hallowed and refpedled an 
 Authority, every principle of Juftice, of afretStion for my 
 Country, for the honour of that Conftitution, which I 
 feel to be grievoufly infulted, though impotently attacked, 
 every fentiment of true Patriotifm (neverltruft more worthily 
 or profitably engaged, than in defence of the purity and 
 excellence of our Conftitution), of honourable confiftency, 
 of candid impartiality, calls upon me to oppofe the progrefs 
 of opinions fo hoftile, fo pregnant with danger, without 
 regard to perfons, or confideration of names. Li confider- 
 ing the general docSirines and opinions of this enlight- 
 ened
 
 ■ -''( 59 ) 
 enedConftitutlonal Lawyer as facred, I have found in the 
 Game Laws an inconfiftencvj not reconcilable with that 
 liberal fpirit, fo prominently a charafteriftic in this learned 
 and claflical work, of which no man can fpeak too highly, 
 either for the purity and elegance of the language, or the 
 found Conftitutional learning it difplays ; and from which 
 it would be ungrateful not to acknowledge, I have derived 
 many, many hours of profitable amufement. And feeling 
 this inconfiftency, whatever grateful veneration I may have 
 felt for the exalted merit of the Author, however that, to- 
 gether with the more than poflible error of my own con- 
 ceptions, might have enfured my filence on a lefs preffing 
 occafion, yet the confideration which has now brought me 
 forwards, namely, the danger which focial order might 
 fiiftain, from the efFecl of opinions, faid to be j unified by 
 fo weighty an authority, is fuperior in my mind, to every 
 perfonal confideration ; and however this Authority has 
 been in fome degree either mifreprefented, or mifconceived 
 by thofe who have relied upon it, yet I am free to confefs, 
 it gives fomething more than the appearance of fan£lion 
 to their wild and extravagant dodlrines. 
 
 I have now done with this fuppofed juftification to the 
 meafures brought forward ; I have recited in the abftradl 
 the Laws now in force for the prefervation of Game ; I 
 have placed before my readers the fituation, in which the 
 
 I 2 fubjedl
 
 ( ^o ) 
 
 fubjecl ftands at this momeiU, in refpedl to their operations; 
 let us now confider for a few moments, the grounds on 
 which the prefent fyilem is held up to public obfervation in 
 the invidious light it is now prefented ; what are the fpeci- 
 fic complaints produced againft it ; in fine, what it is, 
 which the favourers of the rejieal would have ; and 
 let us fee, whether what they afk is confiftent with the 
 well being of fociety : whether it is confulent with the 
 prefent ftate of the Country : whether it would remove the 
 pretended opprefTion of Individuals, without inflidting an 
 injury on the community, and whether (no unimportant 
 cunfideration), acknowledging the partial defedts of the 
 prefent fyfttm, the total repeal of the Game Laws is a 
 meafure fo abfolutely neceflary, as not to admit of the 
 milder operation of repealing the obnoxious and unreafon- 
 able parts. In other words, whether the afperity of reva- 
 luticn may not in this cafe yield to the mildnefs of reform : 
 whether, whilfl: we agree in lopping the fungous branches, 
 which difhonour the mafly and folid Trunk, and fap its 
 venerable foundations, it may not be as well to attempt the 
 prefervation of thofe vigorous and wholfome fhoots, which 
 add life to the Parent Stock, and have fo long aflifted in its 
 prefervation. 
 
 And here I find no little difficulty in tracing, with any 
 degree of precifion, the grounds on which the Honourable 
 
 Mover
 
 ( 6i ) 
 
 Mover of the Repeal of the Game Laws, or thofe who 
 have fiipportrd the motion, have ftept forwards. In the 
 agitation of all popular queftions, there is fo much aflTertion, 
 fo little proof-— fuch an abundance of invedive, and fo little 
 reafoning— fo much declamation, and fuch a want of ar- 
 g'jinent, that it is difficult to colleft the views of the 
 Speakers, or their objedions to the fydem. In the prefent 
 cafe there is the fame difficulty, and as the mover of the 
 repeal has acknowledged the difficulty of fubmitting to the 
 Houfe his ideas on a fubje(3 fo complex, I ffiall not be 
 thought uncandid in not making this an exception. Yet 
 I believe I am correft in Hating the following train of ar- 
 gument, as pretty nearly correal---** The repugnance of 
 the fyliem to the principles of the ConRitution — the im- 
 policy and injtiftice of continuing them---the intolerable 
 oppreffiou under which the people have laboured for one 
 hundred and fifty years, and their inefficiency to anfwer 
 their propofed effeft." The particular inftances advanced 
 as proofs of the general aiTcrtion, have been " the violation 
 of the liberty of the fubjed, by the power of the Magif- 
 trate to enter the houfe of an Individual — the tyranny of 
 fubjfcdling a poor Man's Dog to be hanged at the Will or 
 Caprice of the Lord of the Manor, or of his Game- 
 keeper- --the oppreffion to which the civil a£t ion given by 
 flatute made the poor man liable from the enormity of 
 
 its
 
 ( 62 ) 
 
 itscxpcnce — the inji)ftice of excluding from the fporfs of 
 the field, men of the greateft opulence in the Country — 
 the inconfifiency of thofe laws which require a qualification 
 fifty times greater for killing a Hare, or a Partridge, than 
 to vote for a Rcprefentative in Parliament— and laftly, the 
 impotency and folly of cnadting and continuing laws, 
 which inftead of preferving, tend to dtftroy the Game." 
 To remedy thefe grievances, it is propofed to repeal the 
 greater part of the Afts now in force fur theprefervation of 
 Game, ami to revive the ftitute of Henry VH. which 
 iiill;ds the penalty of five pounds on every perfon trcfpafling 
 on the grounds of another, after notice. 
 
 It is iinnecefFary to recur again to the General Argu- 
 ments here adduced ; or more properly to the general in- 
 veftive, A ihort enquiry into the particular obje<Sions is 
 all that can be required. 
 
 The firfl objcilion, is the power of the Magiflratc to 
 enter, and fcaruh houfes on fufpicion of game-- And here 
 I am at a lofs to difcover on what principle, they who 
 contend not againfl the general right (maintained and aded 
 upon invariably and without murmur, except from thofe 
 who juftly fuffer by the detention) of fearchingfor property 
 in fufpedled houfes, can advance a fhade of objciflion to 
 the right in the prefent infiance-— I confider Game as 
 much the property of that Man on vvhofc ground it is 
 
 taken,
 
 ( ^3 ) 
 
 taken, as I confider the tamer animals who have been more 
 privately imrimed by his hand ; but perhaps not more 
 effeftiially maintained at his expence. That law which 
 I think unjufl, in not having recognized this right in all 
 its parts— has neverlhelefs done k)y as to the protcding 
 him agairft a peculiar dcfcription of perfons to whofe de- 
 predations he is fnbje£l, Agjinft them it has given him 
 the power of inflifiing a penalty, of procuring a fummary 
 remedy— It has followed it up with the means of detection, 
 by empowering him to fearch the refidence of the unqua- 
 lified perfon for that, which when difcovcred, from the 
 peculiar nature of the offence, and the difficuliy of de- 
 tedlion, is deemed by the law fufficient for the conv;6tion 
 of the offender. It is moil: true that the power given by 
 the Mjgiftrate to enter the Houfe of a Man, has a harfh- 
 nefs of appearance irreconcileable with found Conditu- 
 tional liberty — if carried to the extent which the lavia.l- 
 mits of, it includes a degree of rigour, imprudently and 
 perhaps dangeroufly placed in the hands of the Executive 
 Power. The liberty of entering the houfe of any unqua- 
 lified perfon on a fufpicion of Game being concealed there, 
 miglit ful)je61 the refpecffable citizen, the man of property 
 and charadler, to the bold, unfeeling outrage of thofe who 
 execute Magiflerial procelfes. I am not unwilling to 
 conlefs that if this power is exercifed in the extent of its 
 
 rieour
 
 ( 64 j 
 
 rigour without difciiminaiion of laiik or fituation, or even 
 of charadlcr, It would have my undifguifed reprobation ; 
 nor can I, with the Conftitutional Principles and opinions 
 I profefs, deny, that it is not enougli to fay, the Principle 
 it is true is rigid, but the Praflice is mild ; the power is 
 cxtenfive, but the adlion limited, I am confcious that true 
 liberty confirts, not in the mild condudl and inclination of 
 the Government, but in its inability to opprefs. Yet one 
 cannot help remarking that no inftance appears on record, 
 or prefents itfelt to my recolledlion, of fuch an extenfion 
 of the power — it has been invariably employed in the dc- 
 teftion of thofe offenders, (not on the foundation of a 
 weak, capricious fufpicion, which the willing mind cre- 
 ates, but that which is founded on ftrong prefumptive evi- 
 dence) who if the fufpicion is realized, muft have com- 
 mitted depredations on the property of others, and who 
 cannot, by the wildeft flretch of natural Rights in a Social 
 State, be in pofTcfrion of that, which they have any pofTible 
 claim to. Towards them, therefore, the injuftice or hard- 
 fliip appears nor. If however, an exception arifing from 
 property can be brought forwards, to prevent the rigour of 
 this aft from extending to thofe, who are not now the 
 ohjefts of it, but who may be fo, it fli all have my fupport 
 and approbation. But I conceive not that the fupporters 
 of this repeal wifli for an extent of the exception, but the 
 
 deftniftion
 
 ( ^5 } 
 
 deftrudion of the rule — they appear to combat the genera! 
 principle-— to deny the right of entering into any man's 
 houfe, in fearch of the objecfls of his depredation. They 
 triumphantly demand, " whether fuch an invafion of the 
 Rights of Man, as the entering his houfe on fufpicion of 
 his having a Dog, a Hare or a Partridge, is compatible 
 with liberty in any ftate r" They combat the principle in 
 its entirety — they pronounce a verdi6t of condemnation on 
 fuch power of entrance, on fuch an occafion, into any 
 houfe-— tliey proclaim it an invafion of the Rights of Man, 
 they confider it as an unneceffary — an unjuftifiable one. 
 But is it fo then ? Surely not. Is not this natural Right 
 here invaded on the only Conftitutional ground it is inva- 
 fible ? The impofhbility of fufFering everyone to en'oy It, 
 in every Q2i{Q.y without detriment to the public intereft. If 
 the prefervation of the Game is confidered worthy of any 
 prote(flion, or the property of Englifhmen deemed an ob- 
 je6l of Legiflative care, the means of detc6ling thofe who 
 illegally deftroy it, or Illegally purfue it, are doubtkfs fit 
 objedls for the fupport of Government. The compulfory 
 admiffion into the houfcs of fufpe6ted perfons follows as a 
 neceffary confequence ; and the conclufive evidence of pro- 
 perty of this fpecies being there fcund, affixing on the 
 owner of the habitation the guilt of the offender, of the 
 ai^orinthe illegal tranfa(3ion, arifes from the difficulty of 
 
 K taking
 
 ( 66 ) 
 
 taking the perfon in the adlual codimidion of the fa(5l ; 
 thefe depredations being generally committed in the night. 
 Confidcring the extreme difficuhy of detefling thefe nightly 
 Depredators, I fhall never confent to difpenfe with that 
 Magifterial Power (nor do I confiJer it as militanng againft 
 the mod pure fpirit of liberty) which obtains accefs to fitu- 
 ations, not accellible by milder means ; nor do I conceive 
 the invafion of the liberty of the fubjedl greater where the 
 objcft is a Partridge, than where it is a Turkey or a 
 Chicken. On the general principle therefore of liberty, 
 united with a (late of order, this power appears to me moft 
 undoubtedly juft — by analogy therefore to the fame power 
 given in other cafes, it is not arbitrary — it is a folly to 
 contend it. Taken as a general principle, the entering 
 into another man's houfe is not incompatible with liberty, 
 however the extenfion of that Right, where no clear and 
 pofitive neceflity calls for it, may be fo. 
 
 We proceed next to the charge of tyranny exemplified 
 «• in the power given to the Lords of Manors and their 
 Game-keepers to feizethe Poor Man's Dog." When I have 
 remarked on the apparent want of candour in this ftatcmcnt, 
 as if a general power of feizing all Dogs, without a difcri- 
 mination of fpecies, exifted^ not a power circumfcribed 
 within very narrow limits as to theobjedls, embracing only 
 ihofe employed in, and by their nature fuited only for, the 
 
 deftruflion
 
 ( 67 ) 
 
 deflruftion of Game— of dogs fpecifically enumerated in 
 the A£l, and fo limited as not even to include the Hound, 
 fuch dog when fingly ufed being deemed by ■pojjlbil'ity ina- 
 dequate to the killing of Game, I (liall add very little to 
 the obfervations I have made on the laft objeftion, the 
 principle of bc'h being fimilar. I cannot however forbear 
 obferving, that it has been deemed neceffary by fome of the 
 moft Virtuous and Philanthropic Reformers of Parifli Abufes, 
 to forbid relief to thofe perfons, expending any (hare of 
 the profits of their labour on the fupport of a dog, juftlycon- 
 fidering fuch expence as tending to contra61: his means of 
 fupporting his family. It is at this moment an object of 
 Legiflative taxation, on the prefumption of the multiplicity 
 of dogs diminifhing the general means of fupport. It 
 cannot, therefore, with a fliadow of reafon, be contended 
 that the labourer in the application of part of his earnings 
 in keeping a dog of fport, notorious for his thieving qua- 
 lities, and craving appetite, deferves the fupport of any 
 well-wifher to his Country, at a moment when the Poor 
 Rates are extravagant beyond all precedent — when (a cir- 
 cnm (lance which may again occur) the utmofl exertions of 
 the poor man's induftry, with difficulty any where, in 
 many places in no degree adequate to his wants, fuffices 
 with the mod rigid parfimony for the fupport of his family. 
 But independent of this confideration, no man, I am con- 
 
 K 2 vinced,
 
 ( 68 ) 
 
 vinced can ferioufly wifh at any period, much lefs at the 
 prefent, to place in the hands of the rcfpeilable Labourer, 
 thofe means which may feduce him from the performance 
 of his duty tow.^rds his family, to fubjedi himfclf to thofe 
 pains of Trefpafs, which whilft civilized fociety exifts, 
 and whilft the right of property is recognized by the law, 
 muft be the inevitable confequence of his employing fuch 
 means, whether the Game Laws are repealed, or retain 
 their prefent influence and power. If any exception is 
 taken to the mode of enforcing this Magifterial Po.ver, 
 by hanging the poor animal : though I believe it frequently 
 relieves the poor man's dog from many lingering years of 
 torture and of ultimate ftarvation, yet I would not out- 
 rage feeling, by objecting to commute this power for a 
 peimilTion (reftridtive as to time) to the owner to difpofe 
 of his dog to any perfon qualified to keep it. This is all 
 the Labourer can expert, who can have no excufe but 
 ignorance he can with propriety advance for the keeping 
 fuch a dog. 
 
 Though the enemies to the prefent fyftem have not 
 brought forwards an objef^ion to the power of levying a 
 penalty of 5J. on unqualified perfons keeping dogs of Sport, 
 I fhall anticipate any future production of it, by faying, 
 that every argument applicable to the deftruclion of the 
 Animal, is applicable to the penalty for keeping it, and 
 
 both
 
 ( 69 ) 
 
 both founded on the fame princip'e— whether a juft one, 
 after what I have faid, I leave to the cool and difpafilonate 
 judgment of my readers. 
 
 With regard to the election given to the injured, to 
 bring his civil action againft the offender, and which is 
 brought forward as an inftance of cruel opprellion; when I 
 confider the period in which this power was originally given 
 and the fubfequent periods in which it received confirma- 
 tion, we cannot doubt, that the Legiflature had fome not 
 uninterefting objedl in view. I have always confidered the 
 objeiSt to have been, the giving a difcretionary power to 
 the profecutor, (a power given for the benefit of Society 
 whenever the mildnefs of Engliih Jurifprudence permits it) 
 to difcriminate between the unwary or fcduced offender 
 commencing his unprofitable career, and the hardy, con- 
 tinued villain, long and fatally to the public, enured to the 
 prailice of Idlenefs, and diffipation — a power to make a 
 fevere example on conviction of the latter, with a hope of 
 deterring the former from perfevering in the commifiion 
 of offences, which more in the confequences, than in their 
 immediate commiflion, are injurious to themfelves and their 
 conne»5tions, and fo highly detrimental to the peace and 
 happinefs of Society. If fuch was the motive of our An- 
 ceftors (even allowing that fome perfonal confiderations 
 with refpe(5t to the Game, had, as well as Municipal regu- 
 lations,
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 lations, fome influence on their decifions) we cannot furely 
 deny the Jullice of the Principle, however we may be 
 unable at this time to afccrtain the truth of the premifeson 
 which this additional rigour was founded. But talcing for 
 grantedevery motive we have fuggefted as influencing their 
 conduit in thofe periods when it is well known a greater 
 abundance of Game prevailed, and where a paucity of in- 
 habitants and lefs cultivated land, made fewer claims on its 
 deftruclion, how much more forcibly does the motive prefs 
 upon us at this inftant — when an increafed population has 
 diiiiinifiied the quantity of Game — v/hen from the abun- 
 dance of inclofures the facility of taking it is increafed, and 
 when the daring and fyftematic Poacher, knowing the ex- 
 travagancy of his employer's profits, and the confequent 
 protection he fhall receive from him in his iniquitous 
 pra<5tices, regards with indifference the common penalties of 
 the law, and infolentlyand contemptuouflyfetting at nought 
 the power of the Magiftrate, would fearlefsly continue 
 that itile and diinpated life^ from which the profit is fo great 
 — the labour fo little — as to hold out more powerful incen- 
 tives to its continuance, than encouragement to relinquifh 
 it, did not fome more powerful reftraints, the pofiibility of 
 a civil profecution attended with an expence, againft which 
 he has little dependance on his employer, fometimes (per- 
 haps rarely) deter him from practices which, under the 
 
 purfuit
 
 ( 71 ) 
 
 purfult of this remedy, mud inevitably crufll him. Con- 
 vinced as we muft be of the numerous Gangs of Poachers, 
 moft probably in the pay of venders of Game hi the Me- 
 tropolis, and in other cities and great tov/ns, who infeft and 
 ftrike terror into the peaceable inhabitants of the furround- 
 ing Country — knowing how frequently iflue from thofc 
 Societies the Thief and the Murderer, v/ho have com- 
 menced their difTipated Career as the Nightly Poacher — 
 confcious that fuch chara^Slers (even omitting the dreaded 
 confequences of fuch conduit) are of all others the moft 
 remifs in the difcharge of every religious, every focial or 
 relative duty-— that the Poacher is invariably the moft 
 ufelefs citizen, the wcrft of huft)ands, and the moft im- 
 provident of Fathers— we cannot but feel the Neceflity of 
 poflefiing a fevere, but extreme refource againft his hard- 
 ened villainy, by a Profecution which ought never (and I 
 verily believe never is) to be had recourfe to where it is 
 probable that the milder means of a fummary convitSlion 
 may efFeCl the obje£l. — Amidft all the complaints of this 
 power, and of its feverity, no one has brought forwards a 
 fmgle inftance of its exertion, much lefs of its improper ex- 
 ercife. My individual recollection furnifhes me not with 
 even a folitary inftance of this remedy being had recourfe to. 
 I fay not this to fheiter the principle from the charge of fe- 
 verity, becaufe in its pradice it is fcarcely known. The 
 
 Principle
 
 ( 72 ) 
 
 Principle needs not my defence; it Is founded on a Scvc- 
 rity juftifiable by the circumftances which produce it — and 
 Liberty has, I am convinced, in this inftance no reafona- 
 ble caufe of Com.plalnt. The Legiflative power is bound 
 to enail thofe Laws, however rigid in complexion or in 
 fact, which will beft anfwer the general purpofes of pro- 
 moting the ends of Good Government, the Peace and 
 order of the Society; leaving (where it can) to thofe who 
 execute the laws, a difcretionary power in the application 
 — a difcretion I am well convinced (without compliment- 
 ing my Countrymen) not improperly confided, or rigo- 
 roufly exerted in any inftance. 
 
 The fourth objedlion refts on the " injuftice of exclud- 
 ing from the enjoyment of Sport, men of the greateft opu- 
 lence in the Country, and the inconfiftent inequality of 
 a Qualification to kill Game, and of that to elecl a Repre- 
 fcntative of the People." 
 
 It is not a very dlScult matter to difcover the Grounds 
 on which in this cafe a diftinftion has been made between 
 the man of perfonal, and real property. Certainly there 
 does not appear much injuftice in debarring a man from the 
 enjoyment of that, to the prefervation of which he con- 
 tributes In no degree. Nor is impoffible but the Legifla-f 
 ture might have in view, by fuch prohibition to induce the 
 Wealthy Merchant, or opulent Stockholder, to unite him- 
 
 felf
 
 ( 73 ) 
 
 felf more clofely to his Country, as the abfolute Proprie- 
 tor of the foil. Agriculture, as well as Commerce, has 
 been an objedt of Legiflative Encouragement at all peri- 
 ods i the purchafes of men of property have moft mate- 
 rially tended to promote its interefts. But whether this 
 was their objeft or not, is immaterial as to this objedlion* 
 He is merely reftrained from the purfuit of that, which 
 by no pofTible rule of Juftice or of reafon, he can be 
 in any degree entitled to. His legal prohibition arifes as 
 a natural confequence from the right of property— he has 
 none in the Soil-- -he is entitled to none in the produflions 
 of it. But this prohibition is alfo founded on a bafis 
 which this envied Conftitution moft fully recognizes. 
 The equality of Rights, that equality which has in this in- 
 ftance placed the Wealthy Merchant on a level with the 
 indigent Pauper — the opulent Stockholder with the hum- 
 ble Labourer— the unpermiffive trefpafs of the weakhieft 
 and proudeft man in his Majefty's dominions, with that 
 of the lowlieft and pooreft of his fubje6ts. 
 
 Surely thefe champions of Liberty, thefe zealous fup- 
 porters of the Rights of Man, thefe enemies to preroga- 
 tive, will find fome difficulty in reconciling this objedion 
 —this charge of injuftice — with their invariable profef- 
 
 fions of Conftitutional Principles. It cannot be their 
 
 fentiments™ it muft have been the produce of inqonfide- 
 
 L rate
 
 ( 74 ) 
 
 rate warmth. But admitting for a moment, that there is 
 an evident and palpable injuftice in debarring the Man 
 whofe income is worth ten thoufand pounds a year of per- 
 fonal property, from thofe amufemcnts allowed to the man 
 who has a hundredth part of the fame in land ; that there 
 is no Juftice in the Legiflative diftindlion that is made. — 
 I fay allowing all this, what is the fa£l ? Is the opulent 
 Merchant or wealthy monied Man deprived of the enjoy- 
 ment of thefe amufements ? of this gratification, where 
 he confiders it as any. Is it not notorious that the ^nvirons 
 of the Metropolis, the adjacent twenty miles, fwarm with 
 wealthy inhabitants enjoying the Sports of the field, with- 
 out the legal qualification required \ with many renting 
 extenfive Premifes and Parks— hiring vaft Manors and 
 Moors-— and ranging uncontrouled over this temporary 
 property, with the fame fecurityas over their own— them- 
 felves not the owners of a fingle acre of Land-— their mo- 
 ney employed more profitably to themfelves, and not unpro- 
 htably to their Country, in extending her wide and well- 
 earned Commerce---in promoting her Manufadlures, her 
 Arts and Sciences. Is there one inftance on Record, or 
 in the memory of any, of an information lodged, or a 
 penalty levied againft Gentlemen of this defcription, who 
 have rented the property of others, from their being legally 
 d'ifqualijled to purfue Game. I know not any inftance 
 
 (though
 
 ( 75 ) 
 
 (though I fee not the injuftice of it, and I think it is 
 probable fuch may exift) where even trefpafTing beyond 
 the bounds of fuch hired property, invading the Rights of 
 others, their want of qualification has been taken advan- 
 tage of, to prefer an information againft them. In any 
 view therefore in which this obje£tion is taken, it does not 
 appear to have much confiftency or reafon, as to that part 
 which regards its injuftice. With refpedt to the charge of 
 inconfiftent inequality, in the requiring fo difproportionate 
 a qualification for the purfuit of Game, to the elective 
 franchife, how by any plaufibility of argument, or mif- 
 conftruction of fadts, the mind of an Engliftiman can be 
 broughtto view this diftindion in the light of an hardftiip, 
 it will be no eafy matter to learn— I have had many ideas 
 as to the obje6l of the Laws, in affixing a qualification for 
 the purfuit of Game fo high— When we take into confi- 
 deration the high value of money in thofe days, it does feem 
 an extraordinary and exorbitant quaiification. It may per- 
 haps favour of an exclufive right not reconcileable to the 
 genuine principles of Conftitutional Liberty. Time, 
 which has diminiftied the value of Money, and increafed fo 
 wonderfully the rents of landed property, has necefl'arily 
 extended the Privilege, and rendered it of eourfc lefs ob- 
 noxious. 
 
 JL, 2 A friend
 
 ( 76 ) 
 
 A friend of mine once arguing for the juftice of the 
 qualification, aiHgned an ingenious, and plauhble, and 
 perhaps not unfounded reafon, " that our Anceftors, be- 
 yond the confideraiion of preventing men of fmall fortunes 
 from ncglcding their ufeful occupations, confidered the 
 owner of i ool. per annum in laiaded property, as entitled 
 by his rental to kill any Game he chofe, becaufe on the 
 Average of Sportfmen, each would deftroy a quantity pro- 
 portionate to what fuch a property in land would main- 
 tain." This is an ingenious argument, however it may 
 or may not be juft, and perhaps will receive fome fupport, 
 from the confideration of the wonderful decreafe of Game, 
 fince property has been of lefs value, and the qualification 
 naturally more extended as to numbers. I leave it how- 
 ever to the impreflion it may make, from its intrinfic me- 
 rit — nor (hall I in this place fay more than that the quali- 
 fication reftridted as to ownerfhip and not extended to 
 occupation, meets not my wifhes — though the fum at which 
 it is affixed will in both cafes receive all the fupport it is 
 in my power to give it~-but of this hereafter. 
 
 At prefent let us confider on what grounds of incon" 
 fiftency reft the inequality of the freeholder in the exercife 
 of his Rights— what motive ihould induce the Legiflature 
 to make them equal ? either by exalting the qualification 
 of the Eledor, to that of the Sportfman, or vice verfa.— - 
 
 No
 
 ( 77 ) 
 
 No man who is acquainted with the principles of this 
 Conftitution, or indeed with that of any free Government, 
 where eledlive reprefentation exifts in the fmalleft degree 
 of purity, but muft feel that in proportion to the extended 
 power of the eledive franchlfe, is the greater or lefs de- 
 gree of liberty in the fubjedl -, and though the dodlrine of 
 Univerfal Suffrage (or Univerfal Nonfenfe) is incompati- 
 ble with the exiftence of any Government, yet the nearer 
 the Approach is made to that Univerfality, the more perfect 
 is the freedom. The wildeft theorifts of the prefent mo- 
 ment have confidered fome property as neceflary for the 
 delegation of power — in our Conftitution it is affixed as 
 low as confiftent with any regard to pofle/lion, it can well 
 be. — And when we take into confideration the moment in 
 which that qualification was deemed neceffary, as far back 
 as the reign of Henry the Sixth j a period in which 40s. 
 according to Bifhop Fleetwood in his Chronkcn preciofunt^ 
 was equal to 12I. in the reign of Queen Anne, (and per- 
 haps we fhall not wander far from truth, when we take 
 all circumftances into confideration, at fixing it equal to 
 20I. or 25I. of our prefent money) we cannot but confi" 
 der that the view of the Legiflature was the prefervation 
 not only of Peace, but Independence^ by fuffering no man 
 to vote who had not fufficient for fubfiftence with tolerable 
 induftry, and who poffefied not the means of Independence. 
 
 Previous
 
 ( 78 ) 
 
 Previous to this ftatute, univerfal fuffrage, with all its dread- 
 ful attendant?, riot, outrage, and frequently murder, op- 
 prelTed the land. The preamble to 8 Hen. VI. chap. 7. 
 reciting " the great outrages, and exceflive numbers of 
 people flocking to eledions, whereby have arifen Batteries, 
 Riots, and oftimes Manflaughter, for remedy thereof, &c." 
 Inflead of univerfal fuffrage diminifliing, it increafed influ- 
 ence. The poor Cottager could ill refill the bribe or in- 
 fluence of the great, the wealthy, or the artful Man — it 
 was impofTible amidft thefe joint attacks he fhould preferve 
 his will — his fituation placed him naturally in the power of 
 fome great Man, and his poverty laid him open to his 
 commands ; this ftatute wifely drew the line, it gave him 
 the power of Freedom from Influence by making him 
 independent. I fear the friends of Liberty, the promoters 
 of Reform, will fcarcely forgive me for faying, that I have 
 always confidered amidfl: the different plans I have feen, 
 one great and palpable defcft, which confident with the 
 principle of all their plans in the remedying abufes, which 
 time or circumftances have occafioned in the Reprefenta- 
 tion, is a neceffary Reform. The incrcafe of the qualifica-f 
 tion of the ElcSiors, in proportion to the increafe of wealthy 
 and the diminijhed value of money. \{ the principle of qua- 
 lification is the deflruclion of influence ; if our ancellors in 
 affixing the fum of forty (liillings, meant a defcription of 
 
 indc-
 
 ( 79 ) 
 
 independency ; in proportion as the means of preferving it 
 with fuch a fum decreafed, confiftency has called for an 
 enlargement of it. 
 
 This argument has more reafon, than at firft fight it may 
 appear to have—but it is not my bufinefs to pufti it here; I 
 fubmit to the verdi£tof thofe anceftors, who in refining upon 
 liberty, have perhaps occafionally forfaken reafon for prejudice 
 — the fubftance for the (hade. I would only obferve to the 
 warmeft friends of unlverfal fufFrage, that in the reform of 
 the Eleflive Franchife, Time has left them little to do. 
 In the vaft reduction of the value of money, it hasalmoft 
 eftabliflied their objeft. A farther extenfion of the eledlive 
 franchife, by the dlminifliing the prefent qualification, no 
 friend to the genuine principles of Liberty can defire. 
 But though the imprudency ■of a further diminution cannot 
 but be obvious to all confidcrate men, the increafe of the 
 qualification to the amount of that requifite for the killing 
 of Game, would violate every principle of the Conflitu- 
 tion, every perfonal Right of Engliflimen. No lover of 
 his Country could aflent to fuch a propofition. The op- 
 pofers of the Game Laws cannot pofTibly mean this ; they 
 muft wifh on the contrary to reduce the Game Q^ialifica- 
 tion by the Standard of Eledive Franchife- -the inequality 
 they complain of muft confift in this. Let us fhorily exa- 
 mine if they have any grounds for fuch an opinioq. 
 
 I have
 
 ( «o ) 
 
 I have before faid that I confidered the Legiflature to 
 holdout encouragement to purchafers of Landed Property, 
 by making it a qualification for that which in a Country 
 life is generally a defirable objefl. It has in fome meafure 
 attached pleafure to Property — It has made even the com- 
 forts and pleafures of certain fituations, an objtftof Legif- 
 lative prote6lion. It might have in view, the encouraging 
 gentlemen to refide on their eftates, to be the bertcfadtors 
 of the poor and diftrefTed, the afylum to which the mifera- 
 able in mind or bo<ly might fly for advice or relief. It is 
 impoflible to afcertain its immediate obje6t, though by re- 
 ference to the preambles of the different ad\s, we Ihall find 
 what I have uniformly infifted on, to form part of their 
 Motive, in every inftance where any addition has been 
 made to the Game Laws, " the deterring perfons in Trade, 
 or Employment, from quitting their refpedive callings, to 
 follow the idle life of a Sportfman." It was of confequence 
 necefTary that Government fhould purfue fome plan to 
 attain this great National objeft— that they fliould devife 
 fome expedient to enforce this falutary end. None feemed 
 to oiTer more probable grounds of fuccefs tha« the affixing 
 a high qualification to the indulgence of Sporting. When 
 I confider the reign in which this regulation took place, 
 though in it many A6ls were pafled highly advantageous to 
 the liberty of the fubjed, the blefllngs of which we indeed 
 
 at
 
 ( Si ) 
 
 at this inftant enjoy, yet they were not the days in which 
 the genuine principles of freedom were nnuch known or 
 underftood, and I (hould therefore argue that a meafure not 
 intrinfically good, would receive little afliftance from the 
 period of its produ£lion-~No greater proof, therefore, of 
 thefoundnefs of the principle can perhaps be advanced, than 
 that amidfl: all the revolutionary movements of fubfequent 
 times, this qualification has remained ftationary. If it has 
 been thought too high, in all probability the confideration 
 that this excefs was, from the rapid ftrides with which time 
 was attacking the value of money, daily diminifhing, in- 
 duced our anceftors to leave to fuch operation, the effedlu- 
 ating a remedy for the difeafe. The remedy has indeed 
 been effedled, for who that confiders the prefent fituation of 
 the Country will not be convinced, that at the xra of the 
 Revolution in which the Game Laws in all their parts, 
 received a folemn confirmation— the man of one hundred 
 pounds per annum was fully equal, in point of pecuniary 
 refpeftability, to the prefent pofTefibr of double that fum ; 
 nor has the man of lefs property much claim to public in- 
 dulgence in the appropriation of his time toplcafurc. I 
 really cannot wifh to fee the induftrious Mechanic, or the 
 ufeful Manufafturer, feduced frorn the purfuit of his pro- 
 fitable labour, to expend his time in the ufelefs occupation 
 r the purfuit of Game, It does not appear that the fum 
 M is
 
 ( 82 ) 
 
 is too great--but I may be miftaken. At any rate, n 
 cannot be wiflied to reduce it to tlie Eleflive Franchife--- 
 They arc two dillbnant and diflinftly founded principles. 
 The Game Laws, on Property ; the Eledive Franchife, on 
 Perfonal Liberty. The obje<Sl of the former is to fecure a 
 peculiar exclufive Right, to effedl which it is necefTary to 
 place fome obftacle, which may operate as a bar to general 
 claims---that of the latter, to throw open to all but thofe 
 utterly incapacitated by fituation for the enjoyment of it, 
 the exercife of the Perfonal Right it eftablifhes. The aim 
 of one, the exercife of a peculiar — the other of a general 
 Right. How then with elements fo incongruou?, is any 
 agreement to be efFedled? Where is the inconfiflency of 
 being unequal in their operations r What proof of equality 
 would be afforded by feeing theeleftive franchife and game 
 laws equal in point of qualification ? ImpofUble as it is (o 
 unite their principles, how would you equalize their prac- 
 tice? To reduce the qualification of one to the level of the 
 other, would be the deftrudlionof the objedl and principle 
 of each— the qualification is from its nature, from its origin, 
 from its intention unequal and heterogeneous, adapted to 
 each, but unfitted for the other. 
 
 We come now to the laft objeftion, *• tlieimpotency of 
 {he laws for the prefervation of the Game." After what I 
 have faid on the improbability of the Game being the prin- 
 cipal
 
 ( 83 ) 
 
 cipal objeft of the State in enading thefe laws, it cannot 
 be expedled from me that I (hould reply to this objeftion 
 at much length ; I view not only the laws, but the attempt 
 to repeal them, with the eye of a politician— -the fubordi- 
 nate confideration of preferving the Game in greater or lefs 
 abundance, never entered into my mind, nor could I have 
 brought my pen to ufe its feeble efforts in fuch fupport— 
 Whatever might be my individual wifhes or opinions on 
 this head, if I know myfelf, they are all abfoibed in the 
 fuperior confideration of what I owe the Conftitution and 
 Laws of my Country, for the happinefs and protedtion I 
 enjoy under them. I have confidered little refpecSling the 
 impotency of the Game Laws for theobje6l here prefented 
 —yet in all inftitutions there is one mode of forming a 
 judgment of their merit, perhaps not the moft correal at all 
 times — though fometimes not very wide from the truth— 
 I mean the opinion which our Anceflors and our Cotem- 
 poraries have formed. It is not very unfair to argue, that 
 if forupwards of a century the fame laws have been put in 
 force, with the fame views, they muft have met with the 
 approbation, or at leaft nut with thedifapprobationof thofe 
 who have not only pafTively fubmitted to them, but adively 
 confirmed them ; they muft at leaft poftefs the fanftion of 
 many wife and good men ; and If the purpofcs of their in- 
 ftitution had been in no degree anfwcrcd, furcly fome one 
 
 M 2 amongft
 
 ( 84 ) 
 
 amongd them would have flood forwards, to have repro- 
 bated the fyflem as inadequate to the protedion of Game, 
 and fuggefted fome one more appropriate and more likely 
 to anfwer the end— -as no one has yet done fo, it is not un- 
 fair to prefumc, that it is not fo impotent, fo dcfedive, 
 fo inadequate as they would have us believe. If I might 
 hazard an opinion, it is, that if impotc ncy does exift, it is 
 not in the principle, but in the pradlice— that the means 
 to prcferve the Game are adequate, but the conduft 
 of thofe who enforce it inadequate ; that the necefTary 
 feverity given by the law is feldom followed by the as ne- 
 cefTary exercife of it-— that the extreme of the fyftem is 
 rigorous, but the extreme of pradlice difproportionate to 
 it — that all the falutary efFefts lamented as unattainable by 
 the prefent laws, are merely unattained by thofe who exe- 
 cute them---and that in fine, the mild and lenient fpirit of 
 a Briton, abhorrent from any appearance of oppreilion or 
 even hardfliip (though it is only in ap[)earance) ill fuited to 
 put in force the neceffary and wholefome feverity of the 
 laws of his Country, unwilling to acknowledge his own 
 imbecility, puts to the account of legal imperfedlion, of 
 impotency of fyflem, what deduces its real origin from his 
 own imperfeilion, from his own unwillingnefs, from his 
 own backwardnefs to contribute his fhare of the work. 
 This is not peculiar to the Game Laws j it embraces every 
 branch of the Municipal Syflem-— it pervades every part of
 
 ( 85 ) 
 
 it — So excellently poifed, fo aptly fitted is every joint of 
 the Canliitutional Machine, for the rcfpec^ive purpofes of 
 its inftitution, that nothing but the inertnefs or difinclina- 
 tion of thofe who diredl its operations in thofe nnoments 
 when extraordinary exertion isrequifite to preferve its equi- 
 librium, could poiTibly fubjcfi the principle to that charge 
 of impotency which is only to be found in the praftice — 
 not connected with the inftitution, but confined (o thofe 
 for whom it was eftablifhai. With fuch imperfections in 
 ourfelves, what is the Syllem of Laws, which human in- 
 genuity could devife, tliat would be lefs impotent r What 
 alteration of the Game Laws will, under fuch circum- 
 ftances, operate more eff-edually to produce any one obje£^, 
 acknowledged by all, as defirable. And this brings ns to 
 the means fuggefted not only as likely to increafe the 
 quantity of Game, but to remedy the univerfal dcfe£ls of 
 the fyftem— -they are to repeal great part of the principal 
 afts now in force, and to fublUiute in their room a revival 
 of the flatute of Henry VI L inflicSllng the penalty of five 
 pounds on every perfon trefpaffing over the Grounds of 
 another alter notice. 
 
 Though we have no further particulars of the object of 
 the mover, it is not very difficult to difcovcr in this fliort 
 outline what is the comprehenfive remedy he would apply 
 to the alledged grievances he has ftated as exifting. Am I 
 anticipating more than I ought, to fay it appears from this 
 
 concife
 
 ( 86 ) 
 
 cojicife plan to be his obje6l to dejlroy all the efficient aSls 
 notv in exijience for the prefervation of Game, to open to all 
 perfons indifcriminately the purfuit of itj with the fimple check 
 afforded by the revival of this obfolete Statute. If I am correal 
 in fuch fuppofal — if this is indeed the objedt j if in the 
 extravagant wildnefs of theory, fo mad a projeil could 
 have entered into the imagination, ill Ihould I difcharge 
 my duty to my country—imperfeftly to my confcience, 
 viewing as I do the dangerous tendency of fuch a propo- 
 rtion, if I did not raife my feeble voice againft its farther 
 progrefs ; if I did not firmly (however unfuccefsfuUy) op- 
 pofe the dangerous tendency of meafures, which muft in- 
 evitably, if carried into efFeit, lead to confequences, in all 
 probability injurious to the peace and happinefs of Society ; 
 if I did not call upon my Countrymen to affift me in 
 flemming this boundlefs torrent, which threatens to beat 
 down in its pernicious courfe, the facred barriers of pro- 
 perty and civilization. Let us examine the foundnefs of 
 this concife fyftem before we pronounce a verdi6l upon it : 
 let not its fimplicity delude us j fuch a Garb may be put 
 en to conceal the hideous features which compofe its fub- 
 ftance. It may have feduced fome to give their tacit aflent 
 to what deferves their open reprobation. I am not clear it 
 has not fo done : I have perceived with concern and afto- 
 nifhment ths miftaken warmth with which this dangerous 
 
 propofition
 
 ( 87 ) 
 
 propofitlon has been received within doors, and the no lefs 
 dangerous apathy and indifFerence with which a meafure fo 
 wild, fo incalculable in its efFefts, has been received 
 without. 
 
 At a moment when revolutionary enthufiafm, which 
 threatened to fubvert the valuable diftinillons of civilized 
 life, though fupprefled in its monftrous birth by the firm- 
 nefs and good fenfe of my countrymen, is not annihilated ; 
 whilft the difcontented and difappointed Anarchift, checked 
 in his furious career, meditating his revenge, waits only in 
 fecret for the founding of the horn of fedition, to call 
 around him the profligate, the idle, and diffipated; is it 
 the part of a good citizen to ere<S the ftandard of difcon- 
 tent, to invite the turbulent and difaffciled, tliofe who 
 labour under imagined oppreflion ; thofc who with no 
 fettled plan of acTlion, are ready to take advantage of cir- 
 cumftances and occafions ; thofe whofe interefts are attached 
 to the tumults-— to the evils of diforder ; and their fortunes 
 infeparable from the exiftence of confufion and anarchy, to 
 flock round it ? Would you put into the hands of fuch 
 men the means of purfuing their diabolical machinations ; 
 Would you proclaim aloud, and " upon the Houfe Tops," 
 that thofe Anceftors, to whofe revered memory we have 
 attached the extreme of human perfection, to whofe efforts 
 we believe ourfelves indebted for the prefervation of our 
 
 riiihts
 
 ( 88 ) 
 
 rights and liberties, for the prefervation of that perfonal 
 liberty we enjoy, and which wc have been taught to think 
 is as much as is confident with tlie Neceflary Laws of 
 Society, have grofsly and negligently betrayed our interefts — 
 have been, if not parties to, yet indifferent fpe£lators of 
 our fubjugation; and by their paflivenefs contributed to 
 the eftabliftiment, for more than a century and an half, of 
 a Syftem, the chief features of which are, tyranny and 
 oppreflion, and the deprivation of Natural Rights. Would 
 you declare that thofe gradations in the amufements and 
 pleafures of Social Life, confidered by our Anceftors not 
 unimportant confiderations, are unjuft and arbitrary reftric- 
 tions on the liberty of Man ? — that our Forefathers in re- 
 cognizing them, betrayed the valuable interefts of the peo- 
 ple, and wilfully facrificed to Ariftocratic influence the 
 liberty and free agency of their brethren. 
 
 Would you acknowledge the exclufive right of property 
 to be unjuft monopoly ? — the cxercife of that right tyranny — 
 any reftri£lion on the power cf man to purfue Game irre- 
 concilable with the Laws of Nature ? — that Society calls 
 not for this reftraint — that liberty forbids it ? 
 
 \Vould you eftablifti this impolitic do£lrine, this afTum- 
 ing propofition, that the true principles of focial happinefs 
 have never till this inftant been truly known : that they 
 confift not in the peaceable enjoyment of the fruits of in- 
 
 duftry—
 
 ( 89 ) 
 
 duftry — not in the proteillon from perfonal infult — not in 
 the equality of the laws — not in the mildnefs of their admi- 
 niftration — not in the difcharge of the moral and focial du- 
 ties of life, but in the pofleffion of that undefinable, un- 
 defcribable fomething, called Natural Right; and that if 
 one particle of this right is taken from Man, his liberty 
 is no more — his happinefs is flown — his life is but the 
 dreary uncomfortable exiftence of diurnal vacuity. 
 
 All this and more the movers and promoters of this ex- 
 traordinary reform have declared — all this incoherent lan- 
 guage have they fan£tioned ; and to this wild projedl do 
 they require your aflent and approbation. 
 
 I have treated fo fully on the dangers to which I confider 
 my Countrymen would be fubje£ted by the total removal 
 of the Game Reftridlions, that it is unnecefTary to remark 
 further upon it here. I cannot forbear calling on the good 
 fenfe of Englifhmen to give it at leaft fome confideration. 
 I call on their temperatenefs to paufe a moment, before 
 they give their fandlion or fupport to a meafure fo likely, in 
 my opinion, to afFeft the peace of fociety, fo calculated 
 to draw from their humble but ufeful fphere the modeft 
 hufbandman, the induftrious manufadurer, and the in- 
 genious artift. In vain will you have enadted laws for the 
 fupprelHon of difloyal and feditious language, whilft you 
 hold out the means for riotous and feditious aflembliesj 
 
 N whilft
 
 ( 90 ) 
 
 whilft you furnifh the fadlious and difcontented with the 
 means of diffufing their poifon— of increafing the number 
 of their Partizans ; whilft you place in their hands a wea- 
 pon more dangerous than a thoufand words. In vain will 
 the Riot Acl exift, if by this meafure its pains can be fet 
 at defiance. In vain have you lately pafled the Bill for 
 the protedlion of the Government, and the fuppreffion of 
 unlawful aflemblies, if by this meafure the penalties of it 
 may be evaded. The propofers of the abolition intend 
 not only to give the power of purfuing and killing game, 
 but the means of enforcing it : they talk not of any difcri- 
 mination as to the weapons ufed for its deftru(5lion. They 
 would juftify the aflismbling of men for this lawful purpofe ; 
 and what diflindion will then be made of numbers ! The 
 riot A61 extends only to unlawful afTembling, the Seditious 
 Bill does no more. Repeal the Game Laws, allow to all 
 the right of purfuing Game, and you juftify the afTembling 
 in any numbers, with any armour, with any weapons : the 
 aflbciation may proclaim its obje61: to be the purfuit of 
 Game ; its real obje£l may be, the deftrudlion of Govern- 
 ment ; the ruin of the Conftitution— Heaven indeed only 
 knows to what fatal purpofes this unwife, this Impolitic 
 power might be applied. 
 
 How often are our ears afTailed by exclamations of the 
 champions of liberty againft an armed Nation ! how often 
 
 has
 
 ( 91 ) 
 
 has this charge been brought againft Minifters by their 
 opponents during the prefent war ! how often have un- 
 candid, not to fay grofs infinuations, of the purpofes to 
 which men of the higheft rank and moft independent fitua- 
 ations in the Country, who have difmtereftedly ftepped 
 forward in the humble hope of aflifting to the maintenance 
 of peace and good order, might apply their power, and the 
 ufes which Government might make of them, been thrown 
 out. Let us not be compelled to think that fuch objetlions 
 have in reality been to the difcipline of thefe armed bodies — 
 to their good condufl— to the fubje6lion they acknowledge 
 *' to the powers that are"-~that they are eftabllflied for 
 the prefer vation of the peace and good order of fociety — 
 that their attachment to their Sovereign and the Laws is 
 not be warped by the delufive dotSlrines of modern re- 
 formers—nor that Conllitution depreciated which protedls 
 their Rights and guarantees their labours, which they 
 cherifh and regard as their deareft birthright, without ex- 
 citing the manly and generous glow of indignation. Let 
 us not have reafon to imagine that thefe men object to an 
 armed Nationy becaufe the armour is in defence of Con- 
 ftituted Authorities— -becaufe it is the Armour of God, not 
 of Belial, put on in defence of the deareft interefts of man, 
 not worn as the Emblem of difafFeiflion and difloyalty. 
 Do not appearances juftify fuch imputations? however 
 
 N 2 harfh
 
 ( 92 ). 
 
 harfh at firft fight they may appear. Is it confiftent with 
 objeiStions to a partial and regulated armed force, to coun- 
 tenance the arming indifcriminately of allj to furnifh the 
 Pauper, not with an excufe, but a juftification for going 
 armed ; to hold out to him a lawful and reafonable incen- 
 tive to carry that weapon, too often the inftrument of 
 horror, when it has the fandtion of a juft caufe, when it is 
 entrufted in the hands of thofe who are fubjedl to the 
 diredion of their fuperiors ; but when confided to the un- 
 fteady and dangerous hand of rude, unfeeling ignorance, 
 cafily worked upon by the wicked and defigning j with 
 facility led away to the commiflion of any a£t of villainy 
 which occafion or opportunity prompts — the moft dread- 
 ful fcourge of mankind— the veriefl bane of Civilization. 
 
 No friend to any Government can give their fupport, 
 I am fatisfied to this Meafure. 
 
 To thofe who view the Game Laws, as a body of Mu- 
 nicipal Regulations, what 1 have already faid on this bold 
 propofition will be fufficient. To thofe who may be in- 
 duced to fupport it folely on the plea it fuggefts of more 
 effe£lually prefcrving the Game (though for them I have 
 not ftood forward) it will be as well to confider the reafon- 
 ablenefs of the fuppofition, that Game is likely to increafe 
 under an unlverfal liberty to deftroy it. It requires fome 
 credulity to admit this, however amongft the variety of 
 
 opinions
 
 ( 93 ) 
 
 opinions on this fubje£t, we might be inclined to adopt the 
 probability of Game being encreafed, by a farther extenfioa 
 of the liberty of purfuing it, this being one means of in- 
 ducing the Farmer to pay more attention to the breed of it, 
 than he is now inclined to do. I have neither leifure nur 
 inclination todifcufs thefe probabilities ; but I verily believe 
 a more extraordinary remedy for the difeafe, than this now 
 prefented, never was attempted to be impofed on the credu- 
 lity of man, by the verieft empiric in reforn^ation. I (hall 
 leave to men, better converfant thaa«iyfelf in thefe nnatters, 
 and more inclined to the difcudion of them, tp decide oil 
 the comparative inefficiency of the prefent Laws, or of the 
 fuggefted Reform. 
 
 But do thefe reformers mean to give us any thing in re- 
 turn for the valt facrifice of Social Order they here require 
 of us ? — any fecurity, that they who are remitted to the 
 free and unreftrained enjoyment of that, which we have 
 always been taught to confider as inconfiflent with civilized 
 fociety (but from which long continued erroj: it has 
 been referved to their fuperior difcernment happily to re- 
 lieve us) may not, in the full tide of their enjoyment in 
 the triumphal poffeflion of one acknowledged Natural Light, 
 imagine they are entitled to all — may not regard the Right 
 of Property too, as an obtrufive, inconvenient Right, le» 
 gitimized by long ufage and fandion, but abhorrent from 
 
 the
 
 ( 94 ) 
 
 the exercife of all Original Right, and confequently fub- 
 verfive of ihe Dignity of Man. This is a pofTible circum- 
 flance, and thought fo by the projeflors of this meafure. 
 We (hall find the recognition of this poffibility in the 
 means they have taken to guard againft it. Aware of the 
 confequences to the Right of Property which might follow 
 from this indulgence ; fenfible that the firft (becaufe the 
 moft natural) attack would be made upon it ; that inclina- 
 tion in fome, in many neceflity, would tend to an invafion 
 of property in the exercife of the right of Sporting; that 
 this would, in the majority, be an inevitable confequence 
 — they have provided againft fuch evil, by applying a con- 
 cife (let us hope, an efFedual) remedy for the evil, " the 
 power in the injured to inflidl a penalty of 5/, on all per- 
 fons trefpafling in the purfuit of Game, after Notice." 
 
 And is this really the wonderful means held out to us 
 to prevent the abufe of this conceded Right ? This the firm 
 barrier which is to protedl the Property of the man of re- 
 fpedlability and confequence from the depredations of the 
 hardened villain, the lawlefs ruffian?— a penalty of 5/. 
 on an offence after notice ! Surely in this there muft have 
 been fome miftake, fome incorreftnefs of ftatement : the 
 abfurdity is too palpable to be ferious ; it can impofe on no 
 one, not even on the mover or fupporters of the Abolition. 
 
 Is
 
 ( 95 ) 
 
 Is it ferioufly to be endured, that a man poflefled of the 
 common faculties of reafon, living in a country, and under 
 a government, where Decency requires fome attention 
 fhould be paid by all to the laws of Property, fhall be 
 gravely told, that, after his pofTeffions have been invaded — 
 his right to the exclufive enjoyment of his own violated 
 — his property deftroyed, or injured, that he has a limited 
 remedy for an unlimited injury — the remedy of Five 
 Pounds for an injury of perhaps fifty times the extent I 
 Whence is he to receive fatisfadion for the lofs of com- 
 fort ? — where the recompence for perfonal infuk ? — where, 
 in this, the redrefs for injuries a6lually fuftained— for 
 Rights openly violated ? The perpetrator of the injury has 
 perhaps led in his lawlefs train, the unprincipled thief — 
 the open free-booter — the enemy to peace — the plunderer 
 of his fellow-creatures. All thefe are to be impofed on the 
 peaceable and worthy inhabitant of the Country Village. 
 If excited to refentment, by the continued and opprefTive 
 infolence of their conduft, he takes into his hands this 
 fummary redrefs, is he alTured they will not contemptuoufly 
 pay it, and continue their depredations ? But even if he 
 fhould get rid of them, is he fecure againft the invafion of 
 others of a fimilar defcription— perhaps part of a connefted 
 gang ? To guard his property againft fuch defperate ma- 
 rauders, to detedl their depredations, and to confign them 
 
 to
 
 ( 96 ) 
 
 to any punidiment, would require the vigilant eyes of an 
 Argus, the multiplied ftrength of a Briareus, Liberal 
 feeling would foon weary in the conteO, would retire from 
 the battle, and leave the entire poffedion of the field to 
 thofe who would have eflablifhed their claims on the Right 
 tf ConqueJI. 
 
 But as the word Impotency has been ufed as applied to 
 the exifling laws, can we forbear the application to the 
 fuggefted reform ? Can any thing be more inane, more 
 truly inefficient, than the remedy propofed for this pofIib?e 
 grievance ? Whilft we have any right of property — whilft 
 we have any laws to prote6l thofe rights, is it probable we 
 fliall have recourfe to this proffered remedy ? It is not 
 furely meant to abridge us of that civil remedy, derived 
 from the very elements of fociety; deduced from it's firft 
 principles, which gives to man the right of punifliing a 
 trefpafs over his grounds. Is this new regulation to fuper- 
 fede a power coeval with the eflablifhment of property-— 
 totally independent of the Game Laws ? It is impoffible 
 the authors could mean this. To effed fuch an end, they 
 muft repeal every A61 which relates to property, muft over- 
 turn the uniform decifions of all the Courts of Law ; they 
 muft avow their objed to be the eftablifliment of the right 
 of individual aggreflTion — of invafion of the property of 
 others. They muft declare their intention to be, the ere£l-
 
 ( 97 ) 
 
 ixig, on the ruins of PoflefTory Property, the Rights of 
 
 Force and OpprefTion, 
 
 , What indeed (to fum up this matter) would be our fitua- 
 tion under the propofed Reform ? We muft either fubmit 
 to fee our property defpoiled— the comforts we have en- 
 joyed, in a country life, ferioufly abridged — to witnefs the 
 daily intrufion of every defcription of perfons— -the pillage 
 and deftru6lion of that Game, to which, nurtured by our 
 care, and maintained at our expence, we have affixed an 
 important value, and which certainly cannot be fubjecl, 
 on any principle, to the juft claims of the intruder. If, 
 unwilling to fubmit to thefe continued evils, we give notice 
 to the invaders to ceafe their Trefpafs (the very notice fre- 
 quently no eafy matter) — if, on a fecond entrance, we levy 
 the penalty— on the one fide, there is no recompenfe ; on 
 the other, frequently no puniflhment. 
 
 In fuch a fituation, what caution can fccure property ? 
 what vigilance enfure comfort ? Every moment of life 
 would be employed, and every valuable energy of the mind 
 exhaufted, in efforts of refinance to, or in ingenious con- 
 trivances for, the detedtion of, offenders. It is the du'y of 
 the Legiflature to prote6l the property of the people. Of 
 Government we are entitled to demand this proted^ion. It 
 is this which induces the fiibjeft to confent to the impofi- 
 
 O tions
 
 ( 98 ) 
 
 lions of public burthens; and for this he chearfully contri- 
 butes his proportion to the exigencies of the State. 
 
 Ptrhaps I have all this while been combating a fhadow. 
 Perhaps the fupporters of this wild plan know the impof- 
 fibility of carrying it iutoeffcd ; they have merely brought 
 it forward to fafcinate and charm the gaping multitude, or 
 to anfwer the honourable and dijintcrejied views of perfonal 
 advantage ; to procure the revival of a popularity at prefent 
 on the wane ; to attach to their interefts the lower ranks-— 
 eafiiy won by profefTions of difinterefted Patriotifm, of 
 exertions for the prefervation of their ancient rights, or for 
 the creation of new ones. The eve of a general eledlion 
 is approaching. Popularity will then find it's value, how- 
 ever founded, or however obtained. But is it poffible 
 there can be found men, who would confent to agitate the 
 minds of the people, even by the difcuffion of Rights, [o 
 congenial to their feelings and pafllons, from which much 
 harm might pofTibly arife, for the fake of perfonal interefl 
 —who would, to promote their o^'n views, put to hazard 
 the peace and happinefs of their country, to efFe6l an obje£V 
 in which yr//" alone was concerned r Though I have heard 
 of fuch men, yet to the promoters of this meafure I will 
 not impute the heavy crime of High Treafon againft the 
 »State. I will attribiife their efforts to raiflaken weaknefs, 
 
 not
 
 ( 99 ) 
 
 i)Ot to wickednefs— -to the fault of the head, not the crime 
 of the heart. 
 
 It now only remains for me to acknowledge in candor, 
 what I do moft chearfully and readily, that, however 
 warmly I may oppofe the propofed plan, as far as by this 
 fliort fketch of the intentions of the Mover I am enabled to 
 do, no one would more willingly contribute to the amend- 
 ing of the prefent fyftem, than myfelf. 1 have no attach- 
 ment, no prejudice, which can unite me an inftant to 
 glaring inconfiftency, or jmperfe6lion, wherever it is 
 found. Time is, with me, no fanftion to an abufe, when 
 proved. I feel the fyftem of the Game Laws to poffefs 
 abufes (perhaps it is going far, to fpeak in the plural num- 
 ber) : I believe it to be no difficult matter to remove them. 
 The following concife plan of alteration appears to me, on 
 one hand, to remove the appearance of hardship, and, on 
 the other, to fecure the Rights of Property. It is calcu- 
 lated, I truft, to remove all real caufe of Complaint, from 
 thofe, perhaps, now jiiftly advancing it. 
 
 To repeal all the A6ls in force, for the prefervation of 
 the Game, which precede the 22d and 23d Cha. II. 
 
 To extend the qualification in that A61 to all Landed 
 Property, of every defcription, o{ lool. per aim. — to em- 
 power both the owners and occupiers of fnch landed Property 
 to (hoot and kill Game. 
 
 O2 To
 
 ( loo ) 
 
 To refervethe certificate, fubjcfling however the Renter 
 of any Land where a Farmer, or under the degree of a 
 Gentleman, to the payment of One Guinea only for fuch 
 Certificate. The penahy on not taking out a certificate to 
 remain in force. 
 
 To take from the Lord of the Manor the power to fue 
 for the p;nahv, to feize or deftroy the Dog of an unquahfied 
 pcrfon, till Notice had been given to fuch perfon, to dif- 
 pofe of him to any one qualified to keep it \ on fuch omif- 
 fion or refufal (a proper time being allowed) the Lord to be 
 empowered to fcize and deflroy, or fue for the penalty. 
 
 To extend the conftru£^ion of the Adl of thirteenth of 
 the prefcnt reign againft Nightly Poaching, and to fubjeft 
 any perfon, or perfons, taken on the grounds of another, in 
 the Night Time, and not able to give a fatisfadlory account 
 of the purpofes for which he was there, to the fame penalties 
 as if taken in the adl of deftroying the Game, neverthelefs 
 giving to fuch pcrfon an appeal to the Qi^iarter Seflions on 
 entering into a recognizance of Twenty Pounds to appear 
 and try the fame. 
 
 Thefe are the few alterations which fuggeft themfelves to 
 my mind— -fuch as they are the Public are welcome to 
 them— they are founded on a recognition of Property, with 
 a defire to extend Natural Rights as far, and only as 
 far, as is confiftent with fuch recognition : little time 
 and little trouble would be required to confolidate the 
 
 Syflem
 
 ( loi ) 
 
 Syftem anew, and to make it more palatable to thofeonly, 
 who can claim any right of being confuUed on the occafion, 
 namely thofe who contribute either diredly or indiredly to 
 the fupport and maintenance ol the Game. 
 
 I will now relieve my reader from the drynefs of this 
 difcuflion : from a confcioufnefs of its want of amufement, 
 I have contrafted every head of it, within narrower limits: 
 than I could have wKhed, or which the fubjedt more ably 
 handled might require. In the difcharge of my confcience 
 I feel eafed of a burthen — and in the confcioufnefs of the 
 purity of intention I fhall meet my reward — I fhall defire 
 no other. If I fhall have excited more ferious and difpaf- 
 fionate refle£lion on the fubje6l, than popular meafures ge- 
 nerally allow of (and which I feel in this cafe particnlarly 
 called for) I fhall feel happy in the not entire ufelefsnefs of 
 my efforts. If I know myfelf, they have but one direc- 
 tion — oneobjedl — the honour, the intereft and happinefs 
 of the kingdom. They recognize no party, they acknow- 
 ledge no improper influence-— They have been called forth 
 by the filence of others, or they never would have prefenled 
 themfelves thus publicly to notice. To have felt, as I have 
 felt on the fubjeft— to have feen the danger which I appre- 
 hend from the meafure— and to have remained a filent, 
 inert fpedlator of its progrefs, without raifing my warning 
 voice, would have been to have betrayed the interefts of my 
 
 Country
 
 ( 102 ) 
 
 Country to my own eafc, its profpcrity to aa unwortliy 
 difiitlcncc. . 
 
 I know full well, that I fhall draw upon me from fume 
 the imputation of unnecefTary alarm — of ungrounded fears 
 —and caufelcfs apprehenfions. I (hall be called by many 
 an Aiarmrfi. Confcious that I deferve not any invidious 
 application of the Epithet in the Abflraft, I fliall not ob- 
 jeft to it. If to ftand forwards when the fmalleft particle 
 of the Conilitution appears to be endangered— if to be 
 fenfitively alive to the poflible infringement of all the ac- 
 knowledged rights of Englilhmen (not excepting even 
 thofe of Property and Social Order) — If to call upon my 
 Countrymen, to difcufs with coolnefs and moderation, a 
 topic not unimportant to their interefts---If to fuggeft to 
 them the pofTibility that inveftive may not be argument— 
 that aflertion may not be truth — that revolution may be in 
 fome cafes an ill fubftitute for reform— if to confider 
 Liberty as •» the free exercife of all the Legal Rights, 
 which a well-ordered Society fecurcs to every one of its 
 members," and to regard all other definitions in Theory or 
 in Pradlice, as tending " to diforganize all exifting ellab- 
 lifliments, and deftroy the univerfal fanftion of civil autho- 
 rity." If, in fine, to love and venerate my Conltitution, 
 my Laws, and my King— to be ready to defend all or either 
 of them, with my humble talents, fortune, or life, not 
 
 only
 
 ( J03 ) 
 
 only from " open violence, but from fecret confpiracy"--- 
 from even unneceflary innovation— deferves the invidious 
 application of the name : I fhall not fhrink from it, however 
 or by vv^homfoever applied. 
 
 To the candour and indulgence of the public I fubmit 
 this little work, confcious that its intention is its great- 
 eft merit written in moments fnatched from the 
 
 prefTure of bufinefs of importance, when the mind is little 
 calculated for methodical arrangement, or purity of di^lion, 
 it fupplicates for great allowance. I however confider my- 
 felf fully anfwerable for every unfair argument-- -every 
 wilful mifreprefentation— every unneceflarily harfli epithet 
 —for every violation of the temper or manners of a Gen- 
 tleman — No excufe of hafte can fhelter an author from 
 fuch charges. I only claim indulgence for incorrcitnefs of 
 language— defe(5l of compofuion, or Impurity of didlion. 
 
 APPENDIX.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 OiNCE the foregoing (heets have been fcnt to the prefs, 
 I have been favoured with a fight of Mr. Curwen's Bill — 
 it would be unpardonable after what I have faid on the 
 plan if I did not take the advantage of an appendix, before 
 my thoughts are fubmitted to the Public, to notice the Bill 
 itfelf. 
 
 By the firft claufe all the A6ts in force for the preferva- 
 tion of the Game, which are in any degree efficient, are 
 fwept away in the indifcriminate fury of revolutionary en- 
 thufiafm. The fecond commences and eflablifhes the 
 levelling principles of the author, by empowering any 
 owner, any occupier of any ground to kill Game on hi$ 
 own ground. 
 
 By the third a penalty is inflifted on all perfons killing 
 Giame after notice, on the grounds of another. 
 
 P In
 
 io6 APPENDIX. 
 
 In the fouitli an exemption is made in the cafe of 
 Game ftarted on his own ground, and purfued into that of 
 another. 
 
 The fifth referves the Rights of Free Chafe and War- 
 rens ; and the Rights of Lords of Manors, and others, 
 having made agreements with their tenants refpedling the 
 Game, and eflablifhes the Stamp Duties on Certificates. 
 
 The fixth confirms the right of appointing Game- 
 keepers. 
 
 By the feventli the difiribution of the penalties on con- 
 viftion for oJfFences under tliis adl is fettled. 
 
 By tlie eighth any pcrfon found in the night, in any 
 Chafe, Park, Wood, Land, or Ground, armed or pro- 
 vided with, or ufing any Gun, Dog, Snare, Net or other 
 Engine, for taking, killing or deftroying any Game, may 
 be taken up, and fent to the Houfc of Corredlion for a 
 limited time. 
 
 The ninth indemnifies perfons apprehending fuch of- 
 fenders from the ufual pains of the Law. 
 
 The tenth referves to Landlords ufually fporting on the 
 Grounds of their Tenants, without any fpecific agreement, 
 and to perfons renting Manors, and killing Game upon the 
 Lands and Territories comprifcd in fuch Afanors, the fame 
 power for two years from the date of the Bill.
 
 APPENDIX. 107 
 
 By the eleventh, a power is given to the Owners of 
 Lands to make fuch agreements with their Tenants, refpe<9:- 
 ing the fporting and killing of Game, as they fhall chufe : 
 provided always, that nothing contained in fuch covenants or 
 agreements frail vary, and diminijhy the regulations of the 
 /i^, refpeSiing Notices by Parole^ or in W^riting. 
 
 The twelfth gives an appeal to the Quarter Seflions, in 
 the cafe of nightly Poachers ; and the thirteenth exempts 
 Scotland from the provifions of the A61. 
 
 Such are the great outlines of a Bill, the profefTed objedl 
 of which is, as ftated in the preamble, to preferve the 
 Game — to remove the inconvenience, the grievoufnefs and 
 pppreflicn of the Subje61:, by unnecefTary rei1:ri6lions. It 
 would be an infult to my Readers, to fuppofe they can fee, 
 in thefe provifions, the wonderful efFe£ls whiph the Au- 
 thors promife. 
 
 A more dangerous, more unconjiitutional, or more puerile 
 plan, never was, I will venture to fay, fubmitted to the 
 good fenfe of the People of Great Britain. But we will 
 not give names without proving the titles to them j and 
 this, I truft, a very fhort examination will do. 
 
 The levelling principle of the firft claufe is a natural 
 ponfequence of the avowed opinion on which the prefent 
 meafure is founded ; and fo far it is confiftent. No plan 
 can pollibly be fuggefted, which would tend more efFec- 
 
 P 2 tually
 
 io8 APPENDIX. 
 
 tually to level diftinflions, to beat down the barriers of 
 Property, to introduce Anarchy, Confufion, Idlenefs, Dif- 
 fipation — every pradlice which would unharmonize the 
 Government, every vice which could difgracc the Civilized 
 Being, than the one now propofed. I have faid fo much 
 already on the abfurdity of holding out an incentive to men 
 in the lower ranks of life, to abandon their ufeful and or- 
 dinary avocations, for pleafures and purfuits ill fuited to 
 their fituation in life, that it is unneceflary to enlarge here 
 on the pernicious confequence of fuch encouragement. — 
 Every thing that I have faid, on the fubjecSt of the fuggefted 
 Plan, is applicable to the fecond Claufe of the Bill ; and it 
 deferves every epithet of abhorrence and indignation I have 
 applied to the former. Yet I cannot help remarking, in 
 addition, that I confider not the trivial diftindtion attempted 
 to be palmed on the common fenfe of Englilhmen, of the 
 man renting any property, without affixing the amount of 
 that property, as in any degree invalidating the opinion I 
 have advanced of the levelling difpofition in the projeftors 
 of this meafure. It is a veil too flimfy, to impofe on the 
 judgment of mankind. The diflinction has indeed been 
 made, the line has been drawn, between the man of Jome 
 credit, and the man of none. But what a diftindion ! 
 What a line of feparation ! The fine-fpun thread which 
 divides them, is fcarcely vifible to the perceptive faculties 
 
 of
 
 APPENDIX. 109 
 
 ©f man. When, indeed, we confider the power which 
 may be exerted by men renting only a few acres, to fport 
 there openly, but covertly over thofe of their neighbours, 
 the extreme ufe to which fuch a liberty may be applied, 
 and the almoft impoiTibility of protedlion from it, we fhall 
 be convinced that fuch Univerfal Licence can fcarcely be 
 prote<5ted by any vigilance ; nor, when abufed, meet any 
 juft punifhment, efpecially when we confider that, by the 
 provifions of this new Bill, the power of Redrefs is not 
 given for the Trefpafs, but only in the a<Stual detection of 
 deftroying the Game. 
 
 But, if any thing can exceed the dangerous tendency of 
 the prefeht Bill, or the pernicious effedls of its principles, 
 on the body of the people, it is the very Unconflitutional 
 Language it holds forth ; the open and virulent attack it 
 makes on the Rights of Property, the bafis of all Confti- 
 tutional Law. For, by the fourth claufe, a Liceiice is 
 given to any man to purfue Game, ftarted on his own land, 
 over that of another. Canlnjuftice invent, or Oppre/Iion 
 execute, a licence more extraordinary, or more unjuftifia- 
 ble ? What if caprice or v/him — if the darker qualities of 
 malice, envy or revenge, fhould excite man to opprefs his 
 neighbour, would you put into his hands the conftant 
 means of purfuing his revenge ? Would you give him the 
 power, by ftarting an Hare on his own Lands, to purfue 
 
 it
 
 no APPENDIX. 
 
 it oyer the grounds of another, to invade his rights, to 
 defpoil his property with impunity? Recognize fuch a 
 power, and you inftantly deftroy his adion of Trefpafs in 
 this cafe. You not only deftroy the Game Laws, but the 
 written and unwritten Law of the Country — that which 
 Reafon and Good Senfe have created, and the wif(;iom of 
 our Anceftors has confirmed and eftablifhed. — By this 
 means you would indeed revive the long-exploded dodlrine 
 of F'eodal OpprcfTion, with this difference, that whilft, by 
 the Feodal Syftem, Oppreflion was the monopoly of a few 
 exalted individuals, by thefe laws the mart is open to al- 
 moft univerfal competition: OpprefTion, from henceforth 
 general, knov*'S no diftinilions, and is, in its turn, exer- 
 cifed by Poverty and Wealth, by Littlenefs and Greatnefs. 
 It would then be a world of Anarchical Oppreflion, from 
 which Humanity and Civilization would (brink with 
 horror. 
 
 I well know the occafion which has called forth this part 
 of the Eill. It has originated in a Spirit of Accommoda- 
 tion, on the part of the Supporters, towards thofe Gentle- 
 men whofe oppofition they have been defirous of averting, 
 by gratifying their Individual Wifhes at the expence of 
 Public Intereft. They know the eftimation in which the 
 manly diverfion of Hunting, even in the confined exercife 
 of it as to Hare Hunting, is held by a large party within 
 
 doors.
 
 APPENDIX. iM 
 
 doors. To them it is neceflary to hold out fome bait, to 
 win their fupport to the meafure. It is a confideration of 
 too perfonal a nature, to be confiftent with the avowed 
 publicity of principle on which the friends to this Bill 
 build their claim to your fupport. It is a compofition with 
 Individual, at the expence of Public Intereft, unworthy 
 the confideration of a Senate. The violation of one Social 
 Right, to the pleafurable convenience of Man, is a facrifice 
 which cannot be required ; much lefs the violation of that 
 on which all Social Right is founded — Property. No laws, 
 but thofe of Tyranny and Oppreflion, can lofe fight one 
 inftant of the fan^lity of this Right — can give to one man 
 the right of oppreiling another — can take from us, that 
 which every Briton enjoys, Equality of Rights. 
 
 But if attention is to be paid (as I have before faid I 
 would have it) to enfure the innocent amufements of life, 
 where the deareft interefts of the country are not aflailed; 
 if, with a view to entice Gentlemen to a refidence on their 
 eftates, fo eflentially advantageous to the country, as well 
 as locally ferviceable, it is neceflary to protect the right of 
 Hunting over the Grounds of others, may not we accom- 
 plifli this objcfl-, without an open recognition of a right, 
 violating the fandlity of Property, and the fecurity of Laws ? 
 Will it not be pofiible to give a limited power, confiftent 
 with the Social Right of exclufive Property? Might not 
 
 the
 
 fr2 APPENDIX. 
 
 the Magiflrate be empowered to levy a penalty on the wil- 
 ful intruder, proportionate to the adtual, not fuppofed in- 
 jury, he has done in the purfuit of Game, originally ftarted 
 on his own ground i and this only in thofe cafes where the 
 damage occafioned by fuch trefpafs is under 5I. — Might not 
 the fame principle be acknov/ledged in civil adlions of 
 Trefpafs, for invafion of Right, where no a£lual injury 
 has been done, limiting the fuccefs of fuch aftion to thofe 
 cafes only, where the injury has been proved to exceed this 
 fum ? It appears to me, that there is fome reafonable 
 ground for this diftinftion, and that, if Freedom's laws 
 allow any reftraint on perfonal inclination, it is in cafes 
 where, under the fanction of Law, Oppreflion may be 
 exercifed — where, under the pretence of injury, a man 
 may inflict a real one on his neighbour. I am not furc 
 that even this limited power is ftri£lly conftitutional : it 
 appears the extreme of indulgence which the State can in 
 prudence grant to individual wifhes, but it is the only 
 efficient means to produce the required end ; for, without 
 this reftridtion in the civil aflion, the paffing of this Bill, 
 in its prefent ftate, will in no degree prevent an adlion, 
 rendering nugatory the prefumed intention of its authors. 
 In the prefent ftate of the Bill, with the unreftrained power 
 of purfuing Game, what endlefs feuds!-— what bitter anl- 
 mofities !— what breaches of friendship !— what lofs of 
 
 focial
 
 APPENDIX. 113 
 
 focial intercourfe !— what ruin of time!— -what deftruc- 
 
 I 
 
 tion of ufeful labour amongft thofe, the utmoft exertions of 
 whofe induftry, in all its undiverted energy, is fo neceflary 
 ^t the prefent moment !— what total annihilation of good 
 neighbourhood ! would neceffariiy arife out of this arbitrary 
 and inconfiderate indulgence. It would be a dreadful ex- 
 periment, which the friends of Peace and Good Order can 
 never aflent to. 
 
 Whilft I am obferving on the Unconftitutional provi- 
 fions of the Bill, I might juft notice the Recognition of 
 Manerial Rights and Privileges, as to Sporting over every 
 part of a Manor, given by the loth claufe of the prefent 
 Adt for tvi'o years longer^ and which afTumes the fail that 
 fuch Right is at prefent exercifed by Lords of Manors, and 
 fan6lified by Law. — Though the efFeft of this permiflive 
 right, given by the Bill, is fo limited in duration, yet the 
 principle is the fame ; and the Unconftitutional eftablifhment 
 of a privilege, which, if it ever exifted, has been long 
 deftroyed by Uniform Judicial decifions, is not the greateft 
 proof that can be given of legal information, or of ftri£t 
 attention, in the Authors, to the Rights and Interefts of 
 the Community. 
 
 Arrive we now at the charge of Inconfiftency.-— If I 
 have not mifunderftood the 5th and nth Claufes of the 
 Aft, they appear to negative each other. By the former, 
 
 Q. it
 
 114 APPENDIX. 
 
 it is provided, •' that nothing in the Act fliall extend to 
 diminifh the Right referved by a Proprietor, to fport on 
 his own Lands ; nor to impeach any Contradl made be- 
 tween a Landlord and his Tenant, with refpefl to Game.'* 
 And this right appears confirmed by the firft part of the 
 1 1 th Claufe ; which enadls, " That it fliall be lawful for 
 the Owners to make fuch Agreements with their Tenants, 
 as to them fliall fecm meet." Then follows this extraor- 
 dinary provifion : " Provided always^ that nothing contained 
 in fuch Covenants or Agreements Jhall diminijh or vary the Re- 
 gulations of this AP.^ rcfpe^ing Notices by Parole^ or in 
 Writing.^* This refers to the 3d Claufe, which empowers 
 ** every occupier to ferve a notice, or warning, by parole, 
 or in writing, to any perfon to defift from fporting on his 
 Grounds." What is the meaning of thefe apparently re- 
 pugnant Claufes ? Do I mi flake their obvious efFefls, and, 
 by hafty mifconftrudlion, affix an inconfiftency to them they 
 deferve not, when I imagine the Right of Agreement given 
 by one claufe, and the farmer part of the other, deftroyed 
 by the concluding fentence of the latter ; and the Right ne- 
 gatived in its efFe£t, by the refervation of the entirety of 
 power in the Occupier of Ground to difcharge any perfon 
 therefrom ? I declare I cannot, on this curfory view of them, 
 conceive what other explanation can be given to thefe 
 claufes. They fecm to create a power for the mere pleafure 
 of deflroying it. But
 
 APPENDIX. 115 
 
 But the framers and fupporters of this Bill need not 
 trouble themfelves by ereding for us a power to make con- 
 trafts of any Nature, with our tenants. Whilft they 
 protedl us in the enjoyment of our property, we fliall take 
 the liberty of claiming the confequent privilege to enter into 
 any agreements refpedling the management of it, we 
 pleafe. In vain will they enaft laws, empowering tenants 
 to difcharge all perfons — in vain wall they give them the 
 exclufive power of deftroying the Game. They may indeed 
 receive the permiffive right of Sporting from the Legifla- 
 ture, but in vain will this exiil, if the exercife of it is for- 
 bidden by the terms of the leafe — of a leafe wilfully, know- 
 ingly and confiderately entered into— not to be varied or 
 diminilhed in its minuteft particle, by either party-— confi- 
 dered when entered into, as founded on the mutual interelt 
 of each, with reciprocal conceflTions and reftri6tions, fjiita- 
 bie to the wifhes and views of each. The Legiflature 
 furely will nnt interfere by the bold Declaration, that the 
 Farmer JJiall not make this contrad — that he Jliail not 
 make any bargain he pleafes— -that affixing no value on this 
 imputed privilege of Sporting, he fhall neverthelefs be 
 compelled to exercife it — that he fhall not be allowed to 
 barter this valuable Prerogative, which he cannot exercife 
 without perfonal injury to himfelf, for that in which his 
 real interefts are concerned. The wifdom and moderation 
 Q_2 of
 
 ii6 APPENDIX. 
 
 of the BritlQi Senate will never be brought to ilfue fo im- 
 perious, and unjuft a mandate — it will not take from man 
 the free and unreftrained exercifc of his optional powers— 
 the mature counfels of his judgment. It will not prefcribe 
 to all, the fame ftandard of gratification — or the fame rule 
 of happinefs. In confidcring man as a variable Being, each 
 endued with different propenfities and wifhes — each af- 
 feded differently by the Jame objed^ — purfuing different 
 paths to arrive at happinefs; they will not compel him to 
 claim the benefit of thofe Rights and Privileges to which 
 he is indifferent, if not hoftile ; but allowing him on this, 
 as well as on other fubje£ls, the diredionof his owncon- 
 dudl, where not injurious to Society, will in this inftance, 
 permit him, if fo inclined, to exchange his Right for his 
 Interefl— his Privilege for his Advantage — to furrender 
 that, on which he fets no value, in order to obtain that, on 
 which he fets fo me. 
 
 But if I have miftated the effefl of thefe two claufes, if 
 they can be proved to be not inconfiftent— and onlyunne- 
 ceffary, I fhall not be obliged to abandon the charge of 
 inconfiftency I have brought againft the Framers of the 
 Bill — it refts on a bafis not to be removed by ingenious 
 explanation — becaufe it embraces not the poffibility of mif- 
 conception or mifconftrudion. It is a fadl which prefents 
 itfelf on the face of the meafure, admitting of no ambiguity. 
 
 Won.
 
 APPENDIX. 117 
 
 Wonderful as it may appear, it is mofl true, that thefc 
 Gentlemen, amidft all their pretcnfions to public fupport, 
 in the produftion of a public meafure founded on the 
 Natural Rights of Man, (a little reflrained indeed, by the 
 apparent provifions in the Bill for the Protedtion of Pro- 
 perty) acknowledging as they have done, their claim to 
 public fupport, on the extenfion given by it to the Occu- 
 pants, as well as the Owners of Grounds, to fport on their 
 own Lands, have fuffered a feriousobftacle to remain, by 
 confirming the Certificate Duties ; an infurmountable bar- 
 rier agalnfl: the exercife of it, by the greatcft number of 
 thofe who muft have been the obje<fls of the propofed plan. 
 When we reflect on the numbers within our own know- 
 ledge, in fituations not unrcfpecVable, to whom this Duty 
 has operated as a prohibition of the Amufement of Sport- 
 ing, we cannot expedl that an extenfion of Privilege, 
 clogged with fo heavy a weight, will be taken advantage 
 of, by the bulk of thofe, for whom the fupporters of this 
 Bill have been faid to have brought it forwards. I 
 know very few Farmers, to whom this fum would not, 
 and indeed ought not, to be a ferious objedb. Mod cer- 
 tainly if there is any avowed principle in this meafure, it is 
 the propriety of giving an Univerfal Right to Occupants, 
 of deflroying the Game on their Grounds. When we 
 
 defccnd
 
 n8 APPENDIX. 
 
 defcend to the little renter of fifty or fixty acrcF, there 
 furely exifts no reafon, on this principle, why the privilege 
 is not to reach him. And can he in effc6t take advantage 
 of it i" Is he not totally deprived of it? Can it be pofTible 
 he fhould fpare 'Three Guineas from his moderate earnings 
 to the fupport of his pleafures ? It is impodible to conceive 
 it. One knows not indeed which to admire moft, the ina- 
 nity of the projccSl, or the rnanifefl: inconfiftency which 
 reigns through it-— nor can we indeed be blind to the illi- 
 berality which difgraces every meafure, where the objefl, 
 whilft openly avowed, is fruftrated by a denial of the means 
 to attain it — or thofe means To inconfiftent with the duties, 
 and interefts of the parties, as generally to amount to a 
 prohibition. It is more than an unmeaning, it is a wicked 
 delufion, which is attempted to be pradlifed on the open 
 temper of Englifhmen. It is not fufficient to dete6l its 
 fallacy — it deferves to be prefented in its native colours, to 
 the indignant abhorrence of the public. Nothing in this 
 inftance can fandlion more flrongly the imputation I have 
 mentioned, as pojfible to be advanced on a view of this 
 plan, without any perfonal confideration of the authors, 
 that to excite in their favour the clamour of the Populace, 
 at a moment favourable to their views — at the eve of an 
 eleftion, appears much more the objefl of the Framers of 
 
 this
 
 APPENDIX. 119 
 
 this Bill, than to redrefs any real grievances of the People. 
 Certainly if any thing could ftrenglhen fuch a belief, it is 
 the glaring inconfiftency of this part of the Bill. 
 
 It is but candid to acknowledge that the 8th Claufe of 
 the Bill, for the punifliment of Nightly Poachers merits 
 unqualified approbation. I am willing to concede that this 
 Claufe is more confonant to perfonal Liberty, than my 
 fuggeftion on this head, which though agreeing in principle, 
 went beyond it in practice. If the difcretionary power in 
 the Magilliate to judge of the intention of the party, by 
 the place in which he was found, and the account he was 
 able to give of himfelf, without any aftual proof of guilt 
 found upon him, is confidered as giving too extenfive and 
 conftrudlive a power, I am not unwilling to give up my 
 idea, and join with the promoters of the Bill as to the 
 idea in queHion. 
 
 I was prepared to find in the Bill the complete acknow, 
 ledgment of private property in Game, from the obfervations 
 which fell from a great orator on the occafion. Moll pro- 
 bably a wifh to avoid the increafe of the criminal laws of 
 Country has checked that inclination — and if fo, a praife 
 worthy motive. However, a little cool refleclion, and 
 enquiry into the prefcnt flate of the Game Laws — of the 
 peculiar nature of the properly — will convince us of the 
 folly of making ihu by an IKlii of Parliament, private 
 
 property^
 
 120 APPENDIX. 
 
 which has been fuch in efFeil at all times (except during 
 the fhort reign of feodalifm) and is fo at this prefent mo- 
 ment. I am willing to confefs that in the punifhment of 
 offences committed againft it, morality has made 3 diftinc- 
 tlon between it and other property, calling that Poaching or 
 Trefpaffing which in other cafes is openly termed Theft. 
 Names or punilhments do not however alter the nature of 
 the property — It continues the fame. If the Hare or 
 Partridge is not mine, whofe is it ? whilft on my 
 ground, who can take it ? If the unqualified man takes 
 it, it is true I have an additional remedy in a fummary 
 convi«5lion, becaufe as I have before faid the Municipal 
 Laws of the Country wi(h to impofe every poflible dif- 
 couragement to the purfuit in him of fuch a mode of life. 
 But if the Man exempted from this penalty takes it, have 
 I not a remedy againft him for the trefpafs he miijl commit 
 to obtain it ? Is not this in fa£t a recognition of my right 
 to the private property in the Game ; when I confider that 
 it is not necefTary to prove that I received any injury in my 
 grounds, fave in any man's purfuit of that which I ordered 
 him not to purfue. Moft undoubtedly, the very eflence of 
 Private property, is an exclufive right to enjoyment, and a 
 Redrefs againft thofe who difturb it. In the Game there 
 are both — The only rational idea of changing the defcrip- 
 tion of the Offence of Poaching into Stealing, muft have 
 been not to acknowledge it more fully as Private Property, 
 
 but
 
 APPENDIX. 121 
 
 but to Increafe the Penalty on the ofFence, which when wc 
 confider that the Mover of this Bill has ftated the poflibi- 
 Ilty of a profecutor purfuing a mode of recovery againft un- 
 qualified perfons, which might fubjedl the offender to the 
 expence of 70I. (I profefs I know not the bafis of fuch 
 calculation) one can fcarcely afk for, or defire. 
 
 1 have now briefly examined in the Appendix this pro- 
 pofed Bill, I have comprefled my obfervations within the 
 narroweft compafs I could, there being much to notice in a 
 meafure fo ftrange and fo important. I cannot indeed re- 
 frain from invoking the vigilant firmnefs of my Country- 
 men to oppofe this daring attack on their Conftitution-— 
 for in this light folely do I regard the attempt to deftroy a 
 fyftem which has fo long formed part of that body of Laws, 
 cftabliflied becaufe confirmed at the aera in which the Laws 
 and Conftitution were aptly and firmly united to each other, 
 and on this ground only do I demand their affiftance. Let 
 them not imagine that the Conftitution can only be endan- 
 gered by Miniftcrs— let them not think it impoflible for 
 thofe, in whofe mouths Patriotifm is unceafingly found, 
 fometimes to abufe that noble fentimenr, to anfwer the ends 
 of ambition, avarice, or Tome motive as defpicable and 
 ignoble. Let them not be perfuaded that there is lefs caufe 
 to apprehend danger to the Conftitution from tlie Enthu- 
 fiafm of Democracy, though veiled with the flimfy garb 
 
 R of
 
 122 APPENDIX. 
 
 of modern Patriotifm, than from the undifguifed ufurpation 
 of Defpotic Power. 
 
 But efpecially do I call upon you, who compofe the va- 
 luable aflemblies of the Legiflature— To you we look with 
 well-grounded hope, that in the exercife of thofe functions 
 with which you are invefted for the public good, in the dil- 
 charge of thofe important duties which belong to your elevated 
 fituations — called upon as you now are to abolilh a fyftem 
 of laws, eftablifhed by the wifdom of your anceftors, fre- 
 quently confirmed and enlarged by folemn ftatutes, and 
 fandtioned by the approving voice of the ableft ftatefmen and 
 moft enlightened Patriots of the laft and the prefent century, 
 you will fairly and impartially difcharge your duties as faithful 
 {tewards of the Public. In the examination of this important 
 fubjedt, you will equally defpife the influence of popular 
 clamour, or the flavery of ancient prejudices. You will 
 view this fubjedt (much more important in all its parts 
 than may at firft fight appear) with the cool and difpaf- 
 iionate eye of Reafon, not feduced by vain empty founds 
 from the ftritSl and impartial line of duty, but anxious to 
 examine with coolnefs the accuracy of that ftatement on 
 which you are to decide — the juftlce of thofe claims to 
 which they demand your affent — the force of thofe argu- 
 ments which are to induce you to give your Senatorial fiat 
 
 to 
 
 I
 
 APPENDIX. 123 
 
 to the overturning a fyftem, which time and experience 
 have long fupported. 
 
 I allow the poJfibUity of your finding this Syftem vicious 
 and impure — rotten and carious in its bafe. It may deferve 
 your reprobation— your utter reje(3:ion. But you will not 
 believe all this, merely becaufe you are told fo. You will 
 require fome further and more convincing proof, than vi- 
 rulent invedive, or heated declamation. You are not to 
 be convinced of the affinity of the prefent Game Laws to 
 thofe which darkened the Sun of Liberty in the periods im- 
 mediately fucceeding the Norman acceiTion, by the com- 
 parifon being advanced, without examining the grounds on 
 which it fefts. The nature of this new light, which has fo 
 fuddenly flaflied upon us, and is fo rapidly to illumine us, 
 and to lead us into the enviable path of pure Liberty, from 
 which (according to them) it appears we have been fo long 
 ftrangers, may perhaps merit your attentive examination. 
 You may examine whether, whilfl: it profeiTes to inftruil 
 us in the Rights of Man., it endangers not the Rights of 
 the Subject ; that, whihl it recognizes the laws of Nature, 
 it does not violate the laws of Civillzaticn; that, whilft it 
 pretends to remedy one Grievance, it does not tend, in its 
 confequences, to introduce a thoufand others; and that, 
 whilft it profeffes to releafe from the fetters of Tyranny 
 and Oppreflion the mafs of the Community, it is not forgin^ 
 
 R2 for
 
 124 APPENDIX. 
 
 for the virtuous and peaceable, the man of property and of 
 charader, thofe chains which hitherto have only bound the 
 vicious and reftlefs, the fpendthrift in fortune and in mo- 
 rals. 
 
 In exciting your attention to this fubjedl, I feel I have 
 done my duty : I knaw you vsrill do your's. You will 
 weigh well this fubje^t in all parts, with that gravity, cir- 
 cumfpe^ion, and fcnatorial dignity, becoming the elevated 
 fituations in which you are placed ; and you will, ere you 
 put the Axe to the Root of the Tree, examine whether its 
 root is indeed carious j if its foundation is, in reality, as 
 rotten aS Is reprefentedj or whether only a few of its 
 branches require the cautious aid of Legiflative pruning. 
 Before you admit a remedy, you will be alTured of the 
 exifteuce of the difeafe j you will learn its progrefs, its ex- 
 tent, its real influence and true preiTure, on that Liberty 
 which is made the pretence for its deftru<Slion. When 
 called upon to deftroy a whole, you will not confider as a 
 fufficient ground, the corruptive defedlivenefs of a part; 
 till you are convinced of its total imbecility, you will not 
 vote for its total demolition. 
 
 To your good fenfe, your candour and difcretion, is 
 committed the iflue of this caufe j by your verdift will the 
 nation chearfully abide, fully convinced that, whether it is 
 a verdidi: of acquittal from the high crimes and mifde- 
 
 meanors
 
 APPENDIX. 125 
 
 meanors brought againft the culprit, or a fentence of con- 
 demnation, you can have no other objedl in view, by fuch 
 declfion, than the real and permanent interefts of the State, 
 the confolidation of the Rights of the People, and the con- 
 firmation of that national happinefs vi^e have 1*0 long enjoyed, 
 under a Conftitution vi'hich, with all its faults, (and where 
 is excellence of human creation without them ? ) whilft it 
 excites the envy and admiration of furrounding nations, 
 juftly demands the efteem, the veneration, and the fupport 
 of its own. A conftitution (to ufe the words of the re- 
 fpe<fiable Author I have fo often introduced in the courfe 
 of this Difqulfition) " the thorough and attentive contem- 
 plation of which will furnifli Its beft panegyric. To fuf- 
 tain, to repair, and to beautify this noble pile, is a duty 
 we owe to ourfelves, who happily enjoy the advantages of 
 it — to our Anceftors, who tranfmltted It down — and to our 
 Pofterity, who have a right to claim, at our hands, this, 
 the beft birth-right and nobleft inheritance of mankind." 
 
 FINIS.
 
 -r
 
 ida< 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW.
 
 ,„„„, ilillii 
 
 15' 1205 00376 4287 
 
 UC SOUTHERM REGIONAL LIBRARY 
 
 FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 990 652