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