in general, signifies any diversion or sport, that is performed with regularity, and conducted by certain rules. See Gaming.

Games are usually distinguished into those of exercise and address, and those of hazard. To the first belong chess, tennis, billiards, &c. and to the latter those performed with cards, or dice, as back-gammon, ombre, piquet, whist, &c. See Back-Gammon, &c.

Games, in antiquity, were public diversions, exhibited on solemn occasions. Such among the Greeks were the Olympic, Pythian, Isthmian, Nemean, &c. games; and, among the Romans, the Apollinarian, Circenarian, Capitoline, &c. games. See Olympic, Pythian, Funeral, &c.

Law, signifies birds, or prey, taken or killed by fowling or hunting.

The property of such animals, jure naturae as are known under the denomination of game, with the right of pursuing, taking, and destroying them, is vested in the king alone, and from him derived to such of his subjects as have received the grants of a chase, a park, or a free warren.

By the law of nature, indeed, every man, from the prince to the peasant, has an equal right of pursuing, and taking to his own use, all such creatures as are jure naturae, and therefore the property of nobody, but liable to be seized by the first occupant. But it follows from the very end and constitution of society, that this natural right, as well as many others belonging to man as an individual, may be restrained by positive laws enacted for reasons of state, or for the supposed benefit of the community. This restriction may be either with respect to the place in which this right may, or may not, be exercised; with respect to the animals that are the subjects of this right; or with respect to the persons allowed or forbidden to exercise it. And, in consequence of this authority, we find that the municipal laws of many nations have exerted such power of restraint; have in general forbidden the entering on another man's grounds, for any cause, without the owner's leave; have extended their protection to such particular animals as are usually the objects of pursuit; and have invested the prerogative of hunting and taking such animals in the sovereign of the state only, and such as he shall authorize. Many reasons have concurred for making these constitutions: as, 1. For the encouragement of agriculture and improvement of lands, by giving every man an exclusive dominion over his own soil. 2. For the preservation of the several species of these animals, which would soon be extirpated by a general liberty. 3. For prevention of idleness and dissipation in husbandmen, artificers, and others of lower rank; which would be the unavoidable consequence of universal license. 4. For prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to the government, by disarming the bulk of the people: which last is a reason oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest or game laws. Nor certainly, in these prohibitions is there any natural injustice, as some have weakly enough supposed: since, as Puffendorf observes, the law does not hereby take from any man his present 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 most instances very justly and reasonably deprived him.

Yet, however defensible these provisions in general may be, on the footing of reason, or justice, or civil policy, we must, notwithstanding, acknowledge, that, in their present shape, they owe their immediate original to slavery. It is not till after the irruption of the northern nations into the Roman empire, that we read of any other prohibitions, than that natural one of not sporting on any private grounds without the owner's leave.

With regard to the rise and original of our present civil prohibitions, it will be found, that all forest and game laws were introduced into Europe at the same time, and by the same policy, as gave birth to the feudal system: when those swarms of barbarians issued from their northern hive, and laid the foundation of most of the present kingdoms of Europe, on the ruins of the western empire. For when a conquering general came to settle the economy of a vanquished country, and to part it out among his soldiers or feudatories, who were to render him military service for such donations; it behoved him, in order to secure his new acquisitions, to keep the rufici or natives of the country, and all who were not his military tenants, in as low a condition as possible, and especially to prohibit them the use of arms. Nothing could do this more effectually than a prohibition of hunting and sporting: and therefore it was the policy of the conqueror to reserve this right to himself, and such on whom he should bestow it; which were only his capital feudatories, or greater barons. And, accordingly, we find, in the feudal constitutions, one and the same law prohibiting the rufici in general from carrying arms, and also prohibiting the use of nets, snares, or other engines for destroying the game. This exclusive privilege well suited the martial genius of the conquering troops, who delighted in a sport which in its pursuit and slaughter bore some resemblance to war. Vita omnis (says Caesar, speaking of the ancient Germans) in venationibus utque in judio rei militaris conficit. And Tacitus in like manner observes, that quoties bella non incunt, multum venatibus, plus per oium tranqunt. And indeed, like some of their modern successors, they had no other amusement to entertain their vacant hours; for they despised all arts as effeminate, and had no other learning than what was couched in such rude ditties as were sung at the solemn carousals which succeeded these ancient huntings. And it is remarkable, that, in those nations where the feudal policy remains the most uncorrupted, the forest or game laws continue in their highest rigour. Formerly in France, all game was properly the king's; and in some parts of Germany it is death for a peasant to be found hunting in the woods of the nobility.

With us, in Britain, also hunting has ever been esteemed a most princely diversion and exercise. The whole island was replenished with all sorts of game in the time of the Britons; who lived in a wild and pastoral manner, without enclosing or improving their grounds; and derived much of their subsistence from the chase, which they all enjoyed in common. But when husbandry took place under the Saxon government, and lands began to be cultivated, improved, and enclosed, the beasts naturally fled into the woody and desert tracts, which were called the forests; and, having never been disposed of in the first distribution of lands, were therefore held to belong to the crown. These were filled with great plenty of game, which our royal sportsmen reserved for their own diversion, on pain of a pecuniary forfeiture for such as interfered with their sovereign. But every freeholder had the full liberty of sporting upon his territories, provided he abated from the king's forests.

However, upon the Norman conquest, a new doctrine took place; and the right of pursuing and taking all beasts of chase or venery, and such other animals as were accounted game, was then held to belong to the king, or to such only as were authorised under him. And this, as well upon the principles of the feudal law, that the king is the ultimate proprietor of all the lands in the kingdom, they being all held of him as the chief lord, or lord paramount of the fee; and that therefore he has the right of the universal toll, to enter thereon, and to chase and take such creatures at his pleasure: as also upon another maxim of the common law, that these animals are bona vacantia, and, having no other owner, belong to the king by his prerogative. As therefore the former reason was held to vest in the king a right to pursue and take them anywhere, the latter was supposed to give the king, and such as he should authorise, a sole and exclusive right.

This right, thus newly vested in the crown, was exerted with the utmost rigour, at and after the time of the Norman establishment; not only in the ancient forests, but in the new ones which the Conqueror made, by laying together vast tracts of country, depopulated for that purpose, and reserved solely for the king's royal diversion; in which were exercised the most horrid tyrannies and oppressions, under colour of forest law, for the sake of preserving the beasts of chase; to kill any of which, within the limits of the forest, was as penal as the death of a man. And, according to the same principle, King John laid a total interdict upon the winged as well as the four-footed creation; capturam avium per totam Angliam interdixit.* 363. The cruel and insupportable hardships which these forest laws created to the subject, occasioned our ancestors to be as zealous for their reformation, as for the relaxation of the feudal rigours and the other exactions introduced by the Norman family: and accordingly we find the immunities of charta de foresta as warmly contended for, and extorted from the king with as much difficulty, as those of magna charta itself. By this charter, confirmed in parliament†, many forests were disafforested, or stripped of their oppressive privileges, and regulations were made in the regimen of such as remained; particularly killing the king's deer was made no longer a capital offence, but only punished by a fine, imprisonment, or abjuration of the realm. And by a variety of subsequent statutes, together with the long acquiescence of the crown without exerting the forest laws, this prerogative is now become no longer a grievance to the subject.

But as the king referred to himself the forest for his own exclusive diversion, so he granted out from time to time other tracts of lands to his subjects under the names of chases or parks; or gave them licence to make such in their own grounds; which indeed are smaller forests in the hands of a subject, but not governed by the forest laws; and by the common law no person is at liberty to take or kill any beasts of chase, but such as have an ancient chase or park; unless they be also beasts of prey.

As to all inferior species of games called beasts and fowls of warren, the liberty of taking or killing them is another franchise or royalty, derived likewise from the crown, and called free warren; a word which signifies preservation or custody; as the exclusive liberty of taking and killing fish in a public stream or river is called a free fishery; of which, however, no new franchise can at present be granted by the express provision of magna charta, c. 16. The principal intention of granting a man these franchises or liberties was in order to protect the game, by giving him a sole and exclusive power of killing it himself, provided he prevented other persons. And no man but he who has a chase or free warren, by grant from the crown, or prescription, which supposes one, can justify hunting or sporting upon another man's soil; nor indeed, in thorough strictness of common law, either hunting or sporting at all.

However novel this doctrine may seem, it is a regular consequence from what has been before delivered, that the sole right of taking and destroying game belongs exclusively to the king. This appears, as well from the historical deduction here made, as because he may grant to his subjects an exclusive right of taking them; which he could not do, unless such a right was first inherent in himself. And hence it will follow, that no person whatever, but he who has such derivative right from the crown, is by common law entitled to take or kill any beast of chase, or other game whatsoever. It is true, that by the acquiescence of the crown, the frequent grants of free warren in ancient times, and the introduction of new penalties of late by certain statutes for preserving the game, this exclusive prerogative of the king is little known or considered; every man that is exempted from these modern penalties looking upon himself as at liberty to do what he pleases with the game; whereas the contrary is strictly true, that no man however well qualified he may vulgarly be esteemed, has a right to encroach on the royal prerogative by the killing of game, unless he can shew a particular grant of free warren; or a prescription which presumes a grant; or some authority under an act of parliament. As for the latter, there are but two instances wherein an express permission to kill game was ever given by statute: the one by 1 Jac. I. c. 27, altered by Jac. I. c. 12, and virtually repealed by 22 and 23 Car. II. c. 25, which gave authority, so long as they remained in force, to the owners of free warren, to lords of manors, and to all freeholders having 40l. per annum in lands of inheritance, or 80l. for life or lives, or 40cl. personal estate (and their servants), to take partridges and pheasants, upon their own, or their master's free warren, inheritance, or freehold: the other by 5 Ann. c. 14, which empowers lords and ladies of manors to appoint gamekeepers, to kill game for the use of such lord or lady; which with some alteration still subsists, and plainly supposes such power not to have been in them before. The truth of the matter is, that these game laws do indeed qualify nobody, except in the instance of a gamekeeper, to kill game: but only to save the trouble and formal process of an action by the person injured, who perhaps too might remit the offence, these statutes inflict additional penalties, to be recovered either in a regular or summary way, by any of the king's subjects, from certain persons of inferior rank who may be found offending in this particular. But it does not follow that persons excluded from these additional penalties are therefore authorized to kill game. The circumstance of having 40cl. per annum, and the rest, are not properly qualifications, but exemptions. And these persons so exempted from the penalties of the game statutes, are not only liable to actions of trespass by the owners of the land; but also if they kill game within the limits of any royal franchise, they are liable to the actions of such who may have the right of chase or free warren therein.

Upon the whole it appears, that the king, by his prerogative, and such persons as have, under his authority, the ROYAL FRANCHISE of CHASE, PARK, or Free Warren, are the only persons who may acquire See those any property, however fugitive and transitory, in the animals jure nature, while living; which is said to be vested in them propter privilium. And it must also be observed, that such persons as may thus lawfully hunt, fish, or fowl, ratione privilegi, have only a qualified property in these animals; it not being absolute or permanent, but lasting only so long as the creatures remain within the limits of such respective franchise or liberty, and ceasing the instant they voluntarily pass out of it. It is held indeed, that if a man starts any game within his own grounds, and follows it into another's and kills it there, the property remains in himself. And this is grounded on reason and natural justice; for the property consists in the possession; which possession commences by the finding it in his own liberty, and is continued by the immediate pursuit. And so, if a stranger starts game in one man's chase or free warren, and hunts it into another liberty, the property continues in the owner of the chase or warren; this property arising from privilege, and not being changed by the act of a mere stranger. Or if a man starts game on another's private grounds, and kills it there, the property belongs to him in whose ground it was killed, because it was also started there; this property arising ratione soli. Whereas if, after being started there, it is killed in the grounds of a third person, the property belongs not to the owner of the first ground, because the property is local; nor yet to the owner of the second, because it was not started in his soil; but it vests in the person who started and killed it; though guilty of a trespass against both the owners. See the article Game Laws.

It will probably be considered by sportsmen who have not an opportunity of seeing the book, as a curious piece of information, to have the following, which we extract from Daniel's Rural Sports, concerning the quantity of game killed in different countries.

"The lists of the game, says he, that has been killed upon particular manors in England by parties, and even by single gentlemen, exhibit such a war-ten registry of slaughter, as no sportsman can read without regret; but to prove that British are rather more merciful than French shooters, the account of the former game establishment at Chantilly is first presented to the reader, in the words of the very ingenious person who recorded it. "The game establishment at Chantilli was the most extraordinary establishment of the kind in Europe.

"The following list of the quantity of different kinds of game killed at Chantilli, in a period of 32 years, beginning with the year 1748, and ending with the year 1779, was copied from the household registers there, and what seems unaccountable, never was printed before, not even in France! The copy was taken in 1788, and the statement, as an object in natural history, is no small curiosity, and as such it is philosophically interesting.

<table> <tr><th>Hares</th><td>77,750</td></tr> <tr><th>Rabbits</th><td>387,470</td></tr> <tr><th>Partridges</th><td>116,574</td></tr> <tr><th>Red, ditto</th><td>12,426</td></tr> <tr><th>Pheasants</th><td>86,193</td></tr> <tr><th>Quails</th><td>19,696</td></tr> <tr><th>Ralles</th><td>449</td></tr> <tr><th>Woodcocks</th><td>2164</td></tr> <tr><th>Snipes</th><td>2856</td></tr> <tr><th>Ducks</th><td>1353</td></tr> <tr><th>Wood pigeons</th><td>317</td></tr> <tr><th>Curlews</th><td>32</td></tr> <tr><th>Buttards</th><td>2</td></tr> <tr><th>Larks</th><td>106</td></tr> <tr><th>Thrushes</th><td>1313</td></tr> <tr><th>Stags</th><td>1682</td></tr> <tr><th>Hinds</th><td>1682</td></tr> <tr><th>Fawns</th><td>519</td></tr> <tr><th>Dogs</th><td>1921</td></tr> <tr><th>Young does</th><td>135</td></tr> <tr><th>Roe-bucks</th><td>4669</td></tr> <tr><th>Young, ditto</th><td>810</td></tr> <tr><th>Wild boars</th><td>1942</td></tr> <tr><th>Marcasins</th><td>818</td></tr> </table>

Connected with this establishment, there was a park of 21 miles, and a forest of 48 miles in extent, and while the family were at the place, they had 500 horses, as many servants, and from 60 to 80 couple of dogs.

"The Germans too, says Mr Daniel, have a happy knack at a massacre. In 1788 a party of 10 persons at the chateau of Prince Adam Daverfberg, in Bohemia, were out five hours on the 9th and 10th of September, allowed that the first day 6168 shots were fired, and 876 hares, 259 pheasants, 362 partridges, beside quails, rabbits, &c. were bagged, or rather waggoned. On the second day 5904 shots were discharged, and 181 hares, 634 pheasants, and 736 partridges were killed, besides some that were picked up in the evening. The number of shots in the two days were 11,972, the game carried home were

<table> <tr><th>Hares,</th><td>1090</td></tr> <tr><th>Pheasants,</th><td>958</td></tr> <tr><th>Partridges,</th><td>1221</td></tr> </table>

besides small game. It is added that the birds were all shot on the wing.

"In Germany, during the month of October 1797, Prince Lichtenstein, and eleven other gentlemen, killed in one day, when they were out fourteen hours, 39,000 pieces of game; it was of all sorts, but chiefly hares and partridges. The king of Naples and Sir W. Hamilton killed 800 head of game in the neighbourhood of Ca-

farte, of which 640 were partridges, in a very short space of time.

"Upon Mr Colquhoun's manor in our own country, at Writham in Norfolk, the late duke of Bedford, and fix other gentlemen, in 1796, killed 80 cock pheasants, 40 hares, besides partridges, in one day. At Houghton, in the same county, the duke of Bedford, and seven others, killed in the same space, 165 hares, 42 pheasants, 5 rabbits, a couple of woodcocks, and a brace of partridges; and this was done, although the woods had been beat five times before during the season*."

GAME Cock, a fighting cock, or one kept for sport; a barbarous practice, which is a disgrace to any civilized nation. See Cock-Fighting.