STATE PAPERS. 



445 



which your committee have not 

 thought it requisite to allucie, have 

 not been unobserved by them ; but 

 seeing that they are merely sup- 

 plementary to those to which your 

 committee has ma-.k reference, 

 they have not felt it important to 

 enter into a detail of their enact- 

 ments. 



Your conunittee cannot but 

 conclude, that by the common 

 law, every possessor of land has 

 an exclusive right ratlone soli to 

 all tiie animals /'erffi naturee found 

 upon his Lmd ; and that he may 

 pursue and kill them himself, or 

 authorize any other person to 

 pursue or kill them ; and that he 

 may now by the common law, 

 which in so far continues unre- 

 strained by any subsequent sta- 

 tute, support an action against 

 any person w ho shall take, kill, 

 or chase them. 



The statutes to which your 

 committee have referred have, in 

 limitation of the common law, 

 subjected to penalties persons, 

 who, not having certain qualifica- 

 tions, shall exercise their common 

 law right ; but they have not di- 

 vested the possessor of his right, 

 nor have they given power to any 

 other person to exercise that right 

 without the consent of the pos- 

 sessor. 



It appears to your committee, 

 that the 2<2 and' 23 C. II. has 

 merely the effect of exempting 

 from those liabilities, wliich were. 

 previously enacted against un- 

 qualified persons, such game- 

 keepers as shall receive exemption 

 from tiiem by the lords of manois 

 (and uhicli exemption the said 

 lords of manors are thereby em- 

 powered to give), but that the 

 lestrainls upon the sale of game 



equally affect the entire commu- 

 nity. 



Your committee conceive, that 

 in the present state of society 

 there is little probability that the 

 laws above referred to can con- 

 tinue adequate to the object for 

 which they originally were en- 

 acted. The commercial prosperity 

 of the country, the immense ac- 

 cumulation of ))ersonal property, 

 and the consequent habits of lux- 

 ury and indulgence, opeiate as a 

 constant excitement to tlieir in- 

 fraction, which no legislative in- 

 terference that your committer 

 could recommend appears likely 

 to counteract. 



It appearS; that under the pre- 

 sent system, those possessors of 

 land who fall within the statutable 

 disqualii'ications, feel little or no 

 interest in the preservation of the 

 game ; and that they are less ac- 

 tive in repiessing the baneful 

 practice of j)oaching than if they 

 remained entitled to kill and enjoy 

 the game found rqion their own 

 lands. Nor is it urmatural to 

 sujjpose, that the injury done to 

 the crops in those situations 

 where game is superabundant 

 may induce the possessors of land 

 tiius circumstanced, rathei' to en- 

 courage than to suppress illegal 

 modes of destroying it. 



The expediency of the present 

 restraints upon the jiossessors of 

 land appears further to your com- 

 mittee extremely problematical. 

 The game is maintained by the 

 produce of the land, and your 

 committee is not aware of any 

 valid grounds for continuing to 

 withhold from the jjosscssors of 

 land the enjoyment of that pro- 

 perty which has appeared by the 

 common law to belong to them. 



The 



