62 PROBLEMS IN WILD LIFE CONSERVATION 



crown nor anyone else had possession or full ownership of 

 the animals therein until they were captured or killed. The 

 king's right was merely to take game within the area of the 

 forest. It was what Coke later called " qualified prop- 

 erty." 28 



This principle was no different in the case of the holder 

 of a special franchise and the ordinary landowner. He 

 could, 29 



. . . only claim the beasts as his, that is in possession, if they 

 were too young to move themselves from his land. Even if a 

 beast strayed from the forest, the king lost his qualified property 

 in it and a fortiori this happened in the case of lesser persons. 

 The only modification admitted was in the case where the owner 

 of the land or franchise started a beast on his own land and 

 killed it on the land of another. In that case the beast was his. 



As the forest law decayed 30 with the development of the 

 common law, the sporting rights of the land owners ceased 

 to be protected by their grants of park or warren and they 

 turned to Parliament for aid. The result was the game 

 laws, 31 which limited the right to take wild animals, defined 

 as game, to owners of land of a specified value, confirmed 

 their rights and gave them additional protection just as in 

 the early Middle Ages the franchises of chase and warren 

 had given them additional protection of a similar sort. 32 

 This change from the forest law to the game laws came 

 gradually over a period of several centuries. 



28 Case of the Swans, 7 Coke 16, 77 Eng. Rep. 435 (1585). 



29 Holdsworth, op. cit., vol. vii, p. 493. 



30 Began to weaken during ijth century and by 1700 would appear 

 forests valued more for timber than for sport. By 1830 last of the 

 official forest posts were abolished. 



31 Called " qualification acts," first passed in 1389. 

 33 Holdsworth, op. cit., vol. vii, p. 493. 



