330 



REMARKS. 



I have endeavoured to give as lucid a view as possible of what 

 are called the Game Laws ; but, as they are neither founded in 

 justice, nor supported by reason, it is impossible to exhibit them 

 either in a very clear or a very favourable light. At first view, 

 the qualification appears absurd ; and if we proceed to examine 

 the matter more minutely, we shall soon discover that it will not 

 bear the scrutiny of investigation. In a free, commercial coun- 

 try, it must be particularly obnoxious ; for what can be more 

 unreasonable or more arbitrary, than the invidious distinction 

 which is thus exhibited between the landed and commercial in- 

 terests ? A man, with a small freehold of sglOO per annum, 

 is legally qualified to keep game dogs, and pursue the diversions 

 of the field; when a man in trade, possessed of property to the 

 amount of many thousands, is denied the same privilege. It 

 has been argued, that, as the game is supported by (or fed upon) 

 the lands, so the owners, and they alone, are entitled to chase 

 and kill it. But this doctrine will be found altogether futile and 

 even ridiculous ; since, in the first place, property in houses is a 

 qualification equal to grass or corn fields, and consequently the ar- 

 gument instantly vanishes. Game, strictly speaking, can be called 

 the property of no person : it respects neither the fields of the 

 rich nor the gardens of the poor; its excursions are unlimited, 

 and it feeds every where. If it can be called property at all, 

 it is the property of the country ; and, since commerce pays 

 comparatively so much greater a proportion towards the support 

 of the state, the rights of the tradesman ought at least to be 

 equal with those of the landholder. 



The use of spring guns and steel traps for the preservation 

 of game appears as abominable as it is unlawful. 



