56 THE RABBIT 



as he would otherwise be at liberty to do were no 

 such franchise claimed by the lord '' of the manor. 

 This point was made clear by the case of ' Lord 

 Carnarvon v. Clarkson.' The question arose under 

 Section 5 of the Ground Game Act, which provides 

 that ' Nothing in the Act shall affect any special right 

 of killing or taking ground game to which any per- 

 son other than the landlord, lessor, or occupier may 

 have become entitled before the passing of this Act 

 by virtue of any franchise, charter, or Act of Parlia- 

 ment.' Lord Carnarvon was lord of the manor of 

 Highclere, Hampshire, and at the same time a person 

 ' other than the landlord,' and he claimed the fran- 

 chise of free warren over the land of which Mr. 

 Clarkson was the occupier. This deprived Mr. 

 Clarkson of the benefit of the Statute, and the opera- 

 tion of this saving clause (Sect. 5) is curious ; for it 

 enabled Lord Carnarvon to do as ' lord of the manor ' 

 what the Act expressly prevents him from doing as 

 ' owner ; ' in other words, the lord of the manor is 

 thus placed in a better position than the landlord. 

 A report of the case will be found in The Field of 

 May 18, 1895. It did not come into court, but 

 was settled practically by the occupier admitting 

 himself to be mistaken in his interpretation of the 

 Statute. 



