210 
WILD BEASTS AND THEIR WA VS 
CHAP. 
country is nominally possessed by individual 
proprietors, who claim a right of game by in¬ 
heritance. 
“ This strictly conservative principle has existed 
from time immemorial, and may perhaps suggest to 
those ultra-radicals who would introduce commun¬ 
istic principles into England, that the supposed 
original equality of human beings is a false datum for 
their problem. There is no such thing as equality 
among human beings in their primitive state, any 
more than there is equality among the waves of the 
sea, although they may start from the same level 
of the calm. ... In tribes where government is 
weak, there may be a difficulty in enforcing laws, as 
the penalty exacted may be resisted; but even 
amidst these wild tribes there is a force that exerts 
a certain moral influence among the savages, as 
among the civilised : that force is public opinion. 
“ Thus, a breach of the game-laws would be 
regarded by the public as a disgrace to the guilty 
individual, precisely as an act of poaching would 
damage the character of a civilised person. 
“ The rights of game are among the first rudiments 
of property. Man in his primitive state is a hunter, 
depending for his clothing upon the skins of wild 
animals, and upon their flesh for his subsistence ; 
therefore the beast that he kills upon the desert 
must be his property ; and in a public hunt, should 
he be the first to wound an animal, he will have 
gained an increased interest or share in the flesh, 
by having reduced the chance of its escape. Thus 
