PREFACE.

HAD pursued the study of the Law but a short time, before I met with a case directly contrary to the doctrine advanced by Sir William Blackstone; viz. that all Game belongs either to the King or his grantees. This led me to a full investigation of the subject; and, several years ago, I published the result of my inquiries, in a Note to an Edition of the Commentaries.

My attention was lately drawn to the Report of the Game Committee, printed in a Newspaper; and after perusing it, I threw it down with some anger; declaring to those who were present, that I had been reading two long columns, the substance of which was taken from my Notes to Blackstone; but the composers of it had not acknowledged the obligation; and that I had collected much more upon the subject, which,

in consequence of what I had just read, I was resolved immediately to prepare for publication.

The next day I went to the Sessions at Hertford, where six Members of Parliament, or more, generally attend. Of the first 1 met,

I inquired if he knew who were upon the Game Committee, and who drew up the Report? The honourable member said he had some reason to know, for he drew it up himself; and he very candidly admitted, that the whole of it was taken from my Notes.

This ingenuous conduct disarmed my indignation: though I could not but observe, that I wished to enjoy some credit, in my life-time, for what had cost me many a weary hour; and that I should now endeavour to obtain it, by immediately publishing all that I had collected upon the subject.

I have now been so long an Author, that many enlarge, I trust I may be permitted to say enrich,

enrich, their works with the produce of my labour: but I imagine, they suppose that my compositions will do them more honour than my name, as that is generally altogether omitted. Upon many occasions I have reason to apply to myself,

Sic vos non vobis fertis aratra, boves;

Sic vos non vobis vellera fertis, oves.

But one learned Author, distinguished for diligence and accuracy, must be excepted, who, upon this subject, I see, has done me ample justice, in the following passage:

"It has been asserted by Sir W. Blackstone, in his Commentaries, (Vol. II. p. 14, 15, 417; Vol. IV. p. 174,) that, by the Common Law, the sole property of all the Game in England is vested in the King alone, and that the sole right of taking and destroying the Game belongs exclusively to the King; and, consequently, that no person, of whatever estate or degree, has a right to kill Game, even upon his own land, unless by licence, or grant, from the

King.

King. This position, which the learned Commentator has embraced every opportunity of introducing, has been controverted successfully by Mr. Christian, in a Note to his Edition of the Commentaries, Vol. II. p. 419, n. 10; and it may now be ranked among those erroneous doctrines which (it must be admitted) will, upon a careful examination, be found in those books, but which were almost unavoidable in a work of so comprehensive a nature." Selwyn's Law of Nisi Prius. Tit. Game, 3d Edit.

Every reader, it is hoped, will be convinced, from the following pages, that the fabric reared by Sir William Blackstone is supported by no legitimate foundation whatever. The conclusions I have drawn, I trust, will be considered the just result of fair reasoning from sound principles and correct authorities.

Legal questions are precisely like those of Mathematics: there is only one way to be right, but a thousand ways to be wrong. In the honest pursuit

pursuit and investigation of truth and justice, we have not the power of gratifying the wishes of friends, or any class of men whatever.

All the distinctions of Whig and Tory doctrines, in compositions like these, I most heartily reprobate. If a Tory or a Whig writer of Law has any meaning, it must describe one, who would suppress what is true, or assert what is false, to promote a favourite object, or please a particular party.

If there are errors in the following work, I am anxious that it should be thought I have not fallen into them from favour or affection; and that, whilst I take the liberty to point out the errors of others, I shall possess sufficient candour and intellect to confess and correct my own.

FIELD COURT, GRAY'S INN,

Aug. 16, 1817.