preserved the rights of these latter franchises, in the same manner as the rights of forests, and provided remedies for their infringement. The property in game, acquired by means of these several franchises, so long as it remains within the protected limits, is little short of absolute ownership, but the property terminates so soon as it voluntarily quits them. If wrongfully killed within the liberty, it belongs to the lord, and he and his servants may demand, and take it from a trespasser; and even when a trespasser enters and drives it out of the liberty on to his own land, or that of a third person, and kills it there, he gains no right, as he would do in the case of mere private property, the title of the lord is not permitted to be divested by this wrongful act, and it remains his property, although had it quitted the franchise of its own accord, his rights in it would have ceased. The law, also, to which we have before adverted respecting fresh suit, is controlled by these grants, for, notwithstanding that game may have been raised where the pursuer has a right to sport, and such a possession may have commenced as would have entitled him to take it when killed upon any other spot, immediately it enters a franchise, his right ceases, and if it be killed there in the course of the chase he can acquire no property in it, unless, indeed, previously to its entering he has done some act, which destroyed effectually its means of escape. This is illustrated by a passage in Manwood,† who informs us, that if the owner of lands on which a deer has strayed chase it, as he may do, upon its reaching the forest, he is bound to blow a "re-chase" and whip offt his hounds, for otherwise he will be a trespasser upon the forest, and in the event of their killing the deer he will not only gain no right to take it, but will be subject to punishment in like manner as if he had entered the forest in person. Should his hounds, however, seize the deer before it reaches the forest boundary, and be dragged by its force within, the possession thus previously taken will sufficiently clothe him with the property, and he may lawfully carry it away. Forming distinct properties from the land, these royalties descend from ancestor to heir; they are devisable by will, and alienable, or demisable by deed, and the owner of them may also grant to others a community of enjoyment; instances, therefore, have occurred, in which the owners and tenants of particular lands, as well as other persons, have acquired a concurrent right of sporting within them, that right being founded upon a license under seal from the Lords, or upon usage sufficiently ancient to afford a presumption that such an instrument once existed. The like usage will also, in favour of the person claiming these liberties, afford a similar presumption of a grant from the crown, 1 and 4 Wm. 4, c. 32, s. 8 and 9. + Manwood 373, 381. which has been lost, and if he can show the usage to have existed for sixty years, as a matter of right, and not of mere permission or surreptitious enjoyment, it will be conclusive. The assumption of these privileges, without royal warrant, was not in early times lightly regarded by the law, it appears then to have been considered a usurpation of the prerogative of the crown, and punishable accordingly ;† in modern days, the court has evinced a strong disinclination to interfere, on the ground that the grievance is rather of a private than a public nature, yet, it has not entirely disclaimed jurisdiction over such a matter. Any one, however, may innocently establish upon his own land those preserves for deer, now called parks, and for hares and rabbits, to which the term warrens is generally applied, since by doing so, he does not affect to possess the peculiar rights, which the sovereign alone could grant; such inclosures should not be confounded with franchises, for they are totally distinct from them, and the laws by which they are governed are widely different. Such are the principal features of the seancient liberties, to which we have hitherto avoided reference from an apprehension of producing confusion, and a sense that their importance was not sufficiently great to require it but we feel that we should not have been justified in passing them by entirely sub silentio.' Wherever they exist, they must be regarded as forming exceptions to the general law relating to game, and as not coming within the scope of our observations, when we are discussing it. The rights to game which emanate from property in the soil, or grants by the owners of it, next claim our attention, and the most familiar and important of this class are, the possessions called manors. These are, undoubtedly, of very high antiquity, and were established long before the period when the crown asserted exclusive privileges with respect to game. In its origin, a manor was a tract of land which belonged to the person who is now called the lord; as the name imports he was generally resident within it, or in its immediate neighbourhood, and he granted out various portions to freemen and their heirs, by deed or charter. They thus became freeholders, but their estate, like a modern title of honour, endured only so long as there were heirs of the person to whom it was granted to take it, and upon failure of these it terminated, and the lord became entitled to resume the possession. He, therefore, still retained an interest, and might be regarded to a certain extent in the light of a landlord, but his rights were not limited simply to this remote possibility, for generally, a rent or services were reserved, and in addition to * 2 and 3 Will. 4, c 71, s. 2.-Wickham v Hawker, 7 M. and W. 63. + Com. i. DgTib. Quo. Warr. A. Manerium a manendo; unde derivatur Mansion, in keeping up the freeholder's court, in many manors omitted altogether to hold it, and it is not now known whether there are any freehold tenants who hold of him, and could compose it. In many of these manors too, the whole of the copyholds have been enfranchised, and, consequently, there are no suitors of the customary court. These tribunals, therefore, which formed the symbols and were regarded as the essence of these lordships, have entirely disappeared, and in point of law they have ceased to be manors. The reputation of their having had such courts still, however, remains, and such is the origin and meaning of the term "reputed manors"" found in the Game Act. From this brief history, it will at once appear that the object of the institution of manors was in no way connected with the preservation of game, as many persons suppose them to have been, and that they conferred originally no peculiar privileges with respect to it. The lord could not, nor can he now, enter upon the freehold, or even the copy hold lands within the manor for the purpose of pursuing it, without subjecting himself to an action of trespass,† unless, indeed, he can show, that when his predecessors granted these lands, a right to kill game was reserved, of which a usage by right for thirty years will afford presumptive, and for sixty years conclusive evidence. This, however, unlike the case of a free warren would not confer an exclusive, but only a concurrent right, and would not entitle him to maintain any action in his own name against a trespasser, and if the freeholder or copyholder destroyed the game, he would be without remedy Over the common and wastes he is solely entitled to the game, and may maintain an action of trespass against any person, even a commoner, who pursues it upon them, in precisely the same manner as if they were his private enclosed property, and therefore, the Game Acts directs that nothing contained in it shall be construed to diminish the privileges of the lord of any manor, or reputed manor, or authorise the owner of any cattle-gates or rights of common to pursue or kill game on the wastes or commons, but that the lord shall have the right to kill the game on them, and also to authorise any certificated person so to do; for the purpose, too, of prosecuting offenders under that Act, he is to be deemed to be the legal occupier of the land itself, of the wastes and commons+-until the time of Charles the second, the lords of manors had no peculiar privileges, but in the 22d year of his reign || they were empowered to appoint a gamekeeper to preserve, and in the reign of Queen Anne,¶ to kill game within the manor, they were also authorised to seize dogs and engines used by + Pickering v. Noyes, 4 B and C. 639. Soane v. Ireland, 10 East, 259. § 1 and 2 Wm. 4, c. 32. s. 8 and 10. ¶ 5 Anne, c. 14. 9 Anne, c. 25. | 22 and 23 Chas. 2, c. 25. unqualified persons for the destruction of game. These powers, combined with the circumstances that the lord of a manor, and any person whom he deputed, were permitted to kill game within its limits, without possessing any other qualification, and that his doing so, was rarely objected to in former times upon the freehold and copyhold lands, most probably gave rise to the popular notion of the existence of more general powers than he really possesses. Although these former statutes are repealed, other provisions have been substituted, and the lord of of any manor or reputed manor may by deed, registered with the clerk of the peace, appoint any number of gamekeepers, and grant a deputation to any person of the whole or any portion of the manor, and authorise them to take for his use within the limits all dogs, nets, and other engines, and instruments, which may be used in the manor for the purpose of killing game by any uncertificated person. As the property in these articles, when seized, by these means, becomes vested in the lord, it would appear that he may take them also in person, and since the Act has evidently in view the suppression and punishment of an illegal act, and only limits the power to the boundaries of the manor, and not simply to those spots where the lord has a right to sport, we think, it may be exercised even upon the private lands of a third person. Upon the wastes and other lands, where he has the right of sporting the lord and his keeperst may demand, from any trespasser, and upon refusal, take by force, using no unnecessary violence, game which appears to have been recently killed, and this they may do whether the party have, or have not a game eertificate, but it should always be remembered that the power to seize guns, dogs, &c., only applies to uncertificated persons. Should the lord himself or his keepers commit a trespass in pursuit of game upon any lands within the manor, proceedings cannot be resorted to § against them under the act, but the remedy of an action must be adopted [see sup]. MR. MEYNELL'S AND THE ATHERSTONE HOUNDS. DEAR EDITOR-As the season has progressed, so has the sport-as much in quality as quantity. The country during the past month has been superb, and has fully recompensed us for the long frost. I have culled you a few of our doings: March 3.-Mr. Meynell, at Drakelow. But of this day-deponent saith nothing. March 5.-The Atherstone met at Odstone. Drew Nailstone Wings and Newbold Gorse, blank. Put into the Ozier-bed, where we had • Sect. 13. + Sec. 14. 1 and 2 Wm. 4, c. 32, sec. 36. § Sec. 35. roduced in rather later times, he bound the tenant to do him fealty, and give suit or personal attendance at the court baron, or court of the freeholders of the manor. This was a domestic forum, instituted for the recovery of debts and the redress of grievances, both civil and criminal, arising within the manor, and formerly possessing a power in cases of felony of inflicting even capital punishment.§ The establishment of this court seems to have been one of the main objects, as it certainly formed the characteristic of manorial rights; without it, there was in the eye of the law no manor, and when it ceased, properly and strictly speaking, the manor ceased also. The freeholders, or barons as they were termed, acted as well the part of jurors as that of judges in the court, and two of them were required to form it. As the lord did not fill any judicial capacity, he might maintain either suit or criminal proceeding in it, and the tenant, were bound by an oath to inquire into, and present all trespasses committed against his rights within the manor. The lord also permitted his villeins or ceorles to occupy other lands, originally in the character of mere tenants at will, as the readiest and most simple means of providing them with a subsistence. In point of strict law, therefore, he was entitled to remove these villeins at any time, and as they were, his slaves, he had an equal right to take any property which they had acquired. He appears, however, seldom to have exercised this right to its full extent, but contented himself with seizing, upon the death of one of them, his best beast or chattel, and instead of resuming the land, permitted, in some manors, the eldest, in others, the youngest son, and in many, all the sons, and where there were only daughters the eldest, or all of them, according to the caprice of the particular lord, to occupy the land held by the parent, upon paying him a fine. This system of succession became so invariable, that at length it grew into a custom, and thus, when the lord permitted any villein to occupy land, it became understood that he occupied it upon these terms. and he became what was termed a customary tenant. For the regulation of these persons the lord held another court called" the Customary Court," at which he presided either in person or by his steward and there all of them attended from time to time and were enrolled. Their title deed was a copy of this roll, and hence they were termed copyholders. Upon their emancipation, which was sometimes purchased and sometimes voluntarily granted, they were permitted still to occupy the property thus acquired, and the right to it continues at the present day a standing monument of the efficacy of usage. By that alone these estates are supported and regulated, and, as on the one hand the copyholders are compelled to make the usual payment and + Bloomfield's History of Norfolk, 1 vol. 313, 3 vol. 50. NO. XVI.-VOL. III.-NEW SERIES. 2 L |