Page:Prerogatives of the Crown.djvu/155

 Ch.VIIL] King's Property in Game, 135 age (a). It became a principle of the English law, that from the Sovereign alone such exclusive rights can be claimed. It may even be admitted, that the feudal principles enabled the King to prohibit the destruction of game by those who did not possess a royal franchise. But it by no means necessarily fol- lows, that the sole property in game vested either in the King or his grantee. Bracton and Fleta appear, indeed, to have drawn this inference. The former observes, " Hahet etiam (Rex) dejure gentium in manu sua quce dejiire naiurali debe- rent esse communia ; sicutferas bestias, et aves non domesticas (b)" And PufFendorf, and other writers on general law, lay down the same principles. Sir William Blackstone subscribed to the general position, and zealously enforced the doctrine, that the property of all the game in England is in the King(c), He observes, that "upon the Norman Conquest a new doctrine took place, and the right of pursuing and taking all beasts of chase or venery, and such other animals as were accounted game, was then held to belong to the King, or to such only as were authorized under him ; and this, as well upon the prin- ciples of the feudal law, that the King is the ultimate proprie- tor of all the lands in the kingdom, they being all held of him as the chief lord, or lord paramount of the fee ; and that, there- fore, he has the right of the universal soil, to enter thereon, and to chase and take such creatures at his pleasure ; as also, upon another maxim of the common law, that these animals are bo7ia vacantia, and, having no other owner, belong to the King by his prerogative. As, therefore, the former reason was held to vest in the King a right to pursue and take them any where, the latter was supposed to give the King, and such as he should authorize, a sole and exclusive right." With respect to the first principle from whence Sir William Blackstone has deduced this doctrine, it may be observed (as remarked by Mr. Christian), that it is not evident from the King's right to the universal soil, that he should have a better right to such creatures than to any other production of the poil {d). The second reason relied upon by Sir Wm. Blackstone^ (a) See 2 Bla. Com. 413, &c. 413, 419 ; 4 vol. 174, 415. (A) Lib. 2. c. 24. s. I, (rf) Sec 2 13la. Com. 419, note 10., (0 See 2 Bla. Com. 14, b i 391, 4 j ' - that