Page:Repository of Arts, Series 1, Volume 01, 1809, January-June.djvu/123

Rh, and give us notice of the result; and the said Quay-lung shall, meanwhile, be strictly confined in the prison of Ching-tu-foo, the metropolis of Se-chuen, and his three sons divested of their respective dignities and employments.

(Continued from page 57.)

the Tudors many severe statutes were enacted, among others, hunting in the in the forests by night with painted vigors, was made felony by the 1st of I Henry VII.; and under Henry VIII. it was made felony to enter a forest with intent to steal deer. This was repealed by his successor Mary; and Elizabeth shewed no disposition to tyrannize through the means of forest law.

All the tyrannies of the Norman and Angevin princes were put in practice by Charles I. and were enforced by the strength of that arbitrary jurisdiction which the Tudors had drawn from their submissive parliaments. It is true, they had not enforced the forest law by means of this great engine; because Henry VII. had not, perhaps, considered it as an efficient mode of extorting money, and Henry VIII. had no passion which it could stimulate or gratify. But the eyres made in the reign of Charles I. shew in what manner the powers of our law may be oppressively executed, not with a view to punish crimes, but to raise money independent of parliament. The patience of the country was at length exhausted, and Charles I. was obliged to call the memorable assembly, which at length usurped all the powers of government, and put the king to death. This parliament passed a law, the object bf which was to give effect to the statutes of Edward I. and Edward III. respecting the bounds of the forest.

From this period we cannot trace any attempt to employ this branch of the royal prerogative for oppressive purposes. The preservation of deer and timber has not only been little attended tn, but the country has actually suffered from a want of proper attention to the latter. The eyres have been totally discontinued, and the punishment of deer-stealing and wood-stealing is provided for by the ordinary jurisdiction of the country.

The forest law, consisting of the provisions of an act modified by the Norman and early Angevin princes, and finally by Edward I. Edward III. and Richard II. is collected in Manwood’s elaborate Treatise. There is likewise a short account of the forest law in Blackstone’s Commentaries, vol. 3. c. 6. upon which his late editor has made some very ingenious remarks, which we shall notice in the progress of our labours. It will be readily observed that proceedings in the forest courts have fallen into disuse, because they were found to be in themselves useless and ineffectual—“a rod more mocked than feared.” They were easily evaded, like a lowed dog, too mutilated to catch their game.

In the Saxon times (says Sir W. Blackstone) though no man was