leases thereof, so as to bind their successors under due regulations. 2. That it is the opinion of this committee, that the term of such leases should not exceed 14 years.

3. That it is the opinion of this committee, that such leases should only be granted with the previous consent of the patron and the bishop of the diocese.

4. That it is the opinion of this committee, that the consent of the bishop should not be given until he has been furnished with a certificate upon oath, by a com-petent surveyor, to be named by such bishop, and to be paid by the contracting parties, that the tithe rent, or composition proposed, is a fair and just equivalent for the tithes so to be leased during the term to be granted.

5. That it is the opinion of this committee, that such leases should only be granted to the proprietors of the land.

6. That it is the opinion of this committee, that in any new law to be enacted for this purpose, it would be expedient to define who should be considered the proprietors of the land, for the purpose of taking such leases.

7. That it is the opinion of this committee, that the leases to such proprietors of lands should be appurtenant to, and run with the land in the nature of a real covenant; and that the occupier of under leases now existing shall have the option and the right, on a notice within a year after the date of the lease of the tithes, of retaining the tithes during the continuance of his lease in the land, on payment to the

lessee of the tithe rent, or a just proportion thereof.

8. That it is the opinion of this committee, that in case of a voidance of the living, by death or otherwise, a proportion of the rent should be paid to the incumbent, or his representative, up to the time of such a voidance.

9. That it is the opinion of this committee, that the said titherent or composition should be recoverable by distress, as if the same were a rent-charge upon the lands; and that the lessee of the tithes shall have a remedy by distress for the tithe-rent against the occupier agreeing to retain the tithe.

10. That it is the opinion of this committee, that the titheproprietor should have the option of voiding the lease, in case the tithe-rent be in arrear for three calendar months, after notice in writing demanding the same from the lessee, and the rent not paid, nor sufficient distress found upon the premises.

11. That it is the opinion of this committee, that the titheproprietor should not be restricted from recovering the tithe-rent or composition by due course of law, in the same manner as he may now recover the value of or composition for tithes, where subtracted.

12. That it is the opinion of this committee, that a general form of a lease or grant should be framed; and that no stamp duty should be payable on such lease or grant, unless the titherent or composition exceed pounds a year.

13. That it is the opinion of

this committee, that the lay-owners of impropriate tithes, being tenants for life and for years, determinable on a life or lives, or tenants in tail, or tenants in fee, subject to be determined by executory devise or shifting use, have the like power of leasing such tithes for any term not exceeding 14 years.

14. That it is the opinion of this committee, that a like power be given to all corporate bodies, whether lay or spiritual, being owners of impropriate tithes.

15. That it is the opinion of this committee, that no lease shall be valid to bind the successor, reversioner, or remainder-man, where any other consideration is given than the annual tithe-rent or composition declared in such lease.

16. That it is the opinion of this committee, that the power of leasing tithes, as it at present by law exists, should not be taken away or diminished.

June 18, 1816.

to their professed object; their policy and justice; and their effects upon the habits and morals of the lower orders of the community. In considering the existing state of the law upon this subject, their attention was naturally directed, in the first place, to its state in the early periods of the common law; and in that your committee finds concurrent and undisturbed authorities for contemplating game as the exclusive right of the proprietor of the land ratione soli. In a law of Canute's (vide 4th Institutes, p. 230,) your committee find that he thus expresses himself: Præterea autem concedo ut in propriis ipsius prædiis quisque tam in agris quam in sylvis excitet agitetque feras; and in Blackstone II. p. 415, Sit quilibet homo dignus venatione sua in sylva ei in agris situ propiis et in dominio suo. In the preamble of the statutes 11th Hen. VII. c. 17, a parliamentary recognition of the common law is most distinctly made, and in unequivocal language. It states, that persons of little substance destroy

Game Laws.

The Committee appointed to take into consideration the Laws relating to Game, and to report their observations and opinion thereupon from time to time to the House, have considered the matters to them referred, and agreed upon the following Report:

Your committee, in investigating this important subject, proceeded to the consideration of the present existing laws for the preservation of game; their adequacy

the lordships, manors, lands, and tenements of divers owners and possessioners of the same, without license, consent, or agreement of the same possessioners, by which the same lose not only their pleasure and disport, that they, their friends, and servants should have about haw king, hunting, and taking of the same, but also they lose the profit and avail that should grow to their household, &c.

In the 4th Institutes, p. 304, it is laid down, that seeing the wild beasts do belong to the pur

Tieu-men ratione soli, so long as they remain in his grounds he may kill them, for the property ratione soli is in him. In 11 Coke's Reports, p. 876, it is laid down, that for hawking, hunting, &c. there needeth not any licence but every one may, in his own land, use them at his pleasure, without any restraint to be made, if not by parliament, as appears by the statutes 11 Hen. VII. c. 17, 23 Eliz. c. 10, and 3 James I. c. 13.

In Sutton and Moody's 5 Modern Reports, p. 375, Holt, C. Justice, says, the conies are as much his, in his ground, as if they were in a warren, and the property is ratione soli. Soin the Year-book, 12 Hen. VIII. pl. 10, if a man start a hare in his own ground, he has a property in it ratione soli. In limitation, and to a certain degree in derogation of the common law, a variety of statutes has subjected to penalties persons who, not having certain qualifications, shall even upon their own lands kill any of those wild animals which come under the denomination of game.

By the 13 Richard II. stat. 1, c. 13, laymen not having 40s. per annum, and priests not having 101. per annum, are prohibited from taking or destroying conies, hares, &c. under pain of a year's imprisonment (this statute appears to be the first introduction of a qualification to kill game.) By the 32 Henry VIII. c. 8, a penalty upon selling game was first enacted, but this was a tenporary law, which was suffered to expire, and the sale of game was not again restrained till the 1st James I. c. 27. By the 3d

James I. c. 13, the qualification to kill game was increased to 401. in land, and 2001. in personal property.

By the 22d and 23d C. II. cap. 25. lords of manors, not under the degree of esquire, may by writing under their hands and seals appoint gamekeepers within their respective manors, who may kill conies, hares, &c. and other game, and by the warrant of a justice may search houses of persons prohibited to kill gaine.

It appears to your committee, that the statute 22 and 23 C. II. is the first instance, either in our statutes, reports, or law treatises, in which lords of mancrs are distinguished from other landowners, in regard to game.

The same statute, section 3, confines the qualification to kill game to persons having lands of inheritance of 1001. per annum, or leases of 1501. (to which are added other descriptions of personal qualifications;) and persons not having such qualifications are declared to be persons not allowed to have or keep game-dogs, &c.

The 22 and 23 C. II. c. 25, was followed by 4 and 5 W. and M. c. 23, and the 28 Geo. II. c. 12, which enacted penalties against unqualified, and, finally, against qualified persons, who shall buy, sell, or offer to sell, any hare, pheasant, partridge, &c. Similar penalties are therein enacted against unqualified persons having game in their possession.

Such appears to your committee to be the state of the laws respecting game, as they at present stand. The various and numberless statutes which have been enacted upon the subject, and to

which your committee have not thought it requisite to allude, have not been unobserved by them; but seeing that they are merely supplementary to those to which your committee has made reference, they have not felt it important to enter into a detail of their enactments.

Your committee cannot but conclude, that by the common law, every possessor of land has an exclusive right ratione soli to all the animals feræ naturæ found upon his land; and that he may pursue and kill them himself, or authorize any other person to pursue or kill them; and that he may now by the common law, which in so far continues unrestrained by any subsequent statute, support an action against any person who shall take, kill, or chase them.

The statutes to which your committee have referred have, in limitation of the common law, subjected to penalties persons, who, not having certain qualifications, shall exercise their common law right; but they have not divested the possessor of his right, nor have they given power to any other person to exercise that right without the consent of the pos

sessor.

It appears to your committee, that the 22 and 23 C. II. has merely the effect of exempting from those liabilities, which were previously enacted against unqualified persons, such gamekeepers as shall receive exemption from them by the lords of manors (and which exemption the said lords of manors are thereby empowered to give), but that the restraints upon the sale of game

equally affect the entire community.

Your committee conceive, that in the present state of society there is little probability that the laws above referred to can continue adequate to the object for which they originally were enacted. The commercial prosperity of the country, the immense accumulation of personal property, and the consequent habits of luxury and indulgence, operate as a constant excitement to their infraction, which no legislative interference that your committee could recommend appears likely to counteract.

It appears, that under the present system, those possessors of land who fall within the statutable disqualifications, feel little or no interest in the preservation of the game; and that they are less active in repressing the baneful practice of poaching than if they remained entitled to kill and enjoy the game found upon their own lands. Nor is it unnatural to suppose, that the injury done to the crops in those situations where game is superabundant may induce the possessors of land thus circumstanced, rather to encourage than to suppress illegal modes of destroying it.

The expediency of the present restraints upon the possessors of land appears further to your committee extremely problematical. The game is maintained by the produce of the land, and your committee is not aware of any valid grounds for continuing to withhold from the possessors of land the enjoyment of that property which has appeared by the common law to belong to them.

The

The present system of game laws produces the effect of encouraging its illegal and irregular destruction by poachers, in whom an interest is thereby created to obtain a livelihood by systematic and habitual infractions of the law. It can hardly be necessary for your committee to point out the mischievous influence of such a state upon the moral conduct of those who addiet themselves to such practices; to them may be readily traced many of the irregularities, and most of the crimes, which are prevalent among the lower orders in agricultural dis tricts.

Your committee hesitate to recommend, at this late period of the session, the introduction of an immediate measure upon a subject which affects a variety of interests; but they cannot abstain from expressing a sanguine expectation, that by the future adoption of some measure, founded upon the principle recognized, as your committee conceive, by the common law, much of the evils originating in the present system of the game laws may be ultimately removed.

Upon mature consideration of the premises, your committee have come to the following resolution :

Resolved-That it is the opinion of this committee, that all game should be the property of the person upon whose lands such game should be found.

Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Earl of Elgin's Collection of Sculptured Marbles.

The Select Committee appointed to inquire whether it be expedient that the Collection mentioned in the Earl of Elgin's Petition, presented to the House on the 15th day of February last, should be purchased on behalf of the Public, and if so, what Price it may be reasonable to allow for the same,

Consider the subject referred to them, as divided into four principal heads;

The first of which relates to the authority by which this collection was acquired:

The second to the circumstances under which that authority was granted:

The third to the merit of the marbles as works of sculpture, and the importance of making them public property, for the purpose of promoting the study of the fine arts in Great Britain ; and

The fourth to their value as objects of sale; which includes the consideration of the expense which has attended the removing, transporting, and bringing them to England.

To these will be added some general observations upon what is to be found, in various authors, relating to these marbles.

I. When the Earl of Elgin quitted England upon his mission to the Ottoman Porte, it was his original intention to make that appointment beneficial to the progress of the fine arts in Great Britain, by procuring accurate drawings and casts of the valuable remains of sculpture and architecture scattered throughout Greece, and particularly concentrated at Athens.