THE MEW ZEAL AND GAME LAWS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume V, Issue 1396, 9 May 1868, Page 3

THE MEW ZEAL AND GAME LAWS.

In tlic interest, of the country settlers of this Province, wo protest against the injustice of the recent A et of the General Assembly, entitled for the salte of eupliony " The Protection of Certain /let," but which is really the " M e\v Zealand Game Laws," after the pattern and with the purposes of those which exist in England.

The assumption upon which the prohibition to killcertain animals rests is, that beasts ofthechase are in the nature of unappropriated chattels, and therefore belong to tlie King. But it is certain that when the King found beasts of the chase in England, he did not import " game " from the other ends of the world to justify the old forest laws. The Xing found his came in his own forest, and might exercise a right to prohibit their destruction So far from the "game" law at that time being oppressive, the license and privilege to kill them were given to certain persons who found them outside the King's demesnes. This privilege was then an assistance to the peasant and the yeoman. Therefore the privilege in those days was not an oppression but a relief, not an infringement of the rights of property but one of its securities. The King, it was averred, had as much right to withhold the privilege of killing certain animals as he had to make a present to A. B. or C. ot a piece of unowned land. The matter would have been different if the subject then, as he does now, purchases with bard cash, ownership and rights over the land which are possessed by the Crown. In the latter case it would happen that where rights were conferred to individuals, or to bodies corporate, by theCrown.therights of fores- | try would havebeen, and weretransferrcdinmany eases to the lender or mortgagee. C an the rights of purchase be less ? It is evident that to say there exists the right to exclude in the Crown, reserves to the Crown the right of resumption. Is there any sncli power in the Colony of New Zealand? The power of granting privileges over property to some persons, to the exclusion even of the holder of the fee, implies an incompleteness of tenure. But the same argument would justify the advisers of the Crown to-day doing what was common in feudal times and when the King's forests were really an appanage of the Crown, and not the trust estate of Parliament as they are now. The privilege was never based upon legal title, either before the Woods and Forests were put into commission nor since. It arose out of the necessity of supplying the King's table long before the property and income tax were thought of. If we could suppose the Crown making a present of lands for nothing, then we might also suppose tho Crown to retain the right of shooting or preserving game over them, or pertormiug any other act of lordship that it might sec fit to reserve. Or if when—assuming, of course, the completcst sovereignt\' in the Crown—this land were discovered it abounded with beasts of the chase and " game" of all sorts, the Crown might reserve to itself the privilege of shooting those animals which would go to the grantee of land. But the process of land acquisition here is by hard cash ; the whole policy hez - o is or should be to bring that land into cultivation so as to get a fair return for the cash ; to introduce forestry laws where there are no forests ; to bring game to eat the farmers' crop that a few idlers may shoot them when they are fat ; to subject the children of Englishmen to be whipped, not because birds' eggs are stolen, but because the sport of the idlers is spoilt ; that half-a-dozen people at three o'clock in the morning shall assume the power to bring into force a system which has filled the bye-ways of old England with demoralization, and set the unfortunate sons of honest yeomen upon the high gallows in towns—is a daring infringement of the rights of those who purchased the soil, is an instrument of oppression, and not to be tolerated one moment longer than it can be endured. But it is said that one reason for the Act is the preservation of " certain birds" in other words " game." But this object might equally be obtained by giving all persons the right to kill at certain seasons of the year, shortening the period when it might be lawful to shoot " certain animals " according to the necessity of the case. In certain of the United States this is done with a perceptible improvement both to the condition and number of animals usually denominated " game " in course of the year. In Massachusetts there is a penalty for shooting deer, birds of a certain kind, taking fish of certain species, and it is found that sportsmen being really the most interested are the best game-keepers, for they do see that the law is obeyed. But what is the position of a farmer who sees " certain animals " devouring his crop, well knowing that if he kills the creatures he may be sent to gaol. What wonder that he justifies his conscience by a reference to the instinct of self-preservation from the Bankruptcy Court, and the peasant and the sportsman are alike deprived, the one the pleasure of eating delicate flesh, and the other the satisfaction of gratifying a delicate palate. J? or would the law if it existed in the same form as in America be liable to such odium, nor followed by such evil consequences. The object we have in view is to keep clear before the mind of our readers who may be interested, that the assumption of power to import game into this country in order to justify the enactment of game laws is an act of usurpation unless it shall have received the express sanction of the Crown, and it would be worth while —if this Act is not repealed or modified —to petition the Crown on the subject. There is another practice growing up which is fraught with danger to the freedom of tiic colonists, and it is this. An Act is passed and allowed: it is afterwards amended, but not referred. It has obtained the force of currency without sanction and usage. Should the question ever arise, ] it suggests to the imperial referees the notion of ! its acceptance by the people. We can assure i r , ir readers there had never previously anytime surprised us so much as to see five people I the close of the session, between two and thrrr o'clock in the morning, legislating cm t subiect, and dealing out principles with the lutlority of " Five Kings" of Parliament. We I submit the following to our readers :-First, the tame law will and does act oppressively; second, that it is desirable to have it materially altered; third, that it ought to be referred to the imperii! authority for their sanction; fourth, that the riehts of property in New Zealand are conStioSsolute Ld precedent to the introduction of game, and therefore not to be destroyed by an Act of Assembly without a struggle-a constitutional struggle, of courso.-for there are a few people here who legislate as if the whole soil of New Zealand —and all that is under and over it—belonged to them.