tions, for the HOUSEHOLD of HENRY VIII. display the Manners, of DAYS OF OLD, and from the Quantum of Food ordered for the KING'S GREYHOUNDS, the Number kept, must have been considerable.

His HIGHNESS's Baker shall not put Allum in the Bread, or mix Rye, Oaten or Bean Flour, with the same, and if detected, he shall be put in the Stocks.

His HIGHNESS's Attendants are not to steal any Locks or Keys, Tables, Forms, Cupboards, or other Furniture, out of Noblemen's or Gentlemen's Houses where he goes to visit.

Master-cooks shall not employ such Scullions as go about naked, or lie all night on the Ground before the Kitchen-fire.

No Dogs to be kept in the Court, but only a few Spaniels for the LADIES.

Dinners to be at ten, and Suppers at four.

The Officers of his Privy Chamber, shall be loving together, no grudging or grumbling, nor talking of the KING'S Pastime.

The KING'S Barber is enjoined to be cleanly, not to frequent the Company of misguided Women, for fear of Danger to the KING'S ROYAL PERSON.

There shall be no romping with the Maids on the Staircase, by which Dishes and other things, are often broken!!! Care shall be taken of the Pewter Spoons, and that the Wooden ones, used in the Kitchen, be not broken or stolen.

The Pages shall not interrupt the Kitchen-maids-and He that gets one of them with Child, shall pay a fine of two Marks to his HIGHNESS, and have his Allowance of Beer, withheld for a Month.

The Grooms shall not steal his HIGHNESS's Straw for Beds, sufficient being allowed for them.

COAL only to be allowed to the KING'S, QUEEN's, and Lady MARY'S Chambers.

The Brewers not to put any Brimstone in the ALE.

Among the Fishes for the Table, is mentioned the Porpoise; if too big for a HORSELOAD, an extra allowance to the Purveyor.

Twenty-four Loaves a Day allowed for his HIGHNESS'S Greyhounds.

Ordered-That all Noblemen and Gentlemen, at the end of the Sessions of the PARLIAMENT, depart to their several COUNTIES, on Pain of the ROYAL DISPLEASURE!!!

As the Law respecting COURSING, has undergone different Interpretations, some Cases and Decisions, are

inserted.

At the STAFFORD Spring Assizes, 1804, in an Action for killing Game, by COURSING, the Defendant not being qualified, WILLIAMS, Serjeant, for the Plaintiff, insisted, (and in this he was confirmed by Mr. Justice LAWRENCE,) that though a qualified Person, may take his Servant or Servants, to assist him to kill Game, he cannot qualify them to kill it, neither will his Presence, protect an unqualified Person, not being his Servant, who goes for the Purpose of taking the Amusement of COURSING. But if such Person take an active part, by beating across the Fields, or in open Lands, and join in the Diversion, in the same manner as a qualified Person, he is as much liable to the Penalties, as if no such qualified Person, were PRESENT.

The learned JUDGE observes, that the contrary, was the usual Practice, but that Practice, would not alter the LAW.

In 1809, was laid before an eminent Counsel this QUERY. -"Two Parties were Coursing, and being threatened with an Information, though in each of these Parties there was One, who possessed both a Qualification and a Certificate, and to whom, the Dogs that run, belonged. "Your Opinion is requested, whether those Persons, who were neither qualified nor certificated, are liable to any Penalty, notwithstanding they were in Company with a qualified Man? and if they are so liable, can there be more than two Penalties recovered, or will separate Penalties attach, on each Individual?" ANSWER." I think that each Person is not guilty of a separate Offence, nor liable to a separate Penalty; but that the Offence committed by each Party, is one joint Offence only, (supposing them all to be unqualified) for which they are liable to one Penalty, for each Party; that is, two Penalties for both the Parties, using the Dogs, not being qualified. Each Person may be guilty of a separate Offence, for Coursing without a Certifi cate, who can be deemed to be a Person, who, on that Occasion, uses any of the Dogs without a Certificate. But the mere joining in the Sport, with a qualified or certificated Person, who has the Use and Command of the Docs, and of the SPORT, is not such a using of them, by the Person so joining, as to subject him to ANY PENALTY."

And this Opinion, has been confirmed to be Right, by the following Case.

LEWES 7. TAYLOR.

EAST'S Term Reports, Trinity Term, 52d GEO. III. This was an Action of Debt, for Penalties upon the

Game Laws, tried at the last AYLESBURY Assizes, before HEATH, J. One Count, charged the Defendant, for the Penalty of 51. upon the stat. 5 ANNE, c. 14. for using a Greyhound to kill Game, not being qualified. In support of which, it was proved, that W. GOLDBY, a Farmer, who was by his own Estate, qualified to kill Game, went out with Greyhounds and other Dogs, to course and kill Hares: that the Defendant, who was not qualified, was in company with GOLDBY, when he coursed and killed a Hare; that the Defendant took an active part in the Sport, by beating the Bushes, in order to find a Hare; and after the Hare had been killed by a Greyhound, he alighted from his Horse, went over a Gate, and took up the Hare. Upon this Evidence, the learned JUDGE was disposed to have nonsuited the Plaintiff; but upon the Authority of a Case, decided by Mr. Justice LAWRENCE, at Stafford, in 1804, in which an unqualified Person, partaking of the Sport, in Company with one who was qualified, was held not to be protected, from the Penalty of the Statute, he suffered the Plaintiff, to take a Verdict for the Penalty of 57. with Liberty to the Defendant, to move the COURT, to set it aside, and enter a Nonsuit, if the Evidence, did not support the Charge. STORKS accordingly moved the CoURT, for this Purpose, and referred to the Case of King v. Newman*, where, upon an Information being moved for in this COURT against Magistrates, for having unduly convicted, two unqualified Persons, in Penalties upon the Game Laws, for using Greyhounds to kill the Game, though they offered to prove in their Defence, that they were out at the Time, with a qualified Person, to whom the Dogs belonged, Lord MANSFIELD expressed a strong Opinion,

Hil. 13. G. 3. LOFT's Rep. 178. see Rex v. Taylor, 15. EAST, 402.

against the Conduct of the Magistrates, and only discharged the Rule, upon the Terms of their paying the whole Costs of the Application.-And in Molton v. Rogers *, Lord ELLENBOROUGH also gave his Opinion, that an unqualified Person, joining in the Sport, with the Owner of the Dogs, who was qualified, was not liable to the Penalty.

KING now appeared, to shew Cause against the Rule; but the COURT expressing, a decided Opinion, in Favour of the Defendant, he submitted to it, without further Discussion. Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. This is no Evidence against this Defendant, upon the Charge of using a Greyhound for killing the Game. The Dogs belonged to a qualified Person, who was out with them at the Time. This is not a solitary Amusement; and there is nothing to prevent a qualified Person, from taking others with him, to aid him in the Pursuit of the Game, and he is the Person using the Dogs.-The others have no Use of them, further, than as his Servants, and contemplating with him, the Pleasures of the Chase. The learned JUDGE's first thoughts were best. If, indeed, an unqualified Man, used his own Greyhound, for the Purpose of Coursing, though in the Company, with a qualified Person, the Case would admit of a different Consideration. But there can be, no Ground, for recovering the Penalty against this Defendant, who went out with the Dogs of another, who was qualified, and which other, was using them himself. The Defendant's picking up the Hare after it was killed, is no using of the Dogs to kill the Game. We had Occasion to consider this Question very lately, in the Case of a servant, Rex v. Taylor, 15. EAST, 463. The other JUDGES agreed; and BAYLEY, J. noticed, that the Words

* Four Esp. A. P. Cas. 217.