英和和英

名詞

master of game (plural masters of game)

1. (historical) The chief gamekeeper, or sole gamekeeper, of an estate, county, duchy, or kingdom.

   Hypernyms: gamekeeper < keeper < person

   Coordinate term: game warden

   • 1892, Charles Stewart, edited by John Campbell Shairp, A Treatise on the Law of Scotland Relating to Rights of Fishing: Comprising the Law Affecting Sea Fishing, Salmon Fishing, Trout Fishing, Oyster and Mussel Fishing, Etc. With an Appendix of Statutes and Bye-laws‎, 2nd edition, T. & T. Clark, pages 343-344:

     Among other Acts revived are the Act 1424, c. 11 (or 12), the Act 1457, c. 34 (or 86), and the Act 1477, c. 73, statutes which prohibit the use of cruives and yairs, which do not create any exception in favour of the Solway, and which became law before any such exemption was introduced. The Act 1685, c. 20 (or 24) further appointed certain persons called masters of game, in various parts of the country, including the counties of Dumfries and Wigton, and in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, to enforce its provisions under a commission for that purpose, for a period of seven years, and until the commission should be recalled. From this limitation to the commission granted to the masters of game, it has been argued, that the statute was only a temporary one, and that not only the appointment of these officers, but also the revival of the former statutes was only for a period of seven years. But although the commission granted was only for a limited period, it has been decided that the Act was perpetual in so far as it revived the former Acts (e) [a footnote mark]. The question thus arises whether the exception of 'the water of the Solway' from the Act 1563, c. 68, still subsists, or whether it has been abrogated by the later Act just referred to; in other words, whether the exemption of the Solway in the Act of 1563, prohibiting cruives and yairs, has a prospective effect, so as to take those waters out of the operation of any subsequent prohibitions, or revival of old prohibitions, of a like nature that might be enacted. If this question had not been decided or judicially assumed, it might be supposed that it was more probable, on the whole, that the exemption had no such prospective effect. The difference in the circumstances of the kingdom at the two dates might fairly account for the change of policy in regard to the Solway. In 1563 the two countries were held by distinct and hostile governments, and it was not wonderful that the debateable ground of the Solway should be exempted from restrictions which could not be enforced over its whole surface, and which, if enforced on the Scotch side only, would be certainly broken through by the English marauders. In 1685, however, both kingdoms were ruled over by one sovereign; a more amicable policy had, since the accession of James I., been adopted in legislation; and it might therefore be supposed that the exception in favour of the Solway had lapsed by implication, and that the fisheries of all parts of the kingdom were thenceforward to be governed by uniform statutory regulations.