cern, that after a given date all buildings near towns of a certain size would be girt with a restriction in regard to the area which they might cover with bricks and mortar, the most sanguine cannot predict an early date for the realisation of the scheme.

In the meantime it will be well for us to realise that until such a scheme is adopted we shall have to depend for our parks, public gardens, and playgrounds on levies on the rates, or the occasional munificence of individuals; and on this latter head I cannot refrain from quoting, by way of conclusion, the opinions of the late Sir Arthur Helps and Miss Octavia Hill.

Sir Arthur Helps, in his work on Social Pressure, says: "One of the grandest objects of benevolence is to provide for the future these vacant spaces in the midst of, or neighbouring to, the great centres of population.' And again, speaking of Mr. Peabody's great gift to London for the erection of dwellings for the working classes, he says:

A great philanthropist has lately astonished the world by giving it large sums of money during his lifetime. The purposes to which he devoted that money are admirable. But perhaps even a larger and more beneficent purpose would be found in the creation of open spaces. London is often likened to Babylon; but the similitude is a very unjust one as regards the city of Nitocris and Semiramis, for Babylon had just what, in its densest parts, is deficient in London. We are told that Babylon contained within its walls sufficient land for agricultural purposes to enable the inhabitants of that city to be fed by those resources during a siege. We are also told that there were such breaks of continuity within the city that, upon its being taken by Cyrus, the inhabitants of the city were not aware for several days of its having been taken. Granted that these statements are exaggerations, it is still but fair to conjecture that Babylon was a city entirely different from London in the number and extent of its open spaces.

Let us hope that in the future London may more resemble Babylon in this salutary respect, and that some future Peabody may emulate his example in dowering it with parks or recreation grounds. Miss Octavia Hill's words are brief but eloquent :

There are many kinds of gifts which have now a demoralising effect on the poor, but such gifts as this of common land [by which Miss Hill means land to be enjoyed in common, not land on which there are common rights] could do nothing but unmixed good. The space, the quiet, the sight of grass and trees and sky, which are a common inheritance of men in most circumstances, are accepted as so natural, are enjoyed so wholly in common, that however largely they were given, they could only be helpful.

C. L. LEWES.

AMONG the various sins and enormities which have latterly been attributed to these institutions is the assertion that they are all of very modern origin. They have been profanely referred to as the progeny of a pernicious alliance between the nouveaux riches of England and the impecuniosity of the Highlands, as having had no existence prior to the present century, and as having mostly sprung into being within the last thirty years or thereby. Little difficulty was found in palming this charge against deer forests upon a public without the opportunity-still less the inclination-of testing its truth. Nothing, however, could well be more incorrect; and not much research is necessary to show that the true state of the case is very different.

From a very early date there are indubitable traces of the protection of wild deer in Scotland, of their pursuit in the chase, and of the setting apart of very extensive tracts of mountainous ground for this purpose. Numerous references of this nature are scattered throughout the early literature of the Highlands. In the writings of Torfous, the Scandinavian historian, mention is more than once made of the chase of the deer among the fastnesses of Sutherland and other parts of the Highlands as early as the twelfth century; and occasional notices of similar import are to be met with in the early ballads and metrical romances, and in many of the prose works relating to the north of Scotland down to the sixteenth century, when we come upon specific details of the preservation and pursuit of deer in certain forests, such as Athol, Mar, Glenartney, &c., which, down to the present day are devoted to the same purpose.

In 1549, Munro, High Dean of the Isles, who travelled through most of the Western Isles, and wrote the earliest description of them, made from personal observation, which we have, frequently refers to the deer which even then these isles contained, as many of them still do. For example, in his description of Jura he refers to its 'fyne forrest for deire,' and Jura still has its fine deer forest. Of

Islay, he says it is fertil, fruitful, and full of natural grassing, with maney grate deire, maney woods, fair games of hunting.' Of Mull, that it possesses 'certain woodes, maney deire, and verey fair hunting games, with maney grate mertines, and cunnings for hunting, with a guid raid fornent Colmkill callit Pollaisse.' Again, of Ronin, that it possessethane forest of high mountains and abundance of little deire in it, quhilk deir will never be slain dounewith but the principal saitts man be in the height of the hill, because the deir will be callit upward ay be the Tainchell,' or without tinchell they will pass upward perforce.' Similar notices are found in the Dean's descriptions of many other islands of the Hebrides, such as Skye, Scalpay, Raasay, Harris, &c., which need not be further quoted.

Observations of the same nature are made by Martin in his description of the Western Islands in 1695, a work acknowledged by De Foe, Johnson, and later writers on the same topics to have been of great assistance to them, and which remains to this day of considerable historic and descriptive value. When describing the island of Lewis, he alludes to the chase of Oservaul, which is fifteen miles in compass.' Of Harris he says, 'There are abundance of deer in the hills and mountains here, commonly called the Forest, which is eighteen miles in length from east to west: the number of deer computed to be in this place is at least 2,000, and there is none permitted to hunt there without a licence from the stewart to the forester;' and there is a similar account applicable to Arran.

Similar references will, on examination, be found in all or nearly all authors who wrote on the Highlands at a later period, confirmatory of the fact that from the earliest times what are now so well known as deer forests had a practical and, it is believed, somewhat extensive existence. They will be found in the well-known letters of Burt, written from the Highlands in the early part of the last century; in the Economical History of the Hebrides and Highlands, 'the result of six journeys made into the Highlands and Hebrides from the year 1760 to the year 1786,' by the Rev. Dr. John Walker, who, on separate occasions, was the bearer of commissions from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and from the Commissioners on the Annexed Estates; in Dr. Johnson's Journey to the Western Islands with Boswell, first published in 1774; in Dr. McCulloch's letters to Sir Walter Scott, descriptive of the Highlands and Western Isles, founded on a series of annual journeys between the years 1811 and 1821; in Logan's Scottish Gael; in Scrope, Colquhoun, and many other authorities of the present day, down to

I This word, which is of Gaelic extraction, is defined by Jamieson in his Scottish Dictionary as 'a circle of sportsmen, who, by surrounding a great space, and gradually narrowing, brought great quantities of deer together.' It is referred to by Sir Walter Scott in a vivid description of stag-hunting in 'Waverley;' and it is curious and suggestive to find it still made use of in certain parts of the Western Highlands.

the latest of all, the Report of her Majesty's Commission for Inquiry into the condition of the Crofters, &c., of the Highlands and Islands. It is very interesting, too, to observe that many of the most famous and extensive deer forests of the present time, such as Athol, Mar, Gaich, Glenfeshie, and some parts of Ross and Sutherland on the mainland, as well as Jura, Harris, and other islands, are precisely those of which we often find special mention in the ancient authorities; the inference being that from the earliest references down to the present day these extensive tracts have been the constant retreat of red deer, and have been devoted to this form of occupation from being unfitted by their high situation, and rugged and sterile character, for any other known profitable purpose.

Who has not heard of the ancient forests of England which, from the days of the Conqueror, if not earlier, were secluded for the diversion of the sovereigns and their nobles, and hedged about by many grievous and barbarous laws-Leges Forestarum, the rigour of which endured for centuries after William's time? The forest of these days has been described as a certain territory or

circuit of woody grounds and pastures, known in its bounds as privileged for the peaceable being and abiding of wild beasts and fowls of forest, chase, and warren, to be under the king's protection for his princely delight, bounded with irremovable marks and meres, either known by matter of record or prescription; replenished with beasts of venery and chase, and great coverts of vert for succour of the said beasts; for preservation thereof there are particular laws, privileges, and officers belonging thereunto.

Until the making of the Carta de Foresta by Henry the Third in 1224, confirmed by Edward the First in 1229, forest offences were punished in the severest manner-often by death itself-at the mere pleasure of the sovereign; but by this charter many forests were disforested, and many others were shorn of their more oppressive privileges. These cruel laws were further ameliorated by successive monarchs, whether of their own clemency or under political pressure, and may now be said to be wholly obliterated from the statute-books.

Though it does not appear that the Scottish kings ever addicted themselves to the same extent as the Norman monarchs of England to the pastimes of foresting, or that the same barbarous fencing of their sanctity was generally resorted to in Scotland, there is still ample evidence of the existence of several royal forests, and we have various detailed descriptions of royal or state visits to these. The sixteenth century, indeed, has upon its records many Acts of the Scots Parliament for the seclusion and protection of wild deer, as also of game, which by this period must have been coming into note, judging by the following observation of Sir William Blackstone on the forest laws: "From this root has sprung a bastard slip known by the name of the Game Law; but with this difference, that the forest laws established

only one mighty hunter throughout the land, whilst the game laws have raised a little Nimrod in every manor.' The remark just made that in Scotland the forest laws were administered with less cruelty and selfishness than in the sister country must be qualified by an admission that the Scots statute-book was disgraced by at least one Act, 1551, c. 9, 'anent them that schuttis with Gunnis at Deare and Wildefowle,' which probably no Norman enactment surpassed in severity, for it actually inflicted the pain of death, as well as confiscation of movables, upon such as shot at deer, &c.—an Act, however, which by 1686, if not earlier, had deservedly fallen into desuetude. The jealous protection extended to the royal forests in Scotland is further exemplified by the Act of James the Sixth, 1617, c. 18, which proceeds upon the complaint that the Forests within this Realme in the which Deer are kept are altogether wasted and decayed by Shielings, pastouring of Horses, Mares, Cattel, Oxen, and other Bestial;' and by a representation made by the Court of Session to the King against granting of new forests as prejudicial to the King's old forests, and to his lieges.'

A forest,' it may be stated, differed from a chase' in those times in respect that the former was the exclusive prerogative of royalty, and alone was subject to the full effect of the forest laws. A'chase ’ was generally of smaller extent, might be held by a subject, and was only protected by the common law.

In 1528, King James the Fifth

made proclamation to all lords, barons, gentlemen, landwardmen, and freeholders to compear at Edinburgh with a month's victual to pass with the king to danton [subdue] the thieves of Teviotdale, &c.; and also warned all gentlemen that had good dogs to bring them, that he might hunt in the said country. The Earl of Argyle, the Earl of Huntley, the Earl of Atholl, and all the rest of the Highlands, did, and brought their hounds with them to hunt with the king. His Majesty therefore passed out of Edinburgh with 12,000 men, and hounded and hawked all the country and bounds, and killed eighteen score harts. Next summer he went to hunt in Athol, accompanied by Queen Margaret and the Pope's Ambassador, where he remained three days most nobly entertained by the Earl, and killed thirty score of hart and hynd, with other small beasts, as roe and roebuck, wolf and fox, and wild cats.

There is also the better known case of Queen Mary of Scotland, who with great state and circumstance took the sport of hunting the deer of the Forest of Mar and Atholl in the year 1563.' Minute particulars in this great hunt are given by Barclay in his Defence of Monarchical Government, but it will be enough to state that on this notable occasion scouts were sent out to gather the deer not only in Athol, but likewise in Mar, Badenoch, and Moray, and that the result is said to have been a substantial bag of three hundred and sixty deer, five wolves, and some roes. In closing these notices of royal deer-hunts mention may be made that Queen Mary's great rival and relative, Elizabeth of England, seems not to have disdained on