THE TOUCHSTONE OF MERIT. IN breeding for the turf above all things it is necessary, in order to secure success, to consider closely the old crosses of blood; and to cross judiciously the stout, with the speedy. Not that I think that for the sake of blood, the form of an animal selected for stud purposes should be held a second-rate consideration; but, each being well considered, the standard of excellence may better be attained. The fault of looking to blood alone is among many of our breeders the cause of such ill success; as they look too much to the horse throwing back in blood, as the term is, and not stamping his own form, which may be and very often is atrocious, but that of his sire, which might have been first-rate, on the stock. Many again stick too much to one strain of blood, and prefer the speedy sort of Selim, Blacklock, and Smolensko, to the stouter, more lasting, and more wear-and-tear progeny of Tramp, Whalebone, and Catton. A retrospective glance at the blood of our crack tried stallions, will show that a cross between the two sorts is productive of almost certain success. Of our first-rate tried stallions the list is reduced to but ten, which are worthy of the judicious breeder's notice. When I say this, I speak of the old horses, not the young tried ones; and out of these ten four possess the Whalebone blood, mixed with that of Alexander and his three well-known sons, Rubens, Selim, and Castrel. The following, despite the hand of Time, and the ravages of foreigners, still have their admirers and patrons in merrie England. First and foremost I place Camel, by Whalebone, dam by Selim; Defence, by Whalebone, dam by Rubens; The Saddler, by Waverley (son of Whalebone), dam by Castrel; Sir Hercules, by Whalebone, grandam by Alexander. To these may be added, though not so closely connected, Liverpool, out of a Whisker mare, and Pantaloon, by Castrel, but lacking the Whalebone stain. Besides these six, of whom it is my present intention to speak, the two sons of Blacklock, Velocipede and Voltaire; and Jerry, and Emilius, of Orville and Smolensko blood: complete the number for selection. Lately we have indeed had proof enough of the excellence of the Whalebone blood in Camel, Touchstone, and Sir Hercules; to wit Blue Bonnet and Seahorse first and second for the St. Leger, Robert de Gorham second for the Derby. In 1841, Coronation and The Squire second and third for the St. Leger, and Coronation first for the Derby ; and Miss Stilton (another cross of the Selim and (through Defence) Whalebone blood) second for the Oaks. In 1840, Launcelot first for 2 P NO. XXIII.-VOL. IV.-NEW SERIES. the St. Leger, and second for the Derby. In 1839, Deception second for the Derby, and first for the Oaks. In 1838, Callisto second for the Oaks, and Don John (an undoubted son of Waverley), first for the St. Leger. In 1837, Caravan second for the Derby. All these things prove pretty plainly the value of the blood, and render it without an equal in the present day. In 1831, Chorister won the St. Leger, and he was about the first of Lottery's produce (at any rate, it was the first year of Lottery's three year old produce). He won, beating that honest horse and descendant of Whalebone, The Saddler, chiefly by the latter's being ridden by a lad. In 1842, we have the St. Leger won by Blue Bonnet, beating Seahorse, also a descendant of Whalebone, but not as in Chorister's case, winning by mistake. The analogy in these cases, is the Whalebone blood both times being second, and both the winners being the earliest produce of their respective sires. It is no slight recommendation to a stallion when we see his early stock run well, and particularly, when they carry off the first year one of our large stakes. This year I have not much doubt but that Blue Bonnet won easily, and was the best in the race. She is like all - Touchstone's stock, very lengthy and racing-like, but her curby hocks prevented her from coming out before. On the Friday, for the Park Hill Stakes, though stale, and half a stone worse than on Tuesday, she ran a very game race with the best filly of the year, viz. Sally, and though I suspect the Cesarewitch distance was too much for her, she ran forward. In her veins runs as good blood as any in England, her dam (of whom she was the third foal) being by that good old horse, though so despised, Brutandorf (lately sold for £100. to finish his days in Russia), grandam by Whisker, (Blue Bonnet thus possessing two stains of Waxy), great grandam by Golumpus, out of Otterington's dam. Surely this pedigree must suit the most fastidious. Seahorse, second for the St. Leger, is as fine a looking horse as one need wish to see, possessing great length and power, and Rosalind, who was highly thought of for the race, is a most corky looking one, and won a plate at Newmarket afterwards. Launcelot is gone to Ireland, and though far inferior to Touchstone, may prove a useful stallion there, and at the price, 500 gs., cannot be much of a loser to his new owner. Satirist, another of the family, and a very useful horse, unfortunate this year from a very common misfortune to tolerably good horses, viz. that of being too highly weighted (as in re Hyllus), is become the property of Mr. Litchwald, at the very cheap rate of 250 gs. and is gone abroad. I should not be surprised at his getting race-horses. It is singular, and worthy of notice, that 1842 has not shown a single two year old by Touchstone, unless Cotherstone appears in the Criterion. Not one indeed has so much as started. Old Emma, the dam of Cotherstone, has produced as large a progeny as any mare we have, and all, though moderate, it is true, have shown some running, as Trustee, Mündig, Micklefell, Jagger, The Irish King of Kelton, Black Beck, and the Ladye of Silverkelde Well. Cotherstone is another instance of a double stain of Waxy, Emma being by Whisker. He and the colt out of Queen of Trumps are the present representatives of Touchstone in the next Derby. There is one other horse of whom I am tempted to say a word. Inasmuch as few crosses have equalled in success, that of the Whalebone and Alexander blood, we may predicate, that such success may continue in that line, if it be united in an animal, who proved himself to be good, honest, and a racer. Such an one is Coronation, by Sir Hercules, out of Ruby, by Rubens; and he combines the Whalebone and the Rubens blood; he was a race-horse, as his race for the Derby showed, and an honest race-horse, as John Day affirmed, when riding him in distress for the St. Leger. What more can a breeder want? It is to be hoped, that he may pass the term of his natural life in England, and not beyond seas, and with Touchstone, may keep up that blood, which once under the scarlet Grafton jacket was generally in the first and never in the rear rank. RED ROVER. THE GAME LAWS. DAY POACHING. PROVISIONS OF THE GAME ACT AGAINST TRESPASSERS. AFTER explaining the mild and gentle correctives provided by the common law against trespassers, we had contemplated proceeding immediately to explain the statutory penalties imposed upon them, but "Hades" is paved, they say, with good intentions, and that imp, the printer's devil, considering our property his own, asserted his right by abstracting that portion of the manuscripts. We were thus made to rush in medias res with most disorderly precipitation, and are now compelled to hark back. When the recent Game Act, by abolishing qualifications, removed the safeguard they afforded against all but solvent defendants, and permitted Jack Ketch to shoot gentlemen's game, if he were only properly" licensed to kill," it was by the infinite wisdom of Parliament deemed "just and reasonable, to provide some more summary means of protecting the same from trespassers" during the day-time. That period was made to include the rest of the twenty-four hours, which had not been guarded by the Night Poaching 1 and 2 Wm. 4, c. 32, sec. 34. Act, (so that no space remains uncovered,) and is defined as commencing at the beginning of the last hour before sun-rise, and termi- › nating at the expiration of the first hour after sunset. These festina remedia are, that every person who "shall commit any trespass, by entering or being in the daytime upon any lands in search or pursuit of game, woodcocks, snipes, quails, landrails, or conies," may be fined by a magistrate a sum not exceeding two pounds, in addition to the costs; and if five or more persons together commit such a trespass, they may severally be compelled by the same high priest to offer on the altar of justice, any amount he thinks proper not exceeding five pounds in addition to the costs. We think that we have already sufficiently explained the various modes in which a person may commit a trespass, and the only point remaining to be discussed is, whether those words receive any qualification from the addition of the terms "by entering or being." The language used in the night poaching act is simply "shall enter or be" upon land, and we have already quoted the cases which have been decided upon that enactment. Those cases are strictly in point in construing the definition of the offence in the Game Act, and thence it may be concluded that a corporeal presence or entry is unnecessary, Every person, therefore, who by any innocent agent, as for instance by inciting a dog, wilfully commits a trespass, or who procures, or aids, or assists another, who is reponsible, in doing so, may be convicted under the game act; and as the offence does not amount to felony, he may in every case be charged as the actual perpetrator of the wrong. This to unlearned readers may appear somewhat extraordinary, but in addition to the judgement of Mr. Baron Alderson, the highest authority‡ upon criminal law declares, that to introduce any instrument, or even to fire a loaded gun into a dwelling house, constitutes, and may be charged in an indictment as an entering by the person, and may render him guilty of the very serious crime of burglary. The opinion that this is the true construction of the statute receives corroboration from the use of the word "entering," for if a bodily presence were necessary, then the word "being," alone would have sufficed, for it is impossible to conceive a case, in which a party can personally enter, and yet not be upon the land. This possible conjunction of circumstances has led to a decision, that although these words may in some cases constitute two distinct offences, yet they need not in every instance inevitably do so, and therefore that a conviction for entering and being is not void on the ground of duplicity. We can easily conceive that our readers will now be ready to ask what could be the utility of the insertion of the word, being, if the legal signification of entering be so comprehensive. Be patient with us, good friends, whilst we "make it out," and let us suppose a case, as lawyers will pertinaciously say, in which the offender had entered by night, or it could not be shown when, and was found poaching by day, or, being a labourer, had entered originally for the purpose of doing his work, and then employed himself in poaching. The former could not be covicted of having committed a trespass by entering by day, nor the latter by entering in search of game, but inasmuch as every person who has a lawful authority originally to enter, begins to commit a trespass immediately he exceeds his authority, the workman would have offended by being there with such an object. * In any proceeding under this section the land must be in some way specified, as, for instance, by setting out the name of the close, or its abuttals, but a statement that it is in the occupation of a person whose name is mentioned, will be sufficient. The parish in which it is situated should also be set forth, and also the county, in order to show that it was within the jurisdiction of the magistrate. Any misdescription in any of these respects will be fatal, they should, therefore, be carefully ascertained. The intent, of course, with which the offender entered, or was in the place specified, is the very essence of the charge, and the destruction of game on that particular spot must have been contemplated, therefore, if he were merely crossing it to go from one place, where he had been poaching, to another where he intended to poach, he cannot be convicted of a trespass on that place, unless he was following game. This leads us to observe, that there are two offences, the one where the object is to start, the other where it is to pursue game, or the other enumerated creatures, and the magistrate must decide with which of these intents the trespass was committed. In order to satisfy the magistrate upon the question, whether the party was upon the land with the view imputed, it is not necessary that he should be seen to shoot at game, &c., beating about with a dog and gun,§ or some such similar act, is quite sufficient. The magistrate as a reasonable man, is to form his judgment of the motives of the person from his actions, and must take into his consideration the whole of the circumstances, including both time and place. We cannot, perhaps, better illustrate this, than by quoting the decision of the magistrates at Guildford, a short time since, who convicted a person who was regularly quartering Six Carpenter's case, 8 co. rep. 290. ↑ Rex v. Mellor, 2 Dowl. 173. Rex v. Andrews, 2 M. and R. 377. Rex v. Barham, R. and M., C. C. R. 15. Rex v. King, Sess. Cas. 88. 1 Chell. 607. Rex v. Davies, 6 J. R. 177. Habden v. Henty, |