liberty of taking or killing them is another franchise, or royalty, derived likewise from the crown, and called free warren; a word which, signifies preservation or custody: as the exclusive liberty of taking and killing fish in a public stream or river is called a free fishery; of which, however, no new franchise can at present be granted by the express provision of magna charta, c. 16. The principal intention of grant ing a man these franchises, or liberties, was in order to protect the game, by giving him a sole and exclusive power of killing it himself, provided he prevented other persons. And no man but he who has a chase or free warren, by grant from the crown, or prescription, which supposes one, can justify hunting or sporting upon another man's soil; nor indeed, in thorough strictness of common law, either hunting or sporting at all. However new this doctrine may seem, it is a regular consequence from what has been before delivered, that the sole right of taking and destroying game belongs exclusively to the king. This appears, as well from the historical deduction here made, as because he may grant to his subjects an exclusive right of taking them; which he could not do, unless such a right was first inherent in himself. And hence it will follow, that no person whatever, but he who has such derivative right from the crown, is by common law entitled to take or kill any beast of chase, or other game whatsoever. It is true that, by the acquiescence of the crown, the frequent grants of free warren in ancient times, and the introduction of new penalties of late by certain statutes for preserving the game, this exclusive prerogative of the king is little known or considered; every man that is exempted from these modern penalties looking upon himself as at liberty to do what he pleases with the game: whereas the contrary is strictly true, and that no man, however well qualified he may vulgarly be esteemed, has a right to encroach on the royal prerogative by the killing of game, unless he can show a particular grant of free warren, or a prescription which presumes a grant; or some authority under an act of parliament. As to the latter, there are but two instances wherein an express permission to kill game was ever given by statute; the one by 1 Jac. I. cap. 27, altered by 9 Jac. I. cap. 11, and virtually repealed by 22 and 23 Car. II. cap. 25, which gave authority, so long as they remained in force, to the owners of free warren, to lords of manors, and to all freeholders having £40 per annum in lands of inheritance, or £80 for life or lives, or £400 personal estate (and their servants), to take partridges and pheasants upon their own, or their masters' free warren, inheritance, or freehold; the other by 5 Anne cap. 14, which empowers lords and ladies of manors to appoint game-keepers, to kill game for the use of such lord or lady, which with some alteration still subsists, and plainly supposes such power not to have been in them before. The truth of the matter is, that these game laws do indeed qualify nobody, except in the instance of a gamekeeper, to kill game but only to save the trouble and formal process of an action by the person injured, who perhaps too might remit the offence, these sta tutes inflict additional penalties to be recovered either in a regular or summary way, by any of the king's subjects, from certain persons of inferior rank, who may be found offending in this particular. But it does not follow that persons excused from these additional penalties are therefore authorised to kill game. The circumstance of having £100 per annum, and the rest, are not properly qualifications but exemptions. And these persons so exempted from the penalties of the game statutes, are not only liable to actions of trespass by the owners of the land; but also, if they kill game within the limits of any royal franchise, they are liable to the actions of such who may have the right of chase or free warren therein. Upon the whole, it appears that the king, by, his prerogative, and such persons as have, under his authority, the ROYAL FRANCHISE of CHASE, PARK, or FREE WARREN (See these articles), are the only persons who may acquire any property, however fugitive and transitory, in these animals feræ naturæ, while living; which is said to be vested in them propter privilegium. And such persons as may thus lawfully hunt, fish, or fowl, ratione privilegii, have only a qualified property in these animals: it not being absolute or permanent, but lasting only so long as the creatures remain within the limits of such respective franchise or liberty, and ceasing the instant they voluntarily pass out of it. It is held indeed, that if a man starts any game within his own grounds, and follows it into another's, and kills it there, the property remains in himself. And this is grounded on reason and natural justice; for the property consists in the possession; which possession commences by the finding it in his own liberty, and is continued by the immediate pursuit. And so, if a stranger starts game in one man's chase or free warren, and hunts it into another liberty, the property continues in the owner of the chase or warren; this property arising from privilege, and not being changed by the act of a mere stranger. Or if a man starts game on another's private grounds, and kills it there, the property belongs to him on whose grounds it was killed, because it was also started there; this property arising ratione soli. Whereas if, after being started there, it is killed in the grounds of a third person, the property belongs not to the owner of the first ground, because the property is local; nor yet to the owner of the second, because it was not started in his soil; but it vests in the person who started and killed it, though guilty of a trespass against both the owners. See LAWS RESPECTING GAME. GAMES, in antiquity, were public diversions, exhibited on solemn occasions. Such among the Greeks were the Olympic, Pythian, Isthmian, Nemean, &c. games; and, among the Romans, the Apollinarian, Circensian, Capitoline, &c. games. See APOLLINARIAN, OLYMPIC, PY THIAN. GAMES, MODERN, are usually distinguished into those of exercise and address, and those of hazard. To the first belong chess, tennis, billiards, &c.; and to the latter those performed with cards, or dice, as back-gammon, ombre, picquet, whist, &c. See BACK-GAMMON, CARDS, DICE, GAMING, &c. GAMELIA, in Grecian antiquity, a nuptial feast, or rather sacrifice, held in the ancient Greek families on the day before a marriage; so called, from a custom they had of shaving themselves on this occasion, and presenting their hair to some deity to whom they had particular obligations. GAMELION, in the ancient chronology, was the eighth month of the Athenian year, containing twenty-nine days, and answering to the end of January and beginning of February. It was thus called, as being, in the opinion of the Athenians, the most proper season of the year for marriage. GAMING, the art of playing or practising any game, particularly those of hazard; as cards, dice, tables, &c. Gaming has at all times been considered as of pernicious consequence to the commonwealth; and is therefore severely prohibited by law. It is esteemed a practice intended to supply, or retrieve, the expenses occasioned by luxury; it being a kind of tacit confession, that the company therein engaged do, in general, exceed the bounds of their respective fortunes; and therefore they cast lots to determine upon whom the ruin shall at present fall, that the rest may be saved a little longer. But, taken in any light, it is an offence of the most alarming nature; tending, by necessary consequence, to promote public idleness, theft, and debauchery, among those of a lower class; and, among persons of a superior rank, it has frequently been attended with the sudden ruin and desolation of ancient and opulent families, and abandoned prostitution of every principle of honor and virtue, and too often has ended in suicide. To restrain this pernicious vice among the inferior sort of people, the statute 33 Henry VIII. cap. 9, was made; which prohibits to all but gentlemen, the games of tennis, tables, cards, dice, bowls, and other unlawful diversions there specified, unless in the time of Christmas, under pecuniary pains and imprisonment. And the same law, and also the statute 23 Geo. II. cap. 14, inflict pecuniary penalties upon the master of any public house, wherein servants are permitted to game, as well as upon servants themselves who are found gaming there. But this is not the principal ground of complaint; it is the gaming in high life that demands the attention of the magistrate; a passion to which every valuable consideration is sacrificed, and which we seem to have inherited from our ancestors, the ancient Germans; whom Tacitus describes to have been bewitched with the spirit of play to a most exorbitant degree. They addict themselves,' says he, to dice (which is wonderful) when sober, and as a serious employment; with such a mad desire of winning or losing, that, when stripped of every thing else, they will stake at last their liberty, and their very selves. The loser goes into a voluntary slavery; and, though younger and stronger than his antagonist, suffers himself to be bound and sold. And this perseverance in so bad a cause they call the point of honor; ea est in re prava pervicacia, ipsi fidem vocant.' One would almost be tempted to think Tacitus was describing a modern Englishman. When men are thus intoxicated with so frantic a spirit, laws will be of little avail: because the same false sense of honor that prompts a man to sacrifice himself, will deter him from appealing to the magistrate. Yet it is proper that laws should be, and be known publicly, that gentlemen may consider what penalties they wilfully incur, and what a confidence they repose in sharpers; who, if successful in play, are certain to be paid with honor, or, if unsuccessful, have it in their power to be still greater gainers by informing. GAMING, CHANCE IN. Hazard, or chance, is a matter of mathematical consideration, because it admits of more and less. Gamesters either set out upon an equality of chance, or are supposed to do so. This equality may be altered in the course of the game, by the greater good fortune or address of one of the gamesters, whereby he comes to have a better chance, so that his share in the stakes is proportionably better than at first. This more and less runs through all the ratios between equality and infinite difference, or from an infinitely little difference till it come to an infinitely great one, whereby the game is determined. The whole game, therefore, with regard to the issue of it, is a chance of the proportion the two shares bear to each other. The probability of an event is greater or less, according to the number of chances by which it may happen, compared with all the chances by which it may either happen or fail. M. de Moivre, in a treatise de Mensurâ Sortis, has computed the variety of chances in several cases that occur in gaming, the laws of which may be understood by what follows. Suppose p the number of cases in which an event may happen, and q the number of cases wherein it may not happen, both sides have the degree of probability, which is to each other as p to q. If two gamesters, A and B, engage on this footing, that, if the cases p happen, A shall win; but if q happen, B shall win, and the stake be a; the chance of A will be pa ga and that of B- ; consequently, if they sell the p + q expectancies, they should have that for them respectively. If A and B play with a single die, on this condition, that if A throw two or more aces at eight throws, he shall win; otherwise B shall win; what is the ratio of their chances? Since there is but one case wherein an ace may turn up, and five wherein it may not, let u=1, and b 5. And again, since there are eight throws of the die, let n=8; and you will have a+b"-b" —nab”—1, to bɩ+nab”—1 : that is, the chance of A will be that of B as 663,991 to 10,156,525, or nearly as 2 to 3. A and B are engaged at single quoits; and after playing some time, A wants 4 of being up, and B 6; but B is so much the better gamester, that his chance against A upon a single throw would be as 3 to 2; what is the ratio of their chances? Since A wants 4, and B 6, the game will be ended at nine throws; therefore, raise a+b to the ninth power, and it will be ao+9ab+36 abb+84a®b3+126 a*b*+126a*b3, to 84 a3b®+36 aab'+at3+b9: call a 3, and b 2, and you will nave the ratio of chances in numbers,viz. 1,759,077 to 194,048. A and B play at single quoits, and A is the best gamester, so that he can give B 2 in 3: what is the ratio of their chances at a single throw? Suppose the chances as x to 1, and raise 2+1 to its cube, which will be z3+3 +3 +1. Now, since A could give B 2 out of 3, A might undertake to win the throws running; consequently the chances in this case will be as 23 to 322+ 3x+1. Hence 2=3x2+32+1; or 2+3 -3x+1. And therefore z/2z+1; and, consequently, z32-1. The chances, therefore, are ✔ 1 1 3 2-1, and 1, respectively. Again, suppose I have two wagers depending, in the first of which I have 3 to 2 the best of the lay, and in the second, 7 to 4; what is the probability I win both wagers? 1. The probability of winning the first is, that is the number of chances I have to win divided by the number of all the chances: the probability of winning the second is 7: therefore, multiplying these two fractions together, the product will be, which is the probability of winning both wagers. Now, this fraction being subtracted from 1, the remainder is, which is the probability I do not win both wagers: therefore the odds against me are 34 to 21. 2. If I would know what the probability is of winning the first, and losing the second, I argue thus: the probability of winning the first is 3, the probability of losing the second is therefore multiplying by, the product will be the probability of my winning the first, and losing the second; which being subtracted from 1, there will remain, which is the probability I do not win the first, and at the same time lose the second. 3. If I would know what the probability is of winning the second, and at the same time losing the first, I say thus: The probability of winning the second is ; the probability of losing the first is: therefore, multiplying these two fractions together, the product is the probability I win the second, and also lose the first. 4. If I would know what the probability is of losing both wagers, I say, the probability of losing the first is, and the probability of losing the second therefore the probability of losing them both is: which, being subtracted from 1, there remains therefore, the odds of losing both wagers is 47 to 8. This reasoning is applicable to the happening or failing of any events that may fall under consideration. Thus if I would know what the probability is of missing an ace four times together with a die, this I consider as the failing of four different events. Now the probability of missing the first is, the second is also, the third, and the fourth; therefore the probability of missing it four times together is ×××; which being subtracted from 1, there will remain for the probability of throwing it once or oftener in four times; therefore the odds of throwing an ace in four times, is 671 to 625. But if the flinging of an ace was undertaken in three times, the probability of missing it three times would be + which being subtracted from 1, there will remain for the probability of throwing it once or oftener in three times therefore the odds against throwing it in three times are 125 to 91. Again, suppose we would know the probability of throwing an ace once in four times, and no more: since the probability of throwing it the first time is, and of missing it the other three times, is xx, it follows, that the probability of throwing it the first time, and missing it the other three successive times, is ×××=; because it is possible to hit every throw as well as the first, it follows, that the probability of throwing it once in four throws, and missing it the other three, is 4x 第二; which being subtracted from 1, there will remain for the probability of throwing it once, and no more, in four times. Therefore, if one undertake to throw an ace once, and no more, in four times, he has 500 to 796 the worst of the lay, or 5 to 8, very near. Suppose two events are such, that one of them has twice as many chances to come up as the other: what is the probability that the event, which has the greater number of chances to come up, does not happen twice before the other happens once, which is the case of flinging 7 with two dice before 4 once? Since the number of chances is as 2 to 1, the probability of the first happening before the second is 3, but the prohability of its happening twice be.ore it is bat xor: therefore it is 5 to 4, seven does not come up twice before four once. But, if it were demanded, what must be the proportion of the facilities of the coming up of two events, to make that which has the most chances come up twice, before the other comes once? The answer is, 12 to 5 very nearly: whence it follows, that the probability of throwing the first before the second is, and the probability of throwing it twice is x, or therefore the probability of not doing it is therefore the odds against it are as 145 to 144, which comes very near an equality. Suppose there is a heap of thirteen red cards, and another heap of thirteen black cards, what is the probability that, taking one card at a venture out of each heap, I shall take out the two aces. probability of taking the ace out of the first heap is, the probability of taking the ace out of the second heap is; therefore the probability of taking out both aces is which being subtracted from 1, there will remain ; there fore the odds against me are 168 to 1. In cases where the events depend on one another, the manner of arguing is somewhat altered. Thus, suppose that out of one single heap of thirteen cards of one color, I should undertake to take out first the ace; and, secondly, the two: though the probability of taking out the ace be, and the probability of taking out the two be likewise The yet, the ace being supposed as taken out already, there will remain only twelve cards in the heap, which will make the probability of taking out the two to be; therefore the probability of taking out the ace, and then the two, will be X In this last question the two events have a dependence on each other; which consists in this, that one of the events being supposed as having happened, the probability of the other's happening is thereby altered. But the case is not so in the two heaps of cards. If the events in question be n in number, and be such as have the same number a of chances by which they may happen, and likewise the same number b of chances by which they may fail, raise a+b to the power n. And if A and B play together, on condition that if either one or more of the events in question happen, A shall win, and B lose, the probability of A's winning will be \a+b)”—b2 a+b; and that of B's swifter than the punishment of the law, which only hunts them from one device to another. The statute 13 Geo. II. c. 19, to prevent the multiplicity of horse-races, another fund of gaming, directs that no plates or matches under £50 value shall be run, under penalty of £200 to be paid by the owner of each horse running, and £100 by such as advertise the plate. By statute 18 Geo. II. c. 34, the statute of 9 Ann. is further enforced, and some deficiencies supplied: the forfeitures of that act may now be recovered in a court of equity; and, moreover, if any man be convicted, upon information or indictment, of winning or losing any sitting of £10 or £20 within twenty-four hours, he shall forfeit five times the sum. Thus careful has the legislature or a+b and the proba- been to prevent this destructive vice: which may winning will be a+b); for when a+b is actually raised to the power n, the only term in which a does not occur is the last ba: therefore all the terms but the last are favorable to A. Thus if n=3, raising a+b to the cube a3+3a2b+3ab3, +ba all the terms but b3 will be favorable to A; and therefore the probability of A's winning will be a2+3a2b+3ab2, a+b2—b3 b3 a+b3 bility of B's winning will be But if A a+6|3. and B play on condition, that if either two or more of the events in question happen, A shall win; but in case one only happen, or none, B shall win; the probability of A's winning will be a+b-nabp-bp for the only two terms in n+bfn which aa does not occur are the two last, viz. nabp-1 and bp. GAMING, LAWS AGAINST. By stat. 16 Car. II. c. 7, if any person, by playing or betting, shall lose more than £100 at one time, he shall not be compellable to pay the same; and the winner shall forfeit treble the value, one moiety to the king, the other to the informer. The statute 9 Ann. c. 14, enacts, that all bonds and other securities, given for money won at play, or money lent at the time to play withal, shall be utterly void that all mortgages and incumbrances of lands, made upon the same consideration, shall be and enure to the heir of the mortgager: that, if any person at one time loses £10 at play, he may sue the winner, and recover it back by action of debt at law; and, in case the loser does not, any other person may sue the winner for treble the sum so lost; and the plaintiff in either case may examine the defendant himself upon oath and that in any of these suits no privilege of parliament shall be allowed. The statute farther enacts, that if any person cheats at play, and at one time wins more than £10 or any valuable thing, he may be indicted thereupon, and shall forfeit five times the value, shall be deemed infamous, and suffer such corporeal punishment as in case of wilful perjury. By several statutes of the reign of king George II. all private lotteries by tickets, cards, or dice (particularly the games of faro, basset, ace of hearts, hazard, passage, rollypolly, and all other games with dice, except backgammon), are prohibited under a penalty of £200 for him that shall erect such lotteries, and £50 a-time for the players. Public lotteries, unless by authority of parliament, and all manner of ingenious devices, under the denomination of sales or otherwise, which in the end are equivalent to lotteries, were before prohibited by a great variety of statutes under heavy pecuniary penalties. But particular descriptions will be ever lame and deficient, unless all games of mere chance are at once prohibited; the invention of sharpers being show that our laws against gaming are not so deficient, as ourselves and our magistrates in putting those laws in execution. GAM'MER, n.s. Uncertain as to its etymology; probably from Fr. grand mère, a term applied to old women, corresponding to gaffer, says Dr. Johnson; it is simply its feminine. GAM'MON, n. s. Fr. jambon; Ital. gambone, the buttock of a hog salted and dried. A term used in the game called back-gammon. Our tansies at Easter have reference to the bitter herbs; though at the same time 'twas always the fashion for a man to have a gummon of bacon, to shew himself to be no Jew. Selden. Ask for what price thy venal tongue was sold: In thunder leaping from the box, awake GAMMONING, among seamen, denotes se The scale of GANA, or GHANA, a city and state of Central Africa, on the Niger. Our knowledge of it is derived almost wholly from the Arabian writers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, at which period it was the centre of an extensive empire. It appears to have been founded by one of a Saracen dynasty, expelled from Egypt; and being a convenient emporium of trade with Northern Africa, and in the vicinity of the gold mines or Wangara, it soon rose to a high pitch of prosperity. The vicinity is said to have been very fertile, and the pomp of the sovereign to have Cohors catenis qua pia stridulis Musa Angl. As deep drinketh the goose as the gander. But let them gang alone, As they have brewed, so let them bear blame. Spenser. O, you panderly rascals! there's a knot, a gang, a pack, a conspiracy against me. Shakspeare. As a gang of thieves were robbing a house, a mastiff fell a barking. L'Estrange. Admitted in among the gang, He acts and talks as they befriend him. Prior. Your flaunting beaus gang with their breasts open. Arbuthnot. GANGES (GANGA, the River), called also PADDA and BURRA GANGA, the Great River. An important river of Hindostan, one of the largest in Asia, formed by two streams which take their rise in the mountains of Thibet. Some doubts having arisen respecting the direction of these streams, the Bengal government, in 1808, sent lieutenant Webb to survey the upper part of the river; and, from all the information he could obtain, he fixed the source on the south side of the great Himalaya chain. All accounts, indeed, agreed in representing the origin of the Ganges as more remote than GANGOUTRI (which see), and stated that, while the course was in many places visible, in others it was covered with snow and ice. The course of the Ganges and Alacananda Rivers was followed, until the former became a shallow and almost stagnant pool, and the latter a small stream; and both having, in addition to springs and rivulets, a considerable visible supply from the thawing of the snow. It is therefore concluded, from analogy, that the sources of these rivers can be little, if at all, removed from the station at which these remarks were collected. No doubt can remain, says Mr. Hamilton, that the different branches of the river above Hurdwar take their rise on the southern side of the Himalaya chain of snowy mountains; and it is presumable, that all the tributary streams of the Ganges, including the Sarjew or Goggrah, and the Jumna, whose most conspicuous fountain is at little distance from the Ganges, also rise on the southern side of that chain of mountains. This river winds through the rugged country of Sirinagur, until at Hurdwar it finally escapes through an opening from the mountainous tract and enters the plains of Bengal, after a course of 800 miles. The breadth and depth of the river in its course through Bengal greatly vary, the former from three miles to half a mile, and in some places it is fordable; but for 500 miles from the sea, the depth in the channel is thirty feet, when the river is lowest; the current in the dry season runs three miles an hour and five miles in the wet. At 300 miles from the sea the Ganges separates into two great branches, which in their course to the sea diverge from each other and form a delta, whose base on the coast is 200 miles: and in which there are nearly twenty openings; the whole of the delta towards the sea being composed of low alluvion islands covered with wood named Sundry, whence the tract is called the Sunderbunds. The western branch of the Ganges is again subdivided into lesser branches, the two westernmost of which, named the Cossimbuzar and Jellinghee, unite again and take the name of Hoogly or Hughly to the sea. See HOOGLY. The latest account of the upper part of the Ganges is that given by captain Hodgson, of the tenth native infantry, who undertook to survey it in 1807. On the 31st of May, he descended to the bed of the river, and saw the Ganges issue from a very low arch at the foot of a vast bed of snow. It was bounded on each side by rocks; but in the front, over the debouche, the mass was nearly perpendicular, and from the river to the surface of the snow was 300 feet; probably the accumulation,' says he, of ages. It is in layers of some feet thick, each seemingly the remains of a fall of a separate year. From the brow of this curious wall of snow, and immediately above the outlet of the stream, large and hoary icicles depend: they are formed by the freezing of the melted snow-water of the top of the bed; for in the middle of the day the sun is powerful, and the water produced by its action falls over this place in cascade, but is frozen at night. The Gango tri Brahmin who came with us, and who is only an illiterate mountaineer, observed, that he thought these icicles must be Mahádéva's Hairs, whence, as he understood, it is written in the Shastra, the Ganges flows. I mention this, thinking it a good idea: but the man had never heard of such a place actually existing, nor had he or any other person, to his knowledge, even been here. In modern times they may not, but Hindoos of research may formerly have been here; and if so, I cannot think of any place to which they might more aptly give the name of a Cow's Mouth, than to this extraordinary débouché. The height of the arch of snow is only sufficient to let a stream flow under it. Blocks of snow were falling about us, so there was little time to do more here than to measure the size of the stream. Measured by a chain, the mean breadth was twenty-seven feet,; the greatest depth at that place being knee deep, or eighteen inches, but more generally a foot deep, and ra |