The Project Gutenberg eBook of The royal forests of England
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The royal forests of England
Author: J. Charles Cox
Release date: April 19, 2026 [eBook #78499]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Methuen & Co, 1905
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78499
Credits: Jamie Brydone-Jack and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROYAL FORESTS OF ENGLAND ***
THE ANTIQUARY’S BOOKS
GENERAL EDITOR: J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A.
THE ROYAL FORESTS OF ENGLAND
[Illustration: THE GREENDALE OAK
(1720)]
THE ROYAL FORESTS
OF ENGLAND
BY
J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A.
WITH FIFTY-THREE ILLUSTRATIONS
METHUEN & CO.
36 ESSEX STREET W.C.
LONDON
_First Published in 1905_
THIS ATTEMPT TO DELINEATE SOME OF THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE ROYAL FORESTS
OF ENGLAND
IS DEDICATED
WITH MUCH ADMIRATION AND RESPECT TO
RICHARD HISCO WHITWORTH
CHAPLAIN OF NEWSTEAD PRIORY AND FOR FORTY YEARS VICAR OF BLIDWORTH
IN RECOGNITION OF THE REMARKABLE GRIP THAT HE HAS OBTAINED OVER THE
FOREST-LORE OF SHERWOOD AND OF HIS SKILL AS A MODERN BALLAD-WRITER ON THE
OLD ROMANTIC LINES
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. EARLY FORESTS 1
II. THE FOREST COURTS 10
III. THE FOREST OFFICERS 17
IV. THE BEASTS OF THE FOREST 25
V. THE FOREST AGISTMENTS 41
VI. HOUNDS AND HUNTING 47
VII. THE TREES OF THE FOREST 68
VIII. LATER FOREST HISTORY 76
IX. THE FORESTS OF NORTHUMBERLAND,
CUMBERLAND, WESTMORELAND, AND
DURHAM 87
X. THE FORESTS OF LANCASHIRE 98
XI. THE FORESTS OF YORKSHIRE—PICKERING
AND GALTRES 107
XII. THE FORESTS OF CHESHIRE 131
XIII. THE FORESTS OF STAFFORDSHIRE 137
XIV. THE FOREST OF THE HIGH PEAK 150
XV. DUFFIELD FRITH 181
XVI. SHERWOOD FOREST 204
XVII. THE FORESTS OF SHROPSHIRE,
WORCESTER, WARWICK, AND HEREFORD 223
XVIII. THE FORESTS OF LEICESTERSHIRE AND
RUTLAND 231
XIX. THE FOREST OF ROCKINGHAM 237
XX. THE FOREST OF OXFORDSHIRE 257
XXI. THE FORESTS OF BERKSHIRE,
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, AND
HUNTINGDONSHIRE 266
XXII. THE FOREST OF DEAN 274
XXIII. THE FOREST OF ESSEX 283
XXIV. THE FOREST OF WINDSOR 287
XXV. THE FORESTS OF SUSSEX 301
XXVI. THE FORESTS OF HAMPSHIRE 304
XXVII. THE FORESTS OF WILTS 313
XXVIII. THE FORESTS OF DORSETSHIRE 330
XXIX. THE FORESTS OF SOMERSETSHIRE 333
XXX. THE FOREST OF DARTMOOR 340
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
PAGE
Verderer’s Slab, Bakewell 17
J. Charles Wall.
Verderer’s Slab, Chelmorton 18
J. Charles Wall.
Forester’s Slab, Wirksworth 18
J. Charles Wall.
Forester’s Slab, Bakewell 19
J. Charles Wall.
Forester’s Slab, Hope 19
J. Charles Wall.
Forester’s Slab, Hope 21
J. Charles Wall.
Forester’s Slab, Papplewick 21
J. Charles Wall.
Woodward’s Slab, Newcastle-on-Tyne 23
J. Charles Wall.
Woodward’s Slab, Papplewick 23
J. Charles Wall.
Hunting Dogs 51
Berners or Harbourers 55
Wyrall Effigy 66
Wyrall Effigy 67
Deer Hunters of Cranborne Chase 83
V. M. M. Cox.
Hunting Costume, Seventeenth Century 89
Chief Forester’s Slab, Durham 97
J. Charles Wall.
Hunting Costume, Thirteenth Century 182
Letters in Centre of Oak 221
Hunting Costume, Fourteenth Century 238
Cattle Brands, Essex Forest 285
The Hart (Turbervile) 298
King and Queen Oaks, New Forest 308
M. E. Purser.
The Hare (Turbervile) 334
LIST OF PLATES
The Greendale Oak _Frontispiece_
From Strutt’s _Sylva Britannica_, 1826.
I. The King Hunting (1) _To face page_ 4
Brit. Mus. MSS., Royal 10 E. iv., ff. 253-4.
II. The King Hunting (2) ” 8
Brit. Mus. MSS., Royal 10 E. iv., ff. 255-6.
III. Head of Attachment Court Roll ” 14
Accounts Exch. Q. R., 134/16, _temp._ Edw. II.
IV. Red Deer ” 26
From Gilpin’s _Forest Scenery_, 1791.
V. Wild Boars ” 30
Brit. Mus. MSS., Add. 27, 699.
VI. Wolf and Sheepfold and Wild Goats ” 32
Brit. Mus. MSS., Royal 12 C. xix., ff. 14, 19.
VII. Pigs of the New Forest ” 42
From Gilpin’s _Forest Scenery_, 1791.
VIII. Netting in Woods and Streams ” 58
Brit. Mus. MSS., Cott., Tib. A. vii., f. 51.
IX. The Four Beasts of Venery ” 60
X. The Four Beasts of Chase ” 62
XI. The Four Beasts of Sport ” 64
Plates IX., X., and XI., are from Cott. MSS.,
Vesp. B. xii., ff. 1, 2.
XII. Maple Tree, Boldre Churchyard ” 72
From Strutt’s _Sylva Britannica_, 1826.
XIII. Straw Helmets and Swindgel of the Deer-hunters
of Cranborne Chase ” 84
V. M. M. Cox.
XIV. Deer Stalking ” 102
Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 27, 699, ff. 108-9.
XV. Forest Hermit ” 108
Brit. Mus. MSS., Royal 19 E. iii., f. 133.
XVI. Berner and Limehound, and Crossbow Shooting ” 122
XVII. Dog Leeching and Rewarding the Hounds ” 140
XVIII. Foxes, Deer in Forest, and Wolves ” 164
Plates XVI., XVII., and XVIII. are from Add.
MSS., 27, 699, ff. 6, 20, 23, 28, 50, 58, 109.
XIX. Sherwood Forester of Fee, Skegby Church ” 204
Photograph from the Rev. H. J. Stamper.
XX. Monument of Thomas Leake, Blidworth Church ” 216
Photograph from the Rev. R. H. Whitworth.
XXI. Haywood Oaks, Blidworth ” 222
Photographs from Rev. R. H. Whitworth.
XXII. Ladies Rabbiting ” 304
Brit. Mus. MSS., Royal 10 E. iv.
XXIII. The Hill Woods, Lyndhurst ” 316
From “The New Forest,” Horace G. Hutchinson.
XXIV. A Deer Leap, Wolseley Park ” 330
W. Salt, _Arch. Soc._, vol. v.
PREFACE
County historians have, as a rule, with but rare exceptions, either
entirely ignored the story of the royal forests within their confines,
or have treated the subject after the most meagre fashion. Nevertheless,
there is abundant and most interesting material for their history at the
Public Record Office in a mass of documents which are but very rarely
consulted. Occasionally, too, much can be gleaned from manuscripts at the
British Museum, Cambridge University Library, Guildhall, or Lincoln’s
Inn, and in a few cases from rolls or books of forest proceedings in
private hands.
If references had been given to every document cited, almost every page
would have bristled with footnotes, involving a considerable curtailment
of the rest of the letterpress. Not a single statement, however, is
made—where no author is cited—save on the authority of original and
contemporary records.
It may be helpful to some to state the chief classes of documents whence
forest lore is to be obtained in the vast national depository in Chancery
Lane.
(1) Placitæ Foresta, or Forest Proceedings, Chancery—John to Charles
I.—consisting of presentments, claims, perambulations, etc., before the
Justices in Eyre of the Forests. They are contained in 156 bundles, and
an inventory of their contents will be found in the Dep.-Master of Rolls
Reports, v., App. ii., 46-56.
(2) Swainmote Court Rolls of Windsor, 2 Edw. VI. to 14 Charles I.
Inventory in Report, v., App. ii., 57-9.
(3) Forest Proceedings, Exchequer, Treasury of Receipt, Henry III. to
Charles II. To these documents there are three volumes of MS. Calendars.
(4) Miscellaneous Books of Exchequer, Treasury of Receipt, vol. 75,
Edw. I.; assarts and wastes in diverse forests, vol. 76; pleas and
presentments of Sherwood, Hen. III. to Edw. III.; vol. 77, game in all
forests north of the Trent, 30 Hen. VIII.
(5) A Book of Orders concerning Royal Forests, 1637-1648. State Papers,
Domestic, Charles I., vol. 384.
(6) Records of Duchy of Lancaster. A great variety of forest
presentments, attachments, perambulations, pleas, etc., Hen. III. to
James I., pertain to Lancashire, Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire,
etc. A printed list of all the Duchy Records was issued in 1901; those
relating to forests are on pp. 39-47. Among the maps and plans (pp.
76-80) are many relating to the Forest of the High Peak.
(7) Lists of Minister Accounts, with thorough indexes, were issued in
1899; much royal forest information occurs in many of these accounts.
(8) Occasionally Court Rolls of Manors, etc., yield information; these
also have printed lists and indexes, issued in 1896.
(9) Both Close and Patent Rolls for the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries abound in royal forest incidents; they have been well
calendered (printed) for the greater part of this period.
As to these records, I have a large number of references and brief
extracts—far more than are used in the following pages—for the different
counties, and I would gladly on application save trouble, if I could, to
any genuine worker as to a particular forest or forests.
With regard to printed books that bear on the subject, references to
the more important will be found in each of the chapters; but there are
three of such real value on this little studied subject that they demand
special mention.
In 1887, Mr. W. R. Fisher published a 4to volume on _The Forest of Essex:
its History, Laws, Administration, and Ancient Customs, and the Wild Deer
which lived in it_. The book owed its origin to the spirited action of
the Corporation of the City of London, in rescuing much of the illegally
enclosed land of Epping Forest; it is based throughout on documentary
evidence, and illustrates, in many ways, forest law and procedure in
other counties besides Essex.
The documents relative to the Yorkshire _Forest of Pickering_ are
exceptionally voluminous and interesting. They sufficed to fill four
volumes of the new series of the North Riding Record Society, and were
put forth by Mr. R. B. Turton between 1894-7. I had obtained transcripts
of many of these documents in 1890, and made considerable extracts from
others in 1902-3 before I was acquainted with these books. They are not
well arranged, but both transcripts and introductions are of the greatest
value to the forest student, particularly of the fourteenth century.
In 1901 the Selden Society issued Mr. G. J. Turner’s _Select Pleas of
the Forest_, the one masterly work on English forest law and procedure,
more especially of the thirteenth century. To this admirable volume these
pages are much indebted, and from it not infrequent quotations have
by leave been taken. I desire also here to gratefully acknowledge the
help I have received from Mr. Turner, outside his published work, and
particularly for his reading the proof of the earlier chapters, though it
is not to be understood that he is responsible for any statements. It is
much to be hoped that Mr. Turner will ere long produce another book on
the later Forest Pleas in the time of their decadence.
Passing long periods of my earlier life within the bounds of two old
royal forests, Exmoor, Somerset, and Duffield Frith, Derbyshire, and
living subsequently close to the confines of the Staffordshire forests
of Kinver, Cannock, and Needwood, the subject treated of in these pages
has always had for me a particular fascination. Accidentally meeting in
early life with a copy of that very rare little work, Dryden’s edition
of _L’Art de Venerie_ (1843), by William Twici, huntsman to Edward
II., which is described in chapter vi., made me desire to know more
about the subject. Thirty years later I had the good fortune to make
the acquaintance of that rare old antiquary and sportsman, the late Sir
Henry Dryden, Bart. Various discussions and correspondence on England’s
forest law and early hunting led to his desiring me to bring out a new
and extended edition of his valuable little treatise. The project got
deferred, but this book, in which his drawings of hunting costumes and
hounds are reproduced, to some extent fulfils his wishes.
No one is better aware of the deficiencies of these pages than the
writer. It would have been easy enough to have found original material
sufficient to fill a volume of this size for almost each of the forests
named therein; in some cases, such as the Peak Forest, Rockingham, and
more especially Sherwood, it seemed almost sinful to be content with
such brief summaries of a few of the more important facts. Nevertheless,
it seemed best on the whole to condense the entire matter within the
limits (kindly made more elastic in this case) assigned to the series
of “Antiquary’s Books.” In doing this, certain sections that had been
prepared on such subjects as the Clergy and Forest Pleas, Historic Trees,
Place and Personal Names in Forest Districts, and a Glossary of Terms had
to be abandoned. In the heartless work of cutting down, by more than one
half, the material prepared for the press, as well as in other ways, I
had the timely assistance of my son, Mr. Cuthbert Machell Cox.
It might be well for the reader interested in any particular forest or
shire to recollect that illustrations of any special topic treated of in
the opening chapters are not, as a rule, repeated subsequently; reference
to the index will often supplement information given under the chapter
on a definite shire. It is hoped, too, that the index will serve as a
glossary, as each forest term used is explained once or oftener in the
text.
The absence of any reference to the counties of Bedford, Cambridge,
Cornwall, Hertford, Lincoln, Middlesex, Monmouth, Norfolk, and Suffolk,
arises from the fact that there is practically no information with
regard to any royal forests within their confines.
If these pages arouse greater interest in the much neglected story of
England’s royal forests, it will be an abundant reward for no small
amount of time and trouble expended on record searching and on general
reading in the pursuit of a subject that was at one time so widely
developed, and had so great an influence on our social and economic life.
J. CHARLES COX
ST. ALBANS, SYDENHAM
_July, 1905_
THE ROYAL FORESTS OF ENGLAND
CHAPTER I
EARLY FORESTS
“A forest,” according to the last edition of the _Encyclopædia
Britannica_, “is a tract of country covered with trees, of one or
several species, or with trees and underwood.” This has become the
popularly accepted meaning of the term for several generations, but it is
historically false; and so far as this volume is concerned, we have to go
back to Manwood’s definition as expressed in his _Lawes of the Forest_
(1598), wherein he describes a forest as “a certen territorie of wooddy
grounds and fruitfull pastures, priviledged for wild beasts and foules of
forrest, chase, and warren, to rest and abide in, in the safe protection
of the king, for his princely delight and pleasure.”
But even Manwood, and others who have followed him, are not correct in
assuming that the term originally, or of necessity, implied woody grounds
or natural woodland. Dr. Wedgwood seems to be right in considering
“forest” as a modified form of the Welsh _gores_, _gorest_, waste, waste
ground; whence the English word _gorse_, furze, the growth of waste land.
Others consider its derivation to be from the Latin _foris_, out of
doors, the unenclosed open land. From the fact that so many wastes were
covered with wood or undergrowth, it gradually came about that the term
“forest” was applied to a great wood.
Perhaps the following definition is as accurate a one as can be given in
a few words, of what used to be understood by the English term “forest”
in Norman, Plantagenet, and early Tudor days. A forest was a portion of
territory consisting of extensive waste lands, and including a certain
amount of both woodland and pasture, circumscribed by defined metes and
bounds, within which the right of hunting was reserved exclusively to the
king, and which was subject to a special code of laws administered by
local as well as central ministers.
Had the true meaning of the old term “forest” been grasped, much waste
of learning, and of vain strivings to prove that such barren tracts as
by far the greater part of the forests of Dartmoor, of Exmoor, and of
the High Peak, or even of the larger portion of the New Forest were
wood-covered in historic times, might have been spared.
A chase was, like a forest, unenclosed and only defined by metes and
bounds, but could be held by a subject. Offences committed therein were,
as a rule, punishable by the Common Law and not by forest jurisdiction,
though swainmotes were sometimes held therein, proving that they had
originally been royal forests. The terms “chase” and “forest” were
occasionally used interchangeably, owing to a chase having been secured
by the Crown, or the Crown having granted a royal forest to a subject.
A park was an enclosure, fenced off by pales or a wall. In certain
forests there were various parks, as in Duffield Frith, and Needwood,
and Sherwood; and in most, at least one or two; but many parks were held
throughout the country by subjects under Crown licence, altogether apart
from forests. Forest law prevailed in parks within a forest, but not in
those outside such limits. An Elizabethan estimate, of doubtful value,
states that the old royal forests were sixty-nine in number, and that
there were in addition thirteen chases and more than seven hundred parks.
The term “warren” also requires brief discussion. The public had a right
to hunt wild animals in any unenclosed land outside forest limits,
unless such right had been restricted by some special royal grant. The
word “warren”—the subject is ably treated by Mr. Turner (_Forest Pleas_,
cxxiii.-cxxxiv.)—was used to denote either the exclusive right of hunting
and taking certain beasts (_feræ naturæ_) in a particular place, or the
land over which such right existed. Grants of free-warren over demesne
lands outside forests, so frequently made by our earlier kings both
to religious foundations and to private individuals, prevented anyone
entering on such lands to hunt or to take anything belonging to the
warren without the owner’s licence, under the great penalty of £10. No
one might, therefore, follow the hunt of a hare or of a fox or other
vermin into warrenable land; but following the hunt of deer into such
land was held to be no trespass, as deer were not beasts of the warren.
Lords of warrens had the power of impounding the greyhounds or other
dogs, and the nets and snares of trespassers.
In the consideration of England’s old forests, it is well to remember
that subjects from time to time, in different shires, were seized of
lands within forest bounds; but, when that was the case, they were not
allowed on such lands the right of hunting, or of cutting trees, or of
high fence making, or of doing anything which could be interpreted as
detrimental to the deer, save by special grant from the Crown.
It has been pointed out by Mr. Turner that the history of English forests
divides itself into three periods, namely, from the earliest times up to
1217, when the Charter of the Forest of Henry III. was granted; from that
date up to 1301, when large tracts were disafforested by Edward I.; and
thirdly, from 1301 up to the present day.
As to the story of the forests in the first of these periods, it must
largely partake of the nature of conjecture based upon subsequent
knowledge.
As the Romans gradually made themselves masters of England, they must
have destroyed much of the vast extent of woods that gave shelter to the
British tribes. This work of destruction—begun in the later prehistoric
stage—was accelerated by two other causes, apart from military reasons;
wooded districts were cleared in order to use the richer tracts for
tillage and pasturage; whilst the greater attention paid to iron and lead
smelting led to a steady diminution in timber through the demands for
fuel.
The Saxons made further development of iron smelting works. This gradual
clearance of the natural woods, coupled with enclosures of land round
homesteads and settlements, drove back the deer and other game into the
depths of the woods and the more desolate districts.
These wilder tracts were used as common hunting grounds; but in course
of time the chieftains and more powerful local men usurped the rights
hitherto exercised by all. Eventually, as the Saxon overlords or kings
gained greater power, they claimed, as part of their royal prerogative,
the right to reserve the chase, or at all events the higher chase of
the deer, in selected areas chosen for their nearness to favourite
residences, or for the exceptional predominance of game. The royal
hunting grounds (_silva regis_) as well as the king’s lands or royal
demesnes (_terra regis_) were gradually formed out of the original
folkland held by the common people under their thegn; so that when
Egbert, in the ninth century, became the first king of all England, he
found himself possessed of many royal hunting grounds in most parts of
his kingdom.
During the later Saxon and Danish period the chase became more and more
restricted. The freeholder still had the right to kill the big game on
his own land, but might not follow it into or upon the king’s woods. The
lesser game could, however, be then followed even in the king’s woods by
the holder of the land, up to the time of the Conquest.
In this, as in so many other respects, the mention of forests or woods in
Domesday Survey is merely incidental. The name of swainmote, as applied
to a minor forest court of local administration, which so long survived
and was of such general use, is in itself sufficient to establish the
fact that there was a pre-Norman customary forest law. The question as to
the first introduction of a body of written forest law in this country
depends largely upon the genuineness of the code usually attributed to
Canute, and termed _Constitutiones de Foresta_. This Latin code, in
thirty-four brief chapters, purports to have been drawn up by Canute
both for the English and the Danes. Although its authenticity was long
ago doubted by Coke, it has been quoted by many able writers, such as
Palgrave and Kemble, without the expression of any doubt as to it being
a genuine historic document; but Professor Freeman and Bishop Stubbs
subsequently adduced such weighty reasons for considering this code a
forgery, or at all events containing so many interpolations as to be
valueless, that present-day scholars are almost unanimous in rejecting
it. The best defence of it is to be found in Mr. Fisher’s _Forest of
Essex_. On the whole, it seems probable that this Latin code has a
certain value in showing the general drift and tendency of Anglo-Danish
forest law; but that its worth has been vitiated by being dressed up
at the hands of some Norman scribe, with the object of lessening the
hostility to the severity of the forest laws introduced by the Conqueror.
[Illustration: _PLATE I_
THE KING HUNTING (1) (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)]
The Conqueror acquired, by right of conquest, not only the demesne
lands of the Confessor and of the nobles who had opposed him, but also
all the rights of the chase over great woodland or open stretches of
both cultivated and uncultivated ground, where royal hunting rights had
previously been exercised by Saxon or Danish kings. With William and
his immediate successors the chase was a passion, and hence a code of
singularly harsh and burdensome “forest” laws soon came into operation.
The Conqueror took advantage of the autocratic position secured to him
and his followers by their military success, to carry out “afforestation”
not only over the restricted areas that had been the hunting grounds of
his predecessors on the throne, but over almost all the old folkland that
remained unenclosed. The term “forest,” that had been long in like use
on parts of the Continent, was then introduced into England, and made to
embrace vast districts, which included woodlands and wild wastes of moor,
as well as patches of cultivated land. Within these afforested tracts,
he decreed that the right of hunting was vested solely in the Crown,
and could only be exercised by the king, or by those who were specially
privileged under royal licence to share in it. The feudal idea about all
wild animals, however monstrous and harsh in operation, possessed a rough
logical basis. It was argued that all such animals were _bona vacantia_,
or ownerless property, and hence pertained to the king; that hunting
was essentially the pastime or “game” of kings; and that therefore the
right of exercising the chase, or taking all kinds of beasts of venery,
belonged solely to the king.
The subsequent Norman kings added more or less largely to the “forest”
districts of England, making even whole counties subject to this
exceptional jurisdiction—as, for instance, Essex and Surrey. The
complaints of the hardships caused by this autocratic proceeding
gradually gained strength. Certain disafforestations were made even
by Henry II.; but in 1215 John was compelled to agree, by one of the
articles of Magna Charta, to the disafforesting of all the great tracts
of country which had been made forest during his own reign.
Soon after this, in 1217, the child-king Henry was made to issue the
Charter of the Forest, in consideration of a grant of one-fifteenth of
all movables of the whole kingdom. By this instrument it was provided
that all forests, which Henry II. had afforested, should be viewed by
good and lawful men; and that all that had been made forest, other than
his own royal demesne, was forthwith to be disafforested.
In accordance with this charter special perambulations were ordered to be
made before March, 1224-5, by twelve knights elected for the purpose.
There is much confusion among both national and local historians as to
the number and extent of England’s forests at this period; and certain
of our State documents appear to be somewhat contradictory. Fortunately,
however, a great gale, that affected almost the whole of England towards
the close of the year 1222, was the incidental cause of furnishing the
longest extant list, of an early date, of England’s royal forests. The
windfall was so considerable, that Henry III. issued orders to the forest
officials not to interfere with any of the prostrate trees or broken
branches until further orders, and at once to proceed to draw up a
careful valuation of their worth. Letters to this effect were despatched
to—
_Viridariis et forestariis de feodo de foresta_ de Dene, Nova Foresta,
Brikestok, Braden, Rokingham, Lye, Brehull (Bucks), Galteriz, Windlesore,
inter Usam et Derewentem, Huntindonie, Shirewud, Rotelande, Clive
(Northants), Brunningemor (Berks), Cumberland, Penber (Hants), comitatus
Leicestrie, Clay (Salop), Lya (Salop), Melkesham and Chipeham, Cet,
Savernac (Wilts), Northumberland, Lancastria, Salopa, Kenefer, Canoc,
Alrewas, Hopwas, Kenillewurth (_haia et parco_), Selewud, Nerechirch
(Somerset), Graveling, Gillingeham, Pikering, Porcestre, Essexie,
Wichewud, Axisholt, Notingham, and Periton (_parco_).
At the same time, like injunctions were forwarded to the keepers of each
of these forests. On 30th January, 1223, the king instructed the sheriffs
of all the counties containing forests to place the money accruing
from the sale of the windfall in some religious house within their
jurisdiction, there to await further orders, and to place with it a roll
giving full particulars of the sales, drawn up by a specially appointed
clerk named in the letters patent.
The heading to these instructions on the Patent and Close Rolls of Henry
III. is _De Cableicio_. The term _cableicium_, or _cablicium_ signifies
windfallen trees, and corresponds to the old French word _chablis_, which
had a like meaning. It is quite clear that the term “cablish” (to use the
English form), strictly speaking, implies uprooted trees, as distinct
from mere branches. The forest officials, after the great gale, were
ordered to remove nothing, _nec de cableicio illo neque de branchura per
impulsionem venti prostrata_. Nevertheless, the word was occasionally
given a wider meaning—as, for instance, in 1223, when _cableicium_ was
applied to twelve great branches that had fallen in Windsor forest. But
in this case the wood was sufficiently substantial to be reserved for the
repair of the king’s houses. Cablish seems never to have been applied
to such windstrewn wood as would be used for fuel. We have met with the
word in several forest rolls or records in Northamptonshire, Rutland,
Hampshire, and Derbyshire as late as the time of Henry VII.; though at
that period the English word _rotefallen_, or _rootefaler_, was more
usual as descriptive of the tree uprooted by the wind, and was used in
distinction to the mere _wyndfallen_ wood of smaller dimensions.
Other forests that occur in the Patent and Close Rolls of the earlier
years of Henry III., which are not specifically named in the great storm
order of 1222, are: Alnwick, Northumberland; Easingwold and Wakefield,
Yorks; Clipston and Silverston, Northants; Acornbury and Kilpeck,
Hereford; Peak Forest and Horston, Derbyshire; Alveston, Furches,
Keynsham, and Horewood, Gloucester; Feckenham, Worcester; Cheddar and
Selwood, Somerset; Freemantle, Hants; Buckholt, Clarendon, Ifwood,
Sugrave, and Weybridge, Wilts; Poorstock, Dorset; Finmere and Woodstock,
Oxon; and Havering, Essex.
Edward I. in some cases broke the Forest Charter under legal quibbles;
but he did not, in general, desire that the boundaries of the forest as
settled by his father, should be disturbed. Towards the end of his reign,
however, strong political pressure induced him to consent to further
disafforesting. The Forest Charter was confirmed in 1297, but further
perambulations were undertaken between that date and 1301, by which large
reductions were made in the forest area.
It would have caused general disturbance to the industries of the
country, if the pursuit of special occupations pertaining to the soil
had been prohibited within the very wide areas of the forests. Such
industries were allowed to be followed under particular restrictions, and
were worked, as a rule, for the profit of the crown. The most important
of these was the question of iron smelting, particularly as the forges
consumed so large an amount of wood or charcoal. Grants were made from
the crown for permission to have itinerant forges. Such forges abounded
in the Forest of Dean, and were also met with in the forests of Sussex,
Duffield, Sherwood, Pickering, etc.
Henry III., in 1231, granted this liberty (_forgia itinerans_) to Mabel
de Cantilupe for life in Dean Forest. The grant states this was in
accordance with a custom sanctioned by John and other of the king’s royal
ancestors. Another grant of the following year provided that the lady
might have an oak on each of any fifteen days she chose, every year as
long as she lived, for the support of this forge.
The symbol of a man who was entitled to use an itinerant forge seems to
have been a pair of bellows. This symbol is to be found on two early
incised slabs in the church of Papplewick, Sherwood Forest.
In some cases there were permanent forges of some size, belonging to the
crown, within the forest bounds; of this there were two instances in
Duffield Frith.
[Illustration: _PLATE II_
THE KING HUNTING (2) (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)]
In the Belper ward of Duffield Frith there was considerable surface
coal mining; on Dartmoor and Exmoor there were particular regulations
affecting the procuring of peat; whilst in other forests the quarrying of
stone for building purposes, for millstones and for tombstones, as well
as the burning of lime and digging of marl were pursued, but in all cases
with due regard for the non-disturbance of the deer. Such callings were
confined to particular sites, as far as possible on the fringes of the
forest.
The following of trades that were obviously detrimental to the deer,
through odour or otherwise, such as the tanning of hides, were rigorously
prohibited within forest bounds.
“Purlieu,” strictly speaking, was all that ground near any forest which
had originally been forest by perambulation of Henry II., Richard I.,
or John, but had been severed by the Forest Charter of Henry III. Round
some forests the purlieus were of considerable extent. As a rule, the
purlieu man had certain forest agistment and other rights, but of
considerable less value than the actual forest tenant; in return for
this he was subject to a modified form of forest law, the chief of which
was the non-disturbance of deer that he might find among his crops. The
tenants on the outskirts of Galtres forest, Yorks, and of Duffield Frith,
Derbyshire, were termed “bounderers”; they had certain privileges as well
as obligations.
The purlieu custom varied much in different districts and passed under
various local terms. Such were the _Wynlands_, or _Wydelands_, of the
Peak, and the _Venville_ of Dartmoor. Cranborne Chase, which was nearly
identical with a forest, had its well-defined _Inbounds_ and _Outbounds_.
The old name of _Outwoods_ is not infrequently to be found in the
vicinity of an old forest, as at Duffield, Clarendon, and Kinver; its use
denotes that the place so called was formerly within the forest purlieus.
The forest of Clarendon had its _Inlodges_ and _Outlodges_.
CHAPTER II
THE FOREST COURTS
The forest eyre was a court called into being by the king’s letters
patent, by which justices were appointed to hear and determine pleas
of the forest throughout a particular county or groups of counties, or
occasionally in the special area of a county or counties. A short time
before the eyre was held, letters close were directed to the sheriff
relative to its business. By these they were ordered to summon (1) all
dignitaries and other free tenants who had lands or tenements within
the metes of the forest; (2) the reeve and four men from every township
within the metes; (3) all foresters and verderers, both those then in
office and those (or their heirs) who had held such office since the
last pleas of the forest; (4) all those persons who had been “attached”
since the last pleas; (5) all the regarders; (6) and all the agisters.
The sheriffs were at the same time directed to see that the foresters and
verderers brought with them all their attachments or attachment rolls
since the last pleas, and that the regarders brought with them their
regards duly sealed, and the agisters their agistments.
The proper interval between those forest eyres is supposed, from analogy
of eyres for pleas of the Crown and common pleas, to have been seven
years; but in practice, to the great inconvenience of all concerned,
considering the multiplicity of business, the intervals were usually much
longer, and almost wholly capricious. For example, Derbyshire affords
more than one instance of intervals exceeding thirty years; whilst
Pickering yields an instance of an interval of over fifty years, namely,
from 1280-1334.
Every three years a thorough inspection not only of the woods, but also
of every part of the forest, was expected to be made; this was termed
the _Regard_. The duty of the twelve or more knights, who were called
the Regarders, was to draw up answers to a long set of interrogatories
termed the Chapter, which covered almost every possible particular as to
the condition of the forest demesnes. But the most important function the
regarders discharged was as to the _assarts_, or enclosures of waste with
or without warrant, and to _purprestures_, or encroachments made by the
building of houses or the like. In practice the full formal regard, with
its complete roll of answers, was usually only made shortly before the
holding of each eyre, when the sheriff was ordered by the Crown to see to
the regard being duly performed.
The amount of business that had to be transacted at these eyres was very
considerable, and usually involved repeated adjournments. The work would
have been still greater if it had not been that a large number of the
delinquents were naturally dead before ever the court was held; and that
not a few of the former offenders, who had been released on bail, had
passed out of the jurisdiction of the sheriff, and could not be traced.
The proceedings of the court were, roughly speaking, divided into two
parts—the pleas of vert and the pleas of venison. In both cases the chief
object of the proceedings was the collection of fines and amercements
for breaches of the forest laws, which—contrary to the usual opinion—had
little, if any, trace of the old Norman severity. In fact, so far was
this from being the case, that if a man was determined to poach venison,
he met with far lighter punishment if the offence was committed in a
royal forest, than if he was dealt with by the common or manorial law for
a like offence in a private park. The first forest code (usually cited as
the Assize of Woodstock) was extant in the time of Henry II.; it records
the severities of his grandfather, when cruel mutilation and capital
punishment, irredeemable by any forfeiture, were among the ordinary
penalties; but all this disappeared in the thirteenth century.
The presence of the reeve and four men from each township was
strictly enforced; and the fines for total absence, or absence at the
opening of the court, of these and others who were summoned, were
rigorously exacted. The consideration of the _essoins_, or excuses for
non-attendance, was always the first business of the court. It was
also usual for juries from the different hundreds to be summoned; but
their duty, as well as that of the men from the townships, seems to have
been confined to attesting the truth of any statements affecting their
districts which might appear on the rolls, and to being amerced for
any particular neglect that might be brought to light. As to any jury
proper, at these pleas, for the purpose of pronouncing a verdict on the
delinquents, there is no trace; such decisions were left entirely in the
hands of the justices.
By article nine of the Forest Charter, a man might be imprisoned for a
year and a day; but in practice, so far as the eyre was concerned, a fine
seems to have been the invariable judgment of the justices. These fines
were so apportioned to the position and means of the delinquents, that
they could, as a rule, be readily paid; and there are various instances
in which, after being pronounced “in mercy,” they were excused payment on
the ground of poverty. The sheriff was ordered to arrest those who failed
to appear, and sentence of outlawry was at last pronounced, after the due
number of summons before the county court. The fines imposed on offending
foresters, verderers, or other forest ministers were rightly of a much
heavier character than those imposed on ordinary offenders.
With regard to the venison pleas, the chief forester was expected to
answer for all manner of venison delivered by warrant or otherwise since
the last eyre. Under these pleas also came all the presentments for
illegal or supposed illegal venison trespass of every kind, including
the receiving of venison illicitly killed, or the harbouring of known
offenders.
The vert pleas dealt with all the charges connected with damage to
timber or underwood, its felling, carrying off, unlawful sale, or
misappropriation, as well as the grant of “fee” or gift trees. The
question of vert is dealt with more in detail in the section on forest
trees.
In addition to the question of assarts and purprestures, another
important matter always brought before the forest eyre was the list of
claims or privileges by royal grant or charter, the majority of which
were usually held by the religious houses. Each case had to be duly
discussed and sanctioned, or refused, or curtailed, at each successive
eyre.
There was not a single forest wherein several monasteries had not
particular privileges conferred in early days, and in some they were
very numerous. Over the great stretch of Peak Forest, Derbyshire, the
abbeys of Basingwerk, Beauchief, Darley, Dernhall, Dieulacres, Leicester,
Lilleshall, Merivale, Roche, and Welbeck, together with the priories of
Kingsmead, Launde, and Lenton, all had rights. Such rights referred for
the most part to the felling of timber necessary for their churches and
buildings, or their farmsteads and fences, as well as to the collecting
of undergrowth or dead wood for fuel. The agistment of cattle at certain
seasons and the pannage of swine were granted from time to time; whilst
venison rights, more particularly in the shape of a tythe of the deer
killed, pertained to some few religious houses. The tythe of the wild
boars killed in Dean Forest went to the abbey of St. Peter’s, Gloucester,
and the tythe of the deer hunted in Pickering Lythe was the perquisite of
the abbey of St. Mary’s, York.
In addition to the forest pleas proper, certain special inquisitions as
to the condition of the forest and the charges against trespassers were
held by the local officials, but under the particular justice of the
forest or his deputy. Such inquisitions were probably caused, in the
first instance, by the infrequency of the eyres. By a tiresome confusion,
these courts of general inquisition in latter days are sometimes termed
swainmotes, though they differed as much from the real swainmote as from
the forest pleas.
The swainmote of later times, about which Manwood is somewhat mistaken,
as shown by Mr. Turner, was practically the same as the attachment
court. The two terms, “swainmote” and “attachment” (and occasionally
“woodmote”), are used interchangeably in later days in various local
proceedings of the same forest, of which full records remain—as, for
instance, in Sherwood, Windsor, Clarendon, and Duffield Frith. At one and
the same time in the fifteenth century, local courts of a like character
were being held in the forests of Windsor and Northants under the style
of swainmotes, in Lancashire and Sherwood as attachment courts, and in
Staffordshire and Derbyshire as woodmotes. These courts of attachment, if
regularly kept, as ordered by the Forest Charter, met every forty-two
days in each of the several bailiwicks or wards into which a forest was
divided, but on different days of the week. Thus, at Sherwood Forest
these courts were held at Linby, Calverton, Mansfield, and Edwinstowe on
Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday respectively in every sixth week;
though not infrequently they had to adjourn for lack of any business to
transact.
The true swainmote, according to Henry III.’s Charter, was only to be
held three times a year, namely, fifteen days before Midsummer, when
the agisters met to see to the observance of the fence month; fifteen
days before Michaelmas, when the agistment of the woods began; and at
Martinmas, when the agisters met to receive the pannage. But, as has been
remarked, the name swainmote (the court of the free-forest tenant of
Saxon origin) became in later times a usual _alias_ for the attachment
court.
The Attachment, or Forty-day Court, as it was sometimes termed, was so
called because its object was to receive the attachment of the foresters
or woodwards, and to enter them on the verderers’ rolls. The legal term
“attachment” (differing from “arrest,” which only applied to the body)
had a threefold operation in the forest as at common law; a man might be
attached by (1) his goods and chattels, or (2) by pledges and mainprize,
or (3) by his body. The usual proceeding was that if the foresters found
a man trespassing on the vert they might attach him by his body, and
cause him to find two pledges (or bail) to appear at the next attachment
court. On his appearance at that court he was mainprized (that is, set at
liberty under bail) until the next eyre of the justices. If offending for
a second time, four pledges were held necessary; if a third time, eight
pledges; and for a fourth time, imprisonment until the eyre.
If, however, a man was taken killing the deer or carrying them away—which
was called being taken with the manner, or _mainour_, an overt sign such
as blood on the hands or clothes—he could be attached at once by his
body, and imprisoned until delivered on bail by the king, or the justice
of the particular forest, to appear at the next eyre.
[Illustration: _PLATE III_
SHERWOOD ATTACHMENT ROLL (EDWARD II)]
Those who lived in the forest, and were taken in the king’s demesnes
cutting green wood or saplings, or even gathering dry wood from oaks,
hazels, or other trees, could be amerced in the attachment court, unless
the damage they had done was appraised at more than 4_d._, in which case
the delinquent was to be attached to answer for his offence at the next
eyre. Questions of the escape of cattle or sheep, and any breach of the
particular agistment pannage regulations for the swine, were also dealt
with by this court. When the trespasser was not a dweller in the forest,
the forester or woodward, even in a vert case, was expected to attach his
body and take him to prison (each forest had its own prison for forest
offences), from which he could be released only by the order of the king,
or the justice of the forest. In the matter of venison, these lesser
courts had not originally any jurisdiction; but in later times pledges
were often taken for the appearance of such trespassers at the eyre.
In addition to the general forest inquisition, there were also special
inquisitions dealing with venison trespasses held under the bailiff of
the forest in conjunction with the foresters and verderers. Several of
these are extant of the thirteenth century. One of the most interesting
rules of these special cases provided that if any beast of the forest was
found dead or wounded, an inquest was to be held by the four neighbouring
townships of the forest. The finder of the deer was to obtain pledges
for his subsequent appearance; the flesh was to be sent to the nearest
lazar-house, or given to the local sick and poor if there was not one
within reasonable distance; the head and skin were to be given to the
freeman of the township where it was found; and the arrow or other weapon
to the verderer, who had to keep it for production at the next eyre.
Inquests were also held by the four neighbouring townships in cases of
definite forest trespass; and the bows, arrows, or snares found upon a
trespasser had to be delivered to the verderer for future production.
Owing to such inquests being sometimes held at the same time as the
gathering of a swainmote, the rolls of these local courts, if carelessly
consulted, appear to be dealing with venison trespass when such was not
the case.
It must be remembered that these forest inquisitions were only necessary
when a beast of the forest was dead or wounded, or when an actual
trespass had been committed in the forest.
The forest pleas or eyres were usually held in the county town, but
occasionally those summoned had to appear in another county. This was
the case with the delinquents and officials of Duffield Frith; that
forest was in the honor of Tutbury, and the pleas were held at that
Staffordshire town. Now and again a special booth or tent was erected to
accommodate the justices, as was the case in part of Rockingham forest in
the sixteenth century.
The swainmotes sometimes assembled in the open air, but far oftener in
the respective lodges of the different wards, as in Needwood and Sherwood
forests. Charges for the repairs of the lodges are of frequent occurrence
in forest accounts. There was generally a central court-house or justice
seat where special inquisitions were held, with accommodation if required
for the keeper or chief forester, and with a chapel annexed, as in the
New Forest and the Forest of the Peak. There is a Lancashire instance of
a swainmote being held in a chapel.
CHAPTER III
THE FOREST OFFICERS
The chief local authority over a forest was the keeper or warden, who
was also variously known as a steward, bailiff, and chief or master
forester. In no two forests were the terms for the various ministers
exactly similar, and the nomenclature often varied for the same forest at
different periods. Certain forests, such as those of Cheshire, were ruled
by hereditary wardens or keepers; but they were more usually appointed by
the Crown, during pleasure, under letters patent. This office was often
held in conjunction with that of keeper of the forest castle, as was the
case with the Peak Forest. Writs relative to the administration of the
forest business were addressed to this chief keeper, as well as orders
for the delivery of venison or wood.
For the most part he was expected to preside personally, or through
his deputy or lieutenant, at the local courts. He had considerable
perquisites and privileges, and was generally allowed to distribute a
certain amount of venison to the county gentlemen of the district without
direct warrant.
[Illustration: VERDERER’S SLAB
TWELFTH CENTURY
Bakewell, Derbyshire]
The verderers were forest officers directly responsible to the Crown,
although, like coroners, they were elected by the freeholders in the
county court on writ addressed to the sheriff. The appointment was
considered to be one for life; but any verderer could be removed by
the Crown for incapacity, or for lack of due property qualification
within the forest. The verderers were always men of some position, and
frequently knights; they had no salary, and perquisites of any kind were
the exception. They varied in number; in the smaller forests there were
only two; four seems to have been the average, but in Sherwood there were
six. It was the verderer’s duty to view, receive, and enroll all manner
of attachments for vert or venison trespass; and he had to attend all
forest courts and take the leading part under the steward or keeper at
the swainmotes. In the swainmotes, the verderers were the judges in all
vert cases of the value of 2_d._ or under; this was afterwards raised to
4_d._
[Illustration: VERDERER’S SLAB
TWELFTH CENTURY
Chelmorton, Derbyshire]
[Illustration: FORESTER’S SLAB
TWELFTH CENTURY
Wirksworth, Derbyshire]
The verderer’s symbol of office was an axe. In several forests, as in
Duffield, there was a chief verderer, styled the axe-bearer, appointed
directly by the Crown, and the recipient of certain perquisites.
[Illustration: FORESTER’S SLAB
THIRTEENTH CENTURY
Bakewell, Derbyshire]
[Illustration: FORESTER’S SLAB
THIRTEENTH CENTURY
Hope, Derbyshire]
Foresters were officers sworn to preserve the vert and venison in
their own divisions, or walks, or wards, which were sometimes termed
bailiwicks. They had to “attach” offenders, and present them at the
forest courts. If they found any man in the forest with bows and arrows,
snares or dogs, they might arrest and imprison him as if they had
actually seen him hunt or kill the deer. They had to take special care
of the deer during the fence or close month, _i.e._ the fortnight before
and after Midsummer Day, when the fawns were usually dropped, and to
provide them with deer-browse or tree-clippings in the winter. They
might not hunt themselves, or even carry a bow, save under warrant or
direct order of the keeper, or when training the young dogs according to
custom. Foresters had always certain rights of pasturage and pannage, and
usually one or two deer and one or two trees during the year. The working
forester was generally also paid so much the day, always reckoning seven
days to the week, as he was supposed to be ever on duty.
The foresters of Clarendon, Wilts, eight in number, received 2_d._ a day
each, at the rate of 365 days to the year, including all Sundays and holy
days. This rate of payment is mentioned in 1360, and it remained the
same in 1483. Twopence a day was also the usual wage of the Pickering
foresters. Occasionally foresters were appointed by letters patent of the
Crown; this was the case with some of the Sherwood foresters, _temp._
Edward IV., who received 4_d._ a day, and were allowed to act by deputy.
There was often a general or itinerant forester for the whole area,
who had a higher rate of pay, and, as he was mounted, was frequently
called the riding forester. Sometimes the Crown appointed several such
foresters, as did Edward I. for Peak Forest at the beginning of his
reign, calling them _forestarii equitii_. In the next century there is
record of the Crown appointment of a chief forester for the same district
at the very high wage of 12_d._ a day. Such an officer as this was, at a
later period, known in various forests under the name of bow-bearer, from
having the right always to carry a bow, personally or at the hands of his
attendant. To this office special perquisites were usually attached, and
eventually the duties were almost entirely honorary, save that he had to
wait upon the king, and regulate the royal hunting, when he came to a
particular forest.
Strictly speaking, the symbol of a royal or chief forester was a bow,
whereas that of the ordinary forester was a horn.
In several of the larger forests, such as those of Lancashire, Cheshire,
Dean, Sherwood, and Pickering, there were hereditary foresters-of-fee.
In the Peak Forest, when the question of their origin came up at forest
pleas, they always claimed to date back to the days of William Peverel.
There were originally four (though afterwards subdivided) for each of the
three great bailiwicks of the Peak Forest, who held certain bovates of
land in serjeanty, discharging their obligations in one case by hunting
wolves, and in the others by some amount of forest supervision. In two of
the three bailiwicks they had sworn servants or grooms under them. This
kind of forestership could be held by women and by clerks, but the duties
had then to be discharged by deputy. The foresters-of-fee were bound to
attend all courts, even the frequent swainmotes of their bailiwick, in
person or by authorised sworn deputy.
[Illustration: FORESTER’S SLAB
THIRTEENTH CENTURY
Hope, Derbyshire]
[Illustration: FORESTER’S SLAB
FIFTEENTH CENTURY
Papplewick, Notts]
There were usually special perquisites at the time of holding an eyre.
Thus the justices in eyre in 1488 assigned to the forester of Windsor a
beech and a small oak, and to the forester of the baily of Basilles an
oak and a buck.
In the earlier forest days, foresters appear to have been frequently
quartered, in whole or in part, on the tenants within the bounds. Hence,
long after definite wages had become customary, attempts were made to
maintain these boarding arrangements. These wages in kind for themselves,
their horses, and their dogs, were termed _puture_, or _putre_. A case
occurs in the Year Book of Edward III. of a claim of this kind made by a
forester of Inglewood against the abbot of St. Mary’s, York. He claimed
food and drink at the table of the abbot’s servants on every Friday,
together with the right to carry away, whenever he pleased, a flagon of
the best ale, two tallow candles, a bushel of oats for his horse, and a
loaf of black bread for his dog.
Special provision was made against this levying of payment in kind by the
foresters or their servants, in the Forest Charter of 1217. A statute
of 25 Edward III. also strictly forbade “the gatheringe of vitailes nor
other thing by colour of their office against anye man’s wil within their
bayliwick” by all forest ministers, but at the same time left a loophole
for its continuance by exempting that which was “due of olde right.”
Puture disputes were a special grievance in the Lancashire forests, where
this charge on the tenants became commuted for a money payment.
The drink money of the Dartmoor foresters went by the name of _poutura_
in the thirteenth century.
The position of the woodward of a forest, as distinguished from a
forester, is often misunderstood. The woodward, though primarily
responsible for the actual timber or underwood, as the name implies, was
also, as a rule, a forester—that is, he was at the same time responsible
for the venison. To understand their position, it must be remembered
that all the lands within a king’s forest were never entirely demesne.
In every forest there were various woods which were private property;
but they were subject to general forest jurisdiction, such as the free
ingress and egress of the king’s game. Nor could the owners, without
the king’s licence, do anything therein, such as clearing away growing
timber for cultivation, building houses or sheds, establishing forges,
or burning charcoal, that might be held to do damage or cause annoyance
to the deer. To look after their rights, such wood owners were allowed,
nay, were required, to have officials termed woodwards to guard the
king’s venison, and therefore they were not allowed to act save as sworn
servants, taking oath to serve the king in the matter of venison, and
having power to attach and present.
The symbol of the woodward was a small hatchet or bill-hook.
[Illustration: WOODWARD’S SLAB
TWELFTH CENTURY
Newcastle-on-Tyne]
[Illustration: WOODWARD’S SLAB
FIFTEENTH CENTURY
Papplewick, Notts]
In later forest days a kind of chief woodward was sometimes termed
the axe-bearer; and we find a “sealing axe” mentioned in later forest
accounts of Wiltshire, Worcestershire, and Yorkshire, which was used for
blazoning timber intended to be felled.
Agisters were the officers who were chiefly concerned with the collection
of money for the agistment or feeding of cattle and pigs in the demesne
woods or lands of the forest. Beasts of the plough (for the most part
oxen, but occasionally an inferior breed of horse) were generally
allowed such agistment under certain restrictions; and pigs, from 11th
September to 11th November. But each forest had its own peculiarities.
Horse-breeding establishments, or stud farms, were an early institution
in Peak Forest; whilst cattle were the predominating feature of
Dartmoor. Sheep were usually specially restricted. Goats were at all
times peculiarly disliked by deer, and very rarely permitted. As a rule,
agisters were expected to report to the verderers, or direct to the
swainmote, cases of illegal agistment, or of escapes of animals into the
forest.
Rangers were officials that are not heard of till towards the end of the
fourteenth century; their duties were originally confined to seeing that
forest law was duly observed in the outlands or purlieus of the forest.
Their office corresponded in some respects with that of the mounted
forester.
The regarders were responsible for the regard or survey of the forest,
which has been already explained. Less than twelve could not make a
certificate of their “view,” so more than that number were generally
appointed. When making their regard, they were to require the presence
with them of the foresters and woodwards. The regarders, or some of them,
were expected to be present at every removing swainmote.
Another class of officers, of which there are many in such forests as
Duffield, were the parkers or keepers of the different parks. They not
infrequently had under them palers, palesters, or palifers, who were
permanently employed to maintain the pale fences of the parks.
CHAPTER IV
THE BEASTS OF THE FOREST
Manwood’s _Treatise on the Forest Laws_, the first edition of which
appeared in 1598, has usually been accepted, without demur, as giving
indisputable details about the forests of England. Mr. Turner has,
however, rightly pointed out in his recent volume, _Select Pleas of the
Forest_, that Manwood, writing at the end of the Elizabethan period,
when forest law had for the most part decayed, is by no means altogether
reliable, particularly in those parts that treat of what constituted
beasts of the forest and beasts of the chase. In such particulars Manwood
seems to have relied on foreign rather than English treatises on hunting,
a fault in which he has been imitated by more than one modern writer, and
also to have confused methods of hunting with forest legislation.
Manwood declared that there were five beasts of the forest—the hart,
the hind, the hare, the wild boar, and the wolf; but this in reality
only makes four, for the hart and the hind are the male and female of
the red deer. He then made a second division, termed the beasts of the
chase, which included the buck and the doe (the male and female of the
fallow deer), the fox, the martin, and the roe. The law, however, made
no distinction of this kind between the red and fallow deer; both of
them were distinctly beasts of the forest, in any legal or customary
significance of that term.
The truth as to the English beasts of the forest, or king’s game, all of
which originally came under the head of venison, can only be ascertained
by a study of the eyre rolls and other original forest proceedings. It
then becomes clear that the forest beasts numbered four—the red deer, the
fallow deer, the roe, and the wild boar.
The hare has no business to be found in such a list, save in the single
warren of Somerton, within the bounds of the Somersetshire forest of
that name. In no other place is the hare known to have been preserved by
forest laws.
Again, the inclusion by Manwood of the wolf among the beasts of the
forest is absolutely without warrant.
As to beasts of the chase, a term without any legal significance, it may
be held to include, in addition to the deer, the wolf, the boar, the
hare, the fox, and other vermin, such as the wild cat, martin, badger,
otter, and even in some cases the squirrel. All that can be meant by this
term is, that these animals were chased and hunted, though after very
different fashions.
In charters of warren, a term already briefly discussed, the hare was the
principal beast. A decision of 1338 placed the roe among the beasts of
the warren; but it was not a decision of universal application. The fox,
and more especially the coney or rabbit, were also regarded as beasts of
the warren—that is noxious beasts which were hunted or killed, but not
preserved.
As to fowls of warren, they certainly could not be held to be noxious.
They included the pheasant, the partridge, and the woodcock, as well
as, in certain cases, such birds as the plover, and even the lark, the
capture of which was held to be a warren trespass. Mr. Turner considers
that it is probable that all birds, taken by snares or hawks within a
warren, were held to be fowls of the warren, and that their capture
constituted a legal trespass.
The one bird that has some claim to be considered a “fowl of the forest”
is the swan.
The RED DEER (_cervus elaphas_), the largest of the British deer, was the
chief beast of the forest, and remained so for a long period in all the
wilder districts, such as Dartmoor, Exmoor, the Peak Forest, Sherwood,
and the uplands of Pickering.
[Illustration: _PLATE IV_
RED DEER OF NEW FOREST (1791)]
The FALLOW DEER (_dama vulgaris_), introduced at an early date into
Britain, was more commonly sheltered in parks within forest bounds.
In a few cases both red and fallow deer were found in the same forest
outside parks; whilst other forests only sheltered one species. Thus
in Derbyshire, down to the time of their disafforestation in the
seventeenth century, only red deer were found in the Peak Forest, and
only fallow deer in Duffield Frith. In the fifteenth century, the fallow
deer were far the most numerous in the forests of Essex, Northampton,
Wiltshire, Hampshire, and Dorset; the proportions at later dates are
given in a subsequent section.
The different names applied to both these species at different ages of
their growth are not a little confusing, and vary somewhat from forest to
forest. The following table of terms, denoting the age and sex of the red
and fallow deer respectively, somewhat altered from a table given by Mr.
Turton in his account of Pickering forest, will be found useful:—
+---------------------------------------++-------------------------+
| RED DEER || FALLOW DEER |
+------+----------------+---------------++------------+------------+
| YEAR | HART | HIND || BUCK | DOE |
+------+----------------+---------------++------------+------------+
| 1st | calf | hind calf || fawn | fawn |
| |_vitulus cervi_ |_vitulus bisse_||_juvenculus_|_juvencula_ |
| | | || | |
| 2nd | brocket or | hyrsel or || pricket | tegg |
| | knobber | hearse ||_prikettus_ |_tegga_ |
| |_brokettus_ |_hyrsula_ or || | |
| | |_ursula_ || | |
| | | || | |
| 3rd | spayard | hind || sorrel | doe |
| |_spardus_ or |_bissa_ or ||_sourellus_ |_dama_ |
| |_sorellus cervi_|_cerva_ || | |
| | | || | |
| 4th | staggard | || soar, sore | |
| |_staggartus_ or | ||_sorus_ | |
| |_sourus cervi_ | || | |
| | | || | |
| 5th | stag | || buck | |
| |_staggus_ | ||_damus_ or | |
| | | ||_dama_ m. | |
| | | || | |
| 6th | hart | || great buck | |
| |_cervus_ | || | |
| | | || | |
| 7th | great hart | || | |
+------+----------------+---------------++------------+------------+
“Feton” (_feta_) is the term frequently used to signify a fawn, usually
of the red deer, in the earlier forest pleas and accounts. It occurs
several times in forest proceedings of the High Peak. The author of the
_Feudal History of Derbyshire_ makes the amusing mistake of reading it
_s_eton, and expends much learning on the derivation of such a term!
The term _raskall_ or _raskell_ occurs in various later forest accounts.
It usually means deer out of condition, fit neither to hunt nor kill; but
is occasionally used (as in Rutland accounts) to denote female deer.
“Murrain” was the generic term in mediæval England, for almost every
form of disease that affected cattle as well as deer. From the records
that are extant in various forest proceedings of the deaths of deer
from murrain, it is clear that sometimes this term was used to denote a
severe form of infectious illness that caused great ravages among the
herds; whilst at other times, when only two or three die in the year from
murrain, it would seem to be of the nature of some ordinary ailment. As a
rule, the foresters were expected to hang up on the trees of the forest
the carcases of those deer that had died of the murrain, and always to
keep a strict record of those that thus perished. On several occasions
there are instances of foresters being presented and fined, for skinning
and taking the hides of those that had died of disease.
At a later period, as in Duffield Frith, the foresters were ordered to
take the more sanitary course of burning the carcases. From a manuscript
book, dealing with the perambulations and pleas of Sherwood, in the
reigns of Henry III.-Edward III., it appears that the vast number of 350
head of deer (both red and fallow) had fallen victims to the murrain in
the year 1286.
The full records of the Pickering eyre of 1334 give details as to the
deer and murrain during each successive keepership since the last eyre
in 1280. During the keepership of Richard Skelton upwards of 500 died
of murrain. The murrain was severe in the forest of Rockingham during
the reigns of Henry VI., Edward IV., and Richard III., particularly
in certain years; 1,400 head of game died of disease during the whole
period. In the first five years of Henry VII. the deaths from murrain
amounted to 282. In the first year of Henry VII., 80 fallow deer died
of murrain in the Wiltshire forests of Melksham and Pewsham, namely, 27
bucks, 33 does, and 20 fawns; but in the second year of his reign the far
greater number of 340 perished, and in the third year 140. In 1489, and
again in 1493, an unusual number of both red and fallow deer were found
“dede of murrayn in Epping forest.” The most appalling case is that of
Clarendon forest, in 1470, when 2,209 died of murrain in the one year.
The ROE DEER were the most graceful and the smallest of British
_cervidæ_, a fully grown buck only standing twenty-six inches high
at the shoulder. It must have been quite common—at all events in the
south of England—in early days, as is proved by the scientific series
of explorations carried out by the late General Pitt-Rivers in the
Romano-British villages round Rushmore, Wilts. The roe or roebuck is
mentioned in forest proceedings under the interchangeable terms of
_capriolus_ or _cheverellus_, the latter being Latinised from the French
_chevreuil_. A roe killed in 1251 in Rockingham forest is entered, as
Mr. Turner points out, as _cheverellus_ in the forest inquisition,
and as _capriolus_ in the corresponding eyre roll. The writer of the
_Feudal History of Derbyshire_ has made nonsense of the various forest
presentments for the killing of roebucks in the Peak, by translating
_capriolus_ “wild-goat.” The killing of a wild-goat in this forest would
have been a work of merit, and certainly not deserving presentment.
In the full records of the Derbyshire eyre for the Peak of 1251, the
killing of a roebuck is presented, and at the next eyre, 1286, five such
cases are recorded. These Derbyshire instances help to clear up a matter
of some importance in the history of England’s forests. In the thirteenth
century there is no doubt that there were in general four, and only four,
beasts of the forest; these were the red deer, the fallow deer, the roe
deer, and the wild boar. In a charter of 1212, King John granted to the
monks of Lenton the tithe of all his venison taken in Derbyshire and
Nottinghamshire. The word “venison” (_venacio_) was applied in mediæval
days to the beasts of the forest, and is in this case defined as the red
deer, fallow deer, and wild boar. From this it has been supposed that
the roe was not considered as a beast of the forest in all counties.
Mr. Turner, in his valuable work on Forest Pleas, commenting on this,
says: “It is unfortunate that no documents still exist which relate to
the forests in Nottingham and Derby in the reign of Henry III. or his
predecessors,” and adds that a roe occurs in the Nottingham forest eyre
of 15 Edw. I., but that as this is a single case, the great rarity of the
roe in these counties may be inferred. The instances here adduced show
that this is a mistake.
At the eyre for Pickering forest, Yorks, in 1338, the question as to
whether the roe was a true beast of the forest arose, and the justices
in eyre referred the question to the court of King’s Bench, when it was
decided (contrary to previous decisions) that it was a beast of the
warren, for the curious reason that it put to flight other deer. It has
been supposed that from that date the roe ceased to be a beast of the
forest throughout England. But that decision was either not generally
known, or applied only to the peculiar case relative to the manor of
Seamer. In 1398 a case was presented at a swainmote held at Tideswell,
Derbyshire, of a venison trespasser killing a roebuck and a fallow doe.
As late as 7 Henry VII. a charge of taking a roe deer in a snare in
Clarendon forest was preferred against an offender, at the eyre held at
Salisbury.
There are many interesting particulars relative to the roe deer in the
records of Pickering forest. Edward II., in 1322, paid the large sum
of £5 for cord to make nets to catch roebuck. This expenditure on cord
would not be for the purpose of making small snares, but to aid in the
construction of a buckstall into which the deer would be driven. Henry,
Lord Percy, claimed, in 1338, to hunt and take fox, roe deer, cat, and
badger on his manor of Seamer, although within the forest. The jury found
that Lord Percy and all his ancestors had hunted and taken roe deer, but
that that animal was a beast of the forest, for which offence poachers
had been convicted and fined at the last eyre. The justices referred this
point to the judgment of King’s Bench, with the result already stated.
The few cases of venison trespass that are extant with regard to the
forest of Exmoor, prove that it possessed both red deer and roebuck.
Presentments for killing roe deer are also extant in the case of the
Forest of Dean and several others.
The WILD BOAR.—The wild boar is one of the oldest and most renowned
of the animals of the British forests. It appears on ancient British
coinage, on various works of art of the later Celtic period, on
Romano-British altars, and with frequency on Norman ecclesiastical
sculpture. The chroniclers tell us that boar-hunting was a favourite
sport of Henry I. Pickering forest had great repute for its wild boars
at the beginning of the thirteenth century. King John, in 1214, ordered
the constable of the castle on two occasions to render assistance to the
royal huntsman, who was coming with his hounds to kill wild boar in that
forest. The boars were to be sought in that part of the forest where the
king was wont to hunt them. The constable was to see that the meat was
well salted, and the heads soaked in wine and dispatched to the king.
In 1227, Henry dispatched his huntsman to Pickering to take twelve wild
swine for the royal use.
[Illustration: _PLATE V_
WILD BOARS
WILD BOAR HUNTING]
King John’s anxiety about the preservation of this beast of the forest
lasted to the end of his life. In September, 1216, he wrote to the
constable of St. Briavel ordering that the cattle were only to be
agisted on the fringes of Dean forest, and not in the forest itself, and
particularly not in those places frequented by the wild boars. In a list
of game taken for Edmund, Edward I.’s brother, in 1279, in Dean forest,
under letters patent, mention is made of one wild boar.
Thomas de Langley, master forester of Wychwood, Oxon., in 1217, received
the royal command to allow William de Brewere to take wild boars
(_porcos silvestres_) in that forest; and in 1223, the same forester was
instructed to take two wild boars and transfer them to the royal park of
Havering, which was part of Waltham forest.
There are several records of wild boar hunting in Clarendon and other
Wiltshire forests in the fourteenth century.
The boar or wild pig roamed through Cranborne Chase as late as the days
of Elizabeth. Hutchins cites two fifteenth-century cases noted in the
presentments of this chase. Robert Clare, in 33 Henry VI., was ordered
to be distrained for killing four wild pigs on Iwerne Hill. Thomas Robe,
vicar of Iwerne, was attached in the following year for killing four wild
pigs in Iwerne Wood with his bow and arrow.
As forests lessened in extent, the wild boar diminished in numbers;
but their survival in Lancashire, Durham, and Staffordshire, in the
sixteenth century, can be readily established. James I. hunted the boar
in Windsor forest in 1617. Charles II.’s reign is the latest time at
which this animal is known to have survived in England in a really wild
state.
The WOLF.—The abundance of wolves throughout England in pre-Norman
days is borne witness to by the Saxon name for January, namely, the
wolf-month. There was probably no part of England where the wolves had
surer or more prolonged retreats than amid the wilds of the Peak Forest
and its borders. The last places in this country where they tarried
were the Peak, the Lancashire forests of Blackburnshire and Bowland,
and the wolds of Yorkshire. It has been confidently asserted (Blaine’s
_Encyclopædia of Rural Sports_ [1858] p. 105) that entries of payment
for the destruction of wolves appear in the account books of certain
parishes of the East Riding, presumably of sixteenth or seventeenth
century date; but this on examination proves to be an error. They were
abundant in Dean forest in the time of Edward I., and tenures of land in
the forests of Rockingham and Sherwood, on the service of wolf-hunting,
were renewed in the fifteenth century. The best authorities (such as
Harting and Lydekker) consider that wolves did not die out in England
until the time of Henry VII., 1485-1509. The last wolf was killed in
Scotland in 1743. Packs of Irish wolves were not exterminated until 1710,
and the last solitary survivor was killed in 1770. Place and field names
afford remarkably abundant evidence of the considerable presence of
wolves in North Derbyshire. Woolow (formerly spelt Wolflow), Wolfhope,
and Wolfscote are well-known examples. Wolfscote Dale, though the term is
not often used, is still the map-name for the upper stretch of Dovedale,
and Wolfscote Grange and Wolfscote Hill are close to the forest border.
On the opposite side of the Dove, in Staffordshire, is the ridge termed
Wolfedge. The village boys of Hartington and Beresford Dale used to play
at wolves and wolf-hunting in the “forties” of last century, apparently
a traditionary game, as stated by the late Mr. Beresford Hope. Five
cases of wolf in the field-names of enclosures within the bounds of
the old forest have been found, whilst Wolfpit occurs as a boundary
of Priestcliffe Common, and Wolfstone of Chinley Common in enclosure
commissions, _temp._ Charles I.
[Illustration: _PLATE VI_
WOLF AND SHEEPFOLD
WILD GOATS]
A careful examination of forest and other records relative to Derbyshire
has brought to light various wolf references, most of which are now cited
for the first time. Among the evidences at St. Mary’s College, Spink
Hill, is a charter of Robert Ferrers, Earl of Derby (who died in 1139),
granting lands at Heage, which he held from the king on the service of
driving the wolves out of his lordship of Belper, within Duffield Chase,
which afterwards became a royal forest.
Two payments entered in the Pipe Rolls of Henry II. are highly
significant of the devastation then caused by Derbyshire wolves. In
1160-1, 25_s._ was paid to the forest wolf-hunters (_in lupariis_) as
an extra fee. In 1167-8, so great a value was set on the skill and
experience of the Peak wolf-trappers (_pedicatores_), that Henry II. paid
10_s._ for the travelling expenses of two of them to cross the seas to
take wolves in Normandy.
The accounts of Gervase de Bernake, bailiff of the Peak for 1255-6 are
of special value, as they contain some of the very few specific entries
that have yet been found among the stores of the Public Record Office
of damage done to stock by wolves. Mention is made therein of a colt
(_pullum masculum_) strangled by a wolf in Edale (_jugulat’ cum lupo
in Eydale_); and in another place, in a list of waifs that accrued to
the lord, there is reference to two sheep which were also strangled by
wolves. There is another thirteenth-century reference to Derbyshire
forest wolves which seems to have escaped the notice of county and
other writers. The Hundred Rolls of the beginning of Edward I.’s reign
record that Roger Savage was asked by what right he maintained dogs to
take foxes, hares, wild cats, and wolves, and replied that he was the
successor of William Walkelin, who had a royal grant to that effect.
At the pleas of the forest held at Derby in 1285, it was shown that a
bovate of land held by John le Wolfhunte and Thomas Foljambe, two of the
foresters-of-fee, was a serjeanty assigned for taking of wolves in Peak
Forest. On the jurors being asked what were the duties pertaining to that
service, the following was the highly interesting reply:—
“Each year, in March and September, they ought to go through
the midst of the forest to set traps to take the wolves in the
places where they had been found by the hounds; and if the
scent was not good because of the upturned earth, then they
should go at other times in the summer (as on St. Barnabas Day,
June 11th), when the wolves had whelps (_catulos_) to take and
destroy them, but at no other times; and they might take with
them a sworn servant to carry the traps (_ingenia_); they were
to carry a bill-hook and spear, and hunting-knife at their
belt, but neither bows nor arrows; and they were to have with
them an unlawed mastiff trained to the work. All this they were
to do at their own charges, but they had no other duties to
discharge in the forest.”
In the records of Cannock forest, Staffordshire, for 1281, there is an
entry of a wolf having killed a fat buck; the flesh was given to the
lepers of Freford.
The Fox was always held to be noxious in England, and no penalty was
attached to its destruction. Nevertheless, it was a breach of law to hunt
them within a royal forest, save by special licence; the obvious reasons
being that such hunting, if unrestricted, would disturb the king’s game,
and prove an irresistible temptation to poaching with not a few.
William Rufus licensed the abbot of Chertsey to hunt the fox in the
Surrey side of Windsor forest.
Richard I. and Henry III. granted licence to the abbot of Waltham to hunt
the fox in the Essex forest.
King John, in 1204, gave the abbot of St. Mary’s, York, liberty to hunt
the fox freely throughout all the royal forests of Yorkshire. The abbess
of Barking had like rights in the forest adjoining her house. It need
not be supposed that these religious superiors were expected by these
licences to hunt personally—though occasionally an irregular abbot might
thus indulge—the licence applied to their duly commissioned servants.
Licence was granted in 1279 to Adam Attewell, and those whom he took with
him, to take foxes throughout the forest of Salop, by traps and other
means, and to carry them away.
Everyone of England’s forests had one or more of the neighbouring
landowners holding charters authorising the pursuit of the fox with
hounds, save in the fence month; most of these charters dated from the
thirteenth and some from the twelfth century. In the large majority of
cases, the hunting of the hare was associated with that of the fox. The
burgesses of Nottingham had a chartered right to pursue the fox and hare
in Sherwood forest, and this right was held to warrant certain burgesses
keeping greyhounds at an eyre of 1538.
Thomas Bret, the vicar of Scalby, in Pickering forest, and four others,
were each fined 6_d._, in 1336, for making folds of small thorns—a vert
offence—in Scalby Hay to guard their sheep from the fox.
In Turbervile’s _Noble Art of Venerie or Hunting_ (1575), the hunting of
the fox and badger are described together. Both were hunted, or rather
drawn, by terriers. He remarks:—
“As touching foxes, I account small pastime of hunting of them,
especially within the ground; for as soone as they perceyve the
terryers, if they yearne hard and goe neare unto them, they
will bolte and come out streyghtwaies, unlesse it be when the
bitch hathe yong cubbes: then they will not forsake their yong
ones though they die for it.”
When the fox was hunted “above grounde,” after the earth had been
stopped, the hounds of the chase thus employed are described as
greyhounds, showing that the fox was usually coursed by sight, and not
followed by scent.
The HARE was the principal beast of the warren. The large majority of
chartered rights for the hunting of the fox within forests included the
hare. The forest pleas of Somerset, in 1287, show a most remarkable
exception as to the beasts of the forest in the case of the warren of
Somerton, within whose bound the king preserved the hare, and inquests
were actually held on those found dead.
At the eyre held at Rockingham in 1285, certain men were presented for
setting nets for hares in Brigstock park.
A curious entry in the Close Rolls of 1276 mentions that the keeper of
Bernwood forest was ordered to supply Sir Francis de Bononia (a famous
secretary of Edward I.), with several young bucks and does, and also four
live hares and six live rabbits, to be placed in the king’s garden at
Oxford.
At an eyre held at Sherborne in 1288, the jury protested against the
freemen of Cranborne Chase being deprived of their dogs, wherewith they
had a right to hunt the hare and the fox.
The Coucher Book of the Duchy of Lancaster contains a great variety of
presentments for hare hunting and hare taking, particularly in the
forest of Pickering, _temp._ Edward III. Robert Hampton, rector of
Middleton, presented at the eyre for keeping four greyhounds and hunting
hares at will, made no appearance and was outlawed. Matilda de Bruys was
presented as accustomed to hunt and catch hares; she appeared, was fined
5_s._, and found sureties for good behaviour. Peter de Manlay, jun., a
man of considerable position, was fined £1 for hare hunting, and Sir
Nicholas de Menill £1 6_s._ 8_d._ Others were fined for hare hunting, or
hare killing with bow and arrows, from 13_s._ 4_d._ to 1_s._ according
to their position. How such charges came before the eyre as contrary to
the forest assize, becomes clear from the nature of the charge in several
of the cases; the delinquents are described as catching hares in various
ways “to the terror of the deer.”
The WILD CAT was usually associated with the fox and hare in chartered
rights for forest hunting; we have found it thus included in forest
claims of Pickering, Windsor, Sussex, Cheshire, and Sherwood.
The wild cat is named by Turbervile, in 1575, as vermin which used to be
commonly hunted in England. At that time they were not hunted designedly,
but if a hound chanced to cross a wild cat he would hunt it as soon as
any chase—“and they make a noble trye for the time that they stand up.
At last, when they may no more, they will take a tre, and therein seek
to beguile the hounds. But if the hounds hold into them, and will not so
give it over, then they leap from one tree to another, and make great
shift for their lives, with no less pastime to the huntsmen.” The wild
cat is now extinct in England; it is supposed that the last one was shot
by Lord Ravensworth in 1833, at Eslington, Northumberland.
The MARTIN is mentioned in two or three of the forest hunting grants.
Thus, Richard Dove, chief forester of Mara and Moudrem, established,
at an eyre held at Chester in 1271, his claim to the hunting of foxes,
hares, cats, martins, and other vermin with hounds or greyhounds.
The BADGER is also included in certain grants for forest hunting. This
animal is expressly named in Henry III.’s grant in 1252 to Walter
Baskerville in the forests of Hereford, Gloucester, Oxford, and Essex;
in the 1253 grant to Roger Hardy, burgess of Scarborough, throughout the
whole forest of Pickering; in the 1253 grant to John of Lexington, in
Essex; in two other grants in parts of Pickering forest; and in the 1297
grant to Thomas Paynel, in the Sussex forest of Ashdown.
The OTTER obtains mention in a few forest proceedings and accounts. In
the Peak Forest there are three or four instances of presentments for
killing it with hounds; probably on the ground of disturbing the deer by
such an action. Edward IV. had a pack of otterhounds, which, like the
packs of harriers and buckhounds, was composed partly of running and
partly of scent hounds.
The SQUIRREL even was named in some of these licences. It was included in
the first-named grant of 1253 to John of Lexington; whilst the hunting
hare, fox, squirrel, and cat throughout Sherwood forest formed part of
the extensive privileges pertaining to Robert de Everingham, who was
removed from his office of hereditary keeper or chief forester in 1289.
The RABBIT or Coney has already been mentioned in connection with
warrens. The free chase and warren of Ashdown, Sussex, were held by
Edward I.’s mother; in 1283 proceedings were taken against various
persons for hunting and carrying of rabbits from her park at Mansfield. A
raid made on St. Leonards forest, in 1295, included rabbits amongst the
booty.
The office of parker of Blagden, in Cranborne Chase, carried with it “the
ferme of the cunnyes.”
The rabbit warrens within the forest of Clarendon were of exceptional
value, and are frequently mentioned in the accounts. In the time of
Edward III. they were the perquisite of the chief keeper. In 1495, £100
received from the “Fermour of the Conyes in Clarendon,” formed an item of
the revenue assigned for the king’s household. In the time of Charles I.
these warrens were worth upwards of £200 a year.
SWANS.—It was the duty of the chief minister of each ward of Duffield
Frith to secure the king’s swans, and all waif and stray swans on the
various rivers and streams within the forest limits. That there used to
be many swans on the Derwent, in Duffield forest, is proved by the name
Hopping Mill, or Hopping Weir, at Milford. Hopping, or upping, was the
term for the annual marking of the swans. Swainsley, on the margin of the
river near Hopping Mill, is a corruption of Swansley. In some forests,
such as Windsor and Clarendon, swan warding was an important part of
the forester’s duty. In the latter forest a large number of swans were
kept on the river. In Edward III. reign these royal birds were stolen on
several occasions. In June, 1327, the prior of Ivy Church and another
were commissioned to inquire and search for certain swans which were said
to have been conveyed to divers places on the Avon, between Salisbury and
Christchurch. Further commissions were issued to recover stolen swans in
1331 and in 1345; on the latter occasion the stolen birds were said to be
worth the great sum of £100.
EYRIES of hawks and falcons formed the subject of the second inquiry
named in the chapter of the Regard, drawn up in 1229. In the long list
of perquisites pertaining to the office of chief forester of Mara and
Moudrem, claimed at the 1271 eyre held at Chester, is the right to all
sparrow hawks, merlins, and hobbies.
Sir John de Meaux paid to the Earl of Lancaster for his woods of
Levisham, in Pickering forest, 2_s._ annual rent, and eyries of falcons,
merlins, and sparrow hawks. Thomas Wake, in his barony of Middleton, in
the same forest, claimed to have eyries of sparrow hawks and merlins in
his woods.
When the regarders assembled in Sherwood forest in 1309, the foresters
swore to lead the twelve knights to view, _inter alia_, the eyries of
hawks and falcons.
Falcons and falconers are named several times in the fourteenth century
in connection with Rockingham forest.
PARTRIDGES and PHEASANTS have been already named under warrens. In 1336
two offenders were fined for catching partridges in Pickering forest; the
one delinquent had to pay 3_s._ 4_d._, and the other 6_d._ The amounts
were in all probability settled in accordance with their social position.
Part of the privileges granted in the forest to the abbey of Chertsey,
by Henry II., was the liberty of taking pheasants. Among the offences
dealt with at the eyre held at Guildford in 1488, for the Surrey portion
of Windsor forest, was the fining of Ralph Bygley in the heavy sum of
100_s._ for being a common destroyer of pheasants and partridges, and
a taker of birds. Another offender at the same eyre was presented for
killing six pheasants with a hawk.
Pheasants are mentioned in a raid on St. Leonards forest, Sussex, in 1295.
HERONS.—There are several incidental notices of herons and heronries
among the forest proceedings. In the raid that was made in 1295 on the
forest, or rather the chase of St. Leonards, Sussex, herons formed part
of the booty that was unlawfully removed. In 1334 Sir Walter de London,
the king’s almoner, received the tithe of 157 herons that had been killed
in Pickering forest. Mention is also made of herons sent up to London,
out of Clarendon forest, for the king’s table, on several occasions in
the fourteenth century.
WOODCOCKS.—The accounts of Duffield forest for 1313-14 make mention,
under the ward of Hulland, of 4_s._ 6_d._ for “ix cokschutes.” A cockshut
was a large net suspended between two poles, employed to catch or shut in
woodcocks; it was used chiefly in the twilight. At the southern extremity
of this ward is a farm still known as Cockshut. The same place-name
survives on the sites of several of our old forests; and licences to
use cockshuts were granted at swainmotes in Derbyshire, Hampshire, and
Wiltshire. Reference to woodcocks will also be found under Galtres forest.
General licences for fowling in specific parts of a forest were sometimes
granted in the local courts. On several occasions bird fowlers were
attached at fourteenth and fifteenth century swainmotes in Duffield
Frith, Clarendon forest, etc.; and a few examples of presentments at
eyres for a like general offence are also extant. Thus, at Pickering,
in 1334, Henry the Fowler of Barugh, Adam the Fowler of Ayton, and two
others, were summoned and fined for catching birds in the forest by means
of nets, birdlime, and other devices. The general disturbance of the deer
would doubtless cause such action to be considered a breach of the assize
of the forest.
BEES and HONEY.—The fifth chapter of the Regard, issued in 1229, related
to the king’s right to the honey in the royal demesne woods of the
forests. At the Chester eyre of 1271, the hereditary chief forester of
Mara and Moudrem claimed all swarms of bees as part of his extensive
perquisites.
At an attachment court of the Lancashire forests of Quernmore and
Wyersdale, in 1299, several men were presented for taking a _byke_ or
nest of wild bees, and carrying the honey to the house of Ralph de Caton,
where it was found, and also for burning the oak tree containing the
comb; the tree was valued at 4_d._ and the honey at 6_d._
A long roll of amercements, imposed at an eyre for Sherwood forest, held
at Nottingham in 1334, includes a fine of 12_d._, in addition to 6_d._
the value of the honey, on two men, for carrying honey from out of the
forest.
Particular indictments of the Pickering eyre of 1335 included the taking,
by one Gilbert Ayton, of a gallon of honey and two pounds of wax out of
old tree trunks. Gilbert appeared by attorney, and said that, by the
great Charter of the Forest, it was provided that every freeman might
have the honey found in his own woods. The indictment itself stated that
he found the honey in his own woods of Hutton Bushell and Troutsdale, and
therefore he asked for judgment in his favour, and obtained it.
The fifteenth-century directions to the “collectors” of the different
wards of Duffield Frith instructed them to take for the king all bykes of
bees.
The ancient right of the Crown to forest honey may be traced in the claim
of the lords of the manor of Wanstead, Essex, in 1489, to the profits of
bees, honey, and wax in Wanstead wood. One of the items in the charge
at the Epping swainmote of later days was: “If any man do take out of
the hollow trees any honie, wax, or swarmes of bees within the forest,
yee shall do us to weet.” The lord of the manor of Minestead, in the New
Forest, claimed the honey in his woods as late as 1852.
CHAPTER V
THE FOREST AGISTMENTS
Apart from the beasts of the forest and chase, or the wild animals, every
forest district had its quota of domestic animals, feeding regularly
or occasionally within its bounds. These were subject to the strict
oversight and direction of the agisters, whose office has already been
explained. In almost every case, these animals were the property of
the tenants of the forest or its purlieus. Dartmoor was a remarkable
exception to this rule, inasmuch as almost every parish in Devonshire had
certain rights of pasturage if it chose to exercise them.
All forests were liable to have agistment and pannage suspended
altogether or in parts, for a certain year or more, if the circumstances
of the case seemed to need it. Particular mention of this is made in a
charter of Henry III. to the priory of Ivy Church in Clarendon forest.
In several forests, notably Essex, there was also a regular winter
interval, though variable in duration, when all agistment was prohibited,
for the purpose of reserving the food for the deer; this was called
_Winter Heyning_. Mention is made subsequently of the fence month.
SWINE and PANNAGE.—Swine were usually only allowed in forests during
the season called the time of pannage, when they fed upon the acorns
and beech mast which had then fallen. The mast season lasted from
14th September to 18th November. Under the English forest laws of
Henry II., four knights were appointed to see to the agistment, and to
receive the king’s pannage, which in well-wooded forests amounted to a
considerable sum. No man might agist his own woods in a forest before
those of the king were agisted; the agistment of the royal woods ended
fifteen days after Michaelmas. The usual agistment fee was a penny for
each pig above a year old, and a halfpenny for every pig above half a
year old. The swainmotes were constantly engaged in the late autumn,
throughout England, in fining those who had unagisted pigs in the
forest. The pannage fees were usually paid at a special swainmote held
about Martinmas, which was sometimes, as in Duffield Frith, called the
pannage, or “tack” court. Each tenant who had common rights “tacked,”
or declared the number of his pigs turned into the forest. Any untacked
were forfeited, and the tenant was also fined according to the steward’s
pleasure. When the tenant had as many as seven swine, the king had one,
but returned 3_d._ for it to the tenant; if eight, the king had one,
returning 2_d._; if nine, 1_d._ was returned; but if ten, one was taken
with no return. This remained the Duffield rule to the end of its days as
a forest. There is also a good deal of evidence of this being carried out
in other forests; particularly the proviso of the king having the best
one of every ten pannaged swine.
Guildford park, in the Surrey portion of Windsor forest, was agisted in
1257 with 156 pigs, and in that case the king’s claim was the heavy one
of every third pig, amounting to 52 pigs worth 2_s._ each. In 1260 the
same park was agisted with 240 pigs; but for that year 4_d._ was paid for
each pig.
At a pannage court held at Birkley lodge on 29th October, 1523, for all
the wards of Needwood forest, the pannage fees for 185 pigs amounted to
27_s._ 0½_d._, being at the usual rate of 1_d._ a pig, and ½_d._ for a
young pig.
Fines for collecting and carrying off both acorns and beech mast were not
uncommon at the autumn swainmotes.
It should be remembered that any freeman, in the case of swine and other
animals, had a right, by the Charter of the Forest, to agist any free
wood of his own, though situated in a forest, in accordance with his
desire, and take his own pannage. The charter also granted leave to any
freeman to drive his swine through royal demesne woods, in order to gain
his own wood or some place outside the forest.
[Illustration: _PLATE VII_
WILD PIGS OF THE NEW FOREST (1791)]
CATTLE.—The agistment of cattle in certain stretches of the forest,
as well as their pasturing on particular lands, was usual throughout
England. From an early date it was customary to insist upon all such
cattle being branded for identification. Thus, in the accounts of 1321-2
of Needwood forest occurs an item of 3_d._ paid for an iron for branding
the cattle. It was, for the most part, the duty of the reeves of the
forest parishes to mark with some distinctive sign the cattle entitled to
feed upon the wastes. In the case of the Essex forest, the mark consisted
of a letter surmounted in each case by a crown. The marking irons were
usually eight inches in height; Mr. Fisher has given examples of a
considerable number. Representation of the cattle marks of the different
parishes of Pickering forest are given in Home’s _Town of Pickering_
(1905).
Dartmoor was the most conspicuous example of a vast forest district given
up chiefly to the pasturage of cattle. The accounts and court rolls,
from the time of Edward III. to James I., give full details of the large
amount of cattle turned out in each of its four divisions. They numbered
at times upwards of five thousand head, and the charge right through this
long period was 1½_d._ each. They came from all over Devonshire, and the
annual great drives, to see their correct marking and numbering, are
described in the section on that forest. “Drifts” of cattle for a like
purpose also occur in the Needwood proceedings.
Several of the forest rolls from the time of Edward I. to Elizabeth,
yield particulars of the vaccaries or great cowhouses with pasturage
attached, which were on the royal demesnes, and were included in the
forest accounts, whether under direct management or let out to farm.
Instances occur in the cases of Duffield, Pickering, Clarendon, and
Cheshire, and notably in the later history of Peak Forest.
It may here be noticed that the place-name _Booth_, by itself or in
combination, is usually indicative of the site of the residence of
those who acted as cowherds. This is particularly noticeable in the
neighbourhood of Edale, Derbyshire, where there were five separate
vaccaries in the time of Elizabeth.
HORSES.—The agistment of a limited number of horses, and more
particularly of mares with colts, was common throughout England’s
forests. Records of their agistment in the parks of Duffield forest occur
in the accounts of several centuries. It was generally recognised that
they did more damage than cattle or sheep, and therefore their escape
fines were heavier. Thus at a Belper (Duffield forest) woodmote court
of 1304, various offenders, presented by the foresters, paid 12_d._ as
fines for suffering foals and mares to wander in the ward, whilst the
fines for plough-cattle and sheep were from 3_d._ to 1_d._
In subsequent particulars as to the Peak, reference will be found as to
the establishment of stud farms within a forest area.
The ministers’ accounts of the issues of Pickering castle and forest in
1325-6 show that there was a stud (_equicium_) of two black stallions,
called “Morel of Merton” and “Morel of Tutbury”; seventeen mares; six
three-year-olds (_pullani_), four two-year-old colts (_staggi_); three
two-year-old fillies (_pultre_); four yearling fillies (_pultrelle_);
eight other young horses (_pulli de remarencia_); and ten foals from the
mares (_pulli de exitu_).
SHEEP.—A charter of Canute contains the grant of a right to feed a
flock of sheep in a forest. At the Domesday survey there were a large
number of sheep in parishes pertaining to the forest of Essex. But the
Norman forest laws distinctly forbade sheep pasturing in forests without
licence. The reason usually alleged for this restriction, as stated in a
seventeenth-century action at law, was in respect of the dislike “which
the Redd and fallow Deare doe naturallie take of the sent and smelle of
the sheepe; as also for that the sheepe do undereate the Deare, and hurt
and spoyle the coverte, and thereby prejudice and wrong the Deare both in
their feeding and layer.” This, however, was flatly denied by the other
side, who said that “dayly experience proveth the contrary; and that
yt is an usuall thing to see a deere and a sheepe feed together in one
quillet of ground, even upon one mole-hill together.”
When the tenants of Broughton, in Amounderness forest, Lancashire,
claimed at an eyre of 1334 common pasture in the forest of Fulwood, sheep
were excepted because they failed to produce any special grant for the
pasturing of such animals.
In the later forest days, when the breeding of sheep in this country had
greatly increased, grants for their admission into forests became much
more common. The agistment rolls of Dartmoor forest for 1571-2, which had
previously been confined to cattle and horses, include a considerable
number of sheep, in flocks varying from three hundred to ten. The illegal
introduction of sheep into Peak Forest in Elizabethan days, and their
consequent wholesale impounding, is described in a subsequent chapter.
The freeholders of Needwood forest, in 1680, decided that sheep found
pasturing in the forest were to be forfeited, and twelve shillings a day
fine for each sheep!
Sheep-farming on the royal demesnes in districts associated with forests,
and therefore found in forest accounts, occur occasionally, notably
in the forests of Pickering and Peak Forest. The sheep are usually
divided into wethers (_multones_), ewes (_oves_, or _oves matrices_),
two-year-olds (_bidentes_), hogs, or male one-year-olds (_hogastri_),
gimmers, female sheep from first to second shearing (_jercie_) and lambs.
Milking ewes and the making of sheep-cheese was usual throughout mediæval
England. Certain particulars relative to this custom will be found under
the Peak Forest.
GOATS.—The turning out of goats to pasture, even in the wildest parts of
a forest, was unlawful; save in occasional very restricted areas, under
express licence. By tainting the pasture, they effectually banished the
deer. The Scotch law of the forest provided that if goats were found for
a third time in a forest, the forester was to hang one of them by the
horns on a tree; whilst for a fourth time he was forthwith to slay one,
and leave its bowels in the place, in token that they were found there.
In the lodgment or adjudication of claims before the eyre, goats
are often expressly excluded. Thus the prioress of Wykeham, at the
fourteenth-century Pickering eyre, claimed common of pasture in certain
woods and adjoining wastes for all animals except goats; and when not
mentioned, they were certainly tacitly excluded. On the other hand, at
the same eyre, the claims of Gilbert de Ayton to pasture goats in the
moors and woods of Hutton Bushel, within the covert and without, at all
times of the year, and of Ralph de Hasting in his woods and moors at
Allerston, Cross Cliff and Staindale were allowed. Certain stray goats
found in the forest of Mara, Cheshire, in 1271, were forfeited to the
master forester. The tenants of Broughton, in the Lancashire forest of
Amounderness, had common pasture granted them at Fulwood, in 1334, for
all animals save goats. At a swainmote in Wyersdale forest, in the same
county, held at Whitsuntide, 1479, eight transgressors were presented for
keeping goats; the goats numbered forty-one, eight of which belonged to
the prioress of Seton. No fewer than fifty-six persons were presented at
the Epping Forest justice seat of 1323-4 for keeping goats on the forest
contrary to the assize.
When Henry III. was tarrying at Stamford in 1229, he was approached
by the men on the royal demesne of Kingscliff and the neighbouring
townships, complaining piteously that Hugh de Neville, the keeper of
Rockingham forest, and his bailiffs prohibited them from turning out
their goats in the forest of Cliff according to ancient custom. The goats
must have been in considerable numbers, for the men asserted that they
could not support their lives if this prohibition was sustained. The king
thereupon ordered that they should be permitted to pasture their goats in
the more open part of the wood (_in clariori bosco_), and wherever they
would do the least injury to the forest.
CHAPTER VI
HOUNDS AND HUNTING
The sixth article of the Charter of the Forest (1217) dealt with the old
custom of the lawing of dogs. The inquisition or view of the lawing of
dogs in the forest was for the future to be made every third year, and he
whose dog was then found to be unlawed was to be fined three shillings.
This mutilation of dogs, termed lawing or expeditation, to prevent
them chasing the game, is said to be as old as the time of Edward the
Confessor. By the forest law of Henry II. it was done to mastiffs. The
charter of 1217 laid down that the lawing was to consist in cutting off
the three claws of the forefeet, without the ball. “The mastive,” says
Manwood, “being brought to set one of his forefeet upon a piece of wood
eight inches thick and a foot square, then one with a mallet, setting a
chissell two inches broad upon the three clawes of his forefoot, at one
blow doth smite them cleane off.”
This lawing, though originally intended only for mastiffs, was usually
applied to all dogs in forest bounds. This was certainly the case in the
forests of Rockingham, Pickering, and Essex. The right to have unlawed
dogs was not unfrequently granted by the Crown to persons of position and
influence. Thus the Canons of Waltham, the Bishop of London, and the Dean
and Chapter of St. Paul’s had grants exempting their house dogs in Essex
forest; whilst the Earl of Arundel and other laymen obtained complete
exemption. It was the custom in some forests, as at Pickering, for
outlying townships to pay a composition, termed in that forest “hungill”
or “houndgeld,” for the purpose of securing immunity from lawing.
The dog of most common occurrence in forest proceedings is the greyhound
(_leporarius_), which hunted by sight. By the Assize of Woodstock
(1184), the keeping of greyhounds in the forest was forbidden. In the
cases of venison trespass throughout the forests of England, the illicit
hunting of deer with greyhounds, with or without bows and arrows, is
the commonest charge. The last chapter of the Regard of 13 Henry III.
directed inquiry to be made as to who had braches or greyhounds or
anything else for doing harm to the king’s deer. Lists of those keeping
greyhounds are sometimes found amongst the extant eyre rolls. Greyhounds
found in a forest, or straying in pursuit of deer, were sent forthwith
to the particular justice of that forest. Thus a number of greyhounds in
the charge of poachers, found in Rockingham forest in 1246, were sent
by the foresters and verderers to Sir Robert Passclew, then justice
of that forest. It is thought that the old greyhound was a larger and
more powerful dog than that which we know by that name, and more nearly
resembled our deerhound. Dr. Caius (_English Dogges_, 1576) applies the
word to various breeds. He describes the greyhound as—
“A spare and bare kinde of dogge (of fleshe but not of bone);
some are of a greater sorte, and some of a lesser; some are
smooth skynned, and some are curled; the bigger thereof are
appoynted to hunt the bigger beasts, and the smaller serve to
hunt the smaller accordingly.”
Brache (_brachettus_) was the general term for hounds that hunted by
scent (_odore sequentes_), and the bercelet (_bercelettus_) was a smaller
hound of the same kind. The limehound (_limarius_) also hunted by scent,
and the name may have been but an _alias_ for a bercelet. The limehound,
or lymer, as it is termed by Twici and Caius, took its name from the
line or thong by which it was held. Caius says this dog is in smelling
irregular and in swiftness incomparable, and that it taketh the prey
“with a jolly quickness.”
The mastiff (_mastivus_) is of fairly frequent occurrence in forest
proceedings of the thirteenth and subsequent centuries; it seems to have
corresponded to our dog of the same name. It was large and strong, and
evidently employed chiefly for the protection of property and person. It
was used for the destruction of wolves, and was capable of hunting and
pulling down both red and fallow deer.
_Strakur_ was the name of a kind of dog in favourite use among Cumberland
deer-poachers, according to an eyre roll of 15 Edward I. But it was not
merely a North-country word, for we have met with it twice in Wiltshire
forest proceedings.
Velters (_valtri_, _veltri_, or _vautrarii_) were running hounds akin to
but separate from the old greyhound. Blount says that it was a mongrel
hound used for the chase of the wild boar.
In addition to the rough division of dogs of the forest into those that
hunted by sight and those that hunted by scent, terms are commonly
found, in the forest proceedings, for dogs that hunted different kinds
of game. Thus those that were used for hunting the red deer were termed
_cervericii canes_, or hart hounds. They were a breed of running hounds,
and were not used exclusively for hart hunting. In the fifteenth century
the king had a master of hart hounds.
_Damericii canes_ were the buckhounds for hunting the fallow deer. Small
packs of these buckhounds are frequently mentioned as accompanying the
royal huntsman of Henry III. and Edward I.
The roe deer were occasionally hunted, and _canes cheverolerez_ are
mentioned several times as being sent to forests by King John. On one
occasion Adam, his huntsman, was accompanied by a pack of seventeen
roehounds, and on another by one of twenty-four.
_Porcerecii canes_ is obviously the name of hounds used for hunting wild
boars. We have met with the term in several rolls of John, Henry III.,
and Edward I., among dogs dispatched to the royal forests.
_Lutericii canes_ is the equivalent for otterhounds. Mr. Turner cites
their occurrence in a wardrobe account of 18 Edward I. They are also
mentioned in the same reign in the Peak Forest, and occur in connection
with Clarendon forest in the fifteenth century.
_Haericii canes_ denoted a particular kind of running hound, and is
usually rendered “harriers.” There is said, however, to be no real
philological connection between the term and hares, and they were
certainly used in hunting deer, as is abundantly proved by Mr. Turner.
Dogs are frequently distinguished by their colour in cases of venison
trespass. In the case of a Rockingham trespass of 1246 with five
greyhounds, one was white, another black, a third fallow, a fourth
black-spotted, and the fifth tawny (_teyngre_). Other terms for greyhound
colour in forest proceedings are ticked (_tetchelatus_), tiger-marked or
brindled (_tigrus_), and red (_ruffus_ and _rubens_). In a presentment
of the Lancashire forest of Quernmore a greyhound is described as being
red with a black muzzle (_cum nigro mussell_). Occasionally a dog’s name
is entered on the proceedings, as was the case with a certain black
greyhound in Peak Forest, called “Collyng.” The name occurs in poaching
charges at two different courts.
The early treatises on hunting pay great attention to the diseases of
sporting dogs and their general treatment.
Frequent mention will be found in subsequent chapters of the general
custom of allowing local foresters to kill one or two deer a year, when
training their young dogs.
In Sir Henry Dryden’s edition of Twici (_vide infra_), there is a brief
appendix on the various kinds of dogs used in hunting. He gives a plate,
here reproduced, of outline sketches of dogs from illuminations of Gaston
de Foix’s French treatise. Fig. 1 is the alant, or kind of mastiff,
described as running swiftly but also following by scent. It was used in
France chiefly for bears and boars. On account of its ferocity, it was
generally kept muzzled. Fig. 2 is a gazehound, or greyhound. Fig. 3 is
a lymer, or limehound, with hanging ears something like a bloodhound.
Figs. 4 and 5 picture the brache or rache. This is usually represented in
Gaston’s pictures as black and tan. It corresponded to our beagle.
The old seasons for forest hunting are almost invariably given wrongly
in works or articles dealing with the subject; the errors were usually
made through imagining that the English seasons coincided with those
prevailing on the Continent. The true hunting times can, however, be
gathered from original forest proceedings.
_Pinguedo_ was the term for the season of hunting the hart and the buck
when they were fat, or, to use forest jargon, “in grease”; it extended
from 24th June to 14th September.
_Fermisona_, or fermisone, was the period for hunting the hind and the
doe, which lasted from 11th November to 2nd February. The summer hart or
buck venison was considered much more of a delicacy than the winter hind
or doe venison.
[Illustration: HUNTING DOGS. DRYDEN’S TWICI
(See p. 50.)]
There are a variety of entries on the Close Rolls from the time of John
to Edward II., relative to the dispatch of the king’s huntsmen and
attendants and hounds to different forests, for the purpose of obtaining
venison for the royal household; most of this was salted down on the
spot and committed to the sheriff for delivery. A small selection of
such cases, of the reigns of Edward I. and II., are cited here instead
of under the respective forests. Entries of this kind make it quite
clear that no large hunting staff or kennels were maintained in the
actual forests; they were reserved for the king, and occasionally for his
friends, the local foresters having only a few hounds in training for the
use of the master of the forest.
On December 13th, 1275, Matthew de Columbariis, keeper of the forest
of Clarendon, received orders to permit Henry de Candover, the king’s
huntsman, to take twenty does for the king’s use against Christmas, and
to give him due aid and counsel; certain of the king’s yeomen accompanied
the huntsman. In 1280, when Philip de Candover was king’s huntsman, he
received during his visit to Clarendon forest 2_s._ 6_d._ a day from the
sheriff of Wilts for his wages, whilst the expenses of his horses and of
the pack of twenty-six hounds and their two keepers (or berners) amounted
to £18 13_s._ 4_d._ In the following year the pack numbered thirty-two,
and the expenses were £24 15_s._ 1_d._
In November, 1313, the sheriff of Berks was ordered to pay to Robert
le Squier, whom the king was sending to take eight hinds and six bucks
in Windsor forest, with two berners, three ventrers, one berceletter,
twenty-four running dogs, twelve greyhounds, and two bercelets, his
wages, during his stay in his bailiwick, to wit 12_d._ a day, and 2_d._
a day for each of the berners, ventrers, and the berceletter, and 1½_d._
a day for each of the dogs, greyhounds, and bercelets. He was also to
deliver him salt for the venison, and carriage for the same, to the king.
There was another order to the sheriff of the like kind in June, 1314,
and in July, 1316.
Edward II., in July, 1315, issued his mandate to the sheriff of
Devonshire to pay to Robert Squier and David de Franketon, two of the
royal yeomen, wages of 12_d._ a day, two berners and two ventrers 2_d._ a
day, together with ½_d._ a day for each of twenty-four running dogs, and
1½_d._ a day for each of nine greyhounds, whilst they hunted for the king
in Dartmoor Forest. He was also to provide salt and barrels, and carriage
for the venison. At the same time, the keeper of Dartmoor Forest was
ordered to permit Robert and David to take twenty harts.
In July, 1315, Edward II. (after giving like instruction to the sheriff
of Somerset with regard to the forests of Neroche, Petherton, Mendip,
and Selwood) ordered the sheriff of Devon to pay to the king’s yeomen,
Robert Squier and David de Franketon, whom the king was sending with two
berners, twenty-four running dogs, two ventrers, and nine greyhounds,
to take venison in the forest of Exmoor, 12_d._ a day each whilst thus
engaged, together with 2_d._ a day for each of the berners, and ½_d._
a day for each of the running dogs, and 2_d._ a day for each of the
ventrers, with 1½_d._ a day for each greyhound. He has also to provide
the yeoman with salt and barrels for the venison, and to provide for the
carriage of the same. At the same time the keeper of Exmoor received
orders to permit the king’s huntsmen to take twenty harts out of the
forest. Exmoor was evidently at that time the exclusive haunt of the red
deer; the keepers of Neroche, Selwood, and Petherton were ordered to
supply so many bucks (_i.e._ fallow deer), whilst the keeper of Mendip
was to supply twelve bucks and twelve harts.
The berner (_bernarius_) was the title of the man in charge of running
hounds; the ventrer or fewterer (_veltrarius_) had charge of the
greyhounds; and the berceletter was responsible for the bercelets or
hounds that hunted by scent. The reason for salting down the venison
was because of the difficulty of obtaining fresh meat in the winter
season, when root crops were unknown, and the expenses of fodder for
all kinds of cattle were so serious. In a few of the forests large
larders were maintained, for the express purpose of salting the venison
when the summer season of hunting was over. In such cases there was, of
course, no necessity to order the sheriff to see to the salting or pay
for the carriage of the meat to the royal household. There were such
larders in Duffield Frith and in Needwood forest. An example of a year’s
accounts, containing references to the local salting, and to the general
distribution of the venison, are here given.
The master forester of Needwood, for the year 1313-14, was John de
Myneers. His venison accounts for the year show that 95 fat bucks and
12 does were killed in the twelvemonth. Ten of the bucks served for
the king’s hospitality at Tutbury, ten more were sent to the king at
Melburne, and twenty-three bucks and six does to the king at Castle
Donnington. Six does were sent to Bagworth for the hospitality of Robert
de Holand. Twenty-one bucks were distributed, on the king’s warrant, to
John de Ashborne, Walter de Montgomery, and ten other gentlemen. The
remainder were salted down for winter use in the larder. The master
forester’s accounts include 19_s._ 5_d._ for 4 qrs. 6 lbs. of salt for
the larder, whilst 4_s._ 4½_d._ were paid as wages of the larderer for
five weeks’ work.
Nicholas de Hungerford was at the same time (1313-14) master forester of
Duffield Frith. His general accounts for the forest showed receipts of
£15 16_s._ 0½_d._ Of this amount £9 2_s._ 6_d._ was paid in wages, 16_s._
8_d._ for salt for salting the venison, and 1 stag and 31 bucks and
does in the forest larder at Belper. The deer taken this year, by order
of the master forester, under the warrants of the Earl of Lancaster,
were 1 stag, 41 bucks, and 25 does. In addition to this, Lord Robert de
Holand—the foundations of whose great moated house still remain within
the Hulland ward—was allowed to take 20 bucks for the earl’s larder. The
master forester paid 9_s._ 8_d._ for the carriage of 33 bucks from Belper
to Kenilworth, and 14_s._ for the carriage of 12 bucks from Belper to
Castle Donnington, and 4 bucks to Melburne, in accordance with letters
from the earl.
It was the custom in every forest to cut what was usually termed
browsewood or clear browse for the sustenance of the deer in the winter
season. The references to this practice are innumerable and interesting
throughout almost every class of forest proceedings. Manwood says:—
“When there is not sufficient foode for the deere, neyther of
grasse nor of such fruites, then the forresters that have the
charge of the wild beasts, must provide browsewood to be cut
downe for them to feed upon.”
[Illustration: BERNERS OR HARBOURERS. FOURTEENTH CENTURY
(See p. 65.)]
He also states that the lord of a forest might enter, by his officers,
into any man’s wood within the forest limits, to cut such browsewood for
the deer in winter. It was usual to cut it in the late autumn, and store
it ready for sprinkling about when the severe weather or frosts came.
It was supposed to be cut from twigs that were not more than an inch
in circumference, nor heavier than a deer may readily turn up with his
horns. In all forests the browsewood seems to have chiefly consisted of
oak twigs; but evidence is cited showing that holly and ivy, as well as
maple, hazel, thorn, and ash were occasionally used for this purpose.
In the more favourite royal forests, such as Rockingham, Clarendon, and
Windsor, a certain amount of hay was also used for the winter feeding
of the deer at an early period, but in later forest history hay-feeding
became commoner.
Everything in the forest was made to give way to the deer, and where
hedges or enclosures of any kind were permitted for the cultivation of
crops, they had always to be constructed sufficiently low to allow of the
ingress and egress of the deer.
The owners of lands adjoining the forest were in the habit, if they had
a grant of imparking, of making certain contrivances called deer-leaps
or salteries (_saltatoria_). These were so contrived that the deer could
readily leap into the park over a fence of moderate height, but were
prevented from returning by a steep upward slope in the ditch inside the
park fence. Occasionally such deer-leaps were deliberately constructed
in parks within a forest for the convenience of catching or herding the
deer. But there are various instances of deer-leaps being presented to
the justices in eyre as a nuisance to the forest. If it was within a
short distance of the forest, they had power to order its removal. At the
Cumberland eyre of 1285, a presentment was made that Isabel of Clifford
had a park with two deer-leaps, one of which was a mile (_leuca_),
and the other a mile and a half from the forest of Quinfield. At an
inquisition at Somerton, in 1364, the jurors complained of two deer-leaps
three miles distant from the forest, as detrimental to the king’s game
and contrary to the assize of the forest.
BUCKSTALLS, etc.—There are various references in forest proceedings
to buckstalls. A buckstall was an extended trap or toil for deer, of
which nets usually formed a component part; but the definition generally
given—“a net for taking deer”—is not sufficient. Earth ramparts and
wattled work were also generally used in its construction; it was, in
fact, a kind of cunning enclosure wherein the deer could be taken alive,
as is implied in the term deer-hay. A “buckstalle vel dere-hay” is named
in presentments of Clarendon forest.
Matthew de Hathersage, a baron, was presented at the eyre of 1251 for
having a buckstall in his great wood at Hathersage, which was distant
barely two bow-shots from the king’s forest of the Peak. The baron
pleaded that his ancestors had always had a buckstall in their wood,
and that formerly it was still nearer to the bounds of Peak Forest. The
upshot of the matter was that the decision went against Matthew, who had
to pay a fine of twenty marks.
The master forester of Duffield Frith was instructed to see that there
were no buckstalls set upon the borders of that forest, and the ministers
of each ward were enjoined to present at the woodmote the setting of “any
haye or buckstakes, trappes, or springes for deere.”
Among the claims at the Pickering eyre of 1334, the prior of Malton
claimed that he and his men were quit of all buckstall service, which
he explained to mean a duty laid on all other forest residents of
assembling for the purpose of collecting the deer into an enclosure which
they have to make for that purpose, and failing, are heavily fined. The
prior failed, however, to make this part of his claim good. The prior
of Ellerton at the same time claimed a like exemption from buckstall
attendance, and on the production of a charter of Henry III. his claim in
this respect was allowed.
An instance occurred at the forest pleas of Pickering in 1488, in
which the term buckstall was used simply for snaring-nets. It was then
presented that one Thomas Thomson, a yeoman, with a number of unknown
persons, entered Blandsby park at midnight with a horse laden _cum
retibus vocatis buckstalles et ropes_, killing about twenty does. An Act
of Parliament, a few years later, prohibited anyone who was not the owner
of a park, chase, or forest, using a buckstall under a penalty of £10.
There were various devices, apart from the buckstall or enclosure,
used for the snaring of deer. In 1246, the forester of Brigstock park,
Rockingham forest, found two men setting five snares of horsehair for
taking fawns or hares. The men were taken before the verderers, and
gave pledges to appear at the next eyre. In 1251, a trap was found set
in the same park. Robert, chaplain of Sudborough, was suspected, and
on his house being searched the woodwork of a trap with the cord broke
was found; on the cord was deer’s hair. In 1255, a snare, consisting of
four cords stretched round a dish of water, was found in the wood of
Bassethawe (Rockingham). The foresters watched all night to see if anyone
would come, but in vain. On the following day an inquisition was held by
the four neighbouring townships, before the stewards of the forest and
one of the verderers. Sir Robert Basset, the owner of the wood, found
twelve pledges to produce Peter, the forester of the wood, whenever
required; the cords were handed to the verderer to produce at the next
eyre, and the wood of Bassethawe was taken into the king’s hands.
The commonest kind of deer snares seem to have taken two forms,
occasionally both combined; the one was the intertwining of cords between
stout stakes in the midst of a usual deer track, and the other the
suspending of halters or looped ropes in the trees overhead to catch the
deer by their heads or horns. In 1260, five workmen employed in Guildford
park in mending the pales and cutting down oaks for that purpose, set
cords to entangle the deer that came to feed on the fresh oak leaves. The
cords were found by the park-keepers, and the men bound over to appear
at the next eyre. There was an interval of ten years before an eyre was
held, and meanwhile two of the delinquents had died. The justices, in
1270, fined the other three half a mark each.
Two labourers in Duffield Frith were committed, in 1321, by the verderers
to appear before the justices to answer a charge of having set cart-ropes
in an opening in the pale fence of Shottle park, with halters suspended
in the trees overhead. There is another instance of a like snaring of
deer, with a cartrope and smaller cart gear, at Weybridge, Hunts, in 1455.
[Illustration: _PLATE VIII_
NETTING IN WOODS AND STREAMS (FOURTEENTH CENTURY)]
The venison indictments at the New Windsor eyre of 1488, included a
charge against Thomas à Clowe, of Clewer, and four others, of having
fixed halters (_capistra_) and other snares in a place called Brodeles,
and there with a halter caught, suspended, and killed a doe, whilst
others after a like fashion had killed a red deer’s fawn. They were
convicted, and ordered to appear before the justices at Westminster
within fifteen days.
The forest proceedings at the Waltham swainmotes of the seventeenth
century mention various devices then in use in Essex for the killing
of deer, such as “engines called wyers, engines made of ropes, withes,
dear-hays, buckstalls, and tramels, and other nets.” Mr. Fisher tells
us that one of these nets, described as a “thief net,” was baited with
bottles, flowers, and looking-glasses; an apparatus designed to practise
upon the curiosity of the deer. One man was presented for pitching
halters about a grove; another for “hanging a lyne in a creepe-hole to
ketch a deer.”
Among the Cotton collection of the British Museum (Tib. A. vii.), is
a fourteenth-century illuminated manuscript called _The Pilgrim_. The
pilgrim meets with every variety of temptation at the hands of the devil.
Entering a forest district, he is tempted by the Evil One to catch both
fish and game, and is taught how to net and snare both river and woods.
The picture of this incident (Plate VIII.) gives a realistic idea of the
commoner forms of deer snaring.
CHEMINAGE and FENCE MONTH.—It has been disputed whether the term
“cheminage”—that is to say, way-leave or passage through a forest
in return for payment—was ever used apart from the fence month. In
particulars to be inquired into by the jury of the Duchy of Lancaster, in
the honour of Pickering, one of the articles runs:—
“Whoe receiveth the Chiminage yearlie within the foreste,
namelie, a tax upon cartes and cariages, traveylinge over the
foreste in fence moneth, formerlie sometimes xiii_s._ iiii_d._
per annum, sometimes more?”
Nevertheless, at various dates, the term “cheminage” is frequently used
without any limitation to a particular month, and is perhaps best defined
as a toll for wayfarage through a forest.
The _chymynagium_ of Duffield Frith pertained to Robert Ferrers, Earl of
Derby, in the reign of Stephen. Henry II. granted cheminage throughout
the whole forest of Pickering to the burgesses of Scarborough, a right
confirmed on several subsequent occasions.
The fourteenth section of the Charter of the Forest, 1217, provided that
it was only a forester-of-fee who had a right of cheminage, namely, for
carriage by cart for the half-year, 2_d._, and the same for the other
half-year; for a horse that bare loads, ½_d._ the half-year. But this
fee was only to be taken of those who came as merchants from outside
foresters’ bailiwick; cheminage was not to be taken for any other
carriage by cart. Those who bore on their back brushwood, bark, or
charcoal, though it was their living, were to pay no cheminage to the
king’s foresters unless they took it in the royal demesne woods.
The confirmation granted by Henry III. in 1256, to the burgesses of
Scarborough, stated that they were to be quit of cheminage throughout the
whole forest of Pickering, so that they might carry timber, brushwood,
turf, heather, fern, and all else freely, wherever and whenever they
pleased, except during the fence month. The priors of Malton and of
Ellerton established their claims to be free of any payment, great or
small, for the passage of their loaded carts, wagons, or pack-saddles
throughout Pickering forest. The hospital of Cricklade had a like
exemption in the Wiltshire forest of Braydon.
The fence month, or in Latin _mensis vetitus_, which lasted from fifteen
days before Midsummer to fifteen days after, was the special time when
the deer required quiet and protection, for it was just about the usual
time for fawning. The whole principle of cheminage was to prevent forest
roads being freely used, so as to check disturbance of the king’s game.
These precautions were naturally redoubled during this particular season.
In several forests agistment of pigs, and sometimes of cattle and horses,
was permitted during the fence month, but in all such cases the agistment
fee was very largely increased. So too with cheminage.
[Illustration: _PLATE IX_
THE FOUR BEASTS OF VENERY
HART, WOLF, WILD BOAR, AND HARE]
In certain forests the money for way-leave was materially increased
during that month; whilst in some cases, as at Cranborne Chase and in
Pickering forest during its later period, such fees were only collected
during that time. It was also customary in some forest districts, as
at Rockingham, to allow the different townships within the forest to
be rated at a certain sum, in proportion to the number of their carts,
for way-leave during the prohibited period. In the stricter forests all
passage for carts, etc., was absolutely forbidden to all outsiders in
this month.
A toll of 4_d._ for every cart or wagon, and a 1_d._ for every packhorse
crossing over Harnham Bridge, near Salisbury, into Cranborne Chase,
was paid as a check upon travelling during the fence month, as late as
the early part of last century. This toll was collected by virtue of a
warrant from Lord Rivers, and during the month a pair of deer’s antlers
were fixed on the bridge as a warning to travellers.
HUNTING TREATISES.—Twici’s _Le Art de Venerie_, written in Norman-French,
is the oldest book on hunting in England. William Twici was huntsman to
Edward II., and wrote this short treatise, _circa_ 1325, at the end of
the reign. There is a record on the Close Rolls of July, 1322, of Twici
being sent by the king to the forests of Lancaster to take fat venison,
with a larderer, two berners, four ventrers, a page, twenty greyhounds,
and forty harthounds; the sheriff was to pay Twici 7½_d._ a day for his
own wages, 2_d._ a day to each of the berners and ventrers, 1_d._ a day
to the page, and ½_d._ a day for each of the hounds. From a later Close
Roll entry we find that William Twici died, as a royal pensioner, in
the abbey of Reading in the spring of 1328. It may therefore fairly be
assumed that he wrote his short treatise when in retirement at Reading
towards the close of his life.
An early English version of this tract, wherein the name of John Gyfford
is associated with Twici, is among the British Museum MSS. (Cott. MSS.
Vesp. B. xii.). This was privately printed by the late Sir Henry Dryden,
Bart., in 1843, with introduction, notes, and illustrations, making a
book of eighty pages.
_The Master of Game_, written between 1406 and 1413 by one of Edward
III.’s grandsons, Edward, the second Duke of York, is a translation from
the French of the celebrated hunting-book _Livre de Chasse_. The author
of this French treatise was Count Gaston de Foix, who began to write it
on 1st May, 1387. Of the thirty-six chapters of _The Master of Game_,
only the last three, and a paragraph at the opening of the first chapter
or prologue are original. The titles of the last three chapters are:
(1) “How the hert shuld be snaryd with the lymer, and ronne to and slayn
with strength”; (2) “How an hunter shuld seke and fynde the hare with
rennyng houndes, and slee here with strength”; and (3) “Of the Ordinaunce
of the maner of hundyng whan the king wil hunt in foreste or parke for
the hert with bowes, greyhoundes and stable.” It will therefore be seen
that, interesting as this translation of a French book is, it throws but
little, if any, light on ordinary English hunting and forest customs, for
that which it does state in the words of the Duke of York, only applies
to the formal hunting of the Court on a grand scale. It is the lack of
knowledge of original and contemporary forest proceedings in England that
has led so many writers astray. When purporting to write about England,
they have really been writing about France, and the Continental customs
relative to forests and forest hunting differed as widely in mediæval
days from those in use in our own country, as does “sport” in the two
countries at the present time.
The best manuscript of _The Master of Game_ is the one in the British
Museum (Cott. MSS. Vesp. B. xii.), written about 1440. It is from this
copy that several of the illustrations of this volume are taken.
[Illustration: _PLATE X_
THE FOUR BEASTS OF CHASE
FALLOW DEER, ROE DEER, FOX, AND MARTIN]
Prefixed to this manuscript is the English rendering of the Twici tract
(first printed in Wright and Halliwell’s _Reliquiæ Antiquæ_ in 1541),
whilst the two opening folios contain the following rhymes, the work
of the fifteenth-century transcriber, which are rendered more valuable
by the three small groups of wild animals of English forests, here
reproduced:—
Alle suche dysport as voydith ydilnesse,
It syttyth every gentilman to knowe,
For myrthe annexed is to gentilnesse,
Qwerfore among alle othyr as y trowe
To knowe the crafte of hontyng, and to blowe
As thys book shall witnesse is one the beste,
For it is holsum, plesaunt, and honest.
And for to settle yonge hunterys in the way,
To venery y caste me fyrst to go,
Of wheche iiij bestis be that is to say,
The hare, the herte, the wulfhe, the wylde boor also,
Of venery for sothe there be no moe;
And so it shewith here in porteteure
Where every best is set in hys figure.
And ther ben othyr bestis v of chase,
The buk the first, the do the secunde,
The fox the thryde, whiche ofte hath hard grace,
The forthe the martyn, and the last the Roo.
And sothe to say there be no mo of tho.
And cause why, that men shulde the more be sur’
They shewen here also in portreture.
Is this like as lecteture put thyng in mende
Of lerned men ryghte so a peyntyde fygure,
Rememberyth men unlernyd in his kende;
And in wryghtyng for soothe the same I fynde.
Therfore, sith lerned may lerne in this book
Be ymages shal the lewd if he wole look.
And iij othyr bestis ben of gret disport
That ben neyther of venery ne chace.
In huntynge ofte thei doe gret comfort,
As aftir ye shal here in othyr place.
The grey is one therof with hyse slepy pace,
The cat an othyr, the otre one also,
Now rede this book, and ye shal fynde yt so.
In the light of these rhymes and their classification of the wild
animals, it at once becomes apparent whence Manwood derived his
misleading lists, so continuously cited, of (legal) beasts of the forest
and of the chase.
The four beasts of venery—the hart, wolf, wild boar, and hare—were
_sylvestres_; that is, they spent their days in the woods and coppices,
and were taken by what was considered true hunting, being tracked and
roused by the lymers or lymer hounds, and afterwards pursued by the pack
(Plate IX.).
But the fallow and roe deer, with the fox and martin, were beasts of
chase; that is, they were _campestres_, or found in the open country
by day, and therefore required none of the niceties of tracking and
harbouring in the thickets, but were roused straight away by the packs of
hounds (Plate X.).
The third group, neither of venery nor chase, were the badger, wild cat,
and otter (Plate XI.).
_The Boke of Saint Albans_ is the earliest English printed treatise on
hunting. It was first issued at St. Albans in 1486. The author, according
to the second edition, was Dame Julyana Bernes. Two other tracts, the
one on hawking and the other on heraldry, were published with it, whilst
to the second edition (1496) was added a fourth tract on fishing. This
rhymed account of hunting is based partly on Twici and partly on the
Duke of York’s version of _Livre de Chasse_; it possesses no originality.
_The Noble Art of Venerie or Hunting_, by George Turbervile, of which
the first edition was issued in 1575 and the second in 1611, is almost a
literal translation of Jacques du Fouilloux’s _La Venerie_, first printed
in 1560. The illustrations are also identical with those of the French
work, save for one or two exceptions, and several of them are made to do
service more than once with different headings. The book is only of small
service as an exponent of English hunting customs.
Sir Thomas Cockayne’s _Short Treatise of Hunting_ is a very rare and
delightful tract of thirty-two pages, published in 1591. It is most
genuinely English throughout, and gives the writer’s own experiences of
the different kinds of hunting then prevalent. He recommends that roe
deer should be hunted from the beginning of March till Whitsuntide.
The seventeenth century supplied two works of some celebrity on the
sport of hunting. That prolific writer, Gervase Markam, brought out the
first edition of _Country Contentments_ in 1615, wherein hunting holds
the foremost place. Before the end of the century this work had passed
through fifteen editions. The second was _The Gentleman’s Recreation_,
compiled by Richard Blane, a literary hack, and first issued in folio
in 1686. Its chief value is in the plates, which aptly illustrate the
sporting costume of that period.
In the eighteenth century books and essays on hunting multiplied; but the
one memorable production, first printed in 1781, was Beckford’s charming
and scholarly work, _Thoughts upon Hunting_.
HUNTING COSTUMES.—One of the most valuable features of Sir Henry Dryden’s
annotated Twici is the discussion on the costume of foresters, huntsmen,
and their attendants. The plates illustrative of their dress are borrowed
from that rare little treatise. Royalty and the nobility hunted on
horseback, wearing their usual riding dress, as is evidenced by a great
variety of illuminated manuscripts. The king’s huntsman was also usually
mounted, and there was generally one riding forester to each forest; but
the ordinary class of huntsmen, berners, varlets, etc., were on foot. In
the thirteenth century they are generally represented (p. 182) as wearing
close-fitting caps, and tied under the chin; they were probably of
leather, not of cloth, as suggested by Sir Henry Dryden. Their long loose
robes seem unsuitable for active work, but they were perhaps more closely
girt for action than artists cared, with an eye for flowing lines, to
represent them. The foremost, with horse, represents the huntsman, and
his attendants carry respectively a boar-spear and a longbow.
[Illustration: _PLATE XI_
THE THREE BEASTS OF SPORT
BADGER, WILD CAT, AND OTTER]
The two figures of the fourteenth century (p. 238) are taken from
the representation in Stothard’s _Monumental Effigies_ of the highly
interesting wall-painting, now almost obliterated, at the back of the
canopied recess over Sir Oliver Ingham’s tomb at Ingham church, Norfolk.
He died in 1344. Both figures wear cowls, or caps and short capes in one.
In shape they resemble the camail in armour of that period; and they were
probably of cloth, as they were coloured green in the painting. The short
jupon of the figures on the left, also coloured green, is open at the
sides to the hips, where a few buttons close the upper part of the slit.
The legs were grey in the painting, and were probably worsted trunk-hose.
The brass-studded bawdrick was of red leather. Four arrows show from a
quiver worn at the back, and the longbow is held in the left hand. The
attachments of the horn to the bawdrick and of the quiver to the body is
not shown, and had probably disappeared when the drawing was made. The
figure on the right, in the act of stringing his bow, is attired after
much the same fashion, but he wears a longer coat buttoned down the
breast, also painted green, and round the waist is a brown leather quiver
belt.
The fourteenth-century figures on page 55 are taken from an illustration
in the Phillipps MSS. copy of Gaston de Foix, and show a considerable
similarity between the hunting costume of England and France. Figure
1 in this picture, having unharboured a buck, has coiled the lymer’s
cord round his arm; a white leather scrip or bag is attached to a black
belt; the coat is green, and the camail and stockings red. Figure 2 is a
berner, dressed much the same as the harbourer, but having wide sleeves
to his coat. Figure 3 represents a berner or harbourer on his walks in
the wood with lymer and cord; his coat is green, and his red cowl has a
dagged ornamental appendage.
At Newland, Gloucestershire, is the defaced fifteenth-century coarse
stone effigy of Jenkin Wyrall, forester-of-fee in Dean forest, who died
in 1457.
The two illustrations given of this tomb show the forester wearing a
peculiar loose cap, folded in plaits and knotted at the top. He wears a
loose frock or jupon, with full sleeves and a short skirt, trunk-hose,
and low boots. The horn on the right side is small, whilst on the left
side is slung, by double straps, a short hanger or hunting sword. His
feet appropriately rest on a brache or hound.
[Illustration: WYRALL EFFIGY]
Sir Henry Dryden was mistaken in considering this “the only effigy of a
forester in hunting costume in England.” In the church of Skegby, near
Mansfield, is the fourteenth-century stone effigy of one who must have
been a forester-of-fee or some forest minister of Sherwood forest. The
photographic plate (No. XIX.) gives a vivid picture of his dress. He
wears a close-fitting cap, probably of leather; the tight-fitting sleeves
of his inner jerkin show at the wrists through the short hanging sleeves
of the outer garment, and over it he wears a tippet that had doubtless a
cowl at the back. A hunter’s horn hangs at the right side, suspended from
a strap over the left shoulder. The feet rest on a hound.
The quaint figures on page 89 are drawn from scenes in pargeting work
on the George Inn, Forster’s (or Forester’s) Booth, Northumberland,
dated 1637, on the edge of the old forest of Whittlewood. The man in
front with a spear is leading a fox by a chain which his greyhound has
caught, whilst the dog is coursing a hare. The other man is blowing the
mort at the capture of a hart by a brache. The dress may be left to speak
for itself. Unlike the other figures illustrated, both men wear leather
gauntlets.
[Illustration: WYRALL EFFIGY]
CHAPTER VII
THE TREES OF THE FOREST
After the end of the glacial period, the first of the trees to obtain
firm lodgment in the soil would be the hardiest kinds, such as the birch,
elder, aspen, and willow, together with the more sturdy shrubs, such as
the holly, juniper, blackthorn, whitethorn, and gorse. As time advanced,
the more gregarious kinds, such as the oak and hazel, so abundant among
the fossil flora, would follow; whilst other trees, such as the beech,
ash, hornbeam, and sycamore would gain foothold in their respective
localities. Most of the other trees that have been for many centuries
of common occurrence in this country, such as the English elm, sweet
chestnut, lime, and poplar, were introduced during the Roman occupation.
Our earliest known forest laws paid great attention to the preservation
of timber, more especially lest their destruction or the disturbance
of the woods should be prejudicial to the king’s game. The forest law
attributed to Canute states that anyone touching wood or underwood in a
royal forest, without the licence of the forest ministers, was to be held
guilty of a breach of the chase. Anyone cutting an oak or other tree that
bore fruit for the deer was to pay 20_s._ to the king in addition.
Henry II., by the Assize of Woodstock, ordained that foresters were to be
held responsible for the destruction of demesne woods. The sale of any of
the king’s wood without warrant was prohibited.
In most forests, tenants, as well as privileged persons in the vicinity,
had limited rights to housebote, haybote, and firebote, or to one or more
of these privileges; that is to say, wood necessary for maintaining
their houses, mending their hedges, and supplying their hearths and ovens
with fuel. Thus, in addition to the claims of ordinary tenants, the abbot
of Darley, the parson of Duffield, the parson of Mugginton, the heirs of
Peter Nevill, the heirs of Cardell, the heirs of Bradburn, the heirs of
Kniveton of Mercaston, the heirs of Bradshaw, and the heirs of four other
families all claimed and used the liberty of having housebote, haybote,
and firebote in Duffield Frith.
With regard to the question of the vert of the forest, sometimes called
by the picturesque English term of “green hue,” it included all trees,
whether bearing deer fruit (such as acorns and beech mast) or not, as
well as underwood. That which grew in the demesne woods of the king
was, according to Manwood, “special vert,” and the damaging of it was a
greater offence than the interference with other vert in private woods
within the forest; but of such distinctions the records of the local
courts or eyres contain but little trace. In all cases, however, the
penalties were more severe on those who dwelt outside the forest. Anyone
using wagons to take timber out of demesne woods not only incurred a
fine in proportion to the value of the timber, but, if the offence was
repeated, also forfeited both wagon and team. Instances of this are cited
in the account of Pickering forest.
In 1287, as stated subsequently in chapter xvi., the justices drew up
special vert by-laws for Sherwood forest, which are of much interest and
precision.
If the regarders reported that a wood in private hands had been wasted,
the Crown had a right to take it into its own hands, provided the
justices in eyre confirmed such presentment. There are various instances
of the Crown seizing such woods in the forest of Essex during the reign
of Edward I.; and in 1323 the prior of Bermondsey had his wood seized
by the Crown on account of waste. Such woods were usually redeemed on
payment of substantial penalties.
The connivance of forest officers in vert offences was frequently brought
before eyres by the reports of the regarders, notably in the case of
Pickering.
The oak, as might naturally be supposed, was the chief forest tree in
every part of England, and its timber was the most valuable. The special
grants of timber from royal forests that were so frequently made by our
kings, from John to Edward III., almost invariably specify that the wood
was oak. Such grants were largely made to religious houses, both for
their conventual buildings and their churches; they were also made from
time to time for the repairs or the erection of mills, bridges, castles,
and manor houses. The trunks of these oaks were, for the most part, sent
whole to the recipients, but occasionally the master forester had orders
to supply so many rafters, joists, tie-beams, or other roof timber ready
for use, and not infrequently shingles ready-trimmed for roofing, or
trees suitable for such a purpose. The selection of the trees for timber
purposes was usually left to the master forester or keeper; but in some
cases, particularly where a river ran through a forest, it was suggested
in the warrant that trees should be felled which were most convenient for
carriage.
Gifts of dead trees for firewood were fairly common, particularly to the
religious houses, whilst a great number of monasteries obtained chartered
rights of sending carts into the forest on particular days or at special
seasons to obtain fuel for their fires or ovens.
Oaks were also the usual trees assigned as a perquisite to the various
officials at the time of holding an eyre; and they were also the
“fee-trees” assigned yearly to certain forest ministers.
When the master forester of Duffield drew up his list of trees felled
through divers orders of the Earl of Lancaster for the year 1313-14,
they amounted to sixteen oaks (_quercus_) and six _robura_. The precise
meaning of _robur_, and in what it differed from _quercus_, is by no
means easy to ascertain. The two terms appear side by side in almost
every old forest account throughout England. Mr. Turner gives an
interesting dissertation on this (_Pleas of the Forest_, 147-8), wherein
he cites many uses of the word robur; it is there considered that it is
equivalent to a pollarded tree of oak or any other kind. A wider range of
references, and particularly those of a later date than the thirteenth
century, would, we think, qualify much that is there stated. Probably it
may usually mean an oak which has been pollarded; but is it not possible
that quercus and robur, at all events in some forest rolls, were the two
indigenous varieties of oak, _sessiliflora_ and _pedunculata_? The old
foresters could scarcely have failed to notice the difference of their
appearance, and particularly the decided difference of texture in their
timber. The word “roer,” as an English form of robur, occurs in the later
forest accounts of Clarendon and other south of England forests, and it
will therefore be adopted for subsequent use in these pages.
The sweet chestnut (_Castanea vesca_) has given rise to considerable and
warm discussion as to its claim to be an indigenous tree. On the whole,
the soundest opinion seems to be that it is of foreign importation at an
early date. The oft cited supposed quotation from Fitzstephen, originated
by Evelyn, alleging that there was in his days a great forest of
chestnuts near to London, turns out to be an invention, for the chestnut
is not even mentioned in the particular passage. The idea also, at one
time so current and still confidently held by a few, that chestnut wood
forms the roofs of many of our oldest churches and at Westminster Hall,
proves on examination to be a fable. In all these cases the wood is in
reality the close-grained oak of the sessiliflora variety.
There was, however, at least one place in England where chestnuts grew
in abundance, and had attained considerable size as early as the twelfth
century. This was in the forest of Dean. The tithe of chestnuts in that
forest was granted by Henry II. to the abbey of Flaxley. This chestnut
wood was evidently much prized and esteemed a great rarity. The old name
for Flaxley, as mentioned in the foundation charter, was the valley
of Castiard, a place-name probably derived from the presence of the
chestnut trees. In the regard of the forest of Dean, taken in preparation
for the eyre of 1280, it was presented that the wood of chestnuts had
much deteriorated since the last eyre through the bad custody of Ralph
Abbenhale, the forester-of-fee of the baily of Abbenhale. The regarders
found there thirty-four stumps of chestnuts that had recently been
felled, of which Robert de Clifford, the justice, had had two for making
tables.
There is mention made in a New Forest account roll, _temp._ Ed. III., of
a chestnut wood (_bosco de castaneariis_).
The lime, or linden tree (_Tilia Europæa_), is considered by some to be
indigenous to England, whilst others regard it as an introduction of
the Romans. It obtains occasional and interesting mention in forest
proceedings and accounts. It was chiefly valued, as it is in some parts
at the present day, for its inner bark, which was largely used for the
making of mats and cordage.
This bark was termed bast or bass; hassocks covered with these bark
strips, and fish mats are still often called basses. In Duffield Frith,
where the limes were numerous and specially guarded, the regulations
provided that “every keeper of wardes shall have a baste rope of them
that bee layd to basting when the basting falls in their office, and
all the wood that the basters cut the first day is the keepers, and the
residue that is cut after in common to the king’s tenantes.” By another
ordinance, the tenants were entitled to the small boughs of linte or lime
trees blown down by the wind to the value of half a load, and also to
“the linte in baisting time,” which was common to them after the first
day.
Among the claims made by the tenants of Needwood forest was that of “hoar
lynte.” This was the term used in other parts, as well as in Derbyshire
and Staffordshire, for the white wood of the lime tree after the basters
had stripped it of the inner bark.
In the time of Philip and Mary, the parker and sub-parker of Redlington
park, in the Rutland-Leicester forest, were presented for felling three
lime trees (“Le lyneray trees”) worth 6_s._ 8_d._ each.
The maple (_Acer campestre_) was known under the name of _arabilis_
in the earlier forest proceedings, where it is of fairly frequent
occurrence; but towards the opening of the fourteenth century the English
word maple, in such forms as “mappill,” “mapull,” and “mapeles,” begun
to take its place, and occurs many times among the smaller trees or
undergrowth in the sixteenth century.
The most interesting entry in the receipts for Colebrook ward, Duffield
Frith, for the year 1313-14, is the large sum of £12 18_s._ 6_d._ from
the sale of wood for making bowls (_bolas_). Common bowls were made
of various woods, but the beautifully polished non-porous bowls of
well-marked maple wood fetched a high price, and were often strengthened
and adorned with bands and plates of silver. Suitable wood for the
making of these “masers” was doubtless found in Colebrook ward. In the
hedgerows of this part of old Duffield forest, and in the present parks
and woods of Alderwasley, maple trees still grow to an unusual size.
[Illustration: _PLATE XII_
MAPLE TREE, BOLDRE CHURCHYARD]
It is but rarely that the maple is found in England of any size.
William Gilpin, the author of _Forest Scenery_, says of it: “The maple
is an uncommon tree, though a common bush.” The finest maple tree in
the kingdom is the one in Boldre churchyard (Plate XII.); it stands
appropriately over Gilpin’s grave; he was rector of Boldre for twenty
years, dying in 1804.
The beech is named with a fair amount of frequency in forest
accounts; there were beech woods of some size in Windsor, Pickering,
Northamptonshire, and Clarendon forests, and it is often named in
Hampshire records. The Windsor records show that beech was used for
shipbuilding purposes.
The birch, alder, crab-apple, hornbeam, ash, blackthorn, whitethorn,
and holly occur from time to time. The hazel was common everywhere; in
Pickering it was sufficiently abundant to make the nut geld, or payments
for licence to gather nuts, an item of some importance in the forest
accounts. The elm is of very rare and late occurrence.
The dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII. proved a severe blow
to the woods in the forests. A large number of these woods, some in
almost every forest, had belonged to the religious houses. No sooner had
they passed to the Crown or into private hands than the greater part
of them were cleared of timber. In 1543 an Act for the preservation of
timber was passed, the preamble of which laid emphasis on its great
decay and likelihood of scarcity, as well for building houses and ships
as for firewood. It was enacted that in copse of underwood, felled at
twenty-four years’ growth, there were to be left twelve standrells or
store oaks on each acre, or in default of oaks, so many elm, ash, or
beech, etc. When cut under fourteen years’ growth, the ground was to
be enclosed or projected for four years. Wood cut from fourteen to
twenty-four years of age was to be enclosed for six years. Cutting trees
on waste or common lands was to be punished by forfeiting 6_s._ 8_d._
for each felled tree. This and other Acts of Henry VIII. and Edward VI.
were extended and confirmed by the 13th of Elizabeth cap. 25. A later
Elizabethan Act provided for the whipping of idle persons cutting or
spoiling any wood, underwood, or standing trees, provided they could not
pay the fine.
Certain Elizabethan forest surveys, such as those for Duffield
Frith, give the fullest possible particulars as to forest timber and
undergrowth, enumerating every tree.
A survey of the timber of the Lancaster forests taken in 1587 supplies
much detailed information. Quernmore forest is described as having a
circuit of six miles. In it was Easton wood of six acres, set with alder,
hazel, and whitethorn of forty years’ growth, worth 10_s._ the acre,
and also containing five score small sapling for timber trees, worth
5_s._ each. In another wood, called New Kent, were forty dotard oaks for
firewood, worth 2_s._ each; and forty small saplings, worth 5_s._ each.
Dickson Carr, “sundray besett with aller (alder) of an evil growth,” was
to be got up and new planted. Details are also given of four other small
woods within the park, and there were in addition 140 dotard oaks, worth
2_s._ each, standing about in different places.
Full particulars are also given of Quernmore forest, outside the park;
the largest wood, Hollinhead, was four miles about, and contained 100
saplings, worth 6_s._ 8_d._ each; on Rowend Hill were 128 oaks, worth
7_s._ each; at Ashpotts were alder and hazel of twenty years’ growth,
worth 4_s._ an acre; and on another hill 212 small saplings, at 5_s._
each, etc. This timber was reserved for the repair of Lancaster Castle,
and of the tenants’ houses, when they had need, on the testimony of six
sworn men, and of the fish garths and weirs on the waters of the Lune.
From 1577 to 1587 eighty timber trees had been supplied for the repair
of that castle at an average value of 6_s._ 8_d._ a tree. Three hundred
and fifty trees had been used in that period for firebote and housebote
of the tenants, eighty for fish garths and weirs, twenty for park gates
and dogstakes, and forty dotard trees for fuel. A single fee-tree, in
addition to 2_s._ worth of fuel wood, was also granted yearly to the
auditor, receiver, surveyor, head steward, clerk of the court, woodward,
and axe-bearer.
In Wyersdale, this survey shows that there were a good many ash and birch
trees, as well as holly, alder, blackthorn, and whitethorn. The tenants
were entitled to the wood they required for repairs on the testimony of
six sworn men.
_Spyre_, or _spire_, is a word found in some of the later wood accounts;
it denoted a young upstanding tree, and is still occasionally used by
woodmen.
The term _blestro_, or _blettro_, occurs frequently in earlier attachment
court rolls (_e.g._ Plate III.); it means a sapling, usually of oak.
_Stubb_, or _stub_, in like records, appears to signify a dead or
decaying pollarded tree, and not a mere stump.
CHAPTER VIII
LATER FOREST HISTORY
The later history of the forests, in the time of their decay, is briefly
treated of at the close of most of the following chapters that deal
with the different counties. But there are a few general and particular
statements relative to the forests from the time of Henry VIII. to George
III. that it is found best to cite in a separate section.
In 1538-9, an interesting return was made of all the “kinge his game,”
both red and fallow, north of the Trent, arranged under counties and
parks (Misc. Bks. 77). The parks of the duchy are not included.
_Nottingham._
Bestwood Park 700 fallow, 140 red.
Clypston Park 60 ” 20 ”
Grynley Park 150 ”
Sherwood Forest about 1,000 red.
_Yorkshire._
Galtres Forest 800 fallow.
Haitfeld Chase 700 red.
Gredling Park 60 fallow.
Pontefract Park 434 ”
Wakefield New Park 200 ”
Ackworth Park 21 ”
Rypax Park 45 ”
Eltoftes Park 15 ”
Wakefield Old Park 40 ”
Conisborough Park 440 ”
Raskell Park 120 ”
Bristwick Park 160 ”
Likenfeld Park 429 ”
Calton Park 30 ”
Wressel Park 50 ”
Newsome Park 72 ” 17 red.
Topcliff Great Park 435 ”
Topcliff Little Park 247 ”
Spofforth Park 175 ”
Wensdale Forest 610 ” 60 red.
Pickering Forest 140 ” 50 ”
_Durham._
Teesdale Forest 210 ” 140 ”
_Northumberland._
Alnwick Park and members 500 ”
Warkworth Park 110 ”
_Yorkshire._
Hurst Park 120 ”
Sherif Hutton 400 ”
Temple Newsom 90 ”
Phipping Park 30 ”
Total 6,352 fallow.
2,067 red.
-----
8,419
=====
The ill-judged attempt of Charles I. and his advisers to reimpose
forest law is treated of under the respective forests where the boldest
efforts in this direction were made. This was particularly the case
in Oxfordshire, where an endeavour was made to levy most extravagant
penalties. The Peak Forest is an instance of amicable arrangement between
the Crown and the forests tenants; while Duffield Frith, in the same
county, is a striking instance of resistance.
In 1639, Charles I. issued the following order for distribution of fat
venison to the foreign ambassadors then in England:—
“Right trusty and welbeloved Cozen and Counsellor, we greet
you well. Whereas we have sent you a schedule under our signe
manuell in which were mentioned such number of deere of this
season as we are pleased to bestow upon the Ambassadors and
Agents of divers Princes residing with us, together with the
severall Parks and Walks wherein we purpose the said Deere
shall be killed, We will and comand you forthwith to cause your
severall warrants to be directed to every of the keepers of
the said Parks and Walks, Authorising them to kill and deliver
the said Deer according to our pleasure expressed in the said
Schedule. And hereof ye are not to fayle, any restraint for
killing of our Deere comandment or privy token given to the
contrary notwithstanding. And this our letter shall be your
sufficient warrant and discharge in that behalf. Given under
our signet at our Court at Oatlands the last day of July in the
Fourteenth yeare of our reigne.
“CHARLES R.”
The schedule particularises:—Three bucks for the French Ambassador, from
Hyde Park, Woodford Walk, and Windsor Great Park; three for the Venetian
Ambassador, from Windsor Little Park, Bushie Park, and Epping Walk; three
for the States Ambassador, from Theobald Park (2) and Chingford Walk; two
for the King of Spain’s Agent, from West Henalt Walk and Chappell Henalt
Walk; two for the Queen of Bohemia’s Agent, from Lowton Walk and Theobald
Park; two for the Queen and Crown of Sweden’s Agent, from Lowton Walk and
New Lodge Walk in Essex Forest; two for the Duke of Saxony’s Agent, from
Enfield Great Park and Enfield Chase; and two for the Duke of Florence’s
Agent, from Walthamstow Walk and Enfield Chase.
At the same date the king ordered twenty-two bucks and one stag to be
sent to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Recorder of the City of London. The
bucks were mostly from the royal parks round London, but four came from
Salcey Forest and one from Grafton Park in Northamptonshire; the stag was
from the Great Park at Ampthill.
The following list of Christmas venison supplied to Charles I. in London
is the last trace that we can find of the purveying of venison from the
forests at large for the royal household.
“Venizon brought to Whitehall against Christmas in anno 1640
for ye expence of his Majestie’s house, and issued out by my
Lords warrants out of the severall forests, chaces and parks as
followeth, viz.:
Does.
To Whittlewood Forest 12
To Cheut Forest 04
To Claringdon Parke 08
To New Forest 12
To South Beare 02
To Salcey Forest 03
To Rockingham Forest 24
To Holmeby Parke 02
To Grafton Parke 04
To Whichwood Forest 06
To Ampthill Parke 04
To Alice Holt Forest 03
To Waybridge Parke 04
To Enfield Chace 04
To Somersham Parke and Chace 04
To Windsor Great Parke 02
To Higham Ferrers Parke 02
To the Old Lodge Walk in Cranborn Chace 02
To New Lodge Walk in Windsor Forest 02
---
Totall 104 does
To Ampthill iij hindes
To Loughton Walke j hinde
To Egham Walke j hinde
--------
Totall 5 hindes”
On January 18th, 1641-2, the king issued his licence to the “Noble French
Lord, the Baron of Vieville,” second son of the Marquis of Vieville,
“to hunt and kill with his hounds or beagles the game of hares” within
all forests, chases, parks, and warrens this side the Trent, for his
recreation.
On the re-establishment of the monarchy, Charles II. took various
measures, not only to preserve forest timber, but also to restock several
of the royal forests with deer. He also accepted various presents of
foreign deer from abroad. In 1661 £54 was paid to Harman Splipting,
“Mʳ of the ship Angel Gabriell,” for freight of stags from the Duke of
Oldenburgh. A further sum of £176 8_s._ 8_d._ was disbursed for a parcel
of deer sent to His Majesty by the Duke of Brandenburgh. During the same
year £75 was paid in keepers’ fees, at 5_s._ per head, for 300 deer
presented to the king by several noblemen and others, and delivered at
Windsor and Waltham forests and Enfield Chase.
In 1662, £15 was paid for “keeping German deer at Wanstead” during the
winter; and £42 5_s._ 6_d._ for three new wagons for moving deer and
the rent of a place in which to keep them. In the same year £18 was
disbursed for twelve “brasshorns” for the king’s huntsmen.
A brief undated account of all the forests within the Duchy of Lancaster
during the reign of George I. names the following:—
_Lancashire._—Quarnmore, Blasedale, and Wyersdale; “the inhabitants
inclose divers partes thereof, and doe therein what seemes good to them.”
Amounderness; the like.
“The parke of Myerscough and the Keepership; lately granted to Benjamin
Houghton, Esq., during pleasure; by the same grant he is steward of the
forest of Quarnmore, and accountable to the king for the profits. The
herbage of the park of Myerscough leased to—Tildersley, Esquire.”
_Yorkshire._—The park of Ackworth, granted with the manor to the city of
London, in which there is a covenant for keeping the park stored with
deer, “near the Castle of Pontefract, which hath been and was (4 Charles
I.) a most princely structure,” razed to the ground in the civil wars.
The park of Pontefract, leased to Robert Monkton, Esquire, saving all
great trees, etc.
The forest of Pickering Castle and manor leased for 99 years to Mr.
Dallowe, but not the forest.
The forest of Knaresborough; large encroachments.
_Staffordshire._—The forest of Needwood; granted to William, Duke of
Devonshire, William, Marquis of Hartington, and Henry Lord Cavendish,
with the offices of Steward of the House, and Constable of the Castle of
Tutbury, Lieutenant of the Forest, Master of the Game, and Bailiff of the
New Liberties.
Castlehey park; granted for 99 years, in 1677, to Henry Seymor, Esquire.
The parks of Hanbury and Tutbury; granted for 99 years, in 1698, to
Edward Vernon, Esq.
Hylings and Russey parks; granted for 99 years, in 1698, to Sir John
Turton.
_Buckinghamshire._—Olney park and Silwood coppice; granted to James Earl
of Northampton, for 99 years, in 1673.
_Hampshire._—Samborne or How park; granted in 1663 to Mrs. Mary Blagge,
widow.
_Wilts._—Braydon forest; part belongs to the Exchequer and part to the
Duchy.
_Middlesex._—The Chase of Enfield; granted in 1687 to Lord Lisburn for 50
years, with all the offices, from Master of the Game to Woodwards.
In the early part of the eighteenth century Waltham Chase, Hants, was
made notorious by the operations of a gang of deer-stealers, who were
known throughout the district by the name of “Waltham Blacks,” from
their custom of blacking their faces for their nightly forays to escape
identification. Like the deer stealers of Cranborne Chase, on the other
side of the county, of the same period, they preferred to be known by
the name of _Hunters_, and considered their actions fit to be ranked
among deeds of bravery. So strange was their infatuation that, as Gilbert
White tells us in his _Natural History of Selborne_, no young person was
allowed to be possessed of either manhood or gallantry unless he was
a “hunter.” Their recklessness caused them eventually to be joined by
men drawn from the coarser criminal classes, with the result that their
hunting was not infrequently accompanied by acts of wanton violence.
These crimes were met in 1722 by an Act of extreme severity.
Although this lawless spirit originated and came to a head at Bishops
Waltham, in Hampshire, more than one gang of reckless poachers and
smugglers, with blackened faces, styled themselves “Waltham Blacks,”
and traversed the country, especially the forest districts, robbing
deer parks and fish ponds, and demanding money. They would brook no
opposition, and shot dead a young keeper of Windsor who merely put his
head out of a lodge window to remonstrate. Sir John Cope, of Bramshill,
in the north of Hampshire, threatened two men whom he thought he
recognised in daylight as belonging to the gang with legal proceedings,
and the next night over five hundred of his young plantations were cut
down. Windsor suffered severely from these marauders. In the year of the
passing of the “Black Act” over forty of the gang were secured in that
district. A special assize was held at Reading, when four of the worst
offenders were executed and hung in chains in different parts of the
forest, and the others were transported.
During the disturbed period of the Civil War, and afterwards during
the Commonwealth, deer-hunting by unauthorised persons became customary
on Cranborne Chase, and was subsequently indulged in by many of the
gentlemen of the neighbourhood as a kind of “brave diversion.” In the
earlier part of the eighteenth century, not a few persons of good
breeding and birth thought it no disgrace to hunt or poach at night,
to drive the deer into nets, and to enter into fierce combats with the
keepers. Hutchins thus describes this “kind of knight-errantry amusement
of the most substantial gentlemen of the neighbourhood”:—
“The manner of this amusement, as it was then called, was
nearly as follows: A company of hunters, from four to twenty
in number, assembled in the evening, dressed in cap, jack, and
quarterstaff, and with dogs and nets. Having set the watchword
for the night, and agreed whether to stand or run, in case they
should meet the keepers, they proceed to Cranborne Chase, set
their nets at such places where the deer are most likely to
run, then let slip their dogs, well-used to the sport, to drive
the deer into the nets, a man standing at each end to strangle
the deer as soon as entangled. Thus they passed such a portion
of the night as their success induced them, sometimes bringing
off six or eight deer, good or bad, such as fell into the net,
but generally of the latter sort, which was a matter of little
importance to those gentlemen hunters who regarded the sport,
not the venison. Frequent desperate bloody battles took place;
and instances have unfortunately happened where sometimes
keepers, at other times hunters, have been killed.”
A reproduction is given on the opposite page of an original painting,
executed in 1720, of a group of these hunters with their bee-hive caps,
wadded coats, quarterstaffs, and nets. The person in the centre is Mr.
Henry Good, of Bower Chalk, described as a man “of rare endowments both
of body and mind.” It appears as a frontispiece to that rare book Mr.
Chafin’s _Anecdotes of Cranborne Chase_ (1818), where the special details
of the deer-hunter’s equipment are thus described:—
“The cap was formed with wreaths of straw tightly bound
together with split bramble-stalks, the workmanship much the
same as that of the common bee-hives. The jacks were made of
the strongest canvas, well quilted with wool to guard against
the heavy blows of the quarterstaff, weapons which were much
used in those days, and the management of them requiring great
dexterity.”
[Illustration: DEER-HUNTERS OF CRANBORNE CHASE]
Soon after the “gentlemen” who indulged in “this rude Gothic amusement”
of night poaching had had their portraits taken in their protective
suits, which somewhat resemble those worn by American football players,
this kind of sport fell into abeyance among those of position, for the
poor reason that it was patronised by the lower orders. Hutchins shrewdly
remarks that when this change came, about 1730, its votaries ceased to be
called deer-hunters, and were known as deer-stealers. So fierce became
the affrays that the forester of the West Walk was killed in 1738, and
shortly afterwards the like fate befell the forester or keeper of the
Fernditch Walk.
There was a serious pitched battle on Chettle Common, Cranborne Chase, on
the night of December 16th, 1780, between the keepers and deer-stealers,
the latter headed by a sergeant of dragoons, who were then quartered
at Blandford. One of the dragoon’s hands was severed from the arm by a
hanger of a keeper, whilst one of the keepers was rendered permanently
lame by the blow of a swindgel. In another affray in 1791 one of the
deer-stealers was killed and ten were taken prisoners, and eventually
transported for life.
The only known relics of these terrible chase strifes are two of the
straw caps and an example of that deadly weapon, the swindgel, secured by
the keepers from the deer-stealers in 1791. They belong to Mr. Castleman,
of Chettle Lodge, and were specially photographed for the _Reliquary_ (N.
S. i., 241), in 1887.
The two straw caps or helmets, shown on Plate XIII., are painted dark
green to hinder their being noticeable at night-fall. The lining is
thickly stuffed with wool. The longer arm of the swindgel is 14 in. long,
whilst the shorter arm is only 6 in., but has a circumference in the
widest part of 4½ in. The total weight is 1 lb. 2 oz.; it is made of a
hard, close-grained wood. The swivelled hinges are of iron, and there is
a leathern handle-loop to go round the wrist.
Towards the close of the eighteenth century increased attention was given
to the importance of forests as yielding timber for the maintenance
of the Navy. Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the state
and condition of the woods and forests belonging to the Crown. Between
1787 and 1793 they issued seventeen reports. The first two reports, as
well as the fourth, the eleventh, the twelfth, the sixteenth, and the
seventeenth, are of a general character. The third deals with the Forest
of Dean, the fifth with the New Forest, the sixth with forests of Alice
Holt and Woolmer, the seventh with Salcey, the eighth with Whittlewood,
the ninth with Rockingham, the tenth with Wichwood, the thirteenth with
Bere, the fourteenth with Sherwood, and the fifteenth with Waltham in
Essex.
[Illustration: _PLATE XIII_
HELMETS AND SWINDGEL OF THE DEER HUNTERS OF CRANBORNE CHASE]
_A Descriptive List of the Deer Parks and Paddocks of England_, by Mr.
Joseph Whitaker, was published in 1892. The number of red or fallow
deer, or both, in each enclosure, with the acreage, is set forth in each
case, with other particulars of the more interesting examples. They
vary in size from 4,000 acres at Savernake to a single acre at Bagnall
House. The beautiful park of Savernake, with the open country adjoining,
presents the best picture of an old English forest. Bowood, which used
to be an important part of Clarendon forest, is another good example of
forest scenery. If the woods of fir and pine were removed, a great part
of the New Forest offers much the same features that it did in days of
old. For fine oaks the parks of Windsor, Cornbury, and Kedleston are
pre-eminent, whilst Thoresby park, Notts, is not to be equalled anywhere
for the variety and beauty of its timber. Spetchley park, Worcestershire,
is fenced with old oak pales, fastened with oaken pegs after the
original fashion. An ancient stout style of oak deer fence is also still
maintained round Hardwick park, Derbyshire.
No fewer than fifty parks mentioned in Mr. Evelyn Shirley’s delightful
_Account of English Deer Parks_ have ceased to contain deer since 1867,
when that work was issued.
The red deer are still found in a wild state in Devon and Somerset, on
Exmoor forest and its confines. The growth of popularity attached to
the hunting during the last half-century has materially added to their
preservation and increase. There are also a few red deer on Martendale
Fell, Westmoreland.
Fallow deer still run wild in the New Forest and Epping forest, and a
few stray deer are sometimes noticed in the woodlands of old Rockingham
forest. It is a disputed point whether these last are a remnant of the
old herds, or escapes from neighbouring parks.
The roe deer, though few in number and decreasing, may yet be found in
parts of Cumberland, Durham, and Northumberland; whilst in certain of
the wooded combes on the Milton side of the vale of Blackmore, Dorset,
they roam freely about under the protection of the landowners. They were
introduced at Milton about the beginning of the nineteenth century.
In 1884, six of the Milton roe deer were caught and transported to Epping
forest, in an endeavour to stock that district. A little later, Mr. E.
N. Buxton obtained eight more roe deer from the same district; they have
slightly increased, and are supposed now to number about twenty-five.
A few of these Milton deer have of recent years made their way into the
New Forest; they were first observed there about 1870, but they do not
number more than a dozen.
CHAPTER IX
THE FORESTS OF NORTHUMBERLAND, CUMBERLAND, WESTMORELAND, AND DURHAM
NORTHUMBERLAND
Nearly in the centre of the county of Northumberland stands the
picturesque little town of Rothbury, “almost startling, from the beauty
of its situation.” The parish, which is over thirty miles in circuit, was
once all forest land; by far the greater part of it is much as it was in
the days of mediæval England, consisting chiefly of wild, uncultivated
moorland.
The maps still mark the tracts above and below the town as North
Forest and South Forest. Many a writer on Northumberland, even some
well-informed ones of recent times, have tried to realise how different
this district must have looked when “clothed with trees and underwood.”
But, for the most part, this never was and never could have been the case
with Rothbury forest of historic days. Nevertheless, the actual valley of
the Coquet was, beyond doubt, far more closely wooded in early days than
it is at the present time; indeed, etymologists tell us that the very
meaning of Rothbury is “the town in the clearing.”
Some twelve miles north-east of Rothbury lies the celebrated little town
of Alnwick, on the Alne, which was also surrounded by a tract of country
under forest law in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The rolls of
an eyre held at Newcastle in 1286, show that there were three bailiwicks
in the forest of Northumberland; one to the south of Rothbury and the
Coquet, another to the north of Rothbury between the Coquet and the
Alne, and a third immediately to the north of the Alne. There were four
verderers to each bailiwick.
The forest of Northumberland is repeatedly mentioned in the Patent and
Close Rolls of Henry III., at times when there were general directions
as to the forests at large. Thus in 1222, when orders were given to
the sheriffs, verderers, and foresters throughout England as to the
woodfall after the great storm, Daniel de Newcastle received particular
instructions as warden of the forest of Northumberland.
When forest perambulations were being undertaken in 1225, the duty of
surveying the Northumberland forest was assigned to Roger de Morlay and
Roger Bertram, with Nicholas de Hudham as clerk. In January, 1229, the
sheriff, foresters, and regarders were instructed to make a regard before
the end of the octave of the ensuing Easter, preparatory to the holding
of an eyre by the justices.
In 1281 a scheme for the disafforesting of Northumberland was drawn up.
The inhabitants of the forest district were to pay an annual rental of
40 marks to the Crown for this privilege, in proportion to the value of
their lands; 23 marks were to be paid by those north of the Coquet, and
the remaining 17 marks by those to the south of the same river.
In February, 1286, William de Vesey, Thomas de Normanville, and Richard
de Crepping were nominated as justices to hold an eyre of the forest of
Northumberland, to cover the period from the holding of the last eyre in
the reign of Henry III. up to the date of the disafforesting.
The barony of Alnwick was held during most of Edward I.’s reign by that
great palatinate bishop, Anthony Bek, of Durham. In 1299, a special
commission was held to inquire into the breaking of the bishop’s parks
and chase at Alnwick, where his deer had been hunted and carried away,
and arrows drawn upon his parkers, some of whom were wounded. But as the
parks and chases of this district ceased to be under forest law from
1281, their history must not be pursued any further.
Henry Algernon Percy, the sixth Earl of Northumberland, died without
issue in 1537. The family of his brother, through the attainder of their
father, who had been executed for his support of the Pilgrimage of Grace,
were incapable of succession. The earldom, therefore, became extinct, and
the chief part of the estates passed to the Crown, and thus continued for
twenty years.
[Illustration: HUNTING COSTUME. SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.
(See pp. 66-7.)]
Although the forest district, with its parks and warrens, did not come
under forest law by this reversion to the Crown, nevertheless a word
or two are admissible as to its governance under Henry VIII. A survey
that was taken in August, 1539, of Rothbury and its members, gives Sir
Cuthbert Ratcliffe as master of the game in the forests, chases, parks,
and warrens of Alnwick, and John Heeson as bow-bearer, with many other
masters and keepers of different parks. Cuthbert Carnabie, master of the
game in Warkworth park, was also constable of Alnwick Castle, as well
as master of the game. Among his privileges, Carnabie was entitled to as
many salmon taken in the Coquet as would serve him for keeping his house;
but he had to pay 6_d._ for each salmon, and 2_d._ for each “gylse” or
young salmon.
A perambulation of Rothbury forest shows that the master of game received
£7 a year; whilst each of the three keepers or foresters received a 1_d._
a day, in addition to blownwood, and firewood, together with “one stag in
summer and one hind in winter for the makyng of the houndes.” The keepers
of all the Alnwick parks received £3 6_s._ 8_d._ a year, together with
two horse-gates, a buck in summer and a doe in winter.
It may here, too, be mentioned that an account of the Earl of
Northumberland’s parks and games in this county, taken early in the reign
of Henry VIII., shows that there were in Holn Park 879 deer; in Cawledge
(or College) Park, 586; in Warkworth Park, 150; and in Acklington Park,
144. All of these were fallow deer, but outside the parks, in the
unenclosed parts of Rothbury forest, were 153 red deer. In his other
parks in Cumberland and Yorkshire, the earl had 3,659 head of fallow and
red deer. Holn Park, on the west side of the castle with the Alne running
through it, was at this time enclosed within a stone wall, said to be
twenty miles in compass; Cawledge Park, to the south of the castle, was
six miles in compass.
Queen Mary restored the barony and its estates, in 1557, to Thomas Percy,
reviving the earldom, and the old forest of Northumberland passed again
into a subject’s hands.
CUMBERLAND
At the time of the Norman invasion, the great forest of Inglewood
stretched from Penrith, on the south confines of the county, to Carlisle,
about twenty miles to the north. It is described in the _Chronicle of
Lanercost_ as having been “a goodly great forest, full of woods, red deer
and fallow, wild swine, and all manner of wild beasts.”
Reginald Lacy obtained a grant from King John in 1203 for himself
and Ada, his wife, daughter and co-heir of Hugh de Morvill, of the
forestership of Cumberland. In the following year he paid the
considerable sum of 900 marks, as well as five palfreys, to have livery
of the property of the said Ada, and to enjoy the keepership of the
forests of the county in as ample a way as Hugh de Morvill had held it.
Reginald died in 1214, and Ada, his widow, gave a fine of 500 marks for
livery of her inheritance including the forestership. The widow married
Thomas de Multon, who paid £100 fine and one palfrey to the Crown, soon
after the accession of Henry III., to hold the office of forestkeeper
in right of his wife. Thomas de Multon, who was frequently sheriff of
Cumberland, died in 1240, and is named as forest keeper in various
documents, such as that generally issued after the great storm of 1222.
In 1229 Thomas de Multon received orders to supply Roger de Quincy with
two stags out of the Cumberland Forest as a gift from the king. Two years
later Multon was instructed to prohibit the foresters from entertaining
or affording hospitality to those passing through the county forest.
Several manors within the forest were granted, in 1242, to the kings of
Scotland in satisfaction of their claims on the northern counties of
England, but they were resumed at a later period by Edward I.
At an eyre, held in the reign of Henry III., Robert, Bishop of Carlisle,
was fined the heavy sum of £69 6_s._ for depredation of the herbage of
Cumberland Forest; but this sum was forgiven to his executors in the next
reign.
With the beginning of Edward I.’s reign, the term Forest of Cumberland
gave way, for the most part, to the title of Inglewood Forest; but the
latter title had a more restricted signification, as the older county
forest included several manors between the river Eden and the parish of
Alston.
In 1274 Edward I. ordered an inquest to be held whether or no Alexander,
King of Scotland, and his men of Penrith and Salkeld ought to have, and
have been accustomed to have, common of pasture in any part of the park
of Plumpton, which was enclosed in the time of Henry III., and, if so,
within what bounds; and also to make like inquiry as to the King of
Scotland and his men having any claim to housebote and heybote in any
part of Inglewood Forest. Plumpton Park was disafforested in the time of
Henry VIII.
Richard le Escat, one of the Inglewood foresters, killed William, son
of Elias de Grenerigg, in the forest in 1280; but he obtained a royal
pardon, as it was proved that William was caught in the act of venison
trespass, and that he was slain on refusal to be arrested.
An eyre was held in 1285. The roll show that the forest was divided into
three bailiwicks, with twelve regarders for each. There were twelve
verderers for the whole forest. One of the more noteworthy presentments
at this eyre, cited in full by Mr. Turner in _Forest Pleas_, was the
charge that Isabel de Clifford, who held the park of Whinfell in
Westmoreland, had two deer-leaps which were nuisances to the forest, one
of them being only a league from Inglewood Forest, and the other only
a league and a half. The justices for this eyre were William de Vesey,
Thomas de Normanville and Richard de Crepping.
William de Vesey, whilst justice of the forest beyond Trent, took to
the king’s use in 1289 a hundred bucks, which he delivered to Peter de
Chaumpvent, steward of the household; fifty of these bucks came from
Inglewood Forest. He received a formal quittance for taking them in
September, 1290, when his son, John de Vesey, succeeded him as justice of
the forest.
Attachment courts were held in this forest, as was customary, every
forty-second day. There is an Inglewood attachment roll extant of the
year 1293.
A commission was issued in 1298 to inquire, by the oath of foresters
and verderers of Inglewood, in the presence of Robert de Clifford,
justice of that forest, whether the abbot of Holmcoltram had sufficient
pasture without the forest launds for his stud, draught oxen, and swine,
or not. The abbot asserted that he had chartered rights of common for
these purposes in all places in the forest between the rivers Caldew and
Alne. Certain of these launds had recently been enclosed, for the king’s
profit, by Geoffrey de Nevill and William de Vesey, heretofore justices
of that forest.
Pardon was granted in January, 1300, to John, Bishop of Carlisle, and
his men for taking a buck in this forest. In the same month, power was
granted by the Crown to Robert de Clifford, forest justice, and two
others, to divide up the king’s wastes in the wood of Allerdale, within
the forest bounds, into numbers of acres to be held by tenants at yearly
rental to the Exchequer; also to sell wood, green or dry, by view of the
foresters and other officials.
Among the various details pertinent to this forest on the Patent Rolls
of Edward II., the following may be mentioned. John de Harbela, king’s
yeoman, obtained a grant, in 1312, of the bailiwick in the forest of
Inglewood, which Thomas de Multon held, and which on account of a
forfeiture he had incurred, was in the king’s hands. Two years later
Thomas de Verdon was appointed forester in the place of Harbela. In 1315
William de Dacra was appointed steward of this forest by the Crown during
pleasure. In the same year a commission was issued to inquire into the
carrying away of certain of the king’s falcons from the eyrie in the
forest of Inglewood. Henry de Panetria, at the request of Queen Isabella,
was granted for life, in 1316, the bailiwick of the forestership of
“Gaytsheles,” in this forest. Grant was made, in 1317, of pasture
for their beasts in Inglewood Forest to the nuns of Ermynthwait, in
consequence of the severe loss that had been inflicted on them by the
king’s enemies. John de Crumbwell was warden of Inglewood in 1318, when
acquittance was granted to Robert de Tymparon, an agister within the
forest, for £4 10_s._ 9¾_d._ for pannage from the date of his being an
agister in the time of Edward I., which sum had been paid into the hands
of Robert de Barton, late keeper of the king’s victuals in the park of
Carlisle. In the same year, John de Rithre, king’s yeoman, was appointed
steward of the forest during pleasure.
The Exchequer accounts of this reign give the expenses incurred by
Robert, the squire, for a summer hunt for the king in Inglewood Forest,
which lasted for four days. His servant was paid 12_d._ a day, whilst an
allowance of ½_d._ a day each was made for ten greyhounds and for three
bercelets, or hounds that hunted by scent.
When the reign of Edward III. is reached, the record entries relative
to the forest of Inglewood, its records of Gaystall or Gatesgill, and
Penrith, and its launds of Plumpton, Hesket, Braithwait, Ivetanfield,
and Middlescough, etc., become so frequent that a considerable and
interesting volume on its annals might readily be compiled. Here there is
only space for a few brief extracts from the less known and uncalendered
rolls.
An Exchequer Roll of 1335-6, when Richard de Nevill was keeper, shows
that the laund of Plumpton, of which Roger de Wastedale was the agister,
charged 6_d._ a head for horses, 4_d._ for draught oxen, 3_d._ for
cattle, and 2_d._ for stirks. Sheep were only allowed on two or three of
the launds, and were charged at 4_d._ a score. The agistments of the year
produced £26 15_s._ 4_d._ The letting of the lodges of the forest brought
in 29_s._ 8_d._ The ward of Penrith commuted the fence month fines by
a payment of 16_s._ 8_d._ from six townships, and the ward of Gaystall
by a payment of 23_s._ 8_d._ from fourteen townships. The pannage money
was but small, indicating a decided paucity of woods; only 9½_d._ from
Penrith ward, and 6_s._ 5½_d._ from Gaystall ward. Among the attachments
of Gaystall were 6_d._ for a horse, 2_d._ for two stirks, and 12_d._ for
pigs.
There is another very full agistment and attachment roll of 1375-6,
wherein there are various fines, from 1_d._ to 12_d._, for vert offences.
The accounts of Richard, Earl of Salisbury, for this forest, in the reign
of Henry VI., are of a good deal of interest. The returns of the frequent
attachment courts are confined to vert offences; the fine for a cartload
of wood was usually 2_d._, and for a wagon 4_d._ The fence month fine
money in Gaystall ward was 20_s._, contributed by twelve townships, far
the heaviest share being 6_s._ 8_d._ from the city of Carlisle. The like
fine for Penrith ward amounted to 13_s._ 8_d._, of which Penrith itself
paid 6_s._ 8_d._ The dead wood of Gaystall ward produced 11_s._, and
that of Penrith 20_s._ The small amount of actual wood within this wide
sweep of forest is again shown by the lowness of the pannage fees, which
only amounted to 6_s._ 0½_d._ in the two wards. References in forest
accounts to churches or chapels (save in the matter of tithes) are quite
exceptional; but in these rolls certain rents of lands at Grueythwaite
(Greenthwaite) are assigned to a chapel there, which had recently been
rebuilt.
A survey of Inglewood Forest, taken on 8th August, 1539, mentions
Sir Henry Wharton as master of game, and William Hoton, Esquire, as
bow-bearer. The officers in the sub-forests of Ashdale and Wastedalehead
were Sir Thomas Wharton, master of game, Richard Vikars and Thomas
Nycholson, foresters of Ashdale, and William Fletcher and Nicholas
Hunter, foresters of Wastedalehead. The sub-forest of Westwood had the
same master of game, and Micah Avon bow-bearer, with Richard Dykes and
Thomas Wilson keepers. The sub-forest of Nicholl had Sir William Musgrave
as master of game. The keepers of Wastedale had a hart in summer and a
hind in winter, equally divided between them.
An expense roll of this forest for the first year of Elizabeth is chiefly
occupied with the details of repairs done to the “court houses” of
Penrith, Sowerby, and Gaystall. Repairs were also done to the leads, and
the glass and iron of the windows of Kidkirk chancel at a charge of £3
6_s._ 8_d._
Charles II., on his marriage with Katharine of Braganza, settled on her,
as part of the royal dower, the forest of Inglewood.
In 1696, the forest of Inglewood was granted by the Crown to William
Bentinck, first Earl of Portsmouth, as an appurtenance of the honor of
Penrith.
In Jefferson’s _Cumberland_, published in 1840, it is stated that the
forest or swainmote courts for the seigniory of Hesket were still held
annually on June 11th in the open air, on the great north road to
Carlisle, the place being marked by a stone table placed before a thorn
called Court Thorn; at this court a variety of annual dues were paid to
the lord of the forest.
On Wragmire Moss, in the same parish, a well-known ancient oak, spoken of
as the last tree of Inglewood Forest, fell “from sheer old age” on June
13th, 1823.
WESTMORELAND
A considerable tract of wild land in this county was rendered subject
to the fierce rule of the early forest laws in the time of Henry II.
and John; but all this was disafforested by the Forest Charter, 1217,
which only recognised as forests those tracts of country which had been
in that condition when Henry II. came to the throne. In 1225, grave
complaint was lodged by the knights and proved men of Westmoreland that
certain magnates of the county were continuing to treat the disafforested
demesne as though still subject to forest fines and penalties, to the
great injury of the inhabitants. Thereupon letters patent was issued by
the Crown sternly reprobating such action, addressed in the first place
to William de Lancaster, Baron of Kendal, with duplicates to Robert
de Vezpont, sheriff of Westmoreland, to Earl Warren for the wood of
Incelemor, and to Matilda de Lascy for the wood of Pippin.
It was doubtless in consequence of this royal reminder that John de
Vezpont, when he succeeded his father three years later, granted to the
lords of the manor of Warcop, Sandford, Burton, and Hilton, in this
county, freedom from foresters’ puture, and from all things that might be
demanded of that nature.
DURHAM
There is no mention of any forest of the county of Durham in the lists
of royal forests _temp._ Henry III., and there was certainly no district
under forest laws throughout by far the greater part of Durham. The
forest of Teesdale is, however, occasionally named in the latter part of
the fifteenth and in the first half of the sixteenth century. The number
of fallow and red deer in this forest in 1538-9 has already been cited.
In the western angle of the county, where it is separated from
Yorkshire on the south by the river Tees, and where it reaches out
to both Cumberland and Westmoreland, Durham was in contiguity with
forest districts of other counties, and forest laws probably there
prevailed over a small area. An extensive township of the old widespread
parish of Middleton-in-Teesdale still bears the reduplicated name of
Forest-and-Frith; it begins 4½ miles north-west from Middleton, and ends
on the borders of Westmoreland, near the sources of the Tees. At the
furthest extremity of the wild district of Forest-and-Frith is Harwood,
the very name denoting a tract of ancient woodland. Various of the
smaller place-names and field names have reference to deer, and a few to
the former presence of wolf and boar.
The large parish of Stanhope, immediately to the north of Middleton,
has a western division termed Forest Quarter extending to the borders
of Cumberland, just above Harwood, and including Weardale. Leland,
writing in the time of Henry VIII., said: “There resorte many rede dere,
stragelers, to the mountaines of Weredale.” The forest of Weardale was
held by the Bishops of Durham; the _Boldon Book_, of the twelfth century,
affords many interesting particulars as to the hunting regulations of
the district, but as it was not royal forest it would be foreign to our
purpose to cite them.
Whatever small portion of Durham may at some time have been under forest
law could only have attained that position through the overlap of some
forest at its western extremity, whose administration pertained to
another county.
In the crypt of Durham Cathedral is an unusually fine memorial slab of
the latter half of the thirteenth century, which must have marked the
interment of some chief forester or warden of a northern forest. On
the sinister side of the cross is a sheathed sword with the sword belt
twisted round it. On the dexter is a long bow-string, with the arrow
fitted in the notch and the head showing on the further side of the
sword. On the bow rests what appears to be the distinctive cap of the
master of the forest, whilst in the angle above, between the bow and the
string, is a small paddle-shaped implement, which may possibly indicate
water or fishing rights.
[Illustration: CHIEF FORESTER’S SLAB
DURHAM CRYPT]
CHAPTER X
THE FORESTS OF LANCASHIRE
The forests of Lancashire, which were at one time very considerable,
were chiefly situated in the high region on the east side of the
county. In their earlier history they may be divided into two portions,
namely, those in the ancient house of Lancaster, which were subject
soon after the Conquest to Roger de Poictou; and those in the great fee
of Clitheroe, subject at the same time to the family of Lacy. After
the marriage of Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, with Alice de Lacy in 1310,
all the forests of the county came under the one head of _Foresta de
Lancaster_, and pertained to the earldom, and afterwards to the Duchy of
Lancaster. But quite a century before this date all the various forests
were frequently described under the common denominator of the county
town. The more important forests were within the hundred of Lonsdale;
those of Wyersdale, Quernmoor, Bleasdale, Myerscough, and Fulwood were
all within the very extensive ancient parish of Lancaster, though the
last three were in the hundred jurisdiction of Amounderness. In the
hundred of Blackburn was the great forest of Blackburnshire, of which
Rossendale, Bowland, Pendle, and Trawden were the subdivisions. In
the hundred of West Derby was the forest of that name, often termed
Derbyshire, with the parks of Croxteth and Toxteth.
In Harland’s edition of Baines’ _Lancashire_ (1868-70) there is a
certain amount of scattered, meagre information pertaining to these
very considerable tracts of the county; but the history of the forests
of Lancashire remains yet to be written. The material available would
readily make an interesting work of one or two volumes. All that is here
attempted is to give a few scattered facts which have not for the most
part hitherto appeared in print.
In the first year of King John, Benedict Gernet held the serjeanty of
the forest of the whole county, for which he rendered an annual payment
of £26 13_s._ 4_d._ In the same year (1200) the king granted leave by
charter to the knights and freeholders dwelling in his forest of the
honor of Lancaster to use their own woods as they willed, declaring them
exempt from the regard of the forest. For these privileges the knights
and freeholders paid into the Exchequer, in the following year, the
considerable sum of £283 17_s._ In 1206, John conferred the keepership
of the Lancaster forests on Gilbert Fitz-Reinfred, one of his favourite
barons.
John granted to the house of the lepers of St. Leonard’s, Lancaster,
considerable privileges in the forest of Lonsdale, where they might graze
their beasts, gather dead wood for fuel, and have timber sufficient
for the repairs of their dwellings. Some time before 1220, Henry III.
appointed Roger Gernet, forester-of-fee of Lonsdale, to the general
keepership; in that year the lepers petitioned the king for relief from
the exactions of Gernet, who claimed an ox from them in recompense for
their winter agistment, and a cow for the summer pasturing; nor would he
allow them to take wood for fuel or house repairs.
A writ was at once directed to the sheriff of Lancaster instructing him
to stay the exactions of Roger Gernet, and a confirmation charter was
sent to the lepers, allowing all their privileges without any payment
in money or kind. From this and from a subsequent slightly amended
confirmation we learn that the lepers were originally indebted to
Henry II. for their forest favours, and that John merely ratified his
father’s grant. Nine years later the pasturage rights of the lepers were
restricted to a certain defined area of the forest. In 1227 Roger Gernet
was confirmed in the custody of Lancaster Forest.
A perambulation of the Lancashire forests was undertaken in 1228, on
the king’s precept, by William Blundel, Thomas de Bethune, and ten
other knights, who said that the whole forests of Lancaster ought,
according to the Forest Charter, to be disafforested, save Quernmore,
Conet, Bleasdale, Fulwood, Toxteth, Derby, and Burtonwood. In the
following year a confirmation of John’s charter to the knights and
freeholders of Lancaster was granted by Henry III. for the enjoyment of
the neighbouring woods under certain restrictions. This was probably
done to prevent the forests of Wyersdale and Myerscough, adjoining the
county town, being disafforested, as was evidently the intention of the
inquest of 1228, wherein they are not named as exceptions to the general
disafforesting. Wyersdale forest, which took its name from the river,
contained about 20,000 acres; Quernmore, to the north of it, about 7,000
acres; Myerscough, about 2,200 acres, skirted the great north road from
Preston to Lancaster; whilst Bleasdale was coextensive with the township
of that name.
By charter of 30th June, 1267, Henry III. granted to his son Edmund the
honor and castle of Lancaster, together with the vaccaries and forests of
Wyersdale and Lonsdale, etc. But they were to be considered forests, and
not chases of private ownership; and hence were entitled to be ruled by
forest pleas held by the king’s justices.
Long notice was given of the rarely held eyre of justices for forest
pleas, proposed to be held for the county of Lancaster at Easter, 1287.
The first summons was issued for it in October, 1286, when it was stated
that the justices would be William de Vesey, Thomas de Normanville, and
Richard de Crepping. But this arrangement was subsequently cancelled. On
8th February the sheriff was instructed to order a preliminary regard
of the forest to be taken, and ten days later he was ordered to issue
summonses for an eyre to be held a month after Easter before Robert
Brabazon and William Wyther. At these pleas forty-eight cases of venison
trespass were presented. In at least one case, that of Nicholas de Lee,
the chartered privileges of King John were pleaded in defence of hunting
in the king’s forest.
There are various records extant of attachment courts of the forests of
Quernmore and Wyersdale, which were under joint jurisdiction, _temp._
Edward I. The offences were chiefly venison trespass. The courts were
always held on a Thursday, and presided over by the two verderers, John
le Gentil and John de Caton. There are records of eight courts held in
1299, nine in 1300, and four in 1301.
The venison trespasses for this and other years show that there were both
fallow and red deer in the Lancaster forests of this date, though the
latter were the more numerous, and the former more especially found in
parks. The foresters reported that Thomas, son of Adam de Berewyk, clerk,
wounded at night a certain buck within the township of Lancaster, and
followed it up with bow and arrows, but the deer escaped and recovered.
Immediately after the deed, Thomas entered into the service of certain
magnates outside the county of Lancaster. The foresters were ordered to
try and find and attach him.
On Thursday, after the feast of St. Katherine, 1293, a certain buck was
found strangled in the forest of Claughton. An inquest was held, and the
jury found that a certain white dog—whose they knew not—followed the said
buck from Quernmore to Langlandebroke; that one Thomas de Harrey, coming
that way, struck the buck on the back and broke its back; that Thomas
immediately after fled, and they were not able to find him. The flesh and
horns of the buck were given, in accordance with the Forest Charter, to
the lepers of Lancaster.
At a court held at Easter, 1299, before the verderer, Ingelram de Gynet,
Roger de Croft, and many others of the Ingelram family, were presented
for hunting with greyhounds in Wyersdale; and Ralph de Bray for killing
a doe with arrows and carrying it off. The offenders were committed, to
use modern parlance, to the next forest pleas, but admitted to bail. At
Trinity, in the same year, the attachment court was attended by three
foresters and twenty-four sub-foresters; four of the sub-foresters held
their office by right of service, and are entered as _de feodo_.
At the court of attachment held on Thursday after the festival of St.
Barnabas, Harry, the parker of Quernmore, swore that the Sunday after the
feast of St. Cecilia he was standing in the park and saw through the park
pales Richard de Thirnum and Richard Cokker kill a doe and carry it off.
He followed them, and shot arrows at them, so that they fled, leaving the
venison, which was carried to Lancaster Castle. At a later court in the
same year it was presented that the foresters found two men armed with
bows and arrows in the forest of Quernmore, and two shepherds with their
staffs with them, and that all four were taken prisoners to Lancaster.
In the next few years there were various presentments for taking harts
and hinds. In 1306 several offenders came by night with greyhounds into
the park of Quernmore, but being perceived by the foresters they fled,
leaving behind them five greyhounds. These hounds were caught by the
foresters, who took them to Lancaster castle.
Pleas of the forest were held at Lancaster on Monday, after the feast of
St. Peter, 1334, before William le Blount and Henry de Hamburg, justices
of the forest, assigns of Henry, Earl of Lancaster.
The names of the verderers are first entered on the rolls; the two for
“Derbyshire” (_i.e._ West Derby) were Henry de Atherton de Ayntre and
John de Gredleye, but their term of office had apparently expired, for
they were removed, and Richard de Alvandeley and Richard de Eltonheved
were sworn to that office in their stead.
Two new verderers were also sworn for the forest or hundred of
Amounderness, whilst in the hundred of Lonsdale one of the two old
verderers was removed and replaced by a new appointment.
The names of fifteen foresters of Amounderness and Lonsdale are entered
on the roll, but only three appeared, for the remainder had died since
the last eyre of the justices, and there was no one to answer for them.
The three who came said that they appeared for themselves and the other
foresters, and that they had no rolls nor indictments to present, for the
verderers and their heirs kept such rolls in their own possession, as
they were prepared to prove on the oath of their officials.
The prior of St. Mary’s, Lancaster, claimed two cartloads of dead wood
for fuel out of the Lancashire forests, save in Wyersdale, on any day
he liked in the year, and free ingress and egress in the forest for a
cart and two horses, or with two carts and four horses to seek for wood,
according to charter of Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, 1260. The prior also
claimed tithe of hunting and pannage.
The burgesses of Lancaster also made their claim for fuel and building
wood under a charter by Edmund; and the burgesses of Preston made like
claims with regard to Fulwood forest. The various claims of the abbot of
Furness were enforced by the production of charters of John, Henry III.,
and Earl Edmund, which were duly enrolled.
[Illustration: _PLATE XIV_
DEER STALKING (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)]
The tenants of the town of Broughton in Amounderness claimed to have,
from time immemorial, common pasture in the forest of Fulwood for all
kinds of animals save goats throughout the year, except for six weeks
during the acorn season (_pessone_), and for the four weeks of the
fence or close month, by payment of 10_s._ at Michaelmas to the honor
of Lancaster. Eventually it was agreed that the tenants of Broughton
should have common pasture for their animals in Fulwood forest, save for
sheep and goats, and for pigs, except in the fence month and in the six
weeks of acorns. The considerable sum of £14 6_s._ 8_d._ was claimed as
due to the lord for trespasses with animals in Fulwood forest by the
men of Broughton up to the following Michaelmas; but this was remitted.
Henceforth 10_s._ was to be paid by them at Michaelmas.
The foresters for the hundred of Derby enrolled at the last eyre numbered
twelve, but the first nine were dead, and there was no one to represent
them. The last three names were the survivors. They appeared, but said,
like those of Amounderness and Lonsdale, that they had no rolls to
produce, as they were always delivered to the verderers.
It was upwards of thirty years since the last forest pleas had been
heard, and the justices were only able to obtain two of the verderers’
rolls for the intervening period, several having died and left neither
heirs nor executors.
The successive keepers or master foresters of West Derby, since the last
eyre, were also called upon to lay their rolls before the justices. But
of these documents they obtained very few.
Ralph de Monneysilver had been keeper for five years, and died, leaving
no heirs nor executors nor lands in the county.
Thomas Banastre was keeper for seven years. On his death, though he had
lands in the county, no one came to restore the rolls; but eventually
Adam Banastre, his relative and heir, appeared, and made fine for the
rolls.
Richard de Hoghton was keeper for three years. On his death his son
Richard eventually delivered the rolls.
Thomas Tanner was keeper for a year. On his death, though he had land in
the county, no one restored the rolls, and distraint was ordered to be
made.
Simon de Baldlyston was keeper for six years; he died in 1325, but no one
came with the rolls.
William Gentil, who survived, was next keeper; he restored the rolls.
Ralph de Bikerstach was keeper for four years. On his death no one
restored the rolls, and distraint was made on his lands.
Edmund de Neville, who survived, had been keeper for three years. His
rolls were burnt by the Scots and enemies of the king; and he was ready
to make fine for them.
At this _iter_ there were three separate juries sworn for Lonsdale,
Amounderness, and West Derby, numbering respectively 16, 15, and 12.
The venison presentments of the Lancashire forests were numerous.
Thomas de Halghton was charged with hunting in the park of Quernmore at
Ascensiontide with two greyhounds, one white and one red, and taking two
bucks. Another charge specified the colour of the greyhounds, one white,
and the other red, with a black muzzle (_cum nigro mussell_).
The accounts of Henry de Hoghton, master forester of Blackburnshire, for
1423, are extant. They show under Penhull (Pendle) that no business was
transacted that year at the woodmote, held at Clitheroe; that the court
perquisites from the woodmotes held at Ightenhill (otherwise Bromley)
amounted to 12_s._ 2_d._; that turf, stone and herbage were farmed
at a rental of 26_s._ 8_d._; and that 14_s._ 10_d._ was received for
escape of beasts. Under Rossendale, 7_s._ 7_d._ was received in woodmote
perquisites held at Accrington, and 5_s._ 1_d._ for perquisites of
halmotes held at the same place. The woodmotes for Trowden were held at
Colne, and other woodmotes were held at Totyngton. The total receipts of
the master forester were £7 1_s._ 11_d._ The expenses, which were chiefly
foresters’ wages, amounted to £6 2_s._ 2_d._, leaving a balance for the
Crown of 19_s._ 9_d._
In the same year, the collectors of Blackburnshire accounted for the
receipt of £130 15_s._ 10½_d._ from farm rents, herbage, etc., in Pendle;
£14 12_s._ 2_d._ from Rossendale; £23 13_s._ 5_d._ from Trowden; £18
5_s._ 4_d._ from Totyngton; and £7 12_s._ from Hodleston. The total
receipts amounted to £263 16_s._ 7¾_d._
Henry de Hoghton made separate returns as master forester of Bowland,
entered under Harrop, Daxsholt, and Chipping wards, in each of which
woodmotes were held. The receipts were £65 19_s._ 4½_d._ The heaviest
charge under wages was £6 13_s._ 4_d._ to the steward of the master
forester. The parker of Laythegryme received 6_s._ 8_d._ for cutting
deer-browse in the winter, which is said to have been necessary that
season. The expenses of repairing the pales of the forest and fencing the
bounds amounted to £5 19_s._ 10_d._
Sir John Stanley, father of Thomas, first Lord Stanley, was appointed
chief steward of Blackburnshire in 1424. He was also made master forester
of Blackburnshire and Salfordshire. His accounts for the latter office
for 1434-5 are extant, but are of a very simple description; they
included 21_d._ perquisites of the woodmotes held at Colne.
The rolls of Quernmore and Wyersdale are the only ones that we have found
which make mention of a court held in a chapel. In 1477 two swainmotes
for the Wharmore division were held in the chapel of Wyersdale, and
another in the following year on the feast of St. Wilfrid.
In 1501 the Crown issued a series of warrants to the Earl of Derby
and others, directing that “putre money” or “forester fee” be paid by
the tenants to the foresters and keepers of the forests of Penhull,
Rossingdale, Accrington, and Trowden, in Lancashire, according to the old
custom and use, as set forth in the account books of the duchy. It was
stated that the old records also showed that the foresters had committed
“divers displeasures and annoyances against the tenants, theire wyfes and
servants in sundrywise by theire coming to theire houses for theire meate
and drink,” and that on the tenants’ complaint the duchy had agreed that
the tenants should pay yearly £12 13_s._ 4_d._ towards the foresters’
wage, in recompense for the meat and drink which was no longer to be
claimed. This composition was paid yearly until 1461, when for certain
special causes this payment was put in respite for a certain season. The
sum of £119 6_s._ 8_d._ had been thus respited. Stringent orders were
issued for the future payment of this fee by the tenants.
A like warrant was issued with regard to the foresters of Holland, in
Yorkshire, in which case the fee had not been paid since 1484, and the
sum respited amounted to £357 14_s._ 2_d._
Rossendale, the largest of the four great divisions of the forest of
Blackburnshire, with an area of upwards of thirty square miles, was
disafforested, on the petition of the inhabitants, about the beginning
of the sixteenth century. A decree of the duchy for the year 1550,
whereby the rights of a parish church were conferred upon the chapel of
Rossendale, refers to the bill of supplication for the disafforesting as
having been performed forty-four years previously, when the Crown came
to the conclusion that the land would be used for good purpose if the
deer were removed. The deer were accordingly killed, and the land let
out to the inhabitants. The decree of 1550 states that whereas before
the disafforesting there were only about twenty persons resident in the
forest, the population then numbered about one thousand of all ages.
Although there was considerable disafforesting in the county as early
as the end of Henry VII.’s reign in Blackburnshire, the Crown deer were
preserved with some strictness in other parts of the county palatine
long after the Restoration. William III., in 1697, issued his warrant,
countersigned by the Earl of Stamford, as chancellor of the duchy, to
the master foresters, bow-bearers, or keepers of the forests, chases,
and parks of Lancashire, complaining of great destruction of deer, and
ordering that precise accounts were to be returned yearly of the number
of deer killed, and on what authority, as well as of the stock remaining,
etc.
CHAPTER XI
THE FORESTS OF YORKSHIRE—PICKERING AND GALTRES
PICKERING
This forest district was known in early times as Pickering Lythe or
Liberty, for which the term Pickering Vale seems to have been almost an
equivalent at the beginning of the fourteenth century. But Pickering Vale
possibly only included the cultivated or pasturage portions, and not
the wastes of the actual deer forest. The antiquity of the woodland and
stretches of the forest is clear, for the _silva_ of Domesday was sixteen
miles long and four broad, and was, perhaps, co-terminous with the whole
soke.
The constable of the castle of Pickering was always also the keeper of
the forest and the steward of the manor. The forest had a great repute
for its wild boars about the beginning of the thirteenth century. In 1214
Peter Fitzherbert, who was constable of the castle, received orders from
King John to render assistance to master Edward, the royal huntsman, who
was coming with his hounds to kill wild boars in Pickering Forest, and
to see that the meat was well salted and in safe custody. Later in the
same year the king warned the constable of the coming of Wyott, another
of his huntsmen, with his men and the royal hounds for a like purpose.
The boars were to be sought in a certain part of the forest where the
king was wont to hunt them, and Peter was again to see that the meat was
well salted, and the heads soaked in wine. The boar’s head was one of the
oldest standard dishes for an English Christmas, and as this order was
given in November, the wine-soaked Pickering boars’ heads probably graced
the Christmas board at Worcester, where John kept that feast in the year
1214.
Henry III., in July, 1225, sent letters to the sheriff of Yorkshire and
the constable of Scarborough to inform them that he was sending two of
his huntsmen, Master Guy and John the Fool (_le Fol_), with hounds to
take red deer in Pickering forest. The sheriff was ordered to pay four
marks, two for the expenses, and two for salt for preparing the venison.
In September the sheriff received further instructions to forward to
London, with all speed, in good carts, the venison taken by Guy and John
in Pickering forest, there to be delivered to the safe custody of Odo,
the goldsmith of Westminster, till the king had need of it.
Henry also shared his father’s love for the boar flesh of Pickering. In
1227 the king, when tarrying at Stamford, sent Guy and John “Stultus”
to take twenty hinds and twelve wild pigs in his forest of Pickering,
for the king’s own use. In 1231, when the king was at Wallingford, he
dispatched his huntsmen to the same forest to bring back the large number
of thirty wild pigs and fifty hinds; there can be no doubt that in each
of these cases the meat was to be salted.
The first forest eyre for Pickering of which there is any record, and
that only a brief entry in the great Coucher Book of the duchy, was held
in 1280. Edward granted his brother Edmund the right of having justices
of the forest whenever the king appointed such for his own forests, and
also granted him the fines and ransoms that might accrue from the holding
of the eyre.
Edward II. was at Pickering castle from 8th August to 22nd of the same
month, in 1323. Whilst tarrying there, he ordered John de Kilvington,
the keeper, to permit William, the hermit of Dalby, to have pasture in
the forest for three cows, with their issue, for three years; William
had previously obtained the royal permit for the pasturing of two cows
for his lifetime, and the present grant provided that he should, in
addition, have pasturage for a third cow so long as he remained a hermit.
But the king had graver matters to attend to whilst at Pickering. An
inquisition was held by the oath of the foresters, verderers, regarders,
and other forest ministers, in addition to other lawful men, whereby it
was proved that over two score persons, in addition to many unknown, had
committed venison trespasses in the forest since the time that it came
into the king’s hands through the forfeiture of the Earl of Lancaster.
Thomas of Lancaster had been executed at Pontefract after the battle
of Boroughbridge, in April, 1322, so that all these offences had been
committed in about a twelvemonth. The unsettled condition of the country,
and particularly of the Scarborough and Whitby districts, where the earl
had numerous friends and allies, had doubtless led many to think that the
forest laws could be then infringed with impunity. Among the offenders
were several of position, such as Sir John de Fauconburg and Sir Robert
Caponn, who led a large company on 29th June, with eight greyhounds and
bows and arrows, and there took a hart and hind, and carried the venison
away to Skelton castle. At Martinmas, Sir Robert Caponn made another
entry into the same part of the forest with nine men, and carried off
three deer; and on a third occasion, a few days later, he came with
seventeen unknown men, “for the purpose of doing evil, but they took
nothing.” A minor offender was convicted of entering Blandsby park and
giving the parker 12_d._ and a silk purse to say nothing about it. The
king instructed the sheriff to arrest all these transgressors, and to
deliver them to John de Kilvington to be kept in prison in Pickering
castle until further orders.
[Illustration: _PLATE XV_
FOREST HERMIT (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)]
The forest did not in any way suffer from the northern invasion of 1322,
as it was saved by a war indemnity. For when the Scots that year made a
bold foray into England, under Robert Bruce, and pillaged among other
places the abbey of Rievaulx, which closely adjoined the liberty of
Pickering, John Topcliffe, the rector of Seamer, and other leading men
of the district, with the assent of the whole community, purchased the
immunity of the vale and forest of Pickering from the river Seven on the
west to the sea on the east. The covenant to effect this was made with
Robert Bruce on 13th October, 1322, through the Earl of Moray, for 300
marks to be paid at Berwick. Nicholas Haldane, William Hastings, and
John Manneser, at the request of the whole community, gave themselves up
to Robert Bruce at Rievaulx on 17th October, to sojourn as hostages in
Scotland until the money was paid. Afterwards the men of the community,
although the Scots had kept to their bargain, refused payment, and the
three Pickering hostages were still in prison in Scotland in July, 1325.
During Edward II.’s sojourn at Pickering in 1322 he gave 10_s._ to John,
son of Ibote, of Pickering, for following him the whole day when he
hunted the hart in Pickering chase, and also the roe deer.
The case of Sir John Fauconburg’s poaching came up again in the reign of
Edward III. A close letter to the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer,
of September, 1327, sets forth: That Sir John had shown the king, by
petition before him and his council, that Hugh le Despenser, the younger,
had lately caused Sir John to be indicted at Pickering, in Edward II.’s
presence, for taking a hart and a hind, and caused him to be kept in
prison until he had paid 100 marks fine, of which sum he paid 10 marks;
that he prayed the king to be released from the remainder of the fine as
he was indicted contrary to the law of the realm and of the forest; that
the alleged trespass was made when Pickering forest was in the king’s
hands by reason of the quarrel with Thomas of Lancaster, and it was
ordained in the late Parliament that the king was not to have the issue
of lands of those who were of the said quarrel; and further, that Sir
John was indicted before another than the keeper of the forest, contrary
to the law and assize of the forest. This last ingenious plea, namely,
that Edward II. had presided at the Pickering court in person, instead of
John de Kilvington, prevailed, and the barons were ordered, if they found
that Sir John had been indicted before another than the keeper, to remit
the arrears of the 100 marks.
Pleas of the forest were held at Pickering on 6th October, 1334, before
Richard de Willoughby, Robert de Hungerford, and John de Hanbury,
justices in eyre. The foresters-of-fee of the West ward were Sir
William de Percy, who was present, and a lady forester, Petronilla de
Kynthorp, who was represented by Edmund de Hastings as her deputy.
The foresters-of-fee of the East ward, were Roger de Leicester, Hugh
de Yeland, and William le Parker. All these had several sub-foresters
under them. Sir Ralph de Hastings, the keeper of the whole forest, had
seven foresters immediately under his control. Four verderers, thirteen
regarders, and four agisters (two for each ward) were also present.
No pleas had been held since 1280, and the verderers, past and present,
or their heirs, were bound to produce the rolls, with vert and venison
presentments, of their term of office. Alexander, the son and heir of
Bernard de Bergh, deceased, appeared and handed in his father’s rolls,
and the same happened with the sons of two other deceased verderers.
In two other cases the sons put in no appearance, and the sheriff was
ordered to seize the lands to compel attendances; the sons and heirs
appeared before the court broke up, and were fined 40_s._ and five marks
respectively. Two late verderers who were living appeared and produced
their rolls. William Ward, late verderer, failed to appear, and writ was
directed to sheriff; afterwards he appeared, and was fined half a mark
for non-appearance the first day, and £5 for non-production of of his
rolls, which he said had been stolen from him, and he knew not where they
were. The successors of two other late verderers (deceased) were fined £3
for non-production of their predecessors’ rolls.
It was reported that Roger Mansergh, late forester-of-fee of the
West ward, was dead, and that Petronilla, his daughter and heiress,
came to perform the duties of her office and make her claim; another
forester-of-fee of the East ward, Roger Bygod, late Earl of Norfolk,
was dead, so that the same had remained in the king’s hands, and the
constables of the castle, at their own risk, had appointed at pleasure
Hugh de Yeland in his stead.
The rolls of those who had been agisters since the last eyre were also
put in, in two cases by the sons and heirs of those who were deceased.
The constables of the castle, who were also wardens of the forest, were
called upon to present their rolls and the muniments of the forest,
since the last eyre held fifty-four years ago—they were Richard Skelton,
William Levere, and Adam Skelton, all dead, the order of the court in
each case being, “Let his successor appear and answer.” Then came John
Dalton, a late constable, who produced his rolls. He was followed by John
Kilvington, who said that during all the time he was constable, he was
appointed, by commission from Edward II., warden of the honor, castle,
and forest of Pickering, which was then for certain reasons in the king’s
hands, and that as he had to render his account to the Exchequer all his
rolls and other forest documents were in the king’s treasury, so that he
could not produce them, and he referred the justices to them. The late
constable’s statement was then proved on oath by forest ministers, and
in order to save time the justices decided not to send to Westminster to
inspect the returns and accounts, and contented themselves with fining
John the nominal sum of half a mark for non-production. Thomas Ugretred
and Simon Simeon, both short-lived constables, did not appear or send
any deputies or rolls, and writs were issued in each case. Sir Ralph
Hastings, the then holder of the office for life, by appointment of
Henry, Earl of Lancaster, made due appearance, and produced his documents.
With regard to the list of essoines before the justices, the majority of
them were proved to be dead, and therefore no further proceedings could
be taken in their case or in that of their bail.
The list of indictments by the foresters and verderers opens with a case
of venison trespass on an exceptionally large scale. On 23rd March, 1334,
there were gathered together at “Blackhodbrundes” (probably Blakey Moor)
in the forest, a great concourse of people with greyhounds and bows
and arrows; among them were several of considerable position, such as
Nicholas Meynell (mentioned first) of Whorley Castle, Peter de Manley,
the younger, heir to Mulgrave, John and William de Percy of Kildale,
whilst other names of distinction, such as Wyvill and Colville, occur
among the forty-two who were recognised.
The sport probably assumed the form of a great drive, for forty-three of
the red deer (another account says sixty-three) were actually killed.
By way, apparently, of showing their contempt for the foresters of the
Earl of Lancaster, the sportsmen, before they left the forest, cut
off nine of the heads and fixed them on stakes in the moor. Again, on
26th May of the same year, Nicholas Meynell, with Peter de Manley, and
some others engaged in the former fray, but in a much smaller company,
entered the forests with bows, arrows, and greyhounds; on this occasion,
however, they had only taken one hind when the foresters came upon them,
rescued the venison, and carried it off to Pickering castle. The special
impertinence of this game trespass was that Edward III. had only arrived
at Pickering castle on a visit to the Earl of Lancaster on the previous
day. The king tarried there till 30th May, and the eyre that was held
a few months later was probably brought about as the result of this
wholesale poaching by men of position.
None of the transgressors put in an appearance before the justices, and a
writ was directed to the sheriff to compel their attendance. Eventually
certain of them appeared, were convicted, imprisoned in the castle, and
ransomed on finding pledges and paying fines—Nicholas Meynell £13 6_s._
8_d._, Peter de Manley and William Wyvill £10 each, Robert Colville £6,
Robert Staynton and two more £1 each, whilst twenty others were fined in
sums varying from 13_s._ 4_d._ to 5_s._ Three more appeared later before
the justices at Hackness, and were imprisoned and ransomed; the rest did
not appear, and as the sheriff failed to find them, and they had no goods
in his bailiwick, they were outlawed.
Sir Ralph Hastings, the then constable and keeper, was himself charged
with venison trespass in 1327, but he produced a pardon from the Earl of
Lancaster, dated 13th August, 1334.
Another trespasser who produced a pardon was Edmund Hastings, who, with
certain of his household, hunted a hare by night on Midsummer Eve, 1316,
and carried it home to Roxby. Edmund appeared and produced a pardon
signed by Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, soon after the offence, as well as
from his nephew Henry, the present earl.
A considerable proportion of the venison trespassers were men of good
family, such as Moryns, Acclams, and Boyntons, in addition to those
already named.
Here, as elsewhere, a certain number of the secular clergy were found
to be culprits. Walter Wirksall, chaplain of Westerdale, was convicted
of twice joining a poaching party in 1328, and was fined £1 6_s._ 8_d._
Robert Hampton, rector of Middleton, kept four greyhounds, and often
hunted hares; as he did not put in an appearance and could not be found,
the rector was outlawed. John, the chaplain of Hackness, in 1312, and
again in 1314, knowingly received unlawfully hunted venison; on his
conviction he was fined £1 6_s._ 8_d._ During the time of the sitting
of the eyre, John Shepherd, parson of Levisham, was caught by Edmund
Hastings, forester-in-fee, in the act of killing a hart with bow and
arrow in Haughdale; he was taken to the castle and there imprisoned. On
being taken before the justices, he and his companion got off with the
light fine of 13_s._ 4_d._ each. On 10th July, 1311, a servant lad of
William Nafferton, vicar of Scalby, and two other men, carried a hind,
which one of them had killed, to the vicarage, but without the vicar’s
knowledge; there they skinned it, and Dionysia, the vicar’s maid, was an
accessory, for she had part of the venison; part she sent as a gift to
Emma Pinchon, laundress of Newby, and the rest she sent out to the fields
to the vicar’s ploughmen for their dinner. One of those who carried the
venison to the house was fined 6_s._ 8_d._, and the rest were outlawed.
Outlawry was the usual penalty for these venison trespassers where the
offender was poor and could not readily be found. It is highly probable
that not a few of such outlaws eventually returned to their parishes or
homes in the lighter cases.
Many of the delinquents of the earlier years since the last eyre were
doubtless dead, and where that was known to be the case the information
was struck off. But one case brought before the justices in 1334 went
back as far as 1289. In that instance two men of Farndale, who killed two
hinds in Parnelldale on 1st July, 1289, were fined, the one 26_s._ 8_d._
and the other 40_s._, thirty-five years after the offence was committed.
The enormous amount of business of every kind that accumulated for the
justices to supervise at these long-deferred eyres generally caused the
proceedings to be very protracted. This one at Pickering, with occasional
sittings at Hackness for the liberty of the abbot of Whitby, actually
lasted for two years, though, of course, they were not continuous
sittings.
Among matters investigated by a jury at these pleas was the general
amount of venison taken in the forest since the last _iter_. The returns
made showed that when John Dalton was constable and keeper, he took
134 harts, and 158 hinds, bucks and does, as well as five hinds that
Henry Percy took by his leave, and three hinds, three calves (red deer
fawns), two fallow deer, and two roe deer, which he took and gave away
as he pleased. When he appeared before the justices, Dalton stated that
when keeper under Earl Thomas he took harts, hinds, bucks, and does,
and delivered them in accordance with the earl’s orders and produced
his warrants. Among others were seventy-two harts, fifty-six hinds,
and forty-two fallow deer for the earl’s larder; fourteen harts and
eighteen hinds for tithe to the abbot of St. Mary’s, York; three hinds
for the Bishop of Ely; and a large number of single deer to all the chief
families of the district. The two roe deer and two calves were taken
accidentally by his hounds when in the forest, and he was not able to
rescue them alive. He denied taking and giving away three hinds and two
fallow deer, but judgment was given against him in that, and he was fined
£2, and had to find sureties for good behaviour. During the time of his
office several hundred oaks were felled that were chiefly used for the
fortifications and repairs of the buildings and stockades of the castle.
Dalton was able to produce warrants for all save five oaks, and for these
he had to answer at the rate of 6_d._ each, and 30_s._ for the offence.
Kilvington, when he was constable, had felled 107 oaks in the forest, and
305 in Haugh Rise and Birkhow. In his time 152 harts and 159 hinds and
fallow deer were taken in the forest. He appeared, and said that all that
he had done was by royal warrant, save that thirty harts and fifty hinds
had died of murrain, and that their putrid carcases were hung on oaks in
the forest. He was given till 13th March, 1335, to obtain certificates
from the Exchequer. These certificates were accordingly produced at that
date, but as they did not entirely free him he was allowed to make a fine
to the earl of £20 to clear the remainder.
Richard Skelton, the late keeper, was dead; the foresters certified that
during his time 390 harts and 524 hinds and calves, etc., were killed,
but about 500 of them died of murrain, and that he gave a hunt after
the earl’s game to Anthony Bek, Bishop of Durham, and another to Robert
Bigot, who in each case carried off their game; but they were both dead.
They also made short returns for the brief periods that William le Eure,
Adam Skelton, and Simon Simeon were successive keepers; in each case
there were many deaths from murrain.
Ralph Hastings was able to produce warrants for all vert and venison
since he had been keeper.
The Regard of the forest, presented on the opening day of the eyre,
introduced another class of business and investigation set forth under
the various statutory articles. In this case the sworn statements were of
exceptional length, as they actually had to present all assarts made in
the forest since 28th October, 1217, namely, for 117 years! Those between
1217 and the last eyre were termed old assarts, and those since the last
eyre new assarts. All these assarts and enclosures, and encroachments and
spoiling of woods have been set forth at length by Mr. Turton from the
Coucher Book.
Agistment records were put in, beginning in the year 1290. The pannage
charge in both the East and West wards was 1_d._ for a pig, and ½_d._ for
a little pig, that is under half a year old.
Particular indictments presented to the justices, when sitting, in
1335, included charges against foresters of skinning a hart that died
of the murrain and keeping its skin, worth 1_s._ 4_d._, to their own
use; foresters taking and retaining pasturage fees; foresters keeping
pigs, horses, and beasts unlawfully; the prioress of Rosedale usurping
the right of having a woodward in Rosedale wood; and the wrongful
appropriation of honey.
The cases of vert trespasses committed within the demesne since the eyre
of 1280, that were presented at the eyre of 1334, numbered only 93; but
it must be remembered that the swainmote courts had power of dealing
with the minor offences of this nature, and that in many instances the
trespassers and bail must have been dead. The majority of the cases were
for taking green oaks of comparatively small value. The fines imposed
varied from 1_s._ to £5. In addition to oaks, alders, hazels, hollies,
thorns, saplings, and poles are mentioned. The present verderers were
held responsible for the value-fines of the swainmotes that their
predecessors had received. Clergy, both secular and religious, appear
among the transgressors. Of the former, the rectors of Brampton and
Middleton, and the vicar of Ebbeston, had to answer for comparatively
small offences. Of the latter, the offenders included the abbot of
Whitby (for a trifling offence), the priors of Bridlington and Malton,
and the preceptor of Foulbridge. The prior of Malton had the distinction
of paying the heaviest vert fine of the whole eyre. He took green thorn
and hazels in Allantofts, value £1, and carried it to Scarborough for
kippering his herrings. The prior appeared and was convicted, and though
it was stated that he had never since been found within the bounds of the
forest, he was held responsible for the value, and was further fined the
sum of £5. Three servants of the prior of Bridlington felled, for the
use of the prior, a green oak by night in Fulwood value 2_d._ They were
caught whilst carrying it away in a wagon worth 40_d._, drawn by four
oxen, worth in all £1 6_s._ 8_d._, and were handed over to the late prior
to be produced at this eyre. The present prior was held responsible, and
in addition to the loss of wagon and oxen was fined 2_s._ One of the
servants was dead, and the two others, who had been released on bail, did
not appear. Their bail was ordered to be forfeited, when it was found
that they were all dead. This was evidently an old case that had probably
occurred soon after the last eyre; but the vert roll, unlike that for
venison, unfortunately gives no dates. There are several other instances
of forfeiture of wagons and oxen; in these the value was much lower than
in the prior’s case, for the other wagons are all valued at 6_d._, and
the oxen in sums varying from 2_s._ 8_d._ to 3_s._ 4_d._ each.
The various cases of cattle taken within the forest that were unagisted
since the last eyre, included upwards of 150 different charges. Such
cattle were impounded by the forest ministers, and as a rule their value
was paid to the lord ere released. These sums appeared in the annual
accounts of the forest. It seems that the usual course was for all these
cases to be brought before the eyre, but that no further proceedings were
generally taken if it was shown that the value-fine had been paid at the
time.
The fines for non-appearance on the first day of this protracted eyre
were astonishingly numerous. They were evidently levied according to the
position of the offender, and the extent of his rights within the forest.
Thus the prior of the Hospitallers was fined £3; Henry de Percy and
Thomas Wake, £2; William Latimer, £1 10_s._; and the abbot of Rievaulx
and Sir Richard de Ros, £1. There were several fines of 3_s._ 4_d._,
and others of 1_s._ 8_d._ In thirty-two cases there were 1_s._ fines,
whilst 6_d._ was the forfeit paid by nearly 300 persons. The townships
of Pickering and Goathland were fined £1 for non-appearance of their
four men and reeves on the first day, and four other townships smaller
amounts. In about a dozen cases there was no fine on account of poverty.
Robert Stephen, though fined 6_d._, had nothing to pay because he was a
villein; whilst John Foxlove was pardoned his fine for two good reasons,
as he was both poor and dead!
The records of various swainmote or attachment courts of this forest for
the year 1407-8 are extant. At one held at Pickering on 17th September,
the woodwards of Crosscliffe and Stayndale were each fined 2_d._ for
non-appearance. The attachments for agistment of pigs in the West ward
during the close month were numerous.
The attendance of the officials at these minor courts seems to have
been slack. At a swainmote held on St. Matthew’s Day, the forester of
Alayntoft was fined 2_d._; John Gower, one of the verderers, 6_d._;
William de Roston, deputy regarder, 4_d._; John Westhorpe, regarder,
4_d._, for absence. The township of Brymyngeshoe was at the same time
fined 6_d._ for the absence of their reeve and four men.
Fines were paid this year before John de Sultan, lieutenant for William
de Roos, lord of Hamelake, the keeper of the forest, for the lawing
of dogs. The West ward paid the large sum of £10 18_s._ 8_d._, duly
portioned out among the different townships; Pickering, with Goathland,
paid 60_s._; Cropton, with Hartoft, 30_s._; whilst others like Newton
only paid 3_s._ 4_d._ The sum received for a like cause from the East
ward was £3 0_s._ 8_d._
The due number of courts, namely, one every forty days, were held in 1408
at Pickering, and other forest centres. At the Langdon court, Sir David
de Rouclyffe was presented for having felled in Goathland, in a close
called Malton close, nine oaks for a balk then being made in Pickering at
a place called Barylgate, and also seven oaks and twenty-three logs of
willow and linden for building there.
The forests pertaining to the Duchy of Lancaster naturally suffered
severely during the Wars of the Roses, and perhaps none more so than
Pickering. In October, 1489, Henry VII. enjoined upon Brian Sandford,
steward of the honor of Pickering, constable of the castle, and “master
forster of our game within the seid honnor,” that no manner of person
be permitted in any way to take or disturb the game for the space of
three years—“As it is common unto our knowledge that our game of dere
and warenne within our seid honnor is gretly diminnished by excessive
huntyng, and likely to be destroied, without restreyn in the same be had
in that depart.” “We desire,” continued the king, “the replenisshyng of
our seid game not only for our singler pleasure but also for the disport
of other oure servantes and subjettes of wirshipp in theis parties.”
The country had apparently not sufficiently settled down for justices
to be spared at this period to go through the long processes involved
in forest pleas at Pickering, and the king, in 1494, appointed Brian
Sandford and Richard Cholmley to act as commissioners in procuring
inquests as to the various transgressions in the forest, taking
cognisances of all offences for the past five years. The jury, which
included five esquires and three gentlemen, first presented that, on
1st July, 1489, Leo Percy, lately of Ryton, esquire, a forester-of-fee,
killed a buck which Sir Thomas Metham had; on 12th July, a buck, which
Master Babthorp, reeve of Hemingborough had; on 20th December, a doe,
which John Clay and Robert Milner of Kirby Moorside had; on 22nd
December, three does, one of which went to Sir John Pickering, another to
Sir Thomas Metham, and the third to John Hotham, of Scarborough; and also
at divers times six does and one hind in the park of Blandsby for his own
use. In 1490 he killed nineteen, in 1491 nineteen, in 1492 fifteen, and
in 1493 twelve, disposing of them to such persons as those already named,
as well as to the prior of Watton, the rector of Levisham, Sir Marmaduke
Constable, Guy Fairfax, and Robert Constable, of Holm.
They also charged Roger Hastings, one of the foresters-of-fee, with
taking twenty deer.
On the other hand, Lionel Percy and Roger Hastings each claimed as
foresters-of-fee two harts and two bucks in summer, and two harts and
two does in winter; but the jury disallowed this, and returned that
they were only permitted one course for their dogs twice a year. The
two foresters claimed from every deer slain within the forest both the
shoulders as well as the entrails, or numbles (_barbillas, que barbille
proprie nounbilles evocantur_). But the jury disallowed this, stating
that the foresters-of-fee had only a right to the left shoulder, the
right shoulder and the entrails belonging to the master forester or his
lieutenant.
In a schedule supplied to the Commission of fallow deer killed or taken
out of the park of Blandsby, within the honor of Pickering, by the
steward and his deputies or by others at his command, 12 are entered for
1488, including a buck each for the dean of York and for the abbot of St.
Mary, York; and 12 died in the summer of that year of murrain. Of the 15
does killed at Michaelmas, in 1489, 6 were retained by the steward and
2 by his clerk; 6 died of murrain. But of 16 deer killed at Easter of
that year, the steward kept 4 bucks, and his clerk 3 does; the murrain
carried off 8 male deer. At Michaelmas, 1490, 13 deer were killed by the
steward’s orders, all does, of which the dean of York received one; the
murrain was responsible for the death of six. From this date up to the
holding of the Commission the number of deer killed by the steward’s
orders averaged 15 a year. Of those killed at Easter, 1491, a buck was
assigned to “the weddyng of Crystofer Peghen,” and another “to making of
a Preest.” The last entry probably refers to a feast given at Pickering
by the parents of one who had been admitted to priest’s orders.
A separate schedule was presented of “the herts, hinds, and other
reade dere which have been taken by Bryan Sampford Esquyre, steward of
the honor of Pykeringe,” or his deputies, between 1488 and 1493. They
included 9 harts, 3 hinds, 2 brocket, and 1 “Hyrsill.” A hind was also
found hurt with a harrow in Newton Dale, which had to be slain. During
this period 15 red deer died of the murrain.
A prolonged and fierce dispute arose between Hastings and Cholmley as
to this forest, of which extraordinarily full records are still extant.
Members of the Hastings family had been frequently stewards of the honor
of Pickering, constables of its castle, and masters or keepers of the
forest for some two centuries. Richard II. had appointed Sir Edmund
Hastings to these offices, and Henry VII. had confirmed the appointment,
and made him also keeper of Blandsby park in the second year of his
reign. But Henry had soon cause to note the lax way in which the old
officials of the duchy discharged their duties, and on the death of Sir
Edmund Hastings severed the official connection of that family with the
honor of Pickering. Sir Roger Hastings, as tenant of Kingthorpe, became
one of the foresters-of-fee, but Brian Sandford became master forester
and steward. Within five years, however, of his being appointed, the
new steward’s laxity in both vert and venison came before the very court
of which he was joint commissioner with Richard Cholmley, whilst two of
the other chief offenders were, as we have just seen, foresters-of-fee.
The jury were themselves so tainted that they failed to convict, and
eventually Brian Sandford was removed, and Sir Richard Cholmley appointed
in his place. Though a man of eminence, Cholmley had then no connection
with Pickering or the district, and his advent and that of his family
was bitterly resented by the Hastings, who were not only jealous, but
resentful towards the stricter forest rules.
In 1501 complaint was made to the chancellor of the duchy by Sir Roger
Hastings, one of the king’s foresters of Pickering forest, against Sir
Richard Cholmley, master of the forest and his deputies, for suffering
great waste of both wood and deer in the forest and park. The charges are
set forth with much particularity in a long schedule. The list of waste
in those woods of the king’s demesne, where no free tenants were entitled
to have any live trees, opens with thirty-six oaks assigned to the abbot
of Whitby and twenty oaks to the dean of York. The allotment of forty-six
other oaks is also specified. Various charges were made against the
master’s servants, the gravest of which was:—
“Item, the said Richard Chomely hath a servaunt called John
Colson, and he dayly ledes away the kinges wode be horse lade
to Scarbrough, some day iiij horses, and oft tymes vj horses
dayly this vij yeres and every yere to the value of v _li_, sum
xxxv _li_.”
The waste in the wood called “the Yath” was said to be very considerable;
about 150 loads of wood are enumerated, with the names of those who
had them in a single year, as well as a great many stubs. In the same
year, in the grounds of Deepdale, about 100 oaks had been felled by the
officers and servants of the master, out of which only a very few had
been used towards the repair of the castle walls.
As to the destruction of the king’s game, Sir Richard Cholmley was
charged with hunting, chasing, and slaying with greyhounds, bows and
arrows, or permitting to be slain by others, between 1499 and 1501, the
following deer, the date, place, and name of the exact offender being in
each case chronicled. Fallow deer: 4 buck, 2 sowers, 3 does; red deer:
14 stags, 5 bucks, 17 harts, 19 hinds, 18 calves (both hind and hart,
but not always specified which), and 3 hyrsills. In addition to this,
6 stags, 1 hart, 1 hind, and 1 calf had been found dead in Langdon and
Newton Dale with arrows in them.
The answer of Sir Richard Cholmley to the bill of complaint of Sir Roger
Hastings was brief, vigorous, and to the point. He said that the charges
were false, and only intended to vex and trouble him, that neither
the abbot of Whitby nor the dean of York had ever had any timber out
of Pickering forest since he had been an official; that the whole of
the charges as to the waste of wood were false, save that stubbs were
delivered to certain tenants by his officers for “firebote,” according to
ancient usage. As to the game, he had given “certain dear to the lords
and gentylmen borderyng unto the said forrest to thentent that they shuld
be lovyng and favorable to the kynges game there,” and that their number
and condition were better than they had been when he entered on his
office.
As a counterblast to this long and definite complaint, Roger Cholmley
(brother to Richard) and others laid complaints of a much shorter
character before the chancellor, in the following year, as to certain
offences committed by Sir Roger Hastings in Pickering Lythe.
It became necessary to hold a local inquiry. The inquisition was opened
at Pickering on 1st May, 1503. The jury found that in the year 1501 a
stag was killed at Cross Cliff for Lord Clifford; a hart at Goathland for
the Bishop of Carlisle; a stag for the Archbishop of York; a hart for the
Abbot of Fountains; a stag for the Receiver-General of the Duchy; a stag
for Mr. Empson; a stag killed by Sir Richard Cholmley and given to the
Ambassador of Scotland; a stag killed by Sir John Hotham and Sir Richard
Cholmley; and a brocket killed by Sir Ralph Bigot; also a buck and doe
without licence by two yeomen. The jury further stated that the red deer
in the forest of Pickering then numbered “200 over and above the number
that were founden at thentre of the said Sir Richard Cholmeley, and
whereas the said Sir Richard upon iiij yeres passed founde at his entre
to said parke (Blandsby) xviij score falowe dere, there be nowe 500 or
more.”
[Illustration: _PLATE XVI_
BERNER AND LIMEHOUND (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)
CROSSBOW SHOOTING (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)]
As to the charge of wood wasting, the jury were equally emphatic,
declaring that neither Sir Richard, nor his brother, nor any of the
officials, “did sell, give, nor emploie to theire owne use any maner of
wodde, excepte suche tymber and wodde as by theym hathe beene delivered
to the King’s tenaunts and freehoolders as of right and due unto them.”
In addition to the findings of the juries, William Savage and Thomas
Magnus, before whom the inquest was held, appended other valuable proof
as to the condition of the forest and park. They stated that they had
diligently examined on oath the foresters, keepers, and woodwards, as
well as other persons, and that even those who were adversaries of Sir
Richard had to admit that there were at least 200 red deer, a greater
number than when he entered on his office; whilst Sir Richard and others
deposed that they now numbered 300. The Commissioners resolved to test
the matter for themselves:—
“Item, we being perfitely enformed that the circuit of the
said foreste conteynneth upon lx myles aboute, did take with
us viij persons, and went sodenly into the said foreste, and
notwithstanding there be noe lawnde wherunto the said dere
shulde resoorte, but all the moores in corne for the kingges
tenants there, yet natheless the said viij persons brought unto
us withyne two houres vij or viij score Rede dere, and soe we
vewed thaym at the same sodeyn assemble.”
As to the park, Sir Richard’s adversaries did not deny that there were
400 fallow deer, whilst his friends deposed on oath that there were 500;
the Commissioners on view believed the latter statement to be true.
The foresters were accustomed and allowed to occasionally take dead wood
to Scarborough and elsewhere for sale; but in the case of John Colson,
“he fortuned to toppe the toppes of certaine stubbe oakes, and sold the
same with his wyndefallen wodde at Scarborough.” But directly this came
to Sir Richard’s knowledge, John Colson was dismissed from office openly
in court, and imprisoned in Pickering castle until he found sureties for
his future good behaviour.
The deer of Pickering forest dwindled during Henry VIII.’s reign. In a
return of all the king’s deer north of the Trent, drawn up in 1538, there
were but 140 fallow deer and 50 red deer in the forest. But perhaps the
deer in Blandsby park escaped reckoning.
An inquisition was held as to the condition of the forest in 1562, the
returns of the juries covering the period since the death of Henry VIII.
It was stated that since that time Sir Richard Cholmley had felled eighty
oak trees in Goathland, and much in other parts of the forest to his
own use, and that he had used much timber in the making of his house at
Roxby; that Sir Richard had taken down fourteen loads of the best dressed
stones out of the chief tower and other parts of Pickering castle to
build his gallery at Roxby, the castle being in ruin and decay; that the
red deer were viewed to be 264, whereof 54 were male deer; and that the
fallow deer in Blandsby park and woods adjoining were 600, whereof 77
were male.
In 1591, the killing of any deer, red or fallow, within Pickering
forest, was prohibited for three years, as the stock was getting greatly
diminished.
A survey of the woods taken early in 1608 mentions that the wall of stone
round Blandsby park was greatly decayed in many places, and that there
were then about 100 deer in it.
The elaborate survey taken in 1619-21 by John Norden, sworn to by
forty-one jurors, gives full particulars as to bounds, woods, wastes,
encroachments, and general manorial details. Norden complains that “the
tenantes about Pickeringe are so unrulie, as they make their owne pervers
wills a law.” In connection with the “spoylers of woode,” mention is made
of oak, ash, alder, and maple. There were no keepers’ lodges in any part
of the forest save in Blandsby park, where there were two.
“The foreste game shoulde be redd deere, but few lefte within
the foreste, and they that are raunge into confininge woodes
of Sʳ Thomas Posthumus Huby, having litle or noe covert els
within the foreste, but Newton Dale onlie, where they are often
disturbed with stealers of woode, so that it is manifest that
for everye redd deare in the forest there are 5000 sheepe. The
parke is replenishte with fallow deere, but being unstaunchte
(unsatisfied) they raunge over all the adjacent feildes.”
A detailed survey of the honor and its members was also drawn up in
1651. “Wee find,” say the Commissioners, “that within the Honor of
Pickering there is a Forest, a Chace, and a Parke (as it did appeare
unto us by an ancient Veredict, and by the Testimony of many ancient
Inhabitants), and also certaine Lands that are no part of the Forest.”
Neither red nor fallow deer are mentioned, but they could not have been
extinct.
The honor of Pickering had been settled on Queen Henrietta Maria as part
of her jointure. At the Restoration it reverted to her, and a survey was
made in 1661. It is therein stated: “There is a forest called the forest
of Pickeringe Leighe, and a park called Blandesbie parke belonging to the
Honor. The Parke is stored with deare, but the game within the forest is
almost quite decayed.”
GALTRES
In the centre of Yorkshire, extending right up to the walls of York, was
the great hunting district known as the forest of Galtres. It stretched
at one time about twenty miles northward from York to the ancient town
of Aldburgh; being royal demesne, it was a favourite hunting-ground of
the Saxon kings. From the days of Henry III. downwards, the incidents
connected with this forest and its administration are of frequent
occurrence, and it is strange that it has not found an historian. The
exigencies of space only permit a few brief extracts. The two Yorkshire
forests, whose officials received express directions as to the disposal
of the cablish after the great storm of 1222, were those of Galtres and
of the district between the Ouse and the Derwent. In 1227 Henry III.
ordered the bailiffs of Hugh de Neville in the forest of Galtres to
supply wood and charcoal for three days for the use of the archbishop in
his house at York. In the same year the king gave four oaks out of this
forest for the repair of the bridge at Topcliffe, and ten oaks to the
prior of Marton for the building of his church.
A perambulation of the forests of Yorkshire was made in 1229, when it was
certified that the whole forest of Galtres, the forest between the Ouse
and the Derwent, and the forest of Farndale were true ancient forests of
the king.
In 1231 oaks were furnished from this forest for the repair of mills at
York, and on October of that year the king ordered fifty hinds to be
supplied for his use (salted venison) in the coming season from Galtres
forest; in the same month he instructed the sheriff of York to obtain a
sufficiency of wood and charcoal from this district against his coming
visit to York on the Sunday before Martinmas.
Edward I., in 1280, gave the prioress and nuns of St. Clement’s, York,
six oaks fit for timber out of Galtres, and made a like gift to the
Franciscans of Scarborough. In the following year Geoffrey de Neville,
the keeper, was ordered to supply twelve bucks to the Earl of Surrey;
whilst six does were presented to the Archdeacon of Newark in the ensuing
January. In the summer of 1283 there were numerous royal gifts of bucks
from Galtres; on 18th September the keeper was directed to supply Anthony
Bek, the elect of Durham, with twenty-five bucks.
Philip le Lardiner, son and heir of David le Lardiner, obtained seisin
of the serjeanty of the forestry of the forest of Galtres, after doing
homage for it, in January, 1284, which David at his death held of the
king in chief. In the same year the Franciscans of York obtained six
oaks for the work of their church; whilst the dean of York (Robert
de Scarborough) obtained ten live does to help to stock his park of
Brotherton, and the master of St. Leonard’s Hospital, York, four live
bucks and eight live does to stock a park of his. In 1286 a regard was
ordered to be taken in preparation for a forest eyre.
On 28th October, 1307, the sheriff of York received a mandate to assemble
the foresters and regarders of Galtres to make a regard prior to the
arrival of the forest justices. They were to elect new regarders in
the place of those dead and infirm, so that there were twelve in each
regard. The foresters were to swear to lead the twelve knights through
their bailiwicks to view all trespasses which were to be expressed in
the written _capitula_ sent to the sheriff. The knights were to swear to
make a true regard, and if the foresters did not lead them, or wished
to conceal any forfeiture, the knights on that account were not to omit
to view the forfeiture. The regard was to be made before the Feast of
the Purification. Assarts made since 2 Henry III. were to be viewed, and
their acreage, sowing, and ownership, and all other particulars, written
down. All purprestures, old and new, were to be likewise stated in full
detail.
Orders were given in 1308 for the tithe of the whole venison taken in
Galtres to be delivered to the abbot and convent of St. Mary’s, York,
in accordance with the grants of the king’s predecessors. In 1311, and
on various subsequent occasions, the king ordered the sheriff to cause
new verderers to be elected for Galtres in the place of those removed by
the Crown for insufficiency. Forest pleas were held at York in 1311, and
again in 1313.
Various attachment court rolls of this forest, _temp._ Edward II.,
are extant. There were six such courts held in 1313-17, namely, three
at Easingwold, two at Huby, near Sutton-on-the-Forest, and one at
“Hillulidgate.” The fines imposed were chiefly for taking wood by
the cartload. The Epiphany court at Huby imposed a fine of 6_d._ for
twenty-four such cases, and one of 12_d._ The fines at the Easingwold
court, at Ascensiontide, amounted to 18_s._, and included sixteen at
6_d._, two at 1_s._, and four at 2_s._, all vert cases. The fines at the
St. John Baptist court at Huby included thirteen cases of turning out
horses at 6_d._ each, and one of 3_s._ 4_d._ for the irregular agisting
of pigs. At another court there was a small fine for collecting acorns.
The number of courts held annually seems to have been irregular; but
possibly those only are entered where there was business to transact.
Thus the rolls record eight courts in 1317-18 and eleven courts in
1318-19. In the latter year William Carlton, butcher, of York, was fined
2_s._ for twelve pigs taken in the forest in time of pannage. At the same
court the straying of a black runt or steer (_unum runctum nigrum_) cost
the owner 12_d._, and there was also a fine of 6_d._ for the straying
of a colt (_pro haymaldatione j pullani_). The pannage of pigs at Huby
brought in 3_s._ 10_d._; at Easingwold, 26_s._ 1_d._; pigs were charged
1_d._ each, and little pigs ½_d._ The fence month payments of the
different townships amounted to 10_s._ 1_d._; cheminage dues to 10_s._
A much larger sum was obtained when the dogs were lawed. In one year of
this reign the lawing fees amounted to £9 8_s._; the payment was 3_s._ in
each case, save in one instance, when the owner pleaded poverty, and the
fee was lowered to 12_d._
A perambulation was made on oath as to the bounds of this forest in 1316,
from which it becomes clear that the forest of Galtres comprised about
sixty townships, containing within its demesne about 100,000 acres, or
nearly the whole of the wapentake of Bulmer. The boundary line, beginning
at “the foot of the wall of the city of York,” passed nearly due north
to Crayke, and thence round by Stillington, Farlington, and Strensall,
and so to Huntingdon, “even to the foot of the wall of Layrthorpe Bridge,
where the perambulation began.”
The bounding jury also testified that there was but one forester-of-fee
in this forest, namely, John Hayword, who held his bailiwick for the term
of his life by the gift of Edward II.
In 1472, John Shupton, who held the office of riding forester in Galtres
by letters patent of Henry IV., surrendered his letters in Chancery to be
cancelled in favour of his son William. This was granted on payment of
the usual fees, with £4 yearly for certain herbage.
There are also various Galtres attachment court rolls extant of the
reign of Henry VI. (1422-60). Interesting reference is therein made to
the custom of _Thistiltak_, or thistletake, though not at that period
producing any appreciable income. “Thistletake” was a term at one time in
use in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Cheshire for a customary fee of ½_d._
a head from drovers, through certain forests or over certain commons, if
they permitted their beasts to graze to any extent, even to the snatching
of a single thistle.
In 1432 the agistment of cattle produced 15_s._, and the pannage of pigs
6_s._ 4_d._ Fines for taking a cartload of “ramell” (copse-wood) varied
from 4_d._ to 6_d._, and for a cartload of “grissell” (which seems to
have been a term for fresh cut grass for fodder) 6_d._ to 8_d._
In 1483 Richard III. granted for life to his servant Geoffrey Frank,
one of the esquires of the body, the office of the keeper of the king’s
laund within the forest of Galtres, with fees of £10 yearly at the hands
of the receiver of the lordship of Sheriff Huttun, and other profits.
Grants were also made about the same time by the king to two out of the
four foresterships; each of the four foresters had a wage of 4_d._ a day.
Another office filled by Richard III. in the following year was that of
steward of Sutton within the forest of Galtres.
Some interesting particulars relative to this forest occur in connection
with an eyre of the time of Henry VIII. At pleas held on 17th June, 1528,
William Maunsell appeared as chief steward; Francis Coket was riding
forester; Sir George Lawson and John Jenynges, Esquire, were the two
foresters, each with a deputy; Ralph Hungayth, Esq., and Christopher
Fenton, gent., were the two chief verderers. The constable and four men
from each of the townships of Easingwold, Haxby, Alne, Tollerton, Newton,
Skelton, Clifton, Mugginton, Huby, Strensall, and Stillington appeared.
Among the presentments were an assart of 80 acres by the treasurer of
York Cathedral, a forester selling 100 loads of underwood in the last
twenty years, the neglect of paling launds, the grazing of too many
cattle, and trespass with crossbow and greyhounds.
Lord Cromwell, as chief justice of the forests, in addition to the
privilege of common pasture for twelve score horned cattle, received £6
13_s._ 8½_d._ in fees from different townships.
“The office of the Ryding Forester with his fees accustomed” is thus set
forth:—
“Furst the Rydyng Forester office is to ryde the perambulations
with the kepers and the King his tenauntes at the tymes
accustomede, to see and enqueare of all them that kepythe anye
Closyng in Severallie that ought to be open in Winter, And
also to hunte the purlewes and outer groundes with his houndes
according to thoffice of a keper.
“Item the saide Rydyng Forester haythe in his Fee accustomede
within the saide Foreste as folowethe Fyrste of Saynt Marie in
Yorke iij_s_ iiij_d_, of the Maister of the Comons their ij_s_,
of Saynt leonardes in Yorke iij_s_ vj_d_, at Huntington of
holme landes iij_s_ iiij_d_, of the Vicarage of Sutton ij_s_,
of Shipton lands in Shipton ij_s_, at Newton upon Ouse iij_s_
vj_d_, at Easingwold of the Kyng his tenauntes their ij_s_
vj_d_, at Newbrough ij_s_, at Byland ij_s_, in tachment monye
iij_s_.
“Suma, xxix_s_ ij_d_”
“The office of the Bowebearer and Receyvor wythe his fees
accustomed.
“Furste the saide Bow-bearer ought dailie to walke throughe
all the saide Forest as one keper ayther by hym selve or his
deputie or deputies. Also he hayth in his Fee all forfayte
Skynes bothe in Wynter and Somer by accustome. Also he haythe
in Fee of Saynt Marye Abbaye in Yorke xij_d_, in Tachement
monye iiij_s_ one yere & iij_s_ vj_d_ one other yere, at
Newborogh xij_d_, at Bylande xij_d_. Item he haythe oute of the
Extreacte for his receyvourshippe 40_s_.
“Suma viij _li_ viij_s_ x_d_”
Cromwell also held the office of master of the game in this forest, and
was declared entitled to rights of herbage, pannage, browsing, “_cokkyes_
or the netting of woodcocks, windfallen wood, fishing and fowling, and
the Laund House lodge with its herbage, of the estimated annual value
of £10; also 12_d_ for gayte lawe in the hole forest of every 20 horse
6_d_, of every 20 cattle, & 4_d_ every score of sheep, & 2_d_ of every
pakkehorse, 2_d_ for the hole year of every wayne, in fence moneth 4_d_
other time 2_d_; also 34_s_ 8_d_ St Thomas day, and the last day of fence
moneth in certain proportions from the townships. Suma £20. 1. 0”
The jury returned that “gate-lawe” had been leased for 26_s._ 8_d._ and
had been highly misused by the farmer. They considered that gate money
might be taken of all the “bounderers” that carried their own wood 2_d._,
and 4_d._ if carrying other men’s wood, together with ½_d._ for every
horse; also 4_d._ for every horse carrying merchandise or other stuff to
or from the city of York.
During the civil war of the seventeenth century, which raged so fiercely
round York, the forest of Galtres naturally suffered severely. It was
disafforested in the time of Charles II.
Lack of space prohibits any reference to the Yorkshire forests of
Hatfield Chase, Knaresborough, and Wensleydale.
CHAPTER XII
THE FORESTS OF CHESHIRE
The history of the royal forest of Wirral, as well as of other Cheshire
forests, yet remains to be written. There are two large histories of the
hundred of Wirral (Mortimer, 1847; and Sulley, 1889), but neither of them
give more than a sentence or two to the story of its forest. There are
citations from and references to various documents pertaining to this
forest in Helsley’s fine edition of Ormerod’s _Cheshire_ (1882); but
there is much information to be gleaned that has not been touched.
On 11th September, 1275, the Crown instructed Gaucelin de Badelesmere,
justice of Chester, to permit Roger Lestrange to take two stags in the
forest of Wirral for the king’s use, and to cause them to be salted and
brought with other venison to the king at Westminster by Michaelmas.
In August, 1279, the same justice was ordered to cause the abbot of St.
Werburgh’s, Chester, to have a hart in Wirral forest for the feast of
that saint.
Licence was granted, in 1283, to the lepers of the house of Bebington,
within the forest, to enclose five acres of their waste and bring it
into cultivation; but the dyke was to be a small one and the hedge low,
so that the deer if they desired could leap it. In 1303 a hind that was
found dead in the forest, with an arrow in its side, was given to these
lepers according to the forest assize, but the arrow was the perquisite
of the forester.
By an ordinance of 1284 it was provided that a hart was to be given
annually to the abbey of Chester on the feast of St. Werburgh, and
also the tithe of the venison yearly, in aid of the great work of the
building of the church, as was done in the forest of Delamere.
In 1328 the chamberlain of Chester was ordered to pay Richard de Weford
the arrears of his wages as riding forester of Wirral, and to continue
them annually, as the king had appointed Richard to this office at the
request of Queen Isabel before his accession, in consideration of his
services to her, and he was to hold this office for life provided he
conducted himself well in the bailiwick. There seems to have been some
neglect about this order, for it was repeated in 1329 to Oliver de
Ingham, justice of Chester.
The citizens of Chester suffered so much from the shelter afforded to
marauders by the forest so closely adjacent to its walls, that they
petitioned Edward the Black Prince, then Earl of Chester, to cause it to
be disforested. This was accomplished, but not until after the prince’s
death, just at the close of the reign of Edward III. The Stanleys
valued the perquisites of the master forestership at £40 per annum, but
only received a pension of twenty marks on the abolition of the forest
jurisdiction. Although at this date they lost all power and perquisites,
the Stanleys of Hooton long continued titular foresters of Wirral, and
were so styled in documents of the reign of Henry VII.
There was a good deal of woodland throughout the forest of Wirral in
early days, as is proved, _inter alia_, by place and field names such
as Woodchurch, Ashfield, Maplegreen, Okhill, etc. Place names also show
where the lodges of several of the old wards or divisions of the forest
stood. There is an old adage that says:—
“From Blacon point to Hillree
A squirrel could leap from tree to tree.”
That is, from Chester to the extreme north-western point of the peninsula
of Wirral; but it is highly unlikely that this was the case in historic
times. At all events, the wood had seriously diminished some years before
Wirral was disforested, for in 1359 William Stanley, the hereditary
forester, received a grant of four oaks out of the forest of Greves from
the Black Prince, as he understood that Stanley had no wood for fuel in
his own forest.
Within this forest was Shotwick Park, attached to the strong royal castle
of that name. Various references to the game and timber in this forest
are given by Ormerod.
THE FOREST OF MARA AND MOUDREM
These two considerable forests of Cheshire are generally mentioned in old
documents in conjunction, although they had in some respects separate
jurisdiction. The whole of this united forest district extended over all
the hundred of Eddisbury save a few parishes, and over a greater part of
the hundred of Nantwich. The forest of Mara was bounded by the Mersey
on the north, and had the forest of Wirral on the west, whilst that of
Moudrem stretched out to the south-east in the direction of Nantwich.
Ormerod tells us that “the jurisdiction was originally vested in four
families”—Kingsley of Kingsley, Grosvenor of Budworth, Wever of Wever,
and Merton of Merton, by which we suppose is meant that these four
families held hereditary foresterships-of-fee. The master forestership of
the whole was conferred early in the twelfth century on Ralph de Kingsley
to hold on horn tenure, in the same way as that of Wirral. The Dones
afterwards succeeded to the Kingsleys in the master forestership and in
the forestership-of-fee. At the forest pleas, held at Chester in 1271,
each of the four foresters-of-fee were fined heavily for destruction of
woods; Done and Grosvenor £13 6_s._ 8_d._ each, Merton £10, and Wever
£5. Richard Done, as chief forester of Mara and Moudrem, claimed at that
eyre to have eight under-foresters and two grooms, who boarded with the
tenants; two strikes of oat at Lent from every tenant for provender for
his own horse; bracken at all times save the hunting season; pannage and
agistment of pigs; windfalls, and lops of felled trees; crabstakes and
stubbs; half the bark of felled trees; all cattle and goats taken at
non-agistment times, ½_d._ each, and the same of straying beasts between
Michaelmas and Martinmas; all sparrowhawks, merlins, and hobbies; all
swarms of bees; the right shoulder of every deer taken in the forest;
the horns and skin of every “stroken deer” found dead; waifs found in
the forest; the hunting of foxes, hares, cats, weasels, and other vermin
with hounds or greyhounds; and the _pelfe_, or best beast of any that
committed felony or trespass in the forest, and fled for the same, the
lord having the residue.
The forest of Delamere, as it was afterwards called, was disafforested by
Act of Parliament in 1812. Various interesting particulars are given by
Ormerod, chiefly taken from the Harl. MSS.
FOREST PLEAS OF WIRRAL AND DELAMERE
A joint eyre was held at Chester for the forests of “Wirrall, Mara et
Moudrem,” in August, 1347, which has hitherto escaped the attention of
county historians. It was over twenty years since the last of these
pleas had been held. Thomas de Ferrars was the justice in charge of the
pleas. A considerable number of claims were brought forward, supported by
charters which were enrolled. Among them were the claims of the abbots
of Chester, Basingwerk, and Chester. One of the lay claims was that of
William de Stanley, as chief forester of Wirral, to hunt hares and foxes
with greyhounds at all times of the year; and that of John de Pennesley
to dig turves, burn charcoal, and to obtain litter at any time of the
year in Wirral forest, and to hunt with greyhounds and other dogs on
foot, as well as large rights of pasturage. But some of the claimants
overreached themselves, and were fined for making claims which they
failed to establish. Among those who were thus mulcted were the abbot
of Basingwerk, 40_s._; the abbot of Vale Royal, 21_s._, and Robert de
Bradeford and Robert de Swynnerton half a mark each.
There were a very great number of cases of purpresture or encroachment
at these pleas, showing that the regard that preceded the pleas must
have been a thorough one. As examples, the following may be briefly
mentioned: John Hotherinde was indicted for building a certain house
without warrant; he was declared in mercy, and the house was ordered to
be levelled. Richard de Trafford had enclosed five acres without warrant;
he was in mercy, and the fences were to be destroyed and the land thrown
open. Robert le Hog was charged with taking eighty acres of moor and
marsh in the parish of Wimbalds Trafford for agisting his own beasts
without warrant, to the annual value of 40_s._, and this for the last
twenty years, so that there was neither agistment nor pannage for anyone
else; he was declared in mercy, and the eighty acres were to be taken
from him. In another case a man had erected a mill without licence, and
the building was ordered to be pulled down; and in another case a man was
in mercy for opening a marl pit.
The vert presentments of Wirral forest were exceedingly numerous. They
were all cases of felling trees, not mere lopping. Their values varied
from 2_s._ to 40_s._ Like presentments were also very numerous from Mara
and Moudrem; the value charges, in addition to court fines, varied from
2_s._ to 20_s._ In some cases the transgressions were of a wholesale
character, such as that of Thomas de Erdeswyk, who had felled sixty oaks.
He was dead, but his wife appeared, and was fined a mark. Sir William de
Legh, deputy keeper of Mara and Moudrem under Richard Doun, was charged
by the jury with selling wood out of the lordship to the value of more
than £100, and the same in conjunction with the sub-forester, doing
the like in the forest of Moudrem to the extent of 100 marks. It is
interesting to note the appreciation shown for a well-grown and beautiful
tree; Peter de Thornton was charged with felling and carrying off _una
pulcherrima quercus_, valued at 40_s._
The venison cases show that there was an abundance of game, both red and
fallow. Richard Spark was charged with killing many harts and hinds, as
well as bucks and does, in Delamere forest, the exact number not being
known. In Wirral forest two men who had killed a stag were released from
imprisonment on paying the respective fines of 40_s._ and 20_s._ In
another case in the same forest the transgressors had been hunting deer
with a strangely mixed pack, consisting of a greyhound, a mastiff, and a
cur.
The presentments at these pleas were made, for Wirral, by William de
Stanley, keeper; Henry de Acton, riding forester, and by Richard de
Haydock and five other foresters; those for Mara et Moudrem, or Delamere,
by Richard Doun, keeper, Thomas de Clyve, riding forester, and by Robert
Shefeld and six other foresters.
THE FOREST OF MACCLESFIELD
Cheshire possessed another considerable forest on the east side of the
county. About a third of the large hundred of Macclesfield, including
the town of Macclesfield and eighteen other townships, was forest even
at the time of the Domesday Survey. It was usually known as the forest
of Macclesfield; but in its earlier life, from its position on the
borders of the palatinate, it was often called the forest of Lyme. The
hereditary forestership or keepership of this forest, in conjunction with
that of Leek, was granted to Richard Davenport, of Davenport, towards
the end of the twelfth century, by Hugh Kevelioc, Earl of Chester. It
continued attached to the earldom of Chester until its termination,
when it passed to the Crown. But at an early date the forest area was
materially lessened by a variety of Crown grants. A considerable portion,
however, was not alienated from the Crown until after the Restoration.
Up to the period of the Commonwealth the open forest was fairly well
stocked with deer. Under the chief forester there were eight hereditary
foresters-of-fee, bound to the performance of certain duties (often
exercised by deputy), and possessed of considerable liberties. In the
time of Edward I. the foresters’ liberties included the hunting of hare,
fox, squirrel, and cat, with rights of fishing, fowling, and nutting.
In addition to pannage and pasturage liberties, they also claimed the
forearm (_spanda_) of deer taken in the forest, and all of any deer found
dead in the forest, save the four limbs, which went to the manor of
Macclesfield.
Swainmotes were regularly held at Macclesfield, and forest pleas, from
time to time, in the same town, under the justice of Chester. Ormerod
(iii. 539) gives a transcript of a swainmote of this forest _temp._
Elizabeth, and a few other particulars; but the history of this forest
remains practically unwritten, and not for lack of material.
CHAPTER XIII
THE FORESTS OF STAFFORDSHIRE
The ancient forest of Needwood was situated in the northern extremity
of the hundred of Offlow, and in the four parishes of Tutbury, Hanbury,
Tatenhill, and Yoxall. It was famed not only for the beauty, extent, and
size of its timber, but more especially for the richness of its pasture
land.
The earliest particulars with regard to Needwood forest, whilst it was
yet under the control of the Ferrers, occur in the minister’s accounts
for 1255-6. The foresters named for Tutbury ward were Robert Coan and
Robert de Wynfleth; among the receipts were 13_s._ 10_d._ for the sale of
dead wood, 3_s._ 4_d._ for the sale of forty customary rent hens, 7_s._
3_d._ for agistment of cattle, 7_s._ 8_d._, and for a charcoal-burner’s
licence for ten and a half weeks, 11_s._ 3_d._ The court fines of this
ward included several penalties of 6_d._ for collecting nuts, and one for
charcoal burning without a licence, but were chiefly for vert offences.
The total ward receipts were £2 18_s._ 6_d._ Barton ward produced £4
9_s._ 8_d._; Marchington ward, £3 16_s._ 11½_d._; and Uttoxeter ward, £2
9_s._ 1_d._ The swine turned out in the forest for pannage amounted to
227, of which twelve went for tithe, six in alms, one to the steward, and
one to the chief forester.
On the attainder of Robert Earl Ferrers in 1266, his confiscated estates
were granted by Henry III. to his son Edmund, afterwards created Earl
of Lancaster. One of the finest portions of these estates, afterwards
known as the Duchy of Lancaster, was the honor of Tutbury, and within its
limits was the splendidly wooded and exceptionally fertile stretch of
Needwood forest. An extent of the lands of Edmund, the king’s brother,
drawn up 1298, gives definite particulars relative to Needwood forest.
It was then divided into the five wards of Yoxall, Barton, Tutbury,
Marchington, and Uttoxeter.
In Yoxall ward the agistment of cattle produced 30_s._, the sale of bark
of lime trees 14_s._ 3_d._ the pannage of swine 30_s._, and court fees
and escapes 6_s._ 8_d._ The sum of 7_s._ 7_d._ was also realised by the
sale of eighty-eight hens, the customary payment of the tenants. In this
ward was Rowley Park, the profits of which in herbage, mast, and wood was
£1 6_s._ 8_d._ The whole profits of the ward came to £13 15_s._
The profits of the ward of Barton from the like sources were £5 6_s._
9_d._ Barton Park was in this ward, together with a hay called High
Lindes.
Tutbury ward, including the parks of Rolleston, Hanbury, and Stockley,
and Castlehay, produced £12 10_s._ 8_d._
The hens, agistment, pannage, woodmote fees, etc., of Marchington ward,
with the park of Agardsley, made receipts to the amount of £6 1_s._ 8_d._
The like sources in Uttoxeter ward, together with the herbage and mast of
a hay called the More, produced £3 18_s._ 4_d._
The annual value of the whole forest, etc. (apart from all demesne lands
and manorial rights, which were ten times the value of the forest),
amounted at this date to £41 11_s._ 5_d._
There is also a full record extant of the forest accounts for 1313-14.
Robert de Cruce was the receiver of Tutbury ward. The receipts included
5_s._ 3_d._ for the sale of forty-two hens; 2_s._ 8_d._ for wood; 2_s._
for passage of carts and pack-horses; 26_s._ 1_d._ for agistment of
cattle; 103_s._ for agistment in Castlehay; 25_s._ 4_d._ for the like in
Stokeley Park, and 12_s._ in Hanbury Park; 71_s._ 2_d._ for windstrewn
boughs for deer in winter; 9_s._ for shingles; £8 for all underwood
in the ward and Castlehay sold for deer in winter; £8 for the like in
Rolleston Park, and £2 in Hanbury Park; 9_d._ for honey and wax; 2_s._
4_d._ for sale of a stray bullock; £5 15_s._ 6_d._ in woodmote fees;
3_s._ 5½_d._ for sale of 167 old pales of Stokeley Park, and 23¼_d._ for
the old pales of Hanbury Park; yielding a total of £51 10_s._ 4_d._ The
expenses came to £43 18_s._ 4½_d._; the wages of the men getting the
deer-browse in the ward and Castlehay amounted to 16_s._ 4_d._; making
167 new pales for Stokeley Park, 10_s._ 4¾_d._; and 3_s._ for lock and
door for the forest lodge at Birkley. The wages of the parkers of
Hanbury and Rolleston were each 15_s._ 2_d._, whilst that of the parker
of Castlehay was 30_s._ 4_d._
The receipts of Barton ward, Ralph Laying receiver, were £13 12_s._
7_d._, and the expenses £13 5_s._ 2_d._ John Don was the receiver of
Marchington; receipts £27 2_s._ 7½_d._, expenses £28 2_s._ 7¼_d._ Robert
de Tuppeleye was receiver of Uttoxeter; receipts £50 15_s._ 0½_d._,
expenses £22 12_s._ 6½_d._ The receipts of Yoxall ward, Richard Coking
receiver, were £34 17_s._ 8½_d._, whilst the expenses were £29 19_s._
7_d._
In the accounts of 1321-2, the expenses include 4_d._ a day to a
carpenter engaged for three days in mending the gates of the Castlehay
Park, 1½_d._ a day for three days for fourteen men engaged in ditching,
and 3_d._ for an iron for branding the cattle.
Woodmote courts were held for each ward. A forest roll of 1336-7 (in
bad condition) gives 2_s._ 6_d._ as the receipts of the woodmote of
Tutbury ward, held on February 11th, in vert fines, chiefly for taking
whitethorn. The taking of a cartload of greenwood out of Hanbury Park
incurred a fine of 6_d._ The fines for vert trespasses in Castlehay
amounted to 4_s._ 4_d._, including 15_d._ for taking a horseload of old
wood. The fines about this date at the court of Marchington ward amounted
to 2_s._ 10_d._, and included the straying of foals in the wood.
The woodmote courts of the five wards, held about Martinmas, 1370,
brought in a larger amount of fines: Tutbury, 9_s._ 1_d._; Marchington,
9_s._ 4_d._; Yoxall, 3_s._ 10_d._; Barton, 3_s._; and Uttoxeter, 2_s._
10_d._ The penalties were chiefly for removing horse, cart, or wagon
loads of wood.
A full woodmote roll of 1-2 Richard II. gives £7 6_s._ 7_d._ as the
total of the fines of all the courts of that year. A sledge-load of
wood, called _drag_, or _draw_, is of frequent occurrence in this roll.
The vert fines varied from 2_d._ to 8_d._ a case. At a Marchington ward
woodmote, there were four cases of removing cartloads of old wood, four
of green wood, and two of a mixture of old and green; the horseloads were
thirteen in number, and the sledgeloads sixteen.
The pannage fees of the whole forest, termed “tak,” realised in 1400 £5
9_s._ 5½_d._ The total forest receipts of that year amounted to £43 1_s._
1½_d._
At an unusually heavy Marchington woodmote in 1403, when the fines
amounted to 11_s._ 4_d._, the penalty in each case for a cartload of
wood was 8_d._, and for a horseload 6_d._ An inquisition held that year
in Tutbury ward convicted Robert Amond, John Roberg, John Fuklyn, and
Giles Fuklyn, monks of the Cluniac priory of Tutbury, of breaking into
the castle park, on Thursday, after the feast of St. Margaret, and there
killing a doe and a fawn. This is one of the very few cases of conviction
of monks for venison trespass. Woodmotes of this year were held at
Birkley, or Byrkley, the site of the chief lodge.
A few years later the Benedictine monks of Burton were in trouble, but
only for wood trespass.
Rolls relative to the minor forest courts of Needwood for the fifteenth
and first half of the sixteenth centuries are exceptionally numerous.
At the forest woodmote held at Birkley on 15th May, 1450, various
venison trespasses were presented, such as making snares (_retia_) and
buckstalls, breaking into parks, hunting with greyhounds, and killing
several fallow deer. There were seventeen separate charges, some of which
involved several persons.
Various other records of woodmotes held in the last half of the fifteenth
century are well worth consulting.
At the woodmote held on 3rd June, 1524, at Birkley Lodge, thirty-one
trespassers in Tutbury ward were fined in small sums for ordinary lopping
offences—one for breaking park pales, another 2_s._ for cutting eight
oaks, and two men 3_s._ 4_d._ each for carrying off two cartloads of
wood. The fines for this ward amounted to 18_s._ 6_d._ At the same court
the fines in Barton ward were 3_s._ 7_d._, in Yoxall 9_s._ 8_d._, in
Uttoxeter 2_s._ 10_d._, and in Marchington 13_s._ 9_d._
In Sir Oswald Mosley’s _History of Tamworth_ (1832) various interesting
particulars of the forest customs of Needwood and Duffield are set forth
at length.
[Illustration: _PLATE XVII_
DOG LEECHING (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)
REWARDING THE HOUNDS (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)]
The abbot of Burton-on-Trent and the prior of Tutbury held special
privileges and peculiar rights in the forest of Needwood. One of the many
unforeseen unhappy results of the wholesale suppression of the religious
houses was the throwing into confusion of a variety of forest customs.
Those on whom the monastic estates were conferred not unnaturally
endeavoured to sustain claims that had not been resisted when made by the
public almoners of a district. Considerable conflict arose with regard to
such matters at Needwood, and the absence of the checks exercised by the
woodwards, appointed by various religious houses in most English forests,
was one of the chief causes that led in this district to much wrong-doing
on the part of the officials.
The detection of a particular keeper in a grave case of peculation in
1540 brought about a careful inquiry into the general conduct of the
officials. It was then ascertained that in a single year the keeper of
Tutbury Wood had cut down and sold 45 loads of timber, the keeper of
Marchingdon, 111 loads; the keeper of Barton, 170 loads; the keeper of
Yoxall, 124; and the keeper of Uttoxeter, 64. No forest could possibly
stand the drain of an annual sale of 841 loads. The fraudulent keepers
were discharged, and a certain amount of reformation achieved.
A survey of the parks of Needwood was taken in the reign of Philip and
Mary, when the jury found that the deer of the castle park numbered 137,
that those in Rolleston Park numbered 105; those of Stokeley Park, 160;
those of Barton Park, 104; those of Shireholt Park, 144; those of High
Lynns Park, 127; and that Castlehay Park had been disparked in favour
of the king’s “race of great horses,” and Hanbury Park reserved for the
king’s stud mares. A great waste of trees was in progress, and it was
known that many had been cut down without any warrant, as the stools
still standing showed no sign of the mark of the king’s axe. Among the
claims then made by the tenants or commoners was that of “hoar lynt.”
This term signified the white wood of the lime or linden tree after the
basters had stripped such timber of the bast or inner bark for cordage or
mats.
The survey of the first of Elizabeth, cited at length in Shaw’s
_Staffordshire_, says:—
“The forest or chase of Needwood is in compasse by estimation
twenty-three miles and a half, and the nearest part thereof
is distant from the Castle of Tutbury but one mile. In it are
7,869 acres and an halfe, and very forest-like ground, thinly
sett with old oakes and timber trees, well replenished with
coverts of underwood and thornes, which might be copiced in
divers parts thereof for increase of wood and timber, lately
sore decayed and spoyled.”
After giving the bounds and acreage of the four wards then extant, and
naming the former fifth ward of Uttoxeter, the survey enumerates the ten
parks within the forest, but Rowley Park had been granted by Henry VIII.
to Justice Fitzherbert and his heirs.
The size of the nine parks of Castle, Castlehay, Rolleston, Stokeley,
Hanbury, Barton, Shireholt, Highlands, and Agardsley, with the number of
deer and condition of timber in each, are also duly set forth.
Elizabethan records of Needwood woodmotes are numerous. A woodmote was
held at Birkley on 17th August, 1581, before George, Earl of Shrewsbury,
high steward of the whole honor of Tutbury, in person. The jury were
William Rolleston, Esquire; Humphrey Minors, William Agard, and Arthur
Whittington, gentlemen, and eleven yeomen. The convictions for various
forms of vert offences were unusually numerous at this court, as well
as a few cases of pasturing sheep and cart-horses in the forest. The
penalties exacted amounted to £9 15_s._ 4_d._
The next woodmote was held at Tutbury on 16th July, 1582, when the fines
reached the exceptionally high total of £22 1_s._ 5_d._ Two or three
persons were fined on this occasion for not taking their pigs out of the
forest wards during “le fence monethe.”
At the pannage court held at Newborough in November of this year, the
fees for the pigs amounted to 48_s._ 1½_d._
There are several rolls extant of woodmote courts of the reigns of James
I. and Charles I., but they contain nothing of particular moment.
In 1654 the forest of Needwood was offered for sale “for the satisfaction
of the soldiery.” The knights, gentlemen, and other inhabitants of
twenty-one of the adjoining villages and townships thereupon petitioned
Oliver Cromwell, pointing out the injustice of enclosing the forest
area—then reduced to 5,600 acres, and only worth about 5_s._ an
acre—whereby the old charter rights of many would be lost, and a great
number of ancient cottagers deprived of the relief afforded by the
commons. It was also pointed out that the county of Stafford had
already paid near £8,000 towards the soldiery on their disbanding. The
last reason offered against the sale was, “That the forest of Needwood
is mearly formed by nature for pleasure, no forest in England being
comparable thereunto.”
This petition caused the project of the sale to be abandoned; but in 1656
a compromise was arrived at, whereby commissioners were appointed to
consider all claims, and in 1658 it was agreed that half the open forest
and one-tenth of the timber should be allotted to the freeholders, and
the remainder be continued as the property of the State. The project went
so far as to have the respective divisions for the different townships
staked out and allotted. But the Restoration intervened ere the work
was accomplished, and Charles II. decided to preserve the forest in its
original state.
It was difficult to suppress the licence engendered during the time of
civil strife. Eventually the duchy authorities overreached themselves by
attempting to impose a new code of by-laws of great severity and doubtful
legality.
About the year 1680, “the gentlemen, freeholders and others who have
right of Common in the Forest or Chace of Needwood” drew up a petition
(printed as a broadsheet) to the House of Commons, protesting against the
arbitrary orders of Earl Stamford, as chancellor of the duchy, recently
published, and asking relief, as their ancient rights and liberties
were being invaded. The chief of these orders were—a fine of 10_s._ and
forfeiture of cattle bearing a counterfeit mark; a fine of £10 apiece
to the informer and forfeiture of cattle privately removed out of the
forest after notice of a public drift; a fine of 5_s._, or 6_s._ 8_d._
in the case of a keeper, for conveying grist to any other mill than the
Wood Mill; a month’s imprisonment for taking any crabtree, whitethorn,
holly, or hazel out of the forest or parks; 6_s._ 8_d._ fine for each
beast on any commoner or other person foddering cattle in the forest
between the Feast of St. Andrew and the end of March; the forfeiture of
all swine in the forest save in crab-time, and a like forfeiture and
fine of 3_s._ 4_d._ on every swine insufficiently rung; sheep pasturing
in forest to be forfeited, and 12_s._ a day fine for each sheep. These
orders and others of a like nature had appeared under the great seal
of the duchy, and had been read in all the parish churches within or
about the forest to the great disturbance of the people. The petitioners
protested against the exorbitant character of the fines and forfeitures,
the setting up of informers by great rewards, and the imprisonment of
their persons, claiming that such penalties could not be imposed save by
Act of Parliament.
Notwithstanding, however, the damage done to the forest in the Civil War,
and the little check put upon depredations in the earlier part of the
reign of Charles II., the timber of Needwood was at this period by far
the finest in any English forest. A careful survey made in 1684 showed
that the number of good trees in the four wards was 38,218, valued at
£25,744 19_s._ 6_d._; whilst those in the parks brought up the total to
47,150, with a complete value of £28,637 11_s._ 6_d._ The hollies and
underwood were valued at an additional £2,000.
“Many of the treese are of soe large dimensions and length,
that there may be picked out such great quantityes of excellent
plank and other tymber, fitt for shipping, as is not to be
found in any of your majestie’s other forests in England; most
parts of this where the best tymber growes, lyeing within 12 or
14 miles of the navigable parte of the river Trent.”
The abundance of the deer proved an irresistible temptation to the poorer
of the commoners, and though the gentlemen and yeomen did not exactly
turn deer-stealers themselves, as in some of the southern forests, there
was much sympathy with the poachers, who checked the depredations of
the deer, and kept the country houses illicitly supplied with venison.
The parks leased by the Crown to private individuals were rigorously
protected; but the open stretches of the forest in the eighteenth
century, though nominally well supplied with high-born officials and
underkeepers or foresters, were, to a great extent, a prey to marauders.
An undated account of the duchy forests, _temp._ George I., at the
Public Record Office, states that Needwood forest had been granted to
William Duke of Devonshire, William Marquis of Hartington, and Henry
Lord Cavendish, with the offices of steward of the honor, constable of
the Castle of Tutbury, lieutenant of the forest, master of the game, and
bailiff of the new liberties. Castlehay Park had been granted in 1677 for
ninety-nine years to Henry Seymour. The parks of Hanbury and Tutbury,
for a like period, in 1698, to Edward Vernon; and two of the other parks
at the same, and also for ninety-nine years, to Sir John Turton.
Mr. Mundy, the poet of Needwood, left it on record that he had known and
conversed with a gentleman of the district, who had been high-sheriff of
Staffordshire in the reign of George II., who used to boast how many deer
poachers he had got off when arrested by the keepers, and how well they
used to keep his table supplied with venison.
After considerable opposition, Needwood was at last disafforested by
special Act of Parliament in 1804. The damage done to cultivation by
the straying deer was no doubt excessive, and there were other distinct
drawbacks to its continuance as a forest. Nevertheless, the general
scheme of enclosure naturally aroused keen resentment among the lovers of
its picturesque beauties and historic associations. Mr. F. N. C. Mundy,
who had printed a stilted poem in 1776, called _Needwood Forest_, after
the classical descriptive style then in vogue, produced, in 1808, a wild
screed termed _The Fall of Needwood_, which, by its very extravagance,
caused the utilitarian view to be the more appreciated. The following
passage is a fair example of the character and style of its forty-five
pages:—
’Twas Avarice with his harpy claws,
Great Victim! rent thy guardian laws;
Loos’d Uproar with his ruffian bands;
Bade Havoc show his crimson’d hands;
Grinn’d a coarse smile, as thy last deer
Dropp’d in thy lap a dying tear;
Exulted in his schemes accurst,
When thy pierc’d heart, abandon’d, burst;
And glozing on the public good,
Insidious demon! suck’d thy blood.
Detested ever be that day,
Which left thee a defenceless prey!
May never sun its presence cheer!
O be it blotted from the year!
CANNOCK CHASE
There were two other Staffordshire forests besides Needwood—Cannock Chase
and Kinver, both of which require investigating. The exigencies of space
prohibit more than very brief references to them in these pages.
Cannock Chase, notwithstanding its name, was an extensive royal forest.
It seems to have taken its title from the Bishop of Lichfield’s Chase,
fifteen miles in circuit, which was within the forest limits, and
proved a constant source of grievance to the king’s foresters. General
Wrottesley has printed the pleas of the forest of Cannock for 1262,
1271, and 1286, in Vol. V. of _Historical Collections for a History of
Staffordshire_ (1884); they abound in interest as to the venison and vert
presentments, and the assarts and wastes of woods that came before the
justices at these eyres. A venison offender in 1271 was pardoned, for
the soul of the king, because he was poor and a minstrel, and two others
were respited and forgiven non-attendance because they were in the Holy
Land. One Thomas de Bromley, a very frequent malefactor of venison, and
often indicted for trespasses in the king’s forests in Staffordshire and
Salop, was caught with bow and arrows in the bailiwick of Teddesley,
on Tuesday after the Feast of St. Gregory, 1267, by Walter de Elmedon,
forester-of-fee of that bailiwick, and Roger de Pecham, riding forester
for the whole forest. The foresters challenged him, whereupon Thomas
climbed up an oak tree and shot arrows at them, until they took him by
force and delivered him to the warden of the castle of Bridgnorth. There
were many presentments at this eyre for the killing of roe deer.
Hugh de Evesham, a former riding forester, with other ex-foresters,
were presented for stopping all carts passing through their bailiwicks
with salt and other merchandise on the high roads, taking 4_d._ at
least in the name of cheminage, and for other carts, 1_s._, and in some
cases 2_s._ And this was done when the carts were not laden with timber
or brushwood or anything from the forest, and when the carters were
committing no forest trespass.
In 1276 when the king’s huntsmen were hunting in Cannock Chase, they put
up a hart with their dogs and followed it to Brewood Park. There John de
la Wytemore came up with bow and arrow and shot at it; the hart fled out
of the forest to the fishpond of the nuns of Brewood. John followed it
and dragged it out dead from the pond. Then John Gyffard, of Chyllynton,
came up, said he had pursued the hart, and claimed the whole of it. They
skinned it; John Gyffard took half of it, and the nuns had the other
half. This case was brought before the justices at the eyre of 1286. The
nuns were pardoned for the good of the king’s soul, as they were poor.
Although the hart was taken outside the forest, it was the king’s chase
and put up by his dogs within the forest, and taken in front of them
against the assize. The sheriff was therefore ordered to arrest the two
Johns; they were taken and committed to prison, but released on paying
the respective fines of a mark and 20s. The case of the wolf killing a
buck in this forest in 1281 has been already cited.
The Close Rolls of Edward I. give evidence, from the various royal gifts,
of a good supply of fallow deer, with a smaller number of red deer on
the forest or chase of Cannock. In August, 1277, the king ordered the
keeper of Cannock Forest to permit William de Middleton, Archdeacon of
Canterbury, to take by his men all the fat harts and bucks that were
fit to kill that season, and to aid and counsel the men in so doing.
In the same month, 1279, the king granted Roger Mortimer ten bucks and
two harts from Cannock. In 1280 Anthony Bek had four bucks, Richard de
Tybetot the same number, and Philip Marmyon three. In 1282, Ralph de
Hengham had six bucks, Henry de Shaventon, Reginald de Legh, and Otto
de Grandi Sono four each, and the Prior of Stone one, all out of this
forest as gifts from the king. Ralph Basset, of Drayton, had six bucks in
1283. Roger Lestrange, justice of the forest, was instructed, in July,
1284, to cause the Bishop of Worcester to have twelve bucks of the king’s
gift out of the forest of Cannock; and in the same year Reginald de Legh
received two bucks. On December 28th, 1284, the king sent word to Roger
Lestrange that if the order given in the summer for the bucks for the
Bishop of Worcester had not been executed, it was to be changed to six
live bucks and six live does from Cannock, to stock that prelate’s park
at Alvechurch.
The king was also generous with timber gifts, oaks from Cannock for
building purposes being bestowed on the priory of St. Thomas, Stafford,
the priory of Cokehill, and the Franciscan friars of Lichfield. When the
king was at Brewood in 1278, near Wolverhampton, a fire broke out; the
justice of the forest was ordered to supply from Cannock four oaks to
Henry le Mercer, of Brewood, Dean of Lichfield, four oaks to Philip le
Clerk, and two oaks to Widow Amice, to aid in the rebuilding of their
lately burnt houses.
KINVER FOREST
The presentments at the Staffordshire eyres in Edward I.’s reign for the
smaller forest of Kinver have also been printed by General Wrottesley.
The Close Rolls of the same reign contain many references to the forest
of Kinver. In August, 1278, the king instructed Henry de Ribbeford
to cause thirty bucks to be taken for him in the forests of Kinver
and Cannock, as should be agreed upon between the respective keepers.
Grimbald Pauncefote obtained three Kinver bucks in the same year. In 1281
four live hinds were granted to Ralph Basset from Kinver to help to stock
his park of Drayton. A further proof that red as well as fallow roamed
over Kinver is the grant of six harts to Edmund Mortimer in 1286. Two
years later John, the son of Philip, the keeper of Kinver Forest, was
ordered to deliver all eyries of falcons found that year in the forest to
John Corbet, the king’s falconer, to be kept for the king’s use.
In 1282 the king ordered the release from prison of Richard Saladyn, who
was in gaol at Bridgnorth for venison trespass. Bridgnorth was the prison
for this forest, as well as for Cannock; the official calendar of these
Close Rolls has made the amusing mistake of putting Saladyn in prison at
Bruges, in Belgium! _Bruges_ was the usual Latinised form for the town of
Bridgnorth.
Among Edward I.’s timber grants from Kinver were six oaks to Margery
de Wigornia, a nun of St. Wystan, Worcester; six oaks to the master of
St. Wolfstan’s, Worcester; ten oaks for fuel to Contisse Loretti, wife
of Roger de Clifford, a forest justice; and twenty oaks for shingles to
Anthony Bek.
The perambulation roll of 1299-1300 shows the considerable extent of
Kinver Forest at that date. Part of Arley, with Ashwood and Pensnet
Chase, in addition to the parish of Kinver, were included in the forest,
as well as part of Morfe in Shropshire; but the greater part of Kinver
Forest then lay in Worcestershire, for it embraced Pechmore, Hagley, Old
Swinford, Chaddesley, Kidderminster, Wolverley, Churchill, and part of
Feckenham, in addition to Tordebig, in Warwickshire.
Nevertheless, although most of its area was in Worcestershire, and its
prison in Shropshire, Kinver Forest, taking its title from the small
Staffordshire town of that name, was always reckoned as a forest of the
last of these three shires.
CHAPTER XIV
THE FOREST OF THE HIGH PEAK
The king’s forest of the High Peak was a wild district that formed part
of the patrimony of the Anglo-Saxon kings, and was royal demesne at the
time of the Great Survey. The parish of Hope and other adjacent lands
were granted by the Conqueror in 1068 to William Peverel in conjunction
with numerous lordships in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and other
counties which were known as the honor of Peverel. On the south side of
the Vale of Hope, in a place of remarkable natural strength, Peverel
built a castle, on the site of a former stronghold, which had given
the name of Castleton to the cluster of houses below it. Twenty years
later the district around is styled the land of Peverel’s Castle in Peak
Forest (_terram castelli in Pechefers Willelmi Peurel_). The district
of Longdendale was added to the Peverel property in the time of Henry
I. On Peverel’s death in 1114, his vast possessions passed to his son,
but in 1155 a younger Peverel was disinherited for poisoning the Earl of
Chester, and all his estates were forfeited to the Crown. From that time
until 1372, the castle and forest of the Peak were in the hands of the
Crown, when they were transferred to the Duchy of Lancaster, and thence
returned to the Crown by absorption in the following century.
At the beginning of the twelfth century, the forest of the Peak included
the whole of the north-west corner of the county. The Hope district
embraced the seven berewicks of Aston, Edale, “Muckedswell,” half of
Offerton, Shatton, Stoke, and Tideswell; whilst Longdendale included the
whole of the wide-spreading parish of Glossop, and much that was extra
parochial. According to somewhat later parochial divisions, the forest
comprised the whole of the parishes of Glossop, Chapel-en-le-Frith,
Castleton, and Hope, with most of Tideswell, considerable portions of
Bakewell, and part of Hathersage.
It formed altogether an area of 40½ square miles.
From the time when Longdendale was added to the honor of Peverel, in
the days of Henry I., the Peak Forest was divided into three districts,
each having its own set of foresters, but all under one chief official.
These three districts were known as Campana (_i.e._ the Champagne, or
open country) on the south and south-west, Longdendale on the north and
north-west, and Hopedale on the east.
The bounds of the forest, as set forth in the Forest Pleas held in 1286,
were as follows, given in an English dress:—
“The metes and bounds of the forest of the Peak begin on the
south at the New Place of Goyt, and thence by the river Goyt
as far as the river Etherow; and so by the river Etherow to
Langley Croft at Longdenhead; thence by a certain footpath to
the head of Derwent; and from the head of Derwent to a place
called Mythomstede (Mytham Bridge); and from Mytham Bridge to
the river Bradwell; and from the river Bradwell as far as a
certain place called Hucklow; and from Hucklow to the great
dell (_cavam_, cave?) of Hazelbache; and from that dell as far
as Little Hucklow; and from Hucklow to the brook of Tideswell,
and so to the river Wye; and from the Wye ascending up to
Buxton, and so on to the New Place of Goyt.”
In the case of a considerable number of forests there was much variation
in their bounds subsequent to 1300; but the limits of Peak Forest
remained to its close the same as they were in the thirteenth century.
The place where the forest justice held his inquisitions was usually
termed the Justice Seat. This Justice Seat was occasionally held in
different localities, or even in a temporary booth or tent, as in the
great Northamptonshire forest of Rockingham; but the Justice Seat for the
Peak Forest was about the centre of the district, in an extra parochial
part, about equal distance from Castleton, Tideswell, and Bowden. Here
stood a chief forestry residence and hall termed _Camera in foresta regia
Pecci_, or _Camera in Campana_, with a chapel attached. This chapel
was of earlier date than the large chapel built by the foresters and
keepers at Bowden about 1225, which place was henceforth usually known as
Chapel-en-le-Frith. The Chamber of the Peak was not so important a place
as the central lodge of many other forests, because the keeper of the
Peak Forest being usually associated with the custody of the castle, the
residence of the chief local official was at Castleton. The prison was at
the castle of the Peak, and the baily of the castle was sometimes made
to serve as a great pound for illegally pastured sheep; but there is no
instance of the Justice Seat or even a swainmote being held at Castleton.
There are, unfortunately, too few records left of the smaller forest
courts of the Peak to speak with confidence as to the regular holding of
the frequent attachment courts or swainmotes in all the bailiwicks for
any long period; but there are sufficient incidental references to show
that such swainmotes were held in the thirteenth and early fourteenth
centuries for Campana at the Chamber of the Forest, for Longdendale at
Chapel-en-le-Frith, and for Hopedale at Hope. Subsequently the greater
swainmote courts were held at Tideswell and at Chapel-en-le-Frith,
though sometimes at Campana Lodge or Chamber of the Forest instead of at
Tideswell.
In several of the larger forests, and notably in Peak Forest, there were
hereditary foresters-of-fee. In this case, when the question of their
origin came up at forest pleas, they always claimed to date back to the
times of William Peverel. There were a certain number—originally four,
though afterwards subdivided—for each of the three great bailiwicks
of the Peak Forest who held certain bovates of land in serjeanty,
discharging their obligations in one case by the hunting of wolves (see
chapter iv.), and in the others by some amount of forest supervision.
In two of the three bailiwicks they had sworn grooms or servants under
them. This kind of forestership could be held by women and by clerks,
but the duties had then to be discharged by deputy. The foresters-of-fee
were bound to attend all courts, even the frequent swainmotes of their
bailiwick, in person or by authorised sworn deputy.
The tenure by which such foresters held their land is made clear by
divers inquisitions after death. Adam Gomfrey, 32 Edward I., died
seized of a messuage and fifteen acres at Wormhill held _per servicium
custodiendi pecci forestam_. Walter de Nevil, 34 Edward I., died seized
of thirty acres at Wormhill held _per servicium custodiendi forestam_.
Nicholas Foljambe, at his death, 13 Edward II., held a messuage and
thirty acres by the serjeanty of keeping the king’s forest of Campana,
in the Peak, _per corpus suum cum arcu et sagittis_. Thomas Foljambe, 17
Edward II., held fifteen acres at Wormhill, by the service of finding
a footman with bow and arrows to keep the Peak Forest. Maria Hansted,
11 Edward III., held land at Blackbrook, Fairfield, Hope, etc., _per
custodiendi wardam de Hopedale in foresta de Pecco_.
On the numerous early incised slabs that are found in Derbyshire churches
in the neighbourhood or within the bounds of Peak Forest, dating from the
time of Henry II. to Henry III., there are not a few symbols that betoken
slabs which are obviously memorials of forest ministers. The horn of a
forester appears at the base of an incised cross at Darley Dale, which
has a sword on the sinister side. At Wirksworth is an earlier one, with
a belted bugle horn on one side of the cross, and a sword on the other.
At Hope there is a third early slab with a sword on one side and a belted
bugle horn, with an arrow below it, on the other. In each of these cases
the burial of a forester-of-fee is denoted, the sword (which had no
forest signification) probably denoting knightly rank. At the unhappy and
wholly unnecessary demolition of Hope chancel another cross slab, with
only a stringed bugle-horn on the dexter side, was also brought to light.
Among the large collection of early incised slabs at Bakewell is one
on which a bow is denoted by a curved line on the sinister side of the
cross-stem, the stem serving as the bow-string; a small arrow projects
from the string.
A square-headed axe laid athwart the cross-stem appears on slabs at
Chelmorton and Killamarsh, probably denoting a verderer, or head
woodward, or “axe-bearer.” The ordinary woodward, and in some forests the
verderer, only bore a small lopping axe or bill-hook, and not a felling
axe. Such billhooks appear on early incised slabs at Sutton-in-the-Dale
and North Wingfield.
Examples of the Derbyshire incised slabs to forest ministers have been
illustrated in chapter iii.
There is a peculiarly interesting brass in Dronfield Church to Thomas
Gomfrey, rector, who died in 1389, and his brother, Richard Gomfrey,
rector of Tatershall. On the brass is a forester’s horn. Thomas was
hereditary forester-of-fee; he was the great grandson of Adam Gomfrey,
forester of Campana at the eyre of 1286.
The abundance of deer in this forest in Norman days seems to have been
something astonishing. Giraldus Cambrensis tells us that in his days
(_nostris diebus_), _c._ 1194, the number of the deer was so great in
the Peak district that they trampled both dogs and men to death in the
impetuosity of their flight.
In the extensive grant of lands and church at Glossop in Longdendale
by Henry II. to the Flintshire abbey of Basingwerk, the king reserved
to himself the venison, but allowed the abbot’s tenants to take hares,
foxes, and wolves.
The accounts rendered by Robert de Ashbourn, bailiff of the forest and
castle of the Peak, for the year 1235-6, are of much interest. The
receipts amounted to £201 2_s._ 10½_d._, whilst the expenses were £184
12_s._ 7_d._ In this year the king visited Peak Castle, when bailiff
Ashbourn, as lord of the jurisdiction, presented him with four wild
boars and forty-two geese, and charged 16_s._ 3½_d._ for the same in his
accounts. The castle that year underwent considerable repairs. £10 1_s._
8_d._ from the pleas of the hundred or wapentake court were among the
receipts, and we suppose that the sums of £6 19_s._ 4_d._ and £39 19_s._
6_d._ from the respective itineraries through the demesnes and forests,
represent the fines, etc., accruing respectively from the manorial and
the swainmote courts. This is the earliest known detailed document of the
Peak jurisdiction.
Forest pleas were expected to be held at least every seven years, but the
Peak Forest is one of the numerous cases in which far longer intervals
occurred. The forest justices held their eyre for the Peak in 1216. This
was followed by an interval of thirty-five years, for the next pleas were
not held until 1251. Of these pleas, held before Geoffrey Langley and
other justices, very full records are extant.
The following were the bailiffs of the honor of the Peak during
the period covered by this eyre: William Ferrers, Earl of Derby,
1216-22; Brian de Insula, 1222-28; Robert de Lexington, 1228-33; Ralph
Fitz-Nicholas, 1233-34; John Goband, 1234-37; Thomas de Furnival, 1237
(for six months); Warner Engaine, 1237-42; John de Grey, 1242-48; and
William de Horsenden, 1249. They were appointed by Crown patents.
The presentment of venison trespasses were made by the hereditary
foresters and the verderers. This roll is headed by the wholesale charge
made against William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby (who had died in 1246), in
conjunction with Ralph de Beaufoy, of Trusley, William May, the earl’s
huntsman, Richard Curzon, of Chaddesden, and Henry de Elton, of having
taken in the king’s forest of the Peak, during the six years when the
earl was bailiff (1216-22), upwards of 2,000 head of game (deer). Ralph,
Robert, and Henry appeared, and on conviction were imprisoned; but they
were released on paying heavy fines, and finding twelve mainpernors for
their good conduct. Robert Curzon was fined £40; the first of his twelve
mainpernors was William Curzon, of Croxall. Ralph Beaufoy was fined
£10; the first of his mainpernors was Sir William de Meysam. May, the
huntsman, did not appear; it was reported he was in Norfolk, and the
justices ordered him to be attached. If the full actual pleadings were
extant, there can be no doubt, judging from the customs of other forests,
that the companions of the earl would have been able to show that a
considerable percentage of the deer taken when he held office were fee
deer, to which he was entitled by usage for himself and his deputies,
and that many others were the usual and recognised gifts to the country
gentlemen of the district to secure their goodwill towards the king’s
forest. It must be remembered that it was always customary at these eyres
to present lists of all the deer killed, including those taken by express
warrant or custom. Nevertheless, there was obviously something quite
unwarrantable in the amount taken during that period (over 300 a year),
as is shown by the heavy fines imposed upon the hunting comrades of the
deceased earl.
Many of the other offenders were men of considerable position. Thus
Thomas Gresley, Alan his brother, Ralph Hamilton, the Earl of Arundel,
and Geoffrey de Nottingham were convicted of taking three harts and two
hinds.
Four or five of these charges, which exceeded one hundred in number,
related to clergy. One of the most important cases was that of Roger
de Weseham, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1245-57). The bishop was
charged together with William the vicar of Glossop, Archdeacon Adam de
Staniford, and five others, all apparently of his company, with taking
a hind in the forest. The bishop was summoned with the rest to appear
before the justices, but the result appears to have been that the vicar
of Glossop was the only one punished; he was fined ten marks, and had to
find twelve mainpernors. One of the company was John the clerk, and he
was an unknown monk. Had the pleadings been preserved in full, it would
probably have been shown that the bishop pleaded the forest charter,
whereby it was allowed to any bishop, baron, or earl to take one or two
head of game in passing through a royal forest, provided it was done
openly. The like justification might possibly have been put forward by
several barons whose names appear as venison trespassers.
Those who were considered responsible for the escape of prisoners on
venison charges from Peak Castle were held liable at these forest pleas.
When John de Grey was bailiff of the Peak, Martin the shoemaker of
Castleton, and another, were charged with the unwarrantable possession of
a deerskin, and were committed to prison. They escaped, or were liberated
without the intervention of a forest justice, therefore the bailiff was
held in mercy; the offenders did not appear, and were outlawed. John
Goband, an earlier bailiff, was also held in mercy for a like offence.
Simon de Weyley, who took a stag during the bailiffship of Robert de
Lexington (1228-33), gave the bailiff five marks to secure his release.
Lexington was dead; but, on the offence being proved, the justices held
that his heirs were held responsible.
Baron William de Vesci, with four others, was charged with taking
three harts in the forest. One of the company, John de Andville, was
on pilgrimage in the Holy Land at the time of the eyre, and could not
appear. The baron had protested to the verderers at the time of the
charge that he took the game by the king’s gift; he brought to the eyre
the royal letter and the charge was withdrawn. In two other cases royal
pardons were produced to the justices.
The fines imposed for venison trespasses varied at this eyre from £100
to 13_s._ 4_d._, and seemed to have been proportioned in accordance with
the position of the offender, as well as the comparative gravity of the
offence. The long intervals between the eyres, and the frequent changes
of the forest custodian, together with the wildness of the country,
seemed to have led to the Peak Forest being hunted, with a certain amount
of impunity, by not a few of the nobility and gentry of Derbyshire, and
of the adjacent parts of Yorkshire and Cheshire. The game trespasses at
this eyre were entirely for red deer, save for the single instance of
a presentment against Robert de Wurth for killing a roebuck, for which
offence the huge fine of £100 was imposed. The amount of this fine
had nothing to do with the nature of the game, but was caused by the
non-appearance of the accused, accompanied probably by some aggravating
circumstances not recorded on the brief entry on the plea rolls. At the
next pleas (1286) the justices imposed a like enormous fine of £100 in
the case of John Clarel, who did not appear, on the charge of taking
a hart, adding to the record words which do not elsewhere appear—_si
placeat domino rege_—as though to mark its exceptional nature.
When the justices at the 1251 pleas came to the consideration of vert
offences and encroachments various particulars were missing. Mathew de
Langesdon and Adam de Stanton, hereditary verderers, were each fined
20_s._ for not producing their father’s rolls. There seems to have been
much carelessness among the various officials in the keeping of their
respective yearly lists of offences. Peter del Hurst, regarder of one
section of the Peak Forest, was fined 10_s._ for the non-presentment
of assarts and purprestures in his rolls. A considerable number of
agisters were at the same time declared in mercy for not producing their
agistment rolls according to the custom and assize of the forest. There
is, however, a fairly long list of vert offences (about sixty) that had
accrued within the Crown demesnes since 1218, the damage done being in
most cases valued at 6_d._ Richard de Smallcross, who had been fined
6_d._ at the swainmote for the value of a vert offence in the demesne
park, had now to pay a fine of 6_s._ 8_d._ and to obtain pledges. Richard
de Redescaye, who had paid a value fine of 12_d._, was also fined 6_s._
8_d._ by the justices. The majority of the offenders—the offences were
probably trifling—had simply to find pledges for their future observance
of the forest assize. Heirs were held responsible for their father’s
offences in two or three cases. Many of these vert trespassers were of
good position. The worst case at this eyre was that of Roger Foljambe,
who was fined the large sum of twenty marks for many transgressions;
his pledges were John Foljambe and Warner Coterell. In this roll of
transgressors the clergy, especially the religious, were largely
represented. The number included the abbots of Basingwerk, Dieulacres,
Lilleshall, Merivale, Roche, and Welbeck, the prior of Lenton, and
William, vicar of Glossop. The vicar’s case must have been a serious one,
for the value payment was £3 and the fine 40_s._ Another and much shorter
roll gave the vert offenders within the forest limits but outside the
demesne.
In the first roll of assarts presented at this Peak eyre, on which
twenty-two cases are entered, two of these assarts that had been made
without warrant many years before were taken into the king’s hands; and
in one case, where William the smith (deceased) had made an assart of
three acres without warrant in the liberty of the abbot of Basingwerk in
the days of Robert de Lexington (1228-33), the then abbot was allowed to
retain it as tenant. It was a dire offence, whether the assart was within
the forest or only in the regard or purlieus, to enclose with so stout
or high a fence that the deer were excluded. The abbot of Basingwerk, in
the time of John de Grey, was reported as having assarted one and a half
acres at Whitfield without the demesne, and enclosed it so as to prevent
the free roving of the deer and their fawns, and this without warrant;
at the time when the justices were sitting the fence had been removed,
but it was declared in the hands of the king. The usual custom in the
Peak at this time seems to have been for the tenant of an assart to pay
4_d._ an acre to the Crown, and at the time of the assart being made to
pay a fine to the bailiff for the warrant. In a list of assarts allowed
by Warner Engaine at 4_d._ an acre, the following are the proportions and
the fines in six consecutive cases: 1 acre, 2_s._ fine; 4 acres, 6_s._
fine; 1 acre, 2_s._ 8_d._ fine; 3 acres, 6_s._ fine; 2 acres, 4_s._ fine;
and 3 acres, 3_s._ fine. When the tenants of Peak Forest assarts died,
their heirs paid double rent for the first year, and the king had also
the second best beast, the first going to the Church. These Peak assarts,
which were very numerous at this date, were for the most part small,
averaging about 5 or 6 acres; they varied from 60 acres to ½ acre.
The purprestures presented at this eyre were the rolls of new houses
built since the last pleas of 1216. One hundred and thirty-one persons
had built new houses without warrant, and were therefore in mercy—that
is, liable to fines. In almost a like number of cases, namely, one
hundred and twenty-seven, new houses had been raised within the king’s
demesnes with the licence of the bailiff. An average increase of eight
new houses a year during the first thirty-five years of Henry III.’s
reign speaks well as to the degree of prosperity then enjoyed by the
forest of the Peak.
The mineral and turbary rights of this forest also came under review
at this eyre. Earl Ferrers received £15 during the six years that he
held the Peak bailiwick from the minerals raised at Tideswell: Brian
de Insula, £12, during his five years; Robert de Lexington, £40 in six
years; Ralph Fitz-Nicholas, £5 in one year; John Goband, £7 in three
years; Warner Engaine, £12 10_s._ in five years; John de Grey, £15 in six
years; and William de Horsenden, 50_s._ per annum. The minerals raised
at Wardlow produced £12 for Earl Ferrers, £10 for Brian de Insula, £12
for Robert de Lexington, £2 for Ralph Fitz-Nicholas, £4 for John Goband,
£8 10_s._ for Warner Engaine, £8 for John de Grey, and 30_s._ a year for
William de Horsenden. John de Grey took twenty marks of cheminage or road
toll to the mines during his term of office; but this was not done by any
other bailiff. John de Grey also made certain stone quarries, from which
he received 16_d._ profit in two years.
Under turbary it is mentioned that the townships of Hucklow, Tideswell,
Wormhill, Toftes, Buxton, Bowden, Aston, and Thornhill took turves
without requiring licence.
Another source of profit to the bailiffs was on escaped cattle: under
this head Earl Ferrers took £12, Brian de Insula £10, Robert de Lexington
£12, Ralph Fitz-Nicholas £2, John Goband £6, Warner Engaine £10, John de
Grey £12, and William de Horsenden £1 yearly.
One other fact recorded on the rolls of this eyre remains for notice:
it is with regard to the horse-breeding establishments of the forest.
The term used for this in the Peak, Needwood, and other forests is
_Equitium_, for which it does not seem possible to find any single-word
English equivalent, unless it is stud. The abbot of Welbeck had one stud
of twenty horses and twenty mares in the forest at Cruchell, where King
John had given the canons charter rights. The abbot of Merivale had kept
a stud of sixteen mares with their foals for six years, to the damage to
the king of 20_s._ The abbot of Basingwerk had a stud of twenty mares for
two years, damage 20_s._ William de Roch had seven mares and foals for
one year, 20_s._ Thomas Foljambe, senior, had seven mares, damage 13_s._
4_d._; Thomas had died and the heirs had to respond.
Bailiff Bernake’s accounts of the year 1255-6, already cited in
reference to wolves, are also interesting on account of the gifts that
he made to the Campana Lodge or Chamber of the Forest. To the chapel he
gave a sufficient vestment, an albe, an amyce, a sufficient rochet, a
super-altar, an altar cloth made out of an old chasuble, a silver chalice
gilded inside, and an old missal and a gradual. To the hall he gave five
tables, six old small shields, and a chessboard; also two tuns of wine,
one full and the other having a depth of twelve inches. He also presented
various utensils to the kitchen.
On 12th July, 1285, the sheriff of Derbyshire was ordered to cause a
regard to be taken of the Peak Forest before Michaelmas, preparatory
to the holding of the forest pleas; and on 1st August he was further
instructed to issue summons of an eyre for forest pleas, to be held at
Derby to all concerned, save Brother William de Henley, prior to the
Hospitallers and Edmund the king’s brother, who were excused attendance.
Thirty-four years had passed by since the last eyre was held. The pleas
of the forest were held at Derby on 30th September, 1285, before Roger
Lestrange, Peter de Leach, and John Fitz-Nigel, justices of the forest.
The full rolls of this eyre are also extant at the Public Record Office.
From the rolls then produced we are able to continue the list of bailiffs
from the time of the last eyre. William de Horsenden, 1251; Ralph Bugg,
1252; Ivo de Elynton, 1253; Richard de Vernon, 1254; Gervase de Bernake,
1255; Thomas de Orreby, 1256; Richard le Ragged, 1257; William de
Findern, 1258; Thomas de Furnival, 1264; Roger Lestrange, 1274; Thomas
Foljambe, 1277; Thomas de Normanville, 1277; Thomas de Furnival, 1279;
Thomas le Ragged, 1280; Thomas Foljambe, 1281; and Robert Bozon, 1283.
The Campana foresters-of-fee of that date were John Daniel, Thomas le
Archer, Thomas son of Thomas Foljambe, a minor in the custody of Thomas
de Gretton; Nicholas Foljambe, who had been a minor in the custody of
Henry de Medue, but was then of full age; and Adam Gomfrey. Of these
foresters, Adam Gomfrey and Thomas Foljambe held jointly the same bovate,
which had formerly been divided between two brothers. Also Thomas
Foljambe and John le Wolfhunte held another bovate in the same way,
John holding his half by hereditary descent, whilst Thomas Foljambe,
senior, had acquired his half by marriage with Katherine, daughter of
Hugh de Mirhaud. This subdivision of serjeanties became burdensome to
the district, as each forester-of-fee endeavoured to have a servant
maintained at the expense of the tenants, but the jurors confirmed a
decision of the hundred court of 1275 to the effect that there could be
only four such servants or officers, according to ancient custom, for the
Campana bailiwick. The names of the foresters-of-fee for the two other
wards are also set forth.
Although a considerable proportion of the offenders were dead before the
eyre was held, the rolls of venison and vert trespassers show no fewer
than 517 separate charges extending over the thirty-four years since the
last pleas.
The gravest charge at this eyre, as at the last, was against an Earl
of Derby. Robert Earl Ferrers was presented for having, in 1264, with
a great company of knights and other persons of position, hunted in
the Campana forest on 7th July and taken forty head of deer, and drove
another forty out of the forest; and on 1st August took fifty and drove
away about seventy; and again on 29th September took forty and drove
away a like number. This hunting was planned on a wholesale scale, for
thirty-eight are named in the presentment, and there were many others,
as well as the earl himself, who were dead before the eyre was held, and
others not summoned as they were mere servants of the earl. Eight out
of the thirty-eight were knights, and one, Master Nicholas de Marnham,
rector of Doddington, Lincoln, was in holy orders. Of those in the
earl’s train during these three forest affrays hardly any bore Derbyshire
names, but came from the counties of Warwick, Leicestershire, Lancashire,
York, Cambridge, etc. It has been strangely enough remarked by the only
writer who has hitherto cited these presentments (Mr. Yeatman) that
“these tremendous charges,” made long after the earl was dead, “are
utterly incomprehensible,” adding that it seems impossible to suppose
that the earl had not full licence from the Crown to indulge in hunting
in the royal forest! But this writer had clearly forgotten the date
of these forest invasions of the young and impetuous Earl Ferrers. It
was in 1264, in the very thick of the baronial civil war under Simon
de Montfort, of whose cause Robert Ferrers was a hot partisan. On 12th
May was fought the battle of Lewes, when the king’s forces under Prince
Edward (Edward I.) were defeated by those of the barons. For two or
three years from that date, as an old chronicler has it, “there was
grievous perturbation in the centre of the realm,” in which Derbyshire
pre-eminently shared. There can be no doubt whatever that the three
incursions made into the Peak Forest in July, August, and September,
following the battle of Lewes, were undertaken by Robert Ferrers and his
allies (issuing forth from his great manor-house of Hartington) much more
to show contempt for the king’s forest and preserves and to get booty
than for any purposes of sport. These presentments, if they did nothing
else, were a strong protest against the lawlessness of such action. In
April of this year Henry III. had come into Derbyshire and lodged for a
time at the castle of the Peak after the subjection of Nottingham, and it
was from here that he proceeded into Kent and Sussex.
The king’s sojourn here before the battle of Lewes is expressly named
in another presentment against Thomas de Furnival, the great Lord of
Sheffield. Thomas, who was that year bailiff of the Peak, entertained the
king at the castle and tarried there until Whitsuntide. On this occasion,
after the king had left, the bailiff entered the forest and killed twelve
beasts. On various subsequent occasions, both in the reign of Henry III.
and Edward I., venison was killed in this forest and taken to Thomas de
Furnival’s castle at Sheffield. Thomas appeared before the justices,
and was convicted and imprisoned, but was subsequently released at the
king’s pleasure for a fine of 200 marks.
Edward I. made his chace (_facit chaceam suam_) in the forest in 1275.
At that time Thomas Fitz-Nicholas and Richard Fitz-Godfrey of Monyash
went into the forest with the king’s hounds and carried off some of
the venison to their own houses. Whereupon William le Wynn, Lord of
Monyash, whose tenants they were, summoned them to his manorial court,
where Thomas was fined 4_s._ and Richard 6_s._ 8_d._ For this illegal
adjudication in case of venison trespass William le Wynn was presented
by the foresters, and the justices fined him 20_s._, and required him to
find pledges of future observance of the assize of the forest.
At a swainmote held at Chapel-en-le-Frith in March, 1280, William
Foljambe appeared before Thomas le Ragged, the bailiff, and presented
that Henry de Medue took a doe with a certain black greyhound called
“Collyng” at Camhead, undertaking to verify the charge in a penalty of
100 marks; Henry denied the charge, and retorted that William Foljambe
and his brother-in-law, Gregory, with the aid of his servants and
shepherds at Martinside, Weston, and Wormhill, had destroyed a hundred
head of game, and undertook to prove it under a like penalty. The jury
at the forest pleas found Henry guilty, and he was fined £5. William and
his company were found not guilty of taking a hundred, but guilty of
taking twenty; he was fined 20 marks. Collyng was evidently a well-known
greyhound; the name occurs in another presentment of a different date
against Thomas Medue.
In the Peak Forest, as elsewhere, foresters-of-fee, as well as their
servants or under-foresters, were now and again convicted of venison
trespass. Thus Robert de Milner, at the time when he was a forester
of Longdendale, took over twenty head of game and carried them to his
father’s house; not appearing at the eyre, he was outlawed. John Pycard,
a forester under Milner, was also convicted of killing six deer. Ten
other foresters-of-fee were fined during this eyre.
A succession of bailiffs, in addition to Thomas de Furnival, were
convicted of venison or cognate offences, or the improper release of
offenders.
The offences, both of vert and venison trespass and of agistment, proved
against the large majority of the hereditary foresters-of-fee, and
against so many of the highest position in the district and county, shows
that there was very little moral stigma attached at that time to forest
transgressions in the Peak. In no other forest district does there seem
to have been quite so much laxity. This exceptionally bad feature of the
Peak Forest probably arose from the long-continued state turmoil of so
much of the period between the two eyres of 1250 and 1286 throughout this
district, which brought about great laxity of administration. After these
foresters had been duly convicted and fined for many transgressions,
their respective bailiwicks, because of their poverty, were not
forfeited, but taken into the king’s hands to be replevied at his will
when the required fine had been paid. The justices were authorised to
reinstate them in their offices during the king’s pleasure, whilst the
fines were being paid, if they saw just cause, and in several cases the
penalties were reduced.
As examples of instances of convictions of men of considerable position,
the following may be mentioned: Peter de Gresley, who had to pay £20 for
the single offence of killing a doe in 1268; John lord of Queenbury,
Yorks, £20; and John lord of Shipley, 40_s._ Other offenders were Sir
Stephen le Waleys, William Bagshawe, and Thomas, Henry, and William
Foljambe.
There were, of course, various venison offences committed by men in
humbler positions, but these seem to have been quite the exception.
Michael, son of Adam de Wormhill, was presented for having killed fawns
(of red deer) in the forest, and sold their skins in the open market.
The justices at this eyre were merciful, and had regard to poverty in
other besides the foresters-of-fee. Thus Richard de Baslow and Hebbe the
fisherman were in the company of Richard de Vernon, when he was bailiff
at the taking of venison for the king, and appropriated five head of
game to themselves. Baslow was fined 20_s._, but Hebbe, who admitted the
offence, was afterwards pardoned through the king’s mercy because he was
poor.
[Illustration: _PLATE XVIII_
FOXES (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)
DEER IN FOREST (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)
WOLVES (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)]
The vert charges of this eyre, particularly those that deal with the
wholesale damage of the king’s woods, charged against the respective
townships, are of special interest, as enabling us to see in detail that
the woodlands were then fairly numerous, although by far the largest
portion of the forest area was always clear of every kind of timber. The
woods were almost entirely of oak.
Full lists of assarts and purprestures that had occurred since 1261,
under the respective bailiffs, were also presented at the 1286 pleas.
As to horses, it was presented that the Queen Consort had a stud of 115
mares and their foals in Campana, to the great injury of the forest, but
that many had horses and mares in Campana under cover of their belonging
to the queen. Peter de Shatton, forester-of-fee, had eleven horses and
mares feeding in Campana, whose pasturage was rated at 2_s._ Nineteen
other foresters had horses or mares in various proportions, all claiming
to be part of the queen’s stud. They were all ordered to remove their
animals, and had to pay pasturage value, and in addition, fines varying
from 1_s._ to 4_s._, save in the cases of Adam Gomfrey, John Daniel, and
Cecily Foljambe, who were pardoned.
The ordinary vert rolls for such trespasses during the past thirty-five
years extended to a great length, embracing over 600 cases. The fines
were chiefly 1_s._, but extended to 2_s._ 6_d._, and in one case to 4_s._
Two of the offenders, Richard le Hunt and Walter Bigg, both of Castleton,
were excused any fine on the score of poverty.
The details of the farm stock for the year 1314-15 are particularly full,
especially with regard to the sheep, but space prevents them being given
here.
There are various references to the milking of ewes in the Peak accounts.
It is often forgotten how almost universal throughout England—but
more especially in Essex and the eastern counties—was the custom of
cheese-making from sheep’s milk from the time of Domesday to the days of
Elizabeth. It lingered to a far later date in some districts. The milk of
ten ewes was considered equivalent to that of one cow.
The bailiff of the Peak was allowed, within the forest limits, to keep a
limited number of sheep in certain defined places, and one or two herds
of cattle kept, as a rule, within enclosures, and only occasionally
pastured in the open. In later days, as will be presently seen, when the
pasturage was farmed out, it became a great temptation to the farmers to
increase their stocks, to the serious detriment of the deer. Temporary
booths or sheds were erected on the great upland pasture grounds of
the forest for the occasional use of the herdsmen of the vaccaries.
Particularly was this the case above Edale. This is the explanation of
the term “Booth” not infrequently found on the Ordnance Survey maps.
Near Edale may be noticed Booth, Barbery Booth, and Upper Booth; above
Hollinsclough is another Booth; and elsewhere occur Grindsbrook Booth,
Otterbrook Booth, and Netherbrook Booth. On the other hand, Oxhey and
Cowhey, on Ronksley Moor, Cowheys, near Ludworth, and Oxhay, near Eyam,
speak of definite enclosures for cattle.
The ministers’ accounts of the Duchy of Lancaster, from the reign of
Richard II. onwards, supply various interesting particulars as to
receipts and expenditure in administering the affairs of the forest and
bailiwick of the High Peak. The accounts for 1391-2, when Thomas de
Wednesley was receiver and bailiff, include, in addition to rents from
towns and wastes, and payments for a summer and winter herbage, for lead
ore, mills and fisheries, £6 13_s._ 4_d._ for passage and stallage and
toll for cows at Chapel-en-le-Frith, 25_s._ for pannage of pigs, and
37_s._ 6_d._ for agistment.
A court (_turnus_) was held at Tideswell on 1st August, 1398, under
Sir John Cokayne as chief steward, when the jury made presentments as
to lands of the abbeys of Basingwerk and Lilleshall and the priory
of Fenton. John de Sale, boothman (herdsman) of Edale, was presented
for receiving two marks for the sale of wood. Other charges were the
enclosing of a piece of waste at Whitehall bridge, and the making a weir
at Rydale. The foresters also presented several cases of venison trespass.
The main items of the accounts for 1404-5 closely approximate to the one
just cited, but there is a fresh sub-heading, namely, “new herbage,” for
which £30 was received. This must refer to some extensive new clearing
or assart; it was at Stokehill, in the Hopedale ward of the forest, and
is described as formerly pertaining to Welbeck abbey, but then to the
nuns of Derby. This year the perquisites or fines from the various courts
amounted to £56 11_s._ 2_d._ Two small but interesting items appear in
this year’s accounts, and are often subsequently repeated. One is called
_Broksylver_, or brook-silver, which was a payment made by lead miners
who washed their ore in the torrent (_torrens_) of Tideswell within
the fee; the sum for this year was 20_s._ The other is _Wodsylver_, or
woodsilver, which was a payment for billets of wood (perhaps used for
smelting) at 4_d._ a 100; this year they numbered 500, and the payment
was 1_s._ 8_d._
The expenses and salaries of this year amounted to £319 5_s._ 10½_d._,
which left a balance of £66 12_s._ 11¾_d._ A heavy item in the expenses
was the building of a new mill at Maynestonfield, £12 4_s._ 1_d._ There
were also repairs of the mills at Hayfield and Castleton, whilst a pair
of millstones for Beard cost 10_s._ A small item of some interest is
2_d._ for a key to the door of the toll-booth at Chapel.
The accounts for 1435-6 include rents for lands called “Wynlandes”
(spelt “Wynnelandes” and “Wenlandes” in other accounts). From this and
subsequent statements it appears that the payments or rents for these
Wynlands came from places such as Monyash, Chelmorton, Overhaddon,
Bakewell, Ashover, etc., which were on the verge of the forest, and
sometimes in other hundreds (Wirksworth and Scarsdale) outside the limits
of the High Peak. The word naturally suggests, to forest students, the
Venlands of Dartmoor, which were the parts adjacent to the moor proper.
The Venland parishes paid a composition to the Duchy of Cornwall to cover
the straying of their cattle and stock over the bounds into Dartmoor
forests. In like manner these Wynland or Venland districts round the
Peak Forest appear to have at this time paid some due or assigned some
rents for a like reason to the Duchy of Lancaster. In 1439-40 Sir Richard
Vernon (who had been appointed bailiff of the High Peak and master
forester in 1422) enters on the back of his accounts proper his receipts
as bailiff of the lands called Wynnelandes, which amounted that year to
£88 1_s._
At a later date, this word appears as “Wydelands” and “Widlands,” and
once as “Widelands,” which may be taken to signify the lands wide of the
forest centre.
In 1440-1, three hundred shingles were provided at a cost of 16_s._ 6_d._
and shingle nails at 18_d._ for re-roofing the _Camera in campana_ or
Chamber in the Forest. In the following year the large sum of £7 0_s._
11_d._ was spent on repairing with specially cut piles the great pond
(_stagnum_) of the Campana. This pond still remains.
In 1448-9 Sir Richard Vernon was still bailiff and master forester. The
receipts (including balance) for that year amounted to £445 2_s._ 5¾_d._
Walter Blount was bailiff in 1456-7. The lead ore, together with the
market tolls at Tideswell paid by the Sir Sampson Meverell, and the farm
of the fishery of the Wye, realised £14 1_s._ In 1460-1 Walter Blount was
still bailiff, but he was at that date knighted.
Sir William Hastings, Sir John Savage, junr., and Thurston Allen were the
next successive bailiffs.
A singular appointment was made by Henry VII. in March, 1503, to the
joint offices of bailiff, receiver, collector, and barmaster of the High
Peak. The person appointed was Thomas Savage, Archbishop of York; of
course, he only exercised these not very lucrative offices by deputy;
indeed, the patent gives him authority to discharge his duties by deputy
in the same way as had been done by his predecessor, Thurston Allen.
At the same time Sir Richard Savage was appointed constable of Peak,
master forester of Peak Forest, and steward of both castle and forest
at a salary of £18 18_s._ 4_d._ a year to be paid him by his kinsman,
the archbishop, as receiver. In the following year Thomas Babington was
appointed sub-steward.
Three years later the different offices were again reassorted and to
some extent amalgamated, for Sir Henry Vernon, in November, 1507, was
appointed steward, bailiff, and master forester. In the following
January, James Worsley was appointed “Boweberer infra forestam de Peke”
during pleasure.
Among the Belvoir MSS. is the roll of a swainmote held at
Chapel-en-le-Frith, in October, 1497. The foresters made various
presentments of venison trespass. In six cases the offenders were charged
with killing a “cornilu.”[1]
An undated complaint, _temp._ Henry VII., addressed to the chancellor of
the duchy, is of much interest as showing the power of the deputy steward
of the Peak and the use made of the castle as a prison:—
“To the Right Honorable Sir Reynold Bray, Knyght Chauncelor of
the Duchie of Lancastre.
“Mekly compleanayth unto your good maistership your dayly
orator Richard Hall of Hop that when your said orator came unto
your debite Steward of the high peke John Savage to shew unto
hym howe that on of his servauntes called Randall Lee and oon
Thomas Slake servaunt to Robert Ayer had apeched ather other
of fellony as well for stellyng of horses and mayres as of
shep to the entent the said mysdoers myght have ben ponyshed
accordyng unto the kynges lawes and pore men’s goodes in the
countre to go in pese by them the said John Savage not wyllyng
to her the trewyth nor to do justice comyth your said besecher
for his seth saying to the Castell of Peke and ther remaned by
the space of iii weks and more and wold not suffer his wyfe nor
other or his frendes to bryng hym mete nor drynke but caused
hym to by it of the Constabill depute to his grete coste and
charge. And on this your said besecher axed Surtes of the
pece as well of the said Randall Lee as of the said Thomas
Slake afore the said John Savage. And he that notwithstandyng
suffered them to departe withoute any Surtes fyndyng to the
grete juberdy of the lyf of your said besecher withoute a
Remedy may be had in that behalfe. And fordermore your said
orator offered the said John Savage Surtes to answer to all men
that cold lay anything to his charge which he refused saying
it was your comandement that he should be comytt to the said
Castell and so he was ther withoute Remedy but that it pleasit
your good maistership to comaund the said John Savage by your
wrytyng to suffer hym to go atte large and to apere afore you
atte the octave of seint Martyn and also to bring up all suche
persones as cold lay anythyng against your said besecher. And
on this Robert Savage and Richard Gresham which is Curte Clarke
to the said John Savage syttyng in an Alehouse atte Hope and
uppon non curte day but atte ther owen will amersed your said
besecher in Cˢ. And for what cause he cane not tell. Besechyng
you atte the reverence of God and in way of Charite the
premisses tenderly concederyd that as well the said indytements
as all other thynges that any man cane lay to his charge may be
examined nowe afore you. And yf he be founde in any defaute he
wyll submytt hym unto your correction and yf he be note That
then those that hath done evyll to hym may be ponnyshed and
make hym amends for the grete harmys and wronge exacion that
they have done to hym agaynst all right and good concyence and
this atte the reverence of God and in way of Charyte. And your
said besecher shall ever pray to God for the good preservation
of your good maistership long to endure.”[2]
At the same time, Robert Hollingworth, of Bowden, complained to the
chancellor that one John Bromall, a servant of John Savage’s, “a
myschiefes man and outlawed for dyvers murdores and fellones,” at
Savage’s instigation, put out the complainant from his house and lands
which he held of the king by chief rent, and threatened to kill him if he
tried to claim it. Also that John Shallcross, bailiff of the High Peak,
George Bagshawe, and other servants of Savage’s, pulled down the floors
of his house, damaged the walls, carried off divers “grete arkes and
coffers,” tables, household furniture, and other “erlomes.” He had sought
to obtain redress from John Savage, but in vain, and was in danger of his
life if he ventured into that part of the country.
Sir John Savage’s answer to this charge is filed. It is to the effect
that Hollingworth was attainted of felony, and that Savage, as steward,
thereupon seized the house and land and transferred the tenancy to
Bromall.[3]
During the reign of Henry VIII. two great courts of attachment for the
whole forest were held yearly at Tideswell in August and October, as
well as various smaller courts, of which many records are extant. At
the great courts all the foresters-of-fee of the three wards had to be
present personally or by deputy. At a great court of attachment held in
October, 1515, twelve offenders were fined for lopping trees in the woods
of Ashop and Edale. One of these, John Marshall, was fined the heavy sum
of 6_s._ 8_d._; and another, Edward Barbour, 13_s._ 4_d._ The entries
are very brief, and the aggravating circumstances concerning these two
transgressions are not named.
Smaller courts for the Campana ward were held at Tideswell on 30th
November, 1518, and on 27th March, 1519. At the former there were no
presentations; at the latter four vert transgressors were fined for
lopping in the aggregate sum of 14_d._
The names of the foresters attending a great court of attachment for the
whole forest, held at Tideswell on October, 1524, are given in full.
Another great court of attachment was held at Tideswell on 1st August,
1525.
The large number of seventy-four vert offenders were fined in sums
varying from 12_d._ to 2_d._, yielding a total of 34_s._ 2_d._ Among the
offenders were Thomas Pursglove, who was fined 8_d._, and Edward Barber,
vicar of Hope.
In the midst of this reign, the evil results of letting out or leasing
the herbage of the district, to be farmed by those who were not forest
ministers, became apparent, so far as the interests of maintaining a
deer forest were concerned. The king, in July, 1526, issued a commission
to Sir Thomas Cokayne and three others to inquire into the overstocking
of “our Forest of the Champion in the High Peak” more than was ever
wont with numbers of “capilles,[4] bestes, and shepe” by Henry Parker,
the farmer of the herbage, and his deputies, insomuch that there was no
grass left in the forest “for our game of dere,” and that thereby many of
the deer are like to perish in the coming winter through lack of meat.
The Commissioners were to inquire what number of cattle and sheep the
forest could maintain, and whether Parker had more than previous farmers;
also as to the number of the deer, and whether they had decreased under
Parker. The Commissioners met at the Chamber of the Forest, on 15th
September, and heard the following witnesses; Hugh Fretham, 30, deposed
that there were five herds of cattle within the forest, whereas aforetime
there were but two, and that the five herds numbered 903 beasts last
St. Thomas’s Day; that at the same time there were 4,000 sheep and 16
score “capilles.” Roger Wryght, deputy to George Barlowe, one of the
foresters-of-fee, said that there used to be but two herds, and now
five, and in all other respects confirmed the previous witness. William
Bagshawe, 34, Thomas Bewell, 46, Thomas Bagshawe, 26, also confirmed the
statement of the first witness.
The Commissioners further reported that they walked through the forest
and saw, that same day, 18 score of red deer, including calves; that
many of the deer were in very poor condition, and scarcely likely to
live over the coming winter; that the grass was much trampled and poor,
and that there was no competent sustenance for them; that it would be
well if sheep were kept out of the champagne of the forest, as they used
to be (for so they were assured by many persons); and that such action,
if enjoined on the farmer and those under him, would be of the greatest
service to the deer.
The attempts made by the chief forest ministers to keep down the sheep in
the interests of the deer brought them into various conflicts with the
tenants, the bolder of whom ventured to appeal to the chancellor of the
duchy.
In 1529, Allen Sutton, of Overhaddon, lodged a complaint, as one of the
duchy tenants, that on 22nd June, about midnight, one Richard Knolls
and William Pycroft, with other evilly disposed persons, servants of
Richard Savage, steward of Peak Castle, came to a little croft adjoining
his house and drove away seventy of his sheep, and also three of his
neighbour’s, and kept them to “this day” within the castle; and that he
could get no redress from the steward, who maintained these sheep and
declined to restore them. To this bill, William Pycroft, bailiff of the
High Peak, replied that the matter contained therein was “but feigned,
and only intended to put him to vexation and troble”; and that if it were
true, instead of being false, Sutton has his remedy at the common law of
the land. To this reply Sutton rejoined that his bill of complaint was
good and true in every point, and again prayed for restitution of his
goods.
Henry VIII., on 4th March, 1531, commissioned Sir Ralph Longford, John
Fitzherbert, Thomas Babington, John Agard, and Ralph Agard, to inquire
into diverse complaints made against Thomas Brown, William Pycroft,
Robert Folowe, and Allen Sutton, for very heinous and seditious matters.
Against Robert Folowe it was alleged that he was outlawed for murder, as
maintained by the Archbishop of York and others, but yet dwelt in the
High Peak; that felons and murderers were taken by Folowe and set in the
castle of the Peak, and then for a bribe let go again, of which sixteen
examples were given; that in two of these cases he received as much as
sixty sheep apiece from two prisoners; and that he found treasure trove
to the value of 100 marks and appropriated it. Robert Folowe, in reply
to this bill, filed an answer to the effect that he could make no reply
to the charge of outlawry, for it was not stated whom he had murdered,
nor at what time or place; and that he denied _seriatim_ every one of the
charges of releasing prisoners from Peak Castle for bribes, appealing to
God and his country.
In his answer to the bill of articles against him, William Pycroft denies
felling the king’s wood in Edale, Ashop, or any other place, or lopping
the same for his cattle or fire, or killing the king’s deer in the forest
of the High Peak. He further stated that he had for some time held the
office of bow-bearer of the forest, and through the due discharge of his
office had incurred the malice of certain persons, and he explicitly
denied that he had ever set under him any who had destroyed the king’s
woods or hurt the king’s deer.
Robert Folowe was at this time bailiff of the hundred of the High Peak,
and acted as deputy to Richard Savage, the steward of Peak Castle, under
Sir George Savage, the custodian. Another charge against Folowe was that
he had “withdrawn and taken out of the Castell” and appropriated to his
own use much furniture, such as tables, forms, bedsteads, lead and iron
vessels, and even “iiij wyndoose.” Some of the evidence taken on behalf
of Pycroft before the commission is extant, but the finding of the
Commissioners is lacking.
A great court of attachment was held at the Campana lodge on 13th
November, 1542. The new forester, Francis, Earl of Shrewsbury, who had
succeeded to the confiscated office of the abbot of Basingwerk, was
represented by Thomas Johnson. Reginald Pursglove was fined 6_d._ for
lopping green trees, and there were twenty-nine other like offenders. The
total of the day’s fines was 14_s._ 10_d._
A great court of attachment and swainmote for the High Peak was held at
Tideswell on 30th October, 1559. Hugh Needham, Edward Eyre, and George
Woodruff were the foresters who appeared in person; the rest all sent
deputies. Twenty-four offenders were fined for lopping trees and carrying
off undergrowth in Ashop wood. The first two names were Robert and
Lawrence Pursglove. At another like court, held at the same place on 2nd
May, 1567, twenty-one persons were fined for similar offences.
The disputes as to the respective rights of deer and sheep became more
intensified during the reign of Elizabeth. In 1561 Stephen Bagott, of
Hilton, Staffordshire, gentleman, occupier of the “Champyon of the Quenes
majesties forest of the Peaké,” by lease under Edward Lord Hastings,
of Loughborough, the queen’s farmer, complained to the chancellor (Sir
Ambrose Cave) that George Blackwell, Thomas Bagshawe, and other servants
of George Earl of Shrewsbury (Justice in Eyre of the Forest and High
Steward of the Honor of Tutbury), claimed, as foresters, to have rights
of herbage, pasture, turbary, and feeding for deer over the Champyon,
which was a part of the forest, “a verie barren country of wood or
tynsell,”[5] contrary to all ancient usage. Blackwell and the other
foresters, with their servants to the number of nineteen persons, were
definitely charged with having on Monday in Easter week, 4 and 5 Philip
and Mary, violently and by force of arms taken 400 wethers and 400 ewes,
some with lambs, feeding on the Champyon, and impounded them within
the castle of the Peak, and kept them there till the following Friday
without either meat or water, by reason of which impounding divers of the
wethers, ewes, and lambs died, causing damage to Bagott of £20 or more.
A further petition of the same Stephen Bagott complained that, in spite
of the orders of the court, Robert Eyre and other foresters continued to
molest the horses, mares, colts, and sheep feeding on the Champyon and
to impound them in Peak Castle, especially last Easter, with the result
of the loss of 500 sheep, in addition to the payment of heavy impounding
fees.
The defendants filed a reply to the effect that they were the servants of
the Earl of Shrewsbury, Justice in Eyre and High Steward of the Honor of
Tutbury, of which the champagne of Peak Forest was a parcel; that this
champagne was “the principall parte of the seid forest wherein the Quenes
majesties deer hath their onlye feedinge and sustenaunce”; that the earl,
riding through the forest on the last 4th of March, perceived a great
number of sheep depasturing on the champagne “wherebye the feedinge for
the seid dere is utterlye consumed, and therebye allso the said deare
forced to flee out of the seid forest for their relyfe whereas they be
killed and destroyed,” commanded Robert Eyre to drive these sheep to the
castle of the Peak; that this order was carried out without killing,
destroying, or hurting any of the sheep; that the sheep were only
impounded for half an hour, by which time Bagott’s shepherd and the other
owners claimed the same, paying, according to ancient custom, a penny for
every score.
Humphrey Barley, William Needham, Thomas Bagshawe, and William Bagshawe,
yeomen and foresters-of-fee, who had “charge custodye and looking unto
of all the Quenes Majesties games of warren and especially hir game of
Redd deare within the same forrest, and to answere for the defaults and
negligent kepinge of the same game of dere yf the same should be ympeyned
and destroyed,” reported in 1567 “that the game of redd deare in this the
forest hath bene much decayed about twoe yeares last past by reason of
two extreme wynters in the same yeares, and that through the extremetie
of the wether specyallye frost and snowe having no browse to helpe the
same dere, for that ytt ys a champion and playne place wherein no wood
groweth, manye of the said deare be dead and manye of them be strayed
into other foorests and places adjoynyng and are not herto retorned nor
to be recovered so that there remayneth not of rede deere in the said
forrest of all sortes eyther fallow male or rascall above the nomber
of xxx dere in all.” In consequence of this the foresters sent in this
statement lest they should be accused of negligence, and prayed the
chancellor (Sir Ralph Sadler) that a restraint may be had in hunting or
slaying the game by any warrant whatsoever for six years, until the red
deer be replenished to their former number, which was about 360, and to
signify the same restraint to the Earl of Shrewsbury, the queen’s master
of the game of Peak Forest.
A court of attachment held at Tideswell on 22nd October, 1566, and
fourteen vert offenders were fined, bringing in the aggregate sum of
4_s._ 2_d._ At the next court, held 28th April, 1567, 10_s._ 2_d._ was
the total of the fines.
In June, 1561 the queen issued a commission of inquiry as to the
condition of Peak Castle and Forest. So far as related to the latter, the
Commissioners were instructed—
“To view the heighte of one wall erected and made in or about
one parcell of one pasture called the Champion within our saide
foreste, how brode and depe the Dike in and about the same wall
is, whether the same dike be drye or standinge with water for
the most parte of the yere, and whether the deare maye easlye
enter in and owte to and fro the said pasture notwithstandinge
the said walle and dike, and whether the same wall and dyke be
noisome or hurtefull to or for our deare and game there, and to
thinderance of the grasse for our said deare, or be better for
the cherisshinge of our said game and deare there or not.”
They were also to report on the rights of pasturage for beasts and cattle
prevailing in the forest; whether the foresters “do diligently use and
keepe their walkes aboute the said Foreste,” or whether they use any part
of the fines raised at swainmotes for their own purposes; what oxgangs
they (the foresters) hold, and what cattle they pasture; whether they use
their own authority for excusing trespassers; and whether the pasturing
of sheep is not very hurtful to the deer.
One of the main results of this commission was that the Castle of the
Peak was spared for a time from demolition, and was put into a certain
kind of repair, mainly to enable it to serve as a forest prison; but
about the year 1585 the buildings suffered severely from fire. In June,
1589, the queen issued a further commission to William Agard, “our
particular receiver of the honor of Tutburie,” and another, reciting that
the castle had “by mischance within these five yeres been burned, and
by reason thereof become ruinous and decayed that it standeth void of
any use ... wherebefore yt was usuallie frequented and used for a prison
for offenders there.” The commissioners were directed to repair to the
castle without delay, calling to them such artificers and workmen as they
thought necessary, and to view all the decayed places, and to report how
far it would serve to be made a prison again, and what it would cost to
be repaired, and in that event what would the castle and site be worth to
be let by the year.
It was about this time that George Earl of Shrewsbury (he had been taken
again into favour by the queen in his old age in 1587; he died in
1590), was permitted to purchase part of the Longdendale district of the
Peak Forest, which was formally disafforested for the purpose. At this
date a large quaint map of the whole forest was prepared, showing great
parallelograms painted vermilion where there were pasturage rights, and
outline pictures of the towns. This big map was at some unknown date cut
up into sections; a part of it is missing, but the three main portions
are preserved at the Public Record Office. On the Ashop and Edale section
of the forest, five contiguous great patches of vermilion are shown, and
by them is written, “The Queenes Majestys farmes are divided into five
vacaries.” Near Glossop it is stated on the map that the greater part of
the forest there was then held by the Earl of Shrewsbury. A rectangular
patch, more to the west of the Longdendale division, is described: “The
herbage of Chynly otherwise called Maidstonfeld, God. Bradshawe and
others farmes.”
Gilbert, seventh Earl of Shrewsbury, was appointed chief-justice in eyre
of the forests north of the Trent by James I. in 1603, an office that
gave him oversight of the game. The earl, writing to his uncle, Sir John
Manners, from Sheffield Lodge, on 4th July, 1609, says: “I have sent you
a note to Mr. Tunsted for a stag in the Peak Forest, but I doubt if there
are any fat enough so early in the year.” In June, 1610, the Council sent
a letter to the earl, as justice in eyre beyond Trent, to prohibit the
inhabitants and borderers of the forests of the Peak from destroying moor
fowl and heath poults.
Among memoranda of business to be submitted to the Council in June, 1626,
occurs a petition from Francis Tunsted, who held a pension of £50 per
annum as bow-bearer in the High Peak and keeper of the moor game; but the
pension had not been paid for the last year, and he sought the king’s
order for its payment and continuance.
On 20th February, 1639, a warrant was issued to the chancellor of the
duchy to appoint fit persons to treat and compound with the freeholders,
tenants, and commoner of wastes and commons belonging to the hundred
and forest of High Peak, for granting the king’s right and interest of
soil. Just a year later a further warrant was issued to the chancellor to
compound for disafforesting all lands of the king’s within the honor and
forest of the Peak.
A large proportion of the duchy documents of the latter half of Charles
I.’s reign are missing, but from a much later document we are fortunately
able to give the true account of this disafforesting process for the
first time, and thus to correct a variety of contradictory and erroneous
statements that have hitherto been put forth on the subject.
In 1772 an inquiry was made as to the state of the king’s title to
timber, mines, and coal within the disafforested forest of the High Peak.
The outline history of the forest is correctly given in that report.
In 1635 the landowners and inhabitants within the forest petitioned the
king, complaining of the severity, trouble, and rigour of the forest
laws, and praying that the deer (which were in sufficient numbers to
do considerable damage to crops in the forest and its purlieus) might
be destroyed, and asking to be allowed to compound by enclosing and
improving the same. Thereupon the king issued a commission of inquiry
under the duchy seal, and directed that two juries should be impanelled,
appointing a surveyor to assist them. The first jury viewed the whole
forest and its purlieus, and presented that the king might improve and
enclose one moiety in consideration of his rights, and that the other
moiety should be enclosed by the tenants, commoners, and freeholders.
The other jury was impanelled to consider the question of the towns
within the purlieus, and they presented that the king, in view of the
largeness of the commons belonging to the towns of Chelmorton, Flagg,
Teddington, and Priestcliffe, might reasonably have for improvement and
enclosure one-third, and the remaining two-thirds for the commoners
and freeholders. Both Crown and inhabitants were well pleased with the
result. The commons were measured, and surveys made that divided the
lands into three sorts—best, middle, and worst—and the king’s share was
staked, and maps showing the results were drafted. The surveys were not
completed until 1640, and all the preliminaries having been adjusted,
the king caused all the deer to be destroyed or removed, and since
that date the report expressly states that there were never any deer
whatever within the High Peak Forest. The extirpation of the deer was
almost immediately followed by the beginning of “the troublous times”
that preceded the actual outbreak of the Civil War, and hence further
proceedings came for a time to an end.
Throughout the Commonwealth, though it had lost its deer, and though the
forest laws were upset, the Peak Forest remained as hitherto, and no
enclosures were carried out.
“A Survey of the Mannor and Lordship or Liberty of the High Peake with
the rights, members, and appurtenances thereof lyeing and being in the
county of Derby, late parcell of possessions of Charles Stuart, late King
of England in right of the Honor of Tutbury, parcell of his Duchy of
Lancaster,” was taken by order of Parliament in July, 1650.
The Commissioners reported that the chief rents due from freeholders,
“holding by Harryott Service and paying Harryott and holding in free
Socage,” amounted to £72 12_s._ 2¾_d._; chief rents from freeholders,
“not Harryottable,” £5 17_s._ 1_d._; rents of assize from copyholders, £3
14_s._ 7_d._; profits of tolls of four fairs at Chapel-en-le-Frith (on
Ascension Day, Thursday after Trinity Sunday, 7th of July, and Thursday
after Michaelmas Day), with the passage and stallage of these fairs, and
also the passage and through toll levied on packs and carriages passing
at Hayfield and Whaley Bridge, £7; perquisites and profits of Court Leets
and Court Barons, £24; waifs, strays, and felons’ goods and deodands, £5;
fisheries, 20_s._; fowlings, hawkings, and huntings, 20_s._
They further reported that King Charles, in February, 1636, had demised
to Walter Vernon all perquisites and amercements of two court leets and
fifteen small courts to be held yearly, and all heriots and reliefs for
thirty-one years at a rental of £10.
An additional report was made in July 1652, “of all such Remaine of Rents
now unsold belonging to ye mannor Lordship Liberty and Hundred of ye High
Peake alias the Wapentake of ye High Peake ... commonly called Cheife
Rents money, palfry money, Turbary money, Common Fine silver, & Tything
silver.” These rents were estimated at £15 6_s._ 7_d._ a year; they were
proportionate payments from the various townships. A simple payment for
palfrey money is entered against all the townships; such are Whitfield
and Chisworth, 1_s._ 10½_d._; Hayfield and Dinting, 1_s._ 3_d._;
Tideswell, 2_s._ 6_d._; and Hassop, 5_s._ In addition, Tideswell paid
5_s._; Haslebache, 2_s._ 6_d._; and Litton and Wardlow, each 3_s._ 4_d._
for turbary; whilst Little Hucklow stands alone with 1_s._ for common
silver. The Parliamentary trustees had sold the forest rights named in
the previous report to “Capt. David Hurdum, trustee on the behalf of
Colonel Hughson’s Regiment.”
It was not until 1674 that the project for disafforesting the Peak
Forest, and enclosing the cultivatable or good pasturing portions was
completed. The Commissioners appointed for the purpose were Sir John
Cassy, Sir John Gell, and fifteen others, including such well-known Peak
names as Bagshaw, Eyre, and Shalcross.
CHAPTER XV
DUFFIELD FRITH
Duffield Frith, or forest, was the name of a considerable expanse of
forest land a few miles to the north of the county town. Though one of
the smaller of the royal forests, it had a circuit of somewhat over
thirty miles, even in the days of Queen Elizabeth, when it had undergone
considerable reduction.
Henry de Ferrers, one of the chief favourites of the Conqueror, held
no fewer than 114 manors or lordships in Derbyshire, at the time of
the Domesday Survey, as well as many others on the borders of the
shire. Duffield, on the Derwent, at the entrance of the valley that
gave access to the lead mines of Wirksworth, made an admirable centre
for the controlling government of the great Norman baron. Here, on a
site formerly used both by Romans and Saxons, he erected a most massive
fortress, which was demolished _temp._ Henry III., in consequence of the
rebellion of his descendant, Robert Earl Ferrers.
From the time when the forfeited Ferrers’ estates were confirmed by the
Crown on Edmund Earl of Lancaster, Duffield and Duffield Frith became
part of the honor of Tutbury, and formed a valuable section of the
property of the earldom, afterwards the Duchy of Lancaster. The frith
was not a true royal forest until Henry Duke of Lancaster came to the
throne as Henry IV. in 1399. It had, however, been technically ruled as
a royal forest for more than a century before that date; for Edward I.,
at the beginning of his reign, granted his brother Edmund the right of
having justices of the forest, whenever the king appointed such for his
own forests, and also granted him and his heirs of the earldom the fines
and ransoms that might accrue from the holding of the eyre. After the
destruction of Duffield Castle, the castle of Tutbury became the centre
of the forest jurisdiction of Duffield Frith and the prison for venison
trespassers.
[Illustration: HUNTING COSTUME. THIRTEENTH CENTURY.
(See pp. 64-5.)]
Such history as can be given of this forest is very meagre for the
earlier period; but at a later date, when the earlier forest legislation
was in many respects falling into desuetude, the records of the
attachment or swainmote courts—almost invariably termed woodmotes in
this forest—as well as particulars as to its customs are unusually full
and interesting. They offer considerable contrast in many respects to
the records of the Peak Forest. In the Peak the deer, save for a few
fallow “chance” deer or strays, and some roe deer in its earlier days,
was exclusively red; in Duffield Frith, on the other hand, the deer were
exclusively fallow. In the wild Peak district the bounds of the forest
were only known from encircling rivers or streams, or from boundary
stones and crosses; and there was but one kind of park, namely, the great
stone enclosure of Champion or Campana. Contrariwise, Duffield Forest
had pales all round it, which the adjacent tenants were bound to keep in
repair, and it abounded in a number of separately paled and specially
preserved parks.
The Peak Forest was never in any way wooded throughout by far the
larger part of its area; but Duffield was wooded almost everywhere
when first it came into the hands of the Ferrers. Nevertheless, in the
stonier stretches of parts of Duffield and Colebrook wards there must
have been much that was always thinly covered with undergrowth, whilst
a considerable part of the area had no resemblance to what is now
understood as forest by the time that it became part of the earldom of
Lancaster.
The singularly full accounts of the opening years of Edward II. show that
Duffield Frith not only included within its area a great number of parks,
which were the special homes of the deer—though the park fences, whilst
excluding cattle, etc., permitted them to wander at will through other
parts of the forest—but also cow pastures, small sheep walks, coal mines,
and iron forges.
As to the parks, they were thus distributed in the time of Edward I., and
remained so (save for the speedily extinguished Champagne park) until the
seventeenth century. Ravensdale (where was the central lodge or manor
house of the whole forest) and Mansell parks, in Hulland ward; Champagne,
Postern, and part of Shottle park, in Duffield ward; Milnhay (not always
reckoned as a park, but separately paled) and the larger part of Shottle
park, in Colebrook ward; and Lady or Little Belper and Morley parks, in
Belper ward.
In an account of Belper ward for 1272-3 occurs the earliest known mention
of the chapel adjoining the Belper manor house, which was expressly
founded for the use of the foresters. John, the chaplain who celebrated
at that chapel, held 7 acres and 1 rood of demesne land in Fishyard, in
lieu of rent of nine cottages built on 3 acres of land that had been
previously granted to the Belper chaplain.
At a Belper woodmote court of 1304, various offenders presented by the
foresters paid 12_d._ as fines for suffering foals and mares to wander in
the ward, and smaller fines for plough-cattle and sheep. At a Duffield
ward woodmote of the same year, several vert trespassers were presented
for carrying off loads of green oak and of whitethorn.
The accounts of Duffield Forest, as returned to the duchy
receiver-general, from Michaelmas, 1313, to Michaelmas, 1314, are
exceptionally full and detailed.
For Belper ward William de Simondsley was the receiver, and his receipts,
including arrears from previous years of over £8, amounted to £109 11_s._
11¾_d._ Six score hens were sold for 15_s._ to supply the lord’s table
at Donnington, and 3_s._ 4_d._ was obtained elsewhere for another score.
The winter agistment of plough-cattle throughout the ward realised 7_s._
11_d._, and the summer agistment £4 1_s._ 3_d._ The summer agistment fees
for Morley park were 51_s._, and the herbage of a close near the park
gate sold for 12_d._ There were no receipts that year from the little
park of Belper. Thirty-four acres of meadow at Belper laund realised
33_s._ 2_d._ Not more than twelve acres were mown there for the coming
of the lord to Belper; that was, we suppose, to supply the horses of his
retinue with fodder. Twenty acres were mown there for storage for the
lord at the deer-house, and twenty acres more for a like purpose (_i.e._
for winter food for the deer) at Bullsmore. Twenty-three acres of meadow
grass in Morley park were sold for 18_s._ 1½_d._, and the residue was cut
and stored for the lord. The fishing of the Derwent was let for 5_s._,
and 4_s._ was paid by fowlers for licence to catch birds in the ward.
There was no honey or wax entered for the year. Wood and bark sales
realised 19_s._ An unclaimed stray ox was sold for 8_s._, while 6_d._
was paid to redeem a stray calf, and 2_s._ to redeem two stirks. The
large sum of £13 10_s._ was obtained for getting coal at “Denebyhuyrum.”
The ward woodmote fines and court fees brought in £4 5_s._ 10_d._ But
far the largest receipts of this ward were for the forges or smithies,
for Belper, as early as the beginning of the fourteenth century, had a
considerable sale for nails. One forge that was at work for eleven weeks,
save four days from Michaelmas to St. Thomas the Apostle’s Day, paid a
farm rent or royalty of £7 8_s._ 10¾_d._; whilst two forges that were
working twenty-four weeks, save four days, namely, from the Purification
to Michaelmas, brought in £63 6_s._ 8_d._ It was, doubtless, the presence
of coal near the surface round Belper (which was not exhausted till near
the end of the eighteenth century) that brought the trade in wrought iron
to this part of the forest.
The first item of expenditure entered is 3_s._ 2_d._ for Duffield
rectorial tithes on the herbage of Morley park, and of a close there. A
particularly interesting customary payment, denoting the risk incurred
in traversing the roads of Duffield Forest, is 8_s._ for warding the
road of the Cross (_via de la rode_) on Derby market days, a duty that
devolved on the forest officials. The sum of 39_s._ 11½_d._ was spent in
making 482 pales for the new fencing of Morley park and Belper laund, and
26_s._ 7½_d._ in repairing and re-erecting 384 broken or prostrate pales
in the same fences. The man who worked for sixty-three days in mending
the broken and defective pales, received 5_s._ 3_d._, or a wage of 1_d._
a day. The sum of 3_s._ 6_d._ was paid for strewing the deer-browse or
loppings in the winter through the ward and in the little park. Thatching
the roof of the great larder for the salted venison, adjoining Belper
manor house, cost 2_s._, while 26_s._ was paid for the salt required that
year in the larder. Fourpence was the small sum paid for measuring the
pasturage within and without the park. The sum of £90 7_s._ 8½_d._ of the
receipts was handed over to Nicholas de Shipley through ten tallies. At
the end of the year the receiver still owed to the earl £8 0_s._ 6_d._
Of Duffield ward Ralph le Corviser was the receiver; his receipts,
including arrears, were £20 18_s._ 7_d._ The first entry among the
receipts is 12_s._ 9_d._ for 102 hens sold for the lord’s table, and
12_d._ for six hens sold elsewhere. The winter and summer agistment
throughout the ward, including the parks of Shottle and Postern and
the herbage of “Muxelclif” and Longley, produced no monetary return,
for it was all pastured or mown for the lord. The pannage of swine
from two persons outside the ward brought in 2_s._; the fishing of the
Ecclesburn, 12_d._; the fishery of the Derwent, 5_d._; the sale of wood,
bark, and deer-browse, 31_s._ 8_d._; the licensing of fowlers, 2_s._;
and the woodmote fees and fines, 34_s._ 2_d._ The receiver of this ward
also accounted for £41 6_s._ 2½_d._, paid in pannage pence for swine
throughout the whole forest, deducting the tithes of the same payable
to the prior of Tutbury, and 55_s._ for the pannage of small pigs. The
outgoings show that this ward, like that of Belper, also paid 8_s._ a
year for guarding the road of the Cross on Derby market days.
The heaviest outgoing was the aggregate sum of £3 2_s._ 11½_d._
for renewing and repairing the pale fences and clearing the dykes,
particularly round Shottle Park; 4_s._ 5½_d._ was also paid for new
fencing within that park by the side of the Ecclesburn to protect the
meadow land there, and 14_d._ for making a water gate. There were further
small sums for park gates, and for mending a bridge and for the carriage
of the timber for these various purposes. The sum of 2_s._ 4_d._ was
paid for strewing deer-browse in the winter. A pinfold was removed from
Hazelwood and carried to Shottle at the small charge of 6_d._ The most
interesting outlay in the accounts of this ward is the expenditure of
the sum of 6_s._ 8_d._ on mending the road between the parks of Shottle
and Postern for the carriage of coal to the lord’s forge, which stood,
as we learn from other accounts, on the further side of the Ecclesburn,
just beyond Cowhouse Lane. The expenses of the foresters and others in
connection with the pannage amounted to 17_s._ 8_d._, whilst 14_s._ 4_d._
was paid to the clerks of the master forester and the attorney of the
prior of Tutbury and the foresters at the pannage court.
Of Colebrook ward, John FitzRalph was the receiver, and his receipts for
the year, including the recovery of the large amount of £36 9_s._ 10½_d._
of arrears, came to £70 13_s._ 6½_d._ The agistment of Milnhay produced
31_s._ 10½_d._, and of Shottle park (most of which was in this ward) £15
16_s._ 7_d._ The herbage of Schymeed (Shining Cliff) brought in 17_s._
The townships of Alderwasley, Colebrook, Ashleyhay, Hulland, Newbiggin,
and Idridgehay paid a composition of 4_s._, probably as an acknowledgment
from the “outlands” parks. The fishery of the Ecclesburn produced nothing
that year, but 6_d._ was paid for the Derwent fishery rights of this
ward. Henry del Hay paid 2_s._ as composition with the lord’s tenants
within the forest. Licences for fowlers in this ward and in Shottle
produced 4_s._ The sale of wood, bark, and boughs realised 17_s._ 6_d._
Following this comes an entry that seems to imply an occasional sale of
thick oak bark, or _cork_, for some specific use. The entry runs, _De
cork nil hoc anno_. The word “cork” is derived from the Latin _cortex_.
Reference has already been made to the maple bowls from this ward.
The outgoings begin with a like entry of 8_s._ to the two wards already
mentioned for warding the road of the Cross on Derby market days. The
paler for this road and Shottle park received an annual stipend of 5_s._
for repairs, and in addition he received this year 10_s._ 10_d._ for
the making of new pales. The strewing of the deer-browse in the severe
weather cost 7_s._ 3_d._ The considerable sum of 40_s._ was paid to Peter
Bulners for carrying a letter of Lord Robert de Holand directed to the
receiver at Tutbury. From the summary at the end of the ward accounts,
it seems that the receiver of Colebrook had in hand the great sum of £40
1_s._ 11_d._ for the sale of bowl wood for that and the two preceding
years, and that he sought instructions how he was to allocate it.
Of the ward of Hulland, John Hulleson was the ward receiver; the
receipts for the year, including 66_s._ 8½_d._ of arrears, amounted to
£29 7_s._ 2½_d._ The agistment of the two parks of this ward—Mansell
and Ravensdale—realised the respective sums of 35_s._ 3_d._ and 36_s._
10_d._ The sale of wood, bark and boughs produced £17 13_s._ 4_d._;
20_d._ was received in fines for two stray colts, 5_s._ for the sale of
a waif, and £4 1_s._ 11_d._ as court fees of the woodmotes. There is an
entry of 2_s._ under the head of cheminage; the way-leave in this case
was probably for some exceptional transit during the fence month. The
exceptional entry for this ward is 4_s._ 6_d._ for “ix. cokschutes.”
The outgoings of this ward begin with the entry of 4_s._ for warding
the Corkley road (_via de Corkelegh_) on Derby market days. Corkley
is the name still borne by an isolated farmhouse about a mile south
of Turnditch, on the margin of Hulland ward. The yearly wage of the
keeper of Ravensdale park amounted to 63_s._ 8_d._ Within this park
stood the chief lodge of Duffield Frith, which was the hunting seat of
the earls and dukes of Lancaster when in this part of their estates,
and which was occasionally honoured by the presence of royalty. Very
considerable repairs were done to the lodge and park of Ravensdale during
this year. The small sum of 7_s._ 6_d._ was paid for preparing 1,300
shingles (_cendulæ_) and 200 boards for roofing the different parts of
the manor house; the timber itself would, of course, be provided out
of the forest. Painted glass for the windows of the manor chapel only
cost 16_s._, but 18_d._ was also paid for buying iron and making it into
bars for the support of these windows. The renewing of the park pales of
Ravensdale and repairing and setting up the old ones cost 17_s._ 3½_d._,
whilst 4_s._ 4_d._ was spent over the park gates towards Corkley and at
“Schakesdon.” The making good of eighty-five new pales, and the repairing
of upwards of 600 old pales of Mansell park, cost £3 10_s._ 11_d._ A new
hedge for part of the same park toward Pintclifford cost 13_d._, and
2_s._ was spent in mending the deer-leap towards Hough.
Under the head of _Venatio de Duffield Frith_, full particulars are given
of all the venison taken in the forest, and its disposal. The grand total
for the year was: one hart, ninety-six bucks, and twenty-five does.
The stock of the forest is next set forth under the heading _Instaur’
de Duffield_. The account is rendered by Robert Frely and Nicholas
Fitz-Giles, the stockmen (_instauratores_) of Duffield. The sale of
thirty-two of the lord’s oxen realised £23 3_s._ 40_d._, an exceptionally
good price. A bull and sixteen cows in calf sold for £9 13_s._ The skins
and flesh of four cows, the skins of six cows, the skins and flesh of
four steers, and the skins of twenty-seven calves sold for 44_s._ 9_d._
The milk of eighty-eight cows brought in £9 2_s._ 6_d._ There were but
few sheep on the outskirts of the forest; the ewes were milked, but the
sheep account was annexed to that of Hartington. The rest of the receipts
came from mowing and carrying the hay of two tenants.
The payments included 30_s._ 2_d._ in wages for those who looked after
the cattle and calves in Postern park; 36_s._ 4_d._ for mowing, and
18_s._ 2_d._ for haymaking and carrying the hay of eighty-seven acres
in the same park; and 21_s._ 6_d._ for carrying 105 loads of hay from
Longley Meadows, Postern park, Morley park, and Bullsmoor to the
cowhouses of Postern and Belper. The sum of 3_s._ 8_d._ was paid for
stubbing up two acres of waste, and hedging it in for the sustenance
of calves and colts, and 3_s._ 2_d._ for two quarters of oats for
sowing the same. The dairy at Postern had 16_s._ 8_s._ expended on its
various buildings, and 4_s._ 9_d._ was spent on mending the road by
the Ecclesburn, to permit of the carriage of timber for the work. The
sum of 16_s._ 8¼_d._ was spent on hedges and ditches round “Maxenclif”
and “Mareclos” in the same park, and 4_s._ in repairing the fence of
Bullsmoor. A shilling was expended on drugs for sickly cattle.
The full return of the stock of Duffield Frith for that year was
thirty-eight oxen, 157 cows, five bulls, thirty-three heifers, fifty-one
steers, and seventy-three cows. Of these there were sold, consumed, or
died in the course of the year, thirty oxen, fifty-one cows, two bulls,
four steers, and thirty-four calves.
Roger Beler’s accounts for 1322-3, are of some interest, as also are
those for 1326-7. The latter mention 32_s._ paid as the tithe of the
mills of Duffield and Belper to the rector of Duffield, which is
henceforth an annual entry whenever the accounts are extant. Under
Richard de Slope, who was then parker of Ravensdale, considerable repairs
were done to the chief lodge of the forest or earl’s manor house within
that park, including 22_s._ 4_d._ paid to a workman for 134 days’ labour
at 2_d._ a day on the roofs, doors, and windows. The total expenditure
on the great house and park was £5 5_s._ 9d½_d._, and embraced payment
for 1,500 shingles, and 100 spikes, 100 “bordnayles,” and painting and
plastering with white clay (_plasticando cum argillo_).
Among the expenses of the reeve of Belper (Simon Payn) for 1327-8, are
some exceptional entries that throw light upon the then condition of that
forest town and township. The expenses included £9 worth of lead for the
water conduit in the park; 39_s._ 4½_d._ for making a wall round the pond
there, etc.; 22_s._ 10_d._ for roof shingles and for stone for the walls
of a garderobe for the lodge; 14_s._ 1_d._ for repairing the knights’
lodge (_camere militum_), and providing it with three garderobes; 17_d._
for paling and hedging the lord’s garden; 4_s._ for carriage of venison
from the Belper larder to Tutbury; 4_s._ for the carriage of salt to
the larder; and 3_s._ 8_d._ for repairing the glass windows of the
chapel. There was also a charge in another part of the accounts for a
man and a cart carrying six does to the lord at Kenilworth. The receiver
from Belper ward had 5_s._ from Henry Alisson and his companions for
licences as fowlers, and 7_s._ 8_d._ for five oaks for the garderobe
for the _camera juxta coquinam_. Among the outgoings of Colebrook ward
for that year were 27_s._ 5¼_d._ as tithe to the rector of Duffield of
the agistment of Shottle park, and 12_d._ for mending the hedge and the
deer-leap between the forest and Crich Chase.
On 10th November, 1330, Henry, Earl of Lancaster lessened the area of
Duffield Frith by bestowing Champagne park by charter on his beloved
valet Robert Foucher and Cicely his wife and their heirs; it had been
disafforested and placed in private hands as early as the reign of Edward
I.
The records of various courts during the reigns of Edward III. and
Richard II. yield evidence of the nature of vert and venison attachments;
among the former were many cases of damage to hornbeam trees.
At a woodmote for Duffield Forest held in 1376-7, the foresters presented
Ralph Gregory for having killed a doe in Postern park on Monday after the
Feast of All Saints, and also a doe in the park of Shottle in the month
of September; he was committed to Tutbury.
Many interesting items could also be gleaned from the full duchy accounts
that are extant for 1377-8 and later years of that century, but space
forbids making even the briefest extracts.
The registers of John, Duke of Lancaster, covering the close of the reign
of Edward III. and the beginning of that of Richard II., contain various
references to Duffield Frith, which have to be omitted for a like reason.
There was a serious charge of venison trespass at a woodmote held at “Le
Cowhouse,” Postern, on 21st July, 1395. This woodmote resulted in a jury
inquisition. John de Bradshaw, chief forester, and Henry de Bradburne,
and ten others swore that Thomas de Statham and John Helot took a fat
buck (_damnum de groce_) in Colebrook ward with greyhounds on 15th
September; that the same two, with others unknown, killed three bucks and
a sore in Milnhay in the same ward on 21st September; and further, that
the same Thomas and John killed diverse bucks in the water in Colebrook
ward. There was another venison presentment against Thomas Jackson and
five others for having hunted with greyhounds in Hulland ward. Such
offenders as these would be committed to prison, but released on bail,
under a pledge of appearing at the next forest pleas held at Tutbury. At
the same mote, Goditha de Statham, lady of Morley, the mother of Thomas
Statham, the poacher, was presented for having five mares in the park of
Shottle.
Henry Duke of Lancaster, son of John of Gaunt, when he came to the throne
in 1399, brought Duffield Forest and the rest of the duchy into immediate
relationship with the Crown. In September, 1405, the king (Henry IV.)
ordered the chief forester to supply twelve timber oaks towards the
repair of Duffield church.
Henry V., almost immediately on his coming to the throne in 1413, made a
complete change in the _personnel_ of the chief officials of this forest.
Sir Philip Leche was appointed master forester, and the following minor
appointments were also made to all of which certain fees or perquisites
pertained:—
John Bradshaw, parker of Shottle.
Henry Bradshaw, ” Postern.
Thomas Bradfield, ” Ravensdale.
Richard Baldere, ” Mansell.
John Gedling, ” Belper.
Richard Packer, ” Morley.
Thomas Waterhouse, forester of Colebrook.
Richard Pilkston, ” Hulland.
Nicholas Adderley, ” Belper.
The accounts of the manors in the forest and purlieus of Duffield Frith
for 1417 mention for the first time stipends for the reeves. The annual
stipend of the reeve and “halswayne” of Duffield was 11_s._; those of
Belper, Alderwasley and Wirksworth, 5_s._; Holbrook and Heage, 2_s._; and
Hulland, Biggin and Idridgehay, 20_d._
Among the Harley MSS. of the British Museum (568, 5138) are two
transcripts of the customary of the honor of Tutbury, including Duffield
Frith and the High Peak, with elaborate accounts of the duties and
authorities of the different officers. This customary, which dates from
the end of Henry V. or beginning of Henry VI., is chiefly concerned with
Tutbury and Medwood forests. Several of the portions that specially
relate to Duffield Frith have been cited in the introductory chapters,
and most of them have been printed in volume xv. of the Derbyshire
Archæological Society’s journal.
A woodmote was held at Belper on 14th May, 1466. In addition to a
variety of 2_d._ fines for small vert offences, several of the tenants
in Hulland ward were fined a similar sum for not repairing the border
fences according to their tenure. The parkers of Ravensdale and Mansell,
as well as Postern, had nothing to present. The foresters of Chevin ward
(an _alias_ for Duffield ward) presented Ralph Sacheverell, lately of
Snitterton, who came into the ward on 6th March, and without any licence
cut down six oaks called “spyres” for repair of two houses. Various other
inquiries were presented at this court. John Kniveton, of Mercaston,
killed a fawn without warrant in Shottle park; and in the same park
William Cook, of Bradley, John Vernon, of Haddon, and John Bradburne, of
Heage, each killed a doe, and three others a fawn. In Morley park John
Fynedun (also an _armiger_) killed a doe. Thomas Gresley, who was deputy
lieutenant of Duffield Frith, presented William, son of the vicar of
Wirksworth, and two others for entering the forest on several occasions
with four greyhounds.
At another woodmote held later in the same year at Ravensdale, the
foresters of Belper presented that Thomas Gresley, late deputy lieutenant
of the chase, on Thursday before the Feast of St. Thomas the Martyr, had
killed a buck without warrant, also that in Whitsun week he had killed
another buck, and that William Troutbek had committed the like trespass.
The keeper of Morley park charged Thomas Gresley with a like offence in
that enclosure. At the same court Roger Vernon was presented for having
sent Nicholas Bromhall, of Alderwasley, to Shining Cliff within the
forest to cut down eight oaks called “spyres.”
The explanation of these outbreaks on the part of the county gentlemen
is not far to seek, and they were common at this period throughout
the forests of England. It was in the midst of the Wars of the Roses.
Advantage was taken of this period of civil commotion; those who favoured
York or Lancaster, as the case might be, seem to have readily persuaded
themselves that they were entitled to make a raid on the forests of the
one or the other whom they chose to regard as a pseudo-king.
At a woodmote held at Belper on 23rd April, 1472, John Harly, of Crich,
yeoman, and two others were charged with having broken into Shottle Park
in Easter week, and hunted with greyhounds, though they killed nothing.
There were various fines for vert trespasses in Milnhay, Belper ward,
and Hulland ward, the total amounting to 14_s._ 4_d._ In February,
1480, there was a sale of all the birches with their loppings, and the
underwood of Ladyshaw Wood.
Robert Bradshaw was the reeve of Duffield in 1482, with a stipend of
11_s._ He is described as _reeve voc’ haselswayne_. William Assheton, who
was reeve of both Belper and Heage, received 5_s._ from each township.
John Egginton, reeve of Holbrook, also received 5_s._ In the forest ward
returns of this year there is reference to the making of charcoal in
Morley park.
The records are preserved of several appointments of officials of this
forest during the reign of Henry VII. In 1485 Ralph Langford had the
comprehensive appointments bestowed on him of lieutenant of Duffield
Frith and steward of the same and parker of all the parks; but about a
month later Nicholas Kniveton was made parker of Ravensdale. Richard
Salford was made parker of Belper, and Sir Charles Somerset “Captain
of our guard,” parker of Postern in 1487. In 1491 Nicholas Kniveton
became parker of Shottle, and in 1493 Humphrey Bradburne became parker
of Mansell. In 1503 Roger Vernon was appointed to the custody of Shottle
park. In 1504, on the death of John Stafford, Thomas Day, “a valet of our
chamber,” was made custodian of Morley park.
There are interesting full returns as to the venison of Duffield Frith,
killed both legitimately and illegitimately, for the year 1498, as
presented at a woodmote held at Cowhouse. _Shottle park_: A doe was
killed on the Sunday after St. Barnabas’ Day in the Blackbrook, and
carried out of the pale and stolen, but the offender was unknown. About
the same time a doe was killed and afterwards taken to Thomas Parker’s
house. Roger Vernon had a buck from the keeper. The Earl of Shrewsbury
killed a buck, eleven sores, and a sorell, and gave them to Sir Harry
Willoughby and other squires and gentlemen that were with him. The
following were the deer given either by special warrant or by the earl
or keeper: Anthony Babington and Henry Sacheverell, each a sore; Thomas
Talbot, a sore and a doe; Nicholas Shirley, a sore; Godfrey Foljambe,
Thomas Leghe, Master Elton, William Sacheverell, Edward Savage, Master
Stokes, Thomas Molyneux, William Gresley, the Abbot of Dale, and John
Alsop had each a buck. The keeper himself had 4 bucks and a sore. Also
the bailiff of Derby and others of the same town had a buck on the Monday
after St. Giles’ Day. Murrain killed 23 “deer of auntelers,” 16 prickets
and does, and 32 fawns. _Mansell park_: Sir Ralph Longford and Sir Henry
Willoughby had each a buck; John Montgomery, John Fitzherbert, and John
Ireton had each a sore, and Roger Vernon a buck and a doe. A buck, a
sorell, 4 does, and 5 fawns died of murrain. _Postern park_: The Earl
of Shrewsbury, Lady Hastings, John Dettrick, Ralph Illingworth, Godfrey
Foljambe, Roger Vernon, Humphrey Bradburne, and Sir Henry Willoughby had
each a buck. Nicholas Kniveton the younger and Humphrey Bradburne killed
a sore by their own authority. The keeper had a sore. “The patent man
had a soure for his sute.” A sorell was stolen, by whom unknown. Master
Talbot, a buck by his own authority. Sir Ralph Longford, Sir Thomas
Gresley, and Sir John Montgomery killed 2 bucks and a doe by their own
authority. “A chaunce buk ley out and was hurt in the bak and giffen to
John Agard; a buk was hurt on our Ladys own Assumcion and was found dead
and was lost.” Three bucks, a sore, 3 sorells, 7 does, and 12 fawns died
of murrain. _The Lady park of Belper_: The auditor, a doe and a fawn.
William Pope, a doe. The murrain killed a buck and two does. _Morley
park_: Sir Henry Willoughby, a buck. Master Pole and his daughter, a
sore. Master Osmond killed a pricket. Thomas Borow, gentleman, killed a
pricket by warrant of Sir Ralph Longford. The keeper had a sore and also
“a chaunce stag.” “Nicholas Kniveton and Roger Vernon came into Morley
parke and hunted by there own auctorite and kylled no thyng. Item the
seid Nicholas brak the pale another tyme as he went to Butterly.” A doe
died of the murrain. _Hulland Ward_: Nicholas Kniveton the elder and
Humphrey Bradburne killed a buck “for there sute.” Nicholas Kniveton the
younger, Humphrey Bradburne, and Roger Vernon killed a buck by their
own authority. “Then the said Nicholas Kniveton the younger caused a
buk to be smytten, which Robert Bradshaw sonnes received.” _Ravensdale
park_: The Earl of Shrewsbury killed a buck. Sir Henry Willoughby and the
Commission had each a buck. Sir Ralph Longford and Roger Vernon each two
bucks. A chance buck and two chance does were disposed of by the keeper.
By the time that great sportsman Henry VIII. came to the throne, the
stock of fallow deer had materially decreased throughout this forest, and
the disafforesting of most of Colebrook ward, through the king granting
so large a part of it to Anthony Lowe, deprived the forest deer of much
of their wildest runs. Nevertheless, they must have been fairly abundant
in parts as late as 1541, for the Earl of Shrewsbury, the chief forester,
wrote to the Earl of Southampton on 6th July hoping that the king, at his
coming to Nottingham, would visit his poor house at Wingfield and hunt in
Duffield Frith; but before the end of the month the earl was dead.
In 1521 there must have been deer in the parks of Ravensdale and Mansell
and generally throughout Hulland ward, for 15_s._ was spent in those
divisions in providing winter deer-browse.
The king, in 1523, granted to Anthony Lowe, who was forester-in-fee of
Duffield Frith and keeper of Milnhay, to occupy those offices without
rendering any account or paying, as his father Thomas Lowe did, at £3
11_s._ a year for the exercise of those offices; a water-mill and 200
acres of land in Alderwasley were conferred on Anthony by the same patent.
There are many appointments to patent offices in this forest entered
throughout the reign of Henry VIII., such as John Bradshaw, keeper
of Postern park; Thomas Doughty, keeper of Morley park; and Thomas
Oakemanton, keeper of Ravensdale park in 1510.
Various forest appointments were also made by the Crown in the reign of
Edward VI., such as Sir Thomas Cokayne, parker of Ravensdale, in June,
1553.
The leases of the parks of Shottle and Postern, including rights over the
deer, show how steadily the old forest customs were deteriorating. At
the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign the question was raised whether such
leases were not equivalent to disafforesting.
In Michaelmas term, 1559, Thomas Wynston, Esquire, of Windley
Hill—claiming the two parks of Shottle and Postern, within Duffield
Frith, by a forty years’ lease from Philip and Mary, at a rental of £86,
and, for a further sum of £43 12_s._, full licence to take and use the
deer within the two parks at his will and pleasure—complained that Sir
John Byron, Francis Curson, Esquire, Edmund Tetlowe, and Richard Kaye
last May entered the parks, killed many of the deer, carried away 1,000
loads of underwood, and continued to occupy and hold the parks, and thus
hindered the complainant in paying his rent to the duchy.
There is no extant reply to this complaint, but in the following year the
question was again raised on another charge.
In 1560 Thomas Wynston, of Windley Hill, complained to the chancellor
(Sir Ambrose Cave) that he held a lease on yearly payment of £86 from
Philip and Mary of Shottle park, within Duffield Frith, which was a
paled enclosure beyond man’s memory, and within which there was “free
warren of dere and other game of venerie,” but that John Wigley, yeoman
of Wirksworth, on 3rd January, “entered into the said parke and there
hunted without lycence and kylled there certin dere as well as of season
as note of season, and the same trespas hath combyned by the space of
sundrie dayes and after to the utter destruction of the dere and game
to the disinheritance of the Quene ... and to the damages of the said
Informer one hundred poundes.” To this bill John Wigley made answer
that the letters patent of Philip and Mary granting the deer of Shottle
park to the complainant had caused the enclosure to be disparked, and
that the defendant “claiminge to come by the said parke havinge a brace
of greyhounds with hym, the same greyhoundes dyd verie soddenly breake
from hym, and havinge a deere in the winde came at the said deer and
kylled it”; that he never hunted there again, and that, knowing that the
complainant was killing off the deer and disposing of them, was not aware
that he had committed any offence against the laws of the realm.
In the following year the Crown confirmed to Thomas Wynston the grant
made by Philip and Mary in these two parks of timber sufficient for the
repair of houses, lodges, hedges, and all manner of farm gear, as well as
for fuel.
An elaborate survey of this forest, giving the exact number of the trees
and the condition of the undergrowth in each ward and park, was drawn up
in 1560. There is no other known forest return of the sixteenth century
which gives nearly such full details. It was printed in full, with other
later surveys, in the Derbyshire Archæological Society’s journal for
1903. The large trees were entirely oak. There is not a single mention
of an elm. The underwood included white and black thorn, hazel, holly,
maple, crabtree, and alder, as well as abundance of birch wood in Belper
ward. The totals work out to the large amount of 111,968 trees, of which
59,412 were large oaks, 32,820 small oaks, and 19,736 oaks in more or
less state of decay—“dottard oaks,” and only suitable for fuel.
The destruction of timber throughout Duffield Forest was excessive during
the whole of Elizabeth’s reign. The contrast between this survey of 1560
and another that was taken in 1587 is most extraordinary. There were at
the latter date only 2,764 large oaks and 3,032 small oaks; they are set
forth in detail with their estimated worth. The total value of the whole
wood was somewhat under £2,000.
The commissions relative to this forest during Elizabeth’s reign were
frequent. In 1581 Edward Stanhope, William Agard, and Simon Arden were
commissioned to view and report on Duffield Frith. They called before
them the woodwards and collectors of the three wards (for Colebrook
ward had now disappeared through the appropriation of the Lowe family,
and Shottle park was wholly in Duffield ward), as well as divers of
the tenants and freeholders, and by their information and their own
perambulations arrived at the following conclusions:—That there is a
woodward and collector or forester-in-fee of each ward; that these wards
were “till of late years replenished with game and fallow deare, and
had divers other officers and ministers of chase as foresters-in-fee,
bow-bearers, and such like”; that as “the said game is utterlie
destroyed” they did not call for sight of such grants; that in Hulland
there is a great deal of plain ground as well as of woody and bushy
ground; that in Duffield there is much plain ground and also a great
deal of thin set wood ground by name of Chevin; that in Belper there is
much plain ground and a good deal of wood soil chiefly set with birch
underwood; that the tenants of the frith and the copyholders bordering
on the same have every third year reasonable hedgebote out of the woods
to hedge their common cornfields, and in winter to lop hollies and other
undergrowth for relief of the queen’s game when there were deer, and for
their own cattle and sheep; that all borderers and strangers taking away
any fuel, wood or browse (other than what may be sold by the collectors)
are amerced at the woodmote courts; that all the alders throughout the
wards had been lately felled and sold for Her Majesty’s use; that all
tenants of Duffield, Belper, Makeney, Hazelwood, Windley, Turnditch,
Holbrook, Hulland, Idridgehay, Biggin, Ireton Wood, and Heage, and other
houses in the precincts of the frith claim and use common of sheep and
cattle; that small benefit would accrue to the Crown from the encopsing
of the woods, and that it would be prejudicial to the tenants, who are
mainly poor and dependent on the relief of pasturage in the frith; that
the underwood might with advantage be divided into ten parts or “hagges,”
and let on lease, selling every year one part; that the aptest places
for setting up “any bloweng mill for the melting of lead ower (the same
intended to be a water mill)” is in the Hulland ward at a little brook
called Hulland brook, and in Chevin or Duffield ward at Blackbrook, “so
that there may be one small overshot mill at eache of them, and will have
water to furnish worke one day at thone and an other day at the other,
onles it be in the drowght of somer”; that near Hulland brook are “one or
two great and auncient heapes of Iron slag or cinders whereby it should
seem there hathe ben some water worke there for melting of Iron stone”;
and that the same preferment for lead ore should be charged in the manors
of the frith as in the Wapentake of Wirksworth, namely, a halfpenny for
every load of ore, twelve loads commonly making a fother of lead.
In 1587 the inhabitants and borderers of Duffield Frith, numbering 509
copyholders, freeholders, and ancient cottagers and householders (forming
a population of 1,800 with their wives and children) petitioned the
queen not to carry out the project of leasing the underwood, as they
had from time beyond memory been accustomed to crop and browse of these
woods from Martinmas to the end of February for their cattle whenever
the weather was severe, paying a price for the same at the end of the
winter. If the leasing was carried out, they considered they would be
debarred from this, as well as from their customary rights of fuel
wood, and wood for the repairs of their houses and hedges, and that
they would “be utterly impoverished thereby and constrayned to seek
dwellings other where.” This petition was presented in September, 1587,
and in June, 1588, Edward Stanhope was appointed by the Council of the
duchy to enter into the grievances of these tenants. On 5th July he met
seven representatives of the tenants at Nottingham, but after several
adjournments they were able to come to no satisfactory compromise.
In 1592 another commission was appointed to secure true measurements
of the “woodgrounds” of the frith, but after thrice meeting the
commissioners, the local jury declared that it was impossible to execute
such a task, giving their reasons at length, which were chiefly because
of the various barren and stony places with which the woodlands were
interspersed.
The woodmote courts continued to be held and were busily engaged in
fining vert trespassers. At the court held at Cowhouse Lane in July,
1593, fifteen offenders who had carried off green wood in Duffield ward
were fined in sums varying from 5_d._ to 6_d._, thirty-nine in Belper
ward, and sixty-four in Hulland ward. The fines amounted to 35_s._; a
pannage court was held the same day, when a penny each was received for
109 pigs.
At a woodmote held at Hulland on 21st September, 1597, the only business
transacted was the imposing two fines of 2_s._ each for cutting down
trees. At the woodmote held at Chevin House, on 11th August, 1598, many
vert trespassers were presented. In the Belper ward one offender was
charged with removing so many “bigis Anglia sleydfulls” of wood. In
other returns of this reign the taking of sledges and drags of woods are
mentioned. Thomas Sympson incurred the heavy fine of 3_s._ 4_d._ for
cutting various birches.
On 19th December, 1598, another court was held at Chevin House, before
Anthony Bradshaw, as deputy steward; the foresters who appeared were
John Curzon, William Kniveton, and William Bradburne, esquires, and
John Brockshaw, gentleman. The names of agisters, parkers, and ward
collectors are also set forth. Henry Butler held the joint sinecure
offices of bow-bearer and axe-bearer, while Richard Clark was the ranger.
A large number of vert trespassers were fined, chiefly in sums of 4_d._
and 6_d._; in various cases the offenders are described as taking of
horseloads, sleighloads, or _les backburdens ligni_.
At a woodmote held at Chevin House, on 11th March, 1600, by Anthony
Bradshaw as deputy steward, John Curzon was present both as lieutenant
and forester, and the other foresters were Sir Humphrey Ferrers, William
Kniveton, and John Brockshaw. Thomas Johnson, the keeper of the two parks
of Manshull and Ravensdale was fined 2_s._ for absence, and the parker of
Morley 1_s._ for a like offence. No fewer than 123 vert trespassers were
fined, in sums varying from 2_d._ to 12_d._ “Waynelodes” are mentioned
among the amounts of wood taken.
At the next court, held on 8th July, two trees were assigned to the town
of Duffield towards the repair of their bridge. Among the fines is the
very heavy one of 10_s._ which had to be paid by Richard Ferne, for he
not only cut two cartloads of green wood, but sold them at Derby.
Anthony Bradshaw, fourth son of William Bradshaw, of Bradshaw, the deputy
steward of the forest, who did so much to sustain the privileges of the
tenants of Duffield Frith, resided at Farley Hall. He was a man of some
literary power, and wrote a long curious poem of fifty-four stanzas,
early in the reign of James I., entitled “A Frend’s due Commendacion
of Duffeld Frith.” It is printed in vol. xxiii. of the _Reliquary_.
He mentions therein the Earl of Shrewsbury as high steward and John
Curzon as lieutenant. The six parks of Morley, Belper, Postern, Shottle,
Ravensdale, and Mansell are all named, but they were all farmed “and
yeald no deare at all,” save Mansell, and that “verie small.” From
these rhymes we learn that “Tacke courtes” were held in addition to the
woodmote, “at Luke’s day and Martinmas,” and the tack dinner, when each
man had a hen in his pie, mentioned in the old customary, was still
maintained.
At a woodmote held by Anthony Bradshaw, in 1604, there were nine cases of
fines of 12_d._ each for beating down and collecting acorns; for taking
a cartload _de le Oller_ (alder) wood, a man was fined 6_d._, and the
like fine was imposed for taking a load of _tynsell_ wood, or oven fuel;
whilst 12_d._ was paid for removing a load of _le Oller poles_.
At the court held at Chevinsyde, on July, 1605, Sir Edward Cokayne,
keeper of Mansell park, appeared through William Jesson, his deputy.
Henry Butler, bow-bearer and axe-bearer did not appear, and pleaded that
he ought not to be called to “wood pryses.” Forty-five transgressors were
fined on this occasion. The ranger received a perquisite of wood for
providing dinner for the officers of the court. This is the latest date
at which we have found direct evidence of the presence of deer in the
forest. William Jesson, as deputy of Sir Edward Cokayne, swore that there
then remained seventy-six deer in Mansell park, and that four or five had
died in the last winter.
As matters ripened in Derbyshire against the arbitrary actions of Charles
I. and his advisers, the Crown claims over the district of Duffield
forest, more particularly in the old ward of Colebrook, were more
resisted and became more difficult to establish. A singular agreement was
come to between the duchy and one Richard Neville to the effect that he
should have such land as by prosecution he could recover for the Crown in
Uttoxeter ward, Needwood forest, and in Colebrook ward, Duffield forest,
at a rental of 12_d._ per acre. Neville succeeded in recovering much land
in and around Colebrook ward for the crown as part of the old royal frith
of Duffield. He was, however, not only put to heavy legal costs, but
his attempts to inclose were naturally resisted, leading to many riots
and disorders. In December, 1639, Neville petitioned the crown for an
abatement of the covenanted rent, as he not only found much of the land
barren, but he was still exposed to daily damage and interruption.
On 20th February, 1640, Richard Neville, described as a gentleman of
the bedchamber to the prince, obtained a formal grant in fee-farm of
the common or waste called “Milshay or Millmore, or Milshayward de
Colebrookward,” parcel of Duffield Frith, and other lands recovered by
his prosecutions, charged with a rent of £45 3_s._ per annum; but at
the same time 550 acres of Millhay was assigned to Edward Potterell and
others as trustees for the commoners and tenants of Alderwasley and
Ashleyhay at a rent of 2_s._ per annum. Probably the Crown, in accordance
with the usual disafforesting arrangements of this reign, took one-third
of the common, the other two-thirds being reserved for the commoners.
The statements appended to a Parliamentary Survey of this forest give a
clear insight into the action of the Crown as to the commoners during
this reign.
A survey of the “Royaltye of the late disforrested Forest or Chase called
Duffield Frith ... late parcell of the possessions of Charles Stuart late
king of England” was made in July, 1650, by order of Parliament. The
chief rent due from several adjacent townships for liberty of commonage
amounted to 56_s._ 4_d._; the royalty, including waifs, strays, felons’
goods, hawking, and hunting, 40_s._; of cottages on encroachments, £24
13_s._ 2_d._; and “the mines delfes or pitts of coale now in use or
hereafter to be digged ... with liberty of ruckeing and stackeing of such
coales ... and of erecting of cottages for the habitacion of collyers
with free passage for horses, carts, and carriages passing to and from
the said coale delfes,” £30. The commissioners let the benefits of the
royalties and of the coal for a year to John Mundy, of Allestree, and
Thomas Newton, of Duffield.
The report cites the grant of 4th September, 1634, when a third part of
Belper ward, 561 acres, assigned to the king by the Council of the duchy
in the previous year, was transferred to Sir Edward Sydenham at a yearly
rent of 21_s._ 8_d._ At the same time it was proposed to assign to the
king a third part of Chevin ward, to be chosen by lot, the remaining
two-thirds to be granted to the commoners at 2_s._ per acre for all they
enclosed, being discharged of their old rent of 56_s._ 4_d._; but only
thirty-one commoners agreed to this proposal, upwards of four hundred
being opposed to it. Nevertheless, a decree was passed for a division in
the duchy chamber, and the king’s commissioners took what part they liked
best without any casting of lots, taking in all the places “where the
Coale Delfes are now sunke.” In September, 1634, the king granted this
third part of Chevin ward to Sir Edward Sydenham, and it was enclosed;
and “the inhabitants were compelled by force and terror to submite
thereunto.” Nor were the other two parts ever granted to the commoners
in fee-farm, although enclosed, nor were any admitted tenants of this
enclosed ground, save the small minority who had agreed to the enclosure.
Thereupon, in 1643, the inhabitants threw open all the enclosures of
this ward, including the king’s third part, and since enjoyed it all
in common. “Had not the distraction by the late Warres prevented them,
they had all joyned in a Bill of Reveiwe to reverse the Decree made
upon soe slender grounds and soe illegally without theire consent.” The
commissioners stated that they had had all this testified to them by a
jury consisting of “men of qualitye and sufficient abilityes in those
partes and neighbours to the place”; that they were convinced that,
though a few private persons had been gainers by the enclosure, a far
more considerable number had been “damnifyed thereby”; and that therefore
they considered the ward to be rightly common.
The affairs of most of Colebrook ward were settled, as we have seen, in
1639-40. Hulland ward was divided at the same time as Belper ward, in
1633-4, the king’s third, consisting of 490 acres valued at 9_s._ 2_d._
a year being granted to Sir Edward Sydenham. The successful opposition
to enclosure only prevailed in the large ward of Duffield or Chevin,
including Shottle park.
All that part of the old forest that was, by violent means, thrown open
to the commoners in 1643 remained common until 1786, when 1,500 acres
were enclosed by an Act of 26 George III.
CHAPTER XVI
SHERWOOD FOREST
The old ballads of Robin Hood, which were popular rhymes as early as
the middle of the fourteenth century, as we know from the _Vision of
Piers Ploughman_, have probably been the chief cause of the undying fame
of Sherwood Forest. But these pages have to deal with historic facts,
and not with traditions, however substantial may be their basis. The
fascinating subject of outlaw life under the greenwood tree of this
celebrated forest must, therefore, be passed by; those who desire to
know all that can be known of Robin Hood and his ballads had better
consult the five scholarly volumes of Mr. F. J. Child, of Boston, Mass.,
published in 1882, entitled _English and Scottish Popular Ballads_. The
delightful modern ballads of the Rev. R. H. Whitworth, who has for forty
years resided, as vicar of Blidworth, in the very centre of ancient
Sherwood, are saturated with the true forest spirit, and are eminently
worthy of collective publication.
The celebrated forest of Sherwood included within its bounds most of the
central part of the county of Nottingham. Its exact bounds were laid down
in a perambulation of 1232. Roughly speaking, it was twenty-five miles
one way, by nine or ten the other; at one extremity was the county town
of Nottingham, and at another was Mansfield, whilst Worksop was close to
the northern boundary.
[Illustration: _PLATE XIX_
SHERWOOD FORESTER-OF-FEE, SKEGBY CHURCH]
Many of the places afterwards within the forest are named in the
_Domesday Survey_ as members of the king’s great manor of Mansfield, so
that the amount of royal demesne in the district made its conversion
by the early Norman kings into a large forest a comparatively easy
matter. The first exact notice of the forest occurs in the year 1154,
when William Peverel, the younger, answered to the forest pleas. He
controlled the forest, and held the profits under the Crown. On the
forfeiture of the Peverel estates the forest lapsed to the king, and was
for some time administered by the sheriffs for the joint counties of
Derby and Nottingham.
In the time of Richard I., Matilda de Caux and her husband Ralph
Fitz-Stephen, were confirmed in the office of chief foresters of
Sherwood. Matilda died in 1223, when she was succeeded as chief
forester-of-fee by her son John de Birkin, and he in his turn by his
son Thomas de Birkin. In 1231 this hereditary office came to Robert de
Everingham in right of his wife Isabel, who was sister of Thomas de
Birkin. Adam de Everingham was chief forester or keeper of Sherwood at
the beginning of the reign of Edward I., and he was succeeded by his son
Robert de Everingham. Soon after this, Robert de Everingham incurred the
king’s displeasure, and this office was seized by the Crown as forfeited.
This Robert de Everingham, who was keeper in 1284, was the last of
hereditary descent. The office was afterwards conferred at will by the
Crown upon various persons of high position as a mark of royal favour.
From the Close Rolls of 1286, it would appear that the offence which
brought about the downfall of the last hereditary keeper of this forest
was certain grievous abuse of his position as guardian of the king’s
deer. In November of that month the Crown addressed a letter to the
deputy of the forest justice beyond Trent ordering the release from
Nottingham gaol of Robert de Everingham, John de Everingham, John the
Constable, and eight others, imprisoned for trespass of venison in
Sherwood, in bail to twelve men, who were bound to produce them at
the next eyre, and on condition that they would not hereafter incur
forfeiture in that forest.
The royal grants of oaks from Sherwood Forest were frequent throughout
the reign of Henry III. In 1228 four oaks were given to William Avenel,
described in the grant as waiting on the King of Scotland; two to the
leper hospital of Chesterfield; six to the priory of Bligh; six to the
canons of Newark; and three to the priory of Thurgarton. The gifts to
religious houses usually specify that the trees were for the works then
in progress at the churches or other buildings. Occasionally these
gifts from Sherwood consisted of ready-trimmed timber; thus in 1228 the
king sent twenty beams (_copulas_) from the forest to the church of the
distant priory of Wormegay, Norfolk, then in progress; and in 1229 forty
rafters (_chevrones_) to the abbot and canons of Croxton. A single oak
was also sent in the latter year into Norfolk to one Richard de St.
John, chaplain of Henry de Burgs; the bailiff was directed to fell one
as near as possible to the river Trent, as it had to reach Norfolk by
water carriage. In the same year a single oak was granted to the prior of
Bligh to make a door for his hall. In 1231, William Bardulf had a grant
from Sherwood Forest of twenty tree trunks suitable for timber (_fusta ad
maeremium inde faciendum_).
Henry III. dealt generously with the fallow deer of Sherwood. Thus in
1229 he gave two does to Beatrice, wife of Walter de Evermuth, constable
of Lincoln Castle; ten does and a brocket to John, the constable of
Chester, to be placed in his park of Dunyton; ten does and two bucks to
Hugh Dispencer to help to stock his park at Loughborough; and twenty does
and two bucks for the Bishop of Carlisle’s park at Melburne. In 1230,
fifteen more does and five bucks were sent to Hugh Dispencer’s park at
Loughborough, whilst a further donation of ten does and two bucks was
made to the same park in the next year. The Bishop of Lincoln received
twelve Sherwood does and three bucks in 1231 towards the stocking of his
park at Stowe.
At the eyre of 1251, held at Nottingham before Geoffrey Langley, chief
justice of the forests north of the Trent, an inquisition was held
respecting the ministers of Sherwood Forest. It was then reported that
there were within the forest three keepings, namely, the first between
Leen and Doverbeck, the second the High Forest, and the third Rumewood;
and that Robert de Everingham, as chief keeper, ought to have a sworn
chief servant (a riding or itinerant forester, as described in other
forests), who was to go through all the forest at his own cost to
attach transgressors, and to present them before the verderers at the
attachment courts. In the first keeping, the chief keeper was to have
one riding forester with a servant, two foot foresters, two verderers,
and two agisters. In this keeping there were three parks or hays,
namely, Bestwood, Lindley, and Welby. In the second keeping, of High
Forest, Robert de Everingham was to have two riding foresters with their
servants, two foot foresters, two verderers, and two agisters. In this
keeping were the two parks of Birkland, with Billahaugh and Clipston,
to which pertained two other verderers and two agisters. In the third
keeping of Rumewood there was to be one foot forester, two verderers, and
two agisters; and also two woodwards, one for Carburton and another for
Budley.
It was also declared that Robert de Everingham ought to provide a
servant, bearing his bow, to gather cheminage through the forest.
At the same inquisition it was further stated that the abbey of Rufford
was entitled, by charter of Henry II., to a liberal measure of vert
throughout the forest, for they could have whatever timber they required
for the building or repairing not only of their establishment at Rufford,
but also for all their granges, whether they were situated within or
without the forest; they also held the right of haybote, or whatever they
required for their fences. The monks might have a forester or woodward
of their own, but he was to do fealty before the king’s justices, and to
report at the attachment courts what trees had been taken by the abbey’s
orders.
Among the grants of timber from this forest made to religious houses
in the earlier part of the reign of Edward I. may be mentioned ten
oaks, with their loppings (_escætis_), for the Carmelite friars of
Lincoln (1276); thirty oaks to the prior of Blyth, to repair his house,
accidentally burned (1278); four oaks to the Austin friars of Tickhill,
for the work of their church, and six to the Franciscan friars of
Nottingham for a like purpose (1279); four oaks fit for timber to the
Austin friars of Lincoln (1280); twelve oaks to the priory of Shelford
(1281); twelve oaks to the same priory, four oaks to the Franciscan
friars of Nottingham, and six oaks for timber to the Franciscan friars of
Lincoln, together with twelve oaks for roofing shingles. Oaks were also
on several occasions in this reign supplied from Bestwood park for the
repairs of Nottingham Castle, and of the royal mills below the castle.
The royal warrants at this period for Sherwood venison and deer are
fairly frequent. The king kept Easter, 1276, at Lincoln, and orders
were issued on 13th March for fifteen does to be supplied for the royal
use at that season from Sherwood Forest, in addition to twelve bucks
from Galtres Forest. The keeper of Sherwood was ordered in 1277 to cause
Richard Folyot to be supplied with two live bucks and ten does to stock
his park at Grimston. In 1279, eight live does and four bucks were
granted to William de Colwick to help to stock his park of Colwick.
The Close Rolls supply interesting information now and again of merciful
royal attention to venison offences. On 2nd March, 1278, the king ordered
Geoffrey de Neville, justice of the forest beyond Trent, to deliver John
de Cokefeld from prison to twelve men, who were to mainpern to have him
before the king in a month from Easter, if the king or any other wished
to speak against him; the charge against him was the taking of a stag
(red deer) in Sherwood Forest. The same justice was ordered by Edward
I., in 1280, to take no action against Eustace de Hacche and six other
transgressors for having taken three does and a hind in this forest,
as the king had pardoned them. In 1285, the heavy fine of 100 marks
on Thomas de Carducis on account of venison trespass in Sherwood was
annulled by letters patent.
Edward I. was much attached to the two younger sons of Walter Bek,
baron of Eresby, Thomas and Anthony. They were both king’s clerks,
and eventually obtained high promotion; their names occur on various
occasions in connection with benefits from this great forest. Thomas, the
second son, was consecrated Bishop of St. David’s in 1280. On Christmas
Day of the following year, Edward I. granted him four live bucks and
eight live does to stock his park at Pleasley, on the confines of the
forest. On the same day the king sent a letter to the justices next
in eyre for pleas of the forest in the county of Nottingham, ordering
them not to molest or vex the bishop on account of four bucks taken by
him in the previous autumn, when passing through the royal forest of
Sherwood, as the king had sanctioned, by word of mouth, his taking four
bucks when next he passed through the forest as a royal gift. In 1285
the same bishop was granted twelve good oak trees fit for timber out of
these woods. Anthony Bek, the third son, the celebrated Bishop of Durham,
was a still greater favourite of Edward I. In 1282, he had twenty good
oaks granted him out of Sherwood for the construction of his houses at
Somerton, as well as four bucks and eight does to stock his park at
Northwell. In the following year he was the recipient of twelve oaks and
eight live deer from the like source. The king, as a special mark of
his favour, at the time of Anthony’s consecration to the bishopric of
Durham, in January, 1284, forwarded to the bishop the largest grant out
of Sherwood Forest of which there is record, namely, ten live bucks and
twenty live does.
The forest pleas began to be held irregularly in the latter part of Henry
III.’s reign, especially north of the Trent. There was an eyre, however,
held for Sherwood at Nottingham in 1263, and again in 1267. At the latter
date the abbot of Rufford was charged with having taken 483 oaks out of
the forest since the last eyre; but he successfully pleaded the charter
of Henry II. in justification.
With the advent of Edward I. to the throne, all attempts at regularity
in holding the eyres seem to have been abandoned. So far as Sherwood was
concerned, an eyre was held in 1287, but nearly half a century elapsed
before the forest justices again visited Nottingham, namely, in 1334.
The pleas of the foresters and verderers of Sherwood were held at
Nottingham on 14th January, 1287, before Sir William de Vesey, Thomas
de Normanville, and Richard de Crepping, justices in eyre of the lord
king. The verderers were six in number. Robert de Everingham was the
forester-in-fee, and under him were eight sworn foresters.
The following venison presentment, cited by Mr. Turner, may be given as
an example:—
“It is presented and proved that on the Wednesday next after
the Feast of St. William, Archbishop of York, in the year
aforesaid, Robert, the son of Agnes Bode of Edwinstowe, and
Richard atte Townsend of the same town, came by night through
the middle of the town of Wellow with two fawns of a kind.
And the aforesaid Richard was taken with his fawn by men
watching in the town of Wellow; and committed to the stocks
of Peter de la Barre of the same town. And the same Robert
broke his stocks and fled; therefore the aforesaid Peter foond
mainpernors to make answer. And the aforesaid Richard came, and
being convicted of this is sent to prison (and he is ransomed
elsewhere). And it is witnessed that Robert, the son of Agnes,
is dead; therefore nothing of him. And the aforesaid Peter
dwells in the same county; therefore the sheriff is ordered,
etc.”
Sir William de Vesey and his fellow justices finding that the king had
sustained many losses since the last eyre held by Robert de Neville and
others, arising in many instances from the assize of the forest not being
sufficiently observed, it was by them provided:—
That all verderers, in accordance with the charter of the
forest, were to assemble every forty days to hold attachments
for vert and venison and small pleas.
That they were to present a single roll of vert and venison to
the justices in eyre, and not each one a separate roll for his
own bailiwick.
That anyone dwelling in the forest found felling a green oak be
attached for the next attachment court, there to find pledges
till the next eyre, and to pay the price to the verderers; a
second offence to be dealt with in like manner; but for a third
offence to be imprisoned at Nottingham, and there kept till he
be delivered by the king or justice of the forest.
That anyone dwelling outside the forest committing any trespass
against the vert, his body is to be committed to prison till
he be delivered by the king or justice; for a third offence
he is also to lose his horses and cart or his oxen and wagon,
or their price, and that price is to be paid at the next
attachment to the verderers for the king’s use.
That those dwelling in the forest caught cutting saplings,
branches, or drywood from oaks, or hazels, or thorns, or limes,
or alders, or hollies, or such-like trees without warrant,
are to be attached by two good pledges to come to the next
attachment court, there to be amerced for the king; but if it
be for a sapling which is of greater price than 4_d._ or any
higher sum, to be attached until the next eyre.
That escapes of beasts of the plough into the forest be pleaded
in the attachments, and amends taken for the use of the king.
That no man carry bows or arrows in the forest, outside the
king’s highway, save a sworn forester, and on the king’s
highway only in accordance with the assize of the forest.
That no man save a sworn forester or other sworn officer attach
any one in the future.
That any dweller outside the forest agisting his animals
therein is to have such animals taken before the verderers, and
the price paid, and to make answer before the justices in eyre.
That the great burden of so many regarders is no longer to
be endured, but that in this forest the number be limited to
twelve.
And that those taken by night or in the fence month within the
forest be dealt with as before.
From the MS. book dealing with the perambulations and pleas of Sherwood
in the reigns of Henry III.-Edward III., it appears that the very large
number of 350 head of deer (both red and fallow) had fallen victims to
the murrain in the year previous to the holding of this eyre.
The attachment rolls of this forest for 1292-3 are chiefly of interest
on account of the presentment of vert offences, and the fines assigned.
A green oak was valued at 6_d._, and a dry or leafless oak at 4_d._ A
sapling (_bletrum_) varied from 1_d._ to 3_d._; and a stub or dry trunk
of a pollarded tree at 2_d._ In one case the same offender was fined
12_d._ for three dry oaks, 12_d._ for two green ones, and 2_d._ for a
sapling.
Another survey of the forest was held in 29 Edward I. (1300), when
the bounds as fixed by 16 Henry III. were confirmed, but with certain
important additions.
In April, 1309, the sheriff was ordered to assemble all the regarders
and foresters to make regard or survey therein before the coming of the
justices of the forest, and to cause regarders to be elected in the place
of those who were dead or infirm, so that they be twelve in number. The
foresters were to swear that they would lead twelve knights throughout
their whole bailiwicks to view all the trespasses, and to set out the
same in writing. The phrase as to the coming of the justices was a mere
form; it was repeated in the summons for the regard of Sherwood in 1312,
although in neither case was the survey followed by an eyre.
Ample provision of wood from this forest was made on the occasion of
the Parliament being held at Lincoln in the early part of 1316. The
keeper was ordered to deliver to the sheriff fifty leafless oaks in the
wood of Bliorth, within the bounds of Sherwood Forest, belonging to the
archbishopric of York, then void and in the king’s hands, for the twofold
object of making charcoal and providing boards for dressers or tressle
tables; also thirty oaks from the forest near the banks of the Trent
for firewood for the king’s hall; and thirty leafless oaks for firewood
for the king’s chamber against the ensuing Parliament at Lincoln, to be
felled and carried to Lincoln by the sheriff, and there to be delivered
by him to the clerk of the king’s scullery.
The oaks of Sherwood Forest were always held in good repute when choice
timber was required. An order was made by Edward II., when at Nottingham
Castle on 28th December, 1324, that the sheriff of Nottingham was to have
the best oak or other timber out of the forest that might be selected by
the carpenters as most suitable for the construction of nine springalds.
The springald was a kind of catapult weapon for the discharge of stones
or great arrows; these nine engines were required as part of the armament
for the expedition into the duchy of Acquitaine.
A large bundle of attachment court records from 1317 to 1324 are
of interest as showing how often these minor forest courts were at
that period being held in Sherwood. They were held at four different
centres, namely, Edwinstowe, Mansfield, Lindley, and Calverton. In the
year 1317 twenty-two of these courts were held, six each at Edwinstowe
and Mansfield, five at Lindley, and four at Calverton. Amongst those
presented for vert offences in 1318 were two of the local secular clergy,
namely, Nicholas de Nottingham, rector of Clipston, for taking a load
of branches, fined 1_d._, and Robert de Kirkby, rector of Kirkby, who
was fined 3_d._ for appropriating a dry stub. William de Bevercote, one
of the prebendaries of Southwell, committed a more serious trespass
(probably venison) about this date, for which he was imprisoned at
Nottingham. In October, 1319, the king ordered his release to twelve
mainpernors, who were to produce him before the justices at the next eyre.
After an interval of nearly fifty years the forest pleas for Sherwood
were again held at Nottingham, namely, on 2nd March, 1334, before Ralph
de Neville, Richard de Aldborough, and Peter de Middleton. The following
is an example of a venison presentment at this eyre, having reference to
a trespass that was nine years old:—
“It is presented and proved that Hugh of Wotehall of
Woodborough, William Hyend, Wilcock formerly the servant of the
parson of Clifton, and Stephen Fleming of Nottingham, on 13
June, 1325, were in the wood of Arnold, in the place which is
called Throwys, with bows and arrows. And they shot a hart so
that it died. And its flesh was found putrid and devoured by
vermin in a place which is called Thweycehilli; and the arrow
was found in the said hart, wherewith it was shot. And the
aforesaid Hugh came before the justices and is sent to prison.
And the aforesaid William and Wilcock are not found. Nor have
they anything whereby, etc.; therefore let them be exacted.
And the aforesaid Stephen Fleming is dead; therefore nothing
of him. And afterwards the aforesaid Hugh is brought out of
prison, and is pardoned because he is poor. And the aforesaid
William and Wilcock were exacted in the county and did not
appear; therefore they are outlawed.”
The number of venison presentments at this eyre was 119, which was not
at all large considering the long period since the last of these courts.
In several cases there was no definite charge of deer-slaying, or even
being seen with dogs or bows and arrows, but simply of trespass. Such
trespass would be by strangers at night, or during the fence month. Some
of the transgressors were of high position, among them including John,
son of Lord John de Grey, who was found in the Bestwood enclosure with
bows and six greyhounds, running a herd of hinds (_herdum bissarum_), of
which he killed two; John le Bret, “duc de Wenton,” who killed a hind
with four greyhounds; and Henry Curson, of Breadsall, who killed a hind
at “Crossedoke,” in Clipston wood.
In one case a hind met with its death in an exceptional manner. John Bot,
of Boltby, mower of Allerton, struck a hind with a stone and broke one of
its legs; this caused its death, and it was found drowned in the stream
of Allerton, by Langwith bridge.
At this eyre the ministers of the forest were asked upon their oath from
what person or persons the foresters were wont to receive and have their
living. In reply they cited from an inquiry made by writ in 1289, shortly
after Edward I. had removed Robert de Everingham from his bailiwick as
hereditary keeper or chief forester by reason of his misdeeds, citing the
various extensive perquisites and privileges that he had maintained.
In return for these emoluments Robert de Everingham provided foresters
at his own charge. It therefore followed that after the keepership was
forfeited to the Crown, that the foresters were to continue to be paid by
whomsoever the Crown from time to time appointed keeper.
A roll of amercements of persons convicted at the attachment courts
of vert trespasses appraised at more than 4_d._, and which could not
be amerced save at the eyre, was presented to the justices. This roll
included about 750 trespasses, varying in price of the vert from 6_d._
for honey found in an oak, for boughs, and for trunks, to 2_s._ for a
single oak. These values had already been paid to the verderers, and the
additional fines now imposed by the justices varied from 1_s._ to 2_s._
In each case the names of the two pledges for the trespasser’s appearance
follow the entry of the offence.
It is not surprising, after all this interval since the last eyre, to
find that some of the verderers’ rolls for the different attachment
courts of the forest were missing for the years 1288, 1289, 1290, and
1291. The fines imposed upon the verderers of 1334 for these losses
amounted to the considerable sum of £20 8_s._ 2_d._
As the justices of the forest so seldom appeared, they seem to have been
all the more determined to exact appearances and respect when the eyre
was held. The whole of the free tenants of the forest had to put in an
appearance. On the first day three of them were absent. John Bardolf
successfully pleaded that he had not received his letter of summons;
but Adam de Everyngham was fined 15_s._, and Joan, widow of Ralph de
Birton, 6_s._ 8_d._ for their absence. The reeves and four-men of every
township within the limits had also to be present. On the first day,
William Goodrych, and William de Normanton, both of Lenton, were fined
collectively 3_s._ 4_d._, whilst William Router, the reeve of Basford,
had to pay 2_s._
Before the justices left Nottingham, they issued a series of pardons for
both venison and vert offences. Amongst the eighteen pardoned were Sir
John le Bret, the rector of Annesley, and the vicar of Edwinstowe.
In 1340, the king pardoned John, Bishop of Carlisle, for killing a doe in
Sherwood Forest and taking it away.
In the accounts presented by William Latimer, who was then keeper of
Sherwood Forest, for the years 1368-9, record is made of the whole of the
attachment courts. The return shows that substantial efforts were then
made to comply with the forest law by holding attachments every forty
days in each district; Edwinstowe was the only centre that fell short of
the proper number, having but seven of these forest courts during the
twelvemonth; nine each were held at Mansfield, Lindley, and Calverton.
There are no special features about the presentments of that year.
The Sherwood exchequer accounts for 1395-6 show that £30 of the forest
profits were that year expended upon the royal lodge or manor house of
Clipston.
The accounts for 1430-2 give full details of the agistment of the park of
Clipston; cows were charged from 6_d._ to 10_d._ each, and calves 3_d._;
the total agistment for 1431 came to 20_s._ 7_d._ Particulars are also
given of the pannage in Bestwood park; the average charge for each pig at
this date was 2_d._
From an inspeximus and confirmation granted to the monks of Rufford in
1462, citing all their old royal charters, it appeared that the men of
Clipston and Edwinstowe were not allowed to take anything from the abbey
woods that were within the forest, and that the monks were at liberty to
sell all windfalls within their woods, and to root up dead stumps, and
take heather without let or hindrance.
Sir William Hastings, in 1471, was granted for life by the Crown, the
offices of constable of Nottingham Castle, together with that of keeper
and steward of Sherwood Forest, and the keepership or wardship of all the
parks and woods, with every possible privilege of agistment, pannage,
cheminage, dog-silver, etc. The abuse of accumulating a great number of
distinct forest offices in one man’s hands and allowing all the work to
be done by poorly paid underlings or deputies began, so far as Sherwood
was concerned, soon after the extinction in Edward I.’s time of the
hereditary forestership.
In the reign of Edward IV., and subsequently, various appointments of
king’s foresters of Sherwood are entered on the Patent Rolls at a wage of
4_d._ a day.
A forest session was held at Allerton on 3rd June, 1538. Among the
higher officials, Thomas Earl of Rutland is named as master of the game,
and Sir John Byron as keeper of Bestwood park and forester of Thorney.
Eleven other foresters, thirty-five woodwards, fourteen regarders, three
verderers, and the constables and four-men of twenty-eight townships are
all specified as being in attendance.
The large majority of the constables and “fower-men” of different towns
stated on their corporal oath that they “doth knowe nothing that is to
the disturbaunce of the kyng his game or woode within the seide Foreste.”
Among the exceptions may be quoted the two following presentments from
Mansfield:—
“Item, the Constable and Fower men of the towneshippe of
Mannsefelde sayeth that one Cristofer Shutte, Gerves Herdy,
and one William Falcherde dothe kepe in their howses moo Fyres
then of right they ought to do, wherebye the kyng his woode is
destroyed extendyng every yere to three score lodes contrarie
the Statute of the Forest.
“Item, that one Richarde Swynesloo, Thomas Clerke, Cristofer
Bradeshawe [and five others] dothe staff-hyrde theire shepe of
the Kyng his Common the number of twelve score where the Kyng
his deare shulde have their peacablie Feadyng.”
The jury of freemen of the town of Nottingham presented the names of four
burgesses, each of whom owned a greyhound, but stated that they only kept
them for the purpose of hunting hares and foxes in the forest (to which
they had a chartered right), and not for the disturbance of the king’s
game. The justices accepted their plea as to the motive for keeping the
greyhounds. They also made two orders affecting the forest wood—firstly,
that no hedgebote nor firebote was to be taken without the deliverance of
the woodward, nor any housebote without the deliverance of the keeper as
well as the woodward; and secondly, that no one was to fell any of his
own wood for any intent “withoute the especiall lycense of the kynge his
highnes, or the Justice of the Foreste, and that none from hencesforthe
do take aine woode for bleaching.”
[Illustration: _PLATE XX_
MONUMENT OF THOMAS LEAKE—BLIDWORTH CHURCH]
At the east end of the south aisle of Blidworth church, which stands on
a commanding site about the centre of Sherwood Forest, is a mural tablet
to the memory of a local Elizabethan worthy, Thomas Leake, who was ranger
of Blidworth walk or ward of this forest. The memorial tablet was put up
a few years later; round the margin (Plate XX.) are a curious number of
hunting trophies, longbows, crossbows, horn, hounds, etc. The epitaph is:—
Here rests T. Leake, whose virtues were so knowne
In all these parts, that this engraved stone
Needs naught relate but his untimely end,
Which was in single fight, whylst youth did lend
His ayde to valor, hee wᵗ ease oerpast
Many slyght dangers, greater then this last;
But willfulle fate in these things governs all,
Hee towld out threescore years before his fall,
Most of wʰ tyme hee wasted in this wood
Much of his wealth, and last of all his blood.
1608. Febr. 4.
The date on the slab is that of its erection. The parish registers show
that “Thomas Leeke, esquier,” was buried on 4th February, 1597-8. In the
churchyard stands a massive cross to his memory. A brass plate affixed
to it in 1836 records that the cross was originally erected at the place
in the woodlands where this _gladiator insignis_ met with his death, and
moved at that date to the churchyard.
A careful survey made in 1609 showed that there were then 21,009 oak
trees in Birkland, and 28,900 in Bilhagh, or a total of 49,909, and that
the trees in general were, even at that date, past maturity. It may here
be mentioned, as showing the steady diminution of timber that went on
from that date, through decay, tempest, and felling, that in 1686 the
Birkland and Bilhagh trees only totalled 37,316, including a great number
of hollow or decayed trees, and that in 1790 they were reduced to 10,117.
A large number of these trees during this period were felled for the
navy, particularly under the Commonwealth; but the stock was subject
to further reduction on a large scale by exceptional grants that were
made from time to time. Thus, about 1680 the inhabitants of Edwinstowe
petitioned the Crown for permission to fell 200 oaks to the value of
£200, out of the hays of Birkland and Bilhagh, for the repair of their
parish church, then in a ruinous condition through the fall of the
steeple. The petition was entertained, and on a survey being made for
that purpose it was found that “although there were yet standing many
thousand trees, few of which there were but what were decaying, and very
few useful for the navy.”
As to the red deer of the forest—the fallow deer were confined to the
parks—they increased during the eighteenth century. The 1,000 head of
1538 was admittedly only a rough estimate; a more particular survey of
1616 gave the numbers at 1,263, and another of 1635 at 1,367. Out of the
latter total, 987 were termed _raskall_, or out of condition.
In 1708 a representative meeting of the gentlemen of the north of the
county was held at Rufford, at which a strongly-worded petition was
adopted, addressed to the Crown, complaining of “the grievous and almost
intolerable burden we labour under by reason of the numerous increase of
the red deer in the forest of Sherwood these late years.” They complained
that so many of the woods had been granted or given away by the queen’s
predecessors that there was but little harbour left for the deer in the
forest, and the deer in consequence were distributed all over the county,
eating up the corn and grass; that their tenants had often to watch all
night to keep the deer off; that their servants were terrified by several
new keepers made by the present deputy-warder, who “threaten them if
so much as they do set a little dog at the deer though in the corn”;
that not only had they to watch their cornfields, where the deer often
lay nine or ten brace together, but they so destroy private woods as to
injure them to the extent of from £10 to £50 a year.
At the same time another petition was addressed to the House of Commons
with about 400 signatures, wherein it was stated that the number of red
deer in the forest, “till very lately, had seldom or never exceeded
three hundred, which was as great a number, considering the barrenness
of the soil and the great destruction of the woods, as the forest could
maintain.” In the light of other evidence this estimate, used for the
sake of strengthening the petitioners’ arguments, was probably much
below the mark. The petitioners proceeded to state that these deer now
numbered more than 900; that they roamed over the whole country to find
sustenance, but more particularly that these depredations were chiefly
carried on in “the division called Hatfield and the whole district of
the Clay; and that these parts of the county were outside the forest
limits according to the perambulation and inquisition of Edward I.” The
petitioners were not well advised as to the bounds, and had apparently
confused the perambulation of Henry III. with that of Edward I. This
petition met with no favour, for it was argued, though incorrectly, that
the owners had never before been asked to stint the number of deer, and
that it was a request to Parliament to take away the queen’s liberty and
right without her consent. On a copy of this petition still extant is
endorsed:—
“’Tis no doubt but that if there were no more than fifty deer
in the whole forest, and if it should happen that they were on
any one particular man’s two or three acres of corn or turnips,
they would be sure to lessen his crop; yet he bought the land
with the incumbrance, and it is past all dispute that the queen
has as much right to it as any man has to his own coat.”
At this period the forest was no source of profit to the Crown, but the
contrary. £1,000 a year was granted during Anne’s reign to maintain the
deer and the new park at Clumber, and to hunt with two huntsmen, forty
couple of hounds, eleven horses, and four grooms; there were four “forest
keepers” at £25 each, and four “deputy purlieu rangers” at £10 each; the
winter hay for the deer averaged £100 a year.
But from 1683 the area of the forest was being constantly curtailed; in
that year 1,270 acres, out of the hays of Bilhagh and the White Lodge,
were sold to the Duke of Kingston to be enclosed within his park of
Thoresby. At the beginning of the next century about 3,000 acres of the
previous open forest were impaled to protect the deer, under the auspices
of the Duke of Newcastle, who was then keeper; this was called the New
Park, and is now known as Clumber Park. Between 1789 and 1796 inclusive,
Acts were passed for the enclosure of Arnold Forest, Basford Forest,
Sutton in Ashfield, Kirby in Ashfield, and Lenton and Radford, whereby
8,248 acres were brought into cultivation.
When Major Rooke published his interesting _Sketch of the Ancient and
Present State of Sherwood Forest_, in 1799, the part of the forest that
still remained to the Crown were the hays of Birkland and Bilhagh, which
had a total extent of 1,487 acres.
At that time the ministers of this much restricted forest were the
Duke of Portland, lord warden by letters patent; four verderers, Sir
F. Molineux, Bart., John Litchfield, E. T. Gould, and W. Sherbrook,
Esquires, elected by the freeholders for life; and John Gladwin, Esq.,
steward, appointed by the lord chief justice in eyre during pleasure. The
office of bow-bearer had been vacant since the death of Lord Byron. There
were also nine keepers appointed by the verderers during pleasure, with
an annual salary of 20_s._ each, and two annually sworn woodwards for
Sutton and Carlton. Each of the verderers received a fee-tree annually
out of the king’s hays of Birkland and Bilhagh.
Major Rooke—when writing of the many venerable old oaks of extraordinary
size then standing, several of them measuring 34 feet in circumference,
and with tops and lateral branches rich in foliage, though hollow in
their trunks—tells of the remarkable extent of the woodland as late as
the beginning of the eighteenth century:—
“The Revd. Dr. Wylde, Prebend of Southwell and rector of St.
Nicholas in Nottingham, assured me he had often heard his
father, William Wylde, Esq., of Nettleworth, who died in the
year 1780, in the 83rd year of his age, say, that he well
remembered one continued wood from Mansfield to Nottingham.”
Major Rooke, in the same pamphlet, gives a remarkable account, with
plates, of the curious discovery of ancient tree marks or brands that
were found cut and stamped in the bodies of certain trees recently felled
in Birkland and Bilhagh, and which denote the reigning king.
“No. 1 has hollow or indented letters I and R for James Rex.
No. 2 has the same letters in relief, which filled up the
interstices of the letters in No. 1 before the piece was split.
It is remarkable that when the bark has been stript off for
cutting letters, the wood which grows over the wound never
adheres to that part, but separates of itself when the wood
is cut in that direction. The piece No. 3 has the letters W.
M., with a crown for King William and Queen Mary. No. 4 has
the letter I, with an imperfect impression of a blunt radiated
crown, resembling those represented in old prints on the head
of King John; another piece, cut out of an oak some years ago,
had the same kind of crown with I. O. and R. for John Rex. The
piece of oak No. 1, with the letters I. and R., was about one
foot within the tree and one foot from the centre; it was cut
down in the year 1786. That with W. M. and a crown was about
nine inches within the tree and three inches from the centre;
cut down in 1786. The piece marked I, for John, was eighteen
inches within the tree and above a foot from the centre; cut
down in 1791.”
[Illustration: LETTERS IN CENTRE OF OAK]
In 1834, Earl Manver’s woodman felled an oak near Ollerton Corner,
wherein the initials C. R. were found impressed upon the wood, 15 inches
from the surface. It is impossible not to feel sceptical as to the tree
branding of the time of King John. The question was discussed, in 1813,
in the _Beauties of England and Wales_ (vol. xii., part 2, pp. 62-3).
There are interesting references to the subject of the permanence of
brands cut on the actual wood of growing trees in _Notes and Queries_
(iv. Series, vols. ix. and x.).
Though the glories of Sherwood as a royal open forest have long ago
passed away, the noble private parks of Clumber, Thoresby, Welbeck,
Rufford, and Bestwood occupy some of its choicest portions. They not only
include much of the ancient timber, but they are well stocked with red
and fallow deer, which are in some instances the undoubted descendants
of those that used to roam at will through the forest glades in mediæval
days.
[Illustration: _PLATE XXI_
HAYWOOD OAKS, BLIDWORTH]
A book might readily be written on special historic trees still standing
within the bounds of old Sherwood Forest, particularly on the stretches
of old forest at Birkland and Bilhagh, and on the less known noble groups
of ancient oaks at Haywood (Plate XXI.), near Blidworth. It is only
possible, however, to offer a brief paragraph on that Methusaleh of the
forest, the Greendale oak, a picture of which, as it appeared at the end
of the eighteenth century, is given as a frontispiece. In Evelyn’s days
this famous Welbeck oak was 33 feet in circumference at the bottom, and
the breadth of the boughs 88 feet. The circumference in 1776 and in 1790
was variously stated at 36 and 35 feet. Having become hollowed through
age, the great gap through the centre was enlarged in 1724 by cutting
away the decayed wood to such a height and width that a carriage and six,
with cocked-hatted coachman on the box, drove through the tree with the
bride of the noble owner. Three horsemen riding abreast were able to pass
through, a feat often accomplished. In 1727 a series of fine folio plates
of this tree, including the passage of the six-horsed coach, were etched
on copper by George Vertue, forming a most rare volume. From the wood
cut out of the opening for the foolish freak of 1724, a beautiful inlaid
cabinet of considerable size was made, which is considered one of the
treasures of Welbeck Abbey. The Greendale oak still survives, but only in
the form of a shattered propped-up wreck.
CHAPTER XVII
THE FORESTS OF SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTER, WARWICK, AND HEREFORD
SHROPSHIRE
One of the earliest references to a technical forest in Salop is of the
year 1204, when King John issued his charter to certify that he “had
altogether disafforested his forest of Brewood in all respects partaining
to a forest or foresters; wherefore the said forest and the men who dwelt
therein and their heirs were to be disafforested for ever, and quit of
the king and his heirs in all those same respects.” This district and
forest of Brewood was partly in Shropshire and partly in Staffordshire.
Notwithstanding, however, the particularly precise terms of the charter
of 1204, the inhabitants of Brewood were by no means quit of their fickle
and lawless king, for at the forest pleas of 1209, cited by Eyton, the
knights and men of Salop and Stafford living in Brewood gave the king 100
marks to be for ever disafforested, so that they of Salop who had hunted
or taken beasts in the Salop park of Brewood might bear their share with
those of Stafford. From this latter date Brewood seems to have genuinely
ceased to be under forest jurisdiction.
But there are other more interesting records in the time of John as to
Salop forests. The chief forest district of this time was that long known
as Morf Forest. It took its name from the Staffordshire village of Morf,
where the break began between that forest and the forest of Kinver.
Its northern boundary, afterwards maintained, was determined by the
river Worf (passing through Worfield) for several miles before it falls
into the Severn a little above Bridgnorth, and from there it stretched
south to its name-village. For about the first two centuries of the
Norman occupation it was at least eight miles in length and about six in
breadth, but it became curtailed by the forest charter of Henry III., and
still more so in the days of Edward I., and was wholly in the county of
Salop. The bounds are ably dealt with in Eyton’s _Salop_.
Pleas of the forest were held at Shrewsbury on March 14th, 1209, before
Hugh Neville and Peter de Lion. A very curious case was brought before
the justices. A certain hart entered the bailey of the castle of
Bridgnorth through the postern gate; the guards took it and carried it
into the castle. When the forest verderers heard the news, they demanded
of Thomas de Erdinton, the sheriff, what had been done with the hart. He
acknowledged the offence, and promised that his men should come before
the justices, and the town of Bridgnorth was attached for the offence.
Thomas de Erdinton was sheriff of both Salop and Staffordshire through
most of John’s reign, and a royal favourite; the calling of him to
account for such a matter as this by the local verderers is a proof of
the stringency of the forest laws at that date.
Another interesting case at this eyre is set forth in the translation
given by Mr. Turner, involving the seeking sanctuary in a church.
“Richard of Holton, Wilkin of Eastlegh, Hulle of Hinton, and Hulle
Roebuck, the serjeants of the county, found venison in the house of
Hugh le Scot. And Hugh fled to the church; and when the foresters and
verderers came thither, they demanded of Hugh whence that venison
came. And he and a certain other person, Roger of Wellington by name,
acknowledged that they had killed a hind from which that venison came.
And he refused to leave the church, but lingered there for a month; and
afterwards escaped in the guise of a woman. And he is a fugitive; and
Roger of Wellington likewise. It is ordered that they be exacted, and
unless they come let them be outlawed.”
The sheriff of Salop was ordered, in 1274, to see that all the venison
taken for the king’s use in the forest of that county was forwarded
without delay to Westminster, to be there delivered to the keeper of the
king’s larder.
In the following year John Fitzhugh, the keeper of the forest, was
instructed to permit Roger de Mortimer or his men to take three harts
for the king’s use. In 1277 the same keeper was instructed to permit the
Bishop of St. Asaph to take all the wood he required for fuel for that
year from the wood of the Wrekin, as the king’s gift.
In 1284 the king issued his mandate to the justices and other forest
ministers not to molest the Bishop of Bath and Wells, as he had the royal
licence to take timber in the king’s demesne lands, hays, and woods
within the bounds of the forest of Salop, for the construction of a
manor house at Acton Burnell, his native place. Two years later a still
wider and exceptional licence was granted to Robert the bishop and to
Hugh Burnell, his brother, in consideration of the great services the
bishop had rendered the king from his earliest years, to fell and take
away to his manor great and small timber, without livery, view, or other
impediment in the woods of Candover, Wolstanton, Frodsley, Hope Bowdler,
Corston, and Rushbury, within the forest bounds.
Space does not suffice to treat further of the forest of Morf, or, as
it was sometimes called, the forest of Bridgnorth, but in connection
with this county, rather than Worcestershire, brief attention must be
given to Bewdley forest, which, under its more ancient style of Wyre
forest, was so vast a district that it gave its name to a whole county;
for Wyre-ceastre, or Worcester, was a Roman station in this forest. When
the days of Norman forestry arrived, the primeval state of this great
woodland district had materially changed. Wyre forest at that period no
longer extended in an unbroken sweep along the Severn to Worcester; but
though a portion of its southern extremity was in Worcestershire, by far
the larger part of it occupied the south of Shropshire. Eyton gives good
reasons for supposing that the Shropshire part of Wyre forest, pertaining
to the great manors of Cleobury and Kinlet, belonged to the Crown in
Saxon days, but that subsequently it went to William Fitz-Osborn, Earl of
Hereford, and then to Ralph Mortimer. The forest rule that the Mortimers
endeavoured to maintain, together with the persistence in the use of
the term “forest” rather than the chace, point strongly to its being
originally under sovereign rule. The best summary of the story of Wyre
forest is to be found in Eyton’s _Shropshire_ (iv., 276-9), where he
tells us that at the time when Prince Edward was embarking for Palestine,
in 1270, this forest was fenced for miles to prevent any depredation of
the deer in the adjacent cultivated districts. But Roger de Mortimer took
occasion of his powerful position to enlarge his rights as though royal,
and to level no less than two leagues of this fence, so as to give free
transit to the deer to the great havoc of the country. Moreover, Mortimer
arrogated to himself a right of free chace, not only in Wyre forest, but
in the manor of his tenants at Kinlet and Baveney, and even in those of
the king’s tenants of Stottesden and Bardley, as set forth by the jurors
of Stottesden in the Hundred Rolls of 1274.
The forest of Clee, somewhat further to the north in this county, also
bears witness, by the general maintenance of that name rather than Clee
chase, to its former royal rights. The attempts of the Cliffords to
re-establish therein quasi-royal forest jurisdiction are also dealt with
by Mr. Eyton (v., 196-202).
WORCESTERSHIRE
In early days there was probably no part of England more generally
covered with woodland than the district afterwards known as
Worcestershire. In the Norman time there were five forest districts
within the shire: Wyre, Feckenham, Ombersley, Horewell, and Malvern.
Of Wyre forest mention has just been made under Shropshire. The Crown
maintained certain forest rights over the Worcestershire or Bewdley part
of this ancient forest as late as the time of Elizabeth, as shown by
certificates at the Public Record Office: “Two of her majesty’s regarders
or presservators of woods in Bewdley Park and Forest of Wyre” received
a warrant in 1587 from the Lord President of Marches for felling 200
loads of firewood for use at Her Majesty’s house called “Tycknell”; and
six timber trees were to be supplied for the repair of the west chamber
there, called Yew Lodging, and another one for repairs to the stable.
Henry Blount, of Bewdley, gentleman, was keeper of Bewdley park, and
claimed all the lop and top of these seven timber trees as his fee. The
two regarders, or rather woodwards, reported that a hollow timber tree
had been set on fire in the park, and that they appealed to Blount to
save it; he told them to fell it, which they did, intending it for the
lord president, but Blount seized it. They also reported that no person
was allowed to take out any dead tree, windfall, rootfall, or stub,
“unless the same be first by us vewed and prised and sealed with our
sealinge axe.”
Ombersley forest began at the north gate of Worcester and extended along
the banks of the Severn; it had originally been part of the great forest
of Wyre.
Horewell forest began at the south gate, and extended along the eastern
road to Spetchley and across the Avon. Both Horewell and Ombersley ceased
to be forest districts under the Forest Charter of Henry III.
Malvern forest, or rather chase, extended from the river Teme in the
north towards Gloucestershire in the south, and from the Severn to the
top of the Malvern Hills. In Nash’s _Worcestershire_ (i., lxxiv., etc.)
there is some interesting information as to the considerable rights
pertaining to the lord of the free chase of Malvern, which are discussed
by Mr. Turner in his _Forest Pleas_ (cix.-cxiii.), and clearly point
to the district having once been royal forest. For instance, the dogs
of this extensive chase were lawed twice in seven years. This lawing,
locally termed “hombling,” differed somewhat from the method prescribed
in true forests by the Forest Charter. All dogs that could not or would
not be drawn through a strap of eighteen inches and a barley-corn in
length had the further joints of the two middle claws cut away, for which
operation the owner was amerced in the sum of 3_s._ 1_d._
Leland, _temp._ Henry VIII., says: “The Chase of Malvern is biggar than
Wire or Feckingham, and occupieth a great part of Malverne Hills. Great
Malverne and Little Malverne also is set in the Chase of Malverne.
Malverne Chase (as I hear say) is in length in some places twenty miles.”
It was granted by Edward I. to Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, on
his marriage with Jean d’Acres, the king’s daughter. From that date it
ceased to be under true forest law, being in the hands of a subject; but
down to the reign of Charles I. there were verderers, foresters, and
other ministers of the chase.
The best account of Malvern Chase is that which appeared in volume v. of
the _Journal of Forestry_, by Mr. Edwin Lees.
Feckenham forest, on the east of the county, was of considerable extent.
A perambulation of Edward I. shows that it began at the Foregate,
Worcester, passed to Beverburn by Stowe to Bordesley, round by Evesham to
Spetchley, and so to Sidbury. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries it
was not infrequently termed the forest of Worcester. The following are
some of the references to this forest in the Patent and Close Rolls of
Edward I.:—
Pardon was granted in 1290 to the Bishop of Worcester, John Gifford,
Richard Archer, and Hugh de Aston, for a fine of 500 marks made by the
bishop for himself and the others, for venison and vert trespasses
in Feckenham forest. A pardon was about the same time granted to the
prioress of Westwood for like trespasses. In this year grant was made
to Eleanor the king’s consort, who held the forest by Edward’s grant,
to hold pleas of vert and other trespasses through her stewards and
bailiffs every six weeks, and to take fines due for the same to her own
use, save pleas of venison and those which belonged to the regard and
agistment of the forest; also all attachments of indicted persons and
venison trespassers, provided that all persons indicted of venison were
imprisoned at Feckenham, and then bailed against the next eyre of the
justices. In the same year Walter de Aylesbury was pardoned all venison
trespasses up-to-date, on condition of surrendering his bailiwick in
Feckenham forest. A special commission had been appointed to inquire
into the venison and vert trespasses said to have been committed both
by foresters and other ministers, and this resignation was one of the
results.
Edward II., in 1293, granted for life to James Beauchamp liberty of
hunting with his own dogs, in all the foreign woods and groves without
the great covert of the forest of Feckenham, the hare, fox, badger, and
wildcat whenever he will, save in the fence month; provided that he took
none of the king’s deer, and did not hunt in the warrens.
Licence was granted in 1294, after inquisition, by John de Selvestrode,
keeper of this forest, to Grimbald Pauncefote, who was going to Gascony
on the king’s service, to sell wood to the value of 100 marks out of
such parts of his wood of Bentley, at the least damage to the forest.
When a perambulation was taken of Feckenham forest in 1300, it was stated
there was no forester-of-fee, and no verderer for that part which was
within the county of Warwick.
The king made a considerable sojourn at Feckenham in April, 1301; during
that visit he granted a pardon to William de Stapelhurst for taking a
buck in this forest, and carrying it away.
Feckenham was finally disafforested in 1629.
WARWICKSHIRE
Early references to the forest of Warwickshire seem to apply to that
small part of the Feckenham forest (Worcestershire), which extended into
the south-west border of the former county, lying between the river Arrow
and the boundary of the two shires, and which was added to Feckenham in
the reign of John. The perambulation of 1300 states that there was no
forester nor verderer pertaining to the county, and that at the date of
the coronation of Henry II. there was no forest anywhere in Warwickshire.
The great woodland district of the Forest of Arden is so closely
associated with the north-west of Warwickshire that unless the technical
meaning of forest is borne in mind, the assertion of the jurors, in the
time of Edward I., as to its absence would seem remarkably strange.
HEREFORDSHIRE
When special forest inquisitions were being held in 1219 and again in
1224, particular instructions were issued with reference to a detailed
regard, and mandates were directed to the sheriff and others of
Herefordshire with reference to the forest of Hereford. Probably all that
was meant by that term was the south-east portion of the county that was
included within the bounds and purlieus of Dean forest, Gloucestershire.
A large portion of the hundred of Greytree had been made forest under
Henry II. and John, but this was duly disafforested by the Forest Charter
of Henry III. An entry in the register of Bishop Swinfield shows that
when the bishop was at Ross, on a visitation tour, in 1206, his huntsmen
killed a young stag in his chase of Penyard, but a dispute arose between
the bishop’s servants and the king’s foresters of Dean, whether the place
where the stag was caught was not within the forest. An inquest was held
at Howl Hill, when the jury declared that it was lawfully caught within
the episcopal chase.
CHAPTER XVIII
THE FORESTS OF LEICESTERSHIRE AND RUTLAND
Charnwood forest, a hilly district to the north-west of Leicester, about
ten miles in length and six in breadth, of much natural beauty, at once
occurs to everyone, who knows anything of the Midlands, as the most
attractive part of Leicestershire. But so far as forests technically
termed are concerned—that is, districts subject to forest laws—Charnwood
has little claim to our attention. Although it so long remained a
rough, open tract, there is no reference to it among the extant forest
pleas. From what is told us in Nichols’ county history of Leicester—a
wonderful work for the time (1799) in which it was produced—and by the
more elaborate accounts given in Potter’s _Charnwood Forest_ (1842), it
is clear that this district was never in Norman days in royal hands for
the purposes of the chase; but its privileges were granted to the Earls
of Chester and Leicester and Winchester, etc., and their successors, and
to the various religious houses, within its bounds, such as Ulverscroft,
Garendon, and Gracedieu.
On three manors of Charnwood Forest, namely, Whitwick, Groby, and
Sheepshed, swainmote courts were regularly summoned until the beginning
of the seventeenth century, a survival of pre-Norman jurisdiction; they
continued to be somewhat fitfully held by the owners of these lordships
until about a century ago. The fact of swainmote courts being found at
Charnwood and a few other places in England, which were not royal forests
in historic times, may be taken as a proof that such districts were royal
hunting-grounds in Saxon days.
The document cited by Burton in his _Description of Leicestershire_
(1777), with respect to the disafforesting of Leicester forest in 29
Henry III., has no reference whatever to Charnwood as there asserted.
Mr. Monk, in his _Agricultural Report for Leicestershire of 1794_, stated
that Charnwood forest, containing from 15,000 to 16,000 acres, would
prove to be useful and valuable land if enclosed over three-fourths of
its area. After much opposition from commoners an Act of Inclosure was
passed in 1808, and the final account of claim was signed in 1812.
The forest or wood adjoining the town of Leicester, although it
eventually came to the Crown, was never a royal forest, as it had
no forest courts of any kind. It is named in the _Domesday Survey_
of the borough, wherein it is stated that Hereswood was four miles
(_leuca_) long by one in breadth. This great wood belonged to the
Earls of Leicester, who readily granted special privileges therein to
the burgesses. These rights are of particular interest, and are fully
illustrated in the old borough records which have been recently ably
edited by Miss Bateson. This great wood or forest was disafforested in
1628, and the deer killed or given away; but as it was an earl’s forest
and not the king’s, its history must be here passed by.
The only true forest—subject, that is, to forest laws—in the county of
Leicester, was a not inconsiderable section of the eastern portion of the
shire that adjoined to Rutland; and as Oakham was the centre and usual
justice seat of this forest, the larger part of which was in the smaller
county, it sometimes all went by the name of the forest of Rutland, and
at other times as Rutland and Leicester.
The pleas of venison held at Oakham, in March, 1209, were attended by
regarders both of Leicester and Rutland. The knights of Rutland gave a
verdict to the effect that at the summons of the justices of the forest,
all men of Leicestershire ought to come to the pleas who dwell outside
the forest as far as two leagues. Several cases were heard at this eyre
which pertained to Leicestershire. The entrails and antler of a hart
were found under the mill of Robert, the son of Adam of Skeffington. The
antler was fractured as though done with an axe. The miller declared he
knew nothing about it, but he was taken into custody until inquiries
could be made, and the mill was taken into the king’s hands, because it
was so far away from the town and so near to the covert of the forest.
The township of Knossington was in mercy because they did not produce
those whom they had pledged, namely, Richard and William, who had been
found with bows and arrows on the road that led to Rockingham.
The two Leicestershire verderers, Robert Langton and Robert Sampson, were
declared in mercy because their statements contradicted the entries on
their rolls.
So far as Rutland was concerned, at the same eyre, their two verderers
were in mercy because “they did not that which they ought,” and two
foresters and four verderers were in like plight for a similar vaguely
expressed cause. The town of Oakham was at mercy for not producing
Robert, a servant of the Earl of Hereford, for whose appearance they were
pledged. The sheriff of Rutland was also liable because he had not the
prisoners who had been delivered to him by the foresters to guard.
A special inquisition of the forest of Leicester and Rutland was held
at Oakham in 1219. After the great storm of 1222, separate letters were
addressed to the foresters and verderers of both Leicester and Rutland
as to the disposal of the windfall. Hasculf de Hathelakestan was at that
time keeper or warden of this joint forest. The sheriffs of both counties
were warned in 1224 to see that a regard was taken of this forest. A yet
more important and detailed regard was ordered in 1229.
Forest pleas were held at Oakham in 1256, and again in June, 1269, for
the forest of Rutland, but the proceedings show that the term included
the Leicestershire division. The principal business that came before
the justices on the latter date were the serious charges of extortion
and damage made against Peter de Neville, the chief forester, and the
foresters and other ministers under him. The verderers, regarders, and
other knights and good men of the two counties, testified on oath that
since the last eyre—which was held thirteen years before, namely, in
1256—Peter de Neville had continually appropriated to himself nuts, mast,
and windfall, together with thorn, hazel, and such-like small vert, and
kept dogs and greyhounds on the unlawful pleas of taking hares, foxes,
rabbits, and wild cats; that he had appropriated escape of beasts, and
received fines for hare and rabbit poaching that ought to have gone to
the king; that he had imprisoned men and bound them with iron chains
for trifling forest trespasses, and had released them on payment of
fines; that he had taken twenty-four marks from Richard of Whitchurch
for taking a buck without a warrant, and 100_s._ from Henry Murdoch for
his mastiffs that were found following his ploughman to Deepdale within
the forest; that he amerced various townships for offences at his will;
that every year, save the year between the battles of Lewes and Evesham,
he had his piggery and pigs, sometimes to the number of 300, digging in
the forest enclosure to the great injury of the pasturage of the king’s
deer; that he had appointed a forester for the last three years to guard
the road between Stamford bridge and Casterton, on the outlying part of
the forest on the east side, to take cheminage for his own use, charging
4_d._ on every cart carrying wood or timber from the county of Lincoln
to Stamford, an entirely novel charge; that he made a gaol of his own
at Allexton (just over the borders in Leicestershire), full of water at
the bottom, and there imprisoned unlawfully many men of his bailiwick
in the county of Rutland, whereas they ought to be taken to the castle
of Oakham. Almost every one of these and other charges were considered
proved by the justices, the clauses on the rolls where they are stated
ending for the most part with “therefore to judgement with him” (_idea ad
judicium de eo_).
Another charge against Peter de Neville was that he had increased the
number of foresters, and put pages under them, to the overburdening of
the district. It was proved that five walking foresters, to wit, two for
Beaumont bailiwick, two for Braunston bailiwick, and one in the park
of Ridlington, together with one riding forester with a page, was the
full ancient complement of such officials for the Rutland and Leicester
forest; the justices made order that this number was not to be increased.
The whole of this elaborate accusation against the forest keeper is set
forth at length in Turner’s _Forest Pleas_ (pp. 43-53), together with the
following recital of the forest bounds (1269) taken at the same eyre:—
“The perambulation of the forest of Rutland begins from that
place where the old course of the Little Eye flows into the
Welland opposite Cotton; and from thence along the course
of the water of the Welland up to the boundary between the
counties of Lincoln and Rutland; by metes and bounds as far as
Stumpsden; and from thence by metes and bounds as far as Great
Casterton bridge; and from that bridge along the course of the
water of the Gwash as far as Empingham bridge; and from that
bridge along the course of the water as far as Stanbridge; and
from Stanbridge through the middle of the park of Barnsdale as
far as Twiford; and from Twiford along the course of the water
through the middle of the town of Langham; and from thence as
far as the park of Overton, and from thence between Flitteris
and the wood of Knossington as far as the water of the Gwash,
and from thence along the boundaries between the open field of
Braunston and Knossington as far as the Wisp; and from thence
along the boundaries between the field of Owston and Withcote
as far as the door of the castle of Sauvey, and from thence by
the rivulet which runs down from Sauvey as far as Harewin’s
mill; and from thence to Coptre, and from Coptre as far as the
boundaries of Finchford; and from thence by the old course of
the Little Eye into the Welland opposite Cotton.”
Space cannot be afforded for following up the story of this forest
in detail, but mention must be made of another eyre held more than
two centuries subsequent to the one first recorded. By that time this
forest of Rutland and Leicester was usually known as Leighfield Forest,
and the justice seat was at Uppingham. On September 10th, 1490, pleas
of the forest were held at that town by Sir John Ratcliffe and Sir
Reginald Gray. Sir Edward Hastings appeared as keeper, Thomas Sapcote
as lieutenant, Robert Rokeby as ranger, and Christopher Parker as
bow-bearer. There were also present the two foresters of each of the
bailiwicks of Braunston and Beaumont, and the one forester of Ridlington
park, together with two verderers. The five woodwards who appeared
represented respectively the prior of Brook, the Bishop of Lincoln in
Stokehern, the Earl of Warwick in Le Haw, Everard Digby in Stokehern,
and Robert Mawes in Wardley wood. There were also present fourteen
regarders, eleven free tenants, a jury-panel of the king, juries of
the hundreds of Martinsley (Rutland) and Goscote (Leicestershire), and
of Oakham Soke, together with the reeve and four men from each of the
townships of Ayston, Belton, Braunston, Brooke, Caldon, Lyddington,
Ridlington, Stokeley, Uppingham, and Wardley. It therefore follows that
the actual number of local officials of this comparatively small forest
in attendance on the justices exceeded 250.
The claimants of liberties were the Bishop of Lincoln, the abbot of
Kenilworth, Sir Edward Hastings, Everard Digby, Maurice Berkeley, John
Cheselden, and Robert Mawes. The Bishop of Lincoln, through William his
attorney, stated his considerable claims of hunting and agistment within
the forest, more particularly with regard to the park of Lyddington and
its deer-leaps.
Among the presentments it was stated that Thomas Parker, parker of
Redlington, and Robert Rokeby, the sub-parker, had felled three lime
trees (_Le lynerey trees_) worth 6_s._ 8_d._ each. They had also killed,
since the last eyre, eight deer when training their dogs (_pro canibus
suis ad arcum castigand_).
The master forester or keeper had distributed eight bucks and ten does
among the gentlemen of the district; eight bucks and twenty-four raskells
had died of murrain.
CHAPTER XIX
THE FOREST OF ROCKINGHAM
The wealth of unused material in connection with all the forests of
Northamptonshire, particularly with regard to Rockingham, is so great
that it becomes exceedingly embarrassing to know what is the best
method to adopt in giving a mere outline sketch of the more salient and
interesting features of their history. It is much to be hoped that some
capable pen may before long be found to write a monograph on the forests
of this shire. Such a history, if thoroughly written, would prove more
interesting and valuable than that of any other county, not excluding
Hampshire or Essex.
The most important and valuable portion of Mr. Turner’s scholarly work
on _Select Pleas of the Forest_ (Selden Society), is concerned with this
county. There is also a good deal that is of genuine value regarding
Rockingham forest in Bridge’s history of the county, and in Baker’s later
work with regard to Whittlewood forest; nor must Mr. Wise’s _Rockingham
Castle and the Watsons_ (1891) be omitted from mention; but practically
their story is as yet unwritten.
The frequent presence of the Norman kings at their castles of Rockingham
and Northampton was one of the chief causes for the appropriation of such
large tracts of this county for royal forest sport. Apart from parks of
early formation, the largest and chief forest tracts were—(1) Rockingham
forest in the north, which was mainly in the Corby and Willowbrook
hundreds; (2) Whittlebury forest in the south-east, in the Cleley,
Norton, and Towcester hundreds; and (3) Salcey forest, nearer the centre
of the county, in the Cleley and Wimersley hundreds. The whole of the
Nassaburgh hundred, north of Rockingham, was under forest laws in the
early Norman days, but it was disforested in the time of John.
As the Conqueror built Rockingham castle, it is practically certain
that, at the same time, he afforested the district around, and probably
included within its then vast bounds the whole of the Nassaburgh hundred.
[Illustration: HUNTING COSTUME. FOURTEENTH CENTURY
(See p. 65.)]
The earliest known record of forest pleas, which is among the “Treasury
of Receipt Forest Proceedings” of the Public Record Office, pertains to
this county, and has been given _in extenso_ by Mr. Turner; it relates to
the pleas held at Northampton on 20th February, 1209. The proceedings are
full of interest. The following are some examples of the cases brought
before the justices. Roger Grim, the harvestman (_messarius_, _i.e._
the foreman of the harvest labourers) of the abbot of Peterborough,
was caught following four hinds with his dogs; he was delivered to the
custody of Geoffrey Gilbewin, the abbot’s steward. Geoffrey failed
to bring him before the justices, whereupon the steward himself was
delivered to the custody of the sheriff to be imprisoned. William of
Barton was proved to have falsely and through hatred charged Stephen de
Pin, a clerk, with having feasted upon two fawns; the sheriff was ordered
to imprison him until levy had been made for a fine upon his chattels
at Barnact. The whole township of Newton was in mercy because of the
flight of Richard Gelet, their harvestman, accused of shooting a doe in
Nassington wood, for which Henry, the son of Benselin, was taken. The
foresters found a doe with its throat cut in Nassington wood, and Henry
concealed in a bush near by. They put him in prison, but on his appearing
at the forest pleas, Henry stoutly denied the offence, saying he had only
gone into the wood to seek his horse. Thereupon the justices inquired of
the foresters and verderers whether they now thought him guilty. They
replied in the negative, adding that they thought Richard the harvestman
was the culprit, for he fled as soon as he heard of Henry being taken.
Because Henry had taken the Cross and is not suspected and had lain long
in prison, the justices granted him that he might make his pilgrimage,
but he was to start before Whitsunday; if he lived to return, and could
find pledges for his fealty, he might afterwards remain in the forest.
Thomas Inkel, forester of Cliff, found in the wood of Siberton a certain
place wet with blood, and he traced the blood in the snow as far as the
house of Ralph Red of Siberton; and forthwith he sent for the verderers
and good men. They searched his house, and in it they found the flesh
of a certain doe, and they took Ralph himself and put him in prison
at Northampton, where he died. But before his death, when he was in
prison, he appealed Robert Sturdi of Siberton and Roger Tock, of the same
town, because they were evil-doers to the forest together with him. The
foresters and verderers searched the house of the aforesaid Robert, and
in it found the bones of deer, and they took him and sent him to prison;
also in the house of Roger Tock they found ears and bones of deer. The
latter was taken and imprisoned. Robert Sturdi came before the justice
and said that the dogs of Walter of Preston used to be kennelled at his
house, and that Walter’s hunters ate the venison whence came the bones;
and Robert vouched the aforesaid Walter to warranty of this, whereupon
Walter is ordered to appear on the morrow. Walter came and warranted him,
saying that his dogs were kennelled in his house for fifteen days while
he was hunting bucks. Roger Tock also appeared and denied everything;
and the verderers and foresters witnessed that the ears and bones were
those of the deer which Walter’s hunters had taken. As Roger had lain
long in prison, so that he was nearly dead (_quod fere mortuus est_), the
justices permitted him to go quit, but henceforth he was to live outside
the forest.
Rockingham forest in the time of Henry III. was divided into the three
divisions or bailiwicks of Rockingham, Brigstock, and Cliff (Kingscliff),
each of which had its own ministers. This division lasted until the time
of disafforesting.
The keepership of the forest of Rockingham, with Cliff, Geddington,
and Brigstock, was conferred by Henry III. on Hugh de Neville in June,
1219. In the following month he was instructed to permit Walter de
Preston to hunt these forests, and others in the county, in order to
secure forty bucks for the royal larder. In the following year the same
huntsman had orders to take twenty bucks in Rockingham forest, and
Richard de Waterville the same number for a like purpose. In the same
year Hugh Bigod had royal permission to take six bucks in this forest,
and others a smaller number. In September, 1225, the king gave leave to
the Bishop of Ely to have ten bucks and two harts caught for him in the
forests of Essex. But there was so much difficulty and delay in catching
them (apparently alive for stocking purposes) in Essex, that the order
was transferred to Rockingham. In December of the same year William
de Cantilupe obtained a grant of twenty does and two bucks from this
forest for stocking his park at Aston. The supply of venison must have
been exceptionally good, for at the same time Martin de Tattishall was
permitted to take ten does in Rockingham forest.
The Close Rolls of 1228 mention royal grants of seven does; of 1229, two
bucks and eight does; and of 1231, six bucks and seven does.
The orders for wood out of this forest in the time of Henry III. and
later were very scanty in comparison with other royal forests, and
hardly ever included grants to outsiders; this seems to be a proof that
well-grown timber was a rarity. In December, 1224, Walter the Miller,
warden of Rockingham bridge, received one of the forest oaks for the
repair of the bridge. In 1226 Hugh de Neville was ordered by the Crown to
supply Ralph de Trubleville with sufficient timber in a convenient place,
and where it would be of least detriment to the forest, for the repair of
a section of the royal preserve (_vivarium_) and houses at Brigstock. In
the same year further timber was granted for the repair of the chapel and
other parts of Rockingham castle.
There is an important series of forest inquisitions on Rockingham rolls
from 30 to 39 Henry III. From these Mr. Turner has taken a variety of
transcripts. The following is the first that he cites, giving full and
interesting particulars relative to a serious poaching affray:—
“It happened on Wednesday the morrow of the apostles Phillip
and James, in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Henry,
that when William of Northampton and Roger of Tingewick were
on their way from the pleas of Stanion (within Rockingham
forest) to the pleas of Salcey, they were given to understand
that poachers were in the laund of Benefield with greyhounds
for the purpose of doing evil to the venison of the lord king.
And when they had reached the laund and were waiting there in
ambush, James of Thurlbear, forester of the same bailiwick, and
Mathew, his brother, forester in the park of Brigstock, came
with the walking foresters on the order sent by the aforesaid
William of Northampton. And they saw five greyhounds, of which
one was white, another black, the third fallow, a fourth black
covered, hunting beasts, which greyhounds the said William
and Roger took. But the fifth greyhound, which was tawny,
escaped. And when they returned to the forest, after taking
the greyhounds, they lay in ambush and saw five poachers in
the lord king’s demesne of Wydehawe, one with a crossbow and
four with bows and arrows standing at their trees. And when
the foresters perceived them they hailed and pursued them. And
the aforesaid malefactors standing at their trees turned in
defence and shot arrows at the foresters, so that they wounded
Mathew, the forester of the park of Brigstock, with two Welsh
arrows, to wit with one arrow under the left breast, to the
depth of one hand slantwise, and with the second arrow in the
left arm to the depth of two fingers, so that it was despaired
of the life of the said Mathew. And the foresters pursued
the aforesaid malefactors so vigorously that they turned
and fled into the thickness of the wood. And the foresters
on account of the darkness could follow them no more. And
thereupon an inquisition was made at Benefield before William
of Northampton, then bailiff of the forest, and the foresters
and verderers of the country on the day of the Invention of the
Holy Cross, in the same year, by four townships neighbouring
on the laund of Benefield, to wit, by Stoke, Carlton, Great
Oakley, and Corby.
“Stoke comes, and being sworn says that it knows nothing
thereof except only that the foresters attacked the malefactors
with hue and cry until the darkness of the night came, and that
one of the foresters was wounded. And it does not know whose
were the greyhounds. Carlton comes, and being sworn says the
same. Corby comes, and being sworn says the same. Great Oakley
comes and, being sworn, says that it saw four men and one tawny
greyhound following them, to wit, one with a crossbow and three
with bows and arrows, and it hailed them and followed them with
the foresters until the darkness of night came, so that on
account of the darkness of night and the thickness of the wood
it knew not what became of them.”
Pledges were taken of the four townships to appear at the next pleas. The
arrows with which Mathew was wounded were delivered to Sir Robert Basset
and John Lovet, the verderers, and the greyhounds were sent to Sir Robert
Passelewe, then justice of the forest.
Another inquisition of 13th January, 1347, is well worth giving in full:—
“It happened on the Sunday next after the Epiphany, in the
thirty-first year of the reign of King Henry, that when Maurice
de Meht, who said that he was with Sir Robert Passelewe,
passed in the morning with two horses through the town of
Sudborough, he saw three men carrying a sack. And when he saw
them he suspected them, and followed them as far as the town
of Sudborough with his bow stretched. And when the three men
saw him following them, they threw away the sack and fled. And
Maurice took the sack and found in it a doe, which had been
flayed, and a snare, with which the beast was taken. And when
he had done this he went to the church of Sudborough, and made
known to the whole township what had happened. And when he had
done this he returned again to the sack, and carried away the
skin of the doe. And the township of Sudborough sent after the
verderers and foresters, who came and found all the things,
just as aforesaid. And upon this an inquisition was made at
Sudborough on the Monday next following before the verderers
and foresters of the county by the four neighbouring townships,
to wit, Sudborough, Lowick, Brigstock, and Lyveden.
“Sudborough comes and, being sworn, says that Ralph the son
of Mabel of Sudborough was one of those men who fled, and
he delivered that venison to William the son of Henry of
Benefield. And the third was Robert of Grafton, who a short
time before was with Agnes Cornet, and he fled and is not yet
found. But the said Agnes Cornet pledges on her behalf of the
said Robert of his being before the justices of the forest, to
wit, Hugh the son of Roger, and Peter the son of Roger. And the
aforesaid Ralph the son of Mabel, and William the son of Henry,
were taken and sent to Northampton to be imprisoned; and they
were delivered to Sir Alan of Maidwell, then the sheriff of
Northampton.
“The flesh of the doe was given to the lepers of Thrapston. And
the snare with which the said doe was taken was delivered to
Robert the son of Luke of Lyveden, and Ralph the son of Quenyl
of the same town, to keep until the coming of the justices of
the forest.
“The township of Sudborough finds pledges of being before the
justices of the forest, because it allowed Maurice de Meht
to carry away the skin of the doe. The chattels of Ralph the
son of Mabel were taken into the hand of the lord king, and
appraised by the verderers and foresters at nine shillings, and
they were delivered in bail to Thomas of Grafton, who dwells in
Sudborough. Robert of Grafton, the fugitive, and William the
son of Henry had no chattels. Maurice de Meht was not taken
because he said that he was with Sir Robert Passelewe, then
justice of the forest.”
On the same rolls were entries of the Rockingham venison given by the
lord king. In 1247 these royal gifts included two bucks for Nicholas
de Criel, ten bucks for the Countess of Leicester, two bucks for Sir
Geoffrey Langley, one buck for Robert de Mares, and ten bucks for Aymar
de Lusignan. In the following year Richard Earl of Cornwall, who held
a general hunting warrant, took deer in the park and without it about
15th August, and the same in the following month, on his return from
the north. About August, Sir Simon de Montfort had twelve bucks out of
Rockingham bailiwick of the king’s gift, and at Michaelmas the Bishop of
Carlisle had a present of three bucks. In 1248-9 Henry III. hunted in
person at two different seasons, namely, about the Feast of St. Katherine
(25th November) and about the Feast of St. Peter’s Chains (1st August),
taking deer at his pleasure. Among the royal gifts of 1249 were five live
bucks and ten live does for the Earl of Derby, and eight does for the
abbot of Westminster.
When an archbishop, bishop, earl, or baron passed through a royal forest,
he was entitled, under the Forest Charter of 1217, to take one or two
heads of game, but only in the sight of the forester, and not furtively.
Among those who availed themselves of this privilege about this period
were the Bishop of Lincoln, a hind and a doe, in 1245; the abbot of
Westminster, a buck and a buck’s pricket, in 1246; Henry, the son of the
Earl of Leicester, a buck’s pricket; the Count d’Aumale a doe, and the
Bishop of Carlisle a buck in 1247.
The pleas of the forest were held on 25th June, 1255, at Rockingham,
before William le Breton, Nicholas de Romsey, and two other justices
in eyre. Ten years had elapsed since the last eyre, and several cases
brought before justices were about ten years old. About thirty-five cases
of venison trespass were presented and proved. Among the offenders was
Simon the parson of Old, who took a roe in 1249. He did not appear, and
order was sent to the Bishop of Lincoln to cause him to attend. Before
the court rose he was fined in the heavy sum of £5.
In June, 1254, a deer was taken beneath Rockingham castle wall by the
men of the parson of Easton. The foresters lay in ambush through the
night, and at daybreak they saw three men and three greyhounds, of
whom they took one man and two greyhounds. The man was sent to prison
at Northampton, and died there. As the men and hounds were with Robert
Bacon, the rector of Easton, order was sent to the bishop to cause Robert
to appear on the 10th of July.
The next forest pleas for Rockingham were held in August, 1272,
after an interval of seventeen years. The justices were Matthew de
Colombieres, Nicholas de Romsey, and Reginald de Acle. The following
serious poaching offence, aggravated by contemptuous action, then came
before the justices; we venture again to avail ourselves of Mr. Turner’s
translation:—
“It is presented and proved that Simon the son of William
Tuluse, Richard of Ewyas, the page of William Tuluse, William
of Wootton, Ralph of Drayton, the chaplain at Wootton, Simon
of Hanslope, the page of the aforesaid Simon, Alan the son of
Hugh of Lowick, the woodward of Robert de Nowers of his wood
of Bulax, John Messias of Lowick, Robert Pette of Lowick,
Ralph Iuelhering of the same town, Robert of Grafton, Henry
of Drayton and others of their company, whose names are to be
ascertained, entered the forest aforesaid on Wednesday, the
feast of St. Bartholomew in the fifty-sixth year, with bows
and arrows; and they were shooting in the same forest during
the whole of the day aforesaid and killed three deer without
warrant, and they cut off the head of a buck and put it on a
stake in the middle of a certain clearing, which is called
Harleruding, placing in the mouth of the aforesaid head a
certain spindle; and they made the mouth gape towards the sun,
in great contempt of the lord king and of his foresters. And
the foresters, when they were at last perceived by them, hailed
them; and the evil-doers shot at them against the peace of
the lord king. And the foresters, after raising the hue upon
them, fled and could not resist them. The aforesaid Richard of
Ewyas, Alan, Ralph, Robert, and Henry came; and being convicted
of this they are detained in prison. And the aforesaid Simon
Tuluse and Simon his page did not come; therefore an order is
sent to the sheriff of Berks that he cause them to come on
Monday next before the feast of the apostles Simon and Jude. As
to the aforesaid William of Wootton an order is given above.
And as to the aforesaid Ralph the chaplain an order is sent to
the Bishop of Lincoln that he cause him to come on the feast
of the apostles Simon and Jude. And the aforesaid Robert Pette
and John Messias are not found; therefore let them be exacted
etc. And because the aforesaid Alan, the sworn woodward, was an
evil-doer with respect to the venison, therefore, by the assize
of the forest, let the aforesaid wood of Bulax, which he had in
custody, be taken into the hands of the lord king.
“Afterwards an inquisition is held and it is proved by all
the verderers of all the forest of Northampton that Ralph of
Heyes the bailiff of the Earl of Warwick at Hanslope, who has
lands at Binsted near Alton in the county of Southampton,
Roger, Ralph and Thurstan the sons of John the son of John of
Hanslope; Henry the son of the parson of Blisworth, William
Wolfrich of Wick, the man of Simon Tuluse, Walter the man of
William Tuluse, and Thomas who was the son of the chaplain
of Blisworth, with all the above-mentioned persons, by the
provision, counsel, order, and assent of William Tuluse entered
the forest of Rockingham on the aforesaid Wednesday the feast
of St. Bartholomew and during the two preceding days and killed
eight deer at least, and a doe, as is aforesaid, whose head
the aforesaid Simon Tuluse cut off and put on a stake. And the
aforesaid Richard of Ewyas put a billet in its throat. And the
venison of the aforesaid eight deer was carried from the forest
in the cart of Ralph Iuelhering as far as Stanwick; and it
rested there for one night at the house of Geoffrey Russell,
he himself not being at home, nor knowing anything thereof;
and from thence it was carried to Hanslope to the house of the
aforesaid William Tuluse and Simon his son, who had caused
all this to be done; and there the aforesaid venison was
divided and eaten. And it is proved that while the aforesaid
evil-doers were in the forest obtaining the aforesaid venison
during the three days above mentioned, they were harboured at
the houses of Alan le Gaunter of Cotes and Robert of Lindsay
in Lowick, who were privy to this. And afterwards Robert de
Nowers came and made fine for having his wood again by one
mark; his pledges were Simon of Waterville and Robert Grenleng.
Afterwards Alan le Gaunter came, and was detained in prison.
Afterwards Henry the son of the parson of Blisworth came and
was detained in prison. And the aforesaid Thomas the son of the
chaplain came and was detained in prison.”
Gifts of Rockingham venison continued to be made by Edward I.; it would
be tedious to detail them even if there were abundance of space. The
grants of timber were but rare.
The king often directly interfered to secure the release on bail of
venison trespassers. On 30th July, 1280, Edward I. ordered the release
of Matilda de Braundeston from imprisonment at Rockingham for a venison
trespass to twelve mainpernors to have her before the forest pleas. In
the following year the king instructed his steward or keeper, Richard de
Holbrok, to order an inquisition on oath of foresters, verderers, and
others, whether one William Genn, imprisoned at Rockingham for a trespass
in Rutland forest, was guilty or not, and if not guilty to deliver him to
twelve mainpernors to produce at the forest pleas if anyone had aught
further to say against him. In the same year the steward had like order
to release on bail another trespass prisoner, unless he had been used to
offend in the forest. In 1282 two prisoners were released on bail by the
king’s orders, and in 1283 eleven more venison trespassers, one of whom,
Roger Acle, was a clerk.
A perambulation of 1286, ordered by Edward I., bears witness to the
vast extent of the technical forest of Rockingham at that date; it
extended from the south bridge of Northampton to the bridge of Stamford,
a distance of thirty-three miles, and from the river Nene on the east
to the Welland and the Maidwell stream on the north-west, yielding an
average breadth of between seven and eight miles. But when Edward I.
formally confirmed the Great Charter in 1299, the forest bounds were more
carefully investigated, and the limits of the 1286 perambulation were a
good deal reduced, the new afforesting of Henry II. in several directions
being struck out. The land that was then disafforested became purlieu.
It may be well to refer to just a few of the many incidents affecting
this forest during the long reign of Edward III.
In 1331, Nicholas, abbot of the Cistercian house of Pipewell, with two
of his monks and another offender, were imprisoned at Rockingham for
trespasses of both vert and venison; they obtained letters from Edward
III. to the keeper of the forest to release them on bail until the next
eyre was held. This order had to be strongly repeated, the keeper being
accused of keeping the abbot and others in prison to satisfy his malice;
eventually they were released on bail in chancery.
In 1342 the keeper and other ministers of the forest of Rockingham were
ordered to permit the provost and chaplains of the college or chantry of
Cotterstock to have the tenths of assarts and wastes within the forest.
In accordance with the king’s letters to them, Edward II. had granted to
John Gifford, his clerk, right of common for all his animals and cattle
within the forest, and subsequently power to assign this grant to the
provost and chaplains of this new foundation. The grant of the tenths was
to cover various newly-made assarts.
The ministers’ accounts for 1461-2 show that Robert Roos had succeeded to
the keepership of the castle and forest, on the death of Humphrey Duke
of Gloucester. This office was held on the annual payment to the king
of £65 10_s._, with the addition of £16 10_s._ for the custody of the
herbage and pannage of Brigstock park. The hedging in of sixty acres in
the great park of Brigstock, and of forty acres in the lesser park for
hay, cost 66_s._ 8_d._, whilst 20_s._ was paid for the carriage of the
hay in winter for the sustenance of the deer; considerable repairs were
done to the lodges of Brigstock and Benefield.
The accounts of 1437 show that William Prostagne was at that date
constable of Rockingham, keeper of the forest, and ranger of the
bailiwick. Payments were made in the Rockingham bailiwick for rights of
sheep-folding, called _faldage_, from the different townships; thus Corby
paid 7_d._ a year, Great Oakley 3_d._, Little Oakley 2_d._, and Carlton
12_d._ For the escapement of horses and mares payment was made by the
townships at the rate of 7_s._ 4_d._ a year. The fence month payments
amounted to 9_s._ 4_d._, Cottingham and Middleton paying jointly 3_s._
4_d._, Corby 2_s._, and Great Oakley 2_s._ The lawing of dogs was known
at this time as houndsilver. The total of houndsilver was 27_s._, namely,
6_d._ for each man having a dog; the township of Gretton paid 14_s._,
whilst Corby and Little Oakley only paid 3_s._ each. The total receipts
exceeded £100, by far the largest items being the rents for different
manors. For instance, the abbot of Peterborough paid £12 yearly for the
manor of Cottingham. The expenses amounted to £13 9_s._ 0½_d._ The clerk
who enrolled the accounts had a wage of 7_s._ 6_d._, and the parchment
used for the accounts and for the swainmote roll cost 8_d._
Pleas of the forest were held at Rockingham on 7th September, 1490,
before Sir John Ratcliffe and Sir Reginald Gray, when Thomas Haslewood
was sheriff. Juries from the hundreds of Willybrook, Hamfordshoe,
Polebrook, Rothwell, and Corby; in each case twelve in number were in
attendance. There were also present Viscount John Welles, the master
forester and keeper; Edmund Malpas, Esq., his lieutenant for the baily of
Rockingham; Thomas Digby, his lieutenant for the baily of Brigstock: and
John Pylton and William Lynne, rangers, riding foresters, and agisters
for the king.
The full total of the foresters, woodwards, parkers, “palesters,”
launders, constables, and four-men, and other ministers in attendance as
officials at this eyre amounted to the considerable number of 221.
Those who put in their claims to their respective liberties in the forest
were the abbots of Peterborough, Pipewell, and Croyland; the prior of
Fineshead; the prioress of St. Michael of Stamford; and the master of the
College of Fotheringhay; together with a variety of claims from lay-folk,
mostly of a small character.
The venison presentments at this court, covering the period of the first
five years of the reign, made by the foresters, verderers, and regarders
were considerable, and included the legal distributions made by the
master forester as keeper. They also presented many others, knights and
esquires, for killing ninety-nine deer, during the same period, with
dogs and bows and arrows _contra statutum et assisum foreste_; probably
some of these changes were in the main covered by some real or imaginary
permit or right; but they are mostly endorsed on the margin _Coram
Rege_, and must therefore have been referred for the decision of the
ordinary justices of the Crown. Separate presentments were made, under
a different heading, of eighteen charges of deer-slaying against yeomen
and husbandmen, several of which were by night, and may be considered as
ordinary poaching charges. In all these cases the sheriff was ordered to
apprehend the offenders and to deliver them at Westminster for trial.
There were also certain charges against the foresters themselves, and in
these cases the offenders were admitted to bail.
In the vert pleas, presentments were also made of the authorised cases
of felling timber for specific purposes, or in compliance with letters
and warrants; of cases of officials acting against the assize of the
forest with regard to cutting down trees or clearing coppices, which were
referred _Coram Rege_; and also of upwards of fifty cases of the alleged
illegal removal of trees and underwood, etc., by foresters and other
transgressors.
An interesting case of encroachment and enclosure came before the court.
John Zouch had enclosed with “dykes, quyksettes, and clausures” certain
common ground and pasture at Cokendale and Wrenstye adjoining the forest,
against which action the king’s tenants and farmers of the lordships
of Brigstock and Stanion within the forest protested. The court
gave judgment in favour of the tenants, and instructed David Malpas,
lieutenant of the forest, to take with him a sufficiency of the king’s
servants to cast down, if necessary, the ditches and hedges, and to see
that the tenants had sufficient and easy ways of approach to the common;
but he was in the first instance to call upon John Zouch and “such other
gentelmen” as might be concerned in the encroachment, to themselves
remove the fences, and in no case was he to suffer the actually aggrieved
tenants to take part in the work of demolition.
Viscount Welles, as master forester, was entitled to twelve bucks and
twenty-four does annually throughout all the bailies, and these are all
duly entered for each of the five years. There seem to have been at
this period far more deer in the baily of Cliff than in the other two
bailies. John Nightingale, yeoman, lately deceased, who had been keeper
of Cliff park for a long period, had killed therein 340 deer during the
reigns of Henry VI., Edward IV., and Richard III. The murrain during
the same period had been terribly severe, for 1,400 head of game had
died of disease. In Moorhay and Westhay (in Cliff baily), during the
first five years of Henry VII.’s reign, the foresters killed twenty deer
with dogs and bows and arrows. Two were allowed to be killed yearly by
the foresters in each of these subdivisions for the training of their
young dogs. In the same two districts of the forest, Viscount Welles
and Sir Grey Wolston, the lieutenant of Cliff, killed in the first year
thirty-one does and fourteen bucks; in the second year, twenty-five does
and twelve bucks; in the third, twenty-nine and thirteen; in the fourth,
twenty-three and sixteen; and in the fifth, fifteen and ten. The deaths
from murrain during these five years amounted to 282. During the same
period David Philip, Esquire, who was constable of Fotheringhay castle,
and who had succeeded Nightingale as keeper of Cliff park, killed five
bucks and eight does. The Earl of Wiltshire killed a buck and a doe; and
100 died of murrain. Those killed by David Philip and Lord Welles in
Moorhay and Westhay were for distribution among the county gentlemen to
secure their goodwill—_inter generosos patrie pro meliore securitate et
utilitate domini foreste_.
Sulehay and Shortwood formed another division of the baily of Cliff.
During the five years Lord Welles had killed therein sixteen bucks and
twenty-eight does for distribution among gentlemen, and David Philip five
bucks and eight does for distribution among the inhabitants.
These pleas were largely concerned with vert. John Nightingale was
presented by the regarders as cutting both wood and underwood in Cliff
park, of which he was the keeper, without due warrant. A like charge
was made against Robert Isham, Esquire; but in both these cases the
proceedings were rendered nugatory through the death of the alleged
offenders. Thomas Scarbrough was charged with carrying off twelve
trees called “stubbes,” and David Philip with removing a large number
of “spires,” a word in use in some forests to denote upstanding young
timber. Philip was also reported for the removal of many spires in
Moorhay and Westhay and Totenhoe; but much of the timber that he took was
used in the repair of Fotheringhay castle, for which there was ancient
precedent. Richard Sownd was charged with felling twelve spires, five
other trees, five principal trees called “bordur” (boundary) trees, and
taking twelve loads of underwood, all without warrant.
In Rockingham forest, as elsewhere, it was customary to lop the twigs of
the oaks and other trees to afford sustenance for the deer in the winter.
Here it passed under the name of “derefal wode.” The amount depended on
the season. Thus in 1488 Lord Welles had twenty-six loads of derefal cut
in Cliff park, but only sixteen loads in 1489.
In addition to ordinary fuel wood (usually eight loads of windfall,
valued at 8_d._ a load), each forester had other vert perquisites. They
claimed yearly on the recurrence of the fence month additional timber in
recompense for their extra trouble. Thus John Wade, forester of Totenhoe,
cut down and removed two stubbs, valued at 5_s._, _pro le fence stubbe_;
another year he is entered as removing a tree, _voc’ a fense stubbe_,
valued at 2_s._ 8_d._; and there are like entries for other foresters.
Special fence timber for foresters occurs in some other counties, but
nowhere save Rockingham have we met with entries of “fox trees.” John
Holcot, forester of Moorhay, in 1485, removed a tree called a “foxtre”
for his own use, value 2_s._, and in the following year he had a
stubb of like value under a similar term. William and Nicholas Smythe,
foresters of Moorhay, had four stubbs called “fence stubbes” and two
stubbs called “fox stubbes.” Another entry for a different part of the
forest clears up the difficulty, where record is made of “fox et varmint
trees.” It seems obvious that this timber was a recognition of the
foresters’ industry in keeping down the number of foxes and other vermin.
Among incidental references to timber may be mentioned the felling of
spires for the repair of lodges, and for providing rails round the laund
of Moorhay. In 1488, Richard Watkinson, forester, felled four stubbs
worth 2_s._ 6_d._ for the men-at-arms who were going with the king to
northern parts.
The particulars furnished for this eyre by the verderers and the paid
officials of the bailies of Rockingham and Brigstock are almost as
detailed as the return of Cliff baily. The keeper of Geddington wood
had six stubbs allowed yearly for fuel. As fox and vermin trees, he had
received twelve stubbs during the five years, and ten more as fence
stubbs during the like period. Four trees from this wood were used in
the construction of a pinfold. In Fermyng wood, by Lord Welles’ orders,
eighty loads of derefal wood were cut in the first year of Henry VII.,
and ten loads of fuel wood and one stubb were taken for his hearth.
Robert Johnson, keeper of the wood, and John Salmon, the ranger, had each
a like supply for their hearths, whilst the deputies each received four
loads. There was a similar return for all the five years.
Amongst a great variety of details pertaining to this eyre that have to
be omitted, there is one that should not be passed over. It was then put
on record that twelve acres of wood and underwood had been cleared in the
coppice of Hamorton Dale, and the proceeds, together with those of other
clearings, given by Henry VI. to the repairs and rebuilding of the church
of Kingscliff and of the mill of the same town.
A variety of cases that came before the justices at the forest pleas
which opened in September, 1490, showed the prevalent use of crossbows
throughout the district. In 1493 Sir Reginald Gray held a court at
Collyweston for the sole purpose of restraining their use, at which all
crossbow owners were required to be present and produce recognisances.
“These be the names of personnes,” as is stated on a forest role, “yt
carrie crossebowes within the forest of Rokyngham of whom Recognisaunce
was taken as foloweth.” The list is headed by David Malpas, Esquire, and
John Zouch, Esquire, of Bulwick, followed by twenty-eight more names
who are chiefly described as yeomen. Richard Lownde, of Brigstock, had
two crossbows. The recognisances provided that anyone found bearing a
crossbow within the forest after 8th October, 1493, should be mulcted
in the sum of £10 to the Crown for every such offence, and the weapon
forfeited to the lord keeper of the forest.
Ten years later than this, namely in 1493, a general Act was passed
forbidding the use of a crossbow by any man save under the king’s
licence, unless he was lord or had 200 marks in land. In 1514 a much
severer statute was enacted, raising the property qualification to 300
marks, and imposing a £10 fine for every use of such weapon.
Notwithstanding, however, the registering of crossbows at Collyweston,
this weapon, so much more fatal in comparatively unskilled hands than the
longbow, continued to be used illicitly. At a court held at Brigstock, on
11th September, 1494, before Richard Empson, acting as deputy justice of
the forest by command of Sir Reginald Gray, and which was in reality an
adjournment of the pleas of 1490, there were several cases presented of
the killing of deer (sores and prickets) with crossbows, particularly in
the Little Park.
There is an elaborate account book at the Public Record Office (96
pp.) of the wood sales and expenses of 1555-6 in Rockingham and other
Northamptonshire forests. The parcels of wood sold to different persons
out of the woods of Apethorpe, Bulwick, Oundle, Polbrook, Newton,
Fotheringhay, etc., amounted to £117 16_s._ Hedging was paid for at the
rate of 2_s._ 8_d._ the acre; this was the rate of pay assigned to Greye
and his company for hedging eighteen acres. An entry like this probably
refers to the temporary enclosing with rails and thorns of a piece of
laund for hay for the deer. £5 4_s._ 0½_d._ was expended this year on the
repairs required by the various lodges and launds.
In the same year (2 and 3 Philip and Mary) forest pleas were held for
Rockingham.
The personal expenses of the justices of the forest eyre on this occasion
are set out in detail:—
“Mr. Attornay and others appoynted to be there” had for supper at
Stamford, on 27th July, 1556, “Chickens 11_d._, rost muton 17_d._,
pidgeons 5_d._, bread and ale 3_s._ 6_d._, taille (teal) 8_d._, buskyetts
and carawayes 5_d._, and wynne and suker 20_d._” On Monday at breakfast
they consumed: “Chickens 6_d._, eggs and butter 3_d._, boiled meat
10_d._, a peace of beffe 8_d._, a pece more of befe 12_d._, rost beefe
6_d._, a conye 4_d._, a dishe of pike 3_d._, bread and beare 3_s._ 4_d._,
wynne and suker 6_d._” For dinner on the same day they had: “Boylled
meate 3_s._ 4_d._, vealle 5_s._ 4_d._, lamb 2_s._ 6_d._, pigs 2_s._
6_d._, befe 2_s._ 4_d._, pyes 6_s._ 8_d._, roste moutton 3_s._, rappetes
2_s._, bakynge of venyson 20_d._, peper 2_s._ 8_d._, paist 2_s._ 6_d._,
butter 6_d._, for payns and charges in the dressyng of the same 3_s._
4_d._, wynne and suker 7_s._, breade and beare 11_s._” The same day at
supper they began with “pig brothe,” followed by an abundance of beef,
mutton, chickens, and rabbits, etc.
“Horsemeate for Mr. Attornay his horses for on day and on nyght” amounted
to 14_s._; the sheriff’s man received 3_s._ 4_d._ for “settyng upp of a
tente for the Judges to sytt in and other Implements for the same”; two
poor men had a shilling each for fetching two bucks from the sheriff.
The charges for the Justice Seat at Oundle, on July 27th, was on a higher
scale; 40_s._ 6_d._ was spent in beer ale, and 39_s._ 6_d._ in wine. The
horsemeat of the judges’ 32 horses cost 14_s._ 4_d._; the horsemeat for
Mr. Attornay and the commissioners’ horses cost an additional 18_s._ Half
a mark was spent at Oundle in setting up benches in the Guildhall for the
judges and their clerk.
On the last day of August of the same year a Justice Seat was held at
Weldon. The eating and drinking was on much the same scale; “the swillers
in the kytching” cost 16_d._
A certificate of the regarders of Rockingham for 1577-8, presented by
Robert Ewarde and Rowland Slade, shows that wood was sold that year to
the value of £231 1_s._ 8_d._ Mention is made in the sales of “wrassel
okes,” a term not found by us in dictionaries, or usually met with in
forest accounts; it was probably an equivalent for the dotard oaks, or
those whose upper boughs were barkless and withered. The winter store of
“derefal” wood is at this date called “derebrouse.”
In 1638 the chief justice in eyre issued his commission to Edward Sawyer,
of Kettering, Esq., giving him full power and authority to inquire from
time to time of all such persons as are known and suspected of unlawfully
keeping and using dogs, nets, crossbows, guns, and other engines for the
destruction of the game in Rockingham forest. He was commissioned to
employ a constable or head borough to search for dogs, etc., within five
miles of Kettering, and to take into custody suspected persons and keep
them till further instructed.
On the last occasion when a great store of venison was brought to
Whitehall, “against Christmas,” for Charles I., then (1640) on the
threshold of his troubles, twenty-four does came from Rockingham; this
was by far the largest number out of those supplied by nineteen different
forests or parks; the only other two that reached double figures were
Whittlewood and New Forest, each of which supplied twelve.
The commissioners appointed by the 1786 Act for inquiring into the state
of woods and forests belonging to the Crown issued an elaborate report on
Rockingham in 1792. It then consisted, as of old, of the three separate
districts or bailiwicks of Rockingham, Brigstock, and Cliff, each of
which were divided into two or more walks. In Rockingham were Benefield
Laund, Vert Walk, and the woods of Gretton, Little Weldon, Weedhaw,
Thornhaw, and Corby; in Brigstock were the woods of Eddington and
Farning; and in Cliff those of Westhay, Moorhay, Sulehay, and Shortwood.
It is there stated that all the bailiwicks were formerly under one warden
or master forester, an office granted by James I., in 1603, to Lord
Burleigh for three lives; but Charles I. abolished the office, and gave,
in 1629, the master forestership of Rockingham, with Geddington woods, to
Edward Lord Montague, for three lives, and that of Cliff to trustees for
Mildmay, Earl of Westmoreland, for three lives. In 1674 the wardenship
of Farning wood was granted to Sir John Robinson for three lives. The
commissioners of 1792 found that Mr. George Finch Hatton was warden of
Rockingham, the Earl of Ossory of Farning wood, the Earl of Exeter of
Westhay, and the Earl of Westmoreland of Moorhay, Sulehay, and Shortwood;
whilst Geddington woods, which had been disafforested in 1676, had been
granted to Lord Montague and his heirs for ever.
The actual woodlands then included in the forest were 9,482 acres;
namely, Rockingham 3,500, Brigstock 1,400, and Cliff 4,582; but most of
them were private, though subject to certain forest rights and burdens.
The number of deer must have been very considerable, for upwards of 100
bucks and a larger number of does were annually killed.
The two swainmote courts that used to be held, the one for Rockingham
and Brigstock, and the other for Cliff, had long since come to an end,
together with the whole array of minor forest ministers, and the forest
had remained chiefly under the care of the hereditary keepers or master
foresters. In 1702 it was found that the Crown could claim the oak timber
in Sulehay woods, and over 2,000 trees were sold between 1704 and 1736,
yielding a net revenue of £3,623.
The commissioners came to the conclusion that:—
“A forest in a situation so distant from any residence of the
royal family, with an establishment of officers, either granted
in perpetuity or esteemed of little value by those who possess
them, and in which so little of the right to timber has been
preserved, can neither contribute much to the amusement of the
king, the dignity or profit of the crown, or the advantage of
the public.”
They therefore recommended disafforestation, and the sale to the owners
of the wood of any rights to the timber that the Crown might possess. The
commissioners’ recommendations were carried into law by Acts of 1795 and
1796.
Lack of space compels the entire omission of the accounts which had been
prepared of Salcey and Whittlewood forests in this county.
CHAPTER XX
THE FOREST OF OXFORDSHIRE
Oxfordshire from the earliest days was exceptionally well wooded. The
whole county was in the main woodland down to the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries. On the north of Oxford lay the chase of Woodstock, which
merged on the forest of Wychwood to the west; on the north-east, near
Bicester, was the forest of Bernwood, a considerable section of which was
in this county; on the east were the adjacent forests of Shotover and
Stowood; on the south-east were the wild stretches and dense backwoods
of the Chilterns; whilst on the south the woods of Cumnor and Bagley
completed the circle. It was doubtless the great preponderance of hunting
ground, at a comparatively short distance from London, that made this
shire so favourite a resort of our Norman kings. Henry I., in order to
secure good accommodation when indulging in the pleasures of the chase,
built himself an important house at Beaumont on the north side of Oxford,
as well as a hunting-lodge at Woodstock. This royal lodge was surrounded
by a park enclosed within a stone wall seven miles in circuit, and is
said to have been the first English park enclosed with this material.
Here, according to William of Malmesbury, the king established a
menagerie of foreign beasts. “He was extremely fond of the wonders of
distant countries, begging with great delight from foreign kings, lions,
leopards, lynxes, or camels. He had a park called Woodstock wherein
he used to foster favourites of this kind; he had placed there also a
creature called a porcupine, sent to him by William of Montpelier.”
Camden, writing in Elizabethan days, was much impressed with “the great
store of woods” that covered the hills of Oxfordshire; but Plot, in his
_Natural History_ of the county, written shortly after the Civil War,
described it as sadly shorn during those troublous times of its ancient
glory.
Oxfordshire, strange to say, is destitute of a county history, and the
story of its woods and forests is as yet unwritten. The material for an
interesting monograph on this subject is fairly abundant; all that can
here be attempted is to give a few facts, for the most part hitherto
unchronicled, respecting the two royal forests of Wychwood and Shotover
with Stowood, together with an incidental reference or two to Bernwood
forest, which lay chiefly in the county of Buckingham.
The Close Rolls of the beginning of Henry III.’s reign supply a good
deal of fragmentary information about the two forests of Wychwood and
Shotover. Thomas de Langley was at that time master forester-of-fee for
Wychwood. In 1216 he received the king’s command to permit the abbot
of the Cistercian house of Bruern to take a third load of wood out
of the forest, in addition to the two loads already granted him. In
the following year Langley was instructed to allow William de Brewere
to take ten wild boars and ten trees. In 1218 order was made for the
perambulation of the forest, in order that its ancient bounds might be
established and recent additions disafforested. The Crown interfered in
1221 in order that there might be due agistment of pigs, and that the
owners of swine within the forest without warrant might be presented;
these instructions were issued to the verderers, the forester-of-fee, and
the agisters. Wychwood was one of the royal forests, to the verderers
and keepers of which special orders were sent by letters patent as to
the extensive windfall after the great storm of 1222. Robert Arsic had
permission from the Crown in 1223 to hunt the fox and the hare with
hounds throughout the forest of Wychwood. In the same year Thomas de
Langley was instructed to take two wild boars (_porcos silvestres_), and
to transfer them to the royal park of Havering, in Essex. About the like
date the keeper was ordered to deliver four good dry roers, two of which
were to be suitable for fuel, to the prior of Lanthony. In 1226 Ernald
de Bosco was granted two does and a buck, and ten loads of dry underwood
for fuel were bestowed upon the hospital of St. John Baptist at Burford.
Ralph Fitz-Nicholas obtained three oaks in 1229 towards the building of
his houses at Eston. In the following year Earl Ferrers received fifteen
oaks in aid of his manor house at Stamford, which was then being rebuilt,
and a little later he had a grant of five does from the same forest.
On 7th February of this year, Thomas de Langley, the forester-of-fee,
paid the exceedingly heavy fine of £100 to the king that he might be quit
of the results of forest trespasses, of which he had been convicted a few
days earlier, namely, on the Feast of the Purification, before John de
Monemue and his associates, justices of the forest pleas, when four acres
of land in Wychwood, given him by King John, had been resumed by the
Crown.
At the time when these pleas were being held, the king commanded John de
Monemue to give to the prior of Cold Norton ten dry roers for his hearth.
Two years later it was found that the prior had never received this wood,
and a renewed order to the same effect was issued to Peter de Rivallis,
chief justice of the forests.
About this period a large supply of fuel wood was granted to the
Dominicans of Oxford and to the hospital of St. John Baptist, Oxford, and
five oaks to John de Beauchamp.
The nuns of Godstowe obtained from Henry III., in 1231, the tithe of
all deer taken in this forest, whether by the king hunting in person or
otherwise.
As to Shotover forest, orders were issued to the keeper and verderers
in 1222, to suffer the hospital of St. Bartholomew, Oxford, to take one
hundred horseloads of dry wood for fuel. In the following year twenty
tie-beams (_copulas_) were ordered to be supplied out of Shotover forest
to William, the chaplain of the Bishop of Winchester, towards the repair
of the church of St. Budoc, Oxford, beneath the castle; it had been
thrown down for strategic purposes during the recent war. In the same
year, 1223, the necessary timber for constructing a gaol at Oxford and
for repairing the castle was obtained from Shotover. In 1229, when Peter
Mimekan was bailiff of Shotover forest, George de Crancumbe obtained
four dry leafless roers for fuel. In 1230 there was an order which
throws a little light on the vexed question of the nature of the roer
or _robur_; at all events, this entry on the Close Rolls seems to show
that there was a distinct recognition of the difference between _robur_
and _quercus_, even when both were merely intended for fuel purposes.
Nicholas de Farnham had had a grant from the Crown of four roers out of
Shotover forest for firing, and on 6th April, 1230, Henry III. ordered
that, if this grant had not been executed, four oaks for fuel (_ad focum
suum_) should be substituted for the roers. Fuel wood was granted from
Shotover in the same year to the hospital of St. John Baptist at Oxford.
The Bishop of Chichester obtained a grant in the next year of four dry
roers for his hearth at Oxford. Another interesting grant of 1231 was
that of eleven loads of fence timber to Elias, chaplain of the Earl of
Cornwall, to enclose his church of Horsepath.
On 26th June, 1231, the king, at the instance of Ralph Archdeacon of
Chester, Richard Archdeacon of Leicester, William de Thany Archdeacon
of the East Riding, and of the Chancellor of Oxford, and the whole
University, granted that Thomas de Compton, Henry de Kinneton, and
three others, who had been found in the forest of Shotover with bows
and arrows, and had for that trespass been arrested and detained in the
king’s prison at Oxford, should be set at liberty, and issued his mandate
to the sheriff of Oxford to that effect.
At a later date in the same year, thirteen Shotover trees were supplied
to the Dominicans of Oxford for fuel purposes.
An eyre for forest pleas was held at Oxford, before William le Breton and
three other itinerant justices, which opened on 24th January, 1256. At
this eyre the pleas of the forest of Wychwood and Shotover were heard, as
well as of that part of the forest of Bernwood which lay in Oxfordshire.
The Close Rolls of Edward I. record various royal gifts from the
Oxfordshire forests. In 1276, Philip Mimekan, keeper of Shotover, was
ordered to supply Sir Francis de Bononia, LL.D., with eight oaks and
their loppings for his fire; and at the same time the keeper of Bernwood
received the remarkable order to supply Sir Francis with two young bucks
and four young does, together with four live hares and six live rabbits,
to be placed in the king’s garden at Oxford, in accordance with a verbal
promise made by the king to the doctor. The keeper of Wychwood was
directed, in 1277, to supply both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the
abbot of Bruern with six roers a piece for fuel. In the following year
four bucks were sent from Shotover, as the king’s gift to Bartholomew
de Sutlegh; in 1279, the abbot of Bruern had twelve oaks with their
strippings, from the wood of Cornbury, in Wychwood forest.
In 1280, six live does were sent to the Earl of Lincoln from Wychwood to
help to stock his park at Middleton; and in 1284, eight live does and
four bucks were granted to Thomas de Charlcote towards stocking his park
at Hasele. In 1281, six bucks were given from this forest to the Earl
of Warwick; in 1282, six bucks apiece to the Bishop of Worcester and to
John Lovel; and in 1286, twelve more bucks to John Lovel. From Shotover
forest, six bucks were given in 1281 to James de Ispannia, nephew of
Queen Eleanor, the king’s consort; and six bucks in 1283 to Geoffrey de
Lucy. In 1288, James de Ispannia obtained three bucks from Wychwood, and
three from Bernwood.
Among the timber grants from Wychwood may be mentioned fuel trees for
the Dominican friars in 1281; eighty cartloads of brushwood for the
king’s fuel in 1282; fuel trees for Alphonsus de Ispannia, another of the
queen’s kinsmen, then at the schools at Oxford, in 1285; and timber for
the building of the church of the Carmelite friars at Oxford, in 1286.
The Patent Rolls of Edward I. also supply various incidental references
to the Oxfordshire forest. In 1279, the king pardoned Walter de
Hanborough for taking a buck in Wychwood forest, on paying a mark as a
fine. In 1281, the farm of this forest, valued at £7 a year, was assigned
as part of the dower of Queen Eleanor, the king’s mother. In the same
year there was a commission to deliver Oxford gaol of certain young
scholars, who were in custody there for forest trespasses in Shotover.
Licence was granted in 1282 to Richard de Wyliamescote, to hold, during
the minority of the heir of Thomas de Langley, deceased, the custody of
the forest of Wychwood.
Mandate was issued to the king’s foresters, in 1283, not to implead
Edward Earl of Cornwall, the king’s kinsman, touching thirty-eight bucks,
and two harts, lately taken by him with the king’s licence, to wit,
in the forest of Wychwood seven bucks, in the forest of Shotover and
Stowood seven bucks and two harts, in the forest of Bernwood thirteen
bucks, and in the forest of Whittlewood eleven bucks. Ela, Countess of
Warwick, obtained leave in 1290, to have a cartload of dry wood daily, by
view of the foresters, out of the forests of either Wychwood or Bernwood.
Mandate was issued to the sheriff of Oxford on 28th June, 1290, not to
molest the Bishop of Winchester, or his minister, Philip de Hoyvill, and
Master William, parson of the church of Witney, or other ministers of
his, under pretext of a former writ as to venison and assart trespasses
in the bishop’s chases of Witney within the precinct of the forest of
Wychwood; for at that time those who held the inquest were ignorant of
the king’s charter giving the bishop and his ministers licence to take
venison in his chases, and to assart wood within the metes of the forest.
John de Langley, bailiff of the forest of Wychwood, in consideration of
a fine of twenty marks made by him before Hugh le Despenser, justice of
the forest, in the presence of the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer,
was pardoned in 1305 of all trespasses committed by him in his bailiwick
within the forest; the bailiwick, which had been taken by the justice
into the king’s hands, was at the same time restored to him.
Licence, after inquisition held by Hugh le Despenser, justice of the
forest, and in consideration of a fine of 100 marks, made by the abbot,
was granted in 1307 to the abbey of Eynsham to hold the woods of Eynsham
and Charlbury, within the forest of Wychwood, and also the wood of Eton
within Shotover forest, quit of regard, on condition that the venison
was well kept, and the covert of the wood of Eton was not destroyed. The
keepers appointed by the abbey were to take oath not to commit venison
offences, and all such trespassers were to be attached by the king’s
ministers of the forest.
Did space permit, a great variety of references to foresters-of-fee,
to official appointments, to Crown gifts, and to summons for regards
and forest pleas could be cited throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries, and at later periods, relative to the Oxfordshire forests,
chiefly from the Patent and Close Rolls; but we are not aware of any
detailed proceedings relative to eyres or forest pleas that are extant.
There is a fragment at the Public Record Office relative to pleas held
at Headington on 8th August, 1465, before H. Bourchier, itinerant forest
justice for the forests of Shotover and Stowood. All that is extant is
the claim made by Sir Edmund Rede to be keeper of these forests, in
company with extensive right and privileges.
In 1468 Edward Hardegill, a Crown yeoman, was appointed ranger of
Wychwood, at a wage of 6_d._ a day.
Oxfordshire affords a striking example of the attempt to revive strict
forest jurisdiction in the time of Charles I.
A court was held at Headington for the forests of Shotover and Stowood
on 9th June, 1636, before the foresters, verderers, agisters, regarders,
and other ministers of the forest. Henry Lord Holland was keeper;
Michael Molines, Esquire, lieutenant; Sir John Crooke, chief ranger;
and Sir Henry Crooke and Unton Crooke, Esquire, verderers. There were
three foresters, one for the Old Lodge walk in Shotover, one for the
New Lodge walk in Shotover, and the third for Stowood. Edward Whistler
was woodward for the whole forest. The twelve regarders have all “gen”
appended to their names. There were also present two gentlemen keepers
(_preservatores_), two agisters, five sub-foresters, two wardens of the
coppices, and two pages. The reeves and four men of eleven neighbouring
townships were in attendance as well as a large number of free tenants.
At the head of the presentments of 1636 appears the conviction of William
Willoughby, shipwright, for having on 20th June felled fifty oaks, each
of the value of 20_s._, and exposed them for sale contrary to the laws
and assize of the forest; for this offence the very substantial fine
of £2,000 was imposed. The same delinquent was further presented and
convicted for having, on 23rd June, got up the roots of these oaks, each
valued at 5_s._; for this offence Willoughby was fined in the further sum
of £20. The next presentment and conviction was against two husbandmen
of Marston, who had felled and removed an oak tree worth 3_s._ on June
3rd; the fine in this case was £5. Another delinquent was fined 40_s._
for taking an ash worth 6_d._ The fine for removing three cartloads of
ash, worth 20_s._, was £10. There were several fines of 20_s._ for taking
green wood to the value of 4_d._
Among the venison trespasses, the most serious was that of Roger
Gardiner, who for killing two does and two bucks was fined £100.
For killing a doe with a dog called “a Maungrell,” John Symondes of
Headington was fined £5. William Willoughby, the much-fined shipwright,
incurred a further fine of £10 for having caught a fawn in a sawpit. John
Wheston was fined in the heavy sum of £20 for netting hares.
There were also various heavy fines, the lowest being 20_s._, for
agistment trespasses.
In twenty-five cases offenders (one of whom was John Symondes of
Headington) were released at the close of the court on finding
recognisances to appear at the next pleas. The first of these was Ellis
Mercer, husbandman, who found two sureties, one in £20 and the other in
£10: “The condition is That if the said Ellis Mercer do appeare at the
next Inter Foreste or Justice Seate for this Forest to bee houlden, and
there make aunsweares to all such matters as on his Majesties behalf
shal bee objected against him and shall not departe the said Courte
without Lycense, and in the meane tyme bee of good behaviour to his
Majesties game Virt and Venison of the same forest, That then the said
Recognisances to bee void, otherwise be rendyred in full force.”
The tenth report of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, issued in
1792, is chiefly concerned with the forest of Wychwood. Its boundaries
at that date were the same as those given at a perambulation taken in
October, 1665, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament of the previous year,
when the forest area was very greatly restricted. The Commissioners found
the forest enclosed within a stone wall. The undergrowth, divided into
eighteen coppices, enclosed for a limited time after each cutting, had
an area of 1,841 acres; the lodges with their launds, 127 acres; and the
open ridings, woods, and unenclosed waste lands 1,741 acres—giving a
total acreage of 3,709. Many of the surrounding parishes and hamlets had
rights of pasture. The offices for the forest government were a ranger,
a launder (to take care of the launds), four keepers, two verderers, and
a woodward. There were then about a 1,000 head of deer, all fallow; the
numbers annually killed were 61 bucks and 42 does, of which 6 bucks and
6 does were sent to the king’s larder. The red deer had become extinct
about ten years previously. The Duke of Marlborough was the ranger. The
trees were chiefly oak and ash, with a small admixture of elm, beech,
sycamore, lime, and horse-chestnut. The browse wood cut for the deer in
the winter was in the main of thorn, maple, ash, holly, and ivy.
At the time of this commission, through jobbery and recklessness, almost
the whole of the fine timber of old Wychwood forest had disappeared.
The Commissioners were only able to mention 173 oaks as fit for navy
purposes. In 1800, when Young rode through the district, he found “many
very beautiful scenes, particularly where the nut fair is held, a glen
by Mr. Dacre’s lodge, and others approaching Blandford Park, with vales
of the finest turf, but not one very fine tree of navy oak in a ride of
sixteen or seventeen miles.” Wychwood was not finally enclosed until 1862.
CHAPTER XXI
THE FORESTS OF BERKSHIRE, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE AND HUNTINGDONSHIRE
BERKSHIRE
It is generally stated that there was never any forest in Berkshire save
that of Windsor, which, with its purlieus, occupied so large a portion
of the eastern section of the county. But the fact is that almost the
whole county was forest, that is, under forest laws, in the earlier part
of Henry III.’s reign. In 1219, when there was a general summons of
forest ministers for a special inquisition, the foresters and verderers
of the forest of Berkshire were ordered to meet at Reading. In 1221 the
king granted custody of the forest of Berks to the knights and free
tenants residing within its bounds, up to the date of his coming of age,
on condition of their appointing two knights who were to answer in all
things pertaining to the forest the chief justice of the king’s forests,
according to the customary assize, both in vert and venison, as well as
other attachments, and in verderers’ presentments. They were also to see
to a regard being taken every third year. The bounds of the forest of
Berks are at the same time set forth; they began at Reading at the place
where the Kennet falls into the Thames; thence almost due west by the
Kennet to the place (above Padworth) where the Emborne, or Auburn, then
spelt “Aleburn,” falls into the Kennet; thence by the Emborne, which
forms the boundary between Herts and Hants, to Woodhay, and on to Inkpen;
from Inkpen by a green road to Chilton Foliat; from Chilton Foliat along
the boundary between Berks and Wilts to the river “Lenta”; and thence
by the banks of the Lenta to the place where that stream falls into the
Thames; and thence by the Thames, round the Oxfordshire borders of
Berks, back again to the inflow of the Kennet at Reading.
Maps and records of all kinds have been consulted in vain in the
endeavour to identify the name Lenta; but it seems practically certain
that it was an early name for the river or stream long known as the Cole,
which forms for several miles the boundary between Berks and Wilts,
passing by Coleshill; it falls into the Thames near Inglesham at the
extreme north-west of the county. It thus follows that practically the
whole of Berks was at this time under forest jurisdiction; for the part
to the east of Reading and the Kennet came within the forest district of
Windsor, or, as it was then occasionally called, the forest of Oakingham
or Wokingham.
All of Berkshire save the Windsor district was soon afterwards
disafforested.
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
The western part of the county was occupied by part of the forest
of Bernwood, on the confines of Oxfordshire, whilst part of the
Northamptonshire forests of Whittlewood and Salcey overlapped its
northern boundary. Early in Henry III.’s reign mention is made on several
occasions of the forest of Buckinghamshire; but it was evidently the term
used for those parts of the county attached to the forests just named.
King John gave to the canons of the abbey of Nutley the right to use
freely two carts to obtain firewood throughout the forest of Bernwood
between Easter and All Saints, save during the fence month, and this
right was confirmed by Henry III. in 1228 and in 1230. In 1229 Ralph
Briton obtained the royal licence to hunt with running dogs the hare and
the fox throughout the whole forest bailiwick of Hugh de Neville, in the
counties of Bucks and Northants. The forest of Brill, though generally
known in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries by the separate title,
was more usually considered part of the forest of Bernwood. It was part
of the demesnes of the Crown, and tradition has it that Brill was a
residence of Edward the Confessor. Henry II. held his court here in 1160,
and Henry III. in 1224. Brill forest was well supplied with fallow deer;
fourteen does from here were amongst the king’s venison gifts in 1229.
Out of this forest, in 1231, Henry III. gave fourteen dead trees for
fuel to the Friars Minor of Oxford.
Forest pleas were held in 1229, when Bucks was associated for that
purpose with Hunts. In November, 1255, four forest justices held pleas
at Buckingham for the parts of the forests of Bernwood and Whittlewood
which were in that county. In the following January the same justices
were at Oxford, hearing the pleas for that part of Bernwood which lay in
Oxfordshire, together with the forests of Wychwood and Shotover.
In August, 1266, as set forth by Mr. Turner in _Forest Pleas_, an
inquisition was held at Hartley, in Bernwood forest, concerning the
bailiwick of John the son of Nigel, which he held in that forest by
hereditary right, as the king wished to be certified as to his rights,
customs, and services. The jury certified that he held by hereditary
right the bailiwick of this forest from the Stonyford as far as a certain
water, called the “Burne,” running between Steeple Claydon and Padbury;
and that he had the rights of cheminage, of after pannage, of all nuts,
of dead wood, and of the loppings and roots of all trees given or sold
or taken for his own use by the king. Two other rights are sufficiently
interesting to be set forth in detail.
“He has and he ought of hereditary right to have throughout the
aforesaid bailiwick trees felled by the wind, which is called
cablish (_chableis_), and that in the form underwritten, to
wit, that if the wind fells ten trees in one night and one day,
the lord king will have them all; but if the wind fells less
than ten trees in one night and one day, the aforesaid John the
son of Nigel will have them all.”
“Also this same John has of right by reason of the same
bailiwick all attachments and issues of attachments made of
small thorns, to wit, of such a thorn as cannot be perforated
by an augur (_tarrera_) which is called ‘Restnauegar.’”
The last clause of the verdict of this inquest was to the effect that
John had to guard the bailiwick of all the forest in return for these
privileges, and also to make an annual payment to the king of 40_s._
HUNTINGDONSHIRE
In the early Norman days the greater part of Huntingdonshire was under
forest law, but this was restricted, even in Henry II.’s time, to
the districts west and north of the county town, generally known as
the forest or forests of Weybridge and Sapley. Mr. Turner, in _Pleas
of the Forest_ (74-9), has reproduced interesting matter relative to
Huntingdonshire forest inquisitions of the years 1248-53, with regard to
cases of venison trespass presented by the foresters and verderers of
Weybridge and Sapley.
Pleas of the forest were also held in June, 1255, before William le
Breton, Nicholas de Romsey, Geoffrey de Lewknor, and Simon de Thorpe,
justices in eyre. The roll of this eyre is of special interest, and has
been reproduced and translated by Mr. Turner (_Pleas of the Forest_,
11-26). The following is one of the more striking cases:—
“It is presented by the foresters and verderers that it is
proved by an inquisition of the towns of Alconbury, Weston,
Great Stukeley and Little Stukeley, that a certain Gervais
a man of John of Crakehall was seen at night in the forest,
for the purpose of evil doing with unknown evil doers, with
greyhounds, bows and arrows. And afterwards the same Gervais
was found carrying the harness of his lord, John of Crakehall,
within the court of the granges of the priory of Huntingdon,
and was there taken by the foresters and put in the prison of
Huntingdon. And upon this came Walter, the vicar of the church
of St. Mary of Huntingdon, and other chaplains of the same
town, whose names are not known, and William of Leicester,
a servant of the bishop of Lincoln. And they took the said
Gervais from prison as a clerk, and led him away with them.
And now the same Gervais does not come; and therefore Master
Roger of Raveningham, archdeacon of Huntingdon, who is present,
is ordered to have the said Walter the vicar and the others
before the justices on Sunday etc. At that day came the said
Master Roger, and brought Walter the vicar, who says that
when the said Gervais was taken and imprisoned as aforesaid,
he came with his fellow chaplains and admonished them that
they should deliver the same Gervais from prison, and restore
him to holy Church on the ground that he was a clerk. And the
foresters, fearing excommunication, permitted him to depart and
did nothing else. And the said Walter was told that he took
out of prison, and carried away the aforesaid Gervais against
the peace and by force. And, being asked how he wished to
acquit himself, he says that he will not answer in this court;
therefore the foresters and verderers are asked whether the
said Walter and the others carried away the same Gervais from
the prison or whether the foresters, fearing an ecclesiastical
sentence, of their own will permitted him to depart. They say,
that William of Leicester and Walter and the others came to the
foresters with books and candles meaning to excommunicate them
if they did not deliver the aforesaid Gervais from prison, and
they said they had not power to deliver him. And then William
and the others went to the prison and dragged out and carried
away the same Gervais. And Master Roger comes and demands
the said Walter as his chaplain, and he was delivered to him
convicted of the aforesaid deed. And afterwards comes the said
Gervais; and it is proved by the foresters and verderers, that
he is an evil doer to the venison. And the aforesaid Master
Roger demands him as a clerk; and he is delivered to him as a
manifest evil doer, and one convicted of this. And because John
of Crakehall harboured this Gervais after that deed, and he
still stands by him, therefore he is in mercy.”
Another venison case at this eyre was that of Michael of Debenham, who
killed a buck in a field with an axe, was taken by the forest steward
to the sheriff, and imprisoned at Huntingdon. The sheriff was called
to judgment for the escape, but he was dead. When Michael escaped from
prison, John of Debenham harboured him, therefore John was in mercy. Also
Richard of Stilton saw Michael kill the buck and did not raise the hue;
he was attached under pledges, but he is dead. And because the townships
of Yoxley, Folksworth, Stilton, and Morborne did not make inquisition,
therefore they were in mercy.
There was also a curious case of clerical trespass before the justices.
A chaplain and seven clerks were found on the king’s road in the forest
with bows and arrows. They were taken on suspicion by the foresters
before the steward, who retained them for a time in prison, and then
handed them over to the sheriff, who imprisoned them at Cambridge.
Afterwards they were delivered by the justices in eyre at Huntingdon
to the Bishop of Lincoln, as clerks. Simon of Houghton, then sheriff,
neglected to inform the justices that the clerks were arrested for an
evil deed and trespass, therefore the justices of 1255 pronounced him in
mercy; and the verderer to whom the bows and arrows were delivered to
take them before the justices was also in mercy because he then had them
not.
There were also various other instances of men apprehended with
greyhounds in the forest; but the most serious case before this eyre was
that of Richard Weston, a servant of the abbot of Waltham, and William
and Bartholomew Turkil, of Whittlesey, men of the homage of the prior of
Ely, who, with five other unknown men, took forty roe deer in the marsh
of Kings Delph, on 17th December, 1254, by order of brother Gervais of
Arlesay, of the abbey of Waltham, who harboured them.
At a swainmote held at Weybridge at Michaelmas, 1451, before John Collam
and Richard Est, verderers, John Ilger, John Roper, and William Mernyk,
foresters, said on their oath that they had no presentments to make.
There was a like result to the swainmote held at the following Martinmas.
In the following year there was only a single presentment at the
Midsummer swainmote, when a husbandman was convicted of killing a fawn
with a noose (_cordulo_); whilst at the Michaelmas swainmote there was
again only one presentment, namely, of another husbandman who had killed
a doe with a “curdogge.” The two next swainmotes were virgin sessions. At
Michaelmas, 1454, it was reported, as the sole business, that an unknown
person had killed a fawn with a greyhound. The swainmote of Midsummer,
1455, affords an instance of a rough method of night poaching adopted in
this forest. Three husbandmen were convicted of having placed at night
a cartrope and two small cords above the cartrope in such a position
as to take the wild beasts of the king; the foresters confiscated the
ropes. The actual words are—_unum cartrope cum duobus cordulis vocatis
guarys super eundem cartrope_. The word _guarys_ was probably a local
pronunciation of the term gear, implying small ropes used as a rough kind
of harness. A snare of this kind most likely consisted of a strong rope
stretched near the ground in a deer path to cause the deer to trip, with
nooses suspended above to catch their heads.
At this last swainmote the foresters reported before the verderers that
the beasts of the king (deer) were dying every day of the murrain,
and that about sixty fawns, by a careful estimate, had been killed by
foxes and other vermin since the previous court which had been held at
Martinmas.
On the back of the membrane recording these Weybridge swainmotes,
diverse warrants for the delivery of timber addressed in English to
the verderers are cited. They were issued by Richard Devyle, Esquire,
supervisor of the forest of Weybridge, and on the margin is written, “By
the Quene.” The following is an example:—
“Welebelovyᵈ, we Wil and charge yowe that on to oure
welebelovyᵈ William Prudde yᵉ delyver a Oak to be takyn within
oure forest of Wabryg of our geft and these oure lettres shal
be unto you sufficiant Warrant geven under oure signet at
Wyndesore the xxix day of Juyn the yere of my lord xxxii.”
The like form is used for the delivery of deer. Of the eight warrants of
this year, one was issued immediately by the queen, and begins “Margarite
by the grace of Godde Quene of Ingland and of Fraunse and lady of Irland,
daughter of the kyng of Sicile and Jerusalem to the kepers of our forest
of Wabryg.”
The rolls of the swainmote court held at Weybridge in Easter term, 1503,
include the following memorandum:—
“Mᵈ that it is said that there was felled and sold this last
yere past by Gerard Stukeley 400 tymbre trees of the grettist
and best that were in the said forest by what Warrant it is
unknowen.
“Also it is said that there was sold the said yere an huge
nombre of loodes of fyrewood about 400 by estimation and
without warrant as is said.”
“There had bene gret sale made this yere past in the Forest of
Sapley to the som of Twenty pounds or xxxˡⁱ by estimation and
rather above.
“Also it is said that there shalbe a sale made in Sapley this
yere next comeyng by the said Gerard withoute a Restraynt be
had.”
Gerard Stukeley’s reply to these charges was to the effect that the
king’s lodge of the forest of Weybridge was “ruynous and in grete
decay”; that the verderers assigned 48 trees to him for its repair to
the value of £4; that Sir John Sapcotes, deceased, the late warden, to
whom the underwood belonged by reason of his office, ordered him during
his lifetime to cut and dispose of it, which he did to the extent of
under 100 loads; that since the king had been pleased, “at the speciall
instance of the noble pryncesse moder to our seid sovereigne lord,” to
appoint him warden of Sapley, he had caused the underwood to be felled
“accordyng to the auncient custom there used oute of tyme of mynde.”
Information was at the same time laid against John Stukeley, son of
the keeper of Weybridge, that he had felled trees to the value of £40,
without warrant or authority, as well as underwood to the value of £20.
In his answer, John Stukeley stated that he had neither felled nor sold
any forest trees, save (on the warrant of Gerard Stukeley) those assigned
to himself and other keepers as their wages and fees, and those required
by the verderers for the repair of the lodge; and that as to underwood he
neither felled nor sold any, save “certeyn browsyng-wode felled for the
kinges deer there this last hard wynter for the salvation of the kinges
game there, which said browsyng-wode belongeth to the master forester as
in ryght of hys office.”
CHAPTER XXII
THE FOREST OF DEAN
The history of this important forest has received far more attention
at the hands of local historians than has usually been the case with
the ancient wastes of other counties. In Atkyn’s _Ancient and Present
State of Gloucestershire_ (1768), it is accounted the third in size of
the forty-eight ancient forests of England, and a fair outline of its
history is given. This account is materially supplemented in Rudder’s
_New History of Gloucestershire_ (1779), and was further followed up in
Bigland’s _Historical Collections_ (1741). The third report (115 folio
pages) of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, 1783-97, is almost
wholly given up to the consideration of Dean Forest. Many of these facts
are to be found in Fosbroke’s _Record of Gloucestershire_ (1807). The
Rev. H. G. Nicholls, in 1858, published an _An Historical and Descriptive
Account of the Forest of Dean_, which covered 286 pages, and to this
he added, in 1863, a supplementary volume on _The Personalities of the
Forest of Dean_, containing much fresh information.
There is still, however, so large an amount of unused material extant
with regard to the history of this forest, that a monograph, which
promises to be of an exhaustive character, is now (1905) in course of
preparation. All that can be here attempted is to give a very brief
outline of the forest annals, citing a variety of information that has
not hitherto been published.
The forest of Dean forms a considerable division in the west of
Gloucestershire, and comprises about 30,000 acres between the rivers
Severn and Wye. Of its great dimensions Michael Drayton thus sings in his
_Polyolbion_:—
——Queen of forests all that west of Severn lie,
Her broad and bushy top Dean holdeth up so high,
The lesser are not seen, she is so tall and large.
It derives its name from Dean, the old market town of that name within
the forest bounds. The tithes of the forest venison were granted by Henry
I. to the abbey of Gloucester. Henry II. granted to the abbey of Flaxley,
founded in 1140, the right to have two forges for the making of iron in
the forest, one stationary and the other itinerant. For the feeding of
these forges the abbey was allowed two trees every week. The keepership
of the forest was usually associated with the custody of the castle of
St. Briavel, which is said to have been built by Milo, Earl of Hereford,
in the reign of Henry I.
The restless King John, as is shown from his itinerary, was frequently
sojourning in the forest between the years 1207 and 1214, doubtless for
purposes of the chase; he generally stopped a day or two both at the
abbey of Flaxley and the castle of St. Briavel during his visits. In
February, 1215, when staying at Marlborough, he directed Hugh de Nevill
to permit William de Cliff to take four hinds in the forest of Dean,
and John de Monmouth and Walter de Lasey three each. In June, 1216, the
king appointed John de Monmouth to the custody of the castle of St.
Briavel and to the keepership of the forest, and directed the verderers,
foresters, and other officials to submit themselves to him as the king’s
bailiff. Two months later John instructed the newly-appointed keeper to
find everything that was necessary for Alberic, his huntsman, with twelve
dogs, two horses, two grooms, and a berner.
On 30th September, 1216, John wrote from Lincoln to the constable of St.
Briavel, ordering that cattle were only to be agisted on the fringes of
the forest, and not in the forest itself, nor in those places frequented
by the wild boars (_porci silvestres_).
The Close Rolls of Henry III. abound in references to this great
Gloucestershire waste, but lack of space prevents the majority of these
cases being cited here.
Boar hunting at this period was sufficiently important for Henry III.
to grant in 1226 a tithe of the boars thus killed to the abbey of
Gloucester. In December of that year the king was hunting here in person,
and he instructed Roger de Clifford to hand over to the sheriff of
Gloucester, for due conveyance, five great boars, fifteen hinds, and the
rest of the results of the royal hunt. In the summer of the following
year the king was supplied with ten harts from this forest. In July,
1231, when John, the huntsman, was taking harts for the king’s use at
Dean, he was ordered to dispatch a hart without delay to Eleanor, the
king’s cousin. From these and many later entries it is quite clear that
the red deer largely predominated in Dean forest during the first half
of the thirteenth century, though there was a small admixture of fallow
deer; but the proportions were reversed before the time Edward I. came to
the throne.
The regulations with regard to the forges of this forest for iron-making
were frequent, stringent, and changeable. The necessity for limiting them
arose from the quantity of fuel they required. The manor of Cantelupe
had early chartered right to an itinerant forge, and endeavours were
made from time to time to confine its consumption to dry or windfallen
wood. In 1228 the king gave orders that there were not to be more than
three itinerant forges worked by the royal servants. In the following
year the abbot of Faxley was ordered to confine his itinerant forge to
the thorn thickets (_spissitudinibus_) on the confines of the forest. So
much difficulty arose from the abbey’s insistence on its old chartered
rights to two forges, that in 1244 the Crown compromised the matter by
the handsome grant of 872 acres of woodland in exchange for the charter’s
surrender.
In 1225 Henry III. granted a recluse, or hermit, named Panye de Lench,
four acres of land in the forest and two oaks wherewith to build himself
a house.
It is stated in Nicholls’ history of this forest that the first recorded
perambulation took place in the reign of Edward I., but this is an error.
A perambulation was undertaken by an inquest of twelve knights in 1228,
with the result that the bounds were declared to be the same as in the
days of Henry II. The forest occupied the whole peninsula ground between
the Wye and the Severn, proceeding north-east as far as Newent, and north
as far as Ross, save that the Bishop of Hereford had a chase in the wood
of Laxpeniard, and the Earl Marshal a warren at Tudenham.
Forest pleas were held in 1258 and again in 1270. The next eyre was in
10 Edward I., when the bounds of 28 Henry III. were confirmed. At that
date there were nine bailiwicks in the forest, each under the charge of
an hereditary forester-in-fee, and all subordinate to the constable of
St. Briavel, who was the keeper, or master forester, of the whole. He
also had the special charge of the tenth bailiwick of Rywardyn. The nine
other bailiwicks and their respective foresters were Abbenhalle, under
Ralph de Abbenhalle; Blakeney, under Walter de Astune; Bleythe, under
Ralph Hatheway; Berse, under William Wodeard; Bicknoure, under Cecilia de
Michegros; the Lea, under Nicholas de Lacu; Great Dean, then in the hands
of the king; Little Dean, under Ralph de Abbenhalle; and Stauntene, under
Richard de la More. The verderers were four in number, and elected, as
elsewhere, by the freeholders for life, but removable by the Crown.
Of these pleas of the forest of Dean, which were held at Gloucester
in the octave of St. Hilary, 1282, before Luke de Thany, Adam Gurdon,
Richard de Crepping, and Peter de Lench, justices, exceptionally long
details are extant. The first membrane is taken up with twenty-seven
_essoins de morte_, established in each case by the appearance of the
heir, near relative, or some other responsible person; and with the
names of fifty-eight persons who surrendered themselves on the first
day of the session for venison trespasses, ten for vert trespasses,
and two for heath-burning. Fines, varying from 12_d._ to 40_d._ were
imposed on upwards of seventy persons for non-appearance. Among the vert
presentments were charges of taking timber for sale by boat to Bristol,
and a few cases of charcoal burning.
The presentments of venison trespasses were very numerous; they cover
both sides of eight long membranes. They are arranged chronologically,
beginning in 1271, after the last eyre, when the Earl of Warwick was
keeper of the forest, and continuing through the keepership of Philip
Wyther and Walter de Snape up to the year of the eyre.
The great majority of the cases are concerned with fallow deer, but in
a few cases the killing of red deer, and in two instances roe deer are
recorded. Boats on the river were much used by venison as well as vert
trespassers.
The regard of the forest, which had been taken in preparation for the
eyre, is set forth in great detail on six membranes—the old and new
assarts, the old and new purprestures, and the survey and destruction
of woods. In the last case it was presented that the wood of chestnuts
had much deteriorated since the last eyre, through the bad custody of
Ralph Abbenhall, the forester-in-fee of the baily of Abbenhall. The
regarders found there thirty-four stumps of chestnuts that had recently
been felled, of which Roger de Clifford, the justice, had had two for
making tables. A wood of sweet chestnuts was a great rarity in England,
and evidently much prized. When Henry II. founded Flaxley abbey, he gave
the monks the tithes of the chestnuts of Dean. The old name for Flaxley,
as mentioned in the foundation charter, was the valley of Castiard, a
place-name probably derived from the presence of the chestnut trees. The
vert presentments of this eyre show that the chestnut, from its rarity,
was about three times the value of the oak, namely, 8_s._ a tree.
The regarders also reported as to the boats owned by the tenants, which
were so often used for the illegal exporting of wood and timber. The
regarders estimated the damage done to the king by each boat in sums
varying from half a mark to forty shillings. These sums, with a usual
additional fine of 12_d._, were exacted by the justices.
This highly interesting roll of forest pleas, one of the fullest extant,
which specially deserves being printed _in extenso_, concludes with long
lists of mainpernors or the givers of bail, and with statements of claims
to liberties and the names of the attorneys by whom they were supported.
At the time of this eyre there were found to be, according to Nicholls,
no fewer than seventy-two of the itinerary or movable forges within the
forest; the Crown received for licensing them 7_s._ each a year.
Mr. Nicholls has printed much concerning the receipts and expenditure of
this Crown forest, from the Pipe Rolls of 1130 downwards, and this could
easily be supplemented by further particulars, especially of the reign
of Edward II. Throughout the fourteenth century the forest of Dean was
frequently called upon to furnish considerable contingents of archers
and miners to serve in the wars with Scotland and France. In 1316 the
men of the forest also took a prominent part in the suppression of Welsh
disturbances. Three commissioners of array were appointed in February for
the purpose of raising a force of 1,000 foot soldiers in the forest of
Dean and elsewhere in the county of Gloucester, who were to be marched,
at the king’s wages, against Llewellyn Bren and his followers.
In 1316, tithes to the value of £10 issuing from the iron mines in the
parish of Newland were granted to the Bishop of Llandaff; but this
assignment met with great opposition at the hands of the Dean and Chapter
of Hereford, who sent their servants to use forcible resistance. In
the following reign this dispute was settled in favour of the bishop,
who also obtained the great tithes of Newland and the advowson of the
vicarage. In 1324 the Earl of Pembroke was ordered to cause his ministers
to desist from hindering the abbot of Gloucester from felling wood for
his houses and for fuel in the woods of Bridewode and Hopemaloysel within
the forest bounds, as he held an ancient chartered privilege.
Edward III., in 1329, granted to Guy de Brien, the farmer and keeper of
the forest, the cutting of all the underwood, to find wages for four
foresters. In the same year Gilbert Talbot was licensed to impark and
hold in fee-simple a plot called Haygrove, parcel of his manor of Lynton,
Herefordshire, containing one hundred acres of land and fifteen acres of
wood, which was within the metes of the forest in the time of Edward II.,
but had by perambulation been then placed outside the forest.
Notwithstanding their bravery and skill as soldiers, the inhabitants of
some parts of the forest had an evil reputation as wreckers. Thus in 1344
a special commission was issued to deal with the persons who had attacked
a ship of Majorca, laden with goods and wares, which had been driven
ashore by stress of weather in the parts of the forest of Dean, and had
plundered the master and mariners of the ship and others deputed to guard
the goods, and this at a time when the king had entered into truces with
his adversaries on every side.
Richard II., in 1391, granted the castle of St. Briavel and the forest
of Dean, to the value of £80 a year, with assarts, purprestures, rents,
advowsons, liberties, etc., to his uncle Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, in
part satisfaction of the sum of £1,000 a year granted to him to maintain
his ducal rank.
In the days of Henry VI. the character of the miners and tenants of
the forest had grown worse. The men of Tewkesbury, in a petition to
Parliament of 1430, charged them with attacking their vessels, by which
they conveyed goods down the river to Bristol, “with great ryot and
strengthe in manner of warre,” despoiling them of their merchandise and
their wheat, malt, and flour, sinking their boats and drowning those who
resisted them.
The Crown was continuously appointing, during the latter part of the
fifteenth century, to various offices in this forest, the duties of
which were generally discharged by deputy, or granting charges on the
receipts to their servants. Thus in 1480, Edward IV. granted to Robert
Mutton, “gentilman,” the office of porter of St. Brivel and receiver of
the forest of Dean; to William Sclatter, the king’s servant, in 1481, the
parkership of Whightmede park and 4_d._ daily from the forest issues; and
to John Grenehill, one of the Crown yeomen, in the same year, 6_d._ daily
from the issues of the king’s mines. Richard III., in 1484-5, granted to
George Hyett the office of riding forester, together with that of “ale
cunner” in the parish of Newland; and to John Peke the life office of one
of the rangerships.
The suppression of the monasteries brought about much confusion in this
and other forests. Dean forest was more especially effected by the
dissolution of the abbeys of Flaxley and Tintern. The Kingstons, father
and son, to whom much of the monastic properties and forest privileges
were granted, were insistent on their rights, but failed to discharge the
obligations that had been fulfilled by the religious houses.
It has been stated both by Fuller and Evelyn that the Spaniards so fully
recognised the great value of Dean forest, as supplying the best timber
for England’s navy, that special instructions were given to the admirals
of the Armada, to accomplish the devastation of these woods, even if they
were not able to subdue the nation and make good their conquest.
A grant was made to William Earl of Pembroke, in 1611, of the castle
of St. Briavel and of the forest, with all its appurtenances, save the
timber, for forty years at a rental of £83 13_s._ 4_d._ A survey of 1638
returned that the forest contained 105,557 trees, containing 61,928 tons
of timber, in addition to 153,209 cords of underwood. An entire sale was
thereupon made by the Crown to Sir John Wintour of all woods, mines,
quarries, etc., within the forest in consideration of £106,000, to be
paid by instalments, and a fee-farm rent of £1,950 12_s._ 8_d._ for ever.
The commissioners and commoners agreed at this time to the disafforesting
and enclosure of 18,000 acres.
Sir John Wintour, on entering into possession, made many enclosures,
and grubbed up much timber and underwood; but the outbreak of the Civil
War checked his proceedings, and the inhabitants threw down all the
enclosures. For a time it seemed as if general lawlessness would bring
about the destruction of all the woods, but Cromwell and the Parliament
took vigorous measures for their preservation in 1648. An Act was passed
in 1656 by which Wintour’s grant was declared void, and the whole forest
was vested in the Protector for the use of the Commonwealth.
At the Restoration, however, Wintour again entered into possession, and
began to re-enclose. The inhabitants offered strenuous resistance, and
the matter was referred to a commission to survey and report. It was
found that there were 25,929 oaks and 4,204 beeches, “as good timber
as any in the world.” A new treaty was entered into with Wintour in
1661, by which he surrendered his former patent, and agreed to preserve
11,335 tons of shipping timber. It was, however, reported to the House
in 1663 that Wintour had 500 cutters at work, and that the woods would
all speedily disappear unless there was further interference. The work
of destruction went merrily on until 1668, when it was decided by Act of
Parliament that 11,000 acres might be enclosed by the Crown; that all the
wood and timber on the remaining 13,000 acres was to be vested absolutely
in the Crown and reafforested; that the deer on that waste were never to
exceed 800; and that the winter heyning and fence month, when no kind of
cattle were to be agisted, was to extend from St. Martin’s Day to St.
George’s Day in April, and for fifteen days before and fifteen days after
Midsummer.
Into the question of the pulling down of the king’s iron works in the
forest, in 1674, and the establishment and continuance of the Mine Law
Court, space prohibits us to enter. The more recent development of coal
and iron industries in this beautiful district is also foreign to our
purpose.
As to the deer, which seem to have been almost entirely fallow after
the Restoration, they became much reduced in number by the end of the
eighteenth century, although a most elaborate and costly staff of forest
officials were maintained. The commission of 1788 found that there was a
warden, six deputy wardens, four verderers, a steward of the swainmote
court (which never sat), nine foresters-in-fee, nine woodwards, and six
keepers! Mr. Charles Edwin, chief forester-of-fee and bow-bearer, told
the commissioners that he was entitled to the right shoulder of all bucks
and does killed in the forest, and to ten fee-bucks and ten fee-does
annually; and that as bow-bearer it was his duty to attend the king with
bow and arrow and with six men clothed in green whenever His Majesty
might be pleased to hunt in the forest. But though receiving all his
venison perquisites, this chief forester-of-fee was so ignorant of any
corresponding duties, that he could not tell the commissioners the number
of deer or anything as to venison warrants executed in the forest. From
the six keepers the commissioners gained the vague information that they
believed there were about 500 “of all sort” in the forest. The deer were
finally all destroyed or removed from the forest in 1850, as the result
of Lord Duncan’s committee of the previous year, to the number of about
150 bucks and 300 does. The general feeling at that time was that their
presence had a demoralising effect as an inducement to poaching.
CHAPTER XXIII
THE FOREST OF ESSEX
Although the forest of Essex was one of the most important in England,
not only in extent, but in consequence of its nearness to the metropolis,
the chapter concerning it will be about the briefest in the book. The
reason for this is that Mr. Fisher, in 1887, published a learned and
almost exhaustive work on _The Forest of Essex_, based on researches
among a great variety of original documents and authorities. Moreover,
Mr. E. N. Buxton has written a most admirable handbook to that “superb
fragment of natural forest,” of which under its new rule he is the
verderer—the forest of Epping.
The forest of Essex was known from the beginning of the fourteenth
century as the forest of Waltham. It is only in comparatively modern
days that it has taken its name—now that its area is so much more
restricted—from the little town of Epping. It was the custom in this
county not only to call the whole forest by the names of principal
places, such as Waltham and afterwards Epping, but also to write of
the outlying parts, such as Kingswood, Writtle, and Hatfield, as well
as integral portions such as Theydon, Loughton, Chingford, Havering,
and Hainault, as though they were independent forests. But they were
all ancient Crown demesnes, under the same forest regulations, and
administered by the same chief officers. The whole, as late as Henry
III.’s reign, was, more usually, rightly spoken of as the forest of Essex.
The whole county was brought under forest law, save perhaps a portion
on the north-west beyond the great Roman road, by the Conqueror and
his immediate successors. A small amount of disafforesting was carried
out by Henry II. and by John. The perambulations of Essex forests, a
necessary sequel of the Forest Charter of 1217, were completed in 1225,
and the result was that about three-fourths of the county were ruled to
be outside forest jurisdiction, because it had been formally afforested
after the coronation of Henry II. in 1154. The part that remained forest
was in the south-west corner, round Waltham and Romford, with the
adjacent Crown demesne of Havering. However, Henry III. audaciously upset
this disafforesting in 1228, alleging that the perambulating knights had
blundered, the disafforested parts being old forest of the time of Henry
I., which had lost its rights in the disturbances of Stephen’s days, and
had been only restored as forest by Henry II. The group of Essex venison
inquisitions for 1238-40 (the earliest extant of any county), cited by
Mr. Turner in _Forest Pleas_, show that forest law was then in active
operation even in extreme parts of the county north of Colchester, on the
borders of Suffolk.
Various perambulations were made in the time of Edward I. confirming
the extended area; but in 1300, when he was sore pressed for money,
the commons made a fresh and definite perambulation of the forests a
condition of their grant. The result of the 1301 examination of forest
boundaries and their authorities was on broad lines the same as that
of 1225. The forest area was restricted to the Waltham and Havering
corner of the county, with the addition of the vills, or small districts
immediately round the towns of Colchester, Writtle, Hatfield Regis, and
Felsted, as they were all ancient royal demesne.
In 1630 boundaries were again laid down which practically agreed with
those of 1301. Four years later much indignation was aroused by the Crown
officials attempting to raise money by extending the area of Waltham
forest. Failing in this, an attempt, also futile, was made to secure its
disafforestation and sale. This resulted in an Act being passed, during
the first session of the Long Parliament, to fix the boundaries, and a
perambulation showed that Waltham forest comprised about 60,000 acres.
The chief duty of the reeves of the forest parishes was to mark the
cattle of their respective parishes which were entitled to forest
agistment with a special brand. The mark consisted of a letter surmounted
by a crown, the letters running consecutively from A to R. Many of the
old branding irons, with letters about eight inches high, are still
extant, and impressions are given in Mr. Fisher’s volume, from which
those on the accompanying illustration are taken.
[Illustration: CATTLE BRANDS. ESSEX FOREST
A—_Waltham Holy Cross_
E—_Epping_
C—_Chingford_
K—_Barking (Maypole)._
K—_Barking (Crooked Billet)._
H—_Chigwell_
L—_Dagenham_
O—_Walthamstowe_
Q—_Wanstead_]
The machinery of the forest laws, so far as the local courts were
concerned, was maintained with some measure of strictness far later in
Waltham forest than elsewhere in the kingdom. It was in active operation
until nearly the end of the eighteenth century, and was certainly
effective in preventing encroachments.
In 1812 Mr. Wellesley Pole (afterwards Lord Mornington) became hereditary
lord warden in right of his wife. This gentleman, as Mr. Buxton puts
it, “saw that more profit was to be made in breaking his trust than in
keeping it”; he refused to support the authority of the verderers, and
did all in his power to bring the forest laws and customs into contempt.
Finally, he sold the rights he was appointed to guard.
In the middle of last century wholesale enclosures began, resulting in
the complete destruction of the woodlands of Hainault in 1851 and its
conversion into arable land. A manufacturer of steam ploughs entered
into a contract to clear the land. Attaching anchors to the roots of the
old oaks, including the Fairlop Oak of ancient memory, he completed the
whole operation in six weeks. This ruthless action began to bring about
a reaction, and after a legal contest, extending over fifteen years,
in which the Corporation of the City of London played a great part,
the preservation of 5,500 acres of Epping Forest was secured for the
enjoyment of the public. The victory was won in 1874, and the management
of the forest vested in a committee, consisting of twelve members of
the Court of Common Council and four verderers; the latter have to be
resident within the forest, and are elected by the commoners.
For full particulars as to the history of the deer of this forest, of
the woods and wood’s rights—especially of lopping, which was practised
more in Essex than elsewhere—of the pasture and pannage customs, of the
enclosures and encroachments, and of the verderers, foresters, and king’s
woodwards, the reader is referred to Mr. Fisher’s comprehensive work.
CHAPTER XXIV
THE FOREST OF WINDSOR
The forest of Windsor was at one time of immense extent, having a
circumference of about 120 miles. It included a part of Buckinghamshire,
a small portion of Middlesex, the south-east side of Berkshire as far as
Hungerford, and a very large part of Surrey. In the early part of its
history almost the whole of Surrey was technically within the bounds of
Windsor forest, and subject to forest law; whilst for several centuries
the rights of Windsor forest on the Surrey side included Cobham and
Chertsey, and extended along the side of the Wey as far as Guildford.
But it gradually dwindled in extent through encroachments and grants, so
that when Norden made his detailed survey in the time of James I., the
circuit, exclusive of the Buckingham liberties, was only 77½ miles. At
the time of its enclosure in 1813, the circuit had been still further
reduced to 56 miles.
There is a noteworthy reference in the Close Rolls at the end of
John’s reign to the deer of this great forest. On 9th January, 1215,
the king gave orders for no fewer than sixty-four deer to be supplied
out of Windsor forest for the great feast at the consecration of the
bishop-elect of Coventry. This feast took place at Reading, for William
Cornhill was consecrated Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and Richard le
Poor Bishop of Chichester, on 25th January, in the infirmary chapel of
the Benedictine abbey of that town.
The references to royal grants made by Henry III. out of Windsor forest
are numerous and interesting, but for these search must be made in the
printed calendars of both Close and Patent Rolls.
The grants of timber in Henry III.’s reign out of Windsor forest were
not nearly so numerous as those from royal forests in Northamptonshire,
Wiltshire, Hampshire, or Essex; in fact, there were exceptionally large
tracts of open common and waste in this widespread forest district, where
even bushes were exceptional. The donations that were made were chiefly
to the religious, to the friars of Oxford, Reading, and London, to the
abbeys of Chertsey and Westminster, to the priories of Ankirk and Merton,
and particularly to the nunnery of Bromhall, within the forest.
Among the more interesting grants of timber for specific purposes are
those relative to ships and boats. In 1221 a grant of beechwood was made
to William Earl of Salisbury for building a ship; the trees selected were
to be those growing near the banks of the Thames, as the timber was to be
taken down to London. The constable of Windsor was directed, in 1224, to
supply the chaplain of the chapel of St. Mary of Faversham with timber
for making a boat (_batellum_) so that poor people and others might be
able to cross the Thames to Faversham and back. Again, at a little later
date, a good oak was supplied wherewith to make a boat for the conveyance
of poor folk over the water of Cavresham.
The ancient mitred abbey of Chertsey, founded in the seventh century,
had many liberties and rights within this forest, particularly on the
Surrey side. William II. granted the abbey leave to take wood for their
necessary uses out of the Surrey forests, and to hunt therein hare and
fox. Henry II., in a further charter, added to this general free warren
liberty to hunt the wild cat and to take pheasants, to impale parks at
Ebisham and Coveham, to have all the game in them free from molestation
by the king’s foresters, and that none of the forest justices or other
ministers were to disturb them in their four manors of Chertsey, Egham,
Thorpe, and Chobham, or even to enter therein. The venison privileges
were limited by charter of Richard I. and John, but their manorial powers
were increased.
The pleas of the forest were held at Guildford in 1256, but the earliest
eyre within Windsor forest of which there are any details was that held
at Guildford on 8th July, 1270, before Justices Roger de Clifford,
Matthew de Colombieres, Nicholas de Romsey, and Reginald de Acle. It
was then presented and proved by the verderers and by twenty-four
good men of the town of Guildford and its vicinity, as well as by many
sworn townships, that Walter Walerund, William his brother, and three
others who were all dead, as well as Thomas de Bois, a survivor, were
all habitual evil-doers to the venison of the king and to his conies in
Guildford park; that sometimes they were harboured at the house of Alan
de Slyfield, and sometimes at the house of John atte Hook, who were privy
to their offences; and that all these persons, on Whitsunday, 1267, took
in the park, without warrant, a buck, a doe, and thirteen conies, and
that Robert de Ford was their harbourer and privy to it. Ralph, Alan, and
John appeared, and were convicted and imprisoned. The sheriff was ordered
to produce Thomas and Robert at the court on 18th July. When Thomas de
Bois appeared he was imprisoned, but before the pleas were ended he was
released on payment of a mark. Ralph, Alan, and John were also released
on payment of half a mark. The next presentment was against five persons
who entered the same park on 22nd July, 1263, with bow and arrows and
greyhounds, to do evil to the king’s venison. Three of the offenders were
dead, and the other two were ordered to attend the court day by day. It
was afterwards proved that two more persons of this poaching party had
entered the park seven years previously; one of these was then living at
Farnborough, and the justice sent an order to the sheriff of Hampshire
to arrest him and keep him safely in prison until the eyre was held at
Winchester.
The information as to the agisting of the park, presented at this eyre,
is of interest. In 1257 the park was agisted with ten horses and a
hundred cattle for eight weeks, from Hockday to the Nativity of St. John
Baptist, at a charge of 1_d._ a head. After 24th June there remained
on the park herbage twenty plough-beasts at ¾_d._ a week. In the same
year the park was agisted for 156 pigs, and there was given in the
name of pannage for the king every third pig, or 52 pigs in all, each
worth 2_s._ Particulars, approximately the same, save that there was no
pannage, follow on the roll for the next two years. In 1260 there was no
agistment of herbage in consequence of the war, but the park was agisted
with 240 pigs for mast, 4_d._ being paid for each pig. In 1261 and in
1262 the park was not agisted, neither for herbage nor pannage. In
1263 there were 100 pigs for mast at 4_d._ a pig. In 1264 there was no
agistment for pigs through lack of mast, but it was agisted for a month
with 56 plough-beasts. Fifty oaks were felled this year for the king’s
house-building works at Guildford.
The bounds of the Surrey part of Windsor forest at this eyre were given
as: through Ham as far as Guildford bridge along the bank of the Wey;
from Guildford bridge along the “Copledecroche” (Hog’s Back) as far as
the “Malloesot” bridge; by the Woodbrook as far as “Brodesford” bridge
(Blackwater bridge); and so far by the king’s highway to Herpesford; and
so by the little river from Herpesford as far as Chertsey; and so by the
Thames to Ham.
The Close Rolls of 1275 show that the keeper of this forest received a
considerable salary. Geoffrey de Picheford, constable of the castle,
was ordered in that year to pay 12_d._ daily to Robert de Say, whom the
king had appointed chief forester and minister of the forest during
good behaviour, in place of John Inglehard, deceased, for his expenses
about that custody. In that year the foresters and verderers were busy
in selecting oaks and beeches throughout the forest to be used for the
impaling of Windsor park and the king’s other works. A little later in
the reign oaks were felled to be used in the making of a great barge for
the king’s ferry at Datchet. In 1276 the constable of the Tower of London
obtained thirty Windsor oaks to burn lime with for the works of the Tower.
The impaling of the new park of Windsor seems to have been completed in
1278. In November of that year the keeper of Chute forest, Wilts, was
informed by the king that he was sending one of his yeomen to take in
that forest live deer to stock his park at Windsor, and that he was to
permit as many to be taken as could be without damage to Chute forest.
In the previous year the Close Rolls also supply the information that
there were then wild (_silvestres_) bulls and cows in Windsor park; the
constable was ordered to effect their capture and sale, and to use the
money towards the expenses of the king’s children then staying at the
castle.
The keeper of Windsor forest received orders from Edward I. on 20th May,
1286, when the king was just about to cross the seas, to admit Edmund,
Earl of Cornwall, his kinsman, to chase in that forest at pleasure, and
to permit him to take deer, and to aid and counsel him in so doing. A
record was to be kept of the number of the deer thus taken.
The forest perambulations of 1299-1300 yield the following as to the
Surrey side of this forest:—
“The perambulation of the forest of Windsor, in the county
of Surrey, made on the Saturday next before the feast of St.
Gregory the Pope, in the twenty-eighth year of the reign
of king Edward, at Lambeth before Roger Brabancon, John of
Berwick, Ralph of Hingham, William Inge, and John of Croxley,
in the presence of Phillip de Sai, clerk of the justice of the
forest, the foresters and verderers of the forest aforesaid,
by the oath of William Aumbesas, John of Burstow, Robert of
Bekwell, knights, Robert le Dol, Robert of Walton, William of
Northwood, John Prodhomme, Robert att Send, Nicholas of Weston,
Richard of Horton, Edmund of Utworth, and John of Farnham, who
say upon their oath that the whole county of Surrey was forest
in the time of king Henry, the great-grandfather of the king
who now is, and the same king Henry died seised of it; and so
it remained forest until the fourth day of December in the
first year of the reign of king Richard, who then disafforested
a certain part of the same county by certain metes, which
are contained in the charter of the same king Richard made
concerning them, to wit, between Kent and the water which is
called the Wey, and from the hill of Guild Down as far as the
county of Surrey extends towards the south; and the rest of the
county aforesaid, to wit, beginning at the water of the Wey, as
far as the county of Surrey extends, to the north of the hill
of Guild Down, remained and is forest. And after that charter
was made nothing was afforested or occupied by king Richard or
by king John or by anybody else.
“They say also that they do not know that any part of the
county aforesaid was afforested by the aforesaid Henry, the
great-grandfather of the king who now is.”
There was a good deal of fickleness shown by Edward III. and his
advisers with regard to the Surrey part of the forest at the beginning
of his reign, as shown by the entries on the Patent and Close Rolls. On
27th December, 1327, the recent perambulation of the Surrey forest was
confirmed. The perambulation began at “Waymuthe,” and thence along the
Thames to “Ladenlakeshacehe,” where the three counties of Surrey, Berks,
and Bucks met; thence to the eastern corner of Windsor Park, to the mill
of Harpsford, to Thornhill, ... and thence to Bridford, where the three
counties of Surrey, Berks, and Hants met. This ratification concluded
with the assertion that the whole county of Surrey was without the
forest, and was so in the time of Henry, the king’s great-grandfather.
At the same time a mandate was issued to the sheriff to have the king’s
letters patent read in full county court, the proclamation publicly
proclaimed, and to cause it to be observed; but saving to the king forty
days from that date to chase the deer into his forest in places which,
according to the perambulation, are without the forest. Another mandate
of the like date was issued to the constable of Windsor Castle to use
all diligence in chasing all such deer in Surrey into the king’s forest
within the forty days.
The sheriff of Surrey was instructed on 15th October, 1329, to make
summons for an eyre of forest pleas for that county at Guildford, on
Monday after St. Andrew’s Day.
On 4th August, 1333, the Surrey disafforesting of six years earlier date,
apparently based on hasty and insufficient information, was annulled.
Order was then issued to obtain full information as to the bounds of the
Surrey forests in the time of the late king, and to cause them henceforth
to be guarded by the like boundaries, and this notwithstanding the grant
of 1527; for the king had understood that divers woods and open spaces in
Surrey ought to be afforested, as was fully proved by divers inquisitions
and memoranda in the treasury, and that the said woods and places under
colour of the late grant had been disafforested to the king’s manifest
harm.
The forest justices (Sir John Ratcliffe and Sir Reginald Gray) sat at
Guildford on 8th August, 1488. The keepers of the parks who were present
were Sir Reginald Gray for the parks of Guildford and Henley; Richard
Pigot, for Poltenhall; and William Mitchell, for Bagshot.
Sir Thomas Bourchier was the keeper, with Sir William Norris, lieutenant,
and William Orchard his deputy. One of the foresters was lately dead,
but two foresters and one deputy were present. Henry Stokton and William
Bantrum, the late verderers, were in attendance, as well as their
successors, Henry Slyfeld and John Westbrook.
The regarders numbered eighteen; two of them were described as gentlemen.
There were seven woodwards, each of whom returned _omnia bene_. The
reeves and four-men of the townships of Ash, Byfleet, Chertsey, Egham,
Frimley, Horsell, Pirbright, Thorpe, Windesham, Woking, and Worplesdon
were in attendance, as well as thirteen free tenants.
Among the offences dealt with at this eyre were the cutting down without
licence of forty oaks within the forest at Pirbright; killing a great
buck at Crowford bridge; the killing of a hind calf with greyhounds by
Thomas Forde of Pirbright, who was one of the foresters of the forest of
Windsor; the felling and removing of 400 oaks and 300 beeches by Thomas
Abbot of Chertsey, without licence; killing a stag with greyhounds at
Wanburgh; and various instances of shooting at deer, or slaying them with
bows and arrows, and setting nets for their capture. Ralph Baggley was
fined 100_s._ for being a common destroyer of pheasants and partridges
and a taker of birds. Another transgressor had slain six pheasants with a
hawk.
The reeve and four-men of Chobham presented John Wode for following the
craft of a tanner within the forest, and he was fined 12_d._ They also
presented another man for having a warren, and he was mulcted in the like
sum.
The following particulars were supplied to the justices respecting the
deer of Guildford park during Henry VII.’s reign:—
“The sum of the Dere slayn by our Sovereyn lorde the kynge
in the parke of Gylforde att the feste of Seynt Mychaell the
fyrste yere of hys Reygne.
Imprimis slayn of Dere of Auntyller xvj.
Item the same season lx doys.
Item iij fones.
Item ij prykettes.
Item the same yere my lord Madurface iij doys and a prykett.
Item Syr John Arundell a Doo.
Item Master Bowchere ij Doys.
Item Syr Thomas Mylborne a Dowe.
Item my lady of Lyncolne a Doo.
Item Syr my lord Awdley a Doo.
Item Syr Jamys Awdley ij Doys.
Item ther dyede in moren xli doys and prykettys.
Item ther dyede the same yere Cxxxv of fones.
Item xj dere of Auntuller.
Item the kynge killede in Som xxiij dere of Auntuller.
Item my lord Grey Codnore a Bukke.
Item my lorde madurface a Bukke.
Item Syr John Arundell a Bukke.
Item Master Bowchere and Syr John Wynfelde a Bukke.
Item the Abbot of Westminster a Bukke.”
In the second of his reign Henry VII. killed in this park, between
Michaelmas and All Saints, by his “oon persone” ten does and a fawn. Two
does were sent to the king at Westminster on the Feast of All Saints.
Six does were sent “to the Coronation of the Quene.” Twenty does, eight
bucks, and three sores were sent out as gifts during the year.
A presentment was also made as to the park of Henley-in-the-Heath:—
“THE PARKE OF HENLEY.
“Thees bene the dere that have bene ded in moreyn and that hath
bene slayn seyn the begynnyng of the Reigne of the Kinges grase
that nowe is Kyng Henry the vijᵗʰ.
“Fyrst the Kynges grase kylled hymselff in the seyd parke of
Henley wyth his Bowe and his bukhundes in the Fyrst yere of his
Reigne. iiij bukken.
“Item by his servauntes the same tyme the kyng being in the
seid parke. vj male dere.
“Item to the abbot of Westminster the same year j bukke.
“Item sent to the Court by the Kynges Waraunt the fyrst yere of
his Reygne in Wynter ij does.
“Item delyvered to the abbot of Westminster the second yere of
the Kynges grace—j bukke.
“Item delyvered to my Lord Prynce lyvynge at Farnham, the
second year of the kynges grase in Wynter iij does.
“Item delyvered to the seid abbot the thyrd yere of the kynges
grase j Bukke.
“Thees bene the morens in the seid parke.
“In the fyrst yere of the Kynges grase dyed in moreyn in the
seyd parke of Henley—iiij fawyns, j doe, and a pryker.
“Item in the second yere folowyng, j pryker, and ij faunes.
“Item in the thyrd yere now last past, a soure and tegge.
“Item now in faunsumtyᵉ dyed in fawnyng. ij does.
“Item delyvered to Master Bourghchyer for ij yere, ij Bukken.
“Item Master John of Stanley killed in the seid parke j Bukke.
“Item my lord of Derby servauntes killed in the seid parke j
Tegge.”
The same justices, before they came to Guildford, had held the forest
pleas for the Berkshire division of Windsor forest, at New Windsor,
on 4th August, 1488. Sir Thomas Bourchier and Sir William Norris were
respectively keeper and lieutenant, as in the Guildford division. There
were also present bailiffs and deputies of the bailiwicks of Fenie Wood
and Finchampstead, and bailiffs of the respective liberties of the
bishops of Salisbury and Winchester, the bailiff of Elizabeth the Queen;
representative burgesses of Windsor; the late and present verderers;
twelve regarders, six of whom were esquires; and jurors for the hundreds
of Bray, Cookham, and Sonning.
Those that claimed at this eyre special liberties in the actual forest
of Windsor were Elizabeth, Queen of England; the bishops of Winchester
and Salisbury; the abbots of Reading, Abingdon, Waltham, Westminster,
Stratford Langthorn, Cirencester, and Chertsey; the priors of Hurley,
Bisham, and Merton; the prioresses of Bromehall and Ankerwyke, the dean
and canons of Windsor, the provost and college of Eton, the dean and
chapter of Salisbury, the mayor and citizens of New Windsor, the duchess
of Norfolk, and two laymen.
A singular case to come under any kind of forest court was that of
John Pomfreth, the tenant of a mill-race (_gurges_), at a place called
Hornedroare; he was fined 12_d._ for not supplying drink to the
inhabitants when making their Rogation-tide perambulation, according to
custom.
Henry VIII. was passionately fond of the chase and of sport in all its
forms, so that it is not surprising to find various references to his
experiences in this royal forest throughout the papers of his reign.
His chief sporting companion was Sir William Fitzwilliam, and on him he
conferred the keepership of the Surrey side of the forest. Richard Weston
was another of the hunting set, and on him, in 1511, the king conferred
the lieutenancy of the castle and forest of Windsor, together with the
office of bow-bearer. Another of his boon companions was made bailiff of
Finchampstead, within the forest, which was then well supplied with red
deer. Business was by him usually sacrificed to pleasure. At the end of
July, 1526, Fitzwilliam writes from Guildford: “I received a packet of
letters addressed to the king, which I took to His Majesty immediately;
but as he was going out to have a shot at a stag, he asked me to keep
them until the evening.”
In August, 1528, Sir Thomas Heneage, in a letter to Wolsey, from
Easthampstead, said that the king on the previous day had taken great
pains with his hunting, from nine in the morning till seven at night,
but only obtained one deer—the greatest red deer killed by him or any
of his hunters that year—which he sent as a present to the Cardinal.
Fitzwilliam, writing to Cromwell in August, 1534, having arrived that
night at the Great Park, mentioned that he was in much comfort, as
his keepers promised that the king should have great sport, and asked
Cromwell to bring his greyhounds with him when he came to either Chertsey
or Guildford. In January of the following year, Lord Sandys writes to
Cromwell, in sore dread of the king’s wrath, for young Trapnell had
killed twenty of the king’s deer on the borders of Windsor forest.
Towards the end of his reign, Henry VIII. made the last royal attempt
to afforest a new district. But even his tyrannical disposition was
restrained by statute, for he could afforest no man’s estate against his
will, and he therefore had to make private arrangements with owners to
effect his purpose. When he was established at Hampton Court, the king
desired to have a nearer hunting-ground than that adjoining Windsor or
Guildford, and therefore he resolved to make forest, if possible, of
all the country between Hampton and his new palace of Nonsuch, near
Epsom. Partly by new statute and partly by his own headstrong will, he
effected most of his purpose. In 1539 he conferred on the district forest
rights and privileges, and called it the Honor of Hampton Court. In the
following year he obtained from Parliament two Acts, the one “for the
uniting of divers lordships and manors to the castle of Windsor,” and the
other “for the uniting of the manor of Nonsuch and divers other manors to
the Honor of Hampton Court.” But shortly after Henry’s death this newly
created honor was dechased, and the deer removed to Windsor forest.
Of Queen Mary it is stated that on the Tuesday after her marriage, when
she was at Windsor, a novel method of “sport” was introduced. Toils were
raised in the forest four miles in length, when a great number of deer,
driven therein by the hounds and huntsmen, were slaughtered.
Elizabeth was much more of a sportswoman than her sister. Under the
guidance of her favourite, Sir Henry Neville, the queen frequently hunted
in this forest. She remained keenly attached to this royal sport to the
end of her days. In January, 1699, Elizabeth wrote to Neville instructing
him to give orders for restraint of killing game and deer in Mote and
Sunninghill parks in Windsor forest during his absence as resident
ambassador in France. As late as 1602 she shot “a great and fat stag”
at Windsor with her own hand, which was sent as a present to Archbishop
Parker.
The chief matter pertaining to Windsor forest under James I. was the
elaborate and careful survey drawn up by John Norden, which was finished
in 1607. There is a good abstract of this survey, with a reproduction of
that part of his map (at the British Museum) relative to the Great Park,
in Mr. Menzies’ fine work on that part of the forest. Norden thus defines
the limits of the forest: “This forest lyeth in Berkshire, Oxfordshire,
Buckinghamshire, and Middlesex. The Tamis bounds it north, the Loddon
weste, Brodforde river and Guldowne south, and the Waye river east.” The
Great Park had then a circumference of 10¼ miles, and contained 3,650
acres within the counties of Berks and Surrey, whilst his estimate of the
extent of the open forest was 24,000 acres.
James raised the wrath of the residents by attempting, soon after his
coming to England, to close the Little Park and Cranborne Chase against
all comers; but “the squires and better sort,” says Dixon, in _Royal
Windsor_, “made private keys and entered like gentlemen of the highest
quality; the locks were exchanged, and they broke the fences with as
little scruple as the tramps.”
[Illustration: THE HART (TURBERVILE)]
Charles I. hunted here frequently at the beginning of his reign. In 1632
Noy, the king’s attorney-general, styled by Carlyle “that invincible
heap of learned rubbish,” revived the forest pleas, and justice-seats
were held both at Bagshot and Windsor. Every old formality was strictly
observed; at the opening each forester had to present his horn on bended
knee to the chief justice in eyre, and each woodward his hatchet; and
these insignia of office were not returned until a fine of half a mark
had been rendered. The revival of forest pleas in Surrey was bitterly
resented. No part of Surrey had been treated as forest until Henry II.’s
time, when almost the whole county was by degrees afforested. Richard
I. found himself obliged to throw open again all eastward of the Wey,
save the royal park and manor of Guildford, leaving the rest of the
county to be attached to Windsor, under the title of the bailiwick of
Surrey. But from that time onwards there had been more or less resistance
to any Surrey afforesting outside the parks, and various sovereigns,
particularly Elizabeth, had made important concessions. From 1632 to 1642
many of the gentlemen of Surrey encouraged rather than checked outbreaks
of daylight poaching, hunting in companies of eighty or a hundred; at the
latter date the exemption from forest law of the whole of Surrey, save
Guildford park, was definitely accepted.
In 1640, the grand jury of the county of Berks complained as to “the
innumerable red deer in the forest (Windsor), which if they go on so
for a few years more, will neither leave food nor room for any other
creature in the forest.” They also protested against the rigid enactment
of the forest laws and the inordinate fees exacted by some of the forest
ministers. In the following year a great tumult arose; the people round
the New Lodge, in a riotous fashion, killed 100 fallow deer, in addition
to some red deer, and threatened to pull down the pales of that park. The
Earl of Holland was then constable of park and forest, and he obtained
authority for the sheriff of Berks to raise the power of the county
to apprehend the persons engaged in this riot. But in 1642 the Long
Parliament took possession of Windsor.
It is in Windsor Park, says Mr. Menzies, that “the oldest authenticated
regular plantation in England can be shown.” In 1625, Richard Daye wrote
to Secretary Conway, mentioning a proposal that he had previously made
for “sowing convenient places in Windsor forest with acorns, which had
been favourably received by the late king,” and asking that the project
might be laid before Charles I. To this letter he attached a statement
to the effect that, in 1580, by order of Lord Burleigh, thirteen acres
within Cranborne Walk had been impaled and sown with acorns, which had
by that time (after forty-five years’ growth) become “a wood of some
thousands of tall young oaks, bearing acorns, and giving shelter to
cattle, and likely to prove as good timber as any in the kingdom.” It has
been assumed, on excellent grounds, that the plantation here referred to
is the large group of oaks at the back of the park bailiff’s house in the
direction of Cranborne.
Under the Commonwealth, although Sir Bulstrode Whitelock, constable of
the castle and keeper of the forest, was himself a sportsman, the deer
disappeared from the Great Park, and only a few remained in the forest.
Much of the finest timber was felled, but chiefly for navy purposes.
At the Restoration, Charles II., as has been already seen, took some
trouble to restock many of the royal parks and forests with both red and
fallow deer. In this Windsor had its full share.
In November, 1731, the deer of Windsor forest numbered 1,300; in 1806
they had dwindled to 318. In 1813 came the disafforesting Act for
Windsor, and in the following year a troop of the Horse Guards and a
detachment of the 5th Infantry were employed for two days in sweeping
through the wild heaths and dells that were about to be enclosed, and
driving thence the deer into the parks; but in this rough process many
were slaughtered.
At the present day the acreage of the Great Park is about 3,000 acres,
and it contains, in round numbers, 1,000 fallow and 100 red deer.
Cranborne Park, though part of the Great Park, has a pale of its own, and
contains a small herd of white red-deer!
CHAPTER XXV
THE FORESTS OF SUSSEX
In early historic days, almost the whole of Sussex, together with
considerable parts of Kent and Surrey, formed one great forest, called
by the Britons Coit Andred, from its vast extent. The Saxons called it
Andredes-weald, which was doubtless adapted from the Anderida Silva of
the Roman Itineraries. The Saxon Chronicle, under date 893, gives its
extent as 120 miles long from east to west, and thirty miles in breadth.
That considerable part of the county which remained forest or open till
much later days—some, indeed, until the present time—was known as the
Forest Ridge; it formed the elevated district of the north-eastern part
of the county, and stretched in a north-westerly direction along the
borders of Surrey. The principal sections of this are still known as the
forests of St. Leonard and of Ashdown.
Young, in his _Agricultural Survey_, at the end of the eighteenth
century, said: “A great proportion of these hills is nothing better than
the poorest barren sand, the vegetable covering consisting of ferns,
heath, etc. St. Leonard’s Forest contains 10,000 acres of it, and Ashdown
18,000 more, besides many thousand acres in various other parts of the
county.”
Ashdown forest is described by Mr. Turner, in a good paper contributed
to the collections of the Sussex Archæological Society (vol. xiv.), as
consisting of about 10,000 acres, situated in the parishes of Maresfield,
Fletching, East Grinstead, Hartfield, Withyham, and Buxted. It formed
part of the honor of Pevensey, and from 53 Henry III. was invested in the
Crown in perpetuity, and hence was a technical forest under forest law, a
position that it did not lose when it came to John of Gaunt in 44 Edward
III. It reverted to the Crown, with the rest of the Duchy of Lancaster,
until the time of Charles II., when it was formally disafforested, and
found its way into the hands of speculators in waste lands. Various Tudor
commissions show that the timber suffered severely from the inroads made
on it to supply charcoal for the iron foundries.
In the early part of Edward I.’s reign, the free chace and warren of
Ashdown were held by the king’s mother. Proceedings were taken in 1283
against divers persons for hunting and carrying away deer and rabbits
from her park at Maresfield. In 1297, Edward I. granted Thomas Paynel
licence for life to hunt with his own dogs, the fox, hare, cat, and
badger in the king’s forest of Ashdown except during fence month; it was
also specially stipulated that he did not take deer, nor course in the
king’s warrens. On 30th July of that year, the king appointed Walter
Waldeshef to the bailiwick of the forestership of Ashdown, on condition
that he answered for the same in like manner as his predecessors. Ashdown
was a favourite hunting resort of James I., and it was well stocked with
deer. The Parliamentary Survey of its seven wards is extant, as well
as a great variety of papers of earlier date. The history of this and
the other forests of Sussex yet remains to be written, though certain
contributions in that direction were made by Mr. W. S. Ellis in his
_Parks and Forests of Sussex_, published in 1885.
St. Leonards Forest lies north-east of Horsham, and forms part of the
great parish of Beeching. It would be more correct to speak of St.
Leonards Chace; the whole body of the forest law never prevailed here, as
it was granted in early days by the Crown to the Braose family. An entry
in the Patent Rolls of 1st September, 1295, relative to a raid in this
district on deer, hares, rabbits, pheasants, herons, and fish, when the
owner was absent on the king’s service in Wales, styles it the free chace
of William Braose, called the forest of St. Leonards (_liberam chaciam
Willelmi de Brewosa que vocatur foresta sancti Leonardi_). Four years
later a like entry on the same rolls relative to deer poaching describes
it as the free chace of William Braose at St. Leonards.
The forest of Arundel, though of limited extent, was well stocked, and
formed an important adjunct of the honor of Arundel. The forest pertained
to the earls of Arundel, as is stated in the Close Rolls of 1206, but
during a long minority in the time of Henry III., and again in the time
of Edward I., came under the control of the Crown. The chief point of
interest in its history is the disputes that arose as to the deer between
the earls and the archbishops of Canterbury, who claimed the hunting.
There was an appeal to Rome on the subject in 1238, and it was not until
1258 that the renewed disputes were finally settled by an agreement that
the archbishop might, on giving notice to the forest ministers, hunt
once a year when going to or returning from his manor of Slindon, with
six greyhounds, but with no other kind of dogs, nor with bows; and that
if more than one beast was taken by the party, the remainder were to be
handed over to the earl. It was also stipulated that the earl and his
heirs should annually deliver thirteen bucks and thirteen does to the
archbishop at the proper season.
CHAPTER XXVI
THE FORESTS OF HAMPSHIRE
THE NEW FOREST
SO much that is good of its kind has been printed concerning the
beautiful district of the New Forest, that only two or three pages are
allotted to it in this work. Mr. Wise’s admirable _The New Forest, its
History and Scenery_ (1863) long remained the standard book on the
subject; but two more recent works have corrected some errors and given
much fresh information. One of these is the joint article of over sixty
large pages, by the Hon. G. W. Lascelles and Mr. Nisbet, on _Forestry
and the New Forest_ in vol. ii. of the _Victoria History of Hampshire_
(1903); and the other is the wholly delightful and thorough book, rich
in illustrations, by Mr. Horace G. Hutchinson, which was published in
1904. To this may be added the mention of a good article, with plans,
descriptive of the changing area of the forest, with its laws and
customs, by the late Mr. Moens, which appeared in the _Archæological
Journal_ for March, 1903.
The New Forest may be described, in broad terms, as the south-western
corner of Hants, bounded by the Southampton water and the Solent on
the east and south, and by the Dorset and Wilts borders on the west
and north. Its extreme length is twenty-one miles, and its greatest
width twelve miles; it covers 92,365 acres, which include 27,620 acres
of private property. Put in other words, this means that the Crown
or public lands of the New Forest consist of about 100 square miles,
whilst the private lands occupy about forty square miles. Within this,
notwithstanding the considerable extent of the woods, are several great
stretching heaths and many an untimbered glade.
[Illustration: _PLATE XXII_
LADIES RABBITING (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)]
In Hampshire, as elsewhere, the Saxon kings reserved large tracts of
country, well supplied as a rule with woods and thickets, for the
purpose of sport and hunting, whilst at the same time they realised the
importance of preserving the woodlands for the pannage of the swine.
Under the Conqueror, the New Forest increased in area, and had its
special bounds assigned; but stories set on foot by early chroniclers
as to William’s reckless cruelty in destroying scores of churches and
burning out villages for the sake of hunting, can readily be shown to be
gross and absurd exaggerations. The later story of this forest, as set
forth by Messrs. Wise, Lascelles, and Hutchinson, is a tale of continued
aggression by private owners and by squatters, of grievous jobbery by
forest officials, of Crown mortgages, of much destruction of timber and
deer, and finally of various parliamentary inquiries in 1831, 1850, 1875,
and at yet more recent dates. The forest is at present governed by the
Act of 1877. Scotch firs and pines that now abound were first planted
here in 1776.
The red deer, the fallow deer, and the roe deer are all still present
in the New Forest, but in very much reduced numbers; the last-named are
strays that first found their way here from Milton, Dorset, in 1870. In
the days when Gilpin wrote his delightful volumes on _Forest Scenery_
(1790) there was a semi-wild breed of bristly pigs in parts of the
forest, which were supposed to be hybrid descendants of the wild boar
(Plate VII.).
Although there has been so much good writing on the history of the New
Forest, there are sources of further interesting and original history at
the Public Record Office which no one has hitherto tapped. Space can be
found for only a few instances of such information.
The accounts of John Randolf, keeper of the forest, for 1306, show that
there was much of pasturage in various parts of the forest, irrespective
of general rights of agistment. There was, for instance, considerable
sale of corn and hay from the manor of Lyndhurst in the centre of the
forest; eight oxen of that manor were sold for 56_s._ Iron used in repair
of the farm carts of the manor cost 2_s._ 10_d._, two iron plough-shoes
(for tipping the wooden shares) cost 8_d._, and the shoeing of two
cart-horses 18_d._ The full accounts for this year are beautifully
written and in most excellent condition; no antiquary would grudge the
wage of the keeper’s clerk, which is entered as one mark, “according
to ancient custom.” The keeper himself received a salary of £10. The
forest tithe, payable to the church of Salisbury, was £4 3_s._ The most
interesting entry of that year is the sum of £8 15_s._ 8_d._, which was
expended in repairing the court house, or manor house of Lyndhurst,
against the coming of the king—_ut patet per particul’_—but unfortunately
the particulars are lacking. The manor house of Ringwood was at the same
time put in order to be ready for the royal advent; among the items is
the entry of a supply of plaster of Paris.
Forest pleas for the New Forest were held at Southampton on Monday
next after the Translation of St. Thomas the Martyr, 1330, before
John Mantravers. On the first day of the session, which extended over
twenty-one days, no fewer than ninety-seven essoins or excuses for
non-attendance were put in for the substantial reason of death. In each
of these cases appearance had to be made by some relative or other
qualified person who testified to the death. The first five names stand
thus:—
“Essoines de Morte
Petrus de la Hoese—per Petrum de la Hoese militem.
Walterus Waleys—per Willielmum Loocras.
Nicholas de Ivele—per Rogerum de Ivele, Forester de Wolmer.
Walterus atte Broke—per Nicholam atte Broke.
Walterus Stretchhose—per Ricardum Stretchhose.”
The venison pleas of the New Forest were presented by Sir William
de Beauchamp, keeper of the forest, for the term of six years, in
conjunction with Andrew de Camerton, his lieutenant, and John de Romsey,
John de Brymore, Richard atte Hanger, and John Niernuyt, verderers. The
venison presentations were concerned with the death of 22 does, 10 bucks,
3 hinds, 2 harts, and 6 fawns, in addition to several cases in which the
numbers of the head of game taken off were unknown. The fines imposed for
these venison trespasses by the justices varied from 12_d._ to 20_s._
The number of such cases is by no means excessive, considering that the
oldest offence went back to 1284. It must also be remembered that there
must have been numerous cases struck out, because the delinquent or
delinquents were dead. One of the more exceptional and interesting cases
is that of two poachers who, in July, 1325, hunted in the New Forest
with nine greyhounds and a mastiff, killing two does and a fawn; they
loaded them on a white mare, when they were attached by the foresters and
committed, together with the mare, which was of the value of 5_s._, to
the custody of Simon de Wynton, the sheriff of the county. When the eyre
was held Simon was called upon not only to account for his prisoners, but
for the 5_s._, the value of the mare. But Sheriff Simon was dead, and Sir
Richard de Wynton, who held his lands, had to put in an appearance and
hand over the value of the white mare to the justices.
The list of presentments of vert trespassers is a very long one, covering
both sides of four membranes. It opens with two cases, in one of which
three beeches, worth 3_s._, had been felled, and in the other two oaks,
worth 2_s._; in each instance, the offender had to pay 12_d._ fine, the
value having previously been paid at the local woodmote court. The usual
value put on oaks, roers, and beeches was 1_s._ each. Occasionally the
oaks must have been of considerable size; in one case an oak was valued
at 2_s._, and in another at 3_s._ 4_d._ A cartload of green wood of white
thorn was valued at 6_d._
The following is a copy of a warrant for timber from Beaulieu, addressed
by Henry VII. to the Earl of Arundel, the keeper of the New Forest:—
“By the king
“We wil and charge you that unto our trusty and right
welbeloved Cousin the erl of Ormond or unto the bringer
herof in his name ye deliver or doo to be delivered twelf
Okes convenable for tymbre to be taken within our Baiffship
of Bewley in oure Forest called the New Forest or in such
places within the same Forest as oure said Cousin shall thinke
moost metely and convenient for him, and these oure lettres
shalbe yor Warrant. Geven undre oure signet at oure Citie of
Winchestere the xix dey of October the second yere of oure
Reign.
“To oʳ Right trusty and right welbeloved Cousin Therl of
Arundell warden of our Newe Forest in our Countie of Suth’ton
and to his Lieutenant and keepers there.”
[Illustration: KING AND QUEEN OAKS]
Among the presentments at an eyre _temp._ Henry VII. are the following:—
“The bayly of goddyshell shewyth that John Colend the bayly of
Godshyll Kellyd a bukke in Somer in the viijᵗʰ yere of Kyng
Henry the vijᵗʰ and a doo the same somer wyth a Arrowe and
caryed awaye the Flesshe wythowte lycens of ony keper. Item
the same John Colend kylled a hert in the sayd baylywekke with
an Arrowe in the yere aforesayd and caryed away the flesshe
withowte lycens of ony keper.
“In the viijᵗʰ yere of yᵉ regne of Kyng Henry the vijᵗʰ yᵉ
xijᵗʰ day of Junii Rychard Carter yoman of Bewly come into the
Este bayly and there he toke a rede dere and caryed it away.
“Inᵈ that Sʳ Wylliam Holmes, prest of Sarum, come into the
bayly at Fytcham the Monday next aftyr holy Rode day the viijᵗʰ
yere of Kyng Henry the vijᵗʰ and there wyth hys greyhundys
kellyd a Sowre wythowte leve of ony keper.
“Also Rychard Kymbrege of Mychwood kylled ij hyndes calves wyth
hys howndys wyth owte leve of ony keper in the vijᵗʰ yere of
Kyng henry.
“Inᵈ that Sr Edward Wellyby, prest, came into the bayly
at Fyrtham the Satyrday next after Saynt Bartylmewes day
the viijᵗʰ yere of Kyng Henry the vijᵗʰ and there wyth hys
grehowyds kylled iij bukkys, a preket and a doo wyth owte ony
lycens or autoryte of ony keper.
“Presentyd by a offycer that one Robart Dyer otherwise called
Robart Foster the xvᵗʰ day of October the viijᵗʰ yere of Kyng
Henry the vijᵗʰ come into the Newe Forest that is to say to
Fette Thurnes within the bayly of Battramsley and there fellyd
and caryed away the nowmbyr of xij lode of grene thurnes. The
said prisoner appered and deposed the contrary ... and put in
plege for his fyne.”
The last of these extracts refers to a hard case when Charles I. was
attempting to revive forest law.
In November, 1639, Henry Earl of Holland, chief justice in eyre, reduced
on petition the fine of £30 for a venison offence in the New Forest in
the case of one Harmon Rogers to £5, and ordered his release from prison
on giving sureties to be of good behaviour towards the forest. The
petition set forth that Harmon was
“a miserable poore man in lamentable distresse, hath a poore
wife and vij small children, had great losse by fire, one of
his children is a creeple, hath a blind man to his father
that wholly lyeth upon him, hath been twice imprisoned for
this one fault, and in his present durance is ready to starve
for want of food and so are his children at home, at this
present 30 _li_ in debt, and hath no meanes in the world to
releive himself his blind father wife and vij childrene but
his painfull labour and never did or will, as God shall help
him, commit any fault or offense against his Majesties game but
onely one.”
ALICE HOLT AND WOOLMER
In addition to the New Forest, Hampshire had two other large forest
areas—Alice Holt and Woolmer, and the forest of Bere.
Alice Holt, a comparatively modern and unfortunate corruption of
Axisholt, and Woolmer, though apparently always separated by a small
strip of non-forest land, were practically one, and formed a considerable
stretch of country, chiefly woodland, on the borders of Surrey and
Sussex. They were almost invariably under the same general control,
though having their separate minor forest ministers. Thus, in 1217,
Axisholt and Wulvemar formed one bailiwick in the charge of Robert de
Venoit, and again, in the beginning of Edward I.’s reign, both Alice
Holt and Woolmer forests were under the same keeper, Adam Gurdon. They
seem to have been well stocked with both red and fallow deer, and also
heavily timbered. Adam Gurdon, in 1273, had to deliver two bucks at
Windsor Castle, as the king’s children were staying there. In 1276
and 1277 the same keeper was instructed to give facilities to a royal
huntsman who was sent down with his dogs to take harts for the king’s
household in the forests of Alice Holt and Woolmer; and in the following
year he had to dispatch thirty oaks fit for timber towards the rebuilding
of Winchester Castle.
The sixth report of the woods and forests commission, issued in 1790,
devotes eighty-eight folio pages to these two Hampshire forests. The
commissioners cite the perambulation of this joint forest made in 1300 as
reduced from the wider limits of earlier reigns. A perambulation of 11
Charles I. gives practically the same bounds. The whole area within the
forest is returned as 15,493 acres, but of that quantity 6,799 acres were
in private hands. Reference is made to a justice seat held 11 Charles
I., and to swainmote courts in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. The
administration and customs of the forest corresponded with the general
use. Since the year 1777 the timber had been very largely used for the
navy; it was taken by road, about ten miles, to Godalming, where the
river Wey was navigable, and thence to the dockyards on the Thames. The
lieutenant of the forest (Lord Stawell) considered the deer his own.
There were then about 800 fallow deer in Alice Holt; the red deer used to
be found in Woolmer Forest, but the latter were removed to Windsor about
1760. In the appendix there is a list of the lieutenants or keepers of
the forest from 45 Elizabeth, and very full particulars as to the sale,
extent, and value of the timber. All kinds of cattle were admitted to
pasture save sheep.
BERE FOREST
The forest of Bere extended northwards from the Portsdown Hills.
According to a perambulation made in 1688, it included about 16,000
acres. The southern ward, in early days, often went by the name of
Porchester forest.
When pleas of this forest were held in September, 1490, at Winchester,
it was returned that Sir George Nevill was keeper; Sir James Awdley,
lieutenant; Ralph Shorter, forester, and John Wilton, his deputy; William
Knight, ranger; and William Froste and John Hamond, verderers. William
Mody and his fellows were present as regarders, and there were two juries
sworn of the men of the hundreds of Somborne and Buddlesgate.
For fee timber Richard Curson, as deputy of the justices, received six
beeches; the keeper, two roers, and his deputy, a beech; the lieutenant,
a roer; the ranger, a beech; each verderer, an oak and a beech; the
regarders, two beeches and and a roer; the two sessional clerks, four
beeches; and the under-sheriff, a roer. Richard Curson also received a
buck.
At a swainmote of West Bere, held on 5th June, 1475, before John
Whitehede and John Hamond, the verderers, Robert Bailly, forester,
presented that John Ewerby, lord of Farley, claimed to have the right to
deer that escaped into his lordship, and that he had killed several head
at Hambledon and Queentree.
At another swainmote, held on 1st June, 1488, before William Frost and
John Hamond, verderers, Robert Bailly, the forester, again presented
the lord of Farley for having killed several does and fawns in the
previous August in the woods of West Bere. He also presented Richard
Mathew, lately parish chaplain of Sparsholt, and then living at Crawley,
for having killed a doe with bow and arrows. A more serious charge
was preferred against a yeoman and a miller of Winchester, who with a
large number of disorderly persons hunted the forest with greyhounds
and two other kinds of dogs, namely “rachys et kenettes,” to the grave
destruction of the deer.
The woods and forests commissioners’ thirteenth report, issued in 1792,
is devoted to this forest. It is described as in the south-east part
of the county and within eight miles of Portsmouth. The perambulation
of 1300 is printed in the appendix. The forest was then divided into
two walks, the East and the West. Following the boundaries laid down
in 1688, the commissioners estimated the area as at least twenty-five
square miles, about a third of which was enclosed, and the rest open
forest land. The parishes within the forest and certain neighbouring ones
turned out horses, horned cattle, and ringed swine at all times of the
year, but no sheep. The officers were a warden-in-fee by Crown grant;
four verderers, chosen by the county freeholders; a ranger, a steward
of the swainmote court, and two keepers for each walk, all appointed
by the warden during pleasure; twelve regarders chosen, if required by
the county freeholders; and two agisters appointed annually, at the
swainmote court. There were about 200 fallow deer in the East Walk, and
about fifty in the West Walk. A court book was extant from the year 1685,
but no court had been held since 1769, when it could not be opened as
no verderers attended. Extensive encroachments were being made, and the
timber and underwood of the Crown lands comparatively unguarded. The
commissioners strongly urged that the district should be disafforested.
The underkeeper of the West Walk testified that until recently the deer
were regularly browsed with “holly, ivy, and the tops of thorn bushes,
when the season required it.”
Reference is made in the general section on later forest history to
the great chase or park that pertained to the Bishops of Winchester at
Waltham.
CHAPTER XXVII
THE FORESTS OF WILTS
CLARENDON
There is clear evidence that the forest of Clarendon, Wilts, formed part
of the royal demesne in pre-Norman days. The nuns of Wilton, at the time
of the Domesday Survey, had a customary right in the wood of Milchet to
fourscore loads of firewood, pannage for fourscore swine, together with
as much timber as was requisite for keeping their houses and fences in
repair. The parks of Milchet and Buckholt and the forest of Panshet were
original members of Clarendon forest according to the thirteenth-century
Hundred Rolls. In the interesting account given in Hoare’s county
history, it is stated that the earliest general view of this forest is
to be found in these rolls of the end of Henry III. and beginning of
Edward I. But this is scarcely correct, for the Close Rolls of the early
part of the reign of Henry III. abound in references to the forest and
its component members, as might naturally be expected from the fact of
Clarendon being such a favourite residence of our kings in the thirteenth
century.
The timber of the forest was a great boon to the district, and freely
granted by the king for ecclesiastical and other purposes. Six oaks were
granted in 1222 to Gilbert de Lacy for building a chapel in his court
at Britford; in 1223, fourteen large pieces of timber (vj _postes_ iiij
_pannas_ et iiij _solivas_) from the rootfallen or cablish trees to make
a granary at Eblebourn; in 1224, all the cablish timber, not yet sold,
for the fabric of the cathedral church of New Sarum, which had been begun
four years before; in 1230, three oaks to the prioress of Amesbury for
making the nuns’ stalls, and five oaks to help the Franciscan friars in
building their house at Salisbury; and in 1231, five good oaks out of
Milchet wood for the abbess of Romsey to make planks for the dormitory,
and two oaks for the prioress of Amesbury to mend the quire stalls. As to
wood for fuel, the Bishop of Salisbury obtained a grant of forty loads
in 1224; Walter Fitz-Peter obtained three dead trees (_tria bona sicca
robora folia non ferentia_) for his hearth, in 1230; and the nuns of
Amesbury five loads of firewood in 1233, in addition to their customary
privilege of estover.
During the like period the orders for timber from this forest for
the works at the palace and park of Clarendon were numerous, and in
1223, after the great gale, the large sum of £40 from the sale of
the rootfallen trees of this forest was appropriated to the works at
Winchester Castle.
Among the grants of deer from this forest, may be mentioned a grant in
1223 of hunting ten bucks to the Earl of Salisbury, and a gift of four
does to the Bishop of Salisbury in the following year. In 1228 one Savory
de Malo Leone had a royal grant from Clarendon of five live does; and
in 1229 William Earl of Pembroke obtained twenty Clarendon does towards
stocking his park at Hampstead. The supply of fallow deer was evidently
considerable in this forest, but there is no record of red deer.
At an inquisition of the hundred of Alderbury, in 1255, the jurors
returned that the forest of Clarendon was well warded, but that the park
of Milchet was then waste through the king’s frequent gifts and sales,
and through supplying the works at Clarendon and Salisbury. The jurors of
1275 returned that the king held this forest in his own hands. John de
Grymstede held the manor of Plaitford by serjeanty of warding the park
of Milchet; Jordan de Laverstoke held land at Laverstoke, and Edmund de
Milford at Milford by finding respectively a forester for Clarendon; and
Henry de Heyraz by finding a keeper for the king’s running hounds (_canes
heyricii_).
The royal gifts and orders as to wood from Clarendon forest were
almost as profuse in Edward I.’s time as in that of his predecessor,
particularly at the beginning of his reign. In 1275, the king granted
four oaks to the priory of Mottisfont, and six oaks to one William de
Fennes, as well as ordering twenty oaks out of Milchet wood for joists
(_gistas_) and eight oaks for shingles (_cindulas_) for the works at
Clarendon. In 1276, the bailiff of Clarendon forest had orders to supply
the sheriff of Wilts with four oaks fit for timber, to enable him to
rebuild the king’s mill under the castle of Old Sarum, which had been
thrown down by the force of the river; thirty oaks were granted to the
abbess of Wilton towards the building of her church, and ten cartloads
of brushwood to the Dominicans of Wilton. In the same year orders were
given for supplying forty oaks for shingles for roofing the new works at
Clarendon, and also sixty beams of timber to make rafters (_chevrones_),
for Queen Eleanor, to be used in the buildings at Lyndhurst. In 1277,
the queen had a further grant of twenty oaks out of Milchet park to make
laths (_latas_) for the use of her manor house of Lyndhurst, of the
king’s gift. It is curious to find timber being imported into the centre
of the New Forest; it seems to imply that there was at that date very
little wood suitable for timber in the great Hampshire forest.
The grants of timber were not so numerous in the reign of Edward II.
Among them may be mentioned orders to the keeper of Clarendon forest,
in 1320-1, to deliver to the sheriff for the repair of the king’s
water-mills below the castle of Old Sarum thirty oaks and twenty beeches.
The beeches were to be felled in Buckholt wood, and as there are other
references to the beeches of Buckholt in the reigns of Richard II.,
Edward IV., and Henry VII., it seems likely that Buckholt was almost if
not entirely a wood of beeches.
The adjacent small forest of Groveley was attached to that of Clarendon
early in the fourteenth century. A return of the sales of the underwood
for the last four years is entered on the Great Roll at Michaelmas, 1333.
It was evidently the habit to clear out the undergrowth of a certain
number of acres, representing different sized coppices each year. The
following is a table of the sales and average. The total for the four
years is £116 15_s._ 10½_d._:—
CLARENDON PARK. GROVELEY FOREST.
£ _s._ _d._ £ _s._ _d._
1330 25 acres 20 19 8 8 acres 1 8 0
1331 27 ” 21 5 0 24 ” 1r. 7 5 6
1332 30 ” 22 19 8 12 ” 3r. 2 17 4½
1333 40 ” 1r. 33 15 8 23 ” 3r. 6 5 0
The yearly sale of this undergrowth must have been a boon to the
neighbourhood, for where particular records of sales exist, as they do
among the Exchequer accounts for most of the reign of Edward III., it is
found that the wood was purchased as a rule in quite small lots. Thus,
in 1346, when the wood of the coppice by Canonpath, close to the small
priory of Ivychurch, which stood within the forest, was sold for £17
7_s._ 1_d._, there were forty-three purchases, the largest sum being
26_s._ 8_d._
An indenture made at the market of Salisbury in 1360, between Robert
Russel, lieutenant of Roger Earl March, keeper of the forest and park of
Clarendon, and the two verderers of the same, with regard to the sale of
oak and beech at Buckholt, mention is made of the foresters who had to be
maintained. They were eight in number, namely, two each for the forests
of Buckholt and Groveley, one for the park of Milchet, and three for the
park of Clarendon; their pay was to be at the rate of 2_d._ a day. There
were also two labourers at 1½_d._ a day, whose chief duty it was to keep
the pales or park fence in order. In one document of this date these men
are termed “palyers,” and at a later date “palers.” It is stipulated that
all these men were to be paid by the verderers at the rate of 365 days to
the year; that is to say, their wages were due for Sundays and holy days
as well as on working days. Several accounts of the reigns of Edward III.
and Richard II. show a large expenditure on hay for the sustenance of the
deer during the winter. This was quite an exceptional forest expense, and
only resorted to for the game in forests or parks frequented by royalty.
For the most part their winter food consisted of the deer-browse or
clippings from the forest trees.
The dean and chapter of Salisbury had the tithe of the venison of this
forest granted to them by charter of Henry II., confirmed by several
subsequent kings. There is an entry among the chapter records of the
arrival of fifteen deer for the cathedral clergy in one year of Richard
II.’s reign, when the capture of deer had amounted to 150.
[Illustration: _PLATE XXIII_
THE HILL WOODS, LYNDHURST]
The records of several large forests, where they must have abounded,
are destitute of any reference to conies or rabbits. But in the case of
Clarendon they were repeatedly mentioned in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries, and once or twice in the thirteenth century. In the time of
Edward III. the warrens seem to have been the perquisite of the chief
keeper. In 1495 the sum of £100 received of the “Fermour of the Coneys
in Clarendon” was an item of the revenue assigned for the expenses of
the king’s household. In the time of Charles I. the warrens were worth
upwards of £200 a year.
Parliament was petitioned in 1388 by the commonalty and inhabitants of
Salisbury complaining that the forest officials of Clarendon had of
late years appointed certain of the citizens to act as vendors of the
underwood, to their great damage and annoyance, and praying relief. A
favourable reply was given, to the effect that such duties were never to
be imposed on those living outside the forest bounds, save by the king’s
special mandate.
Detailed accounts are extant for the year 1442 of the wood sales at
Buckholt and Milchet. They were sent up to London in a leather bag or
wallet, in which they still remain in excellent condition (_Accts. Exch.,
Q. R._ 140/9). Richard Ambros and William Colyn were this year instructed
to fell 400 beeches in Buckholt and 200 oaks in Milchet for the repairs
of the manor houses, lodges, and park pales. Sir John Stourton was at
that time lieutenant to the Duke of Gloucester, who was keeper. The
schedule shows that the beeches realised from 2_s._ to 2_s._ 6_d._ each;
two selling for 5_s._, four for 8_s._, six for 14_s._, ten for 20_s._,
another ten for 25_s._, one for 2_s._ 4_d._, etc. The oaks were sold
in larger lots, five in all; three lots of sixty each all realised £4
10_s._, whilst two lots of ten were sold for a total of 30_s._
A warrant to the sheriff of Wilts of 1 Richard III. (1483) charged him to
pay to the seven keepers of the forests and parks of Clarendon, Buckholt,
Milchet, and Groveley 2_d._ a day, and to the two parkers of the park of
Clarendon 1_d._ a day for their wages. The sheriff was also to buy yearly
in the summer season “as moche haye as shall amounte unto the some of
x_li_ or within,” which was to be stored for winter use in the barn of
the park.
Clarendon swainmotes held during the year 1487 include presentments for
carrying off _iiij palebordys de la Parke pale de Clarendon_; pasturing
six pigs; killing a doe and fawn with greyhounds; and for being a common
hunter both by day and night with ferrets and snares. Among the officials
present at the Clarendon swainmotes were two palers (_palatiarii_), who
were responsible for the due upholding of the park fence.
On 21st August, 1487, the forest pleas for this forest and its members
was held at New Sarum before Justices Ratcliffe and Grey.
An interval of eighteen years had elapsed since the pleas had been held,
for the last justice seat was in 9 Edward IV. (1469). The attendance of
officials of Clarendon forest or park was considerable: Thomas Arundell,
the keeper; Sir T. Milborne, the lieutenant, and Walter Parker his
deputy; Roger Holes, the ranger, and John Mue his deputy; John Shotter,
the launder, and William Foster his deputy; the four foresters, one for
each of the four bailies; the two verderers, Roger Bulkeley and Druce
Mompesson, both entered as esquires; four woodwards; and twelve regarders.
For the forest or park of Milchet there were a separate set of officials:
Edmund Earl of Arundel was the keeper, and there were also a deputy
lieutenant, two verderers, two rangers and a forester, as well as
woodwards and regarders.
There were also present woodwards of three outlying districts, and one
for the forest of Groveley, together with the bailiffs of five different
hundreds wherein parts of the forests of Clarendon and Milchet were
situated. The whole list was signed by Sir John Turbervyle, the sheriff,
who was, of course, bound to meet the justices.
The customary perquisites of the officials were enumerated. The keeper
of Clarendon was entitled each year to one roer and two bucks, and each
forester and ranger to a roer and two oaks. For Milchet the verderers
had two roers and a buck, the forester one roer and his deputy the same,
the ranger one roer, the regarders a buck and a roer to be divided among
them, and the clerk of the _iter_ two roers.
The Austin priory of Ivychurch, founded by Henry II. within the forest
of Clarendon, appears to have been established for the twofold object
of providing a spiritual centre for the denizens of the forest, and for
the needs of the royal household at their Clarendon seat. Various early
charters provide for the canons being held responsible for the religious
services in the several Clarendon chapels. In addition to early general
grants of pasturage which the canons enjoyed throughout the forest,
Henry III., in 1252, provided that they should have in every year that
the forest was agisted twenty swine with their litters to feed on the
mast, free of pannage charges, provided they were ringed; but there
were to be no pigs allowed in the forest during those years when it was
not agisted. Four years later the king granted them a piece of ground
of considerable size adjoining their priory, known by the unattractive
name of Filthycroft, with leave to enclose it with ditch and hedge, but
only in accord with the fixed custom of the forest that permitted of the
entrance and return of a deer and her fawns at due seasons. Edward II.,
in 1317, granted the priory right of pasturage in the forest for forty
bulls and cows at a rental of 56_s._
The following interesting memorandum of warrant venison and vert since
the last _iter_ was presented to the justices at the 1487 pleas by the
lieutenant of the forest:—
Mᵈ of waruntes shewed by the leuetenaunte of Claryngdon for
veneson and verde in Claryngdon
by waruntes of King Edward [iv]
j buk the xᵗʰ yere of his reygne
ij bukkes the xiiij ”
xij doyn the xvj ”
ij bukkes the xvij ”
iij bukkes the xviij ”
j buk yᵉ xxᵗʰ ”
ij bukes the same yere
iiij bukkes the same yer
j buk the same yere
XX/iij (60) quicke dere ye xxjᵗʰ yere
xix doyn the same yere
M/ij ccix (2209) ded in moreyn the same yere
A buk by warante wᵗout date
vj lodes of quicke dere the xxijᵗʰ yere
ij bukkes the xxjᵗʰ yere
xx doys the xxij yere
j herte and ij bukkes yᵉ xiiijᵗʰ yere
By warant of the Erle of Essex, Justice of Forest
in Claryngdon and the members to yᵉ same
xij Rowers by severall warrantes ye xvij yere of K. E.
j warante for the home copis in Claryngdon Aᵒ xviij
j warante for the old parke Aᵒ xxi
j warante for xˡⁱ of trees in Claryngdon Aᵒ xxij
j warante for viij marke of trees in Claryngdon Aᵒ xix
j warante for vjˡⁱ [worth of trees] Bukholte Aᵒ xiiij
By warant of William Erle of Arundell, Justice of Foreste
j warante for Calumhill copis Aᵒ prᵒ Ric tercij
j warante for ye logiis of Assheldy and Cheveley Aᵒ ij R.
j warante for xˡⁱ of trees in Claryndon Aᵒ ij H. vij
j warante for yᵉ copis of vij Rales in Claryngdon Aᵒ ij H. vij
By warantey of Kyng Richard.
xx doys the ijᵈ yere of his reigne
c trees for to make Salte peter and Gunepowder
By warantes of Kyng Harry the vijᵗʰ
xij doys the firste yere of his reigne
xviij doys the same yer
xx doys the iijᵈ yer of his reigne
As many trees as drawith to xxˡⁱ
The Crown, in 1576, called upon the regarders of Milchet, Richard Bacon
and Thomas Gauntlett, to return certificates in reply to articles of
interrogation which had been forwarded to them. The following are their
answers, the more important or interesting parts being cited verbatim:—
“We do saye that ther ys remaynynge in the Custody of one of us
one Sealynge axe withe a peculye mark and one Bagge wheryn the
Same Axe ys Kepte.
“That Richard Audley Esquire, the Keeper of the Forest of
Milchet, claims the windfall, and hath also taken five
‘rotefall’ trees, about 12 loads in all; that he hath taken
the rotefall trees without any marking with the sealing axe;
and that he hath also taken several dead oak trees similarly
unmarked.
“That the Keeper caused an oak to be fallen to make ‘dogge
stakes for the Savegarde of the deere,’ which oak was fallen
and carried befor any view consideration or allowance of us
the regarders, the stem of which oak we have marked with the
sealing axe.
“That none were sworn for the falling of deer brouse last
winter, though the Keeper had promised that one of his men
should come before us the regarders to be duly sworne; and yet
did appoint three men who never appeared before us to ‘cutte
deere brouse of the bowes of okes in the Queenes Wooddes in
the Forest of Mylchett where they dyd cutte and fall the bowes
of okes of greter quantyte and bygger then a bucke was able to
turne over with his hedde in Wynter and that they did cutt very
lyttle other Woodde of the Queenes for deere browse but of the
bowes of okes whereas ther ys hasell bysche, wethy, maple, and
thorne.’
“That in our judgement 33 loads of brouse and fire wood were
cut.
“That no cattle hath been put into the Queen’s coppice, but 11
swine the which we impounded.
“That we have a book wherin we write offences in the Queens
woods if any be committed.”
James I., by letters patent dated 13th December, 1606, granted to
William, Earl of Pembroke, the whole of the offices of keeper, warden,
lieutenant, and bailiff of the forest and park of Clarendon, with
all its members, together with the appointment of all foresters,
rangers, launders, palers, and stewards of courts of swainmote. By this
comprehensive patent the earl obtained the most absolute control that
probably any one subject ever possessed over a royal forest. As chief
ranger of Clarendon Park, he was entitled to the whole of the herbage and
pannage, stocking it either with his own cattle or letting the agistment
to others; at the felling of any of the twenty-one coppices of this park
the ranger had two acres of the best wood for his own use, which was
worth, on an average, £20 per annum; the farming of the “conie berryes”
in the park realised £200 a year. Moreover, the patent gave the earl all
the Clarendon lodges, with their houses, offices, and barns; there were
six of these, five termed “Innelodges” and one an “Outlodge.” The chief
lodge, with its fees and profits, was worth £140 a year. The four keepers
of the other inlodges, such keeperships being now vested in the earl,
who need only put in deputies, had rights of grazing cows and horses,
which with venison fees, wages, firewood, and lodgings, brought the
total annual amount of the four to £358. The keepership of the outlodge
was worth £42 11_s._ 8_d._ a year. Then, also, as bow-bearer the earl
was entitled to various other fees and forest rights worth £49 13_s._
4_d._ a year. And the whole of this was in addition to the venison and
rootfallen, windfallen, and dead timber and general lop and crop that
pertained to the general office of chief keeper or warden of a royal
forest. Trees, coppice wood, and game still technically belonged to the
king, but the Crown value was much reduced by this exceptionally generous
patent.
An elaborate survey of Clarendon park was taken by the Commonwealth
in 1650, which is cited in full by Hoare. The impaled ground of this
park then included 4,293 acres, and was said to be worth £1,806 7_s._
1_d._ per annum. It was divided into five parts of about equal value,
the bounds of each of which are duly set forth. The names of the five
divisions were the Ranger’s, Theobald’s, Fussell’s, Palmer’s, and Hunt’s.
In addition to these divisions, which were in the parishes of Alderbury,
St. Martin’s, Salisbury, and Laverstock, there was also a survey taken
at the same time of the Outlodge district, on the east side of Clarendon
park, in the parish of Pitton; it is described by the commissioners as
being within “the disafforested forest of Pannsett, _alias_ Panshett,”
and no part of Clarendon Park.
The deer of the park, distributed about the five divisions, numbered 500
“or thereabouts,” and were valued at 20_s._ apiece. The timber trees, in
addition to saplings, numbered 14,919; they appear to have been all oaks.
Many had been recently cut down and marked for the navy. The undergrowth
was chiefly maple and thorn.
After the Restoration, in 1665, Charles II. granted Clarendon park to
George Monk, Duke of Albemarle.
MELKSHAM AND PEWSHAM
The forest district nearest to the centre of the county was that of
Melksham, which was about equally distant from Chippenham, Devizes,
Calne, Trowbridge, and Cossham. During the later part of its history it
was frequently termed the forest of Melksham and Pewsham, Pewsham being
an extra-parochial district south of Chippenham, which is now included
in the new parish of Derry Hill. But the more usual title in the reign
of Henry III. was the forest of Melksham and Chippenham, Chippenham
occasionally coming first.
In 1217, John Marshall, the keeper of the Melksham and Chippenham forest,
was superseded by Richard de Samford, but the former was appointed
constable of Devizes Castle, and the profits assigned for the upkeep of
the castle. In 1219 Philip de Albiny was appointed by the Crown forest
keeper and also constable of the castle. At the time of the general order
as to cablish, after the great storm of 1222, the two appointments were
also in the same hands. It was but very rarely that forest appointments
were in clerical hands, but in 1225 the Crown nominated the Bishop of
Salisbury to this forest keepership at pleasure.
The men of Melksham obtained certain pasture rights in the forest
in 1229, when Richard de Gray was keeper and constable of Devizes.
Chippenham and Melksham, though under the same rule, and probably united
without any break of forest jurisdiction, were evidently regarded as
two great wards of the same forest. There were several royal orders in
Henry III.’s reign for so many oaks out of Chippenham and so many out of
Melksham, made simultaneously, and addressed to the keeper of the two.
Forest pleas for Melksham and Pewsham were held at Devizes on 31st
August, 1490. The officials present were: Sir Richard Beauchamp, keeper
of the forest; Thomas Long, Esq., lieutenant; Walter Wrothesley, ranger;
John, George and Thomas Barbour, foresters; Thomas Unwin and John
Blake, esquires, verderers; thirteen regarders, five of whom are styled
esquires; five woodwards, and the reeves and four-men of each of the
five townships of Chippenham, Studley, Stanley, Melksham, and Stroud. A
place is left in the schedule for agisters, but the return is _nulli_.
There were also present a grand jury of seventeen, headed by William
Bourchier, sen., Esq., and twenty-five jurymen from each of the hundreds
of Chippenham and Melksham. Of the five woodwards, one was appointed by
and represented the interests of the abbot of Stanley, another the abbess
of Lacock, and a third Cecilia, Duchess of York. It was declared that
the keeper was entitled to an oak from each baily; the lieutenant and
ranger to an oak each; the forester and verderers to a roer each; the
company of regarders to a roer and a buck between them; Richard Curson,
the justices’ deputy, to six oaks and a male deer called a pricket;
William Heyden and his assistants, for clerical labour and attendance at
the sessions, to four roers; and Thomas Unwin, as sheriff of Wilts, a
buck. The claims to liberties of the abbot of Stanley, the prioress of
Ambresbury, the abbess of Lacock, the priors of Farley and Brodenstoke,
the Bishop of Salisbury, the Duchess of York, the Countess of Warwick,
and three others were enrolled.
The army of officials, however, reported _omnia bene_, and as the various
claims were all of long standing, it may be said that the whole business
was _nil_, save that the findings of the swainmote court held on the
previous 9th of June were duly enrolled, recording the conviction of
several transgressors for venison offences.
It was also recorded that in the first year of Henry VII.’s reign 82 deer
died of murrain, namely, 27 bucks, 35 does, and 20 fawns; and in the
second year the great number of 340, namely, 140 male, 200 female; and
in the third year 140, of which number 50 were male and the rest female.
There seem to have been no red deer in this forest at that date.
Most of this forest was disafforested in the days of James I., but the
Crown at that time retained the liberty of Bowood, adjacent to Calne,
which was part of Pewsham forest. This was one of the best timbered
districts of the forest, and in 1649 the Commonwealth caused a great
number of the finest trees to be felled to pay the expenses of the army,
under the authority of an Act of the Parliament. Fortunately, however,
under the administration of the famous John Pym, who was for many years
a representative of the borough of Calne, the destruction was stayed. In
1653, Bowood, “late parcel of the possessions of Charles Stewart late
King of England,” was surveyed, when it was found to consist of 958
acres, bearing 10,921 trees. At the Restoration, Bowood reverted to the
Crown, but Charles II. sold it to Sir Orlando Bridgman, and thus the last
remnant of this once great forest jurisdiction came to an end.
Bowood, which is now the seat and property of the Marquis of Lansdowne,
still preserves large tracts of wood and finely timbered lands outside
the immediate park. The park of 254 acres has a herd of 200 fallow deer,
and has many well-grown trees—beech, oak, elm, and chestnut. To the
immediate south of Bowood is Captain Spicer’s fine park of 500 acres,
with a herd of 300 fallow deer. It consists of beautiful rough, broken
ground, and is also within the old forest area, and but little changed in
appearance from its condition in medieval days.
BRADEN
In the extreme north of the county, a little to the south of Cricklade,
stretched the considerable forest of Braden, which was anciently of
great extent and abounding in both red and fallow deer. It was entirely
separate from the other Wilts forests, and is named second in the list
when orders relative to the cablish of all English tree-bearing forests
were sent to the foresters and verderers in 1222. Its keeper at that
date was Hugh de Samford. Warner de Samford had been the keeper in the
previous year. In 1231, when Henry III. was at Marlborough early in
March, Hugh, the keeper, was ordered to supply Isabel, the king’s sister,
with two hinds against Easter, as the lady was tarrying at Marlborough.
In the same year Thomas de Samford, one of the royal chaplains, was
made warden of Cricklade hospital, and the king bestowed on him and his
successors full way-leave without any interference from foresters or
verderers throughout the whole forest for horses and carts to obtain fuel
whenever needed for the brethren and poor of the hospital. In August
of the same year Henry III. sent his huntsman, John the Fool, with his
companions, to hunt Braden forest with dogs, and to take thence for the
royal use ten harts and fifteen bucks.
There are various rolls extant of swainmote courts held in this forest
in the reign of James I. The records of the swainmote held on 6th
July, 1609, before Edmund Lough, esquire, verderer, and Richard Digge,
esquire, steward, mentions Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, as keeper,
and Henry Baynton, esquire, as ranger. There were present 4 foresters,
11 regarders, 41 agisters, 14 woodwards, 2 herdsmen of Ashton, and many
jurymen. The foresters presented the taking of 16 bucks, 12 does, 1
soare, and 1 tegge, all by due licence. Among the regarders’ presentments
were the cutting down of a green oak, value 4_s._, by an unknown person.
It was stated that thirty load of deer-browse ought to be cut yearly for
relief of the king’s game in winter, but “many yeres heretofore no deer
Browse hath been allowed or cattle for releafe of the deare, whereby they
have been forced in dead tyme of winter to forsake the Foreste, and to
seeke their releife in the Borderers house groundes to the dammage and
spoyle of his Matʸᵉˢ game.”
Braden was disafforested in the time of Charles II.
SAVERNAKE
The important Wiltshire forest of Savernake lay to the south of
Marlborough, and was divided into two bailiwicks, the one in the hundred
of Selkley, and the other in the hundred of Kinwardstone.
The references to this forest in the rolls of Henry III. and subsequent
reigns, concerning royal gifts therefrom of deer, roe deer, and timber,
as well as appointments of keepers, foresters, verderers, etc., are of
very frequent occurrence. Much, too, can be gleaned from the forest
pleas and other forest rolls. The following instances are reproduced as
examples of twenty-nine presentments of venison trespasses before the
forest justices, _temp_ Henry VII, chiefly against the Wroughton and
Darrell families. The pleas were held at Amesbury on 25th August, 1490:—
“William Tailor vnderkeper of the verme bayle presentith that
John Wroughton esquier Thomas Wroughton John Perot William
Belson David Welshman John Barowe John Longden with other the
Thursday next after the feast of the Trinite the first yere of
our sovraigne Lord Kyng Henry the VIIᵗʰ hunted Cobham Fryth
Holt Lese and the Lityll ffrithe and there kylled a Sower with
bowys and arowes.
“Thomas Kyng vnderforster of Iwode presentith that Sir Edward
Darell Knyght John Baynton gent John Cradeley David Walsman
John a Wood and John Langden with other of his servantes the
morowe after the feast of Seint John Baptiste the vᵗʰ yere of
our seid sovraign Lord out of Monttisfonte Copys a Doo and a
fawne kylled in the cheif of the fense monyth and their houndes
thorough ranne the forest to the great distrucion of the Kynge
peace.”
An interesting portion of the old forest of Savernake, about 4,000 acres,
containing much fine old timber, has been preserved, as it forms the
noble park round Tottenham House, the seat of the Marquis of Ailesbury.
Outside the actual deer park, on the east, is a considerable extent of
heavily timbered open ground.
CHUTE
Chute forest lay to the south-west of that of Savernake, and extended
some distance into Hampshire, though always considered to be in the main
a Wiltshire forest. In early days it seemed to have joined Savernake
forest, and was at times under the same chief keepership. The entries
as to royal gifts from this forest by Henry III. are numerous. Red deer
(both harts and hinds) were presented to royal favourites, and also
dispatched hence for the king’s table; oaks were bestowed, _inter alia_,
on the abbess of St. Mary’s, Winchester, and on the prioress of Amesbury
for building purposes, and on the Countess of Pembroke for repairing the
mills at Newbury.
The original records relative to this forest, _temp._ Edward IV. and
Henry VII., are numerous. The presentments at the swainmote courts of
1485-6 include one for creating “a pyggyshouse” by the boundary oak
within the forest. The forester of the west baily reported the death,
through murrain, during that year, of two bucks, four does, and a sorrel,
whilst the forester of the east baily returned the death, through a
like cause, of three bucks, one sore, eight does, and three fawns.
Sir Nicholas Lysle was the warden or keeper, and under him were three
foresters for the respective wards of the west baily, the east baily, and
Hippingscomb, as well as one riding or itinerant forester. The ministers
also included two verderers and two agisters.
These forest pleas for Chute were heard at Andover by Justices Ratcliffe
and Gray, on 4th September, 1490. Sir Nicholas Lysle, “warden by olde
inheritaunce of ye Forest of Chutte,” petitioned the king, complaining
of interruption of his privileges by the forest justices. Among his vert
claims were an acre with its bear of the coppice wood set to sale, and
all wood felled and not carried away before the fence month, which had
hitherto been always allowed to him and his ancestors for the guarding
and safe keeping of the forest; he asked for privy seal confirming his
claims to be directed to the justices itinerant.
The verderers and regarders presented at this eyre that Nicholas, the
warden, had killed, since the last _iter_, twenty deer, male and female;
also that William Colwych, one of the foresters, had taken within his
baily two stalls of bees with their wax, of the value of 5_s._
Various forest offences alleged against the warden at this eyre were
held by the justices to be proved, and he was removed from his office.
In 1497 various trespasses and hurts to the forest done by Sir Nicholas
were presented before Roger Cheyne (late lieutenant of the forest) who
had succeeded him as warden, and the verderers, when he was charged with
killing the deer at Christmas.
“Item the said Sir Nicholas, abbot of Misrule, came into the
said forest on New Yeres Eve and there made chase and rechase
and kylled ij dere, and also servauntes of the said Sir
Nicholas Lyles commyth dayly into the forest and makyth chase
and rechase that the dere may not lye in rest.”
In a further statement to the king, Sir Nicholas claimed that his
ancestors had for a long time held the wardenship of Chute forest on
payment of a rent of 10_s._, and finding seven foresters at his own cost
to walk and keep the forest; that all the time there had been a forest
lodge for the petitioner to rest and live in for sure keeping until
lately, when Sir William Sandes entered upon it, and he prayed to be
restored to it or have a new one built; and that the charges against him
had been made by malicious and evil-disposed persons.
The king’s lodge here referred to was at “Fyckele” or “Fynkeley” within
the forest. It underwent considerable repair at the beginning of this
reign. For the new roofing 7,000 shingles were provided at a cost of
20_s._, and 500 shingle nails at 8_d._
On payment of certain fines, Sir Nicholas Lysle was at length, in 1501,
granted a royal pardon and restored to his wardenship.
GROVELEY
The Wiltshire forest of Groveley was half in the hundred of Cadworth and
half in the hundred of Branch and Dole. It was divided into north and
south bailiwicks under a single keeper. Documentary evidence from the
beginning of Henry III.’s reign is abundant with regard to this forest.
The perambulation _temp._ Edward I. and certain later particulars are set
forth in Hoare’s _Wilts_ (iv. 183-190).
SELWOOD
The ancient forest of Selwood covered the south-western confines of
Wiltshire at the extremity of the hundred of Westbury, together with a
large portion of East Somersetshire, and extended itself southward from
Frome just across the borders into Dorsetshire. Collinson (_Somerset_,
ii. 195-6) gives a list of keepers of this forest from John to Henry VI.
Special privileges in this forest were granted to the house of leprous
women of Maiden Bradley in the thirteenth century. The material for its
history, as yet unwritten, is abundant. It was disafforested in the time
of Charles I.
CHAPTER XXVIII
THE FORESTS OF DORSETSHIRE
GILLINGHAM
The county of Dorset had three royal forests at the time of the granting
of the Forest Charter of Henry III.—Gillingham, Blackmore, and Poorstock.
Gillingham was the most important of the three, in the extreme north
of the county; it was originally one of the divisions of the great
Somersetshire forest of Selwood. Leland gives its dimensions, in the
time of Henry VIII., as four miles long by one broad. Material for the
history of this and the other forests of the county is abundant. In the
third edition of Hutchins’ _History of Dorset_, the boundaries of several
perambulations of Gillingham forest, from Henry III. to Elizabeth, are
set forth, as well as abstracts of the proceedings relative to its
disafforestation (ii. 620-4, 649). It was disafforested and the deer
removed in 1625.
The wood sale accounts of Richard Cressebien and Mathew Vynyng of the
forest of Gillingham for 1402-3 are extant, still enclosed in the leather
pouch in which they were forwarded to London. Mention is made in these
accounts of the sale of many “rothers,” varying in price from 8_s._ to
16_d._; this term was a variant for roers or _robora_. Many details are
given of the expenses occurred in repairing lodges.
Pleas of the forest of Gillingham were held at Shaftesbury on 2nd
September, 1490, before Sir Reginald Gray, Edward Chaderton, clerk,
and Richard Empson, as justices of the forest of Elizabeth, Queen of
England, on both sides the Trent. Those appearing were Sir John Luttrell,
sheriff of the county; William Twynyho, esquire, lieutenant of the
forest; William Goodwyn, ranger; Gilbert Thomson, forester-of-fee;
two other foresters, the launder, the servant of the lieutenant, the
bailiff and his fellows of the hundred of Redlane, and also of the manor
of Gillingham, the two verderers, eight regarders, and the reeves and
“four-men” of each of the townships of Gillingham, Motcombe, and Brayton.
[Illustration: _PLATE XXIV_
A DEER-LEAP AT WOLSELEY PARK]
The business transacted chiefly consisted in assigning the perquisites of
oaks, roers, and bucks to the officials, and the registering of liberty
claims within the forest. The jury of the hundred of Redlane presented a
list of various persons who had felled oaks, but in almost each instance
they knew not the number nor the warrant.
One of the questions discussed at these pleas was the right to a
deer-leap, which formed part of the fence of a small park three miles
distant from the bounds of Gillingham Forest. The nature of the
_saltatorium_, or deer-leap, has been explained in the sixth chapter. In
this case the justices ordered its removal, as a jury, after an inquest,
decided that it had been erected since the last eyre, and without any
licence.
BLACKMORE
A large tract of the north and western parts of the county, comprising
several hundreds, known as the vale or forest of Blackmore, was all
forest in early Norman days; but much of it passed from under the forest
laws in the time of Henry II., and still more through the Forest Charter
of Henry III. Nevertheless, a considerable district remained forest,
and was known as Blackmore forest until a much later period. The Close
Rolls, etc., of Henry III. show that the king made many gifts of red,
fallow, and roe deer out of this forest, as well as timber. In 1230 an
oak was granted for the repair of the bridge of Corfe Castle. In the
same year the forest bailiff was instructed to supply the distant Bishop
of Durham with seven does against Christmas; and in the following year
to furnish the Bishop of Exeter with ten does towards stocking a park.
Camden says that it used to be known as the White Hart Forest, and gives
the following story to account for the name. Henry III., when hunting
here, ran down several deer, and finding a beautiful white hart amongst
them, caused its life to be spared. Shortly afterwards a neighbouring
gentleman, one Thomas de la Linde, with his companions, hunted this hart
and killed it at a bridge, thence called Kingstag bridge, in the parish
of Pulham. The king, in his wrath, not only punished the offenders by
imprisonment and fine, but severely taxed all their lands, “the owners
of which yearly, ever since to this day, pay a sum of money, by way of
fine or amercement, into the Exchequer, called White Hart Silver, in
memory of which this county needeth no better remembrance than this
annual payment.” Leland says: “This forest streatchid from Ivelle unto
the quarters of Shaftesbyri, and touchid with Gillingham Forest that is
nere Shaftesbyri.” The ancient bounds and a few other particulars are set
forth in the third edition of Hutchins’ _Dorset_ (iv. 516-19).
POORSTOCK
In the parish of Poorstock (between Beminster and Bridport) and the
adjacent country was the old royal forest of Poorstock. John de la Lynde
held the bailiwick of this forest in the time of Henry III. It was of
comparatively small extent; the perambulation of 1300 shows that it had
one forester-of-fee, Walter de la Lynde, and one verderer, Robert de
Byngham. This perambulation is set forth in Hutchins’ _Dorset_ (ii. 317).
CHAPTER XXIX
THE FORESTS OF SOMERSETSHIRE
The county of Somerset was possessed of five considerable forests,
namely, Mendip, Selwood, North Petherton, Neroche, and Exmoor, the last
of which stretched a little distance into the county of Devon. Though
these forests lay wide apart from one another, more than fifty miles as
the crow flies separating Exmoor in the north-west of the county from
Mendip in the north-east, the whole of the Somersetshire forests were
under the general control of one chief warden or keeper. William du
Plessis was hereditary keeper or master forester of the five Somerset
forests in the middle of the thirteenth century, and Sabine Pecche, his
descendant, in 1300.
The forest pleas that were held for this county in 1257 show a remarkable
exception as to the beasts of the forest in the case of the warren of
Somerton. Within the bounds of this warren the king preserved the hare
as a beast of the forest. At that eyre Philip the Knight and Robert
Sinclair, the two verderers, presented, before William le Breton and
his fellow-justices, that, on 7th December, 1255, Richard le Rus and
his fellows, whose names were unknown, took four hares in Somerton
warren. The verderers further presented that in Christmas week, 1256, a
certain hare was found dead. An inquisition was therefore made by the
four townships of Somerton, Kingston, Pitney, and Wearne, who returned
that the hare died of murrain. There is no like record affecting the
hare in any other known forest proceedings throughout the kingdom, and
it was probably peculiar to this comparatively small warren. To compel
the four adjacent townships to hold an inquest on every hare found dead
or wounded—in accordance with the laws pertaining to beasts of the
forest—throughout the length and breadth of the vast area under forest
law in the thirteenth century would have been impossible to execute and
absurd to attempt.
[Illustration: THE HARE (TURBERVILE)]
Another interesting point about the Somerset eyre of 1257 is the
presentment of the woodwards of wood owners. It appears that at that
period the presentment of such officials before the justices was
obligatory. Thus John Syward, the woodward of the Bishop of Bath and
Wells for the wood of Cheddar, had been presented by the bishop’s
steward to William de Plessis, the hereditary keeper, but not before
the forest justice; whereupon the bishop was declared in mercy and the
wood taken into the king’s hands. Before, however, the eyre closed, the
bishop’s steward appeared, made fine for the wood, and presented Syward
to the justices, who took the necessary oaths. Thereupon the wood was
restored to the bishop. Like procedure was taken with regard to another
of the bishop’s woodwards, as well as a woodward of the abbot of St.
Augustine’s, Bristol. At the same pleas, the abbess of Shaftesbury and
two laymen duly presented their respective woodwards.
Pleas of the forest were again held for Somerset in May, 1270, when the
verderers of Somerton warren again presented, before the justices at
Ilchester, several delinquents for hare trespass.
More careful attention is given to forest history in Collinson’s _History
of Somerset_ (three vols., 1791) than in any of our other old county
histories. He cites in full from the Wells registers the perambulations
undertaken of all the forests of the county in 1289, in order to
reduce them to their ancient and lawful bounds, in pursuance of the
ratification of the forest charter granted that year. With respect to
the forest of Roche or Neroche, the commissioners reported in favour of
the disafforesting of various villages, lands, and woods, which had been
afforested by King John to the great detriment of the tenants. Almost
equally great reductions of hunting-ground, which had been illegally made
forest by Henry II., Richard I., and John in the other Somerset forests,
were at the same time condemned and declared disafforested.
The master forestership or general keepership of all the county forests
passed from the Peche family, in the reign of Edward III., to Roger
Mortimer, Earl of March, in whose descendants, earls of March, and in
their heirs the dukes of York, it continued until the time of Edward
VI., when it became united to the Crown. Collinson sets forth the period
of the respective disafforesting of North Petherton, Mendip, Neroche,
and Selwood; but space prevents us giving particular attention to any
Somersetshire forest save that of Exmoor, to which a few pages ought to
be devoted.
The printed information about Exmoor Forest is exceptionally full. In
addition to that which can be gleaned from Collinson’s county history,
and from Savage’s _History of Carhampton Hundred_ (1830), Mr. Rawle, in
his _Annals of the Ancient Royal Forest of Exmoor_ (1893), has published
most of the information that can be gained from the original forest
documents at the Public Record Office, or from MSS. at the British Museum.
Exmoor, exclusive of the part pertaining to Devonshire, was the largest
and by far the wildest of the Somersetshire forests. This great expanse
of hilly, open country, constituting for the most part a bleak table-land
of moor, surrounded by a fringe of well-wooded combes, was bounded on
the north by the Bristol Channel, extended some twelve or thirteen miles
inland, and was about twenty-five miles in length from east to west.
That Exmoor was a hunting-ground before the Conquest is made manifest by
the fact that Withypool, according to the Domesday Survey, was held by
three foresters in the days of Edward the Confessor. Whatever may have
been the area of Exmoor forest in the time of the Conqueror—Mr. Rawle
believes it to have been above 60,000 acres—it was considerably increased
by the encroachments of later Norman kings, particularly of John.
A perambulation of 1279, at the Public Record Office, gives a circuit of
about fifty miles, and included within the forest area almost the whole
of the parish of Oare, portions of Culbone, Dulverton, Exford, Porlock,
and Winsford, and the whole of Hawkridge and Withypool, together with
the modern parish of Exmoor. The perambulation stated that King John had
added to the original forest a considerable number of adjacent parishes
and manors, to an aggregate of about 20,000 additional acres, which
included East and West Luccombe, Doverhay, Stoke Pero, Woodcockleigh,
Bossington, Holnicote, Withycombe, etc. As a consequence of the 1298
perambulation for the whole county of Somerset, all the additions made by
John to the forest of Exmoor were disafforested, and the ancient bounds
as then laid down remained unaltered for several centuries.
The justices in eyre appointed to hear the Somerset forest pleas are
known to have held their courts at Ilchester, Langport, Somerton,
Taunton, and Wells. Taunton, the nearest of these court towns, was
over thirty miles distant from the nearest part of Exmoor, whilst the
other towns were all upwards of fifty—a distance that could not fail
to considerably impede the course of justice and increase its expense.
At the eyre held at Ilchester in 1257 by William le Briton and his
colleagues, twenty-six vert trespassers were presented from Exmoor; the
highest fine was 5_s._, which was inflicted on a clerk, William de Bagel;
in another case the fine was 2_s._; the remainder were mulcted in 12_d._
The few cases of venison trespass show that there were both red deer
and roebucks on Exmoor; but there is no mention of fallow deer in this
or subsequent pleas and inquisitions. At this eyre there were various
presentments for encroachments and for sowing land with wheat, rye, or
oats (not “beans,” as Mr. Rawle has it). Several offenders were also
fined half a mark for waste of wood.
At the eyre held at Ilchester in 1270, there were upwards of fifty
vert trespassers presented. In a few cases the fine was 2_s._, but in
general it was 12_d._; the justices imposed no fine in five instances
in consequence of the poverty of the offender. The venison trespassers
presented by the foresters and by Philip de Luccombe and Richard de
Bradley, the verderers, were not numerous, considering that thirteen
years had elapsed since the last eyre. Simon, the miller of Dulverton,
Ralph Bulbe, and John de Reygny caught a stag on St. George’s Day,
1259, and carried it to the house of William de Reygny. Simon made no
appearance, and a writ was addressed to the sheriff of Devon. Ralph could
not be found, and a writ of exigent was issued. John and William de
Reygny were committed to prison, but released on the payment of ten marks
and finding pledges for their future behaviour. In another case, Thomas
le Shetten and William Wyne were charged with entering the forest on
Easter Eve, 1267, with bows and arrows, with the intent of wrong-doing to
the king’s venison. They hunted a hind, and chased her into the wood of
Longcombe, without the forest bounds, and there caught her, and carried
her away to their houses at Molland. The same two men were charged with
often entering the forest with evil intent, when they were harboured in
the house of John, then chaplain of Hawkridge. The chaplain came to the
eyre and was put in prison, but the other two made no appearance, and a
writ for their arrest was directed to the sheriff of Devon. Before the
court was dissolved, John the chaplain was pardoned for the sake of the
king’s soul (_pro anima Regis_).
At an inquisition held at Langport before a deputy justice of the forest,
in 1333, in addition to two cases of venison trespass, Richard le Webbe
and two others of Moulton were convicted of burning the heath of 1,000
acres on the hills of the forest, to the damage of the king and to the
injury of his deer. At the same time, William Cobbel, rector of Oare, was
convicted of felling saplings in the wood of Oare, and carrying them off
for his own purpose.
Various other inquisitions as to the state of Exmoor, held before forest
justices or their deputies at Somerton, Taunton, and Wells during the
latter part of the reign of Edward III., are set forth in detail by Mr.
Rawle.
Mr. Rawle has, however, overlooked several entries on the Patent and
Close Rolls pertaining to Exmoor, several of which have been already
cited in earlier chapters.
In 1324, John Everard, the escheator of the four western counties, was
ordered to deliver to Eleanor, widow of Ralph de Gorges, and mother of
Ralph his heir, aged 15, two parts of a third of the manor of Brampton,
co. Devon, as the king learnt by inquisition that Ralph held at his death
a third of that manor of the king in chief, by service of finding the
king an arrow when the king came or sent to Exmoor to take venison there,
the arrow to be delivered to the king’s huntsman.
In November, 1377, Richard II. granted Baldwin Badyngton, king’s esquire,
and Matilda his wife, to enclose at pleasure, notwithstanding the assize
of the forest, all their demesne lands in Somerset within the metes of
the forests of Exmoor and Petherton, which had been wasted and destroyed
year by year by the deer, so as to prevent the deer from entering, and
thus to hold these premises for their lives.
Peter de Courtenay obtained in 1382, during the minority of the heir, the
custody of the forest of Exmoor, which was in the king’s hands since the
death of Edmund, Earl of March.
Edward IV., in 1462, granted for life to William Bourgchier, of
Fitzwaren, knight, the master forestership of Exmoor, receiving the
usual fees in the same manner as Thomas Courtenay, late Earl of Devon.
Six years later the king granted the same office for life to Humphrey
Stafford, knight, on the death of William Bourgchier. In 1470, John
Dynham obtained from the Crown the grant for life of the custody of the
king’s forests of Exmoor and Neroche, with the herbage and pannage and
the courts of swainmote, rendering yearly to the king forty marks.
Henry VII., when he came to the throne in 1485, seems to have put the
control of the venison of Exmoor into the hands of his chamberlain, Lord
Daubeny.
On the marriage of Henry VIII. with Catherine of Aragon, Exmoor was
settled on the queen as part of her jointure. In 1520 Sir Thomas Boleyn
covenanted with the Earl of Devonshire to give up certain forests,
offices, etc., which he held of Queen Catherine at a yearly rent of
£46 13_s._ 4_d._, saving and reserving 100 deer to remain in the forest
of Exmoor. The forest was afterwards held by Henry’s third wife, Jane
Seymour.
In 1598 Hugh Pollard was ranger of the forest, and kept a pack of hounds
at Simonsbath. James I. granted Exmoor forest to his queen, Anne of
Denmark. Charles I., on coming to the throne, granted a lease for 22½
years to the Earl of Pembroke of “the Forest and Chace of Exmore in the
counties of Devon and Somerset, and of the manor of Exmore for fourteen
years ... with a further clause of liberty to him to build a lodge in the
forest at his chardges, and to enclose and lay one hundred acres of land
thereunto.”
In 1630 the king was petitioned to disafforest Exmoor in favour of an
influential applicant. The petition was granted, but further action
was not taken. In the royal library at Windsor is a warrant, dated 5th
August, 1637, under the sign manual of Charles I., directing the ranger
of Exmoor to deliver to Mr. Wyndham “one fatt stagg”; a facsimile of this
document forms the frontispiece to Mr. Rawle’s volume.
Within a few months of his accession, Charles II. granted a lease of
Exmoor for 39 years to James Butler, Marquis of Ormonde.
In 1784 a lease of the forest and chase of Exmoor, with the courts and
royalties, was granted to Sir Thomas Dyke Acland, Bart. This was the last
lease granted by the Crown.
In 1815 an Act of Parliament was passed for the disafforesting and
enclosing of Exmoor. The extent of the forest was then found to be only
18,810 acres, which were thus allotted: A little more than one-half to
the king; one-eighth to Sir T. D. Acland in lieu of the tithes of the
whole forest, which he held; and the remainder to “owners of certain
estates, to which free suits were attached, and to several other persons
in respect of old enclosed tenements lying in various parishes bordering
on the forest.” The king’s portion was at once offered for sale, and his
10,000 acres were purchased by Mr. John Knight for £50,000.
Thus ended the royal rights over the ancient forest of Exmoor, which had
their origin in days prior to the Norman Conquest.
CHAPTER XXX
THE FOREST OF DARTMOOR
Whilst far too little has hitherto been printed about many of England’s
forests, the reverse is true with regard to Dartmoor. The mere list
of books and publications relating to Dartmoor, its history, scenery,
antiquities, and convicts, covers twelve pages of the last edition
of Rowe’s _Perambulation_. Much of this is, however, of an ephemeral
character, and the only two books that give serious information as to
the history of the forest or chase are J. S. W. Page’s _Exploration
of Dartmoor_ (1889), and the one just named. _The Perambulation of
Dartmoor_, by Samuel Rowe, vicar of Crediton, a good antiquary of his
day, was first published in 1848; it was reprinted in 1856, and in
1896 brought out again in a much extended and corrected form by J.
Brooking Rowe, F.S.A. This last admirable volume gives _in extenso_ a
variety of historical documents from a charter of John in 1199 down to
an interesting presentment of the jurors of a court of survey in 1786.
Nevertheless, a continuous history of this forest or chase yet remains to
be written.
In the following brief remarks a mere bare outline of the general run
of such a history is all that is attempted; whilst the additional
documentary evidence cited has, to the best of our belief, never before
been printed.
The whole forest of Dartmoor lies within the old parish of Lydford, by
far the largest parish in all England. The wild table-land of the forest
in the centre of the shire, with its adjacent common lands, hardly
distinguishable from the forest proper, covers some 100,000 acres,
whilst the actual forest has, in round numbers, an acreage of 60,000.
The district is about twenty-eight miles long from north to south,
and about twenty-six miles wide from east to west. The nature of this
granite table-land makes it certain that Dartmoor was never covered to
any considerable extent with timber, although there was doubtless more
underwood in places, diversified by occasional growth of oak, alder, and
willow in the more sheltered glades.
By a charter of John, 18th May, 1204, all lands in Devonshire, save the
forests of Dartmoor and Exmoor, were disafforested, thus anticipating the
great charter of 1215, so far as this county was concerned.
In 1222 Henry III. directed the bailiffs of the once important borough
of Lydford to permit the tinners of Devon to take peat from his moor of
Dartmoor for the use of the stannary.
Henry III., in 1228, granted to Adam Esturney certain lands, which Roger
Mirabel had held of the king in chief, in Skerradon and Shapelegh, by
the service of two barbed arrows when the king came to hunt in his chase
of Dartmoor. The manor of Woodbury was held in chief of the king by the
service of three barbed arrows and an oat cake of the price of half
a farthing, when the king should come to Dartmoor for hunting in his
chase. The ancient tenure of the manor of Druscombe also shows that royal
hunting over this waste, then so well stocked with deer, was anticipated,
for the lord had to present a bow and three arrows to the king when
hunting on the moor.
In 1236, the king granted the tithe of the herbage or agistment of
Dartmoor to the chaplain serving the church of St. Petrock at Lydford.
In 1240, the sheriff was directed to summon a jury to determine, by
perambulation, the bounds of Dartmoor Forest. Of this perambulation there
are several early copies. An ancient quaint map of the forest, of which
a photograph is given by Mr. Brooking Rowe, is extant that has generally
been supposed to be coeval with this perambulation, but it is probably
two centuries later in date.
An entry on the Close Rolls, dated 23rd January, 1251, shows that the
very rare privilege of having a justice in eyre for forest pleas, for
a forest that was not strictly royal, was granted to Richard Earl of
Cornwall, to whom the castle, manor, borough of Lydford and the forest of
Dartmoor had been granted.
Geoffrey of Langley, justice of the forest, was at that date ordered by
the king, as a concession to the Earl of Cornwall, when he had finished
the eyre then being held in the county of Nottingham, to proceed to
Dartmoor for a like purpose.
Mr. Brooking Rowe prints a rendering of the ministers’ accounts of Edmund
Earl of Cornwall relative to Dartmoor for the years 1296-7. The items
are arranged under the heads of the borough and manor Lydford, including
the fee-farm rent, and profits arising from water-mill, fairs, toll-tin,
and stray cattle; and the forest, including profits from water-mill,
from township fines for pasturing cattle, from peat-diggers, from the
agistment of 2,442 cattle at 1½_d._ a head, from 487 horses at 2_d._ each
horse, and from pannage, etc. There were various court fines chiefly for
straying cattle, but two for trespass during the fence month show that
some care was taken of the red deer. Under the head of allowances, 60_s._
is entered as paid to the parson of Lydford, and 42_s._ for the stipends
and drink money (_poutura_) of the foresters, with 22_s._ for their
expenses in the fence month, and stipends and drink money for twelve
herdsmen from 3rd May to 15th August, 76_s._ 6_d._ There was a clear
balance on the whole account for the Earl of Cornwall of £44 2_s._
That the deer were well warded, in addition to the cattle, is shown by
the supplies of salted venison that were sent to Edward I. and Edward II.
from this forest.
From the reign of Edward III. to that of James I. there are various
ministers’ accounts and court rolls among the duchy muniments at the
Public Record Office. The forest was divided into four quarters or wards,
known from the points of the compass as East, West, North, and South,
and the accounts of each were kept separately. The accounts of Robert de
Cleford, the keeper and receiver of the moneys for turves, agistments,
etc., for the years 1354-5, show the following particulars for the first
three wards, that for the South being mutilated:—
_East._—2,641 cattle and 198 horses agisted, and five peat-cutters
licensed—producing £34 7_s._ 5_d._
_West._—1,408 cattle and thirty-seven horses agisted, and twenty-two
folds and twelve peat-cutters licensed—producing £10 2_s._ 9½_d._
_North._—298 cattle, 163 horses, fourteen folds, and thirty-one
peat-cutters—producing £5 1_s._ 6½_d._
The charge right through these accounts for a long period was 1½_d._ a
head for cattle and 2_d._ a head for horses, 2_d._ for each fold, and
5_d._ from each peat-digger. Those who dug peat for fuel are termed
_carbonarii_, which has been absurdly translated colliers, and mention of
early coal-getting on Dartmoor has been more than once printed. But the
geological formation makes such an idea impossible.
Ralph Houle was the receiver in 1370-1, and his accounts for two wards
yield the following particulars.
_East Ward._—2,762 cattle agisted within the forest, and 1,762 without
the forest; five horses agisted within the forest, and twenty-nine
without. This agistment, in addition to the payments of thirteen
peat-cutters, 58_s._ 10_d._ in rents, gave a total of £29 15_s._ 11_d._
_West Ward._—952 cattle and twelve horses agisted, whilst thirty-eight
men paid for folds and thirteen to cut peat. This, with 11_s._ 11_d._
rents, made a total of £9 9_s._ 10½_d._ Among the outgoings were the
60_s._ of tithe, which appears in every account, 6_s._ 8_d._ to the clerk
who drew up the returns, and the stipends of two foresters.
The court rolls of 1381-2 have the heading _de venatione infra forestam_
several times, but no entry follows.
The accounts for 1387-8 give John Copleston as the king’s steward in
Devonshire. John Prik was the forester-bailiff of the West forest;
the money wages for two foresters was only 13_s._ 4_d._, but they
each received an additional 6_d._ a week during the four weeks of
the deer-calving time, or fence month. For the North forest, Robert
Colleshull was forester-bailiff, and Ralph Brante for the East forest; in
both cases the wages were the same as in the West ward. Much of this roll
is illegible.
The ministers’ accounts for 1403-4 give Henry Burgeye as receiver, and
he accounts for the borough of Lydford. William Wykes was forester for
North Dartmoor; 1,307 cattle, ninety-one horses, forty-two peat-cutters,
and twenty-four folds. Aver Wonstan was forester for East Dartmoor; 1,693
cattle, 133 horses, twenty-one peat-cutters, and twelve folds. William
Ysabel was forester for South Dartmoor; 1,600 cattle, forty-nine horses,
sixteen peat-cutters, and twelve folds. William Kelly was forester for
West Dartmoor; 1,780 cattle, ninety-seven horses, sixteen peat-cutters,
and twelve folds.
A bundle of court rolls of the beginning of Henry V.’s reign, 1399-1405,
contain many interesting forest details. At a court for East Dartmoor
held at Lydford on St. Luke’s Day, there were various fines for
unwarranted agistment, and one charge of hunting with greyhounds at
Myrepitte on Christmas Day. Though not so styled, there were evidently
the regular swainmote courts held in forests every forty days, for courts
were also held, for the year 1399-1400, in February, on the Feast of St.
David, at Easter, Sts. Philip and James, Whitsuntide, St. John Baptist,
St. Mark, and the Assumption—nine in all.
There were also eight courts held for West Dartmoor, on days quite apart
from those for the east ward, including St. Clement’s, Christmas, St.
Valentine’s, and St. Gregory’s Days. There is a full list for 1399-1400
of those who turned their cattle (_averia_) out in East Dartmoor. The
contrast is considerable between the rich John Abraham—(was he of Jewish
descent?)—who turned out 300 head, and Walter atte Heade who had only a
single beast. The total of the cattle is 1,970, and the agistment money
came to £19 6_s._ 3_d._
The ministers’ accounts for 1403-4 show a still large number of agisted
cattle on East Dartmoor, namely, 3,159, in addition to twenty-nine
horses; the peat-cutters numbered thirty. Richard Wyte was the
bailiff-forester. The wages for two foresters stand as in earlier
accounts, and there is also 10_s._ paid for a warden of the cattle
collected at the pound of Dunbryge, and for a clerk writing out the
list and aiding in impounding them. In Rowe’s _Perambulation_ there are
several references to Dunbridge, or Dunnabridge, pound, usually called
the duchy pound, of a much later date. The sum of 3_s._ 4_d._ was paid
this year for parchment on which to write the East Dartmoor agistment
lists. The bailiff-forester for West Dartmoor for that year was Alfred
Wonstan; he returned 1,430 cattle, thirty-two horses, and twenty-one
peat-cutters, but no fold money (_faldagium_); for this ward there were
also two paid foresters with an assistant herdsman for the Dunbridge
pound. South Dartmoor (John Grendon) had 2,012 cattle, thirty-six horses,
and seventeen peat-cutters; whilst North Dartmoor (John Wyke) had 1,401
cattle, eighty-nine horses, and thirty-three peat-cutters. These two
wards also each paid for two foresters and an assistant for the Dunbridge
pound. This great pound, between Two Bridges and Dartmeet, is a large
enclosure measuring 350 feet from east to west, and 330 feet from north
to south. Rowe describes the wall as nearly 6 feet high where perfect.
The ministers’ accounts for 1451-2 yield the following agistment returns:—
East West South North
Cattle 1,208 1,248 1,696 1,045
Horses 42 21 40 26
This shows a considerable falling off from the returns of half a century
earlier date.
The agistment entries more than a century later, in the court rolls
for the forest of 1571-2, give the numbers of the cattle on North
Dartmoor as 1,224; they belonged to fifty-four owners: Thomas Whyte
owned 208, Thomas Ware 150, and Stephen Knight forty-eight, whilst some
only owned one beast. Under _Nomina delinquent’ infra forest’_ are the
names of Stephen Knight and thirty others who were each fined 3_s._ for
agistment offences. There were only thirteen horses. Agistment of sheep
(_bidentes_) now appear on the rolls; of these there were twenty-one
owners, and their flocks on the moor varied from 300 to 10; the total
number of the sheep was 830, and their agistment fees amounted to 25_s._
11_d._ The cattle on South Dartmoor numbered 1,043, and the horses nine;
whilst twelve persons turned out 346 sheep for 10_s._ 7½_d._ On West
Dartmoor the cattle numbered 1,619, and the horses twenty, but there were
no sheep. On East Dartmoor there were 2,079 cattle, twenty horses, and
100 sheep. Five persons each turned out a score, and paid the aggregate
sum of 3_s._ 1½_d._, so the charge for sheep was 7½_d._ the score. In
each ward there were a number of delinquents who paid 3_s._ fines. The
total of the peat-cutters, who still paid 5_d._ each, on the whole moor
was thirty-five.
The court rolls for some twenty years later, namely, for 1595-6, show
that the sheep were increasing. There were 843 in the north quarter, 110
in the east, and 246 in the west; the return for the south quarter is
missing.
In the reign of James the sheep on the whole materially increased, at the
expense of the cattle. The proportions for the north quarter in 1609-10
were 746 cattle, thirteen horses, and 1,560 sheep; but they fluctuated
much, for in 1617-19 the cattle of the same quarter numbered 640, the
horses seven, and the sheep 600.
The introduction of sheep on Dartmoor probably showed a diminution in the
deer, or, at all events, less attention to their interests; for although
red deer, where they roam widely, are not nearly so much affected by
sheep pasturage as fallow deer, still it was always the principle to
restrict sheep very narrowly in royal forests even when tenanted by the
larger deer.
Towards the end of the eighteenth century the red deer had become so
plentiful on Dartmoor that the farmers bitterly complained, and at last
they were exterminated by the staghounds of the Duke of Bedford, sent
down from Woburn for that purpose. It has been said that “Tavistock was
so glutted with venison that only the haunches of the animals killed
were saved, the rest being given to the hounds,” but this is obviously
a somewhat ridiculous exaggeration. Of late years red deer occasionally
find their way to Dartmoor, straying thither from Exmoor, although its
nearest point is over forty miles distant.
The return of the jurors of the court of survey of the manor of Lydford
and the forest of Dartmoor on 13th October, 1786, as parcel of the
possessions of the Duchy of Cornwall, is cited in full by Mr. Rowe. It
supplies interesting particulars as to the then obligation of the tenants
to assist the foresters of the east, south, and west quarters to make
a winter drift for the colts at their own charge, and to drive them to
Dunnabridge pound and keep them there for two days and three nights, and
thence to the Prince’s pound at Lydford, all at their own charge save the
taking from the forester one halfpenny white loaf of bread apiece; also
to help in the three summer drifts of cattle between Midsummer and Lammas
after like fashion, under pain of 6_s._ 8_d._
A further presentation by the jurors was with regard to divers towns or
villages abutting on the forest and within the purlieu, whose cattle did
daily escape into the forest. Such offenders were subject to fine, which
fine was turned into a rent called _Fines Villarum_, hence those who
dwell in these townships and pay these rents are called Venvillemen. They
further presented that Venvillemen, in return for the rent, may keep as
many cattle as they can winter on their tenements in the forest, and may
cut turf for their own use.
The Venville parishes number twenty-one. When the drifts were made,
Venvillemen could recover their cattle or colts without paying any fine
or charge, but the other remained pounded till the due fee had been
discharged. The drift was summoned by the sound of a horn.
Every parish of the county has a right to send cattle to this moor save
Barnstaple and Totnes.
The duchy now lets the four quarters of Dartmoor to the moormen, who in
return charge a small fee for every sheep, bullock, or horse turned out
not belonging to a Venvilleman, and this fee includes, as it did of old,
a pledge of protection.
None of our English forests have so many of their original boundary or
ancient guide stones remaining as that of Dartmoor, and the reason is
sufficiently obvious, namely, the imperishable character of the granite
that abounds throughout the district. Such stones almost naturally
assumed the shape of a cross in the days of the simple vivid faith of
our forefathers. The old grey cross standing up on the bare moor would
not only tell the moormen or the Venvillemen of the bounds of their
respective rights, or point out the path to be taken by the wayfarer,
but would serve to keep in remembrance the Saviour of mankind. In one of
the earliest printed English books, by Wynken de Word, in the fifteenth
century, occur these words:—
“For this reason ben Crosses by ye waye, that whan folke
passynge see the Crosses, they sholde thynke on Hym that dyed
on the Corss, and worshyppe Hym above all thynge.”
Notwithstanding the mischief that has been done to these Dartmoor forest
crosses, by wanton ignorance or Puritan malevolence, upwards of thirty
still remain. They are admirably described and illustrated by Mr. William
Crossing, in his _Ancient Crosses of Dartmoor_ (1887).
FOOTNOTES
[1] This word, though the assistance of some of our ablest philologists
has been asked and courteously given, remains uncertain in its meaning.
The probabilities on the whole favour the idea that it was a local name
for some kind of horned deer. Possibly it may have been the roebuck.
Compare _leucoryx_, the name for a white antelope.
[2] _Duchy Depositions_, I. H. 10.
[3] _Ibid._, 10_a_.
[4] _Capille_, _capulle_, or _capul_, is an old English term for a
horse, chiefly north country. It is used in _Piers Ploughman_ and the
_Canterbury Tales_.
[5] _Tynsell_, or _tinsel_, was small dry wood, such as was collected for
heating ovens.
INDEX
Abbenhalle, 277, 278
Ralph, 71, 277, 278
Abraham, John, 344
Acclam family, 113
_Account of English Deer Parks_, 85
Ackworth park, 76, 80
Acland, Bart., Sir Thomas Dyke, 339
Acle, Reginald de, 245, 288
Roger, 247
Acornbury forest, 7
Acres, Jean d’, 227
Acton Burnell, 225
Acton, Henry de, 135
Adam, huntsman, 49
the fowler of Ayton, 39
Adderley, Nicholas, 191
“Afforestation,” 5
Agard, John, 172, 194
Ralph, 172
William, 142, 176, 197
Agardsley, 138, 142
Agisters, 10, 14, 23-4, 41
_Agricultural Reports of Leicestershire of 1794_, 232
Alant, 50
Albemarle, George Monk, Duke of, 322
Albiny, Philip de, 323
Alconbury, 269
Aldborough, Richard de, 213
Aldburgh, 125
Alder, 73, 74
Alderbury, 314, 322
Alderwasley, 73, 186, 191, 192, 195, 202
Alexander, King of Scotland, 91
Alice Holt forest, 78, 85, 309-10
Alisson, Henry, 189
Allantofts, 116
Allen, Thurston, 168
Allerdale, 92
Allerston, 45
Allerton, 213, 216
Alne, the, 87, 90, 92, 129
Alnwick Castle, 90
forest, 7, 77, 88, 89, 90
Alsop, John, 194
Alston, 91
Alton, 245
Alvandeley, Richard de, 102
Alvechurch, 147
Alveston forest, 7
Ambassadors, 77, 78
Ambros, Richard, 317
Amesbury, 313, 314, 324, 326, 327
Amice, Widow, 148
Amond, Robert, 140
Amounderness forest, 44, 45, 80, 98, 102, 104
Ampthill, 78, 79
_Ancient Crosses of Dartmoor_, 348
Andover, 327
Andredes-weald, 301
Andville, John de, 156
_Anecdotes of Cranborne Chase_, 82
Ankirk, 288
_Annals of the Ancient Royal Forests of Exmoor_, 335
Anne of Denmark, 339
Anne, Queen, 219
Annesley, 215
Apethorpe, 253
Aquitium, 160
_Arabilis_, 72
Aragon, Catherine of, 338, 339
Archer, Richard, 228
Thomas le, 161
Arden forest, 229
Simon, 197
Arley, 148
_Armiger_, 192
Arnold forest, 213, 219
Arrow, the, 229
Arsic, Robert, 258
_Art de Venerie, L’_, 61
Arundel forest, 302
Edmund, Earl of, 318
Thomas, 318
Ash, 68, 73, 74, 263, 293
Ashborne, John de, 54
Ashbourn, Robert de, 15
Ashdale, 94, 95
Ashdown, 37, 301, 302
Ashfield, 132, 219
Ashleyhay, 186, 202
Ashop, 170, 173, 177
Ashover, 167
Ashpotts, 74
Ashton, 325
Ashwood, 148
Aspen, 68
Assarts, 11, 12
Assheton, William, 193
Assize of Woodstock, 11, 68
Aston, 150, 159, 240
Hugh de, 228
Astune, Walter de, 227
Atherton de Ayntre, Henry de, 102
Atkyn’s _Ancient and Present State of Gloucestershire_, 274
Attachment court, the, 13, 14
Attewell, Adam, 34
Avenel, William, 205
Avon, the, 38, 227
Micah, 95
Awdley, Sir James, 311
Axe-bearer, 19, 23, 153
Axisholt, 309
Ayer, Robert, 169
Aylesbury, Walter de, 228
Ayston, 236
Ayton, Gilbert, 40, 45
Babington, Anthony, 194
Thomas, 168, 172
Babthorp, Master, 119
Bacon, Richard, 320
Robert, 244
Badelesmere, Gaucelin de, 131
Badger, 35, 36-7
Badyngton, Baldwin, 338
Matilda, 338
Bagel, William le, 336
Baggley, Ralph, 293
Bagley, 257
Bagnall House, 85
Bagott, Stephen, 174, 175
Bagshawe, George, 170
Thomas, 171, 174, 175
William, 164, 171, 175
Bagshot, 298
Bagworth, 54
Bailiwick, 14, 19
Bailly, Robert, 311
Baines’ _Lancashire_, 98
Baker, 172, 237
Bakewell, 151, 153, 167
Baldere, Richard, 191
Baldlyston, Simon de, 103
Banastre, Adam, 103
Thomas, 103
Bantrum, William, 292
Barbery, Booth, 166
Barbille, 119
Barbour, Edward, 170, 171
George, 323
John, 323
Thomas, 323
Bardley, 226
Bardolf, John, 214
Bardulf, William, 206
Barking, abbess of, 34
Barley, Humphrey, 175
Barlowe, George, 171
Barnact, 239
Barnsdale, 235
Barnstaple, 347
Barre, Peter de la, 209
Barton, 138, 139, 141, 142
Robert de, 93
William de, 239
Barylgate, 118
Basford, 214, 219
Basingwerk, 13, 134, 154, 158, 160, 166, 173
Baskerville, Walter, 36
Baslow, Richard de, 164
Bass, 72
Basset, Ralph, 147, 148
Sir Robert, 58, 242
Bassethawe, 58
Bast, 72, 141
Bateson, Miss, 232
Baveney, 226
Baynton, Henry, 325
Beagle, 50
Beard, 167
Beasts of the forests, 25-40
Beauchamp, James, 228
John de, 259
Sir Richard, 323
Sir William de, 306
Beauchief Abbey, 13
Beaufoy, Ralph de, 155
Beaulieu, 307
Beaumont, 234, 235, 237
_Beauties of England and Wales_, 221
Bebington, 131
Beckford, 64
Beech, 68, 73, 311
Beeching, 302
Bees and honey, 39-40
Bek, Anthony, 88, 115, 126, 147, 148, 208
Thomas, 208
Walter, 208
Beler, Roger, 189
Belper, 8, 33, 43, 54, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193,
198, 199, 200, 202, 203
Belton, 236
Belvoir, 168
Benefield, 241, 242, 243, 244
Laund, 255
Benselin, Henry, 239
Bentinck, William, 95
Bentley, 229
Bercelet, 48, 52, 53
Bere forest, 85, 309, 310-12
Beresford Dale, 32
Berewyk, Adam de, 101
Thomas de, 101
Bergh, Alexander de, 111
Bernard de, 111
Berkeley, Maurice, 236
Berkshire forest, 266-7
Bermondsey, 69
Bernake, Gervase de, 33, 160
Bernarius, 53
Berner, the, 53
Bernes, Dame Julyana, 63
Bernwood forest, 35, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 267, 268
Berse, 277
Bertram, Roger, 88
Berwick, 109
Bestwood, 76, 206, 207, 213, 215, 216, 222
Bethune, Thomas de, 99
Bevercote, William de, 212
Bewdley, 225, 226
Bewell, Thomas, 171
Bicester, 257
Bicknoure, 277
_Bidentes_, 345
Bigg, Walter, 165
Biggin, 191, 198
Bigland’s _Historical Collections_, 274
Bigod, Hugh, 240
Bigot, Robert, 115
Sir Ralph, 122
Bikerstach, Ralph de, 104
Bilhagh, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222
Billahaugh, 207
Binsted, 245
Birch, 68, 73, 74
Birkhow, 115
Birkin, John de, 205
Thomas de, 205
Birkland, 217, 218, 220, 222
Birkley, 140, 142
Birkley Lodge, 42
Birton, Joan de, 214
Ralph de, 214
Bishop of Lichfield’s Chase, 146
Bishops Waltham, 81
Blackbrook, 153, 198
Blackburn, 98
Blackburnshire forest, 32, 98, 104, 105, 106
Blackmore, 330, 331-2
vale of, 86
Blackthorn, 68, 73, 74
Blackwater bridge, 290
Blackwell, George, 174
Blagden, 37
Blagge, Mrs. Mary, 80
Blaine’s _Encyclopedia of Rural Sports_, 32
Blake, John, 323
Blakeney, 277
Blakey Moor, 112
Blandford, 84, 265
Blandsby, 57, 119, 120, 124
Blandsby park, 109
Blane, Richard, 64
Bleasdale forest, 80, 98, 99, 100
_Blestro_, 75
_Blettro_, 75
Bleythe, 277
Blidworth, 204, 217, 222
Bligh, 205, 206
Bliorth, 212
Blisworth, 246
Bloodhound, 50
Blount, Henry, 226, 227
Walter, 168
William le, 102
Blundel, William, 99
Blyth, 207
Boar, wild, 25, 26, 30-2, 107-8, 154, 275
Bode, Agnes, 209
Robert, 209
Bois, Thomas de, 289
_Boke of Saint Albans, The_, 63
_Bolas_, 72
_Boldon Book_, the, 97
Boldre, 73
Boleyn, Sir Thomas, 338
Boltby, 213
_Bona vacantia_, 5
Bononia, Sir Francis de, 35, 260
_Booth_, 43, 166
Bordesley, 228
Boroughbridge, 109
Bosco, Ernald de, 258
Bossington, 336
Bot, John, 213
“Bounderers,” 9
Bourchier, Sir Thomas, 292, 295
William, 323
Bow-bearer, 20, 94, 106, 177
Bowden, 152, 159, 170
Bower Chalk, 82
Bowland forest, 32, 98, 104
Bowls, 72
Bowood, 85, 324, 325
Boynton family, 113
Bozon, Robert, 161
Brabazon, Richard, 100
Brache, 48, 50
Bradburn, 69
Bradburne, Henry de, 190
Humphrey, 193, 194
John, 192
William, 202
Bradeford, Robert de, 134
Braden, 325-6
Bradfield, Thomas, 191
Bradley, 192
Richard de, 337
Bradshaw, 69, 200
Anthony, 200, 201
Henry, 191
John, 190, 191, 193, 195
Robert, 195
William, 200
Braithwait, 93
Brampton, 116, 338
Bramshill, 81
Branch, 328
Brandenburgh, Duke of, 79
Branding irons, 284
Brante, Ralph, 334
Braose family, 302
William, 302
Braundeston, Matilda de, 246
Braunston, 234, 235, 236
Bray, 295
Ralph de, 101
Sir Reynold, 169
Braydon, 60, 81
Brayton, 331
Breadsall, 213
Bren, Llewellyn, 279
Bret, John le, 213, 215
Thomas, 35
Breton, William le, 244, 260, 269, 333
Breward, 146
Brewere, William de, 31, 258
Brewood, 147, 148, 223
Bridewode, 279
Bridford, 292
Bridge Casterton, 234
Bridge, Mr., 237
Bridgman, Sir Orlando, 324
Bridgnorth, 146, 148, 223, 224, 225
Bridlington, 116, 117
Brien, Guy de, 279
Brigstock, 35, 58, 240, 241, 242, 243, 248, 250, 252, 253, 255, 256
Brill forest, 267
Bristol, 280
Bristwick park, 76
Britford, 313
Briton, Ralph, 267
Brockshaw, John, 200
Brodeles, 59
Brodenstoke, 324
_Broksylver_, 167
Bromall, John, 170
Bromley, 104
Thomas de, 146
Brook, 235, 236
Brotherton, 126
Broughton, 44, 45, 102, 103
Brown, Thomas, 172
Bruce, Robert, 109
Bruern, 258, 261
Bruges, 148
Bruys, Matilda de, 36
Brymore, John de, 306
Brymyngeshoe, 118
Buck, the, 25
Buckholt, 313, 315, 316, 317
Buckhounds, 49
Buckinghamshire forest, 267-8
Buckstalls, 56-7
Buddlesgate, 311
Budley, 207
Budworth, 133
Bugg, Ralph, 160
Bulax, 245
Bulbe, Ralph, 337
Bulkeley, Roger, 318
Bullsmore, 184, 188, 189
Bulmer, 128
Bulners, Peter, 187
Bulwick, 253
Burford, 258
Burgeye, Henry, 343
Burgs, Henry de, 206
Burleigh, Lord, 298
Burnell, Hugh, 225
Robert, 225
Burton, 96, 140
Mr., 231
Burton-on-Trent, 140
Burtonwood forest, 99
Bushie Park, 78
Butter, Henry, 200, 201
James, Marquis of Ormonde, 339
Butterly, 194
Buxted, 301
Buxton, 159
Mr. E. N., 86, 283, 286
Byfleet, 293
Bygley, Ralph, 38
Bygod, Roger, Earl of Norfolk, 111
_Byke_, a, 40
Byngham, Robert de, 332
Byron, Sir John, 196, 216
_Cableicium or cablicium_, 7
Cadworth, 328
Caius, Dr., 48
Caldew, 92
Caldon, 236
Calne, 322, 324
Calton Park, 77
Calverton, 14, 212, 215
Cambrencis, Giraldus, 154
Camden, Mr., 331
Camerton, Andrew de, 306
Camhead, 163
Campana, 151, 152, 153, 154, 160, 161, 165, 168, 170, 173, 183
_Campestres_, 63
Candover, 225
Philip de, 52
_Canes cheverolerez_, 49
Cannock Chase, 145-8
forest, 34
Canonpath, 316
Cantelupe manor, 276
Cantilupe, Mabel de, 8
William, 240
Canute, 4, 44, 68
“Capille,” 171
_Capistra_, 59
Caponn, Sir Robert, 109
_Capriolus_, 29
_Carbonarii_, 343
Carburton, 207
Cardell, 69
Carducis, Thomas de, 208
Carlisle, 90, 91, 122
John, Bishop of, 215
Carlton, 220, 242, 248
William, 127
Carnabie, Cuthbert, 89, 90
Cassy, Sir John, 180
Castiard, 71, 278
Castle Donnington, 54
Castlehay, 138, 139, 141, 142, 144
Castlehay park, 80
Castleman, Mr., 84
Castleton, 150, 151, 152, 156, 165, 167
Cat, wild, 33, 36
Caton, John de, 100
Ralph de, 40
Cattle, 42-3, 342-5
_Catulos_, 34
Caux, Matilda de, 205
Cave, Sir Ambrose, 174, 196
Cavendish, Henry, Lord, 80, 144
Cawledge park, 90
_Cervericii canes_, 49
_Cervus elaphas_, 26
_Chablis_, 7
Chaddesden, 155
Chaddesley, 149
Chaderton, Edward, 330
Chafin, Mr., 82
Chamber of the Forest, 152, 168, 171
Peak, 152
Champagne, 183, 190
Champyon, the, 174
Chapel, 167
Chapel-en-le-Frith, 151, 152, 163, 168, 179
Chappell Henalt Walk, 78
Chapter, the, 11
Charcoal burning, 137
Charlbury, 262
Charlcote, Thomas de, 261
Charles I., 77, 179, 201, 297
II., 32, 79, 95, 130, 143, 144
Charnwood forest, 231-2
_Charnwood Forest_, 231
Charter of the Forest, the, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 22, 40, 42, 47, 60,
95, 227, 229, 284, 330, 331
Chase, a, 2
Chaumpvent, Peter de, 92
Cheddar forest, 7, 334
Chelmorton, 153, 167, 178
Cheminage and Fence Month, 59-61, 127, 147, 187, 272
Chertsey, 34, 38, 287, 288, 290, 293
Cheselden, John, 236
Cheshire forest, 20, 131-6
_Cheshire_, Ormerod’s, 131
Chester, 36, 38, 39, 131, 132, 134, 136, 206
Chesterfield, 205
Chestnut, sweet, 68, 71, 278
Chettle Common, 84
Lodge, 84
Cheut forest, 78
_Cheverellus_, 29
Chevin, 192, 198, 202, 203
House, 199, 200
Chevinsyde, 201
Chevrones, 206
Cheyne, Roger, 328
Child, Mr. T. F., 204
Chilterns, the, 257
Chilton Foliat, 266
Chingford, 283
Walk, 78
Chinley Common, 32
Chippenham, 322, 323
Chipping, 105
Chisworth, 179
Cholmley, Richard, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124
Roger, 122
Christchurch, 38
Churchill, 149
Chute forest, 290, 327-8
Chyllynton, 146
_Chymynagium_, 59
Clare, Gilbert de, 227
Clare, Robert, 31
Claret, John, 157
Clarendon forest, 7, 9, 13, 20, 29, 31, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 49, 52,
56, 57, 71, 73, 85, 313-22
Clark, Richard, 200
Claughton forest, 101
Clay, 219
Clee forest, 226
Cleford, Robert de, 342
Cleley, 237
Cleobury, 225
Clerk, Philip le, 148
Clewer, 58
Cliff forest, 46, 239, 240, 250, 251, 252, 255, 256
Cliff, William de, 275
Clifford family, 226
Isabel de, 92
Robert de, 71, 92
Roger de, 148, 276, 278, 288
Clifton, 129, 213
Clipston forest, 7, 207, 212, 213, 215
Clitheroe, 98, 104
Clowe, Thomas à, 58
Clumber, 219, 221
Clypston Park, 76
Clyve, Thomas de, 135
Coan, Robert, 137
Cobbel, William, 337
Cobham, 287, 288
Cockayne, Sir Thomas, 64
Cockshut, a, 39
farm, 39
Coit Andred, 301
Cokayne, Sir Edward, 201
Sir John, 166
Sir Thomas, 171, 195
Cokefeld, John de, 208
Cokehill, 147
Cokendale, 249
Coket, Francis, 129
Coking, Richard, 139
Cokker, 101
_Cokkyes_, 130
Colchester, 284
Cold Norton, 259
Cole, the, 267
Colebrook, 72, 183, 186, 187, 190, 195, 197, 201, 203
Coleshill, 267
Collam, John, 271
Colleshull, Robert, 343
Collinson’s _History of Somerset_, 329, 335
“Collyng,” 50, 163
Collyweston, 252, 253
Colne, 104, 105
Colombieres, Matthew de, 245, 288
Colson, John, 123
Colt, a, 33
Columbariis, Matthew de, 52
Colville, Robert, 113
Colwick, 208
William, 208
Colwych, William, 328
Colyn, William, 317
Common Law, the, 2
Compton, Thomas de, 260
Conet forest, 99
Coney, 26, 37
Conisborough Park, 76
Constable, Robert, 119
Sir Marmaduke, 119
_Constitutiones de Foresta_, 4
Cook, William, 192
Cookham, 295
Cope, Sir John, 81
Copleston, John, 343
Coptre, 235
_Copulas_, 206
Coquet, 87, 88, 90
Corbet, John, 148
Corby, 237, 242, 248, 255
Corfe Castle, 331
Corkley, 187, 188
Cornbury Park, 85, 261
Cornet, Agnes, 243
Cornhill, William, 287
“Cornilu,” 168
Cornwall, Duchy of, 167, 346
Edmund, Earl of, 291, 342
Richard, Earl of, 243, 342
Corston, 225
Cossham, 322
Corviser, Ralph le, 185
Coterell, Warner, 158
Cotterstock, 247
Cottingham, 248
Cotton, 235
Collection, the, 59
Coucher Book, the, 35, 116
Court Thorn, 95
Courtenay, Philip de, 338
Thomas de, 338
_Country Contentments_, 64
Coveham, 288
Coventry, 156
Cowhey, 166
Cowhouse Lane, 186, 199
Crab-apple, 73, 143, 197
Crakehall, John of, 269, 270
Cranborne Chase, 9, 31, 35, 37, 60, 61, 79, 81, 82, 84, 297, 299, 300
Crancumbe, George de, 259
Crawley, 311
Crayke, 128
Crediton, 340
Cressebien, Richard, 330
Crepping, Richard de, 88, 92, 100, 209, 277, 330
Crich, 193
Chase, 190
Cricklade, 325
hospital, 60
Criel, Nicholas de, 243
Croft, Roger de, 101
Cromwell, Lord, 129, 130
Oliver, 142
Thomas, 296
Crooke, Sir Henry, 263
Sir John, 263
Unton, 263
Cropton, 118
Cross, 185, 186, 187
Crossbow, 252-3, 255
Cross Cliff, 45, 118, 122
Crossing, Mr. William, 348
Crowford bridge, 293
Croyland, 249
Croxall, 155
Croxteth park, 98
Croxton, 206
Cruce, Robert de, 138
Cruchell, 160
Crumbwell, John de, 93
Culbone, 336
Cumberland forest, 90-5
_Cumberland_, Jefferson’s, 95
Cumnor, 257
Curson, Francis, 196
Henry, 213
Richard, 311, 323
Curte Clarke, 169
Curzon, John, 200
Richard, 155
William, 155
Dacra, William de, 93
Dalby, 108
Dallowe, Mr., 80
Dalton, John, 111, 114, 115
_Dama vulgaris_, 26
_Damericii canes_, 49
Daniel, John, 161, 165
Darley abbey, 13, 69
Dale, 153
Darrell, family, 326
Dartmeet, 345
Dartmoor forest, 2, 8, 22, 24, 41, 43, 44, 53, 167, 340-8
Datchet, 290
Daubeny, Lord, 338
Davenport, Richard, 136
Day, Thomas, 193
Daye, Richard, 299
Daxsholt, 104
_Dean, An Historical and Descriptive Account of the Forest of_, 274
_Dean, The Personalities of the Forest of_, 234
Dean forest, 8, 13, 20, 30, 31, 66, 71, 85, 229, 230, 274-82
Debenham, John of, 270
Michael, 270
_De Cableicio_, 7
_De feodo_, 101
Deepdale, 121, 234
Dear-hays, 59
Deer-brouse, 19, 255
Deer-leaps, 56
Deer, list of, 76-7
Derby, 33, 184, 200
Derbyshire, forest, 98, 99, 102, 103
Delamere forest, 132, 134-5
“Derebrouse,” 19, 255
“Derefal,” 255
Dernhall abbey, 13
Derry Hill, 322
Derwent, the, 37, 125, 181, 184, 185, 186
_Description of Leicestershire_, 231
_Descriptive List of the Deer Parks and Paddocks of England_, 85
Despenser, Hugh le, 110
Dettrick, John, 194
Devizes, 322, 323
Devyle, Rich, 272
Dickson, Carr, 74
Dieulacres abbey, 13, 158
Digby, Everard, 235, 236
Thomas, 248
Digge, Richard, 235
Dinting, 179
Dionysia, 114
Disafforestation, 6
Dispencer, Hugh, 206, 262
Dixon, Mr., 297
Doddington, 161
Doe, the, 25
Dole, 328
Domesday Survey, 4, 44, 136, 181, 204, 232
Done, family, 133
Richard, 133, 135
Donnington, 184
Dorsetshire forests, 330-2
“Dottard oaks,” 197
Doughty, Thomas, 195
Dove, Richard, 36
the, 32
Dovedale, 32
Doverbeck, 206
Doverhay, 336
_Drag_, 139
_Draw_, 139
Drayton, 147, 148
Henry, 245
Michael, 274
Ralph, 245
Dronfield Church, 154
Druscombe, 341
Dryden, Sir Henry, 50, 61, 64, 65, 66
Duffield, 69, 140, 181, 183
Castle, 182
Chase, 33
forest, 8, 9, 18, 24, 37, 39, 42, 43, 73, 189, 190, 191, 197, 198,
199, 200, 201, 202
Frith (forest), 2, 8, 9, 13, 16, 27, 28, 37, 39, 40, 42, 53, 54,
57, 58, 59, 69, 72, 74, 77, 181-203
Dulverton, 336, 337
Dunbridge, 344, 345
Duncan, Lord, 282
Dunbryge, 344
Dunnabridge, 344, 346
Dunyton, 206
Durham, 126
Cathedral, 197
forest, 96-7
Dykes, Richard, 95
Dynham, John, 338
Easingwold, forest of, 7, 127, 129
East Grinstead, 301
Easthampstead, 296
Eastlegh, Wilkin of, 224
Easton, 244
Easton wood, 74
Ebbeston, 116
Ebisham, 288
Eblebourn, 313
Ecclesburn, the, 185, 186, 189
Edale, 33, 43, 150, 166, 173, 177
Eddington, 255
Eddisbury, 133
Eden, the, 91
Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, 100, 102, 137, 181
Edward I., 3, 8, 20, 33, 35, 49, 52, 91, 126, 152, 162-3, 181, 214,
246
II., 30, 52-3, 93, 108, 110, 111, 128, 212
III., 22, 38, 61, 110
IV., 20, 37
VI., 73
the Black Prince, 132
the Confessor, 5, 267, 336
Duke of York, 61, 62, 64
Edwin, Mr. Chas., 282
Edwinstowe, 14, 212, 215, 218
Egbert, 4
Egginton, John, 193
Egham, 288, 293
Egham Walk, 79
Ela, Countess of Warwick, 262
Elder, 68, 73
Eleanor, Queen, 228, 261, 315
Elizabeth, 73, 297
Ellerton, prior of, 57, 60
Ellis, Mr. W. S., 302
Elm, 68, 73
Elmedon, Walter de, 146
Elton, Master, 194
Eltonheved, Richard de, 102
Ely, 115
Elynton, Ivo de, 160
Emborne, the, 266
Empingham bridge, 235
Empson, Richard, 253
Mr., 122
Empson, Richard, 330
Enfield Chase, 78-81
Great Park, 78
Engaine Warner, 155, 158-9
_English Dogges_, 48
_English and Scottish Popular Ballads_, 204
Epping forest, 29, 40, 46, 85, 283, 286
Walk, 78
_Equitium_, 160
Erdeswyk, Thomas de, 135
Erdinton, Thomas de, 224
Eresby, 208
Ermynthwait, 93
Escat, Richard le, 91
Eslington, 36
Essex forest, 34, 41, 43-4, 47, 69, 78, 283-6
_Essex, the Forest of_, 283
_Essoins_, the, 11, 112, 306
Est, Richard, 271
Esturney, Adam, 341
Eton, 262
Eure, William le, 115
Evelyn, 71, 210, 222
Everard, John, 338
Everingham, Adam de, 205, 214
John de, 205
Robert de, 37, 205, 206, 207, 209, 214
Evermuth, Beatrice de, 206
Walter de, 206
Evesham, 228, 234
Hugh de, 146
Ewerby, John, 311
Ewyas, Richard of, 245, 246
Exford, 336
Exmoor forest, 2, 8, 30, 53, 85, 333-8, 341, 346
_Exploration of Dartmoor_, 340
Eyam, 166
Eynsham, 262
Eyre, Edward, 173
forest, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Robert, 174, 175
_Eyries_ of hawks and falcons, 38
Eyton’s _Shropshire_, 224, 226
Fairfax, Guy, 119
Fairfield, 153
Fairlop Oak, 286
Falcon, 38
_Faldage_, 248
_Faldagium_, 345
_Fall of Needwood, The_, 145
Fallow deer, 25, 26, 27
Farley, 311, 324
Hall, 200
Farnborough, 289
Farndale, 114, 125
Farnham, Nicholas de, 260
Fauconburg, Sir John de, 109, 110
Faversham, 288
Fawn, 28
Feckenham forest, 7, 149, 226, 227, 228, 229
“Fee-trees,” 70
Felsted, 284
Fence month, 14, 19, 41, 59-61, 94, 103, 326
Fenie Wood, 295
Fennes, William de, 314
Fenton, 166
Christopher, 129
_Fermisona_, 50
Fermyng, 252
Fernditch Walk, 84
Ferne, Richard, 200
Ferrars, Thomas de, 134
Ferrers, family, 137, 183
Henry de, 181
Robert, Earl of, 33, 60, 161, 162, 181
Sir Humphrey, 200
William de, 154, 155
_Feta_, 28
_Feton_, 28
_Feudal History of Derbyshire_, 28, 29
Fewterer, the, 53
Filthycroft, 319
Finchampstead, 295, 296
Finchford, 235
Findern, William de, 160
_Fines Villarum_, 347
Fineshead, 249
Finmere forest, 7
Firebote, 68
Fisher, Mr., 5, 43, 286
Fitz-Giles, Nicholas, 188
-Godfrey, Richard, 163
-Nicholas, Ralph, 155, 159, 258
Thomas, 163
Nigel, John, 160
Osborn, William, 225
Peter, Walter, 314
Ralph, John, 186
-Reinfred, Gilbert, 99
Stephen, Ralph, 205
Fitzherbert, John, 172, 194
Justice, 142
Peter, 107
Fitzhugh, John, 225
Fitzstephen, 71
Fitzwaren, 338
Fitzwilliam, Sir William, 295, 296
Flagg, 178
Flaxley Abbey, 71, 275, 276, 278, 280
Fleming, Stephen, 213
Fletcher, William, 95
Fletching, 301
Flitteris, 235
Foix, Gaston de, 50, 61, 65
Foljambe, Cecily, 165
Godfrey, 194
Henry, 164
John, 158
Roger, 158
Thomas, 33, 160, 161, 164
William, 163, 164
Folksworth, 270
Folowe, Robert, 172, 173
Folyot, Richard, 208
Fool, John the, 325
Ford, Robert de, 289
Forde, Thomas, 293
Foregate, the, 228
Forest Agistments, 41-6
Forest-and-Frith, 96
Charter. _See_ Charter of the Forest
“Forest Districts,” 5
eyres, 10
Inquisitions, 15
Law, 2, 4, 5
Officers, 17-24
_Forest Pleas_, 2, 16, 25, 29, 70, 92, 227, 234, 237, 268, 269, 284
Forest Quarter, 96
Ridge, 301
_Forest Scenery_, 73, 305
_Foresta de Lancaster_, 98
_Forestarii equitii_, 20
Foresters, 19-22
Foresters-of-fee, 20, 21, 33, 105
_Forestry and the New Forest_, 304
Forests, list of, 6
Forges, Itinerant, 8, 275
Forty-day Court, 14
Fosbroke’s _Record of Gloucestershire_, 274
Foster, William, 318
Fotheringhay, 249, 251, 253
Foucher, Cicely, 190
Robert, 190
Fouilloux, Jacques du, 64
Foulbridge, 116
Fountains, 122
“Fowl of the Forest,” 26
Fox, the, 3, 25, 26, 33, 34-5
Foxlove, John, 118
“Foxtrees,” 251, 252
Frank, Geoffrey, 128
Franketon, David de, 52, 53
Freeman, Professor, 4
Freemantle forest, 7
Free-warren, 3
Freford, 34
Frely, Robert, 188
Fretham, Hugh, 171
Frimley, 293
Frodsley, 225
Frost, William, 311
Fuklyn, Giles, 140
John, 140
Fuller, 280
Fulwood forest, 44, 98, 99, 102, 103, 117
Furches forest, 7
Furness, abbot of, 102
Furnival, Thomas de, 155, 160, 161, 162, 163
Galtres forest, 9, 39, 76, 125-30, 208
Gardiner, Roger, 264
Gatesgill, 93
Gaunter, Alan le, 246
Gauntlett, Thomas, 320
Gaystall, 93, 94, 95
Gazehound, 50
Geddington, 240, 252, 255, 256
Gedling, John, 191
Geese, 154
Gelet, Richard, 239
Gell, Sir John, 180
Genn, William, 246
Gentil, John le, 100
William, 104
_Gentleman’s Recreation_, 64
George Inn, Forster’s Booth, 66
Gernet, Benedict, 99
Roger, 99
Gervase de Bernake, 33
Gifford, John, 228, 247
Gilbert, Earl of Shrewsbury, 177
Gilbewin, Geoffrey, 239
Gillingham, 330-1, 332
Gilpin, William, 73, 305
Gladwin, John, 220
Glossop, 150, 151, 154, 156, 177
Gloucester, 275, 276
Humphrey, Duke of, 248
Thomas, Duke of, 280
Goathland, 117, 118, 122
Goats, 24, 45-6
Goband, John, 155, 156, 159
Godalming, 310
Godbradshawe, 177
Godstowe, 259
Gomfrey, Adam, 152, 154, 161, 165
Richard, 154
Thomas, 154
Good, Mr. Henry, 82
Goodrych, William, 214
Goodwyn, William, 330
Gorges, Eleanor de, 338
Ralph de, 338
Gorse, 68
Goscote, 235
Gould, E. T., 220
Gower, John, 118
Grafton Park, 78, 79, 296
Robert of, 243, 245
Thomas of, 243
Gray, Sir Reginald, 235, 248, 252, 253, 292, 330
Richard de, 323
Great Casterton bridge, 235
Dean, 277
Malvern, 227
Oakley, 242, 248
Park, 299, 300
Gredleye, John de, 102
Gredling Park, 76
“Green hue,” 69
Greendale Oak, 222
Greenthwaite, 94
Gregory, Ralph, 190
Grendon, John, 345
Grenehill, John, 280
Grenerigg, Elias de, 92
William de, 92
Grenleng, Robert, 246
Gresham, Richard, 169
Gresley, Alan, 155
Peter de, 164
Thomas, 155, 192
William, 194
Gretton, 248, 255
Thomas de, 161
Greves forest, 132
Grey; John de, 155, 156, 158, 159, 213
Greyhounds, 3, 35, 47-8, 50, 104, 241
Greytree, 229
Grim, Roger, 239
Grimston, 208
Grindsbrook Booth, 166
Groby, 231
Grosvenor family, 133
Groveley forest, 315, 316, 317, 318, 328-9
Grueythwaite, 94
Grymstede, John de, 314
Grynley park, 76
“Guarys,” 271
Guildford, 38, 42, 58, 288, 289, 290, 292, 293, 295, 296, 298
Gurdon, Adam, 277, 310
Guy, huntsman, 108
Gwash, the, 235
Gyffard, John, 146, 147
Gylse, 90
Gynet, Ingelram, 101
Hacche, Eustace de, 208
Hackness, 113, 114
Haddon, 192
_Haericii canes_, 49
Hagley, 149
Hainault, 283, 286
Haldane, Nicholas, 109
Halghton, Thomas de, 104
Hall, Richard, 169
Halmote, 104
Halter, a, 58, 59
Hambledon, 311
Hamburg, Henry de, 102
Hamelake, 118
Hamfordshoe, 248
Hamilton, Ralph, 155
Hamond, John, 311
Hampshire, the forests of, 304-12
Hamorton Dale, 252
Hampstead, 314
Hampton Court, 296
Robert, 36, 113
Hanborough Walter de, 306
Hanbury, 80, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 145
John de, 110
Hanger, Richard atte, 306
Hanslope, 245, 246
John of, 246
Simon of, 245
Hansted, Maria, 53
Harbela, John de, 93
Hardegill, Edward, 263
Hardwick Park, 85
Hardy, Roger, 36
Hare, the, 3, 25, 26, 30, 33, 34, 35-6, 332
Harewin’s mill, 235
Harland, 98
Harleruding, 245
Harly, John, 193
Harnham Bridge, 61
Harpsford, 292
Harrey, Thomas de, 101
Harriers, 49
Harrop, 104
Hart, the, 25, 50
Hartfield, 301
Harting, 32
Hartington, 32, 162, 188
William, Marquis of, 144
Hartley, 268
Hartoft, 118
Harwood, 96
Haslebache, 179
Haslewood, Thomas, 248
Hassop, 179
Hastings, Edward, Lord, 174, 235, 236
Edmund de, 110, 113, 120
Ralph de, 110, 112, 113, 115
Roger, 119, 120, 121, 122
Sir William, 109, 168, 215
Hatfield, 219, 283
Chase, 130
Regis, 284
Hathelakestan, Hasculf de, 233
Hathersage, 57, 151
Matthew de, 57
Hatheway, Ralph, 277
Hatton, Mr. George Finch, 255
Haugh Rise, 115
Haughdale, 113
Havering forest, 7, 31, 258, 283, 284
Hawk, 26, 38
Hawkridge, 336, 337
Hay, Henry del, 186
Haybote, 68, 69
Haydock, Richard de, 135
Hayfield, 177, 179
Haygrove, 279
Hayward, John, 128
Haywood, 222
Haxby, 129
Hazel, 68, 73, 74
Hazelwood, 186, 198
Heade, Walter atte, 344
Headington, 263, 264
Heage, 33, 191, 193, 198
Hebbe, 164
Heeson, John, 89
Helot, John, 190
Helsley, 131
Hemingborough, 119
Heneage, Sir Thomas, 296
Hengham, Ralph de, 147
Henley, 292
Brother William de, 160
Henley-in-the-Heath, 294
Henrietta Maria, Queen, 125
Henry I., 31, 257
II., 5, 9, 11, 33, 41, 60, 71, 95, 99, 154, 267
III., 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 34, 36, 41, 46, 49, 60, 88, 99, 100, 108, 125,
137, 162, 244, 325, 331
IV., 128, 181, 191
VI., 128
VII., 7, 30, 106, 118, 120, 132, 168, 294, 307
VIII., 73, 89, 123, 142, 170, 172, 195, 295, 296
Earl of Lancaster, 102
Lord Percy, 30
the Fowler of Barugh, 39
Hereditary foresters-of-fee, 20
Herons, 39, 302
Herpesford, 290
Hesket, 93, 95
Heyden, William, 324
Heyes, Ralph of, 245
Heyraz, Henry de, 314
High Forest, the, 206, 207
Lindes, 138
Lynns, 141
Peak forest. _See_ Peak forest
Higham Ferrers park, 79
Highlands, 142
Hillulidgate, 127
Hilton, 96, 174
Hinton, Hulle of, 224
Hippingscomb, 327
_Historical Recollections for a History of Staffordshire_, 146
_History of Tamworth_, 140
Hoar Lynte, 72, 141
Hoare’s _Wiltshire_, 322, 329
Hodleston, 104
Hog, Robert le, 134
Hoghton, Henry de, 104
Richard de, 103
Hog’s Back, 290
Holand, Robert de, 54, 187
Holbrok, Richard de, 246
Holbrook, 191, 193, 198
Holcot, John, 251
Holes, Roger, 318
Holland forest, 105
Henry, Earl of, 309
Hollingworth, Robert, 170
Hollinhead forest, 74
Hollinsclough, 166
Holly, 68, 73, 74
Holm, 119
Holmcoltram, 92
Holmeby Park, 79
Holnicote, 336
Holn Park, 90
Holton, Richard of, 224
Honey. _See_ Bees
Honor of Peverel, the, 150, 151
Hood, Robin, 204
Hook, John atte, 289
Hooton, 132
Hope, 150, 151, 152, 153
Bowdler, 225
Mr. Beresford, 32
Hopedale, 151, 152, 166
Hopemaloysel, 279
Hopping, 37
Mill, 37, 38
Weir, 37
Horewell, 226, 227
Horewood forest, 7
Hornbeam, 68, 73
Hornedroare, 295
Horne’s _Town of Pickering_, 43
Horse-breaking, 160, 165
Horsell, 293
Horsenden, William de, 155, 159, 160
Horses, 23, 24, 43-4
Horston forest, 7
Hotham, John, 119, 122
Hotherinde, John, 134
Hoton, William, 94
Hough, 188
Houghton, Benjamin, 80
Simon, 270
Houle, Ralph, 343
Hound, 33
“Houndgeld,” 47
Hounds and Hunting, 47-67
Housebote, 68, 69
How Park, 80
Howard, Thomas, Earl of Suffolk, 325
Howl Hill, 230
Huby, 127, 129
Hucklow, 159
Hudham, Nicholas de, 88
Hughson, Colonel, 180
Hulland, 39, 54, 183, 186, 187, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197,
198, 199, 203
Hulleson, John, 187
Hundred Rolls, the, 33
Hungayth, Ralph, 129
“Hungell,” 47
Hungerford, Nicholas de, 54
Robert de, 110
Hunt, Richard le, 165
Hunter, Nicholas, 95
_Hunters_, 81
Hunting costumes, 64-7
Hunting treatises, 61-4
Huntingdon, 128
Huntingdonshire forest, 268-73
Hurdum, Captain David, 180
Hurst, Peter del, 157
Hutchins, Mr., 31, 82, 84
Hutchin’s _History of Dorset_, 330, 332
Hutchinson, Mr. Horace G., 304, 305
Hutton Bushell, 40, 45
Huttun, Sheriff, 128
Hyde Park, 78
Hyend, William, 213
Hyett, George, 280
Hyling Park, 80
Ibote, 110
Idridgehay, 186, 191, 198
Ifwood forest, 7
Ightenhill, 104
Ilchester, 335, 336, 337
Ilger, John, 271
Illingworth, Ralph, 194
_Inbounds_, 9
Incelemor wood, 96
Ingelram family, 101
_Ingenia_, 34
Ingham, 65
Oliver de, 132
Oliver, tomb of, 65
Inglehard, John, 290
Inglesham, 267
Inglewood forest, 22, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95
Inkel, Thomas, 239
Inkpen, 266
_Inlodges_, 9, 321
_In lupariis_, 33
“In mercy,” 12
Inquests, 15
_Instaur de Duffeld_, 188
Insula, Brian de, 155, 159
Ireton, John, 194
Wood, 198
Iron smelting, 3, 8, 198
Isabel of Clifford, 56
Isabella, Queen, 93, 132
Isham, Robert, 251
Ispannia, Alphonsus, 261
James de, 261
Itinerant forges, 8
Iuelhering, Ralph, 245, 246
Ivetanfield, 93
Ivy Church, 38, 41, 318
Jackson, Thomas, 190
James I., 32, 177, 297
Earl of Northampton, 80
Jefferson, 95
Jenynges, John, 129
Jesson, William, 201
John, King, 6, 8, 9, 29, 31, 34, 49, 90, 95, 99, 100, 107, 221, 223,
224, 275
John, huntsman, 108
John of Lexington, 37
Johnson, Robert, 252
Thomas, 173, 200
_Journal of Forestry_, 228
Juniper, 68
Justice Seat, the, 151, 152, 254, 318
Katharine of Braganza, 95
Kaye, Richard, 196
Kedleston park, 85
Kelly, William, 344
Kemble, 4
Kenilworth, 54, 189, 236
Kennet, the, 266, 267
Kettering, 255
Kevelioc, Hugh, Earl of Chester, 136
Keynsham forest, 7
Kidderminster, 149
Kidkirk, 95
Kildale, 112
Killamarsh, 153
Kilpeck forest, 7
Kilvington, John de, 108, 109, 110, 111, 115
Kings Delph, 271
Kingscliff, 46, 240, 252
Kingsley of Kingsley, 133
Ralph de, 133
Kingsmead Priory, 13
Kingstag bridge, 332
Kingston, 333
family, 280
Kingswood, 283
Kingthorpe, 120
Kinlet, 225, 226
Kinneton, Henry de, 260
Kinver, 9, 145, 148-9, 223
Kinwardstone, 326
Kirkby, 212, 219
Robert de, 212
Knaresborough forest, 80, 130
Knight, John, 339
Stephen, 345
William, 311
Kniveton, John, 192
Nicholas, 193, 194, 195
William, 200
Knolls, Richard, 172
Knossington, 233, 235
Kynthorp, Petronilla de, 110
Lacock, 323, 324
Lacio, Nicholas de, 277
Lacy, Ada, 90, 91
Alice de, 98
family, 98
Gilbert de, 313
Reginald, 90
Lady Park of Belper, 183, 194
Ladyshaw Wood, 193
_Lancashire_, Baines’, 98
Lancashire forests, 20, 22, 74, 98-106
Lancaster, 98, 101, 102
Castle, 74, 100, 101, 102
Duchy of, 35, 59, 70, 80, 98, 137, 150, 166, 167, 169, 181, 302
Henry, Earl of, 112, 113
John, Duke of, 190
Thomas, Earl of, 98, 109, 110, 113
William de, 96
Langdon, 118, 122
Langesdon, Mathew de, 157
Langford, Ralph, 193
Langham, 235
Langlandebroke, 101
Langley, Geoffrey, 206, 243
John de, 262
Thomas de, 31, 258, 259, 261
Langport, 336, 337
Langton, Robert, 233
Langwith Bridge, 213
Lansdowne, Marquis of, 324
Lanthony, 258
Lardiner, David le, 126
Philip le, 126
Lark, 26
Lascelles, Hon. G. W., 304, 305
Lascy, Matilda de, 96
Walter de, 275
Later Forest History, 76-86
Latimer, William, 117, 215
Launde Priory, 13
_La Venerie_, 64
Laverstoke, 314, 322
Jordan de, 314
“Lawing,” 47
Lawson, Sir George, 129
Laxpeniard wood, 277
Laying, Ralph, 139
Layrthorpe Bridge, 128
Laythegryme, 105
Leach, Peter de, 160
Lead smelting, 3, 198
Leake, Thomas, 217
Leche, Sir Philip, 191
“Le Cowhouse,” 190
Lee, Nicholas de, 100
Randall, 169
Leek forest, 136
Leen, 206
Lees, Mr. Edwin, 228
Legh, Reginald de, 147
Sir William de, 135
Leghe, Thomas, 194
Le Haw, 235
Leicester Abbey, 13
Roger de, 110
Leicester, William of, 269
Leicestershire and Rutland forests, 231-6
Leighfield forest, 235
Leland, 96, 227, 330
Lench, Peter de, 277
Lenta, the, 266, 267
Lenton, 13, 29, 158, 214, 220
Lepers, 101, 243
_Leporarius_, 47
Lestrange, Robert, 131
Roger, 147, 160
Levere, William, 111
Levisham woods, 38, 113, 119
Lewes, 234
battle of, 162
Lewknor, Geoffrey de, 269
Lexington, Robert de, 155, 156, 158, 159
Lichfield, 147, 148, 156, 287
Likenfield Park, 76
Lilleshall Abbey, 13, 158, 166
Lime, 68, 71-2, 118, 141
Limehound, 48, 50
Linby, 14
Lincoln, 206-8, 212
Linde, Thos. de la, 332
John de la, 332
Walter de la, 332
Lindley, 206, 212, 215
Lindsay, Robt. of, 246
Lion, Peter de, 224
Lisburn, Lord, 81
Litchfield, John, 220
Little Dean, 277
Eye, the, 235
Hucklow, 180
Malvern, 227
Oakley, 248
Park, the, 253, 297
Weldon, 255
Litton, 180
_Livre de Chasse_, 61, 64
London, 39
Sir Walter de, 39
Long, Thos., 323
Longcombe, 337
Longdendale, 150-2, 154, 163, 177
Longford, Sir Ralph, 172, 194-5
Longley Park, 185, 188
Lonsdale forest, 98-100, 102-4
Loretti, Contisse, 148
Lough, Edm., 325
Loughborough, 174, 206
Loughton, 283
Lovel, John, 261
Lovet, John, 242
Lowe, Anthony, 195
Thos., 195
Lowick, 243, 246
Alan of, 245
Hugh of, 245
Lownde, Richard, 253
Lowton Walk, 78-9
Luccombe, 336
Phil. de, 337
Lucy, Geof. de, 261
Ludworth, 166
Lune, the, 74
Lusignan, Aymer de, 243
_Lutericii canes_, 49
Luttrell, Sir John, 330
Lyddington, 236
Lydekker, 32
Lydford, 340-6
Lyme forest, 136
Lymers, 48, 50, 63
Lyndhurst, 305-6, 315
Lynne, Will, 248
Lysle, Sir Nicholas, 327-8
Lyveden, 243
Macclesfield forest, 136
Magnus, Thomas, 123
Maiden Bradley, 329
Maidstonfeld, 177
Maidwell, the, 247
Sir Alan, 243
_Mainour_, 14
Makeney, 198
Malmesbury, William of, 257
“Malloesot” bridge, 290
Malpas, David, 250, 253
Edmund, 248
Malton, prior of, 57, 60, 116
Malvern forest, 226, 227, 228
Manley, Peter de, 112, 113
jun., Peter de, 36
Manners, Sir John, 177
Manneser, John, 109
Mansell, 183, 187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 200, 201
Mansergh, Roger, 111
Mansfield, 14, 37, 66, 204, 212, 215, 216, 220
Mantravers, John, 306
Manver, Earl, 221
Manwood, 1, 13, 25, 54, 63
Maple, 72-3
Maplegreen, 132
Mara, 36, 38, 39, 45, 133, 134, 135
March, Edmund, Earl of, 338
Roger Mortimer, Earl of, 316, 335
Marchington, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141
“Mareclos,” 189
Mares, Robert de, 243
Maresfield, 301, 302
Markam, Gervase, 64
Marlborough, 326
Marmyon, Philip, 147
Marnham, Nicholas de, 161
Marshall, John, 170, 322
Martendale Fell, 85
Martin, the, 25, 36
Martinside, 163
Martinsley, 235
Marton, 125
Mary, Queen, 90, 297
_Master of Game, The_, 61, 62
“Masers,” 72
Mastiff, 34, 47, 48, 50
Mathew, Richard, 311
Maunsell, William, 129
Mawes, Robert, 235, 236
“Maxenclif,” 189
May, William, 155
Maynestonfield, 167
Meaux, Sir John de, 38
Medue, Henry de, 161, 163
Medwood forest, 191
Meht, Maurice de, 242, 243
Melburne, 54, 206
Melksham, 29, 323
Mendip forest, 29, 53, 333
Menill, Sir Nicholas de, 36
_Mensis vetitus_, 60
Menzies, Mr., 297, 299
Mercer, Ellis, 264
Henry le, 148
Merivale, 13, 158, 160
Merlins, 38
Mernyk, William, 271
Mersey, the, 133
Merton, 288
of Merton, 133
_Messarius_, 239
Messias, John, 245
Metham, Sir Thomas, 119
Meverell, Sir Sampson, 168
Meynell, Nicholas, 112, 113
Meysam, Sir William de, 155
Michegros, Cecilia de, 277
Middlescough, 93
Middleton, 36, 38, 96, 113, 116, 248, 261
Peter de, 213
William de, 147
Middleton-in-Teesdale, 96
Milborne, Sir T., 318
Milchet, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320
Milford, 37, 314
Edmund de, 314
Milking of ewes, 165
Miller, Walter the, 241
Millhay, 202
Milner, Robert de, 163
Milnhay, 183, 186, 190, 193, 195
Milo, Earl of Hereford, 275
Milton, 86
Mine Law Court, the, 282
Minestead manor, 40
Minors, Humphrey, 142
Mirabel, Roger, 341
Mirhaud, Hugh de, 161
Katherine de, 161
Mitchell, William, 292
Mody, William, 311
Moens, Mr., 304
Molines, Michael, 263
Molineux, Bart., Sir F., 220
Molland, 337
Molyneux, Thomas, 194
Mompesson, Druce, 311
Monemue, John de, 259
Monk, George, Duke of Albemarle, 322
Mr., 232
Monkton, Robert, 80
Monmouth, John de, 275
Monneysilver, Ralph de, 103
Montague, Edward, Lord, 255
Montfort, Simon de, 162, 244
Montgomery, John, 194
Walter de, 54
Montpelier, William of, 257
_Monumental Effigies_, 65
Monyash, 163, 167
Moorhay, 250, 251, 252, 255, 256
Moray, Earl of, 109
Morborne, 270
More, the, 138
Richard de la, 277
Morel of Merton, 44
Tutbury, 44
Morf Forest, 223, 225
Morley Park, 183, 184, 185, 188, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 200
Morley, Sir Oswald, 140
Mortimer, Edmund, 148
Ralph, 225
Roger, 147, 225, 226, 335
Mortimer’s history, 131
Morvill, Hugh de, 90, 91
Moryn family, 113
Motcombe, 331
Mote, 297
Mottisfont, 314
Moudrem, 36, 38, 39, 133, 134, 135
Moulton, 337
Mugginton, 69, 129
Mulgrave, 112
Multon, Thomas de, 91
Mundy, Mr., 145
Munekan, Peter, 259, 260
Murdoch, Henry, 234
Murrain, 28, 115, 120, 324
Musgrave, Sir William, 95
Mutton, Robert, 280
Myerscough forest, 80, 98, 100
Myneers, John de, 54
Myrepitte, 344
Nafferton, William, 114
Nantwich, 133
Nash’s _Worcestershire_, 227
Nassaburgh, 237, 238
Nassington, 239
_Natural History of Selborne_, 81
Needham, Hugh, 173
William, 175
_Needwood Forest_, 145
Needwood forest, 2, 16, 42, 43, 45, 53, 54, 72, 80, 137, 138, 141,
142, 143, 144, 145, 160, 201
Nene, the, 247
Neroche forest, 53, 333, 335, 338
Netherbrook Booth, 166
Nets and snares, 3, 58, 59, 255, 271
Nettleworth, 220
Nevil, Walter de, 153
Nevill, Geoffrey de, 92, 126, 208
Peter, 69
Richard de, 94
Sir Geoffrey, 311
Neville, Edmund de, 104
Hugh de, 46, 125, 224, 240, 241, 267, 275
Peter de, 233, 234
Ralph de, 213
Richard, 201
Robert de, 210
Sir Henry, 297
New Forest, 2, 16, 40, 78, 85, 86, 255, 304-9, 315
Kent wood, 74
Lodge Walk, 78, 79, 299
Park, 219
Sarum, 313, 318
Windsor, 58, 295
Newark, 126, 205
Newbiggin, 186
Newborough, 142
Newbury, 327
Newby, 114
Newcastle, 87
Daniel de, 88
Newland, 66, 279, 280
Newsome Park, 77
Newton, 118, 129, 239, 253
Dale, 120, 122
Nichols’ County History of Leicester, 231
Nicholl forest, 95
Nicholls, Rev. H. G., 274, 276, 278
Niernuyt, John, 306
Nightingale, John, 250, 251
Nisbet, Mr., 304
_Noble Art of Venerie or Hunting_, 35, 64
Nonsuch, 296
Norden, John, 124, 287, 297
Normandy, 33
Normanville, Thomas de, 88, 92, 100, 161, 209
Norris, Sir William, 292, 295
North Petherton forest, 333
Wingfield, 153
Northampton, 237, 238, 244, 247
William of, 241, 242
Northamptonshire forests, 73, 245, 253
Northumberland forest, 87-90
Northwell, 209
Norton, 237
_Notes and Queries_, 221
Nottingham, 40, 162, 199, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 213,
215, 216, 220
Geoffrey de, 155
Nicholas de, 212
Nowers, Robert de, 245, 246
Noy, 297
Numbles, 119
Nut geld, 73
Nutley, 267
Nuts, 137, 233, 265
Nycholson, Thomas, 95
Oak, 68, 69-70, 74
Oakemanton, Thomas, 195
Oakham, 232, 233, 234
Soke, 235
Oakingham, 267
Oare, 336, 337
Odo, 108
Offerton, 150
Offlow, 137
Okhill, 132
Old, 244
Lodge Walk, 79
Sarum, 315
Swinford, 149
Oldenburgh, Duke of, 79
Ollerton Corner, 221
Olney Park, 80
Ombersley forest, 226, 227
Orchard, William, 292
Ormerod, 131, 133, 134, 136
Orreby, Thomas de, 160
Osmond, Master, 194
Otter, 37
Otterhounds, 49
Otterbrook Booth, 166
Oundle, 253, 254
Ouse, 125
_Outbounds_, 9
_Outlodges_, 9, 322
_Outwoods_, 9
Overhaddon, 172
Overton, 235
Oxford, 35, 77, 257, 259, 260, 261, 268
Oxfordshire forest, 257-65
Oxhey, 166
Packer, Richard, 191
Padbury, 268
Page, J. S. W., 340
Palers, palesters or palifers, 24, 316
Palgrave, 4
Panetria, Henry de, 93
Pannage, 14, 41-2, 94, 116, 127, 138
Pannsett, 322
Panshet forest, 313, 322
Panye de Lench, 276
Papplewick church, 8
Park, a, 2
Parker, Archbishop, 297
Christopher, 235
Henry, 171
Thomas, 193, 236
Walter, 318
William le, 110
Parkers, 24
Parnelldale, 114
Partridge, 26, 38-9
Passclew, Sir Robert, 48, 242, 243
Pauncefote, Grimbald, 148, 228
Payn, Simon, 189
Paynel, Thomas, 37, 302
Peak forest, 2, 7, 13, 16, 17, 20, 24, 27, 28, 32, 33, 37, 43, 44,
45, 49, 50, 57, 77, 150-80, 182, 183, 191
Pecche, Sabine, 333
Pecham, Roger de, 146
Peche family, 335
Pechmore, 148
_Pedicatores_, 33
_Pedunculata_, 71
Peke, John, 280
Pembroke, William, Earl of, 280, 314, 321
Pendle, 98, 104
Penhull, 104, 105
Pennesley, John de, 134
Penrith, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95
Pensnet Chase, 148
Penyard, 230
Percy, Henry, 114, 117
Henry Algernon, 88
John de, 112
Leo, 119
Thomas, 90
Sir William de, 110, 112
_Pessone_, 103
Peterborough, 239, 249
Petherton forest, 53, 338
Pette, Robert, 245
Pevensey, 301
Peverel’s Castle in Peak Forest, 150
Peverel, William, 20, 150, 152, 204
Pewsham forest, 29
Pheasant, 26, 38-9
Philip, David, 250, 251
the Knight, 333
Phillipps MSS., 65
Phipping Park, 77
Picheford, Geoffrey de, 290
Pickering forest, 8, 10, 20, 27, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43,
44, 45, 47, 57, 59, 60, 69, 73, 77, 80, 107-125
Lythe, 13, 107
Vale, 107
Pigot, Richard, 292
Pigs, 23, 24
Pilgrimage of Grace, 88
_Pilgrim, The_, 59
Pilkston, Richard, 191
Pin, Stephen de, 239
Pinchon, Emma, 114
_Pinguedo_, 50
Pintclifford, 188
Pipe Rolls, 33
Pipewell, 247, 249
Pippin wood, 96
Pirbright, 293
Pitney, 333
Pitt-Rivers, General, 29
Pitton, 322
Plaitford manor, 314
Pleasley, 208
Plessis, William de, 333, 334
Plot’s _Natural History of Oxfordshire_, 258
Plumpton Park, 91, 93, 94
Pycard, John, 163
Pycroft, William, 172, 173
Pylton, John, 248
Pym, John, 324
Poictou, Roger de, 98
Polbrook, 248, 253
Pole, Mr. Wellesley, 286
Pollard, Hugh, 339
Poltenhall, 292
_Polyolbion_, 274
Pomfreth, John, 295
Pontefract, 76, 80, 109
Poor, Richard le, 287
Poorstock forest, 7, 330, 332
Pope, William, 194
Poplar, 68
_Porcerecii canes_, 49
Porchester forest, 310
Porlock, 336
Portsdown Hill, 310
Portsmouth, 311
Postern, 183, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196,
200
Potter’s _Charnwood Forest_, 231
Poutura, 22
Preston, 100, 102
Walter de, 240
Priestcliffe, 178
Common, 32
Prostagne, William, 248
Pulham, 332
_Pullum Masculum_, 33
“Purlieu,” 9, 178
_Purprestures_, 11, 12, 134, 159
Pursglove, Lawrence, 173
Reginald, 173
Robert, 173
Thomas, 171
“Putre money,” 105
_Puture_ or _putre_, 22, 105
Queenbury, 164
Queentree, 311
_Quercus_, 70, 260
Quernmore forest, 39, 50, 74, 80, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105
Quincy, Roger de, 91
Quinfield forest, 56
Rabbit, 26, 37, 234, 260, 302, 316-17
Radford, 220
Ragged, Richard le, 160
Thomas le, 161, 163
Randolf, John, 305
Rangers, 24
_Raskall_, 28, 218
Raskell Park, 76
Ratcliffe, Sir Cuthbert, 89
Sir John, 235, 248, 292
Raveningham, Roger, 269
Ravensdale, 183, 187, 188, 192, 193, 195, 200
Ravensworth, Lord, 36
Rawle, Mr., 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
Reading, 61, 81, 266, 267, 287
Red deer, the, 25, 26, 27
Ralph, 239
Rede, Sir Edmund, 263
Redescaye, Richard de, 157
Redlane, 331
Redlington Park, 72
_Regard_, the, 11, 38, 39, 48
Regarders, 10, 11, 14
_Reliquary_, 84, 200
_Reliquiæ Antiquæ_, 62
_Retia_, 140
Reygny, John de, 337
Ribbeford, Henry de, 148
Richard I., 9, 34
II., 120
III., 128, 129
Earl of Salisbury, 94
“Riding Forester,” 20, 129, 135, 146, 206
Ridlington, 234, 235, 236
Rievaulx abbey, 109, 117
Ringwood, 306
Rithre, John de, 93
Rivallis, Peter de, 259
Rivers, Lord, 61
Robe, Thomas, 31
Roberg, John, 140
Robert of Sudborough, 58
Robinson, Sir John, 255
_Robur_, 70, 260
Roch, William de, 160
Roche abbey, 13, 158
forest, 335
_Rockingham Castle and the Watsons_, 237
Rockingham forest, 16, 18, 29, 32, 35, 38, 46, 47, 48, 50, 56, 58,
60, 79, 85, 151, 233, 237-56
Roe, the, 25
Roedeer, the, 29-30, 114, 115, 305
Roebuck, Hulle, 224, 336
_Roer_, 71, 258, 311, 318, 323
Rogers, Harmon, 309
Rokeby, Robert, 235, 236
Rolleston Park, 138, 141, 142
William, 142
Romford, 284
Romsey, 314
John de, 306
Nicholas de, 244, 245, 269, 288
Rooke, Major, 220
Roos, Robert, 247
Roper, John, 271
Ros, Sir Richard de, 117
Rosedale, 116
Ross, 230
Rossendale, 98, 104, 105, 106
Roston, William de, 118
Rothbury, 87, 89, 90
_Rotefallen_, 7
Rothwell, 248
Rouclyffe, Sir David de, 118
Router, William, 214
Rowe, F.S.A., J. Brooking, 340, 341, 342
Samuel, 340, 344, 345, 346
Rowend Hill, 74
Rowland Glade, 254
Rowley Park, 138, 142
Roxby, 113, 124
Rudder’s _New History of Gloucestershire_, 274
Rufford, 207, 209, 215, 218, 222
Rumewood, 206, 207
Rus, Richard le, 333
Rushbury, 225
Rushmore, 29
Russel, Robert, 316
Geoffrey, 246
Russey Park, 80
Rutland-Leicester forest, 72
Thomas, Earl of, 216
Rydale, 166
Rypax Park, 76
Ryton, 119
Rywardyn, 277
Sacheverell, Henry, 194
Ralph, 192
William, 194
Sadler, Sir Ralph, 175
St. Albans, 63
St. Augustine’s, Bristol, 334
St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, Oxford, 259
St. Briavel, 31, 275, 277, 279, 280
St. Budoc, Oxford, 259
St. Clements, York, 126
St. John Baptist’s Hospital, Burford, 258
Oxford, 259, 260
St. John, Richard de, 206
St. Leonards forest, 37, 39, 301, 302
Hospital, York, 126
Lancaster, 99
St. Martin’s, Salisbury, 322
St. Mary’s Abbey, York, 13, 22, 34, 115, 120, 127
College, Spink Hill, 33
Lancaster, 102
Winchester, 327
St. Peter’s Abbey, Gloucester, 13
St. Petrock, Lydford, 341
St. Thomas, Stafford, 147
St. Werburgh, Chester, 131
St. Wolfstan’s, Worcester, 148
St. Wystan, Worcester, 148
Saladyn, Richard, 148
Salcey forest, 78, 85, 237, 241, 256, 267
Sale, John de, 166
Salford, Richard, 193
Salfordshire, 105
Salisbury, 38, 313, 316, 317
William, Earl of, 288
Salkeld, 91
Salmon, 90
Salmon, John, 252
Salop forest, 34, 146
_Saltatoria_, 56
Salteries, 56
Salting venison, 108
Samborne Park, 80
Samford, Hugh de, 325
Thomas, 325
Warner de, 325
Sampson, Robert, 233
Sandford, 96
Sandes, Sir William, 328
Sandford, Brian, 118, 119, 120, 121
Sapcote, Thomas, 235
Sapcotes, Sir John, 272
Sapley, 269, 272
Sauvey, 235
Savage, Edward, 194
Savage’s _History of Carhampton Hundred_, 335
Savage, Roger, 33
Sir George, 173
Sir John, 168, 169, 170
Sir Richard, 168, 172, 173
Thomas, 168
William, 123
Savernake, 85, 326-7
Savory de Malo Leone, 314
Sawyer, Edward, 255
Say, Robert de, 290
Scalby, 35, 114
Hay, 35
Scarborough, 36, 60, 109, 116, 119, 126
Robert de, 126
Scarbrough, Thomas, 251
Scarsdale, 167
Schymeed, 186
Sclatter, William, 280
Scot, Hugh le, 224
“Sealing-axe,” 23, 320
Seamer, 30, 109
Selden Society, 237
_Select Pleas of the Forest_, see _Forest Pleas_
Selkley, 326
Selvestrode, John de, 228
Selwood forest, 7, 53, 329, 330, 333, 335
Serjeanty, a, 33
_Sessiliflora_, 70
Seton, prioress of, 46
Seymor, Henry, 80
Seymour, Henry, 145
Jane, 339
Shaftesbury, 330
Shallcross, John, 170
Shapelegh, 341
Shatton, 150
Peter de, 165
Shaventon, Henry de, 147
Shaw’s _Staffordshire_, 141
Sheep, 24, 33, 35, 44-5
Sheepshed, 231
Shefeld, Robert, 135
Sheffield, 162
Shelford, 207
Shepherd, John, 113
Sherborne, 35
Sherbrook, W., 220
Sherif Hutton, 77
Sherwood forest, 2, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 28, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38,
40, 66, 69, 76, 85, 204-22
_Sherwood Forest_, 220
Shetten, William le, 337
Shining Cliff, 192
Shipley, 164
Nicholas de, 185
Shireholt Park, 141, 142
Shirley, Mr. Evelyn, 85
Nicholas, 194
Shorter, Ralph, 311
_Short Treatise of Hunting_, 64
Shotover forest, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 268
Shotter, John, 318
Shottle, 58, 183, 185, 186, 187, 190, 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 200,
203
Shotwick park, 133
Shortwood, 250, 255, 256
Shrewsbury, 224
Francis, Earl of, 173
George, Earl of, 142, 174, 176
Gilbert, Earl of, 177
Shropshire forests, 223-6
Shupton, John, 128
William, 128
Siberton, 239
Sidbury, 228
_Silva regis_, 4
Silverston forest, 7
Silwood coppice, 80
Simeon, Simon, 112, 115
Simondsley, William de, 184
Simonsbath, 339
Sinclair, Robert, 333
Skeffington, Adam, 232
Robert, 232
Skegby, 66
Skelton, 109, 129
Adam, 111, 115
Richard, 28, 111, 115
Skerradon, 341
Slake, Thomas, 169
Slindon, 303
Slope, Richard de, 189
Slyfeld, Henry, 293
Slyfield, Alan de, 289
Smallcross, Richard de, 157
Smythe, Nicholas, 252
William, 252
Snape, Walter de, 277
Snares, 3, 58, 59
Snitterton, 192
Somborne, 311
Somerset, Sir Charles, 193
Somersetshire forests, 333-39
Somersham Park and Chase, 79
Somerton, 26, 35, 36, 209, 333, 335, 336, 337
Sonning, 295
Sono, Otto de Grandi, 147
Southwell, 212, 220
Sowerby, 95
Sownd, Richard, 251
_Spanda_, 136
Spark, Richard, 135
Sparrow hawks, 38
Sparsholt, 311
Spear, 34
“Special vert,” 69
Spetchley, 85, 227, 228
Spicer, Captain, 325
_Spire_, 75, 251
Splipting, Harman, 79
Spofforth Park, 77
_Spyre_, 74
Squier, Robert le, 52, 53
Squirrel, 37, 136
Stafford, Humphrey, 338
John, 193
Staffordshire forests, 137-49
Staindale, 45
Stamford, 46, 234, 247, 249, 254, 259
Archdeacon Adam de, 156
Stanbridge, 235
Standrells, 73
Stanhope, 96
Edward, 197, 199
Stanion, 241, 250
Stanley, 323, 324
family, 132
Sir John, 105
William de, 132, 134, 135
Stapelhurst, William de, 229
Stanton, Adam de, 157
Stawell, Lord, 310
Stanwick, 246
Statham, Goditha de, 191
Thomas de, 190
Stauntene, 277
Stayndale, 118
Staynton, Robert, 113
Steeple Claydon, 268
Stephen, Robert, 118
Stillington, 128, 129
Stilton, 270
Richard of, 270
Stockley park, 138
Stoke, 150, 242
Stokehern, 235
Stokehill, 166
Stokeley, 138, 141, 142, 236
Stoke Pero, 336
Stokes, Master, 194
Stokton, Henry, 292
Stone, 147
Stonyford, 268
Stothard, 65
Stottesden, 226
Stourton, Sir John, 317
Stowe, 206, 228
Stowood forest, 257, 258, 262, 263
_Strakur_, 49
Strensall, 128, 129
Stroud, 323
_Stubb_ or _Stub_, 75, 122-3, 251
Stubbs, Bishop, 4
Studley, 323
Stukeley, Gerard, 272, 273
John, 273
Stumpsden, 235
Sturdi, Robert, 239, 240
Sudborough, 242, 243
Sugrave forest, 7
Sulehay, 250, 255, 256
Sulley, 131
Sultan, John de, 118
Sunninghill, 297
_Sussex, Parks and Forests of_, 302
Sussex forests, 301-3
Sutlegh, Bartholomew de, 261
Sutton, 220
Allen, 172
Sutton-in-the-Dale, 153
Sutton-on-the-Forest, 127
Swainmotes, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 272
Swainsley, 38
Swan, 26, 37-8
Swansley, 38
Sweet chestnut, 68, 71, 278
Swindgel, the, 84
Swine and Pannage, 41-2
Swinfield, Bishop, 230
Swynnerton, Robert de, 134
Sycamore, 68
Sydenham, Sir Edward, 203
_Sylvestres_, 63
Symondes, John, 264
Sympson, Thomas, 199
Syward, John, 334
“Tack” court, 42
Tack dinner, 200
Talbot, Gilbert, 279
Thomas, 194
Tanner, Thomas, 103
Tanning of hides, 9
Tatenhill, 137
Tatershall, 154
Tattishall, Martin de, 240
Taunton, 336, 337
Teddesley, 146
Teddington, 178
Tees, 96
Teesdale forest, 77, 96
Teme, 227
Temple Newsom, 77
_Terra regis_, 4
Tetlowe, Edmund, 196
Tewkesbury, 280
Thany, Luke de, 277
William de, 260
Theydon, 283
Thief-net, 59
Thirnum, Richard de, 101
_Thistiltak_, 128
Toftes, 159
Thomson, Gilbert, 330
Thomas, 57
Thoresby, 85, 219, 222
Thorney, 216
Thornhaw, 255
Thornhill, 159, 292
Thornton, Peter de, 135
Thorpe, 288, 293
Simon de, 269
_Thoughts upon Hunting_, 64
Thrapston, 243
Thurgarton, 205
Thurlbear, James of, 241
Tickhill, 207
Tideswell, 30, 150, 151, 152, 159, 166, 167, 168, 170, 173, 175, 179
Tingewick, Roger of, 241
Tintern, 280
Tock, Roger, 239, 240
Tolberton, 129
Topcliff Great Park, 77
Little Park, 77
Topcliffe, 125
John, 109
Tordebig, 149
_Torrens_, 167
Totenhoe, 251
Totnes, 347
Tottenham House, 327
Totyngton, 104
Towcester, 237
_Town of Pickering_, 43
Townsend, 209
Toxteth forest, 99
park, 98
Trafford, Richard de, 134
Trawden, 98
_Treasury of Receipt Forest Proceedings_, 238
_Treatise on the Forest Laws_, 25
Trees of the forest, 68-75
Trent, 79, 92, 206, 208, 209
Troutbek, William, 192
Troutsdale, 40
Trowbridge, 322
Trowden, 104, 105
Trubleville, Ralph de, 241
Trusley, 155
Tudenham, 277
Tuluse, Simon, 245, 246
William, 245, 246
Tunsted, Francis, 177
Tuppeleye, Robert de, 139
Turbervile, 35, 36, 64
Turkil, Bartholomew, 271
William, 271
Turnditch, 187, 198
Turner, Mr., 2, 3, 13, 25, 29, 49, 70, 92, 209, 224, 227, 234, 237,
238, 241, 245, 268, 269, 284, 301
_Turnus_, 166
Turton, Mr., 27, 116
Sir John, 80, 145
Tutbury, 16, 54, 88, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144, 174, 176,
182, 187, 189, 190, 191
Twici, 48, 50, 61, 62, 63, 64
Twiford, 235
Two Bridges, 345
Twynyho, William, 330
Tybetot, Richard, 147
Tycknell, 226
Tymparon, Robert de, 93
Ugretred, Thomas, 112
Ulverscroft, 231
Unwin, Thomas, 323, 324
Upper Booth, 166
Upping, 37
Uppingham, 235, 236
Uttoxeter, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 201
Vale of the Hope, 150
Vale Royal, 134
Velters, 49
_Veltrarius_, 53
_Venatio de Duffield Frith_, 188
Venison Pleas, 11, 12, 15
Venlands, 167
Venoit, Robert de, 309
Ventrers, 53
_Venville_, of Dartmoor, 9
Venvillemen, 307
Verderers, 17-18, 102, 157
Verdon, Thomas de, 93
Vernon, Edward, 80, 145
John, 192
Richard de, 160, 164, 167, 168
Roger, 192, 193, 194, 195
Sir Henry, 168
Walter, 179
Vert Pleas, 11, 12, 14, 15, 69
Walk, 255
Vertue, George, 222
Vesci, Baron William de, 156
Vesey, John de, 92, 100
William de, 88, 92, 209, 210
Vezpont, Robert de, 96
_Victoria History of Hampshire_, 304
Vieville, Baron of, 79
Vikars, Richard, 95
Vynyng, Mathew, 330
Wade, John, 251
Wake, Thomas, 38, 117
Wakefield forest, 7
New Park, 70
Old Park, 76
Waldeshef, Walter, 302
Walerund, Walter, 289
William, 289
Waleys, Sir Stephen le, 164
Walkelin, William, 33
Wallingford, 108
Waltham Abbey, 34, 47
“Blacks,” 81
Chase, 81
forest, 31, 59, 79, 85, 271, 283, 284, 286, 312
Walthamstow Walk, 78
Wanburgh, 293
Wanstead, 40, 79
Wapentake, 198
Warcop, 96
Ward, 14
William, 111
Warden, a, 17
Wardley, 235, 236
Wardlow, 159, 180
Ware, Thomas, 345
Warkworth Park, 77, 89
Warren, a, 2, 26
beasts of, 26
Warren, Earl of, 96
fowls of, 26
Warwickshire forest, 229
Wastedale, Roger de, 94
Wastedalehead, 94, 95
Waterhouse, Thomas, 191
Waterville, Richard de, 240
Simon of, 246
Watkinson, Richard, 252
Watton, 119
Wax, 40
“Waymuthe,” 291
“Waynelodes,” 200
Weardale forest, 96, 97
Wearne, 333
Webbe, Richard le, 337
Wedgwood, Dr., 1
Wednesley, Thomas de, 166
Weedhaw, 255
Weford, Richard de, 132
Welbeck, 158, 160, 166, 222
Welbeck Abbey, 13
Weldon, 254
Welland, the, 235, 247
Welles, John, Lord, 248, 250, 251, 252
Wellington, Roger of, 224
Wellow, 209
Wells, 336, 338
Wensdale forest, 77
Wensleydale forest, 130
Weseham, Roger de, 156
West Bere, 311
Derby forest, 98, 103, 104
Henalt Walk, 78
Luccombe, 336
Westbrook, John, 293
Westerdale, 113
Westhay, 250, 251, 255, 256
Westhorpe, John, 118
Westminster, 108, 112, 131, 224
Hall, 71
Westmoreland forest, 95-6
Weston, 163, 269
Richard, 271, 295
Westwood, 95, 228
Wever of Wever, 133
Weybridge forest, 7, 58, 79, 269, 271, 272, 273
Weyley, Simon de, 156
Whaley Bridge, 179
Wharmore, 105
Wharton, Sir Henry, 94
Sir Thomas, 94
Wheston, John, 264
Whightmede Park, 280
Whinfell Park, 92
Whistler, Edward, 263
Whitaker, Mr. Joseph, 85
Whitby, 109, 114, 116, 121, 122
Whitchurch, Richard of, 234
White, Gilbert, 81
White Hart Forest, 331
Lodge, 219
Silver, 332
Whitehall, 255
Bridge, 166
Whitehede, John, 311
Whitelock, Sir Bulstrode, 299
Whitethorn, 68, 73, 74
Whitfield, 158, 179
Whittington, Arthur, 142
Whittlebury forest, 237
Whittlewood forest, 67, 78, 85, 237, 255, 256, 262, 267, 268
Whittlesey, 271
Whitwick, 231
Whitworth, Rev. R. H., 204
Whorley Castle, 112
Whyte, Thomas, 345
Wick, 246
Wigley, John, 196
Wigornia, Margery de, 148
Wilcock, 213
William I., 5, 305
II., 34
III., 106
Duke of Devonshire, 80
Marquis of Hartington, 80
the Hermit, 108
Willoughby, Richard de, 110
Sir Harry, 193, 194, 195
William, 263, 264
Willow, 68
Willowbrook, 237
Willy brook, 248
Wilson, Thomas, 95
Wilton, 313, 315
John, 311
Wiltshire forests, 313-29
Wimbalds Trafford, 134
Wimersley, 237
Winchester, 289, 310, 311
Windesham, 293
Windley Hill, 196
Windsor forest, 7, 13, 21, 32, 34, 36, 38, 42, 52, 56, 73, 79, 81,
85, 266, 267, 287-300, 310, 339
Great Park, 78, 79
Little Park, 78
Wingfield, 195
Winsford, 336
_Winter Heyning_, 41
Wintour, Sir John, 281
Wirksall, Walter, 113
Wirksworth, 153, 167, 181, 191, 196, 198
Wirral, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135
Wise, Mr., 237, 304, 305
Wisp, the, 235
Withcote, 235
Withyham, 301
Withypool, 336
Witney, 262
Woburn, 346
Wode, John, 293
Wodeard, William, 277
_Wodsylver_, 167
Woking, 293
Wokingham, 267
Wolf, the, 21, 25, 26, 32-4, 48
Wolfedge, 32
Wolfhope, 22
Wolfhunte, John le, 33
Wolfrich, William, 246
Wolfpit, 32
Wolfscote, 32
Dale, 32
Grange, 32
Hill, 32
Wolfstone, 32
Wolstanton, 225
Wolston, Sir Grey, 250
Wolverley, 149
Wonstan, Aver, 344
Woodborough, 213
Woodbury manor, 341
Woodchurch, 132
Woodcock, 26, 130
Woodcockleigh, 336
Woodford Walk, 78
Woodhay, 266
Wood Mill, 143
Woodmote, 13, 104, 139, 190-200
Woodruff, George, 173
Woodstock, 7, 48, 257
Woodward, the, 22-3
Woolmer forest, 85, 309-10
Woolow, 32
Wootton, William of, 245
Worcester, 107, 148, 225, 227, 228
Worcestershire forests, 226-9
Worfield, 223
Worf river, 223
Worksop, 204
Wormegay, 206
Wormhill, 153, 159, 163
Adam de, 164
Michael de, 164
Worplesdon, 293
Worsley, James, 168
Wotehall, Hugh of, 213
Wragmire Moss, 95
“Wrassel okes,” 254
Wrekin, 225
Wrenstye, 249
Wressel Park, 77
Wright and Halliwell’s _Reliquiæ Antiquæ_, 62
Writtle, 283, 284
Wrothesley, Walter, 323
Wroughton, 326
Wryght, Roger, 171
Wurth, Robert de, 157
Wychwood forest, 31, 85, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265,
268
Wydehawe, 241
“Wydelands,” 167
Wye, the, 168
Wyers, 59
Wyersdale forest, 40, 45, 74, 80, 98, 100, 101, 102, 105
Wyke, John, 344
Wykeham, prioress of, 45
Wykes, William, 344
Wylde, Rev. Dr., 220
William, 220
Wyliamescote, 261
Wyndham, Mr., 339
Wyne, William, 337
Wynfleth, Robert de, 137
“Wynlands,” 167
_Wynlands_ of the Peak, 9
Wynn, William le, 163
Wynston, Thomas, 196, 197
Wynton, Simon de, 307
Sir Richard de, 307
Wyott, 107
Wyrall, Jenkin, 66
Wyre forest, 225-7
Wyre-ceastre, 225
Wyte, Richard, 344
Wytemore, John de la, 146
Wyther, Philip, 277
William, 100
Wyvill, William, 113
Yath, the, 121
Yeland, Hugh de, 110, 111
Yew Lodging, 226
York, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
Cecilia, Duchess of, 323, 324
Yorkshire forests, 107-30
Hurst Park, 77
Wolds, 32
Ysabel, William, 344
Young’s _Agricultural Survey_, 301
Yoxall, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141
Yoxley, 270
Zouch, John, 249, 250, 253
PLYMOUTH: WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD.
PRINTERS
THE ANTIQUARY’S BOOKS
[Illustration]
Messrs. Methuen have commenced the issue of a series of volumes dealing
with various branches of English Antiquities.
It is confidently hoped that these books will prove to be comprehensive
and popular, as well as accurate and scholarly; so that they may be
of service to the general reader, and at the same time helpful and
trustworthy books of reference to the antiquary or student. The writers
will make every endeavour to avail themselves of the most recent research.
The series is edited by the well-known antiquary, J. Charles Cox, LL.D.,
F.S.A., Member of the Royal Archæological Institute, and Corresponding
Member of the British Archæological Association. Each book will be
entrusted to an expert in the selected subject, and the publishers are
fortunate in having secured the services of distinguished writers.
A special feature is made of the illustrations, which will vary,
according to the requirement of the subjects, from 50 to 150. Some will
be in colour. The type is large and clear, the length of each volume is
about 320 pages, and the size is demy 8vo. The volumes are issued at the
price of 7s. 6d. net.
THE FIRST VOLUMES ARE
ENGLISH MONASTIC LIFE
ABBOT GASQUET, O.S.B., D.D., PH.D., D.LITT.
“The ‘Antiquary’s Books’ makes an excellent commencement in the first
volume, entitled ‘English Monastic Life,’ and written by Dom Aidan
Gasquet. It is in outward respects a shapely demy octavo in scarlet
cloth, well printed, illustrated with thirty or forty plates, and
supplemented with a lengthy list of ancient religious houses in
England.”—_Pall Mall Gazette._
“The publishers have been fortunate in securing the services of the
Rev. Dr. Cox, one of the most learned and painstaking of antiquaries,
as general editor of the series, and they have been equally fortunate
that a subject such as monastic life should have been dealt with by
Abbot Gasquet, than whom there is no greater authority. Antiquarian
books too often are as dry as matchwood, but there is no reason why
they should be so, and the present volume abundantly testifies to this.
The learned abbot has throughout written his history in a popular
and attractive manner. He is never wearisome, but, on the contrary,
invariably entertaining, and, what is of more consequence, always
informing.”—_Birmingham Post._
“This delightful book, so full of quaint learning, is like a painted
window, through which, if one looks, one may see the old world of the
Middle Ages as that world must have shown itself to a monk.”—_Daily News._
“Curiously interesting and highly instructive.”—_Punch._
“An extremely interesting summary of the laws which governed the
religious and domestic life in the great monasteries.”—_Yorkshire Post._
REMAINS OF THE PREHISTORIC AGE IN ENGLAND
B. C. A. WINDLE, D.SC., F.R.S.
“It gives a tabulated list of such remains; divided into counties,
and subdivided into earthworks, barrows, camps, dykes, megalithic
monuments, and so on, with detailed explanations; to these are added a
list of museums in which specimens of prehistoric remains are preserved.
Confining himself almost entirely to accepted facts in the science of
archæology, the Professor devotes no more space to what he describes as
theory spinning about the dates of various epochs than is necessary to
present the subject with completeness, especially on its geological side.
Mrs. Windle’s excellent illustrations throughout the volume add greatly
to its value.”—_Yorkshire Post._
“The whole forms an adequate introduction to a most fascinating
subject.”—_Westminster Gazette._
“A comprehensive account of the material relics of the prehistoric period
in England.”—_Manchester Guardian._
“The book offers a valuable digest of ascertained facts in relation
to the subject treated of. It is well up to date, and the author has
generally confined himself to fairly recognised facts rather than allow
himself to indulge in theorising.”—_Yorkshire Observer._
OLD SERVICE BOOKS OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH
CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, M.A., AND HENRY LITTLEHALES
“It is infinitely more than a fascinating book on the treasures of past
ages. It is the history of the making of a great and living book. The
illustrations are most beautifully reproduced.”—_St. James’s Gazette._
“The third of the promising series of ‘Antiquary’s Books’ is certain to
be much appreciated. Scholars will find that its pages are thoroughly
trustworthy. The introduction yields a great deal of unusual knowledge
pertaining to the subject. The illustrations are exceptionally numerous
and creditable in execution for a book of moderate price, and are
reproductions in facsimile from English originals. All save two are, we
believe, given here for the first time.”—_Athenæum._
“The subject is discussed and explained in these pages in the true spirit
of antiquarian tenderness; and an admirable assortment of illustrations,
some of them in colours, adds a vivid note of life and actuality to the
learned authors’ work.”—_Academy._
CELTIC ART IN PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN TIMES
J. ROMILLY ALLEN, F.S.A.
“Unquestionably the greatest living authority on the Celtic Archæology of
Great Britain and Ireland, he writes as only a master of his subject can.
An admirable piece of work.”—_St. James’s Gazette._
“The letterpress and pictures are remarkably good throughout: both author
and publishers are to be congratulated on the issue of so attractive and
useful a book.”—_Athenæum._
“A luminously written record, with excellently well drawn and selected
illustrations.”—_Manchester Guardian._
“An admirable summary of a large field illustrated with a series of
beautiful plates.”—_Spectator._
SHRINES OF BRITISH SAINTS
J. CHARLES WALL
“Shrines of British Saints” deals with a class of monuments which,
throughout the Middle Ages, was of magnetic attraction, largely governing
the social and religious life of the nation, but which has all but ceased
to exist in the British Isles. From illumined page and fragmentary
sculpture the style and structure of shrines is here set forth. The art
bestowed upon them, the influence they had upon the designs of cathedrals
and great churches, and the legends surrounding them, form a subject of
no mean value in the life of Englishmen.
ARCHÆOLOGY AND FALSE ANTIQUITIES
ROBERT MUNRO, M.D., LL.D.
The main object of this work is to show how modern methods of Comparative
Archæology may be utilised as a means of detecting erroneous conclusions,
whether founded on imperfect observations, false statements, or the
actual forgery of objects. A brief account is given of a number of
discoveries in various parts of the world which have become the subject
of controversy, as well as some notable forgeries. Then follows a
criticism of the so-called “idols,” “totems,” “_churingas_,” etc.,
recently found in the Clyde valley, which are still the subject of
acute controversy. The concluding chapter deals with the lessons to be
derived from the above narrative of the results of ignorance, fraud, and
imposture.
THE MANOR AND MANORIAL RECORDS
NATHANIEL J. HONE
The reader is here presented with a graphic picture of the Manor as it
existed in England from an early period till the social changes of the
seventeenth century. The manor-house and the manorial estate are fully
described. The relations between the lord and his tenants, the customs of
the manor, the duties of officers and servants, the routine of work, and
the ancient system of husbandry, rights of common and inclosures are each
in turn dealt with. Examples of the various classes of Manorial Records,
as Court Rolls, Bailiff’s Accounts and Extents, are given from original
sources. A list of existing Court Rolls with their place of deposit and a
Bibliography of Manorial literature form an Appendix to the volume, which
is illustrated by facsimiles, plans, and views.
SEALS
J. HARVEY BLOOM, M.A.
This manual traces the evolution of the seal in England in a series
of sections. The principal of these deal with seals of the sovereign
and those of royal courts, etc.; the seals of archbishops; courts
ecclesiastical; those of the peers of the realm; and ladies of rank;
seals of the bishops and clergy; those of county families, knights, and
squires. The second main division covers seals of corporations, monastic
houses, universities, trading gilds, towns, schools, and so forth. Under
these sections the seals of individuals are grouped as far as possible
in types, and it is hoped that the volume will form a useful guide to
the age, artistic merit, etc., of these beautiful works of art, which
have been far too much neglected. No work of the kind has hitherto been
produced, and it will be seen from it how the seal engraver’s art is a
reflex of the opinion of the time. The power of the sovereign, his style
and titles, the progress of religious thought, the rise and development
of the science of heraldry, and of Gothic art, are all seen, so that
the study is not one that can be lightly put aside by workers in the
by-paths of history, theology, or art. The illustrations have been
specially drawn from the original seals by Mr. Constance Canning, and are
very carefully and finely executed.
THE ROYAL FORESTS OF ENGLAND
J. C. COX, LL.D., F.S.A.
The object of these pages is to set forth both the general and particular
history of the wastes preserved for royal sport throughout England which
were under forest law. Short accounts of all these forests are given,
and in certain cases, such as Sherwood Forest, the Forest of the High
Peak, Needwood Forest, Cranborne Chase, the forests of Northamptonshire,
Cheshire, and Oxfordshire, Windsor Forest, Clarendon Forest, Dartmoor,
and Pickering Lythe, much of their story is told in detail. It will be
found that by far the larger portion of the book deals with original
material, chiefly culled from the stores of the Public Record Office.
The introductory chapters give an outline description of the laws,
courts, and ministers of the forests, together with considerable fresh
information as to red, fallow, and roe deer, wild boar, wolf, and other
beasts of the chase or warren. The punishment inflicted by forest courts
for “vert,” as well as “venison” offences, together with accounts of
wood sales, bring to light much that pertains to the earlier tree-lore
of England. The book is illustrated by a variety of reproductions from
old MSS. and early printed books, as well as by old plans, foresters’
gravestones, and ancient trees.
CHURCH FURNITURE
J. C. COX, LL.D., F.S.A., AND A. HARVEY, M.B.
In these pages far fuller accounts than have yet been attempted are
given, from the earliest examples down to the end of the seventeenth
century, of such extant objects as altars, altar-stones, holy
tables, altar rails, sedilia, aumbries, piscinas, holy water stoups,
Easter sepulchres, gospel lecterns, pulpits, both of wood and stone,
hour-glasses, candlesticks, chests, and poor-boxes. Particular attention
has been bestowed upon screens, stalls, bench-ends, and seats. Fonts
and font covers are treated with considerable fulness. A short account
is given of altar-plate, including pyxes, censors, and paxes. Among the
exceptional curiosities of later days, the several instances of those
remarkable instruments, the “vamping horns,” are set forth, and various
noteworthy examples of early royal arms and Tables of Commandments are
specified. Tentative lists, classified according to date, are given
of the known examples of these different objects of church furniture
throughout England. The illustrations are numerous, and for the most part
original, or specially drawn for this work.
THESE VOLUMES WILL FOLLOW
FOLK-LORE IN EARLY BRITISH HISTORY
G. LAWRENCE GOMME, F.S.A.
THE ROMAN OCCUPATION
JOHN WARD, F.S.A.
CASTLES AND WALLED TOWNS OF ENGLAND
ALFRED HARVEY, M.B.
THE DOMESDAY SURVEY
ADOLPHUS BALLARD, B.A., LL.B.
THE BRASSES OF ENGLAND
HERBERT W. MACKLIN, M.A.
ENGLISH HERALDRY
T. SHEPARD
MEDIÆVAL CHURCH LIFE IN ENGLAND
ABBOT GASQUET, O.S.B., D.D., PH.D., D.LITT.
VILLAGE GEOGRAPHY
W. RYLAND D. ADKINS, B.A.
Other Volumes are in course of arrangement.
METHUEN & CO., 36 ESSEX STREET, STRAND, W.C.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROYAL FORESTS OF ENGLAND ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
