the forests of england.

amongst the most interesting features of the country are our forests. there is nothing that we come in contact with, which conveys to our minds such vivid impressions of the progression of england in power and population; which presents such startling contrasts between the present and the past. we look back into the england which an old forest brings to our mind, and see a country one wild expanse of woodlands, heaths, and mosses. here and there a little simple town sending up

its fleecy smoke amongst the forest boughs.

from age to age no tumult did arouse

its peaceful dwellers; there they lived and died,

passing a dreamy life, diversified

by nought of novelty, save, now and then,

a horn, resounding through the neighbouring glen,

woke them as from a trance, and led them out

to catch a brief glimpse of the hunt’s wild route;

the music of the hounds; the tramp and rush

of steeds and men;—and then a sudden hush

left round the eager listeners;—the deep mood

of awful, dead, and twilight solitude,

fallen again upon that forest vast.

we see in the distance the stately castle of the feudal lord; we hear the bell of the convent from the neighbouring dale. there are solitary hamlets and scattered cottages, with mud walls and thatched roofs, peeping from the ocean of umbrageous tree-tops,[349] and little patches of cultivation. born thralls are tilling the lands of the thane, or watching his flocks and herds, to defend them from the wolves and bears; foresters are going their rounds beneath hoary oaks, on the watch for trespassers on venison and vert. we meet with the pilgrim with his scallop shell, and sandal shoon; we come suddenly on the solitude of the hermit, where some spring bubbles from the forest turf, or scatters its waters down the fern-hung rocks. perhaps the noble and his train sweep past in pursuit of the stag or boar; perhaps the outlaw and his train in the same pursuit, and setting at defiance, amid vast woods and tracks familiar to himself, all the keen officers, and bloody statutes of forest law.

it is a pleasure but to hear

the bridles ringing sharp and clear

amid the forest green;

to hear the rattle of the sheaves,

and coursers rustling in the leaves.

with merry blasts between.

stewart rose’s red king.

perhaps there is the sound of martial alarm—the clash of sudden onset in the forest glade. the dwellings of the vassals surrounding the lord’s castle are in flames, fired by the band of some hostile noble. such is the england into which an old forest carries our imagination;—partially peopled with feudal barons and unlettered serfs; without commerce abroad; without union within; brave, yet demi-savage; aspiring, but violent; pious, yet sanguinary in all its penal enactments. when we step out of memory and imagination into the cheerful daylight and conscious present, what an england now! all those forests, with three or four exceptions, are gone!—their names alone left in the land by the powerful impressions of time and custom. one wide expanse of cultivation;—the garden of the world;—swarming towns, splendid cities, busy and populous hamlets appearing everywhere, and fenced fields interscattered with patrician dwellings; not crowned with towers, lit by mere loop-holes, defended with bastioned gateways, portcullises, and drawbridges, and moats; but standing with open aspects of peaceful beauty, amid fair gardens and fair lawns, undefended by feudal ramparts, because a thousand times more strongly fortified by the security of enlightened laws. we see a swarming people,[350] free, and full of knowledge, even to its hinds and mechanics, in possession of the highest arts of life; the hills and dales covered with their harvests and their cattle;—the seas round the whole globe with their ships;—a people, at once the most powerful and the most civilized on the earth.

those old feudal towers are, for the most part, crumbling into ruin, the wasting vestiges of a barbarous system, or embellished and adapted to the spirit of the present times. those abbeys and convents, standing in similar ruins, or exhibiting still more marvellous change,—the altars pulled down, the chantries silenced, and the professors of a sacred celibacy driven out, and replaced by men of the world, with their wives and families;—no longer places of worship, but places of domestic abode. those two mighty powers, feudalism and popery—gone for ever!

here is an astounding change. a stupendous march has been going on from that time to this; and one from which, is there a man, however much he may murmur at the present times, who would be willing to recede a single step? would the noble be willing to give up the delights of london for a feudal castle surrounded by wild woods and wastes, a troop of rude retainers, and no resources but the year’s round of hunting, or of party feuds—not of tongues in westminster, but of swords and firebrands in the forests? would he acquiesce in this, when the country can scarcely keep him a few months, though he can assemble round him kindred spirits, books, the elegancies and mind of social life, and the speediest news of the whole world? would the country gentleman like to sink into a feudal retainer? the merchant follow his procession of packhorses through narrow roads, and in high peril of bandits? the farmer drop down into the born thrall? the parish priest convert his pleasant parsonage and family into the solitary bachelorship of popery? would the man most pressed by the cares and heart-griping necessities of this populous and struggling time, be willing to accept the quiet simplicity of those days, with their monotonous solitude, ignorance, servitude, and perpetual danger of arbitrary infliction of death or mutilation?

and yet, in what colours of the rose do our imaginations clothe these times! the repose, the simplicity, the picturesque solitude, come before us with a peculiar feeling of delight. and so, no doubt,[351] there was a wild charm about them. the old minstrels delighted to sing about them, and they did it with a feeling of nature. the green shaws, the merry green woods, especially when “the leaves were lark and long” in summer; when

the wood wele sang and would not cease,

sitting upon the spray;

the exploits of the outlaw; the hymn of the lonely anchorite; the vesper-bell of the convent; and the chivalrous adventures of knights and dames in forests and hoary holts, fired them with a genuine enthusiasm, and communicate their warmth to us. no doubt, too, that baron and esquire, forester and lawless pursuer of the deer, had all a wild delight in their life; and instinctively closing the eyes of our mind upon what was dark and unpalatable in their practice, we open them to all that was free, peaceful, and in contrast with our own situation and mode of existence. we rush from cities and social anxieties into the free world of woods and wildernesses, with hearts that feel the cool refreshments of nature. to us it is a novelty, with all its piquancy about it; and we cannot bide long enough to wear off the charm. we come, too, with the high poetry of a thousand intellectual associations to take possession of woodland freedom. we have all the power of milton, shakspeare, spenser, and ariosto, upon us; and how delicious seems the picturesque england of the feudal ages! we have, indeed, now too little of what they had too much. they, like the modern americans, would gladly have exchanged some of their trees for cultivated lands; they had too much of a good thing; in popular phraseology, they could not see the wood for trees; but o! how delightful are those tree-lands to us, prisoners of civilization, and walkers amongst brick-walls.

let us wander awhile now amongst those fresh woodlands. our old chroniclers tell us, that this kingdom was once nearly overspread with forests; that they existed from time immemorial; that is, long before the norman dynasty commenced, by which they were more perfectly defined, carefully fenced, and protected with sanguinary laws. they were that part of the country, and indeed, the greater part, which retained its original state. that which remained uninclosed, and therefore called forest, or foresta,[352] uasi ferarum statio, because there naturally retired and made their abode the wild creatures, fer? natur?. all this was held to belong to the king; and when the conqueror began to reign, who had occasion to give away and divide large tracts amongst his military followers, he began to exercise more strictly his prerogative over the remainder. not satisfied with sixty-nine forests, lying in almost every part of the kingdom, such, and so many, says evelyn, as no other realm of europe had, he laid waste a vast tract of country in hampshire, and created another, thence called the new forest, because it was the last added to the ancient ones, except that of hampton court, the work of henry viii.

various theories respecting the origin of this new forest have occupied the attention, and divided the opinions of antiquarians and historians. polydore virgil asserted that the conqueror’s motive for afforesting so large a tract of country here, was because it enabled him to maintain it secure from the intrusion of all but his own creatures, and thereby always to have a most convenient station for the escape of his followers, in case of any revolt, to their own country, or for the secret and secure arrival of fresh forces thence. mr. camden, however, has satisfactorily shewn, that no such object was attributed to him by the chroniclers of his own and immediately succeeding times, who certainly were sufficiently bitter against him, for his haughty temper, and the reckless atrocities which he committed in carrying into effect his system of policy, the thorough breaking of the saxon spirit, and the establishment of his own noblesse. no such motive, however plausible, was attributed to him for five hundred years. as mr. carte very reasonably suggests, if such was his intention, he would have carried it into effect within the first five years of his reign, during which time he was engaged in putting down disaffection, and strengthening his position. in the pursuance of these objects he was not in the habit of stopping short at trifles on the score of humanity. “his horrible devastation,” says william of malmsbury, “of great part of yorkshire, and all the counties belonging to england north of the humber, was made that the danes and scots invading his kingdom that way might find no subsistence, and to punish the people for disaffection to his government; without regarding what number of innocent persons would[353] be involved in the destruction.” we are told, even by one of the norman historians—ord. vit. iv. p. 314, 515, and by ingulph. p. 79, who speak of it with horror, that above 160,000 men, women and children, perished by famine in those ruined counties. the devastation was such that, for above sixty miles, where before there had been many large and flourishing towns, besides a great number of villages and fine country-seats, not a single hamlet was to be seen; the whole country was uncultivated, and remained so till henry ii.’s reign.

if we date the making of this forest at the same time with the publishing of the forest laws, it will follow that it was made merely for the pleasures of the chase. this was natural enough, when we reflect that he had taken up his favourite residence at winchester; and this is the reason assigned by all the authorities nearest to his own time. the saxon chronicler, believed to be cotemporary with william, assigns this sole reason, and adds—“william loved great deer, as if he had been their father;” which henry of huntingdon copies. no trace of other motive appears in gemeticensis, his own chaplain, knyton, ordericus vitalis, simon dunelmensis, brompton, william of malmsbury, florence of worcester, matthew paris, hemingford, or other ancient authority. in such a man the passion for the chase was cause sufficient. in all early stages of a country, where it abounds with forests, and intellectual resources hardly exist, hunting must constitute the great passion of life. the britons, the saxons, were passionate hunters. harold had already restrained all forests to his own use, and william put the finishing stroke to the system. here, however, occurs a second point of difference of opinion in the historians. some tell us that he made this forest, others, that he merely enlarged it. it is certain that the ancient forest of ythene existed here before; but it is probable that it had become rather a woodland than a preserve of game; and that william’s enlargement was almost, in fact, a new creation: and strictly speaking, entirely so, as a forest, having its defined boundaries, its stock of deer, its appointed officers, and its code of laws and courts:—this, the very name of new forest clearly implies.

others, again, attribute to his son rufus, the enlargement and the devastations, and thence look upon his own death, in the very[354] spot where he had pulled down a church, as a direct divine judgment. there can be little doubt but that both had a hand in it. the conqueror probably laid waste and depopulated so as to complete the boundaries of his forest, and carry out his conceived plans, and rufus went on, on the old royal principle, of making a solitude and calling it peace, to pull down churches, and remove what hamlets or cottages yet remained to interfere with princely ideas of forest seclusion. that william did all that is attributed to him, is declared by all the historians of that and immediately succeeding times; and gemeticensis, his own chaplain, distinctly declares that it was the popular belief that the death of his two sons, richard and rufus, and his grandson, the son of robert, were judgments of god upon him for his atrocities committed here in the making of it. these atrocities consisted in laying waste the country to the extent of thirty miles in length, or ninety in circumference, the extent still attributed to it; destroying towns, chapels, manors and mansion-houses; according to some writers, twenty-two mother-churches, to others thirty-six, and to others thirty-two. unquestionably the number was great; two churches only being mentioned in his own survey in doomsday book, between a.d. 1083 and 1086, the 17th and 20th of his reign, as standing in all that space, while in the rest of the county there were 100. this violence he completed by driving out the inhabitants, and stocking the land with deer, stags, and other game.

such was the origin and extent of the ancient royal forests of england, all preserved and maintained for the especial and exclusive pastime of the kings. truly the state of a king was then kingly indeed: 69 forests, 13 chases, and upwards of 750 parks existing in england. there were, in yorkshire alone, in henry viii.’s time, 275 woods, besides parks and chases, most of them containing 500 acres. over all these the king could sport; for it was the highest honour to a subject to receive a visit from the king to hunt in his chase, or free warren, while no subject, except by special permission and favour, could hunt in the royal parks. these 69 forests of immense extent, lying in all parts of england, and occupying no small portion of its surface, all stood then for the sole gratification of the royal pleasure of the chase, and supplying the king’s household; and few persons have now any idea of the[355] state, dignity, and systematic severity of this great hunting establishment of england, maintained through all succeeding reigns to the time of the commonwealth, and some part of it much longer. each forest was an imperium in imperio, having its staff of officers,—the lord warden, his deputy, a steward and bow-bearer, rangers, keepers or foresters, verdurers, agistors, regarders, bailiffs, woodwards, beadles, etc. etc., with their own courts. first the court of attachment, held every forty days, in which all attachments against offenders in the forest were received, evidence heard upon them, and were enrolled to be presented at the court of swainmote. this swainmote was held three times every year, which all the swains, or free tenants, were bound to attend. the warder or his steward presided, and the foresters, verderers, and other ministers of the forest were the judges. here all the attachments enrolled in the records of the court of attachment were received and examined, but no award or judgment was made or executed by this court; but it swore in a grand jury to examine these attachments, of which all that appeared made on sufficient grounds and evidence were reserved for the decision of the justice-seat, or highest court of the forest. the justice-seat, or court of eyre in the forest, was held once in three years. two justices in eyre were appointed as supreme judges in these courts: one having jurisdiction in all the forests north, and the other over those south of the trent. yet there appears in the early reigns to have been great irregularity in the appointment of these justices. sometimes there were two, according to the legitimate ordinance; at others we find three going the circuit, or jornay, as it was called, in edward i.’s reign, when in the 15th year of that reign, three are named as going the jornay of the north; viz. sir william vesey, thomas normanville, and richard of gryppinge, justices. this sir william vesey, richard of gryppinge, and their fellows, justices, are repeatedly mentioned in the king’s writs. this might arise from the discovery that collusion and bribery to cover peculation had been the consequence of one justice going alone; for it is complained, that it “was fonden that oure lorde the kynge had sustained grete and many folde hurte fro the jornay of robert neville.” great peculation and appointment of his own creatures for his own purposes were proved against robert evringham, and he was “deposed[356] from his office of chief forestershippe of fee in the forest of sherwood for ever.”[16]

[16] ms. documents respecting sherwood forest, in bromley house library, nottingham.

every officer was sworn to present to the court of attachment, every offender against the laws of the forest, for the decision of the justices, through the process already described; a system of most summary rigour, without favour or concealment; yet abuses still crept in; and the long term between the coming of the justices—three years—tended greatly to this; for as no case could be finally decided till then, it afforded vast scope for the powerful and wealthy to try the force of bribery on the justice, as well as made the case fearfully severe on those who could not find bail or give security, and must therefore be in gaol all that time; especially as a man might be taken up on presumption. this, therefore, became a gross injustice to the innocent.

you would imagine from the oaths of the different officers, that their duties were all alike, for they bound them all to seize, secure, and present for attachment all persons committing any depredations on vert or venison; vert, curiously enough anglicized—green hugh, i. e. green hue, and so continually written in the assis? forest?, meaning every thing having a green leaf, and therefore extending from the forest trees to the underwood and shrubs which formed cover for the game, and also to the grass which was the food of the game. all persons seen suspiciously strolling about on the highways, especially if in cloaks, with dogs in leash, or out of it, pursuing small birds, squirrels, or vermin, cutting turf, peat, or boughs, or fallen timber, heath, or fern, without proper authority. the dwellers in the purlieus of the forest were kept a strict eye upon; and all gates, or fences, or dykes were presentable which were too high for the deer to pass from one part of the forest to another. the forests were very systematically divided into walks, or keepings, wards or regards, over which was a properly subordinate succession of officers. the ranger had surveillance over the principal keepers; they over their deputy keepers, and night-walkers. the verderers had especially to look after the vert, although sworn to watch for and bring to punishment, offenders of all kinds, and to them must all offenders[357] be brought to give surety to appear at the attachment. besides these, there were in every township, and every regard, woodwards and their men, who attended to the felling and accounting for all timber. there were agistors also to look after the agistment of cattle. the swainmote was empowered to inquire and to see that all officers punctually performed their forest duties, going regularly their rounds; and that they paid the wages of their deputies, so that none might be tempted to commit depredations on the game, wood, browze, peat, turf, deers’ horns, or any other product of the forest. a sharp vigilance was kept up on this head, and severe punishment awarded for such offenders. no produce of the forest might be taken out of it without a direct warrant from the justice or warden; neither cattle, timber, dead deer, vert, nor anything whatever. those who had freeholds within the forest, as came to be the case in time, through grants from kings to favourites of one kind or another, were subject to the same restriction. and where warrant was granted for any of these purposes, or for supplying the religious houses with wood for burning, etc., the verderers were to see that no more was actually taken out than the warrant allowed, and were punished if convicted of failing in this duty.[17] perambulations at stated periods were made throughout each forest, its enclosures, purlieus, and boundaries, to ascertain that all was kept in order, and that there was neither waste of vert nor venison, which included all game; nor encroachment within, nor without. the external boundaries of a forest, were not like those of a park, walls or pales, but metes and bounds, meres, rivers, and hills, otherwise it was not a forest.

[17] yet a curious instance is recorded in one of the inquisitions of sherwood forest, of the way in which the vigilance of these laws was evaded. the countess of newcastle, whose husband was probably at that time governor of newark castle, had procured large quantities of timber out of the forest, under a warrant to furnish such timber for the necessary repairs of that castle. the quantity delivered led to an inquiry, and it was found that the castle was not repaired at all, but that the timber had been sold, and the countess had got the cash. yet after this it was again found, that not being able to procure another warrant for timber, she had, however, got one for the delivery of cord-wood for burning, and under the title of cord-wood, the deputy-warden had supplied her with some of the best oaks of the forest. on a second investigation it turned out that the deputy-warden was a partner in a timber trade—that timber was thus procured through the means of the countess’s plea of public service, and that she and the deputy shared the spoil.

[358]

drifts of the forest were made at least twice in the year. “by the assises of pickeringe and lancaster, the officers of the forest did use to make drifts at least twice in the year: the first, fifteen days before midsummer, at the beginning of the fencemonth, that the forest might be avoided and emptied of all cattle during that time. and every commoner was then forced to come and challenge his beasts, and take them away, or they were taken by the officers of the forest as strays. the second drift was at holyrood-day, when the agistors did begin to agist the king’s demesne woods, and all beasts and cattle of all sorts then found in them were driven by the officers of the forest to some convenient place, and impounded, and then warning was given that every man should come and fetch his own. forests are driven for three causes. first, for the avoiding of surcharging; secondly, for the avoiding of forreners, who have no right; thirdly, that no beasts be commoned that are not legally commonable, as geese, goats, sheep, and swine, which are not commonable. swine, however, were admitted to the woods of the king’s forests if their noses were duly ringed, and paid for their run there, a sum called pannage; and owners of woods in the forests might run such swine in their own woods. upon reasonable causes the officers of the forest may make their drifts oftener if they will.” manwood’s forest laws, pp. 86-7.

such was the general constitution of a forest, with its courts, officers, laws, and customs; and so systematic does it seem; surveillance and subdivision so regularly descending downward, till it included watch and ward over every part, and the familiar acquaintance of every forester with his own location, that one really wonders how any robin hood could long escape amongst them. the difficulty of the thing no doubt it was that contributed so much to raise his renown. but the vast extent of the forests, the obscurity of the wooded parts, and the immense out-boundaries laying them open to the nocturnal incursions of marauders, still account for the traditionary exploits of deer-stealers, in spite of the then forest-law, which itself gave a strong spice of interest to the adventurer.

the severity of the laws under william and his immediate successors was monstrous. “in the saxon times,” says blackstone,[359] “though no man was allowed to kill or chace the king’s deer, yet he might start any game, pursue and kill it on his own estate, but the rigour of those new constitutions vested the sole property of all the game in england in the king alone; and no man was entitled to disturb any fowl of the air, or any beast of the field, of such kinds as were specifically reserved for the royal amusement of the sovereign, without express license from the king, of a chase or a free warren; and these franchises were granted as much to preserve the breed of animals as to indulge the subject. from a similar principle to which, though the forest laws are now mitigated, and by degrees grown entirely obsolete, yet from this root has sprung a bastard slip, known by the name of the game law, now arrived to and wantoning in its highest vigour; both founded upon the same notion of permanent property in wild creatures, and both productive of the same tyranny to the commons; but with this difference, that the forest laws established only one mighty hunter throughout the land; the game laws have raised a little nimrod in every manor. and in one respect, the ancient law was much less unreasonable than the modern, for the king’s grantee of a chase or free-warren might kill game in every part of his franchise, but now, though a freeholder of less than 100l. a-year is forbidden to kill a partridge upon his own estate, yet nobody else, not even the lord of the manor, unless he hath a grant of free-warren, can do it without committing a trespass, and subjecting himself to an action.”—commentaries, iv. 415, 8vo.

the full rigour of the forest laws of the norman dynasty must be a curious subject of contemplation to an englishman now. william decreed the eyes of any person to be pulled out, who took either a buck or a boar. rufus made the stealing of a doe, a hanging matter. the taking a hare was fined 20s., and a coney 10s., as money was then! eadmer adds, that fifty persons of fortune, being apprehended by the last prince for killing his bucks, were forced to purge themselves by the fire of ordeal, etc. henry i. made no distinction between him who killed a man, and him who killed a buck; and punished them who destroyed the game, though not in the forest, either by forfeiture of their goods or loss of limbs. the monstrous severities of geoffrey de langley, who, in the reign of henry ii. had a patent for all benefits accruing[360] from the expeditation of dogs, and rode through most parts of england with an armed band, committing the greatest oppressions, and extorting vast sums, especially from the northern gentry, are recorded with indignation by matthew paris. richard i. enacted mutilation and pulling out of eyes for hunting in the forest, though he afterwards relaxed a little, and contented himself with banishment, imprisonment, or fine. whoever was summoned to the chase, and refused to go, paid a fine of 50s. to the king.

the feeling created amongst the people by this bloody code, may be imagined by the language of john of salisbury, who, after speaking of the higher offences, says,—“what is more extraordinary is, that it is often made by law criminal to set traps or snares for birds, to allure them by springes and pipes, or use any craft to take them; and offenders are punished by forfeiture of goods, loss of limbs, or even death. one would suppose that the birds of the air and the fish of the sea were common to all; but they belong to the crown, and are claimed by the forest laws wherever they fly. hands off! keep clear! lest you incur the guilt of high treason, and fall into the clutch of the hunters. the swains are driven from their fields, while the beasts of the forest have a liberty of roving; and the farmer’s meadows are taken from him to increase their pasture. the new-sown grounds are taken from the farmer, the pastures from the grazier and shepherd; the beehives are turned away from the flowery bank, and the very bees are hardly allowed their natural liberty.”—polycraticon, i. 4.

ah! johannes sarisburiensis, thou wert a radical! can any body read the indignant spirit of this passage, and say that radicalism is anything new under the sun? this is the very soul of hampden. the inhumanity of those proceedings occasioned frequent disturbances, till the revolt of the barons extorted from henry iii. the charta de foresta, by which he repealed those severe laws, and enacted others more equitable. these, again, were from time to time softened by different monarchs, as civilization and popular power and influence advanced, by what are called assises of the forest, which were a kind of revision and re-enactment of the forest laws, by different kings; omitting or modifying any former provisions which might seem contrary to the spirit of the time; and adding such others as were[361] deemed necessary. as, for instance, the assise of edward i., the preamble of which was thus:—“here followeth the assise of forest of our lorde the kinge e., sonne of kinge h. and his commandements of his forests in englonde, made by the assent and counsell of archbusshoppes, busshoppes, abbots, earls, barons, knyghtes of all his realme.” this consists of twenty items; and provides principally, that any person found in the forest, or the woods of the forest, trespassing on the venison, shall be taken, and, on conviction of hunting or taking the king’s venison, he shall be imprisoned, and not delivered without the king’s especial commandment, or that of his justice of the forest.[18] that all trespassers on the vert shall be taken before the verderers, and they shall find sufficient surety to come before the next court of attachment; and such attachment shall be enrolled, to be presented to the justices of the forest when they next come into those parts to hold the pleas of the forest. that none who held woods within the forest should suffer those woods to be without a keeper, or they should be taken into the king’s hands again. such holders of woods, or any other persons inhabiting within the forest, should not have any bows, arrows, or arbalasts; or any brach, greyhound, or any other engine “to hurte the king of his deare.” but any dogs introduced into the forest shall be expeditated; or, according to the english phrase, lamed, so that they may not be able to seize the deer; and that the expeditation, or laming of dogs, shall be made every three years. this practice of laming is differently described by different writers.[362] some define it as consisting in cutting off at least one of the fore-feet; others in cutting off the claws only; and others, in cutting out the fleshy part of both fore-paws. probably the practice differed in different forests, and different ages. at all events, the dogs were so mutilated as to be unable to seize a deer; the latin term implies the actual lopping off the foot. future assizes confine this laming to mastiffs; no greyhounds, brachs, or brackets being allowed entrance at all. no mower was allowed to bring “a great mastiff to drive away the deer of our lord the king, but little dogs to look after such things as lie open.”

[18] an old rhyme, full of mystery to uninitiated ears, contained the law of attachment in this case. any person was to be seized and conveyed before a forester or verderer, who was found,—

at dog-draw, stable-stand,

back-berond, or bloody-hand.

which mean,—at dog-draw, having a dog in a leash, following a deer by the scent, in order to come upon it and slay it; or having wounded a deer, and following the dog-draw, or guidance of the dog to overtake it. at stable-stand, standing in the forest with bow ready to discharge at the deer, or with a dog in a leash ready to slip him on its appearance. at back-bear or back-berond, actually carrying any forest property away. at bloody-hand, with hands or person bloody, as from the actual slaughter of game. though three of these are truly called by the lawyers presumption, they were held sufficient for attachment and conviction.

the assize continues—but no holders of foreign woods in the forest shall agiste[19] before the regular time of the king’s agistment, “which begins at mychalmas and lastes to martinmasse then next followinge.” that none shall assart[20] in the forest without being taken before the verderer, and giving surety to appear at the next attachment. that no tanner or whittawer of leather dwell in the forest, out of boroughs, towns, etc. that any archbishops, bishops, barons, or knight being found hunting, the forester shall demand “a wedde and a pledge,” and if he refuse, the forester shall see “his dede,” and cause it to be enrolled to be presented before the justice of the forest. other assizes say, that the bodies of such dignitaries, whether temporal or spiritual, shall be seized till they give security for their appearance; but that any such nobleman, or dignitary, being sent for to the king on any business, shall have the privilege of hunting one or two deer as he goes through the forest, and the same on his return, provided it be in view of the forester, otherwise he shall blow a horn, lest he seem to steal it.

[19] that is, turn in cattle to graze, at so much per head, which was done in most forests, and the money paid to the verderer,—a certain number of persons mostly having a right of common besides, by grant or charter.

[20] root up the covert and make a clearing.

that any man going along the king’s highway, through a forest, with a bow, shall bear it without string; or with dogs, he shall have them coupled, and his greyhounds “knytted in a leash.” that if any damage be done to the king’s vert or venison, or waste, of which no rational account can be given, the foresters, or verderers, under whose care the said charges have been, shall be taken, and no satisfaction but their own bodies shall be received till the king,[363] or his justice, have had their will of them. yet, so early as henry ii., it was found that all these strict provisions being insufficient to prevent waste of the woods, and “extreme minishing of the deere,” the office of regarder was established. the regarders were originally to be knights, but “other good people” were afterwards admitted. they were to be chosen by the king’s writ, and there were to be twelve in each forest. the foresters and verderers were gentlemen: the former appointed by the king’s letters-patent; the latter by writ in full county, like our present members of parliament; yet were the regarders set as inspectors over them. they were to go through every part of the forest, accompanied by the foresters, verderers, woodwards, bailiffs, and beadles, and examine into the state of vert and venison; comparing them with the reports of their predecessors, and seeing that no waste, or embezzlement, or improper, or superabundant agistment was made; that no assarts, or purprestures[21] were attempted. this, however, they could not do when they pleased. they were summoned by writ, once in three years, preparatory to the coming of the justice to hold his pleas, to whom they were to deliver their roll, duly signed and sealed.

[21] encroachments and obstructions of several kinds, such as impediments in the highways, turning dykes, building swine-cotes, mills, etc.

queen elizabeth, who found that, during the minority of her brother edward and the troubled reign of her sister mary, great waste, destruction, and embezzlement had taken place, made repeated inquests into the state of the forests by her commissioners, and had general surveys and valuations made. she descends in her assizes to the very bees, which it seems built then abundantly in our woods, as they do in the american forests now—the old, hollow oaks, being very storehouses of honey. hawks, herons, the nests of hawks, and every species of beast that had been held the legitimate denizens of forests by her predecessors, as stags, bucks, hares, badgers, foxes, and even cats and squirrels, are enumerated.

these forest laws continued till the commonwealth. one court of justice was held after the restoration; but after the revolution of 1688, they fell into desuetude, and now all offences against the forests are cognizable by the common laws of the land.

[364]

for the fullest information on this subject, see cowel, heskett, coke, and blackstone; or manwood on forest laws.

the english forests were formerly as follows:

1. aiden, northumberland.

2. allerdale, cumberland.

3. amsty, yorkshire.

4. arden, warwick.

5. ashdown, sussex.

6. bere, hants.

7. bernwood, bucks.

8. beverley, york.

9. blakemore, or forest of watchet, dorset.

10. braden, wilts.

11. charnwood, leicester.

12. cheviot, northumberland.

13. chute, hants.

14. clun.

15. cors.

16. dartmoor, devon.

17. darval, hereford.

18. dean, gloucester.

19. deeping, lincoln.

20. delamere, cheshire.

21. epping, essex.

22. exmore, devon.

23. feckenham, worcester.

24. gillingham, somerset.

25. gáltres, york.

26. hainault, essex.

27. hampton court, middlesex.

28. hardwicke, york.

29. hartlebury.

30. huckestow, shropshire.

31. inglewood, cumberland.

32. kingswood, gloucester.

33. knaresborough, york.

34. langden, durham.

35. leonard.

36. lee.

37. leicester, leicester.

38. mendip, somerset.

39. malvern, worcester.

40. martindale, cumberland.

41. maxwell, cheshire.

42. needwood, stafford.

43. new forest, hants.

44. pamber, hants.

45. peak, derbyshire.

46. penrise.

47. perbroke, dorset.

48. rath.

49. riddlesdale, northumberland.

50. rockingham, northampton.

51. rychiche, somerset.

52. salcey, northampton.

53. savornac, wilts.

the only forest in possession of a subject.

54. selwood, somerset.

55. sherwood, nottingham.

56. staines, middlesex.

57. teesdale, durham.

58. waltham, essex.

59. whittlebury, northampton.

60. wichwood, oxford.

61. wencedale.

62. westbere.

63. windsor, berks.

64. whinfield, westmorland.

65. wirrol, cheshire.

66. whitby, yorkshire.

67. woolmer.

68. wyre, worcester.

69. wrokene, salop.

of these, most are now dis-afforested, and have left only their names. those which remain are under the management of a board of commissioners; the chief of whom is, by virtue of his office, always one of the ministers of the crown. needwood is principally[365] inclosed, leaving, however, a portion belonging to the crown, and one lodge. it had formerly four wards and four keepers, with each a handsome lodge, now in the hands of different private gentlemen. in elizabeth’s reign it was about 24 miles in circumference, and in 1658 it contained 9220 acres of land. in 1684 it contained 47,150 trees, and 10,000 cord of hollies and underwood, valued at 30,710l. it and bagot’s park, formerly part of it, still contain some of the largest oaks in england. windsor is the royal park, and the most complete and splendid example of a park in the world.—of new forest, and sherwood, i propose to speak more particularly.