FOREST POLICE AND POLICE IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
Just as the state of public tranquillity brought about by the wise
government of Edward I. had been disturbed by the irresponsible and
childish behaviour of his pleasure-loving successor, so was the
admirable domestic policy of Edward III. robbed of its due reward by
the lack of judgment and the want of administrative capacity exhibited
by Richard II., whose unhappy reign is thus described by Froissart.
"The State generally of all men in England began to murmur and to rise
one against another, and ministering of justice was clear stopped up
in all courts of England, whereof the valiant men and prelates, who
loved rest and peace, and were glad to pay their duties, were greatly
abashed; for there rose in the realm companies in divers routs, keeping
the fields and highways, so that merchants durst not ride abroad to
exercise their merchandise for doubt of robbing; and no man knew to
whom to complain to do them right, reason, and justice; which things
were right prejudicial and displeasant to the good people of England,
for it was contrary to their accustomable usage."
It would be unjust, however, to attribute the state of affairs as above
portrayed solely to Richard's incapacity: he was still a minor when
his grandfather died, and many circumstances conspired to render his
task an extremely difficult one. A latent discontent had smouldered
amongst the peasantry ever since the oppressive Statute of Labourers
had been passed some thirty years before, and the universal poll-tax
of one shilling a head, imposed in 1379 to meet the expenses incurred
in the interminable wars with France and Scotland, suddenly caused
the flame of rebellion to blaze forth with unexampled violence. It
has been said that if anything like an adequate police force had been
available in 1381, Wat Tyler's movement might have been arrested before
the riots in the Southern Counties had attained the dimensions of a
general insurrection. Such may, or may not, be true of this particular
rising; but happily for English liberty there has never existed in this
country any police force at the disposal of the central government,
powerful enough to coerce the nation at large. Our national police has
always been of the people and for the people, and obviously at no time
could long be used to oppress those from whom its strength was derived,
provided only that one and the same sentiment pervaded a majority of
the oppressed.
The attack on villenage was too reasonable to be fruitless, and
resistance to the popular demands could be but temporary. The death of
Tyler, and the consequent suppression of the insurrectionary movement
which he led, caused the concessions wrung from the King to be
revoked, and so delayed the cause of agrarian freedom; but the ultimate
triumph of free tenure and labour was already assured from the moment
that unanimity was achieved.
The constitution of the general police of the country being of such
a nature that it was powerless to enforce any universally unpopular
measure, a distinct and separate organisation was required to
administer the well-hated code of law which had to do with the royal
prerogative of hunting. The whole subject of forest law and forest
police is of sufficient interest and importance to warrant an account
of its main characteristics in some detail.
The King's Peace, as we have already seen, was of two kinds--there
was the public peace of the realm, and there was the royal or private
peace, enjoyed by the Sovereign, and by those closely connected with
him. If we examine further these main divisions, we shall find that
each is composed of certain sub-divisions, with their own particular
laws and customs: thus under the general heading of public peace must
be included--(1) the peace and privacy to which every man is entitled
at his own fireside, securing him against all intrusion as long as he
commits no felonious action--(2) the "peace of the church" as kept by
the Ecclesiastical Courts--and (3) the "peace of the sea" with its
court (afterwards known as the Court of Admiralty) "to maintain peace
and justice amongst the people of every nation passing through the sea
of England."[60]
The private peace of the King, besides protecting his person and the
precincts of his palaces, extended also over all the Royal Forest land,
that is to say, over about a third part of the whole area of England:
Canute's law was "I will that every man be entitled to his hunting
in wood and field, on his own possession. And let everyone forego my
hunting";[61] but there is no evidence to prove that the Danish King
enforced his forest law otherwise than by the ordinary law of the
land. The system of game preservation that grew up under the Normans,
however, was so rigid that it necessitated the creation of special
laws, special courts of law, and a special police for the prevention
and punishment of illegal hunting. The Norman code was modified
somewhat by Magna Carta,[62] and again in 1217; but it continued to
oppress the nation through many generations, for wherever the peace
of the forest was well maintained, there did the peace of the people
suffer.
The amount of afforested land varied considerably from time to time.
Henry II. possessed 68 forests, 13 chaces and 781 parks,[63] but it
was not necessarily those monarchs who were particularly devoted to
sport that were the most exacting, a strict enforcement of the forest
laws brought much money to the royal exchequer in the shape of fines
levied on trespassers and others who were tempted to offend against the
arbitrary restrictions imposed.
"A Forest," says Manwood,[64] "is a certain territory of woody grounds
and fruitful pastures, privileged for wild beasts and fowls of forest,
chase and warren to rest, and abide there in the safe protection of
the King, for his delight and pleasure: which territory of ground so
privileged is mered and bounded with irremovable marks, meres and
boundaries, either known by matter of record or by prescription: and
also replenished with wild beasts of venery and chase, and with great
coverts of vert, for the succour of the said beasts (to have their
abode in): for the continuance and preservation of the said place,
together with the vert and venison,[65] there are particular officers,
laws and privileges belonging to the same, requisite for the purpose,
and proper only to a Forest and no other place."
In connection with every forest there were four Courts, called
respectively the Woodmote Court, the Court of Regard, the Court of
Swanimote, and the Court of the Justice Seat. Of these the first was
only competent to inquire of offences, and could not proceed to
conviction. The Verderers, as the judicial officers of this Court
were called, met once in every forty days, and could acquit accused
persons, or hold them to bail--in the latter case the attachment had
to be by the goods of the offender, unless he was "taken with the
Mayneer," _i.e._ _in flagrante delicto_,[66] when the attachment might
be by his body. "If any Forester shall find any man attachable for
Vert in the Forest, first he shall attach him by two pledges, if they
be to be found: and if he be afterwards found, he shall attach him by
four pledges: and if the third time, he shall be presented before the
Verderers, and be put by eight pledges: after the third attachment, his
body shall be attached and retained, that he may remember what thing
Vert is."[67]
Coke tells us that there were four degrees of "Mayneer," viz.:--
(i.) Dog-draw, or tracking a wounded deer.
(ii.) Stable-Stand, that is, standing ready to shoot
or course, with weapon in hand, or greyhounds
in leash.
(iii.) Back-bear, or carrying away the venison; and
(iv.) Bloody-Hand, or being found in the forest
stained with blood.[68]
The second Court, that of "Regard," was held once in three years, and
had for its object the prevention of unlawful hunting. For this purpose
all dogs belonging to dwellers near the forest were registered and
divided into three classes; that is to say (1) greyhounds, including
spaniels and lurchers; (2) mastiffs, including the various kinds of
large dogs; and (3) dogs of the smaller breeds. No restriction was
placed on the possession of the last-mentioned class, but whilst
greyhounds were not allowed on any pretence, mastiffs might be kept
by a man for his own protection, provided that he had them mutilated
in such a way that they could not pursue and pull down the game. This
operation, called "lawing" or "expeditation," consisted in removing the
claws of the fore-feet, and was performed in the following manner--One
of the dog's fore-feet was placed upon a piece of wood eight inches
thick and twelve inches square, and then the three claws were struck
off at one blow with a two-inch chisel; if a mastiff was found
"unlawed" near a forest, a fine of five shillings was imposed on its
reputed master.
The "Court of Swanimote" met three times a year, and had the power not
only of inquiring into all alleged offences against the forest laws,
but, unlike the Woodmote, might also convict. Finally, judgment was
given and sentences passed by the chief Justice of the Forest, at the
triennial meeting of the Court of the Justice Seat.[69]
Each forest was surrounded by its "purlieu," or belt of pasturage, for
the deer to graze in. The jurisdiction of the Courts above enumerated
extended over both forest and purlieu, and since the two together
covered a third part of the kingdom, it will be seen that the police
regulations that secured the peace of the forest profoundly affected
the daily life of the nation. Many of these regulations pressed very
hardly on the people, especially on folk who had the misfortune to
live in the purlieu: for instance, a man found trespassing by night
could be imprisoned, even if he was only in search of strayed cattle,
and his beasts might be confiscated. In times of drought, or when
grazing was scarce, foresters might lop trees and cut fodder for their
charges on the land of any man, whilst tanners and dealers in horn were
not permitted to live anywhere in the neighbourhood of a forest, for
fear lest their trade should tempt them to become receivers of stolen
property.
When an offence had been committed Hue and Cry might be made by any of
the King's ministers of the forest, but the pursuit had to be "fresh";
that is to say, the offender had to be detected in the act, and the
fugitive kept always in sight. Pursuit, on suspicion, was illegal, and
Hue and Cry was applicable to Trespass in Venison only, not to Trespass
in Vert. If any township or village failed to follow the Hue and Cry
they were liable to be amerced at the Justice Seat for the default.[70]
From the "Carta de foresta"[71] we learn that the officers originally
appointed to each forest were fifty-two in number, and consisted of
four Primarii or Chiefs of the forest, sixteen Mediocres homines, or
Yoongmen, and thirty-two Minuti homines, or Tine-men. This organization
did not long continue, however, and was quite extinct at the accession
of Henry II. The four Primarii were superseded by four Verderers;
the sixteen Yoongmen gave place to twelve Regarders; and instead
of thirty-two Tine-men we find a staff of Foresters, with their
underlings, called Walkers or Rangers.[72] The number of Foresters and
Rangers employed was not arbitrarily fixed, but varied with the size of
the forest, and in accordance with the exigencies of time and place.
The ministers of the forest appear to have been very numerous in the
days of the Plantagenets, and the functions of the different grades
were clearly defined: thus, the Verderers were judicial officers,
roughly corresponding to Justices of the Peace; the Agisters were
officers whose business it was to look after the pasturage of the
purlieu; the Regarders were responsible for the lawing of dogs; whilst
the Foresters and Rangers were sworn to preserve the wild beasts and
timber respectively in their several bailiwicks. The precautions taken
to preserve the peace of the forest were doubled during the Month of
Fence, or breeding season, at which time the officers were ordered
to be more than usually vigilant, and offences were punished with
increased severity.
In the last chapter reference was made to the oath which every male
over fifteen years of age had to take in furtherance of the general
scheme of peace-maintenance. Similarly, under forest law, an oath was
required from all the inhabitants of the forest, that they would not
disturb the peace of the wild beasts therein. Manwood says that this
oath was anciently administered in doggerel verse, in some such words
as these:
"You shall true Liege-man be,
Unto the King's Majestie:
Unto the beasts of the Forest you shall no hurt do,
Nor anything that doth belong thereunto:
The offences of others you shall not conceal,
But to the utmost of your power you shall them reveal,
Unto the officers of the Forest,
Or to them who may see them redrest:
All these things you shall see done,
So help you GOD at his Holy Doom."[73]
Such then in brief were the salient features of the police arrangements
by which the prerogative of hunting was secured to the Sovereign,
arrangements which, it will be seen, were closely allied to the general
scheme of peace maintenance then in vogue throughout the realm. A
fuller description of Forest Law, together with an interesting map of
the Forest lands, may be found in Mr Inderwick's "The King's Peace":
the present enquiry, however, must not extend beyond this slight survey
of the machinery by which the laws in question were enforced, and may
conclude with a glance at the influence that such legislation exerted
over the country at large. The severity of the law coupled with the
inadequacy of the executive government produced their natural result.
The people resented the harsh treatment they were subjected to, and
broke the unpopular regulations or evaded the irksome restrictions
whenever they could, which was not seldom. Many who under a wiser
régime would have remained good citizens became outlaws merely out of a
spirit of opposition, and in consequence, these huge tracts of forest,
whose recesses were hardly ever visited even by the forest officers,
and whose boundaries were hardly known to anyone else, became the
stronghold of the lawless and disaffected, as well as the refuge of the
unfortunate.[74]
In the opinion of many, our existing game laws, are harsh and
tyrannical: it is often said that all men have an inalienable right
to chase or snare any animal that is not domesticated, because, in
the nature of things, a wild beast cannot have an owner. All this may
be perfectly true, but if such a common right existed, it has not
been enjoyed for a very long time, not since the days, perhaps, when
our forefathers performed their Druidical rites at the monoliths of
Stonehenge, apparelled only in woad and mistletoe. It is unprofitable
to argue about the rights of prehistoric man: what was best for him is
not always applicable to a twentieth century community, and we may be
thankful that whilst a few beasts of warren and chase still remain to
us, we are no longer oppressed, as men used to be, by a relentless "lex
foresta" for their protection.
To return, however, from the digression into which the consideration
of forest law has led, to the more general theme of the police system
of the Statute of Winchester, it is to be observed that the terms
"Watch" and "Ward," though commonly used in conjunction to express a
single idea, are not really synonymous. Blackstone says that the ward
was set by day, and the watch by night, and that the one begins only
when the other ends. Without making too much of the distinction between
the two, we must remember that the population was almost entirely
an agricultural one, and was occupied throughout the day in the
fields; consequently every man could protect his own property and, if
necessary, raise the hue and cry against any who came to despoil him.
Household belongings were few, and apparently of such little account
that not only were they always left unprotected in the daytime, but it
was even thought unnecessary to employ a nightly police except during
the summer and autumn months, when the crops were ripening in the
fields, the Statute only requiring the watch to be set "from the day of
the Ascension until the day of St Michael."
The method of setting the watch was by house-row, that is to say, a
list of the dwellings in every parish and township was prepared, and
as his turn came round each householder or some one lodging under his
roof was required to keep a watch: if any such "contemptuously refused"
to obey the summons of the constable, that officer might set him in
the stocks for his contempt. The liability to watch by roster attached
equally to all the male inhabitants; when, however, it happened that it
came to a woman's turn, she was allowed to find a substitute, but there
is no evidence to show whether the substituted service was rendered
gratuitously or whether she had to pay for the accommodation. Watchmen
were expected to be able-bodied and sufficiently armed, a pitchfork was
not held to be an adequate weapon,[75] but within reasonable limits a
man might arm and accoutre himself as he pleased, and it was not until
comparatively recent times that the watch were provided with arms at
the parish expense.
Generally speaking, the house-row arrangement worked smoothly enough,
but that friction occasionally arose, when the constables came to call
upon unwilling citizens to perform the police duties incumbent on them,
the following extract from "Town Life in the Fifteenth Century" bears
witness: "In Aylesbury" according to the constables' report, "one Reygg
kept a house all the year until the watch time came, and when he was
summoned to the watch there came Edward Chalkyll 'fasesying' and said
he would not watch for no man and thus bare him up, and that caused
the other to be bolder for to bar the King's watch.... He said and
threatened us with his master," add the constables, "and thus we be
over crakyd' that we dare not go, for when they be 'mayten' they be the
bolder. John Bossey said the same wise that he would not watch for us,
and three others lacked each of them a night."[76]
The police regulations for the government of London, as introduced in
1285, had become very minute and exacting by the latter half of the
fifteenth century, many restrictions being placed on the enjoyment of
personal liberty. The use of coal was prohibited, Sunday trading was
forbidden, and, amongst other rules for the control of the wheeled
traffic, a maximum width between wheels for vehicles was laid down
which might on no account be exceeded. Ordinances also were promulgated
against tradesmen who should attempt to advertise their callings in
an objectionable manner, such as, for instance, the display of a
basin of blood by barbers anxious to let people know that phlebotomy
was included in the list of their accomplishments. The provisions of
the before-quoted Statuta Civitatis (London), touching the control
of leprous persons continued in force, and about this time special
officers were appointed to prevent such as were infected with the
plague from associating with those who were whole.
The employment of a "police des moeurs" was a novel feature of
the administration. A register containing the names of all women of
ill-fame was kept by the police, and such women were not allowed to
reside within the city walls; a certain promenade, known as the "Stews
of Southwark," was assigned to them, where they were kept under the
vigilant eyes of the City Sergeants, who, in consideration of the extra
work thus thrown upon them, might confiscate and retain as a perquisite
any "minever fur or cendale silk" that a courtesan might presume to
wear. The inhabitants of the Surrey suburb were probably not consulted
as to the desirability or otherwise of this arrangement, Edward III.
having granted the town and borough of Southwark _in perpetuo_ to the
citizens of London. This he did in answer to their complaint that the
peace of the city was continually being placed in jeopardy by the
facility with which thieves and felons could make good their escape
over the river and take refuge in Southwark, a place with no recognised
privilege of sheltering runaways. The official sanctuaries were of
course on a different footing, and in the fifteenth century were
rendered less dangerous to society, than had formerly been the case,
by an ordinance which required those who lived hard by the sanctuary
to watch all avenues of escape by day and night until the refugee
surrendered himself, a fine of five pounds being levied against the
responsible ward if he succeeded in getting away.
The general scope of the responsibilities and powers proper to these
old-time city constables is clearly defined in the oath that they were
required to take before entering upon the duties of their office.
"You shall swear, that you shall keep the Peace of our Lord the King
well and lawfully according to your power, and shall arrest all those
who shall make any contest, riot, debate or affray, in breaking of
the said peace, and shall bring them unto the house or Compter of one
of the Sheriffs. And if you shall be withstood by strength of such
misdoers, you shall raise upon them hue and cry (and) shall follow them
from street to street, and from ward to ward until they are arrested.
And also you shall search at all times when you shall be required by
Scavenger or Bedel, for the common nuisances of the ward; until they
are arrested. And also if there be anything done within your bailiwick
contrary to the Ordinances of the City. And the faults you shall find,
you shall present them unto the Mayor and to the Officers of the said
City. And if you should be withstood by any person, or persons, that
you cannot duly do your office, you shall certify unto the Mayor and
Council of the said City the name and names of such person or persons
who trouble you. And this you shall not fail to do. So God you help and
the Saints."[77]
When the decennary societies ceased to exist, the connection between
the peace officer and the particular group which he represented
underwent a change, but the alteration was one of degree rather than
one of kind. The fifteenth century constable was taught to look for the
support of his fellow-citizens in case of need, though not to the same
extent, perhaps, as the headborough was wont to rely on the members of
his tything. The great principle of mutual responsibility remained, and
was kept alive by insisting that all freemen should enter into a solemn
obligation to keep the peace, a compact which, modified to suit more
modern requirements, had its origin in the ancient oath of allegiance.
The form of oath varied in different places; in London it was as
follows--"You shall swear that you shall be good and true unto the
King of England and to his heirs, Kings and the King's Peace you shall
keep; and unto the Officers of the city you shall be obedient, and at
all times that shall be needful, you shall be ready to aid the officers
in arresting misdoers, and those disobedient to the King's Peace, as
well denizens as strangers. And you shall be ready, at the warning of
the Constables and Bedels, to make the watches and (to bear) the other
charges for the safeguard of the peace, and all the points in this
wardmote shown, according to your power you shall well and lawfully
keep--and if you know any evil covin within the ward or the city, you
shall withstand the same, or to your alderman make it known. So help
you God and the Saints."[78]
An examination of the oaths administered to constables and freemen
respectively reveals to us in a concise form the motives which
directed the mediæval machinery for maintaining the peace. We see how
a compromise was arrived at between the ancient system of frankpledge
and the more modern plan of employing a professional class of peace
officers, and how, by means of the combined action of police and
public, domestic tranquillity was assured. Had it been possible to
have made this co-operation complete and thorough, the resulting
security would have left little to be desired; but, as was only to
be expected, discord not infrequently took the place of harmony, and
freemen sometimes forgot what was due to the oath they had taken. Let
the events of a certain night in Canterbury serve as an illustration.
Some watchmen, it appears, challenged a man whom they found abroad "out
of due time" and inquired his business, but (to continue the story
verbatim) "the suspect person gave none answer, but ran from thence
into St Austin's liberty, and before the door of one John Short they
took him. And the same John Short came out of his house with other
misknown persons and took from the said watchmen their weapons, and
there menaced them for to beat, contrary to the oath of a true and
faithful freeman."[79]
According to the strict letter of the law it was a constable's duty,
immediately after making an arrest, to deliver his prisoner to the
sheriff; but, as a matter of fact, this was seldom done, and the
sheriff had little or nothing to do with accused persons until after
their conviction. In the absence of proper lock-ups the village stocks
were commonly used by the parish constable to secure his man until he
could conveniently bring him before a magistrate but, as time went
on, confinement in the stocks became the normal mode of punishment for
minor offences, and it was no rare thing for a constable to keep a
troublesome parishioner in this uncomfortable custody for a space, on
his own initiative and responsibility.
Prisons had existed in some form or other from the earliest times.
The first dungeon was doubtless coeval with the first fortress, and
London's great jail at Newgate dated back to the twelfth century. But
it was not then a penal establishment in our sense of the term, in
so far that imprisonment was hardly as yet the recognised punishment
for the ordinary run of criminals; such places were rather convenient
strongholds in which to confine debtors till they paid their dues,
suspected persons till they confessed their crimes, Jews till they
disgorged their wealth, and generally for the safe-guarding of
political opponents or private enemies whom it was desirable to keep
under lock and key. It was not until the fifteenth century that we find
a regularly graduated connection between punishment by imprisonment
and punishment by fine; the penalty for drawing a sword in the City
of London, for example, was then half a mark or fifteen days, for
inflicting a wound with the same, twenty shillings or forty days, and
so on.
The pillory was a more serious affair, and its pains were beyond the
power of a constable to inflict; it was generally resorted to in
cases where the offender had been guilty of practices which rendered
him particularly obnoxious to the people, so that the punishment
he received at their hands was nicely proportioned to the degree of
unpopularity he had earned for himself. The baker who gave short
weight, or the dairyman who watered his milk, received such a lesson
at the hands of his customers that he was little likely to repeat
his offence. It was customary, moreover, in sentencing a man to the
pillory, to make the punishment fit the crime as much as possible,
and to compel the culprit to advertise his guilt in some personally
unpleasant fashion; thus, the man who had stolen a cart was forced
to pull it through the streets to the place of punishment, and an
offending vintner had to drink a full draught of the sour wine that had
disagreed with the frequenters of his shop.
Englishmen are proverbially interested in what they eat and drink,
and this public concern for good victualling explains why, when life
and property were as yet but moderately secure, safeguards against
the adulteration of human food were notably complete. The chief
legislative authority upon which police action, directed against
dishonest purveyors, rested, was the "Judicium Pillorie," or, as it is
commonly called, "The Statute of the Pillory and Tumbrel."[80] This Act
belonged to the same period as the Statute of Winchester (both dating
from the latter half of the thirteenth century), and like its more
famous contemporary had a long career of practical usefulness in the
public service. From 1266, the year of its enactment, until 1710, the
date of its repeal, the Judicium Pillorie did much for English food,
by maintaining a high standard in the quality of our meat and bread,
and in the soundness of our ale. The Statute requires that "they have
in the town a pillory of convenient strength as appertaineth to the
liberty of their market, which they may use (if need be) without bodily
peril either of man or woman." Provision is made for the sending of six
"lawful men" to collect all the measures of the town, care being taken
that the owner's name is legibly inscribed on each measure, "after
which thing done" a jury of twelve lawful men have to make oath that
they will truly answer concerning such things as may be demanded of
them on the King's behalf, "and such things as be secret, they shall
utter secretly and answer privately," also, "if any butcher do sell
contagious flesh, or that died of the murren, or flesh that hath been
kept so long that it loseth its natural wholesomeness, or meat bought
from Jews and then sold to Christians"--for these and similar offences
the penalty is the same, viz.: "If a baker or a brewer be convict ...
then he shall suffer punishment of the body--that is to wit--a baker to
the pillory and a brewer to the tumbrel."
From "Liber Albus" we get a more detailed account of the fashion in
which these exemplary punishments were carried out in London, we learn
that "if any default be found in the bread of a baker in the city,
the first time, let him be drawn upon a hurdle from the Guildhall to
his own house through the great street where there be most people
assembled, and through the great streets which are most dirty, with
the faulty loaf hanging from his neck: if a second time he shall be
found committing the same offence, let him be drawn from the Guildhall
through the great street of Cheepe, in the manner aforesaid, to the
pillory, and let him be put upon the pillory, and remain there at least
one hour in the day; and the third time that such default shall be
found, he shall be drawn, and the oven shall be pulled down, and the
baker made to forswear the trade in the city for ever."
Before leaving this part of the subject, it may be worth mentioning,
that as long ago as the year 1318[81] all public officers in city and
borough were debarred from selling wine or victual during their term of
office, a prohibition which some people think might with advantage be
applied at the present day to such modern officials as the members of
Borough Watch Committees.[82]