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.