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.”