Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:42:40.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English Royal Forests under the Angevin Kings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Charles R. Young
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historians have never been properly grateful for that perpetually inquisitive student in medieval dialogues whose chief claim to fame is that he elicited bursts of wisdom from the ever-patient master. To him we owe this rather curious definition of the English royal forest as formulated by the master in Richard fitz Nigel's Dialogue of the Exchequer written about 1178:

The King's forest is a safe abode for wild animals, not all of them but only the woodland ones, and not everywhere, but in particular places suitable for the purpose. That is why it is called “forest” (foresta), as though the e of feresta (i.e. a haunt of wild animals, ferarum statio), were changed into o.

Fortunately, the master had already discussed the essential point that the forest was an area of special jurisdiction subject to a special law:

The whole organization of the forests, the punishment, pecuniary or corporal, of forest offences, is outside the jurisdiction of the other courts, and solely dependent on the decision of the King, or of some officer specially appointed by him. The forest has its own laws, based, it is said, not on the Common Law of the realm, but on the arbitrary legislation of the King; so that what is done in accordance with forest law is not called “just” without qualification, but “just, according to forest law.”

Although modern scholarship suggests that the arbitrary nature of forest law in the thirteenth century was exaggerated, there can be no question that it had a bad reputation among contemporaries, who raised the cry that it placed the protection of wild beasts above that of men.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , November 1972 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. fitz Nigel, Richard, Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. and trans. Johnson, Charles (London, 1950), p. 60Google Scholar.

2. Ibid., pp. 59-60.

3. Bazeley, Margaret, “The Extent of the English Forest in the Thirteenth Century,” Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc. (4th series, London, 1921), IV, 146Google Scholar; Bazeley, Margaret, “The Forest of Dean in its Relations with the crown during the Twelfth and Thirteenth centuries,” Trans. of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, XXXIII (1910), 264–66, 281Google Scholar; Hilton, R. H., A Medieval Society: The West Midlands at the End of the Thirteenth Century (London, 1967), pp. 246–48Google Scholar. For a sampling of contemporary views, see Wireker, Nigel, Speculum Stultorum, ed. Mozley, J. H. and Raymo, R. R. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1960), p. 88Google Scholar; Map, Walter, De Nugis Curialium, ed. Wright, Thomas (London, 1850), pp. 7–8Google Scholar; fitz Nigel, Richard, Dialogus, pp. 58–59Google Scholar; William of Newburgh, “Historia rerum Anglicarum,” in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Howlett, R. (London, 1884–1889), I, 280Google Scholar; Roger of Howden, Chronica, ed. Stubbs, William (Rolls Series: London, 1868–1871), IV, 62–63Google Scholar.

4. Petit-Dutaillis, Charles and Lefebvre, Georges, Studies and Notes Supplementary to Stubbs' Constitutional History (Manchester, 1930), p. 166Google Scholar.

5. Whitelock, Dorothy (ed. and trans.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (New Brunswick, 1961), p. 165Google Scholar.

6. Parker, F. H. M., “The Forest Laws and the Death of William Rufus,” E.H.R., XXVII (1912), p. 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Cf. ibid. with Baring, F. H., “The Making of the New Forest,” E.H.R., XXVII (1912), 513–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Darby, H. C. and Campbell, E. M. J., The Domesday Geography of South-East England (Cambridge, 1962), p. 324Google Scholar.

9. Davis, H. W., Johnson, Charles, and Cronne, H. A. (eds.), Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154 (Oxford, 1913–1969), I, xxxiGoogle Scholar; II, xx-xxi; Cronne, H. A., “The Royal Forest in the Reign of Henry I” in Essays in British and Irish History in Honour of James Eadie Todd, ed. Cronne, H. A. (London, 1949), pp. 1–2, 19–20Google Scholar.

10. Cronne, , “The Royal Forest,” p. 18Google Scholar.

11. Cronne, H. A., The Reign of Stephen 1135-54 (London, 1970), pp. 232–33Google Scholar.

12. PRO, Chancery Miscellanea, 11/1/5-6, 10, 14-16, 19-22; Duchy of Lancaster, Forest Proceedings, 1/1; Close Rolls 1227-31, pp. 101-103; Bazeley, , “The Extent of the English Forest,” p. 146Google Scholar.

13. Pipe Roll 2 Ric. I, p. 145; Pipe Roll 4 Ric. I, p. 214. (The pipe rolls have been published in series by the Pipe Roll Society in London beginning in 1884.)

14. Walter of Coventry, Memoriale, ed. Stubbs, William (Rolls Series: London, 1872–1873), II, 126Google Scholar.

15. PRO, Exchequer, The King's Remembrancer, Forest Proceedings, 2/22.

16. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, ed. Hardy, T. D. (Record Commission: London, 1835), I, 40aGoogle Scholar; Pipe Roll 6 John, pp. 32, 40, 85, 189; 8 John, p. 64; 9 John, p. 66; 11 John, p. xxvj; Turner, G. J. (ed.), Select Pleas of the Forest [Selden Society, XIII] (London, 1901), pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

17. Pine Roll 2 John, p. 18; 5 John, p. 6; 6 John, pp. 33-34, 189; 7 John, pp. 124, 262; 9 John, pp. 109, 124, 178; 11 John, pp. 64, 138; 14 John, p. 32; Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, I, 39b, 76a, 124aGoogle Scholar; Close Rolls 1227-31 (Deputy Keeper of the Records: London, 1902), p. 100Google Scholar. See also Holt, J. C., Magna Carta (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 52–53Google Scholar.

18. Holt, , Magna Carta, pp. 205–206Google Scholar.

19. Roger of Howden, Chronica, II, 245–47Google Scholar; IV, 63-65. The views of Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., The Governance of Mediaeval England (Edinburgh, 1963), pp. 444–48Google Scholar concerning these assizes have not been generally accepted. Even if they should prove to be correct, the point being made here would not be affected.

20. Benedict of Peterborough, The Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry II and Richard I, ed. Stubbs, William (Rolls Series: London, 1867), II, clviiGoogle Scholar.

21. Ibid., I, 92-94, 99, 105; Poole, A. L., From Domesday Book to Magna Carta (2nd ed.; Oxford, 1955), pp. 338–39Google Scholar.

22. Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, II, 74Google Scholar. Ralph of Diceto, “Ymagines Historiarum” in Historical Works, ed. Stubbs, William (Rolls Series: London, 1876), II, 68Google Scholar, may be an oblique reference to the same incident.

23. “Common Law in Thirteenth Century English Royal Forests,” Dissertation Collection, University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1928), XXXIGoogle Scholar, no. 2, 191 or the article with the same title in Speculum, III (1928), 166–91Google Scholar. The older view can be found in the only general account of the royal forests yet published — Petit-Dutaillis, and Lefebvre, , Studies, p. 165Google Scholar. S. B. Chrimes accepted the revision of this view in his introduction to SirHoldsworth, William, A History of English Law (7th ed.; London, 1956), I, 20Google Scholar. For the areas under forest law, see Bazeley, , “The Extent of the English Forest,” pp. 140–72Google Scholar.

24. Pipe Roll 6 Hen. II, pp. 20, 42; 13 Hen. II, pp. 102, 138; 16 Hen. II, pp. 102, 107; 17 Hen. II, p. 50; 25 Hen. II, pp. 86, 89; I Ric. I, p. 77; 8 Ric I, p. 31 for forest pleas included with other pleas.

25. Pipe Roll 13 Hen. II, p. 182; 24 Hen. II, p. 52; 8 Ric. I, pp. 152, 266; 10 Ric. I, p. 105.

26. As given by Roger of Howden, Chronica, IV, 65Google Scholar, in his eleventh chapter.

27. These lists are given in Stenton, Doris M. (ed.), Pleas before the King or His Justices 1198-1202 [Selden Society, 67–28, 83] (London, 1952–1967), IIIGoogle Scholar.

28. Stenton, Doris M., English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter 1066-1215 (Philadelphia, 1964), p. 73Google Scholar.

29. Stenton, , Pleas, III, lii, lvGoogle Scholar.

30. Ibid., III, lxx.

31. fitz Nigel, Richard, Dialogus, p. 60Google Scholar.

32. Pipe Roll 10 Hen. II, p. A; 14 Hen. II, pp. 173-74, 190; 3 John, p. xiv; 7 John, p. 133.

33. Pipe Roll 27 Hen. II, p. xxiii; 30 Hen. II, pp. 60, 144; 8 John, p. xvj; Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, I, 3bGoogle Scholar.

34. Pipe Roll 21 Hen. II, p. 189; 25 Hen. II, p. 14; 29 Hen. II, pp. 6, 141, 142; 8 John, pp. xvj, xviij, 157; 11 John, p. 138; Bazeley, , “The Forest of the Dean,” pp. 266–68Google Scholar.

35. Pipe Roll 5 John, pp. 160-61; 10 John, pp. 202-05; Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, I, 27a, 29b, 78b, 106aGoogle Scholar. For comments on the importance of Hugh's position, see Painter, Sidney, The Reign of King John (Baltimore, 1949), pp. 67–70Google Scholar.

36. Pipe Roll 12 John, p. 203; 14 John, p. 157.

37. Richard fitz Nigel's comment on the word “census” used for rents in the forest should be noted. See fitz Nigel, Richard, Dialogus, pp. 30–31, 103Google Scholar.

38. The accounts arranged by date and amounts adjusted to nearest pound are: 1170, Alan de Neville £91 (16 Hen. II, p. 64); 1171, Robert Mantel and William fitz Ralph, £56 and 1172 £23 (18 Hen. II, pp. 9-10); 1178, Thomas fitz Bernard, £59, 1179 £37, 1181 £21, 1182 £21, 1183 £36 (24 Hen. II, p. 55; 25 Hen. II, p. 60; 27 Hen. II, p. 72; 28 Hen. II, p. 135; 29 Hen. II, p. 124); 1185, Geoffrey fitz Peter, £63, 1186 £31, 1187 £48, 1188 £34 (32 Hen. II, pp. 27-28; 32 Hen. II, p. 10; 33 Hen. II, p. 105; 34 Hen. II, p. 142); and in 1195, Geoffrey fitz Peter, £48 (7 Ric. I, p. 107). The names of the accountants are either chief justices of the forest, or, at least, justices of the forest.

39. Pipe Roll 6 Hen. II, p. 50; 9 Hen. II, p. 6; 16 Hen. II, p. 61; 18 Hen. II, p. 17.

40. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, I, 31bGoogle Scholar.

41. fitz Nigel, Richard, Dialogus, pp. 56–59Google Scholar.

42. PRO, Forest Proceedings, Treasury of the Receipt, 235; Pipe Roll 14 Hen. II, p. 44.

43. Roger of Howden, Chronica, II, 243–44Google Scholar.

44. Pipe Roll 16 Hen. II, p. 53.

45. Ramsay, James H., The Angevin Empire (London, 1903), pp. 194–95Google Scholar.

46. Pipe Roll 14 John, p. xxiv. In her intensive study of the Forest of the Dean, Margaret Bazeley reached a conclusion about its economic importance that agrees with the emphasis given here: “No doubt there were many occasions, more especially in the twelfth century, when the King's hunting has left no record; but even so, it is unlikely that the Forest of the Dean should have derived its primary importance from its character as a royal playground. Almost from the first, its main value must have lain in the financial opportunities which it afforded to the crown.” (p. 169).

47. These prohibitions are found in the Assi2e of Woodstock and the Forest Assize of 1198. Pipe Roll 31 Hen. II, pp. 123, 148.

48. The Memoranda Roll … of the First Year … of King John (1199-1200) [Pipe Roll Society, n. s., XXI] (London, 1943), p. 68Google Scholar.

49. Roger of Howden, Chronica, IV, 144–45Google Scholar.

50. Turner, , Select Pleas, pp. 1, 4, 6–7Google Scholar.

51. Ibid., p. 5.

52. Ibid., pp. 1, 4.

53. Ibid., pp. 2, 6.

54. See chapter 17 of the Assize of Clarendon in Benedict of Peterborough, Chronicle, I, cliiiGoogle Scholar.

55. Turner, p. 4.

56. Ibid., pp. 3-4.

57. Ibid., p. 3.

58. Ibid., p. 8.