Forest law

The old law relating to the forest, under which the most horrid tyrannies were exercised, in the confiscation of lands for the royal forests. Hallam’s Const. Hist. ch. 8. The privilege of reserving the forest for the use of the sovereign alone was instituted by the Saxon kings, who, however, occasionally conferred it upon a subject by special license. Under the Norman kings the national property became a royal demesne. The document called Conatitutionea Cnuti de Foresta, attributed to Cnute, la a forgery. The law which it contains Is the early Anglo-Norman law of William I. Brunner, Sources of English Law, 2 Sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H, 18. Forest laws were made absolutely at the king’s will. Mrs. J. R. Green, 1 id, 113. There were four chiefs of the forest (primarii) who administered Justice; under these were four mediocres who undertook the care of the venison and vert; and who in turn superintended two tithing-men whose duties were to care for the vert and venison by night and who, if slaves, became free on being appointed to this office. Complaints against the mediocres and the tithing-men were heard by the primarii and by them disposed of, and complaints against the primarii were dealt with by the king himself; Hallam, Anc. Laws and Inst. sec. 10. If a freeman used violence towards a primarius of the forest, he losthis freedom and his goods; if a villein, he lost his right hand; and for a repetition of the offence by either, he forfeited his life. Offences against the yert were dealt with leniently as compared with those against the venison, and there was also a difference In the penalties imposed for killing a royal beast and a beast of the forest; thus for killing the latter, a freeman was. fined, while for the former he lost his liberty. A alfference was also recognized according to the rank of the offender, as, if a bishop, abbot, or baron killed a royal beast he was subject to a fine, at the pleasure of the king, while for the same offence a slave lost his life. Certain animals are enumerated In this doc;ument for the killing of which no penalty was attached, and the wild boar is especially mentioned as never having been held to be an animal of venison; id, sec. 27. forest law did not seem to be a subject of complaint from any class of people, but William the Conquer* or soon altered this condition of affairs. The hunting of wild beasts of the forest being his chief pastime he immediately claimed absolute and exclusive right to all forests then existing, and allowed no one to enter without his license; he extended those already existing by laying waste (afforestation) whole towns and villages; and he devastated vast tracts in Hampshire and Yorkshire to form the new forest, “denuding the land of both God and man to make of it a home for wild beasts.*’ Lappenburg, England, under the Anglo-Norman Kings 214. Sometimes he drove out the people and sometimes permitted them to remain under severe laws. The Conqueror appointed new Judges of the forests to supersede the former judges and keepers; he created the of Bce of chief Justice of the forest and the verderers subordinate to the chief Justice, who could convict offenders and send them before the chief justice, but who had no power to punish such offenders. The verderers sat at Swanimote and all within the limits of the forest were bound to attend this court thrice a year, and to serve on Inquests and juries when.required. The agiatatora, the /orestarii, and the regardera were also appointed by the Normans as officers of the forest, but without judicial powers. The highest penalty enforced for offences in the forest during the reign of William I. seems to have been the loss of a limb or the eyes of the offender, and this was enforced and fines were Imposed for the most trivial offences; Sax. Chronicles. These abuses were continued until about the year 1216, the most extensive afforestations having been made under Richard I. and John. In the 47th and 48th clauses of the great charter certain provisions are found relating to the forest, but although the belief that John Issued a charter distinct from these clauses is very ancient, it is erroneous; the document given in Matthleu Paris under the name, being the forest charter of Henry III. with an altered salutation. Stubbs* Charters 338. In the great charter the heavy burden of attending the forest courts is remitted and this provision was conferred in the charta de foresta, and thus the exact analogy established by Henry II. between the courts of the shire and those of the forest was abolished. The charta de foresta disafforested the lands appropriated by Richard and John and all those seized by Henry II. which had operated to the injury of the land-owners and outside of the royal demesne; it greatly mitigated the punishment for destroying game, and provided that for that offence no man should lose life or limb, and that his punishment shall be limited to a fine or imprisonment for a year and a day; the following curious provision occurs in cap. 11.: “Whatsoever archbishop, bishop, earl, or baron coming to us at our commandment, passing by our forest, it shall be lawful for him to take and kill one or two of our deer by view of our forester. If he be present; or else he shall cause him to blow a horn for him, that he seem not to steal our deer; and likewise they shall do returning from us,” and this clause is still unrepealed. By reason of “the cruel and insupportable hardships which those forest laws created for the subject,” says Blackstone, “we find the immunities of charta de foresta as warmly contended for, and extorted from, the k,lng with as much difficulty, as those of Magna Charta Itself”; 2 Com. 416. After this charter ‘was issued, the forest laws not being enforced fell gradually into desuetude, until Charles I. attempted to revive them in order to replenish his exchequer, and the forest court of justice seat fined certain persons heavily for alleged encroachments on the ancient boundaries of t)ie forest, although the right to such land was fortified by several centuries of possession. This was one of the first grievances on which the long parliament acted, and since the passing of the act “certainty of forests'*; 16 Car. I. c. 16, where it was declared that all land should be held disafforested where no Jusest have practically ceased, and by acts 14 and 15 Viet 0. 48, 16 and 17 Vlct c. 42, and 18 and 20 Viet c. 82, many of the royal forests have been disafforested on the plea of public necessity. See Hallam, Hist Eng. Const; Stubbs* Charters; Inderwick, King’s Peace; Turner, Select Pleas of the Forest; 1 Holdsw. Hist E. L. 340; EncycL Laws of England; Manwood, Forest Laws; Stubbs, Const. Hist Charter of Forest; Charta pb For- BSTA; Forest Courts. In 1851, the greater part of the control of the forests was given to the commissioner of woods, forests and land revenues.

The system or body of old law relating to the royal forests.

Defined under Forest in Black's Law Dictionary.

The system or body of old law relating to the royal forests.

A system of law anciently established in England, for the government of the royal forests, and admmistered by courts and officers of its own. That it existed before the Norman conquest appears from the laws or constitutions of Canute, which have been preserved; but it was first established with all its oppressive peculiarities by the princes of the Norman line. Spelman, voc. Foresta, 2 Steph. Com. 18. Its seventies and abuses were mitigated by the Carta de Foresta, 9 Hen.