Chapter XVIII: 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.