Chapter VI: Hounds and Hunting

The sixth article of the Charter of the Forest (1217) dealt with the old custom of the lawing of dogs. The inquisition or view of the lawing of dogs in the forest was for the future to be made every third year, and he whose dog was then found to be unlawed was to be fined three shillings. This mutilation of dogs, termed lawing or expeditation, to prevent them chasing the game, is said to be as old as the time of Edward the Confessor. By the forest law of Henry II. it was done to mastiffs. The charter of 1217 laid down that the lawing was to consist in cutting off the three claws of the forefeet, without the ball. “The mastive,” says Manwood, “being brought to set one of his forefeet upon a piece of wood eight inches thick and a foot square, then one with a mallet, setting a chissell two inches broad upon the three clawes of his forefoot, at one blow doth smite them cleane off.”

This lawing, though originally intended only for mastiffs, was usually applied to all dogs in forest bounds. This was certainly the case in the forests of Rockingham, Pickering, and Essex. The right to have unlawed dogs was not unfrequently granted by the Crown to persons of position and influence. Thus the Canons of Waltham, the Bishop of London, and the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul’s had grants exempting their house dogs in Essex forest; whilst the Earl of Arundel and other laymen obtained complete exemption. It was the custom in some forests, as at Pickering, for outlying townships to pay a composition, termed in that forest “hungill” or “houndgeld,” for the purpose of securing immunity from lawing.

The dog of most common occurrence in forest proceedings is the greyhound (_leporarius_), which hunted by sight. By the Assize of Woodstock (1184), the keeping of greyhounds in the forest was forbidden. In the cases of venison trespass throughout the forests of England, the illicit hunting of deer with greyhounds, with or without bows and arrows, is the commonest charge. The last chapter of the Regard of 13 Henry III. directed inquiry to be made as to who had braches or greyhounds or anything else for doing harm to the king’s deer. Lists of those keeping greyhounds are sometimes found amongst the extant eyre rolls. Greyhounds found in a forest, or straying in pursuit of deer, were sent forthwith to the particular justice of that forest. Thus a number of greyhounds in the charge of poachers, found in Rockingham forest in 1246, were sent by the foresters and verderers to Sir Robert Passclew, then justice of that forest. It is thought that the old greyhound was a larger and more powerful dog than that which we know by that name, and more nearly resembled our deerhound. Dr. Caius (_English Dogges_, 1576) applies the word to various breeds. He describes the greyhound as—

“A spare and bare kinde of dogge (of fleshe but not of bone);
some are of a greater sorte, and some of a lesser; some are
smooth skynned, and some are curled; the bigger thereof are
appoynted to hunt the bigger beasts, and the smaller serve to
hunt the smaller accordingly.”

Brache (_brachettus_) was the general term for hounds that hunted by scent (_odore sequentes_), and the bercelet (_bercelettus_) was a smaller hound of the same kind. The limehound (_limarius_) also hunted by scent, and the name may have been but an _alias_ for a bercelet. The limehound, or lymer, as it is termed by Twici and Caius, took its name from the line or thong by which it was held. Caius says this dog is in smelling irregular and in swiftness incomparable, and that it taketh the prey “with a jolly quickness.”

The mastiff (_mastivus_) is of fairly frequent occurrence in forest proceedings of the thirteenth and subsequent centuries; it seems to have corresponded to our dog of the same name. It was large and strong, and evidently employed chiefly for the protection of property and person. It was used for the destruction of wolves, and was capable of hunting and pulling down both red and fallow deer.

_Strakur_ was the name of a kind of dog in favourite use among Cumberland deer-poachers, according to an eyre roll of 15 Edward I. But it was not merely a North-country word, for we have met with it twice in Wiltshire forest proceedings.

Velters (_valtri_, _veltri_, or _vautrarii_) were running hounds akin to but separate from the old greyhound. Blount says that it was a mongrel hound used for the chase of the wild boar.

In addition to the rough division of dogs of the forest into those that hunted by sight and those that hunted by scent, terms are commonly found, in the forest proceedings, for dogs that hunted different kinds of game. Thus those that were used for hunting the red deer were termed _cervericii canes_, or hart hounds. They were a breed of running hounds, and were not used exclusively for hart hunting. In the fifteenth century the king had a master of hart hounds.

_Damericii canes_ were the buckhounds for hunting the fallow deer. Small packs of these buckhounds are frequently mentioned as accompanying the royal huntsman of Henry III. and Edward I.

The roe deer were occasionally hunted, and _canes cheverolerez_ are mentioned several times as being sent to forests by King John. On one occasion Adam, his huntsman, was accompanied by a pack of seventeen roehounds, and on another by one of twenty-four.

_Porcerecii canes_ is obviously the name of hounds used for hunting wild boars. We have met with the term in several rolls of John, Henry III., and Edward I., among dogs dispatched to the royal forests.

_Lutericii canes_ is the equivalent for otterhounds. Mr. Turner cites their occurrence in a wardrobe account of 18 Edward I. They are also mentioned in the same reign in the Peak Forest, and occur in connection with Clarendon forest in the fifteenth century.

_Haericii canes_ denoted a particular kind of running hound, and is usually rendered “harriers.” There is said, however, to be no real philological connection between the term and hares, and they were certainly used in hunting deer, as is abundantly proved by Mr. Turner.

Dogs are frequently distinguished by their colour in cases of venison trespass. In the case of a Rockingham trespass of 1246 with five greyhounds, one was white, another black, a third fallow, a fourth black-spotted, and the fifth tawny (_teyngre_). Other terms for greyhound colour in forest proceedings are ticked (_tetchelatus_), tiger-marked or brindled (_tigrus_), and red (_ruffus_ and _rubens_). In a presentment of the Lancashire forest of Quernmore a greyhound is described as being red with a black muzzle (_cum nigro mussell_). Occasionally a dog’s name is entered on the proceedings, as was the case with a certain black greyhound in Peak Forest, called “Collyng.” The name occurs in poaching charges at two different courts.

The early treatises on hunting pay great attention to the diseases of sporting dogs and their general treatment.

Frequent mention will be found in subsequent chapters of the general custom of allowing local foresters to kill one or two deer a year, when training their young dogs.

In Sir Henry Dryden’s edition of Twici (_vide infra_), there is a brief appendix on the various kinds of dogs used in hunting. He gives a plate, here reproduced, of outline sketches of dogs from illuminations of Gaston de Foix’s French treatise. Fig. 1 is the alant, or kind of mastiff, described as running swiftly but also following by scent. It was used in France chiefly for bears and boars. On account of its ferocity, it was generally kept muzzled. Fig. 2 is a gazehound, or greyhound. Fig. 3 is a lymer, or limehound, with hanging ears something like a bloodhound. Figs. 4 and 5 picture the brache or rache. This is usually represented in Gaston’s pictures as black and tan. It corresponded to our beagle.

The old seasons for forest hunting are almost invariably given wrongly in works or articles dealing with the subject; the errors were usually made through imagining that the English seasons coincided with those prevailing on the Continent. The true hunting times can, however, be gathered from original forest proceedings.

_Pinguedo_ was the term for the season of hunting the hart and the buck when they were fat, or, to use forest jargon, “in grease”; it extended from 24th June to 14th September.

_Fermisona_, or fermisone, was the period for hunting the hind and the doe, which lasted from 11th November to 2nd February. The summer hart or buck venison was considered much more of a delicacy than the winter hind or doe venison.

(See p. 50.)]

There are a variety of entries on the Close Rolls from the time of John to Edward II., relative to the dispatch of the king’s huntsmen and attendants and hounds to different forests, for the purpose of obtaining venison for the royal household; most of this was salted down on the spot and committed to the sheriff for delivery. A small selection of such cases, of the reigns of Edward I. and II., are cited here instead of under the respective forests. Entries of this kind make it quite clear that no large hunting staff or kennels were maintained in the actual forests; they were reserved for the king, and occasionally for his friends, the local foresters having only a few hounds in training for the use of the master of the forest.

On December 13th, 1275, Matthew de Columbariis, keeper of the forest of Clarendon, received orders to permit Henry de Candover, the king’s huntsman, to take twenty does for the king’s use against Christmas, and to give him due aid and counsel; certain of the king’s yeomen accompanied the huntsman. In 1280, when Philip de Candover was king’s huntsman, he received during his visit to Clarendon forest 2_s._ 6_d._ a day from the sheriff of Wilts for his wages, whilst the expenses of his horses and of the pack of twenty-six hounds and their two keepers (or berners) amounted to £18 13_s._ 4_d._ In the following year the pack numbered thirty-two, and the expenses were £24 15_s._ 1_d._

In November, 1313, the sheriff of Berks was ordered to pay to Robert le Squier, whom the king was sending to take eight hinds and six bucks in Windsor forest, with two berners, three ventrers, one berceletter, twenty-four running dogs, twelve greyhounds, and two bercelets, his wages, during his stay in his bailiwick, to wit 12_d._ a day, and 2_d._ a day for each of the berners, ventrers, and the berceletter, and 1½_d._ a day for each of the dogs, greyhounds, and bercelets. He was also to deliver him salt for the venison, and carriage for the same, to the king. There was another order to the sheriff of the like kind in June, 1314, and in July, 1316.

Edward II., in July, 1315, issued his mandate to the sheriff of Devonshire to pay to Robert Squier and David de Franketon, two of the royal yeomen, wages of 12_d._ a day, two berners and two ventrers 2_d._ a day, together with ½_d._ a day for each of twenty-four running dogs, and 1½_d._ a day for each of nine greyhounds, whilst they hunted for the king in Dartmoor Forest. He was also to provide salt and barrels, and carriage for the venison. At the same time, the keeper of Dartmoor Forest was ordered to permit Robert and David to take twenty harts.

In July, 1315, Edward II. (after giving like instruction to the sheriff of Somerset with regard to the forests of Neroche, Petherton, Mendip, and Selwood) ordered the sheriff of Devon to pay to the king’s yeomen, Robert Squier and David de Franketon, whom the king was sending with two berners, twenty-four running dogs, two ventrers, and nine greyhounds, to take venison in the forest of Exmoor, 12_d._ a day each whilst thus engaged, together with 2_d._ a day for each of the berners, and ½_d._ a day for each of the running dogs, and 2_d._ a day for each of the ventrers, with 1½_d._ a day for each greyhound. He has also to provide the yeoman with salt and barrels for the venison, and to provide for the carriage of the same. At the same time the keeper of Exmoor received orders to permit the king’s huntsmen to take twenty harts out of the forest. Exmoor was evidently at that time the exclusive haunt of the red deer; the keepers of Neroche, Selwood, and Petherton were ordered to supply so many bucks (_i.e._ fallow deer), whilst the keeper of Mendip was to supply twelve bucks and twelve harts.

The berner (_bernarius_) was the title of the man in charge of running hounds; the ventrer or fewterer (_veltrarius_) had charge of the greyhounds; and the berceletter was responsible for the bercelets or hounds that hunted by scent. The reason for salting down the venison was because of the difficulty of obtaining fresh meat in the winter season, when root crops were unknown, and the expenses of fodder for all kinds of cattle were so serious. In a few of the forests large larders were maintained, for the express purpose of salting the venison when the summer season of hunting was over. In such cases there was, of course, no necessity to order the sheriff to see to the salting or pay for the carriage of the meat to the royal household. There were such larders in Duffield Frith and in Needwood forest. An example of a year’s accounts, containing references to the local salting, and to the general distribution of the venison, are here given.

The master forester of Needwood, for the year 1313-14, was John de Myneers. His venison accounts for the year show that 95 fat bucks and 12 does were killed in the twelvemonth. Ten of the bucks served for the king’s hospitality at Tutbury, ten more were sent to the king at Melburne, and twenty-three bucks and six does to the king at Castle Donnington. Six does were sent to Bagworth for the hospitality of Robert de Holand. Twenty-one bucks were distributed, on the king’s warrant, to John de Ashborne, Walter de Montgomery, and ten other gentlemen. The remainder were salted down for winter use in the larder. The master forester’s accounts include 19_s._ 5_d._ for 4 qrs. 6 lbs. of salt for the larder, whilst 4_s._ 4½_d._ were paid as wages of the larderer for five weeks’ work.

Nicholas de Hungerford was at the same time (1313-14) master forester of Duffield Frith. His general accounts for the forest showed receipts of £15 16_s._ 0½_d._ Of this amount £9 2_s._ 6_d._ was paid in wages, 16_s._ 8_d._ for salt for salting the venison, and 1 stag and 31 bucks and does in the forest larder at Belper. The deer taken this year, by order of the master forester, under the warrants of the Earl of Lancaster, were 1 stag, 41 bucks, and 25 does. In addition to this, Lord Robert de Holand—the foundations of whose great moated house still remain within the Hulland ward—was allowed to take 20 bucks for the earl’s larder. The master forester paid 9_s._ 8_d._ for the carriage of 33 bucks from Belper to Kenilworth, and 14_s._ for the carriage of 12 bucks from Belper to Castle Donnington, and 4 bucks to Melburne, in accordance with letters from the earl.

It was the custom in every forest to cut what was usually termed browsewood or clear browse for the sustenance of the deer in the winter season. The references to this practice are innumerable and interesting throughout almost every class of forest proceedings. Manwood says:—

“When there is not sufficient foode for the deere, neyther of
grasse nor of such fruites, then the forresters that have the
charge of the wild beasts, must provide browsewood to be cut
downe for them to feed upon.”

(See p. 65.)]

He also states that the lord of a forest might enter, by his officers, into any man’s wood within the forest limits, to cut such browsewood for the deer in winter. It was usual to cut it in the late autumn, and store it ready for sprinkling about when the severe weather or frosts came. It was supposed to be cut from twigs that were not more than an inch in circumference, nor heavier than a deer may readily turn up with his horns. In all forests the browsewood seems to have chiefly consisted of oak twigs; but evidence is cited showing that holly and ivy, as well as maple, hazel, thorn, and ash were occasionally used for this purpose.

In the more favourite royal forests, such as Rockingham, Clarendon, and Windsor, a certain amount of hay was also used for the winter feeding of the deer at an early period, but in later forest history hay-feeding became commoner.

Everything in the forest was made to give way to the deer, and where hedges or enclosures of any kind were permitted for the cultivation of crops, they had always to be constructed sufficiently low to allow of the ingress and egress of the deer.

The owners of lands adjoining the forest were in the habit, if they had a grant of imparking, of making certain contrivances called deer-leaps or salteries (_saltatoria_). These were so contrived that the deer could readily leap into the park over a fence of moderate height, but were prevented from returning by a steep upward slope in the ditch inside the park fence. Occasionally such deer-leaps were deliberately constructed in parks within a forest for the convenience of catching or herding the deer. But there are various instances of deer-leaps being presented to the justices in eyre as a nuisance to the forest. If it was within a short distance of the forest, they had power to order its removal. At the Cumberland eyre of 1285, a presentment was made that Isabel of Clifford had a park with two deer-leaps, one of which was a mile (_leuca_), and the other a mile and a half from the forest of Quinfield. At an inquisition at Somerton, in 1364, the jurors complained of two deer-leaps three miles distant from the forest, as detrimental to the king’s game and contrary to the assize of the forest.

BUCKSTALLS, etc.—There are various references in forest proceedings to buckstalls. A buckstall was an extended trap or toil for deer, of which nets usually formed a component part; but the definition generally given—“a net for taking deer”—is not sufficient. Earth ramparts and wattled work were also generally used in its construction; it was, in fact, a kind of cunning enclosure wherein the deer could be taken alive, as is implied in the term deer-hay. A “buckstalle vel dere-hay” is named in presentments of Clarendon forest.

Matthew de Hathersage, a baron, was presented at the eyre of 1251 for having a buckstall in his great wood at Hathersage, which was distant barely two bow-shots from the king’s forest of the Peak. The baron pleaded that his ancestors had always had a buckstall in their wood, and that formerly it was still nearer to the bounds of Peak Forest. The upshot of the matter was that the decision went against Matthew, who had to pay a fine of twenty marks.

The master forester of Duffield Frith was instructed to see that there were no buckstalls set upon the borders of that forest, and the ministers of each ward were enjoined to present at the woodmote the setting of “any haye or buckstakes, trappes, or springes for deere.”

Among the claims at the Pickering eyre of 1334, the prior of Malton claimed that he and his men were quit of all buckstall service, which he explained to mean a duty laid on all other forest residents of assembling for the purpose of collecting the deer into an enclosure which they have to make for that purpose, and failing, are heavily fined. The prior failed, however, to make this part of his claim good. The prior of Ellerton at the same time claimed a like exemption from buckstall attendance, and on the production of a charter of Henry III. his claim in this respect was allowed.

An instance occurred at the forest pleas of Pickering in 1488, in which the term buckstall was used simply for snaring-nets. It was then presented that one Thomas Thomson, a yeoman, with a number of unknown persons, entered Blandsby park at midnight with a horse laden _cum retibus vocatis buckstalles et ropes_, killing about twenty does. An Act of Parliament, a few years later, prohibited anyone who was not the owner of a park, chase, or forest, using a buckstall under a penalty of £10.

There were various devices, apart from the buckstall or enclosure, used for the snaring of deer. In 1246, the forester of Brigstock park, Rockingham forest, found two men setting five snares of horsehair for taking fawns or hares. The men were taken before the verderers, and gave pledges to appear at the next eyre. In 1251, a trap was found set in the same park. Robert, chaplain of Sudborough, was suspected, and on his house being searched the woodwork of a trap with the cord broke was found; on the cord was deer’s hair. In 1255, a snare, consisting of four cords stretched round a dish of water, was found in the wood of Bassethawe (Rockingham). The foresters watched all night to see if anyone would come, but in vain. On the following day an inquisition was held by the four neighbouring townships, before the stewards of the forest and one of the verderers. Sir Robert Basset, the owner of the wood, found twelve pledges to produce Peter, the forester of the wood, whenever required; the cords were handed to the verderer to produce at the next eyre, and the wood of Bassethawe was taken into the king’s hands.

The commonest kind of deer snares seem to have taken two forms, occasionally both combined; the one was the intertwining of cords between stout stakes in the midst of a usual deer track, and the other the suspending of halters or looped ropes in the trees overhead to catch the deer by their heads or horns. In 1260, five workmen employed in Guildford park in mending the pales and cutting down oaks for that purpose, set cords to entangle the deer that came to feed on the fresh oak leaves. The cords were found by the park-keepers, and the men bound over to appear at the next eyre. There was an interval of ten years before an eyre was held, and meanwhile two of the delinquents had died. The justices, in 1270, fined the other three half a mark each.

Two labourers in Duffield Frith were committed, in 1321, by the verderers to appear before the justices to answer a charge of having set cart-ropes in an opening in the pale fence of Shottle park, with halters suspended in the trees overhead. There is another instance of a like snaring of deer, with a cartrope and smaller cart gear, at Weybridge, Hunts, in 1455.

NETTING IN WOODS AND STREAMS (FOURTEENTH CENTURY)]

The venison indictments at the New Windsor eyre of 1488, included a charge against Thomas à Clowe, of Clewer, and four others, of having fixed halters (_capistra_) and other snares in a place called Brodeles, and there with a halter caught, suspended, and killed a doe, whilst others after a like fashion had killed a red deer’s fawn. They were convicted, and ordered to appear before the justices at Westminster within fifteen days.

The forest proceedings at the Waltham swainmotes of the seventeenth century mention various devices then in use in Essex for the killing of deer, such as “engines called wyers, engines made of ropes, withes, dear-hays, buckstalls, and tramels, and other nets.” Mr. Fisher tells us that one of these nets, described as a “thief net,” was baited with bottles, flowers, and looking-glasses; an apparatus designed to practise upon the curiosity of the deer. One man was presented for pitching halters about a grove; another for “hanging a lyne in a creepe-hole to ketch a deer.”

Among the Cotton collection of the British Museum (Tib. A. vii.), is a fourteenth-century illuminated manuscript called _The Pilgrim_. The pilgrim meets with every variety of temptation at the hands of the devil. Entering a forest district, he is tempted by the Evil One to catch both fish and game, and is taught how to net and snare both river and woods. The picture of this incident (Plate VIII.) gives a realistic idea of the commoner forms of deer snaring.

CHEMINAGE and FENCE MONTH.—It has been disputed whether the term “cheminage”—that is to say, way-leave or passage through a forest in return for payment—was ever used apart from the fence month. In particulars to be inquired into by the jury of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the honour of Pickering, one of the articles runs:—

“Whoe receiveth the Chiminage yearlie within the foreste,
namelie, a tax upon cartes and cariages, traveylinge over the
foreste in fence moneth, formerlie sometimes xiii_s._ iiii_d._
per annum, sometimes more?”

Nevertheless, at various dates, the term “cheminage” is frequently used without any limitation to a particular month, and is perhaps best defined as a toll for wayfarage through a forest.

The _chymynagium_ of Duffield Frith pertained to Robert Ferrers, Earl of Derby, in the reign of Stephen. Henry II. granted cheminage throughout the whole forest of Pickering to the burgesses of Scarborough, a right confirmed on several subsequent occasions.

The fourteenth section of the Charter of the Forest, 1217, provided that it was only a forester-of-fee who had a right of cheminage, namely, for carriage by cart for the half-year, 2_d._, and the same for the other half-year; for a horse that bare loads, ½_d._ the half-year. But this fee was only to be taken of those who came as merchants from outside foresters’ bailiwick; cheminage was not to be taken for any other carriage by cart. Those who bore on their back brushwood, bark, or charcoal, though it was their living, were to pay no cheminage to the king’s foresters unless they took it in the royal demesne woods.

The confirmation granted by Henry III. in 1256, to the burgesses of Scarborough, stated that they were to be quit of cheminage throughout the whole forest of Pickering, so that they might carry timber, brushwood, turf, heather, fern, and all else freely, wherever and whenever they pleased, except during the fence month. The priors of Malton and of Ellerton established their claims to be free of any payment, great or small, for the passage of their loaded carts, wagons, or pack-saddles throughout Pickering forest. The hospital of Cricklade had a like exemption in the Wiltshire forest of Braydon.

The fence month, or in Latin _mensis vetitus_, which lasted from fifteen days before Midsummer to fifteen days after, was the special time when the deer required quiet and protection, for it was just about the usual time for fawning. The whole principle of cheminage was to prevent forest roads being freely used, so as to check disturbance of the king’s game. These precautions were naturally redoubled during this particular season. In several forests agistment of pigs, and sometimes of cattle and horses, was permitted during the fence month, but in all such cases the agistment fee was very largely increased. So too with cheminage.

THE FOUR BEASTS OF VENERY

HART, WOLF, WILD BOAR, AND HARE]

In certain forests the money for way-leave was materially increased during that month; whilst in some cases, as at Cranborne Chase and in Pickering forest during its later period, such fees were only collected during that time. It was also customary in some forest districts, as at Rockingham, to allow the different townships within the forest to be rated at a certain sum, in proportion to the number of their carts, for way-leave during the prohibited period. In the stricter forests all passage for carts, etc., was absolutely forbidden to all outsiders in this month.

A toll of 4_d._ for every cart or wagon, and a 1_d._ for every packhorse crossing over Harnham Bridge, near Salisbury, into Cranborne Chase, was paid as a check upon travelling during the fence month, as late as the early part of last century. This toll was collected by virtue of a warrant from Lord Rivers, and during the month a pair of deer’s antlers were fixed on the bridge as a warning to travellers.

HUNTING TREATISES.—Twici’s _Le Art de Venerie_, written in Norman-French, is the oldest book on hunting in England. William Twici was huntsman to Edward II., and wrote this short treatise, _circa_ 1325, at the end of the reign. There is a record on the Close Rolls of July, 1322, of Twici being sent by the king to the forests of Lancaster to take fat venison, with a larderer, two berners, four ventrers, a page, twenty greyhounds, and forty harthounds; the sheriff was to pay Twici 7½_d._ a day for his own wages, 2_d._ a day to each of the berners and ventrers, 1_d._ a day to the page, and ½_d._ a day for each of the hounds. From a later Close Roll entry we find that William Twici died, as a royal pensioner, in the abbey of Reading in the spring of 1328. It may therefore fairly be assumed that he wrote his short treatise when in retirement at Reading towards the close of his life.

An early English version of this tract, wherein the name of John Gyfford is associated with Twici, is among the British Museum MSS. (Cott. MSS. Vesp. B. xii.). This was privately printed by the late Sir Henry Dryden, Bart., in 1843, with introduction, notes, and illustrations, making a book of eighty pages.

_The Master of Game_, written between 1406 and 1413 by one of Edward III.’s grandsons, Edward, the second Duke of York, is a translation from the French of the celebrated hunting-book _Livre de Chasse_. The author of this French treatise was Count Gaston de Foix, who began to write it on 1st May, 1387. Of the thirty-six chapters of _The Master of Game_, only the last three, and a paragraph at the opening of the first chapter or prologue are original. The titles of the last three chapters are: (1) “How the hert shuld be snaryd with the lymer, and ronne to and slayn with strength”; (2) “How an hunter shuld seke and fynde the hare with rennyng houndes, and slee here with strength”; and (3) “Of the Ordinaunce of the maner of hundyng whan the king wil hunt in foreste or parke for the hert with bowes, greyhoundes and stable.” It will therefore be seen that, interesting as this translation of a French book is, it throws but little, if any, light on ordinary English hunting and forest customs, for that which it does state in the words of the Duke of York, only applies to the formal hunting of the Court on a grand scale. It is the lack of knowledge of original and contemporary forest proceedings in England that has led so many writers astray. When purporting to write about England, they have really been writing about France, and the Continental customs relative to forests and forest hunting differed as widely in mediæval days from those in use in our own country, as does “sport” in the two countries at the present time.

The best manuscript of _The Master of Game_ is the one in the British Museum (Cott. MSS. Vesp. B. xii.), written about 1440. It is from this copy that several of the illustrations of this volume are taken.

THE FOUR BEASTS OF CHASE

FALLOW DEER, ROE DEER, FOX, AND MARTIN]

Prefixed to this manuscript is the English rendering of the Twici tract (first printed in Wright and Halliwell’s _Reliquiæ Antiquæ_ in 1541), whilst the two opening folios contain the following rhymes, the work of the fifteenth-century transcriber, which are rendered more valuable by the three small groups of wild animals of English forests, here reproduced:—

Alle suche dysport as voydith ydilnesse,
It syttyth every gentilman to knowe,
For myrthe annexed is to gentilnesse,
Qwerfore among alle othyr as y trowe
To knowe the crafte of hontyng, and to blowe
As thys book shall witnesse is one the beste,
For it is holsum, plesaunt, and honest.
And for to settle yonge hunterys in the way,
To venery y caste me fyrst to go,
Of wheche iiij bestis be that is to say,
The hare, the herte, the wulfhe, the wylde boor also,
Of venery for sothe there be no moe;
And so it shewith here in porteteure
Where every best is set in hys figure.
And ther ben othyr bestis v of chase,
The buk the first, the do the secunde,
The fox the thryde, whiche ofte hath hard grace,
The forthe the martyn, and the last the Roo.
And sothe to say there be no mo of tho.
And cause why, that men shulde the more be sur’
They shewen here also in portreture.
Is this like as lecteture put thyng in mende
Of lerned men ryghte so a peyntyde fygure,
Rememberyth men unlernyd in his kende;
And in wryghtyng for soothe the same I fynde.
Therfore, sith lerned may lerne in this book
Be ymages shal the lewd if he wole look.

And iij othyr bestis ben of gret disport
That ben neyther of venery ne chace.
In huntynge ofte thei doe gret comfort,
As aftir ye shal here in othyr place.
The grey is one therof with hyse slepy pace,
The cat an othyr, the otre one also,
Now rede this book, and ye shal fynde yt so.

In the light of these rhymes and their classification of the wild animals, it at once becomes apparent whence Manwood derived his misleading lists, so continuously cited, of (legal) beasts of the forest and of the chase.

The four beasts of venery—the hart, wolf, wild boar, and hare—were _sylvestres_; that is, they spent their days in the woods and coppices, and were taken by what was considered true hunting, being tracked and roused by the lymers or lymer hounds, and afterwards pursued by the pack (Plate IX.).

But the fallow and roe deer, with the fox and martin, were beasts of chase; that is, they were _campestres_, or found in the open country by day, and therefore required none of the niceties of tracking and harbouring in the thickets, but were roused straight away by the packs of hounds (Plate X.).

The third group, neither of venery nor chase, were the badger, wild cat, and otter (Plate XI.).

_The Boke of Saint Albans_ is the earliest English printed treatise on hunting. It was first issued at St. Albans in 1486. The author, according to the second edition, was Dame Julyana Bernes. Two other tracts, the one on hawking and the other on heraldry, were published with it, whilst to the second edition (1496) was added a fourth tract on fishing. This rhymed account of hunting is based partly on Twici and partly on the Duke of York’s version of _Livre de Chasse_; it possesses no originality.

_The Noble Art of Venerie or Hunting_, by George Turbervile, of which the first edition was issued in 1575 and the second in 1611, is almost a literal translation of Jacques du Fouilloux’s _La Venerie_, first printed in 1560. The illustrations are also identical with those of the French work, save for one or two exceptions, and several of them are made to do service more than once with different headings. The book is only of small service as an exponent of English hunting customs.

Sir Thomas Cockayne’s _Short Treatise of Hunting_ is a very rare and delightful tract of thirty-two pages, published in 1591. It is most genuinely English throughout, and gives the writer’s own experiences of the different kinds of hunting then prevalent. He recommends that roe deer should be hunted from the beginning of March till Whitsuntide.

The seventeenth century supplied two works of some celebrity on the sport of hunting. That prolific writer, Gervase Markam, brought out the first edition of _Country Contentments_ in 1615, wherein hunting holds the foremost place. Before the end of the century this work had passed through fifteen editions. The second was _The Gentleman’s Recreation_, compiled by Richard Blane, a literary hack, and first issued in folio in 1686. Its chief value is in the plates, which aptly illustrate the sporting costume of that period.

In the eighteenth century books and essays on hunting multiplied; but the one memorable production, first printed in 1781, was Beckford’s charming and scholarly work, _Thoughts upon Hunting_.

HUNTING COSTUMES.—One of the most valuable features of Sir Henry Dryden’s annotated Twici is the discussion on the costume of foresters, huntsmen, and their attendants. The plates illustrative of their dress are borrowed from that rare little treatise. Royalty and the nobility hunted on horseback, wearing their usual riding dress, as is evidenced by a great variety of illuminated manuscripts. The king’s huntsman was also usually mounted, and there was generally one riding forester to each forest; but the ordinary class of huntsmen, berners, varlets, etc., were on foot. In the thirteenth century they are generally represented (p. 182) as wearing close-fitting caps, and tied under the chin; they were probably of leather, not of cloth, as suggested by Sir Henry Dryden. Their long loose robes seem unsuitable for active work, but they were perhaps more closely girt for action than artists cared, with an eye for flowing lines, to represent them. The foremost, with horse, represents the huntsman, and his attendants carry respectively a boar-spear and a longbow.

THE THREE BEASTS OF SPORT

BADGER, WILD CAT, AND OTTER]

The two figures of the fourteenth century (p. 238) are taken from the representation in Stothard’s _Monumental Effigies_ of the highly interesting wall-painting, now almost obliterated, at the back of the canopied recess over Sir Oliver Ingham’s tomb at Ingham church, Norfolk. He died in 1344. Both figures wear cowls, or caps and short capes in one. In shape they resemble the camail in armour of that period; and they were probably of cloth, as they were coloured green in the painting. The short jupon of the figures on the left, also coloured green, is open at the sides to the hips, where a few buttons close the upper part of the slit. The legs were grey in the painting, and were probably worsted trunk-hose. The brass-studded bawdrick was of red leather. Four arrows show from a quiver worn at the back, and the longbow is held in the left hand. The attachments of the horn to the bawdrick and of the quiver to the body is not shown, and had probably disappeared when the drawing was made. The figure on the right, in the act of stringing his bow, is attired after much the same fashion, but he wears a longer coat buttoned down the breast, also painted green, and round the waist is a brown leather quiver belt.

The fourteenth-century figures on page 55 are taken from an illustration in the Phillipps MSS. copy of Gaston de Foix, and show a considerable similarity between the hunting costume of England and France. Figure 1 in this picture, having unharboured a buck, has coiled the lymer’s cord round his arm; a white leather scrip or bag is attached to a black belt; the coat is green, and the camail and stockings red. Figure 2 is a berner, dressed much the same as the harbourer, but having wide sleeves to his coat. Figure 3 represents a berner or harbourer on his walks in the wood with lymer and cord; his coat is green, and his red cowl has a dagged ornamental appendage.

At Newland, Gloucestershire, is the defaced fifteenth-century coarse stone effigy of Jenkin Wyrall, forester-of-fee in Dean forest, who died in 1457.

The two illustrations given of this tomb show the forester wearing a peculiar loose cap, folded in plaits and knotted at the top. He wears a loose frock or jupon, with full sleeves and a short skirt, trunk-hose, and low boots. The horn on the right side is small, whilst on the left side is slung, by double straps, a short hanger or hunting sword. His feet appropriately rest on a brache or hound.

Sir Henry Dryden was mistaken in considering this “the only effigy of a forester in hunting costume in England.” In the church of Skegby, near Mansfield, is the fourteenth-century stone effigy of one who must have been a forester-of-fee or some forest minister of Sherwood forest. The photographic plate (No. XIX.) gives a vivid picture of his dress. He wears a close-fitting cap, probably of leather; the tight-fitting sleeves of his inner jerkin show at the wrists through the short hanging sleeves of the outer garment, and over it he wears a tippet that had doubtless a cowl at the back. A hunter’s horn hangs at the right side, suspended from a strap over the left shoulder. The feet rest on a hound.

The quaint figures on page 89 are drawn from scenes in pargeting work on the George Inn, Forster’s (or Forester’s) Booth, Northumberland, dated 1637, on the edge of the old forest of Whittlewood. The man in front with a spear is leading a fox by a chain which his greyhound has caught, whilst the dog is coursing a hare. The other man is blowing the mort at the capture of a hart by a brache. The dress may be left to speak for itself. Unlike the other figures illustrated, both men wear leather gauntlets.