of the game. The proper term for such an offence is a Nuisance of the forest. There are three sorts of nuisance,--the first was called a Common Nuisance, as, for example, neglect to repair a highway, which not only inconvenienced the dwellers in the forest, but, by compelling them to wander from the road, "disquieted the wild beasts." The second, termed Special Nuisance, was any offence which directly affected the game, and meant unlawfully slaying it in any way whatever ; and the third, called General Nuisance, included all offences which directly or indirectly affected the well-being of the "venison," and also included everything tending to the destruction of the “vert,” such as Waste-cutting down vert without licence, or without view of a forester; Assart-plucking up trees by the roots, for the purpose of making arable land, a most heinous crime; Purpresture-making any manner of encroachment on the forest, either by building or inclosure, or unlawfully using any liberty or privilege; Surcharging overstocking the forest by putting out more beasts to common than the commoner had a right to put out, or by putting out so many beasts that there was not sufficient pasture left for the deer; Wrongful agistment -turning beasts into the demesne woods of the king without licence of the forest officers.

The punishments for these last two offences were severe, being fine or imprisonment, and in some cases forfeiture of the beasts to the king; and they must have come very heavily on the commoners, especially as theoretically afforestation did not, according to Manwood, "abridge or prejudice the right of any man to have common in any waste soil or other place where they used to have common before such afforestation." Practically, however, the common rights became of little value, and there is a resolution of the judges, quoted by Lord Coke, to the effect that "The commoner had no right, except to the surplusage over and above the com

petent and sufficient pasture and feeding of the game; and if the owner of the game suffer it to increase, so that there is no surplusage, then the commoner has no right to put out any beasts to common. However, the relative rights of the Crown and the commoner have, from their very nature, never been precisely ascertained. In the event of a direct conflict between the forestal rights and the commoner's rights, the forestal rights were dominant in law, as the commoners might be punished for stocking the forest with cattle to such an extent as to deprive the deer of sufficient herbage, whilst the commoners had no legal remedy against the Crown for keeping in the forest a superabundance of deer.

Attention was drawn in Parliament last session to the commoners' rights in the New Forest, during the discussion on the New Forest Bill. In this case the grievances of the commoners were not, as in ancient times, occasioned by the deer, for they were removed in 1851, but by the arbitrary manner in which the Office of Woods exercised the powers of planting possessed by the Crown, under certain Acts of Parliament, known as the Plantation Acts. The commonable rights in the New Forest consist of common of pasture, common of turbary (or taking turves), common of estover (or fuel), certain rights of pannage (or feeding swine on acorns and beech-mast), and also a right to take marl from pits. Rather more than half the number of commoners are small freeholderslabourers whose comfort and independence depend almost entirely on the exercise of their commonable rights, so that the policy of the Office of Woods, consisting as it did in taking the most valuable pastures for planting, was gradually extinguishing their ancient rights. Representations were made to Parliament, and in consequence a resolution was unanimously carried in the House of Commons, in June 1871, that, pending legislation, no fresh inclosures should be permitted

in the New Forest; and also-with a view to preserve the peculiar beauty which the Office of Woods was fast destroying that there should be no more felling of ornamental timber.

It now became incumbent on the Government to put an end to the differences between the Crown and commoners, and there were but two courses open to them. The one was to "disafforest," allotting to the Crown its share in the forest, free from all common rights, leaving the rest to the commoners, to be dealt with as they might think best; the other to endeavour to reconcile the conflicting interests of the parties by some less violent remedy. Disafforestation was

recommended by a Committee of the House of Lords in 1868, and was approved by the Commissioners of Woods, but fortunately their recommendation was not carried out, for to alter so entirely the character of a place, the main features of which have remained unchanged for 500 years, and which, from its historical associations and its scenery, had become an object of national interest and national pride, would be repugnant to popular sentiment, though indeed it would probably not have received the approval of Parliament.

The

The new act settles matters by defining exactly the powers of the Crown. It also amends the constitution of the Court of Verderers or governing body of the forest. powers of the verderers are very large, and should be sufficient to regulate the exercise of common rights in the forest, and to prevent abuses.

At the present time, the only surviving forest court is that of the verderers; and the verderers them selves, together with the foresters under them, are the only remains of the extensive system of courts and officers which had jurisdiction over the royal forests. The chief officer of the forest was the Justice of the forest, or Justice in Eyre of the forest, appointed by letters patent, of whom

there were two, one for the forests on this side of the Trent, and the other for those beyond. In every forest there were also four verderers, so named a viridi, or vert. The verderer was a judicial officer of the forest, chosen by force of the king's writ in full county, and sworn to maintain the laws of the forest, and to view, receive, and enrol the attachments and presentments of all trespassers of vert and venison within the forest. The New Forest verderers are now elected by a constituency composed of the commoners and the parliamentary electors residing within the perambulation of the Forest. The Chief Warden of the forest seems to have been an executive rather than a judicial officer. His chief duty was to bail and discharge offenders. Lord Coke states that where a forest is appendant to a castle, as in the case of Windsor, the constable of the castle is by forest law the chief warden of the forest. The Ranger was appointed to perambulate the pour-allers or purlieus of the forest, and to drive back the wild beasts into the forest. The Steward of the Swainmote Court sat with the court as a kind of judicial assessor learned in forest law. The Agister was appointed to superintend the agisting, taking in cattle or swine to pasture or pawnage of the king's demesne woods or lands in the forest. The Regarder seems to have been a kind of inspector. The Forester was an officer sworn to preserve the vert and venison within his walk, and to present offences and attachments at the forest courts. The Beadle was the sheriff's officer and crier of the Swainmote Court. Besides these officers, there appear to have been at common law under-foresters and groom-keepers, whose duty it was to look to the wood cut in the forest.

The Law of the Forest was administered in three courts, namely, the Court of Attachments, the Swainmote, and the Court of Justice Seat. The Court of Attachments was held by the

verderers every forty days throughout the year. They received and viewed the attachments brought in and presented by the foresters, and then enrolled them in readiness for the next Court of Swainmote. The Court of Swainmote was held three times a year—namely, at Martinmas, fifteen days before Michaelmas, and fifteen days before St. John the Baptist's day, and at this court all the officers of the forest were bound to attend. The verderers were the judges, and the freeholders of the forest the jury. The presentments from the Court of Attachments, and those directly from the foresters or other officers of the forest, were delivered to the jury, and if they found the presentment true, the offenders stood convicted, and the indictment could not be traversed; but no judgment could be given, or execution awarded by this court. The form of indictment is as follows:-"It is presented by the foresters, and other ministers of the forest, and the twelve jurors, and proved by the verderers," and the indictment is sealed by the foresters, verderers, and other officers. Whence it would seem that the actual inquiry was held by the jurors, and their verdict of guilty formally sanctioned by the forest officers, after which it was enrolled by the verderers, and the Ordinatio Forestæ directs "that the truth being inquired of the said presentations by the common accord and assent of all the officers aforesaid, shall be solemnly confirmed and signed with their seals." If the jury did not find the presentment submitted to them to be true, the case probably went off at once. By this same statute the court had also some jurisdiction over the conduct of the forest officers, though it is not quite clear what course was followed in making such inquiry, or what was the exact part taken by the different classes of officers who attended.

The last and highest of the forest courts, the Court of Justice Seat, was held once every three years,

by one of the Lords Chief Justices of the forests-citra Trentam et ultra Trentam. They were appointed by letters patent, and being usually persons of more dignity than knowledge of the law, were assisted by one or more of the common-law judges. The jurisdiction of the court was twofold, namely, to inquire and determine (1) all offences against the forest law, and (2) all claims, franchises, and privileges within the forest. All presentments and attachments enrolled by the verderers had to be presented to the Chief Justice for judgment, the Courts of Attachment and Swainmote being, as Manwood says, merely two hands to deliver matters to the Court of Justice Seat, to receive judgment thereof from thence. Presumably the Swainmote indictments at any rate were adjudicated on without any reference to "the most substantial jury of twentyfour, twenty, or eighteen of the discretest men," who were chosen out of the freeholders summoned to attend. The charge to the jury, as given by Manwood, covers every possible kind of forest offence, besides the conduct generally of forest officers; but he does not give the course of proceedings at the justice-seat. Probably the jury inquired into any trespass or offence that had not passed the Swainmote, while the claims of franchise would be determined by the Chief Justice, either with or without a jury. The court could punish by fine and imprisonment at discretion. Sir W. Jones's reports show that the fines at the court held for Windsor in 1632, vary from forty shillings to 1001. Even in Manwood's time, the Courts of Justice Seat were very rarely held, and their jurisdiction feebly exercised. The last court was held in the reign of Charles I.; and the office was abolished altogether, and its powers and duties vested in the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, in the reign of George III.

Though some of the details are puzzling, the general character of the forest courts and their rela

tions to each other are tolerably clear. The verderers, in the Courts of Attachments, merely received and enrolled the attachments presented to them by the foresters, a proceeding something like committing a man for trial. In the Court of Swainmote the presentments were tried before a jury of freeholders of the forest, and if they found the presentment true, their verdict was confirmed under seal by the verderers and other officers of the forest, and became equivalent to a conviction. The Swainmote Court, however, had no jurisdiction to punish, and it was not till a Court of Justice Seat was held, that a penalty could be imposed for an offence committed perhaps three years before. The Chief

Justice, in his Court of Justice Seat, not only delivered judgment on the Swainmote presentments, but also determined other presentments and claims of franchises and liberties, to some extent at any rate with the assistance of a jury.

There is another court, without the mention of which a notice of the courts of the forest would be incomplete, namely, the Court of Regard or Survey of Dogs, held by the regarders every third year, for the expeditation or lawing of dogs, by cutting off to the skin three claws of the fore feet, to prevent their being able to chase and kill the deer.

CHARLES SUMNER MAINE.