^{page 140 note 1} Close Roll, 1233, p. 345; 1235, p. III. 33 Hen. III, m 7.

^{page 140 note 2} The “wood of Withcote,” Leicestershire, so described in an order of 1236 (ib., p. 305) appears three years later as the “forest of Salvey” (ib., 1239, p. 156); Hartley in Great Minterne appears in consecutive orders as a “forest” and as a “park and wood,” ib., 1238, pp. 30 and 39.

^{page 140 note 3} E.g. “the forest of the bishopric of Chester,” Close Roll, 1244, p. 224.

^{page 141 note 1} Rot. Hund., ii. 245, 248, 249, 253, etc.

^{page 141 note 2} Pp. cxi.-cxiii.

^{page 141 note 3} For. Proc. T.R., no. 44, m. 1, 45, m. 1. Cf. “regard in the liberty of the honour of Kimbolton,” 39 Hen. III, ib., no. 40.

^{page 141 note 4} Cart, of Whitby Abbey (Surtees Soc), pp. 534–5. Cf. Chanc. Misc., 12/6, 10. Forest law continued to be enforced as of course in the forests granted to Queen Eleanor, Cal. Pat. Roll., 1273, p. 28.

^{page 142 note 1} Cal. Char. Rolls, 1280, p. 227: The exact position does not seem to have been clear: in the eyre roll of 54 Hen. III it is stated that “six regarders of the bailiwick of Bere were wont to act with them (i.e. the regarders of Poorstock), but Edmund the king's son holds the manor of la Bere and the forest pertaining as disafforested, and will not let them come”.

^{page 142 note 2} Plac. de Quo Warr., p. 59.

^{page 142 note 3} Chanc. Misc., 12/2; cf. For. Proc. T.R., no. 11, m. 16.

^{page 142 note 4} Rot. Hund., ii. 249. The verdicts are not consistent, however: else-where the afforestation is ascribed to the present earl, ib., p. 265: much, if not all, Cranbourne Chase was in existence early in Henry III's reign. Randall Meschines is said to have afforested the Wirrall peninsula between 1119 and 1128 (Ormerod, Hist, of Cheshire, ii. 353). A letter close of June 30, 1225, shows that private afforestation had been going on in Westmorland and Lancashire.

^{page 142 note 5} See the case of Knaresborough Forest, Select Pleas, ex.

^{page 143 note 1} Also described as the “chace of Bristol” (Char. Roll, 1253, p. 415) and “hay of Kingswood” (Close Roll. 1236, p. 242). In M. Petit Dutaillis' essay this Kingswood is confused with that in the forest of Essex. (Hist. Const, de l'Angleterre, ii. 760.) The restriction cited by him would apply no less, it seems, in private forests; cf. Sel. Pleas, ex.

^{page 143 note 2} Cf. Rot. Litt. Claus. i. 344, 352, 360, ii. 54, etc.

^{page 143 note 3} Cf. Cal. Pat., 1285, p. 153, and 1292, p. 519: The forests of Cheshire which passed to the Crown in 1237, retained like the county their separate jurisdiction, remaining independent of the Justice of the forest north of Trent. A mandate concerning disafforestment in 1277 is addressed to the Justice of Chester, and the foresters and verderers, Cal. Pat. Rolls, p. 193; cf. Close Roll, 35 Hen. III m 7?

^{page 143 note 4} For. Proc. T.R., no. 148.

^{page 143 note 5} Ib., nos. 255 and 35.

^{page 143 note 6} E.g. Woodstock Park, For. Proc. T.R., 136, and Close Roll, 1240, p. 234; Guildford Park, Sel. Pleas of Forest, p. 54; Ridlington Park, ib., p. 44.

^{page 143 note 7} Cf. Stowe MSS., 798 f. 6.

^{page 143 note 8} Cf. Chanc. Misc., 12/1.

^{page 144 note 1} Cf. Chanc. Misc., 12/2, 4.

^{page 144 note 2} Ib., 12/1 and 12/2, 2, and For. Proc. T.R., 154. That the park was not always enclosed in practice is clear from this and other entries. In 1231 the king granted that Woodstock Park should be enclosed on account of the damage done by the beasts to the crops of the men of the neighbourhood (Close Roll, p. 500). If the park was closed the enforcement of forest law within it would have made but little difference to the neighbourhood.

^{page 144 note 3} Pat. Roll, 1222, p. 361 and Close Roll, 1244, p. 151.

^{page 144 note 4} Stubbs, Hist. Const, de l'Angl., ii. 760.

^{page 144 note 5} Close Roll, 1246, p. 427.

^{page 144 note 6} Parl. Writs, I, 91a; Sel. Pleas, p. cviii; cf. Rot. Litt. Claus., ii. 212.

^{page 144 note 7} Cf. For. Proc. T.R., no. 153, m. 1. Chanc. Misc., 12/2, 2.

^{page 144 note 8} The jurors in 1225 stated that “John afforested all Purbeck which ought not to be forest except the warren of hares pertaining to Corfe Castle” (Stowe MSS., 798, f. 6 and Hutchin's Dorset, iii. 662). In 1232 Henry III granted exemptions from lawing of dogs to all tenants of his warren of Corfe (Close Roll, p. 88 and Cal. of Chart. Rolls, 164). The “warren of Corfe” and the “forest of Purbeck” continue to appear in royal orders during the century, cf. Close Roll, 1240, p. 217, Inq. a.q.d. 54 Hen. III, iii. 21, Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1283, p. 80. The warren does not appear in the eyre rolls of the latter part of Henry III's reign, nor in the perambulations of Edw. I's reign, but an entry on the fine rolls of Aug. 5, 1275, seems to show that it was still under forest law.

^{page 145 note 1} Cal. Chart. Rolls, 1227, p. 56.

^{page 145 note 2} Sel. Pleas, cxxxiii.

^{page 145 note 3} Cf. grant to Evesham Abbey, 26 Hen. III, Chanc. Misc., 12/8, and to Selbourne Priory, ib.: and the arrangement with Chertsey Abbey, Rot, Lift. Claus., ii. 56b.

^{page 145 note 4} Cal. Chart. Rolls, 1284, p. 274.

^{page 145 note 5} Trans. Bristol and Glos. Arch. Soc., vol. xxxiii. 160.

^{page 146 note 1} Hist. Coll. for Hist, of Staffs, vol. v., pt. 1, p. 166.

^{page 146 note 2} Cal. Chart. Rolls, p. 347.

^{page 146 note 3} Hist. Coll. for Hist. of Staffs, vol. v., pt. 1, pp. 137–166.

^{page 146 note 4} For. Proc. T.R., no. 30, m. 9d, and no. 31. Trans. Bristol and Glos. Arch. Soc., xxxiii. 161.

^{page 146 note 5} Vict. Hist, of Bedfordshire, ii. 144.

^{page 146 note 6} Sel. Pleas, p. 118, note 1. For other disafforestments in this reign see Chanc. Misc., 12/5, no. 21; Sarum Charters and Documents, Rolls Series, 97, no. lvi.

^{page 147 note 1} Certain woods in Oxfordshire and the Isle Purbeck. Chanc. Misc., 11/1, 19, and Hutchin's History of Dorset, iii. 662.

^{page 147 note 2} Chanc. Misc., 11/1, 16, 10. For. Proc. T.R., no. 38, m. 1. Stowe MSS. 798, ff. 8 11, 11d.

^{page 147 note 3} Afforestations are attributed to John in Dean (For. Proc. T.R., 255), Hay of Hereford (ib.), Feckenham in Warwickshire (ib. and Sel. Pleas, p. 119), Porchester (Chanc, Misc., 12/2), Blackmore (ib.), Exmoor (ib.). North Petherton (Pat. Roll Supp. 6a), Selwood (For. Proc. T.R., 154, m. 2), Rutland (Sel. Pleas, pp. 116, 117), and Essex (Fisher, p. 398), where “and by the kings Richard and John” is added to the “after the first coronation of King Henry grandfather of the lord the King” of the earlier verdict in respect to about half the district excluded, Ib., pp. 21–24.

^{page 147 note 4} F. 167. No mention is made of John in the perambulation of 1298; for the similar case of the wood of Ross, infra p. 159.

^{page 147 note 5} Hutchin's Hist, of Dorset, iii. 662. In Rutland the burden of responsibility is shifted in the same way from the shoulders of Henry II to those of John (Sel. Pleas, xciv. 116–117).

^{page 147 note 6} E.g. Warwickshire, ib., 121, Gloucestershire, Glos., Notes and Queries, vol. 8, p. 7.

^{page 148 note 1} Cf. the statement of the Somerset jurors that John afforested all England, ib., cii. note I.

^{page 148 note 2} Viz., all Devon as far as the metes of Dartmoor and Exmoor, Sel. Pleas, p. cvii.

^{page 148 note 3} Viz., all Cornwall, except two moors and two groves disafforested later in the reign, ib., and For. Proc. T.R., 249, m. 9; how much of the county was previously in forest is not clear.

^{page 148 note 4} Viz., Brewood and New Forest, Rot. Chart. (Rec. Com.), p. 122 and Hist. Coll. for Hist, of Staffs, vol. 5, pt. 1, p. 155.

^{page 148 note 5} Viz., Ridale, Rot. Chart., p. 121.

^{page 148 note 6} Viz., forest north of Stanestreet, ib., 123, and Fisher's Forest of Essex, p. 19.

^{page 148 note 7} Rot. Lift. Claus., i. p. 381.

^{page 148 note 8} Cal. Chart Rolls, 1227, p. 2, and Chanc. Misc., 12/7, 10; a marsh in Lincolnshire was also disafforested in 1204, Rot. Chart., p. 128.

^{page 148 note 9} Stubbs' Charters, pp. 348 ff. No evidence of any summary disafforestment has been found; as M. Petit Dutaillis remarks, it was, in fact, scarcely practicable, Op. cit., p. 802.

^{page 149 note 1} Cf. Sel. Pleas of the Forest, pp. xciii ff.

^{page 149 note 2} E.g., in Huntingdon, For. Proc. T.R., no. 28, m. 2d.

^{page 149 note 3} Rot. Litt. Claus., ii. 1.

^{page 149 note 4} Cal. Chart Rolls, 1227, p. 8, and Rot. Litt. Claus., ii. 80.

^{page 149 note 5} Ib., p. 212.

^{page 149 note 6} Compare peramb. in Chanc. Misc., 11/1, 5, with list of woods given in 40 Hen. III (For. Proc. T.R., no. 2, m. 6,) and 28 Edw. I (Pat. Roll, Supp. 6a).

^{page 149 note 7} Rot. Litt. Claus., ii. 206. Sel. Pleas, p. xcix.

^{page 149 note 8} For perambulations in this and the following counties, see Appendix III.

^{page 149 note 9} With an insignificant exception.

^{page 150 note 1} Chanc. Misc., 12/2, 2. Cf. Rot. Litt. Claus., ii. 73, with its reference to an “opportune moment expected”: the two counties had offered, if not actually paid, £100 for a perambulation in 1218 (Sel. Pleas, p. xcv.).

^{page 150 note 2} E.g., in N.W. Bucks, Chanc. Misc., 11/1, 15.

^{page 150 note 3} An example should perhaps be found in Nottinghamshire where certain royal demesnes on the north and west of Sherwood forest appear to have been excluded. Rot. Litt. Claus., ii. 169, 208; Close Roll, 1234, p. 425; Chanc. Misc., 11, 6/10. Cf. For. Proc. T.R., 133. It is not quite clear whether royal demesne noted in the Surrey perambulation was included in the disafforestment or not, cf. Rot. Litt. Clans., ii. 56b. A closer study of local history in each case may bring other instances to light.

^{page 150 note 4} Sel. Pleas, pp. 45–6.

^{page 150 note 5} See, too, the Huntingdon and Cumberland perambulations, For. Proc. T.R., no. 38 and Chanc. Misc., 11/1, 16.

^{page 151 note 1} Cal. Chart. Rolls, p. 102; the Bishop of Worcester had paid 700 marks for a perambulation here eleven years before. Pat. Roll, 1218, p. 162.

^{page 151 note 2} Close Roll, p. 477, and 1237, p. 11.

^{page 151 note 3} Ib., 19 Hen. III, p. 82, and Cal. Chart. Rolls, 1235, p. 193.

^{page 151 note 4} P. 75.

^{page 151 note 5} M. 10d.

^{page 151 note 6} Cal. Chart. Roll, 1227, p. 39.

^{page 151 note 7} Stowe MSS., 798 f., 8.

^{page 151 note 8} Ib., f. 7.

^{page 151 note 9} Cal. Chart. Roll, p. 122.

^{page 152 note 1} The land of Irchenefeld in Herefordshire was disafforested with the exception of three woods in 1251, for a fine of 200 marks. Cal. Chart. Rolls, p. 367.

^{page 152 note 2} For Devon forests, see note at end of Appendix I.

^{page 152 note 3} If the identification of the river Lente with the river Cole is correct (cf. Pat. Roll, 1221, p. 288 and index).

^{page 152 note 4} In many cases, probably in most, the grant of disafforestment was made by charter and a money payment exacted in return.

^{page 152 note 5} Pat. Roll, p. 162 and Sel. Pleas, xcv., note 8.

^{page 152 note 6} For. Proc. T.R., no. 38, m. 2d.

^{page 152 note 7} Rot. Litt. Claus., ii. 169; cf. the case of Somerset and Dorset above. There is no clear evidence, as we have seen, for any disafforestment at this time in Hereford, Devon, Warwick, Northumberland and Buckinghamshire.

^{page 153 note 1} A letter close of June 27, 1238, “to all the sheriffs in whose bailiwicks the king's forests are,” names Yorkshire, Cumberland, Lancashire, Northumberland, Nottingham and Derby, Warwick, Northampton, Buckingham, Rutland, Huntingdon, Essex, Berkshire, Hampshire, Surrey, Somerset, Dorset, Devon, Wiltshire, Worcester, Stafford, Gloucester, Hereford; Oxfordshire and Shropshire are omitted, probably by a slip. For a list of royal forests in the middle of the thirteenth century, see Appendix I.

^{page 153 note 2} Cf. For. Proc. T.R., 133, and plea rolls of the period; there is some indication, too, of interference with the revised arrangements in North-amptonshire, cf. Close Roll, 1231, Mar. 26 and For. Proc. T.R., 77.

^{page 153 note 3} Wiltshire Inquisitions (Wilts Arch. Soc), pp. 66 and 131.

^{page 153 note 4} Chanc. Misc., 11/3, 2 and 12/10, 2.

^{page 153 note 5} E.g., Pappenholt, Itchen, Musholt, 53 Hen. III. For. Proc. T.R., no. 158; compare Close Roll, 1228, pp. 102–3.

^{page 153 note 6} Chanc. Misc., 12/9.

^{page 153 note 7} Pat. Roll, Supp. 6a.

^{page 153 note 8} Ib. and For. Proc. T.R., 150, where many of the townships between Crondall and Winchester are to be found; compare the statements as to the adjoining bailiwick of Eversley in 26 Edw. 1, D. of Lane. For. Proc. 1/8.

^{page 154 note 1} Viet. Hist. Lanes, iii. p. 3; cf. Sel. Pleas, cxii.

^{page 154 note 2} Cat. Chart. Rolls, i. p. 247.

^{page 154 note 3} Ib., ii. p. 78; probably also Amounderness, cf. Baines, Hist, of Lanes, v. 295.

^{page 154 note 4} Hutchin's Hist, of Dorset, i. 136; cf. For. Proc. T.R., no. 11, m. 2. Bere had been earlier granted to Simon de Montfort, Cal. Chart. Rolls, ii. 8 (1259).

^{page 154 note 5} E.g., Dalston in Englewood, ib. i. 115; Easingwald in Galtres, ib. 122. On the other hand, the king secured the forests of Cheshire on the death of the Earl in 1237, ante, p. 143, note 3.

^{page 154 note 6} Cal. Chart. Rolls, ii. 279 (1284), “temp. Adelmar,” ib. p. 366 (1286), Close Roll, 22 Hen. III, m. 20 and 21; cf. terms of John's Charter granting exemption from regard only. For. Proc. T.R., no. 256.

^{page 154 note 7} E.g. Ramsay (Ramsay Cart., Rolls Series, i. 213); Selborne (Chanc. Misc., 12/8); Earl of Chester and Huntingdon, ib. 12/3.

^{page 154 note 8} Ante, p. 145 f.

^{page 154 note 9} Rot. Hund., i. 197.

^{page 155 note 1} For. Proc. T.R., no. 45, m. 6d.

^{page 155 note 2} Rot. Hund., i. 139.

^{page 155 note 3} For. Proc. T.R., no. 31.

^{page 155 note 4} Compare the number of townships fined in the Huntingdon eyre of 14 Edw. I, For. Proc. T.R., 45 and 46, with that in 40 Hen. III, ib. 41.

^{page 155 note 5} Cal. Chart. Rolls, pp. 366–7.

^{page 155 note 6} For. Proc, no. 30, mm. 8 and 28d.

^{page 155 note 7} Hist. Coll. for Hist, of Staffs, v. 166 et seq. The Bishop of Salisbury's chace of Le Bisschopebere was appropriated by the warden of Windsor Forest with or without the king's knowledge (Chanc. Misc., 12/10, 2).

^{page 155 note 8} E.g. Penyard in Dean Forest, For. Proc. T.R., no. 30, m. 12d, and no. 31.

^{page 155 note 9} E.g. Tidenham Chace, ib.; Barton and Doddington in Northants, ib. on. 74 and Chanc. Misc. 12/3.

^{page 156 note 1} For. Proc. T.R., no. 77; two sets of bounds are given, the first including much put out in 1228.

^{page 156 note 2} Pat. Roll, p. 237: twenty-four counties are named, including Lancashire and Sussex, in which the king had now no forest. Devon and Cheshire do not appear.

^{page 156 note 3} Cf. Chanc. Misc., 12/11, 1 and 2.

^{page 156 note 4} Verdicts are extant for Berkshire, Dorset, Hampshire, Somerset, Wiltshire. See Appendix III.

^{page 156 note 5} E.g. the whole bailiwick of Bagshot, with the exception of two or three woods, and a great part of Savernake Forest were disafforested. Chanc. Misc., 12/1, 2. The Wiltshire jurors follow in the main a perambulation of the early years of Henry III. It is possible that the Hampshire jurors had also before them earlier perambulations, now lost.

^{page 156 note 6} Chanc. Misc., 12/2, 2.

^{page 156 note 7} Ib. and 12/1, 1; For. Proc. T.R., no. 154, m. 1: “The jurors say that this perambulation is the same as that made rightly in the time of Henry III.”

^{page 156 note 8} Chanc. Misc., 12/1, 3.

^{page 157 note 1} The king had ordered that nothing be done, “donee de ipso distincte et aperte et absque calumpnia fact et nobis… presentata, preceperimus fieri quod de consilio nostro providerimus faciendum;” cf. Sel. Pleas, cii. M. Petit Dutaillis' strictures on Edward in this connection are perhaps unnecessarily harsh (op. cit., p. 820 et seq.); Edward is here following earlier usage, cf. Sel. Pleas, xcv., xcvii. and Rot. Litt. Claus., ii. 157, etc.

^{page 157 note 2} Pat. Roll, Supp. 6a and Chanc, Misc., 12/2.

^{page 157 note 3} Cal. Chart. Rolls, 1280, Dec. 28: “those beyond the Coket give 23 marks, those south of the Coket 17 marks,” Chanc. Misc., 11/3, 13.

^{page 157 note 4} A few small disafforestments were made at other times during the period, e.g. Weverham in Cheshire, Charter Roll, 1275, p. 197: land in Over and Sutton, ib. 1285, p. 282.

^{page 157 note 5} Sel. Pleas:, p. ciii.

^{page 157 note 6} Gloucestershire, Essex, Hampshire, Oxfordshire, Somerset, Bernwood forest, Co. Bucks. See App. III.

^{page 157 note 7} Cf. Chanc. Misc., 1/1, 1, and Rawle, Forests of Exmoor, pp. 36–40 and map.

^{page 157 note 8} If we are right in assigning an early perambulation of Oxfordshire to the year 1219, it may be shown that the same sort of thing happened here.

^{page 158 note 1} E.g. in Bagshot and Eversley bailiwicks, Hampshire D”. of Lane. For. Proc. 1/8.

^{page 158 note 2} Sel. Pleas, pp. civ ff. Verdicts relating to all the forest counties except Cheshire are extant; see App. III.

^{page 158 note 3} The same is apparently the case in Worcestershire. Compare the 1300 perambulation with that in Stowe MSS., 798.

^{page 158 note 4} The perambulation was revised in Edw. III's reign, the county maintaining that unfair pressure had been exercised on the jurors by the Crown (cf. Manwood, p. 135 ff.); the Berkshire perambulation excludes only a small district afforested under Hen. III. (Chanc. Misc., 12/10, 2); in Nottinghamshire, where Henry III's revision was roughly accepted, the subsequent reservation of royal demesne was ignored.

^{page 159 note 1} Sel. Pleas, p. 121; Gloucestershire Notes and Queries, vol. 8, p. 7.

^{page 159 note 2} F. 176b. See also the case of Hewelsfield. ante, p. 147.

^{page 159 note 3} Sel. Pleas, p. cv.

^{page 159 note 4} See Petit Dutaillis, op. cit., pp. 829 ff.