32 



THE liJ'PINCJ HUNT. 



professing to give information as to the rights of the citizens over 

 Epping Forest, it practically furnishes only a confirmation of Mr. 

 Fisher's statement, that no documentary evidence could be found to 

 support the right of hunting in the Forest traditionally held to 

 belong to the Corporation of London, and to have been yearly 

 exercised on the occasion of the Epping Hunt.' The Memorandum 

 contains extracts from various ancient documents, with translations 

 appended. The earliest is an undated letter, in Saxon, addressed 

 by the Conqueror to Gosfrigth, the Sheriff, and to all the citizens of 

 London, bidding them to take neither hart nor hind, nor game of 

 any sort, on the lands of Lanfranc, the Archbishop, that belonged 

 to his manor of Hergan (Harrow), unless by his command or with 

 his leave.2 This is followed by an extract from a charter of 

 Henry L, who, in iioi, confirmed to the citizens of London their 

 sporting rights, as enjoyed by their predecessors, in Chiltre 

 (Chiltern), and Middlesex, and Surrey. Rather more than half a 

 century later on, in 1154, Henry H. confirmed his grandfather's con- 

 firmation ; and subsequently, Richard L, John, and Henry HI. 

 followed the example of their predecessors. 



The printed Hundred Rolls of 1275 are next cited, and there 

 we find a jury of inquisition stating that the citizens might run, with 

 their dogs, at hares, foxes, rabbits, and wild cats {/nurilegos) as far 

 as the bridge of Stanes, and to the gate of the park of Enfield, and 

 to Stratford- le-Bow, and to Waltham Holy Cross— a liberty im- 

 peded, however, by the Earl of Cornwall's warren at Lsleworih, and 

 that of William de Say at Edmonton ; by what authority the jurors 

 find themselves unable to say.'' A marginal note, in Mr. Barclay's 

 hand, tells us that it was suggested, on one side, that there was, in 

 the bridge of Stanes, an allusion to the Staneway near Colchester 

 To this the other side retorted that such a contention was absurd, 

 and that Staines in Middlesex was evidently meant. In view of the 

 warren at Isleworth, and of the remoteness of Colchester, the latter 

 view seems indisputably correct. Also, as against the City's claim 

 it was urged that deer were not mentioned, and that the boundaries 

 given were eminently calculated to keep the citizens out of the 

 Forest. The City, it is needless to say, interpreted the documents 

 differently, and showed a course of chase right through the Forest 



1 W. R. Fisher : " The Forest of Essex, " p. 202. 



2 Dugdale's " Monasticon,'' I, Part 3, No. xxxix. 



3 Hundred Rolls (1812); pp. 403-423. 



