
WHITE CATTLE: AN INQUIRY INTO THEIR ORIGIN, ETc. 409 
‘27. Besides the wilde beastes of the Forest, there are other wilde 
beastes, which so long as they are remaining within the bandes and 
limittes of the Forest they are subject to the punishment of the Lawes of 
the Forest: such are, wild Gotes, Hares, and Conies. And there are also 
diuers other wilde beastes, which although they do live and remaine 
within the bounds and limits of the Forest, and are subject to the charge 
and burthen of the Regarders of the Forest, yet they cannot be aceounted 
or taken to be of the Forest: such are wilde Horses, Bugalls, wilde Kine, 
and such like.” 
What is a forest; at least, in what sense did the early authori- 
ties use the word? The 3rd Report of the Historical MSS. 
Commission states, that among the Marquis of Bath’s papers there 
is a sixteenth-century treatise on forest law which sets itself to 
explain ‘“‘ What difference is between a forest, a chase, a warren, 
and a parke;” and the 2nd Report of the same Commission 
states, that among the Earl of Mount Edgecumbe’s papers is— 
The Boke of Forest Laws, by William Fletewood, also written 
in the 16th century ; and it begins—“ A forest is a territory of 
certain ground properly bounded and meered.” A later authority 
states that— A forest comprehends in it a chase, a park, and 
a warren, and was a territory of woody grounds and fruitful 
pastures, meered and bounded with irremovable marks, meres, 
and boundaries. The wild beasts of the forest were five in 
number—the hart, the hind, the hare, the boar, and the wolf.” 
If a park then be only a part of the territory within a forest, and 
helped to make up a forest, how comes it that it is claimed for 
our park cattle that they ranged through forests, and when a 
section of it was fenced they were enclosed in the park by the 
enclosure made? How comes it also that white cattle are not 
mentioned among the wild beasts of the forests along with the 
hart and hind, boar and wolf? It certainly is difficult to know 
“what were the animals found in forests, as many editors take 
liberties with the original text. Take, for example, Fitzstephen’s 
1 Canute’s Forest Laws, as in Harrison’s Description of England, 
1577— “27. Sunt aliz (preter feras forests) bestie, que dum inter septa et 
sepes forestz continentur, emendationi subiacent: quales sunt capreoli, 
lepores et cuniculi. Sunt et alia quam plurima animalia que quan- 
quam infra septa forest viuunt, et oneri et cure mediocrium subiacent 
foreste, tamen nequa quam censeri possunt qualia sunt equi, bubali, 
vacce et similia.” This clause has the marginal note—‘ Bubali olim in 
Anglia.” 
