FORESTRY 



cords are now in Keeling's custody.'^ There is 

 evidence of increased lawless slaughter of the deer 

 during the troubles of the Civil War, and Parlia- 

 ment did not now disdain to protect the ' deer 

 belonging to the state ' as well as the woodland.^ 

 We obtain a hint as to the forest outlaws in an 

 order of 22 February, 1656-7, when Robert 

 Worral, keeper of Grettam Lodge, Rockingham 

 Forest, is recommended for a reward of £s'^- 

 He had apprehended at great personal hazard 

 four notorious coiners and also taken six notable 

 highwaymen.* And finally, we may note that 

 under the Commonwealth the forest administra- 

 tion compares favourably with that of Charles I, 

 who had sacrificed the interests of the woodlands 

 to his imperious financial necessities. After the 

 Restoration the higher forest offices were prac- 

 tically sinecures, and no serious attempt was made 

 to revive oppressive jurisdiction. But consider- 

 able attention was paid to the provision of 

 ship-building timber. One note only as to 

 Whittlewood in 1670 can be quoted here : 

 ' There are 7,000 oaks in Whittlewood Forest 

 also fit for plank, 1,000 of which are dying at 

 the top ; if the lieutenant and keepers are per- 

 mitted to head and lop such great quantities 

 every year as they have hitherto done there will 

 be few oaks left ; they have already made 4,000 

 fit for nothing but logs or to bear browse for 

 deer. There are also 80 trees in this forest yet 

 to fell, for which directions should be given. In 

 every twelve loads of timber and plank carried 

 into the stores from Whittlewood there is 50 feet 

 over measure, so that the land and water carriage 

 is saved.' * 



But during this reign outlying portions of the 

 forests were often absorbed into the estates of 

 neighbouring landowners. It is quite clear from 

 the remarks of Morton, in his Natural History of 

 'Northamptonshire, that the growing scarcity of 

 timber in the county had been noticed by out- 

 siders, however the fact might be gainsaid by 

 local patriots.^ Careless forestry, combined with 

 disafForestation and leasing on a considerable scale, 

 was bound to tell on the extent of the forests 

 and their value as the chief sources for the 

 timber-supply of the Royal Navy. And in the 

 eighteenth century Parliament gave the whole 

 subject serious consideration, and several Acts 

 were passed. 



In 1769 part of a statute (9 Geo. Ill, cap. 41) 

 was For the better Preservation of Hollies, Thorns, 

 and Quicksets, in Forests, Chases, and private 

 grounds, and of Trees and Underwoods on Forests 



1 Cal. S. P. Dom. 1653-4, p. 349. 



^ See notes of letters to Col. Thom.is Waite of 

 S.ilcey Forest and the warden of the cast part of 

 Rockingham and others. Ibid. 1658-9, p. 361. 



3 Ibid. 1656-7, p. 279. 



* Ibid. 1670, p. 207. Opinion of John Moor- 

 house, purveyor. 



^ See note quoted at commencement of this article. 



and Chases, znA a slight error in this was rectified 

 in 1770 (10 Geo. Ill, cap. 30). So serious, 

 indeed, was the outlook for timber in Britain 

 about one hundred and thirty years ago that, in 

 1772, An Act for the effectually securing a Quantity 

 of Oak Timber for the Use of the Royal Navy 

 (12 Geo. III. cap. 54) prohibited, under a fine of 

 ^^5,000 for each offence, the building of any ship 

 for the East India Company so long as their fleet 

 had a tonnage exceeding 45,000 tons. 



On account of the grave position and the 

 prospects in respect to oak timber, there was 

 passed in 1 786 An Act for appointing Commissioners 

 to enquire into the state and Condition of the JVoods, 

 Forests, and Land Revenues belonging to the Crown ; 

 and to sell or alienate Fee Farm and other unim- 

 provable Rents (26 Geo. Ill, cap. 87). The 

 three commissioners appointed to make these 

 inquiries (Sir Charles Middleton, Bart, and 

 Messrs. John Vail and Arthur Holdsworth) sub- 

 mitted to Parliament no fewer than seventeen 

 reports during the years 1787 to 1793, which 

 contain a mass of interesting information exceed- 

 ingly valuable to the student of the history of 

 forestry in England. Three of these reports 

 have special reference to the royal forests in 

 Northamptonshire, namely, VII. Salcey Forest 

 (1790), VIII. Whittlewood Forest (1792), and 

 IX. Rockingham Forest (1792). 



At the time of the report, the part of Salcey 

 Forest in which the crown had timber was about 

 2^^ miles long and i\ broad, and extended to about 

 1,847 acres. It consisted of copses covered with 

 timber and underwood (1,122 acres), open, un- 

 closed plains and ridings (471 acres), enclosed 

 meadows and pastures around the warden's and 

 keepers' lodges (74 acres), and enclosed lawns 

 for the deer (180 acres) ; and it was divided into 

 four walks (Flanslope, Piddington, Hartwell, and 

 the deputy ranger's). The copses were cut over 

 every twenty-one years, then enclosed for seven 

 years against deer, and for nine years against 

 cattle. The commonable cattle were allowed to 

 feed with the deer in the unenclosed plains and 

 ridings, so that the rights of common extended 

 over 1,592 acres in all, but not during every 

 year. From the time this forest was made part 

 of the honour of Grafton (in 1542) the copses 

 were cut by the woodward of the county, under 

 warrant from the Lord Treasurer or Chancellor 

 of the Exchequer. On 30 June, 1665, the 

 forests of Salcey and Whittlewood were settled 

 by Charles II on Queen Catherine for her life 

 as part of her jointure, though the timber trees 

 and saplings were resen'ed for the use of the 

 crown. On 21 June, 1673, the life-rent of the 

 woodlands in both of these forests was granted by 

 the king to Henry, earl of Arlington, after the 

 death of the queen (she lived till 1 705), and 

 thereafter to Henry, earl of Euston, afterwards 

 duke of Grafton, Charles, earl of Southampton, 

 and George, Lord Fitzroy, the sons of Charles II., 



347 



