4 THE ROYAL FORESTS OF ENGLAND 



drove back the deer and other game into the depths of the 

 woods and the more desolate districts. 



These wilder tracts were used as common hunting grounds ; 

 but in course of time the chieftains and more powerful local 

 men usurped the rights hitherto exercised by all. Eventually, 

 as the Saxon overlords or kings gained greater power, they 

 claimed, as part of their royal prerogative, the right to reserve 

 the' chase, or at all events the higher chase of the deer, in 

 selected areas chosen for their nearness to favourite residences, 

 or for the exceptional predominance of game. The royal 

 hunting grounds (silva regis) as well as the king's lands or 

 royal demesnes (terra regis) were gradually formed out of 

 the original folkland held by the common people under their 

 thegn ; so that when Egbert, in the ninth century, became the 

 first king of all England, he found himself possessed of many 

 royal hunting grounds in most parts of his kingdom. 



During the later Saxon and Danish period the chase became 

 more and more restricted. The freeholder still had the right 

 to kill the big game on his own land, but might not follow it 

 into or upon the king's woods. The lesser game could, how- 

 ever, be then followed even in the king's woods by the holder 

 of the land, up to the time of the Conquest. 



In this, as in so many other respects, the mention of forests or 

 woods in Domesday Survey is merely incidental. The name 

 of swainmote, as applied to a minor forest court of local 

 administration, which so long survived and was of such 

 general use, is in itself sufficient to establish the fact that there 

 was a pre-Norman customary forest law. The question as to the 

 first introduction of a body of written forest law in this country 

 depends largely upon the genuineness of the code usually 

 attributed to Canute, and termed Constitutiones de Foresta. 

 This Latin code, in thirty-four brief chapters, purports to have 

 been drawn up by Canute both for the English and the Danes. 

 Although its authenticity was long ago doubted by Coke, it 

 has been quoted by many able writers, such as Palgrave and 

 Kemble, without the expression of any doubt as to it being a 

 genuine historic document ; but Professor Freeman and 

 Bishop Stubbs subsequently adduced such weighty reasons for 

 considering this code a forgery, or at all events containing so 

 many interpolations as to be valueless, that present-day 



