2i 4 THE ROYAL FORESTS OF ENGLAND 



oath from what person or persons the foresters were wont to 

 receive and have their living. In reply they cited from an 

 inquiry made by writ in 1289, shortly after Edward I. had 

 removed Robert de Everingham from his bailiwick as here- 

 ditary keeper or chief forester by reason of his misdeeds, citing 

 the various extensive perquisites and privileges that he had 

 maintained. 



In return for these emoluments Robert de Everingham pro- 

 vided foresters at his own charge. It therefore followed that 

 after the keepership was forfeited to the Crown, that the 

 foresters were to continue to be paid by whomsoever the Crown 

 from time to time appointed keeper. 



A roll of amercements of persons convicted at the attachment 

 courts of -vert trespasses appraised at more than 4^., and 

 which could not be amerced save at the eyre, was presented to 

 the justices. This roll included about 750 trespasses, varying 

 in price of the vert from 6d. for honey found in an oak, for 

 boughs, and for trunks, to 2s. for a single oak. These values 

 had already been paid to the verderers, and the additional 

 fines now imposed by the justices varied from is. to 2s. In 

 each case the names of the two pledges for the trespasser's 

 appearance follow the entry of the offence. 



It is not surprising, after all this interval since the last eyre, 

 to find that some of the verderers' rolls for the different attach- 

 ment courts of the forest were missing for the years 1288, 

 1289, 1290, and 1291. The fines imposed upon the verderers 

 of 1334 for these losses amounted to the considerable sum of 

 20 8s. 2d. 



As the justices of the forest so seldom appeared, they seem 

 to have been all the more determined to exact appearances and 

 respect when the eyre was held. The whole of the free tenants 

 of the forest had to put in an appearance. On the first day 

 three of them were absent. John Bardolf successfully pleaded 

 that he had not received his letter of summons ; but Adam 

 de Everyngham was fined 15^., and Joan, widow of Ralph 

 de Birton, 6s. 8d. for their absence. The reeves and four-men 

 of every township within the limits had also to be present. 

 On the first day, William Goodrych, and William de Norman- 

 ton, both of Lenton, were fined collectively 3,?. 4^., whilst 

 William Router, the reeve of Basford, had to pay 2s. 



