- ( 29 J 



to the laws of Edward I. and Edward III. concerning 

 the bounds of the forefts. The opprellions of Charles in 

 the execution of tlie foreft laws were tyrannies which did 

 not require a formal a£l to declare them illegal. 



Since the failure of this attempt, the royal prerogative 

 in forelts has not been ufcd by the princes on the throne 

 foj oppreihve purpofes, altho individuals may have fuf- 

 fercd from the mifbehaviour of foreft officers, and perhaps 

 from the general difpofition of little men in authority to 

 (hew their importance. The prefervation of the deer, 

 and of the timber, has not been an objedt of much at- 

 tention ; and the negle6l of the timber has been highly 

 detrimental to the country. 



The fwainmote courts are ftill regularly held in fome 

 of the forefts, and particularly in the New-foreft : but 

 the eyres having been wholly difufed ; it has been thought 

 necelfary to provide for the punifhment of deer-ftealing 

 and wood-ftealing by the ordinary jurifdiclions of the 

 country. Thefe punifliments are fevere ; and feverer, 

 perhaps, than the punilhtnents prefcribed by the ancient 

 laws of the foreft.; but not in general fo fevere as the 

 punifhraents for other offences of the fame degree of 

 vmoral turpitude. 



After this view of the rife and progrefs of foreft law, 

 and its ftate at various periods till it fell nearly into difufe 

 by difconti nuance of the eyres, we may VKnlure to fay- 

 that it does not merit all the odiuin which it has excited. 

 To fmugglers the revenue laws are odious : and perfons 

 who refided, in or near a foreft, being frequently tref- 

 pafters ; or encouraging for their amufement, their 

 indulgence, or their intereft, the trefpalfes of others ; 

 all became a fort of contraband dealers, and caught the 

 cry of the trade. It is not therefore furprifmg that the 

 foreft-law fliould have been generally odious. The 

 principal jeal grievance has generally been the illegal 



; extenfion 



