Modern Historians and the New Forest. 21 



across it, on the west ; aucl on the north from the borders of 

 Wiltshire to the English Channel. 



These natural boundaries were, as we shall see, reduced in 

 that same reign. Since then encroachments on all sides have 

 still further lessened its limits ; and it now stretches, here and 

 there divided by manors and private property, on the north 

 from the village of Bramshaw, beyond Stoney Cross, near where 

 Rufus fell, or was supposed to fall, to Wootton on the south, 

 some thirteen miles ; and, still further, from Hardley on the 

 east to Ring^N'ood, the Rinwede of Domesday, on the west. 



In the year 1079, just thirteen years after the battle of 

 Hastings, William ordered its afforestation. From Turner and 

 Lingard down to the latest compiler, our historians have repre- 

 sented the act as one of the worst pieces of cruelty ever com- 

 mitted by an English sovereign. Even Lappenberg calls the 

 site of the Forest '* the most thriving part of England," and 

 says that William " mercilessly caused churches and villages 

 to be burnt down within its circuit;"* and, in another place, 

 speaks of the Conqueror's " bloody sacrifice," and " glaring 

 cruelty towards the numerous inhabitants."! To such state- 

 ments in ordinary writers we should pay no attention, but they 

 assume a very different aspect wdien put forward, especially in 

 so unqualified a way, by a historian to whom our respect and 

 attention are due. I have no wish to defend the character 

 of William. He was one of those men whose wills are strong 

 enough to execute the thoughts of their minds, ordained by 

 necessity to rule others, holding firmly to the creed that success 

 is the best apology for crime. Yet, too, he had noble qualities. 



* England under the Anglo-Norman Kings. Ed. Thorpe, p. 214. 

 t The same, p. 266. 



