554 



THE NEW BOOK OF THE DOG. 



Deere Hayes or Bukstallys by the space 

 of a moneth next after proclamacion of 

 this Acte made, uppon payne of forfeicte 

 for every moneth that he or they so kepe 

 or cause to be kepte the same netts, Hayes, 

 or Bukstalles X T I ; and that no person 

 from hencforth stalke nor cause eny other 

 person to stalke with enys boussli or bestys 

 to eny Deere being in eny parke, chace 

 or forest or without, but if it be withyn 

 his oune ground, chace, forest, or park, 

 without hcence of the ouner maist' of the 

 Game or keper of the same Ground, etc., 

 upon payne of forfeicture of every tyme 

 that he or they so stalkith X T I." 



This meant, in plain language, that in 

 the year 1503 there was an amount of 

 skilful poaching going on with nets, bushes, 

 and dogs, and that if anyone was unlucky 

 enough not to be possessed of parks, etc., 

 and yet dared to go out for a bit of sport in 

 the way of stalking, etc., he was fined the 

 sum of £10 for every tmie he was caught. 



Going back still earlier, a somewhat 

 amusing Act of Parliament will be found 

 to have been passed in the thirteenth year 

 of the reign of Richard II. — that is, about 

 the year 1389. Translated, it runs as 

 follows : — 



" Forasmuch as divers Artificers, 

 Labourers, Servants, and Grooms keep 

 Greyhounds and other dogs, and on 

 Holidays, when good Christian People 

 be at Church, hearing Divine service, 

 they go hunting in Parks, Warrens, and 

 Connignes of Lords and others to the 

 very great destruction of the same, and 

 sometime under such colour they make 

 their assemblies, conferences, and con- 

 spiracies for to rise and disobey their 

 Allegiance ; It is ordained that no man- 

 ner of Artificer, Labourer, nor any other 

 Layman which hath not lands and tene- 

 ments of the value of £40 by year nor 

 any priest or clerk, if he be not advanced 

 to the value of /lo by year, shall have or 

 keep Greyhounds (Hound, nor any other 

 Dog) to hunt, imder pain of one year's 

 imprisonment." 



Of course, in considering the effect of 

 these early statutes and the way they 

 would handicap the dog owner of the 

 period, it must not be forgotten that the 

 value of money was very different from 

 what it is in the present day. 



The Early The early forest laws of 

 Forest Laws, ancient times are again most 

 interesting in so far at any rate as they 

 relate to dogs. 



Forest Law, which dates as far back as 

 the canons of Canute, was the law of " cer- 

 tain territorie of woody grounds and fruitful 

 pastures, privileged for wilde beasts and 

 foules of forest, chase and warren, to rest 

 and abide in, in the safe protection of the 

 King for his princely delight and pleasure, 

 which territorie of ground so privileged 

 is meered and bounded with unremovable 

 markes, meers, and boundaries either known 

 by matter of record or else by prescription." 

 The forest laws which related to dogs, 

 however, referred only to the King's forests, 

 and not to chases and warrens. 



For the preservation of game, and to 

 ensure to its fullest extent the King's 

 " princely delight and pleasure," these 

 laws concerning the keeping of dogs were 

 of the most stringent character. Mainwood 

 tells us that solely for the safety of men, 

 goods, and houses, every gentleman, hus- 

 bandman, farmer, and housekeeper of any 

 worth dwelling within the forest might 

 keep dogs of certain specified kinds, and 

 no others ; that is to say : — 



(i) Mastiffs, expcditatcd according to the 

 laws of the forest. 



(2) The little dogs, " because it stands to 

 reason there is no danger in them." 



No other dog was allowed in the forest 

 except under special grant from the Crown. 

 " Men have claimed," says the same great 

 authority, " to hawk, hunt the hare, and 

 keep Spaniels within the liberties of the 

 forest, which is unlawful without such 

 claim, for it would be in vain to claim the 

 keeping of a tiring which was lawful to be 

 kept without any claim." 



Canute was undoubtedly a monarch who 

 would stand no nonsense, and who had 



