ASHDOWN FOREST. 127 



St. Leonard's, Waterdown, and Ashdown. Of, these, Ash- 

 down Forest is particularly well defined, owing to its 

 having been for some centuries surrounded by a" pale. 

 It is a district of triangular form, its base approaching the 

 branch line of railway from East Grinstead to Tunbridge 

 Wells, and its apex lying due south, some three or four 

 miles from Uckfield. About seven miles from Tunbridge 

 Wells, and four from the small town of East Grinstead, it 

 thus lies in the heart of the county, a district compara- 

 tively little frequented. Hence most Londoners would 

 probably be surprised to learn that within forty miles of 

 the metropolis there exists a second ancient Royal Forest, 

 comprising at the present moment a slightly larger area 

 of open waste land than the famous Forest, of Epping. 

 To speak with accuracy, indeed, Ashdown is no longer a 

 forest, in the legal sense of the term. Originally owned 

 by the Crown, it was granted as a free chase to John of 

 Gaunt, in the fourteenth century, and remained henceforth 

 annexed to the Duchy of Lancaster, until the time of 

 Charles II., when it was formally disforested, and found its 

 way into the hands of some of those speculators in waste 

 land who seem to have sought their fortune in overreach- 

 ing the inhabitants of rural districts, under colour of the 

 Royal permission and wishes. Popularly, however, its 

 more dignified title has survived, and Ashdown Forest is 

 the only name by which the district is known at the pre- 

 sent time. From an early date the forest became the seat 

 of iron-works, and to this fact are no doubt mainly to be 

 attributed the disastrous inroads made from time to time 

 upon its sylvan beauties. In the time of the Tudors, com- 

 mission after commission was issued to inquire into the 

 waste and destruction of the forest, with always the same 

 result — trees had been felled to make ' coals' for the iron- 

 mills. Even the officers of the forest, the keepers them- 

 selves, were generally found to be guilty of this offence, 

 and it may well be imagined that while themselves com- 

 mitting so flagrant a breach of trust, they would not be 

 astute to detect other offenders. In the time of the Com- 



