FORMER EXISTENCE OF THE ROE-DEER IN ENGLAND. 141 
* The roo full rekeles ther sche rinnes 
To make the game and glee, 
The fawkon and the fesaunt both 
Amonge the holtes on hee.’ 
For, a hundred and fifty years later, Leland was able to testify 
that this animal was then still common in the north of Eng- 
land. He remarks in his Itinerary , ‘ In Northumberland, 
rs I heare say, be no forests except Chivet Hills,* * * § and there 
is great plenty of redde deare and row-bukkes/ According to 
a Report of Eoyal Commissioners furnished to Henry VIII. 
in 1512, there were nearly 6000 head of deer, Red, Roe, and 
Fallow, in the forests and parks of the Earl of Northumberland 
in the northern counties, at which date there were Red- deer 
in the forest of Rothbury.f 
About 1530-34, as we learn from the Durham Household 
Booh, Roe-deer were to be found in the adjoining county. 
Thus at p. 142 we find the entry: — 
* Et Eduardo Denynge et Johanni Greynsweyrde, per 4 dies 
apud Muglesicyk [Muggleswick] deferentibus 4 roys in 
regardis . . . . . . . .12 d* 
Here it is evident from the context that Roe-deer are in- 
tended, for the entries which precede and follow this all relate 
to venison brought in. At times the Latin name is bestowed, 
but generally the English ; thus we find : — 
{ Et famulo Abbatis de Fountand deferenti 1 buh bursario. 3s. 4 d* 
* Et Thomce Harper deferenti damam domino Priori, Dominica 
prima Adventus a Roberto Crosby . . . 20^/ 
1 Et Lionello Smyth et Eduardo Denynge deferentibus 1 stage a, 
Mugleswyk ....... 20s/ 
The existence of Roe-deer in Wales was noted by Leland in 
Henry VIII. ’s time ; and Camden has noticed several Welsh 
localities which from their name seem to indicate former 
haunts of this animal, as Bryn-yr-Iwrch, Phynon-yr-Iwrch, 
Lhwyn-Iwrch, &c. Pennant informs us that, according to 
Dr. Muffett, they were still to be found there in the reign of 
Elizabeth.;]; On turning to Dr. Mufiett’s work,§ we find the 
bare statement (p. 75) that ‘ the Alps are full of them in high 
* It is curious that Leland should have made this statement, for beside 
•Cheviot, there were in Northumberland the forests of Rothbury, Redesdale, 
Eresdon, Lowes (anciently Loughs, from the number of lakes in it), Allen- 
dale, and Knaresdale. 
t Wallis, Nat. Hist, and Antiq. of Northumberland (1769), vol. i. p. 410. 
t British Zoology, vol. i. p. 59. 
§ Health's Improvement, by Dr. Thomas Muffett, corrected and enlarged 
by Christopher Bennett, 1655. The author died in 1590, but it does not 
appear that there was any earlier edition of his work than that of Bennett, 
who probably revised the original MS. See Wood’s Athence (ed. Bliss), 
vol. i. p. 575. 
