|
|
The Poachers of Pickering Forest
Some Farndales are referred to as Yeoman
|
|
Dates are in red.
Hyperlinks to other pages are in dark blue.
Headlines are in brown.
References and citations are in turquoise.
Context and local history are in purple.
This page has the following sections:
·
The
Farndales who poached in Pickering Forest and other
places
·
Terminology
of the forest
·
The
Poachers of Pickering Forest
·
Poaching
in later times
·
Links,
texts and books
The Farndales who poached in Pickering Forest and other places
1128
Henry I decreed that a huge area from
York to the coast, including Ryedale and Pickering, should be reserved as Royal
Forest, where hart, hind, wild boar and hawk were preserved solely for the
King. Officers were appointed to guard the royal forests and new administrators
were appointed such as the fee foresters and serjeantes. Some of these officers
were able to held their land rent free in return for the service as a forester.
When Henry I established the Forest of Pickering as a deer preserve he gave Guy
the Hunter half the Aislaby estate, in return for training a royal hound.
Legend claims that two brothers were given a falcon’s flight of land, for
repelling a Scots invasion. Perhaps the other brother was William of Aislaby,
who had the other half.
Serious punishments were dealt to those
who committed hunting offences, including the removal of body parts for taking
of deer.
Roger de
Stuteville was licensed to have hounds for taking wolf and hare throughout
Yorkshire and Northumberland. The Mowbrays
at Kirkbymoorside had similar privileges.
Walter Aspec in Ryedale forest gave
three deer a year as a tithe to Kirkham Priory.
1184
Old forest customs were codified in the
Assize of the Forest in 1184. Under the Norman kings, the royal forest grew
steadily, probably reaching its greatest extent under Henry II when around 30
per cent of the country was set aside for royal sport. The object of the forest
laws was the protection of ‘the beasts of the forest’ (red, roe, and fallow
deer, and wild boar) and the trees and undergrowth which afforded them shelter.
The definitive form to forest law occurred during Henry II's reign, most notably
in the Assize of the Forest (also known as the Assize of Woodstock) in 1184.
None could carry bows and arrows in the royal forest, and dogs had to have
their toes clipped to prevent them pursuing game. Savage penalties for any
infringements were often imposed. Discontent with the laws ensured that the
forest became a major political issue in John's reign. It culminated in the
Charter of the Forest (1217), but only in the 14th cent., when large areas were
disafforested, did the political issue subside.
Regarders and agisters were appointed to
guard the royal deer.
Customary
rights to timber were to be overseen by the supervision of forest officers.
These rights came to be written as forest organisation became more elaborate.
The right to wood was referred to as bote. Pickering folk could use green or
dray wood for housebote, dry wood for firebote, or haybote
for fencing. (John Rushton,
The History of Ryedale, 2003, 80).
Ownership of large dogs was controlled.
Forest offences were numerous. Many saw
poaching as a pastime. The nobility took to hunting for sport, whilst more
ordinary folk included parties from Farndale. Officials of Pickering forest
used offences to raise income, or raised funds from such as pannage payments
for pigs taken into the woods. (John Rushton, The
History of Ryedale, 2003, 125).
The Black Prince ordered his keeper of
the Farndale wood to deliver a single oak, suitable for shingles, for the
roofing of Gillamoor chapel.
1210
King John needed funds to pay for his
wars in France. He sold off many of the royal forests and there was significant
disafforestation in Ryedale.
The remaining forests were Galtres
Forest, though reduced in size, Pickering Forest
and the small forest of Farndale. Even
within Pickering Forests parks were allowed for leading nobility.
(John Rushton, The History of Ryedale, 2003, 78).
1280
Alan
Farndale (FAR00011), the son of Nicholas
Farndale (FAR00006), paid taxes to the Eyre Court in 1280. This tax might have been
bail for a poaching incident – see below. (Feet of Fines). Nicholas Farndale (FAR00006)
is the first person who used the Farndale name to describe himself.
William
the Smith of Farndale (FAR00009),
paid taxes to the Eyre Court in 1280
(this tax might have been bail for a poaching incident – see below) (Feet of Fines).
In
the same year, 1280, five Farndales were indicted for poaching and paid bail - From
sureties of persons indicted for poaching and for not producing persons so
indicted on the first day of the Eyre Court in accordance with the
suretieship due to Richard Drye. There follows a long list of names
including,…..1s 8d from Roger son of Gilbert of Farndale
(FAR00028), bail from Nicholas de Farndale, (FAR00022),
2s from William the Smith of Farndale (FAR00009),
3s 4d from John the shepherd of Farndale, (FAR00010),
and 3s 4d from Alan the son of Nicholas de Farndale. (FAR00011) (Yorkshire Fees). (See FAR0019).
1293
Peter
de Farndale (FAR00008)’s
son Robert (see FAR00012)
was fined at Pickering
Castle
in 1293 and Roger milne (“miller”) of Farndale, also a
son of Peter slew a soar in the forest in 1293.
Roger
milne (“miller”) of Farndale (FAR00013A),
son of Peter (FAR00008)
below together with Walter Blackhous and Ralph Helved, all of Spaunton on
Monday in January 1293, killed a soar and slew a hart with bows and arrows at
some unknown place in the forest. All outlawed on 5th April 1293.
1310
In 1310, Nicholas de Harland
of Farndale was fined because his cattle had strayed in the forest (North Riding records).
1316
Richard
de Farndale (FAR00016) and Thomas of Farndale (FAR00023), excommunicated for stealing on 12
August 1316. (Patent Rolls). This relates to Pickering Castle and may have arisen from an
earlier poaching incident.
Thomas and
Richard of Farndale (FAR00016), excommunicated for stealing at Pickering Castle on 12 Aug 1316.
Sentence of Excommunication; ‘To the Most Serene Prince,
his Lord Edward by the Grace of God, King of England, illustrious Lord of
Ireland and Duke of Aquitaine, his humble and devoted clerks, the Reverend Dean
and Chapter of the Church of St Peter, York; custodians of the spiritualities
of the Archbishopric while the See is vacant; Greetings to him to serve whom is
to reign for ever. We make known to your Royal Excellency by these presents
that John de Carter, William of Elington, Adam of Killeburn, John Porter, Hugh
Fullo, Peter Fullo, John of Halmby, Adam Playceman, John Foghill, Thomas
Thoyman, Robert the Miller, Adam of the Kitchen, Richard Mereschall, John
Gomodman, John Wallefrere, Alan Gage, Henry Cucte, Nicholas of the Stable, John
the baker, Adam of Craven, John son of Imanye, Michael of Cokewald, Thomas of
Morton, John of Westmerland, Thomas of Bradeford, Adam of Craven, John of
Mittelhaue, John called Lamb, William Cowherd, Simon of Plabay, William the
Oxherd, Henry of Rossedale, John of Carlton, Peter of Boldeby, Thomas of
Redmere, Walter of Boys, William of Fairland, John of Skalton, John of Thufden,
Henry the Shepherd’s boy, John of Foxton, Thomas of Farndale, John of
Ampleford, John Boost, Roger of Kerby, John of Stybbyng, William of Carlton,
Richard of Kilburn, Adam Scot, Peter of Gilling, John of Skalton, Stephen of
Skalton, Richard of Farndale, Richard of Malthous, John the Oxherd,
Robert of Rypon, Walter of Fyssheburn, Adam of Oswadkyrke, William of Everley,
Hugh of Salton, William Robley, William of Kilburn, Geoffrey the Gaythirde,
John of the Loge, Robert of Faldington, Nicholas of Wasse, William of Eversley,
Robert of Habym, John of Baggeby and William Boost, our Parishioners, by reason
of their contumacy and offence were bound in our authority by sentence of
greater excommunication, and in this have remained obdurate for 40 days and
more, and have up to now continued in contempt of the authority of the
Church. Wherefore we beseech your Royal Excellency, in order that the pride
of these said rebels may be overcome, that it may please you to grant
Letters, according to previous meritorious and pious custom of your Realm, so
that the Mother Church may, in this matter, be supported by the power of Your
Majesty. May God preserve you for His Church and people.’
Given at York 12 August 1316.
In
the Calendar of the Close Rolls, 22 August 1323:
Pickering. To the sheriff of York. Whereas it is found by an inquisition taken
by William de Ayremynne, Humphrey de Waleden, and John de Kylvyngton, by the
oath of the foresters, verderers, regarders, and other ministers at the forest
of Pickering, and of other lawful men of that county, that the following
persons committed trespass of venison in the forest after it came into the
King's hands as escheat by forfeiture of Thomas, late earl of Lancaster... that
on Friday the morrow of Martinmas, in the aforesaid year, Robert Capoun,
knight, Robert son of Marmaduke de Tweng, and eight unknown men with bows and
arrows and four greyhounds came to a place called ‘Ellerbek’, and there took a
hart and two other deers (feras), and carried the venison away; and that on
Thursday before the Invention of the Holy Cross, in the aforesaid year, Robert
Capoun and seventeen unknown men came with bows and arrows and greyhounds to
the place called ‘Ellerbek’ against the assize of the forest for the purpose of
doing evil, but they took nothing; and that on Friday after the Translation of
Saint Thomas last, Adam (FAR00025) son of Simon the Miller of Farndale,
Richard son of John the Miller, and three unknown men came to a place called
‘Petrenedle’, and there took two hinds, and when they were proclaimed by the
foresters, they left one hind, which the foresters carried to Pykeryng castle
and the said malefactors carried the other away with them;... the King orders
the sheriff to take with him John de Rithre, and to arrest all the aforesaid
men and Juliana, and to deliver them to John de Kylvynton, keeper of Pykeryng
castle, whom the king has ordered to receive them and to keep them in prison in
the castle until further orders.
‘At Pickering before the Sheriff of York in 1323, on
Friday after the translation of St Thomas last, Adam son of Simon the miller
of Farndale, (21), Richard the son of John the miller three unknown men
came to the place ‘Petrenedle’ and there took two hinds and when they were
proclaimed by the foresters they left one hind which the foresters carried the
other way with them...(long list of other offenders)...... The King orders the
Sheriff to take with him John de Rithre and to arrest the aforesaid men and
deliver them to John de Kyltynton, Keeper of Pyckeryng
Castle whom the King ordered to receive them
and to keep them in prison until further orders.’ Was this the same Adam de Farndale,
who would be 28 at the time which would fit? (Close Rolls 22 August 1323, 17 Edward II page 15 and 16)
John
de Farndale (FAR00026) was released from excommunication at
Pickering Castle on 23 February 1324. This may have related to a prior poaching
offence. Text of Release From Excommunication; ‘To the Most Serene Prince, His Lord Edward, by the Grace of God, King
of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Aquitaine, William by Divine
permission Archbishop of York, Primate of England, Greetings in him to serve
who is to reign for ever. We make known to Your Royal Excellency, by these
presents that William de Lede of Saxton, John of Farndale and John Brand of
Howon, our Parishioners, lately at our ordinary invocation, according to the
custom of your Realm, were bound by sentence of greater excommunication and,
contemptuous of the power of the Church, were committed to Your Majesty’s Prison
for contumacy and offences punishable by imprisonment; and have humbly done
penance to God and to the Church, wherefore they have been deemed worthy to
obtain from us in legal form the benefit of absolution. May it therefore please
Your Majesty that we re-admit the said William, John and John to the bosom of
the Church as faithful members thereof and order their liberation from the said
prison. May God preserve you for His Church and the people.’ Given at
Thorpe, next York, 9 April 1324.
1330
The
date of the following extract from the Coucher Book, folio 222, is probably about
1330 :—
The Coucher Book, folio 224, tells how
two men, on Thursday next after the feast of S. Lucy the Virgin, went to
Mulfosse, in Hartoft, and there slew one hind. How
" Thomas de Hamthwaite, Robert de
Bolton, Richard of Helmsley, John de Skipton, Robert Moryng, Abraham Milner,
Stephen Moye, and Peter son of Henry, with others unknown, on Thursday, 7th of
March, 1331, went to a place called Hamclifbek, with two leporariis (gazehounds
or greyhounds), and belonging to John de Kilvington and Robert Spink, and with
bows and arrows, and there slew one soar and one hind and one stag, and were
fined, etc."
In the same folio we have an account of
how " Roger son of Emma, John de Bordesden, Robert Moryng, John son of William
Fabri (Smith) of Farndale (FAR00037), Robert Stybbing, and William Bullock,
about the feast of S. Bartholomew, captured one hind and one calf at Rotemir."
How " Hugh de Yeland and John de Yeland, Thomas Hampthwait, William de
Langwath, Peter son of Henry Young, William de Hovingham, forester of Spaunton,
William Burcy (or Curcy), Robert de Miton, sergeant of Normanby, and six others
unknown, captured at Leasehow, with bows and arrows and hounds, a young
hart," and so on.
(History of
the Parish of Lastingham)
1332
Robert
Farndale (FAR00012) son of Peter of Farndale,
fined for poaching, at Pickering
Castle
in 1332. (If 40 at the time he was born about 1292 when his father Peter (FAR00008) would be about 54).
Robert Farndale (FAR00031) son of Simon the miller of
Farndale (FAR00021), and Robert son of Peter
of Farndale, (FAR00008), were fined for poaching
at Pickering Castle in 1332 (Patent Rolls)
1334 and 1335
Nicholas of Farndale (FAR00022), gave bail for Roger son of Gilbert of
Farndale (see FAR00028) who had been caught poaching in 1334
and 1335.
‘Pleas
held at Pickering on Monday 13 Mar 1335
before Richard de Willoughby and John de Hambury. The Sheriff was ordered to
summon those named to appear this day before the Justices to satisfy the Earl
for their fines for poaching in the forest of which they were convicted
before the Justices by the evidence of the foresters, venderers and other
officers. They did not appear and the Sheriff stated that they could not be
found and are not in his bailiwick and he had no way of attacking them. He was
therefore ordered to seize them and keep them safely so that he could produce
them before the Justices on Monday 15 Mar 1335. A long list of names follows
including……Robert filium Simonis de Farndale, Rogerum de milne de
Farndale, Robertum, filium Petri de Farndale,( FAR00024)…………’ (NRRY Vol III)
National Archives Ref DL
42/1/35/U6
1334 Jan 25-1335 Jan 24
Folios: 335v-336v. County of
Yorkshire. Fines, amercements and issues of forfeitures at Pikeryng
before
The following records
require supervised handling in Collection Care. Please contact The National
Archives to arrange viewing. Appointments are available from Tuesday to Friday
at 11.00am or 2.00pm, are limited to two hours and are subject to availability.
Folios: 335v-336v. County of
Yorkshire. Fines, amercements and issues of forfeitures at Pikeryng
[Pickering] before Richard de Wylughby [Willoughby],
Robert de Hungerford and John de Hambury, itinerant
justices assigned to take the pleas of the forest of Henry, earl of Lancaster,
of Pickering.
People mentioned: Agnes Snawe of Aslagby [Aislaby]. Nicholas Tran. Henry de Boys. Geoffrey de Chymyne. John Cawode. Robert de Grendale [Grindale]. Thomas, son
of Amicia. William, son of Alexander Tateman.
William, son of Alexander. John Thurnyf. Hugh de Shenynton. Thomas Ouhtred,
knight. John in Solar'. John de Viridi of Semere
[Seamer]. Robert Jolle. Margaret in le Loft. Margaret Nalbarn.
John Danyel [Daniel]. Robert Wawayn. Robert, son of
Alexander. Roger Pynchon. Margaret de Haterbergh.
Thomas, son of Henry. Roger, son of Ralph de Osgodby.
Thomas, nephew of the parson of Sneton Roston
[Ruston]. Roger Fallidam. William Fallidam.
The prior of Heghitldesham [Hexham]. Alexander de Westhorp [Westhorpe]. John, son of Allinet.
John, son of Geoffrey. John de Shelton. Alan Grelley.
The vills of Pikeryng
[Pickering] and Gotheland [Goathland]. The vills of Sillyngton [Sinnington]
and Marton. The vill of Aslaghby
[Aislaby]. The vill of Farmanby. Roger Drye, one of the mainpernors
of Richard Drye, indicted of hunting. Hugh Lenonus,
another mainpernor of Richard Drye, indicted of
hunting. John Whyte, another mainpernor of the said
Richard Drye, indicted of hunting. Roger de Verdale, another mainpernor of the said Richard, indicted of hunting. Alan,
son of Alexander, one of the mainpernors of William
Haye, indicted of hunting. The same Alan, son of Alexander, one of the mainpernors of Adam de Suthfeld,
indicted of hunting. Robert, son of Alexander, one of the mainpernors
of William Haye, indicted of hunting. The same Robert, son of Alexander, one of
the mainpernors of Adam de Suthfeld,
indicted of hunting. The same Robert, son of Alexander, one of the mainpernors of Richard, father of the said William Haye,
indicted of hunting. Roger de Verdale, one of the mainpernors
of William Haye, indicted of hunting. Roger de Verdale, mainpernor
of Richard, father of the said William Haye, indicted of hunting. Roger de Multhorp, one of the mainpernors
of William de Haye, indicted of hunting. Roger de Multhorp,
one of the mainpernors of Richard, father of the said
William Haye, indicted of hunting. Roger, son of Gilbert de Frandale
[Farndale], one of the mainpernors of John, son of Albe, indicted of hunting. John Hoton,
one of the mainpernors of John Albe,
indicted of hunting. Thomas Makaunt, one of the mainpernors of John, son of Albe,
indicted of hunting. Henry del Tunge, one of mainpernors of John, son of Albe,
indicted of hunting. Peter, son of Gervase, one of the mainpernors
of John, son of Albe, indicted of hunting. Ralph the
merchant of Pikeryng [Pickering], one of the mainpernors of John Cokerell,
indicted of hunting. William the smith of Cropton, one of the mainpernors of the same John Cokerell,
indicted of hunting. Robert Westgyll, another mainpernor of John, son of Richard de Westgill,
indicted of hunting. John Alberd, another mainpernor of the same Robert, son of Richard de Westgill, indicted of hunting. The same John Alberd, one of the mainpernors of
John, son of Richard de Westgill, indicted of
hunting. John, son of Walter, one of the mainpernors
of Robert, son of Richard de Westgill, indicted of
hunting. John le Shephirde of Farndale, one of the mainpernors of John, son of Richard de Westgill,
indicted of hunting. Alan, son of Nicholas de Farndale, one of the mainpernors of Richard, son of John de Farndale, indicted
of hunting. The same Alan, son of Nicholas de Farndale, one of the mainpernors of Adam, son of Simon the miller of Farndale,
indicted of hunting. Nicholas Laverok, one of the mainpernors of Richard, son of John de Farndale,
indicted of hunting. The same Nicholas Laverok,
one of the mianpernors of Adam, son of Simon the
miller, indicted of hunting. John, son of John the miller, one of the mainpernors of Richard, son of John the miller of Farndale,
indicted of hunting. The same John, son of John the miller, one of the mainpernors of Adam, son of Simon the miller, indicted of
hunting. William le Smyth of Farndale, one of the mainpernors
of Robert, son of Richard de Westgill, indicted
of hunting. The same William le Smyth of Farndale, one of the mainpernors of John, son of Richard de Westgill,
indicted of hunting. John, son of John the miller, one of the mainpernors of Richard, son of John the miller of Farndale,
indicted of hunting. The same John, son of John the miller, one of the mainpernors of Adam, son of Simon the miller, indicted of
hunting. Nicholas Brakenthwayt, one of the mainpernors of Richard, son of John the miller of
Farndale, indicted of hunting. The same Nicholas Brakenthwayt,
one of the mainpernors of Adam, son of Simon the
miller, indicted of hunting. Alan de Braghby, one of
the mainpernors of Richard, son of John the miller of
Farndale, indicted of hunting.
Held on: Monday next after
Michaelmas 8 Edw III.
In Latin
Not on public record.
Folios: 228-229. County of
Yorkshire. Pleas of the forest of Henry, earl of Lancaster,...
DL 42/1/23/U29
1334 Jan 25-1335 Jan 24
Folios: 228-229. County of
Yorkshire. Pleas of the forest of Henry, earl of Lancaster, of Pikeryng [Pickering], held at Pickering before Richard de Wylughby [Willoughby], Robert de Hungerford and John de Hambury, justices itinerant on
this occasion assigned to take pleas of the said forest in Yorkshire:
Trespassers of the hunt, and their mainpernors, who
were sent away and do not come:
William, son of Moyson of Dales: William was sent away by the mainprise of
William Moyson, William, son of Thomas of Hakenes [Hackness], Thomas of the
same, John de Erden of the same, John de Sneynton of
the same, Robert, son of John de Everle [Everley], Robert de Hakenes [Hackness] of Brokeseye [Broxa], Geoffrey de
Holtby of Hakeneys [Hackness]
and John Wodeman of Pikeryng
[Pickering], who mainperned to have him on the first
day of the eyre, and they do not now have him, etc.
William de la More the elder
of Ogelberdby [Ugglebarnby]:
William was sent away by the mainprise of Robert le Saler of Thornton, John de Bretteby of the same, William Itory
of the same, Roger, son of Robert de Ogwerdby [Ugglebarnby], Geoffrey, son of Rand' of the same, and
Geoffrey Hirde of the same, who mainperned to have
him on the first day of the eyre, and they do not now have him, etc.
John Cokerell
of Cropton: John was sent away by the mainprise of Elias Cokerel
of Cropton, Richard atte Yate of the same, William
the smith of the same, Ranulph the merchant of Pikeryng
[Pickering], Robert Kyng of the same, William th
weaver of the same, and William the miller of Cropton, who mainperned
to have him on the first day of the eyre, and they do not now have him, etc.
John Tendbarn
of Harewode [Harwood]: John was sent away by the
mainprise of William Kyng of Harwode [Harwood], Hugh Lowys of the same, William Prat, John Thurs of the same,
Roger, son of Ralph de Hakeneys [Hackness],
William the man of Lawrence of the same, Geoffrey the cook of Alverstan [Allerston], Robert Payt, William de Adel, John Scot of Pikeryng
[Pickering], Thomas de Hoton and Roger Walgh of Pikeryng [Pickering],
who mainperned to have him on the first day of the
eyre, and they do not now have him, etc.
Geoffrey de Langedon: Geoffrey was sent away by the mainprise of Adam,
son of William de Kynthorp [Kingthorpe],
William son of Emma, Thomas de Hoton,
Adam Erchebaud of Pikeryng
[Pickering], William de Kernarly of the same, John de
York, John Pacok and Walter Kyng, who mainperned to have him on the first day of the eyre, and
they do not now have him, etc.
Peter Wyles: Peter was sent
away by the mainprise of William de Swynton, Geoffrey
de Eston, Robert de Heworth, Robert Forester of Egton, Robert de Wyles, and
John Cloutepotte, who mainperned
to have him, etc, and they do not now have him, etc.
Thomas Blount of Alvestan [Allerston]: Thomas was
sent away by the mainprise of Adam de Crambun of Alvestan [Allerston], Thomas de
la Chymene of Eberston [Ebberston], William Widde of the
same, Hugh Neville of Wilton, John Cok of Thornton [Thornton le Dale] and
Thomas Walker of Alvestan [Allerston],
who mainperned to have him on the first day of the
eyre, and they do not now have him, etc.
John, son of Richard de Westgille of Farndale: John was sent away by the mainprise of William le Smyth of
Farndale, Richard de Westgill, John le Shephird of Farndale, John Alberd
of the same, Nicholas, son of Walter of the same, John del Heued
of the same, and Robert de Westgill, who mainperned to have him on the first day of the eyre, and
they do not now have him, etc.
Robert, son of Richard de Westgill of Farndale: Robert was sent away by the mainprise
of William le Smyth of Farndale,
John, son of Walter of the same, John Alberd of the
same, and Nicholas, son of Walter of the same, who mainperned
to have him on the first day of the eyre, and they do not now have him, etc.
Roger le Carter of Scardeburgh [Scarborough]: Roger was sent away by the
mainprise of Aymer Gedge, John de Haterbergh, John de
la Chymene, Thomas Cokerell,
John son of Alan, John Cruel, John de Bulmere, John Dryng, Walter de
Holm, Thomas del Hunthous, William Haldan and Thomas
de la Chimene, who mainperned to have him on the
first day of the eyre, and they do not now have him, etc.
William, son of Mariota Lyiard of Scardeburgh
[Scarborough]: William was sent away by the mainprise of Aymer Gedge, John de Haterbergh, John de la Chymene,
Thomas Cokerell, John son of Alan, John Cruel, John
de Bulmere, John Dryng,
Walter Holm, Thomas del Hunthous, William Haldan and
Thomas de la Chemene, who mainperned to have him on
the first day of the eyre, and they do not now have him, etc.
William, son of Ralph the
miller: William was sent away by the mainprise of Ralph the miller of Lokton [Lockton], Roger de Lokton
[Lockton], Ralph de la Dale, Adam Blome, Alan de Wrelton,
Ralph le Colier, Nicholas de Wrelton, Simon del Hull,
Geoffrey de Dundale, Nicholas the man of Ralph, Robert de Dundale, Thomas Raven
and John Burell, who mainprised to have him on the
first day of the eyre, and they do not now have him, etc.
Henry Chubbok:
After he trespassed about hunting in this forest, Henry was sent away by the
mainprise of William Haldan, William de Ugelardeby [Ugglebarnby], John Cruel, Robert de la Gayole,
William the forester of Alvestan [Allerston],
Robert de Hale, Thomas de la Chymene, Ralph Jolyve, Hugh Awerkman, Alan
Child, William Gylory and William Faireneu,
who mainperned to have him on the first day of the
eyre, and they do not now have him, etc.
John, son of Alan de
Thornton: John was sent away by the mainprise of Edmund de Hastynges
[Hastings], William de Neville, William Reynald of Pikeryng
[Pickering], Stephen Dote, Walter, son of Gocelin of Levesham [Levisham], Alan Pye the
elder, Alan, his son, Roger Brun [Brown], Alan de Neuton
[Newton], John de Hoton of Farmanby,
Richard Guer and John le Feur, who mainperned to have him, etc, and they do not now have him,
etc.
Held on: Monday next after
Michaelmas 8 Edw III.
1336
John
de Farndale (FAR00026),
bail by him for poaching, given at Pickering before Richard de Wylughby and
John de Hainbury on Monday 2 Dec 1336 (Yorkshire
Fees).
William, smith of Farndale (FAR00037),
on Monday 2 Dec 1336, came hunting in Lefebow with bow and arrows and
gazehounds………’ (NRRY Vol III).
1348
From the
Calendar of Patent
Rolls, Edward III AD 1345 to 1348, 21 Edward III – Part III, page 472: Jan 17,
Westminster. Commission of Oyer and terminer to Henry de Percy, Thomas de
Rokeby, William Basset, William Malbys, William de Broclesby, Thomas de
Fencotes and Thomas de Seton, on complaint by the same Peter that Edmund de
Hastynges …. William Smyth of Farndale the younger … broke his park at Egton,
Co York, hunted therein, carried away his goods with deer from the park and
assaulted his men and servants, whereby he lost their service for a great time.
By fine of 1 mark.
There is also a reference to Richard Ruttok of Farendale in the long list
of names.
So on 17 January 1348
at Westminster, there was a commission of oyer and terminer to a long list of
names including William Smyth of Farndale (FAR00040)
the younger and Richard Ruttok of Farendale for breaking in to the park at
Egton, hunting and carrying away the property of the owner with deer, and for
assaulting the owner’s men and servants causing their inability to work for a
long time, for which the werefined 1 mark.
1353 and 1354
Patent Rolls, 27 Edward III Part III, page 541 and index: Commission
of oyer and terminor to William de Greystok … touching the evildoers who
latekly broke to closes, houses and parks of William son and heit of William
Latymer, tenant in chief at Daneby, co York, while these were in the king’;s
hands by reason of the nonage of the said heir, entered his free chace there, hunted
therein and carried away deer, and assulated his men and servants whereby
he lost their service for a great time. The like complaint by William Latymer that
Johbn, prior of Gisborne, Robert de Thornton, his fellow canon, Nicholas Rosels
… John Colinman of Farnedale … and others broke etc (as above) …6 December 1353 – see FAR00042.
1366
William Blakhose of Farndalde, John
Cokrell the Younger of Farnedale and Hugh Moigne of Farnedale were all fined
20s for poaching fish in 1366 (Patent Rolls
40 Edward III Part 1, pages 280 to 281).
‘February
10, At Westminster. Commission of Oyer and Terminer to John Mourbray,
Thomas de Ingleby … on complaint by Peter de Malo Lacu, ‘le sisme’, that William Birkhead of
Wasdale …William Blakhose of Farndale, John Cokrell the younger of Farndale….
broke park at Grenhowe and entered his free warrens at Semar in Clyvelande,
Whorleton in Clivelande, Seton in Whitebystrande, Boynton ‘on the Wolde’ and
Killyngwyk by Braken, co York, hunted in these, fished in his stews and other
several fisheries there, took fish therein, and carried away fish as well as
other goods and hares, conies, pheasants and partridges, and assaulted and
wounded his servants. For 20s paid in the hanaper.
See FAR00047.
William Blackhous is also referred to in another incident in 1293 involving
Roger milne of Farndale( FAR0013A).
1367
Calendar
of Patent
Rolls, 41 Edward III Part II, page 63: ‘November 8, At
Westminster. Commission of Oyer and Terminer to John Mourbray, Thomas de
Ingleby … on complaint by William Latymer, knight, that whereas the king lately
took him, his men, lands, rents and possessions into his protection while he
stayed in the king’s service in the parts of Brittany, Master John de Bolton,
clerk, Thomas de Neuton, chaplain, William Rede … William of
Farndale … William Blakehose of Farndale … broke his closes at
Danby, Leverton, Thornton in Pykerynglith, Symnelyngton, Scampton, Teveryngton
and Morhous, Co York, entered his free chace at Danby and his free warren at
the remaining places, hunted therein without licence, felled his trees
there, fished in his several fishery, took away fish, trees, deer from the
chace, hares, conies, pheasants and partridges from the warren departured, trod
down and consumed the corn and grass there with certain cattle and assaulted
and wounded his men and servants. By K And be it remembered that the said
William has granted the king a moiety of all the profit which he shall recover
for damages by pretext of the said commission.
See FAR00047.
1369
Calendar
of Patent
Rolls, 43 Edward III Part I, page 263: ‘March 6, At Westminster. Commission of Oyer
and Terminer to John Mourbray, Thomas de Ingleby … on complaint by William
Latymer, knight, that whereas the king lately took him, then stayed in his
service in Brittany, and his men, lands,
rents and possessions into his protection, into his possession for a certain
time, Master John de Bolton, clerk, Thomas de Neuton, chaplain, William Rede
…John Cockerell of Farndale … William Blakhose of Farndale … broke his closes
at Danby, Leverton, Thornton in Pykerynglith, Symnelyngton, Scampton,
Teveryngton and Morhous, and entered his free chace at the said town of Danby
and his free warren at the remaining places, hunted in these, felled his
trees there, fished in his several fishery there, carried away his fish,
trees, deer from the chace, hares, conies, pheasants and partridges from the
warren, trode down and consumed with cattle his crops and assaulted his men and
servants.
See FAR00047.
1370
7
May 1370, Westminster.
Pardon to William
Farndale (FAR00047A) of Caleys of the King's suit for the death of John de
Spaldyngton, whereof he is indicted or appealed, and of any consequent
outlawry.
(Calendar of
Patent Rolls, 44 Edward III – Part I, page 393).
1372
Calendar
of Patent
Rolls, 46 Edward III – Part II, page 243: 1372, Nov 20. Westminster.
Commission to Robert de Roos, sheriff of York, Acrise de Hanlaby, Roger de
Fulthorp, William de Nessfield, James de Raygate, John Clervaux and John de
Topclif of Rypon to arrest and commit to prison all persons prosecuting appeals
in derogation of the judgement of the justices of the Bench whereby the king
recovered against the abbey of St Mary’s York, and Richard Belle, Chaplain, his
presentation to the church of Croft, lately void and in the King’s gift by
reason of the temporalities of the abbey of St Mary, York, being in his hand,
and to the hindrance of the king’s clerk, Henry Bowet, who holds the church on
the king’s presentation.
Commission
of oyer and terminer to Ralph de Hastynges, John Moubray, Thomas de Ingleby,
Roger de Fulthorp and John de Laysyngby, on complaint by William Latymer that
John de Rungeton, John son of John Percy of Kildale, John de Grenhowe,
chaplain, John de Grenhow, parson in the church of Kildale, John Porter of
Farndale, Hugh Bailly of Farndale, Adam Bailly of Farndale, and others,
entered his free chace at Danby co York, hunted therein without licence and
took deer therefrom, and assaulted his men and servants. By C.
See FAR00048.
1384
On 10 Dec 1384, At
Westminster. Commission of Oyer and Terminer. John Farndale
(FAR00042A) and others broke their close, houses and hedges at Wittonstalle
and Fayrhils, Co Northumberland and seized 30 horses, 20 mares, 100 oxen and
100 cowes valued at £200 and carried them off with goods and chattels,
assaulted his men, servants and tenants and so threatened them that they left
his service.
(Calendar of Patent Rolls)
On 21 Aug 1385 at Durham.
Commission of Oyer and Terminer….John Farndale, and others broke their close,
houses and hedges at Wittonstalle and Fayrhils, Co Northumberland.’
(Calendar of Patent Rolls, 9 Richard II, page 80).
1396
19 April 1396 - Pardon to Robert
de Wodde of Farndale (FAR00053) , for the death of John Hawlare of Kirby
Moorseved, killed there on Monday, the eve of the Purification in the 18th
year.
1398
There was a
serious armed robbery. Calendar of Patent Rolls,
Richard II, 1396 to 1399, 21 Richard II Part III, 1398, page 365: ‘May
2, At Westminster. Commission of Oyer and Terminer to Henry de Percy, earl of
Northumberland, John Depeden, knight, Thomas Colvyle the elder, knight, John
Markham, William Gascoigne, Richard de Norton, John de Burgh, William de
Nenson, and Miles de Stapilton, on complaint by High Gascoigne, parson of
Staynegreve, that Peter de Clay, son of John de Clay of Fadmore, Richard de
Thornton of Neuton, Thomas Wolthwayt of Farnedale, William Irpe, John de
Bolton, ‘coseur’, Robert de Thornton of Neuton, John del Clay of Fadmore,
Richard del Clay, Richard Candy, Thomas de Crathorne the elder, Adam Helmeslay,
and other armed malefactors broke his close and houses at Steingreve, assaulted him, fished in his several fishery there, and took away his fish and goods and
chattels to the value of 200 marks as well as 1000 marks in money,
and assaulted his men and servants. For 4 marks paid in the hanaper.’ See FAR00054.
1445
On 16 April 1445 at
Westminster…..for not appearing before William
Babynton and his fellows when impleaded with Richard Coke of Cokewald, Co
York…. Lawrence Hoggeson of Farndale and John Farndale of Stillyngton Co
Durham, wright, to answer Thomas Bishop of Durham touching trespass.
Terminology of the Forest
Verderers were forestry officials in England who
deal with common land in certain former royal hunting areas which are the
property of the Crown. The office was developed in the Middle Ages to
administer forest law on behalf of the King. Verderers investigated and
recorded minor offences such as the taking of venison and the illegal cutting
of woodland, and dealt with the day-to-day forest administration. Verderers are
still to be found in the New Forest, the Forest of Dean, and Epping Forest,
where they serve to protect commoning practices, and conserve the traditional
landscape and wildlife. Verderers were originally part of the ancient judicial
and administrative hierarchy of the vast areas of English forests and Royal
Forests set aside by William the Conqueror for hunting. The title Verderer
comes from the Norman word ‘vert’ meaning green and referring to
woodland. These forests were divided into provinces each having a Chief Justice
who travelled around on circuit dealing with the more serious offences. Verderers
investigated and recorded minor offences and dealt with the day to day forest
administration.
Regarders were generally knights sworn to carry
out the regard of the Forest, which preceded the eyre. In old English law, they were
ancient officers of the forest whose task was to take a view of the forest
hunts.
A hart is a male red deer and
contrasts with a female hind. The word comes from the Middle English
word hert meaning deer.
The reference to a soar is
probably to a sow or female pig or boar.
The value of a mark was 13s 4d. There
is a webpage about the value of medieval money.
A website about Robin Hood provides an
interesting summary of Forest
Law.
The Poachers of Pickering Forest
The Poachers of Pickering
Forest 1282-1338 by Derek Rivard (Medieval Prosopography, Vol. 17, No. 2
(Autumn 1996), pp. 97-144 (48 pages)):
On a chilly Wednesday, 23 March 1334,
Nicholas Meynell led an expedition out upon Blakely Moor to poach the deer of
Pickering Forest. Accompanying this lord of the North Riding of Yorkshire was a
band of at least forty men and boys, including tenants and under-tenants,
clergymen and knights, and even the younger Peter de Mauley, baron of Mulgrave.
Carrying bows and arrows and leading gazehounds that would track and dismember
the prey, this band of "respectable" criminals slew an astonishing forty-two
harts and hinds in the space of one day. Not content with this breach of the
forest law, the hunters left upon the moor a grisly gesture of defiance for the
foresters of Pickering: the decapitated heads of nine harts, impaled upon
stakes fixed in the ground. One can almost hear the laughter of the poachers at
their jest as they returned home to divide the spoils, but it is certain the
foresters were not laughing: seven months later, the wealthy members of this
hunting party appeared before the Justices of the Forest for Yorkshire to be
amerced, while those among them too poor, or unwilling, to stand before the
court were outlawed.
This incident, drawn from the records of
the 1334 forest eyre, is an important event in the history of Pickering Forest,
a north Yorkshire possession of the earldom of Lancaster since Henry Ill's
reign.1 Although the magnitude of this offense is out of all proportion to the
average poaching case, the incident can nevertheless serve to illustrate
important realities of poaching in the regions marked off as being under the
jurisdiction of the prerogative forest law. The social profile of poachers cut
across lines of status, occupation, and sex. There were elements of both sport
and subsistence involved in poaching, while the hunt could also serve as an
outlet for social tensions. Poaching could bring serious penalties upon the
heads of the guilty; the existing records may thus reveal details of social and
economic standing.
Although it was an important economic
and social activity of the communities within the bounds of the forest,
poaching has been neglected by modern historians of the forest. Few studies
provide data on the identities and motivations of poachers. This present
article will trace the social and economic profile, on an individual and
corporate basis, of the poachers of Pickering Forest as found in records of the
1334 eyre. Through an examination of the eyre records, the North Riding lay
subsidies of 1301, 1327 and 1332, feudal inquisitions into knights' fees,
the calendars of letters patent and close, inquisitions post mortem, and other
sources, a quantitative and prosopographical methodology can be used to trace
the identities of these criminals. The poachers of North Yorkshire who emerge
from this study are a group characterized by diversity, arising partly from
families of local gentry but primarily from the near-anonymous men of the soil
who entered the forest as lowly interlopers intent on filling their bellies
with Lancastrian (sic, recte Yorkshire?) deer.
Hunting the elusive stag was an integral
part of the lives, consciousness, and literature of the high and late Middle Ages.
Handbooks for both the ritual and practical conduct of a hunt were
composed by members of the elite ranks of society, while lyrical and epic
poetry was composed to describe the chase, which was likened to martial
training, the quest for spiritual perfection, and the pursuit of a courtly
lover. For men and women of the lower social orders the hunt of a deer had a
more sinister aspect, as it was a breach of a complex prerogative law. Deer and
lesser animals within the bounds of designated areas (royal forests) were
protected under this law so that the unsanctioned killing of a beast could cost
the hunter a substantial fine. The fear and suspicion this law engendered
among the populace characterized the issue surrounding these protected
woodlands throughout the later Middle Ages, during which regulation was
expanded and enforced through the perambulation of eyre courts and
the creation of a complex hierarchy of forest officials. Forbidden to
attack game that could freely eat their crops, required to mutilate their dogs
to keep them from hunting within the forests, forbidden even to carry a bow
within the forest, the commoners of this era found that "hunting became
associated with freedom, feasting, and rebellion against the authorities.” By
poaching, the gentry and commoners of Pickering expressed their hatred of the
forest law, their love of sport, and their need for security in times of hardship.
The locale of this particular group of
poachers, Pickering Forest, was a northerly forest remarkable for the extent
of its woodland. For 1086, Domesday Book records the manor of Pickering as
possessing woodland sixteen leagues long by four leagues wide, covering
all of the soke of Pickering. By 1168 the formation of the honour of Pickering
from the manors of Pickering and Falsgrave (encompassing at that time the
parishes of Hackness and Scarborough) had joined the eastern forest of Scalby
(three leagues long by two leagues wide) to Pickering Forest, creating woodland
extending from the river Severn to the sea. The west ward, embracing the
original forest of Pickering, bordered the forest of Spaunton, which was in the
custody of St. Mary's Abbey, York; the east ward, Scalby, bordered on the
forest of Whitby, which in 1086 embraced over twenty-three square leagues of
forest in the parishes of Whitby, Sneaton, and Hackness, overseen by the
verderers of Whitby Abbey. The majority of this land was forested, and it
ranged from the rich vale of Pickering in the south of that parish to the high
moorlands of northern areas such as Goathland, suitable mainly for sheep
grazing.
At the time of the eyre in question, Pickering
and its forest were in the possession of Henry, third earl of Lancaster. Once
belonging to Simon de Montfort, the honor, castle, manor, and forest of
Pickering had been given in fee by Henry III to his younger son, Edmund, in
1267, the first earl of Lancaster. Edmund's son Thomas led the rebellion
against Edward II, and following Thomas's execution at Pontefract, Pickering
and its adjoining territories were confiscated by the crown. The forest and its
appurtenances were not restored to Thomas's brother Henry until the ascension
of Edward III. Besides Henry and his various under-tenants, local landholders
included Rievaulx Abbey, the Gilbertine houses of Maltón and Ellerton Priory,
and the Hospitallers, who held lands in the forest confiscated from the
Templars. When the 1334 eyre was called, Henry enjoyed the privilege (first
granted in 1285 by Edward I) of appointing his own justices and collecting the
fines and ransoms gathered there for his own use. In this sense Pickering was a
private forest, but the justices of Lancaster were still compelled to enforce
the crown's forest law; and the pervasive hatred of the forest law manifested
itself in poaching in the same manner as occurred throughout the crown forests
of southern England.
In order to identify the poachers in
their social and economic context, this study draws heavily on a
prosopographical methodology and a database that contains records selected from
a wide variety of sources. From 509 appearances in the eyre records, 399
individuals have been identified, 365 poachers and thirty-four receivers of
venison. The cases studied here occurred between 1282 and the
close of the eyre in 1338, a breadth of time that allows us to examine the
patterns of poaching throughout a turbulent period of English, and particularly
northern English, history. A systematic analysis of poaching and poachers
reveals distinct patterns of activity and three subgroups of poachers: the
elite poachers (including the peerage and greater gentry), the middling
poachers (including the lesser clergy, servants of clergymen, most forest
officers, the lesser gentry, artisans and tradesmen, urban poachers, and
receivers), and the largest subgroup, the lowly poachers (the peasantry). In
her study on Midland poachers Jean Birrell commented that the evidence of
poaching from the eyre rolls "does not lend itself to precise
statistics," but the wealth of material present in the records of
Pickering begs for a quantitative analysis, one that addresses both the numbers
and the character of each of these subgroups of poachers.
Elite poachers formed an extremely small percentage of
the entire corpus of Pickering Forest criminals. In her study of Midland
poaching Birrell has claimed that most poachers were of gentry status or
better, including within their ranks many of the knightly class,16 but this
present study has uncovered only twelve poachers who may confidently be
identified as knights. Peter de Mauley, fourth baron of Mulgrave, was with Lord
Meynell in that notorious hunting party discussed above. As a member of the
peerage and the scion of one of the two great families within the North Riding,
Peter cut an impressive figure; he inherited his father's lands in 1309 (an
estate that embraced at least six knights' fees, four capital messuages, three
parks, and the castle and orchard of Mulgrave). A pardoned supporter of Thomas,
earl of Lancaster, Peter hunted often.20 His expeditions all seem to have been
large, social gatherings, for we find him in the company of "many others
unknown” taking two harts in Wheeldale Rigg - a hunt sporting enough to allow
one hart to be completely devoured by Peter's eager gazehounds.
Another socially prominent poacher was
Sir John Fauconberg, a knight whose taste for Lancastrian (sic, recte
Yorkshire?) deer unfortunately became entwined with the greedy enmity of Edward
II's favorite. Having taken three deer within the forest of Pickering and the
woodlands of Whitby in 1323 Sir John was arrested by Hugh Dispenser junior,
imprisoned, and fined an outrageous £66 13s.4d. for his offense. In prison, he
appealed to the king's mercy and was released after paying but one-tenth of the
fine.23 Sir John's luck went only so far, for upon his arraignment in 1334 for
the third hind taken in that past expedition, he was committed to prison yet
again, a fine state of affairs for a respectable lord of three manors.
Knights presented for hunting in Pickering
Forest often hunted in poaching parties. Edmund Hastings, who held four
oxgangs in Roxby and the forestership of Parnell de Kingthorpe in 1334, went
out with members of his household and hunted a hart on Midsummer Eve, perhaps
to provide the maikn course of a seasonal feat. He was caught in the act and
forced to present a letter of pardon from the late Earl Thomas to secure his
release.26 Sir John Percy and his brother Sir William, heirs of the Percy
family of Kildale, a cadet branch of the powerful Percys
Northumberland, were also present in the
expedition of Lord Meynell and the baron of Mulgrave, for which they suffered
the indignity of being imprisoned and ransomed for £2.27 Sir Thomas of Bolton,
lord of the manors of Hutton-upon-Derwent and Hinderskelfe, went poaching with
a large party of the gentry and hounds and downed two hinds.28 Any punishment
he received has vanished from the records.
The greater gentry's role in poaching
was similar in scope to that of the knightly and baronial hunters. The gentry
as a whole was a nebulous, diverse body of individuals hovering somewhere
between peasantry and knighthood. The lack of solid data on many Pickering
individuals makes absolute categories of "greater" and
"lesser" gentry problematical; for this study, those possessing the
title dominus or domina in the records have been classified as
…
An examination of the lay subsidies
shows that only a small fraction of the poachers ever appeared to have had
adequate wealth to tax. Of the 365 poachers presented by the eyre, only 11
percent (forty-two) paid the taxes in any of these three years. This figure
falls well below Dyer's
standardized figure of 40 percent and
suggests that the majority of Pickering poachers were too poor to pay the
tax. Indeed, the vast majority of assessed poachers possessed goods valued
at £3 or less.65 This figure assumes significance when one remembers two
points: one, that the crown had, as early as 1300, set the minimum income
necessary for knightly status, the distraint of knighthood, at £40 of landed
income; and two, that for the majority of the English population of this era,
an income of £10 yearly may safely be taken as the benchmark of wealth.
Although it is not possible to gauge with certainty how much the fluctuating
valuations of movable property reflected the landed wealth of the poachers, the
small amount of goods they possessed (with £3 or less being less than 10
percent of the yearly income of £40 required by the distraint, and less than a
third of the basic income of wealthy household) suggests that all but the
richest poachers remained not too distant from a very modest standard of living.
The elites figure heavily in this small minority of criminals, however: seven
knights and five lords paid 31 percent of the total of assessed poachers Table
1 indicates the breakdown of assessed wealth for poachers, and of these the
elites fill all the movable-wealth slots of 100s. and above, as well six of the
nine slots for 60-99s. wealth. The economic standing of poachers can also be
deduced from the fines they paid for their illegal activities. Of the 365
individuals cited in the court records, 143 paid a fine to the eyre … an
examination of the fines levied reveals there was a definite tendency
towards standardised fines: the sums of a half mark (6s 8d), mark (13s 4d), and
pound (20s) were extremely common …
Wealth of Poachers Assessed in the Lay
Subsidy 1301-32
Assessed Wealth No. Poachers % All Assessed
Less than 20s. 3 7
20-59s 24 57
60-99s 9 21
100-200s 4 10
Over 200s 2 5
Total
42 100
Source : Turton, Pickering
… The artisans and other tradesmen
(urban and otherwise) show a pattern of family poaching similar to that
of the elite gentry. William and Roger Carter, accompanied by Gascon militiamen
from Scarborough Castle, hunted hares. Other urban artisans from Scarborough
were not immune to the allure of free venison, as we may see by the indictment
of Thomas Cobbler of Scarborough and several others others for the wounding of
a deer, the ill-equipped urban residents relying only on bows and a single
beagle. William Cooper of Scarborough and his apprentice also ventured several
miles into the forest in 1307, taking a stag for their friend William Russell,
who provided the hounds for the hunt and hosted the feast. Hugh the Barker, of
Whitby, hunted a deer in Ellerbeck and was outlawed for his pains; Adam the
Spicer was indicted for hunting in the company of Nicholas Hastings in 1305 and
for the shooting of two deer-calves that the foresters managed to rescue for
the table of Pickering Castle.75 Millers, smiths, and another cooper round out
this small group of poachers, none of whom appear in the lay subsidies, which
fact suggests that they were townsmen of humble standing. Only three managed to
pay fines to the eyre, one of 26s. 8d., one at 13s.4d., and the other of 10s.
Despite these few example of large fines, one is left with an overall
impression that the poachers from towns were of modest means.
The poacher-receivers and lesser gentry were of slightly
firmer economic standing in their communities than the artisans and tradesmen.
Receivers who also poached such as Thomas the Salter, often paid for their
second-hand crime with significant fines, such as Thomas's 13s.4d., or John
Chaplain of Hackness's 26s.8d.76 Lesser gentry, like John Bordesden, paid
similar fines: 10s. in John's case, or the 13s.4d. of John of Speton. Others,
such as William Freeman, were outlawed for their nonappearance …
… Forest officials, especially the
lower-class foresters and woodwards, are confirmed in their reputation for
corruption by their frequent appearances as poachers. We have already seen
several prominent individuals who, through a close reading of available
records, emerge as both poachers and officers: William Vescey, a justice of the
forest; William Latimer, who held the officer of verderer at the time of the
eyre; even the Warden of the Forest, Ralph Hastings, not without reproach when
poaching was the issue. Below these prominent men fall the majority of the
poaching officers, twenty-two men (6 percent of all poachers) employed by the
earl, local lords, or the commons to preserve a resource they themselves
regularly exploited.
Two foresters-turned-poachers were
foresters of the abbot of Rievaulx, and both acquired the unwelcome epithet "confirmed
poacher." Birrell has noted that in the Midlands those who earned this
sobriquet seem to have made their livelihood by poaching, hunting alone or in
groups, and thus were regularly brought before the justices. The frequency with
which the epithet appears in the records of poaching officers suggests that many
officers profited from exploiting both their commoner neighbours and the deer
in their charge. The foresters John Gosnargh and Walter Smith were both
branded "common poachers" and accused of sending venison to John
Wintringham, a monk of Whitby. Besides these cases of habitual offenders, there
were other officers who took advantage of their privileged position. Richard
the Forester accompanied Sir John Fauconberg’s party of 1322, in the hunt that
ended with Sir John being burdened by an extortionate fine demanded by Hugh
Dispenser; only through a payment by Sir John did Richard win a pardon and
escape imprisonment.89 Ingram the Forester found himself arraigned for an
incident in which he resorted to using an ax to slay a young doe but succeeded
only in maiming it, until his dog could track it to the ditch where the deer
expired. The activities of these men, along with their more prominent
counterparts, demonstrate that a severe abuse of power was taking place in
Pickering Forest Although these officers' fines tended to be higher than those
for common poachers, that foresters were conspicuously absent from the lay
subsidies indicates that any recompense they might have had from their
employment must have been small. Although these men enjoyed a salary, and
perhaps the fruits of extorting commoners, it seems likely that their
continuous record of poaching reflects the desire of a common man to
supplement lower-class, meager diet with meat at least as much as it
reflects a simple desire for sport and thrills …
The remaining poachers of Pickering,
those of lowly standing, form the largest single group. Of the 365, 80 percent (293) of
poachers fall into this class, the great majority of them leaving no records
save their appearances in the eyre rolls. The only identifiable group are the
garciones, lowly servant boys who led the hounds in the hunts of the gentry.
John Pauling, the lad of Peter Acklam took part in the hunt of a deer on
Yarnolfbeck in 1322 and of another on Hutton Moor in 1323. Nicholas of
Levisham, lad of Geoffrey of Everley, poached with his master and helped slay
three harts and three hinds in Thrush Fen on the Monday before Whitsunday, no
doubt to provide food for his master's holiday table. Thomas FitzAubrey was
part of an expedition in 1311 that missed its quarry yet was seized by the
foresters and had numerous possessions confiscated.103 In all save one of the
cases involving these twelve garciones, the poaching boy was outlawed. It would
seem that loyal service to a local lord did not save these lowly poachers from
the full penalty of the law. Since all the incidents involving servant boys
took place within twenty years of the commencement of the eyre, and since all
of these individuals may be taken to have been young at the time of offense, it
is unlikely that these outlaweries were merely the result of essoins due to
death by natural causes. Instead, it is far more probable that these boys, who
would be men in 1334, were in no position to pay the fines of the eyre and so
avoided the court where their masters might gladly ransom themselves but not
their lowly servants.
The remaining lowly poachers of
Pickering constitute a huge mass of individuals whose low socio-economic status
is apparent from the record of their fines, their absence from the lay subsidies,
and the seasonality of their poaching activities. Most poachers (61 percent)
never paid a fine to the eyre, and were outlawed. When one considers this
figure, it is important to recall the great time lag of more than thirty years
since the previous eyre; many of these non-appearances must surely have been
due to death. The high proportion nevertheless suggests that at least
significant portion of these offenders avoided the eyre for fear of a fine
that might break them. This is supported by the record of those who did pay
fines, as seen in Table above. Of the 143 poachers who paid, 61 percent
rendered fines of 1 mark or less, while a full fourth (26 percent) paid fines
of 6s.6d. or less. When we recall that the fines levied by the eyre operated on
an ability-to-pay scale, the relatively low level of those fines indicates that
most Pickering poachers possessed little wealth.
These poachers were also of such limited
means that most never appeared in either the lay subsidies or other records of
inquisitions. . Of the forty-two assessed poachers, over half (twenty-seven)
come from the ranks of the lowly poachers, and their wealth uniformly fell
below 60s. Other records of these poachers' economic standing may be found
among the inquisitions post mortem, John Kirkby's inquest into knights' fees,
and the letters close and patent. Although these data are too diverse and
detailed to be reproduced here in their entirety, some general observations are
possible.
In the larger picture of northern
agricultural life, it seems that most poachers were of low economic status.
Edward Miller in his study of northern peasant holdings has concluded that 12
percent of the population of Yorkshire could be deemed rich peasantry,
possessing holdings of over thirty acres. On the whole, this left north
Yorkshire peasants at a slight advantage in the size of their holding in
comparison to southern England. The absence of printed records of landholding
for any of these 280 anonymous poachers makes exact calculations impossible
but if one posits that the twenty-seven
peasants wealth enough to pay the subsidy fit Miller's definition of
"rich," and assuming that a definite relationship exists between
movable wealth and that universal standard of prosperity, landholding, then
only 9.6 percent of poachers can be considered to have been well endowed with
property. Thus the majority of the lowly poachers must be taken to fall
below even the standard of the relatively wealthy northern peasant. Also,
the overwhelming number of those poachers who make no appearance at all in the
subsidies strongly suggests that most were of very meager wealth, if not
actually poverty-stricken. Holding lands of comparative small size, much of
which may have been recently reclaimed from infertile moor and woodland in
the assarting boom of the thirteenth century, these poachers could easily
have felt compelled to supplement their meager produce with the venison of
Pickering. If, as Miller claims, the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century
forest dwellers of Pickering were embarked upon a "journey to the margin”
in their farming, it is quite conceivable that Lancastrian (sic, recte
Yorkshire) deer were commonly seen by the poor as a means of easing the rigors
of that journey.
The lowly economic status of most
poachers is apparent in the rise of poaching activity during periods of
hardship. A chronological analysis of the incidence of poaching between
1282 and 1338 reveals that only thirty-one years produced poaching cases for
the eyre (see Table 4), with the yearly average of such cases amounting to
approximately 14.8 for recorded years and 5.9 when all years between 1282 and
1338 are counted. Perhaps the most significant events to affect the region in
this period were the great famines of 1315-17 and 1322- 23. In these
singularly disastrous years of torrential rain and crop failure, the price of
all grains rose because of the great scarcity of wheat; a general scarcity of
across the countryside. Under such desperate conditions, one might expect to
see a dramatic rise in the number of individuals poaching for the years
1315-1317, as the humbler hunters sought to provide any sort of nourishment to
their starving households. Yet there was no such increase; indeed, there are no
recorded incidents for the year 1315, and 1316 and 1317 each saw only five
cases per year. This is understandable if one turns to the records of northern
farming, and of assarting in Pickering in particular, which reveal that the
major crop of the forest and its surrounding regions was oats. Of all the crops
affected by the rains of these two harvests, only oats flourished at anything
like the normal level of production: in the north, Bolton Priory estates in the
West Riding of Yorkshire produced 80 per-cent of their normal yield of oats in
1316 and cropped only 11.5 percent of rye and 12 percent of beans.1" A
crisis that struck primarily at the staple crops of wheat and barley although
it certainly presented difficulties, may not have provided a strong enough
incentive for northern poachers to increase their criminal activities in an
oats- and pastorally-focused area. Other hardships did produce notable
increases in poaching: the high rates of 1310-11 and 1331-32 coincided
with the poor oats harvests recorded on the estates of the bishop of
Winchester for those same years."3 This evidence suggests that there was a
definite link between poaching and the harvest when that harvest threatened the
livelihood of the farmers-cum-poachers
of Pickering.
Individuals Poaching per Year in
Pickering
Year No. Persons Historical Notes
1282 5
1292 5
1293 24
1294 14
1304 5
1305 41
1306 13
1307 23
1308 6
1309 6
1311 35 poor harvest
1312 17
1313 10
1314 3
1316 5 Great Famine & murrain
1317 5 Great Famine & murrain
1321 4 famine
1322 20 famine & death of Earl
Thomas
1323 32
1324 12
1325 11
1326 3
1328 7
1329 20
1330 8 Scottish campaign begins
1331 15 poor harvest
1333 13
1334 45 beginning of eyre
1336 32 Scottish campaign ends
1337 3
1338 6
The famine year of 1321-22 also
witnessed a strong upswing in the number of cited poachers. Although the cause
of the agricultural difficulties that
provoked the famine are not known, bad weather (perhaps drought instead
of heavy rains) and the devastating sheep murrain
that struck England from 1315 to 1318 undoubtedly played a role.It is likely
that the political turbulence of the time also contributed. In 1321 there were
only four reported poachers;; in 1322, there were twenty. This increase is
explainable when one remembers that in 1322 the master
the forest, Earl Thomas of Lancaster,
was defeated at the battle of Boroughbridge, captured, and executed by Edward
II. In the same year Edward was defeated and fled before the Scots at the
battle of Byland. The death of the immediate overlord of the forest must
have provided an irresistible invitation to poachers to exploit the
unprotected deer of Pickering; indeed, a special commission was appointed by
Edward II in this year to investigate the rise in forest crime in his
newly-won, unruly territories.The defeat of the king, the nominal master of
the forest following the death of Thomas, must have only increased the
temptation to avail oneself of the deer at the expense of an absent, impotent
authority.
Political unrest may also have been
responsible for the relatively high rates of poaching in the years 1330-36 when Edward III actively pursued his
campaign against the Scots from his court at York. Hanawalt has noted the
correspondence of violent crime and the increased demand for resources caused
by political unrest, and she has especially pointed to the high incidence of
felony violence in the embattled Yorkshire of this period. It is quite possible
that the disturbances brought about by a resident army and the imminent threat
of invasion inspired an increase in the rate of poaching. Foraging soldiers and
hungry peasants alike would have sought out the deer in unstable times, when
the risk of detection might seem lessened by the presence of greater enemies
to occupy the attention of the forest authorities.
Repeated Scottish raiding on the North
Riding
throughout the last years of Edward II and the early reign of Edward III also
probably contributed to high levels of poaching. Constant raids carried off
many chattels and destroyed property, so much so that the crown in 1319
found no taxable property in 128 vills
of the North Riding. Such widespread devastation must surely have had an impact
on the high levels of poaching in the decade of the 1320s, as peasants and
lords deprived of their property took to the forest to ensure that their tables
were sufficiently provided to survive the wintry aftermath of the summer
raiding season.
Finally, the seasonality of poaching
offenses in Pickering Forest indicates that the poachers were not very much
concerned with following the recommended practice of hunting in the "time
of the grease," the season for the elite stag hunt in which the deer were
fattest, 24 June to
September. As Table 5 shows, of the 464
dateable records of poaching, only a third occurred in the optimum season of
the recreational hunt. Although these months were popular, almost equally so
were the spring months particularly March, when the first break in the upland
winter might be perceived, and May, when spring was in full bloom. These spring
months coincided with the final depletion of the poacher's winter larder, when
high grain prices and hunger could drive poachers to seek Pickering's deer.
Winter saw the least activity, because the harsh weather of the northern
winter would have impeded hunting. The overall picture is one of poaching
as a year round activity, the pattern bearing some correlation to practices of
socially-condoned hunting but more flexible in its aim of exploiting an
ever-present resource.
Poaching appears as a significant
element within the complex milieu of English forests, an activity whose appeal
was so great as to cross boundaries of status, occupation, and gender that
stratified medieval society. Poachers were an integral part of that larger
society and so reflect how the lives of medieval English men and women
intersected with the natural resources of their realm. The vast majority of
these poachers has left little trace in the records, which focus more upon the
wealthy, the powerful, the elite, than on the commoner. When we do catch
glimpses of these less powerful men and women, they are knights and minor
lords, small landholders, modest artisans and townspeople. These individuals
were of modest means, paying small fines and evading the attention of the
crown's general taxation. Less than a handful fell into what we might the ranks
of the privileged. Pursuing game in the shadow of anonymity, the majority of
these hunters from the lower classes undoubtedly sought their game for reasons
far more fundamental than the pleasure of sport or the emotional ties of
male bonding, as previous scholars have asserted. We may conclude that they
faced the penalties of the prerogative forest law for the material
security that venison provided, as a supplement and buttress to their
uncertain futures of near-poverty in times of war, famine, or disease.
Operating through ties of family, friendship, and patronage these poachers
supplied meals and camaraderie for themselves, their associates within the
community of the forest and those outsiders eager to enjoy the earl’s deer.
Fordham University
Poaching in Later Times
1720s
By the eighteenth century, on the one hand
there was a cultural emphasis on politeness and cultural achievement. On the
other hand, there was ruthless treatment of criminals and the poor.
In rural areas, there was harsh
punishment of innocuous crimes such as poaching, which in reality was a symbol
of rural inequality in times of enclosure, depriving the poor of common land
for pasture and fuel.
In London, there was organised crime.
More widely there were violent armed gangs, involved in smuggling, poaching and
housebreaking. Dick Turpin later romanticised began his criminal career as a
gang member in Essex.
Most crime however was petty.
There were few prisons or ‘police’.
Victims generally had to take matters into their own hands.
Local power
depended on deference, but by the early eighteenth century, deference had to be
earned. There was a growing confederacy between those working on the land who
increasingly saw the Squire’s property as fair booty and who colluded to help
each other against punishment. Attempts to enforce ancient Game Laws which reserved all
game to the lord of the manor, led to serious confrontation.
(Robert Tombs, The English and their History, 2023,
325-328).
Links, texts and books
The Honor and Forest of
Pickering, edited and translated by Robert B. Turton, 4 vols., North Riding
Record Society, n.s.,1-4 (1894-97), 2: 60-62.
Elizabeth C. Wright,
Common Law in the Thirteenth Century English Royal Forests [Philadelphia,
1928]).
Charles R. Young, The
Royal Forests of Medieval England (Philadelphia, 1979)
"The Forest Eyre in
England during the Thirteenth Century," American Journal of Legal History
18 [1974]:
321-31
Raymond Grant, The Royal
Forests of England (Wolfeboro Falls, 1991).
Jean Birrell, "Forest
Law and the Peasantry in the Thirteenth Century," Thirteenth Century England
II: Proceeding of the Newcastle upon Tyne Conference 1987 , ed. Peter R. Coss
and Simon D. Lloyd (Woodbridge, Suff., 1988), pp. 149-64.
"Who Poached the
King's Deer? A Study in Thirteenth Century Crime," Midland History [1982]:
9-25)
Hunters and Poachers: A Social and Cultural
History of Unlawful Hunting in England 1485-1640, Roger B. Manning, August
1993.
Forest Laws from Anglo-Saxon England to the Early
Thirteenth Century, chapter 19 of The Oxford History of the Laws of
England: 871-1216, John Hudson.