To hunt and hawke, to nourishe up and fede
The greyhounde to the course, the hawke to th' flight,
And to bestryde a good and lusty stede. [139]
These pursuits are said by latter writers to have been destructive to the fortunes of many inconsiderate young heirs, who, desirous of emulating the state of their superiors, have kept their horses, hounds, and hawks, and flourished away for a short time, in a style that their income was inadequate to support. Others again, not having it in their power to proceed so far, contented themselves more prudently with joining the parties that were hunting, and partook with them the pleasure of following the game.
VIII.—LAWS RELATING TO HUNTING.
Laws for punishing such as hunted, or destroyed the game, in the royal forests, and other precincts belonging to the crown, were, as we have just hinted above, established with unprecedented severity by Canute the Dane, when he ascended the throne of England. By these edicts the great thanes, bishops, and abbots, were permitted to hunt in the king's chases: but all unqualified persons were subjected to very heavy fines, not only for hunting, but even for disturbing of the game. If a gentleman, or an inferior thane, killed a stag in the king's forests, he was degraded from his rank; if a ceorl, or husbandman, committed the same offence, he was reduced to slavery; and if a slave killed one, he suffered death. Magistrates were appointed, in every county, or shire, to put these laws in execution, and under them were appointed inferior officers or gamekeepers, whose province it was to apprehend the offenders. [140] By another law enacted by the same monarch, every proprietor of land had the privilege to hunt game within his own fields and woods; but might not pursue them into the royal forests. [141] This prince also prohibited the exercise of hunting, or hawking, upon the sabbath day. [142]
The severity of the game laws was rather increased, than abated, under the governance of the four first Norman monarchs. Henry II. is said to have relaxed their efficacy; rather, I presume, by not commanding them to be enforced with rigour, than by causing them to be abrogated; for they seem to have virtually existed in the reign of king John; and occasioned the clause in the Forest Charter, insisting that no man should forfeit his life, or his limbs, for killing the king's deer;—but, if he was taken in the fact of stealing venison belonging to the king, he should be subjected to a heavy fine; and, in default of payment, be imprisoned for one year and one day; and after the expiration of that time, find surety for his good behaviour, or be banished the land. [143] This charter was afterwards confirmed by his son Henry III. and the succeeding monarchs.
IX.—HUNTING BY THE CLERGY.
Another clause in the same charter grants to an archbishop, bishop, earl, or baron, when travelling through the royal forests, at the king's command, the privilege to kill one deer or two in the sight of the forester, if he was at hand; if not, they were commanded to cause a horn to be sounded, [144] that it might not appear as if they had intended to steal the game.
It is evident that this privilege was afterwards construed into a permission for the personages named therein to hunt in the royal chases; but the words of the charter are not to that amount, and ought, says Spelman, to be taken literally as they stand in the translation: they could not however, at any rate, adds he, mean, "that the ecclesiastics are to hunt the deer themselves, for they suppose them to be no hunters, as the earls and barons might be; and therefore it is not said, that he who claims the venison shall blow the horn, but only that he shall cause it to be sounded." [145]