session of their original estates. As that Monarch's power was entirely arbitrary, the partial laws of a foreign adventurer superseded those which had been instituted by the equity of Edward the Confessor; and these innovations, in the course of years, became a source of doubt and anxiety, even to those on whom William bestowed the possessions which he had wrested from the people of England. Indeed, it required but little penetration to foresee, that the chief who would deprive an inheritor of his ancient patrimony, to reward a follower or a favourite, would not hesitate to dispossess even them,

if policy suggested it as conducive to his own inThe "act of time," however, made these Normans and their successors look on themselves as the hereditary owners of the estates which William had assigned to them in his newly conquered territory; and they then became anxious that those possessions should descend to their posterity, not to be alienated by any future circumstance. The code of Saxon laws as formed by King Edward, at once preserved all that was due to the tenant, with the requisite powers for the Lord of the Fee: and to gain the restoration of these statutes under which they might securely hold their property, now became the endeavour of the Anglo-Normans; and William the First, William Rufus, Henry the First, and Stephen, were all earnestly entreated to grant their renewal. Promises for future performance, or instruments which were never executed, were all that they received in reply to these repeated petitions; for until the time of King John, the liberties of England thus continued to fluctuate, and a celebrated historian makes the following remarks on the disappointments the Barons met with antecedent to that period.

a

"This contest remaining undecided during several reigns, both parties had kept up their respective pretensions. When the King was weak, or

a Rapin's Hist.cf England, Vol. I. p. 275. Edit. 1732, Fol.

in such circumstances as permitted him not to contend, the Barons tried to get the liberties of the English restored, and the Prince not knowing what to do better, put them off with fair promises, which he had no design to perform. But, under able Kings, who were in prosperity, the contest was stifled, and the Barons waited for a more favourable opportunity to compass their ends." A Charter for these liberties was, however, issued by Henry the First, about the year 1100, wherein it is declared that the Church shall be free, that heirs shall receive their possessions unredeemed, that evil customs shall be abolished, and, in fine, relates the greater part of those privileges which the subsequent act of King John more securely confirmed.

The ascent of that Prince to the Throne of England, in 1199, was a proceeding so extraordinary and unprecedented, that it excited the amazement of the whole nation; it is true, his elder brother Geoffrey, had been killed at a Tournament, but his son Arthur was yet living, and should, on the death of King Richard the First, have immediately been proclaimed as the next heir to the Crown of England.-The better, however, to secure the voice of the English nation on the behalf of John, the friends whom he had engaged to support his cause, promised, in his name, a restoration of those liberties the people so earnestly desired, a confirmation of Henry the First's Charter, and a renewal of the Anglo-Saxon laws, as instituted by

Edward the Confessor: and these promises, made at the commencement of a new reign, gave to the Barons a stronger hope for their performance, than they had hitherto entertained. But it was not only the succession of their estates that the Peers of England desired to secure, it was also that certain oppressive customs might be abolished, and more honest regulations instituted in their stead: the Forest Laws, previous to the conclusion of the Great and Forest Charters, were peculiarly harsh and severe; in the first instance, however, their adoption was attended with policy, but when the motives which excited them had expired, their cruel restrictions should also have ceased to exist. In illustration of these remarks the following passage has been selected from Mr. Lewis's publication on the Laws and Customs of Forests.a

"In those times," says he, speaking of their regulations as being contemporary with the Feudal System, "when a conqueror settled the economy of a country which he had previously vanquished, it behoved him, in order to secure his new acquisition, to keep the natives of the country, (who were not his military tenants,) in as humble a condition as possible; and more especially to restrain them from the use of arms; and as nothing could do this so effectually as a prohibition of hunting and shooting, it became a matter of policy

a Historical Inquiry concerning Forests, &c. P. 3-4.

to reserve this right to himself, or to those of his capital feudatories, (the greater Barons,) on whom he thought proper to bestow it." On this account these laws were both instituted and exerted with much cruelty; but in Canute's Charter, granted at Winchester, in the year 1016, many of the offences committed both on the Vert and Venison, were to be redeemed by fines, and this restriction extended only to the Royal Forests. The succeeding century produced a terrible alteration in these statutes; Beasts of Venery were then considered to belong solely to the King, and the right of taking them to be vested only in him; and while the Norman government carried these regulations to their greatest extent, a wide range of country was appropriated for the chace by the command of William the First, which was then denominated the New Forest. "Within these limits," says Lewis, in the work before cited,a "and under the colour of Forest Law, the most horrid tyrannies and oppressions were exercised; the penalties attached to the destroying a beast within the bounds of a Forest, were made almost as severe as taking away the life of a human being. These principles, if we credit the assertion of Matthew Paris, seem to have influenced the mind of John more than that of any other monarch, for his interdict touch

a Ib. p. 6.

b Matthew of Westminster, however, remarks of William the First, "that if men disabled a wild beast, they were dis