The Honor and Forest of Pickering

History of Pickering Forest

The early history of Pickering Forest is scarcely cognate to the subject of this volume; it has never been thoroughly investigated; and a short account of the facts not in dispute will be sufficient to explain the references to it.

Pickering seems to have suffered more than any other district from the vengeance which William the Conqueror wreaked upon the Northern Counties on account of their revolt during the early years of his reign. The notice in Doomsday Book is sufficiently pregnant, notwithstanding the doubt which Bawden at p. 11n of his "Yorkshire Doomsday" throws upon its accuracy. I quote from him:-- "In Pickeringa there are to be taxed thirty-seven carucates of land, which twenty ploughs may till. Morcar held this for one manor with its berewicks, Bartune (Barton), Neuuetone (Newton), Blandebi (Blandsby), and Esthorp (Easthorp). It is now the King's. There is therein one plough and twenty villanes with six ploughs; meadow half a mile long and as much broad: but all the wood which belongs to the manor is sixteen miles long and four broad.

"This manor in the time of King Edward was valued at fourscore and eight pounds; now at twenty shilling and fourpence.

We see similar evidence of devastation over the whole of what is now Pickering Lythe.

The value of the Manor of Falsgrave has fallen from fifty-six pounds to thirty shillings; the number of sokemen within the manor and its soke (practically equivalent to the East Ward of Pickering Forest with the addition of Scarborough) have been reduced from one hundred and eight with forty-six ploughs, to seven, to whom are joined sixteen villans and fourteen bordars, having in all seven and a half ploughs. "The rest is waste" the records concludes.

Similarly in the soke of Pickering, or, to use a later expression, the West Ward for fifty carucates, which twenty-seven ploughs may till, there are now ten villans having two ploughs; the rest is waste. Yet there are twenty acres of meadow.

Sir Hy. Ellis, in his introduction to Domesday, at pp. 317 et seq., discusses the Northern devastation. He says, p. 319: "It may be sufficient . . . to state that under the title of 'Terra Regis,' among the lands then vested in the Crown, which had belonged to the Earls Edwin and Morcar, waste almost everywhere occurs."

The fact that villains replaced sokemen in the occupation of lands should be noticed in connection with the statement on page 23 infra, that "mutabatur status servicii" in the time of Henry III, which must, I suppose, mean that the villain tenure was changed into freehold, and also in connection with the fact that at the time of Norden's Survey there was no ancient copyhold land.

The antiquity of Pickering Forest is sufficiently clear. The fact that the "silva" in Doomsday Book was sixteen miles long and four broad, and was coextensive, if not coterminous, with the soke, is an important circumstance to be considered. A reference in Madox ("History ot the Exchequer," Vol. II., p. 134) will not be out of place here:-- "In the 31st year of Kind Henry II, Geoffrey Fitz Pierre accounted for the Pannage of all the forests of England." In a note he gives, "Et de . . . de Foresta de Pikeringa." (Mag. Rot. 31 Henry II, rot a.b.)

The Inquisition on page 3 is another interesting link with the past.

The success of Scotland after the Battle of Bannockburn was as disastrous to Pickering as to the other Northern counties. We learn from this Inquisition that a war indemnity of l200 was assessed upon the vale of Pickering, which seems to have been cotermnous with Pickering Lythe. Whether this sum was ever paid, or the Scotch had to be content with the bodies of Nicholas Haldane, William Hastings, and John Mansregh, I cannot say. For three years these gentlemen had to wait patiently for a ransom which never came, and then petitioned the King to raise the money.

In Surtees Society, vol. ix, p. 102, we learn that the same year, 1322, the Bishopric of Durham was thoroughly devastated by the Scots, while at p. cxiii, the Prior and convent of Durham appear bound, in 1314, to Thomas, Earl of Murray, in 800 marks, which sum they had also to secure by means of hostages.

The fact that the vale of Pickering is spoken of as a "communitas," and treated as a corporation, is not without its bearing on a subject treated of by Professor Maitland in vol ii of the Selden Society Publications, p. 161, where he discusses the entry at p. 172 of the same volumes as to the "communitas" of the villans of Bishop Waltham.

Although archaeologists do not, I believe consider Pickering Castle of very great antiquity, it is most probably that there, as elsewhere, a fortified castle, whether of wood or stone is immaterial, had preceded the structure of which the ruins now remain. It may be that a castle was built here for the first time by the Conqueror to overawe his rebellious subjects (Matthew Paris (p. 9) says that William surpassed his predecessors in building castles), or it may have been of an even earlier date.

From its position on the outskirts of the more cultivated district, as well as from its natural advantages, such a castle would proved a formidable weapon in the hands of a turbulent Baron, and therefore it is not surprising that until it was granted by Henry III to his second son, Edmund Crouchback, Pickering Castle seems never to have been held by a subject. But the Pickering forest of the thirteenth century was only part of the later forest of the same name, and was practically coterminous with what was afterwards the West Ward. The East Ward formed by the Forest of Scalby; a perfectly distinct forest with separate officers; the sole connection being that it seems likewise to have remained for the most part in the King's hands.

At the time of Doomsday Falsgrave seems to have been the head of the soke in which Scalby was situated, and it is probable that Scarborough belonged to the same soke. By the time of Henry II Scalby seems to have become the head of the soke, and perhaps the process had then taken place which in the Records is decribed (see pp. 6 and 22) "infra has metas Burgeses de Scarborough et manerium de Wallisgrave sunt deafforestai"; the charter of Henry III. there spoken of may possibly have been a confirming charter only. My reasons for saying this are based on certain entries in Macox's "History of the Exchequer." At p. 625, amongst the returns of Tallage from the King's lands made by the Sheriff from the soke of Scalby, there was received (33 Henr. II) l5 13s. 4d., representing 5 2/3 Knight's fees at 20s. for ever Knight's fee, from the soke of Pickering l19 10s. or 19 1/2 Knights' fees, and from Scarborough l33. In 3 Ric. I (id. p. 698) the figures are Scalby, 56s. 8d., Pickering l9 152. and Scarborough l21 16s. 4d.

In 9 Ric. I. (id. p. 699) Scalby 21s., Pickering wapentake l7 10s. 7d., Pickering (qu. town) l4 and Scarborough l49 3s. 4d. In 11 Henr. III (id. p. 707) Scarborough was assessed at l100, Pickering town 20 marks, and the soke of Pickering 60 marks.

Easingwold is always assessed separately. The merger, however, of Scalby and Pickering Forests soon took place.

There were two foresters in the fee of the West Ward, holding lands respectively in Lockton and Kingthorpe (see p. 9), but there is no notice in the prsent volume of a forester in fee of the East Ward.

King John granted the last-mentioned office to Ralph Bolebeck and his heirs (Surtees Society, Vol. 72, p. 714), and from the Inq. p.m. of Roger Bigod (40 Henr. III, No. 30) we learn that Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Marshal of England bought it from Osbert de Bolebeck; but in the centuries that intervene before the conclusion of the Wars of Roses it has either become obsolete  or unrecognizable. The bounds between the two wards were usually spoken of as Seven and Skiterick. The River Sven has always remained the western boundary of the Forest, but as the division between the two wards gradually passed out of all recollection (at p. 41 I have called attention to the confusion that existed in the seventeenth century) the exact locality of Skiterick became difficult to identify. Canon Atkinson has kindly referred me to the bounds of the Forest of Scalby printed at p. 714 of the Whitby Cartulary (Surtees Society Vol. 72), and from these bounds it appears that either the Stockland or Crosscliffe beck must have been the rivulus de Sciteric there mentioned. The termination "ric" must, as Canon Atkinson reminde me, be a "ridge," but the stream may have derived its name from the fact that it flowed beneath it.

After the War of the Roses, if not before, the foresters in fee do not appear to have been very useful in maintaining the Forest Laws; indeed they were amongst the worst offenders; on the Master Forester alone, an officer appointed by the Crown direct, could the King rely, and not at all times on him. At the same time it will be interesting hereafter to trace how a hereditary office like that of Forester of the East Ward became extinct.

It may not be out of place here to give a short account of the Duchy of Lancaster, my sources of information being the "Duchy Charters" by William Hardy, and the Introduction to the 30th Report of the Keeper of the Records. This Duchy was, to a great extent, composed of the extensive grants made to Edmund Crouchback by his father, Henry III. By a charter dated the 30th of June, 51 Henry III, 1267, he obtained from his father a grant of the Honor, County, Castle, and Town of Lancaster, and so was made Earl of Lancaster. Further possessions were from time to time conferred upon him, and he died at Bayonne on the 4th of June, 25 Edw. I., 1297, leaving three sons, of whom the two elder, Thomas and Henry, were successively Earls of Lancaster. Thomas engaged in the rebellion against Edward II., and was beheaded at Pontefract Castle on the 22nd of March, 15 Edw. II., 1322, leaving no issue. His brother Henry was restored to the possessions of which his brother had on his condemnation been deprived, and received on the 7th of May, 16 Edw. III., an enlargement of his rights and franchises. He died on the 22 of September, 19 Edw. III., 1345, and was succeeded by his son, the Earl of Derby, also called Henry, who was the fourth Earl, and was subsequently created Duke of Lancaster, the county of Lancaster becoming for his life a County Palatinate.

He died of the plague on the 24th of March, 1361, leaving no son and only two daughters, Blanche and Matilda, his coheiresses, and as the latter, after marrying the Duke of Bavaria, died without issue in 1362, her share vested in her sister Blanche. She married John of Gaunt, Earl of Richmond, fourth son of King Edward the Third, who thus succeeded to all the lands and estates of the late Duke, his father-in-law. On the 13th of November, 1362, he was created Duke of Lancaster, and died in 1399. His son, Henry IV., on his accession to the throne, no doubt feeling that his tenure of that exalted position was somewhat precarious, by Act of Parliament severed the possessions of the Duchy of Lancaster from the Crown lands. Had he not done so there would have been a merger, and these private possessions would have thenceforth been annexed to the Crown.

It was, however, easy for Edward IV., at the commencement of his reign, to effect this object by the same simple expedient, and accordingly by an Act of Parliament the Duchy Possessions were declared to be forfeited to the Crown, and to be held by Edward the Fourth separate from all other his inheritances.

In 6 Henry VII, another Act was made to resume each part of the Duchy lands as had been dismembered from it by Edward IV., and to vest the inheritance of the whole in the King and his heirs forever, as ample and largely, and in like manner, form and condition separate from the Crown of England and possession of the same, as the three Henries and Edward IV. or any of them had and held the same. The better opinion, according to Sir Wm. Balckstone (Bl. Comm. i. 118), seems to be that, notwithstanding the Statute of Henry VII. (which was only an act of resumption), the Duchy remained as established by the Act of Edward IV. separate from the other possessions of the Crown in order and government, but united in point of inheritance.

It is, therefore, to be observed, that although the rules of descent differ in the case of the Crown from those in the case of lands, the Duchy lands were not, on the deposition of James II. or at any other period, treated as distinct from the other Crown lands.

In many cases it was decided that all the prerogatives and privileges of the respective Sovereigns belonged to them, with reference to the Duchy lands, the same as they did with reference to lands which belonged to them immediately in right of the Crown.

For instance, it was held (Plowden, p. 212), that Edward VI. when a minor could effectually grant a lease of such lands. The Royal prerogatives were thus annexed to all the possessions so separated, but the estates were governed under an appropriate management, the revenue distributed by a distince treasury, and all matters connected therewith were directed by an establishment called the Chancellor and Council of the Duchy. pp. xvii-xxii.

....

The Officers of the Duchy.

The minister's accounts which remain to be examined may possibly modify the views about to be expressed; but, so far as the present volume is concerned, the management of the Honor of Pickering during the 16th and 17th centuries seems to haave been after the following manner. The four principal officers were the Receiver, the Steward, the Constable and the Master Forester.

The Receiver was the treasurer of the income, which was, in the first instance, collected by the bailiffs and graves (or reeves), and then paid over to him.

The bailiff was appointed direct by the Duchy, the grave by the tenants, and the ordinary course appears to have been for each tenant to undertake the office in rotation, or by "house row," as it is still called in the North, sometimes holding the office for one year, and sometimes for longer; he was entitled to about forty acres of land, called graveland, during his tenure of office.

The Steward's duties were principally confined to the Manor, the Constable to the Castle, and the Master Forester to the Forest. But Sir Edward Coke [4 Inst. 312], referring to 26 Ass. p. 60 observes that "where the forest of Pickering was appendant or belonging to the Castle of Pickering, he that is the Constable of theCastle is ever, by the law of the Forest, Chiefe Warden of that Forest." There appear to have been customar fees attached to each office, although sometimes an appointement was made at a fixed salary. It was by no means unusual for one person to hold more than one office. Indeed, Sir Richard Chomley the elder held all four.

These offices had, from the end of the 13th century, if not earlier, been held mainly by members of the Hastings family, from another branch of which family, according to the current pedigrees, the Earl of Huntingdon is descended. Richard II. (p. 113 infra) appointed Sir Edmund Hastings Steward and Master Forester, and Henry VII. (p. 117), in the second year of his reign, renewed the appointment, which Richard's attainder had made invalid, having imediately after his accession appointed him to the minor offices of Bailiff, Riding Forester and Park Keeper of Blansby Park. But Henry VII. had early in his reign perceived the negligent manner in which the old order of officers had managed the Duchy Possessions, and at the death of Sir Edmund Hastings the official connection of the Hantings family with the Duchy ceased. Sir Roger Hastings, as tenant of Kingthorpe, became one of the foresters in fee, but he received none of the vacant appointments; while Brian Sandford, a member of a Yorkshire family but a stranger to Pickering Lythe, became Constable, Steward and Master Forester. But Brian Sandford seems to have been as easy going as his predecessors; he had barely held the appointment five years before he had to sit as a commissioner with his eventual successor, Richard Cholmley, to try a certain number of offenses, wood-stealing as well as deer stealing, some of which were said to have been done with his sanction. The principal offenders were the two foresters in fee, Lionel Percehay and Roger Hastings, while of the remainder by far the majority were either esquires or their servants.

The first trial was treated as a nullity. It was extremely difficult to find any persons qualified as jurymen who had not taken part in some forest offence, and hence the result was that no less than eight persons found themselves in the position of having to try indictments against themselves.

A fresh trial was therefore ordered, and took place before Sir Thomas Wyrteley, Nicholas Knyfton and Richard Cholmley, but the verdict of the second jury was practically the same as that of the first. What punishment, if any, was inflicted upon Lionel Percehay and Roger Hastings does not appear; but the Bishop of Carlisle, Sir John Hotham, and Sir Richard Cholmley were appointed Commissioners for the purpose of imposing fines on certain of the offenders found guilty by the Inquisition, who seem, however, for the most part to have been servants.

Meantime another change was made. Brian Sandford was appointed to another office and Sir Richard Cholmley held the four principal offices of the Honor. This Sir Richard Cholmley was a man of no small eminence; he must not be confounded with his nephew, also called Sir Richard, and generally known as the Black Knight of the North, whom we meet with later.

The first Sir Richard was really the founder of the Yorkshire families of Cholmley; but as their ancestor, for they sprang from his brother Sir Roger; he himself had only an illegitimate son -- another Sir Roger -- who died without issue, after having been successively Chief Baron and Lord Chief Justice. pp. xxiii - xxv.

....

By this time  [about 1500] the Cholmley family had increased in importance; they were connected by marriage with almost all of the leading Yorkshire houses, and had added the estates of the late Abbey of Whitby to their possessions.

Sin Hugh, in his "Memoirs," tells us more of the "Great Black Knight" than of his more illustrious uncle. He was doubly a brother-in-law to the Earl of Westmoreland, who married two of his sisters in succession. We learn from the same source that the two brothers-in-law were not on good terms; constant fights occurred between their respective retainers in the public streets, but at an earlier period they were evidentally such close friends that the Earl gave the knight (p. 207 infra) two loads of slate out of Pickering Castle.

Sir Hugh says of him (p. 7):-- "His chief place of residence was at Roxby, lying between Pickering and Thornton (now almost demolished), where he lived in great port, having a very great family -- at least fifty or sixty servants about his house . . . This Sir Richard was possessed of a very great estate, worth at this day [i.e. 1656] to the value of about l10,000 a year . . . He died in the sixty-thrid year of his age at Roxby, in the County of York, and lies buried in the chancel of Thornton Church, of which he was patron, May 17, 1579.

Turton, Robert Bell (1894) The Honor and Forest of Pickering, North Riding Record Society, vol. I., New Series.