‘True’ Forests no longer exist
A New Forest anniversary
Quite unnoticed by most people, in July the New Forest reached its sixtieth anniversary, at least in one sense. In 1964, for the first time since the late 13th century, there was a radical change in its boundaries, with huge areas added, notably in the north and west and with others excluded or “disafforested”, particularly in the south and east.
The resulting New Forest was very different in shape from its predecessor and was given a much-changed administrative system under the New Forest Act of 1964. In those far-off days too, we remained a true forest in the historical sense of the word, but only for another eight years.
Then, in 1971, the ancient system which governed the forests came to an end after nearly 900 years with the Wild Creatures and Forest Law Act of that year. Technically, no true forests now exist. The fairy-tale stories of vast tracts of dark forbidding woodland have little to do with either the purpose or appearance of English forests.
In simple terms they were royal hunting grounds governed by special laws and administrative systems. They had a complex structure of courts, judicial powers and officers and all this under the collective title of Forest Law.
A forest was described by the 16th century lawyer, John Manwood, in beautiful language which might have been written by Shakespeare himself. The extract here is reproduced from an 18th century edition of his writing as the earlier typeface is difficult to read.
Manwood’s definition commences: “A forest is a certain territory of woody grounds and fruitful pastures, privileged for wild beasts and fowls of forest, chase and warren to rest and abide therein in the safe protection of the King for his delight and pleasure . . .”
Although many forests no doubt contained an element of woodland, some (and the New Forest was one of these) probably had only a small portion covered in trees. Recent archaeological research suggests that the greater part of the New Forest was open landscape and existing or abandoned farmland, and much had been so from the Iron Age up to the Norman Conquest.
Few areas of today’s “ancient woodland” are actually likely to be little-modified wildwood. Such fragments probably include places like Pinnick and parts of Bramshaw Wood. The famous blocks of Ancient and Ornamental Woodland like Mark Ash, Ridley and Frame were all once intensively farmed and are thus surprisingly modern developments.
Much of the land in royal forests did not belong to the king, although here in the New Forest he does seem to have acquired, by fair means or foul, the greater part. Those landowners whose property lay within the boundaries of forests were subject to severe restrictions on their activities and land management, so it became important to them and to the king, that the boundaries should be clearly defined and recorded.
Inside the line you could be brought before the forest courts and punished for offences, or in later centuries you might be taxed and allowed to continue your infringement of the rules. Outside the line, life continued more or less as normal.
All this was in the days before detailed surveying and map-making. Recording the boundaries depended on a process called perambulation. Perambulation comprised the walking of the boundary and the preparation of a written description of its features and line.
Such records were sketchy at first, but by the 17th century and by the final record of 1801 they were extremely detailed. This extract from the 1801 perambulation near Cadnam gives a fascinating glimpse of the countryside at the time: “. . . . .from thence to the middle of the spot where Horemore pond, now filled up was, and direct through William Gould’s orchard to the bound oak called Mark oak, and then in a straight line through the hedge to a pollard oak at Sarkin’s corner . . . .” There survives (or did until recently) a cottage name “Mark Oak”. The perambulation continues in this form for well over fifty miles.
An extract from the Deposited Plans showing the perambulation together with the added (pink) and excluded areas (green) near Ringwood
Today the boundary of the New Forest is still called the perambulation, despite being plotted precisely on 1/10560 Ordnance Survey maps. The current line was determined by my late father for the promotors of the 1963 New Forest Bill.
The maps (called the Deposited Plans) show in pink the lands added to the Forest and in green the lands disafforested. The actual boundary line is in red. That line was determined in part by the position of the then newly installed cattle grids. Anywhere a Forest pony could wander freely was to be within the perambulation. Places like the Waterside which lay outside the grids were to be excluded from the Forest, but these were all private enclosed land and roads.
Echoes of the Forest Law system survive in the New Forest and, to a lesser extent, in the Forest of Dean. In the New Forest the Verderers’ Court had been transformed into a modern administrative and judicial body in 1877 and this arrangement was preserved by the 1971 Forest Law Act. The poorer guide books which describe the verderers as a mediaeval survival are thus entirely wrong. The court is very little older than Hampshire County Council.
A dangerous crossing
In May of this year, I wrote about Forestry England’s plans to review the network of bridges and approach tracks (called passages in the Forest). The plans seem to be essentially a cost-cutting exercise and they are already causing problems for the agisters, commoners and other horse riders because some bridges are being downgraded, perhaps unnecessarily, to footbridges or are to be removed altogether.
The verderers are trying to secure maps of the proposals, but so far without much success. In the past nothing like this could have happened because the hunting lobby was so influential that I doubt if even the Forestry Commission would have attempted to take it on.
Prior to the First World War, the Deputy Surveyors were often keen supporters of the hunts. Today, all that is just a distant memory and public recreation is the primary objective of management. Still, on the Crown Lands there is a theoretical system of maintenance and renewal which, at its best, has worked well if rather slowly. It is a different story on the Adjacent Commons, nearly all of which are owned or managed by the National Trust or local authorities such as Hampshire County Council or parish councils.
About a century ago the commons were all privately owned and part of the great landed estates such as those of the Normanton and Eyre families. In those days, presumably out of a sense of public duty, the owner maintained the infrastructure and everyone was reasonably content.
Then, as the estates decayed, the land was sold off for gravel extraction or other profitable use and some was donated to the National Trust. Finally, planning restrictions were tightened and land ownership crystalized into what we see today. Initially maintenance by the authorities and the Trust was good, but there has been a serious decline over recent years and virtually nothing has been done over large areas of the commons since the arrival of Covid.
One of the worst and most long-standing problems is on Ibsley Common near Ringwood. This is National Trust property and public access land. The same ownership and status extend onto most of Rockford Common immediately to the south.
Both were previously Normanton property and the boundary between them is very roughly along a stream called Dockens Water which rises near Fritham far away to the north east. On the Crown Lands, most of such streams and their surrounding bog systems are provided with safe crossings every half mile or so. The part of the stream controlled by FE is no exception to this rule.
However, from the change of ownership near Linwood, there was only one horse crossing between North Hollow and Moyles Court – a distance of about two miles. That crossing is at a place called Newlands Bridge and was the only safe livestock and equestrian route between Rockford and Ibsley Commons.
The bridge itself is in good condition, but the approach passage from the north has degenerated into a dangerous quagmire through lack of regular maintenance. A request for urgent repairs has been politely declined by the National Trust. It points out, perfectly correctly, that this is a public footpath and responsibility for the maintenance of its surface lies with the county council.
Technically, the general public has no right to use it with horses, but that of course does not affect the Trust’s moral, and perhaps legal, responsibility to its commoners and their livestock and ridden horses, all of which is perfectly proper and legal use.
The passage is difficult and risky enough even for pedestrians, but the county council too seems disinclined to do anything. As any farmer with a footpath on his land will know, the council is quick to jump on him if he allows it to be blocked by a fallen branch or bushes, but it seems there is one standard for the private individual and another for the authorities.
Perhaps we must wait for a horse to break its leg or a valuable cow to die in the bog before action is taken. Altogether it is a sad state of affairs when two supposedly responsible authorities wash their hands of such a problem.
In 1910, the famous antiquarian and artist, Heywood Sumner, published, in his Book of Gorley, these pictures of Newlands Bridge and its surroundings. Sumner lived on the edge of Ibsley Common and must have used this route regularly. That was in the heyday of the Normanton Estate, a decade before its contraction resulted in the sale of 7,600 acres in 1919. He would no doubt have been horrified to see so much decline and decay as is evident across his beloved commons today.
Verderers’ election 2024
During August, all electors on the current register will have received renewal forms from the clerk to the verderers. If this form is not returned, the recipient’s right to vote in November’s election will be lost. Similarly, anyone not registered and who does not complete a form will not be entitled to vote.
A person who occupies (not necessarily owns) at least one acre with rights of common is qualified to vote, whether they have a thousand acres of productive farmland or an acre of garden or woodland. If you want to see the Forest protected, don’t hesitate.
Apply to the clerk now for a form. She will assist you in checking your rights. Remember that most private land in and around the Forest does possess such rights. The election will almost certainly be contested, so this is your chance to influence the outcome in the best interests of the Forest.
Heywood Sumner’s illustration of the Newlands crossing
Anthony Pasmore
