SPORT ANCIENT AND MODERN
INTRODUCTION
Though Middlesex still occupies
a prominent position with respect to pastimes such as rowing,
cricket, football, polo, tennis,
and archery-the last-named
three of which originated in it-the higher
forms of sport formerly pursued in the county
may be said to have now become, practically,
subjects of archaeological interest.
As in other counties, the pursuit of 'the
nobler beasts of venery, such as the stag, the
wolf, and the boar,' which, to quote a wellknown writer of the last century, 'gradually
faded away upon the increase of population
and the advancement of agriculture,' (fn. 1) was
for a time replaced by 'the noble science'
of fox-hunting, which was introduced into
Middlesex very soon after its first adoption
as a popular form of sport in England. The
increase of population and the advancement
of agriculture were both, however, from the
first materially accelerated by the fact that
Middlesex is not only the smallest county
in England, except Rutland, but also the
original seat of the English capital, and, owing
to the recent rapid expansion within its limits
of the largest city in the world, both foxhunting and covert shooting have now shared
the fate of the older forms of the chase. At
the beginning of the nineteenth century
Middlesex was a purely agricultural county. (fn. 2)
In 1801 it was possible to walk from Hadley
through Enfield Chase, Epping and Hainault
Forests without leaving the turf or losing
sight of forest scenery; and, in addition to a
wide extent of pasture land which rendered
it eminently suitable for a hunting country, (fn. 3)
the county comprised Hounslow Heath and
Finchley Common; Harrow Weald Common
and eight other commons in the parish of
Harrow; Uxbridge Moor and five other
commons in the parishes of Uxbridge and
Hillingdon; Ruislip, Sunbury, and Hanwell
Commons, and Wormwood Scrubbs. (fn. 4) In
the present year of grace Hadley Woods,
Hadley Common, and the 'Rough Lot' in
Trent Park are the only remains of Enfield
Chase, and such of the few commons as
remain have been reduced to insignificant
dimensions. At the census of 1901 the population, which in 1801 was only 70,000, had
increased to 798,736, or over eleven-fold
during the century, the increase during the
last decade being 45.8 per cent.; (fn. 5) and of the
total extent of 149,668 statute acres within
the county 88,105 acres are comprised in
urban districts. (fn. 6) Of the twelve principal
estates within the rural districts there is only
one of 1,000 acres-Trent Park, belonging
to Mr. A. F. Benson-and one of 500 acres
-Osterley Park, belonging to the Earl of
Jersey; while of the remaining ten, eight are
between 100 and 300 acres, and the other
two are under 100 acres in extent. Covert
shooting has thus ceased to be of any practical
importance, (fn. 7) and though a small fringe of
country on its northern border is still occasionally hunted from adjacent counties,
Middlesex no longer possesses any hunt of its
own. It was, however, not till the middle of
the last century that these inevitable results
of the growth of London began to make
themselves seriously felt; and, owing probably
to the fact that Middlesex has never possessed
any towns of importance, its woodlands,
commons, and pastures continued for many
centuries prior to that date to afford to its
inhabitants ample facilities for sport.
It is stated by Fitz Stephen, a monk of
Canterbury, who in the reign of Henry II
wrote a description of London and its
environs, (fn. 8) that 'many citizens do take delight
in birds, as sparrow-hawks, gos-hawks, &c.,
and in dogs to sport in the woody coverts, for
they were privileged to hunt in Middlesex, in
Hertfordshire, in all the Chilterns, and in
Kent as low down as Crag Water'; and also
that beyond the open meadows and pasture
lands on the north side of the city was a
great forest 'in whose woody coverts lurked
the stag, the hind, the wild boar, and the
bull.' (fn. 9) These animals were hunted with
hounds on horseback or stalked on foot, and
shot with the bow, but the term 'hunting'
also included coursing with greyhounds and
hawking. (fn. 10)
The citizens of London appear to have
possessed this privilege from the earliest times,
for, in a charter obtained from him early in
the twelfth century, Henry I grants 'to my
citizens of London to hold Middlesex to farm
for three hundred pounds upon accompt to
them and their heirs,' and that they 'may
have their chases to hunt as well and truly as
their ancestors have had, that is to say in
Chiltre, in Middlesex, and in Surrey.' (fn. 11) This
charter was confirmed by that of Henry II,
granted probably some twenty years (fn. 12) later;
by the first charter of Richard I, dated 23
April 1194; (fn. 13) the first charter of King John,
dated 17 June 1199; (fn. 14) and by the fourth
charter of Henry III, dated 16 May 1227,
which expressly states that 'we do grant them
that they may have hunting wheresoever they
had in the time of King Henry our grandfather and King Henry our great-grandfather.' (fn. 15) In the same year Henry III still
further augmented these rights of hunting by
a charter of 18 August granting 'to all men
in the county of Middlesex that the Warren
of Stanes shall be no more a warren
[dewarrenata], and shall be disafforested' (fn. 16) -
a concession which, while throwing open the
warren for purposes of agriculture to such as
were disposed to 'cultivate their lands and
assart their woods therein,' provided a new
hunting ground for the public, who had the
right of hunting animals ferae naturae in all
uninclosed lands except those subject to the
forest laws or to some restriction upon hunting arising from a royal grant. (fn. 17)
There is no evidence with respect to the
extent of the Warren of Staines, but as a
grant of 11 Henry III to the prior and
brethren of St. John of Jerusalem, apparently
made just before it was disafforested, (fn. 18) shows
that it included the manor of Hampton, and
as Hampton itself then formed part of Hounslow Heath, (fn. 19) it must have comprised the
greater portion of the south-western extremity
of Middlesex.
Though styled a 'warren' it differed from
ordinary warrens in being subject to the forest
laws-a fact which would seem to imply that
it must have contained 'beasts of forest'-the
red and the fallow deer, the roe, and the wild
boar-in addition to 'beasts and fowls of
warren'-the hare, the coney, the fox, the
pheasant, and the partridge-and that it must
practically therefore have been a forest. (fn. 20) The
'great forest' to the north of London mentioned in the description of the City by Fitz
Stephen, alluded to above, probably extended
as far as the royal forests of Essex on the
east, and the woodlands of Herts and Bucks
on the north and west; but it was not in
the thirteenth century a forest in the strict
legal sense of the term, which denoted a
definite tract of land within which a particular body of law was enforced, having for
its object the perservation of certain animals
ferae naturae. (fn. 21) Though certain portions of
these lands were from time to time aliened to
subjects by various sovereigns, most of them
were the property of the Crown, and it is
stated by the learned editor of the Select
Pleas of the Forest that, with the exception
of the Warren of Staines, 'there was certainly
no forest in Middlesex in the thirteenth, and
probably none in the twelfth century.' (fn. 22)
There were numerous manors in Middlesex (fn. 23) -there were as many as six manors in
the parish of Edmonton (fn. 24) and the same number in that of Enfield (fn. 25) -which during this
period must have been well stocked with game.
The lords of several of these manors enjoyed
the right of free warren, the grant of which
prohibited any person from entering the lands
of the grantee, or hunting or taking any beasts
or fowls of warren, 'without his licence or
will,' though it did not entitle him to prevent
other people from entering his warren in pursuit of deer. (fn. 26) It is curious to find among
grants of this description-the right conveyed
by which was not appurtenant to the land,
and was usually limited by the king to the
demesne lands of his subjects (fn. 27) -one made by
Edward I in 1291 'to Richard Bishop of
London and his successors of free warren in
all his lands of Stebenhythe (Stepney) and Hackney.' (fn. 28) Another made by Henry III on
22 March 1245 to Hamo Papelowe confers
a similar right with respect to 'the demesne
lands of the manors of Barve (Barron) in
Suffolk and Newton (Stoke Newington) in Middlesex'; (fn. 29) and after the change of ownership
of the latter manor a fresh grant of free warren
in it was made by Edward I on 10 May
1286 to the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. (fn. 30)
Free warren in the manor of 'Acton under
the wood,' the lesser of the two manors in
Acton parish, was granted to the dean and
chapter of St. Paul's by Edward II in 1316; (fn. 31)
and the calendar of Charter Rolls contains
similar grants in the manor of Edelmeton (Edmonton) to William de Say in 1245, (fn. 32) to Henry
de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, in the manors of
Eggeware (Edgware) Cowele (Cowley) in 1294; (fn. 33)
to Bartholomew Peche in the last-named manor
and that of Ikenham (Ickenham) in 1252; (fn. 34) and
in the same year to the Abbot of Bec in the
manor of Risselip (Ruislip), (fn. 35) and James de
Aldethelly in that of 'Halewyke.' (fn. 36)
The confirmation, on 8 June 1280, of a
charter of Henry III, granting to the Order
of St. John of Jerusalem free warren in the
demesne lands of the manor of Hampton (fn. 37)
shows that the proprietary rights attaching to
it remained unaffected by the disafforesting of the Warren of Staines. In the early
part of the sixteenth century it was acquired
by Cardinal Wolsey, who, after the completion
of Hampton Court Palace, hunted there with
Henry VIII; (fn. 38) and after the king had taken
possession of it this part of the warren became
a royal hunting preserve.
The manor, the boundaries of which were
conterminous with those of the parish, was
about 3,000 acres in extent, and originally
consisted of the Home Park, lying to the east,
and Bushey Park, lying to the north of the
Kingston Road. (fn. 39)
Henry VIII, who was devoted to shooting,
hawking, and all other kinds of sport, caused
these two parks to be well stocked with deer
and other game, and subdivided Bushey Park
by brick walls into three equal divisions-the
Hare Warren on the east, the Upper Park on
the west, and the Middle Park between
them-and the Home Park into The Course,
adjoining the Kingston Road, and the Home
Park proper, which was bounded on the west
and south by the Thames. (fn. 40) These inclosures,
however, though well adapted for coursing or
shooting, did not afford the king sufficient
scope for his favourite sport of stag-hunting,
and he therefore acquired by purchase or
exchange the manors of Hanworth, Kempton,
Feltham, and Teddington in Middlesex, together with those of East and West Molesey and
some ten others on the Surrey side of the
Thames, (fn. 41) and by an Act of Parliament passed
in 1509 (fn. 42) erected them into an honour or
seignory of several manors under a single lord
paramount. Of this honour it was provided
that 'the manor of Hampton Court shall
henceforth be the chief capital place or part.' (fn. 43)
Its creation by statute gave it an importance
and dignity superior to that attaching to an
ordinary feudal manor, (fn. 44) and with the exception
of a brief interval during the Interregnum it
continued to be a favourite hunting seat of
the Crown until the end of the eighteenth
century.
Queen Elizabeth, who inherited her father's
love of stag-hunting, frequently hunted at
Hampton Court and shot the deer with her
own bow. (fn. 45) James I, who was an equally
ardent but more timorous sportsman, was a
still more constant visitor, and shared the sport
with his consort Anne of Denmark, who by
a random shot on one occasion killed one of
the king's favourite hounds-an accident
which greatly excited his anger till he learnt
who had caused it, when he is said to have
immediately pardoned the royal offender. (fn. 46)
He so improved the parks and stocked them
so well with deer that a visit to Hampton
Court came to be recognized as one of the
duties of all travellers, and especially amongst
foreigners of distinction. (fn. 47) Its reputation in
this respect must, however, for a time have
been somewhat impaired by the results of the
Civil War, since in a Parliamentary Survey
of 1653 that was made just before its sale, in
which the total area of the property irrespective of the ground occupied by the palace and
gardens is stated as 1,607 acres, the number
of deer is returned as 228, which were valued
at £1 per head. (fn. 48) That it was not entirely
denuded of game is, however, evident from
an entry of 4 January 1657-8 in the
Middlesex County Records with respect to a
charge against John Hare, husbandman, Hugh
Clerke, fisherman, and John Durdin, victualler
of 'Tuddington,' of
taking and destroying seventy hares, with cordes
and other instruments; nigh unto the hare
warren of the Lord Protector within the Honour
of Hampton Court in the said County. (fn. 49)
It was probably restocked after the Restoration, though neither Charles II nor his brother
James seems to have been much addicted to
the chase, and the absence of any references
to the higher forms of sport in the diaries
both of Pepys and Evelyn seems to justify the
supposition that these were somewhat out of
fashion during their reigns. After the
Restoration, however, we find William III
frequently pursuing his favourite pastime of
coursing, then still called 'hunting,' at Hampton
Court up to within a short period of his death;
and on one occasion he writes to Portland
that he had two days before 'taken a stag to
forest with the Prince of Denmark's pack,'
and 'had a pretty good run as far as this
villainous country will permit.' (fn. 50) Queen
Anne, who seems to have been as fond of
hunting as she was of racing, (fn. 51) also constantly
hunted there, following the chase, according
to a description in Swift's journal to Stella, in
a chaise with one horse 'which she drives
herself and drives furiously like Jehu.' On
another occasion she is said by the dean to
have hunted the stag till four o'clock in the
afternoon, and to have covered no less than
forty miles in her chaise. (fn. 52) Both of her
immediate successors fully maintained the
traditions of the honour of Hampton Court,
and George II was so fond of stag-hunting
and coursing that he did not relinquish them
even in summer, and it was only when the
palace ceased to be a royal residence that
sport in the parks was finally abandoned. (fn. 53)
Somewhat similar, though of a less eventful
character, is the history of another notable
royal hunting domain which was of much
greater extent than the honour of Hampton
Court. Enfield Chase, one of the earliest
references to which is in a record of 1236, (fn. 54)
is stated by Camden to have been 'an extensive tract of land formerly covered with trees'
and 'famous for deer hunting,' which had
passed from the possession of the Mandevilles
to the Bohuns and then to the Duchy of
Lancaster. (fn. 55)
Queen Elizabeth, who for a time resided
at Enfield House, hunted in Enfield Chase.
That her subjects sometimes endeavoured to
follow her example without her permission is
shown by the conviction on 23 May 1574
of William Padye, 'gentleman,' of Hadley, and
a 'husbandman' and a 'yeoman' of South
Mimms for breaking into the Chase and killing
'unam damam' (fn. 56) ; on 27 July of the same
year Henry Lawrence of Hadley was found
guilty of a similar offence. (fn. 57) The inclosure
of 500 acres of the Chase in Theobalds Park
was made by James I. That Theobalds continued, however, for some years after to be
regarded as still part of the Chase is shown
by a true bill returned 4 August 1845 against
three yeomen of Enfield for
entering with bows and arrows and other apparatus
for hunting, and without licence, the King's park
. . . used for the preservation of deer and
commonly called Theobalds Parke in Enfield
and 'killing and taking away two stags worth
£5.' (fn. 58) Fond as he was of Theobalds,
James I frequently hunted in Enfield Chase-
as he is represented as doing in Sir Walter
Scott's Fortunes of Nigel-and, as in the case
of Hampton Court Honour, he took care that
it should be abundantly stocked with deer. (fn. 59)
In his reign we find Philip Hammond of
London, 'gentleman,' charged on 6 March
1610 with 'shootynge in a piece on His
Majesty's Chase,' (fn. 60) and in 1649, the year
before the Parliamentary Survey, there are two
convictions, on 15 and 18 July, recorded for
entering the Chase and killing deer 'with
guns charged with gunpowder and bullets.' (fn. 61)
The later history of the Chase cannot be
narrated here, but some reference to it will be
found in the article on Forestry.
In addition to the Chase in the northeastern and the honour of Hampton in the
south-eastern extremity of the county, Middlesex possessed an exceptional number of parks
-inclosed tracts of land for the creation
of which by a subject a licence, though
unnecessary during the Plantagenet reigns,
was always required under the Tudor and
Stuart dynasties. The beasts ferae naturae,
almost exclusively deer, contained in them
were the private property of the owner. Some
reference to the more important of these parks
will be found elsewhere in these volumes;
but it may be noted that they comprised
Hyde Park, though there was probably little or
no hunting in it after the Restoration, as we
find Pepys and Evelyn both alluding to the park
as famous for horse, and foot, and coach
races. (fn. 62) That deer were maintained there
during the seventeenth century is, however,
evident from a report of the Surveyor-General
of Woods to the Lords of the Treasury on
11 June 1695, with respect to repairs in
Hyde Park costing £425 19s. 2½d., and £200
for hay for the deer and for the salaries of
the under-keepers, (fn. 63) and there appear to have
been still some remaining there in the early
part of the nineteenth century. (fn. 64)
It is noteworthy, having regard to the number and extent of the royal preserves, that the
cases dealing with 'breaking into and entering' mentioned in the Middlesex County
Records, which extend from the accession of
Queen Elizabeth to the Restoration, are so
few; and also that, with the exception of an
offence in 1576 at Osterley Park, the object
of which seems to have been firewood rather
than game, (fn. 65) they should all relate to royal
parks. During the whole of this period there
appear to be only two records with respect
to similar offences in connexion with the
property of private individuals. One of these
is in 1569, when Mathew Vincent of Ickenham, 'not having lands, tenements or rents
or service to value of 40s.,' is convicted of
'keeping and using dogs for coursing, nets,
ferrets, and dogs for chasing by scent,' and,
'in company with others, breaking into the free
warren of the earl of Darbie at Hillington,
county Middlesex, and hunting the rabbits of
the said earl.' (fn. 66) The other case, dated
29 December 1613, records the acceptance
of recognizances of the total value of £60
from 'Alexander Cottrell of London, merchant taylor,' and two others for his appearance at the next sessions of the peace
'to answer for breaking into my Lord of
London's grounds at Fulham within his moat
nere his dwelling house there to kill and take
his conies.' (fn. 67) It is rather curious that these
two cases, and that with respect to Hampton
Court during the Interregnum already mentioned, (fn. 68) are the only three that deal with
rabbits in the whole series.
Not less notable is the entire absence of
any cases relating to deer-stealing or poaching
in the Middlesex County Records throughout
the reigns of Charles II and his brother
James. This may perhaps in a measure be
accounted for by the very large number of
cases with respect to treason, recusancy, and
non-attendance at public worship that these
records contain, which can have left the
justices little leisure for dealing with offences
of any other description. It is also, doubtless,
partly due to the fact that-with the exception
of 'the sons or heirs apparent of an esquire
or other person of higher degree, and the
owners or keepers of forests, parks, chases, or
warrens, being stocked with deer or conies
for their necessary use'-it was illegal for any
person 'to have or keep for himself or any
other person any guns, bows, greyhounds,
setting dogs, ferrets, nets, gins, snares, or any
other engines for the taking of game,' unless
he was possessed of landed property of the
clear yearly value of £100 a year, or leases for
ninety-nine years or more of the clear yearly
value of £150 a year. (fn. 69) At the close of the
seventeenth century all the royal parks of
Middlesex, with the exception of the two in
Hampton Court Honour and Hyde Park,
which had ceased to be used for hunting, had,
as has been shown, been disparked. During
the next hundred years the bulk of the manors
to which the right of free warren had
attached began one by one to disappear before
the advance of London, and in spite of the
Game Laws, which continued in force till
the reign of William IV, the area available
for sport became gradually restricted to the
northern portions of the county. Its impending disappearance in the first quarter
of the nineteenth century is indicated by the
Reminiscences of a Huntsman by the Hon.
George Grantley Berkeley, who, with his
brother Moreton, preserved the game at the
family seat at Cranford during the years
1824-36. 'For the size of the covers and
estate,' he says
no place had such a stock of pheasants and hares.
It is but 1,000 acres in all, on the outside of which
Brentford, Isleworth, Twickenham and indeed
London furnished a certified set of marauders to
destroy all living things that did not return home
to our covers before 1 September. At break of
day on 1 September for an hour there was a
running fire, indeed,
'A squadron's charge each tenant's heart dismayed,
On every cover fired a bold brigade.'
To remedy this evil, we drove the outskirts in so
soon as the gathering of the corn would permit
us; and the 1 September I always went forth and
began to bag every hare and partridge I could get
near at break of day. (fn. 70)
According to a parliamentary return of the
number of convictions under the Game
Laws in separate counties of England and
Wales for the year 1869 issued on 7 March
1870, which appears to be the last published
on the subject, 131 out of a total of 10,335
were in Middlesex, as against 90 in Surrey,
260 in Kent, 302 in Herts, and 310 in
Essex. (fn. 71) Of these 131 convictions, however,
only four were for night poaching and the
remaining 127 for trespassing in the day time
in pursuit of game; and this total must
therefore presumably be regarded rather as a
criterion of the number and audacity of the
poaching fraternity in London and the suburbs
than of the extent of preservation or the
supply of game.
SPORT ANCIENT AND MODERN