Definition
A category of wild animals recognized under English forest and game law as the proper subjects of the chase — that is, hunting by pursuit with hounds across open ground, as distinguished from hunting within an enclosed forest. In the strict technical sense, the term comprised five species: the buck, doe, fox, marten, and roe. In broader common and legal usage, it extended to all beasts of the forest generally, including the hind, hare, bear, and wolf — in short, all wild animals subject to venery or hunting.
The term carried legal significance because English law drew formal distinctions among categories of game animals, and those distinctions determined what rights could be held, by whom, over which lands, and through what legal instruments. Beasts of the chase were distinguished from beasts of the forest (the deer species most closely associated with royal forests) and from beasts and fowls of warren (rabbits, hares, pheasants, partridges, and similar animals protected under the separate franchise of free warren).
Common Confusion
BEASTS OF THE CHASE vs. BEASTS OF THE FOREST vs. BEASTS OF WARREN: These three categories are closely related but legally distinct, and historical sources do not always use them consistently. Beasts of the forest were associated with royal forest jurisdiction and the king's prerogative; beasts of the chase were associated with a chase, a franchise held by a subject with rights analogous to but lesser than a royal forest; beasts of warren were the subject of the separate free warren franchise. The overlap created by Bouvier's broader definition — extending beasts of the chase to all beasts of the forest — reflects genuine historical fluidity in usage, not error. Researchers should treat the strict five-species definition and the broader usage as coexisting rather than competing.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
The five animals named in the strict definition:
- Buck and doe (fallow deer)
- Fox
- Marten (sometimes given as "martin" in older sources; the pine marten)
- Roe (roe deer)
Under the extended definition, additional animals included: hind, hare, bear, and wolf — the last two being historically present in England but effectively extinct there by the later medieval period, making their inclusion largely nominal in post-medieval legal writing.
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in English legal sources dealing with forest law, game law, and the law of franchises. It will surface in historical materials concerning the rights attached to a chase — a franchise granted by the Crown to a subject — and in disputes over poaching, trespass, and the scope of hunting rights. Researchers should be aware of several navigational points.
First, the term belongs to a largely obsolete body of law. English forest law was already archaic by the time Blackstone wrote, and no American jurisdiction inherited these specific animal categories as operative legal concepts. The term appears in American legal dictionaries only because those dictionaries drew heavily on English sources; it has no independent American legal history.
Second, the species list itself requires care. "Martin" in older sources means the pine marten, not the bird. The roe deer is a separate species from the fallow deer (buck and doe). The bear and wolf appear in some expanded lists despite being absent from England for centuries by the time most of the key authorities wrote — their inclusion reflects the antiquarian character of much forest law writing.
Third, the distinction between a chase and a forest matters for understanding why this category existed. A forest was a royal franchise; a chase was an analogous franchise held by a subject. The animals associated with each franchise defined the scope of the right. Confusion between the two franchises will produce confusion about which animal categories are at issue.
Fourth, because Coke's Littleton (Co. Litt. 233) is the primary authority cited across all three dictionary sources, researchers tracing this term should go directly to that text. Blackstone's Commentaries (2 Bl. Com. 89) provides the more accessible secondary synthesis.
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries are in substantial agreement on the core five-species list: buck, doe, fox, marten, and roe. All three cite Coke on Littleton as the primary authority, with Burrill adding Manwood's treatise on forest law as a second source. Bouvier goes furthest in elaborating the extended definition, explicitly listing the hind, hare, bear, and wolf as additional animals falling within the broader usage, and citing both Coke and Blackstone. Black's offers the most compressed treatment. Burrill notes the Latin equivalent — fera campestres, roughly "field beasts" or "beasts of the open country" — which is useful for researchers working in Latin medieval sources, though it should be noted that Latin forest law terminology was not always applied uniformly across periods and jurisdictions.
None of the dictionaries engages critically with the anachronism of including bears and wolves in the list, nor do they address the practical disappearance of these animals from England long before the main body of forest law jurisprudence developed. The historical sources also do not explain the legal consequences that attached to these categories with any depth; for that, researchers must consult Manwood's Treatise of the Forest Laws or Blackstone's treatment of franchises directly.
Jurisdictional Note
This term is exclusively English in origin and application. It has no operative significance in American, Scottish, or other common law jurisdictions. Its appearance in American legal dictionaries reflects the transplantation of English legal vocabulary rather than any adoption of English forest law in the United States.