Definition
A historical forest law practice requiring that dogs kept near royal forests have several claws of their forefeet cut off, rendering them incapable of chasing deer. The procedure was a preemptive measure used by the Crown to protect game animals in English royal forests. Dogs subject to lawing were typically mastiffs and similar large breeds capable of bringing down deer. The operation was sometimes called "expeditation" and was administered by special forest courts.
Common Confusion
"Lawing of dogs" and "expeditation" appear interchangeably in some historical sources, but the terms carry slightly different emphases. Expeditation refers broadly to the legal obligation and the formal process by which dogs were presented and assessed; lawing refers specifically to the physical act of mutilation itself. Bouvier's and Burrill's treat them as closely related but distinct. Researchers encountering either term in forest law records should check both entries and related court records together.
Why It Matters in Research
This term is essentially a dead letter in modern law — it has no living legal application. Its research value is entirely historical. Researchers working in English forest law, medieval land tenure, manorial records, or the history of royal prerogative will encounter it in documents relating to the Court of Regard, which convened every three years specifically to examine dogs kept within or near royal forest boundaries and to enforce the lawing requirement.
The principal trap for researchers is terminological: historical records may use "lawing," "expeditation," "laming," or "hambling" to describe the same or closely related practices, and the precise claws removed (typically three from the forefoot) could vary by local custom or charter. Records from the Court of Regard are the primary archival source; these are distinct from the records of other forest courts such as the Court of Attachments or the Justice Seat.
Researchers should also note that the requirement applied not universally but according to proximity to forest boundaries, with specific exemptions available by royal grant or for dogs too small to threaten game (assessed by a physical test involving a stirrup gauge). These nuances rarely surface in the dictionary definitions but are significant for interpreting primary sources.
Historical Dictionary Support
All five source dictionaries agree on the basic definition: the cutting of claws from the forefeet of dogs kept in or near royal forests to prevent them from running at deer. The convergence is unsurprising — this is a narrow, obsolete technical term with little room for interpretive disagreement.
Bouvier's is the most informative of the group, citing Blackstone's Commentaries (3 Bl. Com. 71) and cross-referencing both EXPEDITATION and COURT OF REGARD — the two most essential companion entries for understanding the institutional context. Burrill's adds the forest law framing explicitly ("In forest law") but offers no elaboration, suggesting the entry was included for completeness rather than depth.
Black's in both editions and Rapalje & Lawrence give identical text, which suggests a shared lineage rather than independent research. None of the five sources addresses the Court of Regard's procedural role, the stirrup-gauge exemption test, or the distinction between lawing and hambling — gaps a researcher relying solely on these dictionaries would need to fill from Blackstone or from primary forest law scholarship.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Forest Law (English); Court of Regard; Royal Prerogative and Game Law