Forest Rights and Revolution: a Volatile Mixture
by Lloyd C. Irland
(This is the fifth article in a series by Lloyd C. Irland, originally published in the February 2016 issue of Maine Woodlands).
Our history books talk of periodic peasant revolts that shaped history, toppling dynasties, exacting concessions, or, more often, ending in bloody suppressions and changing nothing. Grievances over the forests played a role in many of them. We’ve seen the complex evolution of common rights in medieval Europe’s forests. These rights became increasingly unworkable and even dysfunctional in times of prosperity, widening trade, urbanization, and increasing population. About the year 1000, 18 to 20 million people lived in Christian Europe, spread thinly over a varied landscape including wooded areas, marshes and “waste” between small settlements. Most commoners engaged in subsistence farming and grazing. Cities were small. Yet by 1300, the region supported three times as many people – 60-70 million. Pressures on traditional forest customs escalated.
Then a series of horrific events decimated the population. Famines, the Black Death – actually a series of plagues, beginning in 1348 – and pillaging and burning during the Hundred Years War left villages depopulated and abandoned. Some of these sites remain woods and pastures to this day. The pre-plague population may not have been equaled till 1600. By the mid 17th century, though, Europe’s population neared 100 million. What worked for 20 million wouldn’t work for 100 million. Commoners didn’t directly feel these changing forces, at least not until the local abbot or baron abruptly halted grazing on the commons, or converted common plowlands to private grazing. Losing common forest land meant a significant loss for people often at the edge of starvation. To the commoner deprived, one by one, of common rights, it was injustice perpetrated by grasping and unaccountable masters.
In his book The Great Wave, historian David Hackett Fischer observes that the key indicator of disturbance was the price of fuelwood, which rose faster than other commodities. The woods were already being used at capacity – as economists would say, supply was “inelastic.” More wood could be had only by hauling farther, cutting harder, and paying more. Fischer writes, “During the late 12th and 13th centuries, Europe rapidly cut down its forests, consumed its timber, and burned its brushwood for fuel.” Historians attribute the large families and low mortality in the American colonies, as compared with Britain, to abundant supplies of low-cost fuelwood. Parson Malthus couldn’t conceal his amazement at the rapid growth of American populations.
We shouldn’t exaggerate the role of forest rights in motivating peasant revolts. Peasants labored under rising taxes and rents. They struggled on worn-out lands and highly fragmented farms. Revolts were often triggered by new taxes, war, dearth or dislocation. Yet when peasant leaders listed grievances, forest rights were prominent. Grievances over forests and enforcement of royal hunting rights were among the wrongs brought to King John at Runymede in 1215. But these were readily dealt with, compared to later centuries.
The Church became a major landowner across western and central Europe. Lords donated estates and forests to the Church to expiate sins and pay for memorial masses. As Churchill put it, “their sins were many, their repentances frequent, and the church thrived.” Astute churchmen consolidated properties. Medieval property law was shaped by the need to establish clear title, and the Church’s monopolies and tax exemptions were jealously guarded. Kings considered carefully before requesting support for royal weddings or wars. Having advocated the Crusades, however, churchmen had to fund them. One way was to take mortgages on estates of nobles “taking the cross.” The King had no quartermaster – his feudal lords paid their way, and supplied their armies. In a largely cashless economy, this required innovative financing. The Church was there to help, and sometimes foreclose. By the 13th century, it was a major landowner.
During hard times prelates could become harsh and unyielding landlords, despite lavish palaces and lifestyles. This contributed to fierce anticlericalism, and earned antagonism from secular lords. Hostility was especially strong in the German lands. In 1510, a young German monk travelled to Rome, and, shocked by its luxury, ostentation and arrogance, returned to Germany to preach reform. His name was Martin Luther.
During the German Peasant War of 1524-25, grievances over forest rights were cited. Several of these “Twelve Articles” address forest rights. The fifth says:
The high gentlemen have taken sole possession of the woods. If the poor man needs something, he has to buy it for double money. Therefore, all the woods that were not bought shall be given back to the municipality so that anybody can satisfy his needs for timber and firewood thereof.
Luther denounced abuses against peasants. Yet when German peasants revolted, Luther didn’t support them, opposing their resort to violence.
During the French Revolution, the first National Assembly was presented with lists of grievances by peasants, villagers, and small craftsmen around the kingdom. Loss of common rights in the forest were prominent. Forest rights in Germany remained vexed. Centuries later, stringent rules protecting forests were widely disregarded. Jails filled with peasants arrested for “timber theft.” In 1843, a crusading German journalist lost his job, and was forced to emigrate after penning editorials criticizing abrogation of common forest rights. The journalist? Karl Marx. Later, his associate Friedrich Engels reviewed the German Peasant War from a Marxist viewpoint. Modern property rights, essential for modern forest management, he said, came at a cost.
A connection to Maine history: Like the German peasants, early Maine settlers and land proprietors believed that they held common rights in ungranted lands – not only for fuel for houses and open range grazing, but especially for the wealth to be had in the king’s mast trade. This led to generations of struggle over the “King’s Pines” – a story for another day.