Historian A: Richard Smith – Economic Perspective

"Historian A argues that the Forest Laws were primarily economic tools used by the king to increase royal revenue. By restricting commoners' access to forest resources such as timber and game, the crown could exploit these resources for profit, thereby strengthening royal income. Smith suggests that these laws were less about protecting the environment and more about consolidating wealth and power for the monarchy, often at the expense of local communities."

Historian B: Elizabeth Carter – Social Perspective

"Historian B contends that the Forest Laws had a significant social impact, as they oppressed the common people and disrupted traditional ways of life. These laws criminalized common activities like hunting and gathering, which were vital for local subsistence. Carter emphasizes that the laws contributed to social unrest and resentment among rural populations, and that their enforcement often involved harsh punishment, further alienating the peasantry from the monarchy."