Chapter XIV: The Forest of the High Peak

The king’s forest of the High Peak was a wild district that formed part of the patrimony of the Anglo-Saxon kings, and was royal demesne at the time of the Great Survey. The parish of Hope and other adjacent lands were granted by the Conqueror in 1068 to William Peverel in conjunction with numerous lordships in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and other counties which were known as the honor of Peverel. On the south side of the Vale of Hope, in a place of remarkable natural strength, Peverel built a castle, on the site of a former stronghold, which had given the name of Castleton to the cluster of houses below it. Twenty years later the district around is styled the land of Peverel’s Castle in Peak Forest (_terram castelli in Pechefers Willelmi Peurel_). The district of Longdendale was added to the Peverel property in the time of Henry I. On Peverel’s death in 1114, his vast possessions passed to his son, but in 1155 a younger Peverel was disinherited for poisoning the Earl of Chester, and all his estates were forfeited to the Crown. From that time until 1372, the castle and forest of the Peak were in the hands of the Crown, when they were transferred to the Duchy of Lancaster, and thence returned to the Crown by absorption in the following century.

At the beginning of the twelfth century, the forest of the Peak included the whole of the north-west corner of the county. The Hope district embraced the seven berewicks of Aston, Edale, “Muckedswell,” half of Offerton, Shatton, Stoke, and Tideswell; whilst Longdendale included the whole of the wide-spreading parish of Glossop, and much that was extra parochial. According to somewhat later parochial divisions, the forest comprised the whole of the parishes of Glossop, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Castleton, and Hope, with most of Tideswell, considerable portions of Bakewell, and part of Hathersage.

It formed altogether an area of 40½ square miles.

From the time when Longdendale was added to the honor of Peverel, in the days of Henry I., the Peak Forest was divided into three districts, each having its own set of foresters, but all under one chief official. These three districts were known as Campana (_i.e._ the Champagne, or open country) on the south and south-west, Longdendale on the north and north-west, and Hopedale on the east.

The bounds of the forest, as set forth in the Forest Pleas held in 1286, were as follows, given in an English dress:—

“The metes and bounds of the forest of the Peak begin on the
south at the New Place of Goyt, and thence by the river Goyt
as far as the river Etherow; and so by the river Etherow to
Langley Croft at Longdenhead; thence by a certain footpath to
the head of Derwent; and from the head of Derwent to a place
called Mythomstede (Mytham Bridge); and from Mytham Bridge to
the river Bradwell; and from the river Bradwell as far as a
certain place called Hucklow; and from Hucklow to the great
dell (_cavam_, cave?) of Hazelbache; and from that dell as far
as Little Hucklow; and from Hucklow to the brook of Tideswell,
and so to the river Wye; and from the Wye ascending up to
Buxton, and so on to the New Place of Goyt.”

In the case of a considerable number of forests there was much variation in their bounds subsequent to 1300; but the limits of Peak Forest remained to its close the same as they were in the thirteenth century.

The place where the forest justice held his inquisitions was usually termed the Justice Seat. This Justice Seat was occasionally held in different localities, or even in a temporary booth or tent, as in the great Northamptonshire forest of Rockingham; but the Justice Seat for the Peak Forest was about the centre of the district, in an extra parochial part, about equal distance from Castleton, Tideswell, and Bowden. Here stood a chief forestry residence and hall termed _Camera in foresta regia Pecci_, or _Camera in Campana_, with a chapel attached. This chapel was of earlier date than the large chapel built by the foresters and keepers at Bowden about 1225, which place was henceforth usually known as Chapel-en-le-Frith. The Chamber of the Peak was not so important a place as the central lodge of many other forests, because the keeper of the Peak Forest being usually associated with the custody of the castle, the residence of the chief local official was at Castleton. The prison was at the castle of the Peak, and the baily of the castle was sometimes made to serve as a great pound for illegally pastured sheep; but there is no instance of the Justice Seat or even a swainmote being held at Castleton.

There are, unfortunately, too few records left of the smaller forest courts of the Peak to speak with confidence as to the regular holding of the frequent attachment courts or swainmotes in all the bailiwicks for any long period; but there are sufficient incidental references to show that such swainmotes were held in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries for Campana at the Chamber of the Forest, for Longdendale at Chapel-en-le-Frith, and for Hopedale at Hope. Subsequently the greater swainmote courts were held at Tideswell and at Chapel-en-le-Frith, though sometimes at Campana Lodge or Chamber of the Forest instead of at Tideswell.

In several of the larger forests, and notably in Peak Forest, there were hereditary foresters-of-fee. In this case, when the question of their origin came up at forest pleas, they always claimed to date back to the times of William Peverel. There were a certain number—originally four, though afterwards subdivided—for each of the three great bailiwicks of the Peak Forest who held certain bovates of land in serjeanty, discharging their obligations in one case by the hunting of wolves (see chapter iv.), and in the others by some amount of forest supervision. In two of the three bailiwicks they had sworn grooms or servants under them. This kind of forestership could be held by women and by clerks, but the duties had then to be discharged by deputy. The foresters-of-fee were bound to attend all courts, even the frequent swainmotes of their bailiwick, in person or by authorised sworn deputy.

The tenure by which such foresters held their land is made clear by divers inquisitions after death. Adam Gomfrey, 32 Edward I., died seized of a messuage and fifteen acres at Wormhill held _per servicium custodiendi pecci forestam_. Walter de Nevil, 34 Edward I., died seized of thirty acres at Wormhill held _per servicium custodiendi forestam_. Nicholas Foljambe, at his death, 13 Edward II., held a messuage and thirty acres by the serjeanty of keeping the king’s forest of Campana, in the Peak, _per corpus suum cum arcu et sagittis_. Thomas Foljambe, 17 Edward II., held fifteen acres at Wormhill, by the service of finding a footman with bow and arrows to keep the Peak Forest. Maria Hansted, 11 Edward III., held land at Blackbrook, Fairfield, Hope, etc., _per custodiendi wardam de Hopedale in foresta de Pecco_.

On the numerous early incised slabs that are found in Derbyshire churches in the neighbourhood or within the bounds of Peak Forest, dating from the time of Henry II. to Henry III., there are not a few symbols that betoken slabs which are obviously memorials of forest ministers. The horn of a forester appears at the base of an incised cross at Darley Dale, which has a sword on the sinister side. At Wirksworth is an earlier one, with a belted bugle horn on one side of the cross, and a sword on the other. At Hope there is a third early slab with a sword on one side and a belted bugle horn, with an arrow below it, on the other. In each of these cases the burial of a forester-of-fee is denoted, the sword (which had no forest signification) probably denoting knightly rank. At the unhappy and wholly unnecessary demolition of Hope chancel another cross slab, with only a stringed bugle-horn on the dexter side, was also brought to light.

Among the large collection of early incised slabs at Bakewell is one on which a bow is denoted by a curved line on the sinister side of the cross-stem, the stem serving as the bow-string; a small arrow projects from the string.

A square-headed axe laid athwart the cross-stem appears on slabs at Chelmorton and Killamarsh, probably denoting a verderer, or head woodward, or “axe-bearer.” The ordinary woodward, and in some forests the verderer, only bore a small lopping axe or bill-hook, and not a felling axe. Such billhooks appear on early incised slabs at Sutton-in-the-Dale and North Wingfield.

Examples of the Derbyshire incised slabs to forest ministers have been illustrated in chapter iii.

There is a peculiarly interesting brass in Dronfield Church to Thomas Gomfrey, rector, who died in 1389, and his brother, Richard Gomfrey, rector of Tatershall. On the brass is a forester’s horn. Thomas was hereditary forester-of-fee; he was the great grandson of Adam Gomfrey, forester of Campana at the eyre of 1286.

The abundance of deer in this forest in Norman days seems to have been something astonishing. Giraldus Cambrensis tells us that in his days (_nostris diebus_), _c._ 1194, the number of the deer was so great in the Peak district that they trampled both dogs and men to death in the impetuosity of their flight.

In the extensive grant of lands and church at Glossop in Longdendale by Henry II. to the Flintshire abbey of Basingwerk, the king reserved to himself the venison, but allowed the abbot’s tenants to take hares, foxes, and wolves.

The accounts rendered by Robert de Ashbourn, bailiff of the forest and castle of the Peak, for the year 1235-6, are of much interest. The receipts amounted to £201 2_s._ 10½_d._, whilst the expenses were £184 12_s._ 7_d._ In this year the king visited Peak Castle, when bailiff Ashbourn, as lord of the jurisdiction, presented him with four wild boars and forty-two geese, and charged 16_s._ 3½_d._ for the same in his accounts. The castle that year underwent considerable repairs. £10 1_s._ 8_d._ from the pleas of the hundred or wapentake court were among the receipts, and we suppose that the sums of £6 19_s._ 4_d._ and £39 19_s._ 6_d._ from the respective itineraries through the demesnes and forests, represent the fines, etc., accruing respectively from the manorial and the swainmote courts. This is the earliest known detailed document of the Peak jurisdiction.

Forest pleas were expected to be held at least every seven years, but the Peak Forest is one of the numerous cases in which far longer intervals occurred. The forest justices held their eyre for the Peak in 1216. This was followed by an interval of thirty-five years, for the next pleas were not held until 1251. Of these pleas, held before Geoffrey Langley and other justices, very full records are extant.

The following were the bailiffs of the honor of the Peak during the period covered by this eyre: William Ferrers, Earl of Derby, 1216-22; Brian de Insula, 1222-28; Robert de Lexington, 1228-33; Ralph Fitz-Nicholas, 1233-34; John Goband, 1234-37; Thomas de Furnival, 1237 (for six months); Warner Engaine, 1237-42; John de Grey, 1242-48; and William de Horsenden, 1249. They were appointed by Crown patents.

The presentment of venison trespasses were made by the hereditary foresters and the verderers. This roll is headed by the wholesale charge made against William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby (who had died in 1246), in conjunction with Ralph de Beaufoy, of Trusley, William May, the earl’s huntsman, Richard Curzon, of Chaddesden, and Henry de Elton, of having taken in the king’s forest of the Peak, during the six years when the earl was bailiff (1216-22), upwards of 2,000 head of game (deer). Ralph, Robert, and Henry appeared, and on conviction were imprisoned; but they were released on paying heavy fines, and finding twelve mainpernors for their good conduct. Robert Curzon was fined £40; the first of his twelve mainpernors was William Curzon, of Croxall. Ralph Beaufoy was fined £10; the first of his mainpernors was Sir William de Meysam. May, the huntsman, did not appear; it was reported he was in Norfolk, and the justices ordered him to be attached. If the full actual pleadings were extant, there can be no doubt, judging from the customs of other forests, that the companions of the earl would have been able to show that a considerable percentage of the deer taken when he held office were fee deer, to which he was entitled by usage for himself and his deputies, and that many others were the usual and recognised gifts to the country gentlemen of the district to secure their goodwill towards the king’s forest. It must be remembered that it was always customary at these eyres to present lists of all the deer killed, including those taken by express warrant or custom. Nevertheless, there was obviously something quite unwarrantable in the amount taken during that period (over 300 a year), as is shown by the heavy fines imposed upon the hunting comrades of the deceased earl.

Many of the other offenders were men of considerable position. Thus Thomas Gresley, Alan his brother, Ralph Hamilton, the Earl of Arundel, and Geoffrey de Nottingham were convicted of taking three harts and two hinds.

Four or five of these charges, which exceeded one hundred in number, related to clergy. One of the most important cases was that of Roger de Weseham, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1245-57). The bishop was charged together with William the vicar of Glossop, Archdeacon Adam de Staniford, and five others, all apparently of his company, with taking a hind in the forest. The bishop was summoned with the rest to appear before the justices, but the result appears to have been that the vicar of Glossop was the only one punished; he was fined ten marks, and had to find twelve mainpernors. One of the company was John the clerk, and he was an unknown monk. Had the pleadings been preserved in full, it would probably have been shown that the bishop pleaded the forest charter, whereby it was allowed to any bishop, baron, or earl to take one or two head of game in passing through a royal forest, provided it was done openly. The like justification might possibly have been put forward by several barons whose names appear as venison trespassers.

Those who were considered responsible for the escape of prisoners on venison charges from Peak Castle were held liable at these forest pleas. When John de Grey was bailiff of the Peak, Martin the shoemaker of Castleton, and another, were charged with the unwarrantable possession of a deerskin, and were committed to prison. They escaped, or were liberated without the intervention of a forest justice, therefore the bailiff was held in mercy; the offenders did not appear, and were outlawed. John Goband, an earlier bailiff, was also held in mercy for a like offence. Simon de Weyley, who took a stag during the bailiffship of Robert de Lexington (1228-33), gave the bailiff five marks to secure his release. Lexington was dead; but, on the offence being proved, the justices held that his heirs were held responsible.

Baron William de Vesci, with four others, was charged with taking three harts in the forest. One of the company, John de Andville, was on pilgrimage in the Holy Land at the time of the eyre, and could not appear. The baron had protested to the verderers at the time of the charge that he took the game by the king’s gift; he brought to the eyre the royal letter and the charge was withdrawn. In two other cases royal pardons were produced to the justices.

The fines imposed for venison trespasses varied at this eyre from £100 to 13_s._ 4_d._, and seemed to have been proportioned in accordance with the position of the offender, as well as the comparative gravity of the offence. The long intervals between the eyres, and the frequent changes of the forest custodian, together with the wildness of the country, seemed to have led to the Peak Forest being hunted, with a certain amount of impunity, by not a few of the nobility and gentry of Derbyshire, and of the adjacent parts of Yorkshire and Cheshire. The game trespasses at this eyre were entirely for red deer, save for the single instance of a presentment against Robert de Wurth for killing a roebuck, for which offence the huge fine of £100 was imposed. The amount of this fine had nothing to do with the nature of the game, but was caused by the non-appearance of the accused, accompanied probably by some aggravating circumstances not recorded on the brief entry on the plea rolls. At the next pleas (1286) the justices imposed a like enormous fine of £100 in the case of John Clarel, who did not appear, on the charge of taking a hart, adding to the record words which do not elsewhere appear—_si placeat domino rege_—as though to mark its exceptional nature.

When the justices at the 1251 pleas came to the consideration of vert offences and encroachments various particulars were missing. Mathew de Langesdon and Adam de Stanton, hereditary verderers, were each fined 20_s._ for not producing their father’s rolls. There seems to have been much carelessness among the various officials in the keeping of their respective yearly lists of offences. Peter del Hurst, regarder of one section of the Peak Forest, was fined 10_s._ for the non-presentment of assarts and purprestures in his rolls. A considerable number of agisters were at the same time declared in mercy for not producing their agistment rolls according to the custom and assize of the forest. There is, however, a fairly long list of vert offences (about sixty) that had accrued within the Crown demesnes since 1218, the damage done being in most cases valued at 6_d._ Richard de Smallcross, who had been fined 6_d._ at the swainmote for the value of a vert offence in the demesne park, had now to pay a fine of 6_s._ 8_d._ and to obtain pledges. Richard de Redescaye, who had paid a value fine of 12_d._, was also fined 6_s._ 8_d._ by the justices. The majority of the offenders—the offences were probably trifling—had simply to find pledges for their future observance of the forest assize. Heirs were held responsible for their father’s offences in two or three cases. Many of these vert trespassers were of good position. The worst case at this eyre was that of Roger Foljambe, who was fined the large sum of twenty marks for many transgressions; his pledges were John Foljambe and Warner Coterell. In this roll of transgressors the clergy, especially the religious, were largely represented. The number included the abbots of Basingwerk, Dieulacres, Lilleshall, Merivale, Roche, and Welbeck, the prior of Lenton, and William, vicar of Glossop. The vicar’s case must have been a serious one, for the value payment was £3 and the fine 40_s._ Another and much shorter roll gave the vert offenders within the forest limits but outside the demesne.

In the first roll of assarts presented at this Peak eyre, on which twenty-two cases are entered, two of these assarts that had been made without warrant many years before were taken into the king’s hands; and in one case, where William the smith (deceased) had made an assart of three acres without warrant in the liberty of the abbot of Basingwerk in the days of Robert de Lexington (1228-33), the then abbot was allowed to retain it as tenant. It was a dire offence, whether the assart was within the forest or only in the regard or purlieus, to enclose with so stout or high a fence that the deer were excluded. The abbot of Basingwerk, in the time of John de Grey, was reported as having assarted one and a half acres at Whitfield without the demesne, and enclosed it so as to prevent the free roving of the deer and their fawns, and this without warrant; at the time when the justices were sitting the fence had been removed, but it was declared in the hands of the king. The usual custom in the Peak at this time seems to have been for the tenant of an assart to pay 4_d._ an acre to the Crown, and at the time of the assart being made to pay a fine to the bailiff for the warrant. In a list of assarts allowed by Warner Engaine at 4_d._ an acre, the following are the proportions and the fines in six consecutive cases: 1 acre, 2_s._ fine; 4 acres, 6_s._ fine; 1 acre, 2_s._ 8_d._ fine; 3 acres, 6_s._ fine; 2 acres, 4_s._ fine; and 3 acres, 3_s._ fine. When the tenants of Peak Forest assarts died, their heirs paid double rent for the first year, and the king had also the second best beast, the first going to the Church. These Peak assarts, which were very numerous at this date, were for the most part small, averaging about 5 or 6 acres; they varied from 60 acres to ½ acre.

The purprestures presented at this eyre were the rolls of new houses built since the last pleas of 1216. One hundred and thirty-one persons had built new houses without warrant, and were therefore in mercy—that is, liable to fines. In almost a like number of cases, namely, one hundred and twenty-seven, new houses had been raised within the king’s demesnes with the licence of the bailiff. An average increase of eight new houses a year during the first thirty-five years of Henry III.’s reign speaks well as to the degree of prosperity then enjoyed by the forest of the Peak.

The mineral and turbary rights of this forest also came under review at this eyre. Earl Ferrers received £15 during the six years that he held the Peak bailiwick from the minerals raised at Tideswell: Brian de Insula, £12, during his five years; Robert de Lexington, £40 in six years; Ralph Fitz-Nicholas, £5 in one year; John Goband, £7 in three years; Warner Engaine, £12 10_s._ in five years; John de Grey, £15 in six years; and William de Horsenden, 50_s._ per annum. The minerals raised at Wardlow produced £12 for Earl Ferrers, £10 for Brian de Insula, £12 for Robert de Lexington, £2 for Ralph Fitz-Nicholas, £4 for John Goband, £8 10_s._ for Warner Engaine, £8 for John de Grey, and 30_s._ a year for William de Horsenden. John de Grey took twenty marks of cheminage or road toll to the mines during his term of office; but this was not done by any other bailiff. John de Grey also made certain stone quarries, from which he received 16_d._ profit in two years.

Under turbary it is mentioned that the townships of Hucklow, Tideswell, Wormhill, Toftes, Buxton, Bowden, Aston, and Thornhill took turves without requiring licence.

Another source of profit to the bailiffs was on escaped cattle: under this head Earl Ferrers took £12, Brian de Insula £10, Robert de Lexington £12, Ralph Fitz-Nicholas £2, John Goband £6, Warner Engaine £10, John de Grey £12, and William de Horsenden £1 yearly.

One other fact recorded on the rolls of this eyre remains for notice: it is with regard to the horse-breeding establishments of the forest. The term used for this in the Peak, Needwood, and other forests is _Equitium_, for which it does not seem possible to find any single-word English equivalent, unless it is stud. The abbot of Welbeck had one stud of twenty horses and twenty mares in the forest at Cruchell, where King John had given the canons charter rights. The abbot of Merivale had kept a stud of sixteen mares with their foals for six years, to the damage to the king of 20_s._ The abbot of Basingwerk had a stud of twenty mares for two years, damage 20_s._ William de Roch had seven mares and foals for one year, 20_s._ Thomas Foljambe, senior, had seven mares, damage 13_s._ 4_d._; Thomas had died and the heirs had to respond.

Bailiff Bernake’s accounts of the year 1255-6, already cited in reference to wolves, are also interesting on account of the gifts that he made to the Campana Lodge or Chamber of the Forest. To the chapel he gave a sufficient vestment, an albe, an amyce, a sufficient rochet, a super-altar, an altar cloth made out of an old chasuble, a silver chalice gilded inside, and an old missal and a gradual. To the hall he gave five tables, six old small shields, and a chessboard; also two tuns of wine, one full and the other having a depth of twelve inches. He also presented various utensils to the kitchen.

On 12th July, 1285, the sheriff of Derbyshire was ordered to cause a regard to be taken of the Peak Forest before Michaelmas, preparatory to the holding of the forest pleas; and on 1st August he was further instructed to issue summons of an eyre for forest pleas, to be held at Derby to all concerned, save Brother William de Henley, prior to the Hospitallers and Edmund the king’s brother, who were excused attendance.

Thirty-four years had passed by since the last eyre was held. The pleas of the forest were held at Derby on 30th September, 1285, before Roger Lestrange, Peter de Leach, and John Fitz-Nigel, justices of the forest. The full rolls of this eyre are also extant at the Public Record Office.

From the rolls then produced we are able to continue the list of bailiffs from the time of the last eyre. William de Horsenden, 1251; Ralph Bugg, 1252; Ivo de Elynton, 1253; Richard de Vernon, 1254; Gervase de Bernake, 1255; Thomas de Orreby, 1256; Richard le Ragged, 1257; William de Findern, 1258; Thomas de Furnival, 1264; Roger Lestrange, 1274; Thomas Foljambe, 1277; Thomas de Normanville, 1277; Thomas de Furnival, 1279; Thomas le Ragged, 1280; Thomas Foljambe, 1281; and Robert Bozon, 1283.

The Campana foresters-of-fee of that date were John Daniel, Thomas le Archer, Thomas son of Thomas Foljambe, a minor in the custody of Thomas de Gretton; Nicholas Foljambe, who had been a minor in the custody of Henry de Medue, but was then of full age; and Adam Gomfrey. Of these foresters, Adam Gomfrey and Thomas Foljambe held jointly the same bovate, which had formerly been divided between two brothers. Also Thomas Foljambe and John le Wolfhunte held another bovate in the same way, John holding his half by hereditary descent, whilst Thomas Foljambe, senior, had acquired his half by marriage with Katherine, daughter of Hugh de Mirhaud. This subdivision of serjeanties became burdensome to the district, as each forester-of-fee endeavoured to have a servant maintained at the expense of the tenants, but the jurors confirmed a decision of the hundred court of 1275 to the effect that there could be only four such servants or officers, according to ancient custom, for the Campana bailiwick. The names of the foresters-of-fee for the two other wards are also set forth.

Although a considerable proportion of the offenders were dead before the eyre was held, the rolls of venison and vert trespassers show no fewer than 517 separate charges extending over the thirty-four years since the last pleas.

The gravest charge at this eyre, as at the last, was against an Earl of Derby. Robert Earl Ferrers was presented for having, in 1264, with a great company of knights and other persons of position, hunted in the Campana forest on 7th July and taken forty head of deer, and drove another forty out of the forest; and on 1st August took fifty and drove away about seventy; and again on 29th September took forty and drove away a like number. This hunting was planned on a wholesale scale, for thirty-eight are named in the presentment, and there were many others, as well as the earl himself, who were dead before the eyre was held, and others not summoned as they were mere servants of the earl. Eight out of the thirty-eight were knights, and one, Master Nicholas de Marnham, rector of Doddington, Lincoln, was in holy orders. Of those in the earl’s train during these three forest affrays hardly any bore Derbyshire names, but came from the counties of Warwick, Leicestershire, Lancashire, York, Cambridge, etc. It has been strangely enough remarked by the only writer who has hitherto cited these presentments (Mr. Yeatman) that “these tremendous charges,” made long after the earl was dead, “are utterly incomprehensible,” adding that it seems impossible to suppose that the earl had not full licence from the Crown to indulge in hunting in the royal forest! But this writer had clearly forgotten the date of these forest invasions of the young and impetuous Earl Ferrers. It was in 1264, in the very thick of the baronial civil war under Simon de Montfort, of whose cause Robert Ferrers was a hot partisan. On 12th May was fought the battle of Lewes, when the king’s forces under Prince Edward (Edward I.) were defeated by those of the barons. For two or three years from that date, as an old chronicler has it, “there was grievous perturbation in the centre of the realm,” in which Derbyshire pre-eminently shared. There can be no doubt whatever that the three incursions made into the Peak Forest in July, August, and September, following the battle of Lewes, were undertaken by Robert Ferrers and his allies (issuing forth from his great manor-house of Hartington) much more to show contempt for the king’s forest and preserves and to get booty than for any purposes of sport. These presentments, if they did nothing else, were a strong protest against the lawlessness of such action. In April of this year Henry III. had come into Derbyshire and lodged for a time at the castle of the Peak after the subjection of Nottingham, and it was from here that he proceeded into Kent and Sussex.

The king’s sojourn here before the battle of Lewes is expressly named in another presentment against Thomas de Furnival, the great Lord of Sheffield. Thomas, who was that year bailiff of the Peak, entertained the king at the castle and tarried there until Whitsuntide. On this occasion, after the king had left, the bailiff entered the forest and killed twelve beasts. On various subsequent occasions, both in the reign of Henry III. and Edward I., venison was killed in this forest and taken to Thomas de Furnival’s castle at Sheffield. Thomas appeared before the justices, and was convicted and imprisoned, but was subsequently released at the king’s pleasure for a fine of 200 marks.

Edward I. made his chace (_facit chaceam suam_) in the forest in 1275. At that time Thomas Fitz-Nicholas and Richard Fitz-Godfrey of Monyash went into the forest with the king’s hounds and carried off some of the venison to their own houses. Whereupon William le Wynn, Lord of Monyash, whose tenants they were, summoned them to his manorial court, where Thomas was fined 4_s._ and Richard 6_s._ 8_d._ For this illegal adjudication in case of venison trespass William le Wynn was presented by the foresters, and the justices fined him 20_s._, and required him to find pledges of future observance of the assize of the forest.

At a swainmote held at Chapel-en-le-Frith in March, 1280, William Foljambe appeared before Thomas le Ragged, the bailiff, and presented that Henry de Medue took a doe with a certain black greyhound called “Collyng” at Camhead, undertaking to verify the charge in a penalty of 100 marks; Henry denied the charge, and retorted that William Foljambe and his brother-in-law, Gregory, with the aid of his servants and shepherds at Martinside, Weston, and Wormhill, had destroyed a hundred head of game, and undertook to prove it under a like penalty. The jury at the forest pleas found Henry guilty, and he was fined £5. William and his company were found not guilty of taking a hundred, but guilty of taking twenty; he was fined 20 marks. Collyng was evidently a well-known greyhound; the name occurs in another presentment of a different date against Thomas Medue.

In the Peak Forest, as elsewhere, foresters-of-fee, as well as their servants or under-foresters, were now and again convicted of venison trespass. Thus Robert de Milner, at the time when he was a forester of Longdendale, took over twenty head of game and carried them to his father’s house; not appearing at the eyre, he was outlawed. John Pycard, a forester under Milner, was also convicted of killing six deer. Ten other foresters-of-fee were fined during this eyre.

A succession of bailiffs, in addition to Thomas de Furnival, were convicted of venison or cognate offences, or the improper release of offenders.

The offences, both of vert and venison trespass and of agistment, proved against the large majority of the hereditary foresters-of-fee, and against so many of the highest position in the district and county, shows that there was very little moral stigma attached at that time to forest transgressions in the Peak. In no other forest district does there seem to have been quite so much laxity. This exceptionally bad feature of the Peak Forest probably arose from the long-continued state turmoil of so much of the period between the two eyres of 1250 and 1286 throughout this district, which brought about great laxity of administration. After these foresters had been duly convicted and fined for many transgressions, their respective bailiwicks, because of their poverty, were not forfeited, but taken into the king’s hands to be replevied at his will when the required fine had been paid. The justices were authorised to reinstate them in their offices during the king’s pleasure, whilst the fines were being paid, if they saw just cause, and in several cases the penalties were reduced.

As examples of instances of convictions of men of considerable position, the following may be mentioned: Peter de Gresley, who had to pay £20 for the single offence of killing a doe in 1268; John lord of Queenbury, Yorks, £20; and John lord of Shipley, 40_s._ Other offenders were Sir Stephen le Waleys, William Bagshawe, and Thomas, Henry, and William Foljambe.

There were, of course, various venison offences committed by men in humbler positions, but these seem to have been quite the exception. Michael, son of Adam de Wormhill, was presented for having killed fawns (of red deer) in the forest, and sold their skins in the open market. The justices at this eyre were merciful, and had regard to poverty in other besides the foresters-of-fee. Thus Richard de Baslow and Hebbe the fisherman were in the company of Richard de Vernon, when he was bailiff at the taking of venison for the king, and appropriated five head of game to themselves. Baslow was fined 20_s._, but Hebbe, who admitted the offence, was afterwards pardoned through the king’s mercy because he was poor.

FOXES (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)

DEER IN FOREST (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)

WOLVES (FIFTEENTH CENTURY)]

The vert charges of this eyre, particularly those that deal with the wholesale damage of the king’s woods, charged against the respective townships, are of special interest, as enabling us to see in detail that the woodlands were then fairly numerous, although by far the largest portion of the forest area was always clear of every kind of timber. The woods were almost entirely of oak.

Full lists of assarts and purprestures that had occurred since 1261, under the respective bailiffs, were also presented at the 1286 pleas.

As to horses, it was presented that the Queen Consort had a stud of 115 mares and their foals in Campana, to the great injury of the forest, but that many had horses and mares in Campana under cover of their belonging to the queen. Peter de Shatton, forester-of-fee, had eleven horses and mares feeding in Campana, whose pasturage was rated at 2_s._ Nineteen other foresters had horses or mares in various proportions, all claiming to be part of the queen’s stud. They were all ordered to remove their animals, and had to pay pasturage value, and in addition, fines varying from 1_s._ to 4_s._, save in the cases of Adam Gomfrey, John Daniel, and Cecily Foljambe, who were pardoned.

The ordinary vert rolls for such trespasses during the past thirty-five years extended to a great length, embracing over 600 cases. The fines were chiefly 1_s._, but extended to 2_s._ 6_d._, and in one case to 4_s._ Two of the offenders, Richard le Hunt and Walter Bigg, both of Castleton, were excused any fine on the score of poverty.

The details of the farm stock for the year 1314-15 are particularly full, especially with regard to the sheep, but space prevents them being given here.

There are various references to the milking of ewes in the Peak accounts. It is often forgotten how almost universal throughout England—but more especially in Essex and the eastern counties—was the custom of cheese-making from sheep’s milk from the time of Domesday to the days of Elizabeth. It lingered to a far later date in some districts. The milk of ten ewes was considered equivalent to that of one cow.

The bailiff of the Peak was allowed, within the forest limits, to keep a limited number of sheep in certain defined places, and one or two herds of cattle kept, as a rule, within enclosures, and only occasionally pastured in the open. In later days, as will be presently seen, when the pasturage was farmed out, it became a great temptation to the farmers to increase their stocks, to the serious detriment of the deer. Temporary booths or sheds were erected on the great upland pasture grounds of the forest for the occasional use of the herdsmen of the vaccaries. Particularly was this the case above Edale. This is the explanation of the term “Booth” not infrequently found on the Ordnance Survey maps. Near Edale may be noticed Booth, Barbery Booth, and Upper Booth; above Hollinsclough is another Booth; and elsewhere occur Grindsbrook Booth, Otterbrook Booth, and Netherbrook Booth. On the other hand, Oxhey and Cowhey, on Ronksley Moor, Cowheys, near Ludworth, and Oxhay, near Eyam, speak of definite enclosures for cattle.

The ministers’ accounts of the Duchy of Lancaster, from the reign of Richard II. onwards, supply various interesting particulars as to receipts and expenditure in administering the affairs of the forest and bailiwick of the High Peak. The accounts for 1391-2, when Thomas de Wednesley was receiver and bailiff, include, in addition to rents from towns and wastes, and payments for a summer and winter herbage, for lead ore, mills and fisheries, £6 13_s._ 4_d._ for passage and stallage and toll for cows at Chapel-en-le-Frith, 25_s._ for pannage of pigs, and 37_s._ 6_d._ for agistment.

A court (_turnus_) was held at Tideswell on 1st August, 1398, under Sir John Cokayne as chief steward, when the jury made presentments as to lands of the abbeys of Basingwerk and Lilleshall and the priory of Fenton. John de Sale, boothman (herdsman) of Edale, was presented for receiving two marks for the sale of wood. Other charges were the enclosing of a piece of waste at Whitehall bridge, and the making a weir at Rydale. The foresters also presented several cases of venison trespass.

The main items of the accounts for 1404-5 closely approximate to the one just cited, but there is a fresh sub-heading, namely, “new herbage,” for which £30 was received. This must refer to some extensive new clearing or assart; it was at Stokehill, in the Hopedale ward of the forest, and is described as formerly pertaining to Welbeck abbey, but then to the nuns of Derby. This year the perquisites or fines from the various courts amounted to £56 11_s._ 2_d._ Two small but interesting items appear in this year’s accounts, and are often subsequently repeated. One is called _Broksylver_, or brook-silver, which was a payment made by lead miners who washed their ore in the torrent (_torrens_) of Tideswell within the fee; the sum for this year was 20_s._ The other is _Wodsylver_, or woodsilver, which was a payment for billets of wood (perhaps used for smelting) at 4_d._ a 100; this year they numbered 500, and the payment was 1_s._ 8_d._

The expenses and salaries of this year amounted to £319 5_s._ 10½_d._, which left a balance of £66 12_s._ 11¾_d._ A heavy item in the expenses was the building of a new mill at Maynestonfield, £12 4_s._ 1_d._ There were also repairs of the mills at Hayfield and Castleton, whilst a pair of millstones for Beard cost 10_s._ A small item of some interest is 2_d._ for a key to the door of the toll-booth at Chapel.

The accounts for 1435-6 include rents for lands called “Wynlandes” (spelt “Wynnelandes” and “Wenlandes” in other accounts). From this and subsequent statements it appears that the payments or rents for these Wynlands came from places such as Monyash, Chelmorton, Overhaddon, Bakewell, Ashover, etc., which were on the verge of the forest, and sometimes in other hundreds (Wirksworth and Scarsdale) outside the limits of the High Peak. The word naturally suggests, to forest students, the Venlands of Dartmoor, which were the parts adjacent to the moor proper. The Venland parishes paid a composition to the Duchy of Cornwall to cover the straying of their cattle and stock over the bounds into Dartmoor forests. In like manner these Wynland or Venland districts round the Peak Forest appear to have at this time paid some due or assigned some rents for a like reason to the Duchy of Lancaster. In 1439-40 Sir Richard Vernon (who had been appointed bailiff of the High Peak and master forester in 1422) enters on the back of his accounts proper his receipts as bailiff of the lands called Wynnelandes, which amounted that year to £88 1_s._

At a later date, this word appears as “Wydelands” and “Widlands,” and once as “Widelands,” which may be taken to signify the lands wide of the forest centre.

In 1440-1, three hundred shingles were provided at a cost of 16_s._ 6_d._ and shingle nails at 18_d._ for re-roofing the _Camera in campana_ or Chamber in the Forest. In the following year the large sum of £7 0_s._ 11_d._ was spent on repairing with specially cut piles the great pond (_stagnum_) of the Campana. This pond still remains.

In 1448-9 Sir Richard Vernon was still bailiff and master forester. The receipts (including balance) for that year amounted to £445 2_s._ 5¾_d._

Walter Blount was bailiff in 1456-7. The lead ore, together with the market tolls at Tideswell paid by the Sir Sampson Meverell, and the farm of the fishery of the Wye, realised £14 1_s._ In 1460-1 Walter Blount was still bailiff, but he was at that date knighted.

Sir William Hastings, Sir John Savage, junr., and Thurston Allen were the next successive bailiffs.

A singular appointment was made by Henry VII. in March, 1503, to the joint offices of bailiff, receiver, collector, and barmaster of the High Peak. The person appointed was Thomas Savage, Archbishop of York; of course, he only exercised these not very lucrative offices by deputy; indeed, the patent gives him authority to discharge his duties by deputy in the same way as had been done by his predecessor, Thurston Allen. At the same time Sir Richard Savage was appointed constable of Peak, master forester of Peak Forest, and steward of both castle and forest at a salary of £18 18_s._ 4_d._ a year to be paid him by his kinsman, the archbishop, as receiver. In the following year Thomas Babington was appointed sub-steward.

Three years later the different offices were again reassorted and to some extent amalgamated, for Sir Henry Vernon, in November, 1507, was appointed steward, bailiff, and master forester. In the following January, James Worsley was appointed “Boweberer infra forestam de Peke” during pleasure.

Among the Belvoir MSS. is the roll of a swainmote held at Chapel-en-le-Frith, in October, 1497. The foresters made various presentments of venison trespass. In six cases the offenders were charged with killing a “cornilu.”[1]

An undated complaint, _temp._ Henry VII., addressed to the chancellor of the duchy, is of much interest as showing the power of the deputy steward of the Peak and the use made of the castle as a prison:—

“To the Right Honorable Sir Reynold Bray, Knyght Chauncelor of
the Duchie of Lancastre.

“Mekly compleanayth unto your good maistership your dayly
orator Richard Hall of Hop that when your said orator came unto
your debite Steward of the high peke John Savage to shew unto
hym howe that on of his servauntes called Randall Lee and oon
Thomas Slake servaunt to Robert Ayer had apeched ather other
of fellony as well for stellyng of horses and mayres as of
shep to the entent the said mysdoers myght have ben ponyshed
accordyng unto the kynges lawes and pore men’s goodes in the
countre to go in pese by them the said John Savage not wyllyng
to her the trewyth nor to do justice comyth your said besecher
for his seth saying to the Castell of Peke and ther remaned by
the space of iii weks and more and wold not suffer his wyfe nor
other or his frendes to bryng hym mete nor drynke but caused
hym to by it of the Constabill depute to his grete coste and
charge. And on this your said besecher axed Surtes of the
pece as well of the said Randall Lee as of the said Thomas
Slake afore the said John Savage. And he that notwithstandyng
suffered them to departe withoute any Surtes fyndyng to the
grete juberdy of the lyf of your said besecher withoute a
Remedy may be had in that behalfe. And fordermore your said
orator offered the said John Savage Surtes to answer to all men
that cold lay anything to his charge which he refused saying
it was your comandement that he should be comytt to the said
Castell and so he was ther withoute Remedy but that it pleasit
your good maistership to comaund the said John Savage by your
wrytyng to suffer hym to go atte large and to apere afore you
atte the octave of seint Martyn and also to bring up all suche
persones as cold lay anythyng against your said besecher. And
on this Robert Savage and Richard Gresham which is Curte Clarke
to the said John Savage syttyng in an Alehouse atte Hope and
uppon non curte day but atte ther owen will amersed your said
besecher in Cˢ. And for what cause he cane not tell. Besechyng
you atte the reverence of God and in way of Charite the
premisses tenderly concederyd that as well the said indytements
as all other thynges that any man cane lay to his charge may be
examined nowe afore you. And yf he be founde in any defaute he
wyll submytt hym unto your correction and yf he be note That
then those that hath done evyll to hym may be ponnyshed and
make hym amends for the grete harmys and wronge exacion that
they have done to hym agaynst all right and good concyence and
this atte the reverence of God and in way of Charyte. And your
said besecher shall ever pray to God for the good preservation
of your good maistership long to endure.”[2]

At the same time, Robert Hollingworth, of Bowden, complained to the chancellor that one John Bromall, a servant of John Savage’s, “a myschiefes man and outlawed for dyvers murdores and fellones,” at Savage’s instigation, put out the complainant from his house and lands which he held of the king by chief rent, and threatened to kill him if he tried to claim it. Also that John Shallcross, bailiff of the High Peak, George Bagshawe, and other servants of Savage’s, pulled down the floors of his house, damaged the walls, carried off divers “grete arkes and coffers,” tables, household furniture, and other “erlomes.” He had sought to obtain redress from John Savage, but in vain, and was in danger of his life if he ventured into that part of the country.

Sir John Savage’s answer to this charge is filed. It is to the effect that Hollingworth was attainted of felony, and that Savage, as steward, thereupon seized the house and land and transferred the tenancy to Bromall.[3]

During the reign of Henry VIII. two great courts of attachment for the whole forest were held yearly at Tideswell in August and October, as well as various smaller courts, of which many records are extant. At the great courts all the foresters-of-fee of the three wards had to be present personally or by deputy. At a great court of attachment held in October, 1515, twelve offenders were fined for lopping trees in the woods of Ashop and Edale. One of these, John Marshall, was fined the heavy sum of 6_s._ 8_d._; and another, Edward Barbour, 13_s._ 4_d._ The entries are very brief, and the aggravating circumstances concerning these two transgressions are not named.

Smaller courts for the Campana ward were held at Tideswell on 30th November, 1518, and on 27th March, 1519. At the former there were no presentations; at the latter four vert transgressors were fined for lopping in the aggregate sum of 14_d._

The names of the foresters attending a great court of attachment for the whole forest, held at Tideswell on October, 1524, are given in full.

Another great court of attachment was held at Tideswell on 1st August, 1525.

The large number of seventy-four vert offenders were fined in sums varying from 12_d._ to 2_d._, yielding a total of 34_s._ 2_d._ Among the offenders were Thomas Pursglove, who was fined 8_d._, and Edward Barber, vicar of Hope.

In the midst of this reign, the evil results of letting out or leasing the herbage of the district, to be farmed by those who were not forest ministers, became apparent, so far as the interests of maintaining a deer forest were concerned. The king, in July, 1526, issued a commission to Sir Thomas Cokayne and three others to inquire into the overstocking of “our Forest of the Champion in the High Peak” more than was ever wont with numbers of “capilles,[4] bestes, and shepe” by Henry Parker, the farmer of the herbage, and his deputies, insomuch that there was no grass left in the forest “for our game of dere,” and that thereby many of the deer are like to perish in the coming winter through lack of meat. The Commissioners were to inquire what number of cattle and sheep the forest could maintain, and whether Parker had more than previous farmers; also as to the number of the deer, and whether they had decreased under Parker. The Commissioners met at the Chamber of the Forest, on 15th September, and heard the following witnesses; Hugh Fretham, 30, deposed that there were five herds of cattle within the forest, whereas aforetime there were but two, and that the five herds numbered 903 beasts last St. Thomas’s Day; that at the same time there were 4,000 sheep and 16 score “capilles.” Roger Wryght, deputy to George Barlowe, one of the foresters-of-fee, said that there used to be but two herds, and now five, and in all other respects confirmed the previous witness. William Bagshawe, 34, Thomas Bewell, 46, Thomas Bagshawe, 26, also confirmed the statement of the first witness.

The Commissioners further reported that they walked through the forest and saw, that same day, 18 score of red deer, including calves; that many of the deer were in very poor condition, and scarcely likely to live over the coming winter; that the grass was much trampled and poor, and that there was no competent sustenance for them; that it would be well if sheep were kept out of the champagne of the forest, as they used to be (for so they were assured by many persons); and that such action, if enjoined on the farmer and those under him, would be of the greatest service to the deer.

The attempts made by the chief forest ministers to keep down the sheep in the interests of the deer brought them into various conflicts with the tenants, the bolder of whom ventured to appeal to the chancellor of the duchy.

In 1529, Allen Sutton, of Overhaddon, lodged a complaint, as one of the duchy tenants, that on 22nd June, about midnight, one Richard Knolls and William Pycroft, with other evilly disposed persons, servants of Richard Savage, steward of Peak Castle, came to a little croft adjoining his house and drove away seventy of his sheep, and also three of his neighbour’s, and kept them to “this day” within the castle; and that he could get no redress from the steward, who maintained these sheep and declined to restore them. To this bill, William Pycroft, bailiff of the High Peak, replied that the matter contained therein was “but feigned, and only intended to put him to vexation and troble”; and that if it were true, instead of being false, Sutton has his remedy at the common law of the land. To this reply Sutton rejoined that his bill of complaint was good and true in every point, and again prayed for restitution of his goods.

Henry VIII., on 4th March, 1531, commissioned Sir Ralph Longford, John Fitzherbert, Thomas Babington, John Agard, and Ralph Agard, to inquire into diverse complaints made against Thomas Brown, William Pycroft, Robert Folowe, and Allen Sutton, for very heinous and seditious matters. Against Robert Folowe it was alleged that he was outlawed for murder, as maintained by the Archbishop of York and others, but yet dwelt in the High Peak; that felons and murderers were taken by Folowe and set in the castle of the Peak, and then for a bribe let go again, of which sixteen examples were given; that in two of these cases he received as much as sixty sheep apiece from two prisoners; and that he found treasure trove to the value of 100 marks and appropriated it. Robert Folowe, in reply to this bill, filed an answer to the effect that he could make no reply to the charge of outlawry, for it was not stated whom he had murdered, nor at what time or place; and that he denied _seriatim_ every one of the charges of releasing prisoners from Peak Castle for bribes, appealing to God and his country.

In his answer to the bill of articles against him, William Pycroft denies felling the king’s wood in Edale, Ashop, or any other place, or lopping the same for his cattle or fire, or killing the king’s deer in the forest of the High Peak. He further stated that he had for some time held the office of bow-bearer of the forest, and through the due discharge of his office had incurred the malice of certain persons, and he explicitly denied that he had ever set under him any who had destroyed the king’s woods or hurt the king’s deer.

Robert Folowe was at this time bailiff of the hundred of the High Peak, and acted as deputy to Richard Savage, the steward of Peak Castle, under Sir George Savage, the custodian. Another charge against Folowe was that he had “withdrawn and taken out of the Castell” and appropriated to his own use much furniture, such as tables, forms, bedsteads, lead and iron vessels, and even “iiij wyndoose.” Some of the evidence taken on behalf of Pycroft before the commission is extant, but the finding of the Commissioners is lacking.

A great court of attachment was held at the Campana lodge on 13th November, 1542. The new forester, Francis, Earl of Shrewsbury, who had succeeded to the confiscated office of the abbot of Basingwerk, was represented by Thomas Johnson. Reginald Pursglove was fined 6_d._ for lopping green trees, and there were twenty-nine other like offenders. The total of the day’s fines was 14_s._ 10_d._

A great court of attachment and swainmote for the High Peak was held at Tideswell on 30th October, 1559. Hugh Needham, Edward Eyre, and George Woodruff were the foresters who appeared in person; the rest all sent deputies. Twenty-four offenders were fined for lopping trees and carrying off undergrowth in Ashop wood. The first two names were Robert and Lawrence Pursglove. At another like court, held at the same place on 2nd May, 1567, twenty-one persons were fined for similar offences.

The disputes as to the respective rights of deer and sheep became more intensified during the reign of Elizabeth. In 1561 Stephen Bagott, of Hilton, Staffordshire, gentleman, occupier of the “Champyon of the Quenes majesties forest of the Peaké,” by lease under Edward Lord Hastings, of Loughborough, the queen’s farmer, complained to the chancellor (Sir Ambrose Cave) that George Blackwell, Thomas Bagshawe, and other servants of George Earl of Shrewsbury (Justice in Eyre of the Forest and High Steward of the Honor of Tutbury), claimed, as foresters, to have rights of herbage, pasture, turbary, and feeding for deer over the Champyon, which was a part of the forest, “a verie barren country of wood or tynsell,”[5] contrary to all ancient usage. Blackwell and the other foresters, with their servants to the number of nineteen persons, were definitely charged with having on Monday in Easter week, 4 and 5 Philip and Mary, violently and by force of arms taken 400 wethers and 400 ewes, some with lambs, feeding on the Champyon, and impounded them within the castle of the Peak, and kept them there till the following Friday without either meat or water, by reason of which impounding divers of the wethers, ewes, and lambs died, causing damage to Bagott of £20 or more.

A further petition of the same Stephen Bagott complained that, in spite of the orders of the court, Robert Eyre and other foresters continued to molest the horses, mares, colts, and sheep feeding on the Champyon and to impound them in Peak Castle, especially last Easter, with the result of the loss of 500 sheep, in addition to the payment of heavy impounding fees.

The defendants filed a reply to the effect that they were the servants of the Earl of Shrewsbury, Justice in Eyre and High Steward of the Honor of Tutbury, of which the champagne of Peak Forest was a parcel; that this champagne was “the principall parte of the seid forest wherein the Quenes majesties deer hath their onlye feedinge and sustenaunce”; that the earl, riding through the forest on the last 4th of March, perceived a great number of sheep depasturing on the champagne “wherebye the feedinge for the seid dere is utterlye consumed, and therebye allso the said deare forced to flee out of the seid forest for their relyfe whereas they be killed and destroyed,” commanded Robert Eyre to drive these sheep to the castle of the Peak; that this order was carried out without killing, destroying, or hurting any of the sheep; that the sheep were only impounded for half an hour, by which time Bagott’s shepherd and the other owners claimed the same, paying, according to ancient custom, a penny for every score.

Humphrey Barley, William Needham, Thomas Bagshawe, and William Bagshawe, yeomen and foresters-of-fee, who had “charge custodye and looking unto of all the Quenes Majesties games of warren and especially hir game of Redd deare within the same forrest, and to answere for the defaults and negligent kepinge of the same game of dere yf the same should be ympeyned and destroyed,” reported in 1567 “that the game of redd deare in this the forest hath bene much decayed about twoe yeares last past by reason of two extreme wynters in the same yeares, and that through the extremetie of the wether specyallye frost and snowe having no browse to helpe the same dere, for that ytt ys a champion and playne place wherein no wood groweth, manye of the said deare be dead and manye of them be strayed into other foorests and places adjoynyng and are not herto retorned nor to be recovered so that there remayneth not of rede deere in the said forrest of all sortes eyther fallow male or rascall above the nomber of xxx dere in all.” In consequence of this the foresters sent in this statement lest they should be accused of negligence, and prayed the chancellor (Sir Ralph Sadler) that a restraint may be had in hunting or slaying the game by any warrant whatsoever for six years, until the red deer be replenished to their former number, which was about 360, and to signify the same restraint to the Earl of Shrewsbury, the queen’s master of the game of Peak Forest.

A court of attachment held at Tideswell on 22nd October, 1566, and fourteen vert offenders were fined, bringing in the aggregate sum of 4_s._ 2_d._ At the next court, held 28th April, 1567, 10_s._ 2_d._ was the total of the fines.

In June, 1561 the queen issued a commission of inquiry as to the condition of Peak Castle and Forest. So far as related to the latter, the Commissioners were instructed—

“To view the heighte of one wall erected and made in or about
one parcell of one pasture called the Champion within our saide
foreste, how brode and depe the Dike in and about the same wall
is, whether the same dike be drye or standinge with water for
the most parte of the yere, and whether the deare maye easlye
enter in and owte to and fro the said pasture notwithstandinge
the said walle and dike, and whether the same wall and dyke be
noisome or hurtefull to or for our deare and game there, and to
thinderance of the grasse for our said deare, or be better for
the cherisshinge of our said game and deare there or not.”

They were also to report on the rights of pasturage for beasts and cattle prevailing in the forest; whether the foresters “do diligently use and keepe their walkes aboute the said Foreste,” or whether they use any part of the fines raised at swainmotes for their own purposes; what oxgangs they (the foresters) hold, and what cattle they pasture; whether they use their own authority for excusing trespassers; and whether the pasturing of sheep is not very hurtful to the deer.

One of the main results of this commission was that the Castle of the Peak was spared for a time from demolition, and was put into a certain kind of repair, mainly to enable it to serve as a forest prison; but about the year 1585 the buildings suffered severely from fire. In June, 1589, the queen issued a further commission to William Agard, “our particular receiver of the honor of Tutburie,” and another, reciting that the castle had “by mischance within these five yeres been burned, and by reason thereof become ruinous and decayed that it standeth void of any use ... wherebefore yt was usuallie frequented and used for a prison for offenders there.” The commissioners were directed to repair to the castle without delay, calling to them such artificers and workmen as they thought necessary, and to view all the decayed places, and to report how far it would serve to be made a prison again, and what it would cost to be repaired, and in that event what would the castle and site be worth to be let by the year.

It was about this time that George Earl of Shrewsbury (he had been taken again into favour by the queen in his old age in 1587; he died in 1590), was permitted to purchase part of the Longdendale district of the Peak Forest, which was formally disafforested for the purpose. At this date a large quaint map of the whole forest was prepared, showing great parallelograms painted vermilion where there were pasturage rights, and outline pictures of the towns. This big map was at some unknown date cut up into sections; a part of it is missing, but the three main portions are preserved at the Public Record Office. On the Ashop and Edale section of the forest, five contiguous great patches of vermilion are shown, and by them is written, “The Queenes Majestys farmes are divided into five vacaries.” Near Glossop it is stated on the map that the greater part of the forest there was then held by the Earl of Shrewsbury. A rectangular patch, more to the west of the Longdendale division, is described: “The herbage of Chynly otherwise called Maidstonfeld, God. Bradshawe and others farmes.”

Gilbert, seventh Earl of Shrewsbury, was appointed chief-justice in eyre of the forests north of the Trent by James I. in 1603, an office that gave him oversight of the game. The earl, writing to his uncle, Sir John Manners, from Sheffield Lodge, on 4th July, 1609, says: “I have sent you a note to Mr. Tunsted for a stag in the Peak Forest, but I doubt if there are any fat enough so early in the year.” In June, 1610, the Council sent a letter to the earl, as justice in eyre beyond Trent, to prohibit the inhabitants and borderers of the forests of the Peak from destroying moor fowl and heath poults.

Among memoranda of business to be submitted to the Council in June, 1626, occurs a petition from Francis Tunsted, who held a pension of £50 per annum as bow-bearer in the High Peak and keeper of the moor game; but the pension had not been paid for the last year, and he sought the king’s order for its payment and continuance.

On 20th February, 1639, a warrant was issued to the chancellor of the duchy to appoint fit persons to treat and compound with the freeholders, tenants, and commoner of wastes and commons belonging to the hundred and forest of High Peak, for granting the king’s right and interest of soil. Just a year later a further warrant was issued to the chancellor to compound for disafforesting all lands of the king’s within the honor and forest of the Peak.

A large proportion of the duchy documents of the latter half of Charles I.’s reign are missing, but from a much later document we are fortunately able to give the true account of this disafforesting process for the first time, and thus to correct a variety of contradictory and erroneous statements that have hitherto been put forth on the subject.

In 1772 an inquiry was made as to the state of the king’s title to timber, mines, and coal within the disafforested forest of the High Peak. The outline history of the forest is correctly given in that report.

In 1635 the landowners and inhabitants within the forest petitioned the king, complaining of the severity, trouble, and rigour of the forest laws, and praying that the deer (which were in sufficient numbers to do considerable damage to crops in the forest and its purlieus) might be destroyed, and asking to be allowed to compound by enclosing and improving the same. Thereupon the king issued a commission of inquiry under the duchy seal, and directed that two juries should be impanelled, appointing a surveyor to assist them. The first jury viewed the whole forest and its purlieus, and presented that the king might improve and enclose one moiety in consideration of his rights, and that the other moiety should be enclosed by the tenants, commoners, and freeholders. The other jury was impanelled to consider the question of the towns within the purlieus, and they presented that the king, in view of the largeness of the commons belonging to the towns of Chelmorton, Flagg, Teddington, and Priestcliffe, might reasonably have for improvement and enclosure one-third, and the remaining two-thirds for the commoners and freeholders. Both Crown and inhabitants were well pleased with the result. The commons were measured, and surveys made that divided the lands into three sorts—best, middle, and worst—and the king’s share was staked, and maps showing the results were drafted. The surveys were not completed until 1640, and all the preliminaries having been adjusted, the king caused all the deer to be destroyed or removed, and since that date the report expressly states that there were never any deer whatever within the High Peak Forest. The extirpation of the deer was almost immediately followed by the beginning of “the troublous times” that preceded the actual outbreak of the Civil War, and hence further proceedings came for a time to an end.

Throughout the Commonwealth, though it had lost its deer, and though the forest laws were upset, the Peak Forest remained as hitherto, and no enclosures were carried out.

“A Survey of the Mannor and Lordship or Liberty of the High Peake with the rights, members, and appurtenances thereof lyeing and being in the county of Derby, late parcell of possessions of Charles Stuart, late King of England in right of the Honor of Tutbury, parcell of his Duchy of Lancaster,” was taken by order of Parliament in July, 1650.

The Commissioners reported that the chief rents due from freeholders, “holding by Harryott Service and paying Harryott and holding in free Socage,” amounted to £72 12_s._ 2¾_d._; chief rents from freeholders, “not Harryottable,” £5 17_s._ 1_d._; rents of assize from copyholders, £3 14_s._ 7_d._; profits of tolls of four fairs at Chapel-en-le-Frith (on Ascension Day, Thursday after Trinity Sunday, 7th of July, and Thursday after Michaelmas Day), with the passage and stallage of these fairs, and also the passage and through toll levied on packs and carriages passing at Hayfield and Whaley Bridge, £7; perquisites and profits of Court Leets and Court Barons, £24; waifs, strays, and felons’ goods and deodands, £5; fisheries, 20_s._; fowlings, hawkings, and huntings, 20_s._

They further reported that King Charles, in February, 1636, had demised to Walter Vernon all perquisites and amercements of two court leets and fifteen small courts to be held yearly, and all heriots and reliefs for thirty-one years at a rental of £10.

An additional report was made in July 1652, “of all such Remaine of Rents now unsold belonging to ye mannor Lordship Liberty and Hundred of ye High Peake alias the Wapentake of ye High Peake ... commonly called Cheife Rents money, palfry money, Turbary money, Common Fine silver, & Tything silver.” These rents were estimated at £15 6_s._ 7_d._ a year; they were proportionate payments from the various townships. A simple payment for palfrey money is entered against all the townships; such are Whitfield and Chisworth, 1_s._ 10½_d._; Hayfield and Dinting, 1_s._ 3_d._; Tideswell, 2_s._ 6_d._; and Hassop, 5_s._ In addition, Tideswell paid 5_s._; Haslebache, 2_s._ 6_d._; and Litton and Wardlow, each 3_s._ 4_d._ for turbary; whilst Little Hucklow stands alone with 1_s._ for common silver. The Parliamentary trustees had sold the forest rights named in the previous report to “Capt. David Hurdum, trustee on the behalf of Colonel Hughson’s Regiment.”

It was not until 1674 that the project for disafforesting the Peak Forest, and enclosing the cultivatable or good pasturing portions was completed. The Commissioners appointed for the purpose were Sir John Cassy, Sir John Gell, and fifteen others, including such well-known Peak names as Bagshaw, Eyre, and Shalcross.