THE LOST HISTORY OF PEAK FOREST. 171 



Wormhill for killing setons in the forest, and selling their skins 

 at Bakewell and elsewhere in open market, and he was convicted 

 in full Swanmote. 



Rich, de Basselowe and Hebbe Piscator were in the company 

 of Rich. Vernon when taking the King's deer at the Feast of the 

 Holy Cross, 38 H. III., and they took two stags and three 

 bissas. 



Hebbe came afterwards, and was imprisoned, but the King 

 pardoned him because he was poor. Rich, de Baslow was fined 

 _;^2o. This is a very curious entry, and it probably accounts for 

 the fall of the family of Vernon, of Haddon. After the outlawry 

 of Rich. Vernon this family ceased to be Lords of Haddon. 

 The family who long after held this Manor, and whose heiress 

 married Manners (the ancestor of the present Duke of Rutland), 

 were not Vernons, although they took the name, but were 

 descended from a daughter of this Richard Vernon, who married 

 one Gilbert the Frenchman, descended from a Yorkshire family, 

 and their son assumed the name of Vernon some time after he 

 obtained that inheritance. 



William Venator and William Maynwaring, of the county of 

 Chester, killed a stag in Courtes in Chisworth, on St. Barnabas' 

 Day, II Ed. I., and carried the venison to the house of Thomas 

 de Aston, of the county of Lancaster, and there it was eaten 

 (comesta fiiit) at a certain festival which was held on account of 

 his marriage. 



Numbers of persons were fined for harbouring the malefactors — 

 judging from the names, generally their relations — and many more 

 for harbouring the venison. It seems incredible that if the laws 

 of Venery were so severe as it is generally supposed, that anyone 

 could be found who, for the mere gratification of eating it, would 

 run so great a risk. It would rather seem from these Rolls that, 

 from the time of King John to the 36th Henry III., the Bailiffs, 

 and not the Justices, adjudicated in Peak Forest ; and, inasmuch 

 as most of the Bailiffs were found guilty of the same offences, it 

 was evident that no moral stigma accompanied the act. One can 

 only conclude that the nobility and clergy, who not only illegally 



