A fascinating study of the history of the forests which Ranulph would have overseen was written by a William Harrison as part of presentation to the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire symposium. In it, we learn of the development of forests by William the Conqueror for his favorite sport of hunting. Harrison follows this development through their use as royal hunting grounds to their release to the public domain in the early 19th century. He outlines the role of the Master Forester and the role Ranulph played as the first of such. I will cut in some excerpts that pertain to our search below.
Source: Harrison, William.
Transactions- Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society Vol 20: 1902. Manchester: Richard Gill. Daisy digital of Print. p. 1-15.
THOUGH not perhaps so densely wooded as Lanca-
J- shire, Cheshire seems to have possessed at the time
of the Norman Conquest at least a fair quantity of wood.
We find in Domesday a frequent mention of wood, and
sometimes of coppice, hays, and aeries of hawks. In
what is now the Macclesfield hundred we read of wood-
land nine miles in length and six miles in breadth con-
tiguous to the forest hills, and containing six enclosures
for taking the deer and wild goats. In Wirral, rather
singularly, there is mention of woods only in Prenton,
Somerford, and Mollington, though in later times there
was the tradition, similar to what has been found in other
places, that a man might have gone from tree top to tree
top from the Meoles stocks to Birkenhead. And the very
name Birkenhead, " the promontory of the birches," as
well as such names as Woodchurch, Woodside, and
Capenhurst, indicates that there was no lack of trees.
The development of the forests in Cheshire followed in
many respects a different course from that of the Lanca-
shire forests, in consequence of the earlier creation of the
palatinate of the earldom of Chester. The forest rights
from immediately after the Conquest belonged not to the
king, but to the Earl of Chester. They were, therefore,
not affected by the Charter of the Forest, and, this being
so, there were no perambulations resulting from the
charter, and there is an absence of all reference to
the county in the proceedings attendant on the agitations
in the reigns of Henry III. and Edward I.
When Hugh d'Avranches, known as Hugh Lupus,
obtained from the Conqueror the earldom of Chester, to
hold "as freely by the sword as the king held his realm
by the crown," he set himself within his miniature king-
dom to imitate his liege lord in creating forests, or, at
any rate, making additions to those already existing.
This was done before Domesday, for we find in that
record such statements as these in regard to Kingsley and
Weaverham, "The earl placed this in his forest," or " Of
this land the earl put three hides in the forest."
There were four great forests in Cheshire Maccles-
field, Mara, Mondrem, and Wirral. The original areas
are shown by the margins of green colour in the accom-
panying map. Lists of the townships or vills contained
in them respectively will be found in the second edition
of Ormerod, vol. iii. 541, ii. 105, 356.*
MACCLESFIELD FOREST occupied a large area at the
eastern end of the county, its boundary passing up the
Goyt to its source, then down the Dane, and by North
Rode, Gawsworth, Prestbury, and Bullock Smithy to
Otterspool, and so up the Mersey to the Goyt again. A
detailed perambulation of its boundaries, made in 1619,
will be found in Earwaker's East Cheshire, vol. ii., p. 5.
MARA and MONDREM were for many purposes linked
together, and it is not easy to say precisely where the
boundary line between them ran. In the Harl. MS.,
quoted in Ormerod, which contains a list of the vills,
they are said to be within the forest (not forests) of Mara
and Mondrem, as if there were but one. This way of
speaking of them may have been because they adjoined,
and because the hereditary forestership of both came to
be in the same family. They appear, however, to have
been distinct, for in the reign of Edward I. claims to the
forestership of both were allowed in one case as to Mara
only, and in another as to Mondrem only.
* As the facts cited in what follows are largely culled from Ormerod,
references are only given where some other authority is to be quoted. It
is a matter of regret that the Cheshire Forest Rolls at the Public Record
Office, which still await transcription, have not been available.
THE HEREDITARY FORESTERS.
In each of the great forests was a master forester, who
(except in the case of Macclesfield) held lands by
serjeanty on the condition of serving as forester. Thus
Kingsley was in the reign of Henry I. conferred by
Ranulph the first, third Earl of Chester, on Ranulph de
Kingsley by service of the office of master forester of Mara
and Mondrem. And Alan Sylvestre, about 1120, had con-
ferred upon him the manors of Storeton and Puddington to
hold by cornage as bailiff or forester of Wirral. In each case
the service was originally a burden, an obligation attaching
to the estate, and on failure to perform which the estate
would be forfeited. But the burden soon changed into a
privilege. The forestership was not without its advantages,
in direct emolument, in control over others, and in
dignity. As it was attached to the estate it became
hereditary, and so developed into a freehold office. The
foresters thus became known as hereditary chief foresters,
or foresters in fee, and for centuries they wielded a great
power in their respective jurisdictions. The forestership
of Mara and Mondrem passed by marriage to the Dones,
and although in the reign of Edward I. a moiety of that
of Mara was adjudged to belong to a Grosvenor of Little
Budworth, under a charter granted between 1153 and
1160, and a share in that of Mondrem to belong to a
Weever, the whole ultimately came to the Dones, whose
seat was at Utkinton.
The forestership of Wirral passed by successive
*R<cmarriages to the families of Storeton and Bamville, and
ultimately to that of Stanley (c. 1310). The horn by
right of which the forestership was held has been handed
down and is preserved by Sir John Errington. A re-
presentation of it appears in Sulley's Hundred of Wirral.
The master forestership of Macclesfield seems to have
been held in gross without any estate. It was granted to
Richard de Davenport about A.D. 1166, and (perhaps
because it was not attached to any estate) appears, as
Ormerod says, to have ultimately become "rather an
honorary office, and to have been gradually superseded so
far as its active powers were concerned by that of the
stewards, who were appointed and removed at pleasure
until the reign of Edward IV., when the office of Master
Forester of the Forest of Macclesfield and also the
Stewardship of Macclesfield (including the Hundred and
Forest) were granted to Thomas, Lord Stanley, and the
heirs male of his body, in which family the said rights
have continued uninterruptedly, excepting the intrusion
of Sir William Brereton during the usurpation."
In Macclesfield there were also eight subordinate
hereditary foresters, who held their estates on the tenure
of performing forest duties in their respective districts,
and one such forester who held office apart from any
estate. The following is the list in the sixteenth year of
Edward I.: Ricardus de Vernon held Marple and
Wibbersley (Merphull and Wybberlegh) by grant from
Randolph, Earl of Chester; Robertus de Downes held
Downes and Taxal (Dounes and Taksale) of ancient
tenure; Thomas de Orreby held his forestry of ancient
tenure by homage without any tenement; Johannes de
Sutton held Sutton and Disley (Dystelegh) of ancient
tenure; Grym de Stanlegh held Stanlegh of ancient
tenure; Henricus de Worth held land which was Orme's
per grant from Randolph, Earl of Chester; Ricardus de
Heghlegh held Heghlegh (in Sutton) by grant from
Randolph, the earl; Adam of Sutton held lands in Sutton
per grant from Hugh; Jordanus de Dystelegh held his
own land of Dystelegh per grant from Randolph, the earl
(Eanvaker's East Cheshire, ii. 6, 7, 88, 90).
These subordinate foresters in consideration of the
duties they were called upon to fulfil were allowed certain
special privileges. They might take foxes, hares, squirrels,
weasels, otters, pikes, hawks, and eagles, and might have
fishing and fowling, the right shoulder of beasts taken in
the forest, and of beasts found dead all but the fore
quarters, which were to be sent to Macclesfield. They
had cropping of wood for their own beasts; wood for
enclosing, building, and burning without hindrance; bark
of all oaks cast down, given, or sold, and all millstones
found in the forest; and were to be free of pannage
through all the forest, while having themselves certain
rights of pannage. And they had also the perquisite
called pelf, which enabled them to tithe, as it were, the
beasts, poultry, clothing, corn, vessels, and furniture of
the hapless dwellers in the forest.
Something similar to the subordinate forestership of
Macclesfield seems to have existed at Delamere. Sir
William Troutbeck, in the reign of Edward IV., when
challenged by a writ of quo warranto, claimed in fee the
manor and vil of Budworth-le-Frith, in the forest of
Delamere, with power of building and enclosing so as to
be safe from the beasts of the forest, and to have free
warren of rabbits, and power of felling and selling wood
and underwood without the interference of any forester or
verderer, and pasture for hogs without payment of
pannage. Also in right of the manor to be sole forester
within certain bounds, viz., from Stanford Bridge along
the king's highway to Northwich, then to Darlegh Brook,
then to the bounds between Rushton and Olton to
Yanelegh Mill, and between Ayton and Alpram toTorpley
and so to Stanford Bridge. And in right of the bailiwick
he claimed a variety of subsidiary rights, amounting
practically to an exclusion of the chief forester. Whether
the claim was -allowed or not does not appear.
In Mara and Mondrem, and later in Macclesfield also,
we find appointments, generally for life, of surveyors, or
supervisors and equitators (riders), and the office must
have been of some value as we find it often granted in
reversion, i.e., during the lifetime of the existing holders,
and to come in force after their deaths.
The nature of the rights exercised by the superior
foresters is set forth in the claim made by Richard Done
in 1302, when his pretensions were challenged by a
Grosvenor, but were nevertheless allowed. The record
shows that he claimed to have the forestership in fee of
Mara and Mondrem, and to have eight under-foresters
and two gargons distributed over the villages in the
forest.
He claimed the latter pannage, windfallen wood, half
the bark of all fallen oaks; all sparhawks, merlins, and
hobbys found within the forest; all swarms of bees, the
right shoulder of every deer taken, and all but the horns
and sides of stricken deer found dead in the forest, besides
waifs and strayed beasts. He claimed to have all money
for agistment of hogs from the feast of St. Martin to
Christmas. Under the name of pelf he claimed, when
the lord's venison should be found within any man's
house, the best of the beasts and of the household stuff,
the residue being forfeited to the lord.
But the chief claim and the one most burdensome to
the dwellers within the forest was that of puture. This
was claimed of every one holding more than a certain
quantity of land. Two under-foresters and one gargon
were to be provided with supper, lodging for one night,
and breakfast next morning. They would then pass on
to another house, and making the circuit of their district
would come again to the same house after an interval of
six weeks.
THE COOMBES.
The Coombes in Macclesfield Forest are sometimes
referred to in connection with tenures. Thus lands in
Sutton were held by the service of finding one hunter to
follow the dogs of the earl in his chase in "les Coumbes"
within the forest of Macclesfield. The holder of the
manor of Cheadle was under the obligation of making his
portion of the hay (fence) around the chase in the
Coombes. The vil of Chelford was granted subject to
the service of repairs of the hays in Macclesfield Forest.
And the manor of Bolyn at Wilmslow was held subject to
the service of finding thirty-three men for the making fast
"les Coumbes" within the forest of Macclesfield whenever
the king hunted there, and the making of seventy-two and
a half rods of hedge in the said Coumbes. Cheadle, Chel-
ford, and Wilmslow are, it will be noted, all outside the
forest bounds.
Ormerod does not tell us exactly where or what the
Coombes were. He says they were probably earthworks
or a kind of forest pale constructed for a retiring place in
case of danger, and were probably situated near the
Chamber of the forest. He might have been a little more
definite as to locality, for there is, I find, a place called
Coombes, not far from Forest Chapel, lying, as its name
implies, in a hollow of the hills. But he is wrong, I
think, in regarding it as a retiring place in case of danger.
According to the custom of hunting in Norman times, the
game was driven into an enclosure by a crowd of beaters
raised by the conditions of land tenure from all the
surrounding district (see Cambridge Antiquarian Society,
x. 284). So early as the tenth century, as we find from
a law tract of the period quoted in Social England (vol. i.,
p. 126), the thane's duty included, at the king's summons,
the maintaining of a deer fence for the king's vill; the
geneat or peasant's duty included the hewing of deer
fences and keeping up hedges; and the cottar's duty
included, if summoned so to do, making the king's deer
fence. This accords with what we find here. We have
seen that there are by the conditions of tenure fences or
hedges provided for, to be remade or repaired whenever
the earl comes to hunt, and men are to be found to make
them fast, or perhaps the meaning is to guard them (pro
stabilitatc facienda). The lie of the ground in a natural
coombe would facilitate capture, and so there is a reason
for choosing this particular spot, which seems perfectly
adapted for the purpose.
The Chamber in the forest just referred to was, no
doubt, a hunting-box or lodge for the forester. It is
named in Saxton's map of 1579 and mentioned by Webb.
The present ordnance map shows "Old Chamber," now
a farm house, close to Forest Chapel, and between it and
the Coombes.
We can imagine the liveliness of the scene on these
now lonely moors on a day when the earl hunted the
hurrying to and fro of forester and seneschal, each full,
no doubt, of self-importance; the gathering, perhaps, of
fair ladies safely placed in the Chamber commanding
a view of the Coombes; the careful disposing of the
tenantry and their serving-men behind the fences; the
baying of the hounds, now distant, now near, as the hunt
progresses in other parts of the forest ; the excitement as
the stag is at last seen to approach; the anxiety lest it
should be allowed to slip, to the high displeasure of the
earl; and the final triumph as it is forced to enter the
Coombes, there to see every means of escape cut off and
its doom sealed. So fared it in the good old times, now
dead!
EXEMPTIONS AND PRIVILEGES.
In course of time many exemptions from the rigour of
the forest exactions were granted. The Church, as we
might expect, was foremost in claims of this kind. Thus,
the manor of Tarvin, which included the townships of
Kelsall and Hockenhull, was in the hands of the bishops
of Coventry and Lichfield, and by means of ecclesiastical
privilege obtained exemption from the control of the
foresters of Delamere. So also Irby, Sutton, Eastham,
and Bromborough, four manors held by the abbey of St.
Werburgh, were exempted from puture, though situate
within the forest of Wirral. The same abbey obtained a
charter from Edward I. giving them a part of the venison
from Delamere, and afterwards a mandate to the forester
to allow them to take deer to a certain extent themselves.
Burton in Wirral, as part of the possessions of the
bishopric of Coventry and Lichfield, enjoyed immunity
from the lawing of dogs jure ecclesice, though not
apparently from puture. The prior of Birkenhead
claimed to be exempt from puture to a certain extent,
though not wholly, and also to be exempt from the
jurisdiction of the foresters, when not taken in the fact.
In the reign of Edward I. he successfully applied for
permission to enclose thirty acres of forest land. And
the foundation charter of Vale Royal disafforested the
manors of Weaverham and Over, which hitherto had
been part of the forest of Mara, they being within the
liberties of the abbot.
The borough of Frodsham, with Overton, Netherton,
Bradley, Mukesdale, and Woodhouses, was also ex-
cepted.
In some other cases we have instances of puture being
released, wholly or in part, as at Wallasey and Little
Stanney in Wirral, Rushton and Eaton in Mara.
Liberty of assarting or enclosing was claimed at Poulton
(Polton) and Seacombe (Secum), and at Haswall (Hasel-
wall). A right to enclose and cultivate the wastes in
North Rode was granted in the thirteenth year of Edward
II. and in the same year a similar right was granted in
regard to Ashton, in the forest of Mara, as well as a right
of pasture.
Another privilege was the grant of timber for various
purposes. Here again the Church is to the fore. The
Charter of Vale Royal gave the monks the privilege of
carrying wood from the forest for fuel and necessary
repairs, and on its being disputed a precept was obtained
confirming the privilege. Later on, in the first year of
Henry VII., the then abbot obtained a mandate for the
delivery to him of eight oaks for the repairs of his
monastery. The forester was directed at various times
to supply oaks for the repairs of the college at Bunbury,
of Chester Castle, the Dee Mills, Frodsham Bridge,
Stanford Bridge, Northwich Bridge, "the Hall of Pleas"
and common oven at Middlewich, and the highway at
Holmstreet. At Yeardsley-cum-Whaley, Wm. Jouderell,
for the repair of his house in 1357, obtained a grant of
two oaks out of the forest of Macclesfield; and John
de Macclesfield in 1398 petitioned for a grant of six
oaks from the wood of Lyme for his mansion in
Macclesfield.*
Full text can be read at http://www.archive.org/stream/1902transactions20histuoft/1902transactions20histuoft_djvu.txt
