f ?vv:-.-. .V. ■' <«|-''^A, v.. :..■■,• ., if'i,'- ■■■■ . ■' ■ y/?-'';---v ,.-•.■: S- t-^'r*-^^ .- ■■. -* /.<..?*'^' ' '■'>. - VV- feis 1%;':^;. ,-. ^"-.v?^- [^'■/-■/Ayji'; /,.;•^Mi*£t . .V THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES THE PUBLICATIONS OP THE ^efben ^ocitt^ Trepl TravTO'! rf)v iXevOeplav VOLUME XXXV FOR THE YEAR 1918 ^eCben ^ocUt^ Founded 1887 TO ENCOURAGE THE STUDY AND ADVANCE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW. patron: HIS MAJESTY THE KING. ipresiOent: THE RIGHT HON. LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON. WiccsprcstOcnts : THE RIGHT HON. LORD SUMNER. MR. G. BOYDELL HOUGHTON. Mr. W. Paley Baildos. MU. W. C. BOLLAND. Mr. H. L. Farrer. Dr. Edwin Fheshfield. Mr. H. D. Hazeltine. Mr. Gilbert Hurst. Mk. W. S. HOIDSWORTH. The Right Hon. Sir Matthew- Ingle JOTCE. Council: Professor Cocrtnet S. Kennt. His Honour Judge Lock. Mr. Walter Charles Renshaw, K.C. The Right Hon. Lord Justice Warrington. The Right Hon. Lord Wrenbcrt. Mr. T. Cvfrian Williams. Mr. James G. Wood. Xltcrarg directors: The Right Hon. Sir Frederick I'oli.ock, Bart. (13 Olil Square, Lincoln's Inn). Sir Paul Vinogradoff (19 Holland Road, W.). iJonorarB auOitota: Mr. R. F. Norton, K.C. Mr. Hubert Hall. Secretary : Mb. n. Stuart Moore (6 King's Bemh Walk, Temple, London). ■fconorarg ^Ircaeurcr: Mr. J. E. W. Rider (8 New Square, Liiicoln's Inn, London). Honorary Secretary an£t treasurer tor tbc "ClnUcO States: Mr. Kicuard W. Half (10 Central Street, Boston, Mass.). CollegB Lilirary '^tUtt Cas^B 2lpfnr0 tl|? iKmg'fl ([.auntil 1243-1482 PRINTED AT THE HARVAHD UNIVERSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U.S.A. ^efben ^oci^t^ SELECT CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL 1243-1482 EDITED FOR THE SELDEN SOCIETY BY I. S. LEADAM AND J. F. BALDWIN CAMBRIDGE THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1918 All rights reserved College Library PREFACE The death of Mr. Leadam in the Fall of 1913 in the full vigour of his work was a serious loss to the Selden Society. With eminent success as an author and editor, he had contributed three of the former pub- lications of the Society, and was already engaged upon the present volume, when the pen dropped from his hand. As his literary executor it is incumbent upon me to explain the part of the labour for which he is to be credited. Eight of the selected cases and excerpts, including Boistard v. Cumbwell, Taylor v. Rochester, Bishop of Valence v. Worcester, Rex v. Gerdeston, Lombards v. Mercers, Molyns v. Fiennes, Lowestoft v. Yarmouth, and Taylors v. Brembre were left in completed form with texts, translations, footnotes, and introductions. These have been retained with the least possible alteration. In Ughtred v. Musgrave I have extended the text, and further elaborated the notes. A mass of miscellaneous papers also were placed in my hands. But the selection and annotation of all the other cases are substantially my own. Because the work covers much of the same ground, for the history of the subject I must frequently refer the reader to my former treatise of The King's Council (1913). As with almost every other enterprise in our affili- ated countries, the world war has had its effect of cutting off com- munications and delaying the completion of the work. At this distance from the manuscript sources, Mr. Charles Johnson of the Public Record Office has been my constaiit ally. He has read all the proofs, corrected many a doubtful passage, and out of his expert knowledge contributed materially to the notes. Finally, under existing difficulties of transportation, the Harvard University Press with hearty cooperation has solved the problem of publi- cation on this side of the Atlantic. J. F. B. poughkeepsie, n. y. 26 June, 1918. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Part I. The Council xi Part II. Notes on the Cases xlvii SELECT CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL PARTIES DATE SUBJECT PAOE Boistard v. Cumbwell 1243 Claim of an alien 1 Taylor v. Rochester 1292 Malfeasance of a judge 2 Valence v. Bishop of Worcester 1294 An excommunication in con- tempt of the king 5 Citizens of London v. Bishop of Bath 1295 Charges against the treasiu-er 8 Bishop of Sabina v. Bedewynde 1307 Claim of a papal provisor 18 Rex V. Gerdeston 1315 An ecclesiastical process in con- tempt of the king 27 Cosfeld V. Levey s 1322 Seizure at sea 32 Examination of Gilbert Blount 1350 Interrogation of a witness 33 Rex V. Middleton 1353 Prosecution of a fraudulent escheator 35 Rex V. William Rouceby and John Prosecution of an officer. Seiz- Avenel 1354 ure at sea 37 Burton-on-Trent v. Meynell 1355 Violence and oppression 41 Lombards v. Mercers' Company 1359 Rights of alien merchants 42 Parson of Langar v. Conyngsby 1361 Appeal from the court of chiv- alry. Violence 47 Molyns V. Fiennes 1365 Claim under treaty 48 Ughtred and Others v. Musgrave 1366 Suit against a sheriff 54 Lowestoft V. Yarmouth 1378-80 Confhcting franchises 60 Confessions of William Chamberlain Forgery of a testament 71 and John Martin 1383 Taylors v. Brembre 1386 Complaint against the mayor of London 74 Petition of the Hansards 1389 Claim of aUens to indemnity 76 Esturmy v. Courtenay 1392 Maintenance 77 Werkesworth v. Pensax 1393 Violence and oppression 81 Tenants of Winkfield v. Abbey of Claim to be tenants of royal Abingdon 1394 demesne 82 Hogonona v. Friar Austin 1401 Trust and false imprisonment 85 Atte Wode v. Clifford 1402 ix Maintenance and embracery 86 PARTIES Legat and another v. Wodeward Wythum v. Men of Kampen Duval V. Countess of Arundel Danvers v. Broket Neville v. Neville Confession and Examination of John Forde Examination into the Bedford Riot Giffard v. Morton Release of the Sureties of John Davy Heyron v. Proute and Others Tenants v. Waynflete Norton v. Colyngborne Poche !'. Idle Whele V. Fortescue Fouquire v. Nicole CONTENTS DATE SUBJECT PAGE 1410 An invalid grant 92 1418 Reprisal 95 1421 Claim of an alien. Local franchise 96 1433 Rasure of a record 97 1435 Family feud 101 Illegal exportation 103 1439 1439 Riot 104 1444 Abduction and violence 107 1450-51 Mainprise 108 1460-63 Claims against Merchant Staplers 110 1462 Claim to be free tenants 114 c. 1474 Trust 115 1481 Maintenance 116 1482 Claim to be an EngUsh subject 117 1432-36 Suit for recovery of children 118 APPENDIX I In re Heyron v Proute 121 APPENDIX II Cases published elsewhere 130 INTRODUCTION PART I THE COUNCIL Sources and Material — Choice and Presentation — The Council as a Court — The Council and other Courts — Jurisdiction — Procedure. 1. SOURCES AND MATERIAL The king's council is one of the oldest themes of historical study and writing. In the fifteenth century it was noticed by Sir John Fortescue, in his Governance of England,^ the earliest attempt at a constitutional treatise. Because of its connexion with the problems of law under the Tudors and the Stuarts, it was a subject of special interest to the jurists of the period, such as William Hudson,^ Julius Caesar,' John Cowell,* Thomas Smith,* Edward Coke,* and Matthew Hale,^ who saw its connexion with the Court of Requests and the Court of Star Chamber. In the nineteenth century it was given due prominence in the works of Nicolas, Palgrave, Dicey, Stubbs, and Maitland. Each one according to the learning of his age has brought the subject a step further into the light, until it is by no means one of the least known of all our legal and political institutions. But up to the present time there has not been published any comprehensive collection of cases before the king and council, upon which not only the history of the council, but also in proportional measure the history of law must depend. Although in inverse order, this was the necessary sequence of events, for it is only gradually that such cases have been discovered, and only with the aid of many collateral publications can they be studied to advantage. The difficulty of reaching the records has been considerable, for the council was distinctly not a court of record; it kept no regular roll; it main- tained no system of collecting or preserving its records. Written for an immediate purpose, the memoranda of its cases were scattered and lost, except as they have been preserved among the miscellaneous papers of the chancery and the exchequer. Many of these cases, it is true, have been 1 Ed. Charles Plummer (1885), espe- * Many passages are given in his com- cially chapters xiv and xv; also Appendix pendium of law known as The Interpreter containing a tract on " Good Counseill." (1607). 2 Treatise on the Star Chamber, in F. ' The Commonwealth of England (,1609), Hargreave, Collectanea Juridica, vol. ii. especially chapter iv. ' Acts, Orders and Decrees of the King • Institutes of the Laws of England and Council (1597). (1669). ' Jurisdiction of the Lords' House ( 1 796) . XU CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL known and cited by former historians in the field, by whose work we have ourselves been guided and assisted. First, Sir Edward Coke, the extent of whose learning has not ceased to cause amazement, in his Fourth In,stitutes, ch. V, was acquainted with no fewer than fourteen cases prior to the Statute establishing the Court of Star Chamber in 1487. Each of these cases, with one exception, the present editor has succeeded in finding in its original form; three of them are set forth in this volume, while others have been published elsewhere. William Hudson, who wrote a treatise on the Star Chamber, dated 1635, cites two cases of the same period. Also Sir Matthew Hale, in his Jurisdiction of the Lords' House (1796), a work of enduring value, has given abundant references to court rolls still unprinted, while certain volumes of transcripts made under his direction, now in the MSS. of Lincoln's Inn, have supplied the earliest case in our collection, besides pointing the way to others. Nearer to our own time. Sir Francis Palgrave made a special study of the masses of early petitions, parliamentarj' and conciliar, now on file in the Public Record Office. These can best be uti- lized at present by the aid of the transcripts in sixty-six volumes, intended by Palgrave for publication. A few of the most striking records contained in the petitions have been set forth in his brief treatise, The Original Authority of the King's Council (1834). Of the great work of Sir N. H. Nicolas, Proceedings of the Privy Council (1834-37), the most extensive collection of this material ever published, it is only necessary to say that it consists of minutes, for the most part administrative and political, in the order of business. It contains few cases at length, but many fragments of judicial proceedings, from which much is to be learned of their character and methods of procedure. Another work serving as a guide to the original sources is that of Thomas Madox, History of the Exchequer (1711), which contains the best digest that has ever been made of the rolls of the excheq- uer. By the aid of his citations and excerpts at lea;st one of our cases has been obtained, and the way uncovered for more. In editing his collection of Select Cases in the Star Chamber (Selden Society, vol. xvi, 1902), the late Mr. Leadam found among the files of Star Chamber Proceedings four cases that came before the king and council prior to the Act of 1487 on the Star Chamber, and two cases prior to Henry \'1I. The thought that there might be others, without which the history of the subject would never be complete, led to the compilation of the present volume, whicii he did not live to finish. " Until the number and cliaracter of the cases heard before the Council prior to the Act of 1487 have been definitely ascertained, it would be premature to assert that the public up to that time had recourse to the Common Law Courts, which they thence- forth deserted in favour of a tribunal less costly, less hazardous, and more expeditious." ' Lastly, the present editor, pursuing the subject from an ' Op cit. p. Ixviii. INTRODUCTION XIU earlier age, found the rolls abounding in cases that were treated in whole or part by the council from the thirteenth century onward. A few of these were set forth in the history of The King's Council in the Middle Ages (1913), especially in Appendix III, under the title Cases and Legal Proceedings. Had the writer then foreseen the present work, he would probably have held this part in reserve, in order that the cases might be kept together and treated more expansively in the volume now presented. As it is, two cases are now reproduced, translated and further annotated, one because of the discovery of a better text, the other because of its special interest. Besides the works already mentioned there are various publications in which cases before the council are incidentally to be found, printed but not edited. The Placitorum Abbreviatio (Rec. Com. 1811), faulty as its tran- scriptions are, continues to be the most extensive compilation that we have of extracts from the earliest court rolls, in which cases before the curia regis, the king's bench, the king's council, &c. are mingled. The Rotuli Parliamentorum (Rec. Com. 1767-77), especially in the earlier volumes, before distinctions between parliamentary and conciliar proceedings were drawn, contain cases before the council as well as pleas best classified as belonging to the king's bench. Throughout the Middle Ages in fact cases were likely to be heard at alternate stages in parliament and before the council. The record may be in whole or part upon the Parliament Roll. In the case oiAtte Wode v. Clifford (infra, p. 86) the Parliament Roll is sup- plemented by the record of the council. Since the council had no roll of its own, whenever a permanent record of the case was desired, a transcription or " exemplification," as it was called, might be ordered upon one of the rolls of the chancery. The dorse of the Close Roll was most likely to be used for entries of this character, less often the Patent Roll. The compilers of the Calendars of Close Rolls and Patent Rolls have generally reproduced these portions of the rolls at length, usually translated, sometimes in the original language. Two or three cases of interest may be looked for in the forthcoming Calendar of Close Rolls of the reign of Richard II. Since these cases are widely separated and not easily brought together, it has been thought that a table of such cases, as presented in the Appendix to this volume, might prove useful. Among the manuscript collections in the Public Record Office, none has been more constantly resorted to for the purposes of this work than the files of Ancient Petitions, already mentioned. Sometimes the petition and its endorsement is the only record of a case ; often it is supplementary to the record. At any stage of a litigation in fact a petition or counter-petition may be looked for. The search is not difficult with the aid of an alphabetical index {Lasts & Indexes, P. R. 0. vol. i). Would that the same were true of petitions in chancery! for the chancery was the constant resort of suitors who failed with parliament and the council. But the Chancery Proceedings, containing some 300,000 petitions, are too voluminous for any analysis or XIV CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL classification other than the bundles in which thej' have been preserved. In none of our cases has there been any success in finding a related petition in chancery. A very important collection of the chancery, compiled in recent years, is known as Parliamentary and Council Proceedings, which consists of miscellaneous matter, such as petitions, draughts of ordinances and statutes, records of cases, &c. some of which are the originals of what is contained in the Parliament Rolls. Several of our earlier cases come from this source. But as council and parliament grew apart, these materials are more parliamentary and less conciliar. It is otherwise with a parallel com- pilation of Parliamentary and Council Proceedings taken from the Excheq- uer. This consists of documents sunilar to the former, which for adminis- trative reasons were given into the custody of the king's remembrancer. As the exchequer instead of the chancery became the regular depository of the coimcil, it is altogether natural that typical cases of the fifteenth cen- tury should be found here. It is by an acquaintance with the administra- tive methods of the council, that its records can best be traced. From the time of Richard II its secretarial work was regularly performed by clerks of the privy seal, its acts were normally carried into execution by writs of the privy seal, and so among the files of this department the records of its judicial and other proceedings are most likely to be found. Particularly a series known as Warrants, Council and Privy Seal (Exchequer, T. R.) is made up of letters under the signet, letters and orders unsealed, which were received by the keeper as warrants for the issue of letters under the privj' seal. In the case of The Bedford Riot (infra, p. 104) we are fortunate enough to have the original record of the office of the privy seal as well as an exem- plification in the chancery. But outside of the regular depositories conciliar documents have been met in the most unexpected places. In one instance the review of an admiralty case, probably because it was referred to in foreign correspondence, is found among Diplomatic Documents (Chancery). ' 2. CHOICE AND PRESENTATION So far as choice is practicable, the effort of the editors has been to present a variety of cases, in order to illustrate as many problems of law and pro- cedure as possible. Not only completed records, therefore, but also frag- ments of litigation, particularly petitions with their endorsements, con- fessions and examinations, have been utilized for the purpose. Whenever it has been possible, the connexion with an earlier or later stage of litigation has been shewn in the notes. A consequent writ is often a valuable addition to the simple record. Moreover, as legislation and judicature were never separate in the mind of the council, the cases often have a bearing upon the statutes and other matters of public policy. Thus the case of the Bishop of Sabina v. Bedewynde (p. 18), in connexion with others of the same kind, ' Given in The King's Council, p. 507. INTRODUCTION XV led directly to the Statute of Provisors. Rex v. Middleton (p. 35) has little value as a question of law, but it was connected with an extensive reform in the appointment of sheriffs and cscheators. Ughtred v. Musgrave (p. 54) was a step in the gradual diminution of the judicial powers of the sheriffs. Gijjard v. Morton (p. 107) was antecedent to a statute. Every case indeed has its special bearing upon some larger problem. So far as this has been learned, it has been made the subject of treatment in the notes and com- ments set down in the second part of the Introduction. The Latin and French languages were both used by the council alter- nately and interchangeably, until the appropriateness of the former to matters of common law and of the latter to proceedings in equity was per- ceived. After the method of previous volumes of the Selden Society these texts have been translated upon the right-hand pages. English texts of the fifteenth century can easily be read with the aid of a few footnotes. After some hesitation it has seemed best to keep proper names as a rule in their contemporary form. There is a temptation in the translation to modernize such forms as " Bedewyndc," " Leveys," " Atte Wode," " Broket," &c. In a literary work " Bedwin," " Atwood," &c. would be preferable, but in matters of record there are reasons in favour of the archaic spelling. It is true, spelling was by no means uniform. In the same record a name appears both as " Stafferton " and " Staverton," " Poche " and " Pouche." Still there was a preferred spelling and the likelihood is that " Conyngsby " will be more accurately traced under this form than " Coningsby " and " Hey- ron " than " Heron." A certain deference to the correcter form of a name was sometimes shown, as in the case of William " Esturmy alias Sturmy." 3. THE COUNCIL AS A COURT In the controversy that raged around the Court of Star Chamber in the seventeenth century, it was questioned whether the king's council was in any proper sense a law court, or had any judicial authority apart from the statutes defining it.' In view of what has since been written, no one will doubt that the council was a court resting upon the most substantial his- torical foundations. But what were its judicial functions, to what extent and in what manner were they exercised, are still a matter of inquiry. To what extent, are we to believe, did the council undertake the hearing of cases ? It is a question of some moment whether the cases collected in the present volume are to be regarded as illustrations of a jurisdiction regularly ■exercised, or as instances of an infrequent and exceptional intervention. Sir Edward Coke, writing on the antecedents of the Star Chamber, pro- pounded the following view: " This court in ancient times sat rarely, for three causes: First, for that enormous and exorbitant causes which this ■court dealt withall only in these days rarely fell out. Secondly, this court ' See W. F. Finlason, The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (1878). XVI CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL dealt not with such causes as other courts of ordinary justice might con- dignly punish, ne dignitas hujus curiae vilesceret. Thirdly, it very rarely did sit, lest it should draw the king's privy council from matters of grace, -pro bono publico, to hear private causes, and the principal judges from their ordinary courts of justice." ' Here the fundamental mistake, which has often been repeated, lies in the thought that there was a judicial body in the star chamber apart from the king's privy council. From time to time, it is true, there appear to be potentially two branches of the council, the one attending the king wherever he might be, at home or abroad, often designated as " about the king's person," " whom he might have with him," the other remaining at London or Westminster. Sometimes there was correspondence between the two branches, or a conveyance of bills from one to the other, but never was any organic separation effected. Much less was there any division of functions, such as consultation and' administration for one group and judicature for the other. It was no doubt because of the greater weight of judicial business and the close connexion with other courts, that the council at London from the time of Edward I became the principal centre. The king himself was rarely present, and dealt with his councillors there largely by correspondence (e. g., Sabina v. Bedewynde, p. 18). This was the preference expressed by the commons in 1406, when they asked the king to send all bills, by some of the councillors attending him, to the council remaining at Westminster.^ Different from the modern Court of Star Chamber, the medieval council had no specific organization as a court. Though it might be called curia, it bore no name comparable to the " High Court of Parliament." It had no roll, no seal, no process pertaining exclusively to it. There were no stated judicial sessions or law days, though it was declared on occasion to be " sitting judicially." ' It customarily observed the tenns set for the king's courts, but did not even then manage its judicial business in any way apart from political and administrative. There is a slight suggestion also that Wednesdays and Fridays, the traditional days of the later court, were appropriate days for suitors.^ The council was well fitted for judicial work in its personnel, which included, in addition to lords and knights, an ex officio clement in the justices of both benches, the barons of the exchequer, the Serjeants and others " skilled in the law." As to the position of these professional men, there has been considerable discussion whether they are to be considered as "members " of the council or merely "advisers" therein. We shall avoid confusion, if in this connexion wc drop the word "member" as an anachronism. In the middle ages a man was a " councillor " or " counsellor," " sworn of the council," " retained of the council," " ap- pointed to the council," but never would he be spoken of as a " member." ' 4 Insl. p. 61. • Petitions were to be received on • Rol. Pari, iii, 586. Wednesdays and returned on Fridays. » Cal. Close Rolh, 1 Ric. II, p. 36. Nicolaa, iii, 149. INTRODUCTION XVll He might be of the council for life, " for the time," or, " especially ap- pointed." Likewise he might give or be asked for his " advice " or " opinion," but was not said to " vote." Moreover the king's council was intended to consist not of a single class of councillors, but " of all conditions of men, like another parliament, spiritual and temporal, nobles and lawyers com- mon & civil, and so fit to discern, order & dispose of all things in the uni- versal government." ' Unlike parliament there was no particular class or estate which might claim to be included in the council. The statement that " the king summons whom he wills to his councils " was here the effective rule. Now the justices, in the time of Edward I, were regularly sworn of the council; they attended its meetings when summoned and rendered their advice. Sometimes they acted jointly with the lords spiritual and temporal, as a lesser estate.^ Often in the treatment of legal questions they were the only councillors in attendance.' On one occasion an investigation was being held before the justices in first instance, and afterwards there were present others " of more importance." ^ From the time of Richard II, when the influence of the lords was more powerfully felt, the tendency was to reduce the position of the justices and other officials still further. Their attendance was henceforth occasional and their participation limited to matters of judicial character. Unless it were in the inchoate court of chan- cery, the council was never left solely to its judicial attendants. Still by acts of parliament the attendance of the justices was required and their advice was to be asked for in all legal questions. In the case of Atte Wode V. Clifford (p. 91), it is shown how their advice was sought upon the final form of the record. Again it is recorded how they were asked individually for their opinions. They were no less truly king's councillors because they stood on a different plane from the lords and knights. They were also specially serviceable in the committees of examination, of which more will be said. Such was the status claimed at a crisis by the justices themselves, who declared that they were the " king's councillors in law," but were not to be considered such " between party and party "; * in other words they were to state the law but not to give judgment. Whether the justices and other officers then were members or advisers, it seems sufficient to say in the sage words of Sir John Fortescue, " they be of this council when they be so desired, else not." At all times the council served as a body of consultation and advice for the justices in any legal difficulty. This practice is perhaps traceable to the act of Henry II in 1178, requiring the justices of the bench then appointed, whenever any question should arise which they could not decide by them- ' Hudson in Collectanea Jur. ii, 52. council learned in the law." Cal. Pat, 2 Fait a remembrerqele Roy, Seigneurs, Rolls, 28 Ed. Ill, p. 153; also Cal. Close Chivalers et Justices assenterent en cest Rolls, 4 Ric. II, p. 457. present Parlement. Rot. Pari, iii, 315. ' Cal. Pat. Rolh, 20 Ed. Ill, p. 135. ' A determination was once reached ' Rot. Pari, v, 376. " because it seems good to those of the XVIU CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL selves, to consult with the king and his sapientiores.^ So long as the fun- damental unity of the courts was maintained, it was natural that the council should be consulted whenever the justices were uncertain of their ground. The cases of the thirteenth centurj"^ abound in references of this kind to the council, which then appears not in the light of a higher or a distant tribunal, but a larger assemblage, often quickly summoned, of the existing court. The greater distinctness of the courts, as effected in the fourteenth century, hardly lessened the practice of the justices meeting in council for the pur- poses of discussion.^ The court of common pleas was once in a quandary over its inability to put a judgment into execution. The justices were divided in opinion, when the chief justice concluded, " we have spoken to the coun- cil respecting this mischief ; (to one of the litigants) go you to the chancery and you will have a 7ion obstante writ directing us to effect execution." ' The council was not a court of appeals; the common-law courts themselves denied its right to review their judgments on allegation of error. Yet some- thing to the same effect was granted in its power to determine a point of procedure. The Statute 13 Ric. II, c. 2, lays down that if anyone complain that a plea pending in the court of chivalry should be tried by common law, he shall have a writ to surcease until it be discussed by the king's council whether the matter ought to be tried in that court or by common law. It is abundantly evident that the principal attention of the council, in judicial matters, was given not to the hearing of cases at length, but to facilitating their hearing by other courts. This was done to the best advan- tage by answering the petitions that were presented in indefinite number. There were petitions of grace, asking for favour, and petitions of right, requiring judicial action, but in hearing them no separation was made of the one class from the other. Every petition in fact was a request for a measure of the king's grace. According to a well established custom, peti- tions of law should be presented in parliament, wherein special committees were appointed to receive and hear them, but parliament was unable to deal with them all. In the time of Edward III it became a matter of urgency that petitions should be heard before the close of the session, and it was sometimes a grievance that they were not heard but left over " from par- liament to parliament," while petitioners must sue and sue again. Under these conditions petitioners sought the council as an alternative. In the Parson of hangar v. Conyngshy (p. 48) we see a petitioner, who was forcibly prevented from suing in time of parliament, turning then to the council for relief. Parliament was jealous of this tendency. In the reign of Richard II it distinguished between those i:)Ctitions which could be considered only in parliament and those which could be considered apart by the council.^ I Dencdict of Peterborough (Rolls Year Books (Rolls Series), 20 Ed. Ill, ii, Series), i, 207. 127. ' Et puis apres en Counsail fust ceste ' Ibid. 17-18 Ed. Ill, p. 12. chose abatu coram Justiciariis omnibus. * Rot. Purl, iii, 103. INTRODUCTION XIX Except as the statutes limited the council in certain respects, it is difficult to see what was intended by this classification. Moreover in spite of its suspicion of the council, parliament under the Lancastrians was wont to leave at the close of its sessions whole masses of unconsidered petitions, under requirements that it should answer them within a limited time, that it should act with the advice of the justices, or perhaps cause the bills to be recorded upon the Rolls of Parliament.' The answer to a petition was usually given in an endorsement solving the difficulty; it might name the writ or direct the parties to the proper court ; it might convey also a positive opinion for the guidance of the justices. According to an often repeated regulation, the council was to turn over to the courts all matters touching the common law. Lest private interests encroach on public business, the council was enjoined to deal with the king's business first. According to a rule laid down in 1424 suitors were to present their petitions on a Wednes- day, and find them answered and returned on the following Friday;^ to this a proviso was added in 1426 " unless great and notable causes touching the king's realm and his lordships hinder." ' Under the difficulties of getting answers to their petitions, suitors were importuning individual councillors, so that for the sake of fairness it was enacted that lords of the council should grant no favour in any suit but reply that the bill should be seen by all and the party have answer.'' Other means resorted to by im- portunate suitors was to address their petitions to the Lord Protector and other individual lords of the council. ^ Altogether there is evidence that the council in addition to its other duties was overburdened with the load of petitions. Following the example of parliament, on one occasion at the close of a term it ordered that a pending plea, together with all remaining petitions and acts, should be committed to the lord chancellor to be deter- mined in the chancery.* Thus out of the business that parliament and the council had not the time or the energy to perform, the jurisdiction of the chancery was being built up. Finally, as to the cases heard at length and terminated by the council, the evidence is that these formed the smallest part of the business taken up. This was less from the lack of " enormous causes," as Coke supposed, than from the inability of the council to give them attention. Even if a prelimi- nary examination or a partial hearing was granted, the matter was most likely to be given to one of the courts, a board of arbitration, or a special commission for determination (e. g. Burton v. Meynell, p. 41). "When further hearing was possible, the cases were taken up in the midst of other public business, quickly adjourned, and after repeated postponements might fail of a final decision. Of cases that were fully treated, it would be ' Rol. Pari, iv, 174, 285, 301, etc. ' Examples are given in The King's ' Nicolas, iii, 149. Council, pp. 330 f . 3 Ibid. p. 214. • Nicolas, iii, 36. * Ibid. pp. 149, 214. ' XX CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL difficult now to count as many as a hundred for the two centuries prior to 1485. Loss of records has without doubt occurred, but there is corrobora- tive evidence that the loss was not a large fraction of the whole. It was impossible in fact for the councillors of the fifteenth century, in addition to their administrative and political work, fully to perform their judicial duties. The need of a special branch of the council for this purpose was felt long before such a departure was attempted. 4. THE COUNCIL AND OTHER COURTS A problem that has been discussed before, but which seems still open to argument, is the relation of the council to several kindred courts of law. The council, says Dicey, " is nothing more than the Curia Regis when separated from the judicial tribunals." ' In the words of Sir Matthew Hale it is " the common mother " of all the courts of justice in the realm.' To some this has seemed a mere superficial theory; even if it be accepted, it does not explain the manner of differentiation and the continued connexion of the parent stem with its offshoots. No two courts in their formation were alike, and analogies were slightly heeded. Some of the records before us, in addition to other pieces of evidence, may help to elucidate the matter. In the time of Edward I there were several bodies in the state that were not as yet organically distinct, namely parliament, the council, and the king's bench. The exchequer, while it had reached a definitive form as a department of finance, in its judicial functions was still as uncertain of its field as the court of king's bench. In his illuminating introduction to the Roll of the Parliament of 1305 Maitland has pointed out that in the four- teenth century " a parliament is rather an act than a body of persons. . . . Any meeting of the king's council that has been solemnly summoned for general purposes seems to be a parliament." ' In the words of Mr. Leadam, a parliament was then a " sessional proceeding of the council," somctunes held when all the estates were sitting, often after these had been dismissed. The " council in parliament," as it was usually called, held such prestige over the " council out of parliament," to use another contemporary phrase, that the records seldom leave us in doubt as to which is meant. Now the parliaments of Edward I were more widely inclusive of the estates and other public bodies than they afterwards became. Besides the greater estates of clergy and barons, there were the official councillors numbering more than a score, while even the courts of law were for the moment brought together under a single institution. Pleas that would otherwise pertain to the king's bench are recorded as being held coram rege in parlia- mento. Even the exchequer came under the same influence, for on one occasion an action is reported as having been taken ad scaccarium in par- ' The Privy Council (1887), p. 6. • Memoranda de Parliamenlo (Rolls ' JuTisdiclion of the Lords' House, c. iv. Series), p. Ixvii. INTRODUCTION XXI liamento.^ It was not necessary that the lords should participate in all the acts of the council or of other courts ; their more presence lent dignity, not to say authority, to all that was done. In one instance an appeal in parlia- ment was heard, as the record states, "before the chancellor, the treasurer, the justices of both benches and others of the council "; ^ the lords appar- ently took no part, but the proceedings were none the less in parliament. Whatever was begun in parliament and continued afterwards before the council was likely to be given the same general sanction. In the case of Rex V. Gerdeslon (p. 27) the parliament closed on 9 March, 1315, and the hearing was begun on the following 30 April, yet for some reason that is not evident it was said to have been heard before the council in parliament. We have several cases of the kind, which therefore failed of being entered upon the Parliament Roll. The theoretical rather than the actual presence of parliament is illustrated by a singular incident that occurred in 1397.' A certain suitor on his way to court was waylaid by his opponents and foully murdered in Fleet Street, London; the deed was considered especially atrocious because it was done " in the presence of the king and the whole parliament." It is true, parliament was sitting at the time, but not in Fleet Street. Our records will shew that at any stage a case before the council might be treated in parliamentary session without change in the character of the proceedings beyond the manifest advantages of larger attendance, wider discussion and stronger sanction. Parliament was indeed slow to regard the council as a court distinct from itself. In the incident just cited the suit was said to be pending " in parliament and before the council." Our case of Atte Wode v. Clifford, which was formally referred by parliament to the council (p. 88), indicates how this line of demarcation came to be drawn. For an indefinite time the branch of the curia regis known as the court coram rege, or the king's bench, was of similar elasticity. Unlike the court of common pleas, which was founded for a specific purpose, it retained the traditions of the time when the king's court was a general assemblage of barons and officers. In the time of Henry III its sessions were usually before the appointed justices, and in this light it was defined by Bracton,"* but in the same roll pleas before the council alternate with pleas before the justices without material change either in the character of the court or the pleas themselves. Moreover a case before the justices might become a case before the council not by an appeal or change of venue, but by a postpone- ment until the council, possibly the council in parliament, should assemble. Our first case, Boistard v. Cumbwell (p. 1), in dealing with the claims of a foreigner, shows why the presence of a conciliar body was desired. Some- times the council under these conditions included lords in indefinite number; sometimes there is reason to say it was nothing more than a conference of ' Madox, Hist, of Exch. ii, 8. ' Cal. Pat. Rolls, 22 Ric. II, 427. » Rot. Pari, ii, 122. * De Legibus (Rolls Series), ii, 180 S. XXU CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL justices. The larger court was not " a higher power," as ]\Iaitland once said, much less was it a different power; it was essentially the same court however much it gained in dignity and collective wisdom. By the time of Edward I the king's bench had become predominantly a court of cormnon law. It is so regarded by Britton, who says of the justices " their jurisdiction and record shall extend so far as we shall authorize by our writs." ' He also mentions it as an alternative court to the king's council. The same distinction will be found in the records of the court itself. At the same time the rolls are interspersed with conciliar and par- liamentary cases, such as Valence v. Bishop of Worcestei- (p. 5) and Rex v. Gerdeston (p. 27). There were also variants of law and procedure, such as the acceptance of a wi'it not in legal form, the suit of a foreigner, a trial without indictment, which were significant of the existence potentially of two tribunals, though they were not so understood at the time. In one case a litigant was told to sue at common law if he wished ; ^ the process then before the court was not such. Late into the reign of Edward III the records still contain the proceedings of both court and council. But by that time, as we shall shew, the features of conciliar procedure had become so distinct from the common law, that there was no longer any reason for confusion. In its earliest days the exchequer was not named as a court. The tri- bunal was designated preferably as " the king's court in the exchequer." There seems to have been a survival of this idea in the practice of the council sitting in the exchequer, as illustrated in our case of the Bishop of Sabina v. Bedewynde (p. 18). This was properly an exchequer case, accord- ing to the pri^vileges of this body, in that it afTected the rights of one of its officers; it was also a case for the council in that it was a dispute over the king's right in a question of church and state. The court was then a special assemblage of lords and officers, who were called by the king's writ into the exchequer, to hear the matter and, in the words denoting its extraordinary character, " ordain what should be done according to right and reason." The proceedings were after the methods of the council; a reading of the petition, the pleadings of the parties in turn, a search of the records, a hear- ing of written evidence, deliberation and discussion, and finally a deter- mination of the question and a report to the king. The process was after- wards read before the treasurer and barons of the exchequer, who ordered it to be engrossed upon the Memoranda Rolls, and a copy sealed with the seal of the exchequer was given to the successful defendant. In these pro- ceedings it seems quite inadequate to say that the council was merely a reinforcement of the exchequer, or happened at the moment to be occupy- ing its house.' It was rather the original court, which was still innnaiicnt in the exchequer, and served for the occasion by the administrative agencies ' Ed. F. M. Nichols (1865), ii, c. 4. ' This is the contention of Professor » Abb. Plac. p. 353. Tout, Eng. IIUl. Rev. Jan. 1915, p. 119. INTRODUCTION XXIU of this department. There were other cases before " the council at the exchequer," according to a contemporary phrase, but their great length has deterred us from presenting them here. More than of the exchequer, our selections will shew the vital connexion of coimcil and chancery. It is a singular phenomenon that the court of chancery, which began with a closely restricted jurisdiction, should in time be granted the greatest amount of discretionary power. This development was not an expansion of the original functions of the court, which were purely legal and formal; much less was it due to any inherent capacity of the chancery or its officers. Neither was it primarily an outgrowth of the individual powers of the chancellor. The origin of a court of extraordinary authority is found rather in the practice, noticed early in the fourteenth century, of assembling the council whenever a point arose in the chancery requiring discussion and deliberation. It might pertain to the formulation of a writ or a case under adjudication. The assemblage, known as con- silium in cancellaria, was larger or smaller according to the interests in- volved, or perhaps the convenience of the occasion; sometimes it was predominantly of barons, often of judges and officers.' At this time it is the same whether we speak of the common law or the equitable side of the chancery, a distinction that can be perceived not in the composition of the court but in the character of the cases. In its primitive form the court was an assemblage especially called for each separate case. It was given author- ity ad hoc by the king's writ directed to the chancellor, who was to summon the council ; with a certain degree of discretion he is to call "those remaining at London," " whom he sees fit," or " enough to do justice." The chancel- ■ lor then cites the parties to appear, he presides over the court, he asks a question, he answers an objection, he executes the order of the court. His functions enlarge rapidly. Before the end of the reign of Edward III suitors were addressing petitions to the chancellor, or the chancellor and council. In these petitions, it does not appear that suitors regard him as more than an executive officer and their most feasible means of approach to the council. By the time of Richard II he was able to summon the court on his own authority without the initiatory writ of the king. Yet it is not shown that even then the chancellor was ever sole judge or even the pre- dominant judge in the court over which he presided. The stage of develop- ment then reached is illustrated in the suit of Joan Celers,^ who petitioned the chancellor for the recovery of money that had dropped out of a cart into the road and was stolen by " certain men " of Dunstable. In consideration of her poor estate and lack of means to sue at common law, the chancellor caused the men, who were reputed to be the finders of the money, to be ' In the case oi the Prior of Coventry y. council. Miscellaneous Rolls (Chancery), Queen Isabel heard in 1336, the assem- 18/22. blage consisted of one, bishop, one earl, ^ Cal. Close Rolls, 4 Kic. II, ^75. two lords, four justices and others of the XXIV CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL brought into the chancery where they were examined. It was then " the court," not the chancellor, that ordered the defendants to make restitution. Our Petition of the Hansards (p. 76) in 1389 is the earliest instance yet found of a petition in chancery followed by a decree. While the petition was addressed to the chancellor, the decree was pronounced by the council, and then the chancellor made execution of the order.' This answers a question once propounded by Mr. Pike. In view of the lack of records of decrees in chancery, did not the chancellors at first treat such bills under the forms of common law ? - No; the evidence is that the earliest bills in chancery were adjudicated by the council. Decrees by the chancellor came much later. Yet the Statute of Praemunire mentions the council or the chancery as two alternative courts. What was the distinction ? From the inception of the court of chancery there was one attribute that gave it a mark of dis- tinction beside all other tribunals. This was the possibility, as we have already intimated, of assembling the court at any time. As was suggested bj' a suitor in the time of Richard II, since the council in the usual course was not to meet before Michaelmas, he asked that the chancellor be com- manded to summon it without delay. The council on the other hand, while not restricted to terms, was inclined in all judicial business to observe the terms and vacations set by the regular courts. "Out of term time," it was enacted, " nothing should be sped in the council but such thing as for the good of the king and the land seemeth necessary . . . and may not abide until the term time." The need of a court out of term time is expressed in the Statute 13 Hen. IV, c. 7, which committed the enforcement of the law against rioters " to the council, the king's bench, or the chancery during vacation." In no way did the chancellors more certainly succeed in making their court useful and popular, than by causing it to be open at all times to suitors. The student of the chancery is apt to state prematurely the separate formation of the court. It was indeed distinct in all its administrative features some time before its judicial capacity was recognized. Different from the king's bench, which separated from the council along the line of the common law, the chancery during its formative period retained the character of the original court, it made no departure of law, but simply con- tinued the jurisdiction and procedure of the council. Its only merit was in making these more widely available and practicable. Another error or failure of perspective lies in treating the court of chancery as a direct emanation of the royal prerogative. As a court of equity, it was neces- sarily close to the king and dispensed his prerogative, but this was after the manner of the council by consultation and advice. It was in a later stage that the chancellor himself was deemed the keeper of the king's conscience. ' See also Rol. Pari, iii, 310-313. in Essays in Anglo-American Legal History » Law Quar. Rev. i, 443-454, reprinted (1908), ii, 722-736. INTKODUCTION XXV For another half -century then, in all equitable cases the attendance of the council was still regarded as necessary. Sometimes there were present the same lords and knights who were prominent in political work.' But the number gradually shrinks to the formal attendance of a few advisers, pos- sibly only two justices, before the semblance of a conciliar body disappears entirely. There is an instance in 1458, wherein the decree is set down as pronounced " by the chancellor with the advice of the justices of either bench." - After this the position of the chancellor as sole judge is rapidly reached. In 8 Edward IV he declares that he holds two jurisdictions, the one of common law, the other of equity; here the chancellor calls himself a judge.' In 14 Edward IV there is a clear example of an equitable decree given by the chancellor alone, and other instances soon follow.* This was not the last of councillors in attendance and there was still an inclination in this connexion to speak of the court rather than the chancellor. But the separate growth of the chancellor's equitable jurisdiction is no longer to be doubted. The nature of this jurisdiction and its derivation from the prac- tices of the council will be discussed a little later. Another problem in the development of the chancery is helped toward solution b}^ the records of our cases. It has always been a question how far the clerical estate of the chancellors, for with slight exception they were invariably clergymen, affected their judicial position. Also to what extent did they draw upon their knowledge of canon law and the practices of ecclesiastical courts in creating the jurisdiction of the chancery ? For the most part the evidence on these material points is extremely elusive. But there is a suggestive incident in our memorandum of The Confession of Willia7n Chamberlain in 1383 (p. 71), wherein it is told how a man who had been drawn into an attempt to forge a testament, feeling pangs of remorse, went to the archbishop of Canterbury then chancellor and made to him a complete confession. The chancellor laid it upon the guilty man as a penance to withdraw from his confederates and then to go to the church where the testator was buried and confess the wrong. This confession we are told he went forth and made before the whole parish. The records rarely tell us as much, but it is altogether likely that many a case of moral right or wrong was settled in some such way, without formal proceedings, by the imposition of a penance, or even a word of persuasion or reproach. The remaining question of the influence of canonical law will be touched upon in the following sections on jurisdiction and procedure. 1 Baildon, Select Case^ in Chancery ' Year Books, S Edw. IV, p. 6. (Selden Society, vol. x), no. 34. * Cal. Pro. in Chancery, i, xciv; also, 2 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 3 Hen. VII, p. 204, Cal. Pat. Rolls, 8 Hen. VII, p. 432. also Baildon, nos. 143, 147. XXVI CASES BEFOBE THE KING'S COUNCIL 5. JURISDICTION It was the peculiar function of the council to deal with cases of emer- gency, especially those beyond the reach of the conunon law or its means of enforcement. These formed no class, but a series of kaleidoscopic variety, which shifted according to the needs of the particular time. Different from any other court there was in the beginning no field of jurisdiction belonging peculiarly to the council. Contrary to a current impression, it did not receive criminal in preference to civil cases. In fact it gave attention to anything that, because of the incompleteness of the law, required in whole or part exceptional treatment. To a certain extent this jurisdiction was defined by the statutes. But out of a feeling of jealousy and distrust, parliament committed few sub- jects to the council, and still fewer to it exclusively of other courts. The fii'st Statute of Praemunire, 27 Edw. Ill, c. 1, declares that violaters of its provisions are to be brought before the king and council, or in the chancery, or before the justices to answer. The second Statute of Praemunire, 38 Edw. Ill, c. 1, is almost the only act during the Middle Ages that leaves its enforcement to the king and council, without the alternative of any other court. There are lesser acts, like the Statute 8 Ric. II, c. 4, on the rasing of records, and 12 Ric. II, c. 11, on scandalous reports, which were to be enforced in the same manner, but on the whole it is surprising how little was given to the council by statutory authority. It was more in accord with the spirit of parliament to pass restrictive acts against the council. The Statute 5 Edw. Ill, c. 9, that no man should be attached or his posses- sions seized contrary to the Great Charter and the law of the land, laid down a principle often reiterated, but vague and uncertain in its application. The Statute 25 Edw. Ill laid down that no man should answer for his franchises or freehold but by course of common law. The commons desired to add " and for matters of life and limb," but the king consented to the restriction only as regards freeholds. This was a material limitation, and, as events proved, almost the only one of positive character that parliament ever succeeded in passing. It was an act which the council, instead of over- riding, was careful to observe, returning petitions to the courts of common law on the ground that they pertained to freeholds.' A petitioner once sought redress in parliament on the allegation that the council had heard a plea touching his freehold,^ but it is doubtful if the law had been actually violated. Certainly no jurisdiction of the kind was ever claimed by the council or the chancery. For the most part the jurisdiction of the council was not affected by the statutes, but extended by the practice of the court itself. In the medley of cases before us, first and foremost were those taken up because they affected I Ancient Petilions, nos. 12,289, 12,299. » Ibid. 4642, quoted in The King's Council, p. 341. INTRODUCTION XXVll the king's interest. Whether the king was in any wise above and beyond the law,' is a juristic question that matters not in this connexion. It was at all times an effective rule in the courts of law that anj^hing touching the king's person, his properties, or prerogatives was not to be treated without special consultation; the proceedings would be cut short with the words loquendum est cum rege. Sometimes for this reason the judges in a case received a writ to surcease; or quite as often they themselves refused to continue until they should have received a writ to proceed. Under such a constant check in the proceedings of the courts of law prosecutions of the king's officers were in the ordinary course impracticable. It was then in the nature of a concession that the king permitted his officers to be prose- cuted, whether before a special commission, such as heard the state trials of 1290, or before the council as illustrated in the Citizens of London v. the Bishop of Bath (p. 8) and Ughtred v. Musgrave (p. 54). About half of the cases collected for the fourteenth century came before the council on this ground. These included not only those to which the king himself was a party, as in Rex v. Middleton (p. 35), Rex v. Rouceby (p. 37), etc. A private party like the defendant in Bishop of Sabina v. Bedewynde (p. 18) might plead his case solely in defence of the king's right, and the grievance of a suitor, as set forth in Darners v. Broket (p. 97), might involve the integrity of the king's records. The long litigation initiated in Heyron v. Proute (p. 110) was complicated by the question of the jurisdiction of the king's court against any foreign court over English subjects. The king enjoyed an un- limited right of reserving cases for the consideration of the council. " For certain causes," " in order that the king may be better informed," " be- cause the matter may be better debated before the council," ^ a writ to sur- cease might be issued and the matter taken out of the hands of the justices for further consideration. The same justices might then be invited to aid in the discussion within the council. But from what follows it will be seen that the king's interests were not unmixed with other considerations. From early times the council was concerned with the problems, both legal and diplomatic, arising from the outer world of maritime and mercan- tile affairs. Cases of this kind were not excluded from other courts, but because of their limitations neither local courts nor courts of common law were adequate for dealing with them. An alien had no right to sue as a plaintiff in the king's court, and as a defendant he might be difficult to reach by any ordinary process. Moreover conditions at sea were far differ- ent from those contemplated by the law of the land, while mercantile transactions were poorly protected by the native law of covenant. But a stronger reason for the interest of the council in these matters was the fact that the treatment of foreigners in England was closely connected with diplomatic intercourse, often treaty rights, involving questions of friend- » See PoUock and Maitland, i, 511 ff. 32 Edw. Ill, p. 540; 38 Edw. Ill, p. 58; 2 Cal. Close Rolls, 29 Edw. Ill, p. 157; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 27 Edw. Ill, p. 434. XXVIU CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL ship and alliance with foreign states, e. g. Cosfeld v. Levey s (p. 32), Rex v. Rouceby (p. 37), Lomhards v. Mercers (p. 42), etc. So that the king and council were never willing to lose control over these affairs by delegating them cntirel}' to lesser courts. There was therefore coming to the council an unending stream of petitions complaining of seiziu-es at sea, piracies, violation of treaties, spoil of wreck, etc. The council indeed rarely heard the cases, but endorsed the petitions, sometimes with a word of instruction, referring the complaint either to a court of common law, or the chancery, or creating a special commission for its determination. One of the earliest cases of this kind was a suit of certain merchants of Spain and Portugal heard in 1293 before a committee appointed by the king and council.' Our case of Rex v. Roiiceby (p. 37) was heard by the council in 1354, just a few years before the beginning of the court of admiralt}' . The need of a special court to relieve the council and the chancery of a share of this business is sufficientlj' obvious. Out of a custom of employing the admirals for judicial enquiries, as Mr. Marsden has shown,- from 1357 on they were granted extensive powers of jurisdiction, both civil and crimi- nal, in cases arising upon the sea. In the rapid expansion of their authority there is evidence of an intention at the tune to create a court of strong competence, like the court of chancery which was being enlarged at the same time. But there were limitations upon the admirals and defects in their courts that made their success in judicial functions far less than that of the chancellors. As a result of complaints in parliament against their usurpations and novel procedure, the Statutes of Richard II and Hem-y IV limited the admirals' jurisdiction strictly to maritime cases; they were given no power over inland waters, in the bodies of counties or within the liberties of the Cinque Ports.' Moreover there were grave abuses in the courts of admiralty as customarily conducted. There being two or three admirals at a time, of the north, east, and west, each of them held his juris- diction separately from the others. Being more concerned with their naval duties, the admirals failed to give their courts the prestige of their personal attendance, leaving the work mainly in the hands of a deputy or sub- admiral. The courts were moved from place to place, to the great incon- venience of suitors. The sessions could be held only in ports, never in inland towns. Worse than this, the admirals permitted their courts to be obstructed by a dilatory procedure, by which technical forms were multi- plied and litigation prolonged indefinitely. One case arising in the 13th year of Richard II was carried on for more than two years, in which as many as eleven sittings can be counted, at three different places, listening to bill, answer, rephcation, duplication, triplication, quadruplication, attestation of witnesses, and at the last stage it was found that the court ' K. G. Marsden, Navy Kccords Society, vol. xli.x, pp. 12-18. ' Select Fleas in the Court of Admiralty (Seidell Society, vol. vi). • Statutes 13 Ric. 11, c. 5; 15 Kic. II, c. 3; 2 Hen. IV, c. 11. INTRODUCTION XXIX must adjourn because the attestations were in the hands of the sub-admiral who was then in distant parts. At one point of the proceedings the record was taken to the chancery on writ of certiorari. Whether the case ever came to a final judgment is not known.' Another case, begun about 1389, was carried through twenty-nine sittings, interrupted several times by appeals to the council on questions of authority, until in 1404 the record was ordered by a certiorari to be sent to the chancery.^ Under these condi- tions it is not strange that the jurisdiction of the admiralty throughout the fifteenth century continued to be contracted rather than expanded, while still other courts were being fashioned for receiving a share of the cases of international and commercial character. As a result, the principal part of this jurisdiction remained just where it had been from the beginning, primarily in the king's council, secondarily in the chancery. Parties illegally sued in the admiral's court under the statutes might recover damages, and thus the way was open for appeals from the court of admiralty on the ground that it was acting in violation of the statutes and in excess of its authority, or as it was usually stated that the judgment was " contrary to the law and the form of the court." The council listened to such appeals and in various ways showed itself distrust- ful of the judicial capacity of the admirals or their deputies. It was quick to interfere with the admiralty by orders to stay proceedings ; sometimes it dictated to the admirals leaving them little independence of judgment ; on one occasion it summoned the admirals to answer for their conduct. A case was heard in 1386 wherein the admirals were made defendants of their conduct in rendering a judgment, which was then reversed by a decision of the council.' Rather than run the risks attendant upon the court of admiralty, suitors might better seek redress in first instance from the king's council. As for foreigners, the council was their only recourse, until the chancellor also was permitted to hear them. This condition was far from satisfactory, for manifestly the council could not hear many of the cases presented or even give them passing attention. According to a complaint of the commons in 1439 it was likely to err on the side of leniency. At the suit of alien merchants, it was said, made before the king and council, sometimes before the chancellor, ships captured from the enemy were re- leased and damages paid, to the injury of native shippers. It was therefore enacted that henceforth ships should not be released except by letters patent enrolled in the chancery.'' In the treatment of these cases, the council might refer the matter to any of the courts mentioned, but the usual method, illustrated in Wythimi v. Men of Kampen (p. 95) and Duval v. Arundel (p. 96), was the primitive one of creating a commission of oyer and terminer. Sometimes the commissions were given instructions by the ' Sekct Pleas in the Court of Admirally, ' Given in The King's Council, p. 507. no. 1. * Rot. Pari. V, 27. " Ibid. no. 2. XXX CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL council, and sometimes they were asked to make report of their findings. Often the parties were brought before the council and a discussion was held before the matter was given to the commission. If properly composed the commissions were not unserviceable. In 1429 the commons especially requested that the justices of the peace might be granted commissions of oyer and tenniner to deal with certain rovers who were committing depre- dations on the sea.' In Duval v. Arundel the petitioners name the men whom they wish to be appointed as commissioners. The obvious deficiency of the commissions, generally disregarded at the time, was the lack of a coherent system of justice. Each case was treated by itself with a mini- mum of regard for precedent. Records of their proceedings were generally lacking, so that it was once suggested that commissioners who failed to deliver their processes and pleas into the exchequer should be punished. Even so, the commissions could never be a substitute for a court of strong competence and specialized function. This began to be appreciated by Henry VII who extended the powers of the admirals materially, and by Henrj' VIII who placed the court of admiralty upon substantial statutory foundation. As the antecedent of the modern court of star chamber, the council has generally been represented as a court of summary jurisdiction in criminal cases. Contrary to a prevailing belief this was not its original function, but one that developed in time from force of necessity. There were alwaj^s the crimes of great violence and oppression, named as riots, routs, con- federacies, conspiracies, unlawful assemblages, forcible entries, mainte- nance of quarrels, etc. These were most dangerous when perpetrated by bands of armed men, often under the leadership of the most prominent knights in the counties, who might themselves be sheriffs, custodians of castles, justices of the peace, or in collusion with them. They intimidated courts, prevented the execution of writs, corrupted juries, held suitors in durance, and promoted litigation in the interests of their retainers. Some- times we uncover a systematic endeavour on the part of a few strong men in a countj^ by force and fraud to dispossess their weaker neighbours. But during the thirteenth, and most of the fourteenth century, the council was concerned not with the trial of such cases, so much as with the elaboration of legal ways and means for dealing with them. For this i)urpose the writ of trespass and several related writs, the court of king's bench, the keepers of the peace, and later the justices of the peace were each in turn cstal)lished. Rather than hear a case of extraordinary atrocity the council would refer it to a commission of oyer and terminer, as in Burton-on-Trenl v. Meynell (p. 41). In the present collection it is noticeable that no case of violence is heard at length by the council, distinctly on this ground, prior to the reign of Richard II. In Parson of hangar v. Conyngshij (p. 47) the parties were brought to an accord. In Ughtred v. Musgrave (p. 54) violence was involved, ' Hot. Pari, iv, 351, 377. INTRODUCTION XXXI but the case was heard because the defendant was a sheriff. The first case of maintenance in fact to be given a complete hearing was Esturmy v. Courtenay (p. 77), and from that time others follow in rapid succession. That the council should exercise any jurisdiction of the kind was reluc- tantly admitted in the statutes. The numerous statutes against mainte- nance and liveries, 20 Edw. Ill, 13 Ric. II, IG Ric. II, 7 Hen. IV, etc., rely not upon the council but upon justices of assize and justices of the peace for their enforcement. The Statute 13 Hen. IV, c. 7, against riots seems to strike a new note in declaring that in default of the justices of the peace certification shall be made to the king and council, and punishment of the rioters shall be inflicted at their discretion. The act further provides that if the trespassers do not appear at the first precept, another precept shall be issued to the sheriff to bring them before the council or the king's bench; and if this means fail, then proclamation is to be made for the transgressors to appear before the king and council, the king's bench, or the chancery. But whatever authoritj' was given to the council by this act was taken away b}' the Statute 2 Hen. V, 1st, c. 8, which reverted to former methods in placing the enforcement of the law preferably in the hands of special com- missions. Again the Statute 8 Edw. IV, c. 2, the most vigorous act yet passed against liveries, specifies the king's bench, the court of common pleas, the justices of the peace, and commissioners of oyer and terminer; it goes far to legitimatize in the courts extraordinary procedure by bill, in- formation and examination, but it carefully avoids designating the council. Only in vague language did parliament recognize the authority of the council in this class of cases, as in the proviso to an act of 1 Ric. II, "unless it be against such high personages that right cannot be done elsewhere "; ' and again, " unless there be too much might on the one side and urunight on the other." Moreover a survey of the petitions shews that the council was not popularly regarded as the only court for such suits. Quite as many petitions of this kind were addressed to parliament on this score; and the earliest petitions in chancery were of the same character. But parliament, which was reluctant to pass any general act to this effect, persistently referred indi\ddual cases to the council, e. g. Atte Wode v. Clifford (p. 86). At the close of the first parliament of Henry VI an entire file of "riot bills " was thus turned over. It was therefore by custom and general acquiescence that this part of the council's jurisdiction was established before the Statute 3 Hen. VII expressly mentions " maintenance, liveries, signs and tokens, retainers, riots and unlawful assemblages " as pertaining to the council sitting in the star chamber. There is a remaining question, how far the council shared in the develop- ment of the equitable jurisdiction that flourished most widely under the chancellors in the fifteenth century. There is no longer any contention that equity originated with the chancellors or with any particular court. It is > Rot. Pari, iii, 40. XXXn CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL known indeed to have existed in the curia regis of the thirteenth century, and was afterwards operative in the various courts of common law, in- cluding those of the itinerant justices.^ From the beginning the council was broadh' a court of equity, in that its action was a dispensation of the royal prerogative; it received cases on petition, it showed mercy and leni- ency in the application of the law, it admitted suitors legally disabled, it required specific performance in the restitution of goods and chattels.^ There is a difference of opinion, however, whether the later equity, as developed by the chancellors, was a continuation of the earlier equity administered by the common-law courts, or whether we should regard the chancellors' equity as " a new, a distinct, and an independent develop- ment." ^ Dr. Holdsworth places the two phases in contrast to one another, while Professor Adams argues for the essential continuity of the principles of equity in the curia regis, through the courts of common law and into the court of chancery.* It remains to shew how far the council gave expression to the equitable principle, and what precedents it laid down for the com-t of chancery. In this enquiry special attention must be given to the cases of verbal agreements, trusts and uses, which, says Justice Holmes, were " the greatest contribution to the substantive law ever set down to the credit of the chancery." One of the most notable cases antedating the court of chancery in its equitable functions was that of Audeley v. Audeleij heard in 1366.* In this instance a married woman without the concm-rcnce of her husband, a Jevime sole having no standing at common law, was heard by the council in a suit against her father-in-law for the performance of a pre- marital contract. After a sharp contest, interesting in several points of procedure, there was an award requiring specific perfonnance of the terms of the covenants under pain of £6000. In the Fraunceys case heard in 1392 certain parties, who proved to be dishonest executors, were examined before the council as to the existence of an obligation not produced in court.' Of trusteeship in goods and chattels there is the example of Hogonona v. A Friar Austin (p. 85) in 1401, wherein the petitioner alleges the loss of money and a breviary left in trust, and asks for a hearing before the council. But the council, as it appears, merely ordered his release from captivity without affording any further relief. In 1422 there was the full hearing of a case, Langeford v. Prior of Gidjurn,^ in which the petitioner seeks the return of certain jewels and other goods which the prior refuses to surrender. On ' See H. D. HazcUine, Early History of of Equity administered by the Common Law English Equity (Essays in Legal History Judges to the Equity administered by the read before the Congress of 1913). Chancellors (Yale Law Journal, xxvi, 1- ' This reputation of the court is re- 23). fleeted in the Statute 5 Rie. II, 1, e. 8, « G. B. Adams, The Continuity of that those who lost their deeds in the late English Equity (ibid, xxvii, 550-503); also troubles were to present petitions to the Columbia Law Review, xvi, 98. king and council, when such remedy was ' Cal. Close Rolls, 40 Va\w. Ill, 237-239. to be provided as was just. ' The King's Council, p. 517. • See W. S. Holdsworth, The Relation ' Nicolas, iii, 328-331. INTRODUCTION XXXUl the evidence of an indenture specifying the chattels loaned, the council decreed full restitution. The earliest cases of enfeoffments to use, the most significant departure in the history of equity, are extremely elusive because of gaps in the records. The earliest treatment of such a case is revealed to us by an appeal in parliament occurring in 1380.' Certain feoffees, having been impleaded in the chancerj^, were there examined, it is said, before the chancellor, lords and others of the king's council, as to whether the feoff- ment had been simple or with conditions. The final decree was made by the king and put into execution by the chancellor. It is of some signifi- cance that at this time petitions upon the subject began to be addressed to the chancellor.^ But the petitioners seem still to have regarded the matter as under the jurisdiction of parliament or the council. This was the \'iew taken certainly by one petitioner, who in the time of Henry IV besought the chancellor to command a trustee to come before the council, there to be examined, and to do further what the council should award.' The first time that the subject of feoffment to use was mentioned in these words was in 1402, when the commons apparentlj^ desired an act of legislation against disloyal feoffees, because they said " in such cases there is no remedj^ unless one be provided in parliament." ■* The matter was referred to the council, but whatever action may have been taken further we do not know. In the same year there was a case before the council, Gunwardby and others v. Tiptoft and others,^ in which the feoffees and the beneficiary were plaintiffs. As the defendants failed to appear, there were several postponements, and all that we learn is an intimation that the parties were willing to treat out of court. Amid the general dearth of records it is a natural supposition that most cases of the kind were disposed of in this manner. In 142.3 there is the minute of an examination before the council of the feoffees of Lady Neville, who acknowledged that they had been enfeoffed of certain manors for the purpose of paying the deceased lady's debts and for making a re- enfeoffment to her son and heir.* Since these cases all antedate anj'^ known proceedings of the kind in the separate court of chancery, they seem to warrant the inference that like other matters of equitable jurisdiction they originated in the council, whence the chancellors derived their special authority and inspiration. Fiu-ther the extreme rarity of the cases and their usual failure to reach a conclusion suggest that the council, controlled as it was by conservative influences, did not welcome these suits or give them due attention. The chancellors, on the other hand, as soon as their authority was sufficient, received them gladly and professed their readiness to afford a remedy for every grievance. While the great bulk of equitable suits was then swept into the chancery, the council by no means relin- • Rol. Pari, iii, 79. * Rot. Pari, iii, 511. * Baildon, Select Cases in Chancery, ' The King's Council, p. 522. nos. 40, 45, 71. " Nicolas, iii, 20. ' Ibid. 99, 102. XXXIV CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL quished its claim upon them. Cases like Fouquire v. Nicole (p. 118) and Norto7i V. Cohjngborne (p. 115) still appear, but in the course of events the two courts were divergent in spirit. By reason of inherent character the council was becoming the great criminal tribunal, while the chancery by the enterprise of its head and members was finding its greatest usefulness as a court of equity. Finally, the council assumed the power on occasion to deal with heretics, necromancers, soothsayers, witches, etc. There are not many cases of this kind, but they are of interest as precedents for the greater activities of the modern court against freedom of thought; also as showing a possible con- nexion of the methods of the council with the heresy trials of the church. An instance, cited by the Ecclesiastical Courts Conamission (1883) as taking place before the king's council, is the examination of William Buxton, accused of being a schismatic, in 1384.' The memorandum, however, gives evidence of being not a record of the council but a distinctly ecclesiastical document. Moreover the proceedings were conducted not before the council, but before the king and a special assemblage, predominantly lay- men, in time of parliament. Chancellor Pole was present and took part in the disputation. The event only proves that the king's councillors came in contact with heresy trials. In 1388 Richard II, then under the domination of the Lords Appellant, appointed a commission to search for, take and bring before the council all the heretical books being put forth by disciples of Wiclif, and to an-est all persons buying and selling the same.^ Again in 1392 at the request of the bishop of Hereford, who confessed his inability to arrest two men in his diocese said to be heretics, the king granted the bishop authority with the aid of the sheriffs to arrest the men, wherever they might be found, and bring them before the council.' Whatever may have been done by the council in these cases, we do not know. But in 1401 there is the clear instance of a soothsayer, John Kyme, who was brought before the council where he was examined and finally made to swear that he would never henceforth believe in false prophesies, or meddle with them, or speak privately or openly against the state of the king.'' A few further cases of the kind, which were brought up from time to time, give the im- pression that the council was little disposed to attack heresy, unless it might be connected with political interests or breaches of the peace. Once it exhorted the bishop of Lincoln to act against persons accused of magic, sorcery, and necromancy.' Again, it made an examination of certain per- sons thus accused.' In 1441 one Roger Bolingbroke, a clerk implicated with the duchess of Gloucester in the attempt by magic to shorten the king's life, was examined before the council and made to confess that he had ' Wilkins, Concilia, iii, 191. * Palgrave, Original Authority, p. 87. 2 Cal. Pal. Rolls, 430. • Nicolas, i, 288. > Ibid. 40. ' Ibid, iv, 107; also 114; vi, 40, 45. INTRODUCTION XXXV wrought the necromancy.' In the same year the Witch of Eye, who was involved in the same affair, was tried by a special commission, before whom the clerk of the council read the articles of examination, some of which the defendant denied and others admitted.^ The special significance of these cases will be seen in connexion with the interrogatory examinations to be treated in the following section. 6. PROCEDURE It was in methods of procedure more than in substantive jurisdiction that the council and the chancery were distinguished from the courts of common law. It is generally understood that the original influence in this direction came from the civil law through the practices of the ecclesiastical courts, though the extent of Romanist influence has been a matter of dis- pute. The very names " petition," " exception," " examination," " inter- rogation," " replication," " confession," " decree " are taken from the Roman vocabulary; at the same time it is significant that other terms of ecclesiastical law like " citation," " libel," " caution," " interdict," " de- nunciation," " deposition," " position," have been avoided in secular practice. Moreover the question of Roman origins is complicated by the fact that some of the methods of the equitable courts came by way of the common law. There was certainly no slavish imitation of the clerical system, but an adoption and adaptation of certain features that were found useful. A better analysis of the factors involved may be expected when a further publication of ecclesiastical cases shall have been made. As has been said before, the first step to bring a suit or complaint before the council was a petition; a bill as it was commonly called in litigation. Compared with a writ of common law, a bill was the distinguishing feature of all equitable procedure, which existed to a degree in the exchequer and before the justices in eyre, as well as in the council, the chancery, and the admiralty. The original idea, and possibly the word,' may have come from the petition or supplicatory libel of the clerical courts, but there is no fur- ther likeness in form or character. The earliest of our secular petitions in fact are hardly different from letters and were probably composed by letter- writers. They came to be much more elaborate, but always retained a greater lack of formality than was permitted to other legal documents. Customarily the petition consisted of the address, the grievance, and the prayer. The address was to the king, the king and council, the king or lords in parliament, the council, or the chancellor, with other variations. There was no requirement that the petitioner should name the court for his suit; this might be determined later. There were in time many expressions to dignify the address, such as " good," " wise," " gracious," " honourable," ' Chronicle of London (ed. Nicolas, 1827), p. 128. ' English Chronicle (Camden Society, 1856), p. 58. » W. C. Bolland, Select Bills in Eyre (Selden Society, vol. 30), p. xi. xxx^a CASES before the king's council " redoubtable "; the address too was likely to be set off in the margin and ornamented with flourishes of the pen, but these were mere embellishments for the purpose of inducing attention. The grievance was stated usually with bre\-ity, the only elaboration being the horrible nature of the oifence and the hardship endured, possibly to the extent of exaggeration. In this point petitions were apt to fail in giving essential particulars of time and place. One advantage that a petition had over the instruments of common law was that it might complain of " certain persons " or " parties un- known." Even a mistake in a name did not invalidate it, e. g. Norton v. Colyngborne (p. 115). In Poche v. Idle (p. 116) a space has been left for the name afterwards to be filled in. As the chancellor once remarked, " in this court it is not requisite that the bill should be in every point certain {loiU en certein) after the solemnity of common law, for here there is only peti- tion." Finally, the prayer was for remedy; it need not specify what remedy, which in fact was usually left to the court. It concluded with a pious exhortation, " for God," " for the love of God and in the way of charity," " we shall pray for you," " for the sake of the Queen," etc. Ordinarily the petition was prepared in advance, but sometimes the com- plainant appeared in court without any petition. Once after proceedings had begun, a complainant was requested to put her grievances in writing.' In some petitions there is internal evidence that they were actually prepared in court. A late requirement was that petitions should be duplicated one copy being for the use of the defendant.^ In Atte Wode v. Clifford (p. 88, n.) we are told that one copy was left for a record with the clerk of parliament, while the other was given to the clerk of the privy seal. Again in contrast to a writ, petitions cost nothing to present, and it was sometimes urged as an argument against this procedure that it brought in no revenue.' It was not essential for a petitioner to appear in person ; he might be prevented by poverty (e. g. p. 120). At the same time there was no obligation upon the court to hear a petition, so that suitors lost time and money due to the delay. Finally a written petition was never a positive requirement. In several of the cases, such as Eslurimj v. Courlenay (p. 77) and Danvers v. Broket (p. 97), a complainant was permitted to make his charges orally before the council, and if the facts were thus clearly presented, it sufficed. Further, the council took up criminal cases on " information " or " sug- gestion," by whomsoever it was offered. This was a mode of accusation that was creeping in as the earlier method of criminal appeal declined.'' It differed from the appeal, in that it was unaccompanied by any challenge to battle; it might be offered either publicly or secretly, and was without traditional safeguards. There are instances in the time of Edward I, in which men were put to trial, without indictment, on criminal information, ' Nicolas, ii, 287; also Tlie King's ' Rol. Pari, iv, 84. Council, p. 511. * On appeals of crime see Stephen, » Nicolas, ii, 289; v, 291. Hist, of Criminal Law (1883), i, 244-250. INTRODUCTION XXXVll but they were then reputed to be rare.' Irregular as it was, the thing was done in parHament, in the king's bench, and before the justices in eyre. The king's council took up the practice and carried it to such a point that in the reign of Edward III there began to be heard protests. The statute of the fifth j'ear, that no man should be attached by any accusation against the Great Charter or the law of the land, probably had reference to just this practice. The statute of the twenty-fifth year (5, c. 4) expressly enacted that none should be taken by petition or suggestion before the king or the council, unless by indictment or presentation. This act, if it had been carried into effect, would have precluded one of the most characteristic processes of the council. No doubt there was need of a system of accusa- tion apart from the jury in favour of individuals. It is on record how a certain party, not daring to make his accusation openly, went to a father confessor and revealed the fraud that was being perpetrated upon his mother's will, in the hope that the matter would thus be made known to the king's council.- But as is frequently disclosed the danger of the system lay in its being applied on the slightest suspicion and even falsely and mali- ciously. In the twenty-eighth year there was an outcry that the king's purveyors, because legal proceedings had been taken against them, were making false suggestions in order to bring their opponents before the king and council.' The Statute 27 Edw. Ill, several times reenacted, required accusers to offer security to prove their suggestions before the council as well as in other courts. Parties gave assurances in various ways, offering to prove their assertions, swearing to their truth, and promising to give satisfaction if their complaints should not prove to be true. In one case an accuser declared himself ready to prove all things contained in his bill on pain of loss of Ufe and chattels.^ By act of parliament in 1394 the chancel- lor was given power to require the parties suing for writs of summons and arrest to find sufficient pledges and surety for the truth of their sugges- tions.* Thus there arose the practice, adopted in the chancery and also in the council, of requiring the names of persons giving surety, the plegii de prosequendo as they were called, to be written in the margin of the bill. An example of this device is given in Norton v. Colyngborne (p. 115). Since security of this kind was not always required by the council, the fear of malicious accusations was hardly diminished. There was an inclination also on the part of defendants to offer surety. Once the parties against whom information had been laid offered their bodies for due punishment, in case the charges were found to be true.* Encouraged by the council, the practice of seeking information became a wide-spread system of public espionage. One of the writs in use cited » Pollock and Maitland, ii, 662; for ' Rol. Pari, ii, 260; also Col. Close examples see Oxford City Documents Rolls, 28 Edw. Ill, p. 72. (Oxford Hist. Soc), p. 204; Rot. Pari, i, * Cal. Pat. Rolls, 38 Edw. Ill, p. 502. 172; Mem. de Pari. 255, etc. » Rot. Pari, iii, 323. » The King's Council, p. 518. » Nicolas, v, 166. XXXVlll CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL persons " to give information and to do and receive whatever shall be required by the council." In the reign of Richard II a reward was offered to those reporting evasion of the customs, and again announcement was made that informers would be heard. In the reign of Henry IV there is extant a lengthj^ deposition of one William Stokes, who sets forth how it is the duty of everj^ loyal subject to safeguard the honour and profit of the crown, and informs the council of certain illegal exportations of wool.' Sometimes the information was presented in a petition, suggesting the arrest of this or that part}', in one instance pointing out a spy.- In 1420 there is a letter of Thomas Erpingham, himself a member of the council, acquaint- ing the chancellor of the probability of a riot in Suffolk.' Parliament was with good reason suspicious of informers and was as a rule averse to the sj-stem of trial without indictment, but there were times, nevertheless, when it sanctioned the practice. In 1423 the commons expressed their willingness that in cases of persons carrying gold out of the country', any one giving notice of the fact to the council or the treasurer should receive half of the goods forfeited, but the king consented to his receiving only a fourth part.* Again the Statute of Liveries, 8 Edw. IV, c. 2, declared that every informer should be admitted in the courts to sue for the king and himself, being required only to swear on a book to the truth of his assertions, and such information should stand instead of bill or original writ. Finally the Statute of the Star Chamber, 3 Hen. VII, warranted the procedure of the council " upon bill or information." Next in order were the writs of summons and arrest, by which parties could be cited, and, if need be, compelled to appear before the court. It is well known that in the reign of Edward III there were devised in the chan- cery certain summary writs, the quibusdam cerlis de causis, the proemunire, and the subpoena. The first appears as early as 1346, the latter in 1363. These differed from any corresponding instruments of the common law in their initial clause, failing to give cause of the suit or prosecution,' and in the method of their issue without registry or enrolment. From what is now known, these writs were not derived from any example set bj' the ecclesiastical courts, but were evolved out of the formulae already in use for administrative rather than judicial purposes. The significant clause quibusdam certis de causis commonly appears in such writs and precepts as the certiorari and supersedeas from the time of Edward I. Likewise the final penal clause was new only in its particular application.* The first use ' The King's Council, p. 523. land." Year Books (Selden Society), 5 2 Ancient PetUions, 14,948, 15,198. Edw. II, p. 44. ' Nicol.'w, ii, 272. « See the writ to the sheriff of Essex in * Hot. Part, iv, 252; ugain vi, 184. 12,32, to arrest Hubert de Burgh and ' " The law willeth not that any should bring him to London, "sub poena quat- be taken by surprise in the King's Court. tuor milhum hbrarum." Cal. Close liolU, . . . She (defendant) must have notice IG Hen. HI, p. 161; Royal Letters (Rolls in the writ of the articles on which she will Scries), i, 523. be arraigned, and that is tlie law of the INTRODUCTION XXXIX of the penal clause in the -prccmunirc, the writ to the sheriff, is given in our case Lombards v. Mercers (p. 43). There is a tradition of long standing, voiced by Sir Francis Palgrave and the Dictionary of National Biography, that the ingenious author of the writ of subpoena was no other than John of Waltham later bishop of Salisbury. The assumption is based on a com- plaint of the commons as late as the reign of Henry V, when they rashly declared that such writs were a novelty, never known before the time of Richard II, which were invented by the late bishop of Salisbury.^ Now John of Waltham was not even a clerk in the chancery in 1363 when the writ appeared. He is then noticed as a servant of the bishop of Salisbury.^ He was a clerk in the chancery hardly before 1374,' master of the rolls in 1381 and keeper of the privy seal in 1386. In view of these conflicting statements, it is verj^ likely that as keeper of the privy seal Waltham was responsible for the translation of the subpoena into French and its issue under the privy seal. This was the novelty not known before the time of Richard II, against which the commons had reason to complain. It is noticeable that there had been no direct complaint against the subpoenas as originally issued in the chancery, and in the fifteenth century it was the subpoena under the privy seal that esjiecially stirred resentment. Thus John of Waltham, if he did not originate the writ, may at least be credited with converting it into its most detested form, and for this, many would say, he deserves his evil commemoration. Thenceforth the subpoena, whether under the great seal or the privy seal, was the preferred instrument of the council and the chancery. It was also used, we are told, in the exchequer,^ and in special emergencies by parliament. But instead of adopting it, parliament was averse to a process so repugnant to the common law, and sought to effect its modification. It should be used only in emergency, " as deemed necessary at the discretion of the chancellor or the council." ^ Among the proposals of reform, it was suggested that the subpoena should be enrolled and made patent, its misuse should be ground for an exception, and a clerk who issued one wrongly should be punished, but the king would consent to no such nugatory measures. At length, under the stress of Jack Cade's rebellion, parliament legitimized the writs, in riot cases only, for a period of seven years.' There were also writs of attachment and arrest, though such a process was not always more cogent than a subpoena. In our case of Eslurmy v. Courtenay, a writ of arrest had already failed, when the earl of Devonshire by a subpoena was told to bring Robert Yeo with him. This was a variant of the usual subpoena, afterwards known as ducens tecum. A writ of arrest was commonly issued to a sheriff, a serjeant at arms, and perhaps other ' Rot. Pari, iv, 84. complaint of the commons; no writs of ' Cal. Pal. RoUs, p. 358. the kind however have been seen. » Cal. Close RolU, p. 86. ' Rot. Pari, iii, 471; also 267; iv, 156. * This was alleged in the aforesaid « Statute 31 Hen. VI, c. 2. Xl CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL competent persons, who were to find and bring the party wanted before the court on a given day. Once the commissioners were told to bring their captives " honourably " before the king and council; ' more often they were asked to keep them safely. In an extreme instance the council, on infor- mation that certain marauders were active in Kent, Surrey and Middlesex, appointed a commission to arrest all suspects and imprison them until further order.- In one case the commissioners were threatened with a penalty of £1000.^ On the failure of all other means, the most drastic measure possible was a proclamation of outlawry. By a writ duly issued to the sheriff public announcement was made throughout the county that so-and-so should appear, or be made to appear, at a time and place, or suffer the severest penalties. In the case of a noted outlaw, " a certain son of iniquity," proclamation was ordered in all the fairs and markets of Bed- ford and Buckingham, that whoever should arrest him or produce his body or his head, alive or dead, should receive a reward of £100.'' In one of the later years of Henry VI there is an instance of the successive use of writs of the privy seal, writs under the great seal, a proclamation, a commission of arrest and finally another proclamation under threat of forfeiture.^ Pending trial, or during the intervals of a trial, parties were committed to prison for indefinite lengths of time ; two or three years of durance were nothing extraordinary. An accuser might be committed as well as a de- fendant. The law which safeguarded judgments of life or limb was quite indifferent to the abuses that grew up under this system. But for those who could find security, " mainprise," a system of bonds slightly different from bail, was willingly allowed. " Mainpernors," as the sureties were called, bound themselves in sums of money, sometimes as high as £5000 or £10,000, corps pur corps to have the party wherever wanted on a given day, and in some cases made themselves responsible for his good conduct during the interval. Mainpernors, it was once decided, shouUl not be released of their sureties when the party came to court, but only after he had pleaded to the issue.' The amounts of money, like the sums stated in the subpoena, were theoretical, suggesting the seriousness of the matter involved, but were never strictly exacted. Illustrations of the use of mainprise are afforded in the texts of Lombards v. Mercers (p. 45), and Release of the Sureties of John Davy (p. 108). The obligations were at first by no means BO perfunctory as they afterwards became, and offered a means of constraint no doubt more effective than most prisons. But in connection with the sj'stem of arbitrary arrest the practice was liable to abuse. Parties com- plain that in their inability to give security, they must perforce treat with their enemies or else go to prison.' ' Cal. Pat. Rolls, 49 Edw. Ill, p. 156. ' Cat. Pat. Rolls, 37 Hen. VI, p. 493, ' Ibid. 23 Hie. II, p. 597. also, p. 510. » Nicolas, V, 241. • Year Books, 13-14 Edw. Ill (Uolls * Ibid, iii, 250. Series), p. 72. ' Rot. Pari, iv, 84. INTRODUCTION xli The parties wore told to come before the couneil, vbicmnque fuerit, on a given day, ten daj's or a fortnight beting usually allowed in the writs, and then they must attend from day to day, even from hour to hour, until their names were called at the door of the chamber. According to the circum- stances they were to appear " in proper person," or, if allowed in the writ, they might appear by proxy or attorney. Litigants were likely to appear in person at the first sitting, and then with the permission of the court leave the matter to attorneys. In all civil suits the parties were required to make full submission to the court, in alto et basso. This was deemed essential, for one could hardly be bound without his own consent to an extra-legal pro- cedure. Once it was declared that without a submission the trial could not go on.' The final award was likely to be made expressly on the ground of such a submission. Petitioners often expressed their willingness to submit to the council, and sometimes offered bonds as high as £5000.^ Thus no exception could afterwards be taken to the jurisdiction of the court. The case was opened with the reading of the bill, or its equivalent, and then if desired an adjournment was taken. The pleadings followed. In this fea- ture there was a gradual change from the oral pleadings of the first half of the fourteenth century to the written pleadings afterwards elaborated. The council was slower than the courts of common law to change to written pleadings, and then it adopted the methods of the civil law in the answer, replication, duplication, triplication, etc., which like certain other features of equitable procedure are noticed first in the courts of conamon law.' Still, oral pleadings in the older style continued into the reign of Richard II.* The object of each plea was to defeat the claim of an opponent on grounds independent of its truth. It was likely to present an exception, rarely a demurrer. In contrast to the method of the common law the aim of the pleadings was to reduce the issue, rather than join the issue. The great danger of this form of argument was prolixity, such as became the scandal of the admiralty and the later court of chancery. But the council was suc- cessful in keeping its proceedings within reasonable bounds. Replications, which were restricted in their scope to the matter already outlined, were infrequent, while duplications and triplications were almost unknown.^ A variant of the traditional practice is seen in the method of reducing the claims of the parties to a series of articles, in which each claim and answer are dealt with singly.^ After the pleadings, the matter in dispute was put to proof according to the needs of the case. Most often this consisted of an examination of the charters, letters, and other writings which the parties were required to bring. The record of any court, or an exemplification, 1 Col. Close Rolls, 40 Edw. Ill, p. 238. ' They are mentioned in Nicolas, ii, 2 Ibid. 51 Edw. Ill, p. 547. 295. ' See Britton, i, 142; I'ear Books, 1 » Cal. Close RoUs, 40 Edw. Ill, pp. and 2 Edw. II, p. 57. 302-305. * E. g. Suit of John Cheyne, The King's Council, p. 513. Xlii CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL could be brought in by vrrh of certiorari. Juries were never directly em- ployed; if the verdict of a jurj- was required, a writ of inquisition was issued to a sheriff. Witnesses were usually not necessary, but were cited and examined whenever wanted. If more searching means were necessarj', the parties and witnesses were put under oath to tell the truth, and then were subjected to an inquisitorial examination, a method that will be dis- cussed in connexion with criminal trials. By such means, it will be seen, the council and the chancerj- were peculiarlj- well fitted for eliciting e\n- dence in the equitable cases of trusts and verbal agreements, which were quite elusive to the methods of the common law. In criminal trials the defendant was required to come in person and answer the charges, which w^ere most likely not known to him in advance. He was of course not allowed the advantage of counsel, and he might or might not be faced wnth his accusers. If he did not immediately confess or satisfactorily explain the charges, he was put to the method known as the interrogaton*- examination. This was an acknowledged feature of the civil and canonical law, which in its extreme form was pursued by the church especially but not exclusively in heresy trials. It was a method that was creeping into secular practice, in the courts of king's bench and common pleas, as early as the reign of Edward I.' Sometimes it was administered out of court, by juries examining witnesses, and in one instance a prelimi- nary' examination, having been conducted by certain clergy-men, was made to ser\'e instead of an indictment.^ In the reign of Edward II, a plaintiff alleged that he had not been duly summoned; the summoners were then haled to court and examined ; of one of them it is said that he was sworn and examined by the justices.' As it appears in the beginning, there is not the slightest ground for the current belief that the practice was instituted by the chancellors, however much they made use of it at a later time. In the hands of the council the interrogatorj- method can be observed in such cases as Rex v. Gerdeston (p. 30), The Examination of Gilbert Blount (p. 33), Ughtred v. Musgrave (p. 59), and others. As practically administered the examinations were of several kinds or degrees, according to the nature of the case and the advancement of the art of questioning. (1) In c'\\\\ cases, also in criminal cases of forgery, counterfeiting and the like, there was an examination consisting of an inspection of documents, a comparison of records, a scrutiny of seals, coins, etc. In such matters the clerks of the chancerj' were the acknowledged experts. Likewise persons before the court were examined in order to ascertain whether they were minors, deaf mutes, madmen or lepers. (2) Then there was a mild form of interrogation, later known as ore tenus, wherein no oath or means of constraint was applied, which was intended merely to elicit a confession or secure certain information. This ' Abb. PUic. pp. 246, 293, 330, 331, etc. » Year Books, 1 and 2 Edw. II, p. 19. ' Ibid. p. 345. INTRODUCTION xHii was often forthcoming when the person without severity was " spoken to " or " reasoned with." It was a severer form when the parties, defendants, plaintiffs, and even witnesses were put under oath or otherwise solemnly- charged to tell the truth and answer whatever might be asked of them. It was a powerful weapon in the hands of the court, entirely averse to the common law, that could thus question a defendant and require him to incriminate himself. Whenever several co-defendants or witnesses were e.xamined in turn separately, as in Esturmy v. Courtenay (p. 79), any con- tradictions or discrepancies in the testimony would easily be noticed. The admissions or confession of any one could of course be used as information against the others. The questions were not necessarily prepared in ad- vance, but were asked informally and adapted to the pliability of the witness. The aim at all times was to extort confessions, without which a condemnation might bo of questionable validity. (3) By a still stricter method, taken over bodily from the church, a set of questions based upon the allegations in hand was carefully prepared in advance. These were propounded to the witness singly and his answers recorded. The case of The Chamberlains v. Chesterfield in 1366 ' is an early example of the written questions and answers, while the Bedford Riot (p. 10-i) in 1439 affords the most perfect illustration that we have of the kind. The questions were elaborated and propounded by the court, never, so far as appears, by the parties to one another. They were put by the chancellor, or whoever was presiding at the moment. As was true of other features of extraordinary procedure, the interroga- tory examinations were not the exclusive possession of the council and the chancery. The same method was applied, though not frequently, in the king's bench, in the exchequer, and even in parliament.- But what was elsewhere an exceptional expedient, became the common practice of the council. With some inconsistency, parliament objected to the examinations as a subversion of the law of the land, making special criticism of the fact that they were held without record or entry.' At the same time parliament did much to encourage the system in individual cases, and even legiti- matized it in certain statutory offences. This was probably the intent of the Act 8 Ric. II on false records, wherein the king and council were au- thorized to proceed " after the manner and form that seemed to them reasonable." The Statute 13 Hen. IV on riots granted that offenders should be " put to answer " and punished by the king and council. Again the Statute 8 Edw. IV on liveries pennitted all the courts to proceed " as well by examination as by trial." Seldom if ever were the examinations carried on in full council. The method was peculiarly well adapted to committees which were constantly > Cal. Close Rolls, 39 Edw. Ill, p. 114. ' E. g. the case of the bishop of Exeter in 1351 {Rot. Part, ii, 245), and of Ralph Ferrers in 1380 (ibid, iii, 93). ' Ibid, iv, 84. xliv CASES BEFORE THE KING's COUNCIL emploj'ed for such work. There was as yet no sj'stem of appointing com- mittees, much less were there any standing committees. Under the elastic organization of the council it was not required that more than four be in attendance for matters of minor concern; often there were but three. But on occasion it was expressly given to " some of the council " to make an examination of the question in hand and report their findings. The com- mittees might be named by the king, but sometimes they were deputed by the council itself. Once in considering the claims of alien prisoners the council found itself too busy to go into the evidence, and so committed the matter to a bishop and a lajTuan for inspection and examination.' On another occasion the council agreed to act in accordance with the report of its committee.^ In Legal v. Wodeward (p. 92), a case pertaining to the king's revenues, the inquiry was given to the treasurer and barons of the exchequer, who returned the certification here given at length. In the Frauncej's case two examiners went to a private house where the witness lay sick.' In imitation of the professional examiners employed by the church, there were in the chancery certain clerks mentioned as regular " examiners." ■• No examiner however in the council appears before the time of the Tudors. In spite of the fact that the interrogatories were anti- pathetic to the common law, they were persistently given to judges to administer whenever judicial questions were involved, until complaint was made in parliament that they were thus being kept from their regular work of hearing pleas. One other mode of delegation adopted by the council from the common law was by writ of dedimus potestatem,^ whereby an examination or any other function of the court might be performed at a distance. The com- missioners were likely to be local men not otherwise connected with the court. The method had its advantages but encouraged the e\ils peculiar to affidavits. So far as the records shew it was sparingly used by the coun- cil,^ but cultivated extensively by the later court of chancery. With all these agencies of assistance, in most cases all that remained was a final hearing or " rehearsal " of the matter before the council. Unless there was need of deliberation, the trial was speedily brought to a conclu- sion. Everj'thing, so far as possible, was reduced to writing, and in the longer cases an orderly record or engrossment was made of the entire pro- ceedings. Points for debate were few and easily singled out. The coun- cillors were finally asked for their opinions (senteniiae), and on the most formal occasions these were required of the lords individually. There was no rule as j'et in favour of beginning with the lowest rank. The judges, when asked for their advice, gave it jointly. It was a rule repeatedly ' Nicolas, i, 190. ' Ibid. 3 and 4 Edw. II, pp. 151, 191; » Ibid. 192. 12-13 Edw. Ill, p. 182. • The King's Council, p. 519. • E. g. Nicolaa, ii, 288; vi, 271. « Year Books, 3 Edw. II, p. 109. INTRODUCTION xlv enacted that the majority (major pars) should decide. Before a final decree was reached, in all c Bracton, fo. 298, 415 b, 427 b, 428 b. firms Pollock and Maitland's interpretar Pollock and Maitland, i, 444. See also tion of " donee terrae fuerint communes " Bracton's Note Book (Ed. F. W. Maitland, as against that of Coke, / Inst. 129 b. 1887) ii, case 110. The phrase used by See PoUock and Maitland, i, 445 n. Bracton in stating a similar case on fo. " See n. 1, p. xlvii. 415 b, " donee terrae et regna communia ' See Did. Nat. Biog. The commission extiterint actio talibus denegatur," con- is given in Cal. Pal. Rolls, p. 311. 1 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL contain four cases in which he is accused of perverting justice. That his conduct must have been exceptionally scandalous is to be inferred from the fact that the fine imposed upon him, the huge sum of £2,100, was third in order of magnitude of those exacted from the ten principal delinquents.^ After this time he ceased to be employed as a judge. Two other persons mentioned in this bill of complaint also appear in the above-mentioned State Trials. Hugh le Taylour files a complaint against Sir John de Wotton,* who had been sheriff of Wilts in 1281, and his complaint is successful.* It is not a violent inference that, assuming the story told by Taylor in the present case to be true, Wotton's conduct was prompted by personal ani- mosity. The local names suggest that the complainant and defendant may have been neighbours. Wotton is, it is true, a not uncoirmion place- name. But it happens that the place of that name in Wiltshire, known as Wotton-Basset, is only ten miles from Wanborough, where Sir John seized some of the complainant's chattels. Of the nominal plaintiff, John de Tauy, in the proceedings of which Taylor complains, we hear nothing, except that he was the stalking-horse employed by Rochester. An exe- cution was levied on Taylor's lands for the large sum of £40. The demand, indeed, was for £50 and, inasmuch as Taylor alleges that there were other goods to satisfj' the claim, it is not clear why the sheriff's bailiff elected to commit an illegality by seizing the beasts of plough while neglecting to realize the sum sued for. At any rate, it is alleged that, although the law forbade the seizure of beasts of plough, and even laid upon justices in eyre the duty of inquiring into statutory offences of this kind, Rochester, him- self a justice in eyre, sanctioned these proceedings. The plaintiff estimates Ms losses at £22. A comparison of his figures, unfortunately incomplete, with those of the prices of stock published by Thorold Rogers in his History of Agriculture and Prices shews that his estimates erred on the side of moderation. Of the offence of maintenance, with which Rochester is charged, a common mode of oppression in the Miildle Ages, enough is said in the notes. It long survived the fines and penalties inflicted by the retributive justice of King Edward I. VALENCE V. BISHOP OF WORCESTER 1294 The case of William of Valence against Godfrey GifTard, bishop of Worcester, is one of those thought by Hale worthy of transcription into his MS. collection. It has this feature of interest among others, that it was heard by the king and council when the court was at Estry, near Sandwich, Kent, in 1294. The protagonists were personages of the first rank, the ' State Trials of Edward I (1906), p. * The venue was in the neighbouring xxxviii. county of Hants. Stale Trials, App. ii, • Printed Wocton, an obvious misread- pp. 198, 199. ing easily intelligible to the paUcographcr. INTRODUCTION U plaintiff being, on his mother's side, the king's uncle and the bishop chan- cellor of the exchequer. At first sight, too, the conflict of jurisdictions threatened a serious collision between church and state. The bailiff of Valence's manor of Inkberrow, Worcestershire, having with the assistance of others arrested a robber, the bishop demanded the surrender of the prisoner on the ground that he had been taken within the liberty of the bishop's Hundred of Oswaldslow. Upon refusal by the bailiff, the bishop with that surprising levity which is peculiarly medieval, attempted to enforce his temporal claims by the spiritual thunders of the church, and excommunicated the captors. The excommunication was issued on 29th July, following hard upon an inquisition held by the bishop at Hartlebury on the previous day. The crown at once resented the vindication of temporal jurisdiction by spiritual censures as an invasion of its prerogative. In little more than a fortnight a royal prohibition was served upon the bishop, while Valence's bailiff appealed to the Court of Arches for relief from the excommunication. The Court of Arches, before which the case came in November, appears to have regarded the dispute as one affecting temporal jurisdiction, which it was, and annulled the excommunication. Upon the point of jurisdiction the bishop thought it wise to tender his sub- mission. The council, in the proceedings of which the king is stated to have taken part, heard the case in the following Januaiy. It emphasized as the bishop's capital offence his invocation of the spiritual power. For this affront to the crown the king's attorney claimed a penalty of ten thousand marks, besides compensation to William of Valence and his bailiff. Final judgment on these minor points was reserved till the following Easter. CITIZENS OF LONDON v. BISHOP OF BATH 1295 The petitions of the citizens of London complaining of the acts of William de la Marche, the late treasurer of the exchequer, form a contribu- tion to the history of the city at a critical period. The events here described relate to the years between 1285 and 1298, when after a suspension of its charters the city was said to be in the king's hand. Just as had happened on similar occasions before, most notably between 1265 and 1270, and again in 1273, a warden (custos) was appointed by the king in place of the mayor, and, it might be, king's bailiffs were set up instead of the local sheriffs. Under these conditions the fiscal administration, and therefore to a con- siderable extent the practical control of the city, devolved upon the king's treasurer* and the officials of the exchequer who are now attacked. In a way the petitions remind us of the state trials held in 1290,^ when the ' It was John of Kirkby the former into the king's hand. Ann. London. (Rolls treasurer who was said to have taken the Ser.), 94. mayoralty and the Uberties of the city ' Slate Trials of Edward I (Roy. Hist. See, Camden Ser.). lii CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL people were asked to make any complaints that they might have against the conduct of the king's officers. In the trials of that day, involving many judges and other ministers, only one officer of the exchequer was accused. The present petitions on the contrary bear wholly upon the conduct of the treasurer and the administration of the exchequer. Although we are not told, it is probable that on this occasion the citizens were invited to make their complaints, and that an mtimation was given that their petitions would be heard. With reference to the trials just mentioned a proclama- tion to this effect had been issued in 1289,' and again in 1307 Edward II encouraged the people to make their complaints against the deposed treasurer Walter of Langton,* directing that their petitions should be put into writing and delivered to a clerk especially deputed to receive them. Some such method, we can see, was followed in the compilation of the present record, which consists of as many as fourteen separate bills that have been brought together and transcribed by one or two clerks in a single roll. The work was not quite finished, for according to the clerks' note at the end one of the bills is lacking, and elsewhere in the parchment spaces have been left imfilled. There is still another petition of complaint against the ex-treasurer, which found its way into the Rolls of Parliament.' The engrossment of the petitions leaves no doubt that there was an in- tention of giving them formal consideration, but any hopes that may have been raised of a new series of state trials were doomed to disappointment. Whether because more urgent business took up the attention of the council, or because a reform in the methods of the exchequer was not desired, the petitions of the citizens were never given an answer. We should like to have had judgments upon the charges, but even as they stand they are not lacking in value for voicing the prevailing opinion of the Londoners, especially when the abuses mentioned arc corroborated from other sources. As to the complaints in particular, the first charge of the citizens is that they had been in certain cases impleaded outside the walls of the city, con- trary to one of their best established liberties. This was a right that even under a suspension of the charters they were still recognized as holding. By the letters of his appointment the warden had been commanded " to guard and govern the citizens according to their customs and liberties." This duty, as the citizens themselves acknowledge, the warden performed in challenging the act of the treasurer who was alleged to have impleaded Osborn le Leuer for Ids free tenement outside the city. There arc many evidences that the government took particular care not to offend the citizens on this point. Now the allegation of Osborn le Leuer that he was thus impleaded is open to doubt in the light of a record of this same plea in the Letter-books.' It there appears that in 1292 Osborn was the plain- » Cal. Close Rolls, 17 Ed. I, 55. ' Petition of Geoffrey Say, Rol. Pari, i, * H. T. Riley, Memorials of London 467. (1868), i, 63. • Cal. Letter-books (Ed. Sharpe), C 9, 74. INTRODUCTION lui tiff against William de la Marche as Dean of St. Martin's, who as an officer of the exchequer claimed that he could not be impleaded outside of the exchequer. And so by the king's command the case was given to the treasurer and barons of the exchequer, wherein, it is true, William de la Marche was in the anomalous position of being both judge and party. Thus we arc confirmed in the suspicion that some of the charges were overdrawn and recklessly made. It was not the king's intention to supersede the local courts, but to permit them to continue imdcr their customary form. The mayor's court appears to have been taken over by the warden,^ the court of Husting was assembled in the Gildhall on Monday and Tuesday of each week,^ and the court of the sheriffs ' was wont to be held under the presidency of one sheriff in alternation with the other. The particular complaint against the existmg regime is that the business of these courts had been largely drawn away from them. This happened in two ways. First there were the judicial commissions, which it was the king's plan to extend into the city without hindrance. It was over this issue indeed that the liberties of the city had been suspended in the first place. After a series of riots and flagrant cases of gaol breaking in 1285, Edward sent forth a commission to hold inquisitions in the Tower, and when the mayor and aldermen dis- puted the right of the commission to hale the citizens before them except after forty days' warning, the king seized upon the pretext for taking over the mayoralty.'" Henceforth commissions of oyer and terminer, gaol deliverj^ and the hke were issued with frequency. The king did not fail to recognize the ability of the Londoners in appointing them to his commis- sions, and endeavoured to make these serve the interests of the city. A commission in 1290 was empowered to hear all pleas which the people might desire to bring against the king's bailiffs and ministers." But what the citizens resented the most, according to their fifth petition (p. 10), was the drawing of pleas of all kinds into the exchequer. To obviate the neces- sity of impleading the citizens beyond the walls, the exchequer was re- moved in 1289 from Westminster to the Husting,'^ where it was held more or less of the time that the city was in hand. Now the tendency of the exchequer to expand its function in the direction of hearing pleas had long been noticed and attempts had been made to check it. The Statute of Rhuddlan, 12 Edw. I, declared that pleas should be held in the exchequer only in such matters as especially concern the king and the officers of the exchequer. In spite of tliis and other similar acts the restrictions were ' There is the following mention of the '" Ann. London. 93. warden's court in 21 Ed. I. Allocatur " Cal. Pal. Rolls, pp. 397, etc. custodiLondon'cognitioplacitijuxtacartas " By an ordinance cited in Madox, regis Henrici patris regis. Abb. Plac. 289. Hist, of Exch. (2nd ed.), ii, 9. It was not ' Cal. Wills in the Court of Husting (ed. here all the time, for it is mentioned as Sharpe, 1889), Introd. sitting at Westminster in 1292. Cal. • ROey, Memorials, i, 27, 29. Letter-books, C 9. liv CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL either ignored or evaded by legal fictions. In some of the examples before us, we can see the pretexts upon which these actions were taken. John Bone (p. 17) had made a recognizance on record in the exchequer of his debt to Adam of Stratton. After Stratton had been convicted of crime and his property confiscated, all debts due to him fell to the crown, and Bone was called before the treasurer to answer for the debt. Again Ralph Sansauver (p. 16) was bound by certain covenants of military service to William of Brewes; presumably Brewes was under obligations of military service to the king, so that the exchequer was induced to enforce a debt due to a debtor of the king. In the case of Roger Paw (p. 13) it is alleged that a merchant whose wool had been confiscated by the king straightway sued his agents for the money spent in purchasing it. A reason for the distrust of the exchequer in this regard is expressed in the fifth petition, that the actions " are commenced by bill and not by writ of the king." A court that proceeded only by writ was imder the control of the common law, but a court that could proceed upon a suitor's petition was under no such restraint. This was the kind of authority that was granted to the itinerant justices, not in all cases but at least in cases of very poor people." It was an authority later grasped by the chancellor, and was always the distinctive power of the king's council. But no such position was con- ceded to belong to the exchequer. There was a prolonged struggle before the exchequer was forced to release its hold upon pleas belonging to the common law.'* In the Ordinances 5 Ed. II, c. 25, it was declared that pleas in the exchequer should be limited to those affecting the king and the officers of the exchequer, their attendants, and servants, and any parties wrongly impleaded might have recovery in parliament. The reason for suitors desiring to collect their debts through processes of the exchequer is seen especially in its free use of the power of distraint. No complaint of the time is more often repeated than that against exces- sive distraints, by which for a petty debt to the king or another a party might in a moment be deprived of all or much of his property. Thus ac- cording to the allegation of John of Gisors (p. 9), because he was unwill- ing to submit to the jurisdiction of the exchequer over a free tenement in the city, he was by this means forced to make peace with his opponent. The citizens of London argued that since it was one of their liberties to deraign themselves in pleas of the crown, so they should be permitted to clear themselves of distraints issuing from the exchequer. To check the abuse there were many acts of legislation like the following: On producing a tally of payment, distress shall cease; distress shall be reasonable after the value of the debt, not outrageous; distress for the king's debts shall not be made up of beasts of the plow, so long as one may find other, and " Bolland, BilU in Eyre (Selden Soc, " A significant extract from the Plea 1914). Roll, 33 Ed. I, is given in The King's Council, p. 219. INTRODUCTION Iv over-great distress shall not be taken; if a debtor can find surety until a day before the time limited, the distress shall be released in the meantime.'* Other charges, that touch upon the recognized abuses of the exchequer, need merely be mentioned. A man is held to accoimt for what he is not legally an accountant (Pier of Tadcaster and Pier Jacob, p. 10) ; there is faUure to give acquittance or allowance for actual expenditures (Henry le Bole, p. 11); the treasurer and barons are sometimes too busy to receive accounts (Pier Jacob, p. 11); the property of wards was exploited and ex- cessive relief demanded (John of Erley, p. 14); imprisonment for debt might go on indefinitely, sometimes for personal vengeance (Gerard Mauhan, p. 15); purveyance of horses, armour, beer and other articles without compensation was only a form of confiscation (William of Here- ford, p. 16, Richard the Brewer, p. 17, etc.). In all these charges against Wilham de la Marche it is noticeable that in only one case is he accused of taking things for his own use (WilUam Savage, p. 15). As to the revenues, it was understood that the suspension of civic liberties was an opportunity for special fines and taxes levied directly upon the people. " It is an evil thing," a chronicler exclaims, " to fall into the hands of the king. So beware ! " '* In the king's desperate straits for money, the merits of the system depended upon his success in thus enlarging his revenues. He met with practical difficulties however in collecting the sums demanded. On his return from Gascony in 1289, there was a present of £1000 which the citizens offered by way of curtesy. The money was to be levied by poU, but many of the inhabitants were reported to be so poor that they could only give pledges for future payment, and these pledges were afterwards sold for what they would fetch." When Edward came to London again in 1290, the sum had shrunk to 1000 marks. The ingenuity of the treasurer brought forth a claim to £1000 of a debt in arrear from the reign of King John. The fine of 20,000 marks here mentioned held over from the reign of Henry III ** and was being paid in driblets from time to time. In 1291 the conmion council proposed to borrow 20 s. from the wealthy in each ward, to present to the king and council, with a view to the recovery of the city's franchises and in respect of the account of the 20,000 marks. In 1292 the sum of £383 8 s. 5 d. was allowed.'^ At this rate a large part of the sum remained unsatisfied in 1302, when the king commuted it for £1000.^ In 1294 money must be had for the war with France, and £2000 foimd in St. Paul's Church was appropriated .^^ But the ferm of £400 a year, the citizens tell us, was raised with difficulty be- cause the sources from which it was derived had diminished. Customs on " Stat. West. 1st, c. 32; Slat. Marlherg. " Chrrni. Ed. I and Ed. II (Rolls Ser.), c. 1; Artie, super Cart., 28 Ed. I, c. 12; i, 98. Statutes of the Realm, i, 97; Rot. Pari. " Ann. London, p. 70. i, 35, 79; Britton (Ed. F. M. Nichols), " Cal. Letter-books, C 4, 7, etc. i, 89. • '» Cal. Pat. Rolh, 30 Ed. I, p. 74. " Ann. London, p. 70. =' Ann. Dunst. (Rolls Ser.), iii, 390. Ivi CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL merchandise had fallen off because of the war with France. No regular incomes were offered as a substitute, except fines and donations. The king's government of the city had its merits, but finance was its weakness. The aldennen and merchants, upon whom the success of the sj'stem de- pended, were against it, and, as their joint petition suggests (p. 10), were assiduous in demanding the restoration of their franchised estate. The first sign of failure came with the dismissal of the treasurer. Al- ready in 1294 there was an expression of royal displeasure in a reprimand administered to the treasurer for not obeying an order of the king to per- mit a widow to have the goods and chattels of her husband for forty days, as she should by law and custom."^ It is commonly said that his fall was occasioned by the extreme measures taken in collecting the subsidies of 1294. Archbishop Winchelsca complained of his sacrilege in seizing treas- ure of the churches, and the king answered that he had not ordered it but the treasurer had done it of his own motion.-' This may have been the immediate occasion,^'' but the disaffection of the citizens of London bringing about the failure of one of the kmg's best calculated plans must be reckoned as one of the contributory causes. The minister paid a large sum of money to win back the royal favour, but though he was permitted to hold his bishopric and to attend parliament as a lord spiritual, he was never again entrusted with public office or asked to serve on a commission. The dearest wish of the Londoners that the king would restore to them their franchises was not inmicdiatcly granted. For three years more Edward continued his experiment of holding the city under a warden but with the restlessness of the citizens and new manifestations of disaffection ■on the part of the aldermen, the experiment was at length given up. In 1298 in return for a gift of 2000 marks the king restored the mayoralty and all liberties of the city as freelj' and entirely as they had been on the day of his taking them away.^' THE BISHOP OF SABINA v. BEDEWYNDE 1307 The suit of the Bishop of Sabina v. Bedeinjnde,^ testing the claims of a papal provisor, throws Ught on a subject that has not been sufficiently in- vestigated. There are the helpful works of Haller,^ Baier,' and Mollat,* but these are concerned with the problem of provisions as found on the Continent rather than in England. Stubbs has a section which deals almost " Col. CI. Rolls, 22 Ed. I, p. 368. ' In the treatment of this subject I have *» Rishanger (Rolls Scr.), 473. been given much as.sistance by Professor " The date of his removal is not known, W. E. Lunt of Ilavcrford College. but it must have been prior to these ' J. UaWcr, I'apsUumundKirchenreform petitions in August. Ills successor was (1903). appointed 28 Sept. Cal. Pat., 23 Ed. I, ' U. Baier, Papslliche Provisumen bis p. 149. zum Jahrc ISO.', (1911). » Birch, Hist. Charters, p. 43. * G. Mollat, Lcs Papes d'Aiignon (1912). INTRODUCTION Ivii entirely with bishoprics,' whereas the principal part of the problem lies with a multitude of minor places in the church. How many of these were involved at any time, we have little statistical information. Can we rightly estimate the number from the demand of Pope Gregory IX, as reported by Matthew of Paris, that he should have the disposal of as many as 300 benefices in England ? * Are we to take at its face value the complaint of the barons made at the first council of Lyons, that Italians were holding benefices in the country to the value of 60,000 marks a year?^ Or is the promise of Innocent IV that he would confer no more than twelve benefices in England,' a better guide to the practical extent of the problem ? But it is not the extent of papal provisions so much as the nature of the rights in dispute, bringing about a conflict of church and state, that is now sug- gested for consideration. Out of the mass of correspondence that passed between England and Rome during the thirteenth century, it is not always easy to discover the groimds upon which the papacj' based its claims in the matter of provisions. For in most cases the pope advanced no positive claim to a benefice but preferably requested it for his own nominee, urging his need of support and appealing to a sense of duty, sometimes threatening those who opposed him. That is, the papal rights were extended by moral and political pres- sure more than by legal right. But out of the manifold contentions, there emerge the following guiding principles. 1. The power of the pope, and therefore the peculiar problem of pro- visions, pertained only to benefices in the gift of the clergy. Gregory IX acknowledged this in a letter in 1239 to the English barons, whereby he confirmed the rights of lay patrons to their benefices, at the same tune re- voking a provision that he had made affecting a lay patron.' It is not clear whether this limitation was a voluntary act on the part of the pope, and therefore of canonical validity, or whether it was a concession of the moment to meet the demands of the barons. At all events, the restriction was recognized, if not by canon law, certainly in the courts of common law and in general was practically operative.'" Even within these limits, as the cases before us will show, the interests of lay patrons were seriouslj^ affected, so that it was the barons more than the clergy who opposed the papal demands. 2. The death of an incumbent in the curia at Rome, possibly of a pilgrim on the way to Rome, left his benefice to be filled by the pope and the pope ' Const. Hist, iii, § 384. nostra conferantur. Matthew Paris (Rolls » Matthew Paris, Chron. itiai. (Rolls Ser.), iii, 613; Potthast, Regesla, § 10835. Ser.), iv, 32. '° A parson, it is here pointed out, might ' Ibid, iv, 441-44. be in one of three ways, presentation, col- ' Ibid. 518; Burton, iii, 169. lation or provision; in this case it was ' Intentionis nostrae non fuerit nee " not by provision, for they are lay pa- existat, ut beneficia in regno Angliae con- trons." Year Books (Selden Soc.) 4-5 Ed. stituta, quae ad praesentationem perti- II, § 57. nent saecularium patronorum, auctoritate Iviii CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL alone. This was afiirmed by a decretal in 1265, which sanctioned it as an ancient custom of the church.'' The claim was extended by Boniface VIII to include benefices voided at the apostolic see, whether by death or any other cause.'- It was the claim most frequently asserted by Boniface VIII, who applied it in thirty-nine cases, including that to the treasurership of York, which will presently be argued. 3. The incumbency of a curial, that is, an officer of the papal court, was also put forward as ground for a reservation and the provision of the next incumbent.'^ This claim was energetically resisted in England, to the effect that on more than one occasion promise was given that an Italian should not succeed an Italian to any benefice. But since a curial was likely to die at Rome, it was easy to provide one Italian after another to the same benefice indefinitely, basing the right to do so on other ground. 4. The promotion of a clerk often left the voided benefice to be pro- vided to by the pope. This was based on the argument that in the transla- tion of bishops, a practice of recent growth, only papal authority could loose the tie that bound one to the church of his consecration.'"' It was then the duty and privilege of the pope not to leave the divorced church unconsoled. Likewise in regard to lesser officers, if the pope was concerned in their promotion, there was ground for a provision to the vacated bene- fice.'* 5. Also the resignation of a clerk, giving up his benefice spontaneously into the hands of the pope, was the occasion of a provision for filling it. It is obvious how the right of a lay patron might be thus superseded. More- over a lay patron might in the same manner cede his right of advowson over to the pope.'* It will readily be seen that, in spite of all theories to the contrary, the rights of the king, the greatest of lay patrons, were sure to be affected by the policy just outlined. For during the time of a vacancy of a bishopric or any church of his advowson, whenever in fact the temporaUties of a church were taken in hand, the profits of such benefices were enjoyed by the king. This right, known in France as the regale, was designated in England as part of " the dignity of the crown and the royal inheritance." A feature of this prerogative which has never been fully explained, is how the king in England, different from princes of other countries, came to assume the collations pertaining to the benefices which were for the moment in his hand. For the collation was not necessarily part of the temporaUties; " Bcneficia vacantia in curia alius visioni ejusdem reservat. Potthast, Re- quam Papa confcrrc non potest; quod si gesta, §24089; Boehmer, Corpus, ii, 1150; fecerit, irrata est collatio. Sexto Deer. Kichter, Corpus, ii, 1170. iii, tit. 4, c. 2 in Friedburg, Corpus, ii, " Baier, op. cit. 138; Potthast, § 4758. 1021. " Stubbs (5th ed.), iii, 310. " Cum beneficia ecclesiastica, quae " Matthew Paris, iv, 287. apud sedem apostolicam vacare noscuntur, " e. g. the Earl of Surrey mentioned personis conferri debcnt idoncis, ilia pro- below, n. 54. INTRODUCTION lix at least it might have been claimed as a spiritual function and then it would have reverted to a clerical authority. Madox," who has assembled much material on the rights of the king over vacant bishoprics, has said nothing on this point. Yet the power was well established in the thirteenth cen- tury. In 1234 a case was heard that tested the right of the crown in a question of this kind.'^ The bishop-elect of Hereford, having been duly confirmed by the archbishop of Canterbury, on the same day conferred a prebend pertaining to the bishopric on a candidate of his own choice. But the king, having learned that the former holder had died while the tem- poralities of the bishopric were still in hand, bestowed the prebend upon another candidate. The bishop argued in the king's court that he had found the place vacant, and so he could and ought to fill it. But it was the judgment of the court, concurred in by the archbishop of Canterbury and other bishops in attendance, that the king's donation was undoubtedly vaUd, although they could point to no custom, and no such case had been heard of before." The case is important for setting an exact precedent for the claim afterwards made in the case of the Bishop of Sabiyia v. Bede- wynde, although the pope was not then involved and other complications of the later case were lacking. In the reign of Edward I the question of provisors became a pressing one, but there was lacking at first any firm policy in dealing with it. Be- tween the alternatives of accepting or rejecting the papal candidates the king seemed to vacillate, according as he was moved by desire of the friend- ship of the pope, or constrained by his barons to oppose him. In 1290 with the support of his barons Edward sent a letter to the pope complaining of abuses in the matter of " collations and executions" in the churches of York and Lincoln tending to the disinheritance of the crown.^" But the answer of Nicholas IV, admonishing him not to invade the liberties and rights of the church,^' was received without protest. Again in 1295 Edward writes to Boniface VIII, who has asked for two prebends in the church of York, that he is desirous out of reverence for the pope of carrying the matter into effect, so far as may be done without disinheritance of the crown .^^ At the same time the king is seeking a reciprocal favour for his relative Theobald of Bar bishop-elect of Metz.^' But the king was capable of asserting the rights of the crown with greater vigour. During the vacancy of the see of York, occasioned by the death of Archbishop Romein in 1296, Edward conferred the prebend of Masham upon his clerk John of Drockensford, who was inducted and held possession for two years. Then on grounds " Hist, of Eich. ch. x, § 3. (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 458), and to Amaury de " Red Book of Exch. (Rolls Ser.), ii, Montfort in 1265 for the same reason 765. (ibid. 404). " There are many examples of the use '" Fcedera, R. i, 740; O. ii, 493. of this power subsequently, e. g., in 1256 '' Ibid. O. ii, 494; further correspon- the king granted to John Mansel the treas- dence, 526, 530. urership of the church of York, then in « Cal. CI. Rolls, 23 Ed. I, p. 450. hand because of the voidance of the see ^ Ibid., 25 Ed. I, p. 97. Ix CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL not clearly explained, John de Colonna claimed the prebend as a papal reservation and provision, showing a mandate to the Aixhbishop of Tours to induct him.^^ The king wrote to the archbishop of Tours inhibiting him from attempting anything of the kind, and by further letters to Rome asked for the revocation of the provision in question. " Even if the king should submit," he said at last, " or permit it to pass, the magnates of his realm, who are boimd by homage and fealty to defend his dignity and crown, would not allow his right thus to perish."-^ The provision is not heard of again. A similar issue, arising out of the claims of rival candidates to the prebend of Stillington in the diocese of York, came to a judicial hear- ing in 1304.2* Different from the case of 1234, the right of the pope was at this time involved. By reason of the vacancy of the see after the death of Archbishop Newerk in 1299, the king granted the prebend of Stillington and the chapel of St. Marj-'s to John Bush a clerk of the royal household.^' Almost simultaneously on the ground of a voidance of the prebend created at the court of Rome, Pope Boniface VIII provided it to his nephew Francis Gaetano, who apparently held possession during the four succeeding years.^ After a vain attempt to secure the pope's favour toward John Bush, Ed- ward began the vindication of his own right by a command to Archbishop Corbridge to admit and induct the clerk into the aforesaid benefices. The archbishop answered that he could not and ought not to do this against the act of the pope, whereupon the king called him by writ quare non ad- misit to answer for contempt before his justices. Since there was no one who dared to act as his attorney, the archbishop answered in person, re- peating what he had said before that the act was an act of the pope. The court pronounced hun undefended and seized the temporahties of the see into the king's hand. Sad and worn the archbishop departed and died soon after. The same process was then begun against the dean and chapter, who in fear of the king's wrath admitted the clerk to the chapel but held the prebend in suspense. By dint of letters inhibiting Francis Gaetano from attempting anything to the injury of the crown, and by prohibiting John Bush from answering a citation from Rome,^^ the clerk was main- tained in possession of the prebend of Stillington until 1310, and of the chapel until 1316. In this case, although the rights of the pope were in question, the contention was carried on not by the pope but by the arch- bishop. Moreover it was tried not before the council but before the justices by a process of common law. The next case, the Bishop of Sabina v. Bedewyndc, was initiated in flie Parliament of Carlisle, which met in January, 1307. Here the strongest sentiments against the papal policy heard for a generation were boldly " Ibid, 2(1 Ed. I, p. 223, also p. 292. " Cal. Pat. Ilolh, p. 512. " Il.id, 27 Ed. I, p. 309. " I^ Neve, Fasli, iii, 212. " Given at length in W. Hemingburgh " Cal. CI. Rolls, 34 Ed. I, p. 472; Cal. {Eng. Hist. Soc), ii, 233-34; also Abb. /'o/., 32 Ed. I, p. 227; Cal. CI. liolls, 4 Ed. Ploc. 251. II, p. 340; Cal Pap. iMlers, ii, 3. INTRODUCTION Ixi expressed. The principal grievance was annates, but there was also com- plaint of provisions. Fearful of the tendency to encroach upon their rights of advowson, laymen joined with the clergy in a protest, that " by the un- bridled multitude of provisions the collation of benefices pertaining of right to the ordinaries is taken away from them, and at length the poor nobles and learned men are excluded from ecclesiastical promotion." '" The ensuing Statute of Carlisle, although it failed to state any rule in regard to provisors, laid down a principle that has been since reiterated, that the churches of England had been founded by the king and his progenitors, and by the nobles and their ancestors, who had given their lands for the support of religion, and to them the patronage of such churches naturally belonged.^' For a specific statement on provisions we look not to any act of legislation but to the case before us concerning the treasurership of York. Now the church of St. Peter's, York, more than any other church in England had been thrown into the hands of papal provisors. Since 1296, when the dean Henry of Newerk was promoted to be archbishop, the deanery was disputed between Cardinal Francis Gaetano a papal provisor and William Hamilton the choice of the chapter.^^ But on this question the pope in the end gave way. It was different with the treasurership, which had been held since 1287 by John of Colonna until he was removed by Boniface VIII in 1296. The voidance of the treasurership happened during the vacancy of the see, but the king did not immediately claim his right to the collation, and the pope provided it to Theobald of Bar, a relative of the king wholly welcome to him. It was not until after Theo- bald had resigned in 1303, and the pope had named another candidate, Francis Gaetano, that the validity of these appointments was brought into question. On 1 November, 1306, the king formally appointed Walter Bedewynde a clerk of the exchequer to be treasurer of York, and com- manded the archbishop and chapter to admit him to the office.'' When the archbishop failed to obey, he was threatened with being called to answer at the Parliament of Carlisle.''' It is to be noticed in this connection that the king's right in the matter was asserted before and not after the meeting of parUament. The king first sent the matter to be heard by the council at Carlisle.'* Some discussion of it then took place, as certain letters dated 10 March give us to understand,'* but the full hearing did not take place till after- wards. In accordance with the king's writ of 26 April, as our record shows, the issue was fully stated and argued at length before the council sitting at London. The special plea of the pope's legate is that the king has lost any right to the benefice that he might have had by not exercising it within =° Rol. Pari, i, 207, 220. ^ Cal. CI. Rolls, 34 Ed. I, p. 477. " Ibid. 219; Statutes of the Realm, i, " There is a writ to this effect dated 150. 18 Feb. Rol. Pari, i, 218. '» Le Neve, iii, 122. '» Cal. Pat. Rolls, p. 511. M Cal. Fat. Rolls, p. 467. Lxii CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL the time set by canonical law. This was the law of " lapse," a canon es- tablished by the Third Council of the Lateran in 1179 to the effect that in cases of vacancy appointments shall not be held indefinitely in suspense; if the regular patron does not act within six months, the bishop of the dio- cese ma J' name a candidate; if he does not appoint, the chapter may; and if all others fail, then the metropolitan may dispose of the place." Al- though the pope is not mentioned in the canon, it probably worked in his favour. Now Theobald had held the treasurership for six years, and his successor for three years more, before any right of the crown was asserted. The plea was therefore an exception of plenarty, that is, the place was filled and the possessor should not be disturbed.'* In the king's behalf it was argued to the contrary that, however it might be with other patrons, against the rights of the crown " there is no lapse nor ought there to be." Upon this ground the case was decided, but as a statement of law it was an extreme claim for the rights of the crown, that was not maintained with- out modification later. The judgment of the council, which was dulj' enrolled and set forth in letters under the great seal, was far from being the end of the controversy over the treasurership of York, much less of the general question of pro- visions. In two or three passages of the record there are allusions to the responsibility resting upon Bedewynde of maintaining not only his own right but the rights of the crown — this he is admonished he should do " with all his might." The sequel shows that he had need of great patience and energy in contending with the ecclesiastical processes that were im- mediately begun against him. On 5 September, the pope required the archbishop to cite him for having despoiled Francis Gaetano of the treas- urership.'' Edward II endeavored to defend his clerk by requesting Pope Clement V not to carry the matter further; were the king to connive at at such proceedings, he wrote, " his nobles would not endure it." *" Still the papal processes were not discontinued. At the same time Bedewynde as a pluralist had need of a papal dispensation in order to retain the bene- fices that he was holding uncanonically.'" At one moment he seemed on the point of yielding, when the king ordered the warden of the Cinque Ports to arrest Walter Bedewynde or John Bush in case either of them should attempt to cross the sea to answer in any court outside the kingdom.''^ Thus for twenty years Bedewynde was defended by letters of protection and inhibition, but the king of England could not prevent the case being taken up in the papal court. As many as three hearings took place there, before Bedewynde died in 1328,'" pendente lite. " Hardouin, Acta Conciliorum, vi, " Cal. Pap. Letlrrs, ii, 28. 1677. " Fadcrn, R. ii, 20; O. 38. " 'J'he same plea was used in a case " Cal. I'ap. Letters, ii, 41, 62. 10 Ed. II, touching the bishop of Norwich. " Cal CI. Rolls, 4 Ed. II, p. 340. Ahh. I'lac. 325; see also Year Hook, 19 " The last reference to him aa living is Ed. Ill, 58-64. dated 12 Feb. 1328. Cal. CI. Rolls, p. 361. INTRODUCTION Ixiii Even the death of Bedewyndc was not the end of the controversy over the treasurership. Apparently the late treasurer gave up his office into the hand of the king, for in 1326 Edward II granted it to his clerk Robert Baldok'''' by reason of the voidance of the archbishopric in the time of Edward I."^ Edward III appointed William de la Mare in 1329/« while the pope appointed Cardinal Mortemart as a successor of Francis Gaetano." The aspect of the question was then entirely changed by the king's grant- ing the cardinal permission to prosecute his claim, notwithstanding any prohibition heretofore issued.''^ The king's clerk lost his case in the papal court and the church of York was placed under an interdict to enforce the decree.'" The king seemed to have abandoned his claim entirely, when in 1349 he undertook once more to grant the office which he claimed to have recovered in the court of common pleas. ^ The pope however insisted on a provision, but was wilUng to name the king's candidate, John Winwick." The king accepted the provisor on this basis. Thus a political advantage was gained by a legal defeat. This brings us to a later aspect of the problem, in which the king often secured the appointment of his own candidates by means of papal provisions. Under the temporizing policy of Edward II and Edward III papal pro- visions were permitted to increase, but it is not true to say that " up to the year 1350 the right of provision was exercised without check." ^^ As a method of saving the royal rights, according to a form begun by Edward I, the papal candidates were required to renounce anything in the pope's bulls or letters prejudicial to the crown. There was in fact a series of con- flicts and test of claims in which it is true the king did not always win. To cite a case of this sort, in 1327 King Edward III presented Geoffrey Cotes to the church of Fishlake in the diocese of York," a collation of the priory of Lewes then in hand. This appointment was met by a provision of the same church to a curial, Peter Vaurelli, on the ground that the earl of Surrey, patron of Lewes, had ceded his right to the pope." This time the king was persuaded to relinquish the defence of his candidate, by permitting Peter to prosecute his claim in ecclesiastical courts.^* In 1328 Geoffrey made complaint in parliament that while he was in peaceful possession of the church, there came Peter Vaurelli with bulls from Avignon and ousted him.^* He seems to have secured a judgment of the king's court but he « Cal. Pal., 19 Ed. II, 279. Bedewynde " Cal. Pap. Letters, ii, 316, 344. however was still called treasurer of York *' Cal. Pat., 5 Ed. Ill, p. 186. to the time of his death. " Foedera, R. ii, 849; O. iv, 541. " Another instance in which Edward '» Cal. Pal., 23 Ed. Ill, p. 355; 25 Ed. Ill claimed an appointment by virtue of III, pp. 134, 179. a vacancy so long ago as the time of his " Cal. Pap. Letters, iii, 420. grandfather is given in I'ear Books, 11-12 " Stubbs (5th ed.) iii, 324. Ed. Ill (Rolls Ser.), 654. " Cai.Po(., 1 Ed. 111,123; 2Ed.III,228. " There were the intervening appoint- " Cal. Pap. Letters, ii, 264, 317. ments of John Brabazon in 1327 and " Cal. Pat., 2 Ed. Ill, p. 315. Walter Yarwell in 1329. " Rot. Pari, ii, 20. Ixiv CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL must needs petition again, because he could not gain possession." He alleges that the ecclesiastical proceedings had been taken before the bishop of Lincoln, then the king's chancellor, who, after giving judgment un- favourably to him in the ecclesiastical court, had turned the king's writs against him. The chancellor, he said, even granted to the provisor a writ of supersedeas with the clause " notwithstanding any judgment in the king's court or prohibitions," an entkely illegal instrument. After further proceedings in the chancery the petitioner said that he had been compelled under duress to resign the church and suffer the provisor to have it. Geof- frej' was told that he might sue before the council, which would review the record, process, and judgment. But the king's presentee never recovered the church of Fishlake; on the contrary, at the request of the king himself he was induced to give it up, and was granted instead other churches with which he was apparently' satisfied.^* As the reign of Edward III advances, there is evidence of more vigour in the proceedings, both civil and criminal, against provisors. The rolls of the chancery abound in commissions to arrest provisors and all persons aiding them, who treat with contempt the king's appointments, and to bring them before the chancellor, the comicil, or the kmg's bench. The charges are of contempt toward the authority of the crown, and of making appeals to the Roman curia without license. It is not generally known that the latter was a valid charge at common law and was received by the king's courts long before the Statute of Praemunire gave it sanction. At the same time these prosecutions often failed in their effect because the king suspended the proceedings or sanctioned the ecclesiastical processes. On the other hand, opposed to the material power of the state, there was not only the great moral strength of the church; often there was physical power of resistance. For example, in 1340 the king, having presented to the church of Foston, ordered the arrest of all persons proceeding in dero- gation of his right. ^^ But a provisor had entered the church by force, wasting its tithes and profits and so threatening the servants of the king's clerk, that they dared not do what was incumbent upon them. Again in 1345, one of the king's conmiissioners reported that, after he had effected the arrest of a papal notary, a band of men fell upon him, assaulted his servants and rescued the prisoner.^" In another instance a provisor, having held possession of a church by force and anns against the king's presentee, was pardoned and delivered from prison on security for his good behavior, but he only went forth with the aid of his supporters to intrude into the church again, " whereat the king was not without reason disturbed." " In other words, provisors were gaining the support of the residents and anned men of the neighborhoods, and aggravating the disorders of the country. »' Ibid. 45. " IWd., 14 Ed. Ill, pp. 100, 102. "Cai./'a(., 4 Ed. Ill, pp. 491, 520, .'543. '" Ibid.. 19 Ed. Ill, p. 579. " Ibid., p. 583. INTRODUCTION IxV Sooner or later such a problem at law was sure to pass from petitions and suits to acts of legislation. In 1340 a concession was made to ecclesi- astical interests, when in regard to " exception of plenarty," brought for- ward in Bedewynde's case, it was agreed that the king would make no collation or presentment, whether to benefices in his own right or in the right of another, after three years from the time of voidance.^- It was the expressed desire of the clergy to restrict the time still further to the six months set by canonical law. Although the king was inclined to yield his claim in any given case, after the benefice had been held for a j-ear or more, the statutory restriction was resented as prejudicial to the king and his heirs. It was therefore repealed, xmder the promise that the king's right in such cases should be well examined." The stronger current of legislative acts ran toward the limitation of papal provisions. In 1343 the king frankly warned the pope that the nobles and conmions assembled in parlia- ment would no longer endure the injuries caused by the immense number of provisors invading the kingdom." In 1344 the commons asked for a statute to this effect. Unwilling as yet to concede a statute, the king went so far as to issue a proclamation, which follows in the main the lines already laid down by the courts and traces in advance some of the terms of the later statute.** Reciting the preamble of the Statute of Carlisle in regard to the foundation of churches, it adds the significant clause: " and of these (ecclesiastical) possessions the king and magnates had custody during voidance." Furthermore the proclamation declared the bringing in of bulls, letters, processes, etc., prejudicial to the king and the people to be a criminal offense punishable by forfeiture. Thus the way was prepared for the long desired Statute of Provisors in 1351, which extended the terms of the foregoing proclamation. Repeating the preamble of the Statute of Carhsle, it declared that this holdeth always and has never been repealed. As to collation of benefices its main stress was laid upon the claims that had been set forth many years before in Bedewynde's case, that in spite of reservations or provisions by the pope, at the time of voidance, the king as well as other lords shall en- joy the collations of benefices which be of their advowry. Against the in- terference of provisors criminal processes were strengthened, to the effect that all persons concerned in the illegal practices were to be attached and held until further notice, if convicted they were to be imprisoned without bail, and in extreme cases outlawed. The closely related Statute of Prae- munire in 1353 added the statement that all subjects of the king suing in a foreign court matters cognizable in the king's court, or questioning else- where the judgments of the king's court, shall be brought before the king and council, or in his chancery, or before his justices to answer. How ex- tensively the council was concerned with these questions we have seen from the foregoing cases. " Stat., 14 Ed. Ill, 4th, c. 2. " Fmdera, R. ii, 1231, 1233; O. v, 381, 385. " The Statute of Provisors, 25 Ed. III. " Cal. CI. Rolls, 18 Ed. Ill, p. 356. kvi CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL REX V. GERDESTON 1315 •'^ ^^^^ which was a cause celebre of the fourteenth century is for the first time, so far as is known, printed at length here. It arose out of an en- deavour on the part of one of the magnates of the reahn, John de Warenne, styled indifferently Earl Warenne, Earl of Surrey or Earl of Sussex, to obtain a divorce from his wife Joan of Bar, granddaughter of Edward I and niece of Edward II, the reigning sovereign. From the Patent Roll of 1316 ' we learn that Matilda Neirford, whom we know to have been the earl's mis- tress, brought a suit of nullity of marriage against the countess before Thomas Gerdeston, archdeacon of Norfolk. The ground alleged was a pre- contract with herself which by the canon law was, under certain conditions, held equivalent to a marriage.^ Upon such an alleged contract in the fol- lowing century Edward V was declared illegitimate and deposed.' The case recorded here arose upon the initial step of the suit, the citation of the countess. By the Constitutions of the Cardinal Legates Otho and Ottobon, pubhshed in London in 1237, restrictions had been imposed upon the clergy in dealing with matrimonial causes. Only men of prudence, trustworthi- ness, and legal knowledge were to handle questions of such importance. Deans, archdeacons, or abbots, by privilege or custom exercising such jurisdiction, might retain it with due care and diligence, but in any case definitive sentence was not to be pronounced without prior consultation with the bishop.* Notwithstanding these restrictions, the persons primarily here inculpated were the archdeacon's official and his deputy, one Robert, chaplain of Yaxley, Norfolk, from which county the knightly family of Neirford sprang. Both by royal charters and papal bulls, the palace was exempt from ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction, yet the chaplain had ven- tured to cite the countess in person when she was in attendance upon the queen in the crypt of St. Stephen's. As he was but an underling, the official and archdeacon himself were also proceeded against as responsible for him. The offence of the archdeacon and his official was declared by the king's attorney punishable with a fine of £20,000, as being in contempt of the king and "against his crown and dignity," a form illustrating the antiquity of the language of the modern indictment. By the citation the countess was summoned to appear before the archdeacon or his commissary at Bracke- ' 10 Ed. II, m. 32. Calendar (1898), tyme after, the seid King Edward (IV) p. 434, vide infra. was an stodc maryed and trouth plight ' See Pollock and Maitland, Hist, of to oone Dame Elianor Butler, daughter English Law (1898), ii, 366; also O. J. of the old Earl of Shrewesbury, with whom Reichel, Complete Manual of Canon Law the same King Edward had made a pre- (1896), i, .349. contracte of matrinionie," etc. ' See the " Act for the settlement of * Const itutiones Othonis Cardinalis the Crown upon the king (Richard III) xxiii. Ne causae matrimonialea judicibua and his issue," etc. " At the tyme of con- impcritis committantur. D. Wilkins, tract of the same pretensed marriage (with Concilia (1737), i, 654. Elizabeth Grey) and bifore and longe INTRODUCTION Ixvii den, now known as Bracon Ash, near Norwich. It does not appear what governed this choice of place, for the manor appears to have been in the family of Peverel;* so probably the archdeacon's church was here, where he held his court. Archdeacon Gerdeston filed a defence repudiating responsibility for the citation. He knew nothing of the process, he alleged, until he received from his diocesan, the bishop of Norwich, notice that the king had ordered the bishop to transfer the case to himself. As this was a suit in an ecclesiastical court, this must mean that the king procured a stet processus until the ques- tion of violation of privilege had been decided before himself and the council. Upon receipt of this notice, the archdeacon avers that he at once inhibited his official from taking further steps. This inhibition the official who appears to have been the Rural Dean of Cranwich, in Norfolk,^ acknowledges himself to have received and avers that in comphance with it he abstained from any further intervention. The king's attorney, on the other side, produced a record of the proceedings before the official which had been transmitted by the bishop of Norwich. Among these it was set forth that the chaplain of Yaxley in the presence of a public notary, Robert de Cockerton, acknowledged that on the 8 March, 1315, he had given notice to Joan of Bar that she was cited to appear in the church of St. Nicholas Brakeden as respondent in a suit for a divorce from her husband, the Earl Warenne; that the countess not entering an appearance was pro- nounced by the official to be in contumacy and citations ordered to be posted up at the doors of certain churches and in certain manors; and that by these she was again ordered to enter an appearance and file an answer in Brakeden Church, the time being enlarged from 15 March to 12 April, 1315. Confronted with this document, the official pleaded by way of con- fession and avoidance, that though he was responsible for what had taken place, the record shewed that no citation had been served, but only notice given that a citation had been issued elsewhere. Further, the notification was not made by him, but by a certain dean of the diocese of Norwich ; and any other proceedings to which he himself had been a party had been not consequential to that notification, but independent of it and in accordance with the forms of the law ecclesiastical. Inasmuch as the proceeding in the crypt of St. Stephen's appears to have satisfied the canonical exigencies respecting citations and to have justified, in the opinion of the accused ecclesiastics, the consequent charge of contumacy, the official's refinement was held unsubstantial. This conclusion was fortified by his inability to produce any evidence of the more formal and attested citations to which he had referred in his defence, so that he was estopped from pleading the invalidity of his own procedure. In the words of the judgment, " he con- tinued his process upon the same notification as if it were a due and mani- ' Cal. Inq. post morlem, 7 Ed. II, i. 149, 259, cf. ibid, ii, 136. • As to this see p. 29, n. 24. Ixviii CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL fest citation." His culpability was enhanced by his disobedience to the inhibition issued bj- the archdeacon. He was therefore committed to the Tower of London during the king's pleasure. The archdeacon, as formally responsible for proceedings in his name, was ordered to appear at the next parliament, while instructions were issued to the sheriffs of London, York- shire, and Lincolnshire to arrest the notary and witnesses guilty, with the official, of contempt of court and produce them before the king on 25 June following. So far as this batch of papers is concerned, the case stops here, but other records enable us to trace its subsequent fortunes. The council could not take upon itself to stay proceedings in a court christian. That was effected by the inhibition of the diocesan, the bishop of Norwich. But though Ed- ward II was not of a temper to overlook an invasion of his prerogative, he entertained no objection to the divorce of his niece, with whose ill relations towards her husband he was acquainted. Three j'ears previously he had dispatched one of his yeomen to the earl's castle of Conisbrough in York- shire to bring the countess to him at Windsor. The yeoman discharged his mission, to the displeasure of some one highly placed and high-handed enough to render it expedient for him to obtain a special patent of indem- nity from the crown.' The countess herself, imder the protection of a body- guard, was lodged in the Tower.* It can scarcely be doubted that the intimidator was the earl himself, who was frequently at variance with the king. In 1316 the countess appears to have acquiesced in the earl's pro- ceedings for divorce. There is enrolled in the Patent Roll for 24 February, 1316,' a license granted by the king at the request of John de Garenne {sic), earl of Surrey, to bring his suit for a divorce against Dame Joan of Bar, the king's niece, in the court christian. A license was also granted'" to Matilda de Neirford, "upon withdrawing from her process of precontract which she is bringing before Master Richard de Ryngestede, official of the archdeacon of Norfolk," to commence proceedings against the earl and countess touching such precontract "before Master Gilbert de Myddelton'' and Master William de Braj','^ canons of the church of St. Paul, London, and the Prior of the Trinity "... or others." ' Cal. Pal. Rolls, 7 Ed. II, p. 12. end of Wiltland in St. Paul's Catliedral > Cal. Close Rolls, 7 Ed. II, p. 45. at some date between 1309 and 1318, in • Cal. Pat. Rolls, 9 Ed. II, p. 434. which latter year he was promoted by '" Ibid. It is not clear why this license the king, the see being void, to that of was required unless the countess was, as Wenlake.sbarn. J. Le Neve, FasH Eccl. is probable, a ward of the king. Her Angl. (1854), ii, 320, 444, 448. Novum mother died in 1298, and her father went Repertorium, ed. G. Hennessey (1898), pp. to Cyprus, whence he seems never to have 53, 54. returned, alxHit the same time. At the " William de Bray held the prebend of date of her marriage in 1306, she may St. Pancraa, 1314-1324. Lc Neve, ibid. p. have l)een as young as nine years of age, 423. He was also Hector of Chelsea, 1310- and could not have Ijcen more than thir- 19. Noti. Rep. p. 119. teen. " The priory of the Holy Trinity within " Gilbert de Myddelton held the preb- Aldgate. The Trior at the date of the INTRODUCTION Ixix That the countess was a party to these proceefiings is evident from the next clause in tlie patent. Witliin the quarter of a year after the divorce is pronounced, the earl is to enfeoff her of 740 marks (£493 3s 4d) a year of land in the towns of Graham" and Gretwelle,'* and the soke of Gretwelle, and to give security for the due performance thereof. He was also to be discharged from his recognizance in £200 for the maintenance of Dame Joan pending the suit'' and for the costs. It is significant of the troubled state of the country that patents of protection were issued from Lincoln, where parliament was sitting, to him and to Matilda Neirford for them and their " men, advocates, proctors and witnesses, and their servants and witnesses," for theu- safe conduct." The suit was promptly detemiined, the marriage with the countess being held valid. She had no issue, but in order, it may be inferred, to defeat, at least in part, her claim to dower, as well as to make provision for Matilda de Neirford and for his sons by her, the earl on 1 July, 1316,'* surrendered to the crown a number of his manors in Surrey, Sussex, Wales, Yorkshu-e, Lincolnshire, and elsewhere. Of those in Surrey, Sussex, and Wales he received a regrant by patent, dated Lmcoln, 4 August of the same year." The terms of the patent were to the earl for life, with remainder successively to "John de Warenna and Thomas de Warenna," sons of Matilda Neirford in tail male. Of those in Yorkshire he received a regrant for life, with remainder to Matilda Neirford for life, with the same successive remainders to their two sons. Of those in Lincolnshire he received a regrant for life, with reversion to the king and his heirs, of the manors and towns of Staunford (Stamford) and Grantham. To this de- ferred consideration for its regrants the crown added the manor of Kensyng- ton, Surrey, of which it retained possession. Nor did it long abstain from anticipating its reversionary claims. By a deed of 25 October, 1317, the earl released the Lincolnshire manors.^ Warenne never lived with his wife again. She quitted England in 1337 and died abroad in 1361. His sons by Matilda Neii-ford, John and Thomas de Warenne, appear to have died before him. He himself played a foremost part in the stormy politics of the day, as may be seen in Hunter's Deanery of Doncaster,^^ and in the Dictionary of National Biography, and died in 1347. license was Ralph de Cantuaria, who had '^ Cal. Close Rolls, 9 Ed. II, p. 325. held the office since 1302. He died before " Cal. Pat. Rolls, 9 Ed. II, p. 401. June, 1316. W. Dugdale, Monasticmi (ed. " Cal. Close Rolls, 9 Ed. II, m. 2 d, 1846), vi, 150. p. 347, cf. Pat. Rolls, 9 Ed. II, pt. ii, m. 7. " There was a manor of this name in pp. 483, 484. Lincolnshire. Cal. Inq. post mortem (1806), " Cal. Pat. Rolls, pp. 528, 529. i, p. 60. But this was probably intended "> Cal. Close Rolls, 11 Ed. II, m. 21 d., for Grantham, as will presently appear. p. 569. " Now Greetwell, two miles east of " Vol. i (1828), 108-110. Lincoln. See also ibid, ii, 256. IXX CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL COSFELD V. LEVEYS 1322 The grievances of foreign merchants were often unheeded or unre- dressed, but the petition of Godkin Cosfeld was given an unusual degree of attention. This was due to its bearing upon the relations of England and the Eastland states at the time. Except with the Hanseatic League, there was no treaty with them as yet, but diplomatic intercourse was ac- tively maintained with the various towns and principalities of those parts. From the earlj' years of Edward IPs reign grievances of Eastland merchants were being heard, that their ships were seized and goods carried off, wliile Englishmen made similar complaints of interferences on the part of East- land privateers.' Thus there was imminent a war of reprisals.- In 1313 the king was in the midst of negotiations with the towns of Kampen, Lii- beck, Hamburg, and others, demanding redress for the seizure of a ship from Boston. Only the magistrates of Kampen were willing to do anj'- thing, and they sent envoys to treat with the king and council in England.^ But when the envoys appeared to be seeking only delays, all further ne- gotiations were cut short by the king's decision to levy £1244, the amount of the English clauns, upon the goods of the men of those towns by way of reprisal. There was no desire for further hostilities, for Edward had need of the commodities of those countries, particularly " corn and other vict- uals," * in the way of supplies for his Scottish war. In order to protect this traffic in corn and merchandise the king saw fit in 1315 to issue a special order to the warden of the Cinque Ports to defend the ships against the male- factors that were Ij'ing in wait to seize them.' The plans of the government therefore were seriously jeopardized by the success of such malefactors and the resulting stream of complaints, made by the men of Almain, of the piracies being committed off the coast of Lincoln, Norfolk, and Suf- folk. An aggravation in the present case was the fact that two of the de- fendants, if not all four, were " king's mariners," men who were at other times commissioned to levy ships and sailors in the king's service. It is possible that in the present seizure they were acting on the pretext of the king's requirements. There were as yet no special tribunals, like the later chancery or the admiralty, for dealing with maritime cases, nor did the council hear them as a rule, and so the matter was referred to the king's bench to be treated by the common law. The king concurred in the opinion of the council that his own mariners should be punished no less se\erely than others. Their punishment was certainly not extreme, for they are soon found again in the king's service. ' Cal. CI. Rolls, 5 Ed. II, pp. 364, 361, ing to supersede all arrests if the count 434, 569, etc. would do the same. Hot. Pari, i, 293. ' In 1.314-1.5 merchants of England ' Cat. CI. liolU, 7 Ed. II, p. 26. petitioned that they were Ix'ing threatened * Ibid., 10 Ed. II, p. 266. in Flanders with arrest by reason of an ' Documents ninting to Law and Ciis- arrcBt in England of men of Flanders. The torn of the ISca (Navy Records Soc. xlix), king wrote to the count of Flanders offer- p. 59. INTRODUCTION Ixxi REX V. MIDDLETON 1353 The special importance of this case is its bearing upon the whole history of the office of escheator. It was perhaps inevitable that an officer, whose fiinction was the seizure of private estates into the king's hand, should be unpopular, and that escheators ' should be habitually complained against, along with sheriffs and purveyors, as the most corrupted ministers of the crown . Usually it was the people who suffered from their extortions, but some- tunes the king himself was defrauded. It was therefore a problem of long standing how the escheators should be appointed and controlled. Origi- nally there appears to have been a single escheator for the entire kingdom.' Henry III began the sj'stem of two escheators, one for the lands north of the Trent and the other for the lands south of the Trent. In 1346 he di\aded the country further under four escheators, with subescheators for each county.^ But the dual system returned. In response to local sentiment Edward I ordained that sheriffs should be escheators in their respective coxmties.'' Possibly they were intended to act as subescheators, for the two escheators, north and south of the Trent, were continued.* As a check upon the general escheators, they were not permitted to remain in office long, and encouragement was given to all who wished to complain against them.* Still there was a feeling that over areas so large these officers were too powerful and too little responsible to local interests. Without abolish- ing the two general escheatorships, Edward III added several regional escheators, one for Somerset, Dorset, Devon, and Cornwall; another for Surrey, Sussex, Kent, and Middlesex; another for York, Northmnberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland.' In 1340 he consented to a statute, superseding the system of two escheators and estabhshing " diverse escheators of less estate," who should be chosen every year in the exchequer just like the sheriffs.^ Under this sj^stem there was a ready inclination, as Edward I had proposed, to let the sheriffs be escheators in their respective counties. Just as WiUiam Middleton was sheriff and escheator in Norfolk and Suffolk, so it was in most of the counties of England. In the year 1350, for example, out of the twenty-nine counties that are available for comparison, all but six were given to the same person as sheriff and escheator.' After the fall of Middleton, as re- ' They were prone to conceal ward- ^ The Statute 20 Ed. Ill, c. 6, laid ships, to maintain pleas, to form confed- down that in all cases of misdemeanor of eracies, etc. Staluies of the Realm, i, sheriffs, escheators, etc., the chancellor 236-238. and trea-surer should hear the complaints ^ Such an office was granted to Peter of all who would complain, and ordain de Rivaulx in 1232, with the custody of speedy remedy. all escheats and wardships in England. ' Cal. CI., 8 Ed. Ill, pp. 201, 203, etc. Cal Pat., 16 Hen. Ill, p. 491. ' Stat. 14 Ed. Ill, c. 8. 3 Ibid., 30 Hen. Ill, p. 482. » The sheriffs are given in LisU and In- * Msdox, Hist, of Exch., ii, 175. rfexes (Pub. Rec. Office, vol. ix); the names ' The Close Rolls in fact show no devi- of escheators are found in Close Rolls and ation from the custom of two escheators. Fine Rolls, passim. Ixxii CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL counted in our case, the policy in regard to these appointments was com- pletely changed. Taking the j'ear 1362 as an experiment we find that throughout thirty-four counties in which comparisons are possible, with onty two possible exceptions, the escheators were not the same men as the sheriffs, nor does it appear that the earlier policy was ever restored. The result is all the more significant when considered in connexion with other steps that were taken toward the diminution of the functions of the sheriff.*" REX V. ROUCEBY AND AVENEL 1354 The king's case against William Rouceby in 1354 is to be understood in connexion with the policy of Edward III toward Genoa. This was to main- tain at all costs friendly relations with the city in the midst of the war with France, while the Genoese, like the Swiss in the military operations of a later time, were inclined to lend their aid now to one side and now to the other. At a heavy cost the king succeeded in negotiating treaty after treaty, by which the city agreed to make no alliance with the king's enemies.' In one case, mentioned in 1338, he went so far as to compensate the owners of a Genoese galley out of his own privy purse. ^ In the treaty of 1347 an indem- nit}^ of £10,000 for certain recent losses caused by English sailors was prom- ised, and another indemnity of 8,000 marks for losses dating from the reign of Edward II.' The method of paying these indemnities was the uncertain one of remitting custom duties to an equivalent amount. To the same end letters of protection and safe-conduct were liberally granted to Genoese merchants, to come and go in all parts of the realm, provided they did not communicate with the enemy .^ But the work of diplomacy was being en- dangered by the acts of privateers causing the Genoese to complain again and the king to promise further indemnities. In 1353 the king specially commanded his admirals to observe the protections that had been granted to various shipmasters of Genoa.' Under these circmnstances the attack made under the orders of John Avenel the king's captain and lieutenant of Brittany, as recounted in the present record, was peculiarly disconcert- ing. There had been previous complaints of the same kind against the captain of Brittany, who was prone to seize ves.sels that were driven by stonn or were awaiting a favorable wind in the havens of the principality. On two occasions Thomas Dagworth, a predecessor of John Avenel, was called to answer for such seizures before the king's council.^ Of the outcome we know nothing, except that Dagworth was soon afterwards followed by another captain. The present case is remarkable for affording a complete '" See Ughtretl v. Musgrave, p. 54. ' Il)id., iii, 120 f. > Foedera, R. Ill, i, 205, 218, 243, 280; « C,U. I'al. HolU, 1374-77, p. 507. O. 509, 087, 703, 738, 789. » Ibid., 27 Kd, III, p. 472. « Ibid., R. II, ii, 1011. • Cal. Close Rolls, 23 Ed. Ill, pp. 4, 54, 65. INTRODUCTION Ixxiii record of the hearing at one stage before the council. Evidently a suit was first begun on complaint of the injured Genoese merchants, but because of its public interest the suit had been dropped in favour of a prosecution in the name of the king. At this point our record begins. According to a now established procedure, the hearing was in the chancery " according to the custom of the chancery." ' To use the language of a later day, the method pursued was of the common law rather than the equitable side of the chancery, that is a plea in the Latin language, an arraignment of the defendants, pleadings, and proof by means of an inquisition. The court, however, was the council, from which the chancery as a body of judicature had hardly begun to diverge. The defence attempted to show that there had been an evasion of cus- tom duties, in that the ship had stayed in the waters of Brittany through three flows of the tide, the men even coming ashore, and then sailed away in the night. The vessel, having been pursued and captured at the Scilly Islands, was claimed as a prize of the captain of Brittany, who under his grant of office claimed all the revenues of Brittany, such as had pertained to the former dukes.* There were two questions, therefore, before the court: was the vessel a lawful prize ? and, if so, was it a prize of the captain ? The defence was completely swept aside by the discovery that the ship was coming to Bristol under letters of safe-conduct. Since it was bearing a cargo of wine, a trade specially favoured, it was entitled to come in fact to any port. Under the Ordinance of the Staple, recently passed, foreign merchants were promised redress against the king's officers without being required to sue at common law. Almost before the case was finished, John Avenel was dismissed from the captaincy of Brittany, and another appointed in his stead.' He was afterwards convicted by the council, we learn from another source, and his property confiscated to pay for the restitution of the ship.'" His servant William Rouceby escaped further obligation by leaving a record that he had accounted to his master in full for the ship and cargo. To the Genoese merchants, in recompense for this and other losses, a remission of the duty on 1,000 sacks of wool was prom- ised." ' Roi. Pari., i, 433; Marsden, Select of the case were issued. Cal. Pal., 28 Ed. Pkas in the Admiralty (Selden Soc, 1892), III, p. 65. i, xxiv. "> These facts are stated in a writ of 6 » This was stated in the grant to Sir May, 1355 (Cal. Pat., 29 Ed. Ill, p. 207). Walter Bentley, John Avenel's prede- His estate was finally released from fur- cessor, Fcedera, O., v, 683. ther claims after his death in 1460 (Cal. • Thomas Holland is mentioned as CI. Rolls, 34 Ed. Ill, p. 49; also 35 Ed. already appointed captain on 26 March. Ill, p. 184). This was before all the consequent writs " Cal. Pal., 28 Ed. Ill, p. 92. Ixxiv CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL BURTON-ON-TRENT v. MEYNELL 1355 The petition of Burton-on-Trent v. Meynell is a complaint against an aggressive knight of the county who has been committing deeds of violence against the abbey. According to evidence derived from other sources the abbot and convent had made an earlier complaint, which was answered by the appointment of a commission of oyer and terminer.' The present com- plaint repeats the charges and adds that because of the dire threats made by their enemy, they dare not sue before the commission. They pray therefore that the defendant may be brought before the king and council to answer. The petition points directly to a deficiency in the system of commissions of oyer and terminer then extensively used. This was a method, begim by Henrj' III and elaborated by Edward I,- that had long been the favorite means of the council for dealing with criminal cases of exceptional diffi- culty. Even when the council gave a preliminary hearing, it was likely at one stage or another to refer the case, if not to one of the regular courts, then to a commission. The creation of general commissions, like those of the justices of the peace in every county, did not diminish the number of special commissions, which were granted by hundreds every year. The system possessed manifest advantages, m that it reUeved the council of an excess of business; the commissions could be created to any number; they might be composed of men especially suitable for the case in question; and they could act with promptness in the inmiediate neighborhood where the events occurred. The commissions were not altogether unpopular, for many a petitioner asked for an oyer and tenniner as an alternative to a hearing before the king and council.^ There was a prevailing feeling, how- ever, that the commissions were an irregularity in judicial procedure, and that they were appointed too freely and to the detriment of the law. The Statute of Westminster, 13 Edw. I, c. 29 granted that no such commissions should be appointed except to regular justices, " unless it be for heinous trespass," and again the Statute 2 Edw. Ill laid down that writs of oyer and tenniner should be granted onlj'^ " for grievous and horrible trespass." The Statute 20 Edw. Ill, c. 3, required that justices of oyer and terminer should take a professional oath. But the more the connnissions were regulated, the more plainlj^ do their limitations appear, and the less are they able to deal with extreme con- ditions. Following the procedure of the common law they were often corrupted and defied in tiie .same way as other courts. In 1354 there was a flagrant instance of a session of commissioners in Lincolnshire being ' This commission was daloci 12 Dec, ' Treated in King's Council, pp. 265 f. 1354, and was issued to Richard Stafford, ' Rot. Pari., i, 60, etc. Roger Hillarj", and Nicholas Langford as justices. CW. Fal., 28 Ed. Ill, p. 164. INTRODUCTION IxXV broken up by a certain knight who invaded the hall where they were sitting, and with drawn sword seized one of the justices by the throat, and would have killed hiin had others not prevented.* In this case the knight was to be arrested and brought before the council. Later cases in this volume, like Alte Wode v. Clifford, show how the commissions might fail because their juries were corrupted or because sheriffs and bailiffs were in league with this or that powerful party. But more often the commissions are spoken of as " procured " or " stolen," that is appointed in the interests of one party or another, possibly " champertors " interested in the suits brought before them.^ Among many complaints of this kind, there was one of the parson of Southampton, 5 Richard II, who alleges that the prior of Huntingdon has obtained a commission of oyer and tenniner, and has thus gained an mijust award of £90 against the parson. He therefore prays that the matter may be examined by the good men of the realm in the present parliament and particularly that no oyer and terminer be granted.* One of the worst abuses in connection with the commissions was revealed in the parliament of 1364-65, when the commons alleged that the king had appomted commissioners of oyer and tenniner for life, granting them a third of the fines and amercements of their sessions, so that they were dis- posed to procure as many indictments as possible for the sake of the profits. The king consented to abolish all such commissions and to appoint only suitable men in the future.' Now the prayer of the abbot of Burton that his case might be heard by the council was not granted. Instead, a strengthened commission of oyer and terminer was all that was conceded.* Sir Richard Stafford,^ an ex- perienced commissioner in cases of the sort, and four of the most reputable of the king's Justices '" apparently succeeded in tenninating the conflict. At least it is heard of no more. But the council could not refuse every petition of the kind. In the first year of Richard II it was conceded in parliament that there might be cases " against such high personages that right could not be done elsewhere." " The council heard at length such cases as Esturmy v. Courtenmj (p. 77) and others that follow. In answermg « C(d. Pat, 28 Ed. Ill, p. 166. p. 366; 27 Ed. Ill, p. 522), and in one case ' Ancient Petilions, nos. 14,969, 15,200, convicted a man in £1000 (ibid., 31 12,824. Ed. Ill, p. 606). On the same day as the ' Ibid., 7129. above commission, 1 Feb., he was ap- ' Rot. Pari., ii, 286; also 302. pointed to another commission to deal ' This commission was issued on 1 Feb., with a case of murder at Burton on Trent 1355, to Richard Stafford, Henry Greene, (ibid., 29 Ed. Ill, p. 233). Nicholas Langford, John Cokeyn, and '" Henry Greene was justice of com- Robert Fraunceys. Cat. Pat., 29 Ed. Ill, mon pleas in 1341, and 1341-56, and chief p. 229. justice of the king's bench, 1361-65. • Of Clifton, brother of Ralph, first Nicholas Langford held the manor of earl {Diet. Nat. Biog.). Not only did he Langford in Derbyshire. Cokeyn and serve on a great number of commissions Fraunceys were active commissioners, the in Staffordshire, Oxfordshire, and Derby- latter commissioner of the peace in Derby- shire, but he was notably successful in se- shire, curing indictments {Cal. Pat., 26 Ed. Ill, " Rot. Pari., iii, 21. Ixxvi CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL the petition of Werkesworth v. Pensax (p. 81) the council made a further acknowledgement of its duty to hear the case of a poor suppliant against a great malefactor. In all these cases the evidence is not that the council eagerly usurped the power, but rather that it yielded to the pressure of suitors in taking the responsibihty. LOMBARDS v. MERCERS 1359 Almost all details of the outbreak of the London mercers against the Lombards have vanished, save those preserved in the document here printed. It cannot, however, be doubted that the incident was part of that long struggle between the crown and the boroughs wliich had become acute under Edward I and in the middle of the fourteenth century, after various vicissitudes, was resolved, with the aid of parUament, in favour of the crown. In the year 1303, Edward I by a masterful stroke of policy granted to foreign merchants a general charter, well-known as the Cai-ta Mercatoria} Among those whose securitj', as the preamble recites, it was specially de- vised to safeguard, were the merchants of Lombardy. All foreign mer- chants were to be at liberty to enter the English dominions with all kinds of merchandise, exempt from certain specified local exactions. Thej' were to be free to sell by wholesale in all cities, boroughs, and market towns, while two classes of them, the Spicers and the Mercers, might retail spices and the wares called mercery. This provision gave legal authority to a practice already estabhshed,^ but one which was, nevertheless, unpopular in the towns, since it infringed the principle, jealously maintained where possible, that outsiders, whether ahcn or native, should be excluded from retail trade. A nmnber of other provisions followed in favour of alien merchants, in return for which they undertook to pay certain fixed duties at the ports. From the first the citizens of London were restive to the new regulations.' Soon after the accession of Edward II, they assailed the Carta Mercatoria, and in 1311 procured a royal ordinance for its revo- cation, " because the same was made contrary to the Great Charter and the franchise of the City of London, and without the assent of the Baron- age." " Henceforth," it was ordained, " Merchant Strangers shall come, abide and go according to the ancient customs, and according to that which of old they were wont to do." * Whether or not this ordinance was intended to exclude alien Mercers from retail trading,' it was so interpreted by the citizens of London. But ' 1 February, 1303. At length in Ed- minuatim vendi possint, prout antca fieri ward Ill's Ins-peximus and Confirmaiion consuevit." Ibid. of 8 Aug., 1328. Rymcr, Fmdcra (Hague ' Lelter-books of the City oj London (ed. cd., 1740), II, iii, 15. R. H. Sharpp, 1901), C, pp. xv, xvi. ' " Ita taincn quod mcrces quos vul- * .') Kd. II, f. 11. garit«r merceriae vocantur, ac species ' Schanz (Englitche HandehpolUik, INTRODUCTION Ixxvii in 1322, the successes of Edward II over the barons turned the tables in favour of the foreign merchants, and tlieir old privileges were restored. The wrath of the Londoners blazed forth. The Italians, on this and other grounds, particularly odious, were attacked, and the houses of the Com- pany of the Bardi plundered and burnt. ^ In 1326 the freedom of the City was withdrawn from all aliens.' A partial reaction followed. In 1335 parliament laid down the principle of liberty of trade to aliens as established by the Carta Mercatoria. The preamble of the statute of that year ' recites that general complaints had been made " that in divers cities, boroughs, ports of the sea, and other places of his (the king's) reahn, great duress and grievous damage have been done to him and his people by some people of cities, boroughs, ports of the sea, and other places of the said Reahn, which in long time past have not suffered, nor yet will suffer merchant strangers, nor other, which do carry and bring in by sea or land wines. Aver de pois,° and other livings and victuals, with divers other things to be sold, necessary and profitable for the king, his prelates, earls, barons, and other noblemen, and the commons of this reahn, to sell or dehver such wines, livings, victuals, nor other things to any other than to themselves." The consequence is alleged to be an enhancement of price to the injury of the consumer. As a remedy for these mischiefs, freedom to sell was granted to the ahen merchant and forfeiture of franchise denounced against the borough con- travening this principle, while any person guilty of " disturbing " such merchant was punishable with double damages, a year's imprisonment, and a fine to the crown. One concession of importance, however, was not regranted, that of Uberty for aUens to trade by retail.'" That step was taken in 1351," when retail trade was thrown open, " notwithstanding any franchises, grants, or custom used," to the traders enumerated in the Act of 1335. Probably on account of the opposition excited, it was thought necessary to confirm the principle in a statute of 1353.'^ Other statutes for the encouragement of foreign traders were passed about the same time.'' In the light of these events, the exasperation felt by the citizens against those aliens who were specially engaged in retail dealings, as were the Lombard mercers, becomes intelligible. It must be understood that the mercer at that date was by no means restricted to a trade in silk goods. 1881, i, 394) thinks that thiswas so, but the the Cfrossarii or Grocers." Liber Albus concluding clause, quoted above, appears (ed. by H. T. Riley, 1861), p. 198, n. 2. designedly ambiguous. '" See the Third Charter of Ed. Ill, ' Villani, Islorie Fiorenlini, B, 10, c. 3. dated 26 March, 1337, which abolishes Schanz, i, 395. exemptions in favour of retail trade by ' Riley, Memorials, p. 151. ahens, any statute notwithstanding. W. » 9 Ed. Ill, St. 1, c. 1. de G. Birch, Historical Charters (1887), • " Small wares that were weighed by p. 61. avoir-du-poise, and were sold by the Mer- " 25 Ed. Ill, st. 3, c. 2. cers, in contradistinction to those weighed " 27 Ed. Ill, st. 2, c. 11. by the Great Beam, and sold wholesale by " See Schanz, i, 397. Ixxviii CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL As late as 1696, Phillips defines a Mercer as " in the City one that deals only in Silks and Stuffs: In Country Towns, one that trades in all sorts of Linen, Woollen, Silk, and Grocery wares." " It is probable that the limi- tation of the term occurred at a comparatively late date. Hence, the foreign mercer would be a competitor with traders dealing in a variety of goods, wliich have been enumerated as comprising " bombazine, fustian, Suile," Armour, all sorts of workes made of Iron, or brasse, and other mer- ceries. "'° Lombard Street was the home of the foreign mercer. " The Mercery," saj's a writer of 1662, " is gone from out of Lombard Street." " It was not here, however, but in the English mercers' quarter that the outrages took place which were the subject of inquiry in these documents. The original complaint of the Lombards has not survived. That they were mercers cannot be doubted, since their assailants were of that mystery. That they were subjected to personal violence of a grave description we shall presently see. Some five years earlier the ill usage experienced by alien traders at the hands of the citizens had led them to petition that a member of the council might be specially conmiissioned to give audience to their complaints, seeing that the treasurer and the chancellor, to whom they were referred, had so much important business to transact that they forgot that of minor interest.^' The answer given was that the treasurer and chancellor should hear their complaints when they could and, if pre- vented, should appoint judges or other experts to do so. Whether the riot was suppressed by the city authorities, or by the peremptory inter- vention of the council does not directly appear, but the prayer of the Lombards in document A is a clear indication that they relied upon the king, and not upon the city, for protection. Further, some of the leaders, we know, were apprehended and thrown into the Tower, a royal fortress; others fled from justice. Two, however, as will presently be seen, fell to the custody of the sheriffs of London. Justice was slow in those days. The only dated document here printed is B, 8 July, 33 Ed. Ill (1359). We learn, however, from the Close Rolls that proceedings had been set on foot before 1 November, 1357, to the summer of which year the riot belongs. At that date one of the accused, Adam de Wroxham of London, mercer, had already been before the coun- cil. The Close Roll in question'' has a writ addressed to the sheriffs of London, ordermg his release upon mainprise. The curious part of the order is that it purports to be issued upon the prisoner's own petition "as he fears that he may be impeached and troubled for certain trespasses com- " E. Phillips, New World of Word9 (ed. '« Blundevil, Dkl. Exerc. V. ii (1597), 5); quoted in the Oxford Engl. Dicl. quoted in Oxford Did. " Qu. stuff for pillow-cases. " Souille " J. Graunt, Observations on the Bills of — Taie d'oreiller, en quelqucs provinces." of Mortality," ix, 12. 56, quoted ibid. E. Littr6. '» Rot. Pari, ii, 262, 57 (1354). '• Page 432. INTRODUCTION Ixxix mitted in that city upon certain merchants of Lombardy with which he is charged." The condition of the release is that his mainpernors undertake to produce him " before the king and his council at order to answer for the premises." The writ is signed, confonnably to the king's answer of 1354, by the chancellor. It would seem, therefore, that the city authorities were themselves contemplating action and that, for some reason not easy to guess, the accused preferred the tribimal of the council, probably by no means reluctant to assert a jurisdiction in the matter. A month later, 1 December, 1357, a writ issued by the chancellor addressed to Robert Morley, keeper of the Tower of London, or his deputy, ordered the release on mainprise to appear before the council of "Thomas de Maldon, of London, Mercer," miprisoned for the same offences. The writ recites that he had already been " a long while detained." ^" Two months later an- other writ from the chancellor ordered the constable of the Tower to re- lease " Nicholas de Sharpenham, mercer," on the same terms.^' Lastly, on 4th March, 1358, another writ issued from the chancellor to the sheriffs of London, couched in phraseology similar to that in the case of Wroxham, ordering the release of Thomas Everard of London, mercer, from their custody, upon the same terms as to appearance.^ In each of these cases the names of the mainpernors were set out as in the document B here published. That document, however, is, so far as it goes, a dupUcate of the Close Roll, being, as it is, a return to the writ of 8 July, 1359. It is ma- terial to notice that in two of the above instances the council takes the prisoners out of the city's custody and itself assumes seisin of the case. In the case of Nicholas de Sharpenham, mentioned above, the Close Roll suggests problems other than those affecting the rest of the defendants. The Close Roll runs as follows : "To the Constable of the Tower of London, or to him who supplies his place. Order to release Nicholas de Sharpen- ham, mercer, from prison, by a mainprise, as the king ordered the constable to certify why Nicholas was imprisoned in the Tower, and he who suppUed the Constable's place returned that Nicholas was deUvered to him by Henry de Cove of London, mercer, and Richard Shakel, serjeant of London, who told him to keep Nicholas safely until the King's Council should send for him to be brought before the Council, and that he had no other cause or warrant." There follow the names of the mainpernors, as in the text of C, who " have mainperned in Chancery to have Nicholas before the Council when notified, to answer to the king and others when the king wishes to speak against him." ^^ The puzzUng part of this entry is that Henry Cove, who with the city Serjeant arrested Sharpenham, was not only himself a mercer, but was singled out by the complaining Lombards as a principal in the riot, while his servant Geoffrey Bernham actually headed the band of assailants. » Page 432. » Page 495. " Page 498. " Close Rolls, 1 Feb., 1358, p. 498. IXXX CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL That Cove should have handed over Sharpenham to the acting constable of the Tower is another indication that it was an armed force from the council that first intervened. But why did he take action ? It may, of course, have been simply to divert censure from himself. There are, how- ever, circmnstances suggestive of another reason. Nicholas Sharpenham, though a mercer, is not described as " of Lon- don," neither is his name to be found in the list of the leading mercers of London supplied by the complainant Lombards. Further, not one of his mainpernors is a Londoner, and two of them were persons of importance. They are all bracketed in C as belonging to the county of Surrey. One of them, Braghing, then represented Southwark in parhament, and another, Plummer, was elected for the county in 1360. It is well known that the vexatious restrictions imposed by the towns upon handicraft and commerce had the effect of driving trade into the country. This tendency had been enhanced by the pressure of royal and local taxation upon a town popula- tion very greatly diminished by the great pestilence of 1348-49.^^ What the city lost, the suburbs gained. The incidents here narrated suggest that Sharpenham and the inhabitants of Southwark sympathized rather with the Lombards than with the citizens, and that his arrest and imprisonment at the instance of Henry Cove, a leading city mercer, and of a city official, were the outcome of resentment on account of the part taken by him. The feeling of the citizens is evident enough from the history of the case. Some six months after the release of Sharpenham upon mainprise, the king, then at Sandwich, issued a writ to the maj'or and sheriiTs ordering them to make inquisition into the riot. It is entered in the City Letter-book G as " Breve ad inquirendum de Merceris qui verberaverunt Lumbardos," ^* and is dated 7 October, 1359. No further time was lost. On the day fol- lowing, the inquisition was taken " before John Lovekyn, Mayor of the City of London, and John de Chichestre and Simon de Benyngton, sheriffs of the same city," -* by a jury of twelve. They returned as their finding that on the Monday next after the Feast of St. John the Baptist, in the 31st year, etc.^' (1357), Henry Forester, mercer, Thomas de Meldone, mer- " See Dr. F. A. Gasquct, The Great his conjecture, .and it is more probable that Pestilence (1893), p. 187; Select Cases in the riot took place .at the time of the popu- the Star Chamber (1.50!>-1544), p. ciii. lar festivities wliich accompanied and fol- " Liber Albris, i, ()21. lowed the ceremony of "Setting the 2" Lovekyn was elected mayor in 1.358. Watch "on St. John's Eve, 23 June, and on At that time the mayors w-ere elected on the eveof the feast of St. Peterand St. Paul the 13th October, being the Feast of the on 28th June. 'i"he Monday following St. Translation of St. Edward the Confessor, John's day, the 21th June, would in 1357 and sworn in upon 29th October, the mor- l)c 2Gth June. In 1386 the orders to the row of the Feast of St. Simon and St. Jude. Aldermen for setting the watch and Liber Albus, i, 19, 24, 31. marching through the city were expressed " Riley has a note that this was prob- to lie " for the view and report of stran- ably the Decollation, i.e., the 29th August. gers." Mctnorials nf London, \). iHS. Cf. The dat« of the riot would in that case be ibid., 419, 433. 4 September. Riley assigns no reason for INTRODUCTION Ixxxi cer, and John Meleward, mercer, made a certain dreadful affray in the Old Jewry,'* in the Ward of Colemanstret, in London; and of malice afore- thought by force and arms did make assault on certain persons, namely, Francisco Bochel and Reymund Flamy, Lombards, and did wound, beat, and maltreat them and, against the peace of our lord the king, commit other enormities against them. They say also that Richard Phelip, mercer, abetted the said persons in making the affray and trespass aforesaid; and that the aforesaid Richard Phelip was present when the deeds aforesaid were conmiitted; but that the same Richard did not strike Francisco and Reymund aforesaid. It was inquired of the said jurors, if any other persons had committed or perpetrated the offences and excesses aforesaid, or were present thereat, or gave aid or abettal to the same, or gave any cause for the same. They said that to their knowledge they did not." It would thus appear that of the eight persons specified by the com- plainants as the authors of the outrage, all but two. Forester and Meldone or Maldon, were acquitted by the citizens. Of these Maldon, according to the Lombards, had confessed his guilt before the council when first arrested. Nothing is known of Forester, save that he is said in document D to be at liberty upon mainprise, and that he had fled. But D gives the name of none of his mainpernors, except Alan Everard, and is a mere note of a verbal statement admittedly imperfect. Further, it is not confirmed by any of the Usts of mainpernors in C. Smce, as Coke insists, mainprise did not imply that the person mainperned had been in custody, these facts suggest the inference that Forester had continued to avoid arrest. There remains "John Meleward, mercer". His name is not found upon the list of leading mercers, nor was he mainperned, nor even accused by the complainants. No mention occurs of him, save in this inquisition. It may well be that if he were not a resident in London, the complainants may have been unable to identify him. It is a suggestive circumstance that the only instances I can find of persons of this name are associated with two acts of violence. A " John Meleward " was indicted at the end of 1355 in conjunction with a Bedfordshire gentleman, of the murder of John Relleye of Thurleigh, and of the robbery of other persons in Buckinghamshire.^' Three years later, on 26 February, 1358, a pardon was issued to " John le Melewarde " of Gloucester on account of good service done in Brittany. He had been in- dicted of the death of John de Malverne, of which he was now declared innocent, and had apparently become an outlawed fugitive from justice. It is entirely consonant with the associations attached to this name that he should have been a leader in the attack upon the Lombards and should have become a fugitive from justice once more. Since the citizens were bound to return some one as guilty, Maldon standing convicted on his own " The English Mercers lived " in » 16 December, 1355. Cal. Pat. Rolls, Cheapside, St. Lawrence Jewry and the p. 334. Old Jewry." Stow, ii, 258. Ixxxii CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL confession, it may have been gratifying to their feelings to be able to fasten the blame upon two persons shadj- of reputation and skilled in evading the law. As for the abetter, Richard Phelip, his insignificance has defied identification. From such a finding the complainants must have reapt but meagre satisfaction. PARSON OF LANGAR v. CONYNGSBY 1361 The petition of the Parson of Langar v. Conyngshy brings forward an appeal on error in the court of chivalry. According to the allegations of the parson the latter court had erred in two counts : first, that in a suit for damages an award had been made in the absence of the defendant; secondly, that the court had no cognizance of such a plea. The appeal was compli- cated by the circumstances of a detention under duress, and it was probably this aspect of the case rather than the former, that caused the council to give it attention. Now the jurisdiction of the court of chivalry, usually mentioned as the court of the constable and marshal, was a debated question at this tune. In this and other complaints it is asserted that the court was extending its jurisdiction from deeds of arms and war to pleas of various sort. We should have liked a decision upon the question at this time, but the council, being more concerned with the release of the parson from imprisonment and the future good conduct of his opponent, evaded that issue by bring- ing the parties to an agreement. As to the authority of the court of chivalry nothing further was done until the reign of Richard II, when by the Statute 8 Richard II, c. 5, it was laid down that pleas at common law should not be discussed by the constable and marshal; and that their court should have only what belonged to it. The intent of these enactments was more clearly stated in the Statute 13 Richard II, c. 2, which limited the court to cognizance of contracts touching deeds of war outside the realm, and to things of arms and war within the realm which cannot be deter- mined by conunon law. Whether under this statute the court had cog- nizance of such a plea as tliat appealed by the parson of Langar, we are still in doubt. But this doubt is cleared by the Statute 1 Hen. IV, c. 14, that all appeals of things done within the realm were to be tried by conmion law, and all appeals of things done outside the realm were to be tried and determined before the constable and marshal. Whether the parson's affair touched a deed of war or not, it certainly occurred outside the reahn. Under the statutes appeals from the court of chivalry were invited and made easy. The usual ground taken by a defendant, as in the present case, was an exception to the jurisdiction of the court. In one such case it was held that a defendant who submitted to the jurisdiction of the court of chivalry could not withdraw, but if defeated, he might afterwards appeal INTRODUCTION Ixxxiii to the king.' In 1399, the record of a case in this court was read in parlia- ment,^ but the usual method of the council, on receiving such a case, was to refer it to a commission of oyer and temiiner.^ The judgments then are seldom known. MOLYNS V. FIENNES 1365 The petition of Gill de Molyns adds another illustration of the warning, " Put not your trust in princes." In 1365, she, then some three years a widow, petitioned the king and council against a claim put forward by one Robert de Fiennes, described as " of France," because born in that country, to the manor of Wendover, Bucks. The petition and the Patent Rolls disclose that the estate had belonged to the Fiennes famih', but was seized by the king on the outbreak of the war with France, with which country, it would appear, they had elected to cast their lot. At the time of the seizure the widow's late husband. Sir John de jMolyns, had stood high in favour with the king, and for some years the grants enrolled testify to the extent of his services or of his rapacity. At the close of his life, however, he had been accused of various acts of oppression, was thrown into prison, and his lands forfeited. Although most of these were subsequently restored to his widow, the manor of Wendover, as this case shews, was not, but re- verted to the claimant Robert de Fiennes of France, who shortly after- wards sold it to Edward III.' Its immediate subsequent historj' associates it with notable names. Before 1370, it had been granted to William of Wykeham, bishop of Winchester, who resigned it in that, or the following year, after which the king granted it to his rapacious mistress, AUce Perrers. Upon the accession of Richard II in 1377, her lands were confiscated,- and a petition of her husband. Sir WilUam of WjTidesore, in 1381 was unsuc- cessful in obtaining restitution of the manor.' It was granted in 1388 to Edward, Duke of York.'' The case was obvaousty beyond the jurisdiction of the common law courts or of any tribunal but that of the king in council. UGHTRED V. MUSGRA^^ 1366 The complaint by Sir Thomas Ughtred, and Sir John and Nicholas Hotham, against Thomas Musgrave, sheriff of Yorkshire, in 1366, furnishes an illustration of a popular grievance with which, throughout the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, the ears of the council were constantly assailed. Thomas Musgrave was probably the son of Sir Thomas Mus- ' Cal Pat. Rolls, 9 Richard II, p. 67. » Rot. Pari, iii, 14. » Rot. Pari, iii, 452. > Ibid., 130. ' These abound in the Patent Rolls * Lipscomb, iv, 473. The account from the time of Richard II. given in this work is far from accurate, as ' Abbrevialio Rotulorum Originalium a comparison with the documents here (1810), ii, 316. cited wiU shew. Ixxxiv CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL grave, a soldier and courtier who in 1350 was summoned to the house of lords. He was, therefore, a person of influential station, apart from his office. So also were the complainants, the father of Sir Thomas Ughtred being a knight of the Garter and having from 1343 to 1364 sat in the house of lords b}^ summons. Sir John Hotham was a member of a distinguished Yorkshire family, probably the great-nephew of John Hotham, bishop of Ely, chancellor 1318-20, and son of Sir John Hotham, dubbed a knight of the Bath in 1327.* Nicholas Hotham was presumably of kin to him.^ The charges against the sheriff were maUcious arrest, false imprisonment, an endeavour to entrap the complainants into an attempt to abuse the forms of law, and the extortion of money. The legal snare alleged to have been laid for the plaintiffs was a suggestion that they should arrange for a collusive indictment of themselves and secure an acquittal from a jury to be packed by the sheriff. This charge was also the substance of a complaint by Sir Simon de Heserton, member of parhament for the county, and one William Craunsewj'k, about whom nothing is known. Taken together these complaints^ are a serious attack on the judicial powers then generally exercised by the sheriffs in their respective counties. Now the sheriff's tourn, or circuit through the hundreds of the county, took place twice a year. In the twelfth century the sheriffs were apparently endeavouring to enlarge their jurisdiction, for the Assize of Clarendon in 1166 directs that persons charged before them with murder or robberj^, and their accessories, should be sent before the king's justices for trial, and the Assize of Northampton in 1176 extends this provision to tliieves (§ 7). Finally, Magna Carta (c. 24) lays down that no sheriff is to hold pleas of the crown. From this date, the sheriff's tourn was held, not to try prison- ers, but to take indictments against them, like the inquest, still surviving, held before the coroner, on which a man can be put on his trial. But the sheriffs seem to have been ingenious in the invention of abuses of power. The Statute of Westminster the Second in 1285,^ recites extortions by them from persons falsely charged with having been indicted in their tourns, to check which indictments were ordered to be sealed by a jury, and to be kept in dupHcate, one copy by the jury indicting.' Nevertheless, in 1314, the commons of Suffolk were petitioning the king and his council for redress against false indictments preferred by subordinate officials at court leets and at sheriffs' tourns "de fere avantage a leur Mestres." * The complain- ants were referred to the chancery; but in the following year, at the Parliament of Lincoln, a serious effort was made to check the evil by re- quiring that the sheriffs, and also their subordinates, the hundredors, should ' The pleadings speak of the plaintiff v, 33; W. A. Shaw, The Knights of Eng- as " Johan de Hothum Chivaler le fitz," land, i, 125. p. 56, infra. ' These complaints have not survived. » T. C. Banks, Dormant and Extinct * 13 Ed. I, c. 13. Baronage (1807), i, 346: The Genealogist, ' 1 Ed. Ill, st. 2, c. 17. • Rot. Pari i, 293 b. INTRODUCTION IxXXV be men of substance in their respective counties.' The outcry against false indictments, by which " loyal folk were often grieved and evilly im- prisoned," rose again in 1327, when the king's justices were ordered to take cognizance of such cases.* The particular grievance in this instance was that the sheriffs put compulsion upon persons to prefer indictments, and this may be the secret of the numerous inquests to which the complainants, Ughtred and the Hothams, allege that they were vexatiously subjected. So persistent were the complaints that in 1330 the king and council took the drastic measure of removing all the sheriffs and their subordinates throughout England and putting them on their trial before a legal com- mission.' The enactment of 1327 that " in every countj^ good men and lawful which be no maintainers of evil or barretors in the county should be assigned to keep the peace," '" thereby bringing into existence the county magistracy, further reduced the influence of the sheriffs; while in 1330, the Act " which estabhshed " keepers of the peace " throughout England forbade the sheriff to let to bail or mainprise those indicted before them. Nevertheless, the sheriffs were still recognized as " keepers of the peace," though second only to the new officials who presently attained the style of " justices of the peace." " It is to be noted in this connexion that Musgrave in his defence is careful to mention that he was one of the justices of the peace." Now the charges against Musgrave were the more credible, in that they were not the first of the kind heard against the sheriff of York. Just a few years before, in 1358, there is the following entry on the Close Roll: " To the sheriff of York (Peter de Nuttle). Order under pain of £100 to desist from extortions, grievances, and injuries inflicted by hun contrary to the great charter and other statutes: as the said charter and statutes contain that no sheriff or bailiff shall hold his tourn except twice a year and that in due and customarj' place, to wit once within a month after Easter and once within a month after Michaelmas, and if any sheriff do otherwise he should lose his tourn for that time, that sheriffs should take indictments by in- dented roll, one part to remain with indictors and the other with him who would take the inquisition, so that indictments may not be concealed; and now the king has learned from people of the county that the sheriff holds his tourns as often as and whenever he pleases without the customary places, takes indictments and inquisitions in private places without any indenture, under colour of which indictments he causes many men of the county to be taken and imprisoned at liis pleasure until he has exacted heavy fines and ransoms for their mainprise." '^ Sheriff Nuttle was ordered ' Rot. Pari, i, 343 b; 353 a; Statutes of '» 1 Ed. Ill, c. 16. the Realm, i, 174. Statutum Lincoln' de " 4 Ed. Ill, c. 2. Vice-ComUihus, confirmed in 1328 by the " Rot. Pari, ii, 64 b. Statute of Northampton, 2 Ed. Ill, c. 4. " P. 57, infra. » RM. Pari, ii, 9 b, 12 a. » Cal. Close Roll, 32 Ed. Ill, 8 Nov., » Ibid., 60 a. p. 534. IxXXvi CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL further, on pain of £1,000 to deliver under seal all indictments for felony, etc. made before him, and these were to be brought before the king's council and then given to the justices of gaol delivery.'' Several of the sheriff's ministers, we learn, were afterwards indicted before justices of oyer and terminer, and according to a precept were to be removed from office." The sheriff himseff was given a day to be before the king's coun- cil,'^ but whatever may have been done on that occasion, we do not know." In the case of Musgrave the council gave the charges a complete hearing. The defence appears to rest in part upon a statute of 1331," though it is not expressly cited. The sheriff charged the complainants with robberj% affraj's, and what is now called blackmail; allegmg that he had ample grounds for suspicion. The statute of 1331, after reciting the Statute of Winchester of 1285,-" enacts that suspicious strangers passing at night are to be arrested and delivered to the sheriff, who is to keep them in ward until the coming of the justices, that is, of the royal judges. But, as a " keeper of the peace," his powers were far more extensive than those of the county magistrate of today. By a statute of 1360,-' from which, ac- cording to Lambard,^^ the " keepers of the peace " first acquired the higher title of " justices," he was, as such, authorized, as one of a standing com- mission, " to pursue, arrest, take and chastise offenders, rioters, and all other barrators." As sheriff, therefore, he was empowered to arrest the defendants as nightty marauders, and as justice of the peace to " chastise " them. Lastly, he pleads a special commission directed to him by the king " that he should make arrest and execution of those who committed such robberies and affrays, or otherwise he would be held as a maintainer of the said robbers and malefactors." To the extremest lengths against persons so influentially connected he did not venture to go, but contented himself with imprisoning them in the jail at York, releasing them only upon heavy bail and exacting a fine from. Thomas Ughtred's servant, whom he is ac- cused of having tortured, contrary to law,^^ with the object of fabricating evidence against the master. With the estabhshment of the magisterial courts of quarter sessions in 1388," the sheriffs' tourn became insignificant, except as an engine of extortion, which it remained for another hundred years. Among the sheriffs' devices was that of not bringing their prisoners before the justices of assize, " Cal. Close Rolls, 32 Ed. Ill, 13 Nov., Hist, of the Criminal Law (1883), i, 113. p. 478. ^' Bracton expressly laj's it down that " Ibid., 4 Jan., 1359, p. 482. a prisoner should not be bound or chained, " Ibid., 4 Jan., 1359, p. 540; also 548. except where there was a danger of his " Nuttle was not removed from office escape, " Ne vidoatur coactus ad aliquam until 30 Sept., 13.59, when he was sue- purgationem suscipiendam." F. 137, § 3. ceeded by Thomas Musgrave. Fortescue's spirited denunciation of the '» 5 Ed. Ill, c. 14. practice of the Civil Law to extract con- '" Statutes of the Realm, i, 97. fession by torture is in his De Laudibus, " 34 Ed. Ill, c. 1 (1360). c. xxii. (Ed. A. Amos [1825] p. 228.) « Eirenarcha, p. 3. Sir J. F. Stephen, " 12 Richard II, c. 10. INTRODUCTION IxXXvii but detaining them in jail,^' as Musgrave is accused of doing, and of charg- ing them excessive fees.^^ These methods of oppression were, it is easy to see, the outcome of the practice of receiving indictments. Whereas indictments had, in the original contemplation of law, been bona fide pre- sentments of facts by neighbours personally acquainted with them, and concerned for the redress of the wrongs involved, the sheriffs had invented a system of indictments preferred by creatures of their own, living at a distance from the persons indicted and in no way cognizant of the subject- matter presented. During the weak government of Henry VI these malpractices increased,-' and they were the first mischiefs assailed by Edward IV's first parliament in 1461. The whole nefarious machinery of oppression is ruthlessly laid bare by the preamble of this statute, which illustrates the practices imputed to Musgrave in this case. " Whereas many of the king's faithful liege people, as well spiritual as temporal, by the in- ordinate and infinite Indictments and Presentments, as well of Felony, Trespass, and Offenses, as of other things, which of long time have been had and used within the counties of this Realm, and taken before Sheriffs for the Time being in the Counties severally, their Under-Sheriffs, their Clerks, BaiUffs, and Ministers, at their Tourns or Law Days holden before them severally in the Counties, which Indictments and Presentments be often times affirmed by Jurors having no Conscience, nor any Freehold, and little goods, and often by the servauntz menialx and Bailyffs of the said Shirrefs, and their Under-Sheriffs, by which Indictments and Presentments the said lawful liege People be attached, arrested by their Bodies, and put in Prison by the said Sheriffs, Under-Sheriffs, their Clerks, Bailiffs, and Ministers to the great duresse of their Persones; and they so being in Prison, by the said Sheriffs, Under-Sheriffs, their Clerks, Bailiffs, and their Ministers are con- strained to make grievous Fines and Ransoms, and levy of them great Fines and Amerciaments for the said Indictments and Presentments, in great Hindrance and utter undoing of the said liege People; after which Fines, Ransoms, and Amerciaments so made and levied by the said Sheriffs, Under-Sheriffs, Clerks, Bailiffs, and their Ministers, the People aforesaid be inlarged out of Prison, and the said Indictments and Presentments be imbeziled and withdrawn." This time the axe was laid to the root of the evil. The power of the sheriffs to arrest or fine any persons indicted at their tourns was withdrawn. All indictments at the tourn were to be transferred to the Justices of the Peace at the next sessions, who were em- powered to award process against the offenders so indicted.^* Stripped of its power either to try or to accuse, the sheriff's tourn became practically obsolete.^' " Rot. Pari, iii, 662 b (1411). " Rot. Pari, v, 493 b. Stats. 1 Ed. IV, « Ibid., V, 110 a. Stat. 25 Henry VI, c. 2 (1461). c. 9 (1445); see also ibid; c. 10. " Sir J. F. Stephen. Hist, of the Crimi- " Rot. Pari, iv, 406 a; 450 a (1432, nal Law, i, 84. 1433). IxXXviii CASES before the KING'S COUNCIL It is particularly unfortunate that in this case the judgment of the council is so mutilated that only its general tenor can be arrived at; that is, a con- demnation of the sheriff in damages, and a vindication of the innocence of Ughtred and the Hothams. What makes the defects the more lamentable is that the date of the judgment does not appear. The only date we have is 19th April, 1366, the " quindene " on which the petitions were filed. Parhament in this year met on 4 Maj^, and was dismissed a week later. The receivers and triers of petitions were nominated on the opening day. There do not appear to have been any definite limitations of time for the sittings of the council as a judicial tribunal. But we know that, as early as 1426, the traditional practice, followed at a later date by the Star Cham- ber, was to sit in term time.^" Nor is there any reason to suppose that in 1366 the transaction of judicial business by the council was any less expe- ditious than it appears to have been at the end of the fifteenth century." Now in the year 1366, Easter Terra began on 22nd April and ended on 4 June; while the succeeding term, Trinity term, began on 10 June, and ended on 1 July. If, therefore, this case was tried with such dispatch as there is some reason to assume, the judgment was probably deUvered by or before the last mentioned date. But the displacement of Musgrave on 13 May indicates that it reached a speedier hearing. The need for dwelling upon this point will now be seen. In the Patent Roll of 26 October, 1366,^- occurs the following entry, remarkable in view of the judgment before us. "Westminster, Oct. 26. Pardon to Thomas Oughtred 'chivaler' indicted before John Knyvet and his fellows, justices of Oyer and Terminer in the County of York, of having, with other thieves unknown, robbed William Randeman of Richemond at Balderly 'in the Brome ' of 100 s. of silver and a horse with 20 s. on Thursday after All Saints in the 31st year; '^ of having, with others unknown, robbed Alexander de Barton at Buttrehowe by Flawath of £14 in gold and silver and a horse worth 20 s. on Tuesday after the Epiphany in the thirty-ninth year;'* and of having, with others miknown, robbed Peter, servant of Haynekyn Weland, at Polles in the forest of Galtres, of a horse and a bundle of wollen cloths of scarlet and other striped cloths, on Tuesday after Martinmas in in the twenty-sixth year'' of the king's suit for the said robberies and felonies, and of any consequent outlawries. Afterwards, on 30 October following, Thomas de Beverlee, William de Dalton, Robert de Garton, Thomas de Wilton, and Wilham de Brunby of the county of York mainperned in the chancery for the good behaviour of the said Thomas Oughtred." The commission of " John Knyvet and his fellows " is to be found in the Patent Roll, dated from Westminster on 20 June, 1366.'* His fellows were »» Select Cases inlhe Star Chamber (1902), " Thursday, 2 November, 1357. p. Ixviii. " Ibid., p. Ixix. " Tuesday, 13 January, 1366. « Cal. Pat. RolUs, 40 Ed. Ill, pt. ii, « Tuesday, 13 November, 1352. m. 25, p. 319. " Cal Pat. RoWs, 40 Ed. Ill, p. 288. INTRODUCTION Lxxxix Henry de Percy, Roger de Clifford, William de Fyncheden, and William de Wychyngham. The conmaission is one of Oyer and Terminer in the comi- ties of York and Westmoreland, " touching all felonies, trespasses, con- spiracies, extortions, oppressions, falsities, grievances, and excesses," etc. A commission issued at Westminster on 20 June could not well have been executed in Yorkshire before July. It has been seen that there is some ground to conjecture that before Ughtred appeared to these indictments he had, in his case against the sheriff, already secured the judgment of the council in his favour. It may well be supposed that he then and there availed himself of this favourable tide of fortune. Musgrave was defeated and in disgrace and Ughtred was probably armed with the king's pardon before he went northwards to plead guilty to these indictments. It can scarcely be doubted that the sheriff had cause to suspect a man, on his own confession guiltj' of three liighway robberies, of the other offences laid by public scandal to his charge." The amazing thing is that Ughtred was in- fluential enough, both in his own county and in London to extricate him- self from charges which, if they were true, must have made him the terror of the country-side, and which, even if they were false, still left liim under others which were true and scarcely less grave. It is difficult not to feel some sympathy with the sheriff whose displacement from office, as has been noted, dates from 13 May. Of the Hothams we hear no more. LOWESTOFT v. YARMOUTH 1378-80 The counter-petitions of Lowestoft and Yarmouth are incidental to a prolonged conflict of local interests, but are not without constitutional sig- nificance. In consequence of the silting-up of the haven of Yarmouth, which the townsmen in 1346 endeavoured to clear by cutting a new en- trance, vessels had been compelled to take in and discharge their cargos in Kii-kley Road. This is described in an Inquisition ad quod damnum of 1370,' as " a certain place in the sea, near the entrance of the haven of the same town " (Yarmouth). It would appear, however, that the name ex- tended southwards over an indeterminate area, as far even as a mile south of Lowestoft, now known as Lowestoft South Roads, some ten miles distant. The lading and discharge of vessels being carried on at such a distance from Yannouth facilitated the evasion of the customs duties out of which the town maintained its fortifications and paid its dues to the crown. Upon petition of the townsmen, therefore, Edward III granted a charter, dated 22 August, 46 Ed. Ill (1372), annexing Kirkley Road to Yarmouth. The charter also prohibited the lading or discharge of cargo or of any herring, or other merchandise, within seven ^ leagues ' of the town, unless the goods ' Printed in E. Gillingwater, Hist, of ' The league was not a statutory mea- Lowestoft (1790) p. 122. sure of length and was usually estimated ' See Cal. Pat. Rolls, 18 Aug., 1377 at about three Roman miles. " Leuca (p. 50), and Cal. Charter Rolls, v, 224. occurs somewhat frequently in Anglo-Latin XC CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL SO laden or discharged were the property of the person so lading or dis- charging. " All letters granted to the town of Lowestoft, or to the men of the same," were by the same instrument revoked. This interference with the course of trade, the diversion of which from Yarmouth was beneficial to Lowestoft, naturally provoked resentment. It ran counter to the general policy of parliament, which in 1351 had passed a statute affirming the principle of unrestricted trade, " notwithstanding any franchises, grants, or custom used ... to the contrary." * In 1376 a petition was presented to the king by the counties of Suffolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Bed- fordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Leicestershire praying for a restoration of Uberty so far as the herring trade was concerned.^ In response to this, the annexation of Kirkley Road to Yarmouth was revoked ^ (24 April, 1376). In the following year (1377) an inquisition ad quod damnum was sent out by the town of Yarmouth alleging its inabihtj^ to pay the crown dues and taxes unless its franchises were restored.' Upon this, a commission of inquirj^ which had been issued by Edward III and his council, but which had lapsed with his death, was revived.* Presumably upon the report of this commission, the matter came before the council, during the ascendency of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, on 6 April, 1378, " and consideration had of the losses sustained by the town,' and the further damage which, if it were left desolate, might arise on a sudden invasion by the king's enemies," a provisional order was made that Yarmouth should again en- joy its franchises in Kirkley Road imtil the next parhament.'" In the meanwhile a fresh inquiry was to be instituted by a more important body consisting of seven commissioners, headed bj'' the earl of Suffolk. These were instructed to visit Kirkley Road, Yamiouth, and Lowestoft and to certify the king and council at the next parliament, which met on 20 October, 1378, at Gloucester. On 7 October of that year the com- missioners had sat at Yarmouth and on the following day at Lowestoft. They reported that Yarmouth was a place of defence, while Lowestoft was unindosed, and that it would be for the public advantage that Yannouth should have its charter restored." It is certain that the Parliament of Gloucester was adverse to the class of privilege asserted by Yarmouth.'' It was also strongly opposed to John of Gaunt. The law books (Bracton, Fleta, etc.); it is dis- the part played by John of Gaunt, see p. puted whether in these works it means one xcv, infra. mileortwo." Oxford English Dictionary S.V., ' GilHn(!;\vater, p. 128. league. See also Gillingwater, p. 125, n. « Cal. I'al. Rolls, 18 Aug., 1377, p. 60. In the Ordinance of Herrings of 1357, the ' This is, perhaps, an allusion to the word is " lewes," and in the Slalutes of attack by the French on the Yarmouth the Rtalm, i, 354, is translated " miles." fishing fleet at Michaelmas, 1377. Chron- * 25 Ed. Ill, St. 3, c. 2. icon Angliae (1874), p. 170. » Rot. Pari, ii, 334. '" Cal. Pat. Rolh, 12 April, 1378, p. 188. « Ibid., p. 330. The revocation is " GiUingwater, p. 128. printed in Gillingwater, p. 128, n. As to " Rot. Pari, iii, 47, 49. INTRODUCTION XCl commons complained that the dearness of herring there had previously attracted the attention of parliament; they recalled the inquiries already held, and they petitioned the king " to make due amendment for the profit of the whole realm." " Taken in connexion with the petition for freedom of trade generally "non obstante nullc chartre faite a contraire avant ces heures,"'^ carried in the same parliament it is easy to see that the opposition to Yannouth was dominant and that the formal expression of the royal assent was a practical negative to the real object of the peti- tion, greater freedom of trade. A new charter, dated at Gloucester, 14 November, 2 Richard II (1378), was issued, granting to the townsmen of Yarmouth "to have and enjoj^ all their franchises as well as they had them" before the revocation of 1376.'^ It may be taken to have been the defiance of parUament by John of Gaunt. The proclamation at Lowestoft of the new charter led to riots and the opposition renewed its energies. When parhament met at Northampton in November, 1380, the inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk invoked the prin- ciple laid down in the Parliament of Goucester, " that grants by charter or letters patent contrary to statutes of general utility should be of none effect." '* They roundly declared that the charter recently granted had been in despite of that statute and such an one as the parliament of 1376 had repealed because "qu'il feust damageouse et grevouse as Communes d'Engleterre." '' The burgesses, they complained, would " not allow the said conmions at anj^ time of the year to buy or sell victuals or merchan- dise " in Kirkley Road.'* A third commission was issued in 28 April, 1381,'^ again under the earl of Suffolk's ascendency, but this time including the name of Robert Tresihan, appointed in the following year chief justice of the king's bench. It was the year of the Peasants' Rising, which broke out at the end of May. Yarmouth had, as has been seen, secured the favour of John of Gaunt, who was particularly hateful to the rebels.^ A band of them marched upon the town and compelled the burgesses to sur- render their obnoxious charter. This they cut into two pieces, one of which they exhibited in various places in Suffolk to demonstrate their sympathy " Rot. Pari, iii, 49. that this principle was laid down in the " Ibid., 47. Parhament of Northampton and con- " A translation of this charter is given firmed in that of Gloucester. But the by Palmer (p. 23), who ascribes it to 1379. Parhament of Northampton was held in But inasmuch as parhament only sat at November, 1380, two years after that of Gloucester from 20 October to 16 Novem- Gloucester. See Rot. Pari, iii, 75. bar, 1378, and the king, judging from the " Rot. Pari, iii, 95. " Fcedera," was only there between 8 " Rot. Pari, iii, 95. By the charter October and 18 November, while in 1379 trade was thrown open during the fair. parhament was held in London, this must See ibid., iii, 49. be a mistake, perhaps arising out of the " Cal. Pat. Rolls, 4 Richard II, p. 633. fact that the date 2 Richard II covers 28 April, 1381. from 22 June, 1378-21 June, 1379. «» E. Powell, The Rising in East Anglia, '8 Cal. Pat. Rolls, p. 633, 28 AprU, 1381. (1896), p. 59. The recital makes the mistake of saying XCll CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL with the public welfare as opposed to arbitrary privilege.^' The commis- sion did not get to work until the rising was at an end. On 23 September, it held an inquisition at Lowestoft and another on 26 September at Nor- wich. The resolutions passed by the juries were that the privileges claimed by Yarmouth were opposed to common law, as well as to the statute passed by the parhament of Gloucester in favour of freedom of trade; that the wind frequently made it difficult for ships lying in Kirkley Road to beat up to Yaniiouth, so that they were compelled to make jettison of their cargos of herring; that the townsmen of Yarmouth, on the authority of their charter, prevented the purchase and sale of victuals and merchandise by the general pubUc at any time of the year in Kirkley Road ; that ships bringing in their cargos of herrings to Yarmouth occupied twice as much time as if they discharged in Kirkley Road; and that Yarmouth could afiford to pay its dues to the crown even without its privileges.^^ Parha- ment, which met on 16 September, 1381, was besieged by " the supphcation of the conmions of Norfolk, Suffolk, and all England " against the pro- visions of the charter of 1378. On the last day of its sitting, 25 February, 1382, the king and council revoked the charter so far as the franchise was concerned which prohibited any ship to discharge within seven leagues elsewhere than at Yarmouth and Kirkley Road or any fair or sale of merchandise to be held within the same distance during the fishing season.^' The parhament which followed, in May, 1382, shewed the same strong feeling in favour of unrestricted commerce. Foreign merchants were en- couraged to trade.^^ Yarmouth was specially reprobated as one of those seaports in which the citizen " hosts," or supervisors of the transactions of strangers, habitually abused their position and were warned " to utterly cease and be amoved from their noyaunce and wicked deeds and fore- stalhngs." No impediment was to be placed either in the way of foreigners or of denizens to hinder their traffic in victuals or fish, " under the colour of any custom, ordinance, privilege, or charter before made or had to the contrary, which by tenour of these presents be utterly repealed." " Within two years and a half Yarmouth was again bewaiUng the downfall of its prosperity and invoking the aid of the king. A petition of February, 1385, set forth "that the deprivation of its franchises had been followed by the depopulation of the town, " leaving it desolate and insufficient to defend itself against the king's enemies." ^^ In the following year (1386), a petition, to which it secured the support of some members of the house of commons,'^ drew a graphic picture of its calamities. Its fee-fami rent and its tenth, added to its expenditure on its defences, involveil it in heavier habilities than any borough in the six neighbouring counties. The town was now so " E. Powell, The Rising in East Anglia, " 5 Kichard II, st. 2, c. 1 (1382) cf. (1890), p. 32. Rot. Pari, iii, 142 b. « Gillingwater prints the inquisitions " 6 Richard II, st. 1, c. 11 (1382). at length, pp. 130-132. " Cal. Pat. RoUs, 20 Feb., 1385, p. 540. » Cal. Pat. Rolls, 25 Feb., 1382, p. 106. » See below, p. xciii. INTRODUCTION XCIU weak, poor, and wasted (degast^) ; and so scarce of people that those who remained could not support the burdens upon it. The commons, therefore, pray the king to regrant and confinn its ancient franchises.^" As the fee farm of the town, fixed by King John at £55,^' was at hazard, always a consideration of moment to medieval treasurers, a regrant of the charter " according to the rate heretofore " passed the privy seal on 20 February, 1385, to stand until the next parliament.'" Since parliament did not confirm the grant it was revoked as from the meeting of parliament on the 20 October, 1385.'i In Uttle more than a year, however, Yamiouth again prevailed over its rivals. A charter dated 28 November, 1386, recites the preceding grants, repeals, etc., and that a petition of the commonalty of England represents that Yarmouth supported greater charges " in the fortifications and support of the same town against enemies than any other city or burgh within six counties in circuit next adjoining," which it would be unable to continue to do, so " reduced, impoverished, and wasted " was it, unless its privileges were restored. The charter thereupon annexes Kirkley Road to Yamiouth, revises its privileges as to lading and unlading ships, etc. The new charter is not provisional. It is expressly stated to be granted by the assent of the lords upon petition of the commons,'^ an official fonnula of questionable veracity. Of the case of its opponents the charter naturally says nothing. But among the petitions to parliament, of the year 1387,'' is one which is doubtr less a clerk's note of the effect of the petitions he enumerates, and runs as follows: "A nostre seigneur le Roy et a touz les Seigneurs en cest present Parlement suppUent les Communes des Countes de Norfolk, Suffolk, Can- tebrigge, Huntyngdon, et Bedford, que la Bille q'est livree a nostre dit Seigneur le Roy et as autres Seigneurs du Parlement par les Burgeys de Grande Jememuth ne soit execute a contraire de I'estatut que voet que chescun lige du Roialme purra franchement achater et vendre en Citees, Burghes, Portz de Miere etc. ne encountre un repell fait en plein Parle- ment tenuz a Westminster I'an nostre Seigneur le Roy q'or est quint sanz " Rot. Pari, iij, 222 a. and the former act declared to be in " To this Edward III had added 100 s. force. I can find no confirmation of a a year, as consideration for the grant of the visit of the king to Yarmouth in 1382. If charter of 1372, which sum had pre- it took place, it must have been between sumably lapsed. GiUingwater, p. 121. n. the meeting of Parliament on 7 May and '» Cal. Pal. Rolh, p. 540. Perhaps this that on 6 October. As the latter Parha- is the event recorded by Palmer, the ment was followed by another on 23 editor of Manship, as follows (p. 336): In February, 1383, the revised charter must 1382 Richard came in person to Yarmouth in any ca,se have enjoyed but a very brief and " lykynge verye well thereof, did existence, and I have failed to find any graunte them such privileges as before notice of it. that tyme had ben by himself revoked ^' Palmer, p. 24. uppon the slaunderous report of the men '^ Palmer, p. 24. An abstract of the of Leistofte." This grant only continued charter is given in Cal. Charter Rolls, v, until the meeting of Parliament in the 305-306. following year, when it was abrogated, " Rot. Pari, iii, 254. XCIV CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL I'assent du tout le Parlement." It will have been observed that the charter thus objected to as an infringement of the rights of parhament is dated at the end of November. It appears probable, therefore, that the attribution of 1387 to the petition is an accident, which may have arisen from the postponement of the arrangement of the records of the parhament, which was dissolved on 28 November, 1386, the date of the charter, until the year had turned. This charter, dated 28 November, 10 Richard II (1386), was maintained during the rest of Richard's reign and during the reigns of subsequent sovereigns.'^ To what dates in the chequered story of this protracted struggle are these four documents to be assigned respectively ? The earliest would seem to be the arguments (" instances ") advanced by Lowestoft against the grant of the charter, for which it states the bailiffs and burgesses of Yarmouth to be " now " suing. As it refers to Edward III, as the reigning king's grandfather, it undoubtedly belongs to the time of Richard II. But beyond this it affords no clue. The petition of Lowe- stoft (document B) for the revocation of the charter after it had been granted to Yannouth by Richard II, is based upon its first petition, with amplifications and additions. It sets out in order the statutory history of the controversy under Edward III. It adds to the counties enumerated in the earlier petition, as aggrieved by the dearth of fish imputed to the privileges of Yannouth, those of Suffolk and Essex. But is gives no indi- cation of the length of time during which the charter assailed had been in force, nor of its own date. We can only infer this from C, the answer of Yarmouth, which takes the gravamina of Lowestoft in B, point by point. By this answer the retrospective limit of date of the charter of which com- plaint is made is fixed as 1378, the session of parliament held in October of that year at Gloucester. The indorsement, though not wholly decipherable, indicates that the case was heard in Hilary Term when parliament was sitting at Westminster. This limitation would be satisfied in 1380, when parliament met at Westminster on 16 January, the Monday after St. Hilary. At that date the charter assailed would have been in force since John of Gaunt's provisional order and the subsequent rcgrant of the charter, about eighteen months. In Januarj', 1382, also, the parliament, which had met on 16 September, 1381, was still sitting at Westminster, and the charter, though threatened, was remaining in force. But since the indorsement uses the word " tcnuz," customarily significative of the first meeting of parliament, the document C should probably be assigned to January, 1380, as the date of its presentation to the crown. The condition of a session at Westminster opening in Hilary Term docs not seem to have been again fulfilled until 1390, at which date the charter of 1386 had become a securely established privilege. B then will probably have been draughted about the close of 1379. Document D supplies no further Ught on this point, and is simply a repUcation to C, to be dated 1380. " For a list of the charters see Swinden, pp. 760-767. INTRODUCTION XCV If then, documents B and C belong to 1379-1380, to what date is A to be assigned ? That it is earlier than B is evident. It is less carefully draughted, and though B transcribes much of it, wliile altering the order of its clauses, the heads of gravamina in A number no more than eight as against eleven in B. It is also to be observed that whereas the complainants in B are anonJ^nous, those in A are the people of Lowestoft who are particularized as the promoters of the suit in 50 Edward III (1376), when the charter was revoked. It was therefore, perhaps redraughted on the frame of the successful petition of 1376. It belongs, on the face of it, to the reign of Richard II and to a moment at which Yarmouth is petitioning for a fresh charter, and it contests in particular the franchises claimed in Kirkley Road. It may be assigned, therefore, to the early part of the year 1378, in April of which year, as has been seen, John of Gaunt and the great council provisionally restored the privileges of Yannouth in Kirkley Road. It must not be supposed that the successive changes of policy in the matter of Yarmouth's charter were due to nothing more than idle caprice. The monkish historian who was the author of Chronicon Angliae, though his bitter prejudice against John of Gaunt attenuates his authority, probably penetrates the secret of that duke's favour to Yarmouth when he says that he refused to listen to the complaints against it "quia minus favit populo quam pecuniae." ^^ This was in 1376, when he is represented as having long resisted the revocation of the charter, of which he secured the tem- porary restoration two years later. On the other hand, the conmiissioners of 1381, who presented reports hostile to the charter, were careful to add " that the men of Great Yannouth may sustain and bear towards our lord the king all charges which they did sustain and bear before the granting of the liberties and privileges aforesaid, and maintain the town, although the same Uberties and privileges should be revoked." ^* It can readily be understood, that in face of the protests of Yarmouth, the Treasury hesitated at times to accept this conclusion and that in this conflict of fiscal, local, and influential private interests no uniform pohcy could be for long pursued. Behind the fiscal issues stood those larger ones of the constitution. The history of the Yarmouth charter forms part of the breach between the crown, represented by the council, with the king's uncle at its head, and the house of commons, destined to develop, after a few years, into a fatal struggle between the king liimself and the two houses of parUa- ment. In the four documents printed the conflict of legal argimient is best summarized in the replication D, " on behalf of the coimnonalty of Suffolk." It will be observed that Yarmouth endeavoured to obscure the real issue by insisting that at fair time, when the bulk of the herring trade was trans- acted, no restrictions existed. The complainants, on the other hand, repUed that what they asked for was that trade should be free in Kirkley Road at " Chronicon Angliae (ed. E. M. Thompson, 1874), p. 95. '« Gillingwater, p. 131. XCVl CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL all seasons of the year, while they disavowed any design of setting up a fair there to the commercial injury of that of Yannouth. The " conflict of laws," whether statutory or prerogatival, carried the disputants back to the middle of Edward Ill's reign. By a general Act of 1354," no ship could be compelled to enter or remain in any port, and incoming ships were to be free to sell their merchandise on shipboard, without first bringing it to land. Of this concession advantage was taken by the townsmen of Yannouth, who forestalled the fish at sea and combined to sell to the general consumer at enhanced prices.'^ When, therefore, the Suffolk petitioners cited the statute of 1354, prohibiting the exercise of compulsion upon incoming ships, Yarmouth retorted that the Ordinance of Herring of 1357, by forbidding sales at sea, had practically repealed the earlier act. The petitioners replied that neither statute nor charter could have con- templated such consequences as ensued, viz., that ships laden with perish- able cargos, Uke fish, should suffer loss by being compelled to go from Kirkley Road, where they could have sold them, to Yarmouth at seven leagues' distance, whereby the commonalty suffered loss for the private profit of the Yannouth dealer. By the Ordinance of Herring of 1357, the Barons of the Cinque Ports, in confirmation of previous rights, were constituted joint governors with the bailiffs of Yarmouth of the yearly fair. A charter, urged the peti- tioners, which annulled an agreement approved by the king, ought at least not to have been granted without affording all parties an opportunity to state their objections. The point touches form rather than substance. The ordinance of 1357 distinctly lays down that only " the ships called the Pykers " should be at hberty during the fair to buy fish at Kirklej' Road, and that the rest of the fishermen should not sell their herring otherwise within seven miles of Yarmouth, and with these provisions the charter does not appear to conflict. Yarmouth answers with the complaint that in 1376 its charter was " revoked without reply," to which Lowestoft retorts that it was " repealed in full parliament." Whatever the exact signifi- cance to be attached to these words, it is at any rate apparent that it was repealed as a consequence of the petitions addressed to the crown during the session of parliament of that year. In support of its privileges Yarmouth appealed to the ethical code which it represented itself as righteously endeavouring to enforce. For fishermen to sell their fish at Kirkley Road, or elsewhere in the neighbouruig sea, was " open forestalling," that is, a defraud of the Yannouth consumer. The petitioners were too discreet to attempt to justify " forestaUing." If such there were, they repUed, it could be punished. The real delinquents were the hucksters of Yannouth who used the compulsion imposed by their " 28Ed. Ill, c. 13. well set out by Dr. Cunningham in his " Ordinance of Herring of 1357, 31 Growth of English Inihislry ami Commerce Ed. Ill, c. 1. The economic situation is (4th ed., 1905) pp. 321-322. INTRODUCTION XCVIl charter to raise prices for their own benefit. Controversy followed as to the topographical accessibiUty of the town. At the worst, contended Yar- mouth, goods could be brought in by lighters from Kirkley Road; to which the petitioners replied that hghterage was both dangerous and costly. Smiilarly, pedlars and others concerned with land-transport were alleged, and denied, to find the town inconvenient of access. Of these documents D is in a bad condition, part of it being torn away on the lower right side. The result, as the transcript shews, is a number of regrettable lacunae. TAYLORS V. BREMBRE 1386 The stormy political career and tragic end of Sir Nicholas Brembre, mayor of London in 1377, 1378-79, and 1383-84, are narrated at length by the learned pen of Mr. J. H. Round in the Dictionary of National Biography. It is enough, therefore, to say here that he was a partisan of the absolutist poUcy of Richard II and an enemy to John of Gaunt and Wycliffe. Within the city his aims were oUgarchical. He was a member of the wealthy company of the grocers, which nmnbered among its brethren eight alder- men, one-third of the whole body.' With the support of these and other of the great companies he sought " to deprive lesser companies of any voice in the city." The opposed companies ranged themselves as the victualhng and non-victualling trades.- The former being represented by the grocers, fishmongers, and mercers. Brembre was a politician of the " mailed fist." The Rolls of Parliament for 1386 contain petitions against hhn from " the folk of the Mercerye of London," from the " Cordwaners," the Founders, the Saddlers, the Painters, the Armourers, the Pinners, the Embroiderers, the Spinners, and the Bladesmiths. Of these the editors of the Rolls note that most of them are " imperfect," and they print only the first two. The petition here printed appears to have been separated from the others, and to have escaped their notice. The Mercers' petition to the council which they print,^ complains that the election of Brembre as mayor in 1383 was effected by armed force and the slaughter of his opponents; that he governed oppressively with a high hand, that he burnt records which furnished precedents adverse to his measures. The petition of the "Cordwaners," which belongs to the year 1386,^ is addressed not to the council only, but to the king and lords generally.^ While the mercers use EngUsh, the cordwainers prefer French. ' Mr. A. B. Beaven in his Aldermen of iii, 575, and by Mr. J. H. Round in his the City of London (1908), i, 359, 360, has article on Brembre. shewn how the mistake of Herbert in his ^ Ibid., i, hv. History of the Twelve Great Livery Com- ' Rot. Pari, iii, 225. panies, attributing sixteen aldermen to the * During the mayoralty, as it states, of grocers, arose, a mistake followed by Nicholas Exton, i.e., 1386. Bishop Stubbs (Const. Hist., 2nd ed. 1878), ' Rot. Pari iii, 226. XCVlll CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL They complain that whereas by charter a fair and peaceable election is to be held on the day of St. Edward the King/ the mayor, John of North- ampton, was in 1383 forcibly ousted from office by Brembre. It may be noted parenthetically that John of Northampton had been alderman of Cordwainer Ward.' Brembre's e-viction of the mayor had been followed by the beheading of a cordwainer alderman, John Costantyn, and the imprisonment of divers of the brotherhood. After this the forcible election of Brembre took place, as complained of by the grocers. A reign of terror is described as having followed, Brembre's opponents being indicted on trimiped up charges of felony. The petition here printed adds a new charge against Brembre. He had, presumably upon the ground that as mayor he enjoyed a supervisory jvu^isdiction, seized the charter of the Taylors and Linen Armourers, now known as the Merchant Taylors' Compan}\ The incident has escaped the research of the historian of the company, the late Mr. CM. Clode, and it may be inferred that no record of it survives amongst the company's muniments. The year 1386, to which this petition belongs, was the last of Brembre's poUtical supremacy in the city of London. On 14 Nov., 1387, he was charged with treason by the Lords Appellant, impeached on the 17 February following, and shortly afterwards executed at Tyburn. PETITION OF THE HANSARDS 1389 The Petition of the Hansards presents a single stage of a prolonged hti- gation, which may be taken as typical of many that vexed the relations of England and the " Easterhngs." Since 1371, there had been a continuous struggle over the trading privileges of the Hanse, against whom great animositj' was aroused. In response to popular clamour Richard II had suspended their charter in 1378, but restored it in 1380.' Yet the causes of friction remained. Among the complaints of the Enghsh was the perennial grievance that foreigners were carrying money instead of merchandise out of the covmtry; that they were keeping inns of their own apart from the free hostelrics of the city; that EngUsh merchants were received in Hanse towns less favourably than the Hansards in England; that Enghshmen and their ships were being arrested and detained in a manner calling for reprisals.^ At least, it was urged, the Easterlings residing here should be required to give security that Enghshmen would be treated as peaceably and reasonably in their coimtries, as they were received and treated in England. A further grievance that these and other foreigners were en- gaging in an unfair competition with native traders in the sale of herring lies behind the present petition. ' The translation of St. Edward the ' Cal. CI. Rolls, 1 Richard 11, p. 66; Confessor, 13 October. Rot. Pari, iii, 52. ' Beaven, i, 113. » Rot. Part, ii, 306; Cal. Pal., 50 Ed. Ill, pp. 389, 390, etc. INTRODUCTION XCIX On the otlier hand, the Hansards had no lack of grievance against the EngHsh. In spite of the renewal of their charter, exempting them from paying more than the old subsidies, certain new customs were being exacted of them. In divers towns, they alleged, they were charged 2 s. on every last of herring; they were not permitted to find wives in England; in innumerable cases on land and sea their merchants were arrested, de- tained for great lengths of tune and their goods seized.' Some of the fault found with them, they pointed out, should really be laid against the Prussians, and so they resented the way EngHshmen were in the habit of confusing them under the name "Hansers-Prucicrs." Besides general com- plaints, individuals were constantly presenting petitions in regard to arrests, detentions, and losses of goods, for which in some cases the council endeav- oured to afford rehef. Too often, however, as in the case at hand, the petitions failed because of delays and legal obstacles. Especially when the payment of indemnities was involved, if there was no pressing necessity for giving sat- isfaction, the government was likely to seek postponements indefinitely. As to the trade in herring, wliich resembles the wool trade in its inter- national importance, the competition of foreigners was resented by native fishmongers, because the foreigners under their privileges were exempt from local dues and requirements of the ports. In this, as in other trades, there was a running contest over the question whether foreigners should be permitted to sell by retail or only by gross. On the other hand the com- mon people favoured the trade with foreigners, because it lowered prices and broke into local monopolies. The great demand for herring as an essential food supply and the incessant rise in prices roused the people to strong expression. According to a complaint of the Londoners,^ the fish- mongers of the city were in the habit of seizing the fish, without bargain- ing or asking leave of the owners, and of then selhng it at their own price; after selling the fish, the mongers would pay the fonner owners as little as they pleased ; the strangers dared not complain, for they stood little chance of justice in the local courts controlled by fislunongers. The citizens of London desired that the foreigners might have the king's protection for bringing to the city fresh fish, which they should be pennitted to sell retail as well as in gross. Apparently the men of PljTnouth, described by the Hansards, were acting with the same motives as those attributed to the fishmongers of London. The present petition of Conrad Fynk and his fellow merchants was not the beginning of their suit. It is told how they had been to the council before, and had been promised restitution of their goods, if they would first obtain letters from home proving ownership. These letters being now produced, the chancellor and council ordain that the money derived from the sale of the goods in question, £105, be delivered to them. As a receipt for this sum the men afterwards made recognition in the chancery, but by some sHp in the proceedings the money was not paid. In 1393, the king s Rot. Pari iii, 253; Cal. Pal., 15 Richard II, 518, etc. « Rol. Pari, iii, 141. C CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL wrote a humble and conciliatory letter to the magistrates of Liibeck, re- citing the facts of the case and promising restitution of the £105 in accord- ance with the judgment of the council.^ Meanwhile, Fynk and Heynson, on charges not known to us, had been arrested and involved in processes before the admiral. In the spirit of conciUation, these processes were suspended and the men released. Whether there was any further litiga- tion on the money and goods in dispute we are not informed. The claims were not dropped, however, but after years of suspense were taken up through diplomatic channels. After an accumulation of grievances on both sides it was seen at length, in the reign of Henry IV, that a settle- ment must be reached if the profitable trade of those regions was not to be totally destroyed. Envoys were sent from England to Almain, and from Almain to England, and articles of complaint were formulated on both sides. Among the articles drawn up by the council of Liibeck in 1405, and delivered to the EngHsh ambassadors, was the statement of claims arising out of the case of the Hansards in 1389.^ It is worth quoting in full: Also in the year of our Lord, 1389, about the feast of the Purifica- tion, men of Plymouth seized before Southampton a ship of Nicholas Timmermann, loaded with 48 (sic) lasts of herring, each worth six English pounds at the time, and they sold the said lasts in WejTnouth, and having sold them returned only the ship with its equipment to the aforesaid Nicholas Timmennann. Moreover, the said lasts of herring belonged to Conrad Vink, Gherard Glambek, and Gherard Buwman, citizens of Liibeck, and Werner Heynours, citizen of Dor- trecht of the duchy of Gueldres, who were then and are still despoiled of the aforesaid goods. To this article the Enghsh ambassadors in their answers made no reply, and the authorities of Liibeck returned to it in their replication. Also as to the twentieth article no answer has been given by the ambassadors of England. Wherefore the representatives of Liibeck ask for a clearer statement. To this the English replied. It is necessary that articles be prepared specifying names and cog- nomens, that speedy justice may be done to the complainants. After this evasion of the issue nothing more could be done with the case. In the settlement of outstanding claims made with the Eastlanders in 1410, the English agreed to pay the Prussians £10,000, but to the Hansers they gave next to nothing.' ' Concessimus de assensu consilii nos- scries of documents related to the present tri predict! quod dicte centum et quinque case. lit)re eisdcm mercatoribus integre resti- ° Ibid., no. 329 and 333. tuprentur. French Roll, 16 Richard II, m. ' The latter chiims were finally cut 2, cited in K. Kunz, flanseakten aus Eng- down to £1.53. Fcedcra, viii, 603. The land (1891), no. 268, a work containing a long drawn negotiations are vividly told in Wylie, Reiffn of Henry IV, iv, ch. 88. INTRODUCTION CI ESTURMY V. COURTENAY 1392 The case of Esiurmy v. Courtenay is for several reasons one of the most notable in the present collection. As a case of violence and oppression, it was the first of a series of trials, such as afterwards pertained to the court of Star Chamber. It was a trial on criminal charges of one of the peers of the realm, for which the council, apart from the house of lords, demon- strated its competence. Different from fonner cases of the kind, the matter was given a complete hearing by the council. The record too is of un- usual fidness, gi\'ing a vivid narrative of the proceedings at every step. Although the incident was of pohtical importance, no entry was made of it in the Rolls of Parhament, but in the journal of the council for the 15th year of Richard II the following minute appears: On 23 January, 15th j'ear, etc., there were present the chancellor, the treasurer, the bishop of Winchester, the bishop of Durham, the bishop of Chester, the steward, the sub-chamberlain, E. Dalingrugg, and Stury, and the justices and Serjeants of the king. And then it was agreed that letters should be issued to the earl of Devonshire summoning him to come before the council to answer to certain matters that should be explained to him. And this (he should do) on his allegiance and under penalty of whatever he can forfeit to the king, and let him bring with him his servant Robert Yeo under the same penalty on the next Thursday after Candlemas. And let another writ be issued to Wilham Grenville sheriff of Devonshire to come on the same day under the same penalty.' The beginning of the trouble here alluded to lay in a quarrel between Robert Yeo, a retainer of the earl of Devonshire, and Wilham Wyke a tenant of the earl of Huntingdon. During the previous year William Wyke had obtained writs against the earl of Devonshire's retainer, which the latter had treated with contempt. Writs to the sheriff were Ukewise in- effective because he was in league with the same Robert Yeo. One day Wyke was caught in an ambuscade and horribly murdered at the instiga- tion, it is alleged, of Yeo. Indictments of the persons imphcated were obtained before the justices of the peace, who were in turn threatened by the earl. And so the quarrel spread until it involved many of the gentle- men of Devonshire, and was Ukely to cause a ci\al war in the neighbor- hood. It was clearly a case of maintenance, an attempt on the part of the earl to sustain the quarrel of another, coming under the statutes 20 Edw. Ill, c. 4 and 1 Richard II, c. 7.^ There was also the offence known as em- bracerj', an attempt to influence a jurj' corruptly, but this had not as yet been so fully laid down in the statutes.' Undoubtedly the case belonged to the council according to an act of parhament, 1 Richard II, which con- » The King's Council, 492. ' Mentioned in Statute 20 Ed. Ill, » See TayUrr v. Rochester, p. 2, n. 7. c. 6; 38 Ed. Ill, i, c. 12. Cll CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL ceded all cases invoh'ing " such high personages that right could not be done elsewhere." * When the matter was brought to the attention of the council on 10 January, a commission was issued to arrest Robert Yeo and his servant John Langford.^ But for the same reasons as before the commission failed of its purpose. The next move was the issue of a subpoena on 23 January to the earl and the sheriff as has already been told. This was effective. The parties came and the trial began on the day set, 8 February. From this point the record itself is the best narrative. The method of trial was an examination into the charges made by William Esturmy, nominally in behalf of the justices of the peace, that the earl had threatened the justices and jurymen with violence. One by one the witnesses, nine in all, were brought in, sworn and questioned in turn as to the words they had heard from the earl. Any divergences of testimonj^ or prevarications under the circumstances would have been readily detected. But they were all, in- cluding even the earl's own messenger, in substantial agreement that he had uttered the threats attributed to him. After six days the earl hunself was examined in the presence of a score of lords in the council chamber. He could make no defence; although he clamied that his words to the jurors were intended as reproaches rather than threats. He threw himself, therefore, on the king's mercy. The council, consisting at the time of his peers, with unusual severity condemned hun to prison until he should pay fine and ransom, at the same tune in view of his royal blood and previous good conduct, it conmiended him to the king's mercy. It may be with excessive leniency, the king granted the earl a full pardon for every crime heretofore perpetrated by him,^ and a few years later pardoned John Langford who had committed the murder.' It may be thought that the earl's submission and humiliation was sufficient punishment for all that he had done, but it is surprising to learn that during the week when the trial was pending, on 12, 14, and 15 February, the earl of Devonshire is recorded as present in the council, the same as other lords, deliberating on the king's business.' With such tolerance toward wrongdoing shown by the lords of the council, it is not strange that the statutes of livery and maintenance for the next century failed of enforcement. But the pardon of the earl of Devonshire was not the last word. On the same day, 15 February, the king took dramatic advantage of the situa- tion to exact from all the lords then present new pledges of loyalty. The incident is described in a minute of the council in the following words: * Rot. Pari, iii, 21. ' This pardon was granted at the in- ' The commissioners were William stance of the duke of Brittany in 1397. Esturmy, James Chudlegh, John Gren- Cal. Pal., 20 Richard II, 145. ville, sheriff of Devon, and Thomas Credy, ' The minutes of the council for these king's serjeant-at-arms. Cal. Pat., 15 days are given in The King's Council, Richard II, 82. 492-494. ' Issued on the same day, 15 February. Cal. Pal. Rolls, 24. INTRODUCTION Clll And then all the above-named lords gave assurances to the king in the following manner. The three uncles of the king, the prelates, and other lords promised in good faith and assured the king in his hand that they would from this time forth be his loyal subjects and would do nothing privily or openly, by themselves or through their followers, against the king, nor would they (act) one lord against another, or against the people oppressivelj^, except by law. And if peradventure any lord or other man of whatever estate should act to the contrary, (they promised) that all the lords would stand by the king in compel- ling the refractory one to obey the king and his laws. And in case any lord feels himself aggrieved, he will not take redress by force against the law, but will pursue by conmion law or complain to the king in order to gain redress and remedy, so that the laws of the realm may be maintained between the king and his lieges of whatever estate. And the king on his part for the complete comfort of his lords and other lieges of his own will and good heart, to cultivate good and com- plete devotion in his reahii, has promised on the word of a king to do no wrong or damage to any lord or other of his heges for anything that has happened heretofore, for which he may have reason to be moved against them or any one of them. And it is not his intention to restore any of those who have been adjudged in full parhament in his realm or in any place belonging to the crown.' TENANTS OF WINKFIELD v. ABINGDON 1393 The petition of the Tenants of Winkfield v. the Ahhey of Abingdon reveals a local uprising of peasants twelve years after the great revolt. Berkshire was not one of the counties that had taken a leading part in this movement,' but now in 1393 the peasants in the manors of Winkfield, Hurst, and Whistley were combining to resist the extortions, as they allege, of the Abbot of Abingdon. First the abbot proceeded against the tenants, com- plaining that his bondmen were rebelliously withdrawing their services and were confederating unlawfully ^ by oath in assemblies to resist him and his ministers. On this infonnation the king issued a commission of oyer and terminer, dated 14 May, 1393, with power to judge and imprison all who might be convicted.' The tenants did not lack intelligent leaders who inquired into the title of the abbey.* In moving the present petition they followed the course that other peasants had taken, attacking the claims of the abbey to be lord of the • Ibid., 494. ' Cal. Pat. 16 Ric. II, 294. ' A few examples are given in Victoria * Saward and Somerton who requested County Hist, ii, 190 f. an exemplification from Domesday Book ' The Statute 5 Ric. II, i, c. 6, forbade (ibid., 231) are mentioned in our record as all such assemblages. being made to suffer for the peasants. CIV CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL manor, and declaring themselves to be not bondmen but tenants of the crown domains.' Tenants of ancient demesne they could not claim to be. This claim the king caused to be investigated by the inquisition here set forth (p. 83), which supported the contention of the tenants of Wink- field but not those of the neighboring manor of Hurst. As to the merits of the case, we know that in Domesday Book, Winkfield is entered as a tene- ment of the abbej'.^ But according to a deed of 1348, there had been a later transfer, by which Old Windsor, New Windsor, Winkfield, and Ascot became parcel of the castle and manor of Windsor.'' Though the abbot enjoj'ed the principal part of the revenues of the manor, he held these not as lord but by special gift of the king. Henceforth Winkfield is men- tioned as the king's manor, but Hurst was confinned as a tenement of the abbot.* The tenants of Winkfield were encouraged to make a further statement of their grievances (p. 84), but whether they ever obtained redress for their ills is doubtful. Apparently the king was more concerned in prevent- ing any reduction of their services. In 1397, and again in 1398, he sent forth a commission to inquire into the conceahnent and withdrawal of dues pertaining to his manor of Winkfield and also the oppression of his tenants there.^ Here the matter is dropped. Another result, due not entirely to the uprisings in Berkshire, was the Statute 17 Rich. II, c. 8, passed in 1394, reciting that unlawful assemblies and riots against the king's peace have occurred, forbidding such assembhes in the future, and requiring sheriffs to suppress them with the full power of the counties. ATTE WODE v. CLIFFORD 1402 The case of Atte Wode v. Clifford is another case of maintenance and embracery, illustrating various phases of the extensive general problem. The principal defendant, James Clifford, Esquire, of Gloucestershire, was a turbulent character, who was accustomed to league with other men of the county, with a view to preying upon their weaker neighbours. Their method was to seize an estate at an opportune moment, and then by force and fraud to thwart anj^ legal processes begun against them. Sometimes, as in the present case, by holding a man in durance, they would extort from him enfeoffments to their advantage. Yet while charges of this kind were laid against him, Clifford was an honoured man in the county, serving on the king's commissions and keeping the castle of Caldecote. Among the cona- plaints which he was from time to time called to answer, was one in 1399, ' The same claim had been put forward " Exch. Domesday (1783), i, 59; Vic. by the tenants of the abl)ey of Meiiux in County Hist, i, 340. 13.56, giving rise to a prolonged Htigation. ' Anct. Deeds, i, A 153. Chron. de Melsa (Rolls Ser.), iii, 127-142. » Cal. Pat. 19 Ric. II, 669. For a trial of such a claim sec Year ' Il)id., 21 Ric. II, 310, 433. Books (Selden Soc), 5 Ed. II, 125-129. INTRODUCTION CV that he had entered upon an estate without process of law, ejected the tenants and occupied their lands ' in a manner very similar to that described in the present case. In the parliament of 1402 there were two petitions of different parties proceeding simultaneously against him. One was of the parson of Frethorn,- who alleged that James Clifford, having purchased the manor of Frethorn, laid claim to the church, forcibly ejected the parson and entangled him bj' all sorts of legal processes in order to dispossess him. Although the defendant had promised under bonds in the chancery to give up the church, still he would not allow the parson to have access. For this offence Clifford was to answer before the council, but of the result nothing further is known. The other petition was that of John atte Wode, or At- wood, with which we are now concerned. Atwood was a lesser landholder of the county, a tenant in the manor of Chedworth, an hereditary estate of the Beauchamps. Unfortunately for Atwood, the death of Thomas Beau- champ earl of Warwick deprived him of his natural defender. Since the manor was at the moment in the king's hand, before it was delivered to the next heir, the case was the more readily heard by the council. Already in the previous year Atwood and his wife had presented a petition to the king, but the only result was a commission of inquisition, followed by another commission, which for reasons presently to be given had failed in its duty.' Again they frame a petition addressing it on this occasion to the lords and commons in parliament. Their allegations are that Clifford had been the maintainor of Anselm Guise in persecuting them for the past seven years; that under a false indictment of felony Atwood had been held in prison for three j'ears and a half, while his enemies seized his lands and goods. Al- though he was afterwards acquitted of the felony, he had not yet recovered his property. The conmiission of inquisition appointed in the previous year, they allege, had accomphshed nothing because the bailiff and jurors of the county were in collusion with the defendants. The commissioners had taken two inquests, the first of which the complainants had challenged, the second they were not permitted to challenge. Under these conditions they affimi that it is impossible to obtain justice in the county and ask for a hearing in parliament. A hearing was granted, but after the first stage of the proceedings parliament, with customary caution, turned the matter over to the council for detennination. As the record carefully states, the council then proceeded not on its own authority but "by authority of parliament." The defence had little to say. The examination then was ' A commission was appointed to ' The first commission was issued 22 enquire into the claim (Cal. Pal. 22 July to William Beauchamp, John Berke- Ric. II, 5S5), but it was ineffective, and in ley and John Derhurst, who were to en- 1401 another commission was appointed quire into the matter and certify the king to enquire into the same matter (ibid. and council (Cal. Pal. 2 Hen. IV, 552); 2 Hen. IV, 5.52). the second commission, mentioned in our ' Rot. Pari, iii, 574. record, was 26 August to John Berkeley, etc. (ibid., 554). CVl CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL quickly passed over, and the award given unreservedly in favour of the complainants. The lands in question were to be fully restored, and all enfeoffments and transactions affecting the lands made since the ejectment of John Atwood were to be annulled. To ascertain the amount of goods carried off and the damage done, a commission of inquiiy was appointed to report at a later day, when the parties were to appear again before the council. As often happened, the award of the council was good in itself, but deficient in execution. Part of the lands in question, we know, were restored to John Atwood and his wife.'' But further restorations were checked by James Clifford, who caused Atwood to be murdered in February, 1405, by a hired assassin.' Anselm Guise was also imphcated, and the goods of both men were declared forfeited for their not appearing to answer. Clifford was afterwards convicted of the crime in the king's bench, and amerced in £1000. But before the end of the next year, in return for his payment of 200 marks, the king pardoned him of all outlawries and debts.^ At this price Clifford could afford to continue his depredations." How far the heirs of John Atwood ulthnately recovered their lands and goods has not been ascertained. Wlf'THUM V. MEN OF IL\MPEN 1418. The petition of Hugh de Wythiim v. Men of Katnpen illustrates another stage of the perennial problem of indemnities and reprisals. In the treaty made with the Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights in 1410 an attempt had been made to mitigate the evils of reprisals by an agreement, that no subject of the king should be arrested by the Grand Master by reason of injuries committed upon his subjects by Englishmen, and similarly that no subject of the Grand Master should be arrested in England for any such cause. If injuries should be committed, it was agreed that the king or the Grand Master, as the case might be, would give satisfaction; but, if claims should be made, and if after the lapse of six months all satisfaction should be refused, it was allowed that a proportional amount of goods might be taken from the property of Enghshmen or Teutons, according to the cir- cumstances.' Thus the customary law of reprisals was hardly altered. To settle outstanding clauns the sum of 10,000 marks was to be paid by the King of England to the Grand Master as an indcnmity. Two-thirds of this sum remained unpaid when Henry V came to the throne, and inuncdiately there were claims and counterclai:ns for captures at sea to trouble the * Hugh Waterton restored whatever ' Ibid., 8 Hen. IV, 284. had come to him. Close Roll, 5 Hen. IV, ' In 1408 he was pardoned of an out- m. 11. lawry for not appearing in the king's ' This occurred at Gyldenacre in the bench to answer in another case of tres- parish of St. Martin in Middlesex. Cal. pass. Ibid., 9 Hen. IV, 407. Pat. 6 Hen. IV, 511; 8 Hen. IV, 280. ' Fadera, viii, 0G3 f. INTRODUCTION CVU relations of England and Prussia. The first incident was when the new king, immediately on hearing of his father's death, was sailing from Bor- deaux to England anil overtook two Prussian hulks off the coast of Brittany. The English sent men to board them and examine their charters, but the strangers showed fight and delivered a regular attack in which Englishmen were killed. The Prussians, however, were captured and brought to South- ampton as prizes before the court of admiralty.^ In the same year there came before the council ambassadors from Prussia seeking a settlement of their outstanding financial claims.' They were told to put the matter in writing and were given responsory letters to take back to the Grand Master. When the Prussian ambassadors returned in 1415 they hardly gained a hearing, and were put off by the chancellor from day to day with evasive answers.^ At the same time the government made some effort to check the depredations that were preventing a concentration of strength upon the war with France. In one case twelve Englishmen were arrested for taking part in a robbery of the goods of a Prussian, to be detained imtil they should give satisfaction for their share of the 400 marks damages.* The statute of Henry IV was reenacted that strangers in England shall be treated in the same manner as denizens of England are treated in foreign parts ;^ this may be regarded as either a threat or a promise. Probably the greatest grievance of the foreigners during these years was caused by the king's seizure of a number of ships from Kampen, Dortrecht and a dozen other foreign towns for his militarj' necessities; the record of a promise of payment to the owners was vacated, we are told, "because nothing was done."' Under these conditions it is not surprising to learn that English- men like Hugh of 'Wythum suffered losses in Kampen and other towns. We should like to know whether the claim of Hugh for a reprisal was granted, but after the matter was given to a commission of oj'er and terminer it is not heard of again. DUVAL V. COUNTESS OF ARUNDEL 1421 The complaint of William Duval a merchant of Rouen, that his cargo of wines had been confiscated by agents of the Countess of Arundel, illus- trates a conflict of jurisdiction that was continually arising between the central government and local lordships. It was naturally the interest of local lords to seize stonn-tossed vessels, calhng them wreck, in spite of the law laid down again and again that there was no wreck, if anyone, a man, a dog or a cat, escaped ahve out of the ship.' Likewise if a sailor fell out of a ship and drowned, the lord of the place would claim the ship as deodand, » Rot. Pari, iv, 12; Wylie, Reiffn of ' Cal. Pat. 1 Hen. V, 64. Henry V, 118. « Statutes 5 Hen. IV, c. 7, 9; 4 Hen. V, * Nicholas, Proceedings, ii, 132. 2, c. 5. * Hanserecesse, vi, 148-150; Wylie, ^ Cal. Pal. 5 Hen. V, 115. 494 f. » Stat. Westm. 1st, 3 Ed. I, c. 4. CVllI CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL although the law was clear that if the vessel was on the sea, it should not be adjudged deodand.^ Against claims of this character, it became customary in the treaties of the fifteenth century to include articles acknowledging the right of mariners, when driven by storm or rough water, to seek refuge in ports and havens without making payments of any kind. But it was by no means easy for the king to assert the higher law against tenacious local customs. In the present petition it is intimated that the officers of the countess had been unwilling to obey the king's letters. Since the matter was referred to a conm;iission of oyer and tenniner the outcome of the case is unknown. But in another case arising in 1422, as soon as it was learned that a ship had been driven into a port of the countess and there stranded, the king promptly sent thither his serjeant at arms to seize everything contained in the ship and keep safely.' Whether the ship was a wreck or not, would then be judged in the king's court. DANVERS V. BROKET 1433 The case of Danvers v. Broket is an mcident that occurred at the begin- ning of the career of Robert Danvers, later a noted justice of common pleas. His biography has been given a place in Foss, Judges of England,^ but it is incomplete at this point. Foss was unacquainted with the case but noticed the following entry hi the minutes of the council. " On the 10th day (of July) in the Uth year, at Westminster, there was read and passed a certain act signed by the hands of the lords of the council and remaining on file in the office of the privy seal among other memoranda of the same, which begins as follows: Be it remembered- etc." The act in question was the judgment of the council in the case now presented. The case was over the charge of Danvers that liis opponents in a law suit had rased and rewritten a part of a record affecting a claim in dispute. Now the rasing of a record by any official had been made a penal offence, and jurisdiction in such a matter had been definitely given to the council by the Statute 8 Rich. II.' Moreover the forging of deeds had been carried to such an extent that people everywhere, it is said, were disturbed over their titles.^ Other statutes dealt with various aspects of the evil.^ In the present case, it is proved, the parties instead of altering tlie record in ques- tion, devised the singular scheme of erasing certain letters and then re- ' Rot. Pari, ii, 346, 372; iii, 25. two years of such default, he shall be ' Cal. Pal. 10 Hen. V, 443. punished by fine and ransom at the king's ' IV, 428. will and satisfy the injured party. Stat. ' Nicolas, Proceedings, iv, 166. 8 Ric. II, c. 4. • If any judge or clerk V)e sufficiently * Preamble, Stat. 1 Hen. V, c. 3; also convicted before the king and council, by 7 Hen. V, c. 2. the manner and form which to the same ' Stat. 14 Ed. Ill lays down that a king and council seem reasonable, within record may be challenged and amended at INTRODUCTION CIX writing the same letters, so as to make it appear that an alteration had been made. They would thus not invalidate the record, but hoped to cast discredit on the opposing attorney. Danvers had as yet no influence at court, that he was permitted to come without any petition and lay his grievance before a full meeting of the council. The rasure of a record indeed was a matter of public interest which the council desired to hear. After the opening statement of Danvers, and an exhibition of transcripts of the record, two clerks of the chancery were examined, who pointed to Wilham Broket, a clerk of the exchequer as the probable culprit. Complete proof of his guilt was then presented by Danvers who had skillfully drawn Broket into an incriminating corre- spondence. The letters were now produced in court. Faced with the evidence, Broket broke down and confessed that at the instigation of his chent John Lydyard he had rased the record just as his accuser had said. For this cause Broket was forthwith removed from his place in the exchequer and disquahfied from ever serving in any of the king's courts. In declaring Danvers innocent the council agreed that for his complete exonoration a record of the case should be enrolled in the chancery. It is not unhkely that the skill displayed at this time by the young lawyer was a recommendation for his subsequent employment in the king's service. NEVILLE V. NEVILLE 1435 The memorandum entitled Neville v. Neville is a fragment pertainmg to the long feud that was arising between two branches of the house of Neville. This had its origin in the two successive marriages contracted by Ralph Neville, first earl of Westmoreland (d. 1425),^ the first marriage having been with Margaret Stafford, and the second, a more pretentious alliance, with Joan Beaufort of royal blood. The father laboured indefatigably to found the fortimes of the children of his second family, in preference to the first, by a series of great matches and by a diversion of a good half of the Neville patrimony.^ So that the larger share of the landed estates and pohtical influence of the Nevilles ultimately fell to the descendants of Joan, herein mentioned as the coimtess of Westmoreland. There was plenty of ground for contention between the two sides, but the immediate object of dispute was the late earl's will disposing of his personal property.' The will was brought before the exchequer, but its execution was in suspense by any time, but that no process shall be lays down that no judgment, once given, annulled or discontinued by such a chal- shall be reversed on the ground of an error lenge. The interpretation of this act gave in any record. rise to such diversity of opinion that it was ' Diet. A'at. Biog. reaffirmed in Stat. 9 Hen. V, i, c. 4 and = Compare the estate left by the first 4 Hen. VI, c. 3, with the addition that the earl with that of the second earl. Cal. justices before whom a plea was pending Inq. p. m. iv, 103, 419. might amend a record either before or ' WilU and Inventories (Surtees Soc. after judgment. Stat. 8 Hen. VI, c. 12 1835), i, 68 f. ex CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL reason of an appeal made by the countess on the ground of error. Her peti- tion in the parliament of 1430-31 was referred to the council, but the council doubted its power. A second petition in 1433 directed the parties to go before the council and definitely gave the council power to reverse the judgment of the exchequer.^ The council did not welcome the task. From 20 January to 25 February, 1434, attorneys for the countess sought from day to day to obtain a hearing, and at length were told that " because of arduous business affecting the king and the realm " the matter could not be examined then, and that the parties might come again within three weeks from the following Easter.* Apparently there was another postponement, before the council gave any attention to the matter. Then on 4 February, 1435, there was proposed the expedient of a board of arbitrators, of whom each side should choose three lords and two justices; and if these should not be able to end the matter, it should be reported back to the council.' At this point an historian of the family is disposed to believe that the feud took a warhke turn and proceeded by methods of slaughter and destruc- tion.' But chronicles and documents as yet say nothing of the sort, and the record before us mentions only " fear of suits, unlawful entries and other labours that were likely to be done." A further postponement of the strife was effected by the incident disclosed in the present memorandum. When the king in 1435 required the services of Salisbury and Fauconberg in the war, their mother the countess consented to their departure only on con- dition that the earl of Westmoreland should give suretj' to forbear suits and other proceedings during the specified time, as a sort of moratorium essentially similar to the war moratoria of today. This the earl was induced to do and gave a recognizance of £4000. There was no breach of the peace apparently during the absence of SaUsbury and Fauconberg, nor during the three years following. In 1438 the council took the matter in hand again, endeavouring to bring the earl of Westmoreland and the countess to an agreement.* But the judicial fairness of the council was manifestly open to question, since the earl of Sahsbury had become an active member of the council and had gained a marked political ascendencj\' Before the end of the year the inevitable outbreak occurred. According to a signed letter of the king to his chancellor, dated 28 December, the parties " each against the other by manner of war and insurrection have late assembled great routs and companies upon the fickl and done further- more great and horrible offences as well in slaughter and destruction of our people as otherwise." '" The king commands that all the parties be called to answer as law and reason require. But one searches in vain for any effective treatment of the matter at the hands of the council. * liol. Pari, iv, 4G9. ' Nicoliw, v, 90, 92, 282, 283. ' Nicolas, Proceedings, iv, 189. ' Ibid., 71 f. He was granted as a 6 Ibid., 289. member of the council an annuity of £100. ' D. Rowlands, Hist, of the Family of Cal. Pal. 17 Hen. VI, 289. Nevill (1830), 36. " Given in full in Rowlands, 36. The INTRODUCTION CXI CONFESSION AND EXAMINATION OF JOHN FORDE 1439 The Examination of John Forde in 1439 is an example of the zeal of the council in enforcing the regulations of the wool trade. These regulations were infinitely specific as to packing, weighing, sealing, cocketing, etc., in proportion to the ingenious methods of merchants to evade and defraud the customs. One of the conmion devices of illicit traders, colloquially known as " good packing," was to mix or wind in better wool with cheaper wool, in order to pay the lower custom duties. This offence was dealt with in the Statute 8 Henry VI, c. 22, to the effect that no wool-packer should make within the realm aught but good and due packing, or make any inwinding within the fleece of wools at the rolling up of the wool, etc. The present case reveals a variation of this practice, not noticed before, in the device of winding the raw wool in the folds of woolen cloth. There was every temp- tation to do this, for the statutes requiring the wool of the realm to be exported only to Calais,' had been made iucreasingly struigent, while licenses to export wool to other places were difficult to get. On the other hand the exportation of woolen cloth, noticed from the beginning of the fifteenth century, was liberally encouraged and exempted from the limi- tations placed on raw wool.^ The statutes of Edward IV were to go further in restricting the exportation of wool in favour of that of cloth. The revela- tions of John Forde stimulated the government to search packages of cloth for inwindings of wool and enabled it to detect others in the same iUicit practices. A few months later John Cok another mercer of London was found out and arrested for packing wool with his cloth for shipment.' Different from Forde, he was pardoned on his petition that he had been instigated bj' evil-doers who had thus attempted to destroy him, but the king confiscated the wool and the cloth. A series of commissions to Lord Cromwell, Robert Large, William Fallan, the examiners in the present case, to search for the " forcing and clacking " and other illegal practices in the wool trade apparently had a salutary effect.'' THE BEDFORD RIOT 1439 The Examination into the Bedford Riot brings us to an episode presaging the worst days of the Paston Letters. In a manner characteristic of the fifteenth century, it sprang from a dissension between two of the leading lords of Bedfordshire. One was Lord Grey of Ruthin,' of an ancient family with an accumulation of estates in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and letter is dated 28 December at Kenil- « Rot. Pari, ui, 501; iv, 377. worth, without the year, but by compari- ' Cal. Pat. 17 Hen. VI, 298. son with letters of the great seal, this may * Ibid., 315, 373, 417, 439, etc. be inferred to be 1438. ' Dugdale, Baronage, i, 716. « Stat. 2 Hen. VI, c. 25; 11 Hen. VI, c. 14; 14 Hen. VI, c. 5, etc. CXU CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Wales. He had served in the wars and in the council of Henry IV and Henry V, but he was now an aged man and his pohtical influence was visibly waning. The other was Sir John Cornwall, a new man, who had risen rapidly from obscure origin to be next to Lord Grey the leading landlord of the county. He had lately been created a baron under the title Lord Fanhope and was a member of the king's council. Whether the root of the trouble lay in personal jealousy or the quarrels of their respective re- tainers and allies, we are not informed. At all events there came a clash in the spring of 1437 over the appointment of four justices, apart from the regular justices of the peace, to inquire into felonies, insurrections, tres- passes, etc., occurring within the county.^ Although two of the justices were friends of Lord Fanhope, it is not clear that his lordship had anything to do with their appointment. Lord Grey, however, suspected that they were acting in the interests of his rival. When the commissioners then came to Silsoe and endeavored to hold session in front of the church. Lord Grey came up with 50 or 60 armed men, and begged to know why they had chosen his church as the place of their session.^ They must have chosen it, he said, " in despite of him," yet he would not obstruct the session but wait to see what they meant to do. His ally John Enderby, who had come with 100 or 120 men, said that the cormnission had been stolen and was intended to indict the tenants of Lord Grey. On the other hand Lord Fanhope, who was on hand with 60 men, affected suspicion of the com- mission because it was holding session in the town of his rival. While the armed forces of both sides were increasing, through the mediation of Sir Thomas Wauton it was agreed that Lord Fanhope with his men should move to one side of the town and Lord Grey to the other. John Enderby as justice of the peace in the county promised to hold sessions of the peace, and the conamissioners because of the danger in proceeding further decided to adjourn their sessions. These facts were elicited in an exanaination before the council at Westminster, where for several days the commissioners were questioned on the affair.^ But as happened too frequently in events of this kind, no action so far as we know was taken either by the council or by the justices of the peace. On 12 January, 1439, there was a similar occurrence at the town of Bed- ford, which came still nearer to a warlike outbreak. During the interval of the past year and a half it appears that Lord Fanhope had gained an advantage by excluding his rivals, particularly John Enderby and Thomas Wauton, from appointment as justices of the peace. ^ They retaliated by securing a special commission ^ issued to Sir Thomas Wauton, John En- • This commission, dated 16 March, « Nicolas, Proceedings, v, 35-9, 57-9. 1437, was issued to Wilham Lud.sop, John ' The list of justices of the peace is in Fitz, Henry of Lye and William Pckke Cal. Pat. RolU, 578. {Cal. Pat. 15 Hen. VI, 87). Fitz and • No enrolment of this commission has Pekkc are involved in the affair of 1439. been found; its existence is inferred from • The incident has been noticed in what follows. Victoria County Hist, ii, 36. INTRODUCTION CXlll derby, John Fitz, and Harry Etwell, the justices named in the record now at hand. Then there came a collision between the justices of this commis- sion and the regular justices of the peace represented by Lord Fanhope, Wilham Ludsop, and WilUam Peck. On this occasion Lord Grey, who was near the end of his Hfe, took no active part. The justices of the special conunission were about to begin their session in the town hall of Bedford, when Lord Fanhope with 40 or 60 armed men came into the hall, and after a brief greeting sat down on a bench at the end of the room. There was an attempt to bring the justices of both commissions together, but between the two sides there was an exchange of rudeness, argimients, threats, and words of defiance, until the hall was filled with clamour. Lord Fanhope leaped upon the board used as a table and drew his dagger. Enderby also held a dagger until a sword was handed to him. There were hundreds of armed men in the neighbourhood. Yet in all this tumult, or riot as it was called, no one was injured, not even a blow was struck by either side against the other.' Wauton and his fellows inunediately carried out their threat of reporting the matter to the king and council. Their certification,^ which is mentioned m our record, is unfortunately wanting. Not to be outdone, Lord Fanhope likewise made a certification, accusing his opponents of breaking up the session of the peace which he had endeavoured to hold. And so the council took up the matter on 10 February, in the proceedings now before us. The exammation before the lords in the star chamber was the most com- plete and searching that has yet been recorded. On the facts alleged in the certification of the justices as many as thirteen articles of inquiry were drawn up. The witnesses, including the four justices of the first commis- sion and the undersheriff of Betlfordshire, were questioned singly and their answers written down. Wlien their answers and admissions were afterwards read and compared, it was found that Wauton and Enderby had disagreed over the form of the certification. There was a discrepancy in the testimony as to the number of Lord Fanhope's followers. The jus- tices admitted that they had not announced to his lordship their intention of opening the session and had hardly shown him due reverence. Much was made of the question whether Fanhope held his dagger downward or forward, whether his attitude and motions were threatening, and whether he had incited the tumult or sought to quell it. Fitz saw hini draw no dagger and Enderby admitted having drawn his own. They all acknowl- edged that his lordship had sought to quell the riot, that he had protected them in going to their lodging, and had hospitably given them drink. When the record was finally read in the presence of many lords of the coun- cil, it was their opinion that, while they could not legally deny the certifi- ' These facts were elicited in the exam- riots, had declared that in default of the ination, p. 104. justices of the peace, certification should > The Statute 13 Hen. IV, c. 7, on be made to the king and council. CXIV CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL cation, the conduct of Lord Fanhope and his followers was not without excuse, and that the justices had most Hkely been actuated by motives of mahce and anger. Thus they reported to the king, who commanded the chancellor to issue a patent of pardon and release for Lord Fanhope and all his followers. For a record which his lordship desired, these letters dated 7 March with an abstract of the case were exemplified on the Patent RoU.9 But the vindication of Lord Fanhope was not satisfactory to his op- ponents, who then took steps toward getting a similar vindication for them- selves. By letters patent dated 30 May, Wauton and his fellows, together with a host of men who had participated on their side in the riot of 12 Januaiy, were pardoned and released of all fines, sureties and other obhga- tions in regard to the matter.*" In the exact words used in the release of Lord Fanhope, it was declared that the certification against them had been made of mere mahce. Thus in the midst of feuds and strifes, that were leading directly toward civil war, the king and council temporized. With all the solemnities of legal procedure, they sought to do justice neither to one side nor the other. They did not even support one party against the other; but without any intelhgent policy they released one band of rioters and then the other, for no other gain than the paltry fees paid into the chancery. It is not surprising to learn that judicial sessions in Bedford- shire were soon again disturbed." HEYRON V. PROUTE 1460-63 The suit of Heyron v. Proute, 1460-63, is a single stage of a litigation that was afterwards carried from court to court during a period of twenty years. From a passage in the chronicles of Fabyan ' we learn that it originated in a mysterious loan of £18,000, which the staplers of Calais advanced to the Yorkist lords while they were making the town their stronghold in 1459-60. When the staplers in 1462 approached Edward IV for a return of the money, they were answered by the council that the loan had never come to the king's knowledge, but belonged of right to the earl of Wiltshire the treas- urer lately beheaded for treason. Fabyan saj's that it was this Richard Heyron, described as " of pregnant wit and of good manner of speech," who brought forward at this time the claims of the staplers. But Heyron was speaking for none but himself, for the present record shows that al- ready in the reign of Henry VI he had turned against his fellow staplers, and was seeking by devious courses to gain satisfaction and, as events prove, to wreak vengeance on his enemies. • Several of the facta just given arc " Nicolas, v, 192. derived from this source. Col. Pal. Rolls, ' New Chronicles of England and France 246. (1811), 635, 652. '» Ibid., 282. INTRODUCTION CXV The case, though it was never completed, is not without interest in several particulars. It offers an illustration, not frequent in the records of the council, of the method of written pleadings in the form of bill, answer, replication, and rejoinder. It also contains in these pleadings the most in- timate description of the wool trade in these parts that we have prior to the Cely Papers.^ How the wool was purchased extensively on credit, how it was bought up in the counties of England, then brought to London and cocketed, how it was received and distributed at Calais are vividly set forth in the complaint of the merchant. But on the merits of the suit we can say little more, for proofs are entirely lacking. To the charges made by Heyron the defendants at first demurred, then denied them en- tirely. After these lengthy pleadings Heyron, evidently feeling that the court was against hun, suddenly discontinued the suit. With extraordinary ingenuity he afterwards found a way of impleading certain of his opponents in the court of the duke of Burgundy.' At an opportune moment he caused them to be arrested in the town of Bruges and tried for the injuries done to him at Calais. The process is said to have been long continued in that court, and was afterwards appealed to the king of France, as overlord of Flanders, in the Parliament of Paris. Here it was dismissed, as we after- wards learn, at the solicitation of the king of England. Fearing that Heyron would implead them still further in foreign courts, the staplers suc- ceeded in bringing the matter in 1478 before the king and parliament, by whom it was ordained that proclamations should be made ordering Heyron to desist in these proceedings. In spite of these inhibitions, Heyron found one other resort in the court of Rome, where on charges of ill contract he obtained in 1480, first a penal admonition and then an annullatoiy bull against the Society of the Staplers. These sentences the staplers afterwards induced the pope to revoke. The last stage of the affaii' was an argument upon the question of Hey- ron's right as an English subject to sue in foreign courts and of the juris- diction of the king's court in the matter. In 1480, Heyron returned to England under letters of protection with the avowed purpose of suing in the king's court again. For the better safety of his person he sought sanc- tuary in Westminster Abbey. Here he was called upon to defend his con- duct in having impleaded the king's subjects in foreign courts. Our knowledge of these events is based entirely on a record of the council, in which it answers at length the" pleadings of Heyron.^ The points in Hey- ron's plea were (1) that under the treaties of intercourse with Burgundy, he was permitted to sue in the ducal court, (2) that he had resorted to ' Royal Hist. Soc. (Camden Series, I am indebted to Miss Cora L. Scofield, 1900). who has discovered it in the preparation ' The following facts are set forth in of her forthcoming work on The Reign of the proceedings of 1478. Rot. Pari, vi, Edward IV. It is found in Treaty Roll, 182; Cal. Pal. 17 Ed. IV, 67. 21 Ed. IV, mm. 1-3, given below in Ap- * For the following remarkable record, pendi.x I, pp. 121-129. CXVl CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Rome because he could not get justice elsewhere, and (3) that the king's letters ordering him to desist were invalid, because he himself had letters of license. In answer to these points in detail the council argued, (1) that it was a case of jurisdiction over persons rather than territory. The sole judge of a dispute under the treaties of intercourse was the king, from whom the law, so far as it was now in question, had emanated. Moreover, according to the treaties no jurisdiction over EngUsh subjects had been conceded, except in maritime captures.' (2) As to the appeal to Rome, Heyron had disobeyed the king's conmiand to desist, as expressed by letters patent and by the procurator at Rome. Moreover, the papal sentence settled nothing because it had been revoked. (3) As to the genuineness of the king's letters issued at the instance of the staplers, these were wholly valid, while the validity of the letters hcensing Heyron's appeals was open to doubt. No such letters had been issued under the great seal or under the pri\^- seal, and, if they had been issued at all, they must have been under the signet ring. But this could not be ascertained, because the king's secretary, the keeper of the signet at the time, was dead. If there were any such letters in existence, the king, citing the recent action of the pope, now revoked them. The final declaration of the council was that the "profane and pecuniary case" of Richard Heyron belonged to the king's court and no other, and here he might have audience and justice. Heyron died soon after in sanctuary, we are told, without having recovered any of his losses and being deeply in debt to many persons.* TENANTS V. WAYNFLETE 1462 '^^^ '^™^ record entitled Tenants v. Waynflete is to be taken as supple- mentary' to a memorandum in the Rolls of Parliament for the previous year.' It represents the last stage of a conflict that had been going on for a year or more in the manors of Hampshire. The first that we hear of the affair is a complaint of the bishop of Winchester that his bondmen of East Meon had thrown ofif their allegiance. He invoked the Statute 5 Rich. II against such insurrections for his protection. A commission of oyer and terminer, dated 1 August, 1461, was granted,- but so far as can be seen it effected nothing, unless it was to excite the tenants to greater violence. The next that we hear is that the tenants have seized the bishop as if to prevent his escape.' It was when Edward IV was making his first i^rogress through the country, as he came into Hampshire in the montli of August, that the tenants of East Meon and elsewhere " in great multitude and number " came to the king complaining of certain services, customs, and dues that the bishop and his agents were attempting to exact.* The king, not having • Faedera, xi, 610; xii, 72. " Brief Latin Chron. (Camden Soc, • Fabyan, 653. 1880), 174. ' Rol. I'arl. V, 475. * These events are recited in the memo- ' Dated 1 August, 1461. Cal. Pal. randum of the Parhament Roll just cited. 1 Ed. IV, 38. INTRODUCTION CXVII the leisure then to examine into the matter, charged the peasants to con- tinue tlieir services and pajnnents as before, and if they felt themselves injured to send deputies to the next parliament when they should be heard and have answer according to reason. At the same time, according to one account, the king rescued the bishop from the hands of his captors and arrested their ringleaders.' On their coming to parliament, which met 4 November, the claims of the peasants were referred to a body of lawyers, three serjeants, and the king's attorney, who were to examine into the matter with the aid of the learned counsel of both sides and report to the king and the house of lords. After long labour a copious detail of partic- ulars was given to the lords on 14 December. The grievances of the peasants, it now appears, were (1) The exaction of certain customs of hens and com under the name of Shirshette, otherwise known as Church Scot. (2) The exaction of a smn of money claimed at two law days of the year called Tithing pennj^ or Totting penny. (3) The levy of a sum called custom pannage ^ for swine in East Meon. (4) That the court of the bishop had been held at the parsonage of East Meon and not within the manor. (5) As to theii- status, the tenants claim to be freeholders, not copy- holders, and their land charter land, not copy land. These claims were denied by the bishop entirely. The lords took until the next morning to deliberate, when it was intended that every man should be asked for his advice. The proofs laid before them consisted of records of the manor, particularly court rolls and account books called Pipes ^ of as many as fifteen bishops, also records of the chancery and the exchequer, by which it was determined after long and serious debate that the claims of the bishop were fully sustained and that the tenants had failed to show sufficient cause for exemption. The decree was passed by the lords on 16 December, in the presence of the justices of both benches, and assented to by the king. But the matter did not end here. Whether the tenants showed new signs of rebellion, we do not know. But in the month of May they were complaining again that the bishop had thrown certain of their neighbours into prison. Both parties were told to send deputies before the king's council. The tenants came, but satisfied that the court was against them, departed and lost their case by default. After the writs of proclamation detemiined, as is here told, on 3 July, no further attempts, so far as is known, were made by the tenants of East Meon. The same is given in R. Chandler, Life of acted of villeins only. See Tenants of Waynflele (1811), App. 348. Winkjield v. Abingdon, p. 84, n. ' Latin Chron., 174. ' Now in the custody of the Ecclesi- • A payment understood to be ex- astical Commission. CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL BOISTARD V. CUMBWELL' 1243 Placita coram Consilio Domini Regis a die sancti lohannis Baptiste ^ in tres septimanas Anno Regni Henrici filii Regis loannis 27°. Assisa si Philippus de Cumbwell dissaisivit Walterum Boistard ' de tribus Carrucatis * terra in Chemerswell/ Defendens dicit quod ne vnquam seisitus nee probat quia loannes frater eius tenuit de eo in Capite tenemen- tum illud vt in Feodo. Et inde obiit sine prole. Et post ipse seisivit in manus suas quousque Rectus heres veniret ad faciendum servicium debi- tum. Et quod Rogerus qui est ad fidem Regis Frauncie^ est Rectus heres et primogenitus qui post venit de partibus transmarinis et se intrusit sed non permisit sesinam habere quia non intelUgebat ipsura ahquid ius habere cum fratrem primogenitum haberet. Walterus dicit quod petit dicere quicquid vult quia dicit quod fuit in pacifica seisina per multos dies. Et nullus ahus heres apparet. Et Philippus ipsum iniuste eiecit. Et de hoc &c. lur(ata) dicit quod predictus loannes obiit sine prole sed habuit fratrem Rogerum nomine maioris etatis quam predictus Walterus qui est in Nor- mania vt credunt et non est ad fidem Regis sed nunquam eum viderunt nee vnquam in partes istas venit ad clamorem apponere nee sciunt vtrum sit vivus aut mortuus. Et defuncto loanne defendens vt dominus Capitalis pro se in seisinam salvo iure &c. Post Walterus Rediens a partibus trans- marinis posuit se in seisinam per Novem dies, quo audito Philippus ilium eiecit. Et petit Judicium Curie ad discernendum si talis seisina Walteri et eiectio Philippi fuit disseisinam.' Post quia testatur quod Walterus habet fratrem antenatum in Normannia, et habet ibi terram, et fecit homagium Episcopo Baiocensi,* et ipse Episcopus Regi Frauncie;' de Consilio Curie terra teneatur in manu Regis usque Rex aliud &c. Et Philippo fecit dande XV marce.'" Et dies datus est ei ad Indicium suum audientlum coram ' Lincoln's Inn MSS. Hale Collection, in different localities, depending upon the 16. See J. Hunter "Three CBtalogues " quality of the soil, the popul.ation &c. In (1838), p. 286. This case is not in I'taci- the Domesday of Inclosures (1897) Mr. torum Abbrenatio, nor in the Roluli Leadani has shewn that in the Midland PaTliamenloTum, nor is it to be found in and Southern counties of which wo have the Curia Regis Roll T. T. 27 Hen. Ill, nor returns it averaged rather more than nine in Roll 125, now corresponding to the acres in 1517 (ib. I. 54). former Roll 17. ' Chiswell Farm in Cumnor, Berks; see ' 24 June, 1243. Close Rolls, 1242-1247, p. 122; Cal. of » A Walter Boystard was lord of the Pal. Rolls, 1232-1247, p. 391. manor of Lethenborough, Bucks, perhaps " This raises the question of allegiance, in the thirteenth century. See The Gene- on account of which, doubtless, the case alogist, n.s. (1886) III, 137. was referred to the council. Coke, citing * The plough-land was a variable area Bracton, lib. 2 fo. 80a., says "Every free- CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL BOISTARD V. CUMBWELL' 1243 Pleas before the Council of the Lord the King for three weeks from St. John the Baptist's Day ' in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of King Henry son of King John. An assize whether Philip of Cumbwell has disseised Walter Boistard ' of three carucates ^ of land in Chemerswell.^ Defendant says that Walter never was seised nor does he show proof of seisin, because John his brother held that holding of him, Philip, in chief as in fee, and then died without issue. And afterwards he himself took seisin of it into his hands until the right heir should come to render due service, and he says that Roger who is in fealty to the king of France * is right heir and eldest son, and that he afterwards came from the parts beyond the sea and intruded himself, but he, defendant, did not permit him to have seisin because he did not under- stand that he had any right, as having an elder brother. Walter says that he asks leave to say what he desires to say, that is, that he was in peaceable seisin during many days, and no other appears as heir. And Philip has ejected him unjustly. And touching this, &c. the jury say that the afore- said John died without issue, but he had a brother named Roger older than the aforesaid Walter, that Roger is, as they believe, in Normandy and not in fealty to the king, but they have never seen him, nor has he ever come into these parts to put up his claim nor do they know whether he be alive or dead, and that after John's death the defendant as chief lord took seisin for himself, saving the right of the true heir &c. Afterwards Walter, returning from the parts beyond the sea, put himself in seisin during nine days. Philip upon hearing tliis ejected him, and he asks the judgment of the court to decide if such seisin by Walter and ejection by Philip were disseisin. Afterwards because he gives evidence that Walter has an elder brother in Normandy and has land there and has done homage to the bishop of Bayeux,^ and the bishop himself to the king of France,' by counsel of the court the land is to be held in the king's hand until the king otherwise (determine). And the court caused Philip to be given fifteen marks.'" And day was given him for hearing his judgment before the holder, except tenant in frankalmoign, the doing of fealty and of homage; for shall do fealty." 1 Inst. 67b. homage can not be done to any but to the ' Probably a blunder of Hale's some- lord himself, but the steward of the lord's what careless transcriber for disseisina. court or bailife may take fealty." Little- ' Guido, Bishop of Bayeux 1241-1260. ton, § 92; Coke, 68a. P. B. Gams, Series Episcoporum (1873), ' Louis IX, King, 1226-70. p. 507. " There is great diveraitie between '° £10. 2 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Consilio Regis apud Westmonasterium. Eo die apparuerunt predict! Walterus et Philippus et propter absenciam domini Archiepiscopi " datus est ei dies &c. Rot. 17 Scedula. TAYLOR V. ROCHESTER ' 1292 Ceo est la grant destruction e la grant Outrage ke fet est a Huwe le Tayl- lur ^ de ses byens e de ses chateus a Hulprington ' e a Wamberge * en le Conte de WiltesjTe, par le comandement sire Salomon de Roucestre * adonk Justyce errant en meyme le Conte,^ a tort e acontre les estatuz le Rey.' E pur ceo a tort kar par la ou Johan de Tauy * par le meyntenement le deuandyt Sire Salomon suwyt un Bi[lle] deuers le deuantdyt Huwe le Taj'llur fausement de fere lever de ses terres e de ses chateus ' quarante lyures de les Cynkante lyures auant dyz.'° Prymes furent totes les bestes de les charuwes" Huwe pryses par Sire Johan de Wotton'^ adonk visconte de Wiltes '' par la meyn Thomas de Bouedone '*' soen Ijayllj'f le dymej-ne pro- cheyn apres la feste de la Purification nostre dame le an du Regne le Rey Edward dysetyme.^^ E vend^Tent touz les boefs de les charuwes deynz les oyt Jours apres la pryse et contre les estatuz nostre Segnur le Rey. E par la reson ke il vendirent les bestes de ses charuwes tant come il y auoynt autre byens asez a la muntance de la dette demandee.'^ E trestuz les autres byens Huwe furent destruyt e a grant meschief venduz, par le comande- ment sire Salomon de Roucestre e par la meyn Thomas de Bouedone Bayllyf le deuantdyt sire Johan de Wotton adonk visconte de AViltesire. Cest asauer a Hulprinton. " This must refer to Walter de Grey, • Wanhorough; in Domesday, Wem- chancollor in 1205, and archbishop of berge, in Kingsbridge Hundred, N. E, York in 1215-1255. The see of Canter- Wilts, three miles S. S. E. of Swindon, bury had been vacant since the death of ' See Introd., p. xlix. Edmund Kieh in 1240. Boniface of " This fact, that he held a circuit in Savoy, who had been nominated to it by Wiltshire, does not appear to have been Henry III in 1241, was not confirmed by hitherto recorded of him. See I>icl. Nat. InnocentlVtill theendof 1243anddidnot Biog. sub Rochester, visit England till 1244. When, therefore, ' Maintenance is defined by Coke as Henry III sailed for France in 1242 he left " an unlawful upholding of the demandant the archliishop of York in charge of the or plaintiff, tenant or defendant in a cause kingdom, and Grey was styled " the king's depending in suit, by word, wTiting, chief justiciar." As such, he would countenance, or deed." He lays it down naturally preside at the hearing of this (2 Inst. 207) that it was against the Com- oase by the council. mon Law as being malum in sc, and it does ' ParliameniaTij Proceedings (Chan- not appear to have been a statutory eery), file 2, no. 20. offence till the Statute of Westminster ' The comi)Iainant's name had, it may the First (1275), which (cap. 25) prescribes be inferred from the goods seized and sold, that " no officer of the king by themselves, become a surname dissociated from the nor by other, shall maintain pleas, suits, handicraft. or matters hanging in the king's courts, * Hilperton; in Domesday, Helprin- for lands, tenements, or other things, for tone, in Melksham Hundred, West Wilts, to have part or profit thereof by covenant one mile N. E. of Trowbridge. made between them, and he that doth TAYLOR V. ROCHESTER 2 king's council at Westminster. On which day the aforesaid Walter and Philip appeared and by reason of the absence of the lord archbishop" day was given liim &c. TAYLOR V. ROCHESTER' 1292 This is the great destruction and the great outrage that is done to Hugh Taylor - of his goods and of his chattels at Hilperton ' and at Wanborough * in the county of Wiltshire by the command of Sir Solomon Rochester * then justice in eyre in the same county ' wrongfully and against the statutes of the king.' And hereby it is wrongful, for whereas John of Tauy ' by the maintenance of the aforesaid Sir Solomon sued a bill against the aforesaid Hugh Taylor falsely to cause to be levied of his lands and of his chattels ^ fortj' pounds of the fifty pounds above said,'" in the fir.st place all the beasts of plough" of Hugh were taken by Sir John Wotton'^ then sheriff of Wilts" by the hand of Thomas Bowdon"* his bailiff the morrow next after the feast of the Purification of our Lady the seventeenth year of the reign of the king Edward.'* And they sold all the plough-oxen within the eight daj's after the seizure and contrary to the statutes of our lord the king.'* And by reason that they sold the plough-beasts while there were other goods sufficient to the amount of the debt sued for and all the other goods of Hugh were destroyed and sold at great loss by the com- mand of Sir Solomon Rochester and by the hand of Thomas Bowdon bailiff of the aforesaid Sir John Wotton then sheriff of Wiltshire that is to wit at Hilperton. shall be punished at the king's pleasure." of the debtor, saving only his oxen and This, as Coke remarks, is specificalh' beasts of plough." directed against champerty, but " every 12 This is also a Wiltshire name in champerty is maintenance," and it is Domesday, Wodeton, Wootton, Bassett presumably to this statute that the com- being in Kingsbridge Hundred, North plainant is referring. Wilts. ' The name of two villages in Devon- " John Wotton was sheriff of Wilts shire. from 2 April, 1281 to 9 May, 1289. List ' " When judgment has been given for "/ Sheriffs (P. R. O. 1898). a debt, the sheriff will be directed to cause '* Perhaps ' Bufton ' is the modern the sum that is needful to be made {fieri equivalent. facias) out of the goods and chattels of the is The Feast of the Purification was 2 defendant, or levied {levari facias) out of February. The date, therefore, is 3 Feb- his goods and the fruits of his land." ruary, 1289. Pollock and Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law, „ ^mong the inquiries by the justices (1895), n, 594. itinerant in their eyre was one " whether '» Evidence that these papers are sup- any sheriff has distrained beasts of the plemental to a bill of complaint which has plough, or wethers, or ewes, or household disappeared. utensils, or riding horses, or apparel, or " This was clearly against the Statute things within doors, when other sufficient of Westminster the Second, c. 18 (1285), distress might have been found, and that which provided that "the sheriff shall without doors." Britton (cd. F.M.Nichols, deliver to him (the creditor) all the chattels 1865), Book I, c. xxii, vol. i, p. 89. CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL HulprintoD Estor vendu Ble vendu Cidre vendu Feyn vendu Foer e Paylle Wamberge Prymes xx boefs des queus les xvij furent venduz checun a viij souz " ke byen valeyt xij souz. E des treys boefs venduz checun a v souz ke byen valeyt xij souz. Une bone Jumente vendu a iij souz ke bj'en valeyt x souz." X vaches preygnes vendues checun a v s. ke byen valeyt viij souz." E un beaus Tor vendu a v souz ke byen valeyt x souz.^" E vj bouez suranez venduz checun a xx d. ke byen valeyt iij souz. E XXX cheures venduwes pur xxx souz ke byen valeynt xlv s.'' E xxvi pors venduz checun a x deners ke byen valeyt xviij deners.^ E un sengler vendu a x deners ke byen valej^ v souz." E xxiij quarters de forment bon e net venduz le quarter a xviij d. ke byen valeyt xxij d.^ E xviij quarters de mestilon ^ de forment et de Drowe ^ vendu le quarter a .xij d. ke bj-en valeyt xx d. E xxiiij quarter de Orge venduz le quarter a xiiij d. ke byen valeyt xx deners." E iij quarters vj bussels de feues venduz le quarter a xij d. ke byen valeyt xviij deners.^' E xiij quarters vj bussels de Dragis venduz le qiiarter a xvj d. ke byen valeyt xx deners.* Et ij quarters ij bussels de poys venduz le quarter a xij d. ke byen valeyt xvj deners.'" E iiij Toneaus de Cydre venduz le Tonel a v souz ke byen valeyt x souz.'' E tout le feyn vendu a x souz vj d. ke byen valeyt xxx souz. E Foere'' e paylle venduz a iij souz v d. ob. ke byen valeyt xiij s. iiij d. Ixxviij quarters de forment venduz le quarter a xvj d. ke byen valeyt ij souz.** " The average price of oxen in 1288-89 (Michaelmas to Michaelmas) is given by Thorold Rogers as 8s.-9d. History of Agriculture and Prices (1866), i. 343. " This must have been an inferior kind of draught animal such as those classified by Rogers as " Affri and Stotts," the average price of which in 1288-89 was lOs. 9id. Ibid. " The average price of " cows " in 1288-89 was 5e. 9Jd- Ibid. " The average price of bulls was not found by Rogers for each year. In 1284 it was lOM)''; in 1291, 7B,-6d. Ibid. " Goats (in kid) sold at Theydon, Essex, in 1310 at lUd. lb. p. 642. " The average price of pigs (" porci ") in 1288-89 was 28. 2}d. lb. p. 343. " The average price of boars is only occasionally entered by Rogers. In 1287 it was 38.-2d.; in 1293, 5s. Ibid. " This is a very low price for wheat, only one lower being recorded by Rogers in 1288-89, viz. Is. 4d. at Oldington, Salop, though there are four entries as low as 28. Ibid. ii. 32. " Anglicd, mixtilion, misccllan or nias- lin; " mi.xed grain, especially rye mixed with wheat." Oxford English Dictionary. The entries for 1288-89 vary between 38. and 18. 8d. Rogers, ib. pp. 33, 34. TAYLOR V. ROCHESTER HulprintoD BeasU sold Grain Bold Cider sold Hay 6old Forage and Straw Wamberge First 20 oxen of which" 17 were sold, each at 8 shillings which was well worth 12 shillings. Also three oxen sold at 5 shillings each w^hich was well worth 12 shillings. A good mare sold at 3 shillings'* which was well worth 10 shillings. Ten cows in calf sold at 5 shillings each which was well worth 8 shillings." Also a fine bull sold at 5 shillings which was well worth 10 shillings.^" Also 6 old bullocks sold at 20 pence each which was well worth 3 shil- lings. Also 30 goats sold for 30 shillings which w-ere well worth 45 shillings.^' Also 26 pigs sold at 10 pence each which was well worth 18 pence." Also a boar sold at 10 pence which was well worth 5 shillings.^' Also 23 quarters of wheat good and clean sold at 18 pence the quarter which was well worth 22 pence.-^ Also 18 quarters of maslin" of wheat and dredge^ sold at 12 pence the quarter which was well worth 20 pence. Also 24 quarters of barley sold at 14d. the quarter which was well worth 20 pence." Also 3 quarters 6 bushels of hay sold at 12 pence the quarter which was well worth 18 pence.'* Also 13 quarters 6 bushels of dredge sold at 16 pence the quarter which was well worth 20 pence. ^ Also 2 quarters 2 bushels of peas sold at 12 pence the quarter which were well worth 16 pence.'" Also 4 tuns of cyder sold at 5 shillings the tun which was well worth 10 shillings.^' Also all the hay sold at 10 shiUings 6 pence which was well worth 30 shillings. Also forage and straw sold at 3 shillings and 5 pence halfpenny which was well worth 13 shillings and 4 pence.'' 78 quarters of grain sold at 16 pence the quarter which was well worth 2 shillings.'' " " Droue — nom vulgaire de diverses gramin^es qui fournissent un fourrage de mauvaise qualite." Littrd, Did. Franc. No entries are given in Rogers under this head. " The average price of barley in 1288- 89 was 28. 3|d. (Rogers, i, 228.) The complainant's valuation is again low. " Rogers supplies no data by which to test this valuation. See ib. ii, 391. " Dredge, drage, a mixture of various kinds of grain, especially of oats and barley sown together. Oxford Engl. Diet. Rogers describes it as " a peculiar kind of barley, called drageum, very generally cultivated, especially in the Eastern counties." Ib. i. 27. He identifies it with " bere " and says that " like barley, it was made into malt." Ibid. Its average price in 1288-89 was Is. lOd. Ib. 228. '" The average price of peas for 1288- 89 was Is. lljd., almost double the com- plainant's valuation. Ibid. 228. " The tun of eider (252 gallons) in 1288-89 averaged 8s. lOd. Ibid. 446. " Another form was " forre," whence fourrage, fodder. A. Brachet, Diet. Elymologique (1879) s. v. " fourrage." Rogers supplies no data by which to tert this valuation. " Theaveragepriceof oats for 1288-89 was Is. 6id. Rogers, i. 228. 4 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL E xl quarters de Orge venduz le quarter a xij d. ke byen valeyt xvj d." E xliij quarters de Aueyne venduz le quarter a xij d. ke byen valeyt xvj d." Et ij quarters de Poys venduz le quarter a xij d. ke byen valeyt xviij d.'" E feyn foere e paylle venduz pur x souz ke byen valeyt . . . souz.'- E une charette vendu a x souz ke byen valeyt xiij s. iiij d.^^ Estorvendu xvij boefs venduz le boef a viij souz ke byen valeyt xij souz." E ij Jumenz venduz pur xiiij s. ke byen valeyt xx souz. E vij bouez de deus anz checun vendu a iij s. ke byen valeyt v souz vj deners. E ij Bouez suranez venduz a iiij souz ke byen valeyt vj souz.'*- E ij Estoz'^ venduz pur v souz ke byen valeyt . . . E j Polej'n vendu pur vj deners ke byen valeyt . . . E viij Berbiz venduz le Berbiz a xvij d." ke byen valeyt . . . Estre ceo viij chapons viij Gellynes wastez e destruyt par Thomas de Bouedon . . . La Somme de la vente de byens Huwe le Tayllur venduz a Hulprington e a Wamberge xl . . . La Somme de la verreye value de byens auantdyt Ixij . . . [Endorsed:] ... re Sire John de Wotton et Thomas de Bouedonne. Hugo le Taylur ponit loco suo lohannem Turpin et David de Putone ad loquendum pro eo. Data est dies partibus [in crastino sancti Hillarii] ^ Postea venit predictus Hugo coram auditore'^ in crastino Purificacionis beate Marie anno xx" et queritur de predicto Salamone prout in billa sua continetur. Et Salamon venit per attachiamentum per preceptum audi- toris. Et Salomon dicit quod non habet diem hie per continuacionem placiti nee unquam alias audiuit aliquid de predicta billa. Et quia com- pertum est quod predicta billa alias fuit placitata ncc aliqua continuacio inde rcperitur reperitur^' in rotulis per quod predictus Salomon nullum habuit hie diem ad presens. Dictum est predicto Hugoni quod*- ... est " As the cart, the wheels excepted, was "stod." "Slot" for a young bullock or chiefly made at home, the prices of whole steer seems to be a north-country word carts entered by Thorold Kogers are rare. nowadays; it was probably more general There is, however, one, houKht at Marl- in the 13th century, borough, with iron-bound wheels, the " The average price of ewes in 1288-89 most expensive kind, for precisely this was lid. Uogcrs i. 352. sum of 13e. 4adam inclined to interpret it as for in influence with Edward I from whom he the Norman " charetter," that is, carter. received numerous grants; exercising in The word evidently puzzled the Lincoln's addition the administration of his wife's Inn transcriber. ' MS. ' G.' extensive possessions, in right of which he VALENCE V. BISHOP OF WORCESTER 5 told that ... is by the lord the king or by [ . . . Malet and Gilbert" of . . .] that then ... to be taken upon these bills and that the aforesaid auditor for . . . auditor the aforesaid Gilbert ... let him answer and meanwhile . . . VALENCE V. BISHOP OF WORCESTER 1294 Pleas before the king and his council at Estry next Sandwich ' in the Octave of Saint Hilary in the twenty-second year of the reign of King Edward son of King Henry. - A precept was issued to the shei'iff that whereas the king's beloved and trusty uncle William of Valence ' had shewn to the king that when William Goule his, the king's uncle's, bailiff of the manor of Inteberge,'' together with William Messenger, Simon Carter, Geoffrey Pese, and Thomas son of Alice de la Hull had arrested a certain malefactor to put him on trial for robbery within the liberty of the same manor according to the law and custom of the king's realm to be punished within the same liberty, as has hitherto been customary in the case of other malefactors ^ in like cases there taken, the venerable Father Godfrey Bishop of Worcester ^ affirming that the said malefactor had been arrested by the aforesaid William, Simon, Geoffrey and Thomas within the liberty of his hundred of Oswals- lawe and that the custody of the same malefactor pertained to himself,' both admonishing and commanding them William Goule, William Messenger, Simon, Geoffrey, and Thomas to deliver to him the body of the malefactor so arrested to be punished according as pertained to himself by reason of his liberty aforesaid, because that they refused to obey such his monitions and FOOTNOTES TO ENGLISH to hang haud-having thieves, that is, , , ■ , e ITT) thieves caught with the goods upon them was known by the title of earl of Pern- ^-^^-^ ^^^ j^^^.^ tg„itory upon prosecu- broke. His biographer in the Dirt. A at. ^-^^ ^^ j,^^ ^^^^^ ^j ^^^ ^^^^^ g^^ p ^ Biog., from which these particulars are j^ _ ^.^., ^„^; ^,^,_ j^ 564-507. The taken, remarks that the probability inquisitions " Quo Waranlo " for Worces- seems that he was never formally created ,^^^1^-^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^n in 4 Ed. I (20 earl," which IS confirmed by the absence of ^^^ 1275-127G), Roluli Hundredorum that title from this case although as ong ^gjg^^ j;^ 282; but it does not appear before as 1264 it had been bestowed on therefrom that William de Valence en- him by a chronicler. -^yg^j j^ny sneh franchise in the Hundred •• Inteberge, as in Domesday; now of Oswaldslaw. (Ibid. p. 283.) Inkberrow, in Mid-Oswaldslaw Hundred, " Godfrey Giffard, chancellor of the East Worcestershire. At the time of the Exchequer, 1266; chancellor of England, Conquest it was held by the bishops of 1266; bishop of Worcester, 1268; died, Hereford. During the reign of Henry II 1300. Did. Nat. Biog. it passed to John Marshal, grandfather of ' The return to the Inquisition Quo William of Valence's wife; though Joan Waranto (Rot. Hund. ii, 282) is " Dicunt of Valence was found by Inquisition of quod hundredum de Osewaldeslc est in 1 Ed. II to have held the manor at the manu Episcopi Wygornensis." The return time of his death. See Nash, Hist, of of the manors in this Hundred (p. 283) Worcestershire (1782), ii, 6. does not mention any held by William of ' A claim to infangenelhef, or the right Valence. 6 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Thomam pro eo quod hujusmodi monicionibus et iussionibus suis in hoc parcre reciisarunt majoris excommunicacionis sentenciam in Regis contemp- tura et dignitatis Regis Regie lesionem et contra saeramentum suum Regi et corone sue prestitum innodauit/ a qua quidem sentencia predieti Willel- mus, Willelmus, Simon, Galfridus et Thomas ad tuicionem sedis Curie Can- tuariensis appellarunt, sicut per quasdam literas patentes sigillo officialitatis Curie predicte signatas coram Rege et consiho suo exhibitas et lectas liquet manifeste. Et quia huiusmodi hbertatum seu lesionum earundem cognici- ones et corecciones ad coronam et dignitatem Regis speciahter pertinent, ac prefatus Episcopus cognicioncs et corecciones huiusmodi ad exheredacionem Regis et Corone et dignitatis Regie lesionem manifestam nititur usurpare, quod sustinere non vult Rex sicuti nee debet, nee huiusmodi contemptum et transgressionem relinquere non vult Rex inpunitos prefatum Episcopum per omnes terras et tenementa que de Rege tenet in Balliua sua sine dilacione distringat, ita quod nee ipse nee aliquis per ipsum manum ad ea apponat donee ahud inde sibi preceperit Rex, et quod haberet eundem Episcopum in propria persona sua coram Rege hie ad hunc diem scilicet in Octabis sancti Hillarii ad respondendum Regi de eontemptu et transgressione pre- dictis, et ad faciendum et recipiendum vlterius quod Curia Regis considera- verit in hac parte et modo venit predictus Episcopus et similiter Rogerus de Ingepenne qui sequitur pro rege et dicit quod die Martis proxima ante Gulam Augusti anno Regni Regis nunc xxi° predictus Episcopus Wygorni- ensis per decanos suos fecit quamdam inquisicionem ad inquirendum qui ceperunt quendam Latronem Thomam nomine in parva Inteberge infra libertatem suam in prejudicium status ecclesie sue, per quam quidem Inqui- rooTNOTE TO LATIN rex, si in terra fuorit, conveniatur, vol Jus- . mu- I I • 1 r !<• titia ejus, si fucrit extra regnum, ut rectum «rhis may be a clerical error for im,o- ^^- lf^^■^^„ The bailiff of the manor tavit. See Du Cange, s. v. ^nnotare. ^^J^^ ^^ ,^^.,.^ ^^ ^^^ demesnes within this Constitution. FOOTNOTES TO ENGLISH ,„ rj.^^ ^^„, „f „,p j^jghops aS Set OUt in ' " The greater excommunication . . . tiie Statulcs of the. Realm, i, 249, runs: " I involves not only exclusion from passive will l)e faithful and true, and faith and communion in the sacraments, but also loyalty will bear to the Kinp and to his exclusion from active communion in them. Heirs, kings of England, of Life and of and from all association with the faithful. Member, and of earthly Honour, against With one thus excommunicated and de- all People who may live and die, and truly nounced liy name, no layman under pain will acknowledge, and freely will do the of the lesser excommunication, nor clergy- services which belong to the Temporally man, under pain of suspension from his of the Hishoprick of (Worcester), which I office, may have relations, either in food, claim to hold of you, and which you render drink, prayer, or the kiss of peace." O. J. to me." Reichel, Complete Manual of Canon Law " This was the Court of Arches, which (1896), ii, 140. perhaps originated in the middle of the • This presumably refers to the Con- twelfth century, by way of an attempt to Stitutions of Clarendon (1164), cap. 7. limit the growing authority of the arch- " NuUus qui de rege tenet in capitc, nee deacon's courts. This was done by the aliquis dominicorum ministrorum ejus creation of the office of Official; a function excommunicetur . . . nisi prius dominus generally devolving on the chancellor or VALENCE V. BISHOP OF WORCESTER 6 commands in this matter, he issued against them a sentence of the greater excommunication ' in contempt of the king and to the hurt of the king's royal dignity' and contrarj- to his oatli made to the king and to his crown." From this sentence indeed the aforesaid William, \\'illiam, Simon, Geoffrey, and Thomas appealed to the protection of the court of the see of Canter- bury," as is manifestly clear by certain letters patent signed with the seal of the official '- of the court aforesaid exhibited and read before the king and his council. And because the cognizances and corrections of such liberties or of injuries done to the same specially pertain to the king's crown and dignity, and the aforesaid bishop is attempting to usurp the cognizances and corrections of this liberty to the disherison of the king and to the mani- fest injury of the crown and the king's dignity which the king neither will nor ought to suffer nor is the king w-illing to leave such contempt and trespass unpunished, (the precept issued was) to distrain w-ithout delay the aforesaid bishop throughout all the bishop's lands and tenements held of the king in his bailiwick, so that neither the bishop himself nor any one of himself should lay hand upon them*' until the king should otherwise issue his precept to him in that behalf, and that he should have the same bishop in his proper person here before the king at this day, to wit, in the octave of Saint Hilary'* to answer to the king touching the contempt and trespass aforesaid, and to do and to receive further that which the kmg's court shall have decreed in this behalf. And now comes the aforesaid bishop and likewise Roger de Ingepenne'* who prosecutes for the king and he says that on Tuesday next before the gule of August '^ in the twenty-first year of the reign of the king" that now is, the aforesaid bishop of Worcester by his deans'* made a certain inquisition to inquire who had taken a certain robber, Thomas bj^ name, in Little Interberge within his liberty to the chief secretarj' of the prelate, who was A pedigree of the family is to be found in appointed, not as a mere or special dele- Sir J. Maclean's Hisl. of Trigg Minor gate, but as judge ordinan,-, to e.xecute all (1876), ii, 43; but it appears to have the jurisdiction inherent in the person of derived from Inkepenne in Berkshire, the bishop, or archbishop, his principal. where Roger de Inkepenne held half a fee. See Re-port of Commissioners on Ecdesias- Cal. of Close Rolls, 20 Ed. I, p. 220, 6 Feb. tical Courts (1883), Pari. Papers, xxiv, 1292. Roger de Inkpenne's name occurs p. 26. in connexion with a Cornish case in Plac. " See preceding note. -466. p. 248. " " Ad raanum suam ponere; sibi '* The first of August, otherwise St. asserere, occupare." Du Cange (ed. Peter ad Vincula. J. J. Bond, Handbook Hensehel), s. v. manus. for Verifying Dates (4th ed. 1889), p. 156. " 20 January, 1294. " 1293. In that year the Gule of " This name is not among those of the August fell on a Saturday; so that the counsel or judges given in Foss, but from date referred to was 28 July. lb. p. 58. the Calendar of Patent Rolls 27 Ed. I, p. '» Decanus Episcopi; Idem qui vulgo 445, it would seem that he was a depend- Decanus ruralis, aut Christianitatis, in ant of Aylmer of Valence. On 16 Octo- Legibus Edwardi Confess, cap. 31 . . . ber, 1299, Valence took out a patent of Ita autem appellatur quod is ab Episcopo protection for himself, Roger Inkepenne, constitueretiu-. Du Cange, ed. Hensehel, and Roger Inkepenne the younger, going s. v. Decanus. with him bes'ond seas (ib. & cf. p. 420). 7 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL sitionem compertum fuit quod nullus captus fiiit infra libertatein suam set quidam talis Thomas captus fuit in eodem loco infra libertatem domini Willelmi de Valencia. Et die Veneris proxima sequente apud Hertlebur' predictus Episcopus excommunicavit Willelmum Goule Balliuum predicti Domini Willelmi et ministrum Domini Regis qui quidem Willelmus non fuit ad capcionem Latronis predicti, et similiter idem Episcopus excom- municavit Willelmvmi le Messager, Simonem le Caretter, Galfridum Pese, et Thomam de la Hull qui capcioni illius Latronis interfuerunt, quia noluerunt predictum Prisonem ei reddere. Et ista sentencia promulgata fuit a proprio ore ipsius Episcopi. Et die dominica proxima sequente similiter excommu- nicare fecit predictos Willelmum et alios occasione predicta in Ecclesia parochiali vbi parochiani sunt et in aliis quatuor Ecclesiis circumadiacenti- bus. Et istam sentenciam fecit per decanos et Capellanos suos. Et in vigilia Assumpcionis beate Marie proxime sequente predictus Willelmus Goule tradidit eidem Episcopo prohibicionem domini Regis pro qua quidem nichil inde facere curauit. Et die veneris proxima post festum omnium sanctorum proximo sequente predictus Episcopus advocauit et probauit per suos pro- curatores quod ipsi excommunicaverunt predictinn Willelmum et alios pro capcione predicti latronis coram Officiali Curie Cantuariensis ad quem predictus Willelmus Goule appellauit pro iniqua sentencia predicti Episcopi. Et in processu Cause predicte appellacionis predictus Episcopus tulit Regiam Prohibicionem predicto Officiali ne in Causa Appellacionis pro- cederet vt excommunicacio sua magis ligaret, pretextu cuius prohibicionis predictus Officialis supersedit quousque optinuit consultacionem de Curia Regis. Et tunc sentenciam predicti Episcopi adnichilauit et istum contemp- tum fecit predictus Episcopus domino Regi attrahcndo sibi iurisdiccionem regalem de capcione et deliberacione Latronum, vbi monstrasse debuit pre- dictum factum Domino Regi, contra sacramentum et ligenciam suam in lesionem Regie dignitatis decern mille marcarum et ad dampnum predicti Willelmi de Valencia duarum mille marcarum et ad dampnum predicti Willelmi Goule centum librarum et hoc est paratus verificaie pro ipso domino Rege &c. Et Episcopus venit et dicit quod non \'ult placitare cum " That is, next day, 29th July, at Cognisance thereof belongeth not to the Hartlclmry Castle, which was completed same Court. Fitzherbert, Nat. lircr.f. 39. by liishop Giffard in 1208, the manor But is now most usually taken for that having been held by the bishops of Wor- \\'rit which lieth for one that is impleaded coster since the ninth century. Nash, i, in the Court Christian for a Cause be- 568. longing to the Temporal Jurisdiction, on '» 14 August, 1293, the Feast of the the Conuzance of the king's Court, Assumption being 1.5 August. whereby as well the party and his Coun- " The Feast of All Saints, 1293, was cil, as the Judge hiin.^elf, and the Register, Sunday, 1 November; so that this inci- are forl)idden to proceed any further in dent took place on 4 November. that Cause. See Broke, loc. tit. & Fitz. « " Prohibition, Prohibitio, is a Writ Nat. lircv. f. 93." J. Cowell, Ititnpr. to forbid any Court, either Spiritual or " The excommunication pronounced Secular, to proceed in any Cause there by the bishoj) and, in his absence, by his depending, upon suggestion that the deans and chaplains was that minor form VALENCE V. BISHOP OF WORCESTER 7 prejudice of the dignity of his church. By this inquisition indeed it was found that no man was taken within his liberty but such an one as Thomas was taken in the same place within the liberty of the lord William of Valence. And on the Wednesday- next following, at Hertlebur','' the afore- said bishop excommunicated William Goule bailiff of the aforesaid Lord William and servant of the lord the king, which William indeed was not at the taking of the robber aforesaid and likewise the same bishop excommuni- cated William Messenger, Simon Carter, Geoffrey Pese, and Thomas Hull, who were present at the taking of that robber, because they were unwilling to give the aforesaid prisoner up to him. And that sentence was promul- gated by the bishop's own mouth. And on the Sunday next following he likewise caused to be excommunicated the aforesaid William and the others on the same gi'ound in the parish church where they are parishioners, and in four other neighbouring churches. And he passed that sentence by his deans and chaplains. And on the eve of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin ^lary next following^ the aforesaid William Goule delivered to the same bishop the prohibition of the lord the king for which indeed he took no care to do anything in that behalf. And on Wednesday next after the feast of All Saints then next following =' the aforesaid bishop avowed and proved by his proctors that they excommunicated the aforesaid William and the others for the taking of the aforesaid robber before the Official of the Court of Canterburj- to whom the aforesaid William Goule appealed on ac- count of the unjust sentence of the aforesaid bishop. And in process of the cause of the aforesaid appeal, the aforesaid bishop carried to the aforesaid official the king's prohibition,-- prohibiting him to proceed in the cause of the appeal to the intent that his excommunication should be more bind- ing,^ by virtue of which prohibition the aforesaid official surceased until he had a consultation" from the king'scourt, and thereupon annulled the afore- said sentence of the bishop; and the aforesaid bishop committed that con- tempt against the lord the king by drawing to himself the king's jurisdiction touching the taking and delivery of robbers where he ought to have shewn to the king the fact aforesaid, contrarj' to his oath and allegiance to the injury of the king's dignity^ (to the amount) of ten thousand marks^ and to the damage of the aforesaid William of Valence to that of two thousand marks" and to the damage of the aforesaid William Goule to that of a hundred pounds. And this he, Roger, is prepared to prove on behalf of the lord the king &c. And the bishop comes and says that he wills not to of the greater excommunication which wa.s surcesse de advisement." Coke, 4 Inst, designated as " non-solemn," to distin- 163. guish it from the " anathema or execra- ■' .Apparently a case of " moral tion," which last could only be pronounced damage." This is an early example of by the bishop. Reichel, ii, 141. the "personification of the crown" " " A supersedeas is but to stay or familiar to us in the phrase " crown and forl>ear the proceedings, that is, super dignity." See P. & M., i, 509. ad\-isamentum sedere, and is not mes un » £6666 13s. 4d. " £1333 6s. 8d. no Rege 8 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL domino Rege set supplicat Domino Regi quod possit se poni de alto et basso in voluntate Domini Regis de hoc quod sibi iniponitur. Et super hoc predictus Episcopus requisitus si exeommunicauit predictum Willehnum Goule eo quod deliberare noluit predictum eaptum sibi. Quam quidem sentenciam predictus Episcopus non dedixit. Et dominus Rex habito tractatu cum consilio suo predictum Episcopum in forma predicta admisit et ^ voluntatem suam quam ei dicet cum sibi placuerit. Et dictum est pre- dictis Episcopo et Willekno quod nichil tangitur in isto processu de eorum Ubertatibus si quas habeant sed tantum de sentencia injuste lata contra coronam Regis. Et similiter dictum est predicto Episcopo quod secundum Juris exigenciam satisfaciat predictis Willelmo de Valence et Willelmo Goule si sibi viderit expedii-e vt in venire posset dominum Regem gratio- siorem. Postea Cancellarius venit in Banco et dixit quod mandavit Loquendeing drawn rard's. Their traditional trade was that into pleas beyond the walls. His defense of peppercr. A former .John of Gisors was was that in the given ca.se the sheriffs, to mayor in 124.5 and 12.59, and died in 12S2. whom the writ was directed, were to The present .John was alderman of Ventry blame and not himself {State Trials 128.3-96, and coroner 1282-85 (Beaven, [Camden Soc], 78-80). The wardens of Aldermen of Lniulim; Liber Cusl. i, 240). the period were Ralph of Sandwich 1285- He was one of the London delegates in the 89, John le Bretone 1289, Ralph of Sand- Parliament of Shrewsbury. He acquired wich 12.S9-92, John le Bretone 1293-98. considerable jiroperly both inside and out- The list given in Liber Cwil. ii, 241, stands side the city, including New Hall or Gisors' in need of revision. Hall in Breadstreet, before his death in CITIZENS OF LONDON V. THE BISHOP OF BATH 9 to this; but he forejudged the good man of his tenement and committed his body to the Fleet prison, and the good men of the city he amerced in £100. for their challenge, and whereas they do not wish the record and process of a plea heard before them in the Gildhall to be brought before him, which was never seen or heard of before this time, they pray to the king for remedy. Moreover by wrongful attachments contrary to every form of law and by deraignable distraints he has brought before the exchequer without commandment of the king Sir John of Gj'sors ' alderman and Margery his wife and other good men of the city to answer to the prioress of Haliwell ' for their free tenement in London, as has never been done before; and because the good men were entirely unwilling to put their tenements imder judgment in this place,* he seized the tenements into the king's hand and by the great power that he had so constrained them that they perforce made peace with the prioress just as she wished, to their own disinheritance and to the undoing and annulment of the franchise of the city, in spite of the challenge of the good men aforesaid. Moreover he has caused to be levied upon the city more than £1000 sterling, being the remainder due from the debts of King John, as he says, and of other times beyond memory ; while for this money he is unwilling to give acquitance or allowance to the citizens either by tally or in any other way; wherefore they pray for remedy.' Moreover they have rendered account before him for the great fine of 20,000 marks,'" but he is willing to make neither allowance nor acquittal, except for a sum of £400, but their acquittances were kept by him more than a week, and then returned with the seals cracked and broken by bad keeping, without any allowance having been made; and he has always by summons and by estreat at the exchequer sued for the entire sum of 20,000 marks, as though nothing had been paid; wherefore the citizens pray for remedy and (ask) that their acquittances may be allowed none the less because of the broken (seals). Moreover the citizens hold of the king the shrievalty of London for £400 a year at the exchequer," nor towards this money have they for certain more than seven pounds of silver, but all the remainder that they provide toward the ferm they are accustomed to levy partly from pleas and per- quisites (of the courts), and partly from customs upon divers merchandise, 1296 (Cal. Wills in (he Court of Hiisting it was transferred to York. Madox, Hist. [1889], i, 128; Cal. Pat. 11 Ed. I, 60, 71). of Exch. ii, ch. xx, § v. ' A Benedictine nunnery at St. Leo- * One of many arrearages the basis of nard's, Shoreditch. The nuns are in the which is not known. list of those ha\'ing a mill; they held '» The great fine exacted by Henry III various properties and enjoyed the rentals in 1265 for the part played by the city in of many tenements in the city. Letter- the Barons' War. See Introduction. hooks, A, B. " The ferm, formerly £300 a year, had ' i. e. in the Exchequer, which was been increased in 1270 to £400. removed to the Ilusting of London in '- Verbal repetitions occur in several 1289, where it remained until 1298 when places of the text. 10 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL des diuerses marchaiindises cum de \'j'ns, des dras, de auoyr de pej'S, de lejTies e des quirs, e des austres choses marchaundes qe soleyent venir a la Cj'te en tens de pees, les queux ore poj-nt ne venent, dount la Guerre est encheson," e tut le plus des pleez, cum pleez des dettes, de trespas, de coue- naunt, de mort de auncestre e de nouele disseisine, de pleez de terre partie comensaunt sunt si de nouel par Billes, e saunz comaundement le Rey, Tret en escheker, deuaunt seneschaus e mareschaus" qe riens ne demeurt en la Cj'te aregard ne en teles pleez ne volunt alower les chartres ne le chalanchs des Cj'tejTis en nul pojTit. Mes souent ount deuaunt eus C. ou CC. des pouere genz de la Cyte, \-iuauns de mej-n ouere en Jurez e enquestes e en assizes e la demorent par \-iij jours, par x^' jours, par des laj-es, e par ajornemenz, en taimt qe il perdent loiu- mester e sunt tut enpoueri.'^ E ostendent chescon an duraunt ceste gere deeus \-iscountes '* estre aussi cimi rejTit pour le pajTnent de la ferme del \-iscounte. Kar tut lour est fortret de quey il dussent la ferme leuer. De quey il prient remedie. E surtote rien priererint le Rej- ses Cytej-ns, si il ossasent, qe il les engettast des tieus \iltez e de reprouer des tote gentz de Cj-tez e des \illes qui ount fraunchises qe U ne ount pojTit, e si li plust les grantast entier estat de fraunchise, cum ancienement solej-ent auer, qar le meuz e le plus qe il les tient en estat de bien e de honour le plus serrount suffisaunz a ces liges comandemenz, a queus U sount de tut abaundonez. A nostre seignour le Rey e a son conseil monstre Peres de Tadecastre qe Mestre Willame de la Marche Esueske de Baa e de Welles a tort li ad fet prisoner en fers en la prison de Flete un an et demy par ses clers Huge de Xotingeham,'^ Johan de Kj'rkebj-,'* pour unes arrerages del acounte Mestre Roberd de Tadecastre " son f rere, qui mors est, a qui Peres nest hejT ne executour, mes eus memes imt e sount sesy de touz ses biens e ses chateus, e pour imes arrerages qe eus demandent alj* memes a tort. E il pourchasa a un moj-ns de la seint Michel prochej-n passe au drej-n parle- ment treys brefs le Rey au GardejTi de Flete, fourmez sour lestatut de " The war with France, which had long marshalsea the court of the king's house- been coming on, was definitely resolved hold. Pleas before the steward and upon in a parliament held in June, 1294. marshal, apparently in the exchequer, Tout, Political Hiitory, iii, ch. x. are mentioned in Cal. Letter-books, B, " The marshal of the exchequer is an 83, 91. office described by Madox as originating " According to Britton, sherifTs and in a deputy of the marshal of England. It bailiffs were prone to summon more was his duty inler alia to seek the recovery people upon juries and inquests than were of debts due to the king and to appoint needed, «"ith the intent to oppress some of auditors for sheriffs' accounts {Hisl. of them and take bribes from others, or to Exch. ch. xxiv, § v). But Madox makes remove some and put others on. Ch. no mention of a steward of the exchequer, xxii, c. 10. but there was e^-idently some such officer. '• Once in 1286 and again in 1293 the The tribunal here mentioned is not to be king attempt^-d to make his own appoint- confused with the court of the steward ments to the office of the sherilTs. Ap- and marshal, otherwise known as the propriatorts thej" were called in 1293. But CITIZENS OF LONDON V. THE BISHOP OF BATH 10 such as wines, cloth, l)ulky coinniodities, wool and wool-fells anrl other articles of inerchaiuiisc, which usually come to the city in time of peace, hut do not come now because of the war;'^ but most pleas such as pleas of debt, trespass, covenant, niort d'ancestor, novel disseisin, and partition of land are lately, by bill and not by writ of the king, drawn into the exchequer, before stewards and marshals,'^ so that nothing remains in the city to award, nor are they wiUing in (hearing) such pleas to allow the charters or the challenges of the citizens m any way. But often they have before them one or two hundred poor men of the city, labourers (serving) in juries, in inquests, in assizes, by delaj-s and by adjournments being kept for a week or a fortnight, so that they lose their work and are wholly impoverished.'* And they show each year during this war that the two sheriffs" are as nothing for the payment of the sheriff's ferm. For eveiything has been withdrawn whereon the ferm might be levied. Wherefore they pray for remedy. And above all his citizens would beseech the king, if they dared, to save them from such villainies and from the reproach of all men of cities and towns, who have franchises which thej' have not, and if it pleases him to grant them entire their franchised estate, just as thej' have been anciently accustomed to have, for the better and the more strongly he maintains them in conditions of welfare and honour, the more sufficient they will be to these Uege conmiandments, to which they are wholly devoted. To our lord the king and his council Pier of Tadcastre shows that Master William de la March bishop of Bath and Wells by his clerks, Hugh of Nottingham" and John of Kirkby,'^ has wrongfullj' made him a prisoner in irons in the Fleet prison for a year and a half, because of certain arrearages in the account of Master Robert of Tadcastre his deceased brother," although Pier is neither his heir nor executor; nevertheless they have seized and are in possession of all his goods and chattels, for certain arrear- ages that they wrongfully demand of him. And a month after last Michael- mas at the last parliament he purchased three writs of the king to the the project met with such resistance that rolls of the chancery, in 1301 king's the right of election was confirmed to the remembrancer, in 1307 one of the commis- citizens. Anri. Lond. 95, 102; Col. Leller- sioners to audit the accounts of the Fres- books, A, 178; B, 183. cobaldi, and in the same year custodian of " A clerk of the exchequer, later keeper the plaints made against the late treasurer of the great rolls (Madox, ch. xxiv, § iv). Walter Langton. His death is mentioned In 1297 the city owed him a fee of £20 in 1309 in connection with the property (Leiler-books, B, 239). that he left. Madox, ch. xvi, § iv; Calen- " Not to be confused with the treasurer dar CI. and Pat. Rolls, passim, of the same name who died in 1290. This " A king's clerk, one time a surveyor, John appears on the rolls as a clerk, jus- who was presented in 1292 to the church of tice of oyer and terminer and auditor of Skipse. Cal. CI. 5 Ed. I, 229; Cal. Pat. accounts. In 1291 he was keeper of the 20 Ed. I, 497. 11 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL acounte ^ pour sa deliueraunce, e souent tendi sofEsant meinprise.-' Mes le Gardeyn rien ne oseit fere pour les maundernenz le Rev, mes respoundi qe le Euesqe comaunda qe nule deliueraunce ne feit de son cors, si il ne trouast seurte de CCC xx li. en countre la nature de ses brefs e la fourme del cstatut. E ore a ceo parlement-- pourchasa il nouel brcf, e troua bone meynprise, mes le Euesqe ne voleyt suffrir sa deliueraunce taunt cum il demora Tresorer. Dunt Peres prie ore pour dieu a nostre seignour le Rey qe de ceste grande duresse e torcenouse enprisonement e retenue encountre ces brefs qe dreiture li seit fet. A nostre seignour le Rey e a son conseil prie Huge de Kent Armurer qe il ly face auer sa pay de xij souz del Eueske de Baa, les queus il ly deyt pour une pej-re de Jambeurs,-' et j paj're des quisers,-^ e j pajTc de polej'ns^* e plates a ses peez, les queus furent pris hors de sa meson par son comande- ment al oes son cosin saunz nul dener payer, ne puys ceste chose fete unke sa paye ne pourra auer, dunt sil vous plest il vous prie grace e remedie de ceste creaunce pour dieu. A nostre seignour le Rey e a son conseil se pleint Henri le Bole-^ Cyteyn de Loundres qe par la ou U fust viscounte de Loundres si fust un cheual cum dieu dande pris pour viij mars, e bailie a memes celi Henri cum viscounte de Loundres, a respoundre au Rey de memes les viij marcs, lequel chiual Mestre Willame de la Marche Tresorer nostre seignour le Rey en eel eel tens, prist e prendre fist memes eel chiual hors de la gard ceh Henri saunz nule alwaunce a ly fere, Dount il est uncore charge de memes les viij mars a tort, pour quey il prie remedie issi qe memes les viij mars li seient alowez ensemblement ensemblement oue la potoure de memes le chiual a la value de X s. [Endorsed: — ] Peticiones Ciuium London' pro remedio versus Epis- copum Bathon' et Well' Thesaurarium de grauaminibus etc. A nostre seignour le Rey e a son conseil monstrc Peres Jakes de Teme- debyr' ke Mestre Willame de la Marche Eueke de Baa e de Welles a tort fist atacher son Cheual en la Meson Rauf le fiz Michel en Staninglanc" en la Cite de Londres, en les utaues de la Purificacion Ian le regne le rey Edward vintime pur li fere rendre aconte del maneir de Wyzintone la ou il ne fu pas ministre ne receuour, mes soulement surueur par son comaundcment. E par tel atachement li fist trouer meinprise de rendre aconte del maneir as '" Executors shall liave a writ of " Summoned to meet 1 August or three account, and the same action and process days afterwards. Pari. Writs, i, 21. in the same wTit as the testator might -' Jambers or jambeaux = armour for have had. Slat. Wcslm., 13 Ed. I, c. 23. the legs. S. Meyrick, Anlient Armour " A/arii(ca7>-98, in St. Peter's upon CornhuU. Leller- and sheriff in 1292. He appears promi- books, A, B; Cal. of Tl'i7/,s, i, 152. nently in the records as a witness and *' Staining Lane. Mail land suggested litigant. In his will he left a tenement in that the name was due to the fact that it the parish of Gracechurch and a mansion once contained the haws of the men of 12 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL utaues de la Paske prochein siuaunt. A queii jor il \ant a Londres oue les Roules kil aueit fet fere hors des Roules le prouost de Wyzintone.^* E par ceus roules tendi de rendre aconte et le proffrj^ un Meys de jor en jor e au chef du mej'S fist il enseeler ses roules, e comaunda quil alast alostel deske a la quinzeme de seint Michel prochein suiaunt a queu jor il se proffn,' a Londres de rendre le aconte iij semaines de jor en jor, e doncke fu il comaunde de aler alostel deske a quinzeme de la Pasche, a queu jor il vint a Londres e se proffri de rendre aconte un meys e ij jors de jor en jor, e doncke fu il comaunde de aler alostel, qar il ne poeit attendre de recejmre laconte, e il departy saunz jor. E pus ly fist maunder par Bref as utaues de la Pasche, a quel jor il ne \int pas e fu agarde la grant destresce, e jor done deske a lendemain de la trinite Ian xxij.^ a queu jor il vint e pria Bref au vescounte pur ses issues sauuer, e il fu respondu kil nauereit point auaunt kil eust aconte. E le vescounte ad leue xl. s. de ses issues par le comaunde- ment le Eueke. E il mej^mes fu a restu de la trinite deske a la seint lorenz*' par ix semaines e iij jors. E tutdis se proffrj- de jor en jor del aconte rendre, e donkes aconta. E a chescune venue vint il e demora e ritorna a ses custages demeyne, pur ly, un garcoun e un cheual, dont rens ne ly fu alowe sor son aconte. E sor son aconte a tort ly greua chargaunt de diuerses choses qil naueit mie receu e nient alowant renables despenses e mises, e pur son seruise de iiij aunz, pur manger ne pur bejaire, ne pur robe ne pur seute, rens ne li fu alowe, ne il meymes rens ne recent mes a tort e a volente fu mis en arrerages de x^-j. li. e mis en la prison de Flete, ileuke ly ad detenu en fers un an e plus dont il prie pur dieu ke de la grace nostre seignour le rey sur tutes greuaunces remedye \y seit fet. A nostre seignour le Rey monstre Nicole de Clere^' e se pleint del Eueke de Baa de ceo ke taunt come il fist sur son aconte de Wejmiuster me3Tne leueke toly ses lettres le Rey patentes e autre garaunt par les queus il aueit le tresor le rey leaument liuere par comaundement le rey, e ceus garaunts e lettres ad il torzenousement desalowe e retenu e pur arrerage de aconte ou il rens ne deit e par autres tort[z]enouse Jugemenz lad il emprisone e en prison retenu pus lendemain de la tiffanie aueit iij aimz. Si ad les issues de tuz ses benefices de iiij aunz passez pris en la main le rey, e si ly ad sustret e tolet sustenaunz passez sont ij auns e deaiij' par acye kil meurge par defaute de sustenaunce par duresce de prison, ke sa verite ne seit soue. E purceo a nostre seignour le rej'^ prie leuantdit Nicole ke pur deu e pur salme ly pleyst comau^nder ke son cors seit deliure de prison e graunter ly Staines. Domesday and Beyond, 181 ; was 9 weeks and 3 days according to the Kingsford, Slew's Survey, ii, 340. method of counting the weeks and days at " The land of Nicholas of Whittington, the beginning and end. CO. Northumberland, mentioned as having " .\ king's clerk, frequently appointed to been taken into the king's hand because of commissions in Ireland; in 1284-S.") custo- the owner's default. Cal. CI. Rolls, 18 Ed. dian of archbishopric of Dublin; from 1285 1,147. until about 1292 treasurer of Ireland. Ccd. » = 14 June, 1294. Pa/. iJo«5, 13 Ed. 1, 146, 149, 193; 20 Ed. I, •• = 10 August, 1294. The interval 491. CITIZENS OF LONDON V. THE BISHOP OF BATH 12 this day he came to London IjringiiiR the rolls which he had had made from the rolls of the manor of Whittington.-" With these rolls he intended to render account and offered to do so from day to day for a month, and at the end of the month he had his rolls sealed up, having been commanded to go home until a fortnight after the following Michaelmas; at that time he presented himself at London to render the account (appearing) from day to day for three weeks, and then he was commanded to go home until a fortnight after Easter; at this time he came to London and offered to render account (presenting himself) from day to day for a month and two days, and then he was told to go home, since the bishop could not wait to receive the account, and he departed without (having) a day. Then he was summoned by writ (to appear) a week after Easter, when he did not come, and the great distress was awarded (against him) , and a day was given upon the morrow of Trinity in the 22nd year.^ On this day he came and prayed for a writ to the sheriff to save his revenues, but he was answered that he should not have (the writ) until he had accounted. And the sheriff has levied 40s. from his incomes by command of the bishop. And he himself was arrested from Trinity until the Feast of Saint Lawrence,^" nine weeks and three days, constantly presenting himself from day to day to ren- der account, and then he accounted. And every time he came and stayed and returned at his own expense, for himself, his servant and his horse, for which nothing was allowed him in his account. And in his account (the bishop) had wrongfully aggrieved him charging him for various things that he had never received, and failing to allow reasonable expenses and outlays, while for his services of four years, for food and drink, for robe and suit, nothing had been allowed him; not receiving anything himself he had been wrongfully and wilfully put to losses of £1G and thrown into the Fleet prison, where he had been kept in irons for a year and more, wherefore he prays for God's sake that by grace of our lord the king remedy for all the grievances may be afforded him. To our lord the king shows Nicholas of Clere '* and complains against the bishop of Bath that while he was rendering his account at Westminster the said bishop deprived him of the king's letters patent and other warrants whereby according to the king's command he had loyally delivered the king's treasure; these warrants and letters the bishop had wrongfully dis- allowed and withheld, and, although he owes nothing, for his arrearages and by means of other false judgments (the bishop) has imprisoned him and kept him in prison for three years since the morrow of Epiphany. So the incomes of all his benefices for the last four years have been taken into the king's hand, and withdrawn from him, while he has been deprived of subsistence here for the past two years and a half that he has remained in prison under duress for want of means, so that the truth might not be known. Wherefore the aforesaid Nicholas prays our lord the king that for the sake of God and his soul he may be pleased to command that the 13 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL audience e dreiture en sa sourt e auditours doner deuaunt queus sa verite put estre monstre e trye pur le rey, e ke dreytes alowaunces ly seient fetes, e tuz torz repelees e redresces ke fet \y sount. Les auditours ke nostra seignour le rey ly ad auaunt cest hure done par la priere la reyne de Navere sont ceus. Mon sire Willame de Valence'- le Conte de Garrenne^' Sire Robert de Hertford.^^ Ore tart auaunt le departyr des Cardinaus^* par la priere le Cardinal de Gascoyne graunta nostre seignour le rey al auauntdit Nicole audience e dreit en sa court, pleyse nostre seignour le Rey lauaunt- dite audience graunter e peticion comaunder. A nostre seignour le Rey monstrent Roger Paw' de Catesby e Henry son frere ke par la ou 11 furent coylleurs e achatours des laynes Cleysaloe marchaund de Flaundres en le Conte de Leycester, e lur paya ses deners, Iv mars, dont il achaterent v sakes de layne le pris du sake xj mars, e le coj'Uerent en certein lu, cest asauer a Meltone e a Gaddesby, la vint lau- auntdit marchaunt e restent celes laynes par certej'n pays, e les fit mettre en sakes, e se tient bien paee del achat. Apres ceo auint ke par comaunde- ment le rey furent seysis en la main le rey tutes les laynes marchaundises des aliens,^^ issi ke le vescounte fist sej'sir celes leynes oueuke autre mar- chaundises des aliens; lauauntdit Cleysaloe sa parceut kil ne puet fere son prou des laynes auauntdites, vint al Escheker nostre seignour le rey, e purchaca Bref de fere venir les auauntdiz Roger e Henry a respondre des [diz] Iv mars dont il aueient achatez les auauntdites leynes. Les auauntdiz Roger e Henry vindrent en court e aleggerent ke atort deraaunda il celle dette vers eus de sicome il bien saueit ke les deners furent applaios en les v sakes de lajme kil meymes aueit receu e mis en sake, e la ou les leynes demorent en la garde le vescounte come chateus forfez al eus le rey, furent les auauntdiz Roger e Henry comaundez a la jirison do Flete par comaunde- ment le tresorer pur les Iv mars e la sont il deraore de la cjuinzeme apres de la seint Michel derreynement passes dekes a ore, e uncore demeorent dont il prient grace e remedye pur dcu e pur lalme le rey Henry e la reyne " William of Valence, titular Earl of to mediate for peace between the kings of Pembroke. Did. Nal. Biog. England and France. They arrived in " John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey. England 14 .\ugust and appeared at the Ibid. parliament then being held at London '* An attorney and commissioner, in (Cal. CI. Rolls, 443, 449). Here they were 1289 justice of common pleas (Cal. Pal. put olT politely on the ground that the Rolls, 336), in 1290 one of the commission- king must consult his allies, but thoy suc- ers to amend any error in a cause at the ceeded in jicrsuading Edward afterwards Husting of London (ibid. 399), and again to send envoys to France (Ibid. 506). By in 1292 to correct any error in the king's 28 September they had already left Eng- court at London (ibid. 521). His death land to treat in turn with the king of occurred in 1295 or soon after. France, bearing a special request of " This reference to the cardinals is the Edward that English and Gascon prison- clearest guide to the date of the petitions. crs might be surrendered to the king of Immediately on hLs accession in 1295 France {Fmlera O. ii, 1)87, 689; Ileniing- Boniface VIII sent two cardinal-legates burgh, ii, 68). One of the cardinals was CITIZENS OF LONDON V. THE BISHOP OF BATH 13 prisoner be delivered, and to grant him hearing and justice in his court, antl to provide auditors before whom the truth may be shown and specified for the king, and that just allowances may be made him, and that all wrongs that have been inflicted upon him may l)e undone and redressed. The auditors whom our lord the king at the intercession of the queen of Navarre had previously appointed are as follows: Sir William of Valence,'- Earl Warenne'^ and Sir Robert of Hertford." Seeing now before the departure of the cardinals,'^ bj- intercession of the cardinal of Gascony our lord the king has granted the aforesaid Nicholas hearing and justice in his court, may our lord the king be pleased to grant the aforesaid audience and commend his petition. To our lord the king Roger Paw of Catesby and Henry his brother declare that whereas they were collectors and buyers of wool for Cleysaloe merchant of Flanders in the county of Leicester, (who) paid them of his money 55 marks, with which they purchased 5 sacks of wool at the price of 11 marks a sack, and while they were collecting it in a certain place, namely at Melton and Gadesby, there came the aforesaid merchant and received the wool at a certain weight, had it put into sacks, and considered himself well satisfied with the purchase. Subsequentlj^ by command of the king all the wool (and) merchandise of aliens were seized into the king's hand,'* so that the sheriff made seizure of this wool together with other merchandise of aliens; (when) the aforesaid Clej^saloe perceived that, because he could not keep possession of the aforesaid wool, he came to the exchequer of our lord the king, and purchased a writ venire facias against the aforesaid Roger and Henry to respond for the aforesaid 55 marks with which they had purchased the aforesaid wool. The aforesaid Roger and Henry came to court and alleged that he wrongfully claimed this debt agamst them since he well knew that the monej' had been spent for the 5 sacks of wool which he himself had received and filled, and (they say that) whereas the wool remained in the care of the sheriff as forfeited chattels to the use of the king, the aforesaid Roger and Henrj' were by command of the treasurer committed to the Fleet prison on account of the 55 marks, and there they have remained since the fortnight after last Michaelmas, and there they still remain ; wherefore for the sake of God and the souls of Berard de Gouth or Got, Archbishop of chants of friendly countries might come Lyons, mistakenly called Archbishop of and go, the goods of all persons under Bordeaux (Eubcl, Hierarchia, i, 11), here the dominion of the king of France mentioned as cardinal of Gascony; the should be confiscated (Cal. CI. Rolls, 22 other was Simon de Beaulieu, Bishop of Ed. I, 375). It is likely that just such Praeneste. an order was issued to London. Hence- " The command here referred to has forth licenses to merchants for the not been found, but there is an order exportation of wool were granted on of 5 Nov. 1294 to the warden of the condition that none of it should go to Cinque Ports, to the effect that while mer- France. 14 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL sa compaigne ke mort est " qil ne murgent en prison par pouerte e defaute. A nostre seignour le rev monstre labbe de Combe ^ qe par la ou Henrj- le Waleys'' do[na et grauntja al auauntdit abbe un mes, e les dous parties de un mes cue les apurtenaunces en la parosse nostre dame de la stronde e de seint Clement deneys taunt come play fu pendamit entre une femme e leuauntdit Henrj-. E sur ceo nostre seignour le rey granta par sa chartre** al auauntdit abbe la entree, e labbe prist sa sej-sine solom la chartre, puys ■s-int la femme e reeouera vers mejTnes cely Henrj' leuauntdit mes par defaute par quey labbe fust en gete. E pus vint leuauntdit Henry e re- eouera eel mes vers memes cele femme par Bref de dreit en leyre de Middel- sex, e autrefeiz refeffa labbe, ore \-ient le tresorer e seysy eel mes en la main le rey purceo ke la chartre kil ad du rey nest pas renouelee apres le derreyn feffement Henrj- dont labbe prie a nostre seignour le rey si li plest sa grace. A nostre seignur le Rey e a seon conseil prie Johan de Erleye*' sa grace de une reconisaunce kil fist al Escheker puys son age par destresce e par sa noun sauaunce Ian nostre seignur le rey ^^ntime des arrerages de la ferme de Northpertone,*^ ke ses auncestres tindrent du rey, les queus arrerages auindrent taunt come il fu de deinz age en la garde le rey encrustrent dekes a cele some la quele il ad reconue, dont il prie nostre seignur le rey ke cele reconusaunce seit si ly plest anentye e pur nule, e qe il pusse estre en lestat come son pere fu Phelipe de Erie le jor kil morust come de cele dette e de ceo qe il ad paye ke il pusse auer alowaimce. A nostre seignur le rey monstre Johan de Erie ke horn li demaund al Esheker de la mort Phelipe de Erlej'e son pere relef de Baroun la ou mej-mes cely Phelipe ne nul de ses auncestres unkes ne furent Barouns, mes tindrent du rej^ en cheualerj-e, dont leuaimtdit Johan prie pur deu la grace le rej' qe il pusse ses terres tenir solom la forme e par les seruises ke ses auncestres tindrent pus le conquest en cea, e qil pusse teu relef payer come len trouera al Escheker ke ces auncestres unt paye auaunt cest hure. " Some such praj-er, in the name of the roj-al commissions in local affairs {Cal, Queen &c. was frequent in the conclusion Pat. Rolls). He was among those sum- of petitions. See Bills in Eyre (Selden moned, as a representative of the city, to Soc. 1914), passim. a council held by the king in 1296 at Ber- " A Cistercian abbey in Warwickshire. wick-on-Tweed {Cal. Close Rolls, 522). Dugdale, Monast. v, 582 f. When at length the liberties of the city " Sir Henry le Waleys, or Gualeys, one were restored in 1298, he was the first to of the magnates of the city, noted for his be elected maj-or. Stow credits him with wealth and public service. He had been a number of public improvements, such as mayor in 1273 and 1281-83, between 1276 beginning the great conduit in Cheap, and 1294 was alderman of Cordwainer putting up the Tun, building a row of Ward, and in 1283 was member of parlia- houses and shops along the wall of St. menl (Beaven, Aldermen of London, i, 113, Paul's churchyard (Kingsford-Stow, i, 17, 239,263). He appears to have been loyal 54, 188, &c.). His house was so big that it to the king as well as to the city, serving was once used for a parliament (A work together with the warden and sheriffs on worthy of citation in this coimection is CITIZENS OF LONDON V. THE BISHOP OF BATH 14 the late King Hcnrj^ and the queen his consort" they pray for grace and remedy that thej' may not perish in prison by reason of poverty and failure. To our lord the king the abbot of Combe'^ shows that whereas Henry le Waleys'^ granted and conceded to the aforesaid abbot a messuage and two parts of a messuage witli the appurtenances in the parish of Our Lady of the Strand and of St. Clement Danes, concerning which a plea was pending between a woman and the aforesaid Henry. Hereupon our lord the king by his charter *'' granted entry to the aforesaid abbot, and the abbot took possession according to the charter, then came the woman who recovered the aforesaid messuage by default, whereby the abbot was ousted. Then came the aforesaid Henry who recovered this same messuage against the said woman by writ of right in the eyre of Middlesex, and again enfeoffed the abbot ; now comes the treasurer who seized this messuage into the hand of the king on the ground that the charter which he has of the king has not been renewed since the last enfeoffment of Henry; wherefore the abbot prays to our lord the king, if it pleases him, for his grace. To our lord the king and his council John of Erley^' praj's for grace con- cerning a recognisance which he made in the exchequer since he became of age, under compulsion and without knowledge, during the twentieth 3'ear of our lord the king, with regard to arrearages of the farm of North Pether- ton,^2 which his ancestors held of the king. These arrearages accrued while he was under age in the guardianship of the king, having increased to the sum that he had recognised ; wherefore he prays our lord the king that this recognisance, if it pleases him, may be cancelled and annulled, and that he may be of the (same) estate as his father Philip of Erley was on the day he died and that for tliis debt and for the (money) he has paid he may have allowance. To our lord the king John of Erley shows that by reason of the death of his father Philip of Erley there is demanded of him at the exchequer relief as a baron, whereas neither the said Philip nor any of his ancestors ever were barons, but held of the king by knight service; wherefore the afore- said John praj's the king, for God's sake, that he may hold his lands in the maimer and for the services that his ancestors held them since the Conquest, and that he may pay such relief as it shall be found at the exchequer that his ancestors paid before this time. that of F. Schenck, London Merchants of a ward of the king, is on record as doing Edward I, a thesis in Harvard Univ.). homage for his lands in 1292. Cal. CI. *" The license for this grant in mort^ Rolls, 22 Ed. I, 353. main is dated 12 May, 1293 {Cal. Pal. " or Northpederton in Somerset, Rolls, 14), and its reissue, no doubt because averred to have been taken into the king's of the legal difficulties here described, was hand for a default (ibid. 388). The arrear- of 18 August, 1295 (ibid. 140). ages in question amounted to 105s. which *' John of Erley, or Erlegh, son and was not discharged until 1301 (Cal. CI. heir of Philip of Erley, from 1275 to 1292 Rolls, 29 Ed. I, 433). 15 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL A nostre seignour le rey prie Geraud Mauhan" qe ad demore \dj aunz en dure prison a la tour de Londres par comaundement le tresorer, e des Barouns del Escheker par errour e ignoraunce et piir abettement de ses enemis a tort e a damage du rey, pur encheson des acontes e des assays de la monee centre a ceo kil nesteit oblige, e contre lordinaunce de la monee le rey ** e contre usage de monee dont il prie a nostre seignour le rey quil pur son prou e pur dreiture voille assigner Sire vtier dengolissme^ e ]\Iester Willame de WjTnondham^* gardein du change a trier la besoigne par leans genz ke seuent de moneyrie, sauue ses enemis, e a terminer par dreiture. E entretaunt il prie la grace le rey, si ly plest quil pusse estre deliueres par meinprise destre prest de jor en jor a respondre, e afere au rey ou a chescun home qi vers ly siet rens dire des tutes choses qant que il fere deuera. E pur deu pite vous empregne de ly, kad demore seet aunz en dure prison saunz sa deserte. Willame sauuage" armerer de Londres se pleint qe lesueke de Baa a tort li detient C. e x. s. les queus il ly dust auer paye le jor seint Esteuene ** en la semaine de noel derrein passe pur armure le quel leuauntdit eueke prist de ly a force a son eus demejme e countre la volente leuauntdit Wil- lame, dont il prie remedye. ^'Dautre part prie mejones celi maheu del Escheker^ qe auditurs li seient donez cheualers ke ne seient mie Justices*' pour oier e terminer les greu- aunces dont il se pleint del Eueke de [sic] de Baa kar il monstre ke par la ou il fu menc a Westmoster par prisoner de Flete ke lout en garde, e de ceo fu par meymes le prisoner garaunti*^ la ly fit le dit Eueke fausement juger quil aueit la prison brusec e ly fit juger a la tour de Londres destre ileuke par ij aunz. E pus vint le dit Eueke a la tour, e li fit despoyller deskes a la cote, deschauce saimz ceinture, e saunz Ut, e ly fit mettre en polard,^ e enchesner en Jordan,^ en ij pej-rc de fierges, e pus fu mis el neir celer sur la tere nue, ou il fu par ij aunz saunz nule nule [sic] manere de feu ou autre Imnere, ne autre ewe naueit a beyure, fors ke del puz de la tour, ou les raz se neient. " One of the licensed coiners in 14 Ed. money coming from the issues of Aqui- I. Madox, ii, 90. taine {Cal. CI. Rolls, 297). On several ** See the Ordinance of Money, 12 Ed. I, occasions he served as a specially trusted Statuicfi of tlie Realm, i, 219; and the envoy, and finally in 1297 was the king's Form of the New Money, Bed Boofc o/ (Ae proctor at Rome (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 234). Exchequer (Rolls Ser.), iii, 980. Among ecclesiastical preferments he held *' As the name generally appears, the archdeaconry of Bath and a canonry Iterius Ingolisma, a king's clerk long in of St. Patrick's Dutilin. the service of the exchequer as assessor, au- " Known also as parson of the churches ditor and receiver of moneys. In 1283 he of Dydesham and Barton. Cal. Pat. was a commissioner to audit the accounts Rolls. of the exchange in Ireland {Cal. Pal. " A name in Letter-books, A, 119; B, Rolls, 72), in 1284 a commissioner to 9, 62. administer the king's money touching *' 26 Dec. 1294. clipping and falsification in London (ibid. " At this point the scribe has omitted a 130), and in 1293 to receive the king's petition leaving a considerable space un- CITIZENS OF LONDON V. THE BISHOP OF BATH 15 To our lord the king prays Gerard Mauhan'" that he has for seven years remained in strict confinonicnt in the Tower of London hj- command of the treasurer and barons of the exchequer, because of the error and ignorance and contrivance of his enemies, to the injury and damage of the king, because of the accounts and assays of money beyond what he was bound, contrary to the king's ordinance of money,'*' and contrary to usage of the mint; wherefore he prays to our lord the king that for his profit and for (the sake of) justice he may be wilHng to assign Sir Itier Dcngolesme ''^ and Master WiUiam of Wymondham " warden of the mint to examine the business by (aid of) lawful men, who are acquainted with monetary affairs, saving his enemies, and justify to terminate the matter. In the meanwhile he praj'S the lung, if it pleases him, that he (the petitioner) may be delivered under bonds to be readj^ from day to day to respond and answer, so far as he ought to answer, the king or any man who may have anything to say against him. For God's sake take pity upon him who has remained in prison seven years without deserving it. William Savage^' armourer of London complains that the bishop of Bath wrongfull}' detains from him 110s., which he was to have paid on St. Stephen's day " during the week of last Christmas for armour which the aforesaid bishop took from him by force to his own use without the consent of the aforesaid William, wherefore he praj's for remedy. ^'Moreover the same Matthew of the Exchequer^" prays that auditors may be assigned to him, knights who are not justices,^' to hear and determine the grievances whereof he complains against the bishop of Bath, for he shows that whereas he was brought to Westminster by the gaoler of the Fleet who had him in guard, and moreover was guaranteed by the said gaoler there, ^- the said bishop had a false judgment rendered against him that he had broken the prison, and had him committed to the Tower of London there to be kept for two years. Then came the said bishop to the Tower and had him stripped to his shirt, without shoes or girdle and with- out bed, had him put " in Polard"^' chained " in Jordan"*^ in two pairs of fetters; and then he was put in the black cellar on the bare ground, where he remained for two years without any Icind of fire or light, nor had he anything to drink except from the well of the Tower where the rats drown filled. According to the next entry it was " This passage is significant of the a petition of Matthew of the Exchequer. distrust that was felt of the king's justices *> Named in 1290 to hold the office of since the state trials of 1290. usher of the exchequer jointly with Adam " The laxness of the keepers of the of Stratton (Red Book of Exch. iii, p. Fleet in letting their prisoners go at large, cccxxxiii). In the same year he was in- either with or without bail, was notorious, volved in a quarrel wliich was heard A statute, 1 Rich. II, c. 12, forbids the war- before the council in parliament. Judg- den to let at large prisoners in execution, ment was not given, but Matthew was " These are unexplained phrases. They proved to have been guilty of deception. may be nicknames for those parts of the Rol. Pari, i, 22. prison. 16 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL E cele xie mena deskes ataunt ke nostre soignour le rev Ic deliuera de sa grace. E estre c*o li toll le dit eueke tuz ses biens a la montaunce de CC. liures, e imqes ne poeit auer la meyte, e estre ceo si enuea le dit Eueke teus ke furent a ses Robes destre en une Juree pur prendre celj' Maheu e de mettre a la mort, a ses greue damages de M' li. Rauf saunsauer prie la grace nostre seignour le rey de sicome il fu assigne de aler od mon sire Emund frere le rey en gasco\-ne," mejTnes cesti Rauf du gre le rey demora de la retaunce sire Willame de Breus=^ par certeins couenaunces de aler pur li en gaseoine. Cest asauer de prendre de li C. li. des quels C. li. Rauf recent Ix. li. e dous cheuaus. E pur ceo ke les cheuaus ne furent pas sufBsables, il deueit prendre x mars utre. Et ala sj-ute sire Willame fu Rauf mene en Court deuant le tresorer e les Barouns del Escheker pur respoundre a leuaimtdit sire Willame dos Ix. li. 6 des dous cheuaus. E Rauf fu e est tuz jors prest de tenir a mon sire Wil- lame totes maneres de couenaunces, e ensi respondi deuaunt le tresorer e les Barounes del Escheker. E pur ceo ren dirent le jugement ke sire Wil- lame recouereist les be. li. e les dous cheuaus ou 1 mars. E densi ke Rauf fu tuz jors prest a fomir a sire Willame tutes couenaunces e nule defaute ne remist en ly, e ceo unt il a verreer, prie remedye de ceo Jugement ke ly semble dur e volentrifs. Pris par force le tresorer saunz taille saunz escrit e saimz paj-ement armurs de Willame de Herford.^ Cest asauer ime coucrturs de fer pris de xv] mars. E ij gounes darmes ^' pris de xxx. s. E ij targes^ pris de xvj. s. E ime pajTe de bras de balaigne*' couert de cendal blaunk, e gaunz de suite pris de xl. s. E v payre de gaunz de plates pris de xxxiij. s. iiij. den. Summa: Lx. li. xLx. s. iiij. den. "' Meyme celi Willame monstre a nostre seignour le rey e se pleint du Tresorer ke par la ou celi Willame aueit du doun leuauntdit sire Phelipe vj acres de herbage de hors Londres e meymes ceU Willame aueit mis ileuke xj cheuaus a herbe pris de CCC. mars e le dit Tresorer fit prendre ceus cheuaus al eus le rey, e les prist e les liuera a sire Roger de Mouhaut issi ke le dit Willame unkes pur ses cheuauLX dener ne poeit auer dont il est deuenu poure, e prie la grace nostre seignour le rey qil le face remedie. Meime celi Willame se pleint du dit Tresorer qe par la ou meyme celi Willame achata oueuke Foun deus cheuaus al eus le rey pur C. xvj. li. e j marc le Tresorer li detint les xvj. li. e le marc, issi qe il couent a meymes celi Willame paier ceus deners as marchaunz de sa bourse demeyne si le rey ne " This allusion helps to date the peti- " .\n armourer of London, not to be tions, for Edmund of Lancaster's expedi- confused with an alderman of the same tion was decided upon 10 September, 1295. name. LcUer-books, A, 39, il, &c. Delayed by ill health however he did not " A gown known as surcoat worn over go until March, 1296. the armour. Meyrick, Antient Armour, i, " William of Brewes, Breus, Brehus, or 100. Braose had set out from Portsmouth on "A shield held upon the arm in dis- the expedition to Gascony in September, tinction from a buckler held by the hand. 1294. Dugdale, Baronage, i, 420. Ibid, i, 146. CITIZENS OF LONDON V. THE BISHOP OF BATH 16 themselves. This Ufe he led until our lord the king of his grace deliv- ered him. Moreover the said bishop took from him all his goods to the value of £200, and he has never been able to obtain the half of it; also the said bishop sent men such as were of his livery to be on a jury to take the said Matthew and put him to death, (causing him) grave damages of £1000. Ralph Sansauvor prays for the grace of our lord the king, that whereas he was assigned to go with Sir Edmund the king's brother to Gascony," the said Ralph by favour of the king remained in the retinue of Sir William of Breus" under certain covenants to go for him to Gascon}-. That is, taking from him £100, for which Ralph received £60 and two horses. And because the horses were not sufficient, he ought to have had 10 marks more. And at the suit of Sir William Ralph was brought to court before the treasurer and barons of the exchequer, to respond to the aforesaid Sir W^illiam for the £60 and two horses. Since Ralph was and is always ready to keep all kinds of covenant with my lord W'illiam, he therefore responded before the treasurer and barons of the exchequer. Thereupon they gave judgment that Sir William should recover the £60 and the two horses or 50 marks. And because Ralph was always ready to perform every covenant with Sir William without default or remissness, as they can see, he prays for remedj' in respect of this judgment which seems to him harsh and arbitrary. Taken by force of the treasurer without tally or writing or payment the armour of William of Hereford.^ That is, a coat of mail worth 16 marks, 2 gowns of arms " worth 30 shillings, 2 targets =^ worth 16 shillings, and a pair of arm-pieces of whalebone ^^ covered with white sendal together with gauntlets to match worth 40 shillings, and 5 pairs of gauntlets of plate worth 33s. 4d. Sum of £9 19s. 4d. ^ This same William shows to our lord the king complaining against the treasurer that the said William had by gift of the aforesaid Philijj 6 acres of pasture outside of London, where the said William had placed 11 horses to grass worth 300 marks, and the said treasurer had these horses seized to the use of the king, taking and delivering them to Roger Mouhaut, so that the said William could never have money for his horses, whereby he has been impoverished. He therefore prays the grace of our lord the king to afford remedy. This same William complains of the said treasurer that whereas the said William had purchased two horses with hay for the use of the king for £116 and 1 mark, the treasurer distrained him of the £16 and the mark, so that it is incumbent upon the said William to pay this money to the mer- " Balon, baleine, balaj-n = whalebone '" There is another omission in the roll for making crests of helmets, &c. Ibid. at this point. Undoubtedl}' it is a petition Glossary. f of WiUiam Parson mentioned at the end. 17 CASES BEFOKE THE KING'S COUNCIL ly face grace, dont il prie sa grace, qar il est issint mis a dessuz ke rens ne ly est remis. A nostre seignour le rey e a son conseil monstre Richard le brewere de la ville de Westmoster. E se pleint del eueke de Baa, qe taunt come il fu tresorer nostre seignour le Rey prist de meyme celi Richard Cerueise ala montaunce de xlviij. li. xvj. s. vj. den. aky leuauntdit Richard taunt come il fu en eel haut office nosast contredire, ne son chatel pin- pour demprisone- ment ne osast demaunder, mes eel argent ly ad detenu un an e plus dunt memes ceh Richard issi est enpoueri qe il ad vendu ses mesons e qant qe il out pin- payer a marchauns une parti de ceo qe il lur deueyt pur ble a memes cele ceiiieyse apromte. E ore ne pout il rien prendre a creance pur ceo qe il deyt taunt a marchauns e tant a desouth par cele dette, mes le auauntdit Richard e sa fcmme e lour enfaiinz enpoynt de aler payn querant, si nostre seignour le Rey e son conseil ne luy facent remedie par tens, dont il pri remedie pur dieu. A honurablc rey dcngletere e a son conseil prie Johan Bone de AValingford ke come il estoit aucun tens tenuz a sire Adam de Strattone ^' en xviij . li. dargent par une reconisaimce fete al escheker nostre seignour le rey les queus x\'iij. li. leuauntdit Johan paia bien e leaument soloni les termes contenuz en la reconisaunz, issint ke rens ne est arere lontens auaunt son forfet, e des queus soutes lauauntdit Johan aueit bones aquitaunces ense- lees du seel meime sire Adam come reson voleit, mes le tresorer nostre seignour le rey ad fet sercher tutes les reconissaunces les queles furent fetes a meyme ceU sire Adam en tens kil fust el seruise nostre seignour le rey. E les fist venir par ses Brefs del escheker a respoundre a nostre seignour le rey de meimes les dettes. Johan Bone de Walingford un de ceus ke ceste grace prie est a resone par le tresorer en plein escheker sur les auauntdit xviij. li. par la rcconissaunce, e les respons est, e sa alegaunce, tuz jors ke il aueit ses aquitaunces bones fetes longtens auaunt le forfet sire Adam, les queles valer ly dussent sil les pout auer eu en jugement, mes il nel poeit mie auer a cele hurc en alegeauncc de ly par la reson de une forte meschaunce ke ly auint sodeinement taunt come il fust hors du pays. Cest a dire ke la meschaunce fust i cele ke le priur de Walingford ^= oue sa suite e la femme lauauntdit Johan Bone par une mauueise compassement entre eus fet nuytauntre robercnt qantque Johan aueit de meoble, cest adire, come en tresor de seon et de autry, e un forcer oueuke ses jueaus en quel ces aqui- taunces furent, emporterent, issint qe les aquitaunces qe li dussent auer •' The notorious clerk and chamberLain Book of Exch. iii, p. cccxv). What is now of the exchequer who made a fortune by alleged is closely in line with the charges his peculations. He was a principal previously laid against him, that he would defendant in the state trials of 1290, as a decoy men into debt and then employ the result of which he was removed from agencies of the exchequer against them, office and his property confiscated (State Although Stratton had been pardoned by Trials [Camden Soc.], 85, 87; also Red the king, in consideration of 500 marks, CITIZENS OF LONDON V. THE BISHOP OF BATH 17 chiints out of his own purse, unless the kinj;; sliows liini favour; wherefore he prays for grace, sinee he is so reduced tliat nolliing is left to liini. To our lord the king and his council shows Richard the brewer of the town of Westminster, complaining against the l)isho]i of Rath who, while he was treasurer of our lord tlie king, took from liie said llic^hard beer to the value of £18 16s. Gd., for so long as the bishop was in this high office the aforesaid Richard did not dare to refuse him, nor did he dare to demand his chattel because of (the bishop's) power of imprisoiunent, but tiiis money was kept from him for more than a year, whereby the said Richard is so im- jioverished that he has sold his house and all that he has, in order to pay merchants a part of the debt he owes them for corn (to make) this beer. But now he can not borrow anything, because he owes the merchants so much and is so much in arrear by this debt, but the aforesaid Richard, his wife and children arc nigh to paying the penalty, unless our lord the king and his council afford remedy in time, wherefore he prays remedy for God's sake. To the honorable king of England and his council prays John Bone of Wallingford that whereas he was once bound to Sir Adam of Stratton*' in £18 of silver by a recognisance made at the exchequer of our lord the king, which £18 the said John well and loyally paid according to the terms of the recognisance, so that nothing is in arrears a long time before his forfeiture and of these pajanents the said John had good acquittances ensealed with the seal of the same Sir Adam as is reasonable, but the treasurer of our lord the king has had all the recognisances searched which were made to the same Sir Adam during the time that he was in the service of our lord the king. And he made them come by his writs of the exchequer to answer our lord the king for the same debts. John Bone of Wallingford, one of those who prays for this grace, is arraigned by the treasurer in full ex(;hequer for the aforesaid £18 by virtue of the recognisance; and the answer is, and his plea, in that he had made good his acquittances a long time before the for- feiture (of) Sir Adam, which (acquittances) should have availed him if he could ha\^e had them in judgment, but he could not possibly have them at this time in allowance by reason of a severe mischance that had sud- denly happened to him in that he was out of the country. That is to say, the mischance was that the prior of Wallingford"- with his followers and the wife of John Bone, by an evil design wrought between them by night, stole whatever moveables John had, that is, such as were treas- ure of himself and others, and a strong-box with his jewels, in which his acquittances were, bore them away, so that the acquittances which his properties continued to be held in hand release. The murder of Stratton is men- and managed by the exchequer. As in the tioned in 1304 (Col. CI. Rolls, 212). present case, Stratton's debtors were " A Benedictine priory in Berkshire, answerable to the king of whom the peti- cell to St. Albans' Abbey. Dugdale, tioner, for the reasons alleged, seeks a Monas. iii, 278. 18 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL valu en ceo cas furent emportez par quey Johan Bone prie grace nostre seignour le rey ke il ly voille granter qil pusse auer auerrement par bon pais de la soute fete a sire Adam de Strattone, e qil aueit les aquitances auaunt le forfet sire Adam. [The part in italics has been struck through : — ] Iste peticiones deficiunt videlicet peticio J. de Erleye de recognidone. Item alia ejusdem J. de Erleye de Releuio. Peticio Gerardi Mauhan. Peticio Willelmi Sauuays. Peticio Maheu del Escheker que sic incipit, De autre part prie meyme cely maheu. Item peticio Radulfi Saunzauer. Peticio Willelmi Persone in duobus articulis. [Endorsed: — ] Tangunt Episcopum Bathon'. THE BISHOP OF SABINA v. BEDEWYNDE ' 1307 Dominus Rex mandauit consiUo suo existenti London' breue suum de Ebor.' De piiuato sigillo, quod residet ad scaccarium inter communia de hoc anno Thesauraria xxx-v'° in hec Verba: riboraci data waitero de Edward par la grace de dieu Roi Dengleterre, Seigneur Dirlaund', Bedew-ynd' Ducs DacQuitanie, a nos foiaux et loiaux les honurables peres en dieu per Regem , ' * par la meisme grace R.- Euesqe de Loundres, nostre Chauncellier et W.' Euesqe de Cestre, nostre Tresorier, Henri de Lacy ^ Counte de Nichole, nostre chier Cosyn Guy ^ Counte de Warrewyk' et as autres de nostre Conseil a Loundres, salutz. Pur ceo qe qant a la requeste qe loneurable pere en dieu Pieres,' par la meisme grace Euesqe de Sabjnoe, Cardinal de la seinte Eglise de Rome, nous fist entre les autres choses dont il nous parla, pur celui qe fu Tresorier en leglise Deuerwyk, endreit de meisme la Tresorie, nous lui respoundismes qe nous ferriens cele busoigne a sa moustraunce examiner par ceux de nostre consail si qil en ordeiuereient quel enferroit a faire par resoun vous mandoms qe oye la mustraunce qe le dit Cardinal voudra faire deuant vous, en dreit de la dite Tresorie, examinez bien et diligeaument la busoigne, et ordinez en tieu manere qe le dreit de nostre Corone et le dreit de nostre chier clerk Wautier de Bedewynde,' a qi nous auoms done la dite Tresorie entierement oue tutz ' The record is in Memoranda Roll questions that were to be raised at the (Exch. K. R.), 35 Ed. I, mm. 4I-42d. coming parliament at Carlisle. He seems ' Ralph of Baldock. Did. Nat. Biog. to have arrived in England some time in ' Walter of Langton. Ibid. March, 1307 {Cal. CI. RolU, 491), and made * Ibid.; Dugdale, Baromige, i, 103. his way to Carlisle where he was in com- ' Guy of Bcauchamp, Did. iXat. Biog. munication with the king during the par- • Commonly called Peter of Spain, liament and for a short time afterwards. bishop of Burgos and cardinal bishop of Here the principal concern was in the Sabina. He had been sent by Boniface matter of annates. Although the cardinal VIII as legate a latere, ostensibly to treat could not stem the tide of legislation, he for peace between England and France, succeeded at least in modifying the king's but actually to deal with the ecclesiastical ensuing orders. The question of provisors BISHOP OF SABINA V. BEDEWYNDE 18 ought to have availed him in this case have been carried off; wherefore John Bone prays for the grace of our lord the king to grant that he may have averment in good peace of the payment made to Sir Adam of Stratton and that he had the acquittances (made) before the forfeiture (of) Sir Adam. [The part in italics has been struck through :^ The following petitions are lacking: the petition of John of Eiiey concerning a recognisance; also another of the same J. of Erley concerning a relief; petition of Gerard Mauhan; petition of William Savage; petition of Matthew of the Exchequer which begins " More- over the same Matthew prays "; also the petition of Ralph Sansauver; petition of William Parson in two articles. [Endorsed: — ] Concerning the bishop of Bath. 1307 York. Touching the Treas- urerehip of York given by the King to Walter of Bedewynde THE BISHOP OF SABINA v. BEDEWYNDE' The lord the king sent to his council remaining at London his writ under the privy seal, which remains at the exchequer among the common matters of this the 35th year and runs as follows: Edward, by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Aquitaine, to our faithful and loyal, the honourable fathers in God by the same grace R.^ bishop of London our chancellor, and W.' bishop of Chester our treasurer, Henry of Lacy * earl of Lincoln, our dear cousin Guy ' earl of Warwick, and others of our council at London, greeting. Whereas at the request made to us by the honourable father in God, Peter," by the same grace bishop of Sabina, cardinal of the holy church of Rome, among other things whereof he speaks to us, in behalf of the late treasurer of the church of York, in regard to the same treasurer- ship, we have answered him that at his suggestion we should have this matt«r examined by the men of our council, who should ordain what should be done according to reason; we (therefore) command you, that having heard the statement which the said cardinal will make before you in regard to the said treasurership, after examining the matter well and diligently, you ordain whatever shall guard in all points the right of our crown and the right of our dear clerk Walter of Bedewynde ' to was of less moment. On the treasurership of York now in dispute he drew up the present petition but left the prosecution in the hands of a proctor. Before his de- parture he was granted by the king an annuity of £50 and many procurations (Col. Fat. Rolls, 530). He left the kingdom apparently in July {Col. CI. Rolls, 510). ' Betewynd or Bedewind, a clerk whose career in the king's service can be traced since 1298. In the present year 1307 he is mentioned as cofferer in the wardrobe (Col. Pat. Rolls, 495). His con- fidential relations with the king are attested in the letters patent that were granted " on information of Walter de Bedewynde" (Ibid. 434, 4S2). He was given in reward the churches of Kilpatrick on Clyde, Heyford Warj-n, Wysteineston, Steventon, a prebend in the chapel of Hastings and the prebend of Morvill (ibid.). The grant of the treasurership of 19 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL ses dreitz et tutes apurtenaimces, et en qi nous la voucheoms bien sauue, seient gardetz en toutz pointz, si auaunt come dreit et reison le purront suffiir, les queux choses sunt passeez deuaunt vous auaunt ces houres * a ceo qe nous auoms entendu. Et si vous truffez qe nous eoms donez la dite Tresorie a nostre dit clerk par dreit de nostre Corone, et 11 eit dreit de la tenir par ni}^ nostre doun, la queu chose nous entendoms blen, a donqes 11 facez faire lettres souz nostre grant seal, tantz et tleles come entre vous verrez qe mester lui aueront, et qant 11 aura busoign pur meintenlr son dreit et sa possession de la Tresorie auauntdite, si qil en puisse joler solonc nostre doun auauntdit. Et qant vous aurez ensi trlez et declarez nostre dreit, ordinetz entre vous acune bone et couen- able fourme par la quele vous facez enfourmer nostre piere le Pape de par nous sour nostre dreit auaunt dlt en la meilleure manere qe vous verrez qe face a faire, et apres ceo nous certifiez pleinement coment vous auretz totes ces choses ordenees et faltes. Done souz nostre priue seal a Cardoill' ' le xxvj jour Dauerll Ian de nostre regne tren- tlsme quinte. Et prefato consllio Regis exlstente apud Westmonasterium ad scacca- rium Ipsius domlni Regis modo in crastino Ascensionis Domini'" optulit se coram eodem consllio quidam " ex parte predictl Cardlnalls et exhlbuit quandam peticionem coram eodem consllio in hec verba: Vacante olim Thesauraria Ebor' apud sedem apostolicam per priua- cionem domlni Johannis de sancto ^^co de domo Colmnpnensium,'- collata fuit ipsa Thesauraria domino Theobaldo de Baro " per dominum Bonlfacium Papam Octauum, ipseque domlnus Theobaldus ad illam ex collacione predicta receptus fuit, et eam notorie possedit per sex annos vel circa pacifice et qulete, domino Rege Anglie lllustrl sciente fauente et lltteras attornatl'* sibl pro ilia concedente; postmodum autem ipso domino Theobaldo promote et consecrato in Romana Cur^a auctoritate elusdem domlni Pape in Episcopum Leodiensem, et per hoc York now in dispute is dated 1 Nov. 1306. ' The parliament closed in March but One other office was granted to him, the king's letters are dated from here until namely that of king's remembrancer in the end of June. the exchequer under Edward II, but this '" 5 May. he gave up within two years [Col. Pat. 3 " The scribe has left this space vacant Ed. II, 220). Besides the claims of the apparently with the intention of filling it papal provisor, he had to contest a suit later. Lower down in the record the car- begun by the parson of St. Gregory touch- dinal's proctor is mentioned as a clerk, ing certain properties in connection with '- Fifth son of John Colonna, Senator the treasurership {Year Books, 3 & 4 Ed. and dictator of Rome in 1290 (Gregoro- II (Selden Soc), 13, 207). On his lifelong vius, Rotne in the Middle Ages [trans, struggle to hold the treasurership against Hamilton), v, 513, 541). This John was the claims of the papacy, see Introd. pp. a papal provisor to the trca.surcrship of Ixi-lxii. York in 1293, and in the next year was ' The matter was previously referred provided to the archdeaconry of Hunting- to the council by a writ of 18 February, don by Celestine V and to the prebend of Rot. Pari, i, 218. Leighton Manor dio. Lincoln (Le Neve, BISHOP OF SABINA V. BEDEWYNDE 19 whom we have given the said treasurcrship entire with all its rights and appurtenances, and in whose hands we trust it is quite safe; (do this) as (we have said) before according to right and reason, for this matter, as we have understood, has previously ' come before you. And if you find that we have given the said treasurcrship to our said clerk accord- ing to the right of our crown, and if he has the right to hold it according to our gift, as we fully beUeve (he has), then do you cause letters under our great seal to be issued to him, whatever j^ou yourselves shall find there is occasion for, and so far as there shall be need, in order to main- tain his right and his possession of the aforesaid treasurcrship, so that he may enjoy it according to our aforesaid gift. And when j'ou shall have thus tried and declaretl our right, do you yourselves decide upon some good and suitable instrument whereby you will in our behalf inform our father the pope in regard to our aforesaid right, in the best way that you can; and then do you certify us fully how you have ordained and done everything. Given under our privy seal at Carlisle ' on the 26th day of April in the 35th year of our reign. To the aforesaid council of the king remaining in the exchequer of the lord the king at Westminster, on the day after Ascension Day,'" there appeared before the said council in behalf of the said cardinal a certain [clerk]," who presented to the said council a certain petition containing the following words: At the time the treasurcrship of York was vacant at the apostolic see through the privation of John de Sancto Vito of the house of Colonna," the said treasurcrship was conferred by Pope Boniface VIII upon Theo- bald dc Bar," and this Lord Theobald by virtue of the aforesaid collation was admitted to the treasurcrship, which he is known to have possessed quietly and in peace for six years or thereabout, with the knowledge and favour of the illustrious lord king of England who granted him letters of attorney '^ in regard to it. But after the said Lord Theo- bald by authority of the said lord the pope had been promoted and consecrated in the Roman curia as bishop of Liege, and when for this Fasti, ii, 49, 159, 176). How he and all (ibid. 261). On the Continent he was a other members of his family were deposed canon of Rheims, and in 1297 was the in 129.5 is told below. candidate of a part of the chapter for the " de Barres, or Bar-le-Duc, held the bishopric of Metz {Cat. Pal. Rolls, 97). treasurership from 1297 to 1303, when he King Edward gave him first phice among was made bishop of Liege (Le Neve, ii, the receivers of the lands of his brother, 139). He was a brother of Henry Count of whose death was reported in 1302 {Cal. Bar the husljand of King Edward's eldest CI. 30 Ed. I, 605, 600). He was bishop of daughter, and was honoured by the king Li(5ge from 1303 to 1312 (Gams, Ser. as a relative. He had gained other eerie- Epis.). siastical preferments in England, including '< No letters of attorney have been a presentation to the church of Pagham noted, but in 1297 he was granted letters dio. Canterbury in 1294 (Cat. Pat. Polls, of protection for staying beyond seas for 66) and the prebend of Banbury in 1297 two years. Cal. Pal. Rolls, 229. 20 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL eadem Thesauraria apud ipsam sedem vacante, ipse dominus Papa contulit earn domino Francisco Gaytano^' nepoti suo plena sede Ebor', quam ipse dominus Franciscus pacLfice adeptus fuit, et usque ad men- sem Februarii proximum preteritum quiete, notorie et sine contradicci- one possedit, quinimmo dominus Rex manutenuit eum in ilia, concedens sibi pro ilia litteras attornati, contra que propter premissa de iure veniri non debet; verum ad suggestionem aliquorum, ipso domino Francisco non monito nee citato legitime, set in remotis agente notorie, scilicet in Anagina, ex dispensacione tamen apostolice sedis, nee pro- curatorem habente super hoc, nee debente habere, cum alias non esset sibi mota questio super iure dicte Thesaurarie, nee speraretur moueri, cum esset in pacifica possessione eiusdem et fuisset per triennium et ultra, nuUo reclamante, ipse dominus Rex Thesaurariam ipsam Waltero de BedewjTide contulit, et ipsum in illius possessione mandauit induci, et inductus fuit, et sic ipse dominus Franciscus est ilia indebite spoliatus. Quare cum ex premissis appareat manifeste dictum dominum Francis- cum habuisse et habere plenum ius in dicta Thesauraria, et eam pacifice possedisse, ac ea que contra eundem in premissis sunt attemptata facta esse iniuriose et contra iusticiam, et eciam quia fuit inhibituni familiari- bus ipsius domini Francisci et omnibus ahis ius suum volentibus pro- ponere, seu eciam allegare, sub pena capcionis per htteras Regias, quas non est verisimile nee creditur de dicti domini Regis consciencia ema- nasse, quorum familianun duo adhuc detinentur attachiati, sciUcet Magister Franciscus de Luco,'^ Capellanus domini Francisci Cardinalis," et Thomas, nepos eius, contra deum et iusticiam, licet in nullo deli- querint, placeat per vos dicta grauamina tolU et reuocari, et quod dictus dominus Franciscus sine molestia et contradiccione cuiusquam dictam Thesaurariam et iura ipsius pacific* possidere valeat et habere. Et peticione ilia plenius intellecta quesitum est a prefato "qui eandem peticionem exhibuit, si quid aUud ex parte prefati Cardinalis, seu pro parte predicti Francisci super premissis velit dicere vel exponere, quam ea que continentur in peticione predicta, seu aliquid in ipsa contentum ulterius declarare etc.; qui dicit quod non, set instanter petit prefatum Franciscum ad possessionem predicte Thesaurarie admitti et restitui " Son of Peter Count of Caserta, Theobald de Bar. His claim to this posi- nephew of Cardinal Francis Gaetano tion, which is now disputed by Bede- mentioned below, and grand-nephew of wj-nde, he maintained through a long Pope Boniface VIII (Gregorovius, v, 540). course of litigation until l.'UG, when he Besides the prebends of Knaresborough lost all hi.s benefices by a determination to and Stillington dio. York (Le Neve, iii, marry. (Ibid, ii, 344.) 196, 212), he held also the treasurership '• At the request of Cardinal Francis of Tours and canonries and prebends in Gaetano he was provided by the pope in Rome, Paris and Anagni (Co/. Papal 1316 to a canonry and prebend in the see Letters, i, 611). In May, 1303, the pope of York (Col. Pap. Letters, i, 125). He further provided him to the treasurership was holding the prebend of Laughton-en- of York then voided by the promotion of le-Morthen in 1318 (Le Neve, ii, 200). BISHOP OF SABINA V. BEDEWYNDE 20 reason the said treasurersliip was vacant at the said (apostolic) see, the said lord the pope conferred it upon his nephew Lord Francis Gae- tano,'* the see of York being filled (at the time) which the said Lord Francis peacefully secured, and until tlic hvst month of February pos- sessed quietly, conspicuously and without dispute; nay the lord the king maintained him there, granting him letters of attorney in respect of it, against which, because of what has been said, nothing rightfully ought to be brought; but at the suggestion of some, although Lord Francis himself was neither warned nor legitimately cited, but while he was knowTi to be abroad, namely in Anagni, by dispensation indeed of the apostoUc see, when he had no proctor for the matter and was not bound to have any, since no question had previously been raised or was expected to be raised against him as to the right of the said treasurer- ship, since he was in peaceful possession of the same and had been for three years and more, the lord the king himself bestowed it upon Walter of Bedcwynde and commanded that he be given possession of it, and (accordingly) he was inducted, so that the said Lord Francis was wrongfully deprived of it. AVhereas it is manifestly evident from the premises that the said Lord Francis has had and (still) has full right to the said treasurership, and has possessed it in peace, and that those things which had been attempted against hun in the premises had been done wrongfully and contrary to justice, moreover since the servants of the said Lord Francis and all others wishing to assert his right, or even to allege it, had been forbidden under penalty of arrest by royal letters, which it is not probable or credible have been dictated by the conscience of the said lord the king, and (since) two of these servants have been attached and detained, namely Master Francis de Luco,'^ chaplain of the Lord Cardinal Francis " and Thomas his nephew, against God and justice, although they have been deUnquent in nothing, may it please you to remove and revoke the said grievances, and may the said Lord Francis without being molested or disputed by anyone be able to possess and hold in peace the said treasurership and his rights. This petition having been fully understood it was asked of the aforesaid [clerk] who had presented the said petition, whether he had anytliing else to say or to explain in regard to the premises in behalf of the aforesaid cardinal or the aforesaid Francis, beyond what is contained in the aforesaid petition, or if he wished to set forth further anything that is contained in it etc. He said not, but instantly he asked that the aforesaid Francis be " Francis Gaetano of Anagni, son of (Cal. Pal. 2 Ed. II, 111, 176; 4 Ed. II, Loffred brother of Boniface VIII, Cardi- 353). The Cardinal was among those nal of St. Mary's in Cosmedin. He was named by Edward I from year to year to papal provisor to the archdeaconry of expedite his business at the court of Richmond (Le Neve, iii, 137), which he Rome {Cal. CI. 32 Ed. I, 213; 33 Ed. I, continued to hold in spite of the efforts of 312&C.). He continued to have interests in Edward II to present a royal candidate England until his death at Avignon in 1317. 21 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL habendam inxta tenorem coUacionis prefati sumini Pontificis. Et dictum est ei quod expectet de die in diem quousque etc. Et concordatum est per predictum consilium Regis quod, antequam ulterius inde etc., scrutati sint rotuli et alia memoranda super iure Regis et statu prefati Walteri in hac parte. Et iniunctum est eidem Waltero presenti etc. quod ipse e.x parte sua inquirat et scrutari faciat quiequid competere poterit super iure Regis et statu sue etc. et euidencias quas inde etc. ostendat et proponat etc. Et scrutatis memorandis super iure Regis etc., compertuni est ad scaccarium in rotulo xxix° Regis nunc rotulo compotorum, videlicet in tercio rotulo compoti Johannis de Lj-legreyns*' de Escaetis Regis ultra Trentam et de exitibus Archiepiscopatus Ebor', sede vacante, quod Archiepiscopatus predictus vacauit per mortem I. le Romeyn,'^ nuper Archiepiscopi ibidem, a sdj" die Marcii anno xxiiij'", quo die idem Archiepiscopus obiit, et fuit in manu Regis ab eodem die racione vacacionis iUius, et quod idem Escaetor respondit Regi de exitibus inde ab eodem xij° die ^Marciusque xxij° die Junii anno xxv'° antequam Rex restitueret temporalia predicti Archiepis- copatus Magistro Henrico de Newerk^ Electo in Arcliiepiscopum etc. Et Walterus de Bedewj-nde super hoc pro domino Rege et se ipso dicit quod de eo quod predieta Thesauraria Ebor' vacauit tempore vacacionis pre- dicti Archiepiscopatus existentis in manu ipsius Regis, ipse dominus Rex, ad quem collacio tarn eiusdem Thesaurarie quam eciam coUacio et pre- sentacio aliorum beneficionmi vacancium, vacante sede Archiepiscopatus, quorum collacio seu presentacio spectaret ad Archiepiscopmn sede plena, de iure spectabat racione videhcet temporaUtatis Archiepiscopatus etc. in manu sua existentis, contulit eandem Thesaurariam eidem Waltero etc.,^' et sic nee dominus Rex in coUacione ilia nee ipse Walterus in admissione etc. cuiquam fecerunt iniuriam. Requisitus idem Waltei"us si quid habeat per quod possit docere de vacacione predicte Thesaurarie tempore predicte vacacionis Archiepiscopatus etc., dicit quod tempore eiusdem vacacionis Archiepiscopatus dominus Bonifacius, tunc smnmus Pontifex, lohannem de sancto vico tunc temporis Thesaurarium Ebor' sentenciahter priuauit, tam ab eadem Thesauraria quam a beneficiis suis ahis etc., per quam quidem priuacionem ipsa Thesauraria vacauit, temporaUtate Archiepiscopatus etc. existente in manu Regis. Et super priuacione ilia ostendit quoddam publi- cum instrumentum earn testificans in hec verba: 18 Escheatornorthof the Trent, 1295-97 ship was what was known as a collation (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 140, &c.), escheator south " in the right of another." of the Trent in 1298 (Cat. CI. Rolls), and *» Archbishop Newerk was elected 7 guardian of the archbishopric of York in May, 1296, received the royal assent 5 1296 during voidance (ibid. 4). The June, and recovered the temporalities 22 account here referred to is found in the June, 1297. Ibid, ii, 104. Escheator's Roll 29 Ed. I and in the cor- " Walter was nominated by the king on responding Chancellor's Roll. 1 Nov. 1306 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 467), and '• John le Romein, or Remain, arch- was inducted 6 Jan. 1307. Letters man- bishop of York, 1286-96 (Le Neve, iii, datory were issued 10 March, 1307 (ibid. 104). The king's disposal of the treasurer- 511), and by a precept of 20 March the BISHOP OF SABINA V. BEDEWYNDE 21 admitted and restored to the aforesaid trcasurership, to hold according; to the tenor of the collation of the aforesaid supreme pontiff. He was told to wait from day to day until etc. And it was agreed by the aforesaid king's council that before anything further in the matter etc., the rolls and other memoranda should be searched in reference to the king's right and the estate of the aforesaid Walter in this part. And the said Walter, who was present etc., was told that he on his part should make inquiries and have search made of whatever maj' relate to the right of the king and his own estate etc., showing and presenting the evidences which (relate) thereto etc. The memoranda concerning the king's right etc. having been searched, it was discovered at the exchequer in the 29th roll of the present king in the roll of accounts, to wit in the third roll of the account of John Lith- greins '* for the king's escheats beyond the Trent and for the revenues of the archbishopric of York, during vacancy of the see, that the aforesaid archbishopric was voided by the death of J. le Romeyn" late archbishop there, (that is) from the 12th day of March in the 24th year, when the said archbishop died, and it was in the king's hand from the said day bj' reason of the said vacancj', and that the said escheator answered to the king for its revenues from the same 12th day of March until the 22nd day of June in the 25th year, until the king restored the temporalities of the aforesaid arch- bishopric to Master Henry of Newerk-" archbishop-elect etc. Hereupon Walter of Bedewynde in behalf of the lord the king and himself declares that whereas the aforesaid treasurership of York was vacant during the vacancy of the aforesaid archbishopric while it was in the hand of the said king, to whom the collation of the said treasurership as well as the collation and presentation of other vacant benefices during the vacancy of the arch- episcopal see rightfully belonged, by reason indeed of the temporalities of the archbishopric etc. being in the king's hand, whereof the collation and presentation belonged to the archbishop when the see was filled, (where- fore) the lord the king himself has bestowed the said treasurership upon the said Walter etc.,^' so that neither the lord the king in making this collation nor the said Walter in receiving it etc. has done injury to anyone. Having been asked if he has anything to show concerning the vacancy of the afore- said treasurership during the aforesaid vacancy of the archbishopric etc., the same Walter says that in the time of the aforesaid vacancy of the arch- bishopric Lord Boniface, then supreme pontiff, judicially deprived Jolm de Sancto Vito, at the time treasurer of York, of the said treasui-ership as well as of his other benefices etc., so that by this deprivation the said treasurer- ship was vacant, while the temporahties of the archbishopric etc. were in the king's hand. As to that deprivation he displays a certain public in- strument testifying to it in the following words: sheriffs were ordered not to permit Walter appeals against him (ibid. 507). It will to be molested in his possession and to be noticed that Bedewj'nde was nominated arrest all persons making citations or to the vacancy created between 12 March 22 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Publicum Inatru- Universis presens publicum Instrumentum inspecturis, [Nicholaus mentum Hucsc] ~ Officialis Parisieusis salutem in Domiuo. Litteras domini . . . Pape non abolitas, non cancellatas, non abrasas nee in aliqua sua parte \'ieiatas, sub veris Bulla et fills sericis pendentibus,^ prout prima facie apparebat, noueritis nos vidisse formam que sequitur continentes. Bonifacius Episcopus, senius seruorum Dei, ad perpetuam rei memo- riam. In excelso throno, [Here follows at length the bull of 10 May, 1297,-^ excommunicating the Colonna, declaring forfeitures and depriving them of all benefices.] Transcriptum autem huiusmodi litterarum Apostolica- rum ad peticionam venerabilis viri domini Roberti de sancto Iusto,^° in regno Francie generalis procuratoris Milicie Templi, ac Laurencii de Eboraco in regno Anglie Templi clerici fieri fecimus cuiuslibet iure salvo. In quorum testimonium sigillmu Curie Parisiensis una cum signis con- suetis infra scriptorum notariorum presentibus est appensum. Datum Parisiis anno Domini IM.CC.XC.IX, Indictione tercia decima, die Martis ante festum sancti Vincencii Martiris, videlicet nona decima die Mensis lanuarii Pontificatus domini Bonifacii Pape Octaui anno quinto.-^ Presentibus fratre Petro de CormeUis, ordinis fratrum predica- torum, Nicholao dicto Huese, Clerico Curie Parisiensis notario iurato,^' et pluribus aliis testibus ad premissa. Et ego lohannes de Beroto, clericus Ebroycensis diocesis, ad honorem sacrosancte matris ecclesie Romane, sacri eciam imperii urbis alme pre- fecti publicus auctorite notarius, huiusmodi litteras Apostolicas, quas vidi non abolitas, non cancellatas, non abrasas, nee in aliqua sua parte viciatas, sub vei'is bulla et filis sericis pendentibus, prout prima facie apparebat, diligenter ac fideUter exemplaui et transcripsi, niehil addens vel subtrahens in diceione vel sillaba, quod mutet sensmn aut viciet intellectum, presensque exemplum vel transcriptmn per me et Auber- tum, infrascriptum notarium, cmn ipsis Utteris ascultatum, in omnibus cum ipsis coneordare repertum, propria manu scripsi, et in banc pub- licam formam redegi, meumque signum^ una cum sigillo dicte Curie et signo dieti A., infraseripti notarii, presentibus apposui, rogatus sub anno, Indictione, mense, die, Pontifieatu et loco predictis.^ Ego, Aubertus de Matonuilla, clericus Rothomagensis diocesis, Apostolica publicus auctoritate notarius, huiusmodi htteras Apostolicas vidi, tenui et legi non cancellatas, non abolitas, non abrasas, nee in 1296 and 22 June, 1297, not to any vacancy the former the seal was attached by a silk created in 1304, as has been supposed cord, to the latter by a string of hemp. (Northern Convocations, Surtees Soc. 1907, R. L. Poole, Papal Chancery (1915), 115. p. 60). " The bull may be found in abstract in " The space for the name is left vacant, Potthast, Regesla, no. 24513, and in full but the name of Huese is given at the end in Dupuy, Hist, du diffhcnd, p. 29, and of the instrument. in Muratori, Anliq. Ital. vi, 189. " There were two classes of letters, " A Templar of this name was one of letters of grace and letters of justice. To the knights interrogated in the trials of BISHOP OF SABINA V. BEDEWYNDE 22 PubUo To all who shall inspect the present public instrument [Nicholas iDBtrument Hucse] - official of (the court of) Paris, greeting in the Lord. Know that we have seen the letters of the lord the pope, which have not been re- voked, cancelled, abrased nor in any part impaired, with genuine seal and threads of silk appended,^ conUiining the following words: "Boni- face bishop, servant of the servants of God" etc. [The Bull 'In excelso throno,' of 10 May 1297,^* excommunicating the Colonna, Peter, James, John and Odo, declaring forfeiture of all their land and possessions subject to the Church of Rome, and depriving them of all ecclesiastical benefices, is here recited at letigth.] Moreover the transcript of these apostolic letters we have had made on petition of the venerable Lord Robert de St. Just,^' procurator general of the Templars in the realm of France, and Law- rence of York clerk of the Temple in the realm of England, saving to each one his right. In testimony of this the seal of the court of Paris together with the customary signs of notaries is appended. Given at Paris in the year of our Lord, 1299, of the thirteenth Indiction, on Tuesday before the feast of St. Vincent the Martyr, that is the 19th day of January in the fifth year of the pontificate of Pope Boniface VIII ;"* in the presence of friar Peter de Corneliis of the order of Preachers, Nicholas called Huese, clerk of the court of Paris, sworn notary,-^ and many others as witnesses to the premises. And I, John de Beiroto, clerk of the diocese of Evreux, to the honour of the holj' mother the Roman Church, and authorized public notary of the aforesaid holy empire of the world, have diligently and faithfully exemplified and transcribed these apostolic letters, which I have seen were not revoked, cancelled, abrased, nor in any other part impaired, with genuine seals and threads of silk appended, as is on the face apparent, adding or subtracting nothing in word or syllable that might change the sense or impair the meaning, and with my own hand have written the present exemplification or transcript, which has been compared with the said letters by me and Aubert the notary herein mentioned, and has been found to agree with them in all points and I have drawn it up in this public form, placing upon it as a testimonial my sign,^ together with the seal of the said court and the sign of the said A. under the aforesaid year, Indiction, month, day, pontificate, and place.-' I, Aubert de Matonville, clerk of the diocese of Rouen, authorized public notary, have seen, read and comprehended these apostolic letters, which have neither been cancelled, annulled, abrased, nor in 1308. Konrad Schottmullcr, Der Unter- " The sign of a notary was a design gang des Templet (1887), iii, 64, 79, 81. more or less complicated, more or less " 19 Jan. 1299. artistic, which was his distinctive mark " On papal notaries see Paul P'our- and personal property. Ibid. 45. nier, Les OficialUis au Moyen Age (1880), '' The formula of a papal notary sub- ch. vi. stantially as given in Fournier, p. 44. 23 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL aliqua sua parte corruptas, vera bulla plumbea pendente sub fills de serico roboratas, ut prima facie apparebat, presensque transcriptum seu exemplum super eo, cum dictis litteris diligentem faciens collacionem cum lohanne, suprascripto notario, fideliter ascultaui et legi, et quia utramque in omnibus concordare inueni presentibus me subscripsi signumque meum ^ una cum sigillo dicte Curie Parisiensis ac signo suprascripti lohannis notarii apposui consuetum rogatus sub anno, Indictione, mense, die, Pontificatu et loco predictis."' Et predictus Walterus dicit quod predictus sextus Idus Maii Pontificatus dicti Pape Bonifacii anno tercio fuit decimus dies eiusdem mensis Maii anno gracie M.CC.XC.VII et regni Regis nunc xxv'°, temporalitate predict! Archiepiscopatus tunc existente in manu ipsius domini Regis, adiciens quod- qualitercumque predicta Thesauraria racionevacacionis eiusdem per priuaci- onem predictam collata fuisset per summum Pontificem prefato Theobaldo de Barro, vel alteri cuicumque, hoc domino Regi vel statui quem ipse Wal- terus modo habet in eadem Thesauraria preiudicari non debet, presertim cum collacio inde tunc temporis de iure corone etc. spectaret ad ipsum Regem, et ipse Rex in hoc precipue prerogetur, quod in huiusmodi que spectant ad ius suima corone etc. nullum labitur"" ei tempus nee labi debet etc., quomi- nus iura etc., et si ad tempus sopita fuerint vel neglecta, eo non consulto inde vel ea nullatenus aduertente, possit ipsa recuperare et eis uti cum sibi placuerit etc., ipseque Walterus ipsam Thesaurariam habent ex collacione ipsius Regis pro tempore quo de iure etc. spectabat collacio ad ipsum Regem sicut superius est expressum. Preterea quo ad hoc quod in suprascripta peticione continetur quod predictus Theobaldus de Barro predictam The- saurariam per priuacionem predicti lohannis de sancto vico etc. possedit ex collacione prefati summi Pontificis pacifice etc., dicit quod licet idem sum- mus Pontifex super induccione eiusdem Theobaldi in eandem Thesaura- riam certas deputasset personas executores etc., ipsique executores per littorias coniminatorias mandassent ipsum Theobaldum induci in corpora- lem possessionem predicte Thesaurarie possidende cum omnibus iuribus et pertinonciis suis etc., Decanus et Capitulum predicte ecclesie Ebor', ad quos e.\ecucio mandatorum huiusmodi pertinebat, hcet mandatis Aposto- licis contraire vel eisdem resistere non auderent, aduertentes tamen col- lacionem predictam et induccionem illam fore in preiudicium domini Regis, cum collacio ilia etc. spectaret ad ipsum dominum Regem racione vaca- cionis etc., tunc publice protestabantur ipsos in eo quod ad ipsos pertinuit non velle preiudicari domino Rcgi in admissione ipsius Theobaldi, per quod liquet ipsum Theobaldum nullum statum iuris habuisse in eadem Thesau- raria etc., super qua quidem protestacione dictorum Decani et Capituli " On the law of lapse and exception of plenarty see Introd. p. Ixv. BISHOP OF SABINA ('. BEDEWYNDE 23 any part damaged, but are confirmed by a genuine lead seal hanging by threads of silk as was evident upon the face; and having with the aid of John, the aforesaid notary carefully collated this transcript or exem- plification with the said letters, I have faithfully read and compared them, and since the two are found to agree in all points, in testimony of this I have given my signature and have added my customary sign ** along with the seal of the said court of Paris and the sign of the afore- said John, notary, under the aforesaid year, Indiction, month, day, pontificate, and place.^ And the aforesaid Walter says that the sixth of the Ides of May in the third year of the pontificate of the said Pope Boniface was the tenth day of the same month of May, in the year of grace 1297, and of the present king's reign 2oth, when the temporalities of the aforesaid archbishop were in the hand of the said lord the king, and he adds that notwithstanding that the aforesaid treasurership by reason of the said vacancy (created) by deprivation had been bestowed bj' the supreme pontiff upon the afore- said Theobald de Bar or another, this ought not to prejudice the lord the king or the interest which the said Walter now has in the said treasurership, especially because this collation at that time belonged by right of the crown etc. to the king himself, and the king himself in this matter has this especial prerogative that in matters of this kind pertaining to his royal right etc. there is no lapse*" of time against him, nor ought there to be, so that the rights etc., and if for a time they shall fall in abej'ance or be neg- lected, without his being consulted or in anj' wise giving attention, he can recover them and use them whenever he pleases etc., and (since) the said Walter holds the said treasurership by collation of the king himself for the time when of right etc. the collation belonged to the king himself just as has been already explained. Furthermore as to the point contained in the aforesaid petition that the aforesaid Theobald de Bar by collation of the aforesaid supreme pontiff possessed in peace the aforesaid treasurership on the deprivation of the aforesaid John de Sancto Yito etc., he says that although the said supreme pontiff upon the induction of the said Theobald into the said treasurership had deputed certain persons as executors etc., and the said executors bj- comminatory letters had commanded that the said Theobald should be inducted into the corporal possession of the afore- said treasurership to hold with all its rights and appurtenances etc., (yet) the dean and chapter of the aforesaid church of York to whom the execu- tion of such mandates pertained, although they did not dare to contravene or resist the apostoUc commands, believing nevertheless that the aforesaid collation and induction would be to the prejudice of the lord the king, since the collation etc. belonged to the lord the king himself by reason of the vacancy etc., then publicly protested that so far as it pertained to them they were unwilling to prejudice the lord the king by the admission of the said Theobald, whereby it is plain that the said Theobald had no lawful estate Instru- mentum 24 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Ebor' idem Walterus ostendit quoddam publicum Instrumentum eam testificans in hec verba: In nomine Domini amen, annoeiusdem abincarnacione M.CC.XC. VII, Indictione undecima, die xviij. mensis Nouembris venerabilis pater dominus H., Dei gracia Electus Ebor', et reuerendi viri Magistri Petrus de Ros," Precentor ecclesie Ebor', ac Thomas de Corbrigg','- canonicus eiusdem, apud Wilton in Camera dicti patris, me notario et testibus infrascriptis tunc presentibus, presencialiter constiti, quandam protes- tacionem nomine sue ac Decani et Capituli ipsius Ebor' ecclesie in scriptis interposuerunt sub hac forma. In Dei nomine amen. Cum sanctissimus in Christo pater dominus Bonifacius Papa Octauus lohannem de Calimipna, Canonicum et Thesaurarium ecclesie Ebor', Thesauraria eadein ac canonicatibus, prebendis, dignitatibus, personati- bus et aliis beneficiis ecclesiasticis, cum cura vel sine cura, que in quibus ius habebat ecclesiis, Apostolica priuauerat auctoritate, ac canonica- tum prebendam et thesaurariam eiusdem Ebor' ecclesie sic vacantes cum plenitudine iuris canonici ac omnibus iuribus et pertinenciis suis 'Theobaldo, Germano nobilis viri Comitis Bariducis, eadem auctoritate contulerat atque prouiderat de illo preposito Lausanensi et Magistro Octobono de Placencia, litterarum contradictarum auditore,'^ Canonico Suesion' ecclesiarum, ac Officiali Line' executoribus per litteras speciales super hoc datas dictisque preposito et Magistro Octobono suis separatis processibus Archiepiscopo et venerabilibus ac discretis viris Decano et Capitulo ac singulis canonicis Ebor' ubicuinque constitutis sub magnis comminacionibus et penis districcius dantibus in mandatis ut ipsi prout ad eos et eorum quemlibet communiter vel diuisim pertinet infra sex dies, quoruna duos pro primo, duos pro secundo, et residuos duos uni- uersis et singulis pro tercio et peremptorio termino assignarunt, recipiant cundem dominum Theobaldum, vel procuratorem suum eius nomine in suum et dicte Ebor' ecclesie canonicum, thesaurarium atque fratrem, eique vel procurator! suo eius nomine, stallum in choro et locum in capitulo sicut canonico et thesaurario assignent, ac in corporalem pos- sessionem canonicatus, prebentle et thesaurarie predictorum, iurium et pertinenciarum earundem inducant, et quantum in eis est defendant inductum, faciendo eidem domino T., vel procuratori suo eius nomine, de ipsorum canonicatus, prebcndc et thesaurarie fructibus, redditibus, prouentibus et iuribus uniuersis prout ad eos pertinet integre responderi. Nos, Decanus et Capitulum predictc Ebor' ecclesie perpendentes priua- cionem de qua premittitur eo tempore factum fuisse quo serenissimus princeps dominus Edwardus, Dei gracia Rex Anglie illustris, Archi- " or Ross, precentor of York since 1289. 1283 and archbishop 1300-04. Le Neve, Le Neve, iii, 154. iii, 206, 212. " Prclwndary of Stillinuton in 1273, of " AudiiiUiti LilUrarum Contradiclarum, Osbaldwick in 1279, chancellor of York in a department of the papal chancery in BISHOP OF SABINA V. BEDEWYNDE 24 in the said treasurcrsliip etc.; as to this protestation of the said dean and chapter of York the said Walter exliibits a certain public instrument tes- tifying to it in the followiiif^ words: iDBtniment jn ^\^q name of God amen, in the year of Our Lord 1297, on the 18th day of November in the eleventh Indiction the venerable father Ix)rd H., by the grace of CJotl (archl)i.shop-)elect of York, and the reverend Peter of Ros,^' precentor of the church of York, and Thomas of Corljridge,'* canon of the same, being present at Wilton in the chamber of the said father, in the presence of myself as notary and the witnesses herein mentioned, interposed in the name of themselves an There is a township of Cockerton in Inlerj/relcr, s. v. processe. the parish of Darlington, South Durham. " This was John Salmon, bishop of " " We call him a Notary that attests Nor^vich, 1299-1325. He did not become deeds or writings to make them authentick chancellor till 1319. He was a faithful in another country." Cowel, Interpreter, adherent to and much trusted by Edward s. v. The Notaries Imperial were a recog- II. By the eighth Constitution of Claren- nized class, but it would seem that they don, passed in 1164, appeal lay from the were also sworn and admitted here. See archdeacon to the bishop. O. J. Reichel, Coventry Letter Book in E. E. T. S. (1907) Manuai of Canon Law (1896), ii, 332. pt. i, p. 59. There were also Papal Nota- REX V. GERDESTON 29 aforesaid and that neither by him nor with his knowledge or at his mandate was it done nor was any process- made or set in motion touching the matter aforesaid either before him or before his official aforenamed by his mandate as archdeacon or with his knowledge until the time that the bishop of Nor- wich,^' whom the lord the king commanded that he, the bishop, should send the process of the matter aforesaid to himself the lord the king, certified him, the archdeacon, of the aforementioned commandment of the lord the king. And he saj-s that as soon as this was brought to his hearing he in- continently sent it to his official aforesaid inhibiting" him further to meddle in the matter aforesaid by handling it before him. And because this is so he claims his acquittal before the lord the king in person through the aforementioned bishop or in any other lawful way at the will of the lord the king himself. And the aforewritten official for himself siiys that the aforesaid citation said by him to have been made as is charged upon him never was made by him, his precept or mandate that it should be made at the aforesaid place and time nor did he himself by virtue or bj- reason of that citation proceed in the business aforesaid in any particular either by continuing any pro- cess or by endeavouring an.vthing in the matter after the mandate had been received by hira through the aforesaid archdeacon his superior, and the inhibition issued against his further meddling in the said business by handling it before himself &c. And thereupon on the part of the lord the king himself there was set out at length a certain process of the matter aforesaid held in presence of the aforewritten official and delivered by the bishop of Norwich to the king in person by command of the king himself, in which are contained the underwritten words, namely, that a certain Robert, called of the Chapel of Jackesle, a clerk of the diocese of Lincoln on the abovcsaid eighth day of the month of March in presence of Robert of Cockerton a clerk of the diocese of Durham,-* notary public bj' imperial authority,^^ witnesses by his public instrument that a certain Robert, called of the chapel of Jackesle, a clerk of the diocese of Lincoln, on the ilay afore- said before the ninth hour of the said day in the low chapel in the palace of the lord Edward by the grace of God the illustrious king of England at Westminster in the diocese of I>ondon in presence of a noble woman the Lady Joan of Barr then being there uttered the following words: Lady Joan of Barr, Ye are to know and be certified that at the instance of Maud of Neyrford daughter of the former William of Ne3rford knight, deceased, of the diocese of Norwich ye have been publicly and solenmly summoned and peremptorily cited (by reason of) a public citation issued in the parish church of Methelwoode of the diocese aforementioned and in the manor of nies. Spelman says " Legi (sed locum Ricardi 2, sed hos forte iu re Ecclesiae." rescio) Notarios publicos Bulla papali hie Glossarium (1687) s. v. Notarius. in Anglia institutes esse tempore Regis 30 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL decanuni de Bradewyce ^ dicte diocesis publice et solempniter estis vocata et peremptorie citata publice citacionis edicto in ecclesia paro- ehiali de IMethelwode diocesis prefate et in manerio nobilis \'iri Johannis Comitis de Warrenna ibidem proposito quod compareatis coram discrete viro domino^ Officiali domini Archidiaconi Noi-ffolcie vel eius Commis- sario in Ecclesia parochiali beati Nicholai de Brakeden dicte diocesis die Veneris proxima post festum beati Gregorii Pape in causa matrimonii et divorcii que coram dicto domino ofEciali autoritate ordinaria proce- dente vertitur seu verti speratur inter ipsam Matillidem actricem ex parte vna et nobilem virum Johannem Comitem de Warrenna et vos reos ex altera facturi et recepturi quod Juris fuerit et racionis. Acta sunt hec die meiise loco prcfatis, presentibus Waltero de Brauteston Johanne de Holme clericis et aliis testibus ad premissa vocatis specialiter et rogatis. Continetur eciam in eodem processu quod post citacionem predictam predicte Comitisse factam vt piedictum est, dictus OfBcialis eo quod dicta Comitissa coram ipso die predicto non comparuit reputauit ipsam Comi- tissam contumacem^^ et iterate decrevit fore vocandam in certis maneriis et ecclesiis parochialibus nomiiiatis in dicto processu si personaliter posset in- veniri, aut si dicta Comitissa aut ipsius procuratores non invenirentur copia libelli predicte Matillidis de Neyrford versus predictam Comitissam coram ipso OfRciali porrecti super magna altaria Ecclesiarum illarum apponeretur et in hostiis earundem afSgeretur^ Et quod publice Citacionis edicto in Maneriis et Ecclesiis predictis proposito citaretur quod compareret coram ipso Officiali vel ejus Commissario in ecclesia parochiali beati Nicholai de Brackeden predicta die sabbati proxima post dominicam qua cantatur Mis- ericordia Domini'' predicte Matillidi in predicta causa responsura, &c. Quo processu in presencia ipsius officialis porrecto et ostenso, quesitum est'- ab ipso si dictum processum advocat et si sit factum suum. Qui dicit expresse quod sit set dicit quod cum in instrumento publico predicto non contineatur " Bradenyce, deciphered by the tran- in Decret. Lib. II. Tit. sdv, c. 2. But " a scriber of the Lincoln's Inn MS. as Brod- defendant . . . requires to be libelled ti\-ice. I can find no place-name in against or accused of contumacy before Norfolk resembling this. The citation was he can be punished for it." Reichel, ii, first publicly pronounced in the church of 241, 273. Nor can he be deemed con- Methelwode or Methwold, a manor of the tumacious until a single citation has been Earl Warenne (Blomefield, ii, 201). Meth- thrice repeated. lb. 270. That this was wold was in the rural deanery of Cran- a '' simple " and not a " peremptory " wich, in Domesday Cranewisse (ib. 225). citation appears from the shortness of the This suggests that the original record interval granted. Ibid, should have been Cranewyce, but that '" By constitution xxvi of the legate the clerk heard the name incorrectly. Otho it was ordained that the officer of the '' The word is perhaps used here, as in Court should make diligent search for the the Universities, to indicate a graduate. defendant " quem si rej)erire non poterit, ^' " The service of the citation at once die Dominico vel alio solenni in Ecclesia produces three effects: (1) it pledges the loci illius in quo degere consuevit, dum defendant to appear, otherwise he is con- Missa cantatur, publice Literas legi faciat tumacious." Alexander III (1159-81) to et exponi." E. Gibson, Codex, ii, 1002; Abbot of Ramsay and Archdeacon of Elj- Wilkins' Concilia, i, 655. It would appear REX V. GERDESTON 30 the noble man, tlie Lord John Earl Warennc by the dean of Bradewyce" of the said diocese there published ordering you to appear before the discreet man the lord ^ official of the lord the archdeacon of Norfolk or his commissary in the parish church of Saint Nicholas of Brakedcn of the said diocese on Friday next after the feast of Saint Gregory, Pope, in a cause of matrimony and divorce in presence of the said official which by a process with the authority of the ordinary is now in course or expected to be in course between her, Maud petitioner of the one part, and the noble man John Earl Warenne and for the defendent of the other part, and to do and receive that which is of right and reason. Done on the day in the month (and) place aforementioned in the presence of Walter of Brantcston, John of Holme, clerks, and other witnesses specially summoned and bidden to the proceedings aforesaid. There is contained also in the same process that after the citation aforesaid of the aforesaid countess had been made, as is aforesaid, the said official because the said countess did not appear before him on the day aforesaid deemed her the countess to be contuma- cious^ and again decreed that she should be summoned in certain manors and parish churches named in the said process if she could be found there in pei-son or if the said countess or her proctors should not be found, a copy of the libel aforesaid of Maud of NejTford against the aforesaid countess should in the presence of the official in person be placed spread out upon the great altars of those churches and should be affixed to the doors of the same * and that the issue of the pubhc citation having been published in the manors and churches aforesaid, she should be cited to appear before the official himself or before his commissary in the parish chiu-ch of Saint Nicholas of Brakeden aforesaid on the Satui-daj' next after the Sunday on which is sung " misericordia Dommi " '' to answer the aforesaid Maud in the aforesaid cause, &c. Which process in the presence of the official in person having been produced and exhibited the question was asked ^- of him if he avows the said process, and if it is his act. He answers expressly that from Otho's constitution that construe- ways and means (viis et modis)." Reichel live and fictitious service had been effected ii, 272. by laying citations upon the altar and then " The introit of Mass for the second remo\'ing them, the defendant being given Sunday after Easter is taken from Psalm no opportunity of becoming informed of 33 (Vulgate version), 5, 0. " Miseri- them. His constitution implicitly dis- cordia Domini plena est terra. Alleluia, penses with this formality which must Verbo Domini coeli firmati sunt, .\lleluia." therefore have been retained as a local Easter Day, 131.5, falling on 23 March, custom in the diocese of Nonvich. By a the second Sunday after would be 6 April decretal of Gregory IX (1227^1) (Lib. and the Saturday following 12 April. The II. Tit. xiv, c. 10) it was ordained that passage was unintelligible to and hope- " when personal service can not be lessly bungled by the transcriber of the effected, the judge may decree the cita- Lincoln's Inn MS. whose Latinity was tion to be affixed to the door of his (the obviously imperfect, defendant's) house, or to the Church door " Presumably by the council. On the during the time of divane service, and a practice of administering interrogatories, copy left there. This is termed service by see Introd. pp. xlii-xliii. 31 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL quod predicta Comitissa citata fuit Immo tantunimodo continetur in eodem Instrumento quod quedam notificacio eidem Comitisse facta fuit de quadam citacione sibi alibi quam in Palacio predicto facta et per quemdam Decanum in Diocesi Norwycensi videtur sibi quod racione illius notifica- cionis que non fuit citacio cum ipse per citaciones testificatas per Decanos et ministros suos in negotio predicto proeessit et processum fecit et non virtute notificacionis predicte siW facte quod in nullo deliquid contra dominuni Regem aut aliuni &c. Quesitum est insuper ab eodem Officiali si postquam per prefatum Arcliidiaconum superiorem suum sibi inhibitum fuit ne in negocio predicto vlterius procederet. Et postquam predictus Episcopus prefato Archidiacono de mandato Domini Regis predicto con- stare fecit si in negocio predicto vlterius proeessit dicit quod sic Et prout ad officium suum pertinuit ut sibi videbatur quod bene et licite procedere potuit, &c. Et quia responsione et racionibus prescripti officialis auditis et intellectis inspectoque et examinato processu negotii predicti coram ipso habito et per prefatum Episcopum domino Regi misso et quem processum idem OfRcialis advocat esse factum suum continetur in eodem videlicet in In- strumento publico in eodem processu insertum quod predictus Robertus dictus de capella de Jakesle in predicta capella bassa in Palacio domini Regis predicto qui est locus exemptus ab oiiini jurisdiccione ordinaria tam racione dignitatis et corone sue quam libertatis Ecclesie Westmonasteri- ensis et maxime in presencia ipsius domini Regis tempore parliamenti sui ibidem, Ita quod nullus summoniciones seu citaciones ibidem faciat et precipue illis qui sunt de sanguine Domini Regis quibus major reverentia quam aliis fieri debet Compertum est quod predictus Officialis vi et effectu Instrumenti publici predicti et racione verborum in eodem contentormn processum in negocio predicto coram eo inchoatum versus prefatara Comitissam continuauit et eam contumacem reputauit prout in predicto processu plenius continetur occasione contumacie seu post notificacionem predictam coram ipso Officiali per ipsum notarium predictum sibi testifi- catam admittens et acceptans notificacionem illam et processum suum super eadem continuans ac si esset citacio debita et manifcsta, Nee invenitur in predicto processu quod aliqua alia citacio super prefatam Comitissam per decanos aut alios facta fuit qualitercuraque idem Officialis dicat se pre- dictum processum fecisse et continuasse per citaciones per Decanos suos sibi testificatas nee idem officialis ignorare debuit quin predictus locus qui est solempnior locus istius Regni videlicet palacium predictum quod situm est infra libcrtatem Ecclesie Westmonasteriensis vbi nulli Archiepiscopi " Qu. a blunder for ibi, i. e. in the crypt of St. Stephens. REX V. GERDESTON 31 it is, but he says that in the pubhc instrument aforesaid it is not contained that the aforesaid countess was cited, but it is onl}^ contained in the same instrument that a certain notification was made to the same countess touching a certain citation made to her elsewhere than in the palace afore- said and by a certain dean in the diocese of Norwich, it seems to him that by reason of that notification, which was not a citation since he himself proceeded in the matter aforesaid by way of citations attested by his deans and ministers and made process, and not by virtue of the notification afore- said there made, that that being so, he has in no wise offended against the lord the king or any other &c. The question being further asked of the same official if, after that the inhibition had been issued to him by the aforemen- tioned archdeacon his superior, against further process in the matter afore- said. And if after that the aforesaid bishop by command aforesaid of the lord the king certified the aforementioned archdeacon thereof, he proceeded fuj-ther in the matter aforewritten, he says yes, and as pertained to his office, as it seemed to him, that he was able well and lawfully to proceed &c. And because, after the hearing and understanding of the answer and reasons of the aforewritten Official, and after inspection and examination of the process of the matter aforesaid had in his presence and by the afore- mentioned bishop sent to the lord the king, which process also the same official avows as his act, it is contained in the same, that is, being inserted in the public instrument in the same process, that the aforesaid Robert of the chapel of Jackesle in the aforesaid low chapel in the palace of the lord the king afore^vTitten, which is a place exempt even from all jurisdiction of the ordinary by reason as well of the king's dignity and of that of his crown as of the liberty of the church of Westminster, and particularly in presence of the lord the king in person at the time of his parliament there, so that none there issue summons or citations and especially to those of the blood of the lord the king to whom greater reverence than to others ought to be paid, it is found that the aforesaid official, by force and effect of the public instrument aforesaid and by reason of words contained in the same, con- tinued a process in the aforesaid matter begun before hmiself against the aforementioned countess and deemed her to be contumacious as more fully is contained in the process aforesaid, and on account of her contumacy or else after the notification aforesaid in presence of him, the official, attested to him by the aforesaid notary in person he admitted and received that notification and continued his process upon the same as if it were a due and manifest citation, and it is not found in the same process that anj^ other citation as to the aforementioned countess was made by deans or others, howsoever the same official may say that he made the aforesaid process and continued it by means of citations attested to him by his deans, whereas the same official ought not to be ignorant that the aforesaid place is a very solemn place of the kingdom, namely, the palace aforesaid, situate within the liberty of the church of Westminster where no arch- 32 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Episcopi seu alii quicunque Jurisdiccionem ordinariam exercere possint aut debeant Idemque officialis Cognouit quod in negocio predicto processit et processum continuauit postquam per superiorem suum Archidiaconum pre- dictiiin sibi inhibitum fuit ne in negocio predicto procederet que quidem omnia in dedecus et contemptum domini Regis manifeste redundant et contra Coronam et dignitatem suam. Consideratum est quod idem Officialis committatur Turri Londonie et ibidem custodiatur ad voluntatem domini Regis. Et quo ad predictmn Archidiaconum quia ipse pretendit se acquietare quod ipse citacionem pre- dictam nunquam fieri precepit nee aliquid de predicto negocio scivit aut se intromisit quousque prefatus Episcopus sibi de mandato Domini Regis constare fecit prout in responsione sua superius continetur, et tunc incon- tinenti inhibuit dicto Officiali suo ne se vlterius inde intromitteret. Et idem Officialis hoc idem in responsione sua superius cognovit, de gracia Domini Regis speciali datus est ei dies ad proximimi Parliamentum'* tunc de volun- tate domini Regis inde audienda &c. Et de predictis notaiiis et testibus preceptum est vicecomitibus Londoniensi Eboracensi et Lincolniensi ^^,°° videlicet singuUs eorum separatim quod attachiarent predictos Notarium'^ Lincoln' et tcstes Ita quod eos habeant coram ipso domino Rege in crastino sancti Johannis Baptiste'^ vbicunrque^ &c. ad respondendum Domino Regi super contemptubus et transgressionibus per ipsos Domino Regi factis prout in processu prescripto plenius continetur &c. COSFELD V. LEMDYS' ETC. 1322 '"^ nostre Seigneur le Roj' et son consail monstre Godekyn de Cosfeld - de Estland qe la ou il fu venant vers la seint Botolf ' en la mier ove ime neef charge ove diverses biens cest asaver dure pcsshun et borde et autres cha- teux a la vaUaunce de trois centz livers la quele fu enanckore pres de Skegnes en la Conte de Nicole le Meskirdy en la semaigne de Pentecost^ Ian du regne le Roi Edward qore est qe dieu gard quinzime et les mariners de la dite neef furont en la dite ville de Skegnes de les alower un loderesman la vindront Robert Leveys,' Thomas Springet,' WiUiam Punch ' et Gerveys Alard * Mariners de Portz. Et la dite Neef ove totes les biens qe la einz " The next parliament met at Lincoln ' Found in Ancierit PelUiom, no. 4913. on 27 Januarj', 1316. Parrj-, Parliaments ' or Gosefeld (?). No other reference and Councils, p. 79. to him has been found, but other mer- " Sic; although plural before. chants of Eastland and Prussia we know " 25 June, 131.5. were coming to England under letters of " The ancient form of the council's protection and sjife conduct. Cal. CI. writ, continued also in the king's bench. Rolls, 16 Ed. 11, 266, 293, 360, &c. See Leadam, Select Cases in the Star Cham- ' Boston, the principal port in Eng- ber (Seldcn Society, 1902), p. xvi. In June land for the ICastland trade wliich came Edward himself appears to have been with from Liibeck, Kampen, Hamburg, &c. the army in Scotland, and the " ubicum- * 2 June, 1322. que " must almost necessarily have been a ' Mentioned as Robert Lewys of form. Greenwich. Cal. Pat. IS Ed. II, 160. COSFELD V. LEVEYS, ETC. 32 bishops, bishops or other persons whosoever can or ought to exercise the jurisdiction of an ordinary, and whereas the same official has admitted that he proceeded in the matter aforesaid and continued process after that an inhibition had been issued to him by his superior the archdeacon afore- said against proceeding in the matter aforesaid, (and whereas) all these proceedings manifestly redound to the despite and are in contempt of the lord the king and against his crown and dignity. It is adjudged that the same official be committed to the Tower of London and be there in custody at the king's pleasure and as touching the aforesaid archdeacon for that he claims acquittal in that he himself never ordered the said citation to be made nor knew anything of the aforesaid matter or meddled therein until the aforementioned bishop certified him of the comniandinent of the lord the king as in his answer is before contained and then incontinently inhibited his said official from fuilher meddling in that behalf. And the same official has in his answer before admitted this particular, daj' is given him of the lord the king's special grace to the next parliament," at which time he is to hear in that behalf as to the will of the lord the king or Tay, the name of a manor in Lex- Witham and Hatfield PevercU {Cal. CI. den, held lay a family that thence derived Rolls, 468). From him came the name of its name. From 1351 to 13.56 this Robert Boj's Hall in Halstead (Morant, ii, 108). served conspicuousl}' as commissioner of He served as commissioner of array in the peace and justice to enforce the stat- 1360 {Cal. Pal. Rolls, 413) and died the utes of labourers {Cal. Pat. passim). In year after. EXAMINATION OF GILBERT BLOUNT 34 for other causes he gave to John Fermer," knight, goods and chattels of the said Thomas to the value of a hundred pounds, in order thereby to satisfy William of Bohun,' earl of Northampton, for the hundred pounds (due) to the said earl by icason of a certain assignment that had been made to him out of the aforesaid tenth and fifteenth in the said county; also the said Thomas gave and granted to the same John Fermer, Gilbert le Blount, Robert of Tcy,'" Leon Bradenham," John of Bois'- and John of Oxney" the residue of all the goods and chattels of the said Thomas, and also his lands and tenements in the county of Essex, as well as the marriage of John son and heir of the said Thomas; by pretext of this grant and concession the aforesaid Gilbert in the name of himself and of the aforesaid John, Robert, Leon, John, and John took seisin of the aforesaid lands and tenements and also goods and chattels, while the aforesaid Thomas was living, under the condition that all the goods and chattels thus given in common to the said John, Gilbert, Robert, Leon, John, and John as well as the aforesaid marriage should be sold for various debts which the said Thomas owed the said king for the aforesaid tenth and fifteenth as well as for other causes; and should the said goods and chattels together with the marriage not be sufficient to pay off the said debts, then the said feoffees were to sell the said lands and tenements in order to pay off as manj' of the said debts as possible, and they were to give satisfaction therefor to the king. Moreover the aforesaid Gilbert said that at a certain court held by Adam Passefeld at Falkborne before the death of the said Thomas, aO the tenants of the manors of Falkborne '■' and Termine'^ attorned to the aforesaid feoffees; wherefore the aforesaid Gilbert was told that he should be before the treasurer and barons of the exchequer at Westminster on Monday the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul," to do in this matter whatever should there be ordained." " Son of Walter of Oxenhey, or Oxen- eye, was granted the manor of Wastails in Froshwell (Morant, ii, 522). He acted in various transactions as mainpernor, wit- ness and attorney {Cal. Pat. passim). In 1357 he is credited with holding a fourth part of the office of usher of the exchequer {Cal. Pat. 583). " A manor in Witham, two parts of which had been held by Thomas Fabel. Morant, ii, 116. " Another name for the manor of Hat- field Peverell. Ibid. 129. " 25 Jan. 1350. " The litigation of which this record is a part seems to have been a suit on the part of the heirs for recovery of the balance of the property alienated in trust. The out- come of the affair is learned in part from the enrollment of a deed, dated 28 Oct. 1350, whereby Lionel of Bradenham and Gilbert le Blount enfeoffed to Mary late the wife of Thomas Fabcl and to John their son all the lands which had belonged to Thomas in Hatfield Peverell, Terling, Fairsted, White Notley, Wickham, Bore- ham, Woodham, &c., and two parts of the manor of Falkborne and the advowson of Falkborne church. Cal. CI. Rolls, 24 Ed. Ill, 274. 35 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL REX V. WILLIAM MIDDLETOX ' 1353 Memorandum quod Willelmus de Middelton,- \-icecomcs et escaetor domini Regis in comitatibus Norf et Suff', coram consilio domini Regis in camera domus fratrum predicatorum London',' ubi consilium domini Regis tenetur, allocutus de eo quod ipse, vacante ecclesia de Denton * Norwi- censis diocesis et presentacione eiusdcm ecclesie ad ipsum doniinmn Regem racione feodonma militum et aduocacionum ecclesiarum que Eua, que fuit loxor Roberti de Tateshale * defuncta, tenuit ad terminmn vite sue de hereditate heredum predicti Roberti in manu domini Regis per mortem predicte Eue existencium supplicauit domino Regi ut idem dominus Rex fratrem uxoris dicti Willelmi ad eandem ecclesiam presentaret, et negata sibi presentacione predicta, auditoque quod dictus dominus Rex quendam clericum suum ad eandem ecclesiam presentauit, idem Willelmus accedens ad Adam de CUfton,* imum participum hereditatis predicte, asserens presen- tacionem ecclesie illius ad propartem ipsius Ade pertinere debere, quandam presentacionem a predicto Adam, ac si pai'ticio feodorum et aduocacionum predictorum facta et aduocacio dicte ecclesie eidem Ade in propartem suam assignata fuissent, cum non fuerint, impetrauit, cujus presentacionis pretextu dictus frater uxoris predicti Willelmi ad ecclesiam predictam admissus fuit,^ et eandem ecclesiam sic optinet, cuius possessionem dic- tus Willelmus postmodum petiit a domino Rege confirmari, et sic idem Willelmus false et contra sacramentum * suum presentacionem predicte ecclesie de predicto Adam pro predicto fratre uxoris eiusdem Willelmi ad excludendum ipsum dorninmn Regem de iure sibi ad predictam ecclesiam presentandi competenti fuit prosecutus, in decepcionem et exheredacionem eiusdem domini Regis etc., dicit quod idem Willelmus non supplicauit domino Regi de huiusmodi presentacione optinenda, set dicit quod ipse, • ParliaTnentary and Council Proceed- case, Middleton was bent on the acquisi- ings (Chancerj'). file 46, no. 25. Besides tion of property. In this same year 1353 the memorandum here printed the record he purchased the manor of Hawstead in contains a writ and a partition of the Suffolk (W. A. Copinger, Manors of Sitf- property in question, but as these are of no folk [1905-11], vii, 32). value to the case and as thej' can readily ' The chapter house of the Blackfriars, be found elsewhere it has not been thought the most frequent meeting place of the necessarj- to give them here. council within the city of London. ' Sheriff and cscheator of Norfolk and * Located in the hundred of Denton in Suffolk continuously from 1345 to 1349, the southern part of Norfolk, 3 J miles then after a year's interim again from 1350 southwest of Bungay and situated ujwn to 1 August, 1353 (Public Record Office, a high hill. It was a fairly rich living, Ltste and Indexes, vol. ix). He was the worth £24 a year in the king's books. head of a family known from the time of Blomefield, v, 414. Edward I. Their principal scat was ' or Tatershall, scion of a Norman Middleton Hall, an undor-manor or free baronial family, who had married the tenement in Walshani Hall Norfolk, where aforesaid Eva when l)oth of them were William's son Richard succeeded him (F. children. This Robert died in 1302 and Blomefield, Hint, of Norfolk (1805), v, his youthful son, the last of the male line, 383). As may Ijc inferred from the present died in 1305 (Dugdale, Baronage, i, 440). REX V. WILLIAM MIDDLETON 35 REX V. WILLIAM MIDDLETON ' 1363 Be it remembered that William of Middleton,^ sheriff and escheator of the lord the kiiip; in tho counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, before the council of the lord the king, in a chamber of the house of the friars preachers in London,' where the king's council is held, having been arraigned on the charge that during the vacancy of the church of Denton ■■ in the diocese of Norwich, when the presentation of the same church (pertained) to the lord the king himself by reason of the knights' fiefs and advowsons of the churches Avhich Eva, who was the wife of Kobert of Tateshall ' deceased, held for life of the inheritance of the heirs of the aforesaid Robert, being in the hand of the lord the king by the death of the aforesaid Eva, he peti- tioned the lord the king to present to the same church the brother of the wife of the said William, and when the aforesaid presentation was denied him and when he had heard that the said lord the king had presented a certain clerk of his to the same church, the same William went to Adam of Chfton,* one of the parceners of the aforesaid inheritance, and asserting that the presentation of that church ought to pertain to the purparty of Adam himself he obtained a certain presentation from the aforesaid Adam, as if the partition of the aforesaid fiefs and advowsons had been made and the advowson of the said church had been assigned to the same Adam as his purparty, though thej' had not been; on the pretext of which presenta- tion the said brother of the wife of the aforesaid William was admitted to the aforesaid church and thus he obtained the same church,' the possession of which the said William afterwards asked the king to confirm; and so the same William falsely and against his oath * has sought the presentation of the aforesaid church of the aforesaid Adam for the aforesaid brother of the wife of the same William in order to exclude the lord the king himself from his right to present the aforesaid church to a competent person, to the deception and disinheritance of the same lord the king, etc.; he says that the same William did not seek to obtain from the lord the king a presenta- As dowTy Eva continued to hold a life estate in various manors and other prop- erties, including Denton and the advow- son of the church of Denton. On her death, which occurred in 1350, these estates were taken into the king's hand as escheats of an extinct barony (Col. Iiiq. p. 7n. ii, 1(5.5). They are yet to be partitioned among the representatives of three female heirs. • Son of Roger of Clifton who had made a fortunate alliance by marrying Margery Cailli one of the heirs of the Tatershall estate,s (Burke, Dornmnl and Extinct Peerages |1S83), 124; also Blorae- field, viii, 350). This Adam now claims his share in the partition of the estates left by Eva, to which the advowson of the church of Denton belongs. The Cliftons were greatly strengthened by these and other acquisitions made by Adam, and his son John in 1376 was summoned to parliament as a baron. Their principal estate was PYeebridge Hundred (Cat. Inq. p. m. ii, 246). ' This rector was William of Panham " shaveling," who is mentioned in the list of incumbents as one presented by Sir .\dam Clifton. lie was superseded by William of Ipswich, a presentee of the king. Blomefield, v, 411. ' Tlie oath of an escheator and like- wise of a sheriff was to guard loj'ally the 36 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL virtute cuiusdam brevas ' ipsius domini Regis eidein Willelmo ut escaetori domini Regis in comitatibus predictis de particione feodoriun et aduoca- cionum predictorum inter dictum Adam et alios partieipes diete hereditatis facienda directi, fecit particionem de feodis et aduocacionibus predictis inter partieipes predictos, et iuxta eandein particionem aduocacio predicte ecclesie in propartem predicto Ade fuit assignata, quam quidem parti- cionem tradidit attornatis predictorum participum in cancellariam dicti domini Regis iuxta tenorem brevis predicti deferendam, et, dicta ecclesia post particionem predictam vacante, predictus Adam fratrem predicti Willelmi ad ecclesiam illam presentauit; et quia postmodum audierat quod particio predicta in dicta cancellaria non fuit retornata, et quod nullius esset valoris antequam in eadem cancellaria admitteretur, timens per hoc dictum presentatum per prefatum Adam super admissione sua ad ecclesiam pre- dictam impediri posse, Utteras suas misit Petro de Brewes,'" militi, et lohanni de Herlyng," cum dicto domino Rege commorantibus, ut penes dominmn Regem pro presentacione hujusmodi ab eo optinenda proseque- rentur, et post admissionera dicti presentati ad ecclesiam illam predictus Willehnus, ipso de presentacione facta per dictum dominum nostrum Regera ad eandem ecclesiam penitus ignaro, supplicauit statum illius pre- sentati per dictum Adam a domino Rege confinnari, et non intelligit quod per hoc quicquam quod contra sacramentuni suum vel in exheredacionem domini Regis in hac parte cedere possit fecit nee attemptauit. Et quia, visa certificacione predicta per ipsum Willelmmn in cancellaria predicta super particione predicta retornata, non continetur in eadem dies nee locus quando et ubi particio ilia facta extitit, et cum breve'- de particione predicta facienda eideni Willelmum directum sit de data decimi diei Februarii anno regni dicti domini Regis AngUe vicesimo sexto, idem breve cum certifica- cione inde facta ante Octabas Sancte Trinitatis" anno regni dicti domini Regis Anglie vicesimo septimo non fuit retornatum, per quod clare videtur tam certificacionem predictam quam omnia aha predicta per predictum Willelmum pro excusacione sua in hac parte allegata delusoria et minus vera esse. Et ideo consideratum est quod predicta certificacio aut particio rights of the crown and not to assent to passim). His influence at court is seen in the decrease or concealment of the king's the numerous licenses and pardons that rights and franchises, &c. First Report on were granted " at the request of I'eter of the Public Records (1800), 234, 236. Brewes." As a likely means of gaining the ' A wTit dated 20 June, 1350, directed king's favour Middleton now applies to to John Colby then cscheator, to make him. He possessed in Norfolk the manors the partition (Cal. CI. 24 Ed. Ill, 188) had of Skeyton and Tharston Hall which he evidently not been executed. The writ left to his son John (Blomefield, v, 305). here mentioned as directed to Middleton " Another king's yeoman, also usher was dated 10 Feb. 1352, and was after- of the king's chamber and recipient of wards vacated as a result of the present numberless grants and favours. In 1346 case (ibid. 26 Ed. Ill, 408). he was controller of customs in the port of '" or Breusc, since 1345 a king's yeoman Boston, in 1348 controller in the port of and a constant attendant of the king's Newcastle-on-Tyne, in 1352 controller in household. He was liberally rewarded the port of Lynn and collector of the petty with annuities and custodies (Cal. Pal. customs in the port of London. These REX V. WILLIAM MIDDLETON 36 tion of this kind, but he says tliat by virtue of a certain writ ' of the lord the king himself directed to the same William as eschcator of the lord the king in the aforesaid counties, for making the partition of the aforesaid fiefs and advowsons between the said Adam and other parceners of the said inheri- tance, he has made partition of the aforesaid fiefs and advowsons between the aforesaid parceners, and according to the same partition the advowson of the aforesaid church was assigned as the purparty of the aforesaid Adam, which partition indeed he gave over to the attorneys of the aforesaid par- ceners to be returned into the chancery of the said lord the king according to the tenour of the aforesaid writ, and, the said church being vacant after the aforesaid partition, the aforesaid Adam presented the brother of the aforesaid William to that church; and because he had afterwards heard that the aforesaid partition was not returned in the said chancerj', and since it would be of no validity until it was received in the same chanceiy, fearing that on this account the said one presented by the aforesaid Adam could be hindered in his admission to the aforesaid church, he sent his letters to Peter of Brewes'" knight and John of Herling," who were tarrying with the said lord the king, that they might seek with the lord the king to obtain from liim a presentation of this kind, and after the admission of the said one presented to that church the aforesaid William, who was himself wholly ignorant of the presentation made by our said lord the king to the same church petitioned that the estate of the one presented by the said Adam be confirmed by the lord the king, and (he says that) he does not know that in this he has done or attempted anj'^thing that can result con- traiy to his oath or to the disinheritance of the lord the king in this matter. And since, after viewing the aforesaid certification of the aforesaid parti- tion returned by the same William in the aforesaid chancery, there is not contained in the same the day or the place when and where that partition was made, and whereas the writ " directed to the same William for making the aforesaid partition is of the date 10th of Februaiy in the 26th year of the reign of our said lord the king of England, the same writ with the cer- tification then made was not returned before the Octaves of Holj' Trinity'* in the 27th 3^ear of the reign of our said lord the king of England, by which it seems clear that the aforesaid certification as well as all the other fore- going things alleged by the aforesaid W^illiam for his excuse in this matter are delusorj' and not true. And so it was adjudged that the aforesaid cer- ofEces he was permitted to discharge by in 1367 (ibid. 394). He was the virtual deputy because of his attendance upon founder of a strong family in Norfolk the king {Col. Pal. 26 Ed. Ill, 327, 348, which derived its name from Heriing's 355, etc.). With all these honours, it is Manor left by John to his descendants curious that he should have required a (Blomefield, i, 319). pardon for a burglary (ibid. 34 Ed. Ill, " The wTit is recorded in the Close 390). In 1360 he was constable of Roll, but for the reasons here given is Wisbech Castle and continued in active marked as vacated. Cat. CI. 26 Ed. Ill, service as usher and Serjeant until he was 408. granted an exemption from pubUc duties " 26 May, 1353. 37 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL in eadem certificacione pretensa facta et omnia in ea contenta pro nullis habeantur, et quod predicta feoda et aduocaciones in manu domini Regis a tempore mortis predicts Eue semper remansermit et remanere debent, quonsque particio inde inter participes hereditatis predicte in cancellaria predicta fiat, et quod predictus Willelmus, qui a curia sine licencia recessit, pro falsi tate predicta capiatur; per quod commissio facta est Thome atte Ferye, seruienti domini Regis ad arma, ad ipsum Willelmima capiendmn et usque Turrim London' ducendum ibidem in prisona moraturum quousque Rex aliter ordinauerit de eodem, et amerciatus est ad centum solidos pro falsa certificacione predicta." REX V. WILLIAM ROUCEBY AND JOHN AVENEL ' A 1354 Memorandum quod Willelmus de Rouceby de capcione cuiusdam nauis vocate la Seinte ^larie de Coronade de lanua et quorundam bononun et catallormn in eadem naue inuentorimi ad sectam Antonii Compaignon,* mercatoris de lanua,' impetitus venit in Cancellariam Regis apud West- monasterium et dicit quod nauis predicta venit in le Trade de Sancto Mattheo in Britannia et ibidem moram fecit per tres fluxus et refluxus maris, et marinarii nauis predicte, non solutis custumis de mercandisis in eadem naui existentibus in portu predicto domino Regi Anglie debitis, cum eadem naue noctanter recesserunt, per quod idem Willelmus ut unus fami- lianun lohannis Auenel, Capitanei et Locum tenentis dicti domini Regis in ducatu Britannie,* nauem predictam de precepto Thome de Lyndelowe, admiraUi dicti Johannis Auenel in ducatu predicto, insecutus eandem nauem una cum mercandisis predictis tanquam dicto Capitaneo ex causa predicta iuxta consuetudinem parcium illarum forisfacta cepit iuxta Insu- 1am de Sully in Cornubia, et do eisdem predicto lohanni Auenal computauit et sibi de eisdem respondit, per quod non intendit quod ad sectam dicti Antonii de capcione nauis et bonorum et catallorum predictorum debeat impetiri.' Et super hoc mandatmn est predicto lohanni de essendo coram " The Serjeant at arms was commanded ■ Found in Parliamentary and Council further to take all the lands and chattels Proceedings (Chancery), file 47, no. 2. of Middleton in charge (Cal. CI. 28 Ed. The record consists of 3 membranes, A, III, 1). At the same time he was deprived the memorandum, B, the writ of inquisi- of office as sheriiT and escheator. This tion, C, the certification, happened apparently at the end of July, * The petition of Anthony was pre- for the next sheriff began his term on 1 sentcd at some time between 27 Dec. August. Middleton's lands were restored, 1353, the time of the capture, and 22 Jan. presumably after fine was made, by an order 1354, the date of a wTit for the arrest of of 30 Jan. 1354, but he was never given the captors. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 543. officeor commission under the cro«-n again. ' On the connection of the case with He increased his lands however and in the king's policy toward Genoa see Introd. 1362 was member of parliament for Suf- p. Ixxii. folk (RcXums of Members, i, 171). As to the * In 1345 Edward III had received the bearing of the case further on the office of homage of John of Montfort Duke of escheator, see Introd. p Ixxi. Brittany, and on his death which occurred REX V. WILLIAM ROUCEBY AND JOHN AVENEL 37 tification or the partition made in the same pretended certification and all things contained in it should be held as null, and that the aforesaid fiefs and advowsons shall continuously remain and ought to remain in the hand of the lord the king from the time of the death of the aforesaid Eva, until a partition of these among the parceners of the aforesait! inheritance be made in the aforesaid chancery, and that the aforesaid William, who has with- drawn from court without a license, should be taken for the aforesaid falsification; wherefore a conunission was issued to Thomas atte Ferye, Serjeant at arms of the lord the king, to take the said William and biing him to the Tower of London there to stay in prison until the king shall ordain otherwise concerning him, and he was amerced in 100s. for the aforesaid false certification." REX V. WILLIAM ROUCEBY AND JOHN AVENEL i A 1354 Be it remembered that concerning the capture of a certain ship named "The Saint Marj^ of Coronade" from Genoa and certain goods and chattels found in the said ship, at the suit of Anthony Compaignon,- merchant of Genoa,' William of Rouceby having been impeached came into the king's chancer}^ at Westminster, and he says that the aforesaid ship came into The Race of St. Matthew in Brittany and there tarried through three flows and ebbs of the tide, while the mariners of the aforesaid ship, having failed to pay the customs due to the aforesaid lord the king of England in the afore- said port on the merchandise carried in the same ship, sailed away with the same ship by night, wherefore the said WilHam as one of the retainers of John Avenel, captain and lieutenant of the lord the king in the duchy of Brittany,'' following the aforesaid sliip by order of Thomas of Lyndelowe, admiral of the said John Avenel in the aforesaid duchy, captured the said ship together with the aforesaid merchandise near the Scillj^ Islands in Cornwall, (taking these) for the aforesaid cause as a prize of the said cap- tain's according to the custom of those regions, accounting for the same to the aforesaid John Avenel and answering to him for them ; wherefore he does not think that he ought to be haled at the suit of the said Anthony for the capture of the aforesaid ship and goods and chattels.' Hereupon the aforesaid John was commanded to be before the king's council a week after shortly afterward assumed the guardian- to meet with the refractory captains ship of the young Duke John. To govern (Ibid. R. Ill, i, 261). In November he the duchy there was appointed first Sir was called upon to publish a truce con- Thomas Dagworth as the king's captain eluded with Charles of Blois a claimant and lieutenant, then in 1350 Sir Walter for the duchy (Ibid. 269). Bentley, and after him in April, 1353, the ' From the WTit of 22 Jan. just men- present John Avenel, a knight of Bedford- tioned we learn more of the facts connected shire (Tout, Pol. Hut., 357, 381; Fa:- with the capture. While in pursuit of the dera, R. Ill, i, 257; O. v, 687, 754). He Genoese ship, Rouceby fell in with or met with some disobedience in the duchy picked up four other ships, so that it was wliich caused the king to send emissaries a fleet of five ships that overtook the 38 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL consilio Regis in Octabis Sancte Trinitatis * anno regni Regis Edwardi tercii vicesimo octauo ad informandum dictum consilium super premissis. Ad quern diem predictus lohannes venit coram consilio et dicit quod nauis predicta in portu predicto per tres fluxus et refluxus, ut premittitur, moram fecit, et magister et marinarii eiusdem nauis de veniendo ad terram sub saluo conductu pro custmna predicta ibidem soluenda per prefatum ad- mirallum ex parte Regis requisiti, promisenmt se in crastinum ad terram ibidem ad custumam illam soluendam venire voluisse, et pro eo quod ipsi nocte subsecuta emu naui predicta, non soluta custuma predicta, recesse- runt, predictus Willelmus ut familiaris predict! lohannis et de precepto dicti admiralli sui nauem predictam insecutus fuit et earn cum mercandisis predictis tanquam predicto Capitaneo ex causa predicta forisfactam iuxta Insulam predictam cepit in forma predicta, et de eisdem naue et mercan- disis cum prefato lohanne computauit, et eidem lohanni inde plenarie respondit, sicut superius dictum est. Et predictus Willelmus tradiditur Philippo de Whitton^ in baUium, ad habendum ipsum coram consilio doniini Regis, cum super hoc ex parte Regis fuerit premunitus. Et post- modum mandatum fuit prefato lohanni per breve domini Regis quod esset coram Rege in cancellaria sua in crastino Ascensionis Domini ^ anno regni dicti domini Regis vicesimo nono ad audienduna indicium suum super premissis. Qui quidem lohannes in eadem cancellaria apud Westmonas- terium ad diem predictum comparuit, et lecto et recitato ibidem coram ipso lohanne processu predicto, in presencia lohannis Ebor' Archiepiscopi Can- cellarii ^ WiUelmi Wynton' Episcopi Thesaurarii '" ac lusticiariorum de utroque banco et aliis {sic) de consiUo dicti domini Regis, consideratum est quod predictus lohannes capiatur et prisone domini Regis in Turri London' mittatur, et quod bona et catalla sua in manu Regis seisiantur quousque domino Regi de valore nauis et bonorum et cataUorimi predicto- rum fuerit responsum. Ita quod denarii de valore predicto provenientes, si inueniri contigerit nauem et bona et catalla predicta ex causa predicta forisfacta fuisse, predicto domino Regi tanquam bona sua propria, eo quod eadem nauis et bona in potestate domini Regis Anglie inventa et capta fuerunt, remaneant; et si ad sectam predicti mercatoris inueniri contigerit predicta nauem, bona et catalla in forma predicta forisfacta non fuisse, tunc predicto mercatori de valore predicto per dictum dominum Regem respondeatur." [Endorsed: — ] Recordum contra Willelmum de Rouceby et lohannem Auenel. Genoese at the Scilly Islands. First the fleet were found and arrested at Bristol. Englishmen demanded 200 florins for Cal. Pal. 543. their release, and then on their refusal to • 15 June, 1354. pay boarded the ship and seized her, while ' A well known commissioner in mari- the merchants took to the boats and es- time cases. In 1346 he was vice-admiral caped to land. Two of the five ships of the under the earl of Arundel, admiral of the REX V. WILLIAM ROUCEBY AND JOHN AVENEL 38 Holy Trinity,' in the twenty-eighth year of the reign of King Edward III, to inform the said council upon the premises. Upon this day the aforesaid John came before the council and said that the aforesaid ship tarried in the aforesaid port thiough three flows and ebbs of the tide, as has been de- scribed, while the master and mariners of the said ship, having been re- quired by the aforesaid admiral in behalf of the king to pay the aforesaid customs there, on coming to land under safe conduct, promised that they would come to land there on the morrow to pay the custom; and because the next night they sailed away with the aforesaid ship without paying the aforesaid customs, the aforesaid William as a retainer of the aforesaid John and under the direction of his said admiral pursued the aforesaid ship, and captured it near the aforesaid islands with the aforesaid merchandise as a prize of the aforesaid captain's, just as has been told, while for the said ship and merchandise he accounted with the aforesaid John and answered for these fully to the said John, as has been told before. And the aforesaid William was given in custody to Philip of Whitton,' to be brought before the council of our lord the king whenever this should be required in behalf of the king. And the aforesaid John was afterwards commanded by writ of the lord the kimg to be before the king in his chancery on the morrow of the Lord's Ascension * in the twenty-ninth year of our lord the king to hear his judgment upon the premises. And the said John appeared in the said chancery at Westminster upon the aforesaid day, and the aforesaid process having been read and rehearsed before John himself, in the presence of John archbishop of York, chancellor,' William bishop of Winchester, treas- urer,"* also the justices of both benches and others of the said council, it was adjudged that the aforesaid John should be taken and committed to the lord the king's prison in the Tower of London, and that his goods and chattels should be seized into the king's hand, until he should answer to the lord the king for the aforesaid ship and goods and chattels. So that if it shall have been proved that the aforesaid ship and goods and chattels for the aforesaid cause have been forfeited to the king as his personal property, on the ground that the said ship and goods were found and captured within the dominion of the king of England, the money forthcoming from the afore- said property shall be kept; but if at the suit of the aforesaid merchant it shall have been proved that the aforesaid ship, goods and chattels have not been forfeited in the aforesaid manner, then the said lord the king shall answer to the aforesaid merchant for the aforesaid value." [Endorsed: — ] Record against WilUam Rouceby and John Avenel. fleet to the west of the Thames {Cal. CI. « 13 August, 1354. Rolls, 14), in 1352 surveyor of the port of ° John of Thoresby chancellor, 1349- London, in 1353 surveyor of the ports to the 56. west and south of London (Cal. Pal. Rolls, '" William of Edington treasurer, 1345- 376, 420, 425), and at the present time, 56. 1354, vice-admiral of the fleet toward the " On the outcome of the case, see west under the earl of Warwick (ibid. 521). Introd. p. Ixxiii. 39 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL B Edwardus, Dei gracia Rex Anglie et Francie et Dominus Hibernie dilectis et fidelibus suis Andree de Gildeford,'^ seruienti nostro ad arma, lohanni de Cobj-ndon" maiori ville Bristoll', et lohanni Spicer" maiori stapule eiusdem ville, salutem. Ex gravi querela Antonii de Compaignon, domini cuiusdam nauis vocate la seinte IMarie la Coronade, Petri de Kaer- merdyn de lanua, lohannis Blaunk, Petri Euaignes et Petri de Seynches de Castre de Ispannia, mercatoruin, accepiinus quod, cum ipsi dictam nauem apud la Broage iuxta le Rochel in Pictauia vinis '^ et sale carcassent usque villam nostram Bristoll' duceiidam, ad negociandum inde et coinmodum suura faciendum, ipsique velando super mare cum naui predicta versus dictam villam Bristoll' sub saluo conductu et proteccione nostris in comi- tiua cuiusdam flote nauium vinis carcatarum apud la Sorlyng in Cornubia pacifice extitissent, superuenerunt quidam malefactores de flota predicta ex parte magistrorum et marinariorum nauium flote predicte missi in quin- que nauibus, et dictam nauem vocatam la Seinte Marie, pro eo quod dicti mercatores predictis magistris et marinariis flote illius ducentos florinos de scuto,'' quos ab eisdem mercatoribus ad opus predictorum magistrorum et marinariorum eiusdem flote pro naui et mercandisis predictis saluandis iniuste, cum sub proteccione nostra et non in aliquo periculo fuissent, exige- bant, soluere recusarunt, vi armata noctanter intrauerunt et ipsis merca- toribus ad terram in batellis pro timore mortis fugientibus nauem illam cum bonis et mercandisis in ea existentibus ceperunt et abduxerunt, in nostri contemptu et predictorum mercatorum grauem depressionem, ac contra conductum et proteccionem nostros predictos. Super quo suppli- carunt sibi per nos remedium adliiberi. Nos ut prefatis mercatoribus extraneis super recuperacione nauis et bonorum suorum predictorum cicius subueniatur, et ut ipsi ad veniendum in dictum regnum nostrum Anglie cum mercandisis suis animos habeant promptiores, et eo maxime quo pro- teccione et saluo conductu nostris sint muniti, et eciam in ordinacione" per " Gildford or Guldford, king's yeoman, office. It was the revolutionarj- govern- was appointed Serjeant at arms in 1347, ment that received the present writ, and was then sent to Ireland to serve as Soon tliere was a reversal and a royal the king's purveyor {Cal. CI. 21 Ed. Ill, commission of oyer and terminer was 313; 24 Ed. Ill, 16.5). He was one of the issued to deal with the rioters. Cobyng- two commissioners appointed 22 Jan. ton was accused by his enemies of being 1354 to arrest the captors of the Genoese " a seller of victuals wholesale and retail ship, and bring them before the council contrarj' to the statute thereof." In 1355 (Cal. Fat. 543). In 1356 he was sent out he was again in honour, being appointed to see to the munition of Calais (Ibid. by the king one of the surveyors of the 374). port of Bristol. Cal. Pat. Rold, 00, 262. " One of the common council of Bristol '* Also called John Goterest, mayor in in 1349 (F. B. Bickley, Link lied Hook of 1349 and again in 1351 (Bickley, i, 20), liristol [1900], i, 5). Early in the year and collector of the tenth and fiftoentli in 1354 he appears at the head of a faction in Bristol and Gloucestershire in 13.50 (Cal. the town that made an uprising against CI. Rolls, 184). He was conspicuously Richard le Spicer then mayor and com- involved in the conspiracy against Richard pelled him under duress to resign his le Spicer just told, and was indicted at REX V. WILLIAM ROUCEBY AND JOHN AVENEL 39 B Edward, by the grace of God king of England and France and lord of Ireland, to his beloved and faithful Andrew of Guildford," our serjeant at anus, John of Cobyngdon," mayor of the town of Bristol, and John Spicer,'* mayor of the staple of the said town, greeting. From the grave complaint of Anthony de Compaignon, owner of a certain ship called " la Seinte Marie de Coronadc," Peter de Kaemierdyn of Genoa, John Blaunk, Peter Evaignes and Peter de Seynches of Castro in Spain, merchants, we have learned that when they had loaded the said ship at la Broage near la Rochelle in Poictou with wine" and salt to cany to our town of Bristol, for the purpose of trading there and pursuing their business, and while thej- were sailing upon the sea with the aforesaid ship towards the said town of Bristol under our safe-conduct and protection, and while in company with a certain fleet of ships loaded with wine they were lying peacefully at the Scilly Islands in Cornwall, there came upon them certain malefactors of the aforesaid fleet who had been sent in five sliips in behalf of the masters and mariners of the ships of the aforesaid fleet, and because the said merchants, since they were under our protection and not in any peril, refused to pay the aforesaid masters and mariners of the fleet two himdred florins of the shield,'^ which for the salvage of the said ship and merchandise were unjustly exacted of the said merchants for the profit of the aforesaid masters and mariners of the said fleet, boarding by night with amied force the said ship named the " Seinte Marie," wliile the merchants themselves escaped to land in boats for fear of their lives, (the malefactors) captured and sailed away with the ship together with the goods and merchandise borne in her, in contempt of us, to the grave loss of the aforesaid merchants and contrary to our afore- said safe-conduct and protection. 'WTiereupon they supphcate that remedy maj- be aflforded them bj' us. In order that aid may be quickly coming to the aforesaid foreign merchants for the recovery of their aforesaid ship and goods, and in order that they may have the more ready disposi- tions to come to our said realm of England with their merchandise, and that they may be defended to the utmost by our protection and safe- conduct, and also since it is contained in the ordinance " recently made by the time for having taken £400 out of the '* The florin, first struck by Edward revenues which rightfully belonged to the III in 1343, marks the beginning of a per- king. But he was pardoned of everj- manent gold coinage in England. The charge (Cat. Pal. Rolls, 180). The staple coin was worth about 6s. The florin with of Bristol of which he was mayor has not the shield here mentioned presented on been noticed in the local histories until a the obverse side the figure of the king much later time. seated on a throne holding in his right " The wine trade had been specially fav- hand a sword and in his left a shield quar- ouredin the8tatute27Ed. III,st. 1, C.6, to tered with the arms of France. H. A. the effect that all merchants may bring their Grueber, Handbook of Coins in the British wines safely into England to what port shall Museum (1899), 47, 50. please them, soalways thattheking'sbutler " Ordinance of the Staple 27 Ed. Ill, may make purveyance of wine, making pay- c. 2; Statutes of the Realm, i, 333. ment therefor within forty days. 40 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL nos et consilium nostrum iam nouiter facta contineatur quod mercatoribus extraneis cum bonis et mercandisis suis infra dictum regnum nostrum Anglie venientibus super iniuriis et grauaminibus eis illatis celeris iusticia exhibeatur, volentes de nominibus malefactorum predictorum, qui dictam nauem cum bonis et mercimoniis predictis sic carcatam ceperunt et ab- duxerunt, ac de vero valore nauis, bononim et mercimoniorum eorundem, necnon de dampnis per eosdem mercatores in hac parte passis pleniua certiorari, assignauimus vos et duos vestrum ad inquirendum per sacra- mentum probonmi et legalium hominum de comitatibus Glouc' et Somer- set, tarn infra libertates quam extra, per quos rei Veritas melius sciri poterit, de premissis et ea contingentibus plenius veritatem. Et ideo vobis man- damus quod ad certos dies et loca, quos vos vel duo vestrum ad hoc proui- deritis, inquisiciones super premissis in forma predicta faciatis, et eas distincte et aperte factas nobis in cancellariam nostram sub sigillis vestris vel duorum vestrum et sigillis eorum per quos facte fuerint sine dilacione mittatis et hoc breve. Damus autem vicecomitibus nostris comitatumn predictorum et omnibus balliuis, ministris et fidelibus nostris, tam infra libertates quam extra, tenore presencium in mandatis quod vobis et duobus vestrum in premissis faciendis et exequendis pareant et intendant, et eis- dem vicecomitibus quod ipsi ad certos dies et loca, quos vos vel duo ves- trum eis scire faciatis, venire faciant coram vobis vel duobus vestrum tot et tales probos et legales homines de balliuis suis, tam infra libertates quam extra, per quos rei Veritas in premissis melius sciri poterit et inquiri." In cuius rei testimoniimi has htteras nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste me ipso apud Westmonasterium xv. die Februarii anno regni nostri Anglie vicesimo oetauo regni vero nostri Francie quintodecuno. IVIirf[eld]." C Inquisicio capta in comitatu Glouc' coram Andrea de Gyldeford', seru- iente domini Regis ad arma, lohanne de Cobyndon', maiore ville Bristoll', et lohanne le Spicer, maiore de stapula eiusdem ville, apud Bristoll' die Mercurii proxima post festum Sancti Petri in Cathedra'" anno regni regis Edwardi tercii post conquestum vicesimo oetauo, pretcxtu cuiusdam man- dati eis inde directi per sacramentum Roberti atte Walle,^' Thome Pj'ke, Sj^nonis Gyene, lohannis Lyndraper, Roberti Haleweye, Ricardi Howyn, Willelmi atte Berghe, Roberti Honybourne, mercatorum ville Bristoll', lohannis Eustace, Walteri Galyot, lohannis Sporyar, lohannis Torj'ton, marinariorum, qui dicunt super sacramentum suum quod die Veneris in festo Sancti lohannis Euangeliste" anno regni Regis supradicte vicesimo septimo, Willehuus de Rouceby, dominus nauis sui proprii, cuius nomen " A writ venire facias. church of Rawreth, dio. London. Cal. Pat. '• Signature of the clerk, probably Wil- liolU, 27 Edw. Ill, 483; 28 Edw. Ill, 14. liam of Mirfeld, a king's cIr of tlio same ship, Richard Gourney de Harpetre, John Koc, John Tyc of Polcwain, William of Loughton, Robert Chaumberleyn, and Thomas Priour, soldiers of Brit- tany, and other malefactors, whose names are not known to the said jurors, with armed force by night at Scilly boarded a certain ship named the " Seinte Marie of Coronade," which belonged to Anthony Compaignoun owner of the said ship and other merchants, as more fuilj^ appears in the said commission ; and the aforesaid ship together with diverse merchandise carried in it to the value, it is found, of one hundred and twenty pounds, they captured, confiscated, and bore away. In testimony of the premises the aforesaid mayors and twelve jurors have affixed their seals to this (instrument). THE ABBOT AND CONVENT OF BURTON-ON-TRENT v. MEYNELL ' c. 1355 To their very excellent and very noble lord the king pray his poor chap- lains the abbot and convent of Burton-on-Trent,^ which is of your patronage and foundation in pure and perpetual almoign to pray continually for you and your ancestors, that since, very excellent lord, of your special grace there has been granted to the said abbot and convent an oyer and terminer' to certain justices against Sir William Meynell,^ knight, and other mal- feasors with regard to certain diverse felonies, trespass and other outrages which they have committed against the said abbot and convent and their servants;* and now the said Sir William holds the said abbot and convent so straitl}' that none of them dares in any way to pass out of the said (abbey) of Burton ; moreover he threatens them that as soon as they com- mence any suit against him he will burn down the said abbey and all the manors pertaining to it; and he has sold all the lands and tenements that he had in order to do sudden harm to the said abbey, and (then) pass over into another county, so that they do not dare to pursue the said oyer and terminer for fear of the destruction of the said abbey ; * may it please you for the love of God and in way of charity and for the salvation of the said abbey to grant by writ commission to some valiant man to seize the they had not been prevented. Thence his men do not dare to go forth to survey they went by night to the abbot's town their lands, nor the men and servants to of Branston, broke into his houses there, till their lands or do other service for the dragged his men and servants from their abbot, who has thus lost the profit of his beds and beat them. And then they went lands and the service of his men for some to the abbot's grange of Shobnall, as- time. saulted his men there and compelled them ^ In the second commission of 1 Feb. to swear to serve the abbot no longer. it is stated that Meynell made an attack And when the said William was required on the abbot's manor of Hanson in Derby, by some of the knights of the neighborhood broke the close and houses there, drove off to desist, he swore that he would do worse 260 sheep, assaulted his men and servants evils so far as he could until he should have and compelled them to swear that they fulfilled his will. So that the abbot and would no longer serve the abbot. 42 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL en brief a ascun certein vaillant homme de prendre le dit Monsieur William par son corps, et del amener deuant vous et vostre conseil ^ a respondre des felonies et trespas auandites, qar sil ne soit restreint de sa malice il destru- era la dite abbeie pour touz jours et tut le pais enuiroun. LOMBARDS v. THE MERCERS' COMPANY ' Ceux sont qi fesoient faire le raal dont le dit William Coue ^_.,,. ^ y feust mis en la Tour de Londres et illoeqes demora pur William Coue ^ . ^ ^ ■ ■•, r ^ ■, . . J un certem temps et puis il feust lessez par mempnse. Geoffroi Bernham vallet a Henri Coue est celui qi amena la compaignie souz escripte a faire le dit mal. Thomas Maldone est celui qi feust pris et amenez deuant le conseil nostre seignur le Roi e illoeqes il conoist qil feust un de eux qi fesoient le dit mal e qe le dit Geffrei feust lour duyttour a ceo faire, dont le dit Thomas feust mis a la Tour e puis lesse par meinprise. WilHam de Wodeford Thomas Euerard I Ceux sont les persones qi fesoient le dit mal nient Adam Wroxham [ prises mes fuez e puis lessez par meinprise. Henri Forester Sur quel prions qe pleise a nostre tresredoute seignur le Roi e son bon conseil denuoier pur les persones auantdites, et tiele chastisement a eux ordiner qe desore ne soient si hardiz de nous faire ne procurer plus de mal ne moleste par nulle voie de maUce ou denuie qar autrement il sont en purpos e ferront en certein bien temprement plus pis qe unqes ne ont fait pardeuant. Item qe pleise a nostre tresredoute seignur le Roi e son conseil de faire venir deuant sa persone propre les Mestres e les plus grantz del mestier e de prendre de eux sibone e sufficiante seurtee qe james ils ne facent a nous nul mal ne vileinie ne soeffrent estre a nous fait par lour assent en manere come desus est dit, ou autrement ne purrons viure ne demourer en pees e meement si nostre seignur le Roi soit hors Dengleterre. Les noms des Mercers de Londres: Johan Bernes visconte de Londres Johan Redjmg Simon Worstede Alderman Adam Euerard (nichil habet ubi William Todenham potest premuniri) Johan Worstede Wauter Bret Alcin Euerard Nichol Bcdyngton (mortuus est) Johan de Stapele Johan Elesdon Wauter Berneye Nichol Plunket Johan Wychyngham Henri Coue Thomas Starkol William Coue ' On the significance of this prayer see ' ParUamenlary and Council Proceed- Introd. p. Ixxiv. inga (Chancery), file 8, no. 3. LOMBARDS V. THE MERCERS' COMPANY 42 body of the said Sir William, to brinR him before you and your council ^ to answer for the aforesaid felonies and trespass, for if he is not restrained from his malice he will destroy for ever the said abbey and all the country around. LOMBARDS v. THE MERCERS' COMPANY' A 1359 I These are they who caused the evil to be done for which Henry Cove I William was put in the Tower of London and there re- William Cove I mained for a certain tune and then he was released by mainprise. Geoffrey Bernham servant to Henry Cove is he who led the under- written company to commit the said evil. Thomas Maldon is he who was taken and brought before the council of our lord the King and there he acknowledged that he was one of those who did the said evil and that the said Geoffrey was their leader in doing that for which the said Thomas was put in the Tower and then released by main- prise. _,, „ J These are the persons who did the said evil. They . , „, , > were not taken but driven off and then released by Adam Wroxham TT T^ i. mamprise. Henry lecame rest of his biographj- mil be found in Foss, per nos et dictum consilium. Ibid. xxiv. who is, however, mistaken in saying that " 8 July, 1359. his name does not occur after his superses- »* The researches of Foss were not sue- sion as keeper of the rolls by John de cessful in tracing the career of William Waltham on 8 September, 1381 (Pat. Burstall further back than 1371, when /?o//s, p. 41), for on the following 6 October jointly with three others he was appointed he, with six others, paid for a license to a commissioner of the Great Seal during alienate in mortmain the manor of Cad- the absence of the chancellor, Sir Robert burj- to the prior and convent of Bisshe- Thorpe. (Lires of the Jwlgcs [1851], iv, made (Bushmead, Beds.), ib. p. 51, a 38.) The publication of the Close Rolls, property which, however, appears to have however, discloses that in 1355 he was a been parted with by the priory before clerk of the chancery (22 February, Close the Dissolution (Dugdale, Monast. vi. Roll, 184; 17 May, 1355, ib. 220). He 284). appears, unless it were another of the same " " Clerk," and deputy-clerk of the name, to have also held the livings of Mit- recognisances of debts in London. 28 talton and Deukeshull (Salop), in the June, 1359. Pat. Rolls, p. 232. diocese of Hereford, which he resigned in '• A person of this name was a king's 1358 (Pat. Rolls, p. 64). That it was the Serjeant at arms, and may not improb- same person is the more probable from the ably have been this signatory. Pat. Rolls, fact that in 1375 he held the living of March, 1361, p. 584. 45 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Nicholaus Bedj-ngton infrascriptus mortuus est. fecimus. Ideo de eo nichil [Responsio] Johannis Bures et Johannis [de Byerne]s vicecomitum.^'' Manucaptores ^ Willelmi de Wodef ord : Johannes Stable Adam Stable '' lohannes Wychyngham Galfridus Colwell Laurencius Conestable *" Alanus Euerard Manucaptores Nieholai de Sharpenham " Mercer: Johannes Lambourne*^ Thomas Beket « Simon Plummer ** Elias de Braghing ^^ Manucaptores Thome Euerard de London IMercer: Henricus Coue Adam Stable Simon de Reynham *^ Willelmus de Somerford " Alanus Euerard de London de Comitatu Surrie de London " John de Bures and John de Byernes (in Stow, Barnes) are mentioned as sheriffs of London in 1358-59, when they paid a sum to the receipt of the Exchequer on behalf of the commonalty of Middlesex in substitution for ten mounted archers which the county had been ordered to raise for foreign service {Pat. Rolls, 10 August, 1359, p. 252). John Bures was perhaps the John Burs, draper, who in 1375 was a legatee of Thomas de St. Alban (Cal. of Courl ofHusting, ii, 172). The will of John Bierncs, alderman, dated July, 1375, was proved in the same year. He constituted by it the Grocers, Drapers and Mercers Companies and the City Chamberlain trus- tees of a fund for the loan of money not exceeding £10 " to such as are in need, security being taken for the same " (ibid. p. 150). His name appears in the A list of leading mercers as Bernes. " " Mainpernors, Manuca-plorcs, are those Persons to whom a Person is de- livered out of Custody or Prison, and they become security for him, either for appear- ance or satisfaction: they are called Manucaptores, because they do it as it were manii capere et ducere eaptivum e custodia vel prisona." J. Cowel, Inter- preter. Coke defines differently, being at pains to distinguish mainprise from bail. " Every bail is a mainprise (for those that arc bail take the person bailed into their hands and custody) but every mainprise is not a bail, becase no man is bailed but he that is arrested, or in prison, for he that is not in custody or prison cannot be de- livered out. . . . But a man may be niainperned which never was in prison, and therefore mainprise is more large than bail." Inst. 179. It is clear, however, from these papers that the word mainprise was currently used as equivalent to hail, as may be seen from the French note on the case of Henry and William Cove, while the defendants Wodeford, Everard, Wroxham and Forester hail api)arently never been in custody, but are descril)ed also as on mainprise. See Introd. p. xl, supra. " Witness to a deed of conveyance of land in Norfolk to Walter dc Berneye (see n. 19, supra) on ti Feltruary, 13C2. Close Rolls, |). 38G. Api)arently connected by LOMBARDS V. THE MERCERS' COMPANY 45 The within named Nicholas Bcddington is dead. We have therefore done nothing in his case. [Answer] of John Bures and of John [de Bycrne]s " sub-sheriffs. Mainpernors'' of WilHam Woodford: John Stable Adam Stable '» John Wichingham Geoffrej' Colwcll Laurence Constable *• Alan Everard. Mainpernors of Nicholas Sharpenham " Mercer: John Lambourne " Thomas Beket « Simon Plummcr '*'' Elijah Braughin." Mainpernors of Thomas Everard of London Mercer: Henry Cove Adam Stable Simon Reynham '* William Somerford ^' Alan Everard of London ► of the county of Surrey of London marriage with Alan Everard (n. 17, supra). Cai. of Court of Husling, ii, 97. *" There is nothing to show that Wode- ford or his mainpernors Colwell and Cone- stable belonged to the Mercers. " See Introd. p. Ixxx. " A witness on 27 January, 13.56, to a convej-ance to the king by the Prior of Bermundeseye, John de Cusancia, of divers messuages, &c. With him as wit- nesses were Ellis de Braghyng (n. 45, infra) and Simon le Plumber of Suthwerk (n. 44, infra). " On 15 October, 1358, Thomas Beket was commissioned with three others to make inquisition into the deaths of two men killed at Malwedon (qu. Manuden), Essex, and to deliver those guilty to the sheriff at Colchester. Pat. Rolls, p. 153. ** Simon Plummer, Plomer, or le Plum- ber, of Southwark, was a man of note in that borough. His name appears as a witness to deeds dated " Suthwerk " in July, 1354, January, 1356, and November, 1357 (Close Rolh, pp. 83, 295, 427). In that of 1356 the deed was the conveyance of a reversion by the prior of Bermundeseye to the king, in that of 1357, a deed of release of certain lands to the Southwark diocesan, William de Edyndon, bishop of Winches- ter. He was returned to parliament for Surrey in 1360, and again in 1361. {Mem- bers of Parliament, 1S78.) " Elias or Ellis de Braghing, or Braugh- yngg was evidently on terms of alliance with Plummer, for he appears with him as a witness to the deeds of 1354 and 1356 already mentioned and was returned mem- ber of parliament for the borough of South- wark in 1358. (Ibid.) « In the Patent RoU for 12 May, 1362, p. 189, is a pardon to Alesia later the wife of Ralph de Saint Oweyn, a defaulting debtor to " Simon de Reynham, citizen and mercer of London." *' One of the mainpernors of Thomas de Maldon, of London, on 1 Dec, 1357, and of Thomas Everard on 4 March, 1358. 46 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL ► de London Manucaptores Thome de Maldone : [Alan Ever]ard Adam Wroxham Willelmus de Grantham^ Willelmus de Maldone Willelmus Somerford Willelmus Coue Manucaptores Ade de Wroxham : Ricardus Lacer *^ Johannes de Wesenham^" Johannes Mayn *' Henrieus de Brj^sele ^^ Alanus Euerard lohannes de Aylestone " Galfridus de Neutone '* D Alanus Euerard et alii manueeperunt Thomam Euerard Adam Wrox- ham et Henricum Forester. Willelmus Weld ** et alii manueeperunt Henricum Coue. Henrieus Coue et alii manueeperunt Willelmum Coue. Alanus Euerard et alii manueeperunt AVillchnum Wodeford. Johannes de Wychyngham et alii manueeperunt Thomam de Maldone. de London Close Rolls, pp. 432, 495. See nn. 6, 8, supra. *' Also a mainpernor of Maldon on 1 Dec. 1357. Vide supra. " Richard Lacer, or Lacier, Alderman of London, mercer; witness to a grant of shops in London in February, 1358 (Close Rolls, p. 494). His will, dated 25 July, 1361, is in the Calendar of the Court of Hxuit- ing, ii, 59. Richard Lazer is given by Stow as a variant for Richard Leget, mayor in 1345-46, and may possibly have been the same man. (Survey, ii, 217.) '" John of Wesenham " the king's mer- chant " was an agent employed by Edward III to take over the money raised as suli- sidy in Northumberland (Close Rolls, 15 June, 1355, p. 135), as well as for other financial transactions (ib. p. 278). He appears also to have been an exporter of com (Pat. Rolls, 20 May, 1357, p. 545) and in 1300 contracted to provide at Lynn sup- plies for the victualling of Calais (Close Rolls, 23 January, p. 607). His tran.sac- tions with the crown were lx)th on a large and a varied scale. On 1 February, 1357 he received a year's lease of all the tem- poralities of the important bishopric of Elv, " rendering to the king in the Ward- robe 3,740 marks " (£2493, 6s. 8d.) (Close Rolls, p. 392). He was in 1357 an owner of house property in London (Pat. Rolls, p. 036). There is nothing to show that he was a member of the Mercers' Company. " John Maj-n, the king's sergeant at arms, frequently appears in the Close Rolls and Patent Rolls. He must have been a man of means, for on 19 December, 1354, the Prior of St. Bartholomew's, Smithfield, acknowledges a debt to him of £40 (Close RolU, p. 99; cf. ib. pp. 78, 324, &c. and Pat. Rolls, 4 Jan. 1361, p. 150.) In 1358 he purchased lands in Surrey from William de Tudenham (see n. 15, supra). He was frequently employed to arrest criminals and bring them before the king and council (6 March. 1356, Pal. RolU, p. 395; cf. ib. pp. 450, 490). But he was also employed in the more serious duty of a commissioner to inquire into and report on grievances, .as in the case of a complaint of Venetian merchants against the town of Bristol on February, 1355, ib. p. 225, and of a shipwTCckcd crew against Win- chelsca, I{ye, &c. (11 January, 13.50, ib. p. 500). That sergeants at arms had and LOMBARDS V. THE MERCERS' COMPANY 46 of London Mainpernors of Thomas Maldone: [Alan Everjard Adam Wroxham William Grantham *^ William Maiden William Sonicrford William Cove. Mainpernors of Adam de Wroxham: Richard Lacer *' John Wesenham ^° John Mayn '' Henry Brj'selcy ^^ Alan Everard John Aylestone ^ Geoffrey Newton." D Alan Evcrartl and others have gone surety for Thomas Everard, Adam Wroxham, and Henry Forester. William Weld " and others have gone surety for Henry Cove. Henrj' Cove and others have gone surety for William Cove. Alan Everard and others have gone surety for William Woodford. John Wichingham and others have gone surety for Thomas Maldone. eontrariant or rebellious." (Pat. Rolls, p. 87.) He received a similar commission on 5 June, 1360, " to select miners and other workmen " to work in the king's mines in Devonshire, he and his fellow-commis- sioner being styled " masters of the king's mines in the county of Devon" (ib. p. 371). As the two were already lessees of all the king's mines of gold and silver in that county (8 Feb. 1360, ib. p. 336), it is evi- dent that the commission was to assist them in compelling miners to work for them. That he was also engaged in some business associating him with mercers appears from a recognizance by which he, with three mercers, John de Wesenham and three others, was bound in £2000 to the late keeper of the king's Wardrobe (16 February, 1359, Close Rolls, p. 611). " See n. 26, supra. " Not in the A list of leading Mercers. It would appear, therefore, that only Lacer and Man Everard, among the seven mainpernors of Wroxham, belonged to the Company. " In the Close Roll for August, 1354, p. 89, William atte Wclde is given as one of the two sheriffs. The name appears in availed themselves of ample oi)port unities to enrich themselves appears from a com- plaint of the Commons in 1399 {Rot. Pari. iii, 439 b). See Select cases in the Star Chamber (1477-1509), p. xxvii, n. 1. '* Henry of Brysele, Briseleye, Brisele, Brusele, or Brysely was, like John Wasen- ham, a man of business and, apparently, not a Mercer. We first meet with him as " master of the moneys," in modern par- lance, master of the mint, in 1353 [Pat. Rolls, 26 February, 1354, pp. 7, 12). On 31 May, 13.55 he was promoted to the lucrative office.of " changer and assayer of the king's moneys in his charges in the Tower of London and elsewhere " (ib. p. 238), but was displaced by Hugh de Wych- yngham on 7 November, 1356 (ib. p. 467). He was, however, appointed by the king's council on 16 July, 1358, one of two com- missioners empowered " to take in the City of London and the suburbs carpenters, masons, and other workmen for the repairs of the houses ordained for the works of the king's money in the Tower of London, and put them to the work to stay therein at the king's wages so long as shall be neces- sary, taking and imprisoning any found 47 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Ista cedula scripta fuit in consilio juxta informacionem datam per quos- dam Merceros Londinienses tunc ibidem existentes, pro eo quod rotulus de manucapcionibus predictis non fuit ibi presens. PARSON OF L.\NGAR v. CONYNGSBY' 1361 A nostre seigneur le Roi et son bone conseil moustre Thomas, persone de Langar ^ el countee de NotjTigham, qe come la male mesme cesti Thomas feust emble deuant Chartres ' en Fraunce, et le garsoun le dit Thomas pour- suit en la Marchalcie deuant Conestable et Marchal * deuers un homme, seruant a monsieur William de Conyngesby,^ et en la dite Marchalcie furent ajuggez de combatre/ et par cause qe le dit Thomas soi dota de irregulertee ' il fist retrere son dit vadlet de sa seute, et puis vint le dit sire William en la dite Marchalcie et sui par bille deuers le dit Thomas contenante par sa pleinte qe, par entre le dit Thomas et son vadlet et par abette le dit Thomas confedere entre eaux deux, auoit le vadlet le dit Thomas sui deuers le vadlet le dit sire William a damage le dit sire Wilham de Centz Marcz, queux damages lui fueront ajuggez, et ceo en la absence le dit Thomas en centre la leie.* Et par cause del errour susdit le Roi prist le cause en sa main, et journa les parties deuant son conseil en Engleterre destre deuant eux a juger par cause la Marchalcie nad conusaunce de tiel plee. Et puis la venue le Roi nostre seignour en Engleterre vient le dit sire William et plusours autres en sa cempaigne vindront en la jornant a la meiseun le dit Thomas, person de Langar, et lui pristront hors de son lyt et lui amenero[nt] a la meson le sire Tiptoft et puis en Shirewode ' et illeoqes lui fieront faire fin de Centz Marcz, paiant en mayn x li. et lier en iiij C. marcz en seurte de paiement de les Cent marcz susditz aiours entre eux acordez, et de illeoqes lui ameneront tanqe a Lenton '" et lui fieront jurer sur la corps Dieu sacra Stow's Survey, ii, 217, as Wilde with a ably there was a merging of the two during variant Wold. the king's sojourn at Chartres. There is, ' Ancient Petitions, no. 2777; cited in however, an essential difference between Palgrave, Original Authority. the marshalsea, which had its foundation ' A parish and manor in Bingham 9 in the common law (Coke, Fourth Inst. ch. miles from Newark. The church was called xviii) and the court of chivalry, which fol- St. Aubrey's. The manor and advowson of lowed the civil law (Coke, ch. x\'ii; L. W. the church belonged at this time to John V. Harcourt, The Steward and Trial of Lord Tiptoft (Dugdale, Baronage, ii, 40; Peers [1907], 362 f.). It will presently Cal. CI. RolU, 28 Ed. Ill, 66-67). appear that the ease in question pertained ' On his campaign begun in Oct. 1359, to the latter court. Edward came in the following April to ' Conysby or Coningsby, a family of Chartres where negotiations leading to Shropshire origin, traced from the time the Peace of Brdtigny were begun. Ram- of Edward I (R. E. C. Waters, Memoirs of say. Genesis of Lancaster (1913), i, 438. the Chestcrs of Chicheky [1878], 259). This * The petitioner has confused the mar- William was son of John of Morton Bagot shalsea, the court of the king's household, inWarwickshire and had estates in Worces- under the steward and marshal, and the tershirc. In 1351 he was reported as going court of chivalry before the constable of on the king's service to Calais (Co/. Pa(. 25 England and the carl marshal. Prob- Ed. Ill, 94), and in the campaign of 1359- PARSON OF LANGAR V. CONYNGSBY 47 This schedule was written in the council according to information given by certain mercers of London then and there present, for the reason that the roll of the suretyships aforesaid was not there at hand. PARSON OF LANGAR v. CONYNGSBY ■ 13G1 To our lord the king and his good council sheweth Thomas parson of Langar ^ in the county of Nottingham that whereas the portmanteau of the said Thomas was stolen before Chartres' in France and the servant of the said Thomas sued a certain man, servant of William Conyngsby,* in the marshalsea before the constable and marshal,'' where they were adjudged to combat,* and because the said Thomas was afraid of (incurring) irregu- larity' he witlulrew his said servant from his suit; and then came the said Sir William into the said marshalsea and entered suit by bill against the said Thomas, alleging in his plaint that between the said Thomas and his servant by abetting of the said Thomas an understanding of the two had been reached, (whereby) the servant of the said Thomas brought suit against the servant of the said Sir William damaging the said Sir William (to the extent) of a hundred marks, and these damages were awarded him in the absence of the said Thomas contrary to law.* And because of the aforesaid error the king took the case into his hand, giving a day for the parties to be before his council in England there to be judged because the marshalsea has no cognisance of such a plea. And since the return of our lord the king to England there came the said Sir William and many others in his company at daybreak to the house of the said Thomas parson of Langar, dragging him out of his bed and taking him to the house of Lord Tiptoft, and then into Sherwood ^ and there forced him to make fine in 100 marks paying £10 down and giving bond for 400 marks to secure the pay- ment of the 100 marks agreed upon between them; thence they took him to Lenton,'" and before they permitted him to leave their company made him swear on the sacred body of God to keep the aforesaid covenant. And 60 he was in the company of the earl of would exhaust its terrors in the endeavour Warwick. (Ibid. 34 Ed. Ill, 386.) In 1360 to make the defendant appear, but it in consideration for his good service on this would not give judgment against him until expedition he was pardoned for the death he had appeared, and, if he was obstinate of Thomas Clynton (ibid.). enough to endure imprisonment or out- ' In the court of chivalry suits were lawTy, he could deprive the plaintiff of his begun by bill and trial was by witnesses, remedy." (Pollock & Maitland, ii, 594.) or failing these, as in the present case, by Whether the court of chivalry was bound wager of battle. Harcourt, 366. by this law was of course the question. ' A clerk was forbidden by the law of As to the appeal on error see Introd. the church to go before a lay court and ' Sherwood Forest, in early times ex- seek a judgment of blood (Pollock & tending over a fifth of the county of Not- Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law [1898], i, 456). tingham, more wooded than most forests The church dealt severely with blood- and the resort of many criminal bands, guiltiness among the clergy. O. J. Reichel, Victoria Hist. Nottingham, i, 365. Manual of Canon Law (1896), i, 239. "> Southwest of the town of Notting- ' " One thing our law would not do. It ham. 48 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL pour tenir les couenantz susditz auant qil purroit partir hors de lour com- paigne. Et, par cause qe le dit Thomas suit deuers nostre seignour le Roi dauer recouerer, le dit sire AVilliam et autres de sa compaignie lui manassont de vie et de membre issint qil ne ose en nul part aler ne estre vewe. Dont le dit Thomas prie a nostre seignour le Roi qe remedie lui soit fait en oeure de charite. Et outre ceo le dit sire William et sa compaignie pristrent le dit Thomas en Walbroke " de Londres et lui emprisonerent par cause qil ne dust suer a nostre seignour le Roi ore de temps de parlement dauoir remedie de les duresses auanditz. [Endorsed: — ] Partes sunt concordate et Johannes de Arderne '- manu- ccpit coram consilio domini Regis in camera stellata in palacio Westm' die Martis in Crastino sancti Petri in cathedra, videlicet xxiij die Februarii anno regni domini nostri Regis Anghe xxxv'° pro Willelmo de Conyngesby, milite, infra scripto,quod ipse bene et fideliter de cetero se geret erga Regem et populum suum, et quod dampnum vel violenciam aliquam Thome ' per- son ' de Langar infra scripto aut ahcui alteri de populo predicto non faciei nee fieri procurabit, per quod idem Willelmus est dearestatus et dimissus de gracia Regis et finis quern idem Willelmus pro trangressionibus infra scrip- tis Regi facere tenetur ponitur in respectum ad voluntatem domini Regis secundum bonum gestum ipsius Willelmi, et prefatus Johannes manucepit coram consilio Regis quod predictus Willehnus restituet sibi illas x li. quas dictus rector ei soluerat, unam videlicet medietatem ad festum Pentecostes et aliam medietatem ad festum sancti Michaelis, et quod restituet eidem Rectori litteras suas obUgatorias de quibus in billa fit mencio. MOLYNS V. FIENNES • 1365 Placita in parliamento apud Westmonasterium in Octabis sancti Hillarii anno regni Regis Edwardi tercii tricesimo nono.^ Egidia que fuit uxor Johannis de Molyns ' porrexit peticionera suam domino Regi in Parliamento suo apud Westmonasterium in Octabis sancti Hillarii anno regni ipsius domini Regis tricesimo octauo * tento in hec verba. A nostre seignur le Roi e son conseil monstre Gile qi feust la femme Johan de Molj'ns Chiualer qe come Robert de Fiennes de France ^ recoueri " A ward and also a street on the east sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckingham- side of the Walbrook a small tributary of shire in 1374. the Thames running through the wall of ' Parliamerdary and Council Proceed- the city between Bishopsgate and Moor- ings (Chancery), file 8, no. 7. gate. Kingsford-Stow, i, 120. ' 20 January, 1366, but '" nono," as " Ardern, frequently employed as an will presently be seen, is an inaccuracy attorney, receiver, and commissioner. He for " octavo." Parliament met on 20 was commissioner of the peace in Bed- January, 1365; but the 39 Ed. Ill be- fordshire in 1355 and in Buckinghamshire gan on 25 January of the same year, 1361-69, knight of the shire for Bucking- after which date this record wa.s doubt- hamshire in 1362, 1366, and 1368, and less entered. The petition was presum- MOLYNS V. FIENNES 48 because the said Thomas sues before our lord tlie king; for recovery, the said Sir William and othei-s of his company threaten him in life and limb so that he dares not go or be seen anywhere. Wherefore the said Thomas prays our lord the kinp; that romeily may be afforded him, in the way of charity. Moreover the said Sir William and his company seized the said Thomas in Walbrook " in London and imprisoned him lest he should sue our lord the king now in time of parlianu^nt for remedy for the aforesaid duresses. [Endorsed: — ] The parties are agreed and John Arderne '^ has given security before the council of the lord the king in the star chamber in the palace at Westminster on Wednesday the day after (the feast of) St. Peter in Cathedra, that is, the 23d day of February in the 35th j'ear of the reign of our lord the king of England, for William Conyngsby, knight, above men- tioned, that he would henceforth conduct himself well and faithfully towards the king and his people, and that he would neither commit nor pro- cure to be committed any damage or violence against the above mentioned Thomas parson of Langar or any other of the aforesaid people, wherefore the said William is released and dismissed by the king's grace, while the fine which the said William is bound to pay the king for the transgressions pre- viously described is respited at the pleasure of the lord the king according to the good conduct of the said William; and the aforesaid John gave security before the king's council that the aforesaid William would restore to him the £10 which the said rector had paid him, that is, one half at the feast of Pentecost and the other half at Michaelmas, and that he would restore to the same rector the letters of obligation of which mention is made in the bill. MOLYNS V. FIENNES ' 1365 Pleas in ParUament at Westminster in the Octave of St. Hillary in the thirty-ninth year of the reign of King Edward the Third.- Gill, late the wife of John de Molyns ' brought her petition to the lord the king in his parliament at Westminster holden in the Octave of Saint Hillary in the thirty-eighth year of the same lord the king ■* in these words. " To our lord the king and his council sheweth Gill late the wife of John de Molyns knight that as Robert de Fiennes of France * recovered of late the ably presented in the 38th year and heard of Fiennes {Buckingham, ii, 470) remarks in the 39th. on the difficulty of reconciling the mate- ' Son of Vincent de Molyns, Moleyns, rials for its e.irly history, a coniijlaint or Molines. He was a famous soldier and illustrated l)y this document. His pedi- political personage under Edward HI, and gree differs from that here given. William de Fiennee in right of his wife. Gill, lord of the manor of Stoke Poges, Bucks. He is believed to have died in Cambridge Castle in 1362. | ' ] His life will be found related at length in Robert de Fiennes William de Fiennes the Did. Nat. Biog. " 20 Jan. 13t«. (grantee of the manor) ^^^^^_^^l ^^ ^,^^^^ ' Lipscomb, in his account of the family of France (plaintiff) 49 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL nadgairs le manoir de Wendouere deuers la dite Gile par juggement rendu sur brief de Scire facias * en la chancellerie nostre seignur le Roi e deins le proces record e rendre du dit juggement diuerses errours auiendrent. Plese a nostre dit seignur le Roi e son conseil de faire venir les ditz record e proces en parlement e auxint la dite Gile e son conseil dassigner les errours susditz qe lei e reson lui ent soient faites. Qua peticione in parliamento audita dictum fuit per Magnates et alios de consilio Regis in dicto parliamento existentes Episcopo Eliensi Cancellario ' Regis quod venire faciat recordum et processmn unde in dicta peticione fit mencio hie in parliamento predicto, qui eadem recordum et processum ibidem deferri fecit quorum tenor sequi- tur in hec verba. Dominus Rex mandavit breve suum in hec verba. Edwardus dei gracia Rex Anglie Dominus Hibernie et Aquitanie vicecomiti Buk' salutem. Cum in tractatu pacis inter nos et Johannem nuper Regem Francie facte et per nos jurate * inter cetera contineatur quod cum omnia terre tenementa et possessiones alienigenarum de potestate Francie in manmn nostram occasione guerre Francie nuper capta prefatis alienigenis restituantur:^ et jam ex parte Roberti de Fiennes de Francia nobis est sup- plicatum ut cum Robertus filius Willelmi de Fiennes defunctus auunculus suus seisitus fuisset in dominico suo ut de feodo de manerio de Wendouere cum pertinenciis in comitatu predicto die quo manerium illud occasione guerre predicte seisitum fuit in manum nostram ; velimus manerium illud cum pertinenciis eidem Roberto de Fiennes ut consanguineo et heredi predicti Roberti filii Willelmi juxta formam et effectum pacis predicte lib- erari jubere: nos volentes eidem Roberto de Fiennes plenam et celerem "• justiciara fieri in hac parte juxta formam pacis predicte et prout ad hoc vinculo juramenti tenemur tibi precipimus quod scire facias Egidie que fuit uxor Johannis de MoIjtis que dictum manerium tenet ut dicitur quod sit in Cancellaria nostra in Octabis sancti Michaelis proxime futuris " ubicun- que tunc fuerit '- ad ostendendum si quid pro se habeat vel dicere sciat quare manerium predictmii cum pertinenciis in manum nostram restimi et prefato Roberto de Fiennes ut consanguineo " et propinquiori heredi ejus- ' " A wTit judicial, most commonly to treaty. " Item, concordat um est quod call a man to shew cause to the court terrae bannitorum et adhaerentium, unius whence it issues why execution of a judg- partis et altcrius, et ctiam ecclesiarum, ment passed should not be made out. The unius regni et alterius, et quod omnes ilii writ is not granted until a year and a qui sunt cxhaereditati aut detrusi a terris daj- be elapsed after a judgment given." suis vel haereditatibus . . . aut aliter J. Cowel, Interpreter, ed. 1701, sub gravati qualiteroumque, causa istius guer- " Scire." rae, restituantur intcgre in eisdcm jure et ' Simon Langham, bishop of Ely, 1362- possessione quae habuerunt ante guerram 66; chancellor, 1363-66, afterwards arch- inceptam: et quod omnimoda forisfac- bishop of Canterburj-. turae, delicta et misprisiones facta per eos, • Treaty of Brdtigny, 8 May, 1360, vel per eorum aliquem, medio tempore, confirmed by King Edward, 24 Oct. 1.360. sint ex toto remissa ; et quod ista fiant T. Rymer, Foedera (Ed. 1825), III, i, pp. citius quo poterit lx)no modo, et ad ulti- 490, 518. mum, infra unum annum proxinium post • This refers to § 26 of the original Rex reccdet de Calesio." Fadcra, 1. s. c. MOLYNS V. FIENNES 49 manor of Wciulovero against tlie saiil Ciill l)y jiidnnionl delivered on a writ of scire facias " in tlie chanccrj' of our loril tiio i\ing and in tiie process record and delivery of the said judgment there were divers errors, may it please our said lord the king and his council to cause the said record and process to bo brought into iiarlianient and also the said Gil! and her counsel to assign the errors aforesaid that law and reason may be done her therein." Which petition having been hoard in parliaiuont, it was said bj' the magnates and others of the king's council being in the said parliament to the Bishop of Ely the king's chancellor ' that he should bring the record and the process whereof mention is made in the said petition here into the parliament afore- said. The chancellor caused the same record and process to be brought down there, the tenour of which follows in these words. " The lord the king has commanded his writ (to issue) in these words. Edward by the grace of God King of ICngland, Lord of Ireland and of Acjuitaine to the sheriff of Bucks Greeting. Whereas in the treaty of the peace made between us and John late king of France and sworn to by us ' it is among other things con- tained that all lands tenements and possessions of aliens born of the realm of France lately taken into our hand by occasion of the French war should be restored to the aforesaid aliens-born,' and now a petition has been made to us on behalf of Robert de Fiennes of France setting forth that whereas Robert, his deceased uncle, son of William de Fiennes, was seized in his demesne as of fee of the manor of Wendovere with appurtenances in the count}'' aforesaid on the daj' on which that manor by occasion of the war aforesaid was seized into our hand. We will and command that the manor with its appurtenances be delivered to the same Robert de Fiennes as cousin and heir of the aforesaid Robert the son of William according to the form and effect of the peace aforesaid. We willing that full and prompt'" justice be done in this behalf to the same Robert de Fiennes according to the form of the peace aforesaid and as we are tied by bond of oath thereto charge you that you notify Gill late wife of John de Molyns who holds the said manor, as it is said, that she be in our chancery in the Octave of St. Michael next coming " wheresoever it shall then be '^ to shew if she has or can say why the manor aforesaid together with its appurtenances ought not to be resumed into our hand and be released to the aforementioned Robert de Fiennes as cousin " and nearer heir of the same Robert son of William " See last note. Edward Illleft France Society), 1888, p. xiii. I. S. Leadam, early in November, 1300, after the ratifi- Select cases in the Star Chamber (Selden cation of the Treaty. The execution of Society, 1903), p. xvi. this provision was therefore more than " A translation of the Enghsh " cousin," three years overdue. which " the word seems to have been often " 6 October, 1365. taken to represent. ... It (' cousin ') " That part of the curia regis wliidi was very frequently applied to a nephew eventually became the judicial body or niece " (Oxford Engl. Did.). Robert known as " The King in Council " retained de Fiennes of France was, in fact, nephew the formula " ul)icumque." See F. W. of Rol)ert de Fiennes as heir of whom he Maitland, Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden was claiming. 50 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL dem Roberti filii Willielmi juxta formam pads predicte liberari non debeat et ad faciendum ulterius et recipiendum quod Curia nostra considerauerit in hac parte. Et habeas ibi nomina illorum per quos ei scire feceris et hoc breve. Teste me ipso apud j'e.shampsted " primo die Septembris anno regni nostri tricesuno octauo '* — per literam de secreto sigillo.'^ Ad quem diem tam predicta Egidia per premonicionem " ei per vicecomitem predic- tmu juxta formam breuis predicti factam et in Cancellariam Regis retor- natam per Thomam de Middelton '* attornatmw suum quam predictus Robertas de Fiennes de Francia per Michaelem Skilh-ng '' attornatiun suum veniunt et quesitum est a prefato Roberto de Fiennes de Francia qualiter ipse est consanguineus et heres predicti Roberti filii Willehni qui dicit quod ipse est filius Willehni de Fiennes fratris predicti Roberti filii Willehni et sic est consanguineus et heres predicti Roberti de Fiennes et petit executionem juxta fonnam brevis predicti. Et predicta Egidia dicit quod quidam finis quondam leuauit^" videhcet in quindena sancti Johannis Baptiste anno regni Regis Edwardi tercii a conquestu quartode- cimo -' inter Johannem de jMoIj'us Chiualer et prefatam Egidiam uxorem ejus querentes et Robertum de la Haye personam ecclesie de Dachet ^^ deforciantem de eodem manerio de Wendouere per quem quidem finem predictus Johannes recognouit predictum manerium esse jus ipsius Roberti ut illud quod idem Robertus habuit de dono predicti Johannis et pro hac recognicione fine et concordia idem Robertus concessit predictis Johanni et Egidie predictum manerium cum pertinenciis et illud eis reddidit in eadem Curia habendum et tenendum eisdem Johanni et Egidie ad totam vitam ipsorum Johannis et Egidie et post decessum ipsorum Johannis et Egidie predictmn manerium cum pertinenciis integre remaneret Johanni fiUo eorundem Johannis et Egidie et heredibus de corpore suo procreatis. Et si contingat quod idem Johannes fihus predictorum Johannis et Egidie obierit sine herede de corpore suo procreate tunc predictum manerium remaneret Willelmo fratri ejusdem Johannis fihi predictorum Johannis et Egidie et heredibus de corpore suo exeuntibus. Et si dictus Willclmus obierit sine herede de corpore suo procreato tunc predictum manerium rectis heredibus predicti Johannis remaneret.^ Et profert hie partem finis qui hoc testatur. Et dicit quod predictus Johannes de Molyns mortuus " I. e. Easthampstead in Berkshire, penalty." I. S. Leadam, Select Cases in three miles southeast of Wokingham. It the Star Chamber (Selden Society, 1903), . was a royal hunting-box, to which the p. xxi. For the earliest subpoena, issuing kings resorted in the summer. " A sandy upon a bill addressed to the king and and barren heath of great extent even council, see Sir F. Palgrave, The King's within living memory." W. Lyon, Chroni- Council (1834), p. 131. cles of Finchampstcad (1895), p. 4. D. & " Writs of premunire were issued on S. Lysons, Magna Britannia (1806), i, 285. suggestions filed lieforc the council. An " 1 September, 1364. example of one, including the clause of " "A summons for appearance under subpoena, is to be seen on p. 43. Privy Seal, whether it took the more man- " The name of Middleton occurs in the datory form of a writ (breve) or that of a list of counsel shewn by the Year Hooks to letter (litere), at first expressed no have practised in the courts in the reign of MOLYNS V. FIENNES 50 according to the form of the peace aforesaid, and further to do and receive what our court shall adjudge in this belialf. And jou are to have there the names of those by whom you notify her and this writ. Witness myself at Easthanipstead " on the first day of September in the thirty-eighth year of our reign.'* By letter of privy seal." " On that day both the aforesaid Gill, on notice " to her given by the sheriff aforesaid according to the fonu of the writ aforesaid made and re- turned into the king's chancery, comes into court by Thomas of Middelton " her attorney as also does the aforesaid Robert de Fiennes of France by Michael Skillyng " his attorney. The aforesaid Robert de Fiennes of France is asked how he is cousin and heir of the aforesaid Robert son of William. He says that he is son of William de Fiennes brother of the afore- said Robert the son of William and so is cousin and heir of the aforesaid Robert de Fiennes and asks execution according to the form of the writ aforesaid. And the aforesaid Gill says that a certain fine was formerly levied,-" to wit, in the quindene of St. John Baptist in the fourteenth year of the reign of King Edward the third from the Conquest 2' between John de Molyns knight and the aforesaid Gill his wife and Robert de la Haye, parson of the church of Dachet," deforciant, touching the same manor of Wendovere. By this fine the aforesaid John acknowledged the aforesaid manor to be the right of him, Robert, as being that which the same Robert had as the gift of the aforesaid John, and for this acknowledgement, fine and concord the same Robert granted to the aforesaid John and Gill the afore- said manor with appurtenances and delivered it to them in the same court to have and to hold to the same John and Gill for the whole of their lives and that after their decease the aforesaid manor with appurtenances should in its entirety pass in remainder to John son of the same John and Gill and to the heirs procreated of his body. And if it happen that the same John son of the aforesaid John and Gill shall die without an heir procreated of his body, then the aforesaid manor should pass in remainder to William brother of the same John son of the aforesaid John and Gill and to the i-ssue of his body. And if the said William shall die without an heir procreated of his body, then the aforesaid manor should pass in remainder to the right heir of the aforesaid John.^' And he produces here the part of the fine which is evidence of this. And he says that the aforesaid John de Molyns died and Edward III. E. Foss, Lives of the Judges " " In this last species of fine, the cog- (1851), iii, 374. nizee, after the right is acknowledged to be " The name of SkilljTig or Skylling in him, grants back again, or renders to similarly appears. Foss, ibid. the cognizor . . . some other estate in the '" The common phrase on the rolls of premises." Sir W. Blackstone, Commen- Edward I seems to be " et finis levavit lanes (2d cd. 1767), ii, 353. This feoff- [nol levavit se) inter eos." Pollock & ment of a manor held in chief, being with- Maitland, Hist, of Eng. Laic (1895), ii, out license first obtained, was liable to 97, n. 5. " 8 July, 1340. penalty which the king by Letters Patent » Now Datchet, South Bucks, a mile of 20 .July, 1340, remitted. Pat. Rolls, 14 East of Windsor. Ed. Ill, pt. iii, m. 54, p. 9. 51 CASES BEFORE THE KING's COUNCIL est et Johannes filius predictonmi Johannis et Egidie mortuus est sine her ede de corpore suo procreate et sic tenet ipsa Egidia predictum ma- nerium ad terminum vite sue post cujus mortem predictimi manerium Willelmo fratri predict! Johannis fihi eorundem Johannis de Moh-ns et Egidie remanere debet, quiquidem Willehuus est fiUus et heres predicti Johannis de MoIjtis, et sic tam feodimi simplex quam taUiatum in persona predicti Willehni existit sine quo ipsa Egidia non potest de jure respondere et petit auxiUum de predicto Willehiio ^^ et quod premuniatur. Et Robertus de Fiennes de Francia per ^lichaelem SkylljTig attornatum suum dicit quod Rex juxta tractatum pacis predicte absque alio processu potest et tenetur prefato Roberto de Fiennes dictum manerium restituere. Set ut sciri posset si prefata Egidia aUquod jus habuisset ad excludendum prefatum Robertum de Fiennes ab actione de dicto manerio, idem Rex de curialitate sua con- cessit breve predictum versus prefatam Egidiam de habendo finalem re- sponsionem super declaracionem juris sui predicti et non ad alium effectum emanauit breve iUud et sic in execucione istius breuis fundati super pacem predictam quam Rex vinculo juramenti tenetur obseruare, et infra unum annum a tempore reformacionis ejusdem pacis complere, non requiritur talis processus de auxilio petendo aut aliis dilatoriis sicut in aUis breuibus ad communem legem.^= Et simihter quoddam aliud breue de scire facias prosecutum est versus prefatum Willekuum de Molyns de manerio predicto qui placitando allegauit se non esse tenentem manerii predicti nee aliquid habere in manerio predicto nisi in le remanere post mortem dicte Egidie juxta formam finis predicti nee ad breue illud respondere teneri. Et que- situm est ab eodem Willelmo si se pro saluacione juris sui in hac parte prefate Egidie jungere voluit, qui hoc facere omnino recusauit. Et sic dicit idem Robertus de Fiennes quod auxiUum petitimi non est in isto casu con- cedendum, per quod ex causis premissis et aliis dictum est eidem Egidie quod respondeat sine auxiho ejusdem Willelmi de Molyns si sibi viderit expedire. Et predicta Egidia protestando ^^ quod non cognoscit quod pre- dictus Robertus de Fiennes de Francia sit consanguineus vel de sanguine Roberti filii Willehni de Fiennes nee quod predictum manerium seisitum fuit in manum domini Regis occasione guerre dicit quod predictus Robertus de Fiennes qui nunc sequitur natus fuit tempore Edwardi patris Regis nunc extra ligianciam Anglie et non infra et hoc pretendit verificare et petit judi- cium si idem Robertus de Fiennes de Francia ut heres alicujus execucionem" habere debeat, maxima cum hoc contra legem Anglie hactenus usitatam et » This is the " aid-praycr." " In Utiga- to ' pray aid ' of B, to get B made a party tion the tenant for hfe represents the land. to the action, and B in his own interest will Suppose, for example, that A is holding the takeuponhimself the defense of his rights." land as tenant for life by some title under P. and M. Hist. Eng. Lair, ii, 10. Cf . The which on his death the land will revert or Eyre of Kent, i, 92 (Seld. Soc. 1910). "Si remain to B in fee. Now if X sets up an vidua dotatadelibertateutdeWarenna vel adverse title, it is A, not B, whom he must hujusmodi si inde calumpnietur, petet aux- attack. When A issued, it will be his duty iUum de herede 4c." MOLYNS V. FIENNES 51 John the son of the aforesaid John and Gill died without an heir proereated of his body and so C!ill herself holds the aforesaid manor for the term of her life, after whose death the aforesaid manor ought to pass in remainder to William hrofher of tlie aforesaid John son of the same John de Molyns and Gill, which William is indeed son and heir of the aforesaid John de Molyns, and so as well the fee simple as the fee tail is in the person of the aforesaid William apart from whom Gill herself can not answer of right and prays aid of the aforesaid William ■* and that a premunire be issued. And Robert de Fiennes of France by Michael Skyllyng his attorney says that the king according to the treaty of peace aforesaid without other process is able and is bound to restore the said manor to Robert de Fiennes. But that it might be known if the aforementioned Gill had any right to bar the aforemen- tioned Rol)ert de Fiennes from action touching the said manor, the same king out of his courtesy granted the writ aforesaid against the aforemen- tioned Gill for having a final answer upon the declaration of his right afore- said and issued that writ for no other purpose and so in execution of this writ founded upon the peace aforesaid which the king by the bond of an oath is bound to observe and within one year from the time of the restora- tion of the same peace to fulfil, there is no need for such process of praying aid or other dilatory pleas as in other writs at the common law.^^ And like- wise a certain other writ of scire facias was sued out against the aforemen- tioned William de Molyns touching the manor aforesaid, who in his plea alleged that he was not himself tenant of the manor aforesaid and that he had nothing in the manor aforesaid save in remainder after the death of the said Gill according to the fonn of the fine aforesaid and that he is not bound to make answer to that writ. And the same William was asked whether to save his right in this behalf he was wilUng to plead jointly with the aforementioned Gill, which he utterly refused to do. And so the same Robert de Fiennes says that the aid prayed is in this case not to be granted, wherefore from the causes premised and from others the same Gill was told to answer without aid of the same WilUam de Moljais if she should think fit. And the aforesaid Gill protesting ^' that she does not know that the aforesaid Robert de Fiennes of France is a cousin or of the blood of Robert the son of William de Fiennes, nor that the aforesaid manor was seized into the hand of the lord the king by occasion of the war, saj's that the aforesaid Robert de Fiennes who now sues was born in the time of Edward father of the king that now is out of the liegeance of England and not within it and this he offers to prove and asks judgment whether the same Robert de Fiennes of France ought to have execution " as any one's heir, especiaUy since this would manifestly be contrary to the law of England hitherto used " A reason why this was a case for the to do, that issue can not be joined by it." council. Cowel, InUrjrrdcr, s. v. " " Protestation is a defence of safe- " " An execution final is that which guard to the party which maketh it from . . . extendeth his (the defendant's) lands, being concluded by the act he is about anddelivereth them to the plaintiff." Ibid. 52 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL approbatam foret manifeste. Et predictus Robertas de Fiennes dicit quod omnes de utroque regnorum Anglie et Francie qui oceasione guerrarum pre- dictarum exheredati fuerunt de terris et hereditatibus suis in eisdem juribus et possessionibus que ante incepcionem guerrarum predictarum ^* habue- runt per pacem predictam integre restitui debent, et sic restitucio ilia ad alienigenas utruisque regni se extendit, que quidem pax per Regem Prelatos et Magnates accommunitatem regni Anglie in pleno parliamento confirmata et jurata fuit, et dicit quod manerium predictum oceasione guerrarum pre- dictarum et non ex alia causa ad manum Regis deuenit et quod predictus Robertus de Fiennes est heres prefati Robert! filii Willelmi per cujus Roberti de Fiennes adhesionem parti aduerse domini Regis dictum mane- rium captum fuit in manum Regis, et ex quo id quod per pacem predictam per Reges utriusque regni pro conununi utilitate regnorum predictorum et rei publice concordatiun est, non per legem communem Anglie, set secun- dum vim et intencionem pacis predicte deduci debet et terminari, maxime cum predicta Egidia nullum titulum juris in persona sua ad excludendmn predictum Robertum de Fiennes de Fraucia ab accione sua ostendit, et in voluntate domini Regis existit admit tendi de gracia sua alienigenas ad here- ditates suas habendas in regno Anglie sicut temporibus retroactis fieri con- sueuit, et petit quod dictum manerimn in manum Regis capiatur, et prefato Roberto de Fiennes de Francia ut consanguineo et heredi predicti Roberti filii Willelmi juxta formam pacis predicte restituatur. Et quia predicte negocio coram domino Rege et Magnatibus et aliis de consilio suo deducto et examinato per ipsum Regem recordatiun est predictum Robertum de Fiennes de Francia esse consanguineum et heredem predicti Roberti filii Willelmi per cujus forsifacturam Manerium predictum oceasione guer- rarum predictarum et non alia de causa ad manus ipsius Regis deuenit et per dictum Regem et omnes Magnates et alios de consilio ipsius Regis sibi assistentes concordatum fuit quod tractatus pacis predictus in omnibus suis articulis obseruetur et teneatur et execucioni demandetur allegacionibus predictis non obstantibus, quod licet fiat in hoc casu speciali pro reforma- cione pacis observande juxta vim effectum et intencionem ejusdem pacis juri tamen communi in aliis casibus nullatenus derogatur, per quod consid- eratum est quod Manerium predictum in manum Regis seisiatur et prefato Roberto de Fiennes de Francia ut consanguineo et heredi predicti Roberti fiUi Willelmi juxta formam pacis predicte restituatur, et preceptum est vicecomiti Buk' quod Manerium predictum cum pertinenciis in manum Regis sine dilacione seisiri et illud custodiri faciat quousqc aliud a Rege inde habuerit in mandatis. Quibus recordo et processu cum peticione pre- dicta visis et examinatis ac inspecto irrotulamento carte per quam dictus " Active hostilities began in September, by Edward III. Political History of Eng- 1339, with the invasion of the Cambr&is land (T. F. Tout), vol. iii, p. 339. MOLYNS V. FIENNES 52 and approved. And the aforesaid Robert dc Fiennes says that all persons of either of the realms of Englanil and France who have been by occasion of the wars aforesaid disinherited of their lands and hereditaments ought by the peace aforesaid to bo wholly restored in the same rights and possessions as they had before the beginning of the wars aforesaid,-' and accordingly that restitution extends to the aliens-born of either kingdom, the which peace was confirmed and sworn by the king, ])rclates and magnates and commonalty of the kingdom of England in full parliament, and he says that the manor aforesaid by occasion of the wars aforesaid and arising out of no other cause fell into the hand of the king and that the aforesaid llobcrt de Fiennes is heir of the aforementioned Robert son of William and that by the adhesion of this Robert de Fiennes to the party opposed to the lord the king the said manor was taken into the king's hand. And since because by the peace aforesaid it has been so agreed by the kings of either realm for the common advantage of the realms aforesaid and of the public weal, the claim ought to be tried and determined, not bj- the common law of England, but according to the force and intent of the peace aforesaid, especially since the aforesaid Gill shews no legal title in her own person to exclude the aforesaid Robert de Fiennes of France from his action and it is in the will of the lord the king to admit of his favour aliens-born to hold their hereditaments in the realm of England as in times past has been customary to be done, and he praj's that the said manor be taken into the king's hand and restored to the aforementioned Robert de Fiennes of France as cousin and heir of the aforesaid Robert son of William according to the form of the peace afore- said. And because the aforesaid matter having been tried before the lord the king and the magnates and others of liis council and examined by the king liimself it was put on record that the aforesaid Robert de Fiennes of France is cousin and heir of the aforesaid Robert son of William, through whose forfeiture the manor aforesaid by occasion of the wars aforesaid and not from any other cause fell into the hands of the king himself, and by the said king and all the magnates and others of the council of the king in person sitting as his assessors it was agreed that the treaty of peace aforesaid should be observed and holden in all its articles and committed to execution, the allegations aforesaid notwithstanding; that though it be done in this special case for restoration of the peace, to be observed according to the force, effect and intention of the same peace, yet there is no derogation of the common law in other cases. Whereby it was adjudged that the manor aforesaid be seized into the king's hand and restored to the aforementioned Robert de Fiennes of France as cousin and heir of the aforesaid Robert son of William according to the form of the peace aforesaid, and a precept was issued to the sherifT of Bucks for the seizure of the manor with its appurte- nances forthwith into the king's hands and for its custody till he should have another command from the king in that behalf. This record and process together with the petition aforesaid having been seen and examined, and 53 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Rex Manerium predictum prefato Johanni de Molj^ns dedit et concessit in rotulis Cancellarie ipsius Regis anno regni sui quartodecimo irrotulate "^ in qua continetur quod dictus Rex Manerium predictum cum pertinenciis quod ad manus ipsius Regis per forisfacturam predicti Roberti filii Willelmi pro eo quod idem Robertus inimicis Regis de Francia de guerra contra ipsum Regem adhesit deuenit, dedit et concessit prefato Johanni de iSIolyns sub forma in eadem carta contenta, et ex quo clare liquet per eandem car- tani quod dictum Manerium cum pertinenciis ad manus Regis causa guerre predicte ut predicitur deuenit et juxta tractatum pacis predicte in eodem parliamento ostensum, terre bannitoriun et adherencium uni parti et alteri de utroque regno, et omnes illi qui causa guerre [predicte ex] heredati vel de terris et hereditatibus suis amoti fuerunt in eisdem jure et possessione que ante incepcionem guerre predicte habuerunt integraliter sunt restitu- endi et sic causa forisfacture racione guerre predicte in utroque regno est omnino per pacem illam extincta et adnuUata, dictaque Egidia per placitmn suum non allegauit nee afiirmauit jus dicto domino Regi nee eidem Egidie in Manerio predicto per aliani viam ad excludendum prefatum Robertum de Fiennes de accione sua ad dictum Manerium per pacem predictam sic attributa accrevisse, videtur Magnatibus et aliis peritis'" de parliamento predicto quod nee per cartam predictam de dicto manerio prefato Johanni de Molyns per dominum Regem sic racione forisfacture predicte factam, nee per aliqua aha per predictam Egidiam superius allegata possit aut debeat execucio de hiis que sic in pace predicta continentur aliqualiter impediri, per quod non habeat respectum ad errores pretensos nee ad alia per dictam Egidiam superius allegata per totum parliamentum predictum consi- deratum est quod dictum Manerium cum pertinenciis in manum Regis capiatur." " On 12 December, 1339, Edward III, other manors " and the farm which being then at Antwerp, granted to John de Robert de Fienles (sic) lately held in the Molyns " in recompense of the £100 yearly town of Aylesbury, with the fees of Chokes at the Exchequer for the support of his late of John de Fienles," &c. (Fat. R 1366 Petitions and processes made against Thomas Musgrave,' sheriff of York, by Thomas Ughtred ' and others on the Quindene of Easter in the fortieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third.'' Be it remembered that tlie lord the kiii^ lias sent before his council by John de la Lee,' steward of his household, divers bills delivered to him, as follow &c. that the council may cause to be done in that behalf that which shall be just &c. [These] are the injuries and wrongs done to Thomas Ughtred, knight, by master Thomas Musgrave sheriff of York, the which injuries he prays the king may be redressed. First, the said sheriff imprisoned the [said] Thomas Ughtred without pro- cess of law or indictment, or of any manner of appeaP and without warrant contrary to law, and the said sheriff held fourteen inquests against him,' and found no cause against him for imprisoning him, and the justices of our lord the king [both] of the peace and of the law, to wit, the lord Percy,* was employed from time to time upon special commissions issued to make in- quisition into cases of violence as in Northumberland on 28 Dec. 1363 (ib. p. 453), and 30 Nov. 1364 (ib. p. 530), and on a commission of oyer and terminer in Dorset (2 July, 1364, ib. p. 544), though I have failed to find this commission. As Percy was at the head of it, he was, per- haps, a lawyer, and the same as Henry de Percehay, who became a king's serjeant in 1365, a Baron of the Exchequer in 1375, and a Justice of the Common Pleas in 1377. E. Foss, Lives of the Jiulges, (1854), iv, 66. Foss identifies him with a family who were " the possessors of Lewesham and other manors in Yorkshire. " But the style here used, "le Sire de Percy," nine years before the appointment of a judge of the name, presents a difficulty. The draughtsman of the pleadings may, indeed, have awarded it, in forensic use, to the commissioner of oyer and terminer. There was also a Henry de Percy, " late lord of Spofford " (Spofforth, Co. York), who died some time prior to 15 May, 1368 {Cat. Fat. Rolls, 42 Ed. Ill, p. 113). Lastly, there was " the king's kinsman, Henry lord of Percy," ib. p. 172, who died 17 June, 1368. He had fought at Cr6cy, and Neville's Cross, and was much employed son, and heir of Geoffrey de la Lee, of Al- bury, Herts, sheriff of Essex and Herts in 1311. John de la Lee sat for the county, as John atte Lee, in the parliament of 1355 and died in 1370. He is not entered on the roll as a knight. J. E. Cussans, Hist, of Hertfordshire (1873-77), Hundred of Edvnnstree, p. 148. * " Accusation or Appeal is a lawful Declaration of another man's Crime (which by Bracton must be Felony at the least) before a competent Judge by one that setteth his name to the Declaration, and undertakes to prove it upon the penalty that may ensue of the contrary." J. Cowell, Interpreter (ed. 1701), s. v. Appeal. ' See Introduction, p. Ixxxv, supra. ' Henry of Percy, Percehay, Pcrshay &c. was placed on the comrai.ssion of the peace for the West Riding of Yorkshire on 21 March, 1361, together with Ralph Nevill, Thomas Mosegrave, and William Fynchesdcn, all of whose names figure in these proceedings. {Cal. Pat. Rolls, 35 Ed. Ill, p. 64.) A person of the same names was nominated on the same day to the commission of the peace for Somerset. Henry Percy was also placed on the com- mission for Northumberland on 20 Nov. 1362 (Fat. RolU, 36 Ed. Ill, p. 292). He 55 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL monsieur Johan de Moubray "• monsieur William de Fj-nchesdene " et Roger de Fulthorpe " pristrent vij enquestes des Chiualers et des seriantz mieuth veillantz en la pays," et ne pourroient rien trouer sur le dit Thomas Ughtred pour lui emprisoner; et la ou le dit Thomas Ughtred auoit brief as Justices auantditz pour aler a sa deliueraunce " come la ley voet, le dit viscounte la desturba par malice, qil ne pourroit estre deHuerez. Item le dit viscounte ne voleit deliuerer le dit Thomas Ughtred hors de la Gayole Deuerwic, tanqe le dit Thomas auoit troue mainpernours '* iiij Chiualers et j esquier les queux sont obhgez et fermement liez au dit vis- counte et chescun de eux pour le tout en V li. pour entrer la corps du dit Thomas Ughtred en la Gayole Deuerwic a ceste Pentecoste proschein auenir '^ ou dedeinz mesme celle temps par garnisement dun mois. Item le dit viscounte conseilla le dit Thomas pour lui faire enditer mesmes, et lui fesoit entendre sil fust endite qil lui ferroit auoir une enqueste pour lui deliuerer. Item le dit viscoimte prist du dit Thomas Ughtred C s. pour estre bien voillant et eidant a lui en une assise de nouel deseisine " qe fust parentre lui in maintaining the peace of the Scottish border. He was the third Baron Percy, and married as his first wife a great grand- daughter of Henry III. (G. E. C, Com- plete Peerage, sub " Percy ".) The name of his colleague, Ralph Neville, inclines me to identify him as the person here designated. ' Although there appears to have been a person of these names who may have been a different individual, I incline to identify this Ralph Neville with the fourth Baron Neville of Roby, whose life is recorded in the lyiclionary of National Biography. It is a circumstance not alto- gether without significance in this con- nexion that Dugdale, Baronage i, 292, records that in 1331 Neville " had entered into an undertaking to serve Henry, lord Percy, for life in peace or war, except against the king, with twenty men-at- arms." This lord Percy was the father of the commissioner of this document and died in 1352. The Patent Rolls afford numerous instances of the association of Ralph Neville with, but ranking after, Henry Percy, as upon commissions of the peace for Yorkshire (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 20 March, 13G1, 64, 292) and Northumber- land (ib. pp. 65, 453); commissions of oyer and terminer for Cumberland (ib. p. 148) and Yorkshire (4 May, 1364, pp. 539, 540, 541 ; cf . Close Rolls, 10 June, 1364, p.57). Ralph Neville died 5 Aug. 1367. He wa.s an active and distingui.shcd soldier on the Scottish border (see Did. Nat. Diog.). The difficulty remains, however, that the style " monsieur " is used. This can scarcely, however, have indicated his third son, Ralph Neville, who was born not earlier than 1343, his eldest brother John being aged twenty-si.x on the death of his father in 1367, and who would there- fore have been only about twenty-three in 1366. The next name, that of a judge, suggests that the first two commissioners were men of high rank. '" John Mowbray, whose connexion with the noble family of Mowbray or Moubray Foss was unable to discover, was in practice as an advocate as early as 1343 and in 1354 was a king's serjeant-at- law. At this time he was a justice of com- mon pleas, to which office he had been raised in 1359, and a knight of the Bath. The frequency with which he was em- ployed as a commissioner of oyer and ter- miner, especially in the county of York, will be apparent at a glance in the Patent Rolls. William Fyncheden and Roger Ful- thorp were frequently associated with him in these cases and similar inquiries. " William Fyncheden may be con- jectured to have been of a Yorkshire family, a Richard Fyncheden being ap- pointed a commissioner of array for that county in 13.')9. His name occurs as an advocate in the Year Books from 1350; in 1362 he was made a king's serjeant, and was employed as a justice of assize in 1364. On 29 October, 1365, he was appointed a UGHTRED AND OTHERS V. MUSGRAVE 55 master Ralph Xcville," master John Mowbray,'" master William Finch- deii " and Roger Fulfhorpe'^ held seven inquests of the knights and more substantial squires" in the county, and could not find anything against the said Thomas Ughtrod [for which] to imprison him, and whereas the said Thomas Ughtrcd had a writ to the justices aforesaid to go to his deliverance " as the law requires, the said sheriff delayed it of malice, that he might not be able to be delivered. Also the said sheriff would not deliver the said Thomas Ughtred out of the jail of York until the said Thomas had found as mainpernors " four knights and one esquire who are under obligation and straitly bound to the said sheriff, and each of them for the whole in five hundred pounds, to bring the body of the said Thomas Ughtred into the jail of York at this Pentecost next coming '^ or within that same time at one month's notice. Also the said sheriff counselled the said Thomas to cause himself to be indicted, and gave him to understand that if he were indicted he would cause him to have an inquest to deliver him. Also the said sheriff took from the said Thomas Ughtred a hundred shillings to be partial and helpful to him in an assise of novel disseisin," that justice of the common pleas, and chief justice of the same court on 14 April, 1371. Foss, iii, 432. " If Foss be right in saying (iv, 53) that Roger Fulthorpe, who in 1377 became a justice of the common pleas and after- wards had a chequered career (see Rot. Pari. V, 393), " began his career as an ad- vocate about 1366," he must have been another person than this commissioner. The Patent Rolls shew that during some years Roger Fulthorpe or Foulthorpe had been employed on commissions of oyer and terminer, &c., especiallv in Yorkshire (1361, p. 150; 1362, pp. 206; 207, &c.). He probably belonged to the family of the judge, though he could not have been his father, whose name was .-Vlan. According to Foss, the family sprang from Thirkelby, near Thirsk, Yorkshire, but R. Surtees, Hist, of Durham (1S23), iii, 126, traces it to Fulthorpe and Tunstall, Co. Durham, and Hipswell, Co. York. '■" In the modus proccdendi for the jus- tices itinerant, as given in Bracton (fo. 116) four knights are to be selected from every Hundred and sworn to elect " xii milites vel liberos et legales homines si milites non inveniantur," &c. For the procedure upon these inquests see Pollock & Maitland, Hisl. of Engl. Law, ii, 640, &c. " Every justice deputed to a particular place was in EjTe, or, as we should say ' on circuit.' " Stephen I, 99. " This perhaps means the commission of oyer and terminer which commissions were sometimes special, when limited to the trial of particular offences. Coke divides the special commissions into five classes, of which the third is a commis- sion in respect " of divers oppressions &c., extortions &c., by the king's ministers." 4th Inst. 162. By the statute of North- ampton (2 Ed. Ill, c. 2, 1328), " Oyers and Terminers shall not be granted but before Justices of the one Bench, or the other, or the Justices Errants, and that for great hurt or horrible Trespasses." According to Coke (4 Insl. 164), " the Justices were so carefull that no innova- tion should creep in concerning commis- sions of oier and terminer that certain Justices having their authority by writ, where they ought to have had it by com- mission, though it were of the forme and words that the legal commission ought to be, John Knivett, chief justice, by the advice of all the judges resolved, that the said writ was contra legem." Knivett did not become Chief Justice till 29 October, 1365, very shortly prior to this case, which perhaps records an example of the practice which he condemned. Foss, iii, 451. " See p. 45, n. " Easter Day being 5 April, this would l)e Sunday, 24 May, 1366. " A civil action, see P. & M. ii, 47-55. W. S. Holdsworth, Hist, of Engl. Law 56 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL et monsieur Thomas de Gray tennant son estat dount il fust countre le dit Thomas Ughtred en touz maners de choses touchant mesme lassise en- countre sa promesse et encontre la ley de la terre. Item le dit \'iscounte prist Robert Walman seruant an dit Thomas Ughtred sanz garaunt et sanz enditement ou sanz suspecion et lui mist en penaunce et lui engjTia a poi de mort pour appeller le dit Thomas Ughtred de felonie faucement et de larcjTie encontre sa volonte et encountre la ley de la terre lequel Robert demourast en les ditz penaunces et engj^nes par un noiet et un jour par quei il estoit bienpres la mort pour les penaunces qil auoit, et il ne pourroit rien trouer de malice sur le dit Thomas Ughtred, et detenoit le dit Robert en prisone tanqe il eit fyne au dit viscounte et a ses ministres xv s. iiij d. B [Ces] sont les greuaunces et maUces faitz a Johan de Hothum Chiualer le fitz *' par monsieur Thomas Alusegraue viscounte Deuerwyk. Adeprimes le dit viscounte emprisona le dit Johan sanz procees de lay ou enditement ou dascune manere dappelle et sanz garaunt et encontre la ley, et le dit viscount prist sur lui xiiij enquestes et ne trouast nulle cause pour lui emprisoner et les Justices nostre seignour le Roi du pees et de la ley cestassauoir le sire de Percy monsieur Rauf de NeuUle monsieur Johan Moubray monsieur William Fynchesdene et Roger de Fulthorpe pristrent vij enquestes de[s] chiualers et des seriantz mieuth vaillantz en la dite Counte et ne pourroient rien trouer sur le dit Johan de Hothum pour lui emprisoner. Item le dit viscounte ne voleit deliuerer le dit Johan de Hothum hors de la Gaj-ole deuerwj-k tanqe le dit Johan Hothum auoit troue mainpernours iiij chiualers et j esquier, les queux sont obligez et ferment hez au dit vis- counte et chescun pour le tout en V U. pour amesner le corps le dit mon- sieur Johan de Hothum en la dite emprisona a ceste Pentecoste proschein auenir ou dedeinz mesme celle temps par garnisement dun mois. Item '' le dit \'iscounte conseilla le dit Johan de Hothum Simon de Heserton Chiualer ^° et Wilham Craunsevsyk ^' pour lour mesmes faire enditer par lour amistez par voie de trespas et sils fuissent issint enditez il lour ferroit auoir une enqueste pour ent eux dehuerer. (1903), iii, 5. The WTit to the sheriff is in ^° I identify this person with Sir Simon Glanvill, xiii, 3, and orders him to summon de Heselarton, whose name occurs in the a jury of twelve to decide the question Patent Rolls for 1 Feb. 1361 (p. 2), as al- whether the defendant has " unjustly and ready a knight in 1356, when he was wit- without judgement " disseised the plain- ness to a deed. He was returned as a tiff. If the jury answered affirmatively the knight of the shire for Yorkshire to the sheriff was to restore the disseised person. Parliaments of 1362, 1363, 1366, and 1372. It would appear from Musgrave's Members of Parlt., in Parliamentary answer (p. 58, infra) that Gray was the Papers (1878), vol. Ixii, pt. 1. He was plaintiff disseised. " See Introd. p. Ixxxiv. frequently a commissioner of oyer and " This paragraph seems out of place terminer in Yorkshire for inquiring into and is repeated in the next document. acts of violence and lawlessness, as with UGHTRED AND OTHERS V. MUSGRAVE 56 was between him and master Thomas Gray who was holding his estate, after which he was against the said Thomas Ughtred in all manner of things touching the same assize contrary to his promise and contrary to the law of the land. Also the said sheriff took Robert Walraan servant to the said Thomas Ughtred without warrant and without indictment or without suspicion [cast upon him] and put him in durance and tortured him to within a little of death falsely to appeal the said Thomas Ughtred of felony and larceny contrary to his will and contrary to the law of the land, the which Robert abode in the said durance and tortures for a night and a day, whereby he was very near death for the durance that he suffered and he could not find any wrong on the part of the said Thomas Ughtred, and he kept the said Robert in prison until he paid fine to the said sheriff and to his officers of fifteen sliillings and four pence. B [These] are the injuries and wrongs done to John Hotham, knight, junior," by master Thomas Musgrave sheriff of York. First, the said sheriff imprisoned the said John without process of law or indictment, or of any manner of appeal and without warrant and contrary to law, and the said sheriff held fourteen inquests against him and found no cause for imprisoning him, and the justices of our lord the king [both] of the peace and of the law, to wit, the lord Percy, master Ralph Neville, master John Mowbraj', master William Finchden, and Roger Fulthorpe held seven inquests of the knights and more substantial squires in the said county and could not find anything against the said John Hotham [for which] to im- prison him. Also the said sheriff would not deliver the said John Hotham from the jail of York until the said John Hotham had found as mainpernors four knights and one esquire who are under obligation and straitly bound to the said sheriff, each for the whole, in five hundred pounds to bring the body of the said master John Hotham into the said prison at this Pentecost next coming or within that same time at one month's notice. Also '' the said sheriff counselled the said John Hotham, Simon Heser- ton, knight,^ and Wilham Cranswick ^' to cause themselves to be indicted by their friends by way of trespass, and if they should be so indicted, he would cause them to have an inquest to deliver them from it. John Moubray and four others {Pat. Fulthorp and four others touching dis- RolU, 12 Feb., 1365, p. 159), touching orders in Cleveland (ib. p. 280). In 1366 assaults, kc. De Banco Rolls, however, a parish in the East Riding of Mich. 14 R. II, m. lOS. The Gcnealogisl, Yorkshire, Hutton-Cran.swick, probably N. S. xiv, 94. connected with the family of the person '' The pecuniary bail for the esquire is mentioned in this case. In 1390 Edmund only one-fifth the sum demanded for each de Hothom sued John Godard, Kt. for a knight. UGHTRED AND OTHERS V. MUSGRAVE 57 c These are the injuries and wrongs done to Nicholas Hotham esquire by master Thomas Musgrave sheriff of York. First, the said sheriff imprisoned the said Nicholas without process of law or indictment or of any manner of appeal and without warrant and con- trary to law, and the said sheriff held fourteen inquests against him, and found no cause for imprisoning him, and the justices of our lord the king [both] of the peace and of the law, to wit, the lord Percy, master Ralph Neville, master John Mowbraj^ master Wilham Finchden, and Roger Ful- thorpe held seven inquests of the knights and more substantial squires in the said county and could not find anything against the said Nicholas [for which] to imprison him. Also the said sheriff would not deliver the said Nicholas out of the jail of York until the said Nicholas had found [as] main- pernor a knight to liind himself for the said Nicholas to the said sheriff in a hundred pounds ^^ to bring the body of the said Nicholas into the said prison at this Pentecost next coming, or within the same time at one month's notice. Also the said sheriff counselled the said Nicholas, Simon He.serton, knight, and William Cranswick to cause themselves to be indicted by their friends by way of trespass, and if they should be so indicted, he would cause them to have an inquest to deliver them from it. D Whereupon the aforesaid Thomas Musgrave, summoned before the council touching the premises, says that as to the taking and imprisonment of the bodies of the said master Thomas, master John, and Nicholas, he w[ishes] to say that he is sheriff of the county and one of the justices of the peace. To whom a great outcry daily comes from divers countrj' folk that folk ride on the high road by day and night, carrying by night fire with them, threatening folk that they should be burnt if they did not make fines and ransoms, to wit, some twenty pounds and some ten pounds, and to this end thej' made great display; they kindled sparks of fire around their houses and set afire and aflame a vat of pitch, wherefore folk of those parts of the Wold ^ were greatly affrighted and often made their complaints praying remedy and help of the said sheriff and did not dare to abide in their houses without keeping watch continually at night, twelve or ten men together, to the great cost and oppression of the people; and some were robbed of great substance, to wit, Walter Cotes of four score and fifteen pounds and divers other folk whose names are contained in a bill [sewn on to] these [papers]. [Wherefore the said sheriff wishing to guard the peace as he was sworn and bound by his allegiance] searched by all methods in his " This word, as also those which follow '* " At Hessle the Wolds of the East in square brackets, is supplied from the Riding of York begin, and stretch thirty- answer in membrane 4, which is in almost five miles long, and five to thirty broad." perfect condition. T. A. Sharp, New Gazetteer (1852), ii, 918. 58 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL par queux tiels roberies et affraies furent faitz et sur ceo lui nounsachaiint brief le Roi lui vient demaundaunt sur peyn ^ de taunt come il pourreit forfair qil ferreit arest et execucion des tielx qe tiels roberies et affraies firent ou autrcment il serroit tcnuz come mayntenour des ditz robbours et meffesours : et pur ceo qe comune esclaundre et clamour fuist qe ceux qi se pleignent a ore furent desclaundres des ditz faitz, le dit viscount les arestut, puis quele arest nulls affraies ne robberies ount este faitz en eels parties. Et la soertee qil prist de les parties attachez ceo ne fust pas pour profist prendre a lui mesmes mes qe eux serroient prestes destre [deuantz] le Roi et son conseil en cas qils fuissent maundetz come poet estre proue par lour defesaunce.^' Item quant a la destourbance qe lui est surmys qil duist auoir fait que les Justices le Roi ne pourrent aler a lour deliuerance, le poiar ne fuist pas en lui a destourber ceux qi sount ses soueraignes as queux il coueynt qil soit obeisaunt, et sU plese al counseU ils pourrount [examiner] les ditz Justices, sil fist la destourbance ou nemy. Item a ceo qest dist qil duist auoir counseille as ditz monsieur Thomas et monsieur Johan qeux se duissent mesmes auoir fait enditer par lours amyes et qil lour voldra fair auoir enquest de eux acquiter, la quele chose ne poet estre entendu par reson pour ceo qil ne fuist pas de lour counseil, mes il disoit qe en cas qeux ne ussent pas estee coupables meutz vaudroit a eux dauoir este bien acquitee qe touz jours demourer en suspecion des tielx malueistez saunz les counseiller destre enditez ou promesse faire de lour deiiueraunce. Item de ceo qil duist auoir fait prendre Robert Walman seruaunt le dit Monsieur Thomas Ughtred et lui auoir tenuz en forte prison par destresse de lui fair auoir apelle son mestre, la cause de la prise de lui fuist pour ceo qe un Wautcr de Cotes fuist robbe de nuyt de la sunie suisditc pres de la demoer le dit Robert et comune clamour fuist et auxint fuist cht qil sauoit enfourmer de les meffesours et qil fuist mesmes partie a la robberye, issint fuist il pris par suspecion taunqe home ust enquis de lui, et apres de mesme la robberj'e est [endite] sanz ceo "^ qil lui enprisona pour lui fair appellor le dit Monsieur Thomas, ou nulle autre et saunz ceo qil prist nulle [dener] del dit Robert come est suppose par lour billc. Item quant a la prise de Cent south del cht Monsieur Thomas destre en aide de lui en une assise quele Monsieur Thomas de G[ray] porta deuers lui et fuist encountrc hii, a ceo il dist qil iiauoit nulle tie! promesse ne couenant de lui mes [un Monsieur William] de Acclom ^ lui vient de part le dit Mon- " From this point the text is taken from performed by the Obligor, or Recognisor, membrane 4. the Act is disabled and annulled, as if it ''' " Defeizance coraeth of the French had never been done." J. Cowell, InUr- DefTayre . . . that is, ' Infestum rcddere ■preler (ed. 1701). quod factum est,' and signifieth a condi- " The regular form of traverse; see tion relating to a deed, as an Obligation, Select Cases in the Court of Requests (Seld. Recognisance, or Statute, which being See. 1898) and Select Cases in the Star UGHTRED AND OTHERS V. MUSGRAVE 58 power by whom sudi robberies and affrays were made and thereupon, though he knew nothing of it, comes a letter of the king demanding, upon penalty of as much as he had to forfeit, that he should make arrest and execution of those who committed such robberies and affrays or otherwise he would be held as a maintainor of the said robbers and malefactors. And because there was common scandal and outcry that those who are now complaining were under the scandal of the said deeds, the said sheriff arrested them, since which arrest no affrays nor robberies have been com- mitted in [those parts]. And the surety that he took of the parties attached was not for the purpose of taking profit to himself, but that they might be ready to be [before] the king and his council in case they should be com- manded, as can be proved by their defeasance [clause].^' Also as to the delay surmised against him as having been made so that the king's justices could not go to their deliverance, it was not in his power to delay those who are his superiors to whom it is fitting that he should be obedient, and if it please the council, they will be able [to examine] the said justices, whether he caused the delay [alleged], or not. Also to that which is said that he had, as was alleged, counselled the said master Thomas and master John that they ought to have caused themselves to be indicted by their friends and that he wished them to cause an inquest to be held for their acquittal — wliich thing ought not to be listened to, because he was not of their counsel — but he said that in case that they should not have been culpable, it would be better worth their while to be clearly acquitted than to remain always suspected of such misdemeanours, without counselling them to be indicted or promising their deliverance. Also of the charge that he had caused the arrest of Robert Walman, servant of the said Master Thomas Ughtred, and had held him in stronghold by compulsion to cause him to summon his master, the cause of his taking him was that one Walter Cotes was robbed at night of the sum above men- tioned near the dwelling of the said Robert, and there was a common cry and it was also said that he had information of the malefactors and that he was even party to the robbery, so he was taken on suspicion till inquiry about him could be made, and was afterwards indicted of the same robbery, without that that " he imprisoned him to make him [falsely] appeal the said master Thomas or any other, and without that that he took any penny of the said Robert as is suggested by their bill. Also as to the taking of a hundred shillings of the said master Thomas to be of help to him in an assize which master Thomas G(ray) brought against him, and he (the sheriff) was opposed to him, to that he says that he, master Thomas, had no such promise nor covenant from him but [a master] William Acclom,^ coming to him on the part of the said master Thomas Ughtred, Chamber (ib. 1902 and 1910). See W. S. of a parish on the Wolds of the East Riding Holdsworth, Hist. Engl. Law, iii, 477. of Yorkshire (Sharp, New Gazetteer). It '' Acklam or East Acklam is the name was at one time the seat of a family to 59 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL sieur Thomas Ughtred et lui profryst Cent south destre resonable amy et officer en la dite assise la quele soumme il refusa adonqes et le dit Mon- sieur William lui sourmyst qe en cas qe sil ne voleit la dite soume rcsceuire qe le dit Monsieur Thomas Ughtred outrement se desasseurast de lui qil ne lui voleit fair reson come attient a son office, et il lui respoundy qil ferroit duement son office, et apres les parties furent accordetz par mcdiacion des seignours de Percy Neuille Clifford^ et de Moubray'" et Monsieur Richard Lescrop," issint qe la dite assise passereit par assent, et puis passa j)ar assent, et issint le dit Monsieur William lui dona eel somme saunz ceo qil le prist en autre manere ou fuist encountre [en] eel assise. Et super hoc quesitum est a prefato Thoma de Musgraue si aliquod speciale factum assignare velit erga predictos Thomam Ughtred Johannem de Hothom Chiualer le fitz et Nicholaum de Hothom vel si ipse cepit inqui- sicionem super premissis debito modo prout supponitur, vel si ipsi indictati fuerunt coram se, vel si aliquid inuenit cum eis de quo suspicio mali habere- tur, qui se tenet responsioni sue supradicte. Et super hoc Henricus Domi- nus de Percy et Radulfus de Neuille ibi in consilio presentes qui assignati fuerunt per commissionem Domini Regis ad inquirendum super premissis et ahis examinati fuerunt, qui dicunt quod ipsi diligenter ceperunt inde in- quisiciones . . . de diuversis locis in quibus oportuit et necesse fuit et fecerunt [homines] qui depredati fuerunt . . . iandum inquisiciones de veritate. Item quod nichil inuenerunt erga predictos Thomam Ughtred [Johannem et N]icholaum de Hothom de feloniis iiredictis nee audierunt quod predicti Thomas Johannes et Nicholaus de illis f[eloniis indictati. .] . . . de aUis feloniis qui . . . fuerunt suspecti vel disracionati. Et quia videtur which it gave its name. (Surtees Society, oyer and terminer in a case of illegal hunt- xli, p. 65.) This William Acclom is prob- ing, &c., at Maltby by Brathewcll, Co. ably the William de Aclom who was to- York (Pal. Rolls, 36 Ed. Ill, p. 207). Two gether with Roger de Fulthorp, Thomas de years later he is styled '' rhivaler " {Pat. Maulay, and two others, appointed com- Rolls, 38 Ed. Ill, p. 503). On 12 May, missioner of oyer and terminer on a com- 1365, he received a commission of oyer and plaint of violence at Skelton, Co. York, 2 terminer, together with Henry Perry, John December, 1367 {Pat. Rolls, 41 Ed. Ill, Moubray, Simon Heselarton, Roger Ful- p. 69). As William de Aklome, he was thorp, and five others, in the case of a nominated on 20 December, 1368, a com- complaint by " Margaret, late the wife of missioner of array for Y'orkshire {Pat. Peter de Malo Lacu (de Manly) le quynt " Rolh, 42 Ed. Ill, 185). of violence at Doncaster {Pat. Rolh, 39 " This was Roger Clifford, ninth Lord Ed. Ill, p. 146). This lady was his sister Clifford, fifth Baron of Westmorland, born and had been left a widow in 1355 (G. E. in 1333. He was much employed upon the C. Compltte Peerage, v,2T3). But though Northern borders. His career will be he was appointed to many like commis- found sketched in the Did. Nat. Biog. sions in Yorkshire upon sul)sequent occa- There are indications in the Patent Rolls sions, I have found no evidence of any in that he was intimately associated with the the case mentionctl in the text. Musgraves (Pat. Rolh, 28 Ed. Ill, p. 89; " In his will (Testiimcnta Eboracensia, 1357, 31 Ed. Ill, p. 572). He was, on the Surtees Society 11836), p. 116) dated 8 10 February, 1362, with John Moubray, March, 13S1 2, he ajipears as " Petrus de Alexander Nevill, Roger Fulthorp and Malo Lacu, Sextus " that is, the sixth in two others, appointed a commissioner of order of the names. He devises his in- UC.HTRED AND OTHERS V. MUSGRAVE 59 proffered him a hundred shillings to be a favourable [friend and official in] the said assize, the which sum he then refused, and the said Master William suggested to him that in case of [his being unwilling] to receive [the said] sum, that the said master Thomas light red would be exceedingly disheart- ened by his not being willing to act reasonably as pertains to his office; and he answered him that he would duly execute his office; and afterwards the parties were at an accord by the mediation of the lords Percy, Neville, Clifford ^ and de Maulay *> and master Richard Scrope '' that the said assize should be ended by consent, and it then ended by consent, and so the said master William gave him that sum without that he took it in any other manner or was [opposed to him] in that assize. And thereupon the question was asked of the aforementioned Thomas Musgrave, if he desires to charge any particular act against the aforesaid Thomas Ughtred, John Hotham, knight, junior, and Nicholas Hotham, or if he himself held inquest of the premises in due maimer as is supposed, or if they were themselves indicted before him, or if he found aught upon them whence a suspicion of crime might be entertained. The sheriff abides by his answer above said. And thereupon Henrj' Lord Percy and Ralph Neville there present in the council, who had been assigned by commi.ssion of the lord the king to inquire as to the above and other matters, were examined, and they say that they have diligently held inquest in that be- half ... of diverse places in which it was right and needful and have caused the men who have been plundered . . . inquests touching tiic truth. Also that they have found nothing against the aforesaid Thomas Ughtred, [John and N]ichoIas Hotham touching the felonies aforesaid, nor have they heard that the aforesaid Thomas, John and Nicholas [have been indicted of those felonies] ... of other felonies which . . . they had been terest in the manors, &c. conveyed to him seated in the East Riding and North Lin- by Henry Lord de Percy, Roger de CHf- colnshire." The Hves of both father and ford, Sir John de Hothum and others in son are given in the Did. Nat. Biog. trust for his mother Margaret for hfe, &c. Richard was knighted at the battle of He succeeded his father at the age of 24 in Nevill's Cross in 1346; sat for Yorkshire 1355. He was himself a complainant in in 1364 and in 1378 became ch.incellor. 13C2 of violence done in his park of Boyn- The Patent Rolls shew that he was fre- ton of the Walde, Co. York {Pat. Rolls, 36 quently employed as a commissioner of Ed. Ill, p. 206), and again at other places over and terminer in Yorkshire; as in in Yorkshire in 1366 (Pat. 40 Ed. Ill, p. 1364 (38 Ed. Ill, pp. 69, 73; 1365, 39 Ed. 280). On the latter of these occasions the III, pp. 146, 151). His seat appears to have commission of oyer and terminer included been at Briggenale, York, where he corn- John Moubray, William Fvncheden, iilained of poaching in his park (8 July, Simon Heslarton and Roger Fulthorp, 1365, Po<. iioKs, 39 Ed. Ill, p. 200). It is with four others (ib.). In 1365 he was a to be noted that though he is in this docu- commissioner of array for the East Riding ment styled " monsieur," yet as " Richard (ib. p. 365). M. 3 here reads Moubray; Scrope, Knight," he was on 22 May, 1365 m. 4, Maulay. nominated a commissioner of oyer and " Sir Richard Scrope, or le Scrope; terminer in a case of violence at Colthorp third son of Sir Henry le Scrope, chief jus- and Bekerton, York (Pat. Rolls, 39 Ed. tice of the king's bench, whose father III, p. 147). He died in 1403. " came of an obscure family originally 60 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL consil[io . . . quod] predictus Thomas de Musgrave n[on a]llegauit aliquod factum speciale erga predictos Thomam Ughtred Johannem et Nicholaum nee ipsos cum aliqua re suspectos fore . . . ntes nee quod ipsi indictati fuerunt set sol[ummo]do quod communis clamor et scandalum super ipsos . . . er simile ex quo per aliquam inquisicionem in Com[itatu predicto corjam Justiciariis nee viceeomite hoc potuit . . . quod [nulla] arestacio in hoc easu per legem terre potest justificari [dictu]m est predicto Thome de Musgraue quod . . . [rece]dat a villa quousque dominus Rex inde dixerit volunta[tem suam]. Et dictum est partibus predictis quod ut ipsi . . . voluerint [sequi] predictum Thomam de Musgraue pro dampnis in hoc . . . quod sequantur in scaccario domini Regis [vel in] Curiis Regis ad talia deputatis si sibi viderint [expediens]. LO'R'ESTOFT t-. YARMOUTH ' A Petition of Lowestoft 1378 Cestes sent les instances queles les gentz de Lowestoft poures tenantz nostre seignur le Roy ^ mettunt qe les bailleys ' et burgeys de Jememuth ne deiuent auoir chartre de Fraunchises touchant les harynges en faire de KyrkelejTode.^ Item qe come en le temps le Roi Edward laiel nostre seignur le Roy qor est ^ en parlement estoit ordine par estatut * qe ehescun Uege du roiabue pourroit achater et vendre touz marchandises et vitailles sanz empesche- ment deinz Citees Burghes portes de meer et aillours, et si ehartres de Fraunchises usages ou patent fuissent grantez a contrarie serroient tenuz pur nulle et la suite quele les ditz Baillyes et Burgeys ore pursuiont dauoir une chartre a contrarie du dit estatut est noun resonable et eneountre le dit estatut. Item auant ces heures par bon deliberacion de touz les seignurs et communes en plein parlement lour chartre fuit repelle pur profit du Roy e communes de la terre come adonqes estoit monstre et proue en le dit parle- ment.' Item la ou par doun de dieu les niefs queles pregnont Harjmges se arriuent en Kj'rkclejTode joust la dite ville de Lowestoft et ce qest pris en la meer de reson et bon foy le Marchauntz et Mariners des ditz niefs deussent vendre arriuer lour marchaundises a lour volunte et en ce qe les ' Parliamenlary and Council Proceed- regis). See Cases in Star Chamber (Selden ings (Chancery), file 12, nos. 2, 3, 4, con- Soc. 1910), Ixxx-l.xxxiii; alsoB, n. 22, infra, sisting of A, petition of Lowestoft, n, a ' Yarmouth was governed by a provost later petition, c. Answers of Yarmouth, appointed by the king from the time of D, Replication. Henry I, till John, by charter of 18 March, • That is, in "ancient demesne" (terra 1208, granted it free election of its own LOWESTOFT V. YARMOUTH 60 suspected or arraigned. And since the council is of the opinion . . . [that] the aforesaid Thomas Musgrave has not alleged any particular act against the aforesaid Thomas Ughtred, Jolin and Nicholas, or that they have been suspected of anything . . . and since they have not been indicted, but only common cry and scandal [has been raised] against them, very likely since by an inquest in the [aforesaid] county before the justices or the sheriff this could not . . . that [no] arrest in this case can be justified by the law of the land, it is [forbidden] to the aforesaid Thomas Musgrave to [depart] from town until the lord the king shall have pronounced his will in that behalf. And the aforesaiti parties were told that as they wished [to sue] the afore- said Thomas Musgrave for losses in this . . . they should sue in the ex- chequer of the lord the king ... or in the king's court appointed for such causes, if they shall see [fit]. LOWESTOFT v. YARMOUTH ' A Petition of Lowestoft 1378 These are the arguments stated by the people of Lowestoft, poor ten- ants of our lord the king,^ [to prove] that the bailiffs ' and burgesses of Yarmouth ought not to have a charter of franchises touching the herrings in the fair of Kirkley Road.* Also that as in the time of the King Edward, the grandfather of our lord the king that now is,* it was ordained in parliament by statute ^ that every subject of the reahn should be able to buy and sell all merchandises and victuals without impeachment within cities, boroughs, seaports, and elsewhere, and if charters of franchises or usages or patents should have been granted to the contrary, they should be held for null, and the suit that the said bailifTs and burgesses are now bringing to have a charter contrary to the said statute is not reasonable and [is] against the said statute. Also before this time by good deUberation of all the lords and commons in full parliament their charter was repealed for profit of the king and com- mons of the land as was then shewn and proved in the said parliament.^ Also whereas by gift of God the ships which take herring put in at Kirkley Road near the said town of Lowestoft and that which has been taken at sea the merchants and mariners of the said ships in reason and good faith ought to sell [and] to land their merchandise at their will, and provosts; after which time it elected an- * See Introduction, p. Ixxxix. nually a provost and four baiUffs, some- ' Edward III, grandfather of Richard times also called provosts. H. Swinden, II. Hist, of Great Yarmouth (1772), pp. 48, • 25 Ed. Ill, St. 3, c. 2 (1351). 55. ' 1376. Rot. Pari., ii, 330. 61 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL ditz baillies et burgeys pursuont dauoir un chartre qe touz les niefs deussent venir a Jernemuthe encountre la volunte des Mariners [est] ce encontre reson et bon foy et encontre le commune profit. Item la ou en le temps le Roy Edward aiel nostre seignur le Roy qorest en plein parlement Ian de son regne xx^iij estoit ordine par estatut pur profit du Roi et conmiunes du roialme qe nulle maner du nief qe soit frette deuers Engleterre ou aillours soit arte deuenir a nulle porte Dengleterre ne demurer encontre le gree des Mestres et ^lariners dicelles ou des Mar- chauntz a queux les bien sont le quel estatut ' ne estoit unqes repelle et en ee qe les ditz baillyes et burgeys pursuont dauoir un chartre qe touz maners niefs chargez du marchaundises et de HarjTiges et queux entront en Kyr- keleyrode qest vj lewes ' hors de la dite ville du Jernemuthe les queles voillent vendre lour harj-nges illoeqes deussent venir au dite ville de Jerne- muthe la dite pursuite est a contrarie du dit estatut; priantz les ditz com- munes de Lowestoft qe nulle tiel chartre soit graunte encountre le dit estatut esteant le dit estatut en sa force. Item quant auant ces heures les ditz baillies et burgeys de Jernemuthe auoient un tiel chartre qe touz les niefs entrantz en KyrkelejTode chargez de marchandises et de harjTiges et les queles voillent lour harj-nges et mar- chandises iUoeqes vendre deussent venir a Jernemuthe encontre la volimte des maistres mariners gratmt damage et perde anient de ce pur ce qe quant le vent estoit en partie del este North Xortheste ou Xorthweste nulle maner du nief purroit entrer en la dite hauen de Jernemuthe, et par taunt qe les Maistres ne purroient vendre lour marchaundises a autres a lour volunte les haniTiges estoient peritz et gettez a la foith en la meer par les mariners a graunt perde des communes Dengleterre par quel meschef graunt cherete a este de harjiiges quant les ditz baillies et burgej-s auoient fraunchises.'" Item pur ce qe les mariners sont constrenez qils ne purroient en celles parties vendre lour har>-nges as autres qe a ceux de Jernemuthe et ce a lour volunte par cause de quel constreinement touz les mariners aliens amesnont lour harj'nges a lour parties demesne et issint graunt cherete de harj-nges est en celles parties a cause susdit. Item quant les harynges deueinont en singulers mains issint par con- streinement par colour de chartre du Roi les harynges sont le plus cheres a cause qe les ditz singulers persones vendent les harjnges a lour volunte. Item la ou diverses Pedelers et charreters des Countees de Cantebrigg, Oxenford, Huntj'ngdon, Bedeford, Bukj-ngham, Northampton, Ley[cester], Essex et Sussex soloient venir a les parties de NorfFolk et Suffolk a lour volunte sanz cohercion et illoeqes achater harj-ngcs pur vitailler les dites Countees, les ditz Countees ne sont ore pas vitaillez par les ditz pedelers et charreters a cause qe les ditz pedelers et charreters ne purront achater • 28 Ed. Ill, c. 13 (1354). true by the Inquisition which reported on • See Introduction, p. Ixxxix, n. 26 September, 1381. See Introduction, " These allegations were found to be p. xcii. LOWESTOFT V. YARMOUTH 61 in case that the said bailiffs and hurpessos sue to have a charter that ail the ships ought to come to Yarmouth against tlic wish of the mariners, and that against reason and good faitli and against the common profit. Also whereas in the lime of the King Edward grandfather of our lord the king that now is, in full parliament the twenty-eighth year of his reign, it was ordained by statute for profit of the king and commons of the realm that no manner of ship fraught towards England or elsewhere be compelled to come to any port of England nor to remain against the w'ill of the masters and mariners of such ships, or of the merchants whose the goods be, the which statute* was never repealed, and in case that the said bailiffs and burgesses sue to have a charter that all manner of ships charged with mer- chandises and herring and that enter into Kirkley Road, which is six leagues' from the said town of Yannouth, the which want to soli their herring there, that they must come to the said town of Yannouth, the said suit is contrary to the said statute. The said commons of Lowestoft [are] petitioners that no such charter be granted contrarj' to the said statute, being the said statute in force. Also as before this time the said bailiffs and burgesses of Yarmouth had such a charter that all the ships entering Kirkley Road charged with mer- chandise and herring that wished to sell their herring and merchandise there must come to Yannouth against the wish of the masters [and] mari- ners, great damage and loss had they from this, because when the wind was in the East, North, Northeast, or Northwest quarter no manner of ship could enter into the said haven of Yarmouth, and for so much as that the masters could not sell their merchandise to others at their will, the herrings were spoilt and thrown at times into the sea by the mariners to the great loss of the commons of England, by which mischief there has been great dearness of herring when the said bailiffs and burgesses had [the] fran- chises.'" Also because that the mariners are constrained so that they should not be able to sell their herring in those ports to othei-s than to those of Yar- mouth and that at their will, because of which constraint all the alien mariners take their herring to their own countries and thus there is great dearness of herring in those ports for [the] abovesaid cause. Also when the herring pass into private hands thus by constraint or pretext of the king's charter the herring are the dearer because the said private persons sell the herrings at their will. Also whereas divers pedlars and carters of the counties of Cambridge, Oxford, Huntington, Bedford, Buckingham, Northampton, Leicester, Essex, and Sussex were accustomed to come to the parts of Norfolk and Suffolk at their will without coercion, and there to buy herring to victual the said counties, the said counties are not now victualled by the said pedlars and carters for the reason that the said pedlars and carters will not be able to buy herrings save at the will of those of Yarmouth and for the 62 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL harjTiges forsqe a la volunte de ceux de Jememuthe, et a cause qe les ditz Pedelers et charreters ne purront venir au dite ville de Jememuthe pur ceo qe lour couient passer deux passages vers la dite ville de Jememuthe par grauntz risques et expenses." Item plese au Roy et seignurs qe nulle tiel chartre soit graunte as ditz BaiUj-es et Burgej's de Jememuthe a contrarie des ditz estatutz et en dam- age et decresse de touz les commimes par les causes auant nomez en eoure de charlte.'- B Petition of Lowestoft 1379 Haranges . . . Ces sont certeins causes par queux la chartre . . . par nostre Seignur le Roy graunte as baillifs et borgeys de Jememuthe deit estre repelle." Pur ceo qe en temps le Roy Edward aiel nostre seignur le Roy qore est en parlement estoit ordeine par estatut qe chescun liege de roialme purreit acatre et vendre touz marchandises et vitailles sanz enpechement deinz Cites Burghs ports du Meer et aillours et si chartres du fraunchises usages ou patents fussent grauntez au contrarie serront tenuz pur nulle. Et en cas qe les ditz baillifs et Burgej's [ount] ime chartre qe nulle achate entour lour dite ville par sept lieus est nounresonable esteant le dit estatut en sa force." Item la ou en temps mesme laiel en plein parlement Ian du son regne xx-A'iij"^ estoit ordeine par estatut pur profit du Roy et communes du roiahne qe nulle maner de Nief qe soit frette deuers engleterre ou aillours soit arte de venir a nulle port dengleterre ne demurer en centre le gree des mestres mariners dycelles ou des marchantz as quels les biens sont le quel estatut nestoit unqes repelle '^ et en cas qe les baiUies et burgeys ount une chartre qe touz maners niefs chargez des marchandises et haranges et queux entrent en Kirkelerode qest en le Counte de Suffolk et sys lieus de la dite ville de Jememuthe qest en le Counte de Norffolk queux voillent vendre les haranges illeoqes dussent venir a la dite ville de Jememuthe est nounresonable, e a contrarie de dit estatut esteant le dit estatut en sa force. " This apparently refers to the topog- God and in the way of Charite." (Select raphy of Yarmouth. " For as Italy is Cases in the Court of Req^iesls, Selden Soc, begirt on the one part with the .\ips, and 1S98, p. 5, &c : SeUct Ccises in the Star on the other three with the Seas, so is this Chamber, ib., 1902, p. 2, &c.) It indicated Town of Yarmouth with the main Conti- that the law provided no remedy, nent or firm land on the north part only, " The probable date of tliis document and with salt waters on the East, South, is the close of 1379. See Introduction, and West parts." Manship, Hixt. of Great pp. xciii-xcv. Yarmouth (1854), p. 9; cf. ibid., p. 51. The main differences between thisdocu- " A common form of petition to the ment and A, on which it is based, may council, a variant being " for the love of be seen by the following sjoioptical table: LOWESTOFT V, YARMOUTH 62 reason that the saitl petUars and carters will not be able to come to the said town of Yarmouth because they must make two passages towards the said town of Yarmouth at preat risks and costs." Also may it please the king and lords that no such charter be granted to the said Bailiffs and Burgesses of Yannouth contrary to the said statute and to the damage and decay of all the commons by the causes afore- named; as a work of charity.*^ B Petition of Lowestoft 1379 These are certain causes for which the charter granted by the king to the bailiffs and burgesses of Yannouth ought to be repealed/^ Because in time of the king Edward, grandfather of our lord the king that now is, it was ordained in parliament by statute that every liege of the realm should be able to buy and sell all merchandises and victuals with- out impeachment within cities, boroughs, seaports, and elsewhere, and if charters of franchises or usages should have been granted by patent to the contrary they should be held for null. And in case that the said bailiffs and burgesses [have] a charter that none buy around their town for seven leagues it is not reasonable, the said statute being in force. ^■* Also whereas in the time of the same grandfather in full parliament the twenty-eighth year of his reign it was ordained by statute for profit of the king and commons of the reahn that no manner of ships fraught towards England or elsewhere be compelled to come to any port of England nor to remain against the will of the masters [and] mariners of such ships, or of the merchants whose the goods be, the which statute was never repealed/^ and in case that the bailiffs and burgesses have a charter that all manner of ships charged with merchandises and herring and that enter into Kirkley Road which is in the county of Suffolk and six leagues from the said town of Yarmouth which is in the county of Norfolk that want to sell their herring there that they must come to the said town of Yarmouth [it] is unreasonable and contrary of the said statute being the said statute in force. Against Grant of Charter 1. Statutory freedom of trade, 9 Ed. Ill, c. 1, (1335). 2. Former revocation of charter. 3. Yarmouth seeks com- pulsory powersagainst incoming ships. 4. Statute against com- pulsion of ships to a specified port, 28 Ed. III. c. 13 (1354). 5. Difficulty of approach to Yarmouth. Conse- quent losses and dear- neae of fish. B For Revocation of Charter 1. Statutory freedom of trade, 9 Ed. Ill, c. 1 (1335). 2. Statute against com- pulsion of ships to a specified port, 28 E. Ill.c. 13 (1354). 3. 32 Ed. Ill (1357-8). Agreement for free- dom of trade during fair at Yarmouth. 4. Former revocation of Charter. 5. Compulsion to sell in Yarmouth unreason- able. 6. Difficulty of approach to Yarmouth. Conse- quent losses and deaf- ness of fish. A Alien mariners with their herrings driven away. Monopoly makes her- rings dearer. Pedlars and carters prevented victuaUing Eastern and Midland Counties, &c. 10. B Alien mariners with their herrings driven away. Monopoly makes her- rings dearer. Pedlars and carters prevented victuaUing Eastern and Midland Counties. Offer of Lowestoft for right to customs at Kirkley Road. Vexatious prosecu- tions of Lowestoft people at Yarmouth. " 9 Ed. Ill, c. 1 (1335). " 28 Ed. Ill, c. 13 (1354). 63 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Item par bone deliberacion des seignurs dengleterre en temps mesme laiel Ian de son regne xxxij'''' '* acorde fust parentre les gentz de Jernemuthe et les gentz de Cjnik ports" et les tenantz nostre seignur le Roj- de Lowys- toft a cause qe les ditz baillifs et burgeys de Jernemuthe pursueront dauoir eu une tiele chartre come ils ount a ore en lacord prist deuant le dit Roi et son conseil qen temps de feire touz gentz purront sanz enpechement achatre et vendre en touz les vessels qe vuillont en la dite Rode ancorer quel acord est de record en la chaimcellerie et exemplifie de?uz le seal le Roi quel acord est defait par la chartre a eux graunte esteant la dite chartre en sa force.'' Item auant ces [heures] par bone dehberacion de touz les seignurs et communes en plein parlement lour chartre fust repelle pur profit du Roy et communes de la terre come adonqe estoit monstre et proue en le dit parlement." Item la ou par doun de dieu les niefs quels preignent haranges se arrei- uent en Kirkelerode jouste la dite ville de Lowj'stoft et ceo qe fu pris en la meet de reson et de bone f oy les marchant z et mariners des ditz niefs dussent vendre et ariuer lour marchandise a lour volunte et en cas qe les ditz bailhfs et burgeys ount une chartre qe touz les niefs dussent venir a Jernemuthe encontre la volunte des mariners est encontre reson et bone foy et le com- mime profit. Item quant auant ces heures les ditz baillifs et burgeys de Jernemuthe auoient une tiele chartre qe touz les niefs entrant en Kirkelerode chargez des marchandises et de haranges quels veillcnt lour marchandises et haranges illeoqes vendre dussent venir a Jernemuthe encontre la volunte des mestres mariners et graund damage et perde vient de ceo pur ceo qe quant le vent estoit en partie del Est, North ou Northest ou Northwest nulle maner de nief purroit entrer en la dite hauene de Jernemuthe et par tant qe les maryners ne poerent vendre lour marchandises as autres a lour volunte les haranges estoient periz et gettez a la foith en la meer par les marj-ners a graund perde des communes dengleterre par quele mischief graunde chierte ad este des haranges et uncore serra si autre remedie ne soit ordeine a la cause susdite. Item pur ceo qe les maryners sount constreintz qils ne purront en celles parties vendre lour haranges as autres qe a ceux de Jernemuthe et ceo a lour volunte par cause de quele constreinement touz les maryners aliens amesnont lour haranges a lour parties demesne et issint grant chierte de haranges est en celles parties et uncore serra si autre remedie ne soit ordeine. " This was an order of the council " The Barons of the Cinque Ports ap- dated 10 July, 1357, known as the Ordi- pear to have exercised a jurisdiction at nance of Herring, printed in the Slalules Yarmouth from time immemorial con- of the Realm as 31 Ed. Ill, st. 2 (1357). firmed by King John, Edward I, .ind sub- Compare Patent Rolls, 574, G54; also 35 sequent sovereigns. Swinden, p. 172, &c. Ed. Ill, c. 1. LOWESTOFT V. YARMOUTH 63 Also by good deliberation of the lords of England in the time of the said grandfather the thirty-second year of his reign ""' it was agreed among the people of Yarmouth and the people of the Cintiue Ports " and the Lowes- toft tenants of our lord the king, because that the said bailiffs and burgesses of Yarmouth woukl sue to have had such a charter as they have now, whereas the agreement taken l)cfore the said king and his council that in time of fair all people shall be able without impeachment to buy and sell in all the vessels that wish to anchor in the said Road, which agreement is of record in the Chancerj' and exemplified under the king's seal, which agreement is defeated by the charter granted to them, being the said charter in its force.'* Also before this time bj' good deliberation of all the lords and commons in full parliament their charter was repealed for profit of the king and com- mons of the land as was then shewn and proved in the said parliament." Also whereas by gift of God the ships which take herring put in at Kirkley Road near the said town of Lowestoft and that which has been taken at sea the merchants and mariners of the said ships in reason and good faith ought to sell and to land their merchandise at their will, and in case that the said bailiffs and burgesses have a charter that all the ships ought to come to Yannouth against the wish of the mariners it is against' reason and good faith and the common profit. Also as before this time the said bailiffs and burgesses of Yarmouth had such a charter that all the ships entering Kirkley Road charged with mer- chandise and herring that wished to sell their merchandise and herring there must come to Yarmouth against the wish of the masters [and] mari- ners and great damage and loss come from this because that when the wind was in the East, North or Northeast or Northwest quarter no manner of ship could enter in the said haven of Yarmouth and thereby that the mariners could not sell their merchandise to others at their will, the herring were spoilt and thrown at times into the sea by the mariners to the great loss of the commons of England, by which mischief there has been great dearness of herring and yet shall be if other remedy be not ordained for the cause aforesaid. Also because that the mariners are constrained so that they shall not be able to sell their herring in those parts to others than to those of Yar- mouth and that at their will, because of which constraint all the aUen mariners take their herring to their own countries and thus there is great dearness of herring in these parts and ever shall be if other remedy be not ordained. " This was the charter granted during John of Gaunt's provisional order of the the session of the parUament at Gloucester previous .\pril. See Introduction. in October, 1378, substantially confirming " A reference to the revocation of 1376. See Introduction, p. xci. 64 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Item quant les haranges deuenent en singulars meins issint par con- streinement par colour de chartre le Roj' les haranges sount les plus chiers a causes qe les ditz singulers persones vendount les haranges a lour volunte. Item la ou diverses pedelers et charieters de Countees de Suffolk Cante- brig' Oxon' Hunt' Bedeford, Buk' Northt' Lej-cestre et Essex soleient venir a les parties de Suffolk et Norfolk a lour volunte sanz cohercion et illeoqs achater haranges pur vitailler les ditz Countees les ditz Countees ne sount pas ore vitaillez par les ditz pedelers et charietters a cause qe les ditz pedelers et charietters ne purront achatre haranges forsqe a la volunte de ceux de Jernemuthe et a cause qe les ditz pedelers et charietters ne purront venir a dite ville de Jernemuthe pur ceo qe lour couient passer deux passages vers la dite ville de Jernemuthe par grant costages et expenses. Item nostre seignur le Roy ad grante as ditz baillifs et burgej's sa custume en la dite Rode et annexe al hauene de Jernemuthe mesme la Rode et ceo pur sent souldz a lui paier par an a cause de quele doun ^ cer- teins gentz de Jernemuthe meintenent illeoqs un barge oue quatre vinctz gentz desdeinz armez a feer de guerre issint qe nulle vessel illeoqs ose arriuer pur quel custume auoir les tenantz nostre seignur le Roi de Lowystoft et issint qe touz gentz purroient illoqes achatre et vendre dor- roient au Roi par an xx li.^' Item certeins gentz de Jernemuthe pursuent les tenantz nostre dit seignur le Roi de Lowestoft ^- en duierses courts le Roy ^' pur chose qe dust estre fait en la dite Rode le quel si en ascune Countee isoit est en le Counte de Suffolk, et par colour de dite chartre trient par gentz de Norfolk et eux condempnent en graunds sommes cestasauer ascuns en xl li. et ascuns en xl marcs les queux ils ne purront porter lequel est encontre la ley de la terre qe gentz dim Counte deyuent trier chose fait en autre Counte ^* issint qe les ditz tenantz le Roy illoeqes par tiels fauxetes soimt destruitz et en apres serront et les communes du roialme graundement enpoueriz a causes susditz si la dite chartre ne soit repelle. C Answer of Yarmouth 1380 Responce ex parte Jernemuth'. Ceux sont les responces a certcynes articles comprises dejms une bille pursuy par certeynz gentz a defaire et repellcr la chartre de Jernemuthe queux articles ou les responces ensuont en la forme qe ensuit. " i.e. grant. This was on 22 Aug. 1393, Lowestoft came to an agreement 46 Ed. Ill (1372). The charter is printed with Yarmouth to farm the dues taken at at length in Swinden, History of Yarmouth, Kirkley Road, for which it paid £23 per pp. 379-81. annum, raised to £26 in the year following. " This was a bribe of £15 to the crown, Swinden, p. 643; Gillingwater, p. 134. Yarmouth only paying £5 for the annexa- " Lowestoft, in Domesday Lothu W'is- tion of Kirkley Road. That it was a toft in the manor of Gorlestun, 7'(Tr(i fte?t> reasonable offer may be inferred from the (A. Snelling, HiM. Suffolk (1846-48), ii, fact that some thirteen years later, in 59). " Terra Regis " marks ancient de- LOWESTOFT V. YARMOUTH 64 Also when tlic herring pass into private hands thus by constraint or pretext of the king's charter the herrings are the dearer because the said private persons sell the herrings at their will. Also whereas divers pedlars and carters of the counties of Suffolk, Cambridge, Oxford, Huntingdon, Bcilfortl, Buckingliani, Northampton, Leicester, and Essex were accustomed to come to the parts of Suffolk and Norfolk at their will without coercion and there to buy herring to victual the said counties, the said counties are not now victualled by the said ped- lars and carters, for the reason that the said pedlars and carters will not be able to come to the said town of Yarmouth because they must make two passages towards the said town of Yarmouth at great costs and charges. Also our lord the king has granted to the said bailiffs and burgesses his customs duty in the said Road and has annexed the same Road to the haven of Yarmouth and that for a hundred shillings to be yearly paid to him, because of which gift •'*' certain folk of Yarmouth keep there a barge manned with four score armed men to make war so that no vessel is able to put in there, to have which custom the Lowestoft tenants of our lord the king (and so that all people should be able to buy and sell there) would give £20 yearly to the king.^^ Also certain people of Yannouth bring action against the Lowestoft tenants of our said lord the king ^^ in divers of the king's courts ^' for what ought to be done in the said Road the which if it be in any county is in the count}^ of Suffolk, and upon pretext of the said charter they try (them) by Norfolk people and condemn them in great sums, to wit, some in £40 and some in 40 marks, which they will not be able to bear. This against the law of the land that people of one county should try anything done in an- other county," so that the said tenants of the king there by such falsities are well-nigh destroyed and the commons of the realm greatly im- poverished for the reasons abovesaid if the .said charters be not lepealed. C Answer of Yarmouth 1380 These are the answers to certain articles comprised in a bill promoted by certain persons to set aside and repeal the charter of Yannouth, which articles with the answers follow in the following fonn : mesne. (See E. Coke, 4 Inst., pp. 269- Charlas of 28 Ed. I, the sheriff or bailiff 270.) Hence, the men of Lowestoft were shall put on a jury for trying an issue be- the king's tenants. tween king and subject, or between party " Legal proceedings had been carried on and party, " lc(s) plus procheins " (E. at intervals since 1373. See an indictment Coke, ^ /ns/. 5G0, 561). Hence, the Hun- of that year by Yarmouth against Lowes- drcdors who in the time of Ed. Ill regu- toft men in Swinden, p. 615. larly numbered six (Blackstone, Covim. " This was probably good law. Glan- iii, c. 23) which implies Hundredors of ville, it is true, says (xiii, 6), "Ab initio one county. In the time of Fortescue, eligendi sunt duodecim liberi ct legates this number had fallen to four {De Lavd- homines de visineto,"''writing of the jury ihxis,c. xxv). Under Elizabeth, it was de- of possessory assizes. In the Arliculi super termined by all the judges that the juror 65 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Responcio ad primum articulum qui incipit: pur ceo qe en temps le Roy E. aiel nostre seignur le Roy qore est en parlement estoit ordeigne par estatut qe checon lige de Realme porreyt achatere et vendre etc.-^ La dite chartre nest past grante a contrarie del dit estatut a cause qe touz gentz si bien alienes come de>Tise>Ties par la dite chartre sont frankes de vendre et achatre haranges et touz autres Marchandizes a grant Jerne- muthe durant la feire illeoqes sanz destorbance de nulh%** et si nul singuler persone eit rienz mespris encountrc lestatut en la chartre suisdite soit [ame]sne en responce et punyz solonk la quantite de son trespas et outre ceo il nyad feire ne niarche dejms les ditz vij leukes par grant nostre seignur le Roy par title de prescripcion neu autre manere en taunt qe si les ventes et achates fuissent suffertz deinz les ditz vii leukes de haranges ou des autres marchandises ceo serroit sanz garrant et en destruccion de la dite feire qe ne doit estre suffert par estatut ne par nulle ley con- siderez les grantz charges qe la ville de grant Jernemuthe emporte deuers nostre seignur le Roy pur la feire suisdite " et qe la dite ville ne poet estre suistenuz si la dite feire soit par tiels ventes et achates destroitz. Responcio ad secundum articulum cjui incipit: Item la ou en temps mesme laj'el en plein parlement Ian de son regne xxviij etc.'' Lestatut fait en le dit an xx^•iij en partie ad perdu sa force qe par le- statut fait de puisne temps est ordeigne qe nul harange soit vendu en le meer nen Kirkelerode tanqe les niefs seient venuz al ville de Jernemuthe et les cordes des niefs tretz sur la terre illeoqes le quele estatut estiet-' unqore en sa force nient repellc et les pessoners sont a lour tranche volunte daler ou lour haranges ou lour plest sauue qe ils ne vendront poynt deynz les ditz vij leukes a cause come desuis est premis. Responcio ad tertium articulum qui incipit: Item par bone delibera- cion de seignours Dengleterre en temps mesme laiel Ian de son regne xxxij acorde fuit parentre les gentz de Jernemuthe les gentz de v. portz et les tenantz nostre seignour le Roy de Lowestoft.** Le dit acord est anientiz et repelle a cause qe il est trouue nonresonable come piert par diuers enquerres et examinemcntz fait dcuant mon seignour le Counte de Suffolk et autres sages Justices assignes par comission nostre seignour le Roj^ des quels enquerres et examinementz par force de la dite " must have freehold in that county where there." (Rot. Pari, iii, 49.) Of. also the the cause of action ariseth, and though he Stafuteof Herrinps, 31 Ed. Ill, st. 2 (13.57). hath in another, it sufficeth not." (/ In.^t. The fair lasted from Michaelma.« (29 Sep- 157 a.) The suggestion here is that the tember) to St. Martin's day (11 Novem- cause of action arose in Suffolk. ber), during which time Yarmouth was " 9 Ed. Ill, c. 1. the resort of a " great store of sea-faringe " A provi.so was inserted in the charter men, as also of grcatc numbers of the of 1378, " that all manner of people, as fishermen of Fraunce, Flaundors, and of well denizens as strangers, may freely sell Holland, Zealande, and all the low coun- and buy herring within the said town, dur- tryes." Palmer, p. 67. ing their fair, without any impeachment " A hundred shillings yearly (in ad- whatsoever, and as freely as the denizens dition to the fee farm of £55 fixed by LOWESTOFT V. YARMOUTH 65 Answer to the first article wliieli hegins: " Beeiiuse in time of the king Edward, grandfather of our lord the king that now is, it was ordained in parliament by statute that every liege of the realm should be able to buy and sell, etc." ^* The said charter has not been granted contrary to the said statute, be- cause all persons as well aliens as denizens are by the said charter free to sell and buy herring and all other merchandise at Great Yannouth during the fair there without disturbance of any,^^ and if any private person has in any way offended against the statute in the charter abovesaid he may be brought to answer and pimished according to the amount of his trespass, and besides this there is neither fair nor market within the said seven leagues by grant of our lord the king by title of prescription nor otherwise insomuch that if sales and purchases had been suffered within the said seven leagues of herrings or of other merchandises it would be without warrant and to the ruin of the said fair, which ought not to be suffered by statute nor by anj' law considering the great charges that the town of Great Yarmouth bears towards our lord the king for the fair abovesaid,^' and that the said town can not be maintained if the said fair be by such sales antl purchases ruined. Answer to the second article which begins: "Also whereas in time of the same grandfather in full parliament the twenty-eighth year of his reign, etc." ^^ The statute made in the said twenty-eighth j'ear has in part lost its force [because] that by the statute made at a later time it is ordained that no herring be sold at sea nor in Kirklej' Road until the ships be come to the town of Yarmouth and the ships' ropes drawn on to the land there, the which statute is ^' yet in force unrepealed and the fishennen are at their free will to go with their herring where they please, save that they shall not sell anj'thing within the said seven leagues for the reason premised as above. Answer to the third article which begins: " Also by good deliberation of the lords of England in the time of the same grandfather the thirtj^- second year of his reign it was agreed among the people of Yannouth, the people of the Cinque Ports, and the Lowestoft tenants of our lord the king." "> The said agreement is annulled and repealed because found unreason- able, as appears by divers inquiries and examinations made before my lord the Earl of Suffolk and other wise justices appointed by commission of our lord the king, of which inquiries and examinations by force of the said King John) by the charter of 22 August, bought or sold in the Sea, till the Fishers 46 Ed. Ill (1372). See Swinden, p. 379, be come with their Herring, and that the n. cargo of the ship be drawn to the land," " See n. 15, supra. where the translator in the Statutes of the " This refers to the Statute of Herrings Realm incorrectly renders " corde " by of 1357, three years later, of which the " cable." 31 Ed. Ill, st. 2. first clause was: " That no Herring be " See n. 16, supra. 66 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL coniission pleyn relacion est fait par mon dit seignour et les autres sages suisditz en lour darreyn parlement tenuz a Gloueestre. Responcio ad quartum articulmn qui incipit: Item auant ces heures par bone deliberacion de touz les seigneurs et communes en plej-n parle- ment pur profit du Roj' et communes de la terre lour chartre etc. La dite chartre fuit repelle '' sanz responce et demurra repelle tanqe la relacion fuit faite en parlement a Gloucestere come desuis est dit par quele relacion et plusours autres euidentes causes monstres en le dit parle- ment de Gloueestre par assent de mesme le parlement pur honour et profit de nostre seignour le Roy et del realme une nouele chartre fuit grante'^ al dite ville de Jernemuthe dauoir et enjoj'er touz lour franchises si auant come ils aueient auant le dit repel. Responcio ad quintum articulum qui incipit: Item la ou par don de dieu les niefs qe preignent haranges en Kii-kelerode etc. Les pessoners sont frankes de passer oue lour haranges ou lour plest come desuis est dit sauue qils ne vendront pas lour haranges en la dite rode a cause suisdite qe ceo est aperte forstalrie '' et souent foith deuant ces houres plusurs gentz pur tielz forstalries en la dite rode unt este endites et unt fait lour fine par eel cause a nostre seignour le [Roy] come piert par recorde en lescheker.^^ Responcio ad sextum articulmn qui incipit : Item qant auant ces houres les ditz baillifs et burgeys auient tiele chartre qe touz les niefs entrant en Kyrkelerode etc. Les pessoners poent vendre lour haranges a lour volunte come desuis est dit et en temps de pescherie '^ touz les niefs apellez fissheres poent bien entrer d[einz le] p[ort] de Jernemuthe en quele partie qe le vent soit sil ne soit par cause de grant tempeste et qe adonqes hom ad use de tout temps damener le haranges deinz le dit port par certej-ns vessels appelez lyghteres '* et illeoqes vendre en la dite feire sanz nul harang jeter en le meer come les gentz de Jernemuthe serrount prestz a prouer en pleyn parlement. " In 1376 by an order in Council. See suffered to dwell in any town, which is an Gillingwater, p. 128, n. and Introduction, open oppressor of Poor People, and of all p. xciii, supra. the Commonalty, and an Enemy of the " 24 November, 1378. whole Shire and Country, which for Greed- " This is perhaps taken from the Ordi- iness of his private Gain doth prevent nance of Herrings, of 1357, which enacts others in buying Grain, Fish, Herring, or "que . . . nul autre qui que ceo soit, any other Thing to be sold coming by Land venant a la dite feyre, naille par mier ne or Water, oppressing the Poor and deceiv- par terre de forstaller le harang en prive ing the Rich, which carrieth away such nen aperte," &c. The legislature was very Things, intending to sell them more dear; severe upon forestallers, whose offence is the which come to Merchants Strangers set out in the thirteenth-century S^aluiiim that bring merchandize, offering to buy, de Pisloribus, &c., printed in Statutes of and informing them that their Goods the Realm, I, 202, as follows: " But espe- might be dearer sold than they intended cially be it commanded on the Behalf of to sell, and a whole Town or a Country is our lord the King, that no Forestaller be deceived by such Craft and Subtilty," &c. LOWESTOFT V. YARMOUTH 66 commission full report has been made by my said lord and the other wise [justices] aforesaid in their last parliament held at Gloucester. Answer to the fourth article which begins: " Also before this time by good deliberation of all the lords and commons in full parliament for profit of the king and commons of the land their charter, etc." The said charter was revoked " without reply and remained revoked until the report was made in parliament at Gloucester as above said. By this report and sundry other evident reasons shewn ui the said parliament of Gloucester by assent of the same parliament for the honour and profit of our lord the king and of the realm a new charter was granted '^ to the said town of Yarmouth to have and enjoy all their franchises as well as they had [them] before the said repeal. Answer to the fifth article which begins: " Also whereas by gift of God the ships which take herrings in Kirkley Road, etc." The fishermen are free to pass with their herrings where they please as has been said above save that they shall not sell their herrings in the said road for the cause above said that it is open forestalling '' and oftentimes before this sundry persons for such forestallings in the said road have been indicted and have made their fine for this cause to our lord the [king] as appears by record in the Exchequer.'^ Answer to the sixth article which begins: " Also as before this time the said bailiffs and burgesses had such a charter that all the ships entering Kirkley Road, etc." The fishermen can sell their herring at their will as is abovesaid and in the fishing season '^ all the ships called fishers can certainly enter into the port of Yarmouth in whatever quarter the wind may be unless it be not [possible] because of a great storm and that then one has at all times used to bring the herring within the said port by certain vessels called lighters " and there to sell them in the said fair without throwing any herring into the sea as the people of Yarmouth will be ready to prove in full parliament . For the punishment see next note. The They return to their former haunts alsout operations of forestallers in the Yarmouth the commencement of December. Palmer, herring trade are set out in detail in the p. 308. " The mackerel fisherj- is another ordinance of herrings of 20 February, great source of employment and profit. 35 Ed. Ill (1361), printed in the Statutes It commences on the tenth of May, and of the Realtn, i, 369. ends on the tenth of July." Ibid. p. 312. " If convicted on indictment, the whole '' The inquisition held at Weybrede, value was forfeited to the king: if at suit Suffolk, dated 29 July, 1372, which pre- of the party grieved, half to the prosecutor ceded the charter of 26 .Vugust, following, and half to the king. The buyer was hable returned that " the entry to the harbour to a fine of the amount paid l)y him, and has been so dried up of late that no laden in default two years' imprisonment. 25 ship can enter there in the harbour afore- Ed. Ill, St. 3, c. 3 (1351). said unless it first be unladen in the afore- " Herrings appear at the Norfolk coast said place called Kirkelee-Rode," &c. the last week of September, for the purpose (Swinden, p. 378). Hence the need of of spawning, and are then in the best con- lighters, dition to become the food of man. . . . 67 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Responcio ad septimum articulum qui incipit: Item pur ceo qe les manmers sont constreyntz qe ils ne puent en celle partie vendre lour haranges etc. Les manTiers sont a lour volunte come desuis est premys et de tout temps unt use daler cue lour haranges en lour parties demesne qant le vent lour sert; sanz ceo qe les ditz mariners sont constreyntz come desuis est dit, come les gentz de Jememuthe serront prestz a prouer en ceste presents parlement. Responcio ad octauum articulum qui incipit: Item qant les harangges deueignent en singulers meyns etc. Le harang nest pas vendu par constreynement qar la feire de Jememuthe est frank come desuis est dit, et si nul singuler persone eit " mespris en prejudice de la dite feire seit puny pur son trespas come desuis est dit. Responcio ad nouimi articulum qui incipit: Item la ou diuers Pedlers et chariotterz des Countes de Suffolk, Cauntebrig, Oxon, Hunt', Bedeford, Buk', Northamt', Leicestre et Essex etc. Touz les Countes Dengleterre forpris le Counte de Suffolk poent avoir bone et esee passage ou chiua[ux] [et] charettes al ville de Jememuthe sanz passage de ewe et ill[oeqes ach]atre haranges a mesme . . . qe en la dite rode ou aillours sanz estre mis a tiels outrageouses costages et dispences. [Responcio] ad decimum articulum qui incipit : Item nostre seignour le Roy ad graunte [as] ditz Baillifs et Burg[eys sa custume] en la dite rode et annexe al dit hauene etc. Le haranges venduz en la dite rode en temps de pes[cherie] ... les vessels hors des quels . . . haranges est venduz sont forfctahles a nostre seignur le Roy '* des queux forfetures les baillifs de Jer[nemuthe] deuont respondre come pleignement appiert par la dite chartre '' et par celle cause unt ils un[e bajrge . . . xx oue xxx persones et alafoith plusurs et a la foith meyns tus gentz bien conus et de bon [fame] et ne mie a fcer de guerre de eeisir les dites forfetures al oeps nostre seignur le Roy sanz ri[en] . . . en- countre la pees et de graunter une feire en Kirklerode pur xx li. par aan serroit gr[and] damage et distres a nostre seignur le Iloj' et tout le realme qar ceo serroit en distruccion de la dite v[ille de] Jememuthe quele ville ad fait plusurs honours ct profitz as nobles progenitours nostre [seignur le Roy] et al dit realme come bien est conus par plusurs seignours Dengleterre et de la quele vi[lle] . . . le Roy prit *" annuelment a fea " MS. "eu" or "en," I emend "eit," or buy any herrings or other wares, on " en " giving no .sen.se. account of merchandising, Imt only at the " The charter of 1:J78 "granted and con- town of Great Yarmouth or in the haven finned to the burges.se8, &c. . . . the lib- of the same, upon forfeiture of the ships erties and privileges to them by our grand- and boats so to be hided or unladed, and father formerly so given and granted" the herrings and other merchandises, which (See iSwinden, p. 020.) This restored the shall so happen to be laded, or unladed, or charter of 46 Ed. Ill (20 August, 1372), from that time to be put to sale in such which forbade " to hold any fair, or to sell fairs, or elsewhere by way of merchandiz- LOWESTOFT V. YARMOUTH 07 Answer to the seventh article which begins: " Also because that the mariners are constrained so that they are not able to sell their herrings in that part, etc." The mariners are at their own will as is premised above anil at all times have used to go with their herrings into their own parts where the wind serves them. Without that the said mariners are constrained as is above said, as the people of Yamiouth will be able to prove in this present parlia- ment. Answer to the eighth article which begins: " Also when the herrings pass into private hands, etc." Herring is not sold by constraint, for the fair of Yarmouth is free as abovesaid, and if any iirivate person should have misdone to the prejudice of the said fair he may be punished for his trespass as is abovesaid. Answer to the ninth article which begins: " Also whereas divers pedlars and carters of the Counties of Suffolk, Cambridge, Oxford, Huntingdon, Bedford, Buckingham, Northampton, Leicester, and Essex, etc." All the counties of England except the County of Suffolk can have good easy passage with horses [and] carts to the town of Yarmouth without ferry of them and there buj' herring at the same ... as in the said road or elsewhere without being put to such excessive costs and expenses. [Answer] to the tenth article which begins: " Also our lord the king has granted to the said bailiffs and burgesses his customs-duty in the said Road and has annexed to the said haven, etc." The herrings sold in the said road in fishing time . . . the vessels out- side of these . . . herrings is sold are forfeitable to our lord the king," for which forfeitures the bailiffs of Yarmouth nmst answer as plainly appeareth by the said charter ^^ and for this reason they have a barge . . . twenty or thirty persons and sometimes more and sometimes less, all well known men and of good [fame] and not to make war [but] to seize the said for- feitures to the use of our lord the king without anything [doing] against the peace. And to grant a fair in Kirkley Road for twenty pounds yearly would be a great loss and damage to our lord the king and the whole realm, for this would be to the ruin of the said town of Yarmouth, which town has done many honourable and profitable [services] to the noble pro- genitors of our (lord the king] and to the said realm as is well known by many lords of England. And of this town . . . the king takes yearly for ing, oontrarj' to the said prohil)ition, to be shall inquire from time to time, and take applied to the ii.ses of us and our heirs." them into the hand of us, and cause them Ibid. ;J81. to l)e .safely kept for our use, and answer " The charter continues: "Of whioh to us and our heirs thereupon into the forfeitures aforesaid we will, and have Kxehequer . . . every year at the terms granted for us and our heirs, that the of St. Michael and Easter."' Ibid, bailiffs . . . for the time being may and '" Probably for " print," " takes." 68 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL femie x li." et a checun xv. leue deinz le realme *- . . . plusurs autres profitz. Responcio ad undecimum articulum qui incipit: Item cert[ems gentz] de Jernemuthe pursuont les tenauntz nostre seignur le Roy de Lowistoft en diuers court . . .■" La chartre nest mie repellable par cause de ceste article mes si nul singuler persone eit tres[passe] " encontre le dit article seit mesne en responce et puny pur son trespas sil soit troue .... Plese a nostre seignour le Roj- et as nobles seignours de parlement de sauoir et entend[re] . . . de la graunt chierte de haranges qe ad este ore en ceste aan et unqore est qe la fei[re] y de Skardeburgh *^ et de Whiteby *^ faillist come bien est conuz as gentz de celles parties ... les costes parentre 1 . . . Jernemuthe il[s] naueint nul harang pris en ceste a[an] . . . qe il nauoit nul harang de acompter . . . non a Jernemuthe et ille[oqes] " . . . pas penduz la qarte partie de harang . . . penduz illeoqes ^* de . . . et nient mejTis mil last ^' de harang en le darrejTi pescherie fuit venduz a ... en ceste aan entre L\ mar[iners ?], issjTit qe de resun de bon . . . la dite ch[ie]rte . . . arette par cause de la dite chartre de Jernemuthe. [Endorsed:] F Parlement tenuz a Westminster le . . . Sainct Hiller Ian nostre seignur le Roj' *".... D Replication' of Lowestoft Harang [Secunda]'' replicacio facta ex parte communitatis Sufif' ad respon- sionem .... Le primer respounce qils cunt done nest pas respounce pur mej-ntener lour chartre encountre lestatut car couient qe tels . . . sont frankez de " This is incorrect, and should be LV. gests that Yarmouth only paid fift«enths. There is some sign that the clerk was un- The Rev. W. Hudson has printed in Nor- certain, a space being left which would folk Archaeologj-, XII, 243 (1895), " The allow for the V; but the MS. is much de- Assessment of the Townships of the faced. County of Norfolk for the King's Tenths " By the assessment of 1334, which long and Fifteenths, as settled in 1334." The remained a fixed composition for fifteenths indenture which prefaces the list describes and tenths, the tenth was levied on cities, it as a " Tenth from the Cities, Boroughs, boroughs, and lands of ancient demesne, and Demesnes of the king, and a Fifteenth and the fifteenth on the counties gen- from the Commonalty of the County." erally {Rot. Pari, ii, 447). The higher Here Yarmouth's is the highest assess- scale of taxation on the former class was ment, viz. £100. Norwich, which ranks doubtless to balance their special privi- next, is assessed at £94 12/. It has been leges. Here, a fifteenth is presumablj- an seen in the Introduction (p. xc, supra) abbreviated form of " a Fifteenth and that Yarmouth in 1378 professed to have Tenth." In 1377 two fifteenths and tenths been injured by the revocation of its were granted by Parliament {2nd Report charter. .■Vt later periods it frequently of the Deputy Keeper. Append, ii, p. 135). procured total exemption, e.g. in 31 The indecipherable condition of the Hen. VI; 4 and 8 Ed. IV; 3, 5, 7, and 12 MS. at this point is peculiarly unfortunate Hen. VII; 3, 5, 7, 26, 32, and 37 Hen. because, bo far as it can be read, it sug- VIII. Qu. \Miethcr in the collection of LOWESTOFT V. YARMOUTH 68 fee farm ten ■" pounds and at every fifteenth raised within the reahn "... many other profits. Answer to the eleventh article which l)egins: "Also certain persons of Yarmouth sue the Lowestoft tenants of our lord the king in divers court[s] "".... The charter is not subject to repeal by reason of this article, but if any private person have tres[passed] " against the said article he may be brought to answer and punished for his trespass if he be found .... May it please our lord the king and the noble lords of parliament to know and take heed to ... of the great dcarncss of herring that has now been in this year is because the fair of Scarborough •'^ and of Whitby " failed as is well known to the people of those parts . . . the coasts between . . . Yaniiouth they have taken no herring this year ... for there were no herring to account of . . . not at Yarmouth and there "... not hung the fourth part of herring . . . hung there ^* . . . and moreover a thou- sand last " of herring in the recent fishery was sold . . . this j^ear among nine mariners, so that because of good . . . the said dearness . . . stopped by reason of the said charter of Yarmouth. [Endorsed:] Parliament held at Westminster the . . . Saint Hilary the year of our lord the king ^ . . . . D Replication of Lowestoft Herring Replication made on behalf of the commonalty of Suffolk to the an- swer .... The first answer that they have given is not an answer to justify the maintenance of their charter contrary to the statute, for it is agreed that the subsidy voted in 1377, it was, by way are passed through their heads or gills . . . of p.irtial exemption, rated for two fif- and they are then hung up in tiers to the teenths only ? top of the building, which is usually forty " See n. 24, supra. " Conjectural. or fifty feet high ... the first tier being *' On the fourteenth-century borough about seven feet from the ground. Fires seal " Scardeburg." The fair of Scar- from oak billet are then kindled under borough was granted by Henry 111 in 1253 them and are continued day and night, and was from 15 August to 29 September, with slight intermissions to allow the fat J. B. Baker, Hist, of Scarborough (1882), and oil to drop, until the fish are suf- p. 315. ficiently cured, which, if they be intended «« The fair of Whitby was held on the for the foreign market, is at the end of 25th August, the Feast of the Translation fourteen days, but if for home consiimp- of St. Hilda. " Conjectural. tion, three or four days will suffice, whilst " " .\rrived at the fish-office . . . the for immediate eating twenty-four hours fish, after being sufficiently salted, remain will be enough." Palmer, p. 309. on a floor for twenty-four hours, if in- " " The Hundred of Herring shall be tended to be slightly cured, or for ten accounted by six Score, and the Last by days if intended for the foreign market; ten Thousand." Ordinance of Herrings, they are then washed in large vats filled 1357. iS(a(-s. of Realm i, 354. with fresh water; spits about four feet '" See Introduction, p. xciv, supra, long and of the thickness of a man's thumb " Struck through. 69 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL vendre et achatre haranges et autre marchandises a graunt Jernemuthe duraunt le feire uncore par mesine la chartre ils sont . . . poient vendre nachatre en la Rode de Kirkle nen Lowystoft ne par aillours deins sept lieux entour le [diet ?] Jernemuthe et issint en celle degre expres[sement] encontre le dit estatut qe voet etc. et toute le remenant compris en lour responce nest mj'e . . . Le seeonde respounee nest pas respounce pour assouder le meschief de la [chartre] car couient qe gentz ne sont pas artez de . . . er a Jernemuthe ... ils sont defende . . . [ve]ndre et achatre deinz sept lieux entour Jernemuthe. Et par tant si nief ou autre vessel arrive al Rode de Kirkele cjuele est deins sept lieux il faut daler a Jernemuthe ou outrement ils ne poient estre venduz. Et partant les vitailles serront piz quele serroit trop graunt damage et meschief a toute le commune et quele ne serroit mye suffert par estatut ne par chartre pour nulle singuler profit. Le tirce respounce ils ne ount pas plejTiement respondu car ils nount pas allegge qe ceux qi feuront par[ties] al dit acord feuront mesnez en responce par processe de lej^ et par tant la chartre grantez encontre lacord le quele est de record et encontre la ley come desuis est dit par force denquerres ou de office *- as queux no les parties nauoient lour respounce il semble qil est repelable. Quant a la quart respounce lour primere chartre fuit repelle soUempne- ment par bone dehberacion de touz les seignours et communes en pleyn parlement '^ come desus est dit, et le nouelle chartre ne fuit mye grante par si grant auys ne deliberacion ^* quele est repellable e de droit doit estre repelez si auant come lautre fuit par la reson desuis monstre. Quant a le quint article lour respounce nest pas respounce ne reson come il semble qe ce qest pris en la meer et arriuez sur la terre scrroy restreint destre venduz par ascunes singulers persones encontre commune profit, eins quant il est arriue sur les costes il serroit commune a touz pour le lour do- nant a ceux qi ount pris; et a ce qest allegge qe il serroit apcrt forstallerie, nest pas issint, eins serroit commune profit, et si ascune tiele forstallerie fuisse il serroit chastize et puny par le conunune ley de la terre pour son smguler fait et nemye par tant toute le commune profit destourbe, mes en tant qils sont restreintz de vendre et achatre lour vitailles aillours qen Jernenmthe ce est mescheifous et damageous a toute le puple car ils de Jernemuthe mettent pris et chier a lour volunte." Quant a le sisme article ils nount pas responduz de verite, qar la ou ils ount allege qe les pessoners pount vendre lour haranges a lour [volunte] lour chartre est a contrarie come desus est dit qe voet qils ne vendront mj-e deins " " Office doth signifle an Inquisition " It would appear that the charter was made to the king's use of any thing by revoked in 1376 by order in council, which Virtue of his Office who enquireth." was " with the a.ssont of the prelates, earls, (Cowel, hiUrjtT.) The argument appears barons, nobles, and other great men," and to Ik; that there had been an arbitrary there is no such statute enrolled among misuse of prerogative. the Statutes of the Healm. There was, LOWESTOFT V. YARMOUTH 69 such within are free to sell and buy herrings and other merchandise at Great Yannouth duruig the fair, yet by the same charter they are . . . can [not] sell nor buy in the lioad of Kirklcj' nor Lowestoft, nor elsewhere within seven leagues round the said Yannouth and so in that degree expressly contrary to the said statute which wills, etc. and all the rest contained in their answer is not . . . The second answer is not an answer to abate the mischief of the [charter], for it is agreed that people arc not compelled to . . . at Yarmouth . . . are forbidden ... to sell and buy within seven leagues round Yannouth, and thereby if a ship or other vessel arrive at the Road of Kirkley which is within seven leagues it must go to Yannouth, or otherwise they cannot be sold, and thereby the victuals will be worse, which would be too great damage and mischief to all the commonaltj' and which should never be suffered by statute nor bj- charter for any private profit. The third answer they have not fully answered, for they have not al- leged that those who were parties to the said agreement were brought to answer by process of law and thereby the charter [was] granted contrary to the agreement, the which is of record and contrarj' to the law as is above said bj' force of inquiries or of office " to which . . . the parties did not have their answer it seems that it should be revoked. As to the fourth answer, their first charter was revoked in solemn form bj^ good deliberation of all the lords and commons in full parhament *' as is abovesaid, and the new charter was never granted by so great advice nor deliberation '"* [so] that it is revocable [and] by right ought to be revoked just as before the other was for the reason shewn above. As to the fifth article their answer is not an answer nor a reason, as it seems that that which is taken at sea and landed ashore should be re- strained from being sold bj' any private persons against the common profit until that it is landed upon the beach [but] it should be common to all for their own good, the takers being paid; and as to the allegation that it would be open forestalling, it is not so, but it would be common profit, and if there were any such forestalling, it would be chastised and punished by the common law of the land for that particular act and the common profit as a whole not thereby interfered with; but so far as they are restrained from selling and buj'ing their victuals elsewhere than in Yarmouth, this is mischievous and damnifies the whole people, for they of Yarmouth' fi.x the price and make it clear at their will." As to the sixth article, they have not replied truthfully, for whereas they have alleged that the fishermen are able to sell their herring at their [will] . . . their charter is to the contrary, as is above said, which wills therefore, substance in the Yarmouth con- roj'al commissioners, was contrary to the tention. See Gillingwater, p. 128, n. feeling of the house of commons: see In- " There is truth in this, if it be the case troduction, p. xc, supra, that the concession of the charter in 1378, " See n. 33, supra, though agreeable to the report of the 70 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL les septz lieux etc. ; et a ce qest allegge qe les niefs p[urroient venir] deins le port de Jcrnemuthe en quele part qe la vente soit ce ne poet estre fait en grant tempeste come ils diont mesmes, ne estre amesnez par tiels vesselx appelez lithers nient le plus sanz grant et outrageous perile; et couient qils purroient estre amesnez par tiels vesseulx ce serroit a tresgrandes . . . damages et trauailles des mariners et marchantz et autres commxmes et grant destourbance as pessoners. Quant a le septisme article les manirers [sic] sont a lour volonte daler a lour volonte ou lour haranges etc. . . . le plejTite . . . le plejTite est qe les marjTiers sont constreintz qils ne poent vendre lour haranges as autres qe a ceux de Jeme[muthe] . . . qils soient a lour voluntee daler etc. en quele lieu quant le vent lour sert etc. ce ne prove pas qils ne sont pas con- streintz ... ils v[ign]ent en celle partie ils sont constreintz come purra estre prove pour lour responce mesme e confession. Quant a le ocptisme article ils noimt riens allegge pour assoudre le meschief . . . qar la ou le haranges . . . manche en la dite Rode ceux de Jernemuthe les preignont maugre lour ... a lour volunte .... [Quant a le neufisme article] . . . Jernemuthe . . . parties de Suf- folk dioms qils nount riens allegge pour assoudre le meschief pour . . . est . . . plusours . . . de Suffolk come pour autres conummes de la [realjme, nous prions par tant qils soient . . . autres communes . . . cmitees la ou il[s] dient qe pedlers et autres \-itaillers purroient vener a Jernemuthe a la achat t re . . . heus et . . . nuUe desese ... la dions nous qe lour vener illeoqes est a grant costage et deseese ouesqe ce ils achattent . . . qils ne dussent en les mejTis ditz mariners a grant meschief du pais parmye toute envyron et ce sont les da[mages] . . . par quel . . . Roy et son conseil. Quant a la disme article la ou il diont qe haranges venduz en le dite Rode et les vesseLx hors des queux le . . . [haranges] . . . [est] venduz sont forfeta[bles] il semble qe ce serroit euidement encontre le dit estatut qe voet qe chescun Uege du roiabne serroit frank de v[endre] "... assigner expressement cause de forfaiture, et issint tanke lour fait ou les gentz armez pour . . . manere de droiture, et par tant lour chartre grante au contrarie repellable. Et a ce qils dient outre de granter une feire a 1 . . . serroit damageous et grevous a Jernemuthe; la diont ils qils demandent nulle feire eins demandent qils . . . vendre et achatre . . . ordene qe chescun liege du roiaume purra solonc la forme et le . . . auxint nous demandoms la custume de la Rode qe . . . unqes appurtenont a le dite villfe de Jerne- muthe deuant lour nouelle chartre qe fuit fait Ian del aiel qarant et sisme; " pour quele custume auoir nous donerons . . . vint liures par an '* qe serroit grant encres a nostre seignour le Roy et a grant amendement a toute le roialme. " 9 Ed. Ill, c. 1 (1335). dated 22 Aug. 46 Ed. Ill (1372). See " This refers to the annexation of Introduction, p. Ixxxix, supra. Kirkley Road to Yarmouth by the charter •• See n. 21, Bupra. LO"WESTOFT V. YARMOUTH 70 them never to sell within the seven leagues, etc.; and as to the allegation that the ships could come into the port of Yarmouth in whatever quarter the wind may be, that cannot be done in a great storm, as they themselves say, nor can they be brought by such vessels as are called lighters any the more without great and excessive peril, and it is agreed that [if] they could be brought by such vessels, it would be with very great losses and toils on the part of the mariners and merchants and other commons and great disturbance to the fishermen. As to the seventh article the mariners are free to go at their will with their herrhigs, etc. . . the complaint, the complaint is that the mariners are constrained so that thej' cannot sell their herrings to others than to those of Yarmouth . . . that they are free to go, etc., in which place when the wind serves them, etc. This does not prove that they are not con- strained . . . [when] they come into that part they are constrained as will be proved by their own answer and confession. As to the eighth article they have alleged nothing to abate the mischief ... for whereas the herrings . . . channel in the said Road those of Yarmouth take them despite their ... at their will .... As to the ninth article . . . Yarmouth . . . parts of Suffolk we say that they have alleged nothing to abate the mischief for . . . is . . . many of Suffolk as for other commons of the realm, we pray therefore that they may be . . . other commons . . . counties whereas they saj' that pedlars and other victuallers could come to Yannouth to buy it . . . places and ... no inconvenience ... we say that for them to come there is at great cost and inconvenience except that they buy . . . that they ought not in the hands of the said mariners to the great harm of the country with the whole neighbourhood and these are the losses ... by which . . . king and his council. As to the tenth article whereas they say that herrings sold in the said Road and the vessels out of which the . . . [herrings] . . . [is] sold are forfeitable, it seems that this would be evidently contrary to the said statute which wills that every hege of the realm should be free to sell ^^ . . . to assign expressly a cause of forfeiture, and thus until their act with the armed men for . . . manner of right, and thereby their charter granted on contrarj' temis [is] revocable. And as to their statement that besides granting a fair to . . . would be dangerous and burdensome to Yarmouth, they say that they ask no fair but ask that they . . . sell and buy . . . ordains that every hegeman of the realm shall be able according to the form and the . . . also we ask the custom of the Road that . . . ever belonging to the said town of Yarmouth before their new charter which was made in the forty-sixth year of the grandfather [of the king]; ^' to have which custom we will give . . . twenty pounds yearly ** which would be a great augmentation to our lord the king and to the great improvement of the whole realm. 71 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Quant a le unzinie article la ou il dient qe une singuler persone en trespas fuit mesne en respounce . . . et encontre commune ley de terre ... en Suffolk scrroit mie pour gentz de Norffolk en le dite Countee ^' . . . com- mune ley repeUable, par quey . . . toutes cestes matieres pour lour conis- sance demesne . . . soit repelle come ley et reson . . . et ent tresgrant oeure de charite p[our] les communes .... CONFESSIONS OF WILLIAM CHAMBERLAIN AND JOHN MARTIN* A 1383 Ricardus, Dei gracia Rex Anglie et Francie et Dominus Hibernie, vice- comiti Essex, salutem. Cum per inquisicionem per Johannem Clerk ^ de . Ewell, nuper escaetorem nostrum in comitatu predicto, de mandato nostro captam et in cancellariam nostram retornatam sit compertum quod Henri- cus de la Xewelonde tenuit die quo obiit in dominico suo ut de feodo ma- nerium de Newelonde ' cum pertinenciis in parochia de Writle * in comitatu predicto, et quod manerium predictum ten[etur] de nobis in capite ut de Honore Bolonie per seruicium unius feodi militis, et quod predictus Henri- cus obiit quinto die Mali anno regni nostri tercio, quodque Ricardus, filius ejusdem Henrici est heres ejus propinquior et infra etatem; jamque Willelmus de Clopton,^ miles, nobis supplicauerit ut cum idem Henricus diu ante mortem suam per cartam suam predictum Willelmum et Willel- mum Chamberleyn ^ de Wambergge,' capellanum, de manerio predicto, per nomen manerii de Newelonde juxta Writle cmn pertinenciis, habendum sibi et heredibus suis imperpetuum foffasset, qui quidem Willelmus Cham- berleyn postea per scriptum suum totum jus et clameum que habuit seu habere potuit in eodem manerio predicto WiUehno de Clopton remisit relaxauit et imperpetuum quietum clamauit, ac idem Willelmus de Clopton pretextu feoffamenti et quieteclamancie predictorum in pacifica possessions et seisina ejusdem manerii fuisset quousque tarn colore inquisicionis pre- dicte quam litterarum nostrarum patencium per quas manerium predictum cum pertinenciis Willelmo de Wauton,* militi, sub certa forma habcnilum nuper commisimus ammotus fuisset minus juste absque hoc quod predictus Henricus aliquem statum habuit in eodem manerio predicto die quo obiit " See n. 24, supra. by this Henry her son, who held it by the ' Parliamentary and Council Proceed- ser\'ice of one knight's fief. Upon his ings (Chancery), file 47, no. 17; 3 mem- death, which occurred 5 May, 1380, he branes, A the king's WTit, B and C memo- left one third of it to .Xgncs his wife, and randa of proceedings in Chancery. two thirds to his son Richard. Cat. Inq., ' Escheator of Essex, Hertford, and Sur- p. m., iii, 80; and V. Morant, Hist, and rey,1380-85. Co/. Pa/. 3 Richard II, 330, -), file 10, no. 3. in Suffolk 3J miles north of Haverhill. ' Mayor, 1377-78, 1383-84; knighted, " ^^'hether any punishment was meted 1381; a memljer of the king's council, out to Clopton, the principal offender, does 1386; hanged at Tyburn, 1388. A strong not appear. At all events he was soon in partisan of Richard II. See Did. Nat. good legal standing, for in 1385 he was one Biog. and Introd., p. xcvii, supra, of the commissioners to hear an appeal ' " An Inspeximus " or " Letters- from the court of chivalry. Cat. Pat. Rolls, Patent " so-called ... is the same with 696. Exemplification which begins thus: " Rex TAYLORS V. BREMBRE 74 king one John Martin of Little Thrillowe," in the presence of the chancellor, the king's chief justice," Master Richard Abberbury, the masters in chan- cerj-, and many others of the king's council; and having been sworn by his oath upon the holy gospels to tell the truth, he confessed how he drew up a charter of enfeoffment in fee simple on the part of Henry Newland about a fortnight, he thought, before his death (granting) to Master William Clopton the manor of Newland in the county of Essex, for himself and his heirs to hold forever; moreover, the said John Martin at the same time drew up in behalf of the said Sir William a letter of attorney naming John Pahner (with power) to take seisin in the name of the said Sir William Clopton; and on the same day the said Sir William Clopton brought to court a charter and a letter of attornej^ in regard to the aforesaid matter, declaring that the said John Martin drew them with his own hands; but the said John having looked at the said charter and letter repudiated and denied them entirely, declaring that he had never seen them before.^* TAYLORS V. BREMBRE' 1386 Also the said suppliants complain against Nicholas Brembre ^ that with the others his accomplices he took upon himself royal authority in that whereas a charter was granted by the progenitor of our lord the king to the mister}' of the Taylors of London as by the copy of the same the charter fully makes mention, the which copy follows: " Edward by the grace of God king of England and France and lord of Ireland to all to whom the present letters shall come Greeting. We have inspected ^ the letters patent which we lately under the seal then used by us in England caused to be made in these words: ' Edward by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland, and duke of Aquitaine to all to whom the present letters shall come Greeting. We have been supplicated by the Taylors and Linen Armourers * of our city of London through a petition exliibited before us and our council * in our present parliament ^ that whereas they and their predecessors belongmg to the same misteries in the City aforesaid have always hitherto since time immemorial been accustomed once in the year to have and to hold their gild within the same City and in the same gild to make rules for their misteries and to order the condition of their servants belonging to the same misteries and to correct and amend the shortcomings of the same for the common weal as well of the men of the sapie City as of omnibus, etc., Inspeximus," etc. Cowel, 1300 granted the gild license to adopt the Interpreter, s. v. name of " Taylors and Linen Armourers * Linen-armourers. " All which did of the fraternity of St. John the Baptist " not fall within the Smith's province came (ib. p. 1). This license is not preserved to the Linen Armourers." (J. Hewitt, in the Patent Rolls. Antient Armour; C. M. Clode, Mevioriah ' For this form see Lombards w. Mercers, of the Merchant Taylor's Company [1875], p. 44, n. p. 2, n. 3.) According to Stow, Edward I in ' See Introd., p. xcviii, supra. 10 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL fluencium consueuissent et jam per aliquod tempus omnes illi qui de mes- teris illis se esse dixerint tam extranei quam alii shopas in Ciuitate predicta pro eorura voluntate ceperint et mesteris illis usi fuerint per hujus- modi extraneos irregulatos et de eorum defectibus non correctos dampna quamplurima pluribus tam de Ciuitate ilia quam aliis pluries euenerint in scandaluni proborum hominum de eisdem mesteris \'elimus Gildam pre- dictam approbare et earn hominibus de mesteris predictis in dicta Ciuitate cormnorantibus confimiare sibi et successoribus suis imperpetuum obti- nendam Xos eorimi supplicacioni in hac. parte annuentes predictam Gildam tenore presencium acceptamus et approbamus. Volentes et concedentes pro nobis et heredibus nostris quod homines de mesteris predictis in Ciui- tate predicta et successores sui Gildam suam semel in anno prout anti- quit us fieri consueuit habere et tenere ' et in ea mesteras suas ordinare et regulare et defectus seruientum suorum predictormn per vismn Majoris Ciuitatis predicte ^ qui pro tempore fuerit vel alicujus quem loco suo ad hoc deputauerit et per probiores et magis sufficientes homines de mesteris illis corrigere et emendare possint prout ad majorem utilitatem Com- mimitatis populi nostri viderint faciendum. Et quod nuUus infra liber- tatem Ciuitatis predicte mensam vel shopam de mesteris illis teneat nisi sit de libertate Ciuitatis Ulius Xec aliquis ad libertatem illam pro mesteris illis admittatur nisi per probos et legales homines de eisdem mesteris testi- ficetur quod bonus fidelis et ydoneus sit pro eisdem. In cujus rei testi- monium has hteras nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste me ipso apud Westmonasterium x die Marcii anno regni nostro primo.' Xos autem tenorem Uterarum nostrarum predictarmn sub sigillo quo nunc utimur in AngUa'" du.ximus exemplificandum." In cujus rei testimonium has literas nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste me ipso apud Langle '- vj die Februarii anno regni nostri Anglie quinto decimo '' regni vero nostri Francie secundo." La quele chartre le dit Sieur Xichol Brembre prist hors del possession du dit mestier encontre la corone nostre seignur le Roy et ' The license of Edward I (n. 4, supra) use from 8 Februarj-, 1340 to 20 June, authorized them to choose their Masters 1340, and the second from 21 June, 1340 and Workers on the midsummer day to 1374. This statement does not seem yearly. Clode, p. 2. altogether consistent with the evidence. ' Presumably this was Brembre's war- The announcement of the change of style, rant for interference. An example is with notice to the sheriffs to publish and given by Clode of the date of 1371, in exhibit impressions of the new seal, is which the mayor and aldermen sanction dated 21 February, 14 Ed. Ill, and is to regulative ordinances submitted to them be found printed in Rot. Part, ii, 450, cf. by the company. lb. p. 513. Close Rolls, 14 Ed. Ill, pt. 1, p. 457. " A • 1327. Clode WTongly dates this newly made great seal which he (the king) charter 132t). lb. pp. 2, 189. had brought to England from across the "• According to the Catalogue of Pho- sea " was delivere 1393 ? A trespuissant et tresgracious seignour, nostre seignour le Roy, et soun conseille en cest present parlement - suppliont humblement Robert de Werkesworth et Margaret sa femme qe come Percyuall Pensax,^ Wilham son fitz, Robert Rynell et Robert Sherman ouesqe grant compaignie des plusours autres ses fautours et communes maufesours viendrent oue force et armes al meson du ditz Robert et Margaret a Ulskelf * en le counte Deuerwj-k le Maresdy prochein deuant le fest de lasccnsion ' de nostre Seignour darrein passe et illoeqes dispoillerent les ditz Robert et Margaret " The earl was a descendant of Edward andage was reported but little was done I through his grandmother, Margaret to afford roHef (e. g. Rot. Pari, iii, 308). Bohun, and was constantly recognized by The jircsent petition is not on the Rolls the king as his kinsman. See Geneal. of Parliament and was in all probability Table, Dugdale i, 635. left to be treated by the council after- " This incident is to be connected with wards, the proceedings in King's Council, p. 495. ' It may have been with reference to See Introd., p. ciii. this case, or it may have been another, ' Ancient Petitions, nos. 1254 and that a conmiission was issued on 26 10,645, duplicates. August, 1393, for the arrest and imprison- • If the inferred date is correct, the ment of I'crcival I'ensax and his sons parliament here alluded to met 20 Janu- Thomas, William, and Robert {Cul. Pal. ary and ended 10 February. Much brig- Rolls, 17 Ric. II, 356). This is the only WERKES WORTH V. PENSAX 81 wlio liiul sworn in tlie said inquest, suggesting that thcj' had perjured, he acivnowledged that he spoke to some of them declaring that it weighed heavily ujion him that they had perjured, not with the intent of reproach- ing thcin, and for this also he placed himself in the king's grace; and as to his having threatened the said William Estumiy who had the king's commission to take the said Robert Yco as had been alleged against the said earl of Devonshire, he answered saying that he had no knowledge of the said William having such a commission, but he did say that he would like to break his head, and for this also he placed himself in the king's grace. Whereupon it was adjudged by our lord the king and his said council that the said earl of Devonshire should be committed to prison, there to remain until he paid to our lord the king fine and ransom at the pleasure of our said lord the king. Immediately thereafter all the afore- said lords, spiritual as well as temporal, prayed our lord the king to do grace to the said earl of Devonshire, having regard for the fact that he was of roj'al blood and one of his uncles,''^ and that it was the first time any such complaint had been made to our lord the king against the said earl of Devonshire. Our lord the king at the aforesaid request extended to the earl grace and pardon in his behalf on condition that he should aid and sustain according to his power the laws of our said lord the king and the execution thereof as well as his ministers in guarding the laws and making execution thereof, so that if any default on his part should be found in time to come contrary to this (understanding), our said lord the king would take cognisance of the trespasses and the execution aforesaid, as (though thej' were) trespasses and malfeasances coumiitted and per- petrated by him anew.''* W^RKESWORTH v. PENSAX • 1393 ? '^^ ^^'^ ^'^^' powerful and very gracious lord, our lord the king, and his council in this present parliament ^ humbly petition Robert of Werkes- worth and Margaret his wife that, whereas Percival Pensax,' William his son, Robert RjticII and Robert Sherman with great company of many other abettors of his and common malfeasors came with force and arms to the house of the said Robert and Margaret at Ulskelf * in the county of York on Wednesday before Ascension Day * last, and there despoiled the said Robert and Margaret of their said house, and took and destroyed all clue to the date of the petition. This [1915], 87). His son Roliert Pensax was Percival was a younger son of Richard pardoned of a murder in 1391 {Cal. Pat. Pensax who in 35 Edw. Ill left the manor Rolls, 14 Ric. II, 356). The manor of of Skcghy in Sherwood Forest to his elder Skcgby was inherited by William and son ^^■illiam, of wtiom it was later pur- afterwards acquired by Thomas (Cal. Pat. chased together with a messuage and 10 Hen. IV, 442). twenty acres in Ashcfield by Percival * or I'lleskclf, a township and village (Thoroton, Xollinghamshire, ii, 301). Per- on the Wharf in West Riding one mile cival also had interests in Horvngton, southeast of Kirkby Wharf. Yorkshire (Feet of Fines, Yorks. Arch. Soc. » 14 May, 1393 (?). 82 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL de lour dite meson, et toutz lours biens et chateux dedeinz trouez pristrent et destruerent, et les arbres deinz lour jardein [cjresceauntz abaterent et degasterent, et eux de lour dite meson et toutz lour autres terres et tene- mentz illoeqes torteuousement et encoimtre la ley ousteient, issint qe les ditz Robert et Margaret nosent approchier a lour dite meson ne poursuier la commune ley pour doute de lour mort, et auxi le dit Percyuall ne voet venir a response pour nulle brief du Roi qils pourront pourchacer enuers luy, a grant damage et anj'entisment des ditz Robert et Margaret, queux tortz et greuances sont trouez par enquestes pris en pais de la pluis suf- ficeantz gentz touchant la matire suisdite, et retournez en la Chauncellarie et enuoiez en bank le Roy, qe plese a vostre hautesce denuoier pour le dit Percj'uall et les autres meffesours suisditz de venir a response, et de ordeiner qe les ditz Robert et Margaret purront reauoir et rejoier lour dite meson, terrez et tenementz, oue ses chateux, pour Dieu et en oeure de charite. [Endorsed: — ] Purceo qe Percj'uall Pensax et William son fitz dedeinz escriptz sont enditez deuant le viscont Deuerwyk des articles deinz escriptz, come piert par le dite enditeraent retorne en la Chancellarie et enouie en bank le Roy, et auxint purceo qe tesmoigne est qe le dit Percjniall est com- mxme mefJesour et meyntenour en paiis, par consideracion qe les suppliantz ne purront pour pouert auoir recouerer par la commune ley, acco[rd]e est et assentuz qe brief soit enuoiez al \Tscont Deuerwyk de prendre et arestier lez ditz Percyuall et William et les autres meffesours dedeinz nomez ou ils purront estre trouez deinz sa bailie, dedeinz franchise ou de hors,^ et de les amesner deuant le conseil nostre seignour le Roi pour y respondre as ditz suppliantz des tortz et damages especifiez en cest peticion, et affaire outre et receuire ceo qe par le dit conseiUe serra agarde celle partie sur peyne de C H. et qe auxint brief soit mande au dit Percyuall et les autres sur lour ligeance de y venir et respondre, faire et receuire en la fournie auantdit.' TENANTS OF WINKFIELD v. THE ABBEY OF ABINGDON • \ Le roy voet qe soun consel ordayn.* 1394 A nostre tresredoute et tresgracious seignur le Roy. Supplient treshumblement voz poueres tenantz de Wjnikfeld ' en le countee de Berk' regardantz * a vostre chastiel de Wyndesore qe come ' Liberties were more or less completely concede anything that might infringe upon immune to the \vrits of common law. In these liberties {Rot. Pari, iii, 308). Royal the same parhament there was complaint writs did not run in the palatinates but that homicides and robberies were being the non omitlas could be served on the committed in the western counties, and bailiff of a liberty in a county, then the malfeasors would escape into one ' Apparently these writs failed, and so or another of the Welsh marches, where they were followed by the aforesaid com- thcy were under the sole jurisdiction of mission of arrest of 26 August, the lord of the place. The commons ' Chancery Miscellaneous Inquisilions, desired that some process might be de- file 254; 3 membranes, A the petition, B vised whereby the fugitives might be the inquisition, C the statement of griev- reachcd, but the king was unwilhng to ances. TENANTS OF WINKFIELD V. ABBEY OF ABINGDON 82 their goods ami chattels found therein, and out down and wasted the trees growing in tiieir garden, and wrongfully and illegally ousted thcni from their said house and all their other lands and tenements there, so that the said Robert and Margaret do not dare to approach their said house or to pursue the common law for fear of their lives; moreover since the said Percival will not come to answer any writ of the king that they can pur- chase against him, to the great damage and ruin of the said Robert and Margaret; which wrongs and grievances have been found by inquisition taken of the most sufficient persons in the county regarding the aforesaid matter and returned to the chancery and sent to the king's bench; may it please your highness to send for the said Percival and the other malfeasors mentioned above to come to answer, and to ordain that the said Robert and Margaret can again have and enjoy their said house, lands and tene- ments; for God and in way of charity. [Endorsed: — ] Inasnmch as Percival Pensax and William his son herein described have been indicted before the sheriff of York of the articles herein written, as appears by the said indictment returned in the chancery and sent to the king's bench, and also because it is testified that the said Perci- val is a common malfeasor and maintainer in the county, in consideration of the fact that the suppliants because of (their) poverty cannot have re- covery bj' the common law, it is accorded and agreed that writ should be sent to the sheriff of York to take and arrest the said Percival and William and the other malfeasors herein named wherever they can be found within his bailiwick, (whether) within franchise or without,* and to bring them before the council of our lord the king there to answer the said suppliants for the wrongs and damages specified in this petition, further to do and receive what shall be awarded by the said council in this affair, under penalty of £100. ; and that writ should also be sent to the said Percival and the others upon their allegiance to come and answer, to do and receive after the form above given.' TENANTS OF WINKFIELD v. THE ABBEY OF ABINGDON > The king wishes his council to ordain.' 1394 To our very redoubtable and very gracious loril the king. Very humbly beseech your poor tenants of Winkfield ' in the count}' of Berks regardant * to your castle of Windsor that, whereas divers fees, cus- * Written in an irregular unclerkly Monas. de Abingdon (Rolls Ser.], i, 114, hand. At the bottom of the petition there 429); it is set down in Domesday Book is a roughly drawn signature that I can- as a tenement of the abbey (Domesday, not interpret. i, 59; Victoria Hist, i, 340). As recently ' The manor of Winkfield, Wingfield, as 25 Feb. 1393, there had been obtained or Wenesfelle, in the hundred of Riples- a certificate to this effect at the exchequer mere, lay 3 miles southwest of Windsor, (Cal. Pat. 231). But the title was ques- and extended into the forest of Windsor. tionable. See Introd., p. ciii. The abbey of Abingdon claimed it by * Some time ago Professor Vinogradofif ancient grants of the crown (Chron. wiped away a tradition of long standing 83 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL diuerses fees, custumes et sendees sont subtrahis et oustez del abbe de Abbj-ngdon ' par exitacion et couj-n Johan Benfeld * et William Staffer- ton, et autres malfesours qe plusours extorcions, tortz, greuances et oppressions ent este faitz a voz ditz poueres tenantz en destruccion del eux et desheriteson de lour heires pour toutz jours et [en prejudice] de vostre corone et vostre fraunchise illoeqes, si ne remede ent soit fait par auys de vostre tressage conseill, plese a vostre treshaut et tresroial mageste de commander vostre Chaunceller et ordiner par auj's de vostre tressage counseill qe hastive remede et redresse sibien touchant les greuances, torz, extorceons issint faitz a voz ditz tenantz come pour la saluacion de vostre droit seignure, qe droit et reson soit fait, sicome la commune ley demande pour Dieux et en oeure de charitee. B Inquisicio capta apud Wyndesore die Martis proxima post festum sancti Petri quod dicitur aduincula ' anno regni Regis nunc decimo septimo coram Gilberto Burton et Thoma Wyssjiiame per commissionem domini Regis cmn aliis assignatis prout predicta commissio plenius contestatur ad inquirendum de diuersis feodis consuetudinibus seruiciis a domino Rege subtractis et concellatis in villa de Hurst ^ et Wj-nkfeld in comitatu Berk', necnon bonis diuersis utlagatorum in eodem comitatu ab ipso domino Rege subtractis et concelatis per sacramentum Nicholai Ajdward, Johannis Cranemore, Johannis Kilbj-, Johannis Corbet, Johannis HauerjTig, Johannis Kj-ngeston, Johannis SpjTik, Thome at Lee, Johannis Benet junioris, Willelmi Rede, Johannis Placy et Thome Herpecote, qui dicunt per sacra- mentum sumn quod omnes tenentes de Wynkfeld tenerent omnia terras et tenementa sua in villa predicta de domino Rege in capite et sic sunt liberi tenentes domini Regis, set de Hurst nichil sciimt dicere. Informacio pro Rege qualiter tenentes de Wynkfeld tenent et de quo. In primis dicti tenentes tenent de Rege ut de capite reddendo vice- comiti Berk' nomine Regis annuatim in festo sancti Martini unum denarium vocatum Herthpenny' smnma xxxd. per annum. Iteni dicti tenentes reddunt per aimum vicecomiti supradicto le hidage'" that there existed a class of villems re- the custody of the park and warren of garc/an< in distinction from villeins in ^os.s-. Benhall in Suffolk {Cal. Pat. RoUa, 251), There were no such classes. It is only and was made in 1396 ranger of the Forest when there is a legal reason for connecting of Sapley and Wabridge in Huntingdon villeins with a given manor, in this case {Cal. Pal. 691). He may have held some Windsor, that they are spoken of as re- such office at Windsor. In the following gardani (Vinogradoff, Villainage in Eng- statement of grievances he appears to land [1S92I, pp. 40 f.). In other words the have lieen acting together with Stafferton villeins claim that they belong to Windsor as agent of the abbot of Abingdon. He Castle and so are tenants of royal demesne. was finally murdered in the highway of ' A Benedictine monastery in Berk- Winkfield (Cal. Pat. 4 Hen. IV, 225). ehire. Dugdale, Monas. i, 505. ' 5 August, 1394. • or Benefeld, formerly a servant of 'A single manor, lately formed by Michael de la Pole, was granted in 1386 joining the two manors of Hurst and TENANTS OF WINKFIELD V. ABBEY OF ABINGDON 83 toms, and services are withdrawn and removed of the abbey of Abingdon * by excitation and covin of John Benfeld ' and William Stafferton and other malfeasors, who have committed many extortions, wrongs, grievances, and oppressions there against your said poor tenants to their destruction and the disinheritance of their heirs forever and [in prejudice] of your crown and your franchise there, unless remedy therefor be afforded by advice of j'our verj' sage council; may it please your verj' high and verj- royal majesty to command your chancellor and to ordain by advice of your very wise council speed}' remedy and redress, as well touchuig the grievances, wrongs, ex- tortions thus done to your said tenants as for the salvation of your seign- eurial right, that right and reason maj' be done, as the common law demands, for God and in the way of charity. B Inquisition taken at Windsor on Wednesday following the feast of St. Peter arf nncula,'' in the seventeenth year of the present king, before Gil- bert Burton and Thomas Wissenanie by commission of the lord the king with others assigned, as the aforesaid commission more fully attests, to inquire of diverse fees, customs, sers'ices withdrawn and concealed from the lord the king in the manors of Hurst * ami Winkfield in the county of Berks, and also divers goods of outlaws in the same county withdrawn and concealed from the same lord the king, by oath of Nicholas Aylward, John Cranmore, John Kilby, John Corbet, John Havering, John Kingston, John Spj'nk, Thomas at Lee, John Benet junior, William Rede, John Placy, and Thomas Herpecote, who say on their oaths that all tenants of Winkfield hold all their lands and tenements in the aforesaid manor of the lord the king in capite and so are free tenants of the lord the king, but of Hurst they are able to say nothing. Information for the king how the tenants of W'inkfield hold and of whom. First, the said tenants hold of the king, as in capite, rendering to the sheriff of Berkshire in the name of the king annually at the feast of St. Martin one penny called Hearthpenny' sum of 30 d. a 3'ear. Also, the said tenants render by the 3'ear to the aforesaid sheriff hidage," Whistley, lying 6 miles east of Reading. collection was entirely in the hands of The abljot was a.s.serting the same claim ecclesiastical authorities, but here we to Hurst as to Winkfield. Chron. Manas. have an example of its being paid with de Abingdon, i, 291-294. other annual dues to the sheriff. ' The same as Peter's Pence, sometimes '" A remnant of the former Danegeld called Romepennj', a penny traditionally surviving as a common tax (Vinogradoff, paid by every householder. The portion Society iti the Eleventh Ccniury, p. 144). In contril)uted by each diocese was fixed and the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries it the surplus went to the bishops, arch- was not maintained in all counties under deacons, and agents whom they employed this name; sometimes it was irregular, (W. E. Lunt, Financial System of the quando eurrit. The usual rate was 2 s. a Papacy, Quar. Journal of Econ. xxiii, hide and fractions of hides in the same pro- 278 f.). It has been supposed that the portion. It was usually paid to the sheriff 84 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL et faciunt sectam curie de septimana in terciam septimanam, soluendo dicto vicecomiti le hidage ad festum Sancti jMartini summa xl d. per annum. Item dicti tenentes reddimt vicecomiti supradicto in festo Sancti Jo- hannis Baptiste pro qualibet virgata" terre ununi denarium summa xx\'ii d. per annum. Item dicti tenentes reddunt per annum ad Castrum de Wj-ndesore pro pasturis '^ xij d. ad festum Onmimu Sanctorum. Item reddunt ad Castrum supradictum annuatim panagium " secundum numerum porcorum prout contigit pro porco. Abbas et conventus de Abyngdon ex done Regis recipient annuatim pro qualibet virgata terre pro omnibus seruiciis et custumis iij s. C Ceux sent les tortz greuancez et oppressionz faitz a les poueres tenantz de Wj-ngefeld regardant al seignourie del Chastell de Wjmdesore en par- cellz. Primerement labbe dabj'ngdon claime les ditz tenantz sez neifes, lou ils teignent en cliief de nostre seignour le Roj', et ceo par excitacion et couyne de Johan Benfeld et William Stauerton et autres ses adherentz, les queux tenantz ils vexent et trauaillent de jour en autre, et les ont empri- sones par diuersez foitz, et ceo par cause de lour faire granter qils sont neifes a dit abbe, lou ils sont frankes et de frank condicion, come pleine- ment appert par enqueste jadis pris par vertue dune commission en cele partie fait denquerir del tenure des ditz tenantz et des diuersez feez cus- tumez et seruicez a nostre dit seignour le Roy subtraictz en la dit vihe de WjTikefeld, et aillours, les queux tenantz furent trouez frankez tenantz nostre dit seignour le Roy par mesme lenquest; et puis par cause del pin*- chasere du dit commission pour le profit nostre dit seignour le Roj' lez ditz Johan Benfeld et William Stauerton et autres de lour couj-ne firent en- diter lez ditz tenantz, par vertue de quel enditement certeinz dez ditz tenantz, cestassauoir Estephen Saward," Thomas Somerton " et Johan Saman '^ furent pris et amesnez a Loundres et illoeqes furent detenuz en prisone de Flete par demj' an et pluis en grant duresse mischief et disease, sanz autre cause ou procez eux siuinis, et puis lour deUuerance hors de on his toum or in the hundred court, by Society in Ihe Eleventh Century, pp. 150- the knight's fee, vill or hundred. Some- 152). In a case being tried in Hampshire 4 times it was paid to the lord of the manor, Ed. II, a bovatc, that is half of a virgate, who either retained it or paid it over to was offered for 16 acres, but the chief the king (Neilson, Customary Rents [Ox- justice answered, " Some carucates and ford Studies), ii, 115 f.). In the present bovates are held for more and some for case it was a customary annual due. less acres" (Year Boohs [Selden Soc], " The virgate was considered the nor- 4 Ed. II, 46). Also supra, p. 1, n. 4. mal holding of a peasant; the usual " There were many different names and equation was 4 virgates to the hide, al- modes of computing pasture rents. Neil- though in locaUties it might run 8 virgates son, pp. 68 f. to thehide (Vinogradoff, V'iViairuise, p. 148; " A due for the agistment of swine, TENANTS OF WINKFIELD V. ABBEY OF ABINGDON 84 and thej- make suit of court every third week, paj'ing to the aforesaid sheriff the iiitiage at the feast of St. Martin sum of 40 d. a year. Also, the said tenants render to the aforesaid sheriff in the feast of St. John the Baptist for each virgate " of land one penny sum of 27 d. a year. Also, the said tenants render aimually at the castle of Windsor for pasture '^ 12 d. at All Saints'. Also, they render at the aforesaid Castle annually pannage '^ according to the number of swine as it happens for swine. The abbot and convent of Aliingdon by gift of the king receive annu- ally for each virgate of laud for all services and customs 3 s. C These are the wrongs, grievances, and oppressions done to the poor tenants of Winkfield regardant to the lordship of the castle of Windsor in particular. First, the abbot of Abingdon claims the said tenants as his serfs, whereas they hold in chief of our lord the king, and this by excitation and covin of John Benfeld and William Staverton and others of their ad- herents, which tenants they vex and harass from day to day, and have imprisoned them at divers times, and this in order to make them admit that they are serfs of the said abbot, whereas they are free and of free con- dition, as plainly appears by the inquest just taken bj' virtue of a com- mission given in this part to incjuire of the tenure of the said tenants and of the divers fees, customs, and services withdrawn from our said lord the king in the said manor of Winkfield and elsewhere, which tenants have been found free tenants of our lord the king by the same inquest; and then, because of the purchase of the said commission for the profit of our lord the king, the said John Benfeld, WUham Stamerton, and others of their covin had the said tenants indicted, by virtue of which indictment certain of the said tenants, namely Stephen Saward,'^ Thomas Somerton," and John Saman '* were seized and taken to London and were there de- tained in the prison of the Fleet for half a year and more in great duress, mischief, and disease, without other cause or process surmised against them, and after their deliverance from the Fleet they were payable by villeins only, freemen pre- " These men were leaders or attorneys sumably having some wood-rights of their of the peasants. Saward and Somerton own. There were different modes of com- are mentioned as requesting the extract puting it, e. g. for 10 pigs the lord shall from Domesday Book regarding the have the third best pig which he shall title of the manor. Cal. Pat. 16 Ric. II, choose; for a pig over one year old he 231. shall have a penny, for a pig a half year "^ or Salaman, mentioned as forester of old a halfpenny, &c. (C. Dcedcs, Register Cranbourn in Windsor Forest, whose o/^Tire?/, 138, 139, 144). Sometimes it was death occurred before December, 1395. exacted as a regular due, whether any pigs Cal. Pat. Rolls, 658. w^ere raised or not (Neilson, pp 71 f.). 85 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Flete ils furent amesmez abbey de Abbj'ndon sur sauue garde, et illoeqes furent cloisez et enprisonez en un maeson, et le dit abbe et son conseil firent certeinz escriptz de quele matiere les ditz prisoners ne sauoient rien, les queux vindrent a ditz Estephen, Thomas et Johan en prisone, et voudrent eux auoir fait ensealer lez ditz escriptz, lou ils tout outrement refusent, et puis certeinz de soun conseil ensealerent lez ditz escriptz '^ de lour propre auctorite, et ore ils surmettent qils ont ensealez lez ditz escriptz, lou ils unqes rien ne fesoient ; et puis lez ditz Johan Benefeld et William Stauerton et un Johan Warfeld, qest mort, entreront en toutz les terres et tenementes des ditz Estephen Thomas et Johan Soman et unquore lez deteigement ensemblent ou toutz lour biens et chateux illoeqes trouez a lour propre oeps. Et outre ceo, lou certeinz forfaitures et eschetez ont este donez a nostre dit seignour le Roy par diuersez enquestez pris deuant leschetour illoeqes lez ditz Johan Benefeld et William Stauerton et autres de lour ad- herantz oretarde de nouelle firent un enquest de lour afiinite couyne et vesture passer encontre nostre dit seignour le Roj- a Madenhethe des mesmes les forfaitures et eschetez amontantz a xl marcs et pluis, et issint ils sont oustez de tout ceo qils auoient par cause qils ne voillent granter et consentier as ditz abbe, Johan Benefeld et William Stauerton et autres de lour coujTie pour desheriter nostre dit seignour le Roy de parcell de son seignourie illoeqes, dont ils prient une commission directez as certeinz Justicez denquerer de toutz les greuansez torts et extorsions issint faitz sibien as ditz tenantz come en prejudice et arrerisement del seignourie nostre dit seignour le Roy illoeqes ou autrement qils soient fait venir deuant le conseil a respondre la matiere auantdite et as autres choses qe lour serront surmys pur le profit nostre dit seignour le Roj'." HOGOXOXA V. A FRL\R AUSTIX » 1401 A tressage conseil nostre seignour le Roy. Supplie humblement son pouere chapellein Xichol Hogonona ^ del terre dirlande qe come 11 soy purpoisa oretarde pour aler al Courte du Rome en pelrinage par cause de certeins avowes qil auoit fait, et issint vient en Engleterre, et quant il feusse venuz a Oxenford il compaigna ouesqe un frere Austyn et a luy dona xl d. et ses costages pur luy amesnir a Londres, et auxi il deUuera a dit frere Ix s. pur gardir; et quant ils furent venuz a Londres le dit pouere Chapellein demanda liuere de soun dit argent et voudra auoir pursue pur soun brief de passage ' et [en] le mesne temps le " These may have had to do with the ' Of the complainant himself nothing extract from Domesday just mentioned. further is known, but from what follows " So far as we know, nothing was done we see that he wiis one of those wandering in answer to their prayer until 4 Dec. Irish clerks against whom there was much 1397, when a commission was issued, fol- complaint at Oxford and Cambridge. lowed by another on 16 July, 139S. Cal. These " vagabonds," it was said, come in Pat. Rolls, 310, 433. the habit of poor scholars, live vrndcr the ' Ancient Fetitiom, no. S55C. government of no principals, lurk about HOGONONA V. A FRIAR AUSTIN 85 taken to the abbey of Abingdon under safeguard, and were there shut and hnprisoncd in a house, and the said abbot and his counsel made certain writings, of what matter the said prisoners know nothing, and these men came to the said Stephen, Thomas, and John in prison, and would have made them enseal the said writings, whereas they refused everything fur- ther, and then certain (men) of their counsel of their own autliority en- sealed the said writings, and now they submit that the tenants have en- sealed the said writings,'" whereas they have never done anything; and then the said John Benefeld and William Staverton and one John Warfeld, who is dead, entered all the lands and tenements of the said Stephen, Thomas, and John Saman and still detain them together with all their goods and chattels found there to then- own use. And moreover, whereas certain forfeitures and escheats have been given to our lord the king by diverse mquests taken before the escheator there, the said John Benefeld and William Staverton and others of their adherence lately anew caused an inquest of their affinity, covin, and livery to be held against our lord the kmg at Maidenhead concerning the same forfeitures and escheats amounting to 40 marks and more, and so the tenants are ousted of all that they had because they were unwilhng to yield and consent to the said abbot, John Benefeltl and William Staverton and others of their covin in order to disinherit our lord the king of part of his lordship there, wherefore they pray for a commission directed to certain justices to inquire of all the grievances, wrongs, and extortions thus done as well to the said tenants as in prejudice and diminution of the lordship of our lord the king there, or else that they be required to come before the council to answer for the matter aforesaid and for other thmgs that will be submitted to them for the profit of our said lord the king." HOGONONA V. A FRIAR AUSTIN • 1401 To the very sage council of our lord the king. Humbly beseecheth his poor chaplain Nicholas Hogonona ^ of the land of Ireland that whereas he lately proposed to go on a pilgrimage to the court of Rome by reason of certain vows that he had made, and so came to England, and when he had come to Oxford he associated with a friar Austin, and gave him 40 d. and his costs to bring him to London, and also he de- hvered to the said friar 60 s. to keep; and when they had come to London the said poor chaplain demanded the return of his said money and wished to have suit for his writ of passage,' and in the meantime the said friar taverns and houses of ill-repute and go to 1376, required that none should cross abroad at night to commit burglaries, &c. the seas without the king's license {Cat. There was no end of the disturbances at Fat. 50 Ed. Ill, 312). The statute 5 Oxford attributed to Welshmen and Irish- Rio. II, I, c. 2, required a Ucense of all men of this character. C. Headlam, Ox- travellers, except lords, well known mer- ford (1904), p. 200. chants and soldiers. In 1389, pilgrims and ' An ordinance of the council, traceable other travellers to the Continent were 86 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL dit frere vient a certeins gentz de Londres et fist une suggestion nient verraie, sunnettant qil feusse iin wilde Irisshman ^ et ennemy a nostre dit seignour le Roy, et ceo a lentent dauoir ewe soun dit argent et soun liuere appelle porthous,' le quel liure unqore il detient et parcelle de soun argent, par cause de quele suggestion il feust prj's et commys a prisone et illoeqes 11 est detenuz en grant duresse, meschief et disease, lou il est loial homme et bien veullant a nostre dit seignour le Roy, come il purra bien prouir sil purra venir a sa respounse. Qe pleise a dit tressage conseil granter et com- mandre qe le dit pouere Chapellein purra venir deuant vous a respoundre a tout ceo qascun voudra luj' sumiettre, et sur ceo dordeignir pur sa de- liuerance selonc ceo qe semble a voz sages discrecions qe resoun et bone foy demandent pur Dieu et en oeure de charite. [Endorsed: — ] Le xx^• jour daugst Ian etc., second. Accordez estoit par le ConseU en quel IMessires le Chaunceller,^ les Eusqes de Duresme," de Hereford ' et de Bangor,' le Conte de NorthumbrV le Tresorer " et Mestre Johan Prophet '- estoient, qe brief soit fait as viscontes de Londres pur deliuerer le suppliant deinz escrit hors de prisone, si par la cause deinz comprise et par nulle autre il soit detenuz en icelle. ATTE WODE v. CLIFFORD • 1402-3 Fait a remembrer que en le Parliament tenu a Westminster lendemain de la saint ^Michel ^ Ian du regne du Roy Henri le quart apres le conquest quart Johan atte Wode ' bailla as seignom-s et Comuns de mesme le parle- ment une petticion dount le teneur sensuyt. As tressages seignours^ et restricted to the ports of Dover and ' Richard Yonge, 1-100-05. Plymouth {Rot. Pari, iii, 275). " Henry Percy. • This was the epithet used by the com- " Sir John Xorburj-, 1399-1403. mens in 1422 when they petitioned the " First known as a clerk in the office of king to exclude all such characters from the pri-\'j- seal, who from 13 Ric. II was the realm. The king assented but stipu- doing the work of clerk of the council, and lated that Irish clerks might freely resort in 16 Ric. II was called clerk of the council, to Oxford and Cambridge if they were sub- He was practically the creator of this office jects of his (Rot. Pari, iv, 190)! Again in (The King's Council, p. 364). In 17 Ric. II 1425 the commons asked that sureties be he was made secondary clerk in the office required of all Irishmen U^'ing in England of the privy seal, and 19 Ric. II received (Ibid, vi, 162, 192). a special honorarium of £100 for his sers'- ' Porteous, porthosc, porthos, etc. Lat. ices. He became a member and attend- ■porliforium, a portable breviary. E. g. ant of the council under Henry 1\, 1399- " By God and this Porthors " (Chaucer, 1401, king's secretary, 1402, and keeper Shipman's Tale, p 135; New Eng. Diet.). of the privy seal, 1406-14. He was dean In 1441 the bishop of Salisbury petitioned of Hereford, 1393-1407, dean of York, the king for a gift of a porthose in two 1407-16, parson of Ringwood, etc., and parts (Nicolas, Pro. of Privy Council, iv, finally founded a chapel in Hereford 141). Cathedral (Cal. Pat. 2 Hen. V, 226). • Edmund Stafford, bishop of Exeter, ' Parliamentary and Council Proceed- chancellor, 1401-03. Diet. Nat. Biog. tng« (Chancery), file 48, no. 3. The initial ' Walter Skirlawe, 1389-1406. petition is found also in Ancient Petitions, • John Trevenant, 1389-1404. no. 1082; it has been used in filling out ATTE WODE V. CLIFFORD 86 went to certain people of London and made an untrue suggestion, suhniit- ting tliat he was " a wild Irishman " * and an enemy to our said lord the king, and this with the intention of having had his said money and his book called portas,' which he still detains and part of his money; and be- cause of this suggestion he was taken and committed to prison where he is detained in great duress, mischief, and disease, whereas he is a loyal man and a well wisher of our said lord the king, as he can well prove if he can come to answer for himself. May it please the said verj' wise council to grant and command that the said poor chaplain can come before you to answer to all that anyone will wish to surmise against him, and hereupon to ordain for his deliverance according as it seems to your sage discretions that reason and good faith demand, for God and in way of charity. [Endorsed: — ] The 25th day of August, the second year, etc. It was agreed by the council, wherein were my lords the chancellor,' the bishops of Durham,' Hereford,' and Bangor,' the earl of Northumberland,'" the treasurer," and Master John Prophet,'^ that writ should be issued to the sheriffs of London to deliver from prison the suppliant herein written, if he be detained in prison for the cause herein given and for no other. ATTE WODE v. CLIFFORD ' 1402-3 Be it remembered that in the parliament held at Westminster on the day after Michaelmas,^ in the fourth year of Henry IV, John atte Wode ' presented to the lords and commons of the said parliament a petition, the tenor of which is as follows : " To the very wise lords and commons * of the present text. The petition and its in question. John atte Wode, we know endorsement, which are interesting in from other sources, was seized of a tone- certain verbal particulars, are printed in ment called Woodland, 3 Hen. IV, in Palgrave, Original Axdhorily, p. 71. The Chedworth manor, a place 16 miles east present record to the end of the petition of Gloucester, an hereditary estate of the is entered also in the Rot. Pari, iii, 513, Beauchamps. In the restitutions that but it is carried only to the point where were afterwards made to the complainants the case is referred to the council. No- Woodland is mentioned (i. e. Hugh Water- where ha.s the record been given before in ton, Close Roll, 5 Hen. IV, ra. 11). The full. late lord of Chedworth manor was Thomas ' 30 Sept. 1402. The third parUament earl of Warwick, who died in 1401, to be of Henry IV. succeeded by the young Richard (S. Rud- ' Mt Wode, Atwood, etc. For this dor, Hist, of Gloucestershire, 1779, p. 333). prefix to surnames, e. g. atte Grove, atte Under these conditions the complainants Gate, atte Well, etc., see Genealogist vi, lacked a vigorous defender, pp. 31, 127. Atte Wode is a family name * Palgrave {op. cit.) points out that the of Gloucestershire, and it seems likely that aildrcss of the petition as first written was this John was a successor of Sir John whose to the king, and afterwards these words inheritance was reported l.i Rich. II {Cal. were erased and the present address Inq., p. m., iii, 132). Petitions are apt to written in. There was a tendency at the fail in giving the time and place of events, time not only to exalt the judicial powers and the present petition makes no men- of parliament, but also to give the com- tion of the particular properties that were raons a share in the judicial powers pre- 87 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL comuns de ce present parlement. Supplient humblement vos poures oratours Johan atte Wode et Alice sa femme del Contee de Gloucestre qe come deuant ces heures ils niisteront une bille a nostre tressouerain seignour le Roy de les diuerses extorcions et oppresions faitz par un James Clifford * et un Anselme Gyse^ a ditz suppUantz, cestassauer qe come ils fm-ont seises de certeins terres et tenemenz a la value de v^'Tit mares par an en le dit Contee et dautres biens et chateux a la value de cent marcs et plus, le dit Anselme imaginant coment U purroit accroscher a lui les terres tene- menz biens et chateux susditz conspira ouesqe le dit James et autres mes- fesours du dit pays les queux par lour faux conspiracion et ymaginacion procurerent \m faux enqueste denditer lauant dit Johan de felonie, par colour de quel faux enditement le dit suppHant fut mj's en prisone et iUeoqs tenuz par trois ans et demy et pluis tanqe il fuist acquite de la felonie suisdit. Et en le mesme temps qe le dit suppliant fuist ensj' emprisonez, lauantdit Ancehne par eide et confort de dit James ousta les ditz suppUantz de toutz lours terres et tenementz et eux dispoila de toutz lours biens et chateux suisditz et toutz les ditz terres tenementz biens et chateux ad tenuz et occupiez par vij ans et pluis et tout le boys sur les ditz terres cresceantz ad gaste et destruitz. Sur quej^ nostre seignour le Roy de sa grace especial considerant les grandes et orribles trespasses oppressions et faux conspira- cions faitz as ditz supphantz par aduj's de soun conseil granta une Comis- sion ' a Johan Berkele * chiualer, WiUiam Beauchamp ' chiualer, Richard Ruyall,'" Thomas Brugge," Robert Pojtis,*^ et Robert WhitjTigton " denquerer de les trespasses et oppressions suisditz. Par force de quelle comission les ditz Comissioners firent une session a Gloucestre deuant queux les BailUfs qe furent de lassent et coujTie des ditz James et Anselme retorneront un enqueste de ceux qe furont enditours le dit suppUant et de viously exercised by the lords alone. In This Sir James was honoured at court; in the first parliament of Henry IV, 1399, the 1400 as a king's esquire he was granted commons were reminded that judgments an annuity of £-10 for hfe {Cal. Pal. 191); in parUament belonged to the king and the in 1403 he was made keeper of Caldecote lords, not to the commons, who were to be Castle {Cal. Pat. 438); he was sometimes considered as petitioners and not judges a commissioner, and in 1404 a member of in parhament {Rot. Pari, iii, 427). Still parliament for the shire, the practice continued of addressing pe- ' Guyse or Guise, member of a well titions to the commons, who then passed estabUshed local familj- alUed with the them on to the lords. The present pe- Chffords. The Guises were identified with tition is endorsed " by ad\'ice of the lords the manor of Elmore which an ancestor of and commons.'' Anselm possessed in the time of Edward I ' Representative of a younger branch (Atkyns, pp. 230, 324). Anselm held also of the famous Clifford family, descended the manor of Daglingworth at the time of from Richard a younger brother of Rosa- his death {Cal. Inq., p. m., iii, 335). His mond, mistress of Henry II (G. Oliver, later wife was Catharine a daughter of Cliffordiana, p. 9; A. Clifford, Collectanea James Clifford, with whom he was allied Cliffordiana |1877], p. 160). These Clif- in other ca.scs of the same kind. Gyse fords settled in Gloucestershire, making was a commissioner of array for Glouces- their chief seat at Frampton upon Severn, tershire in 1403 {Cal. Pat. 440). a manor 8 miles southwest of Gloucester ' This commission, dated 26 August, (R. AtkjTis, Gloucestershire [1768], p. 230). 1401, was issued to the knights and gentle- ATTE WODE V. CLIFFORD 87 this present parliament. Humbly beseech j'our poor orators John atte Wode and Alice his wife of the county of Gloucester, that whereas they previously offered a bill to our sovereign loril the king concerning the divers extortions and oppressions conunitted by one James Clifford ' and one Anselm Gyse' against the said suppliants; that is, while they were seized of certain lands and tenements to the value of twenty marks a year in the said county and of other gooiis and chattels to the value of a hundred marks and more, the said Anselm, imagining how he might secure for him- self the aforesaid lands, tenements, goods and chattels, conspired with the said James and other malfeasors of the said county, who by their false con- spiracy and imagination procured a false inquest to indict the aforesaid John of felony; and on the strength of this false indictment the said sup- pliant was put in prison and there held for three years and a half and more until he was acquitted of the aforesaid felony. And in the meantime while the said suppliant was thus imprisoned, the aforesaid Anselm by aid and comfort of the said James ousted the said suppliants from all their lands and tenements and despoiled them of all their aforesaid goods and chattels, and he has held and occupied all the said lands and tenements, goods and chattels for seven years and more, and the wood growing upon the said lands he has wasted and destroyed. Whereupon our lord the king of his special grace considering the great and horrible trespasses, oppressions, and false conspiracies conmiitted against the said suppliants, by advice of his council granted a commission ' to John Berkeley,' knight, William Beau- champ,^ knight, Richard Ruyall,'" Thomas Brugge," Robert Poyns,'^ and Robert Whityngton " to inquire concerning the aforesaid trespasses and oppressions. By virtue of this commission the said commissioners held a session at Gloucester, and before them the bailiffs who were of the assent and covm of the said James and Anselm returned an inquest that had been held before those who were indictors of the said suppliant and men here named, who were to inquire into in 1403 and 1413, and commissioner of the said trespasses and oppressions com- every sort. Cal. Pat. Rolls. mitted in the time of Richard II and to '" or Ruyhalc, member of various com- certify the king and council. Cal. fat. missions; he held two parts of the manor Rolls, .554. of Dimock in Gloucestershire. Cal. Inq., * Member of a great family allied with p. m., iii, 316. the Beauchamps (Rudder, p. 270 f.; Dug- " Bruges or Brigge, of Underhill, some- dale, i, 349). This Sir John was justice of time commissioner, holder of Horsefeld the peace and sheriff of Gloucestcr.shire in manor and a half of the manor of Cubber- 1397, commissioner of array in 1399 {Cat. ley. Cal. Pat. 3 Hen. IV, 32; 9 Hen. IV, Pat. Rolls), and was summoned with other 447; Cal. Inq., p. m., iii, 316. knights to the great council of 1401 '- or Poyntz, sheriff of Gloucestershire (Nicolas, Proceedings, i, 160). His seat in 1396, commissioner and custodian, was Berstone in the hundred of lierkeley holder of Iron Acton a fief of the late (Rudder, p. 283; Cal. Inq., p. 7n., \v, 111). Thomas Earl of Strafford. Cal. Inq., ' Of Powick, constable of Gloucester p. ?n., iii, 249. Castle in 1397, granted 40 marks a year " or Whittington, son and heir of out of the revenues of Gloucestershire in William Whittington of Pauntley, elder 1400, justice of the peace in 1401, sheriff brotherof Richard thrice mayor of London 88 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL ceux qe feuront seruantz et tenantz de dit Anselme et de ceux qe furont procurez par les ditz James et Anselme et qe a lour custage viendront a dite ville et puis les ditz suppliantz chalangeront celle enqueste par les causes suisdites et pur ceo qe lours chalanges furont trouez verraiez et le dit en- queste fuist fait en fauorable manere pour les ditz James et Anselme et les ditz Johan Berkele et ses compaignons aloueront les chalanges du dit sup- pliant et ne voudront mys prendre celle enqueste. Et puis a \m autre jour les ditz Robert et Robert sanz ascun autre de lour compaignons firont un autre session a lauantdite Gloucestre pur mesme la matire et la prist€ront un enqueste de mesmes ceux qe ensi feurent procurez par les ditz James et Anselme et qe a lour custages viendront a mesme la \ille et qe furent chalanges e triez hors de lenqueste adeuant par les causes suisditz par eux et par lour compaignons nient allouant a celle foith as ditz supphantz ascun chalange qils firont pour les causes suisditz le quel matere et gouernance a ceUe darrein session est.bien conuz as ditz Johan Berkele et Richard les queux sont ore en ceste Citee de Londres. Pur quoy vous plese tressage seignours et Comuns de faire venir deuant vous en cest present parlement les ditz Johan Berkele et Richard queux sont ore en Londres et eux examiner sur celle matire et sur ce ordeigner ascun remedie especial pur les ditz sup- pliantz; Considerantz tresgracious seigneurs et communs qe les officers et Jurours du dit pays sont ensy de la coujTie et affinite des ditz James et Anselme et ensi par eux procurez qe les ditz supphantz james naueront droit deuers eux en celle pays. Et auxi les ditz supphantz sont ensi enpouerez et anientiz par les orribles trespasses oppressions et faux con- spiracions suisditz qils nont rien dont il purront pursuer lour droit eux mesmes ne lours enfantz susteigner si vostre tresgracious eide ne soit en cest present parlement par dieu et en oeure de charite. La quele peticion fuist endorsee par auis des ditz seignours et Commims en ces paroles: Soit envoiez pur Johan Berkele chiualer et Richard Ruyall de vener deuant les seignours de parlement ou deuant le conseil nostre seignour le Roy destre examinez sur la matire comprise en ceste peticion et soit envoiez par brief pur James Clifford et Ansehne deinz escritz destre deuant le Conseil du Roy a certein jour et sur certein peuie a liinitcr par mesme le conseil et qe mesme le conseil eit poair par autorite de parlement dent faire droit as parties par aduis et discrecion de mesme le conseil." Par force de quel en- dorsement briefs seuerals desouz le grant seal feurent adressez as ditz James Clifford et Anselme Gyse destre deuant le conseil a Westminster a les (Rudder, p. 598). This Robert was justice of Parliament (iii, 513) leaves off. Upon of the peace in Gloucestershire, 1399- 1408, the petition pven in Palgrave (p. 71) there commissioner of array 1399-1403, one of is an endorsement not piven in the above the great council in 1401, member of par- record, which is translated as follows: liament in 1403, 140.5, 1411, and 1414, " On 15 July, 4 Hen. IV, Sir Henry Malpas sheriff in 1402, the time of the present one of the masters in the Chancery of our case, in 1407 and 1412. lord the king delivered this petition en- " At this point the record in the Rolls dorsed to R. Fry near the gate of the ATTE WODE V. CLIFFORD 88 who were servants ami tenants of the said Ansehn and who liad l>ecn pro- cured by the said James and Ansclni and who liad come at their expense to the said town ; and then the said suppliants challenged this inquest for the causes above piven and for the reason that their challenges were found to be true, and that the said inquest had been held in a manner favourable to the said James and Ansehn, and that the said John Berkeley and his companions allowed the challenges of the said suppliant and were entirely unwilling to receive this inquest. And then on another day the said Robert and Robert without any other of their companions held another session at the aforesaid Gloucester upon the same matter, and there took an inquest of the same men who had been thus procured by the said James and Ansehn, (men) who at their cost came to the said town and who had previ- ously been challenged and rejected from the inquest by themselves and their companions for the reasons given above, this tune without allowing the said suppliants any challenge that they might make for the aforesaid reasons; this matter and grievance at this last session is well known to the said John Berkeley and Richard, who are now in this city of London. Wherefore may it please j'ou very wise lords and commons to have the said John Berkeley and Richard, who are now in London, come before you in this present parliament and to examine them in this matter and there- upon to ordain some special remedy for the said suppliants; considering, very gracious lords and commons, that the officers and jurors of the said county are thus of covin and affinity of the said James and Anselm and have been so procured by them that the said suppliants will never have justice for themselves in this county. Besides the said suppliants are so far impoverished and ruined by the aforesaid horrible trespasses, oppres- sions, and false conspiracies that they have nothing wherewith they can themselves pursue their right or support their children, unless your very gracious aid be forthcoming in this present parliament, for the love of God and in the way of charity." This petition was endorsed by advice of the lords and commons in the following words: " Let John Berkeley, knight, and Richard Ruyall be sent for to come before the lords of parliament or before the council of our lord the king to be examined in the matter con- tained in this petition, and let James Clifford and Ansehn herein described be sent for by writ to be before the king's council on a certaui day and under certain penalty to be determined by the said council, and let the said council have power by authority of parliament to do justice to the parties by the advice and at the discretion of the said council." " By force of this en- dorsement several writs under the great seal were addressed to the said James Clifford and Anselm Gyse to be before the council at Westminster house of the bishop of Chester in the the original petition endorsed which re- Strand, where Sir T. Longley then keeper mains in the keeping of Sir John Rome of the privy seal was staying, and the clerk of Parliament, aforesaid Henry testifietl that this same For John atte Wode." petition endorsed agrees in all points with 89 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL oytaues de seint Hiller '^ delors prochein ensuant chascun de eux sur peine de troiscens marcs pur respondre a ce qe y lour serroit surmys et a faire outre et [receuire ce qe serra ordeinez par le dit] counseil sicome par mesmes les briefs esteans de record en mesme le conseil plus pleinement poet ap- paroir.^* As queles oytaues si bien le ditz Anselme Guyse et James Clifford come le dit Johan atte wode et Alice sa femme comparerent deuant le dit Counsail nostre seignour le Roj^ en quelle mes seignours lercheuesqe de Canterbirs " les euesqes de Nicol '^ Dexcestre " Chanceller Dengleterre et de Seint Dauid -" Tresorer Dengleterre et de Rouchestre ^' et les Countes de Somer- set,-- Northumberland,-^ Westmorland,^^ Wircestre,^" le gardein de priue seal,^ le sieur de louell,-" Johan Skerle,^^ et messires Thomas Erpyngham ^' et Johan Cheyny ^ a celle foit la furent presentez, deuant quelx seignours les parties suisditz bien et duement examinez sur la matere suisdite et tout la dite matere as ditz seignours bien entendu et par eux bien examine sembloit a eux qe les ditz Johan atte Wode et Alice sa femme furent [grevjousement et encountre la ley oustez de lour terres et tenementz suisditz par lez ditz Aimselme et James. Pur qi toutz lez seignours suisditz qi a celle foitz furent de Counsail nostre seignour le Roy ount ordeignez et agardez par autorite du parlement et par assent de lune partie et de lautre qe eux sej-oimt submys en lour ordj-naunce qe le dit Johan atte Wode et Alice sa femme soient restituz as toutz les terres et tenementz suisditz par entre a auoier et tenir a eux et a lour heirs en mesme le manere come ils tenoient deuant le dit ouster quites de ditz Ancebne et Amys sa femme et James et lour heirs a toutz jours discharges de toutz maners de statutz reconusaunce rentchargez et de chescun altre chose par qi les ditz terres et tenementz puissent estre chargez puis le dit ouster. Et qe lez ditz Johan atte Wode et AUce sa femme par force de celle jugement purrount entrer en lez terrez et tenementz suisditz. Et qe ils aueront bref dirige a le vis- counte de le Countee suisdit pour eux metter en possession de lez terrez et tenementz suisditz par force del jugement suisditz. Et qe toutz maners feoffementz et estates faitz par le dit Johan atte Wode a Thomas de la Mare," Johan Mene, Thomas Alford persone de leghse de Coulegh,'- John " 20 Jan. 1403. " John Bottlesham, 140(>-04. " This vrrit of subpoena addressed to " John Beauford, d. 1410. Anselm Gyse is annexed to the original " Henry Percy, 1342-1408. petition {And. Pet. 1082) and is given at " Ralph Neville, 1364-1425. length in Palgrave {op. cil. p, 71.) The " Thomas Percy, d. 1403. initial clause contains an extra phrase so " Thomas Langley keeper, 1402-05. as to read, Quibusdam certis de causis " John (Dugdale, i, 559). He had been coram nobis et consilio nostro in presenii in the council of Richard II from time to parliamenlo propositis, etc. time since 1392, was keeper of the privy " Thomas Fitzalan or Arundel, 1397- seal in 1403, one of the council named in 1414. parliament in 1404, and again in 1406, but " Henry Beaufort, 1398-1405. was allowed to withdraw {King's Council, " Edmund Stafford chancellor, 1401-03. pp. 134, 153, 156). " Guy Mone treasurer, 1402-03. " A clerk in the chancery, from 1384- ATTE WODE V. CLIFFORD 89 in the octaves of the followlnp; Ililaninas,'' each of them under penalty of 300 marks to answtjr to that whicli sliall be alloRed against thcni and to do further and [receive that which shall be determined by the] council, just as can be made more plainly apparent by the said writs which are of record in the said council."'' Upon this day the said Anselm Gyse and James Clifford as well as the said John atte Wode and AUce his wife appeared before the said council of our loril the king, wherein my lords the archbishop of Canterbury," the bishop of Lincoln,'' the bishop of Exeter," chancellor of England, the bishop of St. David's, -" treasurer of England, and the bishop of Rochester,^' the carls of Somerset," Northumberlanil,-' Westmoreland,-"' the earl of Worcester,^* the keeper of the privy seal,^^ Lord Lovell," John Scarle,^' and Sir Thomas Erpyngham *' and John Chejmcy ^ at this time were present. Before these lords the aforesaid parties were well and duly examined in the abovesaid matter and after the whole matter had been well understood and well examined by the said lords it seemed to them that the said John atte Wode and AUce his wife had been grievouslj- and contrary to law ousted from their aforesaid lands and tenements by the said Ansehn and James. Wherefore all the aforesaid lords who were at this time of the council of our lord the king have ordamed and awarded bj' authority of parliament and with the assent of both parties, who have submitted to the ordinance (of the council), that the said John atte Wode and Alice his wife should be restored to all the aforesaid lands and tenements, to have and to hold for themselves and their heirs in the same manner as they held them before the said ejectment, quit of the said Anselm and Amice his wife, and James and their heirs, forever discharged of all manner of statutes, recognisances, rent charges, and of every other thing whereby the said lands and tenements might be charged since the said ejectment. And that the said John atte Wode and Alice his wife by force of this judgment shall be able to enter into the aforesaid lands and tenements. And that they shall have a writ directed to the sheriff of the aforesaid county to put them in possession of the aforesaid lands and tenements by force of the said judgment. And that all sorts of enfeoffments and estates made by the said John atte Wode to Thomas de la Mare," John Menc, Thomas Alford parson of the church of Cowley,'^ John Bas parson of the church of Shipton- 94, clerk of parliament, sometime re- of the house, justice of the peace in 1404 ceiver of petitions {Rot. Pari, iii, 133, 184, {Cal. Pat. Rolh, 517), member of the etc.), in 1390 keeper of the great seal, in king's council, 1399-1406, summoned to 1399 chancellor and member of the coun- the great council in 1401 (Nicolas, ii, 99). oil, 1399-1403 {Cal. Pal. Rolls; Nicolas, i). " He is on record as holding a remainder " A servant of the dukes of Lancaster, in the estate of the late Peter de la Mare chamberlain of Henry IV and member of in Herefordshire {Cal. Pat. 1 Hen. IV, the council. Under Henry V he became 349), but what interest he or the others admiral of the fleet and steward of the here mentioned had in the estate now in household. question is not clear. '" or Cheyne, knight of the shire for '^ A parish on the Churn in East Gloucestershire in 1399, and speaker-elect Gloucestershire, 4J miles southeast of 90 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Bas persone de leglise de Shipton Olj-ue," dez ditz terres et tenementz auantditz soient voides et de nulle value. Et qe toutz altres feffementz et estates et graxintes faitz par les ditz Thomas de la Mare, Johan Mene, Thomas Alford, Johan Bas ou par ascun autre de les terres et tenementz suisditz a Ancelme Guyse e Amys sa femme ou a ascim altre soient voides et de nulle value. Et qe toutz feifementz faitez par le dit Anselme et Amj's sa femme ou par le dit Ancelme soul a Hugh Waterton ^* ou a ascun altre de lez terres et tenementz suisditz et auxint toutz altres feffementz charges et toutz states faitez de ditz terres et tenementz puis le dit feffe- ment fait par le dit Johan atte Wode a Thomas de la Mare Johan ISIene Thomas Alford et Johan Bas tanqe al jour de celle jugement rendu soient voidez et de nuUe value. Et auxi qe si ascun feffement ou graunde soit fait parascunnes des ditz terres et tenementz en temps auener deuant ceo qe le dit Johan atte Wode et sa fenune soient possessionez dez ditz terres et tenementz par force de agarde et jugement suisditz qe ils soient voidez et de nulle value. Et qe les ditz Ancehne et Amys sa femme parentre cy et lez oytaues de seint Michel proschein auener relesseront par f jti leue en la Court nostre seignour le Roy as ditz Johan atte Wode et Alice sa fenune par force de ceUe jugement esteiant en peisible possession de lez terres et tenementz suisditz tout le droit qils ount en lez terres et tenementz suisditz a eux et a lez heirs de dit Johan toutz jours de eux et de lez heirs de dit Ancelme a toutz jours as costages de dit Ancelme. Et auxi qe lez ditz James et Ancelme ferront Monsire Hugh Waterton chivaler WiUiam Rj-e de Munmouth et WilUam Guyse fitz a dit Ancelm et toutz autres gentz qe ount ewe estat ou ascim altre interesse en les ditz terres et tenementz puis le dit ouster fait as ditz Johan atte Wode et AMce sa femme relesser a dit Johan atte Wode et Alice sa femme et a lez heirs le dit Johan tout le dreit qe ils ount en lez terres et tenementz suisditz. Et auxi qe les ditz James et Ancelme deliuerount as dit Johan atte Wode et Alice sa femme toutz les chartres et munjiuentz qe ils ount ou qe ascun altre ad ou auoient a lur oeps ou al oeps le dit Ancelme ou sa femme puis lousterfait as dit Johan atte Wode et Alice sa femme touchant les terres et tenementz suisditz parentre cy et les ditz oeptas de Seint Michel. Et quant a lez biens et chateux du dit Johan atte Wode prises emportes amenez et encariez et issuez et profitez des ditz terres et tenementz prouenauntz et damages qe eux lez ditz Johan et Alice ount sustenuz puys le dit ouster les ditz seignoui-s en le dit Coun- saill ount done jour outre a lez parties suisditz destre cy deuant le dit Counsail al Oeptas de seint Michel proschein veignant pour faire et re- cej-ure ceo qe par le dit Counsaill ent serra ordeignez et agardcz par autorite de parlement. Et pour ceo qe lez seignours qi a cele foitz furent de Coun- Cheltenhara. A church of Early EngUsh " Councillor of Henry IV (Nicolas, i), architecture still remains. constable of Windsor Castle (Cal. Pat. " A parish 7 miles southeast of Chel- 6 Hen. IV, 489), holder of estates in Lin- tenham, next to Shipton Sollars. colnshire, Herefordshire, and Gloucester- ATTE WODE V. CLIFFORD 90 Olive " of the said lands and aforesaid tenements shall be null and void. And that all other enfeoffments and estates and grants made by the said Thomas de la Mare, Jolm Mene, Thomas Alvord, John Bas, or by anyone else of the aforesaid lands and tenements to Ansehn Gyse and Amice his wife or to anyone else shall be null and void. And that all enfeoffments made by the said Ansehn and Amice his wife or by the said Ansehn alone to Hugh Waterton ^* or to anyone else of the aforesaid lands and aforesaid tenements and also all other enfeoffments, charges, and all estates of the said lands and tenements made since the said enfeoffment by the said John atte Wode to Thomas de la Mare, John Mene, Thomas Alford, and John Bas before the day of this judgment shall be rendered null and void. And also that if any enfeoffment or grant shall have been made m the future by any persons of the said lands and tenements, before the said John atte Wode and his wife shall be in possession of the said lands and tenements, by force of the aforesaid award and judgment they shall be null and void. And the said Ansehn and Amice his wife between now and the octaves of next Michaehnas shall by fine made in the court of our lord the king release to the saitl Jolui atte Wode and AUce his wife, who by force of this judg- ment shall remain in peaceable possession of the aforesaid lands and tene- ments, every right which they may have in the aforesaid lands and tene- ments, to them and the heirs of the said John, from them and the heirs of the said Ansehn forever, at the cost of the said Ansehn. And also the said James and Ansehn shall cause Sir Hugh Waterton, knight, William Rye of Monmouth and William Guyse, son of the said Ansehn, and all other men who have had estate or any other interest m the said lands and tenements since the said ejectment was made of the said John atte Wode and AUce his wife, to release to the said John atte Wode and Alice his wife and to the heirs of the said John all the right that they have in the aforesaid lands and tenements. And also that the said James and Ansehn, between now and the said octaves of Michaelmas, shall deliver to the said John atte Wode and Alice his wife all the charters and muniments, touching the aforesaid lands and tenements, that they have or that anyone else has or may have for their own use or for the use of the said Ansehn or his wife since the eject- ment of the said John atte Wode and his wife. And as to the goods and chattels of the said Jolui atte Wode that have been taken, removed, borne off and carried away, the issues and profits accruing from the said lands and tenements and damages that the said John and Alice have sustained since the said ejectment, the said lords ui the said council have given a day further for the aforesaid parties to be here before the said council at the octaves of next Michaehnas to do and receive whatever shall be ordained and adjudged by the said council by authority of parliament. And be- cause the lords who were at this time of our lord the king's council had not shire (Cal. Inq., p. m., iii, 332). Waterton and his wife all claims to lands in Wode- afterwards relinquished to John atte Wode land {Chse Roll, 5 Hen. IV, m. 11). 91 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL saill nostre seignour le Roy ne furent mj's pleinement enfoumiez queux bienz et chatelx lez ditz James et Ancelme auoient pris de dit Johan atte Wode ne queux issuz et profitez ils auoient prises des ditz terras et tene- mentz puys louster suisdit ne quelx damages les ditz Johan atte Wode et Alice sa femme auoient sustenuz puys le dit ouster ils agarderont et or- daigneront qe un commission issereit a monsire Johan de Berkeley monsire Morys Russell ^^ monsire Walter Hungerforde '^ chiualers Thomas Brugge, Johan Gybbes, et Johan Gerald denquerer et eux certifier del value des bienz et chateux issuez profites et damages suisditz et de touz autres wastes trespas a dit Johan atte Wode et Ahce sa femme par lez ditz Ancehne et James faitz.'^ Et outre ceo toutz les seignours qi a celle foith furent pre- sentez en le dit CounsaiO nostre seignour le Roj' doneront jour outre a lez parties suisditz destre deuant le dit Counsaill nostre seignour le Roy al Oeptaues de seint Michel larchangele proschein ensuwant pour faire et receuire ceo qe par le dit CounsaUl nostre seignour le Roy ent serra ordeignez et agardez par autorite de parlement. Et les ditz seignours ount agardez qe les ditz Johan atte Wode et Alice sa fenune et lour heirs auerount les ditz terrez et tenementz en pees en temps auener sauns estre oustez molestez ou greuez par les ditz James ou Ancelme ou par ascun en lour noune assent ou abettement. Et a toutz les agardez et ordeignauncez suisditz tener et perempler les ditz James et Ancehne serrount obhgez etc., a dit Johan atte Wode en CO li. par reconusaunce en la Chauncellarie nostre seignour le Roy.^ [Endorsed: — {!)] Pur Johan attewode. Soit cast record lieuz en presence der Justices avant quil soit engrossez. [{£)] Fait a remembrer qe le xxiij jour de Juyn Ian etc. quart ceste Recorde estoit baillez au Counsail par les mains de Thomas Tyldesley un des sergeantz du Roj' a la ley, presentz alors en mesme le Counsail messours le ChanceUer, Gardein du priue seal, [messires] T. Erpyngham, H. Water- ton et J. Cheyne. Et le xx\'ij jour du dit moys de Juyn esteantz les [ditz] seignours et le Tresorer dengleterre ensemble ouesqe les Justices de lun Banc et de lautre, et le chief Baron de leschequier en la Chambre joignante a mesme leschequier," ceste mesme Recorde estoit baillee et deliueree par mes ditz seignours du Counsail a les auantditz Justices pur veoir ct ex- aminer si ce soit legitement fait, lesqueux justices sassenterent alors pur veoir et examiner loriginale peticion par le dit Johan atte Wode baillee en parlement ouesqe lendorsement de mesme la peticion, et ceste Recorde auxi ensemble, et ent faire relation au dit Coimsail de lour auis.''" Et apres cestassauoir le xv jour de Juillet delors prochain ensuant, men dit seignour " Commissioner of the peace in Here- 1400. He held the manor of Durham fordshire, 1402, commis-sioner of array and (Rudder, p. 428; Cal. hiq., p. m., iv, 130). of the peace in Gloucestershire, 1403 (Cal. '• Later Lord Hungcrford. Did. Nat. Pal. Rolls), a knight for the latter shire in Biog. pariiament, 1402 and 1403, and sheriff in ATTE WODE V. CLIFFORD 91 been fully informed what goods and chattels the said James and Anselm had taken of the said Joliu atte Wode, or what issues and profits they had taken from tlie said lands and tenements since the aforesaid ejectment, or what damages the said John atte Wode and Alice his wife had sustained since the said ejectment, they adjudged and ordained that a commission should be issued to Sir John Berkeley, Sir Morris Russell,'^ Sir Walter Hungerford,'* knights, Thomas Brugge, John Gibbs, and John Gerald to enquire and to certify as to the value of the aforesaid goods and chattels, issues, profits, and damages, ami all other wastes and trespass conmiitted upon the said John atte Wode and Alice his wife by the said Anselm and James." Moreover all the lords who at this tune were present in the said council of our lord the king gave a day further for the said parties to come before the said council of our lord the king at the octaves of next Michael- mas and receive what shall be ordained and awarded bj^ the said council of our lord the king by authority of parliament. And the said lords have ad- judged that the said John atte Wode and Alice his wife and their heirs shall have the said lands and tenements peacefully in future without being ousted, molested or aggrieved by the said James or Anselm or by anyone in their name, with their assent or abetting. And to observe and fulfill all the aforesaid judgments and ordinances the said James and Anselm shall be obliged, etc., to the said John atte Wode to (the amount of) £200 by recognisance in the chancery of our lord the king.^ [Endorsed: — (/)] For John atte Wode. Let this record be read in the presence of the justices before it is en- grossed. [(£)] Be it remembered that on the 23d day of June, the fourth year, etc., this record was deUvered to the council by the hands of Thomas Tildesley one of the king's Serjeants at law, there being then present in the said coimcil the chanceOor, the keeper of the privy seal, [Sirs] T. Erping- ham, H. Waterton, and J. Cheynej\ And on the 27th day of the said month of June in the presence of the [said] lords and the treasurer of Eng- land together with the justices of both benches and the chief baron of the exchequer, in the chamber adjoining the said exchequer," this same record was brought and delivered by my said lords of the council to the aforesaid justices to view and examine whether it was legitimately made; and the justices then consented to view and examine the original petition presented by the said John atte Wode in parliament with the endorsement upon the said petition as well as this record, and to make report to the said council of their advice.* And after the 15th dayof July then following, my lord " This commission was issued 18 July, *" Upon the position of judges in the 1403. Cal. Pal. 4 Hen. IV, 284. king's council, whether as members or '* As to the outcome of the affair see advisers, see ibid. pp. 75 f., 207. Another Introd., p. cvi. instance of the justices being asked for " The star chamber is often designated advice is in Nicolas, i, 80. in these words. King's Council, pp. 355 f. 92 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL le Chanceller apporta ouesqe lui yce mesme recorde en le consail et y reporta qe les susditz Justices lauoient veuz et examinez, et qe lour semble ycelle recorde estre ben suffissant et legitement fait. LEGAT AND ANOTHER v. WODEWARD ' A 1410 Please a notre tressoueraigne Seigneur le Roy de vous remembrer coment le vintisme iour de may derrein passe de votre grace especial grantastez de voz Escuierz HelmeJ^l Legat ^ et William Loueneye ^ le garde del manoir de BobbjTigeworth * ensemblement oue lavouson del Eglise de Bobbj-nge- worth durant le nOn age Thomas le fitz et heir Thomas Enfeld ^ et ensy de heir en heir tancqe acun dez ditz heirz a son plajii age aueigne sanz rienz ent a vous rendre, la quele garde a vous appartient par cause de meindre age du dit Thomas fitz Thomas Enfeld et la quele garde votre chaunceller par bille de votre tresorer ad comys par voz letters patentz a William Wodeward fundour ^ et Anneys sa femme ' durant le non age du dit heir.* Et pour ce tresgracious Seigneur please comaunder votre Chaunceller affaire as ditz Heknyn et William Loueneye voz lettres patentz, del garde del manoir et auouson suisditz del date de votre dite primer grant et de annuller et repeller lez ditz lettres patentz par votre dit chaunceller as ditz Wilham Wodewarde et Anneys ent faitz pour dieu et en oevre de charite. B . . . s deet super billa in dictum parliamentum" e.xhibitaethuic cedule consuta et per dictum consilium domini [Regis] . . . ones banc subsequen- ii, 75, 84), and by the further favour of the king was made custodian of various estates, of which the manor of Bobbing- worth now in dispute was one. ' or Loveney, an old servant of the dukes of Lancaster, whose household ac- counts have been published in Wylie, Reign of Henry IV, iv, 159, 163, 168. From 1399 to 1408 he wasjteeper of the great wardrobe. He was justice of the peace in Middlesex from 1404, and in I'^ssex from 1412, sheriff in Essex in 1408 and escheat or in 1411, and keeper of the king's ships in 1412. Like Legat he was in many instances custodian, commissioner, and purveyor. His death is mentioned in 1424 (,Cal. Pal. KMh). * Lying west of Shelley in Ongar. It came ultimately into the hands of John de Vere carl of Oxford. Morant, i, 147. ' A tenant in chief whose death is men- tioned in 1405 (Cal. Pal. 58). Besides Bobbingworth he left also a messuage in ' Parliamenlary and Council Proceed- ings (Chancery), file 13, no. 17, in two membranes: A the petition, B the certifi- cation of an examination before the treas- urer and barons in the exchequer. The petition is also found in Ancicnl Petitions, no. 11,504. * A faithful servant of Henry IV, noticed in 1399 as a king's esquire with an annuity of £20 {Cal. Pat. Rolh, 64). In 1401 he was granted a tun of wine yearly out of the king's prise in the port of Colchester (ibid. 12). He was usher of the king's chamber in 1405 (ibid. 501), sheriff of Essex in 1402 and in 1407, es- cheator in Essex and Hertfordshire in 1403, commissioner of array in 1403, jus- tice of the peace in Essex, 1404-06, mem- ber of parliament for Essex in 1406, sur- veyor in the port of Colchester in 1411. He acquired through his wife, Alice Man- deville, various properties of the latter family in Essex (Morant, Hisl. of Essex, LEGAT AND ANOTHER V. AVODEWARD 92 the said chancellor brought with him this record here into the council and reporteil that the aforesaid justices had viewed and examined it, and that it seemed to them this record was quite sufficient and legitimately made. LEGAT AND ANOTHER i'. WODEWARD > A 42Q May it please you our lord the king to remember how on the twentieth day of last May by your special grace you granted to your squires Helming Lcgat - and William Lowney ^ the custody of the manor of Bobl)ingworth * together with the advowson of the church of Bobbingworth during the non- age of Thomas son and heir of Thomas Enfield ° and so from heir to heir until one of the said heirs arrives at full age, without rendering anything to you for it; this guardianship belongs to you because of the minor age of the said Thomas son of Thomas Enfield, and your chancellor by bill of your treasurer has couunitted it by your letters patent to William Wode- ward "founder,"' and Agnes his wife' during the nonage of the said heir.* Wherefore, very gracious lord, maj* it please you to command your chan- cellor to issue to the said Helming and William Lowney your letters patent for the custody of the aforesaid manor and advowson and to annul and revoke the said letters patent issued by your said chancellor to the said William Wotleward and Agnes. (This do) for God's sake and in work of charity. B . . . ' of and concerning the bill presented to the said parliament,"" fol- lowing this schedule and ... by the said council of the lord [the king] . . . the manor of Fyficld which was put in the bonds to render a fixed sum yearly for the custody of William Woodward and his estate during the minority of the lieir, wife mentioned below (ibid. 275). maintaining him and providing for his ' A citizen of London and member of marriage without disparity, and keeping the Founders' Company. In 1414 Henry up the property without waste. Ibid. V commissioned him to take copper, ' The entire upper left-hand corner of bronze, iron, and other metals for making the membrane is torn away, but the guns, to gather charcoal and saltpeter, to tenor of the record is easily followed bring together workmen and compel their nevertheless. services for the king's expedition. Cal. '° There is no record of such a bill in Pat. 2 Hen. V, 292; Cal. Letter-books, K, the Rolls of Parliament, but from what 27. follows we learn that a counter-suit was ' She was a kinswoman of the late begun by WiUiam and Agnes, who pre- Thomas Enfield. Cal. Pal. 8 Hen. IV, sented a petition in parliament complain- 275. ing that they had been removed. By ' This grant of Bobbingworth is miss- authority of parliament the matter was ing, but it was probably similar to the given to the council, which cau.sed the grant just mentioned of the messuage in following examination to be made in the Fjrfield, dated 24 Nov. 1406. By an exchequer. On this procedure see Introd., agreement with the treasurer, Thomas p. xliv. Neville, who issues a warrant to the chan- cellor, Wilham and his wife are put under 93 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL tem facimus reportacionem videlicet quod Willelmus Loueney duodecimo die lunii [ultimo preterito vocatus] personaliter comparauit et de modo [per]quisicionis siue impetracionis literarum patencium domini Regis eidem Willelmo . . . [factarum anno re]gni domini Regis nimc decimo de manerio de BobbjTigworth unacum advocacione eeclesie de Bobbyngworth . . . alios nomine suo obtent' siue persequt' examinatus respondet sic. Sires, I made no pursuite for that patente . . . ement. And I trowe that the kyng wolde not haue bede me and charged me to haue pursuyd it bute hit hadde . . . resonable. And there, Sires, I pray yow if hit semeth to the kyng and his wise Counsaille that the patente be laweful and resonable that the patente may stonde in strengthe. And if it semeth to the kyng or to his wise Counseille that the patente be unlaweful and unresonable, I wolde as gladly leve it and all the benefite ther of as euere I was glad to take it. Et Helmingus Legat postea videlicet duodecimo die lunii ultimo preterito vocatus et super preraissis omnibus et singulis similiter examinatus respondet et dicit in omnibus prout predictus Willelmus Loueney superius dixit. Et ulterius dicit idem Helmingus quod postquam predicte liters patentes facte fuerunt prefato Willelmo Louenej' et sibi, ipse ad instanciam et supplicacionem lohannis Asshele " Chiualer relaxauit totum statum suimi quern ipse pretextu dictanun Hterarum Regis patencium habuit in eisdem cuidam lohanni Habhale uni valectorum predicti lohannis Asshele, etc. Et Willelmus Wodeward et Agnes uxor ejus simiUter vocati venenmt [personaUter] quartodecimo die lunii ultimo preterito, et dicunt quod in parliamento domini Regis Anno regni suo prmio apud Westmonasterium edito ordinatum fuit et stabilitum quod [illi] qui extunc peterent de Rege terras tenementa redditus officia annuitates seu aha proficua quecumque facerent expressam mencionem in peticionibus suis de valore rei sic petende et eciam de omni eo quod ipsi antea habuerunt de dono Regis progenitorum siue predecessorum suorum, et in casu quo ipsi non facerent talem menci- onem in peticionibus suis predictis et hoc debite probato essent tales Utere Regis patentes inde facte minime valcntes nee alicuius vigoris vel effectus set de toto reuocarentur et adnullarentur pro omni tempore futuro in punicionera illorum qui ita feccrunt in decepcionem Regis tanquam illis qui non sunt digni gaudere effectu et beneficio literarum patencium eis in hac parte concessarum prout in statuto p[redicto] plenius continetur." Et dicunt quod predictus Willelmus Loueney habuit de dono domini Regis die confeccionis dictarmn literarum Regis patencium sibi et predicto Holmingo factarum xl marcas annuatim percipiendas de firma ville de KjTigeston ac unam marcam annuatim percipiendam de ducatu Lancastr' et decern marcas annuatim percipiendas de Huntlredo de Holton in Comitatu Norff.' Et quod predictus Helmingus similiter habuit dicto die confeccionis litera- rum Regis patencium supradictarum de dono domini Regis viginti libras annuatun '^ ad Receptam Scaccarii percipiendas . . . annuatim percipiend' LEGAT AND ANOTHER V. WODEWARD 93 here following, we report to the effect that William Lowney [having been called] on the twelfth day of [last] June appeared in person, and being examined in regard to the method whereby he acquired or sought letters patent of the lord the king [granted] to the said AA'iliiain ... in the tenth year of the reign of the present lord the king concerning the manor of Bobbingworth together with the advowson of the church of Bobbingworth . . . obtained or acquired in his name, he answered as follows. " Sirs, I made," etc. [See opposite page.] Thereupon Hehning Legat on the same twelfth day of last June was called, and being sunilarly examined w-ith regard to all and each of the premises he respontled, saying in all points the same as William Lowney had alreadj' said. Furthermore, the said Hehning says that after the said letters patent had been issued to the aforesaid William Lowney and himself, at the instance and supplication of John Ashley," knight, he had released every claim that he had in the said (properties) by virtue of the said letters patent of the king, to a certain John Habhale, one of the servants of the aforesaid John Ashley, etc. And William Wode- ward and Agnes his wife were similarly called, and came in person on the fourteenth day of last June, saying that in the parliament of the lord the king held at Westminster in the first year of his reign, it had been ordained and made statute that whoever should petition the king for lands, tenements, revenues, offices, annuities or any other profits whatsoever should make in their petitions express mention of the value of the thing sought for and also (make mention) of everything that they have had before by gift of the king, his ancestors or predecessors, and in case thej^ failed to mention these things in their said petitions, when this was duly proved, such letters patent as may have been issued to them should be of no value, validity or effect but should be entire)}' revoked and annulled for all the future, to the punishment of those who have done this to the deception of the king as persons who are not worthy to enjoy the effect and benefit of the letters patent granted to them in this part, accord- ing to what is gi\-en more fully in the aforesaid statute.'^ And they say that the aforesaid William Lowney, on the day that the said letters patent of the king granted to him and the aforesaid Hehning were issued, (already) had by gift of the king 40 marks a year derivetl from the ferm of the town of Kingston, also one mark a year derived from the duchy of Lancaster, and ten marks a year derived from the hundred of Holton in the county of Norfolk. And (they say) that the aforesaid Hehning Ukewise on the said day when the aforesaid letters patent were issued by gift of the lord king had twenty pounds a year " at the receipt of the exchequer received an- " or Assheley, known in 1.399 as a king's ous times was commissioner and custo- esquire, and in 1401 as a king's knight, dian. retained at an annuity of £100 {Cal. Pat. " This enactment is in Rot. Pari, iii, 433. 68,473). In 1408 he was sent in the king's " This was a grant of 5 Nov. 1399. service to Ireland (ibid. 470), and at vari- Cal. Pat. 1 Hen. IV, 64. 94 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL de extenta custodie manerii de Cressyche " cum pertinenciis in comitatu Salop' prout patet de recordo in quo casu predicte litere Regis patentes [predictis Willelmo et] Helniingo ut premittitur facte fuerunt et sunt reuocabiles et minus valentes etc. petentes predicti Willelmus Wodeward et Agnes quod . . . hentur etc. videlicet quantiun ipsi et eorum uterque tempore confeccionis literarimi Regis patencium supradictarum . . . Regis ultra id quod in predictis Uteris Regis patentibus eis ut premittur factis continet\ir. Et si ... ad statutum predictum v . . . contemptus time quod predicte litere Regis patentes de data ..." Regis huius ... ex aliis causis notabil' . . . annex' content' reuocentur et adnullentur. Et quod litere Regis patentes de data v[icesimi secimdi"] diei Maii eisdem Willelmo et Agneti de custodia predicta . . . et ulterius quod sibi fieri juxta ordinacionem et adA-isamentimi consilii dicti domini Regis auctoritate par- liamenti in hac parte quod de iure fuit faciendxmi . . . nos prefatos Thesau- rariimi et Barones a prefatis Willelmo Loueney et Helmingo a tempore confeccionis literanun Regis patencium supradictarum de data . . . aliquid de dono Regis aliud quam in eisdem Uteris Regis patentibus continetur habuerunt seu eorum alter habuit . . . [ne] potest dedicere quin ipsi tem- pore confeccionis Uterarum Regis patencium [supradictarum . . . de dono] Regis ultra omnia in dictis Uteris Regis contenta omnes et singulas annuitates supradictas per predictos WiUeUnum et Agnetem uxorem ejus s[uperius] declaratas etc. Quibus quidem examinacionibus supradictis per nos prefatos Thesaurarium et Barones ut premittitiir captis responsioni- busque parcium predictarum supradictis auditis . . . tabiUbus in pre- dictis Uteris Regis patentibus prefatis Helmingo et Willelmo Loueney factis videtur tam nobis prefatis Thesaurario et Baronibus quam lusticiariis de domino Rege nobiscum existentibus predictas Uteras Regis patentes eisdem Willelmo Loueney et Helmingo de data vicesimi diei Maii . . . factas ex causis superius specificatis fore reuocandas aliasque Uteras Regis patentes prefatis Willelmo Wodeward et Agneti uxori sue ut premittitur factas valentes . . . dictus Willelmus Louenej' per nos prefatos Thesaurarium et Barones si ipse sciat de veritate dicere utnmi predicte Utere Regis patentes de data vicesimi diei Man sibi et prefato Helmingo facte sigillate fuerunt antequam predicte Utere Regis patentes predicto Willelmo Wodeward et Agneti uxori sue de data \'icesinii secundi diei Mau facte sigillate fuerunt vel postea, qui dicit super sacramentum suum quod . . . intendit in con- sciencia sua quod predicte Utere patentes predictis WiUeUno Wodeward et Agneti uxori sue facte et sigiUate fuenmt antequam predicte Utere Regis " This was a grant made in 1402, and " These letters are mentioned in Ibid, worth £20 a year. Cat. Pat. 4 Hen. 1\. t>4. 12 Hen. IV, 240; also in Fine RoU, 10 Hen. " This grant of 20 Mav, 1402 is in Ibid. IV, m. 8. 11 Hen. IV, 231. LEGAT AND ANOTHER V. WODEWARD 94 Dually [from] . . . [and] . . . received annually from the income of the custoily of the manor of Cressage '■* with ajipurtcnances in the countj' of Shrops, as appears from the record, wherefore the aforesaid letters patent granted to [the aforesaid Wil!i;»m and] Ilclminp;, as described above, were and are revocable ami invalid, etc., while the aforesaid William Wodeward and Agnes petition that . . . that is, whatever the two or either of them at the time the aforesaid letters patent of the king were issued ... of the king further that which is contained in the aforesaid letters patent grantetl to them as has been described. And if . . . to the aforesaid statute . . . contempt, then that the aforesaid letters patent of the date [20 May, 11th year '^] of this king . . . notable for other causes . . . contained in . . . annexed shall be revoked and annulled. And that the king's letters patent dated the [twenty-second ■"] day of May ... in regard to the aforesaid custodj' [granted] to the said William and Agnes, and furthermore that according to the ordinance and advice of the council of the said lord king by authority of parliament there should be done for them what rightfully ought to have been done ... us the aforesaid treasurer and barons by the aforesaid William Lowney and Helming from the time that the afore- said letters patent of the king dated . . . were made . . . the two of them had or one of them had something by gift of the king other than what is contained in the said letters patent of the king . . . [nor] can it be denied that at the time the aforesaid letters patent were granted . . . they [were receiving by gift] of the king besides all the things described in the said letters of the king and each of the aforesaid annuities, as declared above by the aforesaid William and Agnes his wife, etc. The aforesaid examina- tions then having been conducted by us, the aforesaid treasurer and barons, as has been previously described, and the responses of the aforesaid parties having been heard ... in the aforesaid letters patent of the king granted to the aforesaid Hehuing and William Lowney, it seems right to us the aforesaid treasurer and barons as well as the justices of the lord the king remaining with us that the aforesaid letters patent of the king granted to the said William Lowney and Helming dated the twentieth of May . . . ■for the causes specified above should be revoked and that other valid letters patent of the king should be granted to the aforesaid William Wode- ward and Agnes his wife, as has been previously described, . . . [and that] the said Wilham Lowney [having been asked] by us the aforesaid treasurer and barons whether he can truly tell whether the aforesaid letters patent of the king dated the twentieth day of May that were granted to him and the aforesaid Helming were sealed before the aforesaid letters patent granted to the aforesaid William Wodeward and Agnes his wife, and dated the twenty-second day of May had been sealed or afterwanis; and he says upon his oath that ... he understands in his conscience that the aforesaid letters patent granted to William Wodew^ard and Agnes his wife were sealed before the aforesaid letters patent granted to himself and 95 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL patentes sibi et predicto Helmingo facte sigillate fuerunt. Que omnia et singula excellenti consilio et discrete domini Regis certificamus per presentes." WYTHUM V. MEN OF KAMPEN ' 1418 A treshonorable et tressage counseille le Roi nostre souerein seignur. Supplie humblement Hugh de Wythum ^ de Boston qe come ore tarde un sa nief appelle Gabriell es parties de Pruys esteant y estoit arestuz saunz cause resonable al suite de certeins gentz del ville de Campe et y soubtz arest detenuz par sept scmaignes et pluj-s tanqe les attournes et deputees du dit suppliant en le dit nief esteantz pur aver deliuerance de la dit nief firent fyn oue les ditz gentz de Campe a lour volunte par ount le dit suppliant es mys as costages et damages pluj^s qe de CCC li. qar si le dit arest nust estee sa dit nief ust venuz a Boston oue la grace de Dieu deuant le fest de Seint Petre ad %dncle ^ lou puis tempeste surdyst par quel sa dit nief en venant deuers la dit ville de Boston fuit gette sur un Rokke en la paiis de Norway et y debrusee. Et ore Grote Court et John Rode de la dite ville de Campe oue deux lour niefs soimt venuz au dit \alle de Boston. Qe please a voz tressagez discrecions de graunter un brief as bailliefs de Boston suisditz pour arester les ditz deux niefs de Campe et eux ensy arestez detenir tanqe pleine restitucion soit fait a dit supphant des costages et damages suisditz solonqe ceo qe bon foj' et resoim demandent en celle partie pour dieu et en oeure de charite. [Endorsed: — ] Concordatum per dominiun Cancellarium •• quinto decimo die Nouembris anno sixto.^ Le quinzisme iour de Novembre Ian, etc., sisme. Accordez est par le conseil qe couunission desouz le grant seel soit adressee a Robert Tirwyt ' et William Ludyngton,' Justices, pur faire comparer deuant eux les parties deinz especifiees et qe la matere de ceste peticion par eux bien et duement examinee facent sur ce droit as dites parties, en facent empres relacion au conseil du Roy de ce quils averont fait en celle partie.' " The conclusion of the matter is Privy Seal (Exch. T. H.), file 32, 15 Nov., learned from the letters patent, dated 6 Hen. V. 16 Oct. 1410, which recite how at the ' Wythom or Witham, a name eminent suit of A\'illiam Wodeward and Apncs his in the history of Boston for two centuries, wife the question had been examined be- Hugh the father of the present petitioner fore the council, which after dehberation was a member of the Corpus Christi Gild with the justices and others learned in the and alderman in 1404 and 1410. The law gave judgment that the letters of present Hugh came to the same honour in 20 May be revoked and William and 1414. It was perhaps a son of the latter Agnes lie restored to possession. Cal. Pal. who is mentioned as Hugh son of Hugh 12 Hen. IV, 240. junior in the same connection in 1430. In ' The original petition is in Ancient Pe- 1453 there was one Sir Hugh, etc. (P. tilions, no. S107. There is a copy contain- Thompson, Hist, of BosUm [1850], pp. 118, ing a few extended phrases in Council and 241). The petitioner was a commissioner WYTHUM V. MEN OF KAMPEN 95 the aforesaid Helming had been sealed. All these things and each of them we certify to the excellent and discreet council of the lord the king by the present (writing)." WYTHUM V. MEN OF KAMPEN > 1418 To the very honourable and very sage council of the king our sovereign lord. Huniblj' beseecheth Hugh of Wythum ^ of Boston that whereas a ship of his named Gabriel while lying in parts of Prussia was there arrested without reasonable cause at the suit of certain men of the town of Kam- pen and was there detained under arrest for more than seven weeks, until the attornej's and deputies of the said suppliant who were with the said ship, in order to have delivorance of the said ship, made fine with the said men of Kampen at their will, whereby the said suppliant has been put to costs and damages of more than £300; for if the said arrest had not oc- curred his said ship would have come with The Grace of God to Boston be- fore the feast of St. Peter ad vincula,' whereas a tempest arose by which his said ship while coming toward the town of Boston was thro^vTi upon a rock on the coast of Norway and there shattered. And now Grote Court and John Rode of the said town of Kampen with their two ships have come . to the said town of Boston. May it please your very sage discretions to grant a writ to the bailiffs of Boston aforesaid to arrest the said two ships of Kampen and to detain them under arrest until full restitution be made to the said suppliant for the aforesaid costs and damages, according to what good faith and reason demand, for God and in way of charity. [Endorsed: — ] Agreed by the lord chancellor,^ 15 November, in the sixth year.^ The fifteenth daj' of November, year, etc., sixth. It is agreed by the council that a commission under the great seal should be addressed to Robert Tirwyt^ and William Ludjoigton,'' justices, to have the parties herein specified appear before them and that having well and duly ex- amined the matter contained in this petition they shall thereupon do justice to the said parties, making express relation to the king's council of what they shall have done in this case.* de xixiliis el fossati^ in 1418, and a com- sioner of array in Lincolnshire in 1419, missioner to raise a loan in Lincolnshire in commissioner of oyer and terminer, etc. 1419 iCal. Pat. 200, 252). Cal. Pal. Rolls. ' 1 August. ' Ludington or Lodington, attorney * Thomas Langley, 1417-24. general in 1399, Serjeant at law in 1410, ' This endorsement is not in the king's Serjeant at law in 1413, justice of original petition. common pleas in 141.5, justice of the peace ' Tinvhit or Thirwit, serjeant at law in Cumberland, Westmoreland, Yorkshire, in 1399, justice of common pleas and of and Lincolnshire, commissioner of oyer the king's bench in 1409, justice of the and terminer, etc. Ibid. peace in Westmoreland, Yorkshire, North- • This commission was issued on the umberland, and Lincolnshire, commis- same day. Cal. Pal. 6 Hen. V, 205. 96 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL DF\-AL V. C0UXTES3 OF ARUXDEL ' 1421 Au Roy nostre souuerain seigniour. Supplient humblement Guille du val, vostre homme liiige, \Tay subgiet et obbej'ssant de vostre chitte de Rouen marchant, et Ernoult Claissoun [maitre dune nauire appele la Marie de] Cingnet de Selissay - en Selande et Comme voz dix suppliens priient a vostre treshaulte segneurie et majeste royal dauoir restitucion de cer[teins ■s'ins qi furent enportes a Briscampton ' par] fortune de temps en la compte de Susses, lesquieulx vins lesdix supplians pourquaichent de jour en jour amon grant f[re]s et despens des qu[els \Tns furent ]enporte dedens la seugneurie de monssieur larcheuesque de Quantor- byere viat pippes audit lieu, et xxx\t pippes furent [enporte, dedens la] seignourj-e de madame la Contesse Darondel,* et desquelles ^•int pippes qui furent menees et en portees en la segneurie dudit ar[cheuesque furent les dix] supplians comptentes des dites xx pippes, et aussy fui'ent conptentes de dix pippes des xxxs-i pippez dessusditz qui fur[ent] m[enees dedens la seigneurie] de la dite Comptesse. Ainssy demeure de reste pour les dix supplians xx\-i pippes de \Tn des xxx\-i dessusdites lesquellez xxvi pippes . . . dethient et se fond de un on de la dite dame et veult dethenir lesdix A-ins a grant tort et dommaige des dix supplians. Et sy auoient eu [lettres] de vostre haulte majeste royal adrechant a Richard Wathehei-st et Waultier Urry * et sonen hommes, officers de la dite Contesse, pour [deliuerer] lour dix \Tns et yceulx nont voullu obbeir ne octhemperer, et sur ce lesdix supplians requerent auoir une commission du Roy [pour enquirer touchant] lesdis \Tns et fres et dommages qU yont fais en pourquaschant la dite marchandise adrechant a monssieur de Pony[nges ^ ch'r Johan] Xelond ^ Jennequin Halles ' le Joun devenir ' a Loundres par deuant Justice aesster adroit selonc le cas alia reste desdLx supplians. Et [le dit Guille] et lesdix supplians prierent Dieu pour vous et pour vostre tresnoble sane et lingnage. [Endorsed: — ] Le xix jour de Feuerer Ian etc. oj-tisme, par le conseil du Roj' nostre souerein seignur, accordez est qe desouz le grant seal de nostre dit souerein seignur soient faites lettres de commission adressees au Sire de Ponj-ngges et as autres cy dedeinz nommez denquere de les biens et ' Ancient Petitions, no. 8745. The out issue, left it with other parts of the membrane is badly damaged. The spaces barony to the Countess Beatrice, men- indicated by brackets have been filled in tioned below (T. W. Horsfield, Hist, of by comparison with the entry in the fo/CT!/ Sussex [1835], i, 110), who retained pos- RoU, 8 Hen. V, m., 2 d. The petition, it session of it to the end of her life (Cal. will be noticed, was composed by a for- Inq., p. m., iv, 197-8). (2) Brigbton- eigner, and contains verbsd forms strange Michelhara, belonging to the priory of to England. Michaelham (Horsfield, i, 112). (3) ' = Zierikzee. Brighton-.\tlingworth, belonging to the * The parish of Brighton contained monks of Lewes. Just what claims the three lordships: (1) Brighton-Lewes, which archbishop of Canterbury had, has not came to the .\rundels from the Warren been shown, estates in 1347. The late earl, dj-ing with- « Beatrice, illegitimate daughter of the DUVAL V. COUNTESS OF ARUNDEL 96 DIR'AL V. COUNTESS OF ARUNDEL ' 1421 To the king our sovoroipii lord. Himibly bcsecchcth William Duval, your liege man, true and obedient subject of your city of Rouen, merchant, and Arnold Claisson, [master of a ship called La Marie de] Cygnet of Selissay- in Zealand. And since your said suppliants pray to your very exalted lordship and royal majesty that they may have restitution of certain wines which were brought into Brighton ' by fortune of time in the county of Sussex, which wines the said suppliants sue for from day to day to my great cost and exjjense; of which wines there were brought within the lordship of my lord the arch- bishop of Canter})ury 20 pipes at the aforesaid place, and 36 pipes within the lordship of the countess of Arundel,'' and of the 20 pipes which were taken and brought within the lordship of the said ar[chbishop the said] suppliants have been satisfied for the said 20 pipes, and also for ten of the aforesaid 3(3 pipes which were [taken within the lordship] of the said countess. Thus there remains wanting to the said suppliants 26 pipes of wine out of the aforesaid 36, which 26 pipes . . . detains and defends him- self by the name of the said lady, who means to detain the said wines to the great wrong and damage of the said suppliants. And whereas they have had [letters] of your high royal majesty addressed to Richard Watheherst and AValter Urrj' ' and their men, officers of the said countess, to [deliver] their said wines, and these have not been willing to obey or yield; whereupon the said suppliants request to have a commission of the king [to inquire con- cerning] the said wines and costs and damages that they have incurred in suing for the said merchandise, addressed to the lord of Pony[ngs,* knight, John] Nclond,' Jennequin Halles ^ the younger, (to require the men) to come to London before the coui't to stand trial according to the case, to the relief of the said suppUants. And the said William and the said sup- pliants will pray God for you and for your very noble blood and lineage. [Endorsed: — ] On the 19th day of Febniary, eighth j'ear, etc., it is agreed by the council of our sovereign lord the king that there should be issued under the great seal of our said sovereign lord letters of commission addressed to the lord of Ponyngcs and the others named herein to enquire king of Portugal and widow of Thomas and Henry VI, serving also as justice of Fitzalan who died in 1415. Dugdale, the peace and commissioner in the county Baronage, i, 321. until he W'as slain in 1446 (Dugdale, ii, » Mentioned as agent of the arch- 135). bishop and the countess, also a conimis- ' or Neland, justice of the peace in sioner in 1422 to inquire into false weights. Sussex, commissioner of oyer and terminer, Cal. Pat. Rolh, 329, 423. etc. « Robert Poynings, fifth and last earl ' John Halle, probably son of John of a family named from a manor in the Halle the elder, sheriff of Surrey and downs which had been held l)y them from Sussex in 1420. Both were active in the the time of Henry II (Horsfield, i, 175). affairs of the county. He took part in all the wars of Henry V ' For /aire devenir. 97 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL marchandises dount mencion est faite en cestes deux peticions annexez, et as mains de qi ou queux tieux biens et marchandises sont deuenuz, et de faire et ordenner qe diceux due restitucion soit faite a ceux as queux il ap- partient, comme reson demande, et qe les ditz commissioners facent dis- tinctement et apertement certifier de souz lour sealx au susdit conseil ce quils aueront fait en celle partie.'" DANVERS V. BROKET' 1433 Memorandum quod vicesimo die lunii anno regni Regis Henrici sexti post conquestum undecimo quidam Robertus Danvers- personaliter op- tulit [se consiliodomini Regis in] camera stellata in palacio Westm'et ibidem publice ^ exposuit ^ et declaravit quod circiter duos annos iam elapsos ipse primo retentus fuit ad essendum de consilio cuiusdam Thome SeLntcleer et feoffatonmi suorum in hiis que ad legem pertinent de et super jure et titulo maneriorimi de Barton Sancti Johannis et Staunton Sancti Johannis ^ in comitatu Oxon'. Et pro eo quod quedam inquisicio coram Radulfo SeintowajTi,* nuper escaetore domini Edwardi, nuper Regis Anglie tercii a conquestu, in comitatu Surr' anno regni sui [vic]esimo septimo post mortem Rogeri de Sancto Johanne ' capta et in cancellaria sua retornata probabilis et manifesta iuris et tituli predictoriun euidencia exist[ebat] pre- dictus Robertus ut unus de consilio predict! Thome et feoflfatorum pre- dictorum sequebatur ad concellariam predicti domini Regis nunc pro tenore ejusdem inquisicionis inter aUa sub magno sigillo domini Regis secundum formam juris exemplificando. Ac postmodmn predictus dominus Rex nunc tenorem predictum per Utteras suas patentes quarimi datiun est apud West- monasterium terciodecimo die Julii anno regni sui nono inter alia duxit exeraplificari. In quibus quidem inquisieione et exemplificacione adtunc inter alia continebatur ista clausula: Et quod Petrus de Sancto Johanne "> The commission was issued on the but at the time of this case he was not as same day. It required also an inquiry yet in the employment of the king. In into the complaint of Nicholas GosseljTi 1436 he was justice of the peace in 0.\ford- another merchant of Rouen who had lost shire, and afterwards served frequently as 6 pipes of wine in the same way. Cal. commissioner and justice of assize. In Pat. 8 Hen. V, 329. 1442 he was elected recorder of London ' Council and Privy Seal (Exch. T. R.), (Cal. Letter-books, K, 273); in 1443 he was file 54. The record is exemplified at length a Serjeant at law; in 1444 a king's ser- in Close Roll, 11 Hen. IV, m. 4d., which jeant; in 14.50 a justice of common pleas has been used in determining and supply- (Cal. Pal. Rolls). ing some of the words. The case was ' Contrary to a current belief, the known to Coke (Fourth Inst. ch. V), and proceedings of the council were not al- was printed in The King's Council (p. 525) ways, perhaps not usually, secret (The without translation or annotation. King's Council, p. 105). The custom of ' Eldest son of John Danvers of Co- public sessions was carried over into the thorp, of a well established family in modern court of star chamber (E. P. Berkshire and Oxfordshire, trained at Chcyney, Hist, of Eng. from the Armada, Lincoln's Inn, of which he became one of i, 87). the governors in 1428. From this time on • No petition evidently was required, he was active as an attorney and litigant, See Introd., p. xxxvi. DANVERS V. BROKET 97 concerning the goods and merchandise mentioned in these two petitions anncxetl, and into whose liands such goods anil merchandise have fallen, and to do and ordain that such due restitution shall be made to whom it belongs as reason demands, and that the said commissioners shall cause distinctly and openlj- to be certified to the aforesaid council under their seals whatever they shall have done in this matter.'" DANVERS V. BROKET ' 1433 Be it remembered that on the 20th day of June in the 11th year of King Henrj' VI Robert Danvers ^ presented himself in person before the council of the lord the king in the Star Chamber in the Palace at Westminster, and there made public ' exposition,'' declaring that about two years previ- ously he had been retained as counsel of one Thomas Sinclair and his feoffees in law touching and concerning the right and title to the manors of Barton St. John's and Stanton St. Jolm's ■'' in the county of Oxford. And whereas a certain inquisition that was taken before Ralph SeintowajTi ' once escheator in the county of Sm-rey for Edward III, formerlj' king of England, in the twenty -seventh year of his reign, after the death of Roger St. John,' and this inquisition having been returned to the chancery re- mained as the probable and manifest evidence of the aforesaid right and title, the aforesaid Robert as counsel of the aforesaid Thomas and the aforesaid feoffees sued in the chancery of the aforesaid lord the present king among other things for an exempUfication of the tenor of the same inquisition under the great seal in due form. And afterwards the aforesaid lord the present king by his letters patent dated at Westminster the 13th day of July in the 9th year of his reign, among other things, had the afore- said tenor exemplified. In this inquisition and exemplification, among other things, there was then contained the following clause: " And because Peter St. John is a cousin and the nearest heir of the aforesaid Roger, being ' These manors were part of the estat« probably in these transactions that Dan- of Roger St. John, mentioned below in vers was engaged as an attorney. 27 Ed. III. They were transferred several ' or St. Owen, sheriff of Surrey and times before they are found in the posses- Sussex in 1351, and escheator 1353-54. sion of PhUip Sinclair, or St. Clare, who Cal. CI. Rolh. held by knight service and died in 9 Hen. ' Son of John St. John, of a family IV {Cal. Inq., p. m., iii, 320). His elder known from the time of Henry III in con- son John, a minor and ward of the king, nection with the manor of Lagham in died in the reign of Henry V, leaving the Surrey. Barton and Stanton in Oxford- lands to a younger Ijrother the above shire were acquired in the reign of Ed- named Thomas, also a minor at the time ward I (O. Manning, Hist, of Surrey [1809], and ward of the king. This Tliomas in ii, 324). Great Barton was released by a 1424 paid a fine of £200 for marrying with- deed in 1352 {Cal. CI. 27 Ed. Ill, 507). out the king's license {Cal. Pat. 2 Hen. VI, This Roger died in 1353 leaving the resi- 180), and in 1426 was required to pay an- due of his estate, including Lagham and other fine of £60 for making enfeoffments Walkamsted in Surrey, to Peter his cousin in the manors of Barton St. John's and and heir {Cal. Inq., -p. m., ii, 181), whose Stanton St. John's and elsewhere without title was at this late day brought into a license (ibid. 4 Hen. VI, 352). It was question. 98 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL est consanguineus et heres predict! Rogeri propinqnior et etatis xl annorum et amplius, que quidem clausula in omnibus de litteratura clara et unifornai adtunc extitit et non \'iciosa nee in aliquo rasa aut suspecta, ut idem Rober- tas coram consilio predicto publice exposuit et declarauit. Dicebat insuper idem Robertu's quod predictus numerus xl in predicta clausula contentus quamdiu non rasus nee viciosus, ut predictum est, extitit in magnam euiden- ciam eneruacionis et adnullacionis pretensi iuris et tituli quorundam Johannis Lydeyard * et Clemencie uxoris ejus de et in maneriis predictis manifeste redundauit, in qua quidem clausula predictus numerus xl diu citra confeccionem ejusdem exemplificacionis de nouo rasus et iterum cum nouo incausto renouatus extitit et rescriptus, prout in dicta inquisicione satis aperte eminet et apparet.' De quibus quidem rasura et rescripcione predictus Robertus in diuersis regni partibus per nonnullos obloquentes multipliciter extitit diffamatus in ipsius Roberti scandalum, et predicti Thome et feoffatorum suorum predictorum juris et tituli de et in maneriis predictis prejudicium non modicum et grauamen. Super quibus predictus Robertus predictam exemplificationem coram dicto consilio publice demon- strans himiiliter supplicauit tam pro domino Rege quam pro restitucione fame sue predicte quod Thomas Smyth,'" clericus, qui habet custodiam dicte inquisicionis necnon certorum recordorum cancellarie domini Regis apud Turrim London' existencimn sub Johanne Frank," clerico custode rotulorum cancellarie ejusdem domini Regis, et Robertus PolejTi, seruiens ejusdem Thome Smyth, sint vocati ad dictum consilium ad recognoscendum quid nouerint vel dicere sciuerint de rasura predicta. Qui quidem Thomas et Robertus die et loco predictis coram dicto consiUo comparentes et pre- dictam inquisicionem ut predictum est rasam secum portantes, \-isisque eis insimul predictis inquisicione et exemplificacione, fide qua domino Rege tenebantur matura deUberacione dixerunt et recognouerunt quod predictus Robertus PolejTi scripsit eandem exemplificacioncm, et postea dictus Thomas Smyth et Robertus PolejTi simul examinaucrunt predictas in- quisicionem et exemplificacioncm, in qua quidem examinacione adtunc in loco dicte rasure reperierunt solomodo Lstas htteras x et 1 simul et antiquiter scriptas pro isto numero quadraginta non rasas suspectas nee in aliquo viciosas, prout in dicta exemplificacione scribitur et testatur. Verump- tamen pro eo quod hec rasura falso et nisi tarde, ut apparet, extitit per- petrata dicunt quod quidam Willebnus Broket mediacione eujusdam Gerardi de la Hay '^ circiter festum Sancte Katherine \'irginis " ultimo ' The claim of John Lydeyard has not blotting. An endorsement written in been traced. modern times reads: De Rasura mimeri ' The original document (Inquisitiones XL infra script, vide Manorand' in Dorso post mortem, 27 Ed. Ill, file 121, no. 27) Claus. de anno h. 6. m. 4 d. The Statute shows the rasure just as is here described. 8 Ric. II, c. 4 applied to offences of this The rasure was roughly made, leaving kind. See Introd., p. cviii. traces of the former writing, while the '" Keeper of the records in the Tower; later writing is blacker than the original, a clerk in the chancery receiving attorneys, more heavily drawn and has spread by Cat. Pat. 12 Hen. VI, 309, 332, etc. DANVERS V. BROKET 98 more tliaii fortj' years of age." This clause in every way was then of a clear and uniform writing, not damaged or rased in any place or suspected, as the said Robert has publicly explained and declared before the aforesaid council. Moreover the same Robert said that the aforesaid number XL occurring in the aforesaid clause, so long as it was not rased or damaged, as has been saiil, manifestly afforded strong evidence of the weakness and annulment of the alleged right and title of a certain John Lydeyard ' and Clcmence his wife to and in the aforesaid manors, for in this clause the number XL, long after the same exemplification was made, has been re- cently rased and renewed with fresh ink and has been written over, as stands out very prominentlj' and is clearly apparent in the said inquisition.' By reason of this rasin-e and rewriting the aforesaid Robert has been greatly defamed by persons in many parts of the realm who blame him, to the great shame of the said Robert and to the enormous prejudice and hard- ship of the aforesaid Thomas and his aforesaid feoffees in respect of the right and title to and in the aforesaitl manors. Furthermore the aforesaid Robert publicly exhibiting the aforesaid exemplification before the said council humbly besought in behalf of the king as well as for the restoration of his own good name that Thomas Smyth,'" clerk, who has custody of the said inquisition as well as of certain records of the lord the king's chancery remaining in the Tower of London, under John Frank," clerk, keeper of the rolls of the chancery of the said lord the king, and Rol^ert Polej-n, servant of the same Thomas Smyth, should be called before the said council to make recognition of what they know or can say concerning the aforesaid rasure. The same Thomas and Robert at the aforesaid time and place appeared before the said council, bringing the aforesaid inquisition that had been rased as already described, and having viewed the aforesaid in- quisition at the same time with the aforesaid exemplification, upon the faith by which they are bound to the lord the king, after mature delibera- tion they declared and recognised that the aforesaid Robert Polej'n wrote the said exemplification. Afterward the said Thomas Smyth and Robert Polej'n examined the aforesaid inquisition together with the said exempli- fication, whereby they then discovered that in the place of the said rasure only these letters x and I had been written simultaneously and originally for the number forty, which had not been rased, suspected or in any way impaired, just as is written and attested in the said exemplification. Never- theless because this rasure has been perpetrated falsely and only lately, as it appears, they say that one William Broket with the assistance of a certain Gerard de la Hay "^ about St. Katharine's Day " last came to the aforesaid " Master of the rolls, 142.3-41. emptod from official duties {Cal. Pal. 31 " A clerk now at the beginning of a Hen. VI, 06). lie was among those ex- long career in the exchequer. In 1452 he empted in 1455 from the Resumption was honoured with a special grant for his Act (Kol. Pari, v, 319). good service to Henry V and Henry VI, " 25 Nov. 1432. and because of his advanced age was ex- 99 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL preteritum venit ad predictam Turrim una cum predicto Roberto Polejii, et cum venisset illuc in domo ubi dicta inquisicio remanebat, ut predictus Robertus PolejTi asseruit, predictus "Willelmus pecLit visum antedicte in- quisicionis, quam \-idens requisiuit eum diuersa alia recorda scrutare dummodo ipse Willelmus dicte inquisicionis copiam scriberet. Ipseque Robertus, sciens ipsum Willelmum esse clericum scaccarii domini Regis et prout moris est juratum eidem domino Regi, permisit ipsum Willelmum solum scribentem copiam inquisicionis antedicte dmnmodo ipse Robertus circa predictum aliud scrutineum aliunde extitit occupatus, per quod ipse Robertus bene recolit quod ipse numquam aliquem habere largum suum dictam nephandam rasuram fecisse permisit nisi solomodo predictum Willelmum. Et ideo peciit quod predictus Willelmus sit vocatus in dictum consilium de et super premissis examinari etc. Et super hoc predictus Robertus Danvers pro majori declaracione ac vera et plena ratificacione innocencie sue de rasura predicta protulit diuersas copias litterarum nomine predicti Johannis Lydeyard factarimi predictam rasuram concer- nencium, et post eandem rasuram diuulgatam predicto Willelmo directa- rum. Protulit eciam predictus Robertus litteras rescripcionum ejusdem Willelmi propria manu sua scriptas et sigillo suo signatas predicto Johanni Lydeyard directas, credente ipso Willelmo easdem litteras ad possessionem predicti Johannis Lydeyard tantum et non ad possessionem alterius deuen- isse eandem rasiuam tangentes. In quibus quidem litterarimi copiis nomine ipsius Johannis, ut predictum est, factarum et eidem Willelmo in forma predicta directanun inter aha iste clausule sequentes continentur, ^^dehcet in prima copia: Right welbeloved frende, I comaund me to you, and wull ye witen " that hit is gretely noysed in oure contrey '* by Danvers that the clerkes of the Tour sej-n that ye rased the record of Piers Seintjon, wherefore I praye you send me wurd by letter whether any of the clerkes of the Tour in any wj-se might aspie you in rasj-ng of the sejxl record, and whether ye haue tolde your counscll to any of your felowes that is aqueynted with Davers, etc. Et quoad istam litteram et clausulas predictus Robertus eciam protulit quandam litteram predicti Willelmi responsoriam propria manu sua scriptam et predicto Johanni directam in qua quidem litters iste clausule sequentes inter alia continentur: Reuerent and wurshipfuU sir, I recommaund me unto you, desirj-ng your good welfare, prajTig you to recommaund me unto mj- maistres j-our wife, dojTig you to wite that I undirstand your letter wele. And as touchyng the clerkes of the Tour Credo quod non vidit, etc. And as touchyng the counsell Nemini loquebar nisi quod scitis etc. Deinde idem Robertus protulit quandam aliam copiam cujusdam alterius littere nomine predicti Johannis facte et eidem Willelmo directe predictam rasuram tangentis. In qua quidem copia inter alia iste clausule continentur: I preie you send me redy wurd whether the clerk in anj- wyse might aspie you while the rasure was in bond and whcr aboute the clerk was ocupicd in the niene txTiic. And also send me redy wurd DANVERS V. BROKET 99 Tower along with the aforesaid Robert Poleyn, and when he had come there to the room where the said inquisition was kept, as the aforesaid Robert Poleyn has asserted, the aforesaid William sought to view the aforesaid inquisition, and when he found this he required (the said Robert) to ex- amine diverse other records, while William himself was writing a copy of the said inquisition. Anil the saiil Robert, knowing that the said William was a clerk in the exchequer of the lord the king and according to custom had been sworn to the same lord the king, permitted the said William alone to write a copy of the aforesaid inquisition, while Robert himself was occu- pied elsewhere with the examination of something else, as has been stated, so that the said Robert well remembers that he never permitted anyone to have the liberty of making this infamous rasurc, excepting only the afore- said William. And so he asked that the said William be called to the said council to be examined in and upon the premises, etc. Hereupon the aforesaid Robert Danvers, in order to have a stronger declaration and a true and complete ratification of his innocence of the aforesaid rasure, pro- duced diverse copies of letters written in the name of the aforesaid John Lydcyard concerning the aforesaid rasure and directed to the aforesaid William after the same rasure had been divulged. Moreover the aforesaid Robert exhibited certain letters of the same WilUam in reply written by his own hand, signed with his own seal and directed to the aforesaid John Lj'dej'ard, concerning the same rasure, which letters, as William himself believed had come into the possession of the aforesaid John Lj'dej-ard and not to anyone else. In the copies of these letters written in the name of the said John, as has been stated, and directed in the aforesaid manner to the same William, among other things the following clauses occur, to wit in the first copy: " Right welbeloved frende," etc. As to this letter and these clauses the aforesaid Robert produced also a letter of the aforesaitl William in reply written with his own hand and directed to the aforesaid John, wherein among other things the following clauses occur: " Reverent and wiu'shipfull sir," etc. Then the same Robert produced a copy of a certain other letter written in the name of the aforesaid John and directed to the said William in regard to the aforesaid rasure. In this copy among other things the following clause occurs: " I prei you," etc. As to this point the 1* = know. " = county. 100 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL whether the olde letter be eleneawey as ye suppose or no etc. Et quoad hoc idem Robertus insuper protulit quandam aliam litterani ipsius Willehni responsoriam eciam propria manu sua scriptam et eidem Johanni directam, in qua iste clausule sequent es inter alia continentur: As touchj-ng the clerk, he was busy aboute other thj-nges ther while, for I do you to wite that hit was in a large hous, and the olde letter is clene awey as I suppose, etc. Deinde idem Robertus protulit quandam aliam copiam cujusdam alterius littere nomine predicti Johannis facte [et] eidem Willelmo directe predictam rasuram eciam concernentis, in qua ista clausula inter aha con- tinetur: And also I preie you hertily sendeth me redy wiu-d whether the olde letter in the record by fore etc. were e^-^-n xl as the newe is nowe, and nothing more ne lasse. or eUys more as xliiij or a nother somme, for yet I coude neuer imdirstond that clerly, for men speke muche that ther shuld be a gret space sejTi after the noxunbre etc. Et quoad istam Htteram et clausulam predictus Robertus Danvers protulit quandam aliam htteram dicti Willehni responsoriam propria manu sua, ut predictiun est, scriptam et predicto Johanni directam, in qua iste clausule sequentes inter aha con- tinentur: And as touchj-ng the olde letter in the record. I sawe it nether more ne losse then xl noumbre. .\nd ther to sayd my ^laisters MartjTi '* Cottesmore,'" and Paston '* that it was by fore, etc., the nombre of xxuij"', and therfore as touchjTig that ne>-ther avaimt nor arere " as to me in that case, etc. Et super hoc predictus Robertus Danvers peciit quod predictus Willelmus vocettu- singulis predict is copiis litteris et euidenciis versus eum superius aUegatis coram dicto consiUo responsunis. Qui quidem Willelmus ibidem personaUter adtunc comparens, auditisque ^•isis et intellectis sibi predictis copiis Utteris et euidenciis afl&rmauit et cognouit quod tot et tales httere et clausule nomine predicti Johannis Lydeyard facte ad manus suas, ut premittitur, devenerunt, et quod ipse credens eas per predictum Johan- nem factas fore et missas fecit predictas litteras et clausulas responsorias et eas propria manu sua scripsit prout superiius declaratur. Cognouit in- super quod ipse solus circiter festum Sancte Katerine \'irginis ultimo pre- teritiun transiuit cum predicto Roberto Pole>-n ad Turrim predictam, et quod nullus eo tempore fuit in domo ubi recorda predicta f ucrunt nisi ipsi duo tantum, prout idem Robertus prius exposuit, et quod ipse Willelmus solus adtunc ungue digiti sui predictimi mmicrum xl in dicta inquisicione tem- pore adventus sui contentum rasit, et eundcm niunerum ut in hoc maxime videretur suspectiun cum nouo incausto renouauit et blottauit. Et requi- situs fuit ibidem ab eo qui numerus in predicta inquisicione primo in pre- dicto loco raso tempore sui adventus illuc extitit. Dixit quod iste mmierus xl tantum et non major numerus neque minor. Requisitum itaque fuit ab eo ad cujus instanciam venit apud Turrim predictam pro rasura hujusmodi facienda. DLxit quod ad instanciam predicti Johannis Lydeyard. Et super hoc dominus Thesaurarius * Anglie, qui circa examinacionem ejusdem Willelmi de rasura predicta diuersimode extitit laboratus, ibidem aperte DANVERS V. BROKET 100 same Robert produced still another letter of William himself in reply like- wise written with his own hand and directed to the same John, wherein among other things the followinfi clausps occur: " As touching the clerk," etc. Then (lie same Uohort produced a copy of a certain other letter written in the name of the aforesaid John and directed to the same William, also concerning the aforesaid rasure, wherein this clause among others occurs: " And also 1 preie you," etc. As to this letter and clause the aforesaid Robert Danvers produced a certain other letter of the said William in reply written witli his own hand, as has been stated, and directed to the aforesaid John, wherein among other things the following clauses occur: " And as touching the old letter," etc. Hereupon the aforesaid Robert Danvers asked that the aforesaid William be called to answer before the said council for all tiie aforesaid copies, letters, and evidences alleged above against him. And the said William then and there appeared in person, and having viewed and understood for himself the aforesaid copies, letters, and evi- dences he affirmed and recognised that all such letters and clauses as are alleged to have been written in the name of the aforesaid John Lydeyard had come to his hands, and that he believing them to have been written and sent by the aforesaid John had written the aforesaid responsory letters and clauses with his own hand, as has been stated above. Moreover he admitted that about St. Katherine's Day last he went with the aforesaid Robert Poleyn to the aforesaid Tower, and that no one was at the time in the room where the aforesaid records were kept, except themselves, two only, just as the same Robert has already explained, and that the said William then with his fingernail rased the nmnber XL contained in the said inquisition at the time of his visit, and with fresh ink wrote again the same nmnber, blotting it, in order that in this point especially it might appear (a matter) for suspicion. Hereupon he was asked what number was first found there in the aforesaid inquisition in the aforesaid place of the rasure at the time of his visit. He said only the number XL, nothing greater or smaller. He was asked at whose instigation he went to the aforesaid Tower to make such rasure. He said at the instigation of the aforesaid John Lj'deyard. Hereupon the lord treasurer ^'' of England, who had laboureil in diverse ways over the examination of the same William, publicly pro- " John Martin, justice of common " = before nor after, pleas, 1420-. '" The titles Lord Treasurer and Lord " John Cottesmore, Serjeant at law, Chancellor arc commonly supposed to justice of common pleas, 14'29-, justice of arise in the time of the Tudors, but they oyer and terminer, gaol delivery, etc. are found occasionally as early as this. " William Paston of the famous Nor- The treasurer was John Lord Scrope, folk family, justice of common pleas 1429- 1431-34. known as the Good Judge. Paston Letters (ed. Gairdner, 1904), i, 26. 101 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL promisit quod idem Willelmus pro premissis transgressionibus amodo in domini Regis scaccario minime resideret. Deinde dominus Cancellarius '^ Anglie de assensu consilii predicti laudans labores predicti Roberti Danvers in adquisicione predictarmn litterarum pro declaracione ^^ sua rasure ante- diete eundem Robertum nullo modo reum set innocentem rasure hujusmodi et immunem ibidem publice declarauit. Et ulterius quod idem Willelmus non amodo scriberet neque resideret in aliqua curia domini Regis ubi recorda ocuparentur aut extiterint. Et super hoc predictus Robertus peciit omnia predicta pro ejus declaracione irrotulari etc., et ei conceditur etc. [Signed:] H. Goucestre," H. Cantuar,-'' T. Duresme,-^ J. Bathon, CANc'r« W. Lincoln'," r. Londonien',=« P. Elien',=' H. Stafford,«> H. NORTHVMBYRLONDE.^' [Endorsed: — ] Decimo die Julii Anno undecimo apud Westmonasterium lectus et concordatus fuit presens actus, et pro declaracione innocencie quantum ad rasuram de qua infra fit mencio infrascripti Roberti Banners concordatum et concessum fuit quod fiat warantimi sub priuato sigiUo cancellario Anglie directmn includendo in eodem tenorem actus predicti, mandando eidem quod tenorem eimdem in rotulis canceUarie inter recorda ejusdem inscribi et irrotulari faciat, pro excusacione predicti Roberti ab omni crimine rasure predicte remansurum de recordo, presentibus dominis se intra scribentibus et aliis.^^ NEVILLE V. NEVILLE ' 1436 Memorandum that in the KjTiges parlement - hald at Westminster the ix dey of December m the xiiij yere of his reigne it liked hym to desire Richard Erie of Salisbury ^ and William Lorde of Fauconberge * knyght to go in to his reme of Fraunce to do hjTn seruice there, as wele in defense and kepyng of that that it hath liked God to suffre to be now in his obeissaunce there as in rekeueryng of the remenaunt of his said reme occupyed be his rebels and enemys ; to the which the kynges desyer the said Richard and Wil- liam humbly agreid hem in certayn manere and forme, and in especial so that » John Stafford, 1432-50. " pyiip Morgan, bishop of Ely, 1426- '^ i. e. of innocence. 36. ^ Humphrey Duke of Gloucester. '" Humphrey Stafford, sixth earl, later '* Henry Chicheley, archbishop of Can- duke of Buckingham, d. 1460. terbury, 1414-43. " Henry Percy, second earl of Nor- 2' Thomas Langley, bishop of Durham, thumberland, d. 1455. 1406-37. '- A memorandum of this act is given ^' John Stafford, bishop of Bath and in Nicolas, Proceedings, iv, 166 (see Wells, 1425-43. Introd.). The enrolment called for, as a " William Grey, bishop of Lincoln, declaration of Danvers' innocence, was 1431-36. made in the Close Jioll, 11 Hen. VI, m. " Robert Fitzhugh, bishop of London, 4 d. 1431-36. NEVILLE V. NEVILLE 101 claimed that the said William by reason of the transgressions above set forth should no longer remain in the exchequer of the lord the king. Then the lord chancellor =' of England with the assent of the aforesaid council, praising the labours of the aforesaid Rolx-rt Danvcrs in actiuiring the aforesaid letters, for his declaration " of the aforesaid rasUre, publicly pronounced the same Robert to be by no means guilty but innocent of such rasure and immune therefor; furthermore that the said William should no longer write or serve in any court of the lord the king where records are used or kept. Hereupon the aforesaid Robert asked that all the foregoing matters should be enrolled as his declaration, etc., and this was granted him, etc. [Signed:] H. Gloucestre.^^ H. Cantuar.^'' T. Duresme."^ J. Bathon. Canc.=« W. Lincoln.2^ R. LoNDONiEN.^sp. Elien.^' H. Stafford.'" H. Nor- HUMBYRLONDE.'' [Endorsed: — ] On the 10th day of July in the 11th year at Westminster, this act was read and passed, and for a declaration of innocence in behalf of the aforesaid Robert Danvers with regard to the rasure, of which mention has been made above, it was agreed to and granted that warrant under the privy seal should be issued to the chancellor of England, including in the same a tenor of the aforesaid act, commanding him to have the same tenor inscribed and enrolled in the rolls of the chancery among the records of the same, for the exculpation of the aforesaid Robert of all crime in the aforesaid rasure, to stand as a record; in the presence of the lords herein signing (their names) and others.'- NEVILLE V. NEVILLE [continued) it liked the kynges good grace to gete the assent and licence of thair good lady and modir ^ ther to, with oute whoos good assent and licence for diuers resons shewyd and allegid be thaym thei durst nogt ner godely mygt take > Council and Privy Seal (Exch. T. R.), Dugdale it contained an agreement to file 56, 11 March, 14 Hen. VI. furnish 3 bannerets, 7 knights, 249 men- 2 There is no record of the event in the at-arms, 1040 archers (op. cit. 202), for Rolls of Parhanient, but an exempHfica- which the king promised him £700 [Cal. tion of the present memorandum is given Pal. 516). Under this agreement the earl in the Patent Rolls. Cal. Pat. 14 Hen. VI, went to France in May, 1436 and returned 595. in November, 1437. From 1437-40 the ' Richard Neville, 1400-60, eldest son earl of Salisbury occupied a place as mem- of Ralph first earl of Westmoreland, by ber of the council and enjoyed much of his second wife Joan Beaufort (Dugdale, the patronage of the crown (Nicolas, i, 302; Did. Nat. Biog.). He gained his passim). lands and title by marriage with the ■* William Neville, younger son of the daughter and heiress of Thomas of Monta- late earl of Westmoreland and Joan, who cute Earl of Salisbury, a title recognized acquired lands and title by his marriage by the king's council (Nicolas, iii, 325). with Joan daughter of Sir Thomas Fau- The indenture here aUuded to is not in conberg. Dugdale, i, 308. the Rolls of Parliament, but as given by ' Joan Beaufort, daughter of John of 102 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL upon hem to passe out of this reme; of the whiche oon amonge other was doute * of sutes, unlawfful entrees and other labores that mj^ght and as thaj' supposid were hke to be maid and doen, thaym bejTig out of this lande, namly be Eaaf now Erie of Westmerland,' John * and Thomas ' his brether, and other that be toward hem in prejudice and disheiyteson of thair said modir, of tha^-m, thair brether and of the fefifees of Raaf late Erie of West- merland,^" thair fadir, and other persones that the thing mj-gt touche. The which thair answer causid the kjTig be thauise of his consail and in especial in eschuj-ng of trouble and bruser of his pees to conmiaunde his lettres of priue seal to be send to Johan Comtesse of Westmerland modir to the said Erie of SaUsburj^ and to the Lorde of Fauconberge and also to the said Rauf Erie of Westmerland and John and Thomas his brether, prefixj^ng hem in the said lettres a day at the wliich thai shold be before his counsail at West- minster. At the which day and place of Westminster the said Comtesse appierid, and nogt longe after appierid the said Rauf Erie of Westmerland. The which Comtesse, after that the kj^nges said entent and desire of seruice of her said sones was openid to hir, and dehberacion had be hem ther upon, agreid at the reuerence of the Kyng ther to in certeyn maner and forme, the which she gaf in writjmg, contienyng diuerse requestes and desires, and amonge other desire of surete to be maad be the said Rauf Erie of West- merland in swich wise as the said writjTig purportith. After the which her agrement, assent, and writyng so geujTi, the said Rauf Erie of Westmerland at the reuerence and request of the kjmg and in furt bring of his seruice, bonde hjTU silfe in the kjmges presence and of the worsliipful fadir in God the bisshop of Bath, Chaunceller " of Englond, the xxviij day of Feueryer, be a reconusance to the kyng in the summe of iiij"li.'^ as for surete of the said Comtesse Richard and William, thair brether and other namid be hem. Gaunt, second wife of the late earl of quarrel with the younger branch of the Westmoreland, who had been made, family (see Introd.)- He was at this time jointly with her son Richard, executrix of justice of the peace in Northumberland, her husband's will. It was on the execu- Westmoreland, and York, but he was not tion of this wiU that litigation had been a member of the council, nor was he kept up between two branches of the honoured to any such extent as his uncle family. D. Rowland, Hist, of the Family Richard. First a youth, later an invalid, of Neville (1830), pp. 33 f. he counted politically for Uttle. • = fear. ' Later Lord Neville, killed in 1461. ' Grandson of the late earl by his first • Sir Thomas. wife, who succeeded to the earldom in '° First carl, d. 1425, who had twentj'- 1425, while still a minor. For years he three children in two groups, the first by maintained jointly with his brothers the his wife Margaret Stafford, the second by NEVILLE V. NEVILLE 102 to forbore and make to he forboryii stites, entrees and other thynges aj'cns the Siiid Conitesse, Richard, and William, and tlieir brother, and other persones declarid in the condicion of the said rcconusance, and in the maner and forme and for the tymos ospecifyed in the same condicion. After the which bondo and suretc so niaad, tlie kyng, cOnsideryng the thynges aboue said and in especial the tendirnes that as wel the said Comtesse as the said Erie of Salisbury and the Lord Fauconbergc had to that that shold mow be to the worshipe, wele and seruice of hym, grantid for hym anil his heires, that if it hapned the same bonde, surete and summe at any tyme after to be forfaitcd, thai shold be suyd be his attourney or the attourney of his heires for the tyme beyng, with the assistence of his or ther sergeantcs of law to the behoue of the said Comtesse, and Erie of Salisbury, or of thair executores and assignees. And that al that shalbe or shal mow be recouerid be the said sute shall be payyil and applyyd to the said Comtesse, and Erie of Salisbury, or to thair executores and assignees. And that he ne shal in general ne in especial pardone ne relessc to the said Raaf, Erie of Westmor- land, ner to his heires or executores the said bonde or suinme of iiij^li. at any tyme with oute the assent of the said Comtesse or Erie of Sahsbury, or thex- ecutores and assignees of thaym or of the oon of hem. And that of this his graunt the said Comtesse and Erie of Salisbury shall haue his lettres paten tes maad to hem in suffisient and due forme. [Signed: — ] H. Gloucestre." H. Cardinal." J. Ebor'.'^ J. Bathon' Canc. H. Northumbyrlonde.^' Huntyngton." Suffolk.'* Lettre ent feust faite a Westminster le xi° jour de Marcs Ian, etc.'' xiiij. Joan Beaufort of royal blood. He diverted '' Humphrey, d. 1447. half of the Neville estates to the children " Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, of the .second marriage and finally left a 1405-47. will so far favourable to them, that it was " John Kemp, archbishop of York, contested for years afterwards. Did. 1426-50. Nat. Biog. " Henry Percy, second earl of Northum- " John Stafford, chancellor, 1432-50. berland. " There was a debt of £4000 which the " John Holland, second earl of Hunting- earl of Westmoreland recognized he owed don, d. 1447. to the countess and Kichard his brother, " William de la Pole, fourth earl of pursuant to a grant of his father. A recog- Suffolk, d. 1450. nizance was enrolled in the f7o.se Roll, 13 " Cat. Pat. Rolh, 14 Hen. VI, 595. Hen. VI, m. 14, and renewed 16 Hen. VI, m. 8. 103 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL CONFESSION AND EXAMINATION OF JOHN FORDE > A 1439 Memorandum quod quartodecimo die Mali ultimo preterito Johannes Memorandum Forde " de London mercer venit in propria persona sua apud Westmonas- johannisForde terium videlicet in camera stellata infra palacium Regis coram Radulfo domino de Cromwell, chiualer, Thesaurario Anglie, Johanne Fray ' et WiUelmo Fallan * clerico Baronibus de Scaccario predicti domini Regis, in presencia Johannis ^'ampage,° attornati domini Regis, ac Roberti Whi- txTigham,^ majoris stapule predicti domini Regis ville sue Gales', necnon Willelmi Estfeld,' Roberti Large * et Hugonis Dj-ke,' mercatorum de societate ejusdem stapule, et sacramentum prestitit corporale de veritate dicenda super certis articulis commodum dicti domini Regis tangentibus. Et super hoc idem Johannes adtunc et ibidem examinatus si ipse ahquam lanam vel aUquas pelles lanutas alicui alienigene ante hec tempora vendi- derit, idem Johannes dicit et bene cognouit quod ipse mense Mali anno regni dicti domini Regis nunc sextodecimo apud London' in parochia de Aldermarichirche "* vendidit cuidam Gerardo Matson, ducheman, \'iginti et sex petras lane precii cujuslibet petre tres sohdos et septem duodenas " panni lanei lati precii duodene pro eodem precio inter eosdem Johannem Forde et Gerardum concordato, et quod idem Johannes Forde postea eosdem lanam et pannos paccari fecit in quodam pacco, et eundem paccum sic paccatum apud dictam ciuitatem London' in Graschurchestrete, vide- licet, in parochia Sancti Benedict!, cuidam Johanni Piper, seruienti demen- tis Comber de Colcestr', usque eandem villam Colcestr' in carecta ipsius dementis, unde idem seruiens adtunc fuit carectarius, cariandum et Johanni Cranle de Colcestr' predicta ibidem liberandum. Et insuper pre- dictus Johannes Forde dicit quod super liberacione pacci predicti prefato seruienti apud London', ut predictum est, facta, idem Johannes Forde liberauit eidem seruienti quandam Utteram ipsius Johannis Forde prefato Johanni Cranle directam, per quam litteram idem Johannes Forde voluit et mandauit eidem Johanni Cranle quod ipse pacciun predictum a prefato ' Exemplified in the Chse Roll, 17 occasions appointed to inquire into cases Hen. VI, m. 6, including A the memoran- of iUicit exportation of wool and evasion dum of the council, and B the consequent of the customs. Cal. Pat. 17 Hen. VI, WTit. 315; 18 Hen. VI, 372, 417, etc. ' A mercer of London he is called in B. ' Esquire, justice of the peace in ' Appointed third baron of the ex- Worcestershire, commissioner of oyer and chequer in 1426, second baron in 1435, terminer, etc., king's attorney in chancery chief baron in 1436, and in this capacity in 1439 {Cal. Pat. 294). he was still active in 1443. For his good • Draper of London, alderman of service in the exchequer he recieved a life Bishopsgate, 1417-22, of Walbrook, 1422- grant of a manor worth 40 marks a year 28, sheriff of Herts and Essex, 1433-34, (Cal. Pat. 15 Hen. VI, 50). He was justice and 1438-39 (Beaven, Aldermen of London, of the peace in several counties and com- ii, 5), one of the e.xecutors of the will of the missioner of various sort. late duke of Bedford, mayor of the staple * Baron of the exchequer 1436-44, and and treasurer of Calais, 1439-40 {Cal. Pal. commissioner. He was on several other Rolls). His will is dated 1452. CONFESSION AND EXAMINATION OF JOHN FORDE 103 CONFESSION AND EX.\MINATION OF JOHN FORDE > A 1439 Memorandum of a confession and examination of John Forde. Be it rememl)eied that on tiie fourteenth day of last May, John Forde ' of London, mercer, came in person to Westminster, that is, in the star chamber within the i St. Mary Aldermanbury in Cripples- and died in 1448, leaving much property, gate. Kingsford-Stow, i, 292. Beaven, Aldermen, ii, 6; Cal. Letter-books, " Dozen, a kind of kersey or coarse K; Wills in the Hunting, ii, 509. woolen cloth, e.g. "broadcloths and 'Mercer of London, alderman of dozens," mentioned in Statute 11 Hen. VI, Castle Baynard, 1429-41, sheriff in 1430, c.9. member of parliament in 1435, mayor. 104 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL carectario reciperet, et in casu quo predictus Gerardus solueret eidem Johanni Cranle ad opus predict! Johanni Forde octo libras, extunc idem Johannes Cranle paccum predictum predicto Gerardo sine dilacione liberari faceret. Examinatus eciam idem Johannes Forde quis vel qui eundem paccum paccauit siue paccarunt et quo modo, idem Johannes Forde dicit quod ipse et predictus Gerardus in dicta ciuitate London', \-idehcet, in domo ipsius Johannis Forde in parochia Sancti Dunstani '^ in le Est London' dictum paccum inter se paccarunt, ponendo, paccando, suppeditando et firmiter premendo lanam predictam inter pannos laneos predictos et cir- cumuoluendo subtiliter eandem lanam cum ahquibus pannis de pannis predictis ex qualibet parte ejusdem lane in ahquibus pannis de pannis pre- dictis, ac eciam cucumuoluendo eundem paccum circumquaque cum panno lineo ad modum paccorum laneorum taUter quod omnibus estimaretur paccus cum pannis laneis et non cum ahquibus lanis." B Dc liberando j^gx custodi prisoue uostre de Flete vel ejus locmntenenti salutem. et recipiendo _.. t-,, -ixii Johannem .rrecipunus tibi quod Johannem Forde semorem de London mercer sub Forde custodia tua detentum habeas apud Westmonasterium die veneris proximo futuro et ipsum ibidem ^dcecomitibus nostris London' ad ipsum per eos sub certa forma per nos sibi data ob demerita sua castigandum et punien- dum '■' liberes, et ipsum sic castigatum et punitum a predictis vicecomitibus recipias et ipsum in prisona predicta quousque pro ejus deliberacione aliud a nobis habueritis in mandatis saluo et secm-e custodiri facias. Et hoc nullatenus omittas. Mandauimus enim eisdem vicecomitibus quod ipsum Johannem a te recipiant et eum iterato tibi deliberent m forma supradicta. Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium xvij die Junii. per breue de priuato sigillo. EXAJMINATION INTO THE BEDFORD RIOT' A 1439 Hi sunt articuh examinationum iiij"' partium sequentium infrascrip- tarum \adehcet Thome Wauton miUtis, etc. Et responsiones ad eosdem articulos. [Translation: — ] These are the articles of examination of the four following parties, described below, namely Thomas Wauton knight, etc., and their answers to the same articles. " In Tower Ward. Kingsford-Stow, prisoner being brouKht forth from day to i, 134. day to stand thus in disgrace for an hour " On such methods of smuggHng see Stat^ or more at a time. Sometimes there were utc 8 Hen. VI, c. 22; also Introd. p. cxi. exhibited articles suggestive of the crime, " Probably the pillory was the means as when in the case of a fraudulent coal of chastisement intended. This was com- seller burning sacks were put at his feet, monly used in just such a manner, the Cal. Letler-books, K, 95, etc. EXAMINATION INTO THE BEDFORD RIOT 104 that he should receive tlie aforesaid pack from the aforesaid carter, and as soon as tiie aforesaid Gerard should pay to the said John Cranio eight pounds for the profit of the aforesaid John Ford, iinmediately the said John Cranle should have the aforesaid pack delivered to the aforesaid Gerard witliout delay. And the same John Forde having been examined also as to what man or men had done the aforesaid packing and how it was done, the same John Forde declares that he and the aforesaid Gerard, in the said city of London, that is, in the house of John Forde himself in the parish of St. Dunstan," in the east of London, did the said packing by themselves, putting in the aforesaid wool, packing it down, stamping upon it and firmly pressing it between the (folds of the) aforesaid woolen cloth, craftily bind- ing up part of the same wool with some of the aforesaid cloth and part of it with the rest, also binding together the .said pack all around with linen cloth after the fashion of packs of woolen (goods), so that it would be appraised by all as a pack of woolen cloth and not of any wool." B Concerning the delivery and return of John Forde. The king to our warden of the Fleet prison or his deputy greeting. We direct you that on Friday next you bring to Westminster John Forde, the elder, mercer of London, who has been detained in your custody, and there deliver him to our sheriffs of London to be chastised and punished '^ by them, because of his delinquencies, according to certain directions given to them by us; and after he has been thus chastised and punished by the aforesaid sheriffs, do you take him back and have him safely and securely guarded in the aforesaid prison, until j'ou shall have had further orders from us for his liberation. And this do you in no wise omit. For we have commanded the same sheriffs that they shall receive the said John from you and return him again to you in the abovesaid manner. Witness the king at Westminster on the 17th day of June. By writ of privy seal. EXAMINATION INTO THE BEDFORD RIOT (continued) B The x° day of Feuerer the xvii'= j'ere of the Kyng at Westmynstre in the Sterre Chambre beyng thanne present the high and myghti prince Due of Gloucestre^ the Bishops of Bath' chaunceller and of seint Dauid'' therles ' The original record of this examina- record of the proceeding before us. This tion is found in Parliamoitary and Council is found in Pari. Proceedings (Chancery), Proceedings (Exchequer), file 4, no. 5, file 22, no. IS. The opening paragraph \, which was printed in The King's Council, since it does not occur in the exemplifica- p. 529. That record however is badly tion, has been taken from the original damaged, half of the paper being torn record. Likewise the petition C is at- away, so that the rest is hardly intelligible. tachcd to the latter record. The subsequent discovery of an exempli- ^ Humphrey, d. 1447. fication, which was used fn draughting the ' John Stafford, chancellor, 1432-50., ensuing letters patent, has placed a full * Thomas Rodburn, 1433-42. 105 CASES BEFOEE THE KING'S COUNCIL of Sarum ^ and Northumberland * the Lord Cromwel ' Tresorer of England WiUiam Ljiidewode ^ keper of the kyngis priue seal and Robert Rolleston ' Warderober the Kyngis counsaillours examined the pei-sones whoos namis here on folow upon the ryot that was doo at Bedford the xii' day of Januer the yere abouesaid. And First '" was called before the seid counsail Thomas Wawton " and sworne upon a boke to sey the playn trouth and nouzt to melle it with eny ontrouth for hate or euel will neither for loue ner fauour but plainly report as it was in dede nouzt sparing for no persone ne for no thyng, and he seid plainlj- he wolde saye the trouth in such thingis as shulde be demanded of him. First it was asked him yif he hadde sette his seel unto the certificat ^- that was yeue and put up to the kyng upon the lord Faunhope ^' as touching the seid mater of Bedford, and he answered ye. And forthwith asked yif he knewe the mater content in the seid certi- ficatt, and he answered ye. He was asked with what pepil the lord Faun- hope came to the towne of Bedford at that tyme and in what arraj', he answered as to the nombre of persones with a sexti, and as to theire array with thikk doublettis and swerdis and bokelers and thus arraied some of theime come into the halle and a too of theiiue within the barre. It was asked yif the seid lord Faunhope at other sessions afore that tjTne was wont to come in like array he answered ye. He was asked wheder he cam to the halle before the lord Faunhope and hou many of the justices were there to giders ar the lord Faunhope cam, he answered that he and John En- derby," John Fitz,'* and Harry Etwell ** came to the halle before the lord ' Richard Ne^nlle, 1400-60. shire (Dugdale, ii, 212). He first attracted ' Henry Percy, second earl, 1394-1455. attention in the wars of Richard II (e. g. ' Ralph Cromwell, treasurer, 1434-44. Cal. Pal. 8 Ric. II, 43), and gained the ' or Lindwood, keeper of the privj' favour of Henry IV, V, and VI. He seal, 1435-. married the sister of Henry IV, became a ' Keeper of the great wardrobe, 1436- Knight of the Garter, and in 1432 was 44. created Lord Fanhope in open parliament. '" The following clauses in the original His chief manors in Bedford.shire were record are set off by paragraphs; in the Ampthill and Milbrook, and in 1442 he exemplificatioil they are introduced by gained the added title of Baron Milbrook. heavy letters, represented here by capitals. From 1434 he was a member and attendant " Wauton or Walton of Eton, knight, of the king's council (Nicola.s, iv, 212, 317, sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckingham- etc.) .Vs a special honour he was given shire in 1422, 142S, and 1432, member of the custody of the cai)turcd duke of Or- parliament for Bedfordshire in 1425 and leans {ibid. 156). .\lthough there was a 1432, ju.stice of the peace in Bedfordshire Richard Cornwall at the time of this case, in 1435 and 1437, commissioner of oyer his lordship died leaving no heir in 1444 and terminer, etc. {Cal. Pat. RolU.) "in {Close Roll, 22 Hen. VI, m. 12). the pre.sent affair he was serving on a " .\n esquire of Stratton {Ancient special judicial commission apart from the Deeds, iv, A 8508), justice of the peace in justices of the peace. See Introd. p. cxii. Bedfordshire in most years between 1424- " The certification that Wawton and 48, but not in the present year 1438-39, his fellow justices had sent to the king of member of parliament for the shire five the Bedford riot. See Introd. p. cxii. times between 1423 and 1442, commis- " Sir John Cornewaille or Cornwall, a sioner in 1430-31 to raise a loan in the knight who had risen from obscure origin county (Cal. Pat. 51, 125), etc. At his to be one of the foremost men in Bedford- death, which is reported 1456-57, it is sur- EXAMINATION INTO THE BEDFORD RIOT 105 Faunhopc. He was asked yd thei alio kncwe wcl that the lord Faunhope was in tlie towne of Bedford and yif thei hadde ony spechc of him aniongos theime iiij"" and to all this he answered ye. He was deniaunded yif he sent to the lord Fanhope eny word of thoire beyng there to gcders or warned him that thei wolde precede in the cessions or clles that thei taricd unto his comyng to euerich of this he answered naj', but thei iiij" sat downe and procedc-ng theire diuine seruice oon Richard Morton ' of litell Morton in the countee of Cornewaille gentihnan, John Piers ' of the parissh of West Potteford ' in the countee of Deuon- shire aforesaid husbondman with a grete multitude of people unknowen, arraied in maner of werre entred in to ye said churche and made assaute and affray upon the said Isabelle and Johane and taken by the same Isa- " The exemplification was made, as has ' Son and heir of John Ford who held been said, and its tenor stated in the a parcel of the manor of Moreton (Prince, letters patent of 7 March granting pardon Worthies of Devon, p. 314), also mentioned to Lord Fanhope and all his associates, as a bailiff of William Beauchamp, sheriff Cal. Pat. 17 Hen. VI, 246. of Devon, 1439-40 (Cal. Pat. 19 Hen. VI, » Council and Privy Seal (Exch. T. R.), 501). file 73, 8 May, 22 Hen. VI. ' A notable parish in Ilartland in the ' Descendant of Walter Giffard of the northwest corner of the county bounded Norman Conquest through a younger by the sea. A handsome Gothic church branch, which formed a well known dating from the fifteenth century is still Devonshire family, the Giffards of Hals- standing. A cliff rising above the sea at bury (J. L. Vivian, Visitatio7i of Devon, this point is known as Clifford's Jump, pp. 396-97). This Thomas was appointed Polwhele, //t6(. o/ Dcron. iii. 419 n. in 1438 deputy of the king's butler in " Her name is given as Wilmot. Vivian, the posts of Barn,staple, Ilfracombe, and op. cit.; Cal. Pat. 22 Hen. VI, 288. Bideford {Cal. Pal. 222), and in 1444 and ' Mentioned as " gentleman." Cal. 1445 served on commissions of inquisition Pat. 288. in the county (ibid. 338, 440). ' A husbandman. Ibid. * 3 May, 1444. ' West Putford, an inland parish near Parkham southwest of Bideford. GIFFARD V. MORTON 107 bcllo Johano and ye wif of tlic said Thomas for roliouo and sccour the vcst- rary of tlio said cluirclu' with llio dore shottc unto tliciiii tlie said niisdocrs felonousely as riottours broking the same dore made assaute to the wif of the said Tlionias and tho said Isabcllo and Johaiio folonousoly and ayonst oiirt' pecs vanisshcd and laddc away and yil kcpi'th thaiin not oonly to the hurt harme heuynesse and wrong of the said Thomas and his wif the said IsaboHo and Johano hut also unto the porillous onsampio corraging cause and occasion of other Ukc niisdocrs to doo and altcniptc like riott or worse in tyme comyng on lesse than shcrpe and due punisshement and coreccion be had and doon in tliis behalf.'" Wc therefore hauyng consideracion to the premisses willing correccion be doon in this partie as we be bounden to, woll an charge you straitely that called unto you suche strength as shal seme unto you necessaire of the same shire ye doo take and arreste the said misdoers and all other of whom ye shal haue knouliche were helpers unto ye said riottes in what shire euer thei may be founde wherto we yeue you pouer by thces ouro letters, and thaim so arrested and tached do bring sauely in alle possible hast before us and oure coimsail where so euer hit be for to answere to the mater aboue said. And in cas thai may not be founde, Wc woll that ye doo make proclamacion in suche places as you shal seme good that the said misdoers be and appere be foi-e us and oure counsail at suche a day as shal be semed unto you and the foresaid Thomas to be asseigned for to answer to suche maters as shal be declared unto thaim at theire comyng upon the feith and ligeance that thei owe unto us and also that ye take the forsaid Isabelle and Johane wher thei may be foimd restoring the said Isabell to hir libertee and the said Johano to the posses- sion of the said Thomas willing furthermore and chargeing you that ye be attending with other commissioners with whom we haue assigned you by our letters vmdrc ouro greet seel to sittc and enqucre in this same matere certifiyng us and our said counsaill as wcl of thinquerre by thaim and you to be taken in this partie as of al tho persones whiche be rebelle or contrary to thexcucion of this oure commandement and we wol that upon the paine of v" li. ye leue not this in no wyse yeuen at Westminster the viii of May the yere, &c., xxii. '" Frequent outrages of this character trary to their likings, or otherwise levy led a few years later to the Statute 31 sums on their lands and goods." For Hen. VI, c. 9, the preamble of which reads: remedy the party aggrieved was to have ". . . in all parts of the realm diverse people a writ out of the chancery directing the of great power, moved with unsatiablc sherilT of the county to make proclama- covetousness, to the danger of all ladies tion calling such persons to appear before and other women sole having lands, etc., the chancellor or before the justices of will take them by force or otherwise get assize, who having examined into the them into possession, and then will not matter might annul all obligations in- suffer them to go until they bind them- curred in this manner and inflict penalty selves in great sums by obligations; also to the extent of £300. they compel the women to marry con- 108 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL To the Chorrief of the countee of Deuenshire. Item semblables letters to the justices of pees there, sire WiUiam Bonevill " knyght, Wilham Bour- chier '^ Squier and William Hendeston " mutatis mutandis. viii die Maii Anno etc. xxii. Rex apud Westmonasterium de aduisa- mento sui concilii mandauit custodi priuati sigilli litteras fieri facere sub eodem sigillo secundum formam suprascriptam presentibus dominis Car- dinali Anglie, Cancellario, Episcopo Bathon' et aliis.'^ [Sigiied:] Kent.'^ RELEASE OF THE SURETIES OF JOHN T>X\Y' 1450-1 Placita coram domino Rege in Cancellaria sua apud Westmonasterium vicesimo quarto die Augusti anno regni Regis Henrici sexti post conquestum vicesimo octauo. Memorandum quod vicesimo quarto die Augusti anno regni Regis Henrici sexti \-icesuno octauo Willelmus Raweh-n - de London, Brewer,' Adam Turvey de London, Brewer, Thomas Smyth de London, Brewer, Willelmus Nicholl de London, Brewer, lohannes Wykeham de London, yoman, et Thomas Mollesley de London, Drover, coram eodem Domino in Cancellaria sua personaUter constituti manuceperunt pro lohanne Davy de London, Brewer, videlicet quilibet eorum corpus pro corpore et sub pena mille librarum, quod idem lohannes Da^y pereonaliter comparebit coram dicto domino Rege in Cancellaria sua predicta vel coram consilio suo super debita premunicione eidem lohanni Da\'j' ex parte domini Regis supradicti facienda, ubicumque idem dominus Rex aut chctum consiUum suum fore contigerit in Angha, ad respondendxmi super hiis que sibi ex parte dicti domini Regis obicientur tunc ibidem, et ad faciendum ulterius et recipiendum quod Curia nostra considerauerit in hac parte, quam quidem sumniam quilibet manucaptorum ^ predictorum concessit de terris et cataUis suis ad opus dicti domini Regis leuandam, si prefatus lohannes Davy coram prefato domino Rege in Cancellaria sua predicta vel coram dicto consiho suo in forma predicta personaliter non comparuerit. Et postea, videlicet vicesimo octauo die Maii tunc proxime sequentis idem lohannes T)a.\y protulit venerabili patri lohanni Cardinali et Archiepiscopo Ebor', Cancellario Anglic,^ in Cancellaria predicta quoddam breve predicti " Steward of the duchy of Cornwall the names abo of John Giffard and several 1438-52 {Cal. Pal. 30 Hen. VI, 526), jus- others. Cal. Pal. 288. tice of the peace in Cornwall, 1442-51, in " Master Thomas Kent, doctor of civil Somerset, 1441-42, and in Devon, 1443-44. and canon law, probably a graduate of '* Of Fitzwarren, justice of the peace in Cambridge, and reputed for his learning. Shropshire, 1443-45, and in Devon, 1444 He was either an unfrocked clergj'man or and 1447-51. a layman, for he had an acknowledged " Justice of the peace in Devon, 1443-44 wife. He became clerk of the council in and 1447-51. 1443, at the same time that he was made " This commission to inquire into the secondary clerk in the oflBce of the pri%'j' matter was issued 12 May; it included seal (ibid. 235); he was appointed sub- RELEASE OF THE SURETIES OF JOHN DAVY 108 [Translation: — ] On the 8th of May, 22n(l year etc., the king at West- minster bj- the advice of his council conananded the keeper of the privy seal to have letters issued under the same seal according to the form written above, there being present the lords the cardinal of England chancellor, the bishop of Bath and others. [Signed:] Kent." RELEASE OF THE SURETIES OF JOHN DAVY ' Pleas before the lord the king in his chancery at Westminster, the 24th of August in the 28th year of the reign of King Henr\' VI. Be it remembered that on the 24th of August in the 28th year of the reign of King Henry VI William Rawelyn ^ of London, brewer,' Adam Turvey of London, brewer, Thomas Smith of London, brewer, William Nichol of London, brewer, John Wykeham of London, j-eoman, and Thomas Mollesley of London, drover, having appeared in person before the said lord in his chancery, gave surety for John Davy of London, brewer, that is each of them body for body and under penalty of a thousand pounds, that the same John Davy will in person appear before the said lord the king in his aforesaid chancery or before his council, upon due warning to be given to the same John Davy on the part of the aforesaid lord the king, wherever the said lord the king or his said council shall be in England, to answer for those things which shall be laid against him there on the part of the said lord the king, and to do further and receive what our court shall determine in this matter; which sum indeed each of the aforesaid main- pernors * conceded should be levied from their lands and chattels to the use of the said lord the king, if the aforesaid John Davy shall not appear in person before the aforesaid lord the king in his aforesaid chancery or before his said council in the aforesaid manner. And afterwards, namely on the 28th of May next following, the same John Davy in the aforesaid chancerj' offered to the venerable father John cardinal and archbishop of York, chancellor of England,* a certain writ of the aforesaid lord the king, constable in 1345 (ibid. 348). In 1347 he • Placita in Cancellaria, file 29, no. 21. was granted the lordship and manor of ' In 1458 he was given an as.signment Langley, Co. Kent, formerly held by of £677, 19s. 7d. out of the farm of Cam- Cardinal Beaufort {Cal. Pat. 22 lien. VI, bridge for ale delivered by him to the 244). He was implicated as a Yorkist in royal household {Cat. Pat. Holts, 430). In Jack Cade's rebellion, and was among 1462 he was one of the supervisors of all those indicted in 1450 in Kent (Kingsford, beer brewers in England (ibid. 75). Hist.Lil.of 16lhCeritury,p.36i). Heseems ' The brewers formed a gild in the to have stood in the favour of Richard fourteenth century and were incorporated Duke of York. In 1458 he shared his as a company in 1437-38. They possessed offices of clerk of the council and secondary a hall in Addle Street, Cheapside, where of the privy seal with a younger man feasts were held. W. C. Hazlitt, Livery Richard Langport (Cat. Pa'l. 425). Like rompanifs o/ London (1892), pp. 380 f.; P. several of his predecessors he was finally H. Ditchfield, City Companies, pp. 199 f. admitted to membership in the council. * On mainprise, see p. 45, supra. His last appearance was on 3 July, 1462 ' John Kemp, chancellor, 1450-54. (Tenants v. Waynflete, infra), and his death occurred soon after. 109 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL domini Regis sub priuato sigillo suo eidem Cancellario directum et in filaciis eiusdem Cancellarie residens factum, cuius tenor sequitur in hec verba. Henry, be the grace of God KjTig of England and of Fraunce and Lord of Ireland, to the most reuerent Fadyr in God John, Cardinall and Archebusshop of York, primat of England, oure Chanceller, gretyng. We haue undirstonde be the supplicacion of oure welbelouyd hege John Davy, Citezeyn and Brewer of our Cite of London, ho we that not long a goo for as moche as he wold not agree nor consent for causes resonable, suche as moued hym, that oone Gefiferey Bokley,* which was at host and logged with hym, shuld haue his doughtre to wyie, the said Geffrey of malice and euill will causid the said John Dauy to be arrestyd and imprisoned, surmyt- tyag that he shuld haue said diuers wordis ayenst oure estate and dignite, not declarj^d any thjTig in especiall what the wordes shuld be. Wlieruppon, how be it that the said John Dauy neuer thought, as he sayth, nor said, as we bene enformyd, eny thyng of us otherwyse tharme a trewe hege man oughte to thenke or saj', yete neuerthelesse or he myght be take to bayle he founde surete in oure Chauncere be fore you, as it is said, of vi ™ li. to be redye att all tymes to answere to that that any man woll sey uppon the said surmyse aj'enst hjTn, under the which surete he j-it so stondcth, unto grete hurt and hinderj'ng as well of hj-m as of them that were and bene borowes and sureteiis for hym in that behalfe, with outj-n oure grace be shewed to hym in this partie. "^Mierefore we consideryng the premissis and that no man seth the tjTne of arest of the said John Da\-y liiderto, as we be credible acertejTied, hath offerid hym selfe any thyng to declare ayenst hj^m in the mater abouesaid. We will and charge you that ye do openly and solcmply to be proclamed in oure said Chauncere, that if any man can or will any thyng say ayenst the said John Davy in the matier aboue said, he come within a certeyne day resonable by you to be lymyted, and he shall be hard, and if so be that the said day so to be lymeted by j-ou commyng, withynne the which nor at the which noo man allegge declare or purpose any thjTig ayenst the said John touchyng the surmyse aboue rehersid, we wyll and charge you that thenne ye utterly discharge the said John and his borowes and euerych of them of the surete in the which he and they bene bounden to us in oure said Chauncery for the cause abouesaid, and them and echo of them relesse, quytte and dysmysse freely out of our said Court for that cause for euermore. Yeuen under our priue seall at West- minster the xxvii day of May the yerc of oure raigne xxix. Cuius quidem breuis pretextu prcfatus Cancellarius per auisamentum et asscnsum lustici- ariorum, seruientum predicti domini Regis ad legem et aliorum peritorum de consilio suo per tros dies continuos in Cancellaria predicta soleinpniter proclamari fecit quod si quis prefatum doniinuni Regem vel consilium suum informare vel aliquid pro ipso domino Rege erga seu contra prefatum • Mentioned in 14.57 as alias Messager, late of London, receiving a pardon of out- lawry. Cal. Pat. RolU, 353. RELEASE OF THE SURETIES OF JOHN DALY 109 under his privy seal directed to the same chancellor and remaining; in the files of the same chancery, the tenor of which is in the following words: Henry, etc. [See opposite page.] By virtue of this writ the aforesaid chancellor indeed by advice and assent of the justices, the serjeants-at-law of the aforesaid lord the king, and other learned men of his council for three successive days caused it to be solemnly proclaimed in the aforesaid chancerj' that, if anyone wished to inform the lord the king or his council or to allege or charge anything in 110 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL loharmem IDavy in materia supradicta allegare vel obicere vellet in Octabis Sancti loliannis Baptiste proxime jam preteritimi veniret et audiretur. Et quia proclamacionibus predictis ut supradictum est solempniter factis nullus ad Octabas predictas venit ad informandmn dictmn dominum Regem nee consilimn sumn seu aliqiiid pro eodem domino Rege versus predictum lohannem Da^y in materia supradicta allegandum vel obiciendum, ideo predictus lohannes Davy per dictum dominum Cancellarimn et auctoritate breuis predicti dimissus est de Curia Cancellarie ' supradicta quietus sine die, ipseque et manucaptores sui in hac parte occasione premissorum peni- tus inde exonerantur et eorum quilibet exoneratur, etc. HEYRON V. PROUTE AND OTHERS ' 1463 ^*5^ imiuersis Christi fidelibus ad quos presentes littere peruenerint salutem. Ad imiuersitatis vestre noticiam deduci volumus per presentes quod dudum, videlicet anno incarnacionis dominice Millesimo quadringen- tesimo sexagesimo coram dominis consiliariis magni %'idelicet consiUi ' Henrici nuper gerentis se pro Rege Anglie post conquestimi sexti in posses- sione eiusdem regni tunc de facto existentis ad audiendum terminandum et decidendum causas questiones et controuersias quascumque in dicto regno pro tempore motas iudicibus competentibus mota fuit et a diu pen- debat atque de presenti pendet indecisa quedam causa siue querela spolia- cionis seu subtraccionis certarmn lananun Ricardi Heyron ' quondam ciuitatis nostre London' et mercatoris stapule ville nostre Cales' ac certarum injuriarum eidem Ricardo Heyron per lohannem Proute * lohannem Walden lohannem Tate ' et alios merca tores stapule predicte, ut asseritur, factarmn et illatarum, in qua quidem causa per partem predicti Ricardi Heyron proposita et ministrata fuit quedam peticio contra dictum lohan- nem Proute, locum tenentem majoris stapule predicte, et alios mercatores eiusdem cujus tenor talis est: Lamentably compleyneth unto j-our good ' On the court of chancery and its 'On the use of the term "great council," relation to the council, see Introd. pp. meaning not necessarily a lairge council xxiii-xxv. but rather a council of great men, which ' Council and Privy Seal (Exch. T. R.), might also be a pri\'j- council, e. g. magnum file 89, 5 March, 3 Ed. IV. An exemplifi- ei setrelum consilium, see The King's Coun- cation is in the Patent Roll, 3 Ed. IV, i, cil, pp. 108 f. mm. 2-1, from which illegible portions of the record have been supplied. HEYRON V. PROUTE AND OTHERS 110 behalf of the said lord the king against the aforesaid John Davy in the aforesaid matter, he should come on the following octaves of St. John the Baptist now passetl and be heard. And since, the aforesaid proclamations having been solemnly made, as has been tokl above, no one came on the aforesaid octaves to inform the aforesaid lord the king or his council or to allege or charge anything in behalf of the same lord the king against the aforesaid John Dax'y in the aforesaid matter, so the aforesaid John Davy was dismissed by the said lord chancellor and by authority of the aforesaid writ from the aforesaid court of chancery ^ acquitted sine die, and he and his mainpernors in this part by reason of the premises are entirely released therefrom and each of them is released, etc. HEYRON V. PROUTE AND OTHERS ' 1463 The king to all faithful in Christ to whom these letters shall come greet- ing. We wish it to be brought to the notice of you all that in the year of the Incarnation, 1460, before the lords councillors of the great council ' of Henry VI recently acting as king of England, who was then in de facto possession of the same realm for hearing, terminating, and deciding what- ever causes, questions and controversies were moved in the said realm for the time, there was moved before competent judges a certain cause or quarrel, and is still pending, touching the spoliation or sequestration of certain wools belonging to Richard Heyron,' formerly a citizen of our city of London and merchant of the staple of our town of Calais, touching also certain injuries committed and inflicted, as it is alleged, upon the said Richard Heyron by John Proute,'* John Walden, John Tate,' and other merchants of the aforesaid staple; in tliis cause a certain petition on the part of the aforesaid Richard Heyron against the said John Proute lieu- tenant of the mayor of the aforesaid staple, and other merchants was pre- sented and delivered, the tenor of which is as follows: " Lamentably compleyneth," etc. [See following pages.] ' On the complainant and his 20 years French Rolls {Dep. Keeper's Report, xlviii), of litigation see Introd., pp. cxiv-cx\'i. 448-449. * Lieutenant of the mayor of the staple, ' Mentioned as lieutenant of the staple himself mayor of the staple and treasurer in 1482. Cely Papers {Roy. Hist. Soc. of the town of Calais in 1470-71. Cal. Camden Ser. [1900]), 125. Ill CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL gracious lordships and grete wisdoms your humble suppliaunt Richard Heyron, merchaunt, oon of the felaschip of marchauntz of the staple late at Calays, that where yoiu- seid suppliaimt haujTig grete aquejTitance with diuerse merchauntz estraungers repajTyng to Calays aforesaid trusted with the grace of God to haue had good and redye sale and utteraunce of such woUes as he wold schippe and sende thidre in somere last past bought of diuers men within this reamme of Englond woUes of grete and notable value for parte of which woUes youre seid suppliaunt satisfied and paied in hande and for the residue therof endaungered ^ hj-m to his frendys and with their helpe and socour found suiSciant suretee to pay and contente such persones as the seid wolles were bought of at certejTi dayes betwj'xt them accorded and afterward assured our said souerajTi lorde of all maner devours to hym in any wA"se therof pertejTijTig and theruppon afterward schipped the seid wolles in the porte of London ther lawfully customed and eoketted and from thens sent the seid wolles to Calays aforesaid and ther solde parceU of the saide wolles to diuers marchauntz estraungers and was in wey of redie utteraunce and sale of all the residue therof. \Mieruppon oon John Proute the xiij day of Octobre last past then and yett Ueutenant of John Thriske Claire of the seid Estaple hamTig hys full power with in the seid Estaple in his absence by the colour of his office and with thassent of the Marchauntz of the seid Staple then beyng at Calays" aforeseid and of the factours of other marchauntz of the seid Estaple maliciously disposed made a restrancte withoute any cause resonable of the sale and utteraunce of all the residue of all the seid wolles which residue amounteth to the value therof xiii"^ marcs sterlings and more and wold not suffer your seid suppli- aimt to uttre or sell any parcells therof but utterly putt and estraunged hjTn from the rule and gouemaunce therof and commaunded all maner broucours wej-ers porters tresourers clerkys and other officers of the seid Staple to whom it apperteyneth bj' reason of ther offices to haue any interest medelee ' or ouersyght of sale and utteraunce of the wolles ther that they in noo wj-se shuld suffer but utterly lett and restraine the sale or utteraunce of the same wolles fer which cause the seid wolles ben yet as bj' youre seid supphaunt unuttred and he full piteously there endurest in sore and strecte prison by the meanes of the seid Ueutenant and other marchauntz and factours there so that he may neither be at his large ne libertee to come speke write nothir sende to any of his frendis for his help and rehef in the premisses but utterly is put from the rule and gouemaunce of the same, howe be it that your seid supphaunt at the fyrst restraj-nte of the same offred to fj-nde suflBciant suerte within the saide Staple sufficiently to answer to all matiers that coude be obiected ayenst h>-m ther or in Eng- londe by reason of the seid Wolles or eny parcell therof and such merchauntz * = indebted. The wool was commonly paid for by bills due at six months. Cely Papers, p. xiii. HEYRON V. PROUTE AND OTHERS 111 [Text continued from opposite page.] estraungers as he commoned withall ther for the sale and utteraunce of the same woUes put from such bargayncs as they trusted to have had thcrin to the great infamye myscredence and unportaVilc hurt of youre seid supph- aunt and to the grete charge of his frendes and damages of your said suppii- aunt of xx""- marcs. Please it youre seid gooil graceous lordschips and grete wysdoms the premisses tenderly to consider and forasmoch as your seid suppiiaunt hatii no remedy for the premisses after the cours of comon lawe nor none may have ther that the saide Mair and other Marchauntz of the saide Staple beyng her in Englond such as shalbe thought most expedient in this behalf may be compelled by privej' Seal or otherwise as your grete wisdoms wull assigne personelly to aper afore your seid good gracious lorde- schips att a certeyn day and place bj' you to be lymyted ther and than to answer to and for the premisses and theruppon to prouyde and ordejTie such remedye and redresse therin as shall be thought to youre gracious lordschips most conuenient and resonable for reformacion of the same att the reuerence of God and in wey of charite. Also please it your seid lord- schips to remembr that the saide unlawfull restraynte was made in maner and fourme aforeseid after such tj-mc as by the grete labour and suertee made by the hole felaschip of the saiil Staple unto our seid souerajTi lord and his counsell in somere last passed there was a suertee made that ther shuld no restraynte be made of any sale of wolles at the seid Staple the space of iii yere then immediatly folowyng. Et eidem peticioni prefati lohannes "\\'alden at Johannes Tate Mercatores Stapule predicte responde- bant sub sequenti serie verborum. The seid John Walden and John Tate for ther answer to the same seuerelly sejTi that the mater conteigned in the seid byll is not materiall ne sufficient ' to put them to answer therto and that by the same bill ther is noo wrong trespas ne offence surmitted to be don to the seid Richard Heyron by them in any wj'se and they say moreouer that they neuer procured stirj-d abbetted ne executed in any maner forme any restrajTite to be made of the wolles of the same Richard Heyron specified in the seid bjdl ne of eny parcelle therof ne of the sale ne utterance of the same Wolles ne neuer caused procured counseiled ne stured the seid Richard Heyron to be taken arrestyd emprisoned or put in duresse in any wise all the which matiers they be redy to verify by all means lawfull and convenient wherfore they pray to be discharged of their vexa- ' A demurrer of insufficiency, a plea beneath the dignity of the court. If the sometimes meaning that the court has plea is held good, the defendant may be not jurisdiction, that the case pertains to dismissed with costs. In the present case the common law or the ecclesiastical the petitioner was required to amend his courts; or it may mean, as in the present bill. For further examples see Leadam, case, that the bill is lacking in substance, Star Chamber, i, xxix, 12, 20, 59, 160. uncertain, or wanting in legal words, or 112 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL cion by colour of the seid bill as lawe reson and conscience requireth. Et postea pars dicti Ricardi HejTon quandam aliam peticionem contra pre- dictos lohannem Proute lohannem Walden lohannem Tate Rogerum Knyght WiUelmum Holte Ricardum Cely * et Willelmum Broun ]Mer- catores Stapule predicte dedit et ministrauit huiusmodi sub tenore, Lament- ably complajTieth unto your good gracious lordschips and gi-ete wysdoms your humble suppHaiint Richard HejTon Marchaunt oon of the felaschip of the ^Marchauntz of the Staple late at Calays that wher your seid sup- pUaunt haujTig grete aquejTitance with diuers ^Nlarchauntz estraungeres repajTjTig to Calays aforeseid trusted with the grace of God to haue had good and redy sale and utteraimce of such wolles as he wold schip and send thider in Somere last passed bought of djiiers men within this r^ame of England wolles of great and notable value for parte of which wolles youre saide suppHaimt satisfied and paied in hande and for the residue therof en- daungerj-d hjTU to his frendys and with their helpe and socour fonde suffi- cient suerte to pay and contente such persones as the seid wolles were bought of at certejTi dayes betwixt them accorded and afterward suffi- ciently assured oure seid souerajTi lorde of all maner devoirs to hyra in any wyse therof pertej-nj-ng and theruppon afterward schipped the said wolles in the porte of London ther lawfully custimied and coketted and from thens sente the seid wolles to Calays aforeseid, and there sold parcell of the seid wolles to dj^ers Marchaimtz estraimgiers and was in wey redy utterance and sale of all the residue therof wheruppon oon John Proute the xiii"" day of October last passed thanne and yett Ueutenant of John Thriske Mayre of the said Staple haujTig his full power within the said Staple in his absence by colour of his office by the commaimdement sturj-ng pro- curjTig and assente of the said Maire John Walden John Tate Rogier Knyght of Lincoln WiUiam Holte of London Richard Cely of the same and William Broun of Stamford Marchauntes of the saide Staple and the factours of them and the factours of other iSIarchauntz of the said Staple then bejTig at Calaj-s maliciously disposed at Calays aforeseid made a restraj-nte withoute eny cause resonable of the sale and utteraunce of all the residue of the seid Wolles which residue was cclx sarplers of Cottiswold '" wolle and xv sarplers of Clyft" wolle amoimtj-ng to the value of xiii^ marcs sterlings and more and woU not suffre your saide suppUaunt to uttre or sell any parcell therof but utterly putt and estraunged hjTti for the rule and gouernaunce therof and commaundyd all maner brocours weyers porters tresoures clerkys and other officers of the said Staple to whom it appertejTieth by reason of ther offices to haue any interest medlee or ouer- ' Head of the famous family of mer- shire where one of the best grades of wool chants, who lived to the end of the year was produced. Ibid, xxxviii. 1481. Cely Papers, vi. " Believed to be CUve, Cleeve, or Bish- " The Cotswold hills in Gloucester- op's Cleeve in Gloucestershire. Ibid. 161. HEYRON V. PROUTE AND OTHERS 112 [Text continued from opposite page.] syght of sale or utteraunce of wolles ther that they in no wyse shuld suffre but utterly lette and restrayne the sale and utteraunce of the said wolles for which cause the seid wolles be yett as your scid suppliaunt unuttrcd and he full piteuously then and ther endurest in sore and streite prison and yett is by the meancs and sturyng of the seid Maire lieutenant John Walden John Tate Roger Knj'ght William Holte Richard Cely and WilHani Broun and the said factours ther so that he may neither be at his large ne libertee to come speke write or sende to any of his frendys for his help and releff in the premisses but utterly ys put from the rule and gouer- naunce of the same howe be it that your seid suppliaunt at the fyrst re- strainte of the seid wolles offred to fynde sufficient suertee within the seid Staple sufficiently to answer to all matiers that coude be obiected ayenst hym ther or in Englonde by reason of the said wolles or any parcell therof and such Marchauntz estraungers as he commoned withall ther for the sale and utteraunce of the same wolles put from such bargej^ns as they trusted to haue had therin to the grete infamye myscredence and unport- able hurte of your said suppliaunt and to the grete charge of his frendes and damages of your seid Suppliaunt of xx""- marcs. Please it your gracious lordschips and grete wysdoms the premisses tendyrly to consider and for as moch as your said suppliaunt hath not remedy for the premisses after the cours of the comen lawe ne non may haue there that the seid Maire John Walden John Tate Rogier Knyght William Holte Richard Cely and AVilliam Broun may be compelled by writtes or by letters of prive seall or otherwyse as your grete wysdoms wolle assigne personally to aper afore your said good gracious lordschips at a certayn day and place by you to be lymyted ther and then to answer to and for the premisses and theruppon to prouyde and ordeigne such remedie to your said suppliaunts therin accordyng to the statute'^ in such cas prouyded and ordeigned as shall be thought by your said gracious lordschips conuenient and resonable and this for the love of God and in wey of charite. Cui quidem peticioni dicti lohannes Walden lohannes Tate separatim respondebant negatiue in scriptis prout sequitur. Wher it is supposed by the same bill that oon John Prout lieutenant of John Thriske Maire of the Staple of Calays the xiij day of October last passed by colour of his office by the commaunde- ment sturjTig procuryng and assent of the Maire John Walden John Tate and other named in the same bill Marchauntes of the saide Stapel then " The Statute 27 Hen. VI, c. 2, pro- of England and the king's council shall vides that no man shall be excluded of his not be excluded from redressing the faults lawful suit by writ of error, of any judg- of the said mayor and constables under ment given before the mayor and con- the Statutes 27 Ed. III. stables of Calais, and that the chancellor 113 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL bejTig at Calays made a restraynte at Calays aforeseid of the sale and utter- aunce of ccLx Sarplers of Cottiswolde wolle xv sarplers of Clj^te woll of the seid Richard Heyron amountjTig to the value of xiii™- marcs Sterlings and more and wolde not suffer hym to uttre to sell any parcells therof but utterly put and estraunged hjTii fro the rule and gouernaunce therof and commaunded all maner of brocours wej'ers porters tresourers Clerkys and other officers of the seid Staple that they in noo wj'se shuld suffer but utterly let and restrajTie the said sale and utteraunce of the said wolles thereto the seid John Walden and John Tate seuerally answer and say that they com- maunded not stured ne procured in any wise the said Proute or any other person to make anj^ restrancte of the sale and utteraunce of the saide wolles or of anj' parcell therof or of eny other thinge to be don in lett of the sale and utteraunce of the same wolles or of any parceU therof ne therto in anj- wise assented And that thej' neuer put ne estraunged the said Richard Heyron from the rule and gouernaunce of the saide wolles or of any parcell therof ne willed ne caused any restraynte to be made of the seid sale and utteraunce of the same Wolles or of eny parcelles therof ne commaunded stured procured caused ne willed the saide Proute or any other persone to make eny restrainte or lett of the utteraimce sale rule and gouernaunce of the same wolles or of any parcell therof. Also wher it is supposed by the said byll that the seid Richard Heyron at Calays was and is endurest in sore and strecte prison by the menes and sterjTig of the said Maire John Walden John Tate and other therto the seid John Walden and John Tate as aboue answer and say that they in noo wj'se be gj'lty ne defectif of the imprisonement of the seide Richard Heyron ne of the trespas wronge ne offense surmitted to be doon hym by the same bill all which HEYRON V. PROUTE AND OTHERS 113 [Text continued from opposite page.] matieres thay be redy to varyfe by weys and meanes resonable wherfore they pray to be dysmyssed of the seid sute as reason and conscience re- quireth. Et postmo(hiin pars dicti Kicardi Hcyron contra responsioncm huiusmodi dicti lohannis Waldcn lohannis Tate et aliorum cum eo supcrius nominatorum replicauit " in scriptis prout sequitur. The seid Richard Hoyron scith that the seid John Walden and John Tate with the romanaunt named in the bill of the seid Richard Ileyron commaunded stored and pro- cured the seid John Proute to make the restraynte of the sale and utter- aunce of the seid cclx sarplcrs of Cottyiswold woll and xv Sarplers of Clyft woU as it is specified in the bill of the seid Richard antl also caused a re- strainte to be made of the sale or utterance of the same wolles and stured procured and caused the same John Proute and the seid officers specified in the seid bill of the seid Richard to make restraynte and lette the utterance sale rule and gouernaunce of the same wolle in maner and forme as is sup- posed by the seid bill and also they be gylty of the durest of enprisonnment of the seid Richard hke as he hath surmj'tted in his seid bill. And also they be gulty of all the trespas wronges and offenses surmytted by the bill of the seid Richard Hayron in maner and fourme as bj' the same bill is supposed, the which maticrs and euerich of theim shalbe proved by all such meanez as shalbe thought to your seid lordshippez resonable and for- asmoch as they withsey not by dedez and actez of their factours all that tjTne bej'ng at Calj's the seid Richard praith that gode and hasty remedy maybe had in the premissez for the loue of god and yn way of cheryte. " Replications are not often found. any new allegations, they were apt to be Since they were not permitted to contain merely perfunctory. 114 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Sicque causa huiusmodi inter partes et personas antedictas ut premittitur mota in dicto regno nostro Anglie cepta adhuc de presenti coram nobis et prefatis donunis consiliariis magni consilii nostri pendet indecisa, prout de premissis omnibus et singulis ex processu et recordo actisque in ea parte factis et habitis euidenter et notorie liquet. Nosque et domini eonsiliarii magni consilii nostri dicti regni nostri Anglie ludices in hac parte compe- tentes sumus et omni tempore erimus prompti et parati partibus predictis in premissis et ea concernentibus quibuscumque iusticie facere comple- mentum. Que omnia et singula premissa ad omnem iuris effectum qui exinde sequi poterit vobis omnibus et singulis significamus notificamus et intimamus per presentes. In cuius etc. Datum etc. [Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium quinto die Marcii. per breve de pruiato sigillo et de dato etc.] In palacio sue Westm' quinto die Marcii anno etc. tercio Rex de auisa- mento sui consilii voluit et mandauit custodi priuati sigilli sui fieri facere litteras sub eodem sigillo domino Cancellario Anglie dirigendas mandando eidem cjuatinus sub magno sigillo fieri faciat litteras patentes secundum tenorem suprascriptum. Presentibus Dominis Cancellario," London','* NorwicenV^ Elien'," Lincoln','* Warr','' Priore Sancti lohannis,^" Has- tynges,2' Cromwell,''^ Ryuers," Dacre," Ruthyn," Wenlok',^^ Mountacu,=^ etc. [Signed:] Langport.-* TENANTS V. WAYNFLETE ' 1462 R. E.2 BythekTng. Trusty and welbeloued. Howe it be that upon the complaintes made by the tenantes of the Reuerent fadre in God, the Bishop of Wynchestre,' and in especiall of the lordship of Estmeone * in our countee of Hampshire in our last parlement,* the matiers concernyng the said complaintes were rypely examyned, and either partie herd, as ferre as they or any of thaym coude shewe or allegge for himself. And finally by the considcracion of the grete proves shewed on the behalf of the said Reuerent fadre in God, and noon resonable matier shewed by the partie contrarie that sholde or might " George Neville, 1461-66. '^ Thomas Kemp, V)ishop, 1450-89. i« Walter Lchert, bishop, 1446-72. " WilUam Grey, bishop, 1454-78. '8 John Chcdworth, Ijishop, 1452-71. " Richard Neville, d. 1471. =» Kol)crt Botvll, 1439-69. =' William, d. 1483. " Humphrey Bourihier, d. 1471. 2» Richard Woodville, d. 1469. « Richard Fenys, d. 1485. " Edmund Grey, d. 1488. " ,Iohn, d. 1471. " John Neville, d. 1471. " Clerk of the council, 23 July, 1461, granted the office jointly with Thomas Kent, sole clerk on the retirement of Kent in 1462 {Rot. Pari, v, 216; Cal. Pat. 126). He is mentioned as rector of Bradwell in Essex and prebendary of St. Mary Ottery in Devon, and in 1462 was granted the manor of Sonier,sbury in Surrey, to hold so long as it remained in the king's hands (Cal. Pat. SO, 170). He either resigned or was dispossessed of the office at the ac- cession of Henry VII (Leadam, Star Cham- ber, i, 12). ' Chancery Warrants, series i, file 1547. TENANTS V. WAYNFLETE 114 And so this cause which has been moved hetween the aforesaid parties and persons, as previously narrated, and hegun in our said reahn of Eng- land, still at present pends before us and the aforesaid lords councillors of our great council undecided, as is made evident and notorious from each and every point in the foregoing process and record and from the acts done and performed in this matter. We indeed and the lords councillors of our great council of our said realm of England are competent judges in this matter and will always be prompt and ready to give the aforesaid parties full measure of justice in the premises and everything relating thereto. All the foregoing statements and every one of them to every end of justice that can arise we signify, announce, and impart to each and every one by the present (letters). In testunony of this, etc. Witness the king at West- minster on the fifth day of March. By writ of privy seal and of the date, etc. In his palace at Westminster on the fifth day of March, in the third year, etc., the king by the advice of his council willed and commanded the keeper of the privy seal to have letters issued under the same seal, which were to be directed to the lord chancellor of England, that he should have letters patent issued under the great seal according to the tenor written above. In the presence of the lord chancellor,''' the bishops of London,'^ Norwich,'* Ely,'' Lincoln,'* the earl of Warwick," the prior of St. John's,'"' lords Hastings,^' Cromwell,^^ Rivers,^' Dacre,^'' Ruthin," Wenlock.^" Monta- cute,"etc. [Signed:] Langport.-* TENANTS V. WAYNFLETE {continued) exclude hym of his right demaunded of his said tenantes, it was aduised and understande that the said tenantes sholde and ought to paj^e theire rentes and doo and continue their suetes, seruices, workes and custumes to the said Reuerent fader, as they had doon in tyme passed, as more atte large is conteygned in an acte therupon made: yit that notwithstandyng the said tenantes have not only not doo nor observed the said advisement; but also in the monethe of Maye last passed complayned unto us of certaine of their neighbours emprisoned by the said Reuerent fadre. Whereupon ^ The sign manual of Edward IV. of John it was given back to the bishop. ' William of W.aynflete or Wainfleet, The bishops built a palace here which bc- bishop of Winchester, 1447-86. For the came their favorite residence. It was one part he played in Jack Cade's rebellion, of the largest aiid richest manors, where first treating with the rebels and then vineyards were planted. The hundred of punishing them, and for the con.scquent East Meon for centuries followed the disturbances in Winchester and elsewhere, descent of the manor and is famous for see Did. Nat. Biog. its active life into modern times. Victoria • East Meon, next to West Meon, in Hist. Hatiip.ihire, i, 378; ii, 63, 65. the valley of the Meon River. It had be- ' Wherein the tenants had made their longed to tlic bishops of Winchester in complaints and argued their case. A de- Saxon times, after the Norman Conquest cree was made against them 16 Dec. Rot. it was held by the kings, until in the reign Pari, v, 475. See Introd. p. cxvii. 115 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL we willed thaim to retorne and to sende ayen this fest of Witsontide ii or iii of euery hundred of the said lordship, and also charged the said Reuerent fader to send hider by the same tyme a discrete and a sadde personne or personnes fully instruct of his entent in all thinges concernj-ng the variaunce betwix him and his said tenauntes, to thentent that we thajTii herde and understande might by thauis of our coimsaill take suche direction therein as shuld be to the pleasire of God and ease, rest and pees of either partie. And notwithstandyng that, accordyng to our said commaundement, both the counsaill of the said Reuerent fader in God were here redy for that cause, and also, as we understande, a greet compaignye of the said tenantes, yit the said tenantes, for what cause we wote not, sodeinly departed hens, the said matier not herde nor examined, in their owen defaute, to our grete mervayllyng, and also hurt and tediouse vexacion of the said Reuerent fadre in God, and also to his grete charges and expenses. Wherefore we wol and charge you that ye, going to suche places in the said lordship as shal be thought to your discrecion moost expedient, declare and notifie on oure behalfe to alle the said tenantes the premisses, willing and chargyng thaym and eche of thaym that, accordyng to that hath be auised by our counsaill as is abouesaid, they paye their rentes, doo and contynue their seutes, seruices, werkes and custumes, as they aught and haue be accus- tumed to doo in tyme passed, soo that in their defaute we be noo more vexed nor troubled in that partie, as they wol eschewe the perill that maye falle. And ouer this wol and charge you that ye assiste, strengthen, helpe and fauour the said Reuerent fadre in alle thinges belongyng to your office accordyng to the duetee therof in the conseruyng and kepyng of the ryght and duetees of hym and his churche of Wynchestre accordyng to lawe and right. Yeven etc. at our Castell of Leycester the ixth day of Jujti the secunde yere of our reigne. To our trusty and welbeloued The Shirrief of our countee of Hampshire. [Endorsed: — ] The iiide daye of Juyll' the seconde yere of the reigne of our souuerain and liege lord King Edward the fourthe in the sterred Cham- bre at Westminster, the same our souuerain and liege lord by thauis of his counsaill commaunded his Chaunceller of England to doo make writtes under the greet seal directed to the shirrief of our coimtee of Suthampton, and to suche other as shal be thought expedient, commaundyng by the same to make proclamacion as it is remembrcd in this minute within writen signed with the kynges owen hande, ther beyng present the lordes Tharchebisshop of Cauntcrbury,* the Bisshopes of Excestre,' Chaunceller of England, and Norwich,' Therles of Worcestre,^ tresorer of England, and Kent,'" The « Thomas Bourchier, archbishop, 1454- • John Tiptoft, treasurer, 1462-64. 86. '" Thomas Kent, clerk of the council, ' George Neville, chancellor, 1460-67. 1443-62. ticc Gijfard v. Morton, p. lOS, a. ' Walter Lehert, bishop of Norwich, 1446-72. NORTON V. COLYNGBORNE 115 prior of Saint Johns," The lord Diicrc,'- The kcpcr of the kingcs priue 6eal," The Dean of Saint Severyngs,'^ John Saye," etc. [Signed: — ] T. Kent. NORTON V. COLYNGBORNE' 1474 To the l^yng our souereign lorde.' Mekely bescchit your pourc orator Thomas Norton ' of Couuentre Chappenian that where on Henry Horde of Crechirge * Marchaunt wasse bowndon in an obligacion of xlv H. of lafuU money of Englond to your sayd besecher to be payyd att a certen day longc agonne passyd as in the same obligacion more plenely dothe appere for certen clothe that was bowght of your sayde besecher by the forsayd Henry where uppon your sayd besecher of grete truste he hadde to on Johne Colyngborne ' esquier of your hosehold And l[at]e Seryve of Wilteschir and for the promise he " Robert Botyll, prior, 1439-69. " Richard Fenys or Fiennes, knight chamberlain to Edward IV, in 1475 re- tained a.s one of the king's council with an annuity of 100 marks. Cat. Pal. 15 Ed. IV, 550. " Robert Stillington, keeper, 1462-70. " Peter Taster, dean of St. Severin's, a title pertaining to the Cathedral of Bor- deaux, still continued in England. " Of a long established family located in Savsburv, Hertfordshire (R. Clutter- buck, "W!s(."o/ //fr(/ord [1827], iii, 192 f.). In 1452 John Say was a yeoman of the crown and keeper of the privy palace at Westminster {Cal. Pat. 31 Hen. VI, 15), in 1457 coroner of the marshalsea of the household (ibid. 36 Hen. VI, 399), from 1461 justice of the peace in Hertfordshire, and in 1449, 1463, and 1467 knight of the shire and speaker of the house of commons. In 1476 he was keeper of the great ward- robe (ibid. 16 Ed. IV, 597). His death was in 1478. ' Ancient Petitions, no. 6399. ' The address to the king rather than to the councU, or the king and council, is a noticeable tendency of the time of Ed- ward IV. ' A man of this name is mentioned as one of the common council of Coventry in 1456 and 1469. Coventry Leet Book (Early Eng. Text Soc. 1907-13), 285, 352. * Crichurch or Christchurch. ' No man of this name appears either as an attendant of the king's household or as sheriff of Wiltshire. There was one William Colyngborne, or Colingbourn, who was repeatedly since 1453 commis- sioned as a purveyor of the royal house- hold, who was called the king's servant in 1461 and given the custody of the king's park of Ludgershall in Wiltshire {Cal. Pat. 15, 78), and in 1464 was serjeant of the king's pantry (ibid. 293). He was sheriff of Wiltshire in 1473-74, sheriff of Somerset and Dorset in 1475-76, and again sheriff of Wiltshire, 1480-81 (Lists a7id Indexes, Pub. Rec. Office, ix), justice of the peace in Wiltshire, 1478-83, and repeatedly com- missioner of inquiry in each of these coun- ties (Cal. Pal. Rolls). In 1478 he was a commissioner to inquire into the estates of the late duke of Clarence (Cal. Pat. 1 10). He fell under suspicion of engaging in Buckingham's rebellion and was con- demned and executed as a traitor in 1484 (ibid. 542). This William Colyngborne was also constantly engaged in htigation collecting debts, and it was probably for some such rea,son that the present complainant placed the aforesaid obliga- tion in his hands. It is not unusual for a petitioner to be in doubt about a name, as some of our other records show. More- over the petitioner shows himself to be a very careless man. The date assigned to the petition depends on these circumstances. Between the two possible dates, 1474 and 1481, the former is the more likely, since Colyngborne was then both sheriff and officer of the king's household. 116 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL made to hym to have gete hjaii hys sayde dute contej'nyd in the same obli- gacion takyng for hys labor as they where agreyd deliueryd hym the saied obhgaeion where your sayd besecher ofte tymes sythe hath reqmryd the forsyd Johne Colyngburne to haiie dehueryd to hym the sayd obhgaeion or the same dute conteynyd there in. And thys to doo he uterlj' refuse to the grete hurte and imdoyng of your sayde beescher without your good and gracious lordeschippe to hjoii schowj^d on that behalve wherfore your saied orator besechjm your good and gracious lordschypp the primez hereof to consydre that the same John Colyngburn may come afore your good and gracious lordeschip to be compellj^d to deliueryd to j'our sayd besecher hys sayd obhgaeion or hys dute conteynyd there In.^ And he schall pray to god for your riall and nobyll estate. , .. , ^. [Johannes Yonge de London Smyth, plegu de prosecutione < „. ^^ , 1^ WiLLELMUS HaUKE DE LONDON YOM.U^. [Endorsed: — ] Coram rege et consilio suo crastino Johannis.' POCHE V. IDLE ' A 1481 'To the king our souuerain Lord. Humbly sheweth unto your good grace your hmnble and dailly oratrice Alice Poche wyf unto your humble subgiet William Pouche ^ that whereas Thomas Idle decessed in hys lyf housbond unto the same Alice had isse oon Richard son of the said Thomas and Ahce and true enheritour unto the manour of Drayton with the appurtenaunces lying in the towne of Dray- ton ' within your counte of Oxonford whiche Richard was possessed of the same according to his right unto the tyme that WiUiam Idle oncle unto the saide Richard and yonger brother unto the said Thomas Idle willing to pretende title unto the said Manour with thappurtenaunces not with- standing that by thaward of iiij lerned men yeuen by thagrement ^ of bothe " An equitable case. See Introd. p. agreed upon to settle a dispute privately xxxiv. out of court. It was a method especially ' 28 December. useful instead of a jury when the question ' Council and Privy Seal (Exch.T.Jl.), was complicated or technical. Sometimes file 92, 31 July, 21 Ed. IV, consisting of it was proposed in a spirit of compromise A the petition, and B the minute of the (e.g. Neville v. Neville, Introd. p. ex). But consequent writ under the privy seal. the method laboured for a long time under ^ A man of this name, Poche or Pouche, many disadvantages: the courts often set was in 1484 granted for life the office of such a decision aside on technical ground; keeper of the little wardrobe within the however the parties might bind them- Tower of London. Cal. Pal. 1 Ric. Ill, selves, still the arbitration was not a court 386. and had no process to compel obedience, ' There were two parishes in Oxford- so that one or the other party might be shire of this name, one near Banbury, the compelled to go to court for the original other on the Thames 8^ miles southeast matter in dispute, or for a breach of the of the town of O.xford. The latter is the agreement to accept the award. A needed larger and probably the one here referred reform was undertaken in the reign of to. William III. T. E. Tomlins, Law Die- * An arbitration, such as was often tionary. POCHE V. IDLE 116 parties that the said manour with thappurtcnaunccs shuld be and remayne unto the said Richard and his iioiros for eucr as right is by force and amies with the maintenaunce of the due of Suffolk being there in persone accom- paynj'cd with gretc nombrc of riot tons persones warrely arrayed that is to wite with bowcs arowes gleves ^ billcs ^ swerdes and othre weypons the xvi day of this present moneth of July forcibly and without any just cause or forme of your lawe entred into the said manoir brake the houses and walles of the same in dyuers places toke and letlde awaye the bestes and goodes and beted and chased owt alle the seruauntes and othre persones being within the same. And also the said due of Suffolk ' in his owne persone pullet! the said Alyce owt of hur chambre and put hir owt of the said Manoir and so thurgh his mayntenaunce the said William Ide which is outlawed hath cuer sithen kept and yit kepith the said manoir and goodes from the said Richaril ami Alice to their grete hint antl damage and to their utter undoing without your prouision and remedye in this behalue. It may therfor please j-our highnesse to direct your gracieus letters mis- siues unto the lord lionel Wydeuill ^ whiche is oon of the feoffees of the said manoir willing him by the same to see the said Richard Idle to be put ayen in peacible possession of the said Manoir with thappurtenaunces and the said Alice restored to hur goodes and to help and succour them in their right and that they be not interupted of the same by any maner of sup- portacion contrary to jair lawes. And also to see suche prouision as that the said due of Suffolk no further supporte ne maynteyn the said William Ide nor noon of the said Riottous persones other wyse than accordith with your said lawes. This at the reuerence of God to whom your said oratrice shal hertily prey for the conseruacion of your moost noble and royal estate. And ouer this please it your said highnesse to direct your said letters unto William Medley, Colwey, Richard Edmondes, Edmund Whetehile with other being within [the] said manour commauniling them by the same tavoide from thenc and to suffre your said oratrice to occupie the said Manoir according to right and your lawes. ' Glaive, a weapon composed of a long sometimes a justice of oyer and terminer cutting blade at the end of a staff, possibly (Cat. Pat. liolU). 12 or 13 feet long. S. Myrick, Anlienl ' Lionel Woodville, third son of Rich- Armour, i, 29; ii, 125. ard Earl Rivers and brother of the queen. ' Bill, a weapon in the shape of a sickle. Though a olergyman, he was much en- Ibid. i, 9.5. gaged in the material and sordid interests ' John de la Pole, second duke of Suf- of the day. He was chancellor of the Ilni- folk {Diet. Nat. Biog.). His violent en- versity of Oxford in 1479, bishop of Sahs- tries into the manors of Drayton and Hrl- bury, 1482-84, justice of the peace in Wilt- lesden in Norfolk are recounted in 7'/ie shire, 1478-81, in Berkshire, 1482-83, and Pastor Letters (1904), iv, nos. 578, 581, in the town of Oxford in 1480. Ibid.; 591, 595, 670. At this very time he was Did. Nat. Biog. a justice of the peace in Oxfordshire, and 117 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL B R. E.' By the king. Trusty and welbeloued we grete you wele. And for as moche as it is doon us to understand bj' a lamentable complaint made unto us by Alice Poche moder to oon Richard Idle enheritor to the manor of Dra3-ton by right of his fader Thomas Idle decessed somtyme husband to the said Alice and lord of the said manor that William Idle oncle unto the said Richard and yonger brother unto the said Thomas accompanyed with manj- othere riottous persones in grete nombre warrely arraied that is to say with bowes arrowes glej'\'es billes swerdes and other wepons the xvi daie of tliis present moneth of Jule forciblj"^ and withoute any just cause or fourme of lawe entred into the said manor brake the houses and walles of the same in diuers places toke and ledde away the bestes and goodes beeted and chaced out all the seruauntes and other persones being witliin the same namely the said Alice whiche was in peasible possession of all the premisses to the grete offense of us and oure lawes and utter distruction of the said AUce and Richard hur sone with oute due remedie of oure grace especial] to theim be shewed in this behalf. We therfor woU and commaunde you in the straitest wise that ye duely enformed of the trouth of the premissez put the said Alice hur said son and other by reason of thair title and clayme having interest in the said manor in full possession of the same togidre with alle suche goodes and catalles as by the said riottors wer taken from theim at the tyme of the said riottous entree. Amoving and that j'e amove the said WilUam Idle and all other occupiours there by occasion of the said entree from the said manor and all that apperteigneth to the same charging theim to appere afore us and oure counsaill at our paloys of Westminster in the xv"" of saint Michell '" next commyng to aunswer to the premisses. And that j'e faile not hereof and to certiiie us at the said xv what by you is doon herein as ye woll answere unto us at your perille. Yeuen mider our priue seall at our Castell of Windesore the last day of Juyll the xxi yere of our reigne. To oure trustj' and welbeloued Sir William Stoner " knight for our body Umfrey Forster '^ esquier theim or the oon of theim with anj' othere of oure Justices of peace within our countie of Oxonford. • The sign manual of Edward IV. ing under Henry VII and became sheriff '" 13 October. of O.xfordshire and Berksliire in 1485. " or Stonour, member of parliament " A commissioner of array, of inquisi- for Oxfordshire in 1477, justice of the tion, of gaol deUvery, etc., justice of the peace, 1468-83, frequently commissioner peace in Oxfordshire, 1460-83. In 1481 of oyer and terminer in the county. He he served on a commission of oyer and was involved in the rcbeUion of Bucking- terminer in association with the duke of ham against Richard III in 1483, with the Suffolk and WiUiam Stoner (Cal. Pat. consequent loss of his estates (Cal. Pat. 21 Ed. IV, 289). 1 Ric. Ill, 433), but recovered his stand- WHELE V. FORTESCUE 117 WHELE V. FORTESCUE ' In the sterre chambre at Westminster the sccunde daye of Mayc the xxij yere of the reigne of our soueraigne lord the king Edwarde the iiij"" present my lordes Tharchcbisshop of York ^ Chaunccller of England the Bisshoppes of Lincoln ^ priuc Seal Worcestre * Norwich ^ Durham * and Landaff' Therle Rj'\'ers* the lordes Dudley' Ferres'" Beauchamp" Sirs Thomas Borough '- William Parre " Thomas Vaghan " antl Thomas Greye '* knightis in full and plenary counsaill '^ was openly radde the Juge- ment and decree made by my lordis of our said soueraignes lordes counsaill afore that tjTne for the partie of Richard Whele other\vise calletl Richard Pierson decreed made yeven and declared contrarie and ayenst John ' Council and Privy Seal (Exch. T. R.). file 92, 2C June, 22 Ed. IV. • Thomas Rotherham, chancellor, 1475 -83. ' John Russell, keeper of the privj' seal, 1474-. • John Alcock, 1476-86. ' James Goldwell, 1472-99. • WiUiam Dudley, 1476-83. ' John MarshaU, 1478-96. ' Anthony Woodville, second eatl, d. 1483. ' John Dudley, sLxth baron, d. 1487. '" Walter Devereux, Lord Ferrers of Chart ley. " Richard, son of John Beauchamp of Powj-k. " or Burgh, an equerry, master of the king's horse in 1465, knight of the king's body, justice of the peace in Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire, and Lincolnshire; stew- ard, custodian, and surveyor of the king's estates, commissioner of array, etc. (Cal. Pat. Rolls). He was one of the ambassa- dors sent in 1475 to treat with France {Fosdera, xii, 15). " or Parr, commissioner of array and justice of the peace in Cumberland and Westmoreland, sheriff of Cumberland in 1471, of Westmoreland in 1475; a king's equerry since 1468, one of the ambassa- dors sent to France in 1475, a member of the commission appointed in 1482 to hold the office of constable of England {Cal. Pal. 317), also one of Edward TV's council. " or ^■aughan, keeper of the great ward- robe under Henry VI, justice of the peace in Surrey and Worcester, sheriff of Surrey and Sussex in 1466, equerry and treasurer of the king's chamber in 1469, controller and surveyor of the hanaper in chancery (ibid. 124), chamberlain of the Prince of Wales in 1471 (ibid. 283), surveyor and demiser of various estates in the king's hand. " or Grey, of Little Tilbury, Essex; an equerry and knight of the king's body, a Knight of St. George in 1467 (ibid. 38), granted the manor of Tilbury in 1475 and the lordship of Clavering in Essex for life in 1478 (ibid. 569, 126), commissioned in 1482 to act as vice-marshal of England (ibid. 317). " These words are apparently the Eng- lish equivalent of the Latin in plena con- silio and the French en plein conseil, which frequently occur. Professor Pollard has argued that the adjective plenum or plein, used in connection with parliament, means " open " or " pubUc " rather than " full " and is equivalent to the French playn (Eng. Hist. Rev. vol. 30, p. 660). The evidence seems to me to the contrary. Where playn was meant, that word was used (ibid.) . In one instance we have en plein confort and en plein parlement side by side {The King's Council, p. 495), where the meaning can only be " full " or " complete." A " fuU " parliament or council, it is true, need not be large. Little stress was laid upon the size even of great councils (ibid. p. 106). The " fulness " consisted rather in the com- pleteness of its legal form and sanction. See also "plein restitucion " in Petition oj the Hansards, p. 76, and "plein parlement" and "plein relacion " in ju.xtaposition in Lowestoft V. Yarmouth, p. 66. 118 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Fortescue •' squier in maner and fourme and under the thenure '* that foloweth. In the matier of question and contrauersie betwix John Fortescue squier and Richard WTiele otherwise called Pierson of that the said John Fortescue alleggith and seith that the said Richard is a Scotte '' borne and of thalUgiance of the King of Scottis and for such oon hath take hym and is in possession as his prisoner the said Richard evidentlj^ proving the con- trarie and that he is an Englissheman boren and noo Scotte as in the writ- inges of the said Fortescue for his partie and also of the Richard for his defence it is conteigned all at large whiche matier longe hath hanged in the kinges counsaill undecided. Therfore the xxi" daye of Xouembre the xxi" yere of the reigne of our soueraigne lord the King Edwarde the iiij"" in the sterre Chambre at Westminster afore the lordes of the Kinges Counsaill the said writinges for either partie with all such e\'idences and proves by auctorite examined and by grete dehberacion seen and understanded. And after either of the said parties bothe in thaire owne persone as by thair counsaill at diuers tjTiies diligently herde in all that they coude or wolde allege and sale in that behalf it appered to the lordes of the said counsaill FOUQUIRE V. NICOLE.' 1432-36 ^ tresreuerend pere in Dieu treshault trespuissains Princes et hoimoures Sygneurs messeigneurs les Carchnal Dangleterre - Due de Gloucestre ' et aultres ConseiUiers du Roy ^ nostre souuerain Seigneur- en son Royame Dangleterre. " There was more than one John For- Pat. 32), king's almoner in 146S, clerk of tescue hving at this time but the only one parliament in 1471, dean of the chapel of entitled " esquire " was John of Puns- the king's household in 1481, dean of borne, of the Devonshire branch of the Wells Cathedral, and keeper of the privy famous family of this name (Lord Cler- seal in 1483 {Fcedera, xii, 194). mozit, Hist. of Fam.of Fortescue, pp. 23Q!.). ^' Master Thomas Cook, doctor of laws, This John acquired properties in Essex in this same year one of the ambassadors through his marriage with Alice Mont- sent to Bruges {Cal. Pat. 313), commis- gomery (Morant, Essex, ii, 117). He was sioner to hear an appeal (ibid. C Hen. VII, sheriff of Cornwall, 1471-76, of Essex and 350), etc. Hertford in 1481 and 1485. Under Henry " Prospero Camillo dei Medici was VII he became a knight of the body and apostolic collector in 1476. Cal. Pat. 586; chief butler (Cal. Pat. 8 Hen. VII, 421). Fadcra, xii, 5. He wa-s at the siege of Mt. St. Micliacl in =' John Howard, duke of Norfolk, 1483- 1472 and at the battle of Bosworth in 1485, 85. but nothing further is known of his par- '' or Harcourt, an old servant of the ticipation in the Scottish war. king's father, Richard Duke of York, who " = tenor. was richly rewarded by Edward IV {Cal. " War between England and Scotland Pal. 2 Ed. IV, 198). He was steward, came on in 1480. The date of the first custodian, parker, commissioner and jus- warrants was 15 Feb. 1481. tice of the peace in Oxfordshire and Nor- "> Master John Gunthorp, a king's folk, clerk, secretary of the queen in 1467 and " High bailiff in the county of Guysnes master of King's Hall, Cambridge {Cal. in Picardy in 1468 {Cal. Pat. 108), ap- FOUQUIRE V. NICOLE 118 [Text continued from opposite page.] that the said Richard Whele otherwise called Pierson is and was an Eng- lissheman borne and noo Scottc and that he was borne in the townc of Newcastcll upon Tyne and therefore it is considered adiuged and decreed by the same lordes the same Richard so to be holden taken and reputed amongest all the kinges lige people and subiectcs and as the kinges ligeman to be demeaned anil entreated in all places and noon otherwise and to be at his large and freedome to do that hym semeth good as the kinges subiecte oweth to doo withoute trouble lette or empechement and the said John Fortescue to be putte and so was putte to perpetucll silence of further besynes sute or vexacion of the said Richard for the cause aboue pretended in tyme to come in any manerwise; than present my lordes tharchcbisshop of Yorke Chaunceller of England and Bisshoppis of Lincoln priue seall, Bathe, Worcestre and Durham, Maisters Gunthorp,^ Cook,^' the popis col- lectour,^ the lordis Haward," Sir Thomas Vaghan and Sir Richard Hare- court ^* Knightes and Thomas Thwaytes ^' &c. [Signed :] Langport.^ Datum &c. apud Westmonasterium xxvi'« die Junii anno &c. xxij. FOUQUIRE V. NICOLE' 1432-36 To the right reverend father in God, the most high, the most powerful princes and honourable lords, My lords the Cardinal of England,^ the Duke of Gloucester ' and other councillors of our lord the King ■• in his reahn of England. pointed chancellor of the exchequer for liament in 1431, although his political life in 1471 (ibid. 272), custodian for influence was damaged (see Diet. Nat. Queen Margaret in 1475 (ibid. 571), treas- Biog.). It is important for dating the urer of the town and marches of Calais present petition to note that his name in 1483 (ibid. 373). appears with that of Gloucester in the '• Clerk of the council, jointly with acts of the council during the years 1430- Thomas Kent in 1458, solely in 1462. See 31 and 1433-36 (Nicolas, Proceedings, v, Heyron v. Proute, p. 114, n. 35, 81, 174, 334). ' Found in Ancient Petitiotis, no. ' The king's uncle, Humphrey, duke of 13,056. Gloucester, who resigned the office of • This was the title by which the king's protector in 1429, after which he was uncle Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winches- made lieutenant and warden for two years ter, was commonly known. He had during the king's absence. The lack of accepted the cardinal's hat and a iegatine any title and precedence given to the duke commission in 1429 without the king's in this petition indicates the date of the consent, and for this he had to meet the present document as later than February, opposition of the duke of Gloucester and 1432. others of his enemies, who contended that * The manner of the address indicates he had thus vacated his bishopric, made the minority of Henry V'l. Petitions to himself liable to the penalties of Praemu- the king himself begin to appear as early nire, and even forfeited his right to sit in as 23 Nov. 1436 (Nicolas, v, 5), and from the council. His rights in these respects that time his participation in the govem- were substantially vindicated before par- ment is evident. 119 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL Supplie treshumblement Guillaime Fouquire poure homme laboreiir demoirant en la ville de Rouen comme le Jeudj absolu km mil. iiij'^ xxx . . . darrein passe le dit suppliant et deux marchans du pais Dangleterre lun noume Jehun Nicole et lautre noume Estienne Nicole lors demourant en la parroiche de Brilesen a demie lieue de Darquemoult, coment Ilz disoiient reussent conuenuns ensembles en certein lieux en la \alle de Rouen et pource que le dit suppliant nauoit pas de quoy nourrer lui sa femme et enfans, eust fait contrault auec lesdit Nicole que ycelui suppliant bailla trois enffans ausdit NicoUe cest assavoir deux fieux lun noume Gieffroy lautre Geruays et ime fille nonunee Jaquelot pour faire seruice ausdit Nicole pour certain temps cest assavoir lesdit Gieffroy et Geruais par les passe de \aj ans delors subsequens en leur querrant leurs neccssares et les tenir a lescole par le passe de deulx ans pour recompensacion desquels deus ans la fiUe dessus ditte deuoit faire seruice ausdit NicoUe.^ Et en la fin desdit vij ans a complir par lesdit enffans et deulx par la dite fille, iceuls Nicole les deuoient rendre a leurs custages en la dite ville de Rouen comme ces choeses sont partes par lettres soubz le seel du Bailliaghe de Rouen que porte le dit, de puis lesquelles choeses la fenime du dit suppliant le {sic) mere desdits enffans est alee de vie atrespas et la subcession escheue et venue audits enffans dont plusseurs deeus parens se sont voullus ou vullent ensaisine, soubz vindre de ce quils dient que lesdit enffans sont more, pour lesquelles causes le dit suppliant est venu pour de cha esperant a auoir boienement ses enfans et a troue que le dit Jehan Nicolle est alle de vie a trespassemeint et ne voult rendre ledit Estienne filz du dit Jehan Nicole et a sa femme de cheluy lesdit enffans du dit suppliant niais les ont volus vendre et dit audit suppliant que il ne ara point sesdit enffans sc il nc paie xviij nobles,^ que est contre droit et raison ct la promess desdit NicoUc et en tres grant gref pre- iudice et damaghe du dit subhant et desdit enfans qui nont point este a lescole que dit est : Que de votre benigne graces ces choses consideres vous plaise faire amonstrer rayson et justice au dit suppUant et lui faire rendre ses enffans par le diet Estienne Nicolle et la veusue de son pere ainsy que obligicr y sont affin que lesdit enffans puissent recuiller lours heritagis a eulx veniLS de par leur mere et do leurs pere quant le case eschara, et que le dit suppliant leur pere puisse faire de eulx leur profyt et lo sien ' ainsy que ' Probably a contract of apprentice- Ashley, Econ. Hist, and Theory (1914), p. ship, although nothing is here said of 85; L. F. Salzmann, Eng. Industries of the instruction in a craft. Seven years was Middle Ages (191.3), p. 230. the term commonly insisted upon in the ' The noble, an I'^nglish gold coin first crafts of England, while six years were minted by Edward III, current for 6s. 8d., usual in France. According to the indcn- which continued to be issued by Richard lures of the fifteenth century, the master 11, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI and was to provide bed, board, training, neces- Edward IV. The royal or rose-nohle saries, sometimes remuneration and even coined by Edward IV was worth 10s. schooling. The latter feature is empha- Cenlury Diet. sized in the present case. See W. J. ' This is the point of the petition. It FOUQUIRE V. NICOLE 119 Most humbly bcseecheth William Fouquire, a poor labourer dwelling in the town of Rouon, how on Holy Thursday of the year fourteen hundred and tiiirty . . . l;ust passed, the said suppliant and two merchants of Eng- land, one named John Nicole and the other Stephen Nicole, then dwelhng in the parish of Brixham a half-league from Dartmouth, as they said, had come together in a cortam place in the town of Kouen, and because the said suppliant had not the means wherewith to support his wife and children, he had contracted with the said (John and Stephen) Nicole to deliver three children to the said (Jolm and Stephen) Nicole, that is, two sons, one named Geoffrey and the other Gervaise, and a daughter named Jaquelot, to serve the said (John and Stephen) Nicole for a certain time; that is, the said Geoffrey and Gervaise for tlie space of seven years then following, (John and Stephen) furnishing them their necessaries and keeping them in school for two years by way of compensation, during which tw^o years the aforesaid daughter was to serve the said (John and Stephen) Nicole.^ And after the completion of the said seven years by the said children and two by the said daughter, (John and Stephen) Nicole were to send them back to their home in the said town of Rouen, (just) as these things are set forth in letters under the seal of the bailliage of Rouen, which bears the same. After which things the wife of the said suppliant, the mother of the said children, has died and her inheritance has come to the said children, of which many of their relatives have wanted or want possession, alleging that the said children are dead. ^Vherefore the said suppliant has come here hoping to have his children peaceably, and he has foimd that the said Jolm Nicole has died meanwhile and the said Stephen, son of the said John Nicole, and the wife of the latter will not return the said children but have wished to sell them, and have told the said suppliant that he should not have his children at all unless he paid eighteen nobles,^ which (thing) is con- trary to right and reason and the promise of the said (John and Stephen) Nicole and to the utmost grief, prejudice and damage of the said children, who have not been to school at all, as has been said. May it please your benign graces, having considered these things, to show reason and justice to the said suppliant and cause his children to be returned by the said Stephen and his father's widow, just as they are boimd to do, so that the said children may be able to recover their inheritance which comes to them from their mother and their father, when the case requires, and that the said suppliant their father may be able to make of them their profit and his own,' just as natural right and reason permit. Hereupon grant wa.s necessary to bring the children into strict sense of the word ' represented ' court, for the father could not act as their before the court by his guardian even if he attorney. " .Vn infant can sue; he sues has one. ... A friend of the infant may in his own proper person, for he can not sue out a writ and bring the child into appoint an attorney. He is not in any court. But the action will be the infant's, 120 CASES BEFORE THE KING'S COUNCIL droit et raison naturel le donnont. Et sur che donnez bone et brieue expe- dicion au dit suppliant qui na de quoy venir pour de cha et icelui sup- pliant priora Dieu pour le Roy mon dit Seigneur et pour vous.^ not the friend's action " (Pollock & 48, and Stat. Westm. II, c. 15. See also Maitland, ii, 440-41). These safeguards Holdsworth, Hist. Eng. Law, iii, 398. were strengthened by Stat. Westm. I, c. FOUQUIRE V. NICOLE 120 good and speedy expedition to the said suppliant, who has not the means to come here, and the same suppliant will pray to God for the king, our sovereign lord, and for you.' ' As to the significance of this petition in respect of the jurisdiction of the council, see Introd., pp. xxxi-xxxiv. APPENDIX I [1482] Pro Meroatori- bus Stapule Caleaie IN RE HEYRON v. PROUTE » Rex universis et singulis presentem paginam visuris lecturis aut audituris salu- tcm, ct fideni induhiiun prosentibiis adliiboro. Cum sicuti informaraur Ricardus Heron' laicus naturalis subditus noster qui iam multis annis Societatem Mcrcatorum Stapule nostre Calisie extra loca nostre obediencie seu iurisdiccioni subiecta maxi- niis litibus ct turbacionibus non solum ad eorum quani maxima dispendia vcrum eciam in nostre regie potestatis spretum et contuineliam vexauit, nulla racione induci potcrit vt ab huiusmodi forenci inquictacione Societatis predicte desistat aut qucrinioniam suam in aliqua curiarum nostrarum aduersus ipsam Societatem seu particulares personas eiusdem instituat et prosequatur, prout attento quod causa sua quam pretendit est mere mercatoria et prophana atque intra fines nostre iurisdiccionis inter solos subiectos nostros originem sumens faccre deberet et tenetur set post onuies ct singulas remissiones cause eiusdem tam ex Flandrie et Francie quam ex Curia Romana ad nostra tribunalia, ipse in duricia animi sui persistens iam dudum a quodam Actu Parliamenti nostri ac a certis monicionibus et iniunc- tionibus per honorabilera et cireumspectum virum Johannem Shirewodc nostrum in ipsa Romana Curia procuratorem eidem Ricardo de mandato ac nomine nostro factis vt ab huiusmodi forensi molestacione mercatorum iuxta eiusdem Actus Parliamentalis continenciam cessaret ac causam suam in aliqua curiarum nostrarum vt dictum est institueret et prosequeretur ad Sedem Apostolicain de nouo appellauit rem sane noiiam ct prioribus seculis inuisam aggressus cum nusquam ante comiwr- tum sit a Icgibus et politicis institutis regnorum superiores in tcmporalibus non recognoscencium fuisse talitcr appollatum. Nos igitur cupientes omnibus qui pre- fato Ricardo ad tantam nostri et nostrorum iniuriam et iacturam patulas aures prebent de racione satisfacerc vttiuc toti mundo clarissimum esse possit non esse aut fuisse causam vUam racionabilcm quare ipse Ricardus Heron' alii)i quam in Anglia causam quam habet aduersus Societatem Stapule nostre predicte institueret aut prosequeretur mandauimus venerabilibus patribus ac aliis nobilibus et circum- spectis viris Dominis consilij nostri vt omnia et singula que per eundem Ricardura apud Scdcm predictam ea intencione vt liberam prosccucioncin huius cause extra Angliam habere posset suggcsta sunt summarie repetcntes talia super eisdem con- grua vera atque Icgalia responsa aptarent ex quibus omnis aduerse opinionis scrupu- lus de medio bonarum mencium toUerctur et nos pro veritatis et iusticie zelatore commendari vbilibet dcberennis super quo ipsi Domini Consilij nnstri mature pro- cedcntes rimatis per cos ac diligenter inucstigatis statutis ordinacionibus conuen- cionibus tractatibus et appunctuamentis tam creacionem et erectionem Stapule nostre predicte quam communicacionem et intcrcursum in facto mercanciarum ' The conclusion of the htigation begun in Heyron v. Proute aiid Others, supra, pp. 110-114, as explained in Introduction, p. cxv. The record is taken from Treaty Roll, 21 Edw. IV, no. 165, mm. 1-3. 121 122 APPENDIX I aliosque necessaries articulos pro causa eiusmodi dilucidanda concernentibus tandem relacionem nobis de et super omnibus suggestis per ipsum Ricardum memoratis fecerunt in scriptis sub eo qui sequitur tenore verborum: Sequntur responsa vera atque Icgittima ad ea que per quendam Ricardum Heron' laicum nacionis Anglicane in causa quam se habere pretendit aduersus Societatem Mereatorum Stapule Calisie pro mala contraccione lanarum suanim per eandem Societatem intra Stapu- 1am eandem vt dicitur factam apud Sedem Apostolicam tam ex forma pristine sup- plicacionis quam secute appellacionis per eum ibidem interposite tacita veritate suggesta sunt yisn serie supplicacionis quam Ricardus Heron' porrexit sancissimo Domino nostro Domino SLxto Diuina Prouidencia Pape quarto cuius vigore pcruen- tum fuit ad quoddam monitorium penale atque ad quendam exinde secutum pro- cessum contra et adversus Societatem Mereatorum Stapule Calisie sicut ex forma cuiusdam bulle reuocatorie et annullatorie dicti processus et omnium ex eo depen- dencium de data sexto Idus Novembris anno Pontificatus euisdem S. D. nostri none plenissime continetur, \-iso eciam transcripto cuiusdam instrumenti de et super appellacione per eundem Ricardum vndecimo die Januarij anno Domini Millesimo CCCC"° octuagesimo primo secundum computacionem Ecclesie Romane in Basilica Principis Apostolorum Rome interposita; preter et vltra ea que per ipsum Ricar- dum super meritis decisiuis sui negocij diffuse narrantur, quorum recitatio presenti proposito non conducit quedam ad fundandam iurisdiccionem eorum apud quos extra loca obediencie Domine Regis Anglie dictus Ricardus litem ipsam instituit ab eo introducta allegata et suggesta esse constat. Idcirco ne error cui non resistitur approbetur et ne Veritas falcitati succumbat equum visum est allegata et suggesta huiusmodi infrascriptis racionibus veritati et iusticie consonis informare ad omnem iuris effectum qui exinde sequi pwterit et presertim vt causa laicalis et prophana ad Curiam Romanam de facto falsis suggestionibus deuoluta ad suum iudicem legittime remittatur. In forma autem supplicacionis sue prelibate prefatus Ricardus inter cetera commemorans quomodo olim Rex Anglie et eius regni Parliamentum statu- erunt stapulam lanarum et pellium lanutarum in villa Calesie Morinensis Diocesis quodque ad maiorem defensionem dicte ville extra regnum predictum consist«ntis et huiusmodi regni circumdate inimicis et pro securitate Mereatorum eiusdem Socie- tatis in huiusmodi ordinacione Rex et Parliamentum prefatum inhibuerunt omni- bus et singulis cuiuscumque auctoritatis essent ne lanas aut pelles huiusmodi in Stapula aut villa predicta pro tempore existentes alias quam per viam iusticie capere aut dampna alicui ex Mercatoribus dicte Stapule inferre presumerent sub quadrupli pena parti offense applicanda subiungendo consequenter certas normas et regulas iuratas sub quibus Mercatores ipsius Societatis omnes et singuli inter se pro securitate et salua guardia ville predicte conuiuere posscnt et deberent deniquo ad fundandam iurisdiccionem Ducis Burgundie tanquam Comitis Flandrie sueque legis pro reformacione dampnorum alicui ex predictis Mercatoribus per ipsam Societatem seu particulares personas eiusdem circa lanas aut pelles huiusmodi infra ipsam Stapulam illatorum dummodo lane seu pelles prcfate contra voluntatem pos- sessorum per vim et \'iolenciam extra Stapulam ipsam ad loca dicioni Ducis Bur- gundie subiecta transportata fuerint, dixit rccitauit et suggcstit prout sequitur quod successiue inter tunc Regem Anglie et Ducem Burgundie conuentum extitit quod omnes mercatores et quilibet eorum possent ire libere et secure cum omnibus lanis bonis et mercanciis i[>sius regni Anglie in P^landriam Holandiam Zclaudiam Brabanciam et alia loca dicti Ducis dominio subiecta et in illis conuersari ac exinde APPENDIX I 123 rcccdere absque eo quori aliquis [jossit procodere contra cos alias quam iusticia mediante. Et quod si (jua.s laiias aut mcrcancias per vim eapi et ad dicta loca eius- dein Duels tomporali doiniiiio subiocta dcfcrri aut inde voudi ct distribui contingeret officiales Ducis in cisdeni locis deinitati ilias rcstitui facere dcbcrcnt ct nisi id face- rent valorem talis mercancie de suo soluere tenerentur, prout hec omnia in capite prefatc Bulle peticioneni dicti Ricardi oxpriiiientis latius diffusiusque contincntur. Ad premissa rcspondetur veracitcr in liuiic modum: Veruin est quod Villa Calesie situatur in medio terre corum qui regno Anglie consueuerant aduersari quod ad solacium rcleuamen ct dcfencionem eoruin qui in dicta villa conuersantur ordina- tum fuit illic deberc esse Stapulani lanarum ct pcllium predictarum sub huiusmodi statutis et constitucionibus a sui primordio crectam et stabilitam quod inconsultis atque inuitis viciiiis oportuerat non nulla pro tutela eiusdem opidi castri et mar- chiarum tam per Parliamenta regni quam alias pollitice per ipsos de Stapula et ceteros inhabitantes ordinari de quibus neque racio ncquc cqutas suadcbat \^ aut Dux Burgundie aut qui i)ro tempore aduersus Anglicos rcgnaret in Galliis index esse posset nam in hiis priuatis statutis consistunt secrcta regni. Et quorum incompe- tens est iudex quicunique est ille contra cuius conatus ipsa-s ordinaciones cmanasse constiterit \-uIgata est enim querela omnium subditorum Ducis Burgundic qui cum Mercatoribus Stapule in factis mercandise communicant quod Stapularij illi per suas ordinacione spriuatas libertatem intercursus indies infringunt monopolia atque alia dampata decreta et concilia statuendo. Solus igitur iudex eorum que ex priua- tis statutis eiusmodi dcpendere noscuntur is princeps est qui aut ipsa statuta edidit aut aUis edendi auctoritatem dedit. Quam ob rem si Ricardo Heron' ex statute aliquo regni ordinacionibusve privatis stapule actio ad recuperandum quadruplum dampni sibi per aliquos in Stapula dati compctere dinoscatur prosecucioncm suam ab inicio in Curia Regis sui facere debuerat et non externa atque incompetencia pulsare examina. Quod autem id quod maximum fundamentum sue cause ignaris hominibus videtur esse nullius roboris sit aut momenti videlicet vt pro \'iolencia circa lanas in Stapula Calesie commissa postquam ipse adducte fuerint in partes Flandrie legis latores ibidem iurisdiccionem habeant in subditos Regis ex forma articuli intercursus vnde Ricardus ille argumentum sumere videtur luce clarius demonstrandum est. Non enim data est principi unius aut alterius partis iurisdiccio pro hiis que extra sua territoria perpetrantur nisi solum in capcionibus maritiniis si res subditorum unius partis per piratas aut alios bellatores martimos interecpte in potestatem alterius partis deuencrint. Qui igitur composicionem islam ad capturam terrestrem extendens, cum de mari tantummodo mencionem facit, suadet suo aut alicno principi summoque Pontifici, quos ca que sunt facta eciam si ])eritissimi sint fallunt, quod causara suam in terra Calesie ortum habentem legittime introduxit primum in Curiam Ducis Burgimdie atque deindc per appcllaciouis remedium ad Parliamentum Francie; postulans a suo Rege summo etc. Pontifice hiis erroribus circumuento licenciam et potestatem ita in forensi et vetito examine inehoatum processum tanquain in foro competenti vsque ad finalem sentenciam prosequendam indignus est vt super falsis suggestionibus suis amplius audiatur aut permittatur gaudere litteris licencie eiusmodi tam surrepticiis per cum vt premittitur impetra- tis, ut autem Veritas istius composicionis que non aliter se habet quam co modo quo iam recitatur omnibus nota sit visum est ipsum integrum articulum ex corpore litterarum intercursus mercandisarum jirout inter regnum Anglie et patrias Ducis Burgundie sub mutuis principum sigillis ab antique expedite fucrant extrahere et 124 APPENDIX I presentibus inserere cuius tenor talis est. Item so par escumers ou aultres gens labourans sur la guerre aucuns biens des mcrchans de la partie Dangletere ou de Brabant Flaundres Malines ou aultres pais dessusdit estoient prins sur mer et ameneez en aucuns dez portz ou haures de lun partie ou de lautre que iceuLx biens ne pourront illec estre vendus ne aUeneez sur terre ne mis a terre par lesdit escumers ou aultres quelzconques et se ilz estoient ainsi venduis aUenees sur terre ou mis a terre que restitucion sera fait desdit biens ou de leur dit valeur aux merchans de qui on les auroit prins. Et auront les officers des lieux mandement expresse par lettres patentes telz quili appartient defair faire ladit restitucion toutes les fois que le cas escherra sur painc de le recouirer sur eulx se lesdit biens estoient ainsi vendus ou aUeneez a terre ou mis a terre de leur sceu ou souffrance et auec se sera fait de- fence es portes et haurez dun coste et daultre sur certains et grosses paines que alcun de quelque nacion quU soit ne achate a terre ne pourra mettre a terre aucuns dez dit biens. Ita quidem confutato precipue immo et solo dicti Ricardi argumento ex cuius faUacia Reges et ceteri Principes demumque summus Christi Vicarius circumuenti non nulla eidem per suas Utteras concesserunt que si premissorum scioli extitissent de verisimili non fuissent quomodolibet concessuri superfluum \'idetur reliqua prefate supplicacionis capitula pwrtractare que non declinatoriam fori set peremptoriam materiam atque interiora viscera cause apud suum iudicem agitande concemunt, excepto quod ipse Ricardus se peregrinum et romipetam tem- pore turbacionis sue fuisse lapsis postea prope viginti annis finxit et similauit. Que res quam per nonnullas litteras regias superioribus diebus Sancissimo Domino nostro transmissas sepissime ostensa est ficticia et similata, ita quod non sit amplius opus rem certam cerciorem efficere ad vanitatem causarum que ex serie prefati ap- peUacionis deducte sunt veniendum est et primo quia dictus Ricardus inuehens in litteras regias procuratori suo directas in quibus certus terminus ei prefigitur ad veniendum in Angliam causam que pendet inter ipsum et Mercatores Stapule prose- cuturo easdem litteras de mente Domini Regis non processisse sed per circumuen- cionem et preoccupacionem sua maiestate aliis arduis occupata dolo dictorum Mer- eatorum extortas esse affirmat pro eo et ex eo quod in eisdem litteris continetur quod dictus Ricardus rebeUis Domino Regi extiterit cum sicuti dicit ita non fuerit quodque in eis causa aliqua dicitur pendere indecisa inter ipsum et dictos Mercatores quod dicit verum non esse cum iam pridem contra ipsos sin autem super bonis suis per ipsos sibi spoliatis super quibus multis annis questio inter ipsos fuit vt dicit agitata primo in AngUa deinde in Flandria et postmodum in Francia, deinde iterate in Anglia et postremo in Francia et tandem propter iusticie denegacionem successiue in eisdem partibus sibi factam in Curia Romana dcuoluta obtinuit declaratoriam que nulla prouocacione suspensa in rem transiuit iudicatam. Ad hunc articulum ita respondetur quo ad notam rebellionis attinet prefatus Ricardus longe antequam dictc littere regie emanarunt eam incurrebat non obtemperando legi que in eum per tres status regni in Parliamento lata fuit vt videlicet desisteret extra rcgnum ab omnibus accionibus et prosecucionibus determinabilibus in aliqua Curia Domini Regis quas habet aut habere jxitest contra Maiorem et Mercatores Stapule ante- dicte sub pena vt contrafaciens ponatur extra proteccionem Domini Regis et sub aliis grauibus penis in Actu Parliamenti desuper tenti plenius expressatis. Ad aliud quod dicit de causa non pendente set decisa per sentenciam declaratoriam quam obtinuit in Curia Romana ad quam Curiam dicit fuisse ipsam causam deuolutam propter denegacionem iusticie sibi facte bina vice in Anglia et tociens in Francia ac APPENDIX I 125 semel in Flandria inira est nudacia hominis in cuniiilando tot pudenda mcndacia. Nam quantum ad Angliam attinet nunquam ihi prosccutus est causam istam in aliqua C'uriarum Domini Regis nee etiani in suprema Curia Parliamenti eiusdem regni ad quam per duos annos continuos infra limites sanetuarii ubi ipse tutissime residebat tentam et celebratam libcrum accessum indies habere potuit et quere- moniam suam ibidem discutere si voluisset. Verum longe sibi alia mens fuit vt subdole Dominum Regem per informaciones aliquorum qui suo lateri assistebant circumueniret pretendcndo licet erronec quod virtutc articuli intercursus mernora- tur queni ad easum inpi-rtinentem vt prefertur extendebat officiales Ducis Bur- gundie fuerant immcdiater indices competentes sue cause in quorum defectu sicut asseruit cadem causa fucrat per suam appellacionem ad curiam Parliamenti Francie legittimc deuoluta suggessit igitur Domino Regi Anglic causam suam tunc in Francia pendere, quod venuii non erat quia multis antea transactis annis ipsa causa remissa fuit a Parliamento Francie ad Dominum Regem Anglic tanquam ad iudicem proprium et ordinarium cuius rei si protunc Dominus Rex memor extitisset denegas- set profecto litteras ipsas licencie alibi prosequendi quas prefatus Ricardus tantis cautelis tamquc surrepticie a sua maiestate extorsit. Quam ob rem detecta con- sequenter surrepcione eiusmodi licuit Domino Regi absque nota seu suspicione mutabilitatis aut inconstancie cuiuslibet dare atque expedire litteras posteriores proccdeneium reuocatorias sicut eodem modo prout sacri canones testantur licet Christi Vicario sentcneiam Romane Sedis posse in melius commutare cum aut sur- reptum aliquid fuerit aut pro consideracione etatum temporum seu grauium ncces- sitatum Sedes ipsa diapensacione quicquam ordinauerit. Et igitur dicit prefatus Ricardus causam illara non pendere set esse decisam per dictam pretensani senten- ciam declaratoriam falsum esse conuincitur quoniam ipsa sentencia cum toto pro- cessu exinde secuto per buUam Sancissimi Domini nostri de data predicta propter falsas suggestiones per dictum Ricardum sue sanctitati prius vt premittitur factas ex suo mero motu et certa scientia reuocata est causaque omnis reposita in prist in um statum. Secundo et multum peremptorie sicut sibi videtur prefatus Ricardus sub- infert quod Mercatores Stapule vt saltem ficticium et velatum colorem haberent sibi non satisfaciendi famam currere fecerunt Dominum Regem Anglie dum adhuc Comes Marchie existeret ipsum bonis suis in dicto oppido Calesie spoliasse seu spoliari fecisse, ob quam causam idem Dominus Rex vt de sua innocencia super hiis clarissime constare posset, per suas litteras patentes magno et priuato sigillis et signo manuali vt supponit munitas licenciam sibi concessit quod predictos Mer- catores extra dictum regnum suum Anglie in Parliamento Parisiensi ad quod tanquam ad Comitatus Flandrie immediatam supremam iusticiain per appella- cionem sicut pretendit deuoluta fuerat et alibi coram iudicibus ncutralibus et in- difcrentibus sicut bonum sibi vidorctur prosequi posset, in iiuo ctiam articulo dictus Ricardus innititur ad longum super fundandaiurisdiccione Ducis Burgundie tanquam Comitis Flandrie Officiariorumque et quatuor membrorura Comitatus Flandrie ad cognoscendas et decidcndas questiones motas sine mouendas super spoliacione huiusmodi lanarum et mercanciarum ab opido Calesie vbi spoliacio facta fuit sicut dicit ad eundem Coraitatum Flandrie transportatarum et ibidem alienatarum dicens quod per Reges Anglie ex vna et per Duces Burgundie tanquam Comitcs Flandrie ex altera partibus leges et statuta intercursus mercanciarum taliter ordinata sunt et hucusque per eos inconcusse obseruata quod huiusmodi spoliacionis cognicio ad legem dicti comitis pertineret subiungit preterea Dominum Regem fecisse dictum 126 APPENDIX I Ricardum ex causis premissis obligari et condempnari coram Abbate Monasterii Sancti Petri infra Sanctuarium Westmonasterii London' Diosesis vt huiusmodi prosecucionem modo quo premittitur extra suum regnum facere deberet, quodque dictus Dominus Rex per litteras suas in huiusmodi prosecucione sibi assistenciam prebere et nunquam illius contrarium facere bona fide et in verbo regis promiserat concludendo ex Mis omnibus non esse verisimile aut vllo modo credendum quod ipse iniunctiones et intimaciones per procuratorem regium sibi facte nee ipsa ordi- nacio Parliamenti Anglicani qua sub grauibus penis dictus Ricardus admonetur a prefatis prosecucionibus desistere; quouLsmodo de eiusdem Domini Regis mente processerit, reputans prefatos Mercatores qui tales litteras a Domino Rege emanasse confirmant in maximum scandalum ^•ituperium et confusionem eiusdem Domini Regis talia promulgare, quodque ob earn rem per eundem Dominum Regem et suum magnum Consilium deberent acerime puniri in exemplum aliorum. Ad hunc articulum licet consideratis premissis non sit opus respondere cum ad omnes partes eiusdem que maxime ^Tgere \'idetur sic implicite supra satis responsum excepto eo quod iam suppwnitur Mercatores predictos diffamasse Dominum Regem de per- petracione spolii antedicti. Ad conuincendam tamen ia toto maliciam et falsitatem dicti Ricardi de cuius impudencia quam plurimum mirandum est quod Supremum Ecclesie verticem suis ficticiis supplantare non veretur non minus quam Reges et ceteros Principes seculares suis versuciis et coloratis adinuencionibus hactenus sup- plantauit [et] decepit, visum est omnia et singula membra dicti articuli responsiue repetere taliter quod toti mundo apparebit singulas litteras que a Domino Rege in premissis emanarunt de sua recta et sincera consciencia processisse ac prioribus litteris surrepticiis non obstantibus de iure procedere debuisse cum integritate sui regij nominis atque fame. Quantum autem ad famam illam attinet quam sicut dictus Ricardus asserit Mercatores Stapule sparsissent aduersus prefatum Dominum Regem videat ipse Ricardus an ipse et complices sui vt dictos Mercatores inuisos et odibiles eidem Domino Regi redderent talia de eisdem !Mercatoribus ubique semi- nanmt; verum est quod post vltimum discessum prefati Ricardi a regno Anglie datum est dictis Mercatoribus intelligi ad maximam eorum tristiciam quod per factum eiusdem Ricardi et per subdolas atque secretas suggestiones ipsius Dominus Rex habebat ipsos Mercatores de tali infamia plurimum suspectos, et quod ea de causa sua serenitas assensum prebuerat eidem Ricardo vt in Parliamento Parisiensi causam suam quam dicebat tunc adhuc ibi pendere indecisam prosequeretur obli- gans eundem Ricardum coram dicto Abbate vt prefertur vt causam ipsam inibi prosequi non desisteret promittens eidem Ricardo assist«nciam in facto prosecucio- nis huiusmodi ad finem vt eo modo malicia dictorum Mercatorum qui suum princi- pem difTamare verentur fuisset in curia aduersarij seuerius vindicata, ipsi autem Mercatores qui se ex premissis apud maiestatem regiam intolerabiliter lesos videbant non destiterunt modis omnibus instare primum apud Consilium Domino Regis postremo congregatis Statibus regni penes ipsum Parliamentura vt innocenciam suam super premissis ostendcntes se ipsos de tanta iniquitate et infamia expurgarent. Quod et factum est et dcsuper prefato Domino Regi clarissime ostensum ex falsis- simis suggestionibus eiusdem Ricardi non palam set clanculo in angulis sanctuarij factis insciis atque semotis Conciliariis Domini Regis maiestatem suam per preoccu- pacionem et circumuencionem in concedendo litteras et licenciam supradictas fuisse deceptam quodque iam dicta surrepcione et falsitate huiusmodi nisi serenitas sua dictas litteras et licenciam prefatumque Ricardum ad prosequendam causam APPENDIX I 127 suam tantiiininodo in Aiiglia reuocnret breve futurum foret quod dissolucretur Societas Stapule antedicte de cuius prosperis successilius pendet non tantuin salus dicti opidi et inercanchiaruin Calesie set eciam totius comunitatis regni Anglic. Qui- bus raeionibus maicstas rcgia iuste perniota scripsit in Franciam vt causa ipsa que olim totaliter ex Curia Parlianienti Francie ad suuin iudiccni in Anglia rcniissa fuit, ibidem vlterius non agitetur non obstantibus littcris et licencia predictis in quibus conccndondis sua serenitas ex falcis suggcstionibus prefati Ricardi fuit vt proniittitur cirouniuenta. Ita ([uidein accidit quod Hicardus ille cui per Doininum Regem onmis iusticia ouin fauore sibi niinistraiida in Anglia oblata est in despectum et vilipendium Coronc Anglie perseuerauit in inalicia sua sollicitando atque defati- gando externos principes et presertim Sancissimum Dominum nostrum super suis iniquis falsis vanis et fieticiis adinucncionibus in finale extorminium Societatis predicte nisi aliunde dosupcr prouideretur, aducrsus cuius induratam maliciam tres Status regni Anglie in Parlianiento coiigregati vniucrsuni regnum Anglic rcpresen- tantes quibus tarn ipse Ricardus quam singula alia supposita ipsius regni parere tenentur cupientcs salubriter prouidcre edictum penale fecorunt ne dictus Ricardus prosccucionein vllam forensem illius cause que ortum habuit infra territorium Domini Regis facial aut in ea persistat vUo modo set quod ad certum terminum veniat in Angliam causam eandein ibi solomodo prosecuturus. A quo statuto sic edito atque a prefixione termini certisque iniunctionibus ex parte Domini Regis per dictum suum procuratorem in curia Romana pro execucione prefati statuti racio- nabiliter factis dictus Ricardus ad eandem curiam dicitur appellasse, cuius appella- cio si, ciuod absit, admissa et exaudita foret breve futurum esset quod omnis iurisdic- cio temporalis ex tali exemplo in manifestam confusionem incideret, quod non est credendum S. d. n. aut ipsani Romanam Curiam velle quomodolibet attemptare. Et autem sicut supra recitatur prcfatus Ricardus in ista sua apjjellacione multum insistit circa fundandam iurisdiccionem Comitis Flandrie et consequenter Parlia- ment! Francie quoad cognicioncm spolij ita conunissi in Stapula CaUcie vt prefertur satis supra hec falsitas confutata ct conuicta est, cum omnes articuli intercursus inter Principes emanati sunt reciproci, non amplius. Jus tribuentes Comiti aut legi Flandrie super subditos Regis pro spoliis extra pcrpetratis quam Rcgi aut legi Anglic in subditos Ducis Burgundie pro lis que in terra sua propria atque inter solos suos subiectos act sunta. Inaudituni est enim a scctis quod vnus Flammingus traheret alium Flammingum ad iudicium in Anglia pro delicto in Flandria pcrpetrato cciara si ipsum delictum concerncret bona aut mercimonia postea deducta in Anglia nee potest racio dari quare magis vnus Anglicus proscquerctur alium Anglicum in Flandria pro delictis aut spolijs commissis in Anglia Hibernia aut Villa Calicie quam quod in predicto casu posset Flammingus in Anglia Flammingum prosequi quod nun- quam fuit vismn nee vWa princi|)um conucncione concossum. 8i vero prcfatus Ricar- dus accionem rei perseeutoriam aducrsus possessores lanarum suarum in Flandria forsitan intentasset nee accionc pcrsonali suos conununicatores pro spolio extra commisso in vetito examine traxisset in causam querela sua colorem aliquem iusticie ita in Flandria implorate habuissct vicine autem si quod per Anglicos in illis lanis perpetratis extiterat totum in \"illa Calesie vbi omnis contractus per rei tradicionem factam subditis Ducis Ikirgundie pcrfectus erat et non in patria Flandrie com- mittebatur, solent enim Mercatorcs Stapule lanas suas semper in ipsa Stapula ven- dere ita quod tota abinde vectura est ad onus et periculum emptoruin ; deniciue non est relinquendum intactum id quod sepedictus Ricardus Heron' dicit de littcris 128 APPENDIX I regiis sibi datis sub magno et private sigillis eiusdem Regis vnde multi forsan coniec- turam caperent quod licencia ilia prosequendi non clanculo set potius palam per iudicium ConsUiarioram Regis data fuit; ad quod ita respondetur non reperitur in aliquo officio huius regni cui magnum aut priuatum sigiUum Domini Regis deseruit exemplar aliquod huiusmodi licencie directe et specifice quam prefatus Ricardus pretendit sibi fuisse concessam contra Mercatores Stapule ad prosequen- dum eos in Curia Parisiensi aut alibi extra regnum AngUe si quid autem in huiusmodi Ucenciam specLficam sonans sub litteris aut signatura Domini Regis ostendi potest creditur scriptum huiusmodi sub annulo regio quern signetum in hiis partibus vocant tantummodo emanasse. Secretarius autem regius qui protunc erat et ad cuius officium pertinuit custodia ipsius anuli prout prefatus Ricardus satis nouit unus de precipuis promotoribus intencionis sue apud Dominum Regem fuit, propterea quod iam est annus et vltra dimidiam dolore animi captus intrinsecus mortem obiit, verum est, quod maiores regij Consilij non latuit, habuisse atque exhibuisse in publicum eundem Ricardum sepe ante discessum suum vltimum e regno AngUe non nuUas litteras variis principum et nobilium sigillis regnoruni CasteJle Legionis Arrogonnie Francie partiumque adiacencium munitas de et super multis atque maximis pecu- niarum summis in quibus dicti Principes et nobUes externi se et heredes suos bonaque et hereditates suas obligarunt certLs nobilibus personis regni AngUe suisque heredi- bus et assignatis pro redempcionibus et financiis suis quando dicti Principes et nobUes externi in nonnuUis bcllis Hispanie atque Francie per diuersos Anglicos capti fuerant. Suggessit vero predictus Ricardus Domino Regi et nonnuUis de ConsiUo sue quod ipse obtinuerat prefatas litteras et iura eorum qui ex eis fructum consequi deberent sibi cedi. Quodque in mente habuit cum bona gracia Domini Regis partes externas vbi heredes dictorum obligatoruni conimorantur adire ibidem pro iusticia super obligacionibus huiusmodi consequenda prosccucionem facere rogans maiesta- tem regiam vt litteras suas de licencia id faciendi conimendaticiasque sui et nego- ciorum que prosequenda in Curia extraneorum Principum susceperat sibi graciose concedere dignaretur forme autem litterarum ex causis premissis ita generaliter emanatarum multi ex Consiliariis Domini Regis conscij fuerant non tamen per hoc intelligentes dictam causam aduersus Societatem Stapule antedicte debuisse aut potuisse quomodolibet sub illis litteris generaUbus comprehendi, sicut deficiente concensu prefate Societatis nee facta prorogacione iurisdiccionis extraneorum Principum antedictorum de iure comprehendi non potuit; aut ergo littere ipse quas dictus Ricardus sub magno et priuato sigillis Domini Regis iactat se habere sunt vt premittitur tantummodo generalcs, aut si fortasse speciales super negocio aduersus prefatos Mercatores extiterint non potest aliter esse quin aliquo extraordinario modo furtiuo et surrepticio propter iudicia et consciencias officialium et consiliarioruin Domini Regis impetrate sint. Et idee summe licuit Domino Regi easdom litteras per aduisamentum Consilij atque iiiscquendo acta Supreme Curie Parliamenti sui j)er alias litteras et decreta posteriora modis omnibus reuocare annullare et infirmare prout sua serenitas iustissime fecit, non ex dolis neque ad importunam instanciam dictorum Mercatorum, sicut prefatus Ricardus eos diffamat, set propria et regulata mente sue regie maiestatis tanquam debentis et aliter non valontis suorum subiec- torum commodis prouidere, et hec sunt que per Dominos Consilij rcgii dc mandato sue celsitudinis inucstigata comparata declarata et relata sunt pro vera et ccrta in- teliigencia ncgocij antcdicti. Quocirca nos Edwardus Rex Anglic memoratus pro certo scientes relacionem taliter per Dominos Consilii nostri nobis factam racioni APPENDIX I 129 et veritati consonam fore. Nosque per preoccupacionem et circumuencionetn multipliccm tueita veritatc tarn predicti articuli intercursus quam aliorum articu- loruiii diucrsorum causam prcniissam conccrncnciuin per falsas ot ficticias suggos- tioncs prcfati Ricardi tales litteras et proniissiones eidcin Ricardo fecisse et dcdisse que nunqiiam a nobis si prcmissoruin scioli fuissemus emanare debuerant dicimus protestamur et declaramus omnes et singulas litteras revocatorias memoratas ordi- nacionemque per tres Status Parliamenti nostri suprascriptos intiinaciones moni- ciones et iniuiictiones per prefatum procuratorein nostrum in eundem Ricanlum factas a nobis de nostris mcro motu et certa sciencia sine dolo calliditate aut inipor- tunis instanciis Mercatorum Stapule nostre predictorum racionabiliter et legiltime processisse. Et ideo vniuersitates vestras attente rogando requirimus et hortamur in Domino quatinus hiis littcris nostris plenam fidem in omnibus adhibentcs nuUam decetero audienciam prcfato Ricardo Heron' natiirali subdito nostro super friuola et presuraptuosa apjjellaeione sua eiusmodi impartiri velitis. Set causam istam prophanam et pceuniariam inter solos subiectos nostros atque infra metas proprij tcrritorij nostri vt prcmisimus ortum habentem que nuUo iure legi Flandric aut Francic subiici debuit ad nostra tribunalia remittendam fore ac realitcr remitti debere tarn apud S. d. n. quam alibi vbi oportunum videbitur modis omnibus per- suadeatis. Nos enim si vnquam antehoc fuissemus legittime interpellati ad minis- trandam iusticiam in hac causa, ita profecto partes equi iudicis fuissemus executi quod super denegacionc iusticie ad S. d. n. recursum haberi non oportuerit, promit- tentes insuper bona fide et in verbo regio quod si dictus Ricardus iusticiam nostram super premissis implorarc suamque accionem aduersus prefatos Mercatores in aliqua Curiarum nostrarum intentare voluerit tam sibi benignam audienciam atque vere iusticie execucionem facicmus vt merito debeat contentari. In quorum omnium testimonium atque fidem presentem paginam magno et priuato sigillis nostris signoque nostro manuali fecimus roborari. Datum per auisamentum consilii nostri in Palacio nostro Westmonasterii prope London' xxvij die Februarij anno r. n. vicessimo primo. p)er breve de priuato sigillo et de dato etc. APPENDIX II CASES PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE Parties Subject Merchants of Spain and Capture of ship and Portugual f. Men of goods Bayonne DaU 1293 Publication Navy Records Society, vol. xhv, pp. 12-18 Hegham v. Brewes Contempt of court 1305 Abbreviatio Placitorum, 256 Rex V. Bishop of Durham Claim to Werk in Tj-ndale 1306-7 Cole, Documents Illustra- tive, 129-138 Suit of John de Molyns Restitution of a manor 1346 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 20 Edw. Ill, 139-141 Prior of St. Katha- rine's Forgery- 1348 Cal. Close Rolls, 22 Edw. m, 131 Rodland v. Sp\-nk False Suggestion 1364 Cal. Pat. Rolh, 38 Edw. Ill, 502 Chamberlains t'. Chesterfield Rasure of a record Defalcation. MaUcious accusation 1365 Cal. Close Rolls, 39 Edw. Ill, 114 Audeley v. Audeley Validity of a pre- marital contract 1366 Cal. Close Rolls, 40 Edw. Ill, 237-239 Prior and Convent of Dunstable v. Common- alty of Dunstable Disputed liberties 1366 Cal. Close Rolls, 40 Edw. Ill, 302-305 Petition of Merchants of Castile and Biscay Merchants of Aragon v. Admirals Seizure of ship during truce , Appeal from court of admiralty 1369 1386 Baldwin, King's Council, 486-488 Ibid. 507-510 Bishop of Winchester .\n erroneous writ 1389 Ibid. 510-512 Cheyne v. Brian Delivery of a castle Forcible disseisin 1389 Ibid. 513-517 Rex r. John Sibille Fraudulent executors 1392 Ibid. 517-520 Confession of Mer- chants of Cornwall Illegal exportation of tin 1393 Ibid. 520 Harpet>'n v. Prior of Lewes Forcible disseisin c. 139S Ibid. 520-5-22 Barbour v. Kyme Soothsaying 1401 Palgrave, Original Au- Gunwardby v. Tiptoft Enfeoffment to use 130 1402 thorUy, 87 Baldwin, op. cit. 522-523 APPENDIX II 13 Parties Subject Dale Publication Langcford v. Prior of Chattels in Trust 1422 Nicolas, Proceedings of Gisburn the Privy Council, iii, 328-331 Karl of Devon v. Feud and riot 1441 Ibid. V, 173-175 Bonville Colynson v. Cromwell False suggestion. 1453 Cal. Pal. Rolls, 31 Hen. Scandal of a lord VI, 93-102 Mayor of Exeter v. Conflict between gild 1477 Leadam, Casen in the Star Stoden and corporation Chamber, i, 1 Abbot of Bury St. Riot 1480 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 20 Edw. Edmunds v. To\vn IV, 219 Taylour v. Att Well Conspiracy and forgery 1482 Leadam, op. cit. C Parker v. Duke of Forcible desseisin ] 1485-89 Ibid. 15 Suffolk Attorney General v. Attaint of jury 1486-1507 Ibid. 18 Parr INDEX OF SUBJECTS Abduction, 107. Account, 12. Accountant, Iv. Accounts, roll of, 21. Acquittance, Iv, 9, 17. Acts, see Statutes. Adjournment, 4. Admirals, xxNTii, xxix, xxx, Ixxii, c, 37, 38. Admiralty, Court of, xxviii, xxix, xxx, XXXV, xli, Ixx, cvii. Advowrv, Advowson, Iviii, Ixv, 35, 37, 92, 93". Aid-prayer, 51. Aliens, xxvii, xxix, xliv, xlvii, lxx\'ii, 13, 49, 52, 65. See also Foreigners, Mer- chants. Allegiance, xlviii, 1, 7. Allowance, Iv. Almoign, 41. Amerciament, xlv, Ixxxvii, cvi, 9. Ancient demesne, civ, 64. Amiates, Ixi, 18. Answers, to interrogatories, xliii, cxiii. in pleading, xxviii, xli, cxv, 64-69. Apostolic See, Iviii, 20, 22, 121, 122. See also Papacy, Pope, Rome. Appeal, ecclesia.stieal, 7. criminal, xxxvi, 54, 56, 57, 58. to a higher court, 47, 125, 127, 129. to Rome, cx\"i. Apprenticeship, 119. Arbitration, xix, 114. Arbitrators, ex. Archdeacon, jurisdiction of, \x\i, Ixvii, lx\-iii, 27-31. Arches, Court of, li, 6. Armour, Iv, 15, 16. Arrest, Lxxxiv, 95, 107, 109. Seealso Commissions. Assault, 107. Assays, 15. Assize of novel disseisin, 1, 10, 55, 58, 59. Assize of Clarendon, lxx.xiv. Northampton, Ixxxiv. Assizes, 10. Attachment, 4, 9, 11. Attestations, xx\iii, xxix. Attorneys, xli, Ix, ex, 34, 30, 50, 72, 75, 77, 95, 102. See also King's Attorney, Letters of Attorney. Auditors, Auditores querelarum, xlix, 4, 5, 13, 15. Aver-du-pois, Ixxvii. Award, xli, Ixxv, cv, 89, 91. See also Decrees, Judgment. Bail, Ixxxv. See also Mainprise. Bailiffs, 40. Barley, 3, 4. Barons, Ivii, lix, Ixxvii. See also Lords. Barretors, Ixxxv. Beasts of plough, 1. Beer, Iv, 17. Benefices, incomes of, 12. Bill, suit bv, liv, cxv, 2, 4, 5, 10, 47, 48, 54, 57, 58, 64, 87, 92, 107, 111, 112, 113. See also Petition. Bill of the treasurer, 92. Bills (weapons), 116, 117. Bishoprics, Ivii. Blackmail, lxxx\i. Boar, 3. Boards, 32. Boroughs, Ixxvi, Ixxvii. Bovatc, 84. Bows and Arrows, 110, 117. Broadcloth, 103. Bucklers, 105. Bull (beast), 3. BuU, In excelso throno, 22. Bullocks, 3, 4. Bulls, papal, 28, 125. Canon Law, xxv, xlii, Ixii, l.xv, Ixvi, Ixvii. Capons, 4. Captures at sea, cvi, 37, 38, 39. Cardinal-legate, 13, 18. Carta Mcrcatoria, l.xx\i, Ixxvii. Carts 4, 67, 103. 133 134 INDEX OF SUBJECTS Carucatc, xlvii, 1, 84. Certification, xliv, cxiii, 19, 36, 37, 40, 87, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 105, 106, 107, 117. ChaUenges, 8, 9, 10, 88. Champertors, lx.xv. Champerty, 2. Chancellor, The, xix, xxi, xxiii, xxxii, xxxiii, xxwi, xxxN-iii, xxxix, xli, xlii, xUii, Uv, Ixiv, Lxx\'iii, Ixxix, ci, c\-ii, ex, cxiv, 49, 83, 92, 107, 108, 110, 112. upon the bench, 8. and Council, xcix, 33. See also Index of Persons and Places. Chancery, xi, xiii, xiv, xviii, xix, xxvi, xxviii, x.xix, xxxi, xxxiii, xxxiv, XXXV, xhi, xliii, xhv, xlv, Ixiv, Ixv, Ixxix, Ixxxiv, Ixxxviii, xcLx, cxiv, cxvii, 36, 37, 40, 49, 63, 71, 72, 73, 74, 82, 97, 98. The Court of, xvii, xxiii, xxiv, xxxii, xli, Ixx, Ixxiii. The King m, 38. The Council in, xxiii, 33. Bonds ill, cv. Enrolment in, cix. Files of, 109. Recognizance in, 91. Return into, 36, 37, 40. Rolls of, xiii, 53, 101. Clerks of, cLx. Master of the Rolls, xxxix. Masters in, 72, 74. Charcoal and Saltpeter, 92. Charity, m work of, 76, 92. in the wav of, 77, 82, 83, 86, 88, 95, 106, 111, 112, 113. Charter, 71, 73,76. to the Taylors, 74. to Yarmouth, 60-70. Charter-party, 77. Charters, xU. and Muniments, 90. of London, h, lii, 8. of Yarmouth, xc. Chivalry, Court of, xviii, boodi, 47. Church and State, li, Ivii. Citation, ecclesiastical, Ixvi, Ixvii, Ixviii, 27-32. Citations from Rome, Ix. Civil Law, xxxv, xli, xlii. Cloth, 10, 115. Cloth, hnen, 103, 104. woolen, cxi, 103, 104. Cocket, 111, 112. CoUation of benefices, Iviii, lix, bd, Ixiii, bcv, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26. Colt, 4. Combat, Trial by, 47. Commissions, to arrest, xl, Ixiv, cii, 41. of gaol delivery, liii. of inquisition, to inquire, liii, xc, xcii, civ, cv, cvi, 59, S3, 85, 87, 91, 96, 107, 108. of justices, xUx, cxii, cxiii, 105. to do justice, 95. of oyer and terminer, xvi, xxix, xxx, liii, Ixxiv, lxx\', lx.xxiii, Ixxxix, ciii, c\-ii, c\'iii, 34, 39, 41. to search, cxi. See also Justices. Committees, xliii, xUv. Common Law, xviii, xix, xxii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxxii, xxx\'i, xxx^•iii, xx.xix, xli, xlii, xliii, xliv, Uv, Ix, Ixiv, ixx, bcxiii, lx.xiv, Ixxxii, xcii, ciii, 52, 69, 71, 82, 83, 111, 112. Courts of, xii, xxviii, xxxv, xlv, Ivii. Common Pleas, Court of, x\'iii, xxi, XKxi, l.xiii, Ixxxiii. Commonalty, The, 52, 68, 75. Commons, The, .xxvi, xxxviii, xxxix, Ixxxii, xci, xciii, 61, 63, 64, 70, 86. House of, xcii, xcv. Petition of, xciii. of Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Norfolk, Suf- folk, xciii. of Norfolk and Suffolk, xcii. of Suffolk, Ixxxiv, 68. Complaint, 114. See also Bill, Petition. Confederacies, xxx. Confession, xxv, xliii, Ixxxi, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 103. Confession of John Forde, cxi, 103. CONTESSIONS OF ChaMBERLAIN AND Martin, 71. Conscience, 73,94, 112, 113. Conspiracy, xxx, 87, 88. Constable and Marshal, Court of, see Chivalry. Constitutions of Clarendon, 6, 29. Consultation, of the justices, xvii, xviii. with the king, xxxii, 23. from the king's court, 7. INDEX OF SUBJECTS 135 Contempt, Ixiv, Iwn, 32, 94. of court, Ixviii. of tlic King, 6, 7, 39, 94. Contract, of wool, 127. Contumacy, Ixvii, 30, 31. Copyhoklci-s, cxvii. Corn, Ixx, cxvii, 17. Council, The, xi-xlvi. Advice of, 94, 108, 114, 115. Chamber, cii. Clerk of, XXXV. See also Moleyns, Kent, Langport, Prophet, Index OF Persons and Pl.\ces. Great, 107, 110, 114. Jurisdiction of, xxvi-xxxv. Journal of, ci. Knights of, .xvii. Lords of, x^•ii, xxi, xxxiii, xlvi, cii, eviii, cxiii, 89, 90, 91, 107, 110, HI, 112, 114, 118, 121, 128. Ordinance of, 89, 94. Records of, xi, 91, 92. in Parliament, xx, xxi, 15. Procedure of, xxxv-xlvi. and other courts, xx-xxv. Treasurer and others of, 33. See also King and Council, King's Council. Councillors attending the king, xvi. See also King's Councillors. Counsel, xlii, cxvii, 49, 58, 73, 85, 97, 99, 115, 118. Counterfeiting, xlii. County, jurisdiction of the, 41, G4. Court Christian, l.xvii, Ixviii, 7. Covenant, liv, 16, 47, 58. Pleas of, 10. Covin, 85, 88. Cows, 3. Crown, The, li, Ixvi, Ixviii, Ixix, Ixxi, Ixxvi, lx.xvii, Lxxxix,xcii, xciv,xcv, 6, 8, 19, 23, 25, 26, 127. Authority of, Ixiv. Dignity of, Iviii, Ix, 6, 7, 28, 31, 32. Disinheritance of, lix. Domains of, civ. Pleas of, liv, Ixxxiv. Prejudice of, Ixiii, 83. Rights of, Ux, Ixii. See also Kng. Curia Regis, xiii, xx, xxi, xxxii, 123, 124, 125. See also King'g Court. Curia, Roman, 19. See also Rome. Customs duties, xxxviii, Ixxii, Lxxiii, Ixxxix, 9, 37, .38, 64, 67, 111, 112. Customs, manorial, 83, 84, 114, 115. Cyder, 3. Dagger, 105, 106. Dancgeld, S3. Day, given, 80,90,91. Deans and Chaplains, 6, 7. Debt, actions of, liv, 2, 10. Decrees, x.xiv, xxv, xxxiii, xlv, Ixiii, cxvii, 77, 117, 118. See also Award, Judg- ment. Default, 115. Defeasance, 58. Deliverance, 86, 104. Demesne, civ, 49, 64, 71, 72. Demurrer, xli. 111. Denial of justice, 124. Denizens, 65. Deodand, cvii, cviii, 11. Deposition, xx.wiii, 106. Detention, 85, 86, 95. Disseisin, 87, 89. Distraint, Distress, liv,lv,2, 6,8,9, 12, 16. Divorce, bcvii, Lxvui, Ixix, 28, 30. Domesday Book, ciii, civ. Doublets, 105. Dower, Lxix. Dozen, 103. Dredge, 3. Drink, 106. Duphcation, xxviii, xli. Ejectment, 90. Embracery, ci, civ. Enfeoffments, civ, cvi, 71. to use, xxxiii. Englishman born, 118. Equity, xxiv, .xxv, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv, xlii, xlv. Error, appeal on, Ixxxii, ex, 47. writ of, 112. Errors, 49, 53. Escheat, 85. Escheators, l.x.xi, Ixxii, 85. Estreat, 9. Ewes, 2, 4. Examination, xix, xxiv, xxxi-xxxv, xliv, cii, cv, cxii, cxiii, 18, 26, 31, 33, 58, 59, 65, 79, 80, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 114, 115, 118. 136 INDEX OF SUBJECTS Examination, Articles of, 105, 106. into the Bedford Riot, cxi-cxiv, 104-107. of John Forde, c.xi, 103. inquisitorial, xlii. by the king, 52. ore tenus, xlii. under oath, xliii. Examiners, xliv. Exception, xh, xlviii, Lxxxii. peremptor}-, dilatory, xUx. of plenarty, Ixii, Ixv, 23. Exchequer, The, xi, xiv, xx, xxx, xUii, li, lii, liii, liv, cLx, cxvii, 9, 14, 60, 66, 67, 99, 101. Barons of, xvi, 27. Chancellor of, li. Chief Baron of, 91. Council in, xxii, 19. in the Husting, Lui. Judgment of, ex. King's Remembrancer of, 19. Pleas in, liii, liv, 10. Process in, 27. Receipt of, 12, 93. Seal of, 27. Stewards and Marshals of, 10. Treasurer and Barons of, liii, Iv, 15, 16, 26, 34, 94, 103. at York, 9. See also Treasurer. Excommunication, li, 6, 7, S. Execution, final, 51. ExempUfication, xiii, xli, 22, 23, 74, 75, 97, 98, 107. Factors, 111. Fair, of Scarborough, 68. of Whitby, 68. of Yarmouth, xcvi, 63, 66, 67, 69, 70. Fealty, xlvii, 1. Fee farm, 68. simple, 51. Felonies, Ixxxix. Feoffees, 34. Feoffment, see Enfeoffment. Ferm of London, Iv, 9. Ferry, 67. Fifteenth, 68. Fine, 1, Ixvi. the Great, 9. and ransom, cti, 81. Fines, xlv, Iv, hi, lxxx-\ii. Fish, dried, 32. See also Herring, Mackerel. Fishmongers, xcix. Florins of the Sliield, 38, 39. Fodder, 4. Forage, 3. Forcible Entry, xxx, 116, 117. Foreigners, xcii, xc\'iii, xcix. See also Aliens, Merchants. ForestaUing, xcv, xcvi, 66. Forfeiture, 26, 52, 53, 77, 85. Forgery, xlii, 73. Forging of Deeds, cviii. Francliises, 10, 60, 61, 82. of London, \vi, hixvi, 9. of Yarmouth, xc. Frankahnoign, 1. Freeholder, xl\'ii, cxvii. Freeholds, xxvi. Gauntlets, 16. GUd, 75. Glaives, Gleves, 116, 117. Goats, 3. Gowns of Arms, 16. Grain, 3. Great Charter, The. See Magna Carta. Great Seal, The, xxxix, 19, 75, 96, 107, 115, 129. See also Letters, Writs. Greaves, 11. Grocers, Ixxvii. Guardianship, 92. Guns, 92. Hay, 3, 4. Hearthpenny, 83. Hens, cxvii, 4. Heresy, xxxiv, xlii. Heretics, xxxiv. Herring, Ixxxix, xc, xci, xcii, xcv, xc\a, xcviii, xcix, c, 60-65, 68, 76. Hidage, 83, 84. Homage, xlvii, xlviii, 1, 14. Horses, Iv, 4, 11, 12, 16, 67. Hundred, Court of the, 84. Hundredors, Ix.xxiv, 64. Husting, the Court of, liii, 9. Ill contract, 122. Impeachment, 37, 118. Imprisonment, xlv, Iv, Ixxxiv, Ixxxv, xcviii, 12, 109, 111, 113, 114. See also Prison. INDEX OF SUBJECTS 137 Indemnity, Ixxii, xcix. Indictment, xxxvii, xxxviii, xlii, Ixxxiv, Ixxxv, Ixxxvi, Ixxxvii, Ixxxix, ci, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84,87. false, cv. Indorsement, xciv. Induction, 23. Infangenethef, 5. Infant, right of, 119. Information, x.\.\i, xxxvi-xxxviii, xlii, xliii, 47, 58, 83, 109, 110. See also Suggestion. Informers, xxxviii. Inhibition, 31, 32. Ink, 98, 100. Inquest, cv, 10, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 79, 81, 85, 87, 88. See also In- quisition. Inquisition, U, Ixxiii, Ixxx, Ixxxi, Ixxxv, xcii, 6, 7, 39, 40, 59, 60, 61, 66, 69, 71, 82, S3. ad quod damnum, Ixxxix, xc. post mortem, 5, 97, 98, 99, 100. quo warranto, 5. Inspeximus, 74. Instrument, public, 31. Intercursus, Intercourse, with Bur- gundv, cxv, c\\\, 121, 123,- 125, 127, 129. Interdict, Lxiii. Irons, 12. Jambers, Jambeaux, 11. Jewels, 17. Judges, xliv, Ixxviii, 114. See also Justices. Judgment, xlii, li, iix, Ixii, l.xiii, bdv, Ixv, l.x\Ti, bcxxiii, l.xxx^•iii, l.xxxix, xcix, 12, 15, 16, 47, 81, 89, 91, 117, 118. See also Award, Decrees. Jurors, Jurymen, Ixxxi, cii, cv, 41, 88. Jur>', Juries, xxx, xxv\-ii, xlii, Ixxv, Ixxx, l.\.xxiv, xcii, 1, 10, 16, 56, 64. Justices, The, xviii, xx^•i, xlii, Lx, Ixv, Ixxxv, Ixxxvi, ci, 26, 58, 65, 94, 95, 105, 109. Ad\-ice of, xix, 91, 109. of Assize, xxxi, Ixx.xvi. of both benches, w\, xxi, 38, 91, 92. in the Council, xyxi. on Commii?.sions, Ixxiv. Deliberation with, 95. Justices of Gaol Delivery, lxxx\'i. of the King's Bench, xxii. in Eyre, Itinerant, xx.xii, xxxv, xxxvii, xlix, 1, Iix. of Oyer and Terminer, Ixxv, Ixxxvi, Ixxxviii. of the Peace, xxx, xxxi, Ixxxv, Ixxxvi, Ixxxvii, ci, cii, cxii, cxiii, 54, 56, 57, 78, 79, 80, 108, 117. See also Commissions. Keepers of the Peace, x.xx, Ixxxv, Ixxxvi. I^g, The, in Chanccrj-, 38, 108. and Commons, 60, 61, 62, 63. and Council, in Council, xi, xxvi, xx.xi, xxxvii, xlv, 1, Iv, Ixv, lx\ni, Ixx, l.xxiv, Ixxix, Ixxxiii, Ixxxiv, xc, xcii, cxiii, cxiv, 5, 6, 8, 17, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 40, 42, 47, 48, 49, 52, 58, 63, 70, 74, 78, 80, 81, 87, 93, 107, 111, 116, 117. See also King's Council. and Lords, xcvii, 68, 76, 80. in Parliament, cxv, 27, 28, 48, 52, 68, 76. Deception of, 35, 93. Disinheritance of, 35, 36. Endorsement of, 33. Examination bv, 52. Gift of, 84, 93, "94. in Person, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 52. in Prejudice of, 23. Reference to, xlv. will of, 8. See also Crown. Bang's Attorney, The, li, \\vi, Ixvii, cxvii. Bench, The, xiii, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiv, X.XX, xx-xi, xx.xvii, xliii, Ixiv, Ixx, xci, cvi, 82. Council, The, xi, xiii, xv, xviii, xx, xxii, xxix, xxxvii, xlix, hv, Ix-xii, Ixxix, Lxxx^i, cxii, cx\'ii, 1, 21, 26, 33, 35, 38, 44, 47, 48, 72, 74, 76, 77, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 117, 118, 126, 128. See also Iving and Council. Councillors, The, xvii, 105, 106, 118, 126, 128. Court, Courts, Iix, Ixiii, Ixiv, Ixv, cxvi, 6, 7, 60, 64, 72, 90, 108, 109, 121, 129. See also Curia Regis. Dignitv, The, kvi, 6, 7, 28, 31, 32, 109. 138 INDEX OF SUBJECTS King's Grace, The, 32, 41, 48, 80, 81, 87, 92, 101, 109, 117. Hand, The, xUx, li, liii, Iv, h-iii, Ix, Lxiii, Ixxi, 8, 9, 12, 13, 21, 23, 35, 37, 38, 47, 49. 51, 52, 53. 67, 72. Household, The, Lx, 115. Letters, The, c\iii, 58. Majesty, The, S3. Mariners, The, Lxx. Merer, The, cii. Palace, The, 27, 28, 31, 117. See also Westminster. Pleasure, The, ba-iii, 8, 26, 32, 48, 81. Prerogative, ba-iii. Proctor, The, 121, 126, 127, 129. Remembrancer, The, xiv, 19. Right, The, 73. Seal, The, 63. Secretarj-, The, cxvi, 128. Subject,"ll8. Tenants, The, 68, 83, 84. Treasure, The, 12. Writ, The, bd, bdv, 8, 10, 18, 33, 36, 38, 49, 78, 82, 108. Knight Service, xlviii, 14. Knight's Fee, Fief, xl\Tii, 35, 71. Knights of the Council, x\ii. Labourers, 10. Lapse, Law of, bdi, 23, 25, 26. Last of herring, 68, 76. Law of the Land, 64. See also Common Law. League, Ixxxix. Letters, xli, Ixi, xcLx, cxvi, 47, 77, 96, 99, 100, 103, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129. of Attorney, 19, 20, 25, 74. of the Chancery, 26. Contradicted, 24. under the Great Seal, bdi, cxvi, 19, 107, 125, 128. See ako Great Seal, of the Duke of Gueldres, 76. of the ICing, cviii, 58. Patent, xxix, xci, 12, 40, 60, 62, 71, 74, 75, 92, 93, 94, 97, 102, 114. under the Pri\'j- Seal, cxvi, 27, 50, 102, 117, 125, 128. of Protection and Safe-conduct, Ixii, Ixxii, Ixxiii, cxv. of Rouen, 119. under the Signet, xiv, cxvi, 128. Libel, xxy\-. Liberty, Liberties, 5, 6, 7, 8, 40, 82. of London, lii, liii, liv, Iv. of the Church of Westminster, 32. of Sandwich, 5. Liege Man, Ligeman, 118. Lighters, 66, 70. Livery, Liveries, .xxxi, xl\'i, 16, 85. See also Statutes, 16 Ric. II, 8 Ed. IV. Livery and Maintenance, cii. Lord Protector, xix. Lords, xciii, ciii, 63, 65, 67. Appellant, xxxiv, xc\'iii. and Commons, cv, 60, 63, 66, 69, 86,88. of the Council, x^di, xxi, xxxiii, xlvi, cii, c\-iii, cxiii, 89, 90, 91, 107, 110, 111, 112, 114, 118, 121, 128. House of, Ixxxiv, ci, cx^ii. in Parliament, xxi, xxxv, 63, 68. Spiritual and Temporal, 81. Mackerel, 66. Magic, xxxiv. Magna Carta, xxx\'ii, Ixxvi, Ixxxiv, Ixxxv. Magnates, 52, 53. See also Lords. Mainjjernors, xl, Ixxix, 45, 46, 55, 56, 57, 108, 109, 110. Mainprise, xl, lxx%-iii, Ixxix, Ixxx, lx.xxi, Ixxx"^', lxxx^•iii, 11, 42, 43, 45, 108, 109. Maintainer, cv, 58, 82. Maintenance, xxx, xxxi, xlvn, 1, ci, civ, 2, 58, 116. Mare, 3. Mariners, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 70. Maritime Jurisdiction, xx\ii. Marriage, Right of, 34. Marshalsea, Court of the, 47. Maslin, 3. Masters, in chancery, 72, 74. of the misters', 42. of ships, 38, 39, 41, 61, 62, 63, 76. Matrimonial Causes, Lwi, 28, 30. Mercers, Mercerj-, borsd-k-xx, 42-47, 103. Merchandise of aliens, 13. Merchants, xiv, liv, xcviii, xcix, cxi, 33, 60, 61, 62, 76, 77, 96, 119. Genoese, Ixxiii. of London, Ivi. of Spain and Portugal, xxxiii. INDEX OF SUBJECTS 139 Merchants, foreign, xxix, Ixx, Ixxiii, Ixxvi, Ixxvii, 40. Strangers, 111, 112. Merchant Taylors' Company, 74. Mint, Warden of the, 15. Misteries, 75. See also Mercers. Moratorium, ex. Mort d'aneestor, Pleas of, 10. Mortmain, 14. Murder, 78. Necromancy, xxxiv, xxxv. Noble-s (coins), 119. Notary Piihlic, lx\'ii, Ixv-iii, 22, 24, 25, 29, 31, 32. Novel Disseisin, .\Ivii, 1, 10, 55, 58, 59. Oath, Oaths, xlvi, cii, 6, 7, 49, 51, 73, 78, 81, 99. in examinations, xlii, xiiii, 33, 74, 79, 80, 94, of bishops, 6. in inqui.-^itions, 40. of jurors, 83. of the justices, bcxiv. of sheriffs and escheators, 35, 36, 57. Oats, 4. ObUgation, 115, 116. Office (inquisition), 69. Official (ecclesiastical), Ixvi, Ixvii, 6, 7, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31. Ordinances. See Statutes. Ordinary (ecclesiastical), 6, 28, 31, 32. Oxen, 2, 3, 4. Pannage, cxvii, 84. Papacy, Ivii. See also Pope. Papal Court, Curia, Iviii, Ixii, l.xiii. See also Rome, Index of Persons and Pl.\ces. Paper, 73. Pardon, cii, cvi, 81. Parlement, Parhaincnt, of Paris, of France, cxv, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128. Parliament, xiii, xiv, xx, xxi, xxvi, xxxiv, .xxxvii, xxxviii, xxxix, xliii, xlvi, h-i, lx\iii, Ixxv, Ixxvi, Ixxvii, Ixxxiii, xc, xci, xciv, xcv, ciii, cv, 8, 10, 11, 49, 53, 60, 61, 65, 68, 89, 90, 91, 94, 121, 122, 123, 126. Appeal in, xxiii. Bills, Petitions in, xviii, xix, xciii, 92. Parliament, Commonalty in, 52. Estates in, 124, 126, 127, 129. Full, 52, 62, 66, 69, 117. High Court, Supreme Court of, x%i, 125, 128. Lords and Commons in, 60. Rolls of, lii, ci, cxvi, 88. Time of, 48. in 1294, 8. in 1295, 11, 13. in 1307, Ix, l.xi, 18. in 1315, l.xix, l.x.xxiv, 27. m 1316, 32. in 1351, xc. in 1.361, 48. in 1366, Ix.xxviii. in 1376, xci, xcvi. in 1378, xc, xciv, 63, 66. in 13S0, xci, xciv, 67, 68. in 1381-82, xcii, xciii, xciv, ciii. in 1385, xciii. in 1386, 74, 76. in 1387, xciii. in 1.393, 81. in 1399, 93. in 1402, cv, 86, 87, 88. in 1430-31, ex. in 1436, 101. in 1461, l.xx-xvii. in 1462, cxvii, 114. Partition, 10, 35, 36, 37. Pasture, 84. Patent Roll, cxiv. Patrons, la}-, Ivii. Peace of Brdtigny, 52. Peas, 3, 4. Peasants' Revolt, xci, ciii. Pedlars, 61, 64, 67, 70. Peers, ci, cii. See also Lords. Penalties, xlv. Penance, xxv, 73. Perjury, 80, 81. Peter's Pence, 83. Petition, Petitions, xii, xiii, xix, xxviii, xxxi, xxxA', xxxvi, li, lii, Ivi, Ixv, Ixx, Ixxiv, Ixxv, Ixxvi, Ixxviii, Ixxxiii, xc, xci, xcii, xciv, xcviii, cv, cix, ex, 41, 49, 52, 54, 60, 62, 74, 76, 81, 82, 86, 87, 88, 91, 93, 94, 95, 110, 112, 123. to the Chancellor, xxiii, xxiv, xxxiii, 76. Petition, Counter-petition, Ixxxix. 140 IKDEX OF SUBJECTS Petition of Grace, of Right, xviii. to the King, 41. in ParUament, xvm, xLx, xciii, 92. Receivers and Triers of, Lxx.Y\Tii. Petition of the Haxsards, se-\-iii, 76. Pigs, 3. Pilgrimage, 7S, So. Pillory, 104. Pipes, manorial, cxmu. Piracy, Pirates, xxviii, xlv, 123, 124. Pitch", 57. Pleadings, oral and written, xli, badi, cxv. Pleas of the Crown, Uv. in the Exchequer, liv. Pledges, xxx\-ii, 116. See aho Main- pernors. Plenarty, Exception of, bdi, ]xv, 23. Plough, Plow, Beasts of, Uv, 2. Plough-land, xl\Tii, 1. Pope, Chief Pontiff, The, hii, h-iii, bd, bdi, ]xv, cxv, 19, 28. See aho Intjex OF Persons ant) Places. Pope's Collector, The, 118. Legate, The, bd, 18. Portas, Porteous, Porthose, 86. Portmanteau, 47. Ports, bccvii. Poulaine, Poleine, 11. Poverty, 82. Precept, 5, 6, 29, 32. Prerogative, xxxii. Presentation, 35. See also Collation. Prison, xl, bdv, bcxLx. bcxxiii, bcxxvii, cii, cv, 81, 85, 86, 87, 111, 112. See also Imprisonment, Fleet, Tower (Index OF Persons and Places). Privateers, Ixx, bcxii. PrivA- Seal, The, Clerks of, xiv, xxxvi. Letters under, cx\'i, 27, 50, 102, 108, 112, 114, 117, 125, 128, 129. Keeper of, xiv, xxxix, 107, 108. See also Intjex OF Persons and Places. Warrant under, 101, 107. Writs of, xl, 18, 26, 104, 109, 111, 112, 114. Office of, cviii, 86. Prize, Ixxiii, 37, 38. Procedure of the Council, xxxv-xlvi. Process (ecclesiastical), 29, 30. Proclamation, lii, \xv, 107, 110, 115. of Outlawrj-, xl. Proctors, 7. Procurement, 88, 111, 112, 113. Prohibition, bdii, 7. Protestation (plea), 51. Provisions, Pro^•iso^s, Ivi, Ivii, Iviii, lix, bf, bd, Ixii, kiii, bdv, \xv, 18. Proxie, xh. Purveyance, l^irveyors, xxx^di, Iv. QuadrupUcation, xxviii. Questions, Interrogatories, xliii, 30, 31, 59, 94, 105. See also Examination. Quisers, Cuissers, 11. Quit-claim, 71. Rasure of Record, cviii, cix, 98, 99, 100, 101. Reason, Reason and Conscience, etc., 83, 86, 95, 97, 112, 113, 119. Recognition, Recognizance, ex, 14, 17, 91, 98, 102. Regale, hdii. Rejoinder, cxv. Relation, to the king, 26, 31, 95. Relief (feudal), Iv, 14. RepUcation, xxviii, xh, c, cxv, 68, 113. Reprisals, Lxx, xc\iii, c\a, c\"ii. Requests, Court of, xi. Reser^'ation of cases, xx\ii. Restitution, xxiv, xxxiii, xlv, xcix, 33, 77, 89, 95, 96. Riot, Riots, XXX, xxxi, xxxix, xliii, Uii, lxx\iii, kxix, kxx, xci, civ, 107, 116, 117. The Bedford, cxi, 104. Roman Church, The, 122, 125. See also Apostolic See. Roman Curia, Court at Rome, Ivii, Ix, Ixiv, CX-A-, cx-vi, 121, 122, 124, 127. Romepenny, S3. Routs, XXX, ex. Safe-conduct, 38, 39. Safeguard, 85. Salt, 39. Sanctuarj', cxv, cxvi, 126. School, 119. Scot, born, 118. Seal, Seals, 9, 74, 75, 94, 95, 105, 106, 123, 128. of Commissioners, 97. of the Exchequer, 27. of Jurors, 40, 41. INDEX OF SUBJECTS 141 Seal, Papal, 22, 23. of the Court of Paris, 23. of Rouen, 119. to a Testament, 73. Sec also Great Seal, Privy Seal, Signet. Security, xx.wiii. Sec also Pledges. Sendal, 16. Serfs, 84. Serjeant-at-arms, xxxix, cii, cviii, 37, 44. Serjeants-at-law, xvi, ci, cxvii, 72. Services (manorial), 83, 84. Sheriff, Sheriffs, .\xx, xxxiv, xxxix, xlii, Ixxi, Ixxii, bcxv, Ixxxv, civ, 5, 32, 40, 50, 52. as Escheators, Ixxi. of Berks, 83, 84. of Devonshire, cii, 78, 108. of Hamp-shire, 1 15. of Lincolnshire, Ixviii. of London, Ix'viii, 10, 11. of Yorkshire, lx"viii. See also Mus- grave, Nuttle, Index of Per- sons AND Places. Sheriff's Tourn, The, l.xxxiv, Ixxxv, Lxxxvi, Ixxxvii, 84. Ship, seizure of, c, 76. Gabriel, 95. The Grace of God, 95. La Marie de Cygnet, 96. The Saint Mary of Coronade, 37, 39, 41. The Sainl Mary Knight, 76. Shirshette, cxvii. Shrievalty of London, 9. Sign, of a notary, 22, 23, 25. Sign Manual, li4, 117, 125, 129. Signatures, 101. Signet Ring, xiv, cxvi, 128. Soothsayers, xxxiv. Specific Performance, xxxii. Spicers, hacvi. Staple, Society of the, of Calais, cxiv, cx\', cx-\-i, 103, 110-113, 121-129. of Bristol, 39, 40. Star Chamber, xv, xvi, Ixxxviii, 117. Court of, xi, XV, xvi, xxx, xxxi, ci. See also Statutes. State Trials, xlix, 1, li, lii. Statutes, Ordinances, etc.: Westminster the First, 3 Ed. I, e. 48, 120. Rhuddlan, 12 Ed. I, liii. Ordinance of Money, 12 Ed. I, 15. Statutes, etc. : Westminster the Second, 13 Ed. I, Ixxiv, Ixxxiv, lxxxvi, 2, 11. ^\'inchester, 13 Ed. I, lxxxvi. Carlisle, 35 Ed. I, Ixi, Ixv. New Ordinances, 5 Ed. II, liv. Lincoln, 9 Ed. II, l.xxxv. 1 Ed. Ill, c. 16, Ixxxv. Northampton, 2 Ed. Ill, badv, Ixxxv, 55. 4 Ed. Ill, c. 2, Ixxxv. 5 Ed. Ill, c. 9, xxvi, xxxvii; c. 14, lxxxvi. 9 Ed. Ill, 1st, c. 1, bcxvii, 62, 65, 70. 14 Ed. Ill, bcxi, c\-iii. 20 Ed. Ill, c. 3, I.xxiv; c. 4, xxxi, ci; c. 6, Ixxi, ci. 25 Ed. Ill, 3d, c. 2, \xxvu, xc, 60; 5th, c. 4, xwi, xx.xvii. of Provisors, 25 Ed. Ill, xv, Lxv. 27 Ed. Ill, 1st, c. 2, xxxvii; c. 6, 39; 2d, c. 11, bcxvii. of Praemunire, 27 Ed. Ill, xxiv, xxvi, Ixiv, bcv. Ordinance of the Staple, 27 Ed. Ill, c. 2, kxiii, 39, 112. 28 Ed. Ill, c. 13, 61, 62, 65. Ordinance of Herring, 31 Ed. Ill, xc\-i, 63, 65, 66. 34 Ed. Ill, c. 1, \xxx\i. Ordinance of Herring, 35 Ed. Ill, 66. 38 Ed. Ill, 1st, c. 12, ci. of Praemunire, 38 Ed. Ill, xxvi. Act 1 Ric. II, xxxi, ci. 1 Ric. II, c. 7, ci; c. 12, 15. 5 Ric. II, 1st, ciii, cxvi; c. 2, 85 c. 8, xx-xii; 2d, c. 1, xcii. 6 Ric. II, 1st, c. 11, xcii. 8 Ric. II, c. 4, xxvi, xliii, cviii, 98 c. 5, l.xxxii. 12 Ric. II, c. 10, Lxxxvi; c. 11, xxvi 13 Ric. II, 1st, c. 2, xviii, Lxxxii; c 5, xxviii. 13 Ric. II, 3d, xxxi. 15 Ric. II, c. 3, x.wiii. 16 Ric. II, c. 4, xxxi. 17 Ric. II, c. 8, civ. 1 Hen. rV', 93; c. 14, Ix.xxii. 2 Hen. IV, c. 11, x.xviii. 5 Hen. IV, c. 7, cvii. 7 Hen. IV, c. 14, xxxi. 13 Hen. TV, c. 7, xxiv, xxxi, bdii, cxiii. 142 INDEX OF SUBJECTS Statutes, etc. : 1 Hen. V, c. 3, cvdii. 2 Hen. V, 1st, c. 8, xxxi. 4 Hen. V, 2d, c. 5, c%Ti. 7 Hen. V, e. 2, c\iii. 9 Hen. V, 1st, c. 4, cix. 2 Hen. VI, c. 25, cxi. 4 Hen. Yl, c. 3, cix. 8 Hen. VI, c. 12, cix; c. 22, cxi, 104. 11 Hen. VI, c. 14, cxi. 14 Hen. VI, c. 5, cxi. 27 Hen. VI, c. 2, 112. 31 Hen. VI, c. 9, 107. 1 Ed. TV, c. 2, lx.xxTii. 8 Ed. IV, c. 2, xxxi, xxxviii, xliii. 1 Ric. Ill, baa. on the Star Chamber, 3 Hen. VII, xii, xxxi, xxxviii, xlvi. Steward of the Household, ci. Stots, 4. Straw, 3, 4. Sub-chamberlain, ci. Submission, to jurisdiction, xli, xlv, U. Suggestion, x.xx^^, xxx\-ii. False, 86, 122, 125, 126, 127, 129. Secret, 126. See also Information. Suit of Court, 84. Supphcation, 109. .See aiso Bill, Petition. Surety, Iv, 11, 58, 109, 111. See also Mainprise. Surveyor, 11. Swine, 84. Sword, Swords, 105, 106, 116, 117. Targets, 16. Taylors, see Merchant Taylors' Com- pany. Temporalities, 21, 23, 26. Tenants, free, 83, 84. Tenement, free, 8, 9. See also Freeholds. Tenth and Fifteenth, 33, 34, 68. Term Time, Terms, xvi, xxiv, Ixxxviii. Testament, 73. Thigh Pieces, 11. Tithing, Totting Penny, cxvii. Torture, 56. Tourn, see Sheriff's. Traitor, 78. Translation of bishops, Iviii. Traverse, 58. Treasurer, The, xxi, xxx^-iii, li, Hi, liv, Ivi, Ix-xviii, ci, 33, 92, 105, 106. See also Index of Persons and Places. Treasureship of York, l.xi, Ixii, bdii, 18, 19. Treaty of Br^tigny, 49, 51, 53. Trespass, Ixxiv, Ixxvdii, lxx.xi, lx.xxix, 6, 10, 32, 33, 41, 42, 56, 57, 65, 69, 68, 76, 81, 87, 88, 111, 113. Triplication, xxviii, xU. Trust, Trusteeship, xxxii, xlii, 115. Use, Enfeoffment to, xxxii, xxxiii, 90. Vacancy, Voidance, of benefices, Iviii, Ixi, Ixii, Lx\', 21, 23, 25, 26, 35, 36. Villeins, 82, 84. Virgate, 84. Vows, 85. War, with France, Iv, Ivi, Ixxii, Ixxxiii, 10, 49, 51, 53. with Scotland, Ixx, 118. Wars of Spain and France, 128. Wardrobe, The, 75. Wards, Iv. Wethers, 2. Whalebone, 16. Wheat, 3. WUl of the Earl of Westmoreland, cix. Wine, Wines, Ixxiii, l.xx^'ii, cvii, 9, 39, 96. Witne.sses, xlii, xliii. Wood, 87. Wool, Wools, hv, Lxxiii, 13, 110, 111, 112, 122, 123, 127. Cotswold, Clyft, 112, 113. Forcing and Clacking of, cxi. Illegal export of, xxxviii. Packing of, 104. Trade in, cxi, cxv. See also Cloth. Woolfclls, 10, 103. Writ, Writs, xiv, xxii, xxxv, xxxvi, xxx\Tii, xxxix, liv, 10, 76, 89, 127. of Account, 11. to arrest, xxxix, xl, 82, 95. of Certiorari, xxix, xxxviii, .xlii. of Uedimus Potestatem, xliv. of Error, 112. of the Exchequer, 17. of Fieri Facias, 2. of Inliibition, 29. of IiKiuisition, xlii, 39. of the .Justices, 55. of tlif King, see King's Writ. of Mandamus, 8. Non obstante, xviii. INDEX OF SUBJECTS 143 Writ of Partition, 36. of Passage, 85. of Premuuire, xxxviii, xxxix, 42, 43, 50,51. to proceed, x.\vii. of Proclamation, cxvii. of Proliibition, ii, 7. Quare non admisit, Lx. Quibusdam ccrtis de causis, xxxviiL of Right, 14. of Scire Facias, 49, 51, 72. Writ, Stet processus, Ixvii. of Subpoena, xxxviii, xxxix, xl, xlv, ci, cii, 78, 88, 89. of Summons, 12, 33, 50, 78, 80. to surcease, of Supersedeas, xviii, xx^di, xxx^•iii, Ixiv, 7. of Trespass, xxx. of Venire Facias, 13, 40. under the Great Seal, xl, 88, 115. under the Privy Seal, see Privy Seal. INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES Abberbury, Richard, 74. Abingdon, Abbot and Convent of, ciii, civ, 82, 83, 84, 85. Abingdon, Richard, 27. Acclom, Aeklam (Yorkshire), 58. Adams, G. B., xxxii. Alard, Gen'aise, 32. Alford, Thomas, 89, 90. Almain, c, 76. Anagni, 20. Angouleme, Isabella of, 5. Aragon, 128. Ardern, Arderne, John, 48. Arundel, Beatrice, Countess of, evii, cviii, 96. Richard Fitzalan, Earl of, admiral, 38. Thomas Fitzalan, Earl of, 80, 96. Ascot, civ. Ashley, John, 93. Atte Wode v. Cufford, civ, 86. Atte Wode, Atwood, John and Alice, cv, cvi, 86-91. Audeley v. Audeley, xxxii. Austin, a Friar, xxxii, 85. Avenel, John, captain of Brittany, Ixxii, bodii, 37-40. A\-ignon, bdii. Aylestone, John, 46. Aylward, Nicholas, 83. Baier, H., Ivi. Baispole, Henry, 25. Balderly (Yorkshire), boondii. Baldok, Robert, bdii. Baldwin, J. F., xiii. Bangor, Bishop of (Richard Yonge), 86. Bar, Barr, Bar-le-Duc, Henrj', Count of, 19, 24, 28. Joan of, l.wi, bcAii, Ixix, 28, 29, 30, 31. Theobald of, hx, l.\i, Ixii, 19, 23, 24, 25. Bardi, Company of the, Ixx-vil. Barton, Alexander de, Ixxxviii. Barton St. John's (Oxfordshire), 97. Bas, John, 89, 90. Bath and Wells, Bishops of: William de la ^larehe, see Marche. John Stafford, 101, 102, 104, 106. Thomas Beckington, 108. Bayeaux, Guido, Bishop of, xlvii, 1. Beauchamp, Guv of, 18. Richard, 117. Thomas, cv. William, cv, 87. Beaufort, Joan, Countess of Westmore- land, cbc, ex, 102. Beaumont, Sir John, 79. WiOiam, 80. Beddington, Nicholas, 42, 44, 45. Bedewj-nde, Walter of, Treasurer of York, bd, Ixii, bciii, bcv, lS-27. Bedford Riot, The, cxi-cxiii, 104-107. Bedfordshire, xl, xc, cxi, cxiv, 61, 64, 67, 106. Undersheriff of, c.xiii. Beiroto, Jolin de, 22, 23. Beket, Thomas, 45. Benet, John, 83. Benfeld, Benefeld, John, 83, 84, 85. Bentley, Sir Walter, Captain of Brit- tanj', bcxiii, 37. BenjTigton, Simon de, bcxx. Berghe, William atte, 40. Berkeley, Sir John, cv, 87, 88, 91. Berkshire, xlvii, ciii, 82, 83, 84. Berne, John, 43, 44. Berneye, Walter, 42, 43, 44. Bernham, Geoffrey, Ixxbc, 42, 43, 44. Beverley, Thomas de, Ixxxviii. BilljTigford, James, clerk, 72. Bishop of S.\bina v. Bedewynde, Ivi 18. Blackfriars, 35. Blakeney, 33. Blaunk, John, 39. Blois, Charles of, 37. Blount, Examination of Gilbert, xlii, 33, 34. 144 INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES 145 Bobbingworth (Essex), 92, 93. Bochcl, Francisco, Ixxxi. Bois, John of, 34. BoisTAiiD r. CuMBWELL, xxi, xlvii, 1. Boistard, Boystard, John, 1. I?ogor, xlvii, 1. Wahor, 1. Bokley, alias Messager, Geoffrey, 109. Bole, Henry le, Iv, 11. Bolingbroke, Roger, xxxiv. Bone, John, of Wallingford, liv, 17, 18. Bonevill, William, 108. Bordeaux, cvii. Borough, Burgh, Thomas, 117. Boston, Ixx, 32, 1)5. Bottcl.'^ford (dio. Lincoln), 25. Boulogne, Honour of, 71. Bourchicr, William, 108. Bowdon, Thomas, 2, 4. Bo'mnan, Boman, Hubert, 76, 77. Brabant, 122, 124. Brackcdcn, Brakedeu, Bracon Ash (Nor- folk), Ixvii, 28, 30. Bracton, x.\i, xl^-iii. Bradenham, Leon, 34. Bradew'jec (Norfolk ?), 30. Branston (Derbj-sliire), 41. Brantcston, Walter of, 30. Braughin, Braghing, Elijah, ]xxx, 45. Bray, William dc, ixviii. Brembre, Nicholas, xcra, xc\'iii, 74, 75. Brentwood (Essex), 73. Bret, Walter, 42, 44. Br6tign\-, Treaty of, 49, 51, 53. Bretone, John le, 9. Brewes, Breus, Braose, Sir William of, liv, 16. Peter of, 36. Brighton Atlingworth, IMichelham, Lewes, 96. Bristol, 38, 39, 40. Brittan}', Ixxiii, Lxxxi, cvii, 37, 41. Captain of, Ixxii, Ixxiii. Duke of, cii. Britton, xxii, xlvui. Brixham (Devon), 119. Brokct, William, cix, 97-101. Brown, John, 44. William, 112. Bruges, cxv. Brugge, Brugo, Brigg, Thomas, 87, 91. Brunby, William de, Ixxxviii. Bryseley, Henry, 46. Buckinghamshire, xl, cxi, 49, 61, 64, 67. Buhner (dio. York), 25. Bures, John, ShcrifT of I.iondon, 42, 45. Burgh, Hubert de, xxxviii. Burgundv, Duke of, cxv, 122, 123, 125, 127. Treaties with, cxvi, 121, 129. Burleston, William, 79, 80. Burstall, William, 44. Burton, Henrv (?), 72. Gilbert, 83. Burton-on-Trent v. Meynell, xix, bcxiv, 41. Burton-on-Trent, Abbot and Convent of, Ixxiv, bcxv, 41. Bush, Bussh, John, Ix, l.xii. Buwman, Gerard, c. Buxton, William, xxxiv. Byemcs, John, Sheriff of London, 45. Cade, Jack, xxxix. Caesar, Sir Julius, xi. Calais, cxi, cxv, 123. Staple, Staplers of, cxiv, cxv, cxvi, 103, 110-113, 121-129. Caldecote Castle, 87. Cambridge, 85, 86. Castle, 48. Cambridgeshire, xc, 61, 64, 67. Cantebrigg, Thomas, 27. Canterbury, Archbishop of, xxv, lix, 96. Archbishops of: Stephen Langton, 28. Edmund Rich, 2. Boniface of Savoy, 2. Robert Winchelsea, Ivi. Simon Sudbury, 73. William Courtcnay, 80. Thomas jVrundel, 89. Henry Chicheley, 101. Thomas Bourchier, 115. Canterbury, See of, 6. Cantuaria, Ralph dc, l.xix. Cardinals, 13, 18. Otho, bcvi, 30. Stephen Langton, 28. Simon de Beaulieu, 13. Berard de Gouth, Got, 13. Peter of Sabina, IS, 19,^26. Francis Gaetano, 20. Hcnrj' Beaufort, 102,[l08, 118. John Kemp, 109. Carlisle, bd, 18. 146 INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES Carter, Simon, 5, 6, 7. Carters, 61, 64, 67. Castile, 128. Castro in Spain, 39. Causton, William de, 43. Celers, Joan, xxiii. Celj' Papers, cx%'. Cely, Richard, 112. CH.4MBERIAIN, Confession of Wil- liam, .xy\-, 71, 72, 73. Chamberlains v. Chesterfield, xliii. Chancellor, The, see Index of Subjects. Chancellors : Walter Grey, 2. Godfrey Giffard, 5, 6, 7. Ralph Baldock, 18. John Hotham, Lxxxiv. John of Thoresby, 33, 38. Simon Langham, 49. Simon Sudbury, 73. Michael de la Pole, xxxiv, 72, 73. William of Wykeham, 76, 77. Thomas Arundel, 80. Edmund StaflFord, 86, 89, 91. Thomas Langley, 95. John Stafford, '92, 101, 102, 104, 106. John Kemp, 108, 109. George Xe^^lle, 114, 115. Thomas Rotherham, 117, 118. Chartres, 47. Chaumberle^Ti, Robert, 41. Chedworth (Glouc), cv, 86. Chemerswcll, ChisweU (Berks), 1. Chester, Bishops of : Richard le Scrope, ci, 80. John BrugliiU, 88. ChejTiey, Che>Tie, John, 89, 91. Chichester, Bishop of (Richard Mit- ford), 80. Chichestre, John de, Ixxx. Christchurch, Chrichurch, 115. Chudlegh, Chudlev, Sir James, cii, 79, 80. Cinque Ports, xx^'iii, 13, 63, 65. Barons of the, .xcnt. Warden of the, l.xx, l.\.\ii. Citizens of London v. the Bishop of Bath, li-hn, 8-18. Claisson, Arnold, 96. Claiston, Withman, 76, 77. Clambek, Glambek, Gerard, c, 76, 77. Clare, Nicholas of, 12, 13. Clerk, John, of Ewell, 71. Clej-saloe, merchant of Flanders, 13. Clifford, Sir James, civ, cv, c\a, 86-91. Roger, bcxxix, 59. the family of, 87, n. Clifton, Adam of, 35, 36. Clode, C. M., xc\-iii. Clopton, Sir William, 71-74. Cob\Tigdon, John of, mavor of Bristol, 39. Cockerton, Robert of, Ixvii, 29. Cok, John, mercer, cxi. Coke, Sir Edward, xi, xii, .x\', xix, Lxxxi. CokejTi, John, Ixxv. Colby, John, escheator, 36. Colchester, 103. Colonna, John de, \x, bd, 24. House of, 19, 22. ColweU, Geoffrey, 45. Colwey, 116. Coh-ngbome, Colingbourn, John, 115, 116. William, 115, 116. Combe, Abbot of, 14. Comber, Clement, 103. Compaignon, Anthony, 37, 39, 41. Conisborough Castle, lx\dii. Constable, Lawrence, 45. Conj-ngsby, Coningsby, William, 47, 48. Cook, Master Thomas, 118. Coppleston, John, 79, 80. Corbet, John, 83. Corbridge, Thomas of, canon of York, 24. CorneUis, Peter de, 22. Comu, Walter, of Horwood, 79. Cornwall, Ixxi. Cornwall, Sir John, see Fanhope. CosFELD I'. Leatits, -xxviii, Ixx, 32. Cosfeld, Godkin de, l.xx, 32. Costantyn, John, xc\-iii. Cotes, Geoffrey, Ixiii, Ixiv. Walter, 57, 58. Cottesmore, John, 100. Court, Grote, of Kampen, 95. Courtenay, Edward, see Devonshire. Philip, 77. Cove, Henry, Ixxix, bcxx, 42-46. William, 42, 43, 44, 46. Coventry, 115. Co well, John, xi. Cowley (Glouc), 89. Cranle, John, 103, 104. INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES 147 Crnnmorp, John, 83. Cranswick (Norf.), l.wii. Cranswick, Craunsewj'k, William, Ixxxiv, 56, 57. Credy, Thomas, serjeant-at-arms, cii, 79. Cressage (Shrops), 94. Cromwell, Humphrey Bourchier, Lord, 114. Ralph, Lord, cxi, 103, 105, 106. Cumberland, Ixxi. Cumbwell, Philip of, 1. Dachet (Bucks), 50. Dacre, Richard Fenys or Fiennes, Lord, 114, 115. Daglingworth (Gloue.), 87. Dagworth, Sir Thomas, captain of Brit- tany, Ixxii, 37. Dalingrupg, Dalynrigg, Sir Edward, ci. Dalton, William, Ixxxviii. DAm'ERS ('. Broket, xxxvi, xlv, cviii, 97. Danvers, John, 97. Robert, justice of common pleas, cviii, cLx, 97-101. Dartmouth, 119. Da\t, John, Sureties of, xl, 108, 109, 110. Delbriick, 77. Dengolesme, Itier (Iterius Ingolisma), 15. Denton (dio. Norwich), 35. Deoffe, Edward, of Fowy, 41. Derby, Henry Earl of, 80. See ako Henry TV. John, 73. Derhurst, John, cv. Dersham, GeofTroy, sheriff of Essex, 72. Devonshire, l.xxi, ci, 7S, 107. Edward Courtenay, Earl of, xxxix, ci, cii, 77-81. Sheriff of, cii, 78, 108. Dicey, A. V., xi, xx. Doncaster, a scribe, 73. Dorset, bod. Dortrecht, c, evii, 76, 77. Dover, 86. Drayton (O.xf.), 116, 117. DrokeiLsford, John of, Ux. Dudley, John, 117. Dunstable, xxiii. Durham, Bishops of: Walter Skirlaw, ci, 80, 86. Thomas Langley, 88, 101. William Dudlev, 117, 118. Duval v. .Xrundel, xxix, xxx, cvii, 96. Duval, William, of Kouen, cvii, 96. Earl Marshal (Thomas Mowbray), The, 80. Easthampstead (Berks), 50. Eastland, Eastlanders, Ea-sterlings, Ixx, xcviii, c, 32, 114. East Mcon (Hants), cxvi, cxvii, 114. Ecclesiastical Courts Commission, xxxiv. Edmondes, Richard, 116. Edmund of Lancaster, 16. Edward the Confessor, 28. Edward I, xvi, xvii, xx, xxii, xx,xvi, xxxviii, xlii, xlix, 1, Liii, Iv, lix, Ix, Ixiii, Ixvi, Ixxi, Ixxiv, Ixxvi, 2, 5, 18, 25. n, lii, Ixii, Ixiii, Ixvi, Ixviii, Ixx, Ixxii, lxx\-i, Ixxvii, 26, 51. HI, xviii, xxii, xxiii, xxxvii, xlii, Ixiii, Lxiv, Ixx, Ixxii, Ixxxiii, kxxix, xc, xciii, xciv, xcvi, 33, 37, 39, 40, 48, 49, 50, 54, 60, 61, 63, 65, 74, 97. IV, l.xxxvii, cxiv, cx^i, 80, 114, 115, 117, 118, 125, 128. V, Ixvi. Edward, Duke of York, l.xx.\iii. Elesdon, EUesdone, John, mercer, 42, 44. Ely, Bishops of: John Hotham, lxx.xiv. Simon Langham, 49. Philip Morgan, 101. William Grey, 114. Enderby, John, Esquire, cxii, cxiii, 105, 106. Enfeld, Enfield, Thomas, father and son, 92. Erlegh, Erley, John of, Iv, 14, 18. Pliilip of, 14. Erpinghain, Sir Thomas, xxxviii, 89, 91. Essex, xc, xciv, 61, 67, 74. Sheriff of, 71, 72. Estfeld, William, merchant, 103. Estry near Sandwich, 1, 5. EsTCRjn- V. Courtenay, ci, 77. Esturmy, Maud, 78. "Sir William, cii, 77-81. Etwell, Harry, of Putnoe, cxiii, 105,{106. Eustace, John, 40. Evaignes, Peter, merchant, 39. 148 INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES Everard, Adam, mercer, 42, 44. Alan, Alain, 42-46. Thomas, Ixxix, 42—46. Everdon, John, baron of the exchequer, 27. E\Teux, 22. Exeter, Bishops of: John Grandison, xliii. Edmund Stafford, 86, 89, 91. George Neville, 114, 115. Fabel, Jolin, 34. Mary, 34. Thomas, 33, 34. Fabvan, chronicler, cxiv. Falkbome (Essex), 33, 34. Fallan, William, clerk, cxi, 103. Fanhope, Faunhope, John Cornwall, Lord, exii, cxiii, cxiv, 105, 106. Fauconberg, William Neville, Lord, ex, 101, 102. Fermer, Sir John, 34. Ferrers, Sir Ralph, xliii. Walter Devereux, Lord, 117. Ferj-e, Thomas atte, serjeant at arms, 37. Fiennes, Family of, 48. Robert de, lx.\xiii, 48-53. Finchden, William, justice, 55, 56, 57. Fishlak, Fishlake, church of, Ixiii. Fitz, John, of Westhav, c.xii, cxiii, 105, 106. Fitz Geffrey, Geoffrey, John, 105. Flamy, Reymund, Lombard, Ixxxi. Flanders, Count of. Court of, Ixx, 76, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 129. Folk, John, Esquire, SO. Isabella, 107. Forde, Joan, 107. John, mercer, cxi, 103, 104. William, 107. Forester, Henry, l.xxx, Ixxxi, 42-46. Forster, Humphrey, Esquire, 117. Fortescue, Sir John, xi, xvii. John, of Punsbornc, 117, 118. Foss, Edward, eviii. FouQuiRE V. Nicole, xxxiv, 118. Fouquire, Cieoffrey, Gcr\'aise, and Jac- quelot, IV.i William, 118-120. Foxle, John, baron of the exchequei727. Frampton upon Severn, 87. France, king of, xlvii, xlviii, 1, 121, 124, 128, 129. Frank, John, clerk, 98. Fraunceys, Robert, Ixxv. Fray, John, baron of the exchequer, 103. Frethorn, parson of, cv. Fry, Robert, clerk, 88, n. Fulthorpe, Roger, justice, 55, 56, 57. Fyfield (Essex), 92, n. Fyncheden, Wilham, justice, Ixxxix. Fj-nk, Vink, Conrad, xcix, c, 76, 77. Gadesby (Leicester), 13. Gaetano, Francis, Cardinal, l.xi, 20. Francis, treasurer of York, l.x-lxiii, 20, 25, 26. Thomas, 20. Galyot, Walter, 40. Garton, Robert, lx.\xviii. Gascony, xlLx, Iv, 13, 16. Gaunt, John of, Duke of Lancaster, xc, xci, xciv, xcv, xcra, 63, 80. Genoa, Genoe.se, lx.xii, Ixxiii, 37, 39. Gerald, John, 91. Gerdeston, Thomas, archdeacon of Nor- wich, Ix^i, lx•^•ii, 27. Gibbs, John, 91. GiFFARD V. Morton, xv, 107. Giffard, John, 108. Thomas, 107. Wihnot, 107. Gisors, Gysors, Sir John, alderman of London, hv, 9. Margery, 9. Gloucester, 66, 87, 88. Castle, 87. Gloucester, Eleanor, Duchess of, xxxiv. Humphrey, Duke of, 101, 102, 104, 106, 118. Thomas, Duke of, 80. Gloucestershire, ci\-, 87. Gold, John, of Weymouth, 76. Gosselyn, Nicholas, 97. Goule," William, bailiff, 5-8. Gourney, Richard, de Ilarpetrc, 41. Gouth,"Got, Bcrard do, Cardinal, 13. Gouys, William, 79. Graham (Line), l.xix. Grantham (Line), Ixix. Grantham, William, 46. Gray, Thoma.s, 56, 58. Greene, Henry, Ix.w. Grenville, Sir John, sheriff of Devon, cii, 78, 79. William, sheriff of Devon, ci. INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES 149 Gretowelle, Groewoll (Line), Ixix. Grey, Lord, of Ruthin, cxi, cxii, cxiii. Sir Thomas, 117. Gucldrps, Duke of, 76, 78. Guildford, Gildford, Andrew, serjeant- at-arms, 39, 40. Guines, Guysnes (Picardy), 118. Guise, Gyse, Amice, SO, 90. Anselni, cv, cvi, 87, 91. Wilham, 90. Gunthorp, Master John, 118. Gunwardby f. Tiptoft, xxxiii. Gyene, Simon, 40. Gyldenacre (Middlesex), cvi. Habhale, John, 93. Hale, Sir Matthew, xi, xii, xx, 1. Halewe\'e, Robert, 40. Haliwell, Prioress of, 9. Haller, J., hi. Halle, Halles, Jennequin, 96. Hamburg, Ixx. Hamilton, William, Lxi. Hampshire, cxvi. Sheriff of, 115. Hankford, William, lawj'er, 79. Hansards, Petition of the, xxiv, xcviii, 76. Hanseatic League, Hanse, Hansers, Ixx, xc\'iii, xcLx, 76, 78. Hanson (Derby), 41. Hareourt, Sir Richard, 118. Hartlebury (Wore), li. Hastings, William, Lord, 1 14. Hatfield Peverell (Essex), 33, 34. Hauke, William, yeoman, 116. Havering, John, 83. Hay, Gerard de la, clerk, 98. Haye, Roljert de la, parson, 50. Hendeston, William, justice of the peace, 108. Henrison, Henrichson, Alard, of Kam- pen, 76. Henry II, xvii. III, xxi, xlvii, xlviii, xlLx, Iv, Lxxi, body, 1, 5, 9, 14. IV, xxxiii, xxxviii, c, cxii, 86. V, xxxix, cvi, cxii. VI, xl, kxxvii, cxiv, 97, 108, 109, 110, 118. VII, xii, XXX. VIII, XXX. Hereford, Bishop of, lix, 5, n. John Trevenant, .\xxiv, 80, 86. Hereford, \\'illiam of, Iv, 16. Herpecote, Thomas, 83. Hertford, Sir Robert of, 13. Hcrtlcbury Castle, 7. Hertling, John, king's yeoman, 36. Heryng, Edmund, clerk, 72. Heserton, Sir Simon, Ixxxiv, 56, 57. Hcynson, Heynours, Warner, c, 76. Heybon v. Proute, cxiv, 110, 121. Hevron, Richard, merchant, cxiv, cxv, cxvi, 110-113, 121-129. Hillary, Roger, justice, Ixxiv, n. Hilpcrton, Hulprinton (Wilts), 2, 4. HoGONONA V. A Fkiar Austin, xxxii, 85. Hogonona, Nicholas, chaplain, 85. Holdsworth, W. S., xxxii. Holme, John, clerk, 30. Holmes, O. W., xxxii. Holte, William, 112. Holton (Xorf.), 93. Holland, 122. Holland, John, captain of Brittany, Ixxiii. Honybourne, Robert, 40. Horbury, William, clerk, 72. Horde, Henry, merchant, 115. Hotham, Sir Jolui, l.xxxiii, Ixxxiv, lxxx\iii, Ixx.xix, 56-60. Nicholas, Esquire, Ixxxiii, Ixx-xiv, 57, 59, 60. HowjTi (Owen ?), Richard, 40. Hudson, William, xi, xii. Huese, Nicholas, notary, 22. Hull, Alice de la, 5. Thomas, 5, 6, 7. Hungerford, Walter, Lord, 91, 106. Huntingdon, County of, xc, 61, 64, 67. Prior of, l.x.\v. John Holland, Earl of, ci, 78, 80, 102. Hurst (Berks), ciii, civ, 83. Idle, Richard, Thomas, William, 116, 117. Ingepenne, Inkepenne, Roger, 6. Inkberrow (Wore), li. Inteberge (Wore), 5, 6. Ireland, 85, 127. Irishman, a wild, 86. Isabella, queen consort of Edward II, 28. 150 INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES Jackcsle, Robert of, 29, 31. Jackesley, John, clerk, 25. Jacob, Pier, Iv, 11. Jaxesle, Yaxley (Suffolk), 28, n. John, King, Iv, xciii, 9. Richard, 72. Kaermerdj-n, Peter de, merchant, 39. Kampen (Prussia), Ixx, cvi, cvii, 76, 77, 95. Keepers of the Pri-\-}- Seal : Thomas Langley, 88, 89, 91. William L^-ndewode, 105, 106. Robert Stillington, 115. John Russell, 117, 118. Kensyngton (Surrey), box. Kent, Co., xl, bod. Kent, Thomas Holland, Earl of, 76. Kent, Hugh, armourer, 11. Thomas, clerk of the council, 108, 115. Kilby, John, li, 83. Kildesby, WUham, 75. King's Langley (Herts), 75, n. Kingston, 93. Kingston, John, S3. Kirkby, John of, clerk, 10. Kirkley Road (Lowestoft), 60-70. Knights Templars, 22. Knyght, Roger, 112. Knj-^-et, John, kxxviii. Koc, John, 41. Kyme, John, soothsayer, xxxiv. La Broage, 39. Lacer, Nicholas, 46. Lambard, William, l.xxxvi. Lambourne, John, 45. Lancaster (duchy), 93. Henrj-, Duke of, 41. Langar (Nottinghamshire), 47. Langcford r. Prior of Gisburn, x.\.\ii. Langford, John, cii, 78. Nicholas, Ixxiv, Ixxv. Langport, Richard, clerk of the council, 108, 114, 118. Langton, Walter of, lii. Large, Robert, merchant, cxi, 103. La Rochelle, 39. Lateran Council, The Third, bdi. Lausanne, Provost of, 24. Leadam, L S., vii, xii, xx. Lee, John de la, steward of the house- hold, 54. Thomas at, 83. LeGAT I'. WODEWARD, xliv, 92. Legat, Helming, 92-95. Leicester Castle, 115. Leicestershire, 61, 64-67. Leighton Busard, Buzzard (Beds), 27. Lenton (Nottinghamshire), 47. Leon, 128. Lethenborough (Bucks), 1. Leuer, Le\Te, Osborn le, lii, 8. Leveys, Lewys, Robert, 32, 33. Lewes, Priory of, bdii. LejTe,William le, alderman of London, 8. Lincoln, box, bcx. Bishops of: Henn- Burghersh, bdv. John of Boekingham, 72. Henrj- Beaufort, 89. William Grey, 101. Jolm Ched worth, 114. John RusseU, 117, 118. Lincoln, Church of, Hx. Henry Lacy, Earl of, 18. Lincolnshire, bdx, bcxiv, xc. Sheriff of, 32. Lithgrcins, John, escheator, 21. Little Morton (Cornwall), 107. Llandaff, John Marshall, bishop of, 117. Lombards r. Mercers, lxx\-i, 42. Lombards, Lombardy, merchants of, bcx^n, lx.xix, kxx, kxxi, 42. London, City of, U, lxx\-i, Lxx\'ii, Ixxxi, Ix-xxix, cxi, cxv, 75, 85, 86, 88, 96, 108. Aldermen of, liii, Ivi, xc^■ii, S. Bishops of: Eustace, 28, n. Ralph Baldock, 18. Robert Braybroke, 80. Robert Fitzhugh, 101. Thomas Kemp, 114. Citizens of, li-hn, Ixxvi, l.x.xx, xcix, 8-11, 110. Common Council of, Iv. Gild of, 74. Mavor of, li, liii, l.xxx, xc\'ii, xcviii, 74, 75. Port of, 38, 111, 112. Sheriffs of, li, liii, Ixxviii, IxxLx, Ixxx, 10, 32, 42, 43, 45, 86, 104. Warden of, li, lii, liii, Ivi, 8, 9. INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES 151 London: Annourers, Bladesmiths, Cordwain- crs, Embroidorers, Grocers, Fish- mongers, Founders, Mercers, Painters, Pinners, Saddlers, Spin- ners of, xcvii. The Founders' Company, 92. The Grovers' Company, xcvii, xcviii. Linen Armourers of, 74. The Mercers' Company, Ixxvi, 42- 47. The Mystery of Taylors, xcviii, 74. Clicapsido, lxx-\i. Colemanstrct, l.xxxi. Court of Hu.sting, liii, 9. The Fleet Pri.son, xlv, 9, 10, 12, 13, 84. Warden of the Fleet, 11, 15, 104. The Gildhall, liii, 9. Gisors' Hall, 9. Gracechurch parish, 11. Gracochurch Street, 73, 103. Lombard Street, l.\x\'iii, 73. The Old Jewry, Ixxxi. Church of Our Lady of the Strand, 14. Paul's Gate, 73. Priory of Holy Trinitj', Ixviii. Parish of St. Benet's, 103. St. Clement Danes, 14. St. Dunstan's, 104. St. Marj-'s Aldermary, 103. St. Paul's, Iv, Ixrai. Staining Lane, 11. The Strand, 88. The Tower, liii, Ixviii, bcx\'iii, 15, 32, 37, 38, 42, 46, 98, 99, 100. Constable, Keeper, of the Tower, l.xxix, Ixxx. Clerks of The Tower, 99. Tyburn, xcviii. Walbrook, 48. The Council at, xvi, Ixi, 18, 26. Loughton, William, 41. Louis LX, 1. Lovekyn, John, Ixxx. Lovcll", John, Lord, 89. Lowestoft v. Yarmouth, Ixxxix, 60. Lowestoft, lx.\xix-xci, 60-70. Lowney, Loveney, William, 92, 93, 94. Lowther, Adam, notary, 25. Liibeck, Ixx, xcix, c, 76, 77. Luce, Master Francis de, 20. Ludsop, William, cxii, cxiii. Ludyngton, Lodington, William, justice, 95. Lusignan, Hugh of. Count of La Marche, 5. Lydvard, Lydeyard, John, cix, 98, 99, 100. Lye, Henry of, cxii. Lyndelowe, Thomas, admiral, 37. Lyndewode, Lindwood, William, keeper of the privy seal, 105, 100. Lyndrajwr, John, 40. Lyons, First Council of, Ivii. Madox, Thomas, xii, lix. Maidenhead, 85. Maitland, F. W., xi, xx, xxii. Maldon, Meldone, Thomas, Ixxix, Ixxx, Ixxxi, 42, 46. William, 46. Malpas, Henry, master in chancery, 88. Malverne, John, Ixxxi. Mansel, John, Ux. MantonvUle, Aubert de, notary, 22. Marche, William de la, bishop of Bath, treasurer, li, liii, Iv, 8-18. Mare, Peter de la, 89, 90. Thomas de la, 89, 90. William de la, Ixiii. Marsden, R. G., xxviii. Marshal, John, 5. William, Earl of Pembroke, 5. Martin, John, of Little Thrillowe, 74. Martyn, Martin, John, justice, 100. Matson, Gerard, a Dutchman, 103, 104. Matthew of the Exchequer, 15, 16, 18. Mauhan, Gerard, coiner, Iv, 15, 18. Maulay, Margaret de, 59. Peter de, 59. Mayn, John, 46. Mcaux, Abbey of, civ. Medley, William, 116. Meleward, John, Ixxxi. Melton (Leicestershire), 13. Mene, John, 89, 90. Menigthori), Hugh, rector, 25. Messenger, William, 5, 6, 7. Mcthelwoode, Methwold (die. Nor- wich), 29. Meynell, Menil, Hugh, Richard, 41. "sir William, 41,42. Meynell Langley (Derbyshire), 41. 152 INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES Middlesex, jd, xlix, kxi. Middleton, Thomas, attorney, 50. William, sheriff and escheator, Ixxi, 35, 36, 37. Mirfeld, William, 40. MolejTis, Moh-ns, Adam, clerk of the council, 106, 107. Mollat, G., Ivi. Mollesley, Thomas, 108. MoLTNS V. FrENTCES, bcxxiii, 48. Moh-ns, Sir John, Gill, WOliam de, Lxxxiii, 48-53. Montacute, John Xe^ille, Lord, 114. Montfort, Amaurj- de, lix. John of, duke of Brittany, 37. Montgomen,-, Alice, 118. Motley, Robert, bodx. Mortemart, Cardinal, bdii. Morton, Richard, 107. Mouhaut, Roger, 16. Moulton, Thomas, 43, 44. See also Maldon. Mowbray, John, justice, 55, 56, 57. Munchensi, Joan, Warin de, 5. Musgrave, Thomas, sheriff of York- shire, lxxxiii, hcxxv, \sxxvi, bcxxvii, Ixxxix, 54-60. Myddelton, Gilbert de, Ixviii. Navarre, Blanche, Queen of, 13. Neirford, Ne\Tford, Matilda, Maud, l.\-\i, ba-iii, bdx, 28, 29, 30. William of, 29. Neland, Nelond, John, 96. Neville v. Neville, xl\a, cLx, 101. Ne\-ille, John, Lord, 102. Ralph, see Westmoreland. Ralph, of Roby, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59. Thomas, treasurer, 92. Sir Thomas, 102. Newcastle-on-TjTie, 118. Newland (Essex), 71, 72, 74. Newland, Agnes, Margaret, Richard, 71. Henry, 71-74. Newton, Geoffrey, 46. Nicholas, William, brewer, 108. Nicolas, Sir N. H., xi, xii. Nicole, John, Stephen, 118, 119, 120. Norfolk, l,\x, 61, 64, 71. John Howard, Duke of, 118. Normandy, xlvii. Northampton, John of, mayor of Lon- don, xc\'iii. Northampton, William Bohun, Earl of, 34. Northamptonshire, 61, 64, 67. North Petherton, Northpederton (Som- erset), 14. Northumberland, Lxxi. Henrj' Percy, first Earl of, 86, 89. Henry Percy, second Earl of, 101, 102, 105. " Norton v. Coltngborne, xxxiv, xxxvi, xxx^^i, 115. Norton, Thomas, 115. Norway, 95. Norwich, xcii. Bishops of: John Salmon, bail, lx\Tii, 29. Walter Lehert, 114, 115. James Goldwell, 117. Nottingham, Hugh of, clerk, 10. Nuttle, Peter, sheriff of Yorkshire, Ixxxv. Oldington (Shrops), 3. Oswaldslow (Worcestershire), li, 5. Otho, Cardinal, bni, 30. Ottobon, Master, of Piacenza, 24. Oxford, 85, 86. O.xfordshire, 61, 64, 67, 117. Oxney, John of, 34. Palgrave, Sir F., xi, xii, xxxix. Pakner, John, attorney, 73, 74. Panham, William, rector, 35. Paris, Matthew, hii. Parkham (Devon), 107. Parr, William, equerry, 117. Parson of Langar i'. Contngsbt, Ixxxii, 47. Parson, WilUam, 16, 18. Passefeld, Adam, 34. Paston, William, justice, 100. Paw, Henrj-, 13. Roger, of Catesby, liv, 13. Pek, Pekke, William, of le Hoo, cxii, cxiii, 105. Pembroke, William Marshal, Earl of, 5. William of \'alence, Earl of, 5. Penne, John, clerk, 44. Pensax, Richard, Robert, Thomas, 81. Percival, WilUam, 81,82. Percy, Henrv, Lord, Ixxxix, 54, 56, 57, 69. Ferrers, Alice, lxxxiii. INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES 153 Peso, GoofTrpy, 5, 0, 7. Peverel, family of, Ixvii. Phelip, Hic'liard, Ixxxi, Ixxxii. Phillips, E., Ixxviii. Piers, John, 107. Pike, L. 0., xxiv. Piper, John, 103. Placv, John, 83. Ples^y, Pleshy (E.ssex), 33. Plunimcr, Simon, Ixxx, 45. Plunki't, Nichola.-ngham, Robert, mayor of the staple, 103. Wichingham, John, mercer, 42, 44, 45, 46. Wight, Isle of, 76. WUle, Cok, 76. Wilton, Thomas, Ixxxviii. Wiltshire, xlix, 1. Winchester, Bishops of: William of Wykeham, Ixxxiii, ci, 76, 77, 80. Henry Beaufort, 102, 108, 118. William Wa^•nfiete, cx^n, cxvii, 114, 115. Winchester, church of, 115. Windsor, Old and New, kviii, civ, 83. Castle, 82, 84, 90, 117. Forest, 84. Winkfield (Berks), ciii, civ, 83, 84. Winwick, W^•n\^■J•k, John, clerk, Lxiii. Wissename, Thomas, S3. Witch of Eye, xxxv. Wodeward, Woodward, William and Agnes, 92-94. Wold, The (Yorkshire), 57. Woodford, William, 42-46. Woodland (Glouc), 86. Woodville, Lionel, 116. Worcester, Bishops of: Godfrev Giffard, 1, 5, 6, 7. John Alcock, 117, 118. Worcester, Thomas Percy, Earl of, 89. John Tiptoft, Earl of, 115. Worsted, John, mercer, 42. Simon, alderman of London, 42, 43,44. Wotton, John, 79, SO. Sir John, 1, 2, 4. Wotton-Basset (Wilts), 1. Writle, Writtle (Essex), 71. Wro.xham, Wroksham, .\dam, bcxAoii, 42, 43, 44, 46. Wychj-ngham, William, kxxLx. Wycliffe, WicUf, xxxiv, xcNoi. Wyke, William, ci, 78. Wj-keham, John, yeoman, 108. Wj-mondham, WiUiam of, warden of the min t, 15. Wj-ndesore, Sir William of, Ixxxiii. WiTHLM V. Men of Kampen, xxix, cvi, 95. Wythum, Witham, Hugh of, cvii, 95. Yarmouth, Ixxxix-.xcvii, 60-70. Yaxley (Suffolk), hm, ba-ii, 28. Yeo, Robert, xxxix, ci, cii, 78, SO, SI. Yonge, John, smith, 116. York, Archbishops of : Walter Grey, 2. John le Romein, Ux, 21, 25, 26. Henry of Newerk, Ix, Ixi, 21. Thomas Corbridge, Ix, 24. Thomas Arundel, SO. John Kemp, 102, 108, 109. Thomas Rotherham, 117, 118. York, Church of, lix, bd, bdii, 18-27. Canons of, 24. Dean and Chapter of, Ix, 23, 24. Temporalities of, Ix. Treasurer of, see Bedewynde, Sancto Vito. St. Man,''s Chapel, Ix. Pretend of Stillington, be. York, Exchequer at, 9. Jail at, lxxx^•i, 55, 57. York, Edmund Langley, Duke of, 80. Lawrence of, clerk of the Temple, 22. Yorkshire, bdx, Ixxi, Ixxxix. Sheriff of, 32, 54, 82 See also Musgrave, Nuttle Zealand, 122. University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY l^j 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 • Box 951388 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. Series 4280 05IT. OF CALIF. LIBHASY. LOS ASGELES L OOfj -KJiJ H')H 1 (, "^1 I D 000 466 218 5 37 G79 191 .-'..%