THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i i
 
 
 
 \ 

 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 AND TRIAL OF PEERS
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 AND 
 
 TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 A NOVEL INQUIRY INTO A SPECIAL BRANCH 
 OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT 
 
 FOUNDED ENTIRELY UPON ORIGINAL SOURCES OF 
 
 INFORMATION, AND EXTENSIVELY UPON 
 
 HITHERTO UNPRINTED MATERIALS 
 
 BY 
 
 L. W. VERNON HARCOURT 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON 
 
 NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA 
 
 1907 
 
 All rights reserved
 
 College 
 Library 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 THE Steward of England still is, and, according to 
 popular tradition, always has been the first officer of 
 state in the kingdom. True, no historian has so far dis- 
 covered much reliable evidence of his ancient greatness, 
 while in modern times he is seldom with us : his only present 
 duty, if we except coronation pageantry, is to preside at cer- 
 tain state trials ; as, for example, when a peer of the realm 
 is arraigned for treason or felony. Peers, fortunately, are not 
 specially addicted to such offences ; therefore a permanent 
 judge is not required for them, and the office in question is 
 only called out of abeyance when occasion arises. 
 
 But even if the steward makes no great figure in modern 
 history, his career is well worth studying ; being as he is, 
 and was, first officer of state, the story of his rise and fall 
 necessarily contains matter of some constitutional moment. 
 The subject has never been seriously investigated. Some con- 
 tributions to a mythology of the steward are to be met with 
 in Hearne's Curious Discourses, Somers' Collection of Tracts, 
 Thorns' Book of the Court, etc. ; and a few isolated refer- 
 ences naturally occur in standard works like the Complete 
 Peerage, or the Dictionary of National Biography, but they 
 are merely the obiter scripta of persons engaged upon other 
 inquiries. For these and other reasons it is time for the 
 steward to render an account of his stewardship. 
 
 In the first six chapters of this book I have set forth the 
 history of the office, from its origin to the period when it 
 ceased to exist as an hereditary dignity. The steward by
 
 vi PREFACE 
 
 this time had acquired certain duties connected with royal 
 coronations, and had asserted various unfounded pretensions 
 of a rather formidable character. The subsequent history of 
 the stewardship is chiefly important in connection with trial 
 by peers, and is dealt with accordingly in the second part 
 of this book. Hitherto there have been two explanations 
 of the steward's association with such trials : one view is 
 that he has enjoyed his present functions from time im- 
 memorial, or at least ever since the date of the Norman 
 Conquest ; the other view is that he succeeded to some of 
 the duties of the justiciar when that office was abolished. 
 The former hypothesis has no foundation in fact, the latter 
 may be traced to the careless reading of a thirteenth-century 
 law-book. 
 
 The true story is somewhat remarkable and will, I think, 
 be found by no means a dry subject, or deficient in matters 
 of general interest. A few details are still rather obscure, 
 but the main outlines are sufficiently established by the 
 evidence which has been collected. 
 
 The remainder of the book deals with the trial of peers of 
 the realm by their peers, the origin of the practice and its 
 development. This again, I venture to affirm, is a subject 
 which has never so far received adequate historical investiga- 
 tion ; and yet it is a subject of the highest importance. 
 When the Entstehung der Schwurgerichte by Heinrich 
 Brunner made its appearance, it was justly hailed in England 
 as an epoch-making treatise. The jury system has long 
 formed an integral portion of our constitutional government, 
 it has become endeared to us by an abiding though fabulous 
 tradition ; but, until Brunner's work appeared, there had been 
 no sufficient research into the history of its origin, and exist- 
 ing ideas were extremely erroneous. 
 
 Even if the same importance cannot be claimed for the 
 present subject of inquiry on account of its limited scope,
 
 PREFACE vii 
 
 still trial by peers of the realm and trial by jury are clearly 
 to some extent complementary institutions, and therefore a 
 study of the one is incomplete without a study of the other. 
 Moreover, is the scope of an institution the proper test of 
 its importance ? Surely a system established to protect the 
 lives and dignities of the nobility is at least as important 
 a subject-matter for investigation as the corresponding system 
 which guards the proletariat. 
 
 The privilege of trial by peers of the realm affords a 
 remarkable study in sociology : it is full of surprises ; and 
 the critical point in its evolution contains a mystery, which 
 would perhaps be considered as romantic as any historical 
 problem, but for the fact that the central figure is only a man, 
 and not a foolish, beautiful woman like Mary queen of Scots. 
 I claim to have solved the mystery. It is my contention 
 that a break occurred in the uniform development of the 
 system in question ; and that the modern practice is largely 
 founded upon a gross fraud, une impudente supercherie, 
 committed apparently by or on behalf of Henry the 
 Seventh. 
 
 The question turns on the fate of John Holand, earl of 
 Huntingdon, who died some time in January, 1399-1400. 
 Did this man meet his fate at Fleshy in Essex, without any 
 process of law, finding a lingering death at the hands of a 
 squire with an unskilful sword ; or did he, on being arraigned 
 before the steward of England in Westminster Hall, present 
 the peers of the realm and all the justices, duly confess his 
 treason and receive sentence of death according to law? If 
 the earl died at Fleshy uncondemned, as I hold to be the fact, 
 then the conclusions above indicated are fairly proved ; and 
 the importance of those conclusions can hardly be questioned. 
 It is on such materials as this that the sociologist must decide 
 whether our chief political institutions are to be credited or 
 debited to the account of modern English civilization.
 
 viii PREFACE 
 
 I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to the many 
 friends who have given me assistance ; it would be difficult 
 to name those who have helped me most, but I owe especial 
 gratitude to my uncle, Mr. H. S. Brandreth, and to my 
 friends, Mr. J. G. Wood and Mr. W. J. Hardy, for assistance 
 in various ways, and to the officials of the Record Office and 
 British Museum for their kindness and courtesy. 
 
 L. W. VERNON HARCOURT. 
 
 7 NEW SQUARE, 
 
 LINCOLN'S INN, W.C., 
 March, 1907.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PART I 
 
 THE ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 The Dapifers: History of the office of dapifer or seneschal, in 
 France and England, from early times down to the end of the 
 reign of Henry I . . . pages 1-29 
 
 Appendix: The Colchester tract; The style given to the chief 
 officer of Normandy in the Tres Ancien Coutumier . 29-32 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 The Dapifers, the hereditary Dapifers, and the provincial 
 Seneschals: History of these officers from the commence- 
 ment of the anarchy down to the reign of Richard I . 33~55 
 
 Appendix: Charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville, earl of Essex; 
 Charter to Humphrey de Bohun ; Charter to Robert earl of 
 Leicester ; Charter to Robert, son of Robert earl of Leicester ; 
 Confirmation charter to Robert earl of Leicester; Charter to 
 Hugh Bigod ; Charter to Walter Fitzalan ; References in various 
 chronicles to the stewardship of France, the charter of Saint- 
 Julien de Tours, the contest between the countesses of Cham- 
 pagne and Flanders . .... 56-71 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 How the House of Montfort became sole hereditary stewards of 
 the household: A history of the office from the accession of 
 Richard I to the year 1239, when Simon V was duly invested 
 with the earldom of Leicester . . . 72-86
 
 x CONTENTS 
 
 Appendix : Charter to Roger Bigod ; Records showing the de- 
 volution and partition of the Leicester estates; Confirmation 
 charter to the earl of Winchester ; Records connected with the 
 disseizin of Simon IV and the management of his moiety of 
 the estates, the accounts of Robert de Ropeley and William 
 de Cantilupe ; Writs on behalf of the earl of Chester ; Records 
 of dealings with the Leicester estates from the accession of 
 Henry III to the advent of Simon V; Records showing how 
 Simon V obtained the stewardship and estates . pages ty-m 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 Evolution of the hereditary stewardship in the hands of Simon earl 
 of Leicester: The history of the office continued to the death 
 of Simon at Evesham . . . 115-128 
 
 Appendix on the alleged use of the style "justiciar" by Simon 
 de Montfort ..... 128-137 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 The Lancastrian Stewards: Edmund of Lancaster and Edward I ; 
 
 Thomas of Lancaster and Edward 1 1 . . . 138-153 
 
 Appendix : Various grants to Edmund of Lancaster ; Letters- 
 patent of Edmund renouncing all claim to an estate of in- 
 heritance in the stewardship of England; Letters-patent of 
 Edward II granting the stewardship of England to Thomas 
 and the heirs of his body; The Lancastrian tract on the 
 stewardship of England ; the tract on the stewardship of Nor- 
 mandy; De casibus et judiciis difficilibus, in the Modus te- 
 nendi parliamentum . . . 154-169 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 The Lancastrian Stewards (continued']: Henry earl of Lancaster; 
 Henry duke of Lancaster ; John of Gaunt ; and Thomas duke 
 of Clarence, the last holder of the office . . 170-192 
 
 Appendix: The Hinckley tracts on the stewardship of England ; 
 Coronation roll of Henry IV; Appointment of Richard earl of 
 Warwick as steward, in place of the duke of Clarence, for the 
 coronations of Henry V and queen Katharine . . 192-201
 
 CONTENTS xi 
 
 PART II 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 Judgment of Peers, early principles and Magna Charta pages 205-236 
 
 Appendix: A comparative analysis of the language and pro- 
 visions in chapter xxxix of Magna Charta . . 236-244 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 John Lackland and the Peers of France; Judgment by Peers in 
 
 France in the thirteenth century . . . 245-275 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 Judgment of Peers in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century: 
 The development of the principle during the reigns of 
 Henry III, Edward I, and Edward II . . . 276-308 
 
 Appendix: Records illustrating the procedure adopted against 
 peers spiritual and temporal, and peeresses, during the reigns 
 of Richard I, John, Henry III, and Edward I; Proceedings 
 against Thomas earl of Lancaster ; Repeals of the proceedings 
 against the Despencers, Thomas earl of Lancaster, Roger 
 Mortimer, and Bartholomew de Badlesmere ; Petition for the 
 reversal of the proceedings against Andrew Harcla earl of 
 Carlisle ...... 38-334 
 
 CHAPTER X 
 Trial of Peers in the Fourteenth Century : The causes ce"lebres of 
 
 the reigns of Edward III and Richard II . . 33 5 -3 59 
 
 Appendix: The Statute of 15 Edward III; Proceedings in the 
 King's Bench for annulling the outlawry of Thomas earl of 
 Warwick ...... 359-361 
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 
 Trial of Peers in the Fifteenth Century ; The Court of Chivalry : 
 A history of procedure down to the year 1497, when lord 
 Audeley was sentenced by a court of chivalry for his share in 
 the Cornish rising ..... 362-399
 
 xii CONTENTS 
 
 Appendix: Proceedings in the court of chivalry against Roger 
 Damory; Appointment of a deputy constable and deputy 
 marshal in consequence of archbishop Scrope's rebellion; 
 Commission of oyer and terminer in consequence of the same ; 
 Proceedings against Richard earl of Cambridge and lord 
 Scrope of Masham for treason; Patent appointing John Tip- 
 toft, earl of Worcester, to be constable of England; Patent 
 appointing earl Rivers and his son to be constable of England 
 successively for life ; Patent reappointing the earl of Worcester ; 
 Patent appointing a steward of England to execute judgment 
 on the duke of Clarence ; Patent appointing commissioners 
 to exercise the office of constable and marshal for the trial of 
 lord Audeley .... pages 399-415 
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 
 The Institution of the Court of the Lord High Steward: The 
 report in the Year Book for the first year of Henry IV; the 
 evidence that this report is a forgery ; The proceedings against 
 the earl of Warwick, lord Dudley, and the duke of Bucking- 
 ham . . . . . 416-443 
 
 Appendix : William Peion's account of Huntingdon's flight ; The 
 escheators' accounts of Huntingdon's personal property, seized 
 at Leigh in the Hundred of Rochford; Reference to a judg- 
 ment against Huntingdon on the rolls of the Exchequer; 
 Confession of John Pritewell ; Huntingdon's capture and death 
 as related by the chroniclers; The Year Book account of 
 Huntingdon's trial; Letters-patent appointing a steward of 
 England for the trial of the earl of Warwick ; Trial of the earl 
 of Warwick; Letters-patent appointing a steward of England 
 for the trial of lord Dudley; The Year Book report of the 
 duke of Buckingham's trial . . . 444-470 
 
 INDEX .... . 471-500
 
 PART I 
 
 THE ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP 
 OF ENGLAND
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 THE DAPIFERS 
 
 DURING the latter half of the eleventh century a re- 
 markable development took place in the royal house- 
 hold of France, culminating at the beginning of the twelfth 
 century in the establishment of five great officers of state 
 the dapifer (or seneschal), the chancellor, the butler, the 
 chamberlain, and the constable. 1 The dapifer then became 
 the first great officer of state, and so continued until the 
 suppression of the office. The evolution of the French 
 household can be traced in the royal charters of the period 
 under consideration. Thus the gradual division of the royal 
 household into state officers and purely domestic officers is 
 marked in the diplomatic instruments by the gradual dis- 
 appearance of lesser officials, such as marshals and cooks, 
 from among the attesting witnesses. In the same way the 
 growing influence of the dapifer is evidenced by the order 
 of precedence adopted in attesting. 
 
 During the final stage all royal charters are attested ex- 
 clusively by the dapifer, butler, chamberlain and constable, 
 in the order named, and expedited by the chancellor. The 
 presence of each official ceases to be indicated by his attesta- 
 tion, but if an office is actually vacant a special formula is 
 employed. If, for example, there is no dapifer, the words 
 dapifero nullo take the place of the dapifer's attestation. 2 
 
 1 For modern authorities see Luchaire, Institutions de la France, 
 i, pp. 163, 173-81; and Luchaire, Louis VI, pp. xliv-liii, app. 
 pp. 303-4; Viollet, Institutions de la France, ii, pp. 109-12. 
 
 2 See Delisle, Catalogue t des Actes de Philippe- Auguste, pp. 
 Ixxviii-lxxxviii : Luchaire, Etudes sur les Actes de Louis VII, 
 pp. 44-6.
 
 4 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 The following are the formal parts of a fairly typical French 
 charter of the twelfth century : 
 
 In nomine sancte et individue Trinitatis, amen. Ego Ludovicus, 
 Dei gratia Francorum rex. Sciant universi presentes et futuri 
 quod. . . . 
 
 Actum publice apud . . . anno Dominice Incarnationis [e.g.] 
 millesimo centesimo quinquagesimo quarto, astantibus in palatio 
 nostro quorum subtitulata sunt nomina et signa. 
 
 Signum comitis Theobaudi, dapiferi nostri. Signum Guidonis, 
 buticularii. Signum Mathei, camerarii. Signum Mathei, constabu- 
 larii. Data per manum Hugonis, cancellarii. 
 
 The above-mentioned Thibaud count of Blois was the 
 last holder of the dapifership. 1 The office, though not at 
 once abolished, was never regranted after the count's death 
 in 1191. During the last few years of its actual existence 
 the post declined considerably in importance, but at the 
 zenith of its fame the dapifership had attained a position 
 of portentous power recalling that of the ancient mayors 
 of the palace who founded the Carolingian dynasty. While, 
 indeed, a Rochefort or a Garland was tenant of the office 
 the dapifer was the second personage in the realm, a kind 
 of viceroy invested with well-nigh all the prerogatives of 
 monarchy. 
 
 To some extent I have been anticipating events which 
 will have to be noted later on in greater detail, but it is 
 essential that the main facts relating to the French dapifer- 
 ship should be stated at the outset. The important point 
 now to determine is when and in what capacity did this 
 functionary make his appearance, and when did he establish 
 his precedence over the other officers of the court. 
 
 The name seneschal occurs at a very early date in history : 2 
 the name dapifer appears to be of more recent origin, but it 
 is to be found in documents belonging to the reign of Charles 
 Magnus. 3 We need not, however, carry our inquiries back so 
 far as this. In early times, and perhaps until the end of the 
 
 1 Delisle, Catalogue des Actes de Philippe-Auguste, pp. Ixxxi-lxxxii. 
 
 2 See, for example, Vitae SS. Ord. S. Bened., iv, pp. 558, 560; 
 and generally, Ducange, s.v. Senescallus. 
 
 3 Muratori, Antiquitates, i, p. 929 (A.D. 878); Waitz, Verfas- 
 sungsge 6 , Hi, s. 416.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 5 
 
 tenth century, the functions of the dapifer or seneschal were 
 discharged by two or more officials of that name. After the 
 accession of Hugh Capet there is no evidence of even dual 
 tenure of the office ; and it seems reasonably certain that, in 
 the ordinary process of development, the office had by the 
 beginning of the eleventh century become entrusted to a 
 single dapifer, with no doubt a staff of minor officials under 
 him. 1 
 
 After the year 1047 a functionary so styled begins to 
 appear frequently on Capetian charters, and becomes an 
 important officer of the household. 2 At first his correct title 
 appears to be indifferently seneschal or dapifer, but towards 
 the close of the eleventh century his definite official style is 
 dapifer. 
 
 His duties to begin with are not of an extensive or very 
 important character. He is primarily, as the name dapifer 
 implies, the chef-du-service or the caterer for the royal 
 banqueting table and nothing more. He is not an officer of 
 state properly so called, and prior to the year 1070 he is 
 most certainly not the first even of the household officers. 3 
 From the year 1070 to the close of the century the rise of 
 the French dapifership is undoubtedly rapid ; and, the 
 development being due not to the office but to the officer, 
 the various stages of the development closely correspond 
 with the dates when the office changed hands. For the 
 present we need carry our inquiries no further than the year 
 1066. By that date, at any rate, the French dapifer had not 
 yet attained a position of any pre-eminence ; nor did he 
 attain such a position until some years after William the 
 Bastard had won the decisive battle of Hastings. 4 
 
 Now it has been asserted by Stapleton, who was in his 
 
 1 Luchaire, Institutions de la France, i, p. i76n. ; cf. Bouquet, 
 H. F., vol. xi, p. civ. 
 
 2 Luchaire, Manuel des Institutions, p. 521. 
 
 3 Luchaire, Institutions de la France, i, p. 175 ; Manuel, p. 521. 
 
 4 For example, Charter of 1067 Signa Philippi Francorum regis, 
 Husgonis Melaudis comitis, Hugonis de Puteolo, Frederici de 
 Curbeio, Gauterii Constabularii, Guillelmi prepositi Carnotensis 
 ecclesie, Baudwini dapiferi. . . . (Transcribed from original, R.O. 
 Transcripts, 140 B., vol. i, p. 79.)
 
 6 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 day the highest authority on Anglo-Norman politics, that 
 the petty court of Normandy took its model from the superior 
 court of France. 1 Something of the kind we should naturally 
 expect. We should equally expect to find, in point of 
 development, the petty court lagging somewhat behind the 
 model court ; indeed to assert the converse case would be a 
 contradiction in terms ; and we might, even in the absence 
 of better evidence, reasonably infer that at the date of the 
 battle of Hastings duke William's dapifer was a quite un- 
 important functionary. Stapleton, however, on the contrary 
 held that he was first officer of state ; and Stubbs and a host 
 of other historians have accepted Stapleton's view. I think 
 we might acquit the last-named writer of illogical inference, 
 because he probably fixed the date when the French dapifer 
 attained his paramount position much earlier than is now 
 known by charter evidence to be the true date ; but I propose 
 to convict him of a serious error in fact. 
 
 A comparison of the witnesses and signatories of the 
 Norman ducal charters with those of the French royal 
 charters affords the most trustworthy evidence obtainable of 
 the household officers from time to time attached to the 
 respective courts ; for it appears to be a feature, common to 
 all charters of this period, that household officials of every 
 grade are occasionally present and attest, however humble 
 their station. Now the French charters of the period evi- 
 dence the existence of a large, highly organised household 
 permanently maintained by the sovereign : the Norman 
 charters warrant no such conclusion. Such household officers 
 as do appear attached to the Norman court undoubtedly 
 affect styles identical with some one or other of the French 
 officials, 2 and to this extent it is clear that the petty Norman 
 court modelled itself on the French court ; but it is none the 
 less clear that the former was in a far more primitive and 
 
 1 Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae, vol. i, p. xvii. 
 
 2 For dapifer s see below. Constabularius ; France Cal. R.O., 
 no. 1422. Camerarius and Butteilerius (Buticularius) ; ibid., no. 
 1167. Pincerna; ibid., no. 73. Cubicularius ; ibid., no. 711. Mares- 
 callus ; Cartulaire de S. Trinite du Mont (Doc. Ined., Cartulaire de 
 S. Bertin.), nos. 2, 32. Camerarius and Pincerna; ibid., nos. 38, 
 39, etc.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 7 
 
 undeveloped state than the latter. Indeed it seems highly 
 probable that such Norman officials as had acquired a per- 
 manent existence and style, had as yet, with one or two 
 exceptions, no settled, definite or very important functions. 
 So much for the Norman household generally. We will now 
 consider the dapifership in particular. 
 
 During the period A.D. 1030 to A.D. 1066 it is fairly clear 
 upon the evidence that there were at least two dapifers or 
 seneschals always attached to the Norman court. Osbern 
 son of Herfast, 1 Anfred, 2 and Gilbert 3 appear as dapifers 
 to Duke Robert ; and Osbern son of Herfast, 1 Osbern, 4 
 Herluin(?), 5 Gerald, 6 and Stigand 7 as dapifers to duke 
 William. The list is probably far from complete. When 
 the various persons named were appointed and how long they 
 held office it is impossible to say, but at all events during 
 the years 1061-6 the duke's dapifers were Gerald and Stigand. 
 The most notable person among them all was Osbern son of 
 Herfast, with whom we shall have to deal at some length. 
 The only other dapifer of sufficient importance to be men- 
 tioned in the chronicles was Gerald : this man and Hugh 
 de Grentmaisnil are said by Ordericus Vitalis to have been 
 given the custody of the castle of Neufmarche', where they 
 
 1 Osbern, son of Herfast, dapifer, mentioned : France Cal. R.O., 
 nos. 75, 85; Cartulaire de S. Trinite du Mont, no. 6; Ordericus 
 Vitalis (Soc. de 1'Hist. de France), i, pp. 179-80, ii, p. 369; and 
 infra. 
 
 2 Signa Osberni dapiferi . . . Anfredi dapiferi (circa A.D. 1031): 
 France Cal. R.O., no. 1422. 
 
 3 Signa Osberni dapiferi . . . Gisleberti senescalli (circa A.D. 
 1030-5) : Cartulaire de S. Trinite du Mont, no. 5. 
 
 4 Teste Osberno dapifero (A.D. 1055) : Gallia Christiana, xi, app. 
 col. 13. 
 
 5 See Cartulaire de S. Trinite du Mont, no. 46. 
 
 6 Signum Geraldi senescalci (A.D. 1055): France Cal. R.O., no. 
 1167. Signum Giraldi senescalli (A.D. 1066) : ibid., no. 73. Geraldus 
 dapifer (circa A.D. 1066) : Gallia Christiana, xi, app. col. 59. See 
 also Cartulaire de S. Trinite du Mont, no. 39 ; Migne, cxlix, col. 
 1374, etc. 
 
 7 Signum Stigandi dapiferi (A.D. 1061): France Cal. R.O., no. 711. 
 Also A.D. 1066 : Martene, Thesaurus Novus, i, 196. Stigandus 
 dapifer: Monasticon Anglicanum, vi, noo-i. Also A.D. 1071: 
 France Cal. R.O., no. 91.
 
 8 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 did good service in pacifying the surrounding country. 1 
 Gerald, dapifer, is also mentioned as contributing ships for 
 the transport of William's invading army. 2 Stigand con- 
 tinued to act as dapifer after the conquest, 3 but very little is 
 known about him. 
 
 Osbern son of Herfast appears to have been a man of 
 considerable wealth and position in Normandy : he was 
 nephew to Gunnor, 4 and married Emma daughter of Ralph 
 count of Ivri. 5 By his wife he had two sons, William Fitz- 
 Osbern, afterwards earl of Hereford, and Osbern who became 
 bishop of Exeter. Osbern, dapifer (circa A.D. 1040), is called 
 by William of Jumieges procurator principalis domus, which 
 means that he was the chief officer of the household, and 
 perhaps implies that he was the principal guardian of the 
 young duke's person, but he was certainly not an officer of 
 state. Probably he would never have been mentioned by the 
 chroniclers, but for the fact that, while tending little William 
 at Vaudreuil, he was foully murdered in the ducal night- 
 nursery. William of Jumieges relates the affair after this 
 fashion : 
 
 Deinde Turoldus, teneri ducis paedagogus, perimitur a perfidis 
 patriae desertoribus. Osbernus quoque, procurator principalis domus, 
 Herfasti Gunnoris comitissae fratris filius, quadam nocte, dum in 
 cubiculo ducis cum ipso in valle Rodoili securus soporatur, repente 
 in stratu suo a Willelmo Rogerii de Montegumeri filio jugulatur. 6 
 
 He then proceeds to describe how Osbern's faithful servant 
 avenges the murder with scrupulous attention to the principles 
 of retaliation. 
 
 Ordericus Vitalis suggests a rather different scene, not a 
 stealthy assassination at dead of night, but a sanguinary 
 
 1 Ordericus Vitalis, ii, p. 113. 
 
 2 Brevis Relatio, ed. Giles, p. 22. This famous list of ships 
 belongs to romance and not to history, but it is something to be 
 a hero of romance. 
 
 3 France Cal. R.O., no. 91. 
 
 4 Ibid., nos. 702, 704 ; and see below. 
 
 5 Cartulaire de S. Trinite du Mont, passim ; Monasticon Angli- 
 canum, vi, 1101; France Cal. R.O., nos. 77, 81, 85; William of 
 Jumieges, ed. Migne, cxlix, col. 875. 
 
 6 William of Jumieges, ed. Migne, cxlix, col. 847.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 9 
 
 affray in which a dozen or more took part, and where those 
 who fell at all events died sword in hand. 
 
 Tune Turchetillus de Novo-Mercato et Rogerius de Toenia et 
 Osbernus dapifer Normanniae et duo filii Rogerii de Montegomerici, 
 Guillelmus et Hugo, Rodbertus de Bellomonte, Galchelinus de 
 Ferrariis et Hugo de Monteforti et alii plures in armis potentes 
 alterutrum se peremerunt. 1 
 
 The learned editor of this ecclesiastical history aptly 
 describes the incident as one of those intestine quarrels 
 which made a shambles of the young duke's court. One 
 of Osbern's followers, severely pricked both in body and 
 conscience, assumed the monk's habit at S. Trinite du Mont, 
 and with the assent of Osbern's heirs made liberal donations 
 to that monastery. 2 Such is the story of Osbern's death. 
 Of his life we know nothing, for he was a mere household 
 official, procurator and dapifer, 3 not an officer of state. 
 
 William of Jumieges leaves us in no doubt as to who were 
 in fact the chief officers of state in Normandy. These were 
 not dapifers or procurators, but persons styled tutores by the 
 chronicler ; and, as might be expected from the name, such 
 tutors were not permanent officials, but appointed temporarily 
 during the minority or incapacity of the duke. During the 
 minority of Richard the First, Ralph (Torte), Bernard (called 
 the Dane] and Anslech were appointed by duke William 
 totius Normannici ducatus tutores. 4 The procurator at this 
 
 1 Ordericus Vitalis, ii, p. 369; see also ibid., i, pp. 179-80. 
 
 2 Cartulaire de S. Trinite du Mont no. 6 : Tempore quo Os- 
 bernus dapifer a suis hostibus est interemptus, Gulbertus filius 
 Erchembaldi vicecomitis, fidelis ejus, cum eo graviter est vulneratus. 
 
 3 For this combination cf. a charter of William I, printed by 
 Rymer, Foedera R.C., i, p. 2 : Willielmus rex Anglorum . . . 
 Sciatis me concessisse et confirmasse donationem quam Gilbertus 
 abbas et monachi de Westmonasterio concesserunt in hereditate 
 Hugoni de Coleham et heredibus suis, videlicet, ut ipse Hugo 
 totius predicte abbatie sit dapifer, et sub abbate procurator, et here- 
 des sui post eum. . . . 
 
 4 Ed. Migne, cxlix., col. 811. Compare the following references 
 to the position of Ralph Torte. 
 
 Praefectum comitatui praefecit Rodulphum agnomento Tortam 
 qui vectigalia annuatim a subditis exigeret et tota hac in provincia 
 jura ac quaelibet negocia decerneret (ibid., col. 814). 
 
 Eo namque tempore erat quidam Rodulfus cujus agnomen Torta
 
 io ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 time was Osmund, a person of no great standing in Nor- 
 mandy. 1 During the minority of William the Bastard, Alan 
 count of Brittany was appointed tutor of Normandy, but 
 succumbed to poison. 2 Gilbert count of Brionne succeeded 
 him and was assassinated. 3 Ralph de Wac was thereupon 
 appointed tutor by William : ex consultu majorum sibi 
 tutorem eligit et principem militiae Northmannorum con- 
 stituit. 4 These appointments more than cover the whole 
 period of Osbern's dapifership and procuratorship under 
 William. 
 
 The above data are fatal to the view that the Norman 
 dapifer was an official of any pre-eminence. 5 Taking the 
 
 vocabatur, qui totius Northmanniae honorem post mortem Willelmi 
 altius caeteris comparibus sibi vendicabat. . . . (Dudo de St. Quen- 
 tin, ed. Duchesne, p. 127.) 
 
 Great political changes had taken place before Wace wrote his 
 Roman de Rou. Wace describes this same Ralph thus : 
 
 Dan Raoul, un vassal ki Torte ert apelez 
 Mananz esteit, . . . 
 A cil livra li reis totes li prevostez 
 De Cax e de Roem e des altres citez. 
 
 Cil ki ert seneschal Raol Torte aveit non, 
 Mult par esteit tenu por encrisme felon. 
 
 (Ed. Pluquet, w., 3575, 3830.) Wace died circa 1175. ^ n m y 
 opinion it was not merely an anachronism to call Ralph seneschal, 
 it was an absolute error. 
 
 1 Quidam tyro (Dudo, p. 117). Cf. Ordericus Vitalis, ii, p. 363: 
 Sed ille nutu Dei et prudentia Osmundi nutritoris sui exivit. 
 
 2 In Normannia his temporibus multa mala nequiter patrata sunt. 
 Alanum enim comitem Britonum, suique ducis tutorem, Normanni 
 veneno peremerunt, et successorem ejus Gislebertum comitem, 
 Godefridi filium, crudelibus armis prostraverunt, . . . (Ordericus 
 Vitalis, ii, p. 369). 
 
 3 Gislebertus comes Ocensis filius Godefridi comitis, callidus et 
 fortis, tutor Willelmi pueri, . . . (William of Jumieges, col. 847). 
 
 4 Ibid., col. 849. 
 
 5 On the existing evidence, I think we may conclude that after 
 William attained his majority it was the chamberlain, if anyone, who 
 became the chief officer of the duke's household. Ralph de Tancar- 
 ville is called magister aulae Willelmi duds. This style should be 
 compared with the major domus regiae, an expression which we 
 subsequently find employed on certain occasions to designate the
 
 THE DAPIFERS u 
 
 contemporary evidence as a whole, it is reasonably certain 
 that this particular functionary had at most acquired some of 
 the household functions discharged by the French dapifer in 
 the earliest stages of his development under the Capetian 
 dynasty. But although it turns out on close investigation 
 that even Osbern, nephew to Gunnor the duchess, was nothing 
 more than head nurse of the palace and sewer in the ducal 
 household : still, to give him his due, he was nothing less 
 than the protagonist of his grace the Lord High Steward of 
 England as hereafter will appear. 
 
 The facts above set forth strictly accord with the evidence 
 furnished by charters and all contemporary chroniclers, 1 but 
 they do not accord with the views expressed by later 
 chroniclers and by Ordericus Vitalis in particular. On the 
 contrary, these subsequent writers make William Fitz-Osbern, 
 on the death of his father Osbern dapifer, succeed to the 
 paternal post, and as dapifer Normanniae become first officer 
 of state in Normandy. For example, when dealing with the 
 episode of Emma's marriage, at which Roger earl of Hereford 
 drunk with the bride-ale of Norwich plotted to his own 
 destruction against the king, Ordericus Vitalis is moved to 
 eloquence, and concludes with this perfervid lament. 
 
 Vere gloria mundi ut flos foeni decidit et arescit, ac velut fumus 
 deficit et transit. Ubi est Guillelmus, Osberni filius, Herfordensis 
 comes et regis vicarius, Normanniae dapifer et magister militum 
 bellicosus. 2 
 
 Wace, in his Roman de Rou, makes William address Fitz- 
 
 dapifer of France. See Bouquet, H.F., xii, p. 76 ; Ordonnances, vii, 
 p. 414. See also R.O. transcripts 140 A No. 31, where Ralph is 
 called Willelmi regis magister et summus camerarius, 
 
 1 There, is, however, a passage in William of Poictiers worth 
 noting : Quadam vero die, dum custodiam navium viseret dux, in- 
 dicatum est forte spatianti prope navalia monachum Heraldi legatum 
 adesse. Ipse protinus ilium convenit ingeniosa hac elocutione : 
 "Proximus," infit, "ego sum Willelmi comitis Normannorum ac 
 dapifer. Eum alloquendi nisi per me copiam habere non poteris, 
 quod affers mihi narra. Libens ille cognoscet idem per me, quia 
 neminem suorum cariorem habet me. . . ." (Giles, p. 128.) 
 
 2 Vol. ii, p. 265. Ordericus Vitalis died circa 1142. His history 
 was compiled circa 1123-41, or more than fifty years after the death 
 of Fitz-Osbern.
 
 12 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Osbern as " my seneschal." l In the postscript to the Brevis 
 Relatio, William dapifer the son of Osbern is said to have 
 provided sixty ships for the conquest of England. 2 Henry 
 of Huntingdon calls Fitz-Osbern "dapifer ducis"; 3 and so 
 forth. 
 
 Now William Fitz-Osbern, even before he came to England, 
 was one of the foremost Normans of his time, and his position 
 and fortunes were considerably furthered by the conquest. 
 At the beginning of the year 1067 he had probably already 
 received the earldom of Hereford and large grants of land in 
 England. 4 In the same year Fitz-Osbern and the bishop of 
 Bayeux were appointed joint regents of England during the 
 absence of William in his duchy, and at a later date the earl 
 occupied for a short time the same position in Normandy. 5 
 
 The first-mentioned regency is dealt with by Stubbs as 
 quoted below, and his observations on the subject show the 
 importance of definitely deciding (if possible) Fitz-Osbern's 
 claim to the office of dapifer. Stubbs writes as follows : 
 
 The office [of Justiciar] appears first as the lieutenancy of the 
 kingdom or viceroyalty exercised during the king's absence from 
 England. In this capacity William Fitz-Osbern the steward of 
 Normandy and Odo of Bayeux acted during the Conqueror's visit 
 
 1 Ed. Pluquet, ii, pp. 54, 199. Ed. Andresen, ii, pp. 207, 333. 
 Written circa 1160-74. Wace died circa 1175. 
 
 2 Ed. Giles, Caxton Soc., p. 22. Temp. Henry I (?). 
 
 3 Rolls Series 74, p. 199; cf. Rolls Series 82, iv, p. 36; and 
 Gallia Christiana, xi, col. 123. See also Diceto, Rolls Series 68, i, 
 p. 195. Henry of Huntingdon died circa 1155. 
 
 4 See Mr. Round's article in Diet, of Nat. Biog. s.v. Fitz-Osbern ; 
 and the Complete Peerage s.v. Hereford. 
 
 6 Compare the following passages in Ordericus Vitalis. Intra 
 moenia Guentae, opibus et munimine nobilis urbis et mari con- 
 tiguae, validam arcem construxit, ibique Guillermum Osberni filium 
 in exercitu suo praecipuum reliquit, eumque, vice sua, toti regno 
 versus Aquilonem praeesse constituit. Doveram vero totamque 
 Cantiam Odoni fratri suo commendavit, qui multa liberalitate et 
 industria saeculari pollebat. His duobus praefecturam Angliae 
 commisit. . . . (Vol. ii, p. 166.) 
 
 Willelmo dapifero Normanniae Osberni filio insulam Vectam et 
 comitatum Herfordensem dedit. (Vol. ii, p. 218.) 
 
 Anno quinto regni sui Guillelmus rex Guillelmum Osberni filium 
 misit in Normanniam, ut cum Mathilde regina tueretur provinciam. 
 (Vol. ii, p. 234.)
 
 THE DAPIFERS 13 
 
 to the continent in 1067 : they were left according to William of 
 Poictiers, the former to govern the north of England and the latter 
 to hold rule in Kent in the king's stead vice sua; Florence of 
 Worcester describes them as custodes Angliae and Ordericus Vitalis 
 gives to their office the name of praefectura. It would seem most 
 probable that William Fitz-Osbern at least was left in his character 
 of Steward, and that the Norman seneschalship was thus the origin 
 of the English justiciarship. 1 
 
 Even if Stubbs is right in his assumption that Fitz-Osbern 
 was a dapifer or steward of Normandy, there is still much to 
 be said against his conclusion in view of the insignificance of 
 this office. The first question, however, to determine is 
 whether or not Fitz-Osbern was in fact one of the duke's 
 dapifers. 
 
 The only evidence of a diplomatic character which, so far 
 as I am aware, has ever been advanced as proving Fitz- 
 Osbern's dapifership is an extract from a cartulary 2 recording 
 a grant to the S. Trinite du Mont at Rouen. This extract is 
 as follows : 
 
 Regis regum, Christi gratia largiente, qui cuncta semper pio 
 gubernat moderamine, Willelmus dux Normannorum,regnum adeptus 
 Anglorum, cum esset in villa regia quae Anglica lingua Guentha 3 
 dicitur, consilio et suggestione fidelis sui Willelmi filii Osberni 
 dapiferi qui comes erat palatii, dedit Sanctae Trinitati de Monte in 
 perpetuam hereditatem terram quae Anglice Hermodesodes nuncu- 
 patur cum ecclesia et omnibus sibi pertinentibus, scilicet in agris 
 pratis pascuis molendinis aquis humectis silvis ceterisque hujusmodi 
 eidem villae contiguis, presente abbate Raynerio cum duobus mona- 
 chis Nicholao et Guillelmo. Haec donatio facta est per unum 
 cultellum quem prefatus rex joculariter dans abbati quasi ejus 
 palmae minatur infigere ; " ita," inquit, " terra dari debet ". Hoc 
 ergo evidenti signo multorumque nobilium qui regio lateri astabant 
 testimonio facta est haec donatio. Anno Dominicae incarnationis 
 MLXVIIII. Signa : Willelmi Regis, Mathildis Reginae, Willelmi 
 filii Osberni, Willelmi episcopi Londoniae, Goisfredi episcopi Con- 
 stantiae, Rotberti filii Guimar, Ricardi filii Torstein Goiz, Erfasti 
 tune capellani postea episcopi, Hugonis de Sillevilla." 4 
 
 Upon this extract Stapleton says : " Thus dapifer or 
 
 1 Const. Hist., i, p. 374. 
 
 2 Printed among the Documents Inedits as an appendix to the 
 Cartulaire de S. Bertin. 
 
 3 Gueritho in printed cartulary, see p. 455. 
 
 4 See Stapleton, Rot. Scacc. Norm., i, p. xvii.
 
 i 4 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 senescallus Normanniae, the usual title of the chief justiciar 
 of Normandy, is rendered comes palatii in a cartulary written 
 towards the close of the eleventh century." Stubbs goes 
 further : " Normandy," he says, " had its steward or seneschal 
 for whom even the name of comes palatinus is claimed," 
 and in a note he refers to the cartulary I have cited as speak- 
 ing of "William Fitz-Osbern, 'dapiferi qui comes erat palatii'." 
 Stubbs's phraseology down to this point suggests that he 
 entertained some doubt as to the validity of this claim, but 
 a few lines below he writes quite definitely : " At the time 
 of the conquest William Fitz-Osbern was, as his father had 
 been, dapifer and comes palatii." 1 
 
 The above assertions of Stapleton and Stubbs are, I 
 venture to contend, not one of them warranted by the 
 evidence. Approaching the question, as we are entitled to 
 do, with the knowledge that Osbern held the office of dapifer 
 but in uncertainty as to whether his son held the office, it is 
 obvious that the cartulary cited decides nothing. But let us 
 beg the question of Fitz-Osbern's dapifership and read the 
 extract as if it ran : " Willelmi (filii Osberni) dapiferi qui 
 comes erat palatii." Even thus the passage, in my opinion, 
 unquestionably suggests the reverse of what Stapleton con- 
 tends : it suggests the conclusion I desire to emphasise as the 
 true one, that the office of dapifer and comes palatii had no- 
 thing to do with each other. Take by way of illustration the 
 sentence following : " Eudo dapifer qui erat vice-comes." 
 Could anyone contend that the statement is untrue, or even 
 that it contains the smallest suggestio falsi, implies that is 
 to say a connection between the office of dapifer and sheriff? 
 Such a contention would be quite unarguable. 
 
 The question about the dapifership is fortunately con- 
 cluded by the cartulary itself, which makes it clear that the 
 style dapifer is applied to Osbern and not to his son. 2 It 
 is only in this one extract that any ambiguity arises. As 
 
 1 Stubbs, Constitutional History, i, p. 372. 
 
 2 The editor of this cartulary quite rightly punctuates the 
 passage as follows : Willelmi, filii Osberni dapiferi, qui comes erat 
 palatii, dedit. . . . Cf. no. 55 : . . . Willelmus comes, filius Osberni 
 dapiferi, cum domino suo . . . ; and no. 49 : ... Emma, Osberni 
 dapiferi uxore, et filiis ejus Willelmo et Osberno. . . .
 
 THE DAPIFERS 15 
 
 regards the style comes palatii, which is given to Fitz-Osbern, 
 very little need be said. It may refer, either to the earl's 
 regency, or to the fact that he was at the time indicated 
 exercising palatinate jurisdiction over a large portion of 
 England, having Winchester for its chief centre. Odo of 
 Bayeux in precisely similar circumstances is called earl 
 palatine by Ordericus Vitalis, 1 and the term is a perfectly 
 appropriate one ; besides, it must be remembered that the 
 extract under discussion is not a formal charter, but a very 
 informal notification of one, in which the scribe does not 
 think it out of place to relate how William the Conqueror 
 had a playful jest with the abbot. There is not the slightest 
 foundation for the assertion that Osbern the father was ever 
 comes palatii. 
 
 The other existing diplomatic evidence is all opposed to 
 Fitz-Osbern's dapifership. Both before and after the conquest 
 Fitz-Osbern constantly figures in charters, but he never attests 
 other people's charters as dapifer, and never so describes 
 himself in his own. 
 
 The chronicle evidence, as already stated, is almost equally 
 unfavourable to the claim, the statements of later writers 
 being quite outweighed by the silence of contemporaries 
 upon the subject. There is, it is true, a Cottonian manu- 
 script 2 of very uncertain authority, in which a curious story 
 
 1 Quid loquar de Odone Baiocasino praesule, qui consul palatinus 
 erat, et ubique cunctis Angliae habitatoribus formidabilis erat, ac 
 veluti secundus rex passim jura dabat? Principatum super omnes 
 comites et regni optimates habuit, et cum thesauris antiquorum 
 Cantiam possedit, . . . (Ordericus Vitalis, ii, p. 222). 
 
 Odo nimirum, ut supra-dictum est, palatinus Cantiae consul erat, 
 et plures sub se comites virosque potentes habebat (ibid., iii, p. 270). 
 
 2 Printed Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. iv, 607 ; and see appendix 
 to this chapter. The terms in which the office of dapifer is men- 
 tioned are worth special attention : Rex Willielmus junior civitatem 
 Colecestriae cum suis pertinentiis tradidit servandam Eudoni qui 
 erat major domus regiae quod nos vulgariter senescallum vel dapi- 
 ferum vocamus. 
 
 I incline to the opinion that this tract was composed in the 
 interests of Geoffrey de Mandeville earl of Essex : it must be taken 
 into account in tracing the development of the dapifership during 
 and after the anarchy ; and should be compared with the Angevin 
 tract on the stewardship of France, and the Lancastrian tract on the 
 stewardship of England.
 
 1 6 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 is told about the dapifership, with a view to explaining how 
 Eudo dapifer got possession of that office after the conquest. 
 The story runs somewhat as follows. Fitz-Osbern was in 
 attendance on the king at the banqueting table, and serving 
 up the dishes in his capacity of dapifer. The imperious 
 Norman is represented as being little suited to his task, for he 
 set before the king the flesh of a scarcely half-roasted crane. 
 The king's gorge rose at the nauseating sight ; he turned round, 
 clenched his fist, and aimed a lusty blow at the offending 
 dapifer. At this Eudo, who was close at hand, thought it de- 
 sirable to interpose, and the blow failed to reach its intended 
 destination. Fitz-Osbern, however, had had more than enough, 
 he declined to continue in office and suggested that Eudo 
 should take his place. I fear no reliance whatever can be 
 placed on this story for the purpose of elucidating the true 
 history of the dapifership during the eleventh century. 
 
 No doubt it may be observed that, if these stories of Fitz- 
 Osbern's dapifership are all untrue, it is difficult to account 
 for their existence. When however the facts are summarised, 
 and we see that Fitz-Osbern, the son of a dapifer, acted as 
 vicegerent both in England and Normandy, and as such 
 exercised functions comparable in many respects to those 
 subsequently exercised by the French dapifer but without 
 apparently any recognised official style by which chroniclers 
 could designate him, 1 it would be surprising not to find some 
 later writer giving him the title in question. 2 
 
 1 Upon this point see Stubbs, Const. Hist., i, 374-7. 
 
 2 Ample corroboration of this argument is afforded by an analysis 
 of the occasions on which Master Wace makes use of the term 
 ' seneschal ' : 
 
 Vol. i, p. 113, line 2043. 
 
 Dan[s] Bernart li Daneis out la seneschalcie, 
 
 Les terres e les rentes e 1'altre manantie 
 Vol. i, p. 150, line 3089. 
 
 Cil ki ert seneschals, Raoul Torte aueit nun, 
 Vol. 2, p. 61, line 801. 
 
 Gentil furent li cunestable 
 
 E bien puissant e bien aidable ; 
 
 Gentil furent li senescal, 
 
 Gentil furent li marescal, 
 
 Gentil furent li butteillier,
 
 THE DAPIFERS 17 
 
 Fitz-Osbern, we must conclude, was never dapifer to 
 William ; and, this fact once proved, many an argument 
 
 Gentil furent li despensier ; 
 
 Li chamberlenc e li ussier 
 
 Fuit tuit noble cheualier. 
 Vol. 2, p. 150, line 2985. 
 
 A Alain, ki esteit sis huem, 
 
 Par 1'arcevesque de Ruem 
 
 Liura sa terre en cumandise, 
 
 Cume a senescal e justise. 
 Vol. 2, p. 207, line 4413. 
 
 Le filz Osber, son seneschal, 
 
 Guill. out non, noble uassal 
 Vol. 2, p. 253, line 5587. 
 
 En la terre out un senescal, 
 
 Heraut out nom, noble uassal, 
 
 For son pries e por sa bonte 
 
 Out el regne grant poeste ; 
 
 Li plus forz hoem fu del pais, 
 
 Fort fu d'omes e fort d'amis, 
 
 Engleterre out en sa baillie 
 
 Come hoem qui a seneschaucie ; 
 Vol. 2, p. 264, line 5897 ; p. 265, line 5908. 
 
 Eis uos atant le seneschal, 
 
 E li seneschal dist itant : 
 Vol. 2, p. 333, line 7673. 
 
 E Guill. mis seneschaus, 
 
 Li filz Osber, un boens vassaus 
 Vol. 2, p. 369, line 8550. 
 
 E li seneschals de Corcie 
 Vol. 2, p. 370, line 8571. 
 
 L'ancestre Hue le Bigot, 
 
 Qui aueit terre a Maletot 
 
 E as Loges et a Chanon ; 
 
 Le due soleit en sa maison 
 
 Seruir d'une seneschaucie, 
 
 Mult out od lui grant compaignie. 
 
 En fieu esteit sis seneschals, 
 
 E mult esteit noble uassals 
 
 The citations are from Andresen. Heraut is the ill-fated Harold: 
 the Courcies and the Bigods we shall encounter presently. I have 
 only two observations to make : the seneschals of Master Wace and 
 those who attest charters as such are, period for period, totally 
 different persons ; when he gives a list of officials, he places the 
 constable first.
 
 i8 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 founded on the contrary assumption falls to the ground. But 
 even if a charter should be subsequently produced in which the 
 earl of Hereford is so styled, such evidence would be utterly 
 insufficient to rehabilitate those same arguments : it would 
 merely add very incongruously one distinguished name to the 
 existing list of undistinguished holders of an undistinguished 
 office ; and the true inference from such a discovery would 
 probably be that here was an early example of the curious 
 practice of appointing eminent persons to exercise menial 
 offices on special occasions. 
 
 During the same period the Anglo-Saxon household under 
 Edward the Confessor appears to have reached a fair state of 
 development, different in construction 1 and inferior in organi- 
 sation to that of France, but decidedly superior to that of 
 Normandy. At the Saxon Court the dapifer is unquestion- 
 ably a mere household officer of no pre-eminence. By the 
 year 1060 the number of dapifers in regular attendance was 
 probably as large as three, two being assigned to the king 
 and one to the queen. 2 
 
 On Christmas day 1066 William the Conqueror, by virtue 
 of election and divine unction, became king of the English : 
 thenceforth he had two turbulent countries to rule instead of 
 one, and these divided by a broad strip of sea which wind 
 and waves often rendered impassable to the mightiest Nor- 
 
 1 The chief officer of the household appears to be styled prae- 
 fectus or praepositus (A.S., heah-gerefa) rather than major or 
 magister. The gerefa was the vicecomes or sheriff. Whatever may 
 have been the functions of the praefectus, his Anglo-Saxon style 
 suggests a ministerial rather than a domestic officer. The advent of 
 the Normans very naturally led to occasional confusions of style of 
 the most absurd description. Thus the vicegerent is sometimes 
 called praefectus, and the sheriff is sometimes called dapifer, e.g. 
 . . . Ricardi de Belmesio, qui tune dapifer hujus comitatus erat. 
 (Cartulary of St. Peter's Abbey, Shrewsbury, Coll. Top. et Geneal, 
 i, p. 24.) 
 
 2 If discifer is merely another name for the dapifer, and such 
 evidence as the chronicle of the Monastery of Abingdon may be so 
 far trusted, there had been several dapifers attached to the Saxon 
 court for at least a hundred years before the conquest. See Chron. 
 Mon. Abingdon, Rolls Series [2], i, p. 84 (A.D. 926): Wulfhelm 
 discifer regis a witness. Ibid., i, p. 119 (25th May, 946) : De morte 
 Edmundi regis et successione Edredi fratris sui. Iste vero rex
 
 THE DAPIFERS 19 
 
 man vessels. To meet the requirements of this new situation 
 it was obvious that William must delegate the royal authority 
 in one or other of his divided dominions to one or more 
 supreme officers of state. The Conqueror must also have 
 found it equally imperative to enlarge very considerably the 
 staff of his household, and more thoroughly organise the 
 several functions of its members. For these purposes, if a 
 model was wanted, William had the French and English 
 courts to copy from. But clearly neither of these could offer 
 him much assistance in his peculiar predicament. He 
 wanted a suitable array of household officers to have with 
 him wherever he went, and efficient officers of state to leave 
 behind him : consequently it was idle to look to courts where 
 household and state functions were indiscriminately discharged 
 by the same officials. 
 
 In short William was in a position for which there was no 
 precedent ; and the natural result was that he appointed as 
 occasion required temporary vicegerents of England or Nor- 
 mandy who were not household officers, and cannot possibly 
 be identified, either as regards style or functions, with any 
 then existing English or French officer of state. William's 
 consort and Roger de Montgomery in Normandy were not 
 dapiferi : Odo and Fitz-Osbern in England were not praefecti. 
 Their successors in office were eventually styled justiciarii, 
 an entirely novel designation for a supreme officer of state. 
 
 Eadmundus cum in die festivitatis Augustini Anglorum doctoris, in 
 regia villa quae Anglice Pichile Chirche nuncupatur, curiam suam 
 cum magnatibus suis festive teneret, accidit ut coram eo pincerna 
 suus primo conviciis deinde lethaliter in suum insurget dapiferum ; 
 quod cum rex moleste tulisset volens dapiferum suum ex mortis 
 eripere confinio, ictu detestabili a pincerna suo nomine Leofwine 
 interfectus diem clausit extremum. Ibid., i, p. 206 (A.D. 956) : 
 Elfheah discifer, Elfsige discifer and Elfsige discifer are witnesses to 
 a charter. Oliver, Monasticon Exon., p. 9 (c. A.D. 943). Oddo 
 discifer and Helpine discifer witness an infeudation of Ethelstan. 
 
 See Kemble, Codex, iv, p. 143 (A.D. 1060) : Raulfus regis dapifer 
 and Asgarus regis dapifer attest as witnesses. Ibid., p. 159 (A.D. 
 1062) : the following among others attest as witnesses Esgarus 
 regiae procurator aulae, Radulfus regis aulicus, Bundinus regis 
 palatinus, Regenbaldus regis cancellarius, Wigodus regis pincerna, 
 Herdingus reginae pincerna, Adzurus regis dapifer, Yfingus regis 
 dapifer, Godwinus reginae dapifer. Cf. Engl. Hist. Rev., xix, p. 90.
 
 20 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 With this one inevitable exception William organised his 
 staff of great officers according to existing methods, probably 
 more closely following in some cases the French, in others 
 the Saxon model. We are only here concerned with the 
 dapifership, and in this instance it is sufficiently clear that 
 William adopted the practice common to himself as duke 
 and his English predecessor. He appointed several dapifers, 
 two being probably the normal number in attendance on the 
 king, and one on the queen. The list of dapifers to the king 
 includes the following : Stigand, 1 Eudo, 2 Hamo, 3 Ralph de 
 Montpingon, 4 and probably several others, such as Roger 
 Bigod, 5 Hubert, 6 Godric, 7 Heltho, 8 and another Eudo. 9 
 There is no evidence that some of these were appointed to 
 act only in Normandy, others to act only in England : any 
 such theory is negatived by the fact that the better-known 
 among them are found witnessing charters as dapifers both in 
 England and Normandy. 
 
 There is no indication of any settled order of precedence 
 among the household officers during the reign of William the 
 Conqueror. The dapifers were certainly not the chief house- 
 hold officers ; on the other hand it cannot be asserted posi- 
 tively that they ranked below any particular members of that 
 body, although their average position in the list of witnesses 
 
 1 See above. 
 
 2 Domesday passim ; Gallia Christiana, xi, app. 66 ; France Cal. 
 R.O., nos. 92, 94; Cartae Antiquae A., no. 3, CC., no. 16; Ramsey 
 Cartulary, Rolls Series ; etc. 
 
 3 Domesday passim; Wharton, Anglia Sacra, i, 338; Monasticon 
 Anglicanum, i, 164, 237, and iv, 666; Ramsey Cartulary; etc. 
 
 4 France Cal. R.O., no. 919; Ordericus Vitalis, ii, pp. 435-6. 
 There is a Radulfus dapifer mentioned in Domesday. 
 
 5 Gallia Christiana, xi, app. 228 ; cf. Monasticon Anglicanum, ii, 
 267 ; and Charter Roll 6 Edward III, no. 18. 
 
 6 Gallia Christiana, xi, app. 67; Monasticon Anglicanum, vi, 1003. 
 
 7 Domesday R.C., ii, 7b., 125, 188, etc.; Monasticon Anglicanum, 
 iii, 87. 
 
 8 Domesday R.C., i, 2b. ; Gallia Christiana, xi, app. 71. 
 
 9 The better-known Eudo was son of Hubert de Rie ; the other 
 Eudo was son of Turstin Haldup. See France Cal. R.O., no. 921 ; 
 Ordericus Vitalis, ii, p. 108; Gallia Christiana, xi, 917, app. 224; 
 Engl. Hist. Rev., xiv, p. 428.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 21 
 
 is not high. 1 A useful indication of the estimation in which 
 the office was held in this reign is afforded by cases of 
 plurality. Some of the dapifers, notably Eudo and Hamo, 
 we find appointed sheriffs (vicecomites) of counties ; and 
 while so acting they frequently, but not invariably, drop the 
 title " dapifer " and style themselves " vicecomes." 2 This at 
 once precludes the idea that the dapifership was looked upon 
 as a superior dignity to that of sheriff. 
 
 During this period (1066-87) the dapifership shows no trace 
 of development in any direction. The holder of the office is 
 ex officio the dish-thane and caterer, probably nothing more. 
 
 Under William Rufus the occasional vicegerent during the 
 king's absence develops into a permanent officer of state, but 
 apparently not yet distinguished by any particular official 
 title. There can be no possible doubt, however, as to this 
 officer's identity with the justiciar of subsequent reigns. 
 This statesman has no connection with the household, and 
 his pre-eminence over all the household functionaries is un- 
 questionable. These facts accepted, we are not for the 
 present any further concerned with the development of the 
 justiciarship, and Stubbs's account of it may be accepted as 
 correct, except that when he says " the High Steward on the 
 other hand sees every one of his really important functions 
 transferred to the justiciar" 3 he is attributing vision to a 
 myth. The high steward had not yet come into existence, 
 and the important functions acquired by the justiciar were 
 acquired directly and not by transference. 
 
 1 The household officials in England do not attest in any official 
 capacity : their attestations simply occur here and there amongst a 
 number of other witnesses ; nevertheless the precedence inter se of 
 such household officials as are found attesting charters of William I 
 is worth noting. Chamberlain, Butler, Seneschal (circa 1055); 
 France Cal. R.O., no. 1167. Seneschal, Chamberlain, Butler (circa 
 1066) ; Cart, de S. Trinite du Mont, no. 39. Dapifer, Chamberlain 
 (circa 1066); Cart., Eccles. Baioc., i, p. 10. Dapifer last of a long 
 list of other witnesses (circa 1074); ibid., i., p. 6. Chancellor, 
 Butler, Dapifer; Monasticon Anglicanum, i, 144. Butler, Dapifer 
 (circa 1071); France Cal. R.O., no. 91. Chancellor, Dapifer (ante 
 1086); ibid., no. 92. Dapifer, Dispenser; ibid., no. 94. Butler, 
 Dapifer; Monasticon Anglicanum, vi, noi. 
 
 2 Gallia Christiana, xi, app. 72, 74, 228 ; Monasticon Anglicanum, 
 i, 164; Hamo in Domesday, etc. 3 Const. Hist., i, p. 374.
 
 22 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 The following must be included in the list of William the 
 Second's dapifers. Eudo 1 and Hamo, 2 who apparently held 
 office during the whole of this reign, Roger Bigod, 3 Ranulf 
 brother of Ilger, 4 Ivo, 6 William, 6 and Ordric. 7 There is no 
 trace of any development in the dapifership during this reign, 
 no evidence, for instance, that with some holders it has 
 acquired an hereditary character. 
 
 Vastly different is the history of the French dapifership 
 during the period covered by the reigns of William and his 
 son Rufus. From about the year 1071 onwards the French 
 dapifer heads the list of witnesses to royal charters, but it is 
 not until the closing years of the century that his pre-eminence 
 appears fully established. The office was at that time in the 
 hands of Guy of Rochefort, and during his tenure it acquired 
 a preponderating control over well-nigh all the departments 
 of mediaeval government. The dapifer, in fact, became 
 director-general of the palace, commander-in-chief of the 
 army, chief justice of the kingdom, superintendent of local 
 government officials, and so forth, a veritable viceroy in 
 short, assisting or rather supplanting the king in the exercise 
 of all the highest functions of sovereignty. 
 
 Twice during the opening years of the twelfth century 
 a Rochefort was hurled from this post, the first time only 
 to return with an increased power, which was maintained by 
 Guy and his son up to the year 1 107. Then Prince Louis 
 challenged their supremacy with the sword ; and, amidst a 
 blaze of civil war, the dapifership of France was wrested from 
 the Rocheforts and bestowed on the Garlands as the price of 
 their assistance. Little good did the change bring to Philip ; 
 
 1 Monasticon Anglicanum, i, 602 ; ii, 267 ; vi, 1295. France Cal. 
 R.O., no. 1177. Rymer, Foedera R.C., i, p. 5. Cartae Antiquae F., 
 no. 17. See also Ramsey Cartulary, Rolls Series, etc. 
 
 2 Monasticon Anglicanum, i, 164; ii, 267; iv, 16. Charter Roll 
 3 Edward III, no. 51. Charter Roll 9 Edward II, no. 37. Cartulary 
 of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, fol. 152, etc. 
 
 3 Monasticon Anglicanum, ii, 267 ; Charter Roll 6 Edward III, 
 no. 18; Gallia Christiana, xi, app. 228; Wace, Roman de Rou, ed. 
 Andresen, ii, p. 370. 
 
 4 Ramsey Cartulary, Rolls Series [79], ii, p. 259, etc. 
 
 5 Monasticon Anglicanum, ii, 267 ; vi, 1295. 
 
 8 Ibid., ii, 267. 7 Ibid., i, 601-2 ; sed quaere.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 23 
 
 his yoke had been grievous before, the new-comers added to 
 it, doubtless with the deliberate intention of ultimately doing 
 what the mayors of the Merovingian palace had done before 
 them. 
 
 In England during the reign of Henry the First a certain 
 development of the dapifership is observable. The staff of 
 dapifers appears to have been increased, and the list of 
 Henry's appointees is consequently a large one. Amongst 
 them may be noticed the following : Eudo, 1 Hamo, 2 Ranulf 
 brother of Ilger, 3 Roger Bigod, 4 Roger's eldest son William 
 Bigod (o.s.p. 26th of November, H2o), 5 Roger's second son 
 Hugh Bigod, 6 Robert de la Haie, 7 William de Pirou, 8 William 
 de Courci, 9 Robert de Courci, 10 Humphrey de Bohun, 11 Adam 
 de Port, 12 Gerald 13 and Ralph. 14 
 
 1 Monasticon Anglicanum, i, 164; ii, 267 ; vi, 1083. France Cal. 
 R.O., no. 167. Charter Rolls 3 Edward I, no. 2 ; 6 Edward III, 
 no. 1 8. Chron. Abingdon, Rolls Series [2], ii, passim. 
 
 2 Rymer, Foedera R.C., i, 8. Ramsey Cartulary, Rolls Series 
 [79], passim. Cart, of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, fols. 151, 152. 
 Charter Rolls 6 Edward II, no. 3; 20 Edward II, no. 6; 3 Edward I, 
 no. 2; 6 Edward III, no. 18; France Cal. R.O., nos. 5, 167; 
 Monasticon Anglicanum, ii, 65, etc. 
 
 3 Vide supra. 
 
 4 Charter Roll 6 Edward III, no. 18. 
 
 5 Monasticon Anglicanum, v, 148 : a charter of William Bigod, 
 dapifer regis. Matthew Paris, Rolls Series, vi, p. 36. 
 
 6 Charter Roll 3 Edward I, no. 2. Confirmation Roll i Henry 
 VIII, pt. 5, no. 13; Monasticon Anglicanum, vi, 53. Engl. Hist. 
 Rev. (1893), p. 80. Monasticon Anglicanum, v, 121. France Cal. 
 R.O., nos. 373, 609. 
 
 7 France Cal. R.O., nos. 373, 724 : Robert was nephew of Eudo 
 son of Turstin Haldup. 
 
 8 Ordericus Vitalis, iv, p. 418. Confirmation Roll i Henry VIII, 
 pt. 5, no. 13. Matthew Paris, vi, p. 36. 
 
 9 France Cal. R.O., no. 1196. Chron. Abingdon, ii, pp. 52-4. 
 Charter Roll 6 Edward III, no. 18. 
 
 10 France Cal. R.O., no. 609. 
 
 11 Pipe Roll 31 Henry I : Unfrid. de Bohun reddit compotum de 
 xxij li.-xs. pro relevatione terre patris sui et de cccc m. arg. ut sit 
 dapifer regis. Monasticon Anglicanum, vi, 1271. France Cal. R.O., 
 nos. 373, 609. 
 
 2 Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 18. Monasticon Anglicanum, iii, 66. 
 
 13 Exch. Miscell. K.R., no. i, p. 13. 
 
 14 Charter Roll. Cal., vol. ii, p. 102.
 
 24 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 The office is clearly becoming hereditary in some families, 
 notably in that of Bigod and Courci. Still it shows no 
 sign of any advance in dignity, no trace of pre-eminence 
 over other household functionaries. The precedence of the 
 witnesses to charters still affords almost the only reliable 
 evidence, 1 but there exists for this reign one other singular 
 piece of direct testimony. 
 
 Shortly after the death of Henry the First the famous 
 Constitutio domus regis 2 was compiled. It purports to repre- 
 sent the fees, food, and other allowances of the various 
 members of the royal household under the last-mentioned 
 king, and these allowances are set out in considerable detail. 
 The document is a curious one, but there is no reason to 
 doubt its genuineness and substantial accuracy. According 
 to the rules there laid down, the dapifers in attendance, if 
 they take their meals outside the palace, have the same 
 allowance as the Chancellor, Dispensers, Butler, Master 
 Chamberlain, Treasurer and Constables, namely 5 solidi a 
 day, certain allowances of simnels and wine, one large wax 
 candle and forty candle-ends. If they take their meals in the 
 palace their allowances are less, but presumably they are 
 permitted to feast sumptuously at the royal board. 
 
 This ordinance exhibits the royal household in a very 
 primitive condition, for the great officers are mentioned 
 together with cooks, scullions, larderers, and other back-stair 
 menials of low degree. In truth the English royal household 
 appears to be in much the same condition as the French 
 household was nearly a century earlier, when the names of 
 dapifer and queux, conn6table and sommelier, chambrier and 
 sous-voyer jostle each other on the royal charters. 
 
 It should be mentioned that the justiciar, first officer of 
 
 1 France Cal. R.O., no. 5 (A.D. im-i6) Chancellor, Cham- 
 berlain, Butler, Dapifer. Matthew Paris vi, p. 36 (dated 1116) 
 Chancellor, Dapifers, Butler, Constable, Sheriff. France Cal. R.O., 
 no - 373 (dated 1131) Dapifers, Constable. Monasticon Anglica- 
 num, vi, 1271 (dated 1132) Chancellor, Constable, Dapifer, 
 Chamberlain. 
 
 2 Printed in the Liber Niger Scaccarii, ed. Hearne ; also in the 
 Liber Rubeus de Scaccario, Rolls Series; also Pegge, Curialia 
 Miscellanea.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 25 
 
 state and now occasionally referred to as " secundus a rege," 
 does not figure at all in the Constitutio. This statesman 
 never became connected with the household. 
 
 A circumstance of some importance in the development 
 of the dapifership was the reunion in Henry's reign of 
 Normandy with England. After the conquest of England in 
 1066 William undoubtedly governed Normandy during his 
 absences in the same way as in like cases he governed England, 
 namely by appointing one or more vicegerents 1 ; and there 
 is no evidence that the Norman vicegerents, any more than 
 the English, had any formal style or designation. We may 
 pass over the period of Robert's rule or misrule, which 
 terminated suddenly and finally at the fatal fight before 
 Tenchebray, and take up the thread of Norman affairs at the 
 period of Henry's assumption of the dukedom. The question 
 is who were Henry's chief officers of state in Normandy, and 
 there can be little doubt now as to the correct answer. They 
 were persons designated as the king's justiciars or chief 
 justiciars, and not functionaries styled dapifers or seneschals 
 of Normandy as has been commonly assumed. 2 
 
 1 They might still, perhaps, be most appropriately referred to as 
 tutores. See Ordericus Vitalis, ii, p. 234 : Anno quinto regni sui 
 Guillelmus rex Guillelmum Osberni filium misit in Normanniam, ut 
 cum Mathilde regina tueretur provinciam. Ibid., ii, pp. 177-8: 
 Rex igitur Mathildi conjugi suae filioque suo Rodberto adolescenti 
 principatum Neustriae commisit, et cum eis religiosos praesules et 
 strenuos proceres ad tutandam regionem dimisit . . . Rex in ilia 
 transfretatione Rogerium de Montegomerici (quern tutorem Nor- 
 manniae, dum ad bellum transmarinum proficisceretur, cum sua 
 conjuge dimiserat) secum minavit. 
 
 2 ... Nemo autem justitiariorum cogat abbatem ad placitandum 
 extra curiam suam coram aliquo, nisi coram me vel coram proprio 
 justitiario qui super omnes alios vice mea justitiam tenet. Nullus 
 etiam praesumat abbatiam vel homines abbatiae namnis inquietare, 
 nisi clamore prius facto ad abbatem, et si justitiam et rectitudinem 
 in curia sua facere noluerit, tune proprius justitiarius meus inde 
 requiratur. . . . (Charter of Henry I to St. Pierre sur Dive. See 
 Gallia Christiana, xi, app. 156-7.) 
 
 . . . Nemo autem justitiariorum meorum praesumat violenter 
 cogere abbatem ad placitandum extra curiam suam, nisi tale placitum 
 fuerit, quod in praesentia mea debeat terminari; nullus etiam 
 praesumat abbatiam namnis inquietare, nisi clamore facto apud 
 abbatem, et illo justitiam et rectitudinem facere nolente, meus
 
 26 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 The names of Henry's justiciars in Normandy are some of 
 them easily ascertainable, but the times during which these jus- 
 ticiars held office is extremely doubtful. We find occasionally 
 as many as five persons acting concurrently in this capacity ; 
 possibly in such cases one was always regarded as capitalis 
 or at least as primus inter pares, certainly the most notable 
 justiciar was John bishop of Lisieux. The following persons 
 are shown by the evidence to have been at some time or other, 
 jointly or severally, members of the supreme court of 
 Normandy: John bishop of Lisieux, Robert de la Haie, 
 Hugh de Montfort, Geoffrey de Sable and Roger Marmion ; 
 this is represented as constituting a full court 1 : John bishop 
 
 proprius justitiarius inde requiretur, qui super omnes alios vice mea 
 justitiam tenet. . . . (Same to same; ibid., app. 157-8.) 
 
 . . . Precipio quod juste faciatis habere . . . et nisi feceritis, 
 justicia Normannica faciat fieri. . . . (Writ of Henry I ; Cart. 
 Eccles. Baioc., no. 37.) 
 
 Deinde justiciarii regis Ebroicensem consulatum et omnes fundos 
 proditorum invaserunt, et dominio regis mancipaverunt. (Ordericus 
 Vitalis, iv, p. 453.) 
 
 The evidence afforded by the structure of the ancient custumal 
 of Normandy is very striking and well worth studying ; see appendix 
 to this chapter. 
 
 M. Ch. de Beaurepaire has noticed the fact, but failed to draw 
 the true conclusion. "Aussi son nom etait-il moins celui de 
 seneschal ou de dapifer que celui de justicia capitalis, ou tout 
 simplement, de justicia." (La senechaussee de Normandie, Rouen. 
 1883.) 
 
 1 Rogerius filius Petri de Fonteneto in castello Cadomi, in 
 presentia totius justitiae reddidit S. Stephano terram illam et omnes 
 decimas illas quas ipse sanctus a Godefrido suo (sic) illius et a patre 
 suo habuerat casque eidem sancto deinceps firmiter in perpetuum 
 tenendas concessit. . . . Testes Joannes scilicet Lexoviensis episco- 
 pus, Robertus de Haia, Hugo de Monteforti, Gaufridus de Subiis, 
 Rogerius Marmio. (Analyse d'un ancien Cartulaire de S. Etienne 
 de Caen, pp. 47-8.) 
 
 The above use of "justitia" is very noticeable. Compare ibid. 
 p. 52 Joannes filius Guarini occupaverat injuste super S. Stephanum 
 unam masuram in quarraria quam Guillelmus abbas super eum 
 occupavit, ita quod Joannes earn dimisit S. Stephano et omnino 
 clamavit quietam in castello Cadomi coram justicia regis qui con- 
 donavit ei emendam hujus forisfacti [etc.]. Also see below. 
 
 If numbers are any guide, here is another full court also presided 
 over by bishop John. Emit Eudo abbas a Willelmo de Capella
 
 THE DAPIFERS 27 
 
 of Lisieux, Robert de la Haie and Geoffrey de Sable 1 : John 
 bishop of Lisieux and Roger de Mandeville ; also these 
 same two in conjunction with William fitz Ansgar 2 : John 
 bishop of Lisieux in conjunction with Robert earl of 
 Gloucester, Ranulf earl of Chester and Robert de la Haie 3 : 
 
 molendinum de Dottione juxta Divam 22 libris in prima emptione. 
 De quo molendino desaisitus per Robertum Frellam dedit praefatus 
 abbas praedicto Willelmo alias 22 libras ut ipsum molendinum 
 contra praedictum Robertum disratiocinaret et Stephano adquietaret 
 quae disratiocinatio et adquietacio facta fuit apud Argenteium ante 
 regem Henricum. Testes Johannes Luxoviensis episcopus, Robertus 
 de Curceio, Willelmus de Tancardivilla, Willelmus Penrellus, Rain- 
 aldus de Argenteio. (Analyse, p. 44.) 
 
 1 Homines de Siccavilla recepti in societate monasterii Sancti 
 Stephani dederunt eidem sancto (duas) partes decimarum suarum. 
 Hujus autem ville ecclesiam quam Sanctus Stephanus antiquitus in 
 magna pace tenuerat Hebertus quidam clericus ei modis quibus- 
 cumque potent auferre querens abbatem et monachos inde diu 
 fortiter vexavit. Quorum vexationi Henricus rex finem imponere 
 decernens utriusque ante se in castello Cadomi diem constituit 
 placitandi. Die igitur quo constitute abbas et monachi cum omnibus 
 que eis necessaria erant ipsi regi et justicie suum placitum obtule- 
 runt. Heberto autem ibi in audientia regis et totius justicie necnon 
 et baronum deficiente, de prefata ecclesia ipsius regis et justicie 
 judicio Sanctus Stephanus saisitus remansit nemini deinceps amplius 
 inde responsurus. Testes hujus rei ipse rex Henricus et justicia, 
 Johannes videlicet Luxoviensis episcopus, Robertus de Haia, Gau- 
 fridus de Sublis, et barones Radulfus Taisso, Rogerius Marmio, 
 Willelmus Patricus, Robertus Carbonellus. (Pancarta of St. Stephen 
 Caen; cited Delisle, Bibl. de 1'Ecole des Chartes, 2nd series, t. v, 
 p. 273 n. : Inspex. Charter of Henry II, R.O. Transcripts 140 B., 
 vol. i, p. 174; and Analyse d'un ancien Cartulaire, p. 48.) 
 
 - H. rex Angl. Johanni Luxoviensi episcopo et Rogero de Magna- 
 villa et Willelmo filio Ansg. salutem. Precipio vobis ut ita faciatis 
 habere Ricardo episcopo Baiocensi justicias episcopatus. . . . Et 
 quicunque ei vel ministris suis inde aliquid detinuerit, vos ei plenam 
 faciatis justiciam. Teste (etc.) (Cart. Eccles. Baioc., no. 29 
 (1107-33). 
 
 Henricus rex Anglorum Johanni episcopo Lexoviensi et Rogerio 
 de Magn[avilla] salutem. Precipio vobis ut facietis tenere [etc.]. 
 (Analyse d ; un ancien Cartulaire de S. Etienne de Caen, p. 18.) 
 
 3 Ibid., no. 34 (1121-34). This is a writ precisely similar to the 
 last. For Ranulf s position see Ordericus Vitalis, iv, p. 453: Familias 
 vero suas cum praecipuis ducibus per castella disposuit, eisque 
 contra praedones tutelam provinciarum commisit. Nam Ranulfum 
 Baiocensem constituit in Ebroarum turri, . . . ; and see ibid., p. 456.
 
 28 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 John bishop of Lisieux and Robert de la Haie 1 : the same 
 and Stephen count of Mortain 2 : Robert earl of Gloucester 3 : 
 Richard de la Haie. 4 Probably if all available evidence was 
 collated, a fairly complete list of justiciars could be obtained, 
 but the details given above are sufficient for our present 
 inquiry. 
 
 With the death of Henry the First may be said to close 
 the initial stage in the history of the stewardship of England. 
 From this point the evolution of the office proceeds more 
 rapidly and can be much more easily traced. 
 
 Before going further, however, it is necessary to follow the 
 history of the French dapifership during the period we have 
 been considering. The rule of the Garlands did not last long. 
 In 1127 Louis le Gros decided on a coup d'etat. Etienne de 
 Garland the then holder of the dapifership was expelled from 
 the palace, his houses in Paris were rased to the ground, his vine- 
 yards destroyed. The measures adopted were undoubtedly 
 vigorous, but it took the king five years of hard fighting to 
 bring his dapifer to submission ; and, as the affair terminated 
 by Etienne de Garland being entrusted with the chancellor- 
 ship, one seems justified in thinking it was rather a Pyrrhic 
 victory for the king. At all events France had learnt a lesson ; 
 
 1 ... quam ante placitum istud disracionaverat per judicium 
 episcopi Luxoviensis et Robert! de Haia et multorum aliorum ad 
 scaccarium. (Engl. Hist. Rev., xiv, p. 426, ante 1130). 
 
 2 Writ of Henry I, inserted by Ordericus Vitalis in his chronicle, 
 vol. iv., pp. 435-6, addressed to John bishop of Lisieux and 
 Stephen count of Mortain and Robert de la Haie. For the 
 position of John bishop of Lisieux, see also Cartulary of S. Evroul 
 in the Bibl. Nat., and Ordericus Vitalis, iv, p. 303. 
 
 3 H. rex Angl. justiciis. . . . Precipio quod juste faciatis habere 
 Reginaldo filio Roberti nep. decimam suam quam Radulfus de Rais 
 illi detinet . . . sicut illam disrationavit in curia mea, ne audiam 
 inde clamorem pro penuria justiciae et recti. Et nisi feceritis 
 justicia Normannica faciat fieri. Teste comite Gloucestriae, apud 
 Arch. (Cart. Eccles. Baioc., no. 37 (1121-35 : 1135?) Henricus 
 rex Anglie fecit inquiri de feodis . . . [ecclesie Baioc.] . . . Hoc 
 autem factum est coram Roberto comite Glocestrie filio regis qui ad 
 hoc audiendum ab ipso rege missus est apud Baiocas statim post 
 mortem Ricardi episcopi fifii Sansonis. (R.O. Transcripts, 140 B., 
 vol. i, p. 53.) 
 
 4 Cart. Eccles. Baioc., no. 8 (A.D. 1133-5). A writ similar to no. 37.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 29 
 
 the dapifership remained vacant for a season, and was then 
 conferred on Ralph count of Vermandois, who, on account 
 of his connection with the royal house and for other reasons, 
 was not a person to be feared. Ralph held the office till his 
 death in the year H52. 1 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I 
 
 THE FIRST TRACT ON THE STEWARDSHIP 
 OF ENGLAND 
 
 MS. Cation Nero D. VIII, 345- 2 Printed Monasticon Anglicanum, 
 vol. zv, p. 607 
 
 Rex Willielmus junior civitatem Colecestrie cum suis per- 
 tinentiis tradidit servandam Eudoni qui erat major domus 
 regie quod nos vulgariter senescallum vel dapiferum vocamus. 
 Fecit autem hoc, civium Colecestrensium postulatione, qui 
 hoc ab eo impetravere grandi exenio, tarn victualium quam 
 impendiorum transmare delate. Acceperat autem Eudo hunc 
 honorem ab Willielmo seniore, pro sui patris suaque in 
 regalem familiam devotione. Pater vero ejus erat Hubertus 
 de Ria, qui internuntius et sequester inter ducem Normannie 
 et regem Anglic extiterat . . . [His visit to Edward the 
 Confessor is described] . . . Peracto colloquio et mandatis 
 acceptis, reversus ad ducem, detulit insignia quibus Willielmus 
 declarabatur heres Edwardi regis Anglorum ; spatam scilicet 
 cum capulo in quo erant incluse sanctorum reliquie, cornu de 
 auro venatorium et caput ingens cervinum. Pro hiis etiam 
 laudatus a duce, promissionem habuit dapiferatus: sed veniente 
 Willielmo in Angliam accipere sibi regnum, quoniam a Cino- 
 manica regione suspicabatur tumultus, Hubertus, quia erat 
 promptus manu et consilio bonus, missus est illic pretendere 
 et servare pacem. Secuti sunt autem ducem quatuor filii ejus: 
 Radulfus cui commissa est custodia castelli et comitatus 
 Notingeham, Hubertus cui commissa est turris Norwici post 
 
 1 See Luchaire, Institutions de la France, i, pp. 176 et sqq., and 
 the authorities there cited. 
 
 2 This is only a modern transcript. It is entitled " Marianus 
 libro tertio de Monasterio Colecestrensi et ejus fundatore."
 
 30 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 fugam Radulfi de Waer, et Adam qui magnas possessiones 
 habuit in Cantia. Eudo vero adhesit servitio regali. Erat 
 tune temporis major domus regie Willelmus films Osberni, 
 habens hunc honorem ex successione procerum Bretuliensium. 
 Is cum quodam festo die regi carnem gruis semicrude, adeo 
 ut sanguis exprimeretur, apposuisset, et a rege objurgatus ; 
 tandem licet stomachans manum porrexisset, ictum ferientis 
 regis subjecta manu Eudo excepit, nee sine dolore quam 
 lachrime, licet invite, prodiderunt. Itaque iratus Willielmus 
 cessit ab officio, rogans ut illud Eudoni contraderetur : ita 
 tarn pro sui patris merito, quam pro suo officio, quam etiam 
 Willielmi postulatione, dapiferatus Eudoni traditur. Post hec 
 decumbente rege Willielmo apud Cadomum, Eudo arrepta 
 occasione ex paterna concessione Willielmum juniorem aggre- 
 ditur, et ut negotio insistat hortatur. Inde in Angliam 
 transvecti, appliciti Porcestrie, comparato sibi favore Willielmi 
 de Ponte Arce, claves thesauri Wintonie suscipiunt, quarum 
 idem Willielmus custos erat. Deinde Eudo impiger castellum 
 Dobrie adiit, fideque et sacramento custodes obligat nemini 
 nisi suo arbitrio claves munitionis tradituros. Hoc ipsum 
 apud Pevenesen, hoc ipsum apud Hastingas facit ceteraque 
 maritima castella, pretendens regem in Normannia moras 
 facturum,et velle de omnibus munitionibus Anglic securitatem 
 habere, per se scilicet qui senescallus erat. Acceleratoque 
 negotio Wintoniam rediit, et tune demum regem obiisse 
 propalat. Ita dum ceteri proceres de regni successione tract- 
 ant in Normannia, interim studio et opera Eudonis Willielmus 
 junior in regem eligitur, consecratur, confirmatur in Anglia. . . . 
 
 TRES ANCIEN COUTUMIER 1 
 
 (C. A.D. 1199) 
 
 (Cap. 2.) ... Duce vel ejus capitali justicia . . . 
 . . . Duci vel ejus justicie capitali . . . 
 (Cap. 12.) ... Postea vero in tempore guerre, Ricardo rege 
 possidente. 
 
 (Cap. 15.) ... nisi manu justicie regis . . . 
 
 1 Printed by the Societe de 1'Histoire de Normandie, edited by 
 M. Tardif.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 31 
 
 (Cap. 21.) . . . coram justicia . . . 
 
 (Cap. 25.) Nulla fiet recognitio, nisi per breve ducis, vel 
 ejus justicie . . . 
 
 (Cap. 30.) Si aliquis dominus homini suo in curia sua rectum 
 facere noluerit, et preceptum ducis, vel ejus justicie, habuerit 
 rectum faciendi in curia ducis . . . per justiciam ducis . . . 
 
 (Cap. 31.) Nullus hominum audeat versus alium guerram 
 facere, sed de injuria sibi illata duci, vel ejus justicie, con- 
 queratur : . . . 
 
 (Cap. 33.) . . . par 1'assentement le due et a sa justice. 
 
 (Cap. 36.) . . . nee dux nee justicia sint ausi pecuniam 
 accipere . . . 
 
 (Cap. 50.) . . . incontinent! festinare [debet] ad primam 
 justiciam ducis quam invenire poterit. 1 
 
 (Cap. 57.) . . . tamen multociens inter dominum Rhoto- 
 magensem archiepiscopum et Willelmum senescallum [placi- 
 tum] inde audivimus. 
 
 (Cap. 59.) . . . sed quoniam justicia ducis, qualiter re- 
 ceptavit . . . 
 
 (Cap. 60.) ... In tempore Willelmi senescalli statutum 
 fuit . . . Postea vero, pluribus annis elapsis, perventum est 
 ad aures senescalli quod . . . Penituit ergo senescallum fecisse 
 hoc statutum. 
 
 (Cap. 6 1.) . . . De hoc dicit senescallus, quod . . . 
 
 (Cap. 62.) Quaestio mota fuit coram senescallo, . . . De 
 hoc dicit senescallus . . . 
 
 (Cap. 64.) . . . Cum igitur perventum fuisset ad aures 
 senescalli, prefato Rogero conquerente, dixit senescallus . . . 
 Iratus vero senescallus jussit quod . . . 
 
 (Cap. 65.) . . . absque precepto justicie . . . absque pre- 
 cepto justicie, et ita clericus justicie . . . 
 
 The rest of the tract is clearly of somewhat later origin, 
 and the style justiciar rarely occurs. A charter of Henry the 
 First is, however, cited : . . . et si inde convictus fuerit, 
 episcopus ille, in cujus diocesi hoc factum est, emendam 
 
 1 So far no mention has occurred of an official styled seneschal 
 or dapifer.
 
 32 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 suam, id est ix li[bras], de pecunia convicti, per manus justicie 
 mee habebit . . . (see Tardif, p. 66). 
 
 In the year 1199, or the approximate date of the first part 
 of the custumal, William Fitz-Ralph was seneschal of Nor- 
 mandy (see infra, chapter II), he succeeded the bishop of 
 Winchester who was styled justiciar or chief justice of Nor- 
 mandy. This custumal, I contend, clearly indicates that a 
 change of style had taken place, and that originally the vice- 
 gerent was styled neither dapifer nor seneschal, but simply 
 justiciar.
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 THE DAPIFERS, THE HEREDITARY DAPIFERS, 
 AND THE PROVINCIAL SENESCHALS 
 
 DURING the anarchy the English dapifership undergoes 
 a rapid development All offices of the household 
 are tending to become hereditary, and the dapifership is no 
 exception to the rule. Amongst Stephen's dapifers may be 
 mentioned Hugh Bigod, 1 Humphrey de Bohun, 2 William 
 Martel, 3 Robert Fitz-Richard, 4 Robert Malet, s and Simon de 
 Beauchamp. 6 Amongst those of the empress may be in- 
 cluded Humphrey de Bohun, 7 Geoffrey earl of Essex, 8 and 
 Robert de Courci. 9 Both Bigod and Courci are by this time 
 familiar names in connection with the household office in 
 question, and it might fairly be said that the dapifership had 
 already become hereditary in both families, though not so far 
 as we know by express grant. 
 
 In two cases, however, during this period the office was 
 
 1 Statutes of the realm, i, 3 ; also see Bemont, Chartes 8-10, and 
 McKechnie, Magna Carta, p. 568. 2 Ibid. 
 
 3 Colchester Chart., i, p. 143; ibid., p. 168; Robert of Torigni, 
 Rolls Series [82], iv, p. 144; Henry of Huntingdon, Rolls Series 
 [74], p. 276; Hearne, Liber Niger Scacc., pp. 808-10; and Round, 
 Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 262-3. 
 
 4 Somerset Record Soc., vii, p. 58, and Round, Geoffrey de 
 Mandeville, pp. 262-3. 
 
 5 Hearne, Liber Niger Scacc., pp. 808-10; and Round, Geoffrey 
 de Mandeville, pp. 262-3. 6 Ibid. 
 
 7 See below; also Brit. Arch. Ass. Journal, xxxi, p. 392, no. n ; 
 p. 394, nos. 1 6 and 17. 8 See Appendix. 
 
 9 The charter granting the dapifership to the earl of Essex is 
 attested by Robert de Courci as dapifer. See also Brit. Arch. Ass. 
 Journal, xxxi, p. 391, No. 9. 
 
 D 33
 
 34 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 expressly conferred by charter of the empress to hold as an 
 office of inheritance. The earl of Essex was granted the 
 dapifership of Eudo to hold hereditably as being his of 
 right: "Et do ei totam terram que fuit Eudonis dapiferi in 
 Normannia et dapiferatum ipsius. Et haec reddo ei ut rectum 
 suum, ut habeat et teneat hereditabiliter. . . ." l 
 
 Also Humphrey de Bohun was granted his dapifership in 
 England and Normandy dapiferatum suum in Anglia et 
 Normannia to hold to himself and his heirs as a serjeanty 
 appertaining to certain lands. 1 The last-mentioned grant is 
 made by the empress and her son jointly, but otherwise calls 
 for no particular comment : there seems not the smallest 
 reason to doubt that the intention was to exact the active 
 duties attaching to the post of dapifer from Humphrey de 
 Bohun and his heirs, as the service to be rendered for the 
 possession of particular properties. 
 
 It is almost inconceivable that anything of the kind was 
 intended in the case of so great a magnate as Geoffrey de 
 Mandeville earl of Essex. There are other possible supposi- 
 tions : that conferring the dapifership on the earl was a mere 
 diplomatic fiction added by way of compliment to Eudo's 
 memory ; or that it was intended to confer an honorary 
 dapifership on the earl, involving services similar to those 
 exacted from the hereditary dapifers in the reign of Henry 
 the Second. More probably the donee in this instance wanted 
 and asked for the office because he had special ideas on the 
 subject, ideas born of an acquaintance with the French and 
 Angevin dapifers. We shall have to recur to this problem later 
 on. Geoffrey's connection with the dapifership is an isolated 
 incident : the arch-traitor and sinner died outlawed and ex- 
 communicate, his possessions and dignities perished with him. 
 
 The government of Normandy under Stephen was still 
 entrusted to one or more justiciars. William de Roumare 
 and Roger Fitz-Nigel vicomte du Contentin acted in this 
 capacity. 2 But before long the duchy transferred its allegiance 
 to Anjou ; and, with the arrival of Geoffrey Plantagenet on 
 
 1 See Appendix. 
 
 2 Neustriae vero justiciaries Guillelmum de Rolmara et Rogerium 
 vicecomitem aliosque nonnullos constituerat . . . (Ordericus Vita- 
 lis, vol. v, p. 91).
 
 THE DAPIFERS 35 
 
 the scene, Angevin principles began to exert an immediate 
 influence upon existing Norman institutions. In Anjou the 
 chief officer of state was the dapifer 1 ; and, besides this in- 
 dividual, there were other subordinate dapifers placed in 
 control of towns or districts. 2 These circumstances very 
 naturally produced certain results in Normandy. No osten- 
 sible change was made by count Geoffrey in the form of 
 government. He appointed ministers who were still styled 
 justiciars, but the very names of these justiciars indicate a 
 new development. Eight persons at least can be mentioned 
 as having held such office during Geoffrey's administration : 
 they are the count of Mellent, 3 Reginald de St. Valery, 4 
 William de Vernon, 5 Robert de Neufbourg, 6 Robert de Courcy, 7 
 
 1 See Glasson, Institutions de la France, iv, p. 722; Beautemps- 
 Beaupre, Recherches sur les Juridictions d' Anjou et du Maine; 
 and the same writer's Anciennes Coutumes d' Anjou et du Maine. 
 
 2 See Beautemps-Beaupre, op. cit. Hugh de Clers, a name 
 famous in the literature of the French dapifership, was for some 
 time dapifer of La Fleche ; as such he attests charters of Henry II, 
 see France Cal. R.O., p. 467. 
 
 3 [G.j duci Normannie et comiti Andegavie Guillelmus (sic) 
 comes Mellenti, uti caro domino, salutem. Sciatis quod precepto 
 vestro fecimus recognosci per sacramentum, etc. . . . (Cart. Eccl. 
 Baioc., no. 89.) 
 
 4 Almost identical report from Robertus (sic) de Sancto Walerico. 
 (Ibid., no. 90.) 
 
 Dux Normannorum . . . Raginaldo de Sancto Walerico, Roberto 
 de Novo Burgo et omnibus justiciariis suis de Normannia salutem. 
 Volo et concede ... Si quis vero ei inde resistere voluerit, precipio 
 vobis quod firmam justiciam inde faciatis. Testibus Hugone archie- 
 piscopo, Ricardo cancellario, Reginaldo de Sancto Walerico, Ro- 
 berto de Novo Burgo. Apud Rhotomagum. (Ibid., no. 17.) 
 
 Dux Normannorum . . . Raginaldo de Sancto Walerico, Wil- 
 lelmo de Vernone, Roberto de Novo Burgo et omnibus justiciis et 
 proceribus suis Normannie salutem. Sciatis quod ego concede . . . 
 sicut recognitum fuit et juratum in choro Baiocensis ecclesie quod 
 . . . astantibus ibidem per preceptum nostrum Roberto de Curceio 
 dapifero nostro, Ricardo de Haia et aliis quam pluribus . . . [Same 
 witnesses as no. 17]. (Ibid., no. 19.) 
 
 5 Vide supra. 
 
 6 ... recognita est . . . coram Roberto de Novoburgo et coram 
 Roberto de Curceio justiciis meis juramento. . . . (Ibid., no. 39.) 
 
 For two reports of these same justiciars see ibid., nos. 43 and 44. 
 
 7 Vide supra.
 
 36 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Richard de la Haie, 1 Enjuger de Bohun(?) 2 and G. de Sable. 3 
 Of these five are known to have been dapifers, or at all events 
 are occasionally so styled, and a sixth (Enjuger de Bohun) 
 was closely connected with the dapifership. 4 This cannot 
 have been mere coincidence. But, notwithstanding the 
 practice here indicated of combining the two offices, there is 
 not the slightest indication of an intention to fuse them. 
 
 The chief justiciars were probably the count of Mellent 
 and Reginald de St. Valery : the subordinate justiciars 
 appear to have had special districts or bailiwicks assigned 
 to them. 5 Geoffrey's administration did not last long ; 
 his failing health unfitted him for the task of governing 
 Normandy, and he ceded the province to his son Henry 
 Fitz-Em press. 
 
 As duke of Normandy Henry appears to have had a large 
 establishment of household officers, including a chancellor, 
 
 1 Dux Normannorum. . . . Enjugero de Buhun salutem. Mando 
 tibi et precipio quod dimittas episcopo Baiocensi in pace feudum 
 militis quod Robertas Marinus de ipso tenebat Wireville et feudum 
 suum quod Willielmus de Moiun de ipso apud Mummartin tenere 
 debet quod hue usque injuste occupasti, quod nisi feceris precipio 
 quod justicia mea Ricarde de Haia secundum assisiam meam recog- 
 nosci facial predictum feodum episcopi quomodo. . . . Et te, 
 Engengere, precor ne de aliquo injuste fatiges episcopum quia ego 
 non paterer quod de jure suo aliquid injuste perderet. Tibi etiam, 
 Ricarde de Haia, precipio quod per totam bailiam tuam secundum 
 assisiam meam recognosci facias feudum episcopi Baiocensis et 
 ipsum in pace tenere, sicut recognitum fuerit secundum assisiam 
 meam. Teste. . . . (Ibid., no. 24.) 
 
 2 The only authority I can give is Stapleton, Rot. Scacc. Norm., 
 vol. i, p. xxxiv. After citing the last-mentioned extract he says : 
 " Richard de Haia (Haie-du-Puits) was dapifer Normanniae under 
 Geoffrey and with him were associated as justices this Engelger de 
 Bohun, Robert de Neufbourg and Robert de Courcy." The state- 
 ment about Richard de Haie is incorrect, and the writ in question 
 is no authority for the assertion, being merely addressed to Bohun 
 as a deforciant. See, however, Cart. Eccles. Baioc., i, p. 47. 
 
 3 Dux Normannorum . . . G. de Sableio et Roberto de Curceio 
 justiciis suis salutem : Mando vobis . . . (Cart. Eccl. Baioc., no. 25). 
 
 4 For Robert de Courcy vide p. 35, note 4 : for the rest I can 
 only cite charters of Henry, q.v. infra. We have seen, however, 
 that Robert de la Haie and Humphrey de Bohun were dapifers to 
 Henry I. 
 
 5 e.g. Richard de la Haie, supra.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 37 
 
 constable, numerous dapifers, 1 and chamberlains. The dapi- 
 fers usually in attendance were probably Humphrey de Bohun 
 and Manasser Bisset. The justiciar, and chief officer of state, 
 during this administration was Arnulf bishop of Lisieux. 2 
 Robert de Neufbourg, 3 Richard de la Haie, 4 and William 
 Fitz-John 5 appear as subordinate justiciars, and there were 
 probably others. Joslen of Tours was at this time dapifer 
 and, as such, chief officer of state in Anjou. 6 
 
 Geoffrey Plantagenet died on the /th September, 1151, and 
 in 1153 Henry landed in England with the avowed object of 
 wresting the crown from Stephen. He did not defeat 
 Stephen, he never even fought him in a pitched battle, but 
 he secured by the treaty of Wallingford the right to succeed 
 to the throne. 
 
 During this period Henry visited Bristol, and there gave 
 charters to Robert Beaumont earl of Leicester and Robert 
 his son, conceding to the earl, his son and heirs certain lands 
 in England and Normandy, together with the dapifership of 
 both countries (dapiferatum Anglic et Normannie). 7 I have 
 only succeeded in finding a transcript of the duke's charter 
 to earl Robert 8 : the original charter to his son is extant, and 
 has been a source of quite unnecessary perplexity to genealo- 
 gists. On the occasion in question grants to other persons 
 
 1 The following were dapifers to duke Henry : Humphrey de 
 Bohun, Robert de Courci, Manasser Biset (Rymer, Foedera R.C., 
 i, p. 1 6); Richard de la Haie (Cart. Eccl. Baioc., no. 7, and France 
 Cal. R.O., nos. 518, 519) ; Manasser Biset and Hubert (Monasticon 
 Anglicanum, vol. vi, 366). Indications of the following precedence, 
 viz. constable, dapifer, chamberlain, are becoming numerous. See, 
 for example, Berkeley Castle Charters, ed. Jeayes, nos. i and 2. 
 
 2 Henricus dux Normannie . . . Arnulfo Lexoviensi episcopo et 
 Ricardo de Haia dapifero, et omnibus aliis justiciis suis salutem. 
 Sciatis quod Gaufridus de Clintonia recognovit coram me . . . 
 (Cart. Eccl. Baioc., no. 7 ; France Cal. R.O., no. 1441 ; and Mem. 
 Soc. Antiq. Norm., ist series, vol. 8, p. 437 [circa Oct., 1154]). 
 
 3 France Cal. R.O., no. 127. 
 
 4 Ibid., no. 523. 5 Ibid., no. 516. 
 
 6 Ibid., no. 1 1 60 (circa A.D. 1152). Joslen of Tours attests as 
 dapifer comitis Andegavorum, his attestation is followed by those of 
 the constable and chamberlain of Anjou. 7 See Appendix. 
 
 8 The existence of this transcript appears to be unknown to 
 genealogists.
 
 38 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 were similarly supplemented by a grant to their heirs 
 apparent, with the obvious idea that two charters would serve 
 better than one to ensure the loyalty of the particular family. 
 The Beaumont charters, technically ultra vires the duke, 
 were undoubtedly confirmed by Henry after his coronation, 
 although in this instance the only evidence that can be pro- 
 duced is a copy of Henry's confirmation to the earl. 1 In 
 only a few cases (for example, the grants to Robert Fitz- 
 Harding and his son, which are preserved among the muni- 
 ments at Berkeley castle) are all four instruments of the 
 series known to be still in existence. 2 
 
 It is not, however, by reason of its form only that this 
 grant of an hereditary dapifership to the Beaumonts calls for 
 special comment. We have already had to chronicle and 
 comment upon a grant in fee of the same office to Geoffrey 
 earl of Essex. 3 Each earl was at the time he received his 
 grant one of the most powerful magnates in England, and 
 their allegiance was therefore a matter of especial moment to 
 the Angevin cause. Moreover, just as earl Geoffrey was 
 claiming to stand in the shoes of Eudo dapifer, earl Robert 
 in right of his wife Amicia was claiming to represent Fitz- 
 Osbern earl of Hereford. 4 Thus the two cases present singular 
 and significant analogies. The explanation of both grants is 
 probably the same ; both certainly require explaining. 
 
 The truth, in my opinion, is this : that both grantees par- 
 ticularly asked for an hereditary dapifership because, having 
 regard to the constitutions of France and Anjou, they both 
 thought this office well worth cultivating. I also think it is 
 
 1 See Appendix. 2 See Berkeley Castle, Charters, ed. Jeayes. 
 
 3 Vide supra, p. 34. 
 
 4 See the observations of Mr. Round on this point in Geoffrey de 
 Mandeville, p. 153 : the charter of Stephen granting the earldom of 
 Hereford to Robert earl of Leicester with special reference to the 
 possessions of Fitz-Osbern is preserved among the royal charters of 
 the duchy of Lancaster. Practically speaking, Amicia was the 
 heiress of William Fitz-Osbern : [Itta (or Amicia)] nupsit Roberto 
 comiti Legrecestrie, filio Roberti comitis Mellenti. Unde factum 
 est ut Lire, Glot, Britolium et plurimam partem terrae quam Willel- 
 mus filius Osberni avus (sic) uxoris suae habuerat in Normannia, 
 post mortem Willelmi de Britolio avunculi uxoris suae, idem comes 
 haberet. (Continuator of William of Jumieges, Duchesne, p. 300.)
 
 THE DAPIFERS 39 
 
 highly probable that both earls attempted to further their 
 designs by recourse to deliberate forgery of title. 
 
 The story of how Eudo acquired his office from Fitz-Osbern 
 has been already told : that story may without hesitation be 
 described as an obvious fabrication. We are not justified in 
 so characterising the allusions to Fitz-Osbern's dapifership in 
 Ordericus Vitalis and Henry of Huntingdon ; not, however, 
 because they are any the less untrue, but because, as I have 
 pointed out, these allusions are susceptible of an innocent 
 explanation. Still it does not follow that the innocent ex- 
 planation is the right one. It is certainly rather a remarkable 
 coincidence that the one story should emanate from Essex, 
 the other from St. Evroul where the Beaumonts were chief 
 patrons. The suggestion certainly covers the facts. How 
 this tampering with history (if any) was accomplished we 
 need not consider ; many ready methods suggest themselves. 
 Historical forgeries were not uncommon in those days, and 
 the explanation I have suggested is a priori only too probable. 
 
 About the same time Henry Fitz-Empress was himself 
 laying claim to the hereditary dapifership of France ; and his 
 example was followed by Philip count of Flanders. 1 That 
 the claim of the former was supported by at least one most 
 barefaced forgery, no modern historian pretends to dispute. 2 
 Both claimants were in a measure successful. 3 What these 
 hoped for from the dapifership of France it is not easy to 
 understand ; but, if we admit there were designs on the 
 English office such as I have indicated, the method and 
 purpose in the latter instance seem obvious enough. The 
 object in view must have been to show that the justiciarship, 
 or chief office of state, was a post appertaining to the here- 
 ditary dapifer : hence the advantage of deducing a title from 
 Fitz-Osbern, who was in effect one of the first justiciars of 
 England, and at all events the son of a famous dapifer, a 
 combination of offices possessed by no other family in 
 England. Stephen died on the 25th of October, 1154, and 
 
 1 For an account of these claims see Appendix. 
 
 2 I refer to the first part of the famous treatise De Senescalcia 
 Franciae, stated by the author of that tract to be the work of 
 Foulques le Jerosolimitain. 3 See below, and Appendix.
 
 40 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 on the 1 9th of December Henry was hallowed king at 
 Westminster. 
 
 Although Humphrey de Bohun continued for some time 
 after the accession of Henry the Second to act as a royal 
 dapifer, it does not appear that the hereditary grant of the 
 empress was ever confirmed by her son, in spite of the fact 
 that he had joined with her in making the grant. On the 
 other hand, the Bigod claim to the dapifership was expressly 
 recognised by Henry in his charter creating Hugh Bigod 
 earl of Norfolk : " Et dapiferatum suum ei ita libere et 
 quiete concede habendum sicut Rogerus pater suus melius 
 vel liberius habuit tempore regis Henrici avi mei. . . ,' J1 It 
 will be noticed that the earl of Leicester's office is described 
 as dapiferatum Anglie et Normannie, the earl of Norfolk's 
 office as simply dapiferatum suum, but this difference of lan- 
 guage does not import any difference whatever in the offices 
 conferred. 
 
 It does not appear that Henry the Second expressly 
 granted an hereditary dapifership to any other person, and 
 indeed the earls of Leicester and Norfolk were almost cer- 
 tainly at the very outset placed on a totally different footing 
 to the other dapifers. In the case of the ordinary dapifers, 
 the office still shows a tendency in one or two isolated in- 
 stances to descend from father to son ; but, in opposition 
 to this tendency, the practice of appointing dapifers to act 
 during pleasure comes into vogue, and after Henry the 
 Second's time no trace of any other practice is observable. 
 
 The following persons, amongst others, acted from time to 
 time as dapifers to Henry : Hugh Bardolf, 2 Manasser Biset, 3 
 
 1 See Appendix. An hereditary dapifership was about the same 
 time established in Scotland. See Appendix. 
 
 2 Monasticon Anglicanum, v, 565, 662 ; vi, 2, 1097 ; Cart. Antiq. 
 P., DD. ; Wombridge Chart, no. 423; Madox, Formulate, no. ccclvii; 
 France Cal. R.O., no. 949 ; Ramsey Chart., Rolls Series, i, 123 ; see 
 Stapleton Rot. Scacc. Norm., i, p. 116; Charter Roll Cal., vol. ii, 
 p. 96, etc. 
 
 3 Rymer, Foedera R.C., i, 42; Monasticon Anglicanum, iv, in, 
 539; v, 101, 479; vi, 116, 639, 1296; Cart. Antiq. K., no. 4, D., 
 no. 42, S., no. 23, T., P., X, L, Q, V, DD, EE, FF, OO ; France 
 Cal. R.O., nos. 15, 129, 480, 525, 685, 748, 882, 1067; etc.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 41 
 
 Henry Biset, 1 Humphrey de Bohun, 2 Robert de Courci(?), 3 
 William de Courci, 4 William Fitz-Aldelm, 6 William Fitz- 
 John, 6 Gilbert Fitz-Reinfrid, 7 Henry de Hereford, 8 Gilbert 
 Malet, 9 William Malet, 10 Hugh de Morewich, 11 Robert de 
 Neufbourg(P), 12 William Ruffus, 13 Aluredde St. Martin, 14 Robert 
 de Watteville. 15 The general position of these officers with 
 regard to the other members of the household is now be- 
 coming more clearly defined : so far, that is to say, as the 
 chancellor, constables, dapifers, chamberlains, and butlers are 
 
 1 Cart. Antiq. S.S., no. 12. 
 
 2 Rymer, Foedera, R.C., p. 41 ; Monasticon Anglicanum, v., 385 ; 
 vi, 157, 1296; Cart. Antiq., Q., V.j etc. 
 
 3 Probably Robert de Courci never acted as dapifer after Henry's 
 accession: he was killed at Counsylth in 1157 when William Courci 
 appears to have succeeded to his dapifership. 
 
 4 Hist. Abingdon, ii, 223; Monasticon Anglicanum, v, 363; vi, 
 818; Cart. Antiq. M., P., no. 10; Rymer, Foedera R.C., i, 30; 
 France Cal. R.O., nos. 24, 173, 302, 482, 530, 551, 685, 754, 867; 
 Benedict of Peterborough, Rolls Series 49, i, p. 99 ; Antiq. of 
 Shropshire, viii, 153-4; William de Courci was also sometime 
 justiciar of Normandy, but apparently never the chief justiciar : see 
 post, p. 49. 
 
 5 Monasticon Anglicanum, ii, 228; iii, 314; iv, 325; v, 73, 363; 
 vi, 374; Rymer, Foedera, R.C., i, 30, 36; Godstow Chartulary fol. 
 165; Madox, Formulare, p. 48; Memorials of Fountains Abbey, 
 p. 8; France Cal. R.O., nos. 419, 756, 757; see Diet. Nat. Biog., 
 xix, p. 103. 
 
 6 Cart. Eccl. Baioc., no. 46. 
 
 7 Monasticon Anglicanum, vi, 920 ; see Hist, de G. le Marechal, 
 iii, 119. 
 
 8 Gloucester Chartulary, ii, 106. 
 
 9 Rymer, Foedera R.C., i, 30; Monasticon Anglicanum, ii, 228; 
 iv, 85 ; Cart. Antiq. F., T., P.; France Cal. R.O., nos. 551, 754, 867. 
 
 10 Madox, Formulare, no. Ixxviii ; Duchy of Lane., Grant to 
 Eustace Cade ; Cart. Antiq. T. dors. ; Camden Soc., Chron. de 
 Brakelond, p. 120; Monasticon Anglicanum, vi, 644; France Cal. 
 R.O., nos. 344, 861, 1163, 1216. 
 
 11 Monasticon Anglicanum, v, 564, 662; vi, 2, 612; Madox, 
 Formulare, no. ccclvii ; Cart. Antiq. P., DD. ; Womb ridge Chartulary, 
 no. 423; France Cal. R.O., nos. 191, 554; see also Stapleton, Rot. 
 Scacc. Norm., i, p. 116; Charter Roll Cal., vol. ii, p. 96. 
 
 12 See below. 
 
 13 Rymer, Foedera R.C., i, 40. 
 
 14 Rymer, Foedera R.C., i, 30 ; Benedict of Peterborough, Rolls 
 Series, 49, i, p. 99. 15 Gloucester Chartulary, ii, 106.
 
 42 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 concerned, these persons normally take precedence in the 
 order given. 1 
 
 The position of the earls of Leicester and Norfolk calls 
 for special attention. They never attest charters as dapifers. 
 Legally speaking they appear to have been grand Serjeants, 
 liable, apart from custom, to be summoned at any time to act 
 as dapifers. In practice they were only summoned, if at all, 
 for high festivals. For example at the end of the year 1186, 
 when the king kept Christmas in state at Guildford, we find 
 both the hereditary dapifers and William earl of Arundel, 
 hereditary butler, called upon to discharge the duties of their 
 respective offices. 2 The principle was a simple one. The 
 regular members of Henry's household were in almost every 
 case men of secondary rank, the best that could be desired 
 or obtained for ordinary occasions. For special state func- 
 
 1 The order is by no means invariable : the dapifer frequently 
 attests after the chamberlain : e.g. Cart. Antiq. K., no. 4; Monasti- 
 con Anglicanum, v, 479 ; vi, 639, Charter Roll Cal., vol. ii, p. 132. 
 Still on the whole I incline to the opinion that the dapifership was 
 at this time regarded as the more important of the two. 
 
 The above list of dapifers might possibly be somewhat amplified. 
 The name of Oger dapifer, for example, figures very frequently on 
 the Pipe Rolls ; but so far as I am aware the only charters he 
 attests as dapifer are those of Richard de Luci the justiciar, and 
 therefore Oger's real position remains conjectural. In the Pipe 
 Roll for 1 174-5 (Pipe Roll Soc., vol. xxii) Oger dapifer is mentioned, 
 pp. 113, 115; a Thomas dapifer occurs p. 69; and the names of 
 William fitz Aldelm dapifer and Gilbert Malet dapifer also appear ; 
 see pp. 190, 191 and 213; and 210. See also Ey ton's Itinerary of 
 Henry II passim. 
 
 2 Anno MCLXXXVII, qui est annus tricesimus tertius regni 
 Henrici regis Secundi, idem rex Henricus filius Matildis impera- 
 tricis, tenuit sollemne festum die Nativitatis Dominicae, quae 
 quinta feria evenit, in Anglia apud Gedefordam. Cui interfuit 
 Johannes filius ejus et Johannes Cumyn archiepiscopus Divelinensis, 
 Gaufridus Eliensis episcopus, David frater regis Scotiae comes de 
 Huntedona, Robertus comes de Leycestria, Willelmus comes de 
 Arundel, Rogerus Bigot comes. In illo vero festo predicti comites 
 de Leicestria et de Harundel et Rogerus Bigot servierunt ad mensam 
 regis de servitio quod ad illos pertinebat in coronationibus et 
 sollemnibus festis regum Angliae. (Benedict of Peterborough, 
 Rolls Series 49, ii, p. 3.) These honorary services appear, not 
 infrequently even at this time, to have been the subject of disputes. 
 See Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium (Camden Soc.), pp. 231-5.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 43 
 
 tions something more was wanted to give pomp and lustre to 
 the king's court, and accordingly the great magnates of the 
 realm were ordered for the nonce to take the places of the 
 ordinary household officers. 
 
 We have here no new custom due to the ingenuity of 
 Henry the Second, but a custom already in vogue on the 
 continent 1 Honorary services, once inaugurated, became 
 extraordinarily popular. The great charm of the English 
 coronation ceremonies lay in the fact that, for this one 
 occasion, the chief families in the realm were summoned to 
 attend in splendid apparel and perform various domestic and 
 other services for their king : carry his regalia, fetch him 
 water to wash, bring him a towel, offer him wine, distribute 
 his alms, defy his enemies and so forth. It would perhaps 
 be untrue to say that Henry the Second was the first to 
 introduce this fashion into England, but he undoubtedly 
 assisted in establishing it. 
 
 The general principle was obviously incapable of being 
 systematically elaborated in this country. Honorary dapifers, 
 chamberlains, and butlers were all very well; but an hereditary 
 high constable, for example, with duties confined to state 
 pageants was at that time an impossible official. 
 
 It is important to consider who were the chief officers of 
 state in England and Normandy during the reign of Henry 
 the Second. 
 
 The king remained in England after his coronation until 
 January, 1155-6. During most of this period Arnulf bishop 
 of Lisieux and Robert de Neufbourg were acting as justiciars 
 of Normandy : both ministers, however, appear to have been 
 
 1 e.g. Flanders 25th December, 1171. Iste quidem novus comes 
 sollempnitatem natalis Domini primo in Valencenis cum Marghareta 
 uxore sua in gaudio celebravit, in qua curia fuerunt milites 500, 
 ubi Egidius sepedictus de sancto Oberto, vir magne probitatis 
 magnique nominis ubicumque terrarum, dapes tanquam summus 
 Hanoniensis dapifer amministravit, et cum eo milites et servientes 
 qui in officio illo jus hereditarium habebant. Arnulphus vero vir 
 nobilis de Landast, qui mortuo Egidio de Aunoit summo Hanonie 
 pincerna, uxorem illius duxerat, vinum tanquam summus pincerna 
 propinavit, et cum eo milites et servientes qui in officio illo jus 
 hereditarium habebant. (Gislebert de Mons, Chronicon Hanoniense 
 (ed. 1904), p. 107 ; see also ibid., p. 116 (25th December, 1174).)
 
 44 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 present at Henry's coronation, and were possibly absent from 
 Normandy for some weeks. 1 During this interval it is probable 
 that the empress mother was entrusted with the administra- 
 tion of the duchy. 2 Meanwhile Robert earl of Leicester was 
 appointed chief justiciar of England 3 ; and, on Henry's return 
 to France, this earl and Richard de Luci were charged with 
 the government of the kingdom. The king's choice proved 
 
 1 Robert of Torigni, Rolls Series 82, iv, app. p. 333, no. 9. Eodem 
 anno abbas Robertas dirationavit sedem unius molendini in Con- 
 stantino pago in villa que dicitur Sancte Marie Ecclesia, per duellum 
 contra Ricardum episcopum Constanciensem. . . . Et hoc fuit 
 factum in assisa apud Karentun, in presentia Arnulfi episcopi 
 Lexoviensis et Roberti de Novo Burgo, qui tune erant magistri 
 justicie totius Normannie. Testes Robertus de Novo Burgo, 
 Willelmus de Vernone, Willelmus de Verdun, Johannes de Gabreio, 
 Robertus prefectus de Fulchereville, Ricardus de Halvilla. (The 
 date appears from the context to be 1155.) 
 
 Ibid. no. 10. Eodem anno cum Robertus abbas vellet tenere 
 unum duellum de honore Sancti Paterni apud Montem Sancti 
 Michaelis, et Guillelmus de Sancto Johanne prohiberet ne bellum 
 de honore Sancti Paterni duceretur extra ipsum honorem, idem 
 abbas in assisa apud Danfrontem ostendit hoc verbum Arnulfo 
 episcopo Lexoviensi et Roberto de Novo Burgo qui erant justicie 
 regis, et consideratione curie regis adjudicatum est quod. . . . 
 Testes Robertus de Novo Burgo, Hasculfus de Folligneio, Gisle- 
 bertus de Campellis et alii multi. (See France Cal. R.O., no. 734.) 
 
 Cart. Eccles. Baioc., no. 10. Writ of facias habere : Henricus 
 rex. . . . Willelmo Patricii salutem. Precipio. . . . Et nisi feceris 
 precipio quod justicia mea faciat ei habere. . . . Teste Ernulfo 
 episcopo Lexoviensi, apud Baiocas. 
 
 2 See France Cal. R.O., no. 131. Writ of Henry II addressed to 
 his justices and bailiffs of Normandy and John count of Eu and 
 earl Walter Giffard directing seizin of certain lands to be given to 
 the church of Fecamp and unless this is done his lady and mother 
 the empress will cause it to be done. 
 
 3 See Cart. Antiq. W., where the earl of Leicester is referred to 
 as " tune temporis capitali justicia mea totius Anglic." The Dialogus 
 de Scaccario furnishes valuable evidence of his powers and functions. 
 For a biography of this earl with a list of authorities see Diet, of 
 Nat. Biog., s.v. Beaumont. 
 
 This combination of the offices of hereditary dapifer and chief 
 justiciar is particularly worthy of note. The same combination 
 occurs in Scotland. See Monasticon Anglicanum, vi, 1154 : Charter 
 of Alexander dated 3rd February, anno regni 1 7 apud Clacmannan. 
 Tested by " Waltero filio Alani seneschallo et justiciario Scotiae."
 
 THE DAPIFERS 45 
 
 an excellent one in every respect. Both men were extremely 
 able, unswervingly loyal, and during their joint lives no 
 change was made either in the justiciarship or in the occasional 
 regency of England. For the time being, therefore, we may 
 confine our attention to affairs in Normandy. 
 
 At the end of the year 1155 the bishop of Lisieux was 
 despatched on a mission to Rome, and during the greater 
 part of the next four years Robert de Neufbourg probably 
 acted as chief justiciar. 1 This Robert was the son of Henry 
 earl of Warwick and first cousin to the same Robert earl of 
 Leicester whom I have ventured to accuse of an attempt to 
 
 1 Cart. Eccles. Baioc., no. 27 ; and France Cal. R.O., no. 1443 
 (October 1156); writ of facias recognosci : Henricus rex . . . 
 Willelmo filio Johannis salutem. Precipio tibi quod facias recog- 
 nosci . . . Et nisi feceris, Robertus de Novo Burgo faciat. Teste 
 Toma cancellario apud Lemovicas. 
 
 Cart. Eccles. Baioc., no. 35 (April 1157) : writ of faciatis habere : 
 Henricus rex . . . Willelmo filio Johannis . . . Precipio vobis 
 quod faciatis habere Philippo episcopo Baiocensi . . . sicut recog- 
 nitum fuit precepto meo coram Roberto de Novo Burgo et Willi- 
 elmo filio Johannis et Godardo de Vallibus et Petro de Lacon et 
 Etardo Pulcino per sacramenta . . . et nisi feceritis justicia mea 
 faciat fieri. Teste Roberto de Novo Burgo apud Barbifluctum in 
 transfretatione regis. 
 
 Compare the above with the following English writs : 
 
 Rievaulx Chartulary, Surtees Soc., 83, p. 148 ; writ of Henry II 
 addressed to the sheriff and officers of Yorkshire : . . . Precipio 
 quod . . . faciatis recognosci . . . et nisi feceritis comes Legre- 
 cestrie faciat. 
 
 Regist. Malmesbury, Rolls Series 72, p. 335 : Regina Angliae 
 . . . militibus qui tenent de feodo ecclesiae de Malmesburia salu- 
 tem. Precipio vobis quod faciatis abbati de Malmesburia servicium 
 de feodis vestris integre et plenarie sicut recognitum fuit ante regem 
 et ante justiciaries apud Wygorniam. Teste Roberto comite 
 Leicestrie apud Wygorniam. 
 
 As to the official style of Robert de Neufbourg see further the 
 following : 
 
 Cart. Eccles. Baioc., no. 36: writ of facias recognosci : Henricus 
 rex . . . Willelmo filio Johannis salutem. Precipio tibi quod . . . 
 et facias recognosci quomodo . . . quod nisi feceris justicia mea 
 Normannica faciat fieri. Teste Roberto de Novoburgo apud Mire- 
 bellum in obsidione. 
 
 Cart. Eccles. Baioc., no. 12: Henricus rex . . . Etardo Pulet 
 salutem. Precipio quod episcopus Baiocensis teneat in pace . . .
 
 46 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 exploit the dapifership in England. The case against the 
 earl is, in my opinion, a strong one. The case against his 
 cousin of making a similar attempt in Normandy is incontest- 
 able. The following are some of the styles assumed by 
 Robert de Neufbourg: dapifer et justicia totius Normannie ; 
 dapifer ; and dapifer Normannie ; and, on one occasion at 
 least, he appears on a copy of the record of a judgment of 
 assize with a quasi-regal precedence by attesting in front of 
 three bishops. 1 
 
 No doubt count Geoffrey had done something to pave the 
 way for a conversion of the Norman justiciar into the French 
 
 quod nisi feceris justicia mea Normannica facial fieri. Teste 
 Roberto de Novoburgo apud Mirebellum in obsidione. 
 
 See also Cart. Eccles. Baioc., no. 32 ; and France Cal. R.O., no. 
 1445 : writ of faciatis tenere ; but correct "coram nobis et coram 
 Roberto de Curceio" by substituting "vobis" for "nobis"; and 
 compare with nos. 43 and 44. See finally France Cal. R.O., no. 
 454 : writ of Henry II confirming the decision of Robert de Neuf- 
 bourg in the king's court, circa 1156-9. 
 
 Note the writ referred to by Eyton at p. 25 of his Itinerary of 
 Henry II, from which it might be inferred that William de Vernon 
 was chief justiciar of Normandy in 1157. This is due to an error 
 in D'Anisy's Normandy Transcripts, ii, p. 180 : compare France Cal. 
 R.O., no. 882. 
 
 1 Robert of Torigni, Rolls Series 82, iv app., p. 339, no. 35 : 
 Eodem anno in assisa apud Cadomum . . . diffinitum in plenaria 
 curia regis, utpote in assisa ubi erant barones iiij comitatuum 
 Baiocasini, Constantini, Oximini, Abricatini, quod. . . . Hocjudicium 
 approbaverunt et confirmaverunt Robertus de Novo Burgo dapifer 
 et justicia totius Normannie, Philippus episcopus Baiocensis, Arnul- 
 fus Lexoviensis, Ricardus Constanciensis, Willelmus Talevat comes 
 Ponthivi, Ingergerius de Bohun . . . et alii multi. And see France 
 Cal. R.O., no. 824 (circa 1157). 
 
 Compare Robert of Torigni, app. p. 337, where Robert de Neuf- 
 bourg is made to attest before the bishop of Bayeux. 
 
 Ibid., no. 34 : Eodem anno rex Anglorum Henricus apud Cado- 
 mum pro pace monachorum fecit recognoscere per jusjurandum 
 legalium hominum utrum . . . an. . . . Et sicut juratum fuerat 
 preceptum est. Testes Robertus de Novo Burgo dapifer, Willelmus 
 filius Johannis, Robertus filius Bernardi prepositus Cadomi . . . 
 And see France Cal. R.O., no. 734. 
 
 The abbey of Mont S. Michel is a suspicious source : so too is 
 the abbey of Preaux. See Cartulaire de Pre"aux, fol. 39, no. 78, 
 where Robert de Neufbourg describes himself as dapifer of Nor- 
 mandy in connection with a quit-claim in the king's court : In
 
 THE DAPIFERS 47 
 
 and Angevin dapifer, and it would seem that Henry himself 
 was not unwilling to foster some connection between these 
 offices whenever it suited his plans. But there is no evidence 
 that the king approved or in any way recognised the styles 
 assumed by Robert de Neufbourg. 1 
 
 During some portion of the period under discussion this 
 man must have been more or less superseded in the govern- 
 ment of Normandy, for we find Philip bishop of Bayeux 
 presiding over the king's court. 2 In 1159 Robert de Neuf- 
 
 curia regis cum ego Robertas de Novo Burgo dapifer essem Nor- 
 mannie . . . et quoniam hoc ante meam presentiam in regis curia 
 et ante regis barones factum est sigilli mei munimento confirmo 
 (France Cal. R.O., no. 341 ; Brunner, Die Entstehung der Schwur- 
 gerichte, s. 148). But there are other instances. See France 
 Cal. R.O., no. 824 (Savigny), Charter of Henry II (circa 1157) 
 original not preserved. Testibus [inter alios] Roberto de Novo 
 Burgo tune dapifero Normannie. Also ibid., no 1254 (Vendomes 
 et Chartres), an entry in which Robert is styled " seneschal of 
 Normandy." Also Analyse d'un ancien Cartulaire de 1'Abbaye de 
 St. Etienne de Caen, p. 18 Carta Rogeri (sic) De Novo-Burgo 
 dapiferi totius Normanniae data in plena assisia apud Abrincas in 
 qua recognitum fuit quod homines abbati Cadomi de manerio de 
 Vei quitanciam suam habent de omnibus rebus venditis et emptis in 
 Abrincis excepto die mercati. Ibid., p. 42. Carta Roberti de 
 Novo-Burgo dapiferi totius Normannie . . . circa litem inter 
 Willelmum abbatem et Anselmum de Caburgo. . . . This is a 
 seventeenth-century analysis or transcript ; the original cartulary is 
 lost. See also a Confirmation Charter of Richard I, R.O. Tran- 
 scripts, 140 B, vol. i, p. 183 : Concedimus et confirmavimus quod 
 portus Dive proprius est Sancti Stephani (totive) cum omnibus 
 consuetudinibus venientium et recedentium per mare quod per 
 juramentum recognitum fuit coram Roberto de Novo-Burgo senes- 
 callo Normannie. . . . 
 
 1 The words " tune dapifero Normannie " in the Savigny chartu- 
 lary, cited above, must be regarded as unofficial embellishment. I 
 have found no royal charter or writ in which Robert de Neufbourg 
 is referred to as dapifer Normannie, nor any original royal charter 
 attested by him as such. The existing evidence points almost con- 
 clusively to two things : (i) that the official style of the king's chief 
 minister in Normandy .was still "justiciar"; (2) indications of an 
 unauthorised or at least unofficial change of style, in the case of 
 Robert de Neufbourg, from justiciar to dapifer. 
 
 2 France Cal. R.O., no. 132 : Charter of Henry II confirming to 
 Henry abbot of Fecamp and the abbey the port of Fecamp, to 
 which they proved their right in the king's court before Philip 
 bishop of Bayeux and Robert de Neufbourg at Rouen. Such
 
 48 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 bourg's health failed, he became a monk at Bee, and prepared 
 with all haste for heaven by distributing his then useless 
 possessions among the poor and the churches. He probably 
 died the same year. The chroniclers, in relating his death, 
 describe him in various ways : one calls him dapifer etjusticia 
 totius Normannie^ ; by another he is named totius Normannie 
 vicecomes aut vicedominus, id est dapifer? 
 
 Rotroc bishop of Evreux succeeded his brother Robert as 
 chief justiciar, Reginald de St. Valery being associated with 
 him. 3 The bishop remained in office till 1164, and probably 
 
 evidence, however, by itself is inconclusive. (Compare Register of 
 Osmund, Rolls Series 78, i, p. 207 : Charter of Henry II (A.D. 
 1155-62): Henricus rex . . . Sciatis me concessisse . . . ecclesiam 
 de Godelming cum terris et decimis ejusdem ecclesiae adjacentibus, 
 videlicet . . . et illas quas tenuit in Godelming, Tywesleia et 
 Hendena quas Rogerus archidiaconus Wiltesir. dirationavit apud 
 Norhamton in curia mea coram Roberto episcopo Lincoln iensi et 
 Roberto comite Leycestrie justiciario meo ecclesiae de Godelming 
 adjacere. . . . Testibus Roberto Exoniensi episcopo et Thoma 
 cancellario, Roberto comite Leycestrie, apud Gloucestriam.) See 
 also Analyse d'un ancien Cartulaire de S. Etienne de Caen, p. 43 : 
 Carta Henrici regis Angliae et ducis Normanniae et Aquitaniae et 
 comitis Andegavensis qua concedit concordiam quae facta fuit coram 
 se inter abbatem de Cadomo et Jordanum de Veeris et Heldefeudem 
 uxorem ejus de feodis Robert! de Villeio et Radulfi de Hotot. 
 Testes Philippus Bajocensis, Robertus de Novo Burgo, Jordanus 
 Taisso, Engelgerius de Bohon, Ricardus de Haia, Godardus de 
 Vallibus. Also R.O. Transcripts, 140 B., vol. iii, p. 24, Writ of teneat 
 in pace : . . . et nisi feceritis justicia mea fecerit. Teste Philippe 
 episcopo Baioc. Apud Argentonium. 
 
 1 Robert of Torigni, Rolls Series 82, iv, p. 203 : Mense Julio 
 Robertus de Novoburgo, dapifer et justicia totius Normanniae, 
 adversa valetudine tactus, gibbum cameli deposuit, videlicet in- 
 numeras divitias ecclesiis et monasteriis et pauperibus dividens. . . . 
 
 2 See three extracts printed in the Genealogist N.S., vol. x, p. 13. 
 Compare Neustria Pia, p. 479: Robertus de Novoburgo vicecomes 
 totius Normannie. 
 
 3 Mem. de la Soc. des Antiquaires de Normandie, xv, p. 1970. 
 Assise at Bayeux circa 1160: Rotroldus episcopus Ebroicensis et 
 R. de Sancto Walerico omnibus ballivis Henrici regis totius Nor- 
 mannie salutem. Sciatis quod recognitum fuit ante nos in assisia 
 apud Baiocas quod terra quam tenuit Ivo Boz in Crisetot et terra 
 quam tenuit Ricardus filius Hervei in Crisetot . . . sunt de feodo 
 Sancti Stephani de Cadomo. See ibid., vol. 7, p. 275 : Rotroc 
 bishop of Evreux and R. de St. Valery give judgment in the assises
 
 THE DAPIFERS 49 
 
 continued to act for a short period after his translation to 
 Rouen. 1 He apparently was succeeded by Henry bishop of 
 Bayeux and William Fitz-John (dapifer), 2 these in their turn 
 being succeeded by William de St. John as chief justiciar 
 
 of Henry II at Bayeux. France Cal. R.O., no. 641 : Charter of 
 Henry II referring to judgment before Rotroc bishop of Evreux 
 then his justice for all Normandy. Robert of Torigni, Rolls Series 
 82, iv, p. 217: Rotrocus episcopus Ebroicensis et Rainaldus de 
 Sancto Walerio fecerunt in Normannia recognoscere jussu regis per 
 episcopatus legales redditus et consuetudines ad regem et ad barones 
 pertinentes (circa 1163). Bouquet H.F., vol xvi, p. 66, prints two 
 official letters of Reginald de St. Valery to Louis of France. See 
 also ibid., p. in; and Duchesne H.F. Script, iv, pp. 633, 635: 
 letters of Hugh bishop of Soissons to Louis : . . . colloquium 
 habuimus cum episcopo Ebroicense et aliis Normannis, et cepimus 
 cum eis diem in quo debemus obsides recredere [etc.] : . . . Con- 
 venimus ad diem nominatum episcopus Belvacensis et comes 
 Bellimontis, ... ex parte vestra. Ex altera parte fuerunt episcopus 
 Ebroicensis, R. de Sancto Walerico, . . . et multi alii. Proposuimus 
 eis responsum vestrum, sicut vestri barones dederant vobis in 
 consilio. . . . France Cal. R.O., no. 491 : writ of Henry II dated at 
 Worcester and addressed to Rotroc bishop of Evreux and Reginald 
 de St. Valery. See also ibid., nos. 133, 134, and 340. Cart. Eccles. 
 Baioc. no. 9 : writ of Henry II : Henricus rex . . . Ectardo Pochin 
 salutem. Precipio tibi quod facias habere et tenere Philippo Baio- 
 censi episcopo banlevam suam de Cambremer . . . et nisi feceris 
 justicia mea faciat. Teste Rotrodo Ebroicensi episcopo. Charter 
 of Henry II in the Pancarta of St. Stephen's Caen (cited by Delisle, 
 Bibl. de 1'Ecole des Chartes, Ser. ii, t. 5, p. 267, n. 4) : Testibus 
 Rothrodo Ebroicensi episcopo justicia Normannie. . . . However, 
 in a Confirmation Charter of Richard I, R.O. Transcripts 140 B., 
 vol. i, p. 183, we find: Recognitum fuit coram Rothrodo Ebroicensi 
 episcopo dapifero Normannie. 
 
 1 France Cal. R.O., no. 910: writ of Henry II addressed to the 
 bishop of Coutances . . . the archbishop of Rouen is to see to it 
 if the bishop does not, Teste Arnulfo episcopo Lexoviensi apud 
 Sanctum Laudum. 
 
 2 Cart. Eccles. Baioc., no. 46 : report of a judicial recognition : 
 Notum sit omnibus tarn presentibus quam futuris quod precepto 
 Henrici regis Anglic recognita fuit consuetudo de Isigneio et de 
 Nuilleio coram Henrico episcopo Baiocensi et Guillelmo filio Johannis 
 dapifero per juramentum. . . . 
 
 R.O. Transcripts 140 B., vol. iii, p. 22 : . . . Sciatis quod ego 
 Radulfus de Hamard coram Henrico Baioc. episcopo et Willelmo 
 filio Radulfi [?] et coram baronibus sedentibus ad scaccarium 
 concessi. .
 
 So ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 and William de Courci (dapifer), 1 the latter remaining in office 
 until his death in 1176. Robert de Neufbourg's attempt 
 to convert the governor of Normandy into a dapifer seems 
 for the time being to have died with him : I can find no 
 further trace of any such movement. William de Courci, 
 although he was a quasi-hereditary dapifer, never so far as 
 I am aware styled himself dapifer Normannie : it appears to 
 have been well recognised in his case that the two posts he 
 held of justiciar in Normandy and dapifer regis had no con- 
 nection whatever with each other. 2 
 
 We must now turn for a moment to England. In 1168 
 Robert earl of Leicester, 3 hereditary dapifer of England and 
 
 1 Robert of Torigni, Rolls Series 82, iv, p. 253 (December 25th, 
 1171) : Et ut appareat multitude eorum qui interfuerunt cum Willel- 
 mus de Sancto Johanne Normanniae procurator et Willelmus filius 
 Hamonis senescallus Brittanniae qui. . . . 
 
 Procurator became the popular term for the vicegerent of Nor- 
 mandy. Compare Giles, Arnulfi Lexoviensis Epistolae, no. no : 
 Ad dominum papam Alexandrum ; and no. 117 : Ad Petrum 
 cardinalem. " Major procurator regis " is the phrase used in these 
 letters by the bishop of Lisieux when referring to William fitz 
 Ralph (q.v. infra). 
 
 France Cal. R.O., no. 456 : this refers to the " king's justiciars 
 William de St. John and William de Courcy." See also ibid., no. 406 : 
 Charter of Henry II granting exemption from shire courts, hundred 
 courts, aids, scutages, and carrying services, as enjoyed in the time 
 of Henry I, also prompt justice for infringement Testibus Willelmo 
 de Sancto Johanne et Willelmo de Curci dapifero apud Argentonum. 
 Hoveden, Rolls Series 51, ii, p. 100 (A.D. 1176) : Eodem anno obiit 
 Willelmus de Curci justiciarius Normanniae. . . . Benedict of 
 Peterborough, Rolls Series 49, i, p. 125 : Willelmus de Courci 
 justicia Normanniae obiit eodem anno. The Norman Pipe Roll 
 of A.D. u 80 refers three times to events de tempore Willelmi de 
 Curceio. 
 
 William de St. John was probably in office at least as early as 
 July 1 1 66 when he heads the list of witnesses to a Final Concord 
 between Rualend de Genest and the abbot of Mont S. Michel. 
 (See R.O. Transcripts 140 B., vol. ii, p. 290.) 
 
 2 Because, however, William de Courci was a dapifer it has been 
 commonly assumed that he and not St. John was the chief justiciar : 
 the assumption is erroneous. See also France Cal. R.O., no. 1218 
 (A.D. 1172-4), and note order of attestation ; and (contra) Benedict 
 of Peterborough, Rolls Series [49], i, 124, cited infra p. 52, n. 3. 
 
 3 The statement in Knighton that this earl de consensu Amiciae
 
 THE DAPIFERS 51 
 
 Normandy and chief justiciar of England, died, and his son 
 Robert Blanchemains succeeded to the earldom. If Henry 
 had ever entertained the idea of making the earls of Leicester, 
 in the capacity of dapifers, hereditary chief officers of state, 
 the advent of Robert the Third must have speedily convinced 
 him of his folly. The grandfather and father had been men 
 of exceptional ability and integrity. Robert the First, earl of 
 Mellent, was a capable warrior, and withal a great statesman, 
 " cold and crafty, the Achitophel of his time " ; men appealed 
 to him, it has been said, as to the oracle of God. His son 
 Robert the Second, earl of Leicester, was in every way his 
 equal if not his superior, and we have the contemporary 
 evidence of the Exchequer Dialogus to testify to his enormous 
 power and influence in England. " He must be a great 
 person," wrote Fitz-Nigel, "who is interested with the concerns 
 of the whole kingdom as also with the king's heart, for it is 
 written ' where your treasure is there shall your heart 
 be also."' 1 
 
 Robert the Third differed vastly from his aforesaid pre- 
 decessors alike in character and capacity. He had little skill 
 as a soldier, no statecraft whatever. He was witless enough 
 to turn traitor and bring over a body of Flemings to try 
 conclusions with the English levies. Had Henry not enter- 
 tained a deep affection for the justiciar, his son would quite 
 possibly have forfeited his life. As it was he received lenient 
 enough treatment : Henry kept him in gentle durance until 
 he had learnt discretion, and then pardoned him. As for the 
 justiciarship, it was entrusted to the sole care of Richard de 
 Luci, who, with the help of Humphrey de Bohun (son of the 
 dapifer) the king's principal constable, achieved very creditable 
 success in the administration and pacification of the country. 
 
 uxoris suae sumpsit in abbatia ista de Pratis Leycestriae habitum 
 nostrae religionis vivens juste et sancte quindecim annis et amplius 
 is a myth invented most probably on behalf of John of Gaunt 
 in the latter half of the fourteenth century. 
 
 1 The Dialogus de scaccario was completed in 1178 or 1179. See 
 Madox, Hist, of the Exchequer, Appendix ; Stubbs, Select Charters 
 (1895), 168-248; E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents, 
 20-134 (a translation).
 
 2 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Indeed it was these two who, "in the twinkle of an eye," 
 routed Robert Blanchemains' Flemings. 1 
 
 From this point the English justiciarship has scarcely any 
 bearing on the subject under consideration : it was never 
 again held by an hereditary dapifer. The case of Normandy 
 is different. 
 
 On the death of Courci in 1176 William de Malpalud 
 may have been appointed to succeed him : he was certainly 
 acting as a justiciar at about this time. 2 In the autumn, 
 however, of 1176 a new administration was formed in Nor- 
 mandy with Richard bishop of Winchester, chief justiciar, and 
 Simon de Tournebu, Robert Marmion, William de Glanville, 
 and others as assistant justices. 3 This can hardly have been 
 intended to be more than a temporary arrangement, and the 
 bishop was, in fact, recalled in 1 178:* He was the last justiciar 
 
 1 Benedict of Peterborough, Rolls Series 49, i, p. 62 : . . . per- 
 cusserunt aciem in qua comes Leicestriae erat. Et in momento, in 
 ictu oculi, victus est ille comes et captus, et uxor sua. . . . 
 
 We are told by Jordan Fantosme how the countess took part in 
 
 the battle. 
 
 v. 1006. Ore oiez, seignurs, baruns, de Deu la grant venjance 
 
 Qu'il fist descendre sur Flamens e sur la gent de France. 
 
 Li cuens de Leircestre fud de grand puissance ; 
 
 Mes trop fud de curage jofne e d'enfance 
 
 Quant il par Engleterre volt aler en oiance, 
 
 Fesant sa roberie senz aver desturbance, 
 
 E fait armer sa femme, porter escu e lance : 
 
 La sue grant fob'e prendrad dure neissance. 
 
 2 France Cal. R.O., no. 34. 
 
 3 See the Pipe Roll of 1176; and Eyton, Itinerary, p. 206. 
 France Cal. R.O., no. 517 (A.D. 1176): Actum est autem hoc 
 
 publice in aula regis in castello Cadomi coram judicibus regis ad 
 scaccarium sedentibus anno ab incarnatione Domini 1176. Super 
 hoc autem testes sunt dominus Ricardus Wintoniensis episcopus 
 qui tune tempore erat capitalis justicia. . . . 
 
 Ibid., no. 1446 : Notification by Richard bishop of Winchester, 
 Simon de Tournebu, Robert Marmion, and William de Glanville 
 that while they were in assise at Caen, etc. 
 
 Benedict of Peterborough, Rolls Series 49, i, p. 124 : Et misit in 
 Normanniam Ricardum Wintoniensem episcopum, et constituit eum 
 justitiam Normanniae loco Willelmi de Curci, et fecit saisiri in 
 manu sua omnia castella comitum et baronum suorum Normanniae. 
 
 4 His return is referred to in the Pipe Roll of that year.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 53 
 
 of Normandy. From this period, until the loss of the province 
 by John, Normandy was placed under the control of an 
 officer styling himself senescallus Normannie, with an organised 
 staff of justices and other officials under him. William Fitz- 
 Ralph was the first seneschal of Normandy : he remained in 
 office during the rest of Henry's reign, and during the whole 
 of the reign of Richard. 1 
 
 Uniformity was probably the object aimed at in effecting 
 this change in the style of the chief officer of Normandy. 
 Nearly all French provinces in which England was then, or 
 afterwards, interested, had by this time a seneschal as chief 
 officer of state the synonymous term dapifer was rapidly 
 becoming obsolete. Stephen of Tours was seneschal of 
 Anjou 2 : Ralph de Fougeres was seneschal of Brittany 3 : 
 Fulk of Mastac and William of Mengoti were seneschals 
 of Poitou 4 : Gascony had its seneschal 5 : in fact, throughout 
 France the chief dignitary of the vassal courts was almost 
 invariably the seneschal. Flanders had a seneschal 6 : the 
 chief officer of Champagne was styled dapifer till 1157, then 
 seneschal 7 : Burgundy had its seneschal under Hugh the 
 
 1 It is, invariably I believe, as senescallus Normannie that Fitz- 
 Ralph attests charters. In the Pipe Roll of 1180, however, the 
 chief officer is always styled justiciar ; except that, when Fitz- Ralph 
 is mentioned by name, he is styled William Fitz-Ralph Dap\ifer\. 
 The later rolls adopt the new diplomatic style. 
 
 William Fitz-Ralph died the 9th of June, 1200 (Bouquet, H.F., 
 xxiii, p. 463) : he was succeeded by Warin de Glapion, who held 
 office till May-June, 1202 : he was succeeded by Ralph Tesson, 
 who held office till July-August, 1203 : he finally was succeeded by 
 William Crassus. Philip Augustus after some hesitation suppressed 
 the office ; it was revived by Henry V, and retained after the final 
 reconquest of Normandy. It was again suppressed in 1499, DUt 
 Louis de Bresze and even Diane de Poitiers retained the title. 
 
 2 France Cal. R.O., nos. 1068, 1074, 1075, 1078, etc. 
 
 3 France Cal. R.O., no. 838; cf. Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. v, 
 p. 306 ; Glasson Instit., iv, p. 688, etc. 
 
 4 France Cal. R.O., nos. 1245, 1286, 1288. 
 
 5 Ibid., p. 450. 
 
 6 Hellin de Wavrin: see A. du Chesne, Hist. gen. de la maison 
 de Bethune. 
 
 7 Glasson Instit., iv, p. 543 ; D'Arbois de Jubainville, Hist, des 
 comtes de Champagne.
 
 54 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Second, two seneschals equal in rank. 1 The singularity 
 of Normandy in being so long governed by a justiciar was 
 the result of the conquest of England. Had William the 
 Bastard rested content with the dukedom of a French prov- 
 ince it can hardly be doubted that his dapifers would have 
 developed like the rest from menial servants into officers 
 of state, and there would have been seneschals of Normandy 
 long before the time of Fitz-Ralph : these too would have 
 been the official descendants of Stigand and Gerald instead 
 of having, in fact, a totally different parentage. 
 
 William Fitz-Ralph, as regards precedence, appears to have 
 ranked below the king's constables, William de Humez in- 
 cluded, throughout the reign of Henry ; but after Richard's 
 accession William de Humez assumed the style of constable 
 of Normandy and the seneschal then took precedence. 2 
 
 The history of the French dapifership during this period 
 may be very briefly told. Shortly after the death of the 
 count de Vermandois in 1152, Thibaud the Fifth, count of 
 Blois, was appointed to succeed him ; and, except for a short 
 vacancy caused by this count's treasonable relations with 
 Henry of England, the dapifership was held by Thibaud till 
 his death in 1191. During this period the popular, and 
 to some extent the official, term for the office is seneschal 
 instead of dapifer : it is only in the attestation of charters 
 that the latter style is always preserved. 
 
 So much for the French official dapifership ; but, as in 
 England under Henry the Second, so in France under Louis 
 the Seventh, an honorary dapifer or seneschal makes his 
 appearance. In 1169, at a state banquet in Paris, the young 
 Henry of England waited on the French king at table as 
 seneschal of France. 3 At the coronation of Philip Augustus, 
 the count of Blois was superseded for the occasion by Philip 
 
 1 See Plancher, Hist, de Bourgogne, ii, 253-83 ; Seignobos, 
 Le regime feodale en Bourgogne, c. vii. 
 
 2 The order in which Humez and Fitz-Ralph attest royal charters, 
 although there is no absolute uniformity, sufficiently justifies the 
 statement in the text. For such charters see Eyton, Itinerary of 
 Henry II, and France Cal. R.O. passim. 
 
 8 Robert of Torigni, Rolls Series [82], iv, p. 240 ; Hist. Comitum 
 Andegav., printed Chron. des Comtes d'Anjou, p. 346.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 55 
 
 count of Flanders : it was Philip who carried the sword at 
 the sacring of the king, and Philip who presented the dishes 
 at the great coronation feast. 1 The parallelism with England 
 is very striking. The Plantagenets claimed by ancient here- 
 ditary right. So did the Beaumonts. In neither case had 
 their immediate ancestors occupied the ordinary post of 
 dapifer, and they themselves were not claiming to do so. 
 Philip of Flanders, on the contrary, claimed in right of his 
 wife to succeed the count of Vermandois as hereditary dapifer 
 of France, but count Raoul was in every respect an ordinary 
 dapifer. The earl of Norfolk, except that he claimed by 
 direct descent, was in precisely the same position. Even the 
 subsequent disputes between the earls of Leicester and Nor- 
 folk 2 have their exact counterpart in the rival claims of the 
 countesses of Champagne and Flanders at the coronations of 
 Louis VIII and Louis IX. 3 If the Angevin claim had any 
 real foundation in antiquity, the idea at the root of it was 
 probably the same as that which prompted Henry to make 
 his own magnates officers of the household for special occa- 
 sions. At one time the dapifership in France had been as 
 insignificant a post as it was then in England, and the rank 
 of the holders no doubt corresponded. Even the Garlands 
 can only have held a secondary rank amongst the nobility of 
 France. In the front rank were the great provincial feuda- 
 tories, such as the counts and dukes of Flanders, Aquitaine, 
 Burgundy, Normandy, Toulouse, and Champagne, who sub- 
 sequently formed the six lay peers of the realm : to these 
 had to be allotted the chief parts in the religious pantomime 
 at Reims. 
 
 The seneschal of France, as a coronation official, survived 
 the accession of Louis the Ninth. Ultimately the constable 
 of France took his place. 4 
 
 1 See Appendix. 2 See post, chap. iii. 3 See Appendix. 
 
 4 Postmodum rex a solo archiepiscopo gladio cum vagina accingi- 
 tur. Quo accincto statim idem gladius de vagina ab archiepiscopo 
 extrahitur, vagina super altare reposita, et datur ei ab archiepiscopo 
 in manibus : quern debet rex humiliter afferre ad altare, et statim 
 resumere de manu episcopi : et incontinent! dare senescallo 
 Franciae ad portandum ante se et in ecclesia usque ad finem missae, 
 et post missam cum ad palatium vadit. (Coronation Order temp.
 
 56 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER II 
 
 CARTA M. IMPERATRICIS FACTA COM. GAUFREDO 
 ESSEXIAE DE PLURIBUS TERRIS ET LIBERTATIBUS 
 
 (A.D. 1142) 
 
 M. Imperatrix Henrici regis filia et Anglorum domina 
 archiepiscopis episcopis abbatibus comitibus baronibus justi- 
 ciariis vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis 
 et Anglis totius Anglic et Normannie salutem. Sciatis me 
 redidisse et concessisse comiti Gaufredo Essexe omnia tene- 
 menta sua sicut Gaufredus avus suus aut Willelmus pater 
 suus aut ipsemet postea unquam melius vel liberius tenuerit 
 aliquo tempore in feodo et hereditate sibi et heredibus suis 
 ad tenendum de me et de heredibus meis videlicet in terris et 
 turribus in castellis et bailliis et nominatim Turrim Lundonie 
 cum castello quod subtus est ad firmandum et efforciandum 
 ad voluntatem suam et vicecomitatum Lundonie et Middlesex. 
 per ccc libras sicut Gaufredus avus ejus tenuit et vicecomi- 
 tatum Essex, per ccc libras sicut idem Gaufredus avus ejus 
 tenuit et vicecomitatum de Heortfordscira per Ix libras sicut 
 avus ejus tenuit et preter hoc do et concedo eidem Gaufredo 
 quod habeat hereditabiliter justicia Lund[onie] et Middelsex. 
 et Essex, et de Hertfordscira ita quod nulla alia justicia 
 placitet in hiis supradictis vicecomitatibus nisi per eis et 
 concedo illi ut habeat illas c libratas terre quas dedi illi et 
 servicium illorum xx militum sicut illud ei dedi et per aliam 
 cartam meam confirmavi et illas cc libratas terre quas rex 
 Stephanus et Matildis regina ei dederunt et illas c libratas 
 terre de terris eschaetis quas idem rex et regina ei dederunt 
 et servicium militum quod ei dederunt sicut habet inde cartas 
 illorum. Et do ei totam terram que fuit Eudonis dapiferi in 
 Normannia et dapiferatum ipsius et hec reddo ei ut rectum 
 
 Louis VIII.) See Godefroy, Le Ceremonial Francais, t. i, pp. 13, 
 1 8. For a similar coronation order temp. Louis IX, see ibid., p. 28. 
 And see Varin, Archives Administratives de Reims, i, pt. 2, p. 529 n. ; 
 ii, pt. i, p. 57 in.; MS. Cotton. Tib. B., viii, Sacre des Rois de 
 France. See finally the appendix to this chapter.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 57 
 
 suum ut habeat et teneat hereditabiliter ita ne ponatur inde 
 in placitum versus aliquem. Et si dominus meus comes 
 Andegavie et ego voluerimus, comes Gaufredus accipiet pro 
 dominiis et terris quas habet eschaetis et pro servicio militum 
 quod habet totam terram que fuit Eudonis dapiferi in Anglia 
 sicut tenuit ea die qua fuit et vivus et mortuus quia hoc est 
 rectum suum ....... 
 
 Apud Oxineford. Sub magno sigillo dicte Matildis Im- 
 peratricis. 
 
 (Original missing; printed in full from a collation of 
 several existing transcripts by Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 
 pp. 166-72.) 
 
 GRANT TO HUMPHREY DE BOHUN 
 (A.D. 1144) 
 
 Duchy of Lancaster Royal Charters, No. 19. (Original, no seal) 
 
 M. Imperatrix Henrici regis filia et Anglorum domina Et 
 Henricus films comitis Andegavorum archiepiscopis episcopis 
 abbatibus comitibus baronibus justiciis vice-comitibus ministris 
 et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis totius Anglic 
 salutem. Sciatis nos redidisse et concessisse Unfrido de 
 Buhun totam terram suam unde fuit tenens die qua rex 
 Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus et dapiferatum suum in 
 Anglia et Normannia sine hoc quod non ponatur inde in 
 placitum sicut melius tenuit tempore Henrici regis. Et 
 preter hoc dedimus ei et concessimus pro servicio suo Mel- 
 chesiam cum appendiciis suis et burgum Malmesberie sine 
 fortitudine facienda ibidem et Boczam que fuit Gaufr. de ***** 
 et Stokes que fuit Everard. de Calna. Haec omnia supradicta 
 dedimus ei et concessimus tenenda in foeudo et hereditate 
 sibi et heredibus suis de nobis et de heredibus nostris. Et 
 pro hiis supradictis devenit homo noster ligius contra omnes 
 homines. Quare volumus et firmiter precipimus quod bene 
 et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et plenarie teneat 
 in forestis et fugaciis in bosco et piano in pratis et pasturis 
 in aquis et molendinis in viis et semitis in foris et feriis infra 
 burgum et extra in civitate et extra et in omnibus locis cum
 
 58 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 soca et saca et toll et team et infangenethef et cum omnibus 
 aliis consuetudinibus et libertatibus et quietudinibus. Testibus 
 Bernardo episcopo de sancto DD. et Gisleberto abbate Gloe- 
 cestrie et Roberto comite Gloecestrie et Rogero comite Here- 
 fordie et Radulpho Pagan[ello] et Gos[celino] de Doia et 
 Willelmo de Bellocampo et Willelmo de Doura conestabulario 
 et Unfrido filio Odonis, Roberto de Dunestanvilla et Willelmo 
 Paganello et Hugone filio Ricardi **** Apud [Devizes]. 
 
 (Printed Round, Ancient Charters, Pipe Roll Soc., x, p. 45. 
 Also Birch, Brit. Arch. Journ., xxxi, p. 398.) 
 
 GRANT TO ROBERT EARL OF LEICESTER 
 
 (A.D. 1153) 
 
 Transcipt. Antiq.; 1 MS. Cotton. Vesp. Dx,fol. 132 
 
 H. dux Normannie et Aquitanie et comes Andegavie omni- 
 bus archiepiscopis episcopis comitibus baronibus vicecomitibus 
 et fidelibus et amicis suis Normannie et Anglic salutem. 
 Sciatis me redidisse et concessisse in feodo et hereditate 
 Roberto comiti Leycestrie et heredibus suis totam terram 
 quam tenuit Robertus comes Mellent pater suus in Anglia 
 sicut ipse Robertus comes de Mellent earn melius et liberius 
 tenuit die qua fuit vivus et mortuus exceptis terris R. comitis 
 de Mellent de Sturmenstre et cum pertinentiis. Concessi 
 eciam ei omnia ilia que Henricus rex avus meus dedit illi. 
 Insuper reddidi et concessi ei Britolium cum toto honore et 
 cum omnibus pertinentiis sicut predictus (sic) Willelmus de 
 Britolio melius et liberius tenuit die qua fuit vivus et mortuus. 
 Preterea dedi et concessi in feodo et hereditate Pasci cum 
 toto honore et totam terram quam Willelmus de Pasci tenuit 
 in Anglia et in Normannia in feodo de me et de quococumque 
 (sic) earn tenuisset et dapiferatum Anglic et Normannie. 
 Quare volo et precipio quod predictus Robertus et heredes 
 sui omnia ista predicta de me et heredibus meis teneant ita 
 bene et libere et quiete et honorifice cum omnibus libertatibus 
 
 1 Late thirteenth century. This is one of a large collection of 
 charters, transcribed probably for the purposes of an action between 
 Edmund of Lancaster and the crown.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 59 
 
 et consuetudinibus liberis in terris in aquis in bosco in piano 
 in pratis in pascuis in viis in semitis et in omnibus aliis rebus 
 sicuti antecessores sui de antecessoribus meis unquam melius 
 tenuerunt. Concede eciam et confirmo concambium quod 
 idem Robertus comes Leycestrie et Rogerus comes Warrwici 
 fecerunt de terris et hominibus suis. Hiis testibus etc. 
 sine dat. 
 
 GRANT TO ROBERT, SON OF ROBERT EARL 
 OF LEICESTER 
 
 (A.D. 1153) 
 
 Original (sealed\ Trtsor des Ckartes, Conches et Breteuil, 
 No. i carton J. 219 
 
 Henricus dux Normannie et comes Andegavie omnibus 
 archiepiscopis episcopis comitibus baronibus vicecomitibus et 
 omnibus fidelibus et amicis suis Normannie et Anglic salutem. 
 Sciatis me redidisse et concessisse in feudo et hereditate 
 Rodberto filio comitis Legrecestrie et heredibus suis totam 
 terram Rodberti comitis patris sui de Anglia sicut comes 
 Rodbertus de Mellend avus suus die qua fuit vivus et mortuus 
 earn melius et liberius tenuit. Insuper reddidi ei et concessi 
 Britolium cum toto honore et cum omnibus pertinentiis sicut 
 Willelmus de Britolio melius et liberius et quietius tenuit die 
 qua fuit vivus et mortuus. Preterea dedi ei et concessi in 
 feudo et hereditate Pasci cum toto honore et totam terram 
 quam Willelmus de Pasci in Anglia et in Normannia tenuit 
 in feudo de me et de quocumque earn tenuisset et dapiferatum 
 Anglic et Normannie. Quare volo et precipio quod predictus 
 Rodbertus et heredes sui omnia ista predicta de me et de 
 heredibus meis teneant ita bene et libere et quiete et hono- 
 rifice cum omnibus libertatibus et consuetudinibus in terris in 
 aquis in bosco in piano in pratis in pascuis in viis in semitis 
 et in omnibus aliis rebus sicuti antecessores sui de ante- 
 cessoribus meis unquam melius tenuerunt. Testibus : Willelmo 
 comite Gloecestrie, R. comite Cornubie, R. de Humez, Philippo 
 de Columbere, R. de Dunstanvilla, Willelmo filio Johannis, 
 R. de Govitio, Waltero de Herefort, Guarino filio Geroldi,
 
 60 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Henrico suo fratre, Maneser Biseth dapifero, Willelmo filio 
 Hamundi et Willelmo Patricio, Willelmo de Crevecor, Willelmo 
 de Angervilla, Galfrido de Briencurd, Rogero de Gratepance, 
 Rodberto de Watervilla, Raginaldo de Bordineio, Gaufrido 
 abbate. Apud Bristou. 1 
 
 (Printed Delisle, Cartulaire Normand, no. 7 ; see also 
 Calendar R.O. France, no. 464; Genealogist, vol. x, p. 12.) 
 
 CONFIRMATION TO ROBERT EARL OF LEICESTER 
 
 (A.D. 1154-68) 
 Duchy of Lancaster, Miscellanea 1/35. Ancient Calendar of Charters 
 
 De Breteuil, Pascy et la seneschalcie Dengleterre. Item 
 Carta regis Henrici Secundi per quam reddidit et concessit 
 in feodo etc. Rodberto comiti Leyrecestrie et heredibus suis 
 totam terram quam Rodbertus comes de Mellent pater suus 
 tenuit in Anglia extra terra G. comitis de Mellent de Stur- 
 menistre et eis pertinentiis. Concessit eciam illi Roberto 
 omnia ilia que Henricus avus suus dedit illi. Insuper reddidit 
 et concessit Britollium cum toto honore et pertinentiis sicut 
 Willelmus de Britolio melius et liberius tenuit. Preterea 
 dedit ei et concessit in feudo et hereditate Pascy cum toto 
 honore et totam terram quam Willelmus de Pascy tenuit in 
 Anglia et in Normannia de rege et de quocumque alio earn 
 tenuisset et dapiferatum Anglic et Normannie etc. Concedens 
 eciam et confirmans concambium quod idem rex comes Ley- 
 recestrie et Rogerus comes Warewicie fecerunt de terra et 
 hominibus suis etc. 
 
 GRANT TO HUGH BIGOD 
 
 (A.D. II54-5) 
 Carta Antigua S. 13 
 
 Henricus rex Anglic et dux Normannie et Aquitanie et 
 comes Andegavie archiepiscopis episcopis abbatibus comitibus 
 justitiariis baronibus vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus fideli- 
 bus suis Francis et Anglis tocius Anglic et Normannie salutem. 
 
 1 Indorsed : H. dux Normannie et comes Andegavie reddit et 
 concedit filio comitis Legrecestrie certas terras hie contentas.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 61 
 
 Sciatis me fecisse Hugonem Bigot comitem de Norfolcia 
 scilicet de tercio denario de Nordwico et de Norfolcia et volo 
 et precipio quod ipse et heredes sui ita libere et quiete et 
 honorifice teneant de me et de meis heredibus sicut aliquis 
 comes Anglic melius vel liberius comitatum suum tenet. Et 
 dapiferatum suum ei ita libere et quiete concedo habendum 
 sicut Rogerus pater suus melius vel liberius habuit tempore 
 regis Henrici avi mei. Et sciatis me recognovisse rectum suum 
 de iiij maneriis scilicet de Evesham et de Walesham et de 
 Alvergate et de Aclay cum Berkariis et hec iiij maneria pre- 
 dicta cum omnibus pertinenciis suis ei reddidi dedi et concessi 
 sibi et heredibus suis de me et de heredibus meis tenenda 
 cum socha et sacha et thol et theam et ynfangenetheof et 
 dom et som et cum omnibus libertatibus et liberis consuetu- 
 dinibus et quietanciis predictis maneriis pertinentibus. [Et] 
 concedo ei omnia tenementa sua de cujuscumque feodo sint 
 que racionabiliter adquisivit. Quare volo et firmiter precipio 
 quod ipse et heredes sui habeant et teneant omnia predicta 
 in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice cum omnibus libertati- 
 bus et liberis consuetudinibus et quietanciis que ad predicta 
 tenementa pertinent in bosco et piano in pratis et pascuis in 
 aquis et molendinis in vivariis et piscariis et mariscis in viis 
 et semitis in warennis et fugacionibus infra burgum et extra 
 et in omnibus rebus et in omnibus locis. Testibus Teobaldo 
 Cant, archiepiscopo, Henrico Winton. episcopo,Philippo Baioc. 
 episcopo, Arnulfo Lexov. episcopo, Nigello Elyens. episcopo, 
 Toma cancellario, Reginaldo comite Cornubie, Henrico de 
 Essex. constabulario,Ricardode Humez constabulario,Ricardo 
 de Luci, Warino filio Geroldi camerario, Manesero Biset dapi- 
 fero, Willelmo filio Hamonis, Roberto de Dunstanvilla, Jos- 
 celino de Baillol. Apud Norh. 
 
 (Printed Rymer, Foedera, R.C., i, p. 42.) 
 
 CARTA HEREDITARII OFFICII SENESCALLATUS SCOTIE 
 ET DE DIVERSIS TERRIS 
 
 (24TH JUNE, A.D. 1158) 
 
 Malcolmus rex Scottorum episcopis abbatibus comitibus 
 baronibus justiciis vicecomitibus prepositis ministris cunctisque 
 aliis probis hominibus clericis et laicis Francis et Anglis
 
 62 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Scotis et Gallowidensibus totius terre sue tarn presentibus 
 quam futuris salutem. Notum sit vobis omnibus quod prius- 
 quam arma suscepi concessi et hac mea carta confirmavi 
 Waltero filio Alani dapifero meo et heredibus suis de feodo 
 et hereditate donationem quam rex David avus meus ei 
 dedit scilicet Renfrew et Passeleth et Polloc et Talahec et 
 Kerkert et le Drep et le Mutrene et Englisham et Lochinauche 
 et Innerwick cum omnibus istarum terrarum pertinentiis. Et 
 similiter ei hereditarie dedi et hac mea carta confirmavi 
 senescalliam meam tenendam sibi et heredibus suis de me et 
 heredibus meis liberaliter in feodo et hereditate ita bene et 
 ita plenarie sicut rex David ei Senescalliam suam melius et 
 plenarius dedit et concessit et sicut ipse earn melius et plenarius 
 ab eo tenuit. Preterea ego ipse eidem Waltero in feodo et 
 hereditate dedi et hac eadem carta confirmavi pro servitio 
 quod ipse regi David et mihi ipsi fecit Prethe quantum rex 
 David in manu sua tenuit et Inchenan et Steintum et Hales- 
 tonesden et Legardsuode et Birchinsyde. Et preterea in 
 unoquoque burgo meo et in unaquaque dominica gista mea 
 per totam terram meam unum plenarium toftum ad hospitia 
 sibi in eo facienda et cum unoquoque tofto viginti acras terre. 
 Quare volo et precipio ut idem Walterus et heredes ejus in 
 feodo et hereditate teneant de me et heredibus meis in capite 
 omnia prenominata tarn ilia que ipse habet ex donatione 
 regis David quam ilia que ex mea habet donatione cum 
 omnibus eorum pertinentiis et rectitudinibus et per rectas 
 divisas omnium prenominatarum terrarum libere et quiete 
 honorifice et in pace cum sacca et socca cum tol et them 
 et infangtheefe in villis in scallingis in campis in pratis in 
 pascuis in moris in aquis in molendinis in piscariis in forestis 
 in bosco et piano in viis in semitis sicut aliquis ex baronibus 
 meis liberius et quietius feudum suum de me tenet : Faciendo 
 mihi et heredibus meis de illo feudo servitium quinque 
 militum. Testibus Ernaldo episcopo sancti Andree, Herberto 
 episcopo de Glasgow, Johanne abbate de Kelkow, Willelmo 
 abbate de Melros, Waltero cancellario, Willelmo et David 
 fratribus regis, comite Gospatric, comite Duncano, Richardo 
 de Morevill, Gilberto de Umphramvill, Roberto de Bruis, 
 Radolpho de Soulis, Philipo de Colveill, Willelmo de Sumer-
 
 THE DAPIFERS 63 
 
 villa, Hugone Riddell, Davide Olifard, Valdero filio comitis 
 Gospatric, Willelmo de Morevill, Baldwino de la Mar, Liolfo 
 filio Maccus. A pud arcem de Roxburgh in festo Sancti 
 Johannis Baptiste anno regni nostri vto. 
 
 (Printed Acta Parliamentorum Scotiae, i, 92 ; Burgh of 
 Paisley, ed. Metcalfe, app. p. i.) 
 
 REFERENCES IN GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS TO THE 
 STEWARDSHIP OF FRANCE 
 
 Item comes Andegavie Gaufredus regina Alienora, quando 
 senescallus Franciae fuit, abusus fuerat ; . . . (Rolls Series 
 [21], viii, p. 300). 
 
 In primis itaque post patris obitum, Philippi Flandrensium 
 comitis praecipue fultus auxilio . . . proprios avunculos et 
 matrem reginam, ducem quoque Burgundiae cognatum suum, 
 totumque genus illud de Bleys, Flandrensibus infestum olim 
 et exosum, armis impetiit, in primis duci Burgundiae Alex- 
 andro, consanguineo suo, castella plurima, reginae Alae, matri 
 suae, dotalitium suum totum et propter nuptias donationem, 
 comiti Theobaldo Franciae totius seneschalliam aliisque 
 munitiones et terras amplas auferendo. 
 
 Cum autem comes Philippus, seneschallia Franciae, quam 
 ab uxoris parte de Viromannia oriundae adeptam, comiti 
 Theobaldo sub se quasi vicario jure concesserat, ad manum 
 revocata, jam seneschallus per se, immo plus quam rex occu- 
 pavit, ad cujus quippe nutum a rege cuncta fiebant, aliquandiu 
 fuerit; quoniam cor ante ruinam exaltari solet, comitissa 
 Flandriae, filia scilicet Radulfi comitis de Perrona, per quam 
 comitatui Flandriae Viromanniam viriliter adjecerat et dition- 
 em suam in Franciam procul extenderat, subito casu et ino- 
 pinato citra haeredis solatium in fata decessit. Quod audientes 
 avunculi regis et stirps Blessensis, idonea tarn talionis et 
 vindictae occasione captata, ad regem accesserunt, jus suum 
 in Viromannia eidem, extinctis haeredibus, aperientes et, ut 
 tantum honorem ad manus ejus de jure devolutum, Anglorum 
 regis Henrici fultus auxilio, ab injusto detentore revocaret 
 suoque dominico et mensae regali potenter adjiceret, per- 
 suadentes. Rex autem, quanquam aetate puer, mente maturior
 
 64 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 et consilio, gratiaque praecipue desuper adjutus, honoris sui 
 et emolumenti monita non respuens, Anglorum regem tan- 
 quam pro patre suscepit ejusque in hoc articulo se consiliis 
 ex toto submisit. Unde et ad ejus nutum in primis senes- 
 challiam iterum comiti Theobaldo, et matri suae reginae 
 dotalitium suum integre restituit (viii, pp. 228-9). 
 
 Haec etenim fuerat regis Henrici natura perversa, quod 
 summo opere discordias inter filios et suscitabat et fovebat, 
 solum sibi ex eorum discordia pacem sperans et quietem. 
 Comes itaque Gaufredus adeo Philippi regis procerumque 
 Franciae cunctorum sibi jam animos allexerat, ut unanimi 
 omnium voto seneschallus Franciae crearetur. Qui cum in 
 tanta jam potestate tantaque regis familiaritate constitutus 
 fuisset, adeo Francorum regem totamque Franciam com- 
 muniter in patrem suum et fratrem verbis persuasoriis, ut 
 erat eloquentissimus pariter et amantissimus, jam excitaverat, 
 ut inquietudinem tantam quantam, nisi morte praeventus 
 fuisset, antea non viderant eis procul dubio comparasset 
 (viii, p. 176). 
 
 REFERENCES IN ROBERT OF TORIGNI TO THE 
 STEWARDSHIP OF FRANCE 
 
 Comes Carnotensis Tedbaudus despondit filiam Ludovici 
 regis Franciae, et ideo rex ei concessit dapiferatum Franciae 
 quern comes Andegavensis antiquitus habebat, unde etiam 
 nostris temporibus Radulfus de Parrona pro eo serviebat, et, 
 inde ei homagio faciens, ut dominum honorabat. (Rolls 
 Series 82, iv, p. 222. The editor observes in a note that this 
 and the next entry appear to belong to 1154. These entries, 
 however, occur under date 1164, or ten years after the count's 
 appointment to the regular office.) 
 
 In Epiphania Domini concordati sunt rex Francorum et 
 rex Anglorum. Henricus, films Henrici regis Anglorum, 
 fecit homagium regi Francorum, socero suo, de Andegavensi 
 comitatu, et de ducatu Brittanniae, quem rex concessit eidem 
 genero suo. Nam de Normannia fecerat ei antea homagium 
 et concessit ei rex Francorum ut esset senescallus Franciae 
 quod pertinet ad feudum Andegavense. (Ibid., p. 240, 
 A.D. 1168-9.)
 
 THE DAPIFERS 65 
 
 In purificatione Beatae Mariae fuit Henricus filius regis 
 Anglorum Parisius, et servivit regi Francorum ad mensam ut 
 senescallus Franciae. Hanc senescalciam, vel, ut antiquitus 
 dicebatur, majoratum domus regiae, Robertus rex Francorum 
 dedit Gaufrido Grisagonella comiti Andegavorum propter 
 adjutorium quod ei impendit contra Othonem imperatorem 
 Alemanniae. 1 Dedit etiam ei quicquid habebat in episcopatu 
 Andegavensi. Postea vero, cum Gaufridus comes Perticensis 
 et David 2 comes Cenomannensis essent rebelles eidem Roberto 
 regi Francorum, praedictus rex Francorum, Gaufrido Grisa- 
 gonella ferente sibi auxilium, obsedit munitionem Moritoniae 
 et cepit. Et quia David comes Cenomannorum, evocatus a 
 rege, ad eum venire contempsit, dedit rex Gaufrido Grisa- 
 gonella homagium illius et ipsam civitatem, et quicquid habe- 
 bat in episcopatu Cenomannensi. (Ibid., p. 240, A.D. 1168-9.) 
 
 GERVASE OF CANTERBURY AND THE 
 STEWARDSHIP OF FRANCE 
 
 MCLVIII-IX. Rex Henricus transfretavit et Parisius pro- 
 fectus a rege Franciae Ludovico in magna gloria et honore 
 susceptus est ; filiam ejus filio suo Henrico petiit et accepit. 
 Eo tempore, per industriam Thomae cancellarii a Londonia, 
 rex Angliae a rege Francorum Christianissimo, viro tamen 
 nimis simplici, optinuit, ut quasi senescallus regis Francorum 
 intraret Britanniam, et quosdam ibidem inter se inquietos et 
 funebre bellum exercentes coram se convocaret et pacificaret, 
 et quern inveniret rebellem violenter coherceret. Hie fuit 
 primus ingressus ejus super Britones edomandos, et sic civi- 
 tatem de Nantes ad jus suae dominationis inflexit. . . . (Rolls 
 Series [73], i, p. 166.) 
 
 1 Robert, Geoffrey, and Otho were not contemporaries ; for further 
 details see below. 
 
 2 This David is unknown to history.
 
 66 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 THE CHRONICLES OF ANJOU 1 AND THE 
 STEWARDSHIP OF FRANCE 
 
 Chronica de Gestis Consulum Andegavorum?' Chron. Anj'ou, 
 p. 76. Siquidem nequitia Herberti, comitis Tricacensis, non 
 potuit sustinere prosperitatem Robert! regis . . . exercitum 
 rex congregavit Obsedit Meledunum 3 . . . vocato Gosfrido 4 
 cum Andegavensibus suis. . . . Videntes autem Andegavi 
 quod nullum possent habere hospitium, induunt arma, pro- 
 rumpunt per medium exercitum, transmeant fluctus Sequanae, 
 dant assultum oppido, virtute consueta capiunt castrum, et 
 quod exercitus non potuit per septem menses, isti dimidiae 
 diei spatio adepti sunt. . . . Videns autem tanti principis 
 strenuitatem et ipsum praevalere in regno, tarn armis quam 
 consilio, et quae hie et alibi bene meruerat, sibi et suc- 
 cessoribus suis, jure hereditario, majoratum regni et regiae 
 domus dapiferatum, cunctis plaudentibus et laudantibus, 
 exinde donavit. 
 
 Historia Comitum Andegavensium? Chron. Anjou, p. 323. 
 DCCCCLXXVIII. Gaufridus, quartus comes Andegavensium. 6 
 Hie films Fulconis Boni, ob insignia summi et singularis 
 meriti, a rege Roberto in praeliis signifer et in coronatione 
 regum dapifer, tarn ipse quam ejus heredes constituuntur. 
 
 Ibid., p. 346. 7 MCLXIX. Henricus, filius Henrici regis 
 Angliae, fecit homagium regi Francorum, socero suo, de 
 Andegavensi comitatu et de ducatu Britanniae, quern rex 
 concessit eidem genero suo, nam de Normannia fecerat ei 
 antea homagium ; et concessit ei rex Franciae ut esset 
 
 1 The references are to the edition published by the Soc. de 
 1'Hist. de France. A new edition is badly needed. This one would 
 be worthless but for the introduction. 
 
 2 The subjoined extract occurs, it is believed, only in the fourth 
 recension of this chronicle. The date of this recension is given as 
 A.D. 1169-70. 
 
 3 A.D. 1001. 
 
 4 Died on the 2ist July, 987, during the reign of Hugh Capet. 
 
 5 Known as the Victorine MS., and conjectured to be extracts 
 from materials collected by Ralph de Diceto. 
 
 5 This passage appears word for word in Diceto, i, p. 154. 
 " Compare with Robert of Torigni ; no similar passage occurs in 
 Diceto.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 67 
 
 senescalus Franciae, quod pertinet ad feudum Andegavense. 
 In purificatione sanctae Mariae, fuit Henricus filius regis 
 Angliae Parisius, et servivit regi Franciae ad mensam ut 
 senescalus Franciae. Hanc senescalciam vel, ut antiquitus 
 dicebatur, majoratum domus regiae, Robertus rex Francorum 
 dedit Gaufrido Grisagonella, comiti Andegavorum propter 
 adjutorium quod sibi impendit contra Othonem imperatorem 
 Alemanniae. Dedit . . , l Cenomannensi. 
 
 Historia A bbreviata Consulum A ndegavorum, Chron. A njou, 
 p. 357. De Gaufrido Grisa Tunica. Iste militiae peritus. . . . 
 Qui ob insignia . . . 2 heredes constituuntur. 
 
 Scriptum Huonis de Cleeriis de Majoratu et Senescalcia 
 Franciae Comitibus Andegavorum Collatis? Hoc scriptum 
 fecit Fulco comes, Jerosolimitanus . . . [The story of Robert, 
 Otho, and Geoffrey is told.] . . . Nequitia comitis Tricacensis 
 . . . 4 dapiferatum, cunctis applaudentibus et laudantibus, 
 exinde constituit. . . . Hue usque sunt scripta Fulconis 
 Jerosolimitani. Vos autem qui ista scripta audieritis, scitote 
 quod ego, Huo de Cleeriis, vidi scripta Fulconis comitis 
 Jerosolimitani in ecclesia Sancti Sepulchri de Lochis de 
 majoratu et senescalcia Franciae sibi et suis antecessoribus 
 a rege Rotberto collatis. 5 
 
 Inter regem Ludovicum, Philippi regis filium, et Fulconem 
 comitem, qui postea factus est rex Jerusalem, magna erat 
 dissensio. Fulco enim comes nolebat ei servire, rex enim 
 Ludovicus dederat majoratum et senescalciam Franciae 
 Anselmo de Garlanda, et postea Guillermo de Garlanda, de 
 
 1 Substituting "dictus" for " David, " this passage is identical 
 with thcu in Robert of Torigni. 
 
 2 This is substantially identical with the passages in the Historia 
 Comitum Andegavensium and in Diceto. 
 
 3 Printed in full, Chron. Anjou, p. 387; Baluze Misc., vol. iv; 
 Bouquet, vol. xii ; Duchesne, vol. iv, etc. ; the MS. belongs to the 
 twelfth century. Hugh de Clers is a well-known person, a con- 
 temporary of Geoffrey le Bel and Henry II, and was for some time 
 dapifer of la Fleche. 
 
 4 Apart from verbal differences this is substantially identical with 
 the passage in the Chron. de Gestis Consulum Andegavorum. 
 
 5 Here the first part of the tract ends, and this portion, at all 
 events, is a tissue of falsehoods.
 
 68 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 quibus Fulco comes suas redhibitiones et sua hominia habere 
 non poterat. . . . [Louis, at war with Henry I, desires Fulk's 
 assistance. The author of this tract arranges a conference.] 
 .... Cumque dies instaret colloquii, dominus rex Ludovicus 
 et Fulco comes ad locum constitutum venerunt, cum suis 
 consultoribus ; ibique recognita sunt jura comitis, videlicet 
 majoratus et senescalcia Franciae. Guillelmus de Garlanda, 
 tune Franciae senescallus, recognovit in illo colloquio 
 hominium se debere comiti Fulconi de senescalcia Franciae 
 et unde fuit in voluntate comitis. Post Guillelmum, fuit 
 senescallus Stephanus de Garlanda, qui fecit hominium 
 comiti ; post Stephanum, Radulfus comes Peronae qui 
 similiter fecit hominia et servitium. Ille enim qui senescallus 
 erit Franciae faciet hominium, et talia alia. ... Si vero ad 
 coronamenta regis comes ire voluerit, senescallus praeparare 
 et liberare faciet hospitia quae comes habet propria et dedita. 
 Cum autem, die suae coronae, ad mensas rex discubuerit, 
 scannum pulcherrimum fultro pallii aut tapeto coopertum 
 senescallus praeparabit, ibique, et sui comites, quousque 
 fercula veniant sedebit. Cum vero primum venerit ferculum, 
 comes, se defibulans, e scanno surget ; et de manu senescalli 
 
 ferculum accipiens, ante regem et reginam apponet 
 
 i 
 
 De caetero comes appellatur Major in Francia, propter prae- 
 tutelam et retutelam quam facit in exercitu regis. Item quando 
 erit in Francia, quod et curia sua judicaverit firmum erit et 
 stabile. Si vero contentio aliqua nascetur de judicio facto 
 in Francia, rex mandabit quod comes veniat illud emendare ; 
 et si pro ea mittere noluerit, scripta utriusque partis comiti 
 transmittet, et quod inde sua curia judicabit firmum erit et 
 stabile. Ego Huo de Cleeriis vidi multocies judicia facta in 
 Francia in Andegavia emendari, sicut fuit de bello apud 
 sanctum Audomarum facto, et de pluribus aliis placitis et 
 judiciis. Haec vidi et multi alii mecum. 2 
 
 1 The passages here omitted refer principally to the Count's 
 military duties and privileges. 
 
 2 The authenticity of this famous treatise has been critically dis- 
 cussed by M. Bemont, Etudes d'Histoire du Moyen Age, dediees 
 a Gabriel Monod (1896), pp. 253-60; this writer considers the 
 second part has a distinct historical value : also by M. Luchaire,
 
 THE DAPIFERS 69 
 
 OTHER REFERENCES TO THE STEWARDSHIP 
 OF FRANCE 
 
 Diceto, Rolls Series [68], i, p. 438. Philippus itaque rex 
 Francorum, in coronatione sua, tam in gladio praeferendo, 
 quam in regiis dapibus apponendis, Philippum Flandriae 1 
 comitem privilegiatum habuit ministerialem, utentem duplici 
 jure, paterno videlicet et uxorio. Henricus rex, Henrici regis 
 Angliae films, et Philippi regis Francorum sororius, regiae 
 consecrationi Remis interfuit. . . . (We know, be it re- 
 membered, from extant coronation ceremonials, that it was 
 the steward who carried the sword and served at the banquet) 
 
 Hoveden, Rolls Series [51], ii, p. 194. Henricus autem rex 
 Angliae filius, in progressione a thalamo usque in ecclesiam, 
 ipso die coronationis, ibat ante ilium gestans coronam auream 
 de jure ducatus Normanniae, qua predictus Philippus coro- 
 nandus erat. Et Philippus comes Flandriae praeibat ferens 
 ante ilium gladium regni. 
 
 Gislebert de Mons, p. 127. Eodem anno Domini 1179 
 Ludovicus sepedictus Francorum rex filium suum unicum 
 Philippum, . . . Remis in festivitate omnium sanctorum in 
 regem coronari fecit. Ad hoc coronamentum et regis edictum, 
 cum omnes Francie principes accederent, Philippus Flandrie 
 et Viromandie comes potentissimus, qui in gestamine gladii 
 regalis jus reclamabat, cum armis et militibus multis venit. 
 . . . Sicque Philippus cum summa veneratione et reverentia 
 inunctus et in regem coronatus fuit. Ibique comes Flandrie 
 gladium regale gestavit 
 
 Bibliotheque de la Faculte des Lettres, iii, Melanges d'Histoire du 
 Moyen Age (1897), pp. 1-38. The latter rejects the entire story 
 and concludes as follows : " Tout porte a croire que 1'ecrit compose 
 au nom de Hugue de Clers a ete produit en 1158, au moment oil 
 la chancellerie de Henri II negociait avec la court de France pour 
 faire attribuer au roi d'Angleterre la fonction de seneschal, en vue 
 de son expedition de Bretagne." 
 
 1 Le Menestrel de Reims- (ed. Wailly, p. 8) says : " Et a son 
 disneir, le servi li rois Henris d'Angleterre a genoux et tailla devant 
 lui." Perhaps Philip, like Henry, occasionally had two honorary 
 hereditary dapifers in attendance. 
 
 Note: Walter Map (Cam. Soc., p. 106) tells a proverb about a 
 " miles quidam, haereditarius Franciae senescallus."
 
 70 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Ibid., p. 130. Philippus autem rex Elizabeth duxit uxorem 
 in castro comitis Flandrie Bapalmis feria secunda post octavam 
 pasche anno Domini 1180, quam ipse rex in sequenti die 
 festo ascensionis Domini eodem anno apud sanctum Dyo- 
 nisium in Francia inungi et regia corona insigniri qua decuit 
 veneratione fecit. Ubi ipse, ad sue nupte noveque regine 
 honorem, regalem cum ea gestavit coronam, . . . astante 
 eciam ipsius regine avunculo Philippe Flandrie et Viromandie 
 comite et ibidem gladium regalem gestante. 
 
 Rigord, Gesta Philippi Augusti, p. 20. Anno dominice 
 incarnacionis mclxxx, quarto Kalendas Junii . . . idem rex 
 Philippus secundo imposuit sibi diadema, et tune inuncta fuit 
 Elizabeth uxor ejus venerabilis regina, filia Baldwini illustris 
 comitis Haenuensis, neptis Philippi magni comitis Fland- 
 rensium, qui ea die, prout moris est, ensem ante dominum 
 regem honorifice portavit. 
 
 The Charter of Saint-Julien de Tours)- 
 
 Henricus rex Anglic et dux Normannie et Aquitanie et 
 comes Andegavensis omnibus fidelibus suis salutem. Sciatis 
 quod rex Francie Aurelianis in communi audientia recognovit 
 quod custodia Abbatie sancti Juliani Turonensis ad me perti- 
 net ex dignitate dapiferatus mei unde servire debeo regi 
 Francie sicut comes Andegavensis ita quod archiepiscopus 
 Turonensis nullam habet in ea potestatem preter episcopalia 
 sicut in ceteris. His audientibus, Joscio scilicet tune Turon- 
 ensi archiepiscopo, 2 abbate sancti Evurcii, abbate sancti Bene- 
 dicti super Ligerim, Gaufrido et Stephano capellanis, Richardo 
 thesaurario, Johanne camerario, Vend. B. 8 fratre regis Francie, 
 Willelmo sil. Ham., 4 Roberto de Novoburgo, 5 Hugone de 
 Cleeriis. (MS. 2669, Bibl. Colbert. 6 Reg. Phil. Aug. Printed 
 Baluz, iv, 12.) 
 
 1 Date 1157-9, (?)ns8. 2 Elected 1157. 
 
 3 Recte " P." ; read Vendocinensi Philippe. 
 
 4 Recte " filio Hamonis." 
 
 5 Obiit 1159. 
 
 6 A vidimus of the bailli de Tours, R. Barbou, dated 1288. See 
 Luchaire, op. cit, pp. 24-7. The authenticity of this charter is 
 doubtful.
 
 THE DAPIFERS 71 
 
 Chronique de Philippe Mouskes. 
 
 Vers. 24241. Et s'ot mainte cose nommee 
 
 Pour porter 1'ensegne et Pespee. 
 Mais, pour oster ire et desroi, 
 Le porta li freres le roi. 
 
 (Sacre de Louis viii a Reims.) 
 
 Vers. 27707. Si vint la dame de Campagne 
 Et vint la contesse Jehane 
 De Flandres, qui sa niece estoit. 
 Si fisent demander pour droit 
 A porter 1'espee le roi. 
 Mais pour abaiscier le desroi, 
 Saus tos drois, le porta meismes 
 Li quens de Boulogne Felipres, 
 Ki fu oncles a eel enfant. 
 (Sacre de Louis ix a Reims, 29 Nov., 1226.) 
 
 Le Nain de Tillemont, vie de Saint Louis i, pp. 434-5 
 
 Apres la ceremonie, il y cut contestation a qui porteroit 
 1'epee royale entre des femmes, ce qui est etrange, sgavoir 
 entre les comtesses de Champagne et de Flandre, qui pre"- 
 tendoient chacune avoir ce droit au nom de leurs maris. 
 Pour les appaiser on donna I'epe'e au comte de Boulogne, 
 sans prejudice du droit des comtesses, ce qui ne s'accorde 
 pas avec le ceremonial du P. Labbe, qui porte que le roy 
 donna 1'epee au seneschal qui la porta jusqu'au palais. II y 
 avoit longtemps qu'on ne parloit plus de seneschal en France 
 Le meme comte de Boulogne 1'avoit deja portee au sacre de 
 Louis viii pour oster aussi les disputes.
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 HOW THE HOUSE OF MONTFORT BECAME SOLE 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 
 
 ON the accession of Richard the First the style dapifer 
 for the ordinary stewards of the household began to 
 drop out of use, the style seneschal taking its place. 1 A 
 slight tendency in this direction was noticeable during the 
 previous reign. The same change of style took place in the 
 case of the hereditary stewards of the household : thus in the 
 king's charter to Roger Bigod, making him earl of Norfolk 
 and restoring to him his hereditary office, 2 the word used is 
 senescalda. 
 
 Robert Blanche-mains, earl of Leicester, the other hereditary 
 steward, was present at Richard's coronation and carried a 
 sword in the royal procession. 3 As the dapifer for the 
 occasion at a French coronation also carried a sword, the 
 incident is suggestive. This earl married, before 1159,* 
 
 1 France Cal. R.O., no. 56, Charter of Richard I, dated 2nd 
 March, 1 190. Testibus [inter alios] Rogero de Pratellis et Stephano 
 de Longo Campo, senescallis nostris. But the old style is still 
 frequently used, e.g. ibid., no. 1346. Charter of Richard I, dated 
 lyth December, 1189. Testibus [inter alios] Rogero de Pratellis, 
 Stephano de Longo Campo dapiferis. See also Rymer, Foedera, 
 R.C., i, pp. 49-50. - See Appendix. 
 
 3 Deinde venerunt David frater regis Scotiae, comes de Huntedun, 
 et Johannes comes Moretonii frater ducis, et Robertus comes Leices- 
 triae portantes tres gladios regios sumptos de thesauro regis quorum 
 vaginae desuper per totum auro contectae erant, medius autem 
 illorum ibat comes Moretonii (Hoveden, Rolls Series [51], iii, p. 9; 
 Benedict of Peterborough, Rolls Series [49], ii, p. 81). 
 
 4 The Complete Peerage gives 1168 as the date of Robert Ill's 
 marriage, but see France Cal. R.O., no. 1062, Charter (A.D. 1155-9) 
 of Robert earl of Leicester to Nuneaton, which is tested by "Roberto 
 filio meo " and " Petronilla uxore filii mei." 
 
 73
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 73 
 
 Petronilla (Parnel), an heiress of the family of Grandmaisnil, 
 a circumstance to which we shall have to revert later on. 
 Shortly after Richard's coronation he went on a pilgrimage 
 to Palestine, and died in Greece on his way back in the year 
 1190. His son Robert Fitz-Parnel succeeded him, and was 
 formally invested with the earldom by Richard at Messina 
 during the following year. 1 
 
 Robert Fitz-Parnel does not figure large in English history. 
 In 1193 he was captured and imprisoned by the king of 
 France, and was not liberated till 1196. He was therefore 
 incapable of taking part in king Richard's second corona- 
 tion, at which presumably Roger Bigod officiated as steward. 
 
 On the accession of John, the earl of Leicester disputed 
 Roger Bigod's right to act as steward at the coronation. 
 No particulars of this dispute have as yet come to light, 
 but it is known that the matter was there and then com- 
 promised by Roger withdrawing all future claims to the 
 stewardship in consideration of ten knights' fees to be 
 assigned to him by the earl of Leicester. 2 Accordingly, but 
 only under pressure of legal process, the latter earl named 
 Roger de la Zouche for four knights' fees, Robert de Furnival 
 for three fees, Reginald de Leiham for two fees, and Richard 
 Gubiun for one fee. 3 He did not, however, in fact assign 
 all these knights' fees to the earl of Norfolk, and was still 
 
 1 For the history of the Beaumont earls of Leicester see generally 
 The Complete Peerage, s.v. Leicester; The Genealogist, vol. x, 
 p. i ; The Diet, of Nat. Biog., s.v. Beaumont ; Planche, The 
 Genealogy and Armorial Ensigns of the Anglo-Norman Earls of 
 Leicester. The views expressed by these authorities on the subject 
 of the stewardship are quite unreliable. 
 
 2 Rotuli Curie Regis, ii, p. 184. (Suff.) Comes Rogerus ponit 
 loco suo Milonem ***** V el Rogerum de Braham versus Willelmum 
 filium Alani de . . . et idem ponit eosdem et Robertum Capel- 
 lanum et Ricardum de Senges versus comitem Legrecestrie ad 
 recipiendum x milites et cirographum suum. That this matter has 
 any connection with the stewardship we only know from subsequent 
 events. 
 
 The final concord between earl Roger and Fitzalan is preserved, 
 but I have searched vainly for the one relating to the stewardship. 
 
 3 Rotuli Curie Regis, ii, p. 194. Hii sunt milites quos comes 
 Leicestrie assignavit comiti Rogero Bigot, Rogerum de la Zuche
 
 74 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 in default when he died ; but the result of the compromise 
 was, none the less, to leave the earls of Leicester sole 
 hereditary stewards of the household. 
 
 Robert Fitz-Parnel married a lady named Lauretta, but 
 died without issue in 1204. He had, however, two brothers : 
 Roger bishop of Salisbury ; and William, a leper and monk ; 
 also two sisters : Amicia (the elder), who married Simon the 
 Third of Montfort ; and Margaret, who married Saer de 
 Quincy. Amicia's husband was dead, and her eldest sur- 
 viving son, Simon the Fourth, an alien in the allegiance 
 of France. Accordingly Saer de Quincy, in consideration 
 of a fine of 1000 marks, was granted possession of all the 
 Leicester estates ; except the castle of Munsorell which 
 the king retained, and the dower lands belonging to the 
 countesses Petronilla and Lauretta, but without prejudice 
 to any future claim by the countess Amicia. This was in 
 the year I2O5. 1 
 
 A claim must have been promptly made by Simon the 
 Fourth, not only to the lands but also to the earldom ; for 
 in August of the following year Simon is referred to as earl 
 of Leicester, and on the loth of March the king confirmed 
 a division of the Beaumont estates made between Simon 
 the Fourth of Montfort, as earl of Leicester, and Saer de 
 Quincy, then earl of Winchester, which reserved to the 
 former earl the third-penny of the county of Leicester, the 
 chief messuage of Leicester and the stewardship of the 
 household : salvis predicto comiti Simoni tertio denario 
 comitatus Leicestrie unde ipse comes est et capitali mesagio 
 Leicestrie et senescalda nostra. On the deaths of the 
 countesses Petronilla and Lauretta the outstanding dower 
 lands were also to be divided. 2 
 
 de feodis iiij militum, feodum Roberti de Furnuvalle pro iij militi- 
 bus et feodum Reginald! de Leiham pro ij militibus et feodum 
 Ricardi Gubium pro j milite. 
 
 1 See Appendix. I ought perhaps to add that when I say "Quincy 
 in consideration of a fine of 1000 marks was granted possession," 
 I mean what I say and no more: it is not an elaborate way of 
 stating that he paid 1000 marks and obtained possession ; he neither 
 paid in full, nor did he obtain possession of all the estates. 
 
 2 See Appendix.
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 75 
 
 In this way the earldom and honours of Leicester passed 
 to the great house of Montfort ; but Simon the Fourth, that 
 renowned warrior, the scourge of the Albigenses, although 
 he appears to have visited England to take seizin of his 
 possessions, 1 was only permitted for a very brief time, if 
 at all, to receive the rents and profits of his estates. In 
 February of 1206-7 tne king had seized his possessions, 2 
 nominally for a debt due to the crown ; and, notwithstanding 
 the statements of some recent writers, we have the strongest 
 possible evidence that they were never restored to him. 3 
 The partition above mentioned appears to have been highly 
 unfavourable to Saer de Quincy, from which we may con- 
 clude that John never intended anyone but himself to enjoy 
 Simon's moiety. The earl of Winchester, be it noted, did 
 not submit : he appealed, the partition suit was referred 
 back to the Bench, and the original decree varied in his 
 favour." 4 
 
 The value of the Leicester estates, and the way they were 
 managed or mismanaged, after Simon's dispossession, by 
 the royal officers to whom they were entrusted, are matters 
 of no small moment. According to the younger Simon's 
 own statement, a great amount of voluntary waste was 
 perpetrated in the interests of John 5 ; while the modern 
 biographers of this same earl have made some rather re- 
 markable suggestions on the same subject. Fortunately the 
 accounts are extant ; and the rents, profits and outgoings, 
 the extent of the waste, the loss on the second partition and 
 such-like items may be calculated to the last obolus. 6 The 
 restoration of Simon was one of the papal conditions of 
 1213, which, two years later, John so far complied with as to 
 
 1 See Appendix. It is said by some authorities to be very doubt- 
 ful whether this Simon ever set foot in England, but, in view of 
 the very precise statements on the close rolls of Henry III that he 
 did do so, I think the doubt must be dismissed. 
 
 2 Appendix. The custodians were (i) Robert de Ropeley, (2) 
 William de Cantilupe. 
 
 s The custodians' accounts date from the 2nd of February ; see 
 Appendix. 4 Appendix. 
 
 6 Bibl. Nat. de Fr. Clairembault, 1188, fol. 80; printed from the 
 original by Bemont, S. de Montfort, p. 333. 6 Appendix.
 
 76 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 entrust the Leicester fiefs to Randolf earl of Chester as 
 custodian in Simon's behalf 1 ; and so matters remained till 
 the accession of Henry the Third. 
 
 John's reign clearly marks another stage in the evolution 
 of the stewardship. The three great houses of Bigod, 
 Montfort and Quincy had each acquired some title to the 
 office. Bigod sold his right for ten knights' fees, and as 
 between the other claimants the alien house was preferred. 
 a preference almost amounting to a suppression of the office. 
 Not that there was much to suppress, merely the privilege of 
 serving at the royal table on special occasions, with perhaps 
 the additional right of carrying a sword at coronations. 
 
 It is worth noticing that ultimately the ousted claimants, 
 including the Bohuns who retired from the contest in the 
 days of Henry the Second, all received compensation in 
 kind. The Bohuns became hereditary constables of England; 
 the house of Quincy hereditary constables of Scotland ; while 
 the Bigods acquired the hereditary marshalship of England. 
 
 On the day of St. Simon and St. Jude in the year 1216 
 Henry the Third was crowned at Gloucester. It was a sorry 
 pretence at a coronation, for England was virtually under the 
 dominion of France. Two years later Simon de Montfort 
 the crusader died before Toulouse. z 
 
 Thanks to the interference of the papal see Henry's 
 prospects speedily improved ; and in the year 1220, on 
 Whitsunday, the king was crowned a second time, at West- 
 minster. It seems probable that on this occasion the earl 
 of Norfolk again claimed to act as steward, his claim being 
 opposed by the earl of Chester as custos of the Leicester 
 fiefs. At any rate Hugh Bigod, on behalf of his father, 
 brought the matter before the king in council at Oxford 
 the following Christmas day, complaining that earl Roger 
 had only received some of the knights' fees representing the 
 
 1 Appendix. 
 
 2 The actual date was the 27th of June, 1218. In consequence 
 of Simon's death the Marshal ordered the honour of Leicester to be 
 seized into the king's hands : it was restored to the earl of Chester 
 on October 4th, 4 Henry III ; and granted to him for life by letters 
 patent dated May i8th in the eleventh year. See Appendix.
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 77 
 
 consideration for his withdrawing all claims to the steward- 
 ship, and it was then agreed that the earl of Chester should 
 specifically perform the agreement. The earl of Chester, 
 however, did nothing; and on the ist of May in the follow- 
 ing year a writ of fi. fa. was issued against him. 1 This 
 process proved abortive, evidently owing to the death of the 
 earl of Norfolk. 
 
 Simon the Fourth of Montfort had died, leaving several 
 sons and daughters surviving him. His heir was Amaury 
 the Sixth, who, notwithstanding his position in France and 
 the hostile relations of that country with England, appears 
 to have frequently pressed his claims to the Leicester earldom 
 and honours. He certainly adopted the title, styling himself 
 prior to the cession of his southern possessions duke of 
 Narbonne, count of Toulouse and Leicester, lord of Mont- 
 fort, and subsequently count of Montfort and Leicester. 
 
 It is not unimportant to notice that Amaury was created 
 constable of France, and must have been fairly well ac- 
 quainted with the recent history of French offices of state : 
 the royal charters he attested still bore the legend dapifero 
 nullo. He was certainly also aware that an hereditary 
 stewardship was attached to the Leicester honour, and we 
 have good ground for supposing that he regarded this office 
 as analogous to the suppressed dapifership of France. The 
 count, therefore, may possibly have conceived the wild idea 
 of being chief officer of state in England as well as constable 
 of France. Be this as it may, the divided allegiance of the 
 count of Montfort would have suited neither sovereign, and 
 
 1 De senescalcia hospitii domini regis. Rex R. comiti Cestrie et 
 Lincolnie salutem. Sciatis qualiter convenerit inter vos et Hugonem 
 le Bigod filium et heredem comitis Rogeri le Bigod coram nobis et 
 consilio nostro apud Oxoniam ad Natale proximum preteritum de 
 senescalcia hospicii nostri de qua contencio fuit inter comitem 
 Leicestrie preteritis diebus et ipsum comitem Rogerum videlicet 
 quod vos tanquam custos honoris Leicestrie faceretis ipsi comiti 
 Rogero et heredibus suis habere id quod ei restat de feodis x militum 
 pro eadem senescalcia. Et ideo vobis mandamus quod ipsi comiti 
 Rogero id quod de eisdem feodis x militum ei restat faciendum sine 
 dilatione fieri faciatis. Teste H. etc. apud Westmonasterium primo 
 die Maii. (Close Roll 5 Henry III, m. 12, A.D. 1221.)
 
 78 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 the count eventually withdrew his own claims in favour of 
 Simon his younger brother. 
 
 Simon the Fifth of Montfort appears first on the scene 
 about the year 1229, seemingly as a fugitive from France, 
 having provoked the ire of the queen-regent. 1 He presented 
 himself to Henry, ingratiated himself with that monarch 
 whose besetting sin was a love of foreigners, and asked for 
 the earldom of Leicester. Simon brought with him a letter 
 of introduction from Amaury : " I have often besought your 
 royal majesty," the letter runs, " humbly and devoutly to 
 restore me my property [and so forth]." He makes, in fact, 
 a final appeal on his own behalf, but concludes with one for 
 Simon : " If this be not pleasing to you, I send to your 
 lordship's feet my brother Simon who holds nothing of the 
 French king : If you restore him my property I shall hold 
 myself well satisfied." The letter is dated at Paris in the 
 month of February. 2 
 
 Simon so far found favour with the king that he had a 
 promise of the earldom and honour of Leicester together 
 with the stewardship so soon as the lands ceased to be held 
 by the earl of Chester ; a promise duly confirmed by letters 
 patent of the 6th of February, 1230, attested by Randolf 
 earl of Chester himself. 3 
 
 Simon was far from satisfied with so nebulous a grant, and 
 returned to France, as he expressed it, "sans grace trouver." 4 
 Henry, too, evidently doubted whether he had been sufficiently 
 gracious, for on the 8th of April, 1231, he despatched Simon 
 a letter referring to the earldom as a mere question of time, 
 and stating that meanwhile he had granted Simon an annuity 
 of 400 marks. 5 
 
 Perhaps it was this letter which spurred Simon de Mont- 
 fort to fresh efforts in a new direction : in the same year he 
 visited the real obstacle to his ambitions, the earl of Chester, 
 
 1 W. Nangis, see Bouquet, H.F., vol. xx, p. 548; and Trevet, 
 Eng. Hist. Soc., p. 226. 
 
 2 See Appendix. 3 See Appendix. 
 
 4 Bibl. Nat. Clairembault 1188, fol. 80; printed from the original 
 by Bemont, Simon de Montfort, app. no. xxxiv. 
 
 5 See Appendix.
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 79 
 
 at his castle of St. Jean Beveron, in Brittany, and pleaded 
 for the restoration of his father's heritage. 1 Simon probably 
 remained with Randolf till the conclusion of a three years' 
 truce with France : certainly he accompanied the earl to 
 England immediately afterwards, arriving early in August. 
 
 According to Simon's own story Randolf was complaisant 
 and agreed to surrender the Leicester fiefs. It is further 
 stated that Randolf admitted Simon's superior title to 
 these estates ; himself requested the king to take Simon's 
 homage in respect of them, which was done ; and thereupon 
 Simon was let into possession. 2 These statements, however, 
 though made by or on behalf of Simon in 1261, must be 
 accepted with some caution. 
 
 We know for certain that Simon did homage for the 
 Leicester honour in August 1231; and mandates were ac- 
 cordingly sent to the sheriffs of four counties directing them 
 to give Simon, as heir to his father, seizin of his father's 
 estates. 3 These mandates apparently were not complied 
 with. Either the earl of Chester had repented of his com- 
 plaisance, or other magnates were moving strenuously in the 
 matter, for there are clear indications that somebody promptly 
 advanced and maintained the objection that Simon had no 
 valid title to the property. 
 
 One cannot help suspecting that Randolf was the chief 
 source of the difficulty. A man who could not be brought 
 to disgorge a few knights' fees at the suit of an earl of 
 Norfolk is not prima facie likely to have readily surrendered 
 entire estates to a penniless foreigner however just his claims : 
 
 1 L'autre an apres, mi sires le Rais passa en Bretaigne et le 
 conte de Cestre aveqe li qi mon eritage tenait ; e j'alai au conte a 
 un chastiau q'il tenait Saint Jaque de Beveronne. (Bemont, app. 
 no. xxxiv.) 
 
 2 La li priai qe je puisse sa grace trovair d'avoir mon eritage, 
 e il, seue merci, s'i acorda, e, en 1'aoust apres, me mena-il aveqe 
 li en Engleterre, e pria le Rai q'il me receust a home de 1'eritage 
 mon pere, a quieu j'avaie greigneur drait qe li, si comme il disait, 
 e tot le don qe li Rais li avait done en cele chose il li quita, par 
 issi q'il me receust a home. E einssinc mi sires li Rais prist mon 
 homage, e me fu ma terre rendue. . . . (Bemont, app. no. xxxiv.) 
 
 3 See Appendix.
 
 8o ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 moreover, it is difficult to see how anyone else could have 
 effectively intervened. 1 
 
 The first objection seems to have been that, assuming 
 Simon was the heir, his father did not die seized of the 
 estates in question, and amended mandates were accordingly 
 sent out on the 22nd of September following. 2 Simon, as 
 heir to his father, was to be put into possession of all pro- 
 perty belonging to the honour of Leicester of which his 
 father was seized when he left England, and which there- 
 upon came into the hands of the crown. 
 
 At this stage the objectors must have shifted their ground 
 and taken the point that Simon was not heir to his father. 
 This was really an unanswerable objection in law, and left 
 only two courses open : to proceed by forfeiture and regrant, 
 or to appeal to Amaury, the real heir ; and we know that the 
 latter was the course actually adopted. It seems, however, 
 
 1 The opposition, probably, chiefly manifested itself in the refusal 
 of a large number of tenants to attorn. The earl of Winchester's 
 position in John's time was fairly analogous, and his difficulties did 
 not end even after the judgment on appeal in his partition action. 
 Compare the following : 
 
 Assisa venit recognoscere si Robertus comes Leicestrie frater 
 Margarete uxoris comitis Wintonie seizitus fuit in dominico suo ut 
 de feodo de c acris terre cum pertinentiis in Swithelond die qua 
 obiit et si predicta Margareta propinquior heres ejus sit, quam 
 terram Willielmus Falconer tenet, qui venit et dicit assisam inde 
 non debere quia predicta Margareta habet sororem que adeo mag- 
 num jus haberet in terra sicut ipsa Margareta de qua non fit mencio 
 in brevi etc. (Placitorum Abbreviatio, p. 99.) 
 
 Willielmus de Turevill summonitus fuit ad ostendendum quare 
 ipse non fecit Sahero comiti Wintonie servicium suum quod ei 
 adjudicatum fuit in curia domini regis coram justiciariis suis de 
 banco unde idem comes ostendit quod servicium suum scilicet de 
 duobus militibus ei aretro est a tempore quo particio terrarum facta 
 fuit coram eisdem justiciariis per preceptum domini regis inter eum 
 et comitem Leicestrie per quam particionem predictus Willielmus 
 ei attornatus fuit de predicto servicio duorum militum. Et Williel- 
 mus venit et dicit quod per particionem primam ipse attornatus fuit 
 comiti Simoni et, postquam terra ejusdem comitis Simonis seisita 
 fuit in manu domini regis, fecit ipse plenarium servicium domino 
 regi, et si placuerit domino regi vel ejus justiciariis libenter faciet 
 eidem comiti Sahero quod facere debet. (Trin. 1 5 John ; Placitorum 
 Abbreviatio, p. 88.) z See Appendix.
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 81 
 
 that the difficulty may to some extent have been anticipated, 
 for in August, 1231, Amaury had despatched another letter 
 to Henry requesting that Simon might be given seizin of 
 the Leicester estates : upon this being done, he, Amaury, 
 undertook to duly release his claims, reserving only to him- 
 self the remainder expectant upon a failure of heirs of the 
 body of Simon. 1 Perhaps on the strength of this epistle, 
 the king, by letters patent dated the 27th of May, 1232, and 
 expressed to be granted on the petition of the count of 
 Montfort, confirmed to Simon the property in question que 
 ad ipsum Aumaricum jure hereditario pertinebat ; thus aban- 
 doning the pretence that Simon was the heir, and following 
 the terms of the conditional grant of two years before. 2 
 These letters patent were legally quite valueless ; Simon 
 had as yet no title which could be confirmed. On the I5th 
 of June, 1232, further letters patent were issued granting 
 Simon de Montfort the Norman escheats within his fief. 3 
 
 In the same month Amaury responded to the appeal made 
 to him by executing a document. 4 This instrument is dated 
 at Paris, and is in form a grant of the property to Simon and 
 the heirs of his body (de uxore sua desponsata exeuntibus), 
 with remainder to the donor and his heirs in fee. It also 
 purports to assign the portentous office of steward of the 
 whole of England (senescalcia Anglic totius). A more im- 
 pudent piece of conveyancing it would be difficult to imagine. 
 No doubt a grant was the proper form of instrument to 
 convey the land, as Henry, and not the donor or donee, was in 
 possession ; but confirmation by the king was, in such cases, 
 essential to perfect the grant. The case of the stewardship 
 was altogether different : the pretentious language in which 
 it is described should alone have precluded confirmation 
 of the assignment. Compared, however, with the attempt to 
 assign the office, its description sinks to a mere peccadillo of 
 drafting. Such an office was wholly inalienable ; the right 
 to it, and the services incident to its possession, could with 
 
 1 Appendix. 
 
 2 Appendix. See also (ibid.) the letters close of January loth, 
 1232, which throw some light on what was taking place. 
 
 3 Appendix. 4 Appendix.
 
 82 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 the king's consent be surrendered and released, but that was 
 all. A confirmation therefore of the grant in question would 
 have been highly derogatory to the king. 
 
 The document is in some other respects a curious one, 
 and was probably not the work of an English conveyancer. 
 But there is no need for further criticism. Amaury's grant 
 of June, 1232, was never confirmed and never acted upon. 
 Simon de Montfort was as far off as ever from obtaining the 
 beatitude of lawful seizin, and in this unsatisfactory state his 
 title to the honour and earldom of Leicester remained for 
 several years. 
 
 Now why was there all this bother? The king might 
 have proceeded by forfeiture and regrant, a most simple and 
 expeditious course to which no exception could have been 
 taken. Why was this not attempted ? One and only one 
 reason can be assigned which will cover the facts. Simon 
 was bent on getting possession of the estates in right of his 
 father, and not as a grantee direct from the crown. Only if 
 he came in by succession could he establish his position as an 
 Englishman, and render himself proof against the charge of 
 being an alien. Ultimately he succeeded in this. 
 
 In October of the year 1232 Randolf earl of Chester, last 
 relic of the old feudal aristocracy, died at Wallingford. 
 Probably this man's demise materially affected Simon's 
 position and prospects. 
 
 On the 2Oth of January, 1236, Eleanor, consort of Henry 
 the Third, was crowned at Westminster with the greatest 
 pomp and splendour, and once again a Bigod claimed to 
 act for the occasion as steward of the household. A sharp 
 contest for the office took place on the actual day of the 
 coronation between Roger earl of Norfolk and Simon de 
 Montfort, and this time the latter appears well versed in the 
 legal technicalities of his situation. 
 
 Simon's argument, recorded in the Exchequer Red Book, 
 is terse and to the point. Roger claimed prior title: Simon 
 pleaded the agreement between their predecessors : Roger 
 replied that two knights' fees and a half were still due and 
 owing. To this Simon rejoined that the other's remedy for 
 the default lay in the court of the lord king ; that Roger, by
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 83 
 
 his reply, had admitted the agreement and possession of 
 seven fees and a half, and had therefore no right to hinder 
 him in the enjoyment of the office. This plea the earl of 
 Norfolk could not rebut, and there the incident closed, this 
 time finally. 1 
 
 So Simon de Montfort served that day as steward without 
 let or hindrance. With the assistance of the citizens of 
 Winchester he superintended the royal kitchen and made 
 arrangements for the coronation banquet. 2 This feast took 
 place in Westminster Hall in the evening, directly after the 
 religious ceremony at the abbey. As soon as Henry had 
 seated himself at the banqueting table Simon, arrayed in 
 robe of office, gave him water in a basin to wash his hands. 
 When all was over the master-cook obtained the steward's 
 robe as his customary perquisite. 3 
 
 Possibly there were other ceremonies in which the steward 
 figured on this occasion ; but our chronicler, Matthew Paris, 
 when he comes to the banquet, wearies of his tale of page- 
 antry and gives no further details of the day's proceedings. 
 However, the above particulars afford us quite a sufficient 
 
 1 Servivit autem ea die de senescalsia comes Simon de Monte- 
 forti comes Legecestrie cui de jure competit illud officium, licet 
 contradiceret Rogerus de Bigot comes Norfolcie qui dicebat suum 
 esse jus illud a veteri, ad quod respondit dictus Simon quod tempore 
 regis Johannis facta inter eorum predecessores contencio super hoc 
 et hoc modo pacificata quod comes Leycestrie dedit comiti Norfolcie 
 servicia x militum, et comes Rogerus Norfolcie remisit ei totum 
 clamium quod habuit in senescalsia : ad quod replicavit alius quod 
 adhuc restabant ei assignanda duo feoda et dimidium de predictis 
 x feodis : ad quod respondit comes Simon quod secundum legem 
 terre bene potuit consequi sua arreragia alias in curia domini regis 
 nee propter hoc debuit impediri, maxime cum confiteretur comes 
 Rogerus illam convencionem et se seisitum de vij feodis et dimidio 
 pro ilia convencione ; et sic libere servivit comes Simon ea die. 
 (Red Book of the Exchequer, fol. 232.) 
 
 Note, however, that the Liber Regalis contains the following 
 rubric : Serviit ea die de senescallia comes Leycestrie, licet comes 
 Norfolchie illud sibi vendicaverit obsequium. (See Legg, Engl. 
 Coronation Records, p. 108.) 
 
 2 ... sicuti et civitas Wyntonie de coquina in auxilium senes- 
 calli. (Red Book of the Exchequer.) 
 
 3 Magister cocorum coquine regis semper in coronacione recipit 
 robam senescalli tanquam jus suum. (Ibidem.)
 
 84 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 idea of the duties appertaining to the hereditary stewardship, 
 and perhaps it might be said with truth that the office had 
 declined in importance, for certainly Simon carried no sword 
 at this ceremony like his Beaumont predecessor did at the 
 coronation of Richard the First. 1 
 
 Simon de Montfort clearly entertained the idea that vastly 
 different and more important functions properly appertained 
 to this office, functions of which Henry was unjustly depriving 
 him ; and this was part of his plaint to the French king in 
 I26i. 2 If Louis of France ever investigated this branch of 
 the matter, Henry may have found it difficult to convince 
 him that the sole duty properly belonging to Simon de 
 Montfort as hereditary steward was the business of chief 
 sewer at particular state banquets. Nevertheless such was 
 the case, and moreover there was nothing intrinsically strange 
 in the matter. The strangeness lay rather in the circumstance 
 that the French and other dapifers had soared to precedence 
 over all other functionaries, than in the fact that the English 
 dish-thegn was a dish-thegn still. 
 
 It is more than probable that Simon had looked to the 
 English stewardship as a ready-made foundation on which 
 he might easily build up his political power to the measure 
 of his political aspirations. If so, these expectations were 
 never realised : the converse was what actually occurred. 
 Simon raised the stewardship to a position of considerable 
 importance on the foundation of his own achievements. 
 
 To a man in Simon de Montfort's position the question of 
 marriage was one of prime importance. Anything almost 
 was possible. He might wed a kingdom, or fetter himself to 
 dowerless nonentity ; and, according to his choice, his wife 
 would either crown or extinguish his ambitions. 
 
 About the year 1234 Simon made a bold attempt at matri- 
 mony and captured the elderly affections of the countess of 
 Boulogne. This was viewed as a menace to the French 
 
 1 Perhaps it was the earl of Chester who had usurped this 
 privilege. 
 
 2 . . . e de la seneschaucie pluseurs draiz me retient, e sovent 
 1'ei requis q'il me feist drait, mes unqore ores ne m'en a rien fet. 
 (Bemont, app. no. xxxiv.)
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 85 
 
 crown ; the match was vigorously opposed, and the countess 
 yielded to pressure. She was subsequently solaced by an 
 alliance with Alfonso, the king of Portugal's brother. Simon 
 then attached himself to Jeanne of Flanders, who had been 
 a widow since 1233 and would have passed anywhere for his 
 grandmother. But this affair was even less palatable to 
 Louis, who promptly intervened, or at all events with as 
 much promptness as the special circumstances necessitated. 
 One may suspect that the bride had already consented, for 
 they took an oath of her that she had not married Simon, 
 which if true was surely unnecessary. 
 
 Simon de Montfort did not permit these failures to curb 
 his ambitions, and in the end he achieved what few would 
 have ventured to attempt On the 7th of January, 1237-8, 
 with Henry's consent and approbation, he was married 
 secretly to the princess Eleanor, Henry's own sister. This 
 clandestine affair was naturally regarded as a piece of gross 
 discourtesy to the nation, besides being, on account of 
 Eleanor's vows of continence, a scandalous breach of Church 
 discipline. Clandestine the marriage had to be or it would 
 never have taken place, but the step was critical in the ex- 
 treme, so fierce was the storm of popular and ecclesiastical 
 resentment which it aroused. 
 
 Popular hostility was headed by no less a person than 
 Richard earl of Cornwall. On the 8th of March Henry, so 
 to speak, confessed his sins and vowed he would sin no more. 
 Simon, on the contrary, faced the situation unabashed. By 
 honey-tongued flattery he achieved much : for the rest, even 
 the earl Richard had his price, which Simon, pauper though 
 he was, could easily pay. But ecclesiastical hostility had 
 also to be dealt with, and apparently in the same month of 
 March Simon de Montfort set out for Rome. By the in- 
 fluence of his royal connection and a judicious expenditure 
 of borrowed money he obtained a dispensation from the 
 Pope and returned to England in October. 
 
 On the 28th of November, 1238, the countess of Leicester 
 gave birth to a son : the king stood sponsor to the infant 
 and named him Henry. The crisis was now over : Simon's 
 hotly assailed marriage had had a happy issue : the earl
 
 86 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 stood high in the royal favour. Now was the time for him 
 to consolidate his position as successor to his father's title 
 and estates. 
 
 Early in the year 1238-9 we find the count of Montfort in 
 England, probably in response to an urgent appeal from his 
 brother; and on the 2nd of February, 1238-9, Simon at last 
 was duly invested with the earldom of Leicester and the 
 stewardship, and given seizin of the estates, the presence of 
 Amaury enabling all legal formalities to be strictly complied 
 with. 1 Simon having thus got seizin of the property, 
 Amaury, by charter dated the nth of April, released the 
 Leicester estates to Simon and the heirs general of his body 
 subject to the performance of all services incident to such 
 estates, the service of steward included (faciendo inde eis 
 debitum servitium ad illani partem pertinens tarn in senescalcia 
 domini regis Henrici predicti quant in aliis servitiis\ reservingj 
 however, to the grantor and his heirs the fee simple expectant 
 on the determination of the estate tail. 2 This charter was 
 confirmed by the king on the I7th of April, 1239, thus legally 
 perfecting Simon's title to the property. 3 Amaury's charter 
 of 1239 is in striking contrast to the document of 1232 ; and 
 especially noticeable are the facts that in the later instrument 
 the stewardship is referred to in proper and unpretentious 
 terms, and the absurd pretence of assigning that office is 
 altogether dropped. 
 
 In this way the hereditary stewardship in England became 
 vested in Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, and the heirs 
 of his body. 
 
 1 Die vero purificationis beatae virginis contulit dominus rex 
 comitatum Legrecestriae Simoni de Monteforti et investivit, vocato 
 prius comite Almarico primogenito fratre ejus et pacificato, ne 
 super hoc aliquando moveret quaestionem. (Matthew Paris, Rolls 
 Series, iii, p. 524.) 
 
 See Appendix. This charter appears in Rymer's Foedera 
 erroneously dated A.D. 1232. 
 
 3 See Appendix.
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 87 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER III 
 
 GRANT TO ROGER BIGOD 
 Carta Antigua S. 14 
 
 Ricardus Dei gratia rex Anglic dux Normannie et Aqui- 
 tanie comes Andegavie archiepiscopis episcopis abbatibus 
 comitibus baronibus justiciariis vice-comitibus et omnibus 
 ministris et fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis salutem. Sciatis 
 nos fecisse Roger um Bigot comitem de Norfolcia scilicet de 
 tertio denario de Norwico et de Norfolcia sicut comes Hugo 
 pater ejus melius unquam fuit tempore domini regis Henrici 
 patris nostri et volumus et precipimus quod ipse et heredes 
 sui ita libere et quiete et honorifice teneant de nobis et de 
 heredibus nostris sicut aliquis comes Anglie melius et liberius 
 et honorabilius comitatum suum tenet. Sciatis etiam nos 
 reddidisse ei senescalciam suam et heredibus suis ita libere 
 et quiete integre et honorifice habendam sicut Rogerus Bigot 
 avus suus et comes Hugo pater suus melius et liberius vel 
 integrius illam habuerunt tempore domini regis Henrici avi 
 patris nostri vel tempore patris nostri. Sciatis etiam nos 
 recognovisse ei rectum suum de iiij maneriis scilicet de 
 Evesham et de Walesham et de Alvergate et de Aclay cum 
 Bercariis et ea ei sicut recto heredi et sicut jus suum cum 
 omnibus pertinentiis suis reddidisse. Preterea reddidimus 
 eidem Rogero et present! carta confirmavimus totam terram 
 que fuit Albrede de Insula trans Humbrum et citra Humbrum 
 sicut recto heredi scilicet Setringetonam et Holebroch cum 
 omnibus aliis pertinentiis suis et nominatim illas terras que 
 non fecerunt servicium castello de Belvario tempore regis 
 Henrici avi patris nostri. Concessimus etiam eidem Rogero 
 et heredibus suis et presenti carta confirmavimus omnes 
 terras suas et tenementa de cujuscunque feodo sint habenda 
 et tenenda sicut carte donatorum testantur. Quare volumus 
 et firmiter precipimus quod prefatus Rogerus et heredes sui 
 habeant et teneant omnia predicta de nobis et heredibus 
 nostris cum socha et sacha et tol et theam et ynfangenetheof 
 et dom et som bene et in pace libere et quiete integre plenarie
 
 88 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 et honorifice in bosco et piano in viis in semitis in pratis 
 et pascuis in aquis et raolendinis in vivariis et piscariis et 
 stagnis in mariscis et trubariis in warennis et fugacionibus 
 infra burgum et extra in homagiis et servitiis et releviis cum 
 advocatione ecclesiarum et in omnibus aliis locis et rebus 
 cum omnibus libertatibus et quietanciis et liberis consuetu- 
 dinibus suis. Testibus H. Dunelm, H. Sarum, episcopis, 
 comite Willielmo de Arundell, comite Alberico, comite 
 Ricardo de Clare, Alberico de Ver, Johanne Marescallo, 
 Willielmo Marescallo, Rogero de Toony, Ricardo de Clare, 
 Ricardo de Muntfichet, Rogero de Pratell. dapifero, Willielmo 
 de Pratell., Roberto de Witefeld, Willielmo filio Aldelin. 
 Data apud Westmonasterium xxv die Novembris per 
 manum W'illielmi Elyen. electi cancellarii nostri, regni nostri 
 anno primo. 
 
 (Printed by Rymer, Foedera R. C., vol. i, p. 49.) 
 
 Fine Roll, 6 John, m. 10 
 
 Petronilda comitissa Leircestrie dat domino regi tria millia 
 marc, pro habenda Leircestria cum pertinentiis cum feodis 
 et dominicis omnibus que pertinent ad honorem de Grante- 
 meynill infra comitatum Leircestrie et extra sicut jus suum 
 et hereditatem ita quod domino regi remaneant omnes terre 
 Normannorum que sunt de eodem feodo et quod domus de 
 Withewich committatur cui dominusrexvoluerit qui defideliter 
 serviendo domino regi obsides dabit et predicta comitissa 
 omnia predicta que dominus rex ei reddidit tenebit nisi per 
 judicium curie domini regis dissaisiatur. Preterea domus de 
 Withevvic commissa est Willelmo de Senevilla et ipse Willel- 
 mus dabit Johannem filium et heredem suum in obsidem de 
 fideliter serviendo et Ricardum filium suum alium si voluerit. 
 Et de bruillio de Luttegarhal quod fuit ipsius comitisse faciet 
 dominus rex voluntatem suam. Termini infra Purificacionem 
 beate Marie anno &c. vjto. D. marc, in Pascha D. marc, in 
 festo Sancti Johannis Baptiste D. marc, et in festo Sancti 
 Michaelis D. marc, in Natali sequenti CCL. marc, in Pascha 
 sequenti CCL. marc, in festo Sancti Johannis Baptiste CCL. 
 marc, et in festo Sancti Michaelis CCL. marc.
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 89 
 
 Fine Roll, 6 John, m. I 
 
 Saherus de Quincy dat mille marc, per sic quod dominus 
 rex committat ei totam terram que fuit comitis Leicestrie in 
 Anglia tarn in dominicis quam in feodis excepto honore de 
 Gretenmenill. et exceptis dotibus comitissarum tarn matris 
 quam uxoris ipsius comitis et excepto castello de Munsorell. 
 cum hiis que pertinent ad castellum quod dominus rex retinet 
 in manu sua quamdiu ei placuerit ita quod si forte Avicia 
 comitissa de Monteforti soror uxoris ipsius Saeri venerit et 
 partem suam in terra ilia reclamaverit et si consideratio curie 
 domini regis viderit expedire tota predicta terra tarn in 
 dominicis quam in feodis reveniet in manu domini regis sine 
 aliqua contradictione ad faciendum utrique hoc quod judicium 
 curie sue dederit. Et de hiis omnibus idem Saherus fecit 
 litteras suas patentes domino regi. Et si forte predicta 
 comitissa venerit et per judicium curie domini regis partem 
 suam inde recuperaverit ipsa reddet secundum porcionem 
 quam inde habebit porcionem predicti finis. Et per hunc 
 finem concessit dominus rex quod per sacramentum legalium 
 hominum declarabitur que terre et feoda sint de honore de 
 Grantemenill et que de aliis honoribus quos comes tenuit. 
 
 Close Roll, 6 John, m. 1 1 
 
 Rex etc. vicecomiti Leircestrie. Precipimus tibi quod 
 diligenter inquiri facias quantum terre de honore de Grente- 
 menvill R. comes Leircestrie dedit episcopo Lincoln, in es- 
 cambium terre sue extra Leirc. et quantum de honore predicto 
 idem episcopus habet tantum ad valentiam sine dilatione 
 facias habere Petronille comitisse Leircestrie de predicta terra 
 que fuit episcopi extra Leirc. quia ipsa finem facit nobiscum 
 pro habendo plenarie predicto honore. Teste me-ipso apud 
 Meskesh. xxvij die Dec. 
 
 Ibid., m. 6 
 
 Rex etc. vicecomiti Gloc. etc. Scias quod commisimus 
 dilecto et fideli nostro Saero de Quency totam terram que 
 fuit comitis Leircestrie que est in manu nostra tam in domi- 
 nicis quam in feodis. Et ideo tibi precipimus quod ei plena- 
 riam saisinam inde habere facias in balliva tua. Et precipe
 
 go ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 omnibus militibus et liberis tenentibus de feodo illo qui sunt 
 in manu nostra in balliva quod eidem Sahero in omnibus sint 
 intendentes salva fide nostra. Teste domino Cantuar. apud 
 Abbedon. xxx die Marc. 
 
 Sub eadem forma scribitur aliis vicecomitibus in quorum 
 ballivis comes Leircestrie habuit terram vel feoda que fuerunt 
 in manu domini regis excepto castello de Montsorell quod 
 dominus rex retinuit in manu sua quamdiu ei placuerit. 
 
 Ibid., m. 3 
 
 Rex vicecomiti Leicestrie etc. Mandamus tibi quod sine 
 dilatione facias habere dilecto et fideli nostro Sahero de 
 Quency Baggewrde Westan et Seneby que fuerunt comitis 
 Leicestrie unde mandatum nostrum recepisti quod ea liberares 
 comitisse Leicestrie in custodia retinenda quamdiu nobis 
 placeret si non sint de honore de Grentemenvill nee de dote 
 predicte comitisse quia ea predicto Sahero commisimus in 
 custodia donee aliud ei inde fecerimus. Teste me-ipso apud 
 Turrim Lond. xxviij die April. 
 
 Sub eadem forma scribitur vicecomiti Bercscire de manerio 
 de Hungerford. 
 
 Ibid., m. 3. 
 
 Rex vicecomiti Leicestrie etc. Precipimus tibi quod sine 
 dilatione facias habere dilecto et fideli nostro Saero de Quency 
 terram extra mur. Leirc. que fuit comitis Leicestrie quia ei 
 commisimus earn in custodiam si non sit de honore de 
 Grentemeinvill nee de dote comitisse Leirc. Salva comitisse 
 Leic. terra quam ei reddi precepimus in escambium terre 
 de honore Grentemeinvill quam idem comes dedit domino 
 Lincoln, per concordiam inter eos factam pro terra ilia et 
 salva canonicis Leic. terra quam idem comes dedit eis in ligia 
 potestate sua quam eis reddi precepimus. Teste meipso apud 
 Turrim London, xxviij die April. 
 
 Ibid., m. 2 
 
 Rex vicecomiti Wiltes. etc. Precipimus tibi quod sine dila- 
 tione facias habere Amicie comitisse de Muntford manerium 
 de Winterburstok. cum pertinentiis quod fuit datum ei in
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 91 
 
 maritagium quod commiseramus Sahero de Quency. Teste 
 G. filio Petri apud Windesor xxx die April, per Philippum 
 de Lucy. 
 
 Pipe Roll, 6 John, m. \jd 
 
 Petronilla comitissa Leircestrie reddit compotum de mmm 
 marc, pro habendo Leycestriam cum pertinentiis cum feodis 
 et dominicis omnibus que pertinent ad honorem de Grent- 
 meisnill infra comitatum et extra sicut jus suum et hereditatem 
 ita quod regi remaneant omnes terre Normannorum que sunt 
 de eodem feodo et quod domus de Wittewich commitatur cui 
 rex voluerit quod [de] fideliter regi serviendo obsides dabit et 
 predicta comitissa omnia predicta que rex ei reddidit tenebit 
 nisi per judicium curie regis dissaisietur. Termini. Infra 
 purificationem beate Marie anno regis vjto d marc. In 
 Pascha d marc. In festo sancti Johannis Bapt. d marc. Et 
 in festo S. Michaelis d marc. Et in Natali sequent! cc et 
 1 marc. In Pascha sequenti cc et 1 marc. In festo sancti 
 Johannis Bapt. cc et 1 marc. Et in festo S. Michaelis cc et 
 1 marc./" resp. infra. 
 
 Petronilla comitissa Leicestrie reddit compotum de mmm 
 marc, pro habendo Leircestriam sicut supra continetur. In 
 thesauro d marc. Et ipsi regi in camera sua d marc, per 
 breve G filii Petri. Et debet mm marc. 
 
 Saerus de Quenci reddit compotum de m marc, per sic 
 quod rex committat ei totam terram que fuit comitis Ley- 
 cestrie in Anglia tarn in dominicis quam in feodis excepto 
 honore de Grentemeisnil et exceptis dotibus comitissarum 
 tarn matris quam uxoris ipsius comitis et excepto castello de 
 Montesorel cum his que pertinent ad castellum quod rex 
 retinet in manu sua quamdiu ei placuerit. Ita quod si forte 
 Amicia comitissa de Monteforti soror uxoris ipsius Saeri 
 venerit (et partem suam in terra ilia clamaverit et si con- 
 sideratio curie regis viderit expedire tota predicta terra tarn 
 in dominicis quam in feodis reveniet in manu) 1 in manu 
 regis sine aliqua contradictione ad faciendum utrique hoc 
 quod judicium curie sue dederit. Et de his omnibus idem 
 Saherus fecit litteras suas patentes regi. Et si forte predicta 
 
 1 Interlined.
 
 92 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 comitissa venerit et per judicium curie regis partem suam 
 inde recuperaverit ipsa reddet secundum porcionem quam 
 inde habebit porcionem predicti finis. Et per hunc finem 
 concessit rex quod per sacramentum legalium hominum 
 declarabitur que terre et feoda sint de honore de Grentemais- 
 nill et que de aliis honoribus quos comes tenuit. In thesauro 
 nichil et in perdonis ipsi Saiero c et Ixxix li.-iij s.-iiij d. per 
 breve regis quod attulit de perdonando ipsi ccc marc, (quod 
 est in forulo marescalli). Et debet cccc et quater xx et vij 
 li.-x s. quare resp. inde in rotulo ix. 1 
 
 Fine Roll, 7 John, m. 1 1 
 
 Saherus de Quency dat v millia marc, pro habenda tota 
 terra et omnibus feodis de honore de Grentemesnyll cum 
 pertinentiis que dominus rex tradiderat Petronille comitisse 
 Leicestrie et postea cepit in manu sua salvis inde eidem 
 comitisse catallis et bladis et manerio de Wares, et feodis 
 trium militum unde Rad. de Martivvas tenet feodum j militis 
 de (etc.) . . . que idem Saherus concessit eidem comitisse 
 tenenda quamdiu vixerit et salvis utrique comitisse Leicestrie 
 dote sua. Et mandatum est vicecomiti Suhampton. quod 
 sine dilatione habere faciat prefato Sahero plenariam saisinam 
 sicut predictum est de hiis que inde sunt in balliva sua. 
 
 (Note, this entry is repeated on the Pipe Roll for 7 John, 
 Northampton, m. 21.) 
 
 Close Roll, 7 John, m. 23 
 
 Rex etc. vicecomiti Leicestrie salutem. Scias quod recog- 
 nitum est in curia nostra coram nobis que terre et feoda que 
 continentur in scripto quod tibi mittimus sub sigillo nostro 
 inclusa sunt de feodo de Grentemesnill et debent remanere 
 comitisse Leicestrie. Et ideo tibi precipimus quod alias 
 terras et feoda que comes Robertus tenuit et unde saisitus 
 fuit in dominico suo ut de feodo in balliva tua die qua obiit 
 liberes sine dilatione Sahero de Quency salva predicte comi- 
 tisse dote sua quia ea cum alia terra quam habet tradidimus 
 ei in custodia quamdiu nobis placuerit. Teste me-ipso apud 
 Clarendon xxviij die Maii. 
 
 1 The whole of the above entry is crossed out on the roll.
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 93 
 
 Ibid., m. 1 6 
 
 Rex archidiacono Stafford, et Roberto de Roppell etc. 
 Mandamus vobis quod quater xx et xij libratas terre que 
 sunt in Leicestria unde nobis mandastis assignetis comitisse 
 Leicestrie junior! in dotem et viij libratas terre que restant ei 
 alibi assignetis. Ita quod integre habeat centum libratas 
 terre. Teste me-ipso apud Ivelcestr. xxv die Aug. 
 
 Mandatum est archidiacono Stafford, et Roberto de Roppell 
 quod faciant habere L. comitisse Leicestrie bladum hujus 
 autumpni de centum libratis terre ei assignatis per eos in 
 dotem. 
 
 Ibid., m. 15 
 
 Rex etc. archidiacono Stafford, et Roberto de Roppell 
 custodibus honoris de Grentemenill salutem. Mandamus 
 vobis quod ad quater viginti et xij libratas terre quas Loretta 
 comitissa Leicestrie habet in balliva vestra faciatis ei habere 
 viij libratas terre ita quod per totum habeat c libratas terre 
 sicut vobis alia vice precepimus. Teste me-ipso apud Merle- 
 berg, xv die Sept. 
 
 Pipe Roll, 7 John, m. 3 
 
 Comes Leircestrie debet iiij li.-viij d. de firm, de Belegrave 
 cum redditu j domus que fuit Ricardi Rollos. 
 
 (The amount is pardoned on the next roll.) 
 
 Petronilla comitissa debet mm marcas pro habenda Leir- 
 cestria sicut continetur ibidem. /"; recordatum est per breve 
 filii Petri et per barones quod non potuit habere terras pro 
 quibus finivit quia Saierus de Quenci finivit pro eisdem terris 
 per v millia marc, et ideo non debet predicta comitissa 
 amplius summoniri de predictis mm marc. 
 
 Saierus de Quency cccc et quater xx et vij li. et x s. per 
 sic quod rex committat sicut continetur ibidem quare resp. 
 inde in rotulo ix. 
 
 Robertus de Roppelai reddit compotum de . . . lij li.-iiij s.- 
 de honore de Leycestria de termino S. Michaelis. . , . 
 
 Close Roll, 8 John, m. 5 
 
 Rex etc. G. filio Petri etc. Mandamus vobis quod sine 
 dilatione faciatis habere Simoni comiti Leicestrie c m. terre
 
 94 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 de terris quas Alanus films Comitis tenuit vel in aliis escaetis 
 nostris de terris Normannorum ad respondendum nobis inde 
 si voluerimus. Et ponatis in respectum demandam finis 
 quern comitissa mater comitis Leicestrie nobiscum fecit quous- 
 que sciamus qualiter fiat particio terrarum pro qua finivit. 
 Teste me-ipso apud Muilleron xxviij die Aug. 
 
 Ibid., m. 3 
 
 Rex vicecomiti Wiltes. etc. Precipimus tibi quod facias 
 habere dilecto nostro Sahero comiti Wintonie saisinam de 
 viginti libratis terre cum pertinentiis in Winterburnestok que 
 remanserunt Simoni comiti Leicestrie et matri sue qn triginta 
 librate terre assignate fuerunt predicto Sahero in eodem 
 manerio quia volumus quod illas viginti libratas terre habeat 
 ad proficiendum xl libratas terre que illi assignari debuerant 
 in comitatu Leicestrie unde nondum ei assignate fuerunt nisi 
 viginti librate tantum. Teste me-ipso apud Oxon. x die Feb. 
 per (etc.). 
 
 Patent Roll, 8 John, m. 3 
 
 Rex omnibus militibus et libere tenentibus de honore 
 comitis Leicestrie etc. Sciatis quod commisimus Roberto 
 de Roppell custodiam tocius terre comitis Simonis de Monte- 
 forti in Anglia ad faciendum inde commodum nostrum de 
 redditibus et vendicionibus bosci et aliis exitibus terre illius 
 quousque habuerimus inde denarios quos idem comes nobis 
 debet et volumus quod duo milites de eodem honore videant 
 receptam illam et quantum nobis inde de predictis denarii's 
 solvatur. Et ideo vobis mandamus quod eidem Roberto 
 interim tanquam ballivo nostro ad hoc sitis intendentes. 
 Teste me-ipso apud Wudestok xiij die Feb. anno etc. viij. 
 
 CARTA SAIERI COMITIS WINTONIE 
 Cart a Antigua, K. 17 
 
 Johannes Dei gratia rex Anglic etc. Sciatis nos con- 
 cessisse et presenti carta nostra confirmasse partitionem 
 factam coram nobis et baronibus nostris per Simonem de 
 Monteforti comitem Leircestrie et Saiherum de Quenci 
 comitem Wintonie de omnibus terris et honoribus qui fuerunt
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 95 
 
 comitis Roberti de Leircestria die qua obiit cum omnibus 
 pertinentiis suis ita scilicet quod tota medietas illarum 
 terrarum et honorum in dominicis et feodis et omnibus aliis 
 rebus et locis integre remaneant uni illorum comitum et 
 altera medietas alteri salvis predicto comiti Simoni tertio 
 denario comitatus Leicestrie unde ipse comes est et capitali 
 mesag. Leicestrie et senescalcia nostra. Ita etiam quod 
 quadraginta librate terre de parte comitis Simonis remane- 
 bunt prefato comiti Saihero preter partem suam quousque 
 simul deliberaverit eidem comiti Saihero rationabilem partem 
 suam de terra que fuit prenominati comitis Roberti in 
 Normannia. Post obitum vero comitissarum Petronille matris 
 ejusdem comitis Roberti et Laurent, quondam uxoris ipsius 
 Roberti que dotate sunt de predicto honore dotes illarum 
 sicut diliberabuntur dividentur et una medietas inde re- 
 manebit predicto Simoni et altera medietas prefato Saihero. 
 Quare volumus et firmiter precipimus quod predictus comes 
 Saiherus et heredes sui habeant et teneant imperpetuum 
 predictam partem suam cum omnibus pertinentiis suis bene 
 et in pace libere et quiete integre et honorifice sicut pre- 
 dictum est. Testibus domino W. London., domino P. Winton., 
 episcopis ; G. filio Petri comite Essex, Alberico de Ver 
 comite Oxon., Rogero de Lasci constabulario Cestrie. Data 
 per manum Hugonis de Well, archidiaconi Well, apud 
 Illingbr. decimo die Marcii anno regni nostri octavo. 
 
 (Printed Rymer, Foedera, 1 R. C., i, p. 96. The Charter 
 Roll for this year is missing.) 
 
 Close Roll, 8 John, m. 7 
 
 Rex etc. baronibus de Scaccario etc. Mandamus vobis 
 quod de ccc marc, quas perdonavimus Sahero de Quency 
 anno etc. vij apud Dertem. quas ei locastis in mille marc, 
 quas nobis primo promiserat ut dicitur ei locari faciatis in 
 totali debito suo scilicet in sex millibus marc, per quas finivit 
 
 1 In the Foedera this charter is headed " Pro Simone de Monte- 
 forti comite Leicestr. et Sahero de Quenci comite Winton [etc.]." 
 This is a misleading blunder. This is the earl of Winchester's 
 charter and is so headed in the roll : it is most unlikely that Simon 
 de Montfort was granted a corresponding charter.
 
 96 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 nobiscum pro habenda terra que fuit Roberti comitis Leicestrie 
 que eum contingit ex parte uxoris sue et pro habendo honore 
 de Hinkel. Ita tamen quod de scaccario in scaccarium locen- 
 tur ei ille ccc marc, scilicet ad quodlibet scaccarium c marc. 
 Teste me-ipso apud Porcestr. xxv die Maii anno etc. viij. 
 
 Ibid., m. l 
 
 Rex baronibus de Scaccario etc. Sciatis quod Robertus 
 de Roppell pacavit in camera nostra apud Windlesor die 
 Veneris ante Florid. Pasch. quater viginti marc, et decem 
 marc, de exitibus honoris Leicestrie qui est in custodia sua. 
 Et ideo vobis mandamus quod de tanto quietus sit. Teste 
 W. Briw. apud Windlesor xiiij die April, anno regni nostri 
 viij. per dominum VVinton. 
 
 Rex baronibus suis de Scaccario etc. Computate Rob. 
 de Roppell septies viginti et sex li. et xiij s. et iiij d. quos 
 liberavit in camera nostra die Lune proxima post festum 
 sancti Dunstan. apud Dunham, de exitibus terre Simonis de 
 Monteforti de honore Leicestrie. Teste Roberto de Veteri 
 Ponte apud Gringel. xxij die Maii anno regni nostri viij. 
 per (etc.) 
 
 Close Roll, 9 John, m. 17 
 
 Rex baronibus de Scaccario etc. Computate Roberto de 
 Roppell centum marc, quas liberavit in camera nostra apud 
 Lameh. die apostolorum Petri et Pauli anno regni nostri ix 
 de exitibus terre comitis Simonis de Monteforti quam habet in 
 custodia. Teste me-ipso apud Lameh. xxix die Junii per etc. 
 
 Ibid., m. 14 
 
 Rex baronibus de Scaccario etc. Allocate Willelmo Briw. 
 sexties viginti libr. quas comes Leircestrie recepit de catallis 
 que fuerunt Roberti de Duvr. et ponatis inde in debitum 
 Saherum comitem Wintonie et Simonem comitem Leircestrie 
 unum eorum de una medietate et alterum de alia et illas ab 
 eis exigatis. Teste G. filio Petri apud Westmonasterium viij 
 die Octobris per dominum Winton.
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 97 
 
 Ibid., m. 12 
 
 Rex Roberto de Roppell salutem. Si Simon de Turrevill 
 habuit in prepositura Leircestrie centum solidat. reddit. per 
 annum tempore Roberti comitis Leircestrie et tempore Sahery 
 de Quency comitis Wintonie postquam dictus R. comes 
 mortuus est etc. illas ei habere faciatis secundum tenorem 
 carte sue quam inde habet de predicto Roberto comite. Teste 
 me-ipso apud Dunest. ij die Nov. per ipsum regem. 
 
 Ibid., m. II 
 
 Rex baronibus etc. Mandamus vobis quod de finibus quos 
 Saherus de Quincy comes Wintonie nobiscum fecit pro terris 
 que fuerunt Roberti comitis Leicestrie tarn de comitatu 
 Leicestrie quam de honore de Hynkelay et de aliis terris 
 suis in Anglia capiatis vos ad ipsum Saherum de medietate 
 illorum finium computatis eidem S. in medietate ilia hiis 
 quos inde postea pacavit et unde habuit literas nostras de 
 quietancia et concessimus ei quod de residue illius medietatis 
 reddat ad instans scaccarium sancti Michaelis anno regni 
 nostri ix cc marc, et ad scaccarium Pasche proximo sequens 
 cc marc, et sic de scaccario ad scaccarium cc marc, quousque 
 ilia medietas persolvatur. Et ideo [etc.]. . . . Teste W. de 
 Briw. apud Merleberg. xxvij die Nov. per etc. . . . (In 
 rotulo finium.) 
 
 Ibid., m. 10 
 
 Rex etc. baronibus etc. Computate Roberto de Roppell 
 quadraginta libr. quas pacavit in camera nostra apud Geldef. 
 de exitu terre Simonis comitis Leicestrie die beatorum Inno- 
 centum anno etc. ix. Teste Ricardo de Marisco apud Geldef. 
 xxviij die Dec. anno etc. ix. 
 
 Ibid., m. 7 
 
 Rex Roberto de Roppell etc. precipimus tibi quod sine 
 dilatione facias habere monialibus de Pratell. consuetam 
 elemosynam quam percipere solebant a comite Leircestrie 
 apud Leircestriam. Teste me-ipso apud Winton. xv die Feb. 
 per breve domini regis de privato sigillo suo. 
 H
 
 98 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Ibid., m. 6 
 
 Rex etc. Roberto de Roppell custodi terre que fuit quondam 
 comitis Leircestrie etc. Mandamus tibi quod faciatis habere 
 in pace monialibus de Pratell. elemosynam ass. quam habere 
 solebant ad scaccarium Leircestrie et si quid inde non venit 
 in manum nostram de terminis preteritis id eisdem monialibus 
 sine dilatione reddi facias. Teste domino P. Winton. episcopo 
 apud Merleberg xvij die March", per eundem. 
 
 Rex baronibus de Scaccario etc. Sciatis quod die Lune 
 proxima ante festum beati Benedicti anno regni nostri ix 
 recepimus in camera nostra apud Merleberg per manum 
 Roberti de Roppell centum marcas de exitu terre Simonis 
 comitis Leircestrie et ideo vobis mandamus quod ipsum 
 inde quietum esse faciatis. Teste Ricardo de Marisco apud 
 Merleberg xvij die Marcii. per eundem. 
 
 Pipe Roll, 9 John, m. 19 
 
 Saierus de Quenci reddit compotum de mm et d marc, 
 scilicet de medietate de mmmmm marc, per quas prius 
 finiverat sicut continetur in rotulo vij in Norhamtescira pro 
 habenda tota terra de honore de Grentemaisnil cum perti- 
 nentiis sicut continetur ibidem et de medietate de m marc, 
 per quas finiverat ut rex committat ei totam terram que fuit 
 comitis Leicestrie in tota Anglia sicut continetur in rotulo vi 
 in Warrew. et Leicestr. et est summa istarum medietatum 
 mmm marc. Ita ut ei computetur quicquid ei perdonatum 
 est in predictis comitatibus per breve regis et quicquid 
 reddidit in thesauro sicut continetur in brevi quod rex misit 
 baronibus quod est in forulo marescalli. Ita videlicet ut ad 
 predictam summam de mmm marc, respondeat quia rex 
 perdonavit ei aliam medietatem scilicet mmm marc, per 
 predictum breve. In thesauro nichil et in perdonis ipsi Saero 
 ccc marc, per breve regis et debet mm et dec marc, de quibus 
 debet reddere per annum cccc marc, ad duo scaccaria. Idem 
 reddit compotum de eodem debito. In thesauro cc marc. Et 
 debet mm et d marc. De quibus debet reddere per annum 
 cccc marc, ad duo scaccaria. . . . 
 
 Saerus de Quenci comes Wintonie Ix li. de catallis Fulberti
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 99 
 
 de Doure que requirebantur a Willelmo Bewre sicut continetur 
 in compoto ejusdem Willelmi pro Devenesira. . . . 
 
 Simon de Muntfort comes Leycestrie debet Ix li. de eisdem 
 catallis sicut supra continetur. 
 
 Pipe Roll, 10 John, m. 3 
 
 i i 
 
 Seiherus de Quenci reddit compotum de iij optimos caszuros 
 (sic) pro habenda medietate suburbii Leircestrie quod partitum 
 fuit per juratam legalium hominum ultimam factam per pre- 
 ceptum regis. In thesauro nichil. Et ipsi R. iij chacur. 
 
 (Note, the Close Rolls for 10, n, 12, and 13 John are missing 
 with the exception of a fragment for the twelfth year. The 
 Patent Rolls for u, 12, and 13 John are also missing.) 
 
 Pipe Roll, ii John, m. 2d. 
 
 Compotus terrarum Simonis de Muntfort comitis 
 Leycestrie afesto Purificationis anno viij 
 usque ad festum sancti Nicholai anni sequentis. 
 
 Robertus de Roppellay reddit compotum de iiij li.-viij s. de 
 arerag. redditus prepositure Leircestrie de predicto termino 
 Purificationis et de 1 s.-ix d.-ob. de arerag. cujusdam redditus 
 extra portam orientalem de eodem termino. Et de ij marc, 
 de redditu pontium de eodem termino. Et de xl d. de Gilda 
 fullon. de eodem termino. Et de ij s.-iij d. de quodam novo 
 fefamento. Et de vj li.-iij s.-ij d. de arerag. cujusdam taill. 
 facti per eundem comitem. Et de Ixvj s.-j d. de arerag. j 
 scutag. Et de iiij li.-iiij s.-xi d. de arerag. perquisitorum. 
 Et de xxxix s.-vj d.-ob. de arerag. herbagium. Et de xxxvs. 
 de arerag. vilenagium de Hinkelay de eodem termino. Et de 
 xxxix s.-viij d. de redditu burgi de Hinkelay. Et de ij s.-ij d. 
 de baillio de Hinkelay. Et de iiij s.-iiij d. de essartis de 
 Barewell. Et de xx s. de redditu de la Wike. Et de vj d. de 
 arerag. taill. de Hinkelay. Et de Ixvj s.-iiij d.-ob. de firm, 
 ville de Baggewurde. Et de xlv s.-vij d. de firm, de Dereford 
 de eodem termino. Et de ixs. de arerag. taill. ejusdem ville. 
 Et de iiij s. de melle vend. Et de Ixix s.-vj d.-ob. de firm, de 
 Selton. Et de x d. de firm, de Hecton. Et de iij s.-xj d. de 
 firm, de Stanton Ysabel. Et de xviij s.-viij d. de firm, de
 
 ioo ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Belegrave. Et de xixs.-vjd. de fine Tome de Haddone. 
 Et de xiiij li.-vj s.-j d. de furnis Leircestrie et suburbio extra 
 portam orientalem et de redditibus de Belegrave et de Deres- 
 ford antequam predicte terre assignarentur Saiero comiti 
 Wintonie. Et de c et xvij li.-xv d. de firm, prepositure ville 
 Leycestrie de anno ix. Et de x li. de dominico ville Leicestrie 
 posito ad firm, de eodem anno. Et de iiij li. de firm, pontium. 
 Etde xxxvj li.-xiij s.-iiij d. de firm, molendinorum Leircestrie. 
 Et de x s. de Gilda fullon. Et de xvj s.-viij d. de novo fefa- 
 mento. Et de xviijd. de redditibus piperis. Et de Ivjs.-vd. de 
 redditibus suburbii extra portam orientalem. Et de iiij s.- 
 ij d. de redditibus gallinarum. Et de c et vj li.-ij d. de taill. 
 ville Leircestrie. Et de x li. de perquisitionibus ejusdem ville. 
 
 ix 
 
 Et de xj li.-vj s.-viij d. de bobus vend. Et de xviij d. de toris 
 
 vend. Et de ij s. de fructu vend. Et de c et v s.-iij d.-ob. de 
 pasnag. Et de x li.-xij s. de herbag. Et de xv s.-v d.-ob. de 
 portitoribus fasciculorum. Et de ccc et viij li.-xj s.-ix d.-ob. 
 de bosco vend, per maneria de (toto) predicto tempore. Et de 
 c et viij s. de firm, villenag. de Hinkelay de predicto anno ix. 
 Et de c et xix s. de firm, burgi de Hinkelay. Et de vj s.-vj d. 
 de firm, de baillio. Et de Ix s. de firm, de la Wike. Et de 
 xiij s.-ij d. de essartis de Barewude. Et de xiiij li.-vj s.-viij d. 
 de duobus taill. de soca de Hinkelay. Et de c et xix s. de 
 perquisit. Et de iij s.-ix d. de fructu vend. Et de x li.-vj s.- 
 vij d.-ob. de redditibus de Baggewrde de anno ix. Et de 
 xiiij li. de duobus taill. ejusdem manerii. Et de iiij li.-vj s.- 
 xj d. de perquisit. ejusdem manerii de toto predicto tempore. 
 Et de c et xij s. de redditibus de Schelton. Et de viij li. de 
 duobus taill. ejusdem manerii. Et de xl s.-j d. de perquisit. 
 Et de vj li.-vj s. de redditibus de Deresford. Et de ix li.-ij s. 
 de ij taill. Et de xxx s.-viij d. de perquisit. Et de iij s.-j d. 
 de melle vend. Et de ij s.-vj d. de firm. Osmundi de Hocton. 
 Et de xij s.-ix d. de firm, de Stanton Ysabel. Et de xx s. de 
 firm. Willelmi de Senevilla. Et de cs. de fine Tome de 
 Haddon. Et de iiij li. de fine Hugonis filii Willelmi. Et de 
 cc et xx li.-ixs.-x d.-ob. de redditibus predictorum maneriorum 
 de anno preterite. Et de xixs. de fructu vend, de eodem 
 anno. Et de iiij li.-xviij s.-ob. de pasnag. Et de c et xviij s.-
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 101 
 
 iij ob. de herbag. Et de c et Ixiiij li.-vij s.-uij d. de redditibus 
 predictarum terrarum de duabus partibus hujus anni. Et de 
 xxj li.-vij s.-v d. de pasnag. Et de x li.-vj s.-xj d.-ob. de 
 herbag. Et de xxij s.-xi d. de predictis portitoribus. Et 
 de c et xv s.-vj d. de Ixxvij porcis vend. Et de iiij s.-j d. de 
 redditibus unius essart. de termino sancti Michaelis. 
 
 S.-M et CC et XXIII li.-VIII s.-Id. In thesauro nichil. 
 Et ipsi regi in camera dccc et xxij li.-viij d. per xj brevibus 
 regis. 
 
 Et in decima constit. priori de Ware Ixiij s.-j d. de decima 
 pasnag. predictorum nemorum de toto predicto tempore. Et 
 eidem prioi xxxli.-xvij s.-ij d. de decima boscorum venditorum 
 de toto predicto tempore. Et eidem Iiij s.-ix d.-ob. de decima 
 herbagii de predicto tempore. Et eidem Ixx s. de decima 
 portitorum fasciculorum. Et in elemosyna const, canonicis 
 Leircestrie iiij li. de terminis Purificationis et Pentecost anni 
 viij de vj li. quos solebant percipere de prepositura ad certos 
 terminos per annum. Et eisdem xx s. de termino sancti 
 Michaelis ejusdem anni de medietate que pertinet ad comitem 
 Simonem. Et eisdem vjli. de eadem medietate de anno ix et 
 x de v terminis. Et eisdem vs.-iiijd. in terra Radulfi Lit[l]e- 
 child de eisdem terminis. Et eisdem xxvij d.-ob. de dono 
 Simonis clerici de eisdem terminis. Et clericis servientibus 
 in capella sancte Marie de Castello ij marc, de terminis 
 Pasche et Pentecost anni viij antequam terra partiretur inter 
 comitem Simonem et Saierum de Quenci. Et eisdem xx s. 
 de parte comitis Simonis de vj terminis sequentibus. Et 
 monialibus de Pratell. x marc, de predictis duobus terminis. 
 Et eisdem x li.-xj d. de parte comitis Simonis de predictis vj 
 terminis. Et fratribus sancti Lazari dim. marc, de duobus 
 premis. terminis. Et eisdem x s. de predictis vj terminis. Et 
 eisdem iiij s.-v d. de firm, pontium de predictis ij terminis. 
 Et eisdem dim. marc, de predictis vj terminis. Et fratribus 
 leporosis Leircestrie xiij li.-iiij s. de utraque medietate de toto 
 predicto tempore de parte comitis Simonis. Et eisdem 
 xvij s.-viij d. de predicto tempore [ad] pbendam carettarii 
 trahentis ligna eorum. Et priori de Ulveseroft viij s.-x d.-ob de 
 predictis ij terminis. Et eidem j marc, de predictis vj terminis 
 de decima Sopar. et Hunfrido capellano et Roberto clerico
 
 loz ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 xxx s.-ij d. de predictis ij terminis de decima furnorum. Et 
 eisdem xiij s. de predictis vj terminis. Et priori de Ware 
 xlviij s.-x d.-ob. de decima molendinorurri de predictis ij 
 terminis. Et eidem v marc, et dim. de vj predictis terminis. 
 Et Simoni de Turevilla x marc, de iiij terminis per breve 
 regis. Et predicto priori de Ware xxxj li.-xij s. de decima 
 prepositure de toto predicto tempore. Et fratribus hospital, 
 de Estbrigg viij s.-x d.-ob. de ij predictis terminis. Et eisdem 
 j marc, de predictis vj terminis. Et magistro Gileb. de Aquila 
 v marc, de predictis ij terminis. Et eisdem cs. de predictis 
 vj terminis per breve regis. Et in pastu porcorum iiij s.- 
 viij d. per idem breve. Et in quiet, terrarum v forestariorum 
 Ixxijs. de toto predicto tempore. Et debet cc et Ivli.-xvij s.- 
 x d.-ob. 
 
 Idem reddit compotum de eodem debito. In thesauro 
 nichil. Et in emptione ferri xx marc, per breve regis. Et 
 debet cc et xlij li.-xi s.-ij d.-ob. 
 
 Idem reddit compotum de eodem debito. In thesauro 
 nichil. Et predictis fratribus leporosis Leircestrie viij li. de 
 firm, de Hinkelay de toto predicto tempore. Et priori de 
 Hinkelay vij li.-xj s. de predicto tempore. Et monialibus de 
 Wrokeshal xxxs. de eodem tempore. Et debet cc et xxvli.- 
 x s.-ij d.-ob. 
 
 Idem reddit compotum de eodem debito. In thesauro 
 xxx li. Et debet c et quater xx et xv li.-x s.-ij d.-ob. 
 
 Pipe Roll, 12 John, m. gd 
 
 Compotus terrarum Simonis de Muntford de 
 anno integro a die qua Willelmus de Can- 
 telupe suscepit custodiam terrarum illarum. 
 
 Willelmus de Cantelupe, Philippus de Kinton pro eo, reddit 
 compotum de c et Ixxij li.-iij s.-iiij d. de redditibus ass. ville 
 de Leircestria cum molendinis et aliis redditibus sicut comp. 
 in rotulo precedente. Et de xv li.-vj s.-viij d. de redditibus 
 ass. de Hinkelai cum pertinentiis. Et de x li.-vj s.-vij d.-ob. 
 de redditibus ass. de Baggewrde. Et de c et xij s. de redditibus 
 de Scheltone. Et de vj li.-vj s. de redditibus ass. de Deresford. 
 Et de ij s.-vj d. de firm. Osmundi de Hocton. Et de xij s.- 
 ix d. de firm, de Stanton Ysabel. Et de xx s. de firm.
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 103 
 
 Willelmi de Senevilla. Et de c s. de fine Tome de Haddon. 
 Et de iiij li. de fine Hugonis filii Willelmi. 
 
 S. CC et XX li.-IX s.-X d.-ob.-Et de ccc marc, de taill. 
 ville Leircestrie. Et de c li. de fine heredis Henrici Costen. 
 Et de xix li.-xi s.-x d. (de perquisit.) Et de xxj li.-ix s. de 
 taill. predictorum maneriorum. Et de c et vj li.-j marc, de 
 bosco vend. Et de viij li.-xv s.-iiij d. de herbagiis. Et 
 de ix li.-ij s. de pasnag. Et de xij s.-vj d. de fructu vend. 
 Et de xxv s. de portitoribus fasciculorum. 
 
 S. DC et quater XX et VI I li.-X VI 1 1 s.-X d. In thesauro 
 ccc li. per burgenses Leircestrie et Henricum Costen. 
 
 Et priori de Ware de decima const, de venditione boscorum 
 x li.-j marc. Et eidem xx s. de decima herbagii et portitorum. 
 Et eidem xviij s.-ij d. de decima pasnag. Et in elemosyna 
 const, canonicis Leircestrie Ix s. Et eidem (sic) ij s. de terra 
 Rad. Litlechild. Et eisdem xvj d. de domo Simonis clerici. 
 Et clericis de castell. x s. Et monialibus de Pratell. c s.-xx d. 
 Et fratribus sancti Lazari v s. Et eisdem xl d. de firm, 
 pontium. Et fratribus leporosis Leircestrie iiij li.-xix s.-iij d. 
 Et eisdem iij s.-vj d. ad pbendam carettarii sui. 
 
 Et priori de Ulveseroft dim. marc. Et Unfrido capellano 
 et Roberto clerico xxij s.-viij d. Et priori de Ware xxxvj s.- 
 viij d. de decuna molendinorum. Et Willelmo de Turrevilla 
 c s. Et predicto priori de Ware xi li.-xvij s. de decima pre- 
 positure. Et fratribus hospital, de Estbrigge dim. marc. 
 Et magistro Gileb. de Aquila 1 s. Et fratribus leporosis 
 Leircestrie Ix s. de firm. Hinkel. Et priori de Hinkel. Ivj s.- 
 vij d.-ob. Et monialibus de Wrokeshal x s. Et in quiet, 
 terrarum forestar. xxx s. Et in pastu porcorum et cignorum 
 xvj s. Et in superplus quod habet in compoto suo pro 
 Wirecestria xvij li.-xij s.-ij d. Et debet ccc et xj li.-xvj s.- 
 viij d.-ob. 
 
 Idem reddit compotum de eodem debito. In thesauro nichil 
 et in stipendiis servientium et necessariis expensis per maneria 
 xx li. Et debet cc et quater xx et xj li.-xvj s.-viij d.-ob. 
 
 Idem reddit compotum de eodem debito. In thesauro cc 
 et xxiiij li.-ij s.-viij d. Et debet Ixvij li.-xiiij s.-ob. De quibus 
 ix li.-vij s.-ij d.-ob. sunt super Robert, de Turneham. Et 
 debet predictus Willelmus Ivij li.-vij d.
 
 104 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Idem reddit compotum de eodem debito. In thesauro 
 nichil. Et in vasto Sopar. Leircestrie pro combustione xiiij 
 marc.-viij d. Et debet xlvij li.-xiij s.-iij d. 
 
 Idem reddit compotum de eodem debito. In thesauro lib. 
 et quietus est 
 
 Pipe Roll, 13 John, m. \\d. Compotus terrarum 
 Simonis de Muntfort 
 
 . . . S. tocius ccc et xl li.-xviij d.-ob. 
 
 Pipe Roll, 14 John, m. 15. Compotus earundem 
 
 . . . S. ccc et Ixv li.-xviij s.-ij d.-ob. (This includes 
 " xxv li. de exitibus terre comitisse Petronille de uno termino 
 in Wiltes. et Dorset.") 
 
 Pipe Roll, 15 John, m. 16. Compotus earundem 
 . . . S. tocius ccc et xl li.-xviij d.-ob. 
 
 Patent Roll, 17 John, m. 19 
 
 Rex Willelmo de Cantilupo salutem. Sciatis quod com- 
 misimus dilecto et fideli nostro R. comiti Cestrie totam terram 
 comitis Simonis de Monteforti cum foresta et omnibus perti- 
 nentiis suis custodiendam ad opus ejusdem Simonis. Et 
 ideo vobis mandamus quod eidem R. predictam terram cum 
 foresta et omnibus pertinentiis suis sine dilatione habere 
 faciatis. Et in hujus etc. vobis inde mittimus. Teste ut 
 supra anno eodem. [scilicet apud Oxon. xxj die Julii anno 
 regni nostri xvij]. 
 
 Close Roll, I Henry III, ;. 6 
 
 Mandatum est vicecomiti Berkes. quod sine dilatione 
 plenam saisinam habere faciat R. comiti Cestrie de manerio 
 de Saudon cum pertinentiis quod est de feodo comitis Simonis 
 de Monteforti. Et qm. etc. Teste comite ut proximo supra, 
 [scilicet apud Lameth. iij die Octobris]. 
 
 Patent Roll, 2 Henry HI, m. 3 
 
 Mandatum est omnibus ballivis et fidelibus etc. quod manu- 
 teneant protegant et defendant homines res terras redditus
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 105 
 
 et omnes possessiones que fuerunt comitis Leicestrie que sunt 
 in custodia Philippi de Albiniaco nullam eis etc. addita clausa 
 " Volumus etiam quod terre predicte et possessiones habeant 
 easdem libertates quas habuerunt tempore comitis Roberti 
 filii Petronille." Teste comite apud Newerc xxij die Julii. 
 
 Patent Roll, 3 Henry III, m. 5 
 Similar writ dated loth of January. 
 
 Patent Roll, 2 Henry III, m. 2 
 
 Rex omnibus militibus et libere-tenentibus et aliis de hon- 
 ore Leicestrie qui contingebat comitem Simonem de Monte- 
 forti in comitatibus Warewici et Leicestrie salutem. Sciatis 
 quod commisimus Stephano de Segrave et Ricardo de Brom 
 clerico omnes terras que contingebant comitem Simonem de 
 Monteforti de honore Leicestrie in comitatu (sic) Warewici et 
 Leicestrie ad respondendum de exitibus earundem ad scac- 
 carium nostrum quamdiu nobis placuerit. Et ideo vobis 
 mandamus quod eisdem Stephano et Ricardo tanquam ballivis 
 nostris in omnibus sitis intendentes et respondentes. Et in 
 hujus etc. Teste comite apud Bannebiry xxvj die Julii anno 
 etc. 
 
 Rex vicecomiti Wiltesire salutem. Scias quod comes Simon 
 de Monteforti sicut pro certo audivimus mortuus est Mittimus 
 igitur in partes tuas Galfridum le Sauvage et Philippum de 
 Langerg ad custodiendum omnes terras que fuerunt ipsius 
 comitis in baillia tua et tibi precipimus quod eisdem Galfrido 
 et Philippo sine dilacione plenam saisinam habere facias de 
 omnibus terris que fuerunt predicti comitis in baillia tua cum 
 bobus vaccis ovibus et porcis et aliis instauris que fuerunt 
 ipsius comitis. Teste comite apud Crandun xxvj die Julii 
 anno etc. secundo. 
 
 Close Roll, 2 Henry III, m. 3 
 
 Rex Willelmo de Cantilupo salutem. Audivimus quod 
 comes Simon de Monteforti in fata concessit. Et ideo vobis 
 mandamus quod sine dilatione faciatis habere dilecto et 
 fideli nostro Stephano de Segrave plenam saisinam de 
 omnibus terris in balliva vestra que ipsum Simonem heredit-
 
 106 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 arie contingebant de honore Leicestrie cui commisimus 
 custodiam earundem terrarum ad respondendum nobis ad 
 Scaccarium nostrum de exitibus earundem. Teste ut supra, 
 [scilicet apud Walingeford xxviij die Julii. (See also Fine 
 Roll, pt. i, m. 3, and pt. 2, m. 3.)]. 
 
 Fine Roll, 2 Henry III, pt. i, m. 3', and pt. 2, m. 3 
 
 Mandatum est Philippe de Albiniaco quod plenam saisinam 
 habere faciat Willelmo de Cantilupo vel certo nuncio suo 
 litteras domini regis deferente de omnibus terris que fuerunt 
 comitis Simonis de Monteforti com. Leicestrie custodiendis 
 quamdiu domino regi placuerit. Teste comite apud Caver- 
 sham vij die Aug. 
 
 Close Roll, 2 Henry III, m. 2 
 
 Dominus rex concessit P. Winton. episcopo custodiam terre 
 que fuit comitis Simonis de Monteforti quamdiu ei placuerit 
 et mandatum est Petro de Maulay quod ei sine dilatione 
 plenam saisinam habere faciat de terra predicta cum pertinen- 
 tiis in ballia sua. Teste comite apud Winton. xxvj die 
 Augusti. Idem in rotulo finium. 1 Eodem modo scribitur 
 W. com. Sarr. et Philippo de Albiniaco. 
 
 Close Roll, 3 Henry III, m. 7 
 
 Rex Philippo de Albiniaco custodi honoris Leicestrie salu- 
 tem. Mandamus vobis quod habere faciatis Roberto de 
 Stanton xx solidos ad preposituram Leicestrie quos habere 
 debet de dono comitis Roberti et unde cartam suam habet. 
 Teste ut supra, [scilicet xix die Junii]. 
 
 Close Roll, 4 Henry III, m. 7 
 
 Rex vicecomiti Sumerset salutem. Scias quod Johannes 
 de Cromhal est in servicio nostro per preceptum nostrum 
 ad custodiendum honorem Leicestrie in comitatu Wiltesire. 
 Et ideo tibi precipimus quod ipsum Johannem non ponas in 
 assisis in comitatu tuo quamdiu fuerit in servicio nostro ad 
 predictum honorem custodiendum in predicto comitatu. 
 Teste H. etc. apud Westmonasterium xxiiij die Julii. 
 
 1 Pt. i, m. 3 ; and pt. 2, m. 2.
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 107 
 
 Ibid., m. 2 
 
 Rex Philippe de Albiniaco salutem. Sciatis quod con- 
 cessimus R. comiti Cestrie et Lincolnie quod habeat talem 
 saisinam de honore Leicestrie cum pertinentiis quamdiu nobis 
 placuerit qualem inde habuit die qua iter peregrinacionis sue 
 versus terram sanctam arripuit. Et ideo vobis mandamus 
 quod eidem comiti de predicto honore plenam saisinam sine 
 dilatione habere faciatis. Teste ut supra, [scilicet iiij die 
 Octobris]. 
 
 Eodem modo scribitur vicecomiti Leicestrie, vicecomiti 
 Dorsetie, vicecomiti Wiltescire. 
 
 Patent Roll, 4 Henry III, m. I 
 
 Rex omnibus militibus libere-tenentibus et aliis de honore 
 Leicestrie salutem. Sciatis quod concessimus R. comiti 
 Cestrie et Lincolnie quod talem habeat saisinam de honore 
 Leicestrie cum pertinentiis quamdiu nobis placuerit qualem 
 inde habuit die qua iter peregrinacionis sue versus terram 
 sanctam arripuit. Et ideo vobis mandamus quod eidem 
 comiti sitis in omnibus que ad honorem ilium pertinent 
 intendentes et respondentes quamdiu nobis placuerit sicut 
 predictum est. Et in hujus etc. Teste ut supra, [scilicet iiij 
 die Octobris] anno etc. iiij. per eundem et consilium domini 
 regis. 
 
 Patent Roll, 1 1 Henry III, m. 6 
 
 Dominus rex concessit R. comiti Cestrie et Lincolnie totam 
 illam partem [honoris Leicestrie cum pertinentiis quam prius 
 tenuit de ballio predicti J. regis] 1 patris domini regis cum 
 omnibus escaetis que inde decetero excidere poterunt haben- 
 dam et tenendam sibi ad totam vitam suam [hoc modo quod 
 dominus rex non admittet ad pacem suam comitem Leicestrie 
 ad quern predicta pars pertinet] 1 ita quod partem illam ei 
 reddat nisi predictus comes Cestrie et Lincolnie pacem in- 
 venire possit versus regem Francorum ita quod recuperet 
 terram suam in Normannia quam amisit in servicio predicti 
 J. regis patris domini regis. In cujus etc. Teste rege apud 
 Westmonasterium xviij die Maii. 
 
 1 Expanded by collation with the preceding grant.
 
 io8 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 AMAURY COUNT OF MONTFORT TO HENRY III 
 Angleterre, 77, No. 14 (5) 
 
 Excellentissimo domino suo Henrico, Dei gratia illustri 
 regi Anglorum, Amalricus comes Montisfortis et Leycestrie 
 salutem in eo qui dat salutem regibus et cum omni subjectione 
 tarn debitum quam devotum ad obsequia famulatum. Vestre 
 regie majestati multotiens supplicavi humiliter et devote ut 
 mini terram meam et jus meum quod habeo et habere debeo 
 in Anglia, quod bone memorie pater meus de vestro tenuit 
 et tenebat dum decessit pacifice ac quiete, mihi vestro militi 
 redderetis ; quod quia dominationi vestre non placuerit hucus- 
 que facere, adhuc vestre majestati supplico humilitate qua 
 possum quatinus hac vice mihi vobis servire parato sicut 
 decuerit reddere dignemini terram ; et si hoc vobis non placu- 
 erit, ego ad pedes dominationis vestre transmitto Simonem 
 fratrem meum qui de domino rege Francie nichil tenet, cui si 
 earn reddideritis me pro bene pagato tenerem. Datum 
 Parisius, mense Febuario. 
 
 (A thirteenth-century roll preserved in the Bibl. Nat. de 
 France. Printed in Layettes du Tresor des Chartes, no. 2088 : 
 printed also from the Carte MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. by Rymer, 
 Foedera R.C., i, p. 202.) 
 
 Patent Roll, 14 Henry III, m. 6 
 
 De honore Leicestrie reddendo Rex omnibus ad quos pre- 
 sentes litere pervenerint salutem. Sciatis quod ad petitionem 
 et dimissionem Aumarici de Monteforti filii et heredis Simonis 
 de Monteforti quondam comitis Leicestrie nos et heredes 
 nostri tenemur reddere Simoni de Monteforti filio predicti 
 comitis Simonis et fratri ipsius Aumarici omnes terras cum 
 pertinentiis quas ipse Simon comes aliquando tenuit in Anglia 
 de honore Leicestrie cum tercio denario comitatus Leicestrie 
 quem ipse comes Simon percepit nomine comitis Leicestrie 
 et cum senescalcia quamcito predicte terre deliberabuntur de 
 manu dilecti et fidelis nostri R. comitis Cestrie et Lincolnie 
 qui eas tenet de ballio nostro per cartam nostram. In cujus 
 rei testimonium has literas nostras patentes ei fieri fecimus. 
 Hiis testibus : H. de Burgo &c, R. comite Cestrie et Lin-
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 109 
 
 colnie, W. comite Marescallo, S. de Sedgrave, Philippe de 
 Albiniaco, Radulfo filio Nicholai et aliis. Date per manum 
 R. Cycestrensis episcopi cancellarii nostri apud Westm. vj 
 die Febuarii. 
 
 Close Roll, 14 Henry III, m. 12 
 
 Rex Simoni de Monteforti salutem. Noveritis quod Amari- 
 cus de Misternum miles vester quern ad nos pro negotiis 
 vestris misistis in Angliam ea que fuerunt eidem a vobis 
 injuncta diligenter nobis exposuit. Quibus intellectis ut in 
 servitio nostro stare velitis tarn in Anglia quam alibi concessi- 
 mus vobis quadringentas marcas annuas de scaccario nostro 
 donee comitatum Leicestrie receperitis secundum quod pro- 
 visum fuit cum essetis ad nos in Anglia. Rogamus igitur 
 vos quatinus dictum annuum censum quadringentarum mar- 
 carum recipere et in servitio nostro stare velitis. Teste rege 
 apud Rading viij die Aprilis. 
 
 Close Roll, 15 Henry III, m. 6 
 
 Rex cepit homagium Simonis de Monteforti de tota terra 
 quam Simon de Monteforti pater ejus quondam comes Leices- 
 trie de rege tenuit de honore Leicestrie et que ipsum Simonem 
 jure contingit hereditario. Et mandatum est vicecomiti 
 Leicestrie quod de tota predicta terra cum pertinentiis in 
 ballia sua eidem Simoni sine dilatione plenam saisinam habere 
 faciat. Teste rege apud castrum Matildis xiij die Augusti. 
 
 Eodem modo scribiturvicecomitibus Suhamptonie, Dorsetie 
 et Wiltesire. 
 
 Ibid., m. 3 
 
 Rex cepit homagium Simonis de Monteforti de tota terra 
 quam Simon de Monteforti quondam comes Leicestrie pater 
 ejus cujus heres ipse est de rege tenuit in capite de honore 
 Leicestrie. Et mandatum est vicecomiti Leicestrie quod de 
 tota terra que fuit predict! Simonis de Monteforti in balliva 
 tua (sic) predicto Simoni filio suo talem saisinam habere 
 faciat qualem predictus Simon pater ejus inde habuit die quo 
 egressus est terram Anglic et qualis inde saisina postea 
 devenit in manum Johannis regis etc. post recessum predicti
 
 no ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Simonis a terra Anglic. Teste rege apud Elmel. xxij die 
 Septembris. 
 
 Eodem modo scribitur vicecomitibus Suhamptonie, Wiltes- 
 cire et Dorsetie. 
 
 AMAURY COUNT OF MONTFORT TO HENRY III 
 Angleterre, II, No. 14 (4) 
 
 Karissimo domino suo Henrico Dei gratia regi Anglic 
 illustri Amauricus comes Montisfortis, Francie constabelarius, 
 salutem in eo qui dat salutem regibus et debitum famulatum. 
 Sicut per alias literas nostras jam vestre significavimus maje- 
 stati nos concessimus karissimo fratri nostro Simoni de Monte- 
 forti terram nostram de Anglia et jus nostrum et adhuc con- 
 cedimus, vos rogantes quatinus de omni jure nostro quod 
 habemus et habere debimus in Anglia saisietis eundem, et cum 
 de ipsa saisitus fuerit nos absolvimus vos super hoc et quit- 
 amus salvo jure nostro et heredum nostrorum si sine herede 
 decesserit frater noster et si ipsum de jure nostro in hominem 
 receperitis hac vice qua ad vos proficiscitur in presenti. 
 Datum apud Floriacum anno Domini mcc tricesimo primo 
 mense Augusto. 1 
 
 (A thirteenth-century roll preserved in the Bibl. Nat. de 
 France. Printed in Layettes du Tresor des Chartes, no. 
 2151 : printed also from the Carte MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. by 
 Rymer, Foedera R. C, i, p. 206.) 
 
 Close Roll, 1 6 Henry III, m. 17 
 
 Mandatum est vicecomiti Leicestrie quod occasione precepti 
 domini regis quod (ei) fecit de facienda Symoni de Monte- 
 forti tali seisina de omnibus terris que fuerunt Symonis de 
 Monteforti quondam comitis Leycestrie patris sui et que 
 ipsum hereditarie contingunt in balliva sua qualem idem 
 Symon comes pater ejus inde habuit die quo egressus est 
 terram Anglic tempore domini Johannis regis patris nostri 
 non disseisies Margaretam comitissam Wyntonie de suburbio 
 Leicestrie versus orientem vel de furnis Leycestrie vel de 
 maneriis de Belegrave et de Glenesfeld vel de redditibus 
 
 1 Datum apud Parisiis A.D. 1232 mense Augusto (Foedera).
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD in 
 
 centum et xix sol. in Weston et xl sol. in Deresford de 
 quibus ut dicitur postquam primo facta fuit particio honoris 
 Leycestrie inter Saherum de Quency comitem Wyntonie 
 et ipsam comitissam Wyntonie uxorem ejus et predictum 
 comitem Symonem tempore predict! Johannis regis patris 
 nostri ipse Saer et comitissa uxor ejus recuperaverunt seisinam 
 coram justiciariis postea assignatis per preceptum dicti patris 
 nostri ad particionem inde secundo faciendam de voluntate 
 ipsius comitis Symonis et ad instantiam predictorum Saheri 
 et comitisse uxoris sue conquerentium injustam prius eis 
 factam fuisse particionem et pro qua particione facienda per 
 predictos justiciaries idem comes Symon ante recessum 
 suum de Anglia attornavit quendam militem suum ad par- 
 ticionem suam ad opus suum recipiendam per extentam 
 factam de predicto honore Leycestrie per predictos justiciaries 
 post recessum suum ab Anglia. Teste ut supra, [scilicet x 
 die Januarii]. 
 
 Patent Roll, 16 Henry III, m. 6 
 
 Rex omnibus etc. salutem. Sciatis quod de voluntate 
 nostra et ad petitionem Aumarici comitis de Monteforti pri- 
 mogeniti fratris dilecti et fidelis nostri Simonis de Monteforti 
 reddidimus eidem Simoni totam terram cum omnibus perti- 
 nentiis suis que fuit Simonis de Monteforti quondam comitis 
 Leicestrie in Anglia patris predictorum Aumarici et Simonis 
 et que ad ipsum Aumaricum jure hereditario pertinebat et 
 inde homagium predicti Simonis cepimus. In cujus etc. 
 Teste rege apud Salop, xxvij die Maii. 
 
 Patent Roll, 16 Henry III, m. 5 
 
 Rex omnibus ad quos presentes littere pervenerint salutem. 
 Sciatis quod concessimus dilecto et fideli nostro Simoni de 
 Monteforti quod cum decetero escaete alique de terris Norman- 
 norum acciderint de feodo suo in Anglia quas nos et anteces- 
 sores nostri in manu nostra retinere vel dare consuevimus 
 ipse liberam inde habeat amministrationem retinendo eas in 
 manu sua vel pro voluntate sua conferendo donee terra nostra 
 Anglic et terra Normannie communes fuerint. In cujus rei 
 testimonium &c. Teste rege apud Wuclestok xv die Junii.
 
 ii2 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 THE IRREGULAR GRANT TO SIMON DE MONTFORT 
 
 Angleterre, 77, No. 14 (i) 
 Cotton Vesp. D., x, fol. 132 
 
 Noverint universi presentes et futuri quod nos Amalricus x 
 comes Montisfortis, Francie constabelarius, dedimus et con- 
 cessimus et hac present! carta nostra confirmavimus Simoni 
 de Monteforti comiti Leycestrie fratri nostro totam terram 
 que fuit bone memorie Simonis patris nostri in Anglia et 
 quicquid ad ipsum Simonem patrem nostrum accidere potuit 
 de hereditate Amicie heredis et sororis comitis Robert! 
 Leycestrie primogenite cum Senescalcia Anglic totius 2 
 habendum et tenendum eidem 3 Simoni et heredibus suis de 
 uxore sua desponsata exeuntibus de Henrico illustri rege 
 Anglic et heredibus suis cum omnibus pertinentiis libere (et 4 ) 
 pacifice et hereditarie faciendo inde dicto regi 5 Anglic servi- 
 tium quod ad dictam terram pertinet et ut nos vel heredes 
 nostri in predictam terram cum pertinentiis versus predictum 
 Simonem vel heredes suos de uxore sua desponsata exeuntes 
 nullum clamum 6 de cetero habere possimus present} (nostro 7 ) 
 scripto sigillum nostrum apposuimus hoc retento quod si 
 dictus Simon frater noster sine herede de uxore sua genito 
 decederet tota terra predicta cum senescalcia 8 ad nos et heredes 
 nostros libere et sine difficultate aliqua reveniret. Actum 
 Parisius anno Domini mcc tricesimo secundo (mense Junio 9 ). 
 
 (No. I is a thirteenth-century roll preserved in the Bibl. Nat. 
 de France. No. 2 is a thirteenth-century transcript, temp. 
 Edward I, preserved in the British Museum.) 
 
 (Printed in Layettes du Tresor des Chartes, No. 2190; 
 printed also from the Carte MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. by Rymer, 
 Foedera, R.C., i, p. 205.) 
 
 Charter Roll, 23 Henry III, m. 4, No. 32. (By Inspeximus, 
 dated April I7th, 1239) 
 
 Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Amauricus comes 
 Montisfortis Francie constabularius in presencia Henrici 
 
 1 Amaricus, no. 2. 2 tocius Anglic, no. 2. 8 eisdem, no. 2. 
 4 omit, no. 2. 5 regi dicto, no. 2. 6 clamium, no. 2. 
 
 7 omit, no. i. 8 senescallia, no. 2. 9 omit, no. 2.
 
 HEREDITARY STEWARDS OF THE HOUSEHOLD 113 
 
 illustris regis Anglic filii regis Johannis apud Westmonas- 
 terium die Lune proxima post quindenam Pasce anno regni 
 ipsius Henrici regis vicesimo tertio recognovi concessi et 
 quietum clamavi de me et heredibus meis dilecto fratri meo 
 Simoni de Monteforti comiti Leycestrie totam partem honoris 
 Leycestrie cum omnibus pertinentiis in regno Anglic adeo 
 plene et integre sicut comes Simon pater noster vel comes 
 Robertus Leycestrie illam unquam melius plenius et liberius 
 tenuerunt habendam et tenendam eidem Simoni fratri meo et 
 heredibus suis de corpore suo procreatis de predicto domino 
 Henrico rege et heredibus suis libere et quiete in perpetuum 
 cum omnibus escaetis et aliis que inde accidere possent de 
 eodem honore faciendo inde eis debitum servitium ad illam 
 partem pertinens tarn in senescalcia domini regis Henrici 
 predicti quam in aliis servitiis salvo tamen jure meo et 
 heredum meorum si forte contigerit quod idem Simon frater 
 meus sine heredibus de corpore suo procreatis obierit vel 
 heredes sui de corpore suo procreati forte obierint sine 
 heredibus de corpore ipsorum procreatis. Et ut hec mea 
 recognitio concessio et quieta clamatio stabiles et firme 
 secundum quod predictum est permaneant inperpetuum huic 
 scripto sigillum meum apposui. Hiis testibus Ricardo comiti 
 Cornubie fratre domini regis, Johanni de Lascy comite 
 Lincolnie et constabulario Cestrie, H. de Bohun [comite] 
 Herefordie et Essexie, Willielmo de Ralegh thesaurario 
 Exon., Johanne de Monemue, Henrico Alditheley, Petro de 
 Malo-Lacu, Henrico de Trublevill, Roberto de Quincy, 
 Johanne filio Galfredi, Ricardo de Gray, Stephano de Set- 
 grave, Hereberto filio Mathei, G. vicedomino Pincon., Guidone 
 et Harveo de Caprosia fratribus, Amaurico de Meten, Amaurico 
 de sancto Amando, Gaufrido Dispensatore. Actum apud 
 Westmonasterium in presencia dicti domini regis et presente 
 venerabili patre domino Ottone Dei gratia sancti Nicholai in 
 carcere Tulliano diacono cardinal! apostolice sedis legato anno 
 et die prenominatis. 1 
 
 (Printed from transcripts only in Layettes du Tresor des 
 
 1 See also Duchy of Lancaster, Great Cowcher, vol. ii, fol. 45d, 
 no. 5. 
 
 i
 
 ii4 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Chartes, no. 2789 ; also very inaccurately by Rymer, Foedera 
 R.C., i, p. 204.) 
 
 Charter Roll, 23 Henry III, m. 4, No. 34 
 
 Rex archiepiscopis episcopis etc. salutem. Sciatis quod re- 
 cognitionem concessionem et quietam clama 1 {nciam} (cionem) 2 
 quas Amauricus comes Montisfortis, Francie constabularius, 
 in presencia nostra fecit dilecto fratri et fideli nostro Simoni 
 de Monteforti comiti Leicestrie per cartam suam de tota 
 parte honoris Leicestrie cum omnibus pertinentiis in regno 
 nostro Anglie habenda et tenenda eidem comiti Simoni et 
 heredibus suis de corpore suo procreatis adeo plene et integre 
 sicut comes Simon pater eorum comitum Amaurici et Simonis 
 vel Robertus comes Leicestrie illam unquam melius plenius 
 et liberius tenuerunt ratas et gratas habemus pro nobis et 
 heredibus nostris Quare volumus et firmiter precipimus pro 
 nobis et heredibus nostris quod predictus frater noster comes 
 Simon et heredes sui de corpore suo procreati habeant et 
 teneant inperpetuum predictam partem predicti honoris cum 
 omnibus pertinentiis suis bene et in pace libere et quiete cum 
 omnibus libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus ad earn perti- 
 nentibus sicut carta predicti comitis Amaurici quam idem 
 comes Simon inde habet rationabiliter testatur. Hiis testibus 
 venerabilibus patribus E. Cant, archiepiscopo, J. Bathon., 
 W. Exon., H. Eliens., R. Line., W. Wigorn., et W. Karleol. 
 episcopis ; J. comite Line, et constabulario Cestrie, W. comite 
 Warrenn., W. comite de Ferar., H. comite Heref. et Essex., 
 Willelmo Lungesp., W. de Vescy, Hugone Wak., Stephano 
 de Segrave, Johanne filio Galfridi, Bertram, de Cryoill., 
 Amaurico de Sancto Amando, Galfrido Dispensar., et aliis. 
 Data per manum regis apud Westmonasterium xvij die Aprilis 
 anno regni nostri xxiij. 
 
 1 An erasure. 2 An interlineation.
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE EVOLUTION OF THE HEREDITARY 
 
 STEWARDSHIP IN THE HANDS OF 
 
 SIMON EARL OF LEICESTER 
 
 IN order to appreciate the evolution of the hereditary 
 stewardship during the reign of Henry the Third we 
 must again take up the history of the other seneschals, the 
 king's ordinary household stewards, the provincial governors 
 and so forth. 
 
 During Richard's reign the normal number of household 
 stewards in attendance was still two, and their usual style 
 became senescallus or senescallus regis (which was also the 
 proper style of the hereditary stewards) : this style was 
 maintained during the next two reigns, but the number of 
 stewards became ultimately reduced to one. This household 
 office was increasing in importance, and during the thirteenth 
 century acquired extensive judicial powers. 
 
 The various French provinces from time to time held by 
 the English kings during the period 1189-1272 were uni- 
 formly placed under the control of seneschals who had vice- 
 regal authority. Their proper style was senescallus Normannie, 
 senescallus Pictavie, or as the case might be. 1 They were 
 nominated by the king and held office during his pleasure, 
 with, however, one important exception. On the 24th June, 
 1 200, John made William des Roches hereditary seneschal 
 of Anjou, 2 Maine and Touraine : this baron transferred his 
 allegiance to Philip Augustus, and continued seneschal of 
 Anjou under the new regime. 3 It is noticeable that the 
 
 1 See the Close, Patent, Norman and Charter Rolls passim. 
 
 2 Rotuli Chartarum, R.C., p. 72. Compare the appointment of 
 Geoffrey de Cella as seneschal of Poitou, ibid., p. 590. 
 
 3 Delisle, Cat. des Actes de Philippe- Auguste, nos. 848, 849 ; 
 note also ibid., no. 562.
 
 ri6 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 French king, after some hesitation, 1 ended by abolishing the 
 more recent stewardship of Normandy ; he however retained 
 William de Humez as hereditary constable of that duchy. 2 
 Poitou and Gascony were occasionally placed under the same 
 seneschal. The three dioceses of Limoges, Perigord, and 
 Cahors, ceded to England by the treaty of 1258, were first 
 placed under the control of the seneschal of Gascony, 3 but a 
 separate seneschal for these was appointed in 1260.* Ireland 
 was treated differently, and placed under a justiciar : natur- 
 ally in this case the English system was preferred. 5 
 
 The chief officer of state in England, until the death of 
 John, was still the chief justiciar. On the accession of the 
 infant Henry, William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, took control 
 of the administration ; and, no doubt in deference to pre- 
 cedent, began by styling himself justiciar of England. 6 The 
 Marshal certainly intended to govern ; but he cannot have 
 intended either to oust Hubert de Burgh from, or even to 
 share with him, the ordinary judicial duties of his office. 
 Still, to have two justiciars, one the subordinate of the other, 
 was not then a very satisfactory arrangement : accordingly, 
 about the middle of November, 1216, the Marshal changed 
 his style to rector noster et regni nostril and under this desig- 
 nation the earl continued to govern with Hubert as his 
 justiciar. 
 
 On the death of the Marshal the justiciarship recovered for 
 a short time only its former supremacy. In April, 1234, 
 Stephen de Segrave, the then justiciar, was removed from 
 his post, and the office was allowed to fall into abeyance. 
 
 Enters at this stage Simon de Montfort, ambitious to a 
 degree, marvellously capable, earl of Leicester and yet a 
 penniless adventurer, brother-in-law to the king of England 
 but without English supporters. A most unstable synthesis, 
 
 1 Delisle Cat. des Actes de Philippe- Auguste, nos. Siyb, 
 
 2 Ibid., no. ion, etc. 
 
 8 For a list of seneschals of Gascony see Henry III, Royal 
 Letters, Rolls Series [27], vol. ii, pp. 399-400. 
 
 4 Close Roll, 44 Henry III, pt. i, m. ad. 
 
 5 See Cal. of Docts., Ireland, vol. i, p. 582. 
 
 6 Close Roll, R.C., p. 293 ; Patent Roll, R.O., i, pp. 1-3 passim. 
 
 7 Patent Roll, R.O., pp. 3 et sqq. passim.
 
 EVOLUTION OF HEREDITARY STEWARDSHIP 117 
 
 this omnipotence of the man, the impotence of his circum- 
 stances. 
 
 The same year (1239) which saw Simon established in his 
 earldom and chief man in the king's council also witnessed 
 his utter downfall. His friendship with earl Richard, that 
 dispensation from the Pope and other similar commodities 
 represented a heavy sum of borrowed money. His creditor 
 unfortunately was under a vow, for the breach whereof he 
 excused himself to the Pope : " he was very sorry but until 
 Simon paid his debts he really could not go crusading." 
 Perhaps Rome, when she heard the excuse, had a twinge or 
 two of conscience at the thought of where most of this money 
 had been spent. At all events fierce and quick came the 
 papal fulminations : a day for settlement was named, in 
 default, excommunication. 1 Simon, in dire distress, having 
 neither cash nor credit, appears to have raised the money to 
 pay the debt from Thomas of Savoy by naming Henry, 
 without his authority, as surety for the amount. 
 
 For the time being, however, all was well in England and 
 nothing known. The queen, whom they had feared sterile, 
 bore a son to her lord, and great were the rejoicings. The 
 earl of Leicester attended the christening. 2 In August the 
 queen was to go to her churching and the earl and countess 
 of Leicester were summoned for the event. But between the 
 invitation and the day of the ceremony Henry heard the 
 whole story. Thomas presumably had applied to Henry for 
 payment. 
 
 When the earl and countess arrived for the ceremony 
 Henry was beside himself with anger : bade them begone ; 
 used ugly words, shameful and hard to relate. He called 
 Simon excommunicate, the seducer of his sister, whom but 
 for imminent scandal to the nation he should never have 
 married this before all the court. Then cursed him for 
 obtaining at Rome a cloak for his transgressions by perjury 
 
 1 See Dehaisnes, Inventaire de 1'ancienne Chambre des Comptes 
 de Lille, p. 270; Bemont, Simon de Montfort, appendix no. J. 
 Letter giving directions as to Simon's excommunication. 
 
 2 Matthew Paris, Rolls Series, iii, p. 540.
 
 n8 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 and wholesale corruption, and for his crowning iniquity in 
 naming Henry as surety for his debts. 1 
 
 The earl and countess wept : the king was unmoved. 2 
 Simon and his lady withdrew, and thought to take refuge 
 in the palace of the late bishop of Winchester, lent them 
 by the king. Henry gave orders for their instant ejectment ; 
 and it was only through the intervention of the earl of 
 Cornwall that these orders were not duly executed. 3 Simon 
 saw matters had reached a hopeless pass. The following 
 evening, 4 in the gathering darkness, he and his wife then 
 great with child dropped down the tideway of the Thames 
 in a little boat, and straightway fled to France. 5 
 
 In April, 1240, Simon returned to England. Apparently 
 the catastrophe to the Christian arms at Gaza in November, 
 1239, was the pretext for a reconciliation which perhaps both 
 sides desired. Anyhow Simon was cordially welcomed by 
 the king. The earl had not returned to stay, but merely to 
 prepare for the crusade to avenge Gaza : Simon's family 
 honour was concerned, for Amaury his brother was among 
 the prisoners captured on that occasion. 
 
 With this crusade we are not concerned. That Simon 
 gave striking proofs of his power and capacity may be 
 inferred from the proposal to make him governor of Jeru- 
 salem. 6 Simon left the Holy Land, and when Henry made 
 his mad attempt to renew the war with France he joined him 
 in Poitou. How the French attacked at the bridge of Taille- 
 bourg, how the English fell back upon Saintes, the prowess 
 of Leicester, Salisbury and Norfolk are matters of general 
 history and have, moreover, no bearing upon the subject 
 
 1 Matthew Paris, Rolls Series, iii, p. 566. 
 
 2 Et cum flentes et ejulantes reverterentur, veniam flagitantes, 
 regiam iram non sedarunt (ibid.). 
 
 8 Compare Matthew Paris with Simon's own account of the 
 affair in Bemont, Simon de Montfort, appendix no. 34. 
 
 4 The time and sequence of events are somewhat obscure. 
 
 5 ... cum dies inclinasset, per Tamensem in cimba minima 
 cum uxore tune gravida et pauca familia ad mare festinanter de- 
 clinans continue transfretavit. Matthew Paris, iii, p. 567. 
 
 6 MS. Cotton Vesp. F., i, fol. 114; printed Manners and House- 
 hold Expenses, Roxburghe Club, p. xix, n. i.
 
 EVOLUTION OF HEREDITARY STEWARDSHIP 119 
 
 under consideration ; but one instructive incident is told of 
 the subsequent council of war in Saintes. 
 
 Henry, as we know, wanted to defend the place : Simon 
 and every clear-headed person present realised that resistance 
 at this juncture meant envelopment, and either surrender or 
 annihilation. Simon confronted the council and said what 
 he thought : " as for the king," he concluded, " treat him like 
 Charles the Simple ; there are iron-barred rooms at Windsor 
 well adapted for his residence." 1 The English forces with- 
 drew to Bordeaux : the French, checked by the formidable 
 defences of Blaye, decimated by disease, achieved nothing 
 further. A five years' truce was concluded in April, 1243. 
 
 Perhaps we should infer from the affair at Saintes that 
 Simon was already bent on dominating Henry and ruling 
 England, and that at a critical moment he gave a premature 
 glimpse of a settled policy. Be this as it may, the earl could 
 not then head an opposition to Henry. Between his plans 
 and their fulfilment his poverty raised a formidable barrier. 
 Only by fostering friendly relations with Henry could he 
 hope to become rich; and so, during the years 1242 to 1248, 
 he was constantly begging of Henry and constantly receiving 
 money and estates. 2 But their friendship was merely super- 
 ficial : the events related above had caused a breach between 
 them never to be closed. 
 
 In 1248 Simon de Montfort was appointed seneschal of 
 Gascony. 3 The story of this period belongs to the history 
 of Europe and need not be told here, but it behoves us to 
 summarise what took place. Did Simon, think you, during 
 his governorship, afford early proof of that passionate regard 
 for constitutional liberty which won him a martyr's crown 
 at Evesham ? Did he summon, do you imagine, the estates 
 of Gascony to attend his councils ; and, by a popular ad- 
 ministration and an equitable judicature, restore peace and 
 prosperity to that distracted province? Nothing could be 
 further from the facts. The whole story is one of ruthless 
 
 1 Bemont, Simon de Montfort, appendix no. 36 ; printed from 
 Bibl. Nat. MS., lat. 9016, no. 5. 
 
 2 See Bemont, Simon de Montfort, p. 17, n. 2, for some details. 
 
 3 Patent Roll, 32 Henry III, m. 2.
 
 120 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 repression, wholesale imprisonment, execution and forfeiture 
 without the vestige of legal process. 
 
 True, Gascony was a nest of bandits : her chief men were 
 such by trade, Gaston de Beam, the vicomte de Gramont, 
 Raimond de Fronsac and a host of others. The petits 
 seigneurs, the chevaliers du Labour and such-like followed 
 the example of their betters, though in humbler fashion. 
 The former raided, the latter merely robbed. Simon out- 
 briganded the brigands. Some drew sword against him and 
 perished by the sword, others submitted and were put to 
 ransom ; many languished long years in prison, untried and 
 forgotten. The tale is pitiable in the extreme. But whether 
 Simon should be censured for what he did is another matter : 
 perhaps, in view of the pass things had come to before his 
 arrival, he should be praised, but not, I think, much praised ; 
 Gascony was cowed by him, not pacified. 1 
 
 Nevertheless, whatever we may think of the matter, the 
 earl's exploits undoubtedly gained him a great reputation in 
 France, and led to his receiving a singular offer. 
 
 The story of the French seneschalship has been related 
 above its humble origin, its rapid rise to inordinate power, 
 how it challenged the royal supremacy, how it declined some- 
 what at the close and was in effect suppressed in 1191, though 
 the fiction of a mere vacancy survived the thirteenth century. 
 In 1253 Simon de Montfort visited France and received an 
 apparently genuine offer of this same seneschalship of France, 
 provided, presumably, he would throw up his allegiance to 
 Henry. 2 Under the circumstances this was a most significant 
 
 1 For these events see Bemont, Simon de Montfort, chap, ii and 
 appendices ; also an article by the same writer in Revue Historique, 
 iv, pp. 241-77. 
 
 2 Comes autem ne precibus pulsaretur ut rediret, cessit in Fran- 
 ciam, ubi magnates regni Franciae libentur ipsum retinuissent, 
 proponentes ipsum sibi et regno ad consulendum regno desolate 
 et multum desperate propter absentiam regis et mortem Blanchiae 
 reginae, ut esset eis, quia strenuus fuit et fidelis, pro senescallo. 
 Quod constanter renuit comes, ne videretur proditor extitisse, secun- 
 dum illud Apostolicum, ab omni specie mali abstinete vos. (Matthew 
 Paris, Rolls Series, vol. v, p. 366.) 
 
 Instante vero festo Paschali, magnates Francorum, considerantes
 
 EVOLUTION OF HEREDITARY STEWARDSHIP 121 
 
 episode. How, we may wonder, did the offer originate? 
 Possibly Leicester unburdened his mind to the magnates of 
 France ; told them he had no scope for his energies in 
 England, that his Gascon stewardship was at an end, that he 
 ought by hereditary right (so he thought) to be steward of 
 England with similar powers, but Henry would not have it so. 
 And then, perhaps, the French nobles answered : " As you 
 may not be seneschal of England, be seneschal of France ; 
 we are leaderless now and desire a leader ; you are of French 
 not English stock, throw in your lot with France." Some- 
 thing of the kind must have occurred. 
 
 Simon declined the offer, and his refusal has been counted 
 to him for virtue ; but surely it would have been folly for 
 him to accept. He would have staked his whole future in 
 the venture : the promised interest was no doubt high, but 
 the security absolutely nil. 
 
 On his return to England the earl of Leicester assumed 
 in his charters the style of steward of England (senescallus 
 Angliae}} Now this style had never been assumed by his 
 predecessors in title, and its adoption undoubtedly signified 
 
 regnum Franciae consilio destitutum imminere periculo, turn propter 
 regis in terra sancta Deo militantis absentiam, turn propter dominae 
 Blanchiae reginae mortem, turn propter optimatum Franciae casum 
 in terra sancta subversorum, conspicientesque comitis Legrecestriae 
 Simonis fidelitatem et magnificentiam, qui per omnia studuit patris, 
 sare, ipsum quoque jam fuisse a custodia Wasconiae absolutum- 
 postulabant ipsum devote ut, apud ipsos commorans, unus foret 
 custodum coronae ac regni Franciae, et ipsi honores ei condignos 
 accumularent pro merito. Sciebant enim, ut asserebant, quod 
 regnum Francorum ab antiquo, sicut et pater ejus Simon qui pro 
 ecclesia contra Albigenses dimicaverat, praecordialiter dilegebat, nee 
 est a sanguine Francorum alienus. Hoc jam secundo missis literis 
 et nuntiis solempnibus Franci comiti memorato significaverunt, 
 quod constanter comes, ne transfuga videretur, renuebat. (Ibid., 
 pp. 371-2.) 
 
 Tune quoque temporis, comes Legrecestriae Symon, qui in senes- 
 callum Franciae, ut praetactum est, postulabatur propter sui fidelita- 
 tem et strenuitatem, sed noluit consentire, quia nemo potest duobus 
 dominis sibi adversantibus commode famulari, venit in Wasconiam 
 ad regem Angliae. . . . (Ibid., p. 415.) 
 
 1 See Bateson, Records of the Borough of Leicester, nos. xxii, 
 xxiii, etc.
 
 122 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 on the part of Simon de Montfort a deliberate policy of 
 self-aggrandisement He might, to be sure, have plausibly 
 defended the style by producing the charter (which must 
 have been in his possession) making Robert, le Bossu, dapifer 
 Angliae et Normanniae. 
 
 But whatever dapifer Angliae may have portended in 1155, 
 the style senescallus Angliae in 1255 had a very definite and 
 special connotation. It implied viceregal power and pre- 
 cedence ; it implied that Simon claimed to be in England 
 what he had been in Gascony ; it suggested a dignitary in 
 every respect comparable to the late seneschals of France. 
 The king regarded Simon as senescallus regis (de feodo\ and 
 there was all the difference in the world between the two 
 styles. At the same time, the assumption of the style 
 senescallus Angliae had the precedents of the constable and 
 marshal to support it. Probably any magnate of the first 
 rank invested with the office of steward would sooner or 
 later have attempted the same style. 
 
 That the recognised though menial duties attaching to the 
 office were not dropped we know from letters patent of 
 Henry dated St. Edward's Day, I26O. 1 By these the king 
 made notification that Henry of Germany had been received 
 as Leicester's deputy, to perform at that day's feast the 
 services properly appertaining to the stewardship. 
 
 From 1255 to 1265 the political changes are kaleidoscopic : 
 
 1 Patent Roll, 44 Henry III, pt. i, m. 2 ; printed Rymer, Foedera 
 R.C., vol. i, p. 402. Pur le Cunte de Leycestre. Henri par la 
 grace Deu, roys de Angleterre, etc. a tuz ceus qui cestes lettres 
 verront saluz en nostre Seigneur. Sachez toz que nus receumes le 
 jur seint Edward le an de nostre corounement xliiij a nostre feste 
 ke nus tenimes alors a Westmonstier Henri le fiz le roi dalemaigne 
 nostre nevou la torne Simon de Muntfort conte de Leycestre a servyr 
 pur li a la vuantdite feste si com il apent au servise de la senescaucie. 
 E entesmoyne de ceste chose nus avons fet ade susdit Simon icestes 
 nos lettres overtes par le conseyl de nos hauz homes de nostre 
 conseyl. E ceste chose fu fete Ian e le jur avant diz. 
 
 Ista littera lecta fuit et approbata coram domino rege in garde- 
 roba sua, presentibus Edwardo filio regis, Hugone filio regis 
 Allemannie, comite Glovernie, comite Oxonie, Henrico le Bygod 
 justiciario, Johanne Mansel et Roberto Walerand et aliis, et per 
 preceptum ipsorum sigillata.
 
 123 
 
 from the Sicilian affair to the Purveyance of Oxford ; the un- 
 accountable submission to Louis, the mise of Amiens and 
 the papal bull ; the victory of Lewes, the superb fiction of a 
 full parliament, the awkward reality of Simon's committee of 
 public safety ; the speedy but inevitable disaster of Evesham 
 where the dissimulating, ruthless, excommunicated autocrat 
 perished gloriously for the liberties of England. The general 
 course of public affairs must be kept in mind in tracing the 
 development during these ten years of the stewardship of 
 England. 
 
 One result of the mailed parliament of 1258 was the re- 
 appointment of a justiciar. Hugh Bigod was selected, but he 
 did not remain long in office. 1 In October, 1260, Hugh the 
 Despencer was appointed justiciar by the barons ; and in 
 April (?), 1261, the king, on his part, appointed Philip Basset. 2 
 For a short time these two justiciars acted concurrently for 
 their respective parties. During the following year relations 
 between the king and the opposition became less strained 
 and the Despencer retired, but in 1263 the barons were in 
 arms and he was reinstated. 
 
 In 1261 the differences between Henry the Third and 
 Simon de Montfort were submitted to the arbitration of the 
 king of France, and some, at all events, of the written plead- 
 ings on both sides have been preserved. As regards his 
 stewardship, Simon pleaded : " e de la seneschaucie pluseurs 
 draiz me retient, e sovent 1'ei requis q'il me feist drait, mes 
 unqore ores ne m'en a rien fet" And again, at the end of 
 one of his defences to the king's allegations relative to his 
 administration of Gascony, Simon adds as if by way of 
 counterclaim : " Fet a remembrer de Grainelle, et des draiz de 
 la seneschaucie." This is striking evidence of the potential 
 importance of that office in the opinion of Simon. 3 
 
 The reappointment of justiciars must have directed the 
 attention of Leicester to the relative position of the two 
 
 1 The date of Hugh Bigod's retirement is uncertain ; he did not 
 finally retire until some time after Despencer's appointment. 
 
 2 It was not until August that he received his patents of appoint- 
 ment. (Patent Roll, 45 Henry III, no. 13.) 
 
 3 Bemont, appendices nos. 34-8.
 
 i2 4 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 offices. Hitherto he had possibly not taken much account 
 of a vacant post, assuming that the seneschal, in England as 
 elsewhere, was ex officio chief minister. Face to face with a 
 justiciar he may have found that his views required recon- 
 sideration. Ultimately, at all events, we have the clearest 
 evidence that he made careful inquiries into the matter. 
 
 At times Simon seems to have hesitated about asserting 
 his office, for in the letters to the pope from the " communitas " 
 of England concerning Sicily and the see of Winchester he 
 subscribes as plain earl, 1 though the Bigods style themselves, 
 respectively, Marshal of England and Justiciar of England. 2 
 In 1263, however, in the letters patent of the barons referring 
 all matters in dispute to Louis the submission which resulted 
 in the mise of Amiens Simon figures as seneschal of England 
 immediately before Hugh the Despencer, justiciar of England. 3 
 
 On the 23rd of January, 1264, the mise of Amiens quashed 
 the Provisions of Oxford, but reserved the previous rights of 
 the English people. Simon had sworn by the sacred gospels* 
 to abide by the award : once made, however, he instantly 
 took up arms to resist it. In so doing he most emphatically 
 broke his oath, and has moreover severely taxed the ingenuity 
 of his latter-day apologists, who one and all apparently have 
 subscribed to the dogma that Simon valued his oath more 
 than his life. The simple truth is that Simon had loaded 
 himself with many and quite incompatible oaths, so that 
 from time to time some had to be jettisoned. On this 
 particular occasion he most wisely selected to break the most 
 foolish. 
 
 On the I4th of May the earl of Leicester fought the 
 decisive battle of Lewes which placed the king and all 
 England in his power. Simon thus became, in sober truth, 
 viceroy of England ; and as he constantly figures during this 
 period as seneschal of England in official documents bearing 
 
 1 There is ample evidence that Simon hesitated to assert his office 
 when associated with the earl of Gloucester. 
 
 2 Matthew Paris, vi, pp. 400-5 ; and Rymer, Foedera R.C., 
 
 i, P- 373- 
 
 3 Rymer, Foedera R.C., i, p. 434. 
 
 4 " tactis sacrosanctis evangeliis," ibid.
 
 EVOLUTION OF HEREDITARY STEWARDSHIP 125 
 
 the great seal, 1 we have all the necessary conditions present 
 for a repetition in England of the history of the French 
 dapifership. It can hardly be doubted that, had Simon de 
 Montfort succeeded in finally establishing his government, he 
 would have sought to define and regularise his position by 
 recourse to the supposed rights and privileges of his hereditary 
 office. Simon's supremacy, however, was too short-lived, and 
 all he can be said to have done in this direction before his 
 death was to institute careful inquiries about his office. On 
 the 29th of April, 1265, Simon in Henry's name sent letters 
 close to a certain recluse, named Lauretta, who is alleged by 
 Camden to have been Lauretta countess of Leicester, relict 
 of the last Beaumont. They run as follows : 
 
 The king to the recluse of Hakinton greeting. Because you 
 know better than others, so it is said, what rights and liberties 
 appertain to the stewardship of England in right of the earldom 
 and honour of Leicester ; we, wishing to be more fully certified on 
 these matters by you, diligently require and command you forthwith 
 to expound the said rights and liberties in the presence of our well- 
 beloved in Christ the abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, and the 
 prior of Christchurch in the same town. . . . 2 
 
 The recluse's answer is probably not in existence ; in any 
 event it could hardly have afforded Simon de Montfort much 
 assistance or satisfaction. There were no rights or privileges 
 
 1 See the Patent Roll 49 Henry III passim; a few instances are 
 given in Rymer, Foedera R.C., i, pp. 454-6. The following occur 
 on the Charter Roll 49 Henry III : (Westminster) 3Oth fan., 
 ist March, 2oth March, 2gth March, ifth April; (Hereford) 
 I2th June, i6th June. On the dates italicised Simon attests as 
 seneschal, his attestation immediately preceding that of Despencer 
 as justiciar. 
 
 2 Rex recluse de Hakinton salutem. Quia vos nostis pre ceteris 
 ut dicitur que jura et libertates pertinent ad senescalciam Anglic 
 racione comitatus et honoris Leycestrie, nos volentes super hiis per 
 vos plenius certiorari vos attente requirimus et rogamus quatinus in 
 presentia dilectorum nobis in Christo abbatis sancti Augustini 
 Cantuariensis et priori (sic) ecclesie Christi ejusdem ville dicta 
 jura et libertates exponatis, et ea coram eis distincte ac aperte 
 scribi et sub sigillis eorundem abbatis et prioris ad nos mittere 
 faciatis. Mandavimus etiam ipsis quod ad certum diem quern ipsi
 
 iz6 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 belonging to the office other than those which Simon was 
 aware of; and, whoever this recluse may have been, she 
 could have told him nothing whatever beyond the negative 
 fact that there was nothing whatever to tell. The mere cir- 
 cumstance, however, that such a request for information was 
 sent clearly shows that Simon still thought otherwise. 
 
 So much for the stewardship in the hands of Simon earl 
 of Leicester. After all it was a very secondary matter, 
 occurring at a time when mighty issues were at stake. In 
 June, 1264, we have the committee of three (Leicester, 
 Gloucester and the bishop of Chichester), and the council 
 of nine ; afterwards the full parliament. Ostensibly Simon 
 had the nation at his back. But, meanwhile, French armies 
 were preparing for invasion ; there were royalist leaders in 
 the west where the Welsh were mustering on the border ; 
 and the Pope excommunicated Simon and his followers. 
 Before the full parliament had finished its session the ulti- 
 mate defection of Gloucester became obvious. In April, 
 1265, Simon was holding royal court at Odiham ; but none 
 the less his short day was over, events were everywhere 
 hurrying him to the final catastrophe. 
 
 It should be noted, to avoid mistake, that on the Patent 
 Rolls of this period the authority for affixing the great seal is 
 occasionally stated in the following form : " Per Regem. 
 comitem Leicestrie. justiciarium . . .", neither the name nor 
 even the initial of the justiciar being given. This has led to 
 extraordinary confusion, and induced one writer to attribute 
 Simon's fall, in part at any rate, to the unjustifiable proceed- 
 ing of appointing himself justiciar. Simon never did any- 
 thing of the kind : the supreme authority had been assumed 
 
 et vos ad hoc duxeritis providendum vobis ad hoc personaliter 
 assistant. Teste ut supra [scilicet xxix die Aprilis]. Et scribitur 
 eidem priori quod una cum prefato abbate ad certum diem quern 
 ipse et dicta reclusa duxerint providendum ad earn personaliter 
 accederit, et ea que sibi de juribus et libertatibus supradictis ex- 
 ponet in presencia ejusdem recluse, cui rex super hoc scribit, 
 distincte et aperte scribi faciat, et ea sub sigillis suis eidem liberet 
 ad regem mittenda prout rex ei injunxit. Teste ut supra. (Close 
 Roll, 49 Henry III, m. 6d. See Patent Roll, 20 Henry III, m. 13, 
 Cal., p. 133 ; and chapter vi, appendix.)
 
 EVOLUTION OF HEREDITARY STEWARDSHIP 127 
 
 by him ; the Despencer was his close ally and chief minister, 
 and continued to act as such under the title of justiciar of 
 England until he fell by the earl's side at Evesham. When 
 letters patent are represented as emanating or proffered per 
 comitem Leicestrie, justiciarium, etc. this simply means that 
 they were approved or vouchered both by the earl of Leicester 
 and by Hugh the Despencer. 1 
 
 In May, Edward escaped from custody and was joined by 
 Gloucester. Hostilities began at once. Simon was at Here- 
 ford. The strategy of the royalists was masterly : so rapidly 
 and successfully did they strike that Simon found himself 
 trapped in Wales with the eastern bank of the Severn held 
 strongly against him. On the ipth of June the earl made a 
 treaty with Llewellyn which secured him some additions to 
 the altogether inadequate forces at his disposal. He then 
 marched to Newport by way of Monmouth, and attempted 
 to force a passage of the Severn before Bristol. The attempt 
 was defeated and Simon turned northwards to Hereford 
 again. 
 
 On the 2nd of August he succeeded at last in crossing the 
 river, and shortly after reached Evesham, but with a very 
 attenuated following. He expected reinforcements from his 
 son, but these had been already defeated near Kenilworth, 
 and the whole royalist forces were marching southwards to 
 crush him before further help could arrive. 
 
 On the 4th of August Simon de Montfort was attacked. 
 The heavens that day, it is said, were black with cloud and 
 there was a great storm. The battle was little better than a 
 massacre. The Welsh lost heart and fled. Simon was soon 
 unhorsed and surrounded, but he fought desperately to the 
 end. His assailants closed ever closer round him : " Traitor, 
 yield thee," they hissed ; and, as Simon struggled grimly on, 
 one stole behind him and pricked him to the heart under his 
 armour. " Dieu merci," he breathed, and sank to the ground. 
 So he died, and men wreaked their miserable vengeance on a 
 lifeless body. 
 
 The stewardship of England during Simon de Montfort's 
 tenure of it claimed to be and was in course of becoming the 
 
 1 See appendix to this chapter.
 
 128 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 first great office of state. The chief obstacle to such an 
 augmentation of rank was the existence of the justiciarship. 
 However, after the battle of Evesham the latter office was 
 finally abolished ; and under these circumstances, had the 
 stewardship fallen into strong hands, that office would prob- 
 ably have acquired all the more important functions of the 
 other. As will be seen the stewardship fell into weak hands, 
 with the result that it was the steward of the household who 
 acquired such of the justiciar's ordinary powers as were not 
 transferred to the newly created official, the Chief Justice of 
 the King's Bench. 1 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE ALLEGED USE OF THE STYLE "JUSTICIAR" 
 BY SIMON DE MONTFORT 
 
 The view that Simon de Montfort on various occasions 
 during the captivity of Henry the Third assumed the title of 
 justiciar appears to be almost universally accepted, and several 
 somewhat remarkable conclusions have been founded upon it. 
 Thus Professor Shirley has written of the parliament which 
 met on the 2Oth of January, 1265 : z 
 
 They appear to have appointed Simon de Montfort to the office 
 of Justiciar of England, and to have thus made him in rank what 
 he had before been in power, the first subject in the realm. . . . 
 Montfort at all events had now gone so far, he had exercised such 
 
 1 Fleta. ed. Selden, p. 66. De differentiis curiarum : cap. 2 : 
 Habet enim rex curiam suam in concilio suo in parliamentis suis, 
 praesentibus praelatis, comitibus, baronibus, proceribus et aliis viris 
 peritis, ubi terminatae sunt dubitationes judiciorum, et novis injuriis 
 emersis nova constituuntur remedia, et unicuique justicia prout 
 meruit retribuetur ibidem. Habet etiam curiam suam coram senes- 
 callo suo in aula sua, qui jam tenet locum capitalis justiciarii regis, 
 de quo fit mentio in communi brevi de homine replegiando, qui 
 proprias causas regis terminare consuevit, et falsum judicium ad 
 veritatem revocare, et conquerentibus absque brevi justiciam exhibere, 
 cujus vices gerit in parte idem senescallus hospitii regis, cujus 
 interest de omnibus actionibus contra pacem regis infra metas 
 hospitii. . . . 
 
 2 Quarterly Review (1866), vol. cxix, p. 55.
 
 EVOLUTION OF HEREDITARY STEWARDSHIP 129 
 
 extraordinary powers, he had done so many things which could 
 never really be pardoned, that perhaps his only chance of safety lay 
 in the possession of some such office as this. 
 
 In passing I must observe that not a single statement in the 
 above extract appears to me to be warranted by the existing 
 evidence, however that evidence is construed. Simon, even 
 on the professor's reading of the records, was justiciar before 
 the meeting of parliament. The justiciarship, like the modern 
 office of prime minister, conferred power and not rank. 1 
 Simon's appointment to the first-named office could not 
 have added one tittle to his rank, but it might in some small 
 measure have legalised the powers he was exercising. Pauli, 
 or at all events his translator, puts forward similar views : 2 
 
 During this parliament the power he had grounded upon wisdom 
 and energy reached its climax. As if seeking for a designation 
 which should in some measure justify it, he assumed the title of 
 count justiciary in addition to his hereditary dignity of seneschal 
 of England, although Hugh Despencer continued to hold the post of 
 great justiciary. 
 
 Foss ventures the following opinion : 
 
 Brady quotes three records on May loth, June yth, and June 8th, 
 1265, in which the earl of Leicester is styled ' justiciarius," and during 
 that interval no document occurs in which Hugh le Despencer uses 
 the title. 4 In Leland's Collectanea there is an account of a short 
 disagreement between them about this time during which it is 
 possible, but not likely, that the one threw up the office in anger 
 and the other assumed it for the time that it might not appear to be 
 vacant. If, however, for that may be doubtful, the word really 
 meant the same as " justiciarius Angliae," by which Bigod, Basset 
 and Despencer had been specially designated, the title would have 
 been merely nominal and was undoubtedly only temporary, for the 
 
 1 A special rank, however, has quite recently been conferred on 
 the prime minister. 
 
 2 Simon de Montfort, 1876, p. 180. 
 
 3 Judges of England, vol. ii, pp. 154-5. 
 
 4 This statement is quite untrue; there are, in fact, many such 
 documents. The Charter Roll contains five, dated at Hereford the 
 1 5th, 1 5th, 2oth, 2oth, and 2oth of May respectively. I have found 
 five on the Patent Roll and one on the Fine Roll.
 
 1 30 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 earl never acted and Hugh had resumed it before the battle of 
 Evesham, on August 4th, when he fell by the earl of Leicester's 
 side. 
 
 Mr. Prothero is less doubtful than Foss in his account of 
 the matter. He says : l 
 
 A far less justifiable proceeding was the appointment of himself 
 as justiciar. (There is some doubt about this. Foss does not give 
 the earl's name as justiciar, but the evidence from writs signed by 
 him as justiciar seems too strong to reject.) The object of this act 
 is hard to discover, especially as Hugh Despencer was at hand to 
 undertake the duties he had already twice before discharged. Such 
 an accumulation of power was most unwise, it was a needless 
 challenge to the opposition. 
 
 Mr. Round apparently adopts in part the conclusion of 
 Foss. 2 
 
 Lastly, I would examine the title of "Justiciar" which Simon 
 de Montfort appends to his signature at the foot of these royal 
 proclamations. . . . 
 
 And then, after considering and commenting upon the 
 statements of the previous writers cited above, 3 he expresses 
 this opinion : 
 
 It will, I think, be found . . . that Hugh's name does not occur 
 in any document in which Simon styles himself justiciary. We may 
 indeed have in this fact a hint that with his characteristic love of 
 constitutional forms, Simon, in order to give his writs every appear- 
 ance of legality, assumed the style of justiciary pro hac vice, whenever 
 Hugh Despenser was not at hand. 
 
 Let me remark parenthetically that Simon never tests or 
 signs royal proclamations as justiciar, or at all. The question 
 at issue is whether such proclamations are ever expressed to 
 emanate from him as justiciar, which is a very different thing. 
 
 1 Simon de Montfort, p. 322. 
 
 2 Antiquary, ix, pp. 17-19. See also Mr. Round's article on 
 Hugh Despencer in the Dictionary of National Biography. 
 
 3 See also the Report on the Dignity of a Peer, i, p. 154: 
 " From this and other writs it appears that the earl of Leicester had 
 been made justiciary."
 
 EVOLUTION OF HEREDITARY STEWARDSHIP 131 
 
 There is clearly a superabundance of modern authority in 
 support of Simon de Montfort's style. Nevertheless the 
 whole story is absolutely without foundation. The record 
 evidence shows plainly that the style in question is throughout 
 used by the regular justiciar, and not once by the earl of 
 Leicester. 
 
 I must begin my argument with a few general remarks for 
 the benefit of those unfamiliar with original records. 
 
 Royal letters patent at this period are expressed to be tested 
 by the king if he is in England, by the justiciar if the king 
 is abroad, and by no one else. These documents, however, 
 are not signed, but are authenticated by sealing with the 
 great seal, and nothing more was required to give them every 
 appearance of legality. The recipients of these writs and the 
 general public looked to the great seal only. 
 
 But the chancellor or keeper who affixed the seal was in a 
 very different position. The king could not always be present 
 at the sealing of a prerogative writ, nor could the keeper 
 always be present at the council table with the engrossed 
 documents directed to be issued by order in council. Some- 
 times a writ of privy seal would sufficiently authenticate the 
 royal commands, but the chancellor had often to be satisfied 
 with something much less formal. A few members, or even 
 a single member of council would attend, hear the engrossed 
 document read out, and approve it on behalf of the king or 
 council simply by word of mouth. 
 
 Now, besides the original writ bearing the great seal, the 
 chancery even at this time always made a copy, which was 
 entered on the appropriate roll to be carefully preserved ; and 
 on these rolls the scribe occasionally states, at the foot of an 
 enrolment, the authority for affixing the great seal. In later 
 times " per breve de privato sigillo " became the commonest 
 authority, but there was always a great variety of others, 
 such as : " per ipsum regem " ; " coram justiciario " ; " per 
 justiciarium " ; " per Robertum Walerand " ; " per consilium " ; 
 " per Robertum Walerand et alios de consilio " ; " per ipsum 
 regem oretenus " ; " per regem, nunciante comite Herefordie " ; 
 etc., etc. In many cases, however, and, at the time we are 
 considering, in most cases, no authority is stated.
 
 Probably there was deliberate method in all this, but that 
 is a question too foreign to the subject-matter in hand to be 
 discussed here. I will merely observe that during Henry 
 the Third's minority it became a common practice to give the 
 authority for a writ; this practice was almost entirely dropped 
 when the king attained his majority, 1 but was to some extent 
 revived at certain periods of this reign which appear to corre- 
 spond with the periods when the king was in trouble with 
 his barons. During the temporary ascendency of a baronial 
 opposition the clerk of enrolments had obvious reasons for 
 being careful. 2 
 
 Now the chancery enrolments were not written out in full, 
 but elaborate time-saving abbreviations were used. Thus if 
 the authority for a writ was the justiciar of England, the 
 clerk soon got tired of writing " per Hubertum de Burgo 
 justiciarium Anglic" even in an abbreviated form, but com- 
 monly wrote " p justic"; or, for example, "p dom Wyn? & 
 justic ", if, as sometimes happened, the writ had the twofold 
 authority of the bishop of Winchester and the chief justiciary. 
 
 Having said this much by way of preface, it only remains 
 to cite illustrative extracts from the enrolments made during 
 the final periods of the baronial ascendency. 
 
 Winchester, 6th July, 1258. (Patent Roll, 
 42 Hen. Ill, m. 4.) 
 
 Per comitem Leycestrie. comitem Gloucestrie. comitem 
 Marescallum. Hugonem le Bigod justiciarium. Johannem 
 filium Galfridi. Johannem Mansell & alios de consilio regis. 
 
 Clarendon, 1st October, 1258. (Patent Roll, 
 42 Hen. III,m. 2.) 
 
 Ista litera processit de precepto H justiciarii Anglic & 
 Egidii de Argentem senescalli regis. 
 
 1 The earlier Patent Rolls of this reign have been printed in full, 
 and therefore precise information on this point is within reach of 
 everyone. 
 
 2 See the Patent of July 3oth, 1260, cited below. Between the 
 enrolment of two writs, dated February 24th, 1260-1, the scribe 
 notes : Hie recessit dominus H. de Malo-Lacu a curia.
 
 EVOLUTION OF HEREDITARY STEWARDSHIP 133 
 
 Westminster, 26th December, 1258. (Patent Roll, 
 43 Hen. Ill, m. 13.) 
 
 Per Petrum de Sabaud. Robertum comitem Gloucestrie. 
 H justiciarium & alios de consilio regis. 
 
 Westminster, i^th February, 1258-9. (Fine Roll, 
 43 Hen. Ill, m. 10.) 
 
 Per Justiciarium & consilium regis. 
 
 Windsor, \6th August, 1259. (Patent Roll, 
 
 43 Hen. Ill, m. 3.) 
 Per Justiciarium. 
 
 Westminster, iStk June, 1260. (Fine Roll, 44 Hen. Ill, m. 6.) 
 Per Regem & Justiciarium. 
 
 Westminster, 5 th July, 1260. (Ibid.) 
 Per ipsum Regem. Justiciarium. . . . 
 
 Westminster, ^oth July, 1260. (Fine Roll, 
 
 44 Hen. Ill, m. 4.) 
 
 Per ipsum Regem. Comitem Gloucestrie & Justiciarium. 
 
 Westminster, ^oth July, 1260. (Patent Roll, 
 44 Hen. Ill, m. 5.) 
 
 (Letters patent " pro Rogero de Mortuo Mari.") . . . 
 Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium xxx die Julii. Et scien- 
 dum quod litera predicta die predicto in camera prioris apud 
 Westmonasterium emanavit de assensu R comitis Gloucestrie 
 R comitis Marescalli H comitis Herefordie J comitis Warrenne 
 H le Bygod justiciarii (Anglic) 1 Philippi Basset Johannis 
 Mansell & Roberti Walerand in quorum presencia predicta 
 litera lecta fuit et acceptata. Teste ut supra. 
 
 Memorandum quod ista littera per regem et consilium pro- 
 cessit et in absencia cancellarii sigillata fuit set postea Ed- 
 wardus filius regis coram magnatibus de consilio reclamavit 
 contra remissionem predictam. 
 
 1 Interlined.
 
 i 3 4 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Windsor, 26th September, 1260. (Fine Roll, 
 
 44 Hen. Ill, m. 2.) 
 
 Per ipsum Regem. Johannem Mansell & Robertum Wale- 
 rand. Justiciarium. Comitem Gloucestrie & Philippum Basset. 
 
 Westminster, 2$th November, 1260. (Patent Roll, 
 
 45 Hen. Ill, m. 21.) 
 Per Justiciarium. 
 
 Tower of London, i^th February, 1260-1. (Patent Roll, 
 
 45 Hen. Ill, m. 17.) 
 
 Per Regem Romanorum. Justiciarium Hugonem le Bygod. 
 Johannem Mansell Thesaurarium Eborum & Robertum 
 Walerand. 
 
 Westminster, i$th November, 1262. (Patent Roll, 
 
 47 Hen. Ill, No. 54.) 
 Teste Philippo Basset justiciario regis. 
 
 Westminster, 26th August, 1263. (Fine Roll, 
 
 47 Hen. Ill, m. 2.) 
 Per Justiciarium. 
 
 St. Albans, 2^th September, 1263. (Patent Roll, 
 47 Hen. Ill, m. 3d.) 
 
 Teste H le Despenser justiciario Anglic apud Sanctum 
 Albanum xxiiij die Septembris. per eundem Justiciarium. 
 
 Westminster, 2$th October, 1264. (Fine Roll, 
 
 48 Hen. Ill, m. 2.) 
 
 (Pro Radulfo de Cameys) Per Regem. H le Despenser 
 Justiciarium. Petrum de Monteforti. Adam de Novo Mer- 
 cato. Egidium de Argentenn et alios de consilio. 
 
 (Pro Henrico de Bromfeud) Per Justiciarium ad instanciam 
 Humfridi de Bohun. 
 
 (Pro Petro de Monteforti) Per Regem. Justiciarium & 
 alios ut supra.
 
 EVOLUTION OF HEREDITARY STEWARDSHIP 135 
 
 Woodstock, 2^th December, 1264. (Patent Roll, 
 
 49 Hen. Ill, No. no.) 
 
 Per ipsum Regem. Episcopum Londonie. Justiciarium 
 & alios de consilio regis. 
 
 Westminster, ^th January, 1264-5. (Patent Roll, 
 
 49 Hen. Ill, m. 26d.) 
 Per Regem. Justiciarium & alios de consilio. 
 
 Westminster, \jth January, 1264-5. (Patent Roll, 
 49 Hen. Ill, No. 106.) 
 
 Per Regem. Comitem Leicestrie. Justiciarium & Rogerum 
 de Sancto Johanne. 
 
 Westminster, ^th February, 1264-5. (Patent Roll, 
 49 Hen. Ill, No. 104.) 
 
 Per comitem Leicestrie. 
 
 (On this date Despencer as justiciar of England witnesses 
 a charter at Westminster.) 
 
 Westminster, \6th February, 1264-5. (Patent Roll, 
 49 Hen. Ill, No. 101.) 
 
 (De inhibicione torneamenti) Rex dilectis et fidelibus suis 
 Simon i de Monteforti comiti Leycestrie Gilberto de Clare 
 comiti Gloucestrie Roberto de Veer comiti Oxonie Hugoni 
 le Despenser Justiciario Anglic . . . salutem. . . . Teste Rege 
 apud Westmonasterium xvj die Febuarii. Per Regem. Justi- 
 ciarium. Episcopum Londonie & Magistro Th de Cantilupo. 
 
 Westminster, $th March, 1264-5. (Patent Roll, 
 49 Hen. Ill, No. 93.) 
 
 Per Justiciarium. Petrum de Monteforti. Adam de Novo 
 Mercato. 
 
 (On this date Despencer as justiciar of England witnesses 
 a charter at Westminster.) 
 
 Westminster, 6th March, 1264-5. (Patent Roll, 
 49 Hen. Ill, No. 93.) 
 
 Per Adam de Novo Mercato.
 
 136 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Northampton, 2yd April, 1265. (Fine Roll, 
 49 Hen. Ill, m. 4.) 
 
 Per Regem. Justiciarium & Rogerum de Sancto Johanne. 
 
 Hereford, i6th May, 1265. (Patent Roll, 
 49 Hen. Ill, No. 63.) 
 
 Per Consilium & comitem Leicestrie. 
 
 Hereford, 2Oth May, 1265. (Patent Roll, 
 
 49 Hen. Ill, No. 61.) 
 
 Per Regem. Comitem Leicestrie. Justiciarium. . . . 
 (On this date Despencer as justiciar of England witnesses 
 a charter at Hereford.) 
 
 Hereford, ^oth May, 1265. (Fine Roll, 49 Hen. Ill, m. 2.) 
 
 Per Regem. Comitem Leicestrie . . . reclamante H le 
 Despenser justiciario Anglic. 
 
 Hereford, \ 2th June, 1265. (Patent Roll, 
 49 Hen. Ill, No. 49.) 
 
 (Simon is referred to in the body of this patent as 
 " senescallus Anglic.") Per Regem. Comitem Leicestrie. 
 Justiciarium. . . . 
 
 (On this date Simon as seneschal of England and Despencer 
 as justiciar of England witness a charter at Hereford.) 
 
 Hereford, igth June, 1265. (Patent Roll, 
 49 Hen. Ill, 1X0.48.) 
 
 This refers to Despencer as justiciar of England. 
 
 Hereford, igth June, 1265. (Fine Roll, 49 Hen. Ill, m. 2.) 
 Per Regem & Justiciarium. 
 
 Besides these enrolments there is one original document 
 which it may be useful to notice. On Tuesday, the i8th 
 December, 1263, tne following letters patent were sealed at 
 London : 
 
 Universis presentes litteras inspecturis Henricus Londoniensis, 
 Walterus Wygorniensis episcopi, Simon de Monteforti comes Ley-
 
 EVOLUTION OF HEREDITARY STEWARDSHIP 137 
 
 cestrie et senescallus Anglie, Hugo le Despenser justiciarius Anglie. 
 . . . Et in testimonium premissorum nos Londoniensis et Wy- 
 gorniensis episcopi, justiciarius et Ricardus de Grey, predict!, vice 
 et mandate omnium predictorum presentibus sigilla nostra apposui- 
 mus. Datum London, [etc.] 1 
 
 These letters patent are sealed, as stated, with four seals, 
 the third being the little seal of Hugh the Despencer, justiciar 
 of England. 
 
 No further argument is called for, the records speak for 
 themselves. Rymer and others have printed two or three 
 letters patent expressed to be expedited : " Per Regem. 
 Comitem. Leicestrie. Justiciarium . . ." ; but omitting the 
 full-stop which appears, tolerably plainly in most cases, after 
 "Leicestrie." The absurd supposition that earl Simon assumed 
 the style of justiciar rests solely on this evidence. It is an 
 extraordinary blunder ; but so long as our chief collection of 
 English records consists of so inaccurate and unscholarly a 
 work as the " Foedera," such blunders are inevitable. I can 
 hardly hope that this work of mine is free from similar errors, 
 but I have saved myself from at least some very serious ones 
 by, whenever possible, collating printed documents with the 
 originals, and by studying the character and form of other 
 contemporary records of a like nature. 
 
 1 Printed in Layettes du Tresor des Chartes, iv, no. 4886. Cf. 
 ibid., no. 4888, where Despencer attests as "justiciarius Anglie" 
 without name or initial. This is also an original document with 
 Despencer's seal attached. 
 
 For further evidence see Close Rolls, R.O., 1231-4, pp. 181, 
 182, 187, 188, 193, 227 : in each case the justiciar is Segrave, and 
 not the bishop of Winchester.
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 
 
 AFTER the battle at Evesham the great house of Mont- 
 \, fort perished altogether. Many coveted their estates 
 and counselled Henry accordingly. These spoils of the 
 royalist victory were speedily distributed. Edmund, the 
 king's son, was put in possession of the honour of Leicester, 
 and invested with the earldom of that county and the 
 stewardship of England. These grants were first embodied 
 in letters patent bearing date the 25th of October, 1265 : l 
 senescalda Anglic is the term used in referring to the steward- 
 ship, and that office is expressed to be conferred on Edmund 
 and his heirs. Thus the style, steward of England, adopted 
 by Simon de Montfort receives official recognition, and the 
 French precedent is followed of conferring this post on a 
 near relative of the crown. But a grant in fee of an already 
 dangerous office was a piece of gratuitous folly, and prob- 
 ably Edward objected. At all events, a formal charter 
 bearing date the 26th of October, 1265, was prepared and 
 attested ; but it was never delivered, and remained an 
 escrow. 2 
 
 The honour of Leicester was then granted afresh to 
 Edmund, on the same day, by an amended charter which 
 
 1 See Appendix. 
 
 2 Hitherto no one appears to have appreciated this fact, and 
 error upon error has resulted. For example, the Complete Peerage 
 says of Edmund (s.v. Lancaster) : " He was created 26th Oct., 
 1265, Earl of Leicester and Seneschal or High Steward of England." 
 This statement is quite untrue. Edmund is, however, styled earl 
 of Leicester in an original charter of Henry III, dated i2th 
 January, 51 Henry III; see Royal Charters, Duchy of Lancaster, 
 no. 1 08. 
 
 138
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 139 
 
 makes no mention of the stewardship. 1 The letters patent 
 of the day before should have been and probably were 
 surrendered for cancellation, but the entry on the Patent Roll 
 remains uncancelled to this day. However, further letters 
 patent were subsequently issued conferring the stewardship 
 of England on Edmund for his life only. 2 These are dated 
 the pth of May, 1269, and are perhaps purposely expressed 
 so as not to bind Henry's heirs. Strictly speaking, therefore, 
 the stewardship expired on the death of Henry the Third. 
 Edmund, however, appears to have claimed an estate of 
 inheritance in the office at the coronation of Edward the 
 First : no documentary evidence could be produced in sup- 
 port of the claim ; and evidently, as a matter of right, the 
 claim was disallowed. As a special favour Edmund was 
 permitted to hold the office for the remainder of his life, but 
 probably only on condition that he executed the deed, dated 
 the day after Edward's coronation, in which he renounces 
 for himself and his heirs all hereditary pretensions in that 
 direction. 3 Edmund was not a man of great parts, and 
 probably had neither the wit nor the wish to exploit the 
 stewardship ; but if he had by chance any hopes of emu- 
 lating the stewards of France, these hopes had not the 
 
 1 See Appendix. It is not certain that even this charter passed, 
 although it is enrolled ; and it must shortly afterwards have been 
 cancelled. It was superseded by a charter of 1269 (original, sealed; 
 and Charter Roll, 53 Henry III, m. n), which was inspected on 
 the xyth of August, 13 Edward I, and not long afterwards produced 
 in evidence (Assize Roll, 544, m. 36, Middlesex, 22 Edward I). 
 There was also an intermediate charter dated July i2th, 1266 
 (original sealed : Inspeximus Original, and Charter Roll, 4 Edward 
 III, no. 19), a provisional grant "donee inde sibi escambium 
 racionabile fecerimus in aliis terris nostris ad valorem," etc. ; and 
 certain letters patent which are all quite irreconcilable with the 
 existence of any such earlier grants. The documents in question 
 are set out in full in the appendix to this chapter. 
 
 2 See Appendix. 
 
 3 See Appendix. Edward no doubt was merely following a 
 custom already established in France, where, it appears, oaths 
 against hereditary claims were habitually exacted from the great 
 officers ; e.g., Ego Johannes marescallus domini Ludovici regis illus- 
 tris notum facio universis praesentes litteras inspecturis me super 
 sacrosancta jurasse ipsi domino regi quod non retinebo equos nee
 
 140 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 smallest prospect of fruition under the strong rule of the 
 man men have called the English Justinian. So we hear 
 nothing of the stewardship during this period ; it simply 
 relapsed into obscurity. Probably Edmund continued to 
 perform the functions of a dapifer 1 on state occasions ; but 
 
 palefridos nee roncinos redditos ad opus meum ratione ministerii mei 
 quod habeo de dono ipsius domini regis, nee ego nee heredes mei 
 reclamabimus marescalliam jure hereditario tenendam et habendam. 
 In cujus, etc. (Soissons, 1223; Martene, Ampliss. Collect., i, 1175). 
 
 The grant of the stewardship to Edmund for his life was not 
 formally made until the 2yth February, 1275. See Appendix. 
 
 1 Let me repeat that there is nothing surprising in an earl, even 
 of the blood royal, delighting in the performance of these menial 
 duties on state occasions. Other earls were ready enough to per- 
 form precisely similar services for humbler individuals. Compare 
 the following instances : 
 
 Inthronization of the archbishop of Canterbury. The fees of 
 the hye stewarde and cheefe butler of the feast of coronization 
 as it appeareth by composition betwixt Boniface archbyshop of 
 Canterburie on th'one partie and Richarde de Clare earle of 
 Glocester and Hartforde on th'other partie of certayne customes 
 and services whiche the foresayde archbyshop claymeth of the 
 aforsayde earle; vidz of the manors of Tonybridge, and Hall of 
 Veilstone, Horsmond, Meliton and Pettis, etc., for the whiche the 
 aforesayde archbyshop asketh of the aforesayde earle that he should 
 do hym homage and service of iiii knightes suite of the court of 
 the sayde archbyshop for the aforesayde manors. And that he 
 shoulde be the hye stewarde of the sayde archbyshop and of his 
 successors at their great feast when it shoulde fortune the sayde 
 archbyshoppe to be intronizated, and that he shoulde be also the 
 hye butler of the sayde archbyshop and his successors with divers 
 other suche services for the manors aforesayde. (Ex Bibl. Bodl. 
 Arch. A., Rot. no. vi ; printed Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. i, 
 p. 1 1 8. An enrolment of the original document, dated 42 Henry 
 III, May ist, is preserved in the Record Office, s.v. Chancery 
 Miscellanea 16/1.) 
 
 Compositio inter Episcopum Exonie et Comitem Devonie super 
 Homagio et Servitio ipsius Comitis ac Feodis sibi debitis tempore In- 
 thronizationis Episcopi Exonie. Noverint universi quod cum inter 
 dominum Walterum de Stapledon Dei gratia Exonie episcopum ex 
 parte una et dominum Hugonem filium et heredem domini Hugonis 
 de Courtenaye ex altera, discordie materia fuisset exorta super eo 
 quod dictus dominus Hugo clamavit et clamat tenere manerium de 
 Slapton in comitatu Devon cum pertinentiis de eodem domino 
 episcopo per homagium et servicium, occasione cujus tenure asseruit
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 141 
 
 small wonder if the chroniclers, busied with recording mighty 
 warfare, now west of the Severn, now north of the Tweed, 
 omitted to relate even those special occasions when the 
 king's own brother waited on his sovereign at the royal 
 banqueting table. Edmund, it should be mentioned, was 
 made earl of Lancaster by Edward the First : he died on 
 the 5th of June, 1296, and the stewardship once more became 
 extinct. Edmund's son Thomas succeeded to the titles and 
 estates. 
 
 On the 7th of July, 1 307, Edward the First died at Burgh- 
 on-Sands by Solway Water, and the Prince of Wales came 
 
 dictus dominus Hugo quod debuit esse senescallus dicti domini 
 episcopi in festo intronizationis sue et ipse et heredes sui similiter 
 in quolibet festo intronizationis cujuslibet episcopi Exonie, et 
 ponere homines ad beneplacitum suum in quolibet officio in dicto 
 festo et aliqua feoda percipere ibi et alibi occasione senescalcie pre- 
 dicte; tandem die et loco confectionis presentium, communibus 
 amicis intervenientibus, super dicta senescalcia et feodo occasione 
 dicte senescalcie percipiendo necnon et positione hominum dicti 
 domini Hugonis et heredum suorum in officio in dicto festo et 
 etiam omnibus aliis dictam senescalciam tangentibus in forma sub- 
 sequenti convenit perpetuis temporibus servatura, viz : quod pre- 
 dictus dominus Hugo ratione predicti manerii de Slapton quod de 
 dicto domino episcopo tenet nomine senescalcie et servicii de dicto 
 manerio de Slapton dicto domino episcopo debiti die intronizationis 
 cujuslibet episcopi Exonie suo tempore intronizandi et heredes sui 
 qui plene etatis fuerint post ipsum, die intronizationis cujuslibet 
 episcopi Exonie futuri, obviabunt dicto episcopo extra portam 
 orientalem in descensu palefridi sui ad tardius, et ex tune inantea 
 ducent latus ejus dextrum ipsumque a concursu et oppressione 
 populi pro viribus conservabunt quousque ducatur in chorum ecclesie 
 cathedralis Exonie intronizandus : Et subsequente ipso die in majori 
 refectione ponant personaliter totum primum ferculum coram dicto 
 domino episcopo, et percipiant tantummodo quatuor discos argenteos 
 de illis quos posuerunt coram episcopo in dicto primo ferculo, duo 
 salsaria et unam cuppam de qua bibet episcopus ad mensam in 
 dicta refectione, unum salsarium, unum picherium ad vinum, unum 
 coclear et duas pelves de quibus lavit dominus episcopus predicto 
 die, et hec omnia vasa debent esse argentea. . . . Datum apud 
 Nyweton priorem de Plympton die dominico in crastino beati 
 Thome apostoli anno Domini millesimo trecentesimo octavo et 
 anno regni regis Edwardi filii regis Edwardi secundo Presentibus 
 [etc.]. . . . (Brantyngham Register, vol. ii, fol. 36 b; printed Oliver, 
 Monasticon Exon., p. 323.)
 
 142 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 to the throne. At this king's coronation (February 25th, 
 1307-8) the Gascon favourite Gaveston took the chief place 
 in the pageant and carried the crown ; but the earl of Lan- 
 caster bore the sword "Curtana," a circumstance to be noted, 
 and it is fairly probable that he claimed and was allowed to 
 act as steward at the feast in Westminster Hall. 1 At all 
 events, shortly after the coronation, Edward the Second by 
 letters patent conferred the stewardship of England on 
 Thomas and his heirs in tail, as being an office appurtenant 
 so it was said, to the earldom of Leicester. 2 The stewardship 
 now undergoes a curious development. 
 
 In many respects Edward the Second was not unlike his 
 grandfather Henry the Third, and the course of events during 
 the two reigns have many striking features in common. Both 
 kings were foolish and grievously extravagant ; both had a 
 most awkward predilection for unpopular foreigners. Simon 
 de Montfort led the opposition party under Henry the Third ; 
 his successor in title became the coryphaeus of discontent 
 under Edward the Second ; both earls gained some measure 
 of success ; both ultimately came to a violent end at the 
 hands of the king's party. Moreover, each earl enjoyed a 
 scarcely merited apotheosis, was regarded as a martyr, worked 
 according to local report many notable miracles with his 
 corpse. And yet, in many ways, it is invidious to compare 
 Simon with Thomas. Simon started his English career as a 
 French pauper : Thomas was by inheritance the richest and 
 most powerful nobleman in the kingdom. The former 
 
 1 Baronibus pro rege. Quia rex quibusdam de causis vult certio- 
 rari que et cujusmodi feoda quondam comites Leycestrie, temporibus 
 quibus ipsi comites senescalli progenitorum regis quondam regum 
 Anglic de feodo extiterint, ratione senescalcie illius percipere con- 
 sueverunt, et que et cujusmodi feoda ad eandem senescalciam per- 
 tinuerunt temporibus supradictis : rex mandat baronibus quod, 
 scrutatis rotulis, libris et aliis memorandis de dicto scaccario per 
 que super premissis poterunt melius informari, regem de eo quod 
 inde invenerint reddant distincte et aperte sub sigillo ejusdem 
 scaccarii certiorem, hoc breve regi remittentes. Teste rege apud 
 Lenton. xxx die Septembris anno primo. Per ipsum regem. 
 (Exchequer Memoranda Roll, L.T.R. Brevia Mich., i Edward II, 
 m. i6d. ; printed Madox Exchequer, vol. i, p. 52n.) 
 
 2 See Appendix.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 143 
 
 achieved what he did achieve by sheer force of character 
 and strenuous activity : the methods of the latter have been 
 aptly characterised as sulky inaction. 
 
 During Edward the First's reign the king represented the 
 law and the constitution, and the people gave little thought 
 to politics ; but the popular political principles evoked by 
 Henry the Third's bad administration revived under his 
 grandson's similar rule, and patriotic feeling turned once 
 again to the barons in opposition to the king. There was 
 also, no doubt, some reaction on the part of the barons them- 
 selves against the stringent pressure by which Edward the 
 First had kept them in order. 
 
 Concisely stated, the position of affairs was this : the people 
 had various specific constitutional grievances which they 
 desired to have redressed ; the barons had their own personal 
 grievances, and were exasperated by the offensive behaviour 
 of Gaveston. All parties appear to have been agreed as to 
 the remedy for their complaints : the king must never be 
 without wise counsellors in attendance on his person ; more- 
 over, in all difficult and arduous matters he must also have 
 the advice of the national council in parliament. Who, in 
 England, would not have assented to these political platitudes ? 
 The difficulty was to discover by what perennial system of 
 procedure the cure could be enforced. Furthermore, seeing 
 that any efficient system of procedure must needs involve 
 some amount of coercion, it remained to find some formula, 
 some acceptable political cry to justify such measures. 
 
 Now the leader of the opposition in Henry the Third's 
 reign, and also in the reign of Edward the Second, was in 
 each case the hereditary steward. Again, the commission 
 of reform appointed in 1258 had included, besides the steward, 
 both the hereditary constable and the hereditary marshal. 
 The fuglemen of the solitary political crisis under Edward 
 the First were the hereditary constable and the hereditary 
 marshal. 1 While, against Edward the Second and his 
 
 1 This occurred in 1297 and ended by the king being compelled 
 to confirm the great charters. According, however, to Heming- 
 burgh (ii, 121), the action taken by the constable and marshal had 
 no very creditable origin. When required by the king to lead his
 
 144 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 minions, Lancaster's chief supporter was the earl of Here- 
 ford, the constable. Under these circumstances it is hardly 
 surprising that some persons should have sought to establish 
 the principle that, when the king erred, it was the business of 
 these hereditary officers to correct his errors. 
 
 This principle is unequivocally enunciated in two very 
 curious documents closely connected with the period under 
 consideration. One document is the well-known Modus 
 tenendi Parliamentum, the other is a tract setting out the 
 functions of the stewardship of England. Possibly only the 
 last-mentioned document was actually composed in the reign 
 of Edward the Second ; but, in both, the powers claimed as 
 belonging ex officio to the stewardship are unmistakably 
 derived from certain events of Edward the Second's reign. 
 These events are so well known that the briefest mention of 
 them will be sufficient. 
 
 In 1309 the barons under Lancaster and Hereford com- 
 pelled the king to consent to the appointment of a committee 
 of peers to redress the national grievances. The committee, 
 known as the Lords Ordainers, was accordingly appointed 
 and consisted of seven prelates, eight earls and six barons : 
 the result of their deliberations was the production of certain 
 ordinances, beneficial no doubt to the kingdom, but highly 
 derogatory to the king ; amongst other things the banish- 
 ment of Gaveston was decreed. The king, unable to resist, 
 signed and published the ordinances, but with the fixed 
 intention not to observe them one moment longer than was 
 necessary. Gaveston did, in fact, leave England, but soon 
 after rejoined the king in the north. The barons, finding 
 
 armies into Gascony they excused themselves : they were ready to 
 accompany the king but not to go without him. The earl marshal 
 was pressed again and again to go. He said : " Willingly with you, 
 Sire, and in the front rank of your army, as by hereditary right I am 
 bound to do." To this the king : " Even without me you will still 
 go with the others." " I am not bound," said the earl, "nor is it my 
 pleasure to undertake the expedition without you." The king's 
 wrath was kindled. " By God, earl marshal, either you go or you 
 hang." "By the same oath, O King," replied the other, "I will 
 neither go nor hang " ; and without waiting permission he withdrew 
 from the king's presence.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 145 
 
 themselves flouted, collected an army and, headed by the 
 steward and constable of England, marched against the king 
 and his favourite. 
 
 Eventually Gaveston took refuge in Scarborough, the king 
 in York. Lancaster placed the bulk of his forces between 
 York and Scarborough, detaching Surrey and Pembroke to 
 besiege Gaveston in Scarborough castle. The favourite soon 
 realised that the place was untenable, and he surrendered to 
 Pembroke upon conditions which guaranteed his personal 
 safety. Pembroke then marched south with his prisoner, 
 intending to convey him to Wallingford, Gaveston's own 
 castle. All went well till they reached Dedington, where 
 Gaveston was lodged for the night in the custody of Pem- 
 broke's servants ; but before dawn next day he received a 
 peremptory order to prepare for instant departure ; and on 
 leaving his chamber he found himself confronted, not by his 
 former custodians, but by men in the livery of his arch- 
 enemy Warwick. Gaveston must have known at once that 
 his fate was sealed. They hurried him to Warwick castle, 
 where he vainly pleaded for mercy from Lancaster and 
 Hereford. His death was promptly decided upon. Whether 
 judgment was previously passed upon him by his peers (he 
 was earl of Cornwall, be it remembered), or by others, it is 
 idle under such circumstances to inquire. They took him to 
 Blacklow hill within the jurisdiction of the earl of Lancaster, 
 and he was beheaded in the presence of the baronial leaders. 
 
 The king, when he heard of it, was quite incapacitated 
 with rage and grief. The country as a whole was decidedly 
 scandalised, and Pembroke, who deeply resented the kid- 
 napping of his private prisoner, seceded from the opposition. 
 
 Nevertheless Lancaster maintained his position and in- 
 fluence ; a reconciliation with the king was effected under 
 stress of Scotch alarms; and in the year 1316 Thomas was 
 made president of the king's council on his own conditions, 
 which included amongst other things the provision that 
 unprofitable counsellors should be removed from time to 
 time by authority of parliament. According to the earl of 
 Lancaster, the ordinances, and more particularly the removal 
 of bad advisers, summed up the requirements of every situa-
 
 146 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 tion ; and we find him continually harping upon this one 
 theme, in parliament and out of parliament, in letters and 
 speeches, in season and out of season. 
 
 After Gaveston came the Despencers, and their ascen- 
 dency soon brought on another and similar crisis, Lancaster 
 and Hereford backed by their numerous adherents scored 
 the first success. In 1321 the Despencers were proceeded 
 against in parliament 1 upon accusations represented to have 
 been framed by the prelates, earls, barons and other peers 
 together with the commons. The alleged misdeeds of the 
 Despencers were found by examination, though in the absence 
 of the persons accused, to be notorious and truly asserted ; 
 and, in the presence of the king, the peers of the realm 
 sentenced the Despencers to disherison and banishment. 
 This judgment was recited in a statute passed in the first 
 year of the reign of Edward the Third ; the recital runs as 
 follows : 2 
 
 Come Hugh le Despenser le piere et Hugh le Despenser le fitz, 
 nadgairs a la suyte Thomas adonqes counte de Lancastre et de 
 Leycestre, seneschal d'Engleterre, par commune assent et agard des 
 piers et du poeple du roialme et par 1'assent du roi Edward, piere 
 nostre seigneur le roi que ore est, come treitres et enemys du roi et 
 de poeple feussent exilez, desheritez et bannis hors du roialme pur 
 touz jours. . . . 3 
 
 This appears to be the first instance where a steward of 
 England, so styled in a formal record, took part in the trial 
 of a peer in parliament. Whether, however, earl Thomas 
 himself pronounced the judgment, or even presided at the 
 trial, does not appear from the contemporary record of the 
 proceedings on the Close Rolls. 
 
 The Despencers submitted to the decree of parliament 
 and left England. 
 
 1 These proceedings are more fully dealt with in a subsequent 
 chapter. 2 Statute i Edward III, preamble. 
 
 3 It is important to note that this recital is quoted more than 
 once in the rolls of Parliament. See Rot. Par!., vol. ii, p. 256 ; and 
 vol. iii, p. 366. It must always be borne in mind that the recorded 
 circumstances, and not the actual circumstances, are what influence 
 future procedure.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 147 
 
 Now with these facts before us we will consider the two 
 documents which purport to give an account of the steward's 
 powers and duties. The passage in the " Modus " is entitled 
 De casibus et judiciis difficilibus, and runs somewhat as 
 follows : 
 
 When any dispute, question, or difficult case, whether of peace or 
 war, shall arise in or out of the kingdom, the case shall be related 
 and recited in writing in full parliament and be treated of and 
 debated on there among the peers of the parliament, . . . and if by 
 disagreement between them and the king and any magnates, or per- 
 chance between the magnates themselves, the peace of the kingdom 
 be disturbed, or the people or country troubled, so that it seem to 
 the king and his council expedient that this matter be treated of and 
 amended by the consideration of all the peers of his realm, or if the 
 king and kingdom be troubled by war, or if a difficult case arise 
 before the chancellor of England, or a difficult judgment has to be 
 rendered before the justices and so forth ; and if by chance in such 
 deliberations all or at least the greater part cannot agree, then the 
 earl steward, the earl constable, and the earl marshal, or two of them, 
 shall elect twenty-five persons from all the peers of the realm, namely 
 two bishops, and three procurators for the whole clergy, two earls 
 and three barons, five knights of the shires, five citizens, and [five] 
 burgesses, making twenty-five, and those twenty-five may choose 
 twelve of their number and delegate their powers to these, and these 
 twelve may delegate to six, and the six to three, but the three may 
 not further delegate their powers except by license from the lord 
 king, and if the king consents the three may delegate to two, and, of 
 these two, one may delegate to the other, and thus at last his ordin- 
 ance shall stand above the whole parliament; and thus by delegation 
 from twenty-five persons to a single person (unless a larger number 
 agree and ordain) at length a single person as aforesaid who cannot 
 disagree with himself shall ordain for all ; preserving to the lord 
 king and his council their right to examine and amend such or- 
 dinances after they have been written, if they can and care to do so, 
 in such a way that it be done there and then in full parliament, and 
 with the assent of parliament and not otherwise. 1 
 
 1 See Appendix. There has been considerable divergence of 
 opinion as to the date when this document was first compiled. 
 Stubbs attributed it to the middle of the fourteenth century. Be- 
 mont (Melanges Julien Havet) believes it to have been written soon 
 after the accession of Richard II. Hardy assigns it to the period
 
 148 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 The tract on the office of the stewardship is entitled Hie 
 annotatur quis sit senescallus Angliae et quid ejus officium. I 
 subjoin a substantially verbatim translation of it : x 
 
 The stewardship of England appertains to the earldom of Leicester, 
 and has appertained thereto from ancient times. 
 
 And it should be known that his office is to supervise and regulate, 
 under and immediately after the king, the whole realm of England 
 and all the officers of laws within the said kingdom in times of peaces 
 and wars, in manner following. 
 
 The manner how and when he ought and is bound to exercise 
 his office by service and oath of homage and fealty is such : When 
 any man or woman shall come to the court of the lord king, what- 
 ever court it be, and possibly to the king, to have and obtain 
 remedy for injustice done, and he or she shall not be able in 
 due season to obtain remedy, then the steward of England ought 
 and is bound to receive such petitions and complaints and to keep 
 them until the next parliament thereafter to be holden, and to give 
 and assign unto such complainants, if they so desire, a day there for 
 prosecuting their petitions, and, in full parliament in the presence 
 of the king, apprehending and charging that officer or those officers, 
 whoever they be, who so have failed in doing of justice, and to call 
 them to account in respect thereof, unto whom in such cases every- 
 one throughout the kingdom is bound to answer, the king only 
 excepted. And if the chancellor of England have failed to make 
 original remedy, and the justices, treasurers, barons and chamber- 
 lains of the exchequer, steward of the king's house, escheators, 
 coroners, sheriffs, clerks, bailiffs and other officers, of what localities 
 or places soever they be, shall fail or desist in their processes, judg- 
 ments, executions of judgments, and justice to be done, to the 
 favour of one and loss of the other party, for gifts, bribes or other 
 procurements ; and further if any justices, when both parties plead- 
 ing before them have come to judgment, shall by such suborned 
 procurements defer such judgments contrary to justice and the law 
 and custom of the realm ; and if the chancellor of England, in such 
 case, or any other of the officers of law, shall allege in parliament 
 
 1294-1327. For the French version see Archaeological Journal, 
 xix, pp. 259-74. See also Round, Commune of London, ch. xv. 
 
 1 For the Latin text see Appendix. 
 
 Compare this tract with the De senescallo ducis et ejus officio in 
 the Grand Coutumier de Normandie (Appendix).
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 149 
 
 and say for their excuse that in such case such hardness and 
 ambiguity of the law did arise when the same was heard before 
 them, that neither he nor the court of Chancery, nor any other 
 courts wherein he is an officer, were able or knew how to attain- 
 unto the safe determination of the law, then shall he declare 
 the same ambiguity and doubt in parliament. If then it be 
 found that the law was doubtful in that case, the chancellor and 
 such like officer shall be held excused ; and then shall the steward 
 of England together with the constable of England in the presence 
 of the king and others of the parliament make choice of five and 
 twenty persons, more or less, according as the case, together with 
 other similar cases referred to the same parliament, shall require, 
 amongst whom shall be earls, barons, knights of the shires, citizens 
 and burgesses, who there shall ordain, found, and establish remedy 
 of law in all such cases for ever after to endure. And these laws 
 shall then be recited, written, and approved in full parliament, and 
 sealed with the great seal, and delivered to all places of justice from 
 thenceforth to be holden for laws, and to public places, where it 
 shall be thought expedient for the commonalty, to be proclaimed and 
 divulged, as everyone is held to know common laws and especially 
 statute laws publicly proclaimed. 
 
 And if it so happen that there was in such case either common 
 law or statute law, so that the king, the steward, and others of the 
 parliament may understand and perceive that such default and 
 delays in processes and judgments occur and take place through 
 such officers, whence the subornation or malice of such officers 
 plainly and often may be presumed, then shall he be removed from 
 office and some other fit officer shall be appointed in his place; 
 and if the presumption is against the justices and such like officers, 
 but they for excusing themselves shall say that they have not here- 
 tofore known themselves, or the courts whence they are, take 
 cognisance of such cases, or that by chance they were negligent ; 
 then ought they to be admonished by the steward on behalf of the 
 king and parliament, that they study and search better the common 
 laws that no such ignorance nor negligence be found in them in the 
 like or other cases afterwards ; and if it shall happen again, then 
 they shall be removed from their offices, and others more discreet 
 and diligent shall be appointed by the king and his council. 
 
 Likewise, it is the steward's office [to intervene], if the king have 
 evil counsellors about him who advise him to do such things as are 
 plainly and publicly to his dishonour or disherison, and to the 
 public hurt, and destruction of his people ; [and] then the steward
 
 ISO ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 of England, taking with him the constable, and other magnates, 
 and others from the commons of the realm of England, shall send 
 to such counsellor of the king, that he desist from thus leading and 
 counselling the king, making mention of such evil counsels of his 
 previously given to the king, and that he withdraw from him and 
 his presence, and not abide with him to his dishonour and the 
 public loss as aforesaid, which if he shall not do, they shall send 
 to the king to remove him from him and not to hear his counsels, 
 for the reason that by the whole people he is presumed to be an 
 evil counsellor between the king and his people. Which if the 
 king shall not do, again and often shall they send as well unto the 
 king as unto him ; and if at the last neither the king nor such 
 counsellor have regard to such missions and supplications, but 
 rather shall neglect to comply, then for the public good it is and 
 shall be permissible for the steward and constable of England, the 
 magnates and others of the commons of the realm, with banner 
 raised in the name of the king and realm, to take such counsellor 
 as the public enemy of the king and kingdom and keep his body 
 in safe custody until the next parliament, and in the meantime to 
 seize his goods, rents, and all his possessions till he shall attend 
 and undergo judgment by consideration of the whole realm in 
 parliament, as it happened to Godwin earl of Kent, in the time 
 of King Edward the immediate predecessor of William duke of 
 Normandy the conqueror of England, who for such like evil deeds 
 and counsels was adjudged to lose his earldom and banished from 
 the whole realm of England, the said earldom escheating to the 
 said king ; and afterwards, by the mediation of the king, the same 
 Godwin by the grace of the magnates returned to England and 
 again incurred forfeiture. Likewise concerning Hubert de Burgh 
 earl of Kent, in the time of King Henry son of King John, who 
 for his evil deeds and other such like counsels of his was taken by 
 the steward and other magnates and adjudged to lose the same 
 earldom by the consideration of the whole parliament. Likewise 
 concerning Peter de Gaveston, who in the time of King Edward 
 son of King Henry for such like deeds and counsels was banished 
 from all the dominions of the King of England as well beyond as 
 this side the seas ; which Peter afterwards, on the mediation of the 
 King, by the grace and permission of the magnates returned to 
 England and had by gift of the king the earldom of Cornwall; 
 and afterwards for his evil deeds and counsels was again banished 
 by the magnates and commons, the said earldom escheating to the 
 king. And afterwards he returned without the consent of the
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 151 
 
 magnates of England, and attached himself to the king, which 
 when perceived by the steward and constable and other magnates 
 of England, he was taken by them, and, as a public enemy of the 
 king and realm, beheaded at Blacklow in the county of Warwick. 
 
 The Modus tenendi parliamentum need not be discussed 
 here, but the tract on the stewardship has a direct bearing on 
 the history of the steward's various jurisdictions, and merits 
 far more attention than it has hitherto received. The original 
 version of this last-named tract may with fair certainty be 
 assigned to a period, subsequent of course to the death of 
 Gaveston, but prior to the banishment of his successors ; 
 and it was very possibly composed for the purpose of 
 justifying the proceedings instituted against the Despencers 
 in parliament by Lancaster and Hereford. 
 
 As an historical account of the office in question the tract 
 is not entitled to the smallest credit : the author's reference 
 to Godwin and Hubert de Burgh is more valorous than 
 discreet ; and, apart from these two instances, the document 
 is nothing more than an assertion of abstract principles of 
 right founded more or less closely on the concrete political 
 events of Edward the Second's reign. The interest of the 
 tract, however, lies not in the past but in the future : this 
 particular document clearly forms the root of title to the 
 jurisdiction conferred on or assumed by the steward of 
 England in the reign of Richard the Second. Eventually 
 this dignitary acquired settled functions very different from 
 those claimed by Thomas, but only by a modification, 
 gradual and easily traced, of the prerogatives asserted in 
 the tract. 
 
 Regarded as a device for the foundation, or at least the 
 aggrandisement of an office, the document lacks originality : 
 Henry the Second's claim to be hereditary steward of France 
 was founded upon a precisely analogous composition which 
 asserted equally unrecognised powers. 1 Even as a formula 
 
 1 The following are the judicial prerogatives of the steward of 
 France according to Hugh de Clers : Item, quando erit in Francia, 
 quod et curia sua judicaverit firmum erit et stabile. Si vero con- 
 tentio aliqua nascetur de judicio facto in Francia, rex mandabit quod
 
 152 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 for dealing with irresponsible kings, this Lancastrian tract 
 was by no means unique. The Great Charter contained 
 similar provisions for electing twenty-five persons, and for 
 compelling the king vietarmis to redress grievances. Matthew 
 Paris states in his chronicle that the earl of Chester carried 
 the sword curtana at the coronation of 1236 to indicate that 
 he was earl-palatine with power to coerce the king when he 
 erred, an authority Lancaster, as bearer of that sword at 
 Edward's coronation, might have cited in self-justification. 1 
 Moreover the reign of Edward the Second produced a rival 
 tract ascribed to the younger Despencer. 
 
 Homage and oath of allegiance regard the crown more than the 
 king's person [the first sentence is the keynote of the formula], 
 and are due to the crown rather than to the person, and this is 
 manifest in that before the estate of the crown be descended no 
 allegiance is due to the person. Wherefore, if the king by chance 
 be not guided by reason in exercising the rights of the crown, his 
 lieges are bound by their oaths to the crown to lead the king and 
 the estate of the crown back again to reason, otherwise the oath 
 would not be kept. The question then arises, how the king is to 
 be brought back, whether by suit of law or by force. By suit of law 
 no man can do it, because he can have no other judges but the 
 king's ; in which case, if the king's will be not according to reason, 
 the error will only be maintained and confirmed. Wherefore it is 
 needful in order to save the oath, that when the king will not redress 
 or remove an evil matter damaging to the people and the crown 
 it must be removed by force ; for by their oaths both the 
 king is bound to govern his people, and his lieges are bound to 
 govern in aid of him and in his default. 2 
 
 comes veniat illud emendare ; et si pro ea mittere noluerit, scripta 
 utriusque partis comiti transmittet, et quod inde sua curia judicabit 
 firmum erit et stabile. 
 
 1 Matthew Paris, Rolls Series, vol. iii, p. 337. Comite Cestriae 
 gladium sancti ^Edwardi qui Curtein dicitur ante regem bajulante in 
 signum quod comes est palatii, et regem si oberret habeat de jure 
 potestatem cohibendi, suo sibi scilicet Cestrensi constabulario minis- 
 trante, et virga populum, cum se [injordinate ingereret, subtra- 
 hente. . . . 
 
 2 Close Roll 15 Edward II, m. 3od. ; and see Close Roll Cal., 
 1318-23, p. 492.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 153 
 
 The Lancastrian party made this composition the first 
 count against the younger Despencer in the proceedings for 
 his banishment : they alleged that it had been written for 
 the purpose of accroaching sovereign power, and had been 
 employed to cow the king into submission. An interesting 
 example this of thief catching thief. More interesting still 
 is the conclusion from such and similar evidence, that these 
 were times when pamphleteering was considered scarcely 
 less effective than the ordinances as a means for reducing 
 the king to impotence. 
 
 If earl Thomas had been a man of Simon de Montfort's 
 character and ability, he might have ruled England, and 
 Scotland also, in whatever capacity he chose ; as chief of the 
 council, as steward, perhaps as king. But in character 
 Thomas was treacherous, cruel and selfish : his ability is an 
 unknown quantity. More than once he obtained supreme 
 control of the government, but he never governed. He was 
 given supreme command over the English armies, but he 
 never commanded or led them. Gaveston's capture was 
 perhaps a necessary adventure, but his kidnapping and exe- 
 cution by Lancaster was a grossly dishonourable blunder. 
 The banishment of the Despencers was a clean and vigorous 
 performance, ably executed, but it was Lancaster's last suc- 
 cess. Very soon after came pitiful tragedy. Edward had a 
 burst of energy ; Lancaster and Hereford fled northward, 
 vainly hoping for assistance from Scotland ; Harcla of Car- 
 lisle, the northern watch-dog, intercepted them. Hereford 
 was slain at Borough Bridge; Lancaster was made prisoner 
 and brought to his own castle of Pontefract. There he was 
 condemned to a traitor's death, but being of the blood-royal 
 the sentence was commuted to beheading. In sorry guise he 
 was ridden to his execution ; men pelted him with mud on 
 his last journey. Arrived at the place of death, Lancaster 
 knelt for the end facing eastward ; but brutally they turned 
 his face to the north : " You look for help," they said, " not 
 from God, but the Scots." Then the headsman did his busi- 
 ness, and the office of steward of England once more became 
 vacant.
 
 154 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER V 
 
 Patent Roll, 49 Henry III, m. 2 
 
 Rex militibus liberis-hominibus et omnibus aliis tenentibus 
 de comitatu et honore Leycestrie senescalcia Anglic et de 
 omnibus terris et tenementis que fuerunt Simonis de Monte- 
 forti quondam comitis Leycestrie salutem. Sciatis quod 
 dedimus et concessimus Edmundo filio nostro karissimo pre- 
 dicta comitatum honorem senescalciam terras et tenementa 
 que fuerunt prefati Simonis inimici nostri exceptis dominicis 
 nostris habenda et tenenda de nobis et heredibus nostris 
 eidem Edmundo et heredibus suis imperpetuum faciendo 
 servicium inde debitum et consuetum. Et ideo vobis man- 
 damus quod eidem Edmundo tanquam domino vestro in 
 omnibus que ad predicta comitatum honorem senescalciam 
 terras et tenementa pertinent de cetero intendentes sitis et 
 respondentes sicut predictum est. In cujus etc. Teste ut 
 supra, [scilicet apud Cantuar. xxv die Octobris], 
 
 Register Munimentorum, Liber AJ fol. 190 
 Henricus Dei gratia rex Anglic dominus Hibernie et dux 
 Aquitanie archiepiscopis episcopis abbatibus prioribus comi- 
 tibus baronibus justiciariis vicecomitibus prepositis ministris 
 et omnibus ballivis et fidelibus suis salutem. Sciatis nos 
 dedisse concessisse et hac carta nostra confirmasse Edmundo 
 filio nostro karissimo comitatum et honorem Leycestrie 
 senescalciam Anglic et omnes terras et tenementa que 
 fuerunt Symonis de Monteforte quondam comitis Leycestrie 
 inimici et felonis nostri per quern guerra in regno nostro 
 mota fuit necnon omnes terras et tenementa que fuerunt 
 Nicholai de Segrave inimici et rebellis nostri qui eidem 
 Simoni et imprisis suis [tempore] guerre predicte adhesit 
 ad exheredationem nostram et destructionem corone nostre 
 usque ad bellum inter nos et dictos inimicos et rebelles 
 nostros [apud Evesham] commissum et quorum inimicorum 
 
 1 A register temp. Edward I of documents in the custody of the 
 crown.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 155 
 
 etiam rebellum terre et tenementa per forisfacturam eorum 
 de communi consensu et consilio magnatum ac fidelium 
 regni nostri ad nostram ordinationem et dispositionem salvis 
 capitalibus dominis homagiis et servitiis suis hac vice perti- 
 nent habenda et tenenda eidem filio nostro et heredibus suis 
 de capitalibus dominis feodi illius sive nobis vel aliis cum 
 omnibus ad predicta comitatum honorem senescalciam terras 
 et tenementa spectantibus dum tamen terre et tenementa 
 predicta non fuit (sic) de dominico corone nostre faciendo 
 inde omnia servitia debita et consueta ita quod occasione 
 hujus donationis nostre nichil capitalibus dominis predictis 
 in wardis releviis aut rebus aliis ad eos pertinentibus depereat 
 imperpetuum. Quare volumus et firmiter precipimus pro 
 nobis et heredibus nostris quod predictus Edmundus et 
 heredes sui comitatum honorem senescalciam terras et tene- 
 menta predicta cum omnibus pertinentiis suis habeant et 
 teneant de capitalibus dominis feodi illius sive nobis vel aliis 
 dum tamen terre et tenementa predicta non sint de dominico 
 corone nostre faciendo inde omnia servitia debita et consueta 
 sicut predictum est imperpetuum. Et volumus et precipimus 
 pro nobis et heredibus nostris quod nullus ratione juris quod 
 sibi per predictos Symonem et Nicholaum hereditarie com- 
 petere posset actionem vel clamium ullis temporibus habeat 
 de cetero in predicto comitatu honore senescalcia terris et 
 tenementis sed ab omni jure actione et clamio penitus 
 excludatur imperpetuum'. Et nos et heredes nostri hanc 
 nostram donationem defendere et conservare tenemur sicut 
 nos et antecessores nostri alias donationes nostras et feoffa- 
 menta conservare et defendere consuevimus et sicut ea 
 conservare et defendere tenemur. Hiis testibus Venerabili 
 patre W. Bathon. et Wellen. episcopo, Hugone le Bigod, 
 Philippe Basset, Rogero de Leyburne, Roberto Walerand, 
 Willelmo Belet, Waltero de Burges, Galfrido de Percy et 
 aliis. Data [per manum nostram apud] Cantuar. xxvj die 
 Octobris anno regni nostri xlix. 1 
 
 1 (In margin) Carta per quam H. rex dedit Edmundo filio suo 
 comitatum [et] honorem Leycestrie senescalciam Anglic et omnes 
 terras et tenementa [que] fuerunt Symonis de Monte [fortje et omnes 
 terras et tenementa [que] fuerunt Nicholai de Segrave.
 
 156 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 (Printed by Rymer, Foedera, i, p. 465, where, instead of 
 giving the regnal year as xlix in numerals, the word "quin- 
 quagesimo" occurs. Note that a modern hand has crossed 
 out " xlix " in red chalk and inserted " 50 " in the margin. 
 The true date is October 26th, 1265, but the regnal year 
 depends on whether the ipth or the 28th of October, 1216, 
 is treated as the commencement of the reign. This charter 
 never passed.) 
 
 Charter Roll, 49 Henry III, m. I 
 
 [Pro Edmundo filio] regis. [H. Dei gratia rex Anglic etc. 
 archiepiscopis etc. salutem. Sciatis nos dedisse] concessisse 
 et hac carta nostra confirmasse Edmundo filio nostro karis- 
 simo {comitatum et*} honorem Leycestrie et omnes terras et 
 t[enementa] cum pertinentiis que fuerunt Simonis de Monte- 
 forti inimici et {rebellis*} (felonisf) nostri (cuif) (qui complici- 
 bus et fautoribus suis*} inimici{s*} nostrijs*} et imprisis suis 
 adhes{it*}(eruntf) tempore guerre nuper {habite*} in regno 
 nostro mota fuit per ipsum Simonem et dictos imprisos suos 
 ad exheredacionem nostram et destructionem corone nostre 
 usque ad bellum inter nos et dictos inimicos et rebelles nostros 
 commissum et quorum inimicorum et rebellium nostrorumterre 
 et tenementa per forisfactum eorum de communi consensu et 
 consilio magnatum et fidelium regni nostri ad nostram ordi- 
 nacionem et disposicionem salvis capitalibus dominis homagiis 
 et servitiis hac vice pertinent habenda et tenenda (cum feodis 
 militum advocacionibus ecclesiarum libertatibus et omnibus 
 aliis ad dicta honorem terras et tenementa pertinentibusf) etc. 
 Dum tamen comitatus honor terre et tenementa non sint de 
 dominico corone nostre faciendo inde omnia servicia debita 
 et consueta ita quod racione illius donacionis nostre nichil 
 capitalibus dominis predictis in wardis releviis aut rebus 
 aliis ad eos pertinentibus depereat imperpetuum salvis nobis 
 et heredibus nostris hiis que ad nos secundum regni nostri 
 consuetudinem pertinent racione terrarum et tenementorum 
 que de nobis tenentur in capite. Quare volumus et firmiter 
 precipimus pro nobis et heredibus nostris etc. sicut predictum 
 est et volumus et precipimus quod nullus racione juris etc. 
 
 * Erasures. t Interlineations.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 157 
 
 Et nos et heredes nostri etc. Hiis testibus Venerabili patre 
 W. Bathon. et Wellen. episcopo, Hugone le Bygot, Philippe 
 Basset, Rogero de Leyburne, Roberto Wallerand, Roberto 
 Aguilon, Willelmo Belet, Galfrido de Percy, Bartholomeo le 
 Bygot et aliis. Data per manum nostram apud Cantuar. 
 xxvj die Octobris. 
 
 (This charter passed, if at all, on the 26th of October, 1265, 
 or the same date as the escrow transcribed in the Liber A.) 
 
 Royal Charters, Duchy of Lancaster, No. 97. Original 
 Letters Patent, Sealed. 
 
 H. Dei gratia rex Anglic dominus Hibernie et dux Aquita- 
 nie omnibus tenentibus de dominicis suis que fuerunt in 
 manibus quondam S. de Monteforti et Nicholai de Segrave 
 salutem. Sciatis quod ad sustentacionem Edmundi filii 
 nostri karissimi concessimus eidem filio nostro omnia dominica 
 nostra que fuerunt in manibus predictorum Simonis et Nicholai 
 inimicorum nostrorum habenda sibi cum omnibus pertinentiis 
 et exitibus suis quamdiu nobis placuerit vel donee ei in equi- 
 valenti providerimus. Et ideo vobis mandamus quod eidem 
 Edmundo decetero intendentes sitis et respondentes sicut 
 predictum est. In cujus rei testimonium has litteras nostras 
 fieri fecimus patentes. Teste me-ipso apud Northampton 
 xxviij die Decembris anno regni nostri quinquagesimo. 
 
 Royal Charters, Duchy of Lancaster, No. 98. Original 
 Letters Patent, Sealed 
 
 H. Dei gratia rex Anglic dominus Hibernie et dux Aquit- 
 anie omnibus tenentibus de dominicis suis que fuerunt in 
 manibus S. de Monteforti quondam comitis Leycestrie salu- 
 tem. Sciatis quod ad sustentacionem dilecti filii nostri 
 Edmundi concessimus et assignavimus eidem filio nostro 
 omnia dominica nostra que fuerunt in manibus predict! 
 comitis inimici nostri habenda et tenenda eidem Edmundo 
 cum omnibus pertinentiis et exitibus suis quamdiu nobis 
 placuerit vel donee ei in equivalent! providerimus. Et ideo 
 vobis mandamus quod eidem filio nostro decetero intendentes 
 sitis et respondentes sicut predictum est. In cujus rei testi-
 
 158 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 monium has Htteras nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste 
 me-ipso apud Norhampton vj die Januarii anno regni nostri 
 
 Royal Charters, Duchy of Lancaster, No. 100. Original 
 Letters Patent, Sealed 
 
 H. Dei gratia rex Anglic dominus Hibernie et dux Aqui- 
 tanie omnibus ad quos presentes littere pervenerint salutem. 
 Cum nuper dederimus et concesserimus dilecto filio nostro 
 Edmundo omnes terras et tenementa que fuerunt Simonis de 
 Monteforti quondam comitis Leycestrie et omnes terras et 
 tenementa que fuerunt Nicholai de Segrave inimicorum nos- 
 trorum habenda et tenenda sibi et heredibus suis imperpetuum. 
 Nos eidem filio nostro gratiam uberiorem facere volentes 
 dedimus et concessimus eidem omnes terras et tenementa 
 inimicorum nostrorum de feodis predictorum comitis et 
 Nicholai de quibus collaciones aliquas aliquibus prius non 
 fecerimus faciendo inde servicia debita et consueta. In cujus 
 rei testimonium has litteras nostras fieri fecimus patentes. 
 Teste me-ipso apud Norhampton xij die Januarii anno regni 
 nostri quinquagesimo. 
 
 Royal Charters, Duchy of Lancaster, No. 105. (Original, no 
 Seal.} Charter Roll, 4 Edward III, n. 19 (inspeximus} 
 
 [HJenricus Dei gratia rex Anglie dominus Hibernie etdux 
 Aquitanie archiepiscopis episcopis abbatibus prioribus comiti- 
 bus baronibus justiciis vicecomitibus prepositis ministris et 
 omnibus ballivis et fidelibus suis salutem. Sciatis nos dedisse 
 concessisse et hac carta nostra confirmasse Edmundo filio 
 nostro karissimo honorem Dereby castra maneria et omnes 
 terras et tenementa que fuerunt Roberti de Ferariis et 
 honorem Leicestrie et omnes terras et tenementa cum per- 
 tinentiis que fuerunt Simonis de Monteforti quondam comitis 
 Leicestrie inimicorum nostrorum et que per forisfacturam 
 eorundem ad manum nostram tanquam escaeta nostra de- 
 venerunt habenda et tenenda eidem Edmundo et heredibus 
 suis de corpore suo legitime procreatis de nobis et heredibus 
 nostris imperpetuum una cum feodis militum advocacionibus 
 ecclesiarum dotibus cum acciderint et omnibus aliis ad
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 159 
 
 honores castra maneria terras et tenementa pertinentibus 
 faciendo servicia inde debita et consueta. Ita quod prefatum 
 Edmundum vel heredes suos predictos inde non disseisiemus 
 nee disseisin permittemus donee inde sibi escambium racion- 
 abile fecerimus in aliis terris nostris ad valorem honorum 
 castrorum maneriorum terrarum et tenementorum predicto- 
 rum. Quare volumus et firmiter precipimus pro nobis et 
 heredibus nostris quod predictus Edmundus et heredes sui 
 predicti imperpetuum habeant et teneant honores castra 
 maneria terras et tenementa predicta cum feodis militum 
 advocacionibus ecclesiarum dotibus cum acciderint et omnibus 
 aliis ad eadem pertinentibus faciendo servicia inde debita et 
 consueta ita quod prefatum Edmundum vel heredes suos 
 predictos inde non disseisiemus nee disseisiri permittemus 
 donee inde sibi escambium racionabile fecerimus in aliis 
 terris nostris ad valorem honorum castrorum maneriorum 
 terrarum et tenementorum predictorum sicut predictum est. 
 Hiis testibus Venerabili patre W. Bathon. et Wellen. epis- 
 copo, Rogero de Mortuo-Mari, Rogero de Clifford, Rogero 
 de Leyburn, Roberto Aguillon, Willelmo de Aett, Radulfo 
 de Bakepuz, Stephano de Eddewurth, Bartholomeo le Bigod, 
 et aliis. Data per manum nostram apud Kenillewurth duo- 
 decimo die Julii anno regni nostri quinquagesimo. 
 
 Royal Charters, Ducky of Lancaster, No. 122. (Original, 
 Sealed.} Charter Roll, 53 Henry III, m. n 
 
 [H]enricus Dei gratia rex Anglic dominus Hibernie et dux 
 Aquitanie archiepiscopis episcopis abbatibus prioribus comi- 
 tibus baronibus justiciis vicecomitibus prepositis ministris et 
 omnibus ballivis et fidelibus suis salutem. 1 Sciatis nos 
 dedisse concessisse et hac carta nostra confirmasse Edmundo 
 filio nostro karissimo honorem villam et castrum Leycestrie 
 et omnes terras et tenementa ejusdem honoris cum feodis 
 militum et aliis omnibus pertinentiis suis quocunque nomine 
 censeri possint que fuerunt quondam Simonis de Monte- 
 forti comitis Leycestrie inimici nostri et que secundum legem 
 
 1 C.R. : Pro Edmundo filio regis Rex archiepiscopis etc. 
 salutem.
 
 160 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 et consuetudinem regni nostri per guerram quam contra nos 
 ad exheredacionem nostram in regno nostro excitavit et bella 
 que contra nos in quorum altero apud Evesham quo tamquam 
 inimicus noster interfectus fuerat commisit ad nos tamquam 
 eschaeta nostra per predictam forisfacturam suam devenerunt 
 habenda et tenenda eidem Edmundo et heredibus suis de 
 corpore suo legitime procreatis de nobis et heredibus nostris 
 bene et in pace cum omnibus ad dictum honorem villam et 
 castrum spectantibus quocunque more vel nomine censeri 
 possint sicut idem Simon ea quondam tenuit et habuit 
 faciendo inde nobis et heredibus nostris servicia inde debita 
 et consueta. Dedimus eciam et concessimus eidem Edmundo 
 filio nostro omnes terras et tenementa que idem Simon tenuit 
 de baronia quondam Johannis le Viscunte in Northumbr. et 
 alibi et omnes alias terras et tenementa que idem Simon 
 hereditarie de nobis tenuit et que per supradictam forisfac- 
 turam ipsius Simonis ad nos similiter tanquam eschaeta 
 nostra devenerunt habenda et tenenda eidem Edmundo filio 
 nostro et heredibus suis predictis cum advocacionibus eccle- 
 siarum feodis militum serviciis liberorum hominum et omnibus 
 aliis ad predictas terras et tenementa spectantibus faciendo 
 inde nobis et heredibus nostris servicia inde debita et consueta. 
 Dedimus eciam et concessimus prefato Edmundo filio nostro 
 omnes alias terras et tenementa que idem Simon tenuit de 
 aliis capitalibus dominis suis et que per predictam forisfac- 
 turam suam de communi consensu et consilio magnatum ac 
 fidelium regni nostri ad nostram ordinacionem et disposi- 
 cionem sicut et terre aliorum rebellium nostrorum qui 
 nobiscum in bellis supradictis congressi fuerant salvis capita- 
 libus dominis homagiis et serviciis suis hac vice pertinebant 
 habenda et tenenda eidem Edmundo filio nostro et heredibus 
 suis supradictis cum omnibus ad dictas terras et tenementa 
 spectantibus de capitalibus dominis feodorum illorum faciendo 
 eis inde omnia servicia debita et consueta imperpetuum. 
 Quare volumus et firmiter precipimus pro nobis et heredibus 
 nostris quod predictus Edmundus filius noster et heredes sui 
 de corpore suo legitime procreati habeant et teneant pre- 
 dictum honorem villam castrum et omnes terras et tenementa 
 ejusdem honoris cum feodis militum et aliis omnibus perti-
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 161 
 
 nentiis suis quocunque nomine censeri possint de nobis et 
 heredibus nostris bene et in pace cum omnibus ad dictum 
 honorem villam et castrum spectantibus sicut predictus 
 Simon ea quondam tenuit et habuit faciendo inde nobis et 
 heredibus nostris servicia inde debita et consueta et omnes 
 terras et tenementa que idem Simon tenuit de baronia quon- 
 dam Johannis le Viscunte in Northumbr. et alibi et omnes 
 terras et tenementa que idem Simon hereditarie de nobis 
 tenuit et que per supradictam forisfacturam ipsius Simonis ad 
 nos similiter tanquam eschaeta nostra devenerunt cum advo- 
 cacionibus ecclesiarum feodis militum serviciis liberorum 
 hominum et omnibus aliis ad predictas terras et tenementa 
 spectantibus faciendo inde nobis et heredibus nostris servicia 
 inde debita et consueta et omnes alias terras et tenementa 
 que idem Simon tenuit de aliis capitalibus dominis suis et 
 que per predictam forisfacturam suam de communi consensu 
 et consilio magnatum ac fidelium regni nostri ad nostram 
 ordinacionem et disposicionem sicut et terre aliorum rebel- 
 Hum nostrorum qui nobiscum in bellis supradictis congressi 
 fuerant salvis capitalibus dominis homagiis et serviciis suis 
 hac vice pertinebant sicut predictum est. Hiis testibus 
 Venerabili patre N. Winton. episcopo, Edwardo primogenito 
 filio nostro, Johanne de Warren comite Surrey, Willelmo de 
 Valencia fratre nostro, Roberto Walerand, Nicholao de 
 Yatingeden, Petro de Chaumpvent, Waltero de Percy, Wil- 
 lelmo Belet, Willelmo de Faukham et aliis. Data per manum 
 nostram apud Windesor vicesimo secundo die Aprilis (anno 
 regni nostri quinquagesimo tercio 1 ). 
 
 Patent Roll, 53 Henry III, tn. 15 
 
 Rex omnibus ballivis etc. salutem. Cum per cartam 
 nostram dederimus et concesserimus Edmundo filio nostro 
 karissimo honorem villam castrum Leycestrie et omnes 
 terras et tenementa ejusdem honoris cum feodis militum 
 et aliis pertinentiis suis quocumque nomine censeri possint 
 que fuerunt quondam Simonis de Monteforti comitis Ley- 
 cestrie inimici nostri et que secundum legem et consuetudi- 
 
 1 C.R. omits. 
 M
 
 162 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 nem regni nostri per guerram quam contra nos ad exhere- 
 dacionem nostram in regno nostro excitavit et bella que 
 contra nos in quorum altero apud Evesham tanquam inimicus 
 noster interfectus fuerat commisit ad nos tanquam escaeta 
 nostra per predictam forisfacturam devenerunt habenda et 
 tenenda eidem Edmundo et heredibus suis de corpore suo 
 legitime procreatis imperpetuum. Nos eidem filio nostro 
 gratiam facere volentes uberiorem concessimus ei Senescal- 
 ciam Anglic quam idem Simon quondam habuit habendam et 
 tenendam ad totam vitam ipsius Edmundi cum omnibus ad 
 Senescalciam illam pertinentibus de gratia nostra speciali. 
 In cujus etc. Teste ut supra [scilicet apud Windsor, nono 
 die Maii]. 
 
 Register Munimentorum, Liber A., fol. 197 b l 
 Universis Christi fidelibus ad quos presentes littere per- 
 venerint Edmundus egregii principis Edwardi illustris regis 
 Anglic germanus salutem. Ad omnium vestrum notitiam 
 volumus pervenire quod cum in coronatione prefati domini 
 nostri regis officium senescalcie Anglic quo ad diem predicte 
 coronacionis et alia anni tempora nobis ad opus nostrum et 
 heredum nostrorum ex dono et concessione domini genitoris 
 nostri vendicaremus nos juri et clamio quod in dicta senes- 
 calcia in feodo et hereditate nobis et heredibus nostris ullo 
 jure competere potuit renuntiamus imperpetuum. Idem 
 autem dominus germanus noster dictam senescalciam Anglic 
 cum juribus et pertinentiis suis nobis de sua curialitate et 
 benevolentia ad totam vitam nostram concessit ita quod 
 nobis descedentibus nullus heres aut alius assignatus noster 
 quicquam in dicta senescalcia aut ejus pertinentiis clamare 
 possit imperpetuum. Concedimus etiam pro nobis et heredi- 
 bus nostris quod si que carte vel instrumenta exnunc ap- 
 pareant per que heredes nostri jus aliquod sibi in dicta 
 senescalcia et ejus pertinentiis clamare possint cassa sint et 
 inania atque pro nullis imperpetuum habeantur. In cujus 
 rei testimonium huic scripto sigillum nostrum fecimus apponi. 
 Datum apud Westmonasterium die Lune proxima post festum 
 
 1 A register, temp. Edward I, of documents in the custody of 
 the crown.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 163 
 
 assumptionis beate Marie anno regni dicti domini regis 
 secundo. 1 
 
 Patent Roll, 3 Edward I, m. 30 
 
 Pro Edmundo fratre regis. Rex omnibus etc. salutem. 
 Sciatis quod de gratia nostra speciali concessimus pro nobis 
 et heredibus nostris Edmundo fratri nostro karissimo senes- 
 calciam Anglic cum omnibus ad eandem senescalciam per- 
 tinentibus quam Simon de Monteforti quondam comes Ley- 
 cestrie aliquando habuit habendam et tenendam eidem 
 Edmundo quoad vixerit. In cujus etc. Teste rege apud 
 Wyndsor xxvij die Febuarii. 
 
 Patent Roll, I Edward II, pt. 2, m. \ 2 
 
 Rex omnibus ad quos etc. salutem. Sciatis quod cum 
 Celebris memorie dominus H. quondam rex Anglic avus 
 noster per cartam suam dederit et concesserit Edmundo filio 
 suo avunculo nostro comitatum Leycestrie cum omnibus ad 
 comitatum ilium spectantibus habendum et tenendum eidem 
 Edmundo et heredibus suis de corpore suo legitime procreatis 
 de ipso avo nostro et heredibus suis imperpetuum per certa 
 servicia inde dicto avo nostro et heredibus suis facienda. 
 Nos volentes dilecto consanguineo et fideli nostro Thome 
 comiti Lancastrie filio et heredi predicti Edmundi gratiam 
 in hac parte facere specialem dedimus ei et concessimus pro 
 nobis et heredibus nostris senescalciam Anglic ad predictum 
 comitatum Leycestrie ut dicitur pertinentem habendam et 
 tenendam eidem comiti et heredibus suis de corpore suo 
 legitime procreatis de nobis et heredibus nostris cum omnibus 
 ad senescalciam illam spectantibus imperpetuum sicut Simon 
 de Monteforti quondam comes Leicestrie et ceteri comites 
 comitatus ejusdem loci antea senescalciam predictam habue- 
 runt et tenuerunt. In cujus etc. Teste rege apud West- 
 monasterium ix die Maii. 
 
 (Printed by Nichols, History of Leicester, i, app., p. 23 ; 
 and by Rymer, Foedera R.C., vol. ii, p. 38.) 
 
 1 (In margin) Litera per quam Edmundus germanus egregii 
 principis Edwardi regis Anglic non vendicat officium senescalcie 
 Anglic nisi ad terminum vite sue, non ad heredes ejus descendet.
 
 164 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Hie annotatur guts sit Senescallus Anglic et quid 
 efus officium 
 
 Senescalcia Anglic pertinet ad comitivam 1 Leycestrie et 
 pertinuit ab antique. Et sciendum quod ejus officium est 
 supervidere et regulare sub rege et immediate post regem 
 totum regnum Anglic et omnes ministros legum infra idem 
 regnum temporibus pacum et guerrarum in forma que sub- 
 sequitur. 2 
 
 Modus quomodo et quando officio suo uti 3 debet et tenetur 
 per servicium et per sacramentum homagii et fidelitatis sue 
 talis est : cum aliquis vel alique 4 ad curiam domini regis 
 venerit, quecumque curia ilia fuerit, et forte ad regem, et 5 ad 
 remedium habendum et perquirendum contra injustitiam sibi 
 factam et idem seu eadem remedium assequi non valeant 
 opportunum, tune Senescallus Anglic debet et tenetur hujus- 
 modi petitiones et querelas recipere custodiendas usque 
 proximum parliamentum extunc tenendum, et hujusmodi 
 querentibus diem ad hujusmodi peticiones suas si velint 
 prosequendas dare et assignare et in pleno parliament, in 
 presencia regis, ministrum seu ministros illos qui ita de 
 justitia facienda defecerint coripere et arguere, quiscunque 
 fuerit, et eos inde ad racionem ponere. In quemlibet 6 de 
 regno in hujusmodi casu respondere 7 tenetur, regemet 8 dum- 
 taxat excepto, ut si Cancellarius Anglic defecerit de original! 
 remedio faciendo et justitiarii, thesaurarii, barones et camer- 
 arii de scaccario, senescallus hospitii 9 regis, escaetores, 
 coronarii, vicecomites, clerici, ballivi et alii ministri de qui- 
 buscumque locis seu placiis 10 fuerint in eorum processibus, 
 judiciis, judiciorum execucionibus, de justitia facienda in 
 unius partis favorem et alterius dampnum pro donis, exenniis 
 aut aliis procuracionibus deficiant, 11 desistant; et saltim si qui 
 justiciarii cum ambe partes coram eis placitantes in judicio 
 descenderint per hujusmodi subornatas procuraciones hujus- 
 modi judicia procrastinient et elongent contra justiciam et 
 
 1 comitiam, N.L. 2 sequitur, L. 3 ut, N.L. 
 
 4 aliqua, N. 5 omit, N. 6 cum quilibet, N.L. 
 
 7 fndere, V. 8 regunet, V. 9 de hospitio, N.L. 
 
 10 placeis, N.L. " deficient, N.L.V.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 165 
 
 legem et consuetudinem regni. Et si Cancellarius Anglic in 
 hujusmodi casu seu alius minister legis alleget in parliamento 
 et dicat pro excusatione sua quod in casu ilia talis durissia et 
 juris ambiguitas quando coram eo fuerat propositus emersit 
 quod ipse nee curia cancellarii, seu alia curia unde idem est 
 minister, potuerunt nee sciverunt ad deliberationem juris 
 pertingere securam, tune assignabit ibidem duriciam et 
 ambiguitatem illam in parliamento ; et si ambiguitas juris 
 comperiatur, habebitur 1 tune Cancellarius et hujusmodi 
 minister pro excusato ; et tune senescallus Anglic una cum 
 constabulario Anglic ibidem, in presentia regis et aliorum de 
 parliamento, eligent viginti-quinque personas, vel plures vel 
 pauciores secundum quod casus ille exegerit, 2 una cum aliis 
 casibus consimilibus 3 in parliamento illo relatis, inter quos 
 erunt ipsi comites, barones, milites de comitatibus, cives et 
 burgenses, qui ibidem 4 ordinabunt, condent 5 et statuent 
 remedium juris in omnibus hujusmodi casubus imperpetuum 
 duraturum. Et erunt leges ille tune recitate, scripte 6 et 
 approbate in pleno parliamento et sigillato cum magno 
 sigillo, et liberate ad omnes placeas legum, extunc tenenda 7 
 pro legibus, et loca puplica, quibus pro communitate expedire 
 videbitur, proclamande et divulgande 8 [ut] quilibet leges 9 
 communes et precipue leges statutas in toto regno puplice 10 
 proclamatas scire teneatur. 11 Et si forte in hujusmodi casu 
 prius fuerat lex communis vel lex statuta ita quod rex, 
 sen[escallus] et alii de parliamento intelligere vel scire 
 possint quod hujusmodi defectus et dilationes in processibus 
 et judiciis interveniant et riant per hujusmodi ministros, 
 unde 12 subornacio vel malicia penes hujusmodi ministrum 
 aperte et pluries presumatur, 13 tune amovebitur ab officio et 
 alius idoneus minister loco suo assignabitur ; et si presumat 
 contra justiciaries et hujusmodi ministros vel 14 ipsimet se 
 excusando dicant quod ipsi nesciverunt prius se ipsos et 
 curias, unde sunt, in hujusmodi casubus deliberare, vel forte 
 
 1 omit, N.L. 2 exierit, V. ; exit, N.L. 3 consilibus, V. 
 
 4 ibunt, V. 5 concordent, N.L. 6 scripta, V. 
 
 7 tenendo, N.L. 8 devulgando, N.L.V. 9 legee, N.L. 
 
 10 publico, N.L. n teneantur, N.L. 12 ubi, L. 
 
 18 presumat, L. 14 read "sed."
 
 166 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 negligentes fuerint, tune puniri debent per senescallum ex 
 parte regis et parliament! quod ipsi melius studeant 1 et 
 scrutentur leges communes, ita quod hujusmodi insipiencia vel 
 negligencia in personis suis in hujusmodi nee in aliis casubus 
 extunc alias apprehendatur ; et si iterato contiftgat, tune 
 amoveantur ab officiis suis et alii discretiores et diligentiores 
 ibidem per regem assignabuntur et ejus consilium. 
 
 Item officium senescalli est quod si rex habeat malos con- 
 siliarios circa eum, qui sibi dant consilia 2 ad faciendum talia 
 que sunt aperte et puplice ad dedicus suum aut exhereda- 
 cionem suam et ad puplicum malum et destuccionem populi 
 sui, tune senescallus Anglic, assumpto secum constabulario 
 et aliis magnatibus et aliis de communitate regni Anglie, 
 mittent ad hujusmodi consiliarium regis quod ipsum regem 
 ita ducere et consulere desistat, de hujusmodi malis conciliis 
 suis prius regi factis 3 mensionem faciendo et quod ab eo et 
 ejus presentia recedat, et moram 4 cum eo ad dedicus suum 
 et dampnum puplicum ut predictum est non faciat. Quod 
 si non fecerit, tune mittent ad regem quod ipsum ab eo 
 ammoveri faciat et ejus consilia non audiat, pro eo quod a 
 toto populo malus consiliarius inter regem et suum populum 
 presumitur. 5 Quod si rex non fecerit, alias et pluries mittent 
 tarn regi quam ei ; et, si demum nee rex nee hujusmodi 
 consiliarius de hujusmodi missionibus et supplicacionibus 
 curaverint, set potius ea facere neclexerint, tune pro bono 
 puplico licet et licebit senescallo et constabulario Anglie, mag- 
 natibus et aliis de communitate regni, banerio regis nomine 
 regis et 6 regni 7 erecto, hujusmodi consiliarium tanquam 
 inimicum puplicum regis et regni capere et 8 corpus ejus 9 
 salvo custodire usque ad proximum parliamentum, et seisire 
 res,redditus et omnes possessionessuas interim donee judicium 
 suum attenderit et subierit per consideracionem totius regni 
 in parliamento, sicut 10 accidit de Godwyno comite Kancie, 
 tempore regis Edwardi proximi antecessoris Willelmi ducis 11 
 Normannie 12 conquestoris Anglie, qui pro hujusmodi malis 
 
 1 studiant, N.L. 2 consilio, L. 3 factus, V.N. 
 
 4 mora, N.L. 5 presumit, L. 6i7 omit, N.L. 
 
 8 omit L. 9 et ejus, L. 10 sicut sicut, N. 
 
 11 duci, N. 12 et Normannie, L.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 167 
 
 gestis et consiliis suis fuit adjudicatus a comitiva 1 sua et 
 bannitus a toto regno suo 2 Anglic, et predicta comitiva 3 
 escaeta predicto regi ; et postmodum mediante rege idem 
 Godewinus rediit in Angliam de gratia magnatum, et iterate 
 forisfecit. Item de Huberto de 4 Burgh comite Kancie, tem- 
 pore regis Henrici filii regis Johannis, qui pro malis gestis et 
 hujusmodi consiliis suis al[iis] captus fuit per senescallum 
 et ceteros magnates 5 et adjudicatus de eadem 6 comitiva 7 
 per consideracionem tocius parliamenti. Item de Petro de 
 Gavaston qui tempore regis Edwardi filii regis Henrici 8 pro 
 hujusmodi gestis et consiliis fuit bannitus a tota potestate 
 regis Anglie tarn ultra maria quam citra, qui Petrus post- 
 modum mediante rege de gracia et permissione magnatum 
 rediit in Angliam, et habuit de dono regis comitivam 9 Cor- 
 nubie, et postea pro malis gestis suis 10 et consiliis suis fuit 
 iterate bannitus per magnates 11 et communitatem,et comitiva 12 
 predicta escaeta regis. 13 Et postmodum revenit 14 absque con- 
 sensu magnatum Anglie, et applicuit se ad regem, quod cum 
 perceptum fuerit 15 a senescallo et constabulario et ceteris 
 Anglie magnatibus captus fuit per eosdem, et tanquam 
 inimicus puplicus regis et regni decollatus apud Blaklowe 16 
 in comitatu Warrwici. 
 
 (Brit. Mus. MSS. Cotton. Vesp. B. VII, fol. 100; and Nero 
 C. I ; also Lansdowne 522. These are noted as V., N., and 
 L. respectively. MS. Vesp. B. VII belongs to the reign of 
 Richard II, the others belong to the fifteenth century.) 
 
 De Officio Senescalli 
 De Senescallo Duds et ejus Officio 
 
 Grand Coutumier de Normandie, Cap. IV> bis (ed. Tardif, 
 p. 12) 
 
 Solebat autem antiquitus quidam justiciarius predictis 
 superior per Normanniam discurrere, qui senescallus principis 
 
 1 comitia, N. 2 omit, N. 3 comitia, N.L. 4 omit, L. 
 5 magnates, N.L. 6 eodem, N. 7 comitia, N. 
 
 8 " Edwardi " in margin of V. in a modern hand. 
 
 9 comitiam, N.L. 10 omit, N.L. n magnates, N.L. 
 12 comitia, N.L. 13 regi, V. 14 renuit (?), V. 
 
 15 fuit, N. 16 le Blakelowe, N.L.
 
 168 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 vocabatur. Iste vero corrigebat quod alii inferiores delinque- 
 bant, terram principis custodiebat, leges et consuetudines 
 Normannie custodiri firmiter faciebat et quod minus juste 
 fiebat per ballivos corrigebat, querimonias ad se de ipsis 
 delatas audiebat et fine debito terminabat ; minores servientes 
 de suis delictis corrigebat et eos a serviciis principis remove- 
 bat, si eos videbat amovendos ; . . . 
 
 (MSS. temp. 1297-1318. Compare cap. cxxiii, s. 4, 
 Tardif, p. 328, MSS. temp. 1254-8.) 
 
 Modus Tenendi Parliamentum 
 De Casibus et Judiciis difficilibus. 
 
 Cum briga, dubitatio, vel casus difficilis sit pacis vel guerrae, 
 emergat in regno vel extra, referatur et recitetur casus ille in 
 scriptis in pleno parliamento, et tractetur et disputetur ibidem 
 inter pares parliament!, et, si necesse sit, injungatur per regem 
 seu ex parte regis, si rex non intersit, cuilibet graduum parium 
 quod quilibet gradus adeat per se, et liberetur casus ille clerico 
 suo in scripto et in certo loco recitare faciant coram eis casum 
 ilium ; ita quod ipsi audirent et considerent inter se qualiter 
 melius et justius procedi poterit in casu illo, sicut ipsi pro 
 persona regis et eorum propriis personis, ac etiam pro personis 
 eorum quorum personas ipsi representant, velint coram Deo 
 respondere, et suas responsiones et avisamenta reportent in 
 scriptis, ut omnibus eorum responsionibus, consiliis et avisa- 
 mentis hinc inde auditis, secundum melius et sanius consilium 
 procedatur, et ubi saltern major pars parliamenti concordet. 
 Et si per discordiam inter eos et regem et aliquos magnates, 
 vel forte inter ipsos magnates, pax regni infirmetur, vel 
 populus vel patria tribuletur, ita quod videtur regi et ejus 
 consilio quod expediens sit quod negotium illud tractetur et 
 emendetur per considerationem omnium parium regni sui, vel 
 si per guerram rex et regnum tribulentur, vel si casus difficilis 
 coram cancellario Angliae emergat, seu judicium difficile 
 coram justiciariis fuerit reddendum, et hujusmodi, et si forte 
 in hujusmodi deliberationibus omnes vel saltern major pars 
 concordare non valeant, tune comes senescallus, comes con- 
 stabularius, comes marescallus, vel duo eorum eligent viginti-
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 169 
 
 quinque personas de omnibus paribus regni, scilicet duos 
 episcopos et tres procuratores pro toto clero, duos comites et 
 tres barones, quinque milites comitatuum, quinque cives et 
 burgenses, qui faciunt viginti-quinque ; et illi viginti-quinque 
 possunt eligere ex seipsis duodecim et condescendere in eis, 
 et ipsi duodecim sex et condescendere in eis, et ipsi sex adhuc 
 tres et condescendere in eis, et illi tres in paucioribus con- 
 descendere non possunt nisi optenta licencia a domino rege, 
 et si rex consentiat.illi tres possunt in duos, et de illis duobus 
 alter potest in alium descendere ; et ita demum stabit sua 
 ordinatio supra totum parliamentum ; et ita condescendendo 
 a viginti-quinque personis usque ad unam personam solam, 
 nisi numerus major concordare valeat et ordinare, tandem 
 sola persona, ut est dictum, pro omnibus ordinabit, quae cum 
 se ipsa discordare non potest ; salvo domino regi et ejus 
 concilio quod ipsi hujusmodi ordinationes postquam scriptae 
 fuerint examinare et emendare valeant, si hoc facere sciant et 
 velint, ita quod hoc ibidem tune fiat in pleno parliamento, et 
 de consensu parliamenti, et non retro parliamentum. 
 
 (The Modus Tenendi Parliamentum immediately precedes 
 the tract on the stewardship in the three MSS. from which 
 the last-mentioned tract has been printed above. MS. Vesp. 
 B. VII belongs to the period of Richard II.)
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS (continued) 
 
 THE Lancastrian party was far from crushed by the 
 execution of earl Thomas and the death of the con- 
 stable. Henry de Lancaster, the next brother of Thomas, 
 rapidly acquired a position of great influence in the country. 
 In 1323 he petitioned the king and council in parliament for 
 a restoration of the earldoms of Lancaster and Leicester, 
 and his brother's forfeited estates. About March in the 
 following year he was given seizin of the Leicester fiefs, and 
 on the loth of May, 1324, the king in council decided to 
 allow him the name and honour of earl of Leicester. It is 
 interesting to find it stated in the roll recording these pro- 
 ceedings l that Thomas " went the way of all flesh," without 
 leaving lawful issue, and never a suggestion that he was 
 assisted along that road by the axe of the king's executioner. 
 The Lancastrian rebels, if you please, were no longer rebels 
 but " contrariants." Still, as regards their defunct leader, it 
 was necessary to follow a most august precedent and set a 
 watch about his tomb, more nequissimi Pilati jussit imponi 
 custodes, says one chronicler, 2 not to prevent a theft of the 
 body, but to stop the sick, the lame, the blind and so forth 
 from being miraculously cured by it. Such saintly acts, 
 however imaginary, were not conducive to a reconciliation of 
 the opposing parties. 
 
 Henry de Lancaster had not long to wait to avenge the 
 death of his brother. When the queen Isabella landed with 
 
 1 Fine Roll, 17 Ed. 2, m, 10; printed in Parliamentary Writs, 
 vol. 2, ii; Appendix, pp. 252-3. 
 
 2 Flores Historiarum [95], iii, p. 214. 
 
 See also Close Roll, 16 Ed. 2, m. 2d., letter to the bishop of 
 London, printed in Rymer, Foedera R.C., vol. ii, p. 525. 
 
 170
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 171 
 
 an armed force in September, 1326, he at once joined her, 
 took part in declaring prince Edward guardian of the king- 
 dom, and on the 2/th of October, 1326, assisted in the trial 
 and condemnation of the elder Despencer. Immediately 
 afterwards he went in pursuit of the king. Both Edward 
 and the younger Despencer soon fell into his hands, and the 
 latter was tried and executed at Hereford in November. 1 
 
 On the accession of Edward the Third, Henry petitioned 
 for and secured a reversal of the attainder against his brother 
 Thomas, 2 and he thereupon became earl of Lancaster and 
 Leicester ; but, not being an heir of the body of Thomas, he 
 had no apparent right to the stewardship of England ; at all 
 events he could not claim under the grant in tail to his 
 brother. 
 
 For the first few years of Edward the Third's reign Henry 
 earl of Lancaster was nominally the chief of the king's 
 council and guardian of the royal person : in reality the 
 government of the country was entirely under the control of 
 the queen-mother and her paramour, Mortimer earl of March. 
 This state of things lasted till the year 1330, when the 
 favourite was proceeded against in parliament, condemned 
 to death, and executed at Tyburn. This event materially 
 improved the position of the earl of Lancaster ; and directly 
 afterwards he appears to have taken steps to establish a 
 title to the stewardship of England, with a view probably to 
 officiating at the coronation of the queen. 
 
 Robert de Veer, earl of Oxford, was at the same time 
 claiming a right to the chamberlainship for the same purpose. 
 Of the de Veer claim, which was allowed by the king, we 
 possess ample information, 3 but there is little direct evidence 
 of the claim to the stewardship. On the 5th of December, 
 1330,* the earl of Lancaster obtained a charter of inspeximus 
 
 1 A roll containing an account of these proceedings is preserved 
 at the Record Office. See Misc. Rolls Chancery, 18/3, and the 
 account in Knighton, Rolls Series [92]. 
 
 2 See below, appendix to chapter ix. 
 
 3 Liberate Roll, 4 Edward III, m. 7 ; see below. 
 
 4 Royal Charters, Duchy of Lancaster, no. 258 (original inspexi- 
 mus); Charter Roll, 4 Edward III, no. 19.
 
 172 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 and confirmation of the honour, etc., of Leicester granted 
 (i2th of July, I266) 1 by Henry the Third to Edmund. This 
 grant certainly makes no mention of the stewardship of 
 England, but there is no grant to Edmund on the Charter 
 Rolls which does mention it. If, however, the office really 
 was appurtenant to the Leicester fiefs it might be reasonably 
 considered that the office passed under the general words of 
 the grant in question. This view is not inconsistent with 
 the letters patent granting the stewardship to earl Thomas 
 in tail ; on the contrary, it is the last-mentioned grant which 
 has an operative part inconsistent with its own recitals. 
 The recitals in the letters patent imply that the right to the 
 stewardship was in the heirs of the body of Edmund, while 
 the operative part limits the office to the heirs of the body of 
 Thomas. 
 
 On the i8th of February, 1330-1, Philippa the consort of 
 Edward the Third was crowned queen ; and on the 2oth of 
 the same month the earl of Lancaster figures in the Charter 
 Roll for the first time as steward of England, attesting as 
 such immediately after Thomas earl of Norfolk and marshal 
 of England. 2 
 
 The inferences to be drawn from these facts are not very 
 clear, but we may at least safely conclude that, at or about 
 the time of queen Philippa's coronation, the earl of Lan- 
 caster's* right to the stewardship had been admitted. The 
 earl became blind about this time : he died on the 22nd of 
 September, 1345, and was buried at Leicester. 
 
 The stewardship of England at this period possesses a 
 vague glamour, perhaps, of ancient greatness about it, but it 
 is not an office of the smallest political consequence. The 
 relative importance of the three great offices of state the 
 marshal, the constable, and the steward in the sphere of 
 practical politics may be accurately gauged by the relative 
 frequency with which these styles are added to the names of 
 
 1 Royal Charters, Duchy of Lancaster, no. 105 (original). This 
 is the provisional grant mentioned in the previous chapter. 
 
 2 Charter Roll, 5 Ed. 3, m. 31. This appears to be the only 
 occasion on the Charter Rolls where he is so styled. I have 
 examined the earlier Charter Rolls of this reign with some care.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 173 
 
 their respective holders in formal contemporary documents. 
 Judged in this way the marshal stands by a long way the 
 first, the steward unquestionably last. 
 
 Henry earl of Derby (nicknamed Tortcol), only son and 
 heir of Henry the late earl, succeeded his father as earl of 
 Lancaster and Leicester and steward of England. His 
 martial exploits figure prominently in the general history of 
 Edward the Third's reign, but as steward of England he did 
 nothing worthy of notice ; indeed, the only occasion on 
 which he is represented as performing the functions of steward 
 was during his father's lifetime. In 1344 Edward's love of 
 pageantry led him to emulate king Arthur and institute 
 festivities similar to those which that legendary prince is 
 said to have delighted in. It was at the establishment of a 
 round table in Windsor that the earl of Derby, as steward of 
 England 1 and bearing a wand of office, took part in a royal 
 procession. 
 
 In recognition of his many services Henry, in 1351, was 
 made duke of Lancaster. He died of the plague on the 
 1 3th of March, 1360-1, and without male issue. The duke- 
 dom accordingly became extinct ; but Henry's other honours 
 and vast possessions descended to his two daughters, the 
 lady Maud and the lady Blanche, as co-heiresses. Maud 
 the elder had married William of Hainault ; Blanche the 
 younger was wife to John of Gaunt the king's son. In 
 these circumstances a partition was necessary ; and this, 
 roughly speaking, resulted in the Lancaster fiefs being allotted 
 to John of Gaunt's wife, the Leicester fiefs to William of 
 Hainault's wife. There was, however, one substantial piece 
 of property in the county of Leicester, which went to the 
 lady Blanche : this was the manor of Hinckley. 2 
 
 1 Qua celebrata exivit dominus rex a capella, quern praeibant 
 dominus Henricus comes Derby, tanquam seneschallus Angliae, et 
 dominus Willelmus comes Sarisburiae, tanquam mareschallus Angliae, 
 utroque colore officii sui virgam in manu gestante, et ipso domino 
 rege sceptrum regale in manu tenente. (Murimuth, Rolls Series 
 [93], p. 232.) 
 
 2 The partition is entered on the Fine Roll, 35 Edward III, m. 
 23. The entry is headed : Particio terrarum et tenementorum 
 que fuerunt Henrici nuper ducis Lancastrie defuncti que de rege
 
 174 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 On the Fine Roll the division is punctiliously equalised 
 down to the uttermost farthing. 1 I trust, therefore, that I 
 shall not be accused of disputing an authoritative record if 
 I observe that there was a limit even at that time to what 
 the king's son could obtain in a partition suit. To have 
 acquired both the Lancaster and the Leicester honours would 
 have been impossible : the former under these circumstances 
 was naturally selected by John of Gaunt, but unfortunately 
 this certainly did not carry with it the stewardship of 
 England. The difficulty was evidently not considered to 
 be insuperable, for another tract on the stewardship now 
 makes its appearance. 2 In this account the office is said to 
 
 tenuit in capita inter heredes et participes hereditatis predicte vide- 
 licet. (Propars comitis Richemond et Blanchie uxoris ejus unius 
 filiarum et heredum predict! ducis.) . . . [This includes] manerium 
 de Hynkeleye cum balliva ibidem et aliis pertinentiis suis in comitatu 
 Leicestrie in valorem quadraginta et septem librarum undecim 
 solidorum et duorum denariorum . . . (Propars Matill. alterius 
 filiarum et heredum ejusdem ducis.) . . . [This includes] castrum et 
 manerium de Leycestria cum membris et aliis pertinentiis suis. . . . 
 
 1 The earl of Richmond is to pay to Matilda of Hainault in 
 respect of the excess value of his share septem libras quinque 
 solidos unum obolum et medietatem unius quadrantis. 
 
 2 See Appendix. The three accounts there set out are obviously 
 not independent. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that, since the death of Thomas, no 
 one had been in a position to claim the office by grant ; and to claim 
 by tenure was no longer easy. For a long time prior to the partition, 
 Hinckley had been treated as a parcel of the Leicester honour ; and 
 the tenure of the honour was not serjeanty, but knight-service. 
 Chancery Inquisitions p.m., i Edward III, no. 88, file 6, m. 36. 
 
 . . . Thomas nuper comes Lancastrie tenuit in dominico suo 
 ut de feodo, die quo obiit, de domino Edwardo nuper rege Anglic 
 patre domini regis nunc, castrum et honorem Leycestrie in comitatu 
 Leycestrie . . . per servicium due feode (sic) et medietatem feodi 
 unius militis. 
 
 . . . Predictus comes tenuit die obitus sui in dominico suo ut 
 de feodo manerium de Hynkle in comitatu predicto, de predicto 
 domino Edwardo patre domini regis nunc, tanquam parcellum pre- 
 dicti castri per servicium supradictum. 
 
 Hence, doubtless, the claim at Richard the Second's coronation 
 "as earl of Leicester." A most unconventional claim, but suffi- 
 ciently supported for practical purposes by the Red Book of the 
 Exchequer and other similar records.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 175 
 
 be annexed, not to the earldom of Leicester, but to the 
 honour of Hinckley ; and a history of the devolution of 
 the stewardship is given, containing a really ingenious 
 conglomerate of fact and fiction. It is unhappily my 
 business to bury this myth, not to praise it ; but the tale 
 has been almost universally accepted by subsequent writers, 
 ancient and modern, who mention the subject ; and surely 
 no greater tribute could be paid to the ingenuity of the 
 fraud. 1 
 
 I regret to record that the tract was quite thrown away, 
 for the elder co-heiress conveniently died without issue. It was 
 common talk that she died of poison, administered with the 
 object of preventing the splitting up of a great inheritance. 
 If so, the object was attained, for thereupon the whole of the 
 
 1 See, for example, Hearne, Antiquarian Discourses, vol. ii, which 
 contains short essays on the origin of the stewardship of England, 
 by Sir Robert Cotton, Camden, Agard and others : a large number 
 of MS. copies of these essays are preserved among the Cottonian, 
 Harleian and other collections. See also Thorns, Book of the 
 Court ; Walter Scott, Ivanhoe, etc. Nichols' History of Leicester, 
 The Complete Peerage, and some other authorities hesitate to 
 accept the story. 
 
 Here is Sir Robert Cotton's account : " For it appears out of 
 our English story that among many worthy persons that came in 
 with the Conqueror one, Sir Hugh of Grantmesnil, a Norman of 
 noble descent, so valiantly behaved himself [that] the king rewarded 
 him, not only with great store of lands and manors in the shires of 
 Gloucester, Northampton, Leicester, Nottingham and Suffolk, but 
 also richly married him to one, Adeliza, a great inheritrix of a 
 noble family, and at the solemnisation thereof gave him the office 
 of lord high steward of England. By this Adeliza he had two 
 daughters, Petronilla or Pernell the eldest, and Adeliza the second 
 who married Roger Bigod, a Norman. All the inheritance of the 
 said Sir Hugh Grantmesnil was divided betwixt those two daughters, 
 saving that in the partition the lordship of Hinckley and office of 
 High Steward of England fell to Pernell, because she was the 
 eldest. This Pernell married Robert ove les blanches-maines . . . 
 the son of Robert le Bossu earl of Leicester. ... So that this 
 Robert was the first of the house of Leicester in whom this office 
 took root." 
 
 This narrative ingeniously elaborates the original myth by attempt- 
 ing, with a magnificent disregard for chronology, to explain the 
 dispute between the Beaumonts and the Bigods.
 
 176 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 estates belonging to the late duke of Lancaster passed to 
 John of Gaunt and his heirs in right of his wife. 1 
 
 John of Gaunt was created duke of Lancaster in 1362, 
 and at or about the same time was recognised as earl of 
 Leicester and steward of England. 2 We are not concerned 
 with the general history of this man's life, a history of im- 
 mense opportunities and irredeemable mediocrity. Suffice 
 it to recall that in 1373 the Black Prince, his health com- 
 pletely broken, practically retired from public life, and died 
 three years later, leaving an infant son as heir to the throne : 
 meanwhile the martial spirit of the old king flickered out, 
 and he too retired, abandoning war and politics for a life of 
 senile voluptuousness. Under these conditions the reins 
 of government inevitably fell into the hands of John of 
 Gaunt ; and, notwithstanding his conspicuous lack of ability, 
 the failure of his undertakings, his unpopularity with all 
 classes, he remained almost continuously to the day of his 
 death by far the most influential personage in England. 3 
 
 On the death of Edward the Third, Lancaster assumed 
 control of the preparations for crowning Richard. Probably 
 every detail of the ceremonies required careful reorganisation : 
 there had been no coronation for nearly fifty years, and, so 
 far as we can judge, no coronation records for the last 
 hundred years worth looking to for precedents. Details re- 
 lating to the crowning of Edward the Second are entered in 
 the Close Roll; 4 these are of little value; they attest the 
 
 1 The writs to the escheators directing them to take possession 
 of the lands of the late " duchess of Bavaria," issued at Westminster 
 on the 24th April, 36 Edward III. (Fine Roll, 36 Edward III, m. 5.) 
 On the 6th of May the escheators were ordered to give John " earl 
 of Lancaster" seizin of the aforesaid moiety which had been allotted 
 to Matilda, late "duchess of Bavaria and countess of Hainault." 
 (Ibid., m. 20.) 
 
 2 See, for example, Patent Roll, 38 Edward III, pt. i, m. 6 (July 
 ist). Confirmation by king of a grant by John of Gaunt, in which 
 he styles himself steward of England. 
 
 3 For a detailed account of the duke's career see Armitage-Smith, 
 John of Gaunt. 
 
 4 Close Roll, i Edward II, m. iod., printed Rymer, Foedera, vol. ii, 
 p. 36. Rymer has also printed the extant coronation roll of Edward II, 
 which, however, relates almost exclusively to the religious ceremony.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 177 
 
 paramount influence of Gaveston, and suggest that vested 
 rights received perfunctory treatment. The coronation of 
 Edward the Third took place under distressing circumstances, 
 and no very elaborate preparations seem to have been made. 
 The only extant official record of the event is a sort of post- 
 script on the dorse of the roll containing the proceedings 
 against the Despencers. 1 The ceremony for the sacring of 
 Philippa of Hainault may have been better organised, but 
 there is no evidence of special preparation for it. 
 
 At the coronation of Richard the Second, Lancaster es- 
 tablished a precedent for all future occasions. He issued a 
 proclamation directing all persons who claimed to perform 
 offices or receive fees at the coronation to bring their bills 
 and petitions before him or his deputies. Numerous claims 
 were thereupon put in, and these Lancaster in person heard 
 and determined, sitting for that purpose in the White Hall of 
 the palace of Westminster. In the account of these pro- 
 ceedings, 2 which was enrolled by the duke's order, it is repre- 
 sented that Lancaster presided over the court as steward of 
 England (tanquam senescallus Angliae). This has led various 
 persons to infer that the court of claims, presided over by the 
 steward, was at that time a well-established institution. The 
 same words, however, (tanquam senescallus Angliae)* are used 
 to describe the part played by Lancaster's father-in-law at 
 
 1 Misc. Rolls Chancery, 18/3. 
 
 2 Et memorandum quod prefatus dux, die Jovis proximo ante 
 coronacionem predictam, sedebat de precepto regis tanquam senes- 
 callus Anglic in alba aula regii palacii Westmonasterii prope capellam 
 regalem, et inquirebat diligenter que et qualia officia seu feoda dicto 
 die per quoscunque facienda vel optinenda fuerant, et cum hoc eodem 
 die Jovis publice proclamari fecit quod tarn magnates quam alii qui 
 alia officia ad coronacionem predictam facere seu feoda aliqua op- 
 tinere clamare vellent billas et peticiones suas clamea sua continentes 
 coram ipso senescallo vel ejus in hac parte locum tenentibus proferri 
 facerent indilate. Super quo diversa officia et feoda, tarn per pe- 
 ticiones quam oretenus, coram ipso senescallo exacta et vendicata 
 extiterunt in forma que subsequitur. . . . (Close Roll, i Richard II, 
 m. 45.) 
 
 3 This may mean merely that the duke wore the steward's robes 
 and carried the steward's staff. He is represented doing the latter 
 in a contemporary illustration.
 
 178 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 the institution of the round table in Windsor by Edward 
 the Third : the expression is no evidence of pre-existing 
 or vested right. Details about previous coronations are 
 mostly very meagre ; but, such as they are, they negative 
 rather than support the existence of a steward's court of 
 claims. 
 
 At the coronations of John, Henry the Third and Eleanor 
 the right to the office of steward was in dispute ; and, from 
 the elaborate record of the last- mentioned ceremony which 
 is preserved in the Exchequer Red Book, it is plain that 
 nothing in the nature of a steward's court of claims was then 
 in existence. If there were claims to be determined when 
 Edward came to the throne, it is most probable that he dealt 
 with them in person, almost inconceivable that Edmund was 
 entrusted with this duty in right of an office which the king 
 had decided to suppress. At the coronation of Edward the 
 Second the office was virtually extinct ; moreover, had the 
 court in question been instituted on this occasion, the Close 
 Roll could hardly have failed to mention the circumstance. 
 Before the accession of Edward the Third the office had 
 again become extinct ; but at this king's crowning the fees 
 for services, and perhaps the services themselves, were con- 
 sidered and allowed by the king's council, of which Lancaster 
 was the nominal president 1 This was owing to the king's 
 minority. So far as I can discover there is only one extant 
 claim for services and fees relating to the coronation of queen 
 Philippa, that is the claim of the earl of Oxford 2 to be 
 
 1 Rot. Parl., vol. ii, p. 96 ; see below. 
 
 2 Liberate Roll, 4 Edward III, m. 7. Pro Roberto de Veer 
 comite Oxon. Rex thesaurario et camerariis suis salutem. Suppli- 
 cavit nobis dilectus et fidelis noster Robertus de Veer comes Oxon 
 quod cum ipse jure hereditario camerarius regine Anglic que pro 
 tempore fuerit die coronacionis sue esse debeat et ipse et ante- 
 cessores sui comites Oxon officium camerarie diebus coronacionum 
 reginarum Anglie que pro tempore fuerunt a tempore cujus contrarii 
 memoria non existit facere et exercere et pro feodo suo eodem die 
 lectum ipsius regine et calciamenta sua ac tres pelves argenteas 
 per quas eidem regine die predicto deserviebat, unam videlicet pro 
 locione capitis sui et duas pro locione manuum suarum percipere 
 consueverunt : velimus ei hujusmodi feodum pro die coronacionis 
 Philippe regine Anglie consortis nostre carissime, quo die idem
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 179 
 
 chamberlain. The claim was made by petition to the king 
 and was allowed. In the face of these facts we may fairly 
 safely conclude that, before the accession of Richard the 
 Second, no steward of England, as such, had ever held a 
 court for coronation claims. 1 John of Gaunt was in the 
 same position at the close of Edward the Third's reign as 
 Henry of Lancaster was at its commencement ; and, steward 
 or no steward, John of Gaunt was the proper person to settle 
 coronation services. The fact that this court at once became 
 an established institution and definitely associated with the 
 office of steward must not be attributed solely to the action 
 of John of Gaunt. Undoubtedly an important contributory 
 circumstance was the subsequent accession to the throne of 
 his own son Henry. The court has survived to this day, and 
 it retains a certain picturesque charm borrowed from the 
 ceremonies to which it is a prelude ; but its powers and 
 jurisdiction are of the most trivial character, its decisions do 
 not bind the king nor any future court of claims. 
 
 The services at the coronation of Richard the Second were 
 many and various. Classification is impossible : all we can 
 say is that some are technically described as grand ser- 
 jeanties, others perhaps as petit serjeanties ; and that the 
 
 comes camerarius ejusdem regine fuit, facere liberari ; nosque pro eo 
 quod per diversas evidencias nobis per prefatum comitem exhibitas 
 plenius apparebat quod idem comes et antecessores sui officium illud 
 diebus coronacionum reginarum predictarum habere et hujusmodi 
 feodum percipere consueverunt, prefato comiti ut camerario ejusdem 
 consortis nostre die predicto calciamenta ipsius consortis nostre et 
 tres pelves argenteas pro feodo suo liberari fecimus, volentesque ei 
 de lecto supradicto satisfacionem exhiberi, concessimus ei centum 
 marcas pro lecto supradicto percipiendas de thesauro nostro. Et 
 ideo vobis mandamus quod eidem comiti dictas centum marcas 
 liberetis de thesauro nostro, recipientes a prefato comite litteras suas 
 acquietancie receptionem dictarum centum marcarum testificantes. 
 Teste rege apud Wodestok, secundo die Aprilis. 
 
 1 We have also, it must be remembered, the negative evidence 
 afforded by the famous tract on the stewardship. If the court of 
 claims was in existence at the time when that tract was composed, 
 how came it that the tract makes no reference whatsoever to any 
 such jurisdiction ? A little tincture of truth is so useful in political 
 pamphlets, it will cover such a multitude of lies.
 
 io ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 greater part, but not apparently all of them, are incident to 
 the possession of certain lands or liberties. 1 
 
 The history of court offices and serjeanties in England 
 presents us with countless services, ranging along the whole 
 flight of steps which separates the sublime from the ridicu- 
 lous. The constableship and marshalship of England, for 
 example, were undoubtedly posts of the highest distinction ; 
 but the king's lenten cock-crower was a character too 
 strange for fiction. The last-named official remained in 
 existence till the accession of the House of Hanover. Un- 
 fortunately, on the first ensuing Ash - Wednesday when 
 chanticleer according to custom marched into the dining 
 apartment and crowed the hour, the heir-apparent, half 
 frightened, half suspecting some intentional affront, made 
 such a scene that it was deemed advisable to discontinue 
 the office. 
 
 Many very curious services incident to land tenure are to 
 be met with. A certain house in St. Margaret's parish, 
 London, once owned by Isaac the Jew of Norwich, was 
 granted by John to the earl of Derby by the service of 
 waiting on the king at dinner, the head uncovered, the hair 
 
 1 The following attempt at classification has been made : " There 
 are offices of three kinds ; those which are hereditary, those which 
 are an appanage to a title, and those which are performed owing to 
 the tenure of lands by grand serjeanty. Of the first kind there are 
 five officers, the lord high steward, the lord great chamberlain, the 
 lord high constable, the earl marshal, and he who carries the spurs. 
 ... Of the second kind there were never more than four, the 
 sewer . . . and the bearers of the three swords. Of the third 
 kind there were seventeen. ..." I can hardly conceive a worse 
 classification. The original sewer, or dapifer, was of course the 
 subsequent lord high steward, who, in John's reign at all events, 
 was treated as holding that office as a serjeanty incident to the 
 tenure of the honour of Leicester, the service becoming on partition 
 of that honour annexed to the elder moiety. In several documents 
 mentioned above the stewardship is apparently claimed as an 
 appanage to the earldom of Leicester. Such a claim, whether in 
 respect of the stewardship or any other office, is not worth serious 
 consideration. The office of constable of England was frequently 
 enjoyed as an hereditary office, but at certain periods of its history 
 it was none the less a service incident to tenure by grand serjeanty. 
 Thus, in Edward the First's time, Caldecote and Wockesei manors
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 181 
 
 bound with a girdle of the breadth of the little finger. 1 
 One estate has been held by the service of housing the 
 king's concubines ; this, to be sure, was only petit serjeanty. 
 The duty incident to the tenure of Archer's court was holding 
 the king's head when the channel crossing was rough. 2 
 
 In the pageant of a mediaeval coronation the hereditary 
 champion was perhaps the most striking figure, but his 
 duties can only be described as mere stage - play. His 
 principal appearance was at the coronation banquet after the 
 conclusion of the first course. Armed at all points, mounted 
 
 were held by this service (Cal. Inq. p.m., no. 131). See also 
 Dyer's Reports, pt. 3, 285^ no. 29, the Duke of Buckingham's 
 case. On the other hand the office was frequently granted during 
 pleasure or for life. The marshalship is often referred to as a ser- 
 jeanty ; for example ". . . Rogerus Bygot comes Norfolk et mare- 
 scallus Anglie tenet xx libratas terre per serjanciam mareschallie 
 in Hamstede . . ." (Assize Rolls, Berks, Michaelmas, 12 Edward I, 
 no. 48). The marshalship is referred to as a serjeanty in a writ 
 of Edward II (County Placita, divers counties, no. 2, 8 Edward II) : 
 this is a writ to the Exchequer to ascertain whether any widows of 
 marshals have held the office of marshal of England, and generally 
 whether other women have held serjeanties in consimili casu ; the 
 return to the writ is appended. In the time of Richard II we have 
 this description : " Marescalcia autem est quedam magna seriantia 
 regis comiti Norfolk in feodo commissa . . ." (MS. Cotton Dom., 18, 
 fol. 23). According, however, to later distinctions between grand 
 and petit serjeanty, the marshalship was partly petit serjeanty, for 
 we find the holder regularly appointing deputies to discharge par- 
 ticular functions which he is under no obligation to discharge in 
 person. The seventeen serjeanties mentioned in the classification 
 that I am criticising may be all properly described as hereditary 
 offices, but whether they were all grand serjeanties is a difficult 
 question. Even the office of champion would in its inception have 
 been described as petit serjeanty by some authorities. Could 
 Littleton have consistently described "ad inveniendum unum 
 militem " as grand serjeanty? (See Inq. p.m. 7 Edward I, no. 33.) 
 
 1 Grant dated 26 June, 15 John; Duchy of Lancaster, Great 
 Cowcher. 
 
 2 Inquisition post mortem 31 Ed. I, 34; Inquisition post 
 mortem, Sir M. Browne, 4 and 5 Ph. and M. ; Hasted, ix, 440 ; 
 Elton, Tenures of Kent, p. 227. The manor of Seaton was held 
 by the service of going, or providing a man to go, as leader of the 
 king's greyhounds whenever the king went to Gascony "until he 
 had worn out a pair of shoes worth 4d. bought at the king's cost." 
 Elton, op. cit., p. 226.
 
 i82 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 on a horse trapped in black housings embroidered with silver 
 lions, he was escorted into the hall by the constable and 
 marshal ; and his herald of arms proclaimed a challenge 
 against all who denied the feasting sovereign to be rightful 
 inheritor of the realm this was repeated a second and a 
 third time in different parts of the hall. Then the king 
 drank his health in a golden bowl ; the champion received 
 the same bowl as his fee, drained the remaining contents 
 exclaiming, " Long live the king ! ", and backed his horse out 
 of the building with as much grace as he could command. 
 We never hear of the champion being called upon to defend 
 his sovereign's title. 1 
 
 The offices and serjeanties connected with the king's 
 coronation were none of them unduly absurd. By reason of 
 their antiquity we are inclined to regard those which have 
 survived as highly dignified. John of Gaunt claimed several 
 services at the coronation of Richard the Second. Notably, 
 as earl of Leicester he claimed the office of steward of 
 England, 2 as duke of Lancaster the right of carrying the 
 principal sword curtana, and, as earl of Lincoln, the right of 
 
 1 The service is incident to the tenure of Scrivelsby (Inq. p.m., 
 7 Ed. I, no. 33.) 
 
 2 Decedente de nutu summi Preceptoris felicissirao strenuo et 
 potenti rege Anglic et Francie domino Edwardo tercio post con- 
 questum vicesimo primo die mensis Junii anno Domini miliesimo 
 trecentesimo septuagesimo septimo et anno regni sui quinquagesimo 
 primo, successit ei rex Ricardus secundus films Edwardi nuper 
 principis Wallie primogeniti dicti regis Edwardi, et cum tractaretur 
 et provisum fuisset de solempniis coronacionis ipsius regis Ricardi 
 die Jovis in crastino translacionis beati Swithuni tune proximo 
 sequente celebrandis, Johannes rex Castelle et Legionis dux Lancas- 
 trie coram dicto domino rege Ricardo et consilio suo comparens 
 clamavit ut comes Leycestrie officium senescalcie Anglic et ut dux 
 Lancastrie ad gerendum principalem gladium domini regis vocatum 
 Curtana die coronacionis ejusdem regis et ut comes Lincolnie ad 
 scindendum et ad secandum coram ipso domino rege sedente ad 
 mensam dicto die coronacionis. Et quia facta diligenti examina- 
 tione coram peritis de consilio regis de premissis, satis constabat 
 eidem consilio quod ad ipsum ducem tanquam tenentem per legem 
 Anglic post mortem Blanchie quondam uxoris sue pertinuit officia 
 predicta prout superius clamabat exercere, consideratum fuit per 
 ipsum regem et consilium suum predictum quod idem dux officia
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 183 
 
 carving before the king as he sat at table on the day of his sac- 
 ring. All these claims were allowed by the king and council. 
 The most onerous coronation service was probably that of 
 the Mayor of London, who had to provide three hundred 
 and sixty liveried pages, each holding a silver cup in his 
 hand. His fee was a gold cup with a cover, and an ewer of 
 gold enamelled. 1 In the reign of Edward the Third the city 
 intimated a desire to be discharged from this service; but 
 they none the less claimed it in 1377 before the steward of 
 England. Two very notable petitions tried before John 
 of Gaunt on this occasion were the rival claims of Dymoke 
 and Freville to the office of champion ; after a long trial 
 with witnesses the final hearing was adjourned, interlocutory 
 judgment being given in favour of Dymoke. 2 
 
 predicta per se et sufficientes deputatos suos faceret et exerceret et 
 feoda sibi debita in hac parte optineret. Qui quidem dux officium 
 senescalcie predicte personaliter adimplevit, et eciam dictum gladium 
 coram prefato domino rege, quousque alta missa post coronacionem 
 ipsius domini regis celebrata fuit, in manibus suis propriis gerebat, 
 et extunc occupatus circa officium senescalcie predicte gladium 
 ilium Henrico comiti Derbie filio et heredi ejusdem ducis coram 
 ipso rege deferendum commisit. . . . (Close Roll, i Richard II, m. 45.) 
 
 1 A nostre seignour le roy et a son conseil monstre Richard de 
 Bettoyne de Loundres qe come au coronement nostre seignour le 
 roy q'ore est, il adonqe meire de Londres fesoit 1'office de botiller 
 ove ccc e Ix vadletz vestutz d'une sute chescun portant en sa mayn 
 un coupe blanche d'argent, come autres meirs de Londres ount 
 faitz as coronementz des progenitours nostre seigneur le roy, dont 
 memorie ne court, et le fee q'appendoit a eel jorne, c'est asavoir un 
 coupe d'or ove la covercle et un ewer d'or enamaille, lui fust livere 
 par assent du counte de Lancastre et d'autres grantz qu'adonqes 
 y furent du conseil nostre seigneur le roy, par la mayn sire Robert 
 de Wodehouse ; et ore vient en estreite as viscountes de Londres 
 hors del Chekker de faire lever des biens et chateux du dit Richard 
 Ixxxix li.-xij s.-vj d. pur le fee avantdit, dont il prie que remedie lui 
 soit ordeyne. . . . Et si i plest a nostre seigneur le roy et a son 
 conseil, nous payeroms volenters le fee issent qe nous soyoms des- 
 charges de la service. (Rot. Parl., vol. ii, p. 96.) 
 
 2 The petitions were addressed in every case to the duke and 
 styled him seneschal of England ; as one petitioner commences his 
 petition without further preface than this A Seneschall Dengleterre 
 monstre Johan filz Johan que ; this man at least, it would seem, 
 must have connected the jurisdiction with the office. This, however, 
 is no evidence that such a court had ever sat before.
 
 184 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 It was, apparently, not until the year 1386 that the office 
 of steward of England was again brought into prominence. 
 Commissioners were then appointed at the instance of a 
 powerful opposition headed by Gloucester, Derby and 
 Nottingham. These commissioners, who were entrusted with 
 the redress of grievances, were an obvious revival of the 
 ordainers of 1 3 10. Lancaster was abroad at the time, meddling 
 rashly and ineffectively in Spanish affairs. Derby, his son 
 and heir, was representing him in England ; Gloucester and 
 Nottingham, the other leaders of the opposition, were con- 
 stable and marshal of England respectively. Here we have 
 again the great hereditary officers of state attempting to 
 coerce the king, and there are strong grounds for supposing 
 that the Modus tenendi parliamentum was at this time put 
 forward to justify the actions of the opposition. 1 The re- 
 sulting strife between the rival parties led to many peers 
 being brought to trial before parliament : these incidents are 
 dealt with elsewhere. 
 
 In 1397 there was a reaction, and several members of the 
 opposition were appealed of treason by the king's party. 
 The appealed included Richard earl of Arundel and Thomas 
 earl of Warwick : they went through a form of trial in 
 parliament, and both were sentenced to death. Judgment 
 in each case was pronounced by the duke of Lancaster 
 (styled steward of England in the report) as representing 
 the king and the lords temporal, and by Thomas Percy the 
 steward of the household as procurator for the clergy. It 
 must be observed that Lancaster on this occasion is not even 
 represented by the rolls of parliament as sitting tanquam 
 senescallus Angliae, but is merely given his official style. 2 
 
 In the following January Sir John Cobham was impeached 
 by the commons for treason, and Lancaster took a precisely 
 similar part in the resulting trial ; but this time he is not 
 styled steward of England in the report. 3 
 
 1 See Round, The Commune of London, p. 316. 
 
 2 Rot Parl., vol. iii, pp. 374 et sqq. See also chap, x below. 
 
 In Arundel's case occurs the following passage: "A quel count 
 d'Arundell fuist dit et declare par le due de Lancastre seneschal 
 d'Engleterre, par comandement du roy et avys de. ..." 
 
 3 Rot. Parl., vol. iii, p. 381.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 185 
 
 The above-mentioned cases, as reported in the Parliament 
 Rolls, can hardly be said to establish precedents for appoint- 
 ing the lord high steward to preside at trials before the 
 House of Lords. These reports, on the contrary, favour if 
 anything the view that Lancaster presided because he was 
 Lancaster, and not because he was steward of England. 
 Certainly, hitherto, there had existed no settled practice as to 
 who ought to preside. The chancellor very commonly did so 
 in cases not involving peril of life or limb. At other times 
 we find the steward of the household presiding. 1 On the 
 other hand, the chroniclers either definitely assert or clearly 
 imply that the duty of judging in parliament belonged to the 
 lord high steward as such, and it is at least probable that 
 Lancaster himself with characteristic effrontery claimed to 
 act in right of his office. 2 
 
 The next incident which must be mentioned is the singular 
 affair between Lancaster's son and the duke of Norfolk. 3 
 The former had been created duke of Hereford by the king, 
 and both were seemingly in high favour. Hereford, it 
 
 1 See below, chap. x. 
 
 2 Deinde adduxerunt comitem Arundell et dux Lancastriae fuit 
 justitiarius ibidem qui sibi exposuit appellationem dominorum et 
 accusationem parliamenti, et jussit respondere. . . . (Eulogium, Rolls 
 Series, 9, iii, p. 374.) 
 
 Sedente igitur pro tribunali, mox Ricardus comes Arundell siste- 
 batur in judicio, indutus desuper toga cum capicio de scarleto. 
 Tune Johannes dux Lancastriae et senescallus Angliae (qui ad hoc 
 deputatus erat) ex officio dixit domino de Nevyle : " Tollas sibi 
 zonam et capicium." Et factum est ita. . . . Dux Lancastriae (qui 
 et senescallus) dixit sibi. . . . Et tune dux Lancastriae tulit in eum 
 sententiam in hunc modum : " Ricarde, ego Johannes, senescallus 
 Angliae, te adjudico proditorem et condempno te. . . . (Vita Ric. II, 
 p. 136.) 
 
 Die sancti Matthaei apostoli et evangelistae productus est Ricardus 
 comes Arundeliae ad respondendum coram rege totoque parliamento 
 de depositis contra eum. . . . Tune dux Lancastriae, senescallus 
 Angliae, cui hoc ex officio pertinebat, notificavit [sibi] quod causa 
 multarum extortionum et proditionis in regem suum fuerit arestatus 
 . . . (Trokelowe, Rolls Series, 28, iv, p. 214.) 
 
 Et tune dux Lancastrie mortis sentenciam sub hiis verbis tulit in 
 eundem : "Ricarde, ego senescallus Anglic te proditorem esse judico, 
 et. . . ." (Adam of Usk, ed. 1904, p. 14.) 
 
 3 This case appears at great length on the Parliament Rolls.
 
 i86 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 appears, was journeying from Brentford to London and on 
 the road overtook Norfolk. " Do you know," began Norfolk, 
 " that we are on the point of being undone ? " " Why so ? " 
 asked Hereford. Thereupon Norfolk proceeded to recount 
 to his friend that there was a plot on foot, to which the king 
 was privy, for the overthrow of the dukes of Lancaster, 
 Albemarle and Exeter, the Marquis of Dorset and them- 
 selves. " God forbid," said Hereford when Norfolk had told 
 his story ; " it were strange if the king should assent to such 
 designs : he has promised to be good lord to me, indeed, he 
 has sworn it by St. Edward." " Ah," replied Norfolk, " he has 
 often sworn the like to me by God's body, but I trust him not 
 the more for that." 
 
 In some way or other the king got wind of this conversa- 
 tion, and Hereford was ordered to lay the matter before 
 parliament. This amounted to directing Hereford to appeal 
 Norfolk of treason. However, Hereford had to comply, and 
 on the 3Oth of January, 1397-8, he laid his charge before the 
 parliament at Shrewsbury. The whole matter was then 
 relegated to the parliamentary committee : Norfolk was not 
 present, and orders were issued to compel his attendance. 
 On the 23rd of February both Hereford and Norfolk had an 
 audience with the king at Oswaldstre. There was an in- 
 formal discussion : Hereford, of course, stuck to his story. 
 " Sire," said Norfolk, bending the knee to his sovereign, 
 "your cousin, if I may say so, is a liar." Richard ordered 
 both dukes into custody. 
 
 The parliamentary committee decided that the case must 
 be referred to a high court of chivalry. A court was accord- 
 ingly convened at Windsor in April which made an order for 
 trial by battle, and the case was then adjourned to the lists 
 at Coventry. The i6th of September was the day assigned. 
 With life and honour at stake neither party was willing to 
 leave anything to chance. Hereford sent to Milan for his 
 mail : Norfolk put his trust in Germany. On the day 
 appointed a vast concourse assembled to witness the duel. 
 The king took his seat on a throne, warder in hand. The 
 two champions, fully equipped, entered the lists ; the usual 
 preliminaries of chivalry were solemnly gone through ;
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 187 
 
 popular excitement was strained to the highest pitch ; and 
 then came anticlimax, sudden and complete ; the king threw 
 down his warder and stopped the fight. 
 
 Richard, it appears, had since the adjournment in April 
 received advice from various quarters to stay all further 
 proceedings. This no doubt influenced his conduct, but in 
 no way excused the extraordinary capriciousness of such 
 behaviour. Worse was to follow. To stay the course of 
 justice may be a proper, even a laudable act, when done in 
 exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy or pardon ; but 
 Richard had no such object in view. He summoned both 
 champions before him, freely admitted to them that neither 
 with prosecution nor with defence had he any fault to find, 
 regretted the course which mature consideration compelled 
 him to take, and then and there sentenced Hereford to 
 banishment for a period of ten years, Norfolk to banish- 
 ment for life. This outrage to justice caused universal 
 indignation. Little pity was felt for Norfolk ; but Hereford, 
 popular enough before, at once became the idol of the 
 nation, and his departure for the coast assumed the character 
 of a triumphal procession. 
 
 Richard was careful at this stage to show him some con- 
 sideration ; he was permitted to remain a few weeks at 
 Sandgate, and was authorised to appoint attorneys to receive 
 his heritage in the event of his father's death. Ultimately 
 Hereford proceeded to Paris and took up his residence at the 
 Hdtel Clisson. 
 
 On the 3rd of February, 1398-9, old John of Gaunt died, 
 leaving exiled Hereford heir to his vast possessions and 
 honours. Either the temptation was too great for the king, 
 or this was merely the looked-for opportunity. On the i8th 
 of March the letters patent securing Henry's right to his 
 heritage were revoked, the Lancastrian estates were con- 
 fiscated, and Henry banished for ever. 
 
 This attempted ruin of Hereford speedily recoiled on the 
 head of Richard. The king left England for Ireland : Here- 
 ford left Paris for England. The story of how Henry of 
 Lancaster wrested the kingdom from Richard need not be 
 related, but certain declarations of intention made by Henry
 
 :88 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 at this time are recorded in contemporary chronicles, and 
 these it is important to consider. It is asserted, doubtless by 
 his opponents, that Henry at first disclaimed having any 
 designs against the crown, and stated that he had merely 
 come to claim his inheritance, including the stewardship of 
 England, and to insist on exercising his right as such 
 supreme judge of trying and punishing certain traitors 1 
 and malefactors in a parliament to be summoned forthwith 
 to meet at Westminster. Here again we have another 
 definite assertion by chroniclers that the steward of England 
 was the supreme judge, or in other words the proper person 
 to preside at a trial in parliament. 2 
 
 1 . . . et que il vous plaise quil ait seulement sa terre et quil 
 soit grant juge Dengleterre ainsi comme son pere et ses prede- 
 cesseurs ont este. . . . (Northumberland's message to Richard the 
 Second, Chronique de la Traison et Mort de Richard II, Engl. 
 Hist. Soc., p. 48.) 
 
 Et que grand juge soit il restitue 
 
 Dengleterre, comme lavoit este 
 
 Le due son pere et tout son parentc 
 
 Plus de cent ans. 
 
 Le nom de ceulx qui seront atendans 
 
 Le jugement vueil dire : . . . 
 
 En atendant de v[ost]re parlement 
 
 Ou vous serez couronnez haultement, 
 
 Roy et seign[ieu]r ; 
 
 Et la sera comme juge greigneur 
 
 Le due Henry. Sans penser a faveur 
 
 Ceux qui aront fait mal vice ne erreur 
 
 Ou trayson 
 
 Seron pugniz : cest la conclusion 
 
 De monseigneur. . . . 
 
 (MS. Harleian, no. 1319; printed in Archaeologia, vol. xx, 
 
 P- 354-) 
 
 Adonc dist le conte [de Northumberland] : " Mon tres chier 
 seigneur, le due de Lenclaistre m'envoye par devers vous pour vous 
 dire que . . . [il] ne vous demande rien en ce monde vivant fors 
 qu'il ne vous deplaise de le tenir pour cousin et amy, et qu'il vous 
 plaise qu'il ait seulement sa terre et qu'il soit grand juge d'Angle- 
 terre, ainsi comme son pere et ses predecesseurs on este; ..." 
 (Jean le Beau, printed Froissart, ed. Buchon, Supplement, ii, p. 71). 
 
 2 This is like, but not identical with, the claim put forward in 
 the " Hie Annotatur." Compare with the following indication of
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 189 
 
 On the 3<Dth of September, 1399, Richard's resignation 
 was accepted, and Henry then claimed and was admitted to 
 the vacant throne. With the accession of Henry the Fourth 
 the stewardship of England became merged in the crown. 
 However, on or before the 4th of October, the new king 
 appointed Thomas his second son steward of England j 1 and, 
 on account of this prince's youth (he was only eleven years 
 old), Thomas Percy, earl of Worcester, was appointed deputy 
 steward for the coming coronation. These, with the assist- 
 ance of the constable and marshal of England, thereupon 
 held a court for coronation claims, following in all respects 
 the precedent established by John of Gaunt on the accession 
 of Richard the Second. 2 
 
 French procedure : De 1'ofice as metres : Li mestre de 1'ostel le roi 
 ont plenier poir par dessus toz autres. Et aucunes foiz avient qu'il 
 deivent porter les granz causes pardevant le roi, comme de eels qui 
 convient jugier par pers. (Li Livre de Jostice et de Plet, I, 
 cap. 20, s. i.) 
 
 1 He was appointed, it seems, like the stewards of the household, 
 by handing him a baton, and not by a formal instrument. 
 
 Sabbato proximo tune sequente, rex Henricus Thomam secun- 
 dum filium suum fecit senescallum Angliae, dans ei virgam illius 
 officii ; quia tune affuerunt omnes qui debebant regi servitium in 
 coronatione [sua], et illi praecipue pertinebat cuilibet allocare 
 officium debitum in coronatione regia vel assignare. (Annales 
 Henrici Quarti, Rolls Series, 28, iv, p. 287.) 
 
 Rex Henricus in hoc parliamento fecit secundum filium suum, 
 dictum Thomam, Angliae senescallum. (Walsingham, Rolls Series, 28, 
 ii, p. 238.) 
 
 2 See Appendix. 
 
 The following entry occurs in the rolls of parliament : Et fuit 
 ilico de dicti regis mandate publice proclamatum ibidem quod die 
 Lune proximo post festum sancti Michaelis parliamentum ibidem 
 teneri et celebrari deberet : quodque die Lune proximo extunc 
 sequente, videlicet in festo sancti Edwardi, coronatio dicti regis 
 fieret apud Westmonasterium : et quod omnes illi qui vendicare 
 voluerint aliquod servitium se in dicta coronatione facturos, et eo 
 pretextu aliquid sibi deberi, venirent in albam aulam palatii coram 
 senescallo, constabulario et marescallo Anglic, die Sabbati proximo 
 ante diem parliament! predicti, quod in ea parte justum fuerit 
 petituri, quibus plena justicia fieret in petitis. . . . (Rot. Parl., 
 vol. iii, p. 423.) 
 
 The steward and his deputy appear to have played a conspicuous
 
 igo ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 At this court a Freville again contested the right of the 
 Dymokes to the office of champion. The parties appeared 
 by counsel, Adam of Usk, the chronicler, being briefed for 
 the Dymokes. The hearing threatened to take some time, 
 and was again adjourned upon terms which allowed Dymoke 
 to act at Henry's coronation. 1 
 
 Thomas Plantagenet, better known as the duke of Clarence, 
 held the office of steward of England for the rest of his life. 2 
 During his tenure of the stewardship two coronations took 
 place at which he was unable to attend, namely, the corona- 
 tion of Henry the Fifth in 1413 and the coronation of queen 
 Katharine in 1421. On both occasions the earl of Warwick 
 was appointed to act as vice-seneschal. 3 The only trial at 
 which the duke of Clarence presided took place in 1415, 
 at Southampton, when parliament was not sitting. The 
 persons tried were the earl of Cambridge and lord Scrope of 
 Masham. From the enrolled commission appointing Clarence 
 we know that he did not preside as steward of England. 4 
 
 part in the various ceremonies with which this reign opened. For 
 example : 
 
 Die Lunae ex tune sequente proximo, qui fuit dies sanctae Fidis, 
 rex novus praesidebat in parliamento regaliter, et Henricus films 
 suus primogenitus secundum locum tenuit inter dominos temporales. 
 Secundus nlius, tanquam totius Angliae senescallus, virgam sui 
 officii tenuit coram patre. (Annales Henrici Quarti, Rolls Series, 28, 
 iv, p. 288.) 
 
 In the state procession from the Tower to Westminster Dominus 
 Thomas Percy portavit virgam senescalli coram rege, vice filii 
 sui Thomae, quem dudum diximus senescallum. (Ibid., p. 291.) 
 
 At the beginning of this reign the steward of the household was 
 Thomas Rempston (styled senescallus hospitii domini regis). Many 
 modern writers dealing with this period still confuse the two offices. 
 
 1 Usk, p. 34. See also the Annales Henrici Quarti, p. 288 : 
 Tandem res finem sortitur hujusmodi, ex response vice-senescalli, 
 constabularii et marescalli ; quod quia praesens causa sine delibera- 
 tione majori non potuit terminari, propter vicinitatem regiae corona- 
 tionis, expectaret diem. . . . 
 
 2 He is repeatedly so styled in formal documents; and he 
 describes himself as such in his last will and testament. It re- 
 mains doubtful whether his father's intention was to give him an 
 estate of inheritance in the office, for he died without issue, leaving 
 Henry V his heir-at-law. 3 See Appendix. 
 
 4 This trial will be discussed at length in a subsequent chapter.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 191 
 
 Clarence, it will be remembered, fell at the fatal battle of 
 Beauge, the victim of his own rashness. After his death the 
 stewardship of England was never again regranted except for 
 particular occasions. Thus closes the history of the regular 
 stewards of England. 
 
 It only remains now to consider in what condition the 
 stewardship was left by the death of the last holder. 
 
 The chief function of the steward in earlier times, of 
 supervising and waiting at the royal table on special feast 
 days, appears in course of time to have become limited to 
 similar services to be performed only on the occasion of a 
 king or queen's coronation. The steward's connection with 
 the coronation became crystallised by the famous and much- 
 consulted entry in the Exchequer Red Book for queen 
 Eleanor's coronation : but, if his services at other times were 
 seldom required, he was probably always regarded as one of 
 the persons who could be called upon to play master of the 
 ceremonies in any great pageant. There is, for example, 
 the case of the earl of Derby at the institution of the round 
 table at Windsor. 
 
 The steward's court of claims first made its appearance 
 on the occasion of Richard the Second's coronation ; but 
 Henry the Fourth very naturally followed his father's pre- 
 cedent ; and, long before the stewardship as a permanent 
 office had ceased to exist, not only had this recently acquired 
 function become thoroughly established, but also the practice 
 of appointing a deputy-steward for the particular occasion 
 if disability or absence prevented the permanent steward 
 from discharging his duties. 
 
 In addition to the above matters, the steward had cer- 
 tainly on various occasions asserted formidable powers and 
 privileges; had in the year 1397, if never before, presided 
 at the trial of peers in parliament, and had in the year 1415 
 presided at the trial of peers when parliament was not sitting. 
 But it cannot be seriously suggested that, even in the case of 
 trials before the House of Lords, the steward possessed as 
 yet any recognised functions. 
 
 We should hardly on simple inspection have looked for 
 such a conclusion. We know that to this day, when a peer
 
 192 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 is accused of treason or felony, it is the rule to appoint a 
 lord high steward to preside, in the lord's house if parliament 
 is sitting, and, if there is no parliament in session, in a court 
 known as the lord high steward's court. Knowing this, we 
 should naturally expect to find both precedents well estab- 
 lished before the office in question fell into abeyance. We 
 should expect as much for the simple reason that it would 
 seem a strange step to revive this extinct official for the 
 purpose of entrusting him with unprecedented functions. 
 
 Be this as it may, it is quite clear that the mediaeval 
 steward of England began and ended his career somewhat 
 ingloriously. We will attempt elsewhere to explain his 
 posthumous judicial pre-eminence. 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VI 
 
 Harleian MSS. iSoS,fo/. 2ob ; x and 2386, foL y>? 
 Genealogia Comitum Leycestrie. 
 
 Robertus comes Mellenti anno Domini millesimo centesimo 
 secundo, regnante rege Henrico primo, post mortem Simonis 
 comitis adeptus est comitatum Leycestrie, qui genuit ex 
 uxore sua Isabella filium et heredem Robertum le bosszu. 
 Hie fundavit abbatiam de Leycestre et postea assensu uxoris 
 sue canonicus factus est ibidem, et Amicia uxor sua filia 
 Radulfi de Monteforti facta est monialis apud Etonam quam 
 prius fundaverat. Et habuerunt inter se filium primogenitum 
 nomine Robertum ove lez blaunchemeyns qui desponsavit 
 Petronillam filiam Hugonis de Grantmene cum qua habuit 
 honorem de Hynkeleye cum senescalcia Anglic ex dono 
 dicti Hugonis ; De qua tres filios et duas filias procreavit, 
 videlicet, dominum Robertum dictum Petronell, dominum 
 Rogerum apud sancti Andree in Scotia, dominum Willelmum 
 leprosum fundatorem sancti Leonardi Leycestrie, dominam 
 Amiciam desponsatam Simoni Mountford et dominam Marga- 
 
 1 MS. on parchment, fifteenth century, temp. Henry VI. 
 z MS. on paper, late fifteenth century and apparently a transcript 
 from no. i.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 193 
 
 retam desponsatam domino Saero de Quincy, (postea 1 ) 
 comiti Wintonie. Dictus Robertas filius Petronelle comes 
 Leycestrie Loram filiam domini Willelmi le Brewes duxit in 
 uxorem de qua nullum suscitavit prolem. Qui postquam 
 magnum Soldanum in armis regis Ricardi per hastiludium 
 bellicum prostraverit rediit in Angliam et sepultus est apud 
 Leycestre. [(Et 2 ) nota (quod 2 ) Malcolmus rex Scotie, frater 
 Willelmi regis, habuit filiam nomine Ezabell, que fuit mater 
 Roberti de Quincy, qui Robertus genuit Saerum de Quincy ; 
 Saerus genuit Rogerum de Quincy ; Rogerus (vero) genuit 
 Margaretam comitissam de Ferrers, que fuit mater Roberti 
 comitis de Ferrers. Robertus genuit Johannem comitem de 
 Ferrariis et fundavit abbathiam de Myryvalle anno gratiae 
 mclii. 3 ] 
 
 Particio hereditatis 
 
 Dominus Symon Mountford per uxorem suam habuit 
 medietatem comitatus et honoris de Hynkeleye et factus est 
 a rege comes Leycestrie et senescallus Anglic, et dominus 
 Saerus de Quincy factus est comes Wyntonie et habuit 
 medietatem dicti comitatus. Simon comes genuit de uxore 
 sua Simonem et Amaricum, qui Amaricus a Turcis captus et 
 mortuus est. Simon vero pater ejus propter suam inobedi- 
 entiam a rege exheredatus est et cum filiis suis ab Anglia 
 exulatus. Simon filius suus post patrem mortuum, gratiam 
 regis adeptus, comitatum Leycestrie et senescalciam recupe- 
 ravit, et duxit Elianoram sororem regis Henrici, que prius 
 voverat castitatem, de qua sex filios et unam filiam genuit, 
 Henricum, Ricardum, Amaricum, Guidonem, Symonem, 
 Thomam et Alianoram quam desponsavit Leulinus princeps 
 Wallie. Iste Simon insurrexit contra regem et fuit occisus 
 in bello apud Evesham et datus est comitatus Leycestrie 
 domino Edmundo filio regis. 4 
 
 1 An interlineation in no. i. 2 Not in no. i. 
 
 3 This is a footnote in no. i but is incorporated into the text of 
 no. 2. 
 
 4 No. 2 has been printed down to this point in Knighton, Rolls 
 Series [92], i, pp. 62-6.
 
 i 9 4 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 Pars hereditatis Comitis Wyntonie 
 Dominus Saerus de Quincy 
 
 Genealogia Comitum Lancastrie 
 
 Post mortem Simonis de Monteforti, illustris comes Lan- 
 castrie Edmundus filius regis Henrici tercii ex dono regis 
 Henrici patris sui comitatum Leycestrie (Derbeye 1 ) et 
 honorem de Hynkeleye cum senescalcia Anglic est adeptus ; 
 dominam Blanchiam reginam Navarrie (sororem comitis de 
 Artoys 2 ) desponsavit et ex ea tres filios procreavit Thomam, 
 Henricum et Johannem. Thomas comes Lancastrie post 
 mortem patris sui Edmundi in hereditatem succedens 
 {Agnetam 3 } (Alesiam 4 ) filiam domini Henrici de Lacy 
 comitis Lincolnie et Wintonie desponsavit, sed quia inter 
 illos nulla proles remansit superstes ideo post mortem 
 ejusdem Thome apud Pontefractum in domino requiescens. 
 (sic) frater ejus Henricus dictus de Grisemount sibi in here- 
 ditate successit [. . . 6 ], Dominus Henricus de Grysemount, 
 post mortem fratris sui Thome, comes Lancastrie et Leicestrie 
 et senescallus Anglic effectus. . . . Dominus Henricus Lan- 
 castrie post mortem Henrici patris sui dux Lancastrie, comes 
 Derbeie, Lincolnie et Leycestrie et senescallus Anglic effectus. 
 . . . Johannes de Gaunt comes Richemundie post mortem 
 domini Henrici ducis Lancastrie effectus e 6 jure uxoris sue 
 dux Lancastrie, comes Derbeye, Lincolnie, Leycestrie et 
 senescallus Anglic. . . . [After a short notice of Henry IV 
 and Henry V this genealogy concludes as follows :] . . . 
 Et genuit ex Katherina filia regis Francie unicum filium 
 
 1 No. 2 has "comitatus Lancastrie, Leycestrie et Derbeie." In 
 no. i " Derbeye " is an interlineation. 
 
 2 Interlined in no. i. 
 
 3 An erasure in no. i. 4 An interlineation in no. i. 
 
 5 A marginal note in no. i is here incorporated into the text of 
 no. 2. 
 
 6 est in no. 2.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 195 
 
 Henricum nunc dei gratia regem Anglic hujus nominis 
 sextum. 1 
 
 (The differences in spelling between no. I and no. 2 are 
 very numerous but of no apparent importance. The spelling 
 in No. i has been adhered to throughout.) 
 
 Chronicon Henrici Knighton (Rolls Series [92], i, //. 62-6) 
 
 Robertus comes Molenti venit cum Willelmo in Angliam, 
 cui Roberto datus est comitatus Leycestrensis. Iste Robertus 
 re-aedificavit ecclesiam Sanctae Mariae de castro Leycestrensi, 
 et posuit in eadem canonicos seculares et restituit eis terras 
 possessiones et ecclesias. Robertus Bossu filius ejusdem 
 Roberti de Mollent de consensu Alexandri episcopi Lin- 
 colniensis anno gratiae millesimo centesimo xliii fundavit 
 monasterium Beatae Mariae de Pratis Leycestriae in honorem 
 assumptions ejusdem gloriosae virginis, et de ecclesiis terris 
 et possessionibus antedictorum canonicorum secularium cum 
 multis aliis supererrogatis tarn ecclesiis aliisque possessionibus 
 et redditibus luculentur dotavit, et eas in usum canonicorum 
 regularium transformavit. Qui etiam in eodem monasterio 
 de consensu Amiciae uxoris suae canonicus regularis factus 
 est, et annis quindecim in habitu regulari ibidem Christo 
 militans canonicus vitam finiens obdormivit in pace, in latere 
 ibidem chori dextro sepultus, scilicet anno gratiae millesimo 
 centesimo Ixvii. Iste Robertus fundavit abbathiam de 
 Gerondona monachorum et monasterium sanctimonialium 
 de Etona, in quo Amicia uxor ejusdem Roberti ex mutuo 
 assensu viri sui facta est sanctimonialis de residuo vitae suae 
 Deo serviens, unde ipse factus est canonicus regularis et ilia 
 sanctimonialis. De quibus processit Robertus ou les blanc- 
 meines filius eorum, comes Leycestrensis tertius post conques- 
 tum, qui desponsavit Petronillam filiam Hugonis Grantmenyl, 
 cum qua accepit totum honorem de Hyncley una cum 
 senescalatu Angliae ex dono ejusdem Hugonis. Quae 
 Petronilla construxit magnam navim ejusdem ecclesiae 
 abbathiae Leycestrensis, et in choro coram magno altari 
 
 1 No. 2 has " unicum filium dei gratia regem Anglie hujus nominis 
 sextum Henricum." The word " nunc " is omitted.
 
 1 96 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 est humata : quae etiam comam capitis sui ad modum funis 
 composuit, et ad cordam unius lampadis in choro posuit, 
 unde more instrumenti cum eadem coma crinium subtrahendi 
 sursumque levandi diuturnus usus dabatur. Et predictus 
 funis in eodem monasterio in devotam predictae dominae 
 memoriam non obliviscitur sed memoriter servatur. Iste 
 Robertus Mellent etiam hospitalitatem de Bracheleye fundavit 
 et dotavit, ubi cor ejusdem Roberti de Mollento adhuc inte- 
 grum in plumbo sale servatum habetur. Robertus ou les 
 blancmeyns genuit de dicta Petronilla Robertum dictum 
 filium Petronillae haeredem, Rogerum sancti Andreae in 
 Scotia episcopum et Willelmum leprosum fundatorem hos- 
 pitalis sancti Leonardi Leycestriae, et Amiciam desponsatam 
 Simoni de Monteforti, et Margaretam desponsatam Sayro 
 de Quinci. Iste Robertus tertius comes peregre profectus 
 lerosolymam ac rediens apud Duraco in Graecia anno gratiae 
 millesimo cxc obiens sepultus est. Robertus films Petronillae 
 iiii comes Leycestrensis in terram sanctam profectus peregre 
 postquam magnum Soldanum in armis Ricardi regis Angliae 
 per hastiludium bellicum prostravit et strenue interfecit, in 
 Angliam rediens in abbathia Leycestrensi mortuus sepultus 
 est, et tune partita est haereditas inter duas sorores, scilicet 
 Amiciam et Margaretam, deficiente semine fratrum nee illo 
 habente filium. Symon de Monteforti per Amiciam seniorem 
 filiam cum medietate comitatus Leycestriae et honoris de 
 Hyncleye factus est comes Leycestrensis et pro honore de 
 Hyncleye jure haereditario senescallus Angliae. Scirus de 
 Quinci per minorem filiam Margaretam cum altera medietate 
 comitatus Leycestrensis factus est comes de Wynchestria. 
 Dominus Simon de Monteforti postea propter inobedientiam 
 suam erga regem exhaeredatus et exlegatus cum filiis suis, et 
 comitatus Leycestrensis cum honore de Hinkleye datus est 
 Ranulfo comiti Cestrensi. Set Simon filius dicti Simonis de 
 Monteforti post mortem patris sui in Angliam rediens ex 
 dono regis recuperavit haereditatem suam de comitatu et 
 honore praedictis. Sed rex reservavit sibi et haeredibus suis 
 solum patronatum abbathiae Leycestrensis et prioratus de 
 Kynelworthia. Iste Simon junior accepit uxorem Elianoram 
 sororem regis Henrici, quae prius voverat castitatem, et
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 197 
 
 anulum ut sponsa Christi de manu sancti Edmundi Can- 
 tuariensis acceperat. De qua genuit nobilissimam prolem, 
 sed cito de hoc mundo transituram, scilicet filios et unam 
 filiam Elianoram quam postea desponsavit Lewlinus princeps 
 Walliae. Iste Symon patrissare volens, super quibusdam 
 constitutionibus observandis inter regem Henricum 3m et 
 barones regni se ingessit ut capitaneus eorum, unde duo bella 
 mortalia ingruerunt in Anglia, unum apud Lewes et aliud 
 apud Evysham, ut infra plenius patebit. In quo ipse Symon 
 et films ejus una cum multis aliis ex parte baronum ceciderunt 
 Et sic Henricus dedit comitatum Leycestriae cum honore de 
 Hyncleye et senescalatu Angliae Edmundo filio suo. De quo 
 Edmundo et haeredibus suis historia prolixius patebit in ante- 
 dicta abbatia Leycestrensi ; similiter de Sciro de Quinci 
 scilicet comite Wyntoniensi et ejus haeredibus ibidem plenarie 
 copia habetur. 1 
 
 (This part of the Chronicle was probably written not later 
 than 1 366, for the narrative at this date breaks off abruptly, 
 the next entry referring to events of the year 1377.) 
 
 British Museum, Add. MS. 29,502.2 
 
 Robertus Blaunchemeynes comes Lerecestrie post con- 
 questum Anglie tercius -dominam Petronillam filiam domini 
 Hugonis de Grauntemenil accepit uxorem, de qua tres filios 
 et duas filias procreavit videlicet dominum Robertum dictum 
 Robertum Fitzpernell, dominum Rogerum episcopum Sancti 
 Andree in Scocia et dominum Willelmum leprosum funda- 
 torem hospitalis Sancti Leonardi Leicestrie, dominam 
 Amiciam postea desponsatam domino Simoni de Monteforti 
 et dominam Margaretam postea desponsatam Saero de 
 Quinci. 
 
 3 Iste Robertus le Blaunchemeynes cum dicta uxore sua 
 domina Petronilla totum honorem de Hinkleye una cum 
 
 1 The writings to which Knighton is here referring would appear 
 to be none other than the original source of the Harleian transcripts. 
 If this is the case the genealogies in question must have been added 
 to after Knighton's time, a by no means unlikely occurrence. 
 
 - A parchment roll : the handwriting is late fifteenth century. 
 
 3 In the MS. wide spaces are left between each paragraph.
 
 198 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 senestatuf 1 Anglic ex dono dicti Hugonis adeptus est : Iste 
 dictus Robertas Blaunchemeynes in Grecia diem clausit 
 extremum : Robertus filius Petronille comes Leicestrie post 
 conquestum Anglic quartus dominam Loram filiam domini 
 Willelmi de Brewes accepit uxorem et que post mortem viri 
 sui Haklington. juxta Cantuariam anchorita effecta usque 
 ad diem obitus sui. Et quia inter Loram predictam et ipsum 
 Robertum soboles est extyncta et de duobus fratribus suis 
 predictis nulla ulterius suscitata, ideo partita est totof here- 
 ditas inter Amiceamf et Margaretam sorores supradictas. 
 Quarum seniorem silicetf Amiciam postea desponsavit do- 
 minus Simon de Monteforti cum prima medietate hereditatis 
 predicte, Margaretam vero sororem juniorem desponsavit 
 dominus Saerus de Quinci cum altera medietate et factus est 
 a rege comes Wintonie : Simon predictus factus est comes 
 Leicestrie et senescallus Anglie, de uxore sua procreavit duos 
 filios Simonem et Amaricum, quiquidem Amaricus captus 
 apud terram sanctam a paganis et incarceratus ibidem 
 mortuus est. Iste autem Simon propter inobedienciam suam 
 erga regem a predictis honoribus est exheredatus : et tarn 
 ipse quam filii sui ab Anglia exules sunt effecti : Anno 
 domini millesimo [cc] s[ex]to. 2 Et advocacio abbathie 
 Leicestrie sui patronatus ad manus domini regis Johannis 
 per forisfacturam Simonis predicti devenit. Radulphus 
 autem comes Cestrie predictos honores de consensu regis 
 inde optinuit et annis plurimis occupavit. 
 
 Simon Junior de Monteforti supradictus postquam annis 
 aliquibus elapsis in partibus transmarinis vassalus famosissi- 
 mus est proclamatus, post mortem patris sui gratiam regis 
 Anglie adeptus est et honores Leicestrie et Hynkley predic- 
 tos recuperavit sed rex reseravitf sibi et hereditibusf suis 
 solum patronatum abbathie Leicestrie et patronatum de 
 Kenylworthe. Istef 
 
 Iste autem Simon junior dominam Elienoram filiam regis 
 
 1 The obelus is used to avoid repeating the word " sic." Obviously 
 the correct reading is " senescalatu." 
 
 1 This is a possible reading, but " s[e]c[und]o " is much more 
 probable. It may be that "ccv." is the correct reading of the 
 original from which the scribe copied.
 
 THE LANCASTRIAN STEWARDS 199 
 
 Johannes f et sororem regis Henrici tercii, [que] prius voverat 
 castitatem et Anulum ut sponsa Christi de manu sancti 
 Edmundi tune Cantuarienff archiepiscopi acceperat, despon- 
 savit, de qua prolem nobilissimam, sed cito de hoc mundo 
 migravit, sex postf filios et unam filiam procreavit, Henri- 
 cum, Ricardum, Amaricum et Welliseborum f, Wgydon[em]f, 
 Simonem, Thomam et Elienoram Mounfortf quam postea 
 desponsavit dominus {Willelmus-f} (Leolinus 1 ) princeps 
 Waffle. 
 
 Iste autem Simon postquam hereditatem paternam est 
 adeptus et comes Leicestrie est effectus cupiens de carcere 
 redimere fratrem suum uterinum Amaricum supradictum 
 modicum borcumf 2 vendidit Abbathie Leicestrie et duplum 
 hospitali Jerosolomitane pro magna summa pecunie : sed 
 Amaricus morte perventus est ante adventum Simonis sup- 
 radicti. 
 
 Iste vere Simon in Angliam tres filios Amaricum, Welisse- 
 borum, Simonem supradicti reversus et p[atr]issare volens 
 super quibusdam constitucionibus observandis inter Henri- 
 cum regem tercium et barones regni ingessit se : ut capudf 
 ex parte baronum : unde duo bella mortalia ingruerunt, 
 unum apud Lewes aliud apud Evysham. In quo ipse Simon 
 et films ejus una cum multis aliis ex parte baronum ceci- 
 derunt. Et sic ex dono regis Henrici datus est comitatus 
 Leicestrie cum honore de Hynkley et senestatuf Anglie 
 nobilissimo domino Edmundo comiti filio suo et fratri illus- 
 trissimi principis Edwardi de quo quidem Edmundo et here- 
 dibus suis inferius prosecutum. 3 
 
 Coronation Roll of Henry the Fourth 
 
 In parliamento ad mandatum domini regis Ricardi secundi 
 
 post conquestum anno Domini millesimo trecentesimo nono- 
 
 gesimo nono, anno vero ipsius regis vicesimo tertio apud 
 
 Westmonasterium convocato ultimo die mensis Septembris, 
 
 1 A subscript in a modern hand. 
 
 2 The correct reading is probably " boscum." 
 
 3 Here follows, in the same hand, an account in English of the 
 battles of Lewes and Evesham. The roll appears to be incomplete 
 and ends in the middle of this account.
 
 200 ORIGIN OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF ENGLAND 
 
 cessione et resignatione ejusdem regis prelatis proceribus et 
 communitati totius regni publice notificatis, et ab eisdem 
 admissis, ac ipso rege propter sua demerita deposito ; suc- 
 cessit eidem Henricus dux Lancastrie, comes Derbie, Lin- 
 colnie, Leycestrie, Herefordie, Northamptonie, senescallus 
 Anglic. Et cum tractaretur et provisum fuisset de solempniis 
 coronationis ipsius regis Henrici die Lune in festo transla- 
 tionis sancti Edwardi regis et confessoris tune proximo 
 sequente celebrandis, dictus dominus noster rex ut in jure 
 comitis Leycestrie, cui officium senescalli pertinet, idem 
 officium commisit Thome filio suo in coronatione predicta 
 faciendum ; quod quidem officium, tarn in propria persona 
 sua quam in persona domini Thome Percy comitis Wigornie, 
 qui propter etatem juvenilem predicti Thome filii regis, 
 eidem assignatus erat in auxilium, et predictum officium 
 exercuit de precepto predicti regis Henrici, et feoda eidem 
 consueta clamabat et percepit in coronatione prefati domini 
 Henrici, dicto die Lune apud Westmonasterium solempniter 
 facta et celebrata. Et memorandum quod prefatus Thomas 
 filius regis die Sabbati videlicet quarto die Octobris ante 
 coronationem predictam sedebat de precepto regis, tanquam 
 senescallus Anglie, in alba aula regii palatii Westmonasterien- 
 sis prope capellam regalem et inquirebat diligenter que et 
 qualia officia seu feoda dicto die per quoscumque facienda 
 vel optinenda fuerunt. . . . 
 
 (Printed by Rymer, Foedera, vol. viii, o.s., p. 90.) 
 
 Patent Roll, I Henry V, pt. I, m. 36 
 Rex carissimo consanguineo suo Ricardo comiti Warwice 
 salutem. Sciatis quod nos de industria et cicumspectione 
 vestris plenius confidentes asignavimus vos ad omnia et 
 singula que ad officium senescalli Anglie ad coronationem 
 nostram pertinent hac vice tantum faciendum et exercendum. 
 Et ideo vobis mandamus quod circa premissa diligenter in- 
 tendatis et ea faciatis et exequamini in modo et forma debite 
 antiquitus usitatis. In cujus, etc. Teste rege apud West- 
 monasterium secundo die Aprilis. Per ipsum regem. 
 (Printed by Rymer, Foedera, vol. ix, o.s., p. 2.)
 
 201 
 
 Close Roll, 8 Henry V, m. ^d 
 
 Rex vicecomitibus Londonie salutem. Precipimus vobis 
 firmiter injungentes quod statim visis presentibus in singulis 
 locis civitatis predicte et suburbiorum ejusdem ubi expedire 
 videritis publice ex parte nostra proclamari faciatis quod 
 omnes et singuli qui alique servitia diebus coronationum 
 reginarum Anglie ratione tenure sue seu alio modo debent 
 aut facere tenentur sint coram dilecto et fideli consanguineo 
 nostro Ricardo comite Warrwice locum tenente carissimi 
 fratris nostri Thome duels Clarencie senescalli Anglie de 
 ordinatione nostra die Lune proximo future apud West- 
 monasterium in aula alba ad petendum per petitiones suas 
 servitia sua die coronationis Katerine nunc regine Anglie 
 consortis nostre carissime cum omni honore et reverentia 
 quibus decet ibidem more solito fieri et exerceri. Et hoc 
 nullatenus omittatis. Teste. 
 
 (Printed by Rymer, Foedera, vol. x, o.s., p. 63.)
 
 PART II 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS, EARLY PRINCIPLES 
 AND MAGNA CHARTA 
 
 THERE are two principles of great antiquity underlying 
 the privilege popularly expressed in the phrase " the 
 right of being tried by your peers." One principle is that 
 a man ought to be tried only by the members of his own 
 community the vassal of this or that lord by vassals of the 
 same lord, the citizen of this or that chartered town by his 
 fellow-citizens of the same town, and so forth. The other 
 principle is that a superior ought not to be tried by an 
 inferior ; an intelligible though aristocratic principle, but 
 obviously dangerous if carried too far. The two principles 
 are quite distinct and must not be confused. 
 
 The former principle was part and parcel of the feudal 
 system : the growth of the latter principle was slow and 
 unsystematic, in some cases altogether abortive. There exist 
 several early enunciations of both doctrines which deserve to 
 be cited and commented upon. 
 
 In the year 856 Charles le Chauve granted a charter of 
 liberties to his revolted subjects : 
 
 Et si aliquis de nobis in quocumque ordine contra istum pactum 
 incontra ilium [scilicet regem] fecerit, si talis est ut ille inde eum 
 ammonere voleat ut emendet, faciat ; et si talis est causa ut inde 
 ilium familiariter non debeat ammonere et ante suos pares ilium in 
 rectam rationem mittat, et ille qui debitum pactum et rectam legem 
 et debitam seniori reverentiarn non vult exhibere et observare, justum 
 justitiae judicium sustineat. 1 
 
 1 Monumenta Germaniae Hist., Capitularia, ed. Boretius and 
 Krause, vol. ii, p. 281. 
 
 205
 
 206 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Here, it seems, we have an undeveloped example of the 
 first principle. It is the king who gives judgment, but peers 
 are to be present as assessors. 
 
 An ordinance of Conrad the Salic in 1037 provided : " ut 
 nullus miles, . . . tarn de nostris majoribus valvassoribus quam 
 eorum militibus, sine certa et convicta culpa suum beneficium 
 perdat, nisi secundum consuetudinem antecessorum nostrorum 
 et judicium parium suorum. . . ," 1 That is to say, no knight, 
 be he tenant-in-chief or only under-tenant, is to be disseised 
 except in accordance with precedent and the judgment of 
 his peers ; and this provision is further defined by the same 
 ordinance as follows : " Si contentio fuerit de beneficio inter 
 capitaneos, coram imperatore definiri debet ; si vero fuerit 
 contentio inter minores valvassores et majores de beneficio, 
 in judicio parium suorum definiatur per judicem curtis." This 
 must mean that in the case of tenants-in-capite the matter 
 is to be determined coram imperatore ; while in the case of 
 under-tenants the matter is to be determined in the court 
 of the mesne lord by the judgment of the under-tenant's 
 peers. 
 
 Illustrations of the first principle might be multiplied in- 
 definitely : the second principle is less frequently asserted. 
 
 The judges ought to be of a rank equal to the litigants. If there- 
 fore the vassal litigating with the lord is earl or baron, undoubtedly 
 the peers of the court . . . ought to be earls or barons. 2 
 
 In this case the peers of the court in question evidently 
 include persons of lower rank than earls and barons. Not 
 every one of the baron's peers may try him, only earls or 
 
 1 Monumenta Germaniae Hist., Constitutiones, ed. Weiland, 
 vol. i, p. 90. 
 
 2 Jacobinus de S. Georgio, cited by Ducange, s.v. " Par " : Pares 
 curiae seu curtis dicuntur convassalli, qui jurarunt fidelitatem eidem 
 domino pro aliis feudis quae tenent ab eo. Sed si essent vassalli 
 qui non praestitissent sacramentum fidelitatis eidem domino, non 
 dicerentur esse de paribus curiae. Et est advertendum quod isti 
 pares curiae qui habent cognoscere de causa feudali debent esse 
 illius qualitatis cujus sunt vassalli litigantes ; et ideo si vassallus 
 litigans cum domino est comes vel baro, certe pares curie qui habent 
 cognoscere de causa feudali debent esse comites vel barones.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 207 
 
 barons. Whether an earl must be tried only by such of his 
 peers as are earls is not clear. 
 
 There is a law upon the subject ascribed to David of 
 Scotland which certainly does not lack precision : " No man 
 shall be judged by his inferior who is not his peer ; earl shall 
 be judged by earl, baron by baron, vavassor by vavassor, 
 burgess by burgess; but an inferior may be judged by a 
 superior." l Here we have the second grafted on to the first 
 principle: a man's inferior is not his peer. In the other 
 instance cited the two principles were, on the contrary, dis- 
 tinguished. 
 
 In England there is an early reference to both principles 
 contained in the compilation called the laws of Henry the 
 First " Unusquisque per pares suos judicandus est et ejusdem 
 provinciae : peregrina vero judicia modis omnibus submove- 
 mus . . . nee summorum quispiam minorum judicatione dis- 
 pereat." 2 These laws are a hybrid collection of little authority ; 
 the central curia regis is outside the scope of the work ; they 
 illustrate, however, the generality of these doctrines. It 
 should be noted that while the judges of the local courts 
 are, in the above extract, required to be the peers of the 
 parties, they are elsewhere in the same work more particu- 
 larly defined : " Regis judices sunt barones comitatus, qui 
 liberas in eis terras habent, per quos debent causae singulorum 
 alterna prosecutione tractari ; villani vero vel cotseti vel 
 ferdingi, vel qui sunt viles vel inopes personae non sunt inter 
 legum judices numerandi." 3 
 
 It was not everywhere that these principles found accep- 
 tance. Germany could afford to pity Hungary : " quod si 
 aliquis ex comitum ordine regem . . . offenderit . . ., nulla 
 sententia a principe, sicut apud nos moris est, per pares suos 
 exposcitur, nulla accusato excusandi licentia datur, sed sola 
 principis voluntas apud omnes pro ratione habetur." 4 But 
 even those who allowed judgment by peers were wont to 
 place limitations on the right to claim it. 
 
 1 Cited by Pollock and Maitland, Hist. English Law, vol. i, p. 173. 
 
 2 Leges Henrici, c. 31, s. 7 ; c. 32, s. i. 
 
 3 Leges Henrici, c. 29. 
 
 4 Otto of Frisingen, Gesta Friderici, ed. Waitz, p. 40.
 
 2o8 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 The sovereign was more than the peer of all his subjects. 1 
 What possible application had either principle to a case tried 
 coram rege? If we may resort to the precise language of 
 later legists like Bracton the answer is simple : there must be 
 three parties to every judgment, plaintiff (or accuser), de- 
 fendant (or accused), and judge. Therefore between vassal 
 and vassal the sovereign may judge ; but between vassal and 
 sovereign the peers of the sovereign's court must judge. 2 
 This theory, where admitted, obviously cuts a mighty cantle 
 from the scope of the original doctrine. 
 
 Until the beginning of the thirteenth century, judgment by 
 peers, as a duty to the accused, as a principle enforced for his 
 protection, cannot be clearly illustrated by actual cases tried 
 in the court of a sovereign. It was indeed in danger of 
 becoming altogether obsolete by being merged in a very 
 different principle. The proper administration of justice was 
 ever one of the most arduous and difficult functions of 
 monarchy, and one which could not be adequately performed 
 without much assistance. The mediaeval king was lord 
 paramount with vastly more judicial business to transact 
 than any mesne lord. Even the mesne lord found it necessary 
 to exact suit of court from his feudal tenants, much more so 
 the sovereign. What every king habitually did for his own 
 convenience cannot be legitimately imputed to, nor is it 
 conducive to the development of a principle which purports 
 to be solely concerned with the protection of the subject. 
 
 In the year 864 Bernard, grandson of William de Gellone, 
 lay ambushed in a wood with intent to assassinate certain 
 vassals of Charles le Chauve, or, as others asserted, with 
 
 1 Quia dominus rex nullum habere potest parem, multo minus 
 superiorem. . . . (Glanville, Lib., vii, cap. 10.) 
 
 . . . ita habet rex in regno suo ordinariam in temporalibus, et 
 pares non habet neque superiores. (Bracton, fol. 412.) 
 
 2 Preterea si de feudo inter duos vassallos controversia sit, domini 
 sit cognitio, et per eum controversia terminetur. Si vero inter 
 dominum et vassallum Us oriatur per pares curie a domino sub debito 
 fidelitatis conjuratos terminetur. (Fredc. I, imp., Nov., 1158; 
 Mon. Germ. Hist., Leges, ed. Pertz, ii, p. 114. Cf. ibid., pp. 169, 
 173, 178. See also Constitutiones, ed. Weiland, i, pp. 248-9, 402-3, 
 4I5-)
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 209 
 
 designs against the person of the king. The plot was dis- 
 covered and Bernard took to flight. He was thereupon 
 convicted and disseized of his honours by judgment of the 
 king's feudatories : " Unde judicio suorum fidelium honores 
 quos ei [Bernardo] dederat rex recepit, et Rodberto fideli 
 suo donavit." 1 Observe that Bernard is stated to have been 
 judged by persons who are not styled Bernard's co-feuda- 
 tories but the king's feudatories. This case therefore indi- 
 cates a sovereign's practice rather than a subject's privilege. 
 
 There is a letter written by Eudo II, count of Chartres, to 
 Robert of France with reference to a judicial commission 
 entrusted to Richard duke of Normandy. The duke, writes 
 the count, had refused a demand of Robert to pronounce 
 judgment against the count involving confiscation, on this 
 ground: "nee sibi competere dicebat ut me ad talem judicium 
 exhiberet sine conventu parium suorum." 2 If the last word 
 had been " meorum," and not " suorum," this would have 
 been a definite assertion of the privilege of judgment by 
 peers. The letter as it stands amounts to nothing of the 
 kind. 
 
 In England during the reign of William the Conqueror 
 we commonly find the magnates of the realm summoned to 
 the assistance of the king or his justiciars for the trial of 
 important cases ; but I venture to think that monarch would 
 have been mightily surprised if anyone had suggested that 
 their concurrence was necessary to the validity of his judg- 
 ments. According to Ordericus Vitalis it would seem that 
 Odo bishop of Bayeux was sentenced to imprisonment by 
 the Conqueror in person, the magnates present resolutely 
 declining to take any part in the proceedings. It was on 
 this occasion that Odo made his famous protest, and William 
 his no less famous retort. " I am a clerk and God's min- 
 ister ! " exclaimed the prelate ; " it is not lawful to condemn 
 
 1 Annales de S. Berlin, Soc. de 1'Hist. de France, p. 138. The 
 case of Pepin, traitor and apostate, was disposed of in the same 
 " Placitum " : primum a regni primoribus . . . et demum generaliter 
 ab omnibus ad mortem dijudicatur. (Ibid., p. 137.) 
 
 2 Bouquet, H. F., vol. x, pp. 501-2 ; Revue Historique, t. 54, 
 P- 37-
 
 210 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 a bishop without the judgment of the pope." And to this 
 came the reply, " I condemn not the clerk, but my earl." l 
 
 In the reign of William Rufus, bishop William of St. 
 Carilef was accused of treason. The bishop offered to purge 
 himself as a bishop ; the king insisted on compurgation 
 laicaliter. Neither would give way. Eventually the prelate 
 was brought before the king's court consisting of the king, 
 archbishops, bishops, earls, barons and others. Various pre- 
 liminary points were decided against the prelate, who there- 
 upon alleged an appeal to the pope. And when the bishop 
 withdrew from the court, and on being summoned returned, 
 Hugh de Beaumont rose and addressed the prelate : " My 
 lord bishop, the court of the king and these barons justly 
 adjudge that you forfeit your fief on the ground that you 
 decline to reply to these matters concerning which the king 
 by me has appealed you, but invite him to submit his suit 
 to the decision of Rome." The bishop replied : " In every 
 place where not violence but justice holds sway I am ready 
 to prove my innocence of crime and perjury ; and this, which 
 you have here recited by way of judgment, I will demonstrate 
 in the Roman Church to have been falsely and unjustly pro- 
 nounced." To this Hugh rejoined : " I and my compeers are 
 ready to confirm our judgment in this court." 2 
 
 1 ". . . et frater meus, cui totius regni tutelam commendavi, 
 violenter opes diripuit, crudeliter pauperes oppressit, frivola spe 
 milites mihi surripuit, totumque regnum injustis exactionibus con- 
 cutiens exagitavit. Quid inde agendum sit caute considerate, et 
 mihi, quaeso, insinuate." 
 
 Cumque omnes tantum virum timerent, et sententiam in ilium 
 proferre dubitarent, magnanimus rex ait : " Noxia temeritas semper 
 comprimenda est, nee uni ad detrimentum reipublicae pro aliquo 
 favore parcendum est. Hunc ergo virum, qui terram turbat com- 
 prehendite, et, ne in deterius praevaleat, solerter custodite." 
 Cumque nullus in episcopum auderet injicere manum, rex ipse 
 primus apprehendit eum. Illo autem reclamante : " Clericus sum, 
 et minister domini ; non licet pontificem damnare sine judicio 
 papae " ; providus rex ait : " Ego non clericum nee antistitem 
 damno, sed comitem meum. . . ." (Ordericus Vitalis, vol. iii, p. 191; 
 see also Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica, p. 291, App. B.) 
 
 2 Cumque episcopus egrederetur et vocatus regrederetur, Hugo 
 de Bellomonte surgens dixit episcopo, "Domine episcope regis 
 curia et barones isti vobis pro justo judicant, quando sibi vos
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 211 
 
 The expression " peer " and " baron," it will be observed, 
 are treated as synonymous ; and here again the presence 
 of the peers is not referred to as a privilege enjoyed by the 
 accused, for the words used are "compares mei" and not 
 " compares tui." 
 
 We need not pursue this line of inquiry any further. Such 
 evidence as exists all points in the same direction, and we 
 must conclude that, up to about the end of the twelfth or 
 the beginning of the thirteenth century, the principle of 
 judgment by peers for the protection of the subject in the 
 king's court existed, if at all, only in the background of 
 practical politics. No urgent need to evoke the principle 
 had arisen : there was no apparent reason why the need ever 
 should arise ; the king habitually summoned the barons of 
 his court, and summoned them for his own assistance ; more 
 than this, it was the king who was always insisting, the barons 
 who were always reluctant to fulfil an irksome obligation. 1 
 
 Between principle number one and the regular crown 
 procedure there was no likelihood of conflict ; it was quite 
 otherwise with principle number two. The prudent king 
 probably took care to include among the members of his 
 court some persons of rank not inferior to the litigants ; but 
 there is no evidence earlier than the thirteenth century to 
 
 respondere non vultis de hiis de quibus vos per me appellavit, sed 
 de placito suo invitatis eum Romam, quod vos fedum vestrum inde 
 forisfacitis " ; et episcopus respondit ; " in omni loco in quo non 
 violentia sed justicia dominetur, de scelere et perjurio me purgare 
 paratus sum; et hoc, quod hie pro judicio recitasti, in Romana 
 ecclesia falsum et injuste dictum esse monstrabo." " Ego," inquit 
 Hugo, "et compares mei parati sumus judicium nostrum in hac 
 curia confirmare." (Ex Bibl. Bodl. MS., Fairfax ; printed in full in 
 Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. i, pp. 244-50 ; see also Bigelow, op. 
 cit., App. D., p. 307.) 
 
 1 Chapter xi of the Constitutions of Clarendon declares that : 
 Archiepiscopi, episcopi, et [sicut] universe persone regni qui de 
 rege tenent in capite, habent possessiones suas de domino rege 
 sicut baroniam, et inde respondent justiciis et ministris regis, et 
 sequuntur et faciunt omnes rectitudines et consuetudines regias, 
 et sicut barones ceteri debent interesse judiciis curie domini regis 
 cum baronibus usque dum perveniatur in judicio ad diminutionem 
 membrorum vel mortem.
 
 212 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 show that, either in France or England, the king was under 
 any obligation to include persons of equal rank or to exclude 
 persons of inferior rank. Some limits, however, to this latitude 
 can be traced. 
 
 In a treaty of alliance made in 1109 between Henry 
 the First and Robert of Flanders the following passage 
 occurs : 
 
 Ipse comes illuc ibit et regem Henricum per fidem juvabit . . . 
 nee dimittet quin eat, donee rex Franciae judicari faciat comiti 
 Rotberto, quod non debeat juvare dominum et amicum suum 
 regem Angliae cujus feodum tenet : et hoc per pares suos qui eum 
 jure judicare debent. 1 
 
 And in a treaty of 1163, to which Henry the Second and 
 Thierry count of Flanders were parties, almost identical 
 words are used. 2 Now the count of Flanders was recognised 
 in the thirteenth century as par Francie, his only peers were 
 the other members constituting the famous college of twelve. 
 
 o o 
 
 What, then, was count Thierry claiming in 1163? Was he 
 claiming to be peer of France and privileged accordingly? 
 Was he asserting principle number two? There is very 
 little ground for supposing that he was asserting anything 
 more than principle number one. 3 
 
 By virtue of the treaty of 1185 Flanders ceded the Amienois 
 to Philip Augustus, a transfer of territory which converted 
 many of the count's liegemen into vassals of France. One 
 of these persons, who had no love for his quondam lord, took 
 occasion to say to the count : " Domine comes, hactenus 
 
 1 Rymer, Foedera R.C., i, p. 7. Compare the claim of the duke 
 of Aquitaine in 1128: si sic judicaverint regni optimates, fiat, sin 
 aliter, sicut. (Suger, Louis le Gros, ed. 1887, p. no.) 
 
 - Rymer, Foedera R.C., i, p. 22. 
 
 3 In 1153 the court of Louis the Seventh tried the celebrated 
 suit between the bishop of Langres and the duke of Burgundy 
 congregatis multis archiepiscopis, episcopis atque baronibus. The 
 names of the persons present are given. According to thirteenth- 
 century ideas the two litigant feudatories were peers of France, 
 but there was no peer of France among the judges. The case is 
 printed by Langlois, Textes relatifs PHist. du Parlement, no. n, 
 pp. 18-21.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 213 
 
 homo vester fui, nunc autem, Deo volente, par vobis factus 
 sum, et vobiscum in curia domini regis habeo judicare." 1 
 
 The reign of Stephen caused a break in the continuity of 
 England's constitutional development. If Henry's demise 
 had been followed by a strong but lawless despotism (take 
 Montfort's administration of Gascony as a type) the privilege 
 under discussion might conceivably have become the war-cry 
 of a baronial reform party : the anarchy which in fact super- 
 vened necessarily had a contrary result ; the authority of the 
 king's court as such waned and vanished, while ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction flourished like a green bay tree. 2 The first 
 business of Henry fitz-Empress was to restore the power and 
 prestige of the curia regis, and clip the claws of the church ; 
 and the only means by which he could hope to effect this 
 object was by adopting the policy indicated in the Constitu- 
 tions of Clarendon, 3 a policy which quite overshadowed the 
 
 1 Gislebert de Mons, Chronicon Hanoniense, ed. Vanderkindere, 
 p. 185- 
 
 2 Note, for example, the trial of the earl of Hereford for unlaw- 
 fully imprisoning and putting to ransom certain knights, and for 
 sacrilege. There appears to have been no evidence of sacrilege. 
 He was tried by the archdeacon of Worcester, on the complaint of 
 Gilbert de Lacy and R. de Worcester, and acquitted. The bishop 
 of Hereford who wished to try the case himself was much disgusted 
 and obtained an order from the king to re-try it. The earl pleaded 
 res judicata and appealed to the papal legate. The bishop there- 
 upon sent his version of the affair to the legate : the earl, he thought, 
 ought to be condemned, he had done the same sort of thing before, 
 he was very friendly with William de Beauchamp who was excom- 
 municate, things had been told about him in the confessional. (See 
 Letters of Gilbert Foliot, ed. Giles, vol. i, pp. 171, 175-8, 181, 
 186-8.) 
 
 3 De caetero magno frequentique commonemur imperio duci 
 Normannorum assistere et sibi placitis obtemperare. (Letters of 
 Gilbert Foliot, ed. Giles, vol. i, p. 189.) 
 
 Sic igitur ecclesiae geminata potestas est ut hinc Regi caelesti 
 serviat, hinc terreno principi quod ad eos spectat exhibeat ; ejusque 
 ministros efficit potestas, hinc a Deo collata pontifices, hinc a rege 
 suscepta comites aut barones. Potestas haec est, qua magnum in 
 palatio obtinet ecclesia principatum, cum in omnibus regni judiciis, 
 praeterquam si de vitae periculo tractetur aut sanguine, locum 
 habeat ipsa praecipuum : haec regi nos obligat, ut affirmant, ut ab 
 ipso citati debeamus assistere, et singulorum causas universi discu-
 
 2i 4 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 converse traditional privilege. 1 However, the complete success 
 of Henry's efforts soon left him free to pursue whatever 
 policy he pleased. 
 
 On the main outlines of Plantagenet jurisprudence the 
 treatise of a Norman law-writer compiled at the close of the 
 twelfth century is no mean authority. " Assisie vero tenentur 
 per barones et legales homines. Par per parem judicari 
 debet : barones igitur et milites, legis statuta scientes et Deum 
 timentes, possunt judicare unus alium, et subditum eis popu- 
 lum ; rustico enim non licet, vel aliis de populo, militem vel 
 clericum judicare." 2 According to modern ideas judgment by 
 
 tere et judicare. Nam qui in his quae ad Deum sunt gradu quodam 
 distinguimur, ut superiores quidam inferiores alii reputemur et simus, 
 nos in hoc pares aestimant, ut si de fundis ad ecclesiam libertate 
 regia devolutis, inter nos aut in nos fuerit oborta contentio, apud 
 regem quae spectant ad singulos universorum definiat pronuntiatio. 
 (Ibid., pp. 277-8.) 
 
 Mandatum domini papae suscepimus, quatinus Hugonem comitem 
 de Norfolchia districte conveniremus, et nisi canonicis de Panteneia 
 villam ipsam de Panteneia, et caetera quae sibi ablata queruntur, 
 admonitus restitueret, ipsum et totam terram suam interdicto subji- 
 ceremus, et nisi vel sic infra quadraginta dies resipisceret, eum 
 excommunicationis innodare sententia non differemus. In hoc vero 
 nobis regia se graviter opponit auctoritas, asserens ad summam 
 regni sui spectare dignitatem, ut dum cuique adversus comitem vel 
 baronem suum super terris aut feudis querelam habenti, plenam 
 paratus fuerit exhibere justiciam, ipsum nee archiepiscopus, nee 
 aliquis regni sui episcopus aut interdicto premat, aut excommuni- 
 cationi subjiciat. (Ibid., p. 244.) 
 
 1 To the church I apologise, for I write as a layman. The follow- 
 ing letter from the pope to Becket is, I suppose, sufficient to convict 
 me of a canonical error. 
 
 Quod minor majorem judicare non possit, et eum praesertim cui 
 jure noscitur praelationis subesse, et obedientiae vinculo tenetur 
 astrictus, tarn Divinae quam humanae leges demonstrant, et praeci- 
 pue sanctorum patrum statutis id manifestius declaratur. Haec 
 siquidem nos, quorum interest errata corrigere. . . , sententiam ab 
 % episcopis et baronibus Angliae, quoniam ad primam regis citationem 
 
 tui copiam non fecisti, adversum te praesumptuose prolatam, in qua 
 tibi jam dicti episcopi et barones omnia mobilia tua tarn contra 
 juris formam quam contra ecclesiasticam consuetudinem abjudica- 
 runt, (Praesertim cum nulla mobilia praeterquam de bonis ecclesiae 
 tuae habueris) irritam penitus esse censemus, et earn apostolica 
 auctoritate quassamus. (Materials, vol. v, p. 178.) 
 
 2 Coutumiers de Normandie, ed. Tardif, p. 24.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 215 
 
 peers thus defined amounts to very little, but this is not in 
 the least an exceptional instance. Compare, for example, the 
 following passage : " Tous ceaus qui sont de la haute cour, 
 chevaliers homes liges dou roy, sont pers, qui que il soient, 
 hauz ou has, povres ou riches . . . , et porte au tel force le dit 
 des uns come des autres." l 
 
 As a principle of practical importance for the protection of 
 the subject, judgment by peers received a momentous recog- 
 nition in England by being introduced into the Great Charter 
 of John in language remarkable for its ambiguity. The fore- 
 most provision on the subject is of course the following : 
 
 Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur aut dissaisiatur aut 
 utlagetur aut exuletur aut aliquo modo destruatur nee super eum 
 ibimus nee super eum mittemus nisi per legale judicium parium 
 suorum vel per legem terre. 2 
 
 The other clauses in John's charter which make reference 
 to a judicium parium were mostly ephemeral, and did not 
 finally become part of the statute law. These, however, will 
 have to be considered, for without their assistance it would 
 be impossible to arrive at the true meaning of the clause in 
 question. It is an elementary rule for ascertaining the right 
 construction of a written instrument that such instrument 
 must be construed as a whole, and there is nothing in the case 
 of the Great Charter to make it an exception to the rule. 
 
 No portion of this famous document can possibly be 
 described as a good piece of drafting; but it seems that 
 centuries of familiarity with and reverence for this corner- 
 stone of English liberties has, until quite recently, disarmed 
 hostile criticism. From the language of Coke in his Second 
 Institute we might conclude that the whole common law of 
 his day was merely an inadequate commentary on this stu- 
 pendous achievement. The charter, in truth, was the golden 
 idol which had brought the English out of bondage, and it is 
 not till our own time that iconoclasts appear on the scene. 
 Of legal and historical exegesis there has been an abundance 
 
 1 Assises de Jerusalem, ed. Beugnot, vol. i, p. 448; see ibid., 
 p. 458; compare Beaumanoir, Coutumes du Beauvoisis, Soc. de 
 1'Hist. de France, vol. i, p. 29 ; etc. 2 Magna Carta, cap. 39.
 
 216 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 during the last few years. Many erroneous interpretations 
 have been exposed and discarded, and the leading modern 
 authorities have ultimately arrived at contradictory and wholly 
 inconclusive conclusions. 
 
 Until comparatively recently historians accepted the popular 
 view that chapter xxxix of the Charter as the provision we are 
 principally concerned with has since been called l pointed 
 to that cherished privilege of Englishmen, trial by jury in 
 criminal cases. 2 This myth has been successfully assailed. 
 The negative results of the higher criticism of this chapter 
 have been excellent, but the positive results have been sin- 
 gularly meagre and disappointing ; in fact, latter-day views 
 may be very briefly summed up and contrasted. Thus one 
 writer observes : 3 
 
 It is often asserted, and still more often assumed that the judg- 
 ment of a man's peers, in the case of a person of lower estate than 
 that of a peer of the realm, must have been, in some way, the 
 equivalent of trial by jury. It is absolutely impossible, for two 
 distinct reasons, that the words can have had any such sense. In 
 criminal cases trial by jury had not even been instituted, and the 
 only modes of trial were by ordeal, by compurgation and by battle. 
 From the time when trial by jury first commenced, either in civil or 
 in criminal cases, to this present end of the nineteenth century, no 
 jury ever did or could give judgment on any matter whatsoever. . . . 
 
 King John bound himself in such a manner as to show that 
 "judgment of peers" was one thing, the "law of the land" another. 
 . . . The "law of the land" included all legal proceedings, criminal 
 or civil, other than the judgment of peers. The judgment of peers 
 had reference chiefly to the right of land-holders to their lands, or 
 to some matters connected with feudal tenure and its incidents. . . . 
 It can hardly be doubted that when judgment by peers was men- 
 tioned in the charter the earls and barons interpreted it to mean that 
 in cases of alleged treason and felony, when forfeiture or escheat was 
 involved, they should be judged only by earls and barons. 
 
 1 The division of the Charter into chapters is a modern device to 
 facilitate reference. 
 
 2 See Pollock and Maitland, Hist, of Eng. Law, vol. ii, p. 625 n., 
 for the early history of the myth, which still flourishes in elementary 
 books of reference and other popular works. 
 
 3 Pike, Constitutional History of the House of Lords, p. 1 69.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 217 
 
 Another writer discusses the clause as follows : l 
 
 In passing, a commentator should observe that in mediaeval Latin 
 "vel" will often stand for "and." . . . The wording of the charter 
 leaves open the question whether a man can ever be imprisoned or 
 disseised by the law of the land without having had the judgment 
 of his peers. In the second place it is now generally admitted that 
 the phrase judicium parium does not point to trial by jury. For 
 a legal instrument to call the verdict of recognitors a judgment 
 would have been as gross a blunder 2 in 1215 as it would be at the 
 present time. . . . Thirdly there can hardly be a doubt that this 
 clause expresses a claim by the barons for a tribunal of men of 
 baronial rank which shall try even the civil causes in which barons 
 are concerned. 
 
 The historian of the criminal law, well qualified by training 
 if not by research to discuss the Charter, makes the following 
 remarks : 3 
 
 The famous passage in Magna Charta about the " legale judicium 
 parium suorum " appears to me to refer to the trial of peers in the 
 king's court rather than to trial by jury. The 2ist Article of Magna 
 Charta has a similar expression : " Comites et barones non amercien- 
 tur nisi per pares suos et non nisi secundum modum delicti." I do 
 not think the expression "trial by jury" would have been used 
 or would have been intelligible in King John's time. It would 
 have been described rather as the taking of an inquisition by an 
 assize or by lawful men, and is I think referred to by the words 
 "vel per legem terrae." These would include not only inquests 
 taken by jurors on the execution of commissions of eyre, gaol delivery, 
 and oyer and terminer, but also trials by combat or by ordeal, each 
 of which was part of the lex terrae at the date of Magna Charta. 
 In short I should be inclined to construe " nullus liber homo " dis- 
 tributively " no freeman shall be taken, &c., except (if he is one of 
 the vassals of the king's court) by the lawful judgment of his peers, 
 or (if he is not such a vassal) by the law of the land, in the ordinary 
 course of justice." 
 
 1 Pollock and Maitland, Hist, of Eng. Law, vol. i, p. 173 n. 
 
 2 Trial by jury took the place of the ordeals in criminal cases. 
 Ordeal was habitually described as a judgment. The jury are 
 habitually said to be judges of fact. 
 
 3 Stephen, Hist, of the Criminal Law of England, vol. i, p. 162.
 
 218 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 The most recent commentator 1 seems to have committed 
 himself to the interpretation that chapter xxxix secures to 
 every freeman both a lawful trial and a lawful judgment by 
 his equals ; that is to say, lex terre is used in a more or less 
 technical sense, and "vel" must be construed "and." He 
 rejects the antithesis between "judicium parium" and "lex 
 terre " drawn by one of the writers quoted above " because 
 the two things may be and indeed must be combined. The 
 trial by a law and the judgment by equals were complemen- 
 tary of each other. The peers appointed the test and decided 
 whether it had been properly fulfilled." 2 
 
 The above passages have been cited, partly to contrast the 
 opinions of modern writers and show that, while they may be 
 agreed as to what the famous clause does not mean, they 
 differ essentially as to what it does mean ; but also because 
 the authority of most of the writers is such that their views 
 cannot be passed over in silence. I do not, however, propose 
 to discuss these views, the problem must be considered en- 
 tirely de novo. 
 
 A preliminary word about current translations is desirable. 
 Chapter xxxix is commonly rendered into English as 
 follows : 
 
 No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseized or out- 
 lawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him 
 nor will we send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his 
 peers or by the law of the land. 
 
 Many have strained at the words " go " and " send " ; few 
 
 1 McKechnie, Magna Carta. 
 
 Ibid., p. 443 n. ; see generally under chap, xxxix, and pp. 443-4. 
 I wonder what John would have thought of this theory ? Over and 
 over again in his charters he refers to the test or trial as a judgment. 
 Cum judicio ferri, aque, ignis et duelli (Rot. Cart. R.C., p. 81 ; 
 see ibid., pp. 71, 79, et passim). On the other hand, there are 
 scores of charters of John containing passages identical with or 
 similar to the following : et quod nullus de misercordia pecunie 
 judicetur nisi secundum antiquam legem burgi (Charter to Cam- 
 bridge) ; or nisi secundum legem hundredi (Charter to Dublin) ; 
 or nisi secundum legem liberorum burgorum nostrorum (Charter 
 to Ipswich).
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 219 
 
 have failed to swallow the word "destroyed." 1 Several of 
 the words are certainly uncouth and the general effect crude, 
 but in every instance those who have strayed from a literal 
 rendering in search of more polished language have griev- 
 ously blundered. Interpretation under the guise of transla- 
 tion is in this case an inevitable snare. The only admissible 
 translation (if any) is the one I have given. 
 
 Now if we desire to discover in what cases it was intended 
 by those who drafted the Charter that a man must be tried 
 by his peers, or what else was intended, we are bound to 
 confine ourselves as strictly as possible to the information 
 afforded by the Charter itself; and we must be very cautious 
 about resorting to any extrinsic evidence, except for the 
 purpose of ascertaining the meaning of the terms employed. 
 
 There are several other clauses which refer to judgment 
 by peers and several which refer to the law of the land : 
 these certainly throw considerable light on the meaning of 
 chapter xxxix. Thus chapters Hi, Ivi, and Ivii 2 provide 
 for the restitution of lands disseised without lawful judgment 
 of peers by either king John, his father, or his brother. 
 Where Henry or Richard were the disseisors the right of 
 restitution is limited to lands which king John either retained 
 or was bound to warranty, but there is no express limitation 
 
 1 McKechnie gives the following translation (?) : " No freeman 
 shall be arrested, or detained in prison, or deprived of his freehold, 
 or outlawed, or banished, or in any way molested ; and we will not 
 set forth against him nor send against him, unless by the lawful 
 judgment of his peers and by the law of the land." 
 
 The Statutes Revised, i, p. 49, give the following translation of 
 the parallel passages in the confirmation of 1297: "No freeman 
 shall be taken or imprisoned or be disseised ... or be outlawed 
 or exiled or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon 
 him nor condemn him ([alternatively] deal with him) but by lawful 
 judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." 
 
 Pike, Constitutional Hist, of the House of Lords, translates the 
 clause : " No freeman is to be taken, or imprisoned, or disseised, or 
 outlawed, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him, 
 or direct proceeding against him, except in accordance with the 
 judgment of his peers, or in accordance with the law of the land." 
 The words "aut exuletur" are, perhaps merely through inadvert- 
 ence, passed over altogether. 
 
 2 See Appendix.
 
 220 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 in cases where John himself was the disseizor : this, however, 
 is a minor point. The chief circumstance to notice is that 
 lawful judgment of peers is the only process recognised by 
 these clauses in cases of disseizin ; there is no mention so far 
 of the law of the land, either as an alternative or as a con- 
 comitant process. But the same clauses further provide for 
 the settlement of disputed claims to restitution : claims 
 against John are to be decided by the twenty-five barons ; 
 Welsh claims against him are to be determined in the 
 Marches by judgment of peers according to the laws of 
 England, the Marches or Wales as the case might be ; with 
 regard, however, to claims against John's predecessors, the 
 king is to do full justice, and to the Welsh full justice accord- 
 ing to their laws. A bad piece of work this. If the injustice 
 is correctly stated, the appropriate and sufficient remedy was, 
 in each case, lawful judgment of peers. Either one of the 
 remedies is plainly inappropriate, or "justice according to the 
 laws of the Welsh " connotes, in the case of disseized Welsh- 
 men, the same thing as " lawful judgment of peers." 1 
 
 On the other hand, chapters Ivi and lix 2 also prove that, 
 whatever judgment of peers may mean, it does not mean 
 judgment by equals in rank. If king John had been dis- 
 seized without lawful judgment of peers by the Welsh, they 
 were to make restitution ; also justice was to be done to the 
 king of Scots in John's court by the judgment of his peers. 
 At this rate why should not a knight, provided he was a 
 tenant-in-capite, be the peer of any mere earl or baron ? 
 
 A reference to chapter ix of the Charter still further warns 
 us against allowing judgment of peers any very technical 
 meaning, for that chapter fully recognises the right of the 
 king or his bailiffs to disseize a debtor of his lands when his 
 chattels are insufficient. It would be repugnant to the 
 Charter to suggest that the king's right to land properly 
 
 1 While the Great Charter in chapter lii refers only to "judgment 
 of peers," and makes no mention of the "law of the land," other 
 charters do exactly the opposite. For example, the charter of 
 Henry II to London provides : De terris suis et tenuris quae infra 
 urbem sunt, rectum eis teneatur secundum legem civitatis. 
 
 2 Appendix.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 221 
 
 seized for debt could be challenged under chapter Hi. There- 
 fore the ordinary procedure employed against debtors during 
 the reigns of Henry the Second, Richard and John satisfied 
 the requirements of a judicium parium. 
 
 If we refer to chapter xlii we see that imprisonment and 
 outlawry are effected by the " law of the land " : outlawry 
 entitled the king to seize the outlaw's property, and was by far 
 the commonest punishment inflicted in England for treason 
 and felony. Outlawry, moreover, was the antithesis of trial ; 
 and therefore this clause is fatal to the view that trial is meant 
 when the expression " the law of the land " is employed. 1 
 
 I express no opinion as to whether a man reduced to 
 penury by exorbitant amercements was destructus within the 
 meaning of that colloquial expression in chapter xxxix ; but 
 chapter xxi provides that earls and barons shall not be 
 amerced except by their peers (nisi per pares suos) and pro- 
 portionately to the offence. It is admitted that this chapter 
 introduced nothing new ; it merely confirmed a pre-existing 
 right. 2 Chapter Iv provides redress for past wrongful amerce- 
 
 1 Compare chapter xlii of the Charter with Bracton, fol. 1286: 
 utlagatus rite et secundum legem terre ; and Glanville, Lib. vii, cap. 
 17 : cum quis vero per legem terre fuerit utlagatus. See Appendix. 
 
 2 Stubbs says that " the judicium parium which is mentioned in 
 Magna Charta . . . covers all cases of amercement in the county, 
 the hundred and the manorial courts. . . ." (Const. His*., i, p. 664.) 
 The Great Charter, however, does not expressly allow the mere 
 freeman to be amerced by his peers. By chapter xx it is provided 
 that the freeman shall be amerced per sacramentum proborum 
 hominum de visneto; this is something substantially different to 
 amercement by the peers of the court, if we mean by peers the 
 persons having the judicium. The principle is no doubt extended 
 to manorial courts by chapter Ix, and was very widely adopted ; but 
 we find some exceptions to the rule. See, for example, Borough 
 Customs, Selden Soc., p. 241 : Et si quis gratis se ad illam inquisi- 
 tion em absentaverit, amercietur ad voluntatem ballivi et non per 
 pares suos. (Hereford, temp. Edward I (?) ) ; see ibid, p. 265 : Et si 
 faciant, pro perjuriis habeantur vel ad voluntatem ballivi amercientur 
 et non per pares suos. The rule appears in Glanville, Lib. ix, cap. xi. 
 
 For the practice of the crown with regard to amercements see 
 Rot. Cur. Reg., i, pp. 169-70; Select Pleas of the Crown, Selden 
 Soc., case 44 ; also appendix to chapter ix, infra. 
 
 In Normandy there was already, it would appear, a fixed scale 
 for amercements. Cap. Ivi of the Tres Ancien Coutumier provides :
 
 222 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 ments, but, exhibiting what we may describe under the cir- 
 cumstances as a very charming versatility of language, defines 
 such wrongful amercements as amerciamenta facto, injuste et 
 contra legem terre. 
 
 We may sum up this part of the argument by saying that 
 the Charter affords quite sufficient internal evidence to prove 
 that the framers used "lawful judgment of peers" and the 
 "law of the land" as to some extent convertible terms. In 
 fact, what the barons of England required of the king is fairly 
 adequately and very felicitously summed up in a passage of 
 Matthew Paris : [quod] omnes homines suos secundum justa 
 curiae suaejudiciajudicaret, quodque singulis redderetjura sua. 
 By " lex terre " they claimed "justa judicia," while by " legale 
 judicium parium suorum" they meant simply "justa /<##." 
 Excellent this for the layman, but not precise enough for the 
 lawyer. 
 
 If we now turn again to the Charter we shall find it throws 
 some further light on the requisites of a justum judicium. 
 Chapter xviii provides as follows : 
 
 Recognitiones de nova dissaisina, de morte antecessoris et de 
 ultima presentatione, non capiantur nisi in suis comitatibus et hoc 
 modo; nos, vel, si extra regnum fuerimus, capitalis justiciarius 
 noster, mittemus duos justiciaries per unumquemque comitatum 
 per quatuor vices in anno, qui cum quatuor militibus cujuslibet 
 comitatus electis per comitatum capiant in comitatu et in die et loco 
 comitatus assisas predictas. 1 
 
 (i) Barones jurati faciunt venire servientes de vicecomitatu et 
 quinque milites legaliores patrie, vel duodecim, vel viginti, juxta 
 magnitudinem baillie, ad cognoscendum sacramento catalla eorum, 
 qui in assisia ilia [in] misericordia ducis ceciderunt. (2) Si comes 
 vel baro vel archiepiscopus vel episcopus vel abbas, c. libras dabit ; 
 miles vero ad minus dabit xx vel *** ; rusticus vel alius de populo, 
 v. solidos vel nichil. (Coutumiers de Normandie, ed. Tardif, i, p. 45.) 
 
 Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium (Camden Soc.), p. 225, makes 
 the following assertion : Cum quis comes aut magnorum principum 
 ex judicio cadebat in regis ut dici solet misericordiam, multum erat 
 dare c. solidos, quos tamen infra triennium persolvebat, et de querelis 
 prius ortis pax in foro regio cuicunque sub misericordia constituto. 
 Walter Map wrote about 1180-90. 
 
 1 Compare cap. xxviii of the Tres Ancien Coutumier : Tres vel 
 quatuor milites, vel barones, electi sunt ad assisias tenendas ; . . . 
 (Coutumiers de Normandie, ed. Tardif, i, p. 25).
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 223 
 
 And chapter xix provides : 
 
 Et si in die comitatus assise predicte capi non possint, tot milites 
 et libere tenentes remaneant de illis qui interfuerint comitatui die 
 illo, per quos possint judicia sufficienter fieri, secundum quod 
 negocium fuerit majus vel minus. 
 
 Two justices and four knights of the shire are to take 
 these assizes ; that is to say, they are to constitute the bench. 
 For the days when the county is in session no further pro- 
 vision is made ; but for subsequent days so many knights 
 and freeholders must remain per quos possint judicia suffi- 
 cienter fieri. The intent of chapter xix is obvious ; its 
 object is to provide for the presence of recognitors : their 
 verdict and the consequent sentence together form the 
 essential requirements of a judgment within the meaning 
 of this chapter. 
 
 An assize taken in accordance with chapters xviii and xix 
 must, for the reasons given above, be treated as satisfying 
 the requirements of a judicium parium ; therefore, for the 
 purposes of these assizes, justices and knights were the peers 
 of any man. 
 
 The position of the recognitors at the assizes is not 
 sufficiently defined by the Charter to justify a conclusion 
 either for or against the view that recognitors were regarded 
 as quasi-judges and might be challenged by a litigant if they 
 were not his peers. Not many years later the question 
 became an important one, and a more or less affirmative 
 conclusion was arrived at. 
 
 Next to the meaning of a judicium parium the most con- 
 troverted question relating to the construction of the Charter 
 arises from the use of the word " vel " in chapter xxxix. I 
 have shown that the Charter treats judgment of peers and 
 the law of the land as to a great extent convertible terms. A 
 large area was covered by both, but their boundaries were by 
 no means quite conterminous. There is not the smallest 
 doubt that prior to the Charter (and subsequently) judgment 
 was not a condition precedent to the arrest and imprisonment 
 of a felon caught flagrante delicto ; on the contrary, the law 
 of the land, no less than the most elementary principles of
 
 224 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 public safety, required that such persons should be instantly 
 captured and secured. The law of the land, in other words, 
 overlapped judgment of peers ; and the converse proposition 
 is equally true. It is perhaps problematical whether exile 
 was a punishment which the law of the land was, competent 
 to inflict ; 1 but the phrase " super eum ire " had especial 
 reference to proceedings vi et armis 2 which were plainly 
 extra-judicial. The question consequently arises : Did the 
 famous clause xxxix intend to alter this and impose a double 
 test ; to insist upon a judicium parium for everything therein 
 specified, to prohibit everything outside the scope of the law 
 of the land ? Or to state the case more concisely, must we 
 change " vel " into " et " ? 
 
 With extraordinarily misplaced zeal various commentators 
 have set themselves to show that the word " vel " is not 
 invariably used as a disjunctive, " in mediaeval Latin ' vel ' 
 will often stand for ' and.' " To the lawyer, as distinguished 
 from the theorist, such an argument seems the acme of 
 absurdity, it is a violation of the most elementary principles. 
 It is a fact, and I should imagine it is also common know- 
 ledge, that in modern English "or" will often stand for 
 "and"; 3 this particular blunder is by no means confined to 
 the mediaeval Latin writer. But whosoever asserts that such 
 a blunder has been made in any particular instrument must 
 
 1 In Pollock and Maitland the following statement is made 
 (vol. ii, p. 518) : "True exile is unknown, but the criminal who has 
 taken sanctuary abjures the realm, and occasionally, by way of grace, 
 other criminals are allowed to do the like." " Bracton, fol. 136, 4," 
 they add in a note, "speaks in romanesque terms of exile." Perhaps, 
 but so does the Chancery of John. See appendix. 
 
 2 See appendix. 
 
 3 " You will find it said in some cases that ' or ' means ' and ' ; 
 but 'or' never does mean 'and.' There may be a context which 
 shows that ' or ' is used for ' and ' by mistake. Suppose a man said : 
 ' I give the black cow, on which I usually ride, to A. B.' ; and he 
 rode a black horse. Of course the horse would pass, but I do not 
 think even a modern annotator of cases would put in the marginal 
 note ' cow ' means ' horse.' You correct the wrong word by the 
 context " (per Jessel, M.R. in Morgan v. Thomas 5 1 L.J., Q.B.,p. 557). 
 See also Stroud, Judicial Diet., s.v., "Or read as And"; and 
 Theobald on Wills, 6th ed., pp. 400, 674-6.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 225 
 
 prove it from the instrument itself. The Great Charter 
 affords no justification for doing violence to the natural 
 meaning of chapter xxxix, quite the reverse, for the suggested 
 construction involves at least one gross absurdity, namely, 
 that a judgment of peers must always precede arrest. Under 
 these circumstances we are forced to allow that this chapter 
 means what it says ; it requires compliance either with one 
 condition or the other, lawful judgment of peers or the law of 
 the land, not both. 
 
 To complete our evidence as to the meaning of the terms 
 judicium parium and lex terre we may and must have recourse 
 to extrinsic evidence. The term peer was at this period a 
 very common word used to describe many different things : it 
 was by no means a technical word. This fact is important, 
 it makes a wide and not a restricted interpretation the more 
 probable. Those meanings of the word which have obviously 
 no possible connection with judicature we need not deal 
 with; 1 but, having excluded these, the rest must be closely 
 examined. 
 
 The word peer was still primarily used to designate co- 
 vassalship pure and simple without restriction as to rank or 
 condition. 2 Even the villein who purchased land was said by 
 one writer to have for his peers the other tenants of the lord 
 of his fee : " Nus ne doit douter se li hons de poeste tient fief 
 de son droit, et aucuns plede a li de ce que au fief apartient, 
 que il ne doie estre demesne par ses pers, aussi comme s'il 
 estoit gentix hons." 3 Conversely we find negative definitions 
 excluding the lord. 4 The Grand Coutumier de Normandie 
 gives the following : " Pares enim sunt cum unus alii non 
 subditur homagio, dominatione vel antenatione." 5 
 
 1 Glanville, perhaps, ought not to be passed over. Omnes filie 
 erunt pares ad hereditatem patris. (Lib. vii, cap. 3.) Quia dominus 
 rex nullum habere potest parem, multo minus superiorem . . . (Lib. 
 vii, cap. 10.) 
 
 2 See Libri Feudorum, Antiqua, ed. Lehmann, passim ; Assises 
 de Jerusalem, i, passim ; Beaumanoir, Coutumes des Beauvoisis, 
 passim; Pierre de Fontaines, ed. Marnier, pp. 228-9, 2 34~6, 254. 
 
 3 Beaumanoir, Coutumes des Beauvoisis, xlviii, n. 
 
 4 Ibid., i, 15. 
 
 5 Tardif, p. 328. Compare, however, ibid., p. 202, cap. Ixxxv, s. 5 : 
 
 Q
 
 226 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 In a large number of communities and at many feudal 
 courts the word peer was becoming a title of office or honour, 
 conferred upon a select body of burghers who exercised 
 certain civil and criminal jurisdictions, or upon a few of the 
 chief vassals of a particular county or district. 1 In 1216 we 
 
 . . . versus autem dominum sexta manu in curia domini sui ; si 
 autem in curia domini superioris placitaverit, se tercia manu disrais- 
 niabit versus dominum, et dominus versus hominem suum simili 
 modo; in curia enim domini superioris placitando sunt quasi 
 pares. 
 
 1 In 1145 we hear of the twelve peers of Valenciennes; Cluny, 
 Recueil des Chartes de 1'Abbaye de Cluny, Doc. Ined., vol. v, 
 p. 449, no. 4099. The peers of Lille are mentioned in 1173: et 
 precipue militum ejusdem loci qui pares dicuntur. . . . (Cartulaire 
 de S. Pierre de Lille, i, pp. 41-2, no. 33.) See Borough Customs, 
 Selden Soc., p. 167 : Burgensis si de pari sacramentum acceperit, 
 nisi de debito in forisfacto erit ; si de altero quam pari quietus erit. 
 (A.D. 1194, Pontefract, cap. xviii.) See ibid., p. 172 : Item si aliquis 
 burgensis queritur de aliqua re et alius adversus eum negaverit, et 
 querens per judicium nominabit duos testes et ex illis habebit unum 
 ad diem et ad terminum, et ipse potest habere quemcunque legalem 
 hominem testem et alium burgensem ad legem ponere ; defensor 
 autem contra burgensem ad jusjurandum ponetur tercia manu per 
 pares suos. (Preston, cap. viii, twelfth century.) Compare ibid., pp. 
 140, 181, 188, 241, 265. For the twelve peers of Flanders, see 
 Hist, des Comtes de Guines, in Mon. Germ. Hist., Scriptores 24 ; 
 and Bibl. de 1'Ecole des Chartes, t. 60, p. 83, n. 4. A charter of 
 the countess Eleanor, circa 1184, and a royal charter dated 1195, 
 confirming the former, contain the subjoined reference to the peers 
 of Vermandois : Cum primum communia acquisita fuit omnes 
 Viromandie pares qui tune temporis majores habebantur et omnes 
 clerici, salvo ordine suo, omnesque milites, salva fidelitate comitis, 
 firmiter tenendam juraverunt. (Livre Rouge de S. Quentin, Bouchot 
 et Lemaire, p. 320; Ordon. des Rois de Fr., xi, p. 270.) The com- 
 mune of Rouen was regulated by a charter of John : De centum 
 vero paribus eligentur viginti quatuor assensu centum parium, qui 
 singulis annis removebuntur ; quorum duodecim eschevini voca- 
 buntur, et alii duodecim consultores. Isti viginti quatuor, in prin- 
 cipio sui anni jurabunt se servaturos jura sancte ecclesie et 
 fidelitatem domini regis atque justiciam, quod et ipsi recte judica- 
 bunt secundum suam conscienciam. . . . (Giry, Les Etablisse- 
 ments de Rouen, App. s. 2. Cf. ibid., s. 14 and s. 22.) For the 
 expression "peers and other nobles" see Gislebert de Mons (ed. 
 1904), p. 119: Quid autem faciendum inde esset, dominus comes 
 [Hanoniensis] fidelium suorum, Jacobi [de Avethnis] scilicet, parium 
 et aliorum nobilium, judicio commisit. (A.D. 1175.)
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 227 
 
 are introduced to that notable college of eminent feudatories, 
 the [12] peers of France. 1 
 
 Peer and baron very commonly, and peer and justice or 
 baron and justice occasionally are treated as synonymous 
 terms. About the year 1170 the following statement is 
 made in a charter of Philip of Flanders and Vermandois : 
 " Rorgo Radulfum adduxit, qui nullam ei guarandiam tulit, 
 nee judicium curie et parium suorum Viromandensium super 
 hoc volens audire absque licentia de curia recessit ; Rorgo 
 autem, taliter a suo domino derelictus, judicio baronum Viro- 
 mandensium qui astabant, quia guarantiam sicut debuerat 
 non habuit, michi adjudicatus est" 2 Instances of this kind are 
 numerous ; they illustrate the two points of view ; the vassal 
 speaks of his peers, the lord of his .barons. 3 That peer and 
 justice or baron and justice should sometimes be treated as 
 convertible terms is merely a further development of this 
 
 1 Layettes du Tresor des Chartes, i, pp. 431-2, no. 1182. Only 
 six persons are styled peers of France in this document. (See 
 further on this subject infra chap, viii.) 
 
 2 Extract from the Cartulaire Noir de Corbie, Bibl. de 1'Ecole des 
 Chartes, t. 60, p. 82. 
 
 3 Thus Louis VIII in 1225 : De quibus et aliis feodis de regno 
 Francorum moventibus fuit abjudicatus Johannes quondam rex 
 Anglic, per judicium parium suorum Francie, baronum nostrorum. 
 (Annales Ecclesiastici, t. 20, p. 482.) Thus Louis's ambassadors 
 to Rome in 1216: " Consuetude est in regno Francorum quod rex 
 habet omnimodam jurisdictionem in homines suos ligios ; et rex 
 Angliae erat suus homo ligius, tanquam comes et dux ; ergo licet 
 esset alias rex inunctus, tamen tanquam comes et dux erat de juris- 
 dictione domini regis Francorum. Sed si comes et dux in regno 
 Francorum delinqueret, posset et deberet judicari ad mortem per 
 pares suos. Immo si non esset dux vel comes vel homo ligius regis 
 Franciae, et deliquisset in regno Franciae, ratione delicti in regno 
 perpetrati, potuerunt barones eum judicare ad mortem. . . ." 
 (Matthew Paris, ii, p. 657.) Compare the case of bishop William 
 of St. Carilef, supra, p. 210. Duodecim pares vel barones castro 
 Ardee appenditios instituit. (Hist, des Comtes de Guines in Mon. 
 Germ. Hist., Scriptores, 24, p. 614.) Ut hereditario jure cum duo- 
 decim Flandrensis curie paribus et baronibus sedeat et judicet. . . . 
 (Ibid., p. 619.) See also Delisle, Catal. des Actes de Philippe 
 Auguste, no. 1739; and Langlois, Textes, p. 33; and generally Lot, 
 Revue Historique, t. 54, p. 36 ; and Guilhiermoz, Bibl. de 1'Ecole 
 des Chartes, t. 60, p. 81 n.
 
 228 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 dual aspect. A singular instance is furnished by one of John's 
 charters to the Jews: complaints by Christians against the 
 Jews were to be judged per pares Judei} and there cannot 
 be the least doubt as to the persons thus indicated : they 
 were the justices or custodes of the Jews. With the " barons " 
 of the Exchequer we are all familiar. 
 
 With regard to the phrase " lex terre," modern authorities 
 have expressed various views. One writes in this manner : 
 "The expression 'per legem terre' simply required judicial 
 proceedings according to the nature of the case ; the duel, 
 ordeal, or compurgation in criminal cases, the duel, wit- 
 nesses, charters, or recognition in property cases." 2 Another 
 states the case cautiously in his text : " No freeman could 
 be punished except in accordance with the law of England. 
 These often-quoted words were used in Magna Carta with 
 special though not perhaps exclusive reference to the narrow 
 technical meaning of 'lex' which was so prominent 3 in 
 1215." In a note, however, the following comment is to 
 be found : " It has already been shown that the right of 
 1 standing mute,' that is, virtually, of demanding ordeal, 
 was only abolished in 1772. . . . Five and a half centuries 
 were thus allowed to pass before the criminal law was bold 
 enough, in defiance of a fundamental principle of Magna 
 Carta, to deprive accused men of their 'law.'" 4 The pro- 
 
 1 Rot. Cart. R.C., i, p. 93 ; the charter is dated xoth April, 1201. 
 See also Select Pleas of the Jews, Selden Soc. 
 
 Robertus de Tatteshala reddit compotum de una marca ut 
 scribatur in magno rotulo quod disrationavit in curia regis apud 
 Westmonasterium coram W. Rothomagensi archiepiscopo, Ricardo 
 Londoniensi episcopo, Galfrido filio Petri et aliis justiciariis domini 
 regis, villam de Wutton versus Willelmum filium Hervei ; et quod 
 idem Willelmus recognovit coram predictis baronibus prefatam villam 
 de Wutton cum pertinentiis esse jus et hereditatem ipsius Roberti. 
 (Pipe Roll, 6 Richard I, cited Madox, Exchequer, i, p. 200.) 
 
 2 Bigelow, Hist, of Procedure, p. 155 n. 
 
 3 This is absurd ; probably it is an illogical inference from the 
 action of the Lateran Council forbidding clergy to take part in 
 the ordeals. Technical legal terms are not prominent in time of 
 war. The ordeals were subsequently lamented as the judicium 
 ignis et aquae. Note Book, no. 592, Foedera R.C., vol. i, p. 154. 
 
 4 McKechnie, Magna Carta, p. 440.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 229 
 
 position is unsound, the corollary untenable; even the 
 expression " law of England " is singularly infelicitous- 
 Intrinsic evidence alone sufficiently proves that the " lex 
 terre " of the Charter has the same vague popular significa- 
 tion which the words " law of the land " bear at the present 
 day ; l while extrinsic evidence shows that " lex terre " was, 
 even by lawyers, 2 quite as commonly used in this sense as 
 in any other. 3 
 
 1 Compare chapter Iv of the Charter : Omnes fines qui injuste 
 et contra legem terre facti sunt nobiscum, et omnia amerciamenta 
 facta injuste et contra legem terre omnino condonentur. . . . The 
 parallel passage in the Articles is clause 37 : Ut fines qui facti sunt 
 pro dotibus, maritagiis, hereditatibus et amerciamentis injuste et 
 contra legem terre omnino condonentur. . . . Chapter xlii of the 
 Charter : . . . exceptis imprisonatis et utlagatis secundum legem 
 regni. . . . Chapter xlv of the Charter : Nos non faciemus justici- 
 aries, constabularies, vicecomites vel ballivos, nisi de talibus qui 
 sciant legem regni et earn bene velint observare ; and clause 42 of 
 the Articles : Ut rex faciat justiciaries, constabularies, vicecomites 
 et ballivos de talibus qui sciant legem terre et earn bene velint 
 observare. Chapter Ivi of the Charter refers to the lex Anglie, lex 
 Wallie and lex Marchie. Contrast with chapter xxxviii of the 
 Charter where lex is used without any addition and obviously in 
 a technical sense. 
 
 2 Thus Glanville in his Tractatus (ed. 1604). 
 
 (Prologus) Leges namque Anglicanas licet non scriptas leges 
 appellari non videtur absurdum, cum hoc ipsum lex sit quod 
 principi placet et legis habet vigorem. . . . 
 
 (Lib. i, cap. 2, fol. i) Crimen quod in legibus dicitur crimen lese 
 majestatis. 
 
 (Lib. ii, cap. 3, fol. 15) Et ille campio tanquam victus omnem 
 legem terre amittet . . . et preterea legem terre amittet. 
 
 (Lib. ii, cap. 19, fol. 22) ... legem terre amittentes. 
 
 (Lib. v, cap. 5, fol. 36) Quia si quis prius nativus hoc modo ad 
 libertatem perductus contra extraneum aliquem ad diracionationem 
 faciendam produceretur in curia vel ad aliquam legem terre 
 faciendam. . . . 
 
 (Lib. v, cap. 6, fol. 37) ... villenagio eo ipso legem terre tanquam 
 nativus amittit. 
 
 (Lib. vii. cap. i, fol. 44) . . . secundum leges Romanas. Cf. Lib. 
 vii, cap. 15, fol. 57. 
 
 (Lib. vii, cap. 5, fol. 51) . . . libera enim dicitur esse cujuscunque 
 ultima voluntas secundum has leges sicut et secundum alias leges. 
 
 Note continued on next page.
 
 230 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 (Lib. vii, cap. 16, fol. 58) . . . lege usurarii . . . 
 
 (Lib. vii, cap. 17, fol. 59) . . . cum quis vero per legem terre fuerit 
 utlagatus. 
 
 (Lib. x, cap. 3, fol. 77) ... et si in tali crimine obierit damnabitur 
 tanquam usurarius per legem terre. 
 
 (Lib. x, cap. 5, fol. 79) ... ante legem vadiatam. . . . 
 
 (Lib. x, cap. 14, fol. 85) Quippe generaliter verum est quod con- 
 ventio legem vincit. 
 
 (Lib. xiv, cap. i, fol. 112, 113) . . . per legem apparentem pur- 
 gandus est. ... Si vero per hujusmodi legem super capitali crimine 
 fuerit quis convictus et lege victi censeatur. 
 
 (Lib. xiv, cap. 2, fol. 114) . . . ob infamiam autem non solet juxta 
 legem terre aliquis per legem apparentem se purgare licet aliter per 
 assisam fieri possit. 
 
 Now turn to the Tres Ancien Coutumier. 
 
 Chapter Ixiii is entitled De Legibus and is as follows : 
 
 Deinde placitores populo plures leges faciebant vadiare, licet per 
 unum repta[men]tum et uniloquium reptati fuissent. Quod non 
 licet, quia, si aliquis de pluribus rebus per unum reptamentum 
 reptatus fuerit, per unam legem se purgabit, excepto tamen quod, si 
 contigerit per hec verba plura duella posse vadiari, plures leges 
 vadiabuntur. 
 
 The following chapter recounts how a man was accused of carry- 
 ing " in collo suo xl. hestres." " De hoc voluerunt placitores quod 
 de unoquoque hestre unam legem vadiaret." 
 
 In chapter 1 : ". . . mulier vero fustata recedat et legem testi- 
 monii vir amittat." ". . . omnis enim per duellum convictus [legem] 
 testimonii amittit." 
 
 The ordeals are always referred to as "judicia." See chapters 
 xxxviii, xxxix, 1, and li. And note the following uses of " lex." 
 
 (c. 15.) ... Vulneratus vel ejus adversarius deliberabit se per 
 jus jurandum juxta legem patrie. 
 
 (c. 40.) . . . sacramento se purgabit juxta morem patrie. 
 
 (c. 26.) ... legis statuta scientes. [The custumal is called 
 " Statuta et consuetudines Normannie."] 
 
 (c. 82.) Quicunque . . . exoniationes suas salvaverit per legem 
 superius scriptam . . . 
 
 Note finally chapter Ixxxv : ". . . vadiata recognitione." 
 
 3 John of Salisbury in his Polycraticus constantly and invariably 
 uses the word "lex" in the popular sense. For example Lib. iv, 
 cap. 6 : Quod debet legem Dei habere prae mente et oculis semper. 
 Lex occurs here passim. Also Lib. vii, cap. 20 : De legibus secu- 
 larium principum. And Lib. viii, cap. 8 : De sumptuariis legibus. 
 
 Note continued on next page.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 231 
 
 Compare the following : . . . fiscalis ratio seu publicae rei ne- 
 cessitas a lege communi eximit. (Letter of Hubert archbishop of 
 Canterbury, 1194-8, printed Giles; Letters of Peter of Blois, vol. ii, 
 p. 1 8.) Legum vero scientia impudica est. Denique pro parte 
 maxima leges ab ethnicis institutae sunt : Deus autem dedit legem 
 vitae et disciplinae. . . . Et quis, quaeso, spiritus hodie in legum pro- 
 fessoribus dominatur? (Letter of Peter of Blois, ibid., p. 38.) 
 
 In the collection of the letters of Gilbert Foliot "lex" is once 
 used in a technical sense : Audio in curia domini abbatis Radin- 
 gensis tibi legem adjudicatam esse, ut manu duodecima jures te 
 nunquam vel predecessores tuos de terra de Samefeld ecclesiae de 
 Lumin quinque solidos, quos a te quaesit, reddidisse. (Vol. i, p. 128.) 
 But the same prelate frequently uses the word in its popular sense, 
 e.g. : Quod pro eo adversus abbatem de Gevesten pronuntiavimus, 
 juris et legum observantia fuit. (Ibid., p. 296.) Immo quod ipsi 
 formam legum secuti et canonum, multis nobis assidentibus, et 
 judicavimus et judicatum executioni legitimae mandare curavimus. 
 (Ibid., p. 306.) 
 
 To conclude our evidence upon this point we will call in Wen- 
 dover, and note each instance when he mentions the word "lex" 
 while describing the events of 1215 : 
 
 p. 113. ... petierunt quasdam libertates et leges regis Edwardi 
 . . . prout in charta regis Henrici primi et legibus praedictis ad- 
 scriptae continentur ; asserebant praeterea quod . . . illas leges et 
 libertates antiquas promiserat . . . 
 
 p. 114. De principalibus exactoribus legum et libertatum. 
 
 p. 115. ... quae essent leges et libertates quas quaerebant. At 
 illi nuntiis praelibatis schedulam quandam porrexerunt, quae ex 
 parte maxima leges antiquas et regni consuetudines continebat . . . 
 
 Capitula quoque legum et libertatum . . . partim ex legibus regis 
 Edwardi antiquis excerpta . . . 
 
 p. 1 1 8. ... leges et libertates quas petebant . . . 
 
 p. 119. Tandem igitur . . . rex Johannes . . . leges subscriptas et 
 libertates concessit et charta sua in hunc modum confirmavit. 
 
 p. 135. ... quod leges et libertates praedictas observarent . . . 
 sicut in charta continebantur. 
 
 p. 138. . . . exigentes ab eo [Johanne rege] quasdam leges et 
 libertates iniquas . . . 
 
 p. 141. (Quoting the pope's letter which quashed the Charter.) 
 . . . ita quod ... in curia sua per pares eorum secundum leges et 
 consuetudines regni suborta dissensio sopiretur. 
 
 p. 143. (Quoting the papal letter to the barons.) . . . eodem 
 rege parato in curia sua vobis per pares vestros secundum leges et 
 consuetudines regni justitiae plenitudinem exhibere . . . 
 
 The citations are from Rolls Series [84], vol. ii.
 
 232 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 None the less, the fact that " lex " had at that time various 
 other meanings is a circumstance to be taken into account. 
 In its narrowest sense, it was the technical term for compur- 
 gation j 1 it had a broader meaning which included the ordeals, 2 
 and certain other meanings which it is safer to illustrate than 
 attempt to define. 3 On the other hand it must be noted that 
 
 1 Customs of Newcastle, Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 112 : Si quis 
 burgensis de re aliqua appellaverit non potest super burgensem 
 pugnare, sed per legem se defendit burgensis. Compare Giry, 
 Etablissements de Rouen, app. s. 14 : et si conviciatus non habet 
 testes de paribus, querela ejus deducetur lege terre. The context shows 
 that compurgation is meant; see ibid., s. 22 and s. 46. 
 
 Select Pleas of the Crown, Selden Soc., case 61 (A.D. 1202): 
 . . . defendat se xii manu in adventu justiciariorum. Vadiavit 
 legem. Plegius de lege Willelmus films Ascelini. See also ibid., 
 case 82 (A.D. 1200), and case 178 (A.D. 1225.) 
 
 2 Dialogus de Scaccario, ii, 7 : . . . leges candentis ferri vel aquae. 
 Rotuli Curiae Regis, ii, 173 (A.D. 1200): . . . consideratum est 
 
 quod Warinus defendat se judicio ferri. Vadiavit legem. 
 
 3 Compare Glanville supra. The following instances are note- 
 worthy : Propositis igitur legibus Anglicanis eecundum tripartitam 
 earum distinctionem, hoc est Merchenslage, Denelage, Westsaxen- 
 lage, quasdam reprobavit, quasdam autem approbans, illis trans- 
 marinas Neustriae leges, que ad regni pacem tuendam efficacissime 
 videbantur, adjecit. (Dialogus de Scaccario, i, 16.) Et quod terre 
 et tenementa infra predictum burgum et hundredum tractentur per 
 legem Bretolli et legem baronye et legem Anglescherie secundum 
 quod terre et tenementa solent tractari per predictas leges. (Charter 
 of John to Shrewsbury, Rot. Cart., p. 142.) Et de terris de quibus 
 ad me clamaverint rectum eis tenebo lege civitatis. (London Charter, 
 s. 10, Borough Customs, Selden Soc., p. 231.) Nul homme de la 
 cite ne doit estre mis par plus ke par xii bons pleges selun la lai de 
 la vile. (London Add. MS., xxiii, s. 2, ibid., p. 19.) Leges et 
 jura regni. (Hoveden, iv, p. 12.) Secundum antiquam legem civi- 
 tatis. (Charter of Richard to Winchester, Foedera R.C., i, p. 51.) 
 Quod nullus de misericordia pecunie judicetur nisi secundum legem 
 quam habent cives nostri Lundoniarum. (Charter of Richard to 
 Lincoln, ibid., i, p. 52.) The following examples may be added: 
 Alioquin si modo predicto probare non poterit, tune secundum legem 
 terre adjudicabitur. (Fordwich, s. 15, Borough Customs, Selden Soc., 
 p. 60 (fourteenth century).) Nul home ne put autre namer pur 
 dette ne pur rente ke seyt venu al cunte ou al leve ou al mandement 
 1'apostoille par ley de tere. (Exeter, s. 35, ibid., p. 104 (circa 1282).) 
 Son aversere eit son defens sulump lei de tere. (Winchester, s. 49, 
 ibid., p. 202 (circa 1280).) See also Pollock and Maitland, Hist, of 
 English Law, i, p. 175; Thayer, Evidence, pp. 199-200.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 233 
 
 the addition of the word " terre " or the like is very uncommon 
 in England when " lex " is being used in a technical sense, 
 and that the Charter Roll of John habitually uses the word 
 judicium not lex to describe the ordeals, and constantly 
 employs the word lex in its popular sense. 1 
 
 With these materials before us let us reconsider the mean- 
 ing of judicium parium in chapter xxxix of the Charter. 
 To begin with, it may be observed, there are in reality at 
 least three quite distinct questions which we have to answer : 
 " When a man can claim to be judged by his peers ? " is one, 
 " Who are a man's peers ? " is another, and a third question is 
 " What constitutes a sufficient quorum ? " 
 
 The answer to question number one is simple enough. 
 The man must be a freeman, in loco defendentis, and the 
 matter must either be one where the law of the land requires 
 a judgment, or one to which the law of the land does not 
 extend. 
 
 The answer to the second question is not so simple. Take 
 the particular case of an under-tenant tried in the king's 
 court for murder. His only peers in the primitive feudal 
 sense of co-vassalship are the other tenants of his mesne 
 lord, but in the king's court they are not recognised as his 
 peers, and he certainly cannot claim to be judged by them. 
 It is shown conclusively by chapter Ix that the rights of an 
 under-tenant, as such, in the court of his mesne lord are out- 
 side the scope of chapter xxxix, therefore the mere freeman 
 in a large proportion of the cases coming within the provisions 
 of chapter xxxix has no peers in any feudal sense of the 
 word. In fact, every meaning of peer but one is quite in- 
 applicable to the under-tenant; and, so far as he is concerned, 
 we must answer this question in the words of the Grand 
 Coutumier de Normandie : "pares sunt cum unus alii non 
 subditur homagio dominatione vel antenatione." 2 So far as 
 the tenants in capite are concerned there is no reason why 
 peer should be given any other than its primary feudal 
 meaning of co-vassalship. The necessity for some such 
 
 1 See above, p. 218, n. 2. 
 
 2 In another passage of the Grand Coutumier the expression 
 quasi pares is used, see above, p. 226.
 
 234 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 classification in construing the Charter must have been per- 
 fectly obvious at the time ; but the actual classification which 
 the draftsman had in his mind was evidently not that of 
 under-tenant and tenant-in-chief, which would have been 
 more theoretical than practical ; but freeman on the one 
 hand, earls and barons on the other. This is borne out by 
 the provisions for affeering amercements. The freeman is to 
 be amerced by men of probity from the vicinage, amerce- 
 ment by peers would not have given him what he wanted ; l 
 earls and barons, however, are to be amerced by their peers. 
 Here, again, the Grand Coutumier affords an admirable key 
 to the true interpretation of chapter xxxix. "Barones autem 
 per pares suos debent judicari ; alii vero omnes per eos qui 
 non possunt a judiciis amoveri." How far the under-tenant 
 had the right to exclude his mesne lord we are not concerned 
 with here. That an earl or baron, either in criminal or civil 
 cases, had any right to exclude all persons who were not, 
 strictly speaking, earls or barons there is no evidence what- 
 soever ; no such right existed before the Charter, and there is 
 nothing in the Charter to confer it. 
 
 The third question raises many points of considerable 
 interest. Every earl, baron and freeman is to have the judg- 
 ment of his peers, not of one or some of them, but of his 
 peers generally. It is not, however, contemplated that in 
 every case the whole body of peers must take part in the 
 judgment. Even if disseizin, par excellence, requires a judg- 
 ment of peers, two justices and four knights constitute a 
 sufficient bench for hearing all assizes of novel disseizin. The 
 sufficiency of a judgment in this respect must be tested by 
 precedent, the law of the land and the requirements of each 
 case. A judgment of the whole body of peers is unexception- 
 able ; but when some peers only give judgment, clearly the 
 onus is on the king to show that such judgment is lawful and 
 sufficient. On the 2/th of June, 1215, writs were issued to 
 the sheriffs to seize the lands, tenements and chattels of all 
 contrariants. " Et hoc provisum est," the writs conclude, " per 
 
 1 Note Glanville, Lib. ix, cap. xi : Est autem misericordia domini 
 regis qua quis per juramentum legalium hominum de visineto eatenus 
 amerciandus est ne aliquid de suo honorabili contenemento amittat.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 235 
 
 judicium domini Cantuariensis archiepiscopi et baronum regni 
 nostri." 1 Here is a judgment which cannot claim to be a 
 lawful judgment except by virtue of the concurrence of the 
 whole body of peers. 2 
 
 The sudden and extraordinary prominence given to the 
 judicium parium by the Great Charter is perhaps partly to 
 be explained as an unconsidered example of a not uncommon 
 natural phenomenon. At a crisis in the affairs of England 
 somebody produces a charter of liberties attributed to Henry 
 the First : immediately the laws and customs of Henry 3 are 
 turned to as the one fertile source from which long-lost 
 liberties may be regenerated, and a new charter is conceived. 
 After a short but bitter period of gestation the Great Charter 
 is brought forth. Some of the parent laws referred particu- 
 larly to \his judicium parium, and when the offspring appears 
 this phrase is a predominant feature. 
 
 - 1 Patent Roll, 17 John, m. 21 ; printed by Rymer, Foedera R.C., 
 vol. i, p. 134. 
 
 2 Obviously to constitute a legak judicium^ the law of the land, if 
 there is any on the point, must be complied with ; but a judgment 
 in which all the barons of the realm concur must needs be lawful, 
 because none has authority to overrule it. 
 
 3 In hac autem absolutione juravit rex Johannes quod . . . bonas 
 leges antecessorum suorum et precipue leges Edwardi regis revo- 
 caret, et iniquas destrueret. . . . (Wendover, Rolls Series, ii, p. 81 
 (A.D. 1213).) 
 
 In hoc colloquio, ut fama refert, archiepiscopus memoratus, 
 convocatis seorsum quibusdam regni proceribus, coepit affari eos 
 secretius in bunc modum; "Audistis," inquit, "quomodo tempore 
 quo apud Wintoniam regem absolvi, ipsum jurare compulerim quod 
 leges iniquas destrueret et leges bonas, videlicet leges Edwardi, 
 revocaret et in regno faceret ab omnibus observari. Inventa est 
 quoque nunc carta quaedam Henrici primi regis Angliae per quam, 
 si volueritis, libertates diu amissas poteritis ad statum pristinum 
 revocare. . . ." (Ibid., p. 84.) 
 
 Rex tenuit curiam suam ad Natale Domini apud Wigorniam vix 
 per spatium unius diei ; deinde cum festinatione Londonias veniens, 
 apud Novum Templum hospitio sese recepit. Venientesque ad 
 regem ibidem supradicti magnates, in lascivo satis apparatu militari, 
 petierunt quasdam libertates et leges regis Edwardi cum aliis liber- 
 tatibus sibi et regno Angliae et ecclesiae Anglicanae concessis 
 confirmari, prout in carta regis Henrici primi et legibus predictis 
 adscriptae continentur. . . . (Ibid., ii, p. 113 (A.D. 1215).)
 
 236 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Had the Great Charter always been reissued with no 
 substantial omissions, chapter xxxix would have been less 
 easily misunderstood. After a critical examination of the 
 whole original document there can be no reasonable doubt 
 as to the true meaning of this chapter ; but, standing alone 
 or with the limited context of subsequent reissues, its meaning 
 is decidedly obscure. It is most important to realise this 
 fact. What the chapter did mean is a question very interest- 
 ing no doubt to the antiquary and even to the historian, 
 but of no practical moment. It was the obscurity of the 
 chapter when reissued, the fact that it might mean so many 
 things which supplied the congenial soil wherein the prin- 
 ciple of trial by peers was able to expand and grow to 
 maturity. Indeed, the Charter as a whole became the Bible 
 of the constitution, the oracle which men might appeal to 
 and construe, now this way, now that, according to the 
 exigencies of the moment. 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VII 
 
 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE LANGUAGE AND 
 
 PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER THIRTY-NINE 
 
 OF MAGNA CHARTA 
 
 Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur aut dissaisiatur 
 aut utlagetur aut exuletur aut aliquo modo destruatur nee 
 super eum ibimus nee super eum mittemus nisi per legale 
 judicium parium suorum vel per legem terre. (Magna Carta, 
 
 c. 39-) 
 
 Rex omnibus ad quos litere presentes pervenerint salutem. 
 Sciatis nos concessisse baronibus nostris qui contra nos sunt 
 quod nee eos nee homines suos capiemus nee dissaisiemus 
 nee super eos per vim vel per arma ibimus nisi per legem 
 regni nostri vel per judicium parium suorum in curia nostra 
 donee. . . . Apud Windesor x die Maii anno regni nostri xvj. 
 (Rot. Pat. R.C., p. 141.) 
 
 Ne corpus liberi hominis capiatur nee imprisonetur nee 
 dissaisietur nee utlagetur nee exuletur nee aliquo modo de-
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 237 
 
 struatur nee rex eat vel mittat super eum vi nisi per judicium 
 parium suorum vel per legem terre. (Articles of the Barons, 
 c. 29.) 
 
 (Capiatur) (Concedit rex Johannes quod non capiet homi- 
 num absque judicio nee aliquid accipiet pro justitia nee in- 
 justitiam faciet. See Eng. Hist Rev., viii, 288 ; ix, 117, 326.) 
 
 (Capiatur) Item quod non capiantur sine judicio nee de- 
 tineantur contra vadium et plegium nisi in casibus secundum 
 formam in carta domini patris nostri contentam. (Inspex. 
 Charter of William Marshal, Charter Roll, 5 Edward III, 
 no. 46,/4.) 
 
 (Capiatur) Item burgensis captus a ballivo dimittatur per 
 vadia et plegios nisi sit pro morte hominis captus et per 
 judicium hundredi deducatur de hoc quod ad hundredum 
 pertinet (Ibid., 2.) 
 
 (Capiatur) Est autem mos burgi quod pro accusatione 
 non debet capi aliquis burgensis a domino vel a preposito si 
 plegios sufficientes habeat. (Preston, 44, twelfth century ; 
 Borough Customs, Selden Soc., p. 19.) 
 
 (Capiatur) Etqui invenietur per sacramentum predictorum 
 rettatus vel publicatus quod fuerit robator vel murdrator vel 
 latro vel receptor eorum . . . capiatur et eat ad juisam aquae 
 . . . (Assize of Clarendon, s. 2.) 
 
 (Capiatur) Item in criminalibus causis ubi sequi debet 
 capitale judicium, vita videlicet vel mutilatio membrorum, 
 non sequitur attachiamentum aliquod sed corpus talis, quicun- 
 que fuerit ille, ab omnibus arrestetur qui sunt ad fidem 
 domini regis, sive inde praeceptum habuerit sive non habuerit. 
 (Bracton, Rolls Series [70], vi, p. 506.) 
 
 (Capiatur) Et juratores testantur quod idem Thomas 
 semper post factum illud venit et rediit ad domum suam et 
 terram suam coluit et non fuit captus nee terra sua capta fuit 
 in manum domini regis nisi pridie contra adventum justiciar- 
 iorum. Et ideo ad judicium de vicecomite. (Select Pleas of 
 the Crown, Selden Soc., no. 153. A.D. 1221.) 
 
 (Capiatur vel imprisonetur) Si vero qui fidem se dedisse non 
 diffitetur die nominata venerit nee satisfecerit, si dominus est, 
 ad scaccarium quamdiu sederit detinebitur, fide data in manu 
 marescalli, sicut supra diximus, quod a leugata villae nisi
 
 238 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 baronum licencia non recedet : soluto vero scaccario illius 
 termini, si nondum satisfecerit, in loco tuto sub libera 
 custodia collocabitur, quousque rex ipse si praesens fuerit, 
 vel praesidens cum aliis assidentibus, quid de ipso agendum 
 fuerit decernat qui fidem se dedisse de satisfaciendo confessus 
 nullo modo satisfecit ; quod si miles vel alius ejus oeconomus 
 venerit nee satisfecerit, pro fide laesa comprehenditur, et 
 marescallo custodiendus tradetur, post solutum scaccarium 
 licite vinculandus, et in carcere mittendus, sive miles fuerit 
 sive non. Miles vero super debito proprio non satisfaciens, 
 cum tamen de satisfaciendo fidem dederit, post solutum scac- 
 carium, non in carcere sed infra septa domus carceralis libere 
 custodietur, fide corporaliter praestita quod inde sine regis vel 
 praesidentis licencia non recedet. (Dialogus de Scaccario, 
 xxi.) 
 
 (Capiatur vel imprisonetur) Et si aliquis vicecomes man- 
 daverit alio vicecomiti quod homines fugerint de comitatu 
 suo in alium comitatum pro roberia vel pro murdro vel 
 latrocinio vel receptione eorum vel pro utlagia vel pro retta 
 forestae regis, ille capiat eos : et etiam si per se vel per alios 
 sciat quod tales homines fugerint in comitatum suum, capiat 
 eos et custodiat donee de eis habeat salvos plegios. (Assize 
 of Clarendon, s. 17.) 
 
 (Capiatur vel imprisonetur) Et quod nullus burgensis 
 capiatur nee imprisonetur aliqua de causa dum plegios possint 
 et velint invenire. (Warton, c. 9; A.D. 1246-71. Borough 
 Customs, Selden Soc., p. 19.) 
 
 (Capiatur vel imprisonetur) Et quod nullus de burgensibus 
 nostris predictis capi nee imprisonari debeat in castro nostro 
 predicto pro aliquibus eis tangentibus dum manucapcionem 
 seu plegiagium ad exteriorem portam ejusdem castri possent 
 invenire nisi in casu felonie cum manuopere tantum capti 
 fuerint, seu pro aliquibus nos aut familias nostras specialiter 
 tangentibus. (Charter of H. le Despencer to Cardiff, A.D. 1340. 
 See Eng. Hist. Rev., xv, p. 517.) 
 
 (Capiatur vel imprisonetur) Et Hugo Fullo captus fuit 
 pro morte ilia et in gaola positus eo quod predictus Johannes 
 occisus fuit in domo suo. [Hugo is acquitted at the trial.] 
 (See Select Pleas of the Crown, Selden Soc., No. 74, A.D. 1203.)
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 239 
 
 (Dissaisiatur) Si quis fuerit disseisitus vel elongatus per 
 nos sine legali judicio parium suorum de terris castellis 
 libertatibus vel jure suo statim ea ei restituemus et si con- 
 tentio super hoc orta fuerit tune inde fiat per judicium viginti- 
 quinque baronum de quibus fit mentio inferius in securitate 
 pacis : de omnibus autem illis de quibus aliquis disseisitus 
 fuerit vel elongatus sine legali judicio parium suorum per 
 Henricum regem patrem nostrum vel per Ricardum regem 
 fratrem nostrum quae in manu nostra habemus vel quae alii 
 tenent quae nos oporteat warantizare respectum habebimus 
 usque ad communem terminum cruce-signatorum, exceptis 
 illis de quibus placitum motum fuit vel inquisitio facta per 
 preceptum nostrum ante susceptionem crucis nostrae : cum 
 autem redierimus de peregrinatione nostra, vel si forte reman- 
 serimus a peregrinatione nostra, statim inde plenam justitiam 
 exhibebimus. (Magna Carta, c. 52.) 
 
 (Dissaisiatur) Si quis fuerit disseisitus vel prolongatus per 
 regem sine judicio de terris libertatibus et jure suo statim ei 
 restituatur, et si contentio super hoc orta fuerit tune inde 
 disponatur per judicium xxv baronum : et ut illi qui fuerint 
 dissaisiti per patrem vel fratrem regis rectum habeant sine 
 dilatione per judicium parium suorum in curia regis : et si 
 rex debeat habere terminum aliorum cruce-signatorum tune 
 archiepiscopus et episcopi faciant inde judicium ad certum 
 diem, appellatione remota. (Articles of the Barons, c. 25.) 
 
 (Dissaisiatur) Si nos dissaisivimus vel elongavimus Walen- 
 ses de terris vel libertatibus vel rebus aliis sine legali judicio 
 parium suorum in Anglia vel in Wallia eis statim reddantur; 
 et si contentio super hoc orta fuerit tune inde fiat in Marchia 
 per judicium parium suorum, de tenementis Anglic secundum 
 legem Anglic, de tenementis Wallie secundum legem Wallie, 
 de tenementis Marchie secundum legem Marchie. Idem 
 faciant Walenses nobis et nostris. (Magna Carta, c. 56.) 
 
 (Dissaisiatur) De omnibus autem illis de quibus aliquis 
 Wallensium dissaisitus fuerit vel elongatus sine legali judicio 
 parium suorum per Henricum regem patrem nostrum vel 
 Ricardum regem fratrem nostrum que nos in manu nostra 
 habemus vel que alii tenent que nos oporteat warantizare 
 respectum habebimus usque ad communem terminum cruce-
 
 240 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 signatorum illis exceptis de quibus placitum fuit vel inquisitio 
 facta per preceptum nostrum ante susceptionem crucis nostre: 
 cum autem redierimus vel si forte remanserimus a peregrina- 
 tione nostra statim eis inde plenam justiciam exhibebimus 
 secundum leges Wallensium et partes predictas. (Magna 
 Carta, c. 57.) 
 
 (Dissaisiatur) Si rex Wallenses dissaisierit vel elongaverit 
 de terris vel libertatibus vel de rebus aliis in Anglia vel in 
 Wallia eis statim sine placito reddantur ; et si fuerint dis- 
 saisiti vel elongati de tenementis suis Anglic per patrem vel 
 fratrem regis sine judicio parium suorum rex eis sine dilatione 
 justiciam exhibebit, eo modo quo exhibet Anglicis justiciam, 
 de tenementis suis Anglic secundum legem Anglic et de 
 tenementis Wallie secundum legem Wallie et de tenementis 
 Marchie secundum legem Marchie : idem facient Wallenses 
 regi et suis. (Articles of the Barons, c. 44.) 
 
 (Dissaisiatur) For quel coze que li sires prengne en se 
 main ce dont il trueve son home saizi et vestu, s'il ne le prent 
 par jugement de ses pers, il est tenus a resaisir son home 
 tout a plain avant que li hons respondre en cort a coze que 
 ses sires li demande. Et quant il sera resaisis il sires pot 
 propozer contre li ce qu'il li bee a demander, en la presence 
 de ses pers ; et li hons doit metre ses deffenses encontre, et 
 puis doit atendre droit par les pers dessus dis. (Beaumanoir, 
 Coutumes du Beauvoisis, c. 2, s. 5 : Soc. de 1'Hist. de Fr., 
 i, p. 47.) 
 
 (Dissaisiatur) Si quis aliquem sine judicio dissaisiet, ut 
 de feodo et jure suo, vicecomes per judicium debet adunare 
 aldermannum et vicinos de vicineto et ab eis inquirere per 
 juramentum et fidem quam domino regi debeant utrum ille 
 sine judicio dissaisiatus fuisset (Liber Albus, 114; London 
 add. MSS. xix ; Borough Customs, p. 231 ; post A.D. 1 166.) 
 
 (Dissaisiatur) Item quod terras et empticia sua et teneuras 
 et vadimonia sua in pace teneant, et ego faciam eis reddi 
 debita sua, si fuerint in pace et justicia mea ; et si aliquis 
 post mortem regis Henrici dissaisitus fuerit, faciam eum 
 ressaisiri si fuerit in pace et justicia mea. (Charter of Henry 
 duke of Normandy ; Cheruel, Hist, de Rouen, i, p. 243 ; 
 circa A.D. 1 1 50.)
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 241 
 
 (Dissaisiatur) J. Dei gratia rex Anglic etc. Sciatis nos 
 dedisse concessisse et hac carta nostra confirmasse regi 
 Kunnoc. totam terram Kunnoc cum omnibus pertinentiis suis 
 habendam et tenendam sibi et heredibus suis de nobis et 
 heredibus nostris quamdiu nobis bene servierint ita quod 
 inde sine judicio curie nostre non debeant dissaisiri. . . . 
 Data [&c.] . . . apud Dovr. xiij die Septembris anno regni 
 nostri decimo septimo. (Rot. Cart. R.C., p. 219.) 
 
 (Dissaisiatur) De libertatibus. Rex vicecomiti Lincoln. 
 Scias quod provisum est in curia nostra coram nobis quod 
 decetero nullus homo captus pro morte hominis vel pro alia 
 felonia pro qua debeat imprisonari dissaisietur de terris tene- 
 mentis vel catallis suis quousque convictus fuerit de felonia de 
 qua rettatus fuerit . . . (Close Roll, 18 Henry III, m. zod.) 
 
 (Dissaisiatur) Et quod terre et tenementa infra predictum 
 burgum et hundredum tractentur per legem Bretolli et legem 
 Baronye et legem Anglescherie secundum quod terre et tene- 
 menta sclent tractari per predictas leges. (Charter of John 
 to Shrewsbury ; Rot. Cart. R.C., p. 142.) 
 
 (Utlagetur) Liceat unicuique de cetero exire de regno 
 nostro et redire salvo et secure per terram et per aquam 
 salva fide nostra, nisi tempore gwerre per aliquod breve 
 tempus propter communem utilitatem regni, exceptis im- 
 prisonatis et utlagatis secundum legem regni et gente de 
 terra contra nos gwerrina et mercatoribus de quibus fiat sicut 
 predictum est (Magna Carta, c. 42.) 
 
 (Utlagetur) Rex etc. archiepiscopis etc. Sciatis quod 
 nolumus quod aliqua recognitio fiat in Hybernia nisi in curia 
 nostra neque aliquis sit uthlagatus nisi per curiam nostram. 
 Quare vobis mandamus et prohibemus ne de hiis de cetero 
 vos intromittatis. Teste me-ipso apud Berkelay xxviij die 
 Oct. (Rot. Cart. R.C., p. 99.) 
 
 (Utlagetur) Cum quis vero per legem terre fuerit utlaga- 
 tus et postmodum. . . . (Glanville, lib. vii, cap. 17.) 
 
 (Utlagetur) Utlagatus rite et secundum legem terre. . . . 
 (Bracton, fol. 1286.) 
 
 (Exuletur) Vult etiam dominus rex quod ipsi qui facient 
 legem suam et mundi erunt per legem, si ipsi fuerint de 
 pessimo testimonio et publice et turpiter diffamati testimonio
 
 242 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 multorum et legalium hominum, forasjurent terras regis, ita 
 quod infra viij dies mare transibunt, nisi aura eos detinuerit, 
 et cum prima aura quam habebunt postea mare transibunt 
 et ultra in Angliam non revertentur nisi per misericordiam 
 domini regis : et ibi sint utlagati, et si redierint capiantur 
 sicut utlagati. (Assize of Clarendon, 14.) 
 
 (Exuletur) Et apud Northamptoniam additum est pro 
 rigore justitiae quod dexterum similiter pugnum cum pede 
 amittat et regnum abjuret et infra quadraginta dies a regno 
 exulet Et si ad aquam mundus fuerit inveniat plegios et 
 remaneat in regno nisi retatus fuerit de murdro vel alia turpi 
 felonia per commune comitatus et legalium militum patriae ; 
 de quo si predicto modo retatus fuerit quamvis ad aquam 
 salvus fuerit nihilominus infra quadraginta dies a regno exeat. 
 . . . (Assize of Northampton, I.) 
 
 The following are distinguishable : 
 
 (Exuletur) . . . et si forte dampnati fuerint homines 
 eorum ad mortem vel ad membrorum perdicionem vel in 
 exilium perpetuum. . . . (Charter of John, A.D. 1199; Rot. 
 Cart., p. 1 8.) 
 
 (Exuletur) Johannes etc. Sciatis quod quantum ad nos 
 pertinet perdonavimus Rogerio de Swereford fugam et foris- 
 banistram in eum promulgatam. . . . (Charter of John, 
 A.D. 1200; ibid., p. 99.) 
 
 Exile had also a technical meaning : 
 
 (Exuletur) Volumus et concedimus quod invadiamentum 
 dilecti et fidelis nostri Roberti de Turnham quod fecit Hugoni 
 Oisel de manerio de Boutone cum pertinentiis stabile sit et 
 firmum quousque ... ita tamen quod idem Hugo predictum 
 manerium teneat cum pertinentiis suis sine vasto et exilio 
 usque ad terminum suum. . . . (Charter of John, A.D. 1200; 
 ibid., p. 46.) 
 
 (Exuletur) Justidario Hibernie pro rege. . . . Nullum 
 etiam vastum venditionem vel exilium faciatis aut fieri per- 
 mittatis de predictis terris domibus parcis vivariis boscis vel 
 aliquibus rebus aliis que fuerunt predicti comitis [scil. Pem- 
 brokie] in Hibernia. . . . (Close Roll, 18 Henry III, m. 23.) 
 
 (Destruatur) Et si dixerit illi cui res tolluntur quod male 
 eum destruat et contra legem et justiciam, tune. ... Et si . . .
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS AND MAGNA CHARTA 243 
 
 tune veniant 3 de ipsis qui praeside sua dicant et pro pares 
 suos sunia nuntiant. (Mon. Germ. Hist, Pertz, Leges, ii, 
 p. ii ; A.D. 561-84.) 
 
 (Destruatur) Si autem aliquis homo destructus fuerit per 
 judicium, sive sit fugitivus, sive bannitus, dux Normannie 
 habet proventus totius terre sue per unum annum, et ille de 
 cujus feodo terra movet habet terram post annum. (Ex reg. 
 Philippi Augusti : cited by Delisle, Bibl. de 1'ecole des Chartes, 
 ser. 3, t. 3, p. 102, n. 4.) 
 
 (Destruatur) (Exilium) De abbata sancti Edmundi. . . . et 
 quia predicta pars dicti bosci destruitur per terram et factum est 
 ibi exilium et solum redactum est in culturam contra tenorem 
 carte sue predicte, preceptum est vicecomiti quod faciat venire 
 hue dictum abbatem a die sancti Martini in quindecim dies ad 
 respondendum de destructione et exilio predicto. (Exchequer 
 Treas. of Rec., Forest Proceedings, 13, m. 23 ; 20 Edward I.) 
 
 (Super eum ibimus) Sciant presentes et futuri quod 
 Galfridus de Turre devenit homo ligius domini Johannis 
 illustris regis Anglie pro feodo centum et 1 librarum Turron. 
 per annum ab ipso rege percipiendo, hoc modo quod ipse 
 Galfridus ibit in propria persona sua cum ipso domino rege 
 super quoscumque ierit preterquam super Petrum comitem 
 Britannic quamdiu civitatem Nacietar. habebit. ... Si vero 
 comes Britannic ierit super regem Anglie, dictus Galfridus in 
 propria persona sua ibit ad ipsum dominum regem in ejus 
 subsidium . . . et si rex ierit super comitem Britannic prefatus 
 Galfridus ibit in proprio persona sua ad. ... (Charter Roll, 
 1 6 John, m. 8d ; Rot. Cart. R.C., p. 209.) 
 
 (Super eum ibimus) De judicio reddito contra L. filium 
 Griffini. Concordatum est de communi consilio omnium pre- 
 dictorum prelatorum comitum baronum et aliorum quod 
 dominus rex predictam peticionem ipsius L. non exaudiat 
 nee ejus excusationes prenotatas admittat set quod eat super 
 ipsum L. tanquam super rebellem suum et pacis sue pertur- 
 batorem. . . . (Close Roll, 4 Edward I, m. id., I3th October, 
 1276; see Parl. Writs, i, p. 5.) 
 
 (Super eum mittemus) Prohibemus etc. ne quis justici- 
 arius vicecomes vel forestarius vel aliquis alius ballivus 
 exceptis ballivis ipsius regine in predicta manum mittat
 
 244 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 vel de aliquo se inde intromittat nisi de voluntate et assensu 
 ipsius regine. . . . (Dower Charter of Queen Isabel, 5th May, 
 1204; Rot Cart, p. 128.) 
 
 (Super eum mittemus) Et precipimus et volumus quod 
 nullus vicecomes vel minister ejus se unquam de eis intro- 
 mittat vel ad maneria ilia vel ad hundreda predicta vel ad 
 homines in eis manentes manum mittat in aliquo. . . . 
 (Charter to Hugh archdeacon of Wells, 25th April, 1204; 
 Rot. Cart, p. 129.) 
 
 (Super eum mittemus) Quare volumus et firmiter preci- 
 pimus quod ipsi omnia predicta habeant integre et plenarie 
 . . . ita quod nullus de ministris nostris se inde intromittat 
 nee disturbet eos. . . . (Whitby Charter, ist March, 1203-4. 
 Rot. Cart, p. 121). 
 
 (Super eum mittemus) J. Dei gratia rex Anglic etc. 
 Sciatis nos concessisse et hac carta nostra confirmasse 
 civibus nostris Herefordie in Wallia . . . civitatem nostram 
 Herefordie . . . habendam et tenendam ... ita quod nullus 
 vicecomitum nostrorum in aliquo se intromittat super eos 
 de aliquo placito vel querela vel occasione vel aliqua re alia 
 ad predictam civitatem pertinenti sicut carta regis Ricardi 
 fratris nostri quam habent rationabiliter testatur salvis nobis 
 et heredibus nostris imperpetuum placitis corone nostre que 
 attachiari debent per eosdem cives nostros usque in ad- 
 ventum justiciariorum nostrorum. (Charter of John, dated 
 loth of July, 1215 j 1 Rot Cart, p. 212.) 
 
 (Per judicium parium suorum) (vide supra passim, and 
 compare the following) : Nos faciemus Alexandro regi 
 Scottorum de sororibus suis et obsidibus reddendis et liber- 
 tatibus suis et jure suo secundum formam in qua faciemus 
 aliis baronibus nostris Anglic nisi aliter esse debeat per 
 cartas quas habemus de Willelmo patre ipsius quondam rege 
 Scottorum, et hoc erit per judicium parium suorum in curia 
 nostra. (Magna Carta, c. 59.) 
 
 (Per legem terre) (vide supra passim). 
 
 1 Compare the charter of the empress to Geoffrey de Mande- 
 ville (A.D. 1141): Non mittam aliam justiciam super eum in comi- 
 tatu illo, nisi ita sit quod aliquando mittam aliquem de paribus suis 
 qui audiat cum illo quod placita mea juste tractentur.
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE- 
 JUDGMENT BY PEERS IN FRANCE IN THE 
 THIRTEENTH CENTURY 
 
 A) soon as the Great Charter of England had been sealed 
 and delivered, measures were taken for enforcing its 
 provisions, and the twenty-five barons referred to in the 
 security for peace were elected. These twenty-five were 
 apparently intended to sit as a more or less permanent court 
 of appeal for the redress of grievances, but fierce civil war 
 supervened, and this phantom tribunal vanished away. 
 
 At this point the evolution of judgment by peers in 
 England is unmistakably influenced by the development of 
 that principle in France. To appreciate the one it is essential 
 that a survey of the other should be undertaken, including 
 the proceedings against John, king of England. The history 
 of judgment by peers in France will be found by no means 
 devoid of interest. 
 
 Prior to the year 1216 the expression "peer" was, as we 
 have seen, in common use to denote co-vassalship, community 
 and so forth ; but there is not one atom of authentic evidence 
 testifying the existence in France during this period of any 
 persons formally styled " peers of the realm " or " peers of 
 France" nothing but an apocryphal proces-verbal for the 
 coronation of Philip Augustus, and a forged letter purporting 
 to have been written in 1171 by a certain prior of Grandmont. 1 
 But there was in existence a genuine popular tradition con- 
 cerning twelve peers of France which figured in many a 
 famous chanson de geste. 
 
 " Par ceste barbe que veez blancheier 
 Li duze Pers mar i seront jugiet." 2 
 
 1 Luchaire, Revue Hist., t. 54, pp. 382-91. 
 
 2 Chanson de Roland, vv. 261-2. 
 
 See Flach, Origines de 1'Ancienne France, vol. i, p. 253. 
 
 245
 
 246 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 According to this tradition the epic twelve (which included 
 the archbishop of Reims, the duke of Burgundy, the duke of 
 Normandy and the count of Anjou) were undoubtedly pre- 
 eminent among their fellows. Hitherto, however, the principle 
 of judgment by peers and the French king's court had been 
 quite unaffected by the tradition, which after all merely gave 
 twelve more or less unspecified feudatories a particular name, 
 and connected them with romantic Carolingian legends not 
 unlike our legends of king Arthur. But at the beginning of 
 the thirteenth century a series of events occurred which com- 
 pletely changed this state of things, gave actuality to poetic 
 fable, and brought into prominence a body, partly ideal, 
 partly real, of twelve peers of France. 1 It consisted of six 
 lay peers : the dukes of Normandy, Burgundy 2 and Aquitaine, 
 and the counts of Flanders, 3 Toulouse and Champagne ; 4 and 
 six ecclesiastical peers : the archbishop of Reims, 2 and the 
 bishops of Laon, 5 Langres, 2 Beauvais, 2 Noyon 2 and Chalons. 2 
 The circumstances connected with the appearance in history 
 of these twelve peers are shortly as follows : 
 
 In 1202 John was summoned as count of Anjou and duke 
 of Aquitaine to appear before the French courts on the appeal 
 of the counts de la Marche and d'Eu: 6 he was, it appears, 
 deliberately, not summoned as duke of Normandy on account 
 of special privileges claimed in respect of that duchy. 7 John 
 
 1 The first formal document enumerating the complete college of 
 twelve is dated A.D. 1275. See Langlois, Philippe III, p. 423. 
 
 2 First mentioned as a peer of the realm in 1216: Langlois, 
 Textes, no. 19. 
 
 3 Trial of countess of Flanders as such in 1224: post, p. 271. 
 
 4 Succession to the comte tried in 1216; ibid. 
 
 5 Present as peer of the realm at trial of count of Flanders, 
 A.D. 1237; post, p. 272. 
 
 6 Rigord; Oeuvres de Rigord et Guillaume le Breton, Soc. de 
 1'Hist. de France, vol. i, p. 151. William le Breton; ibid., vol. i, 
 pp. 207, 209-10. Ralph de Coggeshall, Rolls Series, pp. 135-6. 
 Gervase of Canterbury, Rolls Series, vol. ii, pp. 93-4- Letters of 
 Innocent III; Migne, Patrol. Lat, ccxv, cols. 182-4. 
 
 7 Ralph de Coggeshall (loc. cit.) : Rex autem Angliae, respondens 
 se ducem esse Normannorum, allegabat se nequaquam debere ad 
 ullum colloquium Parisius procedere, sed solummodo inter utrosque 
 fines, regni scilicet et ducatus, ad colloquium regis occurrere : quia
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 247 
 
 demurred to this form of citation, and declined to appear or 
 in any way submit to the jurisdiction. There were several 
 adjournments of the court, but John refused to give way. 
 Under these circumstances Philip acted as Edward the First 
 did in like case with Llewelyn : on the advice of his magnates 
 he declared war. 1 One chronicler, however, Ralph de Cogges- 
 hall, asserts that a judicial sentence was previously passed, 
 and that this was a sentence of forfeiture involving all John's 
 French possessions. 2 The assertion as it stands is wholly 
 unsupported by any other contemporary authorities, and is 
 
 sit antiquitus inter ducem et regem decretum et scriptis authenticis 
 confirmatum erat. Rex autem Philippus allegabat nequaquam justum 
 esse ut jus suum, quod ad comitatum Aquitanicum spectabat, amit- 
 teret, si idem esset dux Normanniae qui et comes Aquitaniae. 
 
 1 Sed quoniam rex Angliae ad diem praefixum, nee in propria 
 persona venit, nee responsalem sufficientem mittere voluit, habito 
 rex Franciae cum principibus et baronibus suis consilio, collecto 
 exercitu Normanniam ingressus, munitiunculam quamdam quam 
 Boutavant vocabant funditus evertit. (Rigord, loc. cit.) 
 
 Verum cum rex Angliae Johannes injunctum sibi non compleret 
 mandatum, . . . habito cum suis consilio, rex Franciae subito incan- 
 duit, et exiliens archiepiscopum Cantuariensem praecepit abire ; 
 quern armatus et militibus vallatus a tergo subsequens, castrum de 
 Butavant succendit et diruit. (Gervase of Canterbury, loc. cit.) 
 
 Letter to John, dated October zgth, 1203: . . . Cumque, communi- 
 cate cum baronibus et hominibus suis consilio, certum tibi terminum 
 statuisset, ut in ejus praesentia compareres, quod jus dictaret sine 
 retractatione facturus, licet esses ligius homo ejus, nee ivisti tamen 
 ad diem statutum nee misisti aliquem responsalem, sed mandatum 
 ejus penitus contempsisti. Consequenter vero personaliter te con- 
 venit. . . . Verum cum nee sic satisfacere voluisses, licet te de 
 baronum et hominum suorum consilio difidasset, mota tamen guerra, 
 ad te quatuor ex militibus suis misit, volens certificari per eos si 
 velles ea quae in ipsum commiseris emendare. Alioquin notum tibi 
 esse volebat quod ex tune contra te foedus cum hominibus tuis ubi- 
 cunque posset iniret. . . . (Innocent III, loc. cit.) 
 
 2 Tandem vero curia regis Franciae adunata adjudicavit regem 
 Angliae tota terra sua privandum, quam hactenus de regibus Franciae 
 ipse et progenitores sui tenuerant, eo quod fere omnia servitia eisdem 
 terris debita per longum jam tempus facere contempserant, nee 
 domino suo fere in aliquibus obtemperare volebant. Hoc igitur 
 curiae suae judicium rex Philippus gratanter acceptans et approbans, 
 coadunato exercitu, confestim invasit castellum Butavant (pp. 135-6). 
 
 See also M. Bemont in the Revue Historique, t. xxxii, pp. 301-11.
 
 248 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 therefore not entitled to serious consideration. It is highly 
 'improbable that the French court would have gone through 
 the solemn farce of passing a judicial sentence which could 
 only be enforced, if at all, by extra-judicial process. But 
 making allowance for monkish ignorance of court formalities 
 the error is rather a natural one, and in itself quite trivial ; no 
 lawyer of the period, I think, would have been misled by the 
 statement. 
 
 The explanation is simply this, that in the common par- 
 lance of the time a resolution of the king in council to make 
 war on a subject was ajudictum ; it was, in fact, to use words 
 consecrated by our charter of liberties, a judidum super eum 
 ire)- That a judgment of this description was passed is quite 
 clear from other authorities ; it is, of course, equally clear that 
 in principle there was as much difference between this judg- 
 ment and a judicial sentence as there is, for example, between 
 bill of attainder and impeachment. 
 
 1 Compare the case of Llewelyn : Close Roll, 4 Edward I, m. id : 
 De judicio reddito contra L. filium Griffini. Concordatum est 
 de communi consilio omnium predictorum prelatorum, comitum 
 baronum et aliorum, quod dominus rex predictam peticionem ipsius 
 L. non exaudiat, nee ejus excusationes prenotatas admittat, set quod 
 eat super ipsum L. tanquam super rebellem suum et pacis sue per- 
 turbatorem. . . . 
 
 Cotton, Rolls Series, p. 154: Eodem anno dominus Edwardus 
 rex tenuit parliamentum suum generale in quindena Paschae, et 
 cum vocatus fuisset ante Lewelinus princeps Walliae ut veniret et 
 faceret homagium domino regi et responderet de pluribus transgres- 
 sionibus, quia non venit, fuit provisum quod rex cum exercitu suo 
 iret super eum. 
 
 William of Rishanger, Rolls Series, p. 86 : Post parliamentum 
 vero, rex, ut Lewelino principi Walliae liberior ad se pateret accessus, 
 Cestriam usque, quae in confinio Walliae sita est, progreditur ; mis- 
 sisque iterum nunciis, homagium exigit ab eodem. Quo mandatis 
 regiis parere detrectante, rex exercitum convocat, disponens prin- 
 cipem sibi denegantem homagium, de suo feodo expugnare. 
 
 Trevet, Engl. Hist Soc., p. 293 : Post parliamentum rex, ut 
 principi liberior ad se pateret accessus, Cestriam usque, quae in 
 confinio Walliae sita est, progreditur, missisque iterum nuntiis 
 homagium ab eo exegit : quo regis mandatis parere detrectante, rex 
 exercitum convocat, disponens denegatum sibi homagium de suo 
 feodo principem expugnare. 
 
 Hemingburgh, Engl. Hist. Soc., ii, p. 5 : Quo audito, statim
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 249 
 
 The loss of John's French provinces swiftly followed the 
 declaration of war, and John's quondam subjects were called 
 upon to swear fealty to Philip Augustus. It will be remem- 
 bered that during the war Arthur duke of Brittany fell into 
 the English king's hands, and never escaped alive. 1 Accord- 
 ing to the popular story, John first made an unsuccessful 
 attempt to have the youth mutilated at Falaise : then, by 
 his orders, Arthur was transferred to the citadel of Rouen, 
 and there, on Maundy-Thursday, the king being drunk and 
 possessed of the devil, slew his nephew with his own hand, 
 and flung the body, weighted with a great stone, into the 
 waters of the Seine. 2 
 
 Now after the conquest of Normandy a difficulty was 
 raised by the Norman bishops about swearing fealty to 
 France ; and Philip, as appears from a letter of Innocent III, 
 
 guerram movit in Wallia ipse Leulinus, devastans gladio et igne 
 succendens quaecunque manus ipsius contingere potuerunt : diver- 
 titque rex ibidem cum exercitu copioso, et in tantum arctavit eum 
 quod pacem quaerere compulsus est. . . . 
 
 The chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, Rolls Series, 76 ; the 
 Flores Historiarum, etc., are all absolutely silent as to the judgment 
 on Llewelyn. Except for the entry on the Close Roll, how easy it 
 would have been to maintain that Edward never proceeded to 
 judgment against this prince at all ! 
 
 1 John might quite properly have ordered Arthur's instant execu- 
 tion; he had been captured fighting against his feudal lord, and 
 was not even entitled to trial and judgment. Perhaps John hoped 
 by sparing him to win him over to his side. His murder was a 
 piece of gratuitous folly. The popular legends connected with the 
 manner of Arthur's death are not entitled to the smallest credence. 
 His murder, or at least his mutilation, was said to be necessary 
 because he was the true heir to the throne, but his title to the 
 throne was purely mythical. By a custom prevalent in Western 
 Europe Arthur would have succeeded to Henry II before John, but 
 a brother had a better right than a nephew to succeed to Richard. 
 See Tres Ancien Coutumier de Normandie, cap. xii ; Beaumanoir, 
 Coutumes du Beauvoisis, i, 238, 240; Close Roll, 13 Henry III, 
 m. i4d. 
 
 2 The following has some claim to be considered a semi-official 
 account of Arthur's death: Anno mcciiij Arthurus dux armoricanorum 
 britonum in carcere regis Johannis obiit vel aut alii volunt occisus 
 est. Philippus rex Francie normanniam dolo consulum et baronum 
 terre ditioni sue subjugavit. (Domesday, Exch. Miscel. K.R., no. i, 
 p. 18.)
 
 250 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 met their objections with the assertion that "justitia prae- 
 eunte per sententiam curiae suae Normanniam acquisivit " ; 
 whereupon the bishops appealed to the pope for advice. 1 
 
 As I read the assertion it means that "justice having 
 been previously offered (and declined), Philip in pursuance 
 of a decision of his court took possession of Normandy (by 
 force)." If this is the meaning, then we know that the 
 assertion is literally true. The only reasonable ground for 
 doubt is that Innocent goes on to say that he cannot advise 
 the bishops as to the sufficiency of Philip's answer "quia 
 vero nee de jure nee de consuetudine nobis constat, utpote 
 qui causam, modum et ordinem aliasque circumstantias 
 ignoramus." This letter was written on March 7th, 1205. 
 
 We know from an earlier letter of Innocent 2 that he was, 
 in fact, fairly well informed as to what had taken place ; 
 indeed, we are bound to assume that Philip had taken care 
 to inform the pope of all facts telling in his own favour, 
 John to be sure having done as much for himself. Therefore 
 either Innocent was dissembling when he professed ignor- 
 ance (which is not prima facie improbable, for it was 
 obviously to his interest to evade, if he could, a direct 
 answer to the Norman bishops), or the pope must really 
 have thought that the facts so far as he knew them did not 
 justify Philip's assertion. 
 
 There can be little doubt that Philip had on the facts 
 a remarkably weak case. He had chosen for his own con- 
 venience not to cite John as duke of Normandy, and now 
 he was asserting the validity of his conquest of that duchy 
 on the ground of John's contempt of court. 3 It was ob- 
 viously open to John to say that, however much he might 
 
 1 Letter dated March yth, 1205; printed Migne, Patrol. Lat., 
 ccxv, col. 564. See also Transactions of the Royal Hist. Soc. 
 N.S., xiv, p. 63. 
 
 2 Letter of October 29th, 1203, cited supra. 
 
 3 It has been asserted by one publicist (Bibl. de 1'Ecole des 
 Charles, t. 60, p. 46) that Normandy was hors de cause in 1202. 
 In view of the fact that it was Normandy which Philip invaded in 
 execution of the judgment, this statement is absurd on the face of 
 it. It is also, of course, in direct conflict with the statement of 
 Ralph de Coggeshall.
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 251 
 
 have been in contempt as count of Anjou and duke of 
 Aquitaine, as duke of Normandy at all events he had 
 committed no contempt. Such being the facts Philip is 
 scarcely likely to have given the pope very precise informa- 
 tion on the subject ; but in any event there is nothing in 
 Innocent's letter which a statesman and a Christian could 
 not have written under the circumstances. 
 
 Until a few years ago historians accepted without question 
 the fact that John was judged by the French court in 1202. 
 It was, however, apparently assumed that the judgment was 
 a judicial sentence. This at all events was an error. But 
 the existence of any judgment in 1202 has been disputed 
 by a recent writer, 1 who puts forward the view that no judg- 
 ment was given, but that Philip, when confronted with the 
 scruples of the Norman bishops, sought to obviate the 
 difficulty by promulgating a bold myth to the effect that 
 Normandy had been by a sentence of the French court 
 declared forfeit to the crown. The argument in substance 
 rests solely on the professed ignorance of the pontiff. 
 
 Even assuming we had only Philip's ipse dixit as evidence 
 of the judgment, I, for my part, could not believe the French 
 king guilty of such stupidity as to invent a non-existing 
 judgment for the purpose of setting at rest the question of 
 fealty, when that very question obviously afforded him a 
 perfect opportunity for then and there obtaining a legal 
 decision confirming his conquests, assuming, of course, that 
 a legal decision was what was required. 
 
 The obvious course would have been to take proceedings 
 to enforce fealty and service from some Norman baron in 
 a prepared test case. Whatever technical flaws existed in 
 Philip's title, he would none the less have obtained without 
 the least difficulty an unexceptionable judicial decision in 
 his favour. This method was well known ; it had been 
 resorted to, for instance, by Henry the Second in proceedings 
 directed against Robert III, earl of Leicester, after his re- 
 
 1 Miss Norgate in Transactions of the Royal Hist. Soc. N.S., 
 xiv, pp. 53-67.
 
 252 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 bellion. 1 If, therefore, it was a case of a king's word against 
 a prelate's, I should believe the former. Philip had no dis- 
 cernible motive for lying, and not the smallest prospect of 
 being believed if he did lie. However, for the reasons I 
 have already stated, there seems no ground whatever for 
 doubting the word of either. 
 
 On the ist of October, 1207, a son was born to John who 
 afterwards became Henry the Third. John's position and 
 prospects nevertheless went from bad to worse, and in 1213 
 the pope intervened. He excommunicated John and com- 
 missioned Philip Augustus to dethrone him. 
 
 Philip prepared for invading England ; and at Soissons, 2 
 in the beginning of April, John was a second time subjected 
 to a judicimn super eum ire by the king and the assembled 
 magnates of France. 3 This time the judgment was of a 
 
 1 Council at Northampton, 1177. In eodem vero concilio 
 Willelmus de Chahannes intimaverat regi, quod ipse deberet de 
 eo tenere in capite baroniam suam, quam de Roberto comite 
 Leicestriae tenebat. Haec autem dicebat pravo usus consilio, quia 
 regi placere voluit, qui dominum suum odio habebat. Cumque 
 praedictus comes Leicestriae ad diem sibi statutum per regis sum- 
 monitionem venisset et cum omnia quae adversus eum loquebantur 
 auscultasset, respondit, quod quamvis praedecessores sui, proavus 
 scilicet et avus suus, et pater suus et ipsemet haberent cartas et 
 privilegia regum Angliae, Willelmi scilicet et Henrici primi, de 
 terris suis, et nominatim de baronia ilia, et quamvis praedecessores 
 Willelmi de Chahannis baroniam illam de praedecessoribus suis 
 semper inconcusse tenuissent ; noluit tamen contra regis voluntatem, 
 neque de eo neque de alio tenemento placitare; sed concessit, 
 ut id et omnia alia tenementa sua essent in misericordia regis. 
 Cumque rex audisset eum ita pie loquentem, commotus pietate, 
 reddidit ei omnia tenementa sua in integrum, sicut ea habuit 
 quindecim diebus ante gwerram ; sed rex retinuit in manu sua 
 castellum de Munsorel et castellum de Pascy. . . . (Benedict of 
 Peterborough, Rolls Series, i, p. 133.) 
 
 It would have been necessary, probably, to send a formal sum- 
 mons to John. See Glanville, Lib. xii, cap. 8. 
 
 " It is no doubt a mere coincidence that all the ecclesiastical 
 peers of France were situated in close proximity to this town ! 
 
 3 Eodem anno convocavit Philippus rex concilium in civitate 
 Suessionensi, in crastino Dominice Palmarum [8th April, 1213] cui 
 intermerunt omnes proceres regni. . . . Ibidem igitur tractatum fuit 
 de transfretando in Angliam et placuit sermo iste baronibus universis,
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 253 
 
 much more serious and far-reaching character : it was directed 
 against John's person, his kingdom of England and all his 
 possessions, and the grounds of the judgment included the 
 murder of Arthur and other infamous acts. No mention, 
 however, is made of any prior judicial sentence against John, 
 
 et spoponderunt auxilium et quod etiam personaliter transfretarent 
 cum ipso. . . . (William le Breton, i, p. 245.) 
 
 Causa que Philippum regem magnanimum moverat ad hoc ut 
 vellet in Angliam transfretare fuit . . . ut ipsum regem Johannem 
 qui nepotem suum Arturum occiderat . . . vel pene condigne 
 subjiceret, vel a regno prorsus expellens, secundum agnominis sui 
 interpretationem omnino efficeret sine terra. (Ibid., p. 253.) 
 
 Compare the account in the Philippide. As in the case of 
 Llewelyn, the secondary chronicles do not suggest anything in the 
 nature of a judgment. For example : 
 
 En cele annee assemble li rois Phelippe un concile a Soissons 
 lendemain de Pasques flories. A ce concile furent tuit li baron du 
 roiaume et . . . En ce concile fu traitie de passer en Angleterre, et 
 plut ceste chose a toz les barons qui la furent, et promistrent au roi 
 leur confort et leur aide en totes manieres, que il meismes passeroient 
 ovec lui en propres persones. (Chroniques de S. Denis, Bouquet 
 H.F., vol. xvii, p. 400.) 
 
 Li rois manda toz les haus barons de sa tierre a parlement, si lor 
 requist que il venissent o lui en Engletierre pour le regne conquerre. 
 (Hist, des Dues de Normandie, Soc. de 1'Hist. de Fr., p. 120.) 
 
 After the events of 1216, the judgment of John is stated in 
 stereotyped language : Johannes autem Arthurum apud Mirabellum 
 cepit, ceterisque per obsides liberatis, ipsum, ut fertur, latenter 
 peremit ; super quo a baronibus apud regem Francie accusatus, 
 cujus vassallus erat, cum comparere nollet, post multas citationes 
 per judicium parium exheredatus est. (Vincent de Beauvais (died 
 1264), Douai, iv, p. 209; Guillaume de Nangis (died ante 1304), 
 Soc. de 1'Hist. de Fr., i, p. 118, etc.) 
 
 Apparently the last-mentioned writer believed that John was 
 twice condemned for the murder of Arthur, for he gives the follow- 
 ing account of the proceedings at Soissons : 
 
 Philippus rex Franciae, prelatis et baronibus regni sui Suessionis 
 convocatis, dedit ibidem Mariam filiam suam, relictam Philippi 
 comitis Namurcii, duci Brabantiae in uxorem. Fuit etiam ibidem 
 de transfretando in Angliam, consentientibus baronibus, ordinatum. 
 Causa vero quae regem movebat haec erat : ut . . . regem ipsum 
 Johannem, qui nepotem suum Arturum comitem Britanniae oc- 
 ciderat, qui etiam plurimos parvulos obsides suspenderat et innumera 
 flagitia perpetraverat, vel poenae condignae subjiceret, vel a regno 
 prorsus expellens, secundum interpretationem agnominis sui, sine 
 terra efficeret. (Ibid., p. 142.)
 
 254 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 which is inexplicable if anything of the kind had taken 
 place. 
 
 It would be absurd, in my opinion, to attempt to consider 
 the constitutional aspects of this "judgment." The affair 
 was an international one, and altogether outside the scope of 
 jurisprudence. 1 It so happened too that these proceedings 
 proved abortive. John made his peace with the pope by an 
 act of abject submission, and a crushing naval defeat was 
 suffered by the French. 
 
 It was not till 1216 that the invasion of England was 
 seriously attempted ; this time, not by Philip, but by his son, 
 and at the invitation, not of the pope, but of the revolted 
 English barons. Rome indeed was determined if possible 
 to blast the enterprise, and Walo as papal legate was sent 
 to France for that purpose. It was a difficult mission : the 
 legate when he presented his credentials to Philip Augustus 
 was at once rebuffed. To the remonstrances of the pope the 
 monarch, it is said, incontinently replied as follows : - 
 
 The kingdom of England never was the patrimony of Peter, nor 
 is, nor shall be. John forsooth, in days long past, seeking unjustly 
 to deprive his brother Richard of the kingdom of England, and 
 
 1 Nevertheless an apologist has, apparently in all seriousness, 
 cited the following extract from Durand, Speculum Juris Lib., iv, 
 De Feudis, s. 2, no. 33 : Eo enim ipso quod aliquis est homo meus 
 ligius, hoc ipso est jurisdictioni mee subjectus et sum ejus judex. . . . 
 Et omnia bona ejus que non habet ab alio in feudum . . . sunt mihi 
 subjecta ratione jurisdictionis, licet ilia non teneat a me in feudum. 
 Eo enim ipso quod personam suam michi principaliter subjecit, 
 videtur per consequens omnia bona sua subjecisse. If this state- 
 ment of the law could be applied to the case under discussion, then, 
 assuming the validity of the judgment, Philip became absolutely 
 entitled to John's English possessions to the exclusion of all other 
 claimants. See further on the subject of forfeiture infra. 
 
 2 "Regnum Angliae patrimonium Petri nunquam fuit, nee est 
 nee erit. Rex enim Johannes, multis retroactis diebus, volens 
 fratrem suum regem Richardum a regno Angliae injuste privare, et 
 inde de proditione accusatus et coram eo convictus, damnatus fuit 
 per judicium in curia ipsius regis ; quam sententiam pronunciavit 
 Hugo de Pusaz episcopus Dunelmensis. Et ita nunquam fuit verus 
 rex, nee potuit regnum dare. Item si aliquando fuit verus rex, 
 postea regnum forisfecit per mortem Arthuri, de quo facto con- 
 demnatus fuit in curia nostra." Item dixit quod nullus rex (vel
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 255 
 
 being accused of the treason and convicted, was condemned by the 
 judgment of that king's court. . . . Therefore never was John true 
 king, nor able to assign his realm. Even if he ever was true king, 
 afterwards he forfeited his kingdom by the death of Arthur, for 
 which deed he was condemned in our court. Again, no king or 
 prince can assign his kingdom without the assent of his barons 
 whose duty it is to defend such kingdom, and if the pope has decided 
 to uphold this error, he is setting a very evil example to all nations. 
 
 The magnates are said to have loudly applauded this 
 speech. It only contains one statement which calls for 
 special comment here. John, it is contended, regnum foris- 
 fecit per mortem Arthuri, etc. It would appear from these 
 words that forfeiture at the date of the crime, and not at the 
 date of the judgment, is what is asserted. This was certainly 
 the general custom. Property lawyers of the period speaking 
 from their own standpoint would describe committing murder 
 as committing a forfeiture. 1 The relevancy of this comment 
 will become apparent in due course. 
 
 On the following day Louis appeared in court. The king 
 adopted a judicial attitude: 2 "Verily if Louis claims any 
 rights for himself in respect of the kingdom of England, let 
 him be heard ; and let what is just be conceded to him." A 
 legal argument then took place. Louis appeared by counsel 
 "miles quidam quern Ludovicus procuratorem suum con- 
 stituerat." The murder of Arthur was again mentioned : 3 
 
 princeps) potest dare regnum suum sine assensu baronum suorum 
 qui regnum illud tenentur defendere; et si papa hunc errorem 
 tueri decreverit, perniciosissimum regnis omnibus dat exemplum. 
 (Wendover, Rolls Series [84], ii, pp. 176-7; Matthew Paris, Rolls 
 Series [57], ii, pp. 650-1.) 
 
 1 Ballivi ducis capiebant homines alicujus *** qui aliquod foris- 
 factum fecerat, vel furando, vel aliquem occidendo. (Tres Ancien 
 Coutumier de Normandie, cap. 61.) 
 
 2 "Veruntamen si jus aliquid sibi Ludovicus de regno Angliae 
 vendicat, audiatur, et quod justum merit concedatur eidem." 
 (Wendover and Matthew Paris, loc. cit.) 
 
 3 " Domine rex res notissima est omnibus, quod Johannes dictus 
 rex Angliae, pro Arthuri nepotis sui proditione, quem propriis 
 manibus interemit, in curia vestra per judicium parium suorum ad 
 mortem sit condemnatus, ac postmodum a baronibus Angliae pro 
 multis homicidiis et enormitatibus aliis quas ibidem fecerat, ne
 
 256 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 My lord king, it is a notorious fact, that John the said king of 
 England, for the treacherous murder of his nephew Arthur whom 
 he slew with his own hands, was condemned to death in your court 
 by the judgment of his peers ; and afterwards, on account of the 
 many homicides and other enormities which he had perpetrated, 
 was rejected by the barons of England from reigning over them; 
 wherefore the same barons took up arms against him that they might 
 expel him for all time out of the kingdom. Moreover the aforesaid 
 king, without the consent of his magnates, conveyed England to 
 the lord pope and the church of Rome, that he might receive it 
 again at their hands rendering therefor an annual tribute of a 
 thousand marks. But if he could not without the barons assign 
 the crown of England to anyone, nevertheless he could divest him- 
 self of it ; therefore immediately he surrendered the kingdom he 
 ceased to be king. A vacant realm ought not to be disposed of 
 except by the barons ; accordingly the barons elected the lord Louis 
 on account of his wife ; whose mother, that is to say the Queen of 
 Castille, alone of all the brothers and sisters of the king of England 
 was then living. 
 
 The legate is reported to have used one argument only : 
 John was cruce-signatus. The reply was directed to this 
 point. The legate expressed himself dissatisfied with the 
 reasons advanced by Louis, and finally vetoed the expedition 
 under pain of excommunication. However, about the 2Oth 
 of May Louis embarked for England at Calais and landed in 
 Thanet. He was joined by large numbers of the English 
 baronage and carried all before him. Nothing but the 
 sudden death of John and the hostility of the pope saved 
 England from annexation. 
 
 regnaret super eos. reprobatus ; unde iidem barones guerram contra 
 eum jam moverunt ut ipsum a solio regni immutabiliter depellant. 
 Praeterea rex saepedictus, praeter assensum magnatum suorum, 
 regnum Angliae domino papae contulit et ecclesiae Romanae, ut 
 iterum illud reciperet ab eis tenendum sub annuo tributo mille 
 marcarum. Et si coronam Angliae sine baronibus alicui dare non 
 potuit, potuit tamen dimittere earn ; quam statim cum resignavit, 
 rex esse desiit, et regnum sine rege vacavit. Vacans itaque regnum 
 sine baronibus ordinari non debuit ; unde barones elegerunt domi- 
 num Ludovicum ratione uxoris suae; cujus mater, regina scilicet 
 Castellae, sola ex omnibus fratribus et sororibus regis Angliae vivens 
 fuit." (Wendover, ii, pp. 177-9; Matthew Paris, ii, pp. 651-3.)
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 257 
 
 To assist his enterprise Louis issued in England a porten- 
 tous manifesto 1 which contained the following allegations : 
 (i) That John had been tried by his peers of England under 
 Richard and found guilty of treason. Consequently at the 
 death of Richard the crown devolved on Louis as heir to the 
 queen of Castille. (2) That John had been cited by his 
 peers to the court of the king of France in respect of the 
 murder of Arthur, and had subsequently by the same peers 
 been lawfully condemned ; to this murder he had many times 
 confessed, and by this condemnation, in accordance with the 
 customs in force, he forfeited all his goods wheresoever and 
 whencesoever. Thus again the crown devolved on Louis as 
 true heir, especially as John was then without heirs of his 
 body. As to the treaty afterwards concluded between our 
 dearest lord and parent, we were no party to it, etc. 2 
 (3) That by the common consent of the realm, John having 
 been adjudged unworthy of ruling for certain specified 
 reasons, we Louis have been elected king. 
 
 In a document of this sort we can scarcely expect un- 
 
 1 Printed, Rymer, Foedera R.C., i, p. 140. 
 
 2 Preterea satis notum est, quomodo de murdro Arthuri nepotis 
 sui in curia karissimi domini regis Francie, cujus ambo erant homines 
 ligii, per pares suos citatus et per eosdem pares tandem fuit legitime 
 condempnatus, quod quidem murdrum ejusdem temporis pluribus 
 in Anglia et pluries predictus Johannes est confessus, per quam 
 condempnationem bona sua, ubicunque essent aut undecunque ea 
 haberet, per usitatas consuetudines forisfecit, et tune iterate nobis 
 tanquam vero heredi cessit jus regni Anglie, maxime cum adhuc de 
 carne sua heredem non haberet. Nos vero pro jure nostro ex tune 
 eidem Johanni gwerram movimus, quam contra ipsum continuavimus 
 absque omni interruptione pace vel treuga . . . usque ad dies istos. 
 De (treuga) enim que postmodum inter karissimum dominum et 
 genitorem nostrum et ipsum facta fuit, nee fuimus requisiti nee alium 
 requisivimus, licet presentes essemus, unde nee crucis assumptio nee 
 aliqua conditio postmodum, lite pendente, suscepta poterit ipsum 
 tueri, quin contra ipsum jus nostrum prosequimur. 
 
 In the transcript from which the above has been printed, i.e. 
 Cotton, Julius D., ii, fol. 121, the word which I have placed in 
 brackets is plainly " gwerra," and not " treuga." This, however, is 
 clearly a mere clerical slip. The manifesto is also transcribed into 
 the chartulary of St. Augustine's, Canterbury. There too the word 
 is "gwerra."
 
 258 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 varnished truth. The first argument gives a very partial 
 and inaccurate account of what took place in the days of 
 Richard : the second is not entirely convincing. It is im- 
 probable that John frequently confessed to the murder of 
 Arthur; but then who could possibly prove the contrary? 
 The alleged citation by peers had perhaps some foundation 
 in fact. It is worth noting that the word " tandem " used in 
 describing John's condemnation suggests a considerable 
 interval between citation and judgment. The statement 
 that John at that time had no issue is only true if the time 
 referred to is the forfeiture and not the judgment. In this 
 case, however, not only would no useful purpose have been 
 served by misrepresenting the date of the judgment, but the 
 reference to a treaty (in the singular) proves that nothing of 
 the kind was intended. By this treaty must necessarily be 
 meant the last treaty, that is, the one concluded in 1214 : the 
 judgment therefore cannot be antedated, and forfeiture is 
 the only possible date consistent with the argument. 
 
 The legal aspect of the second argument deserves atten- 
 tion. The first assertion (cujus ambo erant homines ligii) is 
 clearly designed to show jurisdiction. Citation by peers was 
 never required by English law, but if true was worth stating. 
 John's default is not referred to ; it was unnecessary to do 
 so ; the words " legitime condemnatus " covered everything. 
 A writer, to whom we shall have to refer more than once, 
 observes : " Dans la procedure de forbannissement centre un 
 contumace, ce qui sert de preuve, et de preuve unique, 
 suffisante et absolue, c'est la contumace elle-meme." 1 There 
 was a tendency to limit this rule : Bracton held that in 
 outlawry at the king's suit something more or less equivalent 
 to conviction was required : confession was quite sufficient. 
 Forfeiture is asserted to have taken place by virtue of the 
 judgment. We may take it to have been the general rule 
 that such forfeiture related back to the date of the crime ; 
 and disinherited, not only the man himself, but also his heirs, 
 or rather all persons claiming through him whether born or 
 
 1 M. Guilhiermoz, in Bibl. de 1'Ecole des Chartes, t. 60, p. 56.
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 259 
 
 unborn at the date of forfeiture. 1 This rule, however, in 
 John's case would have operated with every bit as much 
 force against Louis as against Henry. If one was excluded 
 so was the other, so unquestionably was everyone else. The 
 rule, shall we say, was not framed to meet the case of 
 criminous kings and ought not to be pressed. If we may 
 concede so much, we may no doubt the more readily exclude 
 Henry on the ground that he was not in existence at the 
 date of the forfeiture. At this point, of course, the argument 
 inevitably breaks down : the claim of Louis to be next heir 
 was preposterous on the face of it. 
 
 Here for the moment we may take leave of the argument. 
 It is, to be sure, quite unsound in at least one essential par- 
 ticular ; but, considering that it was merely designed for 
 political purposes, I venture to describe it as a highly credit- 
 able performance. 
 
 Fortunately for England, the pamphleteering of Louis 
 weighed little against the ecclesiastical veto, and the prince 
 found himself in evil plight. John was lawfully damned for 
 disobeying the citations of his feudal lord? the merest 
 peccadillo. Louis was about to enforce the sentence by 
 defying the injunctions of the vicar of God. The situation 
 was intolerable : envoys were sent hot haste to Rome to 
 beguile the holy father with the story of Louis's just claims, 
 and thus avert the wrath to come. 
 
 St Albans has preserved the only extant account of what 
 occurred at Rome : this purports to be a more or less 
 verbatim report of a legal discussion between the pope and 
 
 1 ... retrotrahitur tempus ad perpetrationem feloniae. . . . 
 Propriis autem haeredibus forisfacit haereditatem suam propriam 
 propinquis et remotis, scilicet quicquid tenuit tempore feloniae 
 perpetratae et qualitercunque et secundum quod tenuit. (Bracton, 
 Rolls Series, ii, p. 350.) See also Pollock and Maitland, i, p. 477. 
 
 Compare the rule in Glanville : 
 
 Preterea si quis de felonia convictus fuerit vel confessus in curia, 
 eo per jus regni exheredato terra sua domino suo remanet escaeta. 
 Notandum quod si quis in capita de domino rege tenuerit, tune tam 
 terra quam omnes res mobiles suae et catalla penes quemcunque 
 inveniantur ad opus domini regis capientur sine omni recuperatione 
 alicujus heredis. (Lib. vii, cap. 17.)
 
 260 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 the envoys of Louis. There is no reason to doubt the 
 genuineness of the document or the general accuracy of its 
 statements. 1 
 
 The first proposition formulated against John was : " quod 
 Arthurum nepotem suum propriis manibus per proditionem 
 interfecit, pessimo mortis genere, quod Angli murdrum 
 appellant. Pro quo facto idem rex condemnatus fuit ad 
 mortem in curia regis Francorum per judicium parium 
 suorum." 
 
 The pope demurred : John was an anointed king ; the 
 barons of France, tanquam inferiores, had no jurisdiction. 
 " It is a custom in the kingdom of the French," the envoys 
 replied, " that the king has complete jurisdiction over his 
 liegemen, and John was the king's liegeman. But if he was 
 not, the king still had jurisdiction, otherwise such an one 
 might do murder with impunity, even as it was with Arthur." 
 The last perhaps was a necessary plea ; war severed the 
 feudal tie. 
 
 At this point Matthew Paris interpolates a confused argu- 
 ment of his own. "The truth is," he says, "John was not 
 rightly deprived of Normandy." What had Normandy, 
 however, to do with the discussion ? Then the chronicler 
 relates how John sent Eustace of Ely and Hubert de Burgh 
 to Philip claiming restitution, and offering to appear at 
 Philip's court if a safe-conduct was granted him. " In pace 
 salvo veniat," said Philip. " Domine, et redeat," urged the 
 bishop. "Ita sit," came the reply, "si parium suorum judicium 
 hoc permittat." The king, pressed for. a more favourable 
 reply, grew wrathful : "per sanctos Franciae, non nisi mediante 
 judicio." John, when these terms were reported to him, was 
 unwilling to accept "maxime cum timeret ut ei de turpissima 
 morte Arthuri objiceretur." The chronicler adds: "Magnates 
 tamen Franciae nichilominus processerunt in judicium, quod 
 rite non debuerunt facere ; ex quo judicandus abfuit, qui 
 adesse voluit si posset. Unde si rex J[ohannes] abjudicatus 
 fuit per adversaries suos, non rite abjudicabatur." 
 
 The magnates, that is to say, subsequently proceeded to 
 
 1 See Wendover, ii, pp. 183-90; and Matthew Paris, ii, pp. 657- 
 63-
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 261 
 
 condemn John for the murder of Arthur, which they had no 
 right to do ; therefore, if John's forfeiture of England was 
 founded on this judgment, such forfeiture was invalid. 
 Obviously the forfeiture of Normandy has nothing to do 
 with the matter ; it is merely mentioned by way of necessary 
 preface to the story. The above facts may be true enough ; 
 but Matthew Paris is not a contemporary authority, and all 
 the circumstances bear a suspicious resemblance to the case 
 of Henry the Third versus Hubert de Burgh. 
 
 We now return to the argument at Rome : " Secunda ob- 
 jectio contra regem fuit quod saepe citatus non personaliter 
 juri pariturus comparuit, nee sufficientem responsalem pro se 
 ad curiam regis Franciae destinavit." The pope thereupon 
 disputed the right to condemn John to death, and showed 
 that he was acquainted with the alleged custom that a duke 
 of Normandy could not be cited to appear except on the 
 border (in marchiam). 
 
 The next point raised is of vital importance : " Item dicit 
 Papa quod si sententia lata fuit contra regem Angliae, non 
 tamen mandata fuit exsecutioni ; quia non fuit occisus ; unde 
 proles quam suscepit postea debet ei in regno succedere ; quia 
 rex Angliae non commisit crimen laesae majestatis, nee crimen 
 haereseos, pro quibus tantum filius exhaeredatur pro delicto 
 patris. Ad haec nuncii responderunt ; ' Consuetude est in 
 regno Franciae quod ex quo aliquis est damnatus ad mortem, 
 quod proles suscepta post sententiam damnationis succedere 
 non debet ; geniti tamen ante sententiam succedere debent.' 
 Sed tamen super hoc nuncii litigare noluerunt." 
 
 If this report is correct there is, seemingly, a serious dis- 
 crepancy between the facts set out above and the argument 
 which took place in Rome in 1216. The pope is reported to 
 have made a statement, which showed him to be under the 
 impression that the sentence had been pronounced prior to 
 the birth of Henry 1 : the French envoys, it appears, took 
 advantage of this by alleging a custom which excluded issue 
 born after sentence while admitting persons born before 
 sentence ; then, realising perhaps the insecurity of their 
 position, were unwilling to pursue the argument. This at 
 
 1 Perhaps he was confusing the two judgments.
 
 262 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 first sight is the explanation which suggests itself. We 
 might to some extent get rid of the discrepancy by supposing 
 that, per incuriam, sentence is the word used when forfeiture 
 (virtute sententiae) is what was really meant. This, or some 
 similar solution, is at all events infinitely more probable than 
 that John was in fact condemned to death prior to the birth 
 of Henry, an hypothesis for which not a single item of evi- 
 dence can be produced ; or that it was not the events of 
 1213, but a wholly fictitious judgment which was being 
 asserted. We are not yet, however, in a position to attempt 
 a final solution of the difficulty, for by no means all the 
 material circumstances have yet been stated. 
 
 It has been concluded from subsequent statements in the 
 report that the envoys were fully prepared to lie, and did lie 
 in the course of the proceedings : if this is so, any discrepancy 
 between fact and argument scarcely calls for explanation ; 
 but a closer examination of the matter discloses a singular 
 situation. Admit the facts and custom apparently alleged by 
 the report, and while the argument then becomes intelligible, 
 the hesitation of the envoys becomes inexplicable. On the 
 other hand, if persons born before John's forfeiture (or sen- 
 tence) were also excluded, neither Louis nor anyone else 
 claiming by inheritance could possibly make a good title. 
 It so happens, however, that a custom admitting persons 
 born before forfeiture (or sentence) is absolutely fictitious, 
 nothing of the kind existed in France. 1 
 
 1 Philippe de Beaumanoir, Les coutumes du Beauvoisis, xxx, 2 
 (ante 1283): Quiconques est pris en cas de crieme et atains du 
 cas . . . il doit estre traines et pendus, et si meffet tout le sien 
 quanques il a vaillant, et vient le forfeture au segneur desoz qui il 
 est trouve"s ; et en a gascuns sires ce qui est trouve en sa segnorie. 
 Tres Ancien Coutumier de Normandie, cap. 88, s. i (circa 1199- 
 1230): Si aliquis ad mortem condempnatus fuerit per judicium 
 propter delictum suum vel subterfugiens justiciam forisbannitus 
 fuerit, . . . omnia bona ejus sunt regis . . . et terra ejus tenetur in 
 manu regis usque ad annum et diem, et deinceps domino feodi 
 terra ilia redditur, et heredes ipsius exhereditantur, ita eciam quod 
 non possunt recuperare illam hereditatem, neque per donum domini 
 neque per commutationem neque per contractum, neque alio modo. 
 Section 3 specially notices that the king cannot restore the outlaw 
 to his inheritance. The reason is plain : the king may not show
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 263 
 
 Except for this one passage (I will deal with the alleged 
 lie in due course) the envoys could not fairly be accused of 
 
 mercy at the expense of the vested rights of the mesne lord. See 
 also Loisel, Institutes, vi, 2, 19. In May, 1224, Louis as king of 
 the French directed letters patent to the burgesses of Limoges 
 containing the following preamble : Noverit universitas vestra quod 
 Johannes, quondam rex Anglic, communi et concordi judicio parium 
 et aliorum baronum Francie fuit abjudicatus imperpetuum de tota 
 terra quam ipse tenuit citra mare Anglie de karissimo genitore 
 nostro Philippo quondam rege Francorum, priusquam Henricus qui 
 nunc dicitur rex Anglie natus esset, et ex tune tota terra ilia cessit 
 in jus dicti patris nostri. (Printed Petit-Dutaillis, Regne de Louis 
 VIII, p. 516.) This, I contend, clearly refers to the first judgment of 
 John in 1202 ; but even if it does not, by necessary implication it 
 altogether negatives the right of persons born before this forfeiture 
 to succeed to John's forfeited estates. Philip of course had already 
 asserted the same thing : justitia praeeunte per sententiam curiae 
 suae Normanniam acquisivit. See also Li Livres de Jostice et de 
 Plet, xviii, 24, s. 19, p. 279: De murtre de traison d'omecide et de 
 rat, qui en est atainz est pendables. De toz les fez dom hom prent 
 mort par juigement, toz les meubles que il a en sa possession el jor 
 del juigement sont le roi, et tuit si heritage ; sauf le doere a la feme. 
 Et quant la feme sera morte, li doeres remaint au roi. Cf. ibid., 
 s. 66, p. 283. Aucune foiz avient que li propre heirs est forclos, et 
 que la borse le roi a 1'eritage, si comme quant li pere est dampnez 
 d'aucun griez criminel ; et por ce n'a pas li fiz droiture en sa chose. 
 (Ibid., xi, 20, s. i, p. 247.) 
 
 M. Petit-Dutaillis, however (op. cit., p. 84 n.), observes: Ici les 
 hesitations des agents de Louis se comprennent encore moins que 
 leur ordinaire aisance a mentir. Quoi qu'en disc M. Bemont 
 (Rev. Hist., t. 32, p. 67) 1'exheredation des enfants nes apres la 
 forfaiture du pere semble avoir etc une coutume admise a cette 
 epoque. He then refers to the case of Simon de Dammartin (infra). 
 M. Guilhiermoz also (op. cit., p. 54) : M. Bemont avait aussi mis en 
 doute 1'existence d'une coutume alleguee par les envoyees de Louis 
 en vertu de laquelle les enfants d'un condamne a mort nes apres la 
 condamnation etaient incapables de succeder. He quotes M. Petit- 
 Dutaillis and concludes : Nous dirons a notre tour qu'il n'y avait 
 pas de coutume plus averee, ainsi qu'en temoigne notamment Philippe 
 de Novarre. (Assises de Jerusalem, i, pp. 497-8.) I cannot pretend 
 to appreciate the ratiocination of these eminent French publicists ; 
 but, if they imagine the authorities cited by them in any way support 
 the case of Louis in 1216, they are vastly mistaken. Here is the 
 first authority. Ludovicus, etc. Ad regiam pietatem pertinere dino- 
 scitur illos vel illas qui sunt minus legitime nati quantum ad suc- 
 cessionem hereditatis restituere natalibus, et succession! hereditarie
 
 264 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 misrepresenting either the facts or the law. They had a 
 weak case, a hopeless case if you will, but they argued it 
 
 si regie placuerit majestati. Ad haec noverint universi presentes 
 pariter et futuri, quod veniens ad nos dilecta et consanguinea nostra 
 Maria comitissa Pontivi, nobis humiliter supplicavit, ut filios et filias 
 quos susceperat a Simone fratre comitis Ren. Boloniensis, post 
 interceptiones quas idem Simon fecerat adversus pie recordacionis 
 regem Philippum genitorem nostrum, et adhuc erat susceptura, 
 materne restitueremus successioni. Nos igitur motu pietatis ducti 
 ejusdem consanguinee nostre precibus nostrum animum inclinantes, 
 filios et filias a dicto Simone ipsi comitisse natos et nascituros 
 materne duximus successioni jure hereditario restituendos. . . . 
 Nos autem . . . concedimus et volumus quod filii et filie comitisse 
 sicut recti heredes succedant ei in tota hereditate de qua ipsa 
 comitissa erit tenens et saisita die qua decederet. . . . Actum, etc. 
 (Chinon, 1225; printed Martene, Ampl. Coll., i, 1198.) See also 
 Layettes du Tresor des Chartes, no. 1713. Now Marie de Ponthieu 
 was not a bastard, even if none of her three children, Jeanne, 
 Philipette and Marie, was born in time, she had scores of collaterals 
 who, if the custom alleged by Louis existed, had acquired contin- 
 gent interests in the estates in question by virtue of Simon's for- 
 feiture. What power had Louis to disinherit these people ? Why 
 should Louis from motives of piety commit an act of gross injustice? 
 It is perfectly plain that Louis contemplated nothing of the kind : 
 he was releasing his own claims to those estates, not the claims of 
 others; and the Charter so far from supporting is fatal to the 
 existence of the custom. 
 
 This is what Philippe de Novarre says : Mais si le requeror fust 
 engendre et ne avant que son ancestre fu forjugie, la peut aveir 
 grant plait : car le seignor peut dire que toutevoie est il engendre 
 et descendu de celui qui est forjugie, et que il entent que ce est assise 
 ou usage que 1'eir engendre et descendu de celui qui est forjugie est 
 aussi bien deserite comme est 1'air de celui qui vent son fie par 
 1'assise. Le requeror peut dire que il estoit engendre et ne avant 
 que celui jugement fu fait . . . et il est heir dou conqueror dou fid 
 et de part lui le requiert ; et avant que ce avenist que 1'om dist du 
 forjugiement de son ancestre estoit-il heir . . . et que ce soit voir 
 que 1'om soit heir vivant son ancestre, les privileges le garentissent 
 ou il se contient : " Je doing et otroi a toi et a tous heirs que tu as 
 et que auras." En cestui cas peut Ton aleger asses d'une part et 
 d'autre, mats je n'en vi onques esgart faire, ne faire ne fen veull, tant 
 puis je bien dire vraiement que devant la gerre . . . avoie je oi 
 dire a moult de gent tousjours que les heirs engendre"s et nez 
 avant que lor ancestre fust forjugie ne devoient pas estre deserites. 
 (Cap. xxiv, pp. 497-8.) Chapter xxv contains the same argument 
 about collateral heirs. This writer admits the prevailing custom
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 265 
 
 with great ability and straightforwardness. Let us take up 
 the argument where we dropped it. 
 
 Again the pope says, that admitting the king of the English 
 had been condemned to death, and also that the sons begotten by 
 him [were excluded], still Blanche ought not to succeed, but his 
 nearer relations, for example issue of an elder brother, and there- 
 fore the sister of Arthur, or Otho, who was the son of an elder 
 sister. And if it is argued that the queen of Castille ought to 
 succeed and thus her daughter Blanche, it is not true ; because the 
 male is to be preferred, that is the king of Castille, and if there 
 was no male the queen of Leon ought to be preferred as the elder. 
 To these things the envoys replied : " Sons of a brother ought 
 not to succeed when at the date of the sentence (tempore latae 
 sententiae) the brother was not living, and therefore the niece, the 
 sister that is of Arthur, ought not to succeed, because she is not 
 in the descending line, since she is the daughter of a brother. 
 Similarly at the date of the sentence the mother of Otho was not 
 living, therefore she did not succeed, therefore Otho ought not to 
 succeed. But the queen of Castille was living, and was a sister, 
 and therefore she succeeded ; therefore on the death of the queen 
 of Castille 1 her offspring succeeded and ought to succeed." To 
 this the pope says, that the king of Castille ought to succeed, being 
 a male, or the queen of Leon as the elder. The envoys replied, 
 that when there are many heirs who ought to succeed to anyone, 
 and he who has the prior right is silent or neglects to take the 
 inheritance, the remoter heir, if he so desires, ought according to 
 approved custom to be admitted to the inheritance, saving never- 
 theless the right of the other if he makes a claim. 
 
 (assise ou usage) ; he admits that he knows of no decision to the 
 contrary ; he seems to be merely advocating less harsh rules of 
 forfeiture as a desirable innovation, although, if his arguments were 
 accepted, forfeiture to the lord could never occur unless the criminal 
 happened to be a bastard without issue; and, even in this case, 
 there could be no forfeiture as distinct from escheat unless the 
 criminal survived his sentence and left after-born issue living at his 
 death. This, if you please, is the authority cited to support the 
 allegations of the French envoys in 1216. I hope it will have been 
 noticed that Philippe de Novarre is not discussing either French or 
 English laws ; and, finally, let me apologise for attempting a serious 
 reply to so frivolous an argument. 
 
 1 Eleanor of Castille died 3ist October, 1214. See Schirrmacher, 
 Geschichte Castiliens, ss. 320-2.
 
 266 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 It cannot be said that (after excluding the issue of John) 
 the queen of Castille's right to succeed was indisputable, but 
 the weight of authority was certainly in favour of Louis on 
 this point. It was the rule in England and Normandy that 
 a younger brother succeeded before the son of a deceased 
 elder brother, and it appears that originally this rule applied 
 equally in the case of females. There was a tendency, how- 
 ever, to place sisters in a less favourable position, and Richard 
 introduced the rule into Normandy that nephews, being sons 
 of sons, were to be preferred to sisters. 1 The practice of 
 admitting a remoter heir to the inheritance, without prejudice 
 to subsequent claimants with a better title, was common 
 enough in England : it will be sufficient to recall the two 
 cases of Margaret de Beaumont under John, and Simon de 
 Montfort under Henry the Third. 
 
 The rest of the discussion is not very material until we 
 come to the last objection put forward by the pope : 
 
 Item dicit Papa, quod rex Francorum et Ludovicus filius ejus, 
 post sententiam a baronibus Franciae in regem Angliae latam, 
 ipsum " regem " appellaverunt, et ipsum pro rege habuerunt, et cum 
 eo tanquam cum rege Angliae treugas statuerunt. Ad haec nuncii 
 responderunt, quod post latam sententiam a baronibus in regem 
 nunquam ilium pro rege habuerunt ; sed ipsum " regem depositum " 
 appellaverunt sicut abbas depositus, et quilibet alius, dici solet. 
 
 Here, it is said, we have incontestable proof of bad faith ; 
 the agents deliberately lied. According to M. Bemont : " Les 
 agents repondirent . . . que les actes officiels n'ont jamais 
 designe Jean que ' comme roi depose, comme on dit un abbe 
 
 1 Tres Ancien Coutumier de Normandie, cap. xii, s. i : Filius 
 licet postgenitus heres propinquior est hereditatis patris sui quam 
 nepotes, filii fratris sui primogeniti. s. 2 : Postea vero in tempore 
 guerre, Ricardo rege possidente, filie portionem non potuerunt 
 habere aliquam [de] hereditate habenda succedente de morte patris 
 contra nepotes qui erant filii fratris sui. 
 
 Compare Beaumanoir, Coutumes du Beauvoisis, i, 238, 240. 
 This custom, however, was certainly not universal in France. 
 
 The following occurs on the Close Roll, 13 Henry III, m. i4d: 
 Non est consuetude vel lex in terra nostra Anglic quod filia fratris 
 alicujus primogeniti fratrem juniorem patri suo succedentem here- 
 ditarie . . . super hereditate sua possit vel debeat impetere.
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 267 
 
 depose, ou toute autre personne.' " l If such was the tenor 
 of their reply without doubt they lied, but this is placing a 
 most unwarranted construction on their words. The true 
 construction is prima facie something quite different. Stated 
 in oratio recta the reply of the envoys was this : " After 
 sentence passed by the barons against the king, we have 
 never held him to be king, but have called him a deposed 
 king [etc.]." A disingenuous reply perhaps, but it can hardly 
 be challenged. Louis had already in his manifesto taken up 
 the sound legal attitude that the acts of Philip could not 
 prejudice him. Is it credible that the envoys abandoned this 
 well-fortified position for the precarious refuge of a lie? 
 Indubitably they were clever men, far too clever to lie where 
 there was not the smallest reason for so doing. 2 
 
 There is one other point deserving attention. The pope 
 speaks of treaties in the plural. Between 1203, the supposed 
 date of Arthur's murder, and the year 1216 several treaties 
 had in fact been entered into by the rival kings, but only one 
 was posterior to John's second condemnation. 3 This con- 
 firms the view that the pope antedated the sentence in 
 question. Louis, it will be remembered, had on the contrary 
 referred to one treaty only in his manifesto, and by so doing 
 had as against himself fixed the date of John's sentence 
 within very narrow limits. 4 
 
 We are now in a position to attempt a final solution of the 
 
 1 Revue Historique, t. 32, p. 69. 
 
 2 We find John himself treating Philip and Louis as distinct 
 persons in connection with the subject of peace and treaties. See 
 the Flanders Charter in Charter Roll, 15 John, m. 4d. Printed 
 Rot. Cart., p. 197. 
 
 3 For the treaty of 1214 see Delisle, Cat. des Actes de Ph. Aug., 
 no. 1506; and see generally Petit-Dutaillis, Regne de Louis VIII, 
 pp. 81-2. 
 
 4 The last occasion, so far as I am aware, when Louis can be said 
 to have styled John " king of England," actually occurred at 
 Soissons in April, 1213, at the time of the famous assembly. In 
 the Act which provides for the eventuality of John's dethronement 
 and the crowning of Louis we find si vero regem Anglie capi con- 
 tigerit, [etc.]. (Delisle, op. cit, no. 1437.) Therefore either the 
 agents of Louis lied or John's second condemnation took place 
 between 1213 and 1214.
 
 268 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 only real difficulty which Louis's case presents, that is to say, 
 the argument excluding John's issue. It is, under the cir- 
 cumstances which have been detailed, well-nigh incredible 
 that the envoys either invented or accepted a false date for 
 John's judgment, and then invented a non-existing custom 
 to fit that date. It is clear from the manifesto that this was 
 not the case Louis was setting up ; the date of Henry's birth 
 was introduced as an important but not a vital factor in his 
 argument. The most probable construction to be placed on 
 the report is this. The pope urged that John's issue ought 
 to succeed : that he described such issue as born after 
 sentence has no bearing upon the main argument. The 
 envoys very justly replied that customary law excluded issue 
 in such a case. They then added that, notwithstanding the 
 custom, persons (other than issue) born before the forfeiture 
 ought to succeed. The last point, naturally enough, they 
 were unwilling to discuss : the difficulty underlying such a 
 contention has been already indicated. This construction 
 does not necessarily involve doing any violence whatever to 
 the language of the report. The envoys were not concerned 
 to do more than meet word for word the actual objections 
 raised by the pope. If "sentence" was, in fact, the word 
 used, they certainly meant " forfeiture," merely using the 
 former word because the pope used it. But it is perhaps 
 more probable that the report is in error on this point : it 
 must be a condensed account of what took place, and the 
 scribe in drawing it up may, carefully or carelessly, have 
 made answer correspond with question. 
 
 The second condemnation of John has occasioned a vast 
 amount of controversy. Until comparatively recently his- 
 torians accepted the view that John had been sentenced to 
 death within a year of Arthur's murder. Then in 1886 
 M. Bemont published an essay 1 in order to demonstrate that 
 no such judgment ever took place ; he did not, however, 
 direct his attention to the events of 1213. M. Bemont's con- 
 clusions were universally adopted, and the controversy was 
 regarded as closed until, in 1899, M. Guilhiermoz, in an article 
 
 1 Revue Historique, t. 32, pp. 33 and 290.
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 269 
 
 contributed to the Bibliotheque de 1'Ecole des Chartes, 1 
 attempted to reinstate the earlier opinion. This last-mentioned 
 writer maintained that John was condemned to death by a 
 judicial sentence passed in April, 1203, his main argument 
 being that Philip and Louis could never have asserted, as 
 they did in 1216, the fact of John's condemnation if the 
 whole story had been a mere fiction, that so impudent a lie 
 must inevitably have been unmasked. The latter writer 
 certainly succeeded in invalidating some of the minor and 
 less carefully considered arguments of the former, but he was 
 unable to produce one single unequivocal item of evidence in 
 support of a condemnation in 1203. 
 
 Notwithstanding M. Guilhiermoz, historians still regard 
 M. Bemont's conclusions as substantially unshaken. In my 
 opinion the problem has been entirely misconceived, and the 
 facts are as I have stated them. 2 
 
 In July, 1216, Philip Augustus cited Blanche de Navarre 
 and her son Thibaud IV to appear before his court at the 
 suit of Erard count of Brienne, who claimed the comte of 
 Champagne. An original act of Philip is preserved, 3 dated 
 at Melun, which states that judgment was delivered : 
 
 a paribus regni nostri videlicet A. Remensi archiepiscopo, W. 
 Lingonensi, \V. Cathalaunensi, Ph. Belvacensi, Stephano Noviomensi 
 episcopis, et O. duce Burgundie, et a multis aliis episcopis et baroni- 
 bus nostris videlicet [G.] Altissiodorensi, R. Carnotensi, G. Silvanec- 
 tensi, et J. Lexoviensi episcopis, et Guillelmo comite Pontivi, R. 
 comite Drocarum, P. comite Britannic, G. comite Sancti Pauli, W. 
 de Ruppibus senescallo Andegavensi, W. comite Jovigniaci, J. comite 
 Bellimontis, et R. comite de Alenceon, nobis audientibus et judicium 
 approbantibus . . . 
 
 1 t. 60, pp. 45-85- 
 
 2 For a bibliography on this subject see Viollet, Instit. de la 
 France, vol. iii. If M. Bemont's hypothesis is correct, how came 
 it that so many lies were told and not a single document forged in 
 support of those lies ? Disciples of M. Bemont have actually cited 
 cases of forgery by kings to show that economy of truth is not 
 astonishing in sovereigns. The economy of deceit involved by 
 M. Bemont's thesis I find decidedly astonishing. 
 
 3 Langlois, Textes, no. 19.
 
 2 7 o THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 This is the first recorded appearance in French history of 
 persons styled peers of the realm, and it coincides very 
 curiously with the assertions at Rome and in England con- 
 cerning John's condemnation by his peers. It seems most 
 improbable that this coincidence was purely fortuitous. 1 Let 
 me recapitulate the leading facts. In the year 1202 John 
 was subjected to a "judicium super eum ire," and later on 
 Philip relied upon this judgment to silence the scruples of 
 the Norman ecclesiastics. On this occasion the pope neither 
 admitted nor denied the validity of the process. In 1213, by 
 a similar process, something much more serious was attempted 
 against John, nothing less, in fact, than condign punishment 
 for murder and confiscation of his kingdom. Then, in 1215, 
 England obtained her Great Charter with its frequent refer- 
 ences to judgment of peers, including one provision offering 
 judgment by peers to the king of Scotland, and another con- 
 stituting a semi-judicial, semi-executive tribunal of twenty- 
 five magnates. In 1216 the judgment of John by his peers 
 of France was asserted, and objected to on the ground that 
 the barons of France were not John's peers. Lastly, in the 
 same year we are introduced to a select body of French 
 magnates consisting of peers of France and twelve other 
 barons, representing quite possibly part of an ideal court 
 of twenty-four magnates. These sequences are truly re- 
 markable, but no very convincing explanation can even be 
 conjectured. Perhaps the countess of Champagne took ad- 
 vantage of Philip's predicament to claim a hitherto unrecog- 
 nised privilege : perhaps Philip Augustus took advantage of 
 
 1 Prior to the Champagne case, let me repeat, there is no record 
 whatsoever of a trial by peers of France : but of this particular trial 
 we are given a superabundance of testimony. By special invitation 
 (see Langlois Textes, no. 19 bis) each noble present advertises the 
 occurrence by separate letters patent under his own hand and seal ; 
 and, what with originals and contemporary transcripts, scores of 
 these documents are still preserved. Why this extraordinary pub- 
 licity? And why, if you please, did Manasses bishop of Orleans 
 have the bad taste and temerity to slander the whole affair? . . . Con- 
 tra judicium baronum Francie ad quos pertinent hujusmodi judicia 
 locutus est. Super qua temeritate in presentia nostra et parium 
 predictorum . . . idipsum nobis et paribus emendavit. (See Delisle. 
 Cat. des Actes de Ph. Auguste, no. 1739.)
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 271 
 
 a pending dispute to fortify his special pleading in re Jean 
 Sans-Terre by a bit of ex post facto evidence. Be that as 
 it may, from 1216 onwards the reported decisions affecting 
 peers of France are numerous ; the cases, during the thirteenth 
 century, mostly representing attempts to expand these privi- 
 leges resisted and defeated by the crown. 
 
 In the year I224 1 an attempt was made by the peers of 
 France, at the trial of the countess of Flanders, to exclude 
 the household officers, the chancellor, butler, chamberlain and 
 constable from taking part in the proceedings. The attempt 
 
 1 Cum esset contentio inter Johannam comitissam Flandrie ex 
 una parte, et Johannem de Nigella ex altera, idem Johannes appel- 
 lavit comitissam de defectu ad curiam domini regis. Dominus rex 
 fecit comitissam citari coram se per duos milites. Comitissa ad 
 diem comparens proposuit se sufficienter non fuisse citatam per duos 
 milites, quia per pares suos citari debebat. Partibus appodiantibus 
 se ad judicium super hoc, judicatum est in curia domini regis quod 
 comitissa fuerat sufficienter et competenter citata per duos milites, 
 et quod tenebat et valebat submonitio per eos facta de comitissa. 
 Item, comitissa proposuit quod Johannes de Nigella pares habebat 
 in Flandria, per quos debebat judicari in curia comitisse, et quod 
 parata erat ei facere jus in curia sua per pares ipsius Johannis, nee 
 idem Johannes dicebat quod comitissa defecerit ei de jure per pares 
 ipsius Johannis, per quos judicari debebat in curia comitisse : et ita 
 requirebat comitissa curiam suam de Johanne de Nigella. Johannes 
 de Nigella e contrario respondebat quod ad curiam comitisse nullo 
 modo reverti volebat, quia ipsa defecerat ei de jure et de defectu 
 juris appellaverat earn ad curiam domini regis, ubi paratus erat earn 
 convincere de defectu juris ad considerationem curie domini regis. 
 .Super his judicatum est quod Johannes de Nigella non debebat 
 reverti ad curiam comitisse et quod comitissa debebat ei respondere 
 in curia domini regis, ubi earn appellaverat de defectu juris. Preterea 
 cum pares Francie dicerent quod cancellarius, buticularius, came- 
 rarius, constabularius Francie, ministeriales hospitii domini regis, 
 non debebant cum eis interesse ad faciendum judicia super pares 
 Francie, et dicti ministeriales hospitii domini regis e contrario dicerent 
 se debere ad usus et consuetudines Francie observatas interesse cum 
 paribus Francie ad judicandum pares, judicatum fuit in curia domini 
 regis quod ministeriales predicti de hospitio domini regis debent 
 interesse cum paribus Francie ad judicandum pares ; et tune judi- 
 caverunt comitissam Flandrie ministeriales predicti cum paribus 
 Francie apud Parisius anno Domini MCCXXIV. (Langlois, Textes, 
 no. xxi; Martene Ampl. Coll., i, 1193; Actes du Parlement, i, 
 p. 303, c. ii.)
 
 272 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 i 
 
 failed. This case is in other respects remarkable. It was an 
 appeal by a vassal of Flanders against the countess de defectu 
 juris, and according to later ideas should not have been tried 
 by peers of France at all. 
 
 In 1237 the case of the count and countess of Flanders was 
 heard by a court at which three peers only were present, 
 namely, the bishops of Laon, Langres and Noyon. 1 
 
 In the year 1259 the archbishop of Reims was the de- 
 fendant in an action of ejectment. The case was tried by 
 Julien de Peronne and other justices (maistres) ; the decision 
 was adverse to the prelate. The archbishop, much concerned, 
 consulted with his advisers who assured him the judgment 
 was bad for want of jurisdiction : "pour ce qu'il n'est pas faiz 
 ne rendus pas vos pers ; et vous iestes pers, si devez estre 
 jugiez par eus." The archbishop accordingly moved the 
 king for a new trial, and his case was argued by counsel as 
 follows : " Par foi, sire, li arcevesques est pers de France, si 
 doit estre jugiez par ses pers. Cis jugemens n'est pas faiz 
 par ses pers ; si ne veut pas que il li griet. . . ." The justices 
 advised that the judgment was good, " car la querele dont li 
 jugemenz estoit faiz n'estoit pas de la perie et pour ce con- 
 venoit-il qu'il fust tenuz." The archbishop took leave of the 
 court weeping bitterly. 2 
 
 This last case should be compared with two others, an 
 earlier one and a later one. In 1210 the bishop of Orleans 
 had stated publicly before the king that he ought not to be 
 judged except by the bishops of France, and had thereupon 
 left the court. 3 In 1267 the bishop of Chalons also pleaded, 
 not that he was a peer, but that he was presbiter et episcopus. 
 On the other side it was contended that the bishop should 
 answer cum sit baro et par Francie et homo ligius domini 
 Regis, and the bishop's demurrer was overruled by the 
 court. 4 
 
 In 1293 Edward of England was cited as duke of Aqui- 
 taine to appear before the court of peers. Edward, alarmed 
 at the prospect of a conviction, sent Edmund of Lancaster to 
 
 1 Teulet, Layettes du Tresor des Chartes, ii, 355-7. 
 
 2 Les Olim, i, 454, no. 18 ; Langlois, Textes, nos. xxxii, xxxii bis. 
 
 3 Langlois, Textes, no. xviii. 4 Les Olim, i, p. 666, no. iii.
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 273 
 
 place the duchy completely at the disposal of the French 
 king. 1 
 
 On the 29th of March, 1295, Valenciennes affected to 
 choose Guy count of Flanders as its feudal lord. Philip was 
 extremely angry, Guy decidedly contumacious ; the count 
 was summoned to Paris, and Flanders distrained for his con- 
 tempt. The case came before the king in council. 2 Guy 
 protested that it was contrary to right and reason that the 
 king, by himself or his council, should be judge in his own 
 cause ; and that he would recognise no judges but the peers 
 of France, for the question at issue concerned the seizin of 
 the whole of his peer's fee. (This was not true.) The king 
 overruled these pleas : judgment was pronounced by the 
 chancellor, to the effect that the supreme judicature of the 
 realm was in the king and council, and that it was for them 
 to decide when it was necessary to have recourse to the peers. 
 The general issue was also decided against the count, and he 
 was ordered to surrender Valenciennes. 
 
 On the following 9th of January Guy delivered his famous 
 diffidatio? This was a very different matter, and the count 
 was at once summoned to appear before the tribunal of peers. 
 When served with the summons he is reported to have said : 
 " I will appear to this on the frontiers of Flanders." He cer- 
 tainly disobeyed the summons ; and a court, at which some 
 peers were present, found no difficulty in condemning him. 4 
 
 By the end of the thirteenth century the principles obtain- 
 ing with regard to judgment by peers of France were briefly 
 
 1 The principal documents relating to this matter are printed in 
 Rymer, Foedera R.C., vol. i, pt. 2; see also Engl. Hist. Rev., 
 vol. x, p. 227. 
 
 2 Nobis ipsi comiti [Flandrensi] jus super hoc facere offerentibus, 
 eodem comite proponente non ad nos set ad pares suos pertinere 
 reddere jus super istis ; altercate diutius coram nobis an ad nos per 
 nostrum consilium, vel per pares, pertineret decernere quis, cujus 
 esset jurisdictio, deberet judicare, pronunciatum fuit, per curie 
 nostre judicium, pertinere ad nos per nostrum consilium de- 
 cernere cujus sit jurisdictio in premissis. (Les Olim, ii., p. 396, 
 no. 23 ; Langlois, Textes, no. cxiii.) 
 
 3 Kervyn de Lettenhove, Hist, de Flandre, ii, p. 559. 
 
 4 These proceedings are printed by Kervyn de Lettenhove, ii, 
 574-8.
 
 274 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 these. The presence of a single peer was sufficient to 
 support the judgment of the king's court. It was not 
 necessary to summon the peers at all unless the whole of 
 a peer's fee was in issue. It was for the king's court to 
 decide when recourse to the peers was necessary. 1 These 
 are the chief principles ; but there are secondary questions 
 of procedure, at this time under discussion, which are well 
 worth mentioning. 
 
 Thus we find Philip le Bel by the treaty of Athis-sur-Orge 
 laying down rules for the composition of the tribunal of 
 peers. The right of state officers and other magnates to 
 be present is definitely stated, but the king concedes to the 
 count of Flanders that in his case the court shall be 
 restricted to peers and twelve others. 2 By a subsequent 
 concession the composition of the tribunal was restricted 
 to peers and officers of state, a concession limited in terms 
 to the joint lives of the contracting parties. The count, 
 moreover, was not to incur forfeiture except in accordance 
 with the general law of the land relating to lord and 
 vassal. 3 The connection of these concessions with the cases 
 of 1216 and 1224 should be noticed. Apparently it was 
 on the authority of the former that the right to associate 
 twelve magnates with the peers was claimed, while on 
 the latter was based the claim of the state officers to be 
 present. 4 
 
 On or about the 3Oth of June, 1315, the count of Flanders, 
 in default of appearance to a summons by Louis the Tenth, 
 was sentenced to forfeit his title and estates. Judgment was 
 pronounced by a court consisting of six peers (including the 
 countess of Artois) and eleven other magnates. Edward the 
 Second of England was summoned to sit as a peer of France 
 
 1 See Luchaire, Manuel des Instit. Fr., p. 560. 
 
 2 This treaty is printed in Archives de la Ville de Bruges, i, 285. 
 The date of the treaty is June, 1305. 
 
 3 Letter of igth July, 1312; original preserved in Bibl. Nat., 
 Mel. Colb., 348, no. 86 ; printed Funck-Brentano, Etudes dedie'es 
 a G. Monod, p. 358. 
 
 4 Would it be rash to conclude that, then as now, these two were 
 the earliest records available concerning the composition and juris- 
 diction of the court of peers ?
 
 JOHN LACKLAND AND THE PEERS OF FRANCE 275 
 
 for this trial, but he essoined himself on account of the 
 Scotch war. 1 
 
 Artois, Anjou and Brittany had been added to the French 
 peerage in 1297. From the close of the thirteenth century 
 onwards such fresh creations became fairly frequent : Poitou 
 was added in 1315, la Marche in 1317, and so on. The 
 avowed object of the first creations was to fill the vacancies 
 in the original college caused by the extinction of the peer- 
 ages of Normandy, Toulouse and Champagne ; but, if there 
 was ever any idea of always limiting the college to twelve, 
 that idea was soon abandoned. 
 
 The principle of judgment by peers in France was not 
 reduced to precision until the year 1458, when the duke of 
 Alen^on was accused of high treason. Parliament, after 
 searching the records, gave the following ruling : 2 When any 
 peer of France is accused of a crime which touches or may 
 touch his body, his person and estate, the king presides in 
 person, the peers of France and the other lords holding by 
 peerage are summoned, and these assisted by other notables 
 of the realm, prelates and others of the king's council ought 
 to have cognisance of the case. 
 
 The position, during the thirteenth century, of earls and 
 barons of France who were not peers need not be discussed. 
 They retained for some considerable time privileges analogous 
 to those enjoyed by the peers of France : relatively perhaps 
 these privileges were nearly the same at the outset ; but it 
 goes without saying that, neither relatively nor absolutely, 
 were they ever any greater. 
 
 1 See Funck-Brentano, op. cit., pp. 359-60, and authorities there 
 cited. 
 
 2 See generally Viollet, Inst. de la Fr., vol. iii, pp. 301-7, and the 
 authorities there cited.
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS IN THE THIRTEENTH 
 AND FOURTEENTH CENTURY 
 
 IN a former chapter I have attempted to define as accurately 
 as possible the nature of the concession set forth in 
 clause 39 of the Great Charter. This clause affords two 
 alternative guarantees for the liberty of the freeman the 
 lawful judgment of peers, or the law of the land but these 
 are treated as being in many respects coextensive. At the 
 beginning of Henry the Third's reign the Charter was re- 
 issued in a modified form, which did not, however, tend to 
 make the intention of the clause in question any clearer. 
 Meanwhile, too, the phrase judicium parium was undergoing 
 a change of meaning which was bound sooner or later to 
 influence the construction of these words in the Charter. 
 The pamphleteering of Louis, the legal argument at Rome, 
 and later the presence of a large number of Frenchmen at 
 the English court, persons well acquainted with the recent 
 development of these doctrines in France ; all these circum- 
 stances helped to infuse fresh life into the principle and direct 
 its development into aristocratic channels. 
 
 In 1233 the matter came up for discussion before Henry 
 the Third, when it was boldly stated in the king's presence 
 that several of his subjects had been illegally condemned 
 without judgment of peers. 1 The bishop of Winchester hotly 
 
 1 Matthew Paris, Rolls Series, iii, p. 251 : Plures autem qui 
 praesentes erant regem humiliter rogabant in Domino quatinus 
 pacem faceret cum baronibus suis et nobilibus. Et aliae favorabiles 
 personae, utpote fratres Praedicatores et Minores, quos rex solito 
 venerabatur et exaudivit, eum attentius hortabantur, ut ipse debita 
 dilectione homines suos naturales studeret amplexari, quos absque 
 judicio parium suorum coegerat exulare extorres, villas eorum cre- 
 maverat, silvas et pomeria succiderat. . . . Ad haec respondens 
 
 276
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 277 
 
 disputed the allegation. There were no peers in England, 
 he said, comparable to the peers of France, therefore the 
 king's justices were the peers of any man. 1 This assertion 
 caused quite a scene at court ; some very plain speaking was 
 indulged in, and the bishop, we gather, had to listen to 
 remarks about himself which were the reverse of flattering. 
 But, although the prelate's opinions were exceedingly un- 
 popular, it by no means follows that they were bad in law. 
 
 Viewing the question dispassionately we must admit that 
 there was something to be said on both sides. The state- 
 ment of Peter des Roches was paradoxical, on simple in- 
 spection it certainly seems to be a " perverse misrepresenta- 
 tion of the English law." His opponents, however, were in 
 a worse case. They were questioning the jurisdiction which 
 had been exercised by the king's justices in an appeal of 
 robbery against the earl of Pembroke, Gilbert Basset and 
 others. The real if not the avowed act of robbery was the 
 abduction of Hubert de Burgh from sanctuary. The re- 
 spondents had not appeared and had been outlawed. Out- 
 lawry, we know, could be effected by the " law of the land," 
 both the Charter and Bracton tell us so distinctly : at the 
 same time outlawry was a judicial act involving a judgment. 
 Assuming the law of the land had been in other respects 
 complied with, could the bishop's opponents maintain that 
 such judgment should have been, and yet was not, a judg- 
 ment of peers? They certainly could not define judgment 
 of peers in such a way as to exclude the justices, and still 
 assert that every judgment must be a judgment of peers : 
 they had to face the recognised jurisdiction of the Exchequer 
 and Bench as separate courts. This fatal inconsistency could 
 only be got over by admitting the bishop's contention, or 
 
 P[etrus] Wintoniensis episcopus dixit, quod non sunt pares in 
 Anglia sicut in regno Francorum; unde licet regi Anglorum per 
 justitiarios, quos constituent, quoslibet de regno reos proscribere 
 et mediante judicio condempnare. Episcopi vero haec audientes 
 quasi una voce comminabantur, quod nominatim excommunicarent 
 principales regis consiliarios iniquos. See also Wendover, Rolls 
 Series, iii, p. 58. 
 
 1 Compare the rule of Loisel : serjent a roi est pair a comte ; see 
 Etablissements de S. Louis, vol. i, p. 193.
 
 278 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 by limiting the scope of the principle. 1 If, however, they 
 asserted that all judgments in suits to which the king was 
 a party must be judgments of peers (justices excluded), they 
 would be asserting a distinction, familiar no doubt in some 
 countries, but scarcely known at that time to the jurispru- 
 dence of England, and little satisfaction would they derive 
 from such a shift. The jurisdiction of the Bench was dis- 
 posed of but not that of the Exchequer ; and a more fatal 
 objection, the narrower claim would not cover the case under 
 discussion for the king was not a party to it. The opposition 
 were trying to preserve old wine in new bottles, and the task 
 was beyond their powers. 
 
 For his attitude on this occasion Henry's minister has been 
 roundly abused, not only by his contemporaries, but also by 
 posterity ; he has been accused of an impudent attempt to 
 support illegal convictions obtained by the king ; Dr. Stubbs 
 has called him an ignorant blunderer. For my own part, I 
 see no reason for doubting that this acute lawyer, equally 
 familiar probably with both French and English law, was 
 expressing a perfectly genuine opinion, and one which he 
 well knew could not be safely controverted. 
 
 The king at this time was neither strong enough to enforce 
 the bishop's opinion, nor so weak as to be compelled to 
 adopt a contrary view. Henry had received a lesson from 
 France in these matters, and he did to others as Philip 
 Augustus was alleged to have done to his father. 2 The 
 magnates, whose treatment led to the discussion related, had, 
 when threatened with the alternative of trial by battle or 
 outlawry, demanded judgment of peers 3 and a safe-conduct 
 
 1 Doubtless many still considered it to be a legal axiom that 
 every judgment ought to be a judgment of peers. Probably only 
 a few clearly perceived the inroads which the development of royal 
 justice was making upon the principle. The separation of the 
 Bench was the work of the Charter, although it may be that nothing 
 similar to the actual court of common pleas at Westminster was 
 ever dreamed of. An instance of the ordinary formula, that one 
 court is not to follow another, will be found in Rot. Cart. R.C. at 
 p. 1 68. 2 See above, p. 260. 
 
 ' They appear to have made the same demand in respect of 
 several previous charges brought against them. See Matthew Paris,
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 279 
 
 to and from the king's court. If the latter claim had been 
 granted the king would probably have had to submit to an 
 unpalatable definition of the former claim. Henry offered 
 the magnates in question a safe-conduct to his court provided 
 they came singly and unattended ; as regarded the safe-conduct 
 from his court, that must be subject to such judgment as his 
 court might pronounce. The offer was not accepted, and 
 they were all outlawed. In 1234, when the reform party were 
 again in the ascendant, the sentences of outlawry were 
 quashed. 1 The question of judgment by peers was only 
 
 Rolls Series, vol. iii, p. 257. Ad haec respondens Marescallus fratri 
 Agnello dixit : " Ad primum quod dicunt, debeo, quia terram regis 
 invasi, non est verum ; quia rex ipse, cum semper paratus essem 
 stare juri et judicio parium meorum in curia sua, et per internuntios 
 plures pluries petii illud quod ab ipso mihi semper extitit denegatum, 
 terram meam violenter ingressus contra omnem justitiam invasit " 
 See also ibid., vi, p. 63 : answers of Laurence of St. Albans to 
 the charges against Hubert de Burgh, ist July, 1239. Cum dies 
 datus esset Huberto de Burgo comiti Kantiae in octabis sancti 
 Johannis Baptistae anno regni xxiij, ad respondendum domino regi, 
 quales emendas ei faceret, eo quod non deliberavit ei maritagium 
 Ricardi de Clare, ad diem ab eodem domino rege sibi datum, 
 secundum conventionem inter eos factam vel secundum considera- 
 tionem parium suorum, et dominus rex peteret ab eo, quod ei 
 emendas faceret et non fecit ; propositae fuerunt ei ex parte domini 
 regis transgressiones subscriptae, simul cum praedictis ut ad eas 
 responderet. Ad quod respondit idem comes quod ad haec nullum 
 diem habuit; sed et dixit quod ad diem certum et rationabilem 
 satisfaceret domino regi vel inde staret ad considerationem parium 
 suorum, et petiit quod dominus rex in scriptis ei ostenderet super 
 quibus articulis tenetur respondere. Ad hoc respondit comes, quod 
 ad singulos dies ei a domino rege datos idem comes venit, nee in 
 aliquo quaesivit dilationem, sed semper recepit diem ad voluntatem 
 domini regis. Unde videtur ei quod omnes dies ei dati, postquam 
 fuit apud Kenintone, pro uno die sibi debent allocari. Et semper 
 paratus est stare ad considerationem parium suorum, quod. . . . Et 
 si hoc non sufficit, dicit aliud ; et super hoc paratus est facere quod 
 pares sui considerabunt. . . . De utlagatione unde dicitur, dicit 
 quod talem conventionem non fecit, neque debet talis conventio 
 aliqua reputari; quia nullus probus homo et fidelis potest utlagari 
 ex conventione, quia utlagatio est paena malefactoris et non bene 
 operantis, et sequitur ex malefacto illius qui non vult stare recto. 
 Ipse vero non fuit talis quia semper rogavit et optulit stare judicio 
 parium suorum. . . . 
 
 1 See Bracton's Note Book, case 857 : . . . Et super hoc venit
 
 28o THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 incidentally mentioned ; there were excellent technical grounds 
 for declaring the outlawry a nullity. 
 
 The controversy raised by the bishop of Winchester's 
 statement does not appear to have been ever revived. In 
 course of time and as the result of differently developed 
 ideas the point became quite obsolete ; but in the mean- 
 while that statement continued to represent the position 
 taken up by the crown, and it was a position from which 
 the crown never completely receded. To this day the king's 
 justices, in cases of misdemeanour, are competent to try the 
 premier duke of the realm. The Hubert de Burgh case 
 teaches us nothing definite, it decided nothing ; but we may 
 gather from it that the meaning of judgment by peers and 
 the scope of the privilege was already debatable ground, 
 and that both sides were struggling for a definition favour- 
 able to themselves. We are also in a position to appreciate 
 the difficulties in the way of any logical solution. 
 
 We can now begin to trace the development of a new and 
 quite distinct line of construction for the thirty-ninth chapter 
 of the Charter, based on the circumstance that judgment of 
 
 dominus rex et cognoscit et recordatur quod predict! Marescallus 
 Gilebertus et alii ante utlagationem illam multociens per nuncios 
 sollempnos (sic) et per litteras pecierunt misericordiam vel ut per 
 salvum conductum adiri (sic) possent curiam domini regis et stare 
 ibidem judicio parium suorum, quod quidem illis fuit denegatum, 
 nisi in forma tali, scilicet quod unusquisque per se et solus veniret 
 et rediret nisi judicium ilium incumbaret. Et plures episcopi et 
 alii quamplures presentes hoc idem testati fuerunt. Et quum pre- 
 dicta abduccio Huberti facta fuit occasione gwerre, et preterea cum 
 nullus utlagari deberet nisi aut per appellum racionabile, aut per 
 sectam domini regis ubi fama patrie accusaret aliquem, vel de 
 seditione domini regis vel alia manifesta transgressione contra pacem 
 domini regis, et hoc tempore pacis, et predicta fuerunt tempore 
 gwerre, et preterea quia testatum fuit quod predictus campio non 
 appellavit eos de aliqua robberia sibi facta, sed tantum pro trans- 
 gressione facta domino regi, et quia appellavit pro comitatu Wiltes. 
 de transgressione eis facta, scilicet de predicto Huberto abducto que 
 quidem transgressio pertinebat ad dominum regem, et quia dominus 
 rex cognoscit quod ipsi semper obtulerunt per litteras et per nuncios 
 veniendi ad curiam et standi recto, Consideratum est quod utlagatio 
 ilia nulla est et pro nulla habeatur de cetero. . . . (A.D. 1234, anno 
 regni 18.)
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 281 
 
 peers and the law of the land are mentioned disjunctively. 
 It may be stated in this way. The king's justices had full 
 authority to administer the law of the land, but their jurisdic- 
 tion, though commensurate with, was strictly limited by 
 such law : neither on their own initiative nor by virtue of 
 any royal mandate could they exercise unprecedented juris- 
 diction ; cases raising questions of this kind must be deter- 
 mined by the peers of the party or parties concerned. In 
 other words the king must proceed by the law of the land ; 
 or, if that fails him, then by judgment of peers. 1 We do 
 not find any statement precisely to this effect, but in many 
 cases such a principle is unmistakably indicated. Here is 
 an example : 
 
 In or about the year 1234-5 the earl of Chester was made 
 defendant in an important civil suit connected with the 
 descent of the Chester estates. The writ was served on him 
 in the county of Northampton, but the subject-matter of the 
 suit was property situate in the earl's palatinate where the 
 king's writ did not run. The earl demurred to the jurisdic- 
 tion and claimed the judgment of his peers. The court 
 overruled the objection on the ground that there were pre- 
 cedents for such procedure. 2 
 
 1 Also, judgment by peers is one thing, judgment by justices 
 another ; although the meaning of the former expression still lacks 
 definition. 
 
 2 Bracton's Note Book, case 1213. . . . J. comes Cestrie et 
 Huntingdone summonitus fuit ad respondendum Hugoni de 
 Albyniaco, W. comiti de Ferrariis et Agneti uxori ejus et Hawisie 
 comitisse Lincolnie quare deforciat eis racionabilem partem suam 
 que eos contingit de hereditate Rannulfi quondam comitis Cestrie 
 et unde ipse obiit seisitus in comitatu Cestrie. . . . Et comes alias 
 respondit quod noluit ad hoc breve [respondere] nisi curia con- 
 sideraverit et sine consideratione parium suorum per summoni- 
 tionem factam in comitatu Northamptone [de] terris et tenementis 
 [in] comitatu Cestrie ubi brevia domini regis non currunt. Et 
 quia ita usitatum est hucusque quod pares sui et alii qui libertates 
 habent consimiles sicut episcopus Dunholmensis et comes Mares- 
 callus respondent de terris et tenementis infra libertates suas per 
 summoniciones factas ad terras suas et tenementa extra libertates 
 suas, ideo consideratum est quod respondeat. . . . (A.D. 1236, 
 anno regni 21.)
 
 282 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 The same principle appears even more clearly in a later 
 case, the celebrated dispute between the earls of Hereford 
 and Gloucester in the reign of Edward the First. The king 
 had appointed special justices to hear this case, and had 
 directed that evidence was to be taken on oath from the 
 magnates as well as the commoners who had knowledge of 
 the facts. Certain magnates thereupon were duly summoned 
 and presented with the book ; but they all declined to be 
 sworn, asserting that there was no legal precedent for making 
 them give evidence on oath (which was admittedly true). The 
 justices replied to the effect that they were not proceeding by 
 law, but under a prerogative mandate from the king. The 
 magnates rejoined by claiming the judgment of their peers 
 upon the question. 1 
 
 One more instance may be mentioned, a forest case of the 
 year 1286. An inquisition found that the bishop of Coventry 
 and Lichfield had made a park in his wood of Heywode and 
 two saltoria within the metes of the forest of Cannock, also 
 another saltorium in his own park of Brewode, but on the 
 
 1 Voluit idem dominus rex pro statu et jure suo per ipsos jus- 
 ticiaries quod inde rei veritas inquiretur per sacramentum tarn mag- 
 natum quam aliorum proborum et legalium hominum de partibus 
 Wallie et comitatibus Gloucestrie et Herefordie per quos rei veritas 
 etc. cujuscunque condicionis fuissent, ita quod nulli parceretur in 
 hac parte, eo quod res ista dominum regem et coronam et dignita- 
 tem suam tangit. . . . Dictum est ex parte domini regis Johanni de 
 Hastinges et omnibus aliis magnatibus supranominatis quod, pro 
 statu et jure regis et pro conservacione dignitatis corone et pacis sue, 
 apponant manum ad librum ad faciendum id quod eis ex parte 
 domini regis injungetur ; qui omnes unanimiter respondent quod 
 inaudatum (sic) est quod ipsi vel eorum antecessores hactenus in 
 hujusmodi casu ad prestandum sacramentum aliquod coacti fuerunt. 
 . . . Et licet prefatis Johanni et aliis magnatibus expositum fuissent 
 quod nullus in hac parte potest habere marchiam, dominus rex qui 
 pro communi utilitate (per) prerogativam suam in multis casibus est 
 supra leges et consuetudines in regno suo usitatas, ac pluries eisdem 
 magnatibus ex parte ipsius regis conjunctim et separatim libroque eis 
 porrecto injunctum est quod faciant sacramentum ; responderunt 
 demum omnes singillatim quod nichil inde facerent sine considera- 
 cione parium suorum. (See Duchy of Lancaster Misc., 6/5 ; Welsh 
 Roll, 20 Edward I ; Rot. Parl., vol. i, p. 70 ; Abbreviatio Placitorum, 
 p. 2270. ; Morris, Welsh Wars of Edward I; etc.)
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 283 
 
 boundaries of the forest. On this finding a judicial writ was 
 issued summoning the bishop to attend. The bishop was 
 allowed to appear by attorney : he denied the trespass, 
 pleaded that he was seized of the lands and woods in question 
 as part of his barony with power of taking venison, etc., and 
 that he was not bound to answer sine brevi domini regis vel 
 sine paribus suis baronibus Anglie, a plea to the jurisdiction 
 based on the statute of Marlborough. A day was thereupon 
 given to the bishop to appear before the king in Parliament, 
 but nothing was done in the matter on this adjournment. 
 Eventually a decision in eyre was given against the bishop, 
 and the lands in question taken into the king's hands. 1 
 
 Obviously, in ordinary cases, there was no need to invoke 
 the principle under consideration. If there was any doubt 
 about the jurisdiction you could appeal, baron or no baron. 
 The right of appeal was a wider and more comprehensive 
 remedy. 
 
 The construction of the Charter indicated by these de- 
 cisions once adopted, it is quite clear that any lawyer writing 
 a treatise on the laws of England has nothing whatever to do 
 with judgment by peers : it is only when the laws of England 
 cease that the privilege of judgment by peers arises. Indeed, 
 the judicium parium now figures, not as a legal principle at 
 all, but merely as a check on the royal prerogative. This, I 
 
 1 See William Salt, Arch. Soc., vol. v, pt. i, p. 167, pleas of the 
 forest A.D. 1286 : Manwood, Forest Laws. For a similar plea to the 
 jurisdiction see Abbreviatio Placitorum, p. 201 (A.D. 1281): Gil- 
 bertus de Clare comes Gloucestrie qui clamat tenere terras suas in 
 Glamorgan sicut regale quamvis per consilium regis cosideratum fuit 
 quod responderet in placito. Nichilominus dicit quod tenet predictas 
 terras et libertates de suo et antecessorum suorum conquestu unde 
 videtur ei quod de hiis sine consideratione parium suorum Anglic et 
 Marchesium Wallie qui eisdem libertatibus in terris suis VVallensibus 
 gaudent non debet inde alicui respondere. 
 
 In this case the plea of the earl of Gloucester is not : I am an 
 earl, and must be judged by earls; or, I am a lord marcher, and 
 must be judged by lords marchers ; but simply this : I hold by con- 
 quest sicut regale, the king's writ does not run in the lands in 
 question, and by the law of the land the king cannot claim jurisdic- 
 tion; therefore, etc. See also Glamorgan Charters, vol. i, p. 192; 
 and Coram Rege Roll, 10 Edward I, Mich., m. 35.
 
 284 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 think, sufficiently accounts for the silence of Bracton upon 
 the subject ; it was not a matter which came within the scope 
 of his work. 
 
 At this stage a new and not very prepossessing idol of 
 the law is allowed to occupy the vacant shrine of English 
 liberties. No man, it is now asserted, not even the king, 
 may be judge in his own cause ; and under cover of this 
 principle it is sought to enforce judgment by or with the 
 assistance of peers of the realm in cases of high treason. 
 We have met with this principle elsewhere, 1 but hitherto 
 there has been little trace of its influence on English juris- 
 prudence. 2 
 
 Bracton sets out the matter in this way. The king him- 
 self, he writes, cannot be judge in cases of treason, because 
 he would then be prosecutor and judge in his own cause. 
 Nor can the justices judge, because they represent the person 
 of the king. Who, then, should judge ? Without prejudice 
 to a better opinion it would seem that the court and (the) 
 peers should judge. Bracton then points out that there 
 were different degrees of treason, which did not always 
 amount to felony. The light cases, punishable only by fine, 
 the justices might deal with without the assistance of (the) 
 peers ; but in the graver cases, where the penalty approached 
 disherison, (the) peers should be associated with the justices 
 in giving judgment. 3 
 
 1 See chap, vii, p. 208, n. 2. 
 
 2 This plea is tentatively raised in the Siward v. Gloucester 
 appeal: see Glamorgan Charters, vol. i, p. 91. The same case is 
 also remarkable for the following plea : Et Ricardus [Siward] venit 
 et respondit et defendit totam feloniam et totum factum ut predictum 
 est, et posuit in judicio comitatus si debeat de predictis respondere 
 versus dictum Stephanum Baucen sicut non est de comitatu nee 
 par suus. 
 
 3 Bracton, Rolls Series, vol. ii, p. 264 : Et tune videndum quis 
 possit et debeat judicare, et sciendum quod non ipse rex, quia sic 
 esset in querela propria actor et judex in judicio vitae membrorum 
 et exhaeredationis, quod quidem non esset si querela esset aliorum. 
 Item justiciarii ? Non, cum in judiciis personam domini regis, 
 cujus vices gerit, representet. Quis ergo judicabit ? Videtur, sine 
 praejudicio melioris sententiae, quod curia et pares judicabunt ne 
 maleficia remaneant impunita, et maxime ubi periculum vitae fuerit
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 285 
 
 I should observe in passing that the passage in Bracton is 
 somewhat obscure : the word pares may mean the peers, or 
 simply some peers ; and it is not quite certain whether this 
 writer really means to divide treason, for the present purpose, 
 into three or only into two classes : if the latter, then by the 
 court he merely means the justices. However, there can be 
 no question as to what Bracton's disciples thought he meant. 
 
 et membrorum vel exhaeredacionis, cum ipse rex pars actrix esse 
 debeat in judicio. ... Si autem tale sit factum quod debeat ibi 
 majis transgressio quam felonia denotari, remanebit duellum, sed 
 tune videndum utrum transgressio ilia quae tangit regem gravis 
 fuerit vel levis, sive sibi sive uxori et pueris. In suis vero poterit rex 
 injuriari. Si autem levis fuerit transgressio quae poenam infligat 
 pecuniariam tantum et levem, bene possunt justiciarii sine paribus 
 judicare. Si autem gravis fuerit transgressio et proxima exhaere- 
 dacioni, quod redemptionem inducat, ibi debent pares justiciariis 
 associari, ne ipse rex per seipsum vel justiciaries suos sine paribus 
 actor sit et judex. 
 
 Compare this with chapter xxxix of the Dictum of Kenilworth 
 (printed in the Statutes of the Realm, vol. i, pp. 12-17, an d Stubbs, 
 Select Charters, p. 425): Si quis eciam non velit dictum istud tenere, 
 vel judicium curiae domini regis per pares subire, et sic exhaeredati 
 qui se dicunt tales, nullum jus habeant ad recuperandum terras. . . . 
 
 Li Livres de Jostice, XVI, i, s. i, states the French rule thus: Uns 
 des pers de France s'otroie a juigier pardevant le roi par ceus qui 
 juigier le doivent, et dit que li rois, ne si conseux, ne le doivent pas 
 juigier : mes il ne dit pas bien. Mes li rois, ne son consoil, sanz 
 autres, ne le puet pas juigier, c'est-a-dire que si per i doivent estre. 
 And ibid., I, xvii, s. 4 : Due, conte, baron, chastelain sont de lor 
 choses de la jotice au prevost.. . . . Prevoz puet prandre des choses 
 aus barons amonetez por rendre, ou por recreance avoir de ce que 
 li devantdit conte, due prendra de eels que li prevoz ara a governer ; 
 et Ten entent de ce que droiz ne doit sofrir. Due, contes, barons 
 ne devent pas estre tret en plet devant prevost dou fet de lor cors 
 ne de lor demeine : quar chascune tele persone ne doit estre jugiez 
 que par le roi, qui li doit foi, ou par ses pers. 
 
 Dudum lite mota coram hominibus judicantibus in curia comitis 
 de Drocis in castro de Dommart inter Andream de Rambures 
 militem, ex una parte, et Bernardum d'Alliel militem, filium et 
 heredem domine quondam de Vaucheles, ex altera . . . dicti 
 homines judicaverunt ... a quo quidem judicato tanquam falso 
 et pravo fuit per ipsum Bernardum ad nostram curiam appel- 
 latum. . . . Dicebat . . . quod pecierat ferri sententiam et jus sibi 
 dici per pares suos solum judicantes in dicta curia, et non per alios 
 homines ligeos, cum a dicto comite de Drocis teneret in paragio
 
 286 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 The next legist to be considered is the author of the work 
 called Fleta, said to have been written in the Fleet prison, 
 and certainly compiled about A.D. 1290. In Fleta, treason 
 cases are only divided into two classes: (i) felonies and 
 grave misdemeanours, to be judged coram curia et paribus ; 
 and (2) light misdemeanours determinate by the justices. 
 Bracton is merely expressing an opinion ; Fleta states the 
 rule as if it was settled law. 1 
 
 Next comes the work called Britton, written about A.D. 
 1291, a curious compilation purporting to represent a declara- 
 tion of the law by the sovereign himself. 
 
 With respect to the jurisdiction he may say that he is not bound 
 to answer in a place where the judge is a party, since in every judg- 
 
 alias en paarrie, et sic de consuetudine patrie in castellaniis in 
 quibus sunt pares et homines judicantes, sicut erant in castro de 
 Dommart predicto, per pares solum judicari debebat, et dicti 
 homines cum paribus contra ipsum tulerunt judicatum suum pre- 
 dictum contra consuetudinem predictam. ... Ex adverso . . . 
 dicti homines et pares judicantes . . . dicebant . . . quod de usu 
 et consuetudine patrie a longinquis temporibus observata, ex quo 
 litigium erat pro mobilibus et captalibus, homines cum paribus vel 
 homines solum sine paribus poterant judicare seu jus reddere in 
 causa mota inter parem et aliam quamcunque personam. . . . Per 
 judicium nostre curie fuit dictum dictos homines et pares bene 
 judicasse. (Arret du Parlement, A.D. 1326. Extracted by M. 
 Guilhiermoz, Bibl. de 1'Ecole des Charles, t. 60, p. 81 n.) 
 
 Dou droit au ber [i.e. baron] d'estre jugie par ses pers : Si li bers 
 est apelez en la cort le roi d'aucune chose qui apartaigne a heritage, 
 et li die: "je ne vueil pas estre jugiez fors par mes pers de ceste 
 chose," adonc si doit Ten les barons semondre a tout le moins 
 jusques a iii ; ,et puis doit la joutise feire droit o ces et o autres 
 chevaliers. (Etablissements de S. Louis, Livre i, cap. 76, vol. ii, 
 p. 124.) This text is derived from the customary law of Touraine- 
 Anjou; see ibid., vol. iii, p. 31. 
 
 1 De crimine laesae majestatis. (s. n): Et cum accusatus, 
 propterea non sit dimittendus, quaeri poterit ubi terminari debet 
 hujusmodi culpa ; non enim coram rege, cum non deceat ipsum in 
 amissione vitae vel membrorum actorem esse et judicem ; nee etiam 
 coram justiciariis, cum personam regis in judicio praesentent : sed 
 revera distinguendum est, nam si sit felonia vel transgressio gravis 
 proxima exhaeredationem quaeque redemptionem ad minus inducat, 
 tune coram curia et paribus procedere debet judicium ; et si trans- 
 gressio levis sit, liceat justiciariis dumtaxat judicare. (Fleta, ed. 
 Selden, cap. xxi, p. 31.)
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 287 
 
 ment there ought not to be less than three persons, to wit a judge, 
 a plaintiff, and a defendant; and in cases where we are party our 
 pleasure is that our court, to wit the earls and barons in time of 
 parliament, shall be judges. x 
 
 Of the three writers Bracton always and deservedly pos- 
 sessed an unshaken pre-eminence ; but, if the other two were 
 admittedly less authoritative, their comparative conciseness 
 probably made them much more popular with legal prac- 
 titioners. The influence of all of them on the trial of peers 
 is well marked. Britton's argument is, of course, a reductio 
 ad absurdum of Bracton's. If the rule was valid in treason, 
 it was equally valid in quo warranto or any civil case where 
 the king was litigant. Moreover, by the end of the thirteenth 
 century it was well recognised that the king was a party to 
 all criminal cases other than appeals. 
 
 In the eyre of Henry the Third's reign, held in the 
 presence of all the prelates, earls, barons and lesser dig- 
 nitaries of the county, the principle of Bracton and his 
 disciples was doubtless sufficiently satisfied. But the later 
 systems, for example the criminal administration of the 
 professional justices acting under commissions of oyer and 
 terminer and gaol delivery, could not be reconciled with it. 
 Nevertheless the principle must have been a popular one, 
 and the conflict with practice sufficiently obvious. 2 
 
 1 . . . et quant a la jurisdiccioun put il dire, qe il n'est mie tenu 
 a respoundre en place ou le juge est partie, desicum nul jugement 
 ne se put fere de meyns qe de iii persones, ceo est a saver de un 
 juge, de un pleyntif, et de un defendaunt, et en cas ou nous sumus 
 partie, voloms nous qe nostre court soit juge, sicum countes et 
 barouns en tens de parlement. (Britton, ed. Nichols, Livre i, cap. 
 xxiii, s. 8, p. 102.) 
 
 2 The practice so common during the fourteenth century of 
 inserting the names of one or two earls and barons in the com- 
 missions of oyer and terminer is perhaps attributable to the in- 
 fluence of Bracton. We have here a problem in which it would 
 be absurd to look for consistent developments. The developments, 
 in fact, are manifold and illogical. It is the same in France. Here, 
 for instance, is a remarkable argument from the pen of a Reimish 
 jurist : Utrum rex habeat cognitionem in causa ipsum et comitem 
 Flandrie tangente. In negocio regis et comitis Flandrie, reputavi 
 arrestum bonum quod rex debet habere primum judicium ; scilicet
 
 288 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 At last, in an odd way, comes the reconciliation of crown 
 procedure with Bracton and with chapter xxxix of the 
 Great Charter. A new point is reached. To some extent, 
 no doubt, Bracton himself paved the way for it when he 
 committed the "gross blunder" of referring to the verdict 
 of jurors as a judgment. 1 At the beginning of the four- 
 teenth century we have a reported case upon the new point 2 
 The case is a prosecution for rape at the king's suit. The 
 prisoner at the bar is a knight named Sir Hugh. Foreseeing 
 probably that counsel would be denied him at his trial, he 
 took legal advice beforehand, and came into court primed 
 with every possible plea. He began by claiming benefit of 
 clergy. " Sir," said he to the justice, " I am a clerk and 
 ought not to answer without my ordinary." The ordinary 
 then came forward and claimed him. But the justice, who 
 seems to have known something of the prisoner's family, 
 objected. "You are a bigamist," he said, "for you have 
 married a widow ; tell us if you say she was a virgin when 
 you married her, but you may as well admit the truth at 
 once for we can find out in a moment from a jury." Sir 
 Hugh was not going to lose any chance for want of a lie, 
 and said she was a virgin. " We will soon see," said the 
 justice. So he charged the jury, who found that she was 
 a widow when the prisoner married her. The justice there- 
 upon decided Sir Hugh must answer as a layman, and told 
 him to agree to the verdict of the twelve good men present. 
 Upon this Sir Hugh answered, " Sir, by them I am accused, 
 
 qui cognitionem et jurisdictionem haberet, eo quod rex est judex 
 simpliciter et generaliter, sine contestacione et determinatione et 
 restrictione. Et hoc est verum, si partem non faceret. Sed quia 
 faciebat partem, nee ipse judex erat competens, nee pares; sed 
 ipse judices dare debebat. (Liber Practicus de Consuetudine 
 Remensi; Varin, Archives legislatives de la ville de Reims, 
 Coutumes, i, p. 85.) 
 
 1 Bracton, Rolls Series, vol. iv, p. 392 : Eodem modo potest 
 jurator falsum facere judicium et fatuum, cum judicare teneatur per 
 verba in Sacramento contenta. . . . Et si justiciarius secundum 
 eorum judicium pronunciaverit, falsum faciet pronunciationem. 
 There are other instances cited by Pollock and Maitland, ii, 
 p. 625 n. 
 
 2 Year Book, 30-1 Edward I, p. 529.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 289 
 
 I will not agree to them : moreover, sir, I am a knight and 
 ought not to be judged except by my peers" The justice 
 replied : " Because you are a knight we are willing that 
 you should be judged by your peers." 1 A jury of knights 
 was accordingly empanelled, and ultimately Sir Hugh was 
 acquitted. 
 
 In this way trial by jury gradually came to be accepted by 
 the commoner as the promised judicium parium ; and, so 
 interpreted, it afforded a complete answer to Bracton's ob- 
 jection that the king, neither by himself nor by his justices, 
 should be judge in his own cause. In the case of the 
 commoner, at least, the jury were the associated peers. 
 
 The resulting effect on the construction of the Great 
 Charter we are not yet in a position to discuss. We have 
 still our main task before us to consider the influence of 
 these developing ideas on procedure against the nobility. 
 
 In all civil cases, and in all cases of mere misdemeanour 
 (transgressio), prelates, earls and barons were tried, and 
 judgment was pronounced against them by the king's 
 justices. 2 They were up to this point dealt with in the same 
 way as the ordinary freeman. Even the various compulsory 
 processes in aid of jurisdiction, distraint, imprisonment and 
 so forth, were (with some exceptions, in civil cases) 3 equally 
 available against the man of rank and the mere commoner. 
 The justices gave judgment, they enforced their judgments, 
 but the penalty they had nothing to do with. The appropriate 
 punishment for misdemeanours and the like (amercement) 
 was not assessed by them or under their supervision. Earls 
 and barons were always amerced during the reign of Henry 
 
 1 (Hugo) . . . Item, domine, ego sum miles et non debeo 
 judicari nisi per meos pares. (Justiciarius) Quia vos estis miles, 
 volumus quod vos sitis judicati per vestros pares. Et nomina- 
 bantur milites. 
 
 Compare the privilege enjoyed by peers of having knights on the 
 jury in civil cases. See Year Book, 12-13 Edward III, Rolls Series, 
 p. 290 ; and Pike, Hist, of the House of Lords, pp. 258-9. 
 
 2 Cases illustrative of the procedure adopted against men of 
 rank, have been collected in the appendix to this chapter. 
 
 3 See Pike, Hist, of the House of Lords, cap. xix. Such privileges 
 are outside the scope of this work.
 
 ago THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 the Third either by the barons of the Exchequer or coram 
 rege: 1 this was the practice before the Great Charter and 
 
 1 Countesses and baronesses were amerced in the same way as 
 earls and barons. See Appendix. 
 
 Bracton, Rolls Series, vol. ii, p. 242 : Comites vel barones non 
 sunt amerciandi nisi per pares suos, et hoc per barones de scaccario 
 vel coram rege. 
 
 Note that when for any reason a case could not be disposed of in 
 eyre, and an earl or baron was implicated, it appears to have been 
 the practice at one time to adjourn the case coram rege; and, if 
 untried, for trial as well as judgment. Thus at the Hertford Eyre 
 (15 Edward I) we find the following procedure fairly consistently 
 adopted. If the defendant in quo warranto pleaded prescription or 
 the like, he was adjourned to hear judgment before the barons of 
 the Exchequer. If, however, he vouched to warranty a commoner, 
 he was given a day at Westminster and a jury was awarded : but if 
 he vouched to warranty a baron, a day was given coram domino rege 
 at Westminster and a jury was awarded. (See Roll 328, m. 4od, 
 where Thomas Gereberd vouches the earl of Hereford.) For a quo 
 warranto case in which John king of Scotland is the defendant see 
 Roll 544, m. 36d. (22 Edward I): John puts in a special plea and is 
 adjourned coram rege. 
 
 French examples of the general principle have been cited above, 
 pp. 285-6. But even peers of France had no right to be amerced by 
 their peers. 
 
 (Archives Legislatives de Reims, i, p. 327.) No. cdxxii : Quid 
 jus habent pares Francie. Jus parrie effectum habet, quod pares 
 judicentur per pares ; in exercitum proximum locum post regem 
 optineant. No. cdxxiii : Utrum questione pendente inter comitem 
 Flandrensem et homines parrie, rex vel pares debeant judicare. 
 Contra comitem Flandrie . . . , Gandenses, Duacenses, Brugenses 
 faciebant requestas. Comes dicebat se velle deffendere requestas, 
 sed dicebat quod non tenebatur ingredi judicium, quia spoliatus toto 
 comitatu, nisi prius restitutus. Unde supplicabat regi extra judicium, 
 quod eum ressaisiret, vel paratus erat recipere judicium per pares ; 
 et si dubium esset (an) pares debeant de hoc esse judices, petebat 
 fieri declarationem per pares. Sed dicebatur ex parte regis, cum 
 quod non ageretur de feodo, nee ad admissionem feodi, sed ad 
 emendam pecuniariam propter inobedienciam, rex (debebat) esse 
 judex, et hoc ipse offerebat, scilicet facere justiciam ; offerebat eciam 
 se jus facturum, si [ad] ipsum cognitio et judicium pertinerent. Et 
 judicatum fuit, et bene, quod rex primum haberet judicium, quia rex 
 est superior et judex comitis simpliciter ; pares non nisi secundum 
 quidem, scilicet in questione feodi. 
 
 (Li Livres de Jostice et de Plet, ut supra.) Due, conte, baron, 
 chastelain sont de lor choses de la jotice au prevost.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 291 
 
 was continued by Henry the Third, apparently because it 
 was to his manifest advantage to do so, rather than because 
 there was any legal difficulty in the way of amercing earls and 
 barons in the counties. 1 Eventually a fixed scale of amerce- 
 ments came, into use ; and the privilege, if any, of special 
 assessment was gradually superseded and forgotten. 2 
 
 There is no evidence whatever that earls and barons desired 
 to have a tribunal of peers to try the civil causes in which 
 they were concerned. Instances could perhaps be produced 
 where some baron, looking vainly for a tabula in naufragio, 
 
 1 Rot. Glaus. R.C., p. 383 b. (3 Henry III): Rex justiciariis 
 itinerantibus in comitatu Kancie salutem. Mandamus vobis quod 
 omnes loquelas planas que fuerint sine contencione et coram vobis 
 venerint teneatis, et omnes illos qui coram vobis inciderint in miser- 
 cordia de communibus loquelis amercietis, exceptis comitibus et 
 baronibus qui coram consilio nostro amerciandi sunt ; omnes autem 
 demandas que coram vobis fuerint quas homines exigunt de liber- 
 tatibus, videlicet quas dominus Cantuariensis archiepiscopus, G. 
 comes de Clara vel alii exigunt, in respectum ponatis usque in xv 
 dies post festum sancti Hyllarii coram consilio nostro apud West- 
 monasterium : si q. et loquele ardue coram vobis emerserint que 
 coram vobis sine difficultate terminari non possint, nee sine consilio 
 consilii nostri, eas similiter in respectum poni faciatis usque ad 
 predictos diem et locum. Teste Comite apud Turrim London, ix 
 die Decembris. coram domino Winton. episcopo. 
 
 Compare ibid., p. 3875. (3 Henry III) : De amerciamentis. Rex 
 H. Lincoln, episcopo et sociis suis justiciariis itinerantibus in comi- 
 tatu Lincoln., Nottingham., et Dereby, salutem. Mandamus vobis 
 quod nullum comitem vel baronem amercietis occasione miseri- 
 cordiarum in quas inciderint coram vobis vel aliquem alium pro 
 aliquo unde magnum amerciamentum debeat pervenire, set hujus* 
 modi amerciamenta consilio nostro reservetis. Teste domino W. 
 Coventr. episcopo apud Westmonasterium v die Febuarii. 
 
 2 The Mirror of Justices, Selden Soc., p. 150: Peine peccunielle 
 appelluns nous amerciementz . . . qe ascuns pointz sont en certein 
 e en ascuns pointz nient. En certeins amerciementz sunt en cer- 
 teins ascuns foiz solum les dignitiez de gentz, sicom est de contes et 
 des barrens. Car cum tenaunt contie enteree est amerciable a c li. 
 quant meins est amercie. E baron de baronie en entere a c marz. 
 E qi meins entenent ou plus, solom la quantite de sa tenure. 
 
 See also ibid., p. 36 : Les ij chevalers soleient estre appelez ij 
 barons pur affoerer les amerciementz des countes et des barouns, e 
 de tenaunz counties et baronies si qe nul ne fust affbere forque par 
 ces piers. See finally, Madox, Exchequer, cap. xiv, s. i.
 
 292 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 asserted this right. I have discovered no such case : the in- 
 stances usually quoted have been already explained, not one 
 of them supports the discussion. 
 
 In dealing with the graver misdemeanours there exist 
 excellent examples of the procedure which was probably 
 partly the cause, partly the consequence of those principles 
 which Bracton, Fleta and Britton attempted to lay down. 
 The justices had full power to try such cases and proceed to 
 conviction. If conviction resulted the justices might imprison 
 or admit to bail pending final judgment, but they themselves 
 did not pronounce final judgment against prelates, earls or 
 barons : these in Bracton's time were commonly sent coram 
 rege, while in Brittoris time we usually find them adjourned 
 to appear before the king at the next parliament. 1 We may 
 say that a fortiori the man of rank could not be judged by 
 the ordinary justices for treason or felony, but we have no 
 ground for saying that he could not be tried by them for 
 these crimes. 
 
 At the beginning of the year 1290 a fierce private war was 
 in progress between the earls of Gloucester and Hereford, 
 the seat of hostilities being certain disputed territory in the 
 Welsh marches. 2 Under ordinary circumstances private war 
 was treason, felony or anything the king chose to consider it. 
 We must however concede, in extenuation of the acts in 
 question, that the marcher lords claimed then, and always 
 had claimed, that private war was a privilege of the march. 
 The king's chief object all through was to break this custom. 
 On January 25, 1289-90, a royal mandate was issued in- 
 hibiting hostilities. The result was an immediate raid by 
 Gloucester's tenants into Brecknock : men were killed, cattle 
 lifted, much booty secured ; a third of the loot was received 
 
 1 For examples see appendix to this chapter. For further evidence 
 of the use of the expression, and as to its meaning, see Statute 13 
 Ed. I, c. 24, Close Roll, Cal. (1272-9), pp. 137, 200, 268, (274), 
 (35). 363. 375>(3 8o )> 427, 45, 462, (465), 466, 470, (521), 528, 
 570 ; and the Close Rolls during the rest of this reign passim : also 
 Pike, History of the House of Lords, pp. 47-50. 
 
 ! This was by no means the first instance of such private war 
 between these two earls. See, for example, Close Roll, Cal., 1272-9, 
 p. 504.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 293 
 
 by Gloucester himself. Two more raids subsequently took 
 place from the same quarter, Hereford meanwhile remaining 
 passive in compliance with the king's order. Then Edward 
 struck hard. An originating writ of set. fa. was issued, and 
 special commissioners appointed, consisting of a bishop, an 
 earl and two regular justices. These were directed to pro- 
 ceed with the inquiry notwithstanding any attempt by the 
 earls to settle the dispute ; and, for the purpose of the inquiry, 
 magnates as well as others were to be summoned to give 
 evidence upon oath eo quod res ista dominum regent et digni- 
 tatem suam tangit. 
 
 The commissioners sat on the day appointed, when Here- 
 ford appeared but not Gloucester. A two days' adjournment 
 was ordered. When the court reassembled after the adjourn- 
 ment Gloucester was still absent. The commissioners then 
 proceeded to empanel a jury, and in accordance with their 
 instructions attempted to swear in certain of the marcher 
 lords. These, for reasons already referred to, resolutely de- 
 clined to take the oath, and finally a jury of commoners was 
 collected which found a verdict implicating Gloucester. The 
 judges, after repeating the inhibition against hostilities, ad- 
 journed the proceedings and reported to the king. 
 
 Edward decided that he and his council would hear the 
 case at Abergavenny at Michaelmas. Meanwhile more raids 
 took place, but this time without the cognisance of either 
 earl. Hereford's men for once had the advantage, and secured 
 a large amount of Gloucester's cattle found pasturing on the 
 disputed territory. At this point Hereford committed a 
 blunder. A civil suit, it appears, was pending between him 
 and Gloucester to decide their claims, but apart from this the 
 whole matter was clearly sub judice. Notwithstanding this, 
 Hereford directed that the cattle should be retained until 
 security had been given that his right to the land would be 
 recognised. This was from any point of view a manifest 
 contempt of court. 
 
 Both Hereford and Gloucester appeared at the hearing 
 before the king ; and a jury was empanelled as before to 
 prove the new facts, which have been already stated. The 
 earls were then put upon their defence, and Gloucester raised
 
 294 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 various objections to the finding at the first hearing. The 
 council decided that the commissioners had proceeded per- 
 fectly properly, and that judgment might duly be pronounced 
 in this and similar cases on such and similar inquisitions. 
 Both earls were eventually sentenced to imprisonment and 
 forfeiture of certain lands. The judgment was pronounced 
 on behalf of the whole council consisting of king, prelates, 
 earls, barons and others. 1 
 
 The original offence in this case appears to have been 
 treated as treason-trespass, and perhaps for this reason peers 
 were associated with the justices in taking the inquisition : 
 more probably the peers were appointed for purely practical 
 reasons. The matter came before the king as one which 
 had been tried but not judged : it so happened that certain 
 further events had taken place which necessitated a further 
 finding, but that is a detail. The earls were subsequently 
 brought up before parliament when Edward was graciously 
 pleased to mitigate their sentences. Certain other persons 
 were sentenced by the king in council at the same time that 
 judgment was passed on the earls; and the whole proceed- 
 ing, owing no doubt to the adjournment above mentioned, 
 is recorded on the rolls of parliament. 2 
 
 In 1305 Nicholas Segrave, a baron, was arraigned at 
 Westminster on a charge of high treason. The circum- 
 stances were somewhat peculiar. 3 Segrave and Cromwell had 
 been serving with the king in the Scottish campaign, during 
 which Segrave brought an accusation against Cromwell, pre- 
 sumably in the king's military court, and wager of battle 
 
 1 For references to the reports of this case, see supra, p. 282. 
 
 A similar case against John Giffard is recorded in the Coram 
 Rege Roll (104), Pasch., 15 Edward I, m. 31, but the report breaks 
 off abruptly in the middle of the argument of the attorney for the 
 crown. 
 
 The trial of Theobald de Verdun (a baron) on a serious charge 
 of giving false evidence is set out in the appendix. 
 
 2 Rot. Parl., vol. i, pp. 70 et sqq. 
 
 3 See Memoranda de Parliamento, 1305, Rolls Series [98], 
 pp. 255 et sqq. The same roll contains the record of proceedings 
 against another baron, Almaric de St. Amand, for high misdemeanours. 
 See also Rot. Parl., vol. i, pp. 172-4, 181 ; and Flores Historiarum 
 [95] iu ' PP- 1 2 1-2.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 295 
 
 appears to have been joined. It was the usual practice 
 throughout Europe to forbid duelling during a campaign, 
 and Edward had evidently issued either general or particular 
 orders applying to the present case. Segrave thereupon 
 challenged his adversary to fight him in the court of the 
 king of France, and, with never so much as a by-your-leave 
 to king Edward, he withdrew himself for the purpose from 
 the English army. 
 
 Segrave was brought up for trial before the king, the 
 primate, and divers earls, barons and others of the king's 
 council in full parliament. This to us seems something like 
 a contradiction in terms : before long, no doubt, divers of the 
 king's council did not constitute a full parliament, then it was 
 evidently otherwise. Segrave pleaded guilty, and the council 
 on being asked said that the punishment in such case was 
 death. The king, however, of his grace accepted an under- 
 taking from seven sureties that he would render himself to 
 prison if called upon to do so. 1 
 
 1 . . . Et Nicholaus de Segrave modo venit in pleno parliamento 
 in praesentia ipsius domini regis, archiepiscopi Cantuariensis et 
 plurimorum episcoporum, comitum, baronum et aliorum de consilio 
 domini regis tune ibidem existentium. 
 
 Et Nicholaus de Warrewike qui sequitur pro ipso domino rege 
 acculpavit praedictum Nicholaum de Segrave de eo quod . . . et 
 hie offert pro ipso domino rege verificare prout curia consideraverit 
 etc. 
 
 Et praedictus Nicholaus de Segrave . . . omnia antedicta in 
 forma sibi imposita expresse cognovit, et voluntati domini regis de 
 alto et basso inde se submisit. 
 
 Et super hoc dominus rex, volens habere avisamentum comitum, 
 baronum, magnatum et aliorum de consilio suo, injunxit eisdem in 
 homagio, fidelitate et ligiantia quibus ei tenentur, quod ipsum 
 fideliter consulerent qualis poena pro tali facto sic cognito fuerit 
 infligenda. Et interim idem Nicholaus committatur prisonae ad 
 Turrim. 
 
 Qui omnes . . . dicunt quod hujusmodi factum meretur poenam 
 amissionis vitae, etc. 
 
 Et licet idem Nicholaus de Segrave per considerationem praedic- 
 tam judicium vitae subire deberet, dominus rex tamen, de gratia sua 
 speciali, pietate motus . . . remittit eidem Nicholao judicium vitae 
 et membrorum et concedit [etc.], . . . (Memoranda de Parliamento, 
 Rolls Series [98], pp. 255-8.)
 
 * 9 6 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 We may conclude from the above and similar cases l that, 
 in the reign of Edward the First, judgment in " parliament " 
 was habitually accorded to men of rank in criminal cases of 
 a serious nature ; but in some instances, at all events, the case 
 was only adjourned to be so judged after a trial and verdict 
 differing little, if at all, from that vouchsafed to the com- 
 moner. 
 
 In passing it should be noticed that we are arriving at 
 a classification which has no relation whatever to the matters 
 enumerated in chapter xxxix of the Charter. Take the 
 privileges actually enjoyed by earls and barons at any given 
 period from the time of John to the present day : at no time 
 on any intelligible principle of construction can those privi- 
 leges be directly deduced from the language of the Charter. 
 They are, on the contrary, largely if not entirely the outcome 
 of ideas derived from wholly different sources, juridical ideas 
 which have perhaps little vitality of their own, but, as para- 
 sites, are going to thrive lustily on the dead root of English 
 liberties. 
 
 A turbulent period followed upon the accession of Edward 
 the Second. England became split up into rival factions ; 
 and although, as the natural results of internal disorder, 
 the period has many causes celebres, these for the most 
 part merely represent the triumph of one political party 
 over the other. As each side gained the ascendency it 
 sought to secure its position, on the one hand by taking 
 the life and lands of the leaders opposed to it, on the other 
 by annulling as far as possible the work done by these same 
 opponents during their period of power. The one business 
 was carried out by judgments for treason, which certainly 
 exhibit the minimum regard for legal formalities : the other 
 was achieved by legislative acts, reversing these judgments 
 for errors of law and procedure. 
 
 The case of Gaveston we need not consider : his banish- 
 ment was the result of a political bargain, his death an 
 ill-advised, badly -planned coup d'etat, both worthless as 
 precedents for how peers should be tried. 
 
 1 For other cases see the appendix to this chapter.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 297 
 
 The first proceedings against the Despencers took place in 
 parliament with a considerable show of formality. Prelates, 
 earls, barons and other peers together with the commons 
 are represented as having framed the accusation. The trial, 
 however, was conducted in the absence of the persons 
 accused, and simply consisted of a finding by the peers of 
 the realm that their alleged misdeeds were notoriously true ; 
 whereupon the peers of the realm, earls and barons in the 
 king's presence passed sentence of forfeiture and banishment 
 upon them. 1 
 
 It is obvious that this was not a judgment in accordance 
 with the law of the land : indeed, it was part of the con- 
 trariants' case that process of law was impossible under the 
 circumstances. 2 The law of the land indubitably required 
 that the defendants should be present, that they should be 
 arraigned, that they should plead, and if they denied the 
 charge that they should be put to answer. By the law of 
 the land, then, the award was illegal in many particulars : 
 could it, however, be supported as a valid judgment of peers? 
 The question must be answered in the negative. 
 
 Before long the Despencers, who had left England in con- 
 sequence of the judgment, returned from exile and obtained 
 an Act reversing the sentence on the ground of error. This 
 Act was passed in the fifteenth year of Edward the Second, 
 and is enrolled on the Close Roll for that year. 3 It is a 
 verbose and unskilfully prepared instrument, but valuable 
 notwithstanding. The following are the principal errors re- 
 corded : the judgment was contrary to the tenor of Magna 
 
 1 See Calendar of Close Rolls (1318-23), pp. 492-5. 
 
 2 Statutes of the Realm R.C., vol. i, p. 185. The contrariants 
 defined their intention as follows : quod super hiis fiat unum 
 statutum in praesenti parliamento ad perpetuam rei memoriam 
 et exemplum consiliatorum perversorum. . . . (Chronicles of the 
 reigns of Edward I and Edward II, vol. ii, p. 65 et sqq.) 
 A fertile idea, the precursor of fifteenth-century attainders, but 
 insufficiently elaborated. 
 
 3 The Calendar of Close Rolls gives a verbatim translation of the 
 whole proceedings. There is also a transcript of the proceedings 
 entered subsequently on the Parliament Rolls, see Rot. Parl., vol. iii, 
 pp. 360-7. The material parts for our purpose are set out in the 
 appendix.
 
 298 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Carta, the Despencers were not called into court nor put to 
 answer, the matters contained in the award were not duly 
 proved, the magnates came armed to parliament, the mag- 
 nates were both prosecutors and judges, the king was not in 
 reality a party to the judgment, and the prelates, who are 
 peers of the realm in parliament, did not assent. It was not 
 and could not have been contended that the judgment was 
 not a judgment of peers. This Act does not appear on the 
 Statute Roll or on any contemporary parliament roll, 
 although the repeal of the subsidiary pardon granted to the 
 prosecutors is duly enrolled. 1 The principal Act in question 
 was in its turn reversed by Edward the Third, but only to be 
 restored by Richard the Second. In these vicissitudes, how- 
 ever, there is nothing to suggest that the errors found by the 
 Act were open to dispute. 
 
 Thomas earl of Lancaster's case is the next we have to 
 consider. 2 This earl, after his defeat at Borough-bridge, was 
 brought before the king at Pontefract. There were several 
 magnates in attendance, but nothing in the nature of a trial 
 seems to have taken place. The earl's crimes were recorded, 
 and sentence was pronounced on behalf of the king. 3 The 
 peers who were present are not stated in the record to have 
 been in any true sense parties to this judgment, but whether 
 they were or were not in fact parties is of no present import- 
 ance. The judgment was tried and found wanting on the 
 record alone, and was reversed for error by an Act of Edward 
 the Third. This was granted on the petition of Henry of 
 Lancaster, and the errors he alleged were these : that 
 whereas every liegeman of the king taken for felony in time 
 of peace ought to be arraigned of the crime laid to his 
 charge and put to answer, and ought to be convicted thereof 
 by law, etc., before he is adjudged to death ; nevertheless, 
 
 1 Printed in Statutes of the Realm, R.C., vol. i., p. 185. 
 
 2 Roger Damory, a baron, was tried and sentenced, some little 
 time before the battle of Borough-bridge, in the court of the 
 Constable and Marshal. This case is given in the appendix to 
 chap, xi, in which the jurisdiction of the military court over peers 
 of the realm is considered at some length. 
 
 3 See Appendix.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 299 
 
 although earl Thomas was a liegeman of the late king taken 
 in time of peace, the said king recorded that Thomas was 
 guilty of the crimes contained in the said process without 
 arraigning him thereof or putting him to answer : Moreover, 
 since Thomas was one of the peers and magnates of the 
 realm, and Magna Carta provides that no free man shall be 
 taken, etc., except by lawful judgment of his peers or by the 
 law of the land, the said Thomas was erroneously adjudged 
 to death by record of the king as aforesaid in time of peace 
 without arraignment or answer or lawful judgment of his 
 peers contrary to the law, etc., and contrary to the tenor of 
 Magna Carta. By reason of " the errors aforesaid and others " 
 in the record and process, annulment is decreed by " the king, 
 proceres, magnates and the whole community of the realm." 
 These proceedings are enrolled on the Close Roll, and there 
 is also an inspeximus and exemplification entered on a subse- 
 quent Patent Roll, but no similar entry occurs on any existing 
 Parliament or Statute Roll. 1 
 
 Four other well-known barons, namely the Mortimers of 
 Chirk and Wigmore, Bartholomew de Badlesmere and Henry 
 Tyes, were sentenced for treason about the same time. 2 In 
 each case the method pursued was the same : a writ was 
 issued to certain persons enjoining them to visit the prisoner 
 and pass judgment upon him according to the tenor of a 
 document scheduled to the writ ; this document differs not 
 at all from a common-form judgment except that, instead 
 of rehearsing the prisoner's confession or conviction, it con- 
 tains the formula that his crimes are notorious and the king 
 records the fact ; thereupon the commissioners thus appointed 
 visited the prisoner and read aloud to him the words of the 
 schedule. That was all. In the four cases mentioned none 
 was tried, none of the commissioners appointed was a peer 
 of the realm. 
 
 The judgments against the Mortimers and Badlesmere were 
 
 1 Appendix. 
 
 2 These proceedings as they appear on the Coram Rege Roll are all 
 set out at length in the appendix to vol. ii, pt. 2, of the Parliamentary 
 Writs. For the original records of the proceedings against the Mor- 
 timers, see Exchequer Miscellanea, 24/12.
 
 300 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 also severally reversed for error on the accession of Edward 
 the Third. 1 There is no entry on the Parliament or Close 
 Rolls, but the grounds for reversal are set forth in letters of 
 inspeximus and exemplification enrolled on the Patent Rolls. 
 Thus in the case of the Mortimers : 
 
 And because after examination it was found that they were so 
 sentenced without having been admitted to answer any of the charges 
 brought against them, and that in time of peace when the king was 
 not riding with banners displayed, and when the chancery of the 
 king and the justices of either bench were sitting, and without legal 
 judgment of their peers which is contrary to the law and custom of 
 England and the tenor of the aforesaid charter, it was determined 
 by the king that now is and his council in full parliament that all the 
 said judgments against them should for the errors aforesaid be wholly 
 annulled and revoked. 
 
 Here we have the principle unmistakably asserted that a 
 peer in such case must be judged according to the law of the 
 land and also have the judgment of his peers. At the same 
 time we must notice the very suggestive circumstance that 
 these interpretations of the Great Charter never appear either 
 on the Parliament or on the Statute Rolls. 
 
 The case of Andrew Harcla, earl of Carlisle, differs con- 
 siderably from the previous ones, for it was no mere political 
 faction, but the king and his entire realm who regarded 
 Harcla as a traitor. The circumstances are somewhat obscure. 
 This man had been created earl, not so much for services 
 rendered at Borough-bridge, though these counted for much, 
 as for his strenuous activity on the Scotch border : then, in 
 the height of his fame, he made treasonable overtures to 
 England's northern foe. Success must have unhinged his 
 mind. 
 
 At the outset the king appears to have acted very properly- 
 On being informed of Harcla's treason he summoned him 
 to his presence to give a personal explanation of what had 
 occurred ; and then, as this summons was disobeyed, issued 
 orders for his arrest. The earl was taken and imprisoned 
 at Carlisle. Thereupon the king issued a special commission 
 
 1 Appendix.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 301 
 
 to Edmund earl of Kent, John de Hastings (a baron), three 
 knights (king's justices) and Scrope (the chief justice), or any 
 five, four, three or two of them, not to try the earl, but to 
 deprive him of his dignities and pass judgment upon him 
 according to the tenor of a document scheduled to the com- 
 mission. The victor at Borough-bridge receives in his turn 
 the same treatment as the vanquished : this document is his 
 judgment, it contains the common formula of the time to the 
 effect that the earl's crimes are notorious and the king records 
 the fact j 1 there is no mention on the Coram Rege Roll of any 
 trial whatsoever ; the ready-made, prerogative judgment was 
 pronounced by the justices in presence, it would seem, of all 
 the commissioners, and Harcla was degraded and executed. 2 
 It was a most iniquitous proceeding, no doubt, this judg- 
 ment without a trial ; but how far it was contrary to the law 
 of the land or against the form of the Great Charter is a 
 different matter. The law, as we have seen, required that the 
 prisoner should be arraigned, but only for the purpose of 
 establishing his guilt. The same law laid down the rule that 
 the record of the king was conclusive evidence of the facts 
 recorded. Harcla's guilt was therefore already established, 
 and consequently it might be argued there was no need for a 
 trial. To us, of course, this argument seems absurd ; the 
 annulment of those other judgments, in pari materia upon 
 this point, utterly disposes of it ; so much for the law of the 
 land. With regard to the Charter and the judicium parium 
 
 1 . . . les quieux sont notoires et conuz en le roialme, et nostre 
 seigneur le roi le recorde, por quoi agarde ceste courte qe por la dite 
 treson soietz treisne, pendu et decolle . . . 
 
 In the case of Bartholomew de Badlesmere the formula is slightly 
 different : . . . les queus traysouns, arsouns, homicides, robberies, 
 chevachez ove banere desplaietz, sont notoires as countes, barouns 
 et autres grauntz et petitz de son roialme, et nostre seigneur le roi 
 de son real poer la recorde ; por quey agarde ceste court qe pur la 
 traysoun soyetz trayne et. . . . 
 
 2 The record of the process is printed in full from the Coram 
 Rege Roll, Hil., 18 Edward II, in Parliamentary Writs, vol. ii, pt. 2, 
 app., pp. 262-3. See also Rymer, Foedera; and Placitorum Abbre- 
 viatio. The presence of the two peers is by no means certain, 
 although the earl of Kent was the person ordered to return the 
 record of the judgment.
 
 302 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 it may be observed that to this day only one peer is required 
 for passing judgment on another peer in the court of the lord 
 high steward : the other peers who are summoned merely 
 attend to perform the functions of a jury and establish the 
 facts. In this case, but for the wording of the commission 
 which permits, so to speak, the absence of both peers, we 
 might conclude that Edward deliberately constituted the 
 commission so as to comply with the requirements of Bracton 
 as interpreted by Fleta that in treason cases involving peril 
 of life and member peers should be associated with the 
 justices. Perhaps this is the true conclusion notwithstanding 
 the form of the commission. 1 
 
 The judgment on Harcla is only less remarkable than the 
 petition for its reversal. 2 It is in this petition that we first 
 find the claim put forward to a jury of peers. The petition 
 does not assert that Harcla was condemned without judgment 
 of peers : in fact, the only error alleged is that he was not 
 " atteint par enquest de ses piers." The case still stands, but 
 it would be absurd to pretend that it is of any great import- 
 ance as a precedent : still it is one of the few cases in the 
 fourteenth century where a peer has been judged for treason 
 elsewhere than in parliament ; this fact alone gives it a certain 
 value. 
 
 At the end of the reign of Edward the Second the 
 Despencers fell into the hands of the queen's party, and 
 first one, then the other, was condemned and executed as 
 a traitor. Both cases were so clearly the acts of a revolu- 
 tionary party that it seems idle to consider what formalities 
 were observed : neither Despencer, it may be mentioned, was 
 tried in parliament. 3 
 
 The position of the spiritual lords with reference to trial 
 
 1 Compare this commission with the series issued a few months 
 later (July i8th, 1323), where special words were inserted to secure 
 the presence of at least one peer; see Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1321-4, pp. 
 260, 371-2. 
 
 2 See Appendix. 
 
 3 A detailed account of these proceedings is given by Knighton, 
 Rolls Series [92], i, pp. 436-41; and see Misc. Rolls Chancery, 18/3.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 303 
 
 by peers has proved a highly controversial subject. 1 Saving 
 the higher right of the church, they appear to have con- 
 sidered themselves equally entitled with lay peers to the 
 benefits (whatever they might be) of chapter xxxix of the 
 Charter; but this saving clause bade fair to cut away, or 
 perhaps we should say to supersede, the greater portion, if 
 not the whole, of such benefits. In high crimes and mis- 
 demeanours, in matters involving peril of life or member, the 
 church claimed complete exemption from lay jurisdiction, 
 and this privilege was recognised and confirmed by a statute 
 of 9 Edward II. 2 With lesser transgressions excluded from 
 
 1 The famous case against the archbishop of York in the reign 
 of Edward I seems to me to have no direct bearing on the question. 
 This case appears on the Parliament Roll (printed, Rot. Parl., 
 vol. i, p. 102), the K.R. Memoranda Roll (22 Ed. I, m. 12), etc. 
 
 2 The church to be sure probably regarded the matter in this 
 way. There were two estates in the body politic, clergy and laity ; 
 and of these each had its grades : of the laity there were king, lords 
 and commons. The bishop was a lord and a great deal more. The 
 peers of a bishop included no layman, not even the king. There- 
 fore, under Magna Carta no less than under the divine ordinances 
 of holy church, no bishop could be judged for a crime except in an 
 ecclesiastical court. 
 
 Between the " clerici rettati" of 1164 and the statute of 9 
 Edward II the authority asserted by the temporal power over 
 criminous clerks had undergone striking modifications and develop- 
 ments : even the canon law had received significant interpretations. 
 Gratian was quite out of date. Gratian indeed ! Nullus episcopus, 
 neque pro civili neque pro criminali causa, apud quemvis judicem, 
 sive civilem sive militarem, producatur vel exhibeatur. Clericus 
 apud saecularem judicem si pulsatus fuerit, non respondeat aut pro- 
 ponat. But even in the days of a universal ordinary, the primaeval 
 law of self-preservation would occasionally prove antagonistic to and 
 stronger than the whole corpus juris canonici. Here is a cause 
 celebre of the twelfth century : Causae quidem ejus quae inter 
 Osbertum Eboracensem archidiaconum et S. clericum vertitur 
 initium prosecutio et finis, appellatione ille suspensus est, quern 
 ex literis legati vestri domini Cantuariensis archiepiscopi plena 
 potest veritatis luce sublimitas vestra cognoscere. Has quidem et 
 diligenter inspeximus et omnes causae ipsius articulos in eum pro- 
 cessisse modum, quo literis designantur eisdem, plane testificamur. 
 S. enim predictum archidiaconum super morte Willelmo archi- 
 episcopo veneno ut dicebat illata et quibusdam criminibus aliis 
 impetens, in ipsum vinculum inscriptionis arripere et coram judice
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 the category of offences punishable only by judgment of 
 peers, little was left in the whole scale of crime worth claim- 
 ing privilege of peerage for. 
 
 Under Edward the Third it became settled law that in 
 treason there was no benefit of clergy. Unfortunately 
 privilege of peerage could scarcely be claimed by spiritual 
 peers in this case without abandoning their higher claim " to 
 the prejudice of God and Holy Church." We are not in 
 the least concerned here with ecclesiastical exemption ; but 
 nevertheless some mention of two important cases against 
 prelates, occurring during the reign of Edward the Second, 
 seems desirable in deference to former controversies. These 
 cases, however, decide nothing. 
 
 Walter Langton, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, was 
 arrested on various vague charges made against him as 
 treasurer of the late king. 1 He was imprisoned first at 
 Windsor, then in the Tower, and a special commission was 
 issued to four justices to try him. The offences alleged 
 against the bishop were definitely described as trespasses. 
 Langton was released eventually on the interposition of the 
 pope. No objection was at any time raised to the jurisdiction 
 of the justices. 
 
 The case of Adam Orleton, bishop of Hereford, is more 
 important. This prelate was attached on the finding of a 
 special inquisition which charged him with being concerned 
 in levying war on the king. The order for his attachment 
 seems to have been irregular : no day was given him to 
 
 ecclesiastico agere recusabat. Quumque in tanta multitudine 
 parentum et amicorum archiepiscopi defuncti solus ipse staret, et 
 nullis fulta testimoniis verba funderet, laminam candentis ferri in 
 praedictum archiepiscopum eo tutius offerebat quo ecclesia Dei pro- 
 bationem hujusmodi nullatenus admissuram attendebat. Ipsumque 
 ad regis audientiam eo confidentius provocabat, quo ad judicium 
 hoc apud cinctum judicem de jure celebrare non posse avertebat. 
 Quumque judicis animum in eo non oporteat versus quemquam 
 moveri, quod non potest ostendi, pro jam dicto archidiacono preces 
 sublimitati vestrae porrigimus, ne apud vos incurrat iram. . . . 
 (Letters of Gilbert Foliot, ed. Giles, vol. i, pp. 152-3.) 
 
 1 See Patent Roll, i Edward II, pt. i, m. 8d., Calendar, p. 40 ; 
 chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, Rolls 
 Series [76], i, pp. 257, 264; Trokelowe, Rolls Series [28], pp. 63-4.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 305 
 
 appear, either before the justices making the order, or other- 
 wise. According to the records of the court of King's 
 Bench 1 he was arraigned before that court on or after 
 January 23rd, 1323-4; and, on being asked by the justices 
 how he would acquit himself, he said that he was bishop of 
 Hereford at the will of God and the supreme pontiff, that the 
 matters laid to his charge were so weighty that he ought not 
 to answer them in that court, nor could he do so without 
 offence to God and holy church. He was thereupon ordered to 
 appear in person from day to day to hear judgment. The 
 record then, without any intermediate announcement, states 
 what took place on the 24th of February. The bishop ap- 
 peared before the king in full parliament. The matter was 
 rehearsed : the bishop was asked whether he had anything 
 more to say, and he made answer as before. The archbishop 
 of Canterbury then claimed him as one constituted in the 
 episcopal dignity. The claim was allowed ; but the arch- 
 bishop was ordered to produce the bishop in court on the 
 Monday next before Mid-Lent, for which day the sheriff of 
 Hereford was ordered to summon a jury. The archbishop, 
 the bishop and the jury came into court on the day appointed. 
 The jury found a verdict in the terms of the indictment; 
 and judgment was given that the bishop should remain in 
 the custody of the archbishop as a clerk-convict, and his 
 temporalities be seized into the king's hands. This record 
 is obviously defective in many matters of ordinary routine 
 procedure, and on these grounds was reversed for error early 
 in the reign of Edward the Third. 2 Upon the face of the 
 record, however, the inquest of office taken by a jury of 
 Hereford was quite regular. It is therefore very curious to 
 find it stated in letters close of the first year of Edward the 
 Third that "licet idem episcopus in inquisitionem aliquam 
 inde faciendam se non posuisset, nihilominus prefati justiciarii 
 
 1 See Coram Rege Roll, Hilary, 17 Edward II, m. 87 (printed 
 Placit. Abbrev. R.C., p. 345), and Patent Roll, 3 Edward III, pt. i, 
 m. 33 (printed Rot. Parl., ii, p. 427). 
 
 2 Patent Roll, 3 Edward III, pt. i, m. 33. The errors of pro- 
 cedure are very fully set out in this document.
 
 306 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 ad inquisitionem predictam capiendum processerunt" 1 In 
 short, if we were not dealing with the " authoritative records 
 of the Court of King's Bench," as one writer has called them, 
 we might suspect that they were not telling the plain truth. 
 Now a contemporary chronicler named Blaneforde has given 
 us a detailed account of these events which, if true, would 
 fully explain the whole position. 2 Let us confront Blaneforde 
 and the records. It should be stated by way of preface that 
 the magnates of England had been summoned for a " collo- 
 quium" on the 2Oth of January, 1323-4; this was followed 
 by a parliamentary summons for the 23rd of February 
 following. 3 Now the monk's story is somewhat as follows : 
 The bishop of Hereford was arraigned before the king and 
 all the magnates of the realm, and charged with high treason. 
 He listened patiently to the indictment ; then objected. 
 " My lord king," he said, " with all due respect to your royal 
 majesty, I, an humble minister and member of God's sacred 
 church and a bishop consecrate (licet indignus), refuse and 
 am bound to refuse to answer aught to the weighty matters 
 laid to our charge without the authority of the archbishop 
 of Canterbury, . . . and the consent of my other peers, the 
 bishops." 4 Upon this the archbishops and other suffragans 
 rose and humbly besought the royal clemency. But as the 
 king was in no way appeased or his anger mitigated, the 
 whole clergy claimed the said bishop as a consecrated mem- 
 ber of the church. And so he was delivered to the arch- 
 bishop until such time as he should, at the king's pleasure, 
 answer to the matters charged and to be charged against 
 him. Then, on a certain day not long after, the king, as 
 before, summoned the bishop. A rumour of this reached 
 the ears of the archbishops. The archbishops of Canterbury, 
 York and Dublin, and ten suffragans, hastened with uplifted 
 crosses to the place of judgment ; took their brother, who 
 
 1 Close Roll, i Edward III, pt. i, m. 13 (printed Rot. Par!., ii, 
 p. 429)- 
 
 2 Printed Rolls Series [28], p. 140. 
 
 3 Full details of these matters are printed in the Parliamentary 
 Writs, R.C., vol. ii. 
 
 * " et aliorum parium meorum, episcoporum, consensu."
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 307 
 
 was standing alone and forlorn, under their protection ; and, 
 without any answer given, carried him away, enjoining all 
 present in the name of God and on pain of anathema that 
 none should presume to lay violent hands upon him. When 
 the bishop had been taken away, the king, enraged at the 
 audacity of the clergy, ordered an inquisition to be taken. 
 The country was accordingly convened ; and the jury, fear- 
 ing the vengeance of their earthly rather than their heavenly 
 king, found the absent^- bishop guilty of all the matters charged 
 against him. 
 
 Certainly Blaneforde's account affords a very convincing 
 explanation of the errors of ordinary procedure appearing 
 on the face of the record. It was the king in person who 
 was virtually conducting this prosecution. Again, if it was 
 the fact that an inquisition was ordered after Hereford had 
 left the court, and that contrary to the entry on the Coram 
 Rege Roll this inquisition was taken in the bishop's absence, 
 then an irregularity had been committed quite sufficient to 
 account for the mysterious entry on the Close Roll. 
 
 Unfortunately very little is known about Blaneforde; we 
 do not know what value to attach to his story. Perhaps 
 from the unsorted documents at Hereford fresh evidence 
 may some day be forthcoming. At present the real truth 
 is somewhat conjectural ; but at least we have some evi- 
 dence for thinking that what the modern constitutional 
 lawyer calls claiming privilege of clergy, Adam Orleton 
 would have described as claiming the trial by his peers 
 accorded by Magna Carta. 2 
 
 1 This, of course, is a flat contradiction of the Coram Rege Roll. 
 
 2 The following official explanation was sent to the pope : Vice 
 reproba et ingrata, inimicis et rebellious nostris nuper in dicto 
 regno more guerrimo contra nos insurgentibus, effectualiter ad- 
 haesit, consensit et auxilium praestitit ; ipsos in maneriis suis 
 receptando, et eis, in sua rebellione persistentibus, de hominibus 
 ad arma, equis et armaturis subsidium faciendo ; sicque partici- 
 pando eisdem in crimine laesae majestatis, prout haec omnia nedum 
 fama volatili vel assertiva, set processu legitimo, in pleno parlia- 
 mento nostro, praesentibus archiepiscopis, episcopis, proceribus et 
 aliis magnatibus regni nostri, secundum legem et consuetudinem 
 ejusdem regni declarata fuerunt. Et licet contra ipsum potuisse- 
 mus rigorius processisse, ipsum tamen de criminibus supradictis,
 
 3 o8 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 At this point we may sum up our investigations, so far 
 as they have gone, with the briefest observations. By the 
 end of Edward the First's reign the practice in trial of 
 peers was being rapidly reduced to precision : the serious 
 cases were judged in full council or parliament. During 
 Edward the Second's troubled administration uncertainty 
 and confusion arises : parliament and the council are be- 
 coming distinct organisms ; there are precedents, like 
 Harcla's case, opposed to the practice of Edward the First. 
 It has become a question how far such precedents will, in 
 the future, be approved and followed. As to the position 
 of the spiritual lords, at the end of the latter reign, with 
 regard to trial by peers, we have nothing to say ; if trial 
 by peers when applied to them meant trial by lords temporal 
 as well as spiritual, apparently they cared for none of these 
 things. 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX 
 
 Assize Roll, Hertford, 10 Richard /, m. 2d.; printed Rot. 
 Curiae Regis, vol. i, pp. 168-70 
 
 Amerciamenta de Hertford. . . . Gerard de Furnivall. 
 amerciand. ad scaccarium pro disseisina. . . . Reginald de 
 Argenton amerciand. ad scaccarium pro disseisina. C m. 
 
 Assize Roll, Hereford, Pasch. et Trin., I John, m. 6 ; 
 printed Placitorum Abbreviatio, p. 24 
 
 Per assisam Philippus de Stapilton et Emma uxor ejus 
 recuperant seizinam suam de libero tenemento suo in Dor- 
 misericordia mmton et m Bricwarestr. versus Herbertum filium 
 haro est Herberti. Ideo Herbertus in misericordia. 
 
 ob reverentiam episcopalis ordinis, in foro ecclesiae reliquimus 
 judicandum, et temporalia episcopatus predicti in manum nostram 
 seiziri facientes, ea decrevimus prout de jure licuit suo perpetuo 
 retinenda sicut alias sanctitati vestrae scripsisse meminimus. . . . 
 (Chertsey, 28th May, 1325 ; Roman and French Roll, 18 Edward II, 
 m. i. Printed by Rymer, Foedera R.C. ii, p. 601.) 
 
 The above was not, of course, an occasion on which we should 
 expect impartiality or truth.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 309 
 
 Curia Regis Roll, 17, /{John ; printed Selden Soc., 
 Select Pleas of the Crown, vol. i, /. 20 
 
 Mercatum de Undele est remotum de die dominica usque 
 misericordia diem sabbati. Et mercatum est abbatis de Burgo. 
 apudWestm. id eo m misericordia. 
 
 Juratores dicunt quod mercatum de Rowell. est remotum a 
 misericordia ^ le dominica usque in diem sabbati. Et mercatum 
 apudWestm. est comitis de Clara. Ideo in misericordia. . . . 
 
 Curia Regis Roll, 42, in. 4^., 7-8 John 
 
 Oxon. Assisa venit recognoscere si Alanus filius Rollandi 
 injuste et sine judicio disseisivit Laur. de Scace de communi 
 pastura sua in Abbefeld infra assisam. Juratores dicunt quod 
 disseisivit [sine] judicio. Alanus in misericordia et Laurent. 
 
 habet saisinam suam. Dampnum iiij s. amerciandus 
 coram rege 
 
 est coram rege. 
 
 Northumberland Eyre Roll, 40 Henry III ; printed 
 Surtees Soc., 88, p. 74 
 
 Juratores presentant quod Robertus de Cregling et Jacobus 
 le Escoc., duo extranei, capti fuerunt pro suspicione latrocinii 
 per ballivos Willelmi de Valencia et imprisonati in prisona 
 ejusdem Willelmi apud Rowebyr. Et predictus Robertus 
 postea evasit de prisona ilia usque ad ecclesiam de Rowebyr. 
 et cognovit ibi latrocinium et abjuravit regnum coram Willelmo 
 de Baumburg tune coronatore. Nulla habuit catalla. Et 
 Jacobus liberatus fuit vicecomiti. Ideo vicecomes respondeat 
 de eo. Et ad judicium de evasione super Willelmum de 
 Valencia. . . . 
 
 Ibid., p. 103 
 
 De faltis dicunt quod Willelmus de Feugers, Simon de 
 Monteforti comes Leycestrie, Johannes de Ballyoll . . . comes 
 Malcolmn, comes de Fyf . . . non venerunt primo die coram 
 justiciariis. Ideo in misericordia.
 
 3io THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Huntingdon Eyre, 1265 ; printed Selden Soc., Select Pleas 
 of the Forest^ p. 1 3 
 
 Presentatum est per forestarios et viridarios quod Ricardus 
 cocus domini Ricardi comitis Gloucestrie, Willelmus mares- 
 callus et Walterus clericus de camera ejusdem comitis in 
 eundo de Huntindon versus Stanford, ad parandum hospicium 
 domini sui, die Veneris proxima ante festum sancti Andree, 
 quando dictus comes ivit versus Ebor. ceperunt unam damam 
 cum leporariis suis. Quod factum forestarii domino comiti 
 
 statim intimaverunt. qui factum illud bene advo- 
 coram rege . . . 
 
 cavit. h.t ideo coram rege. 
 
 Northamptonshire Eyre, 1255,- printed ibid., p. 34 
 
 Presentatum est per eosdem quod die nativitatis beate 
 Marie anno tricesimo quinto R. de Clare comes Glocestrie 
 fuit apud Rowell. Et post prandium ivit ad boscum suum 
 de Miklewod spaciaturus, et ibidem fecit decopulare duos 
 brachettos qui invenerunt unum cervum in eodem bosco ; et 
 ilium fugaverunt usque in campum de Deseburg supra Rowell 
 et ibi captus fuit. Cujus capcioni interfuit Robertus de Mares 
 cum tribus leporariis, Robertus Basset cum tribus leporariis, 
 Robertus de Longo Campo et Johannes Lovet viridarius qui 
 comederant cum dicto comite eo die : ideo de dicto comite 
 coram rege coram rege, et ad judicium de predicto Roberto, 
 adjudicium Roberto, Roberto et Johanne . . . 
 
 Northamptonshire Eyre, 1272, printed ibid., p. 40 
 
 Presentatum est et convictum per . . . qui dicunt super sac- 
 ramentum suum quod inter bellum de Lewes et Evesham 
 tempore quo Petrus de Monteforti habuit custodiam castri et 
 parci de Norhamt. Robertus comes de Ferar. cum familiaribus 
 suis vi et contra voluntatem et sine scitu ipsius Petri fregit 
 murum parci versus Moleton et intravit eum cum canibus 
 
 et leporariis suis et cepit quatuor feras et asporta- 
 coram rege ... .-, . , 
 
 vit sine waranto. Coram rege quia baro. 
 
 Presentatum est etc. quod Reginaldus de Grey cum aliis de 
 familia et societate sua intravit parcum predictum tempore 
 quo idem habuit custodiam ejusdem parci et fugavit in eodem
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 311 
 
 pro voluntate sua et cepit quinque feras ad minus, cuniculos 
 
 eciam et lepores tarn in parco quam in warenna, unde certus 
 
 numerus non potuit inquiri. De eo coram rege 
 
 coram rege . , 
 
 quia baro. 
 
 Exchequer Treasury of Receipt, Forest Proceedings, 12, 
 
 m. 6d., 5 Edward / 
 
 [Dominus Robertus films Walteri] venit et super hoc con- 
 victus et quia coram justiciariis minabatur forestariis et 
 viridariis qui eum indictaverant adjudicatur prisone et habet 
 diem coram rege. . . . Et predictus Robertus filius Walteri 
 finivit coram domino rege cc m. per plegios Ranulphi de 
 Monte Canisio [etc.]. . . . 
 
 Northumberland Eyre Roll, 7 Edward I ; printed 
 
 Surtees Soc., 88, p. 327 
 
 Juratores presentant quod Radulphus filius Rogeri tenet 
 manerium de Dicheburn in capite de domino rege in baronagio 
 per servitium feodi unius militis et levavit ibidem furcas xx 
 annis elapsis. Et Radulphus venit et requisitus quo warranto 
 levavit predictas furcas dicit quod ipse et antecessores sui 
 semper habuerunt. Et dicit quod ceciderunt semel et illas 
 relevavit sicut ei bene licuit. Et de hoc ponit se super patriam 
 et juratores dicunt super sacramentum suum quod predictus 
 Radulphus levavit predictas furcas viginti annis : et quod 
 nullus antecessorum suorum habuit furcas in predicto manerio 
 donee predictus Radulphus levavit illas: levavit injuste etc. 
 Ideo ad judicium de eo. 
 
 Ibid,, p. 379 Amercements 
 
 De Radulpho filio Rogeri quia levavit furcas sine 
 warranto. . . . [No amercement is entered on the 
 roll in this instance.] 
 
 Ibid., p. 332 
 
 Juratores presentant quod Robertus quondam episcopus 
 Dunelmensis appropriavit sibi quandam piscariam in aqua 
 de Eysworth juxta mare unde homines domini regis de 
 Warnemue piscari solebant, ita quod nullus eorum ausus est 
 ibidem piscari sine licentia dicti episcopi ad dampnum et 
 prejudicium etc. Ideo ad judicium de eo.
 
 3 i2 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Ibid. ,p. 385 A mer cements 
 
 De episcopo Dunelmense pro eodem [scil. purprestura in 
 aqua de Tine]. . . . [No amercement is entered against the 
 bishop.] 
 
 Ibid., p. 372 
 
 Gilbertus de Humfravill comes de Anegos alias coram 
 Galfrido de Agwillum et Philippo de Welebi indictatus de 
 hoc quod deberet levasse quandam warennam apud Balbing- 
 ton sine warranto. Et similiter de hoc quod deberet attraxisse 
 ad libertatem suam de Reddesdal placita corone de Coketmore 
 que ad dominum regem pertinere debent et solent Et de hoc 
 quod deberet receptasse infra libertatem suam predictam 
 quendam Johannem filium Willelmi utlagatum in libertate de 
 Extelsham. Et de hoc quod deberet receptasse quendam 
 Walterum Demas latronum notorium cum sociis suis in castro 
 suo de Prodhou et apud Hirbotel. . . . Venit et defendit 
 totum etc. et quidcunque est contra pacem domini regis. Et 
 quoad warrenam dicit quod. . . . Et quod non sit culpabilis 
 de predictis transgressionibus sibi impositis ponit se super 
 patriam de bono et malo, salvo sibi beneficio de tempore regis 
 Henrici eo quod hec omnia predicta fieri deberent tempore 
 ejusdem regis Henrici. Et juratores tarn citra Coket quam 
 ultra Coket videlicet tarn de illis qui fuerunt juratores coram 
 prefatis Galfrido et Philippo quam de illis qui modo electi 
 fuerunt ad coronam dicunt super sacramentum suum quod 
 predictus comes in nullo est culpabilis de predictis tran- 
 gressionibus sibi impositis. Ideo inde quietus. 
 
 Exchequer, Treasury of Receipt, Forest Proceedings, 161, in. 4, 
 
 8 Edward I 
 
 Episcopus Presentatum [est] per eosdem et convictum quod 
 
 Wynthon. XT . , , . ,, r ., , 
 
 coram Rg. Nicholas episcopus Wynton. venit de manerio suo 
 loquendum . . . et cepit unum cervum et unum damum. . . . 
 Unde loquendum cum domina regina. 
 
 (For other cases where the queen is similarly referred to 
 see Forest Proceedings, 231, 8 Edward I.)
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 313 
 
 Ibid., m. 9 
 
 Presentatum est per eosdem et convictum quod predictus 
 Johannes de Sancto Johanne, Galfridus de Lucy, Thomas 
 Coram reee Faynel et Johannes Boun venerunt in foresta de 
 ad parlia- Wolvemere . . . et ceperunt unum feconem bisse 
 et asportaverunt sine warranto. Et quod predictus 
 Galfridus de Lucy, Johannes de Boun et Johannes de Percy 
 venerunt . . . et ceperunt unam bissam et unum feconem 
 bisse. . . . Et non venerunt nee fuerunt attachiati. Ideo 
 mandatum est vicecomiti Surrey et Sussex quod faciat 
 venire predictos. . . . Postea venerunt predicti Johannes de 
 Boun et Johannes de Percy et adjudicantur prisone. Johannes 
 de Sancto Johanne . . . Johannes de Bouhun (et) Johannes de 
 Percy per breve domini regis habent diem usque ad parlia- 
 mentum prox. post Pasch. 
 
 (On m. 12, there is a hunting case in which the bishop of 
 Winchester is again implicated. The report concludes : " de 
 predicto episcopo coram rege." And in the margin, " coram 
 rege.") 
 
 Exchequer Treasury of Receipt, Forest Proceedings, 30, 
 m. n, 10 Edward I 
 
 Presentatum est etc. quod Humfridus de Boun (modo) 
 
 comes Herefordie et quidam Blakeng. qui tune fuit ventarius 
 
 suus (et alii de familia sua) venerunt de domo predicti comitis 
 
 de Wytenhurst die sancti Petri ad Vincula anno predicto et 
 
 cum leporariis suis ceperunt duas damas et asportaverunt 
 
 apud grangiam de Ardlaunde ubi jacuerunt ilia nocte et in 
 
 crastino redierunt ad domum dicti comitis apud Wytenhurst 
 
 et non venerunt nee fuerunt attachiati. Ideo 
 
 mandatum est vicecomiti Wiltes. quod faciat 
 
 venire predictum comitem die Veneris prox. post mediam 
 
 quatragesimam. . . . Postea venit predictus Humfridus coram 
 
 justiciariis et adjudicatur prisone. Et in venit manucaptores 
 
 [ad habendum] eum coram domino rege in proximo 
 
 rege parliamento suo videlicet a Pasch. in unum mensem 
 
 ad satisfaciendum eidem de transgressione predicta videlicet 
 
 Grimbaldum Pauncefot et Walterum de Baskerville milites.
 
 314 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 (On m. 5 there is a report of proceedings against the earl 
 of Warwick, who is summoned in respect of the improper 
 release by him of certain prisoners ; he appears by attorney, 
 but has no valid defence. The report concludes : " Ideo de 
 eo coram rege." And in the margin : " loquendum de comite 
 Warrwici. Coram rege.") 
 
 Eyre Roll, 46, Berks, m. 22, 12 Edward I 
 
 Robertus clericus de Hayele captus fuit pro latrocinio et 
 imprisonatus in castro de Wallingford Edmundi comitis 
 Cornubie et a prisona ejusdem evasit. Ideo ad judicium de 
 evasione super predictum comitem Cornubie. 
 
 Eyre Roll, 46, Berks, Amercements, 12 Edward I 
 
 Milicent de Monte Alto pro eodem [scil. de- 
 baron f . -. 
 
 falto]. . . . 
 
 Reginaldo filio Percy quia non reparavit pontem 
 
 bare r , n 
 
 [etc.]. . . . 
 
 Rogero episcopo Coventry et Lichfield pro in- 
 justa detencione. . . . 
 
 Eyre Roll, 86, Cambridge, Amercements, 14 Edward I 
 
 Elena la Zouche pro fuga Patricii [de Galeweye] 
 
 baron . r .. , 
 
 qui fuit de mauu sua. . . . 
 
 Dionisia de Monte Caniso pro defalta . . . habet 
 
 baron , 
 
 breve. 
 
 Rogero le Bygot comite Norf. marchall. Angl. 
 pro fuga Willelmi quondam messar. sui. . . . 
 
 Eyre Roll, 63, Bucks, Amercements, 14 Edward I 
 
 Henrico de Lacy comite Lincoln pro fuga ejus- 
 dem Willelmi. . . . 
 
 Eyre Roll, 280, Gloucester, Amercements, 15 Edward I 
 
 {See also ibid., m. 33) 
 
 Godefrido Giffard episcopo Wygorn pro sub- 
 tractione cujusdam seete. . . .
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 315 
 
 Eyre Roll, 278, Gloucester, Amercements, 15 Edward I 
 cola Ela comitissa Warrwici pro defalta. . . . 
 
 Eyre Roll, 925, Sussex, Amercements, 16 Edward I 
 baro Abbate de Hyde pro [etc.]. . . . 
 
 Exchequer Treasury of Receipt, Forest Proceedings, 5, 
 m. 13, 13 Edward I 
 
 Presentatum est et convictum per eosdem quod dominus 
 Robertas de Brus pat. et cum eo dominus Johannes de 
 Seyton fuerunt in foresta domini regis de Inglewod ad 
 capiendum decem damos quos dominus rex ei dederat per 
 breve suum anno predicto ; unde predictus Robertus cepit 
 in presencia sua tres damos et unam damam de qua pre- 
 dictus Robertus fuit calumpniatus eo quod ceperat illam 
 damam que fuit bestia alia quam continebatur in breve 
 quietus per suo > et. . . . Et quia baro domini regis ideo 
 breve regis loquendum est cum rege. 
 
 (See Close Roll, 14 Edward I, m. 8; Cal, p. 380, for the writ.) 
 
 {in re- 
 
 spectum Presentatum est et convictum per eosdem quod 
 
 usque ad par- dominus Rogerus de Lancaster . . . cepit. . . . 
 loquendum * Et quia baro loquendum cum rege. 
 
 cum rege 
 
 Exchequer Treasury of Receipt, Forest Proceedings, 127, 
 m. 2, 15 Edward I 
 
 Presentatum est et convictum etc. quod Johannes, comes 
 Warren, die Martis prox. ante festum sancti Nicholai anno 
 predicto interfuit per forestam de Shirewod in Langedale 
 et ibi permisit currere leporarios et cepit duas damas et 
 unum priketum dame et asportavit secum et predictus comes 
 non venit nee prius attachiatus sed testatum est quod habet 
 terras in comitatu Ebor. Ideo preceptum est vicecomiti etc. 
 {coram Postea est prefatus comes redemptus ad xx li, 
 rege 1 } xx li. coram baronibus de scaccario. 
 
 1 Erased on the roll.
 
 316 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Ibid., m. 2.d 
 
 Presentatum est et convictum etc. quod dominus Ed- 
 mundus frater domini Edwardi regis interfuit per fore- 
 stam die Lune prox. post festum sancti Hillarii anno 
 predicto [secundo] . . . et cepit . . . et non venit. Ideo 
 coram rege. Postea est idem dominus Edmundus frater 
 {coram regis redemptus coram baronibus de scaccario 
 
 rege 1 } xx li. ad XX H. 
 
 Ibid.> m. 4 
 
 The case of Robert de Everyngham concludes with " ideo 
 ad judicium coram rege." And in the margin " coram rege." 
 Compare the Close Roll Cal, 1277-88, p. 404. 
 
 Ibid., m. 14 
 
 The archbishop of York is attached to appear before 
 the justices of the forest for taking vert within the metes 
 of the forest : an inquisition results in a doubtful finding. 
 " Et quia predicta inquisitio est ambigua ideo loquendum 
 est cum domino rege et datus est dies predicto (Johanni) 
 archiepiscopo ad proximum parliamentum post proximum 
 adventum domini regis in Anglia coram ipso domino rege." 
 
 Note the following: "et de predicto Almarico [de sancto 
 Amando] coram rege quia est in Wallia in servicio domini 
 regis." Forest Proc., 12, m. 5, 5 Ed. I. " Willelmus de 
 Leybourne . . . quia est in servicio domini regis. Ideo 
 de eo ponitur in respectum donee coram rege." Forest Proc., 
 45, m. 4, 14 Ed. I. " Egidius de Fenes . . . ajornatur 
 coram rege eo quod est de hospicio suo." Forest Proc., 13, 
 m. 8, 20 Ed. I. 
 
 Eyre Roll, 302, m. 32. Coram Rege Roll, Mich., 19-20, 
 Edward I, m. $\d. 
 
 Wallia. Placitum de Consilio missum per Gilbertum de 
 Robys clericum de Consilio. 
 
 Theobaldus de Verdun allocutus et ad racionem positus 
 coram ipso domino rege et ejus consilio qualiter et quomodo 
 se velit acquietare de hoc quod eidem Theobaldo nuper 
 
 1 Erased on the roll.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 317 
 
 videlicet a die sancti Michaelis in unum mensem proximo 
 preteritum ex parte domini regis dictum fuit quod haberet 
 coram ipso domino rege et ejus consilio apud Westmonasterium 
 in crastino Epiphanie proximo preterito Philippum Vaghan 
 . . . [et alios] . . . homines de terra sua de Ewyas Lascy et 
 infra terram suam predictam manentes et commorantes prout 
 dominus rex intellexit ad respondendum ipsi domino regi de 
 quibusdam contemptu et transgressionibus sibi per predictum 
 Philippum et alios factis videlicet de hoc quod cum idem 
 dominus rex nuper assignasset vicecomitem suum Herefordie 
 qui nunc est et Rogerum de Amphill justiciaries suos ad 
 inquirendum de quibusdam transgressionibus contra pacem 
 suam factis in terris predictis de Ewyas Lacy et prefati justi- 
 ciarii certis die et loco per ipsos constitutis premissa per pre- 
 ceptum domini regis facere voluissent et incepissent predicti 
 Philippus et alii cum multitudine Wallensium tarn equitum 
 quam peditum predictos justiciaries de loco ubi sedebant et 
 patriam coram eis venire fecerunt vi et armis amoverunt et 
 extra terras illas de Ewyas Lacy fugaverunt in contemptum 
 domini regis decem mille libr. Et super hoc predicto Theo- 
 baldo in presencia sua ex parte domini regis dictum fuisset 
 ut predictum est quod haberet corpora predictorum Philippi 
 et aliorum ad prefatum terminum ad respondendum domino 
 regi de contemptu predicto. Et idem Theobaldus hoc idem 
 manucepit et assumpsit si iidem Philippus et alii in terris suis 
 superstites essent et inveniri potuissent. Predictus Theobaldus 
 ad predictum crastinum Epiphanie falso et in decepcionem 
 curie et contra homagium et fidelitatem coram ipso domino 
 rege et ejus consilio testatus fuit quod quidam proditorum 
 Philippi et aliorum non sunt inventi . . . [etc.] ad dampnum 
 ipsius domini regis viginti mille libr. et in exheredacionem 
 ipsius quia in decepcionem curie et contra homagium et fideli- 
 tatem suam in presencia ipsius domini regis falso testatus 
 fuit etc. Et predictus Theobaldus in propria persona sua 
 defendit quicquid ei imponitur falso et in decepcionem curie 
 domini regis et contra homagium et fidelitatem et dicit quod 
 quicquid . . . testatus fuit . . . bene et fideliter testatus fuit 
 . . . et hoc paratus est verificare qualitercumque domino regi 
 placuerit et curia sua consideraverit. Ideo preceptum est
 
 3 i8 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 coronatoribus comitatus Herefordie quod venire faciant coram 
 ipso domino rege a die Pasch. in xv dies ubicumque etc. 
 xxiiij tarn milites quam alios liberos et legales homines de 
 comitatu etc. per quos etc. . . . (The jury find in favour of 
 the accused baron.) 
 
 Exchequer Treasury of Receipt, Forest Proceedings, 1 3 m. 1 2^., 
 
 20 Edward I 
 
 Ricardus episcopus London habet canes et leporarios in 
 
 foresta currentes et capit leporem vulpem et catum per 
 
 misericordia adventus suos ad maneria sua in comitatu Essexie. 
 
 coram rege . . . Et de ipso coram rege eo quod non ostendit 
 
 inde warantum videlicet in proximo parliamento post Pasch. 
 
 Abbatissa de Cadomo habet canes et leporarios currentes 
 
 in terris suis in manerio suo de Felstede et capit 
 
 leporem vulpem et catum et habet cartam regis H. 
 
 de warenna habenda ibidem. 
 
 misericordia Nicholas de Cyney tenet leporarios et capit 
 xx s. leporem in foresta sine waranto. Ideo in miseri- 
 
 cordia et leporarios amoveantur etc. 
 
 Robertus de Ver comes Oxon habuit canes et 
 
 coram rege . . 
 
 leporarios currentes in foresta unde nullum os- 
 tendit warantum. 
 
 Abbatissa de Berkynges habet canes et leporarios currentes 
 in foresta per antiquam tenuram ut dicit et eciam per cartam 
 regis H. proavi cujus tenor est in rotulis cartarum. Ideo inde 
 
 ponitur in respectum usque ad proximum parlia- 
 
 coram rege JT r . 
 
 mentum post Pasch. vl coram domino rege. 
 misericordia Dyonisia de Monte Canisio habet canes et 
 coram rege leporarios currentes in foresta et non ostendit 
 warantum. Ideo etc. 
 
 Johanna de Huntyngfeld habet canes et lepor- 
 arios currentes in foresta et non ostendit waran- 
 tum. Ideo etc. 
 
 Johannes comes Warenne per adventus suos ad manerium 
 suum de Roygne habet canes et leporarios etc. et non 
 misericordia ostendit warantum. Et venatores sui portant 
 coram rege arcus et sagittas contra assisam. . . . Et de comite 
 coram rege in proximo parliamento post Pasch.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 319 
 
 Exchequer Memoranda Roll, King's Remembrancer, 
 21 Edward I 
 
 (m. 12) Baronibus pro Humfrido de Bohun comite Herefordie et Essexie 
 Rex mandat baronibus quod illas m marcas per quas idem 
 comes finem fecit cum rege in ultimo parliamento regis pro 
 quibusdam transgressionibus quas fecisse dicebatur et quas 
 per sum scaccarii exigi fecerunt ad opus regis ab eodem 
 ponent in respectum donee rex aliud inde preceperit et dis- 
 tricciones si quas ei ea occasione fieri fecerint interim re- 
 laxari faciant eidem. Teste rege apud Berewik super Twed 
 xxv die Octobris anno xx. 
 
 (m. 23d.) Baronibus pro Theobaldo de Verdun 
 Rex volens Theobaldo de Verdun gratiam facere specialem 
 mandat baronibus quod demandam quam ei per sum scaccarii 
 ad opus regis fecerunt de d marcis ad quas coram coram (sic) 
 rege in parliamento regis nuper amerciatus fuit pro quadam 
 transgressione regi et quibusdam de suis per ipsum illata 
 superseded mandent videlicet ad voluntatem regis. Datum 
 sub privato sigillo apud Robur. xxiij die Julii anno xx. 
 
 (m. 26d.) De iiij talliis sub nomine Philippi Marmyun 
 Memorandum quod Rogerus de Coningesby exec, testa- 
 menti Philippi Marmyun venit coram baronibus iij die Junii 
 anno xxj et tulit iiij tall. . . . Item protulit j tall, contra 
 Robertum de Cheddewurth vicecomitem Lincolnie de xx li. 
 de Philippo Marmyun convicto de capcione venacionis pro 
 redempcione. 
 
 Exchequer Treasury of Receipt, Forest Proceedings, 188, m. ^d. 
 Presentatum est et convictum quod die Lune prox. (in) 
 septim. Pentecost, anno E. x Rogerus de Somery cucurrit in 
 chacia sua de Baggerugg que est infra forestam de Canok 
 et cum canibus suis movit quendam cervum qui fugit versus 
 forestam de Kenefar. Supervenit Thomas filius Walteri de 
 Womburin cum arcubus et sagittis et ipsum cervum bersavit 
 coram canibus predictis qui fugit in forestam et cecidit 
 mortuus in foresta. . . . Et venacionem asportaverunt ad
 
 320 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 domum dicti Rogeri. . . . Et non venit nee fuit attachiatus 
 
 ideo preceptum est vicecomiti quod faciat eum 
 preceptum .... . .. ._ 
 
 venire de die in diem. Postea venit predictus 
 
 Rogerus et propter receptamentum predictum adjudicatur 
 
 prisone et attornatur coram rege in proximo 
 
 coram rege -i-/ -i 
 
 parhamento post festum Pasch. Et quia idem 
 Rogerus non satisfecit domino regi de transgressione pre- 
 dicta ad diem predictam redimatur ad ducentas marcas si 
 placeat domino regi. 
 
 Exchequer Treasury of Receipt ', Forest Proceedings, 188, 
 
 m. 5 
 
 Presentatum est per eosdem et convictum quod Philippus 
 de Marmyun, Willelmus de Hondesare qui mortuus est, 
 Johannes venator ejusdem Philippi et alii de familia sua 
 venerunt in ballivam de Alrewas die Mercurii prox. ante 
 festum sancti Petri ad Vincula anno predicto cum leporariis 
 ejusdem Philippi [et] ceperunt unum sourum damy et vena- 
 cionem secum asportaverunt ad domum predicti Philippi. . . . 
 Et non venerunt nee fuerunt attachiati ideo mandatum est 
 vicecomiti [etc.]. . . . Predictus Philippus venit et adjudicatur 
 prisone et de eo coram rege ad proximum parliamentum. . . . 
 Et quia idem Philippus Marmyun non satisfecit regi ad par- 
 liamentum predictum ponitur ad cc libr. si placeat 
 cc li. . 
 
 domino regi pro transgressione. . . . 
 
 Exchequer Treasury of Receipt, Forest Proceedings, \ 88, 
 
 m. gd. 
 
 Presentatum est et convictum quod Nicholas baro de 
 Stafford cepit unum cervum et unum feconem bisse in brueria 
 de Calnheth [in] vigil, exaltacionis sancte crucis anno regni 
 regis Edwardi xiij in foresta. . . . Et idem Nicholas venit 
 coram justiciariis apud Huntindon et adjudicatur prisone. 
 Et quia dominus rex est extra regnum coram quo deberet 
 
 redimi quia tenet per baroniam ponitur ad ducentas 
 cc m. ^ . , v, 
 
 marcas si placeat domino regi.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 321 
 
 E Registro Domini Godefridi Giffard Wygorniensis Episcopi, 
 fol. 35i^/ printed by the Hampshire Record Society, 
 Crondal Records, p. 414 
 
 Indictamentum contra Godefridum episcopum Wygornien- 
 sem pro Colingrugge. Rogerus de Moles, Adam Gurdune et 
 Johannes films Thomae vicecomiti Suthamptonie salutem. 
 Ex parte domini regis tibi mandamus quod distringas Gode- 
 fridum episcopum Wygorniensem per omnes terras et catalla 
 in balliva tua ita quod ad ea manus non apponet donee a 
 domino rege aliud habueris mandatum, et quod de exitibus 
 earundem domino regi respondeas, et quod habeas corpus 
 ejusdem episcopi coram domino rege in crastino assumpcionis 
 beate Marie virginis ubicunque fuerit in Anglia ad satisfacien- 
 dum domino regi de transgressione venacionis unde est in- 
 dictatus coram nobis in comitatu predicto, et ad habendum 
 ad eundem diem ibidem Augerum nepotem suum, Willelmum 
 Salvage pincernam suam, Henricum venatorem suum, Johan- 
 nem garsonem ejusdem Henrici et Radulphum Sprenggehuse 
 manupastos suos de transgressione venacionis indictatos ad 
 respondendum domino regi pro transgressione predicta, et 
 habeas ibidem tune hoc breve. Datum apud Wyntoniam 
 die dominica proxima ante festum translacionis beati Thome 
 martyris anno regni regis Edwardi vicesimo primo. 
 
 Writ of Replevin ; printed, e registro predicto, Crondal 
 Records, p. 414. Close Roll, 21 Edward I, m. 3 
 
 (Edwardus Dei gratia rex [etc.] . . . dilecto et fideli suo 
 Rogero de Moles salutem. Mandamus vobis 1 ) quod manerium 
 venerabilis patris G[odefridi] episcopi Wygorniensis de Ichulle 
 quod nuper capi fecistis in manum nostram 2 pro transgressione 
 quam ipsum episcopum fecisse dicitur capiendo unum cervum 
 in foresta nostra 2 de Collingrugge 3 sine licencia nostra 2 et unde 
 indictatus fuit coram vobis 4 et (dilecto et fideli nostro 5 ) Adam 
 Gurdune justiciariis nostris 2 ad inquirendum de transgressioni- 
 bus in forestis chaciis et parcis nostris 2 factis in diversis 
 
 1 C.R., Mandatum est Rogero de Molis. 2 C.R., R. 
 
 8 C.R., Colingerigge. 4 C.R., eodem Rogero. 
 
 5 Omitted in C.R.
 
 322 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 comitatibus regni nostri 1 assignatis eidem episcopo per manu- 
 capcionem suam propriam usque ad instans parliamentum 
 nostrum sancti Michaelis replegiari facias 2 ita quod tune stet 
 recto in curia nostra 1 de transgressione predicta. Et habeatis 3 
 ibi hoc breve. Teste me-ipso 1 apud Bristol, xxx die Sep- 
 tembris anno regni nostri vicesimo primo. 4 
 
 Close Roll, 22 Edward I, m. 13 
 
 Pro G. Wigorniense episcopo manucapiendo. Mandatum 
 est vicecomiti Wygorniensi quod si venerabilis pater G. 
 Wygorniensis episcopus inveniat sibi duodecim probos et 
 legales homines de balliva sua qui eum manucapiant habere 
 coram rege videlicet corpus pro corpore in octab. sancti 
 Hillarii ubicunque tune rex fuerit in Anglia ad respondendum 
 regi de contemptu et transgressione sibi per eum illatis ut 
 dicitur (et ad faciendum et recipiendum ulterius quod curia 
 regis inde consideraverit 5 ) tune omnes terras et tenementa 
 ipsius episcopi que hac occasione per preceptum regis cepit 
 in manum regis una cum omnibus inde perceptis interim 
 replegiari faciat per manucapcionem predictam et quod 
 habeat ibi nomina manucaptorum et hoc breve. Teste ut 
 supra [scil. apud Westmonasterium vj die Decembris]. 
 
 Patent Roll, 15 Edward II, part 2, m. 14 ; printed by 
 Rymer, Foedera R.C., vol. it, p. 478 
 
 Placita corone coram domino Edwardo rege filio domini 
 regis Edwardi tenta in presentia ipsius domini regis apud 
 pontem Fractum die Lune proximo ante festum Annuncia- 
 tionis beate Marie virginis anno regni sui quinto decimo. 
 
 Cum Thomas comes Lancastrie captus pro prodicionibus 
 homicidiis incendiis depredationibus et aliis diversis feloniis 
 ductus est coram ipso domino rege presentibus Edmundo 
 comite Kancie, Johanne comite Richemund, Adomaro de 
 Valencia comite Pembrok, Johanne de Warrenna comite 
 Surrey, Edmundo comite Arundel, David comite Athol, 
 
 1 C.R., R. 2 C.R., faciat. * C.R., quod habeat. 
 4 C.R. adds per ipsum regem nunciante H. de Veer. 
 6 Interlined.
 
 JUDGMENT OF' PEERS 323 
 
 Roberto comite d'Anegos, baronibus et aliis magnatibus 
 regni, dominus rex recordatur quod idem Thomas homo 
 ligius ipsius domini regis venit apud Birton super Trentam 
 simul cum Humfrido de Bohun nuper comite Hereford pro- 
 ditore regis et regni, invento cum vexillis explicatis apud 
 Pontem Burgi in bello contra dominum regem et ibidem 
 interfecto, et Rogero Damory proditore adjudicate, et quibus- 
 dam aliis proditoribus et inimicis regis et regni cum vexillis 
 explicatis ut de guerra hostiliter resistebat et impedivit ipsum 
 dominum regem homines et familiares suos per tres dies 
 continues quominus pontem dicte ville de Birton transire 
 potuerunt prout debuerunt et quosdam homines ipsius domini 
 regis ibidem felonice interfecit . . . [the earl's crimes are 
 recited at some length]. . . . Que quidem proditiones homi- 
 cidia combustiones depredationes debellationes hostiles cum 
 equis et armis et vexillis explicatis manifeste sunt et notorie 
 et note comitibus baronibus et aliis magnatibus et populo 
 regni. Et ideo consideratum est quod predictus Thomas 
 comes pro predicta proditione trahatur et pro predictis homi- 
 cidiis depredationibus incendiis et roberiis suspendatur et pro 
 predicta fuga in hac parte decapitetur . . . [hereupon follows 
 a lengthy recital of the earl's past misdeeds]. . . . Unde 
 dominus rex habito respectu ad tanta dicti Thome comitis 
 facinora et iniquitates et ejus maximam ingratitudinem nullam 
 habet causam ad aliquam gratiam eidem Thome comiti de 
 penis predictis super ipsum adjudicates pardonandis in pre- 
 missis faciendam : quia tamen idem Thomas comes de parentela 
 excellent! et nobilissima procreatus est dominus rex ob rever- 
 entiam dicte parentele remittit de gratia sua speciali predicto 
 Thome comiti executionem duarum penarum adjudicatarum 
 sicut predictum est scilicet quod idem Thomas comes non 
 trahatur neque suspendatur sed quod executio tantummodo 
 fiat super ipsum Thomam comitem quod decapitetur. . . . 
 [Sentence is then passed on other traitors.] ... In cujus etc. 
 Teste rege apud Ebor. ij die Maii.
 
 324 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Repeal of the Process against the Despencers. Scheduled 
 to Close Roll, 15 Edward //, m. 14 
 
 ... A queu parlement a Everwyk les ditz Hugh le fitz et 
 Hugh le piere estoient menetz devant nous en court et pur- 
 suirent lour quereles susdites et prierent que nous les feissoms 
 dreit en ceste partie. Et le dit Hugh le fitz pur luy monstra 
 et allegga les errours en le proces du dit agarde come est 
 susdit. Et ensement le dit Hugh le pere proposa et allegga 
 meismes les errours pur luy meismes, et prierent les ditz 
 Hugh et Hugh severalement et jointement que desicome le 
 dit agard se fist voluntriement erroinement et torcenousement 
 countre les leis et les usages du roialme et countre commune 
 droit et resoun que nous vousissome le dit agard anenter et 
 defere et que eux soient remis et recounciletz a nostre foi 
 et a tiel estat come eux aveint et en tiel estat come eux 
 estoient avaunt le temps del dit agard selom droit et resoun. 
 Et sur ceo oies les resouns les ditz Hugh et Hugh feismes 
 le dit proces examiner en plein parlement a Everwyk en 
 presence des prelatz countes barouns chivalers des countez 
 et le poeple que estoit venutz par enchesoun du dit parle- 
 ment ; et trovasmes que le dit agard se fist sauntz appeler les 
 ditz Hugh et Hugh en respouns, et que eel agard se fist 
 sauntz lassent dez prelatz qui sount piers du roialme en 
 parlement, et countre la tenur de la graunt chartre des 
 fraunchises Dengleterre en laquele est contenu, Qe nul fraunc 
 homme ne soit exile ne en altre manere destruit forsque par 
 leal jugement de ses piers ou par la ley de terre, et que les 
 ditz Hugh et Hugh n'estoient appelletz en court ne a re- 
 spouns sicome est susdit. Et pur les errours avaunteditz, 
 et pur ceo que les causes contenu en le dit agard ne feurent 
 pas duement approvetz ; et estre ceo eauntz regard a ceo que 
 nous feismes somondre nostre dit parlement a Westmonstier 
 en due manere et mandasmes as ditz grauntz par nos briefs 
 de venir duement a ceu parlement, et sovent en temps devaint 
 avions comande et defendu que alliance ne assemble se feist 
 des gentz armetz ne as armes dount nostre pees poet estre 
 troble et greinur mal avenir, et que les ditz grauntz nient
 
 3 2 5 
 
 eiauntz regard a nostre mandement vindrent armetz (a) nostre 
 parlement a Westm. as chivaux et armes et a tote lour force 
 sicome est susdit, de la quele nous ne y esteymes devaunt 
 aparceu : et qaunt les ditz grauntz estoient en tiele manere 
 venutz a Loundres eux tindrent lour conseil a Loundres et 
 lour assemble sauntz venir a nous a Westm. sicome eux 
 estoient somouns, et sur ceo mandasmes a eux qils feussent 
 venutz a nous a Westm. a parlement come resoun fust, eux 
 venir ne voleint ne faire asavor a nous lour volonte ne les 
 causes dut dit agard, puis que nous avioms comence nostre 
 dit parlement et tenu par xv jours et plus et avioms fait 
 venir devaunt nous prelatz et aucuns countes barouns et 
 chivalers des countez et autres que vindrent pur la commune 
 du roialme et fait publier que touts yceux qui voleint liverer 
 peticiouns les feissent liverer ; et apres criee de ceo faite null 
 petitioun nesteit livere ne pleint faite devers les ditz Hugh 
 et Hugh tant que les ditz grauntz vindrent en la manere 
 susdite et lour conseil del dit agard de tut devers nous 
 celerent jeskas alhour qils vindrent a Westm. a force et 
 armes et noun duement et firent lour dit agard countre 
 resoun come de chose trete e accede entre eux meismes de 
 lour auctorite propre en nostre absence, et ensi purpristerent 
 les ditz grauntz sur nostre real poer jurisdictioun et conis- 
 saunce de proces et de jugement faire des choses que a 
 nostre real dignite appendent. Par quei nous ne poeismes 
 adonk arestier le dit agard ne droit faire as ditz Hugh et Hugh 
 sicome a nous appendent. Et estre ceo eauntz regard a ceo 
 que les ditz grauntz apres le dit agard fait prierent a nous 
 pardoun et reles de ceo que eux sentre-allierent par serement 
 escript ou en altre manere santz conge de nous et en pur- 
 suauntz les ditz Hugh le fitz et Hugh le pere avoient 
 chivauchetz a baners desplietz de nos armes et de lour armes 
 et pristrent et occuperent chasteux villes maners terres tene- 
 mentz biens et chateux et ensement pristrent et emprisonerent 
 gentz de nostre ligeaunce et autres et ascuns reindrent et 
 ascuns tuerent et autres plusours choses fesoient en destruantz 
 les ditz Hugh et Hugh en Engleterre Gales et aillours dount 
 aucuns choses purreient estre ditz trespas et aucuns felonies : 
 et ensi apercerent les ditz grauntz qil estoient adversairs et
 
 326 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 malvoillauntz as ditz Hugh et Hugh en temps du dit agard 
 et devaunt, dount eux ne devoient par resoun estre juges sur 
 les ditz Hugh et Hugh en lour pursuite demene ne record 
 aver sur les causes del dit agard. Et nous par le serement 
 que nous feismes a nostre coronement sumes tenutz et 
 obligez de faire droit a toutz nos subgitz et de tortz a eux 
 faitz redresiere et faire amendre quant nous en sumes requis : 
 et que en la dite graunt chartre est countenutz, Qe nous 
 ne nieroms ne delaieroms a nuli droit ne justice; et auxi 
 chargeauntz le counseil et la requeste des ditz prelatz queux 
 nous fesoient pur salutz de nostre alme et pur peril eschuire 
 et auxint a la requeste des ditz countes et pur toller malveis 
 ensaumple du temps avenir de tieles emprises et jugementz 
 faire en cas semblable countre resoun enblemissemeint de 
 nostre corone et (a) grant damage dautres. Par quei nous 
 veantz et sachauntz les ditz proces et agard faitz en la 
 manere sus dite estre aux bien en prejudice de nous et en 
 blemissement (de nostre corone e) de nostre reale dignete 
 countre nous et nos heirs come countre les ditz Hugh et 
 Hugh et par plusours autres enchesouns resonables, De 
 nostre poer real en plein parlement a Everwyk par le coun- 
 seil et lassent des prelatz countes barouns chivalers des 
 countez le commune du roialme et altres a nostre dit parle- 
 ment a Everwyk estauntz le dit agard de tut anentissoms 
 et defesoms del exil les ditz Hugh et Hugh et de lour 
 desheritaunce et quant que eel agard touche, et meismes 
 ceux Hugh le Despenser le fitz et Hugh le Despenser le 
 pere remettoms et recouncilloms plenerement a nostre foi 
 et a nostre pees et a lestat qil avoient et en tiel estat come 
 eux estoient avaunt le dit agard en toutz pointz, et agardoms 
 que eux reeient seisine de lour terres et tenementz biens et 
 chateux etc. Et voloms et comandoms que qaunt qest en- 
 roule en les places de nostre court del dit agard soit chauncelle 
 et anenti pour toutz jours.
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 327 
 
 Close Roll, I Edward III, pt. I, m. 2\d 
 
 Patent Roll, 2 Edward III, pt. i, m. 17. (Inspeximus and 
 
 Exemplification) 
 
 De adnullacione Processus contra Thomam comitem Lancastrie 
 Placita coram domino rege et consilio suo apud West- 
 monasterium in presencia ipsius domini regis, procerum et 
 magnatum regni in parliamento suo ibidem convocato in 
 crastino purificacionis beate Marie anno regni regis Edwardi 
 tercii post conquestum primo. Henricus de Lancastria frater 
 et heres Thome quondam comitis Lancastrie venit in parlia- 
 mento isto et exhibuit coram ipso domino rege proceribus 
 et magnatibus regni et consilio ipsius domini regis tune 
 ibidem existentibus quandam peticionem in hec verba: 
 A nostre seigneur le roi et son conseil prie Henry de Lan- 
 castre frere et heir Thomas jadis counte de Lancastre que 
 come le dit Thomas nadgair(e)s devant sire Edward jadis 
 roi Dengleterre piere nostre seigneur le roi qore est et son 
 conseil a Pountfrett Tan de son regne quinzime no(u)nreson- 
 ablement estoit jugge a la mort(e) par un proces erroyne 
 co(u)ntre lui adonqes fait par quel juggement il fuist mis 
 a la mort(e) et par cause de mesme le juggement ses heirs 
 desheritez dont le record et proces sont en Chancellerie : Qil 
 pleise a nostre seigneur le roi commander au Chanceller 
 qil face venir le record et proces del juggement ava(u)ntdit 
 cy en parlement et qils soient recitez et examinez issint qe 
 errour si nul y soit duement soit redresse et au dit Henry 
 come (a) frere et heir le dit counte droit en(t) soit fait et son 
 heritage a lui livere. Pretextu cujus peticionis dictum fuit 
 cancellario per ipsum dominum regem quod scrutatis rotulis 
 domini regis Edwardi patris domini regis nunc de cancellaria 
 sua de anno predicto deportare faceret hie in parliamento 
 &c. recordum et processum predicta. Qui quidem cancel- 
 larius postea recordum et processum predicta protulit hie in 
 hec verba. . . . [The process against Thomas earl of Lancaster 
 is set out verbatim.] . . . Et super hoc in presencia ipsius 
 domini regis et procerum et magnatum regni et aliorum hie 
 in parliamento &c. existencium recitatis et lectis recordo et 
 processu predictis quesitum est a predicto Henrico ob quam
 
 328 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 causam venire fecit hie recordum et processum predicta. 
 Qui dicit quod ipse est frater et heres predict! comitis et 
 ob errores in eisdem recordo et processu interventos quos 
 petit corrigi &c. venire fecit hie recordum et processum 
 predicta. Et dictum est ei quod ostendat errores &c. Qui 
 dicit quod erratum est in hoc quod cum quicunque homo 
 ligeus domini regis pro sedicionibus homicidiis roberiis 
 incendiis et aliis feloniis tempore pacis captus et in qua- 
 cunque curia regis ductus fuerit de hujusmodi sedicionibus 
 et aliis feloniis sibi impositis per legem et consuetudinem 
 regni arrenari debet et ad responsionem poni et inde per 
 legem &c convinci antequam fuerit morti adjudicatus. 
 Licet predictus Thomas comes homo ligeus predicti domini 
 regis patris &c. tempore pacis captus et coram ipso rege 
 ductus fuisset, dictus dominus rex pater &c. recordabatur 
 ipsum Thomam esse culpabilem de sedicionibus et feloniis 
 in predictis recordo et processu contentis absque hoc quod 
 ipsum inde arrenavit seu ad responsionem posuit prout 
 moris est secundum legem &c. Et sic absque arenamento 
 et responsione idem Thomas erronice et contra legem terre 
 tempore pacis morti extitit adjudicatus. Unde cum no- 
 torium sit et manifestum quod totum tempus quo impositum 
 fuit eidem comiti predicta mala et facinora in predictis re- 
 cordo et processu contenta fecisse et etiam tempus quo 
 captus fuit et quo dictus dominus rex pater &c. recordabatur 
 ipsum esse culpabilem &c. et quo morti extitit adjudicatus 
 fuit tempus pacis maxime cum per totum tempus predictum 
 cancellaria et alie placee curie domini regis aperte fuerunt 
 et in quibus lex cuicunque fiebat prout fieri consuevit nee 
 idem dominus rex unquam in tempore illo cum vexillis 
 explicatis equitabat, predictus dominus rex pater &c. in 
 hujusmodi tempore pacis contra ipsum comitem sic re- 
 cordari non debuit nee ipsum sine arenamento et respon- 
 sione morti adjudicasse. Dicit etiam quod erratum est in 
 hoc quod cum predictus Thomas comes fuisset unus parium 
 et magnatum regni et in magna carta de libertatibus Anglic 
 contineatur quod nullus liber homo capiatur imprisonetur 
 aut disseisiatur de libero tenemento suo vel libertatibus seu 
 liberis consuetudinibus suis aut utlagetur aut exuletur aut
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 329 
 
 aliquo modo destruatur nee dominus rex super ipsum ibit 
 nee super eum mittet nisi per legale judicium parium suorum 
 vel per legem terre, predictus Thomas comes per recordum 
 regis ut predictum est tempore pacis erronice morti fuit 
 adjudicatus absque arenamento seu responsione seu legali 
 judicio parium suorum contra legem &c. et contra tenorem 
 magne carte predicte. Unde petit errores predictos corrigi 
 et predictum judicium tanquam erronium adnullari &c. et 
 ad hereditatem suam ut frater et heres ipsius Thome admitti 
 &c. Et quia inspectis et plenius intellects recordo et pro- 
 cessu predictis ob errores predictos (et alios in) eisdem 
 recordo et processu compertos consideratum est per ipsum 
 dominum regem proceres magnates et totam communitatem 
 regni in eodem parliamento quod predictum judicium contra 
 predictum Thomam comitem redditum tanquam erronicum 
 revocetur et adnulletur et predictus Henricus ut frater et 
 heres ejusdem Thome comitis ad hereditatem suam peten- 
 dum et habendum debito processu inde faciendo prout moris 
 est admittatur et habeat brevia cancellarie et justiciariorum in 
 quorum placeis dicta recordum et processus irrotulantur quod 
 eadem recordum et processus irritari faciant et adnullari &C. 1 
 (An inaccurate transcript of the above is printed in vol. 2 
 of the Rotuli Parliamentorum exactly as if these proceedings 
 were enrolled on a parliament roll. This is a most serious 
 and misleading blunder.) 
 
 Patent Roll, I Edward III, part ii, m. 3. (Inspeximus and 
 
 Exemplification) 
 Adnullacio Processus facti contra Rogerum de Mortuomari le 
 
 Neveu 
 
 Rex omnibus ad quos &c. salutem. Inspeximus recorda et 
 processus habita in parliamento nostro apud Westmonasterium 
 
 1 The Patent Roll omits the heading, beginning and concluding 
 as follows : 
 
 Rex omnibus ad quos &c. salutem. Inspeximus recorda et pro- 
 cessus habita in parliamento nostro apud Westmonasterium ultimo 
 convocato in hec verba Henricus de Lancastria . . . adnullari. 
 Nos autem ad majorem securitatem ipsius Henrici predicta recor- 
 dum et processus tenore presencium duximus exemplificanda. In 
 cujus &c. Teste rege apud Ebor. tercio die Marcii.
 
 330 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 ultimo convocato in hec verba. Tenor petitionum per Rogerum 
 de Mortuomari le Neveu portatarum coram domino rege 
 Edwardo tercio post conquestorem et consilio suo in pleno 
 parliamento suo convocato apud Westmonasterium post festum 
 purificationis beate Marie anno regni sui primo: A nostre 
 seigneur le roi prie Rogier de Mortemer de Wiggemor qe 
 come en le record et proces et jugementz renduz sur Rogier 
 de Mortemer de Chirk son uncle qui heir il est devant Mons. 
 Wautier de Norwy et ses compaignons justices sire Edward 
 nadgaires roi Dengleterre piere nostre seigneur le roi qore est 
 a ceo assignetz Ian de son regne sezisme errours diverses 
 soient trovez come purra plus pleinement apparir par mesmes 
 le record et proces qe demoerent en chauncellerie par maun- 
 dement le roi fait au tresorer et chaumbelleins de les faire 
 venir hors de la tresorie illuqes et qe pleise faire venir les ditz 
 record et proces devant vous et vostre conseil et les errours 
 leinz trovez faire anientir. En mesme la manere prie le dit 
 Rogier ... [a similar petition with reference to the judgment 
 against himself]. . . . Pretextu quarum petitionum mandatum 
 fuit cancellario quod venire faceret coram ipso rege et consilio 
 suo in parliamento suo recorda et processusde quibus peticiones 
 predicte faciunt mencionem qui quidem cancellarius (ea) coram 
 predictis domino rege et consilio in eodem parliamento venire 
 fecit in hec verba . . . [The proceedings against the Mortimers 
 are set out verbatim.]. . . . Et modo venit predictus Rogerus de 
 Mortuomari le Neveu in parliamento (predicto) et quesitum 
 est ab eo qua de causa venire fecit recorda et processus pre- 
 dicta : Dicit quod ob errores in eisdem : Et dictum est ei quod 
 ostendat errores si qui &c. et predictus Rogerus de Mortuomari 
 le Neveu d[icit quod] in recordis et processibus predictis sic 
 redditis tarn contra ipsum quam (dominum) Rogerum luncle 
 cujus heres ipse est error inest manifestus in hoc videlicet quod 
 cum aliquis de *** regis tempore pacis deliquerit erga 
 dominum regem vel alium per quod debeat vitam vel mem- 
 brum perdere et super hoc coram justiciis in judicium ductus 
 f[uerit] primo debeat poni rationem et super delicto sibi im- 
 posito responsiones ipsius audiri priusquam procedatur ad 
 judicium de eo. Set in recordis et processibus predictis con- 
 tinetur quod [dicti] Rogerus et Rogerus coram justiciis ducti
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 331 
 
 adjudicati fuerunt judicio tractus et suspendii et postea per- 
 petue prisone adjudicati et mancipati absque hoc quod ipsi 
 fuissent arrenati seu quod ipsi ad aliqua eis imposita possent 
 respondere quod est contra legem et consuetudinem regni &c. 
 per quod ad judicium de eis erronice processum est: Dicit 
 etiam quod in recordis et processibus predictis continetur 
 quod dominus rex recordabatur versus ipsos Rogerum et 
 Rogerum quod ipsi hostiliter equitaverunt cum Humfrido de 
 Bohun comite Herefordie et aliis inimicis domini regis contra 
 ipsum dominum regem et populum regni sui diversa mala et 
 facinora perpetrandis quare judicia predicta super eisdem 
 [lata] fuerunt, cujusmodi recordum non est domino regi facere 
 nisi de inimicis suis tempore guerre et hoc scilicet quando 
 dominus rex equitat cum vexillis [explicatis] et non tempore 
 pacis, set eo tempore dominus rex non equitavit cum vexillis 
 explicatis nee fuit tempus guerre cancellaria domini regis et 
 justicii placearum de [utroque banco] sedebant ad justiciam 
 unicuique conqueri volenti et persequenti faciendum per quod 
 ad judicium de eis ut predictum est erronice processum est : 
 Dicit etiam quod erratum est [in hoc] quod cum in magna 
 carta de libertatibus Anglic contineatur quod nullus liber 
 homo capiatur aut imprisonetur aut de libero tenemento suo 
 disseisiatur vel libertatibus vel liberis consuetudinibus suis 
 aut utlagetur aut exuletur aut aliquo modo destruatur nee 
 quod dominus rex super eum ibit nee super ipsum mittet 
 nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terre 
 set in recordis et processibus predictis continetur quod pre- 
 dicti Rogerus et Rogerus singillatim judicio tractus et sus- 
 pendii adjudicati fuerunt et etiam [postea] perpetue prisone 
 adjudicati et mancipati absque legali judicio parium suorum 
 ad hoc vocatorum et contra legem terre per quod ad judicium 
 de eis ut predictum est erronice processum est : Et petit quod 
 recorda et processus predicta videantur et examinentur et ob 
 errores predictos revocentur et adnullentur. Et quia inspectis 
 recordis et processibus predictis diligenterque recitatis et 
 examinatis compertum est in eisdem quod predict! Rogerus 
 de Mortuomari le Neveu et Rogerus de Mortuomari luncle 
 *** enti judicio tractus et suspendii adjudicati fuerunt et 
 eciam postea perpetue prisone adjudicati et mancipati absque
 
 332 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 hoc quod ipsi ad aliqua eis vel eo imposita possent respondere 
 et hoc tempore pacis et absque hoc quod dominus rex 
 equitavit cum vexillis explicatis et cancellaria regis et jus- 
 ticiariis de utroque [banco] sedentibus ut predictum est et 
 absque legali judicio parium suorum quod est contra legem 
 et consuetudinem regni Anglic et tenorem carte predicte : 
 Consideratum est per dominum regem nunc et ejus consilium 
 in pleno parliamento predicto quod omnia judicia predicta 
 tarn contra dictum Rogerum le Neveu quam contra prefatum 
 Rogerum luncle [sic] data et promulgata ob defectus et errores 
 predictos et alios in dictis recordis et processibus compertos 
 penitus adnullata sint et revocata et pro nullis et revocatis 
 habeantur et predictus Rogerus de Mortuomari le Neveu ad 
 communem legem restituatur et rehabeat terras et tenementa 
 sua &c. et heres predicti Rogeri de Mortuomari luncle habeat 
 hereditatem suam &c. Nos autem ad majorem securitatem 
 ipsius Rogeri le Neveu predicta recorda et processus tenore 
 presencium duximus exemplificanda. In cujus &c. Teste 
 rege apud Hayden xxiiij die Julii. 
 
 Patent Roll, 2 Edward III, pt. it, m. n. (Inspeximus and 
 Exemplification ) 
 
 De adnullacione judicii super Bartholomeum de Badelesmere 
 redditi 
 
 . . . Et dictum est ei [scilicet Egidio filio et heredi Bar- 
 tholomei] quod ostendat errores si qui etc. qui dicit quod 
 error inest manifestus in hoc videlicet quod cum aliquis de 
 regno regis tempore pacis deliquerit erga dominum regem 
 vel alium per quod debeat vitam vel membros perdere et 
 super hoc coram justiciariis in judicium ductus fuerit primo 
 debet poni ratione et super delicto sibi imposito responsiones 
 ipsius audiri priusquam procedatur ad judicium de eo set in 
 recordo et processu predictis continetur quod predictus Bar- 
 tholomeus coram justiciariis ductus adjudicatus fuit judicio 
 tractus suspensionis et decollacionis absque hoc quod ipse fuit 
 super aliqua felonia arenatus seu quod ipse ad aliqua ei im- 
 posita posset respondere quod est contra legem et consuetu- 
 dinem regni etc. per quod ad judicium de eo erronice est pro-
 
 JUDGMENT OF PEERS 333 
 
 cessum etc. Dicit etiam idem Egidius quod in eisdem recordo 
 et processu continetur quod prefatus dominus rex pat' etc. re- 
 cord abatur versus prefatum Bartholomeum quod ipse hostiliter 
 equitavit cum Thome nuper comite Lancastrie etc. . . . quare 
 judicium predictum super eundem Bartholomeum redditum 
 fuit. Cujusmodi recordum non est domino regi faciendum 
 nisi de inimicis suis tempore guerre et hoc quando dominus 
 rex equitat cum vexillis explicatis et non tempore pacis set 
 eo tempore dominus rex non equitavit cum vexillis explicatis 
 nee fuit tempus guerre presertim cum cancellarius domini 
 regis et justiciarii de utroque banco sedebant ad justiciam 
 unicuique conqueri volenti et persequenti faciendum per quod 
 ad judicium de eodem Bartholomeo ut predictum est erronice 
 est processum. Dicit etiam idem Egidius quod erratum est 
 in hoc quod cum in magna carta de libertatibus Anglie 
 contineatur quod nullus liber homo capiatur aut imprisonetur 
 aut de libero tenemento suo disseisiatur vel libertatibus vel 
 liberis consuetudinibus suis aut utlagetur aut exuletur aut 
 aliquo modo destruatur nee quod dominus rex super eum ibit 
 nee super eum mittet nisi per legale judicium parium suorum 
 vel per legem terre, set in recordo et processu predictis contine- 
 tur quod predictus Bartholomeus judicio tractus suspensionis 
 et decollacionis adjudicatus fuit absque legali judicio parium 
 suorum ad hoc vocatorum et contra legem terre per quod ad 
 judicium de eodem Bartholomeo ut predictum est erronice 
 est processum. Et petit idem Egidius quod recordum et 
 processum predicta videantur et examinentur et ob errores 
 predictos revocentur et adnullentur. Et quia dictis recordo 
 et processu inspectis et diligenter recitatis et examinatis 
 compertum est in eisdem quod predictus Bartholomeus coram 
 justiciariis ductus et judicium tractus et suspensionis et de- 
 collacionis adjudicatus fuit absque hoc quod ipse ad alique ei 
 imposita potuit respondere et hoc tempore pacis et absque 
 hoc quod dominus rex equitavit cum vexillis explicatis can- 
 cellario regis et justiciariis de utroque banco sedentibus ut 
 predictum est et absque legali judicio parium suorum contra 
 legem et consuetudinem regni et contra tenorem carte pre- 
 dicte. Consideration est per ipsum dominum regem nunc et 
 consilium suum in pleno parliamento predicto quod dictum
 
 334 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 judicium contra ipsum Bartholomeum sic pronunciatum et 
 redditum ob errores predictos adnullatum sit et revocatum et 
 pro nullo et revocato habeatur imperpetuum. Et quod heres 
 predicti Bartholomei ad hereditatem suam habendum debito 
 processu admittatur. Nos autem recordum et processum 
 predicta ad majorem notitiam revocacionis et adnullacionis 
 predicti judicii sic erronice pronunciati et redditi tenore pre- 
 sencium duximus exemplificanda. In cujus &c. Teste rege 
 apud Wyndesore xix die Novembris. 
 
 Ancient Petitions, No. 2500, File 50 
 
 A nostre seigneur le Roi et a son conseil prie Henri neveu 
 et heir sire Andrew de Harcla. Sicome les terres et tene- 
 ments le dit sire Andrew fueront seisi en la mayn le roi 
 Edward pier nostre Seigneur le roi q'or est comes terres 
 forfaites par la forfeture le dit sire Andrew *** [nonobstant 
 q'il] *** ne fuist attaint par enquest de ses piers ne des 
 autres de nule mauvaite mais fuist mys a la mort par juge- 
 ment par cette cause *** [qe le dit roi] *** Edward pier 
 nostre seigneur le roi q'or est recorda sur lui q'il fuist son 
 enemy et aydaunt a ses enemyes : destotz q'il *** [plaise a 
 nostre seigneur aver] *** regard a ceo q'il ne fuist unqes 
 atteint par enquest des ses piers ne des autres du dit mauvaite 
 que lui fuist sur **** dit jugement done sur tiel record et 
 encountre ley de tut temps usee soit anentie e q'il poese 
 estre inherite del heritage du dit sire Andrew e ceo pour 
 Dieu et pour deliver le alme le dit pier nostre seigneur le 
 roi de perile desicome il est pres de servir au roi *** son 
 estat et come ses auncestres sunt servi les auncestres nostre 
 seigneur le roi puis le conquest *** 
 
 (Endorsed) Coram rege et magno consilio 
 
 Suie de faire venir le record et proces du dit 
 jugement entre cy et le primer parlement.
 
 CHAPTER X 
 TRIAL OF PEERS IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY 
 
 THE accession of Edward the Third was followed almost 
 immediately by an Act reversing the attainder of 
 Thomas earl of Lancaster. This has been already dealt 
 with. Nothing less would have served to secure the stability 
 of the new administration. Unfortunately fresh troubles 
 were brewing. The nominal chiefs of the council found they 
 had no voice whatever in matters of state : at the real head 
 of affairs was Mortimer earl of March, with no better cre- 
 dentials to show for his position than a shameless intimacy 
 with the queen-mother. 
 
 Edmund earl of Kent was the first victim of this unsatis- 
 factory political situation. For some reason, not known, 
 Isabella and her paramour appear to have come to the con- 
 clusion that Edmund's death was a necessary measure for 
 their protection, and they deliberately inveigled him into a 
 treasonable correspondence. He was arraigned before the 
 parliament at Winchester in March, 1329-30, confessed his 
 guilt and was condemned to death. 1 Not long after, as the 
 
 1 The record of this trial is not preserved among the parliament 
 rolls. For an account of the trial sent to the pope on Edward's 
 behalf see Rymer, Foedera R.C., ii, 2, p. 783. For the earl's 
 confession see Murimuth, Rolls Series [93], p. 253 ; Walsingham, 
 Rolls Series [28], ii, p. 351. Among chronicles the Brute Chronicle 
 gives the fullest account (Harley, MS. 2279, printed by Thompson 
 in his notes to Baker at p. 221). See also Chron. de Lanercost, 
 p. 264, Baker, ed. Thompson, p. 44, etc. See also Close Roll, 
 4 Ed. Ill, m. 37; Calendar, p. 17. There was some difficulty, it 
 is said, in finding an executioner for the condemned earl. One has 
 it that a " yonge fermer " smote off his head (Brute) ; another that 
 the earl must needs wait outside the castle gate until the hour of 
 vespers, when a ribald criminal from the Marshalsea (in considera- 
 tion of a pardon) volunteered for the business (Knighton). 
 
 335
 
 336 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 result of a counter-conspiracy to which the youthful king 
 was privy, Mortimer himself was seized in Nottingham castle. 
 He was tried in parliament, but without being arraigned, and 
 condemned by the earls and barons as peers and judges of 
 parliament. 1 He was executed at Tyburn. 
 
 The judgment of the earl of Kent appears to have been 
 legal enough, notwithstanding its being the result of an 
 infamous conspiracy. On the other hand, it is quite clear 
 that Mortimer was illegally condemned. Accordingly, on 
 the subsequent petition of Edmund's widow and heir, their 
 respective rights to dower, title and estates were allowed not- 
 withstanding the judgment ; 2 but the result of a petition in 
 Mortimer's case was the reversal of that judgment for error. 3 
 
 Mortimer was not the only person dealt with by the parlia- 
 ment of 1330: certain of his associates, though not peers, 
 were also condemned, but only after a notable protest by 
 earls and barons to the effect that they were not bound to 
 sit in judgment on any but peers of the realm. The king 
 admitted the justness of the protest, and it was agreed by 
 
 1 Rot. Parl., vol. ii, p. 52. ... Lesqueux countes, barouns, et 
 peres, les articles par eux examinez, reviendrent devant le roi en 
 mesme le parlement et disoient tres touz par un des peres que totes 
 les choses contenues es ditz articles feurent notoires et conues a 
 eux et au poeple; et nomement 1'article tochant la mort sire 
 Edward, piere nostre seignur le roi que ore est. Pour quoi les ditz 
 countes, barouns et pieres, come juges du parlement par assent du 
 roi en mesme le parlement, agarderent et ajugerent : Que le dit 
 Roger, come treitur et enemy du roi et du roialme, feust treyne 
 et pendu. Et sur ce estoit comande a counte mareschal a faire 
 1'execution du dit jugement. . . . 
 
 Baker, ed. Thompson, p. 47. Per suos pares fuit morti condigne 
 adjudicatus, non tamen venit coram eis nee responsioni ratiocinatus, 
 quoniam a morte comitis Lancastrie, Wintonie, et Gloucestrie, et 
 Cancie, non solebant nobiles ratiocinio deputari, set sine responsione 
 atque legitima conviccione perierunt; unde comes iste jure quod 
 in alterum statuit usus extitit, et juste eadem mensura quam aliis 
 mensus fuerat erat eidem remensum. 
 
 2 Rot. Parl., vol. ii, p. 33 ; ibid., p. 55. 
 
 8 Ibid., pp. 255-6 : Et sur ceo cue bone deliberation et avis od 
 grant leiser par nostre seigneur le roi, prelatz, prince, et dues, countes 
 et barons avant ditz, il piert clerement que meismes les juggementz 
 et record sont erroignes et defectives en touz pointz.
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 337 
 
 the king and magnates in full parliament that the judgments 
 then passed on commons were not to be treated as pre- 
 cedents, by reason whereof the said peers might be charged 
 to judge other than their peers contrary to the law of the 
 land. A most infelicitously worded resolution, which might 
 but obviously does not mean that the persons tried could in 
 such cases take exception to the jurisdiction. 1 
 
 The fall of Mortimer, coupled with the death of Edward 
 the Second, cleared the political atmosphere for some time 
 to come. However, the ex-king's mysterious demise could 
 not be simply ignored, and Thomas de Berkeley, a peer, who 
 had been Edward's custodian, was brought before parliament 
 and arraigned on a somewhat vague charge of being con- 
 cerned in the affair. He defended every word of the charge, 
 and for good and evil put himself upon the country : in other 
 words, he claimed trial by jury. A jury was awarded for the 
 octave of St. Hilary, and on this day Thomas de Berkeley 
 came before the king in full parliament ; there came also 
 twelve jurors, all knights, who found Thomas not guilty of 
 the death of Edward. As, however, the ex-king was ad- 
 mittedly murdered by the servants of the accused, a day 
 was assigned in the next parliament for Thomas to appear 
 and hear judgment; meanwhile he was given into the custody 
 of the steward of the household. Here, although the case 
 was commenced in parliament, we have trial by knights, 
 judgment by peers ; a singular and unfruitful precedent, 
 
 1 Et est assentu et acorde par nostre seigneur le roi et touz les 
 grantz en pleyn parlement qe tut soit il que les ditz peres, come 
 juges du parlement, empristrent en la presence nostre seigneur le 
 roi a faire et a rendre les ditz jugementz par assent du roi sur ascuns 
 de ceux qui n'estoient pas lur peres, et ce par encheson de murdre 
 de seigneur lige . . . que par tant les ditz peres que ore sont, ou 
 les peres qui serront en temps a venir, ne soient mes tenuz ne 
 chargez a rendre juggement sur autres que sur leur peres,, ne a ce 
 faire, mes eient les peres de la terre poer einz de ce pour touz jours 
 soient dechargez et quites. Et que les avantditz jugementz ore 
 renduz ne soit tret en ensaumple n'en consequencie en temps a venir 
 par qoi les ditz peres puissent estre chargez desore a jugger autres 
 que lur peres centre la lei de la terre, si autiel cas aveigne que Dieu 
 defend. (Rot. Parl., vol. ii, p. 54.)
 
 338 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 well illustrating the tentative development in practice of an 
 indefinite and ill-considered principle. 1 
 
 In the year 1341 the trial of peers again occupied the 
 attention of parliament. The French war had placed 
 Edward in dire financial difficulties: there was also an 
 epidemic of lawlessness in England which was being dealt 
 with by the not over lawful commissions of trailbaston. 
 Under these circumstances the king's officers had every 
 inducement and every opportunity for exacting heavy 
 amercements from high and low throughout the country. 
 Edward in France was assailed with complaints against 
 the extortions of his officials, but the time could scarcely 
 have been less opportune: he himself was engaged in chiding 
 these same officials for the shortage of his revenues. 
 
 Edward, apparently, of a sudden came to the conclusion 
 that extensive malversation might be the cause of both his 
 and his people's complaints : quite unexpectedly he returned 
 to England, had several persons in authority arrested, and 
 appointed special commissioners to inquire into all cases of 
 alleged extortion by his ministers. The commissioners of 
 course sat, inquired and obtained large fines which were 
 paid to the king. Edward must have been very simple- 
 minded if he thought such procedure would gratify anyone 
 but himself. Nevertheless the avowed object of these com- 
 missions was to appease the people : in the king's own 
 particular interests the machinery of the exchequer was set 
 vigorously in motion for the purpose of enforcing payment 
 of the supplies voted. 
 
 This was not all. One of the king's first actions on 
 arriving in England was to make certain charges against 
 his ex-chancellor, Stratford archbishop of Canterbury, com- 
 plaining in particular of his not having provided for the 
 payment of certain foreign merchants. Admittedly there 
 were no sufficient assets in the treasury for the purpose, but 
 this the king contended was due to the wilful default of the 
 primate and his other ministers in not promptly and rigor- 
 ously collecting the supplies voted. 
 
 1 See Rot. Parl., vol. ii, p. 57 ; Report on the Dignity of a Peer, 
 voL i, p. 300.
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 339 
 
 The king summoned Stratford to appear before him, but 
 the prelate declined to obey the summons, although a safe- 
 conduct was offered him: he did, however, express his 
 willingness to clear himself before a parliament 1 The 
 primate then embarked upon a deliberate policy of op- 
 position to the king, which we need not go into. Edward 
 got very angry and made other and far more serious charges 
 against Stratford, which drew from the latter a reminder 
 that, if the offence alleged against him was treason, no king 
 or temporal lord was competent to judge him. 2 
 
 A parliament was summoned and met on Monday after the 
 quinzaine of Easter, that is, on the 23rd of April. Stratford 
 received his summons in due course, 3 and attended. The 
 events which then took place are related, and faithfully 
 enough in all probability, by a contemporary monk named 
 Birchington ; 4 none the less this writer's account has been 
 misunderstood, and grossly misrepresented by a host of 
 mediaeval and modern writers. 5 The story can only be 
 briefly told here. 
 
 1 Patent Roll, 15 Edward III, pt. i, m. 48; Rymer, Foedera 
 R.C., ii, p. 1146. Roman Roll, 15 Edward III, m. 4; Rymer, 
 Foedera R.C., ii, pp. 1152-3. 
 
 2 The archbishop's reply is given by Birchington (printed 
 Wharton, Anglia Sacra, pt. i, pp. 27-36). . . . Quia praemissa 
 proditionis crimen in caput nostrum retorquere videntur, quo 
 casu rex nullus vel dominus temporalis judex noster competens 
 esse potest, sicut satis superius est ostensum ; protestamur palam 
 et publice per praesentes, quod per dicta vel dicenda in nullo 
 statui nostro praejudicare intendimus in hac parte, sed judicis 
 cujuscunque secularis examen totaliter declinare. (Op. cit., p. 34.) 
 
 3 Close Roll, 15 Edward III, pt. i, m. 37d. : Report Dig. Peer, 
 vol. iv, p. 529. 
 
 4 See Anglia Sacra, pt. i, pp. 38-9. 
 
 5 For example, the Political History of England revives the 
 absurd suggestion that Edward wished to have the primate tried for 
 treason in the court of Exchequer. At the present day such an 
 error, an error which must be terribly disconcerting to any intelli- 
 gent student, ought to be impossible ; but it is obvious that until 
 some system of annotation, similar to that adopted in barristers' 
 chambers, is employed in all reference libraries, these mistakes will 
 continue to be made by even the most careful and competent 
 writers.
 
 340 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 The substantial charge against Stratford, as already stated, 
 was wilful default in collecting the revenue. As a matter of 
 fact, a very few hundred more sacks of wool collected would 
 have made all the difference to the king, and he would have 
 escaped the humiliating necessity of leaving the earl of 
 Derby in pawn abroad. 1 Stratford, if you please, at this 
 particular juncture was himself in default to the extent of 
 forty-five sacks and fifty-seven pounds of wool, due in respect 
 of wools lately granted by parliament ; at any rate the 
 Exchequer alleged the debt and were taking proceedings 
 against the primate to enforce payment. 2 The debt was not 
 a very great one, a fourteenth of the amount required to free 
 the earl of Derby, and it was certainly disputed : all the 
 same this was a singularly damaging incident ; it would 
 have afforded, as the lawyers say, very useful material for 
 cross-examination. I think anyone would have been justified 
 in telling the archbishop that, until he had disposed of this 
 claim, his protestations of innocence were somewhat pre- 
 mature. 
 
 Now according to Birchington, on the morrow of St. 
 George's Day, that is, on Tuesday, April the 24th, the arch- 
 bishop came with the intention of forcing his way into parlia- 
 ment ; but at the entrance to the great hall, Stafford steward 
 
 1 Idem archiepiscopus ad dicti subsidii collectionem et aliorum 
 nobis necessariorum subministrationem interim promisit efficaciter 
 interponere partes suas. (Letters of the king to certain bishops 
 and others; see Close Roll Cal, 1341-3, p. 102; Rymer, Heming- 
 burgh, Avesbury, etc.) 
 
 As to the position of the earl of Derby see Close Roll Cal., 
 1341-3, pp. 13, 24, 32, etc. 
 
 2 Exchequer Memoranda Roll, K.R., Hilary, 15 Edward III, 
 Brevia Retornabilia : Rex vicecomiti Kancie de venire faciendo 
 archiepiscopum Cantuar. de xlv saccis iiij petris j Ib. Mr. Pike, 
 Hist, of the House of Lords, p. 191, makes the following state- 
 ment in a marginal note : " The Rolls of the Exchequer show that 
 Stratford merely appeared there in relation to a trivial matter of 
 account by attorney " ; and in his text : " Reduced into the actual 
 words of the Exchequer it is neither more nor less than fifteen 
 sacks and fifty-seven pounds of wool." If he had not misread the 
 record, perhaps the word " trivial " would have been omitted. The 
 amount was not trivial.
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 341 
 
 of the household and Darcy the king's chamberlain barred 
 his passage, and he was ordered, in the king's name, to 
 answer the case against him in the Exchequer before coming 
 into parliament. Birchington asserts that Stratford did go 
 twice into the Exchequer, and I see no reason whatever 
 to doubt that he did. He did not of course, in legal 
 phraseology, appear in person to argue his case, but em- 
 ployed a well-known attorney of the period named Wade- 
 worth who had a large practice in the Exchequer court. 
 But even litigants who employ attorneys commonly have 
 to be personally present. Stratford obtained successive 
 adjournments of his case, first to the Trinity, then to the 
 Michaelmas, and finally to the Hilary sittings. 1 So much 
 for the Exchequer proceedings, which were, after all, merely 
 a side issue. So far as parliament was concerned Stratford 
 acted with prudent obstinacy, and insisted upon attending : 
 on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday he took his seat ; but 
 the king was equally obstinate, and on Saturday the serjeants- 
 at-arms received orders to exclude him. The primate came 
 as expected, the serjeants-at-arms were polite but firm, for 
 the moment perhaps Stratford was disconcerted ; then Darcy 
 came up, and a rather remarkable scene appears to have 
 followed. The primate indulged in misplaced heroics, thought 
 himself a second Becket, and professed himself ready for a 
 martyr's death. He was brought to his senses by the laconic 
 rejoinder : " Non tu ita dignus, nee nos ita fatui " ; he then 
 
 1 Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis attachiatus fuit ad respondendum 
 domino regi de xlv saccis iiij petris et j Ib. lane quas regi debet de 
 lanis nuper per prelates, religiosos et quosdam alios de clero in 
 parliaments apud Westmonasterium in crastino purificationis beate 
 Marie anno duodecimo tento concessis et juxta ratam (etc.). . . . 
 Et predictus archiepiscopus per Eliam de Wadeworth attornatum 
 suum venit et dicit se sufficienter posse ostendere curie quod de 
 lanis predictis onerari non debet sed dicit quod evidencias suas inde 
 jam non habet in promptu et petit diem ulterius super hoc ei prefigi 
 etc. et datus est ei dies hie in octab. sancte Trinitatis ad ostenden- 
 dum quod pro se habet in exoneracionem etc. Ad quern diem 
 venit per dictum attornatum suum et habet diem in octab. sancti 
 Michaelis etc. . . . Ad quern diem venit et habet diem in octab. sancti 
 Hillarii. . . . (Exchequer Memoranda Roll, K.R., 15 Edward III, 
 Pasch. Adhuc Recorda, Kent.)
 
 342 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 reverted to his previous attitude of dignified obstinacy, and 
 the same day saw him occupying his usual place in the 
 painted chamber. 
 
 The heat of the main controversy had become somewhat 
 dissipated by the beginning of May; Stratford made his peace 
 with the king, and after this can hardly have considered 
 himself as standing accused of anything more than certain 
 vague misdemeanours, but of these he wished to clear himself 
 by arraignment and answer before the peers in parliament. 
 The king seemed willing to accede to the primate's wish 
 subject to the more pressing business of parliament being 
 first disposed of. 1 
 
 But Stratford was not the only magnate with a grievance 
 born of the events recorded ; and the king was petitioned by 
 the peers as a body to give them due protection in the future 
 by decreeing that, even in cases of misdemeanour, they should 
 only be proceeded against in parliament. The king very pro- 
 perly refused his assent. The peers then requested that a 
 committee of bishops, earls and barons, with certain sages of 
 the law, should be appointed to report on the privilege of 
 judgment by peers ; and a committee was nominated con- 
 sisting of four bishops, four earls and four barons, but no 
 sages of the law were appointed. 2 The committee were 
 
 1 Et le dit ercevesque se humilia a nostre seignur le roi, enquerant 
 sa bone seignurie et sa bienvoillance ; et nostre seignur le roi lui 
 resceut a sa bone seignurie : dont les prelatz et autres grauntz lui 
 mercierent tout come il savoient ou purroient. Et puis pria 1'erce- 
 vesque au roi, q'il pleust a sa seignurie, que desicome il est diffamez 
 notoirement par tut le roialme et aillours, q'il puisse estre aresnez en 
 pleyn parlement devant les pieres, et illoeqes respoundre, issint q'il 
 soil overtement tenuz pur tiel come il est. Queu chose le roi ottreia. 
 Mes il dit, q'il voleit que les busoignes touchantes 1'estat du roialme 
 et commune profit fusses primes mys en exploit, et puis il ferroit 
 exploiter les autres. (Rot. Parl., vol. ii, p. 127.) 
 
 2 Et pur ce que entre autres choses contenues en la prier des 
 grauntz est fait mention, qe les piers de la terre, officers ne autres, 
 ne serront tenuz de respondre de trespas que lour est surmys par le 
 roi, fors que en parlement : queu choses fust avys au roi que ce 
 serroit inconvenient et centre son estat : si prierent les ditz grantz 
 au roi, q'il voloit assentir que quatre evesques, quatre countes et 
 quatre barons, ensemblement ove ascuns sages de la leye, fussent 
 esluz de trier en queu cas les ditz piers serroient tenuz de respon-
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 343 
 
 instructed to inquire in what cases peers ought to be arraigned 
 in parliament, and in what cases not. 
 
 The committee eventually reported 1 that peers of the 
 realm ought not to be arraigned or brought to judgment 
 except in parliament and by their peers ; moreover, a peer 
 who was or had been chancellor, treasurer, or the holder 
 of any other office was none the less entitled to be so tried 
 as aforesaid in respect of all matters, whether they did or 
 did not concern his office. Upon this finding they made 
 a declaration of right which was embodied, practically ver- 
 batim, in a statute passed in the same parliament. The 
 clause in question runs as follows : 
 
 Item, because in times past peers of the land have been arrested 
 and imprisoned, and their temporalities, lands and tenements, goods 
 and chattels seized into the hands of kings, and some put to death, 
 without judgment of their peers : it is accorded and assented that 
 no peer of the land, officer or other, by reason of his office or 
 matters touching his office, or for any other reason shall be brought 
 to judgment to lose his temporalities, lands, tenements, goods or 
 chattels, or be arrested, imprisoned, outlawed, exiled or forejudged, 
 or made to answer or be judged except before the said peers in par- 
 liament ; saving always to the lord the king and his heirs in other 
 case the laws rightfully used and by due process, and saving also 
 
 dre en parlement et nulle parte aillours, et en quel cas nemy; et 
 de reporter lour avys a lui. Et furent esluz a ceste chose faire 
 les esvesques de Excestre, (Cicestre), Baa, Loundres; les countes 
 d'Arundel, Sarum, Huntyngdon et Suffolc ; les seignurs de Wake, 
 Percy ; Monsr. Rauf de Nevill et Monsr. Rauf Basset de Drayton. 
 Lesqueux douze reporterent lour avys en pleyn parlement le Lundy 
 preschein suant, en une cedule dont la copie s'ensuit en ceste forme. 
 . . . (Parliament Roll, 15 Edward III, m. 5, no. 6.) Referring to 
 this passage, Mr. Pike observes (Hist, of the House of Lords, p. 195): 
 "The committee, however, did not, as is commonly represented, 
 consist exclusively of peers. It included four bishops, four earls, 
 and four barons, l together with some sages of the /aw.' " The passage 
 has been misread by the writer : what " is commonly represented " 
 happens in this instance to be true. I have examined the original 
 roll : except that the word "Cicestre" is an interlineation, the printed 
 copy is identical with the roll. I fear Mr. Pike has been in this 
 matter a blind leader of the blind ; several persons have followed 
 him into the ditch. 
 
 1 See Rot. Parl., vol.. ii, p. 127.
 
 344 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 the suit of parties : l And in case any peer of his own accord is 
 willing to reply or be judged elsewhere than in parliament, this 
 shall not prejudice the other peers or himself in other case. 
 Provided always that if any peer is a sheriff or farmer of fee or 
 has been an officer or has received money or chattels on behalf of 
 the king, by reason of which office or receipt he is bound to 
 account, that such person account by himself or his attorney in 
 the accustomed places. Provided that the pardons heretofore made 
 in parliament remain in force." 2 
 
 The king only permitted the statute to be sealed because 
 it was imperative for him to obtain supplies. Once these 
 had been voted, Edward announced that he had dissembled 
 in the matter of this enactment, and purported to revoke it 
 by order in council. 3 Dissimulation is certainly not a praise- 
 worthy quality in sovereigns, but Edward in this case has 
 received from historians more than his fair meed of blame. 
 If he erred in assenting and then revoking his assent, the 
 peers of the realm erred infinitely more in seeking to obtain 
 such a statute ; had it remained law the result must have 
 been disastrous to the constitution. The judges, or at least 
 some of them, appear throughout to have protested against 
 this statute ; they must indeed have regarded it with nothing 
 less than dismay, and probably felt perfectly sincere when 
 they said that their oaths of office might preclude their giving 
 effect to it. 4 
 
 The statute was repealed by the king in the following 
 parliament, 5 and need not therefore be discussed in any detail. 
 A few points should be noticed. The proviso excepting the 
 suit of parties from judgment by peers affords fairly conclusive 
 evidence that this was considered settled law ; consequently 
 
 1 et salve auxint la suite des parties. 
 
 2 See Appendix. The statute also contains provisions relating 
 to other matters. 
 
 3 Close Roll, 15 Edward III, pt. 2, m. id.; Statute Roll, m. iQd. 
 (Printed in Rymer, Foedera, vol. ii, pt. 2, p. 1177 ; Statutes of the 
 Realm, R.C., vol. i, p. 297.) 
 
 4 See Rot. Parl., vol. ii, p. 131 (no. 42). 
 
 5 Rot. Parl., vol. ii, p. 139 : the king, in response to a petition 
 to maintain the statute, announced its repeal.
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 345 
 
 a peer appealed of felony had no right to be judged differently 
 to a commoner. Again, the circumstance that bishops were 
 put on the committee, the assertion by Stratford that when 
 life or limb were in peril he could not be tried by any secular 
 tribunal whatever, coupled with his demand in this particular 
 instance to be arraigned in parliament, afford sufficiently con- 
 sistent and clear evidence of the attitude of the church. The 
 clergy as a body claimed in cases of treason and felony 
 absolute exemption from secular jurisdiction ; but in cases 
 of misdemeanour the spiritual peers now desired judgment 
 by peers temporal and spiritual in Parliament. 
 
 It may be mentioned in passing that the king prudently 
 evaded Stratford's request to be arraigned before the peers 
 in parliament ; l instead, a committee of two bishops and four 
 earls was appointed to hear his replies, but they were not to 
 proceed further. 2 Eventually the same parliament which re- 
 pealed the obnoxious statute annulled the process against the 
 primate. 
 
 In the year 1344 it was enacted that no archbishop or 
 bishop should be proceeded against for any crime before the 
 king's justices without a special order from the sovereign. 3 
 This no doubt was intended, and was considered by the 
 church to be a concession. The Act, however, clearly implies 
 that, except in so far as privilege of clergy could be claimed, 
 king's justices armed with a special order had full power to 
 try bishops. 
 
 1 Selden, Stillingfleet, Jeremy Collier and others have asserted 
 that he was tried by the peers : there is not the smallest foundation 
 for such assertion. 
 
 2 Et ex tune praelatis et aliis data fuit licentia recedendi; sed 
 assignati fuerunt episcopi Dunelmensis et Sarisburiensis, comites 
 [Arundel,] Sarisburiae, Warewikiae et Northamptoniae ad audiendum 
 excusationes archiepiscopi super sibi impositis et ad referendum regi 
 in proximo parliamento. Et cum archiepiscopus offerret se paratum 
 statim se immunem ostendere et docere, dicti episcopi et comites 
 asseruerunt sibi tune vacare non posse; sicque remansit illud 
 negotium in suspenso. (Murimuth, Rolls Series [93], p. 120.) 
 
 3 Quant au primer article, il est avis que en cause de cryme nul 
 ercevesque ne evesque soit empeschez devant les justices si le roi 
 ne le comande especialement, tan que autre remedie soit ordeynez. 
 (Rot. Parl., ii, p. 152.)
 
 346 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 About the year 1355 William lord Greystoke appears to 
 have been tried and condemned to death for the loss of 
 Berwick. He seems to have been tried by a court consisting 
 of peers and others, presided over by Sir Walter Manny 
 who pronounced judgment. 1 I have not been able to dis- 
 cover any record of the trial. Assuming this peer was con- 
 demned as stated, it is quite clear that he subsequently 
 received the king's pardon. 2 
 
 In the year 1376 William lord Latymer and several others 
 who were not peers were impeached in parliament by the 
 commons for high misdemeanours affecting the state. Laty- 
 mer was sentenced by the prelates and peers to suffer certain 
 penalties, but who presided at the trial is not stated. 3 The 
 others were also dealt with, and there is no suggestion of 
 any protest by the peers against judging commoners. Im- 
 peachment was not at this time a technical term, the action 
 of the commons was practically unprecedented, and a protest 
 might have been reasonably expected. According to strict 
 constitutional principles, however, the procedure adopted can 
 be readily justified. There was clearly no remedy for the 
 
 1 ... baron de Greystok q'estoit seigneur et un des piers du 
 roialme . . . estoit ajugge par 1'advis du dit aiel [Edward III], le 
 roi de Chastel que si est, les nobles due et countes queux Dieux 
 assoile Henri jadys due de Lancastre, les countes jadys de North- 
 ampton et Stafford, et sire Wauter de Manny, que la dite ville 
 estoit perduz en defaut du dit baron, et par celle cause il averoit 
 juggement de vie et de membre, et que y deusse forfaire quant qe 
 il avoit : et a celle juggement rendre avoit le dit sire Wauter les 
 paroles par comandement du dit aiel. . . . (Rot. Parl., vol. iii, 
 pp. 11-12.) 
 
 2 For particulars of this branch of the Greystoks see Newminster, 
 Surtees Soc., vol. Ixvi passim. Inquisition post mortem of William 
 de Greystok, baron Greystok, taken at Sadby 21 Sept., 1359, 
 Durham Cursitor's Records Reg., vol. ii, fol. 62 ; also various 
 inquisitions p.m., Chancery, 33 Edward III, no. 43. 
 
 Baker (ed. Thompson, p. 126) mentions the loss of Berwick as 
 follows : Et Calesiam reversus, audivit rex quod Scoti furtim intra- 
 runt et ceperunt villam Berewici, barone de Greistoke non invitato 
 cum rege militante, cui tamen committebatur cura ville jam capte. 
 This writer says nothing about the baron's trial. His appointment 
 to Berwick is entered on tfre Scotch Roll, 28 Edward III, m. 5. 
 
 8 Rot. Parl., vol. ii, pp. 324-7.
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 347 
 
 grievances of the commons except in parliament. They 
 were an estate of the realm which could neither sue nor be 
 sued at law. For cases outside the scope of the law of the 
 land, the magnates of the realm (in parliament) constituted 
 the sole but recognised judicial tribunal. This was a popular 
 principle, and the institution of impeachments was by no 
 means its first practical application. Time was when this 
 principle existed as one of the great formative ideas of the 
 English constitution and made the judicature of the country 
 a living prolific organism ; but inevitably with the growing 
 power and fecundity of the legislature, the judicature became 
 more and more sterile. 
 
 The impeachment of Latymer and the others was a tenta- 
 tive process. Shortly after there came a political reaction ; 
 and in the next parliament the commons petitioned that 
 Latymer might be restored to his offices, seeing that he 
 had been ousted from them without due process. A pre- 
 posterous petition : constitutional conservatism was evidently 
 of no account to the political factions of this period. Edward, 
 of course, granted the petition. 1 
 
 After the accession of Richard the Second impeachment 
 by the commons became a recognised procedure and was 
 frequently resorted to. It is needless to refer to these cases 
 in detail, but it is not unimportant to notice who presided at 
 them. In some instances this is not stated. We know, however, 
 that at the trials of John Sire de Gomeniz and William de 
 Weston it was the steward of the household who in each 
 case arraigned and sentenced the prisoner. 2 Sir Robert 
 
 1 Rot. Parl., vol. ii, p. 372 (no. 75) : Item prient les communes 
 a nostre dit seigneur le roi et as nobles seigneurs de parlement, que 
 come al derrain parlement, par meins vrai suggestion et sanz due 
 proces, le seigneur de Latymer qu'est un des pieres del roialme . . . 
 estoit oustez de toutz offices et des privez conseilx entour le roy, q'il 
 soit ore par agard de ce present parlement restitut a son primer 
 estat et degree. . . . 
 
 2 A quel jour de Vendredy les ditz Johan et William amesnes 
 par le dit conestable devant les seigneurs avant ditz en plein parle- 
 ment seantz en la Blaunke Chambre, ils sont severalement aresonez 
 a comandement des ditz seigneurs par sire Richard le Scrop, 
 chivaler, seneschal de 1'hostel nostre seigneur le roi, en manere 
 come s'ensuyt .... (Rot. Parl., vol. iii, p. 10.)
 
 348 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Fulmere, on the other hand, tried in 1383, was sentenced 
 by the chancellor, 1 and the same official presided on the 
 impeachment of the bishop of Norwich. 2 
 
 In the year 1387 the king made a vain attempt to free 
 himself from the control of the greater magnates, but his 
 hopes were blighted in the bud by the defeat of de Vere at 
 Radcot Bridge. From the battlefield the victorious army 
 of the five lords marched straight to London. Usk, the 
 chronicler, relates how he saw them file through the city of 
 Oxford on their way to the capital ; Warwick and Derby 
 led the van, Gloucester the main body, Arundel and Notting- 
 ham brought up the rear. The confederate lords received 
 the keys of the city from the mayor of London on the 
 26th of December, and on the 2/th of December the Tower 
 and the king of England were in their possession. A parlia- 
 ment was summoned to meet in February. At this parliament 
 the five lords took proceedings against Alexander Neville, 
 archbishop of York, Robert de Vere, duke of Ireland, Michael 
 de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, Sir Robert Tresilian, Chief Justice, 
 and Sir Nicholas Brembre. The proceedings purported to be 
 an appeal of high treason against the persons named. 
 
 The appellants had lodged their appeal with the king ; 
 and he, by the advice of his council, then named a day for 
 the respondents to appear before parliament. Service of 
 this order was effected by proclamation through all the 
 counties of England. On the day named Brembre was in 
 custody, the others still very much at large. The absent 
 respondents were called and did not appear. The appellants 
 prayed the king and peers to record their default, and proceed 
 to judgment. The king and peers, however, desired time to 
 consider the matter, and the case was adjourned until the 
 following day. 3 
 
 The five lords had certainly taken a strange course. 
 Appeals of treason were not unknown to the common law, 
 and were presumably subject to the same rules of pleading 
 
 1 Rot. Parl., vol. iii, p. 152. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 153. 
 
 3 Ibid., p. 229.
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 349 
 
 and so forth as other appeals. 1 The court which more 
 commonly took cognisance of these cases was the constable 
 of England's court of chivalry, where the procedure was 
 according to the civil law. 2 Again, there were no reliable 
 precedents for trying such a case in parliament ; and, as 
 appeals were at the suit of a subject, there was some ground 
 for contending on principle that parliament ought to decline 
 to try them. 
 
 Owing, it would seem, to the circumstances just stated, not 
 only justices, Serjeants and sages of the common law, but 
 also persons learned in the civil law were asked to advise. 
 These, after considering the matter, stated that they well 
 understood the tenor of the appeal and were of opinion that 
 it did not comply with the requirements either of the common 
 law or of the civil law. 3 
 
 Upon this the lords made a counter-declaration to the 
 effect that, in the case of any high crime touching the king's 
 person and the state of the realm perpetrated by peers of the 
 realm with others, the cause ought not to be determined 
 elsewhere than in parliament, or by any other law but the 
 law and procedure of parliament. It was the ancient privilege 
 of the lords of parliament to be judges in such cases with the 
 king's consent. England never was and never should be 
 subject to the civil law, nor should parliament (which was 
 the highest court) be controlled by the procedure of the 
 lower courts of the realm. The lords thereupon adjudged, 
 with the consent of the king, that the appeal was duly made 
 and affirmed and the process conformable to the law and 
 practice of parliament. 4 
 
 1 For examples of appeals of treason see the case of William 
 Douglas v. Gilbert de Humfraville, Coram Rege Roll, 51-2 
 Henry III (no. 131), m. 28d. ; Bain, Calendar, i, 2452; Surtees 
 Soc., 88, p. i47n. Robert le Eyr v. Nicholas de Wantham, 
 Twyne MS., iv, p. 617, Eyre Roll, A.D. 1285; Oxford Hist. Soc., 
 1 8, p. 204. Compare, Select Pleas of the Crown, Selden Soc., 
 vol. i, no. 115; etc. 
 
 2 As regards the constable's jurisdiction, and the court of 
 chivalry, see post, chap. xi. 
 
 3 Rot. Parl., vol. iii, p. 236. 
 
 4 Ibid.
 
 350 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Whether the lords were right or wrong in making such a 
 declaration is a question which scarcely admits of a definite 
 answer. No statute denied the peers this jurisdiction ; no 
 other court in England had authority to overrule them ; but, 
 on the other hand, the peers did not consider themselves 
 bound by their own decisions, and were not unwilling to 
 pass a solemn judgment one year and denounce it the next 
 as a flagrant breach of the customs of the kingdom. Under 
 such conditions the judicial decisions of parliament at this 
 time cannot altogether be rejected as bad law, even when 
 they failed to stand the test of time and the caprice of future 
 parliaments ; nor, merely because they survived such test, 
 can they be accepted ab initio as good law. 
 
 After another adjournment the appeal of the five lords was 
 proceeded with in accordance with the peers' declaration 
 stated above, and the prayer that the default of the four 
 respondents might be recorded was renewed. At this point 
 the spiritual peers rose from their seats. They were forbidden 
 by the canons of holy church in any manner to take part 
 personally in such judgments as were likely to be passed. 
 The archbishop of Canterbury produced a written document 
 which he read to the house : 
 
 In the Name of God, amen. Whereas by the law and custom of 
 the realm of England it belongeth to the archbishop of Canterbury 
 for the time being, and all and singular his suffragans, brethren, fellow 
 bishops, abbots, priors and other prelates whatsoever holding of our 
 lord the king by barony to be personally present in all the king's par- 
 liaments whatsoever as peers of the realm as aforesaid, and together 
 with the other peers and others having the right to be there present 
 to advise, treat, ordain, establish and determine concerning the affairs 
 of the realm. . . , 
 
 and so forth. In such matters, the primate protested, the 
 prelates intended to be present in manner accustomed, saving 
 the rights of their order. But since certain matters were 
 coming under discussion at which they were by the sacred 
 canons forbidden to be personally present, they intended to 
 retire, saving always the rights of their peerage ; and this 
 protest was made in order that their absence might not in- 
 validate the judgment about to be delivered. Durham and
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 351 
 
 Carlisle made similar protests on their own behalf, and then 
 all the prelates withdrew from the house. 1 
 
 At the request of the appellants, and after a lengthy ex- 
 amination of the articles of appeal, the temporal lords pro- 
 ceeded to judgment. The absent respondents were found 
 guilty of treason ; and, with the exception of the archbishop, 
 sentenced accordingly. 2 Tresilian, who had been in hiding, 
 was shortly afterwards apprehended and brought before the 
 lords ; having nothing to say in arrest of judgment, he was 
 hurried to execution. The others were beyond the reach of 
 their enemies. Suffolk was in Paris, the duke in Holland. A 
 humble but happy fate was reserved for the archbishop ; he 
 obtained a small curacy and died a village priest. 
 
 1 Rot. Parl., vol. iii, p. 236. The northern primate, being one 
 of the appealed, and a refugee, was not in a position to protest on 
 behalf of his province; hence the interposition of Durham and 
 Carlisle. 
 
 2 Rot. Parl., vol. iii, p. 237. Sur quoy les ditz seigneurs tem- 
 porels par commandement du roi nostre dit seigneur examineront les 
 articles du dit appell, et le coupe des ditz Ercevesque d'Everwyk, 
 due, counte et Robert Tresilian, appellez come devant en celle partie, 
 par grant labour et diligence, et par continuance de diverses jours 
 tan que le Joedy le xiij jour du dit moys de Feverer. Et par lour 
 avisement et bone deliberation firent declaration et ajuggeront que 
 le primere, le seconde, [etc.] . . . articles sont treson. . . . Et 
 troveront par deue examination et par proeve et information par touz 
 les voies q'ils purroient lour conscience deuement enformer que les 
 ditz ercevesque, due, counte et Robert Tresilian appellez coment 
 devant feuront coupables notoriement en ycelles . . . et ajuggeront 
 les ditz . . . coupables et convictz dez tresons contenuz en les ditz 
 articles, declarez pur treson come devant, et agarderont que mesmes 
 les due, counte et Robert Tresilian, appellez come devant, feussent 
 treynez et penduz . . . et que les ditz ercevesque, due, counte et 
 Robert Tresilian, appellez come devant, et lour heires feussent des- 
 heritez toutz jours, et que lour terres, tenementz, biens et chateux 
 feussent forfaitz au roi nostre dit seigneur, et les temporaltees du dit 
 -ercevesque d'Everwyk de 1'ercevesque d'Everwyk seisiz es mains le 
 roi nostre dit seigneur. Et pur ce que tiel cas n'ad mye este veu en 
 le roialme touchant le persone de ercevesque ou evesque, les ditz 
 seigneurs de parlement se vorroient aviser. . . . 
 
 Compare the case of the archbishop with that of the bishop of 
 Chichester, impeached in the same parliament. (Rot. Parl., vol. iii, 
 pp. 243-4.) In neither case did the lords venture to pass sentence 
 of death. The bishop of Chichester was sentenced to exile.
 
 352 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Brembre, the remaining respondent, who had been some 
 little time in custody, was the last to be dealt with. 1 He was 
 arraigned in full parliament and showed a fine spirit, pleaded 
 not guilty, angrily flung down his gauntlet and claimed to 
 defend with his body. A dramatic episode in a great 
 tragedy : not only the appellants, it is said, were ready to 
 answer this challenge ; scarcely a peer present but plucked 
 forth a glove and flung it on the floor of the house. 2 Never- 
 theless it was decided that trial by battle did not lie : Brembre 
 was found guilty and led away to his death. 
 
 The lust of the " merciless " parliament was not yet sated ; 
 several other persons, including the bishop of Chichester, 
 were impeached by the commons and found guilty by the 
 lords ; but, on the intercession of the spiritual peers, many 
 of the sentences were commuted to banishment. 
 
 After all this was over the lords spiritual and temporal 
 renewed (in somewhat different shape) their previous demands. 
 They claimed that matters of great moment touching peers 
 of the realm debated in the then present or any future par- 
 liament should be determined by the course of parliament, 
 and not by the civil law or the common law as administered 
 in inferior courts. This claim the king allowed and approved 
 in full parliament. 3 
 
 In 1397 the king took his revenge. His first actions for 
 securing it were ingenious but somewhat unkingly. There 
 was, to begin with, the little dinner-party which Warwick 
 alone was fool enough to attend ; he was sent to Tintagel. 
 The earl of Arundel was beguiled into surrendering and 
 lodged at Carisbroke. The king then paid a visit to 
 Gloucester at his seat in Essex, with the result that Gloucester 
 left England for Calais in the custody of the earl of Notting- 
 ham. A council was held on the first of August when 
 
 1 This case seems to have been in progress when Tresilian was 
 brought to the bar (Rot. Parl., vol. iii, p. 238). The chief justice, 
 it is said, trusting to an inadequate disguise, had imprudently looked 
 out of a neighbouring window to see what he could of the trial. 
 He was recognised and seized. 
 
 2 This tumultuous acceptance of Brembre's challenge rests on 
 very slender authority. 
 
 3 Rot. Parl., vol. iii, p. 244.
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 353 
 
 strict retaliation was decided upon. The appellants of 1387 
 should be the appealed in 1397. A Bill was accordingly 
 presented to the king by the earls of Rutland, Kent, Notting- 
 ham, Somerset and Salisbury, Thomas lord Despencer and 
 Sir William le Scrope appealing Gloucester, Arundel and 
 Warwick of treason, and a day was assigned for the accused 
 peers to answer in the parliament summoned to meet in 
 September. 
 
 When this parliament met various preliminary preparations 
 were made for the coming reprisals. The speaker of the 
 commons petitioned 1 the king that whereas judgments and 
 ordinances made aforetime had been annulled because the 
 estate of the clergy had not given their consent, that the 
 prelates might appoint a procurator to represent them during 
 their absence. (This, it will be remembered, was one of the 
 errors for which the judgment against the Despencers was 
 set aside. 2 ) A further petition was made that all pardons, 
 general or private, granted to the duke of Gloucester and 
 the earls of Arundel and Warwick might be recalled. These 
 petitions were granted in full parliament. 
 
 The commons further protested that they intended by the 
 king's leave to impeach anyone they would whenever seemed 
 good to them during that session of parliament, and Richard 
 gave his consent. These requests do not appear to have 
 
 1 Item mesme le Marsdy les communes monstrerent au roy 
 coment devant ces heures pluseurs juggementz, ordenances, faitz en 
 temps des progenitours nostre seigneur le roy en parlement ount 
 este repellez et adnullez pur ceo que 1'estat de clergie ne feust 
 present en parlement a la faisaunce des ditz juggementz et or- 
 denances. Et pur ceo prierent au roi, que pur seurte a sa persone, 
 et salvation de son roialme, les prelatz et le clergie ferroient un 
 procuratour, ovec poair sufficeant pur consenter en leur noun as 
 toutz choses et ordenances a justifiers en cest present parlement, 
 et que sur ceo chescun seigneur espirituel dirroient pleinement son 
 advis. (Rot. Parl., vol. iii, p. 348.) 
 
 2 The case against the Despencers came up for review before 
 this selfsame parliament, and the whole process appears on the 
 rolls of parliament (Rot. Parl., vol. iii, pp. 360-7). The danger of 
 proceeding in the absence of the prelates could not be disregarded. 
 It was quite certain that they would not consent to be present in 
 person when the appeal was disposed of. 
 
 2 A
 
 354 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 been made by the commons of their own motion, but ob- 
 viously in obedience to palace suggestions ; they are none 
 the less important on that account. Richard was not going 
 to let the butcher's work he had in contemplation lack finality 
 for want of attention to a few legal technicalities. 
 
 The clergy, by means apparently of a formal legal docu- 
 ment, duly appointed Thomas Percy, steward of the house- 
 hold, their procurator with sufficient power to assent in their 
 name to the business in hand. 1 
 
 The commons opened the campaign of revenge by im- 
 peaching Thomas archbishop of Canterbury. The primate 
 is represented as having then confessed and put himself upon 
 the king's grace. Be this as it may, the king, the temporal 
 lords and Percy procurator for the clergy found the matters 
 confessed to be high treason, and the primate was ultimately 
 sentenced to banishment. 
 
 On Friday the 2ist of September Edward earl of Rutland 
 and the other appellants appeared in parliament robed in red 
 silk banded with white and powdered with letters of gold. 
 They set forth their appeal and gave sureties to prosecute it 
 The duke of Lancaster was directed by the king to preside. 
 Richard earl of Arundel was then brought before the house 
 by Nevill, constable of the Tower, and put upon his trial. 
 He too appeared in a robe of red, with a hood of scarlet, 
 belted as an earl. Lancaster observed this at once, and 
 turning to Nevill said, " Take off his hood and belt." The 
 
 1 Nos Thomas Cantuar. et Robertus Ebor. archiepiscopi, ac pre- 
 lati et clerus utriusque provincie Cantuar. et Ebor., jure ecclesiarum 
 nostrarum et temporalium earundem habentes jus interessendi in 
 singulis parliaments domini nostri regis et regni Anglic pro tempore 
 celebrandis, necnon tractandi et expediendi in eisdem : quantum ad 
 singula in instanti parliamento pro statu et honore domini nostri 
 regis, necnon regalie sue, ac quiete pace et tranquilitate regni 
 judicialiter justificandum, venerabili viro domino Thome de Percy 
 militi nostram plenarie committimus potestatem, ita ut singula per 
 ipsum facta in premissis perpetuis temporibus habeantur. (Rot. 
 Parl., vol. iii, p. 348 ; Vita regis Ricardi II (ed. Hearne), pp. 134-5.) 
 The general custom of appointing proxies in parliament was well 
 established and of wide extent. See Pike, Hist, of the House of 
 Lords, pp. 243-4.
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 355 
 
 constable obeyed instantly. Then they unfolded to the earl 
 the articles of accusation. 
 
 We have an eye-witness's account of this trial, 1 interesting 
 enough but not edifying. The earl pleaded not guilty and 
 relied on the general pardon granted in the eleventh year of 
 the current reign, saying that he claimed the benefit of it 
 and would never withdraw himself from the king's grace. 
 "Traitor," said Lancaster, "that pardon is recalled." "In 
 truth thou liest," said Arundel ; " never was I a traitor." 
 " Then for what purpose the pardon ? " said Lancaster. But 
 Arundel had a ready answer : " To close the mouths of mine 
 enemies of whom thou art one." 
 
 This repartee between the judge and his forejudged prisoner 
 was scarcely seemly. Richard interposed. " Answer to the 
 appeal," he said. 
 
 It was a strange trial in strange surroundings. Westminster 
 Palace was rebuilding : parliament was assembled in a large 
 temporary structure, open at the ends, but glorious and 
 solemn, passing anything previous kings had known. 2 Outside 
 might be seen rank behind rank of Cheshire bowmen to the 
 number of four thousand guarding the building. 3 Arundel 
 surveyed his accusers and then addressed himself to the king. 
 " I see well," he said, " that these persons accuse me of treason 
 by showing appeals. In sooth they lie every one of them. 
 Never was I traitor. I insist upon the benefit of my (own 
 particular) pardon, which, within the last six years, you being 
 of full age and with will unfettered did of your own volition 
 
 1 This account is taken from Adam of Usk, but several other 
 chroniclers give detailed descriptions of what occurred. 
 
 2 In qua gloriosus et solemnius sedebat, quam unquam aliquis 
 rex istius regni residere consuevit. (Vita regis Ricardi II, ed. Hearne, 
 p. 131.) See also Annales Ricardi II, Rolls Series [28], p. 209: 
 Erexit autem rex quamdam domum amplissimam in palatio West- 
 monasterii, quae pene totum spatium palatii occupavit ; in qua sibi 
 thronus parabatur altissimus, et pro cunctis regni statibus locus 
 largus, atque pro appellantibus in uno latere locus specialiter depu- 
 tatus, et in alio latere locus reis pro responsis assignatus ; seorsum 
 vero pro militibus parliamenti, qui non fuerunt electi per communi- 
 tatem, prout mos exigit, sed per regiam voluntatem. 
 
 3 Usk, p. ii ; and see Vita R. Ricardi II, p. 134.
 
 356 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 grant me." " I granted it," said the king, " saving it were not 
 to my prejudice." "So," said the duke of Lancaster, "that 
 pardon holds not good." 
 
 Then the speaker, Sir John Bushy, 1 must needs take part 
 in the wrangle. " That pardon is recalled by the king, the 
 lords and us his faithful commons." "Where," asked the 
 earl, "be those faithful commons? Not here ! They, I know, 
 are sore grieved for me, but thou hast ever been false." Upon 
 this there was an outcry. "See," exclaimed Bushy, "how 
 this traitor strives to stir up discord between us and the 
 commons who abide at home." " Liars every one of you," 
 Arundel reiterated. " I am no traitor." 
 
 And then the earl of Derby must have his say. " Did 
 you not," he said, addressing the prisoner, "say to me at 
 Huntingdon, where first we gathered in revolt, that it would 
 be better first of all to seize the king ? " " Earl of Derby," 
 replied Arundel, " you lie at your peril. I never had thought 
 concerning our lord the king save what was to his welfare 
 and honour." And then the king joined in. " Did you not 
 say to me, at the time of your parliament, in the bath behind 
 the White Hall, that my knight, Sir Simon Burly, was for 
 many reasons worthy of death, to which I answered that 
 I knew no cause of death in him ; but none the less thou and 
 thy following did treacherously slay him?" Arundel answered 
 not a word. 
 
 They asked him then if he had nothing further to say in 
 his defence, but he remained silent. So the Chief Justice of 
 the King's Bench declared to him the law, and the penalties 
 he would undergo if he pleaded nothing else, which only 
 set the earl insisting upon his pardon again : therefore the 
 appellants prayed judgment 
 
 The king took up his sceptre and indicated to the duke of 
 Lancaster that he was to pronounce judgment. " Richard," 
 said the duke, addressing Arundel, " I John, seneschal of 
 England, do adjudge thee traitor, and by sentence and judg- 
 ment condemn thee to be drawn, hanged, beheaded and quar- 
 tered, and that thy lands entailed and unentailed be forfeit." 
 
 1 vir crudelissimus, ambitiosus supra modum, atque rei alienae 
 cupidus. (Annales R. II, p. 209.)
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 357 
 
 Arundel was led away and beheaded the same day on 
 Tower Hill. So perished one of England's greatest sea- 
 captains, a man well loved and honoured by the people. 
 " May I," wrote Adam of Usk, " be found worthy to rest 
 with his soul in bliss, for assuredly he is gathered to the 
 company of the saints." 1 
 
 The official account of Arundel's trial, entered on the rolls 
 of parliament, suggests that there was perhaps more formality 
 and dignity about the proceedings than the chroniclers have 
 acknowledged. The judgment on the record deserves par- 
 ticular attention. 
 
 Sur quoi le dit due de Lancastre par comandement du roy et 
 toutz les seigneurs temporeles et Monsieur Thomas Percy, aiant 
 poair suffisant des prelatz et clergie du roialme d'Engleterre come 
 piert de record en le dit parlement, par assent du roi agarderent le 
 dit count d'Arundell coupable et convict de toutz les pointz dont il 
 est appellez. Et partant lui adjugerent traitour au roi et au roialme, 
 et q'il soit treinez, penduz, decollez et quarteres. Et a cause que les 
 dits tresons furent si hautz; et pour avoir susrendu lour homage 
 liege, et depose le roi de sa corone, regalie, estat et dignite, et que 
 le leve de guerre fuist si notoire, le dit due de Lancastre, par com- 
 aundement du roi et les autres seigneurs temporeles sus ditz piers 
 de la terre, et le dit Monsieur Thomas Percy, eiant poair come 
 desus est dit, par assent du roi agarderent que toutz les chastiels, 
 manoirs [&c.] . . . soient forfait au roi et ses heirs, de dit count 
 d'Arundell et de ses heirs quiconques, pur toutz jours, solonc 
 Testatuit en cest present parlement en tie! cas fait. . . . 2 
 
 This case possesses two special features of interest. Lan- 
 caster (styled steward of England in the record) 3 presided, 
 
 1 The accounts furnished by contemporary chroniclers of the 
 manner of this man's death are more likely to provoke a smile 
 than a tear. " After he had pardoned the headsman his death and 
 given him the kiss of peace, he besought him not to prolong the 
 torture, but study to sever the head with a single blow. With his 
 own fingers he felt the edge of the blade which was to strike him. 
 ' 'Tis sharp enough/ he said ; ' do what thou hast to do.' With one 
 stroke the man beheaded him ; but the decapitated trunk rose to its 
 feet, and stood erect, none supporting it, for about the space of time 
 it takes to say the Lord's prayer, then fell prone to the earth." 
 
 2 Rot. Parl., vol. iii., p. 377. 
 
 3 " le due de Lancastre, seneschal d'Engleterre." (Ibid.)
 
 358 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 and is said by certain of the chroniclers to have presided in 
 right of his stewardship. 1 Also a proctor, appointed by the 
 prelates, took part in the trial as representing the clergy. 
 
 The duke of Gloucester was not brought before parlia- 
 ment. The return to the writ for his production stated that 
 he was dead ; and he had, in fact, been assassinated in Calais, 
 on behalf of the king, after a long written confession had 
 been obtained from him. He was found guilty of treason 
 and his estates were forfeited. The report of this judgment, 
 mutatis mutandis, is the same as in the previous case, except 
 that the duke of Lancaster is not mentioned as taking part 
 in it. 2 
 
 Warwick was then brought before parliament and arraigned. 
 He was a very old man, but, it seems, absolutely terrified at 
 the prospect of death. He made an abject confession, weep- 
 ing and wailing like a woman. It was a most pitiable exhi- 
 bition of senile cowardice. The king commuted his sentence 
 to banishment in the Isle of Man. 3 (Shortly after this same 
 earl was outlawed for another matter altogether, a sentence 
 which was annulled for error in the reign of Henry the 
 Fourth. 4 ) 
 
 The appellants, we are informed, wished to include Sir 
 Thomas Mortimer in their appeal, but there being obviously 
 most serious objections to such a course the commons inter- 
 posed and impeached him. 5 Mortimer was at the time in 
 Ireland. A day was therefore assigned to him by proclama- 
 tion setting out the penalties for default. Writs were also 
 issued for his apprehension. Mortimer successfully evaded 
 capture ; and, on the day assigned, judgment in default of 
 appearance was passed upon him according to the tenor of 
 
 1 Vide supra, chap, vi, p. 185. 
 
 2 See Rot. Parl., vol. iii, p. 378 ; Usk, p. 15 ;; &c. 
 
 3 Item comes Warwyci scistebatur in judicio, ablatoque sibi 
 capicio et lecta appellacione, quasi misera et vetula, fatebatur omnia 
 in appellacione contenta, plorando et lacrimando et ululando per 
 ipsum, tanquam proditorem esse perpetrata; . . . (Usk, p. 16.) 
 
 Le comte Warvycq confessa de sa pure volente toute la trahison 
 en plain parlement devant tous et en criant merci au roi afin qu'il 
 eust de lui pitie. Lequel lui sauva la vie .... (Le Beau, p. n.) 
 
 4 See Appendix. 5 Rot. Parl., vol. iii., p. 380.
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 359 
 
 the proclamation, and with the same formalities as had been 
 observed in Arundel's case, the earl of Wiltshire on this 
 occasion acting as procurator for the clergy, and Lancaster 
 presiding. 1 The commons also in the course of these same 
 proceedings impeached Sir John Cobham, who was convicted, 
 but afterwards received a qualified pardon. 2 
 
 The last case of importance during the reign of Richard 
 the Second was the Hereford v. Norfolk appeal, which was 
 remitted by the parliamentary committee to a court of 
 chivalry. The facts of this cause celebre have been previously 
 stated : its importance in the history of trial of peers will 
 very shortly become apparent 
 
 In 1399 Richard the redeless was deposed, and Henry of 
 Lancaster usurped the crown. 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER X 
 
 Anno 15 Edwardi III. A.D. 1341 
 
 Statute Roll, m. 19 
 Me d quod Nostre Seygneur le Roy Edward tierz apres le 
 
 istudstatu- . , . . 
 
 tum revo- conquest 3. son parlement tenutz a Weistmonstier 
 catum est a } a quinseyne de Pasche Ian de son regne quin- 
 
 perdommum . . . . . . . . 
 
 regem prout sisme desirant que la pees de la terre et les leis et 
 patet per ] es estatutz avant ses houres ordeines soient gardes 
 
 tenorem . , , i *. 
 
 cujusdam et memtenus en toutz pomtz al honour de dieux et 
 brevis irro- ^g sem t esglise et al comun profit du poeple par 
 
 tulati in , s 
 
 dorso istius assent des prelatz countes et barouns et autres 
 rotuh grantz et de tote la commune du roialme Dengle- 
 
 terre al dit parlement somonz ordeina et establist en mesme 
 le parlement les articles southescriptes les queux il voet et 
 grante pur luy et pur ses heires qils soient fermementz gardez 
 et tenutz a toutz jours. 
 
 Item pur ceo qe avant ses houres piers de la terre ount 
 este arestutz et emprisonnez et lour temporaltes terres et 
 tenementz biens et chateux seisis en mains des Rois et 
 
 1 Rot. Parl., vol. iii., p. 380. 2 Ibid., p. 381.
 
 360 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 ascunes mys a la mort santz jugement de lour piers Accorde 
 est et assentuz que nul peres de la terre officer ne autre pur 
 cause de son office ne des choses touchauntz soun office ne 
 pur autre cause soit menez en jugement a perte de lour tem- 
 poraltez terres tenementz biens et chateux ne estre arestutz 
 nemprisones utlagez exulez ne forsjugez ne respoundre 
 ne estre jugez sinoun par agarde des dites peres en parle- 
 ment Sauvez totefoitz a nostre seigneur le Roi et a ses heires 
 en autres cas les leis dreiturelment usees et par due process 
 et sauvee auxint seute des parties. Et si per cas nul peres 
 de soun gree voille aillours respoundre ou estre jugez forsqen 
 parlement qe cella ne tourne en prejudise des autres peres 
 ne a lui mesmes en autre cas : forpris si nul des piers soit 
 viscount ou fermer de fee ou ad este officer ou eit resceu 
 deniers ou autres chateux le Roi par cause de quele office ou 
 reseite il est tenutz dacompter qe mesme celuy acompte par 
 luy ou soun atturne es lieus acustomes. Issint qe les par- 
 douns eins ses houres faites en parlement se tiegnent en lour 
 force. 1 
 
 (Printed Statutes of the Realm R.C., vol. i, p. 295.) 
 
 Coram Rege Roll> Easter, I Henry IV, Rex, m. 8d 
 
 Cornub. Alias scilicet termino sancti Michaelis anno regni 
 domini Ricardi nuper regis Anglic secundi post conquestum 
 (xxij 2 ) preceptum fuit vicecomiti quod exigi faceret Thomam 
 de Bello Campo comitem Warr. de comitatu in comitatum 
 quousque etc. utlageretur si non veniret et si veniret tune 
 eum caperet et salvo etc. ita quod haberet corpus ejus coram 
 prefato nuper rege in octab. sancte Trinitatis tune prox. 
 sequent, ubicumque etc. ad satisfaciendum prefato nuper regi 
 de redempcione sua occasione capcionis et detencionis cor- 
 poris David Tregoys unde per inquisitionem patrie in quam 
 inde se posuit convictus est. Ad quern diem vicecomes 
 retorn. quod ad comitatum tent, apud Launceston xx die 
 Januarii anno regni prefati nuper regis vicesimo secundo 
 
 1 This statute also appears on the Parliament Roll, printed Rot. 
 Parl., vol. ii, p. 132. 2 Interlined.
 
 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 361 
 
 predictus Thomas de Bello Campo comes Warr. primo 
 exactus fuit et non comparuit et sic exactus fuit de comi- 
 tatu in comitatum usque ad comitatum tent, apud Lost- 
 wythyell duodecimo die Maii anno regni ejusdem nuper 
 regis (supradicto) quo die predictus Thomas de Bello 
 Campo quinto exactus fuit et non comparuit. Ideo in 
 presencia coron. utlagatus fuit Et super hoc inquiratur 
 de bonis et catallis suis etc. Et modo scilicet die Lune 
 proximo ante festum restencionis Domini isto eodem ter- 
 mino coram domino rege apud Westm. venit predictus 
 Thomas et reddidit se prisone marescalcie domini regis 
 occasione utlagarie predicte qui committitur marescallo et 
 statim per marescallum ductus venit et dicit quod in recordo 
 et processu predictis manifeste est erratum et non intendit 
 quod utlagariam predictam sic in eum erronice promulgatam 
 ipsum nocere debet. . . . [The earl produces in court two 
 writs of Henry the Fourth which are set out in full. He 
 further pleads error in that he was at the time of the out- 
 lawry imprisoned in the Isle of Man, and also ] in hoc 
 quod ubi per communem legem terre nullum breve de 
 exigendo versus aliquem parem regni Anglic in placitis 
 communib.us et personalibus adjudicari deberet ad utlagan- 
 dum et predictus comes par regni fuit et est (et) per nomen 
 paris in predicto brevi de exigendo nominatur ; et in hoc 
 quod ipse per nomen paris in placito predicto quod placitum 
 personale existit utlagatus fuit est erratum. Et petit. . . . 
 [The outlawry is annulled for the errors pleaded.]
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 
 TRIAL OF PEERS IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 
 
 IN France, the suppression of the stewardship led naturally 
 and inevitably to an extension of the power and authority 
 of the constable. An analogous phenomenon is observable 
 in the history of England, due in the first place to the failure 
 of the stewardship, even under the favourable conditions 
 afforded by Richard the Second's reign, to rise to a position 
 of any real importance, and in the second place to the fact 
 that the office though not suppressed was allowed to fall into 
 abeyance on the death of Clarence. Moreover, by a strange 
 irony of circumstance, the steward of England must have 
 come to be regarded as a royal hostage to constitutional 
 government ; for the stewards had never ranged themselves 
 on the king's side, but had, on the contrary, chiefly identified 
 themselves with parliamentary opposition to autocracy. The 
 royal prerogative wanted a pander, not a keeper ; and it was 
 the constableship of England which supplied the want. 
 
 A military court, 1 nominally, at all events, under the 
 control of the constable and marshal of England, is in ex- 
 istence at least as early as the reign of Edward the First. 
 The nature of its jurisdiction at the end of the thirteenth 
 century is not easy to define : apparently very few of its 
 records have been preserved. Some of the placita de spata 
 or placita gladii of the twelfth century were necessarily en- 
 trusted to a tribunal of this kind. 2 For the twenty-fourth 
 year of Edward the First we have the roll of a military court 
 
 In Latin, "curia militaris"; in Anglo-French, "court of 
 chivalry." 
 
 2 Particularly the Placita de summonitione exercitus; see Rot. 
 Chart., p. 19. 
 
 362
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 363 
 
 attached to the army in Scotland : crimes and other matters 
 of a miscellaneous nature are tried before it. 1 
 
 In the reign of Edward the Second, Roger Damory, a 
 baron, was tried for high treason before this court. Fulk 
 fitz-Warin, constable, John de Weston, marshal, and Geoffrey 
 Lescrop presided. The act of treason alleged was levying 
 war on the king. The accused was sentenced to death, but 
 the king directed execution to be respited. 2 Having regard 
 to subsequent legislation the importance of such a precedent 
 is obvious. 
 
 By the time of Richard the Second this court had de- 
 veloped apace, and in 1 379 the commons petitioned against 
 appeals of treason and felony done in England being brought 
 by Bill before the constable and marshal, contrary to the law 
 of the land and against the form of the Charter ; but the lords 
 declined to deal with the matter on that occasion. 3 
 
 In the thirteenth year of Richard the Second a statute 4 
 was passed to check these encroachments on the common 
 law. This Act defined the jurisdiction of the court as 
 follows : 
 
 1 Placita exercitus Regis, 24 Ed. I., a roll of several membranes 
 in excellent condition preserved among the Scotch documents in 
 the Record Office. I subjoin the first case entered on the roll a 
 fairly typical one. 
 
 Willelmus de Wytingham attachiatus fuit per Johannem de 
 Wygeton militem apud Dalton et per ipsum liberatus prisone quia 
 dictus fuit quod fuit insidiator regni Scocie et quod subtraxit se 
 . . . ne deserviret domino regi in guerra sua contra Scottos ; et 
 quod est de affinitate Johannis Redecomyn inimici domini regis 
 Anglic. 
 
 Et Willelmus venit et dicit ad sectam domini regis quod in nullo 
 est culpabilis et de hoc ponit se etc. 
 
 Et juratores dicunt quod (sic) per sacramentum suum quod verus 
 est et fidelis et in nullo super ea imposita est culpabilis. Ideo 
 quietus. 2 See Appendix. 
 
 8 Rot. Par!., iii, p. 65b. The reason given is this : Pur ce que 
 les heirs qi cleiment 1'office de conestable sont de tendre age, et en 
 la garde nostre seigneur le roi, et la chose demande grant delibera- 
 tion, et tuche si haute matire, et 1'estat de la corone nostre seigneur 
 le roi, et le parlement est pres a fyn ; les seigneurs de parlement ne 
 poent ne ne oesent en faire finale discution quant au present. 
 
 4 See Rot. Parl., iii, p. 265; Statute, 13 Richard II, cap. 2.
 
 364 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 To the constable it pertaineth to have cognisance of contracts 
 touching deeds of arms and war out of the realm, and also of things 
 that touch arms and war within the realm which cannot be deter- 
 mined nor discussed by the common law, with other usages and 
 customs to the same matters pertaining, which the constables have 
 heretofore duly and reasonably used in their time, joining to the 
 same that every plaintiff shall declare plainly his matter in his 
 petition before that any man be sent for to answer thereunto. And 
 if any will complain that any plea be commenced before the con- 
 stable and marshal that might be tried by the common law of the 
 land, the same shall have a privy seal of the king without difficulty, 
 directing the said constable and marshal to surcease the plea in 
 question, until it be decided by the king's council if that matter 
 ought of right to pertain to that court, or otherwise to be tried by 
 the common law of the realm. 
 
 Notwithstanding this statute the business of the court of 
 chivalry continued to increase. If the most transparent legal 
 fiction was sufficient to give the exchequer jurisdiction in 
 debt, why should not a similar device be employed by the 
 constable? The commons grumbled and petitioned, but the 
 court of chivalry took cognisance of actions for debt causa 
 fidei lesionis pretense?* and also continued to deal with appeals 
 of treason and felony on practically the same simple and 
 comprehensive pretext. 
 
 In some cases a defendant would take exception to the 
 jurisdiction and apply to the king under the Act cited above ; 
 but there was as a rule little to be gained by such a course. 
 A defendant who submitted to the jurisdiction was held, even 
 by parliament, to be bound by the result ; 2 but, if defeated, 
 
 1 See Pat. Cal., 1381-5, p. 507 : Salisbury v. Montague (Nov. 2gth, 
 1384); Pat. Cal., 1388-92, p. 130 : Asthorpe v. Dynham (Nov. 6th, 
 1389); etc. Courts Christian originally exercised jurisdiction in these 
 matters. See Glanville, lib. x, cap. 12:... creditor ipse, si non 
 habeat inde vadium, neque plegium, neque aliam diracionationem 
 nisi solam fidem, nulla est hec probatio in curia domini regis; 
 verumtamen de fidei lesione vel transgressione inde agi poterit in 
 curia Christianitatis. For an action of debt tried, " super fidei 
 lesione et sacramenti violatione," in the ecclesiastical courts, A.D. 
 1218, see Record Office Transcripts, 140 A, no. 338. 
 
 2 Salisbury v. Montague: Pat. Cal., 1385-9, pp. 67-8 (Nov. z8th, 
 1385)-
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 365 
 
 an appeal to the king was, generally speaking, open to him, 
 and meant that his case would be retried by a committee of 
 the king's council sitting with doctors of the civil law under 
 a special commission for that purpose. 1 A defendant dis- 
 puting the jurisdiction under the Act could not proceed 
 otherwise : he must appeal to the king in person, and his 
 demurrer would ordinarily be heard by a similarly constituted 
 court of appeal. It was, we must conclude, a rare favour for 
 the appellant to get his case transferred to the court of 
 Exchequer Chamber. 2 From and after (if not before) the 
 
 1 See, for example, the Commission to hear the Appeal in Asthorpe 
 v. Dynham : Pat. Cal., 1388-92, p. 45 (June 3rd, 1389); Brynkele 
 v. Earle : ibid., p. 47 (May 28th, 1389); Lescrope v. Grosvenor : 
 ibid., p. 159; for a detailed account of the last case see Nicholas, 
 Scrope and Grosvenor Controversy, vol. i ; Henry bishop of Norwich 
 v. William Baron de Hilton : Rymer, Foedera O.S., vii, pp. 688-9 
 (A.D. 1390); also commission in Merton v. Hoo : Pat. Cal., 1388- 
 92, p. 508 (Nov. 2oth, 1391); etc. 
 
 2 For illustrations of the procedure see Pat. Cal., 1381-5, p. 425 : 
 Waldeshef v. Wawe (April 2nd, 1384); ibid., p. 595 (March xyth, 
 1385); ibid., p. 594: Merton v. Stykeney (March toth, 1385); 
 ibid., pp. 595-6: Whitcburch v. Calverly (April i6th, 1385). The 
 case of Pounteney v. Borney, heard in the Exchequer Chamber and 
 reported Year Book, Mich., 13 Henry IV, no. 10, is well worth 
 citing in extenso. 
 
 Un Adam Pounteney suist encountre M[atthew] Borney chivaler 
 en le court de Constable et Marshal et demaunde ^1020 par un 
 obligacion que il montre avant portant la date en Burdeux que est 
 en Gascoigne, et 1'obligacion voille quas de mutuo etc., et declare 
 hors de sa bille libelant que coment il aver pay le dit summe as 
 souldiers de le dit Matthew a Burdeux, et montra coment chescun 
 summe fuist pay et a queux persons, et sur ce en temps le roy Richard 
 un letter desouth le privy scale fuist direct a le court de surcesser par 
 force de le statute fait de le jurisdiction de mesmes le court 1'an xii[i] 
 de mesmes le roy, sur quel le pl[aintiff] suist a councell de mesmes le 
 roy et un breve fuist grant de proceder pour qu'ils procederont avant 
 en le plee, tanque a ce que il avoit judgement de recover. Et nota 
 que le procedendo fist mencion des trestouts les nosmes des evesques 
 et chivalers que fueront del councel le dit roy, mes il ne fist mencion 
 que ascun justice fuist en presence al temps que cest procedendo 
 fuist grant, et ore tarde John Tiptoft et auters que sont tenants des 
 terres de dit seignior Matthew sueront un lettre south le privie scale 
 direct a les dits Constables etc. de surceasser d'execution, et sur cest 
 matter fuist suite fait a le councel le roy, et par le councel commit 
 as justices et ore en 1'Eschequer Chamber : Fulthorpe chivaler qui
 
 366 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 reign of Richard the Second the proceedings seem to have 
 been exclusively in accordance with the civil law. Trial was 
 by witnesses, or failing sufficient evidence by battle. 
 
 est le south constable dit que si cest matter ne soit my determinable 
 par le common ley donques est ce aremittable a nostre court arere, 
 car le statute voit, si etc., issint ne fait cest point, p. q. etc. Thirn- 
 ing: Non sir, et nous veioroms s'il appartient a vostre jurisdiction 
 car s'il ne appent a vostre court, ne a le court le roy, donques vous 
 n'averes procedendo come sont plusors cases en nostre ley en queux 
 convient a un home que vouldera aver acc[ount] de ceux que il eit 
 fait come lou debt sera maunde v[ersu]s executors, et lou home est a 
 demaunder terre par formedon en le rem[ainder] et sans fait, en ceux 
 cases et en autres semble home n'avera my action en nostre ley, et 
 uncore si del action soit conceive en vostre court et breve de super- 
 sedeas agarde, vous n'averes breve de procedendo pour que nee hie, 
 et a multo fortiori icy par ce que le plaintiff poit recevoir bien et 
 aver s'acc[ount] par le common ley sur cest obligacion a Burdeux 
 p. q. etc. Gascoigne : Verement si ceo mist le primer supersedeas 
 q'issint ne voudra dire communer que de reason nul procedendo 
 issera. Culpeper : Si un obligacion fuist fais a Caleis ou serra ceo 
 plede? quasi diceret "a le common ley a Caleis." Fulthorpe: Nous 
 ussomes de le pleder en nostre court, par les clerks del dit court, si 
 peradventure sir M. se ala en Gascoigne et n'avera riens en Gas- 
 coigne, que purra estre mis en execution illonques ? le party plaintiff 
 n'avera unques avantage par ce suit pas illonques a faire, mais serra 
 fait en nostre court car nous purromus faire execution. Thirning: 
 Nesme le reason purra estre fait, lou home de Burdeux est lye icy 
 par obligacion, et puis ala a Burdeux, et riens lessa des biens icy, et 
 per consequens le suit serra fait en vostre court, quod falsum est, p. q. 
 etc. Fulthorpe: Si home fuit en quarres del evesque de Rome ou as 
 auter quarres ou en pilgrimage, et il apprompt biens d'ascun de ses 
 compaignions, et de eel il fait un obligation portant le date illonques, 
 ce convient estre plede en nostre court, et si le party defendant le 
 dedit, le plaintiff, s'il n'eit preuves que voudra tesmoigner que ce est 
 le fait le defendant, convient a le plaintiff gage en nostre court de 
 combattre ove le defendant en preuve que son dit suit soit veray. 
 Hank. : Ceo serra trope grievous que un home combate pour un det. 
 Fulthorpe: Sir, le gager del battaille et combat serra sur ce que le 
 defendant ad fauxement enfreint son foy en son defence. Et nota 
 que ascun homes teignent diversitie lou tiel fait deins le poyar del 
 roy est fait, en quel case le suite serra termine par le commen ley, et 
 lou il est fait hors de le poyar le roy, en quel case il est triable en le 
 court de Constable. Ire by dit coment liege home fuit tue par auters 
 des lieges nostre seigneur le roy en le terre de Escoce, et le feme de 
 cesty que fuit tue suist appeal de son mort en court de Constable cy 
 en Engleterre, etc.
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 367 
 
 The Black Book of the Admiralty contains a tract, com- 
 posed by or on behalf of Thomas duke of Gloucester, constable 
 of England, in the reign of Richard the Second, and this 
 tract gives several precise details about the procedure. 
 
 In first the quarrel and the bills of the appellant and defendant 
 shall be pleaded in the court before the constable and marshal, and 
 when they may not prove their cause by witnesses, nor by any other 
 manner, but determine their quarrel by strength .... the constable 
 hath power to join battle. 
 
 And if the said battle be of treason, he that is convicted and dis- 
 comfited shall be disarmed in the lists by the commandment of the 
 constable, and a corner of the lists broken in reproof of him, by the 
 which he shall be drawn out with horse from the same place where 
 he is so disarmed, through the lists unto the place of justice, where 
 he shall be beheaded or hanged after the usage of the country ; the 
 which appertaineth to the marshal, and to oversee and perform his 
 said office and to put him in execution, and to go or ride and to be 
 always with him till it be done and all performed, and as well of the 
 appellant as of the defendant ; for good faith and right and law of 
 arms will that the appellant incur the same pain that the defendant 
 should do if he were convicted and discomfited. And if the cause 
 be for another crime, he who is convicted and discomfited shall be 
 disarmed and led out of the lists to the place of justice, to be hanged 
 or to have his head cut off, the appellant equally as the defendant as 
 aforesaid, according to the usage of the country, but he shall not be 
 drawn out except by cause of treason. 
 
 Also, if it be a deed or action of arms, he who is convicted or 
 discomfited shall be disarmed as aforesaid, and put out of the lists 
 without any other judgment inflicted upon him. 1 
 
 It was to this court of chivalry that the case of Hereford 
 v. Norfolk was remitted by parliament : an ominous precedent. 
 One of the first acts of Henry of Lancaster, when he returned 
 to England to seize the crown, was to have Scrope earl of 
 Wiltshire tried and executed by a court purporting to be 
 
 1 See Monumenta Juridica, the Black Book of the Admiralty, 
 Rolls Series [55], i, pp. 301-30. Compare the tract (printed ibid.) 
 De Materia Duelli; and see also Dugdale, Origines Judiciales 
 (1671), pp. 79-86.
 
 368 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 a court of the lord high constable. 1 By the middle of the 
 fifteenth century we find this court has become the recognised 
 tribunal for procuring the judicial assassination of peers of 
 the realm. 
 
 It is, of course, easy enough to say harsh things of this 
 court, but its jurisdiction was by no means universally feared 
 or disliked. It had its good and it had its bad traditions. 
 At its best it was, if anything, too popular. It enabled the 
 nobility and gentry to decide their affairs of honour under 
 most pleasing conditions. 2 The duel was fought at the 
 king's expense with all the splendid rites and circumstances 
 of mediaeval tourney. With this aspect of the tribunal we 
 are not concerned. One of its bad aspects will be found set 
 out in the forty-fourth article of the indictment brought 
 
 1 Existebant tune in castro eodem [scil. Bristol] dominus Willel- 
 mus Scrope comes Wiltschiriae et thesaurarius Angliae, dominus 
 Henricus Grene et dominus Johannes Busch locutor ultimi parlia- 
 menti milites, qui fuerunt maxime consiliarii dicti regis Ricardi ad 
 mala praemissa perpetranda. Tandem capti sunt et inviti ducti 
 extra castrum in campum ad ducem Lancastriae. Et primo quidem 
 arrestati sunt, deinde in crastino coram judicibus, viz. constabulario 
 et marescallo, judicio sistuntur. Et de proditione et mala guber- 
 natione regis et regni convicti, dampnati et decollati sunt. (Vita R. 
 Ricardi II, ed. Hearne, p. 153.) 
 
 2 On the subject of trial by combat see Selden, Opera, iii, 
 pp. 58-83 ; Lea, Superstition and Force ; Neilson, Trial by Combat. 
 It is quite clear that at certain periods the courts of common law 
 found themselves in the position of having to compete with the 
 court of chivalry for the confidence and consequent patronage 
 of the public. In the course of this rivalry some side-lights are 
 thrown on the current abuses of legal procedure. Even juries were 
 not immaculate. See, for example, Ordinances of the Privy Council, 
 vol. i, pp. 77-8 : . . . qe plese vostre tres hautisme seignurie charger 
 sir Ric. Waldegrave chivaler et Laurence Drew esquier denvoyer 
 . . . touz les matiers et processe qeux le dit Richard ad mys sur 
 le dit Johan, devaunt eux pendauntz, direct al court de conestable 
 et mareschal illoesques pur estre determinez; qar, tres redoute 
 seigneur, si la matier et processe de lappel avant dit serroit deter- 
 mine a la commune ley, le dit Johan neusse que mort par une 
 enqueste de dousze homes deins la fraunchise du dite citee par 
 procurement et brocage des certeins persones, les queux persones 
 ne vorroient pur cynk mille livres que la verite du dite appel fusse 
 overtement conuz.
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 369 
 
 against Richard in the year 1399.* Up to the end of the 
 fourteenth century the constable's court had not been called 
 upon to assist the crown in dealing with a constitutional 
 crisis. In 1388 and 1397 parliament, by permitting appeals 
 of treason to be tried before the lords, had offered all the 
 facilities that could be desired for political reprisals. It was 
 Henry of Lancaster who first made systematic use of the con- 
 stable's court for purging the realm of his political enemies. 2 
 
 In the first year of Henry the Fourth a statute was passed 
 prohibiting appeals in parliament : thenceforth all appeals to 
 be made of things done within the realm were to be tried 
 and determined by the good laws of the realm made and 
 used in the time of the king's noble progenitors, and all 
 appeals to be made of things done out of the realm were to 
 be tried and determined before the constable and marshal. 3 
 This statute was effectual so far as it vetoed appeals in parlia- 
 ment ; but, contrary no doubt to what its framers intended, it 
 only gave a fresh impetus to the court of chivalry. 4 
 
 1 Rot. Parl., iii, p. 42ob. : Item quamvis statutum fuerit et 
 ordinatum ac etiam hactenus confirmatum, quod nullus liber homo 
 capiatur [etc.] . . . tamen de voluntate mandato et ordinatione dicti 
 regis quam plures ligeorum suorum maliciose accusati, super eo 
 quod debuissent aliquid dixisse publice vel occulte quod cedere 
 poterit ad vituperium scandalum seu dedecus persone dicti regis 
 fuerant capti et imprisonati et ducti coram constabulario et mares- 
 callo Anglic in curia militari. In qua curia dicti ligei accusati ad 
 aliud responsum admitti non poterant nisi respondendo se in nullo 
 fore culpabiles et per eorum corpora et non aliter se justificarent 
 et defenderent : non obstante quod accusatores et appellatores 
 eorum essent juvenes fortes et sani et illi accusati senes et impotentes 
 mutulati vel infirmi : unde non solum destructio dominorum et 
 magnatum regni sed etiam omnium et singularum personarum com- 
 munitatis ejusdem regni verisimiliter sequi posset. 
 
 2 Certainly Edward the Second made use of the court of chivalry 
 for trying peers of the realm (see Appendix). As, however, he 
 more frequently issued commissions to his ordinary justices for this 
 purpose, and in every way showed the minimum regard for legal 
 privileges and legal formalities, the fact that he also gave similar 
 employment to the constable scarcely entitles him to be considered 
 the pioneer of this movement. 
 
 3 Statute, i Henry IV, cap. xiv. 
 
 4 The statute of 13 Richard II was, of course, a law of the realm, 
 but not made by one of Henry's progenitors. 
 
 2 B
 
 370 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Frequently, during Henry the Fourth's reign, the commons 
 presented petitions on the subject. The case of Benet 
 Wilman was, at their instance, transferred to the common 
 law ; but in spite of opposition the constable's court steadily 
 developed. 1 
 
 We may now return to the general history of trial by peers. 
 So far as the constable's court is concerned, it will be sufficient 
 to deal with the cases tried before it as they arose. 
 
 The first case of importance in Henry's reign 2 was the im- 
 peachment of peers implicated in the appeal of 1397, namely 
 Edward duke of Albemarle, Thomas duke of Surrey, John 
 duke of Exeter, John marquis of Dorset, John earl of Salisbury 
 and Thomas earl of Gloucester. The accused peers defended 
 themselves, " each man severally by himself before the king 
 and all the estates of Parliament." Each alleged in effect 
 that he was no stirrer of the bill of appeal and wist naught 
 of it till it was showed to him, and excused himself on the 
 ground of coercion and constraint. Henry adjourned the case 
 to the following morning, when the accused were again put 
 
 1 Rot. Parl., hi, p. 473 (2 Henry IV); ibid., p. 4993. (4 Henry IV) ; 
 ibid., p. 53oab. (5 Henry IV); ibid., p. 6250. (n Henry IV). For 
 some of the cases tried during this reign see Rymer, Foedera O.S., 
 viii, pp. 168-70, 176 (Kighlee v. Scrop); ibid., pp. 210, 227, 346 
 (Count of Denia's case). For a special commission to Henry de 
 Percy, earl of Northumberland, as constable of England see Pat. 
 Cal., 2 Henry IV, p. 458 (Feb. 4th, 1401). 
 
 2 The following petition, made by the commons in the first parlia- 
 ment of Henry IV, is of considerable importance : . . . Et outre 
 ceo monstrerent au roy, que come les juggementz du parlement 
 appertiegnent soulement au roy et as seigneurs, et nient as communes 
 sinoun en cas que s'il plest au roy de sa grace especiale lour monstrer 
 les ditz juggementz, pur ease de eux, que mil record soit fait en 
 parlement encontre les ditz communes q'ils sont ou serront parties 
 as ascunes juggementz donez ou a doners en apres en parlement. 
 A qoi leur feust responduz par 1'ercevesque de Canterbirs, de 
 comandement du roy, coment mesmes les communes sont petitioners 
 et demandours, et que le roy et les seigneurs de tout temps ont cues 
 et averont de droit les jugementz en parlement en manere come 
 mesmes les communes ount monstrez. Sauve q'en estatuz a faires 
 ou en grantes et subsides ou tiels choses a faires pur commune 
 profit du roialme le roy voet avoir especialment leur advis et assent : 
 et que eel ordre de fait soit tenuz et gardez en tout temps advenir. 
 (Rot. Parl., vol. iii, p. 427.)
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 371 
 
 to answer, " none of them waiting or hearing the other," so 
 that the truth might be discovered. What they then said is 
 not recorded. William Thyrning, the chief justice of the 
 common bench, delivered judgment " par commandement du 
 roi et par avis et assent des seigneurs de parlement." This 
 is the official version, 1 but the Cotton Julius B 2 manuscript 
 says he " hadde the wordes for the Sty ward of Englond." z 
 He sentenced the accused peers to the loss of certain lands 
 and dignities. It was an elaborate judgment; and the 
 following statement made by Thyrning, after rehearsing the 
 facts, is worth noting : 
 
 Upon which the king and his temporal lords thought that this 
 appeal [of 1397] and the matter contained therein was so great and 
 so high, and so much harm and mischief fell thereof . . . and all 
 bygone and proceeded out of the course of the common law, so 
 that by the course of the common law of the crown and of the land 
 it might not well be redressed or punished but by the king and his 
 lords peers of this land in his high court of parliament. 
 
 Thomas Merkes, bishop of Carlisle, appears to have been 
 implicated in the earl of Kent's rebellion of the year 1400. 
 He was indicted of high treason before a commission of oyer 
 and terminer ; and, subject to a compliance by letters close 3 
 with the statute of 18 Edward III, cap. i, 4 he was tried like 
 any commoner. The bishop on being arraigned demurred, 
 not as a peer but as a bishop, to the jurisdiction of the 
 justices. The demurrer was overruled on the ground that, 
 the crime being high treason, he could not claim privilege. 6 
 
 1 Rot. Parl., vol. iii, pp. 449-52. 
 
 2 Chronicles of London (ed. Kingsford), p. 59. Compare the 
 statement in the Annales Henrici Quarti, pp. 314-15 : Die Lunae 
 proxima post festum omnium Sanctorum datum est judicium contra 
 dominos qui dicuntur " appellantes," Willelmo Thernyng verba prose- 
 quente jussu regis quia Thomas Percy vice-senescallus infirmabatur 
 qui hoc ex officio debuerat pronunciasse. 
 
 3 Dated 28th January and addressed to Thomas Beauchamp, 
 earl of Warwick, and other justices assigned to hear and determine 
 treasons and felonies, etc., directing them to proceed against arch- 
 bishops and bishops indicted before them notwithstanding the 
 statute of Westminster. (Printed in Rymer, Foedera O.S., viii, 
 p. 123.) 4 Rot. Parl., vol. ii, p. 152. 
 
 5 See statute, 25 Edward III, cap. vi, s. 4.
 
 372 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 The bishop thereupon, saving his ecclesiastical liberty and 
 under protest, pleaded not guilty, and for good or evil put 
 himself upon the country. A jury brought in a verdict of 
 guilty ; but the justices, being doubtful as to the judgment 
 they ought to pronounce, simply remanded him to the Tower. 
 No judgment was, in fact, ever delivered, for Merkes obtained 
 the king's pardon. 1 This case is instructive, but not conclusive. 2 
 Who may judge a spiritual peer is the crucial point to be 
 decided ; we cannot say for certain that the question who may 
 try is even relevant to the issue. 
 
 On the 2/th of May, 1405, Scrope archbishop of York, 
 and Mowbray, son and heir of the exiled duke of Norfolk, 
 raised the standard of revolt in the north. Marching to 
 Shipton Moor beneath the banner of the Five Wounds of 
 Christ, they there encountered the royal forces under West- 
 moreland and John of Lancaster. Westmoreland, with inferior 
 numbers, dared not risk a battle ; but duplicity succeeded 
 where force would almost certainly have failed. The details 
 are somewhat obscure; but at all events Scrope and Mowbray, 
 believing they had secured honourable terms from the king, 
 disbanded their forces, only to find themselves immediately 
 afterwards placed under arrest. 3 On the 6th of June the 
 prisoners were taken to Bishopsthorpe, and two days later 
 they were brought up for trial before a court consisting of 
 Stanley the steward of the household, the earl of Arundel 
 deputy constable pro hac vice, Beaufort deputy marshal pro 
 hac vice and a commission of peers and justices. 4 
 
 1 Recorded in Placita Coram Rege, Hil., 2 Henry IV, rex m. 4. 
 
 2 On the question of ecclesiastical privileges, compare the case 
 stated above and the Scrope case, infra, with the following : Hiis 
 itaque gestis, episcopus Carleolensis surrexit [scil. in parliamento], 
 ut excusaret se de quibuslibet objectis contra eum per suspicionem, 
 quam intendit probare fallacem. Cui rex dixit, non debere eum in 
 ilia causa judicari, sed in curia ecclesiastica fore conveniendum. 
 Ille tamen, facta protestatione quod noluit derogare juri ecclesiae 
 vel libertati, rogavit instantius ut excusatio sua posset audiri ; de- 
 claravitque [etc.]. . . . (Annales Henrici Quarti, Rolls Series [28], 
 p. 314. A.D. 1399.) 
 
 3 For an account of this rising see Wylie, Henry IV, vol. ii, and 
 Diet. Nat. Biog., s.v. Scrope. 
 
 4 Appendix.'
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 373 
 
 The constitution of the tribunal indicates that, short of a 
 trial before parliament, the king was willing to proceed with 
 every formality that the law could demand. 1 The constable 
 had a special jurisdiction which could only be disputed by 
 appeal to the king in council ; the acting deputy was a peer 
 of the realm ; and, if this was not enough, peers and justices 
 were associated with him, in deference probably to the cele- 
 brated dictum of Bracton. 2 We are indeed definitely told 
 that three days were spent by the council in discussing the 
 trial. 3 The archbishop of Canterbury hurried northwards to 
 counsel prudence, and strongly urged the king either to refer 
 Scrope's case to the pope or at least to let it stand over for 
 trial before parliament ; while Gascoigne, the chief justice, 
 appears to have advised very decidedly against the legality 
 of condemning the prelate to death. 
 
 Henry perhaps had learnt to doubt the expediency of 
 being lenient, and sterner counsels prevailed. The trial duly 
 proceeded ; both prisoners were found guilty by the court, 
 sentenced to death and promptly executed. 4 There seems 
 
 1 The popular view, that Gascoigne was told, as chief justice, to 
 try and sentence Scrope, that he very properly declined to do so, 
 and thereupon Scrope was subjected to a mock trial by a few lay- 
 men, is a complete travesty of the facts. This case was considered 
 at the next session of parliament, but no definite pronouncement by 
 the peers is recorded. (Rot. Parl., vol. iii, p. 606, set out infra.) 
 How far the jurisdiction was strengthened by the steward of the 
 household being joined cannot be discussed here : but, shortly 
 stated, Scrope was tried before a full palace court, assisted by peers 
 of the realm. A palace court had been constituted to try the 
 persons who took part in the earl of Kent's rebellion in 1399-1400. 
 However, on that occasion there were no peers to be tried, and the 
 court was not specially afforced. 2 Vide supra, p. 284. 
 
 3 Historians of York, Rolls Series [71], iii, p. 290. 
 
 4 The accounts given by the principal chroniclers are worth 
 comparing : 
 
 (Chron. Angl., ed. Giles, p. 45) : Sed quum dominus Joannes 
 Gaskone, justiciarius principalis de banco domini regis, renuit 
 sedere aut sententiam aliquam super archiepiscopum proferre, quem 
 noverat esse patrem ejus spiritualem, et non esse juxta leges tem- 
 porales judicandum, sed ad ejus judicem competentem videlicet 
 dominum papam destinandum : et etiam sic decrevit dominus 
 Thomas Arundelle archiepiscopus Cantuariensis : tamen qui erant 
 consiliarii regis, non admittentes eum sic evadere ultionem, fecerunt
 
 374 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 to be some uncertainty as to which member of the tribunal 
 actually pronounced the judgment on Scrope, but the question 
 is one rather of form than of substance. It was an un- 
 pleasant business : the judges doubtless saw themselves in 
 a strait between the devil and the king, and "I pray thee 
 have me excused " was probably the feeling of each of them. 
 Under these circumstances it may well be the case that 
 
 duos milites, videlicet Randulphum Everis et Willelmum Fulthorpe, 
 sedere, et per specialem commissionem eum ad mortem judicare. 
 
 (Gascoigne, Loci e Libro Veritatum, p. 226) : . . . non judici, in 
 mandatis dedit, ut in eadem die scilicet in feria secunda septimanae 
 Pentecostis, quae fuit octava dies Junii, sentenciam mortis in aula 
 praefati manerii contra archiepiscopum, quern vocavit suum prodi- 
 torem, proferret. Unde dum praedictus judex principalis Willelmus 
 Gascoigne in comitatu Eboraci natus de aula exiret, praedictus 
 Willelmus Fulthorpe in loco judicis sedit et archiepiscopum Scrop 
 ante se adduci praecepit. Et archiepiscopo coram eo nudo capite 
 stante hanc sententiam mortis, ipso audiente et omnibus circum- 
 stantibus, protulit: "Te Ricardum Scrope traditorem regis ad 
 mortem judicamus, et ex precepto regis decollari mandamus." 
 
 (Historians of York, Rolls Series [71], iii, p. 290): Et hiis regi 
 Henrico iv nuntiatis, idem rex, ... ad manerium archiepiscopi 
 Eboracensis, nomine Byschopthorp, festinanter equitavit, et ibi 
 prope civitatem Eboraci de morte praedicti archiepiscopi per tres 
 dies tractavit, scilicet a vigilia Pentecostes usque in feriam secundam 
 sequentem, scilicet sexto idus Junii, in quo celebratur festum sancti 
 Willelmi archiepiscopi Eboracensis . . . et in crastino Pentecostes 
 in praefato manerio archiepiscopi ante meridiem rex mandavit 
 Willelmo Gascoigne armigero, in comitatu Eboraci nato, tune princi- 
 pal! justiciario Angliae, ut praefatum archiepiscopum, ibi existentem 
 in eodem manerio, et in eadem die, tanquam regis traditorem, ad 
 mortem judicaret, qui coram rege hoc veniret, et sic regi respondit : 
 "Domine," inquit, "nullam legem habetis ad occidendum aliquem 
 episcopum, et ideo quod vos non potestis in hac materia, ego judex 
 talis non possum." Quibus verbis rex iratus praefatum judicem 
 graviter redarguit. Unde qui a sic constans stetit pro veritate Dei, 
 ideo memoria ejus sit in benedictione in saeculum saeculi : sed cum 
 hoc opus nefarium praefatus judex renuit hoc alteri viro non judici 
 rex commisit, scilicet domino Willelmo Fulthorp militi, quern postea 
 vidi leprosum Eboraci. (Compare ibid., ii, pp. 306-7 and p. 432.) 
 
 (Annales Henrici Quarti, Rolls Series [28], iv, p. 409) : Comes 
 Arundeliae et dominus Thomas Beufort collateralis frater regis, 
 accepta sententia, sederunt in judicio super eum [archiepiscopum] 
 et comitem marescallum et condemnaverunt eos sententia pro- 
 ditorum; et archiepiscopum quidem damnantes, velut apostatam,
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 375 
 
 Scrope was sentenced, as some say, by Fulthorp, a subor- 
 dinate member of the tribunal ; but, if so, he merely acted 
 as the organum vocis of Arundel. 1 We know how the 
 chroniclers regarded the matter : because Gascoigne pro- 
 tests, blessed be his memory throughout all ages ; the other 
 man, Fulthorp, wanders through York a leper as white as 
 snow. 2 
 
 et ordinis sui transgressorem, et eo quod captus sit armatus, regis 
 sui necnon et regni publicum proditorem. 
 
 (Continuatio Eulogii Hist., Rolls Series [9], iii, p. 407) : Et 
 archiepiscopus Cantuariensis in praesentia cujusdam notarii dixit 
 regi : " Domine . . . consulo vobis quod si archiepiscopus tantum 
 deliquerit, sicut vobis suggestum est, reservetur judicio domini 
 papae, qui talem satisfactionem vobis ordinabit quod earn judi- 
 cabitis sufficientem. At si hoc non vultis, consulo ut reservetur 
 judicio parliaments Absit quod judicio vestro manus vestrae 
 ejus sanguine polluantur." Rex respondit : " Non possum propter 
 astantes." 
 
 1 For the use of this expression in the case of a subordinate 
 official giving judgment in the constable's court, see Rot. Pat., 
 2 Henry VI, pt. i, m. 6; CaL, p. 169. 
 
 2 The references to the judgments on Scrope and Mowbray in 
 the Escheators' Accounts are worth citing. 
 
 (Escheators' Accounts, 117/13) : De aliquibus exitibus manerii de 
 Benyngworth cum pertinentiis in predicto comitatu Lincoln quod 
 Ricardus nuper Archiepiscopus Ebor. qui ratione rebellionis sue 
 (cujusdam judicii versus ipsum redditi) erga regem forisfecit . . . 
 videlicet a die Martis proximo post (ante) festum sancti Barnabe 
 Apostoli accidente x die Junii dicto anno sexto quo die prefatus 
 escaetor manerium predictum cepit in manum regis (pretextu brevis 
 regis sibi inde directi) eo quod tune primo constabat ei de forisfactura 
 predicti archiepiscopi usque xiiij diem Junii proximo sequentem 
 antequam prefatus escaetor liberavit (custodiam) manerii predicti. 
 . . . (The italicised words are erased on the roll, those in brackets 
 are interlineations.) 
 
 De aliquibus exitibus duarum parcium manerii de Eppeworth 
 cum membris et pertinentiis suis in insula de Haxolme in predicto 
 comitatu Lincoln, que Thomas Mowbray nuper comes marescallus, 
 qui occasione rebellionis sue erga regem forisfecit racione judicii 
 versus ipsum redditi, tenuit in dominico suo ut de feodo die quo 
 forisfecit . . . videlicet ab xj die Junii dicto anno sexto quo die 
 prefatus escaetor predictas duas partes cepit in manum regis eo 
 quod tune primo constabat ei de forisfactura predicti nuper comitis 
 usque x diem Augusti proximo sequentem, antequam liberavit (pre- 
 dictas) duas partes. . . . 
 
 Note continued on next page.
 
 376 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 While the revolt of 1405 was closing tragically with the 
 execution of Scrope and Mowbray, Henry Percy earl of 
 
 (Escheators' Accounts, 18/15): ... a viij die Junii anno regis 
 Henrici vj, quo die [idem Thomas nuper comes marescallus] obiit, 
 seu postea non quod per breve regis. . . . 
 
 ... a die Lune proximo post festum Pentecostes anno vj, quo die 
 idem Thomas obiit, seu postea non quod per breve de magno sigillo. . . . 
 
 (Escheators' Inquisitions, Series i, File 1107): Inquisitio capta 
 apud Eppeworth die Jovis proximo post festum Pentecostes anno 
 regis Henrici quarti sexto coram . . . qui dicunt super sacra- 
 mentum suum quod Thomas Mowbray nuper comes marescallus 
 qui occasione rebellionis sue erga regem forisfecit (ratione omnis 
 quidem rebellionis quoddam judicium versus ipsum redditum fuit) 
 tenuit in dominico suo ut de feodo die quo regi forisfecit. . . . (The 
 words in brackets are interlineations.) 
 
 (Escheators' Inquisitions, Series i, File 1833): Inquisitio capta 
 apud Chepyngkyngton comitatu Warrwici die Jovis proximo post 
 festum sancti Laurencii anno regis Henrici quarti post conquestum 
 sexto coram . . . qui dicunt super sacramentum suum quod Thomas 
 nuper comes marescallus et Nottyngham, qui erga dominum regem 
 forisfecit occasione judicii contra ipsum apud Bysshopesthorp in 
 comitatu Ebor. viij die Junii dicto anno vjto redditi, tenuit in 
 dominico suo ut de feodo. . . . 
 
 Let me explain, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the form 
 of escheators' accounts and inquisitions, that such expressions as 
 " ratione rebellionis sue " do not occur in cases where the validity 
 of a judgment is unquestionable ; on the contrary, this is the stock 
 phrase for cases where there has been no judgment at all. A valid 
 judgment, constituting as it did the escheator's root of title to the 
 property, is always referred to. The doubts of the escheators in 
 this instance are clearly indicated. Henry also had his doubts, and 
 approached the lords on the subject cautiously and even timidly. 
 
 Item, en mesmes le xix jour de Juyn . . . nostre dit seigneur le 
 roy fist demander des ditz seigneurs temporelx, peres de roialme, 
 coment ils vorroient dire touchant le fait de Richard de Scrope, 
 nadgairs ercevesque d'Everwyk, et Thomas Moubray, nadgairs 
 count mareschall . . . ? A quelle demande les ditz seigneurs 
 temporelx disoient, que solonc 1'enformacion a eux done de par 
 le dit conestable, il semblast a mesmes les seigneurs peres de 
 roialme le cas estre treason. Nepurqant les ditz seigneurs disoient 
 q'ils, ove bon deliberacion, a lour revenue a cest present parlement 
 dirront ensi a nostre dit seigneur le roy en cell partie, que null 
 errour sera trove en lour fait en temps a venir. A quell temps 
 mesmes les seigneurs prierent a nostre dit seigneur le roy de com- 
 ander toutz les seigneurs temporelx peres de roialme d'estre presentz 
 pur la cause suis dite, et que null d'eux soit absent a icell fait. (Rot. 
 Parl., vol. iii, p. 606.)
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 377 
 
 Northumberland and the lord Bardolf escaped to Scotland. 
 Proceedings nevertheless were commenced against these 
 persons also by bill exhibited in the court of chivalry ; 
 but the process was then, by advice of the lords, removed 
 into parliament. Northumberland and Bardolf were sum- 
 moned by proclamation to appear on pain of conviction and 
 attainder ; successive adjournments followed, and eventually 
 they were sentenced as in default of appearance, in the, by 
 this time, usual course of parliamentary procedure. 1 This 
 case illustrates the weakness of the court of chivalry. It was 
 a recognised rule, which even at that time it was advisable 
 not to disregard, that the constable's jurisdiction was limited 
 to the person and chattels of the offender ; the humblest 
 criminal could not be outlawed, nor could his lands and tene- 
 ments be lawfully distrained. 2 As there was no immediate 
 prospect of effecting the arrest either of Northumberland or 
 Bardolf, it was idle to carry their case any further in the court 
 of chivalry. Hence the adjournment into parliament. 
 
 No other trials took place while Henry the Fourth was on 
 the throne, either in parliament or in the constable's court or 
 elsewhere, which call for any particular comment ; but we 
 shall have to revert later on to the fate of John Holand, earl 
 of Huntingdon, who, during the rebellion of 1400, was put to 
 
 1 Rot. Parl., vol. iii, pp. 604-7. 
 
 2 The commons had quite recently petitioned the king upon this 
 subject. See Rot. Parl., vol. iii, p. 473 : Adjoustant a icell que les 
 ditz conestable et mareschal ne delyverent en execution, par force 
 de juggement ou sentence donez ou a doners en la dit court al suyte 
 de nully, terre ne tenement dont ascun est seizy de franc-tenement 
 a meyns, salvant toutfoith la dit court execution soulement de corps 
 et biens de celly que ensy est atteinte. Et si nulles terres ou tene- 
 ments soient devenuz par juggement donez en les autres courtes du 
 roy ou par eschet hors de possession de ceux sur queux tils sentences 
 sont donez ou a doners que les possessioners d'icell ne soient ent 
 travaillez n'empechez en la dite court de conestable et mareschall ne 
 oustez par eux de lour possession par cause de nul tiel sentence. . . . 
 There was not at the time any statutory limitation to this effect, and 
 the answer to this petition was obviously framed so as not to confer 
 any. The form of assent was : Soient 1'estatutz ent faits tenuz et 
 gardez. 
 
 The escheators, as already explained, had their doubts in the case 
 of Scrope and Mowbray whether such a judgment justified the
 
 378 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 death by the king's subjects without a scintilla of legal 
 formality. 1 
 
 Thomas of Lancaster, duke of Clarence and steward of 
 England, is not known to have presided at the trial of any 
 peer during the reign of Henry the Fourth. There is no 
 evidence of any desire to perpetuate this particular function 
 of the steward. On the contrary the precedent of 1397 was 
 effectually abandoned when the chief justice Thyrning was 
 put up to sentence the first peers tried by a Lancastrian 
 parliament, and no note made in the official record saving 
 the rights of the youthful steward of England. 
 
 The reign of Henry the Fifth furnishes us with at least one 
 momentous precedent. In July of the year 141 5, when Henry 
 was at Southampton preparing for the French campaign, a 
 plot against his life was discovered. The chief persons con- 
 cerned were Richard earl of Cambridge, Henry lord Scrope 
 of Masham and Sir Thomas Grey. By the king's special 
 order the conspirators were arrested, and given into the 
 custody of Sir John Popham, constable of the tower of 
 Southampton. Then, by letters patent dated the 2ist of 
 July, John earl marshal and other commissioners were ap- 
 pointed to inquire, by the oath of a jury of Southampton, 
 into all treasons, felonies and so forth committed in the said 
 county, and to hear and determine them according to the law 
 and custom of the realm of England. On Friday the 2nd of 
 August a jury was duly empanelled : they brought in a 
 charge of high treason against Cambridge and Grey ; Scrope 
 they found was privy to the scheme. 
 
 seizure of lands. They had no doubts in the case of Percy and 
 Bardolf : no judgment is mentioned in their accounts and inquisitions. 
 
 Escheators' Inquisitions, Series i, File 1107. Inquisitio capta 
 apud Grantham die Sabbati in vigilia sancte Trinitatis anno regis 
 Henrici quarti sexto coram . . . qui dicunt super sacramentum 
 suum quod Thomas nuper dominus de Bardolf, qui occasione 
 rebellionis sue erga regem forisfecit, tenuit in dominico suo ut de 
 feodo die quo forisfecit. . . . 
 
 Ibid. Inquisitio capta apud Burwell die Jovis in festo sancti 
 Barnabe apostoli anno sexto regis Henrici quarti coram . . . qui 
 dicunt super sacramentum suum quod Henri cus comes Northumb., 
 qui occasione rebellionis sue erga dominum regem forisfecit, tenuit 
 die quo regi forisfecit in dominico suo. ... l See chap. xii.
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 379 
 
 On this finding the three were arraigned before the com- 
 missioners. Cambridge and Grey pleaded guilty and sub- 
 mitted themselves to the king's mercy. Scrope said he was 
 a peer of the realm and demanded trial and judgment by his 
 peers according to custom. The court not being sufficiently 
 advised with regard to the judgment which should be pro- 
 nounced on Cambridge and Scrope, these two were remanded 
 to Southampton Tower ; Grey was sentenced forthwith. 
 
 The commissioners reported to the king ; and Henry 
 immediately appointed his brother, Thomas duke of Clarence, 
 his vicegerent to hear the case against Cambridge and Scrope. 
 Clarence was instructed to summon peers of the said earl 
 and baron, he was to pronounce judgment per vestrum et 
 eorumdem parium communem assensum hac instanti die Lune 
 (August 5th), and see to the execution of the judgment. 
 Henry was evidently in a great hurry. Clarence summoned 
 two dukes, Gloucester and York; eight earls, March, Hunting- 
 don, Arundel, the earl marshal, Dorset, Salisbury, Oxford 
 and Suffolk ; and nine barons. York for some reason did 
 not attend personally, but appointed Dorset his proxy. This 
 court duly sat on the same Monday, Cambridge and Scrope 
 were brought to the bar, found guilty of treason and sentenced 
 to death and forfeiture. There was no delay in carrying out 
 the sentence. 
 
 A parliament met the same year under Bedford regent of 
 England ; and, in response to a petition by the commons, 
 the Southampton proceedings were brought up for confirma- 
 tion and declared by the lords spiritual and temporal to be 
 good and lawful judgments. 1 
 
 We may regard the Southampton trial as the true source 
 of the court of the lord high steward. 2 There is, indeed, no 
 substantial difference between the tribunal constituted on the 
 spur of the moment by Henry the Fifth for the trial of 
 Cambridge and Scrope, and the court by which in 1521 
 Edward duke of Buckingham was sentenced to death. Both 
 courts were presided over by a steward of England, but 
 
 1 See appendix for further details. 
 
 2 See chap. xii.
 
 3 8o THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 there was this distinction : it was a mere coincidence that 
 Clarence held that office; while Norfolk, who presided at 
 the Buckingham trial, was specially appointed lord high 
 steward pro hac vice. 
 
 In 1417 Sir John Oldcastle, lord Cobham, was tried and 
 condemned in parliament for treason. 1 In reality he died 
 a martyr to Lollardism. The case is of no importance in 
 the history of trial by peers. 
 
 In the second year of the reign of Henry the Sixth, lord 
 Talbot appealed the earl of Ormond of treason. The case 
 was brought before John duke of Bedford as constable of 
 England in the court of chivalry ; but, eventually, as a 
 matter of policy, the proceedings were quashed in parlia- 
 ment 2 
 
 In 1429 a petition was presented with the view of pro- 
 hibiting appeals of treason done within the realm being 
 brought before the constable's court. An evasive answer 
 was given. 3 
 
 In 1441 occurred the remarkable prosecution of dame 
 Eleanor, the harlot duchess of Gloucester. A diabolical con- 
 spiracy, it was alleged, had been brewing in the Gloucester 
 household. Bolingbroke the duke's chaplain, clericus famosis- 
 simus, astronomer and professor of the black arts, was the 
 first to be attacked : he was exhibited for the delectation of 
 the London mob on a platform before St. Paul's, tricked out, 
 poor foredamned wretch, in the attire considered appropriate 
 to a magician. Thereupon dame Eleanor with a lamentable 
 lack of discretion scuttled into sanctuary at Westminster: 
 she was, to use the parliamentary language of the day, always 
 misgoverning herself. Inquiry and indictment speedily fol- 
 lowed. The duchess was brought before a tribunal consisting 
 of the king, cardinals Beaufort and Kempe, five bishops and 
 some other ecclesiastics, and charged with being implicated 
 in a conspiracy with Bolingbroke above-mentioned, Southwell 
 a canon of St. Paul's, and a certain female popularly known 
 
 1 Rot. Parl., vol. iv, p. 107. 
 
 2 Rot. Parl., vol. iv, p. 198: the bill of complaint is, apparently, 
 set out in full in the account of these proceedings. 
 
 1 See Rot. Parl., vol. iv, p. 3496.
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 381 
 
 as the witch of Eye. 1 These were said, at the instigation of 
 my lady, to have framed an image of wax fashioned to re- 
 present the king : the intention being that, as this image 
 slowly melted before a fire, so the king by their incantations 
 might waste away and die. The ulterior purpose was that 
 the duke of Gloucester should thus be advanced to the crown. 
 The duchess after some hesitation appears to have pleaded 
 guilty to witchcraft. She was sentenced by the court to a 
 penance, which included walking barefoot through the prin- 
 cipal streets of London carrying a lighted taper ; and was 
 finally sent a prisoner to the Isle of Man. 2 
 
 The nature of the charge against dame Eleanor no doubt 
 explains the clerical character of the tribunal ; but, even so, 
 was it right that a peeress, lawfully wedded to a duke of the 
 blood-royal, should be thus tried ? The result was an Act of 
 parliament regulating the trial of peeresses. 
 
 Item, whereas it is contained in the Great Charter, amongst other 
 things, in the form which followeth : " No freeman shall be taken or 
 imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or liberties or free cus- 
 
 1 Patent Roll, 19 Henry VI, pt. 2, m. 16 ; printed Rymer, Foedera 
 O.S., x, p. 851. 
 
 Worcester, Rolls Series [22], p. [762]. Fabyan, p. 614. 
 
 English Chronicle (ed. Davies), Camden Soc. [64], pp. 57, 60, etc. 
 Chronicles of London (ed. Kingsford), p. 149. 
 
 2 I came before the spiritualite 
 
 Two cardynals and byshoppis fyve 
 And oder men of gret degre 
 
 Examened me of all my lyffe 
 And openly I dyde me shryffe 
 
 Of alle thyng that they asked me 
 Than was I putt in penaunce belyffe 
 
 Alle women may be ware by me. 
 
 Thorow London in many a strete 
 
 Of them that were most pryncypalle 
 I went bare fote on my fette 
 
 That sum tyme was wonte to ride rialle 
 Fader of hevyn and lorde of alle 
 
 As thou wilt so must yt be 
 The syne of pryde wille have a falle 
 
 Alle women may be ware by me. 
 
 Political Songs [14], ii, pp. 205-8.
 
 382 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 toms or outlawed or exiled or in any other manner destroyed nor will 
 we send upon him nor will we go upon him except by the lawful 
 judgment of his peers or by the law of the land " in which statute 
 is no mention made of how women, ladies of great estate in respect 
 of their husbands peers of the land, married or sole, that is to say 
 duchesses, countesses or baronesses, shall be put to answer, or before 
 what judges they shall be judged upon indictments of treasons or 
 felonies by them committed or done ; in regard whereof it is a doubt 
 in the law of England before whom and by whom such ladies, so 
 indicted, shall be put to answer and judged : Our said lord the king, 
 willing to put an end to such ambiguities and doubts, hath declared 
 by authority aforesaid that such ladies, so indicted or hereafter to be 
 indicted, of any treason or felony done by them or hereafter to be 
 done, whether they be married or sole, that they shall be brought to 
 answer and put to answer and judged before such judges and peers 
 of the realm as peers of the realm should be if they were indicted or 
 impeached of such treasons or felonies done or hereafter to be done 
 and in like manner and form and in none other. 1 
 
 1 20 Henry VI, cap. 9 ; printed in the Revised Statutes. I have 
 in an earlier chapter produced evidence to show that no such doubts 
 were originally entertained: even "baronesses" enjoyed the privi- 
 leges of barons. 
 
 The original of this statute is in French and runs as follows : 
 Item come contenue soit en la graunde chartre entre autres en la 
 fourme qensuyt. Nullus liber homo capiatur aut imprisonetur aut 
 disseisiatur de libero tenemento suo aut libertatibus aut liberis con- 
 suetudinibus suis aut utlagetur aut exulet[ur] aut aliquo modo des- 
 truatur nee super eum mittemus nee super eum ibimus nisi per legale 
 judicium parium suorum vel per legem terre. En quele estatuit nest 
 my mencion fait coment femmes dames de grande estate par cause 
 de lour barons peres de la terre covertez ou soules cestassaver 
 duchesses countesses ou baronesses serount mys a respoundre ou 
 devant queux juges els seroient juggez sur enditementz de tresons ou 
 felonies par eux faitz a cause de quelles il est une ambiguite et doute 
 en la ley devant queux et par queux tielz dames issint enditez seront 
 mysez a respondre et estre adjuggez : Nostre dit seigneur le roy 
 voillant oustier tielx ambiguites et doutes ad declare par lauctorite 
 desuisdit que tielx dames issint enditez ou on apres a enditierz de 
 ascun treson ou felonie par eux faitz ou enapres affairez coment que 
 eles soient covertez de baron ou soules que eles en soient mesnez en 
 response et mys a respoundre et adjuggez devant tielx juges et peres 
 de le roialme sicome autres peres de le roialme seroient sils fuissent 
 enditez ou empeschez de tielx tresons ou felonies faitz ou en apres 
 affairez et en autiel manere et forme et en nulle autre.
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 383 
 
 This statute does not define, directly or indirectly, by 
 what modes peers are triable. It is noticeable, however, 
 that treason and felony are the only offences mentioned : 
 the claim to trial by peers in cases of misdemeanour is 
 altogether abandoned. 
 
 In the year 1446 James Butler, earl of Ormond, was 
 appealed of treason by the prior of Kilmaine. The case 
 duly proceeded in the court of chivalry and joinder of 
 battle was awarded. The prior, who was a man of peace, 
 had no acquaintance whatever with the art of fighting in 
 the lists : he accordingly took lessons, at the king's expense, 
 of one Philip Treher, a fishmonger of London, a renowned 
 expert in these matters; but at the last moment the king 
 stopped the fight. 1 
 
 When parliament assembled in January, 1450, William 
 de la Pole, duke of Suffolk, was perhaps the most un- 
 popular man in the whole kingdom. Anticipating attack 
 he made a vigorous speech in self-defence at the opening 
 of the session. The commons promptly replied by im- 
 peaching the duke, and requesting that he might be com- 
 mitted to ward. No formal accusations had so far been 
 framed ; and the lords, after taking judicial advice, refused 
 to order his imprisonment. The commons then definitely 
 charged Suffolk with making treasonable overtures to the 
 French, and on this Suffolk was committed to the Tower. 
 On the 7th of February formal articles of impeachment 
 were presented, and on the pth of March eighteen additional 
 articles : there were, however, various adjournments, and it 
 was not before the i/th of March that the case was disposed 
 of. 2 On that day the king sent for all his lords, spiritual and 
 temporal, then being in town, to come to his inner chamber 
 in the palace of Westminster, the room with a "gavill" 
 window over a cloister. When they were all assembled 
 Suffolk was brought in ; he appears to have kneeled con- 
 tinuously during the proceedings which followed. 
 
 The chancellor addressed him on behalf of the king : " Sir, 
 
 1 See Ordinances of the Privy Council, vol. vi, pp. 57-9. 
 
 2 For these proceedings see Rot. Parl., vol. v, pp. 182-3.
 
 384 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 ye be well remembered when ye were last before the king 
 and his lords, and of your answers upon certain articles 
 touching accusations and impeachments of great and horrible 
 things put upon you by the commons of the land, in this 
 present parliament assembled, in the first bill presented by 
 them ; and how, at that time, ye put you not upon your 
 peerage. What will ye say now furthermore in the matter ? " 
 The duke said he submitted himself wholly to the king's 
 rule and governance to do with him as he listed. 
 
 Upon this the chancellor announced to the duke the king's 
 will : " Sir, I conceive that, not departing from your answers 
 aforesaid nor putting you upon your peerage, ye submit you 
 wholly to the king's rule and governance. Wherefore the 
 king commandeth me to say that on the first bill he holds 
 you neither declared nor charged ; and, as to the second bill 
 put upon you touching misprisions which be not criminal, 
 the king by force of your submission, by his own advice and 
 not resorting to the advice of his lords nor by way of judg- 
 ment, for he is not in place of judgment, putteth you to his 
 rule and governance." The sentence thus introduced was 
 banishment for five years. 
 
 The lord Beaumont immediately afterwards made a protest 
 on behalf of the peers spiritual 1 and temporal that the case 
 should not prejudice them, their heirs and successors, in time 
 to come ; but that they should enjoy their rights of peerage 
 thereafter as freely and largely as they, their ancestors and 
 predecessors had done in times past. As requested, this 
 declaration was entered on the Parliament Roll. 
 
 Suffolk was not thus easily to escape the vengeance of his 
 enemies. At the end of April he embarked for Calais. Off 
 Dover his ship was intercepted by a vessel of the English 
 fleet, and he was ordered on board. The last scene took 
 place in a small boat in mid-channel : by a lewd seaman, with 
 seven strokes of a rusty sword, the duke was delivered. 
 
 Public animosity also vented itself on the duchess of 
 Suffolk and lord Say the ex-treasurer, Cade the "captain 
 of Kent" taking an effective part in the proceedings. The 
 
 1 This clearly implies that spiritual peers are entitled to the same 
 rights of peerage as temporal peers.
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 385 
 
 duchess, lord Say and several other persons were indicted 
 of treason at the Guildhall : l Say had the misfortune to be 
 present, for lord Scales took him out of the Tower and 
 handed him over to Cade. Say claimed to be tried by his 
 peers, with the unsatisfactory result that he was hurried to 
 the standard in Cheap and beheaded before he had finished 
 shriving himself. 2 The indictment against the duchess appears 
 to have been removed into parliament in due course. The 
 peers tried and acquitted her. This was probably the first 
 case of a peeress being tried in parliament since the reign 
 of Edward the First, but no formal record of the event is 
 known to exist. 3 
 
 1 The proceedings appear to have been treated as perfectly 
 regular and legal, but in almost all cases the court party secured a 
 verdict of not guilty at the subsequent trial. See, for example, the 
 trial of dominus Thomas Kent clericus communis consilii domini 
 regis. (Coram Rege Roll, Mich., 30 Henry VI, rex. m. 8.) He was 
 indicted before lord Scales and others, according to this roll die 
 Sabbati proximo post festum apostolorum Petri et Pauli, anno regni 
 nostri 28. See also the trial of Edward Grymston, ibid., rex. m. 15. 
 
 2 See, for example, Fabyan (ed. 1811), p. 624: "Than upon the 
 morne, beyng the thirde daye of July and Frydaye, the sayd 
 capitayne entred agayne the cytie, and causyd the lorde Saye to be 
 fette from the Tower and ladde unto the Guyldhall, where he was 
 arreygnyd before the may re and other of the kynges justyces. . . . 
 Than the lorde Saye . . . desyred that he myghte be juged by his 
 pyers. Wherof herynge, the capitayne sent a company of his unto 
 the halle, the whiche parforce toke hym from his offycers, and so 
 brought hym unto the standarde in Chepe, where, or he were halfe 
 shryven, they strake of his hede. ..." 
 
 Compare Chronicles of London (ed. Kingsford), p. 161 : "desired 
 to be demyd by his perys." 
 
 3 Et xxx die ejusdem mensis Junii Wyllelmus Ascough tune 
 episcopus Sarum, apud Edyngtone Wyltesire, ab insurrectoribus 
 ejusdem comitatus interimitur. Et circa finem dicti mensis Junii, 
 exercitu dicti regis disperso, versus Kylyngworthe progreditur. 
 Quod audiens, communitas Kantiae iterum conglomerati sunt. Et 
 praedictus Johannes Cade capitaneus Kantiae die Veneris (viz. iij die 
 Julii) vi et armis London ingreditur ac domus Philippi Malpas ibidem 
 spoliatur. Facta est itaque commissio de audiendo et terminando. 
 Et ideo Robertus Danvers factus est justiciarius, etc. Ac etiam 
 dux et ducissa Suffolchiae, episcopus Sarum (scilicet Askewe), 
 dominus de Saye, Thomas Danyell, Johannes Saye et multi alii 
 indictati sunt de proditione in Gwyhalda Londoniae. Et post hoc 
 
 2 c
 
 3 86 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 A few years later Thomas earl of Devon was arraigned in 
 parliament on a charge of high treason ; 1 he was acquitted. 
 It is stated on the rolls that the duke of Buckingham was 
 assigned to be steward of England for the trial. 2 This was 
 probably the first instance of such an appointment during 
 the fifteenth century : it is not entered on either the Patent 
 or the Close Rolls, which is fairly strong evidence of inno- 
 vation. The next appointment of this kind, which occurred 
 seven years later, figures twice on the Patent Rolls and is 
 also transcribed into the originalia. In the same way each 
 new appointment to this office for a coronation is duly 
 enrolled, with the one exception of Henry the Fourth's 
 coronation. There is no grant of the stewardship to Thomas 
 of Lancaster or of the deputy stewardship to the earl of 
 Worcester formally entered on any roll. 
 
 How, it may be asked, did it happen that a steward was 
 first appointed for the trial of the earl of Devon in 1454? 
 A conjectural explanation is all that can be offered. It was 
 
 iiii die Julii proximo sequenti, Jacobus Fynys dominus de Saye 
 hora septima post nonam decapitatur apud le Standard in Chepe. 
 Et eodem die Wyllelmus Crowmer, ad tune vicecomes Kantiae per 
 dictum capitaneum extra Algate decapitatur. (Worcester, Rolls Series, 
 22, iii, p. [768]) 
 
 In eodem parliamento ducissa Suffolciae acquietata est per pares 
 suos, et Johannes Say et Thomas Daniel et alii perjurati de pro- 
 ditione, unde indictati fuerunt tempore insurrectionis. (Ibid., 
 
 P- [77.]) 
 
 1 The proceedings against this earl were placed in the Baga de 
 Secretis, and are not at present forthcoming. See, however, the 
 Controlment Roll, 30 Henry VI, m. 36, which furnishes some 
 particulars as to his indictment and arrest. 
 
 2 Rot. Parl., vol. v, p. 249 : " Be hit remembered that where the 
 xiiij e day of Marche the said xxxij e yere in this present parlement, 
 Thomas erle of Devonshire, uppon an enditement of high treasons 
 by hym supposed to bee doon agenst the kyng's honourable estat 
 and persone, afore Humfrey due of Buckingham steward of Englond 
 for that tyme assigned, was arraigned and of the same treasons by 
 his peeres the noble lordes of this royaume of England being in this 
 seid present parlement was acquited of all things contained in the 
 seid enditement. By which enditement the right high and mighty 
 prince Richard due of York, lieutenant for the kyng in the said 
 parlement, conceyved the trouthe of his alliegiance to bee em- 
 blemyshed and disteigned. . . .
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 387 
 
 obviously necessary that someone should preside ; but, until 
 the appointment of a steward had become the recognised 
 practice, the king in person or, in his absence, the regent 
 were the persons who would naturally direct the proceedings. 
 It was probably considered quite immaterial who pronounced 
 the judgment on behalf of the king and lords ; this, at all 
 events, was a matter for the discretion of the king or regent. 
 It would perhaps have been considered improper for the 
 king in person to sentence a peer for high treason, although 
 in France the opposite view was maintained : this point, 
 however, has no bearing on the present question. Under 
 ordinary circumstances no need could possibly arise for 
 appointing someone to preside at a trial in parliament. In 
 Suffolk's case, the last reported trial prior to 1454, the king 
 ostensibly presided, while the chancellor acted as his mouth- 
 piece and delivered the sentence, such as it was, by the king's 
 command. 
 
 In 1454 the condition of affairs was quite abnormal. 
 Henry was insane. York had opened parliament on the 
 king's behalf, but his position was somewhat irregular. In 
 an ordinary case he might none the less have presided, but 
 we learn from the Parliament Roll that the charge against 
 the earl of Devon contained undisguised allegations of 
 treason against York himself. The duke was a professed 
 champion of law and order ; moreover his claim to the 
 protectorship had reached a critical stage. Under these 
 circumstances it was practically impossible for him to pre- 
 side. He might have succeeded in quashing the indictment, 
 but to obtain an acquittal before an independent judge in 
 a constitutional trial was infinitely preferable. The case was 
 probably planned and was certainly treated as a test case 
 between York and his opponents. The result was followed 
 by a vote of confidence in York, and a few days later the 
 lords appointed him protector. 1 
 
 Clearly the trial of 1454 arose under peculiar conditions 
 which required special arrangements. We may therefore 
 reasonably conjecture that precedents were investigated and 
 a lord high steward appointed in consequence of what was 
 
 1 Rot. Parl., vol. v, pp. 249-50.
 
 3 88 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 discovered. 1 A fair amount of evidence, as we have already 
 seen, came into existence at the end of the fourteenth 
 century supporting the right of the steward of England 
 to act as judge at the trial of peers in parliament ; and we 
 can hardly doubt that the appointment of Humphrey duke 
 of Buckingham, on the occasion under discussion, was con- 
 sidered to be in restoration of an early constitutional practice. 
 
 In the year 1459 an attempt was made by the commons 
 to impeach lord Stanley for not sending his men to Blore- 
 heath, but the matter was not proceeded with. The articles 
 of impeachment appear on the Parliament Roll 2 as a bill 
 presented by the commons, and at the foot the significant 
 response, " Le roi s'avisera." 
 
 For a considerable period after this, all judicial process in 
 parliament, whether by impeachment or indictment, fell into 
 abeyance, and was, in form at all events if not in substance, 
 completely superseded by bill of attainder : in other words 
 the legislative power inherent in parliament was resorted to 
 in preference to the judicial power. The transition from the 
 one to the other was brought about by causes which may be 
 traced without much difficulty. 3 Except to the lawyers the 
 
 1 It was not an uncommon thing to search the chronicles for this 
 sort of information. See, for example, Annales Ricardi Secundi, 
 Rolls Series [28], p. 252. 
 
 2 Rot. Parl., vol. v, pp. 369-70. 
 
 3 If we except the ordinance decreeing the banishment of 
 Gaveston, the first precedent is furnished by a recital of the pro- 
 ceedings against the Despencers : Lequel agard et exil fut conferme 
 de comun assent par estatut en mesme le parlement. (Rot. Parl., 
 ii, p. 7 ; cf. iii, p. 365). In the second year of Henry IV forfeiture 
 was pronounced by the lords temporal against certain peers and 
 others who had taken part in the earl of Kent's rebellion and had 
 been quite informally killed by the king's subjects : the legality of 
 the procedure in parliament was subsequently questioned on more 
 than one occasion. In 1453 the notorious Jack Cade (who had 
 been killed while attempting to evade capture by the king's officers) 
 was attainted by Act of parliament. (Rot. Parl., vol. v, p. 265.) 
 This person had procured, by duress, the indictment of various 
 eminent people : one object of the Act was to quash these indict- 
 ments ; another object appears to have been to legalise the for- 
 feiture of his property notwithstanding his death. Sir William 
 Oldhall was then attainted by a similar Act. (Rot. Parl., ibid.) He
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 389 
 
 nature of the new process was apparently not appreciated 
 until the transition was complete, and then even the blunted 
 national conscience of that time was unmistakably shocked. 
 The change, it would seem, was largely due to the delays 
 incident to the trial of absent persons, and the technical 
 difficulties in the way of attainting dead persons. 1 The 
 insecurity of the throne during the civil wars forbade pro- 
 crastination in the matter of trial, and made the attainder 
 of opponents who had fallen in battle a political necessity. 
 The king for the time being had of course no wish to rob or 
 murder the ex-king's supporters ; but their conviction, for- 
 feiture, and execution if necessary, had to be expedited. 
 The king's ministers were the keepers of the king's con- 
 science ; it was for them to devise appropriate procedure 
 and see to it that such procedure was legal. The attainder 
 of the dead calls for no comment. For the rest, the first 
 step was charmingly simple and moderately innocent. Those 
 already captured were brought before parliament and ar- 
 raigned ; they might deny the charge and defend themselves 
 if they thought it worth while. As for the others, if they 
 chose not to surrender and stand their trial it was their own 
 doing. Sentence was passed on all alike. In the case of the 
 absent, an ordinary judgment would not have complied with 
 the law of the land or with the established practice of par- 
 liament. To obviate this the judgment was drawn up and 
 passed as a statute, the accusations being framed as recitals 
 
 had been indicted and outlawed for complicity in Cade's insurrec- 
 tion, and was then in sanctuary at the chapel-royal of St. Martins- 
 le-Grand : so his attainder in parliament was a work of supereroga- 
 tion. Oldhall, however, had been elected speaker of the lower 
 house in November, 1450, and the Act no doubt was intended by 
 the commons as a demonstration of loyalty to the king, and a 
 repudiation of their connection with such a rebel. At Coventry, 
 on the 20th November, 1459, York, Salisbury, Warwick and others 
 were attainted by an Act, introduced by the lords, agreed by the 
 commons and assented to by the king, a procedure which at once 
 became common form. (See Rot. Parl., vol. v, p. 346.) 
 
 1 For the law relating to this matter see references given below ; 
 and see above, the preceding note. The statutes on the subject are 
 34 Edward III, caps, xii and xiii; 36 Edward III, cap. xiii; and 
 23 Henry VI, cap. xvii.
 
 390 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 to the act. This plan had the additional merit of effectually 
 curing all informalities in the trial of those who were tried. 
 In its inception and in certain special cases there was some- 
 thing to be said in favour of attainder. It was only when 
 a legal trial was not merely abandoned but denied that the 
 inherent viciousness of the system became self-evident. 
 
 On the accession of Edward the Fourth a sweeping bill of 
 attainder was passed, including Henry the Sixth, various 
 peers and a large number of commoners. For the purpose 
 of delivering judgment under this Act, Richard earl of 
 Warwick was made lord high steward by letters patent dated 
 the 3rd of December, I46I. 1 This is the first documentary 
 precedent we possess for such an appointment. 
 
 About the same time John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, was 
 appointed constable of England during pleasure by a per- 
 fectly ordinary and regular instrument; 2 and, in February, 
 
 1 Pro comite Warrewici : Rex carissimo consanguineo suo Ricardo 
 comiti Warrewici salutem. Sciatis quod cum officium senescalli 
 Anglic, quod in processu cujusdam actus adversus et contra tarn 
 Henricum tarn Henricum nuper de facto et non de jure regem 
 Anglie, adversarium inimicum nostrum, quam quosdam alios rebelles 
 nostros, aliosque qui prenobilem principem et patrem nostrum 
 Ricardum nuper ducem Eborum apud Wakefield crudelissime et 
 proditorie murdraverunt et interfecerunt, in present! parliamento 
 nostro, auctoritate ejusdem parliamenti, fiendi, ex certis causis 
 exerceri debet, jam vacat, et in manibus nostris existit : Ac nos 
 de fidelitate probitate et provida circumspectione vestris quam- 
 plurimum confidentes assignavimus et constituimus vos senescallum 
 Anglie habendum gerendum et occupandum officium illud in pro- 
 cessu predicto ac ad faciendum exercendum et exequendum ea 
 omnia et singula que ad officium predictum ex causa processus 
 actus predict!, hac vice tantum, pertinent facienda. Et ideo vobis 
 mandamus quod circa officium predictum intendatis et illud faciatis 
 et exequamini in forma predicta. Damus autem universis et singulis 
 quorum interest in hac parte tenore presentium firmiter in mandatis 
 quod vobis in executione officii predicti intendentes sint auxiliantes 
 consulentes et obedientes in omnibus prout decet. In cujus etc. 
 Teste rege apud Westmonasterium tercio die Decembris. (Patent 
 Roll, i Edward IV, pt. 2, m. i ; Originalia, i Edward IV, m. 55 ; 
 printed by Rymer, Foedera O.S., xi, p. 480.) 
 
 The above entry is repeated on the Patent Roll, i Edward IV, 
 pt. 3, m. 8, in identical terms, except that it is expressed to be 
 made " per ipsum regem oretenus." 2 See Appendix.
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 391 
 
 1862, John earl of Oxford and several others were brought 
 before the court of chivalry, condemned by Tiptoft, and 
 executed on Tower Hill. These persons, says one chronicler, 
 were condemned by the law of Padua, an angry allusion to 
 the constable's legal studies on the continent 1 
 
 There were further proceedings in parliament in 1465, and 
 on the 8th of March Richard earl of Warwick was again 
 appointed lord high steward. 2 
 
 1 Worcester, ed. Hearne [lib. Nig.], ii, p. 492. Mense Febuarii 
 Johannes comes Oxonie, Albredus films ejus et heres, Thomas 
 Tudenham miles, Johannes Clopton, Johannes Mongomere et 
 Willelmus Tyrrele per Johannem comitem Wigornie constabularium 
 Anglic arrestantur, ob suspicionem literarum receptarum domine 
 Margarete nuper regine Anglie, coram quo per curiam constabularii 
 convicti, dictus comes decollatus est, ac Clopton excusatus, et omnes 
 alii tracti et decollati sunt in quadam scafalda pro eis facta super 
 montem turris Londonie. 
 
 Warkworth, Chronicles of the White Rose, p. 108 : "And in the 
 fifth year of king Edward, the earl of Oxford, the lord Aubrey his 
 son and sir Thomas Tudenham knight were taken and brought into 
 the tower of London and there was laid to them high treason ; and 
 afterwards they were brought before the earl of Worcester and judged 
 by law Padua, that they should be had to the tower hill, where was 
 made a scaffold of eight feet high, and there were their heads 
 smitten off, that all men might see, whereof the most people were 
 sorry." 
 
 2 Patent Roll, 5 Edward IV, pt. i, m. 23d. Pro comite Warre- 
 witi: Rex carissimo consanguineo suo Ricardo comiti Warrewici 
 salutem. Sciatis quod cum officium senescalli Anglie, quod in pro- 
 cessibus quorundam actuum ex certis causis in present! parliamento 
 nostro auctoritate ejusdem parliamenti fiendis exerceri debet, jam 
 vacat et in manibus nostris existat, et nos processus illos ratione 
 vacacionis officii illius impediri nolentes, ac nos de fidelitate probi- 
 tate et provida circumspectione vestris quamplurimum confidentes 
 assignavimus et constituimus vos senescallum Anglie habendum 
 gerendum et occupandum officium illud in processibus predictis ac 
 ad faciendum exercendum et exequendum ea omnia et singula que 
 ad officium predictum ex causa predicta, hac vice tantum, pertinent 
 facienda. Et ideo vobis mandamus quod circa officium predictum 
 intendatis et illud faciatis et exequamini in forma predicta. Damus 
 autem omnibus et singulis quorum interest in hac parte tenore 
 presencium firmiter in mandatis quod vobis in executione officii 
 predicti intendentes sint auxiliantes consulentes et obedientes prout 
 decet. In cujus etc. Teste rege apud Westmonasterium viij die 
 Marcii. Per ipsum regem oretenus.
 
 392 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Edward was none too firmly seated on the throne : the 
 political horizon was black with wars and rumours of wars : 
 it was essentially a time when the court of the constable of 
 England might prove a most effective prop to a threatened 
 dynasty. Unfortunately the jurisdiction of this court rested 
 on very insecure foundations ; it was certainly not increasing 
 in popularity, but this latter circumstance was probably to 
 some extent the result of the former. Whether Edward 
 appreciated these facts and acted accordingly, we cannot say 
 for certain ; but in 1467 there was a very remarkable piece of 
 political jugglery. The earl of Worcester surrendered his 
 grant of the constableship, and letters patent issued conferring 
 the office on earl Rivers for life, with remainder to his son 
 for life. This instrument recites the previous appointment of 
 Tiptoft correctly enough so far as it goes, but then proceeds 
 to add a definition of the constable's duties which Stubbs 
 describes as unparalleled. This definition plainly and un- 
 mistakably purports to be a recital of the contents of the 
 grant to Tiptoft : the recital is therefore absolutely false, if 
 not deliberately fraudulent. The operative part of these 
 letters patent confers the office of constable on earl Rivers 
 and his son successively in identical terms, which naturally 
 enough under the circumstances are set out verbatim, instead 
 of being conferred by reference to the recitals. The definition 
 of the constable's powers occurs in consequence three times 
 over in this amazing deed. A very effective advertisement I 1 
 Whether it deceived contemporaries quite as completely as 
 modern constitutional historians is a doubtful point. 2 In 
 
 1 See Appendix 
 
 2 Thus Stubbs, in the Constitutional Hist., iii, p. 289 : "Another 
 abuse which had the result of condemning its agents to perpetual 
 infamy was the extension of the jurisdiction of the high constable of 
 England to cases of high treason, thus depriving the accused of the 
 benefit of trial by jury and placing their acquittal or condemnation 
 in the hands of a political official. When Edward the Fourth, early 
 in his reign, gave the office of constable to Tiptoft he invested him 
 with unparalleled powers. . . ." The learned historian had only 
 read the false recital in the patent of 1467. The fact that the grant 
 is recited to have been made " statutis, ordinationibus, actibus et 
 restrictionibus in contrarium editis, ceterisque contrariis non obstanti- 
 bus quibuscunque " is apparently regarded as an act of shameless
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 393 
 
 1468 Tiptoft was again appointed constable: 1 his patent of 
 appointment is quite normally framed. 
 
 About two years later the famous judge Littleton, sitting 
 in court, uttered the following obiter dictum : 2 
 
 In an appeal sued against a lord of the realm he shall not be 
 tried by the peers but like an ordinary person, and so it was decided 
 before Fort in an appeal sued against lord Grey of Codnor, father 
 of the present lord Grey, but on an indictment of felony or treason 
 which is at the king's suit he shall be [tried by his peers], for the 
 statute of Magna Charta provides nee super eum ibimus nee super 
 eum mittemuS) by which is intended the suit of the king, 3 and when 
 a lord is indicted [as aforesaid] the case shall be brought into parlia- 
 ment, and there the seneschal of England shall put him to reply, 
 and he shall plead that he is not guilty, and he shall be tried by his 
 peers, etc., and then the lords spiritual who cannot consent to the 
 death of a man shall appoint a procurator in the parliament, etc., 
 and then the steward must ask first the junior lord present if he is 
 guilty, and so on separately all the lords who are there, and then, etc. 
 
 Littleton clearly took the view that a peer indicted of 
 treason or felony could only be tried in parliament. This 
 does not in any way exclude the jurisdiction of the court of 
 chivalry, because proceedings in that court were not founded 
 upon indictment. Indeed, the ordinary courts had for some 
 time so far recognised the constable's court as to take judicial 
 notice of its decisions in appeals of treason. 4 
 
 autocracy. This is quite a mistake : the words mean nothing in 
 particular, they are only inserted ex abundante cautela, and are the 
 common-form verbiage of the period. (See the Originalia, i Edward 
 IV, passim.) So too of other phrases : to the uninitiated there is a 
 flavour of the court-martial about " summarie et de piano et sine 
 strepitu et figura judicii." This likewise is common-form. Compare 
 Ord. Privy Council, i, 116. : See Appendix. 
 
 2 Year Book, Easter, 10 Edward IV, no. 17, fol. 6. 
 
 3 Upon this point, most learned judge, you were grievously in 
 error ! 
 
 4 Year Book, 37 Henry VI, fol. 20 : ... tiel matire append al 
 constable et mareschal et ils determines ceo par ley civil. . . . 
 Nedham: A ce que vous dites que nous ne prendrons notice de ley 
 le constable et mareschal ceo n'est issint; car ceo est la ley del 
 terre, et le ley nostre seigneur le roy mes seroit determine devant 
 le constable et mareschal; mais nous prendrons notice de ceo.
 
 394 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 In October, 1470, the year of Henry's re-adeption and 
 Edward's flight, Tiptoft earl of Worcester, the Yorkist con- 
 stable, by that time popularly known and execrated as the 
 butcher of England, was brought to trial, condemned and 
 executed. 1 He received the measure he had meted to others. 
 John de Vere, earl of Oxford (a most suitable person for 
 the business), was appointed constable pro hac vice, and 
 Worcester perished by the sentence of a court of chivalry. 2 
 
 Sicome un soit appelle de mort de home, et il dit il appelle m. 
 le home tiel jour et avoit luy devant le constable et mareschal de 
 treason, et que nous combatames ensemble en le champ, et issint 
 fess, et la il luy ferist, et ceo bon justification per nostre ley : ergo 
 nous prendrons notice de ceo ley. 
 
 For references in the digests see Fitzherbert, Coron., 23 ; Brooke, 
 Actio sur le Statut, 18; Trespass, 197; Jurisdiction, 103; Appeal, 
 129 ; Battaille, 15. Also see Year Book, 37 Henry VI, fol. 3. 
 
 1 The date of his death is uncertain. The inquisitions post mortem 
 taken some time after the event give various dates, viz. 24th of 
 October, i4th of October, and die Jovis in festo sancte Luce Evang. 
 
 2 Although we possess no direct evidence precisely to this effect, 
 I think the statement in the text is a necessary inference from such 
 evidence as we do possess. See, for example, Warkworth (Camden 
 Society), p. 13: "And thenne was taken the erle of Worcetre whiche 
 was arested and areynede before sere Jhon Veere the erle of Oxen- 
 forde, sonne and heyre to the foreseide erle of Oxenforde whiche 
 was behedede at the Toure Hille, as before wrytene, and so the 
 erle of Worcetre was juged be suche lawe as he dyde to other 
 menne. . . ." Compare the MS. City Chronicle (Cott. Vitell. A., 1 6, 
 fol. 1 30) : " And upon Sonday at nyght therle of Worceter was 
 taken, whereof mothe people rejoysed as wel many of theym that 
 knewe hym as other, for he was cruell in doying justice and there- 
 fore he was namyd the bowcher of England, and upon the Tuysday 
 aftir cam therle of Oxinford to London with a fair company and 
 was logid at the lord Hastinges place ; and upon the Satirday 
 folowyng was therle of Worceter rayned at Westmynster in the 
 Whyte halle and there endited of treason. And upon the Monday 
 folowyng adjuged to go from thens upon his fete unto the tower hill 
 and there to be heded." Modern writers differ. Ramsay, Lancaster 
 and York, without giving any authority, says he was tried in the 
 court of the constable ; but Nichols, History of Leicestershire, says 
 the earl was tried in the court of the lord high steward. Nichols 
 does not give his authority, and his statement is not worth serious 
 consideration, although other antiquaries have made the same asser- 
 tion. See, for example, MS. Harleian, 2194, which contains a list 
 of lord high stewards and of the cases tried before them.
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 395 
 
 A few months later, after the restoration of Edward, the 
 duke of Somerset and the prior of St. John with many others 
 were taken prisoners at Tewkesbury: they were brought 
 before Richard duke of Gloucester as constable of England, 
 and the duke of Norfolk as marshal of England ; they were 
 sentenced to death and executed upon a scaffold within the 
 town. 1 
 
 The proceedings in the parliament of 1477 against George 
 duke of Clarence afford us a significant example of the abuse 
 of attainder. Either attainder in this case was unnecessary 
 and therefore improper, or it was resorted to for the purpose 
 of bolstering up the judgment in an irregular trial. I have 
 not discovered any evidence that Clarence was formally in- 
 dicted, but he appears to have been arrested at Westminster, 
 in the presence of the mayor and aldermen of the city of 
 
 1 Arrival of king Edward the Fourth (Camden Soc.), p. 31 : 
 "This battayll thus done and atchived and the kyngs grace thus 
 largly shewed, it was so that in the abbey and othar places of the 
 towne were founden Edmond callyd duke of Somerset, the prior of 
 Seint Johns called ser John Longestrother, ser Thomas Tressham, 
 ser Gervaux of Clyfton, knights, squiers and othar notable parsonnes 
 dyvers, whiche all dyvers tymes were browght afore the kyngs 
 brothar the duke of Gloucestar and constable of England, and the 
 duke of Norfolke marshall of England theyr judges ; and so were 
 judged to deathe in the mydst of the towne Edmond duke of 
 Somarset and the sayd prior of Seint Johns, with many othar gentils 
 that there were taken, and that of longe tyme had provoked and 
 continuyd the great rebellyon that so long had endured in the land 
 agaynst the kynge and contrye to the wele of the realme." 
 
 Waurin, Rolls Series, 39, v, p. 671 : Aprez ceste bataille achevee 
 advint que en la ville de Teukesbury furent trouvez Emond appele 
 due de Sombresset, le prieur de Saint Jehan, sire Thomas de Tresse- 
 ham, sire Gervais de Cliston, chevalliers et plusieurs autres nobles 
 hommes, lesquelz furent prins et menez devant le due de Glocestre 
 frere du roy Edouard connestable d'Angleterre, ou la leur fut re- 
 moustre et declare leur rebellion et desloyaute que long tempz 
 avoient portee envers leur souverain seigneur; puis ycelle dite 
 remoustrance a eulz faite par le due, ilz furent emprisonnez jusques 
 a lendemain quon les ramena devant lui et le due de Norfok, qui 
 estoient commis leurs juges de par le roy, lesquelz, tout bien con- 
 sidere, les condempnerent a estre decapitez comme ilz furent, sur 
 ung eschaffaut, present tout le peuple, la teste sur ung blocq dune 
 dolloire.
 
 396 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 London, on a charge of treason made by the king himself in 
 a verbose and not very dignified speech. 1 In the ensuing 
 parliament Clarence was arraigned : the king, according to 
 the continuator of the Croyland Chronicle, prosecuted in 
 person : no one ventured to reply but the prisoner. (This 
 last seems a somewhat unintelligent observation.) Certain 
 persons were brought in by the crown presumably as wit- 
 nesses, but from their conduct at the trial many thought they 
 were there to formulate accusations. 2 Clarence denied the 
 charges, but the bill of attainder was passed by the lords 
 and commons and received the royal assent. 3 The duke of 
 Buckingham was appointed steward of England to pass 
 sentence, 4 but execution was for some little time delayed : it 
 was, to be sure, only seemly that the king should exhibit 
 some reluctance about putting his own brother to death. 
 The commons finally paid a visit to the upper house and 
 requested by their speaker that the matter might be brought 
 to a conclusion. 5 Shortly after Clarence was done to death. 
 The manner of his dying was never made public ; but the 
 story of the wine-butt has at least the merit of being strictly 
 contemporary gossip. 6 
 
 In November, 1483, Henry duke of Buckingham was 
 executed for high treason against Richard the Third. No 
 account of his trial appears to be extant ; but I think there 
 can be little reasonable doubt that he was tried and con- 
 demned in a court of chivalry 7 by Sir Ralph Ashton, who was 
 appointed constable in consequence of the duke's rebellion. 
 
 1 Chron. Croyland, ed. Bohn, p. 479. 
 
 2 Ibid. 
 
 8 Rot. Parl., vol. vi, pp. 193-5. 
 
 4 Patent Roll, 17 Ed. IV, pt. 2, m. 19. See Appendix. 
 
 5 Chron. Croyland, ed. Bohn, p. 480. 
 
 6 Mentioned by Fabyan, ed. 1811, p. 666. 
 
 " Drowned in Malvesay." Chronicles of London, ed. Kingsford, 
 p. 188. 
 
 7 He was attainted by the next parliament. The escheators" 
 inquisitions are in the following form : Inquisitio capta apud 
 Chelmesford in comitatu Essex xviij die Marcii anno regni regis 
 Ricardi tercii primo coram . . . qui dicunt super sacramentum 
 suum quod Henricus dux Bukk fuit seisitus de . . . que quidem 
 maneria dominia et hundreda cum membris et pertinentiis suis
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 397 
 
 After the accession of Henry the Seventh a large number 
 of persons were at various times attainted in parliament. 
 Amongst these was lord Fitz-Walter, who was attainted in 
 the parliament of 1495-6. He was previously indicted at the 
 Berkshire sessions before Sir William Hody (chief baron of 
 the Exchequer) and others in the Easter term of 1495, and 
 on this indictment orders were issued for his arrest. 1 
 
 In the year 1497 occurred the Cornish rising. The insur- 
 gents, under the command of James Touchet, lord Audeley, 
 marched as far as Blackheath, where they encamped. Soon 
 after, the royal army forced a general engagement and totally 
 defeated them. Lord Audeley was taken prisoner, brought 
 to London, and there arraigned in a court of chivalry before 
 special commissioners (not peers), appointed pro hac vice to 
 
 domino regi pertinent eo quod idem nuper dux per quendam actum 
 edictum versus eundem nuper ducem in parliamento domini regis 
 apud Westmonasterium xxiij die Januarii anno regni sui primo tento 
 de alta prodicione auctoritate ejusdem parliament! attinctus existit. 
 (Inquisitio post mortem Virtute Officii, Richard III, Chancery, no. 6; 
 see also ibid., nos. 15, 17.) 
 
 Polydore Vergil gives the following account of Buckingham's 
 betrayal and death : 
 
 To these men seking owt all thinges narrowly, Humfrey Ban- 
 nister, whether for feare or money yt is soom dowt, betrayed his 
 guest Henry the duke, who brought him forthwith to Salsbury unto 
 king Richard. The duke was dilygently examynyd and what he 
 knew uppon demand he tould without torture, hopynge because he 
 frely confessyd that therefor he showld have lybertie to speake with 
 king Richerd, which he most sore desyryd; but after he had con- 
 fessyd thoffence he was beheadyd. (Cam. Soc., p. 201.) 
 
 1 Controlment Roll, 10 Henry VII, m. i7d., Easter Term. 
 (Berks, and Norfolk.) Johannes Ratclyff Fitzwater de Attilbourgh 
 in comitatu Norfolk miles, alias dictus Johannes Ratclyff de Attil- 
 bourgh de Fitzwater nuper de Attilbourgh in comitatu Norfolk 
 miles, alias dictus Johannes Ratclyff de Attilbourgh in comitatu 
 Norfolk captus octavo Trinitatis pro quibusdam prodicionibus et 
 feloniis personam domini regis tangentibus unde in dicto comitatu 
 
 Berk indictatus est patet per session, comitatus Berk tent. 
 
 coram Willelmo Hody milite et aliis. Anno regni regis Henrici 
 Septimi decimo apud Grauntpount juxta Oxon. 
 
 Ibid. (Berks and Norfolk.) Johannes Ratclyff ... [as above] 
 . . . captus octavo Trinitatis pro quibusdam prodicionibus et 
 feloniis personam domini regis tangentibus unde in dicto comitatu 
 Berk indictatus per judicium session, supradict.
 
 398 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 represent the constable and marshal of England. 1 By this 
 court lord Audeley was sentenced to death. He is said to 
 have been led to execution arrayed in a paper suit painted 
 with his arms reversed. 2 An Act of Attainder and Forfeiture 
 was subsequently passed in the parliament of 1503 on lord 
 Audeley and a large number of other persons. 3 
 
 A constitutional historian, writing immediately after 
 Audeley's death, would have found it hard to justify the 
 assertion that a peer of the realm had the right of being tried 
 by his peers. In theory, no doubt, it was so : in practice no 
 peer had for many years past enjoyed this privilege. If par- 
 liament was sitting he had no judgment at all, unless the 
 purely ministerial sentence pronounced by the lord high 
 steward could be so described. If parliament was not sitting 
 a peer could be tried by the court of chivalry : and, though 
 it was the usual custom for a peer to act as lord high constable 
 at the trial of a peer, exceptions had occurred. The spiritual 
 peers were in some respects more protected at this time than 
 temporal peers, for the pope had never recognised the right 
 of laymen to sentence to death and execute a bishop, and to 
 do so would still have been a dangerous experiment. 
 
 Nevertheless there existed one definite statutory limitation 
 to the ex-officio^ jurisdiction of the lord high constable, a 
 limitation which perhaps had never been plainly and deliber- 
 ately overstepped. Unless it could be said that the question 
 at issue was one of war within the realm, on no construction 
 of the statute of Richard the Second was it possible to main- 
 tain that a court of chivalry had any ex-officio^ jurisdiction to 
 
 1 Appendix. 
 
 2 The City Chronicle (MS. Cott. Vitell. A., 16, fol. 165) contains 
 the following entry : "And the same day was the lord Audley had 
 from the Tower to Westminster, the axe of the Tower borne before 
 hym. And there in the White Hall areyned and adjuged, and that 
 afternone drawen from Westminster unto Newgate and there re- 
 mayned all nyght. And upon Weddensday in the mornyng about 
 ix of the clok drawen from the said gaole of Newgate unto the 
 Tower hill with a cote armour upon hym of paper all to torne and 
 there his hede stryken of." 
 
 3 Rot. Par!., vol. vi, p. 544. 
 
 4 " Ex-officio " is used here in contradistinction to " ad instantiam 
 partis." See Appendix.
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 399 
 
 try the case. On the other hand, in cases of war within the 
 realm, the statute may be read as declaring that such matters 
 ought to be tried by the constable, and cannot be determined 
 or discussed at common law. The commons, it is true, had 
 at least on one occasion contended for a different construc- 
 tion, but without success. 
 
 In 1499 it was deemed advisable to have the earl of 
 Warwick tried and executed. Having been for some time 
 a close prisoner in the Tower of London, he could not 
 decently be accused of any act of war, nor was there any 
 other pretext on which the constable's jurisdiction could be 
 safely founded. Warwick was not tried in the constable's 
 court but before a very different tribunal, namely a court 
 now known as the court of the lord high steward of England. 
 The institution of this court merits special investigation : it 
 is, I think, quite the most interesting fraud in the whole legal 
 history of England. 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XI 
 
 Coram Rege Roll, 1 8 Ed-ward If, Hilary, pt. 2, m. 34 
 
 Dominus rex mandavit dilecto et fideli suo Johanni de 
 Westone nuper marescallo hospicii sui breve suum in hec 
 verba. Edwardus Dei gratia rex Anglic dominus Hibernie 
 et dux Aquitanie dilecto et fideli suo Johanni de Westone 
 nuper senescallo hospicii salutem. Ouia quibusdam certis 
 de causis certiorari volumus super recordo et processu judicii 
 super Rogerum Damory nuper inimicum et rebellem nostrum 
 per vos ut dicitur pronunciati, Vobis mandamus quod re- 
 cordum et processum judicii predicti cum omnibus ea tang- 
 entibus nobis sub sigillo vestro distincte et aperte mittatis et 
 hoc breve, Ita quod ea habeamus in cancellaria nostra citra 
 festum nativitatis beate Marie virginis proximo futurum 
 ubicunque tune fuerit, et hoc nullatenus omittatis. Teste 
 me-ipso apud Westmonasterium xix die Augusti anno regni 
 nostri decimo octavo. 
 
 Tenor judicii super Rogerum Damory redditi patet in 
 sequent?.
 
 400 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Placita exercitus domini regis apud Tuttebiri coram 
 Fulcone filio Warini constabulario, Johanne de Westone 
 marescallo et Galfrido Lescrop, die sabbati proxima post 
 festum sancti Gregorii Pape anno regni regis Edwardi 
 filii regis Edwardi quinto decimo. 
 
 Pur ceo qe vous Roger Damory homme lige nostre seig- 
 nour le roy countre vostre fay homage et ligeance faucement 
 et traitrousement alastes en Gales ove baner desplye, chastels 
 et villes robastes et preiastes et preistes sa ville et soun chas- 
 tels de Gloucestre et ylumastes sa ville de Briggenorth et 
 illeok tuastes ses gentz et robastes ses liges gentz et prey- 
 astes le pays par my la terre ou vous estes aleez a feer de 
 gwerre en estruant soun pople taunqe vous venistes al chastel 
 nostre seignour le roi a Tykehulle et ileoqes asigeastes le dit 
 chastel ove baner desplie come enemy nostre seignour le roi 
 et du realme et la tuastes et mauveiastes ses liges gentz et de 
 illeoqes alastes en la cumpaignye des traytours atteyntz 
 Thomas jadys counte de Lancastre et Umfrey jadys counte 
 de Hereford tauntqe a Burton sour Trente et . . . Et si vous 
 Roger ussez eou a ceo la force et le power [les quels tray- 
 sons arsons homicides et roberies chyvaches ove baner des- 
 plye] etc. sount notoires a countes barouns et a altres gentz 
 petiz et grauntz de soen realme agarde nostre seignour le roi 
 de soun real power et recorde, par quei ceste court agarde qe 
 pur la traysoun soiez traynez et pur les homicides arsons et 
 roberies pendutz : mes Roger pur ceo qe nostre seignour le 
 roy vous ad en temps moult amez et fuistes de sa meygne et 
 privez de lui et avez sa nyece esposee nostre dit seignour le 
 roi de sa grace et de sa realte met en respit execucioun de eel 
 jugement a sa volunte. 
 
 Rotulus Viagii, i-n Henry IV, m. 19 (Patent Roll, 
 No. 388) 
 
 Rex carissimo consanguineo suo Thome comiti Arundell 
 ac carissimo fratri suo Thome Beaufort salutem. Sciatis 
 quod cum constabularius et marescallus nostri Anglic in 
 obsequiis nostris partibus borealibus adeo occupati existant 
 quod ad ea que ad hujusmodi officia constabularii et mares-
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 401 
 
 calli Anglic pertinent exercendum ad presens vacare non 
 possunt, nos de fidelitate circumspectione et industria vestris 
 plenius confidentes assignavimus vos prefate comes ad ea 
 omnia et singula que ad dictum officium constabularii, vosque 
 prefate Thoma Beaufort ad ea omnia et singula que ad 
 dictum officium marescalli Anglic pertinent loco ipsorum 
 constabularii et marescalli nostrorum Anglic in absencia sua 
 faciendum et exercendum secundum legem et consuetudinem 
 regni nostri Anglic et curie nostre militaris. Et ideo vobis 
 mandamus quod circa premissa diligenter intendatis et ea 
 faciatis et exequamini in forma predicta. Damus autem 
 universis et singulis vicecomitibus majoribus ballivis con- 
 stabulariis ministris et aliis fidelibus et subditis suis tarn infra 
 libertates quam extra tenore presencium firmiter in mandatis 
 quod vobis in executione premissorum intendentes sint con- 
 sulentes et auxiliantes ac vestris mandatis obedientes prout 
 decet In cujus etc. quamdiu nobis placuerit duraturas. 
 Teste rege apud Bisshoppesthorpe juxta Ebor. vj die Junii. 
 Per ipsum regem. 
 
 Rotulus Viagii, i-ii Henry IV, m. 19 (Patent Roll, 
 No. 388) 
 
 Rex dilectis et fidelibus suis Johanni Stanley senescallo 
 hospicii sui, Thome comiti Arundell, Ricardo comiti Warrwici, 
 Willelmo Gascoigne, Thome Beaufort, Willelmo domino de 
 Ros, Ricardo domino de Grey, Willelmo domino de Wylughby, 
 Reginaldo de Grey domino de Ruthyn, Phillippo domino 
 de Darcy, Willelmo Fulthorp, Henrico Retford et Johanni 
 Conyers salutem. Sciatis quod assignavimus vos duodecim 
 undecim decem nonem octo septem sex quinque quatuor 
 tres et duos vestrum, quorum alterorum vestrum vos prefati 
 Willelme Gascoigne et Johannes Conyers unum esse volumus, 
 justiciaries nostros ad inquirendum per sacramentum pro- 
 borum et legalium hominum tarn infra libertates quam extra 
 per quos rei veritas melius sciri poterit de omnimodis pro- 
 ditionibus insurrectionibus rebellionibus et feloniis per quos- 
 cunque ligeos nostros infra regnum nostrum Anglic factis 
 sive perpetratis et per quos vel per quemcunque quando 
 qualiter et quomodo et de omnibus et singulis articulis et 
 
 2 D
 
 402 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 circumstanciis premissa (sic) qualitercumque convenientibus 
 plenius veritatem et ad easdem prodiciones insurrectiones 
 rebelliones et felonias secundum legem et consuetudinem 
 regni nostri Anglie audiendum et terminandum. Et ideo 
 vobis mandamus quod etc. . . . Teste ut supra [scilicet apud 
 Bisshoppesthorpe juxta Ebor. vj die Junii]. 
 
 Per ipsum regem. 
 
 Proceedings against Richard earl of Cambridge and Henry 
 lord Scrape of Masham for High Treason A.D. 1415 
 
 1 Memorandum quod die Veneris quinto die hujus parlia- 
 menti venit communitas ejusdem parliament! coram domino 
 Johanne duce Bedford custode Anglie ac dominis spiritualibus 
 et temporalibus in parliamento illo existentibus et petiit 
 instanter ibidem et rogavit ut judicia coram commissionariis 
 domini regis nuper apud Suthampton contra Ricardum 
 comitem Cantebr. de Conesburgh in comitatu Ebor. chivaler 
 et Henricum dominum Lescrop de Masham de Faxflete in 
 comitatu Ebor. chivaler et Thomam Gray de Heton in 
 comitatu Northumbr. chivaler de altis proditionibus contra 
 dominum regem et suam regiam majestatem per ipsos per- 
 petratis apud predictam villam Suthampton convictos reddita 
 in instanti parliamento affirmarentur et pro bonis et legalibus 
 judiciis haberentur et tenerentur imperpetuum. Super quo 
 postmodum venerabilis pater Henricus episcopus Wynton 
 cancellarius Anglie recorda et processus, judicia contra pro- 
 ditores predictos nuper apud dictam villam de Suthampton 
 reddita concernentia, et coram domino Thoma duce Clarencie 
 virtute commissionis et brevis regiorum habita, que dominus 
 rex simul cum omnibus et singulis recorda et processus ilia 
 tangentibus postea coram eo in cancellaria sua venire fecit, 
 in parliamentum predictum de mandato dicti custodis detulit, 
 que sequntur in hec verba. Dominus rex mandavit carissimo 
 fratri suo Thome duci Clarencie has literas suas patentes que 
 sequntur in hec verba. Henricus Dei gratia rex Anglie et 
 Francie et dominus Hibernie carissimo fratri suo Thome duci 
 
 1 In margin : Affirmacion de les juggements donez a Suthampton 
 v. Richard count de Cantebrigg et autres.
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 403 
 
 Clarencie salutem. Sciatis quod nos de fidelitate industria 
 et circumspectione vestris plenius confidantes constituimus 
 vos locum nostrum et vicem gerentem ad audiendum recorda 
 et processus coram dilectis et fidelibus nostris Johanne comite 
 Marescallo et sociis suis justiciariis nostris ad omnimodas 
 proditiones felonias conspirationes et confederationes in comi- 
 tatu Suthampton audiendum et terminandum assignatis facta, 
 et ad judicium versus Ricardum comitem Cantebrigg de 
 Conesburgh in comitatu Ebor. chivaler et Henricum dominum 
 Lescrop de Masham de Faxflete in comitatu Ebor. chivaler 
 juxta id quod vobis per recorda et processus predicta constare 
 poterit, vocatis vobis paribus predictorum comitis et Henrici, 
 per vestrum et eorumdem parium communem assensum hac 
 instanti die Lune reddendum et ad executionem ejusdem 
 judicii finaliter procedendum ; dantes vobis et concedentes 
 plenam tenore presentium potestatem auctoritatem et man- 
 datum speciale ad omnia et singula nomine nostro ibidem 
 faciendum exercendum et concedendum que nos faceremus 
 seu facere possemus si ibidem personaliter interessemus, pro- 
 mittentes nos ratum gratum et firmum habituros quicquid per 
 vos nomine nostro factum gestum sive concessum fuerit in 
 premissis vel aliquo premissorum. Damus autem prefatis 
 justiciariis ac aliis quorum interest tenore presentium firmiter 
 in mandatis quod vobis in premissis in forma predicta faciendis 
 et exequendis intendentes sint consulentes et auxiliantes 
 prout decet. Mandavimus insuper prefato comiti Marescallo 
 et sociis suis predictis quod recorda et processus predicta cum 
 omnibus ea tangentibus habeant coram vobis ad diem supra- 
 dictum. In cujus rei testimonium has literas nostras fieri 
 fecimus patentes. Teste me-ipso apud Suthampton quinto 
 die Augusti anno regni nostri tertio. Super quo instanter 
 dominus rex mandavit prefatis Johanni comiti Marescallo et 
 sociis suis justiciariis suis predictis in commissione predicta 
 contentis breve suum clausum de habendo coram prefato duce 
 Clarencie recorda et processus predicta cum omnibus ea tan- 
 gentibus in dictis literis domini regis patentibus specificata 
 quod quidem breve sequitur in hec verba. [Here follows the 
 writ to the commissioners informing them of the above and 
 directing them accordingly. Also letters patent dated at
 
 404 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Porchester the 3ist of July, 1415, appointing the commis- 
 sioners and ordering the sheriff of Southampton to summon 
 a jury for Friday, the 2nd of August. 1 ] Quarum literarum 
 domini regis patentium pretextu preceptum fuit vicecomiti 
 dicti comitatus Suthampton quod non omittet propter aliquam 
 libertatem in balliva sua quin venire faceret coram prefatis 
 justiciariis [etc.] . . . Unde inter alias inquisitiones inquisitio 
 subsequens per sacramentum xij juratorum comitatus predict! 
 capta est que sequitur in hec verba. Suthampton. Inquisitio 
 capta apud villam Suthampton coram prefatis justiciariis dicto 
 die Veneris anno regni dicti domini regis nunc tertio per 
 sacramentum Johannis Chonde, Johannis Lok, Johannis Steer, 
 Johannis Veel, Roberti Upham, Laurentii Hamelyn, Johannis 
 Welere Fyssh, Johannis Colyn, Johannis Penyton, Walteri 
 Hore, Johannis Halle, et Johannis Snell qui dicunt per sacra- 
 mentum suum quod Ricardus comes Cantebrigg . . . et 
 Thomas Gray . . . vicesimo die Julii anno regni regis Henrici 
 quinti post conquestum tertio apud villam Suthampton et in 
 diversis aliis locis infra regnum Anglic falso (et) proditorie 
 conspiraverunt et se invicem confederaverunt . . . [particulars 
 of their treason are given] . . . et quod Henricus Lescrop de 
 Masham . . . fuit consentiens. . . . Ad quern diem Veneris 
 coram prefatis justiciariis apud Suthampton predictam pre- 
 dicti Ricardus comes Cantebrigg, Thomas Gray et Henricus 
 Lescrop per Johannem Popham chivaler constabularium 
 turris Suthampton in cujus custodiam perantea ex speciali 
 mandate domini regis commissi fuerunt veniunt ducti, qui in- 
 stanter super premissis eis impositis seperatim allocuti sunt 
 quid adinde respondere seu se acquietare velint: predicti Ricar- 
 dus comes Cantebrigg et Thomas Gray dicunt seperatim quod 
 ipsi non possunt dedicere quin ipsi culpabiles sint de omnibus 
 et singulis proditionibus conspirationibus et confederationibus 
 predictis modo et forma prout ipsi superius indictati sunt. Et 
 de hiis omnibus et singulis singillatim se ponunt et submittunt 
 in misericordia et gratia domini regis. Et predictus Henricus 
 
 1 In margin : Fait assavoir que les recordes et processes dount 
 en ceste memorandie mencion est fait sont consutz a le dorse de 
 ceste rolle.
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 405 
 
 Lescrop dicit et cognoscit quod predictus Thomas Gray ei 
 primo de materia predicta narravit . . . et quo ad imagina- 
 tionem mortis domini regis et fratrum suorum seu aliorum 
 quorumcumque prout ei superius imponitur dicit quod ipse in 
 nullo est inde culpabilis, et cum hoc dicit quod ipse est 
 dominus et unus parium regni Anglie et petit quod ipse per 
 pares suos regni Anglie, prout moris est, trietur et judicetur : 
 super quo quia prefati justiciarii non avisantur ad judicium 
 super dictis Ricardo comite Cantebrigg et Henrico Lescrop 
 ad presens in premissis reddendum iidem Ricardus comes 
 Cantebrigg et Henricus Lescrop remittuntur custodie 1 dicti 
 Johannis Popham constabularii turris predicti salvo custo- 
 diendi quousque, etc. [Thomas Gray is then sentenced to 
 death and forfeiture.] Quibus quidem recordo et process u 
 virtute dicti brevis dicto duci Clarencie ut premittitur liberatis 
 et per eundem ducem ad ea recipiendum et judicium inde 
 reddendum necnon ad executionem judicii predict! virtute 
 literarum dicti domini regis patentium sibi in hac parte con- 
 fectarum finaliter procedendum ad tune admissis, predicti 
 Ricardus comes Cantebrigg et Henricus dominus Lescrop 
 coram dicto duce Clarencie dicto die Lune apud villam 
 Suthampton predictam per dictum Johannem Popham con- 
 stabularium turris predicti venerunt ad barram ducti. Virtute 
 cujus commissionis idem dux Clarencie instanter vocatis sibi 
 Humfrido duce Gloucestrie fratre suo ac Edwardo duce 
 Eborum per Thomam comitem Dorset 1 nomine et loco ipsius 
 Edwardi ad consentiendum faciendum et judicandum cum 
 dominis predictis in premissis coram ipso rege specialiter 
 constitute et admisso, Edmundo comite March, Johanne 
 comite Huntyndon, Thoma comite Arundel, Johanne comite 
 Marescallo, Thoma comite Dorset, Thoma comite Sarum, 
 Ricardo comite Oxon, Michaele comite Suffolk, Johanne 
 domino de Clifford, Gilberto domino de Talbot, Willielmo 
 domino de Zouche, Johanne domino de Haryndon, Roberto 
 domino de Wylughby, Willielmo domino de Clynton, Johanne 
 
 1 An attention mark, possibly contemporary, appears in the 
 margin.
 
 406 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 domino de Mautrevers, Hugone domino de Boucer, [ J 1 
 
 domino de Botreaux, dominis et magnatibus regni Anglie et 
 paribus dictorum Ricardi comitis Cantebrigg et Henrici 
 domini Lescrop ibidem presentibus et pro viagio domini regis 
 ultra mare intendentibus, visisque et diligenter examinatis 
 recordo et processu cognitionum predictorum Ricardi comitis 
 Cantebrigg et Henrici domini Lescrop ut premittitur necnon 
 inter eosdem dominos et magnates habita inde matura et cir- 
 cumspecta deliberatione, Videtur eisdem duci Clarencie et 
 dominis qd predictus Ricardus comes Cantebrigg . . . et 
 quid predictus Henricus dominus Lescrop . . . qd ipsi ut 
 proditores domini regis et regni sui Anglie in premissis cen- 
 seri debent. Et sic ipsi dux Clarencie et domini omnia et 
 singula eisdem Ricardo comiti Cantebrigg et Henrico domino 
 Lescrop superius imposita et per ipsos cognita ut altam 
 ceditionem domino regi et regno suo Anglie dampnabiliter et 
 nepharie imaginatam conspiratam et confederatam una voce 
 adjudicant et judicialiter affirmant. Per quod ex assensu et 
 plena deliberatione omnium dominorum et magnatum pre- 
 dictorum in premissis consideratum est per ipsum ducem 
 Clarencie ac omnes dominos et magnates predictos quod 
 iidem Ricardus comes Cantebrigg et Henricus dominus 
 Lescrop ut proditores domini regis et regni sui Anglie . . . 
 distrahantur suspendantur et decapitentur, et quod ipsi foris- 
 faciant omnia bona et catalla terras et tenementa sua. . . . 
 Quibus quidem recordis et processibus ac aliis premissis 
 coram ipso custode ac dominis predictis in parliamento ipso 
 lectis et per eosdem plenius intellectis, videtur curie presentis 
 parliamenti quod judicia predicta sic lata rite juste et legitime 
 reddita fuerunt : per quod iidem domini spirituales et tem- 
 porales judicia ilia omnia et singula versus dictos comitem 
 Cantebrigg, Henricum dominum Lescrop et Thomam Gray 
 ut premittitur lata et reddita de assensu dicti custodis affir- 
 marunt fore et esse bona justa et legalia judicia et ea pro 
 hujusmodi decreverunt et adjudicarunt tune ibidem. [Then 
 follows a forfeiture clause.] 
 
 (Parliament Roll, 3 Henry V ; printed Rot. Parl., vol. iv, 
 p. 64.) 
 
 1 A blank space.
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 407 
 
 The following records are sewn on the dorse of this roll : 
 
 (1) The record of the proceedings before the king's com- 
 
 missioners. 
 
 (2) The record of the proceedings before the duke of 
 
 Clarence. 
 
 (3) Writ appointing commissioners, dated 3 1st July. 
 
 (4) Writ to commissioners, dated 1st August. 
 
 (5) The panel. 
 
 (6) The inquisition. 
 
 (7) Writ appointing the duke of Clarence, dated 5th 
 
 August. 
 
 (8) Consequential writ to commissioners of even date. 
 
 (9) Writ directing the duke of Clarence to lodge the 
 
 records in Chancery. 
 
 Patent Roll, I Edward IV.pt. 3, m. 23. Originalia Roll, 
 i Edward IV, m. 99 
 
 Pro comite Wygorn. Rex omnibus ad quos etc. salutem. 
 Sciatis quod cum officium constabularii Anglic jam vacat 
 et in manibus nostris existat ac nos de fidelitate probitate 
 et provida circumspectione carissimi consanguinei nostri 
 Johannis comitis Wygorn quam plurimum confidentes con- 
 cessimus eidem consanguineo nostro officium constabularii 
 Anglie habendum occupandum gerendum et exercendum 
 officium illud in omnibus et singulis que ad idem officium 
 pertinent quamdiu nobis placuerit cum omnibus feodis vadiis 
 et commoditatibus eidem officio ab antique debitis et con- 
 suetis eo quod expressa mencio de aliis donis sive con- 
 cessionibus prefato consanguineo nostro per nos perantea 
 factis in presentibus minime facta extitit non obstante. In 
 cujus etc. Teste rege apud Westmonasterium vij die Febuarii. 
 Per ipsum regem oretenus. 
 
 Patent Roll, 7 Edward IV, pt. I, m. 9 
 
 Pro Ricardo Wydevyll comite de Ryvers. Rex omnibus 
 ad quos etc. salutem. Sciatis quod cum nos septimo die 
 Febuarii anno regni nostri primo de fidelitate probitate et pro- 
 vida circumspectione carissimi consanguinei nostri Johannis
 
 4o8 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 comitis Wygorn plurimus considerantes per literas nostras 
 patentes concesserimus eidem Johanni consanguineo nostro 
 officium constabularii Anglic habendum occupandum geren- 
 dum et exercendum officium illud in omnibus et singulis que 
 ad idem officium pertinerent quamdiu nobis placeret cum 
 omnimodis feodis vadiis et commoditatibus eidem officio ab 
 antique debitis et consuetis eo quod expressa mencio de aliis 
 donis et concessionibus prefato consanguineo per nos perantea 
 factis in literis predictis minime facta extitit non obstante, 
 et ulterius de certa scientia nostra ac certis probabilibus et 
 urgentibus causis nos in ea parte moventibus eidem con- 
 sanguineo nostro plenam potestatem et auctoritatem dederi- 
 mus et commiserimus ad cognoscendum et procedendum in 
 omnibus et singulis causis et negotiis de et super crimine 
 lese majestatis seu ipsius occasione ceterisque causis qui- 
 buscumque per prefatum comitem ut constabularium Anglie 
 seu coram eo ex officio seu ad instantiam partis qualiter- 
 cumque motis movendis seu pendentibus que in curia con- 
 stabularii Anglie ab antique videlicet tempore domini 
 Willelmi conquestoris quondam regis Anglie progenitoris 
 nostri seu aliquo tempore citra tractari audiri examinari et 
 decidi consueverunt aut de jure debuerunt seu deberent 
 causasque et negotia predicta cum omnibus et singulis suis 
 emergentibus incidentibus et connexis audiendum examinan- 
 dum et fine debito terminandum etiam summarie et de piano 
 sine strepitu et figura judicii sola facti veritate inspecta ac 
 etiam manu regia si opportunum visum foret eidem Johanni 
 consanguineo nostro vices nostras appellatione remota ex mero 
 motu et certa scientia nostra predicta similiter commiserimus 
 plenariam potestatem cum cujuslibet pene multe et ulterius 
 cohercionis legittimeque executionis rerum que in ea parte 
 decerneret facultate ceteraque omnia et singula que ad 
 officium constabularii Anglie pertinerent faciendi exercendi 
 et exequendi statutis ordinationibus actibus et restrictionibus 
 in contrarium editis ceterisque contrariis non obstantibus 
 quibuscunque prout in literis predictis plenius continetur. 
 Jamque idem comes in voluntate existit literas nostras pre- 
 dictas nobis in cancellariam nostram restituere ibidem can- 
 cellandas ad intentionem quod nos officium predictum
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 409 
 
 predilecto et fidelissimo nobis Ricardo Widevill comiti de 
 Ryvers domino de Grafton et de la Mote patri preclarissime 
 consortis nostre regine in forma sequenti habendum conce- 
 dere dignaremus: nos nedum premissa verum etiam internam 
 affectionem quam idem comes de Ryvers penes personam 
 nostram habet et gerit intime considerantes ac pro eo quod 
 idem comes Wygorn literas nostras predictas nobis in 
 cancellariam nostram predictam ad intentionem predictam 
 restituit cancellandas de fidelitate strenuitate probitate et 
 circumspectione provida prefati comitis de Ryvers plurimus 
 confidentes de gratia nostra speciali concessimus eidem comiti 
 de Ryvers dictum officium constabularii Anglic habendum 
 occupandum gerendum et exercendum officium illud per se 
 vel per sufficientes deputatos suos sive sufficientem deputatum 
 suum pro termino vite ipsius comitis de Ryvers in omnibus et 
 singulis que ad idem officium pertinent percipiendo annuatim 
 in et pro officio predicto ducentas libras ad receptam scaccarii 
 nostri per manus thesaurarii et camerariorum nostrorum 
 ibidem pro tempore existentium ad terminos sancti Michaelis 
 archangeli et Pasche per equales portiones unacum omni- 
 modis aliis proficuis commoditatibus et emolumentis quibus- 
 cumque officio predicto qualitercumque pertinentibus et ab 
 antique debitis et consuetis, et ulterius de uberiori gratia 
 nostra ac ex certa scientia nostra ac certis probabilibus et 
 urgentibus causis nos in hac parte moventibus eidem comiti 
 de Ryvers plenam potestatem et auctoritatem damus et corn- 
 mittimus ad cognoscendum et procedendum in omnibus et 
 singulis causis et negotiis de et super crimine lese majestatis 
 seu ipsius occasione ceterisque causis quibuscumque per pre- 
 fatum comitem de Ryvers ut constabularium Anglic seu coram 
 eo ex officio seu ad instantiam partis qualitercumque motis 
 movendis seu pendentibus que in curia constabularii Anglic 
 ab antique videlicet tempore dicti domini Willelmi conques- 
 toris progenitoris nostri seu aliquo tempore citra tractari 
 audiri examinari et decidi consueverunt aut de jure debuerunt 
 seu debent causasque et negotia predicta cum omnibus et 
 singulis emergentibus incidentibus et connexis audiendum 
 examinandum et fine debito terminandum etiam summarie 
 et de piano sine strepitu et figura judicii sola facte (sic)
 
 4 io THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 veritate inspecta ac etiam manu regia si opportunum visum 
 fuerit eidem comiti de Ryvers vices nostras appellatione 
 remota, ex mero motu et scientia predicta nostra similiter 
 committimus plenariam potestatem cum cujuslibet pene multe 
 et alterius cohercionis legitime executionisque rerum quas in 
 hac parte decreverit facultate ceteraque omnia que ad officium 
 constabularii Anglic pertinent faciendi exercendi et exe- 
 quendi aliquibus statutis actibus ordinationibus et restrictioni- 
 bus in contrarium factis ordinatis editis seu provisis aut aliqua 
 alia re causa vel materia quacumque non obstantibus : et 
 insuper quamquam idem comes de Ryvers adhuc superstes 
 sit ac dictum officium habeat et occupet ut est justum nos 
 tamen certis considerationibus nos specialiter moventibus de 
 gratia nostra speciali concessimus predilecto et fideli nostro 
 Antonio Widevill domino de Scales et de Nusell filio prefati 
 comitis de Ryvers ac fratri ejusdem consortis nostre regine 
 dictum officium constabularii Anglie habendum occupandum 
 gerendum et exercendum officium illud per se vel per 
 sufficientes deputatos suos sive sufficientem deputatum suum 
 pro termino vite ejusdem Antonii in omnibus et singulis que 
 ad idem officium pertinent immediate post mortem sive de- 
 cessum prefati comitis de Ryvers vel quamcito officium illud 
 quacunque de causa in proximo vacare contingat percipiendo 
 annuatim in et pro officio illo ducentas libras ad dictam 
 receptam scaccarii nostri per manus thesaurarii et camerari- 
 orum nostrorum predictorum ibidem pro tempore existentium 
 ad terminos predictos per equales portiones unacum omni- 
 modis aliis proficuis commoditatibus et emolumentis quibus- 
 cumque officio predicto qualitercumque pertinentibus et ab 
 antique debitis et consuetis eo quod expressa mencio de vero 
 valore annuo officii predicti seu ceterorum premissorum aut 
 alicujus eorundem aut de aliis donis sive concessionibus 
 eisdem comiti de Ryvers et Antonio seu eorum alteri per nos 
 ante hec tempora factis in presentibus minime facta existit 
 aut aliquo statuto actu ordinatione sive provisione in con- 
 trarium factis ordinatis sive provisis non obstantibus, et 
 ulterius de habundanti gratia nostra ac ex certa scientia 
 nostra predicta eidem Antonio plenam potestatem et auctori- 
 tatem damus et committimus pro nobis et heredibus nostris
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 411 
 
 ad cognoscendum et procedendum immediate post mortem 
 sive decessum prefati comitis de Ryvers vel quamcito officium 
 predictum quacumque de causa in proximo ut predictum est 
 vacare continget in omnibus et singulis causis et negotiis de 
 et super crimine lese majestatis seu ipsius occasione ceterisque 
 causis quibuscumque per prefatum Antonium ut constabu- 
 larium Anglie seu coram eo ex officio seu ad instantiam 
 partis qualitercumque motis vel movendis seu pendentibus 
 que in curia constabularii Anglie ab antique videlicet tempore 
 dicti domini Willelmi conquestoris seu aliquo tempore citra 
 tractari audiri examinari et decidi consueverunt aut de jure 
 debuerunt seu debebunt causasque et negotia predicta cum 
 omnibus et singulis emergentibus incidentibus et connexis 
 audiendum examinandum et fine debito terminandum etiam 
 summarie et de piano sine strepitu et figura judicii sola facti 
 veritate inspecta ac etiam manu regia si opportunum visum 
 fuerit eidem Antonio vices nostras appellatione remota, ex 
 mero motu et scientia nostris predictis similiter committimus 
 plenariam potestatem cum cujuslibet pene et multe et alterius 
 cohercionis legittime executionisque rerum que tune in hac 
 parte decreverit facultate ceteraque omnia et singula que ad 
 officium constabularii Anglie pertinent faciendi exercendi et 
 exequendi statutis ordinationibus actibus et restrictionibus 
 in contrarium ut predictum est factis ordinatis editis sive 
 provisis non obstantibus : damus autem universis et singulis 
 officiariis et ministris ac fidelibus ligeis et subditis nostris et 
 heredum nostrorum quibuscumque necnon aliis quorum in- 
 terest in hac parte tenore presentium firmiter in mandatis quod 
 tam eidem comiti de Ryvers quam prefato Antonio post mor- 
 tem sive decessum ejusdem comitis vel quam cito officium pre- 
 dictum quacumque de causa in proximo ut premittitur vacare 
 continget in executione premissorum intendentes sint assis- 
 tentes auxiliantes et obedientes in omnibus diligenter. In cujus 
 etc. Teste rege apud Westmonasterium xxiiij die Augusti. 
 
 Per breve de private sigillo 1 et de data predicta, etc. 
 
 (Printed Rymer, Foedera O.S., vol. xi, p. 581. Here the 
 words "auctoritate parliament " occur after " de data predicta." 
 No such words occur on the roll.) 
 
 1 No. 2196.
 
 412 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Patent Roll, 10 Edward IV, m. 12 
 
 Pro Johanne comite Wygornie. Rex omnibus ad quos 
 etc. salutem. Sciatis quod nos considerantes bona et laud- 
 abilia servitia que dilectus consanguineus noster Johannes 
 comes Wygornie nobis ante hec tempora impendit ordin- 
 amus et constituimus ipsum Johannem constabularium 
 nostrum Anglie ac officium constabularii nostri Anglie 
 eidem Johanni damus et concedimus per presentes haben- 
 dum occupandum et exercendum officium illud per se vel 
 suum sufficientem deputatum pro termino vite sue adeo 
 plene et integre prout ipse Johannes aut aliquis alius ante 
 hec tempora habuit exercuit seu occupavit percipiendo et 
 recipiendo de nobis et heredibus nostris omnia vadia feoda 
 regarda et proficua officio illi debita et consueta ad recep- 
 tam scaccarii nostri per manus thesaurarii et camerariorum 
 ejusdem scaccarii pro tempore existentium ad festa Pasche 
 et sancti Michaelis Archangeli annuatim durante vita sua 
 equis portionibus : dantes et concedentes eidem Johanni 
 plenam potestatem et auctoritatem ad faciendum exercen- 
 dum et exequendum per se vel suum sufficientem deputatum 
 omne id quod ad officium predictum pertinet : damus autem 
 omnibus et singulis vicecomitibus constabulariis ballivis et 
 omnibus aliis officiariis et ministris nostris [firmiter in man- 
 datis] ut eidem Johanni et deputato suo in exequendo 
 officium predictum sint obedientes auxiliantes assistentes 
 et confortantes in omnibus prout decet aliquo statuto actu 
 ordinatione seu restrictione ante hec tempora edita facta 
 seu pro visa in aliquo non obstante. In cujus etc. Teste 
 rege apud Stamford xiiij die Marcii. 
 
 Per ipsum regem etc. et de data etc. 
 
 Patent Roll, 17 Ed^zvard IV, pt. 2, m. 19 
 
 Rex carissimo consanguineo suo Henrico duci Bukingham 
 salutem. Sciatis quod cum Georgius nuper dux Clarencie, 
 per nomen Georgii ducis Clarencie, de alta proditione per 
 ipsum erga personam nostram regiam facta et perpetrata 
 auctoritate presentis parliament! nostri convictus sit et
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 413 
 
 attinctus ; ac nos considerantes quod justicia est virtus 
 excellens Altissimo multipliciter complacens per quam 
 regna prosperantur reges et principes regnant et gubern- 
 ant omne bonum regimen policia et bonum publicum 
 manutenentur et supportantur, quam virtutem ad Dei com- 
 placenciam pre aliqua carnali affectione sequi et ea uti 
 intendimus ut debemus, multoque magis pro eo quod vin- 
 culo consciencie nostre et per solempne juramentum erga 
 Deum sub pena perpetue damnationis primo pro securitate 
 persone nostre regie et exitus nostri secundarie pro tran- 
 quilitate et defensione ecclesie Xti infra regnum nostrum 
 Anglic et tercio pro bono publico pace et tranquilitate 
 regni nostri predicti ac dominorum et nobilium et tocius 
 communitatis ejusdem cujuscumque gradus et condicionis 
 existant necnon in evitacionem effusionis sanguinis Xtiani 
 prospicere constringimur, licet propinquitas sanguinis et in- 
 ternus et teneris amor quern ad prefatum Georgium in teneri 
 etate sua habuimus et gerebamus nos ad contrarium natur- 
 aliter movent et exhortant ; hinc est quod pro eo quod 
 officium senescalli Anglie cujus presencia pro consideracione 
 executionis judicii fiendi in hac parte requiritur ut accepimus 
 jam vacat, ac nos de fidelitate provida circumspectione et 
 industria vestris plenius confidentes ordinamus et constitui- 
 mus vos senescallum Anglie ad officium illud ex causa pre- 
 dicta cum omnibus eidem officio debite pertinentibus hac vice 
 gerendum occupandum et exercendum, dantes et concedentes 
 vobis tenore presentium plenam [et] sufficientem potestatem 
 et auctoritatem ac mandatum speciale ad ea omnia et singula 
 que ad officium senescalli Anglie in hac parte pertinent et 
 requiruntur hac vice ex causa predicta faciendum exercen- 
 dum et exequendum. Et ideo vobis mandamus quod circa 
 officium predictum diligenter intendatis et illud faciatis et 
 exequamini in forma predicta ; damus autem universis et 
 singulis quorum interest in hac parte tenore presentium 
 firmiter in mandatis quod vobis in executione officii pre- 
 dicti intendentes sint consulentes faventes auxiliantes et 
 obedientes in omnibus diligenter. In cujus etc. Date in 
 parliamento nostro apud Westmonasterium vij die Febuarii. 
 Per ipsum regem et de data predicta etc.
 
 4 i4 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Patent Roll, 12 Henry VII, pt. 2, m. 4 (24) 
 
 Rex dilecto et fideli suo Johanni Dynham de Dynham 
 militi thesaurario nostro Anglic ac dilectis sibi Johanni Dygby 
 militi nostro marescallo, Willelmo Vampage militi et Roberto 
 Rydon consilii nostri clerico salutem. Cum jam pridem 
 Jacobus Audeley nuper dominus Jacobus Audeley de Audeley 
 miles aggregatis sibi quampluribus de subditis nostris comita- 
 tuum nostrorum Cornubie et Devonie aliarumque parcium 
 hujus regni nostri Anglic in ingenti numero proditorie con- 
 gregati timorem Dei offensamque nostre regie majestatis 
 postponentes nostri omniumque et singulorum [nobilium] 
 prodicionem aliorumque fidelium subditorum nostrorum de- 
 structionem ac totius regni nostri extremam subversionem 
 falso et proditorie machinantes et intendentes et ad suorum 
 hujusmodi nephandissimum propositum et execrabilem in- 
 tencionem perimplendum bellicis et invasionis armis induti 
 guerram contra nos pleno campo levatis et extensis velis 
 inierunt pugnamque et bellum letale proditorie intulerunt in 
 nostrum maximum periculum ac lesionem majestatis et digni- 
 tatis corone nostre regie que nolumus sicuti nee debemus 
 relinquere impunita : hinc est quod nos de fidelitatibus in- 
 dustriis et providis circumspectionibus vestris quamplurimum 
 confidentes vos nostros veros et indubitatos commissarios ad 
 tractandum expediendum et exequendum ea omnia et singula 
 que ad officium constabularii et marescalli Anglic pertinent 
 in hac parte facienda assignamus facimus constituimus et 
 deputamus per presentes dantes et concedentes vobis plenam 
 tenore presentium potestatem et auctoritatem ac mandatum 
 speciale ad ipsum Jacobum Audeley coram vobis ad certos 
 dies et loca quos ad hoc provideritis et ubi magis expediens 
 videritis evocandum et venire faciendum ac ipsum de et 
 super feloniis criminibus et delictis antedictis examinandum 
 et responderi (sic) faciendum et compellendum ac quoscunque 
 testes et probaciones requisitas et necessarias in hac parte 
 producendum audiendum et recipiendum et admittendum 
 ac diligenter examinandum ac ad veritatem in ea parte 
 dicendum penis et multis ac aliis viis modis et mediis licitis 
 astringendum et compellendum veritate computata ad judi-
 
 THE COURT OF CHIVALRY 415 
 
 cium secundum leges et consuetudines coram constabulario 
 et marescallo hactenus usitatas sine strepitu et figura judicii 
 sola rei veritate inspecta procedendum audiendum et termi- 
 nandum ipsumque Jacobum ad penas mortis et membrorum 
 seu alias penas et puniciones prout opus et vobis visum fuerit 
 adjudicandum sentenciandum et condempnandum et debite 
 executionem demandandum ceteraque faciendum et perim- 
 plendum que in premissis seu circa ea necessaria fuerint seu 
 quomodolibet opportuna. Et ideo etc. Damus autem etc. 
 Teste rege apud Westmonasterium. 
 
 Per ipsum regem et de data predicta etc.
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 
 THE INSTITUTION OF THE COURT OF THE 
 LORD HIGH STEWARD 
 
 IF our ancient law reports, the Year Books, were to be 
 implicitly relied upon, the first case tried before the court 
 of the lord high steward occurred early in the year 1400. 
 I fear even our most modern reports do not, scientifically 
 speaking, afford first-rate evidence of either the facts or the 
 law set forth in them. 1 However, the mediaeval case which 
 we are going to discuss is something more than unreliable : 
 it is, as I shall endeavour to demonstrate, an absolute forgery. 
 The following is a substantially verbatim translation : 2 
 
 The First Year of Henry the Fourth 
 
 C rown The earl of H. was indicted of high treason before 
 
 How a lord the mayor and justices, in that he with other persons 
 should be tried agreed to make a mumming on the night of the 
 by kts peers Epiphany, in which they agreed to kill the king then 
 being at Windsor. And then the king made commission to the earl 
 of D., reciting that the G. (lou G.) the earl of H. was indicted of 
 high treason by him done against his person, and that he wished 
 right to be done ; and, because the office of steward of England was 
 then void, he granted that office to the said earl of D. to do right to 
 the said earl of H., commanding by virtue of the commission all 
 lords to be attendant on him ; and commanding also, by virtue of 
 the commission, the constable of the Tower to attend upon him 
 and convey the prisoner S. the earl of H. before the said earl of D., 
 
 1 That eminent body, the Incorporated Council of Law Report- 
 ing, is hardly likely to agree with this statement ; but, to persons 
 not biassed by a legal training, it will be perfectly obvious that 
 each judge ought at least to revise and sign the proofs of his reported 
 cases. There is no such rule in force. 
 
 2 See appendix for a transcript of this case collated from the 
 various editions of the Year Books. 
 
 416
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 417 
 
 on such day as should be thereto assigned. And thereupon, on 
 a certain day, the said earl of D. sat in the hall of Westminster 
 under a cloth of estate by himself apart. And the earl of West- 
 moreland, and all other earls and lords there, sat by a great space 
 from him, but not on the same bench but on other forms downward 
 in the said hall. And all the justices and barons of the exchequer 
 sat in the midst round a table between the said lords. And then 
 three oyez were solemnly made by the crier, and the said commission 
 was read. And then the justices delivered the indictment to the 
 said seneschal, who delivered it to the clerk of the crown, who read 
 it to the said earl of H., who confessed it; whereupon Hill, one of 
 the king's Serjeants, prayed that the said lord steward would give 
 judgment, upon which he rehearsed the said matter, and then gave 
 judgment that he should go to the Tower of London, and from 
 there that he should be drawn to the gallows, and let down again 
 still living, and that then [his entrails should be drawn out of his 
 body and burnt, and that] he should be beheaded and quartered, 
 and so may God have mercy on his soul. And all the justices said 
 that, if the said Earl would have denied the treason, then the 
 steward should demand of each lord separately and openly [when 
 they gave their verdict] what he thought on his conscience, and he 
 should begin first with the junior lord. And if the greater number 
 should say guilty then the judgment shall be given as above. And 
 no lord shall be sworn upon that, etc. 
 
 The various editions of the Year Books all agree in giving 
 only the initials instead of the name of the earl tried, but 
 the date and the reference to the mumming prevent any 
 possibility of doubt as to the person indicated. The report 
 must refer to John Holand, earl of Huntingdon. In the 
 same way the initial given for the earl who was appointed 
 steward of England can only stand for Edward earl of Devon. 
 
 The affair in question is commonly known as the earl of 
 Kent's rebellion. There were altogether four earls engaged 
 in the conspiracy, namely Kent, Huntingdon, Salisbury and 
 Rutland. 1 An invitation for a tournament to be held at 
 Windsor on the feast of the Epiphany seemed to offer the 
 
 1 One of the chief conspirators was lord Despencer who had 
 recently been deprived of his earldom of Gloucester. Rutland's 
 share in the plot is a controverted question which cannot be dealt 
 with here. 
 
 2
 
 4 i8 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 necessary facilities for a coup de main. Armed men were 
 to be introduced into the castle concealed in carts laden with 
 materials for the jousts. 1 The conspiracy appears to have 
 been matured on or about the 6th of December. On the 4th 
 of January Rutland is said to have revealed the plot to his 
 father, the duke of York, who instantly informed the king 
 at Windsor. Henry took horse the same evening and, 
 accompanied by his sons and one or two attendants, spurred 
 to London. On the 5th of January, writs were issued for 
 the arrest of Kent, Huntingdon and the other rebels, and 
 the seizure of their property. 2 On the 6th, a special mandate 
 was despatched to Calais ; 3 and on the same day Henry's 
 military preparations were so far completed that he was able 
 to march out of London at the head of an army mustering 
 about 20,000 men. 
 
 Meanwhile the rebels had succeeded in capturing Windsor 
 town and castle, but they had searched vainly for the king. 
 It was, however, too late to draw back : they made the best 
 of a desperate undertaking and collected what forces they 
 
 1 For a general account of this conspiracy see Wylie, History of 
 Henry IV, vol. i ; and for an account of Huntingdon's share in it 
 see Diet. Nat. Biog., s.v. Holand. 
 
 - Rex vicecomitibus Londonie salutem. Quibusdam arduis et 
 urgentibus causis nos specialiter moventibus ac personam nostram 
 et regnum nostrum Anglic intime tangentibus, vobis in fide et 
 ligeantia quibus nobis tenemini et sub forisfactura omnium que 
 nobis forisfacere poteritis precipimus et districtius quo possumus in- 
 jungimus et mandamus quod Thomam comitem Kantie et Johannem 
 comitem Huntingdonie ac quoscumque alios in comitiva sua 
 existentes tanquam proditores nostros et regni nostri ubicumque 
 inveniri poterunt in balliva vestra tarn infra libertates quam extra, 
 assumpto vobiscum si necesse merit posse ballive vestre predicte, 
 sine dilatione arestari et capi et eos salvo et secure custodiri, ac 
 omnia terras tenementa bona et catalla ipsorum comitum in dicta 
 balliva vestra in manus nostras capi et seiziri et ea salvo et secure 
 similiter custodiri faciatis, quousque aliter in hac parte duxerimus 
 demandandum. . . . Teste rege apud Westm. v die Januarii. Per 
 ipsum regem. 
 
 Consimilia brevia diriguntur singulis vicecomitibus per Angliam, 
 ac vicecomiti Lancastrie. (Close Roll, i Henry IV, pt. i, m. 22d.) 
 
 3 Close Roll, i Henry IV, pt. i, m. 23. (Printed by Rymer, 
 Foedera O.S., viii, p. 120.)
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 419 
 
 could. Their first brush with the enemy took place near 
 Maidenhead, when they effected a successful retreat in the 
 face of superior numbers. The retreat continued as far as 
 Cirencester, which was reached on January 7th. Kent, Salis- 
 bury and some others took up their quarters in the town ; 
 their disheartened men encamped outside. By the following 
 morning the rebellion had become a complete fiasco ; the 
 rebel army had melted away like snow in summer ; its 
 leaders were prisoners in the abbey of the Austin Canons. 
 It so happened that Kent and Salisbury never left Ciren- 
 cester alive. A panic occurred in the town soon after their 
 capture ; a mob overpowered authority ; the two earls were 
 haled from prison and summarily beheaded in open street. 1 
 
 The earl of Huntingdon took no part in this disastrous 
 affair. A French account, it is true, has it that the earl was 
 at Cirencester with the others, but escaped from a window in 
 the darkness : this is certainly untrue. 2 Huntingdon, in fact, 
 had been detailed to watch the progress of events in London; 
 and, as soon as he realised that the plot had failed, he en- 
 deavoured to escape down the Thames and make for France. 
 He embarked at Billingsgate with his retinue in a barge and 
 a small boat, taking with him a considerable quantity of 
 silver plate, jewels and other valuables. Unfavourable winds 
 drove him on to the Essex shore. He first sought the 
 friendly shelter of Hadleigh castle ; then tried once more 
 to make headway down the estuary, but escape by water 
 was out of the question. He appears to have landed again 
 at Leigh, in the hundred of Rochford, and was soon after 
 
 1 A large amount of unpublished material exists for a history of 
 this rebellion. See, for example, Controlment Roll, i Henry IV, 
 m. 7 (Gloucester); Memoranda Roll K.R., 2 Henry IV., Hil. 
 Adhuc. Recorda, m. 24, etc.; ibid., 3 Henry IV, Hil. Adhuc. 
 Recorda, mm. 23-34; Memoranda Roll L.T.R., 3 Henry IV, 
 Pasch. Adhuc. Recorda, m. 30, etc. 
 
 2 The French version is given (inter alios) by Waurin, Rolls 
 Series, 39, ii ; the Chronique de la Traison et Mort de Richard II, 
 Eng. Hist. Soc. ; and Froissart, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, vol. xvi. 
 According to Froissart, who at this period is more than usually 
 misinformed, Huntingdon fell fighting at Cirencester, while Sir 
 Thomas Shelley, his faithful servant, was executed before the 
 coronation of Henry.
 
 420 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 captured by the posse comitatus. They carried the earl 
 north to Chelmsford, where the populace prepared to deal 
 with him as his co-conspirators had been dealt with at Ciren- 
 cester. For the moment the people were baulked of their 
 prey by the intervention of Joan de Bohun, countess of 
 Hereford and mother-in-law to the king. The countess suc- 
 ceeded in conveying him to the neighbouring castle of 
 Fleshy, and she then despatched a messenger to inform 
 Henry: in some accounts she is said to have added a request 
 that the king would send the earl of Arundel to avenge him 
 of his father's death. 1 Arundel is stated to have gone to 
 Fleshy, and it is at least a plausible view that he had received 
 orders from the king to bring the earl of Huntingdon to the 
 Tower. 
 
 1 I have not attempted to give a detailed account of Hunting- 
 don's capture and death. Extracts from the various contemporary 
 chroniclers, etc., relating to the last movements and fate of Hunting- 
 don have been collected in the appendix. The best account of 
 Huntingdon's flight, until he reached Hadleigh in Essex, is afforded 
 by the sworn testimony of William Peion. The goods and chattels 
 of the earl and his esquire Sir Thomas Shelley were accounted for 
 by the king's escheator in pursuance of an inquisition held at Leigh 
 above-mentioned. These included the earl's great and little seal. 
 Huntingdon is said, on excellent authority, to have been captured 
 at the house of John Pritewell, but I reject the view of Wylie (op. 
 cit. i, 103) that this was Barrow Hall near Wakering : in face of the 
 above inquisition it seems highly improbable that Huntingdon went 
 so far. John Pritewell was at the time in possession of the manor 
 of Prittlewell near Leigh, which formerly belonged to the duke of 
 Gloucester, and was soon after restored to his widow. It is quite 
 likely that John was residing at the chief messuage of Prittlewell 
 and that Huntingdon was captured there. John was given posses- 
 sion of the manor by letters patent dated October i6th, 1399 
 (Originalia, i Henry IV, pt. i, m. 3), at a yearly rent of ^23. 6s. 8d. 
 He was ordered to give up possession by letters patent dated Octo- 
 ber 8th, 2 Henry IV. (See generally Exch. Mem. Roll L.T.R., 
 2 Henry IV, Mich. Adhuc. Recorda, m. 17, and Pipe Roll, 
 i Henry IV, Essex, m. 2, s.v. Nova Oblata.) 
 
 Some of Huntingdon's portable property came to the hands of 
 the countess of Hereford. 
 
 Bona eomitis Huntingdon. Memorandum quod vicesimo sexto 
 [die] Januarii anno regni regis Henrici quarti primo, Domina 
 Johanna comitissa Herefordie liberavit consilio domini regis par- 
 cellas subscriptas de bonis Johannis Holand eomitis Huntingdon
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 421 
 
 The capture of the rebel earl can hardly have been effected 
 later than January 8th, for the king received the news on or 
 before January Qth. I think this is a necessary inference 
 from the peculiar circumstance that letters close issued on 
 the last-mentioned day, directing that the countess of Here- 
 ford was to be given possession of Huntingdon's house in 
 Thames Street. 1 On the loth of January the archbishop 
 of Canterbury, in a letter written from London, refers to 
 the death of Kent and Salisbury at Cirencester, and also 
 mentions that Huntingdon and his followers have been 
 captured in Essex and Kent. 2 Moreover, on the same day, 
 the king sent letters close to the constable of the Tower 
 of London, directing him to receive the earl of Huntingdon 
 
 tanquam regi forisfactas, et ibidem per idem consilium commissas 
 Thesaurario et Camerario salvo custodiendas. In primis unum par 
 de trussyngcofres cordis ligatum et sigillatum. Item unum besagium 
 continens diversa vessellamenta argentea. Item duo salaria argentea 
 et deaurata ** cum cooperculis argenteis et deauratis pounsenez de 
 cheres de furment. Item unum aquarium argenteum et deauratum. 
 (Exchequer Kal. and Inv. R.C., ii, p. 85.) 
 
 1 Close Roll, i Henry IV, pt. i, m. 22 : Rex dilecto sibi Thome 
 Knollys majori civitatis sue London salutem. Quibusdam certis de 
 causis nos specialiter moventibus vobis mandamus quod statim visis 
 presentibus hospicium quod fuit Johannis de Holand comitis de 
 Huntingdon in Themestrete London cum pertinentiis in manum 
 nostram capi et seisiri et hospicium illud Johanne comitisse Hereford 
 liberari faciatis habendum ad voluntatem nostram. Teste rege apud 
 Westm. ix die Januarii. 
 
 Per ipsum regem nunciante archiepiscopo Cantuar. 
 
 2 Lit. Cantuar., Rolls Series, 85, iii, p. 74 : Hoc siquidem genus 
 sceleris detestabilis non potuit divina potentia diu sine vindicta 
 impunitum relinquere, sed sine morae diffugio, mentale parricidium, 
 faetidaeque ingratitudinis piaculum, subita maledictione percussit, 
 ipsosque sceleris auctores, ut designemus in specie, comites Kanciae 
 et Sarum, dominos Radulphum Lomley, Thomam Blount et Bene- 
 dictum Cely, ac alios sancta rusticitas, quae omnia palam facit, 
 apud Cirencestriam comprehendit ; nee solum comprehendit, sed, 
 ne forte supervenirent qui potuerint hujusmodi captives [manijbus 
 ipsorum eripere, dictos comites et Radulphum Lomley decapitavit, 
 residues domini nostri regis judiciis reservando ; aliosque quasi a 
 facie Dei super terrain profugos, taliter *** scavit quod comitem 
 Huntyngdon, dominum Thomam Schelley, et plures alios in Essexia 
 et Cancia captives detinet vis regalis. . . . Scriptum in domo habit- 
 acionis nostrae Londoniae, decimo die Januarii.
 
 422 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 from the person who would deliver him into custody on the 
 king's behalf. 1 
 
 Huntingdon was not imprisoned in the Tower, nor was he 
 given any trial. Shortly after his arrival at Fleshy he was 
 unceremoniously and cruelly executed outside the castle walls 
 in the presence of a great gathering of people. 2 It is said 
 that a rough block was extemporised on the very spot where 
 Richard the Second, on the advice of Huntingdon, had 
 treacherously seized the duke of Gloucester. The monks 
 buried the earl's body in the neighbouring collegiate church, 
 but his head was taken to London and set up on London 
 Bridge. 3 
 
 It is not easy to fix precisely the day of the earl's death : 
 there is considerable conflict of evidence. The dates found 
 by various inquisitions range from the 7th to the :6th of 
 January. 4 Two chroniclers mention a date and these agree 
 
 1 Close Roll, i Henry IV, pt. i, m. 22. (Printed by Rymer, 
 Foedera O.S., viii, p. 121): Rex constabulario Turris sue London, 
 et ejus locumtenenti salutem. Mandamus vobis quod Johannem 
 comitem Huntingdonie ab eo qui ipsum vobis ex parte nostra 
 liberabit recipiatis et in Turri predicta salvo et secure quousque 
 aliter in hac parte duxerimus demandandum custodiatis. Et hoc 
 nullatenus omittatis. Teste rege apud Westm. x die Januarii. 
 
 Per consilium. 
 
 2 See Appendix. 
 
 3 Close Roll, i Henry IV, pt. i, m. 12 : Order to take down head 
 of Huntingdon from London Bridge, dated igth February. 
 
 Ibid., m. 1 6. De sepeliendo caput comitis Huntingdon: Rex 
 magistro sive custodi collegii ecclesie de Plessy salutem. Cum de 
 gratia nostra speciali et ad supplicationem carissime sororis nostre 
 Elizabeth Lancastrie que fuit uxor Johannis nuper comitis Hunting- 
 don, qui nuper una cum aliis proditoribus nostris erga nos et 
 ligeanciam suam proditorie insurrexit, concessimus prefate sorori 
 nostre caput prefati nuper comitis sepeliendum : vobis mandamus 
 quod caput predictum ab eo qui vobis illud ex parte prefate sororis 
 nostre liberabit recipiatis et cum corpore prefati nuper comitis, 
 ibidem ut dicitur sepulto, sepelire faciatis. Et hoc nullatenus 
 omittatis. Teste rege apud Westm. xx die Febuarii. 
 
 Per ipsum Regem. 
 
 4 Escheators' Inquisitions, File 1964, no. 5 (4 Henry V). Et 
 dicunt quod prefatus nuper comes obiit vij die Januarii anno regni 
 regis Henrici quarti prime. (A lengthy and very careful inquisition.) 
 Ibid., no. sa. This gives the same date. The above are not inquests
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 423 
 
 in saying that the earl was murdered on the night of the 
 1 5th of January. 1 In my opinion it is most probable that he 
 died on the night of either the Qth or loth of January, for the 
 writs to the escheators to seize his estates are mostly dated 
 the nth of January, 2 and his death appears to have been 
 
 of office, but inquests connected with the restoration in blood and 
 estates of Huntingdon's heir. 
 
 Ibid., File 853, no. 4 (6 Henry IV) ; and Inq. ad quod damnum 
 (sic) 6 Henry IV, no. 1 5. These give the date January 1 5th. 
 
 Inq. ad. quod damnum (sic) i Henry IV, no. 2 pa (taken i6th 
 August, 1400). This gives January i6th. 
 
 The earliest inquisition which I have found gives no date: see 
 Inq. ad quod damnum (sic) i Henry IV, no. 10 (taken February 
 5th, 1400). The earl's widow married Sir John Cornwall and was 
 allowed dower out of certain of Huntingdon's lands notwithstanding 
 his forfeiture. Writs issued accordingly directing an inquisition to 
 ascertain inter alia " qualis et quomodo et quo die idem comes obiit." 
 There appears to be no finding on these points, but the inquisition 
 is almost illegible. See Inq. ad quod damnum (sic) 6 Henry IV, 
 no. 1 8. 
 
 1 The Annales Henrici Quarti give nightfall on the i5th of 
 January " die sancti Mauri, octavo decimo Kal. Feb." as the time 
 when the crowd first collected outside Fleshy castle. Walsingham 
 simply says, "die sancti Mauri," but he probably means the same 
 day. 
 
 2 Fine Roll, i Henry IV, m. 18 : Rex dilectis sibi Salamoni 
 Fresthorp et Johanni Asshewy ac escaetoribus et vicecomitibus 
 nostris in comitatibus Midd., Essex, Hertf, Bed., et Buk., salutem. 
 Sciatis quod cum Thomas comes Kancie, Johannes comes Hunting- 
 don, Johannes comes Sarum, Radulfus de Lumley chivaler, Thomas 
 Blount chivaler et Benedictus Sely chivaler aggregatis sibi quam- 
 pluribus malefactoribus contra ligeanciam suam proditorie levaverunt 
 et insurrexerunt ad nos et quamplures fideles ligeos nostros pro 
 posse suo destruendum; per quod omnia castra, dominia, terre, 
 tenementa, rensiones, feoda, advocationes, franchesie, libertates et 
 omnes alie possessiones, necnon bona et catalla quecunque, que 
 fuerunt ipsorum comitum, Radulfi, Thome et Benedicti, nobis foris- 
 facta existunt. Assignavimus vos et duos vestrum ad omnia castra, 
 dominia, terras, tenementa, rensiones, feoda, advocationes, franchesias, 
 libertates et omnes alias possessiones ac bona et catalla quecunque, 
 que fuerunt eorundem comitum, Radulfi, Thome et Benedicti ac 
 aliorum quos vobis constare potest prefatis comitibus, Radulfo, 
 Thome et Benedicto in hac parte adhesisse, in comitatibus predictis, 
 infra libertates et extra, in manum nostram cum omne celeritate 
 possibili capiendum et seiziendum, ac per sacramentum proborum 
 et legalium hominum comitatuum predictorum infra libertates et
 
 4 2 4 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 known at Oxford by January I2th when Sir John Blount, 
 Sir Alan Buxhill, Sir Benedict Sely and others were tried 
 for treason in the court of the steward of the household. The 
 report of the Oxford proceedings is preserved. 1 Huntingdon 
 is there referred to as "nuper comes" and is named in con- 
 junction with Kent and Salisbury, who are similarly described 
 and were undoubtedly dead, while the other arch-conspirator 
 Despencer, who was still alive, is not named. No reliance 
 can be placed on the word "nuper" by itself; but, in this 
 particular connection, form and precedent point strongly to 
 the fact that " nuper" is used as equivalent to defunct, other- 
 wise indeed the record in question is bad on the face of it. 
 
 extra, per quos rei veritas melius sciri potest, juxta discretiones 
 vestras et duorum vestrum extendendum. . . . Teste rege apud 
 Westm. xj die Januarii. Per ipsum regem et consilium. 
 
 Note that the name of Despencer, the quondam earl of Gloucester 
 and one of the chief conspirators, is not mentioned : he was sum- 
 marily executed by a mob at Bristol, but not until the lyth of 
 January, 1399-1400. The above writ is entered on the Originalia 
 Roll, i Henry IV, pt. 3, m. 14, where it bears the same date. 
 
 John Weever, who wrote in 1631, saw the remains of the monu- 
 ment to Huntingdon in the collegiate church of Pleshy. This 
 writer states that "he was beheaded the third day after the 
 Epiphany," i.e. January 9th; but it is by no means clear that 
 Weever got this date from the monument. He only states that he 
 read the following words on it : " Here lyeth John Holland, erle of 
 Exceter, erle of Huntingdon, and Chamberleyne of England. Who 
 dyed . . ." (See Weever, Ancient Funeral Monuments, ed. 1767, 
 
 P- 393-) 
 
 1 Placita Aulae, no. 28 : Placita Aule Hospicii Domini Regis 
 tenta in castro Oxon. de precepto domini Henrici regis Anglic post 
 conquestum Anglic quarti et in presencia ipsius regis coram senes- 
 challo et marescallo hospicii sui die Lune proximo post festum 
 Epiphanie Domini anno regni ipsius regis primo [Monday, January 
 1 2th, 1399-1400]. Inquisitio capta apud castrum predictum coram 
 prefato senescallo dicto die Lune anno supra-dicto per sacramentum 
 Johannis Bray [etc.] . . . qui ad inquirendum de diversis proditioni- 
 bus nuper in regno Anglic factis ad tune jurati et veritatem inde 
 dicendum onerati dicunt super sacramentum suum quod Johannes 
 Blount chivaler, Alanus Buxhill chivaler, Benedictus Sely chivaler, 
 . . . false nequiter et proditorie contra ligeancias suas . . . con- 
 federati fuerunt cum Thoma de Holand nuper comite Kancie, 
 Johanne de Holand nuper comite Huntingdon, Johanne nuper 
 comite Sarum et aliis proditoribus regis et regni Anglic. . . .
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 425 
 
 The lawless destruction of the chief conspirators saved 
 Henry from all immediate trouble and anxiety, but such 
 events were acts of evil example and a dangerous incentive 
 to further lawlessness. Accordingly a minute 1 was prepared 
 on the subject for the consideration of the great council, and 
 this led to the issue of a stringent proclamation. The minute 
 refers to the destruction of the earls of Kent, Salisbury and 
 Huntingdon, and of lord Despencer and others, and to the 
 fact that the commons of the realm have become so daring 
 in consequence that they have not hesitated to destroy more 
 of the king's lieges without process of law, while threatening 
 to do likewise in time to come. 
 
 Notwithstanding the manner of death which befell the 
 rebel earls, the king's escheators were, as already mentioned, 
 directed to take possession of their estates. This was an 
 irregularity, 2 which, however, was more or less put right by 
 a resolution of the lords in the following parliament, declaring 
 and adjudging that the three earls were traitors, and, as 
 traitors, should forfeit the estates which they held in fee 
 simple on the $th of January, the eve of the feast of 
 Epiphany, "nounobstant q'ils feurent mortz sur le dit leve 
 de guerre saunz processe de ley." Sir Ralph Lumley, who 
 also was put to death at Cirencester, and the lord Despencer, 
 
 1 Fait a remembrer de certains matires necessairs a monstrer au 
 grant conseil du roy. . . . Item considere coment les communes du 
 roiaume a cause de la destruccion de contes de Kent de Sarum et 
 de Huntyndon et du sire le Despenser et autres traitours au roy 
 sont devenuz si fiers q'ils neschuent de destruir volentrivement 
 pluseurs des liges du roy sanz aucun processe de la loy en manaceant 
 de faire semblablement en temps avenir dont tres-grand peril pourra 
 avenir a tout le roialme et derogacion de lestat du roy, il semble 
 expedient. . . . MS. Cotton, Cleopatra F, 3, fol. g-iob. (printed, 
 Ordinances of the Privy Council, vol. i, p. 107. The minutes are 
 dated by the editor February, i Henry IV). 
 
 2 The king none the less got a title by record, and an aggrieved 
 party had to traverse the office. See Year Book, 43 Edward III, Ass. 28. 
 There was a case (reported Year Book, 1 1 Henry IV, Hil., no. 30) 
 arising out of the forfeiture of the earl of Northumberland. Here, 
 however, there had also been attainder, and the plaintiff had to 
 traverse both the office of escheator and the attainder double 
 matter of record. See generally Coke's Reports, ii, pp. 433-4; 
 pt. iv, 573. and b.
 
 426 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 who suffered a like fate in Bristol, were included in this 
 resolution. 1 
 
 The various forms of the Escheators' Accounts reflect the 
 previous irregularity and the resolution which cured it. The 
 earlier accounts are based upon a special indictment against 
 the conspirators, and for this reason the forfeiture is treated 
 as occurring, not on the 5th of January, but on the 6th of 
 December, the feast of St Nicholas, this being the date 
 quoted from the indictment. In the later accounts forfeiture 
 is calculated from the 5th of January, and is stated to have 
 taken place by virtue of a judgment in Parliament. 2 The 
 
 1 Rot. Parl., iii, p. 459. Item fait a remembrer, que la ou 
 Thomas Holand jadys cont de Kent, Johan Holand jadys count de 
 Huntyngdon, Johan Montagu jadys cont de Sarum, Thomas jadis 
 sire le Despenser et Rauf Lomley chivaler, nadgaires en diverses 
 parties d'Engleterre soi leverent et chivacherent de guerre, traiter- 
 ousement, encontre nostre seigneur le roy et encontre lour ligeance, 
 pur destruir nostre dit seigneur le roy et autres graundes du roialme, 
 et le dit roialme de gentz d'autre lange enhabiter, en lour dite leve 
 de guerre par les loialx lieges nostre dit seigneur le roy feurent prisez 
 et decollez; et partant toutz les seigneurs temporelx esteantz en 
 parlement, par assent du roy, declarerent et adjuggerent les ditz 
 Thomas, Johan, Johan, Thomas et Rauf pur traitours pur la leve 
 de guerre encontre lour seigneur liege suis dit, et q'ils forfairent 
 come traitours toutz lour terres et tenementz queux ils avoient en 
 fee simple le quinte jour de Janver en la veille del fest de la Tiffanie 
 nostre Seigneur Jhesu Crist, 1'an du regne nostre seigneur le roy suis 
 dit primer, ou puis, come la ley de la terre voet, ensemblement ove 
 toutz lour biens et chatelx, nounobstant q'ils feurent mortz sur le dit 
 leve de guerre saunz processe de ley. 
 
 2 Escheators' Accounts, 57/1. . . . (de) exitibus manerii de 
 Langton cum pertinentiis in comitatu predicto quod fuit Johannis 
 nuper comitis Huntingdon et quod idem nuper comes tenuit in 
 dicto festo sancti Nicholai dicto anno primo, quo festo idem nuper 
 comes Huntingdon unacum prefato nuper comite Kancie et aliis 
 diversis sibi adherentibus diu antea et postea diversis vicibus et 
 temporibus nequiter et proditorie conspiraverunt et imaginaverunt 
 mortem predicti nunc regis Anglic sicut continetur in [injdictamento 
 predicto et quod ad xlj li. extend, per annum sicut continetur in 
 transcripto predicto videlicet a predicto festo sancti Nicholai episcopi 
 accidente vj die Decembris quo festo idem nuper comes omnia 
 terras et tenementa bona et catalla sua forisfecit occasione conspira- 
 cionis et imaginacionis predictarum usque predictum xxiiij diem 
 Febuarii proxime sequentem. . . .
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 427 
 
 indictment above referred to is not forthcoming at the present 
 time ; it is almost certain to have been consigned to the 
 baga de secretis 1 for the year, and seems to be irretrievably 
 lost. 
 
 Of the facts above related, the only circumstance which 
 could possibly be said to support the view that Huntingdon 
 was tried at Westminster, is the order sent to the constable 
 of the Tower of London ; and I am bound to admit that 
 historians of no mean repute, historians too who were not 
 aware even of the existence of the Year Book report, have 
 doubted whether Huntingdon died at Fleshy simply on 
 account of this order to the constable. 2 In reality the order 
 
 Escheators' Enrolled Accounts, No. 14, passim. . . . idem per 
 compotum de . . . de exitibus de . . . que Johannes de Holand 
 nuper comes Huntingdon tenuit in festo sancti Nicholai episcopi 
 adidem sexto die Decembris dicto anno primo quo festo idem nuper 
 comes et alii eidem nuper comiti adherentes et diu antea et postea 
 diversis vicibus et temporibus nequiter et proditorie conspiraverunt 
 et imaginaverunt mortem predict! nunc regis Anglie sicut continetur 
 in indictamento inde habito in banco regis in custodia clerici de 
 corona ibidem existente que quidem [maneria]. . . . 
 
 There is a reference to the indictment on the Exchequer 
 Memoranda Roll L.T.R., 2 Henry IV, Adhuc Visus, Pasch., m. 9 ; 
 but neither there nor elsewhere have I discovered any further par- 
 ticulars concerning it. 
 
 Compare Escheators' Accounts, 80/1. This was evidently com- 
 piled before the judgment in parliament, but corrected afterwards. 
 Here the old date is erased and the following words inserted : . . . 
 quinto die Januarii . . . forisfecit vigore judicii contra ipsum 
 [comitem Huntingdon] in parliamento dicti regis nunc apud Westm. 
 anno regni sui secundo tento redditi. 
 
 Compare also the later enrolled accounts. Escheators' Enrolled 
 Accounts, No. 14 passim. . . . Johanni nuper comiti Huntingdon 
 qui proditorie insurrexit et equitavit contra regem et ligeanciam 
 suam predicto quinto die Januarii dicto anno et qui ea occasione 
 omnia terras et tenementa bona et catalla sua forisfecit eodem die 
 virtute judicii contra ipsum nuper comitem et alios in parliamento 
 regis apud Westm. in octavo sancti Hilarii anno secundo tento 
 redditi sicut continetur in quadam cedula . . . 
 
 1 For frequent references to the Baga de Secretis see the Control- 
 ment Roll, i Henry IV. 
 
 2 Wylie (Hist, of Hen. IV, p. 102, n. i) says : " Similar writs were 
 issued to the Constable for the custody of the ' Duke of Surrey,' the 
 ' Earl of Gloucester ' and the earl of Salisbury, but of course they
 
 428 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 in question has a perfectly indifferent bearing on the con- 
 troversy. If it fits in with the theory of a trial, it equally 
 accords with the story related by the chroniclers. 1 
 
 We will now consider the report itself; if the case is 
 indeed a mere forgery it would be strange to find it wholly 
 free from blunders. In the first place the indictment against 
 the earl, so far as it is mentioned in the report, differs en- 
 tirely from the indictment as quoted in the Escheators' 
 Accounts : the former sets up a conspiracy arranged for the 
 night of the Epiphany, the latter alleges a conspiracy formed 
 on the feast of St. Nicholas a month earlier. It would not 
 be safe to insist very strongly on a discrepancy of this kind, 
 which is more apparent than real, but this much may be 
 justly observed : where we should fully expect corroboration 
 if the report was genuine, we, in fact, get nothing of the kind. 
 When, however, the report goes on to state that the office of 
 steward of England was then void, it falls into unmitigated 
 error. Thomas of Lancaster was at this time seneschal of 
 England, and is repeatedly so styled in formal documents 
 of the period in question. 2 All that can be urged in defence 
 of the statement in the report is that Thomas was too young 
 in the year 1400 to preside in person at such a trial. 3 
 
 came too late"; and he cites the Close Roll, i Hen. IV, i, 24. This 
 is an error ; the writs in question refer to the previous proceedings 
 before parliament, and they did not come too late. 
 
 1 See, however, in appendix the reference to a judgment which 
 appears upon the Memoranda Roll. 
 
 2 It is sufficient to cite the Patent Rolls for 1399-1401, of which 
 a calendar has been printed, viz. November 2nd, 3rd, i4th, 1399; 
 March 5th, 1399-1400; June ist, 1400; May i6th, June 27th, 
 July 4th, 1 6th, 1401. 
 
 3 The statement (s.v. Thomas duke of Clarence) in the Diet, of 
 Nat. Biog. that Percy earl of Worcester "after a year's time was 
 himself made seneschal as the prince was too young to discharge 
 his office " is quite untrue, although derived from a contemporary 
 source. Percy was never made steward of England : he was, how- 
 ever, as we have seen, appointed to assist Thomas in the discharge 
 of his duties in connection with Henry's coronation, and at a later 
 date was appointed steward of the household. The responsibility 
 for the blunder in question rests with the Annales Henrici Quarti 
 (P- 33?) : et dominum Thomam Percy constituit Angliae senes- 
 callum quia filius ejus junior, dominus Thomas dux Lancastriae,
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 429 
 
 In the face of these facts it seems quite unnecessary to 
 pursue this argument any further. The earl of Huntingdon 
 was never tried as alleged, and the only question of im- 
 portance which remains to be considered is the date of this 
 forged report. 
 
 The manuscript from which the reports of this case were 
 printed appears to be no longer in existence. The first 
 printed Year Book containing it was published by Tottel 
 in or about the year 1553. Anthony Fitzherbert does not 
 insert the case in his Grand Abridgement, published in 1514, 
 a circumstance which fairly warrants the conclusion that this 
 industrious legist either did not know of its existence, or did 
 not believe it to be genuine. Brooke, it is true, also omits 
 the case in his revised abridgement which appeared in 1 568 ; 
 but, in this instance, the omission suggests nothing, for 
 Brooke duly inserts the report of the duke of Buckingham's 
 trial in 1521 before the court of the lord high steward. 
 
 The trial, in 1415, of the earl of Cambridge and lord Scrope 
 by a court of from eighteen to twenty peers, presided over by 
 the duke of Clarence, has been already described. Between 
 1415 and 1499 no precedent is discoverable which has the 
 remotest bearing on the institution of the lord high steward's 
 court. Then in the year 1499 occurs the Warwick case, in 
 which the official record of the proceedings is fortunately 
 preserved. 1 The nature of the crime libelled must be specially 
 noticed. 
 
 Edward earl of Warwick was indicted at the Guildhall on 
 the Monday before the feast of St. Clement in the fifteenth 
 year of Henry the Seventh. The finding of the jury appears 
 serious enough where vague, but trivial to the point of ab- 
 surdity where it is definite and specific. The earl is charged 
 with conspiring to depose Henry and assume himself the 
 
 nondum fuit aetatis ad subeundum onus officii supradicti. Here 
 are two atrocious blunders, one perpetuated by the biographer of 
 Thomas, the other immortalised by Shakespeare. 
 
 Percy was acting as steward of the household at least as early as 
 March ;th, 1400-1. See Cal., p. 475. 
 
 1 Baga de Secretis, Pouch 2, mm. i, 2, 3. See third report of 
 the Deputy Keeper of the Records, app. ii, pp. 216-18.
 
 430 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 regal dignity : the date assigned to the conspiracy is the 
 2nd of August, 14 Henry the Seventh ; the place London, in 
 the parish of All Saints, Barking, in the Tower ward. His 
 fellow conspirators are, to begin with, Astwode and Cleymond, 
 but Perkin Warbeck comes in presently. The plan of cam- 
 paign is stated as follows. They were to seize the Tower, 
 possess themselves of the crown jewels and treasure, fire the 
 gunpowder stored in the fortress, and, while the king's lieges 
 were busy extinguishing, take ships and away to France with 
 the booty ; lastly, a proclamation offering a shilling a day 
 from the said treasure for recruits to make war on Henry. 
 Truly a formidable conspiracy. 
 
 "And in order to fulfil such false and traitorous proposals," so 
 the indictment proceeds, " Cleymond then and there said to the 
 earl : ' My lord, you are well minded in what danger, sadness and 
 duress you here remain ; but, if you will help yourself according to 
 the form and effect of the communication and discussion had 
 between us, you shall come out of this prison with me ; I will take 
 you out of all danger ; and leave you in surety.' And, in order to 
 perfect his traitorous intention, Cleymond delivered a hanger to the 
 earl to defend himself, and the earl received the hanger for such 
 purpose." 
 
 This highly perfected plot was disclosed to the king and 
 council by Perkin Warbeck, though how this person came to 
 hear of it we are not informed. Cleymond then thought it 
 was time to take sanctuary : he himself rather fancied Col- 
 chester ; but, on the advice of one Thomas Ward, he decided 
 on Westminster. Cleymond then told the earl of his in- 
 tentions, and asked him to send a token to Thomas Ward 
 " that he might be the more well affected to them." So the 
 earl made an image of wood to be given to Ward, but he 
 gave Cleymond a cloak and jacket of velvet. 
 
 Then the indictment begins all over again and tells a 
 totally different story. It appears that Perkin Warbeck was 
 lodged in the chamber immediately under that occupied by 
 the earl ; and on the 2nd of August, for the purpose this 
 time of making Perkin king of England, Cleymond, being 
 with the earl and by his consent, knocked on the floor and
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 431 
 
 said : " Perkin, be of good cheer and comfort." Cleymond 
 also promised to deliver him a letter from Flanders the 
 following day. Then, when Cleymond and the earl were 
 both in bed in the Tower, some traitorous proposals were 
 discussed for assisting Perkin, and the wooden image was 
 again mentioned. 
 
 On the 4th of August the earl made a hole in the vault of 
 his chamber so that he might converse with the traitor below, 
 and on the same day and many subsequent times spoke to 
 Perkin, saying : " How goes it with you ? Be of good cheer." 
 " And in this manner," the indictment concludes, " the earl, 
 Cleymond and others aided, abetted and comforted Perkin 
 in his treason." 
 
 On the day after the above finding (Tuesday, the iQth of 
 November) a commission was issued by the king appointing 
 John earl of Oxford lord high steward of England for the 
 trial of Warwick. The steward was empowered to receive 
 the indictment from the justices ; and, on such day and place 
 as he should think fit, to call the earl of Warwick before him, 
 examine and compel him to answer. He was further em- 
 powered to cause to come before him such and so many 
 lords, proceres et magnates, of the kingdom of England, peers 
 of the said earl, by whom the truth might be best known ; 
 and to pass judgment according to the laws and customs of 
 England. 
 
 On Thursday, November 2ist, the trial took place at 
 Westminster in the great hall of Pleas. 1 The mayor of 
 London and the justices appeared in court and delivered 
 the indictment to the steward. Lovell lieutenant of the 
 Tower brought up the earl of Warwick, and the serjeant- 
 at-arms made return that he had summoned the necessary 
 
 1 The City Chronicle (MS. Cott. Vitell., A. 16, fol. 176) contains 
 the following entry: Comes de Warwyk} "And upon the Tuysday 
 next ensuyng was arayned in the greate hall at Westminster the 
 said erle of Warwyk beyng of the age of xxiiij yeres or thereaboute, 
 upon whome sate for juge the erle of Oxinford under a cloth of 
 astate, where without eny presse of the laws the said erle of 
 Warwyk for tresons by hym confessed and doon submytted hym 
 unto the kynge's grace and mercy and so was there adjuged to 
 be hangid drawen and quartered."
 
 432 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 peers as commanded. Proclamation was then made for all 
 dukes, earls and barons, who had been summoned, to appear 
 and perform what should be enjoined them on the king's 
 behalf. It seems that twenty-two peers in all had been 
 ordered to attend ; these were present in court and answered 
 to their names. Warwick was brought to the bar, the indict- 
 ment was read and the prisoner arraigned : he pleaded guilty. 
 The king's serjeants-at-law, and also his attorney -at -law, 
 prayed judgment, and the usual judgment for treason was 
 then pronounced. 1 
 
 This judgment was confirmed in the parliament of 1503 
 in an act of attainder and forfeiture affecting a large number 
 of persons. The reference to the earl's trial is very short, 
 but quite sufficient, according at all events to modern ideas 
 of construction, to constitute a statutory declaration of its 
 validity. 2 
 
 The records we possess of the historical events of these 
 times being by no means complete, but on the contrary very 
 fragmentary, the fact that a particular institution is first 
 recorded at a certain date is in itself (speaking generally) 
 evidence neither of pre-existence nor of novelty. But in 
 legal matters the position is somewhat different : the fact 
 that a particular person was tried in a particular way in the 
 year 1499 is prima facie very cogent evidence that a good 
 precedent existed for so trying him. The reason is obvious 
 enough in any case an unprecedented trial is an illegal 
 trial ; but the particular instance before us is an exception- 
 ally strong one. The nation stood aghast at the perfectly 
 legal fate of Stanley : had it been noised abroad that the 
 earl of Warwick was done to death by an adventitious 
 tribunal, quite likely fear would have given place to fury. 
 We have on investigation found a fairly good precedent 
 
 1 See appendix for some further particulars. 
 
 2 " Forasmuch as ... for the which [said matters] the said late 
 earl was by due course of the king's laws, by his own confession, 
 convicted and attainted of high treason, as his deserts required in 
 that behalf. ... Be it enacted . . . that all the said . . . Edward 
 late earl of Warwick ... for their several offences above rehearsed 
 be convicted, adjudged and attainted of high treason and forfeit to 
 the king [etc.]. . . ." (Rot. Parl., vi, p. 544.)
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 433 
 
 dated 1415; and also a forged precedent dated 1400, the 
 date of forgery not known, but most unlikely to have been 
 before 1499, because Fitzherbert, writing about this time 
 his elaborate book of precedents, does not insert it. The 
 genuine precedent and the fictitious together adequately 
 account for and justify the procedure in 1499; nothing less 
 would suffice ; anything more would leave the forgery with- 
 out conceivable explanation. On these grounds, I think, we 
 are justified in asserting that the lord high steward's court 
 has an origin which is neither ancient nor obscure nor 
 creditable. 
 
 The growing need for some such court seems plain enough. 
 To have tried the earl of Warwick in the court of chivalry 
 on such charges as those set out in the indictment would 
 scarcely have been within the bounds of practical politics ; 
 the trial would have been too directly contrary to the statute 
 of Richard the Second. 1 To have recourse in this and similar 
 cases to proceedings in parliament was the only alternative, 
 but one which was utterly unsuited to Tudor principles 
 of government. Fortified by precedents (!), and with its jury 
 of peers, the new court was fairly certain to pass muster ; but 
 its connection with the lord high steward was an ingenious 
 detail, which the general public seems at first not to have 
 
 1 Do not suppose that any Tudor sovereign, when once the 
 steward's court had become established, had any cause to regret the 
 court of chivalry. The civil law, pace Fortescue and constitutional 
 historians, was considered far too tender to the prisoner, far too 
 hard and dangerous for the prince. Here is evidence not easy to 
 gainsay : " Where[as] pirates, thieves, robbers and murtherers upon 
 the sea many times escape unpunished, because the trial of their 
 offences hath heretofore been ordered before the Admiral, or his 
 lieutenant or commissary, after the course of the civil laws, the 
 nature whereof is, that before any judgment of death can be given 
 against the offenders, either they must plainly confess their offences, 
 (which they will never do without torture or pains) or else their 
 offences be so plainly and directly proved by witnesses indifferent, 
 such as saw their offences committed. . . ." "For reformation 
 whereof," this statute (27 Henry VIII, cap. iv) enacts that such 
 offences are to be determined " after the common course of the laws 
 of the land used for felonies done and committed within the realm." 
 (Printed Statutes of the Realm R.C., vol. iii, p. 533.) There are 
 other statutes to a like effect. 
 2 F
 
 434 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 appreciated or even noticed. The historian Hall, who died 
 in 1547, makes the earl of Oxford preside as constable of 
 England at the trial of the earl of Warwick j 1 and to this 
 day, so little known are these undercurrents of Tudor history, 
 that the chief modern historian of Henry the Seventh's reign 
 repeats and emphasises the error of Hall. 2 
 
 There is one other point which must be specially noticed. 
 The most important and the most iniquitous part of the 
 forged report is the assertion that a majority is sufficient for 
 a conviction. It had long been settled law that the jury of 
 twelve must be unanimous. If eleven agreed and one dis- 
 sented there could be no judgment. The law usually took 
 precautions to prevent disagreement by making the conse- 
 quences extremely unpleasant for the dissentients, if not for 
 the whole panel ; but the rule was absolute and sacred. 3 
 
 The rule, however, never appears to have been laid down 
 generally by requiring unanimity; but always specifically 
 by asserting that the prisoner's guilt must be established by 
 the verdict of twelve, who are still further defined as twelve 
 lawful men of the vicinage, or the like definitions clearly 
 inappropriate to the trial of peers of the realm. Here was 
 opportunity for evasion. Henry the Fifth had summoned 
 not merely twelve but as many as nineteen peers to attend 
 the duke of Clarence, and a unanimous verdict had been 
 given. Henry the Seventh summoned twenty-three peers in 
 all, including the steward, and the reason seems obvious : it 
 was the minimum number necessary to prevent any conflict 
 
 1 Hall, Chronicle (ed. 1809), p. 491. 
 
 2 Gairdner, Henry VII, pp. 174-5 (ed. 1889). 
 
 3 See Year Book, 41 Ed. Ill, fol. 31, Mich., no. 36. 
 Pollock and Maitland, vol. ii, p. 626. 
 
 Hale, Pleas of the Crown, vol. 2, p. 297. 
 
 Thayer, Evidence at the Common Law ; etc. 
 
 If, however, we go back to the time of Glanville some justification 
 is to be found : e.g. Lib. ii, cap. xvii, fol. 21: De recognitionibus. 
 . . . Sin autem quidam eorum rei veritatem sciant, quidam non, 
 rejectis ignorantibus alii quidem vocandi sunt ad curiam donee duo- 
 decim ad minus reperiantur inde Concordes. Item si quidam eorum 
 dixerint pro uno, quidam pro alio litigantium, adjiciendi sunt alii 
 donee duodecim ad minus in alterutram partem concorditer ac- 
 quieverint.
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 435 
 
 between the new majority rule and the old verdict of twelve 
 rule. 1 
 
 In the year 1503 the court of the lord high steward was 
 again called into being for the trial of Edward Sutton, lord 
 Dudley, who had been indicted for felony at the Staffordshire 
 assizes. I have not been able to discover any details relating 
 to this trial which certainly ended either in acquittal or 
 pardon. 2 
 
 In the year 1521 took place the trial of the duke of Buck- 
 ingham. 3 How it was the duke incurred the king's disfavour, 
 who were his real enemies, whether the cardinal was one of 
 them, are questions not easily answered. Be the truth what 
 it may, disaster fell upon the duke suddenly and without a 
 shadow of warning. 
 
 On the 2nd of April Buckingham received letters from the 
 king summoning him to London : suspecting nothing, he set 
 out for the metropolis with good speed. That he should 
 daily see many armed men and other minions of the king 
 journeying by the same road and in a like direction to himself 
 appears at first to have caused him neither surprise nor dis- 
 quietude ; but, by the time he reached Windsor, the amount 
 of attention he received from his fellow-travellers reached the 
 point of impertinence. 
 
 While the duke was breakfasting at Windsor the inquisi- 
 tiveness of a royal poursuivant elicited from him at last a 
 sharp rebuke. The man replied, insolently perhaps, that he 
 was there by the king's commandment. The truth broke on 
 the duke with dizzy suddenness. He was going to his death, 
 between him and this world there was to be the swift divorce 
 of steel. For the moment his emotions mastered him ; he 
 turned ghastly pale and could not touch his food. Then his 
 high spirits reasserted themselves ; he ordered his horse and 
 rode into London. He endeavoured to see the cardinal, but 
 
 1 Would public opinion, however, have tolerated the majority 
 rule, unless familiarity with the procedure on attainder in parliament 
 had reconciled people to the idea ? It can hardly be doubted that 
 this was the source from which the forger evolved his principle. 
 
 2 Appendix. 
 
 3 For the record of the proceedings see Baga de Secretis, Pouch, 
 4/5-
 
 436 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 was denied an interview on the plea of sickness. This time 
 he showed less concern, though his worst fears were confirmed. 
 " Well, I will yet taste my lord's wine," he said, and was con- 
 ducted to his eminence's cellar with every mark of respect. 
 A few hours later Buckingham was a prisoner in the Tower 
 of London. 
 
 It was on the i6th of April that the duke was arrested. 
 After this the preparations for his trial and conviction were 
 relentlessly proceeded with. Every idle word uttered by him 
 during the last ten years was to be laid to his charge, and 
 this necessitated indictments in no less than five separate 
 counties. He was indicted at East Greenwich in Kent, at 
 Southwark in Surrey, at Bedminster in Somersetshire, at 
 Bristol castle in county Gloucester and at the Guildhall in 
 London. On the nth of May Thomas duke of Norfolk, the 
 earl marshal, was appointed lord high steward, and two days 
 later the trial took place. Only nineteen peers had been 
 summoned, the same number as in 1415. According to the 
 report of this case in the Year Books, the proper number of 
 lords to summon is twenty to eighteen, and the verdict of the 
 majority decides the issue. 1 With so small a panel, however, 
 the majority might consist of less than twelve ; but this point 
 did not arise, and was probably not considered by the reporter 
 or anyone else. 
 
 The scene of the trial was Westminster Hall. There was 
 a platform, or scaffold as it was called, for the peers ; and 
 a special canopied seat for the steward, railed and counter- 
 railed about and barred with degrees. When the lords had 
 taken their places Buckingham was brought in procession to 
 the bar by Sir Thomas Lovell the constable of the Tower 
 and Sir Richard Cholmeley the deputy lieutenant. In front 
 of the procession was carried the axe, the edge turned away 
 from the duke. The clerk of the crown then read the in- 
 dictments to the prisoner. 
 
 1 That the trial in 1415 was taken as the chief precedent is clear. 
 These numbers cannot be mere coincidence. Including the duke 
 of Clarence twenty peers were summoned in 1415. Excluding 
 Clarence and the peer who did not attend, we get the number 
 eighteen.
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 437 
 
 The general charge against Buckingham was intending to 
 exalt himself to the crown of England, and imagining and 
 compassing to depose the king and effect his death and 
 destruction. The particulars set out in the indictments were 
 founded on the depositions of Delacourt some time chaplain 
 to the duke, Gilbert the duke's chancellor, and Charles Knyvet 
 a discharged surveyor. 
 
 It was Delacourt who some nine years ago had visited 
 Nicholas Hopkins, the monk of the Carthusian priory of 
 Henton, who feigned acquaintance with the future. Under 
 an oath of secrecy Father Nicholas told Delacourt that his 
 master would have all, and that the duke should endeavour 
 to obtain the love of the community. How did he know all 
 this ? Why, by the grace of God ! These sayings Delacourt 
 related to the duke, and the duke commanded him to keep 
 the same a secret. This wise father was consulted on other 
 occasions, and once ventured to forecast that the king would 
 have no issue male of his body. Evidently the monk's 
 prophetic soul had received no inkling of the king's latent 
 resourcefulness for ridding himself of unprolific consorts. 
 
 Where the allegations depend on the statements of Gilbert, 
 the indictments become somewhat cryptic. 
 
 And further, on the 20th of February, in the eleventh year of 
 Henry the Eighth, at Bletchingly in the county of Surrey, the duke 
 falsely and traitorously told Gilbert "that he, the duke, would delay, 
 putting off his intentions until a more convenient time, and that the 
 thing would be well done if the noblemen of the kingdom would 
 mutually declare their minds to one another, but that many of them 
 were afraid so to declare their minds and therefore this spoiled all." 
 And the duke further told Gilbert " that all that the father of the 
 king had done had been done in wrong" : he also further traitorously 
 said " that he, the said duke, was such a great sinner, that he was 
 certain he wanted the grace of God, and therefore he well knew 
 that he should be the worse for it whenever he began to do anything 
 against the king." 
 
 There is a treasonable flavour about this conversation, 
 quite valuable for prejudice ; but the real sting and venom 
 of the indictment was supplied by the ex-surveyor.
 
 438 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 And further, the duke, persevering in his said treasonable in- 
 tentions, on the 4th of November in the i ith year of Henry the 
 Eighth, at East Greenwich in the county of Kent, said to one 
 Charles Knyvet Esquire, that after the king had blamed him, the 
 duke, for retaining Sir William Bulmer knight in the service of him 
 the duke, he, the duke, thought he should be committed to the 
 Tower of London. The duke further said to Knyvet, that if he, 
 the duke, had understood that he should have been committed to 
 the Tower, the chief actors therein should not profit by the same, 
 but that he would do what his father intended to do to King 
 Richard the Third at New Sarum in the county of Wilts, to wit 
 that his father had made his suit to come into the presence of 
 King Richard, having about him a concealed dagger, and that his 
 father intended, when he should be kneeling before King Richard, 
 to rise suddenly and plunge the dagger into the body of the said 
 King Richard. And the duke, thus saying, maliciously and 
 traitorously put his hand upon the hilt of his sword, and said that 
 if he should be so ill-treated he would do the best to fulfil his 
 treasonable intentions, and he swore a great oath thereupon. 
 
 When the indictments had been openly read the duke is 
 reported to have said : " It is false and untrue, and conspired 
 and forged to bring me to my death, and that will I prove," 
 alleging many reasons to falsify the indictments. "And," 
 says the chronicler Hall, "against his reasons the king's 
 attorney alleged the examinations, confessions and proofs of 
 witnesses." How long the duke wrestled with his indictments 
 we are left to conjecture ; but we shall be fairly safe if we 
 assume that he urged non multum sed multa. At any rate 
 we only hear of one substantial plea of law being raised, 
 namely that no overt act of treason was alleged. To this 
 Fineux, C.J., replied that between felony and treason there 
 was a difference : there could be no felony without some act 
 done, but to intend the death of the king was high treason, 
 and such intention was sufficiently proved by words alone. 1 
 
 After this Buckingham was arraigned : was he guilty or 
 not guilty? He said, " Not guilty." How would he be tried ? 
 " By God and his peers." 
 
 1 See Appendix. Judges were present to assist the court in all 
 questions of law and procedure which might arise.
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 439 
 
 The trial was presumably conducted with the ordinary 
 formalities of a treason trial of that period. Unfortunately 
 the only detailed account which we possess is quite untrust- 
 worthy upon the subject of procedure. 1 It seems that the 
 witnesses for the crown were present and were produced ; 
 but whether anything took place similar to our present 
 system of examination and cross-examination it is impossible 
 to say. 2 The previous depositions of these witnesses were 
 read in court, and without doubt considered perfectly good 
 evidence against the prisoner. The rules of evidence now 
 in force are of quite recent origin. 
 
 When Buckingham had concluded his defence, such as it 
 was, the duke of Norfolk addressed him : " My lord, the 
 king our sovereign lord hath commanded that you shall 
 have his laws ministered with favour and right to you ; 
 
 1 Hall apparently understood very little about either the case, the 
 tribunal or the procedure : at the very outset he exposes his ignor- 
 ance. " The duke of Norfolk," he writes, " was made by the king's 
 letters patent high steward of England to accomplish the high 
 cause of appeal of the peer or peers of the realm and to discern 
 and judge the causes of the peers." (See ed. 1809, p. 623.) How 
 came Hall, an eminent lawyer, the legal hack of the court party, to 
 describe the case as an appeal? Perhaps it was asserted at the 
 time that the steward's court was the outcome of the statute of 
 i Henry IV, which abolished appeals in parliament. 
 
 2 Compare the statement in the Year Book : " et donq les ser- 
 jeants du roy et le atturney du roy doneront evidence vers luy . . ." ; 
 and Hall : " The duke desired the witnesses to be brought forth ; 
 then was brought before him Sir Gilbert Perke, priest, his chancellor, 
 first accuser of the same duke ; master John Delacdurt, priest, the 
 duke's confessor, and his own handwriting laid before him to the 
 accusement of the duke ; Charles Knevet, Esquire, cousin to the 
 duke, and a monk (Nicholas Hopkyns) prior of the Charterhouse 
 (at Henton) besides Bath, which like a false hypocrite had induced 
 the duke to the treason, and had divers time said to the duke that 
 he should be king of England ; but the duke said that in himself 
 he never consented to it. Divers presumptions and accusements 
 were laid to him by Charles Knevet, which he would fain have 
 covered. The depositions were read. . . ." 
 
 Brewer appears to have been ignorant of the Year Book report, 
 and his account is consequently not always reliable. (See letters 
 and papers of Henry VIII, vol. iii, pt. i ; and reign of Henry VIII, 
 vol. i.)
 
 440 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 wherefore if you have any other thing to say for yourself 
 you shall be heard." 
 
 Buckingham, it seems, had nothing further to add, and he 
 was led away from the court into Paradise^ a house so 
 named. The lords triers then retired to consider the evi- 
 dence ; and on their return the verdict of each lord was 
 taken separately, beginning with the junior, and ending with 
 the premier peer present. 1 Every peer said guilty. 
 
 Buckingham was brought again to the bar to be made 
 acquainted with the verdict and receive judgment accord- 
 ingly. It was a terrible ordeal for the bravest man. Buck- 
 ingham chafed and sweated in his distress, but commanded 
 himself sufficiently to make his salutation to the court. 
 
 His grace of Norfolk, lord high steward of England, 
 addressed the prisoner : " Sir Edward, you have heard how 
 you be indicted of high treason ; you pleaded thereunto not 
 guilty, putting yourself to the judgment of your peers, the 
 which have found you guilty." At this point, Norfolk, brave 
 soldier though he was, burst into tears. " Your sentence is," 
 he continued with faltering speech, " that you be led back 
 to prison, laid on a hurdle, and so drawn to the place of 
 execution, there to be hanged, cut down alive . . . your 
 head smitten off, your body quartered and divided at the 
 king's will. And may God have mercy on your soul." 
 A most unsavoury sentence, which I find I cannot bring 
 myself to set down in full : it was, of course, subsequently 
 commuted to beheading. 2 
 
 Perhaps Norfolk's tears helped Buckingham towards com- 
 posure, for he made a very dignified exit from Westminster 
 Hall. " My lord of Norfolk," said the prisoner, " you have 
 said as a traitor should be said unto, but I was never one ; 
 but, my lords, I nothing malign for that you have done to 
 me, but the eternal God forgive you my death as I do : 
 
 1 Hall reverses the order, so also does Brewer; but they are 
 clearly in error. The Year Book is against them, and the original 
 record is conclusive : Et postea per eundem senescallum Anglie 
 ab inferior! pare usque ad superiorem parem illorum separatim inde 
 examinati. (Baga de Secretis, Pouch, 4/5, m. 15.) 
 
 2 See Appendix for some additional particulars.
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 441 
 
 I shall never sue to the king for life, howbeit he is a gracious 
 prince, and more grace may come from him than I wish. 
 I desire you, my lords, and all my fellows to pray for me." 
 Then they turned the edge of the axe towards him, and he 
 was led away. He took his death right meekly on Friday 
 the i /th of May at about eleven o'clock. 1 
 
 The court of the lord high steward thus became an estab- 
 lished institution. Trials before it became frequent, and, time 
 and again, fearing earthly more than heavenly vengeance, this 
 noble tribunal resolutely did the will of the king. 
 
 Seeing that the steward's court rests substantially on a 
 fraudulent basis, it would be absurd at this stage of its 
 existence to attempt to define the scope of its jurisdiction ; 
 but we may, I think, profitably inquire whether there was 
 
 1 Buckingham was attainted in parliament by the statute 14 and 
 15 Henry VIII, c. 20: "Forasmoche as Edward late duke of 
 Bukyngham late of Thornbury in the countie of Gloucester the 
 xxiiij th daye of Aprill in the fourth yere of the reigne of cure 
 soveraigne lord the kyng that nowe is and dyvers times after, 
 ymagined and compassed trayterouslie and unnaturally the distruc- 
 cion of the moost roiall persone of oure seid soveraigne lord . . . 
 of the which treasons and offenses the seid late duke in the seid 
 counties was severally indicted. And afterward for and upon the 
 same treasons the xiij daye of Maye the xiij yere of the reigne of 
 oure seid soveraigne lord the kyng at Westminster in the countie of 
 Middlesex before Thomas duke of Norfolk for that tyme oonely 
 beyng greate stuarde of Englande by the kynges lettres patentis, 
 by verdite of hys perys and by jugement of the seid stuarde 
 agenst the seid late duke then and there yeven after the due ordre 
 of the lawe and custome of England was atteynted of high treason 
 as by recordes therof more playnly apperith. Wherfore be it or- 
 deigned, enacted and established by the kyng our soveraigne lorde 
 with the assent of the lordis spirituall and temporall and the 
 commons in this present parliament assembled and by the auctoritie 
 of the same, that the said late duke for the offenses above rehersed 
 stond and be convicted, adjugged and atteynted of hygh treason 
 and forfaite to the kyng our soveraigne lord and hys heires for 
 ever all [etc.]. ..." (See Statutes of the Realm R.C., vol. iii, 
 pp. 246-58.) 
 
 There is an account of Buckingham's trial preserved among the 
 Lansdowne MSS. (Printed Gentleman's Magazine, 1834, vol. i, 
 p. 266.) It is chiefly derived from the record in the Baga de 
 Secretis and contains no original information.
 
 44* THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 anything in the character and circumstances of this court 
 calculated one way or another to affect the position of the 
 lords spiritual. Since the execution of Scrope in the reign 
 of Henry the Fourth, for the mere lack of occasion and 
 opportunity, the crown's jurisdiction over criminous bishops 
 had received neither exemplification nor definition, it had 
 remained in its original state of complete uncertainty. It is 
 under such circumstances that quite secondary influences 
 may determine the fate of a principle. The exercise, for 
 example, or non-exercise by the spirituality of their right 
 to take part in judging temporal peers might prove sufficient 
 to turn the scale. Trials before parliament were in abeyance, 
 but Littleton had clearly implied that there, at all events, the 
 spiritual lords were necessary parties : there were, moreover, 
 recorded cases where their absence had been held to in- 
 validate the proceedings. Whoever invented the court of 
 the lord high steward would have been rash to disregard 
 these cases. Accordingly, when we find that the panel, both 
 at the trial of Warwick and at the trial of Buckingham, 
 contains the name of the prior for the time being of the 
 Order of St. John of Jerusalem, we may safely conclude 
 that the reason for summoning this person was to give the 
 spirituality some semblance of representation. 
 
 There is yet one other circumstance by which we may test 
 the set of the political current. Prelates are no longer peers 
 of the realm, but mere lords of parliament: is not this change 
 of style indirectly tending to exclude them from the privi- 
 lege (!) of trial by peers? As counsel for the bishops we 
 could cite excellent authority to the contrary: the Year Book 
 which records the trial of Buckingham says clearly enough 
 that he was tried as a lord of parliament. No definite con- 
 clusion is permissible on these data ; but at least we may, up 
 to this point, deny the assertions of those who contend that 
 the steward's court was one of the engines for the degradation 
 of the spiritual lords. 
 
 The moral is quite otherwise; the truth is as clear as it 
 is unpalatable. This court was a fraudulent device for the 
 degradation of the nobility generally : it was intended to 
 supersede and altogether deprive them of trial in parlia-
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 443 
 
 ment. 1 Eventually there was a complete revival of judicial 
 proceedings in parliament ; but this did not take place until 
 some years after the Tudor dynasty had passed away. 
 
 1 The following clause in the statute of 33 Hen. VIII, c. xx, is 
 plainly inconsistent with the existence of two courts for the trial of 
 peers : " Provided always and be it enacted by authority aforesaid, 
 That if any of the peers of this realm shall happen to be accused 
 and examined of high treason before any of the king's council, and 
 do confess the same, and afterwards fall to madness or lunacy, as is 
 aforesaid, that then such treasons done and committed by any peer 
 of the realm, and by him or her confessed upon examination thereof 
 before any the king's council as is aforesaid, and their confessions 
 if they can write subscribed with their names, shall be inquired of 
 by virtue of the king's commission of oyer and terminer, to be 
 awarded in manner and form above rehearsed : And if they shall 
 happen to be indicted of high treason by virtue of such commission, 
 yet nevertheless their trial shall be always had by their peers before 
 the High Steward of England to be assigned by the king's highness; 
 and that the High Steward to be assigned by the king's majesty in 
 every such case shall have the record of the indictment brought to 
 him, and shall cause to be summoned to appear before him the 
 peers of the realm as hath been accustomed at a day and place by 
 the said High Steward to be limited, at which day and place the 
 said High Steward, after the appearance of the peers before him, 
 having the record of the said indictment before him, shall, in the 
 absence of the person indicted, which shall happen to be mad or 
 lunatick as is aforesaid, and without his or her arraignment or plead- 
 ing to the indictment, cause the said indictment to be read to the 
 peers, and in their presence cause to be declared by his discretion 
 all manner of evidence and witness touching the treasons contained 
 in the said indictment, and afterwards charge the said peers upon 
 th^ir faiths and duties of allegiance that they owe to the king's 
 majesty to try whether the person indicted be guilty of the treasons 
 contained in the indictments or any of them or not guilty; and 
 if they shall find him or her guilty, that then such judgment execu- 
 tion and forfeitures shall be had made and done as if such person 
 indicted had been of good memory, and personally present arraigned 
 and pleaded to the said indictment, and had been found guilty of 
 the treasons therein contained, the madness or lunacy of such persons 
 in such cases as is aforesaid notwithstanding." 
 
 The next clause provides for the execution of any person who 
 becomes mad after attainder by Act of parliament ; and, generally, 
 this Act gives the impression of being very carefully framed to meet 
 every conceivable case.
 
 444 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XII 
 
 Exchequer Memoranda Roll, King's Remembrancer, 
 
 Adhuc Recorda de Termino Pasche anno primo Regis Henrici 
 
 Quarti, m. 23. {Adhuc Recorda) 
 
 Kane. Preceptum fuit Willelmo Peion clerico de 
 
 Wiiielmus comitatu Sussex per breve sub sigillo hujus 
 
 Wankeford et . ............. . . 
 
 alii alloc. de scaccarn dato xxnij die Man hoc termmo essendi 
 boms et catalhs coram thesaurario et baronibus de eodem scac- 
 
 que fuerunt . . . 
 
 Johannis nuper cano die sabbati xxix die Man tune proximo 
 comitis sequente ad respondendum certis articulis sibi 
 
 ex parte regis objiciendis et hoc sub pena centum 
 librarum quas etc. Ad quam diem idem Wiiielmus venit in 
 propria persona sua. Et dictum est ei pro domino rege quod 
 informet curiam que et cujusmodi bona et catalla que fuerunt 
 Johannis nuper comitis Huntingdon qui versus regem foris- 
 fecit ad manus suas post forisfacturam ejusdem nuper comitis 
 devenerunt et in quorum vel cujus manibus jam existunt et 
 cujus precipitur eadem bona et catalla fuerunt et sunt seu ad 
 quorum vel cujus manus aliqua alia bona seu catalla que sua 
 fuerunt dicto tempore forisfacture sue seu postea devenerunt ; 
 qui dicit super sacramentum suum corporaliter presentatum 
 quod tempore quo predictus nuper comes recessit ab (hospitio 1 ) 
 suo London videlicet (secundo 2 ) die Januarii anno primo regis 
 hujus ipse unacum aliis servientibus suis ivit cum eodem nuper 
 comite usque Billyngsgate London et ibidem ceperunt quan- 
 dam bargeam in qua omnes ipsi decesserunt et quod quam- 
 plura bona et jocalia que fuerunt predicti nuper comitis deinde 
 similiter abcariata fuerunt cum eodem nuper comite in quodam 
 parvo batello eciam cum ipso exeunte usque dum venerunt 
 versus, castrum de Hadley in Essex et ibi prope predictus 
 nuper comes applicuit et bona ac jocalia omnia et singula 
 supradicta in batello predicto proprius posita secum assumpsit 
 preterquam viij discos de argento et iiij vel sex magnas 
 chargeos unum ewer et tres pelves de argento que reman- 
 serunt in custodia cujusdam Walteri Bisshop et preterquam 
 
 1 Over erasure. 2 Written in fainter ink.
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 445 
 
 xxxij discos argenti quorum idem Willelmus Peion, Nicholas 
 Brenthesle, Thomas Trenarke et Henricus del Chambre 
 videlicet quilibet eorum habuit octo discos de dono predict! 
 nuper comitis. Et dicit predictus Willelmus Peion quod 
 postquam ipse applicuit apud Grenhyth quod fuit vij die 
 Januarii dicto anno primo. . . . 
 
 (The rest of this witness's statement is irrelevant to this 
 particular inquiry.) 
 
 Escheators' Enrolled Accounts (14), m. 43^. Essex 
 
 Nee respondet de diversis bonis et catallis subscriptis 
 pretii cccij li.-iij s.-iiij d. que fuerunt Johannis de Holand 
 comitis Huntyngdon et Thome Shelle proditorum regis 
 publice proclamatorum apud le Leye in hundredo de Roche- 
 ford in dicto comitatu Essex scilicet uno jakke de rubeo 
 velvetto pretii x s., uno longo epitogo de nigro damseo furrato 
 cum menyveer pretii xxvj s.-viij d., uno longo epitogo de 
 viridi velvetto de mottele pulverisat. et furrat. cum foygues 
 usitato pretii xl s., uno alio longo epitogo de russeto furrato 
 cum cristate griseo debit, pretii xx s., uno collario aureo cum 
 gemmis de liberata regis Francie pretii viij li., uno magno 
 sigillo et uno parvo sigillo pretii xiiij s., duobus subligariis 
 stipatis cum auro pretii xxiij s.-iiij d. et viij s. et ij firmaculis 
 pretii xxiij s.-iiij d., vj grossis margaritis et viij aliis margaritis 
 pretii iiij li.-x s., uno collario de serico cum literis de margaritis 
 pretii xiij s.-iiij d., una nigra zona de serico cum una bucula 
 et appendice et vj stipis de auro pretii xl s., duabus aliis zonis 
 stipatis cum auro pretii Ixxiij s.-iiij d., una alia zona stipata 
 cum auro pretii xxvj s.-viij d., ij zonis de opere paris stipatis 
 cum argento et deauratis pretii xxiij s.-iiij d., uno cipho de 
 auro cum pede et cooperculo ad idem pretii xiij li.-vj s.-viij d., 
 uno alio cipho de auro cum cooperculo piano pretii x li., una 
 magna saphiro et una parva saphiro in una bursa pretii 
 xxvj s.-viij d., j diamante et iij parvis diamant. in una bursa 
 pretii iiij li., uno anulo de auro cum uno saphiro, uno alio 
 anulo de auro de opere paris, uno alio anulo de auro cum una 
 margarita et uno monile de auro cum margaritis et una aquila 
 operata pretii xiij s.-iiij d., uno alio monili de auro cum iij
 
 446 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 baleis una saphiro et vj margaritis pretii c s., uno alio monili 
 cum una baleis et vj margaritis circumpositis pretii xiij 1L- 
 vj s.-viij d., una chapa unius pugionis fistulat. cum uno folio et 
 alio auro fracto pretii xxs., vj poynt argenti deauratis cum 
 laqueis et vj literis pro uno jakke deauratis pretii vj s.-viij d., 
 ij ostrichfetheres de auro enamaillatis pretii vj s.-viij d., una 
 laquea de auro et de serico pretii iij s.-iiij d., j pugione phala- 
 rato cum argento deaurato pretii vj s.-viij d., j molberye de 
 argento deaurat. et iiij rosis de auro enamaillatis pretii xij d., 
 uno leone de argento pretii xiij s.-iiij d., uno magno pari de 
 patnosteres de corallo cum nigris gaudees de achate pretii 
 xl s., uno pari paternosters de corallo pretii iij s.-iiij d., uno 
 pari salsar. de argento cooperat et deaurat. pretii vij li., ij 
 peciis de argento piano pretii xl s., uno pari pelvium de 
 argento deaurat. pretii x li., una pelvi cum una lanacro de 
 argento piano defract. pretii cvj s.-viij d., uno lanacro de 
 argento deaurato pretii xx s., vj parvis chargeos de argento 
 pretii xx li., iiij magnis chargeos de argento pretii xiij li.-vj s.- 
 viij d., xviij discis de argento de una sorte pretii xxxvj li., ij 
 aliis discis de argento alia sorte pretii iiij li., una diamante 
 cum uno monili de opere pan's cum una aquila alba pretii 
 xxj li., in uno sacculo sigillato xxiij li.-v s. auri et argenti in 
 pecunia innumerata. / Item pro dicto comite una liberata 
 Ricardi nuper regis Anglic circa brachin. pretii iiij li., uno 
 alio monili de similitudine capitis cervi sine lapide pretii 
 xx s., una zona de auro cum belectis pretii xx li. per estima- 
 tionem, una liberata de auro regis Henrici Anglic pretii c s., 
 uno monili de similitudine unius pellicani sine lapide pretii 
 xl s., una liberata de cerno cum iij baleis et ij saphiris pretii 
 x li., una liberata regis Francie cum vj baleis et vj saphiris 
 pretii xx li., uno alio monili cum uno diamante pretii iiij li., 
 xxxvij anulis de opere paris pretii xls., una aquila alba 
 enamaillata cum una baleis pretii Ix s. Que quidem bona et 
 catalla sic appreciata fuerunt per inquisitionem coram dicto 
 escaetore inde ex officio captam et super hunc compotum 
 liberata eo quod idem escaetor liberavit omnia bona predicta 
 Johanni Norbury tune thesaurario Anglic per breve regis 
 dicto escaetori inde directum datum xxiij die Januarii anno 
 primo. . . .
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 447 
 
 Exchequer Memoranda Roll, King's Remembrancer 
 
 Adhuc Recorda de Termino Pasche anno primo Regis Henrici 
 
 Quarti, m. lod. {Adhuc Recorda) 
 
 Memorandum quod Willelmus Fyfhyd nuper commorans 
 cum Johanne nuper comite Huntingdon qui versus dominum 
 regem forisfecit presens hie in curia xvj die Maii hoc termino 
 dedit curie intelligi quod diversa bona et catalla (que fuerunt 
 predict! nuper comitis in quadam cedula de papiro contenta 
 et curie per predictum Willelmum liberata in custodia hujus 
 rememoratoris remanenda videlicet inter billas de hoc termino 
 cujus tenor sequitur in hec verba : " Ceux sont les choses 
 queux . . . [etc.] . . .") devenerunt ad manus Roberti Days 
 nuper cancellarii predicti nuper comitis et quod eadem bona 
 et catalla postea per quendam servientem dicti magistri 
 Roberti apportata fuerunt et deliberata Ricardo Whytyngton 
 . . . que quidem bona et catalla ratione judicii versus dictum 
 nuper comitem redditi domino regi pertinent tanquam foris- 
 facta. Super quo concordatum est . . . absque hoc quod 
 aliqua bona seu catalla de bonis in dicta cedula superius 
 contenta seu aliqua alia bona que fuerunt predicti Johannis 
 nuper comitis tempore judicii versus dictum nuper comitem 
 redditi seu unquam postea. . . . 
 
 NOTE. To anyone who wishes to maintain the genuineness of 
 the Year Book case, notwithstanding the enormous weight of 
 evidence which I have adduced against it, this extract will perhaps 
 seem a veritable tabula in naufragio. Nevertheless no drowning 
 man ever clutched at a slenderer straw. The few who are familiar 
 with the memoranda of the Exchequer will simply set it down as 
 a clerical error. Compare, for example, the Memoranda Rolls L.T.R., 
 2 Henry IV, r. 45d., and ibid. Pasch. adhuc recorda, m. 9, where 
 the earl of Kent is quite erroneously described as "convicted of 
 treason"; and ibid., m. 32, where Despencer is similarly described. 
 There are at least a hundred subsequent references to the forfeiture 
 of Huntingdon on the roll from which the above extract has been 
 taken, but the error is never repeated ; on the contrary, we find on 
 every occasion the type of formula which is employed where there 
 has been no judgment, e.g. : " pro eo quod omnia . . . supradicta 
 per forisfacturam predicti nuper comitis domino regi pertinent tan-
 
 448 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 quam forisfacta." Again, the entry in question was perhaps not 
 written up before the quinzaine of St. Hilary in the second year; 
 consequently the entry may refer to the proceedings in parliament. 
 
 Inquisitions, 5 Henry IV ; Exchequer Miscellanea, 6/28, m. 12 
 Confession of John Pritewell 
 
 M d - that on the ferst Sonday of Clene Lenten last passed 
 ther was on at Bylee in gyse of a knyght and sente for me 
 John Pritewelle to come to hym thyder and seyde to me 
 John Sire zoure mayster and myn and cure alder mayster 
 our right lige-lord kyng Richard greteht zou often tyme and 
 derelithe wel and thanketh zou hyeliche of zoure grete trouthe 
 that ze have contened zou inne to hym ward sithen he parted 
 fro zou, and sori is and often hath been for the defese that ze 
 have so ofte tyme su fired for hym and for his brother of 
 Huntyngdon yat was taken at zoure hous and often tymes he 
 prayeth ful herteley for zou to God that. . . . 
 
 Adam of Usk (ed. 1904), p. 42 
 
 Item comes Huntingdon per Essexem ad Franciam fugere 
 volens, per pagences captus, in eodem loco quo et dux Glow- 
 cestrie se Ricardo nuper regi reddidit, per plebeyos et me- 
 canicos decapitatur. De quibus rex domino meo Cantuariensi 
 scripsit; unde ipse sub isto themate: " Nuncio vobis magnum 
 gaudium," per modum sermonis, hoc clero et populo Londoniis 
 publicavit, et, cantato ymno, " Te Deum laudamus," Deo 
 regraciando per civitatem cum solempni transivit processione. 
 
 Jean le Beau, ed. Buchon, p. 56 x 
 
 Verite" est que quant le conte d'Antinton, frere du roi 
 Richard, et son maistre d'ostel sire Thomas Stelle qui fust 
 bon chevalier furent arrivez en escosse (sic), en une petite 
 ville oil demouroit la contesse d'Arvordre, soeur du vieil 
 conte d'Arondel qui fut dcolle a Londres, si se logerent ces 
 seigneurs en un ostel ou ils avoient accoustume de logier. 
 Et sitost que la comtesse le sceust, elle commanda secrete- 
 
 1 Printed as a supplement to Froissart, vol. xv, app. 2.
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 449 
 
 ment a son connestable qu'il feist armer tous ceulx de la ville 
 pour prendre le conte d'Antinton et sa compaignie. Le 
 connestable fist tantost le commandement de la dame et fist 
 tant de gens assembler que de force le conte d'Antinton et 
 sire Thomas son maistre d'ostel et Hue Credo son bouteiller, 
 et aussi les autres tous de sa route furent prins. Quant la 
 contesse les eust en sa prison, elle envoya une lettre au roi 
 Henry d'Angleterre lui signifrier comment elle tenoit en sa 
 prison le conte d'Antinton et tous ses gens. Si lui prioit 
 qu'il lui envoyast le conte d'Arondel, son cousin, pour prendre 
 vengeance de la mort de son pere. Sur ce mandement le roi 
 lui envoya en disant : " Beau cousin, allez a vostre ante qui 
 vous mande, et amenez les prisonniers par deca, vifz ou mors, 
 hastivement" Si s'en alia le conte, et arriva devers son ante, 
 et trouva que la dame avoit fait assembler des villains du 
 pays bien huit mille. Et quant il eust la este la nuit, au plus 
 matin la dame et le conte d'Arondel son neveu firent amener 
 le conte d'Antinton devant eulx et devant tous ces villains ; 
 et commanderent que devant eulx ils le tuassent ; mais pour 
 vrai il n'y eust homme qui mal leur voulsist faire pour chose 
 qu'on leur commandast, car moult grant pitie en avoient. . . . 
 [Arundel upbraids Huntingdon.] . . . Adoncques vint un 
 escuyer qui fist le bon varlet, lequel se presenta de 1'occire. 
 Adoncques commanda la dame qu'il s'en delivrast, et 1'escuyer 
 vint devers le conte une hache en sa main, et se mist a 
 genoulx devant lui, et lui dist : " Chier sire, pardonnez moi 
 vostre mort, car il m'est commande de vous delivrer de ce 
 monde. . . ." [Huntingdon cries for mercy, madame is obdurate 
 and constrains her squire.] . . . Adoncques 1'escuyer haulsa 
 la hache et le ferit parmi 1'espaulle, si qu'il tomba a terre, et 
 fut grant pitie de le voir ; car a tout ce coup le conte saillit 
 sus et dit : "Ami pourquoi me fais-tu ainsi languir? Pour 
 Dieu, delivres moi legierement." Adoncques le ref^rit huit 
 coups moult honteusement qu'oncques ne sceust adrecer en 
 la teste ; et au neufviesme coup le ferit au col bien parfont ; 
 mais ce fust grant pitie et merveille, car a tous ses coups il 
 parla, et dist : " Hee ! Dieu mercy ! " Puis ne parla ; et fut 
 piteuse mort ; car encore lui parcoupa - il la gorge d'un 
 coustel. Quant ainsi fut mort le conte d'Antinton, le conte 
 2 G
 
 450 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 d'Arondel fist la teste bouter sur ung long baston, et le 
 chevalier maistre d'ostel fut mene a Londres, pies et poings 
 lies, sur ung cheval, et le bouteiller fut mene trotant a pie 
 entre les chevaux ; si vindrent a Londres le vingtieme jour 
 de Janvier 1'an dessus dit. . . . En ce propre jour vint a 
 Londres le conte de Rostellen, lequel fesoit apporter devant 
 lui la teste du seigneur Despensier. . . . 
 
 Annales Henrici Quarti, Rolls Series, 28, /. 326 
 
 Comes Huntyngdoniae, dominus Johannes Holand, qui 
 prius " dux Excestriae " vocabatur, non equitavit cum pre- 
 dictis comitibus ad castrum de Wyndeshore, die quo meditati 
 fuerunt peremisse regem ; sed latens Londoniis expectavit rei 
 finem, quae si juxta [vota] cessisset eisdem, paratus fuit, ut 
 dicebatur, ad occurrendum eis et auxilia ferre cum magno 
 numero armatorum. Sed mox ut cognovit versum in con- 
 trarium, in scapha fugere nitebatur. Qui vero ventis et mari 
 imperat ventum contrarium sibi tarn turgidum tarn contrarium 
 sibi concitavit ut nullo modo per Tamisiam fugere praeval- 
 eret. Quamobrem vectus equo velocissimo fugit in Estsexiam 
 ad castrum de Hadle, ubi morabatur comes Oxoniae, Al- 
 bredus de Veer, cum uxore sua, Oxoniae comitissa. Sed ibi 
 diu latere non potuit propter persecutores qui propter eum 
 omnia scrutabantur. Egressus igitur latenter a castro venit 
 ad quoddam molendinum, sequente eum milite quodam 
 Johanne de Schevele quern de garcione fortuna produxerat 
 ad ardu *** paucis annis. Ibi igitur occultavit se biduo, 
 tentans, si quomodo posset, per mare fugiendo iram domini 
 declinare. Sed quotiens tentavit alta ponti conscendere 
 totiens, vi ventorum repulsus, cogebatur littus repetere ; 
 donee omnino desperans de maris suffragio destitit a pro- 
 posito praeconcepto. Regressus in terram igitur venit ad 
 domum noctu cujusdam armigeri sibi noti, scilicet Johannis 
 de Prytwelle ; ubi dum esset in coena supervenerunt multi 
 de patria, qui repente rapuerunt et duxerunt ad villam de 
 Chelmesford, in qua censuerunt eum arbitrio communium 
 morti turpissimae judicandum. Quo cum pervenisset, inter- 
 ventu dominae comitissae de Hereford, salvatus est ad horam
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 451 
 
 et ductus ad fortalicium de Plesshi, servandus per familiares 
 dominae, sed mediante communibus restituendus. Cumque 
 custodiretur ibi per dies aliquot, orientales Saxones con- 
 fluxerunt de cunctis villis circumjacentibus et munitionem 
 in qua servabatur, velut obsidendo, circumsederunt ; et tan- 
 dem ad hunc finem intenderunt omnes ut produceretur et, 
 velut regum proditor, in eodem loco decapitaretur in quo 
 dominus eorundem dux Gloucestriae, dum occurrisset regi 
 Ricardo processionaliter et pacifice, per eundem regem fuerat 
 arestatus. 
 
 Die igitur sancti Mauri, quae fuit octavo decimo kalendas 
 Febuarii, imminente jam nocte, communes petierunt dom- 
 inum Gerardum Braybrok militem ut educeret proditorem. 
 Ille vero, juxta mandata dominae comitissae Herefordiae, 
 cupiens servare eum donee dominus rex cum eo colloquium 
 habuisset, requisivit divortia tempusque protraxit et distulit 
 eos audire. Qui mox, velut in mentis insaniam versi, jura- 
 verunt quod nisi ipse produceret eum sine mora, ipse morere- 
 tur pro eodem. Ille vero iras vulgi [metuens] promisit se 
 comitem producturum; jugiter reversusque, cum festinatione 
 tremebundus, reperit comitem atque militem, scilicet Johan- 
 nem Schevelee, genuflectendo, jam dixisse commendationem 
 pro animabus propriis et officium mortuorum ; narravitque 
 eis in quanto [pavore] fuerat constitutus, quia eos producere 
 distulisset. Comes haec audiens lamentabiliter exclamavit, 
 "heu," inquit, " sumne trahendus arbitrio rusticorum et 
 nebulonum et mactandus juxta beneplacitum eorundem? 
 Sinite me," inquit, "armari deprecor, et me defendere donee 
 deficiam, ne tarn foede mori me contingat." Gerardus et 
 alii e contra consulerunt ut, dismissa vindicandi voluntate, 
 armaret se patientia et humiliter fortunam subiret, quam 
 subterfugere nullo modo poterat. Cumque comes consen- 
 sisset eorum consiliis, vinctis a tergo manibus, eductus est 
 ad communes, qui steterunt super pontem hinc et inde ar- 
 mati lanceis, gladibus, arcubus et sagittis ; nam pons longus 
 est ab ilia turri usque ad terram contiguam, et per eorum 
 medium eum transire necessarium fuit. Qui ut vidit tantum 
 communitatis apparatum, elevata voce rogavit eos omnes ex 
 parte Dei et caritatis intuitu ne inordinatis clamoribus eum
 
 452 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 stupefacerent. . . . Cumque pervenisset ad locum ubi ares- 
 tatus olim fuerat dux Gloverniae, genuflectere jussus, dixit 
 "confiteor" in aperto, . . . rogavitque cunctos attentius ut 
 talis eligeretur ad decollandura eum qui foret expertus et 
 uno ictu decapitare sciret. Sed cum extendisset caput et 
 collum super breve scabellum, ganeo, qui decapitaturus fuerat 
 eum, vel ebrietate vel metu facti oberrans, non lictoris sed 
 tortoris exercebat officium, eum decem vicibus securi feriens 
 et miserabiliter nimis torquens. Corpus vero truncum sacer- 
 dotes de collegio rapuerunt et penes se collocaverunt. Caput 
 ejus, sicut et caeterorum qui perempti fuerunt Cyrcestriae, 
 Londoniis mittebatur. 
 
 Eulogium, Rolls Series, 9, tit, p. 386 
 
 Postmodum apud Prytwell in Excexce in quodam molen- 
 dino Johannes Holand dux Exoniae, frater regis Ricardi ex 
 parte matris, se transformans in simplicem, per patriae illius 
 communitatem captus et usque Plasshe adductus, decollatur. 
 
 Walsingham, Rolls Series [28], i, 2, p. 245 
 
 Comes Huntyngdone, dominus Johannes Holand, non erat 
 cum praedictis dominis apud castellum de Wyndeshore, sed 
 expectavit Londoniis rei finem. Qui cum novisset rem versam 
 contra vota, fugere nitebatur in scapha, sed vento flante con- 
 trario repulsus est. Quamobrem equo vectus pervenit Est- 
 sexiam cum quodam milite dicto J Schevele. Tentavit igitur 
 per mare fugisse ab illis partibus, sed quotiens voluit mare 
 ingredi totiens repulsus est vi ventorum, donee omnino 
 desperans de Neptuni suffrages destitit ab inceptis. Tandem 
 reversus in terram ad domum cujusdam amici sui, dum 
 sederet in coena cum milite supradicto, captus est per com- 
 munes patriae, et ductus primo ad villam de Chelmesfordia, 
 deinde ad fortalitium de Plesshi custodiendus ibidem tanquam 
 loco securiori. Quo confluentibus regionis communibus, die 
 sancti Mauri, circa solis occasum productus est et, in loco 
 quo dominus eorum dux Gloverniae quondam arestatus fuit 
 per regem Ricardum, decapitatus est, confessus prius lacry-
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 453 
 
 mabiliter se pecasse in Deum suum multipliciter et in regem 
 suum quia, sciens consilia dictorum dominorum, regem exinde 
 mimine praemunisset. 
 
 (See also Walsingham's Ypodeigma Neustriae, Rolls Series, 
 P- 390.) 
 
 Otterbourne, ed. Hearne, i, p. 227 
 
 Comes Huntingdon, hoc audito, fugit et captus fuit, et 
 ductus usque Chelmesford, deinde apud Plessy, prece comi- 
 tissae Her[e]ford ad horam servatus. Sed communitas 
 noluerunt hunc vivere ultra. Petebant namque ipsum liberari 
 ut ibidem decapitaretur in loco viz. ubi dominus eorum dux 
 Glouc[estriae] fuerat prius captus, vel ipsam comitissam et 
 totam familiam suam, nisi eum sibi traderet, occiderent. 
 Tune ilia liberavit eis, qui eum decollari fecerunt. 
 
 Vita Regis Ricardi II, ed. Hearne, p. 167 
 
 Et non multum post dominus Johannes Holont comes 
 Huntyngdon, frater regis Ricardi ex parte matris, apud 
 Plaschet in Estsexia per comitissam Herefordiae captus et 
 decollatus est. Cujus captionis modum ad praesens omitto 
 propter taedium lectorum. 
 
 Collectanea, ed. Leland, ii, p. 484 
 
 Sir John Holand duke of Excestre was taken in Estsax at 
 a mylle by Pritelwel by communes of the cuntery and thens 
 led him to Plaisshey, and there, in vengeange of the arresting 
 the good duke of Glocester by king Richard, was by hedid. 
 
 An English Chronicle, Camden Society, 64, p. 21 
 
 And the same yeer at Pritwelle in Essex, in a mille, ser 
 John Holand duke of Excestre was take be the communez 
 of the cuntre, and unto Plasshe, where as king Richard arestid 
 ser Thomas of Wodestoke duke of Gloucestre, and there they 
 smoot of his hed, and yt was set on London brigge.
 
 454 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Chronicon Angliae, ed. Giles ; /. 10 
 
 Et non multum post Johannes Hollande comes Hunting- 
 doniae, frater Ricardi nuper regis Angliae, captus fuit per 
 dominam comitissam Herfordiae justa Plashe in Essexia, 
 sine stipatu famulantium, et ibidem sine ulteriore judicio 
 eadem domina fecit unum de militibus praefati comitis ejus 
 caput amputare. 
 
 Lambeth MS. 306, Camden Society N.S. 28, p. 52 
 
 And in the same yere was the erle of Kent, the erle of 
 Salisbery, be hedid at Susseter. And sir Thomas Blunt, sir 
 Rauffe Lomney, sir John Cely and Thomas Venter were 
 be hedyd at Oxenford. And sir John Holond and (sic) the 
 duke of Excester were be hedyd at Plaschey. And the lord 
 Spencer was be hedid at Bristowe. 
 
 Chronicle of London, p. 86 
 
 . . . also the erle of Huntyngton was beheded at Plasshe 
 in Essex, the which was fled and wolde a passed the see to 
 have brought in Frensshmen for to destroye Engelond : and 
 he myghte have no wynd to brynge hym over, and he was 
 take and beheded as it ys aboveseid. 
 
 Capgrave's Chronicle, Rolls Series, I, /. 276 
 
 The erl of Huntingdon herd of this and fled into Esex. 
 And as often as he assaied to take the se, so often was 
 he bore of with the wynde. Than was he take be the 
 comones and led to Chelmisforth, and than to Plasche, and 
 his hed smet of in the same place where he arestid the duke 
 of Gloucetir. 
 
 Chronique de la Traison et Mort de Richard II, 
 Eng. Hist. Soc., p. 96 
 
 Et quant la justice fu faicte a Oxinforde et que sire Thomas 
 Blont fu mis a mort le roy Henry envoya le conte de Rotelan 
 et sire Thomas Derpeghem apres le sire Despensier qui fu 
 conte de Clocestre et fut prins et lui copa on la teste et le
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 455 
 
 conte de Rotelan le fist aussi mener a Londres. Et quant 
 le due Dexcestre conte Dontinton, frere au roy Richart, et 
 sire Thomas Selle qui avoit este son maistre dostel, qui fu 
 un bon chivaler, furent arrivez en Escoce (sic) en une petite 
 ville ou demoura la contesse Daruorde, la suer de feu le 
 conte Darondel lequel avoit este decolle a Londres au grant 
 parlement, le due Dexcestre et son maistre dostel si alerent 
 logier en lostel ou ilz avoient acoustumie destre logiez quant 
 ilz passoient par la, et la contesse senti que le conte Dontinton 
 estoit arrive. Adonc elle commanda a son connestable de 
 la ville que il feist assembler secretement tous ceulx de la 
 ville pour prendre le frere au roy Richart a tout ses gens, car 
 elle le vouloit avoir et prendre vengeance de son frere. II 
 fu fait ainsi comme elle le commanda et la fut prins le conte 
 Dontinton lui iije, son chivaler, et son bouteillier lequel avoit 
 nom Hugue Cade. Et toute la plus grant partie de sa 
 chevalerie et escuierie fu prinse par tout le pais de ca et de 
 la quilz ne savoient quelle part chevaucher ne ou aler. Et 
 envoya la contesse unes lettres au roy Henry pour lui faire 
 savoir comment elle avoit fait prendre le conte Dontinton 
 et pria au roy quil lui voulsist envoyer son cousin Darondel 
 et quil lui venist prendre vengeance de la mort de son pere, 
 car elle feroit le conte Dontinton pendre et traisner. Adonc 
 envoya le roy le conte Darondel par dela disant : " cousin 
 alez a vostre ante et amenez les prisonniers par deca vifz ou 
 mors." Et quant le conte Darondel arriva en la ville ou le 
 conte Dontinton fu prins il trouva la contesse Darondel (sic) 
 son ante et les villains du pais qui furent la assemblez bien 
 viij m. ou plus. La dame avoit fait amener devant ses 
 villains le conte Dontinton pour le faire mourir, et pour il 
 navoit nul des villains la qui neust bien grant pitie de lui. . . . 
 [The earl's death by the unskilful hands of a young esquire 
 is described at great length.] . . . Ainsi fu mis a mort le due 
 Dexcestre conte Dontinton frere du noble roy Richart Et 
 le conte Darondel fist bouter la teste du due sur un long 
 baston, et le chevalier fu liez les piez et les mains et amene 
 a cheval, et le bouteillier fu lie et trota a pie jusques a Londres 
 ou ilz arriverent le lundi xix jour de Janvier environ disner. 
 Et le conte Darondel vint a Londres et ses menestrelz et
 
 456 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 trompetes devant la teste du due Dexcestre. . . . A tel jour 
 mesmes arriva le conte de Rotelan lequel fist porter devant 
 lui la teste du sire Despensier conte de Clocestre sur un long 
 baton. . . - 1 
 
 Chronicles of London, Kingsford, p. 62 
 
 And Sir John Holonde erle off Huntyngdon and Thomas 
 Wynter squyer weren byheeded at Plasshe in Essex, and her 
 heedes weren sette upon London Brigge. 
 
 Waurin, Rolls Series, 39, ii, /. 45. 
 
 (Coment le conte de Hostidonne, frere du roy Richard, fut 
 prins et piteusement mis a mort. Chapter xiii.) 
 
 Ainsi comme vous oez le roy Henry et les Londriens 
 faisoient feste et joye, mais le conte de Hostidonne due 
 d'Excestre, frere du defunct roy Richard, et messire Thomas 
 Saielle quy avoit este son maistre d'hostel, moult vaillant 
 et hardy chevallier en son temps, eulz voians, comme par cy 
 devant avez oy, comment les villains de Succestre avoient 
 uze du due de Sudrien et des autres nobles hommes, se par- 
 tirent hors de la ville, ou le conte trouva son maistre d'hostel 
 lui douziesme avec lesquelz il prinst le chemin d'Escoce (sic), 
 si arriverent en une petite ville ou pour lors demouroit la 
 contesse d'Arondel (sic) sceur du conte d'Arondel qui avoit 
 este decolle a Londres au grand parlement. Le due d'Ex- 
 cestre conte de Hostidonne et sa compaignie se logerent en 
 une hostelerie ou autresfois avoit accoustume de soy logier 
 quant il passoit par la. Alors la contesse d'Arondel (sic) 
 sachant le conte a privee maisnie estre en la ville, manda 
 secretement a son connestable quil assemblast toute la com- 
 munaulte pour prendre et saisir le conte de Hostidonne frere 
 du roy Richard et tous ceulz qui avec luy estoient, car sur lui 
 voulloient prendre vengance de la mort de son frere ; la quelle 
 chose fut faite ainsi comme elle commanda, a scavoir le dit 
 conte de Hostidonne, lui troisiesme de chevalliers, si furent 
 
 1 Test the reliability of these dates by Close Roll, i Henry IV, 
 pt i, m. 19. Writ dated January 24th directed to the Mayor of 
 Bristol and ordering him to send the head of Despencer to London.
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 457 
 
 fort lyez et amenez devant la contesse. Si sachies veritable- 
 ment que lors ne faisoient autre chose en Angleterre que 
 guettier les passages, parquoy finablement furent prins le 
 greigneur partie des barons chevalliers et escuyers tenans la 
 partie du roy Richard, qui estoit moult grand pitie a veoir, 
 ne ilz ne scavoient quel part fuyr que tantost ne feussent 
 accusez comme il ny eust passage ou gens ne feussent or- 
 donnez pour les prendre. Or doncques le due d'Excestre 
 ainsi prins, la contesse d'Arondel (sic) rescripvi au roy Henry, 
 qui estoit a Londres, toute ladvenne du cas, et que prestement 
 luy voulsist envoier le conte d'Arondel son cousin pour veoir 
 prendre vengeance de son pere, car son intention estoit de 
 faire pendre l et trainner ledit conte de Hostidonne. Le roy 
 Henry moult joieux de dis nouvelles, quant il cut leu les 
 lettres, appela le jeune conte d'Arondel et luy dist : " Beau 
 cousin, allez veoir vostre tante pardela, et mamenez tous les 
 prisonniers quelle a devers elle, mors ou vifz." De la quelle 
 legation le conte d'Arondel moult joieux il monta a cheval, 
 si sexploita telement de chevaulchier quil vint en la ville ou 
 estoit la ducesse (sic) sa tante, qui avoit illec environ plus de 
 huit mille paysans assemblez tous armez et embastonnez, si 
 avoit fait amener devant eulz ledit noble conte de Hostidonne 
 pour le faire morir, mais pour certain il ny cut homme en 
 toute la compaignie quy neust de luy pitie, car il estoit ung 
 moult beau prince, grant et droit, bien fourme de tous mem- 
 bres, qui estoit la devant eulz les mains Hies. En ceste meisme 
 heure arriva le conte d'Arondel en la place, si salua sa tante 
 et vey la present le conte de Hostidonne due d'Excestre 
 auquel il demanda : . . . [Arundel upbraids Huntingdon] . . . 
 et adonc fist mener le conte devant la bataille des villains 
 adfin quilz loccessient. Le conte de Hostidonne se voiant 
 en ce parti, regardant moult piteusement ceulz qui le devoient 
 occir, leur disoit : " Mes seigneurs aiez pitie de moy car 
 oncques a vous ne a ceulz de ce pays ne meffis riens." Sy ny 
 avoit adont nulz deulz qui eust voulloir de luy mal faire et 
 quy neust grant pitie de luy, excepte le conte et la contesse 
 d'Arondel (sic) laquell dist a ses gens : " Mauldis soyez vous 
 
 1 "prendre" in Rolls edition.
 
 458 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 tous, villains maulvaiz, quy nestes pas si hardis que de mettre 
 ung homme a mort." Alors saprocha ung escuyer de la dame 
 et du conte d'Arondel, qui se presenta a decoller ledit conte 
 de Hostidonne, et la contesse luy commanda que tost le feist ; 
 si vint lescuyer, une hace en sa main, . . . [Huntingdon's 
 death is described at great length]. . . . Et lors le conte 
 d'Arondel fist mettre la teste sur une longue perche. Puis 
 les chevalliers quy furent prins avec luy eurent les mains 
 loyees, aussi eurent les autres prisonniers, lesquelz le conte 
 d'Arondel fist troter de pie apres luy tant quilz vindrent 
 jusques a Londres, ou ilz arriverent le Lundy neuvieme jour 
 de Jenvier environ heure de disner, et le conte de Arundel 
 entra dedens Londres ses trompettes et menestrelz sonnans 
 devant luy, et entre le dit conte d'Arondel et les menestrelz 
 venoient lesdis prisonniers et ceulz qui aportoient la teste du 
 due d'Excestre conte de Hostidonne. 
 
 Chronique du Religieux de Saint Denis, vol. u, p. 742 
 
 Comes vero de Hotinton, quondam regis Richardi frater 
 illegitimus, cum in Scociam (sic) fugere conaretur, a gentibus 
 comitisse Herifordie, cujus filiam desponsaverat rex Henricus, 
 captus et incarceratus fuit. Quod audiens rex Henricus, quia 
 sororem ejus duxerat in uxorem, mittissime sperans agere 
 pro ipso, mandavit ut sibi remitteretur. Quod renuens re- 
 mandavit quod sibi truncun vel caput solum haberet, et hec 
 dicens ipsum decollari jussit. Sane contra predictum inex- 
 piabili odio hucusque laboraverat, quoniam in mortem ducis 
 Glocestrie, qui secundam filiam ejus desponsaverat, machin- 
 atus fuerat et consulerat ut ignominiose occideretur, ut dictum 
 est. Caput autem occisi comitis ad regem, ut promiserat, 
 transmisit per comitem Arundelli ; qua eciam die comes de 
 Rotland caput domini Dispensatoris eidem regi obtulit. Que 
 duo capita jussit super pontem Londoniensem suspendi, et 
 illos qui eis faverant ubique diligentissime perquiri. 
 
 MS. Grays Inn, No. 9, fol. 145 (contemporary] 
 
 Eodem anno circa festum Epiphanie domini conspirabant 
 quidam adversus regem Henricum non immerito ut occidere-
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 459 
 
 tur, Thomas dux Surrye comes Cancie qui capite est plexus 
 nesciente rege Henrico in villa sua a suis proditoribus apud 
 Surcestr. Et comes Sar. et fidelis miles Rauf Lomney cum 
 multis aliis nobilissimis personis similiter decapitantur. Et 
 dux Exon. frater regis Ricardi apud Plasshee fraudilenter est 
 occisus. 
 
 Year Books, 1-14 Henry IV ; First Edition published by 
 
 Tottel, n.d. (15 53 ?),/<?/. I 
 Anno Primo Henrici Quarti* 
 
 I Le Countey de H. fuit endicte dell hault treason 
 
 Corone. en Londres per un commission devant le Mayre et 
 
 Coment on . , * 
 
 seigniour Justices de ceo que il ove auters parsons accord de 
 
 serra trie par f avre un Mummyng en la nuycte del Epiphanie, 
 en quel ils entendant de tuer le Roy donques 
 estant all Wyndesore. Et puis le Roy fesoit commission a 
 le Countie de D. recitant que lou. G. le counte de H. fuit 
 endicte de Hault treason par luy fait concernant sa parson 
 et que il vouloit ceo que droit est, et pur ceo que 1'office dell 
 Scenescall del Angleter est ore voyde il graunta cest office a 
 le dit counte de D. pur faire droyt all dit counte de H. com- 
 maundant par mesme le commission toutes seigniours de 
 estre attendant sur luy Et commandant auxi par mesme le 
 commission le Constable dell Toure pur estre attendant sur 
 luy, et pur conveyer le prysoner s. 2 le dit Counte de H. devant 
 le dit Countie de D. a quell jour ill sera a ceo assigne. Et 
 sur ceo a certayne jour le dit Counte de D. seyt en le sale de 
 Westminster south un cloth de estate a par luy Et le Counte 
 de Westmerlad et toutes auters countees et seigniours la 
 sedernt par un graund space de luy, mes nemy sur mesme le 
 banke, mes sur auters- formes downeward en la dit sale. Et 
 tous les Justices et barons del Excheker sederunt en le mulnes 
 circa un Table par enter les dictes seigniours. Et puis trois 
 Oyes fuerunt solempnemet faits per le Crier, et le dit com- 
 mission fuit lie. Et puis les Justices deliveront lenditement 
 
 1 De Termino Michaelis Anno i regni regis Henrici Quarti (ed. 
 1679). 
 
 2 S. (ed. 1562-70).
 
 460 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 a le dit 1 Scenescal, le quell ceo deliver all Clerke del Corone, 
 le quell ceo lia a le dit Counte de H. le quel il confes, pur 
 que Hil 2 un des seriants le Roy pria que le dit Seigniour 
 Senescall voil doner judgement, sur quel il rehersa le dit 
 matter et puis done judgement que il alera a le Toure de 
 Londres et de ceo que il serra trahe a les furkes et la pend, 
 et let down arere uncore vivant, et que donques (ses entrailes 
 serra trahes hors de son corps et combures et que 3 ) il serra 
 decolle et quartere. Et sic Deus propicietur animae suae. Et 
 touts les Justices diont que si le dit Counte voil aver denie 
 le treason, donques le Scenescall demaundera de chescun 
 Seigniour a par luy apartement (quant ils done[ront] lour 
 verdict, le 3 ) quel il esteme en sa conscience, et il commencera 
 enprimes ove le puisne Seigniour. Et si le pluis nombre dira 
 culpable, donques le judgement serra done ut supra. Et nul 
 Seigniour serra jure sur ceo, etc. 
 
 (A copy of this edition is in Lincoln's Inn Library. See 
 also, in addition to the ordinary edition of 1679, Year Books 
 i Henry IV to 9 Henry V, Tottel, 1562-70 ; and Year Books 
 i Henry IV to 9 Henry V, Thomas Wight, 1605.) 
 
 Baga de Secretis, Pouch II 
 
 Letters Patent appointing a Steward of England for the 
 Trial of Edward Earl of Warwick 
 
 Henricus Dei gratia rex Anglic et Francie et dominus 
 Hibernie carissimo consanguineo suo Johanni comiti Oxon. 
 magno camerario Anglic ac admirallo ejusdem salutem. 
 Sciatis quod cum Edwardus comes Warr. per nomen Edwardi 
 comitis Warr. nuper de Warrewyk in com. Warr. de alta pro- 
 dicione per ipsum erga personam nostram regiam facta et 
 perpetrata coram dilectis et fidelibus nostris Nicholao Alwyn 
 majore civitatis nostre London, Johanne Fyneux milite 
 
 1 omit (ed. 1679). 
 
 2 A Robert Hill (or Hull) was one of the worthies of this period. 
 He became king's serjeant in 1399 : in 1408 he was appointed a 
 judge of the Common Pleas, and was one of the commission which 
 tried Cambridge, Scrope and Grey in 1415. 
 
 3 Not in Tottel's editions.
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 461 
 
 Thoma Bryan milite et sociis suis justiciariis nostris ad omni- 
 modi prodiciones felonias conspiraciones rebelliones insur- 
 rectiones contemptus concelamenta forisfacturas decepciones 
 falsitates riotas routas conventicula illicita transgressiones 
 misprisiones et alias offensas quascunque infra civitatem 
 predictam ac suburb, et libertatem ejusdem per quoscumque 
 et qualitercumque facta sive perpetrata audiendum et termi- 
 nandum assignatis indictatus existit: Nos considerantes quod 
 justitia est virtus excellens Altissimo complacens eaque pre 
 omnibus uti volumus, pro eo quod officium senescalli Anglie 
 cujus presencia pro administracione justicie et execucione 
 ejusdem in hac parte fiende requiritur, ut accepimus, jam 
 vacat, de fidelitate provida circumspectione et industria 
 vestris plenius confidentes ordinamus et constituimus vos 
 senescallum Anglie ad officium illud ex causa predicta cum 
 omnibus eidem officio in hac parte debite pertinentibus hac 
 vice gerendum occupandum et exercendum ; dantes et con- 
 cedentes vobis tenore presencium plenam et sufficientem 
 potestatem et auctoritatem ac mandatum speciale indicta- 
 menta predicta cum omnibus ilia tangentibus a prefatis 
 majore, Johanne, Thoma et sociis suis predictis recipiendi 
 et ilia inspiciendi ac ad certos diem et locum quos ad hoc 
 provideritis ipsum Edwardum coram vobis evocandi et ipsum 
 superinde examinandi et respondere compellendi ac fine 
 debito terminandi necnon tot et tales dominos proceres et 
 magnates hujusmodi regni nostri Anglie ejusdem Edwardi 
 pares per quos rei veritas in hac parte melius sciri poterit 
 ad diem et locum predictos ex causa predicta coram vobis 
 comparere astringendi, veritateque inde comperta ad judicium 
 inde per hujusmodi senescallum reddendum secundum leges 
 et consuetudines regni nostri Anglie hac vice versus prefatum 
 Edwardum procedendi sentenciandi et adjudicandi ac execu- 
 tionem inde facere percipiendi ceteraque omnia et singula 
 que ad officium senescalli Anglie in hac parte pertinent et 
 requiruntur hac vice faciendi exercendi et exequendi. Et 
 ideo vobis mandamus quod circa premissa diligenter in- 
 tendatis et ea faciatis et exequamini in forma predicta. 
 Damus autem universis et singulis ducibus comitibus baroni- 
 bus vicecomitibus et omnibus aliis officiariis ministris et ligeis
 
 462 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 nostris tenore presencium firmiter in mandatis quod vobis 
 in executione premissorum intendentes sint consulentes as- 
 sistentes et auxiliantes in omnibus prout decet Mandavimus 
 enim eidem majori, Johanni, Thome et sociis suis predictis 
 quod indictamenta predicta cum omnibus ilia tangentibus 
 ex causa predicta vobis deliberent. Mandavimus eciam con- 
 stabulario turris nostre London ejusve locumtenenti vel 
 deputato ibidem quod ad certos diem et locum quos ei scire 
 faciatis prefatum Edwardum coram vobis venire faciat In 
 cujus rei testimonium has literas nostras fieri fecimus patentes. 
 Teste me-ipso apud Westmonasterium xix die Novembris 
 anno regni nostri quinto decimo. 
 
 Baga de Secretis, Pouch II 
 The Trial of the Earl of Warwick 
 
 Dominus Rex mandavit carissimo consanguineo suo Jo- 
 hanni comiti Oxon. magno camerario Anglie ac admirallo 
 ejusdem necnon senescallo Anglie hac vice literas suas 
 patentes in hec verba : [The earl's patent of appointment 
 is here set out as above.] Mandavit etiam idem dominus 
 rex dilectis et fidelibus suis Nicholao Alwyn majori civitatis 
 sue London Johanni Fyneux militi Thome Bryan militi et 
 sociis suis justiciariis ipsius regis ad omnimodi prodiciones 
 felonias conspiraciones rebelliones insurrectiones contemptus 
 concelamenta forisfacturas decepciones falsitates riotas routas 
 conventicula illicita transgressiones misprisiones et alias 
 offensas quascumque infra civitatem predictam ac suburb, 
 et libertatem ejusdem per quoscumque et qualitercumque 
 facta sive perpetrata audiendum et terminandum assignatis 
 breve suum clausum in hec verba Henricus Dei gratia rex 
 Anglie et Francie et dominus Hibernie dilectis et fidelibus 
 suis Nicholao Alwyn majori civitatis sue London Johanni 
 Fyneux militi Thome Bryan militi et sociis suis justiciariis 
 suis ad omnimodi prodiciones felonias conspiraciones re- 
 belliones insurrectiones contemptus concelamenta forisfac- 
 turas decepciones falsitates riotas routas conventicula illicita 
 transgressiones misprisiones et alias offensas quascumque 
 infra civitatem predictam ac suburb, et libertatem ejusdem
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 463 
 
 per quoscumque et qualitercumque facta sive perpetrata 
 audiendum et terminandum assignatis et eorum cuilibet 
 salutem Mandamus vobis quod omnia et singula indicta- 
 menta recorda et processus de quibuscumque prodicionibus 
 seu aliis malefactis unde Edwardus comes Warr. nuper de 
 Warrewyk in comitatu Warr. coram vobis indictatus est ut 
 dicitur carissimo consanguineo nostro Johanni comiti Oxon. 
 magno camerario Anglic ac admirallo ejusdem necnon hac 
 vice senescallo Anglie deliberetis indilate unacum hoc breve 
 ut ipse senescallus inspectis indictamentis recordis et pro- 
 cessibus predictis ulterius inde hac parte fieri faciat prout 
 de jure et secundum legem et consuetudinem regni nostri 
 Anglie fuerit faciendum. Teste meipso apud Westmonas- 
 terium xx die Novembris anno regni nostri quinto-decimo. 
 Ac insuper mandavit idem dominus rex constabulario Turris 
 sue London sive ejus locumtenenti vel deputato ibidem 
 quoddam alium breve suum clausum in hec verba : Hen- 
 ricus Dei gratia rex Anglie et Francie et dominus Hibernie 
 constabulario Turris sue London sive ejus locumtenenti vel 
 deputato ibidem salutem. Mandamus vobis quod Edwardum 
 comitem Warr. nuper de Warrewyk in comitatu Warr. de 
 alta prodicione erga personam nostram per ipsum facta et 
 perpetrata coram dilectis ei fidelibus nostris Nicholao Alwyn 
 majore civitatis nostre London, Johanne Fyneux milite, 
 Thoma Bryan milite et sociis suis justiciariis nostris ad 
 omnimodi prodiciones et alia malefacta infra eandem civi- 
 tatem ac suburb, et libertatem ejusdem qualitercumque facta 
 et perpetrata audiendum et terminandum assignatis indic- 
 tatum coram carissimo consanguineo nostro Johanne comite 
 Oxon. magno camerario Anglie ac admirallo ejusdem necnon 
 hac vice Anglie senescallo ad certos diem et locum quos 
 idem senescallus vobis sciri faciat super premissis responsu- 
 rum salvo et secure venire faciatis. Et hoc nullatenus omit- 
 tatis. Teste me-ipso apud Westmonasterium xx die Novem- 
 bris anno regni nostri quinto decimo. Quarumquidcm 
 literarum domini regis patentium predictarum prefato senes- 
 callo Anglie hac vice directarum pretextu preceptum fuit 
 per dictum senescallum Anglie scilicet vicesimo die Novem- 
 bris anno quinto decimo supradicto prefato Nicholao Alwyn,
 
 464 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Johanni Fyneux militi, et Thome Bryan militi et sociis suis 
 Justiciariis etc. quod indictamenta recorda et processus de 
 alta prodicione persone domini regis facta et perpetrata 
 coram eis nuper capta unde predictus comes Warrewici in- 
 dictatus extitit cum omnibus ea tangentibus adeo plene et 
 integre prout coram eis nuper capta fuerunt et penes se tune 
 residebant quocumque nomine predictus comes nuncupebatur 
 in eisdem coram prefato senescallo sub sigillo suo aut unius 
 eorum apud Westmonasterium die Jovis proximo ante fes- 
 tum sancti dementis pape tune proximo sequentem mitterent 
 seu unus eorum mitteret ut ulterius etc. Preceptum fuit etiam 
 per dictum senescallum Anglic dicto vicesimo die Novembris 
 anno quinto decimo supradicto prefato constabulario Turris 
 domini regis London vel ejus locumtenenti vel deputato suo 
 ibidem quod corpus predicti comitis Warrwici in prisona 
 domini regis sub custodia sua detentum unacum causa de- 
 tencionis sue quocumque nomine predictus comes censeatur 
 in eadem haberet coram prefato senescallo apud Westmonas- 
 terium predictum dicto die Jovis proximo ante festum sancti 
 dementis pape ad subjiciendum et recipiendum ea que curia 
 domini regis de eo tune ibidem ordinare contigerit. Manda- 
 tum fuit etiam per dictum senescallum Anglic dicto vicesimo 
 die Novembris anno quinto decimo supradicto Johanni 
 Rowdon servienti domini regis ad arma quod ipse sum- 
 moneret tot et tales dominos proceres et magnates hujus 
 regni Anglie predicti Edwardi comitis Warn pares per quos 
 rei veritas in hac parte melius sciri poterit quod ipsi person- 
 aliter compareant coram prefato senescallo apud Westmonas- 
 terium predictum dicto die Jovis proximo ante festum sancti 
 dementis pape ad faciendum ea que eis ex parte domini 
 regis tune ibidem in premissis injungentur. PLACITA 
 CORAM JOHANNE COMITE OXON, SENESCALLO ANGLIE 
 HAC VICE necnon magno camerario et admirallo ejusdem 
 tenta apud Westmonasterium in magna aula placitorum 
 domini regis ibidem die Jovis proximo ante festum sancti 
 dementis pape anno regni regis Henrici septimi post con- 
 questum quinto decimo. Nicholas Alwyn major civitatis 
 London, Johannes Fyneux miles et Thomas Bryan miles 
 justiciarii etc. solempniter exacti comparuerunt et presentes
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 465 
 
 hie in curia juxta vim formam et effectum brevis domini 
 regis et preceptum predictum eis inde directum omnia et 
 singula indictamenta et record um inde versus prefatum 
 comitem Warn de prodicionibus predictis capta cum omni- 
 bus ilia tangentibus adeo plene et prout coram eis et 
 sociis suis nuper capta fuerunt et penes eos tune resi- 
 dentia coram prefato senescallo Anglic pretextu mandati 
 predicti hac instanti die Jovis etc. per manus suas pro- 
 prias deliberaverunt terminanda. Ac etiam Thomas 
 Lovell miles locumtenens prefati constabularii Turris 
 London juxta mandatum predictum similiter exactus cor- 
 pus predicti comitis tune eodem die Jovis coram prefato 
 senescallo Anglic pretextu brevis domini regis et precept! 
 predicti paratum habuit prout sibi precipiebatur. Necnon 
 predictus Johannes Rowdon serviens domini regis ad arma 
 prefato senescallo Anglic pretextu mandati sui predicti 
 asseruit quod ipse omnes et singulos dominos proceres et 
 magnates regni Anglie predicti comitis Warn pares per quos 
 etc. personaliter coram prefato senescallo ad prefatos diem 
 et locum compareant ad faciendum ea que eis ex parte 
 domini regis tune ibidem in premissis injungentur prout 
 superius datum fuit sibi in mandatis etc. Super quo facta 
 proclamacione pro domino rege per mandatum senescalli 
 Anglie predicti quod tarn omnes duces et comites quam 
 barones pares predicti comitis Warn qui per mandatum 
 senescalli Anglie predicti ac summonitionem predicti ser- 
 vientis ad arma eis factum ad tune in curia presentes fuerint 
 compareant et pro eorum nominibus responderent ad facien- 
 dum ea que eis ex parte domini regis tune ibidem in pre- 
 missis injungentur. Quiquidem duces comites et barones 
 tune ibidem in plena curia existentes scilicet Edwardus dux 
 Bukk., Henricus comes Northumbrie, Georgius comes Kancie, 
 Thomas comes Surrey, Henricus comes Essex, Johannes 
 Kendal prior sancti Johannis Jerusalem in Anglia, Georgius 
 Nevill miles dominus Burgevenny, Thomas Ormond miles 
 dominus Ormond, Johannes Dynnam miles dominus de 
 Dynham thesaurarius Anglie, Ricardus Nevyll miles dominus 
 Latymer, Thomas West miles dominus de la Warre, Johannes 
 Clynton dominus de Clynton, Willelmus Blount dominus de 
 2 H
 
 466 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 Mountjoy, Edwardus Hastyngs miles dominus de Hastyngs, 
 Johannes Bourgchier miles dominus de Berners, Johannes 
 Zouche miles dominus Zouche, Ricardus Seyntmount miles 
 dominus Seyntmount, Willelmus Willoughby dominus de 
 Willoughby, Edwardus Grey dominus de Wylton, Thomas 
 Fenys dominus de Dacre, Egidius Dawbeney miles dominus 
 Dawbeney et Robertus Willoughby miles dominus de Broke 
 juxta vim formam et effectum proclamacionis predicte ac 
 summonicionis predicti eis ut predicitur per predictum ser- 
 vientem ad arma facti ad tune et ibidem solempniter exacti 
 comparuerunt et per eorum nomina separatim responderunt 
 etc. quorum presencia per prefatum senescallum recordata 
 fuit etc. Recordum ac Indictamenta et processus versus pre- 
 fatum Edwardum comitem Warr. de alta prodicione coram 
 prefato Nicholao Alwyn majore civitatis London, Johanne 
 Fyneux milite, Thoma Bryan milite et sociis suis justiciariis 
 etc. capta et per manus suas proprias hie in curia deliberata 
 sequntur in hec verba. U London U Inquisitio. . . . [The 
 
 indictment is set out at length.] 
 
 . . . Et modo scilicet dicto die Jovis proximo ante dictum 
 festum sancti Clementis pape coram prefato Johanne comite 
 Oxon. hac vice senescallo Anglic apud Westmonasterium 
 venit predictus Edwardus comes Warrewici sub custodia pre- 
 dicti Thome Lovell militis locumtenentis prefati constabularii 
 turris London in cujus custodia proutantea ex causa predicta 
 et aliis certis de causis commissus fuit ad barram hie ductus 
 in propria persona sua, qui committitur prefato locumtenenti 
 etc. Et statim de prodicionibus predictis sibi superius im- 
 positis allocutus qualiter se velit inde acquietare etc.: Dicit 
 quod ipse non potest dedicere quin ipse de prodicionibus pre- 
 dictis sibi superius impositis est culpabilis 1 et prodiciones illas 
 expresse cognovit. Et posuit se inde in manum domini regis. 
 Super quo instanter serientes domini regis ad legem ac ipsius 
 regis attornatus pro eo quod dictus comes Warrewici pro- 
 diciones predictas sibi superius impositas expresse cognovit 
 juxta debitam legis formam petierunt versus eundem comitem 
 judicium et executionem superinde pro domino rege versus 
 
 1 (In margin) Cogn.
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 467 
 
 ipsum comitem habendum etc. Et super hoc visis et per 
 curiam hie diligenter examinatis et intellectis omnibus et 
 singulis premissis consideratum est quod predictus Edwardus 
 comes Warrewici ducatur per prefatum constabularium turris 
 London seu ejus locumtenentem usque eandem turrim et 
 deinde per medium civitatis London usque ad furcas de 
 Tyburn trahatur et ibidem suspendatur et vivens ad terram 
 prosternatur et introra sua extra ventrem suam capiantur et 
 ipso vivente comburentur et quod caput ejus amputetur 
 quodque corpus ejus in quatuor partes dividatur et quod 
 caput et quartia ilia ponantur ubi dominus rex ea assignare 
 voluerit etc. 1 
 
 (Bundle in original cover indorsed " Sess. Com. Mid. tent, 
 apud Westm. coram Johanne comite Oxon. hac vice Senes- 
 callo Anglic, anno regni regis Henrici septimi post con- 
 questum quinto decimo.") 
 
 Patent Roll, 19 Henry VII,pt. I, m. 
 
 Rex carissimo consanguineo suo Thome comiti Surrie 
 thesaurario Anglie salutem. Sciatis quod cum Edwardus 
 Sutton de Dudley miles de quibusdam feloniis per ipsum ut 
 pretenditur factis et perpetratis coram dilectis et fidelibus 
 nostris Ricardo Lyttleton et Johanne Blounte custodibus 
 pacis nostre ac justiciariis nostris ad diversa felonias trans- 
 gressiones et alia malefacta comitatu Staffordie audiendum 
 et terminandum assignatis indictatus existit ut accepimus. 
 Quod quidem indictamentum coram nobis mitti mandavimus 
 et ibidem residet. Nos considerantes quod prefatus Edwardus 
 est unus procerum et magnatum regni nostri et quod juxta 
 statuta et ordinationes regni nostri per pares suos et non 
 aliter triari et adjudicari debeat et consueverit. Jamque pro 
 eo quod officium senescalli Anglie cujus presentia pro ad- 
 ministratione justitie et executiones (sic) ejusdem in hac 
 parte fienda requiritur nunc vacat. De fidelitate provida 
 circumspectione et industria vestris quamplurimum con- 
 fidentes ordinamus et constituimus vos senescallum Anglie 
 
 1 (In margin) T. et S.
 
 468 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 ad officium illud ex causa predicta cum omnibus eidem officio 
 in hac parte debite pertinentibus hac vice gerendum occu- 
 pandum et exercendum, dantes et concedentes vobis tenore 
 presentium plenam et sufficientem potestatem et auctoritatem 
 ac mandatum speciale indictamentum predictum cum omni- 
 bus illud tangentibus vobis mitti et liberari petendi et illud 
 recipiendi et inspiciendi ac ad certos dies et loca quos ad hoc 
 provideritis ipsum Edwardum coram vobis evocandi et venire 
 faciendi et ipsum superinde examinandi et respondere com- 
 pellendi ac fine debito terminandi, necnon tot et tales 
 dominos proceres et magnates hujus regni nostri Anglic 
 ejusdem Edwardi pares per quos rei veritas in hac parte 
 melius sciri poterit ad diem et locum predictos ex hac causa 
 coram vobis venire et comparere astringendi, veritateque inde 
 comperta ad judicium inde per hujusmodi senescallum red- 
 dendum secundum leges et consuetudines regni nostri Anglic 
 hac vice versus prefatum Edwardum procedendi sententiandi 
 et adjudicandi ac executionem inde facere percipiendi cetera- 
 que omnia et singula que ad officium senescalli Anglic in hac 
 parte pertinent et requiruntur hac vice faciendi et exercendi. 
 Et ideo vobis mandamus quod circa premissa diligenter in- 
 tendatis ac ea faciatis et exequamini in forma predicta. 
 Damus autem universis et singulis ducibus marchionibus 
 comitibus baronibus ac aliis magnatibus regni nostri pre- 
 dictis et aliis quorum interest in hac parte quod vobis in 
 executione premissorum intendentes sint assistentes et auxili- 
 antes in omnibus prout decet. Mandavimus enim justiciariis 
 nostris ad placita coram nobis tenenda assignatis quod 
 indictamentum predictum cum omnibus illud tangentibus 
 ex causa predicta vobis deliberent. Mandavimus enim vice- 
 comiti nostro comitatus predicti quod ad certos diem et 
 locum quos ei scire feceritis prefatum Edwardum coram 
 vobis venire faciat. In cujus etc. Teste rege apud West- 
 monasterium. Per ipsum regem et de dato etc. 
 
 (Printed by Rymer, Foedera O.S., vol. xiii, p. 87.)
 
 COURT OF THE LORD HIGH STEWARD 469 
 
 Year Book, Easter Term, 13 Henry VIII, fol. n 
 
 Nota quand un Seigneur de Parlement sera arreine de 
 treason ou felony, le roy par ses lettres patentes fera un grand 
 et sage seigneur destre le grand seneschal d'Angleterre q le 
 jour de 1'arreinement, devant quel jour il doit faire un precept 
 a un serjeant d'armes (q'est le serjeant a le grand senescal) 
 pour faire venir xx siegneurs ou xviii a tiel jour, a quel jour 
 le serjeant d'armes (le grand senescal scant sous le drap 
 d'estat) apres le commission lie, returnera son precept, et les 
 seigneurs seront demandez, et apres qu'ils ont apperu, et sont 
 seants in lour lieux, le prisonnier sera demandez, et le con- 
 stable del Tower luy conductera al barre ; et donq le seneschal 
 monstrera a luy pour quel cause le roy avoit assembli les 
 seigneurs et luy, et commande luy de respondre sans ascun 
 timorousnes ; et donq le enditement sera leu a luy per le clerk 
 del crown ; et apres il demandra de luy si il soit coulpable ou 
 nemy, et s'il dira rien culpable, donque le clerk demandra luy 
 coment il veut estre trie, et il dira par Dieu et ses pairs ; et 
 donq les Serjeants du roy et le atturney du roy doneront 
 evidence vers luy et done le seneschal commandra le con- 
 stable del Tower de ret[i]re le prisonnier in ascun lieu pur un 
 escape de temps, et donques les seigneurs ensembleront (mes 
 nemy hors del lieu) et parleront secretement. Mes icy ils ne 
 seront my jurez quod nota. Et quand ils touts, ou le grand 
 part est agree, donq ils revertiront a leurs lieux, donques le 
 grand seneschal demandra del plus puisne seigneur apert et 
 seant in son lieu, s'il soit coulpable ou nemy, et il respond 
 apert, et issint del prochein puisne tanque il ad fini ove touts 
 separatim ; et donq le prison[nier] sera remande et aura 
 jugement. Et issint fuit arreine Edward due de Buckhinham 
 le derrain jour de terme le xiii jour de May, le due de Nor- 
 folk donques estant grand seneschal : la cause fuit pur ceo 
 que il avoit entend la mort de nostre seigneur le roy. Car 
 premierement un moine del abbey de Henton in le countie 
 de Somerset dit a luy que il sera roy, et command luy de 
 obtenir le benevolence del communalte, et sur ceo il donna 
 certaines robbes a cest entente. Donq auterfois il dit, si le 
 roy morust sans issue male, il voulust estre roy : et auxy que
 
 470 THE TRIAL OF PEERS 
 
 il disoit si le roy avoit luy commis al prison, donq il voulust 
 luy occire ove son dagger. Mes toutes ceux matiers il denia 
 in effect : mes fuit trove culpable. Or Fineux met un di- 
 versite parentre felony et treason : car n'est felony si ne soit 
 ascun acte fait : mes si un entend la mort de nostre seigneur 
 le roy, ceo est haut treason, car il est la teste del common 
 weal : et icy cest entente fuit prove per ceux paroles. Et pur 
 ceo il avoit jugement come traitre, et fuit decolle le Vendredy 
 le feste del Pentecost, que fuit le xii jour de May avant dit. 
 Dieu a sa ame grante mercy, car il fuit tresnoble prince et 
 prudent, et mirror de tout courtoisie.
 
 INDEX 
 
 Accounts of Escheators, see Es- 
 
 cheators. 
 Albemarle, duke of , see York, 
 
 Edward of . 
 Albini, Hugh de , v. earl of 
 
 Chester (jurisdiction), 281. 
 
 William earl of Arundel, per- 
 forms his office of hereditary 
 butler, 42. 
 
 Alenson, duke of , peer of France, 
 ruling in case of , 275. 
 
 Alwyn, Nicholas, mayor of London, 
 460 et sqq. 
 
 Amercement, 217, 2i8n, 221-2, 
 289-91, 308-9, 3H-5, 3i9- 
 
 by law of the land, common- 
 form provision in John's char- 
 ters, 2i8n. 
 
 contrary to law of the land, 
 
 221-2. 
 
 fixed scale in Normandy, 22i-2n. 
 
 statement of Walter Map, 222n. 
 
 by peers, 221, 289-91. 
 
 cases of , 308-9, 314-5. 
 
 exceptions to rule, 22 in. 
 
 privilege superseded and for- 
 gotten, 291. 
 
 of peeresses, 29on. 
 cases of , 314-5. 
 
 in parliament, 319. 
 
 Anfred, dapifer in Normandy, 7. 
 Angus, earl of , see Umfraville. 
 Anjou, chronicles of , and the 
 stewardship of France, 66-8. 
 
 counts of , made peers of 
 France, 275. 
 
 Fulk (the Good), 66. 
 
 Fulk (of Jerusalem), 39n, 67. 
 
 his right to be dapifer of 
 
 France recognised, 68. 
 Geoffrey (Grey-gown) and the 
 
 stewardship of France, 65-7. 
 
 Geoffrey (le Bel), 34-7. 
 
 his officers of Normandy, 
 
 35- 
 
 seneschal of France, 63. 
 
 Geoffrey (son of Henry II) 
 
 made seneschal of France, 64. 
 
 dapifers or seneschals of , see 
 Tours. 
 
 Des Roches, William, made 
 hereditary seneschal of , 115. 
 
 influence on Normandy of An- 
 gevin principles, 35. 
 
 officers of , their precedence, 
 37n. 
 
 chief officer of state was the 
 
 dapifer, 35, 37. 
 
 stewardship of France, Angevin 
 claim to the , 66-8. 
 
 possible explanation of , 5 5 . 
 
 tract on , i5n, 67-8. 
 
 comparison with Lancastrian 
 
 tract, 151. 
 
 Anslech, tutor of Normandy, 9. 
 Appeal, suit of party, peer of 
 
 realm not tried by his peers, 345, 
 
 393- 
 
 Appeals in Parliament, 348-59, 
 369, 439n. 
 
 abolished, 369, 439n. 
 Appeals of Treason at common- 
 law, 349n. 
 
 Aquitaine, duke of , peer of 
 France, 246. 
 
 Archer's Court, tenure of , 181. 
 
 Argenton, Reginald de , amerce- 
 ment, 308. 
 
 Argenton, session of Norman court 
 at , 27. 
 
 Arrest, 215 et sqq., 223-4, 237-8, 
 241. 
 
 prior to judgment, 223-4. 
 Arthur, duke of Brittany, death of 
 
 , 249. 
 
 his alleged claims to the English 
 throne, 249n. 
 
 proceedings against John for the 
 murder of , 252-69 passim. 
 
 Articles of the barons, cap. xxix, 
 236-7. 
 
 471
 
 472 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Articles of the barons, cap. xxv, 239. 
 
 cap. xliv, 240. 
 
 Artois, counts of , made peers of 
 France, 275. 
 
 countess of , 274. 
 
 Arundel, earls of , see Albini, 
 Fitzalan. 
 
 Thomas, archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, see Canterbury. 
 
 Ashton, Sir Ralph , constable, 
 396. 
 
 Assizes, the Norman , 36n, 44n, 
 46n, 47n, 48n, 214, 222n. 
 
 barons of four counties pre- 
 sent at , 46n. 
 
 the three, 222. 
 
 justices and knights peers of 
 
 any man for purposes of , 223. 
 
 Asthorpe v. Dynham, 364^ 36sn. 
 
 Attainder, by act of parliament, 
 nature and growth of , 388 et 
 sqq. 
 
 of dead persons, statutes relating 
 to, 389n. 
 
 Audeley, lord , see Touchet. 
 
 Badlesmere, Bartholomew de , 
 
 proceedings against for treason, 
 
 299, 3om. 
 judgment against , reversed 
 
 for error, 299-300, 332-4. 
 Baga de Secretis, 386n, 427, 429n, 
 
 435n, 460, 462. 
 
 Baldwin, dapifer of France, 50. 
 Bardolf, Hugh, dapifer, 40. 
 
 Thomas lord , proceedings 
 against in the court of chivalry, 
 
 377- 
 
 transferred into Parlia- 
 ment, 377. 
 
 Barking, Abbess of (forest 
 offence, parliament), 318. 
 
 Baronesses, amercement of , 314. 
 
 Barons of the Exchequer, 228, and 
 see Exchequer. 
 
 Basset, Gilbert, appealed of robbery, 
 277. 
 
 Philip, 133, 134. 
 
 justiciar of England, 123, 
 
 129, 134- 
 
 tests as justiciar, 134. 
 
 Bayeux, bishops of , Henry, chief 
 
 justiciar of Normandy, 49. 
 Odo, regent of England, 12-3, 
 
 15, 19- 
 styled earl palatine, 15. 
 
 proceedings against, 209- 
 
 10. 
 
 Philip, 46n, 61. 
 
 chief justiciar of Nor- 
 mandy, 47, 48n. 
 
 Beauchamp, Richard earl of War- 
 wick, steward of England, 190. 
 
 patent of his appointment 
 
 for coronation of Henry V, 200. 
 
 locum tenens of Thomas 
 
 duke of Clarence, 201. 
 
 Simon de , dapifer, 33. 
 
 Thomas earl of Warwick, ap- 
 pealed of treason, 184, 353, 358. 
 
 commission to , 37 in. 
 
 conviction and outlawry for 
 
 illegal detention of David Tre- 
 
 goys, 358, 360-1. 
 outlawry annulled for error, 
 
 361. 
 
 William earl of Warwick (im- 
 proper release of prisoners, coram 
 rege), 314. 
 
 Beaufort, Edmund duke of Somer- 
 set (court of chivalry, levying 
 war, sentence and execution), 395. 
 
 Henry, cardinal priest, bishop of 
 Winchester, 380. 
 
 John, marquis of Dorset, im- 
 peachment of , 370-1. 
 
 Thomas, deputy marshal for 
 trial of Scrope and Mowbray, 
 372, 374-5 n. 
 
 his patent of appointment, 
 
 400-1. 
 concurrent commission of 
 
 oyer and terminer, 401-2. 
 
 earl of Dorset, 379. 405. 
 
 Beaumont, Amicia countess of 
 
 Montfort, 74, Son, 89-92, 94, 112. 
 called wife of Simon IV, 192- 
 
 3, 196, 197-8. 
 
 Hugh, pronounces judgment on 
 bishop William of St. Carilef, 
 
 2IO-I. 
 
 John viscount , protest on 
 behalf of peers, 384. 
 
 Margaret countess of Winchester, 
 74, Son. 89, 96, iio-i, 192-3, 
 196-8, 266. 
 
 Robert I count of Mellent, 5 1 , 
 58-60, 192. 
 
 obtains the earldom of Leices- 
 ter, 192, 195. 
 
 rebuilds church of St. Mary 
 
 in Leicester, 195. 
 
 his other religious founda- 
 tions, 196.
 
 INDEX 
 
 473 
 
 Beaumont, Robert II earl of Lei- 
 
 cester, 45, 4811, i7Sn. 
 -- charter making him here- 
 
 ditary dapifer, 37-8, 58-9. 
 --- confirmation charter, 60. 
 -- chief justiciar of England, 44, 
 
 48n. 
 
 --- writ of, 45n. 
 -- claims to represent Fitz- 
 
 Osbern earl of Hereford, 38. 
 -- dapifer, his position as , 40, 
 
 42, 43- 
 --- probable explanation of 
 
 grant, 38-9. 
 
 -- earl of Hereford, 38n. 
 -- his religious foundations, 192, 
 
 195. 
 -- becomes a canon regular, 192, 
 
 195. 
 
 -- his death, 50-1. 
 Robert III earl of Leicester, 
 
 51-2, 
 -- charter making him here- 
 
 ditary dapifer, 37, 59-60. 
 -- marries Petronilla de Grand- 
 
 maisnil, 72-3. 
 -- obtains, through his wife, 
 
 Hinckley and the stewardship of 
 
 England, 192, 195, 197-8. 
 -- his children, 192-3, 196, 197. 
 -- revolts against Henry II, 
 
 51-2. 
 -- proceedings against in a test 
 
 case, 251-2. 
 -- performs his office of dapifer, 
 
 42n. 
 -- carries sword at coronation 
 
 of Richard I, 72, 84. 
 -- goes to Jerusalem, 196. 
 -- his death, 74, 196, 198. 
 
 Robert IV earl of Leicester, 73-4, 
 Son, 89-92, 95-8, 105-6, i i 2-4, 
 192-3, 196-8. 
 
 -- contests claim of earl of Nor- 
 
 folk to act as steward, 55, 73-4, 
 
 8 3 n. 
 -- his encounter with the Sultan, 
 
 193, 196. 
 -- dies without issue, 74, 193, 
 
 196, 198. 
 
 Waleran count of Mellent, 60. 
 -- justiciar of Normandy, 35, 36. 
 --- inquisition taken by , 
 
 35n. 
 Beauvais, bishops of , peers of 
 
 France, 246, 269. 
 Bedford, duke of , see Lancaster, 
 
 John of . 
 
 Benefit of Clergy, none in cases of 
 treason, 304. 
 
 Bergavenny, George Neville lord , 
 465. 
 
 Berkeley, Thomas de (murder of 
 Edward II, parliament, trial by 
 knights), 337-8. 
 
 Bernard the Dane, tutor of Nor- 
 mandy, 9. 
 
 styled seneschal by Wace, i6n. 
 Berners, John Bourchier lord , 
 
 466. 
 Bigod, hereditary dapifers, i7n, 24, 
 
 33- 
 
 hereditary marshals of England, 
 76. 
 
 Hugh, dapifer, 23, 33. 
 
 ist earl of Norfolk and here- 
 ditary dapifer, 40, 42-3. 
 
 charter making him , 
 
 60-1. 
 
 his position as dapifer, 40, 
 
 42-3- 
 
 ecclesiastical proceedings, 
 
 against , 2i4n. 
 
 Hugh (son of 2nd earl), appears 
 for his father to enforce the com- 
 promise in the stewardship dis- 
 pute, 76. 
 
 obtains a writ of fi. fa. 
 
 against the earl of Chester, 77. 
 
 Hugh, justiciar of England, 
 I22n, 123-4, 129, 132-4. 
 
 Roger, dapifer, 20, 22-3, 61, 87, 
 I75n. 
 
 Roger 2nd earl of Norfolk, 55,73. 
 confirmed as hereditary sene- 
 schal, 72. 
 
 charter, 87-8. 
 
 performs his office, 42n. 
 
 contests claim of earl of 
 
 Leicester to act as steward, 55, 
 
 73-4, 83_n. 
 obtains order against earl of 
 
 Chester to specifically perform 
 
 the stewardship compromise, 76-7. 
 
 Roger 4th earl of Norfolk, dis- 
 putes claim of Simon de Montfort 
 to act as steward at the corona- 
 tion of Queen Eleanor, 82-3. 
 
 Roger 5th earl of Norfolk, mar- 
 shal of England, i8in. 
 
 (amercement), 3 14. 
 
 William, dapifer, 23. 
 Bishops, see also Lords Spiritual. 
 
 proceedings against, 209-11, 
 214x1, 272, 282-3, 2 92, 302-8, 
 338-45, 371-6.
 
 474 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Bishops, proceedings against for any 
 crime, not without the King's 
 special order, 345. 
 
 declaration of their rights of 
 peerage, 384. 
 
 judgment of , by King and 
 barons, a violation of the " judi- 
 cium parium," 2i4n. 
 
 what they understood by the 
 judicium parium, 307. 
 
 duty of , to take part in trials 
 and judgments, 21 in. 
 
 forced by Henry II to assist at the 
 judgments of his court, 213-40. 
 
 forbidden to be present at judg- 
 ments of life or limb, 350. 
 
 they retire under protest, 350-1. 
 
 appoint a procurator, 184, 353-4, 
 
 358-9. 393- 
 
 how affected by institution of 
 the steward's court, 442. 
 
 Biset, Henry, dapifer, 41. 
 
 Manasser, dapifer, 37, 40, 60, 61. 
 Blanche of Navarre, and the comte 
 
 of Champagne, 262-70. 
 Blois, Thibaud count of , dapifer 
 
 of France, 4, 54, 63-4. 
 Blount, John, 467. 
 
 Sir Thomas (alias Sir John), 42 in, 
 423n, 424, 454. 
 
 William lord Mountjoy, 465-6. 
 Blundevill, Randulf, earl of Ches- j 
 
 ter, see Chester. 
 Bohun, hereditary constables of 
 
 England, 76. 
 Enjuger de , 36, 46n, 48n. 
 
 Humphrey III de , dapifer, 
 23. 33. 36n, 37, 40-1. 
 
 hereditary dapifer, 34. 
 
 charter making him , 
 
 57-8. 
 charter probably never 
 
 confirmed, 40. 
 
 Humphrey IV de , chief con- 
 stable of the king, 51-2. 
 
 Humphrey 3rd earl of Hereford 
 (criminal proceedings against, 
 fine in parliament), 319. 
 
 (forest offence, imprisonment, 
 
 parliament), 313. 
 v. earl of Gloucester (king 
 
 intervening, evidence on oath, 
 
 jurisdiction), 282. 
 
 (king intervening, private 
 
 war), 292-4. 
 
 Humphrey 4th earl of Hereford, 
 constable of England, supports 
 Thomas earl of Lancaster, 144-5. 
 
 assists at capture and execu- 
 tion of Gaveston, 145. 
 
 procures the banishment of 
 
 the Despencers, 146., 151. 
 
 his death, 153. 
 
 Joan countess of Hereford, see 
 Fitzalan. 
 
 John de , (forest offence, im- 
 prisonment, parliament), 313. 
 
 William earl of Northampton, 
 present at the trial of the baron 
 of Greystoke, 346n. 
 
 Borney, Pounteney v. (Ex- 
 chequer Chamber), 365-6. 
 Botreaux, William lord , 406. 
 Bourchier, Henry earl of Essex 465 . 
 
 Hugh lord , 406. 
 
 John lord Berners, 466. 
 Bracton, Henry de , 241, 373. 
 
 on forfeiture and escheat, 259n. 
 
 silent on general principle of 
 judgment by peers, 283-4. 
 
 king may not be judge in his 
 own cause, 284. 
 
 peers to be associated with 
 justices, 284-5. 
 
 describes a verdict as a judg- 
 ment, 288. 
 
 Braose, Laura countess of Leices- 
 ter, 74, 89, 91-3, 95, 193- . 
 
 becomes a recluse at Hackington, 
 198, and see Hackington. 
 
 Braybroke, Sir Gerard , 451. 
 
 Brembre, Sir Nicholas , ap- 
 pealed of treason in parliament, 
 348-52. 
 
 Bresze, Louis de , steward of 
 Normandy, 53n. 
 
 Breteuil, Amicia de , countess of 
 Leicester, 38, 50-1 n, 192. 
 
 daughter of Ralph de Mont- 
 fort, 192. 
 
 nun at Eaton, 192, 195. 
 
 William de , earl of Hereford, 
 see Fitz-Osbern. 
 
 William de , 38n, 58-60. 
 Brionne, Gilbert count of , tutor 
 
 of Normandy, 10. 
 Brittany, counts of , made peers 
 
 of France, 275. 
 Alan, tutor of Normandy/io, 
 
 i7n. 
 
 duke of , see Arthur. 
 Britton, three parties to every judg- 
 ment, 286-7. 
 
 judgment in parliament, 287. 
 Broke, Robert Willoughby lord de 
 
 , 466.
 
 INDEX 
 
 475 
 
 Brooke, Sir Robert, Grand Abridge- 
 
 ment, 429. 
 Bruce, Robert (forest offence, baro 
 
 domini regis), 315. 
 Bryan, Sir Thomas, 461 et sqq. 
 Brynkele v. Earle, 36sn. 
 Buckingham, dukes of , see 
 
 Stafford. 
 
 Bulmer, Sir William, 438. 
 Burgh (Peterborough), abbot of , 
 
 amercement, 309. 
 Burgh, Hubert de , justiciar of 
 
 England, 116, 132. 
 -- earl of Kent, proceedings 
 
 against, 150, 151, 167. 
 --- abduction from sanctuary, 
 
 277, 28on. 
 --- claims judgment of peers, 
 
 --- observations on his out- 
 
 lawry, 279n. 
 Burgundy, dukes of , peers of 
 
 France, 246, 269. 
 
 seneschal of , 5 3-4. 
 
 Bushy, Sir John, speaker of the 
 
 commons, 356. 
 -- sentenced by court of chivalry, 
 
 368n. 
 Butler (Pincerna, Buticularius), in 
 
 England, 2 in, 24, 41. 
 
 in France, 3. 
 
 in Hainault, 43n. 
 
 in Normandy, 6n, I7n. 
 
 hereditary, of archbishops of 
 Canterbury, i4on. 
 
 -- of England, 42. 
 
 Butler, James 4th earl of Ormond, 
 
 appealed of treason by lord Tal- 
 
 bot, 380. 
 -- appealed of treason by prior 
 
 of Kilmaine, 383. 
 Buxhill, Sir Alan, 424. 
 
 Cade, Hugh, butler to earl of Hunt- 
 ingdon, 449, 455. 
 
 Jack, 384-5. 
 
 attainder of, 388n. 
 
 Caen, castle of, session of Norman 
 court at, 26n, 27n, 46n, 52n. 
 
 Calverly, Whitchurch v. , 365n. 
 
 Cambridge, Richard earl of , 
 proceedings against for treason, 
 190. 378-80, 402-7, 429. 
 
 Canterbury, archbishops of , 
 steward at their inthronization, 
 I4on. 
 
 Canterbury, archbishops of, John 
 
 Stratford, history of his quarrel 
 
 with Edward III, 338-45. 
 --- proceedings against in the 
 
 Exchequer, 340-1. 
 --- wishes to clear his charac- 
 
 ter in parliament, 342. 
 --- committee appointed to 
 
 hear his defence, 345. 
 -- Thomas Arundel, 373, 375n, 
 
 448. 
 --- sentenced in parliament to 
 
 banishment, 354. 
 --- letter referring to capture 
 
 of conspirators, 421. 
 Cantilupe, William de , 105, 106. 
 -- given custody of Leicester 
 
 estates, 75n. 
 --- his accounts as custodian, 
 
 102-4. 
 --- ordered to give possession 
 
 of estates to earl of Chester, 104. 
 Carbonel, Robert, a baron of the 
 
 Norman court, 27n. 
 Carlisle, Thomas Merkes bishop of 
 
 , excuses of , in parliament, 
 
 372n. 
 -- proceedings against for trea- 
 
 son, 371-2. 
 
 earl of , see Harcla. 
 
 Cases, adjourned (coram rege, for 
 
 amercement), 309. 
 -- (coram rege, for judgment), 
 
 310 et sqq. 
 
 -- (coram regina), 312. 
 -- (parliament, for judgment), 
 
 31 3^ sqq. 
 
 in the court of chivalry, 185-7, 
 362-415 passim. 
 
 in the ecclesiastical courts, 2i3n, 
 
 in France, 2i2n, 245-75 passim, 
 
 in parliament, 184-5, 294-359 
 passim, 370-1, 377-96 passim. 
 
 in the court of the lord high 
 steward, 416-70 passim. 
 
 Chalons, bishops of , peers of 
 
 France, 246, 269. 
 -- Conon de Vitry, unsuccess- 
 
 fully claims privilege as a bishop, 
 
 272. 
 Chamberlain, hereditary , of 
 
 England, 171, 178-9, i8on. 
 
 office of , in England, 2 in, 24, 
 41, 42n. 
 
 -- in France, 3-4. 
 -- in Normandy, 6n, ion, iin, 
 i;n, 37-
 
 476 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Champagne, counts of , peers of 
 
 France, 246. 
 succession judged by peers of 
 
 France in 1216, 269-70. 
 extraordinary publicity 
 
 given to judgment, 27on. 
 bishop of Orleans and the 
 
 judgment, 27on. 
 
 dapifer or seneschal of , 53. 
 
 and Flanders, countesses of , 
 contest right to stewardship of 
 France at coronations, 55, 71. 
 
 Champion, office of , 181-3, 190. 
 Chancellor of England, presides at 
 
 trials in parliament, 185, 348. 
 Charles le Chauve, his charter of 
 
 liberties, 205. 
 
 case of Treason against, 208-9. 
 
 Chartres, Eudo II count of, judg- 
 ment on , letter concerning , 
 209. 
 
 Chelmsford (Essex), 450, 452-4. 
 Chester, Randulf earl of , justiciar 
 of Normandy, 27. 
 
 Randulf Blundevill earl of , 
 custodian of Leicester estates, 
 75-6, 104, 107. 
 
 ordered to assign knights' fees 
 
 due to earl of Norfolk in respect 
 of his claim to the stewardship, 
 
 77- 
 grant to him of Leicester 
 
 estates, 107, 108-9. 
 obtains earldom of Leicester 
 
 and honour of Hinckley, 196, 198. 
 agrees to surrender estates to 
 
 Simon de Montfort, 79. 
 his death, 82. 
 
 John Scot earl of , Hugh de 
 Albini and others v. (jurisdic- 
 tion), 281. 
 
 Chichester, Thomas Rushok bishop 
 of , impeachment, 35 in, 352. 
 
 Chivalry, court of, see Court. 
 
 Chronicles, searched for informa- 
 tion, 388n. 
 
 Civil cases, procedure in, 289-92. 
 
 Civil law, 349, 352, 366, 393n. 
 
 too tender to the prisoner, 43 3n. 
 Claims, court of , see Court. 
 Clare, Gilbert earl of Gloucester 
 
 (lord marcher, regality, jurisdic- 
 tion), 283n. 
 
 Hereford, earl of , v. 
 
 (king intervening, evidence on 
 oath, jurisdiction), 282. 
 
 (king intervening, private 
 
 war), 292-4. 
 
 Siward v. , 
 
 Richard earl of , amercement, 
 
 309- 
 
 Richard earl of Gloucester, here- 
 ditary steward of archbishop of 
 Canterbury, i4on. 
 
 (forest offence, coram rege), 
 
 310. 
 
 Clarence, dukes of ; see George ; 
 Lancaster, Thomas of . 
 
 Clarendon, constitutions of , 
 21 in, 213-4. 
 
 Clergy, exemption from lay juris- 
 diction, 303-4. 
 
 procurator for , at a trial in 
 parliament, 1 84, 353-4, 358-9, 393- 
 
 Clers, Hugh de , 70. 
 
 dapifer of la Fleche, 35. 
 
 tract on the stewardship of 
 
 France, 39, 67-8. 
 Clifford, John lord , 405. 
 Clinton, John lord , 465. 
 
 William lord , 405. 
 
 Cobham, Eleanor duchess of Glou- 
 cester, proceedings against , 
 380-1. 
 
 Sir John, impeachment of , 
 
 184, 359- 
 
 Sir John Oldcastle lord , 380. 
 Cock-Crower, 180. 
 
 Coke, Sir Edward, on Magna 
 Charta, 215. 
 
 Colchester, and Eudo dapifer, 29. 
 
 Comes palatii, see earl palatine. 
 
 Common-law, and the Court of 
 Chivalry, comparative popular- 
 ity, 368-9n. 
 
 Commons of England, and judg- 
 ment in parliament, 37on. 
 
 Compurgation, 210, 21 in, 216, 228, 
 232. 
 
 Conrad the Salic.ordinance of ,206. 
 
 Constable, of England, 143-4, 147, 
 149-50, 166-8, 172, 180-2, 184, 
 349, 362-415 passim. 
 
 constitutional position of , 
 
 contrasted with that of the 
 steward, 362. 
 
 assists the steward of England 
 
 in court of claims, 189, igon. 
 
 of France, 3-4, 55, 362. 
 
 in Normandy, 6n, i6n, 37, 54. 
 
 King's , 24n, 41, 51, 54. 
 Constitutio domus regis, 24. 
 Coram Consilio, amercements , 
 
 29 in. 
 
 Coram rege, amercements , 290-1, 
 309-
 
 INDEX 
 
 477 
 
 Coram rege, judgments , 29011, 
 292, 310 et sqq. 
 
 Coram regina , judgments ,312. 
 
 Cornwall, earls of , Edmund 
 (escapeof criminal, judgment), 3 14 
 
 Piers, see Gaveston. 
 
 Coronations, 42n, 43, 54-5, 66, 68- 
 73, 76, 82-4, 139-40, 162, 171-2, 
 176-83, 189-91, 199-201. 
 
 Cotton, Sir Robert, and the Hinck- 
 ley tract, 175. 
 
 Council, the King's , amerce- 
 ments before, 29 in. 
 
 Countess, amercement of , 315. 
 
 Courcy, hereditary dapifers, I7n, 
 
 24, 33- 
 
 Robert de , dapifer, 23, 33, 
 35n, 37n, 41. 
 
 justiciar of Normandy, 35-7, 
 
 46n. 
 
 William I de , dapifer, 23. 
 
 William II de , dapifer, 41, 50. 
 justiciar of Normandy, 4in, 
 
 50. 
 
 death of , 52. 
 
 Court of Chivalry, 186-7, 298n, 349, 
 
 362-415 passim. 
 
 appeal from , 364-5. 
 
 commission to hear , 365. 
 
 application for supersedeas, 364-5 . 
 commission to hear , 365. 
 
 cases tried before , " causa 
 fidei lesionis," 364. 
 
 and common-law, comparative 
 popularity, 368-9n. 
 
 judges took judicial notice of 
 
 its decisions, 393-4. 
 
 under constable and marshal of 
 England, 362. 
 
 patent appointing commis- 
 sioners for trial of lord Audeley, 
 414-5. 
 
 comparison with court of lord 
 high steward, 43 3n. 
 
 cross applications for super- 
 sedeas and procedendo transferred 
 to Exchequer Chamber, 365-6. 
 
 jurisdiction, ad instantiam par- 
 tis, 398. 
 
 abuse of , by Richard II, 
 
 368-9. 
 
 ex officio, 398-9. 
 
 systematic use of , by 
 
 Henry IV, 369. 
 
 defendant bound by his sub- 
 mission to , 364. 
 
 limited to person and chattels, 
 
 377- 
 
 Court of Chivalry, jurisdiction, none 
 in outlawry, 377. 
 
 petitions against , 363, 370, 
 377n, 380. 
 
 procedure, according to civil law, 
 366. 
 
 tract on , 367. 
 
 trial by witnesses or battle, 
 
 366-7. 
 
 roll of 24 Edward I, 362-3. 
 
 statute of 13 Richard II, cap. 2, 
 
 363-4. 
 
 Court Christian, jurisdiction in 
 breach of faith, 364n. 
 
 growth of jurisdiction during 
 anarchy, 213. 
 
 Court of Claims, 177-83, 189-91, 
 200- 1. 
 
 no evidence of a , before 
 accession of Richard II, 177-9. 
 
 no mention of , in Lancastrian 
 tract, i79n. 
 
 Court of the Lord High Steward, 
 399, 416-70 passim. 
 
 trials before , 429-43, 459-70. 
 
 comparison with court of 
 chivalry, 43 3n. 
 
 number of peers to be summon- 
 ed, 432, 433, 436. 
 
 verdict of the majority, 417, 
 
 434-5, 460, 469, 
 verdict of the junior lord to be 
 
 taken first, 393,417,440, 460, 469. 
 
 intended to supersede trial be- 
 fore parliament, 442-3. 
 
 statute 33 Henry VIII cap. 20, 
 silent as to trials before parlia- 
 ment, 443n. 
 
 conclusions respecting , 441-3. 
 
 first case reported in Year Books, 
 416-7, 459-60. 
 
 an absolute forgery, 416, 428. 
 
 probable date of forgery, 429. 
 
 Courtenay, Edward earl of Devon, 
 alleged appointment as steward 
 of England for trial of earl of 
 Huntingdon, 416-7. 
 
 Hugh earl of Devon, hereditary 
 steward of bishops of Exeter, 
 i 40- in. 
 
 Thomas earl of Devon (high 
 treason, trial in parliament, ac- 
 quittal, steward of England pre- 
 siding), 386-8. 
 
 Coventry and Lichfield, bishops of 
 , Roger de Meuland (judicial 
 writ, baron, statute of Marl- 
 borough), 282-3.
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Coventry and Lichfield (baron, 
 amercement), 314. 
 
 Walter Langton, proceedings 
 
 against , 304. 
 
 Crassus, William, seneschal of Nor- 
 mandy, 53n. 
 
 D., the earl of , see Courtenay. 
 Dacre, Thomas Fienes lord , 466. 
 Damory, Roger (treason, court of 
 
 chivalry), 2gSn, 363, 399-400. 
 Dapifer, Anglie et Normannie, 37, 
 
 40. 
 
 in Anglia et Normannia, 34. 
 
 Normannie, 1 1 . 
 
 sheriff so styled, i8n. 
 Dapifers, 4. 
 
 Anglo-Saxon, 18-19. 
 
 of Edward the Confessor, 
 
 18-19. 
 
 English, hereditary, see Beau- 
 mont, Bigod, Bohun, Lancaster, 
 Mandeville, Montfort. 
 
 ordinary, of William I, 20. 
 
 of William II, 22. 
 
 of Henry I, 23. 
 
 of Matilda, 33. 
 
 of Stephen, 33. 
 
 of Henry II, 40-1. 
 
 commonly styled " sene- 
 schals" after accession of Richard 
 I, see seneschal, steward of house- 
 hold. 
 
 French, 3-6, 1 1, 22-3, 28-9, 54-6, 
 63-71, 1 20. 
 
 number of , 5. 
 
 rapid development of office, 5. 
 
 not chief officer before A.D. 
 
 1070, 5. 
 
 honorary, 54-5. 
 
 at coronations, 55 -6. 
 
 references in chronicles, etc., 
 
 to hereditary office, 63-71. 
 
 Angevin tract on , 67-8. 
 
 offer to make Simon de Mont- 
 fort seneschal of France, 120-1. 
 
 use of expression " dapifero 
 
 nullo," 3, 77. 
 
 Norman, 7. 
 
 of Robert, 7. 
 
 of William II, 7. 
 
 of Henry Fitz-Em press, 37n. 
 
 Scotch, 4on, 61-3. 
 
 Darcy, John, chamberlain, at- 
 tempts to prevent archbp. Strat- 
 ford entering parliament, 341 
 
 Daubeney, Giles lord , 466. 
 
 David of Scotland, laws ascribed 
 
 to , 207. 
 
 Delacourt, John, 437, 439n. 
 De la Warr, Thomas West lord , 
 
 465. 
 
 Denia, count of , 37on. 
 Derby, earls of ; see Henry IV ; 
 
 Lancaster, Henry II of . 
 Despencer, Hugh, justiciar of Eng- 
 
 land, 123-37 passim. 
 --- tests as , 1 34. 
 
 Hugh the father and Hugh the 
 son, proceedings against in par- 
 liament, 146, 297. 
 
 --- analogous to subsequent 
 
 attainders, 297n. 
 --- referred to as a statute, 
 
 388n. 
 --- repealed for error, 297-8, 
 
 324-6, 353. 
 --- reinstated and again re- 
 
 versed, 298. 
 -- proceedings against by the 
 
 Queen's party, 302. 
 --- trial and execution, 171, 
 
 177. 
 
 Thomas, earl of Gloucester, im- 
 peachment, 370-1. 
 
 -- lord Despencer, 4i7n, 424-6, 
 
 --- beheaded at Bristol, 425-6, 
 
 454- 
 --- reference to his "convic- 
 
 tion," 447. 
 --- head brought to London 
 
 by earl of Rutland, 450, 456, 458. 
 --- order to mayor of Bristol 
 
 to send head to London, 456n. 
 Des Roches, Peter, bishop of Win- 
 
 chester, see Winchester. 
 
 William, made hereditary sene- 
 schal of Anjou, Maine, and Tou- 
 raine, 115. 
 
 Destruction, use and meaning of 
 
 word, 236-7, 242-3. 
 Devon, earls of, see Courtenay. 
 Digby, Sir John, marshal, 414. 
 Disseizin, 215, 218-20, 222-3, 2 34. 
 
 239-4I- 
 
 by judgment of peers, 219-20. 
 
 by the law of the land, 22on. 
 Dorset, earl of , marquis of , 
 
 see Beaufort. 
 Douglas, William, v. Gilbert de 
 
 Umfraville, appeal of treason, 
 
 349n. 
 
 Dudley, lord, see Sutton. 
 Durand, Speculum Juris, 254n.
 
 INDEX 
 
 479 
 
 Durham, bishops of , Robert de 
 Insula (fishery, unlawful appro- 
 priation, judgment, amercement) 
 311-2. 
 
 William of St. Carilef, pro- 
 ceedings against , 2101. 
 
 Dynham, Asthorpe v. , 
 3 6sn. 
 
 Sir John, lord treasurer, 414. 
 
 lord Dynham, 465. 
 
 Earl palatine (comes palatii), 13- 
 15. I9n. 
 
 power to coerce the king, 152. 
 Earle, Brynkele v. , 365n. 
 Edward the Confessor, 18, 29. 
 
 his dapifers were subordinate 
 officers, 18. 
 
 Edward 1, 138-41, 143, 162-3,282-9, 
 292-6, 311-322, 362-3. 
 
 cited as duke of Aquitaine to 
 appear before the peers of 
 France, 272-3. 
 
 procedure in trial of peers be- 
 coming settled at close of his 
 reign, 308. 
 
 stewardship of England granted 
 by , to Edmund earl of Lan- 
 caster for his life, i4on, 163. 
 
 Edward II, 141-53, 163-7, 296-308, 
 322-6, 363. 
 
 his coronation, 142. 
 
 compared with Henry III, 142. 
 
 remedies for bad government, 
 duty of hereditary officers to 
 coerce the king, 143-4. 
 
 causes celebres during reign of 
 , 296-307. 
 
 his court of chivalry, 298n, 363, 
 369n, 399-400. 
 
 uncertainty of procedure in trials 
 of peers, 308. 
 
 stewardship of England granted 
 by , to Thomas earl of Lan- 
 caster, 142. 163. 
 
 summoned as peer of France, 
 
 274-5- 
 Edward III, 171-9, 327-47, 359-60. 
 
 his coronation, 177. 
 
 his death, 176, i82n. 
 Edward IV, 390-6, 407-13. 
 Edward of Langley, duke of York, 
 
 etc., see York. 
 
 Eleanor of Provence, queen of 
 Henry III, her coronation, 82-4, 
 191. 
 
 Eleanor of Castille, 256, 257, 265-6. 
 
 her death, 265 n. 
 
 Eleanor, sister of Henry III, coun- 
 tess of Leicester, 85, 117-8. 
 
 marries Simon de Montfort after 
 taking vows of chastity, 193, 
 196-7, 198-9. 
 
 Erpingham, Sir Thomas, 454. 
 
 Error, reversal of judgments for , 
 in parliament, 296-300, 305, 324- 
 34, 336. 
 
 Escheators, accounts and inquisi- 
 tions (lord Bardolf), 378n. 
 
 (duke of Buckingham), 396- 
 
 7n. 
 
 (earl of Huntingdon), 422-3n, 
 
 445-6. 
 
 (lord Mowbray), 375-6n. 
 
 (earl of Northumberland), 
 
 37 8n. 
 
 (archbishop Scrope), 375~6n. 
 
 (Sir Thomas Shelley), 445-6. 
 
 writs to seize estates of those 
 who took part in the earl of 
 Kent's rebellion, 423-411. 
 
 traversing the office of, 42 5 n. 
 Essex, earls of , see Bourchier, 
 
 Mandeville. 
 Eu, Gilbert count of , see Brionne. 
 
 Ralph de Lusignan count of , 
 appeals John king of England, 246. 
 
 Eudo, son of Hubert de Rie, dapifer, 
 14-6, 20, 22-3, 29-30, 34, 56. 
 
 The Colchester tract on his 
 
 dapifership, 15-6, 29-30, 39. 
 
 his dapifership conferred on 
 
 Geoffrey de Mandeville, 3 3-4, 5 6-7. 
 
 Geoffrey de Mandeville claims 
 
 to represent him, 38. 
 
 , son of Turstin, dapifer, 20. 
 
 Everyngham, Robert de , pro- 
 ceedings against, 316. 
 
 Evesham, battle of , 127-8, 130, 
 154, 160, 162, 193, 197, 199, 310. 
 
 Evidence on oath, barons, juris- 
 diction, 282. 
 
 Evreux, Rotroc bishop of , chief 
 justiciar of Normandy, 48-9. 
 
 styled dapifer of Normandy in 
 
 charter of Richard I, 49n. 
 
 Exchequer, barons of , amerce- 
 ment by , 290-1, 315-6, 319. 
 
 court of , in England, 51, i83n, 
 
 278, 333-4L 444-5. 447. etc. 
 
 Norman, 28n, 49n, 52n. 
 Exchequer-chamber, jurisdiction of 
 
 court of chivalry discussed before 
 . 365-6.
 
 480 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Exeter, bishops of , high steward 
 
 at their inthronization, 140-111. 
 
 Osbern, 8. 
 
 Exeter, John Holland duke of , 
 
 impeachment, 370-1. 
 
 see Holand. 
 
 Exile, 224, 241-3. 
 
 Eyr, Robert le, v. Nicholas de 
 
 Wantham, appeal of treason, 
 
 349n. 
 
 Felony, procedure in cases of , 
 
 292 et sqq. 
 Ferrers, Robert earl of (forest 
 
 offence, coram rege quia baro), 
 
 310. 
 Fienes, Giles de (forest offence, 
 
 king's household, coram rege), 
 
 316. 
 
 James, lord Saye, indictment 
 and death, 384-6. 
 
 Thomas, lord Dacre, 466. 
 
 Fife, Malcolm earl of (default), 
 
 39- 
 
 Fitzalan, Joan countess of Here- 
 ford, seizes the earl of Hunting- 
 don and notifies the king, 420, 
 
 449, 455-7- 
 
 ordered to deliver up Hunt- 
 ingdon, 458. 
 
 has Huntingdon put to death, 
 
 448-58 passim. 
 
 delivers up some of Hunting- 
 don's property, 42O-in. 
 
 king grants her Huntingdon's 
 
 house in Thames Street, 421. 
 
 Richard earl of Arundel, ap- 
 pealed of treason, 184, 353. 
 
 tried in parliament and execu- 
 ted. 354-7- 
 
 Thomas earl of Arundel, 379, 
 405. 
 
 at death of Huntingdon, 420, 
 
 449-50, 455, 457-8- 
 deputy constable for trial of 
 
 archbishop Scrope and Mowbray, 
 
 372, 374-5- 
 his patent of appointment, 
 
 400-1. 
 concurrent commission of oyer 
 
 and terminer, 401-2. 
 
 Walter, dapifer (seneschal and 
 justiciar of Scotland), 44n. 
 
 charter making him here- 
 ditary seneschal, 61-3. 
 
 Fitz-Aldelm, William, dapifer, 41, 
 420. 
 
 Fitz-Ansgar, William, justiciar ot 
 
 Normandy, 27. 
 Fitz-Hamo, William, seneschal of 
 
 Brittany, son. 
 Fitz-Herbert, Sir Anthony, Grand 
 
 Abridgement, 429, 433. 
 
 Herbert, amercement, 308. 
 Fitz-John, William, 59. 
 dapifer, 41, 49. 
 
 justiciar of Normandy, 37, 49. 
 
 officer of Normandy, 45n, 4<5n. 
 
 Fitz-Nigel, Roger vicomte du Con- 
 tentin, justiciar of Normandy, 34. 
 
 Fitz-Osbern, William earl of Here- 
 ford, 8, 11-9, 29-30, 38-9. 
 
 regent of England, 12-3, 15. 
 
 regent of Normandy, 12, z^n. 
 
 styled comes palatii, 13-5. 
 
 styled, by Ordericus and 
 
 others, dapifer of Normandy, 
 1 1-2, 39- 
 
 no charter or contemporary 
 
 evidence that he was dapifer, 1 3 , 
 
 15- 
 
 styled seneschal by Wace, 1 7n. 
 
 Eudo dapifer and the Col- 
 chester tract, 1 5-6, 29-30. 
 
 Beaumont's claim to repre- 
 sent him, 38. 
 
 Fitz-Percy, Reginald, amercement, 
 
 314. 
 
 Fitz-Ralph, William, 49n, 54. 
 first seneschal of Normandy, 
 
 3i-2, 53- 
 
 precedence as, 54. 
 
 styled dapifer in pipe-roll of 
 
 1 1 80, 53n. 
 
 major procurator regis, son. 
 
 Fitz-Reinfrid, Gilbert, dapifer, 41. 
 Fitz-Richard, Robert, dapifer, 33. 
 Fitz-Roger, Ralph (quo warranto, 
 
 judgment, amercement), 311. 
 Fitz-Rolland, Alan, amercement, 
 
 39- 
 Fitz- Walter, lord , see Ratcliff . 
 
 Robert (contempt, imprisonment, 
 coram rege), 311. 
 
 Fitz-Warin, Fulk, constable, 363, 
 400. 
 
 Flanders, counts of , peers of 
 France, 246, 29on. -$ 
 
 Guy de Dampierre, proceed- 
 ings against in respect of Valen- 
 ciennes, 273. 
 
 argument of French jurist 
 
 upon, 287-8n. 
 
 Philip.seneschal at ist corona- 
 tion of Philip Augustus, 54-5, 69.
 
 INDEX 
 
 481 
 
 Flavders, Counts of , Philip, sene- 
 sct al at 2nd coronation, 70. 
 
 his claim to the seneschal- 
 ship of France, 39, 63. 
 
 Robert, reference to count's 
 
 peers in treaty with Henry I, 212. 
 
 Robert Beton, judgment 
 
 against in 1315, 274. 
 
 Thierry, reference to count's 
 
 peers in treaty with Henry II, 2 1 2. 
 
 a vassal of the Amienois, 
 
 after its cession becomes the 
 count's peer, 212-3. 
 
 Thomas of Savoy, proceed- 
 ings against in 1237, 272. 
 
 and Champagne, countesses of , 
 contest right to office of seneschal 
 at coronations, 55, 71. 
 
 countess of , Johanna, trial de 
 defectu juris, 271-2. 
 
 attempts marriage with 
 
 Simon de Montfort, 85. 
 
 seneschal of , 53. 
 
 Fleta, judgment by peers in cases 
 of treason, 286. 
 
 jurisdiction of the steward of the 
 household, and the king's courts, 
 I28n. 
 
 Forfeiture, dates from commission 
 of crime, 255, 258-9. 
 
 effect of , 258-9. 
 
 arguments excluding John's is- 
 sue, 261-5. 
 
 views of modern critics, 263- 
 
 5n. 
 
 no custom in France limiting 
 forfeiture to afterborn children, 
 262-3. 
 
 case of Marie de Ponthieu, 
 263-4^. 
 
 reflections of Philip de Novarre, 
 264-sn. 
 
 Fortescue, Sir John, 43 3n. 
 
 Foss, Edward, on Simon de Mont- 
 fort and the justiciarship, 129. 
 
 Fougdres, Ralph de , seneschal of 
 Brittany, 53. 
 
 France, dapifers (seneschals, or 
 stewards) of , see dapifers. 
 
 dukes, earls and barons, how 
 judged, 28s-6n. 
 
 officers of state in , 3. 
 
 royal charters attested by 
 
 them, 3-4. 
 
 objection taken to their judg- 
 ing peers of France, 271-2. 
 
 peers of , see peers, judgment 
 of peers. 
 
 2 I 
 
 Fulmere, Sir Robert, proceedings 
 against in parliament, 347-8. 
 
 Fulthorpe, Sir William, part taken 
 by , in proceedings against 
 archbishop Scrope and Mowbray, 
 374-5, 401. 
 
 deputy constable, 365-6n. 
 
 Furnival, Gerard de, amercement, 
 308. 
 
 Fyneux, Sir John, chief justice, 438, 
 460 et sqq., 470. 
 
 Gael, Amicia de , countess of 
 
 Leicester, see Breteuil. 
 Garland, dapifers of France, 4, 22, 
 
 28, 55, 67-8. 
 
 Anselm, dapifer, 67. 
 
 Stephen, dapifer, 68. 
 
 deprived of dapifership, 28. 
 
 made chancellor, 28. 
 
 William, dapifer, 67, 68. 
 Gascoigne, Sir William, chief justice, 
 
 401. 
 
 advises Henry IV against 
 
 condemning archbishop Scrope, 
 
 373-5- 
 
 Gascony, seneschals of, 53. 
 
 Gaveston, Piers earl of Cornwall, 
 at Edward the Second's corona- 
 tion, 142, 177. 
 
 offensive behaviour, 143. 
 
 banishment of , 144, 296. 
 
 leaves, and returns to Eng- 
 land, 144-5, I 5- *67. 
 
 besieged in Scarborough cas- 
 tle, 145. 
 
 capture and death, 145, 151, 
 
 167, 296. 
 
 George, duke of Clarence, proceed- 
 ings against for treason, 395-6, 
 
 412-3- 
 Geoffrey le Bel ; Greygown ; 
 
 son of Henry II, see Anjou. 
 Gerald, dapifer [England!, 23. 
 Gerald, dapifer [Normandy], 7, 8, 54. 
 Germany, Otho emperor of , 65-7. 
 
 Henry of , acts as deputy 
 steward for Simon de Montfort, 
 122. 
 
 Giffard, John (proceedings against, 
 
 private war), 294n. 
 Gilbert, dapifer in Normandy, 7. 
 Glanville, Ranulf de , Tractatus 
 
 de legibus, 22 in, 225n, 229~3on, 
 
 234n, 241, 259n, 
 
 William de, 52.
 
 482 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Glapion, Warin de , seneschal of 
 
 Normandy, 53n. 
 Gloucester, dukes of , Humphrey, 
 
 379. 405- 
 
 Richard, see Richard III. 
 
 Thomas, constable of Eng- 
 land, tract on procedure in the 
 court of chivalry, 367. 
 
 appealed of treason in 
 
 parliament, 353, 358. 
 
 assassinated, 358. 
 
 duchess of , see Cobham. 
 
 earls of , see Clare, Despencer. 
 Robert, justiciar of Nor- 
 mandy, 27, 28. 
 
 inquisition taken before 
 
 , 28n. 
 
 Godric, dapifer, 20. 
 
 Godwin, earl of Kent, banishment 
 and forfeiture, 150-1, 166-7. 
 
 Gomeniz, John sire de , impeach- 
 ment, 347. 
 
 Grand Coutumier de Normandie, 
 see Normandy. 
 
 Grandmaisnil, Adeliza de , I75n. 
 
 Hugh de , 7, I75n, 197. 
 his alleged grant of the 
 
 stewardship of England, 192, 195, 
 198. 
 
 Petronilla de , marries Robert 
 III earl of Leicester and brings 
 him Hinckley and the steward- 
 ship of England, i7Sn, 192, 195, 
 197-8. 
 
 her religious donations, 195-6. 
 
 countess of Leicester, 52n, 
 
 73-4, 89, 95- 104-5. 
 her claim to the honour of 
 
 Grandmaisnil, 88-93. 
 outbidden by Saer de 
 
 Quincy, 92-3. 
 
 Honour of , 88-93, 98. 
 Great Seal, authority for affixing , 
 
 I3I-7- 
 
 Grey, of Codnor, Henry lord , 
 appeal, 393. 
 
 Edward lord de Wilton, 466. 
 
 Reginald de , (forest offence, 
 coram rege quia baro), 310-1. 
 
 of Ruthyn, George earl of Kent, 
 465. 
 
 Sir Thomas, 378-9, 402-6. 
 Greystoke, William baron of 
 
 (loss of Berwick, trial, Walter 
 Manny presiding, death sentence, 
 pardon), 346. 
 
 Grosvenor, Lescrope v. , 365n. 
 
 Gualo, papal legate, see Walo. 
 
 H 
 
 H., the earl of , see Holand. 
 
 Hackington, Laura the recluse of 
 , 125-6, 198. 
 
 perhaps identical with coun- 
 tess of Leicester, 125, 198. 
 
 required to state what rights 
 
 appertained to the stewardship 
 of England, 125-6. 
 
 Hadleigh, Essex, 419-20, 444, 450. 
 
 Haie, Richard de la , 48n. 
 
 dapifer, 37n. 
 
 justiciar of Normandy, 28, 
 
 35n, 36-7. 
 
 Robert de la , dapifer, 23, 36n. 
 
 justiciar of Normandy, 26-8. 
 
 Hainault, dapifer of , 43n. 
 
 honorary services at the court 
 of , 43n. 
 
 William of , married to Maud 
 of Lancaster, 173. 
 
 Hall, Edward, historian, 434, 438-9. 
 
 describes the proceedings 
 against the duke of Buckingham 
 as an appeal, 439n. 
 
 Hamo, dapifer, 20, 22-3. 
 
 sheriff, 21. 
 Harcla, Andrew, 153. 
 
 earl of Carlisle, proceedings 
 
 against for treason, 300-2. 
 
 petition by his nephew Henry 
 
 for reversal of judgment, 334. 
 
 Harington, John lord , 405. 
 
 Harold, i in. 
 
 styled seneschal by Wace, 1 7n. 
 Hastings, Edward lord , 466. 
 
 John de, refusal to give evidence 
 on oath, 282n. 
 
 Heir, remoter admitted without 
 prejudice to right heir, 265-6. 
 
 Heltho, dapifer, 20. 
 
 Henry I, 23-8, 31, 56-8, 60-1, 68, 
 87, 212. 
 
 dapifers of , 23. 
 
 household of , 24. 
 
 his governors of Normandy, 25-8. 
 not styled dapifers or sene- 
 schals, but justiciars, 25. 
 
 laws of , 207. 
 
 Henry II (duke of Normandy), his 
 household, 36-7. 
 
 their precedence, 37n. 
 
 his dapifers, 37n. 
 
 charters conferring an here- 
 ditary dapifership, 58-60, and 
 see 57. 
 
 his justiciars, 37.
 
 INDEX 
 
 483 
 
 Henry I (king of England), 40-55, 
 63-70, 87, 212-4. 
 
 his dapifers, 40-1. 
 
 precedence of his officers, 41-2. 
 
 hereditary dapifers sum- 
 moned for coronations and feast- 
 days, 42. 
 
 charters conferring hereditary 
 
 dapiferships, 38, 40, 60- 1. 
 
 establishes practice of honor- 
 ary services, 43. 
 
 claim to the dapifership of 
 
 France, 39, and see Anjou. 
 
 supported by forgery, 39. 
 
 enters Brittany as sene- 
 schal of France, 65. 
 
 said to have served at 
 
 table as seneschal, 6gn. 
 
 charter referring to his 
 
 rights as seneschal, 70. 
 
 restores power of curia regis, 
 
 213-4- 
 compels bishops to assist at 
 
 judgments of his court, 2i3~4n. 
 judgment of peers, how de- 
 nned by him, 213-40. 
 case against archbishop 
 
 Becket, 2i4n. 
 forbids ecclesiastical courts 
 
 to deal with case against the earl 
 
 of Norfolk, 2i4n. 
 Henry III, 76-9, 81-6, 104-39 
 
 passim, 154-62 passim, 276-81, 
 
 289-91. 
 
 birth, 252. 
 
 letters patent conferring the ' 
 stewardship of England on Ed- 
 mund of Lancaster, 154, 161-2. 
 
 charter (escrow) making Ed- 
 mund hereditary steward, 138, 
 154-6. 
 
 Henry IV, (earl of Derby) 184, 348, 
 356. 
 
 carries sword curtana at coro- 
 nation of Richard II, i83n. 
 
 (duke of Hereford), appeals the 
 duke of Norfolk, 185-7, 359, 367. 
 
 exiled, his estates confiscated, 
 
 returns to England, 187. 
 his declared intentions, 187-8. 
 
 duke of Lancaster, etc., and 
 steward of England, 200. 
 
 (king of England), 179, 369-78, 
 400-2, 416-28, 444-60. 
 
 accession, court of claims, 189. 
 
 coronation roll of , 199-200. 
 
 makes his son Thomas steward 
 
 of England, 189, 200. 
 
 Henry IV, appoints Thomas Percy 
 earl of Worcester deputy steward, 
 189, 200, 428n. 
 
 Henry V, 190, 200-1, 378-80, 429. 
 
 his coronation, 190, 200. 
 
 conspiracy against , 378-9, 
 402-7. 
 
 Henry VI, 195, 380-90. 
 
 Henry VII, 397-9, 4*4-5, 429-35, 
 
 460-8. 
 
 Henry VIII, 435-43, 469-70. 
 Henry, son of Henry II, serves as 
 
 seneschal of France, 54, 65, 67. 
 granted seneschalship of 
 
 France as appertaining to fief of 
 
 Anjou, 64, 66-7. 
 present at coronation of Philip 
 
 Augustus, 69. 
 Hereford, bishop of , Adam Orle- 
 
 ton, proceedings against, 304-7. 
 
 reversed for error, 305. 
 
 Blaneford's account, 
 
 306-7. 
 
 countess of , see Fitzalan. 
 
 duke of , see Henry IV. 
 
 earls of , see Beaumont, 
 Bohun, Fitz-Osbern. 
 
 Henry de, dapifer, 41. 
 Herluin, dapifer, 7. 
 
 Hill (Hull), Robert, 417, 460. 
 Hilton, William baron de , Bishop 
 
 of Norwich v. , 365n. 
 Hinckley, honour of , 96-7, 99, 
 
 loo, 102-3. 
 
 allotted to Blanche of Lancaster 
 on the partition of her father's 
 estates, 173-4. 
 
 tenure of , was knight-service, 
 i74n. 
 
 tracts on the stewardship of 
 England, 174-5, 192-9. 
 
 almost universally credited, 
 
 175- 
 
 Holand, John, duke of Exeter, im- 
 peachment, 370-1. 
 
 earl of Huntingdon, 377-8. 
 
 alleged trial in court of 
 
 lord high steward, report of , 
 
 416-7, 459-60. 
 part taken by , in earl of 
 
 Kent's rebellion, 417 et sqq. 
 writs ordering sheriffs to 
 
 arrest, 41 8n. 
 
 flightdowntheThames,4i9. 
 
 William Peion's account 
 
 of .444-5. 
 captured at house, of John 
 
 Pritewell, 42on, 448, 450, 453.
 
 4 8 4 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Holand, John, of Huntingdon, cap- 
 tured at house of a friend, 452. 
 
 captured at a mill at 
 
 Prittlewell, 452, 453. 
 
 accounts of his capture 
 
 and death by contemporary 
 chroniclers, 448-59. 
 
 taken first to Chelmsford, 
 
 420, 450, 452-4- 
 
 then to Fleshy, 420-2, 
 
 448-59 passim. 
 
 countess of Hereford or- 
 dered to deli ver him up to Henry 
 IV, 458. 
 
 order to receive him sent 
 
 to constable of Tower of London, 
 421-2, 427-8. 
 
 executed at Fleshy, on spot 
 
 where Gloucester arrested, 422, 
 451-4. 
 
 body buried at Fleshy, 
 
 422, 452. 
 
 head sent to London, 422, 
 
 450, 452, 456, 458. 
 
 date of his death, 422-4. 
 
 writs to the escheators, 
 
 423-4n. 
 
 house in Thames Street 
 
 given to countess of Hereford, 42 1 . 
 
 account of his personal 
 
 property seized at Leigh, 445-6. 
 
 minutes of council relating 
 
 to his " destruction," 425. 
 
 judgment or resolution in 
 
 parliament concerning, 425-6. 
 
 extracts from escheators' 
 
 accounts relating to , 426-7n. 
 
 indictment of , 426-7. 
 
 reference to a " judgment" 
 
 against , 447. 
 
 similar erroneous refer- 
 ences to the " conviction " of the 
 earl of Kent and the lord Des- 
 pencer, 447. 
 
 John, earl of Huntingdon (son 
 of above), 379, 405. 
 
 Thomas, duke of Surrey, im- 
 peachment, 370-1. 
 
 earl of Kent, rebellion of , 
 
 417 et sqq. 
 
 capture of Windsor, 418. 
 
 retreat to Cirencester, and 
 
 death, 419, 454, 456, 459. 
 
 writs, orders and other 
 
 proceedings relating to this earl 
 and his rebellion, 423 et sqq. 
 
 references to bis "con- 
 viction," 447. 
 
 Hoo, Merton v. , 36sn. 
 Hopkins, Nicholas, 437, 439n. 
 Howard, Thomas, earl of Surrey, 
 
 465. 
 patent appointing him 
 
 steward of England for trial of 
 
 lord Dudley, 467-8. 
 duke of Norfolk, appointed 
 
 steward of England for the trial 
 
 of the duke of Buckingham, 436- 
 
 41, 469. 
 
 Hubert, dapifer, 20. 
 Hubert, dapifer, 37n. 
 Hugh, case of Sir , 288-9. 
 Humez, Richard de , 59. 
 constable, 61. 
 
 William de , constable of the 
 king, 54. 
 
 his precedence, 54. 
 
 assumes style of constable of 
 
 Normandy, 54. 
 
 hereditary constable of Nor- 
 mandy, 1 1 6. 
 
 Huntingdon, earls of , see Holand 
 
 countess of ; see Lancaster, 
 Elizabeth of . 
 
 Hyde, abbot of (baron, amerce- 
 ment), 315. 
 
 Impeachment, 346-8, 354, 358-9, 
 370-1, 383, 388. 
 
 discontinuance of this procedure, 
 388. 
 
 Imprisonment, 215 et sqq., 223, 237- 
 8, 241, 289, 292, 311 et sqq. 
 
 Innocent III, pope, letters con- 
 cerning John and the conquest 
 of Normandy, 247n, 249-51. 
 
 refutes the claim of Louis to 
 
 the kingdom of England, 260-8. 
 
 Inquest of peers, 302, 334. 
 
 Inquisition of Escheators, see Es- 
 cheators. 
 
 Ireland, placed under a justiciar, 
 116. 
 
 duke of , see Vere. 
 
 Isabella of France, queen of Edward 
 
 II, 170-1, 335. 
 Ivo, dapifer, 22. 
 
 Jacobinus de S. Georgio, definition 
 
 of " peers," 206. 
 Jerusalem, Assizes of , definition 
 
 of judgment by peers, 215.
 
 INDEX 
 
 485 
 
 John (count of Mortain), 72n. 
 proceedings against for trea- 
 son, 254-5, 257. 
 
 (king of England), 73-6, Son, 
 83n, 88-104, 107-11, 113, 215-71 
 passim. 
 
 voluntary waste of Leicester 
 
 estates, 75. 
 
 French proceedings against 
 
 in 1202, 246-8. 
 
 first judgment against , 
 
 nature of , 247-8. 
 
 captures Arthur duke of 
 
 Brittany, 249, 253n. 
 
 loss of French provinces, 249. 
 
 claims restitution from Philip, 
 
 offers to appear at Philip's court 
 under safe-conduct, statements 
 of Matthew Paris, 260-1. 
 
 birth of Henry, 252. 
 
 excommunication ; second 
 
 judgment against , in France, 
 nature of the judgment, 252-4. 
 
 submits to the pope, 254. 
 
 his forfeiture of England 
 
 alleged by Louis, 255 et sqq. 
 
 the argument at Rome, 259- 
 
 68. 
 
 modern controversy concern- 
 ing second judgment, 268-9. 
 
 John of Gaunt, married to Blanche 
 of Lancaster, 173. 
 
 earl of Richmond, 17411. 
 
 duke of Lancaster, 176. 
 
 recognised as steward of England, 
 his influential position, 176. 
 
 the coronation of Richard II, 
 preparations for , 176. 
 
 claims several services at , 
 
 182-3. 
 steward of England at , 
 
 177, 182. 
 his court of claims, 1 77 et 
 
 sqq. 
 
 was made, in right of his wife, 
 duke of Lancaster, earl of Derby, 
 Lincoln and Leicester, and 
 steward of England, 194. 
 
 absent from England in 1 386, 184. 
 
 present at the trial of the baron 
 of Greystoke, 346n. 
 
 presides at the trial of the earl of 
 Arundel and others, 184-5, 354~9- 
 
 styled steward of England in 
 
 the official account, 184, 357. 
 
 stated by chroniclers to have 
 
 presided in right of his steward- 
 ship, 185, 358. 
 
 John of Gaunt, his death, 187. 
 
 Judge in his own cause, no man 
 may be , 208, 273, 284-9. 
 
 Judgment, ordeals and battle habi- 
 tually so described in John's 
 charters, 2i8n. 
 
 reversal in parliament for error, 
 296-300, 305, 324-34. 336. 
 
 three parties to a , necessary, 
 208, 273, 284-9. 
 
 Judgment of Peers (Judicium pa- 
 rium), two primitive principles, 
 205. 
 
 early illustrations of the 
 
 theory, 205-8. 
 
 not universally admitted, 207. 
 
 early illustrations of the prac- 
 tice, 208-11. 
 
 in Magna Charta, does not mean 
 trial by jury, 216. 
 
 true meaning, 233-4. 
 
 whether judgment of some or 
 
 all peers is necessary, 234. 
 prominence, how partially 
 
 explained, 235. 
 
 development of the principle 
 during reign of Henry III, 276- 
 81. 
 
 " The king's justices are the 
 
 peers of any man," 276-7. 
 
 original principle inconsistent 
 
 with new procedure, 277-8. 
 
 scope of the privilege, struggle 
 over , 280. 
 
 attempt to limit, to matters 
 
 outside the law of the land, 280-4. 
 
 necessary where the king is a 
 party, 208, 273, 284-9. 
 
 except in light cases, 284-6. 
 
 committee of twelve appointed 
 to report upon privilege, 342. 
 
 form of their report, 343. 
 
 statute passed in accordance 
 
 with , 343-4, 3S9-6o. 
 repealed in council, and 
 
 parliament, 344. 
 
 suit of parties excluded from 
 privilege, 344-5, 393- 
 
 Judgment of Peers in France, 208- 
 9, 212-3, 214, 222n, 226-7, 245- 
 75, 277, 285-6n, 29on, 387, and 
 see Peers of France. 
 
 Judgment of persons, not peers, 
 protest against, 336-7. 
 
 Judgment and Verdict, confusion 
 between, 216-7, 288-9. 
 
 in Bracton, 288. 
 
 in Magna Charta, 223.
 
 486 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Jurisdiction, cases (baron, evidence 
 
 on oath), 282. 
 (judicial writ, baron, statute 
 
 of Marlborough), 282-3. 
 (land in palatinate of Chester, 
 
 service of writ in Northampton), 
 
 281. 
 (lord-marcher, regality), 28 3n. 
 
 Ecclesiastical, growth of during 
 anarchy, 213. 
 
 Jury, of commoners, knights upon 
 
 in civil cases, 289n. 
 in criminal cases, 293-4, 310- 
 
 20 passim, 337-8. 
 
 of peers, 302, 334. 
 
 trial by, claimed as the judicium 
 parium of the Charter, 288-9. 
 
 unanimity of , 434-5. 
 
 rules in Glanville for cases of 
 disagreement, 43411. 
 
 Justicia, bench of Norman justiciars 
 
 so styled, 26-7n, 31-2. 
 the barons of the court dis- 
 tinguished from , 2/n. 
 Justiciar, of England, 12-13, 19, 
 
 21, 24-5, 44-s, 51-2, 116, 137. 
 office held by hereditary 
 
 steward, 44, 50-1. 
 becomes the subordinate of 
 
 the regent, 116. 
 
 office falls into abeyance, 1 16. 
 
 reappointment of , after 
 
 parliament of 1258, 123-37. 
 alleged assumption of office 
 
 by Simon de Montfort, 126-37. 
 office abolished, distribution 
 
 of surviving functions, 128. 
 
 of Ireland, 116. 
 
 of Normandy, 14, 19, 25-8, 30-2, 
 
 43-54- 
 first attempt to convert into 
 
 French and Angevin dapifer, 
 
 46-7. 
 explanation of the origin and 
 
 retention of this style, 54. 
 
 of Scotland, office held by here- 
 ditary steward, 44n. 
 
 K 
 
 Katharine of France, Queen of 
 Henry V, 194. 
 
 her coronation, 190, 201. 
 
 Kempe, John, cardinal priest, arch- 
 bishop of York, 380. 
 
 Kenilworth, dictum of , 2850. 
 
 priory of , patronage retained 
 by the king, 196, 198. 
 
 Kendal, John, prior of St. John of 
 
 Jerusalem, 465. 
 Kent, earls of , see Burgh, Godwin , 
 
 Grey of Ruthyn, Holand. 
 
 Edmund earl of , proceedings 
 against for treason, 335-6. 
 
 Thomas, clerk of the king's com- 
 mon council, trial of , 38sn. 
 
 Kighlee v. Scrope, 37on. 
 Kilmaine (Kilmainham), prior of 
 , appeals the earl of Ormond, 
 
 383- 
 
 King, amercements affeered before, 
 290-1, 309. 
 
 cases adjourned before , for 
 judgment, 29on, 292, 310 et sqq. 
 
 more than the peer of all his 
 subjects, 208. 
 
 Knighton, Henry, chronicler, on the 
 origin of the stewardship of 
 England, 195-7, and see 5o-in. 
 
 Knyvet, Charles, 437-9. 
 
 Lancaster, dukes of , see John of 
 Gaunt, and infra. 
 
 genealogy of the earls of , 
 194-5. 
 
 tract on the stewardship of Eng- 
 land, isn, 148-51, 164-7, I79 n - 
 
 Lancaster, Blanche of , coheiress 
 to her father's estates, 173. 
 
 wife of John of Gaunt, 173, 
 
 i82n. 
 
 obtains Lancaster estates and 
 
 Hinckley on partition, 173-4. 
 
 Edmund of, 163, 172, 272. 
 has earldom of Leicester, 193- 
 
 4. 197. 199- 
 
 has Hinckley with the stew- 
 ardship of England, 194, 197, 199. 
 proposal to make him earl of 
 
 Leicester and hereditary steward 
 
 of England, 138-9. 
 the letters - patent and 
 
 charter, 154-6. 
 charters and letters-patent 
 
 granting him the estates of Simon 
 
 de Montfort and other rebels, 
 
 139, 156-61. 
 made steward of England by 
 
 Henry III during their joint 
 
 lives, 139, 161-2. 
 renounces all claims to an 
 
 hereditary stewardship, 1 39, 162-3. 
 made steward of England for 
 
 life by Edward I, 139, I4on, 163.
 
 INDEX 
 
 487 
 
 Lancaster, Edmund of, his office 
 
 lapses into obscurity, 140. 
 -- made earl of Lancaster, his 
 
 death, 141. 
 -- (forest offence, coram rege, 
 
 redemption before barons of the 
 
 Exchequer), 316. 
 Elizabeth of , countess of 
 
 Huntingdon, 42211. 
 --- marries Sir John Cornwall, 
 
 Henry I of , earl of Leicester, 
 170. 
 
 -- avenges his brother's death, 
 
 170-1. 
 -- petitions for, and secures 
 
 reversal of his brother's attain- 
 
 der, 171, 298, 327. 
 -- earl of Lancaster, 171, 194. 
 --- president of council at 
 
 accession of Edward III, 171, 
 
 178-9, i83n. 
 --- establishes his claim to the 
 
 stewardship of England, 171-2. 
 --- his death, insignificance 
 
 of his office during his tenure of 
 
 it, 172. 
 
 Henry II of , 194. 
 -- earl of Derby, 173, 340. 
 --- steward of England for a 
 
 pageant at Windsor, 173, 177-8, 
 
 191. 
 -- succeeds his father, made 
 
 duke of Lancaster, 173. 
 -- present at the trial of the 
 
 baron of Greystoke, 346n. 
 -- dies without male issue, 173. 
 
 Humphrey duke of Gloucester, 
 
 379, 405. 
 
 John of , 372. 
 
 -- duke of Bedford, and regent 
 of England, 379, 402, 406. 
 
 --- constable of England, 
 380. 
 
 Maud of , wife of William of 
 Hainault, 173. 
 
 -- coheiress to her father's es- 
 
 tates, 173. 
 -- obtains the Leicester estates 
 
 on partition, 173-4. 
 -- died without issue, 175. 
 
 Roger de (forest offence, 
 baron, parliament), 315. 
 
 Thomas earl of Lancaster, 194. 
 -- succeeds his father, 141. 
 -- carries sword at coronation 
 
 of Edward II, and probably acted 
 as steward, 142. 
 
 Lancaster, Thomas, earl of, steward- 
 ship of England granted to him 
 and the heirs of his body, 142, 163. 
 
 observations upon, 172. 
 
 contrasted with Simon de 
 
 Montfort, 142-3. 
 
 leader of the opposition, 143-4. 
 
 his chief supporter the here- 
 ditary constable, 144. 
 
 the ordainers and the or- 
 dinances, 144. 
 
 marches against king and 
 
 Gaveston, 144-5. 
 
 has Gaveston beheaded, 145, 
 
 151. 167. 
 
 made president of the king's 
 
 council, 145. 
 
 removal of bad advisers his 
 
 main theme, 145-6. 
 
 procures banishment of the 
 
 Despencers, 146. 
 
 styled steward of England 
 
 in the Act reciting these proceed- 
 ings, 146. 
 
 captured at Borough-bridge, 
 
 153- 
 
 proceedings against for trea- 
 son, 298, 322-3. 
 
 his death, 153. 
 
 inquisition post mortem, ten- 
 ure of Leicester and Hinckley, 
 I74n. 
 
 proceedings against , re- 
 versed for error, 298-9, 327-9, 
 
 335- 
 
 miracles at his tomb, 1 70. 
 
 Thomas of , made steward of 
 
 England, 189, 200. 
 his court of claims for the 
 
 coronation of Henry IV, 189-90, 
 
 200. 
 holds office for rest of his 
 
 life, 190, 428. 
 Richard earl of Warwick 
 
 his locum-ten ens, 201. 
 
 " duke of Lancaster," 428n. 
 
 duke of Clarence, 190, 378, 
 
 429. 
 presides at the trial of the 
 
 earl of Cambridge and lord 
 
 Scrope of Masham, 190, 379, 
 
 402-7. 
 patent appointing him the 
 
 king's vicegerent for this trial, 
 
 379, 402-3. 
 list of peers summoned by 
 
 him, 379, 405-6. 
 his death, 191.
 
 488 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Lancaster, Thomas of, stewardship 
 
 never granted after his death, 
 
 except pro hoc vice, 191. 
 Langley, Edward of , duke of 
 
 York, etc., see York. 
 Langres, bishop of , peer of 
 
 France, 246, 269, 272. 
 Langton, Walter, bishop of Coven- 
 
 try and Lichfield, proceedings 
 
 against , 304. 
 Laon, bishop of , peer of France, 
 
 246, 272. 
 Lascy, Henry de , earl of Lincoln, 
 
 amercement, 314. 
 Latimer, Richard lord , 465. 
 
 William lord , impeachment, 
 34<5-7. 
 
 -- proceedings annulled for error, 
 
 347- 
 Laura, the recluse of Hackington, 
 
 see Hackington. 
 Law (lex), technical meanings of , 
 
 228, 232-3. 
 
 use of term, in Glanville, 229- 
 3on. 
 
 -- in the Tres Ancien Coutumier, 
 
 popular meaning, illustrations 
 of , 23O-2n. 
 
 -- evidence of Wendover, 23 in. 
 Law of the land (lex terrae), mean- 
 ing of in Magna Charta, 228-33. 
 Laws, of Henry I, 207. 
 
 of David of Scotland, 207. 
 Leicester, abbey of , patronage 
 
 retained by the king, 196, 198. 
 
 countesses of ; see Breteuil, 
 Amicia de ; Grandmaisnil, 
 Petronilla de ; Braose, Laura. 
 
 earls of , see Beaumont, Mont- 
 fort, Lancaster. 
 
 -- genealogy, 192-3, 197-9. 
 
 estates, partition of , 74-5, 
 94-5, iio-i, 193, 196, 198. 
 
 -- value of , 75, 99-104. 
 -- records showing devolution 
 
 on death of last Beaumont, 88- 
 
 114. 
 -- elder moiety, seizure by John 
 
 and restoration, 75. 
 --- custodians of ; see Can- 
 
 tilupe ; Chester, earl of ; 
 
 Ropeley. 
 Leigh, Essex, in the hundred of 
 
 Rochford, 419, 4200, 445. 
 Lescrope v. Grosvenor, 36$n. 
 Letters-Patent, authority for affix- 
 
 ing great seal to , 131-7. 
 
 Letters-Patent, instance where seal 
 affixed in chancellor's absence, 
 
 133- 
 
 Lewes, battle of , 1 24, 1 97, 1 99, 310. 
 Lex, Lex terrae, see Law. 
 Leybourne, William de (forest 
 
 offence, King's service, coram 
 
 rege), 316. 
 Lincoln, Henry de Lascy earl of , 
 
 amercement, 314. 
 Lisieux, bishops of , Arnulf, 45, 
 
 46n, 49n, son, 61. 
 
 chief justiciar of Nor- 
 mandy, 37, 43-4. 
 John, justiciar of Normandy, 
 
 26-8. 
 Littleton, Sir Richard, judge, 467. 
 
 Sir Thomas, judge, on trial by 
 peers, 393. 
 
 Llewelyn, proceedings against , 
 243, 248-9n. 
 
 Loisel, the rule of , 2770. 
 
 London, Richard of Gravesend, 
 bishop of (forest offence, par- 
 liament), 318. 
 
 Longchamps, Stephen, dapifer or 
 seneschal of Richard I, 72n. 
 
 Lords Spiritual, see Bishops, Clergy. 
 
 appoint a procurator for trials 
 in parliament, 393. 
 
 how affected by institution of 
 the steward's court, 442. 
 
 Louis VIII, claims the kingdom of 
 
 England, 254-69. 
 argument before the papal 
 
 legate, 255-6. 
 expedition to England vetoed, 
 
 256. 
 
 lands in England notwith- 
 standing, 256. 
 
 his manifesto, 257. 
 
 legal aspects of , 258-9. 
 
 the argument at Rome, 259- 
 
 68. 
 
 Lovell, Sir Thomas, 465-6. 
 Luci, Richard de , justiciar of 
 
 England, 420, 44, 61. 
 
 chief justiciar, 51. 
 
 Lumley, Sir Ralph, 4210, 423n, 
 
 425, 426n, 454, 459. 
 
 M 
 
 Magna Charta, 215-45. 
 
 Chapters : IX, 220-1 ; XVIII, 
 
 222-3 ; XIX - 22 3 I XX ' 22in 
 XXI, 217, 221 ; XL, 326 ; XLII, 
 221, 241 ; LI I, 219-20, 221, 239;
 
 INDEX 
 
 489 
 
 Magna Charta Chapters : 
 
 LV, 221-2 ; LVI, 219-20, 239 ; 
 LVII, 219-20, 239-40 ; LIX, 
 220, 244 ; LX, 22in, 233. 
 
 chapter XXXIX, 215, 221, 223- 
 5, 233-4, 236, 276, 280, 288, 296, 
 303, 328-9, 33L 333. 369n, 381- 
 2, 393- 
 
 modern opinions as to its true 
 
 interpretation, 216-8. 
 
 translations of , 218-9. 
 
 " judgment of peers " does not 
 
 mean judgment of equals, 220. 
 
 " law of the land " does not 
 
 mean a trial or test, 221. 
 
 " lawful judgment of peers " 
 
 and the " law of the land " used 
 as more or less convertible terms, 
 222. 
 
 " vel " not to be read as " et," 
 
 223-5. 
 
 offers two alternative guaran- 
 tees, 276. 
 
 analogous provisions, 236. 
 
 Maine, David count of, 65. 
 
 Malcolm, king of Scots, charter 
 making Walter Fitzalan here- 
 ditary dapifer, 61-3. 
 
 Malet, Gilbert, dapifer, 41, 42n. 
 
 Robert, dapifer, 33. 
 
 William, dapifer, 41. 
 Malpalud, William de, justiciar of 
 
 Normandy, 52. 
 
 Maltravers, John lord , 405-6. 
 Mandeville, Geoffrey de , earl of 
 
 Essex, i5n, 34, 38. 
 made, by charter of the 
 
 Empress, hereditary dapifer, 33, 
 
 56-7. 
 claims to represent Eudo 
 
 dapifer, 34, 38. 
 probable explanation of his 
 
 claim to the dapifership, 38-9. 
 
 Roger de , justiciar of Nor- 
 mandy, 27. 
 
 Manny, Sir Walter, presides at trial 
 of baron of Greystoke, 346. 
 
 March, earls of .Edmund, 379, 405. 
 
 Roger, see Mortimer. 
 
 Marche, counts de la , made peers 
 of France, 275. 
 
 Hugh de Lusignan appeals 
 
 John king of England, 246. 
 
 Marmion, Philip (forest offence, con- 
 viction, redemption by executors), 
 
 319. 
 
 (forest offence, imprisonment, 
 
 parliament, redemption), 320. 
 
 Marmion, Robert, 52. 
 
 Roger, justiciar of Normandy, 
 
 26. 
 -- baron of the Norman court, 
 
 27n. 
 Marshal, Gilbert earl of Pembroke, 
 
 appealed of robbery, 277. 
 -- claims judgment of peers, 
 
 -- sentence of outlawry against 
 
 , quashed, 279-80. 
 
 William earl of Pembroke, vice- 
 gerent of England, 116. 
 
 -- styles himself justiciar, 116. 
 -- changes his style to " rector 
 
 regis et regni," 1 16. 
 Marshal of England, 76, 143, 147, 
 
 168, 172-3, 180, i8in, 182, 184, 
 
 362-415 passim. 
 
 assists the steward of England 
 in court of claims, 189, i9on. 
 
 widows of marshals, their claim 
 to the office, i8in. 
 
 Marshalsea prison, 361. 
 
 Martel, William, dapifer, 33. 
 
 Mastac, Fulk of , seneschal of 
 Poitou, 53. 
 
 Matthew Paris, chronicler, on the 
 condemnation of John for the 
 murder of Arthur, 260-1. 
 
 Matilda, the Empress, dapifers of 
 
 . 33- 
 
 -- perhaps regent of Normandy 
 
 in 1154,44. 
 -- grants by , of hereditary 
 
 dapiferships, 33-4, 56-8. 
 
 Queen of William I, tutor of 
 Normandy, 25n. 
 
 Mayor of London, 385n, 395, 416, 
 
 459- 
 
 his coronation service, 183. 
 Mayors of the palace (Major, 
 
 Magister), 4, lo-in, isn, i8n, 23, 
 
 29, 30, 65-8. 
 Mellent, counts of , see Beau- 
 
 mont. 
 Mengoti, William of , seneschal 
 
 of Poitou, 53. 
 Merkes, Thomas, bishop of Car- 
 
 lisle, see Carlisle. 
 Merton v. Hoo, 365n. 
 
 v. Stykeney, 365n. 
 Misdemeanours, determinableby the 
 
 justices, 284-7. 
 
 procedure in cases of , 289 et 
 sqq. 
 
 -- claim to judgment by peers 
 abandoned, 383.
 
 490 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Modus tenendi Parliamentum, 144. 
 
 date of , 147. 
 
 de casibus et judiciis difficilibus, 
 147, 168-9. 
 
 duties of the hereditary officers, 
 147, 168-9. 
 
 connection of tract with affairs 
 of 1386, 184. 
 
 Montague, John earl of Salisbury, 
 417, 419, 42i,423-7n. 
 
 impeachment of , 370-1. 
 
 beheaded at Cirencester, 419, 
 
 454, 459- 
 
 Thomas earl of Salisbury, 379, 
 405. 
 
 Montague, Salisbury v. , 364n. 
 
 Montalt, Milicent de (baroness, 
 amercement), 314. 
 
 Montfort, Amaury VI, 77, 80-1, 86, 
 in, 114, 193, 198. 
 
 constable of France, 77, 1 10, 
 
 112, 114. 
 
 styles himself earl of Leices- 
 ter, 77, 108. 
 
 letters to Henry III on behalf 
 
 of Simon, 78, 81, 108, no. 
 
 attempted conveyance of the 
 
 Leicester estates and steward- 
 ship, 8 1-2, 112. 
 
 visits England and formally 
 
 surrenders his claims, 86, 112-4. 
 
 second grant to Simon, 112-4 
 
 confirmation by Henry III, 
 
 114. 
 
 captured at Gaza, 118, 198, 
 
 199. 
 
 Simon raises money to ran- 
 som him, 199. 
 
 his death, 198, 199. 
 
 Amaury, son of Simon V, 193, 
 199. 
 
 styled Wellesbore or Welles- 
 borne, 199. 
 
 Amicia, countess of , see Beau- 
 mont. 
 
 Eleanor, 193. 
 
 marries Llewelyn of Wales, 
 
 193. 197. 199- 
 
 Guy, 193, 199. 
 
 Henry, 85, 193, 199. 
 
 Hugh, justiciar of Normandy, 26. 
 
 Peter, 310. 
 
 Ralph (de Gael), father of 
 Amicia countess of Leicester, 192. 
 
 Richard, 193, 199. 
 
 Simon III, 74. 
 
 Simon IV, earl of Leicester, 74, 
 93-114 passim, 12 in. 
 
 Montfort, Simon IV, stewardship 
 reserved to him on partition of 
 Beaumont estates, 74-5, 94-5. 
 
 references to the partition, 
 
 101, no-i. 
 
 deprived of his estates, 75, 
 
 Son. 
 
 appoints attorney for second 
 
 partition, in. 
 
 leaves England, 109-11. 
 
 accounts of his lands, 99-104. 
 
 estates nominally restored, 
 
 75-6. 
 
 assigned to the earl of 
 
 Chester on his behalf, 76, 104. 
 
 called husband of Amicia de 
 
 Beaumont, 192-3, 197-8. 
 
 on the partition has Hinckley 
 
 and the stewardship of England, 
 193, 196, 198. 
 
 exiled from England, 193, 196, 
 
 198. 
 
 his death, 76, 77, 105. 
 
 Simon V, 78-86, 108-14, 116-37, 
 154-63, 266, 309. 
 
 comes to England, promised 
 
 earldom of Leicester and steward- 
 ship of England, receives an 
 annuity, 78, 109. 
 
 ingratiates himself with the 
 
 earl of Chester, 78-9. 
 
 does homage for the Leicester 
 
 honour, 79, 109, in. 
 
 difficulties in the way of his 
 
 obtaining the earldom and es- 
 tates, 79-85. 
 
 Amaury 's irregular grant to 
 
 him, 81, 112. 
 
 the earl of Norfolk contests 
 
 his claim to the stewardship at 
 the coronation of queen Eleanor, 
 82-3. 
 
 acts as steward at this corona- 
 tion, 83. 
 
 complains that he is deprived 
 
 of many of his rights as steward, 
 84, 123. 
 
 his matrimonial designs, 84-5. 
 
 marries Eleanor the king's 
 
 sister, 85. 
 
 becomes, by surrender and 
 
 confirmation, earl of Leicester 
 and steward of England, and 
 validly seized of his estates, 86, 
 112-4; see also, 193, 196, 198. 
 
 his debt and threatened ex- 
 communication, 117. 
 
 raises money by fraud, 117.
 
 INDEX 
 
 491 
 
 Montfort, Simon V, disgrace and 
 
 flight, 117-8. 
 returns to England to prepare 
 
 for the crusade to avenge Gaza, 
 
 1 1 8. 
 raises money to ransom his 
 
 brother, 199. 
 
 in Palestine, and Poitou, 118. 
 
 council at Saintes, 119. 
 
 his poverty, 119. 
 
 seneschal of Gascony, 1 19-20. 
 
 offered the stewardship of 
 
 France, 120-1. 
 assumes the style " senes- 
 
 callus Angliae," 121-2. 
 Henry of Germany acts as 
 
 deputy steward for him, 122. 
 Louis arbitrates between him 
 
 and Henry III, 123. 
 effect of the reappointment 
 
 of Justiciars, 123-4. 
 styled seneschal of England 
 
 in formal documents after the 
 
 battle of Lewes, 1 24. 
 institutes inquiries about the 
 
 stewardship, 125-6. 
 his position after the battle 
 
 of Lewes, 124-7. 
 alleged assumption of the 
 
 justiciarship, 126-37. 
 Evesham, 127, 193, 194, 197, 
 
 199. 
 
 his children, 193, 199. 
 
 (default, amercement), 309. 
 
 Simon, son of Simon V, 193, 
 199. 
 
 Thomas, son of Simon V, 193, 
 199. 
 
 Montgomery, Roger de , 8, 9, 19. 
 
 tutor of Normandy, 25n. 
 
 Montpinson, Ralph de, dapifer, 20. 
 
 Morewich, Hugh de, dapifer, 41. 
 
 Mortain, counts of , see John, 
 Stephen. 
 
 Mortimer, Roger of Chirk, proceed- 
 ings against for treason, 299. 
 
 reversed for error, 299-300, 
 
 329-32. 
 
 Roger of Wigmore, proceedings 
 against for treason, 299. 
 
 reversed for error, 299- 
 
 300, 329-32. 
 
 earl of March, intimacy wth 
 
 queen Isabella, 335. 
 
 proceeded against in par- 
 liament, and executed, 336. 
 
 proceedings reversed for 
 
 error, 336. 
 
 Mortimer, Thomas, impeached in 
 parliament, judgment in default 
 of appearance, 358-9. 
 
 Mount joy, William Blount lord , 
 
 465-6- 
 
 Mowbray, John earl Marshal, 378- 
 9, 403, 405. 
 
 John 4th duke of Norfolk, 
 
 395- 
 
 Thomas i st duke of Norfolk, ap- 
 pealed by the duke of Hereford, 
 
 I8S-7, 359, 367- 
 
 Thomas, earl Marshal, his revolt, 
 trial, sentence and execution, 
 372-6, and see 400-2. 
 
 question in parliament as to 
 
 validity of the proceedings 
 
 against, 376n. 
 Muntchensy.Denisede (baroness, 
 
 amercement), 314. 
 (forest offence, coram rege), 
 
 318. 
 
 N 
 
 Neufbourg, Robert de, justiciar of 
 Normandy, 35-7, 43-4, 47, 50. 
 
 chief justiciar of Normandy, 
 
 45-6, 48n. 
 
 given a quasi-regal prece- 
 dence, 46. 
 
 dapifer, 41, 46. 
 
 dapifer Normanniae, 46, 47n. 
 
 senescallus Normanniae, 47n. 
 
 vicecomes, vicedominus Nor- 
 manniae, 48. 
 
 Neville, George lord Bergavenny, 
 465. 
 
 Ralph earl of Westmoreland, 
 372, 417, 459. 
 
 Richard lord Latimer, 465. 
 
 Richard earl of Warwick.steward 
 of England to deliver judgment 
 on Henry VI and others, 390. 
 
 his patent of appointment, 
 
 39on. 
 
 reappointed steward of Eng- 
 land, 391. 
 
 his patent, 39in. 
 
 Nigel, John de , appeals the 
 countess of Flanders, 271-2. 
 
 Norfolk, dukes of , see Howard, 
 Mowbray. 
 
 earls of , see Bigod. 
 Normandy, amercements, fixed 
 
 scale, 22i-2n. 
 ' assizes, 36n,44n,46-8n,2i4,222n. 
 
 conquest by Philip Augustus, 
 249.
 
 492 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Normandy, bishops unwilling to 
 
 swear fealty, 249-50. 
 they appeal to the pope, 
 
 250-1. 
 observations on the position, 
 
 251-2. 
 
 Coutumiers, Tres Ancien , 
 26n, 30-2, 214, 230, 255n, 262n, 
 266n. 
 
 Grand , 167-8, 225, 233-4. 
 
 dukes of , peers of France, 246. 
 privilege in respect of sum- 
 monses, 246-7, 261. 
 
 government of , before the 
 Conquest, 9-10. 
 
 after the conquest, 19, 25. 
 
 under Henry I, 25-8. 
 
 under Stephen, 34. 
 
 under Geoffrey, 35-6. 
 
 under Henry II, 37-54 passim 
 
 judgment of peers in , during 
 the 1 2th century, 214-5. 
 
 officers of , 6, 36-7. 
 their precedence, i6n. 
 
 seneschals of , 53. 
 
 tract on the office of seneschal, 
 167-8. 
 
 Northampton, William de Bohun 
 
 earl of , present at the trial 
 
 of the baron of Greystoke, 346n. 
 Northumberland, earls of , see 
 
 Percy. 
 Norwich, Henry le Spenser bishop 
 
 of , impeachment, 348. 
 v. WUliam baron de Hilton, 
 
 36sn. 
 Novarre, Philip de , his views on 
 
 forfeiture, 264-5. 
 
 their absurdity, 265. 
 
 Noyon, bishops of , peers of 
 
 France, 246, 269, 272. 
 
 O 
 
 Odo bishop of Bayeux, see Bayeux. 
 Officers of the household, in France, 
 3. 6. 
 
 in Normandy. 6, i6n, 35-7. 
 
 their precedence in England, 
 20-1, 24, 41-2. 
 
 Hereditary , duty to correct 
 the errors of the king, 143-4, 
 147, 168-9, 184. 
 
 by removing corrupt minis- 
 ters, 149-51, 166-7. 
 
 Offices of the Court and Serjeanties, 
 180-3. 
 
 Oger, dapifer, 42n. 
 
 Oldcastle, John lord Cobham, pro- 
 
 ceedings against in parliament, 
 
 380. 
 Oldhall, Sir William, attainder, 
 
 388-gn. 
 
 " Or " read as " And," see Vel. 
 Ordainers, lords , 144. 
 Ordeals, 216, 2i7-8n, 228, 232, 
 
 30411. 
 
 Ordric, dapifer, 22. 
 Organum vocis, 375. 
 Orleans, Manasse de Seignelay 
 
 bishop of , and the peers of 
 
 France, 27on. 
 -- claims judgment by bishops, 
 
 272. 
 Orleton, Adam, bishop of Hereford, 
 
 see Hereford. 
 Ormond, earl of , see Butler. 
 
 Thomas lord , 465. 
 
 Osbern son of Herfast, dapifer, 
 7-1 1, 13-15- 
 
 procurator principalis domus, 8. 
 Osbern, dapifer, 7. 
 
 Osbern, bishop of Exeter, 8. 
 Osmund, procurator, 10. 
 Otho emperor of Germany, 65-7. 
 Outlawry, 241, 242, 377. 
 
 by the law of the land, 221. 
 
 and judgment of peers, 277. 
 
 procedure in, 258. 
 
 argument of Hubert de Burgh, 
 
 case of the earl of Warwick, 358, 
 360-1. 
 
 Oxford, earls of , see Vere. 
 
 Oyer and Terminer, names of earls 
 and barons inserted in the com- 
 missions of, 287n, 371, 401-2. 
 
 Palace Courts, 373n. 
 
 Paris, Matthew, chronicler, on the 
 condemnation of John for the 
 murder of Arthur, 260-1. 
 
 Parliament, amercement in , 319. 
 
 appeals of treason in , 348-59. 
 abolished, 369, 439n. 
 
 attainder supersedes all judicial 
 proceedings, 388-9. 
 
 cases adjourned to , for judg- 
 ment, 292, 313 et sqq. 
 
 court for new remedies, and 
 redress of grievances, I28n. 
 
 declaration of forfeiture in , 
 against the leaders of the earl of 
 Kent's rebellion, 388n, 425-6.
 
 INDEX 
 
 493 
 
 Parliament, " full parliament," 
 meaning of , 295. 
 
 impeachments in , 346-8, 354i 
 358-9, 370-1. 383. 388. 
 
 judgments in , 287, 292, 313 
 et sqq. 
 
 of persons, not peers, protest 
 
 against, 336-7. 
 
 lords did not consider themselves 
 bound by their own decisions, 
 350. 
 
 Modus tenendi parliamentum, 
 144, 147, 168-9, 184. 
 
 petitions against the court of 
 chivalry, 363, 370, 377n. 
 
 procedure in , declaration of 
 the lords as to , 349, 352. 
 
 petition of the commons as 
 
 to , 37on, 
 
 reversal of judgments for error, 
 296-300, 305, 324-34, 336. 
 
 trials in , 184-5, 3<>5. 335~59 
 passim, 370-1, 377, 380, 383-96 
 passim. 
 
 Pascy, William de, 58-60. 
 
 Patric, William, baron of the 
 Norman court, 27n. 
 
 Pauli, Reinhold, on Simon de Mont- 
 fort and the justiciarship, 129. 
 
 Peeresses, amercement of , 29on, 
 
 3H-5- 
 
 forest offences temp. Edward I, 
 judgment in parliament, 318. 
 
 statute regulating the trial of , 
 
 38I-3- 
 
 trial in parliament, 384-6. 
 Peers, who were , 225-8. 
 co- vassals, 225. 
 
 freeman and villein, 225. 
 
 definitions excluding lord,225. 
 
 as a title of office or honour, 226. 
 peers of Flanders, Lille, Pon- 
 
 tefract, Preston, Rouen, Valen- 
 ciennes, Vermandois, etc., 226n. 
 
 " and other nobles," 226n. 
 
 of France, 226-7, an< i see below. 
 
 of the Jews, 228. 
 
 quasi peers, 226n, 233n. 
 
 " barons " and " justices " used 
 as synonymous terms, 227-8. 
 
 justices and knights the peers of 
 any man, 223, 277. 
 
 not bound to judge any but 
 peers, 336-7. 
 
 claim to jury or inquest of , 
 302, 334- 
 
 not to be sworn, 282, 293, 417, 
 460, 469. 
 
 Peeresses of France, countess of 
 Artois at the trial of the count of 
 Flanders in 1315, 274. 
 
 Peers of France, 55, 226-7. 
 
 none formally so styled prior to 
 1216, 245, 269-70. 
 
 traditions concerning , 245-6. 
 
 the twelve , 246. 
 
 when first enumerated, 2460.. 
 
 amercement of, 29on. 
 
 judgment by , principles regu- 
 lating , 273-5, 28sn, 287-8n. 
 
 presence of a single peer 
 
 sufficient, 274. 
 
 attempt to exclude from court 
 the officers of the household, 
 271-2. 
 
 treaties regulating composition 
 of the tribunal, 274. 
 
 additions to college of , 275. 
 Peers Spiritual, see Bishops, Clergy, 
 
 Lords Spiritual. 
 
 Peion, William, evidence on oath 
 as to Huntingdon's flight, 42on, 
 
 444-5- 
 
 Pembroke, earls of , see Marshal. 
 
 Percy, Henry ist earl of North- 
 umberland, constable of England, 
 37on. 
 
 proceedings against in the 
 
 court of chivalry, 376-7. 
 
 transferred into parlia- 
 ment, 377. 
 
 Henry 5th earl of Northumber- 
 land, 465. 
 
 John de (forest offence, im- 
 prisonment, parliament), 313. 
 
 Thomas, steward of the house- 
 hold to Richard II, 184. 
 
 procurator for the clergy, 
 
 184, 354- 
 
 joined in sentencing the 
 
 primate and Arundel, 184, 354, 
 
 357- 
 
 earl of Worcester, assistant 
 
 steward for the coronation of 
 Henry IV, 189, I9on, 200. 
 
 as vice - steward should 
 
 have sentenced the lords-appel- 
 lant, 37 in. 
 
 steward of the household 
 
 to Henry IV, 428n. 
 
 never appointed steward 
 
 of England, 428-9n. 
 
 Perke, Gilbert, chancellor to the 
 duke of Buckingham, 437, 439n. 
 
 Peterborough, abbot of , amerce- 
 ment, 309.
 
 494 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Petitions, to steward of England, 
 
 to reverse a judgment for error, 
 
 327. 330, 334- 
 Philip Augustus, his coronation, 
 
 54-5- 
 -- the count of Flanders, and 
 
 not the count of Blois, acts as 
 
 seneschal at , 54-5. 
 --- carries sword and serves 
 
 at table, 69. 
 
 his 2nd coronation, count of 
 Flanders seneschal at , etc., 
 70. 
 
 v. the countess of Champagne, 
 269-71. 
 
 v. John, ist judgment against, 
 246-8. 
 
 --- procedure similar to that 
 of Edward I v. Llewelyn, 247-9. 
 
 -- conquest of Normandy, 249. 
 
 --- bishops unwilling to swear 
 fealty, 249-51. 
 
 --- observations upon, 251-2. 
 
 -- refuses John a safe-conduct, 
 260. 
 
 -- 2nd judgment against, 252. 
 
 --- nature of , 252-4. 
 
 naval defeat, 254. 
 
 reply to the papal legate, 254-5. 
 Philippa of Hainault, queen of 
 
 Edward III, her coronation, 172, 
 
 177. 
 
 Pincerna, see Butler. 
 Pirou, William de, dapifer, 23. 
 Pleshy, Essex, 420, 422-4, 427, 
 
 451-9 passim. 
 -- funeral monument to Hunt- 
 
 ingdon at , 424x1. 
 Poitiers, Diane de , seneschal of 
 
 Normandy, 53n. 
 Poitou, added to the French 
 
 peerage, 275. 
 
 seneschal of , 53. 
 
 Pole, Michael de la , ist earl of 
 Suffolk, appealed of treason in 
 parliament, 348-5 1 . 
 
 Michael de la , 2nd earl of 
 Suffolk, 379, 405. 
 
 William de la , duke of Suffolk, 
 proceedings against, 383-4. 
 
 --- does not put himself upon 
 
 his peers, 384. 
 
 -- banishment and death, 384. 
 Ponthieu, Marie de , 263-4^ 
 Popham, Sir John, constable of 
 
 Southampton Tower, 378, 404-5. 
 Port, Adam de , dapifer, 23. 
 
 Pounteney v. Borney (Exchequer 
 Chamber), 365-6. 
 
 Preaux, Roger de , dapifer or 
 seneschal, 72n, 88. 
 
 Pritewell (Prittlewell), John, 42on. 
 
 confession of , 448. 
 
 Huntingdon captured at his 
 
 house, 42on, 448, 452-3. 
 
 Prittlewell near Leigh, Essex, 42on, 
 452-3- 
 
 Procedure in Parliament, declara- 
 tion of the lords as to , 349, 352. 
 
 petition of the commons as to 
 , 37on. 
 
 Procurator, 8, 9n, and see Osbern, 
 Osmund, St. John, Fitz-Ralph. 
 
 became the popular term for the 
 vicegerent of Normandy, son. 
 
 and dapifer, 8, 9n. 
 
 for the clergy in parliament, 184, 
 
 3S3-4, 358-9. 393- 
 Proof by Record, 298-301. 
 Prothero, George Walter, on Simon 
 
 de Montfort and the justiciar- 
 
 ship, 130. 
 Proxy, duke of York appoints the 
 
 earl of Dorset his proxy for the 
 
 judgment of Cambridge and 
 
 Scrope, 379, 405. 
 
 Queen, case adjourned before, 312. 
 Cjuincy, hereditary constables of 
 
 Scotland, 76. 
 
 Saer de , 193-4, 196-8. 
 his claim to the Leicester 
 
 estates, 74, 89-94. 
 his claim to the honour of 
 
 Grandmaisnil, 92-3, 98. 
 his claim to the honour of 
 
 Hinckley, 96-7. 
 his claim to a moiety of the 
 
 suburb of Leicester, 99-100. 
 , earl of Winchester, charter 
 
 confirming to him a moiety of the 
 
 Leicester estates, 94-5. 
 the partition of the Leices- 
 ter estates, 74-5, 101, no-i, 193, 
 
 196, 198. 
 appeals from the original 
 
 partition decree, which is revised 
 
 in his favour, 75, Son, and see 
 
 IIO-I. 
 
 legal proceedings in con- 
 nection with his estates, Son. 
 Quo Warranto, proceedings on ,
 
 INDEX 
 
 495 
 
 R 
 
 Ralph, dapifer, 23. 
 
 Ralph (Torte), tutor of Normandy, 
 9, ion. 
 
 styled seneschal by Wace, ion, 
 
 i6n. [22-3. 
 
 Ranulf, brother of Ilger, dapifer, 
 
 Ratcliff, John lord Fitzwalter, pro- 
 ceedings against for treason, 397. 
 
 Recognitors, 217, 222-3. 
 
 whether considered quasi- judges 
 in Magna Charta, 223. 
 
 Record, proof by , in treason, 
 298-301. 
 
 Redemption, 28 $n, 286n, 315-6, 
 319-20, 360. 
 
 Reims, archbishops of , peers of 
 France, 246, 269. 
 
 Thomas de Beaumetz, de- 
 fendant in ejectment, claims 
 unsuccessfully to be tried by his 
 peers, 272. 
 
 Rempston, Thomas, steward of the 
 household, loon. 
 
 Richard I, 30, 72-3, 84, 115, 308. 
 
 charter to Roger earl of Norfolk, 
 87-8. 
 
 Richard II, 176-89, 347-60, 363-9. 
 
 accession, i82n. 
 
 coronation and court of claims 
 of , 177, 179, 182-3. 
 
 the revenge of 1397, 352-9. 
 
 capricious conduct in the Here- 
 ford v. Norfolk appeal, 186-7. 
 
 his abdication, 189, 199-200. 
 Richard III (duke of Gloucester), 
 
 constable of England, sentences 
 the duke of Somerset, 395. 
 
 (king of England), 396-7, 438. 
 Richard I, duke of Normandy, 9. 
 Richard duke of York, see York. 
 Richmond, earl of , see John of 
 
 Gaunt. 
 
 Rivers, earl , see Woodville. 
 Robert, and Geoffrey Greygown, 
 
 65-7. 
 
 case against Eudo II count of 
 Chartres, 209. 
 
 Robert I, duke of Normandy, his 
 
 dapifers, 7. 
 Robert II, tutor of Normandy, 2$n. 
 
 duke of Normandy, 25. 
 Rocheforts, dapifers of France, 4. 
 Ropeley, Robert, 93, 97, 98. 
 given custody of the Leicester 
 
 estates, 75n, 94. 
 
 his accounts as custodian, 
 
 93. 96, 98, 99-102. 
 
 Ropeley, Robert, and the arch- 
 deacon of Stafford, custodians of 
 the honour of Grandmaisnil, 93. 
 
 Roumare, William de , justiciar 
 of Normandy, 34. 
 
 Round, John Horace, on Simon de 
 Montfort and the justiciarship, 
 130. 
 
 Rowdon, Robert, serjeant-at-arms, 
 465. 
 
 Ruff us, William, dapifer, 41. 
 
 Rutland, earl of ; see York, 
 Edward of . 
 
 Rydon, Robert, clerk of the council, 
 414. 
 
 S 
 
 S. v. Osbert archdeacon of York, 
 303-4n. 
 
 Sable, Geoffrey de , justiciar of 
 Normandy, 26-7, 36. 
 
 St. Amand, Amaury de (parlia- 
 ment, high misdemeanors), 2940.. 
 
 (forest offence, king's service, 
 
 coram rege), 316. 
 
 St. Carilef, William de , bishop of 
 Durham, proceedings against for 
 treason, 210-1. 
 
 St. John of Jerusalem, in England, 
 prior of , 395, 442, 465. 
 
 in Ireland, prior of , appeals 
 the earl of Ormond, 383. 
 
 St. John, John de (forest offence, 
 parliament), 313. 
 
 William de , 44n. 
 
 chief justiciar of Normandy, 
 
 49. 50. 
 
 styled Normanniae pro- 
 curator, son. 
 
 St. Martin, Alured de , dapifer ,41. 
 
 Saintmount, Richard lord , 466. 
 
 St. Osbert, Giles de , dapifer of 
 Hainault, 43n. 
 
 St. Trinite du Mont, Rouen, charter 
 of William I to , 13. 
 
 St. Valery, Reginald de , jus- 
 ticiar of Normandy, 35-6, 48,49n. 
 
 Salisbury, earls of , see Montague. 
 
 v. Montague, 36411. 
 
 Savoy, Thomas of , 117, and see 
 Flanders. 
 
 Saye, James Fienes lord , indict- 
 ment and death of , 384-6. 
 
 Scales, Anthony lord , see Wood- 
 ville. 
 
 Thomas lord , indictments 
 before , at the Guildhall, 385. 
 
 Scot, John, earl of Chester, see 
 Chester.
 
 49 6 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Scotland, hereditary dapifership of 
 
 , 4on, 44n, 61-3. 
 Scrivelsby, tenure of , i82n. 
 Scrope, Kighlee v. , 370. 
 Scrope, Henry lord Scrope of Mas- 
 
 ham, proceedings against for 
 
 treason, 190, 378-80, 402-7, 429. 
 --- confirmation in parliament, 
 
 379, 402-7. 
 
 Richard, archbishop of York, 
 see York 
 
 Richard, steward of the house- 
 hold, presides at the trials of 
 peers in parliament, 347n. 
 
 William earl of Wiltshire, pro- 
 curator for the clergy, 359. 
 
 -- tried and sentenced by a 
 
 court of chivalry, 367-8. 
 Seal, the Great , authority for 
 
 affixing, 131-7. 
 Seaton, tenure of the manor of , 
 
 1 8 in. 
 Segrave, Nicholas, proceedings 
 
 against in parliament for treason, 
 
 294-5. 
 
 Stephen, justiciar of England, 
 116, 137. 
 
 Sely (Cely), Sir Benedict (alias Sir 
 
 John), 42in, 423n, 424, 454. 
 Seneschals, early occurrence of ,4. 
 
 dapifers (q.v.) commonly so 
 styled after accession of Richard 
 
 1,72- 
 
 normal number became two, 
 and then one, 115. 
 
 increasing importance of their 
 office, 115. 
 
 styled finally " senescallus hos- 
 pitii regis," or steward of the 
 household, i28n, and see Steward 
 of the household. 
 
 Seneschals of French Provinces, 
 
 style and authority, 115-6. 
 Serjeanties, grand , 42, 179-81. 
 
 honorary at coronations, etc., 43. 
 -- their popularity, 43. 
 
 -- at the court of Flanders, 43n. 
 -- at the coronation of Richard 
 II, 179-83- 
 
 widows of Serjeants, their posi- 
 tion, i8in 
 
 " Serjent a roi est pair a comte," 
 
 Sewer, n, i8on, and see Dapifer, 
 
 Seneschal, Steward. 
 Shelley, Sir Thomas, 4 10-2 in, 445- 
 
 6, 448-9. 450-2, 455-6- 
 Sheriff, office held by dapifers, 21. 
 styled dapifer, i8n. 
 
 Shirley, Walter Waddington, on 
 Simon de Montfort and the 
 justiciarship, 128-9. 
 
 Siward, Richard, v. the earl of 
 Gloucester, 284n. 
 
 Soissons, council at in 1213, 252, 
 267n. 
 
 Somerset, duke of, , see Beaufort. 
 
 Somery, Roger de (forest 
 offence, imprisonment, parlia- 
 ment, redemption), 319-20. 
 
 Stafford, Edward duke of Bucking- 
 ham, 379, 429, 465. 
 
 proceedings against for trea- 
 son, 435 et sqq. 
 
 trial before the court of the 
 
 lord high steward, 436-41. 
 
 report in the Year Books, 
 
 436, 439-4on, 469-70. 
 
 attainted by Act of Parlia- 
 ment, 44 in. 
 
 Henry duke of Buckingham, 
 steward of England to execute 
 judgment on the duke of Clar- 
 ence, 396. 
 
 his patent of appointment, 
 
 412-3. 
 
 proceedings against for trea- 
 son, 396. 
 
 his examination, confession 
 
 and death, 397n. 
 
 his design to stab the king, 
 
 438. 
 
 attainted by Act of Parlia- 
 ment, 396-7n. 
 
 Humphrey duke of Buckingham, 
 steward of England for the trial 
 of the earl of Devon, 386-8. 
 
 Nicholas baron of (forest 
 offence, imprisonment, redemp- 
 tion), 320. 
 
 Ralph, steward of the household, 
 340-1. 
 
 earl of , present at the trial 
 
 of the baron of Greystoke, 346n. 
 
 Stanley, John, steward of the house- 
 hold, on the commission of oyer 
 and terminer for the trial of 
 archbishop Scrope and Mowbray, 
 372, 401. 
 
 Thomas lord , attempted im- 
 peachment of , 388. 
 
 Stapleton, Thomas, antiquary, his 
 views about the stewardship of 
 Normandy, 5-6, 13-14. 
 
 Stephen (count of Mortain), a jus- 
 ticiar of Normandy, 28. 
 
 (king of England), 33, 37, 39. 
 his dapifers, 33.
 
 INDEX 
 
 497 
 
 Stephen (King of England), his 
 government of Normandy, 34. 
 
 weakness of curia regis during 
 
 his reign, 213. 
 
 impetus given to ecclesias- 
 tical jurisdiction, 213. 
 
 Stewards of the archbishops of 
 Canterbury, honorary hereditary 
 office held by Richard Clare earl 
 of Gloucester, i4on. 
 
 Stewards of the bishops of Exeter, 
 honorary hereditary office held 
 by Hugh Courtenay earl of 
 Devon, i4O-in. 
 
 .Stewards (dapifers or seneschals) of 
 England : 
 
 Hereditary ; ( i ) Geoffrey earl of 
 Essex (by charter), see Mandeville 
 
 (2) Humphrey de Bohun (by 
 
 charter), see Bohun. 
 
 (3) Robert II earl of Leicester 
 
 (by charters), see Beaumont. 
 
 Hugh earl of Norfolk (by 
 
 charter), see Bigod. 
 
 (4) Robert III earl of Leices- 
 ter (by charter and succession), 
 see Beaumont. 
 
 * Roger earl of Norfolk (by 
 
 charter and succession), see Bigod. 
 
 (5) Robert IV earl of Leices- 
 ter (by succession), see Beaumont. 
 
 . (6) Simon IV earl of Leicester 
 
 (by succession), see Montfort. 
 
 .. (7) Simon V earl of Leicester 
 
 (by charters of surrender and 
 confirmation), see Montfort. 
 
 - (8) Thomas earl of Lancaster 
 
 (by patent), see Lancaster. 
 
 (9) Henry earl of Lancaster 
 
 (by tenure ?), see Lancaster. 
 
 . (10) Henry duke of Lancaster 
 
 (by tenure ?), see Lancaster. 
 
 For life ; (i) Randulf Blundevill 
 earl of Chester (?), see Chester. 
 
 (2) Edmund earl of Lancaster 
 
 (by patents), see Lancaster. 
 
 4 (3) Thomas duke of Clarence 
 
 (by livery), see Lancaster. 
 
 By the Courtesy ; ( i ) William of 
 Hainault (?), see Hainault. 
 
 (2) John duke of Lancaster, 
 
 see John of Gaunt. 
 
 Deputy, or Pro Hac Vice ; 
 Henry of Germany (by patent), 
 see Germany. 
 
 . Henry earl of Derby, see 
 
 Lancaster 
 -. Thomas earl of Worcester (by 
 
 livery), see Percy. 
 
 William Thyrning (?), see 
 
 Thyrning. 
 
 Richard earl of Warwick (by 
 
 patent), see Beauchamp. 
 
 Humphrey duke of Bucking- 
 ham, see Stafford. 
 
 Richard earl of Warwick (by 
 
 patent), see Neville. 
 
 Henry duke of Buckingham 
 
 (by patent), see Stafford. 
 
 John earl of Oxford (by 
 
 patent), see Vere. 
 
 Thomas, earl of Surrey (by 
 
 patent), see Howard. 
 
 duke of Norfolk (by pa- 
 tent), see Howard. 
 
 Stewards of England, in the Court 
 of Parliament, 146, 184-5, I ^8. 
 354-9. 371, 386-8, 390-1, 393, 
 396. 
 
 in the Court of the lord High 
 steward, 379, 399, 416-70 passim. 
 
 in the Court of Claims, see Court 
 of Claims. 
 
 miscellaneous functions of , 
 42-3, 72-3, 82-4, 122, 143-4, 
 147-51, 164-9, 173, 177, 189-92, 
 199-200. 
 
 styles of the , first holders 
 styled dapifers, 56-61. 
 
 seneschals after the accession 
 
 of Richard I, 72, 74, 86-7. 
 
 " senescallus hospitii domini 
 
 regis " under Henry III, 77n. 
 
 " senescallus Angliae totius " 
 
 by Amaury VI, 81, 112. 
 
 " senescallus regis " in 1239, 
 
 "3- 
 
 Simon V de Montfort assumes 
 
 the style " senescallus Angliae," 
 
 121. 
 
 " senescallus Angliae " in for- 
 mal documents under the great 
 seal, after the battle of Lewes, 
 124-5. 
 
 " tanquam senescallus An- 
 gliae," I73n, 177, 184, loon. 
 
 " josticiarius," i8sn. 
 
 "grand juge d'Angleterre," 
 
 i88n. 
 
 " juge greigneur," i88n. 
 
 tracts on the , the Colchester 
 Tract, 29-30. 
 
 the Lancastrian Tract, 144, 
 
 148-51, 164-7. 
 an unhistorical account, 
 
 151. 
 the foundation of future 
 
 claims, 151.
 
 493 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 Stewards of England : 
 
 - --- comparison with other 
 
 tracts, 151-3. 
 
 -- the Hinckley Tracts, 192-9. 
 --- drawn up in the interest 
 
 of John of Gaunt, 5O-in, 174-5. 
 
 writ to Exchequer to ascertain 
 fees of , i42n. 
 
 Stewards of the Household, court 
 of , I28n, 424n. 
 
 preside at trials in parliament, 
 185, 347- 
 
 appointed during pleasure, 40. 
 
 style, from latter half of I3th 
 century, " senescallus hospitii 
 regis," 128, iQon. 
 
 Stewards of the Household in 
 France, connection with trial of 
 
 peers, 
 
 Stewards of Scotland, 4on,44n, 61-3. 
 Stigand, dapifer, 7, 8, 20, 54. 
 Stratford, John archbishop of Can- 
 
 terbury, see Canterbury. 
 Stubbs, William bishop of Oxford, 
 
 his views about the stewardship 
 
 of Normandy, 6, 1 2-4. 
 -- on the origin of the justiciar 
 
 of England, 12-3, 21. 
 Stykeney, Merton v. , 36sn. 
 Succession, brothers, sisters, ne- 
 
 phews and nieces, respective 
 
 rights of , 249n, 266. 
 Suffolk, Alice duchess of , pro- 
 
 ceedings against in parliament, 
 
 acquittal, 384-5, 386n. 
 
 duke of , earls of , see Pole. 
 " Super eumibimus,"224,236-7, 243. 
 
 both judgments against John 
 were judgments " super eum ire," 
 248, 252, 270. 
 
 " Super eum mittemus," 236-7, 
 
 243-4. 
 Surrey, Thomas Holand duke of , 
 
 impeachment, 370-1, and see 
 
 Holand. 
 
 earls of , see Howard.Warenne. 
 Sutton, Edward lord Dudley, lord 
 
 high steward appointed for the 
 
 trial of , 435, 467-8. 
 Swords, carried at a coronation, 55, 
 
 69-72, 84. 
 -- " Curtana," carried by earl 
 
 of Chester in 1236, 152. 
 --- carried by the earl of 
 
 Lancaster at the coronation of 
 
 Edward II, 142, 152. 
 --- claimed by John of Gaunt 
 
 at the coronation of Richard II, 
 
 182, i83n. 
 
 Talbot, Gilbert lord , 405. 
 
 John lord , appeals the earl of 
 Ormond in the court of chivalry, 
 380. 
 
 Tancarville, Ralph de , the cham- 
 berlain, mayor of the palace, IO-I. 
 
 Tesson, Ralph, a baron of the 
 court of Normandy, 27n. 
 
 Ralph, seneschal of Normandy, 
 
 S3n- 
 
 Three parties to a judgment, neces- 
 sity for , 208, 273, 284-9. 
 
 Thyrning, William, chief justice of 
 the common bench, delivers judg- 
 ment in parliament on the lords 
 appellant, 371, 378. 
 
 as steward of England, 
 
 371. 
 owing to illness of the 
 
 vice-steward, 37 in. 
 Tiptoft, John earl of Worcester, 
 
 appointed constable of England ,. 
 
 390, 407. 
 sentences the earl of Oxford, 
 
 39i. 
 
 surrenders his office, 392. 
 
 false recital of the terms of 
 
 his appointment in the patent 
 of earl Rivers, 392, 407 et sqq. 
 
 reappointed constable, 393,. 
 
 412. 
 
 sentenced to death by the 
 
 earl of Oxford as constable of 
 England, 394. 
 
 Touchet, James lord Audeley (court 
 of chivalry, levying war, sentence 
 and execution), 397-8, 414-5. 
 
 attainted by Act of Parlia- 
 ment, 398. 
 
 Toulouse, counts of , peers of 
 France, 246. 
 
 Tournebu, Simon de , 52. 
 
 Tours, Joslen of , dapifer and 
 chief officer of state in Anjou, 37. 
 
 S. Julien de , charter of , 70. 
 
 Stephen of , seneschal of 
 Anjou, 53. 
 
 Treason, proceedings in cases of , 
 284, 292 et sqq., et passim. 
 
 Treher, Philip, fishmonger, gives 
 lessons on fighting in the lists, 38 3. 
 
 Tr6s Ancien Coutumier de Norman- 
 die, see Normandy. 
 
 Tresilian, Sir Robert, chief justice^ 
 appealed of treason in parliament,. 
 
 348-51. 
 
 condemned and executed, 35 1 ,. 
 
 352n.
 
 INDEX 
 
 499 
 
 Tutores, style given to vicegerents 
 of Normandy, 9, i2n, 2$n. 
 
 Tyes, Henry, proceedings against 
 for treason, 299. 
 
 U 
 
 Umfraville, Gilbert de , William 
 Douglas v. , appeal of treason, 
 
 -- , earl of Angus (various mis- 
 demeanours, acquittal by jury), 
 312. 
 
 V 
 
 Valence, William de , judgment, 
 
 309- 
 Valenciennes and Guy count of 
 
 Flanders, 273. 
 Vampage, Sir William, 414. 
 " Vel " read as " Et," 217-8, 2i9n, 
 
 223-5. 
 
 not to be so read in chapter 
 xxxix of Magna Charta, 225. 
 
 Verdict and Judgment, confusion 
 
 between, 216-7, 288-9. 
 -- in Bracton, 288. 
 -- in Magna Charta, 223. 
 
 of junior lord taken first, 393, 
 417, 440, 460, 469. 
 
 of majority, 417, 434-5, 460, 469. 
 Verdun, Theobald de , proceed- 
 
 ings against for giving false 
 
 evidence, 294n, 316-8. 
 -- (criminal proceedings against, 
 
 amercement in parliament), 319. 
 Vere, Aubrey loth earl of Oxford, 
 
 shelters Huntingdon, 450. 
 
 John 1 2th earl of Oxford (trea- 
 son, court of chivalry, earl of 
 Worcester constable), 391. 
 
 John 1 3th earl of Oxford, sen- 
 tences the earl of Worcester, 394. 
 
 -- steward of England for the 
 trial of the earl of Warwick, 431, 
 460-7. 
 
 --- patent of his appointment, 
 460-2. 
 
 -- styled constable of Eng- 
 land by Hall, 434. 
 
 Richard nth earl of Oxford, 379, 
 405. 
 
 Robert 5th earl of Oxford (forest 
 offence, coram rege), 318. 
 
 Robert 6th earl of Oxford, his 
 claim to be hereditary chamber- 
 lain, 171, 178-9. 
 
 Robert 9th earl of Oxford and 
 duke of Ireland, defeated at 
 Radcot Bridge, 348. 
 
 Vere, Aubrey, zoth earl of Oxford, 
 
 appealed of treason in parlia- 
 
 ment, 348-51. 
 Vermandois, Ralph count of , 
 
 dapifer of France, 29, 54-5, 64, 
 
 68. 
 -- Philip count of Flanders 
 
 claims to succeed to the dapifer- 
 
 ship of , 55, 63. 
 Vernon, William de , 44n, 460. 
 -- a justiciar of Normandy, 35. 
 
 W 
 
 Wac, Ralph de , tutor of Nor- 
 
 mandy, 10. 
 Wace, persons styled seneschal by 
 
 him, i6-i7n. 
 
 Waldeshef v. Wawe, 365n. 
 Walo, papal legate, his mission to 
 
 France, 254-6. 
 -- forbids the invasion of Eng- 
 
 land, 256. 
 Wantham, Nicholas de , Robert 
 
 le Eyr v . , appeal of treason, 
 
 Warbeck, Perkin, 430-1. 
 
 Warenne, John earl of (forest 
 offence, coram rege, redemption 
 before barons of the Exchequer), 
 
 315. 
 -- (forest offence, parliament), 
 
 318. 
 Warwick, earls of , see Beau- 
 
 champ, Neville. 
 
 Edward earl of , indicted for 
 treason, 399, 429-31. 
 
 -- trial before the court of the 
 lord high steward, 431-5, 460-7. 
 
 -- attainted by Act of Parlia- 
 ment, 432. 
 
 -- observations upon his trial, 
 
 432-5- 
 
 Ela countess of , amercement, 
 
 315- 
 
 Watteville, Robert de , 60. 
 -- dapifer, 41. 
 Wavrin, Hellin de , seneschal of 
 
 Flanders, 53n. 
 
 Wawe, Waldeshef v. , 36sn. 
 West, Thomas lord De la Warr, 465. 
 Westmoreland, Ralph earl of , 
 
 372, 417, 459. 
 Weston, John de , marshal, 363, 
 
 399-400. 
 
 William de , impeachment, 347. 
 Whitchurch v. Calverly, $6$n. 
 William the Conqueror, 5-22 pas- 
 
 sim, 29, 30, 209-10, 408-9, 411.
 
 500 
 
 HIS GRACE THE STEWARD 
 
 William the Conqueror, his dapifers, 
 
 as duke of Normandy, 7, iin. 
 as king of England, 8, 20. 
 
 his vicegerents of Normandy, 
 their style, 2$n. 
 
 William II, i$n, 21-2, 29, 30, 210-1. 
 
 his dapifers, 22. 
 
 William I, duke of Normandy, 9. 
 William, dapifer, 22. 
 Willoughby, Robert lord , 405. 
 
 Robert lord de Broke, 466. 
 
 William lord , 466. 
 Wilman, Benet, case of , 370. 
 Wilton, Edward Grey lord de , 
 
 466. 
 
 Wiltshire, earl of , see Scrope. 
 
 Winchester, bishops of , Nicholas 
 of Ely (forest offence, coram 
 regina), 312, and see 313. 
 
 Peter des Roches, 1 37. 
 
 asserts that the king's 
 
 justices are the peers of any man, 
 276-7. 
 
 modern criticisms, 278. 
 
 Henry III evades decid- 
 ing the point, 278-80. 
 
 Richard of Ilchester, chief 
 
 justiciar of Normandy, 32, 52-3. 
 
 countess of , see Beaumont. 
 
 earl of , see Quincy. 
 Witchcraft, 380-1. 
 
 Woodville, Anthony lord Scales, 
 patent appointing him constable 
 of England from and after his 
 father's death, 410-1. 
 
 Richard earl Rivers, he and his son 
 appointed constable of England 
 successively for life, 392, 407-11. 
 
 observations upon, 392, 
 
 393 n - 
 Worcester, Godfrey Giffard bishop 
 
 of (baron, amercement), 314. 
 (forest offence, proceedings in 
 
 respect of ), 321-2. 
 
 earls of , see Percy, Tiptoft. 
 Writs, of exigent against a peer of 
 
 the realm, 360-1. 
 
 in Normandy, of faciatis habere, 
 26-8n, 44-sn, 49n. 
 
 of faciatis recognosci, 4$n. 
 
 of faciatis tenere, 27n. 
 
 of teneat in pace, 45n. 
 
 royal, naming the justiciar, 45n, 
 49n. 
 
 of Arnulf bishop of Lisieux, 44n. 
 
 of Robert de Neufbourg, 45n. 
 
 of Rotroc bishop of Evreux, 4911. 
 
 Wytingham, William de , pro- 
 ceedings against (temp. Edward 
 I) in the military court, 363^ 
 
 Year Books, first reported case of a 
 trial before the court of the lord 
 high steward, 416-7, 459-60. 
 
 evidence of it being a forgery, 
 
 416 et sqq. 
 
 report of the duke of Bucking- 
 ham's trial, 436, 439n, 44on, 
 469-70. 
 
 York, archbishops of , John 
 Romanus (inquisition, ambiguity, 
 parliament), 316. 
 
 proceedings against in par- 
 liament, 3O3n. 
 
 Alexander Neville, appealed of 
 
 treason in parliament, 348-51. 
 
 the lords did not venture 
 
 to sentence him to death, 351. 
 
 Richard Scrope, his revolt, 
 
 trial, sentence and execution, 
 372-6. 
 
 patent appointing a con- 
 stable and marshal in connection 
 with , 400-1. 
 
 commission of oyer and 
 
 terminer to steward of the house- 
 hold, peers and justices in con- 
 nection with , 401-2. 
 
 question in parliament 
 
 as to validity of the proceedings, 
 376n. 
 
 John Kempe, 380. 
 
 archdeacon of , Osbert, pro- 
 ceedings against for murder, 
 303-4n. 
 
 Edward of , earl of Rutland, 
 353-4, 417-8, 450- 454. 456, 458. 
 
 duke of Albemarle, impeach- 
 ment, 370-1. 
 duke of York, 379, 405. 
 
 Richard of, earl of Cambridge, 
 proceedings against for treason, 
 190, 378-80, 402-7, 429. 
 
 Richard duke of York, 386n, 387. 
 
 death at Wakefield, 39on. 
 
 attainted by Act of Parlia- 
 ment, 389n. 
 
 Z 
 
 Zouche, Elena (baroness, amerce- 
 ment), 314. 
 
 John lord , 466. 
 
 William lord , 405. 
 
 PLYMOUTH : WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD., PRINTERS
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 . .- c* 
 
 o ft 
 
 ~> . -o 
 
 o ro -^ 
 
 .. n 
 
 lf> * " 
 
 ^ S- ^ 
 
 en 
 i i 
 I.U
 
 UCLA-College Library 
 
 JN 359 V59h 
 
 L 005 767 868 2 
 
 College 
 Library 
 
 JN 
 359