|
|
English Legal History
3/9/2009
Outline
|
|
COURT STRUCTURE AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE c.
1300
|
|
1.
|
English population c.1300
Domesday Book (1086): 275,000 tenants = ? 2 million
Poll Tax Returns (1377): 1,386,196 rate payers =? 3 million
Population in 1300: ?? 6-7 million
|
|
2.
|
Social structure c.1300
|
|
Rural Lay
|
Clergy
|
Urban
|
£ p/a
|
#
families
|
|
Earls
|
Archbishops
|
|
400-1100
|
140
|
|
Barons
|
Bishops
|
|
200-500
|
|
|
Abbots
|
|
|
|
Knights
|
Priors
|
Merchants
|
20-200
|
2000
|
|
Esquires
|
Rectors
|
|
5-40ass=MsoNormal>
|
|
|
Franklins
|
Lesser
Clergy
|
Craftsmen
|
2-10
|
|
|
Villein Tenants
|
|
|
Cottars
|
|
Journeymen
|
1-3
|
|
|
Laborers
|
|
Apprentices
|
1-2
|
|
|
Laborers
|
|
|
Servants
|
|
Servants
|
|
|
|
Marginals
|
|
Marginals
|
|
|
|
|
[Note how important
the overall population is. At the
upper reaches of the society we're talking about roughly 100 to 200 K
people. That's 5-10% of 2 million,
2-5% of 4 million, 1-2.5% of 8 million.]
|
|
3.
|
Court structure
|
|
|
a.
|
General eyre
E.g., Wiltshire 1194–5 (S&M 40A (articles, pp. V–57 to V–59); S&M 40B
(civil pleas and presentments, pp. V–59 to V–60) and Warwickshire in 1221
(S&M 54(B), first 2 entries, p. V–62). It heard a vast number of civil
pleas and assizes (e.g., S&M 40B, p. V-59:
The assize comes to make recognition whether the prior of Farley unlawfully
and without judgment disseised William Burnel of his free tenement in Penly
after the first coronation of the lord king. The jurors say that the prior
of Farley did disseise him of it. Judgment: William to have seisin of it
and the prior [to be] in mercy. ...
And all criminal matters as well. Grand juries made presentments of crimes
to it (e.g., S&M 40 (B), p. V–60):
Manor of Malmesbury. Emma of Summerford was slain in the house of her
mother, and Thomas and Richard of Malmesbury were on that account accused.
And the whole jury, being interrogated concerning it, said that they did
not suspect the aforesaid Thomas and Richard of Malmesbury of the death of
the same Emma.
And the knights of the whole county said that they did suspect the aforesaid
Thomas and Richard, because the same men then proceeded to Gloucester,
and they are convinced that the same men proceeded to Gloucester for the sake of there selling
the chattels of that woman. Thomas and Richard are to clear themselves by
the water.
The coroners laid their rolls before it (S&M 54 (D), p. V–64 to V-65,
extracts from rolls probably laid before the justices in eyre in 1266–7):
It happened in the vill of Wilden on [28 October 1266] that unknown
malefactors came to the house of Jordan Hull of Wilden and broke into the
said house while the said Jordan was absent. And the said malefactors wounded Agnes,
wife of the said Jordan,
and killed Emma, his eight-year-old daughter. Afterwards they carried off all the goods
from the house. ... Inquest was held
before S[imon] Read, the coroner, by four neighbouring townships ..., who
said what has been reported, and that the malefactors were unknown. ...
|
|
|
b.
|
Parliament
The function of the eyre as in some sense the highest court of the realm was
taken over by parliament. (S&M 54 (G), pp. V–66 to V–67):
Aymer de Peche, who is ill, beseeches the lord king graciously to command
the escheator to return to him the seisin of the manor of Steeple, the
custody of which belongs to him because Hugh son of Otto ended his days
holding of the said Aymer by military service the aforesaid manor, with
which he had been enfeoffed by the same Aymer, who held the aforesaid manor
of the lord king in chief.
[Endorsed:] Let it be restored because [Hugh] held nothing of the king in
chief.
|
|
|
c.
|
Itinerant Justices
The function of the justices in eyre in the country came to be replaced by
specific commission to justices to justices to do specific things. In 1225,
for example, Martin de Pateshull the CJCB and three Somerset knights were ordered to take
assizes of novel disseisin and to deliver the goals in Somersetshire
(S&M 54 (B), p. V–63):
Richard Goky, accused of the death of Henry Lightfoot who was slain at
Ling, appears and denies the entire charge and puts himself on the
country. And the townships of North
Curry, Bridgewater, Creech, and Newton, also the
twelve jurors, say on oath that they suspect of that death no one but the
same Richard, and they affirm
that he slew [Henry]. And so let him
be hanged. Inquiry is to be made as
to his chattels. And the township of Ling and the twelve jurors in the first place presented a
certain Robert Young as having killed [Henry]. And afterwards they appear and confess
that they did so on the instance of Roger Baryl,
serjeant of the hundred. And so [he
is to be put in] custody, and the twelve jurors and the township of Ling
are in mercy for their false presentment.
The amercement of the jurors is pardoned.
In 1278 it was still possible for the king to commission justices to hear a
specific case that didn’t fit into the system (Mats. VII–40):
The lord King commanded his beloved and trusty Salomon of Rochester and
Master Thomas de Sutherington [Justices itinerant, holding the Assises in
the County of Southampton.] that, whereas from the grave complaint of
William of Dunstable, his citizen of Winchester, he had understood that,
whereas the same William had bought from Robert le Bal’ of Winchester 103
sacks of good merchantable wool sewn up in 86 sarplers, [Sarpler = a large
canvas sack for packing wool: used also as a measure of wool.] namely,
every sack out of 53 sacks for 8 marks and every sack out of the remaining
50 sacks for 6 marks, of which sarplers the same Robert in the presence of
the aforesaid William caused 8 sarplers to be opened, namely 4 of the
greater and 4 of the lesser price, whereof the same William had been
content, and faithfully promised that the remaining wool sewn up in the
sarplers was like the wool opened; and whereas the said William, attaching
faith to the statements of the said Robert herein, carried the whole of the
wool aforesaid, save two sacks and a half which were stolen in the custody
of the said Robert, to St. Omer: yet, when the same William caused it to be
opened and exposed for sale at St. Omer, he found the wool sewn up in 68
sarplers. Of which he had not made
inspection, vile and useless and altogether differing from his agreement;
whereby the same William, through the default of the aforesaid Robert
herein, incurred a loss in his goods and merchandises of a hundred pounds.
|
|
|
d.
|
Common Bench (Common Pleas)
At Westminster
the central royal court divided into three parts. Magna Carta required that common pleas be
held in some fixed place, and the Common Bench, as a separate institution,
arose because of this requirement. S&M 54 (A) (p. V-61 to 62). As the
first entry shows, the Common Bench in its early years still heard some
criminal pleas as well.
Hugh Hop-over-Humber appeals Thomas of Dean for [the following offense:]
that on St. Giles’s day, between the first and third hours, in the second
year of the king’s reign, while he, together with his cousin William of
Leigh, was in the park of Cuckfield
belonging to the earl de Warenne, for the purpose of guarding that park,
the said Thomas came with a band [of accomplices], a multitude of men armed
with bows and arrows, and assaulted them, aiming an arrow at the said
William and hitting him in the leg, so that within nine days he died of the
wound. …
|
|
|
e.
|
Exchequer of Pleas
The plea side of the Exchequer was principally concerned with tax cases
(see S&M 54 (C), pp. V–63 to V–64):
An assize, summoned and attached to make recognition on oath whether
Richard of Hinton holds three-fourths of a knight’s fee with appurtenances
in Eastbury of the king in chief or of Ralph le Moyne appears before the
barons of the exchequer on the morrow of St. Hilary: namely. ...[The names of the twelve jurors are omitted.] They declare on oath that the said
Richard of Hinton holds the said three-fourths of a knight’s fee with
appurtenances in Eastbury of Ralph le Moyne in chief; that the said Richard
and his ancestors always rendered to the same Ralph and his ancestors the
service owed from this [fief];
and that the said Ralph holds that tenement of the lord king. And so it is decided that the said
Richard is to be quit of the scutage exacted from him for the said
tenement, and that the same Richard shall henceforth render service for the
said tenement to Ralph le Moyne and his heirs as has been accustomed. ...
Occasionally it hears important cases involving merchants (Mats. p. VII–42):
William Cause of Lincoln was attached to answer James Pylate … of a plea
that he do render to him (James) 20 marks which he (William) owes to him;
and whereof he proffered a certain writing in which is contained that in
the year of Grace 1287, … in the fair of St. Botolph, a covenant was made
between William Cause, citizen of Lincoln, of the one part, and Everard of
St. Venant and James Pylate, merchants of Douai, ... of the other part,
namely that the aforesaid William granted and sold to the aforesaid Everard
and James all the wool of the house of Welbeck of the Premonstratensian
Order, as well for the year of Our Lord 1290 … as for the six years next
and continuously following, namely every sack of good wool for 15 marks
sterling and every sack of middling wool for 10 marks sterling and every
sack of selected locks [‘Locks’ were inferior or short wools.] for 8 marks
sterling: whereupon [the agents of Everard and James] ... have paid to the
aforesaid William 20 marks sterling as earnest money (in arris) at the time of the making of the aforesaid writing,
to be allowed to the same merchants in payment for the said wools in the
last year of this covenant. And he
(James) says that he did not receive the aforesaid wools except for the first three years, wherefore
he asks for the said 20 marks to be restored to him according to the form
of the said covenant.
|
|
|
f.
|
Court before the king (King’s Bench)
The court before the king still notionally moved around with the king. It
heard important criminal cases and reviewed proceedings in lesser courts.
S&M 54 (F), pp. V–65 to V–66, gives us a roll of judicial appointments
for the year 1278, showing both the strucure of the courts and the fact
that these guys weren’t working for nothing.
|
|
|
g.
|
Manor courts
The extracts on pp. V–67 to V–70 (S&M 54 (H), S&M 65) show us
manorial courts in operation.
Ruislip [Middlesex]. ... The court makes presentment that Nicholas
Breakspeare is not in tithing, and he holds land; Therefore let him be
distrained. Breakers of the assize
[of ale]. ...[Thirteen persons are named, with a
normal fine of 6d.]
Roger son of Hamo gives 20s. to have seisin of the
land that was his father’s and to have an inquest by twelve [men] as to a
certain croft held by Gilbert Bisuthe.
Pledges: Gilbert Lamb, William son of John, and Robert King.
... Richard Maleville [offers to
prove] at his law [That is to say, by compurgation; see above, [Assize of
Clarendon (§ 4A), art. 3].] as against the lord that he did not take
attached property away from the lord’s serjeants to the lord’s damage and
dishonour [amounting to] 20s. Pledges: Gilbert Bisuthe and Richard
Hubert. Hugh Tree [is] in mercy for
cattle of his taken in the lord’s garden.
Pledges: Walter of Hull and William
Slipper. Fine 6d. Twelve jurors say
that Hugh Cross has title to the bank and hedge over which there was a
dispute between him and William White.
Therefore let him hold in peace, and let the said William be
distrained for many trespasses.
Later he fined for 12d.
...
|
|
|
h.
|
Fair courts
Mats. VII–35 to VII–37 show us a franchisal fair court. The fair court at St. Ives run by the abbot of Ramsey at the end
of the 13th century. It is dealing largely with mercantile affairs that
arise out of the fair.
Peter Long of London complains of Geoffrey of Cam [or Caen] and says that
he unjustly detains from him 600 ells [a length of cloth, somewhat longer
than a yard, 45 in.] of canvas, which he, Peter, through his broker Hamon
of Bury St. Edmunds, bespoke [i.e., ordered] and bought from him in his
booth in the vill of St. Ives, on the Friday after the feast of St. John
before the Latin Gate, for 29s. the hundred and a
farthing as a God’s penny, to his damage 40s. And he produces suit.
|
|
|
i.
|
Borough courts
Mats. VII–37 to VII–38 shows us one
case of many from the rolls of the mayor’s court of the city of London.
Richard Whittington [This is Richard Whittington, as in “Turn again, Dick
Whittington, lord mayor of London.”], mercer, brought an action for debt
against Stephen Turnebonis, merchant, for £296. In his bill he alleged that he had bought
and had in his custody a certain Hugh Coniers, a prisoner of war taken in
the battle of Agincourt and put to ransom at 1600 crowns … and 16 marks of
silver troy weight … the whole amounting to £296; and that on 10 July 1420
in the parish of St. Michael de la Ryole the defendant agreed to pay that
sum for the prisoner as soon as the plaintiff released to the prisoner all
his right and claim in him for the ransom and should be prepared to hand
him over to the defendant and obtain for the latter authentic letters under
his seal witnessing the release; and that thereupon the plaintiff released
his right to the prisoner and was ready to hand him over and obtain the
aforesaid letters, but the defendant had not paid the money, though often
requested to do so; to the plaintiff’s damage £40.
|
|
|
j.
|
Staple courts
Mats. VII–38 to VII–39, which
reproduce the Statute of Staple of 1353, tell us that in the 14th century
separate courts were established in many towns to deal with transactions
concerning the wool trade.
|
|
|
k.
|
County and hundred courts
|
|
|
l.
|
Church Courts
P. VII–41 shows us a brief extract from the consistory court of York from
1511, but similar records exist all the way back to 1300:
... The aforesaid Oliver Foster, at a time before the feast of St. Lawrence
recently past, bought and received from the aforesaid George Chart forty
sheep, forty lambs and twenty hogs worth £6 6s 8d.
The same Oliver on the day of delivery and receipt of the said sheep, lambs
and hogs, paid 26s 8d in part payment of the said sum of £6 6s 8d.
The same Oliver by his oath faithfully promised the same George to pay £5
the rest of the same £6 6s 8d on a certain day now past.
The aforesaid George by himself and his men long before the present suit
duly requested the said Oliver to pay to the same George the said £5, the
rest of the £6 6s 8d.
The aforesaid Oliver, thus requested as is aforesaid has delayed and
refused to pay or deliver to the same George the said £5, just as he delays
and refuses at the present time.
The aforesaid are true, public notorious, and manifest, etc.
|
|