.
PLEAS OF THE CROWN FOR THE
HUNDRED OF SWINESHEAD
AND THE TOWNSHIP OF BRISTOL
A.D. 1221.
1£Y
PLEAS OF THE CROWN
FOR THE
HUNDRED OF SWINESHEAD
AND THE
TOWNSHIP OF BRISTOL
TAKEN AT BRISTOL BEFORE
SIMON ABBOT OF READING RANDOLF ABBOT
OF EVESHAM MARTIN PATESHULL JOHN OF
MONMOUTH RALPH HARENG AND ROBERT
LEXINGTON JUSTICES ITINERANT
IN THE FIFTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF
KING HENRY THE THIRD
A.D. 1221.
BY
EDWARD JAMES WATSON
F.R.HiST.S., F.R.S.L.
Bristol:
W. CROFTON HEMMONS, STEPHEN STREET.
1902.
Ht> pattern
PREFACE.
THIS book is a small contribution to the history of
Bristol, but I venture to hope that it possesses some-
thing more than of local interest. In the Introduction,
my object has been to make the matter of the record
intelligible, if not to all, at any rate to some who are
not professional students, and have neither the time
nor the opportunity for the perusal of withered parch-
ments and ancient tomes. I have endeavoured to be
accurate and have set down nought in malice, either
of afore- or after-thought. What I have written in
error, adjudge, I pray, ' infortunium, and, of your
charity, add * et ideo nichil?
My thanks are due to Professor F. W. Maitland
for his great courtesy in allowing me to use his
transcript It is hoped that my translation will not
be considered as an impertinence.
April, 1902. E. J. W.
I6RARY
CONTENTS.
Introduction i
Description of the Transcript 115
Pleas of the Crown for the Hundred of Swineshead 1 1 7
Pleas of the Crown for the Township of Bristol - 129
Amercements 155
Glossary - 1 6 1
Index 163
INTRODUCTION.
THE record before us is a small one, and represents
the pleas of the Crown and the amercements for the
hundred of Swineshead and the township of Bristol,
taken at Bristol before the Abbot of Reading and his
fellows justices itinerant in the fifth year of the reign
of King Henry the Third and the year of Grace 1221.
To be precise, it is a part of the nineteenth, the
whole of the twentieth, and a part of the twenty-third,
membranes of Assize Roll, No. 271, preserved at the
Record Office, but completed and more or less per-
fected by reference to a contemporary roll known as
Assize Roll No. 272.1
Both of these rolls contain the Gloucestershire
business of the eyre of 1221, but the first, although
somewhat mutilated, is the better record. It not only
contains several enrolled instruments and a note of the
1 These rolls were until quite recently known as Coram Rege Roll, Henry ///.,
M)
No. 13, and Assize Roll 2 \ I, respectively.
14)
B
Pleas of the Crown.
election of the coroners, which are nowhere to be found
on the other, but is posted up to the end of the
Gloucestershire session. It comprises the list of amerce-
ments, and, apparently, is the roll that was used in
the drawing up of such list. Certain entries suggest
that it was also utilized as the basis for assessing the
amercements. Indeed, its completeness makes it almost
safe to say that it is the roll which was to be kept in
the Treasury; the one which would be appealed to
in checking the accounts of the sheriff; the one to be
turned to at any time by a litigant to establish a
matter of record. It is made up Exchequer fashion —
that is, the strips of parchment which compose it are
bound together at the top. On the left hand side of
each membrane there is a margin containing abbre-
viated words recording the result of the presentment
or plea, and the amount of amercements, deodands,
fines and such like.1
As the entries were evidently made while the court
was sitting, we cannot expect to find them written in
the best of Latin. Neither is the grammar perfect.
The clerks had to translate into Latin presentments
and verdicts made and delivered by countrymen and
burgesses in English, spiced, no doubt, in cases of
oral delivery, with a very decided local accent. The
1 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, Introd. xliv-1.
Introduction.
translation had to be done on the spot. There was
no time to think out polished phrases. Consequently
we come across notes erratic, elliptic, and involved, and
bearing evident signs of hurry and interruption. To
make matters worse, clerical errors are not absent.
But if one is not too startled at the many sudden
changes of nominative, and is prepared to read the
record in jerks, and to allow common sense to rectify
bad grammar, he will find little difficulty with the
document.
The tale it tells is one of discord, lust, and
violence. A dozen or so of homicides, some deaths
by drowning, a couple of rapes, stories of flights of
slayers and suspected persons, fines imposed on
townships and pledges, deodands for deaths by
misadventure, transgressions of Jews, and a very
satisfactory piece of hanging, are the staple contents
of the record. But vulgar crime and its concomitants
are not the only things narrated. Faint whispers of
municipal life are heard, angry neighbours voice their
discontent, and matters affecting quays, markets,
castles, buildings, constables, bailiffs, sheriffs, and
coroners, discover themselves.
To realize the age of the document one need only
remember that the first appearance of Bristol in written
history is senior to it but one hundred and seventy
Pleas of the Crown.
years;1 that Domesday Book was compiled only one
hundred and thirty-six years before;2 that Saint Augus-
tine's Monastery at Bristol can give it not more than
eighty years ;3 that the extreme limit of legal memory
carries us but thirty- two years further back ;4 that the
earliest recorded plea precedes it only thirty years;5
and that forty years were to pass before Bracton wrote
his monumental legal treatise.6 Six years prior to its
date one had merely to be suspected of a crime by
the representatives of his neighbourhood to be sent
to the Ordeal, or God's judgment of fire or water.7
But in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council forbade
the clergy to take part in the rite,8 which in 1219 was
formally abolished,9 and as a legal process it died out.
Trial by jury then became a factor in criminal
10
1 Hunt, Bristol, 10, 1 1 ; The Annals of Roger de Hoveden (Bohrts Edition) , i,
118; Harold and Leofwin, sons of Earl Godwine, escaped by ship from Bristol
after being outlawed by the assembly held at London on September 29, 1051.
2 Pearson, The Early and Middle Ages of England, i, 265.
3 R. J. King, Bristol Cathedral in the Transactions of the Bristol and
Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 1878-9, Part I, 104. S. Augustine's is now
the Cathedral Church.
4 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, nth Ed., ii, 31. In law
the memory of man is supposed to extend back to the coronation day of
Richard the First, Sept. 3, 1189.
5 Maitland, Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), Introd. viii, xxvi, xxviii.
6 Campbell, Lives of the Chief Justices, i, 63 ; Bracton was promoted Chief
Justice in 1265, and the work was finished about that year.
7 Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 116, 122, 125. This species
of trial appears to have been in frequent use so late as the I5th year of King John ;
Abbreviatio Placitorum (Record Commission), 906, Middlesex and Kent, Roll 20.
8 Condi. Lateran, IV., c. 18.
9 Rymer's Fosdera (London, 1704), i, 228.
10 Social England, Ed. by Traill, i, 292.
Introduction.
procedure, and we have an opportunity of viewing it
in its infancy.
The period covered by the roll is at least five
years, and may be as many as seventeen years. This
eyre was certainly the first held in Gloucestershire
since Henry the Third had become King, for the writ
stated that all pleas were to be brought before the
justices that had not been pleaded, and which had
arisen subsequent to the time the justices itinerant
were last in those parts in the time of the lord King
John.1 And we know from Bracton that it was a
perfect exception to an indictment or appeal to prove
that the justices had visited the county since the crime
was committed, and that on that eyre no presentment
had been made of it.2
If we could discover the last time in John's reign
that the justices in eyre were in Gloucestershire, we
should know exactly the period covered by the roll.
But we have no such knowledge, and indications of
date have to be traced through the names on the
record. Now three presentments relate to the time of
Robert of Roppelay, who was Constable of Bristol
from 1204 to I2o8,3 and these alone take us back to
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i. 476*.
2 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 242, 432-434- The case of Henry R°mband
decided in 1225 is twice cited in support of this doctrine.
3 No. 3, 13, 36.
Pleas of the Crown.
from thirteen to seventeen years. Other presentments
relate to the times of Gerard of Athee and Peter of
Chanceaux, Constables of Bristol, from 1208 to 1212,
and 12 1 2 to 1215 respectively.1 And within a year
of the last date John's reign ended. It seems then
that no eyre had been held in Gloucestershire for
about seventeen years.
In 1218 writs were issued for a general eyre, but
the counties of Gloucester, Worcester, Hereford,
Stafford, Salop, Leicester, Warwick, and Surrey were
specially excepted.2 Unfortunately the Close Rolls
do not give us the reason for this distinction. It cer-
tainly was not because of lack of crime. The extant
Assize Rolls prove this. An explanation may, however,
be found in the fact that John had, by the help of
his foreign adventurers, always kept a tight hold on
the western counties, and bad as they were, perad-
venture the others were worse.
As nearly all the serious crime of the country
came before the justices in eyre,3 it can easily be
imagined that with such long intervals, the legal
machinery, devised for the repression and punishment
of crime, became extremely inefficient. Indeed, the
1 No. 14, 19, 33, 35, 38.
2 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 380*.
3 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., ii, 644-5.
Introduction. 7
greater the crime the better chance had the criminal
of escaping. The system provided by the Assizes of
Clarendon and Northampton aimed at a speedy ad-
ministration of criminal justice. But even the energy
of Henry the Second was unable to secure the holding
of eyres more than once in every two or three years,
and after the death of that King the eyre evidently
languished.1 Public opinion was against it, and
although the barons in I2I52 demanded that John
should send two justices through each county four
times a year3 to hold assizes of novel disseisin, mort
d' ancestor, and darrein presentment,4 they did not cry
out for more eyres. And it is not difficult to suggest
the reason. A commission to take assizes and a
commission to hold a general eyre are absolutely
different things. The assizes required by the barons
were useful to protect their property and their rights.
1 Pike, History of Crime in England, \, 452-3.
2 Articles of the Barons, Art. 8 ; Magna Charta, Art. 1 8.
3 By Art. 13 of the Second Charter of Henry III., the number of visits each
year was reduced from four to one.
4 All these assizes were possessory actions. That of novel disseisin was the
remedy for the recovery of lands or tenements of which the party had been disseised.
The assize of mort d1 ancestor lay when a man's father, mother, uncle, aunt, brother,
or sister died seised of lands held in fee, and after their death a stranger abated.
That of darrein presentment was the remedy of the claimant to possession of an
advowson. It is not unimportant to note that when the justices in eyre were at
Ilchester in the 27th year of Henry the Third, (1242-1243), the bailiffs of Bristol
produced a charter of Henry the Second testifying that the writ of assize of
mort d'ancestor did not run in Bristol; Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society),
pi. 525. It would be interesting to know what has become of this charter.
8 Pleas of the Crown.
On the other hand, the eyre was the most powerful
check the King possessed over the seignorial juris-
dictions. The barons, therefore, were not hasty in asking
for more eyres. Neither was such a demand likely to
come from the people, because the eyre was used for
fiscal as well as judicial purposes, and the exactions
levied caused the populace to believe that the increasing
of the Exchequer receipts was its primary, and the
repression of crime its secondary object. The extortions
of the judges were considered worse evils than the
perpetration of crime. Crime is seldom the result of
sin, it is more often the result of starvation. And
bitterly had the people learned, that starvation was
the natural consequence of impositions. Small wonder,
then, popular dread of an eyre became so great that
in 1233 the men of Cornwall ran away into the woods
on hearing of the approach of the justices.1 In
season and out of season local authority pitted itself
against centralized authority, and, with such success,
that in the second half of the thirteenth century the
visits of the travelling justices for the trial of criminals
were limited to one in seven years.'2
9 l Annales Prioratus de Dunstaplia; Annales Monastici (Rolls Series) ,\\\, 135.
2 Monachi Wigomiensis Annales, Anglia Sacra, i, 425 ; it was resolved to
resist the entry of itinerant justices into Warwickshire, because seven years had not
passed since their last visit. Pollock and Maitland. History of English Law, 2nd
Edit., i, 202, qu. Close Roll Hen. III., No. 77, m. Qd. ; . An eyre in Norfolk was
postponed as seven years had not elapsed since the last eyre. Page, Northumberland
Introduction. 9
But because so long a period had elapsed since
the holding of the last eyre, it must not be supposed
that Bristol and the hundred of Swineshead had been
without criminal justice. Gaol deliveries may have
been held.1 Unfortunately, they are difficult to trace,
as the commissioners appointed to hold them were not
in the habit of keeping records.2 Nevertheless, there is
evidence that one took place under Henry de Vere, but the
only clue to its date is the fact that it was held during the
time the ordeal by water was in use.3 Such work was then
considered of so easy a character that knights of the
shire were frequently entrusted to perform it. Few
men were kept in prison.4 They either broke out or
Assize Rolls (Surtees Society), Introd. xiv; The King's justices had not visited
Northumberland for ten years previous to 1256.
1 Herefordshire, which, like Gloucestershire, was excepted from the general
eyre of 1218, but included in that of 1221, had a gaol delivery in 1220; Rotuli
Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 42 7&.
2 Bracton's Note Book, cases 281, 367, 431, 512, 530, 564.
3 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 374, 383.
4 The prisons of this time were very different to the prisons of to-day. For
example, the following entry occurs in the Rolls of the time of Henry the Third.
Gleanings from the Public Records, by Mr. H. Hewlett, in the Antiquary, March,
1882, (Vol. v, p. 99); "Assizes held at Ludinglond. The jury present that
William le Sauvage took two men, aliens, and one woman, and imprisoned them at
Thorlestan, and detained them in prison until one of them died in prison, and the
other lost one foot, and the woman lost either foot by putrefaction. Afterwards he
took them to the Court of the lord the King at Ludinglond to try them by the same
Court. And when the Court saw them, it was loth to try them, because they were
not attached for any robbery or misdeed for which they could suffer judgment. And
so they were permitted to depart." After reading this terrible entry one almost
wonders whether Bracton was serious when he wrote, " the gaol is appointed for
custody and not for punishment (gaola, qua; ad custodiendum depulatur <5r> non
ad puniendum) "; Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 288.
io Pleas of the Crown.
were bailed out. Indeed, in this portion of roll,
there is not one single instance of a prisoner being
brought up in custody for trial. The criminal juris-
diction of the county court, although extensive at one
time, had, by the Assizes of Clarendon1 and North-
ampton,2 and the 24th article of Magna Charta, been
cut down to a very low limit. True, it had been
known to burn a man for arson, but then the court
had the King's writ,3 and it is hardly likely that
these writs were frequently granted. It had also
hanged men caught with stolen goods in their pos-
session.4 The hundred court, too, had hanged a man
for burglary and larceny.5 Still such cases were rare.
Every manor in the hundred of Swineshead had its
manorial court, and the Templars of the Temple fee
in Bristol, and the lord of Redcliff, had also their
courts.6 These tribunals might punish cases of
manifest larceny by hanging.7 They could also deal
1 Art. 4, 5.
• Art. i, 12.
3 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 216.
4 Ibid., pi. 217, 280.
5 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 785.
6 Hunt, Bristol, 39, 40; Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 798.
Rotuli Hundredorum, Hen. HI. et Edw. I. (Record Commission) i, 177.
7 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, Introd. xxii. The
Earl of Gloucester claimed the privilege of trying and hanging a man for manifest
theft ; Ibid., pi. 243. The lord of Berkeley enjoyed a similar privilege ; Smyth, Lives
of the Berkeleys, i, 192. So did the Abbot of Tewkesbury, in the district outside
Lawford's Gate and in Reclland ; but he had to use the Judicialia of the King in
Introduction. 1 1
with minor acts of violence and dishonesty. And the
burgesses of Bristol had cognizance of certain crimes by
their right to hold view of frankpledge.1 But, besides
the powers possessed by these tribunals, a system of
summary justice obtained in some parts, which effec-
tually stopped the career of many criminals. The
Northumberland Assize Rolls for the thirteenth century
show several instances of felons caught redhanded
being beheaded on the spot without the semblance of
a trial,2 and such like summary justice was not unknown
in Gloucestershire.3 This record relates how that
eleven thieves were hanged for killing three women at
Barton Regis,4 and although it is not clear when this
happened, or by what authority they were hanged, it
certainly was not by any judgment given by itinerant
justices.5 After, however, making the fullest allowance
for local administration of justice, and in spite of the
few who managed to get burnt, hanged, or beheaded, the
Bristol; Placita de Quo Warranto, Edw. I. II. et III. (Record Commission), 246.
Mabel Bishop was taken with the theft (cum latrocinio) at Redcliff and hanged ;
Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 800. So late as the reign of Edward
the First there were thirty-five private gallows in Berkshire alone ; Mrs. Green,
Henry the Second, 119.
1 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 34. The Court Baron (Selden Society), 64, 71, 74, 90, 93.
2 Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Society), 70, 73, 79, 80, 84, 320, 360.
3 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 53, 89, 362.
4 No. 4.
5 Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 140; a similar case occurred
at Kidderminster in 1221.
12 Pleas of the Crown.
thirteenth century was by no means a bad time for
criminals.
And now, the better to understand our document,
let us glance at the political landscape, for great men
are abroad, and the time is pregnant with weighty
issues. Certain periods in a nation's history show
comparative stagnation — a decade, or a generation, or
even a century, counts almost for nothing. But there
are times when event succeeds event, and the rise
and fall of parties, and the opening and closing of
epochs are compressed within a small space. And
such a space is that covered by this record. Six
years before, the Great Charter had been signed that
closed one epoch and began another ; that enunciated
rights and liberties which had been striving for ex-
pression for many weary years ; that created a new
political party, and started a troubled and factious
contest lasting for upwards of eighty years. It was
a treaty between two powers which mistrusted one
another so much that immediately after entering into
the solemn compact, each set to work to relieve itself
of the consequences. It was easy enough to make
peace on paper; the difficulty lay in carrying it out.
Whilst the barons transferred their garrisons from the
royal castles to their own, John fortified his strong-
holds and appealed to Rome for support.1 The Pope
1 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th Edit., ii, 6, 7.
Introduction. 13
annulled the Charter, forbade John to keep his oath,
and called the barons to account for their conduct.1
But still there was no peace, and sentence of excom-
munication was published in the presence of the baronial
army. Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury,
who was charged to excommunicate the King's enemies,
refused and was suspended.2 Pandulf, the Pope's envoy,
together with the Bishop of Winchester and the Abbot
of Reading, commenced personally excommunicating
some of the most prominent leaders.3 War broke out,
and the barons sought foreign aid.4 John, filled with
fiery activity, ravaged the country from north to south,
and placed the great estates in the hands of his
adventurers.5 But the loss of his fleet made a French
invasion possible, and Lewis, at the invitation of
several of the barons, came over and fought with
some success.6 Many of the earls now forsook John,
who, fighting with a blind and savage energy, swept
to and fro through the land, wreaking vengeance on
friend and enemy, and leaving a track of fire and
blood only ended by his death.7
1 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th Edit., ii, 9.
2 Maurice, Stephen Langton, 224-5.
3 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th Edit., ii, 7, 8.
4 Ibid., ii, 8, 9.
5 Ibid., ii, 10, n, 12.
6 Ibid., ii, 9, 14, 15, 1 6.
7 I gth October, 1216; Roberts, Excerpta e Rolulis Finium (Record Commission),
Introd. vol. i, p. ii.
14 Pleas of the Crown.
On the 28th of October, 1216, Henry the Third
was crowned at Gloucester.1 On the i2th of Novem-
ber a council was held at Bristol of bishops, earls,
ministers, and warriors, at which the Earl of Pembroke
was appointed rector regis et regni, and the Great
Charter was republished.2 The war continued by fits
and starts, but the barons became more and more
dissatisfied with Lewis, whose cause gradually declined
until the battle of Lincoln ended the struggle.3 Then
followed a general pacification crowned by a second
re-issue of Magna Charta.4 During Henry's first
years his advisers were, besides the Earl of Pembroke,
Hubert de Burgh and Gualo, the Pope's legate.5
But the Earl was dead and Gualo gone before the
close of 1219,° and Henry came under the influence
of Peter des Roches, whose policy was to support the
foreign influences which Langton and Hubert were
trying to eliminate.7 On the jyth of May, 1220,
the King, then thirteen years of age, was crowned
again, and the homages paid at his coronation were
to be followed by the resumption into the hands of
1 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th Edit., ii, 18.
• Ibid., ii, 19-21.
3 Ibid., ii, 24.
4 Ibid., ii, 25, 26.
5 Ibid., ii, 29.
6 Ibid., ii, 31.
* Ibid., ii, 31. Maurice, Stephen Langton, 241.
Introduction. \ 5
the King of the royal castles which were still held
by John's favourites.1 The barons pledged themselves
to enforce the surrender, but were false to their oath,
and gave as an excuse their distrust of Hubert. A
party was formed, the chiefs of which were William
of Aumale, Falkes de Breaute, and Peter de Mauley.2
Bristol Castle was one of those strongholds that was
exercising the mind of the King. Although not dis-
tinctly hostile, it was troublesome on account of a
promise made to the constable and not kept. The
arrangement was that Hugh of Vivonia, the then
constable, should be paid one hundred pounds rent and
one hundred marks of silver to maintain the castle,
and on these sums not being forthcoming, Hugh
showed his indignation by refusing to obey any
mandate proceeding from his royal master.3 To such
a length did things go, that on four or five occasions
orders were issued to seize his lands until the King's
decrees were complied with. But the matter appears
to have been settled on the C'rown paying Hugh
out and making him seneschal of Poictou and Gascony.4
Other castles were, however, not so easily secured.
Newark, Sauvey, and Rockingham had to be besieged
1 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th Edit., ii, 31, 32.
3 Ibid., ii, 32, 33.
3 Shirley, Royal Letters (Rolls Series), i, 90.
4 Rotuli Lltterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 445.
1 6 Pleas of the Crown.
before they surrendered.1 Biham was only dismantled
after a long struggle and enormous expense,2 and it
was not until 1224 that anything like peace was re-
stored. Truly, stirring times were these of the eyre,
during which few towns were privileged to play a
more important part than that performed by Bristol.
The borough (burgus) proper, was that division of
the town within the walls, and was entirely situate
on the Gloucestershire side of the River Avon:3 But
the boundaries of the town (villa) extended to Bewell4
on the north, Brightnee Bridge5 and Aldbery of
Knowle on the south, and Sandbrook6 on the west.7
The villata of the roll8 was probably co-extensive
with the villa of the charter granted by John, Earl of
Morton, in 1188, and included the Redcliff and Temple
fees.
The vill of Redcliff was part of the manor of
Bedmirister,9 and had belonged to the lords of
Berkeley since the first half of the twelfth century.
10
1 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th Edit., ii, 33.
2 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission) , i, 453#.
3 Report from the Commissioners on Municipal Corporations, Bristol, 3.
4 Near the site of Highbury Chapel.
5 East Street, Bedminster.
6 Between Clifton Wood and Brandon Hill.
7 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 5.
8 See the heading to the Bristol pleas :— "Placita Corone de villata Bristollie."
9 Hunt, Bristol, 22.
10 Smyth, Lives of the Berkeleys, i, 34, 35.
Introduction. 17
Although Redcliff was not fully joined to the old
borough until I373,1 it is evident that when John
granted the famous charter of liberties to the burgesses
of Bristol, Maurice of Berkeley was willing that his
vassals should enjoy the same privileges, for we find
him attesting the deed as one of the witnesses.2
Sometimes the men of Redcliff appeared before the
justices at Bristol, sometimes in Somerset. But in
1227 the King directed that all pleas for Redcliff
should be taken before the justices in Somerset, and
that the sheriff of Gloucestershire should not inter-
meddle.3 This regulation was duly observed, and in
1242 Redcliff answered before the justices in eyre at
Ilchester.4 In 1247 the instruction was revoked, a
charter being granted ordering the burgesses of
Redcliff to for ever answer before the justices as the
burgesses of Bristol answer and where they answer.5
The Temple fee lay on the eastern side of Redcliff.
k had formerly been part of the manor of Bedminster,
and was given by Earl Robert to the Knights Tem-
plars.6 Its wealth may be gauged by the amount it
1 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 39-61.
2 Ibid., ii.
3 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), ii, 167^.
4 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), p. 238.
5 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 14.
6 Hunt, Bristol, 39.
c
1 8 Pleas of the Crown.
contributed to the aid levied by King John in 12
Temple paying 500 marks, and Bristol and Redcliff
contributing 1,000 marks each.1 The men of the
Templars were troublesome people, notwithstanding
their evident sense of humour, for when the justices
came on this eyre a neat little piece of juggling was
disclosed. At the request of the burgesses of Redcliff
and the vassals of the Templars, the judges took
their presentment at Bristol. But on the first day the
vassals of the Templars failed to put in an appearance,
and were amerced. Then they came, and claimed to
answer by themselves, and not with the burgesses of
Redcliff. It was shown that they were accustomed to
answer with others, either at Bristol, or in the county
of Somerset, at the will of the King, and, finding
themselves cornered, they consented to answer with
the burgesses of Redcliff, but not outside the county
of Somerset. The vassals of the Templars were
reminded that when the justices were in Somerset they
claimed to be Gloucestershire men. This, however,
had no effect, and the matter was referred to West-
minster.2 In the 27th year of Henry the Third
(1242-1243), they again showed their contumacy by
refusing to come and answer for anything before the
1 Seyer, Memoirs of Bristol, ii, 45.
' No, 37.
In t reduction . 1 9
justices, who were then sitting at Ilchester. And it
was recorded that they forbade the bailiffs and coroners
of Redcliff, and the bailiff of Bristol, to enter on their
land to make any attachments.1 Indeed, so opposed
were the lords of the Temple fee to interference with
their rights and jurisdiction, that they kept up a
running dispute with the burgesses of Bristol which
ended only with the dissolution of the Order in I3I2.2
Bristol possessed important jurisdictional privileges.
It had a hundred court which was held once a week.3
No one could be condemned in a matter of money
unless according to the law of the hundred, which was,
by forfeiture of forty shillings.4 No burgess could
plead or be impleaded out of the walls of the town
in any plea except pleas relating to foreign tenures
which did not belong to the hundred of the town,5
and pleas in respect of debts lent in Bristol, and
mortgages there made were to be held in the town
according to the custom of the town.6 Obviously,
1 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 798.
2 Seyer, Memoirs of Bristol, ii, 134-136.
3 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent .' . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 7.
4 Ibid., 7.
5 Ibid., 6. In 1183 the men of Bristol paid a fine for this privilege during the
absence of the King from England ; Madox, History and Antiquities of the Ex-
chequer, ii, 398.
6 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 7.
2o Pleas of the Crown.
franchises such as these were of great importance,
for they gave occasion for communal action, and,
consequently, when a burgess was impleaded in the
King's court, it became the duty of the borough
officers to come and claim their court.1 The burgesses
enjoyed in their moot a procedure which, in some
respects, was of a more enlightened character than
that which obtained in the royal tribunal. For instance,
no one could argue his case in miskenning.2 And
what is, perhaps, the most important of all, trial by
battle was excluded unless the slayer was appealed
for the death of any stranger killed in the town, and
who did not belong to the same.3 This last privilege
clearly demonstrates that in one feature at least the
civic was in advance of the royal justice, and that
the burgesses had greater faith in trial by jury than
in the duel.4 And it is well to remember that the
appeal of battle, although denounced by the Church,
discouraged by the Great Assize, and gradually re-
pudiated by the English people, never ceased to be
1 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 643.
2 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 7.
3 Ibid., 6. The citizens of London had enjoyed the privilege since the time of
Henry the First; Liber Albus, 115. In 1200 the citizens of Lincoln produced their
charter to the justices exempting them from the duel; Select Pleas of the Crown
(Selden Society), pi. 82.
4 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 643.
Introduction. 2 1
the law of the land until the reign of George the
Third.1
The criminal jurisdiction of the borough extended to
the shedding of blood and hamsokne.2 In all probability
it likewise embraced infangenthef and utfangenthef,
but no direct grant was made of these until I373-3
The borough had to appear before the justices in eyre,
but was privileged to appear there by twelve of its
own men as though it were a hundred, thus preventing
strangers from making presentments about events
which had occurred within the borough walls.4
Unlike a few other boroughs, it did not enjoy the
franchise of the return of ivj'its, and, in consequence, the
officers of the sheriff of the county of Gloucester might
enter the town and serve the King's writs, and execute
the processes of the King's court. When Bristol obtained
this privilege is not stated, but it must have been some-
time prior to 1313, for in that year the King sent a
mandate to the sheriff of Gloucestershire ordering him no
longer to make a return of writs to the mayor and
1 Inderwick, The King's Peace, 66. The sensational case Ashford v. Thornton,
(i Barn and Aid, 405), was the means of causing an Act to be passed abolishing such
mode of trial for the future. A picturesque account of this case appears in Thorn-
bury's Old Stories Retold, 228-241.
2 The Little Red Book of Bristol, i, 41.
3 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 799. Seyer, The Charters
and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of Bristol, 46.
4 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 4 7 65. Pollock and
Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 644.
22 Pleas of the Crown.
bailiffs of the borough.1 This privilege was, however,
restored to the burgesses in 1317,"" and in 1373 it was
confirmed by charter.3
Bristol had been the King's free borough from
time immemorial.4 The land of the town was held
by the burgesses direct from the sovereign without
any intermediate lord by service of land-gable, and
when a tenement escheated it escheated to the King.5
The boundaries of the town extended considerably
beyond the borough wall, and many of the townsfolk
must, at any rate nominally, have belonged to the
rural manors of their lords.0 But when John, Earl of
Morton, decreed that none of them should answer in
any court outside the walls in any plea except those
relating to foreign tenure, he, as it were, detached
them from their manors and defied the principle of
feudal justice.7 Those who settled around the borough
became part of the burghal community, although they
might not be the King's tenants. But the lords of
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, 6 Edw. II, m. 6.
2 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, 10 Edw. II, Pt. i, m. 3.
3 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 56.
4 Seyer, Memoirs of Bristol, i, 508. Ricart's Kalendar (Camden Society), 2.
14 and 15 Year Book, 184.
5 No. 31. Ricart's Kalendar (Camden Society), 2. Seyer, The Charters and
Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of Bristol, 10.
6 Domesday Book, torn, i, fol. 3, 4*, 34, 43*, 66, 166, 248, shows that even
in the most privileged cities many burgesses were attached to particular manors.
7 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 645.
Introduction. 23
Redcliff, possessing as they did a district almost as
important as the ancient borough itself, continued to
hold their own courts, and exercised jurisdiction therein
long after John granted the charter to the men of
Bristol.1 Not until 1247 did the burgesses of Redcliff
pay scot and lot with those of Bristol, and only when
Bristol was created a county in 1373 was the juris-
diction of the Berkeleys completely broken.2
Bristol had attained a position of considerable im-
portance in consequence of its commercial enterprise.
So early as H55,3 Henry the Second had granted to
the burgesses freedom of toll, passage, and every
other custom, throughout England, Normandy, and
Wales.4 He had also given them the city of Dublin,
with all the liberties and free customs which they had
at Bristol.5 The trade with Ireland and Scandinavia
was considerable, and ships from other foreign countries
crowded the port.6 Soap making, tanning, and cloth
making, were the chief industries.7 A protective policy
was adopted as regards the sale of leather, corn, wool,
1 Smyth, Lives of the Berkeleys, i, 195.
2 Hunt, Bristol, 61, 85.
3 Ibid., 71, note.
4 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, i, 2.
5 Ibid., 3, 4.
6 Hunt, Bristol, 44.
7 Ibid., 44.
24 Pleas of the Crown.
and wine, none being allowed to buy either of these
products except from a burgess, and no stranger
merchant might remain in the town for the purpose
of selling his goods but for forty days.1 At least, two
great fairs were held annually, securing for the mer-
chants a wider market for their goods, and for the
visitors more variety for their purchases. All classes
of the population gathered together on these occasions,
from the noble and prelate to the villein, and traders
from all parts of England and the continent attended.2
One of these fairs was held on Saint James's Day at
the back of the Priory,3 and the other on the feast
of Saint Michael. Our record throws a curious light
on the conduct of the Constable of the Castle with
reference to the Michaelmas fair. Formerly, merchants
•
were allowed to sell heavy goods such as wool, hides,
iron, and woad, in the town, because of the difficulty
of carting them to the fair. Robert of Roppelay exacted
tribute from the merchants for this privilege. The
levy appears to have been regularly made by the
succeeding constables, for we find the merchants
complaining to the justices and asking to be relieved
from the fine.4 Bristol was the great mart for the
1 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 8.
2 Gibbins, The Industrial History of England, 61. %
3 Rotuli Chartarum (Record Commission), vol. i, pt. i, 3. Hunt, Bristol, 44.
4 No. 36.
Introduction. 25
fish of the channel.1 The fishmongers, however, had
the same kind of difficulty to contend with as had the
Michaelmas traders. Before 1208 the constable was
allowed to purchase four messes of herrings at two
pence less than other purchasers, but Gerard of
Athee, not content with this, exacted as much as
two shillings tax on every last of herrings, and
this, added to what was due to the King,2 must
have proved a heavy impost. When the justices
came to Bristol in 1221 the fishmongers were still
groaning under the imposition, and on complaint
being made by them, the justices ordered that they
be relieved of the burden.3 The constables appear
to have been a perpetual source of annoyance to the
merchant class, filching from them at every oppor-
tunity. On the other hand, the merchants tried to
make up from the inhabitants what they lost to the
constable. For example, the woad-mongers, since the
time of Peter of Chanceaux,4 had been selling woad
with the quarter measure smoothed off instead of piled
up as was formerly the custom5 ; and the cloth
1 Rotuli Hundredorum, Hen. III. et Edw. 1. (Record Commission), i, 168.
Hunt, Bristol, 44, 45.
2 Calendarium Inquisitionum post Mortem sire Escaetarum (Record Com-
mission), i, 88&.
3 No. 35.
4 Peter of Chanceaux was Constable of Bristol Castle from 1212 to 1215.
5 No. 33.
26 Pleas of the Crown.
merchants had been selling cloth of short measure.1
Having been cheated for nine years, the patience of
the people became exhausted. They, too, complained
to the justices, and the King's bailiff was ordered to
see that for the future woad was sold in the old
manner, and that all cloth goods were protected by
the Assize of Breadth. The wine trade prospered, the
King kept cellars in the town, and the Close Rolls
are crowded with entries concerning prices, gifts, and
transport, of wine,2
In 1210 the town was farmed by Engelard of
Cigogne.3 Prior to this it had been farmed by Gerard
of Athee.4 In 1215 Philip of Albigny farmed it," and
at the time of the eyre, John of the Florentines.0 In
1224 it was farmed by the burgesses themselves.7
By this they did not become collectively or corpora -
tively the domini or the tenentes of the soil within the
boundary of the town,8 for, as we have seen, when
lands escheated they escheated to the King.9 But
1 No. 34.
2 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission j, i, 38^, 58, 61, 80, g2b,
93. 94#> 96*, 98, 105, 116, 120, 145, 1496, 150, 155^, 178$, 181*, 200, 281^, 286*,
348, 39i, 534*. 557*, 564*> 573, 57^, 589^ 604, 619$, 620, 631*, 639$, 647.
3 Seyer, Memoirs of Bristol, i, 532.
4 Smyth, Lives of the Berkeleys, i, 90.
5 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 225.
6 Ibid., 523*, 530.
7 Ibid., 5886, 596, 604.
8 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 651.
^ No. 31.
Introduction. 27
the right to approve the intramural and extramural
waste had been acquired by the burgesses in iiSS.1
In consequence, quays were built and the riverside
greatly improved,2 but it is doubtful if the burgensic
community derived any pecuniary advantage from the
banks, void grounds, and spaces.
The officers, royal and municipal, controlling the
borough, included the constable of the Castle, the
coroners, the mayor, the bailiffs, the prepositors, the
barones, and the probi homines.
Of these the constable wielded the greatest power.
And of all names that are to be met with in this
portion of roll the most interesting and important are
those of men who had been constables of Bristol
Castle. " Castellani" said my lord Coke, in com-
menting on Magna Charta, " were men in those dayes
of account, and authority, and for pleas of the Crown,
etc. , had the like authority within their precincts, as the
Sheriffe had within his Bailiwick before this Act. . . .
And it is to be observed, That regularly every Castle
containeth a Mannor: so as every Constable of a Castle,
is Constable of a Mannor, and by the name of the
Castle the Mannor shall passe, and by the name of
1 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 10.
2 No. 32.
28 Pleas of the Crown.
the Manner the Castle shall passe."1 The Castle fee
of Bristol was a royal district entirely independent of
the town officers.2 It lay within the county of
Gloucester, and became a harbour of refuge for the
outlawed, excommunicated, and other lewd offenders,
who fled from justice. It was exempt from all municipal
government and authority, and if any felonies were
there committed the offenders were sent to Gloucester
to be tried and punished,3 unless, by special favour
the pleas were taken in Bristol. The Castle itself was a
fortress which had played a prominent part in the
time of the anarchy,4 and controlling, as it did, one
of the most important sea-port towns, the position of
constable was of great authority and invariably held
by a tried military commander. As representative of
the King this officer enjoyed the right to interfere in
local matters. From 1300 the mayors fetched and
took their oath and charge from him at the Castle
gate,1" the townspeople paid tribute to him, and. did
they encroach on his rights they paid the penalty by
forfeiting their charter.6
1 2 Inst., 31.
2 The Annals of Roger de Hoveden (Bonn's Edition), i, 397. The Castle
first became a royal possession in 1175.
3 Ricart's Kalendar (Camden Society), 117.
4 Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 55, 56.
5 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 26. Ricart's Kalendar ( Camden Society), 69.
c Seyer, Memoirs of Bristol, ii, 74.
Introduction. 29
This transcript introduces us to no less than five
constables — Robert of Roppelay, Gerard of Athee,
Peter of Chanceaux, Hugh of Vivonia, and John of
the Florentines. Their united service as such covers
a period of twenty years, that is, from 1204 to 1224.
Robert of Roppelay1 was Constable of Bristol in
1204, having succeeded Thomas of Rocheford.2 King
John granted him the firm of the manor of Barton'5
as well as honours and rewards in Lincolnshire, Leices-
tershire, Warwickshire, and other counties.4 Were a
faithful lord required to guard the royal crown and
regalia, Robert of Roppelay was at hand to fulfil the
trust.5 John could rely on him obeying his writ to
tallage the burgesses for the repair of the Castle
fortifications.6 He could be sure of him keeping a
watchful eye on the condition of the Castle mill and
its revenues.7 He could depend on him seeing that
the wine ordered to be sent from his cellars at Bristol
1 Otherwise Ropel, Ropell, Roppesl, Roppesleia, and Roppelle.
2 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), 39. Thomas of
Rocheford was constable on March 23, 1204. Robert of Roppelay was constable
on August 4, 1204; Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 6£.
His appointment must therefore have been made sometime between these two dates.
3 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 41 b. This grant was
made on July 12, 1205.
4 Ibid., ib, 68b, lo^b. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission),
68, 74.
5 Ibid., -j-jb.
6 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 50.
7 Ibid., 83*.
30 Pleas of the Crown.
to different parts of the kingdom reached its destination
in safety.1 And the King knew how to reward such
services by grants from the local treasury.2 On
March 6th, 1208, Robert was removed from the con-
stableship of Bristol and the custodianship of Barton.
His successor was Gerard of Athee,3 and when, four
days later, he delivered over to Gerard the custody
of the prisoners in the Castle,4 his connection with
the town appears to have ceased. The removal of
Robert from these offices did not mean that he had
forfeited the King's confidence, for in 1213 we find
fresh favours being bestowed upon him.5 In the
motive clause of Magna Charta John describes him
as one of the noble men (nobilium virorum) by whose
counsel he acts.6 It is clear from this that he had
taken no overt act against the King, or at any rate
had only joined the confederation of barons since
their entry into London three weeks previously.7
But John was false to every obligation that should
bind a King.8 When he signed the Charter he had
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission) , i, 16, 2O#, $\b.
2 Ibid., 10.
3 Ibid., 105.
4 Ibid., 105$.
5 Ibid., 149^.
6 Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., 296. Between 1202 and 1215 Robert of
Roppelay was a witness to no less than sixteen charters ; Rotuli Chartarum (Record
Commission), vol. i, pt. i.
7 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 5th Edit., i, 572.
8 Ibid., 4th Edit., ii, 17.
Introduction. 31
no intention of keeping it, and within three months
was at war with the barons.1 Robert of Roppelay
joined the party that looked for salvation in foreign
aid.2 Then John flung off his velvet glove. Robert's
acres and offices were speedily reduced to a vanishing
point,3 and at the time of the King's death he had
not been restored to royal favour. Of the few poor
estates which remained Henry the Third relieved him.4
But on the decline of Lewis's cause in 12 1 7, 5 tired
perhaps with unsuccessful struggling, Robert returned
to the service of the King.6
Gerard of Athee,7 Robert of Roppelay' s successor,
was one of John's most faithful followers. He was a
villein of the lord of Amboise in Touraine,8 but how
1 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th Edit., ii, 8.
2 Ibid., 9. Saer de Quincy was sent to offer the crown to Lewis, the son of
Philip of France.
3 Rotuli Litlerarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 2296, 2436, 245 280,
285*.
4 7fotf., 313.
5 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th Edit., ii, 24.
6 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 320^. As Robert's
heir answers for chattels in this roll Robert must have died sometime between September
8, 1217, the day on which he returned to the King's service, and July, 1221, the time
the justices were in Bristol. This opinion is supported by the fact of Robert's name
not appearing in the first, second, or third re-issue of the Great Charter; Stubbs,
Select Charters, 8th Edit., 340, 345, 353. Several entries in the Close Rolls for 1218
and 1219 refer to him in the past tense; i, 384^, 385, 386^, 387.
7 Otherwise Atia, Acies, Athies, Athiis, Athyes, Aties, Attics, Atyes, and
Athie. In a grant from Robert, prior of Bath to John de Novo Vico, he is called
Sir Gerard de Atthia ; Two Chartularies of Bath Priory (Somerset Record Society),
ii, 1 6.
8 Philippidos, Bouquet, xvii, 217. He was "servus et a servis oriundus utroque
pareute."
32 Pleas of the Crown.
he raised himself from serfdom and became a soldier
of fortune is not recorded. In the struggle between
John and Arthur he won for the former the fortresses
of Chinon and Loches.1 On John, in 1202, wresting
Tours from Philip, he committed it to Gerard's care.2
In August of the same year he was appointed John's
seneschal in Touraine,3 and in 1204 Loches was put
into his keeping.4 But Philip proved too strong for
John. Town after town fell. Garrison after garrison
surrendered. Loches shared the fate of the others.
Gerard was laid by the heels, and, for a while had
ample opportunity to reflect on his position.5 But as he
was fretting in jail waiting for the mortal push, John
was cudgelling his brains how to set him free. Such a
man was indispensable to the English King, and by
hook or crook must be liberated. The moral conscience
had not then become so highly developed as to make
its appearance when it was not required. Prisons
were leaky. Money unlocked all doors. Terms could
always be arranged. In 1206 the Master of the
Templars received letters patent on the subject of
Gerard's ransom.6 Two thousand marks was the
1 Chron. Turon., xviii, 294.
3 Ibid., 296.
3 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), 17.
4 Ibid., 44$.
5 Radulphi de Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum (Record Commission), 146,
152. Chron. Turon., xviii, 297.
6 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), 65.
Introduction. 33
price of his freedom; but Gerard was worth that sum.1
His wife and son came over to England in I2o6.2
Next year he followed them.3 Favours rained upon
him. The honour, castle, and county of Gloucester,
the castle of Bristol, the Barton outside Bristol, and
the episcopal lands of Bath and Hereford were com-
mitted to his keeping.4 When England was passing
through the desolation of an interdict; when the
churches were closed and the bells untolled ; when no
services were performed, and the administration of the
sacraments, except to infants and to the dying, was
suspended ; when the bodies of the dead were interred
without prayer or priest in unconsecrated ground;
when this sudden extinction of the forms and aids
of religion struck the people with horror5 — Gerard,
like his master, was unmoved, and on the King re-
taliating by confiscating the lands of the clergy who
observed the interdict, his most active aider and abettor
was the constable of Bristol. The terror of the period
was balm to Gerard's soul. It filled his coffers, in-
creased his power, and added acre on acre to his
lands. Bad as John was, yet had he pity for the lepers
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission) , i, 926, 97, 104.
2 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission) , 56$.
3 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, Introcl., xiv.
4 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), 78*, 80, 8i£, 83*.
Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), \, 105.
5 Short History of the Catholic Church, 216.
I)
34 Pleas of the Crown.
of Saint Lawrence who resided outside Lawford's Gate,
and he, as he said, for the love of God, gave them
some land, and, what was still cheaper, his pro-
tection.1 His protection also, gave he, to those of
Saint John at Bristol.2 But Gerard troubled nothing
for his master's little pricks of conscience, or actions
arising therefrom. He disseised the very lepers of
Saint Lawrence, whom John had befriended ;3 he
plundered the abbeys and churches of Bath,4
Langley," Muchelney(i and Hereford;7 he let the
canons of Keynsham8 and Saint Augustine9 feel the
weight of his hand. But Gerard did not stop at
churches. He robbed the brewers10 and fishmongers
of the borough.11 He charged fifty marks for binding
and loosing a Fleming in the house of Philip Long at
Redcliff.12 Because Agnes, Nicholas Binder's sister,
dared to appeal Walter of Oxford for the death of
her brother, Gerard took from her ten marks, and the
1 Rotuli Chartarum (Record Commission), vol. i, pt. i, 175^.
2 Ibid , 77#.
3 Rotuli Litter arum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 227.
4 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), no.
5 I did., no.
6 Ibid., in.
7 Ibid., 112.
8 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 107.
» Ibid., 113$.
10 Smyth, Lives of the Berkeley s, i, 90. MS. Charter to Bristol, 14 Henry III.
Seyer, Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the 7bwn and City of Bristol, 9, 19.
11 No. 35.
13 No. 38.
Introduction. 35
wretched appellee had to pay no less a sum than fifty
marks.1 Why, no one knows. Small wonder, then,
that complaints were being continually made respecting
the extortions of the foreign sheriffs.2 For four years
Gerard literally wallowed in plunder. He might, how-
ever, rob with impunity, for he was invaluable to John ;
and when a trustworthy and skilful warrior was wanted
to suppress the powerful noble, William of Braose,
Gerard was chosen for the task.3 But after September
4th, 1213, he laid up no more treasure.4" Thence
the rolls become suddenly silent, and Gerard disappears
into the night from whence he came. No stronger
proof of his fidelity to John can be given than that
contained in the 4Oth article of the Barons, which
demanded of the King the absolute removal from
their bailiwicks of the kinsmen {parentes) and the
whole following (seguelam) of Gerard, so that they
should thenceforth have no bailiwick.3 The 5Oth article
of Magna Charta confirmed the demand.6 Truly of
1 No. 14.
2 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 92, 93, 108,
154, 156, 171, 227, 245, 246, 260, 364, 376, 378, 405, 439, 444.
3 Rymer's Fcedera (London, 1704), i, 162.
4 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarttm (Record Commission), i, 149*
5 Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., 294. " Ut rex amoveat penitus de
balliva parentes et totam sequelam Gerardi de Atyes; quod de cetero balliam
non babeant. . . ."
fi Ibid., 302. As the Articles of the Barons and Magna Charta only mention
the kinsmen and following (parentes et totam sequelam) of Gerard, it is tolerably
clear that Gerard had passed beyond the reach of the barons. But if Dr. Stubbs is
36 Pleas of the Crown.
Gerard's many vices, did the barons make thongs to
scourge his progeny. Take him for all in all he is
one of the most brilliant examples in John's reign of
an unscrupulous, cruel, but withal, brave and faithful
mercenary. It is not for us to judge him. He has
passed into the sphere of history ; and history knows
naught of morals. Besides, there is no absolute
incongruity between loyalty and crime. Sticking at
nothing when once the gates of passion were opened,
fighting with the ferocity of a tiger at bay where
necessity demanded, true unto death to the master
who paid him well for his services, such was Gerard
of Athee.
Peter of Chanceaux,1 Gerard's comrade in arms,
succeeded Engelard of Cigogne as constable about
I2I2.2 So early as the year 1200 he was under John's
protection,3 and in 1207 he came over to England
with Engelard and his brothers Andrew and Gio, and
correct, he was only working behind the scenes strengthening his position and
preparing to resist any attempt to dislodge him, for, following Matthew Paris, the
eminent historian relates that Gerard was one of the minor leaders of the party
formed in 1221 against the justiciai Hubert de Burgh; Constitutional History of
England, 4th Edit., ii, 33. If such were the case it is strange that Gerard's kinsmen
and following should have been proscribed by the Charter, and not Gerard himself.
Had the principal been alive the barons were more likely to have struck at him than
at his following. To differ from Dr. Stubbs is probably to err, but still we cannot
help thinking that the view we have expressed is the correct one, and that Gerard died
sometime prior to the signing of Magna Charta.
1 Otherwise Cancellis, Cancell, Chancels, and Chaunceaws.
3 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society}, pi. 354.
3 Rotuli Chartarum (Record Commission), vol. i, pt. i, 98$.
Introduction. 37
the manor of Hisseburn in Hampshire was immediately
given to them to support them in the King's service.1
From this time until 1212, when he comes before us
as constable of Bristol, the rolls are silent as to Peter's
doings.2 But from the attitude the barons adopted
towards him subsequently, there can be no doubt he
was working strenuously on behalf of John.3 Could
we but build up his history during these five years we
should probably be able to produce a record of plun-
der similar to that concerning Gerard of Athee. The
first writ directed to him as constable of Bristol is
dated August 5th, I2I2.4 From that time up to
July 2oth, 1215, when he was succeeded by Philip of
Albigny," he appears to have been kept busily en-
gaged. A constable had many duties to perform. Not
the least onerous was that of preparing things for
transport. Wine, leather, coats of mail, shoes, swords,
bows and arrows, and a host of other necessary articles
were dispatched by Peter from the Castle to various
parts of the country.6 Many an anxious moment must
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 79&. The writ is
dated March 16, 1207.
2 Ibid., \2\b.
3 Articles of the Barons, art. 40. Magna Charta, art. 50. Stubbs, Select
Charters, 8th Edit., 294, 302.
4 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, \2\b.
5 Ibid., 221. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), 149 b.
6 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission}, i, 1210, 126^, 135,
1356, 199$.
38 Pleas of the Crown.
he have spent wondering whether in such troublous
times his men would reach their destination in safety.
On June i5th, 1215, the barons demanded his banish-
ment, and John signed the Charter confirming it.1
Five weeks later Bristol Castle lowered its drawbridge
for him to pass out.2 We can only surmise what
Peter's subsequent career was. The rolls fail us as
they do with Gerard.3 Once so eloquent they instantly
become dumb. Perchance Peter returned to France
to continue his career as a soldier of fortune. It may
be, tired of intriguing and fighting, he retired to his
native village to end his days as a tiller of the
soil.
Hugh of Vivonia4 was made constable of Bristol
in I2iy,5 following Saurico de Malo Leone6 and
Amfridus Brito.7 He also held the manor of Barton,
the wood of Furches, the chase of Keynsham, the
lordships of Bitton and Shepton, and the castle of
1 The 40th Article of the Barons demanded his exile: the 5Oth Article of
Magna Charta declared the King's consent to such a proceeding.
~ Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission) , i, 221. Rotuli
Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), 1496.
3 The last entry concerning Peter in the Close Rolls is that of July 20, 12 [5
(i, 221), and the last entry in the Patent Rolls is dated the same day (149^).
4 Otherwise Vivon, Vyvoy, Vivunia, Vivian, Vivone, Vyvun, and Wivon.
5 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 305, 320^. Certainly
as early as April 7, 1217.
6 Ibid., 294, 4546.
7 Placita £c. 3 and 4 Hen. III., contained in Documents Illustrative of
English History in the l$th and \<\th Centuries (Record Commission), 327.
Introduction. 39
Berkeley.1 The latter was taken from Robert of
Berkeley, as a punishment for having joined the
barons, and given to Hugh of Vivonia, who, out of
the profits of the lands, was to maintain the garrison
at Bristol Castle.2 In addition to these favours many
other estates were conferred upon him to support him
in the King's service.3 It was this constable, as we
have seen, who for three years defied the King by re-
fusing to deliver up Bristol Castle. In 1221 Hugh
was appointed seneschal of Poictou and Gascony, and
apparently filled the office for over twenty years.4 By
the gifts bestowed upon him it is evident that he became
completely restored to the King's confidence.5 And
in possession of that confidence he died, sometime
about 1244, for an inquiry is then being made as to
what lands he held at that time.0
John of the Florentines,7 or as he is more com-
monly called, John de Ferentin, was holding the office
of constable when the justices of this eyre visited
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 311, 340^, 350, 354^,
387, 395, 409^, 426. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), i6i£, 194.
• Smyth, Lives of the Berkeley s, i, 94,
3 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 243.
4 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 445» 45^» 45^> 4^°>
461^, 464^, 467. Rymer's F&dera (London, 1704), i, 251, 409, 420.
5 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 601, ii, 386, 203.
6 Calendarium Inquisitionum post Mortem sive Escaetarum (Record Com-
mission), i, 2.
7 Otherwise de Florentinis, de Florentin, and de Ferentin.
40 Pleas of the Crown.
Bristol. It was chiefly through him that the men of
the hundred of Swineshead were permitted to have
their pleas heard there instead of journeying to the
county town of Gloucester.1 His control of the
borough lasted until I224.2 During his term he re-
paired the houses in the Castle fee.3 The firm of
the town was under his management, and out of it
he sent a goodly sum to restore the houses in Marl-
borough Castle.4 Henry the Third regarded him with
high esteem, 5 and when a thousand marks were re-
quired for the use of the Pope, John was entrusted to
convey the treasure." The constableship of Bristol
was no sinecure.7 If lands were taken into the King's
hands in the town, or in Bedminster, or in Redcliff,
the constable was responsible for them.8 If ships
were required to take troops to Ireland it was the
constable who had to see to their being furnished.9
And John proved equal to the work, and continued
1 No. i.
- Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission) , i, 624.
3 Ibid., 530.
4 Ibid., 523*.
5 Ibid., 492^, 521. The jurors of Somerset seem not to have valued him so
highly as did the King, for at the jail delivery held at Ilchester in 1225, one James
the forester was exacted and outlawed, principally because he was known to have been
wandering about with John de Florentin, the constable ; Somerset Pleas (Somerset
Record Society} , pi. 199.
6 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission) , i, 486^.
7 See the Close and Patent Rolls for this period.
8 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 533^.
9 Ibid., 525*.
Introduction . 4 1
to successfully manage both civil and military affairs
affecting" the town and port until he was succeeded
by Ralph of Wilinton.1
The Coroners occupied practically the same position
as the old justicia. They were royal officers repre-
senting the central authority, in the same way as the
bailiffs represented the local authority.2 The office
was a young one, the Articles of the Eyre of 1 1 94
being the first document clearly naming it.3 No
authoritative statement as to the duties of coroners
was made until Bracton's time.4 But Bracton's book
was written forty years after the pleas we are con-
sidering were taken. This record, then, is of undeniable
importance, for we learn who the Bristol coroners
were, and what were some of their duties in the very
infancy of the office. The position of the coroners
was of great authority. Until the 24th article of
Magna Charta declared that no coroner should hold
pleas of the Crown, they might not only receive
accusations against offenders, but might try them."
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 624. It is not unin-
teresting to speculate as to whether John of the Florentines was the priest to whom
Bishop Gregory addressed a letter in 1231, as follows: " . . . dilecto, filio, Magistro
Johanni de Ferentino Subdiacono Nostro, Archidiacono Norwicensi " ; Rymer's
Fcedera (London, 1704), i, 319.
2 Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 107-110.
3 Chronica Magistri Roger i de Houedene (Rolls Series), iii, 262-267.
"Praeterea in quolibet comitatu eligantur tres milites et unus clericus custodes
placitorum coronae " ; (cap. 20).
4 Stephen, History of the Criminal Law, i, 217.
5 Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., 300; "Nullus vicecomes, constabularius,
coronatores, vel alii ballivi nostri, teneant placita coronae nostrae."
42 Pleas of tlie Crown.
In addition to holding inquests in cases of deaths from
violence or accidents, they kept a record of outlaws,
received the confession and abjuration of felons who
had fled to sanctuary, conducted jury trials in ordinary
civil pleas, and, notwithstanding the provisions of
Magna Charta, passed judgments on felons caught in
the act.1 They caused the chattels of persons against
whom the inquest jury found a verdict of felony, to be
appraised and placed in charge of the township, to be
forfeited to the Crown if the accused were subsequently
found guilty at his trial before the justices in eyre.2
The appointment was an honorary one, but, in all
likelihood, the coroners were as prone to sell justice
as were the sheriffs, for the Statute of Westminster, 3
Edward I, expressly forbade them to take any reward.
Not until 3 Henry VII, c. i, were fees allowed them. In
the thirteenth century there were usually four coroners
in every county, each assisted by a clericus? Some
boroughs, and amongst them Bristol, enjoyed the
1 Gross, Select Coroners? Rolls (Selden Society), Introd., xxv.
2 Ibid., xxiv.
3 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 412. Rotuli
Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 402* (Norfolk and Suffolk); 622$,
648 (Salop). Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Society), 37 '2. Somerset Pleas
(Somerset Record Society), pi. 381, 1035. At times some counties had three
coroners; Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Society), 68; Somerset Pleas
(Somerset Record Society), pi. 84. Devon and Leicestershire at one time appear to
have had two each; Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), ii, 67;
Abbreviatio Placitorum (Record Commission), 55.
Introduction. 43
distinction of having- their own coroners. To obtain this
favour a special grant from the King was necessary.1
The number in the towns varied from one to four.2 Bristol
had the larger number, their names being Michael
Bohulk, Thomas Mitchell, Roger Fellard, and William
Taylor.3 These officers were absolutely distinct from
the coroners of the adjoining counties.4 By whom
they were elected is uncertain, but probably by the
whole body of burgesses, and subsequently sworn in
in the county court at Gloucester by the sheriff or
the justices in eyre.5 As the county coroners were
to the sheriffs so the borough coroners were to the
municipal officers.0 Early charters describe them as
being elected to keep the pleas of the Crown and to
see that the reeves treated rich and poor justly and
1 Placita Quo Warranto (Record Commission), 18; " Officium coronatoris
mere spectat ad coronam regis ad quod nullus deputari potest sine special! facto
domini regis " ; (4 Edw. III). There is no trace of a grant relating to Bristol until
1256.
2 In 1218 Lincoln had four coroners; Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record
Commission), i, 364^. In 1221 Worcester had two; Select Pleas cf the Crown
(Selden Society), pi. 151. Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Warnemuth had two and one
respectively; Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Society), 367, 331.
3 No. 40.
4 The coroners for Gloucestershire were Adam Fitz-Nigel, Simon de Matresdon,
Henry de Drois, and Hugh of Cuillardvill ; Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the
County of Gloucester, pi. 412. In 1225 the coroners for Somerset were William de
Bakelr', Richard de Cumbe, and Peter de Pudinton', and these had probably held
office for some time ; Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 3^J<
5 Gross, Select Coroners' Rolls, Introd., xxii. In the I4th century the coroner
was sworn in before the commonalty in the Guildhall. For an early form of oath, see
The Little Red Book of Bristol, i, 50.
0 Gross, Select Coroners'1 Rolls (Selden Society), Introd., xxvii.
44 Pleas of the Crown.
legally.1 In 1256 the number of coroners for Bristol
was reduced from four to one. By charter of that
date the burgesses were directed out of themselves to
choose and create a coroner for the purpose of making
attachments of pleas of the Crown arising within the
town and the liberties of the same. This officer was
to answer before the justices itinerant concerning the
attachments made by him, and concerning the other
things which relate to the office of coroner, as the
other coroners were wont to do.2
The Mayor was the head of the communa, elected
by the barones, and presented and admitted at the
King's Exchequer.3 The age of the office is doubtful.
Ricart says, "that there hath been alweyes Maires in
this worshipfull toune seth the Conquest and byfore4" ;
and Mr. J. F. Nicholls adduces some evidence showing
that one Robert Fitz-Nichol was mayor in i2OO.r> But
a MS. Calendar, quoted by Seyer, states, that when
1 Rotuli Chartarum (Record Commission), 46, 56, 57, 65, 142.
2 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol^ 21. In commenting on this charter, Seyer (Memoirs of Bristol, ii, 56) says,
that the appointment of a separate coroner for the town may be considered as the
first step toward making it a separate county ; and, he supposes, that before this the
coroners for Gloucestershire and Somerset executed the duties of the office. But in
this record we have conclusive proof that this wras not so.
3 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 26.
4 Ricart's Kalendar (Camden Society), 69.
5 The Ancient Charter Privileges of the Bristol Freemen, in the Transactions
of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 1878-9, Part I, 264.
Introduction. 45
Henry the Third came to Bristol in 1216 he permitted
the town to choose a mayor, "and with him were
chosen two grave, sad, worshipful men which were
called Prepositors, there being neither Sheriffe nor
Bayliffe."1 But no charter exists to this effect, and,
as no subsequent charter of confirmation quotes a grant
of the kind, it is unlikely that the burgesses ever
possessed such a deed. It is a fact that from 1217
downward there is an unbroken list of mayors. Certain
entries in the Close Rolls2 prove, however, that a
Roger Cordewaner was mayor of Bristol in the i8th
year of the reign of King John. This mayor was an
influential person who had enjoyed the favour of the
King since, at least, the year I2oo.3
The Bailiffs were elected by the burgesses, but
represented the King, and before entering on their
office were presented to the King's justices to be
approved/ Numerous entries in the Close Rolls show
that from the 2oth of July, 1204, letters were sent
addressed to the bailiffs of Bristol (ballivi de Bristoll\*
Some were also sent addressed to the bailiffs of the
port of Bristol (ballivi port us de Bristol^? Still, it
1 Seyer, Memoirs of Bristol, ii, 7.
2 vol. i, 28i£, 283, 285, 286£.
3 Rotuli Chartarum (Record Commission), vol. i, pt. i, 6l.
4 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 656.
•3 vol. i, 3, 49^ 81, 105, 107, 222, 225*, 34S&, 374-
6 Ibid., 197, 203^, 570, 571. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record
Commission), 80.
46 Pleas of the Crown.
would appear that these officers were the same, but
that when orders were issued concerning maritime
matters they were addressed by the latter title. The
bailiffs were to the town what the sheriff was to the
shire, and, so far as the town was concerned, as it
were stood in the sheriff's shoes.1 They were the
officers who proved the privileges of the town,2 and
we learn from this record that they were present
with the coroners at some preliminary judicial pro-
ceedings when certain Jews undertook to produce a
felon's chattels and his wife.3 The office was one of
considerable importance, and although a city like
Norwich until 1403 got on very well without a mayor,
it had no less than four bailiffs managing its civic
affairs.4 They presided at the view of frank-pledge,
each ward seemingly having its separate court.5 The
coroners were enjoined to watch their acts with special
care.6
The Prepositors were royal officers acting as bailiffs
for the King and guarding his interests, especially in
matters of revenue.7 They were distinct from the
1 Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, \ 10.
2 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 525.
a No. 29.
4 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 657.
5 Hudson, Leet Jurisdiction in Norwich (Selden Society), Introd., xii-xxxiv.
0 Green, Town Life in the Fifteenth Century, ii, 223.
7 Brad}-, Cities and Boroughs, 28. Freeman, Exeter, 59. Rotuli Litteraruin
Clausamm (Record Commission), \, 348.
Introduction.
47
bailiffs of the borough, but apparently worked side by
side with them.1 The office was one of great an-
tiquity, Sewin having held it in the reign of Edward
the Confessor.2 It is significant that the prcepositus
is the only officer named in the charter of n88.3
The Barones* were the aldermen of the wards,5
the number of wards being five, called respectively,
the Quarter of the Holy Trinity, the Quarter of the
Blessed Mary in the borough, All Saints, Saint Ewen's,
and Redcliff6 In the Charter of Henry the First
to London the presidents of socs (an ancient name
for the ward jurisdiction), are called barons. Although
aldermen are not mentioned by name until HQ9,7
it is very probable that they are the barons of the
early charter.8 It is also tolerably certain that the
barones and aldermen of Bristol are the same. The
Consuetudines ville Bristol, A.D. 1344, record that no
one could be elected to the office of mayor unless
he had previously been an alderman.9 In London
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 177^. A Close letter
of 1 8th November, 1214, is addressed to the Prepositors and Bailiffs of Bristol.
2 Taylor, An Analysis of the Domesday Survey of Gloucestershire (Bristol and
Gloucestershire Archaeological Society), 195, 308.
3 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent to the Town and City of
Bristol, 8.
4 Rotuli Liiteranan Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 2706.
•' Brady, Cities and Boroughs, Appx., 37. Liber Albus, 13.
H MS. Great Red Book of Bristol, fo. 3.
1 De Antiquis Legibus Liber (Camden Society), 2.
* Aungier, Croniqites de London (Camden Society), Introd., x, xi.
9 The Little Red Book of Bristol, i, 24-44.
48 Pleas of the Crown.
the barons elected a mayor from among themselves,1
and there is little reason to doubt that the barones of
Bristol followed the same practice.
The Probi Homines* were the most discreet,
knowing, and best men of the wards,3 but their duties
do not here concern us, and to mention them must
suffice.
The early history of the municipal magistracy is
hidden in darkness, and the same may be said of the
details of the civic government. Up to this time
there was no charter or record defining any consti-
tution for the borough, and no charter had expressly
granted to the burgesses any power of legislation.
But it is important to note that from the time of the
first charter to Bristol the customs of the town had
been confirmed, and no doubt local enactments were
made defining and developing the ancient liberties.4
The Guild Merchant5 had, in the course of a century,
developed into a powerful commercial monopoly, but
it is impossible to say, at this time, what part it took
1 Liber Albus, 13, 120.
2 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 116, 226^, 275, 391,
588, 5886.
3 Brady, Cities and Boroughs, 38. Green, Town Life in the Fifteenth Century,
ii, 249.
4 The earliest recorded consuetud ines are those of 1344, contained in The Little
Red Book of Bristol, \, 24.
5 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 9. Rotuli Litteraruni Clausarum (Record Commission), \, 345^.
Introduction. 49
in the government of the borough. With public
justice and police it is almost certain that it had
nothing to do.1 Its object was to maintain the
mercantile privileges granted to the town, and it was
perhaps the body which acted and complained to the
King when tolls were unlawfully taken by the officer
of a rival town from the men of Bristol. Since 1155,
the burgesses had enjoyed freedom from tolls through-
out the King's dominions,2 and so actively did the
King support the privilege, that, when any person,
in any other place, took toll from the men of Bristol,
instead of causing them to trust to the delays and
inconveniences of a suit, he empowered his prcepositus
to take from the delinquent a distress at Bristol, and
thus force him to restore what he had wrongfully taken.3
Such was Bristol in 1221. Its palmy days of almost
regal independence and splendour were before it.
The hundred of Swineshead, whose presentments
were, by special favour, taken at Bristol instead of at
Gloucester, offers an entity the very reverse of a
chartered borough. It covered a considerable area,
1 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 666.
2 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Tou>n and City of
Bristol, I. Hunt, Bristol, 71, note. The Prior of Bath, the men of Winchester,
and the burgesses of Bruges and Gloucester, were free from toll in Bristol ; Rotuli
Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 3, 225*, 538^. Calendarium
Inquisitionum post Mortem sive Escaetarum (Record Commission), i, 42.
3 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 7, 8.
E
50 Pleas of the Crown.
and embraced the ancient manors of Bitton, Wapley,
Winterbourne, Oldland, Hanham, Hambrook, Stoke
Gifford, and Clifton.1 A great part of the wood of
Furches, afterwards known as Kingswood Forest, also
lay within its borders. Barton Regis, which included
the parishes of Mangotsfield, Stapleton and Saint
George, did not answer as a separate hundred on this
eyre, but evidently answered with the hundred of
Swineshead.2 The reason may be found in the fact
that the manor of Barton was considered to lie within
the manor of Swineshead.3 The hundred had a court
which, in the time of Henry the First, was held
twelve times a year.4 But in the reign of Henry the
Second the intervals appear to have been fortnightly.
So great a hardship did these frequent sittings become
that an ordinance was passed in 1234 forbidding the
court to sit oftener than once in three weeks.5 Suit
was a burden incumbent on land. The suitors were
certain of the freeholders, but it cannot be said that
all the freeholders were suitors.6 The jurisdiction
1 Taylor, An Analysis of the Domesday Survey of Gloucestershire (Bristol and
Gloucestershire Archceological Society}, 309. Nicholls and Taylor, Bristol, Past and
Present, i, 96.
2 Taylor, An Analysis of the Domesday Survey of Gloucestershire (Bristol
and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society}, 199, 313. Calendarium Inquisitionum
post Mortem sive Escaetarum (Record Commission), i, 309.
3 Rotuli Hundredorum Hen. HI. et Edw. /. (Record Commission}, i, 175.
* Leg. Henr., c. 7, § 4.
5 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th Edit., ii, 287.
6 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 540.
Introduction. 51
of the court extended to civil causes only. Its president
was the bailiff. The hundred had communal duties
and could be fined for neglecting them. The most
important example was its liability for the murder
fine (murdrum), many instances of which are afforded
by this roll.1 Twice a year the sheriff made a pro-
gress through the hundred for the purpose of seeing
that all the tithings were full and the men in frank-
pledge,2 and also to enquire of robbers, murderers,
and thieves, by the oaths of twelve lawful men of the
hundred and four lawful men of each vill.3 Minor
offences were tried by the sheriff in his tourn, but the
power of holding pleas of the Crown had been taken
away from him by the 24th article of Magna Charta.4
About the commencement of July, 1221, a notable
assemblage met together in the royal town of Bristol.5
Of those present first in importance were six justices,
Simon, Abbot of Reading, Randolf, Abbot of Evesham,
1 No. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 41.
2 Leg. Henr., c. 8.
3 Assize of Clarendon, art. I. Maitland, Select Pleas in Manorial Courts
(Selden Society), Introd., xxvii-xxxviii.
4 Magna Charta, however, did not expressly abolish the Sheriff's tourn, and we
find that sometime between 1235 and 1242 two men were hanged for burglary and
larceny by judgment of the hundred court of Cheddar ; Somerset Pleas (Somerset
Record Society), pi. 785.
5 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, Introd., xviii ;
Essoins were taken at Gloucester on the 2ist of June. The justices expected to be in
Hereford by the I9th of July, and in the interval Bristol had to be visited. Pleas
were taken there either in the later days of June, or, what is more probable, in the
early days of July.
52 Pleas of the Crown.
the great Martin Pateshull, Master Robert Lexington,
Ralph Hareng, and the powerful baron, John of
Monmouth.1 Next in importance was Ralph Musard,
an officer of great weight, sheriff of the county of
Gloucester, a justice in this commission, but precluded
by the Form of Proceeding on the Judicial Visitation
of iiQ42 and the 24th article of Magna Charta from
sitting as a justice in his own county. There, side
by side, sat the Florentine constable of the Castle, the
bailiffs, and Michael Bohulk, Thomas Mitchell, Roger
Fellard, and William Taylor, the four coroners, all
officers of the King and men of considerable influence.
There waited the prior of Bath and Richard de
Kaninges, clerk to the Bishop of Bath, to claim on
the prelate's behalf the right to try in the bishop's
court Christian John Russ, a priest, who had tested
the effect of a flat hoe on the head of one of his
parishioners.3 There Gilbert of Clare, Earl of
Gloucester, William, the Earl Marshal, the Lord
Thomas of Berkeley, Adam Fitz-Nigel, Simon de
Matresdon, Henry de Drois, and Hugh of Cuillardvill,
the four coroners for the county of Gloucester, David,
Abbot of Saint Augustine, the Prior of Saint James,
1 Fifteen years later it was considered an outrage for an abbot to be put
in a commission ; Letters of Bishop Grosseteste (Rolls Series), 105, 108.
2 Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., 260.
3 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 128.
Introduction. 53
Robert Holburst, the mayor, and John Oldeham and
Henry Vynepeny, the prepositors of the borough, haply
swelled the crowd of representatives of mediaeval
power. There William Raleigh, afterwards Bishop of
Lincoln and the second greatest lawyer of the day,
probably acted as clerk to Martin Pateshull, for his
signature appears on a Warwickshire roll belonging
to this eyre.1 There the Knights Templars, with their
chain mail, snowy vest, and red cross, adorned an already
picturesque assembly. There knights and freeholders
of bailiwicks, lawful men and reeves of townships,
lawful burgesses of the boroughs of Bristol and Redcliff,
stewards of manors, parish priests and representatives
of the Jewry came at duty's call. And there were
gathered together from all parts, a motley crowd of
suspected persons, appellors, appellees, finders of dead
bodies, pledges, grumbling merchants, artful vassals,
and nondescripts. It was the holding of the general
eyre convoked by writ of the i6th of May, 1221, issued
to the said seven justices.2
At the head of the commission was Simon, tenth
Abbot of Reading,3 a man of strong determination
and power; fearless in the face of the greatest danger;
M)
1 Assize Roll 6 } i.
I6J
3 Rotuli Litterarum Ciausarum (Record Commission), i, 476, 476^.
:5 Ibid., 476.
54 Pleas of the Crown.
ready at the command of the Holy Father to denounce
a curse and excommunication against the King's
enemies and so-called disturbers of the peace.1 True,
beyond doubt, otherwise Innocent the Third would
have chosen another for such momentous work. Simon
succeeded Helias as Abbot in I2I2,2 and two years
later was sent by John on a special mission to France,3
receiving the sum of forty pounds for his expenses4 —
a large sum in those days. But his great work was
ahead. The times were teeming with mutation. Bold
men were required to execute bold acts. The Church
stooped to none. The days were the days of puissant
archbishops and potent legates. But the Abbot's
strength, after the meeting at Oxford, was little inferior
to that of the mightiest. A warrant to hurl anathema
on a national party is supreme, and that authority,
Simon, together with Pandulf and the Bishop of
Winchester, possessed.5 Doubtless by character,
faculty, and position, these men were the fittest of all
to hold this power. But an abbot must play many
parts if he wishes to bask in the sunshine of a King's
1 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th Edit., ii, 7. Maurice,
Stephen Langton, 224.
2 Foss, The Judges of England, ii, 475.
3 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), \, 175.
4 Ibid., 1756.
5 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th Edit., ii, 7. Rymer's
Fcedera (London, 1704), i, 211, 212.
Introduction. 55
favour. As Simon served John, so was he to serve
his successor. The new King, Henry the Third, in
1219, placed him in the commission of inquiry as to
the forests, and many were the inquests held by him
in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire.1 But the sword
was to hang on his hip. Devizes Castle was committed
to his charge, and a dozen golden marks did he receive
for the expenses of his knights and sergeants.2 By
1 22 1 the armour was flung off and the judicial robes
again donned, and eight good marks drew he in
advance for his expenses on this eyre.3 And with
this eyre his judicial functions ended. Then back to
the Abbey he rode, and attended to his sacred duties
and properties. A careful man of business and a
thrifty one; mending his houses at Wichebury with
the timber of twenty sturdy oaks, given him by the
King, out of the New Forest.4 But Simon could not
mend himself so easily, and in 1226 the sheriffs of
Berkshire and Herefordshire held for the King all the
lands, things, and possessions in their bailiwicks, once
the property of Simon, Abbot of Reading, deceased.5
The second name in the commission is that of
1 Rotuli Litter arum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 434*.
2 Ibid., 458.
3 Ibid., 458.
* Ibid., 513*.
5 Ibid., ii, 99.
56 Pleas of the Crown.
another abbot, Randolf, Abbot of Evesham,1 a strict
minded man and honest,2 and certain to grow in favour
with official persons. Formerly Prior of Worcester,
he was marked by far-sighted Nicolas of Tusculum,
the papal legate, for a higher post. The opportunity
occurring, Nicolas recommended him for the abbacy
of Evesham,3 and four days later, on the 24th of
January, 1214, the royal assent was given to the
election.4 The legate himself blessed him in Saint
Mary's Abbey at York on the Qth March, and soon
he was offered the bishopric of Worcester, but begged
to be allowed to refuse the honour.5 And so he
stayed at Evesham and represented the Abbey in the
famous Council of Lateran, held in 1216, whose decrees,
it seems, abolished the system of Ordeals.6 In 1221
Randolf received his first and only appointment as
judge, and as we hear of no complaint, doubtless his
duties were successfully performed.7 For the future
his work was with his monks, and amongst them he
died on the i6th of January, I229.8
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 476.
2 Chronicon Abbatice Eveshamensis (Rolls Series) , 255—264.
3 Ibid., 255, 256.
4 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 162.
5 Chronicon Abbatice Eveshamensis (Rolls Series), 255, 256.
6 Ibid., 26372, 266. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law, i, 253.
7 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission}, i, 476.
8 Chronicon Abbatice Eveshamensis (Rolls Series), 263, 17 Dec. (16 Kal.
Jan.), 1229.
Introduction. 57
Martin Pateshull, the third judge,1 was the greatest
lawyer in the whole commission — nay, more, he was
the greatest lawyer in England ; a man whom Bracton
delighted to worship, and whose works he studied
because his ignorant contemporaries were misrepre-
senting the law; a man whom Bracton called a great
man of the past, and whose judgments he referred to
as the ancient judgments of the just,2 high praise
indeed, coming as it did from him who wrote the
crown and flower of English mediae val jurisprudence.3
In all probability Martin began his career as clerk to
Simon Pateshull, and may well be the clerk Martin
who accompanied Simon in the Cornish eyre of I2OI.4
John raised him to the Bench,5 and held him in such
esteem that in this monarch's days of darkest trouble
letters of safe conduct were sent out for Martin to
come to his sovereign.6 But John was soon to be
succeeded by the boy King, Henry the Third, and
early in the new reign Martin received fresh commis-
sions. Between 1217 and 1226 he visited, in a judicial
capacity, almost every county in England. Before he
sat in Bristol he had acted as a justice in Bucking-
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 476.
2 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 183.
3 Ibid., 206.
4 Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 18.
5 Bracton (Rolls Series), Twiss's Introd., vol. ii., p. xli.
6 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), 142.
58 Pleas of the Crown.
hamshire, Yorkshire, Northumberland, Hertfordshire,
and Herefordshire.1 Imbued with a fiery enthusiasm
his life was spent in the saddle and on the bench.
Scarcely a year passed without his name appearing in
a commission. The King's enemies feared him. They
knew that if they fell on evil days, and Martin tried
them, justice would be done, no matter at what cost.
A dangerous man to rebels this, and one that must
be silenced. During Falkes de Breaute's outbreak in
1224, Braybrook, the judge, was captured and im-
prisoned.2 Martin barely escaped.3 But, undaunted,
he sat at Dunstaple and convicted Falkes of thirty-five
acts of disseisin.4 What higher proof of his devotion
to the law and his activity on its behalf can be given
than the letter of a fellow justice appointed to go
circuit with him, in which he prayed that he might be
excused the office on the ground that Martin was
strong, and in his labour so sedulous and practised,
that all his fellows, especially W. de Ralegh and the
writer, were overpowered by him, for every day he
worked from sunrise until nightfall?5 And for an iter
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 367$, 380^, 403 b,
444*, 473$.
2 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th Edit., ii, 35. Maitland, Pleas
of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, Introd., x.
3 Pauli, Geschichte von England, iii, 538-542. Foss, The Judges of England,
"> 439» qu' Roger of Wendover, iv, 94.
4 Annales Prioratus de Dunstaplia in Annales Monastid (Rolls Series), iii, 90.
5 Shirley, Royal Letters (Rolls Series}, \, 342.
Introduction. 59
of such work forty marks seem a small sum.1 Martin
recked not that the surest way to shorten his days
was to lengthen them. Did not a good record of
judicial labour lead to canonries, deaneries, and even
bishoprics ?2 And who more worthy than Martin ?
In 1227 he held benefices in Northumberland3 and
the archdeaconry of Norfolk.4 Two years later he
was made Dean of Saint Paul's, and as such died on
the i4th of November, I229.5 So passed a great
man, or as Matthew Paris has it: " vir mirae prudentiae
et legum terrae peritus"*
The fourth judge, John of Monmouth,7 was a
powerful baron, holding large estates in the counties
of Gloucester, Hereford, Salop, and Monmouth.8 He
descended from William Fitz-Baderon, a person of
importance, mentioned in Domesday Book as possessing
lands in the hundred of Lydney.9 Like many another,
John knew the uncertainty of the King's temper, and
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 4716; Martin received
this sum for his expenses on the eyre of 1221, an eyre which occupied over six months.
2 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 205.
3 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission) , ii, 203.
4 Foss, The Judges of En gland ', ii, 440.
5 Ibid., 440.
6 Matthew Paris (Rolls Series), iii, 190.
7 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 476.
8 Ibid., 239^, 271, 280. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission),
153*.
9 Taylor, An Analysis of the Domesday Survey of Gloucestershire (Bristol
and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society) , 209.
60 Pleas of the Crown.
for some offence, real or imaginary, was forced to give
his son to his royal master as a security for his better
behaviour.1 But his disgrace was not to last for long,
and once restored to favour gifts fell fast upon him.
At the critical period of the Charter he stood by John,
and in the February of 1215 was sent by the King
on a confidential errand into the counties of Hereford,
Salop, Stafford, Gloucester, Somerset, Dorset and
Southampton, and also to the town of Bristol.2 Now
this mission was nothing more nor less than to explain
the King's position to any powerful person he might
enlist on the royal side. And we must believe he did
his duty well, for a horse was the reward of his
services.3 But greater honours were in store. Very
soon he was appointed custodian of the castles of
Saint Briavels,4 Bremble,5 Grosmont,6 Skenfreth, and
Lantilio,7 and keeper of the Forest of Dean,8 the
New Forest,9 and the Forest of Clarendon.10 The
1 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), 87.
2 Ibid., 128, 128^.
3 Ibid., 137.
4 Ibid., 153*, 185.
5 Ibid., 157$.
6 Ibid., 1 60, 1946. Rotuli Litterarum Clausaruni (Record Commission),
i, 239$.
7 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), 1946.
8 Ibid., 185. Rotuli Litterarum Clausaruni (Record Commission), i, 343,
3936, 4016, 402, sqq.
9 Ibid., 405*, 4696.
10 Ibid., 638^.
Introduction. 6 1
manor of Newton1 was bestowed upon him, as well
as grants of land in Herefordshire and Shropshire.2
Sufficient trusts surely. Still the crowning one was to
come. King John made him one of the executors of his
will.3 John of Monmouth undoubtedly accompanied
the King to Bristol in 1216, for we find an interesting
writ issued at the time ordering Roger Cordewaner,
the mayor, to give him a couple of casks of wine.4
His first appearance as a judge dates from 1220,
when Henry the Third commissioned him, with Martin
Pateshull and two others, to deliver the gaol at
Hereford.5 His second appearance was on this eyre.6
Subsequently he was appointed justice of the forest,7
and forests and castles kept him well employed,
many of the latter being situate on the border of
turbulent Wales.8 As missioner, castellan, forester,
and judge, John was successful. As a soldier he was
no mean adversary. In the rebellion of 1233 he sup-
ported the King, and in an encounter with the troops
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 26 1£.
2 Ibid., 271, 280.
3 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 4th Edit., ii, 17.
4 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 283. The corpora-
tion of Bristol had its wine cellars until the reconstruction of the corporate body
under the Municipal Reform Act, 1835, after which time the stock of wines was sold
by auction ; Latimer, Annals of Bristol, Nineteenth Century, 183. Hunt, Bristol, 45.
5 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission, i, 437.
6 Ibid., 476.
7 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, 37, m. 2.
8 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), ii, I33#, 156, 198, 200.
John of Monmouth acted on a judicial inquiry as late as 1227 ; Ibid., 209.
62 Pleas of the Crown.
of the Earl Marshal narrowly escaped with his life.1
He took part in the Welsh wars2 and died in I248.3
Ralph Hareng, the fifth judge,4 first came promi-
nently into notice as steward to Thomas de S.
Valerico.5 Obsequious, wily, and selfish, he profited
by the quarrels of the period, receiving in 1 208,
as a gift from the King, the churches of Chesterton
and Mixbury which had been taken from his own
son, Jordan, on the occasion of the interdict.6 A man
of the camp as well as of the manor, he was, in 1213,
ordered to besiege the Earl of Losa in his castle.7
In 1215 the shrievalties of Buckinghamshire and
Bedfordshire fell to him, and during the next year he
was engaged in special service for the King,8 receiving
as a reward gifts of land, wine, and money.9 In
1218, he, together with Martin Pateshull and Robert
Amauri, held an assize of novel disseisin relating to
some lands in Buckinghamshire,10 and during the
next year he was sent into the counties of Oxford
1 Foss, The Judges of England, ii, 411, qu. Roger of Wendover, iv, 279, 289.
2 Rymer's Fcedera (London, 1704), i, 389, 399.
3 Excerpta e Rotulis Finium (Record Commission), ii, 41.
4 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 4/6.
6 Ibid., 82, 118, 136, 137, 138, 222, 281. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium
(Record Commission), 71.
6 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission^ , i, 114.
' Ibid., I34£.
8 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), 146^, 192^, 193.
9 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 294^, 363, 365.
1° Ibid., 367^.
Introduction. 63
and Buckingham with the Abbot of Reading to hold an
inquiry as to the forests.1 In 1220 he was put
in the commission of the eyre for Hertfordshire,2
and six months later was appointed on this eyre,3
receiving twenty marks for his services.4 Henry gave
to him as freely as did John, and to maintain him in his
service the King, in 1222, ordered his treasurer to hand
him a share of one hundred and sixty marks.5 Ten
bucks and two does were also given him to place in
his park at Westbury,6 and twenty-four oaks went
from Witlewood Forest to repair his church at Thorp.7
In 1223 he sat with the Justiciar, Hubert de Burgh,
and other judges, to try an action of deforcement
between the Abbot of Heles and Stephen de Waresl.8
In 1225 he was appointed custodian of the land be-
longing to the Earl of Dreus,9 and in 1226 was
made one of the collectors of the fifteenths for Bed-
fordshire and Buckinghamshire.10 Up to his death in
I22911 there are frequent records of royal bounty
bestowed upon him.
1 Roluli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 434*
2 Ib.id., 473*-
3 Ibid , 476, 476^.
4 Ibid., 459^ 460.
5 Ibid., 489, 495.
6 Ibid., 519^.
7 Ibid., 520.
8 Ibid., ii, 209.
9 Ibid., 22.
10 Ibid., 147*.
11 Excerpta e Rotulis Finium (Record Commission), i, 194.
64 Pleas of the Crown,
Ralph Musard, the sixth judge named in the
commission, was sheriff of Gloucestershire, having
been assigned that county on the 8th of July,
1215.* In conformity with the rule laid down in
Magna Charta,2 he was specially forbidden to sit in
a judicial capacity within his own shire.3 He was a
strong adherent to John's cause, and received from
the King numerous grants of money, lands, and fees
from purprestures.4 Similar favours continued to flow
from the young King, Henry the Third,5 and he was
engaged in various undertakings for that monarch.6
So trusted was he that Princess Elianor, the Beauty
of Brittany, was placed in his keeping during a portion
of the time she was a prisoner.7 This unfortunate
princess and her brother Arthur, Duke of Brittany,
were taken by King John, in 1202, during the siege
of Mirabel Castle in Poictou. Arthur is believed to
have been murdered by his uncle, and contemporary
historians relate that Elianor was imprisoned in Bristol
Castle for forty years.8 Here the chroniclers are
>- .
1 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), 148^.
2 Art. 24.
3 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 476.
4 Ibid., 265*, 274$, 279^, 282, 303^. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record
Commission), 193^.
5 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 3036, 342^.
6 Ibid., 3866.
i Ibid., 546, 546£.
8 Ibid., Hardy's Intrcxl., xxxv.
Introduction. 65
certainly at fault, for many entries in the Close Rolls
show that from 1213 to 1221 Elianor was in Corfe
Castle well looked after and enjoying many luxuries.1
For instance, the Mayor of Winchester was ordered to
take her, amongst other things, robes of dark green,
a cap furred with miniver,2 and a beautiful saddle
with scarlet ornaments and gilded reins (imam sellam
pulcram cum sambuca de scarletta et lorrenniis deauratis)?
On the yth of August, 1222, Ralph Musard, as sheriff
of Gloucestershire, was commanded to cause necessaries
to be provided for the princess and her two waiting
maids who were staying by the King's orders in
Gloucester Castle, and for Walter de S. Audoen,
Richard de Landa, and Gilbert de Greinville, the
keepers of the Princess, with their six horses and
eight men, together with the domestic establishment
of the same Elianor, as long as they stayed there by
the King's orders; and the costs incurred were to be
accounted to him at the Exchequer.4 A week or so
later the sheriffs of London were directed to let Ralph
have five ounces of silk for the use of Elianor.5
Now the domestic economy displayed by Ralph was
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 144^, 150*, 157, i68£,
466$, 483*.
2 Ibid., 1445.
3 Ibid., 150*.
4 Ibid., 507 b.
5 Ibid., 508.
66 Pleas of the Crown.
excellent, for he kept this lady and her large retinue
for ten shillings a day, and received ^"117 for their
expenses, from the eve of Saint Peter ad Vincula
6 Henry the Third, until the feast of Saint Benedict
next before the annunciation of the Blessed Mary in
the seventh year, both days inclusive.1 Whilst at
Gloucester Castle, Walter de S. Audoen was taken
dangerously ill. The King dispatched Robert Lovel
to assist in the guarding of Elianor, and Ralph
Musard and the others assigned for her custody were
commanded to admit him into the Castle and Tower
so that he himself might have free ingress and egress
to and from the Tower, but that his suite should
remain without in the Castle.2 At the same time,
the King sent ten servants on horse and four cross-
bowmen on foot for the further safeguard of the Castle.3
From Gloucester Elianor was removed to Bristol, and
was there on Henry the Third's visit in 1224.*
Except for an inquiry that Ralph Musard and John
of Monmouth held in Hereford in 1219, the former
appears to have had no appointment as commissioner
1 Rotuli LUterarum Clausarttm (Record Commission}, i, 538.
2 For a very learned article on "Tower and Castle" see Round's Geoffrey de
Mandevitte, App. O, 328-346. Men spoke in those days of the Tower of Bristol as
of the Tower of Gloucester; Ibid., 336, qu. Hen. Hunt, 276, "[Rex] in turri de
Bristou captivus ponitur . . . ." See also Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum
(Record Commission^, i, 153, 281.
3 Rotu H Litterar um Clausarurn (Record Commission), i, 546, 546^.
4 Hunt, Bristol, 31.
Introduction. 67
prior to this eyre.1 During 1226 and 1227 he sat
as a justice itinerant in the counties of Warwick,
Worcester, Hereford, Stafford, Salop, Oxford, Devon,
Southampton and Berks.2 As sheriff of Gloucester-
shire Ralph was thrown in continual contact with
Bristol and its burgesses, and was no stranger to the
town on the occasion of the eyre. He had succeeded
Engelard of Cigogne in the shrievalty, and continued
sheriff of the county until I225.3 There can be little
doubt that his appointment was more popular than
that of Gerard of Athee or Engelard, for although the
plea rolls of this eyre for the county of Gloucester,
are full of extortions by Gerard, Gio of Chanceaux,
and Engelard,4 no complaint appears to have been
made respecting Ralph, and in those days of gross
corruption this fact may be taken as proof of the
1 We must, however, suppose that Ralph was learned in the luw, for his
appointment as sheriff was subsequent to the signing of Magna Charta, article 45, of
which had declared that no sheriffs should be appointed unless learned in the law of
the realm and minded to observe it (Nos non facie mus justiciaries, constabularies,
•vicecomites, vel ballivos, nisi de talibus qui sciant legem regni et earn bene velint
obstrvarej ,
3 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), ii, 15 1&, 205^, 213.
3 Ibid., 57. Sir Robert Atkyns in his Ancient and Present State of Gloucester-
shire, 2nd Edit. (1768), p. 38, states that Ralph Musard was sheriff from 1213 to
1 22 1. We can find no evidence to warrant such a conclusion. The Patent Rolls
(1486) distinctly date his appointment as the 8th of July, 1215, and mention is made
of him as sheriff certainly as late as 1225 ; Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record
Commission) , ii, 57.
4 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 92, 93, 108,
154, 156, 171, 227, 245, 260, 364, 376, 378, 405, 439, 444, 482, 505.
68 Pleas of the Crown.
strictest integrity. To what a pass the rapacity and
illegal conduct of sheriffs, bailiffs, constables and
coroners had reached, can easily be gathered by a
perusal of some of the sections of the Great Charter.1
Ralph appears to have died in I23O.2
The seventh and last judge named in the com-
mission was Robert Lexington,3 an ecclesiastic, who,
in 1214, was presented by King John to a prebend
at Southwell.4 During the same year he acted as
custos of the archbishopric of York.5 For six years
from that time the rolls are silent as to his doings,
and when next his name appears it is with regard to
a grant of estovers made to him in 1220.° Immedi-
ately afterwards he was engaged on a special mission
at Newcastle-upon-Tyne,7 and in the following year
was sitting on this eyre. Thence the records are
eloquent concerning him. Gifts of money were made
to him,8 Balsover Castle9 and the castle and honour
of Pec10 were placed in his custody, and Dover Castle
1 Arts. 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36, 39, 40, 45, 48, 50.
2 Excerpta & Rotulis Finium (Record Commission), i, 43, 198, 203.
3 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 476.
4 Rotuli Litterarum Patentium (Record Commission), 115$; 25th May, 1214.
5 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 208.
6 Ibid., 421 5.
7 Ibid., 439*, 442*, 473*.
8 Ibid., 551, 576^.
9 Ibid., ii, 6b.
10 Ibid., i, 594, 611, 6ii£, 6i8£, 635$, 636$; ii, 35, 43$, 44.
Introduction. 69
owed much to his efforts.1 In 1225 he sat as a justice
in the counties of Essex, Hereford, Nottingham,
Derby, Lincoln, York, Northampton, Cumberland, and
Westmoreland,2 and subsequent entries of him so
acting extend up to I243.3 Not content with working
hard as a judge six days in the week, he must needs
go and sit so often on the seventh day that the
matter became a grave scandal.4 But he acted thus
not without precedent. His illustrious contemporary,
Martin Pateshull, did the same thing.5 Evidently the
campaign of the Abbot of Flaye, on the observance
of the Lord's Day, had not proved too fruitful.6
When the King, in 1240, sent justices itinerant
throughout all England, under the pretence of
redressing grievances, but with the real object of
extorting money from the people, Robert was placed
at the head of those assigned for the northern
counties.7 It is not only as a lawyer and ecclesiastic
this judge is known, for he added to his other duties
that of a military leader. Besides Pec and Balsover
Castles, he had, at one time, the custody of the castle
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 616, 641.
2 Ibid., ii, 766, 77, 776.
3 Excerpta e Rotulis Finiurn (Record Commission), i, 348.
4 Letters of Bishop Grosseteste (Rolls Series), 266.
5 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, Introd., xii.
6 7 he Annals of Roger de Hoveden (Bohrfs Edition), ii, 526.
7 Foss, Biographia Juridica, 4076.
70 Pleas of the Crown.
of Oxford. When William of Aumale was in rebellion,
Robert was given an important military command, and
there is a letter from him to Hubert de Burgh con-
taining details of his preparations made to oppose the
rebel.1 On his death, in 1250, his brother, John,
succeeded as heir to all his property,2 and it was this
brother who sullied the traditions of the bench by his
action in respect to the alleged martyrdom of little
Saint Hugh of Lincoln.3
These seven justices made up a commission which
for strength and conspicuous ability it would have
been difficult to equal. They were instructed to
open the eyre at Worcester on the day after Trinity
Sunday,4 and the form of oath to be taken and the
Articles were committed to the care of Martin
Pateshull.5 Writs were issued to the sheriffs of the
counties of Worcester, Gloucester, Hereford, Warwick,
Leicester, Stafford, Salop, Wilts and Cornwall, ordering
each to summon by good summoners all Archbishops,
Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, and Barons, knights
and free tenants of the whole of his bailiwick, and
from every township four lawful men and the reeve,
1 \th Report Public Records, App. ii, 157.
2 Excerpta e Rotulis Finium (Record Commission), i, 56.
3 Walter Rye, Persecutions of Jnvs (Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition
Papers), 160, seq.
4 yth of June, 1221.
5 Rotuli Litterarum Clausoyrum (Record Commission), i, 476^.
Introdi/iction. 7 1
and from every borough twelve lawful burgesses
throughout the whole of his bailiwick, and everyone
else in his bailiwick who was accustomed and ought
to come before the justices itinerant, to be before the
King's justices, namely the Abbot of Reading, the
Abbot of Evesham, Martin Pateshull, John of Monmouth,
and their fellows on the day following Trinity Sunday,
or such other days as might be appointed, at the
respective county towns to hear and do the King's
bidding. Each sheriff was also directed to cause to
come before the said justices all pleas of the Crown
that had not yet been pleaded, and which had arisen
subsequent to the last assize in those parts before
the justices itinerant in the time of the lord King
John, the then King's father, and all attachments
regarding such pleas and all the assizes and pleas
that were entered for the first assize before the justices,
together with the writs of assize and pleas, so that
no assize or plea might stand over by default of the
sheriff or his summons. And the sheriff had to cause
to be proclaimed and known throughout his whole
bailiwick that all assizes and pleas which had been
adjourned and unpunished before the justices at West-
minster, should then be before the itinerant justices in
the same state as they were in when the King com-
manded them to stand over at Westminster. Moreover
72 Pleas of the Crown.
the sheriff was to summon by good summoners all who
had served as sheriffs since the justices itinerant were
last in those parts, to be there before the said justices
with the writs of assizes and pleas which they received
during office and to answer for their time as answer
should be made before itinerant justices. Lastly
each sheriff had to have with him the summons and
the writ.1
From this it will be seen that the commission
was of the very highest rank, being, in fact, for
1 The Following is a copy of the writ, issued to the sheriff of Worcester, which
appears on the Close Rolls (i, 476^). In the original nearly every word is abbreviated.
An endeavour is here made to write out in full every such abbreviated word : — •
" Rex Vicecomiti Wigorni, salutem. Summone per bonos summonitores omnes
Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Abbates, Priores, Comites et Barones, milites et libere
tenentes, de tota Ballia tua, et de qualibet villa quatuor legales homines et prepositum,
et de quolibet burgo duodecim legales burgenses per totam Balliam tuam, et omnes
alios de Ballia tua qui coram Justiciariis itinerantibus venire solent et debent, quod
sint coram Justiciariis nostris, videlicet, Abbate de Radinge, Abbate de Evesham,
Martinus de Pateshull, Johannes de Monemue, et sociis suis in crastino Sanctae
Trinitatis apud Wigorniam audituri et facturi praeceptum nostrum. Facias etiam
venire tune coram eisdem omnia placita coronae quae placitata non sunt, et quae
emerseruot postquam assisam ultimo fuit in partibus illis coram Justitiariis itinerantibus
tempore domini Johannis Regis patris nostris, et omnia attachiamenta ad placita ilia
pertinentia, et omnes assisas et omnia placita quae posita sunt ad primam assizam
coram Justitiariis, cum brevibus assisarum et placitorum. Ita quod assisae et omnia
placita pro defectu tui vel summonitionis tuae non remaneant. Faciatis etiam clamari
et sciri per totam Balliam tuam quod omnes assisae et omnia placita quae fuerunt
atterminata et non finita coram Justitiariis nostris apud Westmonasterium, tune sint
coram praefatis Justitiariis nostris in eodem statu in quo remanserunt per praeceptum
nostrum apud Westmonasterium. Summone etiam per bonos summonitores omnes
illos qui Vicecomites fuerunt post ultimam itinerationem Justitiariorum in partibis illis,
quod tune sint ibidem coram praefatis Justitiariis cum brevibus de assisis et placitis
quae tempore suo receperunt, et ad respondendum de tempore suo, sicut responderi
debet coram Justitiariis itinerantibus, et habeas ibi summonitores et hoc breve."
Introduction. 73
an iter ad omnia placita. Such an eyre had the
effect of stopping in the Bench all the business of
the counties for which the eyre was announced, and
litigants who had been warned to appear before the
justices at Westminster had now to appear before the
justices in eyre in their respective counties.
The Articles of the Eyre (Capitula Itineris) that
Martin Pateshull was entrusted with are not recorded,
but the answers of the jurors clearly indicate their
tenor. Hoveden gives two sets, one for HQ4,1 and
the other for ngS,2 which show the matters inquired
into at the close of the twelfth century. The Articles
of 1227, for an eyre in the Cinque Ports, are on the
Close Rolls, and are also given by Bracton.3 Those
for the London eyre of 1244 are in the Guildhall
records.4 A study of these documents shows that as time
went on the list of interrogatories became longer and
longer. Information was asked for respecting felonies,
debts due to the King, wardships, escheats, encroach-
ments, weights and measures, treasures-trove, chattels
of Jews who had been slain, fugitives, new customs,
and divers other things.
1 Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene (Rolls Series), iii, 262-267. Stubbs,
Select Charters, 8th Edit., 259.
2 Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene (Rolls Series), iv, 6r.
3 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), ii, 213. Bracton
(Rolls Series), ii, 252.
4 Munimenta Gildhalla> Londoniensis (Rolls Series), i, 79. Liber Albus, 69-71.
74 Pleas of the Crown
A copy of the oath which the justices were to take
is not extant. No doubt it was to the effect that they
were to do justice to rich and poor alike, to act
according to the Articles, and to serve the King's
interests.1
The pleas for Bristol were taken at Bristol, and,
as we have seen, so also were those for the hundred
of Swineshead. But Bristol was not the county town,
and the burgesses had first to appear before the justices
at Gloucester, in accordance with the terms of the writ
issued to the sheriff of the county. Indeed the whole
county had there to come before them, that is, all
the suitors of the county court who had not sent
excuse or had failed to appear. We have no
sure knowledge as to why Bristol was especially
visited by the justices. It is true that no
burgess could be called upon to plead or be im-
pleaded out of the town in any pleas except pleas
relating to foreign tenures which did not belong to
the hundred of the town.2 But this exemption did
not extend to pleas of the Crown. There must
however have been good reason for the judges making
the journey. A mere question of convenience will not
account for it. As a matter of fact they commenced
1 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 185.
3 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 6.
Introduction. 75
the eyre at Worcester, and from there went to
Gloucester, then on to Bristol. They next proceeded
to Hereford, and afterwards visited in turn Worcester,
Warwick, Leicester, and Shrewsbury.1 Probably the
true reason of the Bristol sitting is that civil and
criminal business were heard at the same time, and
as civil pleas had to be taken within the borough
walls it was found expedient to then and there deal
with the pleas of the Crown.2
It would be interesting to know exactly where
the judges sat. Being summer time it may reasonably
be supposed it was in the open air at the High Cross.3
If not there, then certainly the meeting place was in
the Common Hall.4
At the opening of the eyre the writ was read.
Martin Pateshull stated the cause of their coming and
its advantage. Then all the justices went to a secret
place and called to them some four, or six, or more,
busones5 or leading men of the county, and conferred
1 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, Introd., xviii.
2 Bracton's Note Book, i, 17. Bracton took Devonshire Assizes in seven
different towns. But a commission for an assize was a very different thing to a
commission for an eyre.
3 Pleas were heard at the cross of Ripon in 1231 ; at the cross of the Strand,
London, in 1268 ; and at the bridge of Amot, Westmoreland, in 1295 ; Assize
Rolls, Nos. 1043, 1201, and 1306, m. n.
4 Assizes were taken there in May, 1271 ; Assize Roll, No. 160.
5 There is nothing to show who these magnates were beyond that they were
called busones. Some critics consider that Bracton used the word in error for barones,
but this can hardly be, for a record of John's reign is extant which refers to the
buzones of Gloucestershire ; Abbreviatio Placitorum (Record Commission), 85.
Pleas of the Crown.
with them respecting the keeping of the King's peace.
They next explained that all persons over fifteen
years of age should be sworn not to harbour outlaws
or felons, and if they knew of any such they were to
cause them to be arrested, and give information to
the sheriff and bailiffs. When they heard the hue and
cry they were to join in it. They must swear to
arrest anyone coming into the town to buy food for
malefactors, and if they received a stranger into their
house by night, they ought not to allow him to
depart before daylight, and then only in the presence
of neighbours.1
Subsequently the jurors for the various hundreds
and other places were chosen and sworn. How this
was done is shown by the Articles of the Eyre for
H94.2 In the first place four knights of the whole
county took the oath. Afterwards these four elected
two knights from every hundred or wapentake, who, in
their turn having been sworn, elected ten knights from
every hundred and wapentake. If there were insufficient
knights the number was made up of lawful freeholders,
and the twelve together answered the Articles of the
Eyre. This was nothing more nor less than the election
of a grand jury,3 although it is an anachronism to call
1 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 234-239.
2 Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene (Rolls Series), iii, 263.
3 Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., 258.
Introduction. 77
it by such a name, for the petty jury was not yet
established. The presenting jurors at this stage neither
tried cases nor gave evidence ; they were simply the
mouth-pieces for common report. The names of the
hundredors were submitted to the justices, and each
was duly sworn, the form of oath being as follows: —
11 Hear this ye justices that I will faithfully perform that
which ye order me to perform on behalf of our lord the
King, and for no one will I do otherwise, but will I
act according to my ability So help me God, and
these holy Gospels." This having in its entirety been
administered to the first hundredor, the others severally
declared that the oath the first juror had taken they
on their part would faithfully keep. Then the Articles
of the Eyre were handed to them, and a certain time
was given for them to prepare their answers. Mean-
while they were to cause to be arrested any persons
of evil repute, or if this were impossible, to give their
names to the justices.1
The time allowed for the preparation of the answers
appears to have varied. Three of the Gloucestershire
hundreds had a week or more.2 And such time was
not too much to collect information respecting every-
thing that had happened since the previous eyre, held,
1 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 234-241.
* ftjaitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, Introd., xxvi.
78 Pleas of the Crown.
probably, seventeen years before. Exactness was indis-
pensable, for did the jurors make a false presentment,1
or a false statement,2 or present a plea that was
not a plea of the Crown,3 or answer badly,4 they
were amerced. Did they present no finder of a dead
body,5 or falsely present one ; 6 did they conceal
chattels,7 or a death,8 or a burglary,9 or a breach
of the Assize of Wine,10 or an appeal;11 did they
falsely present Englishry,12 or fail to present an
attachment,13 or conceal anything,14 or make a foolish
presentment (stulta presentation*)?* or omit to present
outlawry,16 or even make an honest mistake,17 they
were amerced.
The answers of the jurors were subject to strict
1 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 1710, 771, 906, 1022, 1062,
1162, 1196, 1246.
2 Ibid., pi. 394^", uoi. Abbreviatio Placitorum (Record Commission), 180, 189.
3 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 68.
4 Ibid., pi. 44.
5 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 752, 793, 916, 921, 1179.
6 Ibid., pi. 891, 1142, 1155, 1169.
7 Ibid., pi. 757.
8 Ibid., pi. 766, 12 1 2.
9 Ibid., pi. 781.
10 Ibid., pi. 790.
11 Abbreviatio Placitorum (Record Commission), \~b.
12 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society} , pi. 880, 1215.
13 Ibid., pi. 809, 1064, 1144, 1234.
14 Ibid., pi. 1071, 1153, 1158, 1167. Abbreviatio Placitorum (Record Com-
mission), 1 8.
15 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society ), pi. 1134.
16 Ibid., pi. 1217.
17 Jbid., pi. 930.
Introduction. 79
scrutiny by the justices, and the coroners' rolls and
the sheriffs' rolls were often appealed to in cases of
doubt. When such took place the coroners' rolls
almost always prevailed, even the county being seldom
able to contradict them.1
It is by no means certain that in this eyre the
jurors gave their answers to the Articles in writing.
An entry however in the Gloucestershire eyre roll for
1 22 1, relating to the hundred of Blidesloe, is some
slight evidence that they did.2 The roll for Somerset
of the eyre held in the year 1242, has entries alluding
to the jurors' presentment roll,3 and there is certainly
one entry referring to a written verdict.4 Perhaps,
however, the twenty-one years that elapsed between
1 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 1196, note I. Select Pleas of
the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 38; In the Lincolnshire eyre of 1202, the jurors
for the wapentake of Graffoe made certain statements, and the coroners by their
rolls testified the same. But the county recorded otherwise. It was then declared
that the county could not be heard to contradict the coroners (non potuit comitatus
contradicere coronatoribus) . In the Gloucestershire eyre of 1221, the county contra-
dicted the coroners, and the judges believed the county rather than the coroners'
rolls ; Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 396. Bracton
appears to favour the coroners' rolls ; Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 430.
2 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 357 ;
" Loquendum de juratoribus qui nesciverunt aliquid respondere de Hundredo
suo et veredictum suum ei committitur ut sibi provideant." The words < veredictum
suum ei committitur,' at least suggest that the answers to the articles were in
writing. The following sentence in the Staffordshire eyre roll for 1203, also appears
to show that sometimes the answers were written : — " . . . et xij. juratores
dicunt in veredicto suo ut scriptum eorum testatur . . . " ; Select Pleas of the
Crown (Selden Society), pi. 62.
3 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 796, 916, 1042, 1115.
4 fbid., pi. 950.
8o Pleas of the Crown.
the Gloucestershire eyre of 1221 and the Somerset
eyre of 1242 had established the practice. Even if
the answers were written it is also certain that an
oral reply had to be given to every article, and
did the oral reply differ from the written answer it
resulted in an amercement.1
Each justice, or at any rate, each permanent justice,
kept a record of the proceedings, and an omission on
this score called forth a severe rebuke.2
We have now arrived at that point where the
substance of the roll can be shortly studied, and few
though the entries be contained upon it, they never-
theless give satisfactory illustrations of the crimes and
criminal process of the early part of the thirteenth
century.
The doctrine of the King's peace was the basis
of criminal procedure. At the period with which we
are dealing, breaches of the King's peace and pleas
of the Crown had practically become co-extensive.
On the King's accession general proclamation of his
peace was made, and so much importance was attached
to the ceremonial that crimes committed between the
date of the death of a monarch and the accession of
1 Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 62, 71. Somerset Pleas
(Somerset Record Society), pi. 950.
2 Rotuli Litterarum Claysarum (Record Commission), i, 451.
Introduction. 81
his successor were unpunishable in the Crown courts.1
The peace was not of the Crown and perpetual, but
of the individual King, and when, for instance, Henry
the First, Henry the Second, and Richard the First,
died, the peace died with them.2 This inconvenience
became flagrant, for the successor of each of these
Kings was in France at the time of the death of his
predecessor.3 Not until the demise of Henry the
Third was definite action taken to render the King's
peace permanent.4 Therefore we know that the roll
is of a time prior to the King's peace becoming a
common right. Local officers of justice were not yet
King's ministers, and local interests and jealousies
might still circumvent the efforts of the Crown to
redress grievances.5
According to Glanvill, in the reign of Henry the
Second the pleas of the Crown included treason,
homicide, arson, robbery, rape, crimen falsi, " et si
quae alia sunt similia; quse scilicet crimina ultimo
puniuntur supplicio aut membrorum truncatione."
Pleas relating to theft, frays, strokes, and wounds
1 Palgrave, Common-wealth, i, 285.
2 Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 115.
3 Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., 447. Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden
Society), pi. 84.
4 Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., 447-448. Pollock, Oxford Lectures,
The King's Peace, 87.
5 Ibid., 88.
82 Pleas of the Crown.
belonged to the sheriff.1 The Assize of Clarendon,
A.D. 1 1 66, extended the pleas of the Crown to theft,
and the harbouring of robbers, murderers, or thieves.2
The Assize of Northampton, A.D. 1176, still further
limited the pleas of the sheriff, and implied that all
serious offences were to be tried by the justices.3
Notwithstanding these enactments the sheriff's peace
continued an extensive actuality. In 1202 an appeal
of robbery came before the justices at Lincoln, but
on the county reporting that the culprits had been
appealed, not of the King's peace, but of the sheriff's
peace, and that the suit was in the county court,
they refused to have anything more to do with it,
except to amerce the jurors for making a wrong
presentment.4
The 24th article of Magna Charta decreed that no
sheriff, constable, coroners nor bailiffs of the King
should hold pleas of the Crown, (nullus vicecomes,
const abularins, coronatores, vel alii ballivi nostri, teneant
placita coronae nostrae)? There is nothing to show
exactly what the placita coronae were in 1215, but
they undoubtedly represented serious crimes, and
1 Stephen, History of the Criminal Law, i, 82, qu. Glanvill, p. I.
2 Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., 143.
3 Ibid., 150.
4 Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 21.
5 Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., 300,
Introduction. 83
probably differed very little from those enumerated
by Glanvill.
Such of the crimes as might be prosecuted by an
appeal, and for which the criminal's lands were for-
feited to his lord or to the King, and his chattels
taken, or for which he lost life or member, or
was outlawed, were called felonies.1 Misdemeanours,
such as were subsequently known under a fully
developed common law, were practically ignored by
the justices of Henry the Third's reign, and on the
eyre rolls of that period may be said not to appear.2
Homicide and rape are the crimes that here pass
before us. The former is the only one that need be
considered. In some few cases homicide was held
to be justifiable, and when such happened the slayer
suffered no punishment. Neither did he where
death was caused by misadventure or in self
defence. Every other case of homicide, that is,
that which was neither justifiable nor excusable, was
felonious. The difference between murder and man-
slaughter was then unknown.3 In Glanvill's day
secret homicide, which is murdrum, had to be dis-
tinguished from homicidium, but the distinction soon
1 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., ii, 466.
2 Ibid., 522.
3 /to*., 485.
84 Pleas of the Crown.
died away.1 The term murdrum however survived as
the name of the fine paid by the hundred when a
person was slain and the slayer not produced.
The law presumed that everyone killed was a
foreigner unless his English birth was proved. Possibly
the origin of the doctrine is to be found in the
statutes of William the Conqueror, which decreed
that all men whom he brought with him or who had
followed him should be in his peace. And if one of
them were slain the lord of his murderer was to seize
the slayer. But if he could not do so then the lord
was to pay forty-six marks of silver as long as his
possessions held out, and on their exhaustion the
hundred in which the killing took place was to pay
in common the balance owing.2
The presentment of Englishry (Englescheria), that
is proving the slain to be an Englishman by birth,
was at first one of the few formal badges of distinc-
tion between the conquering and conquered race.
Its practical need could not have lasted long, for at
the end of the twelfth century it was impossible,
except in the very highest or very lowest ranks, to
distinguish Norman from Englishman. But the custom
of presenting Englishry went on years after it had
1 Glanvill, Lib. xiv, c. 3 ; Dialogus de Scaccario, Lib. i, c. x.
3 Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., 84.
Introduction. 85
lost its meaning.1 We shall meet with several instances.2
Under the Bristol pleas it will be noticed that no
presentment of Englishry was ever made. The reason
is that by the charter of 1 1 88 the town was exempt
from murdra? That part of Gloucestershire west of the
Severn and the covert of Malvern Forest were also exempt,
but Swineshead enjoyed no such immunity.4 Different
counties had different ways of presenting Englishry.5
In Gloucestershire proof had to be given by two males
on the father's side, and one male on the mother's
side.6 Women were in no case admitted.7 Proof was
given before the coroners in the county court or in
the hundred court.8 It was again given before the
justices in eyre, when, if the justices were satisfied
that Englishry had been properly presented, nothing
more was to be done (Englescheria presentata est et ideo
1 Freeman, William the Conqueror, 128.
2 No. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10.
3 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . • to the Town and City of
Bristol, 6.
4 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 98, 105.
Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 131.
5 Examples of the manner of presenting Englishry by different counties taken
from eyre rolls principally of the reign of Henry the Third, are given by Mr.
Chadwyck-Healey in Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), Appx. B, Ixxvii-lxxx.
6 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for. the County of Gloucester, pi. I, "Et
sciendum quod in hoc comitatu debet Englescheria presentari per duos ex parte
patris et per unum ex parte matris."
1 Ibid., pi. 119: — "Et comitatus recordatur quod Englescheria non debet
presentari per feminam."
8 No. 3. Gross, Select Coroners' Rolls (Selden Society), 4, 13, 26, 29, 82.
86 Pleas of the Crown.
nichil), and the hundred was relieved of the murder
fine (murdrum}.1 But where Englishry was not pre-
sented, the position of the hundred became less
enviable, and in this eyre Swineshead was amerced to
the amount of three marks.2 At this time accidental
death did not in Gloucestershire render the hundred
liable for the murder fine, although such custom
apparently established itself afterwards.3 The instance
on the roll of a murdrum in a case of death by
misadventure where Englishry was not presented must
be a blunder on the part of the clerks.4 That the
murder fine was exacted is no doubt true enough,
but under no circumstances could the judgment
have been infortunium. However this error is not
singular.5
1 No. 2, 4, 9, 10.
2 No. 3, 7, 8, 9, 41.
3 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gl&ucesler, In trod, xxx,
pi. 92, 93, 171 ; Clarke's Fleta, 70. The eyre rolls of the loth year of Richard I. for
Hertford, Essex, and Middlesex contain the presentments of juries relating to deaths
by cold and starvation and accident, and in all these cas-s the murdra were exacted.
" Since the hundred" ; says Palgrave, in his Introduction to the Curia Regis Rolls;
" was thus subjected to a mulct, if the man died for want of the necessaries of life,
may it not be inferred that the inhabitants were bound to provide these necessaries —
food and raiment : — and that consequently the principle of a legal provision for the
poor was recognised by the common law ? " Rotuli Curia Regis (Record Commis-
sion), Introd., xxxiii-xxxv. Fines in cases of accidental death were abolished by
The Provisions of the Barons, Westminster, A.D. 1259, art. 22 ; Stubbs, Select
Charters, 8th Edit., 405.
4 No. 7.
5 No. 28. Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester,
Pi- 332, 352
Introduction. 87
The criminal law extended to all subjects. Not
only was a man responsible for his own acts, but
he was also liable for the acts of animals, and
inanimate things belonging to him.
Although everyone was punishable for committing
any of the crimes we have considered, everyone was
not liable to be dealt with for the same in the King's
courts. One of the most notable exceptions was that
of the ordained clerk. This record contains one
instance of a crime being committed by such a person.1
Now an ordained clerk who had committed a felony
stood in an entirely different position to a layman who
had perpetrated a similar crime. Indeed, above all, he
had eminent opportunities for a criminal way of life ;
for he was privileged, except in very rare instances, to
be plucked from the rude hands of secular justice, and
tried by a tribunal of his own. But before he got to
that court a good deal of circumgyration went on.2
Supposing a priest committed a murder, if he did
not flee, as in the case before us, he was arrested
by the sheriff. Then, likely enough, the bishop de-
manded him, and on the county agreeing to give
him up, the prelate undertook in full county court to
have him before the justices under a penalty of one
1 No. 23.
2 For two cases of clerics dealt with in the secular court, see Northumberland
Assize Rolls (Surtees Society), 316, 346.
88 Pleas of the Crown.
hundred pounds (cepit in manum coram pleno comitatu
habendi cum coram justidariis sub pene centum marcarum).^
Rather than run any risk of losing his money
the bishop usually locked his man up in his own
prison until the justices came, when the wretched
clerk was brought before them and either indicted
or appealed.2 Now was the chance for the priest.
He told the justices he was, perhaps, a sub-deacon,
and the official of the bishop said he was a sub-
deacon, that he was ordained by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, and wound up by claiming cognizance
for his lord's court.3 If the claim were allowed, the
clerk was handed over to the bishop's jurisdiction, no
inquiry being made by the justices as to his guilt
or innocence.4 But the clerk whose acquaintance we
make, did not wait for all these steps to be taken.
Having killed a certain woman, he shook the dust
of the town from off his feet, and Bristol knew him
1 Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 160.
2 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 441. "In the
middle of the thirteenth century it is matter of complaint among the clergy that
owing to this procedure clerks may languish for five or six years in the episcopal gaol
without being brought to trial." Cf. Grosseteste's protest Ann. Burton, 424 ; Mat.
Par. Chron. Maj. vi, 355-6; Ann. Burton, 417; Johnson, Canons, ii, 193; Court
Baron f Selden Society}, 19; Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 160
3 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 128. Select
Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 123.
4 Ibid., pi. 49, 117, 123, 140, 1 60, 189, 197. For other cases of clerical
privilege see Maitland's Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 128,
168, 181, 259, 294; Smyth, Lives of the Berkeleys, i, in.
Introduction. 89
no more. Such unclerical conduct led to his being
exacted and outlawed. Well was it that he had no
chattels, otherwise they would have become to him
nothing more than a memory.1
Perhaps the most interesting body of people to whom
the ordinary methods of criminal procedure did not apply
were the Jews. The entries here relating to them are
interesting and deserve consideration. Under the Nor-
mans and Angevins these people could own nothing,
for, as Bracton puts it, " whatever they acquire, they
acquire, not for themselves but for the King; for the
Jews live not for themselves, but for others, and so they
acquire for others, and not for themselves."2 But
save the King, they were free as regards all men.
They became the financiers of the kingdom, great and
small borrowing from them. Government regulations
were framed for this money lending, because, firstly,
whatever was owed to a Jew was owed to the king;
1 No. 23.
2 Bracton, f. 386*: " Judaeus vero, nihil proprium habere potest, quia quic-
quid acquirit non sibi acquirit sed regi, quia non vivunt sibi ipsis sed alius, et sic aliis
acquirunt et non sibi ipsis." The authority of this passage was called in question by
Webb (P. C. Webb's Question whether a Jew . . . was . . . a Person
capable to hold Lands, London, 1753 p. 34«), and a MS. note on the same page in
the copy in the Bodleian Library tells us that the words are not in either of the three
MSS. in that Library. On the other hand, Caley (in Archezologia, viii, 398), writes
that though only three of the eight MSS. in the British Museum contain this
passage, yet these three are much the most ancient. Sir Travers Twiss in his edition
of Bracton (Rolls Series), vol. vi, p. xxv, expresses it as his opinion that there is no
difficulty in supposing that this passage is also part of the original text of Bracton.
90 Pleas of the Crown.
secondly, English tribunals were hardly to be trusted
with their affairs ; and, thirdly, the Jewish gage was
a novel institution.1 An edict was therefore issued
in ii942 ordering all debts and gages of the Jews
to be registered. Six or seven places were named in
which alone such contracts could be made, and these
had to be completed in the presence of two Christian
lawyers (legates Christiani), two Jewish lawyers (legates
Judaei], two registrars (legates scriptores), and two
clerks (clerici). Each chirograph was divided into two
parts, the one signed by the debtor being retained
by the Jewish creditor, the other being placed in the
area communis. This area possessed three locks, the
key of the first being kept by the two Christian
lawyers, that of the second by the two Jewish lawyers,
and that of the third by the two clerks. Soon after-
wards the Exchequer of the Jews was formed for the
management of their business.3 To this court all
civil and criminal actions in which a Jew was con-
cerned were supposed to be relegated. But with
regard to criminal cases it is clear that for some
years the justices of the Jews had no exclusive juris-
diction as against the justices in eyre. An appeal
1 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 469.
2 Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., Capitula de Judaeis, 262-3.
3 Public Record Office, Pipe Roll, 10 Rich. /., rot. 8, Roteland ; qu. by Gross
in Publications of the Anglo-Je^vish Historical Exhibition, i, 174, 5«.
Introduction. 91
of murder involving a Jew was tried before the justices
on the Bedfordshire eyre in 1202, and two more
appeals of murder in which Jews were implicated are
among the Crown pleas of Trinity Term, I2O8.1
Times and again the King's justices itinerant were
specially warned not to interfere with the pleas be-
longing to the justices of the Jews,2 and in the second
year of Henry the Third similar instructions were
issued to the constable of Bristol.3 It is because of
this exclusive competence that very little information
concerning the Jews can be found in the records of
any other court.4 The rolls of the Exchequer of the
Jews go back to I2i8,5 but after this date cases
occasionally come on to plea rolls, the ones before
us being instances.6 From the first of these7 we learn
that a Jew named Adrian was taken from Bristol to
London to be tried by the justices of the Jews8 on
a charge of homicide. His chattels were valued, and
1 Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 59, 103.
2 Exch. PL, No. 10, mem. 3-4 ; Pat. Rot., 2 Hen. III., pars. I, mem. 3 ;
Rotuli Selecti (London, 1834), 210; Prynne, i, 34, ii [22, 82, 119], qu. by Gross,
Publications Anglo- Jewish Historical Exhibition, i, 204, 85^.
3 Prynne, A Short Demurrer to the Jews, ii, 17.
4 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 470.
5 Rigg, Select Pleas, Starrs and Records of the Jewish Exchequer (Selden
Society) , Introd., xx.
6 See also Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 59, 103. Maitland,
Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 457.
7 No. 29.
8 Then Rich, de Dol and Master Alex, de Dorset; Rotuli Litterarum
Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 445 b.
92 Pleas of the Crown.
certain Jews were said to have undertaken (ceperunt
in manum) before the coroners and bailiffs to produce
the chattels together with Rachel, Adrian's wife.1
Failing to perform their engagement, they were
amerced for the transgression. Upon this two of
them denied that they ever gave any such undertaking,
but such denial was powerless against the coroners'
rolls. It is interesting to note that although the
offender was to be tried by the Exchequer of the
Jews, the matter of the chattels came before the
itinerant justices, it being customary to insert in the
Articles of the Eyre a head ordering an inquiry to
be made respecting the chattels of Jews who had
been slain, and of their securities, deeds, and debts,
and who held the same.2 The transgression of
Ducefurmage the Jewess3 seems to have been a
breach of the edict of 1194. Having secretly made
a loan, she deposited the deed with her lady friend
instead of in the official ark, and so seriously did the
justices view the fault that they fined her twenty
shillings.
But exactions did not stop at persons. When any
animate or inanimate thing caused the death of a
1 Prynne (A Short Demurrer to the Jews, ii, 57, 59), and Madox (History of
the Exchequer, i, 225, 229, 230, 258) tell us that it was a common thing for a Jew's
wife and children to be imprisoned as hostages.
2 Liber Albus, 70, 105.
3 No. 30.
Introduction. 93
human being, such thing was given, as it were to
God, to appease His wrath.1 In Coke's time the
thing was either forfeited to the King for his almoner
to dispose of by sale, and to distribute the proceeds
to the poor, or was forfeited to the lord of a liberty
for the same purpose. But in the thirteenth century
the practice appears to have been for the ox, the
boat, the horse, or other thing that caused the death
to be taken by the sheriff or some other officer, and
sold, and at the eyre an order was made for such
officer to account for its value.2 In Bristol, in the
cases before us, the accounting officer was either the
constable of the Castle or the coroner.3 The justices
could, if they wished, direct for what specific purpose
the money should be applied. William de la Hay is
named especially to receive seven shillings and eleven
pence for God's sake (datur pro deo), and the children
1 3 Inst., 57.
2 Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 156; Liber Albus, 94. For
numerous other instances of deodands see Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees
Society), Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), Maitland's Pleas of the Crown
for the County of Gloucester, and Hale's Pleas of the Crown, i, 419-424. The
following is a curious modern instance:— In July, 1837, a coroner's jury sat on the
body of a parachutist who was fatally injured at Vauxhall. It declared : "We find
that the deceased, Robert Cocking, came to his death casually and by misfortune in
consequence of serious injuries which he received from a fall in a parachute of his own
invention and contrivance, which was appended to a balloon; and we further find
that the parachute, as moving towards his death, is deodand, and forfeit to our
Sovereign Lady the Queen." The words in italics carry us, as it were with a bound,
back to the days of Bracton.
3 £fo. 18, 19, 20, 24.
94 Pleas of the Crown.
of Walter, of the hundred of Swineshead, are given
a like amount,1 probably because of their poverty.2
Sometimes the money went to the building of a
church, to the dead man's poor sick sister, to the
repair of a bridge, or such like.3 The most common
deodands were horses,4 boats,5 millwheels,6 carts7
and oxen.8 But there are instances of a cauldron
(caudera)? geese,10 a pack,11 a load of crop,12 a door,13
a millstone,14 a cask of wine,15 a net,16 a boar pig,17
and an oak tree,18 becoming deodand. A very striking
case appears on the rolls of the eyre for Somerset
held in the 27th year of Henry the Third (1242-1243).
The Templars of Redcliff had two horses in their
custody, and they tied them to the pillory in Temple
Street. The horses broke their halters and pulled
1 No. 2.
2 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 298.
3 Ibid., pi. 47, 113, 230.
4 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 775, 798, 883, 892, 897, 1005.
5 No. 20, 24. Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 802, 876.
6 Ibid., pi. 863, 918, 926.
7 Ibid., pi. 883, 891, 914, 1006.
8 No. 2. Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 891, 914, 1006.
9 Ibid., pi. 803.
10 Ibid., pi. 891.
11 Ibid., pi. 892.
12 Ibid., pi. 1006.
13 Ibid., pi. 1003.
14 Ibid., pi. 914.
15 Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Society), 96.
16 Ibid., 68.
17 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), 1039.
18 Ibid., 1031.
Introduction. 95
the pillory down, which, falling on a boy, crushed
him to death. The value of the horses was ten
shillings, and of the pillory two shillings, and the sum
of twelve shillings paid by the Templars to the sheriff
represented the deodand.1 Sir James Fitzjames Stephen
says, that "as a general rule a thing was not deodand
unless it could be said l movere ad mortem.'' A beast
which killed a man, a tree which fell upon him, the
wheel of a water-mill under which he was carried, and
which killed him, were deodands. If a man was thrown
from his horse against a trunk, the horse was a deodand,
but not the trunk. It seemed to be the better opinion
that, if a man watering his horse fell and was
drowned, the horse was not a deodand unless he had
thrown his master."2 But the plea rolls of the
thirteenth century show no such subtle distinctions.
Ships, boats, and chattels of those drowned in the sea
never became deodands,3 probably because the local
customs of England did not extend to the high seas.4
And no deodand was ever given to the Crown in the
Cinque Ports.5 The thing which caused the death
1 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 798.
2 Stephen, History of the Criminal Law, iii, 77-78 ; Bracton (Rolls Series),
ii, 401.
3 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 286, 388.
4 Stephen, History of the Criminal Law, iii, 78.
5 Boys, Sandwich, ^68.
96 Pleas of the Crown.
was called la bane.1 The theory of deodands is said
to have arisen from the doctrine of purgatory. A
person suddenly killed lost the chance of having the
last rites of the Church administered to him, and as a
recompense the money produced by the deodand was
given for pious uses and masses to free the soul of
the deceased from limbo.2 Instead of stating that the
theory of deodands arose from the doctrine of purga-
tory, it would be more correct to say the theory in
the thirteenth century was based on such doctrine.
Originally a man's death concerned only his folk, and
the guilty thing would be claimed by them. But as
the country became settled, the King's interest over-
rode that of the family, and the bane was deodand
for the King (pro rege). As the King supplanted the
family in their claim for the bane, so the Church sup-
planted him.3 Deodands were only abolished in i846.4
Now, although two crimes, and two crimes only,
namely, homicide and rape, actually come before us
here, they are sufficient to give us examples of the
two forms of trial in vogue at this period. In the
one there was an individual accuser, in the other the
1 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 236-237; from the Saxon bana, a murderer.
Liber Albus, 86, describes a horse which threw a boy as the bane of the boy (quifuit
banum praedicti garcionis],
2 Jacob, Law Dictionary, art. Deodand.
3 Holmes, The Common Law, 24 ; Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 286.
* 9 and 10 Viet,, c. 62.
Introduction. 97
accusation was made by common report. Two other
modes of trial, namely, trial by ordeal and trial by
compurgation, concern us little, for compurgation,
in criminal cases, existed only in certain privileged
places; and trial by ordeal was formally abolished two
years prior to this eyre. The first method we shall
consider was called an appeal, the trial being generally
by battle. One case of homicide and both cases of
rape before us were the subjects of appeals. The
procedure in such matters was highly elaborate, and
any deviation led to extraordinary difficulty. Indeed
if the suit was not well instituted (si seda non fuerit
bene facto), it constituted a general and primary excep-
tion. The law of the land was that the injured person
had to raise the hue as quickly as possible, and pursue
it from vill to vill, and to the King's sergeants, and
then to the coroners, and then to the next county
court. At the county court the appeal was made,
and there the sheriff and the coroners caused all the
words of the appeal to be enrolled. The particulars
descended to the minutest details, and if the enrol-
ment differed from the coroners' rolls or the narrative
before the justices, the appeal fell to the ground.1
Truth cannot stand alone, it needs strong corroboration.
To secure the attendance of the appellee the appeal
1 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 424-431.
H
98 Pleas of the Crown.
was published at the county court. In case of default
this was repeated up to the fourth time, when, failing
an appearance, and no surety being found for his
presence at the next county court, the consequence
was outlawry. Even if surety were produced at the
fourth session, and the appellee failed to appear at the
fifth, he was outlawed.1 But were the appellee duly
mainprized, the appeal was removed by a writ of the
King from the county court, and this writ was addressed
to the sheriff ordering him to cause the appeal to
come before the King's justices at Westminster or
elsewhere.2 Before the justices, the appellee would
generally defend, that is, deny all of it (defendit totum) ;
but if he did not plead, or pleaded inadequately, battle
was waged, unless, as was the case at Bristol, bur-
gesses were exempt from the duel. Should, however,
the evidence be so strong as to remove all doubt from
the judges' minds, they were obliged to disallow the
battle, and in such case immediate execution was
awarded.3 The appeal of homicide on the roll is a
sorry one.4 Instead of the deceased dying from the
result of blows, it was proved that he never had a
blow, but, as a matter of fact, died from ordinary
1 Select Coroners' Rolls (Selden Society), 18-21.
2 Ibid., 65-66.
3 Stephen, General View of the Criminal Law, 1st Edit., 17.
4 No. 14.
Introduction. 99
illness. Moreover he had lived a year after the alleged
beating, and in order to make the killing felonious, it
was requisite that the party die within a year and a
day after the stroke received.1 It seems strange at
first sight that this case came on to the roll at all, because
it is an appeal by a sister for her brother's death, and
the 54th article of Magna Charta had declared that no
one should be taken or imprisoned on account of the
appeal of a woman concerning the death of another
than her husband.2 But the reference to Gerard of
Athee proves that the appeal was begun before the
Great Charter was granted. The two appeals of rape3
collapsed almost as badly as did the one of homicide.
In the first, Christiana failed to appear, and the ravisher
escaped with a fine of six shillings and eight pence.
In the second, the woman married before the appeal
came on, and the man fled into Ireland. Although
Bracton states that a man guilty of rape might suffer
loss of members or even be sentenced to death if he
fled for his crime,4 it is clear that in the reigns of
King John, Henry the Third, and Edward the First,
numbers of appeals of rape were quashed, abandoned,
1 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, iith Edit., iv, 197.
2 Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., 303; "Nullus capiatur nee imprisonetur
propter appellum foeminae de morte alterius quam viri sui."
3 No. 15, 16.
4 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 330, 480.
ioo Pleas of the Crown.
or compounded, and in some cases were the preludes
to marriages.1
The second form of trial that concerns us differs
entirely from the one that has just claimed our
attention. In it there was no individual accuser, the
accused being indicted upon common fame (fama
patrice). The accusation was made by the jurors
representing the hundred, township, or borough where
the alleged offence occurred, acting upon report.
If the judge had any doubt or suspected the jury, it
was his duty to discover from whom the jurors gained
their information. The accused might put himself upon
his country (super patriam), or more strictly speaking
upon the vicinage (visnetuni), and could have removed
from the jury anyone to whom he reasonably objected.
The twelve jurors swore to speak the truth concerning
those things which the justices should require from
them on the part of the lord the King, and for nothing
should they omit to speak the truth. They were then
addressed by one of the justices and charged as
follows: — " So and so, who is here present accused
of the death of such an one or of some other crime,
comes and defends the death and the whole matter,
and puts himself upon your tongues concerning the
1 Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 7, 96, 141, 166; Maitland,
Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 4, 16, 76, 102, 155,179,341,
426; Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Society), 92, 93, 94, 109, ill, 122, 329.
Introduction. 101
matter for good or for evil; and therefore we say to
you on the faith in which you are bound to God, and
in virtue of the oath, which you have taken, that you
cause us to know the truth thereof, and omit not
from fear, or love, or hatred, but having God only
before your eyes, to declare to us, whether he is guilty
of that which is imputed to him, or of any other
misdeeds, or not, and not to oppress him if he shall
be free and innocent of that delict."1 Afterwards
according to the verdict of the jurors there followed
either the discharge or conviction of the accused.
It is not easy to say whether the presenting jury
and the convicting jury was one and the same, but
a careful perusal of the Gloucestershire eyre roll
points to the conclusion that in 1221 it was.2 If the
hundred jury brought in a verdict of guilty, then the
juratores of another hundred,3 or what was more usual,
1 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 450-457. Compare this with the modern form :
"A. B. stands indicted for the wilful murder of C. D. ; to this indictment he has
pleaded not guilty. Your charge is to say whether he is guilty or not, and hearken
to the evidence" The words hi italics would have been unnecessary in Bracton's day,
for the jurors themselves were the declarants of common report and perhaps the
witnesses. There is an echo of old times in the oath still administered to jurymen
in criminal cases in Scotland : " You fifteen swear by Almighty God, and as you
shall answer to God at the great day of judgment, you will truth say and no truth
conceal, in so far as you are to pass on this assize."
2 For fuller information concerning this, see Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 450-458 ;
Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, Introd., xliii ; Stephen,
History of the Criminal Law, i, 258; Chadwyck-Healey, Somerset Pleas (Somerset
Record Society}, Introd., xlix.
3 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. in, 316.
102 Pleas of the Crown.
three or four neighbouring townships (quatuor villate
proxime)^ were sworn and gave their verdict, when if
they agreed with the juratores, sentence was passed.
Another difficult matter to venture an opinion on
is whether the jury had to be unanimous in its verdict.
As to this, examples are so rare that no definite
statement can be hazarded ; but if one may judge
from an isolated case on the Somerset eyre roll of
27 Henry the Third, unanimity was not required.2
We must now consider what methods were adopted
for the detection of crime and the arrest of criminals.
The oldest of all police systems was that of frank-
pledge. Twice a year the sheriff visited every hundred
in his county, and held the great court of the hundred
or sheriff's tourn and leet for the view of frank-pledge
(uisus fraud plegii).* According to Bracton every male
over twelve years of age was supposed to be in frank-
pledge and a tithing.4 But there were exceptions.
Such obligation does not appear to have rested
on knights and their kinsmen, or clerks and citizens
with fixed property. Then, instead of being in frank-
pledge (in franco plegio), a man might be in the
mainpast (de manupastu) of some magnate. This great
1 Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, 101, 213, 228, 229,
326, 330-
2 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 1082.
3 Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, 5th Edit., i, 430.
4 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 306.
Introduction. 103
man would be answerable for the appearance in court
of all members of his household and servants to
answer for any crime committed by them. As an
example, Peter Champneys and Peter Marshall, servants
of the Archdeacon of Gloucester, slew Anketil, the
watchman of the Abbot of Saint Augustine and fled,
and because the slayers were in the mainpast of the
Archdeacon (de manupastu Archidiaconi\ and he did
not produce them, he was amerced.1 Again, Norman
Smith slew Adam Smith's son and fled to sanctuary,
and escaped, and as Norman was in the mainpast of
Adam (de manupastu Ade) the latter was amerced
because he did not produce the slayer.2 But con-
cerning those who were in frank-pledge proper, the
theory was that every person subject to the law was
to be a member of a group of ten known as a tithing
(thethinga, decennd), presided over by a chief pledge.3
Such group was answerable for his appearance did he
commit a crime. The township saw that all persons
were members of such groups, and if it failed in its
duty it was amerced. For instance, Nicholas Wiring
slew Nicholas the Irishman and fled, and because he
was in the frank-pledge of Osbert of Humersclive (in
1 No. 17.
2 No. 27.
3 This number varied ; Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd
Edit., i, 569.
104 Pleas of the Crown.
franco plegio Osberti de Humersclive) and the frank-
pledge of Osbert drd not produce him, it was
amerced.1 In the reign of Henry the Second no
one was supposed to forbid the sheriff to enter his
court or land to take the view of frank -pledge.2 We
know, however, that many lords held their own view
and excluded the sheriff altogether,3 such being the
case at Oldland and Hanham within the Swineshead
hundred.4 As regards Bristol the jurors stated on this
eyre that there was no frank-pledge there nor wardship
that ought to answer for fugitives (juratores dicunt quod
nullum est ibi francum plegium nee warda que debeat
respondere de fugitivis).b But because there was no
frank-pledge de facto in Bristol, it must not be taken
that minor offences went unpunished. The result of
the town being free of frank- pledge was to give the
burgesses the right of holding the view without inter-
ference from royal officials. And this contention is
confirmed by a charter granted by Edward the Second
to Bristol in 1331, which declared that it had been
found that the burgesses and their ancestors from time
immemorial had always had view of frank-pledge in the
1 No. 3.
2 Assize of Clarendon, art. 9; Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., 144.
3 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 570.
4 Braine, History of Kingswood Forest, 113.
5 No. 18
Introduction. 105
town and suburbs.1 The principle that immunity from
frank-pledge was equivalent to the right of view was
subsequently challenged by the King's justices, but
history appears to have been against them.2
On a felony being committed, the discoverer of the
crime raised the hue, and his neighbours turned out
with weapons3 and horns, and horned the hue from
vill to vill.4 If the hunted were caught with evidence
of the crime about him, his fate was quickly decided
before a local tribunal, or, as sometimes happened,
without any form of trial. No defence was allowable.
He was redhanded; and that sufficed to warrant a
prompt execution.5 The eleven men hanged at Barton
Regis were probably hand-having thieves dealt with
in the customary court or the county court.6
In treating of the appeal we have shown that if
the appellee did not appear within a certain time he
was outlawed. The same thing might happen to one
1 Seyer, The Charters and Letters Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 34. Ricart's Kalendar (Camden Society), 79. Professor Maitland says,
"It is quite rare to find in a royal charter any express grant of the view of frank-
pledge " ; Select Pleas in Manorial Courts (Selden Society), Introd., xxii.
2 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 578.
3 " Writ for enforcing Watch and Ward and the Assize of Arms, A.D. 1252 "
Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th Edit., 370.
4 Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 115.
5 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., ii, 579. At
Dover and Folkestone thieves were thrown from a cliff, and at Winchelsea hanged
in the Salt Marsh ; Green, Town Life in the Fifteenth Century, i, 222.
6 No. 4 ; Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 280.
io6 Pleas of the Crown.
who fled from justice, and who was indicted before
the King's justices and by them found guilty.1 How
common such cases were is seen by the record.2
Indeed an appearance was the exception rather than
the rule. Almost everyone seems to have escaped,
and in the rolls of this iter the directions, " inter rogetur
et utlagetur" " exigantur et utlagentur" " exigatur et
utlagetur" are so frequent as to become monotonous.3
The King's court might order — and as we see by this
record frequently did order — a man to be exacted,
that is, proclaimed and bidden to come in to the
King's peace. In case of non-compliance it might
order him to be outlawed. But only in the county
court, and in the folk-moot of London, could the
solemn act be performed.4 An outlaw forfeited
everything which was of right or possession, of right
accruing or likely to accrue, of right acquired or to be
1 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 308.
2 No. 3, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27.
3 At Gloucester in 1221 the justices inquired into about 330 cases of homicide,
and as a result one man was mutilated, about 14 were hanged, and about 100 orders
of outlawry were given ; Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester.
The Northumberland Assize Roll, 40 Henry III., A.D. 1256, records 77 murders ; 72
of the murderers escaped with outlawry, one murderer abjured the realm, and only in
four cases did the felons receive their just punishment. The Assize Roll for the same
county, 7 Edward I., A.D. 1279, shows that of 68 murderers, two were hanged, 65
escaped with outlawry, and one murderer abjured the realm ; Northumberland Assize
Rolls (Surtees Society) .
4 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 554. John Wilkes
was outlawed in the county court of Middlesex in 1764, having been " quinto exactus
at the Three Tuns in Brook Street near Holborne " ; Burrows' Reports, 2535-6.
Introduction. 107
acquired, and all possession in like manner in the
form and mode of possessing. Not only did he lose
it for himself but for all his heirs, as well remote as
near.1 He was outside the peace of the King, and,
as it was called, carried a wolf's head (caput lupinum)?
If he took to flight or defended himself he might be
killed by anyone, and in the counties of Hereford
and Gloucester, near the Welsh Marches, the custom
was that an outlaw could be cut down even if he
offered no resistance3; for, says the author of Fleta\
deservedly ought they to perish without law who would
refuse to live according to law.4 One case before
us shows how that after three men were ordered to be
put in exigent and outlawed, the judgment was reversed
because it was found that no suit had been made nor
had there been any appeal.5 But here there was no
actual outlawry, because the mistake appears to have
been discovered while the judges were in Bristol. Even
had outlawry taken place such men could have been
restored to the King's peace by reason of such outlawry
1 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 340: — "Forisfacit omnia, quse juris sunt & posses-
sionis, s. & juris competentis £ competituri, juris adepti & adipiscendi, & possessionem
similiter in forma & modo possidendi ... & sciendum quod sibi ipsi & haeredibus
suis omnibus, tarn remotis quam propinquis."
2 Ibid., ii, 338. Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 47.
3 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 338.
4 Fleta, lib. i, cap. xxvii.
5 No. 25.
io8 Pleas of the Crown.
having been brought about at the suit of nobody (ad
nullius sectam).1
Now supposing a person were so foolish as to
allow himself to be arrested, he was able to regain
his liberty by someone becoming surety for his appear-
ance in court. In only one case do we hear of a
criminal finding himself in the Castle jail, and he, true
to the spirit of the times, escaped into a church and
afterwards abjured the realm.2
When a criminal was hard pressed by pursuers,
his safest plan was to fly to sanctuary. And as
Bristol was plentifully supplied with churches he must
indeed have been the victim of ill luck were he unable
to reach one before being caught.3 Every consecrated
church was a sanctuary. Once there he was safe from
pursuit, as John Durand's son and Norman Smith well
knew.4 It was the duty of the neighbours to beset
the church and so prevent the escape of the criminal.
Failing in this the township was amerced.5 But
1 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 372.
2 No. 26.
3 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society j, pi. 795, 910.
4 No. 26, 27.
5 Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 135. The duty of watching
the church in which a criminal had taken refuge was entrusted to three townships,
and if he escaped the townships were amerced. Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for
the County of Gloucester, pi. 301 ; The townsfolk of Almondsbury allowed one
David of Westbury to escape from their church, and the justices inquired into the
matter a few days before coming to Bristol and fined the town. In London the duty
fell upon the people of the ward in which the church was situate ; Liber Aldus, 244.
Introduction. 109
Bristol, as we have seen, denied all responsibility for
fugitives, and when Norman Smith escaped the town-
ship went scot free. Another duty of the besetters
was to send for the coroner to come and parley
with the fugitive,1 when the criminal might either
elect to stand his trial or acknowledge his misdeed
and abjure the realm. Should he choose the latter
course he swore to go forth from the realm of
England, and not to return thither except with the
licence of the lord the King or of his heirs. The
criminal might name the port from which he was to
pass to another country. Dressed in pilgim's garb —
barefooted, bareheaded, ungirt, and clothed only in his
shirt, and in his hand a wooden cross, the warrant of
Holy Church — he was compelled to journey in the
King's highway, deviating only in case of great
necessity or for a night's lodging, never delaying
anywhere for two nights, and refraining from enter-
taining himself, so that he might reach the port by
the appointed day. Arriving there, he was to cross
the sea as soon as he found a ship, unless delayed
by the weather.2 No ship being obtainable, each day
1 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., i, 566 qu.
Rotuli Hundredorum, i, 308; "A criminal took sanctuary in the church at
Fosdike ; the township was bound to watch the church until the coroner came, the
coroner would not come for less than a mark; so the township had to watch the
church forty days to its great damage."
2 Fleta, lib. i, cap. xxix. Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 394-5. A man was
allowed one month to get from Westbury to Dover and sail ; Maitland, Pleas of the
Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 330.
no Pleas of the Crown.
he had to wade into the sea up to his knees or his
neck to show that although willing- he was unable to
cross. He had to sleep on the beach, and if he
failed to sail by the appointed time it became necessary
to find fresh sanctuary.1 The act of abjuration worked
a forfeiture of his chattels, and caused his lands to be
escheated. Should he return he was treated as an
outlaw.2 But every man clings sturdily to a whole skin ;
for while life remains all is not lost. Hanging is a
sharp argument, and one jumps not at the humour of
it. Strange figures must these prescripts have cut in
the eyes of the rude villagers; these ragged, bare-
footed, bareheaded wayfarers, posting along the King's
highway, in rain or sun, among the downs and tillage.
For themselves, rural loveliness had lost its charm.
Their eyes dwelt not on flowers and green fields, but
furtively would spy for hideous scaffolds around which
screamed the wind and the birds. And their cheeks
would blanch as they hurried by these gibbets with
their human burdens swinging helplessly in the blast, —
for had they themselves not shaved the gallows ?
If a man who had fled to sanctuary would
neither confess the crime nor submit to trial after
forty days, the method adopted was to starve him
1 Reville, UAbjuratio Regnt, Revue Historique, Vol. 50, p. 18 (1892).
2 Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society} , pi. 189.
Introduction. 1 1 1
into submission. To drag him out forcibly by a lay
hand (manum laicalem) would have been horrible and
unhallowed (horribile et nephandum).1 The starving
process was however resented by the priests,2 and
Bracton advised that the ordinary of the place, such
as the archdeacon or his official, the dean or other
person, should expel the criminal, for to maintain him
in the church was to act against the peace and the
King himself.3 Though Bracton spoke as a priest as
well as a lawyer, we know that the ecclesiastics helped
the criminal rather than the law, and no less a worthy
than the Abbot of Bordesley came with his monks to
a church which was surrounded by representatives of
three townships, and under their very noses carried
off a refugee clad in the cowl of one of the monks.4
Sufficient has now, it is hoped, been said to render
the record intelligible to every reader. The essay has
far exceeded its intended limits. Nevertheless it sets up
no kind of pretension to exhaustiveness. This is not
the place to deal with the complexities of the criminal
1 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 396-8. In 1279 Peter de la Mare, constable of
Bristol Castle, and others his companions, were punished for infringing the privileges
of the Church, in taking William de Lay out of the churchyard of Saints Philip and
Jacob when he had fled there for refuge and carrying him into the Castle and
imprisoning him and subsequently beheading him; Worcester Diocesan Registry MS.,
Bishop Godfrey GiffarcPs Register, 1279, fo. 93^.
2 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd Edit., ii, 591.
3 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 396.
4 Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Society), pi. 13$.
1 1 2 Pleas of the Crown.
law and procedure of the thirteenth century even
were we able to do so. Only sufficient elementary
and general statements respecting such have been
made to illustrate and elucidate the details of the roll.
Men and matters with a distinctly local bearing have
been treated more generously. Symmetry has, perhaps,
been sacrificed for a new ray of light on a particular
character or subject. The history of our towns is not
to be found in local archives only, and whenever a
public document enables us, ever so little, to extend
our knowledge of any specific place, it is well to study
it from that standpoint. For, after all, what are the
most valuable elements of history but original records
containing nothing but simple facts, uncoloured and
unwarped by prejudices and opinions? They are a
means by which the dry dust of antiquity can be
changed into the breath and beauty of life. They
wake the ancient world from its sleep, and history
moves as a pageant before our eyes. The value of
the record, as compared with the chronicle, is being
more and more recognized. Chronicles should be used
with caution ; but we need approach authentic muni-
ments with no such fear and trembling.
Since the clerks sat down to write these cold
memorials of humanity seven hundred years have
almost passed. Time hg,s waved its transforming-
Introd^lction. 1 1 3
wand. The great are fallen, the wise men gone, and
silence is on them ; silence and the sublime sanctifying
sleep of forgetfulness. The old town-worship, in which
the individual only felt his more elevated life as a part
of the consecrated community that had led him and
his to ' all excellence and glory, is no more. Mediaeval
Bristol has crumbled into dust. Save for a few mouldy
cellars the Castle is a mere memory. Nevermore will
kings and queens, ambassadors and legates, play their
stately farce and plot their wars and murders within
its chambers. Desecrated are its foundations by ugly
factories and hucksters' shops. The picturesque houses
of the burghers have had to make way for huge
emporiums and stuccoed horrors. Courtly messages,
delivered with that old-time ceremony of which only our
forbears were capable, have vanished before the flimsy
telegram. Gaily caparisoned horses have been sup-
planted by cabs and electric tramcars Princely
merchants and mighty barons have been displaced by
4 'citizens of the familiar type, who keep ledgers, and
attend church, and have sold their immortal portion
to a daily paper." Still there it all is. Time never
obliterates, it only hides. And it but needs these
little yellow membranes to lift the veil and bring all
back again. Fearfully does one realize that if there is a
law of progressive improvement it limps along with spastic
ii4 Pleas of the Crown.
gait. The past seven centuries have produced nothing
better in action, thought, art and religion than existed
in the thirteenth century. We should look back to
the men of that age with envy were it not that the
world is interesting because of its imperfections. To
some this record may show that human nature too
has advanced but little. Heredity and environment
may have altered the shape of the hat, but the old
face is still beneath it.
DESCRIPTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT.
IN the original roll marks of abbreviation are freely
used. For the convenience of readers every abbreviated
word in the body of the record is here written out in
full. The words in the margin are not expanded, and
stand in their original form, but the following list will
make them easily intelligible : —
a,bjur=afy'uravit : some one has abjured the realm.
ad jud=<W judicium : a judgment is to be given
against some one.
zv&\£>&=custodiatur : some one is to be kept in
custody.
do $a&&=deoclandum : something is deodand.
e*\g=exigatur : some one is to be put in exigent,
inquir ap R.a.&\g=inquirendum apud Radinge: inquiry
must be made at Reading.
\oq=loquendum : the matter must be further
discussed.
ii6 Pleas of the Crown.
loq ap \JdT\&=loquendum apud Londoniam : the
matter must be further discussed in London.
loq cum £Q—loqvmdum cum concilia: the matter
must be brought before the King's Council.
mia, rme=misericordia, misericordie : some one is to
be amerced.
mdr=murdrum: a murder, that is, the murder fine
is to be exacted.
trans=transgressi0 : some one has committed a petty
crime.
ut\ag=uttagetur : some one is to be outlawed.
A marginal note printed within brackets, thus :
[custod], signifies that the entry on the original roll
has been scored through with a pen. A few words,
the correctness of which is more than usually doubtful,
are printed in italics. Arabic numerals are used
instead of Roman. For example, instead of xx s' is
printed 2os. (20 shillings) ; instead of 1 m' is printed
50 m. (50 marks) ; instead of dim m is printed \ m.
(a half-mark, 6s. 8d.) ; and instead of vj d' is printed
6d. (6 pence).
The pleas and amercements have been numbered
for convenience of reference.
PLACITA CORONE
DE HUNDREDO DE SWINESHEVED
EXTRA BRISTOLLIAM.
PLEAS OF THE CROWN
FOR THE HUNDRED OF SWINESHEAD
OUTSIDE BRISTOL.
PLACITA CORONE
DE HUNDREDO DE SWINESHEVED
EXTRA BRISTOLLIAM ANNO QUINTO
REGIS HENRICI.
[Memb. 19.]
Hundredum de Swinesheved extra Bristolliam.
i. Unde veredictum captum fuit apud Bristolliam
prece Juratorum et J. de Florentinis tune Constabularii1
et per consilium Justiciariorum ; set debent respondere
de hundredo suo apud Gloucestriam.
2. Walterus films Johannis oppressus fuit quodam
Ho dand Hgno quod sex boves traxerunt ; nullus malecreditur ;
Judicium, — infortunium ; precium bourn 153. icd. ;
medietas datur pro deo Willelmo de la Heie et alia
medietas datur pueris Walteri ; Englescheria est pre-
sentata ; 2pacati sunt.2
1 See above, pp. 39-41.
2-2 These two words are not in Assize Roll No. 272.
PLEAS OF THE CROWN
FOR THE HUNDRED OF SWINESHEAD
OUTSIDE BRISTOL IN THE FIFTH YEAR
OF THE REIGN OF KING HENRY THE THIRD.
The Hundred of Sivineshead, outside Bristol.
1. The presentment for this place was taken at
Bristol by the justices in council at the request of the
jurors and of the then constable John of the Florentines.
But [the justices protested that the men of Swineshead]
ought to answer for this hundred at Gloucester.
2. Walter, John's son, was crushed to death by some
wood that six oxen were hauling. No one is sus-
pected. Judgment : misadventure. The value of the
oxen was fifteen shillings and ten pence, a moiety
[of which sum] is given for God's sake to William
de la Hay, and the other moiety is given to Walter's
children. Englishry is presented. They are paid.
I2O Placita Corone.
3. Nicholaus Wiring occidit Nicholaum Hibernien-
sem et fugit ; et fuit in franco plegio Osberti de
Humersclive1 et ideo in misericordia ; nullus alius
malecreditur ; Judicium, — interrogetur et utlagetur ;
catalla ejus 8s. 6d. unde heres Roberti de Ropelle2
respondeat. Englescheria non fuit presentata ad
comitatum et ideo murdrum.
4. Tres femine occise fuerunt in domo sua apud
Bertone3 a malefactoribus ; nescitur a quibus set postea
capti fuerunt n latrones et suspensi fuerunt et cog-
noverunt factum illud. Englescheria est presentata.
[Memb. 19 dors.]
Adhuc de Swinesheved.
5. Quidam extraneus inventus fuit occisus in bosco
ad furcas;4 et nescitur quis fuit vel quis eum occiderit
et ideo murdrum.
1 In the Amercement Roll this place is called Huneresclive in Barton ; See No. 42.
3 Robert of Roppelay had been constable of Bristol Castle from 1204 to 1208.
See above, pp. 29-31. This plea and two others under the Bristol heading which
name him (No. 13, 36) would have been from thirteen to seventeen years old.
3 Taylor, An Analysis of the Domesday Surrey of Gloucestershire (Bristol
and Gloucestershire Archcsological Society), 313; Barton Regis hundred embraced
Mangotsfield, Stapleton, and Saint George. It does not seem to have answered before
the justices as a separate hundred. See above, p. 50.
4 It is not recorded where the gallows cross for the Swineshead hundred stood.
One existed at Bewell, but this was within the township of Bristol ; Hunt, Bristol,
map facing 35.
Hundred of Swineshead. 1 2 1
3. Nicholas Wiring slew Nicholas the Irishman and
fled. And [Nicholas Wiring] was in the frank-pledge
of Osbert of Humersclive which is therefore in mercy.
No one else is suspected. Judgment : let him be
exacted and outlawed. His chattels [were worth]
eight shillings and six pence for which the heir of
Robert of Roppelay must account. Englishry was
not presented at the county [court] so it is a murder.
4. Three women were slain in their house at
Barton [Regis] by evildoers. It was not known by
whom. But subsequently eleven thieves were taken
and hanged. And they confessed they did the deed.
Englishry is presented.
Swineshead) continued.
5. A certain stranger was found slain in the wood
by the gallows. And it is not known who he was, nor
who slew him ; so it is a murder.
122 Placita Corone.
6. Quidam homo submersus fuit in Frome;1 nullus
malecreditur ; Judicium, — infortunium.
7. Tres femine et tres pueri occisi fuerunt in domo
sua apud Winterburne2 a malefactoribus ; nescitur a
quibus; nullus malecreditur; Judicium, — infortunium.3
Englescheria non est presentata et ideo murdrum.
8. Quidam extraneus Wulnothus nomine inventus
fuit mortuus in chemino regali de Dedigtone4 nescitur
a quo nee quis fuit; nullus inde malecreditur set
dicunt quod servientes de Castello de Bristollia ibi
1 The river Frome ran through a considerable portion of the hundred of Swines-
head and the township of Bristol.
2 Taylor, An Analysis of the Domesday Survey of Gloucestershire (Bristol
and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society}, 193; Winterbourne was a member of
the manor of Bitton.
3 See above, p. 86.
4 It is difficult to say exactly what place is meant. Dedy stone, within the
manor of Clifton, seems the most likely. If, however, this surmise is incorrect, then
perhaps it is either Dodington or Doynton. Dodington was in the hundred of
Edredestane, which hundred afterwards became part of the hundred of Grumbald's
Ash. Doynton was in the hundred of Pucklechurch ; Taylor, An Analysis of the
Domesday Survey of Gloucestershire (Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological
Society}, 190, 305. Yet the manor of Dunton was in the manor of Swineshead;
Rotuii Hundredorum, Hen. III. et Edw. I. (Record Commission}, i, 175 The
hundreds of Grumbald's Ash and Pucklechurch answered before the justices at
Gloucester; Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pi. 112-
122; 278-281. But if the crime had been committed in either of these hundreds it
is difficult to understand why the presentment should have been made by the repre-
sentatives of a different hundred, or why Swineshead should have had to pay the
murdrum, for when the judges were at Gloucester a week or two before, the county
had declared the custom to be that the murdrum was to be paid by the hundred
in which the wounded person died ; Ibid., pi. 128.
Hundred of Swineshead. 1 23
6. A certain man was drowned in the Frome. No
one is suspected. Judgment : misadventure.
7. Three women and three boys were slain in their
house at Winterbourne by evildoers. It is not
known by whom. No one is suspected. Judgment:
misadventure. Englishry is not presented, so it is
a murder.
8. A certain stranger, Wulnoth by name, was found
dead in the King's highway at Dedigtone. It is not
known by whom [he was killed] nor who he was. No
one is suspected of this, but [the jurors] say that
124 Placita Corone.
interfuerunt ? Englescheria non est presentata et ideo
mdr murdrum.
9. Malefactores noctu2 venerunt apud Bettone3 et
occiderunt Reginaldum de Brok et uxorem suam et 5
pueros nescitur qui fuerunt nullus inde malecreditur ;
Englescheria est presentata de Reginaldo et uxore
sua et de quinque pueris nulla fuit Englescheria pre-
5 mdr sentata et ideo 5 murdra
10. Malefactores noctu venerunt ad domum Willelmi
Beket4 et ipsum Willelmum ligaverunt et uxorem suam
et filios eorum et duos parvulos et ita unum ligaverunt
quod obiit.4 Nescitur qui fuerunt; Englescheria pre-
sentata est et ideo nichil.
1 1 . Loquendum super villam de Bristollia de quo-
dam appellatore5 capto et inprisonato et per cujus
1 The words from 'malecreditur' are interlined in Assize Roll No. 271, but
nowhere appear in Assize Roll No. 272. Those in italics are very doubtful.
2 The word noctu is probably material, for it afterwards became law that " if
any man be slain in the day and the felon not taken, the township where the death or
murder is done shall be amerced " (3 Henry VII., c. i).
3 Bitton at the time of the Domesday survey was Terra Regis. It appears to
have remained in the King's hands until the reign of Henry the Second ; Taylor,
An Analysis of the Domesday Survey of Gloucestershire (Bristol and Gloucester-
shire ArchcBological Society) , 193; Braine, The History of Kingswood Forest, 108.
4— 4 These words do not appear in Assize Roll No. 272.
5 In Assize Roll No. 272 the word probatore appears and not appellatore.
Hundred of Swineshead. 1 25
sergeants of Bristol Castle were mixed up in the
matter. Englishry is not presented, so it is a
murder.
9. Evildoers came by night to Bitton and slew
Reginald Brook and his wife and five children. It is
not known who they were. No one is suspected of
this. Englishry is presented as to Reginald and his
wife. As regards the five children no Englishry was
presented, and so five murders.
10. Evildoers came by night to the house of
William Beket and bound him and his wife and sons
and two babies. And one [of the babies] they so
tied that it died. It is not known who they were.
Englishry is presented, so nothing is to be done.
11. In the town of Bristol must be discussed the
matter of a certain appellant taken and imprisoned,
126 Placita Corone.
appellum plures capti et nescitur quomodo deliberatus
fuit nee quo devenit.
12. *De villata Bristollie ne occasionentur 15 m.:
1 This immediately introduces the Bristol heading. In Assize Roll No. 272
the entry has been begun ; it was left unfinished and has been partly erased ; but it
is introduced below between No. 28 and No. 29, and again between No. 35 and
No. 36.
2 This is a fine paid by the township to prevent the justices being hard upon it
for anything said or done amiss. It is really a fine for beau pleader, pro pulchre
placitando. So grievous did these fines become that complaint was made against them
at the Parliament of Oxford, A.D. 1258. Petition of the Barons, Art. 14; Stubbs,
Select Charters, 8th Edit., 384. They were abolished by the Statute of Marlbridge,
52 Henry III., c. II ; 2 Inst., 122-3.
Hundred of Swineshead. 1 27
and upon whose appeal several were taken. But it is
not known in what manner it was determined, nor
what was done.
12. The township of Bristol, that advantage be
not taken of it, [paid] fifteen marks.
PLACITA CORONE
DE VILLATA BRISTOLLIE.
PLEAS OF THE CROWN
FOR THE TOWNSHIP OF BRISTOL.
K
PLACITA CORONE
DE VILLATA BRISTOLLIE ANNO QUINTO
REGIS HENRICI.
Placita Corone de Villata Bristollie.1
13. Gaufridus Coffin fugit pro morte Jordan! Drag
submersi et non malecreditur ; catalla Gaufridi 2os.,
unde heres Robert! de Ropelle respondeat.
14. Agnes soror Nicholai le Bindere appellavit
Walterum de Oxonia2 et Johannem de Wintonia et
Johannem de Oxonia servientes predict! Walter! de
morte predict! Nicholai fratris sui et ipsa cognovit
1 Although Bristol and Gloucester were known as boroughs in this roll, the
word villa or villata is used respecting them ; Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the
County of Gloucester ; Rotuli Chartarum (Record Commission), \7ol. i, pt. i, 56^,
2046.
2 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 466^; Walter of
Oxford was a moneyer in the King's service,
PLEAS OF THE CROWN
FOR THE TOWNSHIP OF BRISTOL IN THE
FIFTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF
KING HENRY THE THIRD.
Pleas of the Crown for the Township of Bristol.
13. Geoffrey Coffin fled for the death of Jordan
Drag by drowning and is not suspected. Geoffrey's
chattels [were worth] twenty shillings, for which the
heir of Robert of Roppelay must account,
14. Agnes, Nicholas Binder's sister, appealed Walter
of Oxford and John of Winchester and John of
Oxford, servants of the aforesaid Walter, for the death
of the aforesaid Nicholas her brother. And she
132 Placita Cor one.
quod Nicholaus vixit per unum annum1 postquam
predict! eum verberaverunt. Et Walterus venit et
non malecreditur quia juratores dicunt quod nullam
plagam habuit immo obiit infirmitate sua; et ideo
Walterus inde quietus ; et Johannes et Johannes mortui
sunt et non malecrediti fuerunt ; Judicium, — infortunium.
Et dicunt quod Gerardus de Athie2 cepit de eodem
Waltero ad opus suum 50 m. et ad opus ipsius
Agnetis 10 m.
15. Henricus Peche et Alditha uxor appellaverunt
Danielem filium Halstan quod vi3 rapuit Cristianam
filiam suam; et Daniel venit et defendit totum et
Cristina non sequitur. Juratores dicunt quod Cristiana
visa fuit a 4 feminabus4 que dixerunt quod violata
[custod] fuit et secta racionabiliter facta fuit et ideo custodiatur.
1 As to this, see above, p. 99.
2 Gerard of Athee had been constable of Bristol Castle from 1208 to 1212;
see above, pp. 31-36. This and the other pleas (No. 35, 38) in which he is named
were consequently from nine to thirteen years old.
3 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 488 ; The word vi was indispensable because an
appeal for rape had always to show that the man " venit . . . cum vi sua, et
nequiler et contra pacem domini regis concubuit cum ea, et abstulit ei pucil-
lagium suum sive virginitatem."
4 Here we have an instance of a jury of matrons acting exactly in the way
described by Bracton (ii, 488-490) when he speaks of the appellee excepting and
saying that he did not take away the woman's pucelage, and that she is still a virgin.
In such a case the truth was proved by the inspection of her person, and by four loyal
women sworn to speak the truth whether she is a virgin or has been deflowered (per
quatuor le gales fceminas juratas de dicenda, veritate utrum virgo sit vel corrupta).
Township of Bristol. 133
herself knew that Nicholas lived for one year after the
aforesaid beat him. And Walter comes and is not
suspected, because the jurors say that he [Nicholas]
had no blow, but on the contrary died from his
ailments. So Walter is quit of this. And John [of
Winchester] and John [of Oxford] are dead and
were not suspected. Judgment : misadventure. [The
jurors] say that Gerard of Athee took to his profit
from the said Walter fifty marks, and to his profit
from Agnes herself ten marks.
15. Henry Peche and Aldith his wife appealed
Daniel, Halstan's son for having forcibly raped Christiana
their daughter. And Daniel comes and denies all
of it, and Christiana does not appear. The jurors
say that Christiana was seen by four women, who
said that she was violated. And suit was duly made.
134 Placita Corone.
CO
Finem fecit per ^ m. quia non malecreditur per plegium
Thome Harenge.1
16. Agnes neptis Johannis filii Claricie appellavit
Stephanum le Gros de rapo et Stephanus non venit
et ipsa habet virum ;2 et Stephanus fugit in Hiber-
niam et non fuit manens in Bristollia immo itinerans
mercator; et non malecreditur; et ideo nichil.
loqcum 17. Petrus le Champeneis et quidam alius Petrus
Marescallus3 servientes Archidiaconi Gloucestrie occi-
derunt Anketellum vigilem Abbatis de S. Augustino4
et fugerunt; et fuerunt de manupastu Archidiaconi et
ideo in misericordia ; nullus alius malecreditur; Judi-
cium, — exigantur et utlagentur; nulla catalla habuerunt.
1 Although this appellee was not suspected, yet was he fined. It is difficult
to understand why. But appeals were quashed on very slight grounds, and as soon
as the private appellor was got rid of, the King stepped in and proceeded to try the
offender for the keeping of the King's peace or something else. Any reason was
good enough for extorting a fine ; Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), pi. 929.
2 Agnes married after the alleged rape. Her husband does not appear to have
been present, and without him she could make no suit; Select Pleas of the Crown
(Selden Society), pi. 141.
3 Marescallus interlined in both rolls.
4 David was the abbot of Saint Augustine. He was elected in 1216, and
resigned or died in 1234. His body was buried under a marble with the figure of a
skull and cross on it near the elder Lady's chapel ; Barrett, History and Antiquities
of the City of Bristol, 266.
Township of Bristol. 135
So let [Daniel] be kept in custody. He made fine
for half a mark because he is not suspected. The
surety [for this sum of money] is Thomas Hareng.
1 6. Agnes, the niece of John, Clarice's son, appealed
Stephen le Gros for rape. And Stephen does not
appear. And [Agnes] herself has a husband. And
Stephen fled into Ireland and was not residing in
Bristol, but, on the contrary, was a travelling merchant.
And he is not suspected, so nothing is to be done.
17. Peter Champneys and a certain other Peter
Marshall, servants of the Archdeacon of Gloucester,
slew Anketil, the watchman of the Abbot of Saint
Augustine, and fled. And they were in the mainpast
of the Archdeacon, so [the Archdeacon] is in mercy.
No one else is suspected. Judgment : let them be
put in exigent and outlawed. They have no chattels.
136 Placita Cor one.
1 8. Jordanus Crokare occidit Thomam Textorem
et vulneravit Willelmum Pollard et fugit et fuit manens
in Bristollia; set juratores dicunt quod nullum est ibi
francum plegium nee warda1 que debeat respondere
ioq de fugitivis; et ideo inde loquendum ; Willelmus
34d.2 postea obiit. Catalla Jordan! 34 d. unde Willelmus le
Taylur coronator respondeat. Jordanus malecreditur.
Judicium, — interrogetur et utlagetur.
19. Isabella filia Osanne obruta fuit quadam careta;
nullus malecreditur ; Judicium, — infortunium, precium
[55.] carete* 55. unde Coronator4 etc., precium catalli in
8 m. careta 8 m. quas Petrus de Cancellis5 recepit et ideo
loquendum.6
20. Quidam serviens Ricardi le Paumer cecidit in
Framam de quodam batello et submersus est; nullus
malecreditur ; Judicium, — infortunium ; precium batelli
[^s.] i os. unde Constabularius respondeat. 7Reddidit et
dodand quietUS
1 gwarda in Assize Roll, No. 272.
2 In the margin of Assize Roll, No. 272, the words dentur leprosis are written.
It was these unhappy people who were robbed by Gerard of Athee ; see above ,
pp. 33, 34. The justices were more merciful than the constable.
3 This word is more than usually doubtful.
4 quietus is here interlined.
5 de Cancell in Assize Roll, No. 271 ; de Chaunceaws in Assize Roll, No. 272.
6 Assize Roll, No. 272, adds reddidit et ideo quietus est.
7— 7 These words are not in Assize Roll, No. 272.
Township of Bristol. \ 37
1 8. Jordan Croker slew Thomas Weaver and
wounded William Pollard, and fled. And he was
residing in Bristol. But the jurors say that there is
no frank-pledge here nor wardship that ought to
answer for fugitives ; so this must be discussed.
William subsequently died. Jordan's chattels [were
worth] thirty-four pence, for which William Taylor
the coroner must account. Jordan is suspected.
Judgment : let him be exacted and outlawed.
19. Isabella, Osanne's daughter, was run over by a
certain cart. No one is suspected. Judgment: mis-
adventure. The value of the cart was five shillings,
for which the coroner [must account]. The value of
the chattels in the cart was eight marks, which Peter
of Chanceaux received; so this must be discussed.
20. A certain servant of Richard Palmer fell into
the Frome out of a certain boat and was drowned.
No one is suspected. Judgment: misadventure. The
value of the boat was ten shillings, for which the
constable must account. He has paid and is quit.
138 Placita Cor one.
21. Walterus Gaumbe occidit Osbertum Fox; et
fugit; nullus alius malecreditur ; Judicium, — interrogetur
et utlagetur; nulla catalla habuit.
22. Uxor Ricardi le Noreis le Sermuner1 occidit
uxorem Elie Forestarii : et fugit cum Ricardo viro suo
et malecreditur ; et ideo Ricardus exigatur et utlagetur ;
nulla catalla habuit.2
23. Johannes clericus de Cornubia3 occidit quandam
feminam et fugit ; nullus alius malecreditur ; Judicium, —
exigatur et utlagetur; nulla catalla habuit.
24. Quidam juvenis de Monemue cecidit de quodam
batello et submersus est nullus malecreditur; Judicium,—
dodand infortunium; precium batelli IDS. unde constabularius
[IOS.]
respondeat. 4Reddidit et quietus.4
25. Nicholaus Pollard, Rogerus Cocus, Godefridus
Horsho, et Johannes de Wintonia verberaverunt
1 le Sermocinarius in Assize Roll, No. 272.
2 Although the woman committed the crime she could not be outlawed
because she was not under the law, or in other words, in frank-pledge. She could
however be waived (•wayviari) and left derelict, and so placed outside the King's
peace; Bracton (Rolls Series), ii. 312-314; Britton, lib. i, c. xiii, § 3.
3 Hybernia in Assize Roll, No. 272.
*— 4 These words are not in Assize Roll, No. 272.
Township of Bristol. 139
21. Walter Gaumbe slew Osbert Fox, and fled.
No one else is suspected. Judgment : let him be
exacted and outlawed. He has no chattels.
22. The wife of Richard Norris, the preacher, slew
Eli Forester's wife, and fled with Richard her husband,
and is suspected. So Richard is to be put in exigent
and outlawed. He has no chattels.
23. John the clerk of Cornwall, slew a certain
woman, and fled. No one else is suspected. Judg-
ment : let him be put in exigent and outlawed.
He has no chattels.
24. A certain youth of Mon mouth fell out of a
certain boat and was drowned. No one is suspected.
Judgment : misadventure. The value of the boat was
ten shillings, for which the constable must account.
He has paid and is quit.
25. Nicholas Pollard, Roger Cook, Geoffrey Horse-
shoe and John of Winchester, beat Helena, Robert
140 Placita Corone.
Helenam filiam Robert! le Bindere ita quod per hoc
obiit; et Nicholaus obiit et alii fugerunt et malecre-
[exig] duntur, et ideo exigantur et utlagentur; nulla catalla
habuerunt. Et Helena mater Elie le Corduaner at-
tachiata fuit pro eodem facto et venit et non male-
creditur et ideo quieta. Postea recognitum est quod
nunquam secta facta fuerat1 nee aliquod appellum et
ideo non exigantur; set si veniant, attachientur quod
sint ad standum recto.
26. Johannes films Durandi occidit Gervasium de
Hamme et captus fuit super factum et commissus
Hugoni de Vivunia2 tune constabulario et de gaola
abjur evasit et intravit ecclesiam et abjuravit regnum nullus
rnb alius malecreditur et Hugo de Vivunia in misericordia
pro evasione.
27. Normannus Faber occidit filium Ade Fabri et
fugit in ecclesiam et deinde evasit et fuit de manu-
pastu predicti Ade et ideo in misericordia; nullus
rma alius malecreditur; Judicium, — exigatur et utlagetur;
6d. catalla ejus 6d unde constabularius respondeat.
1 Bracton (Rolls Series), ii, 326; Proceedings cannot be had to outlawry
without a suit.
2 Hugh of Vivonia was constable of Bristol Castle from 1217 to 1221 ; see above,
PP- 38, 39-
Township of Bristol. 141
Binder's daughter, in consequence of which she died.
And Nicholas [Pollard] died ; and the others fled and
are suspected. So let them be put in exigent and
outlawed. They have no chattels. And Helena the
mother of Eli the Cordwainer was attached for the
same crime, and she comes and is not suspected and
so is quit of this. Afterwards it was found that no
suit was made, nor was there any appeal ; and there-
fore [the said Roger Cook, Geoffrey Horseshoe, and
John of Winchester] are not to be put in exigent ; but
if they come, let them be attached to abide judgment.
26. John, Durand's son, slew Gervase of Ham, and
was arrested under the order and commission of Hugh
of Vivonia the then constable. And [John] escaped
from the jail and entered a church and abjured the
realm. No one else is suspected and Hugh of Vivonia
is in mercy for the escape.
27. Norman Smith slew Adam Smith's son and
fled into a church, and from there he escaped. And
he was in the mainpast of the said Adam who is
therefore in mercy. No one else is suspected. Judg-
ment : let him be put in exigent and outlawed. His
chattels [were worth] six pence for which the con-
stable must account,
142 Placita Cor one.
28. Robertas Vinetarius occisus fuit in cellario
Thome le Cordewaner de nocte a malefactoribus ;
nescitur qui fuerunt malefactores nullus malecreditur ;
Judicium, — infortunium ;* et Willelmus Balistarius at-
tachiatus fuit pro eodem venit et non malecreditur et
ideo quietus. Postea dictum fuit quod quidem Vine-
Radig
tarius de Radinge debuit hoc fecisse et ideo ibi
inquirendum quia habet quendam fratrem cocum in
Abbacia nesciunt eum nominare et malecredunt eum
quia ea nocte visus fuit ibi et in crastino mane fugit.2
29. Adrianus Judeus occidit Johannem filium Petri
et captus fuit et ductus apud Londoniam et ideo ibi
loquendum cum justiciariis ;3 catalla Adriani 253
et Jacobus Hereford,4 Jopinus Judeus, 5Jacobus de
Oxonia, Bonefei,5 Abraham Gaban ceperunt in manum
habendi Richoldam uxorem predicti Adriani et catalla,
1 This could not have been misadventure. The clerks are evidently in error.
A similar mistake occurs above (No. 7).
2 The whole of this entry is copied from Assize Roll, No. 272.
3 de uno Judeo, adds Assize Roll, No. 272.
4 In Assize Roll, No. 271, obiit is written above this name, which is struck out.
For a further reference to James of Hereford, see Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum
(Record Commission), i, 220.
5—5 J°Pm and Bonefey were Jews of Bristol, and brothers ; Ibid., i, 230,
Township of Bristol. 143
28. Robert Vintner was slain in the cellar of
Thomas the Cordwainer at night by evildoers. It is
not known who the evildoers were. No one is sus-
pected. Judgment : misadventure. And William Cross-
bowman was attached for the same and comes
and is not suspected, and therefore is quit of this.
Afterwards it was said that a certain Vintner of Reading
did this, at least so the story went, and therefore
inquiry is to be made [at Reading] because he has a
brother who was a cook in the Abbey. [The jurors]
do not know his name but they suspect him because
the same night he was seen there and the next
morning was fled.
29. Adrian the Jew slew John, Peter's son and was
arrested and taken to London, so this must be dis-
cussed there with the justices. Adrian's chattels [were
worth] twenty-five shillings and eight pence half-penny.
And James of Hereford, Jopin the Jew, James of
Oxford, Bonefey [and] Abraham Gaban undertook to
144 Placita Cor one.
mie et non habuerunt et ideo omnes in misericordia.1 Et
Jacobus de Oxonia et Bonefei venerunt et dedixerunt
quod non ceperunt hoc in manum et Coronatores et
Londap Ballivi recordantur quod ipse et alii ceperunt hoc in
manum et ideo 2non possunt dedicere.2
30. Et Ducefurmage Judea malecredita de eodem
[trans] pro quadam carta quam commiserat cuidam vetule in
2os. vadium et venit et defendit totum. Finem fecit per
2os. per plegium Abraham Gaban3 et Bonefey Judeorum 4
31. De escaetis dicunt quod quedam terre jacent
vaste que capte fuerunt in manum domini Regis in
1 Many entries relating to these Jews are to be found in Placita, etc., 3 and 4
Hen. III., contained in Documents Illustrative of English History in the \~$th and
\\th Centuries (Record Commission), 290, 328.
2—2 This phrase is only another illustration of the doctrine of a criminal being
seised of his crime. For further particulars of this doctrine, see below, p. 162 : Glossary,
'Non Potest Dedicere.' Where statements differed, the coroners' rolls nearly
always prevailed ; see above, p. 79, note I ; Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society) ,
pi. 1196, note I. No one could gainsay his contract before these officers. James and
Bonefey and their fellow Jews were on the reading of the roll pi'ecluded immediately
from making any defence. They were, as it were, seized of their transgression.
3 Abraham Gaban (Gabay) was himself arrested for homicide in 1222; Roiuli
Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 509.
4 et Bonefey Judeorum not in Assize Roll No. 2 "2,
Township of Bristol. 145
produce Rachel the wife of the said Adrian and the
chattels; and they have not done so, so all are in
mercy. And James of Oxford and Bonefey came and
said that they had not undertaken this. But the
coroners and bailiffs record that [James and Bonefey]
with others did undertake it, so [James and Bonefey]
cannot gainsay it.
30. And Ducefurmage the Jewess was suspected of
the same [kind of transgression] for having entrusted
a deed in gage to a certain old woman. And she
comes and defends all of it. She made fine for
twenty shillings [for which sum of money] the sureties
are Abraham Gaban and Bonefey of the Jews.
31. As to escheats [the jurors] say that certain
lands lay waste: that they were taken into the hand
146 Placita Corone.
Ioci namium pro langablo ; et nullus sequitur vel petit
feodum ; unde loquendum est cum consilio Regis.1
32. De purpresturis nichil sciunt. Dicunt tamen
quod plures fecerunt kaios super ripam per antiquam
consuetudinem et villa non est pejorata, nee dominus
ioq Rex aliquod dampnum habet per hoc et ideo loquen-
dum, nee adventus navium per hoc deterioratur, nee
vicini dampnum habent; et libertas sua talis est quod
bene possunt edificare super aquam dummodo nullum
de predictis dampnis2 faciant.
33. De novis consuetudinibus levatis dicunt quod
waydarii solebant vendere waydam per quarterium
cumulatum et nunc vendunt per quarterium rasum et
hoc fuit leva turn tempore Petri de Cancellis ad
1 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (Record Commission), i, 383*; In 1 218 the
King directed the itinerant justices in the county of Kent to adjourn all claims of
franchises and difficult cases (loquelas arduas] before the King's Council at West-
minster (coram consilio nostro apud Westmonasterium}. The business of the Con-
cilium Regis was to assist the King in determining and legislating upon the nicer
and more intricate points of law, to guide the opinions and judgment of the monarch,
and to assist him in the performance and discharge of his duties ; Ibid., Hardy's
Introd., xxv.
2 dapnum in Assize Roll, No. 272. Assize Roll No. 271 is here torn, and
adventus navium and edificare, but partly legible, are given by Assize Roll No. 272.
Township of Bristol. 147
of his lordship the King in distress for land-gable, and
no one appeared or sued for the fee. This matter
must be discussed with the King's Council.
32. As to purprestures [the jurors] know nothing.
They nevertheless say that many persons have made
quays upon the banks of the river according to ancient
custom, and the town is not injured, neither has his
lordship the King been in any way damaged thereby ;
and therefore this must be discussed. Neither has
the arrival of ships been hindered by this, nor has the
neighbourhood been damaged. And a franchise such
as this is of a kind very likely to improve the river so
long as none of the aforesaid receive any damage.
33. As to the levying of new customs [the jurors]
say that woad-mongers have been wont to sell the
woad with the quarter measure piled up, and now
they sell it with the quarter measure smoothed off.
148 Placita Cor one.
maximum nocumentum ville sue. Et ideo preceptum
est ballivis suis quod de cetero vendant sicut solebant.1
34. Latitude pannorum non est servata et ideo ad
judicium et preceptum est ballivis quod de cetero
custodiatur assisa latitudinis.
35. De novis consuetudinibus dicunt quod con-
stab ularii capiunt de quolibet lasto allecium 2s vel
sicut mercatores finem possunt facere et solebant
habere 24 messas 2 minus2 quam alii emptores; et
hoc bene adhuc concedunt et hoc levatum fuit post
tempus Girardi de Athies et ideo emendetur.
36. Item in feria Domini Regis ad festum S.
Michaelis si lana corei et ferrum et wayda veniunt ad
feriam mercatores solebant vendere ilia 4 mercanda3
infra villain suam eo quod sine magno custu et grava-
mine non potuerunt ilia cariare in feriam Set post
1 The whole of this entry and the three following entries (No. 34, 35, 36)
are copied from Assize Roll No. 272.
2—2 4 mesas 2 denar minus in Assize Roll No. 271.
3 ^fercandisas in Assize Roll No. 271.
Township of Bristol. 149
And this new practice was begun in the time of Peter
of Chanceaux to the great injury of the town. There-
fore it is commanded that [the King's] bailiff sells
all things of this kind just as they used to be sold.
34. [The jurors say that the assize of] the breadth
of cloths is not observed and therefore a judgment
must be given. And it is commanded that the bailiff
protects all things of this kind by the Assize of
Breadth.
35. As to the new customs [the jurors] say that
since the time of Gerard of Athee the constables have
exacted of every last of herrings two shillings or as
much as the merchants are able to make fine. And
[the constables] have been wont to have four messes
at two [pence] less than other purchasers, and this
[the merchants] have hitherto fairly conceded. There-
fore let this be rectified.
36. Also in the fair of his lordship the King on
the feast of Saint Michael, if merchants come to the
fair with wool, hides, and iron, and woad, they have
been wont to sell those four merchandizes within his
town because they were not able without great care
150 Placita Cor owe.
tempus Robert! de Roppele nullus ibi vendere potest
hujusmodi mercanda1 nisi finem fecerit aliquis per
i lib. piperis2 et aliquis per plus et petunt sibi hoc
emendari.3
[Memb. 20.]
37.4 Veredictum de Radeclive captum apud Bris-
tolliam prece Burgensium de Radeclive cum hominibus
Templariorum in Radeclive.
rma Homines Templariorum in misericordia quia primo
die non venerunt respondere cum Burgensibus de
Radeclive. Et sciendum quod idem homines dixerunt
quod debuerunt respondere per se ; set recognitum
est quod non solent ita respondere per se set cum
aliis et ideo decetero respondeant cum aliis vel
apud Bristolliam vel in com. Sumerset. ad voluntatem
adjudm. domini Regis. Postea veniunt homines Templariorum5
1 mercandisas in Assize Roll No. 271.
2 Partly illegible in Assize Roll No. 272 ; supplied from Assize Roll No. 271.
3 Assize Roll No. 272 again repeats the fine of 15 m. paid by Bristol ; see above,
No. 12. It also contains an entry relating to a plea belonging to the hundred of
Dudstone ; Maitland, Pleas of the Crou'nfor the County of Gloucester, pi. 435.
4 In Assize Roll No. 271 part of what follows was apparently written in a very
cramped manner at the foot of memb. 19 dors., and then copied out fairly on a
separate slip of parchment (memb. 20) a few inches long.
5 In Assize Roll No. 271 Ap. Westm is written partly in the margin, so as to
leave it rather doubtful whether this is not part of the text — posted veniunt . . .
apud Westmonasterium, but more probably these two words belong to the marginal
note — ad judicium apud Westmonasterium ; Assize Roll No. 272 does not mention
Westminster.
Township of Bristol. \ 5 1
and difficulty to cart these goods into the fair. But
since the time of Robert of Roppelay no one might
sell merchandize there in any manner unless he made
fine, some of a pound of pepper and some more ;
and [the merchants] pray that this grievance be
rectified.
37. The presentment of Redcliff taken at Bristol at
the request of the burgesses of Redcliff and the vassals
of the Templars in Redcliff.
The vassals of the Templars are in mercy because
they did not come on the first day to answer with
the burgesses of Redcliff. And [the jurors] know
that the same vassals say that they ought to answer
by themselves. But the recollection is that they used
not thus to answer by themselves but with the others;
and therefore it is only right that they answer with
the others either at Bristol or in the county of Somerset
152 Placita Corone.
et nolunt respondere extra com. Sumerset. cum illis
de Radeclive ; et cognoscunt bene quod recesserunt
cum illis de Radeclive de Justiciariis itinerantibus in
com. Sumerset. et ibi non responderunt et ideo ad
judicium.1
38. Juratores dicunt quod Gerardus de Athie cepit
unum Flandrensem in domo Phillipi Longi2 et cepit
loci ab eo 100 m. et ideo loquendum.
39. De aliis capitulis nichil nisi infortunia.
4O.3 Isti remanent coronatores in Bristollia Michael
Bohulk et Thomas Michel in Radeclive et Rogerus
Fellarde4 et Willelmus le Taillur ultra pontem.5
1 The last part of this has obviously been written after the next entry.
2 Philip Long was evidently a man of some importance. His name appears in
the Close Rolls so early as 1214 (i, 2Oo£). In 1215 he is named in the Patent Rolls
as being one of the custodians of the Treasury at Bristol (136^, 137). About 1222
he was one of the witnesses to a conveyance of land in Redcliff from the Prior of
Bath to Thomas Scott ; Two Chartuiaries of Bath Priory (Somerset Record Society),
ii, 23, 24. He also witnessed a grant by the vicar of Banwell to the Canons of Bruton of
a messuage in Thomas Street, Bristol ; Bruton and Montacute Cartularies (Somerset
Record Society), 67. In 1226 when the justices were at Ilchester he sent his essoiner
to explain that he could not attend before them on account of being on the service
of the King ; Somerset Pleas (Somerset Record Society), 382 (5;-).
3 Not in Assize Roll No. 272.
4 Fellard, substituted for de Scrogham.
5 The local Calendars say that no bridge existed over the Avon before 1247, the
year in which the first stone structure was begun. Seyer (Memoirs of Bristol, ii, 29 \
believed a wooden bridge was used before that date, but he based his belief on no
higher ground than "extreme probability." The words " ultra pontem'" prove beyond
all doubt that a structure existed in 1221.
Township of Bristol. 153
at the will of his lordship the King. Afterwards
the vassals of the Templars come and refuse to answer
outside the county of Somerset with those of Redcliff;
and they admit that they had withdrawn with those of
Redcliff from the justices in eyre in the county of
Somerset, and had not answered there; and therefore
a judgment must be given.
38. The jurors say that Gerard of Athee arrested
a Fleming in the house of Philip Long and took from
him one hundred marks ; so this must be discussed.
39. As to the other Articles [of the Eyre the jurors
can say] nothing, unless [some deaths by] misadventure.
40. These remain coroners in Bristol, Michael
Bohulk and Thomas Mitchell in Redcliff and Roger
Fellard and William Taylor across the bridge.
AMERCIAMENTA
DE HUNDREDO DE SWINESHEVED
EXTRA BRISTOLLIAM
ET DE VILLATA BRISTOLLIE
DE ITINERE ABBATIS DE RADDINGE
J. DE MUNEMUE
ET SOCIORUM SUORUM.
AMERCEMENTS
FOR THE HUNDRED OF SWINESHEAD
OUTSIDE BRISTOL
AND THE TOWNSHIP OF BRISTOL
IN THE ITER OF THE ABBOT OF
READING JOHN OF MONMOUTH
AND THEIR FELLOWS.
AMERCIAMENTA1
DE HUNDREDO DE SWINESHEVED EXTRA
BRISTOLLIAM ET DE VILLATA BRISTOLLIE
DE ITINERE ABBATIS DE RADDINGE J. DE
MUNEMUE ET SOCIORUM SUORUM.
[Memb. 23]
Hundredum de Swinesheved*
41. De Hundredo pro murdro exceptis libertati-
bus — 3 m.3
42. De franco plegio Osberti de Huneresclive in
Bertona pro fuga Nicholai Wiringe — £ m.4
43. De herede Roberti de Roppelle de catallis
ejusdam Osberti5 fugitivi — 8s. 6d.
1 The amercements are not found in Assize Roll No. 272.
2 The amercements are all entered under this heading although some of them
relate to Bristol. Except in respect of the last two entries, the foot notes connect
the amercements with the cases they relate to.
3 In many instances dwellers within franchises were exempt from fines imposed
on a county or district. A murder fine was always said to be paid by the hundred
exceptis liber tatibus. This fine appears not to have been a fixed one, and the judges
exercised a wide discretion in assessing the amount. In the Gloucestershire eyre of
1 22 1 the sum paid by the different hundreds ranged from one mark to forty shillings ;
Maitland, Pleas of the Crown for the County of Gloucester, pp. 1 18-134. It: is wel1 to
remember that in the Conqueror's time the fine was 46 marks or ^30 135. 4d. ; Stubbs,
Select Charters, 8th Edit., 84 ; Statutes of William the Conqueror, c. 3.
* See No. 3.
5 Osberti is evidently a mistake for Nicholai. It was Nicholas who took to
flight, and for whose chattels the heir of Robert of Roppelay was answerable ; see No. 3.
AMERCEMENTS
FOR THE HUNDRED OF SWINESHEAD
OUTSIDE BRISTOL
AND THE TOWNSHIP OF BRISTOL IN THE
ITER OF THE ABBOT OF READING
JOHN OF MONMOUTH AND THEIR FELLOWS.
Hundred of Swineshead.
41. The Hundred for murders, franchises excepted — -
Three marks.
42. The frank-pledge of Osbert of Humersclive in
Barton for the flight of Nicholas Wiring — Half a mark.
43. The heir of Robert of Roppelay for the chattels
of the said Osbert, a fugitive — Eight shillings and
six pence.
158 Amerciamenta.
44. De villata Bristollie ne occasionetur — 15 m.1
45. De herede Robert! de Roppelle de catallis
Gaufridi Coffin fugitivi — 2os.2
46. De Danielle filio Alstani de fine suo pro trans-
gressione — i m. per plegium Thome Hareng.3
47. De Willelmo le Taillur coronatore de catallis
Jordani Croker fugitivi — 33d.4
48. De5 eodem de catallis Normanni Fabri fugitivi—
6d.6
49. De Ducefurmagre Judea de fine suo pro trans-
gressione — 2os. per plegium Abram. Gaban, Bonefey
Jud. . . }
50. De Hugone Giffard pro plegio Walteri de
Grava — \ m.
51. De Petro de Haya pro disseisina — i m. per
plegium Willemi Tragin.
1 See No. 12.
2 See No. 13.
3 See No. 15.
4 See No. 18.
5 The beginning of an entry affecting Hugh of Vivonia is struck out. Had it
been completed it would undoubtedly have referred to the case of John, Durand'sson;
See No. 26.
6 See No. 27.
7 See No. 30.
Swineshead and Bristol. 159
44. The township of Bristol that occasion may not
be taken against it — Fifteen marks.
45. The heir of Robert of Roppelay for the chattels
of Geoffrey Coffin, a fugitive — twenty shillings.
46. Daniel, Halstan's son, the fine for his trans-
gression— Half a mark by pledge of Thomas Hareng.
47. William Taylor, coroner, for the chattels of
Jordan Croker, a fugitive — Thirty-three pence.
48. The same [William Taylor] for the chattels of
Norman Smith, a fugitive — Six pence.
49. Ducefurmage the Jewess, the fine for her
transgression — Twenty shillings by pledges of Abra-
ham Gaban [and] Bonefey of the Jews.
50. Hugh Gifford as pledge for Walter de Grave —
Half a mark.
51. Peter Hay for disseisin — Half a mark by pledge
of William Tragin.
GLOSSARY.
Attachiare (No. 25, 28), to seize a person
by legal process.
Batellus (No. 20, 24), a boat.
Captus (No. 4, 11, 26, 29), to arrest.
Careta (No. 19), a cart. Fr. charette.
Cepere in manum (No. 29), to take in
hand, to undertake to produce someone.
Comitatus (No. 3), the county court.
Debuit (No. 28), was said, was reported,
at least so the story went. Cf. Maitland,
Pleas of the Crown for the County of
Gloucester, pi. 154.
Defendere (No. 15, 30;, to deny.
Hamsokne (p. 21), A.S. hdmsocn, the
offence of attacking a person's house.
See Schmid, Gesetze, Glossar.
Infangenthef (p. 21), the right to hang
a thief if caught within one's own district
with the stolen goods upon him.
Kaios (No. 32), quays. See Du Cange,
caya ; Skeat, quay.
Langablum (No. 31), land-gable. The
land-gable (A.S. land-gafol) was a rent
payable on each house or holding in the
nature of a ground rent. Domesday
Book mentions it in relation to Cam-
bridge, Huntingdon, and Lincoln, but
not Bristol. The burgesses of Bristol
held the land of their town by the service
of land-gable (per servitium langabuli}.
See the charters of John, Earl of Morton,
A.D. 1188, and 36 Henry III., A.D.
1252 ; Seyer, The Charters and Letters
Patent . . . to the Town and City of
Bristol, 10, 1 8.
Lasto (No. 35), a last. A.S. hlasste. The
last of herrings is twelve thousand.
Statutes of the Realm, i, 204.
Messa (No. 35), a mesa or messa. A
French ordinance fixes it at 1020 for red
herrings and a less quantity for white
herrings. See Du Cange, mesa, meisa.
Miskenning (p. 20). a mistake in pleading.
Unless exempt from this, every misken-
ning worked an amercement. So tricky
was early procedure that it has been
compared to a boy's game ; Tres Ancien
Coutumier, 57.
Murdrum (No. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 41), the murder
tax. Murdrum is never here used to
differentiate two degrees of homicidal
guilt.
Namium (No. 31), a distress, a seizure.
Germ, nehmen, to take.
Ne occasionentur (No. 12, 44), that oc-
casion may not be taken against them ;
that the judges will not be extreme to
mark what is said or done amiss.
Nichil (No. 10, 16), there is nothing to be
done.
M
1 62
Pleas of the Crown.
Non potest dedicere (No. 29), it cannot
be defended, or denied, or disputed, or
gainsaid. Bracton (ii, 405, 407) uses
this phrase when there is such violent
presumption of guilt against a person as
not to admit of any proof to the con-
trary. For instance, if a person is cap-
tured on a dead body with a bloody
knife, he cannot gainsay the death (morte
dedicere non poterit), and this is an
ancient constitution, in which case there
is no need of other proof. The Assize
of Clarendon, c. 12, declared that if
anyone should be taken who should be
possessed of robbed or stolen goods
(saisiatus de roberia vel latrocinio)^ if he
were notorious and have evil testimony
from the public, and have no warrant,
he should not have law (non habeat
legem) ; and the Assize of Northampton,
c. 3, extended this doctrine (saisitus de
murdro vel latrocinio vel roberia vel
falsoneria). Contemporary records show
that the judges acted in accordance with
this custom. See Maitland, Pleas of the
Crown for the County of Gloucester,
pi. 174, 394. Select Pleas of the Crown
(Selden Society), pi. 61.
Pacati sunt (No. 2), some persons have
been paid.
Purpresture (p. 64 ; No. 32), an encroach-
ment, whether by building, enclosing,
or using any liberty without a lawful
warrant to do so.
Racionabiliter (No. 15), duly.
Rapus (No. 15, 16), this appears to be
the word in common use for rape. See
Du Cange, rappus, rapus. Bracton
uses raptus (ii, 480).
Reddidit et quietus est (No. 20, 24),
someone has paid and is quit of further
liability.
Scot and lot (p. 23), a customary contri-
bution laid upon all subjects according
to their ability.
Sectam facere (No. 15, 25), to make suit
or pursuit.
Standum recto (No. 25\ to abide judg-
ment, to stand trial.
Utfangenthef (p. 21), the right to hang a
thief wherever caught, if found with the
stolen goods upon him.
Veredictum (No. I, 37), the presentment
of a jury.
INDEX.
ABJURATION, 42, 108, 109, no; No.
26.
Accidental death, liability of hundred for,
86, note 3.
Albigny, Philip of, Constable of Bristol,
26, 37-
Aldbery of Knowle, 16.
Aldermen, 47.
Almondsbury, 108, note 5.
Amauri, Robert, 62.
Amboise, the lord of, 31.
Amercement of Constable, No. 26.
hundred, 86; No. 41.
Jews, 92 ; No. 29.
jurors, 78, 80, 82.
master for servant, 103; No. 17, 27.
pledges, 104 ; No. 29.
township, 103, 108, note 5; No. 3.
vassals of the Templars, 18 ; No. 37.
Amercements, list of, i ; No. 41-51.
Amot, bridge of, 75, note 3.
Animals, deaths caused by, 87, 92, 93, 94,
95, 96, note i.
Anketellus, vigilia Abbatis de S. Augus-
tino, 103; No. 17.
Answers to the Articles, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80.
Appeal, 5, 83, 97, 105, 107.
of battle, 20, note 3, 97, 98.
of homicide, 90, 91, 97, 98 ; No. 14, 25.
of rape, 97, 99; No. 15, 16.
Appeal of robbery, 82.
by husband and wife, No. 15.
by married woman alone, No. 16
by sister, 99; No. 14.
by woman, 99 ; No. 14, 16.
Appellant, imprisonment of, No. 1 1.
Appellee, death of, No. 14.
Arrest, 102, 108; No. 4, n, 26, 29, 37.
Arson, 81.
Arson, man burnt for, 10.
Arthur of Brittany, 32, 64.
Articles of the Barons, 35, note 6, 38, note i .
of the Eyre, 41, 70, 73, 74, 76, 77, 7«
79, 80, 92 ; No. 39.
Ashfordv. Thornton, 21, note I.
Assize, Great, 20.
of Breadth, 26 ; No. 34.
of Clarendon, 7, 10,82; Glossar., 'Non
potest dedicere,' p. 162.
of darrein presentment, 7, note 4.
Assize of inort d'ancestor, 7, note 4.
of Northampton, 7, 10, 82 ; Glossar.,
'Non potest dedicere,' p. 162.
of novel disseisin, 7, note 4, 62.
Athee, Gerard of, Constable of Bristol, 6,
25, 26, 29, 30, 31, notes 7 and 8, 32, 33,
34, 35, note 6, 36, 37, 38, 67, 99 ; No. 14,
35, 38.
Athie, Gerardus de, see Athee.
Atkyns, Sir Robert, cited, 67, note 3.
164
Pleas of the Crown.
Attachment, No. 25, 28.
Aumale, William of, 15, 70.
Avon, River, 16.
BAIL, see Pledges.
Bailiffs, 19, 22, 26, 27, 41, 45, 46, 47, note
i, 51, 52, 68, 76, 82, 92 ; No. 29, 33, 34.
Bakelr', William de, Coroner for Somerset,
43, note 4.
Balistarius, Willelmus, No. 28.
Balsover Castle, 68, 69.
Bane, la, 96, note I.
Barones, 27, 44, 47, 48, 75, note 5.
Barton Regis, 29, 30, 33, 38, 50; No. 4, 42.
manor of, 50.
thieves hanged at, 11, 105 ; No. 4.
Bath, 33, 34.
Abbey, 34.
Bishop of, 52.
Prior of, 49, note 2, 52.
Battle, trial by, 20, note 3, 97, 98.
Bedfordshire, 63, 93.
Sheriff of, 62.
Bedminster, 40.
manor of, 16, 17.
Beket, Willelmus, No. 10.
Berkeley Castle, 39.
Berkeley, lords of, 10, note 7, 16, 23.
Maurice of, 17.
Robert of, 17, 39.
Thomas of, 52.
Berkshire, 67.
Sheriff of, 55.
Bertone, see Barton Regis.
Bettone, see Bitton.
Bewell, 1 6, note 4.
Biham Castle, 16.
Bindere, Agnes soror Nicolai le, 34 ; No.
14.
Helena filia Roberti le, No. 25.
Bishop, Mabel, 10, note 7.
Bitton, 38, 50 ; No. 9, note 3.
BUdesloe, hundred of, 79.
Bohulk, Michael, Coroner for Bristol, 43,
52, No. 40.
Bonefei, No. 29, 30, 49.
Bonefey, see Bonefei.
Bordesley, Abbot of, in.
Bracton, 4, note 6, 57, 75, note 2, 99.
Bracton, cited, 5, note 2, 41, 57, 73, 75,
note 2, 89, note 2, 99, 102, 107, note I, in;
No. 15, note 3.
Braose, William of, 35.
Braybrook, Judge, 58.
Breaute, Falkes de, 15, 58.
Bremble Castle, 60.
Brewers of Bristol, 34.
Brightnee Bridge, 16, note 5.
Bristol, i, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 40, 43, 44, 45,
47, 49, 51, note 5, 57, 60, 61, 66, 67, 74,
75, 88, 91, 93, 98, 104, 107, 108, note 5,
109; No. i, 11, 1 6, 37, 40, 44.
Aldermen, 47.
amercements, i, No. 44-49.
bailiffs of, 19, 22, 27, 45, 46, 47, note i,
52 ; No. 29, 33, 34.
barones of, 27, 44, 47, 48.
borough court, 19, 20.
boundaries of, 16, 22, 26.
brewers of, 34.
Bridge, No. 40, note 5.
burgesses of, II, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26,
27, 29, 44, 45, 48, 49, 53, 67, 98, 104.
burg-us, 1 6.
Castle, 15, 24, 27, 28, note 2, 29 30,
33.37,38,39,64; No. 8.
Castle fee, 28, 40.
Castle fortifications, 29.
Castle gaol, 108 ; No. 26.
Castle mill, 29.
commerce in, 23, 24, 25, 26.
Common Hall at, 75.
Constables of, 5, 6, 15, 24, 25, 27, 28,
29-41, 52, 91, 93, in, note \ ; No.
i, 3, 13, 14, 19, 26, 33, 35, 36, 38,
43. 45-
Index.
165
Bristol, Constables of — continued.
Albigny, Philip of, 26, 37.
Athee, Gerard of, 6, 25, 26, 29,
30, 31, notes 7 and 8, 32, 33, 34,
35, note 6, 36, 37, 38, 67, 99 ;
No. 14, 35, 38.
Brito, Amfridus, 38.
Chanceaux, Peter of, 6, 25, note 4,
29, 36, 37, 38, «0fe 3 J No. 19, 33.
Cigogne, Engelard of, 26, 36, 67.
Florentines, John of the, 26, 29,
39, 40, note 5, 41, note I, 52 ;
No. i.
Malo Leone, Saurico de, 38.
Mare, Peter de la, in, note i.
Rocheford, Thomas of, 29, note 2.
Roppelay, Robert of, 5, 24, 25,
29, note 2, 30, note 6, 31, note 6 ;
No. 3, 13, 36, 43, 45.
Vivonia, Hugh of, 15, 29, 38, 39 ;
No. 26.
Wilinton, Ralph of, 41.
Coroners of, 27, 41-44, note 2, 46, 52,
93 ; No. 18, 40, 47, 48.
Bohulk, Michael, 43, 52 ; No. 40.
Fellard, Roger, 43, 52 ; No. 40.
Mitchell, Thomas, 43, 52 ; No. 40.
Taylor, William, 43, 52 ; No. 18,
40, 47, 48.
council at, 14.
county of, 23.
court, see borough court.
criminal jurisdiction of, 2t.
customs of, 19, 47, 48.
earliest recorded fact relating to, 3, 4,
note i.
exempt from the duel, 20, 98.
exempt from murdra, 85.
fairs held at, 24 ; No. 36.
firm of, 26, 40.
first appearance in written history, 3,
4, note i.
fishmongers of, 34 ; No. 35.
Bristol— continued}
franchises, 20, 48, 49
free borough, 22.
free of toll and passage, 23, 49.
Guildhall, 43, note 5.
Guild Merchant, 48, 49.
High Cross at, 75
hundred court, 19.
jurisdictional privileges, 19-2 1 .
lepers of, 33, 34; No. 18, note 2.
mayor of, 21, 27, 28, 44, 45, 47, 53, 61,
Cordewaner, Roger, 45, 61.
Fitz-Nichol, Robert, 44.
Holburst, Robert, 53.
mercantile regulations, 23, 24, 49.
non-resident in, No. 16.
officers of, 27-48.
passage, free of, 23, 49.
pleas of the Crown for, i, 74, 75, 85 ;
No. 13-40.
port of, 23, 28, 45.
prepositors of, 27, 45, 46, 47, note I,
49, 53-
Oldeham, John, 53.
Sewin, 47.
"VVnepeny, Henry, 53.
probi homines ) 27, 48.
resident in, No. 18.
S. Augustine's Monastery, 4, note 3
No. 17, note 4.
S. James, Prior of, 52.
S. James's Priory, 24.
S. John, 34.
S. Lawrence, 34.
toll, free of, 23, 49.
town of, 1 6 ; No. 32, 36.
township of, 16, note 8 ; No. 12, 44.
trade of, 23-26.
treasury at, 30.
view of frank-pledge in, 11, 104.
villa, 16 ; No. 32, 36.
villata, 1 6, note 8 ; No. 12, 44.
wards of, 47, 48.
wine, 6 1, note 4.
1 66
Pleas of the Crown.
Bristollia, see Bristol.
Brito, Amfridus, Constable of Bristol, 38.
Brittany, Arthur of, 32, 64.
Elianor of, 64-66.
Brok, Reginald us de, No. 9.
Bruges, burgesses of, 49, note 2.
Buckinghamshire, 55, 57, 62, 63.
sheriff of, 62.
Burgh, Hubert de, 14, 15, 35, note 6, 63,
70.
Burglary, man hanged for, 10.
Burning, 10.
Bus ones, 75, note 5.
CANCELLIS, Petrus de, see Chanceaux.
Caput lupinum, 107.
Castles, royal, 15.
Champeneis, Petrus le, 103; No. 17.
Chanceaux, Andrew of, 36.
Gio of, 36, 67.
Peter of, Constable of Bristol, 6, 25,
note 4, 29, 36, 37, 38, note 3; No. 19,
33-
Chattels, see Forfeiture of.
Cheddar, hundred court, 51, note 4.
Chesterton, church at, 62.
Chinon, 32.
Cigogne, Engelard of, Constable of Bristol,
26, 36, 67.
Cinque Ports, 73, 95.
Clarendon Forest, 60.
Clericus, Johannes, 88, 89 ; No. 23.
Clerk, ordained, how tried, 87, 88, note 2,
89.
Clifton, 50.
Cloth, 26.
merchants, 26.
Cocus, Rogerus, No. 25.
Coffin, Gaufridus, No. 13, 45.
Coke, cited, 27, 93.
Compurgation, 97.
Confession, 42 ; No. 4.
Consuetudines, see Customs.
Constable, 5, 6, 15, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29-41,
52, 82, 91, 93, in, note i ; No. i, 3, 13,
14, 19, 24, 26, 27, 33, 35, 36, 38, 43, 45.
Cordewaner, Roger, mayor of Bristol, 45,
61.
Thomas le, No. 28.
Corduaner, Helena mater Elie le, No. 25.
Corfe Castle, 65.
Cornish Eyre, 57.
Cornubia, see Cornwall.
Cornwall, 8 ; No. 23.
sheriff of, 70.
Coroner, 27, 41-44, note 2, 46, 52, 68, 82,
85» 92> 93. 97. 109; No. 18, 19, 29, 40,
47, 48-
borough, 42, 43, notes I, 2.
county, 42, note 3, 43.
duties of, 41, 42, 85; No. 18, 19, 29,
40, 47, 48.
rolls, 79, note I, 92, 97 ; No. 29.
Council of Justices, No. i.
the King's, No. 31, note i.
County court, 10, 43, 79, note i, 82, 85,
87,97, 98, 105, 106; No. 3.
Court Christian, 52.
Criminal jurisdiction of local courts, io?
note 7.
Criminal responsibility, 87.
Crokare, Jordanus, No. 18, 47.
Croker, Jordanus, see Crokare.
Crown, Pleas of the, i, 40, 41, 43, 44, 51,
74, 75, 80,81,82, 91; No. 1-40.
Cuillardvill, Hugh of, Coroner for Glouces-
tershire, 43, note 4, 52.
Cumbe, Richard de, Coroner for Somerset
43, note 4.
Cumberland, 69.
Custody, No. 15.
Customs, ancient, 19, 47, 48 ; No. 32.
new, No. 33, 35.
DEAN, Forest of, 60.
Dedigtone, No. 8, note 4.
Index.
Deodand, 92, note 2, 93, 94, 95, 96; No.
2, 20, 24.
Derbyshire, 69.
Devizes Castle, 55.
Devon, 67.
Disseisin, No. 51.
Distress for land-gable, No. 31.
Dol, Rich, de, 91, note 8.
Domesday Book, 4, 22, note 6, 59.
Dorset, 60.
Dorset, Alex, de, 91, note 8.
Dover Castle, 68.
Dover, 105, note 5, 109, note 2.
Drag, Jordanus, No. 13.
Dreus, Earl of, 63.
Drois, Henry de, Coroner for Gloucester-
shire, 43, note 4, 52.
Drowning, deaths by, No. 6, 13, 20, 24.
Dublin, granted to Bristol, 23.
Duel, 20, note 3, 98.
Dunstaple, 58.
ECCLESIASTICAL Court, 52, 87, 88,
note 2, 89.
Edward the Confessor, 47.
Edward I., 99-
Edward II., 104.
Elianor of Brittany, 64, 65, 66.
England, 23, 24, 33, 57, 69, 109.
Englishry, 84-86.
non-presentment of, 86; No. 2, 4, 9, 10.
presentment of, 84, 85, note 5, 86 ; No.
3, 7, 8, 9.
Errors in the roll, 86 ; No. 7, 28, 43.
Escape, 103, 106, 108, note 5 ; No. 26, 27.
Escheat, 22, 26; No. 31.
Essex, 69.
Evesham, Randolph, Abbot of, justice in
eyre, 51, 55, 56, 71.
Exacted felons, 89, 106; No. 3, 18, 21.
Exception to indictment or appeal, 5, 97.
Exchequer of the Jews, 90, 91, 92.
Execution, 98> i°5-
Exigent, 106, 107; No. 17, 21, 22, 23,
25, 27.
quashed, 107, 108 ; No. 25.
Eyre, i, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 26, 50, 53, 55, 57,
61, 63, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77,
79, notes \ and 2, 80, 86, 93, 101, 104.
opening of, 53, 70, 75-7 7.
opposition to, 7, 8, note 2.
purposes of, 6-8.
FABER, Nonnannus, 103, 108, 109 ; No.
27, 48.
Fair, Michaelmas, 24 ; No. 36.
S. James's, 24.
Fama Patrice, 100.
Fellard, Roger, Coroner for Bristol, 43, 52 ;
No. 40.
Fellarde, Rogerus, see Fellard.
Felony, 83, 105.
Ferentin, John de, see Florentines.
Filia,
Filius,
Alstani, Danielle, see Halstan.
Claricie, Agnes neptis Johannis filii,
No. 1 6.
Durandi, Johannes, 108 ; No. 26.
Fabri, Adam, 103 ; No. 27.
Halstan, Daniel, No. 15, 46.
Johannis, Walterus, No. 2.
Johannis, pueri Walteri, No. 2.
Osanne, Isabella, No. 19.
Petri, Johannes, No. 29.
Fine, 24, 25 ; No. 15, 30, 46, 49.
Fining merchants, 24, 25 ; No. 35, 36.
Fish, 25; No. 35.
Fishmongers, grievances of, 25, 34 ; No.
35-
Fitz-Baderon, William, 50.
Fitz-Nichol, Robert, Mayor of Bristol, 44.
Fitz-Nigel, Adam, Coroner for Gloucester-
shire, 43, note 4, 52.
Flaye, Abbot of, 69.
Fleming, arrest of a, 34 ; No. 38.
1 68
Pleas of the Crown.
Fleta, cited, 107.
Flight, 99, 103, 104, 109; No. 3, 13, 16,
17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 42, 45, 47, 48.
Florentines, John of the, Constable of
Bristol, 26, 29, 39, 40, note 5, 41, note I,
52 ; No. i.
Florentinis, J. de, see Florentines.
Folkestone, 105. note 5.
Forestarii, uxor Elie, No. 22.
Forfeiture of chattels, 83, 89, 91/92 ; No.
3, 13, 1 8, 19, 43, 45, 47, 48.
Fosdike, 109, note i.
Fox, Osbertus, No. 21.
France, 38, 54, 81.
Franchise, No. 32.
Frank-pledge, 11, 46, 51, 102, 103, 104,
105 ; No. 3, 18, 22, note 2, 42.
none de facto in Bristol, 104 ; No. 18.
view of, in Bristol, ir, 104.
Frome, river, No. 6, 20.
Fugitives, see Flight.
Furches, Wood of, 38, 50.
GABAN, Abraham, No. 29, 30, 49.
Gallows, No. 5, note 4.
Gallows, private, 10, note 7.
Gaol, 9, note 4, 108 ; No. 26.
deliveries, 9, note i, 61.
Gascony, 15, 39.
Gaumbe, Walterus, No. 21.
George III., 21.
GifTard, Hugon, No. 50.
Glanvill, cited, 81, 83.
Gloucester, 14, 28, 40, 43, 49, 51, note 5,
66, 74, 75, 106, note i ; No. i.
archdeacon of, 103; No. 17.
burgesses of, 49.
Castle, 33, 65, 66.
Gilbert of Clare, Earl of, 10, note 7, 52.
Tower, 66.
Gloucestershire, i, 2, 5, 6, 18, 28, 33, 59,
60, 67, 77, 79, note 2, 80, 85, 86, 101, 107.
Gloucestershire— continued.
coroners for, 43, note 4, 52.
Cuillardvill, Hugh of, 43, note 4, 52.
Drois, Henry de, 43, note 4, 52.
Fitz-Nigel, Adam, 43, note 4, 52.
Matresdon, Simon de, 43, note ^2.
honour of, 33.
sheriff of, 17, 21, 52, 64, 65, 67, 70, 74.
summary justice in, 1 1.
Gloucestria, see Gloucester.
Gloucestrie, Archidiaconus, see Gloucester,
archdeacon of.
Grand jury, 76,77.
Grava, Walterus de, No. 50,
Great Assize, the, 20.
Greinville, Gilbert de, 65.
Gros, Stephanus le, No. 16.
Grosmont Castle, 60.
Gualo, the papal legate, 14.
Guild Merchant, 48, 49.
HAM BROOK, 50.
Hamme, Gervasius de, No. 26.
Hampshire, 37.
Hamsokne, 21 ; Glosmr., p. 161.
Hanging, 10, note 7, 1 1, note^ 105, note 5 ;
No. 4.
Hanham, 50, 104.
Hareng, Jordan, 62.
Hareng, Ralph, justice in eyre, 52, 62, 63.
Hareng, Thomas, No. 15, 46.
Harenge, Thomas, see Hareng, Thomas.
Hay, William de la, see Heie.
Haya, Petrus de, No. 51.
Heie, Willelmus de la, 93 ; No. 2.
Heles Abbot of, 63.
Helias Abbot of Reading, 54.
Henry I., 20, note 3, 47, 50, 8r.
Henry II., 7, 23, 50, 81, 104.
Henry III., 1,5, 14, 18,31,40,45,55,57,
61, 63, 64, 66, 81, 83, 91, 94, 99, 102.
Hereford, 33, 34, 51, note 5, 6r, 66, 75.
Jacobus, No. 29.
Index.
169
Herefordshire, 6, 58, 59. 60, 61, 67, 69. 107.
sheriff of, 55, 70-
Herrings 25; No. 35 ; Glossar.. Lasto;
Messa; p. 161.
Hertfordshire, 58, 63.
Hibernia see Ireland.
Hiberniensa Nicholaus 103 ; No. 3.
Hides, 24 ; No. 36.
Highway, the King's, No. 8.
Hisseburn, manor of, 37.
Holburst, Robert, mayor of Bristol, 53.
Homicide, 8 1, 83, 91, 96, 97, 98, 99 ; No.
3, 4, 5. 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29.
Homicidium% 83.
Horsho, Godefridus, No. 25.
Hoveden, cited, 41, note 3, 73.
Hue, 76, 97, 105.
Humersclive, No. 3, 42.
Osbertus de, 103, 104 ; No. 3 42, 43,
note 5.
Hundred, i, 9, 10, 40, 49, 50, 51, 76, 84,
85, 86, 104 ; No. 1-12, 41-43.
court, 10, 50, 51, note 4, 85.
Huneresclive in Bertona, see Humersclive.
Husband and wife, No. 15, 16, note 2, 22.
ILCHESTER, 17, 19, 40, note 5.
Inanimate things, death caused by, 87, 92,
93. 94, 95-
Indictment, 5, 106.
trial by, 100, 101, 106.
Infangenthef, 21 ; Glossar., p. 161.
Infortunium, 83, 86 ; No. 2, 6, 7, 14, 19,
20, 24, 28.
Innocent III., Pope, 54.
Inquests, 42.
Interdict of 1208, the, 33, 62.
Ireland, 23, 40, 99; No. 16.
Iron, 24 ; No. 36.
Itinerans, No. 1 6.
JEWRY, the, 53.
Jews, 46, 89, note 2, 90, 91, 92, note I ;
No. 29, 30, 47.
John, Earl of Morton, 16, 22, 23.
John, King, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, 29, 30,
3i» 32, 33, 35. 36, 37, 38, 45, 54, 55, 57.
60, 61, 63, 64, 68, 99.
Judea, Ducefurmage vel Ducefurmagre, 92 ;
No. 30, 49.
Judeus, Adrianus, 91 ; No. 29.
Bonefey vel Bonefei, No. 29, 30, 49.
Gaban, Abraham, No. 29, 30.
Jopinus, No. 29.
Richolda, uxor Adriani, 92, note \ ;
No. 29.
Jurors, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 100, 101, 102,
104; No. i.
how charged, 100, 101.
how chosen and sworn, 76.
oath of, 77, 100, note i.
Jury, convicting, 101.
grand, 76, 77.
hundred, 101.
of matrons, No. 15, note 4.
petty, 77.
presenting, 101.
trial by, 4, 20.
Justices, 7, note 3, 8, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25,
26, 45, 51, 53-7°, 74, 75, 77, 79. 82, 83,
85, 87, 88 91, 93- 98, ioo, 105 106,
107; No. i, 29.
in eyre, 6, 11, 17, 18,21, 24 26, 39,
42, 43, 44, 51, 53 70, 74, 75, 77, 79
85,90,91. 92; No- 37-
Evesham, Randolf, Abbot of, 51,
55, 56, /I-
Hareng, Ralph, 52, 62, 63.
Lexington, Robert, 52, 68 70.
Monmouth, John of, 52, 59-62,
66, 71.
Musard, Ralph, 52, 64-68.
Pateshull, Martin, 52, 53, 57-59,
61,62, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75-
Reading, Simon, Abbot of, i, 13,
5i,53-55,63- 71-
Oath of, 70, 74.
of the Forest, 61.
Jews, 90, 91, note 8.
rolls, 80.
Justicia, 41.
I JO
Pleas of the Crown.
KANINGES, Richard de, 52.
King, the, 8, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26,28,
30, 3i» 33, 37, 39, 40, 43, 45, 49, 52, 55»
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 69, 81, 82, 83, 89,
96, 98, 100, 109, in; No. 31, 32, 36, 37.
King's bailiff, the, 26, 46; No. 29, 33, 34.
Court, the, 20, 21, 87.
Exchequer, the, 44, 65.
Highway, No. 8.
Peace, the, 76, 80, 81, 82, 106, 107, in.
Kingswood Forest, see Furches.
Keynsham, Canons of, 34.
chase of, 38.
Knights-Templars, 17, 53-
Master of the, 32.
LANDA, Richard de, 65.
Land-gable, 22 ; No. 31 ; Glossar., p. 161.
Langley, 34-
Langton, Stephen, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, 13, 14.
Lantilio Castle, 60.
Larceny, man hanged for, 10, note /.
Lateran Council, Fourth, 4, 56.
Lawford's Gate, 34.
Lay, William de, ill, note I.
Legal memory, 4, note 4.
Leicester, 75.
Leicestershire, 6, 29.
sheriff of, 70.
Lepers, 33, 34; No. 18, note 2.
Lewis of France, 13, 14, 31, note 2.
Lexington, John, 70.
Robert, justice in eyre, 52, 68-70.
Liberty, No. 32.
Lincoln, 82.
Battle of, 14.
Bishop of, 53.
citizens of, 20, note 3.
S. Hugh of, 70.
Lincolnshire, 29, 69, 79, note 2.
Loches, 32.
London, 30, 47, 73, 91, 108, note 5 ; No. 29.
citizens of, 20, note 3.
Folkmoot of, ic6.
sheriffs of, 65.
Londonia, see London.
Long, Philip, see Longi, Phillipus.
Longi, Phillipus, 34 ; No. 38, note 2.
Losa, Earl of, 62.
Lovel, Robert, 66.
Lydney, hundred of, 59.
MAGNA CHARTA, 10, 12, 13, 14, 27,
3°, 35, n°te 6, 38, note I, 41, note 5, 51,
note 4, 52, 60, 64, 67, note I, 68, 82, 99.
Mainpast, 98, 102, 103; No. 17, 27.
Maitland, Prof., cited, 105, note I.
Malo Leone, Saurico de, Constable of
Bristol, 38.
Malvern Forest, 85.
Manens, No. 1 8.
Mangotsfield, 50.
Manorial Court, 10.
Manslaughter, 83.
Mare, Peter de la, Constable of Bristol,
in, note I.
Marescallus, Petrus, 103; No. 17.
Market, see Fair.
Marlborough Castle, 40.
Married woman, see Husband and wife.
Marshall, William, Earl, 52, 62.
Matresdon, Simon de, Coroner for Glouces-
tershire, 43, note 4, 52.
Mauley, Peter de, 15.
Mayor, 21, 27, 28, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48.
Measures, No. 33, 34.
Merchants, grievances of, 24, 25 ; No. 35,
36.
malpractices of, 25, 26; No. 33, 34.
Michaelmas Fair, 24.
Michel, Thomas, Coroner for Bristol, 43,
52 ; No. 40.
Mirabel Castle, 64.
Misadventure, see Infortunium.
Index.
171
Misdemeanour, 83.
Miskenning, 20; Glossar., p. 161.
Mitchell, see Michel.
Mixbury, church at, 62.
Monemue, No. 24.
Monmouth, County of, 59 ; No. 24.
John of, justice in eyre, 52, 59-62, 66,
Morton, John, Earl of, 16, 22, 23.
Muchelney, 34.
Murder, see Homicide.
Murder fine, 51, 84, 85, 86; No. 3, 5, 7,
8, 9, 41, note 3, Glossar., p. 161.
Murdrum, see Murder fine.
Murdrum, secret homicide, 83.
Musard, Ralph, justice in eyre, 52, 64-68.
NE OCCASIONENTUR, No. 12, note
2, 44, Glossar., p. 161.
Newark Castle, 15.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 68.
New Forest, 55, 60.
Newton, manor of, 61.
Nicholls, Mr. J. F., cited, 44.
Nicolas of Tusculum, Papal legate, 56.
Non potest dedicere, doctrine of, No. 29 ;
Glossar., p. 162.
Norfolk, Archdeaconry of, 59.
Normandy, 23.
Northamptonshire, 69.
Northumberland, 58, 59, 106, note T.
Summary justice in, n.
Norwich, 46.
Nottinghamshire, 69.
Nuisance, No. 32.
OATH of jurors, 77, 100, note I.
justices, 70, 74.
Oldeham, John, Prepositor of Bristol, 53.
Oldland, 50, 104.
Ordained clerk, 87, 88, note 2, 89.
Ordeal, 4, note 7, 9, 56, 97.
Outlawry, 42, 83, 89, 98, 105, 106, 107,
no; No. 3, 17, 18, 21, 22, note 2, 23,
25, 27.
Oxford, 54.
Castle, 70.
Walter of, see Oxonia, Walterus de.
Oxfordshire, 55, 62, 67.
Oxonia, Jacobus de, No. 29.
Johannes de, No. 14.
Walterus de, 34 ; No. 14.
PALGRAVE, cited, 86, note 3.
Pandulf, Papal legate, 13, 54.
Paris, Matthew, cited, 35, note 6, 59.
Passage, Bristol free of, 23.
Pateshull, Martin, justice in eyre, 52, 53,
57-59, 61, 62, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75.
Simon, 57.
Paumer, Ricardus le, No. 20.
Payment ne occasionentur, No. 12, note 2,
44.
Pec, honour and Castle of, 68, 69.
Peche, Alditha uxor Henrici, No. 15.
Cristiana filia Henrici et Alditha, 99 :
No. 15.
Henricus, No. 15.
Pembroke, Earl of, 14.
Philip of France, 32.
Pillory in Temple Street, 94, 95.
Placita Corona, 82 ; No. 1-40.
Plea, earliest recorded, 4.
Pleas of the Crown, i, 40, 41, 43, 44, 51,
74 75, 80, 8t, 82, 91 : No. 1-40.
forRedcliff, 17.
sheriff, 81, 82.
Pledges, 98, 108 ; No. 15, 30, 46, 49, 50,
51-
Poictou, 15, 39. 64-
Pollard, Nicholaus, No. 25.
Willelmus, No. 18.
Pollock and Maitland, cited, 109, note I.
Pope, the, 12, 40.
Prapositus, 47, 49-
172
Pleas of the Crown.
Prepositors, 27, 45, 46, 47, note i, 49.
Presentment, 49, 82 ; No. 1,37; Glossar.,
Veredictum, p. 162.
roll, 79.
Prison, see Gaol.
Prison breach, 108 ; No. 26.
Probi homines, 27, 48.
Pudinton', Peter de, Coroner for Somerset,
43, note 4.
Punishment, see Hanging.
Purpresture, 64 ; No. 32 ; Glossar., p. 162.
QUAYS, 27; No. 32.
RADECLIVE, see Redcliff.
Radinge, No. 28.
Vinetarius de, No. 28.
Ralegh, W. de, 53, 58.
Raleigh, William, see Ralegh.
Rape, 81, 83, 96, 97, 99; No. 15, note^ 16;
Glossar., p. 162.
evidence of women in, No. 15, note 4.
Reading, see Radinge.
Helias, Abbot of, 54.
Simon, Abbot of, justice in eyre, I, 13,
5r» 53-55»63, 7i.
Redcliff, 17, 1 8, 34, 40, 47 ; No. 37, 40.
bailiffs of, 19.
burgesses of, 17, 18, 23, 53; No. 37.
coroners of, 19.
courts of, 10, note 7, 23.
fee of, 1 6.
lords of, 10, note 7, 22, 23.
men of, 17.
pleas for, 17; No. 37.
Templars of, 94.
vassals of, 17.
vill of, 1 6.
Resident in Bristol, No. 18.
non-, in Bristol, No. 16.
Ricart, cited, 44.
Richard I., 81.
Ripon, Cross of, 75, note 3.
Robbery, 81.
Rocheford, Thomas of, Constable of Bris-
tol, 29, note 2.
Roches, Peter des, 14.
Rockingham Castle, 15.
Roll, age of the, 3.
description of, 1-3.
period covered by, 5, 6.
Rolls, coroners', 79, note I, 92, 97; No. 29.
eyre* 53» 83> 91. IOI> IO2» Io6> note I-
presentment, 79.
sheriffs', 79, note i, 97.
Rome, 12.
Ropelle, Roberti de, see Roppelay.
Roppelay, Robert of, Constable of Bristol,
5, 24, 29, note 2, 30, note 6, 31, note 6 ;
No. 3, 13, 36, 43, 45.
Russ, John, 52.
S. AUDOEN, Walter de, 65, 66.
S. Augustine, Abbot of, 52, 103; No. 17,
note 4.
canons of, 34.
S. Augustine's Monastery at Bristol, 4,
note 3.
S. Briavels Castle, 60.
S. George, Barton Regis, 50.
S. Hugh of Lincoln, Little, 70.
S. James, Bristol, Prior of, 52.
S. James's Fair, 24.
Priory, 24.
S. John, Bristol, Lepers of, 34.
S Lawrence, Bristol, Lepers of, 34.
S. Michael's Fair, 24.
S. Paul's, Dean of, 59.
S. Valerico, Thomas de, 62.
Salop, 6, 60, 67, 70.
Sanctuary, 42, 103, 108, 109, note i, no
in ; No. 26, 27.
Sandbrook, 16, note 6.
Sauvey Castle, 15.
Scandinavia, 23.
Scot and lot, 23 ; Glossar., p. 162.
Index.
173
Secta, see Suit.
Self-defence, 83.
Sermuner, Ricardus le Noreis le, No. 22.
Uxor Ricardi le Noreis le, No. 22.
Servant, responsibility of master for, No.
17, 27.
Severn, River, 85.
Sewin, Prepositor of Bristol, 47.
Seyer, Rev. S., cited 44, note 2 ; No. 40,
note 5.
Shedding of blood, 21.
Shepton, lordship of, 38.
Sheriff, 17, 35. 43. 45, 46, 51, 63, 76, 82,
87, 93» 95. 97, 98, 104.
Sheriff's peace, 82.
pleas, 8 1, 82.
rolls, 79, note I, 97.
tourn, 51, note 4, IO2.
Shrewsbury, 75.
Shropshire, 61.
Skenfreth Castle, 60.
Socs, 47.
Somerset 17, 18, 60, 79, 80; No. 37.
Coroners for, 43, note 4.
Bakelr', William de, 43, note 4.
Cumbe, Richard de, 43, note 4.
Pudinton', Peter de, 43, note 4.
Eyre for, 94, 102.
jail delivery for, 40, note 5.
Southampton, 60, 67.
Southwell 68.
Staffordshire 6, 60, 67, 79, note 2.
sheriff of, 70.
Standing to right, No. 25.
Stapleton, 50.
Starvation 86, note 3.
Statutes :—
Will. Conq., 84.
3 Edw. I. (Stat. Westm. Prim.}, 42.
3 Hen. VIL, c. 1,42.
9 and 10 Viet., c. 62, 96, note 4.
Stephen, Sir J. F., cited, 95.
Stoke Gifford, 50.
Stolen goods, persons hanged for being in
possession of, 10, note 7.
Strand, Cross of the, 75, note 3.
Stranger, death of, No. 5, 8.
Stubbs, Dr., cited, 35, note 6.
Suit, 97, 107, 108; No. 15, 25.
Summary justice, n, 105, note 5.
Sunday sittings, 58, 69.
Surety, see Pledges.
Surrey, 6.
Swineshead, amerced, 86 ; No. 41, note$.
amercements, I ; No. 41-43-
children of Walter, John's son, of, 94 ;
No. 2.
hundred of, I, 9, 10, 40, 49, 50, 51,85,
86, 104; No. 1-12,41-43.
manor of, 50.
Pleas of the Crown for, i, 40, 74 ; No.
I-I2.
presentments for, 49 ; No. 1-12.
summary justice in, 1 1 .
Swinesheved, No. i, 41.
Pueri Walteri films Johannis de, 94;
No. 2.
Walterus films Johannis de, 94 ; No. 2.
TAILLUR, Willelmus le, see Taylor.
Taylor, William, Coroner for Bristol, 43,
52 ; No. 18, 40, 47, 48.
Taylur, Willelmus le, see Taylor.
Templars, Master of the, 32.
Templars of Temple Fee, 10, 17, 18, 19,
94, 95 ; No. 37.
vassals of the, 18; No. 37.
Temple Fee, 10, 16, 17, 18.
lords of the, 19.
manorial court, 10.
Temple Street, 94.
Tewkesbury, Abbot of, 10, note 7.
Textor, Thomas, No. 18.
Theft, manifest, 10, note 7.
Thieves hanged, 10, note 7, n, note 5, 105,
note $.
Pleas of the Crown.
Things, deaths caused by, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95.
Thorp, church at, 63.
Tithing, 51, 102, 103.
Toll, Bristol free of, 23, 49.
Touraine, 31, 32.
Tourn, sheriff's, 51, note 4, IO2.
Tours, 32.
Town, 16; No. 32, 36.
Township, 16, 102, 103, in ; No. 12, 44.
Tragin, Willemus, No. 51.
Transcript, description of the, 115, 116.
Transgression, 92 ; No. 30, 46, 49.
Treason, 81.
Trial by battle, 20, note 3, 97, 98.
by compurgation, 97.
by jury, 4, 20.
by ordeal, 4, note 7, 9, 56, 97.
Tusculum, Nicolas of, Papal legate, 56.
UTFANGENTHEF, 21; Glossar., p.
162.
VASSALS of Redcliff, 17.
of the Templars, 18 ; No. 37.
amerced, 18.
Verdict of jurors, 101, 102, 106.
Verdict in writing, 79, note 2, 80.
Vere, Henry de, 9.
Veredictum, No. I, 37.
View of Frank-pledge, n, 46, 51, 102,
104, 105.
Villa, 16; No. 32, 36.
Villata, 16; No. 12, 44.
Vinetarius de Radinge, No. 28.
Robertus, No. 28.
Vivonia, Hugh of, Constable of Bristol,
15. 29> 38> 395 No. 26.
Vivunia, Hugo de, see Vivonia.
Vynepeny, Henry, Prepositor of Bristol, 53.
WALES, 23,61.
Wapley, 50-
Waresl, Stephen de, 63.
Warwick, 75-
qounty of, 6, 29, 67.
Warwickshire, eyre for, 53.
sheriff of, 70.
Waste land, No. 31.
Waste, right to approve, 27.
Welsh Marches, 107.
Westbury, 63, 109, note 2.
David of, 108.
Westminster, 18, 98.
Westmoreland, 69.
Wichebury, 55.
Wilinton, Ralph of, Constable of Bristol,
41.
Wilkes, John, outlawed, 106, note 4.
Wilts, sheriff of, 70.
Winchelsea, 105, note 5.
Winchester, Bishop of, 13, 54.
Mayor of, 65.
men of, 49.
Wine, 26, 29, 61, note 4.
Winterbourne, 50; No. 7.
Winterburne, see Winterbourne.
Wintonia, Johannes de, No. 14, 25.
Wiring, Nicholaus 103; No. 3, 42, 43,
note 5.
Wiringe, Nicholaus, see Wiring.
Witlewood Forest, 63.
Woad, 25, 26 ; No. 33, 36.
Woadmongers, 25 ; No. 33.
Women not in frank- pledge, No. 22, note 2.
Wool, 24; No. 36.
Worcester, 70, 75.
Bishopric of, 56.
Prior of, 56.
Worcestershire, 6, 67.
sheriff of, 70.
Writ for the Eyre, 70-72, 74, 75.
Writs, return of, 21.
Wulnothus, No. 8.
YEAR and a day, 99 ; No. 14.
York, Archbishopric of, 68.
S. Mary's Abbey at, 56.
Yorkshire, 58, 69.
KD 7864.8 1221 .W38 SMC
^eat Britain. Curia regis.
Pleas of the Crown for the
hundred of Swineshead and th
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11