5 - The Westminster and Other External Law Courts

Summary

An important element in Cheshire’s autonomous position was its judicial independence. In theory, its courts represented a microcosm of the courts at Westminster: there was no need for any Cheshire person to take a case there except in cases of error. The exclusion of Cheshire cases from the central equity courts was less clear, however. A suitor might exploit the opportunities for parallel actions at Westminster or use the courts there to challenge a case already decided in Cheshire. The extent to which such use was made is one measure of the degree to which Cheshire’s autonomous institutions were working and accepted by its inhabitants. Strong motives of self-interest existed to encourage Cheshire men to go to Westminster, and it will be interesting to compare respect for autonomy shown here with that exhibited when taxation, for example, was at stake. The way local attitudes to external courts were shaped reveals the centralising consequences of the policies of Cardinal Wolsey, but the strength of palatine institutions in the face of challenges from the city of Chester and the marcher council is also evident.

Chancery

Study of Cheshire cases coming before chancery has been given significance because of its role as a forum for challenges to lesser jurisdictions. Most importantly for Cheshire, chancery represented a resort for suitors foiled in the exclusive jurisdictions of Welsh marches: one suitor under Henry VII stated he had come to chancery because his opponent lived in the marches ‘where the Kynges writtes cannot be served’. In spite of this, however, Cheshire scarcely figured in chancery’s proceedings before the reign of Henry VIII.

There are thirteen surviving suits concerning Cheshire in chancery before 1485. Few of them can be accurately dated, but the six or so that can cluster in two periods. The first is in the 1430s. Two cases were brought by Sir John Gresley against Ralph Egerton and Richard Delves, and against Sir Geoffrey Mascy, probably in 1434–5; a case between Alice Hogh and Robert Legh of Adlington belongs to 1432–3 or slightly later; and in about 1440 William Sais brought a case against the sheriff, Ranulph Brereton, which also included criticism of the chamberlain, William Troutbeck. The second cluster is around 1450.