Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-8cnds Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:56:33.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law, Justice and Landowners in Late Medieval England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2011

Christine Carpenter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Lawlessness, both the more subtle manipulative and the cruder violent varieties, has long been seen as one of the most marked features of England in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Even in recent years historians have found it a difficult subject to handle. With the notable exception of K. B. McFarlane, and more recently M.T. Clanchy and G.L. Harriss, few have been prepared to deny that there was something intrinsically wrong with the administration of the law in this period, even though they may concede that it was no ‘wronger’ than in the thirteenth century, merely better documented. Underlying these discussions there is, in Clanchy's words, the often unspoken assumption ‘that the king's justice really was the norm and that justice emanated from the centre to the localities.’ Thus, the need for an extension of royal justice is set against local abuses, which all law-abiding men from the king downwards would have wished eradicated.

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , Fall 1983 , pp. 205 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. E.g., Sir Fortescue, John, The Governance of England, Plummer, C., ed. (Oxford, 1885) 14–32Google Scholar; Cam, H.M., ‘The Decline and Fall of English Feudalism, Liberties and Communities in Medieval England,’ 213-14, rpt. from History, n.s. 25 (1940–1) 216–33Google Scholar; Bellamy, J.G., Crime and Public Order in England in the later Middle Ages (London, 1973)Google Scholar esp. ch. 1; Hanawalt, B.A., ‘Fur Collar Crime,’ Journal of Social History 8 (1975) 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Waugh, S.L., ‘The Profits of Violence,’ Speculum 52 (1977) 843–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. See especially McFarlane, K.B., ‘Bastard Feudalism,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 20 (1945) 161–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Wars of the Roses,’ Proceedings of the British Academy 50 (1964) 87–119Google Scholar, both in Harriss, G.L., ed., Collected Essays (London, 1981)Google Scholar and Harriss's Introduction, xix–xx; McFarlane, , ‘Service, Maintenance and Politics,’ The Nobility of later Medieval England (Oxford, 1973) 120–21Google Scholar. The author would here like to record her profound debt to the works of McFarlane, apparent throughout the article, for their unrivalled understanding and insight into the period, much of which has yet to be absorbed.

3. Clanchy, M.T., ‘Law, Government and Society in Medieval England,’ History 59 (1974) 73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; G.L. Harriss, Introduction to McFarlane's Collected Essays, supra note 2.

4. See works cited in supra note 1. See also, e.g., Griffiths, R.A., The Reign of King Henry VI (London, 1981) 130–38Google Scholar, 595–97; Ross, C., Edward IV (London, 1974) 388–413Google Scholar; Lander, J.R., Conflict and Stability in Fifteenth-Century England, 3d ed. (London, 1977) 164–68Google Scholar; Rosenthal, J.T., Nobles and the Noble Life (London, 1976) 81–88Google Scholar; Harding, A., ‘Early Trailbaston Proceedings,’ in Hunnisett, R.F. and Post, J.B., eds., Medieval Legal Records edited in Memory of C.A.F. Meekings (London, 1978) 150–51Google Scholar; Storey, R.L., The End of the House of Lancaster (London, 1966) 10–17Google Scholar. The quotation is from Clanchy, ‘Law, Government and Society,’ supra note 3, 75.

5. Stubbs, William, The Constitutional History of England, 3 vols., 3d ed. (Oxford, 1887) ii, 319–22Google Scholar (4th ed., Oxford, 1890) iii, 568–69.

6. Maddicott, J.R., ‘Law and Lordship,’ Past and Present suppl. 4 (1978) 41–48Google Scholar, 60–71; Maddicott, , ‘The County Community and the Making of Public Opinion in Fourteenth-Century England,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society [hereafter T.R.H.S.], 5th ser., 28 (1978) 27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Saul, N., Knights and Esquires (Oxford, 1981) 102–5Google Scholar, 196–204.

7. Saul, Knights and Esquires, supra note 6, 102–5, 260–61. The trouble with ‘independent gentry’ is that they only remain independent until evidence turns up to link them with a magnate affinity. Two of the Gloucester men for whom Saul failed to find a lord, Philip Joce and Richard de Foxcote (Saul, Knights and Esquires, supra note 6, 278, 277) have been found by Julian Turner, in the course of work for his B. A. dissertation, to be linked to Despenser during the ‘Despenser tyranny’ of the 1320s. Calendar of Close Rolls [hereafter C.C.R.], 1318–23, 541–45; Calendar of Patent Rolls [hereafter C.P.R.], 1317–21, 547, and ibid. 1327–30, 75, 285, for trespasses by Foxcote committed with Robert de Aston, keeper of Contrariant lands in Gloucester, against John de Wylington, the Contrariant. See also Fryde, N., The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II (Cambridge, 1979) 81Google Scholar, 72, for Wylington and Aston. I am most grateful to Mr. Turner for allowing me to use this information.

8. Elton, G.R., ‘Crime and the Historian,’ in Cockburn, J.S., ed., Crime in England 1550–1800 (London, 1977) 2–3Google Scholar.

9. McFarlane, Nobility, supra note 2, 280–81.

10. Harding, ‘Early Trailbaston Proceedings,’ supra note 4, 144–68; N. Fryde, ‘A Medieval Robber Baron,’ in ibid. 197–221; Maddicott, ‘Law and Lordship,’ supra note 6, 14; Kaeuper, R.W., ‘Law and Order in Fourteenth-Century England,’ Speculum 54 (1979) 734–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Gatrell, V.A.C., ‘The Decline of Theft and Violence in Victorian and Edwardian England,’ in Gatrell, V.A.C., Lenman, B., Parker, G., eds., Crime and the Law (London, 1980) 248Google Scholar.

12. This is especially true of the trailbaston commissions of 1305: Harding, ‘Early Trailbaston Proceedings,’ supra note 4, 144.

13. See, e.g., Waugh, ‘Profits of Violence,’ supra note 1; Fryde, Tyranny and Fall, supra note 7, 149–52; Storey, House of Lancaster, supra note 4, 53–68, 84–92, 124–32; Rotuli Parliamentorum, 6 vols. (London, 1783) i, 371Google Scholar, ii, 11, v, 138–40, 151, 181.

14. Notable pioneers are Sayles, G. O., Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench, 7 vols. (London, 1936–1971)Google Scholar; Hastings, M., The Court of Common Pleas in Fifteenth-Century England (New York, 1947)Google Scholar; Baker, J.H., Introduction to the Reports of Sir John Spelman (London, 1977)Google Scholar; Blatcher, M., The Court of King's Bench (London, 1978)Google Scholar; Post, J. B., ‘Criminals and the Law in the Reign of Richard II’ (unpublished D. Phil, thesis, Oxford, 1976)Google Scholar; Powell, E., ‘Public Order and Law Enforcement… in the early Fifteenth Century’ (unpublished D. Phil, thesis, Oxford, 1980)Google Scholar. For problems of accuracy, see Powell, ‘Public Order,’ 190-202; Post, ‘Criminals and the Law,’ 182–91; Cockburn, J.S., ‘Early-Modern Assize Records as Historical Evidence,’ Journal of the Society of Archivists 5 (1975) 215–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Post, , ‘Some Limitations of the Medieval Peace Rolls,’ Journal of the Society of Archivists 4 (1973) 637–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Gatrell, Lenman and Parker, Crime and the Law, supra note 11, 3.

16. McFarlane, Nobility, supra note 2, 2; Clanchy, ‘Law, Government and Society,'supra note 3, 75.

17. Aston, M., ‘Lollardy and Sedition,’ in Hilton, R.H., ed., Peasants, Knights and Heretics (Cambridge, 1976) 273–318Google Scholar, rpt. from Past and Present 17 (1960) 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Holt, J.C., Robin Hood (London, 1982) 148–49Google Scholar; Hanawalt, B.A., Crime and Conflict in English Communities 1300–48 (Cambridge, Mass., 1979)Google Scholar ch. 6; Stones, E.L.G., ‘The Folvilles of Ashby Folville,’ T.R.H.S., 5th ser., 7 (1957) 134–35Google Scholar; Cobb, R., Paris and its Provinces (Oxford, 1975) 146Google Scholar.

19. Baker, J.H., An Introduction to English Legal History, 2d ed. (London, 1979) 413–14Google Scholar; Post, ‘Criminals and the Law,’ supra note 14, 251–52.

20. Ibid. 201–2; Powell, ‘Public Order,’ supra note 14, ch. 5.

21. The best introduction to these and the literature on them is in the works cited in supra note 6.

22. Hastings, Court of Common Pleas, supra note 14, ch. 15; Blatcher, Court of King's Bench, supra note 14, chs. 4 and 5; Baker, Spelman, supra note 14, ch. 3; Hastings, Court of Common Pleas, supra note 14, 233.

23. The Paston Letters, 3 vols., Gairdner, J. G., ed. (London, 1896) i, 189–91,208,221–22, 243, 491–99, ii, 225, 272–73, 371–73, iii, 164–65, 256–57Google Scholar; The Stonor Letters and Papers, 2 vols., 3d ser., Kingsford, C.L., ed., 29, 30 (London, 1919) i, 97–98Google Scholar, ii, 30–31, 173; The Plumpton Correspondence, Stapleton, T., ed., o.s., 4 (London, 1839) 33, 35Google Scholar; Historical Poems of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Robbins, R.H., ed. (New York, 1959) 130–34Google Scholar.

24. The principal outlaw legends are most conveniently printed in Rymes of Robin Hood, Dobson, R.B. and Taylor, J., eds. (London, 1976)Google Scholar. Gamelyn is to be found in The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, 7 vols., Skeat, W.W., ed. (Oxford, 1894) iv, 645–67Google Scholar.

25. Langland, W., The Vision of Piers Plowman B text, Schmidt, A.V.C., ed. (London, 1978, rpt. rev., 1982) Passus III, ll. 158–62Google Scholar.

26. E.g., Robbins, Historical Poems, supra note 23, 39, 136; Wright, T., ed., Political Poems and Songs, Rolls Series, 2 vols. (London, 1859–1861) i, 270–78Google Scholar, ii, 235–42, 252–53. See also Owst, G.R., Preaching in Medieval England (New York, 1965) 182Google Scholar.

27. Robbins, Historical Poems, supra note 23, 149.

28. Rothwell, H., ed., English Historical Documents, 3 vols., (London, 1975) 911Google Scholar. The most useful summary of medieval views on this subject is to be found in Barron, C.M., ‘The Tyranny of Richard II,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 41 (1968) 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also J. A. Alford, ‘Literature and Law in Medieval England,’ Publications of the Modern Language Association 94.4 (1977) 941–51, for evidence of the esteem in which law was held.

29. Milsom, S.F.C., The Legal Framework of English Feudalism (Cambridge, 1976) 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jolliffe, J.E.A., Angevin Kingship, 2d ed. (London, 1963) 329–35Google Scholar; Holt, J.C., Magna Carta (Cambridge, 1965) 75–104Google Scholar.

30. See, e.g., Documents of the Baronial Movement of Reform and Rebellion, 1258–67, Treharne, R.F. and Sanders, I.J., eds. (Oxford, 1973) 109Google Scholar, 163, 269, 271; English Historical Document, supra note 28, iii, 485–86, 487–88,496–501.

31. The Mirror of Justices, Whitaker, W.J., ed. (London, 1895) 175Google Scholar.

32. Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, ii, 139, 239, 270, 313, 331, 376, iii, 65, 80, 116, 200, 319, 470, 539–40; iv, 103, 253; Rotuli Parliamentorum Anglie Hactenus Inediti, 3d ser., 5, Richardson, H.G. and Sayles, G.O., eds. (London, 1935) 234, 268Google Scholar; Thompson, F., Magna Carta (Minneapolis, 1948)Google Scholar chs. 1–5. Direct references to Magna Carta in the parliamentary records become less frequent in the 15th century, but Thompson shows how important the Charter remained.

33. Fleta, 2 vols., i.e., vols. ii and iii, Richardson, H.G. and Sayles, G.O., eds. (London, 1955–1972) ii, 35–36Google Scholar.

34. Maitland, F.W., Lectures on the Forms of Action at Common Law (Cambridge, 1909) 314Google Scholar.

35. Milsom, Legal Framework, supra note 29; see also Palmer, R.C., ‘The Feudal Framework of English Law,’ Michigan Law Review 79 (1980–1981) 1130–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Pollock, F., ‘English Law as a Branch of Politics,’ in Goodhart, A. L., ed., Jurisprudence and Legal Essays (London, 1961) 192–95Google Scholar.

36. Holt, Magna Carta, supra note 29, esp. ch. 3; Holt, , ‘Rights and Liberties in Magna Carta,’ Album Helen Cam, 2 vols. (Louvain and Paris, 1960) i, 54–69Google Scholar. See also Harding, A., ‘Political Liberty in the Middle Ages,’ Speculum 55 (1980) 423–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. Jolliffe, Angevin Kinship, supra note 29, chs. 3–5; Holt, J.C., The Northerners (Oxford, 1961)Google Scholar esp. ch. 10; Painter, S., The Reign of King John (Baltimore, 1949)Google Scholar esp. ch. 6; Johnson, C., ed., The Course of the Exchequer by Richard son of Nigel (London, 1950) 120Google Scholar.

38. Turner, R.V., The King and his Courts (Ithaca, NY, 1968)Google Scholar throughout; see also Sayles, King's Bench, supra note 14, ii, lxiii–lxx.

39. Clanchy, M.T., ‘Remembering the Past and the Good Old Law,’ History 55 (1970) 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar 76; Baker, English Legal History, supra note 19, 51.

40. Ibid. 235–36; see also Milsom, S.F.C., Historical Foundations of the Common Law, 2d ed. (London, 1981)Google Scholar chs. 7 and 11, for other adaptions of legal forms.

41. Pollock, ‘The History of the Law of Nature,’ Legal Essays, supra note, 35, 132–33, 142. See also Chrimes, S.B., English Constitutional Ideas in the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge, 1936) 214–18Google Scholar.

42. Fleta, supra note 33, ii, 2.

43. George Ashby, Poems in Bateson, M., ed., E.E.T.S. (London, 1899) 34Google Scholar.

44. St. German's Doctor and Student, Plucknett, T.F.T. and Barton, J.L., eds. (London, 1974) 97, 103Google Scholar.

45. Langland, Piers Plowman, supra note 25, B text, Passus IV, ll. 27–31. Evidence that litigants might use the equity of the conciliar courts to get the King's special favour, cited in Sayles, King's Bench, supra note 14, iii, lviii, probably explains Langland's suspicion.

46. Baldwin, A.P., The Theme of Government in Piers Plowman (Cambridge and Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1981) 6–7Google Scholar, 22–3; Piers Plowman, supra note 25, B text, Passus IV, ll. 192–95.

47. E.g., Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, ii, 336, iii, 161–62, 265, 267, iv, 189–90, 350; Rothwell, English Historical Documents, supra note 28, iii, 498–99; Mclntosh, M.M., ‘Immediate Royal Justice; the Court of the Verge,’ Speculum 44 (1979) 727–33Google Scholar; Avery, M.E., ‘The History of the Equitable Jurisdiction of Chancery,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 42 (1969) 129–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ibid., ‘An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Chancery,’ Law Quarterly Review 86 (1970) 84–97Google Scholar; Guth, D.J., ‘Enforcing Late Medieval Law,’ in Baker, J.H., ed., Legal Records and the Historian (London, 1978) 89Google Scholar; Lehmberg, S.E., ‘Star Chamber 1485–1509,’ Huntington Library Quarterly 24 (1960–1961) 189–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48. Turner, King and his Courts, supra note 38, 115; Stenton, D.M., English Justice between the Conquest and Magna Carta (London, 1965) 48–49Google Scholar.

49. Lenman and Parker, ‘The State, the Community and the Criminal Law,’ supra note 11, 17–27; D. Philips, ‘A New Engine of Power and Authority,’ ibid., 158–60; Weisser, M., Crime and Punishment in early Modern Europe (Hassocks, 1979) 52–63Google Scholar; J.M. Beattie, ‘Crime and the Courts in Surrey 1736–53,’ in Cockburn, ed., Crime in England, 155–86; An Ungovernable People, Brewer, J. and Styles, J., eds. (London, 1980)Google Scholar esp. chs. 1 and 3. But cf. Harriss, Introduction to McFarlane Essays, supra note 2, xx.

50. John Smyth of Nibley, in Maclean, J., ed., Lives of the Berkeleys, 3 vols. (Gloucester, 1883–1885) ii, 59Google Scholar; Sayles, King's Bench, supra note 14, ii, cxiii–iv.

51. M.M. Condon, ‘A Wiltshire Sheriff's Notebook,’ Medieval Legal Records, supra note 4, 410; Blatcher, King's Bench, supra note 14, 68–72; Baker, Spelman, supra note 14, 91.

52. Hay, D., ‘Property, Authority and the Criminal Law,’ in Hay, et al. , eds., Albion's Fatal Tree (London, 1975) 17–63Google Scholar; Lenman and Parker, ‘State, Community and Criminal Law,’ supra note 11, 14-15; Gatrell, ‘Decline of Theft and Violence,’ supra note 11, 248-50; Hanawalt, Crime and Conflict, supra note 18, 56–63; Given, J.B., Society and Homicide in Thirteenth-Century England (Stanford, 1977) 92–93Google Scholar; Green, T.A., ‘Societal Concepts of Criminal Liability for Homicide in Medieval England,’ Speculum 47 (1972) 669–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53. Holt, Robin Hood, supra note 18, ch. 6; Holt, , ‘The Origins and Audience of the Ballads of Robin Hood,’ Past and Present 18 (1960) 89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar, rpt. Peasants, Knights and Heretics, supra note 17, 236–57.

54. Cf. Weisser, Crime and Punishment, supra note 49, 52–54.

55. Milsom, Legal Framework, supra note 29, throughout; Pollock, F. and Maitland, F.W., The History of the English Law before the Time of Edward I, 2 vols., 2d ed., (rpt. Cambridge, 1968) iGoogle Scholar, ch. 6.

56. Palmer, R.C., The County Courts of Medieval England 1150–1350 (Princeton, 1982)Google Scholar ch. 5; Stenton, F.M., The First Century of English Feudalism, 2d ed. (Oxford, 1961) 71–79Google Scholar.

57. Maddicott, ‘Law and Lordship,’ supra note 6, 1 25; Sayles, G.O., ‘Medieval Judges as Legal Consultants,’ Law Quarterly Review 56 (1940) 247–54Google Scholar.

58. Harriss, McFarlane Essays, supra note 2, xxi–ii; McFarlane, Nobility, supra note 2, 114–5; also Maddicott, ‘Law and Lordship,’ supra note 57, 3–4.

59. Maddicott, ‘Law and Lordship,’ supra note 6, throughout; Sayles, ‘Medieval Judges,’ supra note 57, 247–54.

60. Birks, M., Gentlemen of the Law (London, 1960) 23–42Google Scholar; Maddicott, ‘Law and Lordship,’ supra note 6, 11–12, 29–32.

61. Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, iv, 328. For corruption of juries see, e.g., ibid. iv, 327–28, 448, 468–69, v, 29, 110.

62. J.H. Baker, ‘Counsellors and Barristers,’ Cambridge Law Journal (1969) 207; Thayer, J.B., A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law (London, 1898) 126–29Google Scholar.

63. McFarlane, Nobility, supra note 2, 114–15; Harriss, McFarlane Essays, supra note 2, xix–xx.

64. Milsom, Legal Framework, supra note 29, throughout.

65. Fleta, supra note 33, iii, 46. For the authorship, see Denholm-Young, N., ‘Who Wrote Fleta?’ English Historical Review 58 (1943) 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66. Milsom, Legal Framework, supra note 29, 185. Dr. Powell has pointed out to me that even in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there were concrete manifestations of the once near-universal private jurisdiction, in the franchises, on which see, e.g., Ault, W.O., Private Jurisdiction in England (New Haven, 1923)Google Scholar; Scammell, J., ‘The Origin and Limitations of the Liberty of Durham,’ English Historical Review 81 (1966) 449–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clanchy, M.T., ‘The Franchise of Return of Writs,’ T.R.H.S., 5th ser., 17 (1967) 59–82Google Scholar; Davies, R.R., Lordship and Society in the March of Wales (Oxford, 1978)Google Scholar ch. 7.

67. Sayles, ‘Medieval Judges,’ supra note 57, 247.

68. Pegues, F., ‘A Monastic Society at Law,’ English Historical Review 87 (1972) 548–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69. Baker, Spelman, supra note 14, 141–42.

70. See works cited in notes 1, 2 and 4. Also Carpenter, M.C., ‘Political Society in Warwickshire, c. 1401–72,’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge, 1976)Google Scholar chs. 3,4, 7 and 8; Carpenter, , ‘Sir Thomas Malory and Fifteenth-Century Local Politics,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 53 (1980) 31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71. Carpenter, D. A., ‘The Decline of the Curial Sheriff,’ English Historical Revew 91 (1976) 1–32Google Scholar; Morris, W.A., ‘The Sheriff,’ in Morris, W.A., Strayer, J.F., eds.. The English Government at Work (Cambridge, 1947) ii, 41–108Google Scholar; Cam, H., ‘The General Eyres of 1329–30,’ Liberties and Communities, 150-62, (rpt.: English Historical Review 39 (1924) 241–52Google Scholar); Pugh, R.B., Itinerant Justices in English History, Harte Memorial Lecture (Exeter, 1967)Google Scholar; Harding, A., ‘The Origins and Early History of the Keeper of the Peace,’ T.R.H.S., 5th ser., 10 (1960) 85–109Google Scholar; Putnam, B., ‘The Transformation of the Keepers of the Peace into Justices of the Peace,’ T.R.H.S., 4th ser., 12 (1929) 19–48Google Scholar.

72. Harding, A., ‘Plaints and Bills in the History of English Law,’ in Jenkins, D., ed., Legal History Studies (Cardiff, 1975) 65–86Google Scholar; Harding, ‘Keeper of the Peace,’ supra note 71, 85–109; Harriss, McFarlane Essays, supra note 2, xxi–ii; Harriss, ‘The Formation of Parliament,’ in Davies, R.G. and Denton, J.H., eds., The English Parliament in the Middle Ages (Manchester, 1981) 34–35Google Scholar.

73. Hanawalt, Crime and Conflict, supra note 18, 50–51; Putnam, B.H., The Enforcement of the Statute of Labourers (New York, 1908) esp. 77–78, 199–206Google Scholar; Hilton, R.H., Bond Men Made Free (London, 1973) 150–53Google Scholar, 224–27; Powell, ‘Public Order,'supra note 14, 170. See also Hyams, P.R., King, Lord and Peasants in Medieval England (Oxford, 1980)Google Scholar esp. ch. 13.

74. Hanawalt tends to neglect aristocratic criminals in their role as administrators, in her study of ‘fur collar crime,’ supra note 1.

75. McFarlane, Nobility, supra note 2, 115; Harriss, McFarlane Essays, supra note 2, xix; Powell, E., ‘Arbitration and the Law in England in the late Middle Ages’ (Royal Historical Society, Alexander Prize Essay, 1982)Google ScholarT.R.H.S., (1983). I am most grateful to Dr. Powell for letting me have a typescript of this valuable article.

76. These pressures are discussed in Carpenter, M.C., ‘The Beauchamp Affinity: A Study of Bastard Feudalism at Work,’ English Historical Review 95 (1980) 514–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77. One such case was perhaps the Alton Pass robbery, but Clanchy has recently shown it to be less notable for the involvement of royal officials than Matthew Paris supposed. Clanchy, ‘Highway Robbery and Trial by Battle,’ Medieval Legal Records, supra note 4, 26–61.

78. Documents of the Baronial Reform Movement, supra note 30, 119–22, 143–49, 263; English Historical Documents, supra note 28, iii, 400–7; Cam, H.M., The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls (London, 1930) 87–106Google Scholar; Nichols, F.M., ed., Britton, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1865) i, 85–95Google Scholar; Fleta, supra note 33, ii, 40; Mirror of Justices, supra note 31, 155–75.

79. Rothwell, English Historical Documents, supra note 28, iii, 496–501.

80. Winfield, P.H., The History of Conspiracy and Abuse of Legal Procedure (Cambridge, 1921) 22–28Google Scholar.

81. Baker, Spelman, supra note 14, 104–13, where jurors' (and consequently the sheriff's) ability to influence a verdict is rated more highly than the judge's.

82. E.g., Griffiths, R.A., ‘Local Rivalries and National Politics,’ Speculum 43 (1968) 589–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jeffs, R., ‘The Poynings-Percy Dispute,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 34 (1961) 148–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cameron, A., ‘A Nottinghamshire Quarrel in the Reign of Henry VII,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 45 (1972) 27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Virgoe, R., ‘William Tailboys and Lord Cromwell,’ Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 55 (1972–1973) 459–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Storey, End of the House of Lancaster, supra note 4, 84–104.

83. Lewis, P.S., ‘Sir John Fastolf's Dispute over Twitchwell,’ Historical Journal n.s. 1 (1958) 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But see Powell, ‘Public Order,’ supra note 14, ch. 6, and Virgoe, R., ‘The Murder of James Andrew,’ Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History 34 (1980) 263–68Google Scholar.

84. The most famous account is in Sir Dugdale, William, The Antiquities of Warwickshire (London, 1765) 718–19Google Scholar. Two recent but less detailed accounts are Rawcliffe, C., The Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham (Cambridge, 1978) 79–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Griffiths, R.A., ‘The Hazards of Civil War,’ Midland History 5 (1980) 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For full details on the background and complete references, see Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 141–44, 194–218. Since the source material is complicated and voluminous, to avoid lengthy footnotes reference will be made here to the thesis only, except where the evidence is brief and obvious.

85. For other cases, see Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, chs. 3, 4, 7 and 8, and Powell, ‘Public Order,’ supra note 14, ch. 6.

86. Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, appendix, 56; Carpenter, ‘Beauchamp Affinity,’ supra note 76, 515.

87. Carpenter, ‘Political Society,'supra note 70, 120–44; Griffiths, ‘Hazards,’ supra note 84, 2–3. Although Sir James Ormond did not receive the title of Earl of Wiltshire until 1449 (G.E.C.[ockayne], Complete Peerage, 14 vols., (London, 1910–40) XII, i, 734), to avoid confusion he will be given this title throughout.

88. The largest block of Buckingham lands in Warwickshire lay here. Dugdale, Antiquities of Warwickshire, supra note 84, 704, 712, 743; Calendar of Fine Rolls [hereafter] C.F.R.] 1437–45, 19.

89. Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 198 n.5, 201–5.

90. Rowney, I., ‘The Staffordshire Political Community 1440–1500’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Keele, 1981) 20–21Google Scholar, 42–73.

91. P.R.O. C.139/150/33/2.

92. Storey, End of the House of Lancaster, supra note 4, 129–41; C.P.R., 1446–52, supra note 7, 6, 27; P.R.O. K.B. 27/773 Coram Rege rot. 52d.; Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, 7 vols., Nicolas, N.H., ed. (London, 1834–1837) vi, 232Google Scholar.

93. For the mechanisms by which these mutual benefits of lord and client were advanced, see Carpenter, ‘Beauchamp Affinity,’ supra note 76, 520–32.

94. Carpenter, ‘Sir Thomas Malory,’ supra note 70, 36–38; Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 195–99, 202–3.

95. Ibid., 199–201, 203–5. He did not grant Baldwin a life annuity until January 1451, which suggests he was still hoping to win William over (P.R.O. S.C. 6/1038/2).

96. Carpenter, ‘Beauchamp Affinity,’ supra note 76, 522–23, Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 141–42, 199.

97. Ibid., 142, 195–96; C.F.R., 1445–52, supra note 88, 109 (Broun as mainpernor for the men who were keeping the lands at issue, almost certainly to protect Baldwin Porter; they included Wiltshire and William Mountford); P.R.O. K.B. 27/753 Coram Rege rot. 39; Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Archer Coll. D.R.37 Box 82.

98. Ibid. D.R.37 Box 53.

99. Carpenter, ‘Sir Thomas Malory,’ supra note 70, 38, Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 197–99.

100. Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’; supra note 70, 199–206; Lambeth Palace Library, Kempe's Reg. f.302; P.R.O. K.B.9/270A/74.

101. C.P.R., 1452–61, supra note 7, 58; P.R.O. C.139/150/33/2, 4; Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 206.

102. Ibid., 207–10.

103. P.R.O. K.B.9/270A/74; P.R.O. S.C.6/1038/2; Dugdale, Antiquities of Warwickshire, supra note 84, 715; Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 207.

104. P.R.O. K.B.9/290/7; Carpenter, ‘Political Society,'supra note 70, 210.

105. Ibid., 207–9.

106. See references listed at footnote 92.

107. C.F.R., 1452–61, supra note 88, 67, 70, 72–73; National Library of Wales, Peniarth MS 280 ff. 107, 110; Littleton was a feoffee for Wiltshire from at least 1447–60. Hist. MS Comm., Hastings MS i (London, 1928) 1–2Google Scholar; P.R.O. C.P.40/802 Rot. 125; Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 212.

108. P.R.O. K.B.27/771 Coram Rege rot. 73; K.B.27/774 Coram Rege rot. 119.

109. Dugdale, Antiquities of Warwickshire, supra note 84, 718; Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 212 n.l. The dating of the arbitration is also discussed in Griffiths, ‘Hazards,’ supra note 84, 11 n.23, but the Westminster Abbey deeds he cites in note 24 as quitclaims of Ramenham by Baldwin are quitclaims by other members of the family.

110. C.C.R., 1452–61, supra note 7, 186.

111. P.R.O. K.B.27/774 Coram Rege rot. 77d.; Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 211.

112. C.C.R., 1454–61, supra note 7, 185–86, 429; Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 211 n.5. However, Baldwin later claimed that the Ilmington feoffment of June 21, 1459 had never existed. C.C.R., 1454–61, 186. At the same time he also said that the Coleshill feoffment of July 26 had been made but not effected (ibid.), while Simon denied all feoffments of Ilmington, except for one made to him by his father (ibid., 429). The significance of these statements is not entirely clear, but, as they were made at the time of the forced releases (see below, n. 117), Baldwin and Simon were presumably under threat from their enemies, and the declarations are not necessarily to be believed.

113. Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 213–4.

114. Scofield, C.L., Edward IV, 2 vols. (London, 1923) i, 24Google Scholar; Jacob, E.F., The Fifteenth Century (Oxford, 1961) 513Google Scholar.

115. P.R.O. K.B.9/284/53; Bodleian Lib. Dugdale MS 13 434; Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 215. See also Carpenter, ‘Sir Thomas Malory,’ supra note 70, 38.

116. Dugdale, Antiquities of Warwickshire, supra note 84, 718–19; P.R.O. K.B.27/786 Rex rot. 4.

117. Dugdale, Antiquities of Warwickshire, supra note 84; C.C.R., 1454–61 supra note 7, 185–86, 364, 429; Westminster Abbey Mun. 4537, 4544.

118. Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 215–16.

119. C.C.R., 1454–61, supra note 7, 364; for Fillongley, see Birmingham Ref. Lib., Birmingham Coll. 504041; P.R.O. S.C. 6/1003/32; Paston Letters, supra note 23, i, 437; C.P.R., 77, 323, 418.

120. Wedgwood, J. C., History of Parliament: Biographies of the Members of the Commons House (London, 1936) 602Google Scholar; Coventry Leet Book, 4 vols., Harris, M.D., ed. (London, 1907–1913) 300Google Scholar.

121. Hannett, J., The Forest of Arden (Birmingham, 1894) 223Google Scholar; Wedgwood, Biographies, supra note 120, 163–64.

122. Carpenter, ‘Political Society,’ supra note 70, 218–23.

123. Powell, ‘Arbitration,’ supra note 75; Baker, Spelman, supra note 14, 91–92; J.B. Post, ‘The Ladbroke Manor Dispute,’ Medieval Legal Records, supra note 4, 289–339; Rosenthal, J.T., ‘Feuds and Private Peace-Making,’ Nottingham Mediaeval Studies 14 (1970) 84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Civil Pleas of the Wiltshire Eyre, Clanchy, M.T., ed. (Devizes, 1971) 27Google Scholar; Wright, S., ‘A Gentry Society of the Fifteenth Century: Derbyshire c. 1430–1509’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Birmingham, 1978) 292–330Google Scholar.

124. Carpenter, ‘Beauchamp Affinity,’ supra note 76, 520–27.

125. Wright, ‘Gentry Society,'supra note 123, 142–45.

126. Richardson, H.G., ‘The Commons and Medieval Politics,’ T.R.H.S., 4th ser., 27 (1946) 7–19Google Scholar; McFarlane, Nobility, supra note 2, 289–97; McFarlane, , ‘Parliament and Bastard Feudalism,’ Complete Essays 3, rpt. from T.R.H.S., 4th ser., 26 (1944) 53–79Google Scholar; R. Virgoe, ‘The Crown, Magnates and Local Government in Fifteenth-Century East Anglia,’ in J.R.L. Highfield and R. Jeffs, eds., The Crown and Local Communities in England and France in the Fifteenth Century (forthcoming) 82–84. The question of the Commons’ contribution to parliamentary business is discussed in Edwards, J.G., The Second Century of the English Parliament (Oxford, 1979)Google Scholar and J.R. Maddicott, ‘Parliament and the Constituencies,’ The English Parliament in the Middle Ages, supra note 72,61–87.

127. E.g., Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, i, 293, 371, ii, 9, 349–50, iii, 265, 478, iv, 156, 349, v. 108–9, 367. vi. 160. 188.

128. Post, J.B., ‘Sir Thomas West and the Statute of Rapes,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 53 (1980) 24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rotuli Parliamentarum, supra note 13, iii, 139–40.

129. Elton, ‘Crime and the Historian,’ supra note 8, 4-5. And see Ives, E.W., ‘Agaynst taking awaye of Women,’ in Ives, R. J. Knecht, Scarisbrick, J.J., eds., Wealth and Power in Tudor England (London, 1978) 24–25Google Scholar, for a piece of almost superfluous legislation resulting from a single case.

130. McFarlane, ‘Parliament and Bastard Feudalism,’ supra note 126, 16; McFarlane, ‘Parliament in the later Middle Ages,’ supra note 2, 293–96; Roskell, J.S., The Commons and their Speakers (Manchester, 1965)Google Scholar chs. 6–11. The number of knights, as opposed to borough representatives, returned was seventy-four. Wedgwood, J.C., History of Parliament: Register of the… Members of both Houses (London, 1938) lxxxiii–viGoogle Scholar.

131. Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, ii, 7–11. Although the evidence at this stage is limited, see also Harriss, G.L., King, Parliament and Public Finance in Medieval England (Oxford, 1975) 122–24)Google Scholar; Rotuli Pariamentorum, 331–57, 364–71, iii, 18–25, 42–45, 62–65, 81, 497–510, 539–44, 598–601. And see footnote 13, above.

132. E.g., Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, ii, 128–29, 142–45, 304–8, iii, 15–28, iv, 347–62, 447–57, v, 52–65, vi, 8, 154–64. Henry V's parliaments are the most notable exception to this rule. See also Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, supra note 131, esp. 253–65, and Roskell, Commons and their Speakers, chs. 6–11.

133. E.g., Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, v, 103–17, 183–203.

134. Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, ii, 331–60, iii, 15–27, 42–48, 61–67, 494–511, 538–44, 585–89, 591–603. See also Holmes, G., The Good Parliament (Oxford, 1975) 108–34Google Scholar and Brown, A.L., ‘The Commons and the Council in the Reign of Henry IV,“ in Fryde, E.B. and Miller, E., eds. Historical Studies of the English Parliament, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1970) ii, 31–60Google Scholar, rpt. from English Historical Review 79 (1964) 583–613Google Scholar.

135. Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, v, 322ff.; ibid., vi, throughout.

136. Ibid, vi, 3–166, v, 367–8, 633–4, 322–23. For the background for 1455 and 1459, see Griffiths, Reign of Henry VI, supra note 4, 746–51, and for 1468, see Ross, Edward IV, supra note 4, 405.

137. E.g., Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, ii, 141, 167–68, 230, 260, 262, 31 1–12, 354, iii, 18, 119, 140, 161–62, 223, 267, 468–69, 471–72, iv, 121, 190, 253–54, 350, 401–2, v, 55, 61, 115, 323–24; Rotuli Parliamentorum Inediti, supra note 32, 224–25. See also Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, supra note 131, 401–19.

138. E.g., Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, ii, 141 (justices'receipt of gifts), 165, 230 (excessive fines by justices), 260 (fees taken by coroners), 265 (fines on false indictments by a variety of officials), 314 (bribes taken by bailiffs), iii, 200, 222, 433, 468–69 (excessive fees taken by the marshall), v, 29 (officers'receipt of bribes for partial juries), 110 (‘perjury, extortion and oppression’ of sheriffs and other local officers), 323–24 (extortionate fees charged by officers). But cf. Maddicott, ‘Law and Lordship,’ supra note 6, 42–43.

139. E.g., Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, ii, 128, 141, 148, 202, 286, 305.

140. See footnotes 78 and 79 for references to thirteenth-century complaints. Also English Historical Documents, supra note 28, iii, 527–38 and Statutes of the Realm, 11 vols., Luders, A. et al. , ed.(London, 1810–1828) i, 154–6Google Scholar for complaints under Edward II, and Mirror of Justices, supra note 31, 155–75, and ibid., xii–xvi, xlixli for authorship.

141. E.g., Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, iii, 21, 42, 318, 445–46, 539, iv, 52, 352–53, v, 138, 181, 367–68, 487–88, 633–34, vi, 8.

142. It is notable that the greatest concentration of such complaints comes between 1376 and 1413 and under Henry VI. For the lapsing of such commissions from the later fourteenth century, see Harding, A., The Law Courts of Medieval England (London, 1973) 94–98Google Scholar. Dr. Powell has suggested to me that the assize justices may have had some supervisory capacity over the J.P.s, but this was obviously more limited than the direct supervision over the shires exercised previously by other commissions.

143. See, e.g., Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, iii, 65, 94, 138, 161. It is presumably in reflection of administrative changes that petitions against commissions decrease as those against the overuse of conciliar law grow—both indicating unease at the central government's extension of its authority.

144. E.g., ibid, iii, 42–43, 62, 81, 139, 308, 440, 615–16, 624, 662, iv, 21, 139–40, vi, 159–60.

145. Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, iii, 65. See also Rotuli Parliamentorum Inediti, 271 for similar reactions in 1339 to trailbaston commissions granted at the Commons' request.

146. Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, ii, 261. And see footnote 47 for conciliar justice.

147. Ibid. 142, 161, 261, 376, iii, 44, 159, iv, 10, 380–1, v, 108 etc; Myers, A.R., ed., English Historical Documents (London, 1969) 411Google Scholar (from Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, iii, 416) and Virgoe, R., ‘The Crown and Local Government,’ in Boulay, F.R.H. Du and Barron, C.M., eds., The Reign of Richard II (London, 1971) 218–91Google Scholar show the hostility aroused by Richard II's attempt to pursue such a policy.

148. Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, ii, 128. And see e.g., ibid., 128, 141, 331, iii, 539, iv, 305 (approvers), ii, 258, iii, 505, iv, 81 (outlawries), ii, 265, 277, iii, 505, 506–7, iv, 121, 147, 378 (indictments), ii, 266–67, 270, iv, 110, vi, 620–21 (bail), ii, 354, iii, 319, iv, 305 (false imprisonment).

149. See references in footnote 1. Also Stones, ‘Folvilles,’ supra note 18, 117–36; Bellamy, J.G., ‘The Coterel Gang,’ English Historical Review 79 (1964) 698–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fryde, Tyranny of Edward II, supra note 7, chs. 5–8 for governmental oppression.

150. Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, ii, 104; Rotuli Parliamentorum Inediti, supra note 32, 225, 233; also Jones, W.G., ‘Keeping the Peace,’ American Journal of Legal History 18 (1974) 307–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, supra note 131,403–6.

151. Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, v, 138.

152. E.g., ibid, ii, 295, 311, 364, 376 (pardons); iii, 541, v, 332 (supersedeas).

153. Ibid, iii, 265–66, 269; Storey, ‘Liveries and Commissions of the Peace,’ supra note 147, 131–52.

154. Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, v, 367–68. And see above, footnote 136. Roskell suggests this parliament was packed by the king. Commons and their Speakers, supra note 130, 263.

155. This subject is best discussed in Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, supra note 131. See also McFarlane, Nobility, supra note 2, 291–97, Maddicott, ‘County Community,’ supra note 6, 27–43 and, for evidence that the pursuit of order could be an occupation of Lords and Commons, see A.L. Brown, ‘Parliament c. 1377–1422,’ English Parliament in the Middle Ages, supra note 72, 137–38.

156. Dobson and Taylor, Rymes of Robin Hood, supra note 24, 266–67; Skeat, Complete Works of Chaucer, supra note 24, iv, 665–66.

157. Dobson and Taylor, Rymes of Robin Hood, supra note 24, 82.

158. This is from the translation by Dobson and Taylor in Rymes of Robin Hood, supra note 24, 252, 253. The original is in Wright, T., The Political Poems and Songs of England (London, 1839) vi, 231–36Google Scholar.

159. Dobson and Taylor, Rymes of Robin Hood, supra note 24, 82.

160. See especially ‘A Gest of Robyn Hode,’ Rymes of Robin Hood, supra note 24, 108–10 and ‘Gamelyn,’ Complete Works of Chaucer, supra note 24, iv, 667. The Gower quote is from Cohen, H., A History of the English Bar and Attornatus to 1450 (London, 1929) 479–80.Google Scholar

161. Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, iii, 374–77.

162. Holt, Robin Hood, supra note 18, 10.

163. Cohen, History of the English Bar, supra note 160, 523–24.

164. Piers Plowman, supra note 25, B text, xiii–iv.

165. Ibid., Passus IV ll.171–95; Baldwin, Theme of Government in Piers Plowman, supra note 46, 51; Owst, Preaching in Medieval England, supra note 26, 17–18.

166. See above, 211–13.

167. E.g., Piers Plowman, supra note 25, B text, Prologue ll. 53–91, 100–10, Passus III ll. 251–54, Passus V ll. 70–148, Passus XX ll. 218–94; Wright, Political Poems and Songs, supra note 158, i, 263–70, 304–46. For authorship of these, see Scattergood, V.J., Politics and Poetry in the Fifteenth Century (London, 1971) 15, 17–18.Google Scholar

168. Wright, Political Poems and Songs, supra note 167, i, 323–24.

169. ‘A Gest of Robyn Hode,’ supra note 160, 86. It is worth noting that most of the examples of retaining and influencing justice cited by Maddicott concern the great ecclesiastical estates (‘Law and Lordship,’ supra note 6, 5–40). Could it be that this was the major reason for hostility to the practice? It is one of the abuses highlighted in the ‘Gest,’ supra note 160, 86), and the church was later associated by the Commons with lawlessness in a different way (Rotuli Parliamentorum, supra note 13, v, 151).

170. Sir Fortescue, John, De Laudibus Legum Anglie, Chrimes, S.B., ed. (Cambridge, 1942) lxvi–viiGoogle Scholar.

171. Ibid. lx.

172. Fortescue, Governance, supra note 1, 150–52 and, for reliance on money, throughout. For Richard II, see above, footnote 147 and Barron, supra note 28, 1–18 and Tuck, A., Richard II and the English Nobility (London, 1973)Google Scholar ch. 7. I am most grateful to Dr. Brendan Bradshaw for making me realise the nature of Fortescue's projected reform.

173. Fortescue, Governance, supra note 1, 150–51.

174. Ashby, Poems, supra note 43, 29; Weisser, Crime and Punishment, supra note 49, chs. 1 and 2; and see works cited above, supra note 49.

175. See works cited in supra note 37. Also Turner, The King and his Courts, supra note 38, 90–101; Sayles, King's Bench, supra note 14, iii, xxxix–lx, v, lxxxiii–vii; Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, supra note 131, 401 — 10; Ross, Edward IV, supra note 4, 396–413; Chrimes, S B., Henry VII (London, 1972)Google Scholar chs. 8, 10 and 11.

176. Fryde, A Medieval Robber Baron, supra note 10, 197–221.

177. Harrison, C.J., ‘The Petition of Edmund Dudley,’ English Historical Review 87 (1972) 82–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar (86–87 cited here); Chrimes, Henry VII, supra note 175, 212–16. See also the controversy over Henry VIl's last years between Cooper, J.P. and Elton, G.R., Historical Journal 1 (1958) 21–39Google Scholar, 2 (1959) 103–29, 4 (1961) 1–29.

178. McFarlane, Nobility, supra note 2, 2–3; Hicks, M., ‘The Changing Role of the Wydevilles,’ in Ross, C., ed., Patronage, Pedigree and Power (Gloucester and Totowa, 1979) 60–86Google Scholar; M. Condon, ‘Ruling Elites in the Reign of Henry VII,’ ibid., 109–42; Scarisbrick, J.J., Henry VIII (London, 1968) 120–23Google Scholar, 364–65.

179. Clanchy, ‘Law, Government and Society,’ supra note 3, 74–77.

180. Kaeuper, ‘Law and Order,’ supra note 10, 734–84; Stones, ‘Folvilles,’ supra note 18, 132–34; Ingram, ‘Communities and Courts,’ Crime in England, supra note 8, 110.

181. Dudley, Edmund, The Tree of Commonwealth, Brodie, D.M., ed. (Cambridge, 1948) 35Google Scholar.

182. Clanchy, Wiltshire Eyre, supra note 123, 10–12.

183. Ives, E.W., ‘The Reputation of the Common Lawyer in English Society,’ University of Birmingham Historical Journal 7 (1959–1960) 133–55Google Scholar.

184. Powell, ‘Public Order,’ supra note 14, 299–332.

185. Dobson and Taylor, Rymes of Robin Hood, supra note 24, 97, 101–4, 262–67, 115–22.

186. Skeat, Complete Works of Chaucer, supra note 24, iv, 665–67.

187. Ashby, Poems, supra note 43, 34.

188. Plucknett and Barton, Doctor and Student, supra note 44, 115.

189. Baldwin, Theme of Government in Piers Plowman, supra note 46, 39, citing C text of Piers Plowman, supra note 25, Passus XXI ll. 246–47.

190. Skeat, Complete Works of Chaucer, supra note 24, iv, 662–63.