Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:52:06.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arbitration and the Law in England in the Late Middle Ages (The Alexander Prize Essay)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

Edward Powell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The central problem facing the student of public order in England in the late middle ages is to reconcile two conflicting lines of research. On one hand the institutional historians, through their studies of the central courts at Westminister, the provincial circuits of assize and gaol delivery and the justices of the peace and coroners in the counties, have proved beyond doubt the sophistication of the late-medieval legal system. On the other hand the historians of crime have shown equally clearly that the courts were often incapable of keeping the peace or of doing justice. Indeed the late-medieval period has long been notorious as one of widespread uncontained disorder. Reviewing the secondary literature on the subject Professor Bellamy concluded: ‘Not one investigator has been able to indicate even a few years of effective policing in the period 1290–1485.’

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 33 , December 1983 , pp. 49 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 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 A few of the more important works are: Blatcher, M., ‘The Workings of the Court of King's Bench in the Fifteenth Century’ (Ph.D. thesis, London Univ., 1936)Google Scholar; Hastings, M., The Court of Common Pleas in Fifteenth-Century England (New York, 1947)Google Scholar; Hunnisett, R. F., The Medieval Coroner (Cambridge, 1961)Google Scholar; Proceedings before the Justices of the Peace in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, ed. Putnam, B. H. (Ames Foundation, 1938)Google Scholar.

2 Bellamy, J. G., Crime and Public Order in England in the Later Middle Ages (1972)Google Scholar; Stones, E. L. G., ‘The Folvilles of Ashby-Folville, Leicestershire, and their Associates in Crime’, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 5th ser., vii (1957), 117–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Storey, R. L., The End of The House of Lancaster (1966)Google Scholar.

3 Bellamy, , Crime and Public Order, 3–4Google Scholar.

4 Ibid., 2; Myers, A. R., England in the Late Middle Ages (2nd edn., Harmondsworth, 1963), 51–3Google Scholar; cf. Hanawalt, B. A., ‘Fur-Collar Crime: the Pattern of Crime among the Fourteenth-Century English Nobility,’ Jnl. Soc. Hist., viii (1974–1975), no. 4, 1–17Google Scholar.

5 Bellamy, , Crime, 12–29Google Scholar; cf. Hastings, Common Pleas, chap. 15, ‘Delays and Hindrances to Justice’.

6 The classic statement of this orthodoxy is to be found in Holdsworth, W., A History of English Law (1922–1938) ii (4th edn., 1936), 406–18Google Scholar.

7 e.g. by Bridbury, A. R., Economic Growth: England in the Later Middle Ages (1962)Google Scholar; DuBoulay, F. R. H., An Age of Ambition: English Society in the Late Middle Ages (1970)Google Scholar.

8 See Clanchy, M. T., ‘Law, Government and Society in Medieval England’, History, lix (1974), 73–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Green, T. A., ‘The Jury and the English Law of Homicide, 1200–1600’, Michigan Law Review, lxxiv (1976), 413–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 McFarlane, K. B., The Nobility of Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1973), 114–15Google Scholar.

10 Research into thirteenth-century homicide suggests a level of violent disorder as high, and conviction rates as low as in the late middle ages: Given, J. B., Society and Homicide in Thirteenth-Century England (Stanford, 1977), 33–40, 91–9Google Scholar.

11 The Reports of Sir John Spelman, ed. Baker, J. H. (Selden Soc., xciii–xciv, 1976–1977) ii. 91Google Scholar.

12 Blatcher, , ‘King' Bench,’ 216–19Google Scholar.

13 Hastings, , Common Pleas, 183Google Scholar.

14 Guth, D. J., ‘Enforcing Late-Medieval Law: Patterns in Litigation during Henry VII's Reign’, in Legal Records and the Historian, ed. Baker, J. H. (1978), 87Google Scholar.

15 Post, J. B. estimates that thirty per cent of offenders indicted at peace sessions appeared for trial: ‘Criminals and the Law in the Reign of Richard II’ (D.Phil, thesis, Oxford Univ., 1976), 15Google Scholar. Professor R. B. Pugh calculated that the conviction rate of those appearing at Newgate gaol deliveries during Edward, I' reign averaged thirty per cent: ‘Some Reflections of a Medieval Criminologist’, Proceedings of the British Academy, lix (1973), 89Google Scholar.

16 Cf. Guth, , loc. cit., 87Google Scholar: ‘Most claims for trespass and debt [in King's Bench and Common Pleas] were never intended for judicial resolution. They merely armed plaintiffs with royal record and gave the means for formal, serious confrontations between parties out of court.’

17 Bellamy, , Crime, 117–19Google Scholar; Harding, A., The Law Courts of Medieval England (1973) 93–4Google Scholar; see Jeffs, R., ‘The Poynings–Percy Dispute’, Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., xxxiv (1961), 148–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a detailed case study of such a dispute.

18 Op. cit., 117–18.

19 Cf. Bongert, Y., Recherches sur les Cours Laïques du Xe au XIIIe Siècle (Paris, 1949), 98–111Google Scholar.

20 e.g. Storey, , House of Lancaster, 87–8, 101, 113, 121, 125, 155, 185, 226–7Google Scholar; Rosenthal, J. T., ‘Feuds and Private Peace-Making: a Fifteenth-Century Example’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, xiv (1970), 84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pollard, A. J., ‘The Richmondshire Community of Gentry during the Wars of the Roses’, in Patronage, Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England, ed. Ross, C. D. (Gloucester, 1979), 50–1Google Scholar.

21 Chronicles of London, ed. Kingsford, C. L. (Oxford, 1905), 88–94Google Scholar.

22 Storey, , House of Lancaster, 87–8Google Scholar.

23 Memorials of St. Edmund' Abbey, ed. Arnold, T. (Rolls series, 1896), 188–211Google Scholar; Letters and Papers of John Shillingford, ed. Moore, S. A. (Camden Soc., New ser., ii, 1871)Google Scholar.

24 Plumpton Correspondence, ed. Stapleton, T. (Camden Soc., iv, 1839), li–lii, lxxxix–xcv, cxix–cxxii, 22 n., 32 n., 98 nn., 210–11, 219–20 n., 221 n., 222–3 n.Google Scholar; The Langley Cartulary, ed. Coss, P. R. (Dugdale Soc., xxxii, 1980), nos. 70, 444Google Scholar; The Hylle Cartulary, ed. Dunning, R. W. (Somerset Rec. Soc., lxviii, 1968), nos. 156, 190Google Scholar.

25 Storey, , House of Lancaster, 155Google Scholar; Plumpton Correspondence, 3–4; Rosenthal, , ‘Privat e Peace-Making’, 88–90Google Scholar.

26 Caspers, P., ‘Der Güte- und Schiedsgedanke im kirchliche Zivilgerrichtsverfahren’ (Iur. Diss., Mainz, 1954)Google Scholar.

27 There is a vast body of evidence for ecclesiastical arbitration. See, for example, Vetus Registrum Sarisberiense, ed. Jones, W. H. R. (R. S., 1884), i. 256–9Google Scholar; ii. 79–80. The Coucher Book of Furness Abbey, ed. Brownbill, J. (Chetham Soc., New ser., lxxvi, 1916), 295–6, 353–4Google Scholar; Gesta Abbatum Monaslerü Sancti Albani, ed. Riley, H. T. (R. S., 1867–1869) i. 423–5Google Scholar; ii. 13–16, 27–8, 163–70; iii. 246–8, 516–17, 528–9. Register of Edmund Lacy, Bishop of Exeter, 1420–55, ed. Dunstan, G. R. (Canterbury and York Soc., 1963–1972), i. 144–7, 167–75. 195–6Google Scholar; ii. 134–9; iii. 245–55, 271–2, 290–6, 311–15.

28 Registrant Cancellarü Oxoniensis, 1434–69, ed. Salter, H. E. (Oxford Hist. Soc., xciii–xciv, 1932), passimGoogle Scholar.

29 Calendar of Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London, ed. Thomas, A. H. and Jones, P. E. (Cambridge, 1926–1961), 1323–64, 20, 41, 158–9, 267Google Scholar; 1364–81, 49–50, 86, 137, 169–70, 179–80, 201–2, 251–2; 1381–1412, 75, 77, 82, 83, 108, 121–2, 136, 140–2, 146, 162–3, 179, 192, 207–8, 231, 239, 245, 274–5, 278–9, 302, 307, 314. York Memorandum Book, 1388–1493, ed. Sellers, M. (Surtees Soc., cxxv, 1915), 14–17, 25–7, 35–7, 67–8, 70–3, 82–3, 93–4, 125–8, 162–4, 179–82, 219, 242–5, 270–1, 288 9, 296–7Google Scholar.

30 Cal. Plea and Mem. Rolls London, 1323–64, 258–9; 1364–81, 75–6, 158, 278, 279–80; 1381–1412, 136. Select Cases Concerning the Law Merchant, 1239–1633, ed. Hall, H. (Selden Soc., xlvi, 1930), 34–9, 53–62Google Scholar.

31 Cal. Plea and Mem. Rolls London, 1323–64, 268, 278; 1364–81, 280–1; 1381–1412, 127 8. Year Books of Richard II: 12 Richard II, 1388–89, ed. Deiser, G. F. (Ames Foundation, 1914), 37–8Google Scholar.

32 Gesta Abbatum S. Albani, ed. Riley, , ii. 163–70Google Scholar; Calendar of Close Rolls, 1272–1485 (1892–1954), 1461–68, 230–4; Hilton, R. H., The English Peasantry in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1975), 67–8Google Scholar; Year Books of Richard II: 11 Richard II, 1387–88, ed. Thornley, I. D. (Ames Foundation, 1937), 168–74Google Scholar.

33 Bellamy, , Crime, 118–19Google Scholar; Storey, , House of Lancaster, 121–2Google Scholar.

34 Fowler, L., ‘Forms of Arbitration’, Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (1972), ed. Kuttner, S., 133–47Google Scholar; Julien, A. R., ‘Evolutio Historica Compromissi in Arbitros in lure Canonico’, Apollinaris, x (1937), 187–232Google Scholar.

35 A distinction was recognised at canon law between an arbitrium, performed by arbitri whose award adhered closely to legal principles and could not be appealed; and an arbitratus, performed by arbitratores who might take equitable considerations into account and whose award could, in certain circumstances, be subject to appeal: Fowler, , loc. cit., 135–44Google Scholar. In practice, however, this distinction tended to become blurred: cf. Janeau, H., ‘L'Arbitrage en Dauphiné au Moyen Age’, Revue Historique de Droit Frartçais et Étranger, 4th ser., xxiv–xxv (1946–1947), 246Google Scholar.

36 de Drokeda, William, Summa Aurea, ed. Wahrmund, L. (Quellen zur Geschichte des Römisch-Kanonischen Processes im Mittelalter, Bd. II, Heft II, Innsbruck, 1914), 189–90Google Scholar.

37 Janeau, , loc. cit., 255–7Google Scholar; Bongert, , Cours Laiques, 175–82Google Scholar.

38 Cartulary of Oseney Abbey, ed. Salter, H. E. (Oxford Hist. Soc., 1929–1936), v. 3–4Google Scholar.

39 Vet. Reg. Sarisberiense, ed. Jones, , ii. 79–81Google Scholar.

40 The Percy Chartulary, ed. Martin, M. T. (Surtees Soc., cxvii, 1911), 54–7Google Scholar; cf. Holt, J. C., The Northerners, (Oxford, 1961), 21–2, 67Google Scholar.

41 Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench, ii, ed. Sayles, G. O. (Selden Soc., lvii, 1938), cvi, n. 2Google Scholar (I am grateful to Dr P. R. Hyams for this reference). Year Books of Edward II: 5 Edward II, 1312, ed. Bolland, W. C. (Selden Soc., xxxiii, 1916), 178, 214–16Google Scholar; The Eyre of Kent, 6 and 7 Edward II, 1313–14, ed. Bolland, W. C. and others (Selden Soc., xxvii, 1912), 23–7Google Scholar.

42 See above, footnote 27.

43 McFarlane, , Nobility, 114Google Scholar.

44 Guy, J. A., The Cardinal's Court (Hassocks, 1977), 97–105Google Scholar; Ingram, M. J., ‘Communities and Courts: Law and Disorder in Early Seventeenth-Century Wiltshire’, in Crime in England, 1500–1800, ed. Cockburn, J. S. (1977), 125–7Google Scholar; Somerset Assize Orders, 1629–40, ed. Barnes, T. G. (Somerset Rec. Soc., lxv, 1959), passimGoogle Scholar.

45 Kaeuper, R. W., ‘Law and Order in Fourteenth-Century England: the Evidence of Special Commissions of Oyer and Terminer’, Speculum, liv (1979), 758–61Google Scholar.

46 Janeau, , loc. cit., 245–6Google Scholar; Guenée, B., Tribunaux et Gens de Justice dans le Bailliage de Senlis a la Fin du Moyen Age (Paris, 1963), 117–20Google Scholar.

47 Cf. White, S. D., ‘“Pactum … Legem Vincit et Amor Judicium.” The Settlement of Disputes by Compromise in Eleventh-Century Western France’, American Journal of Legal History, xxii (1978), 281–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 In certain circumstances, appeal from arbitration to the ecclesiastical courts was, however, permitted at canon law: see above, footnote 35.

49 See below, 63–6.

50 Ibid., 63–4.

51 Cal. Close Rolls, 1409–13, 69, 187; 1413–19, 369; 1429–35, 157.

52 As, for example in the Meryng – Tuxford and Paston–Aslake disputes, below, 57–8, 61–2.

53 Amundesham, Johannes, Annales Monasterü Sancti Albani, ed. Riley, H. T. (R.S., 1870–1871), i. 273Google Scholar.

54 Bennett, J. W., ‘The Medieval Loveday’, Speculum, xxxiii (1958), 364–5Google Scholar.

55 Rotuli Parliamentorum (1783–1832), iii. 649–50Google Scholar; Memorials of London and London Life, ed. Riley, H. T. (1868), 156–62Google Scholar.

56 P.R.O., KB 9 (King's Bench, Ancient Indictments)/204/2, mm. 6, 10. For the Meryng family, see Cameron, A., ‘Meering and the Meryng Family’, Transactions of the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire, lxxvii (1973), 41–52Google Scholar.

57 Cal. Close Rolls, 1413–19 50–4.

58 P.R.O., KB 27 (King's Bench, Plea Rolls)/614, Rex, mm. 9, 12; 616, Rex, mm. 17d, 28d.

59 Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1216–1509 (1891–1916), 1408–13, 43–2; Cal. Close Rolls, 1409–13, 397.

60 Cal. Close Rolls, 1413–19, 50–4.

61 Ibid., 373–4; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1416–22, 54–5.

62 Historiae Croylandensis Continuatio, ed. Fulman, W. (Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores Veteres, i, Oxford, 1684), 500–12Google Scholar; Ingulph's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland, trsld. Riley, H. T. (1854), 366–87Google Scholar.

63 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1413–16, 406; P.R.O., C 1 (Early Chancery Proceedings)/6 no. 272. The dispute with Spalding also appears to have been heard before the Duchy of Lancaster Council: P.R.O., DL 41 (Duchy of Lancaster, Miscellanea)/42, no. 3.

64 Hist. Croyland, 501.

65 Ibid., 502.

66 Ibid., 502, 506.

67 Ibid., 502–12. The award against Moulton and Weston is calendared in Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1413–16, 375–6. In view of these penal settlements it is not surprising that the disputes continued throughout the fifteenth century: P.R.O., C 1/12, no. 53; Ingulph's Chronicle, 393–5, 506–7.

68 See above, 52–3.

69 Plumpton Correspondence, 3–4.

70 P.R.O., KB 27/802, m. 5d.

71 The parties finally submitted to Bingham's, arbitration in 05 1462: Plumpton Correspondence, 3 nGoogle Scholar.

72 P.R.O., C 1/6, no. 257; Cal. Close Rolls, 1413–19, 369; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1413–16, 223–4; 1416–22, 111. The other arbitrator was the duke of Clarence. For the importance of arbitration in the rise of the Chancellor' equitable jurisdiction, see below, 64–6.

73 For royal justices as arbitrators or umpires, see Amundesham, , Annales S. Albani, i. 266–72Google Scholar; Rot. Part, iii. 649–50; Cal. Close Rolls, 1385–89, 437–8; 1409–13, 59, 183–5, 211, 222, 227, 235, 319, 330, 338–9, 397; 1447–54, 63, 173–4. 264, 360; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1416–22, 183–95.

74 Burton-on-Trent Public Library, D. 27, no. 654.

75 For another example, see Cal. Close Rolls, 1413–19, 197.

76 Yorkshire Deeds, III, ed. Brown, W. (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser., lxiii, 1922), 91–2Google Scholar.

77 ‘Courts, Councils and Arbitrators in the Ladbroke Manor Dispute, 1382–1400’, ed. Post, J. B., in Medieval Legal Records Edited in Memory of C. A. F. Meekings, ed. Hunnisett, R. F. and Post, J. B. (1978), 290–339Google Scholar.

78 Two conflicting versions of this dispute appear in Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, ed. Davis, N. (Oxford 1971, 1976), i. 7–12Google Scholar; ii. 505–7.

79 Ibid., ii. 506.

80 Ibid., i. 9.

81 Ibid., ii. 506–7.

82 Ibid., i. 10.

83 Ibid., i. 11–12. Aslake's parliamentary petition of 1426 is the one published by Davis in the Paston Letters: see above, footnote 78.

84 Paston's memorandum to arbitrators on the dispute apparently survives from this attempt: Paston Letters, ed. Davis, , i. 7–8Google Scholar.

85 Cal. Close Rolls, 1422–29, 393–4, 406.

86 See above, 53.

87 Ibid., 55.

88 See Cal. Plea and Mem. Rolls London, 1381–1412, xxix–xxx, for the involvement of urban courts in arbitration; for ecclesiastical courts, see above, 52–4.

89 ‘Ladbroke Manor Dispute’, ed. Post, , 294–5Google Scholar and n. 36; Year Books 12 Richard II, ed. Deiser, , 37–8, 164–6Google Scholar; Year Books of Richard II: 13 Richard II, 1389–90, ed. Plucknett, T. F. T. (Ames Foundation, 1929), 20–2, 104–5Google Scholar; PRO., KB 27/640, m. 12 (Huse v. Dethick).

90 Year Books of Richard II: 11 Richard II, 1387–88, ed. Thornley, I. D. (Ames Foundation, 1937), 168–74Google Scholar; Year Books of Henry VI: 1 Henry VI, 1422, ed. Williams, C. H. (Selden Soc., 1, 1933), 42–7Google Scholar.

91 Simpson, A. W. B., ‘The Penal Bond with Conditional Defeasance’, Law Quarterly Review, lxxxii (1966), 392–422Google Scholar. E.g. Cal. Close Rolls, 1409–13, 56–7, 69, 85, 96, 187, 202, 204, 211, 227, 294, 297, 298, 310, 311, 319, 324, 325, 330, 331, 334, 353, 395, 397, 400–2, 408, 416, 418; 1476–85, 22, 23, 76, 84–5, 108, 114, 168, 221, 223, 232, 243, 279, 286, 336, 357, 364–5, 394, 406–7, 414. 421.

92 Year Book Eyre of Kent, ed. Bolland, , 23–7Google Scholar; Year Books 12 Richard II, ed. Deiser, , 70–1Google Scholar; Year Books of Edward IV: 10 Edward IV and 49 Henry VI, 1470, ed. Neilson, N. (Selden Soc.., xlvii, 1931), 56–8Google Scholar.

93 P.R.O., CP 40 (Court of Common Pleas, Plea Rolls)/615, m. 342, calendared in William Salt Archaeological Society, xvii (1896), 51Google Scholar. For more on the Erdswick – Ferrers dispute, see Powell, E., ‘Public Order and Law Enforcement in Shropshire and Staffordshire in the Early Fifteenth Century’ (D.Phil, thesis, Oxford Univ., 1979), 285–99Google Scholar.

94 Harvard Law School Library, MS. 162, f. 200 (Year Book, temp. Edward I) (I am grateful to Dr R. C. Palmer for this reference). Year Book 1 Henry VI, ed. Williams, , 12–13Google Scholar.

95 Year Book Eyre of Kent, ed. Bolland, , 27Google Scholar.

96 Cf. Holdsworth, , History of English Law, ii. 591–7Google Scholar.

97 For the early history of the Chancery court of equity, see Avery, M., ‘The History of the Equitable Jurisdiction of Chancery before 1460’, Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., xlii (1969), 129–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pronay, N., ‘The Chancellor, the Chancery and the Council at the End of the Fifteenth Century’, in British Government and Administration, ed. Hearder, B. H. and Loyn, H. R. (Cardiff, 1974), 87–103Google Scholar.

98 Pronay, , loc. cil., 93–5Google Scholar.

99 Avery, , loc. cil., 130–1Google Scholar; Barton, J. L., ‘The Medieval Use’, Law Quart. Rev., lxxxi (1965), 562–77Google Scholar.

100 P.R.O., C 1/10, no. 311 (bonds lost); C 1/9, no. 68 (oral submission to arbitrators).

101 P.R.O., C 1/9, nos. 237, 476.

102 P.R.O., C 1/10, no. 243; C 1/33, nos. 191, 332.

103 P.R.O., C 1/9, nos. 160, 279; C 1/10, nos. 141, 337; C 1/16, no. 260; C 1/33, nos. 22, 327.

104 Cf. Harding, , Law Courts, 101–2Google Scholar. The court of Star Chamber was later to exercise a similar function: Guy, , Cardinal's Court, 97–105Google Scholar.

105 Throughout the late middle ages the Chancellor was usually a cleric, but his concern to promote arbitration may have derived less from experience as an ecclesiastical judge than from considerations of equity and conscience which were the basis of his jurisdiction in Chancery: see Milsom, S. F. C., Historical Foundations of the Common Law (1969), 81Google Scholar.

106 e.g. P.R.O., C 1/4, nos. 61, 193; Cal. Close Rolls, 1409–13, 69; 1419–22, 117 (Drax v. Bosvyle). C 1/16 no. no; Cal. Close Rolls, 1409–13, 187 (Covert v. Pensford). C 1/6, nos. 270–1; Cal. Close Rolls, 1413–19, 523–4 (Barstable v. Blount et al.). C 1/33, no. 210; Cal. Close Rolls, 1429–35, 157 (Herwarde v. Waterman et al.).

107 e.g. Trussell v. Porter (see above, 59–60), and Auncell v. Clerk: P.R.O., C 1/9, no. 20; Cal. Close Rolls, 1429–35, 297; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1429–36, 351, 470.

108 The bill, now lost, is referred to in Cal. Close Rolls, 1441–47, 52–3.

109 Cal. Close Rolls, 1435–41, 67; 1441–47, 52–3.

110 P.R.O., C 1/16, no. 196.

111 Cal. Close Rolls, 1441–47, 306; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1441–46, 352.

112 Cal. Close Rolls, 1447–54, 63.

113 ‘Ladbroke Manor Dispute’, ed. Post, , 292–7Google Scholar; Rawcliffe, C., 'Baronial Councils in the Later Middle Ages, in Patronage, Pedigree and Power, ed. Ross, , 91–3Google Scholar.

114 See above, 58–9, 61–2.