An Assault on the Royal Justices at Ash and the making of the Sandwich Custumal
AN ASSAULT ON THE ROYAL JUSTICES
AT ASH AND THE MAKING OF THE
SANDWICH CUSTUMAL 1
JUSTIN CROFT
On the 14th August, 1300, Ralph Sandwich, Roger de Hegham and
John Abel, itinerant justices of the King, were making their way
towards the port of Sandwich when they were met, in the neighbouring
village of Ash, by a group of men from Sandwich including
the mayor, John of Hoo, the town clerk, Adam Champneys, and at
least twenty-five others. The men of Sandwich proceeded to 'assault
the aforesaid justices of the king with force and arms ... and ill-treat
them, not permitting them to enter the king's town of Sandwich or to
do the duty that was enjoined upon them by the king, and cut open the
pouch with the king's rolls and break the bows and arrows of the men of
the aforesaid justices and inflict other outrages upon them, in contempt
of the king and the obvious hurt of the royal crown and dignity. '2
The record of this extraordinary event is found amongst the rolls of
the Court of the King's Bench for the Easter term, at which court,
John of Hoo, Nicholas the Ironmonger, Robert Monyn, Michael
Jeune, Walter the Draper, Thomas Gilote, Salecok Large, Adam
Champneys, Jordan Peny, Stephen the Falconer, Stephen Scorthals,
John atte Hole, Adam Wyberd junior, Thomas Edward, John of
London, Adam Charles senior, and Stephen Wyberd, who had been
involved in the assault, were attached to answer to the king.3 These
11 am grateful to Andrew Butcher for his invaluable comments on earlier drafts of this
paper, and for his assistance in the production of the appendix. I would also like to
acknowledge the helpful remarks and comments made by staff and graduate students at
the University of Kent, where an earlier version of this paper was read to a Medieval
and Tudor Studies graduate seminar.
2 PRO Coram Rege Roll no. 164 (Easter Term 1301), m. 6Jd.; transcribed in (Ed.)G. 0.
Sayles, Select Cases in the Court of the King's Bench under Edward I, iii, Publications
of the Selden Society, !viii (1939), 111-12.
3 The Easter term of the King's Bench of 130 I probably sat between 17 April and 12
May.
13
JUSTIN CROFT
men were by no means a mere rabble. They represented the leading
families of Sandwich, and at least some of them held office within
that town. The fact that the mayor, the town clerk and probably
several jurats were amongst them suggests that the encounter at Ash
was officially sanctioned and made in the interest of the community
of Sandwich. The appearance of Adam Champneys is of particular
interest, not least because his subsequent writings as town clerk allow
us to examine contemporary perceptions of the town, its administration,
and its relationship with the Crown. The object of this discussion is,
in part, to explain why such a substantial group of individuals, with
apparently so much to lose should come to be involved in such a
violent incident, which caused them to be brought before the King's
Bench. It is also intended to examine the sequence of activities which
followed this event, including, it is suggested, the writing-up of the
custumal of Sandwich. The far-reaching consequences of the attack
are considered as also a manifestation of much more extensive
processes of conflict and dispute between the Crown and localities at
the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
It is important to recognise from the outset that despite the rhetoric
of the King's Bench proceedings, the attack at Ash does not constitute
mindless violence, but seems to have had very specific intentions.
The men of Sandwich must have set out for the village of Ash
(situated just outside the Sandwich liberty) on that Sunday of the
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary with the intention of intercepting
the king's justices and of preventing them from entering
the bounds of the liberty of Sandwich. The records suggest a degree
of planning and foresight, determining the time, place and people to
be involved. The careful description of the facts of the event tell us
that the bag containing the king's rolls was cut open, and that the
bows and arrows of the justices' retinue were broken, and that 'other
outrages' were committed. This again suggests that the attackers
knew what they wanted to achieve: to disarm the justices in order to
prevent them from doing their office. The record also appears to show
a keen awareness of the symbolic significance of their actions. The
bows and arrows, and the documents in the bag both appear to have
been considered potential weapons against the inhabitants of
Sandwich. The fact that the bag containing the king's rolls was cut
open suggests that the contents were removed and perhaps carried
away. A second record of the event, which names a further participant,
John, son of Giles the Paviour, also mentions the king's rolls as an
object of the attack and tells us that they were seized by the attackers.4
4 PRO, C.260, 18, no. 23.
14
AN ASSAULT ON THE ROYAL JUSTICES AT ASH
The fact that both of the extant records of the event mention the
documents carried by the justices as a focus of the attack suggests that
the men of Sandwich were also doing something rather more than
simply disarming the justices. Exactly what documents the justices
were carrying in their bag, which made them the target of this attack
is a tantalising question which we can go some way towards answering
in the examination of the background to this incident and of the
subsequent chain of events which was apparently set in motion.
It is difficult to establish what 'inquisitions' the justices were
intending to make in Sandwich, since their commission does not
survive, although we do know that they had also attempted to hold
other inquisitions in Dover at this time, but were resisted also by the
inhabitants of that town.5 It is likely that they were involved in the
examination of franchises or their abuse within the Cinque Ports. The
Cinque Ports, of which Sandwich was a 'head port', had developed a
high degree of administrative and judicial autonomy ('franchises')
from an early period, in recognition of the military service which they
had rendered to the king. Thus, the examination of franchises by agents
of the crown was by no means new, and had become a particular
feature of the later thirteenth century. Since at least the early thirteenth
century inhabitants of the ports had increasingly (although not always
successfully) claimed exemption from the jurisdiction of itinerant
royal justices, including those associated with the general Eyre.6 It
was claimed that freemen of the ports were only subject to thfir own
town courts, and to the Warden's Court of Shepway, which had by
this period developed a procedure and function similar to the Eyre.
What is important here, is that the inhabitants of Sandwich saw the
appearance of royal justices on the bounds of their liberty as a threat
to be countered with a carefully focused act of violence, which would
require them to defend their actions in the king's courts. It may also
be that these justices were particularly intolerable, carrying before
them certain reputations. Ralph Sandwich, as his name attests was
actually a local man, but one who had become prominent in the
service of the Crown. In 1285, he had been installed by the king as
keeper of the city of London in an unprecedented royal intrusion into
long established urban franchises, issuing new ordinances and carrying
out a complete overhaul of the city's customs and courts.7 This history
would almost certainly have been common knowledge amongst the
inhabitants of Sandwich, particularly those involved in its administra-
5 K. M. E. Murray, The Constitutional History of the Cinque Ports (Manchester 1935)
69.
' '
6 Murray, op. cit., 69-70.
7 Gwyn A. Williams, Medieval London: from Commune to Capital ( 1963), 243-63.
15
JUSTIN CROFT
tion, and cannot have failed to influence their reaction to him as an
itinerant justice.
Less than a month after the incident at Ash, on the ninth of September,
John of Hoo (still mayor of Sandwich), Adam Steffan, Thomas
Schelvyng, Walter Draper, William Mor, Michael of Romney, Walter
Taverner, Adam Charles and others put their names to a document
appointing a certain Robert of Sturry as attorney and adviser to the
community of Sandwich, for a period of ten years. 8 He was to come on
horseback when needed and, when necessary, was to give advice in
the king's courts. For this he was to be given an annuity of four
pounds and an additional fee of eighteen pence for every day he
laboured on behalf of the town. Robert of Sturry was probably a
trained lawyer, and Adam Champneys, the Sandwich town clerk, was
later to describe him as 'wise and circumspect' ('virum sapientum et
circumspectum').9 This appointment suggests that the mayor and
jurats of Sandwich perceived the need for professional legal advice,
probably in part because they expected to have to appear in the king's
courts to defend their actions of the previous month. The ten-year
period of the appointment suggests also that the government expected
to make a much more extensive use of Richard's legal expertise in the
administration of the town. Knowledge of the law, or access to those
with such knowledge, appears to have been seen as a crucial element
of urban government at this time.
That Robert of Sturry appears to have begun his work for the
community of Sandwich immediately is suggested by the fact that
when the King's Bench sat in April 1301 the town had drawn up an
enormously complex and wide-ranging document (presented in a
book) setting out its claimed liberties, franchises, customs and usages
along with an array of anecdotal and historical material relating to
these. Through Adam Champneys, and with the probable assistance
of Robert of Sturry, the mayor and jurats of Sandwich had produced
a description of all of the officers of the town (the mayor, the jurats,
the sergeant and others) and the mode of their election; they wrote
down the ordinances which had been made for the governance of the
town by the mayor and jurats; the particular possessions, rights and
Sandwich Custumal. CKS Sa/LC I, ff. 3-4; printed in Boys, Collectionsf or an His•
tor\' t.fSundwich in Kent (Canterbury 1892 [17921), 432 (the appointment of Robert of
Sturry). SalLC I is a small manuscript book made c. 1373, and is the earliest known
version of the Sandwich Custumal. lt is possible to deduce the likely contents of Adam
C'hampneys version made in 1300-1301 by extracting from the later text all those
documents which can be dated to before 1301, through the appearance of actual dates
t'T through consideration of the incidence of names and events.
I) Sa:'LC I, fr: 3-4, and Boys. op. cit .• 432.
16
AN ASSAULT ON THE ROY AL JUSTICES AT ASH
duties which these officers held within the town; the charter granted
to the town by Edward I when he was awaiting passage at Sandwich
in 1298, stating that they should be exempt from the jurisdiction of
his household officials; the manner in which the holding and
transferring of property, housing and land was regulated by the mayor
and jurats; the operation of the various town courts and the division
of rights and duties between the town officials and the king's bailiff;
the naval service which the Cinque Ports were to render to the crown
yearly; the service which the barons of the ports rendered at a
coronation; the exact boundaries of the liberty of Sandwich as
perambulated by Stephen Pencester in the 1290s; and a rehearsal of
the 'general charter' granted to the ports in 1278. In short, they had
produced a 'custumal'.
The extensive range of material found in this custumal is testimony
to what must have been a lengthy process of collecting, copying,
composing and editing on the part of its writers. Some of the material
(including the charters and the 'perambulation' of the liberty) were
probably copied from documents already kept by the government
of Sandwich. Much of the material, however, may never have been
written up before and so required composition from scratch. A
particularly good example of this new composition is the description
of the government of Sandwich, which is very clearly structured
in terms of the civic ceremony which surrounded its annual election.
The mayor is to be chosen by the community in St. Clement's church
on the Monday following the feast of St. Andrew (30th November).
This is preceded by the sounding of the common horn at the fourteen
customary places around the town, with the Wardman proclaiming:
'Ech man of twelf yer other more guo to seint Clemantis Cherche,
ther oure commune haith niede, an haste, an haste.' The election
ceremony is described in detail: with the old mayor making an address,
with the staff, the common horn and the keys to the common chest
beside him. The election is made following the withdrawal of the old
mayor and the other candidates; and the newly-chosen mayor makes
his oath, along with the jurats. The keys of the common chest are
handed to him and to two jurats appointed keepers, and a procession
is made to the house of the new mayor. The performance continues
on the following Thursday, and the text runs on to describe the
appointments and oaths of the other civic officials: the sergeants,
jurats appointed as wardens for orphans, jurats appointed to divide
inheritances between heirs, the common weigher, the public brokers
and the porters. Oaths are made, and details are entered in the common
rolls. Following this, a set of fourteen ordinances is proclaimed to the
assembly. The form and ordering of this portion of the custumal is of
great interest, in that it closely follows the chronological sequence of
17
JUSTIN CROFT
a yearly ritual event. Although its function is to describe the nature of
the government of Sandwich, it does so in a manner which suggests
the non-literate origins of custom. The authority of the text is situated
in the performance of the ritual itself, as is indicated by the careful
description of the spaces to be used in the ceremony, the actions to be
performed, words to be spoken and symbolic objects to be used. The
knowledge expressed in this text is based on practice rather than
abstract principle, which suggests that it had not formerly been
passed on as a text, but as a ritual, enduring in a collective memory,
through its yearly performance by the inhabitants of Sandwich. It is
likely that the ritual was first committed to writing in Adam
Champneys' custumal.
The nature of this part of the custumal text has been emphasised
because it contrasts in character with another portion of the same text,
which describes the holding of courts in the town and the relative rights
and duties of the mayor (on behalf of the community) and the bailiff
( on behalf of the king). 10 This portion, whilst containing a certain
amount of anecdotal and ritual material is conspicuous for its more
abstract legal character. Not only does it describe courts and their
functions, but it goes into some detail on matters of legal principle
which would have been familiar to a trained lawyer. Much of this
portion of the text would seem to have its origins not so much in the
collective memory of inhabitants of Sandwich as in the discourse of
the common law and its text books. It is perhaps in this section that
we can most clearly identify the work and advice of Robert of Sturry,
who was not an inhabitant of the town but a lawyer well versed in the
legal principles of the written law being developed at a national level.
The contrast drawn here suggests that the Sandwich custumal written
up by Champneys represents a variety of influences, and can be seen
as an interface between local knowledge and a more centralised
knowledge based around the king's courts, in some way represented
by oral and written knowledge, respectively.
In April 1301, Adam Champneys wrote the following text as a
preamble to this custumal:
'Whereas many doubtful points have been met with in the liberties of
Sandwich, when nothing concerning them has been written down, and
human memory is apt to fail, I, Adam Champneys, realising the great
uncertainty and danger resulting from uncertainty, shall put in writing what
the lord has suffered me to perceive and to understand and to have heard
from my predecessors and my relations, because the written word remains
10 Sa/LC I, ff. 49-69; Boys, op. cir., 443-62.
18
AN ASSAULT ON THE ROYAL JUSTICES AT ASH
for counsel of those who in times to come shall govern this town, begging
that such things as perhaps by negligence or ignorance or presumption are
not set out in this little book in proper manner, neither clearly nor fully
enough, may be supplemented by the industry of a discreet editor, because
according to our poets, who repeat such sayings 'well begun is half done',
'may better fortune follow on this poor beginning' and 'it is something to
make a history up to a certain point, even if it is not permitted one to go
further. If it is indeed an easier matter to conclude an unfinished work than
to start it and continue it on to its end.' Completed in the month of April,
in the year of grace J 301, 29th of the reign of King Edward I.' 11
This preamble is expressed with a sense of rhetoric and historical
moment, with its implicit emphasis on the error of the recent past. It
also shows a preoccupation with the need to commit previously
unwritten knowledge to writing. It is likely, however, that it is not
entirely original, since it seems to have close affinities with the
prologues which had come habitually to be attached to legal and
customary collections of the thirteenth century. The consideration of
the fallibility of human memory and the relative permanence of the
written record is a motif which is found in a number of such collections
from the early thirteenth century, and the request that the task begun
might be completed by writers of the future also has parallels,
particularly with the later thirteenth-century London and royal law
books. The unknown late-thirteenth century compiler of the law book
which has come to be known as Fleta introduced his work with a
preamble explaining that he has resolved to set down as many as
possible of the laws of the realm, but acknowledges that to complete
such a task by himself would be impossible. 12 He also requests that
his work might be amended in the future where it is found to be in
error. Adam Champneys' preamble clearly has important resonances
with this earlier text. It is likely that such preambles were in fact
variations of a widespread textual form, the knowledge of which
appears to have been shared by clerks and other administrators both
in England and further afield. In northern France, around the year
1280, Philippe de Beaumanoir had made a collection of Coutumes de
Beauvais is, for which he composed a preamble which is thematically
remarkably similar to Champneys' text. 13 De Beaumanoir wrote of
11 Sa/LC I, f. I; Boys, op. ell. 495. This translation from the original Latin of the
manuscript is based on that produced by Dorothy Gardiner, Historic Haven: the story
of Sandwich {Derby, 1954), 56.
12 cf. (Eds.) H.G. Richardson and 0.0. Sayles, Fleta, ii, Publications of the Selden
Society, lxxii (1955), 1-3.
13 A transcription and translation of portions of the Coutumes de Beauvaisis, including
the preamble, are to be found in D. Herlihy, The History of Feudalism (1970), 187-96.
19
JUSTIN CROFT
the fallibility of human memory, of the transience of things not
committed to writing, and of his resolve to make a record of customs
so that his work might be continued or amended by those to come. It is
of great significance that both of these earlier collections appear to
have been made in the spirit of petitions, presented by their makers
in the hope that ancient laws might be respected by those with
responsibility for government. The compiler of Fleta claimed to have
made his collection in the Fleet prison of London, where he had been
imprisoned through some miscarriage of justice. 14 De Beaumanoir's
collection has a more immediately feudal character, being addressed
to the overlord of the Beauvais region, the Count of Clermont. The
resonances of these texts in Adam Cbampneys' preamble might
suggest that the Sandwich custumal was also drawn up in defence of
anciently established custom. Champneys' knowledge of this culture
of legal and customary writing raises very interesting questions as to
his professional contacts as a town clerk, and to his education. The
few biographical details of him which are known indicate that at the
time of his production of the custumal he was both town clerk and
rector of St. Peters' church in Sandwich. Some years after this
production he was granted several leaves of absence from his tenure
in order that he might take up studies at a university, suggesting that
at the time of the writing of the custumal be had not yet participated
in formal university education. 15 This may indicate that he gained
his manifest learning through practical administrative experience and
through contacts with other clerks and administrators. 16 His later career
appears to confirm the impression of an individual with extensive
clerkly contacts, as he was to go on to serve as a king's clerk and finally
to be appointed as archdeacon of the diocese of Worcester . 17 This
biography has important implications for the interpretation of urban
custumals produced by town clerks, since it is likely that through the
personal and professional connections of these people ideas and texts
relating to urban government were passed on from one clerk to another.
This suggests the possibility that a single custumal may have been
produced from a wide variety of sources. The experience of Adam
Champneys also suggests that a high level of literate ability existed at
this period outside the universities and other formal educational
establishments.
14 Richardson and Sayles, op. cit., 1-3.
15 l.J. Churchill, Canterbury Administration (SPCK., nd) l 16n.• l t 7.
16 A further parallel with the career of Philippe de Beaumanoir is here apparent, since
he, too, appears to have had no formal legal training before the compilation of his
custumal, cf Herlihy, op. cit., 188.
17 J. Le Neve, Fast/ Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1330-/ 541, iv (1963), 62.
20
AN ASSAULT ON THE ROYAL JUSTICES AT ASH
It is the date which Champneys adds to the end of his preamble
which is of paramount interest in the discussion of the circumstances
surrounding the production of the custumal.18 It connects the production
of the custumal with the session of the King's Bench at which he and
his peers were required to make their defence for their attack on the
king's justices, preventing them from entering the liberty of Sandwich
to carry out an inquisition. It further suggests that the attempted
incursion of the justices had prompted the government of Sandwich
to draw up a systematic account of their liberties in order that they
might be defended in the future. This connection is the particular
value of the Sandwich evidence, since amongst all the custumals of
the Cinque Ports and the similar collections for other English boroughs,
it is rare to be able to attach both a firm date to their production and
to be able to reconstruct the political environment of their composition.
Indeed, it seems to be a feature of borough custumals that particular
events are sidelined in order to emphasise the timeless nature of
urban customs in the inventing of tradition. 19 The Sandwich evidence
suggests that if town custumals are to be meaningfully interpreted,
we need to look beneath the deliberately constructed notion of 'time
out of mind' to the precise events which surrounded their production.
In order to understand exactly why the attempted making of a royal
inquisition in the liberty of Sandwich should have such far reaching
results, the experience that the mayors and jurats of Sandwich had of
such inquisitions needs to be examined in more detail. The attempted
inquisition of August 1300 must be seen in its context as just one of
the many attempts made by the Crown in the preceding century to
define, and in many cases, to limit, the extent of franchises held by
communities. The thirteenth century (especially the latter part of it)
had witnessed repeated negotiation between the Crown and members
of the Cinque Ports, concerning the nature of granted or assumed
liberties and franchises.20 This was largely dictated by the Crown's
constant vigilance over its sources of revenue ( especially in times of
special financial need) in order to prevent encroachment. This vigilance
resulted in a number of nation-wide enquiries, which were to develop
in the quo warranto proceedings of the last quarter of the century.21
18 It may be significant that Champneys gives both the full date: 'anno gracie m!llesimo
CCCmo primo' as well as the more usual regnal year: 'regni regis Edwardi vicesimo
nano'. This may suggest that he himself attached considerable importance to this date. 19 cf (Eds.) E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger, The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge,
19f/>• in particular Hobsbawm's introduction 'Inventing Traditions', 1-14.
2
cf Murray, op. cit. 63-70. 1 A detailed examination of the quo warranto proceedings is found in D.W. Sutherland,
Quo Warranto Proceedings in the reign of Edward I /279-94 (Oxford, 1963).
21
JUSTIN CROFT
Although it is known, from the records of the crown, that the Cinque
Ports witnessed a number of enquiries at this time, direct references
to them amongst the records of the ports themselves are conspicuously
lacking. This may, in part, be the result of poor survival of material of
this period, but it may also suggest that the ports had not yet developed
a sophisticated manner of dealing with these enquiries or of recording
their proceedings. It has been suggested that the king and his justices
showed little respect for old-established judicial procedures in the
thirteenth-century quo warranto proceedings, and developed a series
of new processes in order to deal with the multiplicity of claims of
liberties and franchises in communities. Furthermore, the Crown
lawyers were continually articulating new ways in which claims
might be disallowed.22 Thus, when a community brought its claims of
liberties to the eyre courts through which the business of quo warranto
was transacted, it may have had little idea of how these claims might
successfully be defended. It is likely that repeated threats to the
liberties of a community may have eventually stimulated the need for
the production of new records such as custumals for their defence, but
this does not seem to have occurred in Sandwich (nor in any of the
other Cinque Ports) until at least the turn of the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries. As a result, it is to the Close and Patent rolls,
and more particularly, to the records of the Exchequer that we need to
turn for evidence of the relationship between the community of
Sandwich and the Crown in the thirteenth century.
It appears that, as early as 1218, the liberties of the Cinque Ports
were intended to be scrutinised in the Kent and Sussex eyres, but that
in 1227 a separate eyre for the ports was summoned to be held at
Shepway, probably because the ports had claimed immunity from the
general eyres. However, this eyre was postponed until the next year
and thereafter was indefinitely postponed. The last set of summons
(30 July, 1228) set the 23 August as the day for the enquiry, since by
then, the men of the ports would have returned from their trading
journeys and it was before the grape harvest on the Continent and the
coastal fishing season.23 After this last deferral, it seems that no
systematic enquiries were attempted until later in the century. A
second major period of enquiry began in the 1270s, and as has been
convincingly argued, represented a widely recognised 'campaign'
by the Crown to safeguard and to extend its income in a period of
financial crisis.24 It is the intensity of this campaign which may best
22 cf Sutherland, op. cit., 13-15.
23 David Crook, Records of the General Eyre (H.M.S.O., 1982), 78-9.
24 Sutherland, op. cit., 2-23.
22
AN ASSAULT ON THE ROYAL JUSTICES AT ASH
explain the sensitivity of members of a community such as Sandwich
to the activities of the royal justices, as demonstrated by their actions
in 1300. The enquiry was intended to cover the whole country and
developed specific procedures, in which franchise holders were to
come to court with details of what they thought their liberties consisted
of, and by what warrant they claimed them. This process, it has been
suggested was particularly aggressive in its summary procedure and
its virtual reversal of the usual legal position of plaintiff and defendant.
The plaintiff was usually the party who had to issue allegations to
which the defendant answered to in court. In the quo warranto
proceedings, however, the plaintiff (in this case the Crown) issued no
allegations, and the onus was on the defendant (the franchise holder)
to present a case when summoned. It may be that this legal innovation
may have encouraged franchise holders to gather together evidence
before appearing in court. This is significant, since the particular
strength of will thus demonstrated on the Crown's behalf may have
been responsible for the rather extraordinary long-term results of the
campaign, which can be traced in the case of Sandwich.
It has been seen how the Cinque Ports had previously claimed
exemption from general eyres, and it is of great significance that in
the quo warranto campaigns of the later thirteenth century, they were
nonetheless summoned to appear before the eyres. Once again, this
demonstrates a particularly forceful approach to the proceedings on
the part of the Crown. The earliest mention of a member of the Cinque
Ports in this campaign relates to Fordwich (a limb of Sandwich)
which was given respite from inquisition in 1275/6 ' ... because the
king cannot at this time attend to the judging of the charters'.25
Around Easter 1276, seven parties claiming liberties under these
proceedings had their case adjourned to Michaelmas 1276, including
the port of Romney and the Abbot of Battle (lord of the port ofLydd)
so that charters might be inspected and considered. 26 It appears that
the revolt in Wales diverted attention away from the examination of
the franchises and it is recorded that the cases of the men of Sandwich,
Fordwich, Romney, Hastings and Faversham were adjourned until
the end of the next Parliament, which would have been Easter of
1277. Postponement was again made until Easter 1278, because of
war, when a decision was made to adjourn all cases for the time being
and to allow all franchise holders to remain in possession of their
liberties for the time being whilst a new strategy was developed.27
The decision is recorded in the Statute of Gloucester:
25 Sutherland, op. ell., 21n.
Sutherland, op. cit., 2 I-22.
Sutherland, op. cit., 22-23.
23
JUSTIN CROFT
'In our last parliament at Westminster [Easter 1278] we and our council
decided and proclaimed that prelates, earls, barons, and others of our
kingdom who claim to have those various liberties for the examination and
judgement of which ["ad quas examinandas etjudicandas"J we had assigned
them a day in that parliament, should use those liberties: so that they
should not increase them by usurpation of encroachment and so that they
should not encroach on our rights.'28
It was in 1278, presumably as a result of this charter scrutiny and of the
desire to produce some form of definition, that the Cinque Ports were
granted their 'general Charter', in which the privileges previously
granted to individual towns of the confederation were amalgamated
and granted to all of the Cinque Ports in general.29 It has been suggested
that this charter is a confused document, with liberties 'thrown
somewhat indiscriminately in the charter, so that each port received
not only the privileges already granted to it, but all the liberties which
had been granted to each of the other ports, causing some confusion
and repetition. '30 This may be the result of summary treatment of an
unprecedented amount of documentary material. We know that
postponement had been made for the examination of charters, and we
must envisage a period in which towns sought out ( or perhaps even
wrote up) their charters from their own records or from elsewhere, as
well as a period of collation, cross-referencing and editing which
must have taken place in a royal department.
The Statute of Gloucester effectively set up the huge machinery of
the quo warranto campaign proper, which relied on circuits of the
eyre hearing all the liberties and franchises as it made its way around
the country. The eyres apparently visited Kent and Sussex in 1279, but
no business relating to the Cinque Ports survives.31 A second circuit
visited Sussex nearly ten years later, in 1288, and Kent in 1293, but
once again there is no systematic record surviving of urban pleas, a
point which remains something of a mystery.32 However, the 1293
Kent circuit appears to have represented a general survey of franchises
held in the county. It is particularly significant that this circuit appears
to have been the stimulus for the codification of the Customs of
Kent. 33 This demonstrates the close connection between pressure
28 Sutherland, op. cil., 23, 190-3.
29 L.F. Salzman, The Victoria County History of Kent, ix (1937) 30 , 37-8. Salzman, op. cil., foe. cit.
31 cf Sutherland, op. cit., 28; Crook, op.cit., 159.
32 Sutherland, op. cit., 28-9.
33 Felix Hull, 'John de Berwyk and the Consuetudines Kancie', Arch. Cant., xcvi
(1980), 1-15. C.L. Sinclair-Williams, 'The Codification of the Customs of Kent',
Arch. Cant., xcv (1979), 65-79.
24
AN ASSAULT ON THE ROY AL JUSTICES AT ASH
exerted by the Crown on a particular community and the production
of written codes of previously unwritten custom, apparently carried
out in order that these customs might be better defended in the future.
It is also probable that the justices responsible for this circuit, under
John de Berwick, attempted to take enquiries within the liberty of the
Cinque Ports, since a writ survives directing that justice to allow the
barons ofFaversham to enjoy all the liberties which had been granted
to them by charter.34 It is also very likely that the circuit took an
inquisition into the liberties of Sandwich. A small vellum roll surviving
in the public records, written i n a late-thirteenth century hand, relates
to liberties claimed by the mayor and community of Sandwich in the
form of a quo warranto enquiry taken some time after 1290, which
suggests that it may form a record of the enquiries of 1293.The text of
this roll is of great importance to the understanding of Adam
Champneys' custumal, and is, accordingly, presented here as an
appendix.35
The enquiry text opens with two clauses which outline the history
of the lordship of Sandwich. 36 They mention the original grant of the
lordship to the monks of Christchurch Priory by King Cnut in 1023
and the expulsion of the Priory by King John (as a result of the
disputed elections of the successor to Archbishop Hubert Walter). It
is stated that, at the time of the expulsion, before the institution of the
office of mayor at Sandwich, the community had usurped certain
rights and liberties. In 1290, the prior of Christchurch had made an
exchange of the lordship of Sandwich, relinquishing all its rights in
the town to the king. Thus, the enquiry seeks to restore the rights now
held by the king in the town to the form of the charter originally
granted by Cnut, and to disqualify all those liberties claimed by the
mayor and community of Sandwich which cannot be substantiated by
sufficient warrant.
· Following the two introductory clauses, there appear 23 clauses
representing claims made by the mayor, or the mayor and community
(beginning 'The mayor claimed .... ' ['maior asserit']; 'The mayor and
the whole community ... ' ['Mayor et Tota communitas'] or 'The mayor
by assent of the community' ['maior de assensu communitas'] to a
variety of liberties and franchises in the government and administration
of the town. The fact that the document is the result of an
enquiry is underlined by the way in which the clauses are terminated.
The first five claims receive the response characteristic of the quo
warranto proceedings 'It is not known by what warrant [the franchise
34 Hull, op. cit., 3.
:PROMS El63/2/26. See below, Appendix.
See appendix, clauses (1) and [2].
25
JUSTIN CROFT
is held]' ( 'Nescitur quo waranto' ), whilst others are not directly refuted,
but receive comment such as 'to the prejudice and loss [ of the
crown's possessions or dignity]' ('In prejudiciam et exheredicionem
&c.'), which is the commonly found abbreviation for those things
which run contrary to the king's interest.37 Some others are directly
contradicted: such as that clause which describes the mayor, without
the bailiff('per se absque ballivus') overseeing the taking of distraints
on the goods of foreign merchants and which receives the comment
that in this town this is the right of the bailiff, the servant of the Crown
('Ita quod quilibet de villa predicta in hoe casu est ballivus').38 Other
clauses still seem to receive no comment at all.39
Although the Exchequer document is undoubtedly a royal production,
it does represent something of a prototype for the much more extensive
custumal compiled by Adam Champneys in 1300-1301. When
Champneys wrote up bis custumal, he may well have been elaborating
the claims made by his predecessors in the thirteenth century. He tells
us in his preamble that amongst his sources is the wisdom of his
predecessors, which must suggest that he was able to consult already
existing documents. It is possible that he used a text of the thirteenth
century enquiry, since there do seem to be connections between it and
his own custumal text. This possibility is worth considering in some
detail, since ifit can be substantiated it would seem to be an important
clue to the sources used by an urban government in the production of
a custumal text.
Several of the clauses of the enquiry document (at least 9 of them)
do seem to be directly addressed in Champneys' custumal. This is
suggested by both the similarity of subject matter in both versions,
and also the style of the relevant part of Champneys' text. Two of the
enquiry's clauses, ([9] and [22], relating to distraints and to deodand
exactions)40 are addressed in clauses which begin with the emphatic
'Sciendum est. .. ', which is an occasional form in custumal texts and
represents a degree of insistence, suggesting that in the past some
doubt had been cast on the claim. Three of the enquiry's clauses are
addressed and the claims strengthened by recourse to custom, usage
or other historical justification. It is significant that two of these
clauses ([S] and [6]) are amongst those terminated 'It is not known by
what warrant' ('Nescitur quo waranto') in the enquiry.
37 See appendix, clause [9J.
38 See appendix, clause [8].
39 See appendix, clauses (14], (15] and [16].
40 An exaction made following the death of an inhabitant. Originally, the exaction was
in the form of the object (or weapon) which caused the death. By this time, however,
it would have been a money fine.
26
AN ASSAULT ON TiiE ROY AL JUSTICES AT ASH
The first of these clauses [S], relates to the assize of bread and
punishments for its breaking, and receives a very interesting
treatment in Champneys' custumal. In the enquiry, the mayor had
claimed that no common baker suffer punishment at the pillory in the
town ('quod nullus pistorem commorans in villa predicat judiciam
pilorii debet subire'), but no warrant could be produced for this
liberty. When we find the issue raised in the custumal, this is the
wording:
'And this is the custom of the liberty, because none here ever suffer the
pillory or whipping-post, or other such like punishments as are inflicted in
the foreign (i.e. outside the liberty). At that time when the custom was in
the hands of the prior and convent of Christchurch Canterbury, we had no
officer here under the name of bailiff but a "prepositus ", or in English,
"portreve".41
Champneys thus asserts that this is the usage of the liberty, and it is
on this custom that the authority of his assertion rests. It is apparently
strengthened by going on to refer to the period before the overlordship
of the crown, to the time when Christchurch had held the town of
Sandwich, by referring to the reeve whose office predated that of the
king's bailiff. In this way, he seems to be using the history of the town
and its offices to confer authority on a claimed liberty.
The issue raised in the second of these two clauses [ 6] relating to
the custody of weights and measures in the town, which is stated to
have been claimed without knowledge of by what warrant, receives
attention in Champneys' custumal thus: 'and the bailiff shall in no
way interfere, since the community have the custody of this of old'
('et ballivus nichil se debet interponere, quia communitas habuit
ipsam custodiam ab antiquo'), which directly denies any right in this
matter of the bailiff, through recourse to anciently established
practice.
In addition to this sort of customary justification, Champneys
makes repeated references to royal grants and charters in order to
strengthen and justify his claims. One particular reference is applicable
here, since it refers to a clause terminated 'It is not known by what
warrant' in the enquiry [7]. The clause in the enquiry text states that
the mayor 'in the service of the community' ('ad opera communitatis')
41 'Et iste est usus libertatis. Quia non debent pat! collistrigium necusque solent, nee
castigarium, vel huiusmodi tormenta, que sunt in forinseco ordinata. Et tune temporibus,
i d!cta villa no nomin,atur ballius'. set prepositus, anglice, portreve;
quando, v1dehcet, custuma 1psius v11le erat pr1or1s et conventus ecclesie Christi Cantuariensis';
cf. Boys, op. cit., 542 and 544.
27
JUSTIN CROFT
has appropriated the escheats of tenements in cases of failed heirs, of
bastards, and of felons. The custumal addresses the same issue:
'Also the mayor and community hold the area of their liberty and all their
privileges of the king by a certain service rendered to him in his war, as is
mentioned before; in consideration of which they have all escheats of lands
and tenements happening within the town; also the lands and tenements of
felons and fugitives after a year and a day, during which time they are taken
for the king's use by his bailiff.'42
The 'as is mentioned before' seems to relate to the citation of a letter
patent of 1289 earlier in the custumal text, which specifically grants
this franchise to the community of Sandwich. It, therefore, seems
extraordinary that when the assertion was made in the enquiry of this
franchise, the community was not able to produce sufficient warrant
to prove the claim, even though the franchise had been confirmed
only a few years earlier. This is surprising, but may in fact be a
genuine reflection of the inability of defendants to counter the
Crown's strength of will in quo warranto proceedings. It also demonstrates
the emerging need for franchise holders to be able to have in
their possession written copies of grants and confirmations, in order
that they may be presented as proof when required. This goes some
way to explaining the desire to collect and codify such grants in
written custumals.
A further strategy which appears in the custumal, and which apparently
connects it with the claims made in the enquiry, is that of
turning around implicit accusations made in that enquiry. This is
demonstrated in clause [8]. This states that the mayor, without the
bailiff, has encouraged the freemen of the town to make distraints on
foreign traders, and this right is to be disallowed. Furthermore, the
text states that only the bailiff has the right to make such distraints
('Ita quod quilibet de villa predicta in hoe casu est ballivus'). The
mayor is thus denied the right to profit from these distraints.
Champneys, in the custumal, addresses the same issue (the distraint
of foreign merchants) as though to suggest that the bailiff had in fact
been abusing his power, and that the mayor and jurats claim in this
instance to represent the best interests of the king's borough:
42 'Item maior et communitas tenent aream illam a domino rege, una cum alii libertatibus
suis per quoddam certum servicium ei reddendum in guerra sua, prout dictum
est, et propter hoe habent ipsi omnes escaetas terrarum et tenementorum in eadem villa
accidentes. Habent eciam terras et tenementa feloniorum et fugitorum ultra unum
annum et unum diem, quod domino regi pertinet per ballivum suum '. Boys, op. cit., 534
and 537.
28
AN ASSAULT ON THE ROYAL JUSTICES AT ASH
'The mayor and jurats should endeavour to protect from injury all merchant
strangers resorting to the town, and all honest men whether foreigners or
subjects; and if the bailiff should exact from them higher duties for their
goods than he ought, or in any other respects oppress them, the mayor and
jurats should remonstrate against his proceedings as prejudicial to the
king's borough.'43
Having drawn a comparison between the contents of the enquiry
document of the 1290s and the custumal written up in the winter of
1300/1301, it is necessary to give some further consideration as to
whether it is possible that Adam Champneys consulted a version of
that enquiry text in the making of his collection. As a document
produced by a royal court the enquiry would have been enrolled
amongst the records of the Chancery or the Exchequer. As has been
noted, the surviving version exists amongst the 'Miscellanea' of the
Exchequer, and as such may represent a copy made from the rolls of
the justices who had originally taken the enquiry. It is not at all
certain that the town of Sandwich had in its own archives a version of
the claims which they had made in the thirteenth century enquiry, and
it is possible that those claims had been made orally by the mayor in
that court. The defensive tone of parts of the custumal outlined above,
however, does suggest that Champneys was working in reaction to
some other document, perhaps the enquiry text itself. It is here that
we should look again at the violent encounter at Ash in 1300, in
which the king's rolls were carried away. If the king's justices were
making enquiry into the liberties of Sandwich as has been suggested,
then the documents which they carried with them almost certainly
included memoranda of the liberties of Sandwich which had been
previously claimed and disallowed in the thirteenth century enquiries.
It is probably this which explains the obvious care which the mayor
and citizens of Sandwich took in forcibly taking the rolls of the
justices. It may be that portions of the royal documents carried by
the king's justices in 1300 actually found their way into the Sandwich
custumal through the agency of Adam Champneys working on appropriated
documents. In this way, not only did the inhabitants of
Sandwich hinder the justices in making their enquiry, but also armed
themselves with vital documents in order that they might better defend
43 'Debent eciam maior et jurati sevare et custodire mercatores extraneos ad villam
venientes, pro posse suo, et eciam tarn peregrinos quam omnes bonos et fideles
homines. Ita quod, si ballivus domini regis accipere vellt de ipsius vel eorum mercimoniis
custumam nimis amplam, vel forte aliam duriciam eis facere coluerit, ibunt
ad ballivum et rogabunt eum ut huiusmodi mala non faciat ad ville regis detrimentum'.
Boys, op. cit., 434-5.
29
JUSTIN CROFT
their liberties and franchises in the future. It may be that the custumal
actually contains traces of responses to a whole series of documents
which had been in the possession of the justices.
The fortunate survival of evidence which allows us to connect the
making of the Sandwich custumal to a specific event, or series of
events, may be of great value for our wider understanding of the
relationship between written codes of urban customs and the
communities which produced them in medieval Kent and in England
as a whole. It has long been recognised that borough custumals in some
way reflect the preoccupations of the members of the towns which
produced them. However, there has been little clear consideration of
the circumstances of their production, which is essential if we are
meaningfully to interpret the specific preoccupations of such texts,
and this has severely disabled their use as sources. A large part of the
problem has been the difficulty of attaching firm dates to their
production, which can only usually be ascertained (if at all) through
patient consideration and cross-referencing of internal and external
evidence. This problem has been compounded by the longevity of the
custumal form in successive texts produced over several centuries in
many towns. It is often the case that the only surviving version of a
town custumal is a very late copy or translation of a document which
may have begun its life several centuries before, and this makes for
enormous problems in interpreting material within it which is manifestly
archaic. In these cases, the processes outlined in the custumal
may not directly reflect actual practice at the time when a later
custumal is copied up. The value of the Sandwich material is that it
clearly connects the first writing of the custumal with a period of
particular crisis. The evidence suggests that the late thirteenth
century witnessed a series of particularly acute political crises in the
relationship between the Crown and the localities and their respective
jurisdictional rights. It is no coincidence that this period was one of
intense pressure on available resources, the population of England
having reached a peak at this time. The demands of warfare compounded
this pressure by placing heavy burdens on communities
(particularly in the south and east) in formal and informal exactions
by the Crown. The pressure exerted by the Crown may have been
particularly resented in Sandwich, partly because it was a relatively
new possession of the king, and more importantly because it was a
primary port for the gathering of troops, ships and provisions for
foreign campaigns at this time. Coercion in the form of purveyance
appears to have been a particular feature of the preparations for war
in the region. Furthermore, there is persuasive evidence to suggest
that the prosperity of Sandwich and its leading citizens may have
been waning throughout the latter part of the thirteenth century, and
30
AN ASSAULT ON THE ROYAL JUSTICES AT ASH
this situation can only have been exacerbated by the exactions of the
Crown.44
If town custumals are to be used as evidence in the reconstruction
of medieval urban experience it is essential to be aware of the specific
circumstances under which they were produced. The Sandwich
custumal certainly does tell us a great deal about the way in which
certain inhabitants thought about their town, and it does so at a time
when those inhabitants were subject to a series of very specific
pressures. The perceived incursion by the Royal Justices into the
physical boundaries of the community of Sandwich in 1300 seems to
have provoked a much more comprehensive assertion of boundaries
on the part of the community than the merely geographical, suggesting
that their presence was seen as only one manifestation of a
deeply felt threat. Whilst Adam Champneys and his associates were
preparing to defend their act of resistance in the king's courts, they
produced a document which asserted a whole range of boundaries
which marked out this particular community. On the one hand, there
are delineations of the rights of officials: those representing the
community (the mayor, jurats, common clerk, sergeants) and those
representing external powers, in particular, the king's bailiff, whose
rights are delineated with particular care.45 On the other, there are
also delineations of physical boundaries: most notably the rehearsal
of the perambulation of the liberty made by Stephen Pencester in the
1290s, with its careful description of topographical features which
marked what lay within and without the liberty. Other examples of
definition of the boundaries to be observed in certain places include:
the designation of the customary places for the holding of courts (the
mayor's court in St. Peter's church and the hundred or bailiff's court
in St. Clement's) and the special sanctuary of the house of a freeman,
which may not be entered by the bailiff without the accompaniment
of one of the jurats.46 The community tolerated the presence of the
king's bailiff, but the spaces in which his authority held sway were
carefully marked out in the custumal.
This manifold assertion of the community and its boundaries has
great significance in the light of anthropological work which has
considered the symbolic construction of community.47 This has
suggested that the self-conscious assertion of community, such as we
find in the Sandwich custumal, is a typical response to perceived
:;A.F. Butcher, 'Sandwich in the Thirteenth century', Arch. Cant.,xciii(l 977),25-31.
cf. Boys, op. cit. 502-508 and 534-5; 434-42; Sa/LC I ff. 1-12, 39-49 and elsewhere
passim.
46 47 cf. Boys, op. cit. 457-9, 443. e.g. Anthony P. Cohen, The symbolic construction of community ( 1985).
31
JUSTrN CROFT
threats to the very existence of those communities. Where a group of
people experiences external political pressure or rapid social change
which threatens an established order, the symbolism of 'community'
is often invoked by those under threat in their defence. This notion is
furthermore frequently accompanied by the use of historical or
quasi-historical material, and this is especially applicable to the
custumal of Sandwich, which relies for its authority on the notion of
'time out of mind'. When the mayor of Sandwich and his peers set out
for Ash on the 14th August, 1300, they were presenting themselves as
a community to the Royal Justices, who represented the political
threat to the existence of the liberty of Sandwich. They used the
occasion of this official visitation to express their notion of the
boundaries of their community, by preventing the justices from
entering the town to do their office. This symbolic construction of the
community seems to have been extended in the activities which
followed upon this event and which culminated in the production of
the Sandwich custumal. As Adam Champneys prepared to defend
himself and his peers in the King's Bench of April 1301, he was also
putting the finishing touches to a document which expressed the
boundaries both within and around the community of Sandwich, for
the benefit 'of those who in time to come shall govern this town. ' 48
48 From the preamble to the Sandwich custumal cited above.
32
AN ASSAULT ON THE ROYAL JUSTICES AT ASH
APPENDIX
A late-thirteenth century enquiry into the liberties of Sandwich
Sandwych1
[I] Ista subtract( )2 fuerunt Priori Ecclesie christi Cantuar tempru:e Re
Johannis Pfil Communitatem de Sandwyco eo g.YQ.Q eo tempore nullus fuit ibi
maior P e! dominus Rex deberet habere statum. ilium quern Knut.Y§ Rex
Anglo!l!!D suo tempQre habuit qui villam de Sandwyco dedit ecclesie predi£
te. Et n:ync domin:ys Rex excluditur / de subscriptis nescitm: quo waranto.
[2] Comunitas4 de Sandwyco prgptla auctoritate tempore Re Johannis
quando Prior e! Conuentus eccl§ie christi Cantuar eiecti fuerunt a Prioratu
illo per p.[slceptum ip§ius domini Reglli / fecerunt sibi ex ipsis maiorem / e!
appropriauerunt / e! vsurpauerunt s.i.h.i om,nia subscripta / eodem tempore / e!
sup.!.[ hoe qlli!ndo Conuent.Y§ reconciliat.!![ fusu:at / p!£ldicta communitas sup.!.[
hoe coram domino Rege per Ptlores eiusdem Ecclesie implacitata fuit per
diuersas vices / set nunquam deueniebatur ad Judamentum / occasionibus
diufilsis impedientibus intfiluenientibus etcetera. Et memorandum quod nisi
omnia subscripta suo debito rectificentur / status domini Reglli non erit talis
qualis status Knuti Regis fuerat / quia villam de Sandwyco dedit ecclesie
P!sldic!e / e! talem statum. domin:ys Rex5 n:ync habere debet / nisi communitas
ville predicte sciat ostendere uel dicfile quid habeat psu: se / quod domin:ys
Rex talem statum habere non debe!.
[3] Tronagium de Sandwyco maior ville de Sandwyco habet / e! exitus ad
valenciam / x / librarum e! amplius Pfil annum. percipit. Nescitur quo waranto.
[4] Maior asserit quod bal!ivus dQ.!!llni Reglli non potest capere nee ponderare
panem. Pistorum in villa de Sandwyco sine assensu suo / nee Curias /
nee Hundred' tenere / e! cum. contigsu:it balliuum pondsu:are panem Pistorum
1 PRO MS E 163/2/26 measures c . 14. 7 cm in width. It is ruled with a margin on both
sides (left c. 1.5 cm., right c. 2 cm.) though only the left-hand margin is observed. The
word 'Sandwych' appears as a heading c. 3.9 cm. from the left-hand edge of the ms and
c. 1.8 cm. above the first line of the first clause. For ease of reference the clauses have
been allocated numbers. All of these clauses, with the exception of the first [I], are
preceded by a paragraphus.
2 Jllegible.
3 In punctuation the scribe uses variations on the punctus, punctus e/evatus, comma
and paragraphus, throughout. At the end of sentences the punctus [.] has been retained.
All other punctuation marks have been rendered with an oblique line [/]. For discussion
of medieval punctuation, see M. B. Parkes, Pause and effect:an introduction to
the history of punctuation in the West (Scolar Press, Aldershort, 1992). Capitalisation
follows the scribe's practice.
4 Sic: recte 'communitas'.
5 'Rex' inserted above line with caret.
33
JUSTIN CROFT
in uilla pdictg I rnaior pfilcipit rnedietatem emendarum fil medietatern panis
forisfacti. Nescitur quo waranto.
(5) Maior asserit quod pro emenda assise panis fracte tantummodo capi
debent / xxj / denarios / nee plus nee minys cum arnissione tocius furnagij
pistorum illorum / quor.l!!!l panis falsus inuenietur. Asserit eciam quod nu!lus
Pistor commorans in uilla predicta Judicium Pillorii debet subire. Immo
tantummodo amerciari sicut predictum est. Nescitur quo waranto.
(6] Maior capit rnensuras galon' / potell' / fil quartfil' / Bussellor!!fil /
vlnar!!fil / fil aliarum mensurar.!!!!l fil inde cap it emend as/ non permittens qYQd
ballivus se inde intromittat. Nescitur quo waranto.
(7] Maior ad opus communitatis app!'.Qilliat escaetas tenementorum pro
defectu heredum / uI de bastard / ul post feloniam comrnissam / fil huiysmogi
cum accederint. Nescitur quo waranto.
[8] Maior pfil se absque balliyo dat licenciam hominibus ville predicte / fil
excitat liberos homines ville predicte ad distringend' extraneos venientes in
villa cum mfilcandisis suis / fil huiusmogi districtiones retinere facit donec
discuciatur inde lis intfil partes super huiY§mogi debito. Ita quod quilibet de
villa pdic!a in hoe casu est ballivus.
[9] Maior fil tota CO!!l!!llfilitas asserunt quod nu!lus liber homo ville pdic!e
in tenemento suo debet distringi per balliyos domini Regis / nisi sfiluiens
maioris interfuerit / neqfill pro amfilciamentis I neque pro aliquibus execucionibus
faciendis / in piudiciam fil exheredacionem etcetera.
[ 1 O] Item cum contingat Hundredum ul Curig ville predicte teneri per
ballivum d2filini Regis/ licet communitas intersit fil rnaior absens fuerit libfili
homines uille predicte placitare nolunt neque respondere nisi maior Pfilsonaliter
intfilsit.
[ 11 J Maior asserit quod nulla proclamacio fieri debet in villa predicta /
neque Pfil brevem Regis neqfill per aliud mandatum per balliY,ym domini
Regis. Immo Pfil SfilUientem maioris. Et si proclametur per ballivum domini
Regis / illam proclamacionem p!Q nulla habent.
[12] Item quando Custos qYlnqfill Portuum mandat ba!livis fil Baronibus
ville pdicte brevem suum quod sint ad Curiam de Schipweye ad certum
diem per tot fil tales etcetera/ ne p!Q defectu eorum Judicia remaneant / maior
non pfilmittit ballivum drunini Regis quod intersit electiom huiY§mo4i
homini qui ad Curiam pdictam venire debent in preiudicium etcetera.
[ I 3] Mai or asserit quod licet duo ul tres ul quatuor inter se p!Q medleta
alter alterum uulnaufilit / nisi querimonia de hoe fiat balliyo domini Regis
per aliquem ipsorum / ballivus non habet inde cognoscere in piudicium
etcetera / cum pax dill!lini Regis non obseruaretur si hoe permitteretyr / nee
34
AN ASSAULT ON THE ROYAL JUSTICES AT ASH
ldm maior pfil:mittit quod6 si transgrediatur Sfil:Uienti balljyi domini Regis /
quod dominys Rex habeat inde sectam per ballivum suum.
(14] D assisa vini maior se intromittit I fil inde capit emendas fil assisam
inde facit per consideracionem suam absque balliyo domini Reg.
(15] Maior asserit quod quando quis non est pr• querelam suam / petens
uI querens tantummodo debet amfil:Ciari / fil non_pl' sui de pres'.
[ I 6} Mai or asserit quod null us de bet amID:ciari p[Q plyribus defaltis / licet
quis Centum defaltas fecerit / in Curia ul Hundredo.
[ 17] Item quando quis recupID:aUfil:it debitum suum UID:SUS aliquem / ille qui
recuperauID:it nynquam reportabit dampna aliqua I nisi tantu.m debitum suum
I ad graue dampnu.m omni.l!!Il mercatorum.
[ 18] Mai or de assensu comID.!IBitatis facit statuta sua fil ea facit pmclamari
fil teneri absque balliyo dQfilini Re sub certa forisfactura I fil prdictus
maior huiY§mogi forisfacturam ad opus suum pID:cipit in piudicium I etcetera.
[ 19] Mai or asserit quod si quis non venerit ex recogn' assise co ram balliyo
domini Reg / lta quod assisa Pfil eorum defalt!illl tardatur non pfilmittit
maior quod amID:ciantur.
[20]Itm tempore allecium videlicfil intfil festum sanc!i michaelis fil festum
Sfillcti Andree si contencio sit intfil ementes fil vendentes huiY§mogi mID:candisam
de alleciis maior non pfilmittit quod ballivus domini Reg se inde
intromittat / set de huiusmogi contencione eo tempore maior facit inde
Justiciam absque balliyo. Et idm maior fil tota CO!!l!!1Y.!litas asserunt quod
durante tempore illo possunt pistores7 de Sandwyco licite facere panem adeo
modici ponderatis sieut voluerint / nee lieet balliyo nee maiori infra terrninum
ilium pane.m pistorum pondfilare nee inde iusticiam faeere / quia pistores illo
temp.Q.Ce asisam panis Sfiluare non debent / nisi voluerint / fil hoe cont@
iusticiam.
[21 J ltm maior asserit quod illi qui Pfil infortunium siue per submID:sionem
subito moriuntur I non debent videri ab aliquo balliyo / nee inqgisiclo inde
fieri sicut eonsuetum est eoram Coronatorib!!§ ante quam sepeliatur.
[22] Itm asserit quod nullum est deodandum in villa de Sandwyco.
[23J Maior clamat habere totum illud quod quis dederit ut possit tueri sub
libfiltate ville Sandwyeo / et quod possit esse8 liber homo eiusdem ville.
6 'quod' inserted above line with caret.
7 's' of'pistores' written above the 'e'.
8 'esse' inserted above line with caret.
35
JUSTIN CROFT
[24) Les abbrokurs de Sandwyco videlicfil illi Pfil: quorum testimonium
mfil:catori.§ extranei tradunt mID:cimonia sua diursis in eadem villa. Ita quod
illi abbrokurs inde respondeant secundym legem mfil:catoriam / prouidentur
pfil: maiorem COfil!lli!.llitatem eiusdem ville absq hoe quod ballivus ad hoe
non intersit / t Jurati sunt / set non balliyo ad feriarum intID:empcionem / quia
illi de villa capiunt quos sill viderint comodiferos sibi ipis non extraneis
in casu isto / etcetera.
[25)9 Item memorandum qY.Qd q!!idam CfilSUs aque pfil:uenientis de mari
quod circuit insulam de Taneto iam viginti annis elapsis currere solebat per
quemdam cursum qui