Close Rolls, Edward I: November 1293 | British History Online

Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I: Volume 3, 1288-1296. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1904.

'Close Rolls, Edward I: November 1293', in Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward I: Volume 3, 1288-1296, (London, 1904) pp. 328-334. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-close-rolls/edw1/vol3/pp328-334 [accessed 20 April 2024]

November 1293



	Membrane 4d.
Nov. 2. Westminster.	Philip de la Hulle acknowledges that he owes to William de Mertok 40l.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Somerset.
—	Henry la Zuche, parson of the church of Esthamme, acknowledges that he owes to William de Hamelton, archdeacon of York, 5 marks; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in cos. Essex and Bedford.
	Walter de Leghtrintone acknowledges that he owes to Master William de Chyrinton, clerk, 24l.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Gloucester.
	Henry son of Hugh de Mortuo Mari acknowledges that he owes to John le Seculer 5 marks; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Salop.
	Geoffrey son of Elias le Mareschal of Wycumbe, chaplain, acknowledges that he owes to Agnes, late the wife of William le Husser of Suwerk 24 marks; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in London.
Nov. 2. Westminster.	Walter de Strikland acknowledges that he owes to Robert de Barthon, clerk, 13s. 4d.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Westmoreland.
—	Robert Basset of Riston acknowledges that he owes to Hugh de Akele 10 marks; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Northampton.
	Agnes de Somery acknowledges that she owes to William de Hamelton, archdeacon of York, 40 marks; to be levied, in default of payment, of her lands and chattels in co. Stafford.
	Cancelled on payment.
	Nicholas de Bramelton acknowledges that he owes to Master Robert de Fileby 30l.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co.—.
	Thomas de Sancto Omero acknowledges that he owes to Nicholas Dalron, merchant of Winchester, 20l.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Wilts.
	Geoffrey de Welles acknowledges that he owes to Robert le Personesone of Halgton 2 marks; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Leicester.
	The abbot of Gerudon acknowledges, for himself and his successors, that he owes to William de Hamelton, archdeacon of York, 42l.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Leicester.
	Cancelled on payment.
Nov. 7. Westminster.	John de Munceaus acknowledges that he owes to Nicholas Dalron 7l.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Southampton.
—	Walter Boleven of Donameney acknowledges that he owes to Peter de Cusaunce 30 marks; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Gloucester.
	Cancelled on payment.
	John Engayne, the younger, acknowledges that he owes to John Cole, citizen of London, 9l. 15s. 0d.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in cos. Norfolk and Suffolk.
	The abbot of Wynchecumbe acknowledges that he owes to Frederick Ventoure and his fellows, merchants of Lucca, 20l.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Gloucester.
	Cancelled on payment.
	John Senche acknowledges that he owes to Roger Brabazun, knight, 40s.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Derby.
	Cancelled on payment.
	Stephen Russel of Winchester acknowledges that he owes to William de Hamelton, archdeacon of York, 20l.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Southampton.
	Cancelled on payment.
Nov. 16. Westminster.	Alice, late the wife of Gilbert de Mikkelham, puts in her place Peter Dru to receive her dower of the lands that belonged to Gilbert.
	Richard de Gloucestria, parson of the church of Chepingnorton, acknowledges that he owes to Master William de Chirinton 50l.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Oxford.
	Cancelled on payment.
	Walter de Strikeland acknowledges that he owes to Robert de Barton, clerk, 46s. 8d.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Westmoreland.
Nov. 18. Westminster.	Bernard del Hacking came before the king, on Wednesday before St. Edmund, and sought to replevy his land in Dingkedeleye, which was taken into the king's hands for his default against Alice, daughter of Joan de Dingedeleye. This is signified to the justices of the Bench.
—	Nicholas Musard acknowledges that he owes to Master William de Chiryton, clerk, 50s.; to be levied, in default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Gloucester.
Nov. 18. Westminster.	To the sheriff of York. Whereas the king has, for the establishment of the greater tranquillity of his peace and the repression of the malice of robbers and other evil doers, ordered certain articles to be observed throughout his whole realm, amongst which articles he has ordained and given order throughout all the counties of the realm that immediately after the commission of robberies and felonies a fresh (recens) suit shall be made from town to town and from country to country, and likewise that inquisitions shall be made if necessary in towns, hundreds, liberties, counties, and sometimes in two, three or four counties where the felonies have been made on the confines (in marchia) of counties, so that the evil doers shall be taken; and if the country do not answer for the bodies of such evil doers, the men dwelling in the country shall answer for the robberies and the damages. The king now learns from the complaints of many men that homicides, robberies, arsons and divers other trespasses are committed more than usual in the realm since the statute and order aforesaid through lack of the full observance of the articles aforesaid: the king, wishing to obviate such damages and perils, sends to the sheriff under his seal the statute issued by him, ordering and enjoining him under pain of grievous forfeiture to cause without delay the statute to be publicly read, proclaimed, and firmly observed in all and singular its contents in every hundred, city, borough, fair, market and other public place in which greater and more speedy notice thereof may be given to all and singular of his county. He is to understand for certain, and to cause to be known to all and singular of his bailiwick on the king's behalf, that the king wills and orders that the conditions and pains contained in the statute shall be henceforth firmly and inviolably observed. The sheriff is enjoined to execute this order so speedily and diligently that the king may not have to punish him and his things as a contemner of his orders. [Ryley, Placita, p. 460.]
	The like to all the sheriffs of England. [Ibid.]
	Membrane 3d.
	John, archbishop of York, was attached to answer to the king of a plea that whereas pleas of imprisonments and other trespasses committed in the realm against the king's peace pertain specially to the king and his crown and dignity, the archbishop by John, prior of Boulton-in-Craven, his commissary, caused a sentence of excommunication to be fulminated against Anthony, bishop of Durham, while he was in the northern parts in the king's service and by his side by the king's order and under the king's protection, because the bishop's bailiffs took and imprisoned William de Wrleton and John Romayne found at Durham, and he caused the sentence (summam) to be put into execution, as the king learned from many trustworthy men; wherefore the king, being unable to let such contempt and irreverence pass unpunished, especially as the king and the bishop, as far as lay in his power, were always prepared to exhibit speedy justice to William and John concerning the imprisonment in accordance with the custom of the realm, etc.
	And hereupon the king, by Richard de Brettevill, who sues for him, says that the archbishop, on Wednesday before St. James, in the twentieth year, at Derlyngton, and on Thursday and Sunday following at Alverton, and in many other places of his [the bishop's] diocese, caused a sentence of excommunication to be fulminated by John, prior of Boulton, against the bishop, who was lately in the king's service in the north by his side and by his order and under his protection, because the bishop's bailiffs had taken and imprisoned William de Wrleton and John Romayn, found at Durham, and put the sentence into execution, in contempt of the king, the injury of his royal dignity, and contrary to the reverence due to the king in this behalf, in despite of the king of 20,000l. And this he offers to verify for the king, etc.
	And the archbishop comes and denies (defendit) all the contempt and all, etc. and says that he did nothing in contempt of the king or against his dignity, and that it was not his intention to do or attempt anything against the royal jurisdiction. And he says that he ought not to answer in the king's court concerning a sentence pronounced according to the canon (a canone) and declared by him, but that he will nevertheless out of reverence for the king, saving the liberty of his church, declare his deed and the truth of his deed, and will not use exceptions or cavils. He says that the bishop is his suffragan and his subject and is bound to obey his canonical mandates, and that as the bishop would not obey him as he ought in canonical mandates, he sent his clerks, to wit the said William and John, to cite the bishop to appear before him at a certain day and place to answer therefor, which clerks were taken and detained at Durham by the bishop and his ministers, so that the canonical mandate of the archbishop was not executed; for which reason the archbishop, as a father to a son and a superior to a subject and as one who ought, according to the duty of his office, to work for the correction of the soul for the health of the soul only and not for pecuniary or other pain, admonished the bishop to release the said clerks bearing canonical mandates and to restore them to their former liberty, or to signify to him the reason why he ought not to do this; and the bishop did not deliver them or signify to him why he had not done so; wherefore the archbishop again admonished him to do the premises under pain of suspension; and the bishop, being again disobedient, refused to do this entirely, multiplying his disobedience; and the archbishop for the third time admonished the bishop to obey him in the said canonical mandates under pain of the declaration of the sentence pronounced against him according to the canon (a canone) on account of this manifest injury of the liberty of the church and disobedience; and the bishop, hardening his heart, for the third time did not obey the canonical mandates of the archbishop, by reason whereof he fell under the sentence pronounced according to the canon, and the archbishop, in accordance with his office, and not to the prejudice of the royal jurisdiction, privilege or dignity, ordered the declaration of the said sentence in due manner under the following tenor: John, archbishop of York, to the prior of Boulton. Commission to publish the sentence of excommunication against Anthony, bishop of Durham [as p. 272 above, omitting dating clause]. Wherefore, since the archbishop sent his lawful and canonical mandates by his envoys, clerks and ministers of the church, to the bishop as his suffragan and subject, and the bishop, unmindful of the health [of his soul], disobeying the archbishop as his superior and contemning his canonical orders, caused the envoys, clerks, and ministers of the archbishop and of his church to be arrested and imprisoned, and being many times admonished by the archbishop concerning this disobedience, contempt and trespass, as by his superior who had care and whose duty it was to correct such offences of his subject and to amend them by canonical castigation, to cause the said disobedience, contempt and trespass to be amended, or to signify to him the cause of his action, and the bishop did not take care to make amends therefor or to signify the cause of his action, it seemed to the archbishop that he might and ought to proceed against him duly in form aforesaid without offence to the king as against his contumacious subject, disobedient transgressor and a contemner of his canonical mandates. And as to this, that he is charged with having ordered the sentence to be fulminated against the bishop when the bishop was in the king's service at his side by his order and under his protection, he says that he has in no way offended in this, because at the time when the sentence was pronounced (summa lata fuit), the archbishop was in parts beyond sea, and it was not contained in his mandate that the prior should pronounce such sentences and denunciations except in the proper places in which they could be most suitably done without offence of the law or the royal privilege, and it seems to him that it ought not to be imputed to him if the prior exceeded the limits of his mandate. Wherefore he says that it may be seen (perpendi) by the premisses that he did not publish the sentence against the bishop because the bailiffs of the bishop took and detained the clerks, as the king's writ supposes (requirit), but because of the bishop's manifest disobedience. And he prays the king that, having considered and weighed the premises according to the archbishop's intention and the duty of his office, justice may be done to him and his church with favour and grace in this behalf, etc.
	And Richard de Brettevill, who sues for the king, says that the bishop of Durham has double status, to wit that of bishop in respect to spiritualities and that of an earl palatine in respect to his temporal tenements, and he says that although the archbishop might order him and transmit to him his canonical mandates in those things that pertain to his church, and might correct and amend the disobediences and sins of his subjects, and the bishop is bound to obey such precepts and mandates as to his superior and as the archbishop says, nevertheless as to the things that pertain to the temporal fees that he holds of the king, and in which the hearing and amending of trespasses whatsoever pertains to the king or to the bishop in the king's name, the archbishop has or can have no temporal jurisdiction by reason of his spiritual office; wherefore, since the archbishop acknowledges that the lay ministers of the bishop who had the administration of the bishop's temporal things and tenements took and imprisoned the clerks in the bishop's castle, and the cognisance of imprisonment of this sort pertains purely to the king by reason of his royal dignity and not to any one else, except by royal grant, and the archbishop ordered them to be delivered by ecclesiastical censure and amends to be made to them for the wrongs and trespasses, more especially as such imprisoned persons have and ought to have their recovery in the royal court, there and not elsewhere, for the wrongs and damages that they sustained by their unjust imprisonment, each for himself, because such offences are personal, both as to the persons offending and the persons suffering wrong, and it cannot be denied that the prior, the archbishop's commissary, fulminated the sentence against the bishop when he was under the king's protection by his side, by his order and in his service, in contempt of the king and contrary to his crown and royal dignity, as is aforesaid, etc., because the bishop would not deliver the said men, thus imprisoned by the bishop's lay ministers in a temporal tenement and would not (fn. 1) satisfy them for damages for the imprisonment, and thus [the archbishop] exercised as a temporal judge a jurisdiction that he did not possess in those things that pertain to the king's crown and dignity. He prays judgment of the archbishop's acknowledgment, etc.
	A day is given to the archbishop and to Richard de Brettevill, who sues for the king, in three weeks from Easter before the king.
	Afterwards, in three weeks from Easter, the archbishop came before the king and his council; and the archbishop, being asked if he wished to say more or if he know anything else to say than he had previously said, says that the bishop of Durham has a double status, one temporal as to the barony that he holds of the king and the other spiritual, concerning which he is bound in obedience to him, and he says that the bishop ought not to obey him less in temporal things by reason of the temporalities; and because the archbishop's said clerks had been taken and imprisoned by the bishop's ministers, which clerks he had sent only to bear canonical mandates, and the bishop, contemptuously disobeying his canonical mandates, would not deliver the clerks at his admonition, it seemed to him that he might declare and likewise promulgate the sentence that the bishop had incurred in canon law (a canone) by this deed. Being asked if the prison in which the clerks are detained is a prison pertaining to the bishop's barony or to his spirituality, and if any persons imprisoned therein ought to be delivered, and have been wont to be delivered, by the bishop's ministers, according to the laws and custom of the realm, he says that he cannot deny that the prison is within the castle, which is of the barony, and that they were imprisoned therein, and that persons imprisoned therein ought to be delivered, and have been wont to be delivered, by the lay ministers of the bishop, according to the law and custom of the realm. Being asked if that prison at the time of the voidance [of the see] of Durham is in the king's custody or in that of the guardian of the spirituality, he says that it is in the king's custody, but since they were his clerks and were bearing canonical mandates, as is aforesaid, and were taken by the ministers of his suffragan, it always seemed to him that he [the bishop] ought to have delivered them at his order, in whatsoever prison they were detained, and that this pertained to him to demand from his suffragan by reason of the obedience due to him. And because the archbishop in his own person acknowledges that the bishop has a double status, to wit a temporal and a spiritual, and that the imprisonments to be made by the bishop's ministers pertain to his temporal status, and also that the delivery of all prisoners pertains to the bishop's ministers by reason of the said temporality, according to the law and custom of the realm, and that the prison in which they [the clerks] were detained is in the castle, which is an appurtenance of the barony; and this the archbishop sufficiently confessed by his own mouth, saying that in time of voidance that prison is, and ought to be, in the king's custody by reason of the barony and temporality aforesaid, and not in that of the guardian of the spirituality; and as likewise it is expressly contained in the archbishop's letter, which he acknowledged and advowed, that the said prisoners were taken by the constable and lay ministers of the bishop, the keepers of the said prison, and in the bishop's absence; and as it follows clearly from the premises that the archbishop by his letters sent to the bishop at divers times, in whatsoever manner he endeavours to strengthen them by reason of any spiritual obedience, intended to constrain the bishop to deliver the prisoners, without having any regard to the persons of those by whom they were taken, more especially as they were laymen and ministers of the temporality, or without having any regard to any cause for which they were taken or detained in such prison, or to whom the delivery of them pertained, which delivery pertains only to the king by reason of his royal dignity, or to those to whom such liberty is granted by the royal dignity, according to the law and custom of the realm, and not to any one else by reason of any spirituality: it seems to the king in his full parliament, to the earls, barons, justices, and likewise all the council of the king, that the archbishop endeavoured, so far as lay in his power, to occupy and usurp upon the royal crown and dignity in this case of the delivery of the imprisoned men, contrary to the laws and custom of the realm and contrary to the faith in which he is bound to the king and his crown, to the manifest disinheritance of the king and his heirs. By reason whereof it was unanimously agreed by the earls, barons, justices and all other of the king's council that the archbishop shall be committed to prison for the offence and trespass aforesaid.
	And hereupon before judgment was pronounced, although it was unanimously agreed by the consent of the magnates and others to be held in this case and likewise in similar cases for ever, the archbishop requested the magnates and others of the king's council to request the king for him that the king would admit him to his grace and will before the judgment be pronounced. And the king, at the instance of the magnates, of his special grace, granted this to the archbishop. And the archbishop humbly prays that he may submit himself to the king's will in all points for all the premises; and the king, at the instance of the magnates, admits him to his will, etc., according to his petition. And the archbishop was told not to go from parliament until he had heard the king's will concerning the premises, under pain of grievous forfeiture.
	Afterwards the archbishop came and made fine with the king for the trespass aforesaid in 4,000 marks by his deed obligatory to this effect: 'Know all men that we John, archbishop of York, are bound to the king in 4,000 marks, of which sum mention is made before the king in the rolls for the pleas there and also in the exchequer, to be paid to him for his good will. For payment of which we charge ourselves and all our goods, by which we may be distrained at the king's pleasure. For payment of this sum we have found as sureties J. bishop of Carlisle, Master Henry, dean of York, William, archdeacon of York, John, archdeacon of the East Riding, and William, archdeacon of Nottingham. In witness whereof our seal is appended to the presents, together with the seals of the said sureties. Dated at Westminster, on Wednesday before Whitsuntide, 1293.' [Rot. Parl. i, 103; Ryley, Placita, p. 135 and Prynne, Records, iii, p. 560, all from the De Banco Roll.]