|
|
[p. ix-8]
|
|
[memb. 1]
|
|
CORAM DOMINO REGE ET CONSILIO SUO IN PARLIAMENTO SUO PASCHE ANNO REGNI SUI .VIIJ. |
BEFORE THE LORD KING AND HIS COUNCIL IN HIS EASTER PARLIAMENT IN THE EIGHTH YEAR OF HIS REIGN. |
|
Mandatum fuit nuper Johanni archiepiscopo Cantuariensi per breve regis in hec verba: 'Edwardus dei gracia rex Anglie etc.'. |
[Proceedings against the archbishop of Canterbury for the excommunication of Hugh of Dennington, the king's bailiff of Southwark].
John archbishop of Canterbury was recently ordered by the king's writ in the following words: 'Edward by the grace of God king of England etc.'. |
[[The following text has been deleted:
Mandatum fuit
nuper
Johanni archiepiscopo Cantuariensi quod cum ipse fecisset excommunicari Hugonem de Dyneton' ballivum domini regis
de Suthwerk'
et excommunicatum denunciari pupplice in ecclesiis de Suthwerk' et similiter per civitatem Londoniarum occasione quorumdam attachiamentorum factorum in balliva sua et quorumdam aliorum que ad officium suum pertinuerunt tanquam temporalia ad coronam et dignitatem domini regis spectancia, predictam sentenciam latam et predictam denunciacionem factam in prejudicium domini regis et corone sue
manifestum
sine dilacione revocare faceret etc..
]] |
[[The following text has been deleted:
John archbishop of Canterbury was recently ordered that whereas he had procured the excommunication of Hugh of Dennington, the lord king's bailiff of Southwark and had had his excommunication publicly announced in the churches of Southwark and also throughout the city of London by reason of certain attachments made in his bailiwick and certain other things which pertained to his office as temporalities belonging to the crown and dignity of the lord king, he should without delay have the said sentence given and the said announcement revoked as made to the manifest prejudice of the lord king and his crown etc.]] |
|
Et predictus archiepiscopus venit et dicit quod cum ipse et predecessores sui habuerint quasdam libertates per totum feodum suum in Suthwerk' per reges Anglie sibi et predecessoribus suis et ecclesie sue Cantuariensi concessas, predictus Hugo Alanum Panyt ballivum ipsius archiepiscopi predictarum libertatum die veneris proxima ante Dominicam in Ramis Palmarum hoc anno injuste cepit et prisone domini regis in custodia ipsius Hugonis existenti liberavit ubi predictum Alanum in cippis positum per unam noctem detinuit. Et quod cum ballivi archiepiscopi de predictis libertatibus tempore suo et predecessorum suorum semper consueverint portare quandam
[p. ix-9]
virgam in signum ballive sue et officii sui in Suthwerk', predictus Hugo pluries de manibus ipsius Alani virgas quas portavit abstulit et fregit nec ipsum hujusmodi virgam portare permisit. Et similiter cum ipse archiepiscopus et predecessores sui habuerint correcciones de assisa fracta panis facti infra libertatem
<
suam
>
predictam, predictus Hugo quandam mulierem portantem panem quem emerat a quodam pistore tenente ipsius archiepiscopi in regia strata attachiavit et panem illum ponderari et assaiari fecit in prejudicium ipsius archiepiscopi et ecclesie sue predicte et lesionem libertatum suarum predictarum etc.. Et bene defendit quod ipse prefatum Hugonem nunquam excommunicavit nec excommunicari precepit set bene cognoscit quod ipse mandavit officiali suo episcopatus Wintoniensis, sede vacante, quod ipse denunciaret in genere excommunicatos omnes illos qui maliciose ecclesiam suam Cantuariensem jure suo privaverint et qui libertates ejusdem ecclesie quocunque arte vel ingenio violaverint vel infregerint. Et quod predictus officialis, facta predicta denunciacione, fecit quandam inquisicionem per quam accepit quod predictus Hugo fecerat predictas transgressiones in prejudicium et lesionem predictarum libertatum suarum et ecclesie sue etc., pro quo facto notorio, sicut predictum est, predictus officialis ipsum Hugonem denunciari fecit excommunicatum.
|
The said archbishop appears and says that although he and his predecessors have had certain liberties throughout their fee in Southwark granted by the kings of England to himself and his predecessors and his church of Canterbury, the said Hugh had unjustly arrested Alan Panyt the bailiff of the same archbishop of the same liberties on the Friday before Palm Sunday this year and kept him in the prison of the lord king in the keeping of the same Hugh, where he kept the same Alan in stocks overnight. And that whereas the bailiffs of the archbishop for the said liberties during his time and that of his predecessors had always been accustomed to bear a certain
[p. ix-9]
wand as mark of their bailiwick and office in Southwark, the said Hugh had often taken the wands which Alan carried out of his hands and broken them and not allowed him to carry such a wand. And likewise, whereas the same archbishop and his predecessors have had the right to punish breaches of the assize of bread within his said liberty, the said Hugh had attached a certain woman bearing bread she had bought from a certain baker who is a tenant of the same archbishop in the king's highway and had that loaf weighed and assayed to the prejudice of the same archbishop and his said church and to the harming of his said liberties etc. He readily denies that he ever excommunicated the said Hugh or ordered him to be excommunicated, but readily admits that he had ordered his official of the vacant bishopric of Winchester to pronounce a general excommunication of all those who maliciously deprived his church of Canterbury of their right and of those who violated or infringed the liberties of the same church in any way or by any means. And that the said official, after he had made the said pronouncement, conducted a certain enquiry by which he learned that the said Hugh had committed the said wrongs to the prejudice and harm of his said liberties and his church etc., for which notorious fact, as has been said, the said official had the said Hugh denounced as being excommunicate.
|
|
Et predictus Hugo venit et bene defendit quod ipse nunquam predictam ecclesiam jure suo in aliquo privavit nec libertates ejusdem violavit nec predictum Alanum injuste inprisonavit, sicut ei inponitur, set dicit quod cum quidam Andreas le Especer et uxor ejus ei conquesti fuissent tanquam ballivo domini regis quod predictus Alanus predictos Andream et uxorem ejus verberasset et maletractasset
<
contra pacem etc.
>
infra ballivam suam, et affidassent de clamore suo prosequendo loco plegiorum quia pauperes fuerunt, idem Hugo arestari fecit predictum Alanum infra ballivam suam quousque invenisset ei plegios ad respondendum predictis Andree et uxori ejus, et quamcito optulerat ei plegios in crastino ipsum deliberavit, et quod ipsum Alanum in cippis non posuit nec poni precepit ponit se super patriam. Et predictus Alanus, qui presens est et de predicto inprisonamento queritur, asserens se predictos plegios optulisse statim quando arestatus fuit quos predictus Hugo recepere recusavit, similiter.
|
The said Hugh appears and readily denies that he ever in any wise deprived the said church of its right or violated the liberties of the same or unjustly imprisoned the said Alan, as is alleged, but he says that one Andrew Spicer and his wife made a complaint to him as the bailiff of the lord king that Alan had beaten and maltreated the said Andrew and his wife against the peace within his bailiwick and sworn to prosecute his claim (rather than found sureties, because they were poor) and so the same Hugh had had the said Alan arrested within his bailiwick until he should find sureties to answer the same Andrew and his wife, and, as soon as he had offered him sureties on the morrow, he had released him and that he had neither put the same Alan in the stocks nor ordered him to be put in them he puts himself on a jury. The said Alan, who is present and makes complaint of the said imprisonment, asserting that he had immediately offered the said sureties when he was arrested but that Hugh refused to receive them, does likewise. |
|
Et quo ad querimoniam predicti archiepiscopi de predicta virga portanda, dicit pro rege quod ballivi predecessorum ipsius
[p. 10]
archiepiscopi de predicta libertate nunquam consueverunt portare hujusmodi virgam nisi tantummodo die quo summonuerunt tenentes archiepiscopi ad curiam suam et die quo curia illa teneri consuevit, et quod predictus Alanus jam de novo incepit portare virgam singulis diebus tam in strata regia infra ballivam predicti Hugonis quam infra libertatem domini sui archiepiscopi in prejudicium domini regis et officii ipsius Hugonis, et bene cognoscit quod, quando predictus Alanus portavit predictam virgam aliter quam fieri consuevit, ipsam de manibus ipsius Alani abstulit nec ipsum hoc facere permisit.
|
In respect of the complaint of the said archbishop on the carrying of the said wand he says on behalf of the king that the bailiffs of the predecessors of the same
[p. 10]
archbishop of the said liberty never customarily carried such a wand except on the day on which they summoned the tenants of the archbishop to his court and the day on which that court is customarily held and that Alan has recently begun to carry the wand each day both in the king's highway within the bailiwick of the said Hugh and within the liberty of his lord the archbishop to the prejudice of the lord king and of the office of the same Hugh, and readily admits that, whenever the said Alan carried the said wand other than was customary he had taken it from the hands of the same Alan and not allowed him to do this.
|
|
Et archiepiscopus dicit quod ballivi predecessorum suorum a tempore cujus non exstat memoria semper consueverunt portare virgam singulis diebus quocienscumque facerent officium suum etc., et de hoc ponit se super patriam. |
The archbishop says that the bailiffs of his predecessors from time out of mind had always customarily carried the wand every day whenever they were executing their office and he puts himself on a jury on this. |
|
Et quo ad attachiamentum de predicto pane, dicit idem Hugo quod ipse attachiavit panem predictum expositum vendicioni in quadam shoppa infra ballivam ipsius Hugonis ut illum qui factus fuit minoris ponderis et contra assisam, sicut coram eo satis convictum fuit. Et cum predicta mulier vocasset inde ad warantum predictum pistorem tenentem ipsius archiepiscopi, et predictus ballivus archiepiscopi petisset de eo curiam domini sui, concessa fuit ei inde curia sua ut ibi fieret justicia etc.. Et quod ipse non attachiavit predictum panem in predicta strata portatum, immo in predicta shoppa, sicut predictum est, ponit se super patriam. Et archiepiscopus similiter. Ideo fiat inde jurata. |
In respect of the attachment of the said loaf the same Hugh says that he attached the said loaf as offered for sale in a certain shop within the bailiwick of the said Hugh as one that was under weight and in breach of the assize, as was plainly found before him. And when the said woman vouched to warranty the said baker, a tenant of the same archbishop, and the said bailiff of the archbishop had requested the case relating to him for trial in his court his claim was allowed to do justice there etc. He puts himself on a jury that he did not attach the said loaf while it was being carried in the street but in the said shop, as is said. The archbishop does likewise. So there is to be a jury on this. |
|
Juratores dicunt quod predictus Andreas et uxor ejus conquesti fuerunt predicto Hugoni de predicto transgressione sibi facta per predictum Alanum et affiderunt de clamore suo coram eo prosequendo, ita quod predictus Hugo predictum Alanum arestavit et cum amici sui statim petivissent eum per plevinam, predictus Hugo nichilominus ipsum predicte prisone liberavit et in cippis poni fecit per unam noctem et in crastino mane ipsum deliberavit. Et ideo consideratum est quod satisfaciat predicto Alano etc.. Et committatur gaole etc.. |
The jurors say that the said Andrew and his wife complained to the said Hugh of the said trespass committed against them by the said Alan and promised to prosecute their claim before him and so the said Hugh arrested the said Alan and when his friends at once requested his release on surety, the said Hugh nonetheless committed him to the said prison and had him put in the stocks overnight and the following morning released him. It is therefore adjudged that he is to satisfy the said Alan etc. and is to be committed to gaol etc. |
|
Et quo ad querelam predicti archiepiscopi de virga portanda, iidem juratores dicunt quod ballivi de predicta libertate nunquam consueverunt portare virgam nisi tantum die summonicionis predicte curie et die ejusdem curie et non aliis diebus sicut predictus archiepiscopus dicit. Ideo consideratum est quod ballivi archiepiscopi ita decetero faciant et non aliter. |
In respect of the complaint of the said archbishop about the carrying of the wand the same jurors say that the bailiffs of the said liberty never customarily carried the wand except on the day of the summoning of the court and on the day the court was held and not on other days as the said archbishop says. It is therefore adjudged that the bailiffs of the archbishop are in future to do thus and not otherwise. |
|
[p. ix-11]
|
|
Et quo ad attachiamentum factum de predicto pane iidem juratores dicunt quod predictus Hugo fecit predictum attachiamentum in predicta shoppa eodem modo quo ipse cognoscit. Ideo inde quietus. |
In respect of the attachment of the said loaf the same jurors say that the said Hugh made the said attachment in the said shop in the same way as he acknowledged. So he is to quit on this. |
[editorial note: This paragraph is on a piece of parchment attached to the document.]
Et predictus archiepiscopus, quesitus si predictam denunciacionem revocaverit vel revocare voluerit, respondit quod intellexit
<
non
>
causam predicte denunciacionis,
[[The following text has been deleted:
minus fuisse notoriam]]
ob quam ipsa promulgata fuit, minus fuisse notoriam. Ex nunc eam revocat et deadvocat, et concessit quod eam solempniter revocari faciet per omnes ecclesias quibus denunciacio illa facta fuerat. Et dictus rex remittit ei totum etc..
|
[editorial note: This paragraph is on a piece of parchment attached to the document.]
The said archbishop is asked whether he has revoked the said denunciation or is willing to do so, answered that he did not know that the cause of the said denunciation, the reason for which it was promulgated, was less notorious. And he now revokes and disavows it and has granted that he will have it solemnly revoked in all the churches in which that denunciation was made. The lord king remits to him all etc.
|
