No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
The activities of the Yorkist council in administration are now known to have been much more extensive than Professor J. F. Baldwin, the author of the classic work on the subject, was prepared to allow. Nor can his account of its judicial work be considered definitive though, so far, this has not been investigated to the same extent as the council's administrative activities. In discussing the judicial effectiveness of the council Baldwin stated that its efforts to suppress disorder were conspicuously unsuccessful in the 1460s (by implication in contrast with earlier successes), and that even though there was a change for the better after 1468 “as regards rioters its administration was anything but vigorous or efficient.” He failed to find a single example of a prominent offender who was ever punished. In spite of this, however, he was somewhat puzzled to note a growing demand for conciliar justice towards the end of Edward IV s reign; a demand which grew to such an extent that under Richard III a clerk was specially paid to deal with the bills, requests and supplications of poor men.
This view of the council's judicial work was based in the main on two things—a belief that until 1468 commissions of arrest, in the majority of cases, were ordered to bring offenders before the chancellor not the council and on the case of Lord Straunge v. Roger Kynaston which Professor Baldwin alleged exposed “the weakness of the council to an extent that is well-nigh incredible.
1 Lander, J. R., “The Yorkist Council and Administration, 1461 to 1485,” English Historical Review, 73 (1958): 27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar, “Council, Administration and Councillors, 1461 to 1485,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 32(1959): 138–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBaldwin, J.F., The King's Council in England During the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1913), ch. 16.Google Scholar
2 Ibid., pp. 430-1.
3 Ibid., p. 435.
4 Ibid., p. 428.
5 Ibid., pp. 430-1.
6 My figures. For Richard III's reign, 17 mention the council, 2 the chancellor.
7 Baldwin, , The King's Council, pp. 432–3.Google Scholar
8 See Lander, J.R., “The Yorkist Council and Administration, 1461-1485,” pp. 35–40.Google Scholar
9 See below n. 54.
10 The same impression of it is obtained from a discussion in Select Cases Before the King's Council in the Star Chamber, 1477-1554, ed. for the Seiden Society by I.S. Leadham, 2 vols. (London, 1903-11), 1: lxii-lxiii [hereafter cited as Select Cases]. But Leadam cited the case only in a very selective manner to illustrate conciliar procedure and like Baldwin did not follow it to its conclusion.
11 His first wife made her will on 8 March 1438. The first deed mentioning Elizabeth was enrolled on 26 August 1439. Dugdale, William, The Baronage of England, 2 vols. (London, 1675–1676), 1:665Google Scholar; Cokayne, George Edward, ed., The Complete Peerage, 13 vols. (London, 1910-), 12, pt. 1 356–7Google Scholar [hereafter cited as C.P.] Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1436-1441, pp. 307-8.
12 Ibid., and ibid. 1446-32, p. 62.
13 See the following paragraph and note 14.
14 Cal. Close Rolls, 1447-54, pp. 155-6. It also included Burchester in Oxfordshire, Wychford and Long Compton, Warwickshire, Colham in Middlesex and various minor properties in Buckinghamshire.
15 John was six. Jacquetta could not have been more than thirteen. The arrangement looks very much like part of a marriage settlement. For Jacquetta see below, n. 31.
16 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1446-1452, pp. 311-2.
17 I have not been able to trace the original deed. The terms of it are recited in Roger Kynaston's inquisition post mortem, 11 June, 20 Henry VII. Cal. Inquisitions P.M., Henry VII, iii, No. 805.
18 See Lander, J.R., Crown and Nobility, 1450-1509 (Montreal, 1976), pp. 111–2 and p. III, ns. 92 and 96.Google Scholar
19 The petition was dealt with by the council in the Star Chamber on 16 November 1467. It is printed in SirPalgrave, F., An Essay Upon the Original Jurisdiction of the King's Council (London, 1834), pp. 135–42.Google Scholar I have been unable to trace the original manuscript.
20 Baldwin, , The King's Council, pp. 430–1.Google Scholar
21 Burston, W., “The Kynaston Family,” Transactions of the Shropshire Archeological and Natural History Society, 2 ser., 6 (1894): 211.Google Scholar
22 Rotuli Parliamentorum; ut et Petitiones, et Placita in Parliamento, ed. Strachey, J., 6 vols. (London, 1767–1777), 5: 368Google Scholar [hereafter cited as Rot. Parl.].
23 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1461-1467, p. 98.
24 Burston, , “The Kynaston Family,” p. 211.Google Scholar
25 The earliest grant to him is dated 17 March 1473. A signet warrant states: “In consideration of the feithfull and long contynued service that our trusty and right welbeloued Roger Kynaston knight hath doon aswele unto us as unto the famous prince of noble memorye oure fadre.” He was granted the offices of constable and captain of Harlech Castle and the sheriffdom of Merioneth (Public Record Office, P.S.O. 1/37/1928). He obtained a confirmation of these in parliament (Rot. Parl., 6: 46). Both these entries mention letters patent but no patent was enrolled until he was regranted the constableship of Harlech for life in 1483 by Richard III. This was followed in 1484 by an annuity of 40 marks from the commote of Arduduy, Merioneth, and the office of sheriff and escheator of Merioneth which had been granted to him by letters patent of Edward IV (British Library, Ms. Harleian 433, f. 32 d., Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-85, pp. 408, 441).
26 The major part of the Grey of Powys estates seem to have come from a share of the lands of the extinct Holland earldom of Kent. Judging from successive partitions of the inheritance the Grey share was probably worth no more than about £185 a year. Pugh, T.B. and Ross, C.D., “The English Baronage and the Income Tax of 1436,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 26 (1953): 19, n. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Cal. Fine Rolls, 1452-1461, pp. 82, 85.
28 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1461-1467, p. 200.
29 Palgrave, F., Jurisdiction of the King's Council, pp. 135–6.Google Scholar
30 i.e. if Kynaston had retained possession of the estates since his wife's death, he would have deprived Dudley of part of the profits of his grant of 1454.
31 According to Dugdale, William, The Baronage of England, 1: 666Google Scholar, Jacquetta was Rivers' daughter and the sister of Elizabeth Wydeville, Edward IV's queen.
32 Palgrave, F., Jurisdiction of the King's Council, pp. 136–7.Google Scholar The lands were not specified in the petition.
33 See below, pp. 16-20, for the case of the Berkeley family.
34 Palgrave, F., Jurisdiction of the King's Council, pp. 137ff.Google Scholar
35 See above, p. 4.
36 See T. B. Pugh, “The Magnates, Knights, and Gentry,” and Griffiths, R.A., “Wales and the Marches,” in Fifteenth Century England, 1399-1509, Studies in Politics and Society, ed. Chrimes, S.B., Ross, C.D. and Griffiths, R.A. (Manchester, New York, 1972), pp. 91-3, 158–9Google Scholar; Ross, C., Edward IV (London, 1974), pp. 75–8.Google Scholar
37 Palgrave, F., Jurisdiction of the King's Council, p. 140.Google Scholar The commission to Shrewsbury and Herbert was issued on 28 August 1467. The sheriff of Shropshire was also a member. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1467-1477, p. 29.
38 Palgrave, F., Jurisdiction of the King's Council, p. 140.Google Scholar
39 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1461-67, p. 570, 1467-77, p. 627.
40 C.P., xii, Pt. i, 356, Sir George was a hostage for his father in Richard III's hands at the time of the battle of Bosworth. He died on 5 December 1497 before his father and therefore never inherited either the Stanley estates or the earldom of Derby. He had been summoned to parliament in right of his wife as Lord Straunge of Knockyn. Their son, Thomas, succeeded to the earldom of Derby on the death of his paternal grandfather in 1514 (Ibid., pp. 356-7).
41 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-1485, p. 218.
42 The grant of March 1473 (see above n. 25) shows that Kynaston had certainly made his peace with the king by this time.
43 Cal. Inquisitions P.M., Henry VII, iii, no. 805. The inquisition was followed by a license on 9 November 1506 to Roger's heir, Thomas, to enter the manors of Straunge, Nesse, Kynton and a manor called Rousland in the town and field of Straunge, Neese and Kynton “late the londs of the said Roger and Elizabeth.”
44 Palgrave, F., Jurisdiction of the King's Council, pp. 135–6.Google Scholar
45 Ibid., pp. 137-8.
46 See the inquisition post mortem of Richard, Lord Straunge. Calendarium Inquisitionum Post Mortem sive Escaetarum, iv (1828), p. 238.Google Scholar
47 Printed in Owen, Hugh, A History of Shrewsbury, 2 vols. (London, 1825), 1: 250.Google Scholar See also, Burston, , “The Kynaston Family,” p. 213.Google Scholar
48 Select Cases, I: xc–xci.Google Scholar According to a late eighteenth century pedigree Roger Kynaston had no surviving issue by his first wife, Lady Straunge. “Wild Humphrey” was the second of three sons by his second wife, Elizabeth, the sister of Richard, Lord Grey of Powys. His elder brother, Sir Thomas, had died leaving no legitimate issue. This, of course, makes their retention of the jointure lands even more scandalous.
49 See above n. 40.
50 British Library, Landsdowne MS 127, m. 24 d. See also MS. 4d and 15d.
51 Humphrey Kynaston of Stokkes was a first cousin once removed of “Wild Humphrey,” being the grandson of John Kynaston of Stokkes, the brother of Roger Kynaston, “Wild Humphrey's” father. Lady Straunge stated in her complaint to the council that she had a Marcher Court at Ellesmere, but did not think it right that she should try the case in her own court. She therefore asked that a privy seal be sent to Humphrey Kynaston ordering him to appear before the King to answer for his offences (Select Cases, 1: 274–5Google Scholar). It can hardly be doubted, however, in view of the protracted quarrel with the Kynastons that Lady Straunge's real reason was probably not so much concern about judicial propriety as her inability to deal with the hereditary enemy in her own local court.
52 Leland's Itinerary in England and Wales, ed. Smith, L.T., 5 vols., (London, 1907–1910), 5: 13.Google Scholar
53 For the appalling inefficiencies of the common law courts particularly in producing defendants in court and in empanelling juries and their consequent unpopularity and declining business in face of the conciliar courts, see Blatcher, M., The Court of King's Bench, 1450-1550: A Study in Self-Help (University of London, 1978), chs. 4-5.Google Scholar Dr. E.W. Ives, discussing a notorious case of abduction, and commenting on the “blanket of frustration” produced in the common law courts by long drawn out procedures, perjured juries, and legal ingenuity, has claimed that under Henry VII “executive justice was infinitely superior to the due process of common law, (“‘Agaynst taking awaye of women’: the Inception, and Operation of the Abduction Act of 1487,” in Wealth and Power in Tudor England: Essays Presented to S.T. Blndoff, ed. Ives, E.W., Knecht, R.J. and Scarisbrick, J.J. [London, 1978], pp. 43–4Google Scholar).
54 For losses and for changes in procedure involving the execution of decisions under the signet and the sign manual rather than the great seal and the privy seal, see Lander, J.R. “Yorkist Council and Administration 1461-1485,” pp. 27–46.Google Scholar Generally speaking, instruments under the signet and the sign manual which went to other government departments, particularly the chancery, have survived, while those sent to private persons, city and borough councils etc. have suffered tremendous losses.
55 Records of the Borough of Nottingham, 9 vols. (London, 1882–1956), 2: 384–7.Google Scholar The initiative in this case came from the borough authorities. In a similar case about the same time concerned with the restoration of order in York the initiative on the contrary came from the king and council. Council and Privy Seal File, Public Record Office, E. 28/90/31.
56 The Coventry Leet Book, ed. Harris, M.D., 2 vols., (London, 1907–1913), 1: 428–8.Google Scholar
57 Ibid., pp. 314-5, 319-20, 332-8, 340-3, 345-6, 353-4, 373-5, 381, n.1, 402-5, 408-13, 420-5, 475-7.
58 See n.55.
59 The council several times discussed the Pastons' affairs and the notorious cases of Gresham, and Castle, Caistor, The Paston Letters, ed. Gairdner, J., 4 vols., (Edinburgh, 1910), 2: 282, 338-9, 355ffGoogle Scholar, 367-71, 3: 128, 153, 164-5; concerning the council and the administration of justice in Chester, , Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1461-7, pp. 291–2Google Scholar; concerning land disputes and disputed royal grants, Ibid., pp. 290, 299; concerning commercial disputes, Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-1485, p. 125, Cal. Close Rolls, 1476-1485, Nos. 1145, 1192, 1221; concerning the seizure and restitution of fishing vessels, Ibid., pp. 446-7; concerning riots, P.R.O., P.S.L. 1/24/1273; som-monses to answer such charges as the council shall make, P.R.O., P.S.O., 1/31/1619, 1/36/1858; piracy, Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1467-1477, p. 57, Cal. Close Rolls 1476-1485, No. 1250; dispute about sheep Cal. Close Rolls, 1476-1485, No. 1373; keeping of the peace, Cal. Close Rolls, 1476-1485, No. 1415; a false accusation of insanity affecting an inheritance in land, Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1461-1467, p. 290; seizure of ships in judgment of retribution against the inhabitants of Camfere in Zealand at the suit of John Byston, merchant of Lynn, , Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476-1485, p. 321.Google Scholar See also Select Cases, I: 1–15.Google Scholar
60 See Lander, J.R., Crown and Nobility, 1450-1509, pp. 8–11.Google Scholar
61 The Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto, Dean of London, ed. Stubbs, W., 2 vols. (London 1876), 1: 434–5.Google Scholar
62 Powicke, F.M., King Henry III and the Lord Edward: The Community of the Realm in the Thirteenth Century, 2 vols. (London, 1947), 2: 712.Google Scholar
63 Beardwood, A., “The Trial of Walter Langton, Bishop of Lichfied, 1307-1312,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 54, pt. 3 (1964): 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64 Maddicott, J.R., Law and Lordship: Royal Justices as Retainers in Thirteenth-and Fourteenth-Century England, Past and Present Supplement 4 (1978).Google Scholar
65 Bellamy, John, Crime and Public Order in England in the Later Middle Aga (London, 1973). pp. 14–16.Google Scholar
66 Sutherland, D.W., The Assize of Novel Disseisin (London, 1973), pp. 166–7.Google Scholar
67 Hammer, Carl I. Jr., “Patterns of Homicide in Fourteenth Century Oxford,” Past and Present, 78 (February, 1978): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68 See Lander, J.R., The Wars ofthe Roses (London, 1965), pp. 25–6Google Scholar, and Conflict and Stability in Fifteenth Century England (London, 1977), pp. 164–8Google Scholar; Stone, Laurence, The Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558-1641 (London, 1965), Ch. 5Google Scholar; MacCaffery, Wallace T., “Talbot and Stanhope: An Episode in Elizabethan Politics,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 33 (1960): 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69 For complicated titles and the law's excessive procedural delays see Holdsworth, William, The History of English Law, (London, 1945), 4: 415-61, 484ffGoogle Scholar; Ogilvie, C., The King's Government and the Common Law, 1471-1641 (Oxford, 1958), pp. 1–33Google Scholar; McFarlane, K.B., “The Investment of Sir John Fastolfs Profit's of War,” Trans. R. Hist. Soc., 5 ser., 7 (1957): 111–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hastings, M., The Court of Common Pleas In Fifteenth Century England (Ithaca, 1947), Ch. 15.Google Scholar See above n. 53.
70 See Pugh, T.B. and Ross, C.D., “The English Baronage and the Income Tax of 1436,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 26 (1953): 7–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roskell, J.S., “Sir James Strangeways of West Harsley and Whorlton,” Yorkshire Archeological Journal, 39 (1956–1958): 461Google Scholar; Jacob, E.F., The Fifteenth Century, 1399-1485 (Oxford, 1961), pp. 319–23.Google Scholar
71 See Pugh, T.B., “The Marcher Lords of Glamorgan, 1317-1485,” in Glamorgan County History, vol. 3, The Middle Ages, ed. Pugh, T.B. (Cardiff, 1971), pp. 193–6.Google Scholar The events which led up to this had serious political consequences in one of the feuds which led to the first battle of St. Albans (1455). In 1450 Warwick had got his first grip on George Neville's share of the Despenser inheritance when he received a royal grant of Neville's marriage and the custody of his share of the estates during his minority. In June 1453 this had been revoked and a similar grant made to Warwick's rival, Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset. Somerset's attempt to take possession of the lordships of Glamorgan and Morgannwy led to serious disturbances at Cardiff and Cowbridge. Both men were extremely anxious to get possession and maintain their influence in South Wales. The dispute had then been referred to six councillors. As Dr. Pugh remarks, “In the spring of 1455 he [Warwick] had as much interest as his uncle, Richard, duke of York, in preventing Somerset from re-establishing his control over the government conducted in Henry VI's name. It was defence of his own territorial interests in the Welsh Marches that compelled Warwick to become a Yorkist and fight against the king at St. Albans on May 22.” It may also be said, however, that the Neville-Percy rivalry in the north of England was pushing Warwick and his father, the earl of Salisbury, in the same direction.
72 “His insaciable mynde cowde nozt be content: and yitt bifore him was there none in England of the half possessions that he hadde.” (Hearne's Fragment in Thomae Sprotti Chronica, ed. Hearne, T., [Oxford, 1719], p. 299.)Google Scholar
73 Jacob, E. F., “Founders and Foundations in the Later Middle Ages,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 35 (1962): 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74 For other similar cases see the complicated dispute concerning the Poynings, Brian and Bures inheritances going on for over twenty years. Bean, J.M.W., The Estates of the Percy Family, 1416-1537 (London, 1958), pp. 113–26Google Scholar, and Jeffs, R., “The Poynings-Percy Dispute: An Example of the Interplay of Open Strife and Legal Action in the Fifteenth Century,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 34 (1961): 148–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For the dispute in 1450 between Lord Moleyns and the Pastons over the manor of Gresham, see The Paston Letters, 1: 73, 80, 82, 105-8, 110-3, 138-9, 144-5, 147, 189, 193-4, 208.Google Scholar In 1438-9 Lord Fanhope with forty-five armed men invaded the sessions of the peace and of oyer and terminer at Bedford and broke them up. The essential facts were not denied, but it was considered that he was not without excuse (Select Cases, pp. 529-31, Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1436-1441, pp. 246-7).
75 Smyth, J., The Lives of the Berkeleys, ed. SirMaclean, J., 3 vols. (Gloucester, 1883–1885).Google Scholar [Hereafter cited as Berkeleys.]
76 Ibid., 2: 37.
77 Ibid., pp. 34-5.
78 Ibid., p. 28.
79 Afterwards James, Lord Berkeley (d. 1463) the son and heir of Sir James Berkeley by Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Sir John Bluet of Raglan co. Monmouth.
80 Berkeleys, 2: 28, 35–6.Google Scholar
81 Not all the Berkeley estates were involved. The fourteenth century entails in favour of the heirs male included the manors of Berkeley, Harne, Appleridge, Alkington, Hinton, Slimbridge, Came, Cowley, Watton Burrow, Wotton Horren, Simonshall, Upton St. Leonards and the hundred of Berkeley, Co. Glos; the manor of Portbury and Porteshned and the hundred of Portbury, co Somerset. Thomas IV left his daughter, Elizabeth, all the lands of which he was seized in fee simple and fee tail general whether he had purchased them or whether they came to him by descent in Glos., Somerset, Bucks, Wilts, Northampton, Devon, Cornwall, Oxford and Berks and in various towns. Lands disputed were those in Gloucester and Somerset, in particular, Berkeley, Wotton, Hame.
82 John was the fourth son of John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, and his first by his second wife. Through her there was a somewhat distant claim to the barony of Lisle which was revived for John in 1444. He was promoted to viscount in 1451. C.P., ii, 133; viii, 55-6.
83 Berkeleys, 2: 41-7, 58-62, 65-71, 74.Google Scholar
84 Ibid., pp. 81-2.
85 Ibid., pp. 104-5.
86 The grandson of Margaret, countess of Salisbury. See n. 82.
87 Berkeleys, 2: 106–15.Google Scholar
88 See Lander, J.R., Conflict and Stability in Fifteenth Century England, pp. 14–5.Google Scholar
89 To keep matters clear the Berkeley line of succession was William V (d. 1492); Maurice III (d. 1506), Maurice IV (d. 1523), Thomas V (d. 1533), Thomas VI (d. 1534), Henry (d. 1613).
90 Berkeleys, 2: 101.Google Scholar After the death of Anne Mowbray, duchess of Norfolk, in 1477, the coheirs of the dukedom of Norfolk were John, Lord Howard, and William, Lord Berkeley, but Edward IV denied them the inheritance while elevating Lord Berkeley to the rank of viscount. Richard III allowed the co-heirs to succeed to the Norfolk inheritance (Ross, C., Edward IV [London, 1974], pp. 248-9, 333, 336)Google Scholar, Henry VII granted the marquessate on 28 January 1489.
91 To Sir William Stanley, Henry VII's Chamberlain and the brother of his stepfather, the earl of Derby, with reversion to the Berkeleys, twenty manors and various miscellaneous properties, Berkeleys, 2: 128.Google Scholar He also gave lands to Sir Reynold Bray and the earl of Derby (Ibid., p. 130). His son and grandson (Lords Maurice V and VI) later contested some of these arrangements in numerous lawsuits and petitions to the crown.
92 Ibid., pp. 129-30. Maurice III alienated at least forty-three manors to the King including the castle and manor of Berkeley themselves.
93 This did not, however preclude lawsuits involving “bloody broils” with various other people about other family estates, e.g., Ibid., pp. 206, 210.
94 Ibid., pp. 206, 210, 275-6.
95 He succeeded in 1534 and lived until 1613.
96 That is from the descendants of Viscount Lisle. The descendants of Elizabeth of Warwick's two other daughters do not seem to have pressed any claims. Those of Eleanor passed to the Beauforts and when the Beaufort rights passed to the royal house of Tudor apparently no claims were pressed. Nor did the descendants of Elizabeth, Lady Latimer pursue the quarrel.
97 Ibid., p. 289.
98 Ibid., pp. 289-90.
99 The two manors were valued at £251-3-4 a year and Lord Berkeley was condemned to pay the crown £5,024-12-8 for rents which he had collected since the beginning of the reign, ibid., pp. 290-2.
100 Ibid., p. 296.
101 Ibid., pp. 300-1.
102 D. February, 1604.
103 The son of Mary, daughter of Ambrose Dudley, earl of Warwick and Viscount Lisle. C.P., viii, 69.
104 Berkeleys, 2: 325-6. The properties concerned were the manors of Wotton, Simonshall, Came, Hinton, Cowley, Slimbridge and Hurst, all of which had been in dispute between the heirs male and the heirs general since the early fifteenth century. Wotton and Simonshall were, for safety's sake including in this latest settlement in spite of their recovery a few year's earlier.
105 Ibid., p. 332.
106 It raised upwards of £700. Ibid., p. 333.
107 Ibid., pp. 332-3.
108 Ibid., pp. 294, 296.
109 For similar conclusions for the Elizabethan period see MacCaffery, , “Talbot and Stanhope,” pp. 73, 85.Google Scholar MacCaffery also concluded that “limited forms of private warfare were still possible” in the Elizabethan period.
110 Baldwin, , The King's Council, p. 304.Google Scholar Earlier in his book, he stated that the same problem had “afflicted every century of the middle ages… One of the most frequent causes of violence is found in the conduct of private parties who, having secured the judgment of a court, would undertake themselves, vi et armis, to enforce it.”
111 Sir John Fortescue, although he was a royal judge, had no illusions about the comparative power of nobles and officials: “The might of the land after the might of the great lords thereof standeth most in the King's officers” (The Governance of England, ed. Plummer, C. [Oxford, 1885], pp. 150–1).Google Scholar See also Caxton, and Worcester, William in The Prologues and Epilogues of William Caxton, ed. Crotch, W.J.B. (London, 1928), pp. 14-6, 81Google Scholar, and The Boke of Noblesse, ed. Nichols, J.G. (London, 1860), pp. 77–8.Google Scholar Instances could be multiplied almost indefinitely.