1 Helmholz, R. H., Marriage litigation in medieval England, Cambridge Studies in English Legal History, 11 (Cambridge, 1974), 132–3 and 160–1.Google Scholar

2 Sheehan, Michael M., ‘The formation and stability of marriage in fourteenth-century England: evidence of an Ely register’, Mediaeval Studies 33 (1971), 228–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Donahue, Charles Jr, ‘Female plaintiffs in marriage cases in the court of York in the later middle ages: what can we learn from the numbers?’, in Walker, Sue Sheridan ed., Wife and widow in medieval England (Ann Arbor, 1993), 184.Google Scholar

4 Sheehan, Michael M., ‘Theory and practice: marriage of the unfree and the poor in medieval society’, Mediaeval Studies 50 (1988), 457–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The development of the English synodal legislation which allowed the implementation of the Christian ideal of marriage is analysed in the same author's ‘Marriage theory and practice in the conciliar legislation and diocesan statutes of medieval England’, Mediaeval Studies 40 (1978), 408–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar I have argued for a much deeper understanding of the canon law rules of marriage formation among the laity in ‘Did mediaeval laity know the canon law on marriage? Some evidence from fourteenth-century York cause papers’, Mediaeval Studies 56 (1994), 111–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Excerpts from the Canterbury cases are printed in Adams, Norma and Donahue, Charles Jr, Select Cases from the ecclesiastical courts of the province of Canterbury, c. 1200–1301, Publications of the Selden Society, 95 (London, 1981).Google Scholar

6 A concise explanation of the kinds of documents produced by the ecclesiastical courts can be found in Adams, and Donahue, , Select cases, 37–72.Google Scholar

7 Donahue, , ‘Female plaintiffs’, 207.Google Scholar

8 Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 166–8Google Scholar; Ingram, Martin, ‘Spousals litigation in the English ecclesiastical courts, c. 1350–1640’, in Outhwaite, R. B. ed., Marriage and society: studies in the social history of marriage, The Europa Social History of Human Experience (London, 1981), 69–72.Google Scholar Helmholz identified a decline in matrimonial litigation in Canterbury, Rochester, Lichfield and Hereford but did not make comments about York.

9 Smith, R. M., ‘Marriage processes in the English past: some continuities’, in Bonfield, Lloyd, Smith, Richard M. and Wrightson, Kevin eds., The world we have gained: histories of population and social structure (Oxford and New York, 1986), 70.Google Scholar Smith draws attention to the fact that common law courts began to allow the successful plaintiff a possibility of recovering damages from the defendant for breach of promise. Cf. Milsom, S. F. C., Historical foundations of the common law (London, 1969), 289.Google Scholar

10 Goldberg, P. J. P., Women, work, and life cycle in a medieval economy: women in York and Yorkshire c. 1300–1520 (Oxford, 1992), 7; 201–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Only six complete act books survive in York, covering the years 1417–1420, 1425 and 1486–1487.

12 See Burns, K. F., The administrative system of the ecclesiastical courts in the diocese and province of York, Part I: The medieval courts (unpublished typescript, Leverhulme Research Scheme, York, 1962), 165–6.Google Scholar Though only six complete act books survive from the fifteenth century (see n. 11), Burns’ comments are based on an examination of all surviving act book fragments.

13 See Donahue, , ‘Female plaintiffs’, 185 and 207–8.Google Scholar

14 The following fourteenth-century cases were heard by archdeacons’ courts before the York consistory court: CP E 23,25, 71, 102, 137,178, 191,223, 241b and 257. The dean of the Christianity of York heard three cases before they were heard by the consistory court: CP E 82, 159 and 198. (The cause papers are referred to as ‘CP’, with a letter designating their century, i.e. CP E = fourteenth-century; CP F = fifteenth-century etc.) For comparisons with other jurisdictions, see Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 145 and 177Google Scholar; Sheehan, , ‘formation and stability of marriage’, 232–3Google Scholar; and Ingram, , ‘Spousals litigation’, 42–4.Google Scholar

15 See Archbishop Giffard's letter to Ruffinus, archdeacon of Cleveland: ‘Intellegimus enim quod cognitionem habetis causarum…nisi quod officiates nostri quandoque…ad majores querelas…rescripserunt…vobis jurgiis et nobis causis majoribus…reservatis (‘for we understand that you have cognizance of causes…except for whenever our officials respond to major complaints…quarrels being reserved for you and major causes to us’) (Burns, , Ecclesiastical courts, 170).Google Scholar

16 See, for example, CP E 28, 103 and 137. Only in one case (CP E 103) did the plaintiff attempt to prove the allegation that her opponent was of unfree status. One witness specified the degree of difference between the plaintiff and the defendant saying ‘quod dictus [reus] est potentior et ditior in bonis sed est servilis conditionis et nativus domini ducis Lancastriensis et habet in bonis majoribus suis…[Pars actrix est] libere conditionis ut [dicit ista jurata]’ (‘that the said [defendant] is more powerful and wealthier, but he is of servile condition and a neif of the lord Duke of Lancaster and has more in goods…[The plaintiff] is of free condition, as this witness says’). Common objections to witnesses include that they were viles et plebes (e.g. CP E 82), that they were bribed (e.g. CP E 1), that they were mortal enemies of one of the litigants (e.g. CP E 82 and 92), or - at the more extreme end of the spectrum - that a female witness was a procuress (CP E 82) and that a witness was mentally deficient (CP E 92).

17 In these 42 cases 25 plaintiffs lived in the city of York or its environs (CP E 14, 36, 82, 87, 89, 111, 116, 121, 138, 150, 155, 157, 158, 159, 161, 175, 198, 216, 221, 238, 239, 242, 245, 248), 3 came from within a radius of 10 miles (CP E 25, 148, 153) and a further 14 lived within a radius of 10 to 20 miles (CP E 6, 18, 40, 84, 85, 92, 95, 97, 113, 181, 188, 191, 210, 211).

18 Plaintiffs from villages within a 30-mile radius (besides those already listed): CP E 6, 18, 28, 37, 76, 92, 103, 106, 124, 178, 181, 186, 210, 211, 236, 274; other plaintiffs from villages within a 40 mile radius: CP E 33, 61, 69, 79, 102, 114, 212.

19 The archdiocese of York covered the area represented by the present-day counties of North, South and West Yorkshire, Humberside, Nottinghamshire, Humberside, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire, Durham, Cleveland, Tyne and Wear, Cumbria and Northumberland. For a detailed study of the boundaries of the archdiocese see Brown, William and Thompson, A. Hamilton eds., The register of William Greenfield, Lord Archbishop of York, 1306–1315, Parts 1 and 2, Surtees Society, 145 and 149 (Durham, 1931, 1934).Google Scholar

20 The map in Figure 3 is based on the map of a minimal aggregate road network produced on the basis of known Roman roads, royal itineraries and two medieval maps (the Gough and Matthew Paris maps), compiled by Hindle, Brian Paul in his article ‘Roads and tracks’ in Cantor, Leonard ed., The English medieval landscape, Croom Helm Historical Geography Series (London and Canberra, 1982, 193–218.Google Scholar The map in Figure 3 was drawn by Bernard Tranter.

21 As will be shown below, another factor supporting this conclusion involves differences in the average distance from first-instance and York courts for different status groups.

22 For a survey of the poll tax evidence, see Goldberg, P. J. P., ‘Urban identity and the poll taxes of 1377, 1379, and 1381’, Economic History Review 43 (05 1990), 194–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The probate registers for the archdiocese of York do not begin until 1389.

23 Sheehan, Michael M., The will in medieval England: from the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to the end of the thirteenth century (Toronto, 1963)Google Scholar and ‘The influence of canon law on the property rights of married women in England’, Mediaeval Studies 25 (1963), 109–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Dobson, R. B., ‘Admissions to the freedom of the city of York in the late Middle Ages’, Economic History Review (2nd Series) 23 (1973), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 I have tried to define status groups in a way that would make sense to a fourteenth-century Englishman by basing them on documents from the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. I have, among others, consulted such documents as the Sumptuary Laws of 1363, which regulated the clothes members of different social groups were allowed to wear; the Statute of Labourers, which defined the terms and duration of service, including wages; a list of trades in York drawn up by the common clerk, Roger Burton, in 1415; and a settlement between the York mayor Nicholas Blakburn and Archbishop Bowet from 1411, which described the order of precedence to be observed between various officers of the court and civic officials in civic and ecclesiastical processions. Only one condition - in cases where a litigant had a member of the clergy in his or her family - has been arbitrarily placed in the same status group as citizens, artisans and craftsmen. Modernized texts of the Statute of Labourers and the Sumptuary Laws can be found in Myers, A. R., English historical documents 1327–1485 (Volume 4 of Douglas, David C. ed., English Historical Documents (London, 1969)).Google Scholar Roger Burton's list of York crafts is found in R. H. Skaife's unpublished manuscript Civic officials of York (York City Library, Reference Room) and the agreement between Nicholas Blakburn and the archdiocese is paraphrased in Burns, , Ecclesiastical courts, 158.Google Scholar

26 The procedures adopted to establish the status of certain individuals are described in the Appendix to this article.

27 CP E 85.

28 For a brief description of exceptions and replies to the libel, see Adams, and Donahue, , Select cases, 37–72.Google Scholar

29 Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 160–1.Google Scholar

30 Status Group 1: CP E 12, 14, 46, 108, 179, 259; Status Group 2: CP E 15, 18, 62, 76, 79, 87, 89, 113, 175, 245, 248; Status Group 3: CP E 26, 36, 37, 61, 69, 124, 138, 153, 159, 161, 188, 198, 216, 221, 235, 238, 239, 242, 257, 263; Status Group 4: CP E 23, 25, 70, 77, 82, 84, 85, 92, 102, 111, 113, 114, 121, 126, 137,150, 155, 159, 181, 215, 223, 236, 241v, 242, 255, 256. A further 4 cases may be classified as Status Group 4 by occupational surnames: CP E 1, 6, 135, 223. One case definitely originated in Status Group 5 (CP E 103) and a further 2 cases may have involved a litigant from the same status group: CP E 28 (the Status Group 5 litigant was the defendant) and CP E 137, in which Master Thomas Ponteland, a witness for the plaintiff, gave the following reason for his appearance as a witness in the case: ‘Et dicit idem juratus quod quidam Willelmus de Hesylryg venit ad ipsum et rogavit eum quod videret dictam Julianam, filiam tenentis sui, justitiam habere. Et dicit quod ipsam juvabat et ipsam fovebat in causa’ (‘And the witness says that a certain William de Hesylryg came to him and requested that he should see to it that said Juliana, the daughter of his tenant, would have justice. And he says that he helped her and aided her in the case’).

31 CP E 79 and 245.

32 CP E 18, 89, 175, 179, 188.

33 CP E 46, 69, 76, 87, 257, 259.

34 CP E 12 (non-payment of dowry); 108 (validity of parents’ marriage); 79 (validity of vows, multi-party); 179 (forced marriage); 245 (multi-party over the proctor William Cawod's daughter).

35 CP E 103. The unfree status of the defendant, John de Byrkys, in CP E 235 emerged during the interrogation of witnesses over his exceptions to the plaintiff's witnesses; see above, note 16.

36 Given-Wilson, C., The English nobility in the late middle ages (London, 1987), 69–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Russel, J. C., British medieval population (Albuquerque, 1948), 118 and 132–3.Google Scholar

37 CP E 6, 97, 102, 103, 111, 114, 135, 150, 191, 102, 211 and 263. ‘Ex officio’ litigation is litigation which arose out of an investigation by the court. The parties in such an ex officio case would be the court itself and a couple or an individual.

38 Donahue, , ‘Female plaintiffs’, 207.Google Scholar

39 Average distances from York for the plaintiffs are: Status Group 1: 64.6 miles; Status Group 2: 21.6 miles; Status Group 3: 17.0 miles; Status Group 4: 25.9 miles. The average distance from the first court is: Status Group 1: 35.5 miles; Status Group 2: 20.3 miles; Status Group 3: 15.6 miles; Status Group 4: 7.3 miles.

40 In an attempt to encourage his subjects’ use of the courts, Archbishop Greenfield fixed litigation costs at a uniform level in the statutes of the court of 1311. The statutes’ prologue declares that the statutes were drawn up to achieve two aims: first, to eliminate the possibility of delays in cases heard in the court, and secondly to limit the expense of conducting a case for the litigants. The statutes did not demand a payment to the court for dealing with a case, but it was stated that litigants were expected to pay the scribes who provided the court with transcripts of the depositions and the advocates and proctors involved with their case. The two examiners of the court, who conducted interrogations of witnesses in court or out of court in the witnesses’ home parish, were normally not to be paid more than 12d. per witness examined. But if the litigants had handed in articles of excessive length, the examiners were allowed to charge 1d. for every 12 lines of deposition taken down. The charge for copies of these or other documents was 1d. for every 24 lines. In larger cases, the examiners were to be paid according to the assessment of the president of the court. The examiners’ fee was to be waived if the litigant for whom they performed the examination was a pauper or a ‘miserable person’. The salary of an advocate of the court was not to exceed 50s. per case per annum, while a proctor could only be paid 10s. per case per annum. If the court found that they had taken more from their clients, they were liable to pay back the excess and to suspension from their office during the president's pleasure. There are no recorded instances of this happening in the fourteenth-century York cause papers (see Wilkins, David, Concilia Magna Britanniae et Hiberniae a Synodo Verolamiensi AD CCCCXLIV ad Londinensem AD MDC, 4 vols. (London, 1737), vol. 2, 410–12).Google Scholar

41 A sentence of abjuratio sub poena nubendi could be imposed on a couple found guilty of repeated fornication. The consequence of such a verdict was that if the couple had sexual intercourse afterwards they were ipso facto married. For a discussion of the legal aspects of these kinds of cases, see Helmholz, R. H., ‘Abjuration sub poena nubendi in the church courts of medieval England, in his Canon law and the law of England (London, 1987), 145–55Google Scholar (first published in The Jurist 32 (1972), pp. 80–90Google Scholar) and the later discussion of the same subject in Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 172–81 and 208–12.Google Scholar

42 ‘Et tunc idem Thomas interrogavit dictam Margeriam quantum expendiderat in prosecutione dicte litis. Que dixit quod quinqueginta quinque solidi. Et tune ipse dixit “de hoc satisfacam te et habe hie xx solidos in partem.”’ (CP E 102).

43 Asked by Thomas de Midelton why she had started the case in the first place, Margery Merton answered ‘Quia nolo derideri a te’ (‘Because I do not want to be laughed at by you’) (CP E 102).

44 Helmholz rightly called 55s. ‘a large sum’ (Marriage litigation, 161Google Scholar). The amount represents between 12 and 6 months’ wages to an ordinary worker who would have made around 2–3½d. a day (see Thorold-Rogers, J. E., A history of agriculture and prices in England, 7 vols. (Oxford, 1866–1902), vol. 1, 321; vol. 4, p. 524).Google Scholar The point is, however, that the cost of litigation was not prohibitive to these litigants and that a weaver in Beverley was willing and able to spend that amount on regularising her union to a chapman.

45 Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 161.Google Scholar

46 For example, in his analysis of the documents produced by the Church courts in matrimonial cases Richard Helmholz implies that an enforcement of marriage case was always brought by a woman: ‘The libel ended with the demand that the defendant be adjudged the plaintiffs legitimate husband and be required to treat her with marital affection’ (my italics) (Marriage litigation, 13Google Scholar) and when discussing the repudiation of spouses or the abandonment of one spouse by another, which he calls ‘self-divorce’ he writes,’ Rarely did men claim the right to repudiate their wives without an excuse that was at least vaguely canonical. Almost always they had a reason for the validity of their first marriage. But it was the man himself that worked out the divorce’ ibid., (my italics). Helmholz assumed that it was always the man who wished to obtain a divorce and that it was only men who abandoned their wives. At least one fourteenth-century ‘self-divorce’ investigated by the official's court in York was initiated by a woman; see Owen, D. M., ‘White annays and others’ in Baker, Derek ed., Medieval women, Studies in Church History, Subsidia 1 (Oxford, 1978), 331–46.Google Scholar

47 The published handlist of cases (on which I have relied for the identification of marriage litigation) lists cause papers by the plaintiff or appellant in York (Smith, D. M., Ecclesiastical cause papers at York: the court at York 1301–1399, Borthwick Texts and Calendars, 14 (York, 1988), viii).Google Scholar The following cases were initiated by women at the first-instance court: CP E 1, 6, 25, 28, 33, 36, 37, 40, 69, 70, 71, 77, 79, 82, 84, 92, 95, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 111, 113, 114, 116, 121, 126, 135, 137, 140, 150, 157, 158, 159, 161, 175, 178, 181, 191, 198, 202, 210, 211, 213, 215, 216, 221, 223, 235, 236, 239, 241b, 241i, 255, 256, 257, 259 and 263.

48 CP E 12, 14, 15, 18, 23, 26, 46, 61, 62, 76, 85, 87, 89, 97, 124, 138, 148, 153, 155, 179, 186, 188, 212, 238, 241v, 242, 245, 248 and 274.

49 CP E 25, 36, 37, 71,77, 79, 87, 95, 103, 106, 113, 124, 126, 138, 148, 153, 155, 158, 159, 161, 175, 186, 188, 210, 215, 236, 242 and 256.

50 CP E 25, 36, 37, 71, 77, 79, 95, 103, 106, 113, 126, 158, 161, 175, 210, 215, 236 and 256.

51 CP E 25, 36, 37, 71, 77, 79, 103, 106, 113, 126, 161, 175, 210, 236 and 256.

52 CP E 113, 126 and 159. In these three cases, it is unclear whether the man had set up a household with one of the female plaintiffs. For example, in CP E 159 Margery Spuret and Thomas Hornby first appeared before the dean of the Christianity of York who dismissed the case when Margery could not produce witnesses for her case. Four months later she initiated the present case again, this time with witnesses: at this stage Thomas Hornby was also sought by Beatrice Gylling.

53 CP E 138, 186, 188 and 242.

54 CP E 87, 155 and 153. I distinguish a precontract from a matrimonial and divorce case by the fact that we have positive proof in the cause papers that the alleged spouse was not present in court or that we have no attestation that he was cited to appear before the court.

55 CP E 124, 148 and 159.

56 The figures in Figure 5 are based on the gender of the person who brought the core issue to the attention of the court in York. As will be shown below, in cases classified as restitution of marital rights and alimony cases the men who brought the cases to the attention of the York court were reacting to a (now lost) approach to another ecclesiastical court.

57 Rasmussen, Tove (Jeg tager dig til min œgtemand…kvinder og kirkeret i 1300-tallets Yorkshire (unpublished dissertation, University of Copenhagen, 1985), 41–8)Google Scholar comes to much the same results. However, we differ in the way that we compute the figures. Ms Rasmussen counted the number of female plaintiffs when the cases were heard in York and subdivided the cause papers into three groups (enforcement, multi-party and divorce cases). I have computed the number of female plaintiffs in the court of first instance in nine categories. (A divorce ‘Quoad mensam et thorum’ granted the parties the right to set up separate households but not to remarry.)

58 For a concise discussion of the legal implications of this kind of case, see Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 172–81Google Scholar, which refines the analysis found in the same author's earlier article ‘Abjuration sub poena nubendi’, 145–56.Google Scholar

59 CP E 6, 111, 114, 135, 150, 178, 191, 202 and 211. A tenth case, CP E 37, argues that the defendant in a multi-party case was compelled to contract a second marriage by an ecclesiastical judge.

60 CP E 211.

61 Listed in Figure 5 as ‘divorce’. The outcome of a successful plea in this kind of case was a marital separation in which the court allowed the spouses to live in separate households but not to remarry (see note 57).

62 Although Mr Justice Devlin was trying to define provocation in excusable homicide, his definition of the result of provocation seems entirely appropriate as a description of the violence dealt with in York (All England Law Reports, vol. 1 (1949), 932).Google Scholar

63 CP E 150 and 221.

64 CP E 15 and 241v.

65 CP E 14 (1324).

66 CP E 248 and 274.

67 CP E 274 (1395). Too little survives in this case to say whether it was brought as a counter-charge to litigation by the woman. The case was later appealed, but no record survives of the outcome of the appeal.

68 CP E 248. This case, which raises a number of issues about the litigants’ knowledge and use of canon law, is analysed in detail in Pedersen, Frederik, Romeo and Juliet of Stonegate: a medieval marriage in crisis, Borthwick Paper (York, 1995).Google Scholar

69 CP E 1, 15, 18, 23, 28, 37,40, 69, 71, 82, 84, 92, 102, 103, 105, 111, 113, 114, 116, 121, 124, 126, 135, 157, 178, 181, 188, 198, 202, 215, 213, 236, 255, 259, 263.

70 CP E 6,26, 76, 77, 79, 85, 87, 89, 95, 97, 106, 137, 138, 155, 191, 211, 221, 235, 238, 241v.

71 CP E 1, 6, 25, 26, 71, 82, 114, 137, 178, 215, 223, 241b and 263.

72 Donahue, , ‘Female plaintiffs’, 201.Google Scholar

73 In proposing this, I am much influenced by Charles Donahue's explanation for the changing litigation patterns in surviving fourteenth- and fifteenth-century litigation (Donahue, , ‘Female plaintiffs’, 204–5Google Scholar). Donahue's explanation receives added support from the figures for litigants’ average distances from the court when divided by status group (see above).

74 Only one of the women sought by a man in marriage - Johanna Monceaux, the defendant in CP E 179 - defended herself with the argument that she was far too wealthy to have consented to the marriage. Men, on the other hand, often used this argument to try to discredit a woman's claim.

75 CP E 179 and CP E 248.

76 C. 4 q. 3 c. 1–19; D. 22 c. 5; Fournier, Paul, Les officialites au moyen âge: étude sur l'organisation, la compétence et la procédure des tribunaux ecclésiastiques ordinaires en France, de 1180 à 1328 (Paris, 1880), 185Google Scholar, and Helmholz, , Marriage litigation, 155.Google Scholar

77 The model age-distribution tables below (Figures 6 and 7) are taken from Coale, Ansley J., Demeny, Paul and Vaughan, Barbara, Regional model life tables and stable populations, Studies in Population (New York, 1983).Google Scholar A model age-distribution table is a mathematically derived distribution of age-groups according to varying demographic regimes. The variables used in the equations are the population's mortality and fertility. On the basis of these variables a distribution of members in different age-groups is calculated. A comparison of the model age-distribution table to the age-distribution in an observed population may show if the age-distribution of the observed population is commensurate with a representative sample. The model age-distribution table used for both sexes in this study is a West Level 4 Stationary population.

78 The graphs in Figures 6 and 7 show two Y-axes with massively different scales. This is justified because the analysis is of trends in the age-distribution of the witnesses: the important aspect of the graphs is how closely their shapes correspond.

79 The list of 71 clerics looks like this: there were 22 chaplains, 17 unspecified clerici, 6 vicarii, 6 notaries public by apostolic authority (5 of them also described themselves as clerics, but are not counted among that group), 3 clerks, 3 vicars choral, 2 guardians of hospitals (St Mary's, Bootham; St Giles, Beverley), 2 nuns, 2 monks, 1 canon, 1 abbot of St Mary's Abbey, York, 1 clerk of the vestibule, 1 former official of the East Riding, 1 janitor, 1 magister, 1 presbyter and 1 registrar of the court.

80 CP E 102 and 248.

81 The complete list of occupations looks like this: 22 servants, 8 literati, 6 saddlemakers, 4 laici, 4 goldsmiths, 2 butchers, 2 ropemakers, 2 barbers, 2 spinners, 2 apothecaries, 2 tailors, 1 potter, 1 grenster, 1 domina, 1 bociler, 1 weaver, 1 fletcher, 1 draper (tapiter), 1 wright, 1 tanner, 1 fur-seller, 1 forester, 1 runner for the archdeacon of Burton, 1 summoner and 1 ‘citizen of York’.

82 CP E 82 and 92.

83 Their evidence is found in CP E 89, 92, 113, 114, 155, 181, 198 and 235.

84 Quoted in Donahue, Charles Jr, ‘Proof by witness in the church courts of medieval England: an imperfect reception of the learned law’, in Arnold, Morris S., Green, Thomas A., Scully, Sally A. and White, Stephen D. eds., On the laws and customs of England (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1981), 130–1.Google Scholar

85 Lévy, J. P., La Hiérarchie des preuves dans le droit savant du moyen âge (Paris: 1939), 79.Google Scholar

86 CP E 6, 14, 15, 23, 33, 61, 77, 82, 89, 92, 102, 103, 111, 114, 116, 124, 135, 138, 150, 157, 159, 175, 179, 188, 191, 198, 202, 213, 216, 221, 223, 235, 238, 248 and 263.

87 Raine, J., The register, or rolls, of Walter Gray, Lord Archbishop of York: with appendices of illustrative documents, Surtees Society, 56 (Durham, 1872), 110.Google Scholar

88 Clay, Charles Travis, Early Yorkshire charters based on the manuscripts of the late William Farrer, Volume 4, Yorkshire Archeological Society Record Series, Extra Series, 2 (n.p., 1935), 76–7, 84–5.Google Scholar

89 Clay, Charles Travis, Early Yorkshire charters based on the manuscripts of the late William Farrer, Volume 6: The Paynell Fee, Yorkshire Archeological Society Record Series, Extra Series, 4 (n.p., 1939).Google Scholar

90 CP E 108 (1370).

91 The earliest surviving document in this case is Simon Munkton's plea for restitution of marital rights which he presented before the archbishop's court of audience on 21 August 1345. However, a letter from the commissary general dated 30 October 1345 shows that Simon's wife, Agnes Huntington, had initiated proceedings at the official's court before Simon made his plea to the archbishop. For this reason the case has been identified as a case with a female plaintiff.

92 Return, Members of Parliament, Part 1: Parliaments of England, 1213–1702 (London, 1878), 117, 118, 127, 152 and 154.Google Scholar

93 York Minster Library, York Dean and Chapter Wills I, 14.

94 Pugh, R. B. ed., The City of York, in The Victoria County History of England: a history of Yorkshire (London, 1961), 50Google Scholar; Early Yorkshire charters, vol. 1, 194Google Scholar, and Early Yorkshire charters, vol. 3, 454–7.Google Scholar

95 Cawod's career spanned most offices in the legal system in York: he became a bachelor of canon law in 1376, he was the dean and chapter auditor causarum, 7 November 1382–1310 December 1389, a licentiate in canon law 1393, he was a vicar general 1397, and served as the official of archbishop Bowet 1417–1419; cf. Brown, Sandra, The medieval courts of the York Minster Peculiar, University of York Borthwick Papers, 66 (York, 1984), 35.Google Scholar

96 CP E 121, 159 and 223.

97 CP E 150, 235 and 263.

98 CP E 36 and 121.

99 CP E 138, 111, 138, 82, 198, respectively.

100 Chapmen: CP E 92, 102; spicer: CP E 241 v; apothecary: CP E 245; mercer: CP E 216.

101 CP E 121, 181, 238 and 242. The last case (CP E 242) is a multi-party case between two servants and a third person.

102 ‘…seisiret ipsa Alicia in duabus bovatis terre’ CP E 85 (‘He planted for said Alice in two bovates of land.’).

103 CP E 215.