Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:41:46.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lordship and Lawlessness in the Palatinate of Lancaster, 1370–1400

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

S. K. Walker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The precise connection between “bastard feudalism,” the characteristic form of aristocratic social organization in later medieval England, and the disordered condition of English politics in the later Middle Ages has long been a subject for debate among historians. While earlier writers had no doubt that the emergence of magnate affinities—bands of men bound to a lord by an indenture of retainer and a money fee rather than by a heritable fief in land—in the early fourteenth century had destructive consequences for the quality of public order, their unfavorable judgments have now been largely replaced by a more sympathetic account of the workings of magnate lordship, which portrays the late medieval affinity as neither an aberration nor a degeneration from the arrangements of an earlier age, but, rather, the logical successor to them. The creation of this consensus represents, however, only the first stage in the effort to reach a proper understanding of the mechanics of lordship in later medieval England, for it raises a number of secondary questions that have yet to be resolved. How pervasive, for instance, was the network of clientage and patronage represented by the magnate affinity?

One view holds that this network “formed the fabric of contemporary life”: a magnate could effectively control a county or counties by using his indentured retainers “to diffuse the lord's influence through the areas where his estates lay, into the wider affinity, and even among landowners outside the affinity, using above all the power they could wield as local administrators.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , October 1989 , pp. 325 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 SirFortescue, John, The Governance of England, ed. Plummer, C. (Oxford, 1885), pp. xv–xviGoogle Scholar; Joliffe, J. E. A., The Constitutional History of Medieval England (London, 1937), pp. 424–30Google Scholar; Cam, H. M., “The Quality of English Feudalism,” in Law-Finders and Law-Makers (London, 1962), pp. 53–58Google Scholar; Bellamy, J. G., Crime and Public Order in the Later Middle Ages (London, 1973), pp. 22–24Google Scholar.

2 Carpenter, C., “The Beauchamp Affinity: A Study of Bastard Feudalism at Work,” English Historical Review 95 (1980): 514CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harriss, G. L., introduction to England in the Fifteenth Century, by MacFarlane, K. B. (London, 1981), pp. ix–xGoogle Scholar.

3 Maddicott, J. R., “Thomas of Lancaster and Sir Robert Holland,” English Historical Review 86 (1971): 449CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carpenter, C., “Fifteenth-Century Biographies,” Historical Journal 25 (1982): 732CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Griffiths, R. A., The Reign of King Henry VI (London, 1981), p. 570Google Scholar.

5 Saul, Nigel, Knights and Esquires: The Gloucestershire Gentry in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1981), p. 261Google Scholar; Wright, S. M., The Derbyshire Gentry in the Fifteenth Century, Derbyshire Record Society, no. 8 (1983), p. 147Google Scholar; Rowney, I., “Government and Patronage in the Fifteenth Century: Staffordshire, 1439–1459,” Midland History 8 (1983): 49–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 MacFarlane, K. B., “Parliament and ‘Bastard Feudalism,’” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th ser., 26 (1944): 73Google Scholar.

7 For example, Maddicott, J. R., “The County Community and the Making of Public Opinion in Fourteenth-Century England,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 28 (1978): 27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davies, R. R., Lordship and Society in the March of Wales, 1282–1400 (Oxford, 1978), pp. 249–73Google Scholar; Virgoe, R., “The Crown and Local Government: East Anglia under Richard II,” in The Reign of Richard II, ed. du Boulay, F. R. H. and Barron, C. M. (London, 1971), pp. 218–41Google Scholar; Wright, pp. 93–118; Rowney, I., “Resources and Retaining in Yorkist England: William, Lord Hastings and the Honour of Tutbury,” in Property and Politics: Essays in Later Medieval English History, ed. Pollard, A. J. (Gloucester, 1984), pp. 139–55Google Scholar.

8 Rotuli Parliamentorum (London, 1783), 3:100Google Scholar; Hector, L. C. and Harvey, B. F., eds., The Westminster Chronicle, 1381–1394 (Oxford, 1982), pp. 80–82Google Scholar; Lumby, J. R., ed., Chronicon Henrici Knighton, Rolls Ser. (1895), 2:266–70Google Scholar.

9 Hector and Harvey, eds., pp. 354–58; Rotuli Parliamentorum, 3:265Google Scholar.

10 Holmes, G., The Later Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1962), p. 167Google Scholar.

11 Carpenter, C., “Law, Justice and Landowners in Later Medieval England,” Law and History Review 1 (1983): 226–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Cross, P. R., The Langley Family and Its Cartulary: A Study in Late Medieval “Gentry,” Dugdale Society Occasional Papers, no. 22 (1974), p. 14Google Scholar; Bean, J. M. W., The Decline of English Feudalism, 1215–1540 (Manchester, 1968), pp. 148–97Google Scholar.

13 Smith, A., “Litigation and Politics: Sir John Fastolf's Defence of His English Property,” in Pollard, , ed., p. 73Google Scholar; Payling, S. J., “Inheritance and Local Politics in the Later Middle Ages: The Case of Ralph, Lord Cromwell, and the Heriz Inheritance,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 30 (1986): 94–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Powell, E., “Arbitration and Law in the Late Middle Ages,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 33 (1983): 49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rawcliffe, Carole, “The Great Lord as Peacemaker,” in Law and Social Change in British History, ed. Guy, J. A. and Beale, H. G. (London, 1984), pp. 34–53Google Scholar.

15 Public Record Office (PRO), Duchy of Lancaster (DL) 29/728/11976 m. 1, 11978 m. 1, 11980 m. 1, 11984 m. I; Bennett, M. J., Community, Class and Careerism: Cheshire and Lancashire Society in the Age of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 74–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Hardy, W., ed., The Charters of the Duchy of Lancaster (London, 1845)Google Scholar, no. 11.

17 PRO, Justices Itinerant (JUST) 1/442/A mm. 15–22, 442/C; Exchequer (E) 199/21/9.

18 PRO, Palatinate of Lancaster (PL) 14/154/2/7, PL 3/1/171.

19 Tupling, G. H., ed., South Lancashire in the Reign of Edward II, Chetham Society, 3d ser., I, (1949): xliii–xlixGoogle Scholar; Calendar of Patent Rolls (CPR) 1348–50, p. 533.

20 Sayles, G. O., ed., Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench, Selden Society, 82 (1965) 6:89–91Google Scholar; PRO, E 175/2/27.

21 PRO, King's Bench (KB) 27/453 m. 72, 463 m. 55, 458 m. 64.

22 PRO, Common Pleas (CP) 40/418 m. 258d, 440 m. 403; PL1/1 m. 7d.

23 PRO, DL 37/3 m. 2; KB 27/463/Rex m. 28d; CPR 1391–96, p. 388.

24 Beamont, W., Annals of the Lords of Warrington, Chetham Society, o.s., 86 (1872), 1:201Google Scholar; PRO, PL 14/154/5/7; Victoria History of the Counties of England: Lancashire (London, 1907–1914), 6:205Google Scholar (hereafter cited as VCH Lanes.); PRO, KB 27/469/Rex m. 4d, 460/Rex m. 14; Chancery (C) 260/89/64.

25 Hector and Harvey, eds. (n. 8 above), p. 82.

26 PRO, KB 27/463/Rex m. 28d, 464/Rex m. 5d; Lewis, N. B., ed., “Indentures of Retinue with John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, Enrolled in Chancery, 1367–1399,” Camden Miscellany 22, Camden Society, 4th ser., vol. 1 (1964)Google Scholar, no. 2.

27 Calendar of Close Rolls (CCR) 1364–68, p. 179; PRO, JUST 3/165/A m. 11; PL16/1/1 m. 2; DL 37/3/m. ld; Parker, J., ed., Lancashire Palatine Plea Rolls, Chetham Society, n.s., 87 (1928): 45–46, 57–60Google Scholar.

28 PRO, Palatine of Chester (CHES) 29/80 m. 21.

29 Lodge, E. C. and Somerville, R. eds., John of Gaunt's Register 1379–1383, Camden Society, 3d ser., vol. 56 (1937)Google Scholar, nos. 302, 388, 565, 37; Bain, J. ed., Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, 1357–1500 (Edinburgh, 1888)Google Scholar, no. 299; see Lancashire Record Office (LRO), Crumblehome MS Dd/Cm/1/12–15, 18–19, for the difficulties a litigant faced in bringing Tunstall to answer an assize.

30 PRO, PL 14/154/3/82; CPR 1396–99, p. 177.

31 PRO, DL 42/l/76v; 37/3 m. 21; PL 14/154/6/121.

32 Bennett (n. 15 above), pp. 68–69.

33 MacFarlane (n. 6 above), p. 169.

34 Rylands, J. P., “Two Lancashire Rolls of Arms,” Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 37 (1888): 149–60Google Scholar; Wagner, A. R., A Catalogue of English Medieval Rolls of Arms (Oxford, 1950), pp. 63–65Google Scholar.

35 List of Sheriffs for England and Wales, PRO, Lists and Indexes 9 (1898), p. 72Google Scholar; List of Escheators for England, PRO, Lists and Indexes 72 (1932), p. 72Google Scholar; Return of Members of Parliament (London, 1878), 1:16–257Google Scholar; CPR 1360–64, p. 366, 1367–70, p. 418; pp. 59–63; Duchy of Lancaster Records, CPR, Reports of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records 40 (1879): 523Google Scholar (hereafter cited as DKR); Bodleian Library (Bodl.), Dodsworth MS 87, fol. 78v.

36 CPR 1369–77, pp. 112, 127, 192, 229, 269, 388; PRO, Special Collections (SC) 1/58/43; DKR 40, pp. 521–24; Bodl., Dodsworth MS 87, fols. 75, 76v, 79. A similar division of responsibilities within the county community of Lincolnshire is indicated in McLane, B. W., “A Case Study of Violence and Litigation in the Early Fourteenth Century: The Disputes of Robert Godsfield of Sutton-le-Marsh,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 28 (1984): 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 PRO, E 179/130/24, 27, 28; 340/308(5).

38 PRO, PL 14/154/2(45).

39 PRO, PL 14/154/3/16; CPR 1391–96, p. 388; DKR 36 (1875), app. 2, p. 366.

40 Somerville, Robert, History of the Duchy of Lancaster (London, 1953), p. 374Google Scholar; CPR 1396–99, pp. 310, 324, 434, 508.

41 PRO, PL 14/154/2/50, 60.

42 For example, one of Croft's accomplices, William Singleton, who also obtained his pardon at the request of Thomas Mowbray, was later granted an annuity by Gaunt. CPR 1391–96, p. 388; PRO, DL 42/16 f. 171.

43 Langton, W., ed., Abstracts of Inquisitions Post-Mortem, Chetham Society, o.s., vol. 95, no. 1 (1875), pp. 50–53Google Scholar; Armitage-Smith, S., ed., John of Gaunt's Register, 1372–1376, Camden Society, 3d ser., vols. 20–21 (1911)Google Scholar, no. 1010; PRO, PL 14/154/5/26.

44 For the dispute, see PRO, PL 3/1/74; PL 16/1/1 m. 2; Bodl., Dodsworth MS 87, fol. 77v; PRO, PL 14/154/3/82; Rotuli Parliamentorum (n. 8 above), 3: 204Google Scholar. The duke eventually regained possession of the disputed lands and granted them to (Katherine Swynford who, in her turn, sold them to Sir John Stanley As a mark of favor he was forgiven 50 marks of the price. PRO, DL 28/3/2/18; LRO, Finch of Mawdesley MS Dd/Fi/8/5.

45 Rowney, I., “Arbitration in Gentry Disputes of the Later Middle Ages,” History 69 (1982): 367–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Powell, E., “Arbitration and Law in England in the Late Middle Ages,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 33 (1983): 49–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 For example, the prominence of Sir Gilbert Halsall in negotiating such settlements: LRO, Molyneaux of Sefton MS Dd/M/34/19; LRO, Scarisbrick MS Dd/Sc/28/4, 37/10; Atkinson, J. C., ed., The Councher Book ofFurness Abbey, Chetham Society, 3d ser., vol. 18 (1970)Google Scholar, nos. 106, 221. For Halsall, see below, p. 341.

47 PRO, DL 37/3 mm. 17d, 22.

48 Armitage-Smith, ed., Register, 1372–1376, no. 53; PRO, DL 42/15/45.

49 CPR 1377–81, p. 505; Lodge and Somerville, eds., John of Gaunt's Register, 1379–1383 (n. 29 above), nos. 302, 565.

50 Statutes of the Realm, Record Commission (1810–1828), 1:33–35Google Scholar; Hughes, D., A Study of Social and Constitutional Tendencies in the Early Years of Edward III (London, 1915), pp. 194–201, 213–15Google Scholar; Jones, W. R., “Rex et Ministri: English Local Government and the Crisis of 1341,” Journal of British Studies 13, no. 1 (1973): 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Saul (n. 5 above), pp. 149–50, 183, for comparable instances in Gloucestershire.

51 CPR 1374–77, p. 320.

52 PRO, KB 27/462/Rex m. 13, 454/Rex m. 13.

53 PRO, KB 27/442/Rex mm. ld, 4, 24d, 444/Rex mm. 10, 10d, 455/Rex m. 2; PRO, E 199/21/7, 8.

54 For example, PRO, JUST 1/442/B m. 5, 451/B m. 1; JUST 3/155 m. 9; PL 1/1 m. 9.

55 PRO, PL 3/1/174, 155, 83.

56 PRO, PL 3/1/39; Lancashire Palatine Plea Rolls (n. 27 above), pp. 46–47, 57–60.

57 Lodge and Somerville, eds., Register, 1379–1383 (n. 29 above), no. 295; PRO, KB 27/455/Rex m. 2; PRO, E 199/21/7, 8.

58 Maddicott, Contrast J. R., Thomas of Lancaster (Oxford, 1970), p. 36Google Scholar.

59 In 1376, Chaderton alleged that the findings of the original inquest on the body had been maliciously fabricated by the coroners, William Bredkirk and Gilbert Norreys. Despite his previous record, the council seemed disposed to believe Chaderton's story and swiftly removed Bredkirk from his office. PRO, KB 27/454/m. 2; PRO, SC 8/39/1914, 1915, 99/4930, 166/8288; CCR 1374–77, p. 312.

60 CCR 1377–81, p. 125; PRO, PL 3/1/165, 180.

61 LRO, Blundell of Ince Blundell MS, Dd/In/53/48–50; see also LRO, Dd/M/34/19 for an example of Molyneux's maintenance, this time on his own behalf.

62 Although three members of the Molyneux family still formed the nucleus of the gang, the other members were esquires like William Tunstall, Geoffrey de Osbaldeston, and John Botiller of Marton. Lodge and Somerville, eds., John of Gaunt's Register, 1379–1383, no. 302; CPR 1377–81, p. 505.

63 PRO, PL 3/1/180.

64 PRO, DL 25/2096, 42/1/94; 15/38; LRO, Farington of Worden MS, Dd/F/1455A; Armitage-Smith, ed., John of Gaunt's Register, 1372–76 (n. 43 above), no. 1116.

65 Storey, R. L., The End of the House of Lancaster (London, 1966), p. 27Google Scholar.

66 Hector and Harvey, eds. (n. 8 above), p. 222; Lumby, ed. (n. 8 above), 2: 251. See Gillespie, J. L., “Thomas Mortimer and Thomas Molyneux: Radcot Bridge and the Appeal of 1397,” Albion 7 (1975): 164CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for Molyneux's career.

67 Waugh, Scott L., “The Profits of Violence: The Minor Gentry in the Rebellion of 1321–1322 in Gloucestershire and Herefordshire,” Speculum 52 (1977): 843–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Powell, E., “Proceedings before the Justices of the Peace at Shrewsbury in 1414: A Supplement to the Shropshire Peace Roll,“ English Historical Review 49 (1984): 535–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jeffs, R., “The Poynings-Percy Dispute,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 34 (1961): 148–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Virgoe, R., “William Tailboys and Lord Cromwell: Crime and Politics in Lancastrian England,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 55 (1973): 459–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Morgan, P., War and Society in Medieval Cheshire, 1272–1403, Chetham Society, 3d ser., 34 (1987): 192Google Scholar. The Lancastrian administration began proceedings to recover the manor in 1388 and eventually regained seisin in October 1390. PRO, DL 29/16/202 m. 2; PRO, SC 6/773/6 m. 3d.

69 Favent, T., “Historia Mirabilis Parliamenti,” Mcisack, M. ed., Camden Miscellany 9 Camden Society, 3d ser., 27 (1926): 4–5Google Scholar.

70 CCR 1385–89, p. 393 and PRO, DL 37/3/m. 24d give a good indication of who supported de Vere in Lancashire.

71 Roskell, J. S., The Knights of the Shire of the County Palatine of Lancaster, 1377–1460, Chetham Society, n.s., 96 (1937): 83–87Google Scholar; PRO, PL 3/1/50, 51; DL 43/15/6 m. 3, 37/3 m. 3; Lodge and Somerville, eds. John of Gaunt's Register, 1379—83 (n. 29 above), no. 1237.

72 Beamont, W., An Account of the Rolls of the Honour of Halton (Warrington, 1879), p. 22Google Scholar; LRO, Massy of Rixton MS, Dd/X/293/34; PRO, DL 29/16/202 m. 2.

73 LRO, Clifton of Lytham MS, Dd/C1/150; CPR 1381–85, p. 290, 1385–89, p. 114, 232; PRO, E 101/247/1/m. 9, 41/18 mm. 1,4, 12; CPR 1391–96, p. 549; LRO, Dd/M/17/39–43, 49/39–40; Dd/C1/174/1253–59; CCR 1374–77, p. 197, 365; CPR 1385–88, p. 214.

74 PRO, SC 8/44/2173; PRO, DL 42/1/142v; PRO, PL 16/1/1 m. 3; PRO, KB 9/55C m. 2; 27/449/Rex m. 1, 453 m. 72, 460 m. 41.

75 VCH (n. 24 above), 5: 116, n. 20; Bodl., Dodsworth MS 87, fol. 76; PRO, PL 14/154/1/28; Farrer, W. ed., Lancashire Final Concords, Lancashire and Cheshire Record Society, no. 50. (1905), pt. 3, p. 37Google Scholar; PRO, KB 27/455/m. 31; 457/Rex m. 63; CPR 1370–74, p. 401.

76 Bellamy, J. G., “The Northern Rebellions in the Later Years of Richard II,“ Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 47 (1965): 254–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar, gives the best account, now supplemented by Morgan (n. 68 above), pp. 193–96.

77 PRO, C 76/72/mm. 5, 16, 81/1048–55.

78 On appointment to his command at Guines in 1388, he was prevented from taking up the post for six months by the former captain, John Drayton, and was unable to obtain decisive support from the council. He was eventually compensated for the financial loss he incurred by Richard II in 1391. PRO, E 404/14/96 (July 22, 1391); CPR 1385–89, p. 416, 427; PRO, E 403/533 m. 14. VCH Lanc., 6: 345Google Scholar; PRO, PL 3/1/146; Bodl., Dodsworth MS 87, fol. 79.

79 PRO, PL 3/1/31; KB 9/989 m. 15, 27/529/Rex m. 14d; Bodl., Gough MS, Yorkshire 5, fol. 26; Nottinghamshire Record Office, Foljambe of Obserton MS, Dd/Fj/4/2/1; CCR 1392–96, p. 109; CPR 1391–96, p. 237.

80 “Recognizance Rolls of Chester,“ DKR 36 (1875), app. 2, p. 13Google Scholar; CPR 1391–96, p. 40; Calendar of Fine Rolls, 1383–91, p. 342; ibid., 1391–99, pp. 8, 18. For Maistreson in the duke's service, see Armitage-Smith, ed., John of Gaunt's Register, 1372–76 (n. 43 above), no. 779; PRO, DL 29/738/12096 m. 3.

81 PRO, C 47/14/6/44.

82 de Trokelowe, J.and Anon., “Annales Ricardi Secondi et Henrici Quarti,” in Chronica et Annales, ed. Riley, H. T., Rolls Ser. (1886), p. 161Google Scholar; PRO, DL 43/15/6 m. 3 shows that many of the rebels were pardoned the fines imposed on them by the justices at Lancaster.

83 Statutes of the Realm (n. 50 above), 2:89Google Scholar; PRO, PL 3/1/19; Bodl., Dodsworth MS 87, fol. 80v; LRO, Towneley of Towneley MS, Dd/To/K/9/6.

84 Hariss (n. 2 above), p. xxi.

85 CPR 1391–96, p. 182; “Recognizance Rolls of Chester,“ DKR 36 (1875), app. 2, p. 330Google Scholar; PRO, SC 8/223/11128–30; KB 27/531/m. 52d.

86 John of Gaunt issued a mandate for a commission to arrest Talbot within his palatinate on August 22, 1393; a similar order within the royal palatinate of Chester was not issued until October 22. See Bodl., Dodsworth MS 87, fol. 77v; “Recognizance Rolls of Chester,“ DKR 36 (1875) app. 2, p. 330Google Scholar; Rotuli Parliamentorum (n. 8 above), 3: 316–17; PRO, KB 27/532/Rex m. 16.

87 Given-Wilson, C., The Royal Household and the Kind's Affinity: Service, Politics, and Finance in England, 1360–1413 (New Haven, Conn., 1986), pp. 219–23Google Scholar.

88 PRO, KB 27/550/Rex m. 18d; CPR 1396–99, pp. 521, 524.

89 For example, John Aldelm, Sir Gilbert Halsall, Nicholas Orrell, PRO, E 101/42/18 mm. 12, 18; 10 m. 1; “Recognizance Rolls of Chester,” DKR 36 (1875), app. 2, p. 215Google Scholar.

90 Sir Robert Clifton; Sir Gilbert Halsall; Richard Massy of Rixton; John Radcliffe of Chaderton; Sir Ralph Radcliffe; William Rixton. See PRO, E 101/42/10 m. 1; CPR 1396–99, pp. 521, 524; “Recognizance Rolls of Chester,” DKR 36 (1875), app. 2, p. 407Google Scholar.

91 PRO, DL 42/15/46, 56, 56v; 16/42; Nottingham University Library, Middleton MS, Mi/F/10; Lewis, ed. (n. 26 above), nos. 32–42.

92 PRO, DL 42/15/6, 12, 2 1, 25v; 16/231.

93 PRO, DL 29/728/11984 m. 1; 738/12096 m. 1.

94 PRO, DL 42/1, f. 49; Davies, R. R., “Richard II and the Principality of Chester,“ in du Boulay, and Barron, , eds. (n. 7 above), p. 266Google Scholar.

95 PRO, KB 27/549/Rex m. 17; 552 m. 18; PL 14/154/3/84–94, 96, 99, 101–5; 6/4, 14, 71–73.

96 PRO, PL 3/1/34; DL 42/15, f. 114; Roskell (n. 71 above), p. 84.

97 Rotuli Partiamentorum, 3:445Google Scholar; PRO, CHES 2/69 m. 11.

98 DKR 36 (1875), app. 2, p. 540.

99 CCR 1396–99, p. 348; PRO, E 403/559 m. 14; Gillespie, J. L., “Richard II's Cheshire Archers,” Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 125 (1975): 19Google Scholar. When the Lancastrian inheritance was confiscated in February 1399, the late duke's seneschal and constable at Halton (Ches.) was removed from his office on the warrant of the duke of Surrey and replaced by Holford. PRO, DL 30/41/3 m. 2.

100 Given-Wilson (n. 87 above), p. 223; Tuck, A., Richard II and the English Nobility (London, 1973), pp. 209–10Google Scholar; Bennett (n. 15 above), p. 169.

101 Walker, S. K., “Lancaster v. Dallingridge: A Franchisal Dispute in Fourteenth-Century Sussex,” Sussex Archaeological Collections 112 (1983): 87–94Google Scholar.

102 Griffiths, R. A., “Local Rivalries and National Politics: The Percies, the Nevilles and the duke of Exeter, 1452–1455,” Speculum 43 (1968): 589–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carpenter, C., “The Duke of Clarence and the Midlands: A Study in the Interplay of Local and National Politics,” Midland History 11 (1986): 23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103 Hector and Harvey, eds. (n. 8 above), p. 112; Rotuli Parliamentorum, 3:313Google Scholar.

104 Goodman, A., “John of Gaunt: Paradigm of the Late Fourteenth-Century Crisis,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 36 (1987): 146–47Google Scholar.