Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:35:53.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Court of the Verge: the Jurisdiction of the Steward and Marshal of the Household in Later Medieval England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

W. R. Jones
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The royal court known variously as the “court of the verge,” the “court of the steward and marshal,” or the “Marshalsea court,” and which was said to try “pleas of the hall” (placita aule), appeared as a distinct and separate tribunal during the second half of Edward I's reign. It is difficult to trace the process whereby it distinguished its highly specialized jurisdiction over matters of personal interest to the king and his household from the general jurisdiction exercised coram rege and thereby succeeded in separating itself from the undifferentiated Curia Regis. Since at least the early thirteenth century the steward of the household was viewed as having a special judicial role within the household, of which he was the appointed head. As a result of that process of departmentalization which created the other agencies of royal justice and administration, a special household jurisdiction appeared toward the end of the thirteenth century. About the year 1290 the court of the steward and marshal of the household emerged as a separate and identifiable judicial body with its own personnel, procedures, and rolls, and with a jurisdictional competence encompassing pleas of trespass within the verge, cases of debt involving members of the household, and pleas of contempt of the king's rights of purveyance and carriage. In substance, the court claimed to try cases involving the domestic servants of the crown and certain acts affronting the royal dignity and, in geographical terms, breaches of the king's peace within the vicinity of the royal residence, which was assumed to extend twelve miles in every direction from the especially sacrosanct presence of the sovereign.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , November 1970 , pp. 1 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1970

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. Various names have been applied historically to the court of the steward and marshal. The earliest surviving plea rolls are entitled “placita aule regis.” Fleta (II, 2, 3) spoke of the king's court in his hall before his steward (“Habet enim curium suam coram seneschallo suo in aula sua”) and of the pleas of the king's hall (“De placitis aule regis”). Articuli super cartas (c. 3) in 1301 speaks simply of the steward and marshal of the household. A petition from 1329 referred to “les pleedz de la mareschaucie,” although the term, “Marshalsea,” likewise applied to a division of the household and to jails kept by the knight marshal of the hall, the marshal of the king's bench, and even the marshal of the eyre. “Court of the verge” is a more recent title; however, the earliest plea rolls stressed the point that a case had arisen infra virgam. In James I's reign the court was renamed “Curia virgae palatii domini regis,” and was so known until Charles I reestablished it as the “Curia Palatii” or “Palace Court.” For references, see notes 17, 18, 21, 29. When Bracton spoke of the king's court (fol. 105b) as “curiam propriam, sicut aulam regiam,” he was talking about the undifferentiated Curia Regis. See Bracton, , De Legibus et Consuetudintbus Angliae, ed. Woodbine, G. E. (New Haven, 1915–1942), II, 301Google Scholar.

2. Holdsworth, W. S., History of English Law (7th ed. rev.; London, 1956–1966), I, 208–09Google Scholar.

3. Sayles, G. O. (ed.), Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward I [-III] [Selden Society] (London, 1936–1965), III, lxxxiii–lxxxviiiGoogle Scholar.

4. Johnson, J. H., “The King's Wardrobe and Household,” The English Government at Work, 1327–1336, ed. Willard, J. F. and Morris, W. A. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940–1947), I, 208–12Google Scholar.

5. Davies, J. Conway, The Baronial Opposition to Edward II (London, 1918), pp. 199–206Google Scholar.

6. Johnson, , “King's Wardrobe,” English Government at Work, I, 243, n. 2Google Scholar.

7. Tout, T. F., Chapters in the Administrative History of Mediaeval England (Manchester, 1920–1933), I, 201–05Google Scholar; II, 25-26, 31-34, 137, 251-53. Although obscure and poorly organized, Harcourt's, L. W. VernonHis Grace the Steward and Trial of Peers (London, 1907)Google Scholar, can be mined for useful information.

8. Davies, , Baronial Opposition, pp. 20–21Google Scholar.

9. Stewards of the household are listed in Powicke, G. M. and Fryde, E. B. (eds.), Handbook of British Chronology (London, 1961), pp. 72–76Google Scholar. See also Tout, , Chapters in the Administrative History, VI, 38–45Google Scholar. The two stewards of the thirteenth century were reduced to a single official in the fourteenth century.

10. Record Commission (ed.), Placitorum in Domo Capitulari Westmonasteriensi Asservatorum Abbreviatio (London, 1811), pp. 232, 347Google Scholar. For the office of the Earl Marshal of England, see Harcourt, His Grace the Steward and Round, J. H., The Commune of London and Other Studies (London, 1899), pp. 302–20Google Scholar.

11. Johnson, , “King's Wardrobe,” English Government at Work, I, 208–12Google Scholar.

12. See the case from the Curia Regis roll, dated 1234, of a plaint brought before William of Raleigh and Geoffrey of Crowcombe, the steward, against Master William, a king's buyer. Found guilty, the defendant was forced to depart the household. Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O. (eds.), Select Cases of Procedure without Writ under Henry III [Selden Society] (London, 1941), pp. 17–18Google Scholar.

13. Davies, , Baronial Opposition, pp. 213–4Google Scholar; Johnson, , “King's Wardrobe,” English Government at Work, I, 218Google Scholar.

14. See the case from the Curia Regis roll of John's reign cited in footnote 54.

15. Sayles, , Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward I, III, lxxxiii–lxxxviiiGoogle Scholar.

16. For the separation of the court of king's bench from the Curia Regis, see Sayles, , Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward I, II, xxxiv–lxxiiGoogle Scholar.

17. Statutes of the Realm (London, 1810–1817), I, 139Google Scholar: 28 Eward I, Articuli super Cartas, c. 5.

18. Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O. (eds.), Fleta [Selden Society] (London, 1955), II, 109–13Google Scholar.

19. Nichols, F. M. (ed.), Britton (Oxford, 1865), I, 3Google Scholar; Whittaker, W. J. with Maitland, F. W. (eds.), The Mirror of Justices [Selden Society] (London, 1895), p. 124Google Scholar.

20. See the evidence collected by Sayles, in Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward I, III, lxxxviiGoogle Scholar.

21. Public Record Office, Pleas of the Aula Regis or Marshalsea Court, (hereafter cited as PRO) E.37/2. See Guide to the Contents of the Public Record Office (London, 1963), I, 112Google Scholar, and PRO, Lists and Indexes.

22. PRO, E.37/2; PRO, E.37/3; PRO, E.37/4.

23. PRO, E.37/33 (which is out of sequence).

24. PRO, E.37/5-27.

25. PRO, E.37/28. This episode is discussed by Harcourt, , His Grace the Steward, pp. 416–29Google Scholar, and Jacob, E. F., The Fifteenth Century: 1399–1485 (Oxford, 1961), pp. 24–26Google Scholar. The average person in the middle ages sometimes confused the court of the steward and marshal of the household with the court of the Constable and Marshal of England. See Leadam, I. S. and Baldwin, J. F. (eds.), Select Cases before the King's Council, 1243–1482 [Selden Society] (Cambridge, 1918), p. 47Google Scholar, nn 4, 6. See also the obscure legislation of Richard II in 1390, Statutes of the Realm, II, 61: 13 Richard II, Statute 1, c.2.

26. Guide to the Contents of the Public Record Office, I, 152–53Google Scholar; Holdsworth, , History of English Law, I, 208–09Google Scholar.

27. Davies emphasized the privileged legal position of the household, Baronial Opposition, pp. 204-06. For an example, see Powicke, F. M. and Cheney, C. R. (eds.), Councils & Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church (2 Pts., Oxford, 1964), II, 879–80Google Scholar.

28. Richardson, and Sayles, , Fleta, II, 109Google Scholar.

29. PRO, E.37/33/1. In 1329 John of Hengham, “lieu tenant nostre seneschal de nostre hostel a tenir les pleedz de la mareschaucie,” was appointed chief clerk of the pleas of the crown to justices at Northampton. See Sayles, , Select Pleas of the Court of King's Bench under Edward III, V, cxlviiGoogle Scholar. A statute of 1353 spoke of the steward and his lieutenant. See Statutes of the Realm, I, 336Google Scholar: 27 Edward III, Statute 2, c.8.

30. The steward possessed his own seal, which could be used for judicial purposes. See PRO, 37/2/15, which recorded a plea concerning the failure of the bailiff of a liberty to execute a bill sealed by the steward and returnable in the court of the verge. For an early mention of a steward's seal, see Tout, , Chapters in the Administrative History, I, 210–11Google Scholar. The statute of Stamford (1309) prohibited the use of the privy seal in such a way as to defeat the common law, suggesting that this domestic seal may still have been considered to be connected with the office of steward of the household. See Statutes of the Realm, I, 156Google Scholar: 3 Edward II, Statute of Stamford.

31. During the fourteenth century the “Marshalsea prison” was apparently a jail which could change locations as the court itself moved. A murder suspect was lodged in the “marshalsea” at Dover castle from 1329 to 1332 while the king was abroad See Sayles, , Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward III, V, 70–71Google Scholar. There is little information on the marshalsea of the household in Pugh's, R. B. otherwise authoritative Imprisonment in Medieval England (Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar.

32. Johnson, , “King's Wardrobe,” English Government at Work, I, 208–10Google Scholar.

33. For the history of litigation by bill, see the Introduction to Richardson and Sayles, , Select Cases of Procedure without Writ under Henry III, especially pp. xxi ff., cxxv ffGoogle Scholar.

34. Ibid., p. lxxi. The legislation of Edward I and II spoke rather ambiguously of the trial of pleas of free tenements in the court of the verge: “ordene est qe desormes ne tiegnent plai de franc tenement, ne de dette, ne de covenant, ne de contract des gentz du pueple fors tantsulement des trespas de lostel, et autres trespas faitz dedenz la verge, et de contractz, et covenantz qe ascun de lostel le Roi avera fait a autre de meisme lostel.” See Statutes of the Realm, I, 138, 155Google Scholar, 164: 28 Edward I, Articuli super Cartas, c.3; 3 Edward II, Statute of Stamford; 5 Edward II, Ordinances, c.26.

35. Richardson, and Sayles, , Fleta, II, 110Google Scholar.

36. For example, see the case of Nicholas Enkepenne, PRO, E.37/2/14 and E.37/2/15d, discussed below in the text. In the plea rolls the notation, “Non est presens,” indicated the nonsuit of the plaintiff; whereas the phrase “ipsi non venit,” preceded the command to the marshal to attach the absent defendant.

37. See note 35, also Holdsworth, , History of English Law, I, 219Google Scholar.

38. PRO, E.37/2/6d; see also the penalty inflicted in 1234 on Master William, the king's buyer, in Richardson, and Sayles, , Select Cases of Procedure without Writ under Henry III, p. 18Google Scholar. During the fourteenth century the chattels of such persons were sold, the proceeds going to the Wardrobe.

39. For an example of an inquest in the Wardrobe relative to a plea of detinue, see PRO, E.37/19/4. The legislation concerning this practice is in Statutes of the Realm, I, 266, 277Google Scholar: 5 Edward III, c.2; 10 Edward III, Statute 2, c.1. The normal custom was to call a jury representing the district or neighborhood.

40. A considerable number of inquests are recorded on the plea roll for 33 Edward III. See PRO, E.37/27, which is a single long membrane. For an inquest concerning an accusation of extortion, see PRO, E.37/12/8; and for a case of trespass, PRO, E. 37/12/11.

41. A jury in Edward III's reign showed itself very well informed as to the recent movements of a man who had been accused of trespass, although his wife claimed that he was absent from the kingdom in royal service. See PRO, E.37/12/48d.

42. For example, see PRO, E.37/12/9. In the plea roll, PRO, E.37/2/6d, it was noted that the mayor of Newcastle-on-Tyne came before the steward and marshal to act as mainprise to answer in the Wardrobe for a certain red horse valued at 40s., seized by the king at Nottingham and claimed by one Robert le Ireys.

43. Statutes of the Realm, I, 164Google Scholar: 5 Edward II, Ordinances, c.26. For examples of representation by attorney, see PRO, E.37/2/21; PRO, E.37/2/23.

44. See the case of Sybil de la Haghe v. Richard of Cotegrave on trespass, in PRO, E.37/2/5.

45. The punishment of false suit is noted in PRO, E.37/2/22; PRO, E.37/2/26; PRO, E.37/4/11.

46. Examples of concords terminating litigation before the court are in PRO, E.37/2/1; PRO, E.37/2/26; PRO, E.37/5/8; PRO, E.37/3/30d.

47. For examples of the punishment of sheriffs and others for not enforcing the court's mandates, see PRO, E.37/2/10; PRO, E.37/2/13; PRO, E.37/2/19; PRO, E.37/2/19d; PRO, E.37/5/2.

48. Richardson, and Sayles, , Select Cases of Procedure without Writ under Henry III, pp. cviii–cxxxivGoogle Scholar; Cam, H. M. (ed.), The Eyre of London: 14 Edward II. A.D. 1521 [Year Books of Edward II, vol. XXVI, part I] (London, 1968), p. xcixGoogle Scholar.

49. PRO, E.37/2/5.

50. See, for examples, PRO, E.37/2/4; PRO, E.37/2/9; PRO, E.37/3/15; PRO, E.37/3/21; PRO, E.37/12/20d. In a plea recorded in PRO, E.37/2/21, Matthew le Fuller was attached to answer one George Durdent for trespass in that he was accused of assaulting the latter and forcing him to make acquittance for a sum of money, which acquittance was borne off. A prior was attached to answer the king and a plaintiff in a plea of trespass wherein it was said that letters under the privy seal had been taken. See PRO, E.37/12/20d.

51. PRO, E.37/5/15; PRO, E.37/2/35d. In PRO, E.37/12/53d one Robert Halewey was attached to answer John Harnham, executor of the testament of Richard Kyrpyng, on a plea of trespass within the verge, in that Robert was accused of having seized certain goods and chattels of Richard in the executor's custody.

52. See below in the text for a discussion of interference with the activities of the king's purveyors and harbingers.

53. PRO, E.37/5/2; PRO, E.37/2/8d.

54. Curia Regis Rolls of the Reigns of Richard I, and John, [and Henry III] preserved in the Public Record Office (London, 1922–1961), VI, 27Google Scholar; Flower, C. T., Introduction to the Curia Regis Rolls, 1199–1230 A.D. [Selden Society] (London, 1944), p. 52Google Scholar.

55. Johnson, , “King's Wardrobe” English Government at Work, I, 245Google Scholar.

56. Sayles, , Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward I, II, 31Google Scholar.

57. Record Commission, Placitorum Abbreviatio, p. 232Google Scholar.

58. Wright, T. (ed.), A Contemporary Narrative of the Proceedings against Dame Alice Kyteler, Prosecuted for Sorcery in 1324, by Richard de Ledrede, Bishop of Ossory [Camden Society] (London, 1843), pp. xxiii–xxixGoogle Scholar.

59. Sayles, , Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward III, V, 49–51Google Scholar.

60. Ibid., pp. 70-71.

61. Statutes of the Realm, I, 138Google Scholar: 28 Edward I, Articuli super Cartas, c.3.

62. For the English coroner, see Hunnisett, R. F., The Medieval Coroner (Cambridge, 1961), especially pp. 9–36Google Scholar.

63. Statutes of the Realm, I, 138Google Scholar: 28 Edward I, Articuli super Cartas, c.3.

64. Johnson, , “King's Wardrobe,” English Government at Work, I, 243, n. 5Google Scholar.

65. Statutes of the Realm, I, 155-56, 164Google Scholar: 3 Edward II, Statute of Stamford; 5 Edward II, Ordinances, c.26.

66. Ibid., p. 138:28 Edward I, Articuli super Cartas, c.3.

67. Ibid., pp. 155-56, 164: 3 Edward II, Statute of Stamford; 5 Edward II, Ordinances, c.26.

68. Sayles, , Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward I, III, cxxvGoogle Scholar.

69. Statutes of the Realm, I, 266, 276–77Google Scholar: 5 Edward III, c.2; 10 Edward III, Statute 2, c.1.

70. Sayles, , Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward I, III, cxxiv–cxxvGoogle Scholar.

71. PRO, E.37/12/10. For another example, see PRO, E.37/12/11. See also the analysis of recognizances made in the court of the verge enforced by the court of king's bench in Sayles, , Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward I, II, cxxiiiGoogle Scholar.

72. Some cases of debt and covenant, wherein the concept of detinue is prominent are PRO, E.37/5/1; PRO, E.37/5/1d; PRO, E.37/5/15; PRO, E.37/5/16; PRO, 37/12/8; PRO, E.37/19/4.

73. Sayles, , Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward III, VI, 136–37Google Scholar.

74. Statutes of the Realm, I, 138, 155, 164Google Scholar: 28 Edward I, Articuli super Cartas, c.3; 3 Edward II, Statute of Stamford; 5 Edward II, Ordinances, c.26.

75. Plucknett, T. F. T., Concise History of the Common Law (5th ed.; Boston, 1956), p. 366Google Scholar.

76. For an example of a plea of detinue of a deed for rental of a messuage, see PRO, E.37/5/15.

77. Statutes of the Realm, I, 266, 276–77Google Scholar: 5 Edward III, c.2; 10 Edward III, Statute 2, c.1.

78. PRO, E.37/19/4. For the use of a jury of the king's household for the determination of a case of trespass committed within the household, see PRO, E.37/5/6d.

79. Plucknett, , Concise History, pp. 633–36Google Scholar.

80. Rotuli Parliamentorum: ut et petitiones, et placita in Parliamento tempore Edwardi R.I. [ad finem Henrici VII] (London, 1767–1777), II, 368Google Scholar.

81. Statutes of the Realm, II, 295Google Scholar: 15 Henry VI, c.1.

82. PRO, E.37/2/5. I have adopted the translations of “serviens,” “valletus,” etc. suggested by Johnson, , “King's Wardrobe,” English Government at Work, I, 208, n. 2Google Scholar.

83. PRO, E.37/2/15.

84. PRO, E.37/2/16.

85. PRO, E.37/2/22.

86. See the many inquests in PRO, E.37/27.

87. PRO, E.37/2/14. For the office of poulterer, see Johnson, , “King's Wardrobe,” English Government at Work, I, 216Google Scholar.

88. PRO, E.37/2/14d.

89. Johnson, , “King's Wardrobe,” English Government at Work, I, 245–47Google Scholar.

90. PRO, E.37/5/1d; PRO, E.37/5/2.

91. PRO, E.37/3/1; PRO, E.37/3/5d.

92. In PRO, E.37/4/12 an inquest revealed that a man had posed as a king's minister in order to extort sums of money from towns; in PRO, E.37/4/15 a jury declared the innocence of a royal official accused of unlawfully seizing grain

93. PRO, E.37/2/35d.

94. PRO, E.37/2/6.

95. PRO, E.37/2/14.

96. PRO, E. 37/2/14d.

97. PRO, E.37/2/16d.

98. PRO, E.37/2/4.

99. In Edward II's reign a certain John le Rede of Romsey, Wiltshire, made fine to the king for contempt in having effected the release of a prisoner from the custody of the marshal. See PRO, E.37/2/19d.

100. PRO, E.37/2/13; PRO, E.37/2/37; PRO, E.37/16/1.

101. See, for example, PRO, E.37/2/19.

102. PRO, E.37/2/13.

103. PRO, E.37/2/4.

104. PRO, E.37/2/38d: Cole, H. (ed.), Documents Illustrative of English History in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (London, 1844), p. 36Google Scholar; cited by Davies, , Baronial Opposition, pp. 200–01Google Scholar.

105. PRO, E.37/2/23.

106. PRO, E.37/2/15d.

107. See Cole, , Documents Illustrative of English History, p. 36Google Scholar.

108. PRO, E.37/2/38.

109. For London's defense of its exempt status, see Davies, , Baronial Opposition, p. 201 and sources citedGoogle Scholar.

110. For the performance of the customary duties of the marshal by the London sheriff, see PRO, E.37/2/26; PRO, E.37/2/30 records the appearance before the court during Edward II's reign of the mayor of London, John of Wengrave, to defend the city's exempt jurisdiction in a suit of trespass; the mayor produced a charter under the great seal in support of the claim.

111. PRO, E.37/5/7.

112. Rotuli Parliamentorum, I, 97Google Scholar.

113. Leadam, and Baldwin, , Select Cases before the King's Council, pp. 27–32Google Scholar, also lxvi-lxix.

114. PRO, E.37/5/15.

115. Cases of various kinds wherein clerics are plaintiffs are found in PRO, E.37/5/4; PRO, E.37/14/1; PRO, E.37/16/10d; also PRO, E.37/13/3, concerning ecclesiastical privilege.

116. PRO, E.37/2/10; PRO, E.37/2/13; PRO, E.37/2/19d; PRO, E.37/5/2.

117. PRO, E.37/5/2.

118. PRO, E.37/2/15.

119. See note 109.

120. Note the payments made to William of Rockingham, coroner of the household, PRO, E.37/2 passim.

121. Davies, , Baronial Opposition, p. 203Google Scholar.

122. PRO, E.37/2/8.

123. Johnson, , “King's Wardrobe,” English Government at Work, I, 244–45Google Scholar.

124. Payments to clerks were made from damages awarded in cases in PRO, E.37/2/5; PRO, E.37/2/21d; PRO, E.37/2/35d.

125. Rotuli Parliamentorum, II, 26Google Scholar.

126. Statutes of the Realm, II, 130–31Google Scholar: 2 Henry IV, c.23. Pugh, , Imprisonment, p. 171Google Scholar.

127. Statutes of the Realm, I, 164Google Scholar: 5 Edward II, Ordinances, c.26.

128. Statutes of the Realm, I, 266Google Scholar, 277: 5 Edward III, c.2; 10 Edward III, Statute 2, c.1.

129. Sayles, , Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward III, VI, 102–03Google Scholar.

130. Ibid., pp. 136-38.

131. Statutes of the Realm, I, 138Google Scholar: 28 Edward I, Articuli super Cartas, c.3.

132. Ibid., pp. 155-56, 164: 3 Edward II, Statute of Stamford; 5 Edward II, Ordinances, c.27.

133. Ibid., pp. 266, 276-77: 5 Edward III, c.2; 10 Edward III, Statute 2, c.1.

134. Ibid., p. 301: 18 Edward III, Statute 2, c.7. Edward III's legislation for the staple made provision for the jurisdiction of the court of the steward and marshal to continue to apply in this context. See Ibid., I, 335, 336: 27 Edward III, Statute 2, c.4, c.8.

135. Rotuli Parliamentorum, II, 240Google Scholar.

136. Ibid., pp. 336-37.

137. Ibid., p. 354.

138. Ibid., p. 351.

139. Ibid., pp. 366-67, 368.

140. Ibid., III, 26.

141. Statutes of the Realm, II, 130–31Google Scholar: 2 Henry IV, c.23.

142. In 1389 a statute confirmed the limitation of the extent of the verge to a distance of twelve miles from the king's house, ibid., p. 62: 13 Richard II, Statute 1, c.3. The commons had requested the reduction of the distance to three miles in 1366. See Rotuli Parliamentorum, II, 336–37Google Scholar. From the latter petition it would seem that there had been some confusion as to whether the verge was to extend from the king's actual residence or from the household. The royal reply to the petition stated that it should be considered as extending a dozen miles from either but not from both.

143. Statutes of the Realm, II, 521–22Google Scholar: 3 Henry VII, c.14.

144. Ibid., III, 845-48: 33 Henry VIII, c.12.

145. Holdsworth, , History of English Law, I, 208–09Google Scholar.

The author expresses his appreciation for the assistance provided for the completion of this study by the Central University Research Fund of the University of New Hampshire.