^{page 85 note 1} MS. per.

^{page 85 note 2} Brit., Mus., Add. MS. 9021, fos. 8–9 (transcript made for Anstis from the original manuscript in the College of Arms).Google Scholar

^{page 86 note 1} WarkwortK's Chronicle, ed. Halliwell, J. A. (Camden Soc, 1839), p. 9: ‘The Erie of Wurcestre was gretely behatede emonge the peple, for ther dysordinate deth that he used’.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 1} See also the trials of Northumberland and Bardolph in the Court of Chivalry, known from the reference in Rot[uli] Parl[iamentorum] (Record Commission), iii, p. 604; of Ralph, Hastings, known from Rot. Pad., iii, p. 633^a;Google Scholar and of Archbishop Scrope in T., Gascoigne'sLoci e libro veritatum, ed. Thorold Rogers, J. E. (Oxford, 1881), pp. 226ff.Google Scholar (Decollatio Scrope). Fulthorpe, who tried both Scrope and Hastings, is described as the constable's lieutenant in Brit., Mus., Add. MS. 9021, loc. cit., so presumably these cases also were tried in the Court of Chivalry.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 2} Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. W., Stubbs (R[olls] S[eries], 1882–83), i, pp. 140–42.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 3} Plucknett, T. F. T., ‘The Origin of Impeachment’, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc, 4th series, 24 (1942), p. 58.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 4} Stubbs, W., Constitutional History of England (Oxford, 1880), 3, p. 302.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 5} Ibid., p. 63.

^{page 88 note 1} Holdsworth, W. S., History of English Law, 1 (7th edn., 1956), p. 575.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 2} Squibb, G. D., The High Court of Chivalry (Oxford, 1959), pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 3} Plucknett, , op. cit., p. 62,Google Scholar quoting ‘Year book 12 & 13 Edward III (Rolls Series), pp. 96–101’.

^{page 89 note 1} The Brut, ed. Brie, F. W. D., 1 (Early English Text Society, cxxxi, 1906), p. 227.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 2} Foedera, ed. Rymer, T. (Record Commission edn.), II. 1, p. 509.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 3} Parl[iamentary] Writs (Record Commission), II. ii, Appendix, p. 263.

^{page 90 note 1} The French chronicle, from which the Brut is translated, ends at this point.

^{page 90 note 2} The Brut, ed. Brie, , 1, p. 222.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 1} Printed in Warkworth's Chronicle, ed. Halliwell, , pp. 36–39,Google Scholar notes. Grey's, degradation was in fact pardoned, and sentence limited ultimately to drawing and beheading.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 2} The trials, in their absence, of Northumberland and Bardolph (1405–06)

^{page 92 note 1} de Bado Aureo, Johannes, Tractatus de Armis,Google Scholar ed. Bysshe, E. (London, 1654), p. 44: ‘quando portans arma debet dishonorari propter proditionem … tune arma sua sunt pingenda per transversum … quia fides etiam hosti servanda est dejure civ'ili et armorum’.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 2} Upton, , De Officio Militari, lib. I, c. i j, ed. Bysshe, (London, 1654), p. 29, classes ‘gradus dejectio’ as a military penalty for treason.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 3} Vita Edwardi Secundi, ed. N., Denholm-Young (Nelson's Medieval Texts, 1957), p. 137.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 4} Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. Stubbs, , 1, pp. 317–18.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 5} Gascoigne, , Loci e libro veritatum, p. 227 (Decollatio Scrope).Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 1} Chronicles of London, ed. Kingsford, C. L. (Oxford, 1905), p. 216. See also infra, p. 103, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 2} Rot. Pad., iii, p. 473 (1400–01): petition from the Commons that the constable and marshal should not exceed their powers, and that ‘les ditz Conestable et Mareschal ne delyverent en execution … terre ne tenement dont ascun est seisy de franc tenement a meyns, salvant tout foith la dit Court execution soulement de corps et biens …’

^{page 93 note 3} Chronicon Henrici Knighton, ed. Lumby, J. R. (R.S., 1889), 1, p. 438.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 4} Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. Stubbs, , 1, p. 141.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 5} Rot. Part., ii, p. 3. TRANS. 5TH S.—VOL. 12—G

^{page 94 note 1} Pad. Writs, II. ii, Appendix, p. 261^b.

^{page 94 note 2} Ibid., p. 265^a.

^{page 94 note 3} Ibid., p. 262^a.

^{page 94 note 4} Chronicle of the Rebellion in Lincolnshire, ed. Nichols, J. G. (Camden Miscellany, 1, 1847), p. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 5} Patent Roll 12 Henry VII, part 2, m. 4, printed in Vernon- Harcourt's, L. W.His Grace the Steward and the Trial of Peers (London, 1907), pp. 414–15.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 6} Powicke, F. M., The Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1953), p. 644.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 7} Chronicon Ada de Murimuth, ed. Thompson, E. M. (R.S., 1889), p. 247;Google ScholarChronicon Henrici Knighton, ed. Lumby, , 2, p. 89.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 8} Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS. Fr. 21717, fos. 144 ff. (transcript assembling various entries from the Parlement register, Paris, Arch. Nat., X1 a 1469).

^{page 95 note 1} Philippe, de Commynes, Mémoires, bk. V, ch. 6 (ed. B. de Mandrot (Paris, 1901–03), 1, p. 376): ‘despuis que ung prince a pose son siege et faict tirer son artillerie devant une place …, si aulcuns viennent pour y entrer et la reconforter, … ilz sont dignes de mort par les droictz de la guerre’.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 2} See Norfolk's, petition against Somerset, 1453, in which he states that ‘it hath be seen in manye royaumes and lordshyps, that for the losse of tounes and castells wythoute sege, the capitaynes that hav lost theym han be deede and beheded, and her godes lost’ (Paston Letters, ed. Gairdner, J., London, 1904, 2, p. 291).Google Scholar Compare the allegations of Talbot against Robert Stafford, before the Parlement of Paris, 17 Aug. 1433, that since he had lost La Ferté-Bernard ‘sans assault et sans engins’, ‘par le droit darmes, il a tout confisque et sest rendu indigne’ (Arch. Nat., X¹ a 4797, fo. 106¹).

^{page 95 note 3} See a letter of Philip the Good, after his retreat from before Calais in 1436, defending his honour by explaining that he had not officially commenced a siege: ‘nous ne nous y meismes que par maniere de logis, et non de siege comme dit est, ne y feismes asseoir ne tirer aucunes bombardes’ (Archives Dép. du Nord, B 1884², pièce 29521).

^{page 95 note 4} Mus., Brit., Add. MS. 9021, loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 1} 25 Edward III, Stat. 5, c. 2.

^{page 96 note 2} See Archives Dép. du Nord, B 18823, fo. 21¹ (letter of Nicholas Ryssheton, doctor of civil law, to the Burgundian envoys, Calais, 25 May 1405): ‘jura et usus armorum fundentur principaliter tarn per textus quam per doctores juris civilis et canonici’.

^{page 96 note 3} Bonet, H., The Tree of Battles, part 4, ch. 82 (written c. 1387): ‘He who decides on war should have no sovereign’ (G. W. Coopland's translation (Liverpool, 1949), p. 175).Google Scholar Heraldic treatises show that this book was regarded as the ultimate authority on the law of arms: see Bodleian, Lib., MS., Ashmole 764, fo. 11¹; Phillipps MS. 10396 (in private hands), fo. 19¹;Google ScholarNat., Bibl., MS. Fr. 1968, fo. 64^v. It was quoted by Norfolk in his petition against Somerset (Paston Letters, ed. Gairdner, , loc. cit.).Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 4} Chronicon Henrici Knighton, ed. Lumby, , 1, pp. 437 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 5} Vernon–Harcourt, , op. cit., p. 414.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 6} Parl. Writs, II. ii, Appendix, p. 265².

^{page 96 note 7} Ibid., p. 261^b.

^{page 97 note 1} Brit., Mus., Add. MS. 9021, loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 2} Rot. Pad., iii, p. 605.

^{page 97 note 3} See supra, p. 96, n. 3.

^{page 97 note 4} Bonet, , op. cit., part 4, ch. 43 (Coopland's translation, pp. 147–48).Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 5} Duplès-Agier, H., Registre criminel du Châtelet de Paris (Soc. des bibliophiles françois, Paris, 1861–64), 2 P. 2O7Google Scholar: ‘au dit prisonnier [Mérigot Marchès] qui n'est pas chief de guerre le Roy n'a aucune guerre formele …, mais par maniere de traison veult prendre, exiger et lever patiz et raunceons comme desja a fait depuis le temps d'icelles treues criees’.

^{page 97 note 6} See Arch. Nat., X¹ a 1471, fo. 293¹: ‘Boulemer nestoit que pillart et ne pouvoit faire guerre et fu execute pour ses demerites’; see also Arch. Nat., X² a 8, fo. 130^r, which makes it clear that his crime was construed as treason: ‘Guilelmus Boulemer anglicus pro crimine lese majestatis … morti condempnatus’. The case for and against Boulemer is briefly stated in a letter addressed by Edward III to John, , king of France, on 4 Dec. 1361 (Some Documents regarding the Fulfilment and Interpretation of the Treaty of Bretigny, ed. Chaplais, P. (Camden Miscellany, 19, 1952), p. 22).Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 7} Parl. Writs, II. ii, Appendix, p. 263.

^{page 98 note 1} Bonet, , op. cit., part 4, ch. 103 (Coopland's translation, p. 189), defines truces as ‘royal surety’, ‘according to the masters’.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 2} See Mason, A., ‘Sir Andrew de Harcla’, Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiqu. and Arch. Soc., 29 (1929), p. 124, where the order is printed.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 3} Ibid., p. 122. The commission to Harclay was dated 9 Feb. 1322 (n. st.).Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 4} He and Bruce had agreed virtually to coerce Edward and govern England through a council of twelve. For the text of their agreement see Mason, , op. cit., pp. 122–23.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 5} See Henry, V's Mantes Orders, §22, The Black Book of the Admiralty, ed. Twiss, T. (R.S., 1871–76), 1, p. 466;Google Scholar see also the case of the English captains whose goods were confiscate in 1360 ‘pro crimine lese majestatis’ for having made a treaty to evacuate Poix without Edward Ill's permission (Arch. Nat., X¹ a 17, fos. 275 flF.), and Pole's statement in 1384 to Despenser's captains: ‘il n'est mye lisible chose, einz moelt grant mesprision en la persone de chescun lige Homme du Roi, de faire Treitie avec aucun Enemy du Roi sanz la volenteeet expresse auctorite du Roi…’ (Rot. Parl., iii, p. 157^a).

^{page 98 note 6} Squibb, , op. cit., pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 7} 13 Richard II, Stat. 1, c. 2.

^{page 98 note 8} E.g. Year Book 37 Henry VI, Pasch., pl. 8 (Black Letter edn., London, 1679).

^{page 99 note 1} Parl. Writs, II. ii, Appendix, p. 261^a.

^{page 99 note 2} Ibid., plea held ‘coram Fulcone filio Warini Constabulario [et] Johanne de Western Marescallo’.

^{page 99 note 3} Ibid.John, Weston was at the time deputy marshal for Brotherton; see Calendar of Close Rolls, 1318–23, pp. 443, 447, 452, 462, 580.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 4} Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. Stubbs, , 1, p. 139.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 5} See , G. E. C., Complete Peerage, 10, p. 240, nn. (h) and (i).Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 6} Gregory's Chronicle, ed. Gairdner, J. (Camden Soc, 1876), pp. 224–25.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 7} See Baurein, J., Variétés bordeloises (Bordeaux, 1784–86), 1, pp. 200–05Google Scholar (case tried by Talbot at Bordeaux in 1453); Arch. Nat., X¹ a 4795, fo. 324^v (case originally tried by Lord Scales in the field after the fall of Le Mans, 1425); Jean, de Bueil, Le Jouvencel, ed. L., Lecestre and C., Favre (Soc. de l'hist. de France, 1887–89), 1, p. 220, and ii, pp. 10, 91, 94–95.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 8} Foedera, ed. Rymer, T. (Original edn.), 10, p. 1061.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 1} Order published at Caen, Dec. 1423, printed by Miss Rowe, B. J. H., ‘Discipline in the Norman Garrisons under Bedford, 1422–35’, Eng. Hist. Rev., 46 (1931), pp. 201–06.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 2} The Black Book of the Admiralty, ed. Twiss, , 1, p.454:Google Scholar ‘Item, pur nul debat darmes, prisons, loiges, ne de nulle autre chose queleconqe, qe nul face riote …, mes sil soi sente greve, monstre sa grevance au Conestable et Mareschall, et droit li serra fait’.

^{page 100 note 3} See Henry, V's Mantes Orders, §9, The Black Book of the Admiralty, ed. Twiss, , 1, p. 461.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 4} Sir Nicolas, H., The Scrope and Grosvenor Controversy (London, 1832), 1, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 5} P., Lopez de Ayala in Crónicas de los Reyes de Castilla (Madrid, 1779), 1, pp. 459–60.Google Scholar It is worth noting that, as in the case of ordinary traitors, it was common practice to exhibit reversed the arms of those who were ‘traitors totheir faith’ because they had failed to pay their ransoms: e.g. Arch. Nat., X¹ a 25, fo. 23^r (Henry of Lancaster reversing the arms of Guillaume Blondel); Arch. Nat., X¹ a 4798, fo. 376^V (Thibaut des Termes reversing the arms of the lord of Châteauvilain); Arch. Nat., X¹ a 4801, fo. 255^V (La Hire reversing the arms of Robert de Commercy).

^{page 101 note 1} For the composition of this tribunal see Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. Stubbs, , 1, p. 317.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 2} 25 Edward III, Stat. 5, c. 2.

^{page 101 note 3} Bracton, , De Legibus Anglia, ed. Twiss, T. (R.S., 1878–83), 2, p. 258:Google Scholar ‘Ad accusationem vero hujus criminis admittitur quilibet de populo, liber homo et servus et minor infra aetatem constitutus’. I owe this reference to Kaye, Mr J. M., of Queen's College, Oxford.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 4} Gerbergh was accused of having taken William, Bottlesford prisoner, ‘armatus cum plateis et aliis armaturis et de quadam tunica vocata cote armure de armis suis propriis modo guerrino manifeste vestitus’, and of having put him to ransom, thereby ‘usurpando sibi infra regnum regis regiam potestatem’ (P.R.O., MS. Index 17117, fo. 173^v).Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 5} Rot. Pad., ii, p. 244b.

^{page 102 note 1} Ibid., ii, p. 5^a.

^{page 102 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 102 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 102 note 4} Chronicles of the Reigns ofEdward1and Edward II, ed. Stubbs, , 2, p. 75.Google Scholar This suggests that the king's own banner had to be displayed before a state of war was deemed to exist. This would explain the Appellants’ anger at the display of the king's banner by de Vere at Radcot Bridge in 1387 (Rot. Part., iii, pp. 235–36); together with the statement of the civil lawyers that they could present no case against the Appellees (Rot. Pad., iii, p. 236^b). If a state of war had existed, proceedings under the law of arms might have been instituted before Gloucester in the constable's court, but it was clearly not in the Appellants’ interest to suggest that there had been a state of open war.

^{page 103 note 1} One reason for this may have been that in some of these cases, e.g. that of Wallace, the accusation rested in part on ordinary common law offences; only certain of the charges were of an extraordinary nature.