No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
III Hearing of Complaints Against Langeton, 1307–1310
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 December 2009
Extract
Placita apud Wyndesore coram Rogero Le Brabanzon Willelmo de Bereford Rogero de Heigham et Willelmo Inge Justiciariis ad querelas de Waltero de Langeton' Couentrense et Lichefeldense Episcopo nuper Thesaurario domini Regis Edwardi patris Regis nunc factas audiendas et terminandas assignatis in crastino sancti Andree apostoli anno regni Regis Edwardi filii Regis Edwardi primo. Dominus Rex mandauit prefatis Justiciariis suis breue suum in hec verba: Edwardus dei gratia Rex Anglie Dominus Hibernie et Dux Aquitanie, dilectis et fidelibus suis Rogero Le Brabanzon Willelmo de Bereford Rogero de Hegham et Willelmo Inge salutem. De variis et non modicis oppressionibus iniuriis et grauaminibus intolerabilibus que Walterus Couentrensis et Lichefeldensis episcopus tempore quo fuit thesaurarius Celebris memorie domini Edwardi quondam Regis Anglie patris nostri per potestatem quam sibi colore officii sui presumptuose usurpauerat et aliis modis diuersis nonnullis de potestate et dominio dicti patris nostri multipliciter inferebat et per quosdam conspiratores et plures alios sibi in premissis adherentes inferri faciebat talis ac tantus ex lacrimosis et quasi innumerabilibus querimoniis nobis inde factis nostris auribus clamor insonuit et tumultus quod nos qui omnibus et singulis de quocumque de potestate et dominio nostro conqueri volentibus sumus ut tenemur in exhibenda Justicia debitores dissimulare non possumus sicut nec debemus quin huiusmodi querelantibus fieri faciamus debitum iusticie complementum maxime propter scandalum quod prefato patri nostro ex huiusmodi oppressionibus iniuriis et grauaminibus per predictum episcopum dudum eidem patri nostro preceteris consiliariis familiarius assistebat taliter factis iminebat. Nos igitur volentes petitionibus populi ad nos ex hac causa confluentis annuere et congruum in hac parte remedium apponere et festiuum assignauimus vos justiciarios nostros ad querelas omnium et singulorum de prefato episcopo et predictis conspiratoribus et aliis sibi adherentibus conqueri volencium de tempore predicto audiendas et terminandas et ad plenam et celerem iusticiam inde faciendam. Et ideo vobis mandamus quod ad certos dies et loca quos ad hoc prouideritis querelas predictas audiatis et terminetis in forma predicta saluis nobis amerciamentis et aliis ad nos inde spectantibus. In cuius rei testimonium has litteras nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste me ipso apud Langele xxiiijto die Nouembris anno regni nostri primo.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Camden Fourth Series , Volume 6: Records of the Trial of Walter Langeton Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield 1307–1312 , July 1969 , pp. 247 - 351
- Copyright
- Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1965
References
page 247 note 1 1 December, 1307. Brabazon was chief justice of the King's Bench, Bereforde chief justice of the Comrmon Pleas, Hegham baron of the Exchequer, and Inge justice of the King's Bench.
page 247 note 2 Langeton became treasurer 28 December, 1295. Handbook of British Chronology (2nd edit., 1961), 100.Google Scholar
page 248 note 1 C.P.R, 1307–1313, p. 40.Google Scholar
page 249 note 1 1 November, 1299.
page 249 note 2 Droxford was keeper of the wardrobe and Abberbury one of Langeton's principal clerks.
page 250 note 1 Walter of Wenlock (1284–1308).
page 252 note 1 The last instalment on the payment of the damages was made by 13 November 1312, by which date Shorne had died and his wife, Isabella had married Hugh de Bussy. Langeton was not finally acquitted of the debt until 1320 after the case had been reheard in the King's Bench. Coram Rege Roll 242, m. 131.
page 252 note 2 Probably early in May, 1298. Broughton became sheriff 5 May and the exchequer moved to York later in the month.
page 252 note 3 The long struggle for Caldearte and against Margery Rous, whose manor it was and who was now married to John Paynel, by a former husband and by Herle can be traced in Cal. Inquisitions, Miscellaneous, 1219–1307, pp. 417, 418Google Scholar; Coram Rege Roll 157, m. 32d. (printed Selden Soc. 58, pp. 84 ff.); Gaol Delivery Roll 96, m. 44; Exch. Plea Rolls 23, m. 84, 24, m. 45; De Banco Roll 152, m. 233. C.C.R. 1296–1302, p. 339Google Scholar; V.C.H. Warwickshire, iv, 40Google Scholar; C.C.R. 1302–1307, p. 23.Google Scholar
page 252 note 4 Probably the three parliaments in London in 1299: 8 March, 3 May, 18 October.
page 253 note 1 mm. 19, 24.
page 254 note 1 Langeton was one of the lords of Barlborough in 1316. Feudal Aids, i, 256.Google Scholar
page 254 note 2 Subsequent repetitions of this heading at the top of each new membrane are omitted.
page 255 note 1 De Banco Roll 153, mm. 37d, 75d (Michaelmas, 1305).
page 256 note 1 Rodeston was keeper of Woodstock. C.C.R. 1296–1302, p. 440.Google Scholar
page 258 note 1 De Banco Roll 683, m. 103.
page 258 note 2 See pp. 71–72.
page 259 note 1 See p. 102.
page 260 note 1 Aliam crossed out.
page 261 note 1 Robert de Veer's wife was usually given as Joan, one of the three heiresses of Reginald de Waterville. Maud married Robert de Wyckeham. Placita Quo Warranto, 570Google Scholar; V.C.H. Northamptonshire, iii, 246Google Scholar. Cf. Exch. Plea Rolls 37, m. 47, and 40, m. 20d: Langeton was attached for taking £200 worth of goods and chattels from Sudborough after the elder de Veer's death, paying nothing to the king for his debts as sheriff. In the latter roll, de Veer's wife is also called Maud.
page 262 note 1 On 7 November, 1299, St. Valery acknowledged a statute merchant debt of £200 to Langeton in London. London Recognizance Roll 5. There is no statement in this case of the amount owed, but St. Valery was imprisoned in 1306 and 1307 for default on a recognizance to Langeton for 40 marks. De Banco Rolls 153, m. 55d; 163, m. 68. According to the return from London, he owed 500m. in 1298; 200 li. in 1299; 60 li. in 1302; 20 li. in 1307. Exch. Writs 3.
page 262 note 2 31 August, 1305.
page 263 note 1 26 March, 1306.
page 263 note 2 20 November, 1306.
page 263 note 3 December, 1306.
page 263 note 4 4 June, 1307.
page 264 note 1 28 February, 1307, Langeton was pardoned for acquiring Norton, which was held in chief, in fee simple. C.P.R. 1301–1307, p. 501.Google Scholar
page 264 note 2 Probably 27 January 1307.
page 264 note 3 This word crossed out.
page 269 note 1 In 1308 the sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire was ordered to stop levying the damages from the manors of Sawley and Barlborough which were Langeton's own and not the temporalities of his bishopric (ad baroniam episcopatus) on which the damages were to be levied. K.R.Mem. 82, m. 51d. See pp. 6, 251.
page 270 note 1 The case against Langeton and Hotost was continued until Michaelmas, 1310, when the record ends. mm. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26d, 27, 28d, 30, 30d, 31. In February, 1310, St Valery brought suit against Philip Hoyvill, sheriff of Hampshire. Ibid., m. 30d.
page 270 note 2 C.C.R. 1296–1302, p. 482Google Scholar, marked ‘cancelled on payment’. See pp. 166–68.
page 271 note 1 26 August, 1303.
page 271 note 2 De Banco Roll 162, m. 166. Record, in Hilary term, 1307, of an order to seize Marmion's land for these debts. Later the justices sent the record to the king, probably for this investigation. Cf. De Banco Rolls 153, m. 61d, 38; 164, m. 262d.
page 271 note 3 29 August, 1305.
page 272 note 1 10 August, 1307.
page 272 note 2 The case was continued to Trinity term, 1309 (mm. 19, 22, 24), when Marmion brought suit against Langeton, Hotost, Pershute, William Baillemund, William le Mareshal and Walter Depham, which was continued until Michaelmas, 1310, mm. 28, 29, 29d, 30, 30d.
page 274 note 1 See p. 342.
page 276 note 1 The case was continued to Michaelmas, 1308, mm. 22, 23d, 24, 25d.
page 276 note 2 The manor had been in litigation since the death of Thomas of Leuknore in 1296. Additional information will be found in Coram Rege Rolls 153, m. 6d. (printed in Selden Society 58, pp. 57–59Google Scholar); 185, m. 7d, 186, m. 48, 232, m. 125d, 242, m. 19 Rex, 270, m. 7 Rex (the last two printed in Selden Society, 49, pp. 43, 54Google Scholar); De Banco Roll 179, m. 29d. (printed Selden Society 49, pp. 21 ff.Google Scholar); Exch. Plea Roll 20, m. 65; K.R.Mem. 84, m. 93; Assize Roll 136, m. 65; Cal. Inquisitions Post Mortem iv, 288Google Scholar; Letter Book C, 140.Google Scholar
page 278 note 1 See p. 18.
page 279 note 1 See p. 296.
page 283 note 1 The case was continued until Trinity, 1309, when Langeton brought a counter-suit in which Lucy failed to make an appearance. The case was then dismissed and Lucy was in mercy, mm. 19, 22, 24, 25, 26d, 27, 28.
page 283 note 2 This case had been printed in part in Selden Society 57, cxxxi ff.Google Scholar
page 283 note 3 Other information pertinent to the case is found in De Banco Rolls 139, mm. 40, 215, 153, mm. 4d, 40, 75; Coram Rege Rolls 188, m. 48d; 189, m. 1 (printed in Selden Society 58, p. 175Google Scholar); Rot. Parl. i, 191bGoogle Scholar; Cal. Inquisitions Post Mortem vi, 194 ff.Google Scholar
page 284 note 1 See p. 194.
page 285 note 1 Other information about Bugbroke is found in Coram Rege Rolls 188, m. 45 (printed in Selden Society 58, pp. 165–8Google Scholar), and m. 100; Ancient Petitions 322/525–528; K.R.Mem. 81, m. 35; Year Book 33–35 Edward I (Rolls Series), 576 ff.Google Scholar; Cal. Inquisitions, Misc. iii, no. 78.
page 286 note 1 16 April and 21 May, 1307.
page 289 note 1 7 November, 1308.
page 290 note 1 The case against Abel and the bishop of London was continued until Trinity, 1308, mm. 22, 24. The membrane is torn and the end of the entry above is partially unreadable.
page 290 note 2 C.P.R. 1301–1307, p. 188.Google Scholar
page 291 note 1 See p. 116.
page 291 note 2 K.R.Mem. 79, m. 52.
page 292 note 1 The case was continued to Hilary, 1310, mm. 22, 24, 25d, 26, 29, 29d, 30, where Walter of Norwich is included.
page 292 note 2 C.P.R. 1301–1307, pp. 506, 516Google Scholar; De Banco Roll 162, m. 185d.
page 294 note 1 21 June, 1307.
page 295 note 1 See p. 77.
page 296 note 1 See p. 279; C.C.R. 1296–1302, p. 321.Google Scholar
page 298 note 1 Geoffrey Lutterel. De Banco Roll 201, m. 119d.
page 298 note 2 1 June, 1301.
page 300 note 1 The case against Langeton and his agents was continued until Michaelmas, 1309, mm. 19, 22, 23, 23d, 25, 25d, 26, 27, 27d, 28d, 29d.
page 300 note 2 The case, and a counter suit by Langeton, were continued until Michaelmas, 1309, mm. 19, 22, 23d, 25d, 26, 27, 27d, 28d.
page 301 note 1 2 November, 1306.
page 302 note 1 See pp. 313–14; Chancery Miscellanea 68/8, no. 187. £16613s. 4d. was paid by 5 April, 1310, C.C.R. 1307–1313, p. 202Google Scholar. £266 13s. 4d. was paid by 15 June, 1310. K.R.Mem. 85, m. 6; C.C.R. 1307–1313, p. 214Google Scholar; K.B. Writs and Returns, Box 3, No. 68; which includes Tuchet's receipt for £266 13s. 4d. acknowledged in the King's Bench; the receipt from the clerk for 50 marks also acknowledged in the King's Bench and the endorsement by the sheriff of Shropshire that he has taken 100 marks worth of Langeton's possessions in the king's hands to pay Tuchet but has not found purchasers for them. There is also an account of the attack on Tuchet.
page 303 note 1 Paid by 5 April, 1310. K.R.Mem. 85, m. 6; C.C.R. 1307–1313, p. 206.Google Scholar
page 304 note 1 C.P.R. 1307–1313, pp. 261, 367.Google Scholar
page 305 note 1 7 April, 1301.
page 306 note 1 8 November, 1303.
page 307 note 1 19 June, 1309.
page 308 note 1 See p. 338 below. The cases between Grantham and Langeton and his agents were continued until Trinity, 1309, mm. 19, 22, 23d, 25, 25d, 26, 26d, 27d.
page 309 note 1 mm. 22, 24.
page 311 note 1 mm. 22, 24.
page 311 note 2 Whitacre was sheriff 1 October, 1305, to 16 November, 1307. L.T.R. 76, m. 3.
page 311 note 3 3 November, 1306.
page 312 note 1 See p. 49.
page 313 note 1 m. 24—to Trinity term.
page 314 note 1 1 August, 1301.
page 314 note 2 Robert de Veer.
page 314 note 3 Exch. Plea Roll 32, m. 11.
page 315 note 1 The case was continued until Trinity, 1309, mm. 22, 23, 25d, 26d. 27d.
page 317 note 1 12 May, 1308.
page 318 note 1 19 July.
page 319 note 1 24 November, 1308.
page 319 note 2 This case had been in the courts since 1300 when Adam Silkeston was killed in York. Its course through the Common Pleas can be traced in the following De Banco Rolls: 135, m. 372; 136, m. 190; 139, m. 209; 145, mm. 331, 351, 353; 146, m. 163; 148, m. 89; 149, m. 195 d; 150, mm. 172d, 176d; 151, mm. 168d, 203d, 227d; 153, mm. 483d, 487; 156, m. 202. It was taken also to parliament and to the exchequer. Rot. Parl, i, 154Google Scholar; Exch. Plea Roll 24, mm. 17, 21. Its revival in this investigation did not stop here. C.P.R. 1307–1313, pp. 260, 263, 314, 316Google Scholar; Cal. Chancery Warrants 1244–1326, p. 326Google Scholar. See the following cases.
page 319 note 3 C.P.R. 1301–1307, p. 315Google Scholar; Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series 37 (1906), 118.Google Scholar
page 321 note 1 mm. 27d, 30 (against Nevill).
page 322 note 1 mm. 22, 23, 27, 27d, 30, continuations against Langeton's agents.
page 323 note 1 mm. 22, 23d, 27d, 30, continuations against Langeton's agents.
page 324 note 1 mm. 22, 23d, 27d, 29, continuations against Langeton's agents.
page 326 note 1 mm. 22, 23, 27d, 29, 30, continuations against Langeton's agents.
page 327 note 1 mm. 22, 23, 27, 27d, 30, continuations against Langeton's agents.
page 328 note 1 The case against Langeton and his agents and their counter suits were continued until Trinity, 1309, mm. 22, 23, 23d, 25, 25d, 26d, 27, 27d, 28d, 29, 30.
page 329 note 1 mm. 28, 30.
page 330 note 1 mm. 22, 23, 27, 27d, 28 (protection for Thomas Nevill in king's service in Scotland), 30, continuations against Langeton's agents.
page 331 note 1 This is a clerical note written above the entry.
page 331 note 2 Continued until Hilary, 1309, mm. 22, 23d, 25, 25d, 26d, 27; against Langeton's agents.
page 332 note 1 mm. 22, 23, 28, 29, continuations against Langeton's agents.
page 333 note 1 See p. 341.
page 333 note 2 28 June to 11 November, 1301.
page 334 note 1 Continued until Trinity, 1309, mm. 22, 23d, 25d, 26, 26d, 27.
page 335 note 1 Continued until Trinity, 1309, mm. 22, 23d, 25d, 26, 26d, 27.
page 335 note 2 Continued until Trinity, 1309, mm. 22, 23d, 25, 25d, 26, 26d, 27d, 28d, when Langeton brought a counter suit to which Grymeston did not appear and was in mercy.
page 336 note 1 Continued until Michaelmas, 1309, when the case against Langeton's agents was dismissed and Sutton was in mercy, mm. 23d, 25, 25d, 27d, 28, 29d, 30.
page 336 note 2 See p. 283.
page 338 note 1 See p. 303.
page 338 note 2 10 December, 1298.
page 342 note 1 See p. 158.
page 343 note 1 This case was heard in the exchequer. See p. 152.
page 343 note 2 Idem; see p. 124.
page 344 note 1 This case was heard in the exchequer. See p. 239.
page 344 note 2 Idem; see p. 147.
page 344 note 3 Idem; see p. 39.
page 345 note 1 23 February, 1308.
page 345 note 2 18 March, 1308.
page 348 note 1 These clerical jottings follow the preceding entry but seem to refer to the following case.
page 348 note 2 m. 19 (continued to 13 March, 1308). He also brought suit against Roger le Plummer, formerly Langeton's bailiff.
page 350 note 1 The cases against Langeton and his agents were continued until Michaelmas, 1310, mm. 24, 25, 26, 26d, 27d, 28d, 30, 30d, 31.