Vagrants begging in London were banned by this 1359 ordinance:

"Forasmuch as many men and women, and others, of divers counties,

who might work, to the help of the common people, have betaken

themselves from out of their own country to the city of London and

do go about begging there so as to have their own ease and repose,

not wishing to labor or work for their sustenance, to the great

damage of the common people; and also do waste divers alms which

would otherwise be given to many poor folks, such as lepers,

blind, halt, and persons oppressed with old age and divers other

maladies, to the destruction of the support of the same - we do

command on behalf of our lord the King, whom may God preserve and

bless, that all those who go about begging in the said city and

who are able to labor and work for the profit of the common people

shall quit the said city between now and Monday next ensuing. And

if any such shall be found begging after the day aforesaid, the

same shall be taken and put in the stocks on Cornhill for half a

day the first time, and the second time he shall remain in the

stocks one whole day, and the third time he shall be taken and

shall remain in prison for forty days and shall then forswear the

said city forever. And every constable and the beadle of every

ward of the said city shall be empowered to arrest such manner of

folks and to put them in the stocks in manner aforesaid."

The hundred year cry to "let the king live on his own" found

fruition in a 1352 statute requiring consent of the Parliament

before any commission of array for militia could be taken and a

1362 statute requiring purchases of goods and means of conveyance

for the king and his household to be made only by agreement with

the seller and with payment to him before the king traveled on,

instead of at the low prices determined unilaterally by the king's

purveyor.

Every man who has wood within the forest may take houseboot [right

to take wood for repair of one's house] and heyboot [right to take

material for the maintenance of hedges and fences, and the making

of farming utensils] in his wood without being arrested so long as

it take such within the view of the foresters.

No fecal matter, dung, garbage, or entrails of animals killed

shall be put into ditches or rivers or other waters, so that

maladies and diseases will not be caused by corrupted and infected

air. The penalty is 400s. to the king after trial by the

Chancellor.

Gifts or alienation of land to guilds, fraternities, or towns are

forbidden. Instead, it escheats to its lord, or in his default, to

the King.

No man will be charged to go out of his county to do military

service except in case of an enemy invasion of the nation. Men who

chose to go into the king's service outside the nation shall be

paid wages by the king until their return.

Admiralty law came into being when ancient naval manners and

customs were written down as the "Black Book of the Admiralty".

This included the organization of the fleet under the Admiral,

sea-maneuver rules such as not laying anchor until the Admiral's

ship had, engagement rules, and the distribution of captured

goods: one-fourth to the vessel owner, one-fourth to the king if

the seamen were paid by the king's wages, and the rest divided

among the crew and Admiral. Stealing a boat or an anchor holding a

boat was punishable by hanging. Stealing an oar or an anchor was

punishable by forty days imprisonment for the first offense, six

months imprisonment for the second, and hanging for the third.

Desertion was punishable by loss of double the amount of wages

earned and imprisonment for one year. Cases were tried by jury in

the Admiral's court.

Wines, vinegar, oil and honey imported shall be gauged by the

King's appointees.

- Judicial Procedure -

The office of Justice of the Peace was developed and filled by

knights, esquires and gentlemen who were closely associated with

the magnates. There was no salary nor any requirement of knowledge

of the law. They were to pursue, restrain, arrest, imprison, try,

and duly punish felons, trespassers, and rioters according to the

law. They were expected to arrest vagrants who would not work and

imprison them until sureties for good behavior was found for them.

They also were empowered to inspect weights and measures. Trespass

included forcible offenses of breaking of a fence enclosing

private property, assault and battery, false imprisonment, and

taking away goods and chattels.

The action of trespass was replacing private suits for murder and

for personal injury.

Pardons may be given only for slaying another in one's own defense

or by misfortune [accident], and not for slaying by lying in wait,

assault, or malice aforethought.

Justices of Assize, sheriffs, and Justices of the Peace and mayors

shall have power to inquire of all vagabonds and compel them to

find surety of their good bearing or be imprisoned.

A reversioner shall be received in court to defend his right when

a tenant for a term of life, tenant in dower, or by the Law of

England, or in Tail after Possibility of Issue extinct are sued in

court for the land, so as to prevent collusion by the demandants.

A person in debt may not avoid his creditors by giving his

tenements or chattels to his friends in collusion to have the

profits at their will.

Where there was a garnishment given touching a plea of land, a

writ of deceit is also maintainable.

Actions of debt will be heard only in the county where the

contract was made. The action of debt includes enforcement of

contracts executed or under seal, e.g. rent due on a lease, hire

of an archer, contract of sale or repair of an item. Thus there is

a growing connection between the actions of debt and contract.

Executors have an action for trespass to their testators' goods

and chattels in like manner as did the testator when alive.

If a man dies intestate, his goods shall be administered by his

next and most lawful friends appointed. Such administrators shall

have the same powers and duties as executors and be accountable as

are executors to the ecclesiastical court.

Children born to English parents in parts beyond the sea may

inherit from their ancestors in the same manner as those born in

the nation.

A person grieved by a false oath in a town court proceeding may

appeal to the King's Bench or Common Pleas, regardless of any town

franchise.

The Court of the King's Bench worked independently of the King. It

was exceptional to find the king sitting on his bench. It became

confined to the established common law.

Decisions of the common law courts are appealable to the House of

Lords. The king's council members who are not peers, in particular

the justices and the Masters of the Chancery, are summoned by the

House of Lords only as mere assistants. Parliament can change the

common law by statute. The right of a peer to be tried for capital

crimes by a court composed of his peers was established. There is

a widespread belief that all the peers are by right the king's

councilors.

No attorney may practice law and also be a justice of assize. No

justice may take any gift except from the king nor give counsel to

any litigant before him.

In 1390, there was another statute against maintainers,

instigators, barretors, procurers, and embracers of quarrels and

inquests because of great and outrageous oppressions of parties in

court. Because this encouraged maintenance by the retinue of lords

with fees, robes, and other liveries, such maintainers were to be

put out of their lords' service, and could not be retained by

another lord. No one was to give livery to anyone else, except

household members and those retained for life for peace or for

war. Justices of the Peace were authorized to inquire about

yeomen, or other of lower estate than squire, bearing livery of

any lord.

Whereas it is contained in the Magna Carta that none shall be

imprisoned nor put out of his freehold, nor of his franchises nor

free custom, unless it be by the law of the land; it is

established that from henceforth none shall be taken by petition

or suggestion made to the king unless by indictment of good and

lawful people of the same neighborhood where such deeds be done,

in due manner, or by process made by writ original at the common

law; nor that none be out of his franchise, nor of his freeholds,

unless he be duly brought into answer and before judges of the

same by the course of law.

The Chancery came to have a separate and independent equitable

jurisdiction. It heard petitions of misconduct of government

officials or of powerful oppressors, fraud, accident, abuse of

trust, wardship of infants, dower, and rent charges. Because the

common law and its procedures had become technical and rigid, the

Chancery was given equity jurisdiction by statute in 1285. King

Edward III proclaimed that petitions for remedies that the common

law didn't cover be addressed to the Chancellor, who was not bound

by established law, but could do equity. In Chancery, if there is

a case that is similar to a case for which there is a writ, but is

not in technical conformity with the requirements of the common

law for a remedy, then a new writ may be made for that case by the

Chancellor. These were called "actions on the case". Also,

Parliament may create new remedies. There were so many cases that

were similar to a case with no remedy specified in the common law,

that litigants were flowing into the Chancery. The Chancellor gave

swift and equitable relief, which was summary. With the backing of

the council, the Chancellor made decisions implementing the policy

of the Statute of Laborers. Most of these concerned occupational

competency, for instance negligent activity of carriers, builders,

shepherds, doctors, cloth workers, smiths, innkeepers, and gaolers.

For instance, the common law action of detinue could force return

of cloth bailed for fulling or sheep bailed for pasturing, but

could not address damages due to faulty work. The Chancellor

addressed issues of loss of wool, dead lambs, and damaged sheep,

as well as dead sheep. He imposed a legal duty on innkeepers to

prevent injury or damage to a patron or his goods from third

parties. A dog bite or other damage by a dog known by its owner to

be vicious was made a more serious offense than general damage by

any dog. A person starting a fire was given a duty to prevent the

fire from damaging property of others.

The king will fine instead of seize the land of his tenants who

sell or alienate their land, such fine to be determined by the

Chancellor by due process.

Only barons who were peers of the House of Lords were entitled to

trial in the House of Lords. In practice, however, this pertained

only to major crimes.

Treason was tried by the lords in Parliament, by bill of

"attainder". It was often used for political purposes. Most

attainders were reversed as a term of peace made between competing

factions.

The King's coroner and a murderer who had taken sanctuary in a

church often agreed to the penalty of confession and perpetual

banishment from the nation as follows: "Memorandum that on July 6,

[1347], Henry de Roseye abjured the realm of England before John

Bernard, the King's coroner, at the church of Tendale in the

County of Kent in form following: 'Hear this, O lord the coroner,

that I, Henry de Roseye, have stolen an ox and a cow of the widow

of John Welsshe of Retherfeld; and I have stolen eighteen beasts

from divers men in the said county. And I acknowledge that I have

feloniously killed Roger le Swan in the town of Strete in the

hundred of Strete in the rape [a division of a county] of Lewes

and that I am a felon of the lord King of England. And because I

have committed many ill deeds and thefts in his land, I abjure the

land of the Lord Edward King of England, and [I acknowledge] that

I ought to hasten to the port of Hastings, which thou hast given

me, and that I ought not to depart from the way, and if I do so I

am willing to be taken as a thief and felon of the lord King, and

that at Hastings I will diligently seek passage, and that I will

not wait there save for the flood and one ebb if I can have

passage; and if I cannot have passage within that period, I will

go up to the knees into the sea every day, endeavoring to cross;

and unless I can do so within forty days, I will return at once to

the church, as a thief and a felon of the lord King, so help me

God."

Property damage by a tenant of a London building was assessed in a

1374 case: "John Parker, butcher, was summoned to answer Clement

Spray in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that

the said John, who had hired a tavern at the corner of St. Martin-

le-Grand from him for fifteen months, had committed waste and

damage therein, although by the custom of the city no tenant for a

term of years was entitled to destroy any portion of the buildings

or fixtures let to him. He alleged that the defendant had taken

down the door post of the tavern and also of the shop, the boarded

door of a partition of the tavern, a seat in the tavern, a

plastered partition wall, the stone flooring in the chamber, the

hearth of the kitchen, and the mantelpiece above it, a partition

in the kitchen, two doors and other partitions, of a total value

of 21s. four pounds, 1s. 8d., and to his damage, 400s. [20

pounds]. The defendant denied the trespass and put himself on the

country. Afterwards a jury [panel]... found the defendant guilty

of the aforesaid trespass to the plaintiff's damage, 40d. Judgment

was given for that amount and a fine of 1s. to the King, which the

defendant paid immediately in court."

The innkeeper's duty to safeguard the person and property of his

lodgers was applied in this case:

"John Trentedeus of Southwark was summoned to answer William

Latymer touching a plea why, whereas according to the law and

custom of the realm of England, innkeepers who keep a common inn

are bound to keep safely by day and by night without reduction or

loss men who are passing through the parts where such inns are and

lodging their goods within those inns, so that, by default of the

innkeepers or their servants, no damage should in any way happen

to such their guests ...

On Monday after the Feast of the Purification of the Virgin Mary

in the fourth year of the now King by default of the said John,

certain malefactors took and carried away two small portable

chests with 533s. and also with charters and writings, to wit two

writings obligatory, in the one of which is contained that a

certain Robert Bour is bound to the said William in 2,000s. and in

the other that a certain John Pusele is bound to the same William

in 800s. 40 pounds ... and with other muniments [writings

defending claims or rights] of the same William, to wit his return

of all the writs of the lord King for the counties of Somerset and

Dorset, whereof the same William was then sheriff, for the morrow

of the Purification of the Blessed Mary the Virgin in the year

aforesaid, as well before the same lord the King in his Chancery

and in his Bench as before the justices of the King's Common Bench

and his barons of his Exchequer, returnable at Westminster on the

said morrow, and likewise the rolls of the court of Cranestock for

all the courts held there from the first year of the reign of the

said lord the King until the said Monday, contained in the same

chests being lodged within the inn of the same John at Southwark

And the said John ... says that on the said Monday about the

second hour after noon the said William entered his inn to be

lodged there, and at once when he entered, the same John assigned

to the said William a certain chamber being in that inn, fitting

for his rank, with a door and a lock affixed to the same door with

sufficient nails, so that he should lie there and put and keep his

things there, and delivered to the said William the key to the

door of the said chamber, which chamber the said William

accepted...

William says that ... when the said John had delivered to him the

said chamber and key as above, the same William, being occupied

about divers businesses to be done in the city of London, went out

from the said inn into the city to expedite the said businesses

and handed over the key of the door to a certain servant of the

said William to take care of in meantime, ordering the servant to

remain in the inn meanwhile and to take care of his horses there;

and afterwards, when night was falling, the same William being in

the city and the key still in the keeping of the said servant, the

wife of the said John called unto her into her hall the said

servant who had the key, giving him food and drink with a merry

countenance and asking him divers questions and occupying him thus

for a long time, until the staple of the lock of the door

aforesaid was thrust on one side out of its right place and the

door of the chamber was thereby opened and his goods, being in the

inn of the said John, were taken and carried off by the said

malefactors ... The said John says ...[that his wife did not call

the servant into the hall, but that] when the said servant came

into the said hall and asked his wife for bread and ale and other

necessaries to be brought to the said chamber of his master, his

wife immediately and without delay delivered to the same servant

the things for which he asked ... protesting that no goods of the

same William in the said inn were carried away by the said John

his servant or any strange malefactors other than the persons of

the household of the said William."

On the Coram Rege Roll of 1395 is a case on the issue of whether a

court crier can be seized by officers of a staple:

"Edmund Hikelyng, 'crier', sues William Baddele and wife Maud,

John Olney, and William Knyghtbrugge for assault and imprisonment

at Westminster, attacking him with a stick and imprisoning him for

one hour on Wednesday before St. Martin, 19 Richard II.

Baddele says Mark Faire of Winchester was prosecuting a bill of

debt for 18s. against Edmund and John More before William

Brampton, mayor of the staple of Westminster, and Thomas Alby and

William Askham, constables of the said staple, and on that day the

Mayor and the constables issued a writ of capias against Edmund

and John to answer Mark and be before the Mayor and the constables

at the next court. This writ was delivered to Baddele as sergeant

of the staple, and by virtue of it he took and imprisoned Edmund

in the staple. Maud and the others say they aided Baddele by

virtue of the said writ.

Edmund does not acknowledge Baddele to be sergeant of the staple

or Mark a merchant of the staple or that he was taken in the

staple. He is minister of the King's Court of his Bench and is

crier under Thomas Thorne, the chief crier, his master. Every

servant of the court is under special protection while doing his

duty or on his way to do it. On the day in question, he was at

Westminster carrying his master's staff of office before Hugh

Huls, one of the King's justices, and William took him in the

presence of the said justice and imprisoned him.

The case is adjourned for consideration from Hilary to Easter."

A law of equity began to be developed from decisions by the

Chancellor in his court of conscience from around 1370. One such

case was that of Godwyne v. Profyt sometime after 1393. This

petition was made to the Chancellor: To the most reverend Father

in God, and most gracious Lord, the bishop of Exeter, Chancellor

of England. Thomas Godwyne and Joan his wife, late wife of Peter

at More of Southwerk, most humbly beseech that, whereas at

Michaelmas in the 17th year of our most excellent lord King

Richard who now is, the said Peter at More in his lifetime

enfeoffed Thomas Profyt parson of St. George's church Southwerk,

Richard Saundre, and John Denewey, in a tenement with the

appurtenances situated in Southwerk and 24 acres of land 6 acres

of meadow in the said parish of St. George and in the parish of our

Lady of Newington, on the conditions following, to wit, that the

said three feoffees should, immediately after the death of the

said Peter, enfeoff the said Joan in all the said lands and

tenements with all their appurtenances for the life of the said

Joan, with remainder after her decease to one Nicholas at More,

brother of the said Peter, to hold to him and the heirs of his

body begotten, and for default of issue, then to be sold by four

worthy people of the said parish, and the money to be received for

the same to be given to Holy Church for his soul; whereupon the

said Peter died. And after his death two of the said feoffees,

Richard and John, by the procurement of one John Solas, released

all their estate in the said lands and tenements to the said

Thomas Profyt, on the said conditions, out of the great trust that

they had in the said Thomas Profyt, who was their confessor, that

he would perform the will of the said Peter [at More] in the form

aforesaid; and this well and lawfully to do the said Thomas Profyt

swore on his Verbum Dei and to perform the said conditions on all

points. And since the release was so made, the said Thomas Profyt,

through the scheming and false covin of the said John Solas, has

sold all the lands and tenements aforesaid to the same John Solas

for ever. And the said John Solas is bound to the said Thomas

Profyt in 100 pounds by a bond to make defense of the said lands

and tenements by the bribery (?) and maintenance against every

one; and so by their false interpretation and conspiracy the said

Joan, Nicholas, and Holy Church are like to be disinherited and

put out of their estate and right, as is abovesaid, for ever,

tortiously, against the said conditions, and contrary to the will

of the said Peter [at More]. May it please your most righteous

Lordship to command the said Thomas Profyt, Richard Saundre, and

John Denewy to come before you, and to examine them to tell the

truth of all the said matter, so that the said Joan, who has not

the wherewithal to live, may have her right in the said lands and

tenements, as by the examination before you, most gracious Lord,

shall be found and proved; for God and in way of holy charity.

- - - Chapter 10 - - -

- The Times: 1399-1485 -

This period, which begins with the reign of the usurper King,

Henry IV, is dominated by war: the last half of the 100 year war

with France, which, with the help of Joan of Arc, took all English

land on the continent except the port of Calais, and the War of

the Roses over the throne in England. The ongoing border fights

with Wales and Scotland were fought by England's feudal army. But

for fighting in France, the king paid barons and earls to raise

their own fighting forces. When they returned to England, they

fought to put their candidate on its throne, which had been

unsteady since its usurpation by Henry IV. All the great houses

kept bands of armed retainers. These retainers were given land or

pay or both as well as liveries [uniforms or badges] bearing the

family crest. In the system of "livery and maintenance", if the

retainer was harassed by the law or by enemies, the lord protected

him. The liveries became the badges of the factions engaged in the

War of the Roses. And the white rose was worn by the supporters of

the house of York, and the red rose by supporters of the house of

Lancaster for the Crown. Great lords fought each other for

property and made forcible entries usurping private property.

Shakespeare's histories deal with this era.

In both wars, the musket was used as well as the longbow. To use

it, powder was put into the barrel, then a ball rammed down the

barrel with a rod, and then the powder lit by a hot rod held with

one hand while the other hand was used to aim the musket. Cannon

were used to besiege castles and destroy their walls, so many

castles were allowed to deteriorate. The existence of cannon also

limited the usefulness of town walls for defense. But townspeople

did not take part in the fighting.

Since the power of the throne changed from one faction to another,

political and personal vindictiveness gave rise to many bills of

attainder that resulted in lords being beheaded and losing their

lands to the King. However, these were done by the form of law;

there were no secret executions in England. Families engaged in

blood feuds. Roving bands ravaged the country, plundering the

people, holding the forests, and robbing collectors of Crown

revenue. Some men made a living by fighting for others in

quarrels. Individual life and property were insecure. Whole

districts were in a permanent alarm of riot and robbery. The roads

were not safe. Nobles employed men who had returned from fighting

in war to use their fighting skill in local defense. There was

fighting between lords and gangs of ruffians holding the roads,

breaking into and seizing manor houses, and openly committing

murders.

Our Legal Heritage, King AEthelbert, 596 to King George III, 1775 · 第 27 / 67 段