came in answer to the summons, but claimed that they were free from the interference of the royal officials, and brought the charter granted by Henry IV. on 28 November, 1399,1 in support of their contention. The charter having been seen and diligently inspected, their rights were declared fully established. A case was then brought into the court. William Bowthe was accused by Ricardus Coley of having attacked him on 19 December, 1407, within the jurisdiction of the marshalsea; the injuries inflicted were so great that his life was in danger. He claimed about £250 modern money in compensation. But the verdict was a foregone conclusion; the plaintiff was asked if he could give reasons why the case should be proceeded with by this court, and he replied in the negative.2

A similar case of disputed jurisdiction occurred in 1422; the sheriff of York Castle arrested a woman Agnes Farand, who lived in a house on Castlehill. As soon as Henricus Preston, the mayor, heard of this, he sent messengers to the sheriff demanding her immediate release, as she lived in the liberty of the city and not of the castle. The sheriff refused the demand, but a former sheriff Willelmus Haryngton, a lover 7 peace, arranged a friendly conclave between the two disputants at the house of the Augustinian friars. Again civic authority triumphed, Agnes was released. Another case of the same nature occurred eleven years later.3

The case of disputed jurisdiction between the court of pleas in York and the admiralty court, which was finally referred to parliament is told in the Memorandum Book with great wealth of interesting detail. Shorn of technicalities, the case was that Richard Gell of York, probably a fishmonger,5 was sued by Thomas de Holme for a debt of eight pounds; Thomas won his case in the city court of pleas, and, the money not being forthcoming seized a ship belonging to Richard Gell in payment. Richard affirmed that as the ship was in an arm of the sea, the case belonged to the admiralty court, which claimed jurisdiction

1.

2.

3.

Charter Roll has 18th November, 1399.

Mem. Bk., pp. 203, 204.

Ibid., p. 216.

4. Ibid., pp. 225-234, translation pp. lxxvi.-lxxxvi.

5.

Freemen of York, op. cit., p. 84.

of all pleas civil and criminal arising on the high seas and within the body of the country on tidal waters,1 but Thomas urged that as the vessel was moored to the land by chains never covered with water, the case belonged to the city court. In spite of this, Thomas Beaumont, admiral the of north2 intervened and called Thomas Holme before him in the maritime court at Gainsborough and reversed the verdict. As at that time the admiralty court was a "superior court of record," Holmes's only appeal lay to parliament, and parliament apparently referred the matter to the king in council, who dealt with it by calling up the record of the admiralty court and quashing proceedings. But the case had national as well as local interest. The unpopularity of the admiral's court had reached its climax; between 1390 and 1410, eight petitions against its jurisdiction came from the commons. Two statutes3 were passed regulating its powers, the first the same year as the York case, though it would not come into operation until after the case was won. But the latter part of the fourteenth century was fruitful in illustrations of the aggressive policy of the court, possibly the triumph of Thomas Holme and the city court was as much due to the general dislike of this irresponsible tribunal as to the intrinsic merits of the case. It is not known when the courts of the admirals of the north were abolished, but maladminstration weakened their power and after the institution of a "Curiæ principalis Admirallitatis Anglie" the provincial courts fell into disuse.5

Although the concord between David le Lardiner and the people of York does not belong to the period covered by the Memorandum Book, an account of it is rightly inserted, for by it

1. R. G. Marsden. Court of Admiralty. Selden Soc., vol. vi. 1, Introduction p. xiv. I am much indebted to Mr. Ritson of Sunderland for help in elucidating this case.

2. Patent Rolls. 12 Ric. II., part II., m. 6. 13 Ric. II., part II., m. 25. 14 Ric. II., part II., m. 46.

3. 13 Ric. II., st. 1, cap. 5. 15 Ric. II., st. 2, cap. 3.

4.

Patent Rolls. 14 Ric. II., part II., m. 46 [1390]; m. 14 [1391], m. 3 [1391]. 15 Ric. II., part II., m. 36 [1391], m. 5 [1392]. 17 Ric. II., part II., m. 8 [1393].

5. R. G. Marsden, op. cit., p. lii. The Jurisdiction of the Admiralty in the Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, by William Wynne, 1724, pp. 76-85.

In the

the municipality was freed from an intolerable burden.1 inquisitions post mortem the rents and the rights of the Lardeners in York are succinctly given. "The jurors say upon oath that David Lardinarius held the day that he died a messuage in the City of York of the yearly rent of £7 12s. 1d., which he received from the bailiffs of York and 2s. from John le Especer, and 4s. rent from John de Beverle. And that Thomas Bustard paid unto him 7s. yearly for his land in Bustardthorp. And the said David held also certain land which is called Cortteburn and was worth 6s. 8d.; and that he held all the premisses of the King in capite by the service of the custody of the King's gaol of the forest [Galtres] and by his services as lardiner of the King and provided salt at his own charge. He was to have the haunches and the loins. He was to make distraint for the King's debts upon summons from the exchequer. And upon every sale he was to have a fee of 2s. 8d. David, his son and heir is of full age. 993 The Memorandum Book enumerates all the claims which David made upon the unfortunate people of York. He received from every baker, who sells bread there, every Saturday a halfpenny loaf or a halfpenny; and of every butcher selling meat in the same city a pennyworth of meat or a penny; from every breweress of ale, that sells any ale there, he received every Saturday a gallon of ale or a halfpenny; and of every cart coming to Foss bridge with fish for sale fourpenny worth of fish or fourpence, as they were bought at the sea, upon the word of the carrier, and of every horseload of fish coming to the said bridge a pennyworth of fish or a penny, at the word of the people to whom the loads belong. The assize roll here adds " and of all measures of corn, by which corn is sold in the city," and to make all distraints for the King's debts in the city, and to take 4 pence for every distraint.5 These vexatious extortions as trade advanced grew unbearable, and on 18 May, 1253, in the King's court, at Westminster, probably by an amicable suit between David le Lardiner and John de Selby, mayor of York, it was decided that

66