England transformed from a ‘law state’ in the thirteenth century to a ‘war state’ in the fourteenth (Kaeuper): is there accuracy to this statement?

England transformed from a ‘law state’ in the thirteenth century to a ‘war state’ in the fourteenth (Kaeuper): is there accuracy to this statement?

by Darcy R. Keim, MA

Richard W. Kaeuper's, War, Justice and Public Order: England and France in the Later Middle Ages (1999) has continued to be a pivotal secondary text. Specifically for its modelling of medieval legal and political culture. Kaeuper’s work is reputable for its ongoing presence in academic spaces. Particularly valued for its emphasis on the “[...] king’s twin obligations to promote justice at home and defence the realm against its enemies abroad [...]”.^[1] From this emerged a strand of historiography; claiming that the ‘law-state’ of the thirteenth-century shifted toward a 'war-state' in the fourteenth-century.^[2] Medievalist, A. K. Gundy argued that - via this differentiation - Kauper established the realpolitik within Medieval European state-building.^[3] Moreover, defining a ‘law state’ provided a basis by which historians could examine late medieval jurisdiction. Primarily, the institutionalising of royal governance through the emergence of the “wholeness of the body politic”.^[4] The thirteenth-century witnessed vast judicial reform; characterised by the creation of Magna Carta, the application of Royal writs, and Edward I’s restructuring of parliament. However, it was simultaneously a period of conflict; namely the Welsh and Scottish Conquests, as well as surfacing dissension with France. Similarly, the fourteenth-century is discernible for its advanced legal developments. Identified by the introduction of the Justices of the Peace, as well as a succession of Labour Statutes introduced to post-plague society. Despite this, historiographical recall prioritises land-marking the Hundred Years’ War and the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Ultimately, Kaeuper’s statement has prompted the following lines of inquiry: (1) What socio-political factors and events contribute to the specifying of a ‘law state’ and ‘war state’?, (2) Do these periods realistically reflect Kaeuper’s affirmation?, and (3) To what extent is historiography to blame for stylising these periods as strict ‘law’ and ‘war’ states? This evaluation will be committed to by focusing on the influence of Magna Carta, the Registrum Brevium, and Edward I’s reformed Parliament; as well as Edward III’s installation of the Justices of the Peace, the financial implications of the Hundred Years’ War and Welsh campaign, and the social impact of the Peasants’ Revolt.

 

On a surface level, the thirteenth-century appears to be a period of political - as well as parliamentary - reform. For this, it has been historiographically constructed as an emerging ‘law state’. Coinciding with the aforementioned definition, this century is seen to demonstrate “the wholeness of the body politic.”^[5] More specifically, the re-structuring of parliament during the reign of Edward I. Opening his assessment of the use of parliament from 1327-36, Theodore Plucknett proclaimed: “No English institution has been studied with such ardour, and with so little definite result, as parliament.”^[6] Plucknett’s statement is reflective of nineteenth and early-twentieth-century scholarship. Even so, this opinion is hardly anomalous within contemporary study. With especial respect paid to the stylising of Edward I as a “great constitutional ruler”^[7]. Recent depictions - chiefly led by Marc Morris’ popularised history - regard Edward as a figure whose skilful kingship had “[...] summoned the biggest armies and the largest parliaments seen in Britain during the Middle Ages [...]”.^[8] Notably, Morris is not alone in his affirmation. Secondary narratives have penned Edward a lasting reputation for “fathering” a parliament identifiable to its present-day use. Subsequently, this is factored in with his objective to unify a nationalised state.^[9] Quintessential to Edward’s reign was the emergence of a codified English law^[10]. The origins of which were defined by the Statute of Westminster in 1275. Consisting of fifty-one clauses, the Statute established the basis of legislation. Principally this aimed to systemise jurisdiction.^[11] This proactive advancement of legislative-reform is synonymised with Edward’s model of kingship.  Particularly evidenced by the increased number of major statutes passed between 1274 to 1290. This prompted historiography to assert widespread praise toward the formulaic process of law-making during this period.

 

Even then, the origination of a reformed parliament is not isolated to Edward’s practice of kingship. A facet exemplified in the initial half of the thirteenth-century; by the pivotal conception of Magna Carta in 1215. The Great Charter of Liberties granted by King John marked a pronounced shift in English political culture. Accordingly, this held a lasting impact; discernible by its presence within contemporary judicial frameworks. Magna Carta firmly presides as a symbol of Anglo-American political traditions.^[12] Twentieth-century medievalist, Sidney Painter contended that the document was a product of widespread demand to revise outdated legislative processes.^[13] Alternatively, its formation was prompted by a socio-political necessity. As a result of financial disorder, the initial half of the thirteenth-century required the installation of systemic law-making. A perspective reflected by Painter in his assertion that John had “[...] faced the problem of ruling England by a political system that had lost all touch with economic reality.”^[14] Noting further that the desire for political reform - in order that this may effectively meet with the exigencies of the period - encountered a degree of resistance. Baronial opposition intended to preserve anachronistic practices of feudalism on the basis of tradition.^[15] Illustrative of this was the objection toward the writ praecipe^[16] - motivated by a fear in the expansion of the jurisdiction of the royal courts.^[17] Despite internal hostility, Magna Carta cemented itself as a landmark event. More especially for its pronouncement - and recognition - of legal autonomy toward “free men” of the realm:

 

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.^[18]

 

The formal development of medieval common law expanded during the reign of Henry III. At large, historiography attributed this progress to the shaping of the Registrum Brevium^[19]. Nineteenth and twentieth-century histories defined the Registrum as a pivotal gesture. An opinion expressed by Sir Edward Coke; whilst referencing the fourteen-page manuscript as “the name of a most ancient book and of great authority in law.”^[20] One justification behind Coke’s statement is that the Registrum is the earliest known document to record Royal writs. Echoing Coke’s sentiment, Elsa de Haas argued that the writs provide an understanding as to how common law emerged.^[21] In utilising writs, the monarch (in this example, Henry III) had been able to expand his influence; subsequently attracting cases into the royal courts.[22] The impact of this led to a distinct crafting of a unified institution; by which the monarch could preside over matters, such as landholdings:

 

The King to Robert de Neville, Greeting. We command you that without delay you do full justice to N. concerning iiii acres of land with appurtenances, in such a vill, which he claims to hold through the free service of six pence per year for all service, of which such and such a person is depriving him, and if you do not do this, let the Sheriff do (it), in order that we may not further hear any outcry thereof for want of justice. Witness, etc.^[23]

 

Utilising the example of Robert Neville^[24] - a serving Knight of the Shire in Northampton; as well as a Baron and exchequer - the extract tasked him with a duty to resolve the matter of conflicting land-ownership. Ultimately, this excerpt portrays administrative intimacies in judicial practice; from the precept of the monarch, to the employment of local authorities - via the knights of the shire and the sheriff.^[25] As a process, this signified the effect of a centralised government and judicial system. Legislative procedures - and matters of enquiry - had been methodically re-structured. To which exercising the law required a Royal writ, an acknowledgement of custom, and noble consent.

 

Undoubtedly, the emergence of an institutionalised political system characterised the thirteenth-century. Edward I’s reformed Parliament, Magna Carta, and the standardising of Royal writs is indicative of a period defined by its ‘law-making’. Even so, the question persists as to whether the presence of legal reform during the thirteenth-century provisions support to Kaeuper’s polarisation of a ‘law state’ and ‘war state’. Arguably, a full embodiment of the “body-politic” was not especial to the thirteenth-century. A quality observed throughout the fourteenth-century through the succession of Labour Acts. Statutes distributed a legal outline; designed to systemise serfdom, labour, and wage-rates. Preceding this, Magna Carta is often cited as the basis for nationalising legislation. Although Labour Acts would not heavily feature until the mid-fourteenth-century, Magna Carta had accentuated the treatment of servicemen: (16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's ‘fee’, or other free holding of land, than is due from it.^[26] Contrasting this is the decisive establishment of the Ordinance of Labourers (1349) and Statute of Labourers (1351)^[27]. Motivated by a post-plague society, these Acts aimed to tackle widespread issues resulting from a depleted workforce. Additional to this had been the objective to downsize impending economic inflation. Conclusively, the Ordinance and the Statute enabled local officials to control employment conditions within labouring communities.^[28] As a point of comparison toward thirteenth-century legislation, the Ordinance decreed compulsory service. The severity of which disregarded gender or disability:

That each man and woman (homo et femina) of our realm of England - of whatever condition, free or bond; able in body; under 60 years of age; not living by trade; nor exercising a particular craft; nor having assets with which to live or land to cultivate; nor serving another - shall be found to serve anyone who requires his/her service as the service is appropriate to his/her estate.^[29]

 

 

By outlining the mandatory participation of labour, the Ordinance reads dissimilarly to documents of the thirteenth-century. This is palpable by the extremity of punishments imposed on desertion; ruling that  “[...] Any servant or labourer who, already in another's service, left that service before the end of his agreed term was also liable to imprisonment.^[30] Nonetheless, this sequence of Labour Acts is not the only example of legislative progress during this period. A supplemental characteristic distinguishing the fourteenth-century was the institutionalising of the Justices of the Peace.

 

The systemising of local authoritative figures is a leading factor to Kaeuper’s argument. An aspect exemplified by the widespread - and institutionalised - adoption of the Justices of the Peace (JP) during the mid-fourteenth-century. Historiographically, the JP have been conceptualised as a landmark within the English political structure.^[31] Late-medievalist, Simon Walker, wrote of the emerging commission of the peace as “characteristic” of a political advancement within medieval governance.^[32] The development of the JP is seen to originate from the Knights of the Shire during the thirteenth-century. This group comprised of twelve local elites, assigned to survey justice within the kingdom.^[33] Fundamentally, this role may be lifted from clauses listed in Magna Carta:

 

(48) All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first to be informed.^[34]

 

Demonstrated by the example of Robert Neville, the Knights have been defined as cardinal to the maintenance of peace. Historiography has gone so far as to refer to this as “[...] one of the defining characteristics of English state development.”^[35] By 1287, the Knights were administering the Statute of Winchester; through which the title custodes pacis had been earned.^[36]

 

Importantly, the presence of the JP did not formally surface until 1300.^[37] The fourteenth-century legally established this role within the Statutes of the Realm; evidenced by the ‘Keepers of the Peace’ in 1327: “Also, for the better keeping and maintenance of the peace, the king wishes that in every shire good and lawful men who are not maintainers of evil barretors in the neighbourhood shall be assigned to keep the peace.”^[38] Contrasting prior examples of kingship, the reign of Edward III saw the Keepers of the Peace being purposefully defined.^[39] B. H. Putnam registered this as “[...] the most convincing evidence for the reign of Edward III in support of the canonical theory is the multiplicity of agencies resorted to in the attempt to keep the king's peace and to punish crimes of violence.”^[40] During Edward’s reign, these courts were managed by the justices of Eyre^[41], the justices of Trailbaston^[42], and the justices of King’s Bench. As a whole, they comprised of a court of first instance and of final jurisdiction for indictments and appeals.^[43] Comparatively, the fourteenth-century demonstrated a higher degree of local participation. Especially regarding the extension of judicial influence granted to the KP in 1332:

 

That in each county of England some of the greater men of the shire should be assigned keepers of the shire by the king’s commission, and that the ordinary keepers of the peace at present assigned, sheriffs, and all the people of the shires where they are assigned, shall be responsible to the great men to keep the peace, as if they were responsible to the body of the king himself.^[44]

 

This legislation afforded local authorities the ability to pursue “armed” or “suspicious” men; alongside permitting “great men” the power to determine felonies and carry out arrests.^[45] Punishments were to be levelled, as well as performed, within localities. Principally, the Justices served to ensure the Statutes of Winchester and Northampton were adhered to. This determined that the JP were to preside over four sessions per year; prescribed by their commission of justices of the peace and of labourers.^[46] Supplemental to this, the JP held the power to investigate officials - sheriffs, servants, and workmen included - under suspicion of criminal activity (such as financial extortion).^[47]

 

To argue the fourteenth-century as a ‘law state’ emphasises the significance of the JP.  As judicial officers, Walker attested that their formation had been “[...] a direct response to the repeated insistence of the parliamentary Commons that the task of maintaining law and order at the local level was best entrusted to the most substantial men of the shire [...]”^[48]. Naturally, this is visible during the thirteenth-century; by the employment of the Knights of the Shire. However - unlike the Knights - the JP have been symbolically constructed to demonstrate a change in government. During the thirteenth-century, the monarch experienced reduced control over local courts.^[49] A factor evidenced by the growing influence of the county gentry. Therefore, the reign of Edward III witnessed a redistribution of control; to which the JPs were afforded more authority in handling local cases.^[50] As an example, the edict ‘The separate commissions of justices of labourers are suspended, 1359’ illustrates the reduction of power given to the Justices of Labourers:

 

[...] Whereas many evils and errors have arisen because of the special commissions which have been made previously in various franchises and towns to enquire into the excesses of labourers, we have ordained and wish that henceforth all such special commissions granted in whatever franchises and towns of our realm should be repealed and that certain good and loyal persons should be generally assigned throughout the shires of the realm, so that they and no others shall hold the sessions of the labourers.^[51]

 

Advancing further in 1368, the JP’s were tasked with enforcing the Statute of Labourers.^[52] Both these statutes exemplify a leading socio-political motive. In agreement with Walker, the growth of the JP signified a desire to better areas of the judicial structure. Namely, the Crown’s loss of control to local administration during the thirteenth-century. More specifically, these statutes addressed the reality of management within the local courts; as these had been run by members of the aristocracy and gentry.^[53] A key secondary argument shows that the Crown’s surrender of local power to private interests had proved detrimental to wider-society.^[54] Furthermore, that this led to an increase in social disorder during this period.^[55] Provoked by the rise of famine in the latter half of the thirteenth-century; as well as the arrival of the Black Death in 1348. Reflectively, Edward III’s rule adopted the management of local offices under Crown authority.

 

Classifying the fourteenth-century as a ‘war state’ accentuates civil disturbances, as well as foreign conflict during this period. With the emergence of the JP addressing power redistribution, this challenged the absence of a standing army for the monarch. In itself, the rise of the JP may be seen as a measure in its own right; albeit not necessarily militaristic in nature. Medievalist, Chris Given-Wilson acknowledged that the JP substituted as the crown’s military authority.^[56] The impact of which is highly discernible during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Undoubtedly, the reign of Richard II encouraged civil disorder as a result of socio-political and economic faults. Originating from the crown’s inability to raise an army - or to effectively communicate his power across the realm - the nobles overpowered Richard in areas benefitting their agendas.^[57] This liability in governance - and corruption of Westminster’s staff - reached peak visibility in the summer of 1381. In his analysis of the Peasants’ Revolt, Mark Ormrod reasoned that this event documents “[...] a serious loss of public confidence in the central administrative and legal departments located in Westminster Palace and the city of London.”^[58] Ormrod’s comments are reflective of organised attacks against central officials during June 1381; such as the murder of the newly resigned chancellor, Simon Sudbury and the treasurer, Sir Robert Hales at Tower Hill.^[59] The level of solidarity and coordination observed has led historiography to label the Revolt as a well-planned, structured campaign.^[60] Moreover, Ormrod attested that “[...] government policy was in large part responsible for the rising.”^[61] The ‘government policy’ referred to propped heavy taxation as a result of the Hundred Years’ War.

 

In differentiating the thirteenth and fourteenth-centuries, it is easy to support Kaueper’s theory. Particularly as the Hundred Years’ War presented itself during post-plague society; a period of restricted economic and legal rights of the peasantry.^[62] Due to its longevity, the campaign perpetuated further limitation. In failing to hold territory in France and appropriately armour England’s coastal defence^[63], the latter half of the century introduced a sequence of Poll Taxes. The Poll Tax of 1377, 1379, and spring of 1381^[64] were imposed to fund ongoing conflict. Nevertheless, egregious financial demands provoked widespread rebellion across the southeast of England.^[65] Contrasting taxation between Edward I’s Welsh and Scottish campaigns with Richard II’s poll-taxes signifies depleted resources by the close of the fourteenth-century. A feature identifiable by the prices listed in the Second Poll Tax of 1377:

 

The Duke of Lancaster and the Duke of Brittany, each one - 10 marks; Also each Earl of England - £4; Also, each widowed countess of England, the same as an earl - £4 ; Also, each baron and banneret, or knight of equal wealth - 40s; Also, each widowed baroness shall pay as the baron, etc - 40s; Also, each bachelor and each squire who by the statute ought to be a knight - 20s; Also, each widowed lady, wife of a bachelor or squire, according to her condition - 20s [...]^[66]

 

Overall, the expenditure of the Hundred Years’ War was higher than it ought to have been.^[67] Much of this owed to the mid-century economic conditions. Juxtaposing the overpopulation of the thirteenth-century, this period experienced a shortage of manpower. Consequently ensuring not enough bodies were available for military employment. In reviewing population estimates, Michael Postan equated 50,000 men to totalling fifteen per-cent of the able-bodied male - aged between eighteen and forty-five - demographic during the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries.^[68] From this, Postan concluded that such a “[...] country could ill afford it in the man hungry generations following the fourteenth- and early fifteenth century pestilences.”^[69] Circumstantially, inflation manifested through increased military wages and costs of production.^[70] Expenditure during the initial half of fourteenth-century was higher than that in the early fifteenth-century. By comparison, the Crecy-Calais campaign in 1346-7 numbered 32,000 men; whereas Agincourt in 1415 is estimated at 15,000.^[71] As such, it is difficult not to characterise the fourteenth-century by its economic disturbances. The period featured heavy financial deficiencies as a result of internal conflict and foreign war. Nonetheless, this would not have been nearly as persistent - or irreversible - if not for significant environmental factors.

 

However, if these are the issues determining a ‘war-state’, then the thirteenth-century shares in its likeness. Remarkably, the civil disorder during the reign of Henry III parallels with discourse during the later fourteenth-century. There is significant evidence to ascertain that Henry’s kingship placed a strain on relationships between crown and nobility. Predominantly, this was the result of consistent economic discrepancies. According to the Greater Chronicle of Matthew Paris, 1258-9, Henry’s practice of authority dealt little mercy.^[72] A particular example is the expiration of the truce between England and Wales. Paris records that the Welsh uprising had been consequential to active marginalisation:

 

The king’s adherents oppressed them so ruthlessly that they could not procure salt, corn, or any other necessaries. However, trusting the king’s attention being engaged by his quarrel with the nobles of Scotland, who were raising their heads against him [...] the Welsh increased their ravages, and foraged at large on the Welsh borders to provide for their wants.^[73]

 

Henry’s response deployed royal writ to summon the nobility and gentry. A reaction motivated by what Paris detailed as “[....] a general invasion of Wales to crush and ravage it to its utter ruin.”^[74] Sustaining a histrionic tone, Paris documents the knights’ opposition toward this; describing that they had felt “[...] often troubled by loss and useless expense to no purpose.”^[75]  Growing concerns regarding irretrievable financial loss played a key role in Henry’s interaction with parliament; particularly in terms of extraneous military funding. A notable feature of Henry’s leadership was the sequence of parliamentary sessions held.^[76] Predominantly used as a means of capitalising from his nobility. Political historian, Robert Shepherd argued that this armed Henry’s reign with a “keener political edge”.^[77] A value demonstrated through his repeated efforts to counter a constant - and self-made - shortage in finance.^[78] Albeit this, Henry’s pleas were regularly met with rejection. One such example saw Henry faced with open refusal at his attempts to garner funds for a military expedition in Europe in January 1242.^[79] An additional event illustrating this persistence was the dismissal of pecuniary aid in November 1244. Paris’ reads the nobilities response as justified; for they “[...] neither would or could any longer submit to such extortions [...]”^[80], as well as observing that the “[...] amount required was so large a sum that it would alike astonish and horrify those who heard it; and the nobility of the kingdom grieved at being reduced to such ruin by the supine simplicity of one man.”^[81] Recurrent acts of desperation - such as Henry selling his royal plate and jewels in order to fund an expedition to Gascony^[82] - demonstrate a facet equal to that of reign of Richard II. That is, a critical diminution of resources during this period. Henry’s repeated petitioning of parliament, alongside his taxation of the church, contextualise a precarious situation; paralleling with the introduction of the Poll Taxes during the late fourteenth-century. Shepherd described Westminster as being shaped by these conflicts; detailing that, “Henry's political insensitivity so inflamed the barons and clergy in parliament that de Montfort could plausibly don the mantle of reformer.”^[83] Henry’s misuse of parliament led to a reform; creating the Commons as a result of the rebellion of Simon de Montfort; as well as the Earls of Gloucester, Norfolk (the Earl Marshal), and Richmond (Peter of Savoy, the queen's uncle).^[84]

 

Overall, analysing Kaeuper’s statement provokes substantial enquiry. Through which it must be argued that neither ‘law’ nor ‘war’ were categorically independent of one another. Regarding the nature of a ‘law state’, both the thirteenth and fourteenth-centuries demonstrate judicial expansion and reform. Comparatively, statutes produced during these periods were not thematically dissimilar in content. Each proclaimed a need to address regulated wage-rates, land-ownership, and labour control within respective counties.[85] However, to justify the fourteenth-century strictly as a ‘war state’ actively disregards the reformatting of labour and topical legislation. A quality witnessed by the re-balance of control exercised by local authorities.^[86] Nonetheless, this trajectory of judicial progress evolved from legislative and parliamentary reform in the thirteenth-century. As such, the fourteenth-century distinguishes itself only as an extension of preordained changes.^[87] Although the JP’s held a pivotal role in the fourteenth-century, this position grew from the Knights of the Shire. Both of which played an influential role in hearing assizes and attaints in their appointed areas.^[88]

 

Arguably, a factor separating these two periods is the stability of interaction between crown and the nobility. More specifically, the level - and efficiency - of communication between the crown, nobility, and gentry. This in itself may be seen to separate the thirteenth-century as a ‘law state’. Educated by the Henry’s transactions - and subsequent strained relationship with his subjects - Edward I taxed the nobility through feudal writs. During the Welsh Conquest, feudal summons were utilised to raise finance and resources. For instance, the 26 May 1282 saw writs ordering “[...] everyone in possession of £30 worth of land or more a year, to provide themselves with a suitable horse and military equipment.”^[89] The Welsh War of 1282-3 yielded 120 knights and 90 sergeant's; requested to serve for a maximum forty-day period (although many extended this).^[90] As an example, Edward’s use of feudal writs displays a heightened awareness of the realpolitik. However, his reign occurred in the latter half of the thirteenth-century. To declare the thirteenth-century as a strict ‘law state’ erases the affecting conflict of his predecessors. The impact of King John’s war with the French^[91], as well as the financial - and political - implications of the Welsh and Scottish campaigns infer a realm influenced by dissension. Similar to the fourteenth-century, the legislative and judiciary reforms of this period were led primarily by internal instability and foreign warfare. To incorporate Kaeuper’s definition of the “king’s twin obligation” each period prioritised the maintenance of internal justice, as well as foreign peace.^[92] Reflecting upon this, it is difficult to cleanly separate ‘law’ and ‘war’ from one another. Such polarisation has been constructed by historiographical narratives. Conclusively, the conception of a “transformed England” is one that refuses to acknowledge intersectionality.

 

Bibliography

 

Primary

John, King of England, Magna Carta, (trans.) G.R.C. Davis, (London: British Museum, 1963), in ‘Internet Archive’, https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation, pp. 23–33

 

‘The “History of William the Marshal” for the years 1216-19’, Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, (ed.) Paul Meyer, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, Vol. III (London, 1969), p. 81

 

Matthew Paris, ‘Of the heavy fines imposed on the citizens of London’, Greater Chronicle of Matthew Paris, 1258-9, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, Vol. III (London, 1969), p. 110

 

Matthew Paris, ‘On the expiration of the truce between the English and Welsh’, Greater Chronicle of Matthew, 1258-9, English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, Vol. III (1969, London), p. 111

 

Matthew Paris, ‘How the knights of England were convokes against the Welsh’, Greater Chronicle of Matthew, 1258-9’, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, Vol. III (London, 1969), p. 111

 

Matthew Paris, ‘Of the parliament held at London at that time’, Greater Chronicle of Matthew, 1258-9’, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, Vol. III (London, 1969), p. 111

 

Matthew Paris, ‘How the king was refused pecuniary aid’,  Greater Chronicle of Matthew, 1258-9’, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, Vol. III (London, 1969), p. 115

 

Matthew Paris, ‘Of the mortality caused by the famine amongst the people’, Greater Chronicle of Matthew, 1258-9, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, Vol. III (London, 1969), p. 126

 

Matthew Paris, ‘Of the increase of the famine, owing to the harvest being spoiled by the heavy rains’, Greater Chronicle of Matthew, 1258-9, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, Vol. III (London, 1969), p. 131

 

‘Judicial powers given to keepers of the peace, 1332’, Statutes of the Realm, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, (London, 1969), p. 534

 

‘The keepers of the peace, 1327’, Statutes of the Realm, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, Vol. IV (London, 1969), p. 533

 

‘The separate commissions of justices of labourers are suspended, 1359’, Writs of Privy Seal, Chancery, Series I, File 369, No. 23, 335, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, Vol. IV (London, 1969), p. 540

 

‘Justices of the peace, 1361’, Statutes of the Realm, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, Vol. IV (London, 1969), pp. 541

 

‘The justices of the peace are ordered to meet four times a year, 1362’, Statutes of the Realm, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, Vol. IV (London, 1969), pp. 541-2

 

‘The justices of the peace made responsible for the enforcement of the Statute of Labourers, 1368’, Statutes of the Realm, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, Vol. IV (London, 1969), pp. 542

 

‘Edward III resumes the name and title of King of France, 1369’, from Close Roll, 43, Edward III, m 18d, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, Vol. IV (London, 1969), p. 114

 

‘The Poll Tax of 1379’, Rot. Parl. III, 57 [French], in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, Vol. IV (London, 1969), p. 125

Secondary

 

Bennett, J. M, ‘Compulsory Service in England’, Past & Present, No. 209 (Oxford, 2010), pp. 7-51

 

Cohn, S., ‘After the Black Death: Labour Legislation and Attitudes Towards Labour in Late-Medieval Western Europe’, The Economic History Review, Vol. 60, No. 3 (New Jersey, 2007), pp. 457-485

 

Coke, Sir E., The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, (London, 1604), in ‘Internet Archive’, https://archive.org/ (accessed 13/05/2017)

 

Crump, C.G., and Johnson, C., ‘The Powers of Justices of the Peace’, The English Historical Review, Vol. 27, No. 106 (New York, 1912), pp. 226-238

 

Gundy, A. K., Richard II and the Rebel Earl, (New York, 2013)

 

Haas, E. d., ‘An Early Thirteenth-Century Register of Writs’, The University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Toronto, 1947), pp. 196-226

 

Harvey, J., The Plantagenets, (London, 1948)

 

Keen, M., ‘Richard II's Ordinances of War in 1385’, in Rowena E. Archer and Simon Walker (ed.), Rulers and Ruled in Late Medieval England, (London, 1995), pp. 33-48

 

Morris, M., A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain, (London, 2009)

 

Ormrod, W. M., ‘Pardon, Parliament and Political Performance in Later Medieval England’, in Craig M. Nakashian and Daniel P. Franke (ed.), Prowess, Piety, and Public Order in Medieval Society: Studies in Honour of Richard W. Kaueper, (Leiden, 2017), pp. 302-322

 

Ormrod, W. M., ‘The Peasants' Revolt and the Government of England’, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 1-30

 

Painter, S., ‘Magna Carta’, The American Historical Review, Vol. 53, No. 1 (New York, 1947), pp. 42-49

Plucknett, T. F. T., ‘Parliament, 1327-36’, in E.B. Fryde and Edward Miller (ed.), Historical Studies of the English Parliament: Volume I (Origins to 1399), (New York, 1977), pp. 195-241

 

Poos, L. R., ‘The Social Context of Labourers Enforcement’, Law and History Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1983), pp. 27-52

 

Postan, M. M., ‘Some Social Consequences of the Hundred Years' War’, The Economic Review, Vol. 12, No. 1/2 (Nashville, TN, 1942), pp. 1-12

 

Postan, M. M., ‘The Costs of the Hundred Years' War’, Past & Present, No. 27 (Oxford, 1964), pp. 34-53

 

Prestwich, M., Edward I, (London, 1988)

 

Prestwich, M., English Monarchs: Edward I, (London 1988)

 

Prestwich, M., Plantagenet England 1225 - 1360, (Oxford, 2005)

 

Prestwich, M., The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272 - 1377, (London, 1980)

 

Prestwick, M., ‘The Art of Kingship: Edward I, 1272 - 1307’, History Today, Vol. 35, Issue 5 (London, 1985), pp. 34-40

 

Putnam, B. H., ‘Early Records of the Justices of the Peace’, The English Historical Review, Vol. 28, No. 110 (New York, 1913), pp. 321-330

 

Putnam, B. H., ‘The Transformation of the Keepers of the Peace into the Justices of the Peace 1327-1380’, Transactions of the Royal History Society, Vol. 12 (New York, 1929), pp.19-48

 

Shepherd, R., Westminster: A Biography, (London, 2012)

 

Summerson, H. R. T., ‘The Structure of Law Enforcement in Thirteenth Century England’, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 23, No. 4 (New York, 1979), pp. 313-327

 

Walker, S., ‘Communities of the county in later medieval England’, in Michael J. Braddick (ed.), Political Culture in Later Medieval England: Essays by Simon Walker, (New York, 2006), pp. 68-80

 

Walker, S., ‘Yorkshire Justices of the Peace, 1389-1413’, The English Historical Review, Vol. 109, No. 427 (New York, 1993), pp. 281-313

 

Walker, S., 'Richard II's Views on Kingship’, in Rowena E. Archer and Simon Walker (ed.), Rulers and Ruled in Late Medieval England, (London, 1995), pp.49-64

---

^[1] W. M. Ormrod, ‘Pardon, Parliament and Political Performance in Later Medieval England’, in Craig M. Nakashian and Daniel P. Franke (ed.), Prowess, Piety, and Public Order in Medieval Society: Studies in Honour of Richard W. Kaueper, (Leiden, 2017), p. 303

^[2] A. K. Gundy, Richard II and the Rebel Earl, (New York, 2013), p. 12

^[3] W. M. Ormrod, ‘Pardon, Parliament and Political Performance’, p. 303

^[4] Ibid. 304

^[5] W. M. Ormrod, W. M., ‘Pardon, Parliament and Political Performance’, p, 304

^[6] T. F. T. Plucknett, ‘Parliament, 1327-36’, in E.B. Fryde and Edward Miller (ed.), Historical Studies of the English Parliament: Volume I (Origins to 1399), (New York, 1977), p. 195

^[7] M. Prestwick, ‘The Art of Kingship: Edward I, 1272 - 1307’, History Today, Vol. 35 Issue 5, (London, 1985),  p. 34

^[8] M. Morris, A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain, (London, 2009) p. xii

^[9] J. Harvey, The Plantagenets, (London, 1948), p. 110

^[10] M. Prestwich, English Monarchs: Edward I, p. 267

^[11] Exemplified by the following excerpt from the Benefit of Clergy Act 1275: [...] Because our Lord the King had great zeal and desire to redress the State of the Realm in such Things as required Amendment for the common profit of Holy Church, and of the Realm: And because the State of the Holy Church had been evil kept, and the Prelates and Religious Persons of the Land grieved many ways, and the People otherwise intreated than they ought to be, and the Peace less kept, and the Laws less used, and the Offenders less punished, than they ought to be [...] Citation: Sir E. Coke, The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, (London, 1604), in ‘Internet Archive’, https://archive.org/, p. 156

^[12] S. Painter, ‘Magna Carta’, The American Historical Review, Vol. 53, No. 1 (New York, 1947), p. 42

^[13] Ibid. 43

^[14] Ibid.

^[15] Ibid. More precisely, the barons aimed to fix feudal obligations to the crown; as a means of methodically ceasing John’s financial schemes.

^[16] “(34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own lord's court.” Citation: Magna Carta, (trans.) G.R.C. Davis, (London: British Museum, 1963), in ‘Internet Archive’, https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation, pp. 23–33

^[17] S. Painter, ‘Magna Carta’, p. 43

^[18] Magna Carta, (trans.) G.R.C. Davis, (London: British Museum, 1963), in ‘Internet Archive’, https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation, pp. 23–33

^[19] Legal historian, F. W. Maitland described the Registrum brevium as detailing “great authority in law”. The Registrum was written during the early years of the reign of Henry III. A fourteen-page manuscript covering matters of royal office; as well as serving as a prototype of the Chancery. Citation: E. d. Haas, ‘An Early Thirteenth-Century Register of Writs’, The University of Toronto Law Journal, vol. 7, no. 1 (Toronto, 1947), p. 198

^[20] E. d. Haas, ‘An Early Thirteenth-Century Register of Writs’, The University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Toronto, 1947), p. 197

^[21] Ibid.

[22] Notably, drawing judicial enquiries from the respective practices of communal and feudal courts.

^[23] E. d. Haas, ‘An Early Thirteenth-Century Register of Writs’, p. 201

^[24] Ibid. 196

^[25] Emphasised by the limitations of Robert’s position in enacting justice; thereby utilising the Sheriff in areas where the Knights of the Shire were restricted. Additionally, this detailed his position as a Knight of the Shire. The Knights were bestowed a degree of authority by the monarch; performing the law through a localised force.

^[26] Magna Carta, (trans.) G.R.C. Davis, (London: British Museum, 1963), pp. 23–33

^[27] The Ordinance of Labourers (1349) and Statute of Labourers (1351) emerged as a result of growing labour autonomy among villeins and workers due to a significant decline in population statistics.

^[28] L. R. Poos, ‘The Social Context of Labourers Enforcement’, Law and History Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1983), p. 27

^[29] J. M. Bennett, ‘Compulsory Service in  England’, Past & Present, No. 209, (Oxford, 2010), p. 9

^[30] L. R. Poos, ‘The Social Context of Labourers Enforcement’, p. 29

^[31] S. Walker, ‘Yorkshire Justices of the Peace, 1389-1413’, The English Historical Review, Vol. 109, No. 427 (New York, 1993), p. 281

^[32] S. Walker, ‘Yorkshire Justices of the Peace, 1389-1413’, p. 281

Walker detailed the setup of the comissions of the peace in the three Ridings of Yorkshire during the reign of Richard II and Henry IV: “Within that period, 50 commissions were issued to a total of 94 justices, who can, with only a few problems of definition, be divided into four major categories: - 19 mag nates, nine assize justices of the Northern circuit, 24 justices of the quorum and 42 gentry justices whose absence from the quorum suggests a lack of specialized legal knowledge.”

^[33] Ibid.

^[34] Magna Carta, (trans.) G.R.C. Davis, (London: British Museum, 1963), pp. 23–33

^[35] S. Walker, ‘Yorkshire Justices of the Peace, 1389-1413’, p. 281

^[36] B. H. Putnam, ‘The Transformation of the Keepers of the Peace into the Justices of the Peace 1327-1380’, Transactions of the Royal History Society, vol. 12, (New York, 1929), p. 23

^[37] Ibid.

^[38]‘The keepers of the peace, 1327’, Statutes of the Realm, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, Vol. IV (London, 1969), p. 533

^[39] B. H. Putnam, ‘The Transformation of the Keepers of the Peace’, p. 22

^[40] In Putnam’s words, these agenices included “[...] the county court, the sheriff's tourn, the court held by the coroners, the court leet of the manor, of the hundred in private hands, of the borough; also courts held by the constables of the vill and by the high constables of the hundred.” Citation: B. H. Putnam, ‘The Transformation of the Keepers of the Peace’, p. 20

^[41] The justices of Eyre served to take assizes and to hold pleas of the Crown.

^[42] The justices of Trailbaston were appointed to “[...] inquire of all felonies and trespasses within a given area, or of a long list of specified offences, or of an individual felony or trespass, can both hear preliminary indictments and determine them” Citation: B. H. Putnam, ‘The Transformation of the Keepers of the Peace’, p. 20

^[43]  B. H. Putnam, ‘The Transformation of the Keepers of the Peace’, p. 21

^[44] ‘Judicial powers given to keepers of the peace, 1332’, Statutes of the Realm, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, (London, 1969), p. 534

^[45] Ibid. These were ordained by earls, lords, and barons.

^[46] ‘The justices of the peace are ordered to meet four times a year, 1362’, Statutes of the Realm, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, Vol. IV (London, 1969), pp. 541-2

^[47] C. G. Crump, and C. Johnson, ‘The Powers of Justices of the Peace’, The English Historical Review, Vol. 27, No. 106 (New York, 1912), p. 226

^[48] S. Walker, ‘Yorkshire Justices of the Peace, 1389-1413’, p. 282

^[49] Ibid.

^[50] S. Walker, ‘Yorkshire Justices of the Peace, 1389-1413’, p. 282

^[51] ‘The separate commissions of justices of labourers are suspended, 1359’, Writs of Privy Seal, Chancery, Series I, File 369, No. 23, 335, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, Vol. IV (London, 1969), p. 540

^[52] “[...] Also it is agreed and assented that the statute and ordinance made of labourers and artificers shall be upheld and kept duly executed; and to this end let the commission's be made to the justices of the peace in each shire to hear and determine the points of the statute, and to award damages at the suit of the plaintiff according to the degree of offence.” Citation: ‘The justices of the peace made responsible for the enforcement of the Statute of Labourers, 1368’, Statutes of the Realm, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, Vol. IV (London, 1969), pp. 542

^[53] S. Walker, ‘Yorkshire Justices of the Peace, 1389-1413’, p. 283

^[54] Ibid.

^[55] Ibid.

^[56] S. Walker, ‘Yorkshire Justices of the Peace, 1389-1413’, p. 281

^[57] A. K. Gundy, Richard II and the Rebel Earl, p. 12

^[58] W. M. Ormrod, ‘The Peasants' Revolt and the Government of England’, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Cambridge, 1990), p. 2-3

^[59] Ibid. 3

^[60] Ibid. 4

^[61] Ibid. 1

^[62] Ibid.

^[63] ‘Edward III resumes the name and title of King of France, 1369’, from Close Roll, 43, Edward III, m 18d, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, Vol. IV (London, 1969), p. 114

^[64] Approximately 1/3 of those liable to pay disappeared from the 1381 rolls; signifying tactics to avoid taxation.

^[65] W. M. Ormrod, ‘The Peasants' Revolt and the Government of England’, p. 1

^[66] ‘The Poll Tax of 1379’, Rot. Parl. III, 57 [French], in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1327-1485, Vol. IV (London, 1969), p. 125

^[67] M. M. Postan, ‘The Costs of the Hundred Years' War’, Past & Present, No. 27 (Oxford, 1964), p.  37

^[68] Ibid. 36

^[69] Ibid. 37

^[70] Ibid.

^[71] Ibid.  34

^[72] Exemplified by ‘Of the heavy fines imposed on the citizens of London’: “The citizens of London having accused to the king of some irregularities, were punished in manifold ways, and compelled to ransom themselves; yet had great difficulty in regaining the king’s favour. The chief amongst them, Ralph Hardel, who was mayor of the city, died of grief.” Citation: Matthew Paris, ‘Of the heavy fines imposed on the citizens of London’, Greater Chronicle of Matthew Paris, 1258-9, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, Vol. III (London, 1969), p. 110

^[73] Matthew Paris, ‘On the expiration of the truce between the English and Welsh’, Greater Chronicle of Matthew, 1258-9, English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, Vol. III (1969, London), p. 111

^[74] Matthew Paris, ‘How the knights of England were convokes against the Welsh’, Greater Chronicle of Matthew, 1258-9’, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, Vol. III (London, 1969), p. 111

^[75] Ibid.

^[76] According to Robert Shepherd; After 1237, these meetings of the Great Council were increasingly described as parliaments. Citation: R. Shepherd, Westminster: A Biography, (London, 2012), p. 63

^[77] R. Shepherd, Westminster: A Biography, (London, 2012), p. 63

^[78] Ibid.

^[79] Ascertained by F M/ Powicke, this showcased “The first authorized account of a parliamentary debate”.

Citation: Ibid.

^[80] Matthew Paris, ‘How the king was refused pecuniary aid’,  Greater Chronicle of Matthew, 1258-9’, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, Vol. III (London, 1969), p. 115

^[81] Matthew Paris, ‘Of the parliament held at London at that time’, Greater Chronicle of Matthew, 1258-9’, in A. R. Myers (ed.), English Historical Documents, 1189-1327, Vol. III (London, 1969), p. 111

^[82] R. Shepherd, Westminster, p. 63

^[83] Ibid. 64

^[84] R. Shepherd, Westminster: A Biography, (London, 2012), p. 64; Reacting to requests made by Henry to fund aid in the Welsh Conquests, Montfort et al. demanded the creation of a ruling commission, to which Henry, bowed from the pressure, accepted.

[85] These differed on the basis of motivating socio-political, economic, and environmental factors.

^[86] S. Walker, ‘Yorkshire Justices of the Peace, 1389-1413’, p. 311

^[87] Exemplified by Magna Carta and the second Statute of Westminster.

^[88] S. Walker, ‘Yorkshire Justices of the Peace, 1389-1413’, p. 311

^[89] M. Prestwich, Edward I, (London, 1988), p. 197

^[90] Ibid. 196 - Every English earl (apart from Robert Bruce, earl of Carrick) had not been paid wages. Sums accepted by the earls of Warwick (£65), Lincoln (£1,655) and Norfolk (£410) were likely used to fund their infantry.

^[91] With particular emphasis placed on the loss of the Angevin inheritance, the unsuccessful French campaign in 1214, and the invasion of Alexander II in 1216.

^[92] A facet either embodied by the success of the monarch (such as Edward I and Edward III) or their subjects (illustrated by the case of Magna Carta, as well as Simon de Montfort’s establishment of the commons).