and the said Hugh and the others were committed in the meantime to the King's prison of the Marshalsea in the custody of Robert Bolour.

Similar proceedings were taken against the same defendants on the suit of Katharine, late wife of Philip de Lutteley. The record of these is the same verbatim as the above, but with the addition that Philip was in the service of the King as Sub-Sheriff and Coroner of co. Stafford-in servitio domini Regis ad Comitatum Staffordie tanquam Subvicecomes et Coronator ejusdem Comitatus.1

As the Sheriff's party were on the high road at daybreak, it is probable that a distraint had been levied during the night, and they were driving the cattle in the direction of Stafford. In that case, the conflict must have arisen from an attempt on the part of Sir Hugh to rescue his cattle.

Some entries on the same Roll of a few days later date give us the continuation of the proceedings.

Staff. The King sent a close writ to the Sheriff of co. Stafford, that whereas he had lately commanded him to make enquiry on the oath of lawful and honest men concerning the goods and chattels, and lands and tenements, which Hugh de Wrottesleye, Chivaler, held in his county on the 10 April last, and subsequently, inasmuch as the said Hugh had not appeared, coram Rege, to answer the appeal of Katrine, formerly wife of Philip de Lutteleye, for the death of her husband, and for which he had been put into exigend and outlawed; and to return the value of the same on the Quindene of the Holy Trinity, and the Sheriff had returned at that date that the said Hugh before the arrival of the King's writ had dispossessed himself of all lands and tenements which he held within his bailiwick, except a rent of £40 which he held of the King, and which the King had taken into his hands, and the King, believing the said return to be false and fabricated, because it had been testified to him by men worthy of credit that the said Hugh had in no wise demised himself of his lands and tenements, except by deceit and collusion to defraud the King of the issues of the lands which belonged to him owing to the flight of the said Hugh, and that the said Hugh had received the profits of the lands and tenements up to the present time through carelessness (nemencia), he was therefore commanded to take into the King's hands all the goods and chattels, lands and tenements of the said Hugh into whosesoever hand they may have come, and to be answerable for them until further orders, and to appear in person, coram Rege, at this date, to answer for the false

'Coram Rege Roll, Michaelmas, 27 Edward III, m. 8 dorso and m. 20 dorso.

return. Tested by William de Shareshulle at Westminster 15 Sept., 27 Edward III, by writ of privy seal (per breve de segreto [sic] sigillo domini Regis).

The Sheriff answered in these words :-" By virtue of the above writ I have taken into the King's hand, of goods and chattels found in the manor of Wrottesleye, eighteen oxen for the plough, each worth 9s. 6d., two cart horses, each worth 68. 8d., twenty quarters of wheat in the granges, each quarter estimated to be worth 48., fourteen quarters of juxtilion, each quarter estimated at 3s., fifteen quarters of barley, each quarter estimated at 3s., seven quarters of beans, each quarter estimated at 38., eighteen quarters of peas, estimated value of each quarter, 2s., and twenty-four quarters of oats, each quarter estimated at 22d.

I have taken also of the lands and tenements of Hugh de Wrottesleye at Wrottesleye, a messuage with gardens, worth annually beyond reprisals 5s. and no more, because the houses are in ruins, a pigeon-house worth half a mark annually, three carucates of land, each worth 40s. per annum and no more, because the third part of the three carucates lies fallow every year (ad warectam), eighteen acres of meadow, of which each acre is worth 2s., three enclosed parks, of which the herbage is worth 30s. annually and no more, because they are stocked with wild beasts, a watermill which is worth nothing annually, because it is in a ruinous state, and 40s. rent from the natives, which is received annually at Michaelmas and Lady Day. I have taken also into my hands eight marks of annual rent received by the said Hugh from the tenants of Boturdon (Butterton-on-the-Moors) at the Feasts of St. Michael and the Annunciation of the Blessed Mary every year."

ניי

Sir Hugh and his half-brother had been committed to the Marshalsea shortly after the Quindene of Michaelmas, which would be the 12th of September. Within little more than six weeks from this date, both prisoners were at large, with the connivance, no doubt, of Sir Walter Mauny, the Marshal of the Court, under whom Sir Hugh had served in Brittany in 1342. Sir Walter, in fact, who held the office of Marshal for his life, under Letters Patent, was in the habit of releasing his prisoners on condition of their serving the King in France, and in 1342 he had allowed as many as ninety-eight prisoners to be at large upon these conditions.2

The story of their escape is given as follows on the Roll:

Ibid., m. 41 Rex.

2 Sir Walter de Mauny had been appointed Sergeant Marshal by Thomas Plantagenet, the Earl Marshal and Earl of Norfolk, in 1331. He afterwards married the widow of Lord Segrave who was daughter and heir of the Earl,

Staff., Surrey, London. On the Thursday after the Morrow of St. Martin, 27 Edward III, Simon de Kegworth, the Clerk and Coroner of the King, by command of the Justices holding Pleas before the King, proceeded to the prison of the King's Marshal at Kyngeston upon Thames, where the said Justices were holding Pleas, and made a scrutiny of the prisoners in the custody of Robert Bolour, the Marshal, when the said Simon found that Hugh de Wrottesleye, Chivaler, and William, brother of John de Tettebury, the younger, who had been severally appealed for the death of Philip de Whitemere, at the suit of Agnes, formerly wife of Philip, and likewise for the death of Philip de Lutteleye at the suit of Katrine, formerly wife of the said Philip, by divers writs of the King, and had been committed to the custody of the said Marshal, were not in prison there (ibidem in prisoná non exstiterunt) and afterwards on the Friday following, the said Marshal being questioned whether the said Hugh and William were in the King's prison in his custody or not, stated that they had broken out of prison on the Sunday, the Morrow of All Souls in this term, in London, viz., in the parish of St. Andrew in Holburne, in the ward of Farindon without, where they were detained in prison with other prisoners. The said Marshal was therefore fined £10. And Simon de Kegworthe, on the part of the King, stated that the Marshal had permitted the said Hugh and William to escape and had consented to the escape, which he was prepared to prove by a jury of the above ward and parish. A jury was therefore to be summoned, coram Rege, on the Octaves of St. Hillary, unless William de Shareshulle should first come to St. Martin the Grand of London on the Tuesday after the Feast of St. Andrew. A postscript states that at Hillary Term the said Robert appeared in person, coram Rege, and William de Shareshulle brought up the verdict of a jury taken before him on the above Tuesday (John Morton having been associated with him according to the Statute), who stated upon oath that the said Hugh and William had feloniously escaped from the King's prison of the Marshalsea without the license of the said Robert and against his will, viz., on the Morrow of All Souls, 27 Edward III, in the suburb of London and in the said parish and ward. The said Robert was therefore quit of the felony, and the Sheriffs of London were ordered to arrest the said Hugh and William

and cousin to the King. In 1344 an attempt had been made to deprive him of the Marshalship of the King's Bench, and he had procured Letters Patent granting it to him for his life. Coram Rege Roll, Michaelmas 16 Edward III, m. 54, Rex, and Staffordshire Collections, vol. xiv, pp. 27-58, and 59.

and produce them coram Rege on the Quindene of St. John the Baptist.1

At Hillary term following, the process against Sir Hugh and his half-brother was continued as follows:

Staff. The Sheriff had been ordered to summon a jury for this date to return a verdict whether William de Tettebury, brother of John de Tettebury, the younger, on the Thursday before the Feast of St. Andrew, 26 Edward III, had feloniously killed Philip, formerly husband of Katrine de Luttelegh, who was on his way to the vill of Stafford in the service of the King as Sub-Sheriff and Coroner of the County, and if Hugh de Wrotteslegh, Chivaler, at sunrise on the same day had sent the said William, brother of John de Tettebury, the younger, Walter, brother of the said William and John de Derynton (who had been named in the original writ and had been outlawed for the said death) to commit the said felony, and if the said Hugh was present with his sword drawn, and aided and abetted the said William and the others named, and if the said Hugh after the felony had knowingly received the said William and the others in divers places, and also to return a verdict whether Thomas Gatacre and Alice, his wife, had sent the said William and the others named to commit the said felony and had knowingly received them afterwards. And the Sheriff returned that the writ reached him too late, and Katrine appeared in person, and Thomas Gatacre and Alice appeared, brought up by the Marshal. And the said Hugh and William who had been committed to the custody of the Marshal did not appear, and the Marshal being questioned stated that they had feloniously broken out of the prison of the Marshalsea, as appeared by an Inquisition which had been taken elsewhere. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to put the said Hugh and William into exigend, and if they did not appear to outlaw them, and if they appeared, to produce them, Coram Rege, on the Quindene of St. John the Baptist, and to summon a jury for the same date, and Thomas de Gatacre and Alice were committed to the custody of the Marshal.

The same process was followed in the appeal of Agnes, late wife of Philip de Whitmere.2

At the same Hillary Sittings, Agnes, late wife of Philip de Whitemere, appeared in person and appealed John de Stevynton, Roger, son of Geoffrey Leveson, Richard Leveson, John Russel, John de Whiston, and John Broke, for the death of her husband, and the Sheriff returned that with

1 Coram Rege Roll, Michaelmas, 27 Edward III, m. 37 dorso, Rex.

2 Coram Rege, Hill., 28 Edward III, m. 9, dorso.

the exception of John de Whiston, they could not be found within his bailiwick. He was therefore ordered to put them into exigend, and if they did not appear, to outlaw them, and if they appeared, to produce them before the Court on the Quindene of St. John the Baptist, and as the Sheriff (Sir John Musard) had failed to make any return respecting John de Whiston, he was fined half a mark, and was ordered to arrest and produce him on the same date.1

There appears to have been no justification for this prosecution eighteen months after the date of the alleged felony. Nor was it followed up. Most of the defendants were men of substance, John de Stevynton was a Shropshire Esquire and Forester of Kinver, John de Whiston was Lord of the Manor of Whiston, and the Levesons, even at this early date, held considerable property in Wolverhampton and Willenhall. The prosecution, in fact, is one of numberless other instances, which mark the abuse of the administration of justice at this period, when the Judges enriched themselves with impunity at the expense of any men of property who were indicted of offences in their Courts.

The Record of Trinity term, 28 Edward III, contains the process of outlawry which had been promulgated in co. Stafford against Sir Hugh de Wrottesley and William de Tettebury, upon which Katrine de Lutteley and Agnes de Whitmere both appeared in person, Coram Rege, and prayed for execution of the outlawry against both defendants.

The latter were now in great peril, if they could have been caught, for by a recent enactment, they had lost their right to a jury, and could be sentenced to death without further formality. The above proceedings contrast so strongly with the usual dilatory process of the Court, that I suspect there was some animus on the part of the Chief Justice, Sir William de Shareshull, who, as will be seen by the following pedigree, was connected by marriage with Philip de Lutteley and the family of Perton :

Sir John de Perton. Elizabeth, daughter of Sir William de

Shareshull, the Chief Justice.

1 Coram Rege, Hillary, 28 Edward III, m. 9.