as 66 A rallet ง tus V. of Glaston regulations established in the Exchequer for the Exchequer. They were, without doubt, recognised in the time of Edward III., but they could hardly have existed in the time of the Conqueror, as the Exchequer was not known by that name before the reign of Henry I. In the case now under consideration an A Baron's action of Trespass was brought by one who is described in the report as un vadlet dun des the Abbot "Barons," and in the record vallettus bury "Alani de Esshe, Baronis hujus Scaccarii," against the Abbot of Glastonbury and and another. A valet, radlet, or vallettus appears to have been, at this time, a young unmarried man who was in rank below a knight, but how much below is not certain. The usual translation is "yeoman," but the word "yeoman itself is used in more senses than one. The valet, vallettus, or vadlet appears to have had at one time nearly or quite the same meaning as damoiseau, a young gentleman, just as damoiselle is a young lady. A valettus might be the King's ward.1 Exception was taken to the writ on the ground A "valletthat there were no pledges (or sureties) to prosecute, radlet not but this was over-ruled because it was the custom necessarily of the Court that no pledges to prosecute should be found for the Barons or their servants. But, said Counsel for the defendants, the writ supposes the plaintiff to be the vadlet " of one of the Barons; and he might be the Baron's "vadlet," and not his servant; "and you ought not to hold plea. "in this Court, unless he is a servant of the Baron's household, and, inasmuch as the writ does not make him the Baron's servant, judgment." Then Counsel for the plaintiff said:"We suppose that he is the Baron's 'vadlet,' which will be under"stood to be the Baron's servant, unless the reverse "is pleaded; and inasmuch as you do not deny it, "and allege nothing else in fact which would disprove our action, judgment." 66 1 Bract. 116, b. tus or a servant. The "vadlet❞ one of the of the The Court then caused to be read the "statute relating to the privilege. It purported that King "hommes" Henry III. had granted to the Barons that tresagainst them and " their men Baron,and passes committed privileged. (lour hommes) should be determined in the Exchequer before them. The defendants were therefore put to answer over, and pleaded the general issue,"Not "Guilty." Thus the maintenance of the privilege did not depend upon the question whether the plaintiff was the Baron's servant or not, but upon the question whether he was the plaintiff's man or not. This was a very different thing, for everyone who did homage to his superior lord for his lands described himself as that lord's man, and there was no knight in the realm who was not the King's man, or immediately the man of the lord of whom he held. The Bishop of Norwich and the Abbot of chronic dispute One of the cases1 relates to a between the Bishop of Norwich and the Abbot of Bury St. Edmund's, and shows, at the same time, Bury St. how the Church attempted to evade the authority Edmund's. of the King's Court. The Abbot had long claimed excom to be exempt from the rule of the Bishop by reason of certain early charters, and of a decretum in the Court of William the Conqueror. The reason assigned for the exemption was that the body of St. Edmund, the glorious King and Martyr, lay buried in the Abbey.2 Contempt: In Easter Term, 1346, a writ of Contempt was brought against the Bishop's Commissaries by the tion of the King and one Richard Freiselle. It was alleged that * King's messenger a writ of Prohibition, as well as another writ, had been entrusted to Freiselle for delivery to the Bishop by the Bishop's Commis saries. Easter, No. 27 (pp. 214-232). 2 Placita coram Rege, Mich., 19 Edw. III., R° 114. or his commissary, that he did deliver them, by the King's command, to the Bishop, and that the commissaries for that reason excommunicated him. By these writs the Bishop was forbidden to do or attempt anything to the prejudice of the franchises privileges granted by the King or his ancestors to the monastery (and accepted and confirmed by Popes), or in prejudice of the King and his crown, and if anything of the kind had been done, the Bishop was to annul and revoke it. The defence of the commissaries was that Freiselle had been excommunicated, and was therefore not in a condition to be answered, and the Bishop's letters patent were produced to the effect that Freiselle was under sentence of greater greater excommunication. On behalf of the King it was naturally contended that this excommunication of Freiselle was the very contempt for which the action was brought. The Court held that this must be understood to be the fact, unless it was definitely pleaded that the excommunication was in relation to some other matter. There were then produced, on behalf of the commissaries, letters patent of the Archbishop of Canterbury purporting that he had found among the acts of the Court of Arches that Richard Freiselle was under sentence of greater excommunication on account of his manifest contumacies, and the manifold offences committed by him. Again it was contended on behalf of the King that the excommunication must be understood to be that in respect of which the action was taken, as there was no other special cause mentioned by the Archbishop. The Court again held that this must be so, and put the commissaries to answer. The Church, however, was not yet at the end of Judgment its resources. It was pleaded on behalf of the against the Com commissaries that the Court of Common Pleas had missaries. no jurisdiction with regard to the cause of excommunication, which could be tried only in an écclesiastical court, and not in a lay court. On Stay of execution behalf of the King it was urged that the writ was sued by reason of the excommunication pronounced against Freiselle, and that the action could not, according to the law of the land, be prosecuted any. where but in the King's Court. The commissaries were then asked by the Court whether they had anything else to say, and they answered that they could say nothing more than they had already said. Judgment was therefore given that the commissaries should be taken, and that Freiselle should recover his damages against them. It was, however, one thing to have judgment and followed quite another thing to have execution, where the by writ to Church was concerned. On the following 20th of proceed. May the King's writ close was directed to the Justices of the Common Bench to stay execution until the next Michaelmas Term, so far as the Capias against the commissaries was concerned; and the assessment of Freiselle's damages was deferred until the same time. This was, however, followed by a writ to proceed, and Freiselle was allowed execution of the damages claimed in his declaration, which were no less than £1,000. Writ of Error, followed by writ under the execution. It was hardly to be expected that the Bishop and his commissaries would tamely submit to this. In Easter Term in the 21st year of the reign there privy seal was a writ of Error directing that the record and to hasten process were to be sent into the King's Bench, and they were sent accordingly. Then, however, a strange thing happened. After all the manoeuvring and counter-manœuvring which had evidently been going on outside the courts, the commissaries, and the Bishop, and the Church were finally worsted. It appears on the plea roll of the Common Bench that! "after this enrolment [as to sending the record and process into the King's Bench] had been made, the "Lord the King sent to his Justices here [in the Common Bench] his letters under his privy seal "in these words: Edward, by the grace of God, "King of England and of France, and Lord of "Ireland, to our well-beloved and trusty John de "Stonore and his fellows, Justices of our Common Bench, greeting. Heretofore we commanded, and again we command you that you cause to be fully "and quickly carried out the judgment given by you "in our Common Bench against William, Bishop of Norwich, and his commissaries, on the prosecution "of our well-beloved and trusty Richard Freiselle, for "that he excommunicated the said Richard, in contempt of us, because he delivered certain writs of Prohibition under our seal to the said Bishop, and that you make due execution thereof without delay, "according to the law and custom of our realm, with"out having regard to the prayer, favour, or maintenance of any person, and this omit not as you wish "to escape our indignation. Given under our privy "seal the sixteenth day of April. And I send these to you that you may cause to be done in the matter "aforesaid that which of right ought to be done.' King with This case is an illustration of the struggle which The strugwas now going on between the King and the nation gle of the on the one hand, and the Pope and the Church on the Pope. the other. Like the Statute of Provisors 2 which followed a few years afterwards it was a victory for the King and the nation. As the counsel for the King is represented to have said in one of the reports" We understand that everyone, be he "Bishop or anyone else, who is the King's liege, ought to be obedient to the King's command," and so, in the end, the Bishop had to be. visions, There is another church case1 in which we find the Papal proPope in opposition both to the King and to an and citaEnglish Abbot. The King's presentee to a church, tions to one Richard de Skarles, had been duly admitted and instituted by the Bishop of the diocese. A provision 1 Trin., No. 16 pp. 522-526). 2 25 Edw. III., St. 4 (Statutes of the Realm). Rome. |