1. Bellamy, J.G., Crime and Public Order in England in the Later Middle Ages (London, 1972) 114. Cf. 119Google Scholar: ‘[t]hese devices, owing so little to the common law, which were adopted to prevent feud and open violence in the fifteenth century show the inventiveness to which men were driven, but they were not a permanent solution.’

2. Ibid. 114–19. Bellamy cites one example of arbitration from as early as 1387 and admits that it was still common in the later sixteenth century, thus weakening the case for his own association of the practice with short-term measures taken to combat the shortcomings of the fifteenth-century legal system.

3. Storey, R.L., The End of the House of Lancaster (London, 1966)Google Scholar.

4. Ibid. 121–22.

5. Ibid. 155.

6. Rowney, I., ‘Arbitration in Gentry Disputes of the Later Middle Ages,’ History lxvii (1982) 367–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Griffiths, R.A., The Reign of Henry VI (London, 1981) 596Google Scholar: ‘[t]his [arbitration] is a subject of legal, social and political import that merits much closer study than it has so far received … the popularity of the device in Henry VI's reign was symptomatic of the crumbling domestic order; it testifies also to the growing feebleness, unreliability and delays of the normal judicial machinery of the state.’

8. Spargo, J.W., ‘Chaucer's Love-Days,’ Speculum xv (1940) 36–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bennett, J.W., ‘The Medieval Loveday,’ Speculum xxxiii (1958) 351–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Post, J.B., ‘Courts, Councils and Arbitrators in the Ladbroke Manor Dispute, 1382–1400,’ in Hunnisett, R.F. and Post, J.B., eds., Medieval Legal Records Edited in Memory of C.A.F. Meekings (London, 1978) 289–339Google Scholar; see also, Post, J.B., ‘Equitable Resorts Before 1450,’ in Ives, E.W. and Manchester, A.H., eds., Law, Litigants and the Legal Profession (London, 1983) 68–79Google Scholar.

10. Rosenthal, J.T., ‘Feuds and Private Peace-Making: A Fifteenth-Century Example,’ Nottingham Medieval Studies xiv (1970) 84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hicks, M.A., ‘Restraint, Mediation and Private Justice: George, Duke of Clarence as “good lord”,’ Journal of Legal History 4 (1983) 56–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; C. Rawcliffe, ‘The Great Lord as Peacekeeper: Arbitration by English Noblemen and Their Councils in the Later Middle Ages’ (forthcoming in the Proceedings of the Fifth British Legal History Conference); Carpenter, M.C., ‘Law, Justice and Landowners in Late-Medieval England,’ Law and History Review 1 (1983) 205–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am very grateful to Dr. Rawcliffe and Dr. Carpenter for allowing me to read their articles in typescript.

11. Baker, J.H., ed., The Reports of Sir John Spelman, Selden Society 93–94 (1976–1977) ii, 91–92Google Scholar: ‘[i]t appears to be true of all periods, including the present, that the vast majority of cases commenced in the central courts never reach trial: the issue of a writ is as much an inducement to compromise as it is a threat to pursue the law to its conclusion.’ Ives, E.W., The Common Lawyers of Pre-Reformation England (Cambridge, 1983) 126–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Ibid. 126, citing More's Utopia: ‘I do daily bestow my time about law matters: some to plead, some to hear, some as an arbitrator with my award to determine, some as an umpire or judge with my sentence to decide.’

13. Ives, Common Lawyers, supra note 11, 127, 130.

14. So too have historians of Scotland: see Wormald, J., ‘Bloodfeud, Kindred and Government in Early Modern Scotland,’ Past and Present 87 (1980) 54–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Usteri, E., ‘Schiedsgerichtliche Erledigung zwischenstaatlicher Streitigkeiten in der mittelalterlichen Schweiz,’ Niemeyers Zeitschrift für Internationales Recht xxv (1925–1926) 135–99Google Scholar; Bader, K.S., ‘Die Entwicklung und Verbreitung der mittelalterlichen Schiedsidee in Südwestdeutschland und in der Schweiz,’ Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht liv (1935) 100–25Google Scholar; Bader, K.S., ‘Arbiter, arbitrator seu amicabilis compositor,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte lxxvii (Kan. Abt.) (1960) 239–76Google Scholar.

16. Bongert, Y., Recherches sur les cours laiques du Xe au Xlle siécle (Paris, 1949) 97–111, 159–82Google Scholar; Guenée, B., Tribunaux et gens de justice dans le bailliage de Senlis à la fin du moyen âge (Paris, 1963) 117–20Google Scholar; Janeau, H., ‘L'arbitrage en Dauphiné au moyen age,’ Revue Historique de Droit Francais et Etranger, 4th series, xxiv–v (1946–1947) 229–71Google Scholar.

17. Cheyette, F.L., ‘Suum cuique tribuere,’ French Historical Studies vi (1970) 287–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; White, S.D., ‘“Pactum … legem vincit et amor judicium.” The Settlement of Disputes by Compromise in Eleventh-Century Western France,’ American Journal of Legal History 22 (1978) 281–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Arbitration was formally encouraged in canon law, and from the end of the twelfth century there is abundant evidence for arbitration in ecclesiastical disputes: see Powell, E., ‘Arbitration and the Law in England in the Late Middle Ages,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., xxxiii (1983) 53–55Google Scholar. For a sample of such evidence in print, see Drokeda, William de, Summa Aurea, ed. Wahrmund, L. (Innsbruck, 1914) 189–90Google Scholar; Salter, H.E., ed., The Cartulary of Oseney Abbey, Oxford Historical Society, 6 vols. (1929–1936) iv, 459–60, 467–70, v, 3–4, 399–402, 418Google Scholar; Brownbill, J., ed., The Coucher Book of Furness Abbey, Chetham Society, new ser., lxxvi (1916) 295–96, 353–54Google Scholar; Amundesham, Johannes, Annales monasterii sancti Albani, ed. Riley, H.T., Rolls Series (1870–1871) i, 263–73, ii, 89–103, 127–44, 278–90Google Scholar; Registrum Thome Spofford, Canterbury and York Society xxiii (1919) 55–56, 150–52, 160–65, 183–85, 212–14Google Scholar; Bowker, M., ed., An Episcopal Court Book for the Diocese of Lincoln, 1514–1520, Lincoln Record Society lxi (1967) 44, 61, 82, 111, 117, 120, 122Google Scholar.

19. Treharne, R.F. and Sanders, I.J., eds., Documents of the Baronial Movement of Reform and Rebellion, 1258–1267 (Oxford, 1973) 2Google Scholar; see also 33, 36, 38–39, 42, 50–51, 56–57.

20. Ibid. 252–90.

21. Curia Regis Rolls, 1205–6 (London, 1929) 237Google Scholar; cf. Martin, M.T., ed., The Percy Chartulary, Surtees Society cxvii (1911) 54–57Google Scholar.

22. Curia Regis Rolls, 1233–37 (London, 1972) 383Google Scholar.

23. E.g., Public Record Office, London [hereafter P.R.O.] CP 40 (court of common pleas, plea rolls)/27, m.132 (1278); 72, m.61 (1288); 82, m.24 (1290); 93, m.18d (1292); 164, m.169d (1307); 179, m.455 (1309). I am indebted to Dr. P. A. Brand for supplying me with these references. Bolland, W.C., ed., Year Books of Edward II: 5 Edward II, 1312, Selden Society xxxiii (1916) 178, 214–16Google Scholar; Bolland, W.C., ed., The Eyre of Kent 6 and 7 Edward II, 1313–14, Selden Society xxvii (1912) 23–27Google Scholar; L.O. Pike, ed., Year Books 18 and 19 Edward III, Rolls Series (1905) 460–65.

24. Rotuli Parliamentorum (London, 1783–1832) iii, 287–88, 573, 649–50Google Scholar, iv. 296–99, vi, 51–52; Calendar of Close Rolls, 1272–1485 [hereafter C.C.R.] (London, 1892–1954), 1349–54, 615Google Scholar; 1377–81, 524–25; 1381–85, 566; 1385–89, 92–93, 437–38, 439–40, 451, 455, 607, 639–40; 1389–92, 535; 1392–96, 74–75, 133–34, 267, 413, 497, 500, 513–14; 1396–99, 80–81, 120, 136, 210, 212, 514.

25. E.g., Thomas, A.H. and Jones, P.E., eds., Calendar of Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London, 6 vols. (Cambridge, 1926–1961), 1364–81, 49–50, 86, 137, 169–70, 179–80, 201–2, 251–52; 1381–1412, 75, 77, 82, 83, 108, 121–22, 136, 140–42, 146, 162–63, 179, 192, 207–8, 231, 239, 245, 274–75, 278–79, 302, 307, 314Google Scholar; Sellers, M., ed., York Memorandum Book, 1388–1493, Surtees Society cxxv (1915) 14–17, 25–27, 35–37, 67–68, 70–73, 82–83, 93–94. 125–28, 162–64, 179–82, 219, 242–45, 270–71, 288–89, 296–97Google Scholar.

26. E.g., Davis, N., ed., Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century (Oxford, 1971–1976) i, nos. 5, 39, ii, nos. 456, 867Google Scholar; Stapleton, T., ed., Plumpton Correspondence, Camden Society iv (1839) li–ii, lxxxix–xcv, cxix–xxiiGoogle Scholar, footnotes on: 22, 32, 98, 210–11, 219–20, 221, 222–23; Post, ‘Ladbroke Manor Dispute’, supra note 9, 302–39.

27. Guy, J.A., The Cardinal's Court (Hassocks, 1977) 97–105Google Scholar; Jones, W.J., The Elizabethan Court of Chancery (Oxford, 1967) 269–80Google Scholar; Cockburn, J.S., ed., Western Circuit Assize Orders, 1629–1648, Camden Society, 4th ser., xvii (1976) passimGoogle Scholar; Ingram, M.J., ‘Communities and Courts: Law and Disorder in Early Seventeenth-Century Wiltshire,’ in Cockburn, J.S., ed., Crime in England, 1500–1800 (London, 1977) 125–27Google Scholar.

28. Bennett, M.J., ‘A County Community: Social Cohesion Amongst the Cheshire Gentry, 1400–1425,’ Northern History viii (1973) 24–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pollard, A.J., ‘The Richmondshire Community of Gentry During the Wars of the Roses,’ in Ross, C.D., ed., Patronage, Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England (Gloucester, 1979) 37–59Google Scholar. Cf. Griffiths, Henry VI, supra note 7, 596–97, for valuable footnote references.

29. For recent work on arbitration by magnates and their councils, see supra note 10.

30. Powell, E., ‘Public Order and Law Enforcement in Shropshire and Staffordshire in the Early Fifteenth Century’(unpublished D. Phil, thesis, Oxford, 1979) 318–32Google Scholar.

31. P.R.O., KB 27 (King's bench, plea rolls)/663, m.55.

32. The arbitrators’ award, from which these details are taken, survives in the National Library of Wales, Pitchford Hall deeds, no. 2482. Hawkstone and Burgh were leading members of the affinity of John Talbot, lord Furnival (later earl of Shrewsbury) and prominent in Shropshire county administration: Pollard, A.J., ‘The Family of Talbot, Lords Talbot and Earls of Shrewsbury, in the Fifteenth Century’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Bristol, 1968) 217–19, 233–34Google Scholar.

33. P.R.O., KB 27/663, m.55.

34. Rotuli Parliamentorum, iv, 32–33.

35. Powell, ‘Shropshire and Staffordshire,’ supra note 30, 291–99.

36. P.R.O., CP 40/615, m.342, calendared in Collections for a History of Staffordshire, William Salt Archaeological Society xvii (1896) 51Google Scholar.

37. Rotuli Parliamentorum, iv, 32.

38. P.R.O., JUST 1 (eyre rolls, assize rolls, etc.)/814, m.3.

39. P.R.O., KB 9 (King's bench, ancient indictments)/113, m.47d.

40. Cf. the claim made by Erdswick in his petition to parliament in 1414 that a murderous assault on him by Ferrers was only averted ‘par traite et mediation’ of Sir Thomas Gresley: Rotuli Parliamentorum, iv, 32b.

41. See for example J.T. Rosenthal, ‘Feuds and Private Peace-Making,’ supra note 10, 84–90; Storey, House of Lancaster, supra note 3, 155; Staffordshire County Record Office, D.1788 (Aqualate collection)/44/13.

42. Burton-on-Trent Public Library, D.27 (Burton Abbey deeds).

43. Ibid. no. 642.

44. Vernon and Maureward were from prominent landed families, while Pole and Lane achieved influence through their activities as county administrators. Pole was a Derbyshire J.P. for forty years and a regular member of all kinds of commission in that county: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1216–1509 [hereafter C.P.R.] (London, 1891–1916) 1399–1401, 557; 1413–16, 113, 148; 1416–22, 80, 143; 1441–46, 469Google Scholar. Lane was a Staffordshire J.P. from 1413–37 and several times escheator and knight of the shire for the county; Wedgwood, J.C., Staffordshire Parliamentary History, 1213–1603, Staffordshire Historical Collections, 3d ser., viii (1917–1918) 199Google Scholar.

45. In that year Bagot brought an action of novel disseisin against the abbey: Burton Public Library, D.27, nos. 620–21.

46. P.R.O., C 1 (early chancery proceedings)/6, no.50; Burton Public Library D.27, nos. 648–50.

47. For the arbitrators'award, see Burton Public Library, D.27, no. 654. Cf. Rawcliffe, C., ‘Baronial Councils in the Later Middle Ages,’ in Ross, , ed., Patronage, Pedigree and Power (Gloucester, 1979) 87–108Google Scholar, for the role of lawyers in magnate councils.

48. Burton Public Library, D.27, nos. 659, 674. For another arbitration involving Burton abbey in the early fifteenth century, see ibid. no. 622; P.R.O. C 1/6, nos. 207–9. This concerned a dispute with Sir Thomas Gresley over tenements in the town of Burton and lands in Derbyshire.

49. For a fuller account of Shropshire politics at this time, see Powell, ‘Shropshire and Staffordshire,’ supra note 30, 300–17.

50. Bruyn was not a native of Bridgnorth. His father, Henry Bruyn, was a burgess of Chester: C.C.R. 1392–96, 274.

51. Rotuli Parliamentorum, iv, 30–31.

52. Cf. P.R.O., C 1/6, no. 189.

53. P.R.O., KB 9/206/1, m.18 no.4; Rotuli Parliamentorum, iv, 31.

54. P.R.O., KB 9/206/1, mm. 18–19 (6 March 1414). Five members of the jury were later party to the arbitration which awarded Bruyn compensation for false indictments laid against him during the dispute.

55. P.R.O., KB 27/613, passim.

56. C.P.R., 1413–16, 164; P.R.O., KB 27/634, Rex, m.6.

57. Baugh, G.C., ed., Victoria County History of Shropshire (Oxford, 1979) iii, 56–57Google Scholar.

58. What follows is drawn from the arbitrators’ award, Nat. Lib. Wales, Pitchford Hall deeds, no. 2492.

59. For Hawkstone see supra note 32. Burley was a Shropshire gentleman and lawyer whose parliamentary career made him a figure of national standing: see Roskell, J.S., ‘William Burley of Broncroft,’ Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society lvi (1957–1960) 263–72Google Scholar.

60. C.C.R., 1413–19, 43; Pollard, ‘Family of Talbot,’ supra note 32, 229–34.

61. Cf. Carpenter, ‘Law, Justice and Landowners,’ supra note 10, 219–25.

62. Ives. Common Lawyers, supra note 11, 126–30.

63. Simpson, A.W.B., ‘The Penal Bond with Conditional Defeasance,’ Law Quarterly Review lxxxii (1966) 392–422Google Scholar.

64. Rotuli Parliamentorum, iii, 649–50.

65. Davis, ed., Paston Letters, supra note 26, i, no. 5.

66. The arbitration award between Sir John Bagot and Burton abbey (supra note 47) refers to several sessions, at which the parties appeared to submit evidence before the arbitrators and their counsellors.

67. See supra note 17.

68. Cheyette, ‘Suum cuique tribuere,’ supra note 17, 295: ‘In the thirteenth century the ritual of arbitration and compromise was replaced by the new forms of normative justice.’

69. Ibid. 296: ‘Finally, towards mid-century, authoritative courts making normative judgements appeared, and their use expanded rapidly. Arbitration remained, but its meaning changed. More and more the arbiters acted like judges, made inquests, checked charters. Professional lawyers and court officials appeared as arbiters. By the early fourteenth century arbitration had found its place within a hierarchical structure of courts, as decisions from which appeals to higher courts might be made. It was reduced to a technique for avoiding what had become the “ordinary court”.’ Cf. White. ‘Settlement of Disputes,’ supra note 17, 283.

70. Cheyette, ‘Suum cuique tribuere,’ supra note 17, 295; cf. White, ‘Settlement of Disputes,’ supra note 17, 292–93.

71. Cheyette, ‘Suum cuique tribuere,’ supra note 17, 295: White, ‘Settlement of Disputes,’ supra note 17, 300–1.

72. Cheyette, ‘Suum cuique tribuere,’ supra note 17, 293; White, ‘Settlement of Disputes,’ supra note 17, 303–7. Cf. Hicks, ‘Restraint, Mediation and Private Justice,’ supra note 10, 66.

73. White, ‘Settlement of Disputes,’ supra note 17, 296, 301–3.

74. Ibid. 300–1, 308.

75. T. Arnold, ed., Memorials of St. Edmund's Abbey, Rolls Series (1896) 188 211.

76. Post. ‘Ladbroke Manor Dispute,’ supra note 9, 303.

77. Moore, S.A., ed., Letters and Papers of John Shillingford, Camden Society, new ser., ii (1871)Google Scholar. The dispute between the city and the bishop was eventually settled locally through the mediation of the earl of Devon and lord Bonville. Cf. Ives, Common Lawyers, supra note 11, 309–10.

78. C.C.R., 1409–13, 211, 222. The justices, William Gascoigne and William Thurning, decided in favor of the Clintons, allowing them the full measure of dower assigned to Anne by the escheator.

79. CP 40/615, m.342.

80. Powell, ‘Arbitration and the Law,’ supra note 18, passim.

81. Ives, Common Lawyers, supra note 11, 127–28; Powell, ‘Arbitration and the Law,’ supra note 18, 59–61; Rawcliffe, ‘Great Lord as Peacekeeper,’ supra note 10.

82. Guth, D.J., ‘Enforcing Late-Medieval Law: Patterns in Litigation During Henry VII's Reign,’ in Baker, J.H., ed., Legal Records and the Historian (London, 1978) 87Google Scholar.

83. Avery, M.E., ‘The History of the Equitable Jurisdiction of Chancery Before 1460,’ Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research xlii (1969) 129–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84. Post, ‘Equitable Resorts,’ supra note 9, 68–71. Chancery was active in arranging and promoting arbitration: see Powell, ‘Arbitration and the Law,’ supra note 18, 64–67.

85. See supra notes 9 and 10.

86. Ibid. See also Carpenter, M.C., ‘The Beauchamp Affinity: A Study of Bastard Feudalism at Work,’ English Historical Review xcv (1980) 514–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87. Unwin, G., The Gilds and Companies of London (London, 1908) 102, 121Google Scholar; Gross, C., The Gild Merchant, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1890) i, 33–35; Post, ‘Equitable Resorts,’ supra note 9, 73–74.Google Scholar

88. Stubbs, W., The Constitutional History of England, 3 vols., 4th ed. (Oxford, 1896) ii, 319–22, 653–56Google Scholar; 5th ed. (Oxford, 1898) iii, 2, 543–61. Plummer, C., ed., Fortescue on the Governance of England (Oxford, 1885) 12–32Google Scholar. Cf. also Cam, H.M., ‘The Decline and Fall of English Feudalism,’ History xxv (1940) 205–22Google Scholar.

89. McFarlane, K.B., The Nobility of Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1973)Google Scholar; McFarlane, , England in the Fifteenth Century (London, 1981)Google Scholar. See also the important revisionist study by Dunham, W.H., Lord Hastings’ Indentured Retainers, 1461–83 (New Haven, 1955)Google Scholar.

90. See in particular McFarlane, England in the Fifteenth Century, supra note 89, 231–61.

91. Ibid. 239–40; Ross, C.D., The Wars of the Roses (London, 1976) 37–42Google Scholar; Wolffe, B.P., Henry VI (London, 1981) 332Google Scholar.

92. G.L. Harriss, ‘Introduction,’ in McFarlane, England in the Fifteenth Century, supra note 89, xxvi–vii; Richmond, C.F., ‘After McFarlane,’ History lxviii (1983) 59–60Google Scholar.

93. Saul, N., Knights and Esquires: the Gloucestershire Gentry in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1981)Google Scholar; Carpenter, M.C., ‘Political Society in Warwickshire, c. 1401–72’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge, 1976)Google Scholar; Wright, S.M., The Derbyshire Gentry in the Fifteenth Century, Derbyshire Record Society (1983)Google Scholar; Bennett, M.J., Community, Class and Careerism: Cheshire and Lancashire Society in the Age of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (Cambridge, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also supra note 28.