Walter Skirlaw, Bishop of Durham, was not a happy man. In the summer of 1398, malefactors broke into his park at Howden and entered his warren, stole goods valued at £100 and poached rabbits ('conies') hares, pheasants partridges and deer. They also poached at:-
"Walkynton, Ellirker, Brantyngham, Welton, Estryngton, Belleby, Kylpyn, Knedelyngton, Askilby, Barneby, Clyffe,Rycall, Alverton, Bromton, Romonby, Knaton, Barweby, Thornton and Osmondirlay" - as well as Newland by Eastrington and Stillington.
To make matters worse, they...
"assaulted, beat, wounded and evil entreated his men, servants and tenants at the said towns, ceasing not to lay upon them such threats that his men and servants dared not occupy themselves upon his business, and his tenants dared not for a great while dwell upon their holdings, wherefore he lost the service, rente and profits which he ought to have taken, and laying upon him other grievous injuries, as the king learned by complaint
of the bishop."
The evil-doers are named:-
John Hunte, John Brewere ' fleccher,' both of Houeden,
John Alle chaplain, William Bachiler, Thomas Nele chaplains,
William Bekke, Robert Marton, both of Ellirker,
Richard Santon of 'Northcave, William West, William Dawesoun, both of Northcave,'
Richard Crosse, Peter Halgarth, both of Southcave, William Blacomore of Northcave and William Broune of Southcave
A high powered legal team was set up to investigate. It was headed by Hugh Huls of Cheshire and John Markham whose family came from the Nottinghamshire village of that name. Both were justices of assize, and were used by the King to try cases all over the country In addition Markham was a Justice of the Peace for all three ridings at various times.
Joining them on the commission were Sir John Depeden, Sir Robert Hilton, William Hornby, Thomas Thurkyll and Walter Rudstan. Depeden was JP for the West Riding, Robert Hilton for the East Riding, Hornby for all three ridings, Rudstan for the East Riding. Thurkyll was employed on several commissions in the York area at this time - in 1396 to investigate pollution of the King's fishponds (stews), in 1397 weirs on the Ouse and in 1398 the management of St Leonards Hospital. Any two of the team could adjudicate, but one of Huls or Markham had to be present.
Nothing further was heard until September, when Huls and Markham were told to carry on with their investigation, but not to proceed...
"in respect of any process against the defendants, that
meantime there may be speech and treaty of a final concord between
the parties"
Finally, in December the same year the whole thing is dropped "for particular
causes nearly moving the king".
There are so many issues here it's hard to know where to start.
First, the places where the poaching and harassment are alleged to have taken place reads like a list of the bishop's manors in Yorkshire. All three parts of Howdenshire - the Wolds Towns, Howden and Eastrington parishes and Howdenshire beyond the Derwent - Allertonshire, and Stillington, the nearest village to Crayke.
Then there's the fact that all this damage was done by just 14 named men from the Caves and Howden. All the leading families of the area - the Methams, Saltmarshes, Portingtons, Babthorpes etc - held some if not all of their land from the bishop, and could easily have raised enough supporters to arrest them. Why did the he need to get the king to appoint a commission of oyer and terminer?
The distance between the locations is also odd. It's possible to imagine the poaching and thefts carrying on across Howdenshire, but to Osmotherley, for example, is around 60 miles - a journey of 4-6 days there and back.
Again, there's the fact that such a small band of men could terrorise the bishops men across such a wide area for enough time to cause an economic loss. The bishop didn't hold much of his property in his own right - it was rented out to tenants - such as the families quoted above. It would the they who suffered, and could easily have prevented it.
Finally, why should the king speak of a treaty between the two parties? Poachers and robbers would be punished (or pardoned) but this sounds as the bishop and his assailants could negotiate on an equal footing.
A possible explanation can be found by looking at a similar commission from a year earlier. As with the later complaint, the accusations - by the abbot of St Mary's abbey in York - were of poaching, destruction of property and intimidation of tenants and servants. However, there were also substantial differences. The places where the alleged crimes took place were much closer together, the accused included two knights and gentlemen along with armed men and archers, there was a connection between the places named and the offenders, and the damage caused was precisely specified.
A possible reconstruction of bishop Skirlaws complaint can now be reconstructed. There was a dispute - we don't know with who - about some of his Yorkshire manors. Skirlaw was given the names of the lowest ranking offenders, but didn't name (or know) their master(s). Whoever drew up the commission knew the locations of the Yorkshire manors, but not where the crimes took place or what the actual offences were. The 1397 complaint by the abbot was used as an example but the details were vague as they weren't known.
The investigation soon finds that parties other than the named men are involved, and tries to arrange a reconciliation. Eventually the whole matter is resolved.
Sources
Close Rolls 1396-9
Patent Rolls 1396-9