The excuses of certain jurors were next stated. De Braose did not appear, because his lands were in the king’s hands. Pycheworth was a name unknown; but Pychard, who came, was not received. Genville had enfeoffed his son Peter with his Welsh lands. The seneschal of Abergavenny had received no summons. Certain Crickhowell jurors came unsummoned, as their seneschal testified. Roger de Mortimer held his Welsh lands under the Earl of Hereford, and of course could not act; and Edmund’s lands were far off, so no summons had found its way thither. From Tregoz and Camville came neither jurors nor seneschal.
The inquisition then proceeded, and the jury found that the three forays had occurred, and the robberies, &c., as stated; but that John de Creppyng, who had been indicted as a captain, had not been present in person, but had sent his men, and shared the booty.
Before the commission broke up, the charge to the earls to keep the peace was repeated.
The next step, the commission having apparently reported, was taken by the king in council, who summoned the two earls to appear at Ambresbury, on Monday (3rd September) preceding the Nativity of the Virgin. Thither accordingly they came; and as it was well known that there had been new and repeated breaches of the peace, the matter had become still more serious. With a view to fresh evidence on this point, the king further adjourned the inquiry to Abergavenny, where he, his council, the jurors, and the two earls, finally met about Michaelmas.
The Earl of Hereford was asked whether he had disobeyed the royal order either before or since the Laundon meeting; but the Earl of Gloucester, having absented himself, was taken as guilty of the former charge, and invited to meet only the latter. To this he pleaded not guilty; but he was permitted to take objections to the former judgment, and, by special favour, to hear read the previous proceedings.
The points he raised were ingenious, but rather fine spun. He took objection to the writ of scire facias, under which he was summoned, as not having been issued through a court of law in the regular way. This was overruled, on the ground of the importance of the case, and the pressing necessity for action. Next, he objected to the commission itself as an ex officio proceeding, and not binding upon him. Then he advanced that his father, under the orders of the late and present king, had slain or done various injuries to the parents and kin of many of the jurors from Caermarthen and Cardigan, which disqualified them from sitting on the inquest. These also were overruled, the latter on the ground that judgment had gone by his non-appearance. He then said that, between the date of the original prohibition and the first foray (25th January to 3rd February), there had not been time to communicate with his distant and scattered retainers. This also was pronounced invalid.
As to the second foray, the earl pleaded that he was not responsible for it, as the king had at that time seizin of his Glamorgan lands. This was no doubt on the occasion of his marriage, with a view to which event he surrendered, 18 Edward I., his estates, and, after the marriage, took a regrant of them to himself and his wife, under new limitations. It appeared, however, from the records, that the earl had received seizin nine days before the second foray; so this also failed. As to the third foray, he pleaded the recent enfeoffment, which, being entirely new, removed the effect of any prohibition issued to the old feoffee. This, however, was met by a declaration that the prohibition was not territorial but personal; consequently the verdict of guilty was confirmed against himself and his captains.
The breaches of the peace after the Laundon meeting were then inquired into. It was proved that, on the Thursday (29th July) before St. Peter ad Vincula, the Earl of Gloucester’s people having put certain averiæ, or “plough bullocks,” to feed in the disputed ground, the Earl of Hereford’s bailiff and retainers appeared in force. Upon this, De Clare’s men retired with the cattle into their own lands. The others followed, slew some of the men, captured and drove off the cattle, and lodged them in Brecknock Castle. De Bohun had not known of this; but, on its being reported, he directed the cattle to be retained and ransomed. At the time of the inquiry some of them had been killed, and others were in custody at Brecknock.
Further, on Monday (9th August) after the Assumption of the Virgin, the Earl of Gloucester’s men went by night, like robbers, into the Bohun territory. The Bohun retainers, alarmed, drove them back three leagues into their own lands, recovered all the cattle they had stolen, and took several others besides, which they brought home and still kept. Of these expeditions the Earl of Gloucester was entirely ignorant. The Bohun leaders were John Perpoynt, seneschal of Brecknock Castle, and the earl’s bailiff, John Deucroys, or Everoys, Philip Seys, Howell Vaughan, and Howell ap Trahern. Their earl, however, not only did not approve of this second expedition, but on hearing of it, he bound over his captains to bail, under which they still remained. Also, it was shown that, on receiving the royal order, the Earl of Hereford caused it to be proclaimed at church, and market, and other public places. Nevertheless, as he had sanctioned the retaining of the captured cattle, he was also found guilty.
The Earl of Hereford, however, had not offended before the Laundon meeting, neither had the Earl of Gloucester after it.