[99] “Archers. And xxiiij archers on foote for garde of the kinge’s body, who shall goe before the kinge as he travaleth thorough the cuntry” (“King Edward II’s . . . Ordinances,” 1323, ed. Furnivall, p. 46). [100] “Fleta, seu commentarius juris Anglicani, editio secunda,” London 1685, lib. ii. cap. 2, 4. This treatise is believed to have been composed in the Fleet prison by a lawyer in the time of Edward I. It is later than 1292, for mention is made in it of the submission of Scotland. [101] Lib. ii. cap. 5. The ordinance of Edward II mentioned further, p. 108, speaks only of the brand by a hot iron on the forehead. “King Edward II’s Household and Wardrobe Ordinances,” A.D. 1323, Chaucer Society, ed. Furnivall, 1876. [102] Lib. ii. cap. 14, 15. [103] He sent a _mandatum_ to this effect, and he withdrew it when the king changed his mind as to the place where he wished to go, which happened often enough. “Debet autem senescallus nomine capitalis justitiarii cujus vices gerit mandare vicecomiti loci ubi dominus rex fuerit declinaturus, quod venire faciat ad certum diem, ubicumque tunc rex fuerit in ballivia sua, omnes assisas comitatus sui et omnes prisones cum suis atachiamentis.” “Fleta,” lib. ii. cap. 3, § 4. [104] “Habet etiam ex virtute officii sui potestatem procedendi ad utlagationes et duella jungendi et singula faciendi quæ ad justitiarios itinerantes, prout supra dictum est pertinent faciendi.” “Fleta,” lib. ii. cap. 3, § 11. [105] “Fleta,” lib. ii. cap. 3, § 9. [106] “Original authority of the King’s Council,” p. 115. [107] “The county is divided into hundreds or into wapentakes or into wards, the term wapentake appearing in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, the term ward in the northernmost counties.” (“History of English Law before Edward I,” by Sir Frederick Pollock and F. W. Maitland, Cambridge, 2 vols., 1895, vol. i. p. 543.) At the head of the hundred was the bailiff, appointed by the sheriff, acting under him, and giving also rise to numerous complaints. See, e.g. “Rolls of Parliament,” ii. 357, a petition of 1376. [108] The lists which have reached us “leave us doubting whether any of them had received a solemn sanction from the central power.” Same “History of English Law,” ii. 508. On the origin, growth, decay, uses and abuses of the institution, see W. A. Morris, “The Frankpledge System,” London, 1910. [109] In many places great people, lay or ecclesiastic, had somehow secured for themselves the properly royal privilege of holding the “view”; it became attached to some manors and was conveyed with them. See the petition of an abbess who claims the view of frankpledge attached to the manor of Shorwalle, Isle of Wight, which had been given her; Isabella de Forte disputes her this right, the real object of the quarrel between the two ladies being the fines levied when the view was held. Towards the end of the fourteenth century the frankpledge had fallen into decay.