heraldryofyorkmi01custuoft

CLARE. 233
"this ground, that when the said Earl of Cornwall had come at the
" King's mandate to this Parliament of London, and was passing through
" the middle of the greater Hall of Westminster, where everybody of the
"kingdom and peace of our Lord ought, and has a right to pursue his
" ease and business lawfully and peaceably, free from any citations and
" summonses, the aforesaid Prior, at the procurement of the said Bogo de
" Clare, on the Friday next before the feast of the Purification of the blessed
"Virgin in this year, did, in the hall aforesaid, serve a citation upon the
" aforesaid Earl, that he should appear at a certain day and place before
" the Archbishop of Canterbury." This was regarded as a flagrant interference
with the liberty of the subject, notwithstanding that the aforesaid
Edmund Earl of Cornwall was his brother-in-law, having married his
sister Margaret ; and the following severe penalties were claimed in
consequence, viz. : 10,000, for "the manifest contempt and disparagement
"of our Lord the King;" 1,000 to the Abbot of the aforesaid church, for
damage done to his exemption by the Court of Rome from the jurisdiction
of Archbishops or Bishops besides some compensation, not stated, to the
;
seneschal and marshal, for the " "
manifest prejudice of their office ; and
in conclusion, "5,000 to the aforesaid Earl for damage done to him."
Bogo and the Prior appeared before the court, acknowledged their fault,
pleaded their "ignorance that the place was exempt," and threw themselves
upon the King's mercy. They were forthwith committed to the Tower, to
be kept in custody at the King's pleasure ; but (as we may easily conjecture)
with a short term of " durance vile," and by the payment of a mitigated
fine, so powerful and influential a personage as Bogo de Clare soon
escaped this little difficulty.
But he does not appear to have been able to keep himself or his
household out of hot water. In Hilary term, 21 Edward I., we find him
again before the court, being attached to answer to one John de Valeys,
"
clerk, concerning this, viz., that when the said John, upon Sunday in
" the feast of Trinity last past, in the peace of our Lord the King, and on
"the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury, had entered the house of the
" aforesaid Bogo in the city of London, and then and there had brought
" down some letters of citation to be served, certain of the family of the
" aforesaid Bogo did cause the said John, by force and against his will,
"to eat the same letters and the seals appended thereto; and then and
" there did imprison, and beat and evilly intreat him, against the peace
"of our Lord the King, and to the damage of the said John of 20, and
"also in contempt of our Lord the King of 1,000." To this
Bogo
pleaded that only a general complaint had been laid of his family, and
no distinct individuals named, as is wont. De Valeys being interrogated
" if the said Bogo either did or instruct any trespass ? "
replied in the