A HISTORY OF NORFOLK armed force on account of a suit between his brother Henry and Walter de Bermyngham and others.^ Considering how closely the Segraves themselves were allied to the law it is a suggestive commentary on its administration when we find that a member of that family should think it necessary to take an armed force to a trial, whether to see fair play or to intimidate an opponent. In I 3 I 2 Norfolk " had a good deal to do with the commissariat of the Scotch war, for we find that the sheriff was directed to provide wheat, malt, &c., to be sent up to Perth, and to provide without delay ' loo quarters of wheat, 200 quarters of oats, 100 quarters of peas and beans, 100 bacon-pigs, 10 lasts of herrings, 6,000 stockfish, and 200 quarters of salt,' and to send them to Berwick at once.^ This w'as soon followed by an order to cause 500 foot-soldiers to be chosen and sent to London, so that they may be there fitly and well armed, ready to do what shall be then enjoined upon them.* In 1312a system of terrorism seems to have prevailed at Norwich, and a complaint was made that John de Lugham, Roger M arch e, William Marche and others assaulted the citizens and men of the city and those who resorted thither on business, and did not suffer the citizens to leave their houses unless they paid fines for doing so, and also threatened the bailiffs so that they were afraid to preserve the peace, and foreign merchants and others who were accustomed to resort to the city with their wares and other goods for sale had ceased to do so. A commission was accordingly sent down to inquire into the matter.* It is possible that this may be the first of the risings against the foreign merchants of which we shall read later. In I 3 17, probably in consequence of the quarrel impending between the earl of Lancaster and the earl of Warenne, a tournament which had been arranged to take place at Thetford was prohibited.* The ill feeling between the barons may also have been the cause of the prohibition of another tour- nament at Edgefield^ in 13 19, for de Roscelin, the lord of this place, was on the barons' side, and probably the tournament was meant as a political gathering. Again, in 1321 the king forbade several Norfolk men to hold conventicles, associations, &c., and among others Thomas Bardolf, Richard de Plaiz, John de Thorp, Robert de Morle, John de Bottetourte, Henry Tyes, John de Clavering, and in the same year sent down commissions to oppose any who should make insurrections — that to Norfolk being directed to John Haward.* The earl of Lancaster in his unsuccessful rebellion in 1322 had many adherents in the county, as appears from various entries in the Close Rolls relating to their subsequent pardon and the restoration of their lands.' ' Close, 4 Edw. II, m. 6 d. ' Yarmouth especially contributed towards the expense of the wars not only in this but in the previous reign, for an entry on the Close Roll, 6 Edw. II, mentions not only a loan of loo marks but ^1,760 arrears of wages of men sent to Gascony, and £jSo for wages of sailors, &c. in the Scotch war. ' Close, 6 Edw. II, m. 3. ' Ibid. m. 29 <j'. ' Pat. 6 Edw. II, m. I4</. A similar complaint, three years later, touching alleged conspiracies and confederacies and the maladministration of justice in Norfolk and Suffolk, will be found on the Pat. Roll 8 Edw. II, m. 25 a'. as will specific charges against the stewards and bailiffs of the honour of Clare. Ibid. m. 1412'.
- Close, 10 Edw. II, m. i8<3'. ' Pat. 13 Edw. II, m. 30. ® Close, 15 Edw. II, m. 23 t/.
' The chief were : Roger Bigod, Robert de Walkfare {Ca/. Close, 1318-23, 580), Robert dc Bures (ibid. 573)1 Sir John de Waterville (ibid. 602), Hugh le Despenser, jun. (ibid. 1327-30, 39), Thomas Roscelyn of Edgefield (ibid. 309), while Thomas de Thornham and others of his adherents escaped in I 33 I from Norwich Castle (Cd. Pat. 1330-4, 97, 177). The chief loral royalists were William Bardolf, John de Burgh, Hamon I'Estrange, William de Say, John de Vaux, John de Bolcmer, Simon de Halle, and Walter de Merton. 480
