A HISTORY OF SUFFOLK 



of Lewes (1264). The next year most of these were in sanctuary at 

 St. Edmund's or in the Isle of Ely. After the taking of Kenilworth the 

 Disinherited dispersed, and a large body of them took refuge in the Fens. 

 They drew their supplies from Suffolk, ravaged the county generally, and 

 brought the fruits of their excursions to Bury for sale, the burgesses openly 

 conniving. On 27 May, 1266, John earl of Warenne and William de 

 Valence, the king's half-brother, appeared before the town and accused the 

 abbot of conniving at the presence of the insurgents under Nicholas de Se- 

 grave. 1 The abbot threw the blame on the burghers, who, caught thus in 

 a cleft stick, had to make their peace with the king at the price of 

 200 marks, and with the abbot, who demanded >Ci°o. Next year 

 (6 February, 1267) the king arrived to hold a council at Bury, and brought 

 with him the papal legate who justified his presence by excommunicating 

 the Disinherited. They cared not a jot, and Gilbert of Clare made a 

 successful diversion in their favour towards London, so that it was not until 

 1 1 July that Prince Edward forced the isle and pardoned the defenders, a 

 considerable number of whom took the cross. 



The Hundred Rolls of Edward I give a clear view of the balance of 

 parties in the county at this time. The two Liberties were intact, but the 

 hundred of Loes was held of Ely by the earl-marshal. Sampford was in the 

 hands of Robert de UfFord, whose son later became the first earl of Suffolk ; 

 Mutford in those of Thomas de Hemgrave ; and Lothingland in John de 

 Baliol's. In the king's hands were Stowe and Hartismere, Bosmere and 

 Claydon, Blything, Wangford, and Hoxne. Gilbert, earl of Clare, practically 

 commanded the south-west corner. Aylmer de Valence held Exning. 

 The work of reducing the county to order was vigorously undertaken by 

 Edward, whose fiscal and judicial system was a clearly defined one of 

 personal responsibility on the part of collectors and judges. The county 

 suffered under the taxation, which was assessed by royal officers who had no 

 regard for the liberties. On the other hand, the unjust judge was not allowed 

 to escape. When Thomas de Weyland,'- forgetting that he was a judge of 

 the supreme court, hid the murder committed by one of his servants and 

 was chased into sanctuary at St. Edmund's, where he was sheltered by the 

 carl of Clare's friars, the king roused the county forces to hem him about 

 till he would come out and surrender, which was not for two months. In 

 1275 the knights of the shire were first summoned to Parliament for the 

 purpose of voting money. The fifteenth voted was to be collected by 

 Robert de Typetot,* the sheriff to co-operate only. Ready money was badly 

 needed, and not only by the king, almost every knight was indebted 

 to Luccan merchants or to the Jews. In 1278 the Jews and the goldsmiths, 

 who were also bankers and money-lenders, were arrested in Bury for coin- 

 clipping. They were imprisoned till they ransomed themselves. The 

 king, however, respected no liberties, and the goldsmiths (presumably 

 the Jews had paid enough) were taken from 4 Bury gaol under the very 

 nose of the abbot, to be tried in London. Bury protested and the king 

 sent the men back, but the justices in eyre finally invaded the liberty and — 

 culmination of perfidy — took the fines and brought them to the king's 



1 Florence of Wore. Chron. (Engl. Hist, foe), ii, 197. ' Ibid li, 240. 



3 Cal. of Close, 1272-9, p. 250. ' Florence of Wore. Chron. (Engl. Hist. Soc), ii, 220-1. 



168 



