Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/219

 1921 ' SHIRE-HOUSE ' AND CASTLE YARD 211 of the Conqueror, as Mrs. Armitage asserts, 1 we cannot associate its * castle mound ' with the pre-Conquest meeting-place ' for the thegns of the shire '. On the other hand, Maitland could have strengthened his argument for a connexion — at least in later days — between the ' shire-house ' and the castle if he had sought for evidence in places other than Cambridge. Let us take, for instance, Norwich. Norwich, like Cambridge, had a castle mound ; it also had ' within the castle a shire-house, where the assizes for the county of Norfolk, the sessions, and the county courts are held, and at which elections of the knights of the shire. . . and of the coroners for the county ', &c. were held, and which, from Elizabeth's time, stood ' on the castle hill, adjoining to the north side of the castle ', and gave name to Schirhousyerd ' ; 2 in the third place, * the inhabitants within the liberty of the castle, which is called the castle fee ', enjoyed at Norwich franchises of a notable character. 3 Exempt from the spiritual jurisdiction of the dean of Norwich, 4 they had, in temporal matters, their own courts, held by the sheriff or by ' his constable of the said castle as deputy, as the bailiffs of Norwich held theirs for the city. These bailiffs had no jurisdiction within the castle fee. 5 In 1345 the king granted to the citizens the separate jurisdiction of the fee, but it continued to be a separate division, and to have a leet of itself, for it was not made a part of the other leets or to be within the jurisdiction or cognisance of any of the inquests of the four wards of the city, &c. 6 The grant to the citizens was opposed by the sheriff, who contended that ' Castellond, joining to the said castle ', had always been with the castle, * out of the jurisdiction of the citizens of the said city ', and that its residents paid their farm to the sheriff and attended his court and view of frankpledge. 7 The citizens retorted that the change would not be to the damage of the king, ' so, nevertheless, that the house which is called le shirehous may be exempted from the jurisdiction of the bailiffs 8 Norwich appears to present the best parallel to Cambridge, but, unless one happened to know of Kirkpatrick's work, one might not be aware of the fact. This brings me to the chief point which I here desire to illustrate. How can we combine the learning of the historical specialist 1 Op. cit. p. 115. She there cites the late Sir W. St. John Hope's 'The Norman Origin of Cambridge Castle' (Cambridge Antiq. Soc. vol. xi). 2 This was also styled Curia Comitatus. See for details, John Kirkpatrick, History of the Religious Orders and Castle of Norwich, written about 1725, ed. Dawson Turner (1845), pp. 311 ff. 3 See, for these, ibid. pp. 298 ff. 4 They had a royal free chapel for themselves « Ibid. pp. 301-2. • Ibid. p. 31 If ' Ibid. pp. 307-8. 8 Ibid. p. 310. P 2