Percy–Neville feud
[1] The King and the Duke of York do not seem to have visited Yorkshire very often, which Ralph Griffiths suggests meant that any tension would be solely between Percy and Neville.
[11] Griffiths also suggests that the single most important event to precipitate the feud was the marriage of Salisbury's second son, Thomas Neville to Maud Stanhope, the widow of Robert, Lord Willoughby.
[14] These manors had been forfeited in 1403 by the first earl of Northumberland after the failure of the Percy Rebellion against Henry IV, and Cromwell's holding them in fee-simple meant they were available to him to grant away to whomever he liked.
[18] Since only five members of the wedding party are ever named as being present by contemporary chroniclers, it is impossible to assess the strength of their force—Griffiths suggests 'their retinue must have been impressive.
Mutual fear of fighting a pitched battle meant there was little if any bloodshed, and the Nevilles were able to retreat swiftly to their stronghold in Sheriff Hutton.
This view has been suggested after studying the Kings Bench lists (now withdrawn from the public), where a number of skirmishes such as this are recorded but the only injuries or casualties found are a hen and occasionally a dog.
'[24] Another weakness of this commission, he suggests, is the fact that it was composed with a number of Neville retainers; thus displaying a clear partisanship which would have been obvious to the Percys, and further reduce their faith in the crown's ability—or desire—to achieve a fair settlement.
[25] By 27 July, says Griffiths, the situation in the north had deteriorated so badly that the crown effectively abrogated its authority in the region, by writing directly to the two earls, laying responsibility for ending the dispute on them, and instructing them to keep their sons in order.
[26] It was at this point too, that the commission of Oyer and Terminer of 12 July was reissued; this time, without the presence of the earls, and with a much larger number of lawyers,[27] 328 members included.
The reissued commission was composed of Sir William Lucy of Northamptonshire, Peter Arden, John Portyngton, and Robert Danby, the latter three being lawyers and the former an uninvolved knight.
The commission also expanded geographically into Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmorland, 'and Yorkshire generally,' as opposed to the narrow remit of just York and environs as had the first one.
It also wrote again to Salisbury and Northumberland, 'more in sorrow than in anger,' as Griffiths has phrased it, exhorting them to remember their positions of Commissioners of the Peace and also as members of the king's council.
[31] Griffiths has suggested that the crown was constrained in its attempts to suppress the law breaking because by now, the king had become incapacitated, and the council ruling in his stead were ill-able to afford alienating fellow magnates whose support might be required in government.
[32] In retaliation, Sir John Neville raided the absent Earl of Northumberland's house at Catton, in Yorkshire, and all but ruined it.
[37] On 31 October 1454 (or, according to some accounts, 1 or 2 November) Egremont, and a short while later Richard Percy were captured by Sir Thomas Neville.
It is likely that the Neville victory was made possible by the (to the Percys) treasonous flight of Peter Lound, the bailiff of their Pocklington manor, which was approximately two miles south of Stamford Bridge.
Salisbury entered into a bond with the king for 12,000 marks on behalf of his sons Thomas and John (for being the principal Neville players).
