Passage: Following their defeat at Stamford Bridge, the Percy brothers were arraigned before a commission of Oyer and Terminer at York. This commission bound them over for massive sums; 8,000 marks payable to Salisbury, and including fines towards his countess and sons, to a total of 16,800 marks; Griffiths describes this as Salisbury's 'reckoning' of all the damage caused him estates during the course of the feud.Griffiths has summarised the financial bonds that were intended to hold the peace together. Salisbury entered into a bond with the king for 12,000 marks on behalf of his sons Thomas and John . Conversely, Northumberland and his mother bound themselves for the same amount, ‘for all offences' against York and the Nevilles. Salisbury also agreed that Lord Egremont was to be released from the 16,800 mark bond he had been punished with in November 1454, and would also desist from taking any action against the Newgate sheriffs responsible for Egremont's escape.  Egremont himself was then obligated in bond for 4,000 marks. This would have to be paid to Salisbury if he broke the peace towards the earl and his family for the next ten years. As Griffiths put, with these bonds, it was intended that ‘the slate was wiped clean.'.
How many more marks was Lord Egremont bound for than the Percy brothers? How much money did the Percy brothers owe? What happened first: Percy brothers were arraigned or the slate was wiped clean? What happened second: Percy brothers were arraigned or the slate was wiped clean? What happened to the Percy brothers first, the defeat at Stamford Bridge, or the arraignment? Which Lord was to be released from the 16,800 mark bond? Which happened first, the defeat at Stamford Bridge, or the arraignment of the Percy brothers? Who had the least marks on them? Who let Lord Egremont out of his debt?