PUBLICATIONS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 i Travrbs rrjv s\sv6epiav 
 
 VOLUME XXVI 
 
 FOR THE YEAR 1911
 
 FOUNDED 1887 
 
 TO ENCOURAGE THE STUDY AND ADVANCE THE KNOWLEDGE 
 OF THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW. 
 
 1911. 
 
 patron : 
 
 HIS MAJESTY THE KING. 
 
 president : 
 
 MR. WALTER CHARLES RENSHAW, K.C. 
 
 \[>ice*presioents : 
 
 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOYCE. 
 THE RIGHT HON. SIR R. B. FINLAY, G.C.M.G., KG. 
 
 Council : 
 
 MB. SIDNEY O. ADDY. 
 
 MB. W. PALEY BAILDON. 
 
 THE RIGHT HON. ARTHUB COHEN, 
 
 K.C. 
 THE RIGHT HON. SIB HEBBEBT H. 
 
 COZENS-HABDY, M.R. 
 DB. EDWIN FBESH FIELD. 
 SIB C. B. H. CHADWYCK-HEALEY, 
 
 K.C.B., K.C. 
 
 MB. BOYDELL HOUGHTON. 
 
 PBOPESSOB COUBTNEY S. KENNY. 
 
 SIB H. C. MAXWELL LYTE, K.C.B. 
 
 MB. R. F. NOBTON, K.C. 
 
 MB. THOMAS RAWLE. 
 
 MB. C. A. RUSSELL, K.C. 
 
 THE HON. MB. JUSTICE 
 
 WARBINGTON. 
 MB. T. CYPBIAN WILLIAMS. 
 
 THE RIGHT HON. LOBD JUSTICE FLETCHEB MOULTON. 
 literarg Directors: 
 
 THE RIGHT HON. SIB FREDERICK POLLOCK, Bart. (13 Old Square, Lincoln's Inn) 
 PROFESSOR VINOGBADOFF (Court Place, Iffley, Oxford). 
 
 fjonorarg Huoitors: 
 
 MR. J. W. CLARK, K.C. MR. HUBERT HALL. 
 
 tjonorarg Secretary: 
 
 MR. B. FOSSETT LOCK (11 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London). 
 
 fconorarg (Treasurer: 
 
 Mr. J. E. W. RIDER (8 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London).
 
 Cfje gear 
 
 VOL. VI.
 
 riUXTKD BY 
 
 spornswoonE AND co. i.in., LOX:MIN 
 
 CCLCHKSTEB AND ETON
 
 ZEAB, BOOKS OF EDWAKD II. 
 
 VOL. VI. 
 
 4 EDWAKD II, 
 
 A.D. 1310-1311 
 
 EDITED 
 FOB THE S'ELDEN SOCIETY 
 
 BY 
 
 G. J. TURNER ,G- 
 
 \A * 
 
 OF JJNCOLX'S IXN, BARRISTER- AT-LAW 
 
 c 
 
 He [Serjeant Maynard] had such a relish of the old 
 year books that he carried one in his coach to divert him 
 in travel, and said he chose it before any comedy. 
 
 ROGEK NOBTH 
 
 (Test toute la tragedie, toute la comedie humaine que 
 met en scene sous nos yeux I'histoire de nos lois. Ne 
 craignons point de le dire et de le montrer. 
 
 ALBEBT SOBEL 
 
 LONDON 
 
 BERNARD QUARITCH, 11 GRAFTON STREET, W. 
 
 1914 
 
 All rights reserred
 
 PREFACE 
 
 THIS volume contains all the reports of Hilary term and all save a few 
 of those of Easter term 4 Edw. II. In almost every instance the report 
 has been identified with the corresponding case on the record. The 
 exceptions are where the particulars in the report are inadequate for 
 the identification or where a report is misplaced and really belongs to 
 some earlier term. In the preparation of the text two new manuscripts 
 have been used, that is to say, one which was recently purchased by the 
 Trustees of the British Museum from the present owner of the Phillipps 
 Collection, the other a manuscript in the University Library at Cam- 
 bridge which had escaped the notice of our late Literary Director. More 
 use has been made of the manuscript here called Y than in previous 
 volumes of this series. It will be remembered that these reports are 
 arranged according to subject-matter, and not chronologically. A very 
 large number of them are undated, and dates can only be assigned to 
 them by identifying them with versions in other manuscripts or where, 
 as often happens, there are no other versions, by identifying them with 
 cases on the records of the Court. This has involved prolonged re- 
 search, which has materially delayed the publication of the volume. 
 It may here be noticed that this manuscript contains a considerable 
 number of reports of the first three years of the reign which have not 
 been printed. Professor Maitland was unfortunately unacquainted 
 with it when he published his first volume, and owing to absence from 
 London he was unable to make full use of it in his subsequent volumes. 
 In the present volume the variant readings of the text have been 
 printed somewhat more lavishly than in previous volumes, in order to 
 show as clearly as possible how the different manuscripts are related 
 to one another. The relation between them is of great importance in 
 the history of the Year Books, and may perhaps assist in solving some 
 of the problems of their origin and purpose. The cases are here arranged 
 according to the writs on which they are based, and not, as in the first 
 four volumes, according to the order in which they occur in one of the
 
 vi PREFACE 
 
 manuscripts. The Table of Cases at the end of the volume has been con- 
 structed exceptionally fully, and miscellaneous observations on some 
 of the cases have been introduced there. For the most part they are 
 too long for the footnotes, and would have been out of place in the 
 Introduction. Another new departure is the addition of Christian 
 names to the Index of Persons, and the insertion of a separate Index of 
 Places. It is hoped that these innovations will meet with the approval 
 of the Society generally. 
 
 Though much has already been written on the origin of the Year 
 Books and the question of their official character, the Introduction is 
 v largely concerned with this subject. It has been used to put forward 
 a new theory, which may be called the ' Pamphlet ' theory, of the origin 
 of the Year Books as we know them. It would be absurd to expect that 
 it will commend itself to all the members of the Society ; but it may 
 be hoped that the hitherto unnoticed letters patent by which James I. 
 (acting on his well-known writ of Privy Seal published by Eymer) 
 appointed two official reporters, the reference to the Abridgement pro- 
 duced by 'Lincoln's Inn Labour,' and several other notes and documents, 
 may be found useful by legal historians. The history of the manu- 
 scripts, which also occurs in the Introduction, and the particulars of the 
 quires and folios which are printed in Appendix L, relate to the whole 
 series and not to this volume especially. The particulars of the quires 
 may be of little interest to the reader, but to the editors of subsequent 
 volumes they may prove to be of service. 
 
 In the first section of the Introduction I have developed some sug- 
 gestions made by Mr. W. S. Holds worth in his History of English Law, 
 and I have found Mr. Soule's little known but valuable article on the 
 ' Bibliography of the Year Books,' published some years ago in the 
 Harvard Law Review, of assistance. I am indebted to the Eight 
 Honourable Sir Frederick Pollock, one of our Literary Directors, for 
 reading part of the proof sheets and drawing my attention to various 
 errors ; and to Mr. E. F. Norton, K.C., for some useful suggestions 
 with regard to the first section of the Introduction. I have also to 
 thank Mr. D. T. B. Wood and Mr. E. Flower, of the Manuscript 
 Department at the British Museum, for their assistance in the work 
 of constructing the first Appendix. 
 
 G. J. TURNER.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS viii 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 1. THE ORIGIN OP THE YEAR BOOKS ix 
 
 2. THE ABRIDGEMENTS xxix 
 
 3. THE MANUSCRIPTS AND THEIR OWNERS . . . . ' . . xxxvi 
 
 4. THE RELATIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS TO ONE ANOTHER . . Ixii 
 
 APPENDIX I. : PARTICULARS OF THE QUIRES AND FOLIOS OF THE 
 
 MANUSCRIPTS USED IN THIS EDITION xcvi 
 
 APPENDIX II. : ADDITIONAL CASE AND NOTES ciii 
 
 LEGAL CALENDAR, 4 EDW. II civ 
 
 YEAR BOOKS. 
 
 MICHAELMAS TERM, 4 EDW. II. (continued) 1 
 
 HILARY TERM 3 
 
 EASTER TERM 137 
 
 CONCORDANCE OF THIS EDITION WITH THE OLD EDITION .... 195 
 
 CONCORDANCE OF THIS EDITION WITH FITZHERBERT'S ABRIDGEMENT . 196 
 
 TABLE OF STATUTES 196 
 
 TABLE OF THE FORMS OF ACTION 197 
 
 TABLE OF CASES . 198 
 
 INDEX OF MATTERS 213 
 
 INDEX OF PERSONS 221 
 
 INDEX OF PLACES 227
 
 LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 A. Cambridge University Library, Ff. 3, 12 
 
 B. British Museum, Additional MS. 35094 
 
 C. British Museum, Additional MS. 37658 
 
 D. Lincoln's Inn Library, MS. 139 
 
 G. Cambridge University Library, Gg. 5, 20 
 
 L. British Museum, Additional MS. 25183 
 
 M. Cambridge University Library, Ff. 2, 12 
 
 P. British Museum, Harleian MS. 835 
 
 Q. British Museum, Hargrave MS. 210 
 
 R. Cambridge University Library, Dd. 9, 64 
 
 S. British Museum, Harleian MS. 1062 
 
 T. British Museum, Harleian MS. 3639 
 
 X. Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 13 
 
 Y. British Museum, Additional MS. 35116 
 
 Z. Lincoln's Inn Library, MS. 137 (2)
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 1. The Origin of the Year Books. 
 
 2. The Abridgements. 
 
 3. The Manuscripts and their Owners. 
 
 4. The Relations of the Manuscripts to one another. 
 
 1. THE ORIGIN OF THE YEAR BOOKS. 
 
 Few of the many topics which the late P. W. Maitland discussed 
 in the introductions to the first three volumes of this series have aroused 
 more interest than the Origin of the Year Books. In his opinion they had 
 as their primary object instruction for pleaders rather than the authorita- 
 tive fixation of points of substantive law. 1 He saw in them the out- 
 come of private enterprise, and could not believe that they were in any 
 sense official. They, or rather the earliest of them, seemed to him to 
 be students' notebooks and nothing more. 2 Of late a rather wider 
 application has, perhaps, been given to Maitland's opinion than his 
 own words will warrant, for he expressly declared that his belief related 
 to * the earliest of them,' and that he would not speak ' of an age that 
 he had not observed.' 3 The tune has now come when an attempt 
 should be made to study the origin of the Year Books in the light of 
 their later history. There is probably no period in their development 
 which cannot contribute something of importance to the elucidation 
 of the subject. Some among us may think that the wisest method 
 of proceeding would be to endeavour to ascertain the conditions under 
 which the Year Books were produced in their last, and perhaps their 
 best-known, days, and then to work backwards step by step. Such 
 an investigation would be long, laborious, and in this volume alto- 
 gether impossible. All that can be attempted here is to collect a few 
 notes, to discuss a few problems, and to suggest a few directions in 
 which further research may usefully proceed. 
 
 The older opinion that the Year Books were in some sense official 
 rested primarily on certain words of Edmond Plowden, who published 
 
 1 Tear Book Series, vol. L p. xiv. - Ibidem, vol. iii. p. xii. 
 
 3 Ibidem.
 
 X INTRODUCTION 
 
 his ' Commentaries or Reports of the Reigns of Edward VI., Mary, 
 Philip and Mary, and Elizabeth ' in the year 1571, and died fourteen 
 years later at the age of sixty-seven. They have been translated as 
 follows : 
 
 The first, for that in olde tyme (as I haue of credyt herde) there were f ower 
 reporters of our cases of Lawe, which were chosen men, and had an yerely 
 stipende for their trauaile therein payd by the Kinge of this Realme, and they 
 conferred al together at the making and setting forth the report. And their 
 report, for the numbre of the reporters, and their approued learning caried 
 great credit, as justly it deserued. 1 
 
 Plowden's Commentaries have always enjoyed a high reputation 
 for accuracy, and his own integrity has never been impeached. We 
 should not assume that he invented the story, which he declares that 
 he ' heard on good authority,' merely because at first sight it appears 
 irriprobable. Admitted to the Middle Temple in 1538, he spent his 
 early years at the Bar in taking notes of cases. He soon acquired a 
 large practice ; in due course he held the offices of reader, double 
 reader and treasurer of his Inn, and in 1558 was called to the degree 
 of serjeant-at-law. 2 His habit of note-taking would have interested 
 him in the history of the Year Books and the question of their author- 
 ship. His position at the Bar and in his Inn was such that he could 
 have learnt all that ancient tradition had to say on these subjects ; 
 and it may be that he had before him written evidence unknown to us 
 in corroboration of tradition, such, for instance, as memoranda on the 
 fly leaves and margins of manuscripts which have long since perished 
 or disappeared. Moreover, when Plowden entered the Middle Temple 
 in 1538 the Year Books were no mere relics of a distant past. Two 
 years earlier men were certainly engaged in their compilation, and it 
 
 ^J^L was not until 1548, ten years after Plowden entered the Middle Temple, 
 
 .vjjn^- that the Year Books for 13-14, 18, 26, 27 Henry VIII. were printed 
 
 and published. True it is that the long gaps in this series might suggest 
 
 that law reporting was at a low ebb in the reign of Henry VIII., but 
 
 none the less it is clear that Plowden, the young note-taker, can scarcely 
 
 have failed to know personally some of the older reporters. And it 
 
 .. -. must not be assumed that no reports were compiled in those years 
 
 > J. l Prologue to the edition of 1578. les reporters et lour approbate scauoire 
 
 .fp ,. I5l Plowden's own words are : port graund credite, come il de droit 
 
 Ilz y auoient quater Reporters del merite. 
 
 I^.W nostre cases del ley, queux fueront - The writ, dated 27 October 1558, 
 
 homes eslieu & auoyent vn annuall by which he was created Serjeant, abated 
 
 stipend pur lour trauayl en ceo, pay par by the death of Queen Mary before t 
 
 le roy de cest Realme, et ils conferront was returnable and was not renewed 
 
 ensemble al fesance et produiment de le by Queen Elizabeth. As to these facts 
 
 report Et lour report, pur le number de see Dictionary of National Biography.
 
 INTRODUCTION xi 
 
 which are unrepresented in the printed Year Books, or that reporting 
 suddenly ceased in the year 27 Henry VIII., with which the printed 
 Year Books end. Numerous MSS. in the libraries of the British Museum 
 and Lincoln's Inn show that reporting was still being carried on, though 
 somewhat intermittently, throughout the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, 
 and Elizabeth. Some day these reports will be examined critically, 
 and we shall be able to appreciate their value more definitely. In the 
 meantime we shall do well to remember that the printing of a report 
 was a monetary speculation, and that it was probably due to commercial 
 reasons rather than to professional inefficiency that many of the years 
 of Henry VIII. are unrepresented in the Year Book series, and that 
 few of the reports of the sixteenth century have been printed at all. 
 
 Next we may notice that the tradition which Plowden mentioned 
 was officially accepted some thirty years after his death when James L, 
 by a writ of privy seal dated 24 October 1617, provided for the appoint- 
 ment of two law-reporters at an annual stipend of E100. 1 In a recital 
 in this writ he is made to say : 
 
 In regard whereof we have thought good to revive and renew the auncient 
 custom of appointing some grave and lerned lawyers to attende our courts 
 at Westminster for the reporting of the judgements and resolutions of lawe 
 which there shall passe from time to time, whose duty wee intende to be to 
 report (though compendiousle yet truly and narrativelie) that which passeth 
 according to the auncient manner. 
 
 Some years earlier, Francis Bacon, when attorney-general, had 
 urged the king to appoint such reporters, and in a letter to him had 
 stated : 
 
 But to give perfection to this work his Majesty may be pleased to restore 
 the ancient use of Reporters, which in former times were persons of great 
 learning, which did attend the Courts at Westminster, and did carefully and 
 faithfully receive the Rules and Judicial Resolutions given in the King's 
 Courts, and had stipends of the Crown for the same ; which worthy institu- 
 tion by neglect of time hath been discontinued. 2 
 
 It may be objected that Bacon merely repeats here what he had 
 read in the preface to Plowden's Commentaries ; but even so the 
 
 1 Patent Roll, No. 2147, entry 2. Records. There are six names whereof 
 
 This writ is printed in Rymer's Foedera, three only may suffice according to the 
 
 vol. xvii. p. 27, and also in Spedding's three Principal Courts of law, . . . Mr. 
 
 edition, vol. xiii. p. 264. Whitlock, Mr. Noie, Mr. Hedley, Mr. 
 
 Spedding's edition, vol. xii. p. 86. Hackwell, Mr. Courtman, Mr. Robert 
 
 'The persons following may be Hill' (Ibidem). Hedley is the same 
 
 thought on, as men not overwrought person as Hetley, who became an official 
 
 with practice, and yet learned and dili- reporter (p. xix below), 
 gent, and conversant in Reports and
 
 x ii INTRODUCTION 
 
 repetition of the statement 1 by such an exalted and well-instructed 
 person is in itself testimony in favour of its correctness. Few men of 
 his period had better opportunities than Bacon of forming a well- 
 considered opinion on the subject. He was sufficiently interested in 
 history to write a life of Henry VII., and presumably he knew what 
 value to attach to tradition. He was the son of a Lord Keeper of the 
 Great Seal, who was born in the year of the accession of Henry VIII. 
 and lived till late in the reign of Elizabeth. As a young man he was 
 brought in contact with ' grave and learned men ' who had sought 
 his father's favour. Finally, he was so keenly interested in law report- 
 ing, and so firmly persuaded of the need of an official series of reports, 
 that when he became Chancellor he persuaded the king to take steps 
 for the appointment of salaried reporters with well-defined duties. 
 
 Let us now turn from Bacon to his great rival, Sir Edward Coke, 
 in order that we may learn what he has to say about the Year Books. 
 Born in 1552, he was admitted to the Inner Temple in 1572, and called 
 to the Bar just six years afterwards. In 1593 he became attorney- 
 general, and in 1600 began to publish his famous Reports. Thus he 
 was Bacon's senior, both in age and standing at the Bar ; and he 
 was Plowden's junior by little more than a generation. Like Bacon 
 he agreed with Plowden about the four reporters having been appointed 
 by the king. He refers to them in the Preface to the third part of his 
 Reports, which was published in 1602 : 
 
 The Kings of this realme, that is to say, Ed. 3, Hen. 4, Hen. 5, 
 Hen. 6, Ed. 4, Ric. 3, and Hen. 7, did select and appoint foure discreet 
 and learned professors of Law to report the judgements and opinions of 
 the reuerend judges as well for resoluing of such doubts and questions wherein 
 there was . . . diuersitie of opinions, as also for the true and genuine sence 
 and construction of such Statutes and Actes of Parliament, as were from time 
 to time made and enacted. 
 
 We might infer from this passage, in which he omits the reigns of 
 Edward I., Edward II. and Richard II., that he had made no special 
 study of the manuscripts of the Year Books, and that his knowledge 
 of them, though undoubtedly considerable, was confined to those 
 which were printed when he wrote his own Reports. This inference 
 
 1 It should be noticed that William exist. He was about seventeen years 
 
 Fleetwood, whose Table to Plowden's younger than Plowden, whom he sur- 
 
 Reports appeared in the edition of 1578, vived nine years. If, then, Bacon was 
 
 is likely to have been acquainted with the acquainted with Fleetwood, he enjoyed 
 
 Bacons, for at one time he lived at Bacon opportunities of hearing what one of 
 
 House, in Foster Lane. (Diet. Nat. Biog. Plowden's contemporaries (who was him- 
 
 xix. 268.) He possessed manuscript self interested in law reporting) thought 
 
 Year Books of which at least two still about Plowden's famous statement.
 
 INTRODUCTION xiii 
 
 receives some confirmation from the fact that he elsewhere states! 
 that the Year Books began with Edward III., and so plainly shows I 
 that he was either unacquainted with the Year Books of Edward II., 
 which were still in MS., or that he thought that they were reports of a 
 special character. He observes in the Preface to the third part of his 
 Keports : 
 
 And the reason that the former Reports were in the French tongue was 
 for that they begun in the raigne of king Edw. the third. 
 
 Coke also omits the reign of Henry VIII. in the first of the two 
 passages just quoted ; but this is because he thought that the reports 
 of that reign were not compiled by the same class of reporters as those 
 of the earlier Year Books. He gives his reasons for this opinion in a 
 subsequent passage in the same Preface : 
 
 But to retourn again to these graue and learned Reporters of the Lawes 
 in former times, who as I take it. about the end of the raigne of Hen. the 7 
 ceased ; between which and the cases reported in the raigne of Hen. 
 the 8 you may obserue no small difference. So as about the end of the 
 raigne of Hen. the 7 it was thought by the Sages of the law that at that time 
 the Reports of the Law were sufficient ; wherefore it may seeme both un- 
 necessary and unprofitable to haue any more reports of the law, but the same 
 causes that moued the former doe require also to haue some more added 
 unto them. 
 
 We have here not merely Coke's opinion that the system of law 
 reporting described by Plowden prevailed until the end of the reign of 
 Henry VII. , but also the interesting statement that he could distinguish 
 a change in the manner of reporting dating from that time. Un- 
 fortunately he has not explained what he considered to be the chief 
 features of the new manner. Possibly one of them is the occasional 
 introduction of the personal opinion of the reporters, which is not often 
 found in the Year Books of earlier reigns than that of Henry VII. Ob- 
 viously a reporter who speaks for himself cannot have flourished in the 
 days described by Plowden, when there were four reporters who con- 
 ferred together in the making and producing of the reports. Elsewhere 
 Coke describes the difference between the method of citation which 
 prevailed in his day and that of some unspecified earlier period. But 
 this particular change which he describes was probably not one of the 
 features of the new manner of reporting which he noticed in the reign 
 of Henry VIII. Coke's words l are as follows : 
 
 1 Prologue to the tenth part (in uocamus prorsus immutatur. (1) li uix 
 
 Latin and English). The Latin text of unquam librum uel authoritatem nomi- 
 
 this passage is as follows : natim produxerunt, ut uidere est in 4O 
 
 Ahtiquus ille argument andi mos ad Ed. 3, &c. sed Est tenus <fec., uel simile, 
 
 septum curiae per Seruientes ad legem qui modus est in quaestionibus argu- 
 
 et luria consul tos quos Apprenticios endis (quas uocamus Moots a le barre}
 
 XIV INTRODUCTION 
 
 The ancient order of arguments by our seriants and apprentices of law at 
 the bar is altogether altered. 1. They neuer cited any booke case or authoritie 
 in particular, as is holden in 40 Ed. 3., etc., but ' est tenuz ou agree in 
 nostre liures ou est tenus ou adiuge in termes ', or such like, which order yet 
 remaines in moots at the bar in the Inner Temple to this day. 2. Then was 
 the citing generall, but alwaies true in the particular ; & now the citing is 
 particular, and the matter many times mistaken in generall. 
 
 This is vague and not very illuminating ; but we may notice that 
 in the reigns of Henry VII. and Henry VIII. there are many refer- 
 ences to earlier Year Books under the designation of ' livres.' Ap* 
 parently men were beginning to treat them more and more as works of 
 authority, and to look upon them less and less as books for the in- 
 struction of students. In 27 Henry VIII. an apprentice says in the 
 course of his speech : 
 
 (a) In anciens ans et livres est nul mencion fait d'ascun ' use ' et si ascun 
 ' use ' avoit este al common ley il vouloit aver este specific in anciens livres de 
 nostre ley. 1 
 
 It is the judges, however, who refer to the Year Books the most 
 frequently : 
 
 (6) Fitz. Ceo est par cause qe le jurie est pris al barre ; et encontre 
 vostre livre jeo puis moustrer a vous 4 livres adjugez le contrary. 2 
 
 (c) Jenour Prenotary. Et jeo puis moustrer a vous un precedent pur ceo. 
 Fitz. dit que il purra moustrer moults livres com il ad dit. 
 
 Et puis a auter jour Jenour moustra son livre a Fitz. Et come Jenour 
 dit a moy Fitzh dit . . . 3 
 
 (d) Et un dit a luy que cest cas est en mesme le report de anno 12 du roy 
 qe ore est. 
 
 Fitz. Mettez cest cas hors de vostre livres, car il n'est ley sanz doubt. 4 
 
 (e) Et plusours apprentis arguerent all contrary. Fitz. La ley est clere 
 in cest point et jeo puis moustrer a vous divers livrez adjugez in cest point 
 come j'ay dit. 5 
 
 In another case the reporter expresses his own views on the subject 
 under discussion : 
 
 (/) Et puis les justices furent in purpos a doner jugement pur les hsirs 
 generals, pur ceo que est trove pur eux par verdit. Et coment ils avoient 
 livre il voloient aviser. Quod nota bene, quia novel cas. 6 
 
 in interior! Templo hue usque retinetur. took part in the discussions in Court. 
 
 (2) Eo temporis annotatio fuit generalis, 4 Ibidem, Trinity, p. 23, case 21. 
 
 uera autem semper in particular! ; * Ibidem, p. 28, case 14. Fitzher- 
 
 hodie, e contra, annotatio est particu- berd often speaks as though he had many 
 
 laris, multocies uero abs re in generali. Year Books in his possession. 
 
 1 27 Henry VIII. Easter, p. 9, case 22. B 21 Henry VII. p. 36, case 44. 
 
 2 Ibidem, Easter, p. 1, case 2. For similar cases see Trinity 1 Ed. V. 
 
 3 Ibidem. See also Jenour's remark, case 6, p. 4, Mich. 1 Hie. III. case 2, 
 ibidem, p. 5, case 14. He frequently p. 4.
 
 INTRODUCTION XV 
 
 But although these and similar passages give vague references to the 
 Year Books, and not to specific cases, it is not improbable that specific 
 cases were sometimes cited in court. We can scarcely doubt that 
 when a judge or counsel said that he had authority in the Year Books 
 for a proposition he forthwith read to the court the case on which he 
 relied. The reporter gives no particulars of the case cited for the 
 simple reason that, the Year Books being for the most part still un- 
 printed, and the foliation differing with the manuscripts, a particular 
 citation would have been useless. 
 
 And here it must be noticed that all these vague references to earlier 
 reports occur in the reigns of Henry VII. and Henry VIII. Similar 
 references are very seldom to be found in the Year Books of Edward II. 
 It is true that in the Year Books of that reign a case or a precedent 
 is sometimes mentioned, but it is cited not by a vague reference to a 
 report but by an appeal to the memory. The counsel or judge who 
 cites it supposes that all present will remember the case or decision. 
 It was evidently not until Tudor times that the Year Books came to be 
 looked upon as a source of authority for the court ; and even then 
 they seem to have been cited very tentatively. There can be little 
 doubt, however, that the change in the manner of citation to which 
 Coke refers was the change from the vague manner of citation adopted 
 by the reporters of the early Tudor period, and the citation by precise 
 references to which the lawyers of the early Stuart period were ac- 
 customed. But this change cannot be the ' no small difference ' which 
 Coke observed between the reports of the reign of Henry VII. and 
 Henry VIII., for the vague citation may be noticed in the reign of 
 Henry VII. and the precise citation with which Coke was familiar 
 had not begun in the reign of Henry VIII. 
 
 But although Coke's statement that in the ancient order of argu- 
 ment ' they never cited any book cases or authority in particular,' 
 need present little difficulty to us, the English words ' as is holden in 
 40 Ed. 3 ' with which he continues his sentence certainly suggest a 
 judicial decision on the manner of citation, and no such decision is 
 to be found. It is obvious, however, that they are a very unsatis- 
 factory translation of the Latin ' ut uidere est in 40 E. 3.' 
 
 It is remarkable that the reports of the year 40 Edward III. as 
 printed by Tottel in 1555, and as subsequently reprinted, differ in an 
 important respect from those of other years of Edward III. They 
 contain, and the reports of no other year of this reign contain, a large 
 number of references to other reports, and these, unlike the references 
 in the Year Books of Henry VII., and more especially of Henry VIII.. 
 are for the most part specific. But the reports for the eleven years
 
 XVI INTRODUCTION 
 
 40-50 Edward III. were printed for the first time between the years 
 1518 and 1520 by Pynson, each year being separately foliated, so 
 that each year could probably be obtained as a separate part. Now, 
 Pynson's text of these reports contains no references to other Year 
 Books. Such references appear for the first time in Tottel's reprint 
 published in 1555, and then only in the reports of 40 Edward III. 
 Nearly all of them occur at the end of the cases, but a few of them may 
 be noticed at the end of speeches. Apparently they are the work of some 
 Tudor lawyer who annotated his copy of Pynson's printed text of the 
 year 40 Edward III. ; and it was from this annotated copy that Tottel 
 printed his text in 1555. Thus, there is no real resemblance in point of 
 citation between the Year Books of Henry VII. and Henry VIII., and 
 the Year Book of 40 Edward III. as originally printed ; and if Coke 
 thought that there was, he deceived himself. 
 
 The most conspicuous example of a vague citation in the annotation 
 of the reports of 40 Edward III. is : 
 
 11 est ten us en nostre livers que tenant a volunt avera ayde de son lessour. ' 
 
 As a general rule, however, the references are given to particular 
 folios of printed texts of the Year Books : 
 
 Et anno 37 Hen. VI. fol. 2. Et anno 21 Ed. fol. 20. Horewood ad 
 vouche cest liver etc. 2 
 
 Et pur le darrein matter mon seignior Fitz Herbert ad vouche le liver de 
 37 Hen. fol. 38. 3 
 
 Mes uide M. 3 E. 4 fol. 12 on cest liver e auters sont vouches. 4 
 
 The unknown annotator of the year 1555 lived, so it would seem, 
 at a time when the old manner of citation was rapidly giving place 
 to the new. 
 
 But however ambiguous Coke's account may be of the change in the 
 manner of reporting which he noticed at the beginning of the reign of 
 Henry VIII., he has emphatically recorded his belief that until then 
 four grave and learned reporters were appointed from time to time by 
 the king. This is important ; for when we find that Plowden's story 
 of four reporters who were paid by the king was accepted by Coke as 
 well as by Bacon, we can scarcely reject it as worthless. There is 
 at least a presumption that in some former age there was an organised 
 system of law reporting 5 under official patronage, even if the reporters 
 were not always four in number, and were not directly appointed and 
 
 1 Year Book, 40 Ed. III., edition of * Ibidem, Mich., p. 37, case 10. 
 
 1675, Trin., p. 31, case 12. 5 This also seems to be Mr. W. S. 
 
 3 Ibidem, Hilary, p. 12, case 26. Holdsworth's opinion (Hist, of English 
 
 3 Ibidem, Easter, p. 24, case 25. Law, ii. p. 456).
 
 INTRODUCTION Xvii 
 
 paid by the king. We should look to the general purport of Plowden's 
 statement rather than to the exact words in which it is couched. 
 
 Those who hold that the Year Books were in no sense official main- 
 tain that Plowden's statement is inaccurate in detail and untrue in sub- 
 stance. Their criticism turns chiefly upon four points. First they say 
 that if the reporters were appointed and paid by the king some record 
 would be preserved of their appointment, whereas none has yet been 
 discovered. In point of fact Plowden's statement is that they were paid 
 by the king, and not that they were appointed as well as paid by him. 
 But even if it be admitted for the sake of argument that a royal payment 
 implies a royal appointment, the fact that well-indexed calendars of the 
 patent rolls from the reign of Edward I. to that of Eichard III., and also 
 for the reign of Henry VIII., have been printed, published and much 
 studied constitutes no valid objection to the possibility of the reporters 
 having been appointed by the king, for many royal appointments were 
 not made by letters patent. The Lord Chief Justice of the King's 
 Bench, for instance, was appointed by writ, and appointments by writ 
 were not regularly recorded upon the patent rolls, nor of necessity upon 
 any of the rolls of the chancery. We may search in vain for any 
 trace of the writs by which the serjeants-at-law were created in the 
 thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. We know, however, from Sir 
 John Fortescue's ' De Laudibus Legum Angliae,' 1 that in the reign of 
 Henry VI. the Chief Justice of the Common Bench by the counsel of all 
 the Justices chose seven or eight persons and presented their names to 
 the Chancellor in writing, and he by virtue of the king's writ directed 
 that they should come before him on a certain day to take upon them 
 the degree and estate of serjeant-at-law. It is therefore possible that 
 the reporters, like the early Serjeants, were appointed by unenrolled 
 writs ; but it is also possible that they were appointed in the name of 
 the king without writ by the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Bench. 
 
 The second objection is that no record has yet been noticed of the 
 payment of an annual stipend to any one of the compilers of the Year 
 Books. But here, again, we cannot assume that such payments were 
 never made merely because they have not been noticed. The Issue 
 Eolls of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, on which we might most 
 reasonably expect to find them, are bulky, unindexed and not much 
 consulted. From the end of the reign of Edward IV. until the ninth 
 year of Elizabeth there are no Issue Rolls, but research upon the Tellers' 
 Eolls, which in some respects take their place, is subject to the same 
 difficulties as regards size and indices ; and they have been less often 
 consulted than the Issue Eolls. Moreover, many entries of annual pay- 
 
 1 Chapter 50 and p. 117 r in the edition of the year 1616. 
 VOL. vi. a
 
 XVlll INTRODUCTION 
 
 ments found on these rolls afford no indication of the services rendered 
 by those to whom they were made. 1 This second objection, therefore, 
 carries little conviction, especially with reference to the later period of 
 the Year Books, when the rolls were becoming inconveniently bulky. 
 In any case there is no occasion for assuming that Plowden's words repre- 
 sent facts with absolute accuracy. When he says that he has heard 
 that four reporters had received an ' annual stipend for their labour . . . 
 paid them by the king ' the truth may be that certain favoured reporters 
 had temporarily received some remuneration from a public source with 
 the king's approval. Such a temporary payment may have been made 
 to encourage law reporting at a time when it was difficult to find well- 
 qualified reporters. Some of the kings of England Richard III., 
 for instance 2 were sufficiently interested in legal proceedings to take 
 their seat on occasion in the King's Bench ; and it would not be 
 remarkable if one of the kings bad directed the reporters whom he saw 
 in court to supply him with copies of their reports, and had granted 
 them in return for this service annuities or stipends out of the Privy 
 Purse. If, however, any of the reporters had received salaries for their 
 labours, even for a short period only, tradition would almost certainly 
 remember the fact of the payment and forget that it had not been made 
 from time immemorial. 
 
 A third objection is that different manuscripts of the Year Books 
 often give entirely different reports of the same case ; and this obviously 
 shows that their authors were working independently of one another, 
 and not in the concerted fashion described by Plowden. But it is far 
 from certain that there were more than four or five reporters normally 
 at work in the reign of Edward II., and until the manuscripts of the 
 fifteenth and sixteenth centuries have been examined critically it cannot 
 be assumed that the reports found in the later Year Books were not the 
 work of four men who conferred together in their production. Nor is 
 there any necessary antagonism between Maitland's theory that the 
 Year Books were originally students' note-books, and Plowden's state- 
 ment to the effect that they were produced by professional reporters, for 
 the theory relates to the earliest days of the Year Books, and the state- 
 ment may relate to the early Tudor period. Young barristers and 
 students in the days of Edward I. and Edward II. may have taken 
 notes with a view to qualifying themselves by subsequent perusal and 
 study to become serjeants-at-law. There may even have been some 
 
 1 A payment to Robert Rodes' Nicholas Bacon (p. xxxix below). 
 ' apprenticius ad leges ' may be 2 Edward Foss, Judges of England 
 
 noticed (Issue Rolls, 18 Hen. VI., No. iv. 480. See also Ibidem, p. 215. 
 736, m. 9). See also the case of Sir
 
 INTRODUCTION XIX 
 
 enthusiasm for this work when it was initiated, but it is scarcely credible 
 that it was of long duration. Careful note-taking is not now, and 
 probably never has been, a popular mode of instruction. It was a dif- 
 ficult pursuit in the Middle Ages, much more difficult than it now is, in 
 an age of cheap writing material, steel pens, and above all good blotting 
 paper. The wise student would soon find that he could learn more by 
 reading good notes made by practised reporters than by writing bad 
 notes himself. In short, it is not difficult to believe that private note- 
 taking gave place to an organised system of law reporting, which may 
 in course of time have attracted royal patronage. 
 
 The last objection to Plowden's statement is that if the reports were 
 official we should expect that the originals, or at all events copies of 
 them, would be carefully preserved by officers of the court, whereas as 
 far as we are aware our manuscript Year Books always come to us from 
 private hands. A complete answer to this may be found in the fact that 
 James I. appointed two reporters by letters patent under the Great Seal 
 of England l with an annual stipend of 100 each, and yet neither the 
 originals nor copies of their reports are to be found among our public 
 records. One of these reporters was Edward Writington and the other 
 Thomas Hetley, both barristers of Gray's Inn. 2 Writington has some- 
 times been confused with Thomas Widdrington, who was Commissioner 
 of the Great Seal in 1648 and Speaker of the House of Commons in 1656. 
 Thus, on the first folio of a manuscript 3 volume of reports compiled by 
 Thomas Widdrington in the King's Bench and Kobert Paynel in the 
 Exchequer we have the following memorandum, in the handwriting of 
 Francis Hargrave : 
 
 This Widd. with Thomas Headly were the two who in Mich, term 15 Jac. by 
 Privy Seal were appointed the king's reporters of cases in all the courts of 
 Westminster. This is enrolled at the rolls. By this privy seal 4 they were 
 commanded to report the arguments at the bar, and the resolucions of the 
 Bench and to communicate their reports to the Lord Keeper and Judges for the 
 time being. For this they were each to have a salary of 100 11 - per annum, 
 and the first case they reported was the great case 5 of Burrell and Goff in cane. 
 for tithes of houses in London, and the place assigned them was at the feet 
 of the Lord Keeper Bacon who had promoted them. 
 
 1 Patent Roll, No. 2131, entries 3 MSS. 38 and 39. 
 and 4. 4 The writ of privy seal is enrolled 
 
 ' 2 Hetley was member for Hunting- on the Patent Roll. (Patent Roll, 2147, 
 
 don in the first Parliament of James I. entry 2.) This is unusual. Such a writ 
 
 and Writington was member for St. is the king's direction to the chancellor 
 
 Mawes in the Parliament which met on to prepare the letters patent, and it is 
 
 16 June 1621. Return of 1878, i. 442, 450. the letters patent, and not the writ, 
 
 3 Lansdowne MS. 1083, fol. 1. See which are usually enrolled, 
 also Ibidem, fol. 356, and Hargrave 5 Hargrave MS. 386, fol. 256 r. 
 
 a2
 
 XX INTRODUCTION 
 
 
 
 These observations were no doubt derived from a manuscript volume 
 of reports l of cases heard in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. com- 
 piled by Sir Henry Calthorpe, who for a few weeks in 1635 held the office 
 of recorder of London, and was appointed attorney-general of the court 
 of wards and liveries in January 1636. Unfortunately the French of 
 the report is so decadent and its handwriting so cramped that its correct 
 transcription is a matter of no little doubt. The following version must 
 therefore be read as a tentative copy : 
 
 Mesme eel terme un privye scale fuit direct a Mounsieur Headdleye et al 
 Mounsieur Writtington de Grayes destre les reporters del roy en toutes les 
 courtes al Westm. en qe il fuerent commandes de reporter les arguraentes de 
 serjeantes et counsaylors al barre et auxi les argumentes de judges les reso- 
 lutions de queux il fuerent de reporter et auxy lours opinions en le bref et 
 apres qe ils avoient fait un report de eux il fuerent dofrir eux as judges destre 
 lieu et donqe le Seignur Reaper pur le temps esteaunt averoit le perusall de 
 eux. Et il avoient le fee de 100 U par an done as eux severalment pur lour 
 payements, et il pristeront lour seate as feete de Seignur Keaper sur largument 
 del cas de desmys qe fut le primer cas qe il reportent. 
 
 In the MS. this note is written immediately after the report of the 
 case of Goff and Burrell, otherwise known as ' The Case concerning the 
 payment of Tythes in London.' Of this case Sir Henry Calthorpe also 
 produced an English version which will be found in his ' Eeports of 
 Speciall Cases touching severall customs and liberties of the city of 
 London ' published in January 1618. 
 
 Writington's reports were never printed, and it may be that they no 
 longer exist even in manuscript. Certain unprinted reports, however, 
 which have been attributed to Widdrington, may really have been com- 
 piled by Writington. 2 In Lincoln's Inn library there is a volume con- 
 taining 288 cases in all with the words ' Widrington's Eeports ' written on 
 its cover. It consists of reports of Michaelmas 2 James I. and the two 
 following terms, which are then followed by others of the years 17-21 
 James I. Their dates certainly suggest that they were compiled by 
 Writington rather than Widdrington ; for the latter was not admitted a 
 member of Gray's Inn until 14 February 16 James I. 3 It is certainly 
 improbable that he began to compile the years 17-21 James I. so soon 
 after his admission to Gray's Inn, and it is almost impossible that he 
 could have been the author of the reports of Mich. 2 James I. and the 
 two following terms. Moreover a note on the cover of this volume says 
 This does not seem to be the book referred to in Salk. 137 by the name 
 of Widdrington.' There would certainly have been a good reason for 
 
 1 Hargrave MS. 386, fol. 259 V. " Gray's Inn Admission Register,. 
 
 2 Coxe's MS. Ixxxi. p. 153.
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 the appointment of Writington, if he had already acquired some expe- 
 rience in reporting in the early years of the reign. His career at the 
 bar seems to have been undistinguished. He was elected reader at 
 Gray's Inn on 8 November 1622, ' and in the following February the 
 masters of the bench complained that ' Mr. Wrightington hath utterly 
 refused to reade this next Lent, and so the house is destitute of a reader.' 2 
 In the following May he was fined 100 ' for failing to read the last 
 Lent,' but the fine was reduced to 40 a month later. 3 He seems to 
 have been removed from the Bench of his Inn when the fine was 
 imposed, for in November 1637 the Pension Book records that ' Mr. 
 Wrightington, one of the counsell of Yorke, is called up to the Bench, and 
 to take his place according to his antiquity.' 4 Apparently there are no 
 reports either at the British Museum or at Lincoln's Inn Library which 
 can reasonably be supposed to have been compiled by Writington in 
 the reign of Charles I. He certainly had no share in the production of 
 the volume in the Hargrave collection with the note on its fly-leaf 
 about the official reporters, for that volume concludes with the words 
 ' Explicit annus quartus Caroli per Thomam Widdrington in Banco 
 Eegis et Eobertum Paynel in Scaccario.' 
 
 Hetley's career was rather more distinguished than Writington's. 
 He acquired, so it seems, a large practice, became a Serjeant in Michael- 
 mas term 21 James L, and was knighted a few weeks later (17 November 
 1623). Like Writington he refused to read at Gray's Inn and was 
 removed from the Bench ; but he was called there again two years 
 later ' to com when it pleaseth him.' 5 A volume of reports bearing his 
 name was published in 1657, more than twenty years after his death. 
 They extend from 3 to 8 Charles I. Although Hetley was at one time an 
 official reporter, his volume received no special recognition either from 
 the judges or from the legal profession generally. Baron Clerke, by 
 whose authority they were printed, contented himself with certifying 
 ' I conceive these reported cases may be very useful, and so fit to be 
 printed.' Nor can they have been highly esteemed by the profession, 
 for no second edition of them was published. It is not unlikely that 
 Hetley ceased to be an omcial reporter when he became a Serjeant, and 
 that the printed reports which bear his name were really entirely 
 unofficial. They relate solely to the Common Bench, in which court 
 he would as a Serjeant have been practising normally. During two of 
 the years with which they are concerned namely, 3 and 4 Charles I. 
 Thomas Widdrington was, as already stated, responsible for reports in 
 
 1 R. J. Fletcher, Pension Book of 3 Ibidem, pp. 257, 258. 
 
 Gray's Inn, vol. i. p. 251. * Ibidem, p. 329. 
 
 - Ibidem, p. 255. '> Ibidem, pp. 223, 283.
 
 xxil INTRODUCTION 
 
 the Common Bench, and Kobert Paynell for others in the Exchequer. 
 This suggests that if official reporting were discontinued soon after its 
 institution, those who were sufficiently interested in the work to report 
 unofficially, may have arranged not to compete with one another, and 
 to make their notes in different courts. 
 
 The letters patent by which Writington and Hetley were appointed 
 reporters have never been printed. Those granted to Writington read 
 as follows : 
 
 Rex omnibus ad quos etc. salutem. Cum per regalem ordinacionem 
 nostram nuper factam et sub magno sigillo nostro Anglie firmatam quam 
 etiam in curiis nostris publicari et irrotulari mandauimus ea intencione ut res 
 iudicate et acta in curia nostra prolata tradantur posteris in omne tempus 
 cum diligencia et fide constituerimus fore duos viros graues et discretos et in 
 legibus nostris solide eruditos qui res iudicatas et acta predicta de tempore in 
 tempus excipiant et perscribant prout per predict/am ordinacionem plenius 
 liquet. Nos igitur de erudicione discrecione et integritate Edwardi Writington 
 de Grayes Inne armigeri ad plenum informati et plurimum confidentes 
 assignauimus nominauimus et constituimus ac per presentes pro nobis et 
 successoribus nostris assignamus nominamus et constituimus predictum 
 Edwardum Writington unum officiarium nostrum a Commentariis Anglice 
 a Reporter ad res et acta in curiis nostris respectiue iudicata et 
 iudicanda de tempore in tempus excipienda et perscribenda Habendum et 
 tenendiim officium predictum prefato Edwardo Writington quamdiu se bene 
 gesserit in eodem. Dedimus insuper et concessimus ac per presentes pro 
 nobis heredibus et successoribus nostris damus et concedimus prefato Edwardo 
 Writington pro labore et impensis suis in predictis rebus et actis ut prefertur 
 excipiendis et perscribendis quandam annuitatem siue annuale feodum 
 centum librarum bone et legalis monete Anglie per annum Habendum 
 gaudendum percipiendum et recipiendum predictam annuitatem siue 
 annuale feodum centum librarum eidem Edwardo Writington uel assignatis 
 suis a festo sancti Michaelis Archangeli ultimo preterite ante datam presencium 
 ad duos terminos anni usuales uidelicet ad festum Annunciacionis beate 
 Marie uirginis et sancti Michaelis Archangeli per equales porciones ad Receptam 
 Scaccarii nostri Westmonasterii per manus thesaurarii subthesaurarii et 
 camerariorum scaccarii nostri predicti pro tempore existencium singulis 
 annis soluendas quamdiu se bene gesserit in officio predicto. Et ut prefatus 
 Edwardus Writington melius officium suum in ea parte exequi ualeat et 
 possit uolumus et per presentes ordinamus quod prefatus Edwardus Writing- 
 ton locum et sedem in curiis nostris predictis magis idoneum et conuenientem 
 ad res et acta predicta excipienda et perscribenda per appunctuacionem 
 cancellarii nostri siue custodis magni sigilli nostri iusticiariorum et baronum 
 nostrorum et aliorum iudicum supremorum et primariorum in curiis nostris 
 respectiue habeat et possideat. Quare mandamus et precipimus tarn predictis 
 cancellario et custodi magni sigilli nostri iusticiariis et baronibus quam 
 aliis iudicibus supremis et primariis quod in curiis nostris predictis respectiue
 
 INTRODUCTION Xxiil 
 
 sedem et locum ad eadem res et acta excipienda et perscribenda conuenientem 
 eidera Edwardo Writington appunctuent et perscribant. Et quod eidem 
 Edwardo Writington sint fauorabiliter annuentes in premissis quocies res sic 
 postulauerit sicuti qui seruicium prestat honorem et conseruacionem legum 
 regni nostri tantopere concernens et regali constitucioni nostre fundatum. 
 Volumus insuper et firmiter per presenters iniungendo precipimus et man- 
 damus omnibus et singulis officiariis et ministris earundem curiarum nostrarum 
 respectiue quod prefato Edwardo Writington sint intendentes et auxiliantes 
 secundum intencionem nostram regiam in ea parte. Eo quod expressa 
 mencio etc. In cuius rei etc. Teste rege apud Westmonasterium uicesimo 
 quinto die Octobris. 
 
 Those granted to Hetley are in the same form. No record of any 
 subsequent appointments of official reporters has yet been found. 
 Half-yearly instalments of the salaries granted by the letters patent were 
 paid as late as Michaelmas term, 17 James L, and are recorded on the 
 Issue Rolls of that year. 
 
 lacobo Hedley relatori legum de feodo suo ad centum libras per annum 
 ei debitas pro dimidio anni finito ad festum predictum ... 1 libras. 
 
 Edwardo Writington armigero relatori legum domini regis de feodo suo ad 
 centum libras per annum ei debitas pro dimidio anni finito ad festum sancti 
 Michaelis archangeli anno regni regis lacobi septimo decimo ... 1 libras. ' 
 
 The insertion of these detailed particulars in a brief introduction is 
 justified on the ground that they form an important part of the history of 
 law reporting. Anything which can be learnt about the reporters of the 
 Tudor and early Stuart period may be relevant to the history of the 
 Year Books as a continuous series ; and perhaps by such investigations 
 as these some light may be thrown upon the infancy of our reports. 
 My immediate purpose, however, has been to show that King James I. 
 actually appointed official reporters, who reported and were paid for 
 reporting, but whose work has not been preserved either in original or 
 transcript by any officer of the courts. What is true of the reporters of 
 the reign of James may be true of an earlier period, and the non-existence 
 of official copies of the Year Books cannot of itself be taken as evidence 
 that no official reporters were appointed in the fourteenth and fifteenth 
 centuries. On the other hand no positive evidence has yet been pro- 
 duced in support of Plowden's much discussed statement. From this, 
 based though it doubtless is upon tradition, we cannot deduce that 
 throughout the Middle Ages there were four reporters working in concert 
 and paid by the king. But the tradition is not likely to be wholly 
 wrong. Even if we admit that the earliest Year Books were mere 
 
 1 Issue Rolls, Pells, No. 566, rolls 19 and 20.
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 students' notebooks and entirely unofficial in character we need not 
 assume that an organised system of law reporting never prevailed in 
 the Middle Ages ; nor need we deny that there may have been a time 
 when the reporters were paid by the kings of this realm as Plowden 
 declared and others have believed. Almost certainly the conditions 
 under which the Year Books were produced varied from time to time. 
 
 This is no place for a discussion of the character of the reports in the 
 later Year Books. It is sufficient to remark that independent reports 
 of the same case are not a prominent feature of the manuscripts in 
 which they are preserved. In this respect they differ considerably 
 from the Year Books of Edward II., the various manuscripts of which 
 often appear to disclose three or more independent reports of a single 
 case. This difference, if it be established, seems to indicate an improving 
 organisation in the production of the reports. There are few more 
 hopeful sources for the history, and especially the early history, of our 
 Year Books than carefully compiled particulars of the relation of various 
 contemporary manuscripts to one another. As regards the early years 
 of the reign of Edward II. this subject is discussed in a subsequent 
 section of this Introduction. 
 
 Two theories of the authorship of the Year Books remain to be 
 noticed. First, the modern editions of Sir Edward Coke's Eeports 
 contain a marginal note opposite his well-known remark about the four 
 reporters in these words : 
 
 These four reporters I take to be those who have since been nam'd Readers , 
 and elected to that Office by the respective Inns of Court. 
 
 They appear for the first time in the anonymous edition of 1738, and 
 are repeated in George Wilson's edition of 1777. 1 Though put forward 
 as a mere conjecture in explanation of Coke's statement, they should 
 not be treated as absurd. Quite recently and in this very series Maitland 
 propounded the theory that the early Year Books had as their object 
 instruction for pleaders rather than the authoritative fixation of points 
 of substantive law. 2 His theory, supported as it is by a wealth of argu- 
 ment, has met with general approval. It is also in accordance with 
 what Sir John Fortescue stated in his De laudibus legum Angliae, 3 
 written in the middle of the fifteenth century. 
 
 Reportantur etiam ea quae in curiis regiis placitantur disputantur et 
 iudicantur ac in libros ad futurorum eruditionem rediguntur in sermone 
 semper gallico. 
 
 1 The edition of 1738 differs consider- in the Library of the British Museum, 
 ably from that of Edward Chilton, 2 See p. ix above, 
 
 published in 1697. Several of the edi- 3 c. 48 and p. Ill v in the edition 
 
 tions of the Reports are not to be found of the year 1616.
 
 
 INTRODUCTION XXV 
 
 Fortescue obviously refers to the Year Books in this passage, and 
 the context shows that by futurorum he means students. If, however, 
 the Year Books were compiled for the instruction of students it is 
 highly probable that they were used in the ordinary course of legal 
 studies in the Inns of Court. In the Tudor period these studies were 
 conducted under the supervision of Eeaders of whom two were appointed 
 in each Inn annually. Actual evidence of the Headers using the Year 
 Books is wanting. We know next to nothing of their work in the 
 fifteenth century l ; but in the sixteenth century their readings seem to 
 have become something of a formality ; their topics were then either 
 Statutes or some special branch of law. But law reporting was at a low 
 ebb in that century ; and in earlier days when the Year Books flourished, 
 the readers may have taken their office more seriously, and have given 
 definite instruction in pleading. In the Inns of Chancery they studied 
 original writs ; in the Inns of Court may they not have studied such 
 works as Nouae Narrationes and the Year Books ? It is significant that 
 two of our Year Books of Edward II. are preceded in their manuscripts 
 by the Nouae Narrationes, an obvious work of instruction. Is it im- 
 possible that a Lent reader was at one time responsible for the production, 
 either personally or by deputy, of reports for Michaelmas and Hilary 
 terms ? and may not an autumn reader have had a like responsibility 
 for Easter and Trinity terms ? If in course of time the readers or their 
 deputies became negligent in making their reports, the judges or perhaps 
 even the king might have resolved to appoint four paid reporters, who 
 would be likely to perform their work more efficiently and would so 
 preserve an established institution. 2 The marginal conjecture of the 
 anonymous editor of Coke's reports certainly deserves our gratitude 
 for it is at least highly suggestive. 
 
 Let us now turn to another theory. Mr. Luke Owen Pike, the 
 veteran editor of the Year Books of Edward III., has recently ex- 
 pressed the opinion that they may have been the unofficial work of 
 four of the more important clerks of the Common Bench. 3 His 
 great erudition and long experience in this field of research very 
 properly attracts much attention to his opinion. It is certainly 
 a fact that two of the prothonotaries of the Common Bench, 
 namely Eichard Brownlow and John Goldesborough, produced a meri- 
 torious volume of reports in the middle of the seventeenth century ; 
 
 1 The Black Books of Lincoln's Inn 2 If not responsible for the original 
 
 give no particulars of the readings report, the reader may have been ex- 
 
 during this century. We may notice, pected to collect and arrange the reports 
 
 however, what Coke says about the for the use of the students, 
 citation of Year Books in the Inner 3 Luke Owen Pike, Year Books of 
 
 Temple in the Prologue to Part X of 20 Edw. III. part 2 (No. 31 in Rolls 
 
 his reports. See p. xiv above. Series), vol. ii. p. Ixxii.
 
 XXVI INTRODUCTION 
 
 and there is no reason for doubting the capacity of their predecessors 
 in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries to do likewise. Moreover, 
 when it is objected that the clerks of the Middle Ages were interested in 
 matters of enrolment rather than of pure law, it must in fairness to 
 Mr. Pike's theory be remembered that in their eyes a large part of the 
 arguments in court related to enrolment and nothing else. Indeed, 
 a large number of cases in the early Year Books are just of the sort 
 which would especially interest the prothonotaries and their sub- 
 ordinates. It is, therefore, far from improbable that the clerks re- 
 sponsible for the enrolment of the cases took notes of the arguments in 
 court, and if so these notes may have been written in French. Never- 
 theless, if the Year Books had been written by clerks we should expect 
 that questions of enrolment would have been treated in greater detail 
 and in a more technical spirit. Now, the Year Books, taken as a whole, 
 have not the appearance of reports compiled for the instruction and 
 guidance of enrolling clerks, though in some cases they may have been 
 partly based upon their notes. It is also scarcely credible that they 
 whose interests lay in enrolment and procedure would have been 
 selected to make reports as part of their duty (for the instruction of 
 students and barristers or for the convenience of the judges and ser- 
 jeants. It is true that now and then a clerk might compile a volume 
 of reports which would pass as the work of a barrister ; but it is scarcely 
 conceivable that a long series of Year Books can have been the work 
 of the enrolling clerks without their disclosing some evidence of the 
 occupation of their authors. We may test this matter by referring to 
 the reports of Brownlow and Goldesborough which were published in 
 1651, when both men were dead. The title of the book is as follows : 
 
 Reports of diverse choice cases in law taken by those late and most 
 judicious prothonotaries of the common pleas Richard Brownlow l and John 
 Goldesborough esquires with directions how to proceed in many intricate 
 actions both reall and personall shewing the nature of those actions and the 
 practice in them ; excellently usefull for the avoyding of many errours hereto- 
 fore committed in the like proceedings ; fit for all lawyers, attorneys and 
 practisers of the law 
 
 Its contents, as the title suggests differ in form from those of an 
 ordinary volume of reports. The cases are arranged according to their 
 subject-matter instead of chronologically. The numbers of the rolls 
 on which the cases are recorded respectively are nearly always supplied, 2 
 and the reports themselves seem to be primarily based upon the records 
 
 1 Brownlow was appointed chief on 7 May 1613. (See their reports, 
 
 Prothonotary of the Common Bench p. 256.) 
 
 on 9 October 1589, and Goldesborough 2 This, however, was not a peculiarity 
 
 second Prothonotary of the same court of their reports.
 
 INTRODUCTION XXV11 
 
 and not upon the speeches of counsel and the judgments of the court. 
 Goldesborough is also the reputed author of a series of reports (published 
 in 1653) extending from April 1586 to February 1601, during which 
 period he was not a prothonotary. Though printed from a manuscript 
 in his own hand the earliest cases in the volume can scarcely have been 
 reported by Goldesborough himself, as he was not born before 1568. 
 It should be noticed, too, that the volume only purports to contain 
 cases which he had ' collected.' Similarly a volume of reports at- 
 tributed to Brownlow and extending from 7 to 11 James I., which 
 resemble other reports in form and subject-matter, purport only to 
 have been ' collected ' by him. Several reports in this volume are of 
 cases in the King's Bench, and it is improbable in any event that they 
 were the work of a presumably busy official of the Common Bench. 
 Thus, the only reports undoubtedly compiled by the prothonotaries 
 in the sixteenth century were those for which Brownlow and Goldes- 
 borough were jointly responsible, and it is significant that they differ 
 in form and character from those of other reporters. 
 
 Again, we may doubt whether Plowden would have referred to the 
 clerks of the courts, who were permanent officials, as ' chosen men,' or 
 that Sir Edward Coke, when a member of the bar, would have called 
 them ' discreet and learned professors of the law ' ; for in the seven- 
 teenth century the words ' professors of the law ' seem to have been 
 applied normally to members of the bar. If the tradition of the days 
 of Plowden and Coke had been that the ancient reporters were the 
 prothonotaries or other of the more important clerks of the courts, 
 these eminent jurists would almost certainly have described them by 
 some official designation. Nor should it be forgotten that the sugges- 
 tion of the Year Books having been compiled by the prothonotaries 
 was first made by Sir William Blackstone 1 in the year 1765, nearly two 
 centuries after the death of Plowden. Finally, the official, system of 
 reporting which Bacon endeavoured to institute was professedly based 
 upon tradition ; but the reporters whom he appointed, Writington and 
 Hetley, were barristers and not clerks or other officials of the courts. 
 
 Another suggestion which Mr. Pike has recently made needs brief 
 notice. He has observed that in the edition of the Year Books pub- 
 lished in 1678-9 there are two sets of reports of the year 21 Edw. III., 
 and that one of them concludes with the words : ' Here endith Maister 
 Horewoodes report.' He says that there can be little doubt that 
 Maister Horewood was either a clerk of the reign of Edward III. 
 or a prothonotary of the time at which the Year Book was printed. 
 He believes that in either case we have a connecting link between the 
 
 1 Commentaries, i. 71.
 
 XXVlii INTRODUCTION 
 
 Year Books and the clerks or prothonotaries of the courts. 1 Mr. Pike 
 has such a distinguished reputation as an editor and student of Year 
 Books that it will be well to draw attention to a strange mistake which 
 may, if not corrected, mislead others. The Maister Horewood, of whom 
 he speaks, is a well-known man, frequently mentioned in the edition 
 of the Year Books printed in 1678-9 ; as, for example, in the reports of 
 40 Edw. III. : 
 
 Solonque lenprent de Pinson le quel come jeo entende quant a eel case 
 est melior que le report de Horeword [sic] et le prent de Bartlet. 2 
 
 In this passage the first reference is to the edition of the Year Book 
 of 21 Edw. III., printed by Pynson in 1520 ; the second is to the edition 
 of 21 Edw. III., by Thomas Berthelet in 1527, which contained an 
 entirely different report, afterwards called ' Master Horewood's report ' : 
 while the third reference seems to be intended to amplify the second. 
 It is certain, however, that Master Horewode was not the compiler 
 of the report which bears his name, but the owner ; and that he lent 
 his manuscript of it to Berthelet in order that it might be printed. 
 In a note at the end of the report, which is not repeated in subsequent 
 editions, Berthelet refers to the loan in these words : 
 
 Etsi ille vir Guilielmus Horewod in legibus nostratibus cum primisperitus. 
 et acerrimo ingenio preditus. exemplar hums repertorii (sic vocant) ad 
 exscribendum contulit. tamen ea conditione. vti ego non excuderem. 
 nisi ille primum perlegerit atque castigaret. Verum vbi exscripsi. continue 
 inceptum imo et ferme exousum est priusquam ille vir optimus sciuit. ego 
 vt tu vides. fretus sua ingente humanitate tarn audax sum. Quam ob rem 
 haud fieri potest. quin errata mea incuria. cum in exscribendo turn in 
 imprimendo. elapsa sint. De paucis quidam generosissimus. amicus meus 
 me admonuit. de quibus etiam. ne diutius te remorentur cum ea legeres- 
 sic admonere opere precium duxi. 
 
 This language shows that Horewood was a man of considerable 
 distinction in the legal profession. There can be no doubt that he was 
 the same person as William Whorewood who succeeded Eichard Eiche 
 as solicitor-general on 13 April 1536, and John Baker as attorney- 
 general on 8 November 1540. 3 His name, though normally written 
 Whorwod or Whorwode, was sometimes spelt without its initial letter. 
 No objection can be taken to the identification, on the ground that, 
 though not a clerk, he is described as ' Maister ' in all editions of his 
 report subsequent to Berthelet's, for this prefix was often applied to 
 lawyers of eminence in the Tudor period. 
 
 1 Year Books of 20 Ed. III. Second 3 See Selden Society Publications, 
 
 Part, p. Ixxx. vol. 25, p. 227 note. 
 
 - Mich. 40 Edw. III., fol. 45, case 29.
 
 INTRODUCTION XXIX 
 
 2. THE ABRIDGEMENTS. 
 
 Towards the close of the fifteenth century a new form of literary 
 activity arose and lawyers began to compile abridgements of the Year 
 Books and Statutes. It is true that there are many manuscripts of a 
 much earlier period, such as our X, in which the reports or some of them 
 are abridged. There are also manuscripts of an earlier period, such as 
 our Z, in which the cases are arranged partly in an order professedly 
 chronological and partly according to their subject-matter that is to 
 say, according to the writs by which the cases originated. Nevertheless, 
 it is not until the middle of the fifteenth century that we meet with 
 Abridgements in the sense in which lawyers have generally understood 
 the word that is to say, collections of abridged cases arranged according 
 to their subject-matter in alphabetical order and without regard to 
 chronology. A few of them were printed : StatJiam's Abridgement, 
 Fitzherbert's Abridgement, and the Abridgement of the Book of Assizes. 
 A few still exist in manuscript, but probably many have disappeared for 
 ever. They were written at a time when paper, which is much less 
 durable than parchment, had become a popular writing material. 
 
 The compilation of abridgements seems to have led to results which 
 profoundly affected the history of the Year Books. In the first place 
 the student could gain information on special points of law much more 
 speedily from the carefully digested and well-arranged abridgements 
 than from the unindexed Year Books, many of which were scarce. If he 
 purchased an abridgement and had no ambition in legal literature the 
 old manuscripts obviously became less useful to him. He would usually 
 be satisfied with the brief statements of law which he found in the new 
 compilations. The practitioner, too, was beginning to look upon the 
 Year Books as works of authority rather than of instruction ; for it was ' 
 just in this second half of the fifteenth century that reports are first I 
 cited in court with any frequency. The new Abridgements, even while 
 still in manuscript, directed men to old and neglected volumes of reports 
 containing many cases of great legal interest. Hence when the printing 
 press found its way into England the Year Books and the Abridgements 
 were among its early productions. In the first decade of law printing, 
 namely 1480-1490, six Year Books were published that is to say, 33-37 ' 
 Henry VI. and 20 Henry VI. Then Statham's Abridgement appeared 
 about 1490, written many years earlier * and compiled entirely from 
 manuscripts. During the next thirty years, 1490-1520, Pynson and 
 others published a large number of Year Books of various reigns, 
 including the first eight years of Henry VII. and also the years 
 1 Statham died in 1472. See p. xxxiii below.
 
 XXX INTRODUCTION 
 
 9 Henry VII. , 12 Henry VII., and 14 Henry VIII., which appear to 
 have been printed almost contemporaneously. 1 The Year Books of 
 Henry V. and various odd years in the reigns of Edward III., Henry 
 IV., Henry VI., and Edward IV. were published later in the sixteenth 
 century ; those of Edward II. were first printed in 1678, and those of 
 Kichard II. still remain unprinted. It was in 1516, 2 towards the close 
 of the period when Pynson flourished, that Fitzherbert published his 
 Grand Abridgement. This noble work in three parts, containing 792 
 folios in all, far exceeded in magnitude any law book hitherto printed 
 in England. A year later John Eastell compiled and printed a Table to 
 this work, 8 a convincing proof of its utility. For a century and a half 
 these two abridgements contained all that the student of printed books 
 could learn about the Year Books of Edward II. 
 
 Some time before 21 December 1516, the ' Liber Assisarum et 
 Pladtorum Corone,' a volume of reports of the reign of Edward III., 
 issued from the press of John Eastell. 4 It consisted chiefly of reports of 
 assizes of novel, disseisin and mort d'ancestor and various pleas of the 
 crown heard before justices of assize in the country ; but it also con- 
 tained a considerable number of cases in trespass and error heard in the 
 King's Bench, and a few cases in chancery originated by bill. This book 
 may therefore be regarded as supplementary to the ordinary series of 
 the Year Books, which in the fourteenth century are chiefly concerned 
 with cases in the Common Bench. It was evidently compiled at a 
 time when law reporters were especially active, and a careful study of its 
 contents and the manuscripts from which it is derived will probably 
 disclose some interesting information about their work and methods. 
 
 A few years earlier, probably in 1509 or 1510, Pynson published 
 a book with no title-page which in subsequent editions was called 
 ' The Abridgement of the Book of Assizes.' This little volume, to which 
 modern bibliographers have given the title ' Liber Assisarum,' 5 
 
 1 These particulars are taken from finita f eliciter impressa London! impensis 
 the very useful article by Mr. Soule on the lohannis Rastell anno Domini mcccccxvii 
 Bibliography of the Year Books printed die x Februarii.' 
 
 in the Harvard Law Review (xiv. No. 8). 4 He refers in his Prologue to the 
 
 2 At the end of the third volume Grand Abridgement as a book not yet 
 the following words occur ' Finis tocius printed. On the other hand he gives the 
 istius operis finiti xxi die Dicembris names of the justices of assize in the 
 anno domini millesimo quinquentesimo fifth year of Henry VIII., so that it was 
 sexto decimo.' published at the earliest in the course of 
 
 3 On 10 February 1518 (or accord- the regnal year beginning 22 April 1513. 
 ing to the ancient computation, 1517) b The Table of Contents is headed 
 John Rastell published a Table to the 'Tabula libri assisarum.' The British 
 Grand Abridgement at the end of which Museum copy is bound together with 
 occur these words : ' Tabula libri magni Le Breggement de touz les estatutz, which 
 abbreuiamenti librorum legum anglorum Pynson printed in 1528.
 
 INTRODUCTION XXXI 
 
 seems to have been printed from an ancient manuscript. It was in no 
 sense an abridgement of John Rastell's Liber Assisarum, which has just 
 been described and it was, as already stated, the older of the two books. 
 Rastell's ' Liber Assisarum ' reports cases of one reign only, namely 
 that of Edward III., whereas Pynson's book contains abridgements 
 not only of cases heard in the reign of Edward III. but also of others 
 heard in the four following reigns. Pynson's book was obviously a 
 work of less general utility than Statham's Abridgement, which contains 
 a larger number of headings and treats of many technical matters of 
 law in greater detail. Pynson's edition of the Abridgement of the 
 Book of Assizes is extremely scarce, and few copies of it are to be 
 found in our great public libraries ; but two editions of it were printed 
 in 1555 by Kichard Tottel. 
 
 If we were to collect the cases of a certain period occurring in any one 
 abridgement, whether printed or unprinted, we might perhaps ascertain 
 which of our existing manuscripts, if any, were used in its compilation. 
 We might even gather a few particulars about manuscripts of the Year 
 Books which have long since been lost or destroyed. Possibly too the 
 particular abridgement would contain no notes of cases of certain years, 
 and if this feature were noticed in other abridgements we might infer 
 that manuscript reports of those years were already scarce in the days 
 when the abridgements were being compiled. Any thorough investiga- 
 tion of such matters would necessarily be slow and might after all yield 
 little fruit. Nevertheless an editor of a Year Book can at least identify 
 and arrange in chronological order such notes in the abridgements as 
 relate to the cases with which he is concerned. These may enable a 
 future editor of the abridgements themselves to arrive at some useful 
 conclusions about their construction. We may now briefly consider the 
 three earliest Abridgements of the Year Books. 
 
 Statham's Abridgement has been generally assigned to a certain 
 Nicholas Statham, a member of Lincoln's Inn who became Lent reader 
 of that Society in 1471 and died in the following year. 1 His book, 
 probably printed at Rouen about eighteen years after his death by Guil- 
 laume le Tailleur for Richard Pynson of London, though quite possibly 
 printed in London by Pynson himself, 2 is remarkable as being, apart 
 from a few Year Books, our earliest printed law book. Though generally 
 described in catalogues as an ' Abridgement of Cases to the end of 
 K. Henry VI.,' it has in fact no title-page, and its authorship can only 
 
 1 Black Books of Lincoln's Inn, i. 53. 
 
 2 On the reverse of the second folio are the words ' per me R pynson.'
 
 xxxii INTRODUCTION 
 
 be deduced from the fact that it was consistently described as ' Statham 
 by writers and reporters of the sixteenth century. Its pages and 
 abridged cases are alike unnumbered ; but as the first four pages of each 
 quire of eight are marked a 1, a 2, a 3, a 4 . . . & 1, & 2 . . . and so on, 
 respectively, it is easy to give a precise reference to the pages. An 
 editor of the Year Books of Edward II. should not be expected to give 
 a detailed description of this important work. It may be observed, 
 however that it contains a few notes of cases of the reign of Edward L, 
 and that from 1 Edward II. to 38 Henry VI. nearly every year is repre- 
 sented in the volume. The chief omissions seem to be 2 Edward II. , 
 37 Edward III., 14-19 Eichard II., 10 Henry V., and 10, 17, 33, 34 and 
 37 Henry VI. ; though further research may reveal a few cases of some 
 of these years. Its earliest entries are very brief notes ; but among the 
 later ones are divers long reports, some of which are not to be found in 
 the printed Year Books. 1 Though the entries are usually dated by the 
 term and regnal year, many have a reference to a year and none to a 
 term. From this, however, it should not be inferred that Statham had 
 before him manuscripts in which the reports of certain years were not 
 divided into terms, for he sometimes mentions and sometimes omits the 
 term in his notes of cases of the same year. As the volume is unfor- 
 tunately disfigured by many misprints, the term may in some instances 
 have been omitted through carelessness. On the other hand the terms 
 of certain years, as for example 4 Henry V., are so consistently omitted 
 in every part of the volume that Statham's manuscript reports of those 
 years can scarcely have been divided into terms in the usual manner. 
 Significantly enough, this year 4 Henry V. is one for which our printed 
 Year Books contain no reports ; and possibly Statham's Abridgement 
 is here based upon some scarce manuscript containing but few reports 
 of that year. This may also be true of several other years. The 
 whole subject of citation by years and terms would probably repay in 
 interest a careful investigation. 
 
 Statham abridged one case at least from the reports of the Cornish 
 eyre of Edward L, and several from the Northamptonshire and Notting- 
 ham eyres of 8 Edward III. ; but as he gives no references to the Kentish 
 eyre of 6 Edward II. it is probable that he was not in possession of a 
 manuscript containing reports of that eyre. His Abridgement com- 
 prises the following notes of cases heard in the first five years of the 
 reign of Edward II. 
 
 1. Qualeius. (Mich. 1 Edw. II.) Quale ius issera sur accion de covenant 
 1 For instance, Barre, M. 30 H. vj., c. 4 v; Remitter, H. 19 H. vj., v. 7 v.
 
 INTRODUCTION xxxiii 
 
 porte par home de religioun pur lever une fyne, etc. Tamen il semble qe le 
 seignur peut entrer, qar ceo n'est qe feoffement, etc. (t, 4v.) 
 
 2. Age. (Anno primo Edw. II.) En breue d'annuite vers un persone 
 d'un esglise, qe pria en aide del heire del patron deinz age et qe le parole 
 demurge. Et non potuit, etc. (a, 5v.) 
 
 3. Age. (Mich. 3 Edw. II.) En waste verz tenaunt pro indiuiso de wast 
 fait par son parcener 1 il fuist ouste de son age. Vide statutum. (a, 5v.) 
 
 4. Saver de defaute. (Mich. 3 Edw. II.) Quere si le demandant peut 
 relesser le defaute le vouche al le graund cape ou petit cape, et si noun si le 
 tenant peut, etc. (x. 7r.) 
 
 5. Viewe. (Mich. 3 Edw. II.) En breue d'entrusion verz le baron et sa 
 feme supposant qe le defendant intruda ; le vie we fuist graunte. Quere 
 causam ; quar nulle tort est en le baroun, etc. (et 2 , 3v.) 
 
 6. Droit. (Easter, 3 Edw. II.) Lou home graunt a moy lez servicez son 
 tenant par fyne sur conusaunce de droit, jeo avera breue de custumez et 
 servicez, non obstante qe le tenant n'attourna, etc. Mez jeo ne puis avower, 
 etc. Tamen il semble fort de maintenir son breue de custumez et servicez, 
 quar il covient de lier possessioun en luy ou en son auncestre. Et en ceo cas 
 n'est possessioun en fait come semble, etc. en replevin per opinionem curie, 
 etc. (i. 6v.) 
 
 7. Waste. (Easter, 3 Edw. II.) Waste agarde boun verz executours sanz 
 coexecutourz nient nosme etc. (z. 4r.) 
 
 8. Voucher d'un meason admitte lou une tofte fuit garrante, etc., en un 
 nota. (et, 2v e .) 
 
 9. Nuper obiit. (Anno III. Edw. I.) Nuper obiit gist parentre soers de 
 demi sank, etc., del seisin de comune auncestre, etc. (r, iv.) 
 
 10. Oyer et terminer. (Trinity, 4 or 5 Edw. II.) En oyer et terminer si la 
 partie al primer jour face defaute home avera uenire facias ou pone per uadium 
 a son eleccioun. (r. 4.) 
 
 11. Fynes. (Mich. 5 Edw. II.) Un fyne ceo leva sur breue d'entre, mes 
 primes le demaundaunt counta et le tenant fist defence et sur ceo prierent 
 conge d'accorder et sur ceo lever le fyn, etc. Et ex hoc sequitur qe fyne peut 
 estre leve sur chescun breue par quel terre est demande, ou sur autre breue 
 qe chargera terre, come breue de garrant de chartre ou quid iuris clamat ou per 
 que seruicia et tielx semblablez com semble, etc. (m. 8v.) 
 
 Statham's will, dated 15 July 1472, and proved on August 5 follow- 
 ing, contains an interesting bequest of law books. 3 
 
 I will that William my clerk haue my litill olde statutes couered with 
 ledir, and my natura breuium, and if he go to court to thentente to continue 
 there I wil that he haue my best Registre and my boke of newe statutez. 
 
 It will be noticed that, though he is supposed to have been the sole 
 
 1 This word is printed in the book as syllables con and rum were used as sig- 
 pere, the letters here printed in italics natures when all the letters of the alpha- 
 representing a mark of contraction. bet had been exhausted. 
 
 - In early printed books the abbre- J The reference to this will is 
 
 viations for the word et and for the 7 Wattys. 
 
 VOL. VI. b
 
 xxxiv INTRODUCTION 
 
 author of an important abridgement, he makes no special bequest of its 
 manuscript, nor of any of the Year Books on which it is based. 
 
 So far as this Introduction is concerned our chief interest in the 
 Abridgement of the Book of Assizes (the second of our early printed 
 abridgements) lies in a possible reference to it in the will of Sir William 
 Callow, one of the judges of the Common Bench in the reign of 
 Henry VII. Sir William, whom the Middle Temple claims as one of 
 her distinguished members, made his will in 1485 on 5 October, and 
 the same was duly proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury 
 on 4 February 148 1. 1 It contains the following bequest : 
 
 And as for my plate and stuf at Cauntbury and bookes and other loosendis 
 and goods of myn being in my stody at London and elsewher except a book of 
 Assises in papir a Dratton 2 a booke of newe statutes and ii bookes of Brigge- 
 mentes oon of myne owen labour and thothir of Lincolnesin labour be atte the 
 disposicion of myne executours my clerkes and other my frendes suche as 
 entende to encrese theimsilf in the la we. 
 
 Of these two abridgements ' oon of myne owen labour ' and ' thothir 
 of Lincolnesin labour,' we may suspect that the latter was the work 
 attributed to Nicholas Statham, who was, as already stated, Lent 
 reader of Lincoln's Inn hi 1471. 3 Now the description of the book, not 
 by the name of a single compiler, but by the remarkable words ' of 
 Lincolnesin labour,' certainly suggests that it was produced not by some 
 one man but by several men working together. If then we are to 
 identifj 7 - it with Statham's Abridgement we must suppose that it was 
 produced not by Statham himself but under his supervision. Remem- 
 bering that he was Lent reader of the Society of Lincoln's Inn, we may 
 at least consider the possibility of this Abridgement having been com- 
 piled by members of Lincoln's Inn under Statham's direction during 
 the period when as reader he was responsible for the legal studies of that 
 Society. This is, of course, a mere possibility, which may be altogether 
 ill founded. Callow's will, however, shows that an Abridgement of some 
 sort was undoubtedly produced by ' Lincoln's Inn labour,' and though 
 there may be much difference of opinion about the meaning of those 
 words, they can scarcely fail to suggest that the Year Books also may 
 have been compiled by the labour of the Inns of Court. 
 
 The other abridgement which Callow mentions in his will and de- 
 scribes as ' of myne owen labour ' may perhaps be identified with the 
 ' Abridgement of the Book of Assizes.' It enjoyed a good reputation 
 in the Tudor and early Stuart period. Sir Edward Coke speaks 4 of 
 
 1 The reference to this will is 7 Milles. 3 See p. xxxi above. 
 
 2 An error for Bratton or Bracton. * Reports, Part X. fol. xxviii.
 
 INTRODUCTION XXXV 
 
 Stathoms abridgement first published in the reign of H. 6 by Stathom a 
 learned lawyer of that time ; and the Abridgement of the Book of the Assizes 
 published also about the same time, but the author thereof is unknown. 
 
 This identification is in some measure confirmed by the fact that 
 Callow's will shows that he possessed a copy of the Book of Assizes. 
 
 A consideration of Fitzherbert's Abridgement in its relation to the 
 Year Books of Edward II. must be reserved for another volume. It 
 may be noticed, however, that for purposes of reference he gives the pages 
 of Rastell's printed ' Book of Assizes,' but he is content to cite cases in 
 the manuscript Year Books by the regnal year and term, and sometimes 
 like Statham by the regnal year alone. In many instances his references 
 are incorrect. Thus he cites the case of Shrewsbury v. Shrewsbury, 
 printed on subsequent pages, as of Michaelmas, whereas it was reported 
 and enrolled in Hilary term 4 Edward II. 1 This, if not due to careless- 
 ness, might be explained by the fact that in one manuscript the Michael- 
 mas cases of that year are not separated from those of the following term. 
 If then Fitzherbert used this manuscript in making his Abridgement 
 he would naturally cite the Hilary cases as of the preceding term. 
 It is certain, however, that, whether he used this manuscript or not, 
 he used at least one other ; for he cites several cases as of Hilary 
 term of 4 Edward II., quite correctly. 
 
 Probably many other Abridgements besides those already described 
 were compiled in the Tudor period. There is, for instance, an interesting 
 but unfortunately very imperfect abridgement in manuscript at the 
 British Museum, 2 which has never been printed. It seems to have been 
 written in the reign of Henry VIII. , for it contains a case of the third 
 year of that reign and several cases of the reign of Henry VII. ; but some, 
 if not all, of these may have been written later than the main body of the 
 work. In its present form it consists of 83 paper folios neatly written 
 on both sides. Internal evidence, however, shows that it was once a 
 fine volume of more than 650 folios. 3 All that remains of it now is in a 
 good state of preservation, one folio only, namely that which should 
 follow No. 65, being missing. This abridgement contains no notes of 
 cases heard in either the Common Bench or the King's Bench in the 
 reigns of Edward I. and Edward II. On the other hand, it has a few 
 notes which relate to the eyres in Kent, London and Nottingham in 
 the reigns of Edward II. and Edward III. These, however, seem to be 
 
 1 See p. 93 below. All the manu- 3 On folio 4 r there is a note, 
 scripts agree in ascribing this case to ' vide plus de cest title de couerture 
 Hilary term. en le title de T. a volunte posterius fol. 
 
 2 Add. MSS. No. 35936. DCL., M., iii. H. viii.'
 
 xxxvi INTRODUCTION 
 
 among the later insertions. It also contains notes from cases in the 
 Book of Assizes, and a few from the imprinted Year Books of Eichard II. 
 The chief peculiarity of this abridgement is that it gives precise refe- 
 rences to the folios of the manuscripts upon which it is based. As yet, 
 however, I have not been able to identify the manuscripts. The total 
 absence in this Abridgement of notes of cases argued in the Common 
 Bench in the reign of Edward II., and the scarcity of them in Statham's 
 Abridgement, suggests strongly that the Year Books of Edward II. were 
 little used in early Tudor days ; and were probably uncommon. 
 Interest in them may have been revived by the publication of Fitz- 
 herbert's Abridgement, which contains numerous notes of cases 
 reported in this reign. 
 
 3. THE MANUSCRIPTS AND THEIR OWNERS. 
 
 If we could ascertain by what sort of persons the earliest Year Books 
 were owned and in what quantity they were produced, we should possess 
 information almost enough of itself to show the purpose for which they 
 were compiled. But this is just what we cannot ascertain except in 
 a very conjectural fashion. The earliest owners whose names we know 
 lived for the most part late in the fifteenth century, and the chief basis 
 for our vague estimates of the number of Year Books of Edward II. 
 of the same class as those which we now possess is a comparison of the 
 number of the surviving volumes with those of other legal treatises 
 of the same period. Perhaps when the later Year Books have been 
 studied in manuscript we may gradually form clearer ideas on the 
 subject. For the present we must content ourselves with investigating 
 the material which lies at hand. Though small in quantity, it is in- 
 structive. Our Year Books were, with the exception of Y 1 which is 
 unique, all written in the course of the reign of Edward III. or soon 
 after his death. With the same exception not one of them contains any 
 cases of the time of Edward I. set out in regular series, though in some 
 of them a few cases which may be ascribed to that reign are inserted 
 without regard to chronological order among those of Edward II. 
 Again L, S and Z are the only manuscript Year Books of Edward II. 
 which also contain cases of the reign of Edward III., and these cases 
 are of the early years of the latter reign. Thus the Year Books of 
 Edward II., as we know them, are volumes relating to that reign ex- 
 clusively or to that reign and a few years more. We can scarcely be 
 wrong in saying that in the latter part of the fourteenth century that 
 
 1 This manuscript was probably written in the reign of Edward II.
 
 INTRODUCTION xxxvii 
 
 is to say, a few generations after the death of Edward II. Year 
 Books of this reign were circulating in single volumes containing reports 
 of as many consecutive years as their compilers could obtain. 
 
 It should also be noticed that no manuscripts of the Year Books of 
 Edward II. which were actually transcribed after the accession of Henry 
 IV. still exist. All those which we know seem to date from the four- 
 teenth century. Apparently an active demand for them ceased some 
 three or four generations after they were compiled. We may infer 
 from this that they were already regarded as out of date for purposes 
 of instruction and as yet not much appreciated as works of authority. 
 Even in early Tudor days, when men began to cite reported cases in \ 
 court, and the abridgements were being compiled and studied, there 
 was no great demand for the Year Books of Edward II. They re- 
 mained unprinted until the middle of the reign of Charles II., and 
 such interest as was taken in them during the Tudor period was in- 
 sufficient, so far as is known, to give rise to the production of new copies 
 of them even in manuscript. 
 
 In the preparation of the first five volumes of this series fourteen 
 manuscripts in all have been used. Possibly a few more may yet come 
 to light, but we cannot hope for many. The commercial value of ancient 
 manuscripts has increased of late years, and owners, prouder of their 
 possessions than formerly, seldom resent inspection. Now fourteen 
 texts are quite enough to embarrass an editor, but the number is not 
 large. It is very much smaller than twenty-six, the number of manu- 
 scripts used by the late Mr. F. M. Nicholls in his edition of Britton 
 published in 1875 ; still more so than the number of manuscripts of that 
 work now known to exist. Britton was no doubt a popular work in the 
 days of the first three Edwards, but nevertheless it is improbable that 
 any considerable number of Serjeants, barristers and students possessed 
 copies of it at that period. As the Year Books, in the form in which 
 we now know them, are scarcer than manuscripts of Britton, we may at 
 least suspect that they were less popular with the legal profession in the 
 fourteenth century. There is certainly no good reason for thinking 
 that many of the early Year Books in the form with which we are 
 now familiar have been worn out by a long succession of readers and 
 cast aside as useless. If this were the case we should surely find that 
 some of those which still exist had been damaged but not entirely worn 
 out by use. On the contrary, we find that they are for the most part in 
 a good state of preservation. We may attribute the bad condition of 
 two or three of them to the carelessness of custodians rather than to 
 the zeal of students. There is scarcely one among them which records
 
 XXXV111 INTRODUCTION 
 
 the comments or corrections of a critical reader. 1 Such marginalia as 
 we may find are the work of men writing in the fifteenth and sixteenth 
 centuries. The earliest owners of our Year Books evidently treated them 
 with care and respect and modestly refrained from disfiguring them by 
 their own annotation. 
 
 Now this scarcity of Year Books and their good state of preservation 
 suggests an explanation of certain difficulties in their history, which 
 other considerations seem to render satisfactory. It is as follows. 
 The reports with which lawyers of the reign of Edward II. were familiar 
 were not finely written volumes such as those which we now know, 
 but small pamphlets or gatherings of folios, each of which usually 
 contained the reports of a single term. Perhaps those of several terms 
 may sometimes have been sewn together or even copied continuously 
 into a single small volume, especially where they were the work of an 
 individual reporter of good reputation. But such collections of con- 
 secutive reports would have been considerably smaller than our large 
 volumes of reports of the whole reign. The reason why none of these 
 pamphlets or collections has survived to this day is that they were 
 compiled for the instruction and immediate use of students. They read 
 them, discussed them, and then as likely as not cast them aside in favour 
 of more recent reports. On the other hand the larger volumes which 
 have survived were not compiled for the instruction of students, but 
 for the edification of mature lawyers who read law for recreation and 
 collected legal treatises. The objection may be taken that treatises such 
 as Britton and Bracton may also quite properly be described as works 
 of instruction ; and so strictly speaking might the large volumes of 
 Year Books even if they were, as here suggested, compiled for the 
 recreation of elderly lawyers. But in actual fact there is a great 
 difference between the small collections of recent reports which young 
 students might be expected to read as part of their legal education, 
 and the long collections of reports and records of ancient cases which 
 constitute the Year Books of Edward II. as we now know them. The 
 difference is analogous to that between the texts of single books of 
 Virgil and Homer which a modern schoolboy often possesses, and 
 the large and expensive editions of classical authors used by men of 
 erudition. 
 
 There can be no doubt that law students in the Middle Ages were 
 accustomed to attend the courts. Fortescue says : 
 
 Wherefore euery daye in courte the studentes in those lawes resorte by 
 1 In the manuscript P there is some contemporary annotation.
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 greate numbers unto those courtes wherein the same lawes are redde and 
 taught as it were in common scholes. 1 
 
 We know that in the reign of Edward II. the apprentices had a ' crib ' 
 in the Common Bench, which seems to have been a place to which they 
 resorted for their self-instruction. 2 We also know that direct instruction 
 by readers in the Inns of Court took place not during the term time, 
 but in the vacations when they were not engaged in the work of their 
 profession and when the students were no longer engaged in watching 
 and noting legal proceedings. Even in Tudor times a member of an 
 Inn of Court who had not yet been called to the Bar might take notes 
 and actually call himself a reporter. William Burton, the Leicester- 
 shire antiquary, referring to the case of Corbet v. Corbet heard in Easter 
 term, 1600, says : 
 
 I was then standing by, being a Reporter in the same Court. 3 
 
 Yet Burton was only admitted a member of the Inner Temple on 
 20 May 1593, and was not called to the Bar until 19 May 1603. 
 
 But if in the Middle Ages young students busied themselves with 
 taking notes, we need not assume that they were themselves normally 
 responsible for the early reports. The Year Books are, as we may prove 
 by checking them with the records, too carefully compiled to have been 
 the work of mere beginners. The compilers of them assume that then- 
 readers are acquainted with the nature of original writs, the elements 
 of procedure and the general principles of pleading. They were almost 
 certainly written for purposes of instruction ; but they were written by 
 persons who were themselves capable of giving instruction. In the 
 modern technical sense of the word some of these reporters may have 
 been ' students,' that is to say, men who had not yet been called to the 
 Bar ; 4 but they had obviously passed through a course of legal training, 
 and should not be confused with the younger and untrained men, some 
 of whom may have stood or sat beside them in the ' crib ' taking notes, 
 but not compiling reports for the instruction of others. 
 
 It is only by a careful examination of the reports of several years 
 
 1 De Laudibua, first edition, f. 112. formerly not restricted to members of 
 
 The Latin text of this passage is as an Inn of Court who had not been called 
 
 follows : ' quo in curiis illis ad quas to the Bar. Sir Nicholas Bacon* who 
 
 omni die placitabili confluunt studentes was called to the Bar at Gray's Inn in 
 
 in legibus illis, quasi in scolis publicis 1533, and became a Bencher in 1550, was 
 
 leges ille leguntur et docentur.' described officially in a royal book of 
 
 * Year Book Series, vol ii. p. xvi. receipts and payments from 1 October 
 
 and vol. iv. p. xli. 1548 to 30 September 1549 as ' studeant- 
 
 3 Description of Leicestershire, p. 271. at- the lawe ' (Camden Society Publicc- 
 
 4 The words ' student-at-law ' were tions, first series, vol. 84, p. 13).
 
 xl INTRODUCTION 
 
 that we shall be able to form any useful estimate of the number of pro- 
 fessional reporters in the reign of Edward II. In the next section of 
 this Introduction, such an examination will be begun, but it is necessarily 
 long and must be continued elsewhere. The rest of this section is 
 chiefly concerned with the owners of some of the manuscripts in the 
 fifteenth and subsequent centuries. Unfortunately comparatively few 
 owners have recorded their names in their books, for it was not a, 
 common practice before the Tudor period. Unfortunately, too, many 
 flyleaves and covers which once contained signature ) have disappeared 
 for ever. Moreover some names can no longer be read because the ink 
 has faded ; others have been carefully erased by subsequent owners. 
 Even when we have a plainly written signature we cannot always be 
 sure of its date, for owners sometimes imitated other hands when 
 writing their names. John Maynard, for instance, has left his signature 
 in our manuscript B in a hand which as far as appearances go might 
 have been that of his great-grandfather or some more remote ancestor. 
 Signatures in large letters not unlike those of monumental brasses are 
 far from uncommon, and are not easily dated. 
 
 The first of our manuscripts (here called A) is in the University 
 Library at Cambridge. It bears the name of Henry of Motelow on folio 
 111 i and again on folio 113 v. Henry was appointed a Justice of the 
 Common Bench on 4 July 1357, and is believed to have died four 
 years later 1 ; so that the manuscript must have come into his possession 
 not many years after it was written. We also have information of 
 another of its early owners. On folio 149 r we have the words, ' Basset 
 est magister huius libri ut dicit Armiston,' and on folio 161 there is a 
 direction which reads as follows : 
 
 c$3 Verte ad quarterium tercium sequentem ubi hoc signum scribitur in 
 msdio quaternii. 
 
 The reference is to a continuation of an additional report from folio 161 
 to folio 188 v. On the latter folio we find the sign <Q and the name of 
 Basset noted in the margin. The date of the handwriting is very doubt- 
 ful, but it is not later than the reign of Eichard II., and possibly it is as 
 old as the early years of Edward III. The Latin words now under 
 discussion also raise some difficulties. When we are told ' Basset est 
 magister huius libri,' we may take it that a certain Basset was once owner 
 of the book, though the use of the word ' magister ' in this sense is 
 remarkable. Again the words ' ut dicit Armiston ' seem to be equi- 
 
 1 No fines were levied before him after Easter 1361.
 
 
 INTRODUCTION xli 
 
 valent to ' teste Armiston,' a form of expression not uncommon in brief 
 statements of ownership of flyleaves and margins of manuscripts. 1 If 
 these surmises are correct, Basset and Armiston were contemporaries, 
 and the absence of Christian names suggests that they either practised 
 at the Bar or were clerks of the Common Bench. There was a certain 
 Armiston who held the office of a filacer in the Common Bench between 
 the years 7 Richard II. and 22 Henry VI. ; but he appears to have had 
 no colleague called Basset, nor is anything known of any serjeant or ad- 
 vocate so named at this period. In the reign of Edward III., however, 
 a certain William Basset became Justice of the Common Bench and 
 Justice of the King's Bench successively and probably died about 
 24 Edward III. Possibly Ralph Basset of Drayton, who was a Justice 
 of the Peace in Staffordshire in the reign of Richard II., 2 and perhaps 
 a lawyer, may have been the person to whom Armiston referred. 
 
 This manuscript is in three parts. The first contains the Kentish 
 Eyre of 5 Edward II. and occupies the first nineteen folios. The next 
 part contains reports of the Common Bench of the first three years 
 of the reign, and also of Michaelmas term and part of Hilary term of 
 4 Edward II. 3 The reports of the latter term end abruptly towards 
 the top of folio 65 v, which is the last of a quire. The third part con- 
 tains reports from Michaelmas term 10 Edward II. to Michaelmas term 
 20 Edward II., which is the last of the reign. It is improbable that 
 this manuscript ever contained reports from Easter term 4 Edward II. 
 to Trinity term 10 Edward II. 
 
 The manuscript, here called B, formerly the property of Serjeant 
 Maynard, is interesting as containing the signature of another early 
 owner of a Year Book of Edward II., John Wyse of Salisbury. It 
 occurs three times on one folio, and on another we have the words 
 ' Hec indentura facta inter lohannem Wyse de ciuitate Noue Saresberie 
 draper ex una parte,' which were probably written for the purpose of 
 testing a pen. He was the same person as John Wyse who was elected 
 Mayor of Salisbury 1453, 1460, 1461 and 1470. 4 His will was proved in 
 1478 and it may be presumed that he died not long before that date. 
 Although we have no certain knowledge how such a technical work as a 
 Year Book came into the hands of a country merchant we may at least 
 suspect that it was once the property of Cardinal Morton. In the 
 
 1 Cf. ' Teste Willelmo Fletwode,' finished and ends in the middle of a folio, 
 see p. 1 below. * B. C. Hoare, History of Modern 
 
 2 Calendar of Letters Patent, 1385-9, Wiltshire, vi. 696. Calendar of Patent 
 p. 82, et passim. Molls, 1452-1461, pp. 164, 658. For his 
 
 8 The last case of Hilary term is un. will see 33 Wattys at Somerset House.
 
 xlii INTRODUCTION 
 
 Arundel collection at the British Museum there are four manuscripts 
 which belonged to the Cardinal. One of them, a fine copy of the 
 Infortiatum, 1 belonged to this John Wyse. 2 Now the Cardinal was a 
 Canon of Salisbury from 8 November 1458 to 29 October 1476, and 
 being a strong Lancastrian he was in exile from 1461 till 1470. 3 It 
 is therefore not improbable that he pledged or sold some of his books to 
 Wyse before leaving England. If the Cardinal were really the owner 
 of this manuscript, we have the fact that scarcely a hundred years after 
 its compilation it had passed into the hands of a young man who had 
 been brought up not in the Inns of Court but in the Benedictine abbey 
 of Cerne, who had studied canon and civil law at Oxford, and who had 
 acquired at an early age a considerable practice in the ecclesiastical 
 courts. 
 
 The names of some sixteenth-century owners are also written in this 
 manuscript, namely, Henry Grene, esquire, of Staple Inn, of whom 
 nothing has been ascertained ; and also John Eamsey and Thomas 
 Colby of Gray's Inn, who were admitted members of that Society in 
 1539 and 1549 respectively. It subsequently came into the possession 
 of one John Kempe, possibly a kinsman of Thomas Colby. How Ser- 
 jeant Maynard acquired it remains unknown. It was printed by him in 
 pursuance of an authorisation of Eainsford, C.J., dated 28 August 
 1676. A later owner was John Heptinstall, well known as the printer 
 of several works by Henry Purcell, the musician. It eventually found 
 its way into the Library of Sir Gregory Osborn Page-Turner at Battles- 
 den, which was sold by order of the sheriff of Bedfordshire in November 
 1824. 4 It was purchased by Sir Thomas Phillipps of Middlehill and 
 placed in his collection in March 1827. Finally it was acquired by 
 the British Museum for the sum of 30 on the sale of a part of his 
 library in 1896. At the Battlesden sale it was so poorly esteemed that 
 it was placed without any description of its contents with two other 
 manuscripts in a single lot : 
 
 2713. Treatise of Game, a MS. on vellum, in English with illumined 
 capitals. Aesopi fabuloe MS. on vellum, and one other on vellum. 
 
 1 This is Arundel MS. 454. The her of Parliament for Old Salisbury in 
 other three manuscripts which belonged 7 Edward IV. (Official Return of 1878, 
 to the Cardinal are Xos. 366, 435, and part i. p. 359). He may well have known 
 461 in the same collection. On f. 278 v John Wyse and used his Year Book. 
 
 of No. 454 John Wyse has written : ' Non 3 See Dictionary of National Bio- 
 
 est in mundo diues qui dicit Habundo ; graphy, and W. H. Rich Jones, Fasti 
 
 et hoc dicit Johannes Wyse quiest bonus.' Ecclesiae Sarwberiensis, ii. p. 382. 
 
 2 It may be noticed that Nicholas 4 A copy of the sale catalogue of this 
 Statham, whose Abridgement has been library is in the Library of the British 
 discussed on an earlier page, was mem- Museum.
 
 
 INTRODUCTION xliii 
 
 The Additional MS. 37658, here described as C, was purchased by 
 the British Museum at the Phillipps sale in June 108. It was unknown, 
 or at any rate inaccessible, to our late Literary Director, and is now 
 used for the first time in an edition of the Year Books. It contains 276 
 folios, and is written on vellum in a remarkably clear and unlaborious 
 hand of the fourteenth century. Its shape, 16 inches high and 6 
 inches wide, would make it conspicuous in any collection of Year 
 Books. Once it was even taller than it now is, for most of the catch- 
 words at the feet of the folios and some of the headlines have been 
 cut away by the binders. The first folio of the MS. is a flyleaf ; the 
 second contains a report of an undated assize of novel disseisin heard be- 
 fore Sir Henry Spigurnel and his unnamed fellow justices in Lincolnshire. 
 The nineteen folios next following (3-21) contain the tract on pleading 
 known as Nouae Narrationes 1 which enjoyed no little popularity as a 
 work of instruction in the Middle Ages. Next we have a useful but incom- 
 plete table of the Eeports in the volume, beginning on folio 22 r and 
 ending with folio 38 v. The Reports occupy 234 of the remaining 
 236 folios, the last two of which are blank. They extend from 
 Michaelmas term 1 Edward II. to Michaelmas term 15 Edward II., 
 but there are no reports for Trinity term 12 Edward II., and 
 Easter and Trinity terms of 14 Edward II. Easter and Trinity 
 terms of 11 Edward II. are treated as a single term. On an average 
 there are about twenty folios to a year, but there are many more 
 reports for some' years than for others. Thirty-three folios are needed 
 for the fifth year, but four only for the ninth. The folios are numbered 
 in ancient Arabic figures on each side like the pages of a modern book. 
 Curiously enough the numeration is inaccurate, the numbers 115, 277 
 and 311 being omitted, and the numbers 178 and 218 repeated. This 
 numeration begins on folio 39 r with the Reports and w r as doubtless 
 made for purposes of reference in the Table of Cases. 
 
 The words ' Iste liber pertinet ad me Georgium Serrye ' occur on 
 the last folio of this MS. on which there is writing, and on the second 
 of the two following blank folios are the words ' Iste liber constat 
 Ricardo Clerke.' Nothing is known of Serrye, but an extract from 
 certain proceedings in one of the courts of Common Law written on the 
 flyleaf at the end of the volume shows that Richard Clerke was acting 
 therein as attorney for an unnamed prior, who was the executor of the 
 will of John Shillingford. Possibly this was the John Shillingford 
 who was elected mayor of Exeter in 1444. 
 
 1 It was first printed by Richard century. Another edition was pub- 
 Pynson at the end of the fifteenth lished by Tottel in 1561.
 
 xliv INTRODUCTION 
 
 This manuscript formerly belonged to George Kobert Petre of Dunken 
 Hall, Lancashire, who died on 30 March 1829. 1 Neither he nor any of his 
 ancestors of the name of Petre are known to have collected manuscripts 
 or to have been interested in English law. Yet there are three Year 
 Books at the British Museum which the late Sir Thomas Phillipps 
 acquired from Mr. Petre ; and none of them contain the signatures, 
 arms, or book-plates of any eighteenth-century collector. It is almost 
 certain that they once belonged to Sir Thomas Walmisley, a justice 
 of the Common Bench from 1589 to 1612. He was the owner of Dunken 
 Hall, which passed by descent to Catherine Walmisley, who married 
 Eobert Petre the seventh baron and an ancestor of the late George 
 Eobert Petre. 2 Sir Thomas is known to have possessed one Year Book 
 of Edward II., for in the report of Catesby's Case we read : 
 
 For authorities, a resolution of this court tempore E. 2 in the written Book 
 of Cases in his time ; in which book (which lelongs to Walmesley Justice) 
 appears a writ awarded out of this court. Rex venerabili W. eadem gracia 
 Lincolniensi episcopo salutem. Cum magister milicie Templi in Anglia 3 . . . . 
 
 I have been unable to find this writ either in C or in Y, another manu- 
 script which may have belonged to Sir Thomas Walmisley 4 ; and it 
 may be that it is quoted from a manuscript Year Book of which nothing 
 is now known. 
 
 The remarkably fine MS. here called D was bequeathed to the Library 
 of Lincoln's Inn by Charles Fairfax, a legal antiquary of distinction, 
 who died in 1673. All that is known of its history is recorded in the 
 manuscript itself. 
 
 This volume of Edward y e second I had upon an Exchange with Sergeant 
 Clarke (commonly writt in our Pention-Rolls John Clerke the Thirteenth) 
 in or about Decimo Septimo Jacobi 1619. I accounted itt more y e gift of 
 a Friende then any Exchange of like vallew. 
 
 C. FAIRFAX. 
 
 Now given as my legacy to Lincolnis Inne Library as may appeare by a 
 Clause of my will entered in the last Folio of a large booke of Iters 433 w u 
 (together with this) I also bequeath as likewise some other Manuscripts of 
 Law to that Noble Society. 
 
 1 Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 99, p. 3 Reports, part 6, f. 62 (vol. iii. of 
 379. He was the eldest son of the Hon. edition of 1826, p. 379). 
 
 George Petre who died 22 October 1797 4 The description of the MS. as a 
 
 (Ibidem, vol. 67, p. 901). Book of Cases suggests that it was 
 
 2 The pedigree is given with some Y rather than C. Possibly the case 
 errors of date in Whitaker's History of occurred in one of the three missing 
 Whalley (ii. 280). folios of the former manuscript.
 
 INTRODUCTION xlv 
 
 This Serjeant Clerke was admitted a member of Lincoln's Inn in 
 April 1608, and was created a serjeant in 1648, but in the printed Black 
 Books of the Inn he is not described as ' the thirteenth.' Charles 
 Fairfax was a few years his junior, having been admitted on 27 October 
 1611. His will is dated December 1672, and he died in the same 
 month in the following year. 1 
 
 We learn from the Black Books that in November 1672, a few weeks 
 before the date of the will of Charles Fairfax, the question of printing 
 the Year Book of Edward II., then ' remaining in the Library,' was 
 under consideration. The entry reads as follows 2 : 
 
 8 November 1672. Ordered that Sir Nicolas Pedley, Mr. Day, Mr. Manby 
 and Mr. Atkyns, or any two of them, be a Comittee to attend the Lord 
 Chiefe Justice of England in order to the printing of the manuscript of Edward 
 the Second now remaineing in the Library ; and to treate with the Booksellers 
 in relacion to the printing of the said manuscript. 
 
 This must refer to the Lincoln's Inn manuscript here designated by 
 the letter Z, for Fairfax's manuscript D was still in his possession. 
 Nevertheless, when the Inn acquired his manuscript on his death in 
 the following year, namely 1673, the Masters of the Bench made no 
 similar order with respect to the acquisition. This is not remarkable ; 
 for the Chief Justice, whom the Committee attended in 1672, was Sir 
 Mathew Hale ; and it is probable that they attended him at his own 
 request. He had recently referred to this very manuscript (Z) in terms 
 of high praise, 3 so that we are bound to suppose that he would have 
 wished to see it printed unless some better text was forthcoming. Appa- 
 rently, either he was not altogether satisfied with the manuscript which 
 he had praised and preferred the Maynard manuscript or the Com- 
 mittee were unable to agree to its publication for reasons of their own. 
 It was not until 28 August 1676, four months after the resignation of 
 Hale, and three years after the death of Fairfax that Maynard's manu- 
 script was brought before Hale's successor, Sir Eichard Bainsford, 
 and its publication approved. Probably Hale had never seen Fairfax's 
 manuscript, for it has many merits, and some might think it the best 
 
 1 Thomas Jones of Gray's Inn, was ever the owner of the manuscript. 
 
 Common Serjeant of London from 1614 Charles Fairfax's brother William died 
 
 to 1625 (see John Strype's edition of at the siege of Frankenthal in 1621. The 
 
 Stowe's Survey, 1720, ii. 162), wrote a appearance of this signature remains to be 
 
 brief table of contents on a paper fly- explained. It is scarcely consistent with 
 
 leaf at the beginning of this volume, the extracts printed on p. xliv above, 
 and also many headings and marginal a The Black Books of Lincoln's Inn, 
 
 notes. On folio 60 r the signature of iii. 85. 
 
 William Fairfax occurs. It is difficult 8 In the case of Sacheverett v. Froggat. 
 
 to suppose that any person of that name See our Year Book Series, i. p. xxx.
 
 xlvi INTRODUCTION 
 
 from which the Year Book could have been printed. If he had been 
 acquainted with it when he praised Z he would almost certainly have 
 mentioned it and praised it also. 
 
 Charles Fairfax also possessed a second manuscript Year Book of 
 Edward II. which, if it still exists, remains to be discovered. At the 
 end of the reports of Trinity term 2 Edward II. he has written in the 
 margin of D l : 
 
 Three other cases 2 are here inserted in my other MS. E. 2 ; 
 
 and at the end of the volume 3 he has added ten folios from this second 
 manuscript, giving for his reason : 
 
 These last tenne leaves I took out of another of my manuscripts to make 
 this volume the more compleate. 
 
 This observation is a little misleading. His MS. D ends in the middle 
 of a case of Trinity term 19 Edward II. ; his additional ten folios con- 
 tain cases of the same year, the first of them beginning with a case of 
 Michaelmas term, and the last ending with one of Trinity term. Thus, 
 his additional folios, instead of supplying missing reports for Michaelmas 
 term 4 of the year 20 Edward II., give us a second set of reports for 19 
 Edward II. They are written in a hand somewhat similar to our MS. T, 
 and in single column. In the latter respect they differ from D, which 
 is written in double column throughout. Fairfax's two manuscripts 
 must have agreed very closely in size, about 12| by 9 inches ; but the 
 additional folios may have been reduced a little to suit the binding of D. 
 Each of these ten folios contains 72 lines occupying 7| inches by 
 11 J inches. These data ought to be quite sufficient to enable us to 
 identify the missing manuscript should it ever come to light. 
 
 Our next manuscript, G, though in the University Library at 
 Cambridge, 5 seems to have escaped the notice of our late Literary 
 Director. Two or three quires have disappeared from the beginning, 
 the first case being that of Kennington v. Cornwall 6 in Hilary term 
 3 Edward II. The reports are continuous until the end of Michaelmas 
 term 7 Edward II., when there is a break, and they are not resumed 
 until Michaelmas 10 Edward II. There is no reason, however, for 
 supposing that the manuscript ever contained reports for the eleven 
 missing terms. From Michaelmas 10 Edward II. they are again con- 
 
 1 Folio 42 v. 4 This was the last term of the reign. 
 
 2 As to these three cases see p. Ixxii 8 Gg 5 20 
 
 <line 19) below. 6 Year Book Series, vol. ii. p. 180. 
 
 3 Folio 360 v.
 
 INTRODUCTION xlvii 
 
 tinuous until the end of Trinity term 18 Edward II. , except that no re- 
 ports are definitely assigned to Hilary and Easter terms of 16 Edward II. 
 or to Easter and Trinity terms of the following year. On folio 30 r the 
 name Tremayne occurs in the margin ; and it is not unlikely that the 
 manuscript once belonged to a Serjeant of that name who practised 
 in the closing years of the reign of Edward III. G is a valuable manu- 
 script, on account of the accuracy of its text and the excellence of its 
 handwriting. In this volume, however, it agrees almost word for word 
 with B. from which the Old Edition of 1678 was printed. 
 
 Our manuscript L was purchased by the British Museum from the 
 late Lord Eobert Montagu in June 1863. It came to him by descent 
 from his maternal ancestor Oliver St. John, whose signature appears 
 on a flyleaf at the end of the book. He was a Justice of the Common 
 Pleas from 1648 to 1663, and his is the only signature in the volume. 
 It is divided into seven parts. The first, which is of three quires in 
 double columns, contains reports from Michaelmas term 1 Edward II. to 
 Easter term 3 Edward II., but the last case of the latter term, namely 
 Lancaster v. Stratford, 1 is unfinished and ends abruptly on folio 27 v> 
 which is the last of the third quire. The next part consists of twelve 
 folios in single column and contains reports of the first three terms of 
 5 Edward II. This part also ends in the middle of a case. The third 
 part (40 r-46 v) consists of seven folios, which are smaller than 
 those in the other parts, and were evidently written considerably later 
 than any of them. Its cases are undated but obviously belong to the 
 reign of Edward III. The fourth part (47 r-58 v) contains reports 
 of all four terms of 13 Edward II. This part is complete. The fifth 
 part (59 r-65 v) consists of reports of Michaelmas term 14 Edward II., 
 and a few cases in a later hand from 1 Edward III. on folios 64 v and 
 65 r and v which were probably left blank originally. The sixth 
 part (66 r-116 r) consists of reports of the years 15 & 16 Edward II. 
 and of Michaelmas and Hilary terms 17 Edward II. They end abruptly 
 in the middle of a case, and probably form part of an intended volume 
 which was never finished. This part is also defective internally, two 
 folios between 87 and 88 and their corresponding folds between 95 
 and 96 having been lost. The seventh and last part (117 r-162 v) 
 consists of reports of Michaelmas term 4 Edward III., all four terms 
 of 5 Edward III., and a few cases of Hilary term 6 Edward III. written 
 on the verso of the last folio. 
 
 An ancient numeration of the folios shows that when in the hands 
 
 1 Year Book Series, voL iii. p. 114.
 
 xlviii INTRODUCTION 
 
 of a former owner the parts were arranged in a different order, namely 
 5, 2, 8, 4, 1, 6, and that part 7, the folios of which were not numbered, 
 was added afterwards. It is obvious, however, that the six parts, 
 arranged as they were without regard to chronology, were numbered 
 and bound by the direction of some owner who had little acquaintance 
 with the Year Books of the fourteenth century. He probably found 
 himself in possession of some fragments of Year Books, and put them 
 together as best he could. The parts which contain reports of the 
 reign of Edward II. seem to have belonged to four or five different 
 manuscripts, of which other parts may even yet come to light. 
 
 The manuscript here called M is in the University Library at 
 Cambridge. 1 Though there may well be differences of opinion about 
 its date, it seems to have been written in the reign of Eichard II., and 
 possibly a little later. Its first eight folios, and tw r o others, namely those 
 once marked 90 and 101 in the ancient numeration, have disappeared, 
 but in other respects it is in a good state of preservation. Beginning 
 in the middle of its concluding case of Hilary term 2 Edward II., 
 it contains a continuous series of reports until the end of Trinity term 
 18 Edward II., and will supply some useful text for many terms which 
 are poorly represented in our other manuscripts. None of its former 
 owners has left his signature upon its folios but, like the other Year 
 Books of Edward II. in the University Library, it once belonged to 
 John Moore, successively bishop of Norwich and Ely, whose collection 
 of books and manuscripts was purchased by George I. and given to the 
 University of Cambridge. 
 
 Our chief interest in P, the letter by which Harleian MS. 835 is 
 here distinguished, arises from the individuality of its compiler, who 
 has incorporated many reports not found in the other manuscripts. 
 For the most part they belong to the reign of Edward I., and are in- 
 serted out of chronological order among the reports of Edward II. 
 Some early owner, perhaps the earliest, has also added here and there 
 a few brief notes in the margins below the text ; and various references 
 and comments in the margins opposite the cases. The manuscript 
 has certainly undergone more early annotation than any of our others. 
 Unfortunately no owner has written his name anywhere in the volume, 
 and it is not even known from whom it was acquired by Eobert Harley, 
 Earl of Oxford. It w T as at one time in a bad state of preservation, and 
 can then have been little more than a packet of detached folios. 
 
 1 Ff 2 12.
 
 INTRODUCTION xlix 
 
 It has recently been rebound, and its folios have all been attached to 
 guards. The first eight containing reports, which are headed ' Anno 
 primo E. secundi,' apparently belong to divers years of the reign of 
 Edward I. The rest of the volume contains reports of the years 
 1 to 7 and 11 & 12 Edward II. 
 
 Next we come to the manuscript here cited as Q. Although what 
 remains of it is in an excellent slate of preservation it has obviously 
 lost much. Perhaps its defects are due to bad stitching or careless 
 binding in its younger days. In its present degenerate state it contains 
 no cases at all for several terms in the first five years of Edward II., 
 and many are missing for some of the remaining years. Nevertheless 
 we may assume that it once contained a continuous series of reports 
 as far as Easter term 5 Edward II. and perhaps as i far as Trinity 
 term in that year. Here the reports in the Common Bench cease and 
 the next twenty-two folios are concerned with the eyre of Kent of 
 5 Edward II. Then the reports in the Common Bench begin again with 
 Michaelmas term 10 Edward II., those for the years 6 to 9 Edward II. 
 being entirely omitted. They are now continuous for four years, 10 to 13 
 Edward II. and then after an omission of four years they begin a third 
 tune with Michaelmas term 18 Edward II. The reports for the various 
 terms of this year are not separated from one another by the custom- 
 ary headlines ; but from a collation with other manuscripts it is evident 
 that all four terms are represented in the volume. Next we have reports 
 of Michaelmas x and Hilary terms 19 Edward II. ; but though the reports 
 of the latter term are introduced by the words ' De termino Hilarii anno 
 nono decimo ' 2 they may include a few others of a later date. After 
 this a second series of reports of the eyre of Kent occurs differing con- 
 siderably from the earlier series already mentioned. They extend from 
 folio 181 r to 208 r, on which there begins a series of reports of cases 
 of quo ivarranto tried in the same eyre and headed ' Incipiunt placita 
 de quo warento.' Then after two short notes, one on a writ of cessauit > 
 the other on a matter of process, a few cases of debt conclude the volume. 
 
 This manuscript discloses the names of some of its former owners. 
 On a blank space on folio 101 v we have the words ' Iste liber constat 
 Thome Rochefort quern deus amat.' Nothing is known of any lawyer 
 of distinction who bore this name, but the entry appears from the 
 handwriting to have been made in the fifteenth century and his identity 
 may yet be discovered by further research. Again on three different 
 folios we have the signature Jakes, which is followed by a curious flourish 
 
 1 These are incomplete at the beginning. 3 Folio 172 v. 
 
 VOL. VI. C
 
 1 INTRODUCTION 
 
 which suggests that it had some official significance. There was a certain 
 Jakes who held the office of clerk of the warrants in the Common Bench 
 in the reign of Henry VIII., and it is he who was once the owner of this 
 manuscript. 1 It came into the Hargrave collection as a gift to Francis 
 Hargrave in the year 1 806 from Samuel Egerton Brydges, the famous 
 antiquary and collector, who bought it, so he states on the flyleaf, 
 ' at the sale of Jacob's Library.' He refers no doubt to the sale of the 
 library of Edward Jacob, who died at Faversham on 26 November 1788. 2 
 The flyleaf also contains the signature of E. E. Mores, that is of Edward 
 Eowe Mores, another eighteenth-century antiquary of some repute, 3 
 and also a description of the contents, beginning with the words ' This 
 MS. I bought among Mr. Harding's books.' The sale to which he refers 
 was that of the library of the scholarly clerk to the House of Commons, 
 Nicholas Hardinge, 4 who owned a large collection of legal manuscripts. 
 He died in 1758 and the sale took place in the following year, but no 
 copy of the catalogue is to be found in the British Museum. The sale 
 catalogue, 5 however, of the Library of Edward Eowe Mores mentions 
 the manuscript (lot 1531), which it describes simply as ' The Year 
 Book of Edw. II., Fol. From Mr. Harding's Collection.' A note states 
 that it was sold for a guinea. At the same sale two other Year Books 
 were sold ; one (lot 1534) is described as ' The Year Book of Edw. I.,' 
 with the information that at the beginning is this note : ' Hie liber 
 Francisci Tate de medio Templo continet. . . . Teste W. Fletewode. 
 Folio.' The other (lot 1535) is described as a ' Year Book from 
 32 Edw. I. to 6 Edw. II (plura continet). 4 to upon vellum.' The first 
 of these two manuscripts belonged at one time to the late Serjeant 
 Heywood, 6 and was purchased not long after his death by the Honour- 
 able Society of Lincoln's Inn, in whose Library it now remains. 7 The 
 other manuscript may almost certainly be identified with the Additional 
 MS. 32086 at the British Museum. This manuscript was given by the 
 late Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy to his son-in-law A. J. Horwood, 8 and 
 
 1 For further information about him reign of Elizabeth to whom this volume 
 see pp. li. and lii. below. in its present state probably belonged 
 
 2 Diet. National Biography, xxix. 114. formerly as well as my MS. copy of 
 
 3 Ibidem, xxxix. 6. reports in the reign of Edward the 3rd.' 
 
 4 Ibidem, xxiv. 346. Fleetwood's signature in this part of 
 6 A copy of this catalogue is in the Britton has disappeared. 
 
 Library of the British Museum. 7 He died on 11 September 1828, 
 
 On a paper flyleaf Serjeant Hey- and the MS. was bought on 9 August 
 
 wood wrote : ' At the end is a very 1847 from a bookseller, 
 ancient copy of part of Britton signed 8 The words ' ex dono T. Duffus 
 
 also by William Fleetwood who was Hardy ' are written inside the cover 
 
 Recorder of the City of London in the and on the first folio ' MS. St. John.'
 
 INTRODUCTION li 
 
 was purchased by the Trustees of the Museum in 1883. 1 It is not so much 
 a Year Book as a notebook in which numerous reports have been entered 
 somewhat capriciously and without any uniform regard to chronological 
 order. It contains reports of the Kentish eyre of 6 Edward II., and 
 of the Common Bench in the first six years of Edward II. and the last 
 four years of Edward I. together with a few others of an earlier date. If, 
 as seems likely, this is the volume which belonged to E. E. Mores, it is 
 not quite accurately described in his sale catalogue, for its earliest dated 
 cases are of the year 30 Edward I. and not 32 Edward II. as there 
 stated. This manuscript has not been used in the preparation of the 
 text of the first four volumes of this series or of the present volume. 
 It was intended to add a few observations upon the more interesting 
 reports which it contains in an Appendix to a subsequent volume. 
 
 Thomas Jakes, to whom the manuscript Q belonged, married 
 Elizabeth, widow of Sir Thomas Frowyk, Chief Justice of the Common 
 Bench, who died in 1506, having appointed his widow, Thomas Jakes, 
 John Kingsmill and Thomas Eoberts executors of his will. Possibly 
 it once belonged to Frowyk, for he possessed a manuscript Year Book 
 containing reports of several years of Edward III., and one year of 
 Henry V., which is now in the Library of the British Museum. 2 It 
 bears his own signature and that of Thomas Jakes, and it subsequently 
 belonged to Sir John Spelman, a Justice of the Common Pleas (who 
 married Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Sir Henry Frowyk, brother 
 of Sir Thomas Frowyk, and died in 1544), and to Geoffrey Caldwell 3 
 (an attorney of that court in the reign of Elizabeth), William Fleet- 
 wood (the famous Eecorder of London, who died in 1594), and Sir 
 Edmond Anderson, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who died in 
 1605. Probably, like our manuscript C, it once belonged to Sir Thomas 
 Walmisley, for it was in the possession of his descendant the late George 
 Eobert Petre of Dunken Hall. 4 It was bought by the Trustees of 
 the British Museum at the Phillipps sale in 1908. 
 
 Jakes himself seems to have been a collector of manuscripts. Besides 
 his two volumes of Year Books just noticed he possessed a magnificent 
 
 1 The sale took place on 12 June, Faringdon (Harleian MS. 1196, f. 711). 
 and this MS. was lot 1336. Geoffrey seems to have possessed a collec- 
 
 2 Additional MS. 37659. tion of manuscripts including Lydgate's 
 
 3 The words ' Galfridus Caldwell me Life of the Virgin Mary (Cotton MS. App. 
 possidet 1547 ' occur on the flyleaf. He viii.) in which his signature appears on 
 was the only son of Ralph Caldwell of f. 40 v, and a medical treatise, Sloane 
 London, who was buried at St. Anne's by MS. 3557 (in which his signature also 
 Aldersgate, and Anne, daughter of Hugh occurs, f. 5). 
 
 Reading. He died unmarried leaving an * See p. xliv above, 
 
 only sister Joan, the wife of Thomas 
 
 c2
 
 lii INTRODUCTION 
 
 volume of statutes with finely illuminated borders and initials. The 
 arms which are depicted on several of its folios may throw light on some 
 other legal manuscripts and their owners. On folio 44 we have the 
 arms of Callow and Twiss, on folio 90 those of Callow and Spenser 
 of Witton in Staffordshire, and on folio 127 those which have been 
 attributed to an obscure family called Addott. On three subsequent 
 folios the arms of Callow are impaled with Twiss, Spenser, and Addott r 
 respectively, but the arms of Jakes are nowhere depicted in the volume. 
 Nor have I been able to discover any relationship between Sir William 
 Callow, the Justice of the Common Bench mentioned on an earlier page, 
 and the families of Twiss, Spenser and Addott. 
 
 Jakes' will, 2 dated 20 January 151f and proved in the Prerogative 
 Court of Canterbury on 13 July 1514, contains the following bequests : 
 
 To my brother John Fowlar the best horse I have at Wyllysborough one 
 of my gowns and such a boke of lawe of myn as he wyll chose. Item 
 I will that my said good lady and wyfle delyuer to the Company of the Inner 
 Temple my fayer boke of the newe statutes wryten and lymed 3 and my greate 
 boke of entres which were my singuler good lord Frowyckes there to remayne 
 in the Librarie to the intent they shuld the better remember my said good 
 lord her late husbond herself and me. . , . Item I bequethe to Richard 
 Belamy John Chauncy Robert Hawkes and Thomas Robertes euery of them 
 a boke of lawe or xxs. in money for the same at their pleasure. 
 
 The manuscript here called E is in the University Library at Cam- 
 bridge. 4 It belonged in the Tudor period to one William Shelley, 5 
 presumably the distinguished Justice of the Common Bench in the 
 reign of Henry VIII. The manuscript is now incomplete and ends 
 abruptly in the middle of a case, but it contains a continuous series of 
 reports from Michaelmas 2 Edward II. to Michaelmas 7 Edward II., 
 the reports of the last term being unfinished. It is much damaged 
 in places by damp, and many cases, notably those of Trinity term 
 4 Edward II., cannot now be deciphered. 
 
 Our manuscript S (Harleian MS. 1062 at the British Museum), 
 once belonged to a certain Edmund Hord, whose name appears upon 
 a flyleaf at the beginning of the volume. He may perhaps be identified 
 with the Hord who was clerk of the warrants in the Common Bench 
 
 1 I have been unable to learn any- 3 I am informed that this manu- 
 thing about this family except in script is not in the Library of the Inner 
 Heraldic works of reference and strongly Temple. Possibly it was never delivered 
 suspect that the arms are those of some to the ' Company,' in which case it may 
 other family the name of which has been be the volume described above, 
 misread. 4 Dd 9 64 
 
 2 The reference is 2 Holder. 5 See f olios 1 r, 49 r, and 64 r.
 
 INTRODUCTION liii 
 
 in the reign of Elizabeth. Another owner was Edmund Cock or Cockes, 
 whose name appears on a blank folio at the end of the volume. No 
 lawyer of distinction bearing this name is known, but the will of one 
 Edmund Cocke of St. Mary Church, Devon, was proved in 1616, and 
 perhaps the signature is his. The manuscript was given by John 
 Anstis, Garter King at Arms, to Eobert Harley, and passed with his 
 collection into the British Museum. Though irregular in structure, 
 and damaged by the loss of a few folios, it contains much valuable 
 material for this edition. A report of the London eyre of 14 Edward II. 
 with a brief table of cases occupies its first twelve folios. This is fol- 
 lowed by the Kentish eyre of 6 Edward II., which ends on folio 31 v. 
 After a half folio containing an index of the preceding and a few other 
 cases, the reports of the Common Bench begin with Michaelmas term 
 3 Edward II. on folio 33 r. There are no headlines for Easter term 
 of this year ; and on folio 48 r the cases of Trinity term end 
 abruptly. On folio 48 v we have the undated case of Thornton v. 
 Lichfield, which is followed by two assises assigned in the margin to 
 the seventeenth year of the reign. Then after a short and undated 
 case of trespass we have the headline ' De termino Michaelis anno 
 regni regis Edwardi filii regis Edwardi decimo octauo ' relating to the 
 cases on this and the four following folios. The reports of the Common 
 Bench are now resumed, and folios 54 r to 145 r contain reports of 
 every term from Michaelmas 10 Edward II. to Trinity 17 Edward II. 
 Eolios 147 r to 160 v contain cases of Michaelmas, Hilary and Easter 
 18 Edward II., but these folios have not been bound in the true order 
 and at least two folios are missing entirely. 
 
 Some early owner of this manuscript began to compile a table of 
 its contents, arranging his entries according to the subject-matter of 
 the cases on various blank or partially blank folios ; thus ' waste ' 
 occurs on folio 12 v, ' entry ad terminum qui preteriit ' on folio 71 r 
 and ' account ' on 145 r. This table shows that the manuscript 
 never contained reports of the year 4 Edward II., nor of the years 
 6 to 9 Edward II., but that a quire of folios containing reports of 
 5 Edward II. has disappeared. 
 
 Our manuscript T (Harleian MS. 3639 at the British Museum) would 
 be more serviceable if it were less defective. Well written and carefully 
 copied, it contains reports of very nearly every term from Michael- 
 mas 3 Edward II. to Michaelmas 19 Edward II. Nine or more folios 
 have unfortunately disappeared from the beginning, which accounts for 
 the lack of reports for the first two years, and for part of Michaelmas 
 term of the third year. Twelve folios have also disappeared from the
 
 liv INTRODUCTION 
 
 middle of the volume, so that we have part only of the reports of Michael- 
 mas term, none for Hilary, Easter and Trinity terms of 7 Edward II. 
 and a few only for Michaelmas term of the following year. Owing to 
 the loss of four folios we have part only of the reports for Easter, and 
 none for Trinity term of 11 Edward II. , while some for Michaelmas 
 term 12 Edward II. are missing. Another folio (between 91 and 92) is 
 missing from the reports of Hilary term 12 Edward II. ; and one or 
 more from those of Michaelmas term 13 Edward II. From this term 
 to the end of the year 18 Edward II. we have a continuous series 
 of reports except that part of folio 171 in Michaelmas term 18 Edward 
 II. has been cut away. The reports end abruptly in the middle of a 
 case of Michaelmas term 19 Edward II. The volume probably con- 
 tained a complete series of reports of this reign. 
 
 This manuscript was bought with many others, on 16 July 1720, 
 from the celebrated antiquary and collector John Warburton, by 
 Humphrey Wanley, the librarian of the Earl of Oxford. Its binding 
 seems to date from the early part of the eighteenth century : but it is 
 impossible to speak confidently on the point. It was carelessly bound, 
 several folios being misplaced to the great inconvenience of its readers. 
 Fortunately two ancient numerations in Arabic figures, the one at the 
 head, the other (but as to the first 90 folios only) at the foot of each folio, 
 enable us to correct the binder's errors without difficulty. The folios 
 which are now officially numbered 18 to 18 should, if placed in their 
 correct order, succeed one another as follows : 13, 14, 18, 17, 15, 16. 
 Similarly the true order of the folios now numbered 101 to 106 should 
 be 101, 104, 106, 105, 102, 103. 
 
 Our only manuscript in the Bodleian Library is the Tanner MS. 
 No. 13, here called X. It contains brief notes of cases heard in the 
 Common Bench in every year of the reign of Edward II. except the 
 first ; and also reports of the Kentish eyre of 6 Edward II. and the 
 Northamptonshire eyre of 3 Edward III. The cases of the first year 
 have probably been cut away ; those of Trinity term 8 Edward II. are 
 missing, and Easter is not separated from Hilary term of 16 Edward II. 
 Nor is the manuscript quite uniform in character, for in place of brief 
 notes we occasionally have reports of some length, as for example in 
 Michaelmas, Hilary, and Easter terms of 8 Edward II. Among its 
 most interesting features are a few scattered reports of assizes taken 
 before Justices specially assigned for the purpose. Some of them are 
 not dated ; others are described as having been taken at Dartford 
 and Grinstead in 19 Edward II. ; at Maidstone, Horsham and Guild-
 
 
 INTRODUCTION lv 
 
 ford in 5 Edward III., at Grinstead and Croydon in 7 Edward III., 
 and at St. Albans in 15 Edward III. The names of the justices 
 before whom they were taken are not always apparent from the 
 reports ; but John de Bousser seems to have been in all these special 
 commissions before 3 Edward II. and Bacon in those after that date. 
 Possibly these brief notes were made by some person who was succes- 
 sively clerk to these two justices, and he may have also abridged the 
 reports in the Common Bench. 
 
 The manuscript was given by Thomas Alwyn, who is described on a 
 blank folio as lately rector of Broughton, to Sir Kobert Brudenall at 
 the time when he was Chief Justice of the Common Bench. 1 Sir Robert 
 was appointed to this office in 1521, and died ten years afterwards. It 
 perhaps belonged subsequently to Sir Edward Montagu, for the signa- 
 ture of a person bearing that name appears at the end of the volume. 
 He was Chief Justice of the King's Bench in 1539 and of the Common 
 Bench in 1545. A later owner was John Akeroyd, who perhaps may 
 be identified with the John Akeroyd of Bubwith, 2 the son of Henry 3 
 Akeroyd who was admitted a member of the Inner Temple in 1632. 
 Thomas Tanner, into whose collection it afterwards passed, was 
 Bishop of St. Asaph and died in 1733. 
 
 Of all our manuscripts Y 4 is perhaps the fairest and most pleasing 
 to the eye. Written in a fine clear hand in double columns and well- 
 spaced lines, it certainly is of exceptional beauty. Its cases, belonging 
 to the last five or six years of Edward I.* and to the first four and a half 
 years of Edward II., are arranged as already explained in order of subject- 
 matter. Many of the cases of Edward II. are not reported elsewhere ; and 
 most of them differ so much from our other versions that it has been 
 necessary to print them in full. Possibly the later reports are by one 
 author and the earlier by another or others. Throughout the volume 
 the cases are sparingly dated ; and apparently it is chiefly among the later 
 cases that we meet with dates. This is of itself a very shght indica- 
 tion of difference in authorship and it may perhaps be attributed to a 
 
 1 It is not quite certain that the two that century. 
 
 consecutive entries ' Ex dono Thome 3 He is probably the same person 
 
 Alwyn nuper rectoris de Broughton ' as Henry Akeroyde of Bubwith, eldest 
 
 and ' Roberto Brudenall militi capital! son of John Akeroyd. This Henry 
 
 justiciario communis banci iste liber was admitted to the Inner Temple in 
 
 pertinet ' are intended to be connected. November 1592. 
 
 a The expression 'nuper ex libris 4 Additional MS. 35116 at the 
 
 lohannis Aikeroyd ' suggests a seven- British Museum. 
 
 teenth-century owner ; and the hand- 4 It contains a few of earlier date 
 
 writing appears to be of the first half of than this.
 
 Ivi INTRODUCTION 
 
 reporter having learnt by experience that dates were useful to his 
 readers. There are however other indications of such difference. We 
 may notice that Latin records are less common among the later than 
 among the earlier cases. Indeed a large part of the volume contains 
 the records of assises of novel disseisin and mortdancestor which are 
 often unaccompanied by reports, but a more conspicuous difference may 
 be noticed in the character of the brief notes which occur among the 
 later cases. Many of them are written in the first person singular and 
 reveal to us an author active in the pursuit of legal knowledge. He 
 tells us the opinions of various Serjeants, apprentices and clerks given 
 on express enquiry or in the ordinary course of conversation. Notes 
 of this character appear in the later cases only. Apparently he made 
 his own reports for some years and added to them brief notes on legal 
 principles and practice. Then he rearranged his reports and notes 
 according to subject-matter and inserted among them as many earlier 
 reports and records as he could find. As a general rule in his rearrange- 
 ment he dated the cases which he had reported himself, but hesitated 
 to date those which he borrowed from others. 
 
 Sir Thomas Phillipps bought this manuscript from the late Mr. 
 George Robert Petre of Dunken Hall, and it was acquired by the 
 British Museum at the Phillipps sale in May 1897. It is highly probable 
 for the reasons already stated that like the Additional MS. 37658 it once 
 belonged to Sir Thomas Walmisley. In both manuscripts certain 
 marginal notes occur which seem to have been made by one and the same 
 person in the early Stuart period. Possibly it may be shown that Sir 
 Thomas Walmisley wrote them. Several other owners have written 
 their names in this manuscript. Those of John Denton of London and 
 Thomas Denton both occur on the last folio. Possibly the latter was 
 Thomas Denton of Hillesden, who died on 20 July 1557, and the former 
 John Denton his brother. On the same folio a name has been carefully 
 erased. The compiler of the British Museum catalogue has read it as 
 ' Thomas Gary (?) ... professor medii Templi.' Careful inves- 
 tigation has shown that the missing word is ' legis,' with its last two 
 letters represented by a mark of contraction. The surname also seems 
 to be a longer one than Gary. Its first letter is almost certainly a G 
 and the fourth may be a g. A fifth and the last legible letter looks very 
 much like an r. We may therefore conjecture that the manuscript once 
 belonged to Sir Thomas Gargrave, who was Speaker of the House of 
 Commons in the reign of Elizabeth. He was never called to the Bar, 
 but may have been admitted a member of the Middle Temple. Even so, 
 the description of a man who was not a barrister as ' professor legis '
 
 INTRODUCTION Ivii 
 
 is remarkable and the reading of the surname as Gargrave must be 
 regarded as very doubtful. 
 
 The only name on the first folio of the manuscript, that of Thomas 
 Nowell of Preston, has been described as written in a hand of the four- 
 teenth century. Several members of the family of Nowell were well 
 known in the legal profession, and one of them, Kobert Nowell, became 
 attorney-general of the court of wards and liveries in the reign of Eliza- 
 beth ; but how he was related to Thomas Nowell of Preston remains 
 to be ascertained. On folio 2, which is a flyleaf, the name of Hengescot 
 has been twice written in a hand of the fourteenth, or perhaps early 
 fifteenth, century, and at the foot of a folio in the middle of the manu- 
 script we have in the large letters of a brass or monumental inscription 
 the name of Topclyf. 1 Nothing is known of any person of distinction 
 who bore either of these names. The manuscript at present contains 
 294 folios, the first and the last of these are pasted on to the covers ; 
 and the second and third are flyleaves. Sixty folios have been misplaced 
 and now come after folio 207, whereas they should have been inserted 
 after 291 at the end of the volume. An ancient numeration of the 
 folios shows that this misplacement is not to be attributed to a modern 
 binder. The manuscript is also incomplete, as the last of the sixty 
 intrusive folios and the last folio of the book as now bound end respec- 
 tively in the course of a case. Three folios are missing in the middle of 
 the volume, that is to say after folios 65, 117 and 156 respectively. 
 On the other hand three extra folios were inserted after the book was 
 written ; they are now numbered 43, 82 and 114. 
 
 The last of the manuscripts used in this edition is in the Library at 
 Lincoln's Inn. Its first four folios contain reports which appear to re- 
 late to Easter term 8 Edward III. They are written in double column, 
 and spaces are left here and there for some omitted cases. These reports 
 differ not only from those found in another part of the manuscript but 
 also from the printed text in the edition of 1678. They evidently 
 formed no part of the manuscript volume as originally bound. After 
 these four intrusive folios we come to thirty-six folios containing a long 
 table or kalendar of the reports which follow it. This kalendar is 
 arranged according to the writs by which the reported cases were initi- 
 ated, the references to the folios being given in early Arabic numbers. 
 The text of the Year Book consists of (1) cases in the Common Bench 
 with a few in the King's Bench from 1 Edward II. to Michaelmas 
 19 Edward II., (2) cases and proceedings in the eyre of Northampton- 
 
 1 Folio 174.
 
 Iviii INTRODUCTION 
 
 shire and Derby in 3 & 4 Edward III., and (3) cases in the two Benches 
 from 1 to 9 Edward III. The manuscript seems to be written in one hand 
 almost throughout, but the arrangement of the reports is not uniform. 
 We find the cases arranged year by year according to subject-matter 
 and without division into terms for the first ten years of Edward II. ; 
 but from 11 Edward II. to the end of the reign they are arranged in 
 the usual fashion. It may be noticed that the reports of 10 Edward II. 
 begin towards the foot of folio 66 v in the usual single column ; they 
 are continued on folios 67 r, 67 v and 68 r, but in double column. On 
 folio 68 v the reports of 1 1 Edward II. begin and they are once more 
 in single column. This leaves us with the impression that the work of 
 transcription was twice suspended in this part of the manuscript, once 
 on the completion of the ninth year, and again on the completion of 
 the tenth year. 
 
 The arrangement of the cases which belong to the reign of Edward 
 III. is not a subject which can be considered in detail in this Introduction. 
 It is sufficient to observe that the reports of the year 4 Edward III. are 
 arranged like those of each of the first ten years of Edward II. according 
 to their subject-matter and without regard to terms. The rest of the 
 cases of this reign are reported in the usual fashion ; the only points 
 of interest about their arrangement being that there are no cases for 
 certain terms, namely Hilary and Trinity 1 Edward III., Easter, Hilary 
 and Trinity 3 Edward II., and Trinity and Michaelmas 6 Edward II. The 
 printed reports, however, of Easter 1 Edward III. agree with the manu- 
 script reports of Hilary term ; and the manuscript gives the first nine 
 cases only of those printed in Michaelmas term of that year. Instances 
 such as this of a series of cases being attributed to a wrong term are not 
 uncommon in the manuscripts of the fourteenth century. They support 
 the view that the early Year Books circulated in single terms or short 
 series of terms and not in large volumes of complete years. 
 
 This manuscript was given to Lincoln's Inn Library by George 
 Anton, who was called to the bar on 45 June 1584 and afterwards 
 became Kecorder of Lincoln. 1 A century earlier it had belonged to 
 John Clerk, a Baron of the Exchequer in the reign of Edward IV., as 
 may be seen from the following inscription on the last folio : 
 
 Liber magistri lohannis Clerke unius baronum scaccarii domini regis 
 Edwardi quarti anno ipsius domini regis octauo de Greys Inne. 1468. 
 
 Apparently 1468 was the year when John Clerke acquired the 
 
 1 Fourteenth Report of Historical Manuscripts Commission, Appendix, pt. viii. 
 pp. 73, 86, 92.
 
 INTRODUCTION lix 
 
 manuscript, for he had been appointed second baron eight years earlier. 
 Another owner was a certain Urswick, whose name appears in a fifteenth- 
 century hand on four different folios. He may probably be identified 
 with Sir Thomas Urswick who was appointed Common Serjeant of the 
 City of London on 27 June 1453, Kecorder on 3 October 1455, and Chief 
 Baron of the Exchequer on 22 May 1472. He was almost certainly a 
 member of Gray's Inn, for he was one of several distinguished lawyers 
 to whom with others Keynold de Gray granted the manor of Portpool 
 in 1456. 1 The name Johan Byrkryg, which is perhaps intended for 
 Johan Byrkryng, occurs on another folio 2 in an ancient but not very 
 clear hand. It has not as yet been identified. 
 
 One of the most interesting features of this manuscript is a name 
 which appears at the top of the right-hand margin of several folios. 3 
 It is plainly written (with one or two slight variations in spelling) as 
 Knaresburgh, and though it is impossible to speak confidently it seems 
 to be in the same handwriting as the manuscript. We may at least 
 suspect that it is the name of its writer. There can scarcely have been 
 a better object in the inscription of the name on these folios, than to 
 testify to the authenticity of the copy. It is as if the writer were 
 to say : ' These are the reports of the years here mentioned, as Knares- 
 burgh witnesses who wrote them.' We fortunately have a hint of his 
 identity. Between the reports of the reign of Edward II. and those 
 of the eyre of Northampton a folio 4 was originally left blank, and on 
 this at some later date three documents have been copied, all of which 
 relate to the forest of Knaresburgh. The third of these documents, an 
 agreement 5 made in the form of a chirograph, is dated 30 March 1285, 
 and one of the witnesses to it was a certain Eobert of Knaresburgh, 
 who is likely to have been the writer of the manuscript. He was possibly 
 the person of that name who was acting as attorney of Elizabeth widow 
 of John of Burgh in the reign of Edward II. and the early years of 
 Edward III. 6 But though he was probably the writer of the manu- 
 script there is no reason for supposing that he was himself a reporter. 
 He was a clerk and an attorney, who perhaps made this compilation 
 for some person interested in law or possibly made it for his own edifi- 
 cation. How far the manuscript contains any original work in the way 
 
 1 Pension Book of Gray's Inn, i. p. xx. part and Sir Robert of Plumton of the 
 
 : Folio 176 v. other part. 
 
 3 Folios 43 r, 51 r, 61 r, 69 r, 6 Calendar of Letters Patent, 1321-4, 
 301 r and 313 r. p. 228 ; ibidem 1327-30, p. 365, ibidem 
 
 4 Folio 240. 1330-4, p. 4. In the year 1334 he 
 6 The agreement was made between appears to have been in Ireland. 
 
 Edmond Earl of Cornwall of the one
 
 Ix INTRODUCTION 
 
 of abridgement and revision is a matter for further consideration. 
 Like Winchendon, whose manuscript Selden saw in the Inner Temple 
 Library, 1 Knaresburgh may have been a man of learning. Several 
 clerks who practised as attorneys at this period were entitled to the 
 prefix ' Master,' and had studied at a university. Eobert of Knares- 
 burgh was apparently not entitled to be called Master, but he may 
 yet have possessed a considerable knowledge of English law. The 
 chief difficulty in accepting the view that he was the actual writer 
 of the manuscript is the fact that twelve names or words which 
 have with one exception been more or less successfully erased are 
 inscribed respectively in the top margin of each of the folios 43 v 
 to 49 r. Their position, however, is a little different from that of 
 the name ' Knaresburgh,' and they appear to have been written at a 
 later date. The only one of them which has not been wholly or 
 partially erased seems to read as ' Omolryan ' ; and it is very un- 
 certain how many of the other names or words differ from this or 
 from one another. For the present they must remain unexplained. 
 
 If we have been unable to trace the history of any one of our manu- 
 scripts from its infancy to the present day, we can at least notice a 
 large proportion of men of erudition and legal distinction among their 
 owners of the Tudor period. At a later date they were regarded with 
 affection by distinguished jurists such as Selden and Hale, and were 
 prized by famous collectors such as Fairfax, Eawlinson, and Harley. 
 It is evident that at no time since the reign of Henry VIII. were manu- 
 script Year Books poorly appreciated, and we may doubt whether any 
 considerable number of them have perished in the last four centuries. 
 A few copies lingering in private collections may be still unknown 
 to legal antiquaries, and there may even be a few in public libraries 
 which have escaped their notice. We cannot hope to hear of many more 
 still in good condition. With regard to those which have perished 
 we may perhaps know more when the Abridgements have been studied 
 carefully and those which their compilers used have been divided into 
 the known and the unknown. Finally the history of the manuscript 
 Year Books of subsequent reigns, and the study of their annotations, 
 may reflect some faint light on those of the reigns of Edward I. and 
 Edward II. 
 
 1 Year Book Series, vol. i. p. 30. before that date. He remarks that it 
 
 This manuscript appears from the is ' so fairly writ that it is easier to read 
 
 statement in Icon Libettorum (p. 322) than the first edition in print.' In 
 
 by Myles Da vies to have been in the point of fact there was no second edition 
 
 Inner Temple Library in 1715 or shortly of Maynard's Year Book.
 
 INTRODUCTION Ixi 
 
 A second and important point to notice is that in some of our 
 manuscripts the reports of several years and terms are missing 
 notably, in A, Easter 4 Edward II. to Trinity 9 Edward II. ; in 
 G, Hilary 7 Edward II. to Trinity 9 Edward II. ; in L, 6 to 12 
 Edward II. ; in P, 8 to 10 Edward II. ; in Q, 6 to 9 Edward II. ; and 
 in S, 4 to 9 Edward II. There is no reason for thinking that these 
 omissions are due to the loss of quires and folios ; for A and G are 
 in an excellent state of preservation, and if L, P, and Q have been 
 sadly damaged they disclose no indications of ever having contained 
 the missing reports. It is much more probable that the reports for 
 certain years were so scarce that compilers of Year Books often 
 found it impossible to make their volumes as complete as they 
 wished. Eeports seem to have been especially scarce for the years 
 7 to 9 Edward II. Even C which includes all these three years 
 contains very few cases for the eighth and ninth years. All this 
 accords with the view that the reports of the fourteenth century 
 circulated as small pamphlets containing the reports of a few terms 
 only, and that our large Year Books containing reports of many years 
 were compiled from collections of the small pamphlets. On this sub- 
 ject there is some discussion in the next section of this Introduction. 
 
 One other source of Year Book history must be briefly mentioned. 
 Palaeography is rapidly becoming more and more useful as an auxiliary 
 of historical investigation. Those only who have studied the many 
 technicalities of this abstruse science long and critically can draw 
 inferences from the handwritings of our Year Books, which others 
 can safely trust. The precise dates when they were written can never 
 be more than a matter of conjecture, but we can at least hope to learn 
 if any two or more of our manuscripts have been written wholly or 
 partly by one and the same person ; whether an apparent change of 
 writing is due to a scribe resuming work after an interval, or to the task 
 of copying having been transferred to another ; and to what class or 
 classes of scribe the men who wrote the Year Books belonged. 
 
 In conclusion attention may be drawn to the First Appendix to this 
 Introduction which contains particulars of the quires and folios of our 
 different manuscripts. It is a matter of great importance to know 
 precisely how the quires were formed, and how far they remain intact. 
 It constantly happens that the reports of a new year begin with the 
 first folio of a quire, and sometimes when a year occupies less than a 
 complete quire the blank folios are cut away or are used for notes. 
 On this subject we need all the information which can be collected. In
 
 Ixii INTRODUCTION 
 
 the Appendix I have adopted a method of describing the quires which 
 is, I believe, entirely new. The numbers of the first and last folios of 
 each quire are printed above a short line, and the number of the folio 
 which precedes the stitching of the quire is printed below the line. 
 Thus ^^ describes a quire having 135 and 142 for its first and 
 last folios respectively and its stitching between 138 and 139. In 
 most great libraries the folios of manuscripts have in recent years been 
 renumbered in pencil, and this is the numeration used in the Appendix. 
 Unfortunately the system of numeration varies. Some librarians assign 
 no number to blank folios ; whereas others designate them by the 
 number of the last folio on which there is writing, together with the 
 distinguishing letters a, b in alphabetical order. This difference of 
 practice, however, leads to some confusion. It is obvious that every 
 complete quire contains an even number of folios. Where the descrip- 
 tion in the Appendix appears to show an uneven number this is due 
 either to the presence of a blank and unnumbered folio or to the fact 
 that a folio or some odd number of folios has been cut away. Atten- 
 tion is drawn to all such cases by a note ; and where a folio has been 
 cut away, the number of the folio to which it was once the half -fold 
 or ' conjugate ' is also specially mentioned. 
 
 4. THE RELATIONS OF THE MANUSCBIPTS TO ONE ANOTHER. 
 
 The theory that our Year Books were compiled from small pamphlets 
 or gatherings containing the reports of a few terms only needs some 
 explanation. When our large volumes of Year Books were compiled 
 they were no doubt occasionally copied verbatim or almost verbatim. 
 Being no larger than manuscripts of Bracton and Britton, they were 
 just as easy to copy from cover to cover. But copies of this sort were 
 derived ultimately from the same source as the manuscripts from which 
 they were immediately copied, and have no special history of their own. 
 The theory in discussion, which may be called the ' pamphlet ' theory, 
 is put forward in opposition to one which seems to say that our Year 
 Books were compiled by selection from various other manuscripts of 
 the same character as themselves ; that their compilers had before 
 them several manuscripts, not all of them the work of the same reporter, 
 and that when they were about to copy a particular case they examined 
 carefully the different manuscripts to see which gave the best report. 
 In short, the compiler of the large volume (the Year Book as we know 
 it) is on this theory an editor. On the ' pamphlet ' theory the compiler
 
 INTRODUCTION Ixiii 
 
 is not an editor, but an intelligent, or fairly intelligent, transcriber, who, 
 nevertheless, may sometimes have abridged, omitted, and even inserted, 
 cases. Normally, however, he was a reproducer of texts rather than 
 the author of original work. But it must be admitted that the 
 4 pamphlet ' theory cannot as yet be stated in very precise language. 
 We cannot say whether the pamphlets in their earliest forms circulated 
 as the reports of one or of two or more terms, nor whether from the 
 first there were rival pamphlets giving different reports of the same cases. 
 When more volumes of the Year Books of Edward II. have been edited 
 and their contents critically examined, information will probably be 
 at hand which will enable the theory to be stated with more precision. 
 
 No manuscript pamphlets containing the reports of single years 
 or terms of the reign of Edward II. are known to have been preserved. 
 Their former existence is purely a matter of inference. In the first 
 place the gaps of various lengths in our large Year Books can, as already 
 stated, be well explained by the ' pamphlet ' theory, and no other 
 explanation seems to be so satisfactory. Then we have the evidence 
 of the early printed Year Books. A considerable number of them 
 were first printed as pamphlets containing the reports of one year 
 only. We may notice : 20 Henry VI. , published between 1480 
 and 1490 ; 3 Henry VI. and 9 Henry VI., between 1490 and 1500 ; and 
 22 Edward IV., between 1500 and 1510. It is much more probable 
 that the early printers published the reports of these years, because 
 they were able to obtain manuscripts of them, and none of longer 
 periods, than that they selected them out of large manuscripts con- 
 taining the reports of many years. Moreover, we know that Pynson 
 published a second report of the year 21 Edward III., which belonged to 
 Sir William Whorwood. 2 If Whorwood's manuscript contained other 
 years he would almost certainly have printed them as well as the 
 year 21 Edward III. 
 
 We are accustomed to calling the reports of the Middle Ages Year 
 Books, but in their early days they seem to have been called just as 
 frequently Books of Terms. In the famous passage in which Chief 
 Justice Prissot mentions Year Books l he speaks of ' Students in Terms.' 
 Even in the preface to the folio edition of the Year Books published 
 in 1679 we read of Books of Years and Terms. Thus it would appear 
 that the term rather than the year was the original unit of the book of 
 law-reports. A small pamphlet containing the reports of a single term, 
 or of a few terms only, may be described as a ' book of terms ' as properly 
 as, and even more properly than, a large volume containing the reports 
 1 See Year Book Series, iii. p. xv. a See p. xxviii above.
 
 Ixiv INTRODUCTION 
 
 of many years. Indeed we may suspect that it was only when the small 
 and perishable pamphlets, each containing reports of a few terms only 
 of the reign of Edward II., were becoming scarce, and their contents 
 were becoming known through larger volumes, that the phrase ' Book 
 of Years ' gradually began to take the place of Book of Terms. In 
 the early Tudor period, however, judges and lawyers generally referred 
 to the reports neither as Books of Years nor as Books of Terms, but 
 as ' books ' simply. In Trinity term 1 Edward V. it was said ' by 
 divers apprentices present at the bar that it is adjudged in our books.* 
 We have also seen on an earlier page 1 that when Jenner the prothp- 
 notary said that he could show a precedent, Fitzherbert, one of the 
 judges, replied that he could show ' many books ' in support of what 
 he had said. On another occasion the same judge remarked 2 that he 
 could show ' divers books adjudged on that point,' by which he seems 
 to have meant divers cases in different books ; also on a third occasion, 
 that he could show ' four books adjudged to the contrary.' When he 
 speaks of these four books he can scarcely have meant four large volumes 
 of reports, for some of his cases would almost certainly occur in the same 
 volume. It is much more likely that he meant by a ' book ' the reports 
 of a single year or of a short series of years. 
 
 An interesting document in which books of terms are mentioned 
 may here be noticed. The will 3 of one John Langley of Soddington 
 St. Peter in the county of Gloucester, dated 4 December 1458, and 
 proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury on 23 November 1459, 
 shows us that his collection of legal books included four volumes of 
 reports in the Courts of Westminster in addition to two copies of the 
 ' Books of Assizes.' The reports are described as follows : 
 
 (1) A book of terms of the years 38 and 41-43 Edward III. 
 
 and 2, 7, and 13 Eichard II. 
 
 (2) A book containing four or five years of the ' forties ' of 
 
 Edward III. 
 
 (3) A book containing many cases and divers terms, viz. 
 
 28 Edward III., and 2, 7, 8, 11, and 13 Eichard II. 
 
 (4) A book of two unnamed years of the reign of Henry VI. 
 
 The first and third of these volumes seem to have been compiled 
 from manuscript pamphlets containing reports of single years, most 
 of which were not consecutive. The second was probably compiled 
 from pamphlets, but as the years are not specified we cannot be certain ; 
 
 1 See p. xiv, above. 2 Ibidem. 
 
 3 My attention was drawn to this very interesting will by Miss E. Stokes.
 
 INTRODUCTION Ixv 
 
 and the fourth cannot have been more than a pamphlet as it contained 
 two years only. The material part of the will x is as follows : 
 
 Item volo quod liber qui vocatur Actus Apostolorum ligatus et coopertus 
 cum panno lineo quern habui ex deliberacione . . . Mylis adtunc Canonici 
 in Abbathia de Cirencestre redeliberetur domui predicte. Item unum 
 Rotulum armorum quod habui ex deliberacione Ricardi Collesborne Canonici 
 apud Cirencestre redeliberetur eidem domui. Item una quaterna gram- 
 maticalis quam habui de lohanne Chestirton redeliberetur domui predicte. 
 Item unus liber de terminis viz de annis xlj ij iij et xxxviij vo et ij do 
 Ricardi vij et xiij redeliberetur FiloU aut executoribus patris sui ad 
 disponendum pro anima patris sui. Item alius liber assisarum 2 scriptus in 
 paupiro et ligatus quern habui ex deliberacione Rogeri Capis redeliberetur 
 executoribus predicti Rogeri ad disponendum pro anima ipsius Rogeri. 
 Item quidam liber in pargameno de assisis nuper Willelmi Poole redeliberetur 
 executoribus suis. Item alius liber vocatus a Manueh 1 in lingua gallicana 
 redeliberetur executoribus predicti Willelmi aut heredi suo ad disponendum 
 pro anima sua. Item alii libri qui sunt mei proprii unde unus restat in 
 custodia lohannis George de Whitehors et continet quatuor vel quinque 
 annos 3 de quadragesimis Edwardi tercii. Item alius liber meus qui restat 
 in custodia Roberti Hogges in quo continentur multi casus ac diuersi termini 
 viz. [de] annis ij vij viij xj xiij mo Ricardi necnon xxviij Edwardi tercii 
 et plura alia que ad presens ignoro ; volo quod vendantur et disponantur pro 
 anima mea per executores meos. Item liber de terminis de duobus annis 
 istius Regis volo quod vendatur et disponatur pro anima eius de quo habui 
 ilium librum secundum disposicionem executorum meorum. 
 
 Item michi debetur pro feodo meo annualis redditus de xl.s annuatim 
 michi soluendorum per Abbatem Gloucestre de communi consensu Conuentus 
 ad terminum vite mee, unde summa arreragiorum restat insoluta xxiiij. li. 
 quam quidem summam volo quod habita consideracione de redditu eiusdem 
 domus in Gloucestre existente nuper per consilium meum recognito et domui 
 predicte retornato quod predictus Abbas et Conventus soluant predictam 
 summam executoribus meis. Alioquin quod ipsi Abbas et Conventus re- 
 spondeant coram deo nisi graciam meliorem habeant de executoribus meis 
 aliter pro anima mea disponenda. . . . Item volo quod duo libri mei viz. 
 liber statutorum et alius Registrum quos nuper emi de Margeria sorore mea 
 pro quatuor libris vendantur et disponantur pro anima mea Prouiso semper 
 quod si Willelmus Langley, lohannes Langley vel Edmundus Langley con- 
 sanguinei mei vel aliquis eorum voluerint emere predictos libros et dare pro 
 dictis libris sicut ego dedi viz. iiij. or li. preferantur pre omnibus aliis. 
 
 If the 'pamphlet' theory is to be accepted as good, it will be 
 necessary to satisfy ourselves by an examination of the reports year 
 by year that it is consistent with their contents and arrangement. But 
 before starting on this examination we must notice and briefly consider 
 
 1 For this will see Stokton, 18, at Somerset House. 2 MS. ' assisis.' s MS. ' annis.' 
 VOL. VI. d
 
 Ixvi INTRODUCTION 
 
 a few important facts. The cases which are common to the different 
 manuscripts often occur in different order ; some manuscripts contain 
 reports which are altogether missing in others ; and according to our 
 late Literary Director the highest authority on the Year Books of this 
 period some of the reports of the same case in one manuscript, or in 
 one group of manuscripts, may be altogether independent of the reports 
 in the other manuscripts. These, however, are difficulties which must 
 be faced, to whatever theory of the origin of the Year Books we incline. 
 
 Let us suppose that a clerk is directed to copy a pamphlet containing 
 the reports of a few terms only. If he make his copy as accurately as 
 he can he will transcribe the pamphlet as he finds it, incorporating 
 its corrections, and perhaps some of its marginal additions. Possibly 
 he will find passages which are, or which seem to him to be, corrupt, 
 and others which, through the bad preservation of the parchment or for 
 some such good reason, he cannot read satisfactorily. Here he will 
 have to construct a text for his copy to the best of his ability. Thus 
 two scribes each endeavouring to copy accurately the same pamphlet 
 might produce two texts differing in important points. The readings 
 might vary considerably in places, and certain marginal notes and 
 additions might occur as part of the text in one copy, and not at all 
 in the other. Their texts would have differed still more from one 
 another if they had been copied from different transcripts of the same 
 pamphlet. In particular we should not be surprised to find that an 
 extra case, or a few extra cases, occurred at the end of some copies, 
 and not at the end of others which purported to be the same reports. 
 A pamphlet would often have one or two blank folios or part of a blank 
 folio at the end, on which an owner would be tempted to add some 
 additional matter. In copies derived from this one, the additional 
 matter would no doubt sometimes be incorporated with the main text. 
 
 So far we have been considering copies which purported to be 
 accurate, copies such as would be made in accordance with a direction 
 from the scribe's employer. It might often happen, however, that 
 the scribe copied the pamphlet on his own initiative. Here he would 
 feel himself less strictly bound to accuracy of arrangement. He 
 might occasionally like to take a case out of its order, selecting one of 
 such length as suited the time at his disposal. He might sometimes 
 wish to abridge, or to omit, some unimportant cases, so as to obviate 
 the necessity of using more parchment than he had beside him. In 
 looking through our manuscripts of the Year Books we cannot fail 
 to notice the anxiety of their scribes to begin the reports of a year 
 with a new quire. In order to effect this whole folios are left blank,
 
 INTRODUCTION Ixvii 
 
 and in all probability cases are sometimes abridged or omitted for a 
 like purpose. When we find this anxiety a conspicuous feature of our 
 large Year Books we may be pretty sure that a desire to confine their 
 cases to a limited space prevailed among the scribes who compiled 
 the small pamphlets, and that it had an important effect upon the 
 transmission of the text of the reports. 
 
 Nor is the existence of two or more apparently independent reports 
 of certain cases in the different manuscripts in any way inconsistent 
 with the ' pamphlet ' theory. It might be suggested that from the 
 beginning independent collections of reports of the cases, being the 
 work of rival reporters, were in active circulation. It is true that 
 many of the reports in Y seem to be altogether different from those 
 in the other manuscripts ; but Y is unique. It differs from the other 
 volumes not only in the arrangement of its cases by subject-matter 
 instead of by terms, but also in containing numerous notes and obser- 
 vations which disclose the personality of its author. He usually 
 reported his own cases, though occasionally he seems to have copied 
 the reports of others. It is very probable that other young lawyers 
 or even clerks were, like the author of Y, making reports and notes 
 of cases for their own instruction in the early years of Edward II., 
 and perhaps some of their work found its way into the pamphlets 
 from which, I believe, the Year Books were derived. But it is an 
 entire mistake to suppose that the number of apparently independent 
 reports is large. It is often convenient to print two or more versions 
 of the same case ; but it should not be assumed that in every instance 
 in which two versions are printed in this edition the reports are 
 entirely independent of one another. They are printed because their 
 texts contain too many variants for them to be adequately repre- 
 sented in footnotes to any other printed version. If we exclude Y, 
 we shall find that in the first four volumes and the present volume 
 of this series the number of reports which have any decided appearance 
 of being independent is far from large. Moreover, there is no sufficient 
 reason for supposing that these apparently independent reports were 
 really independent in the sense that they were the original work of 
 other reporters than those who were responsible for the rest of the 
 reports. It is more probable that such original work as they contained 
 appears by way of occasional substitution of an improved version of 
 an unsatisfactory report rather than as part of the work of men who 
 were reporting continuously. 
 
 Thus, if the reports of a term or a year in two different manuscripts 
 are in substantial agreement except for two or three cases which are 
 
 d2
 
 Ixviii INTRODUCTION 
 
 very different, the safest inference is that the reports in both manu- 
 scripts were by the same author, but that a critical owner of one of 
 them has substituted reports of his own for a few which he considered 
 unsatisfactory. Such an owner might either have been a lawyer or 
 a clerk who had taken the trouble to make his own report of a case 
 which interested him ; or a Serjeant who had argued the case in ques- 
 tion. If these substituted reports were the work of some lawyer 
 of distinction the pamphlet in which they were first inserted would no 
 doubt be extensively copied. Probably in the first instance they would 
 be written at the end of the pamphlet, and the old versions would be 
 respectively cancelled by some such words as ' uacat quia melius in- 
 ferius.' In subsequent copies the older version would probably be 
 omitted, and the new one substituted for it, but it might happen some- 
 times that both versions would be retained. It is absurd to suppose 
 that transcribers had one uniform method in these matters. In our 
 large volumes of Year Books interesting substitutions of this character 
 may be noticed. Thus on folio 48 r of C the first version 1 of the case of 
 Mortimer v. Ludlow, which was heard in Michaelmas term 2 Edward II., 
 has been carefully erased, and on folio 61 r the second version 2 is found- 
 In this instance the erasure seems to have been due to the owner 
 finding that he had two reports of the same case in his manuscript ; 
 but the later version was probably intended to be in substitution for 
 the earlier one in the pamphlet in which it was first inserted. 3 
 
 We may now begin an investigation of the history of the text of 
 the Year Books of the first four years of the reign of Edward II. in 
 the light of the detailed particulars which follow. They are neces- 
 sarily long and tedious, but when they have been carefully considered 
 it will be easy for the reader to test the ' pamphlet ' theory for himself 
 and to form his own conclusions. It must be remembered that the 
 manuscripts of the Year Books are in four different repositories, and 
 that the printed volumes of our series by reason of their size are not 
 easily carried from place to place. It is therefore not unlikely that 
 in the particulars of some of our manuscripts a few brief notes have 
 
 1 Year Book Series, ii. p. 43. has been carefully erased. It would 
 
 2 Ibidem, p. 45. seem that the case was adjourned from 
 
 3 Another case of an erasure, but term to term until Michaelmas 9 Edw. II. 
 in somewhat different circumstances, when the plaintiff was non-suited. The 
 may here be noted. In the margin of erasure may have been made by some 
 folio 86 v in C opposite the case of early owner of the manuscript who 
 Thorne v. Peche heard in Easter term thought that the arguments used were 
 3 Edw. II. (vol. iii. p. 93) there is a better stated in the report of the first 
 reference to folio 204 r, on which hearing than in that of the second, 
 another report on this case in 9 Edw. II.
 
 INTRODUCTION Ixix 
 
 been overlooked and a few errors made, so that some correction may 
 be needed in a subsequent volume. A great effort, however, has been 
 made to secure accuracy. 
 
 1 EDWARD II. For this year we have reports in six manuscripts, 
 namely A, B, C, D, L and P. Each of them contains twenty-eight 
 cases, three being assigned to Michaelmas term, two to Hilary, thirteen 
 to Easter and ten to Trinity ; so that, compared with other years, the 
 first year is poorly represented in our Year Books. An alternative 
 report of a case of Trinity term appears in the first volume of our series, 
 but it has been found in one manuscript only, and there occurs on a 
 flyleaf. 1 With this exception it has not been found necessary to print 
 alternative reports of any of the twenty-eight cases. The order of the 
 cases is also the same in all the manuscripts, except that one case 
 in L and two in P are misplaced, 2 and these two manuscripts are also 
 peculiar in containing two brief notes 3 after the tenth case of Trinity 
 term. These are trifling differences, and we may infer that one 
 version only of the reports of the first year circulated at all widely. 
 
 2 EDWARD II. In this year we have reports not only in the six 
 manuscripts mentioned above, but also in three others, namely M, 
 Q, and R ; and in X we have a useful collection of abridged reports. 
 Unfortunately M and Q are defective ; the reports in M begin in 
 Easter term, and those in Q late in Hilary term. Now in these ten 
 manuscripts the reports of the same case sometimes appear in alternative 
 versions ; and some manuscripts contain cases which are absent in 
 others. Nevertheless the manuscripts, when considered with reference 
 to the cases in this year, fall into two well-defined groups. 
 
 As the cases are divided into terms differently in the manuscripts 
 our late Literary Director abandoned this division, and numbered 
 the one hundred and fifty cases of this year consecutively without 
 regard to terms. But for the purpose of our present investigation the 
 division into terms must be steadily kept in view. In A fifty-six cases 
 
 1 This is (5) on folio 20, which also 1 Edward II. (i. 6), 
 
 contains one extra report (7). For (1), 20 v. (4) Case 2 of Hilary, 
 
 (3) and (4) see footnotes on pp. 4, 6 and 1 Edward II. (i. 10). 
 
 10 of vol i. : (5) Case 16 of Trinity, 
 
 20 r<>. (1) Case 2 of Michaelmas, 1 Edward II. (i. 29). 
 
 I Edward II. (i. 4). (6) Case 16a of 2 Ed- 
 
 (2) An unprinted record of ward II. (i. 65). 
 
 a quart impedit, also (7) Case 14 of Easter, 
 
 occurring in R (folio 1 Edward II. (i. 25). 
 
 II v) among the a The order of the first five cases in 
 reports of Michael- L is 1, 5, 2, 3, 4, and in P 1, 5, 3, 2, 4. 
 mas, 3 Edward II. 3 These two notes are printed in 
 
 (3) Case 1 of Hilary, Appendix II. to this volume.
 
 Ixx INTRODUCTION 
 
 are assigned to Michaelmas term, and they are printed in the order in 
 which they occur in the manuscript, except that 40 is placed in the 
 manuscript after 51. In B and D the text, and the order of the cases, 
 s as in the printed book except that in D 39 occurs between 37 and 
 38. Five of the fifty-six cases in these manuscripts namely 2, 16, 
 20, 23, 51 are printed with the letters a after their distinguishing 
 numbers, as different versions of them are found in other manuscripts. 
 
 In Hilary term of this year A contains seventeen cases, of which 
 the last, a brief variant of 20 a, has not been printed. The remainder, 
 numbered 57-72, occur in the same order as in the printed book. In 
 B and D the same sixteen cases occur in this order, except that in 
 D 72 has been transferred to the following term. In this term there 
 are no variant reports. 
 
 In Easter term A has twenty-four cases, numbered from 73 to 96. 
 Four of these namely 74, 76, 77, and 78 have variant reports in 
 some of the other manuscripts. In B and D the text of the twenty- 
 four cases is the same as in A. In B they occur in the order in which 
 they are printed ; but in D 89 follows 84, 93 follows 90, and 72, 
 which was omitted in the preceding term, is inserted after 96. Three 
 short notes follow 72 in this manuscript. The first is the version of 
 20 mentioned above, which occurs at the end of Hilary term in A ; 
 the second and third are 118 and 119 of the printed book. They are 
 here inserted in a column which had been left blank in order that the 
 reports of the next term might begin on a new folio. 
 
 In Trinity term A has twenty-three cases, numbered from 97 to 119, 
 ten of which appear in different versions in other manuscripts namely 
 97-99, 101-104, 106, 114, 117. In D the text of twenty-one of these 
 cases agrees with A and the order is the same, but 118 and 119 occur, 
 as already explained, at the end of the reports of Easter term. 
 
 The reports of the second group namely C, L, M, P, Q, R, and X 
 are less clearly related to one another than those of the first, but the 
 relationship between some of them is closer than between others. The 
 following are the numbers of the cases of the four terms as they are 
 found in C, P, and Q respectively : 
 
 C P Q 
 
 MICHAELMAS. 
 
 Folio. Case. Folio. Case. Folio. Case. 
 
 44 v 27 12 v 43, 44, 46, 50 
 
 45 r 28 13 r 48 note, 31 note, [incomykte] 
 v 29, 50 36, unprinted 
 
 46 r 33, 40, 43 note, 27, 28
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Ixxi 
 
 c 
 
 Folio. Cote. 
 
 46 v 44, 46, 48 note, 
 
 31 note, 36, un- 
 printed note 1 
 135 
 
 47 r 54, 55 
 v 30, 38 
 
 48 r 32, 2a (erased), 
 
 3 (record) 
 
 v 4 (record), 2 142 
 (record) 
 
 49 r 143, Appendix to 
 
 vol. ii (case 
 22), 5 
 
 v 49, Appendix 
 (case 12), 41 
 
 50 r 746, 1, 6 
 
 v 516, unprinted 
 case 3 
 
 51 r 4, 31, Appendix 
 
 (case 13), 8, 
 Appendix (c&sz 
 14), unprinted 
 note* 56 
 
 v Appendix (case 
 15), 746 (re- 
 peated"), Appen- 
 dix (case 16), 
 Appendix (case 
 17), 15, Appen- 
 dix (case 18) 
 
 52 r 150 (record) 
 v 12, 9 
 
 53 r 10, 13, 148 
 v 145, 14 
 
 Folio. Cote. 
 
 13 v 29, 33, 37 (ab- 
 
 ridged) , 40 , 1 35 
 
 14 r 54, 55 
 
 v 30, 38, 26 
 
 15 r 3, 4 (record), 142 
 
 (record), 143 
 v Appendix (case 
 22), 5, 49 
 
 16 r Appendix (case 
 
 12), 41, 746, 1, 
 6 
 
 v 516,4,31, Appen- 
 dix (case 13), 
 8, (Appendix 
 (case 14) 
 
 17 r 56, Appendix 
 
 cases 15, 16, 
 17), 15, Ap- 
 pendix (case 
 18), 1286. 
 
 Folio. Cote. 
 
 HILARY. 
 
 18 r 150 (record) 
 v 144, 12, 136, Ap- 
 pendix (case 
 20) 5 
 
 1 The text of this note in C is as 
 follows : 
 
 Xota. Le baroun ne purra my 
 receyvre homage en absence sa femme 
 des tenementz qe sunt del dreit sa 
 femme ne soul respoundre dez tene- 
 mentz qe sunt del dreit sa femme. 
 
 - The identification of this case is 
 doubtful. 
 
 3 This is printed in Appendix ii., 
 
 p. ciii below. 
 
 4 The text of this note in C is as 
 follows : 
 
 En un bref de forme de doun le 
 tenant demaunda la vewe dez tene- 
 mentz lessez a ly par 1'auncestre le 
 demaundaunt. 
 
 Hervy. Vostre auncestre ne murust 
 pas seisi, par quei eit la vewe. 
 
 5 See note 1 on next page.
 
 Ixxii INTRODUCTION 
 
 C P Q 
 
 Folio. Cote. Folio. Case. Folio. Case. 
 
 54 r 146, 141 19 r 137, 10, 13, 9, 2 r 141, 70, 7, 138, 
 v Appendix (case 11, 16a 
 
 55 r 70, 7, 138, 11, 19) 1 v 166 (record) 
 
 16a v 148, 145, 14 3 r 206 
 
 v 166 (recora) 20 r 146, 141 
 
 56 r 206 v 70, 7, 138, 11, 
 
 139, 140, 16a 
 21 r 166 
 
 v Appendix (case 
 21) 
 
 EASTER. 
 
 56 r 120, 18 22 r 206, 786, 120, 21 3 r 120, 18, 766 
 v 766, 122a v 18,121, 766, 122a v 122a, 786, 21 
 
 57 r 786, 21 23 r 776, 123, 124 4 r 776, 123, 124, 17 
 v 776, 123 v 149, 17, 125, 105 v 1286 
 
 58 r 124, 1286 (an unprinted 5 r 19 
 v note), 126, 19, 
 
 59 r 127 
 v 19 
 
 TRINITY. 
 
 60 r 105a 24 r 105a, 128a 5 v 105a 
 
 v 996, 129 2 v 986 6 r 996, 129 2 
 
 61 r 22, 26 25 1 129 v 22, 26 
 
 v 23a v 996, 2 100 7 r 23a, 130, 24, 132 
 
 62 r 130, 24, 132 26 r 1016, 102a, 103a v 106a, 100, 1016, 
 v 106a, 3 100, 1016 v 104a, 106a, 107, 1126, 1146 
 
 63 r 1126, 1146 108, 109, 110, 8 r 
 
 v 1126, 113 v 133a, 986 
 
 64 r 133a 27 r 117a, 1146 9 r 
 
 v 986 v Appendix (cases v 976 
 
 65 r 1 and 2) 10 r 134 
 v 976 28 r Appendix (cases v 25 
 
 66 r 134 3, 6, 4) 
 
 v v Appendix (cases 
 
 67 r. 25 5, 10, 9, 7, 8, 
 
 11), 129 (a 
 second report) 
 
 29 r 22, 26 
 
 v 130, 24, 132, 25 
 
 30 r 976, 134 
 
 1 Cases 19 and 20 in the Appendix eodem termino ' are written in the 
 are written in a later hand in the lower margin of 129 in P. 
 
 margin. s The report in C and Q of case 106 
 
 2 Case 129 is probably another ver- is rather different from that in P, and 
 sion of 99. The words ' melius infra in some respects resembles 1066.
 
 INTRODUCTION Ixxiii 
 
 These three lists obviously agree very closely in contents and 
 generally in arrangement, though P has many more cases than C. 
 The chief differences may be briefly noted. In Michaelmas term two 
 cases (one a report of case 4, the other an unprinted case l of ael) occur 
 in C and not P ; case 32 is represented by a brief note in C and is alto- 
 gether absent in P ; and in C the second report of case 74 is repeated 
 on folio 510 in almost the same words as on folio 502. On the other 
 hand, case 128& occurs in this term in P, but in Easter term in C. 
 The reports of this term in Q have unfortunately disappeared. 
 
 For Hilary term P has eight more cases than C 136, 137, 139, 
 140, 144, and the three cases 19, 20, and 21 printed in the appendix 
 to the second volume of this series. All these cases are short, and none 
 of them are important. In Q, which is defective at the beginning, 
 the reports, as far as they go, are in complete agreement with C. 
 Both manuscripts include case 20 in this term ; but in P it is assigned 
 to Easter. 
 
 For Easter term P has six more cases than C 17, 121, 125, 126, 
 127, 149 all of them short notes, but 128&, which occurs in C, is 
 missing in P, having been placed in that manuscript, as already men- 
 tioned, amongst the cases of Michaelmas term. In Q the cases are once 
 again in complete agreement with C, except that 17 is not missing. 
 
 Finally, in Trinity term C and Q contain case 23 which P lacks, 
 but on the other hand several cases appear in P and not in C and 
 # namely 102, 104, 107-110, 113, 117, and a second report of 128, 
 together with cases 1-11 in the appendix at the end of the second 
 volume of this series. As in the three earlier terms most of these 
 additional cases in P are notes rather than reports. For convenience 
 of reference the numbers of the cases in these three manuscripts may 
 be here noted in the order in which they are printed. 
 
 C : 1-16, 18-25, 27-33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48-51, 
 54-56, 70, 74, 76-78, 97-101, 105, 106, 112, 114, 120, 122-124, 
 128-130, 132-135, 138, 141-143, 145, 146, 148, 150. 
 
 P : 1-22, 24, 25, 27-31, 33, 36-38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48-51, 
 54-56, 70, 74, 76-78, 97-110, 112-114, 117, 120-130, 132-146, 
 148-150. 
 
 Q : 2, 7, 11, 16-25, 70, 76-78, 97-101, 105, 106, 112-114, 120, 
 122-124, 128-130, 132-134, 138-141. 
 
 The facts narrated above suggest that in spite of some slight differ- 
 ence of arrangement, C, P, and Q are ultimately derived from the same 
 1 This case is printed in Appendix ii., p. ciii below.
 
 Ixxiv INTRODUCTION 
 
 text, that some additional matter has been introduced into P or 
 one of its intermediate texts, and that in the course of transmission 
 a few cases have disappeared from each of the three manuscripts just 
 discussed. This view of the text is confirmed by the contents of X. 
 Its cases, though abridged, can easily be identified, and are found to 
 occur in the following order : 
 
 MICHAELMAS. 
 
 folio. Cases. 
 
 1. 27, 28, 29, 33, 40, 43, 44, 46. 
 
 2. 50, 31, 135, 54, 55, a note. 
 
 HILARY. 
 
 2. 150 (abridged report], 12. 
 
 3. 10, 13, 9, 144 (abridged report), 136, 137, 148, 145, 14, 1026, 
 
 a note* 
 
 4. 146, 141, 70, 7, 138, 11, 16a. 
 
 EASTER. 
 
 5. 206, 120, 18, 121, 766, 122a, 123, 124, 786, 21 (twice noted). 
 
 6. 776, 17, 125, 1286, 996, 129. 
 
 TRINITY. 
 
 6. 2a. 
 
 7. 105, 117a, 130, 131a, 24, 132, 1066, 100, 101, 112 note. 
 
 8. 114, 133, 98, 1026. 
 
 9. 976, 134, 25. 
 
 In Michaelmas term these cases are abridgements of the early 
 cases in C, and occur in nearly the same order. Similarly the cases 
 for Hilary, Easter and Trinity terms are in general agreement in point 
 of order sometimes with those in C and Q, and sometimes with those 
 in P ; but many cases which occur in these manuscripts are not found 
 in X. An interesting feature of X is that cases 144 and 150 appear as 
 Latin records in P, but as abridged reports in X. It would seem that 
 the compiler of the latter manuscript in making his abridgement has 
 changed the language. Perhaps the most striking feature of the 
 abridged reports for this year is the fact that though they correspond 
 closely with the reports in C and P they contain no abridgements of 
 the later cases of Michaelmas term that is to say, of Nos. 80 to 
 case 18 of the appendix, taken in the order in which they occur in 
 these manuscripts. This disagreement, however, is exceptional. 
 
 1 This is a brief note written in a later hand in the lower margin.
 
 INTRODUCTION Ixxv 
 
 When we find four manuscripts with reports or abridgements of the 
 year 2 Edward II. agreeing with one another so closely as C, P, Q, 
 and X, we may infer that they represent one original text of the 
 reports of that year with no small circulation. 
 
 Three other manuscripts remain for consideration L, M, and E. 
 For Michaelmas term 2 Edward II. the early reports in L agree generally 
 both as regards text and order with those in C, but the later reports 
 in C, that is to say, 30 to case 18 of the appendix, are missing in L. 
 It will be remembered that these reports were also missing in X. For 
 Hilary term L has no report of 12 and 141, which occur in C and P, 
 but it contains 136, 137, 139, and 140, which occur in P but not in C. 
 In Easter term 21 which occurs in C and P and 17 which occurs in 
 P are both missing in L, and in Trinity term L lacks 138 which occurs 
 in C and P. On the other hand, 115, 116, 118 and 119 occur in L and 
 in none of the other manuscripts. The following is the order in which 
 the cases occur in L : 
 
 MICHAELMAS. 
 
 folio. Cote. Folio. Cote. 
 
 5 v 43, 44, 46 6 v 29, 33, 37, 40, 
 
 6 r 48 note, 31, 36, 135 
 
 an unprinted 7 r 54, 55 
 
 note, 1 27, 28 
 
 HILARY. 
 
 folio. Case. folio. Cote. Folio. Cote. 
 
 1 v 150 (record) 8 v 9, 148, 145, 14 9 v 16o, 166 
 8r 144 (record), 136, 9 r 146,147,70,7, 
 137, 10, 13 138, 139, 140, 
 
 11 
 
 EASTER. 
 
 Folio. Case. Folio. Gate. 
 
 10 r 206, 786, 120 11 r 123, 124, 149, 17, 
 
 v 
 
 18, 121, 766, 125, 126, 19 
 
 122o, 776 v 127 
 
 TRINITY. 
 
 Folio. Case. Folio. Case. Folio. Case. 
 
 11 v 127, 128a 13 v 104o, 106o, 107, 15 v 115,116 
 
 12 r 105o, 98 108 15 r 118, 119 
 v 129, 100 14 r 109, 110, 111, 
 
 13 r 99a, lOlo, 102, 112. 113, 117o, 
 
 103a 114a 
 
 1 This is note 1 on p. Ixxi above.
 
 Ixxvi INTRODUCTION 
 
 In the order in which they are printed these cases may be arranged 
 as follows : 
 
 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-18, 27-29, 31, 33, 36, 39, 43, 44, 46, 48, 
 70, 76-78, 98-129, 135-140, 144-150. 
 
 L obviously belongs to the same group as C and P, but it contains 
 fewer cases. This is largely due to the absence of the later cases of 
 Michaelmas term which has already been noticed. 
 
 In M we unfortunately have reports of Easter and Trinity terms 
 only. They include cases 102, 117, and the short notes 121, 125, 126, 
 127 which occur in P but not in C, and 23 which occurs in C but 
 not in P. All the other cases in M which belong to this year (except 
 131) occur in both C and P ; but 103 and 104 and second versions 
 of 23 and 106, which are printed in our series as in 2 Edward II., are 
 attributed in M to Michaelmas term 3 Edward II. 1 The following are 
 the particulars of the cases in M for 2 Edward II. : 
 
 EASTER. 
 
 Folio. Case. Folio. Case. Folio. Case. 
 
 9 r 206, 120, 18, 121, 10 r 21,776,125,126, 11 r 996,129 
 
 766 127, 1286 v 22 
 
 v 122a,123,124,786 v 
 
 TRINITY. 
 
 Folio. Case. Folio. Case. Folio. Case. 
 
 11 v 26, 105a 12 v 1066, 100, 1016, 14 r 1026, 976 
 
 12 r 23a, 1176, 130, 112 note, 1146 v 134 
 
 1316, 24, 132 13 r 15 r 25 
 
 v 133a, 986 
 
 In the order in which these cases are printed they are : 
 2, 18, 20-25, 76-78, 97-102, 105, 106, 112, 114, 117, 120-134. 
 
 Thus, although we have only two terms of 2 Edward II. in M, 
 we may be pretty sure that the text of its cases for this year is 
 derived from the same source as C and P. 
 
 The cases in R for this year are assigned partly to Michaelmas and 
 partly to Hilary term, no cases being assigned to the two following 
 terms. As, however, a large number of them are differently dated 
 in other manuscripts, the headlines in R are probably incorrect. The 
 order of the cases is as follows : 
 
 1 Cases 102, 103, 121, 125-127 are also found in L.
 
 INTRODUCTION Ixxvii 
 
 MICHAELMAS. 
 
 Folio Cote. folio. Case. Folio. Case. 
 
 1 r 27,28,29, 2 r Sl^SG unprinted 3 r 136,10,9,13 
 
 v 40, 43, 44, 46, note, 2 135, 55 v 70 
 
 50 v 12 
 
 HILARY. 
 
 Polio. Cote. Folio. Case. Folio. Case. 
 
 3 v 14 5 v 122a, 776 7 v 129, 26 
 
 4r 141,138 6 r 123,124,17,125, 8 r 112,1146 
 
 v 139, 11, 206, 166 126, 19 v 1046 
 
 (record) v 1286 9 r 236, 1066 
 
 5 r 786, 120, 21 7 r v 98a 
 
 If we arrange these cases in the order in which they are printed, 
 we have : 
 
 2, 9-14, 16, 17, 19-21, 23, 27-29, 31, 36, 40, 43, 44, 46, 50, 
 55, 70, 77, 78, 98, 104, 106, 112, 114, 120, 122-126, 128, 129, 
 135, 136, 138, 139, 141. 
 
 Cases 31, 49, and 133, 3 which are printed in this edition in 
 2 Edward II., are attributed in R to 3 Edward II. 
 
 It is impossible within the limits of this introduction to discuss the 
 arrangement of these cases. It is sufficient to notice that R like L 
 contains fewer cases than C and P, but for this year it bears a general 
 resemblance to these manuscripts alike as regards contents, order, 
 and text. 
 
 At first sight it might appear that the original versions of our two 
 groups of texts were the work of two different men. Further investi- 
 gation, however, seems to point to the conclusion that they had a 
 common origin. Let us begin with Michaelmas term. The first group 
 gives fifty-six cases, some of which are mere notes. Now thirty-four 
 out of the first thirty-five of these cases aU appear either in C or in 
 P, and with a few exceptions they appear both in C and P. Of 
 the remaining twenty-one cases, Nos. 34, 39, 42, 45, 47, 52 and 53 
 occur in neither C nor P, while the rest appear in one or other of 
 these manuscripts. Five, however, of the omitted cases namely 
 34, 39, 42, 52, and 53 are mere notes of little consequence, and are 
 possibly accretions to the original text of the reports. On the other 
 
 1 This is a brief note. A fuller 3 The version of 133 which occurs 
 report is found on folio 12 r. in R is not found in any of the other 
 
 2 For the text of this note see p. manuscripts. 
 Ixxi note 1 above.
 
 Ixxviii INTRODUCTION 
 
 hand, Nos. 42 and 45, which are longer cases, may have been acci- 
 dentally omitted from some early copy of the reports through which 
 our texts of the second group are derived. 
 
 In Hilary term there are sixteen cases, numbered 57-72 in our first 
 group, and of these one only No. 70 occurs in the second group. 
 This is a short note in the first group, and in the second group it is 
 reduced to about one-third of its length. In Easter term the first 
 group contains twenty-four cases in all, which are numbered 73-96, 
 and four only of these appear in the second group. Finally, we come 
 to the twenty-three cases numbered 97-119, which the first group 
 ascribes to Trinity term. With the exception of case 111, which is a 
 very short note, the first eighteen of these cases occur in P. The 
 five remaining cases (115-119) are found in L, the text of which belongs 
 to our second group, and one of these five also occurs in P and M. 
 
 Now when we find that out of thirty-five consecutive cases in our 
 first group, thirty-three appear in C and thirty in P, and that fourteen 
 out of the remaining twenty-one appear both in C and P, which are 
 the principal manuscripts of our second group, we can scarcely doubt 
 that the compiler of the original version of the second group had before 
 him a text (though possibly an imperfect text) of the first group. Again, 
 when we find that of the sixteen cases of Hilary term in the first group 
 one only occurs in the principal manuscripts of the second group, we 
 may strongly suspect that its compiler was unable to procure a text 
 of the first group and that he obtained the one case which occurs 
 in both groups (but in the second as an insignificant note) from some 
 other source. In Easter term four only of the twenty-four cases 
 of the first group appear in the second group namely 74, 76-78. 
 Here again we may suspect that the compiler of the second group 
 had before him a text of the first group in which all save the first 
 four or five cases of this term were missing owing to the loss of some 
 of its folios. Lastly, out of the twenty-three cases of Trinity term 
 occurring in the first group the first fourteen also occur in P, the 
 fifteenth is an insignificant note, and the next three occur in this 
 manuscript. In this term, as in Michaelmas term, it is hardly 
 possible to doubt that the compiler of the original version of the 
 second group had before him a good text of the first group. 
 
 These facts point strongly to the second group having been derived 
 from the first group. It contains, however, a considerable number 
 of additional cases, 1 some of which are substantial and not mere notes. 
 
 1 Of the thirty-one additional cases only, and another (147) in L only. In 
 (120-150) one (131) occurs in M and X P cases 128, 135, 142 and 143 are attri-
 
 INTRODUCTION Ixxix 
 
 They may have been the additions of the original compiler of the 
 second group, who had himself made a few reports of cases which 
 interested him. They may even have been reports which were sup- 
 plied by the direction of the original reporter of the first group, and 
 rejected by him as unsatisfactory. Whatever may be the explanation 
 of this additional matter, there can be little doubt that the first 
 group represents the older version. Its three manuscripts are in 
 far closer agreement with one another than any two of the manuscripts 
 of the second group ; and it is impossible to avoid noticing that many 
 of the cases of the latter group are attributed in different manuscripts 
 to different terms. They seem to have been derived from a pamphlet 
 which was much copied and much altered. 
 
 3 EDWARD II. In this year we are able to use three new manu- 
 scripts, G, S, T, of which G and T are obviously imperfect. G begins 
 with Hilary term, and T has seventeen cases only of Michaelmas term. 
 S contains cases of all four terms ; but they are improperly divided, 
 and Easter and Trinity terms have no headings. 
 
 For Michaelmas term the cases in A are arranged as follows : 
 
 1-34, 1 1046 (of 2 Edward II.), 35, 1066 (of 2 Edward II.), 106 
 36, 37, 49, 50-53, 41, 54, 55. 
 
 Cases 1, 4, 6, 10, 23, 31, 41 and 55 are distinguished in this edition 
 by the addition of the letter a, as different versions of them appear hi 
 other manuscripts. Case 10, however, appears in A in two forms, 
 which are designated as 10a and 106. The order of the cases of this 
 term is precisely the same in D as in A, and the text of these manu- 
 scripts is also in close agreement. But an important difference 
 between the reports of the second year and those of the third year now 
 becomes apparent. In the second year A, D, and B agreed in text and 
 in order of cases, but in the other manuscripts, including C arid Q, 
 different versions of several cases were noticed, and the order was 
 decidedly different. In 3 Edward II., however, C and Q are, as will be 
 seen from the following particulars, in substantial agreement with 
 A and D. In C the order of the cases is 
 
 2-5, 8-10, 12-22, 24-34, 1046 (of 2 Edward II.), 35, 1066 
 (of 2 Edward II,), 106, 36, 37, 7, 49, 11, 52, 53, 50, 51, 1, 41, 
 54, 55. 
 
 buted to Michaelmas term, 136-141, as in P. It will be noticed that twenty 
 
 144-146, 148 and 150 to Hilary, 120- out of the twenty-nine additional cases 
 
 127, 149 to Easter, and 129, 130, 133, in P are attributed to Hilary and Easter 
 
 134 to Trinity. In C 128 is attributed terms, in which that manuscript has 
 
 to Michaelmas, 121, 125-127, 136, 137, five cases only which occur in A. 
 139, 140, 144 and 149 are missing, and ' Case 20a of 2 Edward II. is inserted 
 
 therest are attributed to the same terms after 31 in A and D.
 
 1XXX INTRODUCTION 
 
 In Q it is 
 
 1-8, 4 (part), 2 (a second report), 8 (a second report), 4 (residue), 
 5, 8-10, 12-28, 30, 29, 31-34, 1046 (of 2 Edward II.), 35, 106fr 
 (of 2 Edward II.), 106, 36, 37, 7, 49, 11, 50-53, 41, 54, 55. 
 
 The chief features of interest in these lists are that 106 precedes 36 
 in A, C, and Q, that 41 comes between 53 and 54 in A and Q, and that 
 7 and 11 occur in precisely the same place towards the end of the lists 
 in both C and Q. On the other hand 1 is placed almost at the end in 
 C but not in Q, and there are some peculiarities of text and arrangement 
 in 2, 3 and 4 in (7. In spite, however, of a few slight differences, there 
 can be no doubt that the reports of this term in A, C, D, and Q are 
 derived from the same source. 
 
 The cases in Hilary term of this year are arranged thus in A : 
 1-13, 35c, 14, 15, 17-20, 16, 21-29, 1 146. 
 
 Of these 7, 9, 10, 14-20, 27 are designated by the addition of the 
 letter a, 21 by the addition of 6, and 35 by the addition of c, as variants 
 of them occur in other manuscripts. Moreover, two versions of 14 
 occur in A, which are distinguished as 14a and 146 respectively. 
 
 In C, D and Q the order is much the same as in A, and the texts of 
 these three manuscripts also agree with that in A. The order of the 
 cases is as follows : 
 
 C. 1-11, 13, 35c, 14, 15, 17-20, 16, 21-29, 146. 
 
 D. 1-13, 85c, 14, 15, 17-20, 16, 21, 22-29, 146. 
 Q. 1-12, 35c, 14, 15, 17-20, 16, 21, 22, 24-29. 
 
 The absence from Q of the second version of 14, which occurs as the 
 last case in A, C, and D, is interesting. It would seem that one version 
 only occurred in the earliest copies of these reports, and that 146 was 
 inserted as a postscript in a blank space at the end of the term in some 
 later copy from which A, C and D were derived. 
 
 In A thirteen cases are assigned to Easter term which occur in the 
 order in which they are printed in this edition. Eight of them namely 
 1, 8, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13 having variant reports in other manuscripts, are 
 designated respectively by the addition of the letter a. These thirteen 
 cases also occur in the same order in C and D, together with 15, which 
 is not found in A, but is placed in C between 3 and 4. Owing to the loss 
 of several folios Q contains no reports of this and the following term. 
 
 In Trinity term A has eleven cases which occur in the order in which 
 they are printed in this edition. Four of them, having variants in other 
 manuscripts, are distinguished as 26, 8a, 4a and 9a respectively. The 
 text and order of the cases in this term in C and D are the same as in A. 
 
 In the third year we have our earliest reports in T, which, owing 
 
 1 Cases 1 to 21 are ascribed to Michaelmas term in A.
 
 INTRODUCTION Ixxxi 
 
 to the loss of a few folios, begins abruptly in the course of Michaelmas 
 term. For this and Hilary term the order of the cases in T is different 
 from that in A, C, D, and Q, and many cases occur in T which are not 
 found in those four manuscripts. For the moment it need only be 
 noticed that the last four cases assigned to Hilary term in T are 1, 2, 3 
 and 13 of Trinity term. In Easter term, however, the difference between 
 T on the one hand and A, C, D and Q ceases, and the text of T becomes 
 almost the same as that of C, except that 13 is missing. This is pro- 
 bably because the misplaced report of it occurs among the cases of the 
 preceding Hilary term. In Trinity the text agrees with A, C and D, 
 except that the first three cases of this term are here missing, having 
 been, as already mentioned, misplaced and assigned to Hilary term. 
 This change in the text of T from complete disagreement to close 
 agreement with that of A, C and D strongly supports the ' pamphlet ' 
 theory of the Year Books. The change on this theory is due to the 
 compiler using one pamphlet which ended with Hilary term 3 Edward 
 II., and then another pamphlet containing reports of the two following 
 terms which was the same as that used by the compiler of A, C and D. 
 
 We may now return to the reports in T for Michaelmas and Hilary 
 terms. The early cases of the former term are unfortunately missing 
 in T ; but the seventeen cases which have been preserved agree closely 
 with the reports in 8. The contents of the two manuscripts as regards 
 this term may therefore be conveniently studied together. 
 
 MICHAELMAS. 
 8 T 
 
 33 r la, 2, 3 1 r 33, 34, 1046 (of 2 Edward II.), 
 v 4a,' 6a, 7, 5, 8 236 (of 2 Edward II.), 35, 
 
 34 r 9, 10a, 11, 12 106& ( of 2 Edward II), 45, 
 v 38 13 14 103& ( f 2 Edward II.), 46 
 
 35 r 15,' 16^ 17 v 55& > 31& > 6& > 106 > 47 - 26 > 37 > 
 v 18, 19, (an unprinted case) 1 
 
 36 r 49 (of 2 Edward II.), 47 (of 
 
 2 Edward II.), 50 (of 
 2 Edward II.), 31 (of 
 2 Edward II.), 20, 236 
 v 21, 40, 416, 42, 43, 32, 44, 33 
 
 37 r 34, 1046 (of 2 Edward II.), 236 
 
 (of 2 Edward II.), 35, 1066 
 (of 2 Edward II.) 
 v 45, 1036 (of 2 Edward II.), 
 46, 556, 316, 66 
 
 38 r 106, 47, 26, 37, 48 
 
 1 Howe v. Howe, a case of ael heard in the last Norfolk eyre. 
 VOL. VI.
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Tn both manuscripts 49 of Michaelmas term is assigned to Hilary- 
 term and there appears as the first case. For convenience of refer- 
 ence these cases in S (including 49) may be arranged in the order in 
 which they are printed in this edition : 
 
 28, 81, 47, 49, 50, 103, 104 and 106 (all of 2 Edward II.) 
 and 1-21, 23, 26, 31-35, 37, 38, 40-49, 55. 
 
 Eight of these cases, namely 40, 42-48, are not found in A ; but 
 on the other hand twelve cases, namely 22, 24, 25, 27-30 and 50-54, which 
 occur in A, are not found in S. 1 This leaves thirty-one Michaelmas cases 
 which are common to A and S namely 1-21, 23, 26, 31-35, 37, 49, 
 55 and also two cases of the year 3 Edward II., namely 104 and 106. Of 
 the eight cases in A of which different versions occur in other manu- 
 scripts four namely 1, 4, 6 and 10 appear in the same versions in A 
 and S, and the other four namely 23, 31, 41 and 55 appear in different 
 versions. As regards the order of the cases there is some similarity 
 between A and S during the greater part of the term, but towards the 
 end the similarity ceases. In spite, however, of the absence of twelve 
 cases from S which occur in A, and the insertion in the former manu- 
 script of eight cases which are not found in the latter, it is far from 
 improbable that in both manuscripts the reports of this term are 
 ultimately derived from a common original. The compilers of A and S 
 may have used different editions (in pamphlet form) of the reports of 
 this term, each of which lacked certain of the cases of the original 
 compiler. It is also possible that some of the cases which are found in 
 one of these manuscripts and not in the other are accretions to the 
 original text. 
 
 In both S and T the cases assigned to Hilary term include not only 
 seventeen cases which belong to Easter and six to Trinity terms but 
 also eleven cases which are printed as undated cases in the fourth 
 volume of this series. They occur in the following order, the undated 
 cases being distinguished in this edition by the addition of the word 
 Extra. 
 
 S 
 
 38 v 49 Mich., 21c 
 
 39 r 24 Easter 
 v 4 
 
 40 r 11 Extra, 106, 11, 8 
 v 23, 96, 31a, 15c 
 
 41 r 32a, 33, 24, 206 
 v 26, 27a, 12, 35a 
 
 42 r 29, 196, la Extra 
 
 2 r 49 Mich., 21c 
 v 24 Easter, 4 
 
 3 r 11 Extra, 106, 11, 8 
 v 23, 96, 31a, 15c 
 
 4 r 32a, 33, 24, 206, 26, 27a, 12 
 v 35a, 29, 196 
 
 5 r la Extra, 2 Extra, 1, 12 
 
 Extra, 13 Extra, 18a 
 
 1 Nor are they found in any other manuscripts except C, D, and Q.
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Ixxxiii 
 
 S 
 
 42 v 2 Extra, 1, 12 
 
 13 Extra, 18a 
 
 43 r 3 Extra, 146, 76 
 
 v 27a Easter, 4a tora, 49c 
 5a Extra, 42 i Easter 
 
 44 r 43c faster, 12 faster 
 
 44 Easter, 6 "xfm 
 lOa Easter 
 
 v 34a Easter, 47 faster 
 46 faster, 226 faster 
 456 Easter, 1 Extra, 8 Extra 
 15 Easter 
 
 45 r 9 .Earfra, 216 Trinity, 22 
 
 Trinity, 46 faster, 13a 
 faster 
 v 38 faster, 1 Trinity, 26 
 
 Trinity, 3a Trinity, 13a 
 
 Trinity 
 
 5 v 3 Eartra, 146, 76, 27a Easter 
 
 6 r 4a Extra, 49, 5a tora, 42 i 
 
 Easter, 43c Easter, 12 
 faster 
 
 v 44 Easter, 6 Extra, lOa 
 faster, 34a faster, 47 
 Easter 
 
 1 r 46 faster, 226 Easter, 456 
 Easter, 1 Extra, 8 Extra, 
 15 faster, 9 #arfra, 216 
 Trinity, 22 Trinity, 46 
 
 v 13a faster, 38 faster, 1 
 Trinity, 26 Trinity, 3a 
 Trinity 
 8 r 13a Trinity 
 
 Arranged in the order in which these cases are printed in this 
 edition they are : 
 
 HILARY. 1, 4, 76, 8, 96, 106, 11 (second part), 12, 146, 15c, 
 18a, 196, 206, 21c, 23, 24, 26, 27a, 29, 31a, 32a, 33, 35a. 
 
 EASTER. 4b, lOa, 12, 13a, 15, 226, 24, 27a, 34a, 38, 42i, 43c, 
 44, 456, 46, 47, 49c. 
 
 TRINITY. 1, 26, 3a, 13a, 216, 22. 
 EXTRA. 1-9, 11-13. 
 
 Thus any resemblance between A and S in the reports of Hilary 
 term must be very faint. Of the thirty cases assigned to this term in 
 the former manuscript twenty only are found in the latter ; and nine 
 of these twenty namely 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19-21 appear in different 
 versions. Moreover, three cases namely 31-33 occur in S which are 
 not found in A. 1 It will be seen presently that S is less remotely related 
 to M. 
 
 With case 13a (Trinity), the reports assigned to Hilary term in T 
 cease, and the reports already mentioned, which are definitely assigned 
 to Easter and Trinity terms, begin. In S, however, after 13a (Trinity) 
 we have (1) an unprinted report of a formedon in remainder which is not 
 found among the reports of this term in other manuscripts, (2) a report 
 of a case on a writ of entry with the words ' anno xiiij ' in the margin, 
 and (3) four cases of Trinity term namely 5, 6, 7, 8. Thus, although 
 the compiler of S has definitely assigned no cases to Trinity term, he 
 
 Case 30 occurs in R only. 
 
 e2
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 has included in his collection ten cases of this term namely 1-3, 5-8 r 
 13, 21 and 22 ; and another case, namely 11, occurs among his reports 
 of Michaelmas term 4 Edward II. 
 
 Seventeen cases of Easter term are included among the Hilary cases 
 in S and T ; but T, as already mentioned, also contains separate- 
 collections of reports for Easter and Trinity terms under their proper 
 headings. Four only of these Easter cases in S appear in A namely 
 4, 10, 12 and 13 ; and nine in M, cases 34 and 42-47 and 49 not ap- 
 pearing in the latter manuscript. The reports of this term in S are 
 obviously not closely related, either as regards contents or order, to 
 those in any of the other manuscripts. It is worthy of notice, how- 
 ever, that of the seventeen cases of this term in S and T, nine occur in 
 M and P namely 4, 10, 12, 13, 15, 22, 1 24, 27 and 38 two, namely 
 34 and 49, occur in L, a manuscript closely related to M and P, and 
 the six remaining cases, namely 42-47, which are missing in M and P,. 
 all occur in R. 
 
 The reports in M and P for this year are almost in complete 
 agreement ; and those in L differ from them but little. The cases of 
 Michaelmas term in M are in the following order : 
 
 la, 2, 3, 4a, 5, 6a, 7, 8, 9, lOa, 11, 12, 38, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 
 18, 19, 20, 236, 39, 21, 40, 416, 42, 43, 32, 44, 33, 34, 1046 (of 
 2 Edward II.), 236 (of 2 Edward II.), 35, 1066 (of 2 Edward II.), 
 45, 1036 (of 2 Edward II.), 46, 556, 316, 66, 106, 47, 26, 37, 31 
 record, 48. 
 
 Arranged in the order in which they are printed in this edition 
 (and including case 49 assigned to Hilary term) they are : 
 
 1-21, 23, 26, 31-35, 37-49, 55, 
 with 
 
 23, 103, 104, and 106 of 2 Edward II. and a second version of 6. 
 
 In P the order is exactly the same, except that 6a precedes 5 and 
 that 17 is repeated between 26 and 37. In L the order is the same 
 as in P, but the reports end with 19 and are followed by three brief 
 notes which are printed in this edition as case 56. In X also the 
 abridged cases of this term are in the same order as in P. Moreover, 
 on referring back to the particulars of the reports in S we find that 
 the reports in that manuscript agree with those in P, except that 39, 
 an insignificant note, is omitted in S and that the second version of 10 
 and four cases of 2 Edward II. are omitted in P. For this term, 
 therefore, the reports in L, M, S, P, T and X are no doubt derived 
 from the same source. 
 
 1 Case 22 is a mere note in M and P,
 
 INTRODUCTION 1XXXV 
 
 In M the case? assigned to Hilary term of this year are the following, 
 49 Mich. 
 
 4, 11 (second part}, 8, 22, 23, 96, 31a, lac, 32a, 33, 24, 25, 34, 
 206, 26, 27a, 28ii, 12, 26 Easter, 35a, 29, 21c, 186, 146. 
 This is also the order in P and X, except that in the latter manu- 
 script the abridgements of the six cases which follow 15c are omitted. 
 In L the first three cases are 49 Mich., 106, 23i Extra ; but the 
 remaining cases are in the same order as in P from 8 to 146, except that 
 the six cases which follow 15c are omitted, as in X. Four, however, 
 of these six cases namely 206, 32a, 33, 34 are assigned to Easter term 
 in L. Arranged in the order in which they are printed the cases in M 
 for this term are the following : 
 49 Mich. 
 
 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20-29, 31-35. 
 26 Easter. 
 
 The reports for this term in M and P no longer agree closely with 
 those in S and T. Even if we exclude the intrusive Easter, Trinity 
 and Extra cases which are a prominent feature of this term in S and' T, 
 we shall still have noteworthy differences. Cases 1, 7, 10 and 19 
 occur in S and T, but not in M and P ; and 22, 25, 28 and 34 occur in 
 M and P, but not in S and T. On the other hand, ten cases appear in 
 both M and S, of which more than one version is printed in this edition. 
 In nine of these cases namely 9, 14, 15, 20, 21, 27, 31, 32, 35 the same 
 version appears in both M and S, and it is only in case 18 that we have 
 different versions. Moreover, in spite of some differences hi their 
 contents, there is a remarkable agreement in the order of the cases 
 which M and S have in common. When we find seven consecutive 
 cases namely 23, 9, 31, 15, 32, 33, 24 occurring in precisely the same 
 order, it is impossible to doubt that they have a common origin. Indeed, 
 it may be taken as almost certain that, as in Michaelmas, so in Hilary 
 term, L, M, P, S, and T are ultimately derived from the same source. 
 The reports of Easter term in M and P agree in text and order. 
 
 la, 1 2, 14, 3a, 15, 4a, 5, 16a, 18i, 19, 20, 21, 22a, 6a, la, 8a, 
 23, 9, 24, 25 iii, 26 (repeated), lOa, 276, 35, 11, 12, 13a, 5 (repeated), 
 29, 9c Trinity, 28, 38. 
 Arranged in the order in which they are printed they are : 
 
 1-16, 18-29, 35, 2 38. 
 
 The abridged cases in X are in the same order as the cases in M and 
 P. In L, however, the reports of this term are no longer in close agree- 
 ment with M and P. They occur in the following order : 
 
 1 The first sixteen of these cases are attributed to Hilary term in M. 
 
 2 Case 35 is a mere note in M and P.
 
 Ixxxvi INTRODUCTION 
 
 2, So, 15, 4a, 5, 16a, 24, 25iii, 276, 10a, 11, 12, 7a, 18i, 19 note, 
 22a, 20, 21, 42, 14, 32a HiZan/, 33 Hilary, 34 Man/, 206 Hilary, 
 14a Extra, 23iii Extra, 10 Extra, 436, unprinted note, lla, 166, 
 15 Ifotfra, 24 (iv and v) #arfra, 16a Ezfra, 17 .Ezfra, 496, 33 note 1, 
 30a, 18 JBarfra, 23ii Extra, 66, 19 Etara, 20 Extra, 13a, 21 j&rfra, 
 31, 33 note 2, 346, 56 Extra, 86, 48, 22 Extra, 32, 33. 
 Arranged in the order in which they are printed, they are : 
 HILARY. 20, 32-34. 
 
 EASTER. 2-8, 10-22, 24-27, 29-34, 42, 43, 48, 496. 
 EXTRA. 5, 10, 14-23. 
 
 If, however, we exclude the Hilary and Extra cases, the difference 
 between the reports of Easter term, in L on the one hand and M and P 
 on the other hand, becomes less striking. Cases 1, 9, 23, 28, 38 occur 
 in M but not in L. Possibly some of these omissions are due to care- 
 lessness ; but it should not be overlooked that owing to defects in the 
 manuscript the reports of this term in L end in the middle of a case. 
 On the other hand, ten cases namely 17, 30-34, 1 42, 43, 48, 49, and a 
 second report of 16 occur in L and not in M. They mostly occur 
 towards the end of the reports among the Extra cases, and not im- 
 probably, like them, they are accretions to the original text. Lastly, we 
 may notice that though different versions of no less than twelve cases 
 occurring in both L and M namely 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18, 22, 25, 
 27 are printed in this edition, the same versions of all of them, except 
 cases 6, 8 and 16, appear in both manuscripts. It is therefore probable 
 that in this term as in the two preceding terms the reports in L are 
 derived from the same source as M, but the relationship between the 
 two manuscripts is obviously somewhat remote. 
 
 The reports of this term in L differ from those in S much more than 
 from those in M. There are thirty-four cases in L and seventeen 
 in S. Of these twelve only are common to both manuscripts namely 
 4, 10, 12, 13, 15, 22, 24, 27, 34, 42, 43 and 49 and six of them appear 
 in different versions. It is, however, very remarkable that in both 
 L and S a considerable number of Extra cases are interspersed among 
 those of Easter term, eleven in S and twelve in L ; and that of these 
 only one occurs in both manuscripts. 
 
 For Trinity term the cases in M and P are as follows : 
 
 1, 26/3a, 12, 4a, 13a, 5, 6, 7, 8, 2a, 14a, 9a, 15, 2 10, 11, 17, 18, 
 or, in the order in which they are printed, 1-15, 17, 18, with a second 
 report of 2. In L, owing to the defect already mentioned, there are no 
 
 1 Case 30 is a mere note in L. See which is printed in this edition among 
 also p. xciii below. the Michaelmas cases of 4 Edward II. 
 
 2 The case of Thorgrim v. Hereford occurs here in these manuscripts.
 
 INTRODUCTION Ixxxvii 
 
 reports for this term. In X the order of the abridged cases agrees with 
 M and P. 
 
 These particulars suggest that the reports of the third year as they 
 ?re found in M and P circulated as a pamphlet, and that a somewhat 
 similar version of this pamphlet, perhaps an earlier one, perhaps a later 
 one but with some variant texts and a considerable number of extra 
 cases for Easter term, was used by the compiler of L. It is important 
 to notice that the relation between M and P is closer in the third than 
 in the second year. 
 
 We must now consider the relation between A and M. In 
 Michaelmas term these manuscripts have thirty-two cases in common, 
 and there are thirteen cases which occur in A but not in M, and ten 
 which occur in M but not in A. 1 No doubt the proportion of the 
 number of cases common to A and M to the total in either of these 
 manuscripts is not very high ; but, on the other hand, the fact that the 
 first twenty-one cases in A occur also in M, and in the same version, 
 makes it almost certain that the reports for this term in A and M 
 had a common original. 
 
 In Hilary term A and M have nineteen cases in common. Eleven 
 others occur in A but not in M, and four occur in M but not in A. No 
 less than ten of the cases which are common to the two manuscripts are 
 consecutive in A. It is therefore almost certain that in Hilary term, 
 as in Michaelmas term, the reports in A and M had a common original. 
 
 In Easter term A has thirteen cases only, all of which appear in 
 the same versions in M, but M contains sixteen more cases than A. It 
 is obvious that as regards the first thirteen cases in A that manuscript 
 and M had a common original, but whether the sixteen other cases which 
 appear hi M but not in A were also in the common original, and were 
 omitted in some more recent copy from which the text in A is derived, 
 must remain for the present uncertain. In Trinity term A has eleven 
 cases only, all of which occur in the same versions in M , but M contains 
 sixteen more cases than A. Here again there can be no doubt that the 
 two manuscripts had a common original as regards the first eleven 
 cases in A ; but, as in Easter term, it is uncertain whether or not the 
 common original contained the cases which appear in M but not in A. 
 
 The reports of this year in R are less numerous than hi the other 
 manuscripts ; but, on the other hand, they are conspicuous for their 
 individuality, no less than 22 out of a total of 46 appearing in versions 
 which are not found elsewhere. Such individuality is the more re- 
 markable, as it is not a feature of the reports of the second and fourth 
 
 1 See pp. Ixxix and Ixxx above. Cases of 2 Edward II. are excluded from these 
 particulars.
 
 Ixxxviii INTRODUCTION 
 
 years in this manuscript ; but comment on it, owing to lack of material, 
 must be reserved until more of the Year Books of Edward II. have been 
 published in this edition. In Michaelmas term there are eight cases 
 of this term namely 1-5, 12, 13, 15 ; two others which are printed 
 among the cases of 2 Edward II. , namely 31 and 49 ; a brief note, and 
 the record of a quare impedit. These occur in the following order : 
 
 10 r la, 2, 3 
 v 4a, 5 
 
 11 r 12, a note, 1 15, 13 
 
 v 49 (of 2 Edward II.), a Latin record* 31 (of 2 Edward II.) 
 
 The eight cases of this term agree in text with the corresponding 
 reports in L, M, P, R, and S. 
 
 In Hilary term there are thirteen cases of this term namely 7-9, 
 12, 15-17, 20, 21, 30-32, 35 ; one case of 2 Edward II. (1886), and one 
 case of Easter term 3 Edward II. (27c). Their order is as follows : 
 
 12 r 3 356 
 
 v 76, 30, 166 
 
 13 r<> 27c Easter, 316, 326, 20c 
 v j 156 
 
 14 r 21a, 1336 (of 2 Edward II.) 
 v 12, 9c 
 
 15 r 8, 176 
 
 The versions which we find in R of ten of these cases namely 9, 
 15-17, 20, 21, 30-32, 35 are unique, and case 30 occurs in none of the 
 other manuscripts ; that of 7 is found in S and T, and those of 8 and 
 12 in A, B, C, D, G, L, M, P, Q, S and T. 
 
 Of Easter term R contains 17 cases namely 4, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22, 
 25, 39-47, 49 which occur in the following order : 
 
 16 r 396, 25ii, 40, 18ii, 41, 176, 49d 
 v 42ii, 43a, 44, 136, 226 
 
 17 r 45, 15, 46 
 
 v 46, 47 
 
 Case 27 of this term has already been noticed as occurring among 
 the reports of Hilary term. Eight of these cases namely 136, 176, 
 18ii, 25ii, 396, 42ii, 43a and 49rf appear in R in versions which are 
 different from those in other manuscripts ; two of them, namely 40 
 and 41, are not found elsewhere ; and one of them, 39, is found in Y in 
 another version but in no other manuscript. Six cases occur in the 
 same version in S and T as in R, but not elsewhere namely 46, 226 
 
 1 En un cui in uita le bref se abati mort le jour du play. 
 
 pur ceo qe le baroun fut en pleyne vie le 2 This is the Latin record mentioned 
 
 jour du bref purchace qe ele par son on p. Ixix (note 1) above, which also 
 
 bref suppose estre mort, et si fust il occurs on folio 20 r of A.
 
 INTRODUCTION Ixxxix 
 
 45, 46, 47, 48 ; one (case 27) in B and G only ; one (case 44) in B and 
 G and also in S and T, and one (case 15) in B, G, L, M, P, S and T. 
 
 R contains eight cases only in its reports of Trinity term of this 
 year, which are arranged as follows : 
 
 17 v 2a 
 
 18 r 9a, 19, 3a 
 
 v 20, 2 la, a note, 1 22 
 
 Case 10 and 11 of this term occur in this manuscript, 2 but are 
 placed in Michaelmas term of 4 Edward II. Of these ten 21 a and the 
 note are the only cases of which the versions in R are unique. Of 
 the rest case 2a occurs in M and P, 8a in A, C, D, M, P, S and T, 
 9a in M, P and T, 10 in A, C, D, M, P, T, 11 in A, B, D, G, M, P, 
 S, T, 19 and 20 in B and G, and 22 in a brief note of a case more fully 
 reported in S and T. 
 
 It should be noticed that the versions which are peculiar to R in 
 this year with one exception belong to Hilary and Easter terms, ten to 
 the former and eight to the latter. R also contains one case in Hilary 
 term and three cases in Easter term which occur in no other manuscript 
 .(except Y) either in the same or in any other version. 
 
 Lastly, we come to the reports in B and G, which for the last three 
 terms 3 of this year are in close agreement with one another. Now just 
 as C, which agreed in text with P and differed from A in the second year, 
 agreed with A and differed from P in the third year, so we have a some- 
 what similar change in B. Closely agreeing with A in the second 
 year, it differs entirely, not only from that manuscript in the last three 
 terms of the third year, but also from all the other manuscripts except G. 
 
 The cases in Michaelmas term are arranged as follows : 
 
 Ib, 2, 3, 4a, 5, 8, 9, 10a, 13, 6a, 7, 12, 38, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 
 19, 20, 236, 39, 21, 40, 416, 42, 43, 32, 44, 33, 34, 1046 (of 2 Edward 
 II.), 23 (of 2 Edward II.), 46, 556, 10 repeated, 47, 26, 17 repeated, 
 37, 31 record, 48. 
 
 or, arranged in the order in which they are printed in this edition, 
 1-10, 12-21, 23, 26, 31-34, 37-44, 46-48, 55. 
 
 The differences between the reports of this term in B and A, though 
 not so great as in the three following terms, are yet considerable. 
 There are no reports in B of 11, 22, 25, 27-31, 4 35, 36, 45, 49-54, all of 
 which occur in A, but 38-40, 42-44, 46-48, which occur in B, are not 
 found in A. On the other hand, the resemblance between B and P is 
 
 1 Un bref de mortdauncestre fut term 4 Edw. II. in B and G. 
 porte vers iij. Le un morust. Le bref 3 It will be remembered that G 
 
 ne se abati poynt par Inge, pur ceo qe begins with Hilary term 3 Edward II. 
 les tenements furent de lour purchaz 4 Case 31 appears as a record only 
 
 Secus est si de hereditate. in B. 
 
 Case 11 is also placed in Michaelmas
 
 XC INTRODUCTION 
 
 fairly close. B lacks 11, 35, 45, and 49, which occur in P, but P con- 
 tains every case which occurs in B. Moreover, there are no cases in 
 which B agrees in text with A and disagrees with P. In 23, 41 and 55 
 the text in B agrees with P, and disagrees with A ; in 1 it disagrees 
 with both A and P. In point of order there is a general agreement 
 between A, B, and P, and if the reports of this term in P are derived, 
 as suggested on an earlier page, from the same source as A, it is probable 
 that those in B are also ultimately derived from that source. 
 
 In Hilary term the cases in B and G are 
 
 106, 11, 8, 22, 96, 15c, 24, 206, 26, 12, 27a, 35a, 21c, 186, 146 
 or, in the order in which they are printed, 
 
 8-12, 14, 15, 18, 20-22, 24, 26, 27, 35. 
 
 Thus no less than fifteen of the thirty cases which A contains are- 
 omitted in jB. Moreover, eight of the fifteen cases which are common 
 to A and B appear in different versions in the two manuscripts. 1 Once 
 again, however, B agrees with P. Every case which appears in J3, 
 except 10, appears also in P, and in all these cases the same version 
 appears in both B and P. 2 The order of the cases in the two manu- 
 scripts is much the same, though P contains more than B. 
 
 It is in Easter term that the individuality of B and G 3 becomes 
 conspicuous. The order of the cases in B is as follows : 
 
 30a, 12, 24, 14, 42iv, 2, 36, 436, 15, 17a, 19, 22a, 18iii, 496, 
 16, 31, 25i, 32, 33, 27c, 4c, 35, 36, 4 Extra, 44, 37, 42 (of 
 2 Edward II.), 19 Trinity. 
 
 Cases 38 and 42iv (repeated) occur among the Trinity cases in these 
 manuscripts. The order in which the cases of Easter term are printed 
 in this edition is as follows : 
 
 1-4, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30-33, 35-38, 42-44, 49. 
 
 The reports in B and G for this term are obviously not in agreement 
 with those in A, for that manuscript contains thirteen cases only, whereas 
 B contains as many as twenty-six cases. Moreover, B contains 
 five only of the thirteen cases in A, and three of these five appear in 
 different versions in the two manuscripts. The resemblance between 
 B and P is scarcely any closer than between B and A. The order is 
 
 1 Cases 9, 10, 11, 15, 18, 20, 21 com pur damage fesaunt en sa commun& 
 and 35. et en son several quant a ly quei avers 
 
 2 Case 106 appears in L, S and T. sunt pris etc. (fol. 5 v). 
 
 3 Two short notes occur among the (2) Nota en une annuite si 1'es- 
 cases of this term in G which are not pecialte veut dedi la ne covent mye her 
 found in B. seisine, et la put homme traverser la 
 
 (1) Si un homme truve les avers un seisine. Mes s'il vet concessi saunt dedi 
 
 estraunge pessaunt sa commune il la ne covent mye her seisine, car homme 
 
 purra avouwer saunt ces communers ne traversera pas (fol. 8 r).
 
 INTRODUCTION XC1 
 
 decidedly different ; and out of twenty-six cases in B there are only 
 fifteen 1 which also occur in P, and out of thirty cases in P there 
 are fourteen 2 which are not found in B. Lastly, four of the fifteen 
 cases which occur in both B and P namely 14, 19, 22, 85 are 
 represented in the latter manuscript by mere notes, and five namely 
 1, 3, 4, 18, 27 appear in entirely different versions. 
 
 As it has already been noticed that L in this term is probably 
 related to P, though not very closely, a comparison between B and L 
 may be of interest. L contains thirty-four cases for this term, of which 
 twenty 3 occur in P; while B contains six 4 cases which are not 
 found in L. Thus of the twenty-six cases which occur in B, L 
 contains five more than P. Of the twenty cases occurring in both 
 L and B, six 5 appear in different and eleven in the same versions in 
 the two manuscripts, and three 6 are represented in L by mere notes. 
 In this respect also B is less different from L than from P. 
 
 In Trinity term the cases in B and G are : 
 
 24a, 23, 25, 38 Easter, 26, 36, 16, 146, 42iv Easter, 18, 29, 46, 
 30a, 20, 27a, 28. 
 
 Case 19 occurs among the Easter cases of this year, and case 11 
 among those of Michaelmas 4 Edward II. Including these two cases 
 and excluding the two Easter cases, the Trinity cases are printed in the 
 following order : 
 
 3, 4, 11, 14, 16, 18-20, 23-30. 
 
 Three only of these cases, namely 3, 4 and 11, occur in A, and the ver- 
 sions of 3 and 4 in that manuscript are not the same as in B. Cases 
 3, 4, 11, 14 and 18 occur in P. The versions of 3, 4 and 14 are different 
 in B and P, but those of 11 and 18 are the same. Of the remaining 
 eleven cases, 19 and 20 occur in R, but 16, 23-30 are found only in 
 B and G. 7 Cases 3 and 11 also occur in R in the same version as in P. 
 It is obvious that for this term the reports in B and G, which are in 
 complete agreement, are independent of those in our other manu- 
 scripts, though seven out of the sixteen appear in some of them. 
 
 Thus the reports of the third year when regarded as a whole strongly 
 support the ' pamphlet ' theory. We have in the second year C and 
 Q closely agreeing with P and differing from A and D, but in the third 
 year agreeing with A and D and differing from P. Again, B agrees with 
 A and D in the second year, but in the third year it is very different. 
 Also P and M are more closely related to one another in the third year 
 
 1 Namely, 1-4, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30-33, 42, 43, 49. 
 
 22, 24, 25, 27, 35, 38. 4 Namely, 1, 35-38, 44. 
 
 8 Namely, 5-11, 13, 16, 21, 23, 26, '' Namely, 3, 4, 18, 25, 27, and 42. 
 
 28, 29. 6 Namely, 19, 22 and 30. 
 
 3 Namely, 2-4, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, 7 Cases 24, 27 and 30 appear in 7.
 
 XCli INTRODUCTION 
 
 than they are in the second ; and S and T agree with one another 
 remarkably closely in the first two terms of the third year ; but in 
 Easter and Trinity terms T agrees with A and D. All this is easy to 
 understand if the reports of the reign of Edward II. were in the course 
 of his reign circulating as pamphlets containing a few terms. The 
 pamphlets containing reports of the early years probably grew larger 
 as time went on, and sometimes contained the reports of a few years 
 instead of a few terms. The men who compiled our large Year Books 
 of Edward II., written in the reign of Edward III., used such pamphlets, 
 some large and others small, as they were able to obtain. Thus two 
 manuscripts of the Year Books might be in close agreement for several 
 3^ears, and then become quite different. It is also likely enough that a 
 compiler sometimes obtained more than one pamphlet of the same 
 period, so that his reports of a few terms were compiled partly 
 from one pamphlet and partly from another. 
 
 We are on less sure ground with regard to the ultimate origin of the 
 various reports of this year. They certainly cannot be claimed either as 
 proving or disproving that the Year Books of this period were derived 
 wholly or partially from a single version. Leaving R on one side, since it 
 has some marked peculiarities of its own, let us confine our attention to 
 A, B, C, D, G, L, M, P, Q, S, T and X. As regards Michaelmas term 
 these manuscripts fall into three groups, the first consisting of A, C, D 
 and Q, the second of L, M, P, S, T and X, and the third of B and G only. 
 Nevertheless, the particulars printed above show that, in spite of some 
 difference in detail, they are probably based upon a common original. 
 
 In Hilary term, we have four groups, since S and T now differ from 
 L, M, P, and X ; we also have reports in G which are in close agreement 
 with those in B. The reports in the first of these groups are almost 
 certainly derived from the same original as those in the second ; and 
 so also, it would seem, were the reports of the third group that is, S and 
 T, though they are no longer closely related to them. Similarly the 
 reports of the fourth group that is, B and G though very different 
 from those in the first group, probably had the same original as the 
 reports in the second group. In short, we may suspect that as in 
 Michaelmas term, so in Hilary term, the reports in all the manuscripts 
 now under discussion had a common original ; but it must be remem- 
 bered that there are twelve Extra cases in S and T of which nine are 
 not found in any of the other manuscripts. 1 
 
 As regards Easter term the groups are the same as in Hilary term 
 except that T contains two sets of reports, the one occurring, as in S, 
 among the Hilary cases and belonging to the third group, and the other 
 
 1 Case 1 occurs in F, 4 in B and G, and 5 in L.
 
 INTRODUCTION xciii 
 
 occurring under its proper heading of Easter term and belonging to 
 the first group. Moreover, though L may still be classified as 
 belonging to the second group, it differs considerably from M and P. 
 The reports in the first group and the early reports of the second group 
 agree sufficiently for them to have been derived from the same original, 
 but none of the cases of the latter part of the second group occur in the 
 first. Twelve Extra cases also occur in L which are not found in the 
 other manuscripts of the second group (that is, M and P), nor, with 
 three exceptions, namely 5, 14 and 16, in any of the other manuscripts. 
 In the third group the reports of this term are few, but as far as they 
 go they seem to be drawn from the same original as the second group. 
 Lastly, with two exceptions that is to say 36 and 37 all the cases in 
 the fourth group (that is B and G) occur in one or more manuscripts of 
 the other groups, but in a decidedly different order ; and four of them, 
 namely 30 to 33, occur in no other manuscripts except L. Moreover, 
 certain of them, notably 19, 22, 30', 35, appear in the second group 
 as short notes rather than as reports. In spite, however, of these differ- 
 ences the reports of the fourth group may perhaps be derived from the 
 same original as the second group ; but this original in the course of its 
 transmission into the forms which it has assumed in these groups must 
 have been very much altered. Certain cases in each group must have 
 been omitted, others inserted, and some replaced by improved versions. 
 The outstanding feature, however, of the reports of this term are the 
 small number of cases in the first group, and the Extra cases in L, S and T. 
 Finally, we come to Trinity term. Here our first group (A, C, D, T} 
 contains eleven cases only, all of which are found in M and P in the 
 same versions. Seven of them also occur in the same version in S, 
 three among the Hilary cases of that manuscript, and four more after 
 the insertion of other matter at the end of Hilary term and without a 
 special heading. On the other hand, not more than three of these 
 cases namely 3, 4 and 11 are found in B and G, and two of these are 
 in different versions. There remain, however, nineteen cases of this 
 term not one of which is found in A, C or D, and not more than three 
 of them in S and T. Of these nineteen cases three namely 12, 15 and 
 17 occur in M and P only, and two of them namely 21 and 22 in 
 S and T only ; but thirteen of them appear in B and G, and eleven of 
 these in none of the other manuscripts now under discussion. Thus as 
 regards this term B and G contain a number of cases which are scarcely 
 represented in our other manuscripts. They must be derived either 
 from entirely different originals or from one which has been divided 
 
 1 Case 30 occurs in Y, a manuscript not now under discussion.
 
 XC1V . INTRODUCTION 
 
 into two parts, the cases in A, C and D being derived from one part, 
 and those in B and G from the other. 
 
 So far nothing has been said of E. This manuscript appears, at 
 any rate as regards much of the four earliest years of the reign of 
 Edward II., to consist of selections ; but in two terms of the third year 
 the reports selected are conspicuous for their individuality, and differ 
 considerably from those found elsewhere. In Michaelmas term, excluding 
 a brief note, we have eight cases only, and they are derived from the 
 same original as the reports in the other manuscripts. In Hilary 
 term, though one case only occurs which is not found in other manu- 
 scripts, ' as many as ten cases out of a total of thirteen are so differently 
 reported as to require printing in this edition in special versions. Of 
 the seventeen Easter cases in R eight occur in special versions, two, 
 namely 40 and 41, are missing in all the other manuscripts, and one, 
 namely 39, is only found in Y. Lastly, in Trinity term the reports 
 in R are represented by a selection of seven cases and a note, but only 
 one of these cases, namely 21, occurs in a special version. In spite, 
 however, of the large proportion of special cases which occur among 
 them in Hilary and Easter terms, there is no strong reason for think- 
 ing that the reports of this year in R are not derived from the same 
 original or originals as those in the other manuscripts. They seem 
 to be selected reports, some of which have been much revised by 
 a frequenter of the courts or perhaps by one of the Serjeants. 
 
 Now it may be said that the Extra Cases which appear in L, S 
 and T, the small number of cases which appear in Easter and Trinity 
 terms in A, C, D, and the fact that most of the Trinity cases appearing 
 in B and G', two of our most important manuscripts, are not found 
 elsewhere, tend to show that the reports of this period were not based 
 upon a common original. But before we accept this conclusion it will 
 be well to reflect on some other possibilities. We have the admirable 
 reports by the compiler of Y, whose own observations show that he 
 busied himself seeking information and making notes in court. Most 
 of his reports in the following pages appear to be entirely different 
 from those in the other manuscripts, and they were in all probability 
 his own work, while a considerable number of his cases were not re- 
 ported elsewhere. He was evidently an independent reporter, and there 
 may have been others like him. But if there were men in court taking 
 notes and reporting cases for their own instruction and pleasure, we 
 need not assume that there were not other men who reported cases 
 as a business. Supposing that there were two such persons working, 
 let us say, on alternate days. Their reports might circulate in some 
 
 1 Case 30.
 
 INTRODUCTION XCV 
 
 terms, in separate pamphlets ; in others, as a single pamphlet. If they 
 circulated separately, one might be copied much more extensively than 
 the other. In short, the work of one of these reporters might eventually 
 constitute the main body of the reports of a given term as generally 
 known to those who studied such literature, while the w r ork of his 
 colleague might be preserved, if at all, in a few manuscripts only. 
 Again, suppose that there were only one such professional reporter. 
 From tune to time, when he needed relief, others would have been 
 found to take his place. Various reports of a case which he had been 
 unable to hear may have been made for him by others. The one which 
 he selected and incorporated in his own reports of the particular terms 
 may have been the best, but the author of a rejected version would 
 probably prefer his own. And if at some later date this author should 
 have chanced to copy the manuscript of the professional reporter, he 
 would substitute his own version for that of his successful rival whose 
 report had been accepted. Possibly a man who had acted as, or 
 endeavoured to act as, a deputy in this way may have afterwards 
 acquired a good reputation as a professional reporter, and his revised 
 version of earlier reports would be much prized. If, then, we accept 
 the pamphlet theory we may well consider the possibility that the 
 Year Books, as we know them, were for the most part the work of 
 one or more professional reporters. The first three years of the reign 
 of Edward II., however, afford insufficient material for determining 
 this question ; and for this purpose a careful analysis of the reports 
 of subsequent years will be required. 
 
 4 EDWARD II. The reports of Michaelmas term of this year appear 
 in the fourth volume of this series, and those of Hilary term and the 
 greater part of Easter term in the present volume. An examination 
 of the relation of the reports of this year in the different manuscripts 
 to one another must be deferred until the year is completed. Mean- 
 while it may be observed that in Michaelmas and Hilary terms the 
 reports in A, D and T agree with one another very closely ; and this 
 is also the case with those in C, P, Q and jR. On the other hand , the 
 reports in M no longer agree with those in P. 
 
 If the detailed particulars of the relations of the manuscripts to one 
 another which have been related in this Introduction are long and 
 tedious, they may at least provide material for some useful and 
 interesting conclusions about the origin of the Year Books.
 
 XCV1 INTRODUCTION 
 
 APPENDIX I 
 
 PARTICULARS 1 OF THE QUIRES AND FOLIOS OF THE MANUSCRIPTS 
 USED IN THIS EDITION. 
 
 A 
 
 MS. Ff. 3 12 in the Cambridge University Library. 
 30 X 22 centimetres. 
 Folio 1 , a flyleaf. 
 
 j , T, j 6 1 ? 18, 19, 2029 30-^tl 4253 
 
 2 5 detached 
 
 11 24 35 47 
 
 5465 6673 7483 8497 98105 106113 
 
 59 69 78 90 101 109 
 
 114125 126137 138149 150 161 162169 170181 
 
 119 131 143 ~~155~ 165 ~~175~ 
 
 182193 194203 204215 
 
 187 199 209 
 
 NOTE. 
 Folio 84 has been misplaced by the binder and should follow 97. 
 
 B 
 
 Add. MS. 35094 at the British Museum. 
 
 27'5 X 18 - 5 centimetres. 
 
 Folio 1, a flyleaf of paper. 
 213 1425 2637 38-^5 4657 5863 
 
 7 19 31 41 51 60 
 
 6475 7687 8899 100111 112120 121124 
 
 69 81 93 105 115 122 
 
 125134 135146 147150 151162 163174 175186 
 
 129 140 148 156 168 180 
 
 187198 199208 209224 225229 230237 238248 
 
 192 204 216 227 233 243 
 
 249264 265278 279289 290305 306318 319334 
 
 256 271 284 297 312 326 
 
 335342 
 
 338 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 There is an old numeration of the folios in very small finely drawn Arabic figures of 
 the early eighteenth or possibly seventeenth century at the left-hand side of the bottom 
 margin. Apparently 331 (a half folio) of the modern pencil foliation was unmarked in this 
 old numeration, which owing to an oversight runs 329, 340, 341 . . . ; 329 corresponds 
 to the modern 330 and 340 to the modern 332. This old numeration shows that the 
 present defects of the manuscript are not of recent date. 
 
 The conjugates or half folds of 120, 199, 200, 225, 238, 279, 306, 307, and 316, which 
 should follow 111, 208 (two folios), 229, 248, 289, 318 (two folios), and 309 have been cut 
 away. All these except the conjugates of 120, 316 and possibly 306 and 307 were 
 probably blank folios. 
 
 1 As to these particulars see p. Ixi, above.
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 c 
 
 XCV11 
 
 Add. MS. 37658 at the British Museum. 
 
 40 x 17'5 centimetres. 
 
 Folio 1, a flyleaf. 
 
 Folio 2 (detached record of an assize of novel disseisin). 
 
 None Na 
 Table of 
 
 Year Boi 
 7178 
 
 , J 
 
 .U 11 
 
 10 K 
 
 o 14 
 Ca5e5 oo 23-28 29-38 
 
 25 
 >k of Edward II 
 7986 
 
 33 
 3946 4754 
 
 42 
 
 8794 
 
 50 
 95102 
 
 74 
 119126 
 
 82 
 127134 
 
 90 
 135142 
 
 98 
 143150 
 
 122 
 167174 
 
 130 
 175176 
 
 138 
 177184 
 
 146 
 
 185192 
 
 170 
 209216 
 
 175 
 217224 
 
 180 
 225232 
 
 188 
 233239 
 
 212 220 2i,8 
 260 ZGGbkmk, 267274 
 
 235 blank 
 
 263 
 
 270 
 
 
 1921 (detached) 
 
 5562 
 
 58 
 103110 
 
 106 
 151158 
 
 154 
 193200 
 
 196 
 240247 
 
 243 
 
 6370 
 
 66 
 111118 
 
 114 
 159166 
 
 162 
 201208 
 
 204 
 
 248259 
 ~253~ 
 
 NOTE. 
 The blank folios between 235 and 236 and between 266 and 267 are unnumbered. 
 
 MS. 139 in the Library at 
 30-5 X 22*5 centimetres. 
 
 Nouae Narrationes 
 Year Book of Edward II 
 
 5966 
 
 62 
 105112 
 
 108 
 151158 
 
 154 
 199202 
 
 200 
 243250 
 
 246 
 VOL. 
 
 6774 
 
 70 
 113120 
 
 116 
 159166 
 
 162 
 203210 
 
 206 
 251258 
 
 254 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 
 at 
 s. 
 
 Lincoln's 
 
 Inn. 
 
 
 
 916 
 
 1722 
 
 4 
 
 
 12 
 
 20 
 
 7 
 
 2330 
 
 31-42 
 
 4350 
 
 
 20 
 
 36 
 
 46 
 
 
 7582 
 
 8390 
 
 9198 
 
 
 78 
 
 86 
 
 94 
 
 
 121128 
 
 129136 
 
 137144 
 
 
 124 
 
 132 
 
 140 
 
 
 167174 
 
 175182 
 
 183190 
 
 
 170 
 
 178 
 
 186 
 
 
 211218 
 
 219226 
 
 227234 
 
 
 214 
 
 222 
 
 230 
 
 
 259266 
 
 267272 
 
 273280 
 
 
 262 
 
 270 
 
 276 
 
 VI. 
 
 5158 
 
 54 
 99104 
 
 102 
 145150 
 
 148 
 191198 
 
 194 
 235242 
 
 238 
 
 281288 
 284 
 
 f
 
 XCV111 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 289296 
 
 292 
 335342 
 
 338 
 
 297304 
 
 300 
 343350 
 
 346 
 
 305312 
 
 308 
 
 351358 
 354 
 
 313318 
 
 316 
 359, 360 
 
 319326 
 
 322 
 
 361370 
 366 
 
 327334 
 330 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 The half -folds or conjugates of 17 and 18 have been cut away. 
 
 100 and 101 
 145 and 146 
 267 and 268 
 313 and 314 
 
 G 
 
 MS; Gg 5 20 in the University Library at Cambridge. 
 29-3 X 17 centimetres. 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 4960 
 
 54 
 
 105112 
 108 
 150 
 
 187196 
 191 
 
 916 
 
 12 
 6168 
 
 64 
 113120 
 
 116 
 
 151160 
 155 
 
 1724 
 
 20 
 6978 
 
 73 
 121128 
 
 124 
 
 161165 
 163 
 
 2532 
 
 28 
 7986 
 
 82 
 129136 
 
 132 
 
 166173 
 169 
 
 91 
 137143 
 
 140 
 174185 
 
 179 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 4148 
 
 44 
 97104 
 
 100 " 
 144149 
 
 146 
 
 186 
 
 Two folios have been cut away after 143, one was the conjugate or half -fold of 137, 
 and the other of 150. 
 
 A folio between 164 and 165, being the conjugate of 162, has been cut away. 
 The conjugate of 186 has been cut away from the end of the volume. 
 
 Add. MSS. 25183 at the British Museum. 
 30 '5 X 22 centimetres. 
 Folio 1, a paper flyleaf. 
 
 29 
 
 5 
 
 5963 
 
 ~6T~ 
 
 107116 
 
 111 
 
 1017 
 
 13 
 64, 65 
 
 64 
 
 117128 
 122 
 
 1827 
 
 22 
 6677 
 
 71 
 129138 
 
 133 
 
 2829 
 
 33 
 7887 
 
 82 
 139150 
 
 144 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 40^6 
 
 43 
 8895 
 
 91 
 151162 
 
 156 
 
 4758 
 
 52 
 96106 
 
 101 
 
 Folios 28-29, 40-46 and 59-63 are on guards. 
 
 The conjugates of 40 and 59 have been cut away. 
 
 Two folios which preceded 88 and two which followed 95 are now missing. 
 
 The conjugate of 96 has been cut away.
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 M 
 
 XC1X 
 
 MS. Ff 2 12 in the Cambridge University Library. 
 29 X 20-5 centimetres. 
 
 There is no modern foliation in this manuscript. The ancient foliation begins 
 with 9. 
 
 9 12 detached 1324 
 
 2536 
 
 3745 
 
 4657 
 
 137 
 
 149 
 
 161 
 
 173 
 
 181 
 
 5867 
 
 6879 
 
 18 
 8091 
 
 30 
 92103 
 
 40 
 104115 
 
 51 
 116119 
 
 62 
 120131 
 
 73 
 132143 
 
 86 
 
 144155 
 
 97 
 156167 
 
 109 
 168179 
 
 117 
 
 180183 
 
 125 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 A folio between 36 and 37, being the conjugate of 45, has been cut away. 
 Folios 90 and 101 are missing. 
 Folio 183 v is blank. 
 
 Harleian MS. 835 at the British Museum. 
 31 X 20-5 centimetres. 
 
 The folios of this manuscript are all fixed in guards, so that it is now impossible 
 to distinguish the quires. 
 
 Hargrave MS. 210 at the British Museum. 
 30 X 21 centimetres. 
 Folio 1, paper. 
 
 213 1425 
 
 a quire 
 missing 
 
 8596 
 
 2637 
 
 3849 
 
 5061 
 
 7 19 
 6272 7384 
 
 31 
 
 97107 
 
 43 
 
 108119 
 
 55 
 120131 
 
 67 75 
 132, 133 134145 
 
 90 
 146157 
 
 101 
 158, 159 
 
 113 
 160163 
 
 125 
 164175 
 
 139 
 176 180 now 181191 
 
 151 
 
 192203 
 
 161 
 
 169 
 
 detached 
 
 185 
 
 195 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 The lower half of folio 72 has been cut away. 
 
 A folio following 72, being the conjugate of 62, has been cut away. 
 
 A folio following 101, being the conjugate of 102, has been cut away. 
 
 A folio following 181, being the conjugate of 190, has been cut away. 
 
 Folio 180 is intrusive, and was perhaps a flyleaf to the two quires following it.
 
 C INTRODUCTION 
 
 22 
 
 MS. Dd 9 64 at the Cambridge University Librarj'. 
 27 X 17' 5 centimetres. 
 18 916 1724 2532 33-40 
 
 4 12 20 28 36 ~44~ 
 
 4955 5663 6471 7279 
 
 52 59 67 ~~75~ 
 
 NOTE. 
 A folio between 55 and 56 has been cut away. 
 
 8 
 
 Harleian MS. 1062 at the British Museum. 
 
 30-5 X 32 centimetres. 
 
 112 1324 2526 2732 3342 4353 
 
 6 18 25 29 ~~ 37 48 
 
 5465 6671 7283 8495 96107 108117 
 
 59 68 77 89 101 112 
 
 118129 131146 147160 
 
 123 138 153 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 Single folios are missing between 35 and 36, 39 and 40, 48 and 49, and possibly between 
 150 and 151 and 156 and 157. 
 
 The last quire has been wrongly folded and the true order of the folios seems to be 
 154-160, 145-153. 
 
 T 
 
 Harleian MS. 3639 at the British Museum. 
 33 X 23 centimetres. 
 
 112 1320 2132 3344 4556 (12 folios 
 
 6 detached 26 38 50 missing) 
 
 5768 69, 70 7182 8390 91101 102106 
 
 62 76 86 95 
 
 107118 119, 120131 132143 144155 156, 157 
 
 112 125 ~~137~~ 149 
 
 158169 170, 171 172183 184194 
 
 164 177 189 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 13 18. The true order of these folios is 13, 14, 18, 17, 15, 16. 
 19, 20. Four folios are probably missing before 19. 
 69, 70. These belong to the preceding quire. 
 83 90. Four folios are missing in the middle of this quire. 
 91 101. One folio between 91 and 92, being the conjugate of 100, is missing. 
 102106. The true order of these folios is 104, 106, 105, 102, 103. Some folios have 
 
 disappeared at the beginning of the quire. 
 119. This belongs to the preceding quire. 
 156, 157. These belong to the preceding quire. 
 170, 171. These belong to the preceding quire. 
 The last case on folio 194 v is unfinished, and a folio following 194 has been cut away.
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Cl 
 
 Tanner MS. 13 in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. 
 28-5 X 19'5 centimetres. 
 
 112 
 3 
 
 91106 
 
 98 
 179194 
 
 186 
 275290 
 
 282 
 375390 
 
 382 
 463478 
 
 470 
 
 1328 
 
 ~20 
 
 107 USe 
 
 114 
 195210 
 
 202 
 291310 
 
 300 
 391406 
 
 398 ~ 
 479490 
 
 484 
 
 29-^4 
 
 36 
 119142 
 
 130 
 211226 
 
 218 
 311326 
 
 313 
 407414 
 
 410 
 
 4560 
 
 52 
 143152 
 
 144e 
 227242 
 
 234 
 327342 
 
 334 
 415-^30 
 
 422 
 
 6176 
 
 68 
 153162 
 
 158 
 
 243258 
 250 
 
 343358 
 
 350 
 431-^46 
 
 438 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 77 90c 
 
 84 
 163178 
 
 170 
 259274 
 
 266 
 
 359374 
 
 366 
 447^462 
 
 454 
 
 There is no ancient numeration of the folios in this MS. Those rectos and verso8 
 on which there is writing have been numbered consecutively in a hand of the eighteenth 
 century. A blank folio following 90 has recently been marked 906 and 90c, and 90 itself 
 has been re-marked 90a. 
 
 Other blank rectos and versos have been marked 1186, 118c, 118d, 118e; 1446, 144c, 
 144d, and 144e; and 118 and 144 have been re-marked 118o and 144a respectively. 
 The first two folios of the MS., being the conjugates of 9/10 and 11/12, and the 
 conjugates of 109/110, 145/146, and 153/154, which should follow 118c, 144e, and 162 
 respectively, have been cut away. Folio 115/116 is pasted on to 117/118 and the quire 
 119 142 is intrusive and is written in a different hand from that of the rest of the MS. 
 
 Add. MS. 35116 at the British Museum. 
 36-5 X 25 centimetres. 
 
 13 detached 415 
 
 9 
 7688 
 
 6575 
 
 69 
 137148 
 
 142 
 208219 
 
 213 
 
 280291 
 286 
 
 81 
 149159 
 
 154 
 220231 
 
 225 
 
 1627 
 
 21 
 89100 
 
 94 
 160171 
 
 165 
 
 232243 
 237 
 
 2839 
 
 33 
 101111 
 
 106 
 172183 
 
 177 
 244255 
 
 249 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 4052 
 
 46 
 112124 
 
 118 
 
 184195 
 
 ~I89" 
 
 256267 
 
 261 
 
 5364 
 
 58 
 125136 
 
 130 
 196207 
 
 201 
 268279 
 
 273 
 
 Folios are missing between 65 and 66, 108 and 109, and 156 and 157. 
 
 Folios 43, 82, and 1 14 are intrusive. 
 
 Folios 208 267 forming 5 quires are misplaced and should come at the end of the 
 volume. Portions of the MS containing one or more quires or part of a quire are missing 
 after folios 267 and 291.
 
 Cll INTRODUCTION 
 
 z 
 
 MS. No. 137 (2) in the Library at Lincoln's Inn. 
 34 X 23 centimetres. 
 
 NOTE. 
 The particulars of the quires of this manuscript are reserved for another volume. 
 
 EXTRA MS. 1 
 
 Additional MS. 32086 at the British Museum. 
 24 X 16 centimetres. 
 Folio 1, a flyleaf. 
 213 1421 2229 3041 4251 5260 
 
 7 
 6167 
 
 17 
 
 6875 
 
 25 
 7684 
 
 35 
 
 8590 
 
 46 
 
 91 
 
 detached 
 
 55 
 92102 
 
 64 
 103121 
 
 71 
 122, 123 
 
 79 
 124127 
 
 87 
 128 
 
 96 
 
 111 125 detached 
 
 NOTES 
 
 Folios 59, 63, and 81 are intrusive. A folio between 96 and 97, being the conjugate 
 of 97, is missing. 
 
 A folio between 102 and 103, being the conjugate of 121, has been cut away. 
 
 1 This MS. has not been used in the first four volumes of this series nor in the present 
 volume. See p. 1 above.
 
 APPENDIX II 
 
 THE brief report (a) which follows occurs in one manuscript only, and its 
 correct interpretation is doubtful. The pedigree, obviously corrupt, is 
 altogether out of agreement with the rest of the report. Apparently three 
 sisters held property as parceners and the descendants of one, or perhaps 
 two of these sisters are bringing an action against a person who is in pos- 
 session of the share of the third sister. According to the marginal description 
 the action is one of ael, but more probably it was one of cosinage, as it appears 
 to be admitted that the sisters were seised after the death of their ancestor. 
 The two notes (b and c) occur among the cases of Trinity term 1 Edw. II . 
 in the Additional MS. 25183 (here called L), and were not printed in the 
 first volume of this series. 
 
 (a) 1 Jon E. et Luce port ere nt bref vers Willem et fesoynt un title et 
 counterent par la pee de gru sicitt palet. 
 
 ( luliana ^ ( Thomas ) films suus 
 
 } Lucia > sorores < Lucia Agnes filia 
 
 ( Alicia ) ( lohannes ) petit 
 
 Pass. Julian avoit un fiz Koger qi la survesquit, et entra 1'estat Julian 
 cum parcener ove Luce et Alice, et entre eux et Jon 2 fut la departisoun 
 fet etc. ; issi qe Roger prist sa purpartie et seisi fut de cele et murust seisi ; 
 apres qi mort entrames cum fiz et heir Roger. Jugement si vers nous pussez 
 rien demander. 
 
 Toad. Julian ne avoit nul fiz. Prest etc. 
 
 Pass. Qi fiz fut il donqes ? Ele avoit un fiz Roger, qi entra etc. et murust 
 seisi Prest etc. 
 
 Toud. II fut bastard. Prest etc. 
 
 Pass. A ceo n'avendrez pas, del hour qe ceo ne fut pas dedit q'il entra 
 et murust seisi etc. Jugement si apres sa mort etc. 
 
 Toud. Al tens qe Roger entra si furent Luce et Agnes coverts de baroun, 
 par quei etc. 
 
 Herle. De ceo qe Luce et Agnes nent reclamant 3 etc. si 1'accepterent 
 com prive et parcener. 
 
 Pass. Ce ne agrevera lour isseu si eux al teas de acceptement ne eussent 
 este de lour propre volunte. Mes desicom eux furent covertes etc. Juze- 
 ment etc. 
 
 (&)* En un cessauit per biennium le tenaunt fist defaute, et puis vynt en 
 court par attourne. Et 1'autre voleit aver tendu les arrerages et ne fut mye 
 resceu, pur ceo qe 1'attourne ne pout nul seurte trover en le noun son seignur. 
 
 (c) 4 Nota. Si le petit Cape fut issu et retourne ; a quel jour le tenaunt 
 vynt, et dit qe la defaute ne ly devereit nuyre, qe il fut enprisone en tiel leu, 
 prest etc. Et le demaundaunt dit q'il avoit attourne Johan par noun en le 
 plee, par quei la prisonement ne ly dust valer, nee per hoc potest sanare 
 defaltam etc. 
 
 1 From C (folio 50 v"); Among the cases of Michaelmas term 2 Edward II. The 
 words ' de auo' are written in the margin of the report. 2 This word is under- 
 lined for deletion. It is written in error for ' Roger.' 8 An error for 
 ' reclamerent.' From L (folio 5 v).
 
 LEGAL CALENDAR 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 FOURTH YEAR OF KING EDWARD II. 
 
 The fourth year of the reign began on 8 July 1310. The Sunday letter 
 was D for 1310 and C for 1311. In 1311 Easter fell on 11 April. 
 
 JUSTICES OF THE KING'S BENCH. 
 Roger le Brabazon, C. J. ; Gilbert of Roubery ; Henry Spigurnel. 
 
 JUSTICES OF THE COMMON BENCH. 
 
 William of Bereford, C. J. ; Lambert of Trikingham ; Hervey of Stanton ; 
 John of Benstede ; Henry le Scrope. 
 
 NAMES OF COUNSEL WHO ARE MENTIONED IN THIS VOLUME. 
 
 Asshele, Robert of Laufare, Nicholas of 
 
 Botiller, John Loveday, John 
 
 Cambridge, John of Malberthorpe, Robert of 
 
 Claver, John Miggeley, William of 
 
 Denham (Denom), John of Passeley, Edmond 
 
 Denham (Denom), William of Roston or Royston, William of 
 
 Friskeney, Walter of Russell, Robert 
 
 Hambury, Henry of Scotre, Roger of 
 
 Hartlepool, Geoffrey of Scrope, Geoffrey le 
 
 Hedon, Robert of Stonore, John of 
 
 Hengham or Ingham, John of Toudeby, Gilbert of 
 
 Herle, William of Wallingford, Peter of 
 
 Huntingdon, Ralph of Warwick, Nicholas of 
 
 Ingham, see Hengham Wescote (Westcotes), John of 
 
 Kingeshemede, Simon of Willoughby, Richard of 
 
 Of these the following are mentioned in the reports, but not in the 
 Plea Rolls of Hilary and Easter terms of this year : 
 Friskeney, Walter of Wallingford, Peter of 
 
 Hartlepool, Geoffrey of Warwick, Nicholas of 
 
 Scotre, Roger of 
 
 And the following are mentioned in the Plea Rolls only : 
 Goldington, William of Hampton, Richard of 
 
 J
 
 
 fsr 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 Series 9482
 
 * 
 
 _- 1- : - -' ' 
 > IT SOUTHERN REGIONAL UWV"_-_IM| 
 
 ii I II II Ml III I II II 
 
 11 111 11 In "I ' "" 
 000911 901 7