jurisdiction over complaints against judgments by royal commissions, chiefly 
in assizes, had been built up on the rule of personal responsibility of those 
participating in the judgment, 75 and consequently their personal testimony 
was required. This was exacted both of commissioned judges and of the recognitors 
or jury 76 —the former were called upon to justify the judgment; the 
latter to explain or to amplify their verdict. This was called a "certification" 7T 
and was directed toward a reformation of the judgment. The influence of the 
older recordari facias upon the mechanism of the procedure is obvious, but 
certification rested, not upon falsification, but upon a theory of mistake. This 
procedure was a chief method of moving against objectionable judgments 
in royal courts and in a limited class of cases until after the middle of the 
thirteenth century. 78 
The English Curia Regis had not moved far toward the eventual solution 
of its record problem, when the unyielding circumstances of distance led it 
to the bold step of ordering up a written record of a judgment made in a royal 
dominion against which complaint had been made. The case is of particular 
interest for our purposes, since it marks the commencement of a review jurisdiction 
which was to continue over many centuries. 
It is familiar knowledge that the introduction of the common law into Ireland 
to the use and behoof of the Anglo-Norman settlers had been undertaken 
by King John and that it was greatly furthered by his successor. Throughout 
the thirteenth century the general situation respecting law administration bears 
certain striking resemblances with that which obtained centuries later in 
respect to the American dominions, since the Irish aborigines were only exceptionally 
admitted to the benefit of the law, and since the central authorities 
were having constantly to deal with aberrations concocted by the settlers. 
75 The assize commissioners very usually were 
mere knights with pretensions to legal knowledge 
no greater than those of suitors of the 
county court. Maitland (2 HEL 670 n.4) suspects 
that at first no written rolls were kept by 
assize commissions. Plea roll evidence is equivocal 
where reference is made to the assize 
judges "making a record," although sometimes 
"certification" is mentioned (Bracton's Notebook,pl. 
281 [1228] and pi. 1285 [1239-40]). 
In 1254 a placitum certificationis includes a 
calumniatum recordum of the judge as well as 
certification by the assisa (Placitorum abbreviatio, 
131—32 rot. nd). 
76 A distinction between commissioned judge 
and the assisa in terms of function is slow to 
emerge, for Bracton (De legibus, ff. 186b, 289, 
290-96) refers to the recognition as a indicium. 
Consequently there is a sharing of responsibility. 
77 The procedure is described by Bracton, De 
legibus, f. 289 et seq. For cases, see 8 CRR 75; 
Bracton's Notebook, pi. 371, 372, 431, 771, 856; 
Somersetshire Pleas, no. 1492. It is conventional 
to use the term "certification" with respect to 
the assisa. We use it for the explanations of the 
judges as well, for reasons explained supra n. 
74- 
78 Even eyre judges are not immune; cf. Bracton's 
Notebook, pi. 1066; 8 CRR 80. The cases 
are few, but see the writ in Close Rolls 1254-56, 
154-55, to eyre judges to have the writs, etc., 
in a cause ended before them and to testify personally. 
Cf. ibid., 180, and Close Rolls 1261-64, 
301-2. The writ of attaint which involves 
falsification is also confined to certain actions.