last group consisted of five members, John of Berwick, Henry of Stanton, 
William Mortimer, Roger Beaufou, and William Dene. 35 When this group 
reached a decision as to the relief to be afforded a particular petitioner, such 
decision was endorsed upon the petition. The original endorsed petition was 
then filed in Chancery, where it might serve as a warrant for further proceedings 
38 But in some cases the consideration of and the decision upon a 
petition were reserved for the King or the plenary Council. 37 The final dispositions 
of these reserved petitions varied, but this is of no great importance 
for our purposes. 38 
The function of the auditors, or triers, was mainly directive or moving in 
nature. By force of their endorsements they were able to set in motion the 
administrative machinery which would ultimately afford relief if the petitionary 
allegations proved true. 39 The common endorsement by the auditors was 
one authorizing the issuance of a writ. Certain endorsements which direct 
that record and process below be brought before the next Parliament indicate 
that acts of the itinerant justices were subject to review by petition to the 
Council in Parliament. 40 In some cases the triers directed petitioners to go to 
Chancery and there procure writs to correct error. 41 Auditors also ordered the 
rolls of itinerant justices searched and requisite information forwarded to 
the next Parliament. 42 But caution should be exercised against regarding the 
Council in Parliament as a court of appeal. 43 
The evidence is meager as to the procedure following the return of writs 
when authorized. In one case the abbot of Mont St. Michel petitioned the 
February, 1305, Parliament for a remedy; the response directed the production 
of charters and other evidence of title before the Council in Parliament. 44 At 
the September Parliament of 1305 the 
or to the King (The High Court of Parliament 
and Its Supremacy [1910], 201; cf. Ehrlich, 
op. cit., 100-101). Note the insular interpretation 
given the 1305 appointments by J. Duncan 
{History of Guernsey [1841], 430) in an effort 
to stave off Parliamentary control. 
35 On this personnel see Richardson and 
Sayles, in 46 EHR, 546; Maitland, Mem. de 
Pari., lix. Cf. the conclusions of Richardson and 
Sayles, 46 EHR, 550. 
36 Maitland, Mem. de Pari., lxiii; Ehrlich, op. 
cit., 105. For the 1305 endorsements see Rot. 
Pari. Ang. hac. ined., 47-54- 
37 Maidand, Mem. de Pari., lxi; Ehrlich, op. cit., 
106-7; Ancient Petitions, 53, 54. 
38 Ehrlich, op. cit., 107-10. 
39 Pollard, The Evolution of Parliament 
(1926), 39. "The value of parliament to the 
abbot appeared and petitioned to be 
petitioner consisted not in the revision or the 
reversal in parliament of decisions already 
given in the courts of common law, but in the 
function it fulfilled of 'moving' these courts." 
40 See Rot. Pari. Ang. hac. ined., 48, 49, 51, 53 
(#4, 5, 10, 15); Havet, loc. cit., 11.6,-1.5. 
41 Ancient Petitions, 23, 61-62; cf. Ehrlich, op. 
cit., 170; Palgrave, An Essay upon the Original 
Authority of the King's Council (1834), 117. 
42 Rot. Pari. Ang. hac. ined., 52 (#13); Ancient 
Petitions, 16-17. 
43 See Pollard, op. cit., 39-40, that "it does 
not appear correct to interpret the phrase 'high 
court' of parliament as meaning a supreme 
court of appeal. It acted more often as a court 
of first instance than as a court of error." 
44 1 Rot. Pari, 180b; Rot. Pari. Ang. hac. 
ined., 52.