<Preliminary introduction>

The HOLLIS cataloguing may be found here.

The cataloguing in Baker’s English Legal Manuscripts, 1, no. 105 reads as follows:

“55 STATUTA VETERA; REGISTRUM BREVIUM
“MS. 28.

“C.xiv, 144 ff., oak boards. The first writ in the register concerns land in Yorkshire, and is tested 9 April 15 Edward. Also includes (ff. 140v-143v) a treatise on prohibition.

“Belonged to Titchfield Abbey, Hampshire, in 1400 (pressmark P.II); 'Liber abbatie Beate Marie de Tychefeld ordinis Premonstratensium Wyntonie diocesis juxta Hamelhouke in comitatu Suth.' (places misread in Census); the abbey was surrendered to the crown in 1537; this MS. was bought by Hayes of Manchester at S. in C.xix; later belonged to Alfred John Horwood (d. 1881); his sale, S. 8 June 1883, no. 1291, to Rider; acquired by George Dunn in Dec. 1906; his sale, S. 11 Feb. 1913, no. 164; bought privately by HLS.

“Census, I, 1028, no. 28; N.R. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain (1964), 190; Early Registers, xxvi, cxvi n. 9.”

The manuscript measures approximately 250 X 171 mm.

The oak board binding is old, probably before 1500, and stained with a dark polish. The binding is in rather poor condition. The spine cover is missing, if there ever was one, and the stitching that holds the thongs to the boards and the leaves is broken in some places. There are holes on the front and back covers where a full-length clasp or set of clasps may have been attached.

A chunk of the manuscript is missing from the lower outer corner. It may be the product of rodents or of something that happened while the manuscript was unbound. It rarely affects the main text, but has caused damage to the bottom marginalia in the register of writs.

The manuscript has no original foliation. It may originally have had signatures in the missing lower corner. There is a modern pencilled foliation in the upper right-hand corner, which begins with Magna Carta (seq. 8), and ends at 145 on the first of the two end pages. Baker and HOLLIS list the number of folios as 144, which corresponds to the main manuscript minus the initial and final bifolia. (The former contains a table of contents.) Our digital foliation continues into the final end end pages, giving a total of 146.

The quiring is an irregular mix of quaternions and ternions with bifolia at the beginning and end. At least two folios are missing, one after fol. 137; the other somewhere in the final quire before the bifolium. Nothing seems to missing in the text at either place. We are unsure where the quire break occurs between fols. 117 and 126. It is possible that it is a quinternion. Collation follows:

Collation: 1² (unfoliated), 2–4⁸ (f. 1–24), 5⁶ (f. 24–30), 6–8⁸ (f. 31–54), 9⁶ (f. 55–60), 10–11⁸ (f. 61–76), 12⁶ (f. 77–82), 13–14⁸ (f. 83–98), 15–17⁶ (f. 99–116), 18–19^? (f. 117–126), 20⁸ (f. 127–134), 21⁶ (f. 135–139, lacks 1 after 137), 22⁶ (f. 140–144 lacks 1), 23² (f. 145–146).

The manuscript has no illustrations or decorated capitals, although spaces are left where the latter ought to have gone, sometimes with small letters to indicate them.

Both sections of the main manuscript are laid out with pricks in the outside magin. There are pencilled lines for a header, 37 long lines of text, and a large space at the bottom. The statute book and register of writs (which begins on fol. 61r) are written in semi-cursive English legal scripts. At least two scribes were at work. Beginning on fol. 140v, the items (Regia prohibicio, Articuli cleri, and Dies Communes in Banco) are written in a book hand. The initial and final bifolia contain pages from an earlier liturgical manuscript written in a bold gothic script.

The last datable item in the statute book is the statute of York of 12 Edward II. We are inclined to date the register of writs to the reign of Edward II, and there is one writ dated in his eighteenth year (see the introduction to the register, below). That would make the last datable item in the main manuscript 1325. The contents and table of the register are written in a fifteenth-century script, probably at Titchfield Abbey, which may also be where the binding was done.

The register of writs is of some interest. It is treated in detail after the folio-by-folio analysis of the manuscript.

Registrum brevium cancelrie regis

The initial writ of right patent in the register is addressed to the bailiffs of ‘K’ (perhaps Kingston upon Hull) and threatens action by the sheriff of Yorkshire. It is tested by the king at ‘C. novum’ on 9 April in Year 15. The king’s style does not include the claim to France, making it less likely that Edward III is intended. ‘C. novum’ is probably Newcastle. None of the three Edwards was at Newcastle on 9 April in the fifteenth year of his reign, but Edward II was at Altoft or Pontefract in Yorkshire. (The other two were at London/Westminster.) The identification of the king as Edward II would seem to be reinforced by the reference on fol. 101v to Edward I as ‘pater noster’ (the writ = R 407, in Early Registers, p. 205–6). The last writ in the register is dated at ‘Havente’ (probably Havant, co. Hants.) 24 May in Year 18. Neither Edward II nor Edward III was dating documents there in his 18th Year. (Edward III was dating documents at Marlborough on 24 May in Year 18 [1344]). Edward II was dating documents at Beaulieu on 24 May in Year 18 [1325]. That, at least, gets us in the right end of the right county.

The contents of the Register are quite similar to those of Hall’s Bodleian Register ‘R’, which he dates to 1318/20. It is not, however, a copy of that Register, for though the contents are similar, the arrangement is not the same. Indeed, there is some reason to think that it may be just a bit earlier than register ‘R’, because it contains the dating clause in the last writ, which is the same as R 372 (p. 194), where the dating clause has been edited out. The last writ is not in the place where we would expect to find it; we would expect to find it along with the criminal writs, as it is in register ‘R’. That would suggest that its inclusion in our register was a last-minute addition. All of this may suggest that register ‘R’ may be a bit later than Hall’s dates. It certainly suggests that the terminus a quo for the final redaction of our register is 1325, but we have found nothing so far that would require a date later than that.

We pursue the comparison with register ‘R’ below, but we first list the contents of the register as described in the marginalia. Two counts are given in the right-hand columns of the following table. The first counts all the writs for which there are marginal notes, excluding, however, the notes that are labelled ‘Regula’ or ‘Nota’. The second excludes from the total all the writs where the marginal note includes the words ‘eodem’ or ‘aliter’.

The preliminary analysis confirmed our initial impressions. This is a large register; the number of items is more than those in Hall’s Register ‘R’ (941 vs. 886). (Hall’s numbering scheme for ‘R’ is quite similar to our more expansive scheme.) The overall pattern is also similar. The writ of right with variants and subprocedures of it occupies fol. 61r–69r (9 fols.), corresponding to Hall’s R1–R75. (We have not checked these individually, but we have the impression that many of them are the same.) Attention then turns to ecclesiastical matters without regard to the type of writ (right of advowson, darein presentement, quare impedit, prohibition, de excommunicato capiendo): fol. 69v–80v (12 fols.), corresponding to R76–R161. Waste follows: fol. 80v–82r (1 1/2 fols., fol. 82r is largely blank), corresponding to R162–R180, and then replevin: fol. 82v–88v (8 fols.), corresponding to R181–R243. A relatively brief section on rights of lordship, beginning with de nativis habendis but including aid, tallage, and scutage follows: fol. 89r–90r (1 1/2 fols.), corresponding to R244–R252. Unlike R, the section on trespass and crime does not begin in our register with De minis, which is buried in the section on rights of lordship. Rather, it begins with a long section on civil trespass: fol. 90v–98v (9 fols.). The parallel to R, however, remains: R257–R356. More specifically criminal matters begin with the writ de odio et atia on fol. 99r, and continue, with some interruptions, through fol. 102r (4 fols.), corresponding, very roughly, to R257–R411. The parallel to R returns on fol. 102v with suit of mill, and what follows in both registers is decidedly miscellaneous. It includes account (103r–105r), repair of bridges (105r), common of estovers (105v), common of pasture (106r), de racionabilibus divisis (106v), and mesne (107r) (5 1/2 fols.), corresponding to R412–R475. Debt, detinue, and covenant form a reasonably coherent section, the latter leading to de fine facto: fol. 107v–114r (7 1/2 fols.), corresponding to R478–R555. Departing from the order of R, our register next treats of dower: fol. 114v–115v(1 fol.), corresponding to R588–R598, and of making attorney in local courts: fol. 115v–119r (3 1/2 fols.), corresponding to R600–R620, before it returns to wardship and marriage: fol. 119v–122r (2 1/2 fols.), corresponding to R556–R587. Like R, our register has an extensive section on those who do not have to appear at assizes: fol. 122v–124r (1 1/2 fols.), corresponding to R614–R633, which is broader. Land matters return on fol. 124v, and we quickly turn to novel disseisin and mort d’ancestor: fol. 125v–135r (11 fols.) (R645–R766), writs of entry and formedon (fol. 135r–138r) (14 fols.) (R767–R874). The remaining two folios are taken up with administrative matters, including, as we have already seen, a commission of gaol delivery that ended up in the criminal section of R.

Schematizing this, as we have been doing, and giving the rough proportions we get: Right (11%), Ecclesiastical (14%), Waste (3%), Replevin (10%), Trespass (11%), Criminal (4%), Rights in land (6%), Debt, Covenant (9%), Dower (1%), Local courts (5%), Wardship (4%), Assizes (3%), Novel disseisin, Mort d’ancestor (13%), Entry, Formedon (4%), Miscellaneous (3%). This is coherent in the way that previous arrangements have not been. Some of them that are combined could easily be split apart. Debt, proceeds to detinue, proceeds to covenant, proceeds to de fine facto. Novel disseisin proceeds to mort d’ancestor, entry to formedon. What is still a bit out of place is buried in the way that we created the categories. Rights in land is still a bit of a jumble: suit of mill, to account, to repair of bridges, to common of estovers, to common of pasture, to de racionalibus divisis, to mesne, to annuity. What is account doing where it is? De minis is buried in replevin. There is a jumble of seemingly unrelated writs that separates Assizes from Novel disseisin. Entry begins with quare eiecit and escheat before it actually gets to Entry.

The tentative conclusion is fairly obvious. The personal actions play a far larger role than they do in, say, MS 184. They have been much better integrated into the overall scheme. As is frequently the case with works that grow over time (one might compare the Edictum perpetuum of the urban praetor), there is considerable evidence of new items being jammed into a scheme that was structured in a different way. By and large, if a given writ had been in a particular place since late in the reign of Henry III, it was in the same place at the end of the reign of Edward II. It is the new items that show the most evidence of thought. In addition to the personal actions, one might also notice the increasing amount of material that concerns royal administration and which did not necessarily lead to litigation. Precedents of royal action were being collected, presumably to be used to argue that similar cases in the future should be treated in the same way. The author of the marginalia seems quite willing to generalize from what may well have been particular favors for particular people to principles that might apply, if not to all people, at least to those who were similarly situated.

This register is of interest, not only for its contents and relationship to ‘R’ but also because someone in the fifteenth century, perhaps a canon of Tichfield or a lawyer working for the abbey, undertook to organize it into capitula. He recorded his organization in a table on a spare page (fol. 144v) and then proceeded to put headers corresponding to his numbers on the rectos of the register:

Registrum brevium cancelrie supra scriptum et intitulatum distinguitur in xxv capitulis quorum

Primum tractat de brevibus de recto
Secundum de execucione iudicii
Tercium de prohibicionibus
Quartum de excommunicatis capiendis
Quintum de vasto in dotem
Sextum de averiis replegiandis
Septimum de recordare de averiis
Octavum de nativis habendis
Nonum de transgressionibus
Decimum de audiendo et terminando
Undecimum de appellacionibus
Duodecimum de compoto reddendo
Terciumdecimum de pontibus et stagnis reparandis
Quartumdecimum de medio
Quintumdecimum de annuo redditu
Sextumdecimum de debito
Septimumdecimum de plegiis acquietandis
Octavumdecimum de convencionibus
Nonumdecimum de finibus faciendis
Vicesimum de attornato pro secta faciendo
Vicesimumprimum de custodia terre et heredis habendis
Vicesimumsecundum de non ponendis in assisa
Vicesimumtercium de morte antecessoris
Vicesimumquartum de escaetis
Vicesimumquintum de protexcionibus cum omnibus clausulis

This is not the way that we would have organized the register, but we have used this organization to divide up the register into sections, above, starting at fol. 61r.

Prior to the effort to organize the register in the fifteenth century, there were some earlier efforts. Fol. 102v has a heading written at the bottom of the page in litterae notabiliores: ‘Sequitur de compoto reddendo in comitatu’. On fol. 107v, the note ‘De debito’ is written in litterae notabiliores with a paragraph mark. On fol. 122v, there is a ‘C’ written in litterae notabiliores next to the note of the writ ‘De Baronibus non ponantur’, the first of a long series of writs about who should not serve on assizes. On fol. 133v, the note of the writ ‘De morte antecessoris’ may be written in litterae notabiliores. ‘De ingressu ad terminum qui preteriit’ (fol. 135v), ‘Forma’ in ‘Forma donacionis’ (fol. 137v), and ‘Proteccio cum omnibus clausulis’ (fol. 138r) are definitely so written. There is a paragraph mark next to ‘De nova disseisina’ (fol. 125v) and a heading on fol. 132v, ‘De redisseisina’, but both of these may date from the time of the organizing in the fifteenth century.

The analysis of the manuscript the table (beginning at fol. 61r) shows how this scheme was implemented in the headers in the register. It works quite well for a while. Section 19 in the scheme was skipped, leading to the header numbers being one fewer than that those in the scheme. There are a couple of other oddities. If, however, one asks the question whether someone could find what he was looking for on the basis of the scheme, the answer to that question is ‘probably yes’. Skipped numbers are common not only in medieval manuscript but today. Everyone who was trying to use medieval indices must have been aware to beware. If it’s not where it is marked, look to one number before or one number after.

Of more interest is the way in which the scheme is put together. One could, of course, index all the writs alphabetically. Indices of this nature are to be found with statutes, dating from at least the second half of the fifteenth century. Arrangements of reported cases by topic go back to the late 13th century. We have not, however, at least so far, found any indices of writs. There clearly were notions, however, that certain kinds of writs go together. The most obvious are already recorded in the registers. There is a writ of a particular type followed by ‘aliter’ or ‘de eodem’, the same writ with variants to fit different facts. There is also considerable evidence of grouping together writs of different types that seem to go together according to some organizing principle. Debt and covenant are frequently found together. Writs concerning the church courts and churches are frequently grouped together. A search for more general organizing principles was going on, but the system of writs was difficult to organize.

Our fifteenth-century organizer began, as do all the registers that we have seen, with writs of right. He then came up with his most general organizing principle: De execucione iudicii, all of which have to do with writs of right and their variants. What he has here, for the most part, does not concern the execution of judgment but preventing it: writs of error and of pone. He then made what to us is a mistake. He failed to see that the ‘ecclesiastical’ writs begin on fol. 69v. He does not notice this until fol. 73v where he marks a section for prohibitions; the first writ of prohibition is on fol. 70v.

‘Execution of judgment’ is the last time that he attempts a general organizing principle. After that he uses the names of the writs, and lets the reader figure out what might go with them. That does not mean that general organizing principles are not lurking in the back of his mind. He has an ecclesiastical section De prohibitionibus, preventing the church courts from doing something, and another De excommunicatis capiendis, helping the church courts to do something. De vasto in dotem is not only about waste in dower; rather it is fairly large collection of writs concerning waste generally. De nativis habendis concerns not only serfs but various rights of lordship, such as scutage.

There are some divisions that seem to us to be odd. Items (6) and (7) seem to us to go together; both concern replevin. Similarly, item (9) and (10) both concern trespass (item [10], despite its title is not about oyer and terminer generally), and from our point of view, fol. 100r, would be a better place to begin a section on criminal appeals (and criminal matters generally) with the writ De odio et atia. A number of things are tucked in under categories where they don’t belong. The criminal writs include a page of writs about secta ad moldendinum (fol. 102v), which clearly has nothing to do with crime. Even more striking is the characterization of the section on the petty assizes as being about mort d’ancestor, when far more of them deal with novel disseisin. Our organizer may have noticed this absence, because someone, in a hand similar to his if it is not his, marked the first appearance of novel disseisin with a paragraph mark and put in a heading for reddiseisina (fol. 125v, 132v).

The register has no title. It begins immediately with the writ of right. As noted above, the fifteenth-century organizer thought of it as having a title: ‘Registrum brevium cancelrie supra scriptum et intitulatum’. It is possible that it originally did have a title that somehow has gotten lost, but the register begins a new and complete quire, and there are blank pages preceding it where such a title could have been put. It seems more likely that our organizer was referring to the table of contents of the entire manuscript on seq. 7, for which he may also have been responsible. There we find, just where we would expect it: ‘Registrum brevium cancelrie regis’.