The Harvard Law School’s Collection
of Medieval English Statute Books and
Registers of Writs

Ames Projects

Click on image for more information


Summary of Other Contents of the Collection


We have prepared three tables summarizing the contents of 55 of the 58 manuscripts in the HLS collection of manuscript statute books and registers of writs. This table lists all the medieval contents of the manuscripts that are not statutes in S.R. or writs in registers of writs. It begins with an analysis of the alphabetical indices of statutes that appear in eight manuscripts, with a brief introduction and a rather elaborate conclusion. The identifying number begins with ‘AIS’. We also list what we think are all the items in these manuscripts that might be described as ‘tracts’ or ‘treatises’. The identifying number of these items begins with a ‘T’. The table includes legal forms that are not related to statutes (identifying number ‘F’), the miscellaneous non-legal items, such as a hymn to the Blessed Virgin (identifying number ‘O’), the few reports of cases in the collection (identifying number ‘R’), and those statutes, ordinances, and forms or notes on statutes that are not in S.R. (identifying number ‘SL’, for ‘statute-like’). At the end we have included a list of items in the manuscripts that are clearly later additions written in a more informal script and that we have usually labelled ‘Notes’ in the individual descriptions (identifying number ‘XN’, for ‘extra note’). All of the lists begin with an introduction.

A separate table lists the contents of the statutes that are in S.R. and another organizes the writs in the registers of writs.

HLS MS 172, a single-sheet ‘sheriff’s copy’ of Magna Carta, does not yet have a report; HLS MS 193, a collection of some writs and counts and extracts from treatises, but principally extracts from Year Books has its own preliminary report, as does HLS MS No. 38, a register of judicial writs.


ID Item MS
AIS_0Alphabetical Index of StatutesIntroduction
 Listed below in ascending order by the last statute that we have so far found in them are brief descriptions of the alphabetical indices of statutes in the nine manuscripts that have them. The introductions to the manuscripts contain more detailed descriptions of the indices. Where the introduction also contains comparisons with other manuscripts’ indices that fact is noted. The last entry offers some tentative conclusions.
AIS_1Alphabetical Index of StatutesHLS MS 170, fol. 296r–316v
 The manuscript contains statutes from 1 Edw. 3 to 9 Hen. 5, with a later addition of 8 Hen. 6 without anything in between. The index cites statutes from Magna Carta to 3 Hen. 5. It has 208 lemmata from ‘Assisa’ to ‘Xp̄ien court’. Many of the entries give only the lemma and the statutory citation, although some have brief summaries of the statute. The introduction to this manuscript compares its index with that in MS 40.
AIS_2Alphabetical Index of StatutesHLS MS 185, fol. 17r–20r, continued on unfoliated seq. 8-11
 The manuscript contains statutes from 1 Edw. 3 to 9 Hen. 6. The index cites statutes from Magna Carta to 3 Hen. 5, with one later addition of 2 Hen. 6. It has 194 lemmata from ‘Assisa’ to ‘Xp̄ien court’. Many of the entries give only the lemma and the statutory citation, although some have brief summaries of the statute. The introduction to this manuscript compares its index with those in MS 40 and 170.
AIS_3Alphabetical Index of StatutesHLS MS 40, fol. 1r–13r
 The manuscript contains statutes from 1 Edw. 3 to 23 Hen. 6, with a later addition of 1 Edw. 4 without anything in between. The index cites statutes from Magna Carta up to at least 2 Hen. 6. It has 201 lemmata from ‘Assisa’ to ‘Xp̄ien court’. Many of the entries give only the lemma and the statutory citation, although some have brief summaries of the statute. The introduction to this manuscript compares its index with that in MS 170.
AIS_4Alphabetical Index of StatutesHLS MS 42, fol. 1r–61r
 The manuscript contains statutes from 1 Edw. 3 to 9 Hen. 5. The index cites statutes from 1 Edw. 3 to at least 8 Hen. 6. It has 312 lemmata from ‘Accusacions’ to ‘Worstede’. All of the entries, in addition to the lemma and the citation, give an abridgement of the contents of the statute. The introduction to this manuscript compares its index with those in MS 170, 185, and 40, and contains an extensive comparison with that in MS 21.
AIS_5Alphabetical Index of StatutesHLS MS 163, fol. 1r–120r
 The manuscript contains statutes from 1 Edw. 3 to 23 Hen. 6. The index cites statutes from Magna Carta to 15 Hen. 6, with a later addition of one reference to 18 Hen. 6. It has 415 lemmata from ‘Assise’ to ‘Vitallers’. All of the entries, in addition to the lemma and the citation, give an abridgement of the contents of the statute, though some of them refer to another document that is not preserved. The introduction to this manuscript compares its index to that in MS 21.
AIS_6Alphabetical Index of StatutesHLS MS 20, fol. 1r–4v
 The manuscript contains statutes from 8 Edw. 3 to 11 Hen. 6. (It is deficient at the beginning and the end.) The index, which is fragmentary, cites statutes from 2 Edw. 3 to 18 Hen. 6. It has 35 lemmata from ‘Mayntenaunce’ to ‘Pardon’. All of the entries, in addition to the lemma and the citation, give an abridgement of the contents of the statute. The introduction to this manuscript compares its index with those in MS 21, 29, and 42, with particular emphasis on the first-named.
AIS_7Alphabetical Index of StatutesHLS MS 29, fol. 15r–67r
 The manuscript (combined with MS 30, which is bound separately but of which it is clearly a part) contains statutes from 1 Edw. 3 to 8 Edw. 4. The index cites statutes from Magna Carta to at least 20 Hen. 6. It has 385 lemmata from ‘Accusacions’ to ‘Xp̄ien court’. All of the entries, in addition to the lemma and the citation, give an abridgement of the contents of the statute. The introduction to this manuscript contains comparisons of its index with those in MS 170, 185, and 40, on the one hand, and that in MS 21 on the other.
AIS_8Alphabetical Index of StatutesHLS MS 21, fol. 203r–233v
 The manuscript contains statutes from 1 Edw. 3 to 20 Hen. 6, with a later addition of 23 Hen. 6. The index cites statutes from 1 Edw. 3 to 23 Hen. 6. It has 316 lemmata from ‘Accusacions’ to ‘Worstede’. All of the entries, in addition to the lemma and the citation, give an abridgement of the contents of the statute. The introduction to this manuscript compares its index with those in MS 170, 185, and 40, and refers to the comparison in the introduction to MS 42.
AIS_9Alphabetical Index of StatutesHLS MS 10, fol. 23r–81v
 The manuscript contains statutes from Magna Carta to 7 Edw. 4. The index cites statutes from Magna Carta to at least 28 Hen. 6. It has 264 lemmata from ‘Cessavit’ to ‘Utlagerie’. The lemmata from letters A and B and probably part of C are missing. All of the entries, in addition to the lemma and the citation, give an abridgement of the contents of the statute. The correspondence between what we have and the equivalent entries in the abridgement of statutes printed by Lettou and Machlina in 1481 is remarkable. The introduction to this manuscript suggests comparison of its index with those in the other seven and makes a comparison of it with that printed in 1481.
AIS_ConclusionAlphabetical Index of StatutesTentative Conclusions

The development of an alphabetical index/abridgement of the statutes seems to have been the product of the first half of the 15th century. By the time that we have reached mid-century, we have a manuscript that is clearly of the same family from which the printed abridgement of Lettou and Machlina in 1481 was derived. That means, so far as we can now tell, that the printed abridgement was a generation out of date when it was printed. The one citation that have so far found in Lettou and Machlina that postdates 1450, 33 Hen. 6 at the end of ‘Labourers’ [sig. G2v], is in fact a citation to 23 Hen. 6, correctly cited in MS 10.

The story of the development of an alphabetical index/abridgement of statutes may be being told in the manuscripts that antedate MS 10. The earliest effort seems be that represented by MS 170, 185, and 40. Although the indices in these manuscripts are not the same, they all seem to have been derived from a common source. They have about 200 lemmata running roughly alphabetically from ‘Assisa’ to ‘Xp̄ien court’. Most, though not quite all, of the entries correspond to what we would regard as an index, a lemma connected with one or more citations to statutes, but with no attempt to summarize the contents of the statute. The lemmata largely map onto each other, and so, for the most part, do the citations, though we have not checked them all. The index is selective. No attempt was made to cover all of the statutes. They all, however, begin with Magna Carta and go up at least to 3 Hen. 5. One has one citation to 2 Hen. 6; another also has a citation to 2 Hen. 6, and may have more from the early years of that king. The result in all three cases is quite short: 20 fols. in MS 170, 6 in 185, 13 in MS 40.

MS 42 is the first example that we have of a much more ambitious effort. All of the statutes have summaries, some of which are quite long. The result occupies 61 folios. The statutory citations begin with 1 Edw. 3 and run to at least 8 Hen. 6. There are 312 lemmata from ‘Accusacions’ to ‘Worstede’. MS 21 is quite similar: 33 folios, abridgements of all the statutes, 316 lemmata from ‘Accusacions’ to ‘Worstede’, the vast majority of which map onto those of MS 42. It, too, begins with 1 Edw. 3, but runs later, 23 Hen. 6. The fragmentary index in MS 20 is chronologically in the middle. Its citations run from 2 Edw. 3 to 18 Hen. 6. With one exception, its 35 lemmata map onto those of MS 21.

The index in MS 29 is even more ambitious. Like those in MS 42, 20, and 21, it abridges all the statutes. It shares many lemmata with those manuscripts and at least some of the text of the abridgements. Unlike those abridgements, however, it also includes, as had MS 170, 185, and 40, statutes that antedate Edward III, running from Magna Carta to at least 20 Hen. 6. It has 385 lemmata from ‘Accusacions’ to ‘Xp̄ien court’ and occupies 52 folios. At least conceptually, it is a combination of the indices of MS 170, 185, and 40 with those of MS 42 and 21. How close it is, in fact, to a combination of the two and how much new material it contains requires further exploration.

Also requiring further exploration is the extent to which the index in MS 10, the one that was eventually printed, is derived from the previous indices, particularly ones like MS 29. A preliminary analysis suggests that it does not share many lemmata with MS 29, and those that it does share are rather obvious. Although MS 10 lacks the first two letters of the alphabet and part of the third, the number of lemmata in the full index was probably considerably fewer. If we add the number of lemmata in the beginning of the alphabet in Lettou and Machlina to those that are in MS 10, we get 306, considerably fewer than the 385 in MS 29. It is no shorter than the index in MS 29 (58 folios vs. 52). It is just that the indexer/abridger of MS 10 had a greater capacity for generalization.

That leaves MS 163, which, so far as HLS manuscripts are concerned, is a one-off. As the introduction to the manuscript shows, the arrangement of this index is odd. It is hard for us to use, and probably would have been equally hard for contemporaries to use. It is very long (120 folios) and has a very large number of lemmata (415). Some of its contents may have been derived from previous indices that we have or carried over into subsequent ones. Determining whether that is the case would require more analysis than we have been able to give to this manuscript. What we have been able to do suggests that it is idiosyncratic.

As is well known, English lawyers in the late medieval and early modern periods seem to have lacked a sense of system. Their idea of a really useful book was Fitzherbert’s Abridgement, a massive collection of extracts from the Year Books arranged under some 260 titles from ‘Abbe’ to ‘Voucher’ (‘Withernam’ in modern alphabetical order). They seem to have been doing the same thing with the statutes. Here the categories that the lawyers were using are less well explored. As a preliminary effort in doing so, we prepared tables of our (in some cases very rough) transcriptions of the lemmata in the nine indices. We attach them, as Excel spreadsheets, one devoted to the nine manuscripts excluding MS 163, and one devoted to MS 163, with a comparison with MS 21. We offer them here (AlphaIndexStats.xlsx, ms163_marginalia_DC_CD.xlsx) in the hope that others will continue the exploration.

 Forms that are specifically connected with statutes are given below under ‘Statute-like’ items. We list here forms that are clearly such because the identifying detail has been removed, but also forms where the detail remains and that may have been included as a record of what is in them. There are ten such items found so far, four of which are in HLS MS 59. What separates ‘Forms’ from ‘Other’ (below) is that the former have a more specifically legal focus while the latter are ‘non-legal’. As noted in the general introduction to this page, we have not yet attempted to draw the forms from what are clearly later additions written in a more informal script and that we have labelled ‘Notes’ in the individual descriptions of the manuscripts.
F_1Certification of subsidy paid, 12 April 1589HLS MS 21, no fol., no sig. (seq. 8, fol. tipped in)
 Certification to the Lord Treasurer and the Barons of the Exchequer by William Fletewood and Mathew Dale, comissioners for the taxing and levying of the subsidy in the borough of Southwark, that John Wite, gent., has paid. Dated 12 April 1589. Raised seals of the commissioners, possibly embossed backwards by accident, have been partially cut out and folded to face their corresponding signatures. Notes of sums at the bottom, probably of others who owed for the subsidy. What this document is doing here is something of a puzzle. There is good reason to believe that Fletewoode owned the manuscript. His signature appears at the bottom of fol. 1r. What is puzzling is why he would have left this document in the manuscript. The whole point of the document seems to be to provide evidence to the payor that a subsidy was paid. Perhaps the man who paid the subsidy never picked up the document, or perhaps he never paid.
F_2Deeds (2 copies, written at different times).HLS MS 80, fol. 97v.
 The second deed is considerably shorter and in a later script than the first.
F_3Littera attornatus ad placitandum.HLS MS 59, fol. 153v.
 Forms for making attorney and for obligations. A second example of the latter continues on the next folio, although that folio forms part of a separate bifolium.
F_4Littera obligacionis.HLS MS 59, fol. 153v.
 Forms for making attorney and for obligations. A second example of the latter continues on the next folio, although that folio forms part of a separate bifolium.
F_5Memorandum.HLS MS 160, fol. 73v–74r.
 Memorandum of a transaction held in Exeter on the Tue. after Michaelmas 22 Hen. 6.
F_6Subpoena form.HLS MS 58, fol. 159v.
 In informal hand, issued in the name of Henry VIII, who describes himself as ‘in terra ecclesie Anglie et Hibernie supremum caput’, but omitting ‘fidei defensor’, probably after 1543 and before 1547.
F_7Summons form.HLS MS 33, fol. 339r.
 The meaning of the heading for this item is unclear, but the text is a summons (sheriff of Midd. to his bailiff) in case of right in capite re land in Savoy. Form is ‘tali die et anno’. The hand looks 15th century.
F_8Writ (mandate) to a JP.HLS MS 59, fol. 126v.
 The mandate is to John Moygne, a JP in Dorset, that he compel John Botiler to give security to keep the peace with regard to Peter Armyner whom Botiler is threatening.
F_9Writ (mandate) to a JP enforcing the Statute of labourers.HLS MS 59, fol. 131v–131v.
 The mandate refers to ‘E. nuper rex’ and probably dates from the time of Richard II.
F_10Writ to the sheriff of Berkshire.HLS MS 56, fol. 36v–38r.
 The writ concerns a complicated piece of litigation. The names of the participants are given in full and should be discoverable, but we have not yet pursued them. The writ is tested by ‘G’ and dated on 6 Dec. in year 29 (1300). If ‘G’ is Gilbert de Thornton, the most plausible ‘G’ around the years in question, then the year of the writ is wrong. Gilbert was CJKB from 1290 to 1295, in which year he died.
 There are fourteen items in our manuscripts that might be described as ‘non-legal’ or ‘other’. Six of our manuscripts contain calendars and six lists of the rulers of England, most of which also give their regnal years. All the rest are in only one manuscript. The focus of these non-legal items is religious, prayers, extracts from Scripture, etc. The secular items include a substantial extract from the abbreviated Brut, a list of the coins of England, an extract from Domesday, extracts from the Secreta secretorum, and as-yet-unidentified verses in Anglo-Norman. As noted in the general introduction, we have not included the ‘other’ items that are found in the items that we have labelled ‘Notes’ in the description of the manuscripts. Including these would substantially increase the number of ‘other’ items.
O_1Brut Chronicle (extract).HLS MS 59, fol. 5r–11r.
 This is an extract from the abbreviated Anglo-Norman Brut. It is not generally known among the many manuscripts of that text. It is defective at the beginning. The first page that we have describes the king of Winchester as having Gloucester, Winchester, and Warwick; the king of East Anglia, Cambridge, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, and the king of Northumberland, all the land beyond the Humber.
O_2Calendar.HLS MS 29, fol. 1r; HLS MS 34, fol. 1r; HLS MS 49, fol. 2v; HLS MS 59, fol. 1r; HLS MS 61, fol. 1r; HLS MS 162, fol. 3r

Our descriptions of the calendars vary in their elaboration. Rather than wating until we can make them all as full as some of them are, we offer here what we have. Many of them follow the pattern of that in HLS MS 29, although it should not be assumed that all of them do. As a general matter, we might note that we sometimes used the Easter date in the calendar to date the calendar. It turns out that there are too many of them that have Easter on 26, 27, or 28 March for that to be at all reliable for dating the calendar.

MS 29: The Calendar on fol. 1r–6v is a perpetual lunar calendar, typical of those used in England in the later Middle Ages. It is elaborately laid out with gold leaf and decorated capitals, with notes of births and deaths in an informal hand. The saints are decidedly in the English pattern. We have not checked to determine whether there are any indications of regional saints. It is laid out in six columns, the first of which is the ‘golden number’, the second the dominical letter, the third the day of the month in Roman reckoning, and the fourth the name of the saint or feast celebrated on that day. The fifth marks, somewhat irregularly, whether the feast has a vigil. The sixth is a ‘d’, which marks some, but not all the feasts, that are in red. It may stand for ‘duplex’, but that would not correspond to the feasts that were, in the pre-1962 Roman Catholic liturgy, ‘doubles’. It may indicate those feasts on which the faithful were supposed to observe a dominical day of rest. The other peculiarity that we have noticed is that a day for Easter is marked on 27 March, something that should not appear in a single-year perpetual calendar. Easter fell on 27 March in 1440 and not again until 1502. The former seems too early for our calendar, the latter may be too late.

MS 34: The calendar on fol. 1r–6v may be slightly later than the main manuscript. Fol. 7r, the first folio of the register proper, is worn as if it had been for some time at the top of a stack of unbound quires. The calendar is laid out in red, blue, and brown. As Baker notes, it contains the obits of William Chevir, secondary justice of the King’s Bench in Ireland, who died on 16 Jan. 1446/7, and of his widow Alice, who died 31 July 1447. That suggests that the manuscript was in Ireland by that time. Some support for this proposition is found in the calendar itself, which notes, in what may be a different hand that 17 March is the feast ‘sci Patricii episcopi et confessoris apostoli Hibernii’ (sic). The Easter date in the calendar is 6 Kal. Aprilis, i.e. 27 Mar. Easter occurred on that date in 1345, 1407, 1418, and 1429. The last two are impossible, because the calendar contains the obit of one Christopher Talbot, who died on 7 Sep. 1408. 1345 is way too early for the manuscript. That would suggest that the calendar was made up in 1407. Talbot’s obit, unlike the other obits in the calendar, is incorporated into the calendar itself, not simply noted in the lower margin. Talbot could be, but is not necessarily, Irish. We thus have, as yet, no firm evidence that the manuscript was in Ireland before the 1440s.

MS 49: The main calendar (fol. 3r–8v) is laid out in red, blue, and black, with the initial ‘K’ on each page decorated in gold leaf. It deserves more attention than we have been able to give it. It seems to include a number of non-standard saints (e.g., Victorinus, fol. 4r). Easter is marked for 28 March, something that did not happen between 1288 and 1349. The first folio of the quire that contains the calendar is dirty, as if it was once on the outside of a stack of unbound quires. The dorse of the first folio contains medieval notes that seem to relate to the calendar. Fol. 2r is a full page of medieval writing in an informal script that seems to contain mostly prayers. Fol. 2v may be a computus, a table for calculating Easter day, but it is not in a form with which we are familiar. January is on fol. 3r. The calendar contains a number of obits, almost certainly added later, of which the earliest is that of Robert Orford, bishop of Ely (d. 1310).

MS 59: The calendar (fol. 1r–4v) begins in May and runs through December, and hence lacks at least two folios. The first page is stained and faded, as if it once stood at the head of an unbound quire. It is done entirely in pen-work, without color. We have not analyzed the saints for regional variation.

MS 61: The calendar contains a feast for the dedication of the church of St Andrew’s Holborn on 9 March. The church may go back to the Anglo-Saxon period. The wooden church was replaced with a stone one in the 15th century, and the church may have been rededicated at that time. Be that as it may be, the mention of the feast suffices to set the calendar firmly in London. The Easter day in the calendar is 7 Kal. Apr., i.e. 26 March. Assuming, though this is not certain, that that was the Easter date in the year in which the calendar was made, the possible years are 1475, 1486, and 1497.

MS 162: The calendar (fol. 3r–9r) is quite handsomely laid out in red, blue, and brown ink. The Easter date is 27 March, the Easter date of both 1334 and 1345. In addition to the obits noted in Baker, there are, as Baker notes, numerous additions giving dates of historical events. He limits those dates to the reigns of Edward I and II. We have yet to find any later.

O_3Chronology of Rulers of Alexandria up to St. Katherine.HLS MS 21, fol. 241v.
 Incipit: ‘Alexandria maior primo erat fundata per quendam ducem nomine Babel’. Explicit: [Costus] ‘Regnavit in Alexandria sexaginta et tribus annis’. Below this is ‘et seq.’ (thanks to Elizabeth Kamali for deciphering this for us). Though there are some slight parallels with the Golden Legend and the Latin Vulgate Vita published by Einekel in EETS 80 and more fully by d’Ardenne and Dobson in EETS SS7 (1981), there are more parallels with Capgrave’s Life of Saint Katherine, ch. 9–11, which has most of the detail but is much longer. It is striking that our manuscript seems to be almost exactly contemporary with Capgrave, who is usually thought to have composed his life in 1445. This at-present unidentified text of 21 wide-measure lines deserves more attention than we have been able to give it.
O_4Coins of England.HLS MS 162, fol. 2v
 Heading: ‘Diverse monete Coronate currentes in Anglia quor’ circumscripciones inferius Inseriuntur’. The item is, as described, a list of the inscriptions on the royal coins circulating in England at the time.
O_5Domesday extract concerning Melksham in Wiltshire.HLS MS 52, fol. 130v
 The entry, written in a new hand and more informal script, is headed ‘Terra regis’ as it indeed is in Domesday.
O_6Florilegium of Latin maxims and verses seemingly focused on penance.HLS MS 179, fol. 212r–213v.
 Written in a more informal hand without a heading. Incipit: ‘Fle si solari ieiuna si saciari / Da ut dittari servi si vis dominari’. Not in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts. The first two lines are found in Ernst Voigt, ‘Florilegium Gottingense’, Romanische Forschungen, 3 (1887) 312. The same two lines, but with the order reversed, are in Jakob Werner, Lateinische Sprichwörter und Sinnsprüche des Mittelalters, Sammlung mittellateinische Texte 3 (Heidelberg 1912) 17. The first eleven lines on fol. 213v correspond to lines 124–134 of the ‘Peniteas cito peccator’ of William de Montibus (ed. Joseph Goering, in William de Montibus (c. 1140–1213): The Schools and the Literature of Pastoral Care, Studies and Texts 108 [Toronto: PIMS, 1992] 132), but what comes before and afer these lines is not what precedes and follows in William’s work, nor is the inicipit of this collection found anyplace in William’s work. We doubt that this quite long collection is original, but we have yet to find a source for the collection rather than of pieces of it.
O_7Gospel Extract and Prayers.HLS MS 179, fol. 3r
 The Gospel extract is John 1:1–14. There is a prayer on Christ’s passion and a prayer for Epiphany, both in Latin, the text of neither of which have we yet found.
O_8Gospel readings for Christmas and Easter seasons, etc.HLS MS 49, fol. 13v
 Luke 1:26–38, Matthew 2:1–12, Mark 16:14–20, John 1:1–14, Luke 11:27–28. The last is not normally associated with either Christmas or Easter, but does concern the Blessed Virgin.
O_9Hymn invoking the Blessed Virgin, alliterating on ‘p’.HLS MS 59, fol. 125v–126r.
 Written in a more informal hand and hard to read on the image. It is very close to, without being quite the same as, the hymn on the Seven Joys of the Blessed Virgin in Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi 15 (1893) 93 (no. 64). (Our thanks to Jan Ziolkowski for the reference.) Incipit: ‘Plaude potentissima parens plasmatoris / Persona purissima puella pudoris’. Explicit: ‘Provide ?psalterie protege presentes / ?Preganda preteritos pestimo pacientes / Ave etc Concede etc’.
O_10Prayer.HLS MS 160, fol. 72v–73r.
 Incipit: ‘O bone Jesu et piissime Jesu et dulcissime Jesu’. A text of this prayer, quite close but not the same in its wording, may be found in The Raccolta, or Collection of Indulgenced Prayers, ed. Ambrose St. John (London 1880) 63–4. Closer in time but further away in wording is: Private Prayers Put Forth by Authority During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, ed. William K. Clay for The Parker Society (Cambridge 1851) 202.
O_11Recipe for medicine in English, in a later hand.HLS MS 10, no fol., no sig.
 The recipe is written in Elizabethan secretary. That it is a recipe for medicine is clear. What the malady is for which it is designed is not clear to us.
O_12Rulers of England.HLS MS 32, fol. 140v; HLS MS 55, fol. 5v; HLS MS 59, fol. 155r; HLS MS 61, fol. 215r; HLS MS 182, fol. 233v.
 HLS MS 32: List of monarchs from William I through Richard II and the number of years of their reigns except for the last-named. MS 55: List of monarchs and the number of years of their reigns. It begins with two Edwards, whose relationship to any historical King Edward is quite problematic. Fifteen pre-Conquest kings are named, ending with Edward the Confessor and Harold. What follows corresponds quite closely to a modern list of the post-Conquest kings of England. The list ends with Edward III ‘qui nunc est’. A later hand has added Richard and Henry ‘qui nunc est’, but, as the modern notes at the beginning of the manuscript point out, this is clearly a later addition, made quite a bit after the basic manuscript was made. These entries in a later hand are then crossed out. MS 59: List of the monarchs of England from William I through Henry IV with the number of years of their reigns. MS 61: List of monarchs from Edward the Confessor through Henry VII, giving, except in the case of the last-named, the number of years and weeks of their reigns and their place of burial. Ends with what seems to be a reference to the battle of Stoke Field, 16 June 1487. Unlike many lists of kings, this one gives a brief paragraph about each king, sometimes adding a detail or two about their lives. MS 175: List of monarchs from William I through Edward IV with the number of years of their reigns. Edward V (possibly with regnal year) through Elizabeth added in increasingly crabbed script without regnal years. MS 182: List of monarchs in an informal hand from William I through Henry VI giving the number of years of their reigns for all except the last-named.
O_13Secreta secretorum (extracts).HLS MS 193, no fol., no sig.
 The material on seq. 7–9 is certainly extracts from the Secreta secretorum; that on seq. 5–6 probably is. For the work, see G. Keil, in Lexikon des Mittelalters 7:1662–3. These extracts deserve more attention than we have been able to give them.
O_14Verses in Anglo-Norman.HLS MS 162, fol. 21v–22r.
 These verses do not seem to be particularly legal and deserve more attention than we have been able to give them. Incipit: ‘Qi vorra vivre en certeinete, en malveis mond qest tant movant’. Explicit: ‘Donq dy ie tant se prent en bien si dieu ny soit nus devaunt ’.
 There are relatively few case reports in this collection, particularly if we treat the various versions of Casus placitorum as treatises. The report in HLS MS 10 is quite extraordinary for its age. The rest are found in MS 193, which is included in the collection simply because it has long been misdescribed as a register of writs. We have divided its contents between ‘Treatises’, under ‘Personal pleas’ and what we have below.
R_1Early case report (1268) with memorandum.HLS MS 10, fol. 133v–136r.
 As Paul Brand pointed out to us, this early case report is edited in Brand, Early English Law Reports 1:1*, from a Huntington manuscript also of the 15th century. It can confidently be identified to October of 1268 and the chief justice is Martin of Littlebury, thus making it the earliest known English law report. The Huntington manuscript ends at the first blue paragraph mark on the first page in our manuscript. The considerable elaboration that follows thereafter covers a wide range of issues, apparently suggested by the case, and may not be contemporary with the case.
R_2Eyre reports on personal pleasHLS MS 193, fol. 99r–130v
 (Continued from ‘Treatises’ ‘Personal pleas’.) Beginning on fol. 99r, the nature of the source material changes. It is now derived exclusively from reports of eyres. (The material for the eyre of London that begins on fol. 99r, is not case reports, but rather with the questions posed of the citizens of London at the eyre.) A new quire and a new foliation begins on fol. 101 with case reports from the eyre of London. The eyre reports have various foliations. The reports themselves continue through fol. 130.
R_3Year Book reports (sources not yet identified) on personal pleasHLS MS 193, fol. 131r–146r
 A new quire begins on fol. 131 with a foliation that may be intended to continue that which ended on our fol. 100. The heading ‘Placita personalia’ returns. (The heading for the eyre of Derby actually runs over to fol. 131r, but we doubt the attribution. The material on fol. 131v is certainly not from the eyre.) The source of this material is not yet identified, but it is definitely from case reports.
R_4Year Book reports (temp. Edw. 3) on personal pleasHLS MS 193, fol. 147r–216r
 A new quire begins on fol. 147. The medieval foliation starts over again. The Year Book reports begin with 1 Edw. 3. Reports from that king’s reign proceed, more or less in chronological order, until we reach year 14, where both the reports and the medieval foliation end. Most of the reports, though not all of them, deal with personal pleas.
SL_0‘Statute-Like’ Documents.Introduction,
 There are a number of documents in our manuscripts that are like the kinds of items that are in S.R., but are not in S.R. They include alternative texts of statutes, ordinances, writs that implement statutes, notes on statutes, forms derived from statutes, mandates from the king to inquire into certain matters, and one, perhaps two, ecclesiatical constitutions. We have found 42 such items, some of which occur in more than one manuscript, most of which appear in only one manuscript. They are listed below in approximate chronological order. Some of the dating is quite problematic, but the only item that we did not dare date at all is the first one, which turns out to have nothing to do with statutes and is listed more fully under ‘Tracts and treatises’.
SL_1‘Statutum de Hibernia’, temp. incert.HLS MS 174, fol. 147r–147v
 See Treatises: Glanvill extract, called ‘Statutum de Hibernia’
SL_2Constitution of Archbishop Boniface on tithes, before 1269.HLS MS 33, fol. 9v.
 The statute is edited in Powicke and Cheney, Councils and Synods, 2:792–7. It has not been dated other than by the dates of the Boniface’s pontificate, 1249–1269. Cheney did not know this version of the text, which seems to date from the 13th century.
SL_3Articles of inquiry, 2 Edw. 1.HLS MS 10, fol. 129v–131v.
 There are various versions of these articles. One is published in the Rotuli hundredorum from the Patent Rolls, another is edited from a Rawlinson manuscript in the Twiss edition of Bracton (R.S.), vol. 2, App. I, p. 585–94. Which of these texts it is, or whether it is another version, needs exploration.
SL_4Sample documents under the statute of Merchants, ca. 1283.HLS MS 80, fol. 49v–50r.
 The first document is a letter to the chancellor from the warden of London and the clerk for entering recognisances. The second is a royal writ to the sheriff of Oxford that he is to take the debtor named in the previous document into custody until he satisfies the debt.
SL_5Sample writ de quo warranto, ca. 1290.HLS MS 80, fol. 54r–54v.
 The sample writ follows the French text given at the bottom of S.R. 1:107, which is called ‘Statutum de quo warranto secundum’ in the manuscript and ‘Statutum de quo warranto novum’ in S.R. The writ itself is not in S.R.
SL_6Articuli foreste, 18 Edw. 1 (incomplete).HLS MS 36, fol. 27v.
 The ‘Articuli de foresta’, also known as the ‘Inquisitiones de foresta’, are the articles for the forest eyre. Of the several versions given in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts, the incipit of this one is closest to that found in CUL Ee.1.1, article 37: ‘Videnda sunt assarta facta in foresta post principium secundi anni coronacionis domini Henrici Regis tercii’.
SL_7Ordinance concerning those clerks who deliberately misread returns of sheriffs, ca. 1298.HLS MS 54, fol. 123v–124v.
 Not in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts and not found. The ordinance is undated but refers to a council held on 14 February 1298. The name of the first attendee is garbled: ‘venerabilis pater W. de H. archidiaconus episcopus [sic] Develyn [sic]’; but that of the second is clear: ‘W. de L. episcopus C.’, i.e., Walter Langton bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, who was treasurer at the time. Incipit: ‘Quia transgressoris punicio cuiuscumqe’. Explicit: ‘ordinacione consilii tunc fuit puniend’’.
SL_8Carta mercatoria, 31 Edw. 1.HLS MS 33, fol. 76v–79r.
 Although the Carta mercatoria is reported as being on the statute rolls of Richard II (TNA C74/3 ?m.24), it was not printed in S.R. The standard text is Henry Thomas Riley, ed. Munimenta Gildhallae Londoniensis: Liber Custumarum, Rolls Series, no. 12, vol. 2 (London 1860) 205–211. Pieces of it in French are to be found in the statute of Staple, 27 Edw. 3, stat. 2, cc. 17–20 (S.R. 1:339-40).
SL_9Commission on Carta mercatoria, 31 Edw. 1.HLS MS 33, fol. 79r–80v.
 The commission, dated 10 February 1303, to Elias Russel, who was once mayor and sheriff of London, and Richer de ?Cloffan, whom we have not been able to identify, seems clearly to be related to Carta mercatoria. It deserves more attention than we have been able to give it.
SL_10Petition in parliament and response concerning papal provisions, 31 Edw. 1.HLS MS 33, fol. 262v–263r.
 The text largely corresponds to the petition and response concerning papal provisors given in the parliament of Carlisle, 35 Edw. 1 (1307), and printed in Rot. Parl. 1:220–1; PROME, Vetus Codex 1307, nos. 106, 127 (the text here is closer to no. 127).
SL_11?Articles of Lincoln, 33 Edw. 1.HLS MS 56, fol. 158v–160v.
 These are probably the articles of trailbaston noted in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 61 as being in CUL Ms Dd.7.6, art. 79. That text is edited by F.M. Nichols in Archaeologia 40 (1866) 102–5, and what is given here is close enough to leave little doubt that it is the same text, although with variants. The text is quite rare. There is another copy in BL MS Hargrave 336. That this text seems to be hitherto unknown is not surprising, since it is buried without a header or heading following Articuli super cartas. The initial capitals of the articles are deocrated with small grotestques.
SL_12?Chapters in eyre, temp. Edw. 1.HLS MS 33, fol. 12r–12v.
 We have been unable to find any other copy of this document, which differs substantially from what is given as the ‘New chapters in eyre’ printed in S.R. 1:235–236. It is also much shorter. Perhaps it was not designed for justices in eyre but for a more specific commission. Incipit: ‘Inquiratur de maneriis, terris seu tenementis quibuscumque que de domino Rege seu aliquo progenitorum suorum a tempore quo currit memoria tenebatur per servicium militare seriantiam vel per socagium’. Explicit: ‘Et si huiusmodi idiote aliquas terras alienaverint et cui vel quibus quid et quantum’. Intervening paragraphs order inquiries into escheats, wardship of land, wardship of infant heirs and widows, advowsons, religious or clerks who have appropriated land belonging to churches, and lands in the hand of the king by any means.
SL_13Writ concerning forest justice, temp Edw. 1.HLS MS 33, fol. 31r–31v.
 We have been unable to find this writ, which lacks a date. It does not seem to be in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts. It concerns irregularities in the forest moots, which the king orders to cease.
SL_14Turnus vicecomitis, before 12 Edw. 2.HLS MS 28, fol. 56v–56v.
 A writ by a King Edward to the sheriff of Norfolk transmitting an ordinance concerning the sheriff’s and bailiffs’ tourn. Suggested date based on the other contents of the manuscript. Incipit: ‘Quia audivimus quod subbalivi tui N. [et] ballivi aliorum qui hundredum habent’. Explicit: ‘inquisiciones de placitis Corone ut de morte hominis’.
SL_15Ne quis occasionetur in posecucione hugonis le despenser patris et filij, ca. 1321.HLS MS 10, fol. 179v–180r.
 This text is similar to the texts described below under ‘Quittance concerning the Despensers, ca. 1327’, but it is not the same text. Rather it is the pardon that was issued to the enemies of the Despensers when they got control ca. 1321. It was revoked in the following year when the Despensers came back into power in a text that is printed in S.R. 1:185–7, and which largely incorporates this text in order to revoke it.
SL_16?Ordinance concerning gaol delivery, before 1327.HLS MS 28, fol. 52r–52v.
 We have been unable to find this item, which appears to be an ordinance of uncertain date concerning gaol delivery. It is not in Cal. Pat. R., where we might expect to find it. Considering the other contents of this manuscript, this is almost certainly an ordinance of either Edward I or Edward II.
SL_17Judicium pillorie (alternative text), ?before 1327.HLS MS 30, fol. 227r–227v.
 Written in a more informal script dating probably from the late 15th century.
SL_18Juramentum vicecomitis, before 1327.HLS MS 10, fol. 152v–153r.
 This is not the text of the oath of the sheriff found in Statutum super vicecomitem et clericos suos, temp. incert. S.R.1:213. This text is also found in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 482, p. 323.
SL_19Notes on the Statutum de pistoribus, ?before 1327.HLS MS 162, fol. 109r.
 This pair of notes on the Stautum de pistoribus do not seem to be in S.R. as such.
SL_20Quittance concerning the Despensers, ca. 1327.HLS MS 10, fol. 186v–187v; MS 19, fol. 4r–5r; MS 40, fol. 19r–20v; MS 170, fol. 33r–34v.
 This text is related to 1 Edw. 3, stat. 1, c. 1–3, some of the petitions in the parliaments of 1 Edw. 3 printed in PROME, and the reversal of the proceedings against Thomas of Lancaster calendared in CalCloseR 1327, 133, but it is not the same as those texts. Its wording is similar to ‘Ne quis occasionetur in prosecucione hugonis le despenser patris et filij’ found HLS MS 10, fol. 179v, and which we believe comes from 1321 (see above). The incipts and explicits of all four texts are basically the same with minor variations in spelling. Incipit: ‘Come nadgars en temps le Roy E. fitz le Roy E. fitz le Roy H. plusours gentz de la Roialme dengl’ surmeissent a Hugh le Despens’ le piere [et] Hugh le despenser le fitz plusours melveistes [AND malveisté, evil, wickedness] par enquests countre lestat de Roy supradit et de sa Corone’. Explicit: ‘tous tieux trespasses enemyes felonies desobeissances et rebelliouns soient quites par cest accorde assent et estatt a touz iours’. The incipit in MS 10 is somewhat corrupt. It leaves out ‘fitz le Roy E.’ (making hash of the chronology), ‘surmeissent’, and ‘enquest’. We have no reason to doubt that something like this happened in 1327 or thereabouts, and considering the large amount of literature on the events of that year, it is odd that no one seems to have edited this text.
SL_21Writ implementing 1 Edw. 3, stat. 2, c. 1 (perambulation of the forest).HLS MS 19, fol. 5r.
 The writ is tested by the king at Westminster, 3 March 1327.
SL_22Statute of oyer and terminer, ?2 Edw. 3HLS MS 40, fol. 30r–30v.
 This item, in French, would seem to be related to the statute of Northampton, 2 Edw. 3, c. 2, but it is not the same text, and is more specifically focused on commissions of oyer and terminer rather than, as is the statute, on charters of pardon. It is more closely related in its subject-matter, but not in its wording, to 4 Edw. 3, c. 2 (S.R. 1:262–3). It has a curious heading: ‘Incipit Statutum de audiendo et terminando anno secundo editum sed anno quinto proclamatum fuit primo’. The explicit reads: ‘Iste articulus editus erat apud Norht’ et in Cancellariam missus in billa quadam anno regni E. tercii secundo’. Its form is like what it found in PROME as the result of common petitions, but this item is not in PROME, Cal. Pat. R., or Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts. What seems to be reference to it, but not the text, is found in Cal. Close R.: 1330–1333, p. 561–568 (12 May 1332).
SL_23Writ to the sheriff of York elaborating on statute of Northampton c. 3, dated 16 December 5 Edw. 3 (1331).HLS MS 40, fol. 30v–31r.
 The text, which is mostly in French, is not the same as that of the statute, nor does it cite the statute, but like the statute, it concerns those who oppose with force the work of the king’s justices and minsters. It is headed in the manuscript: ‘Incipit concordia facta apud Westmonasterium anno regni E. tercii quinto’. It is dated ‘T etc. apud Westm’ xvj die Decembr’ anno regni nostri quinto’. Although this item is not in PROME (or in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts), its form is like what it found in PROME as the result of common petitions. It, and the previous item, may be connected with the Michaelmas parliament of 1331.
SL_24Writ to the mayor and bailiffs of York or to the mayor and sheriffs of London concerning the staple, ?6 Edw. 3, ?7 Edw. 3, ?26 Edw. 3.HLS MS 19, fol. 42v–43v (York); MS 20, fol. 5r–5v (incomplete at beginning); MS 40, fol. 69v–71r (York); HLS MS 42, fol. 83v (York, beginning only); MS 101, fol. 148r–150v (London); HLS MS 170, fol. 35r–37r (ma
 That these six texts are basically the same seems resonably clear. There is, however, much detail in them, and we did not make full transcriptions. We did, however, transcribe the long preamble in the five that have the preamble, and a full paragraph at the end in the five that have the end. All but MS 20, which is deficient at the beginning, refer to a parliament held at Westminster after 8 September ‘last passed’. This would seem to be a reference to the parliament of 6 Edw. 3 (1332), which, quite unusually, met at that time. See PROME. The five manuscripts that have a dating clause vary as to the date given: MS 19–10 Dec. with the regnal year missing (dated in year 26 in the heading), MS 20–16 Sep. in year 7, MS 40–16 Sep. in year 26, MS 101–16 Sep. in year 6, MS 170–6 Dec. in year 6. What seems to be the same text is found in CUL, Ii.6.10 (no addressee given), Mm.5.19 (London), Add. 2994 (London), and, perhaps, Gg.5.7. Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts, 401, 502, 545; A catalogue of the manuscripts preserved in the library of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge 1856) 3:187 (no. 71). The three that Baker catalogues all have dates of 16 September, year 6. That Edward III attempted to establish a system of staple towns in 1332 seems clear. It also seems that the effort was abandoned in 1334. CUL, Ii.6.10 (Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts, 401). There is a petition in PROME in the parliament at York in 8 Edw. 3 that may be related. HLS MS 40 fol. 31r, although it does not contain these texts concerning the staple, inserts between items from year 5 and those from year 8: Hic fuerunt quedam statuta facta de stapulo que per quoddam breve domini Regi adnullabant[ur]’. MS 170, however, says, after the dating clause, that the writ was not revoked until year 26. As is well known, the effort was revived with the ordinance of Staple, 27 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (1353), and it became of a permanent feature of English economic regulation for the rest of the Middle Ages. Whether the dating of the earlier ordinance in year 26 in MS 40 and in the heading of MS 19 is simply a confusion or whether it points to an experimental effort in that year that preceded the better-known ordinance of the following year is a question that requires more attention than we have been able to give it.
SL_25Writ to the bishop of London against ‘communes malefactores’, 16 ?May, 8 Edw. 3.HLS MS 20, fol. 5v–6r; HLS MS 40, fol. 31r–31v; HLS MS 170, fol. 37r–38r.
 Described in MS 40 and 170 as ‘Sentencia lata in communes malefactores’, dated in all three examples at Doncaster in year 8. MS 40 gives the day as 16 May, MS 170 as 16 March.
SL_26Writ to the mayor and bailiffs of Kingston upon Hull that 9 Edw. 3, stat. 1, be proclaimed and observed, undated.HLS MS 20, fol. 7v–8r.
 It is unclear why this is called ‘breve de perambulacione’, but there is no doubt that it is as decribed here.
SL_27Writs to the sheriffs of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire transmitting in French some of the items contained in 10 Edw. 3, stat. 2, dated at Westminster, year ?10 (1336)HLS MS 10, fol. 199r–199v (Lincoln); MS 20, fol. 6r (York), HLS MS 170, fol. 39v–41v (York).
 These writs are puzzling. The texts are almost exactly the same. They refer to a parliament held at Westminster ‘ultimo convocato’ (MS 10 and 170), ‘ultimo die etc’ (MS 20). The date in MS 10 is ‘Westm’ anno supradicto’, that in MS 20 ‘Westm’ xviij die decembr’ anno r’ nostri nono [spelled out]’, that in MS 170 ‘Westm’ xvj die septembr’ anno r’ nostri quinto [spelled out]’, but the heading in MS 170 seems to date it to year 9. The only parliament held in year 9, however, was at York in May. The subjects of the writs are common ones, malefactors and maintenance of them, and purveyance. They are reported in French as if an accord had been reached in the parliament about these issues. There is no surviving roll of petitions from the York parliament, nor are there such rolls from the Westminster parliaments in years 5 and 10. There are some isolated individual petitions given in PROME from both parliaments, but nothing like this, which would have been the result of common petitions. The editors of PROME are inclined to think that what is reported as statutes of the parliaments in years 5 and 10 may have been the result of such common petitions. 10 Edw. 3, stat. 2, c. 1 deals at length with purveyance in language drawn from previous statutes on the topic. What we find in these writs (marked as ‘c. 2’ in MS 10 and MS 20) is much shorter, but like the kind of thing that would have been agreed to in response to a petition. The unnumbered chapter concerning malefactors and maintainers of malefactors in 10 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (S.R. 1:277), which orders that writs be sent to the sheriffs on the topic, is quite close in its wording to what we find as c. 1 in the writs. MS 170 describes it correctly as ‘de retinencia malefactorum’. There is no provision like it in the statute from year 5. The evidence then points quite clearly to year 10 as the date for these writs. How MS 20 and 170 managed to get the date so wrong is hard to know, but we should remember that both manuscripts date from a century after the event. What the relationship of these writs is to the much fuller implementing writ (to the sheriff of Yorks.) in year 10 found in S.R. 1:278 is also unclear. We suspect that these writs may be earlier, before all the items in stat. 2 were agreed upon.
SL_28Variant text of 10 Edw. 3, stat. 2, c. 1 concerning purveyance.HLS MS 42, fol. 90r–91r.
 This item is another version of 10 Edw. 3, stat. 2, c. 1, which has just been given, substantially as it is in S.R. This version is somewhat confused in that it attributes the statute of 4 Edw. 3, c. 3–4, which is recited in 10 Edw. 3, stat. 2, c. 1, to the tenth year of the king's reign. There may be other variations from the official text.
SL_29Writ to all bailiffs concerning provisions for the household, ca. 1337.HLS MS 19, fol. 14v; MS 20, fol. 8r.
 This undated royal mandate to all bailiffs both within and without of liberties to cooperate with Robert Mauleverer in obtaining provisions for the household is not found in S.R., PROME, Cal. Pat. R. or Cal. Close R. The headings in both manuscripts say that it was made in accordance with the preceding statute, probably a reference to 10 Edw. 3, stat. 2, c. 1, which does precede in MS 19 but follows in MS 20. The texts in the two manuscripts are the same with minor variations and errors: Incipit: ‘Rex omnibus ballivis et fidelibus suit tam infra libertates quam extra ad uos presentes littere pervenerunt salutem. Cum dilectus nobis Robertus Mauleverere oneretur per Tesauriarium hospicii nostri ad ea que pro officio captoris [camptoris in MS 19] feni [quae] pro hospicio nostro necessaria sunt pro denariis nostris inde in Garderobra nostra solvendis et emendis vobis mandamus’, etc. MS 19 lacks the last sentence that is found in MS 20: ‘Nolumus tamen quod in feodo ecclesie contra libertatem eiusdem colore providenciarum huiusmodi quotquam capiatur.’
SL_30Writ to the coroners, knights, and others of York about to hold a county court, concerning election of sheriffs, 12 Edw. 3.HLS MS 19, fol. 18r; MS 20, fol. 10v; MS 40, fol. 38r–38v.
 This text is not found in S.R., PROME, or Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts; we have yet to find a printed text. We have not done a detailed comparison of the three texts, but they are clearly basically the same. The basic writ is tested by the duke of Cornwall at Kingston in year 12 without a day or month in MS 19. MS 20 has the same place and year, but says that the writ was tested per ipsum regem. MS 40 lacks an attestation clause here, as do all the manuscripts for the sicut alias at the end. The writ begins with a recital of the misdeeds of sheriffs. There are vague references to the statutes about the election of sheriffs, perhaps referring to Articuli super Cartas, 28 Edw. 1, c. 8, 13.
SL_31Ecclesiastical constitution against malicious prosecution of writs of account and trespass, ca. 1342HLS MS 54, fol. 154r–154v.
 Although it is headed ‘De Hibernia’ (a carryover from the previous item), this item is not in Henry Berry’s Statutes and Ordinances, and Acts of the Parliament of Ireland (Dublin 1907), nor is there anything about it that seems specific to Ireland. Not in Baker’s Cambridge Legal Manuscripts. The text leaves little doubt that this is c. 16 (with additional language from the following general promulgation clause and some variants in both) of John Stratford’s provincial constitutions of 1342. G. L. Bray, Records of Convocation: Canterbury 1313–1377 (Woodbridge 2005) 218; Wilkins, Concilia 2:709. Incipit: ‘Dierum invalescens malicia’. Explicit: ‘regni Anglie gubernaculum dirigat [with additional language tucked into the margin below]’.
SL_32Ordinances concerning Ireland, 16 Edw. 3.HLS MS 20, fol. 15v–16r.
 This is not a statute of year 17. It would seem to be related to, but it is not the same thing as, the petitions in Parliament with answers of 16 Edw. 3 printed in Henry F. Berry, ed., Statutes and Ordinances, and Acts of the Parliament of Ireland: King John to Henry V (Dublin 1907) 332–363.
SL_33Writ to the mayor and bailiffs of York concerning the staple, 26 Edw. 3HLS MS 19, fol. 42v–43v; MS 40, fol. 69v–71r.
 See Writ to the mayor and bailiffs of York concerning the staple, ?6 Edw. 3
SL_34Ordinance on the rights of patrons of churches, 38 Edw. 3.HLS MS 42, fol. 175r–176r.
 This item is probably to be connected with the revision of the statute of Provisors, 38 Edw. 3, stat. 2, which immediately precedes it. It is in Latin and contains a justification of the rights of patrons. Not in PROME. We have yet to find a printed text. Incipit: ‘’Cum notorium sit et cognitum’. Explicit: ‘de deliberacione consilii nostri duximus demandand’’.
SL_35‘Statute of Absentees’ (Ireland).HLS MS 20, fol. 45r–45v.
 The text given here seems to largely correspond to the royal answer given in PROME, parliament at Westminster, January, 1380, item 42.
SL_36Articles on the Merciless Parliament, 11 Ric. 2.HLS MS 42, fol. 219v–228r; MS 185, fol. 114v–120r.
 That this item is to be connected with the ‘Merciless Parliament’ of 1388, the statute of which appears above it in both manuscripts, seems virtually certain. That it is neither the statute of that parliament nor an extract from the rolls of that parliament (PROME) is certain. That a document of this length connected with a parliament that has been the subject of much historical investigation has not hitherto come to light and been edited seems almost inconceivable. We have not yet, however, been able to find it. Incipit: ‘Pur quoy notre seigneur le Roy voillant qe les correccions et redres’ de defautes et mesprisiones’. Explicit: ‘nient countreesteant lestatut avaundit’.
SL_37Statute restricting the gifts of the king, 11 Hen. 4.HLS MS 170, fol. 260r–261r.
 This statute does not appear in S.R. under either 11 or 13 Hen. 4. It is, however, the commons petition that appears in PROME, 11 Hen. 4, no. 23, with the king’s answer. It may be one of the items annulled in PROME, 13 Hen. 4, no. 25.
SL_38Commons petition, 4 Hen. 5HLS MS 170, fol. 284v.
 Not 5 Hen. 5, as the header says, but a commons petition in the Leicester parliament of 4 Hen. 5 concerning the confiscation of alien priories. PROME, 4 Hen. 5 (April), no. 21.
SL_39Writ to the chancellor of Lancaster extending the effective date of the writ of 7 Hen. 5 to the next parliament, dated Westminster, 10 January, year 8 (1421).HLS MS 10, fol. 348v–349r; MS 20, fol. 106v; MS 21, fol. 140v; MS 40, fol. 248r–248v; MS 42, fol. 343v–344v; MS 170, fol. 286r–286v.
 The writ to the chancellor of Lancaster on which these writs are based is found in S.R. 2:201–2. The first chapter describes appeals of treason having been brought in the duchy alleging events that occurred in places that do not exist and calls for strong process against those who concocted such appeals. The second chapter calls for strong process against forgers of deeds. The first chapter is specifically limited until the next parliament. It does not say whether the second is to be too. The writ is tested by John duke of Bedford as guardian of the realm, 10 December, in year 7 (1419). Similar writs were sent to the sheriffs of London and the other sheriffs. S.R. also notes that as a result of a petition in parliament on 2 December in year 8 (edited in PROME, parliament of December 1420, item XIII [24]), Humphrey duke of Gloucester as guardian of the realm at Westminster on 10 January in year 8 (1421), renewed the writ to the sheriffs. The texts in these manuscripts give the full text of Duke Humphrey’s writ, as it was sent to the chancellor of Lancaster. They do not contain the full text of the previous writ but simply reference it, extend its effective date to the next parliament, and tell the chancellor, to use the American expression, ‘get with it’.
SL_40Writ reciting statute of 25 Edw. 3, c. 12, dated 9 Hen. 5 (1422).HLS MS 170, fol. 291r–291v
 A writ to the sheriffs of Nottingham and Derby reciting what purports to be a statute of 20 Edw. 3 concerning the exchange of gold for silver and vice versa. The statute referred to is probably 25 Edw. 3, c. 12 (S.R. 1:322). The writ is tested by the duke of Bedford 16 Jan. 1422. The topic is not mentioned in PROME in its discussion of the parliament of 9 Hen. 5. Money was very much a topic dealt with in the statutes attributed to that year: 9 Hen. 5, stat. 1, c. 6, 11 (S.R. 2:206, 208); 9 Hen. 5, stat. 2, c. 1–8 (S.R. 2:209–10). In particular, 9 Hen. 5, stat. 2, c. 1, confirms prior statutes on the topic.
SL_41Writ to the sheriffs of Warwick and Leicester concerning provisions for the king’s household and other matters, ca. 1424.HLS MS 21, fol. 149v–152r.
 The heading describes this item as a ‘statute’ passed in parliament on 20 February in the second year on Henry VI. That would put it in the second session of parliament of 2 Hen. 6, which met from 14 January to 28 February, 1424. The writ itself is in Latin and undated. It is very long, and some of its provisions seem to be Latinizations of items in the statute of 2 Hen. 6, S.R. 2:216–27. There are also references to the household in PROME for this parliament, but nothing that seems quite on point. This document deserves more attention than we have been able to give it.
T_0Tracts and TreatisesIntroduction
 The HLL collection of manuscript statute books and registers of writs contains 56 items, so far discovered, that might be described as ‘tracts’ or ‘treatises’. They range in length from notes that are less than a page to a complete copy of Britton. We list them here alphabetically by a standardized title, with a citation to the manuscript(s) in which they are found, accompanied by a note that describes the item and, where possible, gives a reference to a printed edition or transciption of the work, or gives a reference to where a description may be found, frequently Baker’s Cambridge Legal Manuscripts. We call attention to the following items, based on an admittedly subjective judgment either that the item itself is unusual or that its presence in a HLL manuscript is not well known: Articuli ad Novas Narrationes (T_1), Britton (T_4), Casus placitorum (T_6), Conspirators (T_8), De averiis imparcatis (T_10), De libertate clamanda (T_12), Detencio namii vetiti (T_14), Dilaciones curie (T_17), Dilaciones in placito terre (T_18), Exposicio vocabulorum usitatorum in cartis antiquorum Regum Anglie (T_24), Lambarde’s Archeion (T_32), Les tenures d’Engleterre; Les feez d’Engleterre (T_33), Modus levandorum finium (T_36), On the Office of the Steward of England (T_42), Ordre de exceptioner (T_43), Personal pleas (T_44, 45, 46), Placita corone (another) (T_48), Regia prohibicio (T_51), Tractatus de homagio (T_56).
T_1Articuli ad Novas Narrationes.HLS MS 61, fol. 143r–210r.
 Incipit: ‘In principio ?omnium sciendum est quod omnia communia placita’. Explicit: ‘versus eum probare prout curia domini etc. Finis’. Includes a tabula at the end. Baker and Winfield attribute the work to the 15th century. The script is not the same as the register and seems to correspond to that of the main hand of the 15th-century additions. The text does not seem to match any of the tracts in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts, though it is similar to other Latin treatises on counting. The work was printed many times under this title in the 16th century (first ed. 1525). There is a commentary on it in P. H. Winfield, The Chief Sources of English Legal History (Cambridge, MA 1925) 283–5, who cites this manuscript as the only one that he knows of.
T_2Articuli in narrando.HLS MS 24, fol. 85r–87v.
 For this item, see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 56, citing many manuscripts, to which add this one.
T_3Brevia placitata.HLS MS 24, fol. 2r–14v; MS 33, fol. 264v–286v.
 This version of ‘Brevia placitata’ is quite different from the one edited by G. J. Turner in Brevia placitata Selden Society 66 (London 1947). It begins with paragraphs from ‘Fet asaver’, and deals with the precedents in a somewhat different way. Substantial extracts from it were printed by T. F. T. Plucknett as an appendix to Turner’s edition, id. at 183–216. Apparently the version in the two HLL manuscripts was sufficiently close that Helen Cam was able to correct errors and doubtful readings in A. J. Horwood’s transcript of MS 24 by consulting MS 33. For material in the style of ‘Brevia placitata’ but far away in content from the printed texts, see below under ‘Personal pleas in the style of Brevia placitata’.
T_4Britton.HLS MS 33, fol. 122r–246v.
 That this manuscript contains a copy of Britton does not seem to have been noted in any catalogue since Southeby’s catalogue of the Dunn manuscripts in 1913. The text seems to be complete, but it is bound out of order. The table of contents is also complete up through bk. 6, c. 10, the last chapter of the printed edition (2:356), although here it is called book 4. If our date for this manuscript is correct (ca. 1307), this text would be quite close to the traditional date for the composition of Britton (ca. 1300).
T_5Cadit assisa.HLS MS 24, fol. 65r–69r; MS 33, fol. 116v–121v; MS 36, fol. 63v (male 62v)–67v (male 66v) (incomplete); MS 39, fol. 143v (p. 286)–149v (p. 298); MS 56, fol. 166r–181r; MS 80, fol. 78r–84r;
 For this tract, which is based on Bracton, fols. 271–78, see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 78, with an extensive list of manuscripts. The text in MS 33 begins with a sample writ of mort d’ancestor before it proceeds to the standard incipit.
T_6Casus placitorum.HLS MS 33, fol. 259r–262r; MS 56, fol. 193v–231v; MS 184, fol. 169v–173v.
 ‘Casus placitorum’ (ed. W. H. Dunham, Selden Society 69, 1950) and ‘Brevia placitata’ (ed. G. J. Turner and T. F. T. Plucknett, Selden Society, 66, 1947) are closely related. No two manuscripts of either are quite alike, and the distinction between the two may be product more of modern editors than of the Middle Ages. The version of ‘Casus placitorum’ in MS 33 is not the standard text, if there is such a thing. It differs from the printed text in that it does not contain extensive notes of actual cases, but rather brief statements of rules that seem to be derived from actual cases. That may serve to distinguish it from ‘Brevia placitata’, a version of which may be found in MS 33, fol. 264v. The version in MS 56 begins in mid-line without header or heading and with but a paragraph mark separating them. We are inclined to think that it is a late version of ‘Casus placitorum’, but have not yet been able to identify this particular text. Dunham identifies the text in MS 184 as ‘Casus placitorum’ (p. lxxiii, no. 14). What makes this text more like ‘Casus placitorum’ than ‘Brevia placitata’ is that like ‘Casus placitorum’ and unlike the modern edition of ‘Brevia placitata’, this tract does not give the count, but proceeds directly to notes about what seem to be real cases or doctrinal principles taught. For material in the style of ‘Casus placitorum’ but even further away in content from the printed texts, see below under ‘Personal pleas in the style of Casus placitorum’.
T_7Chacune maner de trespas.HLS MS 162, fol. 174r–206r.
 For this extract from, or version of a part of, the tract known as ‘Curia baronum’ or ‘Curia placitata’, see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 179, with citations to a number of manuscripts, including this one. A version of the ‘Curia baronum’ was edited by F. W. Maitland (Selden Soc. 4, 1890), but more versions of the text and pieces of it have been discovered since his time. See Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 346–7. Suffice it to say here that this text is far more elaborate and discursive than anything found in Maitland’s text, and merits closer attention.
T_8Conspirators (note)HLS MS 179, fol. 10v.
 Not in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts. Incipit: ‘Conspiratours sount qe sei entelient par serment, covenaunt ou par auter allegeance’.
T_9De antiquo dominico coronae.HLS MS 10, fol. 129r (male 137r)–129v (male 137v); MS 33, fol. 61r–61v; MS 36, fol. 26r–26v; MS 55, fol. 101r–101v; MS 59, fol. 132r–132v; MS 80, fol. 55v–56r; MS 16
 The ‘tractatus’ or ‘statutum’ ‘De antiquo dominco’ seems to have had its origins as an opinion of Anger of Ripon, chief clerk of CB, c. 1290–91. It is edited by A. J. Horwood in Y.B. 20 & 21 Edw. 1 (R.S. 31) p. xviii-xix. See Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 49-50, citing many manuscripts.
T_10De averiis imparcatis.HLS MS 10, fol. 139r (male 147r).
 We have not found the brief statement of the law called ‘De averiis imparcatis’ anyplace else. It reads in full: ‘Quod quilibet liber homo habeat ingressum et egressum sine aliquo dando ad averia sua ?placitanda quacumque occasione sunt imparcata de suo proprio pascendo et quod averia illa non vendantur aliqua occasione infra xv dies a tempore capcionis’. The same principle, but not the same language, is found in the chapters in eyre printed in the ‘Liber Custumarum’ in Munimenta Gilhallae Londoniensis (R.S.) 2:361, where it is attributed to 14 Edw. 2. The ‘Liber’ cites Westminster I as its authority. Chapter 17 of that statute is the only possible one that they could be thinking of, and to say that this is a broad interpretation of that chapter would be charitable.
T_11De compoto reddendo et recipiendo.HLS MS 80, fol. 58v–59v.
 This tract is referenced in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 353. It seems quite similar to the item transcribed in J. E. Thorold Rogers, ‘Roll of the Thirteenth Century Containing Various Legal Forms’, The Archaeological Journal 22 (1865) 58–9. It is related to, if it is not an extract from, the much larger Officium senescali.
T_12De libertate clamanda.HLS MS 161, fol. 74r–75v.
 This item deserves more attention than we have yet been able to give it. It cites the statute of Gloucester at the beginning (1278), and we have been unable to find any other date in it. We are thus quite skeptical of the date assigned to it by the early modern annotator (‘30 E. 1’). What it seems to be is a series of sample writs issued pursuant to the statute of Gloucester and its ‘explanation’. Since there is no reference to the statute De quo warranto of 1290, we are tentatively inclined to date this item before that date or not too long after. That statute follows immediately after it. Incipit: ‘Anno domini mo cco lxxo viij regni autem Regis Edwardi sexto apud Glouc’ mense Augusti providente ipso domino Rege ad regni sui Anglie melioracionem’ etc. Explicit: ‘iuxta articulos eisdem iusticiariis nostris inde traditos prout predicti iustic[iarii] transire facient ex parte nostra etc.’
T_13De warrantia carte.HLS MS 10, fol. 181r (male 189r); MS 28, fol. 54r.
 This tract is mentioned in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 527, with references to seven manuscripts, none of which are in Cambridge and to which add these. Incipit: ‘De simplicibus cartis sine clausula warrantizacionis’. Explicit: ‘obligatus fortiter se ipsum ad paccionem tenendam dicto feoffato quasi pro debito dicti donatoris’.
T_14Detencio namii vetiti.HLS MS 80, fol. 92r–96r.
 Not in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts, nor, so far as we have yet discovered, in any other HLS manuscript. We have found no references to this text other than Baker’s reference to it in his description of this manuscript. Incipit: ‘Detencio namii vetiti pro districtione facienda pertinet ad coronam domini Regis’. Explicit: ‘Et returnentur utensalia et capiantur animalia sic capta et ante capcionem assise non deliberentur et sic fiat de consimilibus’.
T_15Diffinicio tenementorum.HLS MS 28, fol. 56v–57v.
 This item is identified in an early modern hand as coming from Bracton ‘11.35’. It does, indeed, come from Bracton, fol. 77b–78, Thorne ed., p. 225–8. The incipit, ‘Tenementorum aliud tenetur per servicium de quibus homagium faciendum est’, is in Bracton as is a considerable amount of what follows. The explicit, ‘de consuetudinibus vel per modum donatoris observetur etc.’, does not seem to be in Bracton and calls for further investigation. See Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 569, citing a number of manuscripts, to which add this one.
T_16Diffinitiones brevium.HLS MS 24, fol. 86v–87v (De divisione brevium); HLS MS 155, fol. 27r–27v (Divisiones brevium).
 For this text, see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 55, citing many manuscripts.
T_17Dilationes curiae.HLS MS 160, fol. 65v.
 This is not a French version of ‘Modus calumpniandi essonia’, which is sometimes found with this title. See Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 635. It appears to be a brief treatise on casting essoins. The text is close to, without being quite the same as, Brevia placitata (ed. G. J. Turner, Selden Society 66, at 4). Incipit: ‘?Esoigne defaute la terre prise en la mein le Roy’. Explicit: ‘sanz plee recovera la value vers le garaunt’
T_18Dilaciones in placito terre.HLS MS 162, fol. 134v–136r
 Cf. S.R. 1:217. Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 635, describes this text, with citation to this manuscript, as related to an abridged French version of the Latin ‘Modus calumpniandi essoniam’. Cf. id., at 97. It does not have the same incipit as the Cambridge manuscript that he is describing. Whether it is abridged from the Latin text or a rather full translation, or even what ‘abridged’ might mean when describing a text that has so many variations, requires further exploration. It is followed by a Nota on fol. 136r, which is clearly related.
T_19Distinctiones socagii.HLS MS 10, fol. 143v (male 151v)–144r (male 152r); MS 10, fol. 180v (male 188v)–181r (male 189r) (another copy); MS 28, fol. 55r; MS 39, fol. 67v (p. 134); MS 59, fol. 115r–116r; MS 162, fol. 105r.–105v.
 For this text see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 97, citing numerous manuscripts.
T_20Exceptiones ad cassandum brevia (Ordo exceptionum).HLS MS 24, fol. 76r–79r; MS 24b, fol. 79a–79b (end only); MS 33, fol. 251r–255r; MS 39, fol. 153r (p. 305)–157r (p. 313); MS 56, fol. 234v (table of contents only); MS 162, fol. 129r–134v; MS 184, fol. 110r–114
 Edited by George E. Woodbine, Four Thirteenth Century Law Tracts (New Haven, 1910), 163–83 (online). For this tract, also known as ‘Excepciones pro brevibus cassandis’, ‘Ordo excepcionum’ and ‘L’Ordre de exception’, see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 70, with citations to numerous manuscripts, including ours. There is a pencilled modern note in MS 184: ‘This is closely related to the tract given in Britsh Museum Royal MS 15A.31’, a manuscript that Baker does not cite. There are other tracts with similar titles but different texts, for which see below: ‘Exceptiones contra brevia, ‘Modus exceptionum, ‘Ordre de exceptioner’.
T_21Exceptiones contra brevia.HLS MS 24, fol. 87v–91r.
 For this text, see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 66–7, with citations to a number of manuscripts, including this one.
T_22Exposicio vocabulorum.HLS MS 10, fol. 157v (male 165v)–158v (male 166v); MS 33, fol. 6r–6v; MS 58, fol. 150v–152v; MS 174, fol. 152v–153v; MS 175, fol. 220r–232r.
 This item would seem to be related to, if it is not the same as, the text that is printed in Cartularies of St. Mary’s Abbey Dublin, ed. John T. Gilbert, Rolls Series (London 1884), 1:375–7. See Baker, Catalogue of Cambridge Legal Manuscripts, xxxvi n, 62, with citations to many manuscripts. MS 175 has a preamble with the incipit: ‘Quicumque habent de domino Rege litteras subscriptas’, before proceeding to ‘Sok hoc est’, etc.
T_23Exposicio vocabulorum (French).HLS MS 59, fol. 120v–122r.
 This is a French version of the previous text. For this text, see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 73, with reference to a number of manuscripts, including this one.
T_24Expositio vocabulorum usitatorum in cartis antiquorum Regum Anglie.HLS MS 33, fol. 5r–5v.
 The full heading is: ‘Ista sunt vocabula Anglicana usitata in cartis antiquorum Regum Anglie exposita ab Alexandro archidiacono Salop’ secundum quod continetur in legibus Alveredi, Athelstani et Edwardi Regum Anglie’. The heading appears in mid-page and is preceded by several definitions that seem to be drawn from the same source. Alexander is probably the Alexander of Swerford, archdeacon of Shropshire, who died in 1246 and who compiled the Red Book of the Exchequer. David Crook, in ODNB s.n. ‘Swerford, Alexander of (b. before 1180, d. 1246)’. This list would seem to have been drawn from the Red Book, but we have not compared them.
T_25Fet asaver.HLS 33, fol. 327v–338v; MS 39, fol. 106r (p. 211)–117r (p. 233); MS 80, fol. 65r–77r; MS 161, fol. 98r–117r; MS 162, fol. 140r–156v; MS 184, fol. 94r (male 93r)–105v (male 104v) (defective at end).
 Edited by George E. Woodbine, Four Thirteenth Century Law Tracts (New Haven, 1910), 53–115 (online). For this text see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts, 63–4, citing many manuscripts.
T_26Glanvill extract, called ‘Statutum de Hibernia’HLS MS 174, fol. 147r–147v
 This would not seem to be any of the various statutes concerning Ireland, but, rather, a quotation from Glanvill 7.18.
T_27Hengham magna.HLS MS 24, fol. 61r–62r (end only); MS 33, fol. 94v–109v; MS 36, fol. 37r–50r; MS 39, fol. 117r (p. 233)–131v (p. 262); MS 161, fol. 111v–130r; MS 175, fol. 165v–210v;
 Edited by W. H. Dunham, Radulphi de Hengham Summae (Cambridge, 1932), 1–50. The authorship of this treatise by Ralph de Hengham, CJKB 1274–1290, CJCB 1301–1309 (d. 1311), is regarded as ‘unlikely’ by Paul Brand in ODNB s.n. See Brand, ‘Hengham Magna: A Thirteenth Century English Common Law Treatise and Its Composition’, Irish Jurist, 11 (1976) 147–69. See Baker, English Legal Manuscripts 64–65, with citations to numerous manuscripts.
T_28Hengham parva.HLS MS 24, fol. 69r–73v; MS 33, fol. 88r–94v; MS 36, fol. 57v (male 56v)–63v (male 62v); MS 39, fol. 131v (p. 262)–138v (p. 276); MS 155, fol. 28r (one page only); MS 161, fol. 143r–150v;
 Edited by W. H. Dunham, Radulphi de Hengham Summae (Cambridge, 1932), 52–71. The authorship of this treatise by Ralph de Hengham, CJKB 1274–1290, CJCB 1301–1309 (d. 1311), is regarded as ‘probable’ by Brand in ODNB s.n.
T_29Husbandry.HLS MS 184, fol. 173v–179v.
 For the authorship, which despite the numerous manuscript attributions remains uncertain, see P. D. A. Harvey in ODNB, s.n. Henley [Hanley], Walter of (fl. c. 1260). Edited and translated by Elizabeth Lamond, Walter of Henley’s Husbandry (London, 1890) 1–35 (online). The more recent, and better, edition by Dorothea Oschinsky, Walter of Henley and Other Treatises on Estate Management and Accounting (Oxford, 1971), 308–43, shows that there is no single text of this, but that it developed over time. Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 57–58, lists manuscripts not known to Oschinsky, including this one.
T_30Husbandry (another).HLS MS 162, fol. 206r–210v.
 For this text, see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 204-5, with citations to literature and manuscripts, including this. Oschinsky, Walter of Henley, did not know this manuscript.
T_31Judicium essoniorum.HLS MS 24, fol. 62r–65r; MS 33, fol. 113r–116v; MS 36, fol. 50r–55v; MS 39, fol. 138v (p. 276)–143v (p. 286); MS 56, fol. 181r–193v MS 80, fol. 60r–65r; MS 161,
 Edited by George E. Woodbine, Four Thirteenth Century Law Tracts (New Haven, 1910), 27–38 (online). See Paul Brand, ‘Nothing Which is New or Unique? A Reappraisal of Judicium Essoniorum’, in Peter Birks, ed., The Life of the Law: Proceedings of the Tenth British Legal History Conference (London, 1993), 1–8; Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 78–9, with an extensive list of manuscripts.
T_32Lambarde’s ArcheionHLS MS 193, fol. 218r–232v
 This handwritten copy of Lambarde’s Archeion is dated in 1608, 17 years before the first printing of that work.
T_33Les tenures d’Engleterre; Les feez d’Engleterre.HLS MS 32, fol. 93r–95r; HLS MS 32, fol. 95r.
 In the middle of a collection of statutes temp. incert. are two headings that seem to be related and which contain a brief treatise on tenures and what we would call estates. The first heading is ‘Ci comence lordenance de les tenures Dengl[eterre]’ (fol. 93r), the second ‘Des feez des Dengleterre’ (fol. 95r). The latter we probably should amend either by taking out the second ‘des’ or adding ‘terres’ after it. The contents are entirely in French, and are related to, but not a translation of, ‘Diffinitio tenementorum’, an extract, largely from Bracton, that appears in HLS MS 10. They are also related to, though so far as we can tell, not just a translation of, the treatise ‘Distinctio tenementorum’, which appears in CUL, MS Add. 3129 and Add. 8870, and a number of other manuscripts noted in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts, at 569. For treatises written in French, the obvious parallel is the Old Tenures, which appears in a number of manuscripts and was frequently printed in the early modern period. This is not, however, that treatise, nor is it extracts from it, but an independent treatise. We have so far been unable to identify any other copies of this particular treatise. Incipit under the first heading: ‘Pur ceo quil y sount plusours maneres de fees dount lez pluis renomez sount fez de chivaler et grauntz serianties les queux fez sount purveus a la defens du roialme’. Explicit: ‘et le sokeman ne gist autre bref qe le petit bref de droit’. Incipit under second heading: ‘Feservice est a tenir certeins tenements du chief seignur donant a lui la value des tenements par an’. Explicit: ‘quant un home tent a la volonte son seignur com son neif’.
T_34Modus componendi brevia (Cum sit necessarium).HLS MS 24, fol. 73v–76r; MS 33, fol. 110r–113r; MS 39, fol. 149v (p. 298)–152v (p. 303); MS 80, fol. 88v–91v; MS 155, fol. 23r–27r; MS 161, fol. 151r–152v (defective at beginning and end);
 Edited by George E. Woodbine, Four Thirteenth Century Law Tracts (New Haven, 1910) 143–162 (online). Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 55–6, has an extensive list of manuscript examples.
T_35Modus exceptionum.HLS MS 10, fol. 132r (male 140r); MS 10, fol. 156v (male 164v) (another copy); MS 33, fol. 82r; MS 39, fol. 157v (p. 314); MS 54, fol. 137v; 80, fol. 55r; MS 160, fol. 57v;
 Also known as ‘Quot modis dicitur exceptio’. See Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 71–2, 96–7, the latter citing many manuscripts.
T_36Modus levandorum finium.HLS MS 61, fol. 27r–27v.
 This is not the text of Modus levandi fines, S.R. 1:214, though it does not seem to be inconsistent with it. The text in S.R. is in French; this one is in Latin and gives an example of levying a specific fine.
T_37Modus tenendi parliamentum.HLS MS 20, fol. 39v (extract); MS 21, fol. 235v–237v (incomplete at end); MS 29, fol. 7r–13r (abbreviated).
 The edition by T. D. Hardy in Modus tenendi parliamentum (London 1849) is available online. The modern edition by Nicholas Pronay and John Taylor in Parliamentary Texts of the Later Middle Ages (Oxford 1980) is not, but is preferable. We have not found references to the HLL manuscripts in any of the surveys of manuscripts of the Modus, but we have not searched for them systematically.
T_38Natura brevium.HLS MS 162, fol. 156v–168r.
 This tract, the first of many to go under this title and perhaps written c. 1290 for an Irish audience, can be identified by its incipit: ‘Bref de no. dis’ est la ou home fust seisi en son demeigne com de franc tenement’. See Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 356, with references to literature and other manuscripts, including this one.
T_39Notabilia statutorum.HLS MS 28, fol. 48v–49r (De inquisicione post districcionem); MS 28, fol. 49r–50v (Dampna in triplo); MS 33, fol. 7r–9r (includes Dampna in triplo); MS 161, fol. 95r–97v (quite full); MS 162, fol. 137v–139v (Dampna in triplo and more).
 For a general description of works of this type, see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 62–63, with citation to numerous manuscripts. These texts are also known as ‘Dampna’, because of their tendency to focus on multiples of penalties. There is no standard text, although a version of ‘Dampna’ may be apporoaching stadardisation.
T_40Novae narrationes.HLS MS 182, fol. 120r–232v (lacks first fol.); MS 60, fol. 138r–230v (defective at end).
 Three versions of this text are edited and translated by S. F. C. Milsom and E. Shanks, Novae Narrationes, Selden Society 80 (London 1960). The versions found so far in this collection are variants of version ‘C’.
T_41Officium senescalli.HLS MS 179, fol. 207v–211r.
 For this text, see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 57, with citation to this manuscript. This is not the same as the treatise known as ‘Senechaucy’.
T_42On the Office of the Steward of England.HLS MS 29, fol. 13r–14v.
 This tract appears to be the same as that edited and translated by L. W. Vernon-Harcourt in His Grace the Steward and Trial of Peers (London 1907) 164–7, 148–51. The incipit and explicit are the same with minor spelling variations. (Incipit: ‘Hic annotatur quis sit Sesencallus Anglie et quid eius officium. Senescallia anglie pertinent ad comitivam leycestre et pertinuit ab antiquo’. Explicit: ‘tanquam inimicus publicus Regis et regni decollatus apud le Glakelowe in Com’ Warr’’.) How far the whole text differs from what Vernon-Harcourt printed we have not explored. Whether we should attribute this tract to the reign of Edward II, as Vernon-Harcourt does with some hesitation (p. 144), is a matter about which we may have some doubt. Vernon-Harcourt dates one of his manuscripts to the reign of Richard II, the other three to the fifteenth century, as this one is.
T_43Ordre de exceptioner.HLS MS 59, fol. 147v–150r.
 Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 70, identifies this text not as a French version of the common ‘Ordo exceptionum’, but rather as an extract from the Curia baronis, for which see ‘Chacune maner de trespas’.
T_44Personal pleas in the style of Brevia placitataHLS MS 193, fol. 1v–21v
 The manuscript begins with two quires that bear a distinct resemblance to Brevia placitata writs and counts. There may be a few more writs and a few fewer counts than is typical in most versions of Brevia placitata (hence, the initial impression of cataloguers that the manuscript contained a register of writs), but the overall pattern is unmistakable. There is, however, one major difference: The content is confined to personal actions. No real actions are to be found.
T_45Personal pleas (extracts from treatises) HLS MS 193, fol.
 Beginning on fol. 22 with a new quire, the nature of the work changes. Rather than giving us writs and counts, the work gives us extracts from treatise-writers, including some quite substantial extracts from Glanvill.
T_46Personal pleas in the style of Casus placitorumHLS MS 193, fol. 28r–98vv
 Beginning on fol. 28 (not a quire break, though one appears before the next folio), we begin to find rules and statements derived from case reports. The work thus begins to look more like Casus placitorum than Brevia placitata. The resemblance to Casus placitorum declines as the section moves on, and it becomes more like simple extracts from Year Book reports on the topic of personal pleas. So far as we have yet discovered the source of these extracts is from cases decided in the reigns of Edward I and Edward II (continued under ‘Reports’).
T_47Placita corone.HLS MS 24, fol. 83r–85r.
 This is Manuscript ‘O’ in J. M. Kaye’s edition of Placita Corone, Selden Soc. Supp. Ser. 4 (London 1966). He places it in ‘Group III’, the most abbreviated and hence, in his view, the least interesting group of manuscripts. He may not have been aware of how early this manuscript probably is.
T_48Placita corone (another).HLS MS 33, fol. 65r–66r.
 This is not the treatise normally called ‘Placita corone’, which is in French, nor is the less well known Latin treatise on crown pleas, ‘Tractatus de corona’. It begins like a treatise: ‘In primis sciendum est quod omnia attachiamenta et placita corone debent attachiari per coronatorem et non debet terminari ante adventum Justiciariorum in Itinere suo’. It then, however, turns into what seem to be brief reports of crown pleas heard at a place called ‘C’ (?Cornwall). The first sentence could be drawn from genre of literature described in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts as ‘Officium coronatoris’, but the range of cases described makes it seem more like a collection of material designed for the purpose of instructing about crown pleas. Explicit: [clericus appellatus] ‘secundum legem et consuetudinem regni Anglie liberatus fuit dicto procuratori [episcopi] sub pena C s’. We are grateful to Elizabeth Kamali for pointing out to us that there are similarities in the ‘precedents’ given here to those in the ‘Modus tenendi curias’ printed by Maitland in Court Baron (SS no. 4), starting on p. 89, and particularly to some of those on p. 90. Maitland suggests that the glossator and perhaps the author of the ‘Modus’ was one John de Longueville (p. 14). Be that as it may be, it seems more likely on chronological grounds that this is one of the sources of the ‘Modus’ rather than an extract from it.
T_49Quid sit homagium.HLS MS 162, fol. 104r.
 For this short Latin tract, here divided into three parts, see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 428, citing this manuscript and two others.
T_50Quot modis fit divorcium.HLS MS 80, fol. 55v.
 This is an extract from the Summa de bastardia. See Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 354, citing a number of manuscripts, including this one.
T_51Regia prohibicio.HLS MS 28, fol. 140v–141r.
 Written in a book hand, this item, together with Articuli cleri, 9 Edw. 2, stat. 1. (S.R. 1:171–4), which follows, seem to constitute a treatise on prohibitions. This item is not the same as the Appendix to Circumspecte agatis in S.R. 1:101 with the incipit ‘Sub hac forma impetrant laici prohibitionem’, and which appears in a number of manuscripts in Baker, Catalogue of Cambridge Legal Manuscripts, index of incipits, s.vv. ‘Sub qua forma laici impetrant prohibitionem’. Incipit: ‘Ad cancellariam prohibicionem impetratur non expresso nomine impetrantis sub hac forma: ex relatu plurimorum’, etc. Explicit: ‘salvis etiam ?decimis defunctorum hiis que consuetudinaliter dari solent etc’.
T_52Regule registri.HLS MS 162, fol. 168r–173r.
 For a similar compilation of rules from the register of writs, see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 327, citing this manuscript and HLS MS 1, f. 177v. Unlike CUL Hh.2.8, this version is quite full and seems to be complete.
T_53Senechaucy.HLS MS 184, fol. 160r–169r.
 Senechaucy is printed in Walter of Henley’s Husbandry, ed. and trans. Elizabeth Lamond (London, 1890) 88–119 (online). The more recent edition by Dorothea Oschinsky, Walter of Henley and Other Treatises on Estate Management and Accounting (Oxford, 1971), 264–95, shows that there is no single text of this, but that it developed over time. Manuscript copies, including this one, are listed in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 57.
T_54Summa bastardie.HLS MS 24, fol. 79v–82r (De bastardia); MS 24b, fol. 79b (Tractatus de bastardia) (start only); MS 33, fol. 247r–251r; MS 39, fol. 159v (p. 318)–163r (p. 325); MS 80, fol. 84r–88v; MS 184, fol. 114r–118r.
 For this text see Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 65–6, citing many manuscripts.
T_55Tractatus de corona.HLS MS 24, fol. 82r–83r; MS 39, fol. 157v (p. 314)–159v (p. 318).
 This is a short treatise, largely derived from Bracton, printed in Kaye, Placita corone, Appendix II, p. 34–8. Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 49, has an extensive list of manuscripts, including both of these.
T_56Tractatus de homagio.HLS MS 10, fol. 144r (male 152r)–144v (male 152v).
 This is not ‘De homagio et fidelitate faciendis’, temp. incert., S.R. 1:227, all the texts of which that we have seen are in French. It is a Latin tractatus on the topic of homage in Latin, which seems to be quite rare (not in Baker, Catalogue of Cambridge Legal Manuscripts). BL Lansdowne 467, p. 385 (no. 68) has an item with the same title. Incipit: ‘Primo inquirendum est de quibus tenementis tenetur et quantum obligatur quis homagium facere’.
 Throughout the collection there are items that we have usually labelled ‘notes’. Most of them are on the freestanding end papers at the front or back; some are found on blank pages within the text. They are always written in a more informal script than that of the main text. They frequently are later than the text of the main manuscript. Some of them are of considerable interest. We call attention particularly to the 16th-century notes that accompany HLS MS 26, a 15th-century register of writs, discussed at some length in the introduction to that manuscript. We list here all of the ones that have a separate label, some 67 in all, some of which are found on extend over more than one page. This is not quite all the ‘notes’ that appear in the manuscripts, because some such notes are found on pages that have a label for the main contents of the page. It is, however, most of them, and, we believe, the ones that are of most interest. They are arranged by the approximate century in which they were written, with no attempt to identify the medieval ones to a century. Within each group they appear in numerical order of the manuscripts. We broke out and placed after the notes arranged chronologically those that seem to indicate ownership of the manuscript, because these frequently span centuries. At the very end we have a few that cannot be deciphered on the images, though some of them may be legible under uv.
XN_1Medieval NotesHLS MS 27, no fol., no sig. (seq. 5)
 ‘Ut ver dat flores flos fructus fructus odores, Sic studium mores mos sensus sensus honores’ in 15th century script. These sentences are also found in Tours, B.M. MS 404, a 15th-cenury collection of theological treatises.
XN_2Medieval NotesHLS MS 39, fol. 163v–164v
 Miscellaneous notes in informal hands. 163v: Header: ?Jg’nt hunc dist’. Our transcription of the header is almost certainly wrong. It might be possible to read it under uv. Text written upside down. The script is probably 15th century. A very informal hand has written a judgement attributed to Bereford (?JCP). Below that, perhaps in the same hand as the header: ‘Si mea penna valet meleor mea littera fiet’. 164r: The page contains: (1) a couple of sample counts, (2) An apportionment of sacks of wool among various counties of England, (3) A rule of law attributed to Beresford (?JCP), (4) A faint date ‘A.D. 1342’ (5) A crude transcription of the statute De anno et die (40 Hen. 3, S.R. 1:7), (6) A count of the military fees, towns, parish churches, and counties in England. 164v: Badly faded ?medieval notes, possibly legible under uv.
XN_3Medieval NotesHLS MS 48, fol. 55v
 Notes in a different hand concerning wool (‘lanuage’) and hostlers, both citing statutes of Richard II; modern note in pencil at bottom.
XN_4Medieval NotesHLS MS 48, fol. 55v–56v
 Notes and pen trials in more informal later script, which could date from the 16th century. After beginning with ‘Jhesus Marya’ the pen trials experiment with various forms of ‘To his ryght worhipful ?mr John Reymys marchant ’. Fol. 56v contains the beginning of a letter in the same script.
XN_5Medieval NotesHLS MS 48, fol. 59v
 An extract from a letter in English concerning a ship named ‘The Marye’ in same script as that on fol. 55v, followed by pen trials.
XN_6Medieval NotesHLS MS 48, fol. 60r
 Note in a script probably contemporary with the manuscript concerning treason.
XN_7Medieval NotesHLS MS 49, fol. 1r
 In early modern hand ‘C. C. Num. 32’; various faded notes in medieval hands that could possibly be read under uv.
XN_8Medieval NotesHLS MS 49, fol. 1v
 In a medieval hand, probably concerning the calendar that follows.
XN_9Medieval NotesHLS MS 49, fol. 2r
 A full page of medieval text, which seems to be mostly prayers
XN_10Medieval NotesHLS MS 54, fol. 162v
 Two texts in a script that seems later than that of the main text. The first is a text of an oath apparently sworn by the scribe of the book that he has made a faithful copy. This text deserves more attention than we have been able to give it. The second is a list of seven cases where oaths are sworn in court. All the actions seem to be ecclesiastical. An extra line of text at the bottom of the page indicating that book contains ?158 folios. This may be a note by the binder. It could be read more clearly under uv.
XN_11Medieval NotesHLS MS 56, fol. 235v–236v
 235v: ?Two more entries similar to those in what we identified above as a version of Casus placitorum but in an informal script. Transcription of a writ of trespass involving a horse. The defendant is a Roger de Rokesle, who may be the Roger de Rokesle who appears in Cal. Close R. (1313–1318), 98 (1314). 236r: ?Another entry similar to the previous (faded, could be read under uv). Also, written upside down in a much later script, perhaps as a pen trial: ‘A sumn d’ / A justice nre de le lo’. 236v: ?Three more entries similar to the previous (also faded).
XN_12Medieval NotesHLS MS 61, fol. 13r
 Notes in English (15th c.).
XN_13Medieval NotesHLS MS 61, fol. 141r
 Notes and informal drawings, late 15th c. Includes a reference to the writ Ad pontes reparandas fol. lxvij.
XN_14Medieval NotesHLS MS 161, fol. 1r
 Written on the side is what seems to be rather full transcription of justicies writ. More could be read under uv.
XN_15Medieval NotesHLS MS 173, fol. 138r
 ‘Veritas odium parit’ . This may be the same hand that is responsible for writing surrounding the heraldry on the initial fols. This is also the page on which Baker saw the erased 16th cenutry indications of ownership. The quotation is from Terence, Andria, 1.1.18
XN_16Medieval NotesHLS MS 173, fol. 138v
 Headed ‘per Bracton’: ‘Bladum est illud quod [illegible] vel plantatur et de radice orietur quo rapto numquam aliud simile de dicto radice oreitur.’ Not found in these words in Bracton. Written in same hand as preceding page with ?notarial signs
XN_17Medieval NotesHLS MS 174, fol. 1r
 In a hand of late 14th or early 15th c.: ‘Summa ecclesiarum Anglie – xlv ?milia ?lx; Summa villarum Anglie – lij ?milia et iiij [a superscript suggests that this should be 4 score]; Summa feodorum militum – lij ?milia ccxv; De quibus in manibus religiosorum xxviij [one character illegible] et xv’ . Whether these numbers are in the right order of magnitude (and even whether the abbreviation for ‘milia’ is in fact an abbreviation for ‘milia’) requires more work.
XN_18Medieval NotesHLS MS 179, fol. 214r
 Two lines at the top possibly recording transactions.
XN_19Medieval NotesHLS MS 182, fol. 119v
 We cannot make sense out of the note, which is in a medieval script. It may refer to the fact that there is a folio missing at the end of the quire.
XN_2016th-Century NotesHLS MS 26, no fol., no sig. (seq. 18)
 Scheme of actions; forms of address; notes: The script is gothic, 16th c., not necessarily early in the century. The scheme of actions is in French and divides the actions into real and personal. The next item quotes c. 8 of Magna Carta in English, which, curiously, it attributes to 9 Edw. III, c. 8, where it is not found. The forms of address are standard. The page closes with two regule, one about the endorsement of certain kinds of writs, the other about the date to be put on other kinds
XN_2116th-Century NotesHLS MS 26, fol. 4v
 Written in the same hand as the previous folio, this one translates into a mixture of French and Latin the notes that are found in English in a similar or the same hand on fol. 29
XN_2216th-Century NotesHLS MS 26, fol. 5v
 On the lower half of the page in the same hand as fol. 4v, extracts in Latin concerning the ordo particularium and the writ of right patent in London
XN_2316th-Century NotesHLS MS 26, fol. 244r
 Text in similar or same hand as that which wrote the Index. List of writs: ‘Sequenta patenta brevia dirigenda post mortem tenentis domini Regis’. Commentary in English on the regula ‘Actio personalis moritur cum persona’
XN_2416th-Century NotesHLS MS 26, fol. 244v
 Two writs in the same or similar hand. The writs concern a certiorari to the court of the constable, and the second of them mentions John Cheyne as the locumtenens in that court. That would have been sometime between 1393 and 1397. See N. Saul in ODNB, s.n. Cheyne, Sir John (d. 1414)
XN_2516th-Century NotesHLS MS 48, fol. 60v
 Forms and notes of various dates; the date 1521 is mentioned.
XN_2616th-Century NotesHLS MS 54, fol. 157r
 Notes of a transaction on Trinity Sunday 1534 not transcribed by Baker
XN_2716th-Century NotesHLS MS 168, fol. 270r
 This page that contains the explicit quoted by Baker and the notes of 16th c. owners that he describes. See the Introduction. There is also at the top a list of what seems to be five names in a 16th c. hand. The significance of these names might be discernable with more effort.
XN_2816th-Century NotesHLS MS 182, fol. 4v
 3 lines in an informal hand, perhaps 16th century. Faint on image, probably legible under uv.
XN_2916th-Century NotesHLS MS 185, fol. 226r
 Probably 16th c. The first note is in English and needs uv to be read. The second: ‘Adam primus homo damnatus ?est Et cum’.
XN_3017th-century NotesHLS MS 58, fol. 3v
 Early modern hand: ‘?Litgente also I am yours to command always in all Scr?p[without the descender]itt’. The mysterious first and last words may be code for a woman’s and a man’s name.
XN_3117th-century NotesHLS MS 58, fol. 165v, 166v
 165v: Full page in a later style: decorated initial ‘H’ with TR-IN-IT inserted in labels and a star of David design with fleurs-de-lys in the space. Pencil scribbles to the right. 166v: ?17th-century script: ‘Somtyme ?j have you sene in high estate full strange whan fantasy made you wene that fortune wold not change.’ Not found. Below in somewhat fainter script but same hand: ‘not chaunge not chaunge’. Below this a decorated capital ‘O’ in the same style as that on fol. 165v followed by ‘nimbus Xri’. To the right and faint: ‘What shold I sin[?ner]’.
XN_3217th-Century NotesHLS MS 161, fol. 1v
 Includes an informal table in an early modern hand matching, it would seem, the contents of the manuscript to Poulton (i.e., Ferdinando Pulton) and Tothill (i.e., Richard Tottel). The maker of this table never seems to cross the ‘t’ in Pulton, but it seems highly likely that this is the editor to whom he is referring. To which works on statutes by these editors he is referring is not said.
XN_3317th-Century NotesHLS MS 166, fol. 200v
 Notes in ?code. It is possible that these are not code but highly abbreviated references. There are pieces of it that look like regnal years or years of grace. The whole is, however, quite mysterious. Pen trial: ’Remember man that’ [thou art dust], etc.
XN_3417th-Century NotesHLS MS 175, fol. 265v
 Seems to record the clandestine marriage of John Hooper and his wife Anne. Much detail. Deserves more attention.
XN_3518th-Century NotesHLS MS 165, no fol., no sig. (seq. 3)
 In ?late-18th c. hand: ‘Codex legum literarumque ?regiarum Edwardi III et ?nepotis Richardi II. Folia continet 308’. Library markings.
XN_3619th-Century NotesHLS MS 20, no fol., no sig. (seq. 273)
 The same hand, probably Dunn’s, that filled in the statute of 11 Hen. 6 on the previous page has entered more fully on a previously blank page the end of the statute from Ruffead’s Statutes at Large and bracketed what was to be copied onto the previous page.
XN_3719th-Century NotesHLS MS 24, no fol., no sig. (seq. 187)
 Written in a 19th-century hand, perhaps Horwood’s, on a gray leaf slightly smaller than the manuscript page and tipped in, it would seem to transcribe the note in CUL Dd.7.14, fol. 14v, noted in Baker, Cambridge Legal Manuscripts 71.
XN_3819th-Century NotesHLS MS 26, no fol., no sig. (seq. 4)
 Note by George Dunn: ‘Registrum Brevium’.
XN_3919th-Century NotesHLS MS 45, no fol., no sig. (seq. 5)
 Pencilled notes of George Dunn: He notes absence of first leaf. Pencilled ’F2’ in lower left-hand corner
XN_4019th-Century NotesHLS MS 166, no fol., no sig. (seq. 409)
 Notes on the arms and the binding with reference to manuscripts in the BL.
XN_4120th-century NotesHLS MS 21, no fol., no sig. (seq. 495)
 Binder’s notes, tipped in.
XN_4220th-century NotesHLS MS 53, no fol., no sig. (seq. 716)
 Binder’s notes, tipped in.
XN_4321st-century NotesHLS MS 213, no fol., no sig. (seq. 3)
 Lists the deficiencies in the manuscript noted in HOLLIS, dated 2/2006 DAF (i.e. David Ferris).
XN_44Notes of ownershipHLS MS 26, no fol., no sig. (seq. 17)
 (1) ‘Phillips MS 11124’. (2) Signature ‘C. Fairfax’.
XN_45Notes of ownershipHLS MS 26, fol. 245r
 Notes in hands of various dates: Constat Johanni Clowgh (gothic, 16th c. hand); C. Fairfax (signature, 17th c.); ex libris (rubbed out; gothic, 16th c. hand); Hunt ex dono Willemi Malberne nuper Abatis Sancti Petri Gloucestrie quod v’ [?vide] fol’ penultima (with ‘pen’ struck through; 17th c. hand, perhaps that of Fairfax)
XN_46Notes of ownershipHLS MS 27, no fol., no sig. (seq. 5)
 Notes of acquisition by Philip Moulton (17th c.) and George Dunn.
XN_47Notes of ownershipHLS MS 27, fol. 184r
 Notes or signatures: Ad Thomam Bonefaunt; Godyng Willm’ [crossed out] le puisne.
XN_48Notes of ownershipHLS MS 32, no fol., no sig. (seq. 7)
 George Dunn’s note of acquisition. Single word written in an a medieval hand at top. Hard to decipher. Possible monogram ?J_
XN_49Notes of ownershipHLS MS 38, no fol., no sig. (seq. 6)
 Notes of George Dunn with pasted-in note of ownership which Baker transcribes as ‘Liber Edwardi Willes ex dono dilecti fratris ejus Johannis Willes S.T.P. 24 Aprilis 1680’ and another pasted-in extract from a Sotheby’s auction catalogue.
XN_50Notes of ownershipHLS MS 38, no fol., no sig. (seq. 7)
 Phllipps MS 2952 with Phillipps’ mark
XN_51Notes of ownershipHLS MS 39, fol. 163v–164r
 163v: An erased name, which may the same as ‘Hungerford’, which appears on the next folio. 164r: The signature in a 15th century hand of one Hungerford.
XN_52Notes of ownershipHLS MS 42, no fol., no sig. (seq. 9)
 ‘585’; ‘Phillips MS 9129’; ink-tracing of the floral border design from the next folio
XN_53Notes of ownershipHLS MS 54, fol. 155v–156v
 155v: Pencilled notes of provenance transcribed from next page. ‘Elizabeth’ near the top left-hand corner. 156r: Notes of provenance partially transcribed on previous page, pen trials, and the name ‘Elizabeth Gressham’. One of the notes reads: ‘Henricus Salmon tunc possydet librum, teste Edmundo S. cum multis aliis quos nunc perscribere mora est’, which Baker dates to the 16th century. There are other notes that seem to have been rubbed out but that might be legible under uv. 156v: Notes of provenance partially transcribed in pencil. One of the notes reads: ‘Mr Robarte Radclyff of Tyckencot is the right possessor of this booke’, which Baker dates to the late 16th century. There are other notes that seem to have been rubbed out but that might be legible under uv.
XN_54Notes of ownershipHLS MS 58, fol. 4r
 In 16th century script: ‘Natus in mediis Anglorum finibus istum / Hugo Lorimeyre possidet ecce librum’; ‘Nomen scriptoris Hugo plenius amoris’. ‘LORIMEIR’; ‘possidet’ (in box). Signature in later script read by Baker as ‘R. Amherst’. ‘Wadham Wyndham’.
XN_55Notes of ownershipHLS MS 58, fol. 166v–167r
 166v: Probably the same hand as above: ‘Georgius Greysley miles vic’ Com’ / p’dci Radulpho’. (Perhaps Sir George Gresley, bart. [c. 1580–1650], parliamentary sheriff of Derbyshire from 1644.) Below this ‘mil’ vic’ Com’’. 167r: Scroll that may be a sign manual; ‘iij s iiij d’ at bottom, perhaps the price of the manuscript at one point.
XN_56Notes of ownershipHLS MS 101, fol. 171v–172v, 180v–181r
 171v: Contains many pen trials, very clearly the name of William Goold, and a faint transciption of a document that probably could be read under uv. 172r: Contains many pen trials, a drawing of a shield (Argent a chevron sable between three besants [sic], per Baker), and one or more notes that probably could be read under uv. 172v: ‘Iste liber constat Willelmo Goold de Furnyvals ynne &c’ muneris d h’, which Baker dates c. 1500. Fainter notes might be legible under uv. 180v: ‘Iste liber constat Willelmo Goold de Furnyvals ynne’ / ‘Goold’ / ‘ij s’, the last being, perhaps, the price of the manuscript. 181r: ‘Willelms Goold’.
XN_57Notes of ownershipHLS MS 160, fol. 74v
 Notes and marks of ownership: ‘Johannes Whittyngton est hujus libri possessor ex dono Thome Troute de Bodmyn in comitatu Cornubie’. For Troute (d. 1524), see Baker, Men of Court 2:1560.
XN_58Notes of ownershipHLS MS 161, fol. 1r–1v
 Marks of ownership c. 1500 and c. 1600 noted in Baker.
XN_59Notes of ownershipHLS MS 174, fol. 16v
 Faint notes, one of which may be ‘R Reinal’ , perhaps a form of ‘Reynold’.
XN_60Notes of ownershipHLS MS 175, fol. 237v
 These record the ownership of the Freshfield family noted in Baker’s provenance.
XN_61Notes of ownershipHLS MS 179, fol. 14v
 ‘Empt. 6 May 1647 pret. 2s. T.W.’
XN_62Notes of ownershipHLS MS 61, fol. 141r
 Includes mark of ownership of Harvey of Lincoln’s Inn.
XN_63NotesHLS MS 38, no fol., no sig. (seq. 8–9)
 Faint pencilled notes perhaps legible under uv.
XN_64NotesHLS MS 52, no fol., no sig. (seq. 267–268)
 Seq. 267: Limited text obscured by mold. Seq. 268: Page torn, significant damage to text.
XN_65NotesHLS MS 54, fol. 160r–161v
 160r: Pencilled notes, illegible on the images. 160v–161v: The pages are wrinkled and the writing faint. This may be a sample writ or instructions about one. The script may be later than that of the rest of the manuscript, but it is so faint on the images that one cannot be sure.
XN_66NotesHLS MS 165, no fol., no sig. (seq. 4)
 Rubbed out. Possibly legible under uv.
XN_67NotesHLS MS 175, fol. 1r
 There seems to be very faded writing on this page, possibly legible under uv.