Statutes of Henry III appear in 26 of our manuscripts. All of the statutes of that king given in S.R. appear at least once, except for the Provisions of Westminster, which are not found. The Carta confirmationis of 1236 appears in only one manuscript, the Dictum of Kenilworth in only two. At the other end of the spectrum, all 26 contain both Merton and Marlborough.

Many HLS manuscripts contain Magna Carta in the version promulgated by Edward I in 1297. These are the only three that we have found so far that contain the 1225 version.

Many HLS manuscripts contain the Forest Charter in the version promulgated by Edward I in 1297. These are the only four that we have found that contain the 1225 version.

Merton and Marlborough were apparently thought of as going together. Twenty-five manuscripts have them both. MS 160 lacks Merton, almost certainly because it is lacking a quire at the beginning that would have contained it; Marlborough begins in the middle. MS 49 lacks Marlborough. Merton is cut short, and the next item is the statute of Gloucester, which begins in the middle; almost certainly a quire is missing that would have contained Marlborough.

This also found in S.R. 1:28 (1st numbering). It has been found so far in only one HLS manuscript.

Ten manuscripts; there is no easily discernable pattern among the mansuscripts that contain statutes of Henry III in addition to Merton and Marlborough.

Eight manuscripts; there is no easily discernable pattern among the mansuscripts that contain statutes of Henry III in addition to Merton and Marlborough.

Eleven manuscripts; there is no easily discernable pattern among the mansuscripts that contain statutes of Henry III in addition to Merton and Marlborough.

The S.R. inserts the Provisions of Westminster at this point. These are found in none of manuscripts, presumably as having been superseded by the Statute of Marlborough.

Two manuscripts.

Merton and Marlborough were apparently thought of as going together. Twenty-five manuscripts have them both. MS 160 lacks Merton, almost certainly because it is lacking a quire at the beginning that would have contained it; Marlborough begins in the middle. MS 49 lacks Marlborough. Merton is cut short, and the next item is the statute of Gloucester, which begins in the middle; almost certainly a quire is missing that would have contained Marlborough.

Depending on how one counts, there are between forty-five and forty-seven dated statutes of Edward I in S.R. Five or six, once more depending on how one counts, are not found in any of our manuscripts: Statute of Wales, 12 Edw. 1 (S.R. 1:55–68); Statutes for the city of London, 13 Edw. 1 (S.R. 102–4); Forma confirmationis cartarum, 13 Edw. 1 (S.R. 104–5); Statute of writs for making inquisitions of lands to be put in mortmain and Statute of amortising lands, 20 Edw. 1 (S.R. 1:111); De falsa moneta, 27 Edw. 1 (S.R. 1:131–5). Three are found only in MS 10, a mid-15th century manuscript that attempts to be comprehensive: De malefactoribus in parcis, 21 Edw. 1 (S.R. 1:111–12); Statutum de appellatis, 28 Edw. 1 (S.R. 1:141); Ordinatio foreste, 34 Edw. 1 (S.R. 1:147–9). The fact that MS 10 does not have the other five or six suggests that copies of them were already quite rare by the mid-15th century, though the absence of the Statute of Wales and the Statutes for London might be explained by a principle that only those statutes that concerned the whole kingdom of England would be included. Four are found only in MS 10 and one other: Article on the statute of Gloucester, 9 Edw. 1 (S.R. 1:52) (MS 54); Provisiones facte Scaccario, 12 Edw. 1 (S.R. 1:69–70) (MS 58); Statutum de consultacione, 18 Edw. 1 (S.R. 1:108) (MS 54); Ordinatio foreste, 33 Edw. 1 (S.R. 1:144) (MS 12).

That leaves thirty-three or thirty-four that are found in three or more manuscripts. To begin with the most common, Westminster I and Westminster II are found in twenty-seven manuscripts. Magna Carta as confirmed in 1297 is found in only twenty-three, but three include the 1215 version of the charter and two lack one or more quires at the beginning where the charter would have been. (HLS MS 21 has a copy of the 1297 charter, but otherwise nothing before 1307.) It is probably safe to say that any manuscript statute-book that contains statutes of Edward I will contain Magna Carta, Westminster I and Westminster II. Merton and Marlborough are also found in twenty-six of the same twenty-seven manuscripts. (The two manuscripts that lack one or the other of them also have missing quires where they probably would have been.) An additional eight statutes appear in twenty or more manuscripts: Gloucester (26), Westminster III (26), De viris religiosis (24), Winchester (24), Circumspecte agatis (22), ‘Exposition’ [‘Explanationes’] of statute of Gloucester (20), Forest Charter (20, plus 4 in the 1225 version), Statute of fines (20). An additional seven appear in ten or more manuscripts: Statute of merchants, 13 Edw. 1 (16), De coniunctis feoffatis (16), Quo warranto (15), De presentibus vocatis ad warrantum (14), De illis qui debent poni in iuratis et assisis (13), Quo warranto novum (11), Statute of merchants (Acton Burnell) (10). The only statute that postdates 1299 in this group of sixteen is De coniunctis feoffatis. That leaves eighteen statues that appear more than two but fewer than ten times. They are decidedly a mixed bag. They are all found in MS 10. (The only one of the thirty-three or thirty-four that MS 10 lacks is Acton Burnell.) The only other discernable pattern in them is one that is statistically obvious: the more statutes that a manuscript has, the more likely it is that it will contain one or more of these eighteen. Longer notes in what follows are devoted to the peculiarities in the layout in the manuscripts of the Statute of Gloucester, of Circumspecte agatis, and of Quo warranto.

Twenty-seven manuscripts.

Five manuscripts.

Eighteen manuscripts.

Six manuscripts.

Twenty-six manuscripts. The makers of these manuscripts clearly thought of the Statute of Gloucester as two separate statutes. Twenty-six of them have what we have called ‘chapters’, the portion of the statute with enumerated chapters, S.R. 1:47-50. Eight of these also have the long preamble to the statute that concerns quo warranto (S.R. 1:45-6), but none of them has the two pieces together. All the versions of the chapters have a brief preamble that is derived from, but is not the same as, the last sentences of the first paragraph of the statute in S.R. Incipit (with variants): ‘Pur les grants meschiefs damages et desheritesons’. The chapters are always referred to as the statute(s) of Gloucester. What the preamble is called varies: ‘statutum de quo warranto magnum’ (MS 10), ‘statutum de quo Warrento’ [sic] (MS 33), ‘statutum de quo Warranto (MS 54, where it is attributed to year 18), ‘statuta de quo Waranto’ (MS 56), ‘Quia brevia de quo Warranto’ (MS 80), ‘statutum de quo warranto (MS 175), ‘statutum de quo Warranto (MS 179), ‘quo Warr’’ (MS 182), ‘de quo Warranto primo’ (MS 184). None mentions Gloucester. See the note under Statutum de quo warranto.

Twenty manuscripts. The word is ‘explanationes’ in the Latin text, but it is not used as a title in S.R. Our manuscript quite consistently call it ‘Explanationes’.

Twenty-four manuscripts. This statute is frequently called the ‘Statute of mortmain’. We have, however, found no support for that title in our manuscripts.

Two manuscripts. Only MS 10 and MS 54 contain this item. MS 10 is an effort to be comprehensive; for the possible significance of its inclusion in MS 54, see the Introduction to that manuscript.

Ten manuscripts. Acton Burnell is necessary to distinguish it from the statute of the same name of year 13.

Not included in any of our manuscripts.

Two manuscripts. The English title in S.R., ‘Provisions made in the Exchequer’, does not mean quite the same thing as the Latin. As S.R. indicates, there is considerable variation in the title and date of the second item. The version given in MS 10 is tested at Rutland, 23 May, in year 10, and is called ‘statutum de Roteland’. That given in MS 58 is undated and is called ‘statuta de Scaccario’.

Twenty-seven manuscripts.

Twenty-four manuscripts.

Sixteen manuscripts.

Twenty-two manuscripts. As S.R. indicates, this item is frequently broken into two parts, the second part beginning with ‘Sub qua forma’ at the end of S.R. 1:101 and continuing on to S.R. 1:102. A number of our manuscripts do this, though the second part normally follows right after the first. MS 10 has both parts in one place (separated by a couple of short statutes) and part 2 alone in another place. The form in MS 33 is different: the writ is addressed to the justices itinerant in Lincs., and it summarizes the contents of the S.R. text without tracking the wording exactly. Then it has parts 1 and 2 separated. MS 49 has part 2 only. In MS 59 the text of part 1 begins like that in S.R. but then varies considerably; the text of part 2 is more like that in S.R. In MS 177 part 2 precedes part 1 and thus corresponds to the arrangement of the Liber Horn, as described in S.R. There are probably other similar variations in others of our texts; we did not check them all.

Not included in any of our manuscripts.

Not included in any of our manuscripts.

Twenty-six manuscripts. This statute is frequently called ‘Quia emptores’, from the first words of its text. It is also referred to, as it is in S.R., as ‘statutum De terris vendendis et emendis’.

Fifteen manuscripts. S.R. (1:107) has two statuta de quo warranto both attributed to the 18th year. The contents are similar, but the first is in Latin, the second, in French. The second, called ‘statutum de quo warranto novum’, summarizes in much briefer compass the contents of the first. MS 10 thinks of the preamble to the statute of Gloucester as the first ‘statutum de quo warranto’. It has the order of the other two statutes in S.R. reversed, calling the short French text (‘novum’ in S.R.) ‘secundum’ and the longer Latin text ‘tercium’. The order and the titles in S.R. would lead us to believe that the French text is an abridgement of the Latin, but, of course, the Latin text could be an expansion of the French. In MS 12 the label is simply ‘statutum de quo warranto’, but it contains the French text. MS 28 and 49 have the Latin text only as ‘statutum de quo warranto’. MS 184 rewrites the preamble to the statute of Gloucester to incorporate the writ (not found as such in any of the S.R. texts) and calls the French text ‘secundum’. In MS 33 ‘novum’ is the French text and ‘ultimum’ the Latin text. MS 36 lacks a heading and the first couple of lines of the text, but what it has is the Latin text. MS 39 has the preamble to the statute of Gloucester as the ‘vetus statutum de quo warranto’, and the French text in S.R. as the ‘novum’. MS 54 has the preamble to the statute of Gloucester as the ‘statutum de quo warranto primum’, the writ as ‘secundum’, and the French text in S.R. as ‘tercium’. MS 56 has the French text headed simply as ‘de quo warranto’. MS 162 has the French text as ‘statutum de quo warranto novum’, and later on the Latin text simply as ‘statutum de quo warranto’. MS 175 has the French text as ‘novum de quo warranto’. MS 177 has the French text as ‘statutum novum de quo warranto’. MS 213 has ‘statutum quo waranto novum’, the French text, preceding ‘statutum quo waranto ultimum’, the Latin text.

Eleven manuscripts. See the note under Statutum de quo warranto.

Two manuscripts. We were surprised that this statute, frequently called the ‘Statute of consultation’, is not found in more manuscripts, twice in MS 10, which attempts to be comprehensive, and in MS 54, which seems particularly concerned with ecclesiastical matters. The final paragraph of De coniunctis feoffatis (which has nothing to do with joint-feoffees) is sometimes broken out and called the ‘Statute of consultations’.

Fourteen manuscripts.

Ten manuscripts. The Latin title is ‘statutum De vasto’.

Nine manuscripts.

Neither is included in any of our manuscripts. See, however, Ordinatio de libertatibus perquirendis.

One manuscript. Found only in MS 10, which attempts to be comprehensive.

Six manuscripts.

Thirteen manuscripts.

Three manuscripts.

Twenty-three manuscripts. MS 36 and 160 are defective at the beginning and probably originally contained a copy of Magna Carta. Three manuscripts contain the 1225 version of the charter. See H3_1. MS 21 has nothing in it prior to 1307 other than the charter.

Twenty manuscripts.

Seven manuscripts.

Four manuscripts.

Four manuscripts.

Twenty manuscripts.

Six manuscripts. Called ‘De terris amortizandis’ in MS 39.

Not included in any of our manuscripts.

Six manuscripts.

One manuscript. Found only in MS 10, which attempts to be comprehensive.

Eight manuscripts.

Two manuscripts. There are two forest ordinances in S.R., one in year 33, the other in year 34 (below). MS 10 has one version of the former and two of the latter. MS 12 has what seems to be a version of the former. Otherwise, they are not found in our manuscripts.

Five manuscripts.

Sixteen manuscripts. This statute is given the English name ‘Statute of joint-tenants’ in S.R. We used that name in the reports, but became uncomfortable with it here. Coniuncti feoffati in the time of Edward I do not carry all the legal baggage that joint tenants have acquired in modern law. The statute as it appears in S.R. lacks chapter numbers, but the first paragraphs all concern joint-feoffees. The last substantive paragraph does not. It deals with consultation and the writ indicavit. A number of our manuscripts separate the statute into two parts, calling the second part ‘de consultationibus’ (MS 54) or ‘statutum indicavit’ (MS 10). There may be more that make that make this separation; we did not check them all.

One manuscript. See above under year 33.

Five manuscripts.

The statutes of Edward II did not fare well in our manuscripts. Of the fifteen statutes from that reign found in S.R. only the Statute of York of 12 Edw. 2 is found in a substantial number of manuscripts (19). Two of the statutes are not found in our manuscripts at all: De prisis non capiendis a viris ecclesiasticis seu aliis, 2 Edw. 2 (S.R. 1:153–4) and the Statute revoking the pardon granted to the pursuers of the Despensers, 15 Edw. 2 (S.R. 1:185–8). Six are found in only one: Statute of Stamford, 3 Edw. 2 (S.R. 1:154–6); [Writs concerning Piers Gaveston], 7 Edw. 2 (S.R. 1:169–70); De statuto pro clero inviolabiliter observando, 10 Edw. 2 (S.R. 1:175–6); Exilium Hugonis le Despenser patris et filii, 15 Edw. 2 (S.R. 1:181–4); Revocacio novarum ordinationum, 15 Edw. 2 (S.R. 1:189–90); Statutum de forma mittendi extractas ad scaccarium, 16 Edw. 2 (S.R. 1:190–2); Statutum de terris Templariorum, 17 Edw. 2, stat. 2 (S.R. 1:194–6). And with the exception of the statute of Stamford that one is HLS MS 10, a mid-15th century manuscript that attempts to be comprehensive. MS 10 and one other are our sole witnesses for two more statutes: Les noveles ordenances (Ordinances of 1311), 5 Edw. 2 (S.R. 1:157–68) (MS 56) and Statute of sheriffs, 9 Edw. 2, stat. 2 (MS 162). Ordinatio de statu terre Hibernie, 17 Edw. 2, stat. 1 (S.R. 1:193–4) is found in six manuscripts; Articuli cleri, 9 Edw. 2, stat. 1 (S.R. 1:171–4) in five; Westminster IV, 14 Edw. 2 (S.R. 1:180–1) in four. There are probably a number of reasons for this relative neglect of Edward II statutes. Much in those statutes is a direct reflection of the turbulent politics of his time, and some them deal with specific people or institutions like the Templars. A slightly later age might have hoped that the politics would not be repeated and that people like Piers Gaveston and the Despensers or institutions like the Templars would not return. To this we might add a possible damnatio of the memory of Edward II. More subtle but possibly influential is that three of Edward the Second’s statutes were thought to be more favorable to the church than was warranted: De prisis non capiendis a viris ecclesiasticis (no manuscripts), Pro clero (1 manuscript), Articuli cleri (5 manuscripts but far fewer than the 22 that contain Circumspecte agatis). Finally – and there is an element of bootstrapping in this argument – a number of our manuscripts do not contain anything later than the statute of York of 1318, and thus may be thought to have been composed before the statutes of the final years of the reign were promulgated.

Not included in any of our manuscripts.

One manuscript. The statute simply recites statutes of Edward I. For the significance of its inclusion in HLS MS 12, see the Introduction to that manuscript.

Two manuscripts. These are the well-known Ordinances of 1311. HLS MS 10 separates the preamble, S.R. 1:157–8, and the chapters, 1:158–68, into two parts

One manuscript. The writs are given in S.R. without a title. MS 10 has them in two parts: ‘De capcione et morte Petri de Gaveston’ (S.R. 1:169) and ‘Ne quis occasionetur pro redditu Petri de Gaveston’ (S.R. 1:170).

Five manuscripts.

Two manuscripts. Also known by its Latin title ‘De vicecomitibus’.

One manuscript.

Nineteen manuscripts. Not to be confused with Revocacio novarum ordinationum, 15 Edw. 2, which is also a statute of York. HLS MS 19, 40, and 163, all of which begin with statutes of Edward III, include this as if it were a statute of 12 Edw. 3. Whether this is to be connected with the damnatio memoriae of Edward II or whether it is simply a scribal error that got repeated in copying is hard to know. Suffice it to say here that this is perhaps the least ‘political’ of the statutes of this reign; it makes a series of fixes, mostly in process with regard to assizes.

Four manuscripts. HLS MS 177 continues the Westminster series with Westminster V (4 Edw. 3) and Westminster VI (5 Edw. 3).

One manuscript.

Not included in any of our manuscripts. It would seem that this revocation was itself revoked, probably in 1 Edw. 3, in an item that is not found in S.R. but is found in four of our manuscripts: HLS MS 10, fol. 186v–187v; MS 19, fol. 4r–5r; MS 40, fol. 19r–20v; MS 170, fol. 33r–34v. See the further discussion in the Summary of Contents.

One manuscript. This is the statute of York to which constitutional historians have drawn much attention. That it is in only one of our manuscripts perhaps suggests that it was of less interest to contemporaries.

One manuscript.

Six manuscripts. This is called ‘statute of Nottingham’ in MS 42; the writ in S.R. is tested in Nottingham.

One manuscript.

Between the statutes of Edward II and those of Edward III, S.R. places forty-eight items that it describes as tempore incerto (temp. incert.). All of these items are found in at least one of our manuscripts with the exception of Ne rector prosternat arbores in cemeterio, the Statutes of Jewry, and four oath forms found at the very end of the group: for bishops, escheators, mayors and bailiffs, and thieves (‘Abiuratio et iuramentum latronum’). All of the missing items are short. Attestation of the oath forms in S.R. is largely from early modern printings. Trees in cemeteries were the subject of more nuanced ecclesiastical legislation and regulation. See Powicke and Cheney, Councils and Synods II 2:1410 s.v. Cemetery. And the Statutes of Jewry were not, presumably, of much concern after the expulsion of the Jews in 1290.

Some of the remaining forty-two items are widely attested: Dies communes in banco (25 mss.), Districtiones scaccarii (23 mss.), Statute of conspirators (21 mss.), De homagio et fidelitate faciendis (21 mss.), Modus calumpniandi essoniam (20 mss.), View of frankpledge (20 mss.). And some are not far behind: Assize of bread and ale (18 [20] mss.), ‘Statutes of the Exchequer’ (18 mss.), Dies communes de dote (16 mss.), Prerogativa regis (16 mss.), Assise of weights and measures (15 mss.). At the other end of the spectrum, two separate notes about the Assize of bread and ale (MS 39), the Compositio ulnarum et perticarum (MS 10), Prohibitio formata de statuto articuli cleri (MS 10), Statutum super vicecomitem et clericos suos (MS 28), De visu terre et essonio et de servicio domini Regis (MS 10), Consuetudines Cantiae (MS 39), Statuta de sacramento ministrorum Regis (MS 10), Capitula escaetarie, (MS 36), Oath of the sheriff (MS 174), and Forma iuramenti illorum de consilio Regis (MS 54) are found in only one manuscript, and this one is not always the comprehensive MS 10. Modus levandi fines (MS 10, MS 33) and De moneta parvum (MS 10, MS 54) are found in only two manuscripts, and De pistoribus (MS 10, MS 49, MS 162), De tenentibus per legem Anglie (MS 10, MS 160, MS 162), De catallis felonum (MS 10, MS 28, MS 55), and Statuta armorum (MS 10, MS 12, MS 33) are found in only three. In both cases the two or three includes MS 10, and there is no easily discernable pattern among the others. Statute of Exeter, De militibus, Extenta manerii, and Articles of inquiry on the statute of Winchester occur in eleven manuscripts, De moneta and De wardis et releviis in ten, Judicium pillorie in nine, De proteccionibus non allocandis in eight, Statute of gavelet in London in seven, De magnis assisis et duellis in six, De admensuratione terre, De finibus et attornatis, and Chapters in eyre in five, Articuli monete in four. In all cases MS 10 is in the group, and, statistically, if a manuscript is among the ones that have eleven witnesses it is highly likely, perhaps even inevitable, that it will be to be among the ones that have fewer than eleven witnesses.

These patterns may tell us something about the concerns of those who had statute-books made. That Dies communes in banco is almost as common as Westminster I and II suggests a concern with the details of practice in the Common Bench. Modus calumpniandi essoniam suggests the same thing, though essoins could be cast at assizes and in some local courts. The Statute of conspirators is directed principally at unlawful litigation. Districtiones scaccarii might be thought be of relevance because of what it says about the estreat of amercements and fines from the central royal courts into the Exchequer. So far we have not departed from what might be the concerns of an attorney in the central royal courts. De homagio et fidelitate faciendis, View of frankpledge, and the Assize of bread and ale should, however, give us pause. None of these things happened in the central royal courts, at least as a regular matter. They were, however, matters of concern for attorneys who not only represented clients in the central royal courts but also served as judicial officers for, and advisers to, those clients locally. In their capacity as judicial officers, these men would have been concerned with the View of frankpledge, the Assize of bread and ale, and the Assize of weights and measures. In their capacity as advisers both to those who are acting as royal administrators and to those who were subject to such administration, they would have been concerned more broadly with what was in Districtiones scaccarii, the ‘Statutes of the Exchequer’, and the Prerogativa regis. In this way we can account for all of the most popular items temp. incert.

Modern scholarship has tended to suggest that S.R. was too cautious in its apparent suggestion that these items could date from as late as the reign of Edward II. Many, perhaps all, of them, it is now thought, were probably in existence before the death of Edward I in 1307. Our manuscripts support this hypothesis, though they do not quite prove it. HLS MS 39, which contains no item datable after 1292, contains ‘Statutes of the Exchequer’, Districtiones scaccarii, Dies communes in banco, Statute of conspirators, Modus calumpniandi essoniam, Statute of gavelet in London, De homagio et fidelitate faciendis, Capitula escaetarie (our only witness of that item), Extenta manerii, and View of frankpledge. HLS MS 36, which contains no item datable after 1293, contains, in addition to many of the items in MS 36: Assize of bread and ale (in several parts), Judicium pillorie, De admensuratione terre, Dies communes de dote, Statute of Exeter, De moneta, Articuli monete, Consuetudines Cantiae, Prerogativa regis, De wardis et releviis, De militibus, and Articles of inquiry on the statute of Winchester. HLS MS 175, which also has no item datable after 1293, adds Assize of weights and measures and Chapters in eyre to the existing list. HLS MS 161, which has no item datable after 1299, adds Judicium pillorie. HLS MS 184, which has no datable item after 1306, adds nothing to the existing list, but confirms the preexistence of a number items on it. Finally, HLS MS 12, which probably dates from the end of Edward the Second’s reign, but seems deliberately to exclude anything attributable to that reign, adds De proteccionibus non allocandis and Statuta armorum to the existing list. We can thus say that we have evidence that twenty-seven of the forty-two items temp. incert. that we have in our manuscripts were in existence prior to 1307.

Eighteen manuscripts.

Twenty-three manuscripts.

Eighteen manuscripts. Perhaps none of statutes temp. incert. has more variations than the Assize of bread and ale (‘Assisa panis et cervisie’). It is frequently broken into parts. One of the parts is often called ‘Lucrum pistoris’, as it is in S.R. HLS MS 39 has a relatively standard version of the Assize, if there can be said to be such a thing, and then adds material from the notes that are found on S.R. 1:200–1, and which we have listed separately. Anyone who is interested in the Assize really should study the manuscripts. The variations cannot be easily captured in a table like this one.

One manuscript.

One manuscript.

Nine manuscripts.

Three manuscripts.

Fifteen manuscripts. This item is also known as ‘De ponderibus et mensuris’. Like the Assize of bread and ale, it appears in different versions and different parts, and also like the Assize of bread and ale, the variations cannot be easily captured in a table like this one.

One manuscript.

Five manuscripts.

Sixteen manuscripts.

Twenty-five manuscripts

One manuscript

Eleven manuscripts. As noted in S.R., this item is divided into two parts, the statute proper, S.R. 1:210–11, and articles on it, 1:211–12. A number of our manuscripts observe this division.

One manuscript.

Two manuscripts.

Five manuscripts.

Twenty-one manuscripts. This item consists of two main paragraphs, the first in French, followed by a Latin writ. A number of our manuscripts divide them. HLS MS 56, the second version in MS 10, and perhaps others, do not include the writ.

Eight manuscripts. S.R. does not extend ‘alloc’’, but the substance of the item suggests that ‘allocandis’ is what is meant.

Twenty manuscripts.

One manuscript.

Six manuscripts.

Ten manuscripts.

Four manuscripts.

Two manuscripts.

Three manuscripts.

Not included in any of our manuscripts.

Not included in any of our manuscripts.

Seven manuscripts.

One manuscript. This version does completely track the version in S.R. HLS MS 10 has a version of the customs of Kent that is sufficiently far away that we placed it in Summary Contents.

Sixteen manuscripts.

Twenty-one manuscripts.

Ten manuscripts.

Eleven manuscripts.

Three manuscripts.

Three manuscripts.

One manuscript.

Five manuscripts.

One manuscript.

Eleven manuscripts.

Eleven manuscripts.

Twenty manuscripts.

One manuscript.

One manuscript.

Not included in any of our manuscripts.

Not included in any of our manuscripts.

Not included in any of our manuscripts.

Not included in any of our manuscripts.

All of the fifty-three statutes of Edward III that are in S.R. are in two or more of our manuscripts except 46 Edw. 3 (S.R. 1:394), which is not found anyplace. As the note to that statute shows, its legal effect is quite problematic, at least by modern standards, and its absence from our manuscripts suggests that 14th-century makers of statute-books did not regard it as worth including, if they even knew about it.

Although all but one of the statutes of Edward III in S.R. are in at least two of our manuscripts, no manuscript has them all. HLS MS 10, a comprehensive collection of statutes from Magna Carta to 8 Edw. 4, is the most comprehensive of statutes of Edward III, and even MS 10 lacks six.¹ HLS MS 29, which with its companion MS 30 is also a comprehensive collection of statutes from Magna Carta to 8 Edw. 4, lacks eight.² What is missing from the two manuscripts overlaps only in the case of the Ordinatio facta pro statu terre Hibernie, 31 Edw. 3, stat. 4.

1. 14 Edw. 3, stat. 2; 17 Edw. 3; Ordinance for the justices, 20 Edw. 3; Statutum de pannis, 25 Edw. 3, stat. 3; Ordinatio facta pro statu terre Hibernie, 31 Edw. 3, stat. 4, and Ordinatio facta de allece, 35 Edw. 3.

2. 10 Edw. 3, stat. 3; 15 Edw. 3, stat. 1; Oath of the justices, 20 Edw. 3; Oath of the clerks of the chancery, 20 Edw. 3; Statutum de forma levationis decime-quinte, 25 Edw. 3, stat. 7; Ordinatio de pisce salito de Blakeney [Norf], 31 Edw. 3, stat. 3, and Ordinatio facta pro statu terre Hibernie, 31 Edw. 3, stat. 4.

The thirteen that are omitted from these two manuscripts are a good guide to what gets omitted from Edward III statutes more generally. When both manuscripts were made up in the mid-fifteenth century, the compilers could have used the Statute roll as their principal source. The evidence, however, strongly in the case of MS 10, somewhat less strongly in the case of MS 29 and 30, suggests that, at least for the statutes that antedate 1399, they used existing compilations. If their source(s) did not include an item, they did not. If we look at all our manuscripts that contain statutes of Edward III, we will see that there was little agreement (though there was some) about what should not be included, but there was some agreement about what should be included.

Many of our manuscripts that contain statutes of Edward III do not contain statutes up to the end of reign. MS 162 has no statutes after 1 Edw. 3. MS 54, 55, and 182 have no statutes after 2 Edw. 3. MS 101 has no statutes after 5 Edw. 3. MS 32 has no statutes after 9 Edw. 3 in the main text, though a later hand has added the Ordinance of the Staple (27 Edw. 3, stat. 2). MS 174 has no statutes after 10 Edw. 3, though a later hand has added c. 15 of 36 Edw. 3 (authorizing pleading in English). Thus, at the beginning reign, there were nineteen manuscripts that could contain statutes of Edward III; by the time we reach year 11, there are only eleven such manuscripts.

No statute is, in fact, witnessed by nineteen manuscripts; the highest number is sixteen, for the statute of Northampton of 2 Edw. 3. There are, however, twelve statutes that are witnessed by eleven manuscripts after year 10, and an additional eleven are witnessed by ten. These statutes may represent a growing consensus about what ought to be in statute-book that contained statutes of Edward III.³

3. 11 Edw. 3 (10 mss.); 14 Edw. 3, stat. 3 (10); 14 Edw. 3, stat. 1 (10); 14 Edw. 3, stat. 4 (10); 18 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (10); 18 Edw. 3, stat. 3 (10); Ordinance of labourers, 23 Edw. 3 (11); Statute of labourers, 25 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (11); Ordinance for the clergy, 25 Edw. 3, stat. 6 (10); Statute of praemunire, 27 Edw. 3, stat. 1 (11); Ordinance of the staple, 27 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (11); 28 Edw. 3 (11); 31 Edw. 3, stat. 1 (11); 34 Edw. 3 (11); 36 Edw. 3, stat. 1 (11); Statutum de victu et vestitu, 37 Edw. 3 (11); 38 Edw. 3, stat. 1 (10); 38 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (10); 42 Edw. 3 (10), 43 Edw. 3 (10); 45 Edw. 3 (11); 47 Edw. 3 (11); De perdonacionibus et gratiis factis per Regem communitati regni sui Anglie, 50 Edw. 3 (11). To these we should probably add 1 Edw. 3, stat. 1 (15); 1 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (14); Statute of Northampton, 2 Edw. 3 (16); 4 Edw. 3 (13); 5 Edw. 3 (12); 9 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (11); 10 Edw. 3, stat. 1 (11); 10 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (10), which are witnessed by the number of manuscripts shown in the parenthetical, but before the number of possible manuscripts had been reduced to eleven.

There are no real surprises in this list. The absence of the Statute of provisors (8 mss.) from the list seems a bit odd, particularly considering the that Statute of praemunire (11) is fully represented. The statute De victu et vestitu (11) also seems odd in the fullness of its representation, particularly considering that is was only in effect for about eighteen months. Perhaps the compilers of the 14th century were interested, as are modern commentators, in what the statute was attempting.

Less can said about the other end of the spectrum. 17 Edw. 3 (MS 29, 170) and the Ordinatio facta pro statu terre Hibernie, 31 Edw. 3, stat. 4 (MS 20, 40), are witnessed by only two manuscripts. The former, which concerns money, is not a statute, nor is it a royal ordinance, but an extract from the rolls of this parliament, which was said to have been agreed to by the lords and commons, and the council. See PROME 1343 nos. 14–16. The relative neglect of the latter may be connected with the tendency that we noted previously in connection with the statute of Wales not to include items that did not concern England.

We list in the margin the statutes that appear in more than two but fewer than ten manuscripts, without attempting to speculate about what it is about the form or contents of the statute that might have lead it not to be included in all of the possible manuscripts.⁴

4. Three manuscripts (2) – 15 Edw. 3, stat. 1 (MS 10, 19, 40); 15 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (MS 10, 19, 20). Four manuscripts (1) – Oath of the clerks of the chancery, 20 Edw. 3 (MS 10, 20, 40, 170). Five manuscripts (4) – 10 Edw. 3, stat. 3 (‘De cibariis utendis’) (MS 10, 19, 42, 163, 174); Oath of the justices, 20 Edw. 3 (MS 10, 19, 20, 40, 170); De pannis, 25 Edw. 3, stat. 3 (MS 19, 21, 29, 170, 185); De forma levationis decime-quinte, 25 Edw. 3, stat. 7 (MS 10, 19, 40, 170, 185). Six manuscripts (1) – Statutum pro hiis qui nati sunt in partibus transmarinis, 25 Edw. 3, stat. 1 (MS 10, 29, 40, 163, 170, 185). Seven manuscripts (3) – 15 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (MS 10, 20, 21, 29, 40, 163, 185); Ordinatio de feodis maiorum et constabularium stapule, ?27 Edw. 3 (MS 10, 19, 29, 40, 163, 170, 185); Ordinatio de pisce salito de Blakeney [Norf], 31 Edw. 3, stat. 3 (MS 10, 19, 20, 21, 40, 42, 163). Eight manuscripts (3) – 18 Edw. 3, stat. 1 (MS 10, 19, 21, 29, 40, 42, 163, 185); Ordinance for the justices, 20 Edw. 3 (MS 19, 20, 21, 29, 40, 163, 170, 185); Statute of provisors, 25 Edw. 3, stat. 4 (MS 10, 19, 21, 29, 40, 163, 170, 185). Nine manuscripts (5): 14 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (MS 19, 20, 21, 29, 40, 42, 163, 170, 185); 25 Edw. 3, stat. 5 (MS 10, 21, 29, 40, 42, 48, 163, 170, 185); Ordinatio facta de allece vendend’, 31 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (MS 10, 20, 21, 29, 40, 42, 163, 170, 185); Ordinatio facta de allece, 35 Edw. 3 (MS 19, 20, 21, 29, 40, 42, 163, 170, 185); De perdona facta communitati regni Anglie, 36 Edw. 3, stat. 2 (MS 10, 19, 21, 29, 40, 42, 163, 170, 185).

The list does not tell us much about why some items got less than full coverage, though it does tell us something. For example, it is easy to see why a compiler of statutes might omit an ordinance about salt-fish at Blakeney. One is reminded that in a much later age local and private acts were omitted from collections of general acts of the parliaments. The list tells us more about why certain manuscripts did contain items that others did not. Once a given manuscript has included an item that is not in other manuscripts, that fact is a very good, though not perfect, predictor that it will be include other such items. Thus, MS 10, 19, 20, and 40 are the manuscripts that contain the two items that appear in only three manuscripts. Those manuscripts appear often in subsequent lists. There are two exceptions to this tendency of the same manuscripts to include the rarer items. MS 174 and 48 appear only once in the list. As we have already seen, ‘De cibariis utendis’ in MS 174 is a later edition to a manuscript the main text of which has already ceased. MS 48, it turns out, is highly selective. The principle of selection is hard to discern, but with the exception of 25 Edw. 3, stat. 5, where it appears in the company of eight others, it never appears in manuscripts with fewer than ten witnesses. If MS 48 seems to be consciously selective, the others seem not to have been. They were trying to be comprehensive. Some of them were, however, more successful at being comprehensive than were others.

Fifteen manuscripts. Sometimes called from the first words of its preamble (S.R. 1:251–2) ‘Come Hugh le Despenser’. Where the preamble only is given, it is sometimes called ‘De querela [concerning the Despensers]’.

Fourteen manuscripts. Lacks MS 162. HLS MS 177 calls this ‘statutum de perambulacione’ (fol. 9v, 166v–171r) probably with reference to c. 1 of the statute which calls for a perambulation of the forests.

Sixteen manuscripts. Adds MS 54, 174, 182. Lacks MS 48.

Thirteen manuscripts. Lacks MS 54, 55, 174, 182. Adds MS 48. Called Statute of ‘Westminster V’ in HLS MS 177.

Twelve manuscripts. Lacks MS 48. Called Statute of ‘Westminster VI’ in HLS MS 177.

Eleven manuscripts. Lacks MS 32, 101. Adds MS 48.

Eleven manuscripts.

Ten manuscripts. Lacks MS 48.

Five manuscripts. Lacks MS 20, 21, 29, 40, 170, 185. Adds MS 174. Called ‘De cibariis utendis’ in HLS MS 174.

Ten manuscripts. Adds MS 20, 21, 29, 40, 163, 170, 185. Lacks MS 174.

Ten manuscripts.

Nine manuscripts. Lacks MS 10.

Ten manuscripts. Adds MS 10.

Ten manuscripts.

Three manuscripts. Lacks MS 20, 21, 29, 42, 163, 170, 185.

Three manuscripts. Adds MS 20. Lacks MS 40.

Seven manuscripts. Adds MS 21, 29, 40, 163,185. Lacks MS 19.

Two manuscripts. Lacks MS 10, 19, 20, 21, 40, 42, 163.

Eight manuscripts. Adds MS 10, 19, 21, 40, 42, 163, 185. Lacks MS 170.

Ten manuscripts. Adds MS 20, 170.

Ten manuscripts.

Eight manuscripts. Lacks MS 10, 42.

Five manuscripts. Lacks MS 21, 29, 42, 163, 185. Adds MS 10.

Four manuscripts. Lacks MS 19.

Eleven manuscripts. Adds MS 19, 21, 29, 42, 48, 163, 185.

Six manuscripts. Lacks MS 19, 20, 21, 42, 48.

Eleven manuscripts. Adds MS 19, 20, 21, 42, 48.

Five manuscripts. Lacks MS 10, 20, 40, 42, 48, 163.

Eight manuscripts. Adds MS 10, 40, 163.

Nine manuscripts. Adds MS 48.

Ten manuscripts. Adds MS 19.

Five manuscripts. Lacks MS 21, 29, 42, 48, 163.

Eleven manuscripts. Adds MS 20, 21, 29, 42, 48, 163.

Eleven manuscripts.

Seven manuscripts. Lacks MS 20, 21, 32, 42. S.R. dates this ordinance to year 27, though the transcription that it gives dates it to year 28. We have been unable to find any literature that pursues the question.

Eleven manuscripts. Adds MS 20, 21, 42, 48. HLS MS 40 separates the first twelve chapters of the statute from the amendments to the Statute of Staple (c. 13–15, S.R. 1:348–9) and gives the latter first.

Eleven manuscripts.

Nine manuscripts. Lacks MS 19, 48.

Seven manuscripts. Lacks MS 29, 170, 185. Adds MS 19.

Two manuscripts. Lacks MS 10, 19, 21, 42, 163.

Eleven manuscripts. Adds MS 10, 19, 21, 29, 42, 48, 163, 170, 185.

Nine manuscripts. Lacks MS 10, 48.

Eleven mansucripts. Adds MS 10, 48, 174 (part). Lacks MS 163. HLS MS 174 contains only c. 15 (pleading in English) (S.R. 1:375–6).

Nine manuscripts. Lacks MS 20, 48, 174. Adds MS 21.

Eleven manuscripts. Adds MS 48.

Ten manuscripts. Lacks MS 163.

Ten manuscripts. Lacks MS 48. Adds MS 163.

Ten manuscripts. Lacks MS 20. Adds MS 163.

Ten manuscripts. Lacks MS 48. Adds MS 20.

Eleven manuscripts. Adds MS 48.

The ordinance that S.R. attributes to year 46 is not found in any of our manscripts. As the note in S.R. makes clear, the status of this ordinance is problematic. The text in S.R. is drawn from the parliamentary rolls and forbids practicing lawyers and sheriffs from being returned as knights of the shire in parliament. The text is given in PROME, Article 13 for the parliament of November, 1372, and the introduction notes that the ordinance does not seem to have been proclaimed, but writs de expensis seem to have been denied to those at this particular parliament who attended in violation of the ordinance.

Eleven manuscripts.

Eleven manuscripts.

All of the statutes of Richard II that are in S.R. are included in at least two of our manuscripts that contain such statutes. The series begins with eleven manuscripts. The coverage of MS 48 is selective, but it includes 20 Ric. 2, chronologically the penultimate statute of that king in S.R. MS 19 drops out with 9 Ric. 2, a fact that helps to date the manuscript. MS 36, which is not one of the eleven, contains only pieces of 13 Ric. 2, stat. 3, and 10 Ric. 2 on what is clearly a much later addition to the manuscript. 10 Ric. 2 appears in four manuscripts, 13 Ric., stat. 2, in eight, 13 Ric. 2, stat. 3, complete in only one, and 21 Ric. 2 in seven.

Eleven manuscripts.

Ten manusripts; lacks MS 48.

Ten manusripts; lacks MS 48.

Eleven manusripts.

Ten manusripts; lacks MS 48.

Eleven manusripts.

Ten manusripts; lacks MS 48.

Eleven manusripts.

Ten manusripts; lacks MS 48.

Ten manusripts; lacks MS 10.

Eleven manusripts.

Eleven manusripts.

Four manusripts; lacks MS 10, 19, 29, 40, 42 48, and 185. MS 19 does not appear again.

Nine manuscripts; lacks MS 19 and 48.

Ten manuscripts; lacks MS 19.

Ten manuscripts; lacks MS 19.

Eight manuscripts; lacks MS 19, 48, and 185.

Two manuscripts; lacks all but MS 20 in the regular series, but includes a portion of the statute in MS 36. See the note accompanying 1 Ric. 2.

Eleven manuscripts; lacks MS 19, but includes a portion of the statute in MS 36. See the note accompanying 1 Ric. 2.

Ten manuscripts; lacks MS 19.

Ten manuscripts; lacks MS 19.

Ten manuscripts; lacks MS 19.

Ten manuscripts; lacks MS 19.

Seven manuscripts; lacks MS 19, 48, 163, and 185.

All of the statutes of Henry IV that are in S.R. are also in our manuscripts. Nine manuscripts have all of them: HLS MS 10, 20; MS 21, 30, 40, 42, 163, 170, 185. The first three statutes are also in MS 48, which does not have anything after year 4. The curious arrangement of MS 80 is discussed in the Introduction to it. Suffice it to say here that it has all of years 1, 5, 6, 7, and 9, but only a part of years 2, 4 and 11, and that it lacks year 13 entirely. HLS MS 170 also has an item attributed to year 11 that is not in S.R., for which see the note on that year and the further discussion in Summary Contents (SL_37).

Eleven manuscripts.

Eleven manuscripts. This statute contains (c. 15) the statute later known as ‘De heretico comburendo’.

Eleven manuscripts.

Ten manuscripts.

Ten manuscripts.

Ten manuscripts.

Ten manuscripts.

Ten manuscripts. In addition to the statute in S.R., HLS MS 170 also has a ‘statute’ restricting the gifts by the king that it attributes to year 11 and that is not in S.R. This item is included in the Summary Contents (SL_37) and discussed there.

Nine manuscripts. HLS MS 80 lacks this statute.

All of the statutes of Henry V that are in S.R. are found in our manuscripts. MS 10, 20, 21, 40, and 42 have them all. MS 30, 80, 163, 170, and 185 lack one or more, but not in the same places. The result is that a given statute can be represented by as many as ten manuscripts (4) or as few as six (1), and some statutes are found in eight (2) or nine (4) manuscripts. Some of these omissions can be explained by fact that the statutes of years 5, 7, and 8 are all short. They are represented in six, eight, and eight manuscripts, respectively. As we have noted before, MS 80 is oddly arranged and quite lacunose for the Lancastrian statutes. What we have seems to be a collection of fragments of what had been a fuller manuscript. MS 30 and 170 are normally quite full; they are missing only one statute (year 3 for MS 170, year 5 for MS 30). In general, what is missing from the manuscripts other than MS 80 can probably best be explained by scribal sloppiness. There is no evidence in any of them that someone took a deliberate decision to omit something.

Nine manuscripts. C. 5 of this statute is sometimes referred to as the ‘Statute of additions’.

Ten manuscripts. Adds MS 80. MS 80 and 170 include a common petition concerning alien priories. MS 80 attributes it to year 5, MS 170 to year 4 or 5. It is, in fact, a petition in the April parliament of year 2. References to it and a discussion will be found in Summary Contents (SL_38).

Ten manuscripts.

Nine manuscripts. Lacks MS 170.

Ten manuscripts. Adds MS 170. S.R. adopted this awkward way of referring to this statute, because previous versions of it had attributed it to year 3 when the parliament began. It did not end until well into year 4 when all the business concerning the statute was conducted. See PROME. Modern notation would style the statute as 4 Hen. 5, stat. 1. For the common petition that MS 170 attributes to year 4 or year 5, see the first statute of year 2.

Ten manuscripts. See the previous note. Modern citation would style this statute according to the alternative offered in S.R.: 4 Hen. 5, stat. 2.

Six manuscripts. Lacks MS 30, 80, 163, 185. For the common petition that MS 80 seems to attribute to this year, see the first statute of year 2.

Eight manuscripts. Adds MS 30, 80. The statute is in the form of a writ to the chancellor of Lancaster.

Eight manuscripts. Lacks MS 80 but adds MS 185. A number of our manuscripts add to this year an item concerning the continuation of previous statute for another year. See Summary Contents (SL_39). A related, but not the same item, is also referenced in SL_39.

Nine manuscripts. Adds MS 163.

Nine manuscripts.

All of the statutes of Henry VI are represented in our manuscripts, but only MS 10 and 30 are complete through the reign. MS 170 has only one such statute, and that in a later addition to a base text that stops in 9 Hen. 5. MS 80, as we now have it, stops in year 8. MS 185 stops in year 9, MS 20 in year 11, MS 21, 40, and 163 in year 23, leaving only MS 10 and 30 standing. With the exception of the one-off in MS 170 and the chaotic MS 80, all of our manuscripts have almost everything for the years that they cover. The only statute that is omitted in the basic manuscripts is stat. 2 of year 10. This is found only in MS 20 and 163. A probable reason for its omission from the other four that were current at the time is that its form was not that of a statute. See the note to the statute. To this we might add that its applicability was limited; it concerned the collection from the Treasury of fees of justices, serjeants, and the king’s attorney at assizes.

Seven manuscripts.

Seven manuscripts.

Eight manuscripts. Adds MS 80.

Eight manuscripts.

Nine manuscripts. Adds MS 170 (part).

Eight manuscripts. Lacks MS 170.

Seven manuscripts. Lacks MS 80.

Six manuscripts. Lacks MS 185.

Two manuscripts. Only MS 20 and 163 have what S.R. calls stat. 2 of year 10. The text in S.R. is from the parliamentary rolls. It does not seem that it was ever reduced to statutory form. PROME 1432 no. 20 shows that this was a common petition that received the royal assent. (A copy may be found in TNA C 49/20/10.) MS 20 and 163 do not refer to it as a separate statute, but include both the petition and the Latin response as c. 8 of 10 Hen. 6.

Six manuscripts.

Five manuscripts. Lacks MS 20.

Five manuscripts.

Five manuscripts.

Five manuscripts.

Five manuscripts.

Two manuscripts. Lacks MS 21, 40, and 163.

Two manuscripts.

Two manuscripts.

Two manuscripts.

Two manuscripts.

Two manuscripts.

Two manuscripts.

The witness of MS 10 and 30 is complete through year 8. That of MS 40 for year 1 is a later addition to a manuscript the main text of which stops in 23 Hen. 6. Year 8 is also the last year of the Statute rolls. Although these were not the only source of what was copied into statute books, they were, at least ultimately, the principal source, particularly for statutes of the 15th century. Manuscript copies continued to be made of statutes, but in 1485 William de Machlinia published a statute book purporting to contain all the statutes from 1 Edw. III (1327) to the last year of Edward IV (1482). It took a while for the new technology to replace manuscripts for all types of law books, but for statutes it occurred quite rapidly.

Three manuscripts.

Two manuscripts.

Two manuscripts.

Two manuscripts.

Two manuscripts.