<Preliminary introduction>

The HOLLIS cataloguing may be found here. The following items are worth repeating:

“Description: [121] leaves : vellum ; 21 cm.

“Notes: Written by an English scribe, long lines, 31 to a full page.”

“The cataloguing in Baker’s English Legal Manuscripts, 1, no. 63 reads as follows:

“REGISTRUM BREVIUM

“MS. 38.

“Late C.xiv, 129 ff. Preceded by an index. The first writ is a writ of account by William de Wakefeld against John de Snytall, addressed to the sheriff of Yorkshire, tested 20 April 50 Edward III [1376]. The exemplar may have been compiled by or under the auspices of the chief prothonotary William of Wakefield at the end of the C.xiv. Cambridge Univ. Lib. MS. Add. 3445 begins with the same writ; and so does the first printed edition (1531), save that in the latter the King is altered to Henry VIII.

“Belonged to the Rev. John Willes (d. 1700) until 1680; ‘Liber Edwardi Willes ex dono dilecti fratris ejus Johannis Willes S.T.P. 24 Aprilis 1680’; ‘J. Bohun Smyth, 22d April 1789’; ‘Tho: Ashmole’ (C.xviii); later belonged to Sir Thomas Phillipps (MS. 2952); his sale, S. 12 June 1896, to Ellis for George Dunn; his sale, S. 12 Feb. 1913, no. 295; bought privately by HLS.

“Census, I, 1029, no. 38; Early Registers, xxvii, no. 10.”

As explained below, the HOLLIS date, ca. 1378, is too early. As Baker has already noted, there is quite firm evidence that the manuscript dates from at least the late 14th century.

The manuscript is approximately 210 X 140 mm.

The script is legible and consistent. It can be dated with some confidence to the late 14th or early 15th century. The index appears to be written in a different hand, which also is the hand of the writ headings and marginalia. It is roughly contemporary with the main text, perhaps just a bit later. If it is the same hand as the one that wrote the note at the top of fol. 9v, as it seems to be, that note contains a reference to a precedent in Trinity 3 Henry VI (1425). Two writs are added at the end of the register in what seems to be the same hand.

The text is embellished with red in section marks, initial highlights, and dashes that set off final paragraph lines. Rubrication of this type is also found in the index. Spaces have been left for decorated capitals but none appear. There are no illustrations or grotesques.

The binding may date from the 18th century. It is plain, decorated only with gold lines and lettering. It is in good condition, though the sewing of the covers to the pages is a bit loose. There is some minor damage to the manuscript that does not affect the text (tears on fol. 67 and 78).

The medieval foliation, which appears to be contemporary with the text, begins eight earlier than our digital foliation because it does not include the index. By the time it ends (fol. 120) the two foliations coincide. This is because one quire is missing after fol. 32, causing a break in the medieval foliation but not in the digital. Numeric signatures appear on the first four pages of each quire; some have been cut off.

Quiring/collation:

1² (unfoliated), 2–15⁸ (f. 1–112, one quaternion missing after 32), 16¹⁰ (f. 113–121, one missing), 17³ (unfoliated).

As Baker points out, the first writ is a summons in an account case brought by William de Wakefeld against John de Snytall, addressed to the sheriff of Yorkshire, tested 20 April 50 Edward III (1376). That allows Baker to connect this register with William de Wakefield, the chief prothonotary of the Common Bench at the end of the 14th century and into the early years of the 15th. The evidence of a date later than the reign of Edward III is stronger than Baker lets on. Being a judicial writ, the first writ is tested by the chief justice, William Thirning. Thirning did not become CJCB until 1396; he served until his death in 1413. It would seem that an older exemplar has been imperfectly updated.

The index and the marginalia are a bit later. We have not examined them systematically for evidence of date, but, as we noted above, a marginal note in the same hand cites a precedent from 1425.

The index is of some interest. One of its functions, perhaps its principal function, seems to be to organize the writs by topics, despite the fact that the topics are scattered throughout the register. It is thus more like a modern index than a medieval capitularium.

What the index shows, and is in fact demonstrated by the contents, is that this register does not have definite sections in the way that most of the original registers do. Small groupings of writs of a similar type are found. Then the register goes on to different topics, only to return to previous topics later on.

The index thus provides a good guide to the quite miscellaneous contents of the register. More than one hand is probably at work on this index. Certainly additions and changes were made to it at different times. At least one folio (6) was rubbed out and redone. The entries themselves are all quite legible and in a consistent hand. They are grouped by headings in the margin where the hand is not consistent but which are, for the most part, also quite legible:

fol. 1r: De debito, Exigi facias (faint), Supersedeas, Scire facias, De compoto

fol. 1v: Deliberacio averiorum, De statuto laboratorum, De statuto mercatorum

fol. 2r: Inquisicio de plenitudine ecclisie (2 x), Inquisicio de bastardia, Inquisicio de legitimo matrimonio, De admittendo idoneam personam

fol. 2v: Ad attaciandum persequentem in Curia Christianitatis, Quale ius, De vasto, De estrepamento

fol. 3r: De medio, De decepcione, De champartia, De herede rapto

fol. 3v: De admensuracione dotis et pasture, Summonicio sicut alias, Habere facias visum, Ad sequendum simul, Ad respondendum simul, Ad warrandizandum

fol. 4r: Summonicio in auxilium, Cape magnum, Cape parvum, Ad valenciam

fol. 4v: Habeas corpora, Preceptum iusticiariis in assisa et ad gaolam deliberandam (added later in ?another hand), Venire facias testes, Venire facias iuratores

fol. 5r: De errore in London’, Corpora iuratorum, [Decem] tales (added later in ?another hand), Distringas iuratores et nisi prius cum tales etc., Capias iuratores in attincta

fol. 5v: Venire facias heredem, Quid iuris clamat / venire facias vicecomiti, Resummonicio ?versus partem, Sicre facias de fine

fol. 6r: Scire facias vocatum ad Warrantum, [Illegible next to `Aliter quare iuratores examinari non debent’], [Illegible next to an entry written over with ‘Aliter’], Scire facias episcopo et patrono, [Illegible next to ‘Scire facias quare execucio non debet’], Scire facias post iudicium

fol. 6v: Inquisicio de dampnis, Inquisicio de valore maritagii (added later in ?another hand), Extendi facias, Elegit

fol. 7r: Fieri facias, Fieri facias in assisa, Scire facias de dampnis, Seisina in assisa, Reattachiamentum in assisa mandatum iusticiariis (added later in ?another hand), Remissio loquele (added later in ?another hand)

fol. 7v: Seisina in dote, Habere facias ?seisinam in brevi de vasto (bolder hand), Seisina versus warantum, [5 more rubbed out]

fol. 8r: Levari facias, Rehaberi facias exitus, Capias ad satisficiendum, Capias appellatum, Venire facias imprisonatum, Deliberacio imprisonati

fol. 8v: [No headings visible; the entries seem to be mostly certiorari]

As will be seen the headings combine what we would call substance (e.g., ‘De dote’) with what we would call procedure (e.g., ‘Summonicio’). There is some order to the material. Substantive headings tend to come at the beginning. As in the registers of original writs ‘ecclesiastical’ matters are grouped together, followed by waste. When the headings turn to what we would regard as purely procedural, the order tends to follow that of the lawsuit: (1) summons, (2) scire facias, (3) writs concerning execution (fieri facias, levari facias, recovery of seisin), (4) matters that seem to be criminal, (5) review of other courts.

Writs concerning these topics are, however, scattered all over the register. For this reason, we have not attempted to ‘section’ the register in our Summary of Contents. The topics of the register are best found by using the index, which, so far as we have checked it, accurately refers to the medieval folios where the writs are found. They could also be used to determine what was on the missing the quaternion, but we have not yet done so.

Registers of judicial writs have not been so well studied as the registers of original writs. The only register of judicial writs in print that dates from before that first printed in 1531 is Hall’s register ‘J’, which dates from the 1250s. Register ‘J’ bears little resemblance to our register, except that it observes the distinction, as ours seems to do, between writs that are attested by judges and follow after an original writ and those that originate litigation, which are attested `me ipso’ and are not included in the register. ‘J’ contains 101 writs; ours contains 459.

The relationship between our register and that printed in 1531 is substantial. Baker already noted that the first writ in our register, with only the name of the king changed (but not that of William de Wakefield), is the same as the first writ in the 1531 printing. The similarities are much greater than that. We have not compared the two registers systematically, but in every case that we spot-checked the writs are the same and in the same order, with only minor variations that a printer could have made, even down to references that were out of date when our register was written and dramatically out of date in 1531. For example, the writ of judicial deceit found in our register (fol. 21v) and in the printed register (fol. 10r) refers to a fine levied in the court of ‘Sir E., recently king of England, our father’, which has to be a reference to Edward II. The writs, however, at the end of our register, even before those that are added in a different hand, do not match those in the printed register.

Whether this means that we have found a later copy of the original of printed edition or whether it means that the contents of registers of judicial writs were more stable than those of registers of original writs we have not yet determined. The question, however, is certainly worth exploring. Registers of judicial writs, which do not survive in anything like the quantity that registers of original writs do, were principally of interest to the clerks of the Common Bench. It could be that they developed a standard register, as the clerks of the Chancery did not for registers of original writs.

We might note in closing that Baker’s ability to read the pasted-in note of ownership at the beginning of the manuscript shows that Sotheby’s catalogue entry, also pasted in at the beginning of the manuscript, is quite wrong in saying that the manuscript once belonged to Sir John Willes, CJCP, 1737–1761. The John mentioned in the note is the chief justice’s father, who gave it to his (the father’s) brother Edward in 1680. The chief justice had a brother Edward and a son Edward, but neither of them is the Edward who was given the manuscript. See D. Lemmings in ODNB, s.n. Willes, Sir John (1685–1761).

No heading found

As argued in the Introduction, the composition of this register probably dates from between 1396 and 1413, when John Thirning, who tests the initial writ, was CJCB. The marginalia and index are probably a bit later. One cites a precedent from 1425.

Two counts of the writs are given in the right-hand columns of the following table. The first counts all the writs for which there are marginal notes, excluding, however, the notes that are labelled ‘Regula’ or ‘Nota’. The second excludes from the total all the writs where the marginal note includes the words ‘eodem’ or ‘aliter’. Since there are very few of the latter, the totals are approximately the same

The structure and contents of this, our only register of judicial writs, is fully discussed in the Introduction.