Twelve Good Men and True? The Character of Early Fourteenth-Century Juries

Law and History Review

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 115-144

  Musson, Anthony ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84994256279     PISSN: 07382480     EISSN: 19399022     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/827707     Document Type: Article

References (166)

1. J. S. Cockburn and T. A. Green, eds., Twelve Good Men and True: The English Criminal Trial Jury, 1200-1800 (Princeton, 1988).
2. T. A. Green, Verdict According to Conscience (Chicago, 1985).
3. J. H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, 2d ed. (London, 1979), 416.
4. C. A. F. Meekings, ed., Crown Pleas of the Wiltshire Eyre, Wiltshire Record Society 16 (Devizes, 1960), 52; C. A. F. Meekings, ed., The 1235 Surrey Eyre, Surrey Record Society 31, 2 vols., (Guildford, 1979), vol. 1, 89.
5. J. B. Post, “Jury Lists and Juries in the Late Fourteenth Century,” in Twelve Good Men and True, 65-77; E. Powell, “Jury Trial at Gaol Delivery in the Late Middle Ages: The Midland Circuit, 1400-1429,” in Twelve Good Men and True, 78-116.
6. The mode of prosecution, the accused, the type of offence, the victim, the stolen goods (if any) and their supposed value, sometimes the hundred, town, or neighborhood providing the jury, and the result. From the later 1320s onward, the date when the crime was allegedly committed and the date of indictment are commonly inserted in the record.
7. B. W. McLane, “Juror Attitudes toward Local Disorder: The Evidence of the 1328 Lincolnshire Trailbaston Proceedings,” in Twelve Good Men and True, 36-64.
8. The overlap between the later thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries represents the crossover between the eyre and increasing use of its supplementary/ replacement agencies. The whole fourteenth century should be viewed with regard to the experimentation with and consolidation of the new judicial machinery. For a comprehensive analysis, see A. J. Musson, Public Order and Law Enforcement: The Local Administration of Criminal Justice, 1294-1350 (Woodbridge, 1996).
9. Post, “Jury Lists,” 71-72.
10. W. Stubbs, ed., Select Charters, 9th ed. (Oxford, 1913), 170 (Assize of Clarendon (cl)-1166): per xii legaliores homines de hundredo.
11. N. Hurnard, “The Jury of Presentment and the Assize of Clarendon,” English Historical Review 56 (1941): 374-10; Meekings, Wiltshire Eyre, 36-45.
12. Meekings, Surrey Eyre, vol. 1, 87, 113-14. A tract by an anonymous author during the middle of Henry Ill's reign, De Criminalibus Placitis coram Justiciariis Itinerantibus, was designed to help jurors answer the eyre's criminal articles properly (“The Jury of Presentment and the Assize of Clarendon,”., 96).
13. Surrey Eyre., 87, 114.
14. D. Crook, “The Later Eyres,” English Historical Review 97 (1982): 241.
15. Baker, English Legal History, 414-15. The presentments were still in response to articles such as the sheriff's tourn (12 Edward I c.4) or the Statute of Winchester for peace sessions.
16. F. M. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I, 2 vols., 2d ed. (repr. Cambridge, 1968), vol. 2, 645-50.
17. G. O. Sayles, ed., Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench, Selden Society 82 (London, 1965), vol. 6, 133. They were indicted in October 1343 for harboring felons. While Richard was acquitted in May 1344, process appears to have continued against Margery (despite pleading that she too had been acquitted) until 1363 when the indictment was carefully examined. It was found incompetent because she was a married woman and did not do anything wrong without her husband's knowledge.
18. Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench., 21-25. In the case against Langton in 1343 it was stated that the presentment contained no day and year, nor did it have the place where he was alleged to have committed deceit and falsity. Not only were the justices of oyer and terminer who allowed this held to be in error for the imprecision of the presentment, but it was said that they did not have the authority to inquire of deceit and falsity.
19. Although the phrase per iuratores indictatus est occurs in some rolls containing pleas (e.g., JUST 1: 1395 [Oxon, Berks, Bucks], 101 [Cambs]), others state that the jury presented the cases (e.g., JUST 1: 70 [Bucks], 596 [Norfolk], 850 [Suffolk]).
20. JUST 3: 47/1 ml (1295), 106 m2 (1305). These are examples of some approvers’ appeals of the last decade of Edward I's reign in which the appellee is referred to as “taken on the indictment” of the approver as opposed to the latter's appeal.
21. Putnam, Proceedings, c-cii: “For I take a Presentment, to be, a mere denunciation of the Jurors themselves, or of some other officer… without any other information… and an Enditement to be, the Verdite of the Jurors, grounded upon the accusation of a third person: so that a Presentment, is but a declaration of the Jurors (or Officers) without any bill offered before: and an Enditement is their finding of a bill of accusation to be true.” See also Lambarde, ed., Eirenarcha (1602), 458-59.
22. E. Powell, Kingship, Law and Society (Oxford, 1989), 68. This may have been in connection with developments in bill procedure.
23. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, vol. 2, 643.
24. A. Harding, “Plaints and Bills in the History of English Law, mainly in the period 1250-1350,” in Legal History Studies, ed. D. Jenkins (Cardiff, 1975), 66, 68, 83 (n7 and nl7).
25. The embodiment (or concealment) of individual complaints in indictments is analogous to the use of writs of prohibition, prohibemus (sicut ex relatu), which were granted from early in Edward I's reign to enable complainants to secure the presence of ecclesiastical judges before royal judges without themselves having to run the risk of excommunication. See for examples E. de Haas and G. D. G. Hall, eds., Early Registers of Writs, Selden Society 87 (London, 1970), 26 (CA31), 93-94 (Hib40), 138-39 (R129).
26. Kent (JUST 1: 390, 397, 398, 933), Herts (333, 335, 336), Bucks (70, 1395), Beds (20, 1395), Lanes (428, 429), Northants (628, 640), Heref (309), Cambs (101, JUST 3: 113).
27. Putnam, Kent Keepers, xxx.
28. JUST 1: 428 m2 (jury list), 2d (offences). Robert le Harper was among those who presented that he had been beaten and wounded; Richard Walton was involved in the allegation that Robert son of Thomas Hale had killed Henry Walton; John Whiteside and Adam Cyolale said that they had been the victims in cases of extortion.
29. JUST 1:429 ml8., ml6.
30. JUST 1: 390 ml., m3.
31. R. B. Pugh, “Some Reflections of a Medieval Criminologist,” Proceedings of the. British Academy 59 (1973): 97.
32. Harding, “Plaints and Bills,” 66-68, 75-77. Procedure by bill began as a way of bringing complaints before the eyre justices. Bills or plaints could come from individuals or communities. They combined civil and criminal elements by embodying a means of obtaining damages for injured parties while at the same time forming the basis of indictments. Following the suspension of the eyre in 1294, bill jurisdiction passed to the justices of trailbaston (of 1305 and subsequent years), to the court of king's bench when it visited the counties, and eventually to the justices of the peace.
33. J. B. Post, “Some Limitations of the Medieval Peace Rolls,” Journal of the Society of Archivists 4 (\9Ti): 635.
34. McLane, “Juror Attitudes,” A\-A2. The veracity of the last suggestion is questionable-see below.
35. JUST 1: 428 m2, 2d, m3; F. Palgrave, ed., Parliamentary Writs and Writs of Military Summons, 2 vols., 2 pts. (London, 1827), vol. 2, pt. 2, 639 (1324): William Heton, Thomas Knoll, Adam Clitheroe, John Barton, John Hesketh, Thurston Northleigh, John Ashton, John le Noreys, William Farington.
36. JUST 1: 428m3;E198 [Exchequer class of documents, serjeanties, etc.]: 3/18 (1333).
37. JUST 1: 428 and 429 (Lanes-1332-33; 1338-39), 70 and 1395 (Bucks-1314; 1326), 333 and 335 (Herts-1314-16; 1336-37), 397/398 and 390 (Kent-1316-17; 1336-37), 628 and 640 (Northants-1314-16; 1320); JUST 3: 113 and JUST 1: 101 (Cambs-1314-16; 1340).
38. Continuity and local experience were also noted by Meekings when comparing juries for the septennial visitations of the eyre in the thirteenth century (Meekings, Wiltshire Eyre, 34-35).
39. JUST 1: 428 m2 (8 June), m2d (18 June).
40. JUST 1
41. JUST 1
42. m3 (9 October).
43. ml6 (Lancaster-4 January), ml6d (Preston-Tues n.b. St. Edward, Bishop?), ml8 (Preston-9 November). St. Edward could be an error for St. Martin, which would give a date of 9 November; since some of the other jury personnel are different it might, however, be a separate session.
44. JUST 3: 96 mm8-l 1, 19, 26d, 27, 27d, 30d, 31, 37, 37d, 40d, 41, 44d, 46.
45. JUST 1: 20 (Beds-1314), 70 (Bucks-1314), 1395 (Bucks-1326).
46. Maitland observed that “The details of the process will never be known until large piles of records have been systematically perused. This task we must leave to the historian of the fourteenth century” (Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, vol. 2, 649-50).
47. R. B. Pugh, ed., Wiltshire Gaol Delivery and Trailbaston Trials, 1275-1306, Wiltshire Record Society 33 (Devizes, 1977), 14, 169-70.
48. D. Crook, “Triers and the Origin of the Grand Jury,” Journal of Legal History 12, no. 2 (1991): 105, 109-11. Although doubtless originating in the earliest days of the eyre, Crook found that triers were first named as such in the plea rolls of the Cumberland eyre of 1292-93 but were not given a name in any other surviving eyre rolls before the Northamptonshire eyre of 1329-
49. Limiting his study mainly to the eyre, however, he overlooked the references in the surviving rolls of peace sessions (see below).
50. Crook, “Origin of the Grand Jury,” 113: I had come to a similar conclusion before reading Crook's work. He surmises that the jury of triers was elected at the beginning of the judicial session in which they were to take part. But he acknowledges that when the indictments were examined and the context in which that “crucial step” was taken remain unclear.
51. JUST 1: 390 ml, m2, m3 (same as ml), m6.
52. John Soles, Geoffrey Ractone, Nigel Whetacre, Thomas St. Nicholas, Gilbert Kirkby, John Fleming, Peter Goudsene.
53. John Lovekyn, John Rainham, Thomas Luton, James Freysel, William Warmodeston.
54. William Broun, Robert de Vere, William Jordan, Henry Titchmarsh.
55. Return of Members of Parliament, 1213-1876 (London, 1878), 41-53; C[alendar of] Platent] R[olls], 1317-21, 276.
56. Return of Members, 39; CPR 1313-17, 483.
57. I shall list only (or give references for) Tyringham's activities ca. 1326, although he, like many others, had a career that spanned the period before and after this date: Return of Members, 62, 80; JUST 3: 1/3 mlO.
58. Return of Members, 73-75; CPR 1324-27, 286.
59. Return of Members, 71; CPR 1327-30, 430.
60. Return of Members, 75; CPR 1324-27, 286.
61. JUST 1: 628 mid (Philip Low, Walter Daventre, Richard Chamberlain, Robert Hotot, John Tolthorp, Henry Deen, Robert Wauncy, Robert de Vere); C47 [Chancery, miscellanea]: 1/8 m33 (Henry Titchmarsh).
62. List of Sheriffs for England and Wales, PRO List and Indexes 9 (London, 1898), 67.
63. E. L. G. Stones, “The Folvilles of Ashby Folville, Leicestershire, and Their Associates in Crime,” Transactions of the] R[oyal] H[istorical] S[ociety], 5th ser., 7 (1957): 119.
64. JUST 1: 470; CPR 1324-27, 284 (28 February 1326).
65. Stones, “Folvilles,” 117-36; J. G. Bellamy, “The Coterel Gang: An Anatomy of Fourteenth-Century Criminals,” English Historical Review 79 (1964): 698-717.
66. JUST 1: 477/2. Ralph la Zouche dealt the blow and was aided by his brother Roger (son of Roger la Zouche of Lubesthorp) and Ivo la Zouche (son of William la Zouche of Haringworth).
67. Part. Writs, vol. 2, pt. 2, 640.
68. JUST 1: 470 ml: Ralph Bellers, Robert Burdet, Robert Champagne, Richard Edgbaston, William Staunton, John Boyville, Walter Houby, and Roger Belgrave (coroner).
69. Powell, Kingship, Law and Society, 68-71.
70. Green, Verdict According to Conscience, 16; id., “Criminal Trial Jury,” 364.
71. Powell, “Jury Trial at Gaol Delivery,” 78-116. Powell has questioned whether juries in early fifteenth-century trials were truly local and self-informing. His analysis of the composition and caseload of juries at gaol delivery reveals trial procedure inconsistent with truly self-informing juries. For Green's reply to this, see “Criminal Trial Jury,” 367-75.
72. JUST 3: 92 (1294), 95 (1295), 96 (1295-99), 105 (1305-6), 109 (1308-9).
73. JUST 3: 95 m6 (16 cases), 6d (24 cases).
74. JUST 3: 109 m7 (12 cases), 7d (7 cases), m8 (7 cases).
75. JUST 3: 95 m3 (1 case), 3d (32 cases)[assuming this was the same jury since no others are mentioned].
76. William Coleville, Hugh Daundelyn, John Harston, Nicholas Wythmale, Robert Boteuleyn, Robert Bray, Robert Hotot, Robert Romeny, Walter Dosevill, Laurence Preston, and Robert de Vere.
77. JUST 3: 96 mid (1), m24d (9), m25d (17), m25 (29), ml (57).
78. For example, Ralph Beaufeu and John Hotot were named together in a jury for sessions held at Oakham in 1296 where they sat for twenty-one cases (JUST 3: 96 m25). John Hotot is later the sole name for a jury sitting for seventeen cases (m25d), while Ralph Beaufeu is the only juror named for a further eighteen cases (m25d).
79. R. F. Hunnisett, The Medieval Coroner (Cambridge, 1961), 1, 55-70, 75-86. Liberties and boroughs also had their own coroners.
80. H. M. Cam, “Shire Officials: Coroners, Constables and Bailiffs,” in The English Government at Work, 1327-1336, 3 vols., eds. J. F. Willard, W. A. Morris, and W. H. Dunham (Cambridge, Mass., 1940-50), vol. 3, 165-66.
81. H. M. Cam, The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls (London, 1930), 179-85.
82. Powell, Kingship, Law and Society, 14-16.
83. It was common for eyre jurors to be those prominent in local affairs who had legal experience or interest and were active in the business of the community (Meekings, Wiltshire Eyre, 34-35).
84. The leading jurors of the later eyres were knights and substantial freeholders, sometimes almost exclusively the latter (Meekings, Surrey Eyre, vol. 1, 95-96).
85. The early fourteenth century may in fact have witnessed changes in the makeup of jury panels and in the type of persons regularly undertaking jury service. The lack of detailed evidence over a complete run of sessions for this period precludes verification at present.
86. A. Luders et al., eds., Statutes of the] R[ealm], 1103-1713, 11 vols., (London, 1810-28), vol. 1, 89, c38 (Statute of Westminster II); Early Registers of Writs, 253-54 (R624, 626-28).
87. SR, vol. 1,113; Early Registers of Writs, 254-55 (R629-31).
88. T. F. T. Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law, 5th ed., (London, 1956), 131.
89. Early Registers of Writs, 279 (R234): a jury found to have given a false oath might be imprisoned until they made reasonable fine or sufficient security; for evidence of jury default see below.
90. S. L. Waugh, “Reluctant Knights and Jurors: Respites, Exemptions, and Public Obligations in the Reign of Henry III,” Speculum 58 (1983): 964-65.
91. Early Registers of Writs, 253 (R623).
92. G. H. Tupling, ed., South Lancashire in the Reign of Edward II, Chetham Society, 3d sen, vol. 1 (1949), liv.
93. N. Denholm-Young, The Country Gentry in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1969), 15-22.
94. J. Quick, “The Number and Distribution of Knights in Thirteenth Century England: The Evidence of the Grand Assize Lists,” in Thirteenth Century England, 114-15.
95. N. Saul, Knights and Esquires: The Gloucestershire Gentry in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1981), 150-51.
96. P. R. Hyaras, King, Lords, and Peasants in Medieval England (Oxford, 1980), 153. Villein status did not mean a total exclusion from service on juries since, outside the royal courts, there is evidence that unfree peasants regularly served on manorial court juries and possibly also in the county court and on coroners’ inquests. Those villeins who did manage to avoid detection often used service in the royal courts as an indication of their “freedom” when challenging their unfree status (Knights and Esquires: The Gloucestershire Gentry in the Fourteenth Century., 154-55).
97. W. S. Thomson, ed., A Lincolnshire Assize Roll for 1298, Lincoln Record Society 36 (Hereford, 1944), 74 (no. 323).
98. JUST3: 117 m2, m3d, ml 1; 119ml, Id, m3d; juries from other counties also defaulted on occasion: 117 ml (Suffolk), 119 m2 (Essex), m6 (Hunts), mil (Cambs).
99. JUST 3: 119 mlO, mil, ml4; 125 mlOd; 49/2 m3d.
100. JUST 3: 134 m2, m7, ml 8.
101. JUST 3: 119 mlOd, ml3d, ml4d; 125 mlOd, (Norwich); 125 m7d, m8d (East Dereham); some overlap with other disrupted sessions is noticeable (see above).
102. The trials of more than half a dozen prisoners were carried over from session to session in the years 1333-34, often owing to some form of procedural delay (JUST 3: 49/2 mm6-10d).
103. I found only ten instances of jury default in the Norfolk rolls (1294-1325), eight of these being in the decade 1315-25.
104. JUST 3: 49/1 m44 (1322-Norfolk, trial of Adam Barton).
105. Musson, Public Order and Law Enforcement, 107-22.
106. Post, “Jury Lists,” 65-77.
107. For a recent view on the impact of the Black Death on legal administration and procedures, see R. C. Palmer, English Law in the Age of the Black Death, 1348-1381 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1993).
108. For example, JUST 3: 117 m6d.
109. R. C. Palmer, The Whilton Dispute, 1264-1380 (Princeton, 1984), 10-11: “A handful of anecdotes and some literary satire will not replace quantification here-a quantification that is impossible.”
110. JUST 3: 47/1 mid (1295), 107 mid (1307).
111. P. Brand, The Making of the Common Law (London, 1992), 190-93.
112. Powell, Kingship, Law and Society, 112. Receiving gifts may have been viewed as one of the entitlements of office and little attention paid to the giver's motive (D. J. M. Higgins, “Judges in Government and Society in the Reign of Edward II” [D.Phil, thesis, Oxford University, 1986], 213).
113. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, vol. 2, 621, 649. Unfortunately, without the lists of names it is not possible to examine the jury personnel concerned.
114. JUST 3: 117 m2d (September 1324), m8 (June 1325).
115. JUST 3: 49/1 m34 (December 1320), m36 (March 1321).
116. JUST 3: 119 ml3d (August 1329), ml4d (September), 125 mid (June 1330).
117. JUST 3: 117 m6, 6d (March 1325).
118. JUST 3: 119 ml2d (August 1329), 125 m2d (June 1330).
119. There were jury challenges in at least fifteen sessions during the period 1294-1350, particularly around the end of Edward IPs reign and the first decade of his son's. For example, JUST 3: 49/1 m34 (1320), m38 (1321), m49d (1323), m53d (1323), m56 (1324), 117 m2d (1324), m8d (1325), mild (1325), 119 ml2d (1329), ml3d (1329), 125 ml6 (1332), ml6d (1333).
120. R[otuli] P[arliamentorum], 1278-1503, 6 vols., (London, 1783-1832), vol. 1, 160, 166 (1304).
121. JUST 3: 117 m8d., m9d; R. B. Pugh, “The Writ de Bono et Malo,” Law Quarterly Review 92 (1976): 258-67; J. M. Kaye, “Gaol Delivery Jurisdiction and the Writ de Bono et Malo,” Law Quarterly Review 93 (1977): 259-72.
122. JUST 3: 49/1 m53d (December 1323), m55 (March 1324); H. Rohrkasten, “Some Problems of the Evidence of Fourteenth-Century Approvers,” Journal of Legal History 5, no. 3 (1984): 15.
123. JUST 3: 49/1 m56 (March 1324), 117 m2 (September 1324).
124. JUST 3: 117 ml4 (April 1326). This is assuming that he was indeed the same person.
125. JUST 3: 123 m22 (1333); H. R. T. Summerson, “The Early Development of Peine Forte et Dure,” in Law Litigants and the Legal Profession, eds. E. W. Ives and A. H. Manchester (London, 1983), 118-20. A starvation diet and/or peine forte et dure (sometimes known as prisone forte et dure), the placing of weights on the chest of the defendant until the pain became too much and he or she confessed or expired, was the statutory retribution for refusing trial by jury (Statute of Westminster 1275-SR, vol. 1, 29).
126. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, vol. 2, 649. The Anglo-Norman “chalenger” (equivalent of the Latin “exceptio” and “calumpniare”) has been equated with the English “nimen,” which has been used in the context of literary metaphors describing thirteenth-century court proceedings to suggest a challenge or exception taken in a legal case (D. Everett and N. D. Hurnard, “Legal Phraseology in a Passage in Pearl,” Medium Aevum 16 [1947]: 13-15).
127. Green, Verdict According to Conscience, 13-14.
128. Pugh, Wiltshire Gaol Delivery, 20.
129. JUST 3: 92 m3d., m5d.
130. JUST 1: 1395.
131. JUST., m5, 5d (presentment), m6 (trial).
132. JUST., m5d (presentment made at Windsor), m7 (trial). It is interesting to note that the trial jury (for which there were ten of the presenting jurors) was the same jury that had not formed the trial jury at the Windsor sessions of 22 August 1326.
133. JUST 1: 1395, m5d (presentment), m7 (trial).
134. JUST 1: 1395., m5 (presentment), m6 (trial).
135. JUST 1: 1395., m5 (presentment), m6d (trial).
136. Green, Verdict According to Conscience, 28-102.
137. T. A. Green, “Societal Concepts of Criminal Liability for Homicide in Medieval England,” Speculum 47 (1972): 688-89; id., “Criminal Trial Jury,” 371-72 n25.
138. E. Powell, “Social Research and the Use of Medieval Criminal Records,” Michigan Law Review 79 (1981): 969.
139. Although not observable for the 1326 sessions, see, for example, JUST I: 335, m5, 5d (Hertfordshire-1336).
140. J. B. Post, “Criminals and the Law in the Reign of Richard II” (D.Phil, thesis, Oxford University, 1976), 288; I. Rowney, “Arbitration in Gentry Disputes of the Later Middle Ages,” History 67 (1982): 367. For the possibility of corruption, see below.
141. JUST 1: 1395 m3d. Powel pleaded benefit of clergy and, though convicted by the jury, was released to the ordinary and detained in the bishop's prison.
142. JUST 1: 1395 m3d., ml3.
143. JUST 1: 1395 m3d…, m5 (presentment), m6 (trial): acquitted-William Ingelond (theft), Nicholas Eye (robbery); convicted-Nicholas le Taillour (robbery), Richard Croke (robbery).
144. JUST 1: 1395 m3d…., m2d. Unusually there were only ten presenting jurors, five of whom acted as trial jurors.
145. JUST 1: 1395 m3d…., ml2d, ml3.
146. While early jury verdicts are genuinely inscrutable, their verity resting on God or the outcome of a duel, jurors selected for their local knowledge for assizes and the like in the thirteenth century evidently did attempt to check the facts of a case (P. R. Hyams, “Trial by Ordeal: The Key to Proof in the Early Common Law,” in On the Laws and Customs of England: Essays in Honor of Samuel E. Thome, eds. M. S. Arnold, T. A. Green, S. A. Scully, and S. D. White [Chapel Hill, N.C., 1981), 119).
147. There are two documents surviving from the late twelfth century in which information is offered to jurors (albeit assize jurors) by great men: Walter of Hereford, an active administrative official in Herefordshire and Gloucestershire (D. Walker, “A Letter from the Holy Land,” English Historical Review 72 [1957]: 662-65); and the third earl of Clare (F. M. Stenton, First Century of English Feudalism, 2d ed. [Oxford, 1961], 81-82, 270 [App. 21]).
148. A case from the court of king's bench (1281) complains of conspiracy and confederacy among members of a jury “saving and condemning whom they willed.” See G. O. Sayles, ed., Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench, vol. 1, Selden Society 55 (London, 1936), 76-77.
149. A. Harding, “The Origins of the Crime of Conspiracy,” TRHS, 5th ser., 33 (1983): 94-95.
150. SR, vol. 1, 139 (clO and e l l)
151. Calendar of Chancery Warrants, 1244-1326 (London, 1927), 241-42 (24 November 1304).
152. RP, vol. 1, 178; A. Harding, “Early Trailbaston Proceedings from the Lincoln Roll of 1305,” in Medieval Legal Records Edited in Memory of C. A. F. Meekings, eds. R. F. Hunnisett and J. B. Post (London, 1978), 144-45. The articles include inquiry concerning those who threatened jurors and assizors and impeded the business of constables and bailiffs.
153. RP, vol. 1, 183; SR, vol. 1, 145; Harding, “Origins of Conspiracy,” 97.
154. G. L. Harriss, “The Formation of Parliament, 1272-1377,” in The English Parliament in the Middle Ages, eds. R. G. Davies and J. H. Denton (Manchester, 1981), 45-7. Much legislation may have arisen from difficult cases in the courts or administrative anomalies.
155. RP, vol. 1, 293.
156. RP, vol. 1,289.
157. While the overlap on juries may not have been under review, agenda for legislation dating from 1322 indicate that specific consideration was being given to the problem of judicial abuse including memoranda for remedy against false presentments and the abuses of sheriffs and their agents, as well as clauses on champery and maintenance (W. M. Ormrod, “Agenda for Legislation, 1322-c. 1340,” English Historical Review 105 [1990]: 28-31, App. B (c6, c 14, c22, c23), 3 1-32, App. C (c6-8, 11-14).
158. SR, vol. 1, 267 (clO).
159. Powell, Kingship, Law and Society, 42-43; N. Ramsey, “Retained Legal Counsel, c.1275-c.1475,” TRHS, 5th sen, 35 (1985): 100; J. R. Maddicott, “Law and Lordship: Royal Justices as Retainers in Thirteenth and Fourteenth-Century England,” Past and Present Supplement 4 (1978): 18.
160. RP, vol. 2, 134 (67), 140 (30); Higgins, “Judges in Government and Society,” 207-8.
161. Edward III st.5, c3 (SR, vol. 1, 320); Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, vol. 2, 649.
162. Meekings, Wiltshire Eyre, 8.
163. Green, “Criminal Trial Jury,” 364.
164. “Criminal Trial Jury,”., 367.
165. An example from the 1340s cited in Plucknett, History of the Common Law, 127.
166. For discussion on the importance of “jury discretion” in the eighteenth century, see J. H. Langbein, “Albion's Fatal Flaws,” Past and Present 98 (1983): 105-14.