22.3  
Journals link Search link Partners link Information link
Fall, 2004
Previous
Next
Law and History Review

Table of Contents
List journal issues
Home
Get a printer-friendly version of this page
 
 


NOTES AND COMMENTARY


Bill Litigation and the Observance of Sundays and Major Festivals in the Court of King's Bench in the Fifteenth Century

Susanne Jenks


The attitudes of medieval people toward Sundays and Holy Days have always been of interest to historians. They have been studied from at least five different perspectives. Max Levy, for instance, explained how Sunday developed from a day that commemorated Christ's resurrection, but was originally a working day (dies dominica), to a day of worship, contemplation, and rest. Initially no (servile) work was allowed, but exceptions were accepted because of necessity, like harvest work, or because of good intentions, like concern for the common good or for a pious cause.1 Others looked at the stance of the Church, analyzing the protests against the non-observance of Holy Days as well as the objections raised to the observance of Holy Days from the clergy or from laymen,2 or concentrated mainly on the work ban and its implications for working life in the Middle Ages.3 Willard and Haskett studied the observance of Sundays and Holy Days in government departments like the Lower Exchequer or the Chancery to see to what extent the working of the English government was affected.4 Legal historians, however, have not shown much interest in how the courts observed Sundays and Holy Days, mainly because everything seemed to have been settled since the late thirteenth century. Paul Brand recently stated that it had "clearly become the general practice by the second half of the reign of Edward I for the Common Bench and King's Bench not to sit on Sundays," or on All Saints Day (1 November), All Souls Day (2 November), the feast of the Purification (2 February), Ascensiontide, and the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist (24 June), all of which fell within term time.5 In 1536 it was decreed that "all those feests or days holydays which shall happen to occurre eyther in the harvest time ... or elles in the terme time at Westmynster, shall not be kepte or observed from henceforth as holydayes ..., excepte alwayes the feests of the apostles, of our blessed lady, and of saynt George; and also such feestes as wherin the kings judges at Westminster Hall do not use to sytte in judgment.... In Easter terme upon th'Ascension daye, in Trinitie terme upon the nativity of Saynt John Baptist, in Mighelmas terme upon Alhollen day, in Hillary terme upon Candlemas day, the Kings judges at Westminster do not use to syt in judgment, nor upon any Sondayes."6 In Trinity term 1581, the enrollment of a case in the Court of Common Pleas calls the Sunday a dies non juridicus and points out that it was not legitimate according to the common law to have a writ or a precept returned on a Sunday.7 1
      Sundays did however play an important part within the mesne process. Paul Brand pointed out that if the first day of a return day fell on Sunday, the following Monday was taken as the first day. If the Sunday fell on some other day within the initial four-day period of the return day, its place was taken by the following day and it was thus not counted or, if it was counted, litigants were not required to appear.8 There was some confusion in legal quarters as to whether Sundays and major festivals should be counted when the fifteen-day rule—which meant that fifteen days had to lie between the issue of judicial writs—was applied. In a writ of error in 1530 it was claimed that there were only eight days exclusive between the return day "quindene of Hilary" and the return day "octaves of the Purification of the Blessed Mary."9 However, the clerk who had issued the writ must have counted Sundays as well as the Purification.10 Hence, Sunday did indeed have a place within the legal system even if it was a dies non juridicus.11 But was it really a dies non juridicus? Bolland at least thought otherwise: "There is good reason to suppose that from the time of Richard I, at any rate, to that of Henry VI, the distinction between Sundays and other days was not very much recognized by either churchmen or laymen. And the Courts, we know, sat not only at Westminster but in the country on Sundays just as upon other days."12 Moreover, there are entries in the King's Bench plea rolls that seem to support his view, namely bills proffered on Sundays and major Holy Days.13 2
      I chose bills for this study instead of original writs for a simple reason. Although we know the issue date of original writs,14 we do not know when they were actually heard in court. They were returned on a return day, which covered up to seven calendar days. Hence, "the business ascribed in our records to these days may have been done at any time during that seven-day period."15 But bills are different. The plea rolls mention not only the day the bill was obtained (dies impetrationis),16 but also the specific return days of the sealed precepts and writs latitat. In addition they give the day the bill was proffered in court (proferre billam), the day of imparlance (dies interloquendi), and finally the exact day the jury was summoned. 3
      Three kinds of bills were allowed in the King's Bench: Bills of Middle-sex, Bills of Privilege, and Bills of Custody. Bills of Middlesex could be brought by anyone for a trespass or a felony committed in the county of Middlesex or any other county, where the court sat during that term.17 Bills of Privilege were brought by and against the court's personnel or their servants as well as by prisoners of the court, while Bills of Custody were brought against prisoners of the court. The last two categories of bills could not only deal with trespass and felony cases but also with debt, detinue, covenant and other personal actions that normally lay outside the King's Bench jurisdiction. Before 1419, bills were enrolled in the plea rolls in various ways: in some cases no date is given as to when a bill was proffered, while in others either a specific day of the month is identified or it is at least indicated that the bill was dealt with during a specific term. Only rarely is reference made to a saint's feast day.18 But from Michaelmas term 1419 onward, the plea rolls regularly contain the specific date—that is to say, a day of a month—in regard to Bills of Custody, unless a day to imparl was given.19Most entries of Bills of Middlesex, too, mention the day the bills were produced in court.20 The same holds true for Bills of Privilege brought against the court's personnel or their servants, again unless a day to imparl was granted.21 However, if we consult only the plea rolls, we normally cannot discover when Bills of Privilege brought by the court's personnel or their servants or by prisoners of the court were proffered. They merely indicate that the defendants were attached.22 Still, bills seem to present us with an unique opportunity to study the court's attitude toward Sundays and Holy Days in the fifteenth century. 4
      But first we have to consider the reliability of the plea rolls in regard to dates. Mistakes, as is well known, did occur. But they can easily be detected, for instance, when names of defendants and plaintiffs got mixed up,23 or when a bill was said to have been proffered out of term.24 Sometimes the prothonotaries themselves noticed mistakes in time,25 while in other cases the plea roll helps us to solve the problem. According to one entry, a custodial bill for trespass was presented on 15 February 1431, but the trespass in question was said to have taken place one day later, on 16 February 1431. A couple of lines further down in the same entry the date of the trespass is given as 16 January 1431. The clerk, it seems, simply mixed up the months, writing "February" instead of "January."26 Occasionally we need additional documentation to detect errors.27 However, the majority of entries of bills indicates that mistakes are the exception, not the rule,28 leaving us with plenty of evidence that the dates are reliable. Therefore, we will assume that the dates given are correct unless there is proof to the contrary. 5
      While we known much about the King's Bench personnel,29 the steps taken by bill litigants to get their cases submitted have not been examined thoroughly.30 This may be due to the following statement by G. O. Sayles: "Apart from the substitution of an originating bill for an originating writ and the quickening of process, there is no discernible difference from process by writ: procedure, pleadings, trial, judgment, punishment, recovery of damages, all these remain precisely the same."31 Nevertheless, a few differences have been discovered, for instance in regard to the drawing of the bills,32 their requirements33 or their enrollment.34 Certain aspects of procedure were different as well. The early stages of the mesne process in Bills of Middlesex were by precept, not by judicial writ, and pledges of prosecution, whose names were written on the bill by the clerks, not the sheriffs, could not be found in court.35 In addition, the issue day was not recorded on the bill. And yet, some of the bills dealing with trespass cases mention a dies impetrationis,36 given as a particular day of the month, when it was claimed that the trespass in question "was continued until the day the bill was obtained."37 The phrase dies impetrationis is known from original writs where it indicates the day the writ was obtained from Chancery. Were the clerks just adopting this formula normally used for writs,38 or was there another sense in which a bill was obtained? 6
      In contrast to bills presented to the Court of Chancery,39 all bills in the panellafiles (KB 146), which are term files containing all the bills received in court in a certain term, and in the annual recorda files (KB 145) were probably written by the clerks of the King's Bench. The handwriting of the bills, which are quite formulaic, resembles the script in which the plea rolls were written. And on one bill the name "Strete" appears on the lower right-hand corner. Strete was not only a well-known King's Bench attorney but also the filazer responsible for the attachias and capias precepts issued in this case.40 It is likely that the clerks charged the plaintiffs for their labor.41 Bills may have cost 3s 4d, which is the amount usually awarded in Bills of Custody if the defendant admitted the debt or defaulted. Since the plaintiff in these cases did not have to spend money on any judicial writ, it is likely that the court just awarded him the costs of the bill.42 Bills could be obtained on Sundays,43 but since this was a nonjudicial act, it does not bring into question the ban on judicial business on Sundays and Holy Days, because nonjudicial activities were allowed.44 7
      What happened after a bill was obtained? Here we have to differentiate between bills against defendants who had to be attached (Bills of Middle-sex, Bills of Privilege brought by the King's Bench personnel and their servants or by a prisoner) and bills against defendants who were supposed to be present in court in one way or the other (Bills of Custody, Bills of Privilege brought against the King's Bench personnel). 8
      Bills of Middlesex were probably handed over to a clerk to be filed in the panellafiles (KB 146). The filazers would then issue the appropriate attachias and capias precepts. Since this was routine business, it could be done without consulting the judges. The precepts were not dated and not tested by judges—unlike judicial writs. They also did not follow the procedure laid down for judicial writs: the return days of the precepts could be just one day apart,45 and precepts were to be returned on a certain day within a return day. Never was a Sunday chosen,46 although sometimes the return day fell on a major Holy Day.47 If the attachias and capias precepts did not bring the defendant into court because he was living in a different county, a judicial writ, the latitat, was issued. This writ was issued after the plaintiff had informed the court that the defendant lurked and roamed about in some other county (latitat et discurrit) and it was tested and dated like any other judicial writ. In contrast to latitats issued during the mesne process on original writs, however, the latitats issued in litigation by bill were to be returned on a certain day within a return day. Again, never was a Sunday chosen, but occasionally the return day turned out to be a major Holy Day.48 Bills of Middlesex were proffered in court on the issue day of the latitat at the latest.49 Apparently, an official record was needed to warrant the capture of the defendant. 9
      Bills of Privilege brought by the king are contained in the recorda files (KB 145),50 while Bills of Privilege brought against the court's personnel or by a prisoner were filed in the panellafiles (KB 146). Bills brought by the court's personnel or their servants can be found in both files.51 Mesne process in Bills of Privilege began with an attachias ita quod habeat precept if the order was addressed to the sheriffs of Middlesex, or with an attachias ita quod habeat writ if it was addressed to the sheriffs of London or counties other than Middlesex. All were to be returned on a certain day of a return day. Again, never was a Sunday chosen.52Attachias ita quod habeat writs were dated and tested by the chief judge like any other judicial writ. They normally led to the capture of the defendant, but if they were unsuccessful, a latitat writ followed.53 Bills of Privilege were proffered in court either before the return day of the attachias ita quod habeat writ/precept54 or on the issue day of the latitat, if such a writ was needed.55 10
      Some of those Bills of Middlesex and Bills of Privilege against defendants who had to be attached were proffered on a Sunday or major Holy Day. This does not in itself prove that the court was indeed in session on those days. One could easily argue that Bills of Middlesex could be accepted on a Sunday56 or major festival57 even if the court did not sit, because no one expected the trial to take place instantly. And it would have made sense for the King's Bench to accept Bills of Middlesex and Bills of Privilege brought by their personnel on Sundays and Holy Days58 in order to accelerate the pre-trial procedure and to get the defendants in court as soon as possible, especially if the court wanted to be perceived as competitive, on the presumption that speed did indeed matter to plaintiffs. 11
      But no summons were needed for Bills of Privilege brought against defendants who were said to be present in court (presens hic in curia).59 John Bellee, for instance, was present in court when William Bradwardyne, the marshal of the King's Bench's marshalsea, proffered his Bill of Privilege for debt on Sunday, 8 June 1421.60 On the same day, John Salmanby and John Barnburgh, both also present in court, had to answer Ralph Holand and Hugh Holcot, one of the King's Bench clerks, for debt.61 Bills of Privilege brought against the court's personnel—as such supposed to be present in court62—were produced in court on Sundays as well. On 18 November 1431 William Staundon proffered his bill for debt against John Faryngdon, an attorney of the King's Bench,63 and William Cosyn prosecuted by Bill of Privilege for debt on Sunday, 4 June 1452, against John Leventhorp, the marshal of the King's Bench.64 In addition, Bills of Privilege brought by a prisoner were produced in court on Sundays.65 Thomas Muryell, a prisoner of the court, proffered his Bill of Privilege for debt on Sunday, 6 November 1435, against the defendant Robert Hardy, who was led at the bar by the marshal. Both parties were, it seems, in custody, although the plea roll does not explicitly mention this in regard to Robert Hardy.66 These cases indicate that the King's Bench was indeed holding sessions on Sundays in the fifteenth century. Why would defendants otherwise be present in court on those days? 12
      Bills of Custody were different, too. These bills against prisoners of the court were usually filed in the panellafiles (KB 146).67 They could be obtained and filed before the defendant was in custody, which is evident because the bills in the panellafiles are not dated.68 However, the communis opinio is that custodial bills were presented to the court as soon as the defendant was in the custody of the marshal of the marshalsea and thus available for trial, which means that the day on which a custodial bill was proffered must have been of the utmost importance. If it was produced too late, that is if the defendant was no longer in custody, the bill would be quashed. This surely must have been the reason why, when a Bill of Custody was proffered in court, the day was always noted in the plea rolls unless a day to imparl was granted. Some of these days turn out to be Sundays69 or major Holy Days.70 13
      Was the proffer of these bills in court a judicial activity, a process happening before the judges of the King's Bench? The usual phrase in the plea rolls is Memorandum quod [follows day given as special day of the month] isto eodem termino coram domino rege apud Westmonasterium venit [name of petitioner] in propria persona sua et protulit hic in curia quandam billam versus [name of defendant] in custodia marescalli de placito [type of complaint]. Proffere (protulit) means "to proffer, to produce in court"71 and it is also used in the plea rolls when some sort of proof is shown to the court in session, for example a last will72 or other document.73 The meaning of the word proferre and its general use in the plea rolls therefore suggest that the proffer of bills happened before the judges in court. It was at this stage that the validity of a Bill of Custody could be tested, because a defendant did not have to answer a bill if he was not in custody. For instance, in 1429 a man was arrested in London at the suit of a party and removed to the King's Bench because of a pending suit there that continued until a distraint had been issued. The defendant was brought at the bar by a London serjeant and a stranger affirmed a bill of debt against the defendant. But since the defendant had been given bail, the question had to be decided whether a person on bail was still in custody and obliged to answer a bill brought against him. It was found that the defendant was not in custody. Then the petitioner demanded surety of peace from the defendant and the chief justice of the King's Bench ordered the marshal to take the defendant into custody, at which point he was made to answer the bill.74 14
      Moreover, there are no obvious reasons—procedural or otherwise— that would have made it necessary to proffer a Bill of Custody on a Sunday or a Holy Day. For instance, Alice Passecras chose to present her custodial bill for robbery against William Abraham on Sunday, 14 July 1437, although she could have done this as early as 28 June 1437, the day William Abraham was first taken into custody. Why she delayed until the last day of the last return day in Trinity term, we do not know. But this indicates that the court was in session on that Sunday in Trinity term because a venire facias to summon the jury was issued.75 And again, we can detect no reason why Alice Cadya proffered her custodial bill against Thomas Galdesore for trespass on Sunday, 25 January 1450.76 Thomas, who had been indicted for this trespass as well, was brought before the King's Bench by virtue of a habeas corpus cum causa on the "octaves of Hilary," which ran from Tuesday, 20 January 1450, until Monday, 26 January. Hence, there was no need to proffer the bill on a Sunday. Moreover, Thomas had been given bail until the "quindene of Easter," that is at least until 20 April 1450, and since the concept of being in custody already included bail in these years,77 Alice could even have waited until 20 April to present her bill against him. The conclusion surely must be that, in the fifteenth century, the judges of the King's Bench sat on Sundays and major Holy Days to hear and determine Bills of Custody. 15
      But the judges did not force plaintiffs or defendants to be in court on those days. If a day to imparl was granted, the parties had to reappear on a special day of a return day. This was never a Sunday, although occasionally the return day turned out to be a major Holy Day. John Sele, for instance, had to be in court on the Thursday next after the "quindene of Hilary," which happened to be 2 February 1436, Purification. But it is unlikely that this day was chosen deliberately.78 16
      The judges also never forced jurors to give a verdict on Sundays or Holy Days in Westminster Hall.79 They were given a special day of a return day—unlike the jury in original writs where we find return days only—but were never ordered to appear on a Sunday. Sometimes, however, they were summoned for a Holy Day, although probably this was done unintentionally in these cases as well.80 To sum up, there seems to have been no reason why Sundays or major Feast Days were picked to proffer bills other than that the court was in session on those days.81 17
      Who chose to present a bill on a dies non juridicus? Since plaintiffs were not required to identify themselves in litigation by bill beyond giving their names,82 we do not know the profession in each and every case. But we do find a tailor, a servant of the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, a servant, a mercer, several esquires, an attorney83 and even members of the clergy suing on a Sunday. The abbot of the monastery of St. Ositha in Essex, for instance, proffered a Bill of Custody for trespass against John Sele on Sunday, 6 November 1435. John asked for a day to imparl and the date for the reappearance of the parties was set for Purification 1436.84 In other cases a prior,85 a chaplain,86 or clerks87 acted as plaintiffs. Even more suggestive is that no defendant complained about being sued on a dies non juridicus, not even clerics.88 18
      Nearly half of the bills proffered on these days were Bills of Custody (eighty-eight), mainly for trespass (fifty), but also for debt and other personal actions not belonging to the normal jurisdiction of the court (thirty-one), while felony was comparatively rare (seven). While the number of Bills of Privilege produced in court on these days was small (one for trespass, four for debt), we find seventy-nine Bills of Middlesex, almost all leading to a writ latitat. We cannot put all these numbers in perspective, simply because no one has ever counted all bills enrolled in the plea rolls in the fifteenth century. We do know, however, how many Bills of Custody were proffered in court during thirty-nine years of Henry VI's reign (1422–1461), namely 2274.89 Eighty-one of those (roughly 3.5 percent) were produced on a Sunday or Holy Day. Although this number is quite moderate, we still have to explain why it happened at all. 19
      The opening of the Court of King's Bench to judicial business on Sundays and major festivals occurred slowly: in 1424, there were four bills proffered on such days, the next year there were just two, followed by one each in 1425, 1426, and 1427, followed by four in 1428, six in 1429, and three in 1430. Peaks occurred in 1435 (ten), 1437 (fourteen), 1440 (thirteen), and 1457 (seventeen) (see Appendix). In 1465 we are down to three again. It is hard to tell whether this was just a fifteenth-century phenomenon. It may have happened in the fourteenth century as well, but the sources do not contain the necessary information in the pre-1419 period. What seems to be certain, though, is that the opening of the Court to judicial business on Sundays and Holy Days was restricted to bills: no indictment so far discovered came before the judges on a dies non juridicus, and pleas on original writs were certainly not heard in court on those days.90 Nobody objected —not the church, not the judges, not the defendants.91 20
      The reason why the church did not object may be found in the nature of King's Bench bills. They were presented to the judges of the court coram rege, and they were the king's representatives. Who could prevent them from listening to a complaint made by one of his subjects on a Sunday or major festival? The church, surely, had little cause to object. After all, the office of Chancery, normally led by a bishop-chancellor, was open all year and the Court of Chancery as a judicial unit heard petitions on Sundays.92 How could the church object to the court coram rege, which was laicized by 1341,93 doing the same? The respondent in a bill of debt brought before the King's Bench, after all, endangered his soul every bit as much as the respondent in Chancery bills.94 For King's Bench bills—like any other bill brought before Parliament, the King's Council or Chancery—were petitions in which a complainant asked for a remedy for some kind of injury he had suffered, either physically or materially. To provide this remedy as quickly as possible was certainly in the common good. If concern for the common good could transform an illicit trade into a licit one,95 it must also have sufficed to justify doing judicial business on what was once a dies non juridicus. 21
      The situation of the King's Bench in the fifteenth century may have been the reason why the judges did not object. If the court did indeed need to attract litigants,96 and if it tried to do so by using the bill procedure, it had to make sure that those plaintiffs who could theoretically sue by bill did not spend money on an original writ out of Chancery.97 This meant that it also had to make sure that skilled writers of bills were available on the premises during term time.98 Since both original writs and King's Bench bills were written in Westminster Hall,99 the former by Chancery clerks, the latter by court's clerks, it should not have been too difficult to inform would-be litigants about the advantages of the cheaper and quicker bill procedure during term time and to encourage them to obtain a bill instead of an original writ. The court would, however, lose all those plaintiffs to the Chancery who happened to come to Westminster Hall on a Sunday or major festival if there were no writers of King's Bench bills available on those days. But since we do not know how many original writs were issued on a dies non juridicus nor how many bills were obtained on those days, we cannot say whether this made a real difference to the court in terms of business. 22
      In any event, the initiative to open the court coram rege for litigation on a dies non juridicus in the fifteenth century was taken by the plaintiffs, not by the judges. In contrast to suits based on original writs, plaintiffs suing by bill could choose which day they wanted to proffer their petition. While the court itself did not deliberately arrange to do legal business on Sundays or Holy Days,100 judges were available on those days101 and complainants were therefore not turned away. 23
      That plaintiffs proffered their bills on Sundays and major festivals to the courts in Westminster Hall may indicate the increasing secularization of society.102 It could also be a reaction to litigants' demands for accessible justice. Or is it a mere coincidence that courts that sat during specific law terms like the King's Bench and the Court of Common Pleas103 met on Sundays as well? The exchequer of account, for instance, was in session "not infrequently on Sundays,"104 and the Court of Chancery, which seems to have been frequented by petitioners mostly during those terms, also heard bills on those days. Even Gaol Delivery judges, commissioned to try those detained in jail for criminal offenses for a specific period, sat on Sundays.105 But courts that met during the whole year, albeit not necessarily every day, did not normally hold sessions on Sundays. County courts, for instance, which met once a month or on a six-weekly schedule, did not sit in judgment on Sundays.106 The commissary court of London sat from three to six days per week throughout the year, mostly on Wednesdays and Fridays,107 and even the Piepowder Court in Devonshire, which met on all days of the year, omitted Sundays and had done so from time immemorial.108 24


Susanne Jenks is an independent scholar <pggm00@rrze.uni-erlangen.de>. The author is indebted to Paul Brand and the anonymous reviewers for the Law and History Review for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article and to Timothy S. Haskett for his efforts with earlier drafts and his general encouragement. All remaining faults are her own.


Notes

1. Max Levy, Der Sabbath in England. Wesen und Entwicklung des englischen Sonntags, Kölner Anglistische Arbeiten 18 (Leipzig: Verlag von Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1933). Levy interprets the decreasing observance of Sundays as the result of declining religiousness and increasing secularization of the society. Cf. also Der Tag des Herrn. Kulturgeschichte des Sonntags, ed. Rudolf Weiler (Wien/Köln/Weimar: Böhlau, 1998).

2. Edith Cooperrider Rogers, Discussion of Holidays in the Later Middle Ages, Studies in History, Economics and Public Law 474 (New York: AMS Press, 1967); cf. also Christopher R. Cheney, "Rules for the Observance of Feast-Days in Medieval England," Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 34 (1961): 117–47.

3. Cf. for instance, Barbara Harvey, "Work and Festa Ferianda in Medieval England," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 23 (1972): 289–308; P. E. Braun, "Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Sonntagsruhe (Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie des Arbeiterschutzes)," Viertel-jahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 16 (1922): 325–69.

4. James F. Willard, "The Observance of Holidays and Vacations by the Lower Exchequer, 1327–1336," The University of Colorado Studies 22 (1935): 281–87; Timothy S. Has-kett, "The Juridical Role of the English Chancery in Late-Medieval Law and Literacy," in Écrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales: Espace Français, Espace Anglais. Actes du colloque international de Montréal, 7–9 septembre 1995, ed. Kouky Fianu and DeLloyd J. Guth, Fédération Internationale des Instituts de Études Médiévales. Textes et Études du Moyen Âge 6 (Louvaine-La-Neuve: Turnhout Brepols, 1997), 317; Timothy S. Haskett, "The Medieval English Court of Chancery,"Law and History Review 14 (1996): 252 and Timothy S. Haskett, "Access to Grace. Bills, Justice, and Governance in England, 1300–1500," in Suppliques et Requêtes. Le gouvernement par la grâce en occident XIIe–XVe siècles, Publications de l'École français de Rome (Rome, 2003). I am obliged to Timothy Haskett for providing me with a pre-print. For conduct of parliamentary business on a Sunday in 1362, see W. M. Ormrod, "The Use of English: Language, Law, and Political Culture in Fourteenth-Century England," Speculum 79 (2003): 761.

5. Paul Brand, "Lawyers' Time in England in the later Middle Ages," in Time in the Medieval World, ed. Chris Humphrey and W. M. Ormrod (York: York Medieval Press, 2001), 81–82. Various other major Feast Days fell outside terms and the law terms were probably in part constructed to avoid them. "The 'certain days' which influenced the shape of terms were those major Feast Days of the Church on which no work could be done (including litigation) and while a court might simply not do business if one occurred by itself during term-time, it was better to suspend sessions altogether if there was a whole cluster of them" (Brand, "Lawyers' Time," 75). Cf. also Abram Herbert Lewis, Critical History of Sunday Legislation from 321 to 1888 A.D. (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1888), 82–83: "In 1359 Islep, Archbishop of Canterbury issued the following: no courts public or private, ecclesiastical or secular, be kept, or any country work done on these days."

6. David Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae, Ab Anno MCCCL ad Annum MDXLV, (London, 1737), 3:824.

7.neque legittimus per communem legem regni dicte domine regine nunc Anglie pro die retorni aliquorum brevium seu preceptorum in aliquam curiam ipsius domine regine: Reports from the Lost Notebooks of Sir James Dyer, ed. John H. Baker, Selden Society 110 (London: Alden Press, 1994), no. 514 Crowther v. Johnson, 2:395–96. This rule was indeed followed; see for instance National Archives, PRO, Kew, Sussex, England (hereafter PRO) KB 27/806 Michaelmas 2 Edward IV m 28d: the return day of the attachias was a Friday, that of the capias the following Saturday, and that of the latitat the following Monday.

8. Brand, "Lawyers' Time," 82.

9.The Reports of Sir John Spelman, ed. John H. Baker, Selden Society 94 (London: Spot-tiswoode Ballantyne Press, 1977), 2:307. There were actually nine days between the quindene of Hilary (27 Jan. 1530) and the octaves of the Purification of the Blessed Mary (9 Febr. 1530), but only if the two Sundays and one major festival (Purification of the Blessed Mary) were not counted.

10. Twelve days separated the first day of the return day "quindene of Hilary" (27 Jan. 1530) and the first day of the return day "octaves of the Purification" (9 Feb. 1530). Fifteen days lay between 27 Jan. 1530 and the fourth day of the return day "octaves of the Purification" (12 Feb. 1530). It seems the clerk applied the four-day rule here. Cf. A Handbook of Dates for Students of British History, ed. Christopher R. Cheney, rev. Michael Jones, Royal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 101: "A plaintiff suing mesne process against the defendant or seeking a judgment against them by default had to appear on each of the first three days of the 'return day' (excluding Sundays) before being able to secure judgment for the next stage of process or by default on the fourth day (hence the standard 'X. offered himself on the fourth day against Y' of so many plea rolls entries)."

11. Cf. also Year Book Michaelmas 22 Henry VI no. 49 fol. 30b–33a (quoted from SEIPP's Abridgement no. 1443.108 http://www.bu.edu/law/seipp/index.html (8 April 2003): "and if my servant go to church on the Sabbath day to serve God, and another take him or beat him, I will have my action against him, and yet he was at this time in secular service to God and in His service, and not my service, but the law adjudges him always in my service").

12. William Craddock Bolland, A Manual of Year Book Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925), 101. For reference to an assize held in Brentwood on Sunday, 2 June 1381, see Anthony Musson, Medieval Law in Context. The Growth of Legal Consciousness from Magna Carta to the Peasants' Revolt, Manchester Medieval Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press; New York: Palgrave, 2001), 261 n. 150.

13. Cf. also Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward I, ed. George O. Sayles, Selden Society 57 (London: Professional Books Limited, 1972), 2: lxxv n. 8 (pleas "coram domino rege" at Exeter on Sunday after Christmas, 1285) and lxxvi ("So far as the transaction of legal business was concerned, Sunday was not, as Coke would have it, a dies non juridicus..."); The Mirror of Justices, ed. William Joseph Whittaker, intro. Frederic William Maitland, Selden Society 7 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1895), 171 no. 111 ("It is an abuse to hold pleas on Sundays or other forbidden days, or before sunrise, or by night, or in improper places").

14. It was taken down by the Chancery clerks.

15. Brand, "Lawyers' Time," 78.

16. This information is given only in connection with trespass cases.

17. Afictitious Bill of Middlesex was a bill for a trespass (never for a felony) committed in Middlesex, where the alleged trespass was purelyfictional.

18. See for instance PRO, KB 27/612 Easter 2 Henry V m 27d (no date); PRO, KB 27/ 616 Easter 3 Henry VI m 21 (1 May); PRO, KB 27/620 Easter 4 Henry V m 59d (this term); PRO, KB 27/626 Michaelmas 5 Henry V m 31 (Saturday next after the Feast of Simon and Judas in this term).

19. In these cases only the term in which the bill was proffered is noted on the plea rolls, not a specific date.

20. That is those Bills of Middlesex that lead to a writ latitat. See, for instance, PRO, KB 27/774 Michaelmas 33 Henry VI m 83; PRO, KB 27/778 Michaelmas 34 Henry VI m 69; PRO, KB 27/783 Hilary 35 Henry VI m 49d.

21. See for instance PRO, KB 27/793 Trinity 37 Henry VI mm 29d, 125; PRO, KB 27/ 798 Michaelmas 39 Henry VI mm 24d, 51, 91d; PRO, KB 27/802 Easter 2 Edward IV m 44. If a day to imparl was granted the plea roll entries will only mention in which term the bill was proffered in court (see PRO, KB 27/775 Hilary 33 Henry VI m 24; PRO, KB 27/ 789 Trinity 36 Henry VI m 95; PRO, KB 27/790 Michaelmas 37 Henry VI m 78–78d).

22. See PRO, KB 27/775 Hilary 33 Henry VI m 22; PRO, KB 27/787 Hilary 36 Henry VI m 73d; PRO, KB 27/804 Easter 2 Edward IV mm 71, 76 (bills brought by the court's personnel); PRO, KB 27/778 Michaelmas 34 Henry VI m 101d; PRO, KB 27/788 Easter 38 Henry VI m 44d; PRO, KB 27/800 Easter 1 Edward IV mm 5, 6d (bills brought by prisoners of the King's Bench). For exceptions, where a specific day is mentioned, see PRO, KB 27/739 Hilary 24 Henry VI m 48d; PRO, KB 27/784 Easter 35 Henry VI m 23d; PRO, KB 27/785 Trinity 35 Henry VI m 39.

23. See PRO, KB 27/650 Michaelmas 2 Henry VI m 57d, where one defendant was hanged while two others claimed benefit of clergy and the names of two of the defendants got mixed up.

24. See, for instance, the custodial bill for trespass produced in court on Sunday, 29 May 1429. Trinity term did not start until the next day: PRO, KB 27/673 Trinity 7 Henry VI m 43d. For another example see PRO, KB 27/719 Hilary 19 Henry VI m 62d (custodial bill for trespass proffered on 1 Jan. 1441, a Sunday. Hilary term did not start until 20 Jan.).

25. In Easter term 1434 one Bill of Custody is enrolled twice. According to one entry, John Twyford proffered his Bill of Custody for debt against William Covele on Friday, 16 April 1434, while the other entry gives the date as Wednesday, 14 April 1434. The first record stops after the declaration and has a vacat written in the margin, while the second entry notes the outcome of the case. Since the only real difference between the entries is the date given, it is safe to conclude that the first entry was vacated because the scribe noticed his mistake in regard to the dates in time: PRO, KB 27/692 Easter 12 Henry VI m 5 (16 April 1434) and m 20 (14 April 1434). The same seems to have happened in the custodial bill brought by William Langerigge against Thomas Mathewe. It, too, is enrolled twice on the plea rolls. On membrane 32 the date of the presentation of the bill is given as 16 October 1464, while on membrane 36d it is given as 20 October 1464: PRO, KB 27/814 Michaelmas 4 Edward IV mm 32, 36d. Again, the scribe noticed this mistake in time.

26. PRO, KB 27/679 Hilary 9 Henry VI m 70.

27. According to the plea roll of Easter term 36 Henry VI, William Marchall proffered his custodial bill for debt against John Hancok on 31 April 1458: PRO, KB 27/788 Easter 36 Henry VI m 75d. We know that this date is wrong, simply because the month of April does not have 31 days. Moreover, the panella file shows that this very same bill was presented in Hilary 1458, and the endorsement of the custodial bill there tells us that two dies interloquendi were granted, the first for Wednesday after "quindene of Easter" (19 April 1458) and the second for Wednesday after "octave of Trinity" (7 June 1458), when the defendant defaulted: PRO, KB 146/6/36/2 Hilary 36 Henry VI. The endorsement of the bill in the panellafile informs us that the defendant defaulted on 7 June 1458, while according to the plea roll, he defaulted on 15 May 1458. If we compare the information contained in the panellafiles and the plea rolls, we can say that the custodial bill must have been handed in on 3 February 1458 (see PRO, KB 146/6/36/2 Hilary 36 Henry VI for the capias that had to be returned into court on that day) and that a day to imparl was granted until 19 April 1458. On that day the defendant appeared in court and the bill was enrolled in the plea roll for Easter term 1458. Whether John Hancok defaulted on 15 May or 7 June 1458 is unclear, but that he defaulted is indisputable. Moreover, the date given in the plea roll for the presentation of the custodial bill is definitely wrong, because the bill had already been produced in court in the previous term.

28. Hence, we can be certain that the date given in the following example is correct. William Wryght, a prisoner in the marshalsea, produced a Bill of Privilege for debt against William Warham of London on Tuesday, 9 July 1426. William Warham could not deny Wryght's claim and was consequently committed to the marshalsea because of this debt and because of other causes noted down by the sheriffs of London on the back of the habeas corpus cum causa writ (PRO, KB 27/661 Trinity 4 Henry VI m 77). The panellafile for this term (PRO, KB 146/6/4/4) makes it clear that the habeas corpus cum causa had been issued on the basis of the bill, and the return day was given as Wednesday next after the "quindene of St John the Baptist" (10 July 1426). It is therefore likely that William Wryght proffered his bill on 9 July 1426, as said in the plea roll.

29. Cf. for instance the introductions to Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward III, vol. 5, ed. George O. Sayles, Selden Society 76 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1958), vol. 6, ed. George O. Sayles, Selden Society 82 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1965), and Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V, vol. 7, ed. George O. Sayles, Selden Society 88 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1971); John B. Post, "King's Bench Clerks in the Reign of Richard II," Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 47 (1974): 150–63.

30. According to Marjorie Blatcher, the plaintiff who "set down his grievance in a bill" would deliver the bill to the court, which would issue a precept of attachment: Majorie Blatcher, The Court of King's Bench, 1450–1550. A Study in Self-Help, University of London Legal Series 12 (London: Athlone Press, 1978), 112.

31.Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward II, ed. George O. Sayles Selden Society 74 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1957), 4: lxxxv. For procedure by bill see George O. Sayles, The Court of King's Bench in Law and History, Selden Society Lecture 1959 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1959), 14–18 and Sayles, Select Cases, Selden Society 74, lxvii–lxxxvi.

32. Bills were not written in the Chancery like original writs but were "framed by a private lawyer" (Cecil A. F. Meekings, "A King's Bench Formulary," Journal of Legal History 6 [1985]: 89); "drawn by counsel" (Baker, Spelman, 2:88) or "by clerks of the King's Bench" (Susanne Jenks, "Bills of Custody in the Reign of Henry VI," Journal of Legal History 23 [2002]: 209). They did not have to be engrossed by a court official (Baker, Spelman, 2:88).

33. Plaintiffs were not required to identify themselves: Blatcher, The Court of King's Bench, 1450–1550, 120.

34. Cf. ibid., 121–22. However, there are some mistakes in her account.

35. Meekings, "King's Bench Formulary," 90; Blatcher, The Court of King's Bench, 1450–1550, 126; Susanne Jenks, Die Bürgschaft im mittelalterlichen englischen Strafrecht, Studien zur Europäischen Rechtsgeschichte 161 (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2003), 74–75 with n. 320.

36.Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, Fascicule V, prepared by D. R. Howlett (Oxford: British Academy Publications, 1997), s.v. impetratio: a) purchase, suing out (of writs), esp. as commencement of action, b) obtaining of privilege or sim. by petition made to king, c) privilege or sim. so obtained.

37. See for instance PRO, KB 27/741 Trinity 24 Henry VI m 56d: dies impetracionis of the custodial bill for trespass was 24 June 1446 (Nativity of St. John the Baptist); PRO, KB 27/756 Easter 28 Henry VI m 32d: dies impetracionis of the custodial bill for trespass was Sunday, 10 May 1450; PRO, KB 27/831 Hilary 8 Edward IV m 20d: dies impetracionis of the Bill of Middlesex was Sunday, 12 February 1469. There may have been some (inofficial) document on which the dies impetrationis was recorded, because there are instances where litigants were able to give this date: see Jenks, "Bills of Custody in the Reign of Henry VI," 219 n. 57.

38. One case refers to a dies impetracionis brevis originalis although it was a Bill of Middlesex: PRO, KB 27/731 Hilary 22 Henry VI m 3d.

39. Cf. Timothy S. Haskett, "Country Lawyers? The Composers of English Chancery Bills," in The Life of the Law. Proceedings of the Tenth British Legal History Conference, University of Oxford 1991, ed. P. Birks (London: Hambledon Press, 1993), 9–23. According to Penny Tucker, "The Early History of the Court of Chancery: A Comparative Study," English Historical Review 115 (2000): 790, bills presented to the court of Chancery "were sometimes composed and perhaps even written by the plaintiff himself."

40. PRO, KB 146/7/3/2 Trinity 3 Edward IV: Bill of Middlesex proffered by John Lound against William Lyndsey; attachias (with remnants of the seal) and capias (with remnants of the seal) written by Strete. This bill, which is written in the same hand as the precepts, is enrolled in PRO, KB 27/809 Trinity 3 Edward IV m 32. Cf. Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward II, ed. George O. Sayles, Selden Society 74 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1957), 4: lxxix: "a great many bills must have been written professionally."

41. A different phrase (dies confeccionis huius bille) was used when a bill was proffered by the king, and he certainly did not have to pay for the bill. Cf. for instance PRO, KB 27/723 Hilary 20 Henry VI m 22 Rex.

42. See PRO, KB 27/761 Trinity 29 Henry VI m 29d and m 23d. The price in the mid-seventeenth century was 1s 6d for a Bill of Middlesex: cf. Blatcher, The Court of King's Bench 1450–1550, 135.

43. PRO, KB 27/756 Easter 28 Henry VI m 32d: two custodial bills for trespass obtained on 10 May 1450 by Walter Colepepyr against William Kempe; PRO, KB 146/6/34/2 Hilary 34 Henry VI: custodial bill obtained on 25 Jan. 1456 by John Chovnyng against John Waltham.

44. Cooperrider Rodgers, Discussion of Holidays, 43 and 10: "In determining what legal activities were to be sanctioned on Holy Days, canonists, in their interpretation of church law, followed closely the regulations set down in the Corpus iuris civilis concerning holidays" (referring to Corpus iuris canonici II, 272–73 [Lib. II, tit. ix, c. 5]). For instance, "oaths pertaining to the establishment of peace might be administered at all times" (Cooperrider Rodgers, Discussion of Holidays, 44 [refering to Azo of Bologna, Summa aurea (Lyons, 1557), "de feriis," fol. 46v, col. 2]). "In case of injury or theft, or disasters such as fire and shipwreck, where lapse of time might easily render the object of the proceedings useless, it was considered proper for investigations to be undertaken at once" (ibid.) and in "recognition of the fact that clients who came from a distance might be seriously inconvenienced by the intervention of a Holy Day of local significance, advocates were granted the right of offering them counsel" (ibid., 45, referring to The Court Baron, being precedents for Use in Seignorial and Other Local courts, ed. F. W. Maitland and W. P. Baildon, Selden Society 4 [London: Bernard Quaritch, 1891], 56–57). Breach of the Sabbath was dealt with in church courts. See Richard H. Helmholz, "Crime, Compurgation and the Courts of the Medieval Church,"Law and History Review 1 (1983): 9; Richard M. Wunderli, London Church Courts and Society on the Eve of the Reformation, Speculum Anniversary Monographs 7 (Cambridge, Mass.: The Medieval Academy of America, 1981), 122–23.

45. Cf. PRO, KB 27/647 Hilary 1 Henry VI m 41 (return day of attachias 9 Feb. 1423; return day of capias 10 Feb. 1423); PRO, KB 27/718 Michaelis 19 Henry VI m 7 (return day of attachias 10 Nov. 1440; return day of capias 11 Nov. 1440).

46. If an attachias precept was to be returned on a Saturday, the following Monday was chosen as the return day of the capias precept: cf. for instance PRO, KB 27/695 Hilary 13 Henry VI m 31 (return day of attachias 5 Feb. 1435; return day of capias 7 Feb. 1435); PRO, KB 27/714 Michaelmas 18 Henry VI m 64d (return day of attachias 7 Nov. 1439; return day of capias 9 Nov. 1439).

47. Cf. PRO, KB 27/732 Easter 22 Henry VI m 94d (return day of attachias 20 May 1444; return day of capias 21 May 1444, Ascension Day).

48. Cf. for instance PRO, KB 27/649 Trinity 1 Henry VI m 77d (return day of latitat 1 Nov. 1423, All Saints Day); PRO, KB 27/786 Michaelmas 36 Henry VI m 22d (return day of latitat 1 Nov. 1457, All Saints Day), m 29d (return day of latitat 2 Nov. 1457, All Souls Day).

49. See PRO, KB 27/787 Hilary 36 Henry VI m 77 (Bill of Custody brought by Thomas Wyghtfeld against John Stevenes and others, proffered on 13 Feb. 1458; return day of attachias: 7 February 1458 and of capias 9 February 1458) and PRO, KB 146/6/36/3 Pasche 36 Henry VI (latitat writ issued on 13 Febr. 1458). But see PRO, KB 27/708 Easter 16 Henry VI m 30, where the bill was proffered on 10 May 1438, one day after the return day of the latitat (9 May 1438). However, the words veneris and tres septimanas of the return day (die veneris proximo post tres septimanas Pasche) were written on an erasure. Most bills were proffered before the return day of the attachias (cf. PRO, KB 27/647 Hilary 1 Henry VI mm 29, 41, 54; PRO, KB 27/649 Trinity 1 Henry VI mm 22d, 76d, 77d; PRO, KB 27/683 Hilary 10 Henry VI mm 41d, 64d; PRO, KB 27/718 Michaelmas 19 Henry VI mm 7, 56d, 64, 124), while some were proffered on the return day of the attachias (cf. PRO, KB 27/649 Trinity 1 Henry VI m 76d; PRO, KB 27/674 Michaelmas 8 Henry VI m 62; PRO, KB 27/ 732 Easter 22 Henry VI m 94d) or capias (PRO, KB 27/815 Hilary 4 Edward IV m 32d).

50. They are enrolled in the controllment rolls (PRO, KB 29).

51. See PRO, KB 145/7/2 Recorda 2 Edward IV for the Bill of Privilege for debt brought by Thomas Luyt, unius clericorum dominum regis in curia eiusdem regis coram ipso rege, against Robert Hunt.

52. Those Bills of Privilege, where the plea rolls only indicate that the defendants were attached to answer without giving the precise day when they were proffered, were most likely not dealt with in court on Sundays, simply because this day was never chosen as a return day.

53. See for instance PRO, KB 27/672 Easter 7 Henry VI m 44 (proffered on Sunday, 24 April 1429; return day of attachias 21 April 1429; return day of latitat 7 May 1429).

54. PRO, KB 27/746 Michaelmas 26 Henry VI m 5: A Bill of Privilege for debt was proffered by Thomas Luyt, a clerk of the King's Bench, on Monday, 16 Oct. 1447. The return day of the attachias precept was Tuesday, 17 Oct. 1447: PRO, KB 146/6/26/1 Michaelmas 26 Henry VI.

55. See for instance PRO, KB 27/641 Trinity 9 Henry V m 25: on Saturday, 21 June 1421, Thomas Douryssh, a clerk of John Dabnon, custos rotulorum curie regis, proffered a bill for debt against Richard Fernam. The return day of the attachias was 21 June 1421, the return day of the latitat was 14 Oct. 1421. PRO, KB 27/672 Easter 7 Henry VI m 44: A Bill of Privilege for debt was proffered by Philip Lowes, a servant of William Cheyne, chief justice of the King's Bench, against William Maundevile on Sunday, 24 April 1429. The return day of the attachias was 21 April 1429 while the return day of the latitat was 7 May 1429.

56. For Bills of Middlesex leading to latitat writs handed into court on a Sunday see: PRO, KB 27/647 Hilary 1 Henry VI m 54 (on Sunday, 7 Feb. 1423); PRO, KB 27/651 Hilary 2 Henry VI m 61d (on Sunday, 30 Jan. 1424); PRO, KB 27/698 Michaelmas 14 Henry VI m 13d (on Sunday, 16 Oct. 1435); PRO, KB 27/698 Michaelmas 14 Henry VI m 36 (on Sunday, 6 Nov. 1435); PRO, KB 27/700 Easter 14 Henry VI m 6d (on Sunday, 29 April 1436); PRO, KB 27/700 Easter 14 Henry VI m 7d (on Sunday, 6 May 1436); PRO, KB 27/714 Michaelmas 18 Henry VI m 64d (on Sunday, 8 Nov. 1439); PRO, KB 27/718 Michaelmas 19 Henry VI m 5 (on Sunday, 16 Oct. 1440); PRO, KB 27/718 Michaelmas 19 Henry VI m 7 (on Sunday, 6 Nov. 1440); PRO, KB 27/763 Hilary 30 Henry VI m 83d (on Sunday, 30 Jan. 1452); PRO, KB 27/769 Trinity 31 Henry VI mm 114d, 119d (on Sunday, 1 July 1453).

57. Bill of Middlesex leading to latitat proffered on 1 Nov. 1423, All Saints Day (PRO, KB 27/650 Michaelmas 2 Henry VI m 93d); on 14 May 1450, Ascension Day (PRO, KB 27/756 Easter 28 Henry VI m 38); on 24 June 1468, Nativity of St. John the Baptist (PRO, KB 27/829 Trinity 8 Edward IV m 33d).

58. Bill of Privilege proffered by John Dey, a servant of Hugh Holcot, a clerk of the King's Bench, on Sunday, 4 Febr. 1425, leading to a habeas corpus cum causa: PRO, KB 27/655 Hilary 3 Henry VI m 66d. Bill of Privilege proffered by Philip Lowes, a servant of the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, on Sunday, 24 April 1429, leading to a latitat: PRO, KB 27/ 672 Easter 7 Henry VI m 44.

59. The phrase presens hic in curia must describe real physical attendance in court rather than just nominal presence, because of the absence of summons. Cf. the case of the clerk of the King's Bench who was assaulted in Fleet Street during term time (on 25 May 1318) in the presence of the court (in presencia curie) while being on his way to the court (versus curiam istam) in the king's business (pro negociis domini regis et aliorum diversorum expediendis). According to this record, the court was simultaneously in Fleet Street and West-minster Hall, which is impossible, of course. However, the presence of the court in Fleet Street could be claimed simply because representatives of that court were on the spot when the trespass happened (homines de curia in quorum presencia dicta transgressio facta fuit). They symbolized the court, especially as they were acting on behalf of the court during term time. Therefore, the presence of the court in Fleet Street on 25 May 1318 was real. It was not the curia in session in Westminster Hall whose presence was claimed here, but rather the presence of the court as an institution represented by its members during term time.

60. PRO, KB 27/641 Trinity 9 Henry V m 37.

61. Ibid.

62. Again the attendance must be real. When attorneys lost their privilege of suing by bill in the King's Bench in 1486, the reason given was that no attorney was in court of record nor was his attendance there necessary. This argument only works if physical presence in court was a prerequisite in these cases: Blatcher, The Court of King's Bench, 1450–1550, 117, citing Year Book 1 Henry VII, fol. 12 pl. 17 (SEIPP no. 1486.017).

63. PRO, KB 27/682 Michaelmas 10 Henry VI m 81: The word "privilege" is omitted.

64. PRO, KB 27/765 Trinity 30 Henry VI m 30.

65. Prisoners were not deemed to be coram rege but rather in custody in the King's Bench jail. They could be brought before the justices when needed. Hence, their physical attendance in court at the time the bill was presented was not absolutely necessary—and is therefore not even alleged by the records.

66. PRO, KB 27/698 Michaelmas 14 Henry VI m 36d.

67. There are a few exceptions: cf. PRO, KB 145/6/21 Recorda 21 Henry VI (Bill of Custody for debt brought by George Neffeld against Richard Freton; not enrolled in the plea rolls); and PRO, KB 145/7/5 Recorda 5 Edward IV (Bill of Custody for trespass brought by William Johnson against John Colyns; enrolled in PRO, KB 27/818 Michaelmas 5 Edward IV m 63). Bills of Custody brought by the king or by the court's personnel were filed in the recorda files (PRO, KB 145).

68. If Bills of Custody could only be obtained against defendants already in custody, one would expect that the issue date would have been noted down on the bill as proof in case defendants later claimed that they were at large when the bill was obtained. Cf. also Jenks, "Bills of Custody in the Reign of Henry VI," 200–201, 209.

69. Cf. PRO, KB 27/647 Hilary 1 Henry VI m 67 (7 Feb. 1423); PRO, KB 27/673 Trinity 7 Henry VI mm 43d (29 May 1429), 105d (26 June 1429), 115d (26 June 1429); PRO, KB 27/674 Michaelmas 8 Henry VI m 68 (6 Nov. 1429); PRO, KB 27/676 Easter 8 Henry VI m 48d (14 May 1430).

70. On Purification: PRO, KB 27/695 Hilary 13 Henry VI m 26d (2 Feb. 1435); on Ascension Day: PRO, KB 27/696 Easter 13 Henry VI m 56d (26 May 1435); PRO, KB 27/760 Easter 29 Henry VI mm 30d, 52d (3 June 1451); on the Nativity of St. John the Baptist: PRO, KB 27/705 Trinity 15 Henry VI m 46d (24 June 1437); PRO, KB 27/721 Trinity 19 Henry VI m 3d (24 June 1441); PRO, KB 27/737 Trinity 23 Henry VI m 93 (24 June 1445).

71.Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources, prepared by R. E. Latham (repr. London: Oxford University Press, 1973), s.v. profero.

72. PRO, KB 27/786 Michaelmas 36 Henry VI m 90d (proferunt hic in curia litteras testamentarias).

73. PRO, KB 27/790 Michaelmas 37 Henry VI m 88 (dicit quod Johannes Rykhill per scriptum suum indentatum, cuius unam partem sigillo eiusdem Johannis signatam idem Willelmus hic in curia profert cuius datum est....)

74. British Library, London, England (hereafter BL), Harleian MS 452 (Trinity 7 Henry VI), fol. 141r; BL, Year Book Trinity 7 Henry VI (London: Tottel, 1555), fol. xliv–xliir(Byll); SEIPP no. 1429.068. The manuscript, the Black Letter Edition as well as Seipp's Abridgement all have "les Justices lessera le defendant en bank tanque a ore," which is translated in SEIPP no. 1429.068 as "The Justices left defendant in the Bench (Common Pleas?) until now." The discussion on bail and mainprise, which follows in the manuscript and Black Letter Edition version, makes it unlikely that the Justices left the defendant in the Bench. It is more likely that they let the defendant to bail.

75. PRO, KB 27/705 Trinity 15 Henry VI m 107d (Bill of Custody) and m 29 Rex.

76. PRO, KB 27/755 Hilary 28 Henry VI m 25d.

77. See Jenks, "Bills of Custody in the Reign of Henry VI," 206–8.

78. PRO, KB 27/698 Michaelmas 14 Henry VI m 33d.

79. Cases, where a nisi prius writ had been issued, seem to be different. See for instance PRO, KB 27/347 Hilary 1347 m 30d Rex (printed in Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench under Edward III, 6:54–56 and Alan Harding, The Law Courts of Medieval England, Historical Problems: Studies and Documents 18 [London: George Allen & Unwin, New York: Barnes and Noble, 1973], 170–171): "Roger was found guilty of the aforesaid trespass by the jury of the country on which Roger put himself regarding this before William of Thorp, the king's chief justice assigned to hold pleas before the king, at St. Martin-le-Grand, London, by the king's writ of 'nisi prius,' on Sunday after the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Mary in the twenty-first year of the reign of the present king [4 Feb. 1347]."

80. See for instance PRO, KB 27/693 Trinity 12 Henry VI m 36d, where the jury was summoned for Monday next after one month after Michaelmas, which happened to be 1 Nov. 1434 (All Saints Day); PRO, KB 27/824 Easter 7 Edward IV m 28, where the jury is summoned for Monday next after one month after Michaelmas, which was 2 Nov. 1467 (All Souls Day); PRO, KB 27/706 Michaelmas 16 Henry VI m 2d, where the jury is summoned for Friday next after one month after Michaelmas (1 Nov. 1437); PRO, KB 27/666 Michaelmas 6 Henry VI m 117, where the jury was summoned for the day of the conversion of St. Paul, which happened to fall on a Sunday in that year (25 Jan. 1428) and PRO, KB 27/698 Michaelmas 14 Henry VI m 33d, where the jury was summoned for Thursday next after quindene of St. Hilary, which happened to be 2 Feb. 1436 (Purification). The only examples of summons for a Sunday that I know of are Bracton's Note Book. A Collection of Cases decided in the King's Courts during the reign of Henry the Third, Annotated by a Lawyer of that Time, seemingly by Henry of Bratton, ed. Frederick William Maitland (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1887), 2: nos. 242, 248, and 261 (see Cooperrider Rodgers, Discussion of Holidays, 99 n. 129) and PRO, KB 27/437 Hilary 1347 m 30d Rex (see n. 79 above).

81. Though some of the cases where no jury was needed and that appear to have been tried in court on Sundays or Feast Days could have been done so only on parchment by an exchange of pleadings. For paper pleadings cf. John H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, 3d ed. (London: Butterworths, 1990), 97.

82. Blatcher, The Court of King's Bench, 1450–1550, 120.

83. PRO, KB 27/669 Trinity 6 Henry VI m 8d (11 July 1428, tailor); PRO, KB 27/672 Easter 7 Henry VI m 44 (24 April 1429, servant of Chief Justice); PRO, KB 27/676 Easter 8 Henry VI m 48d (14 May 1430, servant); PRO, KB 27/698 Michaelmas 14 Henry VI m 36d (6 Nov. 1435, mercer); PRO, KB 27/673 Trinity 7 Henry VI m 115 (26 June 1429, esquire); PRO, KB 27/678 Michaelmas 9 Henry VI m 79 (12 Nov. 1430, esquire); PRO, KB 27/693 Trinity 12 Henry VI m 10d (13 June 1434, esquire); PRO, KB 27/746 Michaelmas 26 Henry VI m 115 (12 Nov. 1447, esquire); PRO, KB 27/748 Easter 26 Henry VI m 27d (21 April 1448, attorney).

84. PRO, KB 27/698 Michaelmas 14 Henry VI m 33d.

85. PRO, KB 27/705 Trinity 15 Henry VI m 38d (Bill of Custody for trespass proffered on 16 June 1437).

86. PRO, KB 27/737 Trinity 23 Henry VI m 95 (Bill of Custody for debt proffered on 20 June 1445).

87. PRO, KB 27/785 Easter 35 Henry VI m 93 (Bill of Middlesex leading to latitat proffered on 3 July 1457); PRO, KB 27/800 Easter 1 Edward IV m 1d (Bill of Middlesex leading to latitat proffered on 26 April 1461).

88. PRO, KB 27/678 Michaelmas 9 Henry VI m 107d (Bill of Custody for trespass proffered on 26 Nov. 1430); PRO, KB 27/705 Trinity 15 Henry VI m 38d (Bill of Custody for trespass proffered on 16 June 1437); PRO, KB 27/718 Michaelmas 19 Henry VI m 113d (Bill of Middlesex leading to latitat proffered on 6 Nov. 1440); PRO, KB 27/723 Hilary 20 Henry VI m 5 (Bill of Middlesex proffered on 28 Jan. 1442); PRO, KB 27/785 Easter 35 Henry VI m 93 (Bill of Middlesex leading to latitat proffered on 3 July 1457); PRO, KB 27/787 Hilary 36 Henry VI m 29d (Bill of Custody for robbery proffered on 29 Jan. 1458); PRO, KB 27/810 Michaelmas 3 Edward IV m 26 (Bill of Custody for trespass proffered on 30 Oct. 1463).

89. Jenks, "Bills of Custody in the Reign of Henry VI," 200.

90. The return day of judicial writs issued by virtue of an original writ out of Chancery was never a Sunday or a Holy Day.

91. No defendant tried to have a bill quashed with the argument that it was proffered on a Sunday or Holy Day, nor was this discussed in the fifteenth-century year books as far as I know.

92. Cf. PRO, KB 145/7/3 Recorda 3E4: Placita coram domino rege in cancellaria on Sunday, 3 April 1463.

93. Harding, The Law Courts of Medieval England, 113.

94. Cf. Timothy S. Haskett, "Conscience, Justice and Authority in the Late-Medieval English Court of Chancery," in Expectations of the Law in the Middle Ages, ed. Anthony Musson (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2001), 160: "Certainly, the petitioner is suffering.... But the respondent is himself in danger of his soul. It is no coincidence that the court of chancery grew to prominence under the guidance of men who were themselves bishops; their work in this court merged the pastoral concerns of the prelate and the governmental obligations of the chancellor."

95. This justification was established at the end of the twelfth century. Cf. Jacques Le Goff, "Licit and Illicit Trades in the Medieval West," in Jacques Le Goff, Time, Work and Culture in the Middle Ages, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 64.

96. Cf. Blatcher, The Court of King's Bench, 1450–1550, chap. 2, for the different views when the decline in business in the common law courts started.

97. Communis opinio has it that procedure by bill was cheaper than by original writ, although we must admit that we do not know how much a bill cost in the fifteenth century. It may have been no more than 3s 4d, the amount usually awarded to plaintiffs in custodial bills if there was no need to summon the jury (cf. Jenks, "Bills of Custody in the Reign of Henry VI," 219 n. 55). In 1395 two original writs cost 18d and two judicial writs 20d (PRO, KB 27/538 Michaelmas 19 Richard II m 17d Rex). Other information indicates that 6d had to be paid for an original writ in the fourteenth century (David A. Carpenter, "The English Royal Chancery in the Thirteenth Century," in Écrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales, 34 (quoting H. C. Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes on the use of the Great Seal of England [London: H.M.S.O., 1926], 331: "crown received a uniform fee of 6d in addition to any 'fine' for the grant of it").

98. Even petitioners in Chancery seem to have stuck to the law terms. Eighty-seven percent of all Chancery bills between 1432 and 1443 were presented during the law terms (Michaelmas, Hilary, Easter, and Trinity) of the common law courts, which either shows that "petitioners preferred to keep to the law terms, or that Chancery was, indeed, not always open outside of those terms even for only the receipt of bills initiating judicial business": Timothy S. Haskett, "Schedule of Submission and Speed of Process in the Court of Chancery," in Timothy S. Haskett, The Medieval Court of Chancery (forthcoming). I am indebted to Timothy Haskett for providing me with a pre-print.

99. There is one case that seems to indicate that bills were written in Westminster Hall or at least in the vicinity of this place. In Michaelmas term 1429 Robert Porter appeared in court and begged the justices to send Thomas Malteby back to London. Thomas had to answer a plea of trespass in the King's Bench, but had been imprisoned on a plea of debt brought by Robert Porter in London. The judges informed Robert that he could sue in the King's Bench for the debt if he hurried, because they could not sent Thomas back to London to answer the plea there while the trespass case was pending. Robert did what he was told and presented a custodial bill on the same day (PRO, KB 27/674 Michaelmas 8 Henry VI m 56d). Given that Robert had to hurry to present his bill of custody in time, it seems likely that he did not have to go far in order to get the bill. This does not mean, however, that all bills were written in Westminster Hall. They could certainly also have been produced at St. Paul's or in the Guildhall, for instance, where the serjeants resorted in the afternoon for consultation. See John H. Baker, "Counsellors and Barristers. An Historical Study," Cambridge Law Journal 27 (1969): 207–8 (repr. John H. Baker, The Legal Profession and the Common Law. Historical Essays [London and Ronceverte: The Hambledon Press, 1986], 101–2).

100. See Brand, "Lawyers' Time," 82 for evidence that litigants were not required to appear on a Sunday. Cf. also PRO, KB 29/46 (Hilary 1403) m 11: Memorandum quod die jovis proximo post octabas sancti Hilarij isto eodem termino coram domino rege apud Westmonasterium venit Henricus Bysett, clericus, in propria persona sua et pecijt in plena curia hic de Johanne Holcot, armigero, adtunc presente in curia, sufficientem securitatem de pace domini regis erga ipsum Henricum extunc portanda et super hoc instanter dictum est eidem Johanni, quod inveniat sufficientem securitatem pacis eidem Henrico et populo domini regis imposterum portande. Et quod non recedat a curia domini regis hic sine licencia antequam securitatem predictam in forma predicta plenius invenerit qui quidem Johannes Holcot post-modum, videlicet die veneris, die sabbati, die lune et die martis extunc proxime sequentes hic in curia coram domino rege apud Westmonasterium ad securitatem predictam inveniendam solempniter et pluries vocatus non venit set sine licencia recessit in contemptum do-mini regis et despectum curie sue. Per quod consideratum est quod idem Johannes pro contemptu predicto capiatur.

101. On Sunday, 19 June 1463, William nunc dominus la Zouche came to Westminster coram Johanne Markham, milite, capitali Justiciario domini regis ad placita coram ipso rege tenenda assignato apud Westmonasterium to have a bond enrolled: PRO, KB 27/809 Trinity 3 Edward IV m 24.

102. For evidence of secularization during the late fifteenth and sixteenth century, cf. Wunderli, London Church Courts and Society on the Eve of the Reformation and Richard Helmolz, "Assumpsit and Fidei Laesio," Law Quarterly Review 91 (1975): 431.

103. For an example of a bill delivered to the Court of Common Pleas on a Sunday, see PRO, CP 40/802 Michaelmas 1 Edward IV m 235 (25 Oct. 1461).

104.A Handbook of Dates, 106.

105. Ralph B. Pugh, "The Duration of Criminal Trials in Medieval England," in Law, Litigants and the Legal Profession, ed. E. W. Ives and A. H. Manchester (London and New Jersey: Boydell & Brewer, 1983), 108 (cf. also 111, 114).

106. Robert C. Palmer, The County Courts of Medieval England, 1150–1350 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), 5: "No county normally met on Fridays or Sundays, although rare irregular sessions or sessions of the rerecounty were held on those days."

107. Cf. Wunderli, London Church Courts and Society on the Eve of the Reformation, 13: "Days on which the court was in recess are also baffling: they were not prominent saints' days. There seems not to have been a set court calendar, but rather court days seem to have been determined by the pressing work load, by the personal affairs and personal schedule of the judge, or by other London court calendars which precluded the commissary court from sitting."

108. PRO, KB 27/833 Trinity 9 Edward IV m 31–31d.


Appendix: Bills presented on a Sunday or major festival, 1423–1465


No.
Reference
Date		 Sunday/
major festival
Kind of bill
1 KB 27/647 m 54 Feb. 7, 1423 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
2 KB 27/647 m 67 Feb. 7, 1423 Sunday Bill of Custody
3 KB 27/647 m 4d Feb. 7, 1423 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
4 KB 27/649 m 25 June 20, 1423 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
5 KB 27/651 m 61d Jan. 30, 1424 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
6 KB 27/653 m 77 July 2, 1424 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
7 KB 27/655 m 66d Feb. 4, 1425 Sunday Bill of Privilege
8 KB 27/661 m 59 July 7, 1426 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
9 KB 27/663 m 30 Jan. 26, 1427 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
10 KB 27/669 m 49 July 11, 1428 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
11 KB 27/669 m 89 July 11, 1428 Sunday Bill of Custody
12 KB27/669 m 89 July 11, 1428 Sunday Bill of Custody
13 KB 27/669 m 8d July 11, 1428 Sunday Bill of Custody
14 KB 27/672 m 44 April 24, 1429 Sunday Bill of Privilege
15 KB 27/673 m 115d June 26, 1429 Sunday Bill of Custody
16 KB 27/673 m 105d June 26, 1429 Sunday Bill of Custody
17 KB 27/673 m 43d May 29, 1429 Sunday Bill of Custody1
18 KB 27/674 m 62 Nov. 6, 1429 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
19 KB 27/674 m 68 Nov. 6, 1429 Sunday Bill of Custody
20 KB 27/676 m 48d May 14, 1430 Sunday Bill of Custody
21 KB 27/678 m 79 Nov. 12, 1430 Sunday Bill of Custody
22 KB 27/678 m 107d Nov. 26, 1430 Sunday Bill of Custody
23 KB 27/680 m 33 May 10, 1431 Ascension Bill of Custody
24 KB 27/680 m 33d May 10, 1431 Ascension Bill of Middlesex
25 KB 27/681 m 23d June 24, 1431 Nat. John Bapt. Bill of Middlesex
26 KB 27/682 m 81 Nov. 18, 1431 Sunday Bill of Privilege
27 KB 27/684 m 28 May 29, 1432 Ascension Bill of Middlesex
28 KB 27/684 m 54 June 1, 1432 Sunday Bill of Custody
29 KB 27/684 m 54 June 1, 1432 Sunday Bill of Custody
30 KB 27/684 m 27d June 1, 1432 Sunday Bill of Custody
31 KB 27/687 m 5d Jan. 25, 1433 Sunday Bill of Custody
32 KB 27/691 m 26d Nov. 29, 1433 Sunday Bill of Custody
33 KB 27/693 m 10d June 13, 1434 Sunday Bill of Custody
34 KB 27/695 m 26d Feb. 2, 1435 Purification Bill of Custody
35 KB 27/696 m 56d May 26, 1435 Ascension Bill of Custody
36 KB 27/697 m 72d June 26, 1435 Sunday Bill of Custody
37 KB 27/697 m 71d June 24, 1435 Nat. John Bapt. Bill of Custody
38 KB 27/698 m 36 Nov. 6, 1435 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
39 KB 27/698 m 36 Nov. 6, 1435 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
40 KB 27/698 m 36d Nov. 6, 1435 Sunday Bill of Privilege2
41 KB 27/698 m 34d Nov. 6, 1435 Sunday Bill of Custody
42 KB 27/698 m 33d Nov. 6, 1435 Sunday Bill of Custody
43 KB 27/698 m 13d Oct. 16, 1435 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
44 KB 27/700 m 7d May 6, 1436 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
45 KB 27/700 m 6d April 29, 1436 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
46 KB 27/702 m 79d Nov. 25, 1436 Sunday Bill of Custody
47 KB 27/704 m 9 April 28, 1437 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
48 KB 27/704 m 51d April 28, 1437 Sunday Bill of Custody
49 KB 27/704 m 8d April 28, 1437 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
50 KB 27704 m 8d April 28, 1437 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
51 KB 27/704 m 5d April 28, 1437 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
52 KB 27/705 m 44 June 16, 1437 Sunday Bill of Custody
53 KB 27/705 m 89 June 16, 1437 Sunday Bill of Custody
54 KB 27/705 m 107d July 14, 1437 Sunday Bill of Custody
55 KB 27/705 m 46d June 24, 1437 Nat. John Bapt. Bill of Custody
56 KB 27/705 m 38d June 16, 1437 Sunday Bill of Custody
57 KB 27/705 m 35d June 16, 1437 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
58 KB 27/706 m 63 Nov. 1, 1437 All Saints Bill of Middlesex
59 KB 27/707 m 37 Nov. 24, 1437 Sunday Bill of Custody
60 KB 27/707 m 37 Nov. 24, 1437 Sunday Bill of Custody
61 KB 27/710 m 13d Oct. 12, 1438 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
62 KB 27/711 m 34d Feb. 8, 1439 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
63 KB 27/714 m 64d Nov. 8, 1439 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
64 KB 27/715 m 69 Jan. 24, 1440 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
65 KB 27/717 m 105 June 24, 1440 Nat. John Bapt. Bill of Custody
66 KB 27/717 m 105 June 24, 1440 Nat. John Bapt. Bill of Custody
67 KB 27/717 m 48d June 24, 1440 Nat. John Bapt. Bill of Middlesex
68 KB 27/718 m 5 Oct. 16, 1440 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
69 KB 27/718 m 6 Oct. 16, 1440 Sunday Bill of Custody
70 KB 27/718 m 6 Oct. 16, 1440 Sunday Bill of Custody
71 KB 27/718 m 7 Nov. 6, 1440 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
72 KB 27/718 m 64 Nov. 6, 1440 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
73 KB 27/718 m 124 Nov. 11, 1440 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
74 KB 27/718 m 113d Nov. 6, 1440 Sunday Bill of Custody
75 KB 27/718 m 113d Nov. 6, 1440 Sunday Bill of Custody
76 KB 27/718 m 82d Nov. 20, 1440 Sunday Bill of Custody
77 KB 27/719 m 62d Jan. 1, 1441 Sunday Bill of Custody3
78 KB 27/720 m 80 May 28, 1441 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
79 KB 27/721 m 6d June 24, 1441 Nat. John Bapt. Bill of Middlesex
80 KB 27/721 m 3d June 24, 1441 Nat. John Bapt. Bill of Custody
81 KB 27/721 m 3d June 24, 1441 Nat. John Bapt. Bill of Custody
82 KB 27/723 m 5 Jan. 28, 1442 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
83 KB 27/723 m 4d Jan. 28, 1442 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
84 KB 27/726 m 10d Nov. 19, 1442 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
85 KB 27/726 m 13 Oct. 28, 1442 Sunday Bill of Custody
86 KB 27/731 m 28 Jan. 26, 1444 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
87 KB 27/731 m 92d Feb. 9, 1444 Sunday Bill of Custody
88 KB 27/731 m 86d Feb. 9, 1444 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
89 KB 27/733 m 58d July 12, 1444 Sunday Bill of Custody
90 KB 27/736 m 35d May 6, 1445 Ascension Bill of Middlesex
91 KB 27/737 m 82 June 20, 1445 Sunday Bill of Custody
92 KB 27/737 m 93 June 24, 1445 Nat. John Bapt. Bill of Custody
93 KB 27/737 m 95 June 20, 1445 Sunday Bill of Custody
94 KB 27/737 m 82d June 6, 1445 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
95 KB 27/739 m 92d Feb. 6, 1446 Sunday Bill of Custody
96 KB 27/740 m 78 May 8, 1446 Sunday Bill of Custody
97 KB 27/741 m 56d June 24, 1446 Nat. John Bapt. Bill of Custody
98 KB 27/742 m 28d Oct. 16, 1446 Sunday Bill of Custody
99 KB 27/745 m 23 June 18, 144 Sunday Bill of Custody
100 KB 27/745 m 91 June 18, 1447 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
101 KB 27/746 m 98 Nov. 12, 1447 Sunday Bill of Custody
102 KB 27/746 m 115d Nov. 12, 1447 Sunday Bill of Custody
103 KB 27/746 m 94d Nov. 12, 1447 Sunday Bill of Custody
104 KB 27/748 m 28 April 21, 1448 Sunday Bill of Custody
105 KB 27/748 m 91d April 21, 1448 Sunday Bill of Custody
106 KB 27/748 m 28d April 21, 1448 Sunday Bill of Custody
107 KB 27/748 m 27d April 21, 1448 Sunday Bill of Custody
108 KB 27/750 m 87 Oct. 20, 1448 Sunday Bill of Custody
109 KB 27/750 m 125 Nov. 10, 1448 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
110 KB 27/750 m 117d Oct. 20, 1448 Sunday Bill of Custody
111 KB 27/751 m 21 Jan. 26, 1449 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
112 KB 27/752 m 61d May 11, 1449 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
113 KB 27/755 m 25d Jan. 25, 1450 Sunday Bill of Custody
114 KB 27/756 m 33 May 10, 1450 Sunday Bill of Custody
115 KB 27/756 m 33d May 19, 1450 Sunday Bill of Custody
116 KB 27/756 m 38 May 14, 1450 Ascension Bill of Middlesex
117 KB 27/756 m 32d May 10, 1450 Sunday Bill of Custody
118 KB 27/756 m 32d May 10, 1450 Sunday Bill of Custody
119 KB 27/760 m 52d June 3, 1451 Ascension Bill of Custody
120 KB 27/760 m 30d June 3, 1451 Ascension Bill of Custody
121 KB 27/762 m 90d Nov. 21, 1451 Sunday Bill of Custody
122 KB 27/763 m 83d Jan. 30, 1452 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
123 KB 27/765 m 30 June 4, 1452 Sunday Bill of Privilege
124 KB 27/765 m 62d July 2, 1452 Sunday Bill of Custody
125 KB 27/766 m 76–76d Oct. 15, 1452 Sunday Bill of Custody
126 KB 27/768 m 37d May 6, 1453 Sunday Bill of Custody
127 KB 27/768 m 37d May 6, 1453 Sunday Bill of Custody
128 KB 27/769 m 119d July 1, 1453 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
129 KB 27/769 m 114d July 1, 1453 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
130 KB 27/776 m 40d May 4, 1455 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
131 KB 27/778 m 107d Nov. 16, 1455 Sunday Bill of Custody
132 KB 27/778 m 52d Nov. 16, 1455 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
133 KB 27/781 m 109d June 24, 1456 Nat. John Bapt. Bill of Custody
134 KB 27/781 m 109dd June 24, 1456 Nat. John Bapt. Bill of Custody
135 KB 27/783 m 80 Feb. 6, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
136 KB 27/783 m 67d Feb. 6, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
137 KB 27/783 m 40d Jan. 30, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
138 KB 27/783 m 40d Jan. 30, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
139 KB 27/784 m 29 May 8, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
140 KB 27/784 m 70d May 8, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
141 KB 27/785 m 34 July 3, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
142 KB 27/785 m 93 July 3, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
143 KB 27/785 m 93 July 3, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
144 KB 27/785 m 59d July 3, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
145 KB 27/786 m 36d Oct. 16, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
146 KB 27/786 m 34d Oct. 16, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
147 KB 27/786 m 27d Nov. 20, 1457 Sunday Bill of Custody
148 KB 27/786 m 23d Nov. 6, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
149 KB 27/786 m 20d Oct. 9, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
150 KB 27/787 m 26 Jan. 29, 1457 Sunday Bill of Custody
151 KB 27/787 m 29d Jan. 29, 1457 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
152 KB 27/789 m 103 June 4, 1458 Sunday Bill of Custody
153 KB 27/790 m 116 Nov. 11, 1458 Sunday Bill of Custody
154 KB 27/790 m 31d Oct. 29, 1458 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
155 KB 27/793 m 34d June 10, 1459 Sunday Bill of Custody
156 KB 27/795 m 85d Jan. 20, 1460 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
157 KB 27/795 m 85d Jan. 20, 1460 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
158 KB 27/795 m 81d Jan. 20, 1460 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
159 KB 27/795 m 81d Jan. 20, 1460 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
160 KB 27/795 m 79d Feb. 3, 1460 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
161 KB 27/795 m 23d Feb. 3, 1460 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
162 KB 27/797 m 27d June 8, 1460 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
163 KB 27/798 m 95 Oct. 12, 1460 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
164 KB 27/798 m 99 Oct. 26, 1460 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
165 KB 27/800 m 1d April 26, 1461 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
166 KB 27/810 m 26 Oct. 30, 1463 Sunday Bill of Custody
167 KB 27/814 m 29 Oct. 28, 1464 Sunday Bill of Custody
168 KB 27/814 m 81d Oct. 28, 1464 Sunday Bill of Custody
169 KB 27/814 m 21d Nov. 4, 1464 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
170 KB 27/815 m 37d Jan. 27, 1465 Sunday Bill of Custody
171 KB 27/817 m 28d June 30, 1465 Sunday Bill of Middlesex
172 KB 27/818 m 114d Nov. 24, 1465 Sunday Bill of Custody

1. Trinity term began on May 30.

2. Brought by a prisoner against aprisoner for debt.

3. Jan. 1 lay outside Hilary term.

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.

 



Fall, 2004 Previous