• Z Razi and R.M. Smith, eds., Medieval Society and the Manor Court (Oxford, 1996): the introductory essays by Razi and Smith, but especially 'The origins of the English manorial court rolls as a written record: a puzzle' , and the contribution by P.R. Hyams on 'What did Edwardian villagers understand by "law"?'.
• J. Beckerman, 'Procedural innovation and institutional change in medieval English manorial courts', Law and History Review 10 (1992), pp. 197-252.
• E. Clark, 'Debt litigation in a late medieval English vill', in J.A. Raftis, ed., Pathways to Medieval Peasants (Toronto, 1981), pp. 247-82.
• R.M. Smith, 'Some thoughts on "hereditary" and "proprietary" rights in land under customary law in thirteenth and fourteenth century England', Law and History Review 1 (1983), pp. 95-128.
• J. Beckerman, 'The forty-shilling jurisdictional limit in medieval English personal actions' in D. Jenkins, ed., Legal History Studies (London, 1975), pp. 110-17.
• J.B. Post, 'Manorial amercements and peasant poverty', Economic History Review 2nd ser., 28 (1975), pp.

• F.W. Maitland, Select Pleas in Manorial and other Seignorial Courts (Selden Society, 1, 1889) [has texts and parallel translations].
• A.E. Levett, Studies in Manorial History (London, 1963) [contains at the end extracts from the St Alban's court books].
• M.K. Dale, ed., Court Roll of Chalgrave Manor 1278-1313 (Bedfordshire Historical Record Society 26-28, 1948-50).
• J. Amphlett and S.G. Hamilton, eds, Court Rolls of the Manor of Hales 1270-1307 (Worcs Historical Society, 3 vols, 1910-33).

These texts have been selected because they contain intrinsically interesting cases. Later this year (1997) should appear the second Selden Society volume of select pleas in manorial courts, edited by L.R. Poos and L. Bonfield, relating to 'family law'.

The development of written court rolls

• 12th century -- no written court rolls, but narratives or extracts in cartularies provide information about some seignorial courts -- these cases relate to free tenants and were presumably recorded because of the possibility of removal of the case (by writ of tolt) to the royal courts;
• 1208-9 Winchester Pipe Rolls -- the accounts contain the purchasia paragraph which records in considerable detail fines on the peasantry exacted in the manorial courts;
• 1237 St Alban's court books -- books of extracts from court rolls for each of most of the manors of the Abbey of St Alban's -- the reason for the extracts is not entirely clear, although many relate to customs;
• 1239 Brancaster (Norfolk) -- extracts from a court roll of this manor of Ramsey Abbey -- the reason is quite evident: the confiscation of lands involved in illicit (unlicensed) transactions in land by the unfree peasantry;
• 1246 -- the earliest extant original court rolls; these are for English manors of the Abbey of Bec -- sample entries were transcribed by F.W. Maitland in Select Pleas;
• court book of Croxton Abbey, Leicestershire, in Belvoir Castle -- noted by J.H. Round in his report on the Rutland MSS for the Historical Manuscripts Commission;
• 1260s and 1270s: the proliferation of court rolls.

Reasons for written records

• Maitland: a record of the fines exacted from the peasantry and thus a fiscal record of lordship -- but that might be achieved through the purchasia paragraph in manorial accounts, such as in the Winchester Pipe Rolls from 1208-9 without written court records;
• Harvey (Paul): to ensure that justice was dispensed according to custom and previous cases -- but presumably this was achieved before written record;

• Smith and Razi -- the expansion of the royal (common law) courts for the free tenantry forced seignorial courts onto the defensive with the consequence of bringing their procedures into line with 'public' courts. Phase I: 1230s -- start of manorial court records -- initial reaction to expansion of common law courts; Phase II -- 1260s -- expansion of written manorial court records -- political contest to maintain the loyalty of free tenants -- reform of manorial court procedures: written records -- period of Baronial Reform 1259-67: Provisions of Westminster (1259) and Statute of Westminster (1267) to provide protection for freeholders -- since lords could no longer coerce free tenants to prosecute their suits in manorial courts, they had to make the courts more attractive; Phase III -- 1270s and 1280s -- explosion of written manorial court records -- further attractiveness of common law courts in the reign of Edward I combined with his Quo Warranto proceedings into the operation of franchises or liberties[Back] made it even more imperative for lords to make seignorial courts more attractive to freeholders rather than being complacent. Thus Smith and Razi emphasise the importance of competition from common law courts for the suits of free tenants in causing reforms to procedures in manorial courts, including the introduction of written records.

Smith and Razi, but more particularly the former, further consider that there was a constant impact of the common law particularly on land transactions, such that the Edwardian Statutes, for example De Donis Condicionalibus of Westminster II (1285) and Quia Emptores Terrarum of 1290, led to the proliferation of entails (by the former statute) and changes in diplomatic (by the latter).

Some contested areas

• Poos and Bonfield, in their forthcoming volume of cases in manorial courts, contest the impact of the common law on manorial custom; empirically, Poos does not allow the impact; jurisprudentially, Bonfield has argued that manorial custom was based on factual equities rather than legal principles; against Bonfield, Hyams has argued for a unifying legal culture, whilst Beckerman has countered Bonfield on the point of legal organisation;
• The evidence for innovations in land transactions -- peasant entails and jointures -- is largely from the eastern parts of England, with less evidence from other regions -- the eastern counties had a higher proportion of freemen, so that the cross-fertilisation of common law and manorial custom is more likely to have advanced there;
• Beckerman's evidence for procedural changes in manorial courts derives largely, although not exclusively, from a small number of courts and there is not yet enough evidence that these changes were more widespread -- the wider replacement of the homage (all the suitors of the court) by select juries of presentment in particular is at issue, although the transformation from compurgation (oath-helpers) to proof (fact proved to juries) is not contested.

Jurisdictional arrangements

What was a liberty or franchise? A liberty or franchise basically consisted of regalian rights which had been devolved into private hands. Such liberties might involve some degree of immunity from royal officials -- sheriffs and hundred bailiffs -- through the principle of non intromittas, excluding these officials. The officials could thus only deliver writs to the franchisal officers and receive the return of the writ. Whilst some franchises extended to criminal jurisdiction -- for felonies (such as the liberty of the Bishop of Ely), such higher private jurisdiction was declining by the late fourteenth century. The principle franchises thus comprised lower matters such as the administration of the assizes of bread and ale, battery, and the raising of the hue and cry, with, in addition, the organisation of the view of frankpledge, the collective system of security by which all males over twelve had to be in a tithing for collective responsibility. These matters were, in public hands, hundredal responsibilities, so that some of the jurisdiction of the hundred had been passed into seignorial hands. The hundred business was technically to be administered by the lord at the view of frankpledge courts to be held twice a year, Hockday (second Tuesday after Easter) and Michaelmas or Martinmas, by contrast with the lord's manorial courts which were often held every three weeks. Where the business was still a public responsibility, the sheriff passed through the hundreds twice a year, the sheriff's tourn. Consequently, some franchisal courts in private hands, such as those of Glastonbury Abbey, were described as the tourn. One effect of this dual responsibility on some estates was to reduce the frequency (ostensibly) of manorial courts, for manorial business only survives on the same rolls as the franchisal courts, that is twice a year, as on manors of Glastonbury Abbey and Ramsey Abbey. These twice-yearly records begin with the franchisal business of the tourn or view of frankpledge followed by the business of the hallmoot or manorial court. But surely the peasants must have had their personal actions judged more frequently than twice a year?

Change in diplomatic

Before the 1260s, the diplomatic for transferring customary tenures or unfree land was inchoate, but the phrase sibi et heredibus suis was insinuated into the language of transfers. Theoretically, such a clause was an implied manumission since only free tenures were hereditary. To obviate this problem, it has been suggested, lords introduced a more standardised terminology for these transfers, the surrender and admission and the surrender ad opus.

This is the basic vocabulary, but more will be encountered along the way.