Literature:

Bracton's note book, ed. F. W. Maitland. 3 vols. London, etc., 1887. See No. 2032. (The introduction, i. 13-61, contains a good account of Bracton's life and law-book.)

GÜTERBOCK, CARL. Henricus de Bracton und sein Verhältniss zum römischen Recht. Berlin, 1862. - Translated by Brinton Coxe: Bracton and his relation to the Roman law. Philadelphia, 1866.

MAITLAND, F. W. Henry de Bracton or Bratton. Dictionary of National Biography, vi. 144-7. London, 1886.

SCRUTTON, T. E. Influence of Roman law, pp. 78-121. Cambridge, 1885. Select passages from Bracton and Azo, ed. F. W. Maitland. Selden Soc. London, 1895. (Contains those portions of Bracton in which he follows Azo, a legist who stood at the head of the Bolognese school of law early in the 13th century. Bracton borrowed about one-fifteenth of his matter from Azo.)

VINOGRADOFF, Paul. The text of Bracton. Law Quarterly Review, i. 189-200. London, 1885. (Severely criticises Twiss's edition.)

1871. BRITTON. Britton: the French text carefully revised, with an English translation, ed. F. M. Nichols. 2 vols. Oxford, 1865. — Earlier editions, [circa 1530], 1640. Translated by Robert Kelham: [Bk. i.]: The ancient pleas of the crown. London, 1762.

The name Britton is applied to a treatise compiled about 1291, which makes the law appear in the king's name, in the form of royal precepts. It is in large part an abridgment of Bracton, but the writer shows some originality in the arrangement of the material, and turns to account some of Edward I.'s statutes. Perhaps he also made use of Fleta. Nothing is known regarding the authorship of the work. It used to be ascribed to John Breton, bishop of Hereford, but that theory cannot be true, for he died in 1275. As Bracton's name was sometimes written Britton or Bretton, Selden surmised that the treatise obtained its name from the author out of whose work the material was mainly derived. The best account of Britton will be found in the introduction to Nichols's excellent edition.

1872. Fleta seu Commentarius juris Anglicani; accedit tractatulus Fet assavoir dictus; subjungitur etiam Joannis Seldeni Ad Fletam dissertatio historica. London, 1647; 2nd edition, 1685. – Fleta liber primus [ed. Sir Thomas Clarke]. London, 1735.

This is the work of an anonymous author, compiled about 1290; according to the preface, it was written in Fleet prison. It is an abridgment of Bracton, with some additions derived mainly from the statutes of Edward I. The most striking departure from Bracton's treatise is found in the account of manorial organisation, but even this part of Fleta exhibits little originality. Clarke's text, as far as it goes, is more accurate than that of either of the other two editions. The latter contain Selden's Latin dissertation on Fleta, which was translated in 1771 [by Robert Kelham].

2

1873. FORTESCUE, Sir JOHN (d. 1476?). The works of Sir John Fortescue. Collected by Thomas (Fortescue), Lord Clermont. vols. London, 1869. [Half-title: Sir John Fortescue, his life, works, and family history, in two volumes.] - An insertion, vol. i. pp. 57-90, was printed in 1877: De titulo Edwardi comitis Marchiæ, with a translation, ed. William Stubbs. Vol. ii. History of the family of Fortescue; 2nd edition, 1880.

Sir John Fortescue was chief justice of the king's bench and an ardent adherent of the house of Lancaster. Having been attainted for treason by Edward IV., he went into exile with Queen Margaret in 1463, and remained abroad until 1471. He was taken prisoner at the battle of Tewkesbury, was induced to retract all that he had written against Edward IV.'s title, and was pardoned by the king. He wrote several tracts in favour of the Lancastrian house (De Natura Legis Naturæ, etc.). His two principal works, the De Laudibus Legum Angliæ and the Governance of England, though more concerned with politics than with law, throw light on trial by jury and other legal institutions of England. In the De Laudibus, which was written between 1468 and 1770, in the form of a dialogue, for the instruction of Edward, son of Henry VI., Fortescue compares the law of England with that of the continent (especially with the civil law of France), and commends the advantages of the former. His chief object is to show the superiority of a constitutional over a despotic government. The various editions are: [1537]; with Robert Mulcaster's translation, 1567, 1573, 1575, 1578, 1599, 1609; with Mulcaster's translation and Selden's notes, 1616, 1660, 1672; with Francis Gregor's translation, 1737, 1741, 1775; Gregor's edition, with notes by Andrew Amos, 1825; with Gregor's translation, in Lord Clermont's Works of Fortescue, 1869; with Gregor's translation and Lord Clermont's Life of Fortescue, Cincinnati, 1874. A good edition is needed. See also Edward Waterhous, Fortescutus Illustratus, a Commentary on De Laudibus, London, 1663.

Fortescue's Governance of England, otherwise called the Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy, has been well edited by Charles Plummer, Oxford, 1885; older editions, 1714, 1719, and 1869. It was written between 1471 and 1476, and is the earliest English treatise on constitutional history. Like the De Laudibus, it emphasises the advantages of a limited over an absolute monarchy. Measures are suggested for strengthening the crown and reducing the power of the nobles. Much attention is devoted to the reform of the royal revenues and to the reconstruction of the privy council. There is a good account of Fortescue's life and works in the introduction to Plummer's edition of the Governance. See also Stubbs, Constitutional History, § 365; and Henry Morley, English Writers, 1890, vol. vi. ch. ix.

1874. *GLANVILL, RANULF DE (d. 1190). Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Angliæ. London, [1554]. Other editions: 1557, 1604, 1673, 1780; by George Phillips (No. 2824), 1828. A new edition, by I. S. Leadam, will soon be published in the Rolls Series. Translated by John Beames. London, 1812.

Glanvill aided Henry II. in his military operations against the Scots and the

Welsh, and was chief justiciar of England from 1180 to 1189. The Tractatus de Legibus is usually ascribed to him, but there is no good evidence to show that he wrote it. It may have been written by his nephew, Hubert Walter. The work was compiled near the end of Henry II.'s reign, 1187-89. It is the oldest of the legal classics of England, and marks a distinct advance over the unsystematic law-books of Henry I.'s time (§ 36 b). With the exception of the Decretum, it was the earliest systematic treatise that appeared after the dissolution of the Roman Empire.' The author's primary object is to describe the procedure of the king's court, but he also throws much light upon other legal institutions. 'Glanville, who led the way,' says Reeves, 'is still entitled to the veneration always due to those who open the paths to science.' His work helped to make law and practice more uniform throughout England along the lines marked out by Henry II.

The law-book known from its opening words as Regiam Majestatem is a Scotch version of Glanvill, compiled in the first half of the 13th century. The two works are collated in Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, 1844, i. 135-74, and the Regiam Majestatem is printed ibid., i. 597-641; cf. George Neilson, Trial by Combat, 1890, pp. 99-104. There is an excellent account of Glanvill by F. W. Maitland in Dictionary of National Biography, 1890, xxi. 413–15. See also Maitland, Glanvill Revised, in Harvard Law Review, 1893 [1892], vi. 1-7, where he describes a revised version of Glanvill written, or perhaps only transcribed, by Robert Carpenter of Haresdale about 1265.

1328). The mirror of justices Edited by W. J. Whittaker, with Selden Soc. London, 1895.

1875. HORNE, ANDREW (d. [French text with a translation]. an introduction by F. W. Maitland. Earlier edition: La somme appelle Mirroir des justices, 1642. Translated by W[illiam] H[ughes], 1646 ; other editions, 1649, 1659, 1768, 1840.

This work, which was probably written in the reign of Edward I., perhaps between 1285 and 1290, is usually attributed to Andrew Horne, chamberlain of the city of London, but it is not certain that he was the author. It treats of all branches of the law, and proposes remedies for various legal abuses. The treatise abounds in falsehoods and myths. What then shall we say of this book? and what shall we call its author? Is he lawyer, antiquary, preacher, agitator, pedant, faddist, lunatic, romancer, liar? A little of all perhaps, but the romancer seems to predominate.' This quotation is taken from Maitland's introduction (to Whittaker's edition), where the best account of the Mirror will be found. See also I. S. Leadam, The Authorship of the Mirror of Justices, in Law Quarterly Review, 1897, xiii. 85-103; he believes that the work was transcribed under the direction of Andrew Horne, but that it was probably compiled by an earlier member of the Horne family.

1876. *LITTLETON, Sir THOMAS (d. 1481). Lyttleton: his treatise of Tenures, in French and English, a new edition, to which are added the ancient treatise of the Olde Tenures and the customs of Kent, ed. T. E. Tomlins. London, 1841. The first part of the Institutes of the laws of England, or a commentary upon Littleton.

London, 1628. 19th edition [with valuable notes], by Francis Hargrave and Charles Butler, 2 vols., 1832; reprinted, Philadelphia, 1853

Littleton was appointed one of the judges in the court of common pleas in 1466. His treatise, which was probably compiled in 1474-75, contains a lucid account of the various tenures and estates of England. Coke calls it 'the most perfect and absolute work that ever was written in any human science.' It used to be called Tenores Novelli, to distinguish it from an older work on the same subject (No. 1882). The first part of Coke's Institutes, commonly designated 'Coke upon Littleton,' contains Littleton's text with a translation and an elaborate commentary; in this form the treatise long remained the chief authority on the English law of real property. Four editions of Littleton's text were printed without title-page in Henry VII.'s time, the first of them about 1481. The British Museum has twenty-nine editions, published between 1481 and 1639. See British Museum Catalogue, 1891, pp. 277-82; J. M. Rigg, in Dictionary of National Biography, 1893, xxxiii. 373-6; K. E. Digby, in Encyclopædia Britannica, 1882, xiv. 703-5.

b. SHORT TRACTS.

All of these, except Nos. 1880 and 1883, are anonymous. For the Old Natura Brevium, see No. 2043.

1877. Brevia placitata: a thirteenth-century collection of precedents for pleadings in the king's courts, ed. G. J. Turner. University Press, Cambridge. In preparation.

Compiled late in the reign of Henry III. Each precedent usually comprises a writ, a count, and a plea.

1878. *Court baron (The), being precedents for use in seignorial and other local courts, together with select pleas from the court of Littleport [and a translation], ed. F. W. Maitland and W. P. Baildon. Selden Soc. London, 1891.

La court de baron, 19-67. Compiled late in the 13th century.

De placitis et curiis tenendis, 68-78. Perhaps written by John of Oxford, a monk of Luffield, toward the end of Henry III.'s reign or early in Edward I.'s. Modus tenendi curias, 79-92. Compiled about 1307. Modus tenendi curias, 93-106.

Professes to relate what happened in certain imaginary courts in 14-16 Edward III.; written about 1342, partly in French and partly in Latin.

Pleas at Littleport, 107-47. See No. 2286.

1879. Fet assavoir, in Fleta (No. 1872), 446-52. London, 1647. Also printed at the end of the second edition of Fleta, 1685.

A very short French tract on procedure, the date and author of which are unknown. Reeves, English Law, ch. xi., seems to ascribe it to the reign of Edward I.

1880. HENGHAM, Ralph de (d. 1311). Radulphi de Hengham Summæ, Magna Hengham et Parva vulgo nuncupatæ. [Printed with Fortescue's De Laudibus.] London, 1616. — Reprinted [with the De Laudibus], 1660, 1672, 1737, 1741, 1775.

Hengham Magna and Hengham Parva are two little treatises on procedure, dealing with essoins, defaults, writs, etc. Hengham, chief justice of the king's bench, was convicted of false judgment in 1289-90; in 1301 he was appointed chief justice of the court of common pleas.

1881. [Novæ narrationes.] Herein is conteined the booke called Novæ narrationes, the booke called Articuli ad Novas narrationes, and the booke of Diversities of courtes. London, 1561.

- Two

The French tract called Nova Narrationes deals with the method of pleading, and is usually assigned to the reign of Edward III. It was first printed about 1515. 1882. Olde teners newly corrected. London, 1525. earlier editions, without title-page; other editions, 1528, 1530, 1532, 1538, etc., and in the later editions of Coke upon Littleton (No. 1876).

A meagre French tract of uncertain date, ascribed to the reign of Edward III. It is called Old Tenures to distinguish it from Littleton's work on the same subject.

1883. [OXFORD, JOHN OF.] A conveyancer in the thirteenth century. By F. W. Maitland. Law Quarterly Review, vii. 63-69. London, 1891.

Maitland here gives an account of a collection of precedents or forms of conveyancing, written by John of Oxford, a monk of Luffield priory, early in the reign of Edward I. See No. 1878.

$ 50. THE EXCHEQUER AND REVENUE.

a. Domesday Book and Supplementary Surveys, Nos. 1884-1914.

b. The Dialogus and Exchequer Books, Nos. 1915-18.

c. Pipe Rolls, Nos. 1919–29.

d. Expenditure and Receipt Rolls, Nos. 1930-35.

e. Wardrobe and Household Accounts, etc., Nos. 1936-45

f. Taxation or Subsidy Rolls, Nos. 1946-84.

g. Memoranda, Originalia, and Fine Rolls, Nos. 1985–92.

h. Miscellaneous: Ministers' Accounts, etc., Nos. 1993-99.

There is an account of the chief revenue rolls in F. S. Thomas's

Ancient Exchequer (London, 1848), 61-92. See also Joseph Redington's Account of the Miscellaneous Records of the Queen's Remembrancer, Deputy Keeper's Reports, 1879, xl. 467–