^{page 19 note 2} History of Crime, 2 vols., 1873, especially I, chs. III and IVGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Hughes, D., The Early Years of Edward III, 1915, ch. XIGoogle Scholar.

^{page 19 note 3} Speculum, I, 361–74.

^{page 19 note 4} Noted in 1904 by Beard, C. A., The Office of Justice of the Peace, 34–5Google Scholar.

^{page 20 note 1} For a few examples out of many, see C.P.R., 1334–8, 62–3; 1338–40, 67; Coram Rege Roll 335, Rex 11d. The MSS. referred to in this article are in the Public Record Office. For printed works the following abbreviations are used: C.P.R. for Calendar Patent Rolls; C.C.R. for Calendar Close Rolls; R.P. for Rotuli Parliamentorum.

^{page 20 note 2} Op. cit., I, 476.

^{page 20 note 3} Cf. Morris, W. A., The County Court, 1926, 113–17Google Scholar, for its criminal jurisdiction, not abandoned as early as Professor Holdsworth thinks; History of English Law, 3rd ed., I, 72.

^{page 20 note 4} E.g. Coram Rege Rolls 343, Rex 25d; 17, Rex 10. The subject of constables deserves a special study.

^{page 20 note 5} 27 Edward I, c. 3; 4 Edward III, c. 2. Investigation of this difficult problem is rendered laborious by the omission from the Calendar of Patent Rolls of the normal commissions of Assize and of Gaol Delivery.

^{page 21 note 1} Cf. e.g. Coram Rege Roll 325, Rex 11; 336, Rex 17; 342, Rex 53; 343, Rex 24.

^{page 22 note 1} Beard, op. cit., ch. I.

^{page 22 note 2} See my article soon to appear in the English Historical Review on “Records of the Keepers of the Peace and their Supervisors, 1307–1327.” I am now editing for the Records Branch of the Kent Archæological Society the voluminous proceedings for Kent of 1316–17.

^{page 22 note 3} Cam, H. M., Studies in the Hundred Rolls, 77Google Scholar. The traditional accounts are very unsatisfactory.

^{page 22 note 4} Cam, , English Historical Review, XL, 411CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beard, , op. cit., 20–1Google Scholar; Jacob, E. F., Studies in the Period of Baronial Reform, 77, note 1Google Scholar.

^{page 23 note 1} Cam, ut supra.

^{page 23 note 2} 13 Edw. I, 1285. That the “justices” are those to take assizes is proved by the Letters Patent cited in note 3, infra.

^{page 23 note 3} Parl. Writs, I, i. App. 388–9; 20 Jan.

^{page 23 note 4} 1290–1; Cam, , ut supra, 413–14Google Scholar.

^{page 23 note 5} Parl. Writs, I, i. App. 398–400; 10 May.

^{page 23 note 6} Rot. Pat., 35 Edw. I, m. 31d; 21 Feb.

^{page 23 note 7} Parl. Writs, II, ii. App. 8–9; 24 Dec.

^{page 23 note 8} Ibid., 74–5; 5 June.

^{page 23 note 9} Ibid., 102–3; I4 June. “Facinoribus” in the commission of 1314 seems to be interpreted as synonymous with “feloniis.”

^{page 23 note 10} E.g. ibid., 136, 10 Dec. 1318; 175, 20 Jan. 1322; 237, 2 Nov. 1323.

^{page 23 note 11} Ibid., 282; 28 Feb. 1326.

^{page 24 note 1} R.P., II, 166.

^{page 24 note 2} Since my analysis shows about fifty different forms, it is necessary to omit many minor changes.

^{page 24 note 3} It cannot be too strongly emphasised that this paper is only a preliminary attempt. Final conclusions will be possible only after a great deal more work has been done on the parliaments of Edw. III, and especially on the dating of petitions. It is a satisfaction to learn that MrSayles, G. and MrRichardson, H. G., after publishing their important articles on “The Early Records of the English Parliaments” (Bull. Inst. Hist. Research, Vols. V and VI)Google Scholar, are continuing their investigations for the reign of Edw. III.

^{page 24 note 4} R.P., II, 3, et seq.; Cam, , “The General Eyres of 1329–30”, English Historical Review, XXXIX, 248, note 8Google Scholar.

^{page 25 note 1} Rot. Pat., 1 Edw. III, pt., 1, m. 10d; C.P.R., 1327–30, 88–90.

^{page 25 ntoe 2} R.P., II, 11. In view of the ambiguity of the word “commons” in the fourteenth century, I cite the original terminology throughout this paper. Cf. Tout, T. F., Place of Edw. II, 89Google Scholar; McIlwain, C. H., High Court of Parliament, 104Google Scholar; Pollard, A. F., Evolution of Parliament, 114et seq., 241 et seq.Google Scholar; also articles quoted supra, p. 24, note 3, especially Bull. Inst. Hist. Research, vol. V, pp. 76–7.

^{page 25 note 3} 1 Edw. III, st. 2, c. 16.

^{page 25 ntoe 4} Thus described even in so admirable a book as History of England, 1926, by ProfessorTreveylan, Google Scholar; see p. 199.

^{page 25 note 5} R.P., II, 12.

^{page 25 note 6} C.P.R., 1327–30, 88–90. For the sake of brevity my references are usually to the printed Calendar.

^{page 25 note 7} See reference in note 3, p. 26, infra.

^{page 26 note 1} Parl. Writs,. I, i. App. 407, 408–9; Rot. Pat., 35 Edw. I, m. 31d; Cam, , Hundred Rolls, 759Google Scholar; supra, p. 23, notes 9 and 11.

^{page 26 note 2} According to my rather superficial examination of the personnel of the lists.

^{page 26 note 3} 24 March; C.P.R., 1327–30, 90; see MS. text for the complaints.

^{page 26 note 4} See my article, supra, p. 22, note 2.

^{page 26 note 5} C.P.R., ut supra, 8 June, 152.

^{page 26 note 6} Ibid., 24 March, 90; 1 July (not 11), 154 (erroneously summarised).

^{page 26 note 7} 2 Edw. III, cc. 1–7.

^{page 26 note 8} Cam, , English Historical Review, XXXIX, 243Google Scholar.

^{page 26 note 9} c. 3.

^{page 27 note 1} c. 6; p. 23, note 2, supra. Mr. G. O. Sayles calls my attention to the fact that the reports to parliament were not made; see articles quoted supra, p. 24, note 3, Bull. Inst. Hist. Research, V, 134–5.

^{page 27 note 2} See infra, p. 40.

^{page 27 note 3} c. 7.

^{page 27 note 4} Ut supra, p. 26, note 8, 244–5.

^{page 27 note 5} C.P.R., 1327–30, 429–31.

^{page 27 note 6} The Calendar omits the addition.

^{page 27 note 7} Parl. Proceedings, Chancery, 33/10, ascribed tentatively by the MS. catalogue to the reign of Edw. I, is a petition from William le Butiller de Wemme and his companions, “Justices de la Pees.” From the evidence of the names mentioned, it belongs clearly to 1331 or 1332.

^{page 27 note 8} Cam, , ut supra, 241, 245–8Google Scholar.

^{page 27 note 9} New form: 1329, 23 May, 25 Dec.; 1330, 20 Feb., 30 March, 12 April, 16 Sept., 18 Oct., 22 Oct., 12 Dec.; C.P.R., 1327–30, 431, 481, 558; ibid., 1330–4, 56–7. Old form: 1330, 20 May, 10 June, 12 July, 22 July, 8 Sept.; ibid., 1327–30, 562, 564. The commissions of 4 Dec. 1330 (erroneously summarised in C.P.R., 1330–4, 58) and of 12 and 21 Jan., ibid., 63, are an interesting anticipation of the policy of the statute of 1344.

^{page 27 note 10} 4 Edw. III, c. 2.

^{page 28 note 1} C.P.R., 1330–4. 136–7.

^{page 28 note 2} Ibid., 133–4, 138–9.

^{page 28 note 3} 5 Edw. III, c. 14.

^{page 28 note 4} The magnates also promised not to “maintain men of ‘bad fame’”; R.P. II, 62; cf. also C.C.R., 1330–3, 422.

^{page 28 note 5} My statement on p. 193 of my Early Treatises is wrong.

^{page 28 note 6} C.C.R., 1330–3, 425.

^{page 28 note 7} C.P.R., 1330–4, 285–8; “determining” is not indicated in the Calendar.

^{page 29 note 1} R.P. II, 64–5. The phrase “en pleyn Parlement” is used for this same session.

^{page 29 note 2} C.P.R., 1330–4, 292–5, 348–9, 296–7.

^{page 30 note 1} Cam, , ut supra, p. 26, note 8, 248Google Scholar, following Beard, , op. cit., 38Google Scholar. The printed Calendar uses “statute” in two of the summaries, “resolution” in the third. In the MS. the phrase each time is: “Prout…est concordatum.”

^{page 30 note 2} Miss Cam (loc. cit.) makes the mistake of identifying keepers of the counties with keepers of the peace and, ignoring the commissions of the peace of 1329 and of Feb. 1332, states that this “statute” of 1332 first transformed the keepers into justices.

^{page 30 note 3} R.P. II, 66, 67.

^{page 30 note 4} C.C.R., 1330–3, 610, 616.

^{page 30 note 5} Cf. C.P.R., 1330–4. 573.

^{page 30 note 6} 12 Dec. 1332, form of 1327, omitting Northampton therefore, ibid., 390 (11 Dec. by an error); 12 July, 2 Nov. 1333, 496 (Westminster printed for Winchester); 8 Aug. 1334, form of 1327, except that it includes Northampton (latter omitted in the Calendar), ibid., 583.

^{page 30 note 7} Ibid., 573–4.

^{page 30 note 8} 2 Dec. 1332, prorogued to 20 Jan. 1333; Lords' Report on the Dignity of a Peer, IV, 416, 418–19.

^{page 30 note 9} C.P.R., 1330–4, 445.

^{page 31 note 1} 21 Feb. 1334; Lords' Report, IV, 422–5; C.P.R., 1330–4, 584. Important petitions on justices of the peace, badly summarised in R.P. II, App. 376–7, are fully recorded on the MS. Chancery Parliament Roll, No. 4, of this parliament. (I am indebted to Mr. Sayles for a transcript.) They include the earliest request that I have noted for the appointment of “vn homme de ley” on the commission; see infra, pp. 39–42.

^{page 31 note 2} Lords' Report, IV, 443–6. Not included in R.P. II, 90–5, but referred to in the commissions.

^{page 31 note 3} C.P.R., 1334–8, 208–10.

^{page 31 note 4} Between 8 Feb. and 6 Sept., ibid., 284, 287 (12 April for 11), 290, 294, 357, 361. The printed summaries are inaccurate.

^{page 31 note 5} Ibid., 26 Jan. 1335, 137–9 Cf. also C.C.R., 1333–7, 362, 647–8.

^{page 31 note 6} For exceptions, see C.P.R., 1334–8, 209, 353.

^{page 31 note 7} E.g. ibid., 288.

^{page 31 note 8} Statutes of the Realm, I, 276–8.

^{page 31 note 9} E.g. C.P.R., 1334–8, 290 (felonies omitted in the Calendar), 293, 294. For similar procedure in 1195, see ProfessorPowicke's, article in Magna Carta Commemoration Essays, 110–19Google Scholar. Professor Powicke considers that the peculiarity of the measure of 1195 lay in the detention at the king's pleasure, not in the method of arrest.

^{page 32 note 1} Lords' Report, IV, 460–3. Mr. Sayles and Mr. Richardson are convinced from the evidence that it was a great council, not a parliament.

^{page 32 note 2} Inferred from the language of the commissions.

^{page 32 note 3} C.P.R., 1334–8. 367–71.

^{page 32 note 4} Cf. Plucknett, T. F. T., Statutes and their Interpretation, 32–4Google Scholar; McIlwain, C. H., Magna Carta Commemoration Essays, 145–6Google Scholar.

^{page 32 note 5} “Duty” as well as “power” in the last two instances.

^{page 32 note 6} Stephen, , Hist. Crim. Law, I, 189Google Scholar; Powicke, , ut supra, 112Google Scholar.Cf. Holdsworth, , op. cit., 3rd ed., III, 599–601Google Scholar.

^{page 32 note 7} E.g. C.P.R., 1327–30, 355; ibid., 1330–4, 291–2; ibid., 1334–8, 210–11.

^{page 33 note 1} See my Early Treatises, 205–6.

^{page 33 note 2} Professor Powicke's phrase.

^{page 33 note 3} C.C.R., 1337–9, 134.

^{page 33 note 4} Terry, S. B., The Financing of the Hundred Years' War, 1337–60, 1914Google Scholar; D. Hughes, Early Years of Edward III; Lapsley, G., English Historical Review, XXX, 6–18, 193–215Google Scholar; Professor Tout, , Chapters in Administrative History, III, ch. IX, s. iiiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 33 note 5} Lords' Report, IV, 488–91.

^{page 33 note 6} C.P.R., 1338–40, 67. Lambard noted a similar commission for Scarborough of 20 Edw. III, and was thereby misled into thinking that the statute against “Roberdesmen” was included in the normal shire commission of the peace; Eirenarcha, 1602, 38–9, 174.

^{page 34 note 1} E.g. C.P.R., 1338–40, 77 (“statute” erroneously printed for “ordinance and agreement”).

^{page 34 note 2} See “in instanti Parliamento nostro,” in a document of 24 Feb.; Fœdera, II, pt. ii, 1015.

^{page 34 note 3} Printed in full from the Close Rolls by Rymer, , Fœdera, II, pt. ii, 1013–14Google Scholar. Cf. Calendar Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London, 100, 128, 189; Cal. Letter-Book F, 19–23; C.C.R., 1337–9, 413. for the part played by London.

^{page 34 note 4} C.C.R., 1337–9, 408.

^{page 34 note 5} Cf. Hughes, , ut supra, 49Google Scholar; Tout, , ut supra, 79Google Scholar.

^{page 34 note 6} C.P.R., 1338–40, 135–9, 134.

^{page 34 note 7} “Felonies” omitted in the Calendar.

^{page 35 note 1} After stumbling on the ordinances through Stubbs', footnote reference to the Close Roll copy printed in Fœdera (Const. Hist., 4th ed., II, 399)Google Scholar and after reading Miss Hughes' chapter on them, I discovered that Professor Tout and Miss Broome were analysing them thoroughly and were printing the text from Chancery Warrants, I, File 248, No. 11238; ut supra, 143–50. Cf. Fœdera, II, pt. ii, 1049–50. See also The Chancery under Edward III, 1929, by Wilkinson, B.Google Scholar, index under Ordinance of Walton.

^{page 35 note 2} “Countz” in Close Roll copy.

^{page 35 note 3} C.C.R., 1337–9, 463

^{page 35 note 4} Calendar Fine Rolls, 1337–47, 92; 94; 96.

^{page 35 note 5} C.C.R., 1339–41, 193.

^{page 35 note 6} C.F.R., ut supra, 146, 154, 144. For supplementary material, cf. Chancery Files, Tower Series, C 36, ms. 25, 29, 30, 31; Chancery Miscellanea, 98, File 3, No. 5 from end.

^{page 35 note 7} Chancery Warrants, I, 249/11355; Chancery Miscellanea, 128, File 1, No. 15 from end; Chancery Warrants, I, 249/11354.

^{page 36 note 1} Chancery Miscellanea, 92, File 2, No. 15 from end.

^{page 36 note 2} Controllers: C.P.R., 1338–40, 161, 202, 216. Collectors: C.C.R., 1337–9, 501; 1339–41 34; 1343–6, 50–1.

^{page 36 note 3} 33/9. ms. 1–18; described in the MS. List as “Temp. Edward III. Keepers of the Peace. Return of Elections,” with a note that they were formerly known as Chancery, Parliamentary Petitions, 9195, etc.; and since then successively as Chancery, Miscellaneous Rolls, 18/26 and 21/2. Although in the old printed list (Report Deputy Keeper, XXXIV, app., no. 1) they are often correctly described (e.g. p. 21, no. 9230), they are not specifically mentioned with other election returns on p. 61 of Mr. Giuseppi's Guide to the Public Record Office, and do not seem to have attracted the attention of modern scholars.

^{page 36 note 4} “demorauns en le dit counte”; Herts.

^{page 36 note 5} Ancient Petitions, 107/5327, 142/7077, 115/5741.

^{page 37 note 1} If I am right in thinking that “John” is an error for “Warin.” The sixth name is that of the Bishop of Ely who probably would not be allowed to act on a commission dealing with felonies. The enrolled list adds two names not in the MS.

^{page 37 note 2} Supra, p. 34.

^{page 37 note 3} C.P.R., 1338–40, 137, 134.

^{page 37 note 4} Assize Roll 770, m. 9d.

^{page 38 note 1} The Bucks, list of 17 names is perhaps explained by the special power given to John de Molyns; C.P.R., 1338–40, 132.

^{page 38 note 2} Op. cit., III, 75.

^{page 38 note 3} Lords' Report, IV, 492–5; R.P., II, 128; Hughes, , op. cit., 231Google Scholar; preamble to commissions cited infra, note 4.

^{page 38 note 4} C.P.R., 1338–40, 141–2.

^{page 38 note 5} Chancery Warrants I, 251/11513, 16 Feb. 1339; cf. C.C.R., 1339–41, 94

^{page 38 note 6} R.P., II, 104.

^{page 39 note 1} E.g. 3 Feb. 1339, C.P.R., 1338–40, 279; 7, 8 and 10 Sept. 1340; ibid., 1340–3, 94.

^{page 39 note 2} 1 Aug., 6 Oct., 15 Nov., 1340; ibid., 88, 98, 102.

^{page 39 note 3} 26 Jan. 1343, C.P.R., 1343–5, 67.

^{page 39 note 4} 2 July, 13 July 1342, ibid., 1340–3, 540, 543, 546.

^{page 39 note 5} Ibid., 1343–5, 274.

^{page 39 note 6} Supra, p. 23, note 11.

^{page 39 note 7} C.P.R., 1340–3. 106. 111–13.

^{page 40 note 1} Instead of the old list of articles (Cam, . Hundred Rolls, 73–9Google Scholar), wide powers of hearing and of determining seem now to call forth the term. It was applied to the following commissions—no one of which included the classical Trailbaston form: (1) For hearing and determining various trespasses and felonies; C.P.R., 1334–8, 136, Chancery Warrants, I, 241/10550. (2) For the arrest of “suspects”; 16 Oct. 1336, supra, p. 32, note 3; R.P., II, 97; also 1 Aug. 1338, Chancery Warrants, cited p. 38, note 5, supra. (3) For hearing and determining a long list of offenses; 10 12 1340, Lapsley, , op. cit., 11–12Google Scholar, citing the French Chron. of London, 89.

^{page 40 note 2} Miss Hughes has presented “Some evidence relating to the inquiries” in ch. X, but the MS. material is so abundant that a far more thorough investigation needs to be made.

^{page 40 note 3} C.C.R., passim.

^{page 40 note 4} Lapsley, , op. cit., 14–15Google Scholar.

^{page 40 note 5} R.P., II, 128–30. Mr. Lapsley in his admirable study errs, I think, in believing that the commons had confused the “ordinance” with the “statute” of Northampton.

^{page 40 note 6} R.P., II, 130–1.

^{page 40 note 7} Ibid., 131; 15 Edw. III, st. 1, c. 3. For the repeal of this statute, see Statutes of the Realm, I, 297, and Lapsley, , op. cit., 200–1Google Scholar.

^{page 40 note 8} R.P., II, 136.

^{page 41 note 1} Cf. e.g. C.P.R., 1343–5, 287, or Coram Rege Rolls, passim.

^{page 41 note 2} R.P., II, 148. Professor Hearnshaw's, error (Leet Jurisdiction, 1908, 120)Google Scholar in interpreting the request to mean that no new articles should be added to the list to be inquired into at tourn or leet, has unfortunately found its way into Professor Holdsworth's, Hist. Eng. Law, I, 3rd ed., 80Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 3} Parl. Writs, II, ii app. 83; C.P.R. 1330–4, 58 (wrongly summarized), 63; supra, p. 39 and note 4.

^{page 41 note 4} R.P., II, 149; 18 Edw. III, st. 2, cc. 1 and 2.

^{page 41 ntoe 5} C.P.R., 1343–5, 393–7.

^{page 41 note 6} C.C.R., 1343–6, 449–50, 452, 463.

^{page 41 note 7} C.P.R. passim.

^{page 41 note 8} E.g. included 22 July, omitted 20 Aug. 1345; C.P.R., 1343–5, 576, 580.

^{page 42 note 1} C.P.R., 1345–8, 116, 238.

^{page 42 note 2} Between 16 April 1345 and 8 Dec. 1349; ibid., 1343–5, 507; ibid., 1348–50, 457. I am not counting the Cornwall commission of 20 July 1344; ibid., 1343–5, 394.

^{page 42 note 3} 21 June 1347, C.P.R., 1345–8, 318.

^{page 42 note 4} E.g. ibid., 27 Jan. 1347, 301; see MS. text.

^{page 42 note 5} R.P., II, 157, 161.

^{page 43 note 1} Ibid., 164, 174, 200, 202.

^{page 43 note 2} Chancery Miscellanea, 65, file 1, m. 31.

^{page 43 note 3} See my Statutes of Labourers, 29.

^{page 43 note 4} 4C.P.R., 1348–30, 526–7 (inaccurately summarized); Statutes of Labourers, 10–13.

^{page 43 note 5} Printed ibid., app. 21–4.

^{page 44 note 1} Cf. “per regem et totum parliamentum” at the end of the commission of 20 Nov. 1362; C.P.R., 1361–4, 291.

^{page 44 note 2} R.P., II, 277.

^{page 44 note 3} Statutes of Labourers, 26–33.

^{page 44 note 4} R.P., II, 286, 333; III, 65–6, 83–4. In the last instance, the names had actually been presented to the king “en escrit.”

^{page 44 note 5} As this paper was going to the press, Mr. Sayles kindly gave me his transcript of the following interesting document from Ancient Correspondence 39/9 (printed with serious errors in Mr. Wilkinson's recent book on the Chancery, p. 28):

Reuerende pater et domine. Dicitur quod dominus Nicholaus Dauney miles inter ceteros assignatus est in comitatu Deuon' pro custodia pacis, qui nec pacis auctor nec amator creditur nec erat nominatus per patriam, quare expedit vt credo quod alius ipsius nomine subrogetur.

per vestrum I. Exon'

(Dorse) Reuerendo in Christo patri domino I. dei gracia Wynces' episcopo. Since Dauney's earliest appointment on the commission of the peace was on 12 Feb. 1332 (C.P.R.. 1330–34, 286) and since he was dead by 15 Sept. of that year (Cal. Inq. post mortem, VII, 350), the petition almost certainly falls between these two dates. I am indebted to Mr. Sayles for these details.

^{page 44 note 6} See the “Report of the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices of the Peace,” 1911.

^{page 44 note 7} Statutes of Labourers, 15–17; app. 35–42.

^{page 45 note 1} 7 Dec. 1352; 12 Feb. 1353; C.P.R., 1350–4, 394, 449–50 (power of determining felonies omitted in Calendar).

^{page 45 note 2} 19 March; printed by Messrs Crump, and Johnson, in English Historical Review, XXVII, 233–4Google Scholar; cf. my Early Treatises, 193, note 1.

^{page 45 note 3} Rymer, , Fœdera, III, pt. i, 449–50Google Scholar; 455–8. C.P.R., 1358—61, 286, 324.

^{page 45 note 4} C.C.R., 1354–60, 655; Statutes of Labourers, 17; app. 31–2.

^{page 45 note 5} Rymer, , Fœdera, III, pt. I, 463–4Google Scholar.

^{page 45 note 6} But supplementary instructions to the justices to carry out array were sometimes issued; e.g. C.P.R., 1367–70, 264–5; C.C.R.,1369–74, 36. The whole subject of array is greatly in need of investigation. Cf. also the added powers over escapes, etc., granted to the justices of the peace by Letters Close; C.C.R., 1354–60, 363, 5 May 1357.

^{page 45 note 7} Statutes of Labourers, 23–4.

^{page 46 note 1} 35 Edw. III, cc. 1, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11.

^{page 46 note 2} Cf. the interesting article cited supra, p. 45, note 2, and my Early Treatises, 203–6.

^{page 46 note 3} C.P.R., 1361–4, 63–7; 285, 3 July, 15 July, 3 Aug. 1362. For a brief account of the period through 1368, see Statutes of Labourers, 24–6; and my article in English Historical Review, XXI, 526–7.

^{page 46 note 4} C.P.R., 1361–4, 291–3.

^{page 46 note 5} Ibid., 528–30. This instance has apparently escaped the attention of Professor Plucknett; op. cit., 70.

^{page 47 note 1} 42 Edw. III, c. 6.

^{page 47 note 2} C.P.R., 1367–70, 10 July, 1368, 191–4 (not adequately summarized).

^{page 47 note 3} For the discussion, and for the commission of 26 May, 1380, cf. R.P., III, 83–5; Beard, , op. dt., 46–8Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 4} I have noted only one petition in which the commons apparently tried to limit the power of the justices; R.P., II, 366.

^{page 47 note 5} Ibid., III, 42–3, 65; Cam, . Hundred Rolls, 80Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 6} Ibid., 73.

^{page 48 note 1} See my Early Treatises, 55.

^{page 48 note 2} Pollard, , Evolution of Parliament, 115, 335–6Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 3} Tout, , Conflicting Tendencies in Eng. Administrative History, 1924, 22Google Scholar.

^{page 48 note 4} Cf. Hughes, , op. cit., 229Google Scholar, for similar suggestions.