Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Vicinage and the Antecedents of the Jury

  • Mike Macnair

Extract

The origins of trial by jury have been the subject of an extensive debate. The traditional approach to the creation of the “palladium of liberty” saw the jurors as lay judges and located their origins in the lay judges of Anglo-Saxon England, continuing through the survival of the “ancient constitution.” An alternative approach, that of Heinrich Brunner, found wide acceptance from the end of the last century and until recently. Brunner detected the origins of the jury in fiscal inquiries imposed by strong monarchs, reversing the constitutional politics of the older view. At present, the wheel has turned back toward judicial character and origins in general early medieval practice. The purpose of this article is to take a new look at the issue by approaching it from a different angle: the requirement that jurors should come de vicineto, from the locality. This approach has produced the following observations.

Copyright

References

Hide All

1. The literature up to that date is listed and discussed in Brunner, Heinrich, Die Entstehung der Schwurgerichte (Berlin: Weidman, 1872), chap. 1. The debate following Brunner's arguments is discussed by van Caenegem, R. C., Royal Writs in England from the Conquest to Glanvill (Selden Society, vol. 77, 1959), 5761, and Turner, R. V., “The Origins of the Medieval English Jury: Frankish, English or Scandinavian?Journal of British Studies 7, no. 2 (1968): 110 (reprinted in idem, Judges, Administrators and the Common Law in Angevin England (London: Hambledon Press, 1994), chap. 3.

2. It did, of course, appear in prerogative or equity and summary jurisdictions from the fifteenth century.

3. For general discussion, see Dawson, J. P., A History of Lay Judges (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960), 35118; Davies, Wendy and Fouracre, Paul, eds., The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). For specific discussion of eleventh-century English practice, see Brand, Paul, The Origins of the English Legal Profession (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), chap. 1; Hudson, John, The Formation of the English Common Law (London: Longman, 1996) chaps. 1–4.

4. Cap. miss. 819 c. 2, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica … (various dates and places of publication) [MGH] Capitularia vol. 1, ed. A. Boretius, 289; my translation. The cross-reference is to Cap. 816 c. 1, id. 268 (see below, note 125 and text there). For other instances, Brunner, Schwurgerichte, 88, cites from Capitularia Regum Francorum, MGH, Leges (folio) vol. 1, Cap. miss. 803 p. 115; Resp. misso cuidam data 819 p. 227; Cap. miss. 829 p. 354; Resp. misso cuid. data 819 p. 227; Cap. missor. Aquisgr. 817 p. 226 (217). For other listings of the relevant sources, see Ganshof, F. L., “La Preuve dans le droit franc,” Receuils de la Société Jean Bodin 17 (1965): 9298, and Niermeyer, J. F. and van de Kieft, C., Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus (Leiden: Brill, 1976) [hereinafter Lexicon Minus], s.v. inquaestio, inquirere, inquisitio, veritas.

5. Brunner, Schwurgerichte, 87, n. 1, cites the Code of Theodosius [hereinafter CTh] 10.10.11, which provides for an enquiry in which private individuals are to be given an opportunity to make claims to bona vacantia, 10.8.2, which provides for inventories of bona vacantia to be returned including information about claims, and 10.10.29, which makes incidental use of the phrase “inquisitio palatina,” and cross-refers to CTh 10.10.7, which bars informers from access to the court (i.e., to claim forfeited goods) until after a judicial examination. CTh 10.8.5, in the same context, is worth direct quotation: “… certi palatini electi et jurejurando obstricti mittantur, ut eorum instantia v[ir] s[pectabilis] proconsul praesentae fisci patrono diligenter inquirat…” (“trustworthy palatines shall be selected, bound by an oath, and sent to the place, in order that at their instance the respectable proconsul… may diligently inquire …”). (Text from Mommsen, Theodor, Meyer, Paul, and Krueger, Paul, eds., Theodosiani Libri XVI, vol. 1 [reprint, Berlin: Weidman, 1962] translation from Pharr, Clyde, ed., The Theodosian Code [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952].) Here the palatines, to be sent to the place (i.e., the province) to get the proconsul to enquire, appear analogous to Carolingian missi or English eyre Justices.

6. Brunner, Schwurgerichte, chap. 10; van Caenegem, Royal Writs in England, 61–68.

7. The Treatise on the Laws and Customs of the Realm of England Commonly called Glanvill, ed. and trans. Hall, G. D. G., (London: Nelson, 1965) [hereinafter Glanvill,] xii, 25, Hall p. 148: “tune enim ista recognitio sicut quelibet alia in curia domini regis debet tractari” (“for then this recognition must, like all others, be dealt with in the court of the lord king”).

8. Thayer, J. B., A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law (1898; reprint, New York: A. M. Kelley, 1969), 4765; SirPollock, Frederick and Maitland, F. W., The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I, 2d ed. (1898), reissued with a new introduction and select bibliography by Milsom, S. F. C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 1:138–44; SirHoldsworth, William, A History of English Law (16 vols., London: Methuen, 19221966), 1:312–15; Dawson, John P., A History of Lay Judges (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960), 118–21; Baker, J. H., An Introduction to English Legal History, 3d ed. (London: Butterworths, 1990), 8687.

9. Turner, “The Origins of the Medieval English Jury,” 5, cites de Bouard, M., “De La Neustrie Carolingienne à la Normandie féodale: continuité ou discontinuité,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 21 (1955): 114, and Douglas, D., “The Rise of Normandy,” Proceedings of the British Academy 33 (1947): 101–31, for lack of continuity. In contrast, Bates, David, Normandy before 1066 (London: Longman, 1982), in agreement with more recent French scholarship, argues for an exceptionally high degree of continuity of Carolingian institutions in Normandy down to c. 1020. Bates does, however, argue for a major crisis of ducal authority and recasting of Norman society into a more or less “feudal” shape in the period 1020–1050, and that William the Conqueror's revival of ducal power “had to operate within a changed social framework.” Ibid., 178.

10. van Caenegem, Royal Writs in England, 57, n. 2, and idem, The Birth of the English Common Law, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 74–75.

11. As is apparent from the early appearance of Exchequer records in England.

12. Goebel, Julius Jr, Felony and Misdemeanor: A Study in the History of Criminal Law (1937; reprint, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976), 171–86.

13. Hurnard, N. D., “The Jury of Presentment and the Assize of Clarendon,” English Historical Review 56 (1941): 374410, developing less detailed suggestions by Stubbs and Vinogradoff; criticized by van Caenegem, “Public Prosecution of Crime in Twelfth-Century England,” in idem, Legal History: A European Perspective (London: Hambledon Press, 1991), chap. 1.

14. Wormald, Patrick, “Maitland and Anglo-Saxon Law: Beyond Domesday Book,” in The History of English Law: Centenary Essays on “Pollock and Maitland,” ed. Hudson, John (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 1012; Brunner, Schwurgerichte, chap. 25. This seems to represent a shift from Wormald's earlier argument that traces of fiscal inquisitio procedure can be found elsewhere in Aethelred's legislation and the twelve thegns of the Wantage Code are therefore to be understood in these terms. See Wormald, “Aethelred the Lawmaker,” in Ethelred the Unready, ed. Hill, David. British Archeological Reports, British Series 59 (Oxford, 1978), 6669.

15. This point is forcefully argued by Stenton, D. M., English Justice between the Norman Conquest and the Great Charter, 1066–1215 (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1965), chap. 1.

16. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 1:142; Haskins, C. H., Norman Institutions (1918; reprint, New York, 1960), 227; van Caenegem, “Public Prosecution.”

17. Helmholz, R. H., “The Early History of the Grand Jury and the Canon Law,” University of Chicago Law Review 50 (1983): 613–27.

18. van Caenegem, Royal Writs in England, 69–81; Stenton, English Justice, 16–17.

19. van Caenegem, Royal Writs in England, 58; “Methods of Proof in Western Mediaeval Law,” in Legal History: A European Perspective (London: Hambledon Press, 1994), 95–97 (English translation of “La Preuve dans le droit du moyen age occidental,” Receuils de la Société Jean Bodin 17 [1965]: 691–753); “The Law of Evidence in the Twelfth Century: European Perspective and Intellectual Background,” in Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Mediaeval Canon Law, ed. Stephan Kuttner and J. J. Ryan. Monumenta iuris canonici, ser. C, vol. 1 (1965): 298–99; “History of European Civil Procedure,” in International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law, ed. M. Cappalletti, vol. 16, ch. 2: “Civil Procedure,” (1972), 8–9, 33, 39–40, 43, 47, 48; The Birth of the English Common Law, chap. 3.

20. Besnier, R., “‘lnquisitiones’ et ‘Recognitiones’: Le nouveau système des preuves à l'époque des Coutumiers Norraands,” Revue historique de droitfrançais et étranger, 4th ser., 28 (1950): 183212, and idem, “La Dégénérescence des caractères Normands des preuves dans la procedure civile du Duché après la Redaction du Grand Coutumier,” Revue historique de droit français et étranger, 4th ser., 37 (1959): 52–59.

21. This list is drawn synthetically from the various works of van Caenegem (see above, note 19) and (in relation to Sicily) from Haskins, Norman Institutions, 232–34.

22. Reynolds, Susan, Kingdoms and Communities in Europe, 900–1300 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), 2829.

23. “Conclusion,” Settlement of Disputes, 221. The authors undertook to produce a collective view. In the preface to the book, they comment that “we eventually arrived at a common view for Introduction and Conclusion … the pieces stand as an expression of the group approach” (ix).

24. Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, 23–34; “Conclusion,” Settlement of Disputes, 220–21. Compare also van Caenegem, “L'histoire du droit et la chronologie. Reflexions sur la formation du [Common Law] et la procedure Romano-canonique,” in Etudes d'histoire du Droit Canonique dediées à Gabriel le Bras (Paris: Sirey, 1965), 2:1459–65.

25. Hyams, Paul R., “Trial by Ordeal: The Key to Proof in the Early Common Law,” in On the Laws and Customs of England: Essays in Honor of Samuel E. Thome, ed. Arnold, M. S. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), 91126. Compare also idem, “Henry II and Ganelon,” The Syracuse Scholar 4 (1983): 26–27.

26. See Settlement of Disputes, 221–23; compare also Bartlett, Robert, Trial By Fire and Water: The Medieval Judicial Order (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), who argues that the Judgment of God was reserved for “hard cases.”

27. See the sources cited above, note 5, and add the Code of Justinian [hereinafter CJ] 10.11.5c, on forfeited goods, in Theodor Mommsen and Paul Krueger, eds., Corpus luris Civilis, 13th ed. (Berlin: Weidman, 1963), 2:399 [subsequent citations to the Corpus luris are to this edition unless otherwise indicated], which makes clear that all normal forms of proof may be used in such an inquiry: “Per omnes autem legitimos modos et probationes scriptas sive non scriptas quaestio de rebus fiat, per testes etiam, qui veritatem scire poterunt…” (in the Latin translation of the original Greek).

28. Lexicon Minus, s.v. inquisitio; Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, 29, n. 61; and for the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see Bongert, Yvonne, Récherches sur les cours laiques du Xe au XIIIe siecle (Paris: A. and J. Picard, 1949), 261, and Waelkens, L., “L'Origine de l'enquête par turbe,” Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 57 (1985): 338–39.

29. This has two aspects. The first is the extent to which Juries were expected to pass on normative as well as factual questions, for which the locus classicus is Green, T. A., Verdict According to Conscience: Perspectives on the English Criminal Trial Jury, 1200–1800 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985); compare also Palmer, R. C., “Conscience and the Law: The English Criminal Jury,” Michigan Law Review 84 (1986): 791–97, and Hyams, “Trial by Ordeal,” 118 and n. 153. The second aspect is the extent to which Juries were led by evidence, rather than relying on personal knowledge or locally current hearsay. The literature on this point is conveniently reviewed by Fisher, George, “The Jury's Rise as Lie Detector,” Yale Law Journal 107 (1997): 591–94 and notes there.

30. Glanvill, ii, 7, p. 28, Hall's translation.

31. Ibid., 12, p. 32, Hall's translation.

32. Bracton De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, ed. Woodbine, G. E. and Thorne, S. E., 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 19681977) [hereinafter Bracton], fol. 185, iii 71, (Thome's translation) and Thome's notes there.

33. Listings can be found, among others, in the Ordo “Invocato Christi Nomine” traditionally attributed to Pillius (1191 × 1198). See Wahrmund, Ludwig, ed., Quellen zur Geschichte des Romisch-kanonischen Prozesses (1905–1931; reprint, Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1962), vol. 5, i, 4045; the Summa de Ordine ludiciario of Damasus (1210 × 1215), Wahrmund, Quellen, vol. 4, iv at pp. 22–25; and the Summa Aurea of William of Drogheda (1239 × 1245), Wahrmund, Quellen, vol. 2, ii at pp. 377–79. (All dates given here for the original texts are those given by Wahrmund.) Thorne, Bracton 3:7 In., cites to William of Drogheda on this point to source part of Bracton's treatment of challenges; but it is not clear that this is correct. First, Thorne dates the basic text of Bracton to the 1220s-1230s (Bracton iii, Introduction), while Wahrmund dates Drogheda to between 1239 and 1245 (Quellen, vol. 2, ii at pp. xvi–xviii). Second, Bracton refers explicitly to the grounds of exclusion of witnesses. Finally, the two points for which Thome identifies Drogheda as the source, the exclusion of household members and of advocates, were common to the exclusion of witnesses and the recusation of Judges.

34. For the invention in 1201, see J. C. Holt, Magna Carta, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 181–82; the extension in 1275 is by Stat. Westminster I c. 38.

35. Glanvill, ii, 19, pp. 35–36 (cf. also Hall p. 36, n. 1 on the distinction between this procedure and the attaint). For detailed discussion of the attaint, see Bracton, fols. 288b–293b, iii 336–49.

36. For the procedure in and consequences of false Judgment proceedings in the early thirteenth century, see Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2:666–68. The discussion in Bracton is at fol. 228b, iii 336–37, and fol. 290b, iii 341.

37. A summary account of appeals is given by Robinson, O. F., Fergus, T. D., and Gordon, W. M., An Introduction to European Legal History (Abingdon; Professional Books, 1985), 142–44. Some early examples of discussion by the proceduralists are in the Summa de Ordine ludiciario of Ricardus Anglicus (1196), Wahrmund, Quellen, vol. 2, iii at pp. 81–88, and that of Damasus (see above, note 33), pp. 59–61.

38. Glanvill, vii, 11, p. 30, Grand Assize, the four knights to elect twelve “de eodem visneto”; ix, 13, p. 115, reasonable boundaries, “per legales homines de visneto”; xiii, 3, p. 150, Mort d'Ancestor, “liberos et legales homines de visneto”; the same formula is in all the petty assizes.

39. The reduction of the vicinage requirement starts with Stat. Westminster II 1285 c. 38, and concludes with Somers' Act, 4 Anne, c. 16 § 6 (1705) for civil proceedings, 6 Geo. 4, c. 50 § 13 (1826) for criminal proceedings; intermediate statutes are discussed by Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise, 91.

40. See Rolle, Henry, Un Abridgment des Plusieurs Cases et Resolutions del Common Ley (London, 1668) [hereinafter Rolle Abr.], 2:596624 for issues relating to venue, mostly drawn from medieval cases. I have used Rolle in preference to SirFitzherbert, Anthony, La Graunde Abridgment (London, 1516), for ease of access to references, since Fitzherbert uses a less sophisticated division of the material.

41. Baker, English Legal History, 141, 143; SirFortescue, John, De Laudibus Legum Angliae, ed. and trans. Chrimes, S. B. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1949), 7577.

42. For judgment by locals as a right related to trial by peers, see the discussion by Reynolds, Susan, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 202–4, 384, and Stenton, F. M., The First Century of English Feudalism, 1066–1166, 2d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 61. For the determination of the venue by the facts in issue, see Rolle Abr., 2:596–624. For specific examples of misfeasance liability in assumpsit, see Stratton v. Swanlond (1374) and Skyrne v. Butolf (1388) in Baker, J. H. and Milsom, S. F. C., Sources of English Legal History: Private Law to 1750 (London: Butterworth, 1986), 360, 362. Both cases are cited by Baker, English Legal History, 376. See also Marshal's Case (1441) in Baker and Milsom, Sources, 367.

43. The examples are taken from Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise, 93–94; Post, J. B., “Jury Lists and Juries in the Late Fourteenth Century,” in Twelve Good Men and True: The Criminal Trial Jury in England, 1200–1800, ed. Cockburn, J. S. and Green, T. A. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 70; Edward Powell, “Jury Trial at Gaol Delivery in the Late Middle Ages: The Midland Circuit, 1400–1429,” in ibid., 80; Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 9:212, nn. 4, 5.

44. Oldham, James C., “The Origins of the Special Jury,” University of Chicago Law Review 50 (1983): 171–72, summarizes criminal and civil uses. There is a striking similarity to the proof mode in the Digest of Justinian, D. 25. 4. 1. De inspiciendo ventre custodiendoque partu. Corpus Juris Civilis 1:367–68.

45. c. 40, Statutes of the Realm i, p. 36, on counterpleading voucher to warranty in mort d'ancestor and writs of entry: “… & le demaundaunt le contre pleide, & veille averrer par assise, ou par pais, ou en autre manere, si com la Court le Rey agardera….” See also c. 44, id. p. 37, allowing challenge of essoins ultra mare: the plaintiff/ demandant “…suie la verrement [sic] par pais, ou sicom la Court le Rey agardera…”

46. Glanvill, x, 17, p. 132: “generali modo probandi in curia, scilicet per scriptum vel per duellum.” Hyams, Paul R., “The Charter as a Source for the Early Common Law,” Journal of Legal History 12 (1991): 180–81, argues that at first only royal charters were acceptable.

47. This is attested from Normandy in two darrein presentment cases of 1185, cited by Boussard, Jacques, Le Gouvernement d'Henri II Plantagenet (Paris: Librarie d'Argences, 1956), 292, n. 1. For England, Glanvill, xiii, 11, pp. 154–55, says that a royal charter specially or expressly confirming land to the tenant stops the assize; see also Sutherland, Donald W., The Assize of Novel Disseisin (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 20, n. 1, and Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 9:148 and 166, and authorities cited there.

48. For summary discussion of estoppel by record, see Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 9:147–54 and sources cited there; later medieval instances of trial by the record are collected in Rolle Abr., 2:574–76.

49. Inspection to disprove was the procedure of profert and oyer. See Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise, 13–14 and 104 – 6; Wigmore, J. H., A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, 3d ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1940), iv, § 1177 at pp. 409–411; and Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 9:167–68. Many cases on the law in this area can be found in the tables to Maynard's edition of the Year Books (London, 1679; reprint, 1981) under the title Monstrans de Faits. For proof by comparison of seals, see Glanvill, x, 12, p. 127; Bracton, fol. 398b, iv 242–43.

50. By plea of non estfactum, alleging forgery, or in the case of conveyances of land, riens passa per lefet, alleging the absence or divergence of the formal conveyance by feoffment.

51. See Simpson, A. W. B., A History of the Common Law of Contract: The Rise of the Action of Assumpsit (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 9598, 99–101.

52. YB 12 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 16, p. 35; YB 26 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 2, p. 119; YB 28 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 3, p. 145; YB 7 Hen. 5, pl. 3, Ms. 5–9; Littleton, Tenures § 366, in SirCoke, Edward, The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, or, a Commentary upon Littleton, 11th ed. (London, 1719), 226a227a.

53. The first use of secta or sequela in this sense, as opposed to suit of court or “following” or “retinue” more generally, appears to be in Glanvill, ×, 12, pp. 127–28 and ×, 17, p. 132. There is no mention in the Leges Henrici Primi. Lawsuits (=English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I, ed. R. C. van Caenegem [Selden Society, vols. 106 and 107, 1990–1991]) has only one instance, no. 656, dated 1190 × 1200. The earliest uses given by Latham, R. E., Revised Medieval Latin Wordlist from British and Irish Sources (reprint with supplement, London: British Academy, 1980) are from 1196, s.v. sec/ta, and c. 1190, s.v. secutio, sequela. Nor does Lexicon Minus give any earlier or non-British uses. The argument of Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise, 10–16, followed by Maitland, Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2:606–10, that suit is an early medieval preliminary to proof rather than a proof itself, is therefore probably impermissible; it appears to be a late twelfth-century derogatory term for simple proof by witnesses.

54. Bracton, fol. 400b, iv 248, says that suit does not amount to proof, but merely raises a praesumptio levis that is destroyed by contrary proof or wager of law, because it can be made by familiares and domestici, i.e., suspect witnesses. Suit are also described as testes in Magna Carta c. 38, and Bracton, fol. 438, iv 360, describes persons who are clearly witnesses to the live birth of a child who determine the case as … secta. Compare also the discussion of the relationship of suit to proof by witnesses in Beatrice Queen of Germany v. Edmund Earl of Cornwall (1274). See Paul Brand, ed., The Earliest English Law Reports, vol. 1 (Selden Society, vol. Ill, 1996), 21–22, no. 1274.2 (described as suite in the French report), 22–23 (described as testes in the Latin report) and in the record, 24–27 (an attempt is made by the defendant to distinguish the effect of testes and of secta; the plaintiff argues that proof of this type is disallowed by Magna Carta).

55. Hyams, Paul R., “The Proof of Villein Status in the Common Law,” English Historical Review 89 (1974): 722–30, summarized in idem, King, Lords and Peasants in Medieval England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 173–75!

56. For suit as a matter of form, see Simpson, The Common Law of Contract, 137; Anon v. Warren (1343) YB 17 & 18 Edw. 3, Rolls Series, p. 73 (translation in Baker and Milsom, Sources, 212). For compurgation as, in effect, a single decisory oath and its continued use into the early modern period, see Baker, English Legal History, 87–88.

57. Braund v. Friday (1314), Bolland, William Craddock, ed., Year Books of Edward II, vol. 16, 7 Edward II, AD 1313–1314, Selden Society, vol. 39 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1922), 104; Oxford v. Baillart (1318), Collas, John P. and Plucknett, Theodore F. T., eds., Year Books of Edward II, vol. 23, 12 Edward II, Michaelmas AD 1318, Selden Society, vol. 65 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1950), 7; Beaumont v. Kydale (1319), Collas, John P. and Plucknett, Theodore F. T., eds., Year Books of Edward II, vol. 24, 12 Edward II, Hilary and Part of Easter 1319, Selden Society, vol. 70 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1953), 146; Le Taillour v. atte Medwe (1320), Stoljar, S. J. and Downer, L. J., eds., Year Books of Edward II, vol. 27, 14 Edward II, Michaelmas 1320, Selden Society, vol. 104 (London: Selden Society, 1988), 39; and Anon (1320), ibid., 42, all cited and discussed by Stoljar and Downer, Selden Society, vol. 104, xiii–xiv; and Perton v. Tumby (1317), Legge, M. Dominica and SirHoldsworth, William, eds., Year Books of Edward II, vol. 21, 10 Edward II, AD 1316–1317, Selden Society, vol. 54 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1935), 109, Baker and Milsom, Sources, 289.

58. Simpson, The Common Law of Contract, 142–43, and cf. Dunman v. Weldon (1329), Sutherland, Donald W., ed., The Eyre of Northamptonshire: 3–4 Edward III, AD 1329–1330, vol. 1, Selden Society, vol. 97 (London: Selden Society, 1983), 476, Baker and Milsom, Sources, 210; Anon (1356), YB 30 Edw. 3, Michs. fol. 18, Baker and Milsom, Sources, 213; Reading on Magna Carta c. 38, Baker and Milsom, Sources, 214.

59. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2:634–35.

60. For reducing suit to a formality, see above, note 56. P. Philbin sees the introduction of the requirement of a deed in covenant as motivated by evidentiary concerns of this type. See Philbin, , “Proving the Will of Another: The Specialty Requirement in Covenant,” Harvard Law Review 105 (1992): 2001–20; but that the result was a change in proof rules is still consistent with the different arguments of Robert C. Palmer and D. J. Ibbetson (reviewed in Philbin's article).

61. Some early cases of determination of age by inspection are collected by Wigmore, A Treatise on Evidence, iii, § 1154, some later ones in Rolle Abr., 2:572–73. Some fourteenth-century cases of the examination of wounds are collected in Rolle Abr., 2:578, Per le Court pls. 1–4.

62. See Rolle Abr., 2:577, citing: life of the husband in Dower, YB 17 Edw. 3, Michs pl. 18 at fol. 49b, pl. 22, fol. 50b; YB 8 Hen. 6, Hil. pl. 7, p. 21 at 23; death of the husband in a foreign county in an assize, YB 39 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 9 p. 234, though contra life of the husband to abate the wife's writ is triable by the assize, YB 30 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 26, p. 178, secus if the allegation is that the husband is alive in a foreign county, YB 36 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 5, p. 215, but contra if P has not alleged marriage and the death of her husband (ibid.); life of the husband/ victim in a foreign county in the widow's appeal for his killing, YB 41 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 5, p. 252, YB 43 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 26, p. 273. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise, 23, and Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2:638, were therefore wrong to suppose that the rule is peculiar to Dower; the cases in the Liber Assisarum indicate that a critical issue is whether the life or death is alleged to be in a foreign county, so that the jury cannot have local knowledge of the fact. Cf. also Croxby v. Tilebroc (1219), Stenton, Doris Mary, ed., Rolls of the Justices in Eyre: Being the Rolls of Pleas and Assizes for Lincolnshire 1218–19 and Worcestershire 1221, Selden Society, vol. 53 (1934; reprint, Abingdon: Professional Books, 1978), 315, pl. 655, and Baker and Milsom, Sources, 23 (death, where the party was alleged to be alive in Jerusalem, to be proved by suit present at the death).

63. It would be odd though not impossible that “proves” should be used where “test-moignes” would have done perfectly well; proof of life or death of absent persons by direct testimony often poses difficulties; and, though this is very late evidence, in Thome v. Rolff (1560), Moo. K.B. 14, 2 Dy. 185a, presumptive evidence of death from the husband's absence overseas for seven years was accepted in this form of trial.

64. YB 31 Edw. 3, Lib. Ass. pl. 6, p. 185 (extendors, Joined to the jury); cases cited Rolle Abr., 2:581–82 (summoners, pernors, veiors, bailiffs and escheators); Rider v. Strode (1382), Thome, Samuel E., Hager, Michael E., Thorne, Margaret MacVeagh, and Donahue, Charles Jr, eds., Year Books of Richard II: 6 Richard II (Cambridge, Mass.: The Ames Foundation, 1996) 11 (summoners, the record showing the procedure); see also comment by Donahue, ibid., 37.

65. Glanvill, ii, 6, p. 27 (as will appear below, this practice in the form stated by Glanvill is probably drawn from the canon law); Bracton, fol. 438, iv. p. 360; and cf. also Carlisle v. Boythorpe (1218–19), Stenton, Doris Mary, ed., Rolls of the Justices in Eyre: Being the Rolls of Pleas and Assizes for Yorkshire in 3 Henry III (1218–19), Selden Society, vol. 56 (1937; reprint, Abingdon: Professional Books, 1978), 7, pl. 22, Baker and Milsom Sources, 40; Maitland, Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2:637–39.

66. See above, note 20.

67. This is not cited by van Caenegem, presumably because technically it is used for proof of law rather than of facts. Brunner, Schwurgerichte, 386–92, and, following him, Filhol, René, “La Preuve de la coutume dans l'ancien droit français,” Receuils de la Société Jean Bodin 17 (1965): 360–61, saw this institution as derived from the Carolingian inquisitio via Norman practice. In contrast, Waelkens, “L'Origine,” argues that the procedure was created by an ordinance of 1270 and based on the application of the Romano-canonical doctrine of notoriety. Filhol, “La Preuve,” 362–71, gives the later history.

68. Haskins, Norman Institutions, 232–34.

69. E. E. S. Procter, “The Judicial Use of Pesquisa in Leon and Castille,” English Historical Review Supplement 2 (1966).

70. Schlosser, Hans, Spatmittelalterlicher Zivilprozess nach bayerischen Quellen: Gerichtsverfassung und Rechtsgang (Cologne: Bohlau, 1971), 371–75 (cited by van Caenegem, “History of European Civil Procedure,” 42); we are concerned here with what Schlosser calls the “nichtrichterliche Kundschaft.”

71. van Caenegem, “History of European Civil Procedure,” 48.

72. Stojcevic, Dragomir, “La Preuve dans le droit serbe,” Receuils de la Société Jean Bodin 17 (1965): 662–75. Stojcevic cites other uses of the porota, which correspond much more closely to compurgation, and an evolution in and subsequent to the Code of Dusan (1349–54) toward a quasi-Judicial role of an arbitral character.

73. For Aquitaine, Boussard, Gouvernement, 292–93, gives some instances of inquisitio procedure from Aquitaine at around 1100. Since, however, Boussard's view is that the Angevin Jury is merely an inquisitorial mode of proof by witnesses, a precursor of the later French enquête, it may be that these are in fact merely instances of proof by witnesses, rather than of the genuine inquisitio. For Tuscany, Pertile, Antonio, Storia del diritto italiano (Turin: Unione tipografico-editrice, 1900), 6:391, cites a case dated to 1114.

74. Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England (London, 17651769; reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 3:294–95.

75. See below, notes 94–96 and the accompanying text.

76. A convenient discussion of mancipatio is in Thomas, J. A. C., Textbook of Roman Law (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976), 152–55.

77. See the discussion by Honoré, Tony, “Conveyances of Land and Professional Standards in the Later Empire,” in New Perspectives in the Roman Law of Property, ed. Birks, Peter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 137–49, drawing on Voss, W. E., Recht und Rhetorik in den Kaisergesetzen der Spàtantike: Eine Untersuchung zum nachklassischen Kauf- und iibereignungsrecht (Frankfurt: Lowenklau, 1982).

78. Honoré, “Conveyances of Land,” 142–48.

79. Fragmenta Quae Dicitur Vaticana 35, 4, in Riccobono, Salvatore et al., eds., Fontes luris Romani Antejustiniani (Florence: S. A. G. Barbéra, 1964), 2:470. Translation down to I is from Honoré, “Conveyances of Land,” 144; thereafter is my (as far as possible) literal translation; Honoré's paraphrase of the second part reads proprietas as “boundaries.” The editors of Fontes and those of the Theodosian Code (see above, note 5) date this law to 337; Honoré, “Conveyances of Land,” 142, n. 27, however, says that Voss dates it to 313.

80. See Honoré, “Conveyances of Land,” 139 (boundaries and neighbors), 140–41 (constructive delivery).

81. See Archi, G. G., “Les Preuves dans le droit du basempire,” Receuils de la Société Jean Bodin 16 (1965): 409–10.

82. Sales, CTh 3.1.2: “Id etiam placuit neminem ad venditionem rei cuiuslibet accedere, nisi eo tempore, quo inter venditorem et emptorem contractus solemniter explicatur, certa et vera proprietas a vicinis demonstretur: … Nee inter emptorem et venditorem solemnia in cuniculis celebrentur, sed fraudulenta venditio penitus sepulta depereat.” The change from “praesentis vicinis demonstretur” to “a vicinis demonstretur” supports Archi's argument that they speak to the vendor or donor's title. But since the Interpretatio in the Breviary of Alaric and the epitomized versions (see below, notes 86–87) follow the line that the vicini are to be witnesses to the instant conveyance, it may be merely an error in the manuscript tradition. Gifts, CTh 8.12.1.2: “et corporalis traditio subsequatur ad excludendam vim atque inruptionem advocata vicinitate omnibus arbitris adhibitis, quorum postea fide probabitur donatam rem…”

83. CJ 8.53.25.1; and cf. Krueger's notes, Corpus luris Civilis, 2:363, n. 14, and 364, n. 12.

84. CJ 8.53.31; ray translation and emphases. The law goes on to validate informally created gifts. The registration system continued after the fall of the western empire in at least southern France and Italy. See Ian Wood, “Disputes in Late Fifth- and Sixth-Century Gaul: Some Problems,” in Settlement of Disputes, 12–14.

85. P. Pithoeus and F. Bluhme, eds., MGH, Leges (fol) V, c. 53, p. 157: “De traditione vero quam semper in locis secundum leges fieri necesse est, si magistratus, defensor, aut duumviri quinquenniales forte defuerint, ad conficienda introductionum gesta tres sufficiant curiales; dummodo vicinis scientibus impleatur corporalis introductionis effectus” (my emphasis). The debate on the attribution of this text is conveniently summarized by Amory, P., People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy 489–554 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 7879, n. 187, preferring the Ostrogothic identification, as does Barnish, S. J., Cassiodorus: Variae (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992), 2223, n. 30.

86. G. F. Haenel, ed., Lex Romana Visigothorum (1869), 72; translation from Pharr, The Theodosian Code, 63.

87. Lex Romana Visigothorum at 3.1.2, p. 73. Epitome Guelphyterbiani: “vicinis praesentibus, vindiccionem fieri.” Epitome Monachi: “Omnis venditio etiam de mediocribus rebus in praesentia fiat vicinorum.” Epitome St. Gall: “Nam quicumque homo in qualecumque loco terram conparere voluerit vicinus [sic] loci illius in suo testimonio rogit esse ne alterius facultatem aut terram conparet.” For the circulation of the Breviary, see Wood, Ian, “The Code in Merovingian Gaul,” in The Theodosian Code, ed. Harries, Jill and Wood, Ian (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), 162–66.

88. K. Zeumer, ed., MGH Leges (fol) V Bk 3 c. 1 [s 2], p. 327: “Nam quicumque homo in qualecumque loco terram conparere voluerit, vicinus [vicinis in one MS] loci illius in suo testimonio roget esse, ne alterius facultatem aut terram conparet.”

89. Liber Constitutionem c. 99, MGH, Leges Burgundionum, ed. L. R. von Salis, p. 113: “[1] Si quis manicipium aut agrum aut vineam aut aream vel domum factam in quocumque loco comparaverit, iubemus, ut, si non fuerit firmata aut subscripta, pretium perdat; certe si loci illius consistentibus scriptura ipsa subscripta aut signata non fuerit, aut septem aut quinque testibus. [2] Certe si quinque testes ad praesens inventi non fuerint, tres idoneos testes loci illius consistentes, quorum fama numquam maculata est, praecipimus subscribendos; certe si non, invalidam scripturam iubemus esse.” Drew, K. F., in the introduction to her translation, The Burgundian Code (1949; reprint, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972), 57, dates this part of the Code to 524–32 or later.

90. Lex Romana Burgundionum tit. 35 De Vinditionibus [sic] [2.], MGH, Leges Burgundionum, p. 152. The editor says that the Roman source of this passage is unknown.

91. CTh 3.9.1; Codex Eurici tit. De Venditionibus, c. 286, MGH, Leges Visigothorum, ed. K. Zeumer, 11; LVis 5, 4, 3, id., 218–19.

92. Expositio ad Ludovici Pii 11. (14)., A. Boretius, ed., Liber Legis Langobardorum Papiensis, MGH, Leges Langobardorum 526: “In hoc capitulo legitur: ‘legitimam traditionem facere studeat,’ id est vadat super terram et eum inde investiat, sicut in lege Romanorum precipitur, et in presentia testium fiat.”

93. MGH, Lex Salica, ed. K. A. Eckhardt. The nearest approach is tit. 10 §§ 3 and 6 and tit. 47 § 1, which concern issues connected with theft and allegedly stolen goods.

94. Tit. 63, MGH, Lex Ribuaria, ed. F. Beyerle and R. Buchner, p. 116: “Si quis villam aut vineam vel quamlibet possessiunculam ab alio conparaverit, et testamentum accipere non potuerit, si mediocris res est, cum sex testibus, et si parva, cum tres, quod si magna, cum duodecim ad locum traditionis cum totidem numero pueros accedat, et sic eis praesentibus praetium tradat et possessionem accipiat, et unicuique de parvulis alapas donet et torcet auriculas, ut ei in postmodum testimonium praebant…” This is an alternative to a preferred procedure under tit. 62, ibid., pp. 114–16, of transfer by act in the mallus (local public court) with documentation. For the dating, see Eckhardt, K. A., Lex Ribuaria (Gottingen: Musterschmidt, 1959); Wood, Ian, The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450–751 (London: Longman, 1994), 116.

95. MGH, Leges Alamannorum, ed. K. Lehmann, 1, 1, p. 64 (version A codd. 3–12; the textual variants are not material to the sense, and the edition of K. A. Eckhardt is identical at the points cited here): “et qui voluerit hoc facere, per cartam de rebus suis ad ecclesiam, ubi dare voluerit, firmitatem faciat et testes sex vel septem adhibeat, et nomina eorum ipsa carta contineat, et coram sacerdote, qui ad ecclesiam deservit, super altare ponat…” MGH, Lex Baiwariorum, ed. E. von Schwind, 16, 2, p. 432: “Si quis vendiderit possessionem suam alicui terram cultam non cultam prata vel silvas: post accepto pretio aut per cartam aut per testes conprobetur firma emptio. / Hie testes per aurem debet esse tractus, quia sic habet lex vestra; duas vel tres vel amplius debent esse testes.”

96. Tabuteau, Emily Zack, Transfers of Property in Eleventh-Century Norman Law (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), chap. 7. That they were not required to be vicini does not imply that locals might not be included, and, other things being equal, it is likely that some would.

97. Thorne, , “Livery of Seisin,” Law Quarterly Review 52 (1936): 353–55; Clanchy, , From Memory to Written Record, 2d ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 254–60; Hudson, , Land, Law and Lordship in Anglo-Norman England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 159–64. As will be seen below, there is also evidence of a third model which involves transfer by an act in court.

98. Thorne, “Livery,” 356 and following.

99. Ibid., 356–57.

100. On pre-Constantinian use of vicini, see above, 556. CTh 2.26; CJ 3.38.3 and following. Cf. the discussion of related Byzantine rules by Ashburner, W.The Farmers' Law,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 32 (1912): 8586. The shift to local testimony, though not found in the Farmers' Law, is found in tenth-century Byzantine practice. See R. Morris, “Dispute Settlement in the Byzantine Provinces in the Tenth Century,” in Settlement of Disputes, 136, 142, 146.

101. Fragmenta Codex Rescripti. Code of Euric [hereinafter CE] tit. 274, MGH Leges Visigothorum, p. 3 [inserted by Zeumer from the Lex Baiwariorum, 12, 1–3]: “Si/ quis <autem>, dum arat vel planteat vineam,/ terminum casu, non volumtate evellerit,/ vicinis praesentibus restituat terminum/ et nullum damnum patiatur.”

102. CE tit. 276, MGH Leges Visigothorum, p. 4. Translation from Goffart, Walter, Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418–584 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), appendix B, p. 235. The context is not entirely clear; see the review of different approaches, ibid., 235 – 40. Goffart quotes the edition of CE of Alvaro d'Ors, Estudios Visigoticos, vol. 2, El Codigo de Eurico (1960), 21, which is not at this point and for my purposes materially different from that of Zeumer.

103. Lex Visigothorum [hereinafter LVis] 10, 3, 5, MGH Leges Visigothorum, p. 398; my (rough) translation. Goffart, Barbarians and Romans, 235, reads proprietas as “composition”; cf. Honoré's reading of the same word in Fragmenta Vaticana 35, 4 as “boundaries” (“Conveyances of Land,” 144, n. 79).

104. Pertile, Storia del Diritto Italiano, 6:390, cites several examples; another is the report in C. Cipolla, ed., Codice Diplomatico del monasterio di San Columbano di Bobbio (Rome, 1918), 1:146, no. 24, of an inquisitio in 747 “per silvanos nostros” to fix boundaries (cited Lexicon Minus s.v. veritas [2]).

105. Leges Alamannorum 81 (codd. A)/ 84 (codd. B), p. 145 at 146: “Tune spondeant inter se pugna duorum…”; Lex Baiwariorum 12, 8, pp. 402–3, on cases where there are no marked boundaries. On the other hand, as already indicated, LBai 12, 3 reproduces the Visigothic requirement of restoration of boundaries in the presence of the witnesses. In addition, LBai 12, 4, on cases where boundaries are marked, reproduces part of LVis 10, 3, 3 on the same issue, and two MSS add “Tune iurent tres vicini, quibus notum est, vel plures et ostendant, sicut rectum est.”

106. Capitula selecta ex Antiqua Canonum Collectione facta in Hibernia Saeculo circa VIII, in J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Cursus Completus… series Latina [hereinafter PL] 96:1299. Translation from R. Sharpe, “Dispute Settlement in Medieval Ireland,” in Settlement of Disputes, 183; square brackets indicate Sharpe's additions to clarify the sense.

107. A. Werminghoff, ed., MGH, Concilia II, i, p. 782 at 783.

108. Burchard of Worms, Libri Decretorum 3, 22, in PL 140:677. It is not in the MGH, Concilia texts of these synods.

109. Ivoof Chartres, Decretum3, 27, in PL 161:204. Gratian, C. 16q. 1 c. 54, attributes the canon to one of the Councils of Toledo. Friedberg, Emil, ed., Decretum Magistri Gratiani (Leipzig, 1879), 778. However, the notes to the Editio Romana comment that it is not found there. Corpus luris Canonici Emendatum et Notts Illustratum: Gregorii Xll Pont. Max. Iussu Editum (Lyon, 1606), 738. [Citations to Gratian in conventional form are hereafter to Friedberg's edition unless otherwise indicated.]

110. LVis 8, 3, 13, Leges Visigothorum, p. 326: “… ut presentibus his aut vicinis eorum damnum, quod inlatum fuerit, estimetur, et ad campum utreque partes conveniant, ut, postquam damnum inspexerint,… and ibid., 15, p. 327: “Quod si dominus pecorum mittere vel venire noluerit, damnum a vicinis, quod factum est, extimetur…”

111. LBai 14, 17, MGH, Lex Baiwariorum, pp. 419–20: “Ut nemo praesumat alienum animal occidere neque porcum, quamvis in damnum eum invenerit. Sed reclaudat eum, donee domino eius ostendat damnum. Et aliqui de vicinis eorum videant hoc et designent locum qui lesus est, et alia quae intacta sunt usque ad maturitatem…”

112. Edictus Rothari c. 346, ed. F. Bluhme, MGH Leges Langobardorum, p. 79: “ut damnum quod arbitratum fuerit componatur, aut fabula, quae inter vicinus est.”

113. Edictus Rothari c. 146, MGH Leges Langobardorum, pp. 33–34: “De incendio Si quis casam alienam asto animo, id est voluntarie, incendit, in treblum restituat ea, quod est sibi tertia, sub extimatione pretii cum omnem intrinsecus, quidquid intus crematus fuit, que vicini bone fidei homines adpraetiaverint, restauret…”

114. Leo the Great, Letter 167, inquisitio 17, PL 54:1208; Burchard 4, 44, PL 140:735; Ivo, Decretum c. 238, PL 161:117, and Pannormia 1, 94, PL 161:1065–66; Gratian, De consecratione D. 4, c. 113, p. 1396–97.

115. c. 8, MGH, Concilia II, i, p. 191 at 192. The same rule is found in ibid., p. 53, prohibiting marriage “antequam presbitero adnuntiet et parentibus suis et vicinis, que eorum possint examinare propinquitatem,” c. 12 of a text that Werminghoff ascribes to a Bavarian Synod of 740 × 750; however, Hartmann, Wilfried, Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit im Frankenreich und in Italien (Paderbom: Ferdinand Schòningh, 1989), 90, says that it is an episcopal capitulary dating to shortly after 800.

116. Libri Decretorum 7, 21, PL 140:783. As editors of Gratian have noted, there may be a relationship to CTh 9.7.2, a law of Constantine of 326 restricting accusations of adultery to “proximis necessariisque personis … hoc est patrueli consobrino et consanguineo…” and more particularly the interpretatio of the Breviary on it, “In adulterio extraneam mulierum nullus accuset, sed propinqui, ad quorum notam pertinet,…“; this text looks very like a conflation of this rule with the Synod of Friuli rule about the use of relatives and locals to establish relationship before marriage. Broadly the same text is in Ivo, Decretum, 9, 57, PL 161:670, Pannormia 7, 84, PL 161:1301, and Gratian, C. 35 q. 6 c. 1.

117. Libri Decretorum 7, 25, PL 140:784, also in Regino of Priim, De Disciplina Ecclesiastica 2, 23, PL 132:238, Ivo, Decretum 9, 61, PL 161:670, Pannormia 7, 87, PL 161:1302, and Gratian, Decretum C. 35 q. 6 c. 5.

118. With a good deal of elaboration; C. 35 q. 6, ed. Friedberg, pp. 1277–81.

119. Glanvill, ii, 6, p. 27, on a pleading that the grand assize should not proceed because the parties are of common stock under the source of the inheritance; see ibid, v, 4, pp. 55–56, for proof of free or villein status. In both cases the preferred proof is by production of relatives, but if this does not settle the matter, “tune decurrendum est ad visnetum” (27), “ad visnetum erit recuperandum” (55). The visnetum here is a special purpose Jury, not the regular assize. It is fairly clear that in Glanvill, parentela has not yet become a term of art in the rules of preference for inheritance, as discussed by Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2:295–302 (cited by Hall, 184), since in the first passage cited the expression used is stipite parentele, while in the second, and in xiii, 11, p. 155, (common stock as bar to the assize mort d'ancestor) it is stipite, unqualified; and in vi, 17, p. 68, parentela is used as a synonym for canonical consanguinity as a bar to marriage.

120. Cf. Robinson, Fergus, and Gordon, European Legal History, 5–19.

121. MGH, Lex Ribuaria 61, 1, pp. 108–9 at 109, “secundum legem Romanam, quam ecclesia vivit.”

122. Some general instances are listed by Jacob, Robert, “Jugement des hommes et Jugement de Dieu à l'aube du Moyen Age,” in his edited volume, Le juge et le Jugement dans les traditions juridiques européennes. Etudes d'histoire comparée (Paris: L.G.D.J, 1996), 56, n. 35: Pippini Cap. Italicum (801? 806 × 810) c. 12, MGH, Capitularia i, p. 209; Cap. cum primis const. (808) c. 3, MGH, Capitularia i, p. 139; Cap. de lustitiis faciendis (811 x 813) c. 3, MGH, Capitularia i, p. 176. Though a capitulary of ca. 820–21 restricted inquisitiones to causas… dominicas, i.e., matters of royal interest, an exception was still provided by the same capitulary for the poor: Cap. de lustitiis faciendis (ca. 820), MGH, Capitularia i, p. 295 (cited in Ganshof, “La Preuve dans le droit franc,” 95), and Judicial selection of witnesses was made generally available in 832: Hlothari Cap. Papiense (832) c. 11, MGH, Capitularia ii, pp. 61–62.

123. For the preponderance of inquisitio capitularies in the reign of Louis the Pious, see Ganshof, “La Preuve dans le droit franc,” 95; for church influence on Louis the Pious, see Wallace-Hadrill, J. M., The Barbarian West, 3d ed. (London: Hutchison, 1967, reprint, 1972), 140–42.

124. This point is made by Bullough, D. A., “Europae Pater: Charlemagne and His Achievement in the Light of Recent Scholarship,” English Historical Review 85 (1970): 9295, postulating a Lombard origin, and J. L. Nelson, “Dispute Settlement in Carolingian West Francia,” in Settlement of Disputes, 60–61. The instances collected in Lexicon Minus and by Ganshof also come primarily from Italy, France south of the Loire, Switzerland and southern Germany. See Lexicon Minus s.v. inquaestio, and Ganshof, “La Preuve dans le droit franc,” 95–96, nn. 53, 54.

125. Cap. 816 c. 1, MGH, Capitularia i, p. 268; my translation. Cf. also the slightly variant version in Cap. 818–19 c. 10, id. p. 283. For discussion of the context of these provisions in Carolingian proof procedure in general, see Jacob, “Jugement,” and Nelson, “Dispute Settlement,” 47; a radically different account is given by Schmitz, Gerhard, “The Capitulary Legislation of Louis the Pious,” in Charlemagne's Heir: New Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious, ed. Godman, Peter and Collins, Roger (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 434–35.

126. On claims based on normative sources in Anglo-Norman customary Judicial practice more generally, see Hudson, The Formation of the English Common Law, 11.

127. See above, note 53; cases are cited by number.

128. The cases are indexed by van Caenegem under Inquest, Jury, Juror, Recognition (=investigation), Venue, and Verdict. There are 147 cases, but several involve more than one disputed issue. Thus, there are 177 disputed issues. Of these, 21 do not seem to involve neutral collective testimony, but a determination on the basis of a confession in court, documents, party witnesses, or a Judgment of God. Eighteen provide no information as to proof procedure. This leaves 138 disputes to consider. I have taken the constitutions of Clarendon, 1164, the date of the assize utrum, as a convenient point of division between cases before and those during and after the reforms of Henry II. Using van Caenegem's termini ad quem to give the latest possible date to cases produces a division of 65 disputed issues dating up to and including 1164 and 73 dating after 1165.

129. Omitted from Table 1 are those topics that appeared only once: up to 1164, seisin and disseisin of a ship; from 1165, charitable funds, presentment of crime, and trespass damages.

130. Lawsuits, no. 212 (1116 × 1118); the larger dispute is no. 254 (1127), which is between the archbishop of Canterbury and the monastery of St. Augustine and concerns tolls, customs, and the right to a ferry at Sandwich.

131. See van Caenegem's analysis of the parties and subject-matter, Lawsuits, 106:xxiv–xv, and compare the comment of the Settlement of Disputes authors at 4.

132. This was certainly the case after the assize of Clarendon in 1166, and probably, on the basis of the arguments of Hurnard and Wormald (see above, nn. 13–14), before then; though from these it is not so clear that the pre-1166 mechanism would appear in the cases to be the use of a special panel.

133. Of the ten general land claims, four (nos. 18H, 63, 64, and 253) are probably brief references to the “homines qui juraverunt” (men who swore) or “exauctores terrae” (enquirers of the land) in Domesday. Two are claims to small amounts of land, which may be boundary disputes, a second issue in no. 253 and no. 309; and custom seems to be the main issue in no. 278, a London dispute about ownership of a wharf and liability to tolls (1110 × 1133). Claims to churches present a problem of chronology. Three of the five cases, nos. 354 and 355 (1156), and no. 365 (1156 × 1157), date to the 1150s and two appear to be standard forms, which suggests a connection with the early stages of Henry IFs reforms.

134. Of the Domesday cases, ten do not provide information about the mode of proof; since more than one mode of proof is offered in several cases, this produces a total of 129 proof modes. For the general frequency of disputed titles in Domesday and its possible significance, see Hyams, Paul R., “‘No Register of Title’: The Domesday Inquest and Land AdjudicationAnglo-Norman Studies 9 (1987): 127–12; J. C. Holt, “1086,” in idem, ed., Domesday Studies (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 1987), 41–64.1 have been unable to consult Patrick Wormald, “Domesday Lawsuits: A Provisional List and Preliminary Comment,” in England in the Eleventh Century, ed. Carola Hicks. Harlaxton Medieval Studies 2 (Stamford, UK: Paul Watkins, 1992), 61–102. Outside of Domesday cases, there are 149 cases up to 1164, of which 92 (62 percent) offer no information as to proof mode; the remaining 57 generate 67 modes of proof. There are 122 cases from 1165–99, of which 64 (52 percent) offer no information as to proof mode; at this period multiple proof modes in a single case seem to disappear, and there are only 58 proof modes shown.

135. Cf. the discussion by Fleming, Robin, “Oral Testimony and the Domesday Inquest,” Anglo-Norman Studies 17 (1995): 101–22.

136. Hudson, Land, Law and Lordship, 161, does not draw a distinction between “seising” in this sense, the ceremonies recorded in charters, and the transfer of possession by ceremony on the land that is the later livery and seisin. But the practical arrangements transferor and transferee need to make are very different, and, as already indicated, so are the implications for subsequent proof.

137. Here there are 39 cases before 1164, of which 19 (49 percent) provide no information as to proof mode, and a further 3 (8 percent) appear to be canon law proceedings; the remaining 17 produce 21 proof modes. From 1165 on, there are 44 cases, of which 7 provide no information as to proof, and 7 appear to be canon law (together, 32 percent); the remaining 30 each use a single proof mode.

138. Nos. 354 and 355 (1156) and no. 365 (1156 × 1157). The fourth is no. 296 (1138 × 1139), “hominibus de Luytun,” which could possibly be a local court.

139. van Caenegem, Royal Writs in England, 69–71; since this is a dispute between two abbeys about boundaries, it is wholly unsurprising to find the canon law rule applied.

140. Robinson, Fergus, and Gordon, European Legal History, 90; the text is printed by Wunderlich, Agathon, ed., Anecdota quae processum civile spectant (Gottingen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 1841) and by Ludwig Wahrmund, Excerpta Legum Edita a Bulgarino Causidico, Quellen 4, i. Wahrmund dates it to before 1148 (Quellen 4, i:xx). The account of the framework of the law of proof here largely follows Levy, J.-R., La Hiérarchie des preuves dans le droit savant du Moyen-Age (Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey, 1939).

141. Lévy, La Hiérarchie des preuves, 19–21.

142. Ibid., 11–21 and chap. 5.

143. “ad testimonium in iudicio adulterii admittitur praetor non in ea causa iudex. Nam si Judicatures est, non admittitur,…” See Wahrmund, Quellen 4, 1:6; the text but not the sense varies slightly in Wunderlich, Anecdota, 20.

144. Norr, K. W., Zur Stellung des Richters im Gelehrten Prozess der Friihzeit: Iudex secundum allegata non secundum conscientiam iudicat (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1967), ch. 1.

145. The early history of the ab alio auditu rule is discussed by Herrmann, F. R., “The Establishment of a Rule Against Hearsay in Romano-Canonical Procedure,” Virginia Journal of International Law 36 (1995): 151.

146. Though this requirement was derived from the Code of Justinian (CJ 4.20.14) and was adopted in some Carolingian capitularies (Jacob, “Jugement,” 56, n. 35), it was not prominent in early medieval practice. It is not mentioned by Bulgarus and is absent from Gratian's listing of material from the Corpus Iuris in C. 4 q. 2 & 3 c. 3. References to the publication of depositions in the Decretals of Alexander III (1159–81) imply that it must be present by this period: see X. 2. 20. 15, 18, and 19, in Friedberg, E., ed., Decretalium Collectiones (Corpus luris Canonici) (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1879), 2:320, 321 [citations to the Decretals in standard form hereafter are to this edition unless otherwise indicated].

147. Gratian, C. 35 q. 6, cited above, n. 118. Ricardus Anglicus (Wahrmund, Quellen 2, iii, p. 43) incorporates the terms of the consanguinity oath into the general witness oath (“sed ita se a maioribus accepisse”), though citing to a letter of Eugenius III (1145–53) on consanguinity (printed by Wahrmund, ibid., n. 15, from 1 Comp. 2.13.20, in Friedberg, E., ed., Quinque Compilationes Antiquae [Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1882]). The Ordo Invocato Christi Nomine gives “in parentele casu” as an exception to de visu et auditu, citing C. 35 q. 6 cc. 5 & 8 (Wahrmund, Quellen 5, i, p. 108; Bergman, F., ed., Pillii, Tancredi, Gratiae libri de iudiciorum ordine [Gottingen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 1842], p. 69). Damasus cites to 1 Comp. 4.15.2, a decretal not received in the Gregorian collection, for the proposition that testimony ab alio auditu is restricted to matrimonial cases and extrajudicial confessions of payment or nonpayment, though he immediately points out that it is also available in the actio aquae pluviae arcendae (Wunderlich, Anecdota, 19–20; Wahrmund, Quellen 2, iii: 52–53).

148. D. 22. 3. 28 and 39. 3. 2. 8; the quotation is from the translation by Honoré of the last sentence of D. 22. 3. 28 (see Honoré in The Digest of Justinian, Latin text ed. Theodore Mommsen and Paul Krueger, English translation ed. Alan Watson [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985], 2:648).

149. Pillii, Tancredi, 44. However, the Ordo [Invocato] (Pillii Tancredi, 69, Wahrmund, Quellen 5, i: 107–8), Damasus (Wunderlich, Anecdota, 108–9; Wahrmund, Quellen 4, iv: 52–53), and the Ordo ludiciarius of Tancred (1215 × 1216) in Pillii Tancredi, 239–10, state the point more narrowly in terms of the actio aquae pluviae arcendae for (in English terms) nuisance by diverting rainwater, the context of the Roman sources.

150. The rules on proof of family relationship were tightened up by the Lateran Council of 1215, requiring minimum standards of credibility in both the witnesses and their sources: X. 2. 20. 47. This is followed by Tancred, Pillii Tancredi, 236–37. The Ordo Judiciarius “Scientiam” (1235 × 1240) (Wahrmund, Quellen, vol. 2, i, 51) takes the view that the effect of the council's decision is a complete ban on testimony ab alio auditu in this context (“in hoc casu dicitur, quod testimonium de auditu non valet excepta causa matrimonii secundum iura antiqua, sed illud revocatum est per Lateranense concilium” Wahrmund's notes show some variation between the lines taken by different MSS). Accursius, gloss Audierint to D. 39. 3.2.8 takes the same line (cited here from Accursii Glossa in Digesta Nova. Corpus Glossatorum Juris Civilis, vol. 9 (Turin: ex officina Erasmiana, 1968; facsimile reprint of Digestum Novum [Venice; Baptista de Tortis, 1487/8]); on the other hand, the computation of relationships is accepted by Durantis. See Durantis, Gulielmus, Speculum luris (Frankfurt, 1592), bk. 1, pt. iv, rubric de teste § 1 opponitur, no. 54, p. 282.

The Ordo “Scientiam” denies that the Roman sources support the use of testimony ab alio auditu even in the actio aquae pluviae arcendae (“Diceret quidam, quod valet testimonium de auditu, ut si de opere antiquo quaeratur, ut [D. 22. 3. 28, 39. 3. 2. 8], sed si diligenter inspiciantur duae predictae leges, reperietur, quod ibi non requiritur testimonium de auditu, sed de facti visu”), and Accursius, gloss Si Arbiter to D. 22. 3. 28, says that the testimony is not truly de auditu, because the fact in issue is the existence of memory: “nam debet probare actor memoria operis extare. Sed memoria retinetur per auditum: ergo est probatio veritatis…” But memoria facti is still listed as an exception to ab alio auditu by Durantis, Speculum Iuris, no. 54.

151. Durantis, Speculum Iuris, bk. 2, pt. ii, rubric probatio § 1, no. 20, p. 267: “Ultimo quaeritur qualiter fiet probatio communis opinionis, vel etiam praescriptionis tanti temporis, cuius memoria non existit… [he then gives an example of a dispute in which a monastery's claim to tithe depended on whether the land was “newly ploughed”]… testes monasterii dicere debent, quod est communis opinio hominum habitantem circa loca, quae monasterium assent novalia esse, & etiam aliorum, quibus cura est de his quaerere, vel melius hominum, qui circa hoc arbitrantur nullem viventem vidisse, vel audivisse, quando loca ilia culta fuerint.”

152. See Levy, La Hiérarchie des preuves, 113–17; Migliorino, Francesco, Fama e infamia: Problemi della società medievale nel pensiero guiridico nei secoli XII e XIII (Catania: Giannotta, 1985), 4972; Fraher, R. M., “Conviction According to Conscience: The Medieval Jurists' Debate Concerning Judicial Discretion and the Law of Proof,” Law and History Review 1 (1989): 3240, and literature cited there.

153. C. 2 q. 5 d.p.c. 4 & cc. 5, 11–13, 16, & C. 6 q. 5. c.2, C. 15 q. 5 c. 1.

154. D. 22. 5. 3. 2: “alias numerus testium, alias dignitas et auctoritas, alias veluti consentiens fama confirmat rei de qua quaeritur fidem” (“sometimes the number of witnesses, sometimes their dignity and authority, at others common knowledge settles the truth of the matter in issue”) (translation by Honoré, The Digest of Justinian, 2:650–51). The text is in Gratian at C. 4. q. 2 & 3 c. 3, and in many discussions of proof: e.g., John of Salisbury, Policraticus, bk. 5, c. 14 (ca. 1159), ed. Webb, Clement C. J. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1909). 1:343.

155. Levy, La Hiérarchie des preuves, chap. 2, esp. 33–43; Migliorino, Fama e infamia, 49–55.

156. X. 5. 3. 13, on simony, cited by Lévy, La Hiérarchie des preuves, 38, n. 31, and 113–17.

157. X. 2. 24. 32, decretal of Honorius III (1216–27), on usury: “Unde expedire videtis, quod exigatur de veritate dicenda a partibus iuramentum, quum ex fama quasi notorium habeatur,” cited by Levy, La Hiérarchie des preuves, 38, n. 31.

158. Gloss Confirmat to D. 22. 5. 3. 2: “Dicitur fama confirmare, id est cum alio firmare; non quod per se fama non sufficiat, sed respectu assertionis partis; quam assertionem fama confirmat. Sufficit ergo per se.” The gloss goes on to discuss alternative views, that fama is sufficient where it is consistent with the ordinary course of nature, or that it is only a half proof. Cf. Fraher, “Conviction,” 36–37.

159. Baldus, Consiliorum, Sive Responsorum D. Baldi Ubaldi Perusini…. (Frankfurt am Main, 1589), 5 vols. in 1, separately foliated, cited here in the form [vol.], Cons. [Consilium number], no. [section number], fol. [folio number]; iv Cons. 465, no. 10, fol. 96v–97r, on manifest usury: “Et hoc nota vehementiam famae, nam ut eleganter ait Bart, in suis consiliis consi. 27 q. incip. D. Paci. fama potest esse ita vehemens, quod per seipsum sufficit ad solam probationem [citations omitted]. Et potest esse ita debilis quod non faceret etiam indicium secundum Bar. In casu nostro fama vehemens est…”

160. X. 2. 19. 13: “secundum divisiones, quae per libros antiquos vel alio modo melius probantur, necnon et testes, famam et quaecunque alia adminicula.” Gloss testes, fama (In Decretales D. Gregorii Papae IX… “Rome, 1584”, p. 496: “per testes enim antiquos utriusque parochiae probatur hujusmodi divisio 16 q 1. Plures [C. 16. q. 1 c. 54], & rusticis senibus praecipue in antiquis creditur ff de leg. 3 si chorus [D. 32. 1. 79. 1], & fama in talibus praecipue valet, quorum memoria non habetur ff de probatio, si arbiter, ff de aq. plu. arc, in summa, § item Labeo [D. 22. 3. 28 and 39. 3. 2. 8]”.) He goes on to assert that fama is not a full proof.

161. Consiliorum i, Cons. 420 no. 1, fo. 124r; ii, Cons. 286 no. 1, fols. 72v–73; iii, Cons. 468, nos. 1–2, fo. 123v; v, Cons. 445, nos. 1 & 4, fols. 107v–108r.

162. Consiliorum i, Cons. 89 no. 5, fo. 26r, for proof of ancestral title: “Tertio praemittendum est, quod licet fama non probet verum dominium, nee veram possessionem ex propria virtute famae … tamen fama multum [sic] antiqua, & quae transcendit sensum hominum viventium, facit notorium, & probat in vim notorii. Ista est glo. ordi. ff de neg. gest. 1. at qui natura § cum me absente [D. 3. 5. 19. 3, gloss Committat, 2., “Vel erat manifestum per publicam famam….”]….”

163. Levy, La Hiérarchie des preuves, 45, 46–47 and 53–66.

164. E.g., Baldus, , Baldi Ubaldi Perusini… Consiliorum, sive Responsorum, Volumen Sextum (Venice, 1602), Cons. 114, pp. 219–23, at no. 13, general harvest failure, and cf. matters of general history, Lévy, La Hiérarchie des preuves, 49.

165. Lévy, La Hiérarchie des preuves, 52–53.

166. Ibid., 49–52.

167. Ibid., 50 and especially nn. 48–49.

168. Waelkens, “L'Origine.” For a rather less precise view, cf. Ayliffe, J., Parergon Iuris Canonici Anglicani (London, 1726), 196.

169. The collector of Bracton's Note Book annotated a case of 1222 where the plaintiff produced ten or eleven secta to prove the taking of a horse in a public place with “Nota quod ea que manifesta sunt non indigent probatione” (Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise, 13, n. 1, citing Bracton's Note Book ii Case 194). This annotation is a straight application of canonist notoriety doctrine that refers to this form of notoriety, since sectal testes are produced rather than the Judge simply taking notice of the fact.

170. Lévy, La Hiérarchie des preuves, 116 and sources cited there.

171. Gloss Saepe to C. 4 q. 2 & 3 c. 3 [i.e., the consentiens fama text from D. 22. 5. 3. 2], in Decretum Gratiani Emendatum…. (Rome, 1584), i p. 723: “… & si iudex dubitat de fama, quaerat a vicinis ff. de magi. conve. 1. 1 § si praeses [D. 27. 8. 1. 3] & magis valeat fama quam unus testis ut extra, de consan. & af. super eo [X. 4. 13. 5 or 4. 14. 2]. Potest autem fama probari per duos testes, ut extra, eo tam litteris.” Cf. also the midthirteenth century Summa of Magister Aegidius, a Judge at Bologna, tit. 73, in Wahrmund, Quellen, 1, vi, p. 25: “Nota, quod aliquando fiunt inquisitiones et recipiuntur testes sine aliqua accusatione vel denuntiatione super maleficiis, id est super homicidis, furtis et similibus. Et tune tabellio accedat ad locum, ubi maleficium perpetratum est, et a convicinis vel hominibus de incontrata recipiat iuramenta et inquirat de veritate secundum qualitatem delicti…”

172. Helmholz, “Early History,” 618 ff.; Donahue, C. Jr, “Proof by Witnesses in the Church Courts of Medieval England: An Imperfect Reception of the Learned Law,” in On the Laws and Customs of England: Essays in Honor of Samuel E. Thome, ed. Arnold, M. S. et al. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), 136–37, 140, 150–51.

173. Gloss Ex vicina to De poen. D. 1 c. 46, in Decretum Gratiani Universi luris Canonici Pontificas Constitutiones… (Venice, 1567), p. 1105.

174. P. 62: “Ratione cohabitationis, distantiae vel vicinitatis, ut supra de poen. di. I sed et continuo, qui dixerat et cet.”; p. 6: “Ex communi et vulgari opinione, ut ff. ad Macedonianum, 1. si quis patrem…”

175. X. 2. 23. 11, on marriage: “…quia in huiusmodi dubietate fama viciniae magis debet attendi, tuae sollicitudinis erit fama loci diligenter inquirere,…” The other two decretals both involve confessions supported by fama and circumstantial evidence: X. 2. 23. 12 (adultery) and X. 2. 23. 13 (fornication).

176. Gloss Nescire to C. 23 q. 1, in Decretum Gratiani Universi luris Canonici Pontificas Constitutiones … (Venice, 1567), p. 841.

177. X. 2. 23. 7; the same point is in a different form in c. 8, both somewhat tenuously constructed on the basis of casual remarks in letters of Gregory the Great.

178. E.g., Dionysius Gothofredus's notes to his edition of the Corpus luris Civilis contain the general propositions that old facts and ownership are to be proved by Jama: note (d) to Gloss Committat, 2., to D. 3. 5. 19. 3: “Probatur facta antiqua per famam ut et dominium,” note (e) to id., “Fama probatur dominium …” in Corpus luris Civilis Iustinianei (Lyon, 1612). Gothofredus also says that “Probatur fama per viciniam et circumcolentes. Proinde si divitiis, moribus, matrimonio et similibus quibusdam quaeritur, vicini interrogandi erant. Vicinus enim conditionem vicini sui nosce [sic] intelligitur” (note to existimatione circumcolentium in D. 43. 12. 1. 1).

179. See above, 554–55 and notes 66–73.

180. See above, notes 171–72, 176–77.

181. C. 2q. 5 c. 22; X. 5. 35. 1.

182. In the Domesday cases, the Judgment of God commonly seems to be offered as a challenge to the testimony of a local court (e.g., nos. 100, 104, 105, 112, 121, 122, 123) and the forms offered are: ordeal 10, ordeal or battle 7, “proof” unspecified 5, oath or ordeal 1. In the pre-1164 cases on land there are only three instances of the use or offer of the Judgment of God; two cases of battle, one dating to 1154 × 1158, and one of unilateral oath. In contrast, in the post-1165 cases there are 14 instances of the use of the Judgment of God, all of the use or offer of battle. The routine use of battle in land cases therefore seems to be an innovation in the reign of Henry II. On criminal cases, see Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water, 65–68.

183. Milsom, most fully in The Legal Framework of English Feudalism. Cambridge Studies in English Legal History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); Palmer, , “The Feudal Framework of English Law,” Michigan Law Review 79 (1981): 1130–64; “The Origins of Property in England,” Law and History Review 3 (1985): 1–50.

184. For Hyams, see above, note 25.

185. For the emphasis on deliberate features, see, e.g., Brand, Paul, “‘Multis Vigiliis Excogitatam et Inventam’: Henry II and the Creation of the English Common Law,” in idem, The Making of the Common Law (London: Hambledon Press, 1992), 78102, especially 81–83, and “The Origins of English Land Law: Milsom and After” in ibid., 203–25; and cf. Turner, R. V., The English Judiciary in the Age of Glanvill and Bracton, c. 1176–1239 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). For a critique of the “sovereignty” of feudal courts, see, e.g., Hudson, Land, Law and Lordship, and The Formation of the English Common Law; Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals, 374–86.

186. Biancalana, Joseph, “For Want of Justice: Legal Reforms of Henry II,” Columbia Law Review 88 (1988): 433536.

187. Cheney, M. G., “The Litigation between John Marshal and Thomas Becket in 1164: A Pointer to the Origin of Novel Disseisin?” in Law and Social Change in British History, ed. Guy, J. A. and Beale, H. G. (London: Royal Historical Society, 1984), 926. Relations with the church are also identified as critical to the formation of the common law by Berman, Harold J., Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), 435–59; Watkin, T. G., “The Political Philosophy of the Lord King,” in Communities and Courts in Britain, 1150–1900, ed. Brooks, Christopher and Lobban, Michael (London: Hambledon Press, 1997), 612; and Bruce O'Brien, “The Becket Conflict and the Invention of the Myth of Lex non scripta” (paper presented at the Thirteenth British Legal History Conference, Cambridge, July 1997).

188. See van Caenegem, Legal History: A European Perspective, chap. 1.

189. Cheney, “The Litigation,” 9 and 18–21.

190. For the value of documents in early medieval litigation generally, see “Conclusion,” Settlement of Disputes, 219; their use in twelfth-century England is apparent from Tables 2 and 3 above; and cf. Fleming, “Oral Testimony and the Domesday Inquest,” 111: “In all of Domesday Book, oral testimony never supersedes written testimony.”

191. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, 318–27; the quotation is at 318.

192. Lévy, La Hiérarchie des preuves, 86–105.

193. Cheney, “The Litigation,” 13–14, quoting Herbert of Bosham (also in Lawsuits, 424, no. 420): “ubi manifesta videbatur injuria, absque questione revocando… Conventus vero respondet nullo modo se litigaturum super his quae ad dominium suum pertinere fuisset notissimum.…” (“where the injury to the church seemed to be manifest, he took back the estates without proceedings…. when he was questioned, he replied that he would on no account enter into litigation about things that were very well known to belong to his demesne…” [Cheney's translation]).

194. Warren, W. L., Henry II (London: Eyre Methuen, 1973), 262–63; Warren argues passim that this aim was the key to Henry's general policy.

195. Stubbs, William, ed., Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History…. 9th ed. (rev. Davis, H. W. C., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929), 122: “et hoc duello fiat, nisi in eis remanserit” (“and this [trial] shall be by battle, unless the parties stop this”). (This translation follows Liebermann, Felix, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen [reprint, Tubingen: Scientia Aalen, 1960], 3:301, 300, Einleitung no. 8, and 2:755, Zweikampf no. 11, in preference to Stephenson, Carl and Marcham, F. G., Sources of English Consitutional History [New York: Harper, 1937], 49, no. 24, “unless it is given up through their own fault” and to Douglas, D. C. and Greenaway, G. W., English Historical Documents [London, 1953], 2:433, no. 43, “and if it be not there [in the County Court] settled.”)

196. See above, note 181. Since battle in land cases was fought by champions, rather than by the parties, ecclesiastical bodies were neither directly debarred from waging it, nor particularly disadvantaged.

197. Lawsuits, 250, no. 296. The defendant refuses episcopal Jurisdiction; both a mandate from the papal legate, and a royal writ, instruct the recognition to be made.

198. Stubbs, Charters, 165.

199. van Caenegem, “Public Prosecution”; Helmholz, “Early History”; Warren, Henry II, 480.

200. Wormald, “Maitland,” 10.

201. Ibid., 11.

202. Glanvill, xiv, 1, is supported on this by the evidence from Lawsuits. See above, 568.

203. Glanvill, xiv, 1, p. 171. Hall translates as “…but the accusation is based only on public notoriety,” and footnotes “i.e. is by presentment.” In spite of the relationship between fama and notoriety in canon law at this period, fama here clearly means fama, not notoriety.

204. van Caenegem, “Public Prosecution,” 30–33.

205. Jenks, Susanne, “Die [Assize of Clarendon] von 1166,” Tijdschrift voor Rechtsge-schiedenis 63 (1995): 3033, 36–41.

206. Groot, Roger D., “The Jury of Presentment before 1215,” American Journal of Legal History 26 (1982): 124.

207. Groot, Roger D., “The Jury in Private Criminal Prosecutions before 1215,” American Journal of Legal History 27 (1983): 113–41; and cf. also Kerr, M. H., “Angevin Reform of the Appeal of Felony,” Law and History Review 13 (1995): 369–73.

208. Maitland, F. W., ed., Select Pleas of the Crown, Selden Society, vol. 1 (1888), pl. 29, cited by Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2:622, n. 3; Russell, M. J., “Trial by Battle and the Appeal of Felony,” Journal of Legal History 1 (1980): 146.

209. Gratian, C. 3 q. 5 c. 4, “…inimicos…accusatores esse antecessores nostri apostoli prohibuerunt….”; repeated in the Rhetorica Ecclesiastica (1160 × 1180), Wahrmund, Quellen 1, iv p. 72.

210. Cf. Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 1:144–45.

211. This is the view of Stenton, English Justice, 35–13, Sutherland, Novel Disseisin, chap. 1, Cheney, “The Litigation,” and Biancalana, “For Want of Justice,” 476–81, as opposed to van Caenegem, Royal Writs in England, 285–303, who is followed by Warren, Henry II, 337–38, and Milsom, Historical Foundations of the Common Law 138–39.The point is not essential to my argument, since the issues were still live through the 1170s.

212. Cheney, “The Litigation.”

213. Issues about the relationship of seisin and possessio (for which see van Caenegem, Royal Writs in England, 445 and literature cited there, and Milsom, Legal Framework, 39–41) are immaterial to this procedural point. It is also no objection that parties usually used novel disseisin to terminate their disputes, since costs considerations mean that interlocutory remedies commonly terminate disputes at all periods.

214. Even in the later learned laws, where fama was normally a half proof, half proofs were acceptable in interlocutory and possessory proceedings, which were summary: e.g., Johannes de Fasolus, De Summariis Cognitionibus (1272×1286), Wahrmund, Quellen 4, v at pp. 6, 13; Johannes de Lignano, Super Clementina “Saepe” (ca. 1380), Wahrmund, Quellen 4, vi at p. 10.

215. Ralph of Diceto, Radulphi de Diceto Decani Lundoniensis Opera Historica, ed. Stubbs, W. (London, Rolls Series, 1876), 1:410 [my translation]. Warren, Henry II, 538, translates as “clerks shall not be obliged to engage in the Judicial duel”; this suggests that clerks were being forced to fight in person, which does not seem to have been the normal case.

216. The promise clearly relates to civil proceedings, because the issue of criminous clerks is separately dealt with: “quod clericus de caetero non trahatur ante Judicem secularem in persona sua de aliquo criminali, neque de aliquo forisfacturo, excepto forisfacturo forestae meae, et excepto laico feodo …” (Radulphi de Diceto, 1:410).

217. Documents, Glanvill, x, 12, p. 127; Judgment of a local court, ibid., viii, 8, p. 101.

218. Glanvill ii, 7, p. 38, and compare also the general statement that battle and documents are the normal modes of proof in court (ibid., x, 17, p. 132).

219. Thome, “Livery of Seisin,” 353–55.

220. Glanvill, ii, 10 and 11, p. 30. On the possible relationship to devolutions of title, compare Warren, Henry II, 349–50; in contrast Hyams, “Trial by Ordeal,” 118, n. 153, identifies the question as normative or mixed.

221. Cf., e.g., Brand, “Multis Vigiliis.”

222. See above, 546–48.

223. This is a common feature of many treatments of the Angevin period and is not de pendent on the Brunner thesis. But the arguments of Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communi ties, must cast some doubt on the idea that royal intervention was needed to promote self-government.

224. These include the treatment of documents, the absence of procedures to compel confession, and the nonacceptance by the common lawyers of the cumulation of part proofs.

225. Glanvill, ii, 17, pp. 34–35, on the grand assize, requires consideration of the quality of the recognitors' knowledge of the facts, in order to decide whether jurors who do not have the required knowledge should be replaced. On presenting Juries in criminal cases, Glanvill, xiv, 1, p. 171 requires inquiries. Bracton, fols. 143–143b, Thome 2:404, requires the Judge, if he has doubts, to inquire of the Jury as to the source of their knowledge. For practice, Warren, Henry II, 356, cites a case of 1194 from Maitland, F. W., ed., Three Rolls of the King's in the Reign of Richard I (Pipe Roll Soc, 1896) 100101; and in Lawsuits, no. 172B, 1:143–44, a verdict of 13 Henry III (1228–29), the Jurors are “Requisiti per Justiciarios per quid sciunt haec omnia ita expresse,” and recite extensive reasons; they add the rider that “omnes homines sunt hujusmodi credendi de vero et falso dicendo, probando vel defenden-do per suum [na] et per suum [ya] pro qualibet re, salvis assisis terrae de tenementis et inquisicionibus de vita et membro,” which strongly implies that the practice was normal in land and crime proceedings, even though it may not normally have left a trace on the record.

226. Milsom, S. F. C., Studies in the History of the Common Law (London: Hambledon Press, 1985), 171–89; but cf. the evidence of interrogation of juries to create special verdicts or lead the jury to the “correct” general verdict, discussed by Dawson, Lay Judges, 123–24 for early criminal cases, Sutherland, Novel Disseisin, 73 and n. 1 for land cases, and Arnold, M. S., “Law and Fact in the Medieval Jury Trial: Out of Sight, Out of Mind?American Journal of Legal History 18 (1974): 267–80, and his introduction to his Select Cases of Trespass from the King's Courts, 1307–1399, Selden Society, vol. 100 (1985), 1:xxiii–xxv for land cases and trespass.

227. Fraher, “Conviction,” 34 and 70, n. 79.

228. For recent discussions of political issues around central and local administration of Justice in the fourteenth century, see, e.g., Palmer, Robert C., English Law in the Age of the Black Death (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993), part 1; Ormrod, W. M., Political Life in Medieval England, 1300–1450 (London: St. Martin, 1995), chap. 6; Musson, Anthony, Public Order and Law Enforcement: The Local Administration of Criminal Justice, 1294–1350 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1996), chap. 11.

Vicinage and the Antecedents of the Jury

  • Mike Macnair

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed