There is a very real difficulty in discovering for the reign of Edward III just how the work of parliament was performed in the field of legislation and just what share of this work fell to men of law in general and to special judges or Serjeants in particular. We search in vain for an illuminating remark like the often-quoted words of Hengham: ‘Do not gloss the Statute; we understand it better than you do, for we made it.’ The difficulty is caused by two main factors. The ‘feudal reaction’ under Edward III, namely, the increase in the strength of the magnates as against that of the king's ministers, undoubtedly meant a decrease in the judicial functions of parliament and eventually in the powers of judges and Serjeants as members of the council. Further, as statutes ceased to be chiefly interpretations or declarations of common law, they more nearly resembled legislation in the modern sense; that is, both ordinances and statutes although frequently sanctioning practices already in use, often contained definite additions to, or modifications of, existing law. Very often they originated, not at the initiative of a learned judge, but in commons‘ petitions, presented to the clerk of parliament for consideration by the council. It must always be remembered that in contrast to commons’ petitions, petitions of individuals whether from England or from the king's possessions in ‘foreign’ lands went to ‘receivers’ and ‘triers’ and that this latter group regularly included distinguished men of law.

But in spite of reduced responsibilities for the judicial element, modern scholars insist that in matters of law expert opinion must have prevailed: the judges were expected to be in parliament, to act as ‘triers’ of petitions, to assist with legal judgments and also with drafting legislation; the ‘council, with the expert help of the judges (and probably of the Serjeants), acted not only as a drafting committee, but also exercised wide discretion in amending the substance of the demand’ ‘judges certainly bore their part in drafting’ statutes, ordinances or provisions, often showing ‘ingenuity and resource’.