^{page vii note 1} This account is based principally upon the papers the editors have contributed to Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fourth Series, XI. 137–83Google Scholar; Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, V. 129–54Google Scholar; VI. 71–88, 129–55; VIII. 65–82; IX. 1–18; English Historical Review, XLVI. 529–50Google Scholar; XLVII. 194–203, 377–97.

^{page viii note 1} The clearest evidence within our knowledge is afforded by the Irish Justiciary Rolls: see index of Cal. of Justiciary Rolls 23–31 Edw. I, 33–35 Edw. I, s.v. “bill”, “petition”.

^{page viii note 2} Cf. Rot. Parl., I. 302Google Scholar (53), 474 (83, 84); II. 34 (19), 44 (60).

^{page ix note 1} The most direct evidence is probably that afforded by the documents in connection with the so-called “state trials” of 1289–90: cf. Historical MSS. Comm., Report on Various Collections, I. 256Google Scholar; Tout, , Chapters in Mediœval Administrative History, II. 67–8Google Scholar n. The earliest notice of a proclamation inviting the submission of petitions to parliament comes from the year 1305 (Memoranda de Parliamento, p. 3Google Scholar), but we have no reason to suppose that this was a new departure.

^{page xiii note 1} Cf. Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, IX. 7.Google Scholar

^{page xv note 1} Rot. Parl., I. 8Google Scholar (no. 34).

^{page xv note 2} Ibid., 9 (no. 37).

^{page xv note 3} A brief series of memoranda concerning Welsh business did indeed still survive in the seventeenth century; see ibid., 1 (no. 2).

^{page xvi note 1} Exchequer Parliament Roll, no. 2, mm. 8–10: printed Rot. Part., I. 62–5.Google Scholar

^{page xvii note 1} Rot. Parl., I. 219–20Google Scholar; Cole, Documents, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

^{page xvii note 2} Rot. Parl., I. 443 ff., 430.Google Scholar

^{page xviii note 1} Since we possess only a copy of the first draft and the original, in the final form, of the petitions of the commons at the Epiphany-Candlemas parliament of 1327 and do not possess the original council roll, we cannot safely say anything regarding the enrolment of these petitions: nor, since we possess only a transcript, can we say anything certain regarding the enrolment of the petitions of the clergy presented at the same parliament.

^{page xviii note 2} Parliamentary enactments, however, were normally enrolled on the Statute Roll. The first Statute Roll was begun in the reign of Edward I, the entries being certainly contemporary from 1297. See our paper in Law Quarterly Review, L. 201Google Scholar ff., 540 ff.

^{page xix note 1} P.R.O., List of Chancery Rolls (Lists and Indexes, no. XXVII), Preface, p. vi.

^{page xix note 2} Cf. Galbraith, V. H., “The Tower as an Exchequer Record Office in the reign of Edward II”, in Essays in Mediœval History Presented to T. F. Tout, pp. 231 ff., 242–3.Google Scholar

^{page xix note 3} Egerton Papers (Camden Society), pp. 1–3.Google Scholar

^{page xix note 4} Leland's Collectanea (ed. Hearne), II. 655–7.Google Scholar

^{page xix note 5} Survey of London (ed. Kingsford), I. 12Google Scholar. The book was therefore in the-Tower by 1598, the date of the first edition, but, as Stow indicates, it had not been there long and the first keeper whose signature it bears is Michael Heneage (Maitland, Memoranda de Parliamento, Introduction, p. xi).Google Scholar

^{page xix note 6} They are mentioned in a confused fashion in Powell's Repertorie of Records (1631), pp. 23, 133Google Scholar, and more particularly in W. Nicolson's English, Scotch and Irish Historical Libraries (1736), pt. I, p. 208Google Scholar, and the anonymous Index to the Records (1739), p. 60Google Scholar. They were, of course, used for the Rotuli Parliamentarum: the collection then comprised those rolls now numbered 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16 in the “Exchequer” series.

^{page xx note 1} The discovery of two Parliament Rolls of 12 Edward II was reported to a meeting of the Record Commission on 9 March, 1833: Proceedings of H.M. Commissioners on the Public Records, June 1832–August 1833, p. 180. These were subsequently printed in Cole's Documents, together with newlydiscovered rolls of Edward I; the existence of other rolls is noticed in the Preface, pp. xii–xiii.

^{page xx note 2} The first four membranes (i.e. 7, 6, 5 4) formed one roll and the remaining three membranes each formed a separate roll; this is evident not only from the endorsements (see Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, IX. 17Google Scholar) but from William Bowyer's abstracts (see Cotton's Records in the Tower, pp. 9, 11–14).Google Scholar

^{page xx note 3} See Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, IX, 16.Google Scholar

^{page xx note 4} Stowe MS., no. 543, fo. 53–4.

^{page xxi note 1} William Bowyer's manuscript appears to have been preserved in the College of Arms, but is now missing. According to a note on the flyleaf of the British Museum copy of Cotton's Records (1657), this manuscript bore the following inscription: “The Parliament Rolls de Annis 21 E.3, 46 E.3., 8 H.5 and 20 H.6 were not abridged by William Bowyer the first Collector, wherefore I have abridged them by the Record and written them into this book in their proper places. Ro. Bowyer.”

^{page xxi note 2} Stowe MS., no. 543, fo. 55–8. This is dated 31 July, 1601.

^{page xxi note 3} See n. 1, above.

^{page xxi note 4} See the note by Roger Twysden which we print below (p. 23) from Stowe MS., no. 347, fo. 3.

^{page xxi note 5} So far as we can trace, the first notice of roll no. 1 is in the “Calendarium Generale Rotulorum in Turri Londoniensi asservatorum”, if, as we think we may, we can identify it with “Parl. Petition I E. III”. This Calendarium appears to be the work of George Holmes, deputy keeper of the Tower records, 1704–49 (see Ayloffe, , Calendar of Ancient Charters, p. ixGoogle Scholar). The manuscript (Stowe MS., no. 543, fo. 1–38) was presented to Thomas Astle by Dr. Askew in 1768. Roll no. 3 is not mentioned in the Inventory of the Records in the Tower appended to the Deputy Keeper's Report (1841), II, App. ii, p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page xxii note 1} Repertorie, pp. 166–7Google Scholar. The “Nem. [sic] Parliament” of 9 Edward II is clearly Exchequer Parliament Roll, no. 20, the first membrane of which is headed “Memoranda de Parliamento …” (see Rot. Parl., I. 350Google Scholar). There is a reference at p. 211 of the Repertorie to the Vetus Codex under the title of “Liber Parliamentorum”.

^{page xxii note 2} Deputy Keeper's Report, II, App. ii, p. 32Google Scholar. Prynne, in his preface to Cotton's Records in the Tower, speaks, in error, of a Parliament Roll of 19 Edward II, a confusion with membrane 15 of the close roll of that year (cf. Repertorie, p. 169Google Scholar): Prynne's preface is not paged and reference must be to the signature—a3 v^o.

^{page xxii note 3} A copy of his abstracts before they had been supplemented by Robert Bowyer passed into Sir Robert Cotton's library and is now in the British Museum, Add. MS., no. 33216. We may note also that a volume of extracts from the Parliament Rolls exists, dated 24 November, 1566, which apparently belonged to William Cecil and is presumably the work of William Bowyer (Lansdowne MS., no. 479).

^{page xxii note 4} Below, p. 231.

^{page xxii note 5} Henry Elsynge's Manner of Holding Parliaments in England is the best single example of the importance attached to mediaeval precedents. Elsynge completed this work in 1624. At the time of writing it he was clerk of the parliaments, an office in which he had succeeded his uncle Robert Bowyer in 1621; he had previously acted as Bowyer's clerk in the House of Lords and before that had been from 1604 to 1612 associated with him in the office of keeper of the records in the Tower.

^{page xxii note 6} Hence the familiar Cotton's Records in the Tower. Since the true authorship was known to Roger Twysden (below, p. 231), it is rather difficult to believe that Prynne with a little enquiry could not have ascertained the facts.

^{page xxiii note 1} Bodleian MSS., Tanner, no. 89, fo. 8. These proposals, which are quite brief, are worth quoting in full:—

The design of printing the Parliament Rolles in the Tower of London.

It is to be observed that in the Tower of London there are Parliament and Statute Rolles.

The Statute Rolles are already printed in the Statute Booke and therefore not hereby intended.

The Parliament Rolles are in the nature of Journalls of the House of Lords and never yet published.

1. It is therefore now intended carefully to examine and print them and where any printed Statutes are found therein (as sometimes there are) to compare them also with the print and correct such errours as shall be found in them, by printing all or that parte faulty. But if no mistake then onely to make reference to the print.

2. To collect and publish other Parliament matters contained in other rolles and not in them.

3. To give a concurrent historicall account of things done at the time, where any matters of moment shall be found to bee obscure upon those rolles, for the better clearing them from errours and mistakes.

4. To make an exact Index of the principall matters for the more speedy finding out what therin may be desired.

This document does not bear any date. It is possibly earlier than the publication of the Bowyers' abstracts, although even after 1657 it would still have been correct to say that the Parliament Rolls had never yet been published.

^{page xxiii note 2} Add. MSS., no. 34711, fo. 39–40: copy of warrant of 28 November, 1726.

^{page xxiii note 3} Lords Journals, XXXI. 509.Google Scholar

^{page xxiv note 1} He copied Hale's transcripts of the petitions of 6 Edward I (Rot. Parl., I. 1–14Google Scholar): the proof was heavily corrected by Morant (Add. MS., no. 4631) and this and not Blyke's manuscript treated as the printer's copy. We can trace no other evidence of Blyke's activities. Of all the editors an account is given in Nichols' Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, II. 204Google Scholar; III. 203: this is copied by the Dictionary of National Biography.

^{page xxiv note 2} Morant was appointed in 1768, it is said on the recommendation of Astle.

^{page xxiv note 3} Astle appears to have finished the work of collating the printed sheets with the originals by June 1776 (Stowe MS., no. 543, fo. 43). Neither of the editors, but Dr. John Strachey, was responsible for passing the volumes through the press and he also had undertaken to compile the index. Finally the volumes were issued without an index but with a table of contents and errata sheets. Since Astle is entitled in the latter “Keeper of the Records at the Tower”, they cannot have been printed before 1783, in which year he succeeded to that office. Moreover, in the Preface to the Index which appeared in 1832, the date of the publication of the text is stated to have been nearly fifty years previously. A copy of the text originally in the Tower bears an inscription to the effect that copies were distributed in 1783 (see Gross, , Sources of English History, p. 442).Google Scholar

^{page xxiv note 4} Add. MSS., nos. 4631–59, deposited pursuant to an order of the House of Lords of 8 March, 1770. The actual deposit was, of course, much later.

^{page xxiv note 5} The bad reputation of the volumes derives from Sir Francis Palgrave's sweeping assertions, which cannot be said fairly to state the facts. For his views see Cooper, C. P., Account of the Public Records (1832), II. 2, 28–9Google Scholar, Record Commission, Report of the Committee on the “Report”, “Additional Statement” and “Letter” of Mr. Palgrave (1832), pp. 6, 22–4Google Scholar; and Observations on … the Parliamentary Writs edited by Francis Palgrave (1832), App., pp. xviii–xix.Google Scholar

^{page xxiv note 6} Stewart, a clerk of the Receipt of the Exchequer, was engaged in the methodising of the legal records in the Chapter House and elsewhere, an enterprise which began in 1724; he seems to have specialised in mediaeval documents (Calendar of Treasury Papers (1720–1728), p. 284Google Scholar, (1729–1730), (1731–1734), and later volumes passim). He was also employed in the Tower as an assistant to George Holmes, but seemingly not in an official capacity (cf. Ayloffe, , Calendar of Ancient Charters, pp. xlvii, lxGoogle Scholar; Young, and Aitken, , Catalogue of MSS. in the Library of the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, p. 207Google Scholar). He completed the collation of the transcript of Parliament Rolls on 23 November, 1731, as appears from notes in Add. MS., no. 4636, fo. 122; 4640, fo. 67b, 339, and elsewhere in these volumes. There is no question but that he enjoyed a high reputation for accuracy.

^{page xxv note 1} Some of the earlier transcripts are in the hand of George Holmes or are certified by him.

^{page xxv note 2} Morant's and Astle's own collections were utilised, and Astle and Topham purchased a manuscript of the commons' petitions of the Candlemas parliament of 1327 which they wished to use (Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, IX. 16Google Scholar: below p. 100).

^{page xxv note 3} E.g. Cotton MS., Titus E., I: see below, p. 105.

^{page xxv note 1} We have provided some critical notes in the Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, VI. 146Google Scholar ff.; IX. 15 ff.

^{page xxvi note 1} Nichols, , Illustrations of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century, V. 200Google Scholar; Gentleman's Magazine, XCV., pt. I. 468Google Scholar; Nicolas, Harris, Observations on the State of Historical Literature, pp. 108–9Google Scholar; and see the Preface to the Index itself.

^{page xxvi note 2} For a summary account of the successive stages of the scheme, see Observations on … the Parliamentary Writs, pp. 25–38Google Scholar. See also the other publications cited above, p. xxiv, n. 5.

^{page xxvi note 3} William Illingworth claimed to have recovered them when Deputy Keeper of the Records in the Tower, 1805–1819 (see his Observations on the Public Records (1831), p. 21Google Scholar): the same claim was advanced on behalf of the keeper, Samuel Lysons, seemingly by his nephew T. D. Hardy (Deputy Keeper's Report, XVII. 9).Google Scholar

^{page xxvi note 4} Now classed as “Exchequer” Parliament Rolls, nos. 3, 4, 14, 21, 22. 5 For an analysis of the several rolls printed by Maitland, see Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, VI. 149–150Google Scholar; they have been sewn to make one single roll now classed as “Exchequer” Parliament Roll, no. 12.

^{page xxvii note 1} “Exchequer” Parliament Roll, no. 23, was copied in extenso in the Vetus Codex, but a little was lost with a missing quire. Ryley printed the text of the Vetus Codex and the editors of the Rotuli Parliamentorum took what Ryley gave. We print below (pp. 87–90) the missing portion.

^{page xxviii note 1} Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, IV. 374–6Google Scholar, nos. 1815–16. No. 1815(7) with its reference to a reply given in the last parliament, which must almost certainly be the Lenten parliament of 1305, seems to establish the date. The petitions calendared under no. 1818 were apparently not enrolled: they came from the same bundle.