Bills of Custody in the reign of Henry VI

In contrast to views put forward by Marjorie Blatcher, it is argued here that the impact of Bills of Custody on business in the court of King's Bench in the late fifteenth century can only be judged if all custodial bills are counted and only if special attention is given to those bills dealing...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of legal history 2002-12, Vol.23 (3), p.197-222
Main Author: Jenks, Susanne
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c261t-4814c3e6c5e4af1b2daceb3c765cf552c98107bb2b1c89630da003afb34a2a623
cites
container_end_page 222
container_issue 3
container_start_page 197
container_title Journal of legal history
container_volume 23
creator Jenks, Susanne
description In contrast to views put forward by Marjorie Blatcher, it is argued here that the impact of Bills of Custody on business in the court of King's Bench in the late fifteenth century can only be judged if all custodial bills are counted and only if special attention is given to those bills dealing with matters which would otherwise have been outside the court's normal jurisdiction. It is shown that the increase in the numbers of such cases is too modest to support Blatcher's claims of a massive increase in business since the 1450s, that the extension of the notion 'in custody' to people on bail did not happen in 1452, as she stated, but 20 years earlier, that it was extended to people on mainprise as well, at least for some time, and finally that fictitious Bills of Middlesex and writs latitat were not as important in connection with custodial bills as Blatcher thought.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/01440362308539650
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>crossref_infor</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_01440362308539650</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1080_01440362308539650</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c261t-4814c3e6c5e4af1b2daceb3c765cf552c98107bb2b1c89630da003afb34a2a623</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFj01LxDAURYMoOI7-AHfZuqi-fLYFN1rUGRhwo25DkiYa6bSSRLT_3pZxN6CrB_fdc-EgdE7gkkAFV0A4ByYpg0qwWgo4QAtScl6AkPwQLeZ_MRXEMTpJ6R2ASinKBbq4DV2X8OBx85ny0I449Di_ORxdeO3nfOX6OOKX9Sk68rpL7uz3LtHz_d1Tsyo2jw_r5mZTWCpJLnhFuGVOWuG49sTQVltnmC2lsF4IauuKQGkMNcRWtWTQagCmvWFcUz0JLBHZ7do4pBSdVx8xbHUcFQE1u6o914m53jGh90Pc6q8hdq3KeuyG6KPubUiK_YWX_-J7lMrfmf0A-dBqHQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bills of Custody in the reign of Henry VI</title><source>Taylor and Francis Social Sciences and Humanities Collection</source><creator>Jenks, Susanne</creator><creatorcontrib>Jenks, Susanne</creatorcontrib><description>In contrast to views put forward by Marjorie Blatcher, it is argued here that the impact of Bills of Custody on business in the court of King's Bench in the late fifteenth century can only be judged if all custodial bills are counted and only if special attention is given to those bills dealing with matters which would otherwise have been outside the court's normal jurisdiction. It is shown that the increase in the numbers of such cases is too modest to support Blatcher's claims of a massive increase in business since the 1450s, that the extension of the notion 'in custody' to people on bail did not happen in 1452, as she stated, but 20 years earlier, that it was extended to people on mainprise as well, at least for some time, and finally that fictitious Bills of Middlesex and writs latitat were not as important in connection with custodial bills as Blatcher thought.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0144-0365</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1744-0564</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/01440362308539650</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</publisher><ispartof>Journal of legal history, 2002-12, Vol.23 (3), p.197-222</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor &amp; Francis Group, LLC 2002</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c261t-4814c3e6c5e4af1b2daceb3c765cf552c98107bb2b1c89630da003afb34a2a623</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jenks, Susanne</creatorcontrib><title>Bills of Custody in the reign of Henry VI</title><title>Journal of legal history</title><description>In contrast to views put forward by Marjorie Blatcher, it is argued here that the impact of Bills of Custody on business in the court of King's Bench in the late fifteenth century can only be judged if all custodial bills are counted and only if special attention is given to those bills dealing with matters which would otherwise have been outside the court's normal jurisdiction. It is shown that the increase in the numbers of such cases is too modest to support Blatcher's claims of a massive increase in business since the 1450s, that the extension of the notion 'in custody' to people on bail did not happen in 1452, as she stated, but 20 years earlier, that it was extended to people on mainprise as well, at least for some time, and finally that fictitious Bills of Middlesex and writs latitat were not as important in connection with custodial bills as Blatcher thought.</description><issn>0144-0365</issn><issn>1744-0564</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFj01LxDAURYMoOI7-AHfZuqi-fLYFN1rUGRhwo25DkiYa6bSSRLT_3pZxN6CrB_fdc-EgdE7gkkAFV0A4ByYpg0qwWgo4QAtScl6AkPwQLeZ_MRXEMTpJ6R2ASinKBbq4DV2X8OBx85ny0I449Di_ORxdeO3nfOX6OOKX9Sk68rpL7uz3LtHz_d1Tsyo2jw_r5mZTWCpJLnhFuGVOWuG49sTQVltnmC2lsF4IauuKQGkMNcRWtWTQagCmvWFcUz0JLBHZ7do4pBSdVx8xbHUcFQE1u6o914m53jGh90Pc6q8hdq3KeuyG6KPubUiK_YWX_-J7lMrfmf0A-dBqHQ</recordid><startdate>20021201</startdate><enddate>20021201</enddate><creator>Jenks, Susanne</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20021201</creationdate><title>Bills of Custody in the reign of Henry VI</title><author>Jenks, Susanne</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c261t-4814c3e6c5e4af1b2daceb3c765cf552c98107bb2b1c89630da003afb34a2a623</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jenks, Susanne</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of legal history</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jenks, Susanne</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bills of Custody in the reign of Henry VI</atitle><jtitle>Journal of legal history</jtitle><date>2002-12-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>197</spage><epage>222</epage><pages>197-222</pages><issn>0144-0365</issn><eissn>1744-0564</eissn><abstract>In contrast to views put forward by Marjorie Blatcher, it is argued here that the impact of Bills of Custody on business in the court of King's Bench in the late fifteenth century can only be judged if all custodial bills are counted and only if special attention is given to those bills dealing with matters which would otherwise have been outside the court's normal jurisdiction. It is shown that the increase in the numbers of such cases is too modest to support Blatcher's claims of a massive increase in business since the 1450s, that the extension of the notion 'in custody' to people on bail did not happen in 1452, as she stated, but 20 years earlier, that it was extended to people on mainprise as well, at least for some time, and finally that fictitious Bills of Middlesex and writs latitat were not as important in connection with custodial bills as Blatcher thought.</abstract><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</pub><doi>10.1080/01440362308539650</doi><tpages>26</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0144-0365
ispartof Journal of legal history, 2002-12, Vol.23 (3), p.197-222
issn 0144-0365
1744-0564
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_01440362308539650
source Taylor and Francis Social Sciences and Humanities Collection
title Bills of Custody in the reign of Henry VI
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T09%3A32%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref_infor&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bills%20of%20Custody%20in%20the%20reign%20of%20Henry%20VI&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20legal%20history&rft.au=Jenks,%20Susanne&rft.date=2002-12-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=197&rft.epage=222&rft.pages=197-222&rft.issn=0144-0365&rft.eissn=1744-0564&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/01440362308539650&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref_infor%3E10_1080_01440362308539650%3C/crossref_infor%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c261t-4814c3e6c5e4af1b2daceb3c765cf552c98107bb2b1c89630da003afb34a2a623%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true