His words are, "These reports are very brief, either the judges then spoke less, or the reporters were not so ready handed as to take all they said, and hence their brevity makes them the more obscure; but yet in those brief interlocutions between the judge and the pleaders, and in their definitions, there appears a great deal of learning and judgment." (lb.)

Of the years wanting in the reign of Edward III, probably several may be supplied from the manuscripts in this collection; and I am informed that those in the British Museum contain Aun. 11 and 13; Fitzherbert's Abridg ment contains many cases in the years now wanting in print of this reign; as for instance, in 11, 12, and 13 of Edward III (Title Assize, No. 85, 86, 90); and Sir MATTHEW HALE says, that in his time, the years of this reign omitted in the printed books, were extant in many hands in old Manuscripts. (Cap. 8.)

Years 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of Richard II, are in this collection.

Of Henry VI, the whole reign except the 5th, 8th, and 23d years are in the British Museum.

Secondly. Of imperfections in the printed Copies-As to the difference between the printed copies, and the Manuscripts in Lincoln's Inn Library, of those years which are printed, a remarkable instance occurs with regard to the Year Book of Edward II, which now constitutes the first volume of the printed copies. That Year Book was never published till 1678. A beautiful manuscript collection of Judicial Annals of that reign had been mentioned by Selden (Dissert. ad Fletam, Cap. S. §. 3.) as having been presented by Sir John Baker, Chancellor of the Exchequer in the time of Philip and Mary, to the Society of the Inner Temple, of which he was a member, and as then preserved there. But the immediate occasion of the publication in 1678, was a circumstance which passed only a few years before

(22 Car. II,) on the argument of the case of Sacheverell and Froggat in the Court of King's Bench, when Sir MATTHEW HALE mentioned that there was a fair manuscript of all the years of Edward II, in the Library of Lincoln's Inn, and directed search to be made in that manuscript for a particular determination in the 12th of Edward II, in consequence of a reference which had been made at the bar, to. a case in 33 Elizabeth; in the account of which it was said, That "the Court relied on a Book shewn to them in writing in 12th of Edward II." On the examination of the Book in Lincoln's Inn, it turned out that no such case was to be found there, in that year, and therefore it was. then supposed, that, in the account of the Book produced to the Court in the reign of Elizabeth," 12 Edw. III" had been mistaken for " 12 Edw. II," there being a case, in Fitzherbert of 12 Edw. III, in some degree applicable. It is observable however, that contemporary reporters of the case in 33 Elizabeth, viz. Croke and Owen, (Cro. Eliz.. 217. Owen 9.) concur in stating the Book to have been of Edward II; hence it has since been inferred, naturally enough, that some other Manuscript Year Book may have been produced at that time, and that it may have been that mentioned by Selden, who in the place quoted, mentions also one of the same reign in the Library of Lincoln's Inn.

The edition in 1678 is understood to have been made under the direction of Sir John Maynard, and, from the following passage in the Preface, (probably written by him) it might be concluded, that it was printed from the copy in Lincoln's Inn. "The solemn commendation of it, (i. e. of the old book of the years and terms of Edward the Second) to the press, by the late Lord Chief Justice Hale, upon the occasion of the authorities cited in a late; case in his time, was delivered in so particular a manner, that it could not but make an impression. Upon a matter of argument which depended for a long while, and which,

in the observation of that incomparable judge, was of moment and difficulty, he did direct and refer to this book as an authority that might govern the question, and most worthy to be published." Accordingly, this has been supposed to be the case, (Biblioth. Leg. vol. ii, p. 80.) The title page, however, seems to prove the contrary, as it states the edition to have been made," according to the ancient manuscripts now remaining in the hands of Sir John Maynard," and the point appears to be put out of doubt, in consequence of Mr. Caley's comparison of the printed copy, with the manuscript No. 139 in this library, which contains the whole reign of Edward II. He states as follows:

"This manuscript is entirely different from Maynard's Edward II, containing many cases not in the latter, and such as are found in both being differently reported. Amongst others, vide Hablut's and May's case, quid Juris clamat Mayn. p. 306. MSS. fo. 130. See also Mayn. p. 406. MSS. 207, being Trinity Term, 13 Edward II, where no two cases are alike."

Sir MATTHEW HALE says, "that when he wrote there were many entire Year Books of Edward II abroad." (Cap. 8.)

. I shall mention one other instance to shew that there are probably much and important differences between the printed copies and the manuscripts, which may still be found, and made use of to supply defects and correct errors, if a new edition of the Year Books should be undertaken. What degree of authority belongs to Bracton and other ancient writers on the law of England is a question often agitated. In Fitzherbert's Abridgment, title Ward, No. 71, a case is stated from a Year Book of 35 Henry VI, No. 52, in which according to him, "The whole court said that Bracton was never held for authority in our law." A very accurate modern writer,who has examined the printed book of Henry VI, says," It is a pleasure to discover that the Year Book

gives no warrant for this (as he terms it) monstrous opinion." (Reeves's Hist. of the Eng. Law. vol. iv, p. 571; Note 1). I submit, however, that it is much more probable that Fitzherbert, in that instance, as in so many others he is known to have done, made use of a Year Book, different from that in print, than that he should have alleged the opinion inquestion to have been delivered without such adequate authority.

To conclude these observations on the difference between the printed and manuscript Year Books, I must observe, that Mr. Caley has found that the latter in this Library are in general fuller, and contain real names of persons and places at length, which are often fictitious or abbreviated in the printed copies.

Sdly. As to the manner in which the present editions are printed. It has been remarked, as matter of regret, "that Doomsday Book, as printed, is a mere fac simile, constituting a very large folio, full of abbreviations and signs, that cannot be understood without a key, and much previous information." (Reeves's Hist. of Eng. Law. vol. i. p. 220. N. (S.) The same description is in a great measure applicable to the printed Year Books, and is certainly a subject of still much juster regret as to them, on account of the more frequent occasions which occur for consulting them. Selden's opinion of the impropriety of printing law books in that manner, may be seen from the following passage in his Dissertation on Fleta, concerning the edition to which that dissertation was prefixed: "Neque enim Editio omnino mea est: nec sane, si fuisset, vocabula Exemplaris veteris, ad forensis scriptionis formulam-tot decurtata, et veluti notis levibus pendentia verba-(ut de veterum formulariorum scriptione dixit Manilius), adeò retinere permisissem." (Cap. 1.)

4thly. There is yet another great desideratum in regard to the Year Books, viz. a full and well digested General Index to the whole. At present such indexes as there are

in the printed books are so dispersed in the different volumes, are of such unequal merit, and, in general, so scanty and imperfect, that they are of very little use; and the lawyer generally finds it best to neglect them, and resort to the different abridgments of the law, in order to discover what cases and passages in the Year Books may be applicable to the point he has occasion to examine.

Before concluding what I have thought it right to state at present, relative to the Year Books, I must observe, that the restriction in Sir MATTHEW HALE'S Will clearly does not affect the manuscript of Edward II, in this Library, that not having made part of this legacy. It appears indeed by an entry in that Book (No. 139.) that it was, with other Manuscripts, the gift of Lord Fairfax, and there is in it the following note: "In hoc Volumine continentur Annales Regis Edw. II. ab Anno Primo ejusdem Regni ad Annum 20, (exclusive) nunquam hactenus aliquæ impressioni consignati. 1669." Signed" Fairfax.”

II. JUDICIAL RECORDS.-The best evidence of the Law, next to the positive Statutes, are those Records of Judgments in litigated cases, in which some point or points of law being at issue, the opinion of the court as to such points is necessarily deducible from the judgment pronounced. This sort of evidence however was more satisfactory and useful in early periods of our Jurisprudence, when in cases of difficulty civil or criminal, it was customary to set down the reasons and causes of the judgment in the record, a practice, which as Lord COKE informs us (4 Inst. 4) was continued till the reign of Edward III. It appears from the return lately made to the Select Committee of the House of Commons by Mr. Rose, as Keeper of the Records in the Chapter House, that there are many Records of such special judgments in that Collection, both in the Curia Regis and in the separate courts among which (at a period hitherto not well ascertained) the functions of that