Talk:Simon of Pattishall

Corrections

Two things: to say that Pattishall was appointed chief justice is wrong. This period of the court's history is a murky area, and his seniority among the justices must simply be assumed from the evidence, such as the fact that of all the plea rolls produced by the clerks of the various justices, it was his that was preserved. "Chief justice" as an official title can at this point be found nowhere in the records. Here is what Turner says in the book:

By the time of King John, about ninety men acted at various times as royal judges...a core of fifteen concentrated on the work of the courts, so that they can be regarded as early members of a professional judiciary. Simon of Pattishall's is perhaps the most respected name among the fifteen. He had the longest career, earning such a reputation as a judge that his plea rolls were preserved. (p. 199)

Note the use of the word "perhaps", and also the fact that nowhere does he actually use the term "chief justice" to describe Pattishall. Here is a section from the DNB entry (same author):

Under King John Pattishall ranked as senior justice; the plea rolls reveal his special responsibilities, and his clerk's roll was the authoritative one.

The fact that "his clerk's roll was the authoritative one" is presented as evidence that he was the "senior justice". Again: no use of "chief justice". Here is the DNB entry on the category of "Chief justices of the common pleas":

The court of common pleas, or common bench, originated in England in the 1190s. Primarily concerned with civil litigation, it soon came to be staffed by mainly professional justices, one of whom quickly came to enjoy seniority over his fellows.

As you see, the seniority of one of the justices over the others was a practice that emerged gradually, and it is generally agreed that Pattishall was the first to enjoy this position. That is entirely different from assuming that anybody "appointed" him "chief justice", which was never done.

Secondly, I see no basis for saying that the practice of keeping plea rolls "did not enter common practice until 1246." The WP article on plea rolls I now realise is lifted almost verbatim from the website of The National Archives[1]. Here it says that "The court began recording its proceedings in plea rolls and filing its writs from its foundation at the end of the 12th century." It also says that "Most files were kept by the Custos Brevium (established by 1246)", but this is simply the establishment of an institution for the keeping of the records, it is not to say that records were not kept before this point. In fact, TNA has records going back to c. 1194. Furthermore, the new custom of keeping the plea rolls had nothing to do with the reputation of Pattishall, it was simply the result of the establishment of a new institution. What the practice was in earlier courts (curia regis, the Exchequer) is a different story. Lampman (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)