Catalogue description Palatinate of Chester: Exchequer of Chester: Mainprise Rolls

This series consists of enrolments, made before the Chamberlain of Chester at Chester, and occasionally Flint, of mainprises, or bonds, to keep the peace. They served the purpose of ensuring the appearance in court of individuals against whom proceedings were pending. The appearance in court often required by this court record is also recorded. Mainprises in the Chester County Court were often compulsory, being made to secure the appearance in court of individuals against whom proceedings were pending. They acted like bail and avoided the need for the subject of the mainprise to be kept in prison. It is possible that the same rationale was at work with the Exchequer mainprises.

The rolls were previously incorrectly described as appearance rolls and classified with the records of the Chester Exchequer equity jurisdiction. This was probably due to the fact that the rolls are nearly always headed with a variant of "Apparencia Com' Pall' Cestr'[or Flint] capta apud Cestr' [or Flint] coram Camerar' Cestr'" followed by the date of the session. However, an examination of the rolls reveals that while they undoubtedly originated from the Exchequer they do not seem to record the appearance in court of the defendants in equity suits. (In the Chester jurisdiction such appearances, either in person or by attorney, were recorded on the bill).

Instead, they appear to be similar in form and purpose to the mainprise rolls of the Chester County Court, later the Chester Court of Great Sessions and the recognisances enrolled before the Exchequer Court. A further series of volumes formerly described as Exchequer bail books have recently been discovered to be Exchequer books of recognisances and manucaptions (or mainprises). As rolls exist for the same reigns in each series it is unlikely that they are artificially fragmented parts of one or two previously whole sequences. Further research is needed to elucidate the relationship between these similar sets of records.

The proceedings of each session of the court were recorded on vellum membranes. They are written exclusively in Latin which is often abbreviated. It is clear from the handwriting and the wide even spacing of the entries that each membrane was prepared before the session for which it was required. The clerks wrote a formulaic entry recording the fact that certain listed men and women were required to find sureties who would pledge for their good behaviour or peaceful demeanour towards some other person or persons. The entries are almost always identically worded as in the following example: "M[anucaptores] Rici Thomasson de pace ferend' Thome Vandrey omnibus lig' domini Regis sub pena xl li."

On the day of the court session each person listed was to appear, accompanied by those who would stand surety for him or her. It was possible, but not common, for an attorney to appear in the place of the subject. At this point the court would decide whether the subject of the mainprise should continue to be bound over or be discharged. The clerk then recorded the decision in a short statement, known as a postea, which followed the original entry or in shorthand in the margin. If the subject was to continue to be bound the statement began "comparuit [and] deliberatur usque ..." (appeared and was delivered or bound over until a specified forthcoming court session, usually the next or often Easter or Michaelmas).

If the subject was discharged the postea stated "comparuit [&] relaxat". These posteas are invariably in a different hand to that of the originating entry. Individual clerks were variously fulsome in their recording of the postea. Some merely indicated in the margin single words such as Pasche (Easter), Mich (Michaelmas), relax' (discharged).

When the subject had died in the period prior to the session at which they were listed to appear the entry was annotated mortuus est (is dead). Finally the names of the men who were willing to stand as surety for the subject of the mainprise are recorded. The usual penalty risked by the guarantors was £40 although in special circumstances it could be higher, for example £100 or 1000 marks.

Just as some names were removed by death or discharge new names were added. In the early years of the series such additions were recorded on separate pieces of vellum. However, from the reign of Edward VI they were recorded in chronological order directly after the last of the pre-recorded entries for each session and on the same membrane and then subsequently on further membranes.

The format of each new entry was similar to that of the pre-recorded entries as in the following example. "Manucaptores Thome Alen de pace ferend' Elene Barton [&] omnibus lig' Domini Regis usque proxime Com' Cestri proxime futuris sub pena xl li pleg' Willelmo Bridde de Tilston et Thome Aldersey de Horton.". However, there are a number of distinctions brought about by the fact that these are records of new mainprises. Firstly the whole entry was written at one time and by one clerk on the day the mainprise was made. The word comparuit does not occur - the entry serving only as a record that the subject would need to appear in the future on the day specified.

Naturally other forms of postea do not occur for the same reason. The entries are made on various specified dates following the date of the session recorded at the head of the pre written section of the roll. The entries are not widely spaced as no further annotations were expected to be made. Names which were added in this second section of the roll duly appear in the first section of the roll prepared in advance for the next session of the Exchequer and continue to appear in successive rolls until discharged.

From the reign of Edward VI the court took appearances on mainprises twice a year; after Easter and Michaelmas with a corresponding roll for each session. The mainprises already registered were first listed followed by the new entries which continued to be added until the date of the next session. The various membranes are usually sewn together and rolled into one bundle. This pattern, with small changes in the formulaic wording, continues until the end of the series.

However, for the reign of Henry VIII procedures do not appear to have been as regularised. The chamberlain (or his deputy) often held sessions more than twice a year and the membranes are not sewn together. Furthermore, the membranes relating to more than one session are now sometimes bundled together. This can lead to confusion for although the first membrane for each session is usually headed with the date on which it was held any subsequent membranes used are not. It is possible to link these undated sheets with their dated portions by matching the days on which the subjects were required to appear. However, if any of these undated membranes were to become combined with membranes from another year it would not be immediately obvious or easily corrected.

Similarly, new mainprises were often recorded on separate small pieces of vellum, rather than at the end of the 'regular' section of the roll. Because such entries are usually dated with a regnal year the possibility of these becoming separated from the rest of the sessional roll is not as great. Occasionally the record of new mainprises was made on paper. This list is a also little different in that those subjects who were discharged at a subsequent session had that fact recorded against their names. (Usually the section on new mainprises has no annotations.)

For mainprises made in the Chester County Court (later the Court of Great Sessions) see CHES 26