Catalogue description Plea Side Records

Details of Division within KB
Reference: Division within KB
Title: Plea Side Records

Records of the Plea Side of the Court of King's Bench, that is, those generally relating to civil litigation.

Records of the Plea Side are in KB 101 - KB 107, KB 109, KB 111 - KB 116, KB 118 - KB 119, KB 121 - KB 128, KB 133 - KB 138 (also includes Crown Side), KB 139, KB 140 (also includes Crown Side), KB 141, KB 144 - KB 145 (also includes Crown Side), KB 146-KB 173.

Date: 1250-1889

KB 145 - KB 167 are new series created as the result of a major project to sort writs from the plea side which began in 1967-1974 and was resumed during the 1990s. The records were previously stored at Chancery Lane or at Hayes in the sacks in which they had been transferred to the PRO during the 19th century. All files have now been extracted from the sacks and boxed. Their cataloguing remains to be done and lists will be produced in the next few years. About 150 sacks of writ file fragments remain in PRO custody.

Related material:

Other Plea Side records are in KB 32

Separated material:

A number of former Plea Side series have been destroyed in their entirety. They include

KB 112

KB 116

KB 123

KB 126

KB 127

Samples of Plea Side series destroyed are in J 89

KB 103

KB 104

Legal status: Public Record(s)
Language: English

Court of Kings Bench, Plea Side, 1200-1875

Physical description: 63 series
Administrative / biographical background:

The Chief Clerk (Prothonotary) and the Plea Side

From the clerkship of Robert Whitehill (c 1346 - c1373) at the latest, and very probably earlier, one clerk had greater responsibility and status than his fellows. Like the other clerks on the 'common pleas' or Plea Side, he acted as a filazer for a particular county or group of counties (notably Oxfordshire, suggesting perhaps an early connection with Shareshill, chief justice 1350-1361, although the connection moved to Kent in the late fifteenth century), and attracted private business as an attorney. Unlike the others, however, he had the monopoly of entering the records of appearance, through issue and pleadings, to judgment; in other words, he took responsibility for the formulation of the record at the point beyond which mere common form might not suffice.

At first it is not clear that this chief clerk was in authority over the filazers. He had a different function, but not necessarily a managerial role, except in relation to his own staff of underclerks. Gradually, however, as the primacy of his duties and his key role in the development of the court's business became apparent, so too did his role as the head of the Plea Side. The prothonotary's office, probably by design, was the chief beneficiary of the development of bill procedure, and the major steps in the use of the bill of Middlesex (the decision in 1452 that bail could count as custody, and from 1542 the use of the latitat as first process in a case) were reflected in enormous increases in the prothonotary's business, which from less than a third of Plea Side enrolments in the mid fifteenth century had swollen to well over ninety per cent by the mid seventeenth century, and to complete monopoly by 1702.

This expansion of business necessitated a steady increase in staff. When the post first emerges in the fourteenth century, a single chief clerk had one or more underclerks whose identities and duties cannot now be discerned; apparently ad hoc relationships with other filazers and attorneys; and perhaps a year or two of full association on the plea rolls with the person being groomed as successor. By c.1500 there was a distinct office with staff and perquisites, and sometimes a clearer sharing of duties between two men of virtually equal standing, although with only one formal postholder. By the end of the seventeeth century there were two full prothonotaries of King's Bench, with a secondary and a deputy, each with distinct duties and a team of underclerks.

The chief clerkship (the term 'prothonotary' was a fifteenth-century innovation) was not necessarily a matter of promotion from the ranks of the filazers; rather, it was commonly achieved by succession from within the office or firm of the incumbent, although appointment from elsewhere in the King's Bench secretariat was not unknown. By its nature the post was exceptionally lucrative; as well as the sorts of formal and unofficial fees available to a filazer both as filazer and as attorney, special fees for drawing pleadings and (by 1550) a share in fees for sealing judicial writs were reserved to the prothonotary. Substantial sums were paid (quite legitimately) to obtain succession to the office, and the holder was a person of great standing; John Roper (in office 1498-1524) married the daughter of the chief justice.

Have you found an error with this catalogue description?

Help with your research