BRITTON - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

BRITTONAuthored

The Law Mind • 774 words

Definition

Britton is the name given to an anonymous treatise on the law of England, written in Law French, dating from the late thirteenth century and generally associated with the reign of Edward I (r. 1272–1307). The work is a systematic exposition of English common law, organized in the form of commands issued in the king's name, a stylistic device that distinguishes it from contemporary legal writing and lends it a quasi-official character. Britton covers criminal law, procedure, land law, and the jurisdiction of royal courts, drawing heavily on the slightly earlier treatise attributed to Bracton.

The authorship of Britton is unresolved. Lord Coke identified the author as John Breton (also spelled Britton or Bretton), who served as Bishop of Hereford and as a judge during the reigns of Henry III and Edward III — a view recorded in Coke's prefaces to his Reports. This attribution has been contested by later scholars, and no definitive identification has been established. The treatise is cited by the author's supposed name rather than a verified personal attribution.

Common Confusion

Britton is sometimes confused with two near-contemporary treatises: Bracton (De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, attributed to Henry de Bracton) and Fleta (another anonymous late-thirteenth-century treatise also written under Edward I). All three belong to the same generation of formative common law writing, and researchers working in medieval sources will encounter them cited together or cross-referenced. The distinctions matter: Bracton is the most comprehensive and theoretically ambitious of the three; Britton is stylistically distinct in its use of royal command form; Fleta is more directly derivative of Bracton. Conflating them in research notes or source attribution is an easy error.

Why It Matters in Research

Britton is a primary source for English common law as it stood at the close of the thirteenth century and serves as an important comparator to Bracton. For Law Mind corpus researchers, several navigational points are essential.

First, the treatise's quasi-official form — presenting royal commands rather than scholarly exposition — means it was treated in some historical sources with slightly elevated authority relative to other private legal writing of the period. This affects how later commentators cite it.

Second, the authorship dispute is a recurring feature in historical legal bibliographies. Sources from Coke's era forward will often assert the Breton identification confidently; later Victorian and modern scholarship is more skeptical. A researcher reading a nineteenth-century dictionary entry that presents the identification as settled should not take that as current scholarly consensus.

Third, Britton is a Law French source. Researchers using it directly will need access to a translation or competence in medieval legal French. The language barrier has historically limited its direct citational use compared to Latin treatises.

Fourth, Britton's coverage of criminal law — particularly its treatment of felonies and the structure of royal criminal jurisdiction — is historically significant and is referenced in treatises on the early development of common law criminal procedure. Researchers tracing the origins of specific common law doctrines should note which of the three near-contemporary treatises (Bracton, Britton, Fleta) addresses a given point and whether they are consistent.

Historical Dictionary Support

Burrill's Law Dictionary identifies Britton as the author of a treatise on English law in Law French, written or published under the direction of Edward I, and records Coke's identification of Britton with John Breton, Bishop of Hereford and judge. Burrill notes that this opinion, while supported by the chronicler Flores Historiarum, has been disputed. The entry is typical of how nineteenth-century legal dictionaries handle the term: they treat it primarily as a bibliographic and biographical entry rather than a doctrinal one.

What historical dictionaries largely omit is any substantive account of the treatise's legal content or its relationship to Bracton and Fleta. A researcher using Burrill alone would know who Britton is supposed to be but would have little guidance on what the treatise covers, how to use it, or where it sits in the hierarchy of medieval legal authorities. That gap requires consulting legal history sources directly.

Jurisdictional Note

Britton is a source of English common law only. Its relevance to American legal research is historical and foundational — useful for tracing common law origins — rather than operative. Courts in American jurisdictions do not cite Britton as authority.

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

See Law Mind Encyclopedia — Medieval English Legal Treatises; Common Law Foundations; Law French in Legal Sources.

BRITTONmain

Burrill's Law Dictionary • 1867

The author of a treatise on the law of England, in Law French, supposed to have been written or published under the direction of Edward I. Lord Coke makes him to be the same person with John Breton, who was Bishop of Hereford and a judge, in the reigns of Henry III. and Edward I. 8 Co. pref. 10 Co. pref. This opinion has been disputed by others, (though it has the support of the old chronicler Florilegus, otherwise called Matthew of Westminster,) on the ground that the The author's name has been variously written, Britton, Briton, Le Breton, Bretoun, and Beckton; a circumstance not uncommon at that early age. The same name has also been given to the work itself; thus, Florilegus above mentioned says of the Bishop of Hereford, that "he wrote a book upon the laws of England, which is called Le Bretoun." Pitseus observes that he compiled from various authors a great volume of laws, which he called Lex Anglicana, or Breton. According to Balaus, the title was De Legibus Anglicanis; according to F. Godwin, De Juribus Anglicanis. Wingate, in his edition, (1640,) gives it the name of the author, Britton. The later edition by Kelham (1762) is published under the title of The Ancient Pleas of the Crown. From the similarity of the subject-matter, as well as some resemblance in the name, this treatise is generally considered as a mere abridgment of the great work of Bracton, interspersed with some new matter. See Selden's Diss. ad Fletam, c. 2, sec. 3. It is not, however, without claims to the character of an original production, and seems to have originally stood higher than Bracton as an authority. It is called good authority by Fitzherbert, J. Dyer, 13 b. It is composed of one hundred and twenty-six chapters, written in the true French of the time, embracing various heads of civil and criminal law and practice; and commences in the king's name: Edwarde, par la grace de Dieu, roy Dengleterre et seigniour de Irlaunde, a touts ses feals et ses leaus, et ses sujets de Engleterre, et de Irlaunde, pees et grace de