Definition
A historical English office created by statute in the reign of Edward III. The Mediators of Questions were six persons authorized by statute (27 Edw. III, St. 2, c. 24) to certify and settle disputes arising among merchants at the staple — principally questions concerning unmerchantable wool, undue packing, and related trade irregularities. These six officials acted before the mayor and officers of the staple, rendered their determination under oath, and their resolution was binding on the parties concerned. The term describes a discrete, now-obsolete statutory office, not a general category of arbiters or neutrals.
Common Confusion
Despite surface resemblance to the modern term "mediator," the Mediators of Questions had nothing to do with modern mediation as a process. A modern mediator facilitates negotiation between parties without imposing a decision. The Mediators of Questions, by contrast, rendered binding determinations — functioning more like arbitrators or specialty judges than facilitators. Researchers encountering this term in historical sources should not read it through the lens of contemporary alternative dispute resolution. The word "mediator" here carries its older Latin-rooted sense of one who interposes or decides, not one who merely assists parties in reaching their own agreement.
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in historical English legal sources and has no operative modern equivalent. Researchers are most likely to encounter it when working with materials related to the staple system, medieval and early modern English merchant law, or the Law Merchant generally. Several traps await the unwary:
First, the term is easily misread as an early reference to what we now call mediation or ADR. It is not. Any research connecting this office to modern dispute resolution theory requires a careful chain of evidence — the institutional and procedural resemblance is superficial.
Second, the statute underlying this office (27 Edw. III, St. 2, c. 24) is the relevant primary anchor. Historical sources cite it consistently, so any deeper investigation should begin there rather than with secondary dictionary entries.
Third, the Rapalje & Lawrence entry in the available source material appears garbled or corrupted — the definition trails into unrelated text concerning bankruptcy and trustees. Researchers relying on that edition should treat it as unreliable for this entry and defer to Black's or Bouvier's.
Fourth, jurisdiction matters here in a specific way: this is purely an English institution. There is no American counterpart, colonial reception, or parallel development in U.S. merchant law. The staple system itself was dismantled well before American legal institutions took shape.
Historical Dictionary Support
The three historical dictionaries are in close agreement on substance, which is unusual and itself informative — it signals that all three are drawing from a narrow common channel of sources (Cowell's legal dictionary and Tomlin's Staple are both cited). Black's provides the most complete statutory reference, citing 27 Edw. III, St. 2, c. 24 and attributing the definition to Cowell. Bouvier's tracks the same content and cites Tomlin's Staple as authority. Both correctly identify the six-person structure, the staple venue, the oath requirement, and the binding character of the determination.
What the historical dictionaries do not provide: any discussion of how these officers were selected, how long the office remained in practical use, whether it was ever extended beyond the wool trade, or how it interacted with the broader Law Merchant and staple court system. Researchers needing that institutional context will need to look beyond the dictionary shelf entirely — to histories of the English staple system and merchant law rather than legal dictionaries.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
civpro_126: Mediation — Principles, Confidentiality, and Enforceability of Mediated Agreements (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia) [Note: relevant for contrast only — the modern process differs fundamentally from this historical office]