Definition
The Rolls of Parliament are the official manuscript registers of parliamentary proceedings in medieval and early modern England. Beginning in the reign of Edward I (late thirteenth century), these records document petitions, grants, statutes, judicial determinations, and the full range of business transacted before Parliament in its earliest and most expansive form.
The Rolls are not merely legislative records. In the earlier periods of English constitutional history, Parliament functioned as a high court as well as a legislative assembly, and the Rolls reflect this dual character. They contain decisions on difficult points of law referred by the judges of the King's Bench and Common Pleas to Parliament for resolution, as well as petitions from private individuals seeking redress that no other forum could provide. This makes them simultaneously a legislative archive, a judicial record, and a chronicle of political and social grievances from across the kingdom.
The physical records were not maintained in a single repository. Portions were held at the Chapter House at Westminster, others at the Tower of London, with the remainder dispersed across additional locations. This fragmented custody is directly relevant to how the records were accessed and preserved over time.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in medieval English legal history must treat the Rolls of Parliament as a primary source of the first order, not merely a parliamentary curiosity. Several navigational points are essential:
First, the term "statute" in pre-modern usage does not map cleanly onto what a modern researcher might expect to find in a statutory code. Much of what we now recognize as foundational English law emerged from parliamentary proceedings recorded in these Rolls rather than from formally enrolled statutes. A researcher looking only at statute rolls may miss legislative acts of significance.
Second, the judicial content of the Rolls is underappreciated. Because Parliament in the medieval period exercised original and appellate jurisdiction — including jurisdiction over matters too great or too novel for the common law courts — the Rolls contain what amount to case dispositions. Researchers tracing the early development of equity jurisdiction, parliamentary attainder, or the resolution of disputed peerage claims will find material in the Rolls that does not appear in the Year Books or common law reports.
Third, the printed edition matters enormously. The standard scholarly edition, Rotuli Parliamentorum (6 volumes, printed 1767–1777, covering 1278–1503), is the principal access point to this material. An index volume followed in 1832. Researchers using pre-twentieth-century legal dictionaries and treatises that cite the Rolls are nearly always referring to this printed edition, not the manuscripts directly.
Fourth, coverage is not continuous. The early Rolls have gaps, and the survival rate varies by reign. Burrill's note that these records begin in Edward I's reign is accurate, though some historians push the earliest entries to the Parliament of 1275. Do not assume completeness.
Fifth, the Rolls must be distinguished from other parliamentary records — the Parliament Rolls are separate from the Lords' Journals (which begin in 1510) and the Commons' Journals (which begin in 1547). A researcher unfamiliar with this distinction may conflate sources of very different character and authority.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary correctly identifies the dual nature of the Rolls as both a register of proceedings and a repository of legal determinations referred to Parliament as a supreme court. This framing is historically sound and captures the feature most relevant to legal researchers: the Rolls are not a pure legislative archive.
Burrill's Law Dictionary offers the most substantive account among the historical sources, identifying the records as commencing in the reign of Edward I, characterizing them as "by far the most important branch of the public records of the kingdom" in terms of antiquity and subject range, and noting the divided physical custody between the Chapter House and the Tower. Burrill attributes this assessment to Mr. Hubback — a reference to Edward Burtenshaw Hubback, whose work on evidence discussed the evidentiary value of public records, though researchers should verify context before relying on that attribution.
Rapalje & Lawrence provides no usable entry; the text reproduced appears to be a printing error or corrupt transcription and should be disregarded entirely.
What the historical dictionaries do not address: the printed Rotuli Parliamentorum edition, which was already well established by the time these dictionaries were compiled, is conspicuously absent from the entries. Historical legal dictionaries treat the Rolls as a class of record without guiding researchers to the actual access point. Modern researchers should proceed directly to the printed edition and its index.
Jurisdictional Note
The Rolls of Parliament are exclusively an English legal institution, with direct relevance to English and British constitutional and legal history. They have no counterpart in American law, though American courts and constitutional scholars occasionally cite English parliamentary precedent when examining the origins of legislative and judicial power. Researchers in Scots law should note that Scotland had its own parliamentary records prior to the Acts of Union 1706–1707.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Parliament (Historical); Public Records of England; Medieval English Court System