Definition
Latin: "You deliver to bail." A writ of old English practice issued on behalf of a prisoner who had been found, upon the writ de odio et atia, to have been maliciously accused of a crime. The writ commanded the sheriff that if the prisoner could produce twelve good and lawful men of the county willing to act as mainpernors for him, the sheriff should release the prisoner into the bail of those twelve men until the next assize. The writ thus functioned as a conditional release mechanism, linking the findings of the de odio et atia inquiry directly to the prisoner's liberty.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is a term of purely historical significance. Tradas in ballium belongs to a cluster of medieval English writs governing pretrial detention and release that were progressively displaced — first by statutory reform, then by the emergence of habeas corpus as the dominant vehicle for challenging unlawful imprisonment. Researchers encountering tradas in ballium in historical sources are almost certainly working with materials from before the consolidation of habeas corpus practice, likely pre-sixteenth century.
The critical navigational point is the dependency relationship: tradas in ballium could not issue independently. It was a downstream writ, available only after the de odio et atia inquiry had already returned a finding of malicious accusation. Researchers must therefore understand de odio et atia before the mechanics of tradas in ballium make sense. The two writs operated in sequence, not in parallel.
The mainpernor requirement — twelve good and lawful men of the county — also distinguishes this writ from modern bail conceptually. This was not a financial surety system but a suretyship of persons, with the twelve mainpernors standing as guarantors of the prisoner's appearance. That distinction matters when reading historical sources that use "bail" in contexts that do not map neatly onto modern secured-release practice.
Researchers working in early English legal history should note that the writ survived in theoretical form in treatises and dictionaries long after it had ceased to have any practical use. Its appearance in nineteenth-century legal dictionaries reflects the encyclopedic habits of that era, not evidence of contemporary application.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
All four source dictionaries — Black's (1st and 2nd editions), Bouvier's, and Burrill's — are in close agreement on the substance of this entry, and appear to share a common lineage. The definition in each tracks the same essential elements: the Latin translation, the dependency on a prior de odio et atia finding, the sheriff as addressee, the twelve mainpernors, and the assize as the term of the release. Burrill is the earliest independent source cited among them, and Bouvier's expressly references Burrill alongside Reeve's History of English Law as its authority.
What the historical dictionaries do not address is the writ's timeline of obsolescence. They describe its mechanics accurately but treat it in a static, ahistorical way — presenting it as a feature of "old English practice" without tracing when it fell out of use or what superseded it. For that context, researchers must look beyond the dictionary shelf to legal historical scholarship on the development of habeas corpus and the displacement of the older prerogative writ system.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Tradas in ballium is a writ of English origin with no recognized counterpart in American law. It does not appear in any American statutory or common law tradition as an operative writ. Its relevance is confined to English legal history and the study of medieval and early modern pretrial practice.
---