retell the events of the king's life. While he touches on some important developments within and beyond the realm, however, he ignores a much larger number of equally momentous changes. In these portions of the book, moreover, he draws on the scholarship of a few, clearly favoured, colleagues, omitting entirely the equally meritorious work of many more. The result is a one-dimensional view of the king who, as the subtitle alleges, 'made' medieval Scotland. Readers of Oram's book will come away knowing a great deal about David I, his family, his achievements and his reverses, but they will have very little understanding of the ways in which he so thoroughly changed the lives and mores of the people he ruled. Dalhousie UniversityCYNTHIA NEVILLE

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Despite their complexity, the rules and regulations governing the substance and procedure of the common law in later medieval England were surprisingly well understood by the medieval men and women who appeared in court as defendants. This paper examines records of sessions of gaol delivery, before which accusations of felony were put to trial, for the northern circuit in the years 1354­1460. It explores the ways in which a significant number of defendants were able to avoid altogether the onus of trial by claiming exceptions to the law, and more particularly, by arguing that the formal indictments under which they had been charged were “insufficient in law.” The varied nature of these claims is reviewed, and emphasis is placed on tracing the source of what was in most instances highly technical information. The public venue of medieval trials undoubtedly contributed to the dissemination of a rough and ready familiarity with the law among persons of all ranks, and the presence of trained lawyers at the sessions must also have made available to plaintiffs, defendants, and bystanders alike a well informed source of legal knowledge. But it is further argued that jurors of presentment, the men responsible in the first instance for bringing forward bills of indictment, may have played a crucial role in determining which defendants would be subjected to the rigours of a full trial and the possibility of death by hanging consequent on it, and which would not. The deliberate omission of factual details in the formulation of the written charges may in this sense have reflected more than merely a casual attitude on the part of the jurors towards statutory requirements enacted to regulate indicting documents. They may also be interpreted as one of a variety of means by which medieval jurors winnowed out of the legal process individuals whom they did not believe merited the full sanction of trial at gaol delivery.