This book, the 126th of the Selden Society's edited volumes of the early sources of English legal history, takes a form familiar to that society's readers. It consists of a lengthy and knowledgeable introduction to the primary sources, followed by edited transcripts of the sources themselves, in both the original Latin and in English translation.

This volume focuses on ecclesiastical cases decided by the common law courts during the reign of Edward I. As the editor tells us, there are many reasons why these are particularly worthy of close attention. Edward's reign was characterised by an ongoing process of development, both of the constitution in general and of the national legal system in particular. It was, moreover, a period notable for the clashes it witnessed between the Church and the state. Given this, as Millon notes, it is natural both to explore the impact of developments within the common law upon the ecclesiastical courts and to consider the extent to which relations between the royal and ecclesiastical courts were affected by conflict between the Church and the king.

A particular question addressed by Millon in light of the existing literature is the extent to which, as it is sometimes argued, Edward I systematically sought to restrain ecclesiastical jurisdiction during his reign. The selection of the primary sources that form the heart of this volume is shaped by the desire to answer that question. The suits under consideration are almost always brought under a writ of prohibition, this being the usual mechanism by which the jurisdictional boundaries between the ecclesiastical courts and those of common law were enforced. The cases are therefore predominantly drawn from the Plea Rolls, since writs of prohibition were usually brought in the Court of Common Pleas at this time. To these are added occasional suits brought before the King's Bench, and cases brought before the Eyre. This last group of cases is chiefly drawn from the rolls of the Norfolk Eyre of 1286, which held an inquest into the activities of the ecclesiastical courts.

Following a general introduction to the sources, the introduction is broken down into five main sections, addressing the procedure followed in prohibition suits, the use of prohibition in respect of various aspects of the substantive law, the impact of common law actions upon ecclesiastical interests, and an examination of both Circumspecte agatis and the Norfolk Eyre of 1286. In each instance, Millon uses Bracton to identify the extent to which the records reveal developments that were unique to the reign of Edward I, and which of them constitute a departure from earlier practice. He then explicitly considers whether the sources demonstrate either the existence of echoes of Church–state controversies in relations between the ecclesiastical and common law courts, and/or systematic and novel attempts to restrict and curtail the scope and activities of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

In almost every instance, the picture revealed by the sources is one that is more remarkable for its continuity with past practice than for its novelty. Saving one or two substantive areas, the boundaries between ecclesiastical and royal jurisdiction were generally quite settled. Even where the royal courts were seen to extend their jurisdiction over suits that might otherwise have been determined by the ecclesiastical courts, this had little real impact upon the volume of the Church courts' business and their ability to function. On the evidence of the sources, there was no concerted or widespread attempt to widen the jurisdictional scope of the common law at the expense of the Church courts during this period. Nor do those records bear testimony to routine and serious clashes between the two jurisdictions. On the contrary, rather than wholesale conflict they reveal widespread co-operation and consensus between the royal and ecclesiastical courts. Prohibitions had always been rare and remained so during this period. No attempt was made by the royal courts to encourage the use of writs of prohibition by ameliorating the procedural difficulties that litigants faced. Furthermore, far from being a writ used by the Crown to suppress ecclesiastical jurisdiction, prohibition actions were, as the sources here show us, more commonly instigated by individuals for their own purposes.

In conclusion, this volume makes two great contributions to the academic literature. First, it makes readily available a collection of records that would otherwise have remained beyond the practical reach and use of the majority of interested scholars. The second contribution comes from the light that the introduction sheds on those records, and what it tells us about what they say, with the implications of that for the existing literature. Far from bearing out the commonly told tale of conflict and discord between the jurisdictions, these records indicate that relations between them never in fact reached crisis point. Nor do they reveal the existence of any ‘steady pressure’ (p xvii) exerted by the royal courts against the ecclesiastical ones. This reading of the sources leads Millon to re-evaluate the common understanding of Circumspecte agatis as a defining event in the setting of the boundaries between the royal and Church courts. Instead, looking at its political and legal setting, he offers the view that it was merely a restatement of the existing boundaries between the jurisdictions. Circumspecte agatis was not, then, part of a deliberate policy to limit ecclesiastical jurisdiction and to expand the reach of royal justice. Rather, it clarified what the accepted boundaries were in the light of an earlier decree relating to abuses in Norfolk.