34 ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTES OF LABOURERS 



caused a constant shifting in the personnel of the com- 

 missions to an extent that must have been embarrassing" 

 and inconvenient. The failure of the council in this re- 

 spect may easily have been due to lack of knowledge of 

 local conditions and certainly explains the continuance 

 of the endeavor of the commons to control the lists, an 

 endeavor that did not cease with this reign. 



Closely connected with the appointment and removal 

 of justices is the question of the possibility of an indi- 

 vidual's obtaining exemption from the necessity of ser- 

 vice against his will. The list of public offices given at 

 this period in the regular letters patent of exemption 

 does not specify either justices of labourers or keepers 

 of the peace, although " other bailifl or minister of the 

 king " may be interpreted to cover both. In one in- 

 stance a member of a joint commission, William de Beau- 

 chaump, had received a letter patent exempting him from 

 serving against his will in " any office or commission " ' — 

 a slightly different phrase from the usual one — and a few 

 weeks later, he is " exonerated " from the joint commission, 

 presumably on the ground of this general exemption.* 

 In four cases, however, justices of labourers who had re- 

 ceived the regular letters patent of exemption are shortly 

 afterwards appointed to commissions for labourers.- In 

 the next reign the exemptions in the printed calendars 

 mention specifically justices of labourers and of the peace,* 

 but I am unable to say at what date the change occurred. 

 It is possible that so early in the development of the 



'Pat., 26, pt. 2, m. 21, 13 June; CaL, ix, 297. 



^App., 49. 



^Pakeman, Pat., 27, pt. i, m. 27, 4 Feb.; CaL, ix, 400. Aton, Pat., 

 2"], pt. I, m. 16, 12 March; CaL, ix, 422. Frenyngham, Pat., 27, pt. i, 

 m. 10, 16 April; Halsham, ibid., 13 April; CaL, ix, 429. 



^See my article in E. H. R., 530. 



