others contain indictments relating to" divers counties "for a particular year. It is three files from the first group relating to Kent that have been selected for calendaring here.
The form of the indictment was marked by extreme precision of wording and the inclusion of many conventional phrases. These were necessary if the indictment was to prove sufficient in law, for the judges interpreted them with great rigidity and the mis-spelling of a name or the omission of the customary phraseology might make the indictment of no value and secure the acquittal of the accused.¹ When the grand jury either from the whole county or from one or more of the hundreds, had found a "true bill ", the accused was brought before the court if he was in custody, and the indictment was read to him once in English. In cases of felony or treason the accused was not permitted to have a copy of the, indictment nor allowed counsel, so the poor and ignorant had little opportunity to take advantage of the rigid rules concerning the form and wording of the indictment. Often, as will be seen in the documents below, a brief note was made on the indictment of the plea offered by the prisoner and sometimes on the verdict of the court, but there is rarely any detail given, and it is seldom possible to say what happened to the accused unless his case was called into the King’s Bench and appears upon the Plea Roll.
   (ii) K.B. 9, file 46. This file contains presentments made at

Rochester from 20 to 22 August, Maidstone from 16 to 19 September, Canterbury from 22 to 24 September, and Dartford on 22 October 1450 before justices acting under a commission of oyer and terminer to investigate offences and extortions committed by officials and others in Kent. It has often been thought that the purpose of this commission, issued on 1 August 1450, was to punish Cade’s rebels² ; but the record of its proceedings show that, on the contrary, it was a response to their demands, an attempt to do something about the extortions and ma!practices committed during the previous decade in Kent under the régime of James, Lord Say.
   The commission includes no royal household men or supporters of the late Duke of Suffolk, but is headed by the two archbishops, Bishop Wainflete and the Duke of Buckingham who had not been closely associated with the unpopular rule of Suffolk and his followers: the
    ¹ For the form and history of the indictment, see M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown (ed. T. Dogherty, 1800) ; W. Holdsworth, History of English Law, iii, pp. 607-20. By the statute 1 Hen. V, c. 5 it was laid down that the name, condition and habitation of the accused must be accurately stated to make the indictment sufficient. The first relaxation of the rules concerning the wording of these documents was not made until 37 Hen. VIII, c. 8, and most remained in force until the 19th century.
   ² E.g. by G. Kriehn, The English Rising in 1450 (Strasbourg, 1892), p. 112; Paston Letters, ed. J. Gairdner (1872), i, p. 139.