very uncertain. In the twenty-eighth year of this king, it appears, that
one of the justices of the King's Bench had 80 marks per annum. In the
thirty-ninth year of Edward III. the judges had in that court 40l.; the
same as the justices of the Common Pleas; but the chief of the King's
Bench, 100 marks.

The salaries of the judges in the time of Henry IV. were as
follows:--The chief baron, and other barons, had 40 marks per annum; the
chief of the King's Bench, and of the Common Pleas, 40l. per annum; the
other justices, in either court, 40 marks. But the gains of the
practisers were become so great, that they could hardly be tempted to
accept a place on the bench with such low salaries; therefore in the
eighteenth year of Henry VI. the judges of all the courts at
Westminster, together with the king's attorney and sergeants, exhibited
a petition to parliament concerning the regular payment of their
salaries and perquisites of robes. The king assented to their request,
and order was taken for increasing their income, which afterwards became
larger, and more fixed; this consisted of a salary and an allowance for
robes. In the first year of Edward IV., the chief justice of the King's
Bench had 170 marks per annum, 5l. 6s. 6d. for his winter robes, and the
same for his Whitsuntide robes. Most of the judges had the honour of
knighthood; some of them were knights bannerets; and some had the order
of the Bath.

In the first year of Henry VII. the chief justice of the court of King's
Bench had the yearly fee of 140 marks granted to him for his better
support; he had besides 5l. 6s. 11-1/4 d., and the sixth part of a
halfpenny (such is the accuracy of Sir William Dugdale, and the
strangeness of the sum,) for his winter robes, and 3l. 6s. 6d. for his
robes at Whitsuntide.