^{page vii note 1} In a note in the Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, vi. 178–9Google Scholar, I have given some instances of this confusion, especially in the indexes to various calendars of Chancery rolls, and have appended a list of corrections.

^{page vii note 2} Cal. inq. p.m., i. 273Google Scholar, and not, as some biographers have stated, 1250, following Matthew Paris who, as a Benedictine, began his year at Christmas (Historia minor, iii. 68).Google Scholar

^{page vii note 3} For biographies of Edmund of Cornwall, all inaccurate in details, see G.E.C., Complete peerage (2nd ed.), iii. 433Google Scholar, Doyle, Official baronage of England (1675), and 22 lines appended to the life of Richard, earl of Cornwall, by Professor Tout in the Dictionary of national biography.

^{page vii note 4} Hist. minor, iii. 68Google Scholar. The account given in Chronica majora, v. 94Google Scholar, is similar but less detailed.

^{page viii note 1} See his life in Dict. nat. biog.

^{page viii note 2} G.E.C., op. cit., iii. 431.

^{page viii note 3} C.P.R. 1265–72, p. 647.Google Scholar

^{page viii note 4} Cf. below, p. xxix.

^{page viii note 5} liber de antiquis legibus (Camden Soc.), p. 154.Google Scholar

^{page viii note 6} C.C.R., 1292–1301, p. 63.Google Scholar

^{page viii note 7} Wykes, , Chronicon (Ann. man. iv), p. 251.Google Scholar

^{page viii note 8} Lib. de antiq. leg., p. 154.Google Scholar

^{page viii note 9} Wykes, loc. cit.

^{page viii note 10} Foedera, i. 497Google Scholar; C.C.R. 1272–9, pp. 1, 2, 9Google Scholar; C.P.R. 1272–81, p. 1Google Scholar. I can find no evidence that he was appointed on Earl Richard's death to step into the place his father had occupied since 1270 as one of the five acting on behalf of Edward during his absence on crusade. Edmund was never, so far as I can tell, mentioned as a locum tenens during this period.

^{page ix note 1} From 8 May (C.P.R. 1272–9, p. 314Google Scholar) to 19 June 1279 (ibid., p. 316).

^{page ix note 2} Ibid., p. 309; Foedera, i. 568. The appointment is dated 27 April 1279.

^{page ix note 3} Cf. Tout, , Chapters in mediaeval administrative history, ii. 62.Google Scholar

^{page ix note 4} Cf. C.P.R. 1281–92, p. 248Google Scholar; C.C.R. 1288–96, p. 17.Google Scholar

^{page ix note 5} See the chroniclers of the period and State trials of the reign of Edward I (Camden Series, 3rd ser. ix), ed. T. F. Tout and H. Johnstone.

^{page ix note 6} C.C.R. 1296–1302, p. 132Google Scholar; C.P.R. 1292–1301, p. 335.Google Scholar

^{page ix note 7} Parl. writs, i. 198Google Scholar. Cf. C.P.R. 1272–81, pp. 211, 215–17, 221.Google Scholar

^{page ix note 8} Morris, J. E., Welsh wars of Edward I, p. 60.Google Scholar

^{page ix note 9} C.P.R. 1292–1301, p. 510.Google Scholar

^{page x note 1} C.P.R. 1272–81, pp. 63, 64.Google Scholar

^{page x note 2} Ibid. 1281–92, pp. 313, 374; ibid. 1292–1301, p. 292; cf. Tout, Chapters, ii. 116.Google Scholar

^{page x note 3} C.P.R. 1292–1301, p. 292.Google Scholar

^{page x note 4} Ibid., p. 326.

^{page x note 5} Ibid., pp. 292, 301.

^{page x note 6} P.R.O. K.R. Exchequer Accounts, Miscellaneous, 506/6, 7, 8.

^{page x note 7} Kennett, White, Parochial antiquities (1695), p. 317.Google Scholar

^{page x note 8} V.C.H. Gloucs., ii. 97Google Scholar. The relic, bought in 1267 from Florence V, count of Holland, is said to have wrought many miracles. See also Dugdale, Monasticon, v. 686–7.Google Scholar

^{page x note 9} Ibid., v. 687.

^{page x note 10} V.C.H. Gloucs., ii, 97.Google Scholar

^{page x note 11} C. Chart. R., ii. 208.Google Scholar

^{page xi note 1} C. Chart. R., iii. 490–1.Google Scholar

^{page xi note 2} Ibid., ii. 349.

^{page xi note 3} Ibid., iii. 490.

^{page xi note 4} Ibid., iii. 2.

^{page xi note 5} I.e., in the south-east corner of the outer bailey (V.C.M. Berks., ii. 104Google Scholar). See also Hedges, J. Kirby, History of Wallingford (1881)Google Scholar; Dugdale, , Man., vi. 1330–1.Google Scholar

^{page xi note 6} Ibid.

^{page xi note 7} Ibid

^{page xi note 8} They were of the order of the Holy Trinity and of the Redemption of Captives in the Holy Land. See V.C.H. Yorks., iii. 296–8Google Scholar. Though described as friars (see Dugdale, , Man., vi. 1565Google Scholar), they belonged to the class of canons regular, as did the Bonhommes of Ashridge (note by Professor Hamilton Thompson, in Register of Thomas of Corbridge (Surtees Soc. 1925), i. xi).Google Scholar

^{page xi note 9} The hermit Robert Flower, who lived on the banks of the Nidd during the reigns of Richard I and John.

^{page xi note 10} C. Chart. R., ii. 241.Google Scholar

^{page xi note 11} V.C.H. Yorks., iii. 297.Google Scholar

^{page xi note 12} See the Rev. H.E. Salter's account of the abbey in V.C.H. Oxfordshire. It was named Rewley from its site on that part of the island of Osney that was named regalis locus, from its having been held by the king of the Romans.

^{page xii note 1} Kennett, White, op. cit., p. 291.Google Scholar

^{page xii note 2} Annals of Dunstable (Ann. Man., iii), p. 287Google Scholar; Ann. Waverley (ibid., ii),p. 397. They were 15 at first, later 16.

^{page xii note 3} C. Chart. R., ii. 339Google Scholar; Dugdale, , Monasticon, v. 699.Google Scholar

^{page xii note 4} Cf. Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 482–3.Google Scholar

^{page xii note 5} For these various grants see P.R.O. Exchequer T.R. Misc. Books, 57, nos. 12, 49, 195, 269.

^{page xiii note 1} Todd, , History of the college of Bonhommes at AshridgeGoogle Scholar; Kennett, White, Parochial antiquities, i. 424–5Google Scholar, citing Holinshed.

^{page xiii note 2} Todd, op. cit.; Dugdale, , Mon., vi. 515Google Scholar; Cal. Chart. R., ii. 331Google Scholar (inspex.dated 17 April 1286). An earlier, vacated, charter had specified 13 brethren,seven at least to be priests (ibid., 324, inspex. dated 5 Nov. 1285). There is some uncertainty about the origin and status of these Bons Hommes, but the theory of their French origin, put forward by their historian, Todd, has been exploded. Professor Hamilton Thompson's view is that Ashridge does not seem to have differed much from a secular chantry college (The register of Thomas of Corbridge (Surtees Soc), i. xi). Their statutes laid down that they ought to profess and observe the rule of the blessed Augustine (Todd, pp. 11–14)

^{page xiii note 3} Ann. Dunstable, p. 305.Google Scholar

^{page xiii note 4} Todd, , op. cit.Google Scholar; Dugdale, , Man., vi. 514.Google Scholar

^{page xiii note 5} Todd, , op. cit., 10Google Scholar. Here Edmund's heart was buried, but his bones were interred with great ceremonial at Hailes, where Earl Richard also lay (C.C.R., 1296–1302, p. 480Google Scholar; Kennett, White, op. cit., i. 388–9).Google Scholar

^{page xiii note 6} Ann. Dunstable, p. 363.Google Scholar

^{page xiii note 7} For these see Dugdale, Man., vi. 515–17Google Scholar; C. Chart. R., ii. 324, 331, 383–6, 405, 463.Google Scholar

^{page xiv note 1} This had been granted to Hailes Abbey but was later, apparently, transferred to Ashridge (ibid., 386; C. Pap. Lett., i. 573).Google Scholar

^{page xiv note 2} Cf. Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 463, 484, 485, 487.Google Scholar

^{page xiv note 3} C.P.R. 1292–1301, p. 311Google Scholar. This was in 1297.

^{page xiv note 4} Ann. Dunstable, p. 305.Google Scholar

^{page xiv note 5} Mins. Accts. 863/8.

^{page xiv note 6} For this agreement see P.R.O. Exch. T. R. Misc. Books, 57, nos. 29, 219. See also Emden, An Oxford hall, pp. 100, 101.Google Scholar

^{page xiv note 7} C.P.R. 1292–1301, p. 26Google Scholar; C.C.R. 1389–92, p. 472.Google Scholar

^{page xiv note 8} Wood, Anthony, City of Oxford, ii. 478.Google Scholar

^{page xv note 1} A search of cartularies and bishops' registers would probably reveal many more.

^{page xv note 2} Monasticon, i. 487.Google Scholar

^{page xv note 3} V.C.H. Dorset, ii. 96.Google Scholar

^{page xv note 4} C.C.R. 1296–1302, p. 448Google Scholar. See also Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 458.Google Scholar

^{page xv note 5} Ibid.; Mins. Accts. 811/1, m. 2d.

^{page xv note 6} C.P.R. 1292–1301, p. 504Google Scholar (April 1300).

^{page xv note 7} C. Chart. R., ii. 330Google Scholar (inspeximus, February 1286).

^{page xv note 8} Ibid., p. 476 (inspeximus, 4 May 1299).

^{page xv note 9} The two cases are cited by Salter, H. E., ‘Reliefs per cartam’, English Historical Review, xlv. 282–3.Google Scholar

^{page xv note 10} P.R.O. Exch. T.R. Misc. Books, 57, no. 114.

^{page xv note 11} Ibid., no. 186.

^{page xv note 12} C. Chart. R., ii. 443.Google Scholar

^{page xvi note 1} See below, p. 129. I have not found any household or other personal accounts belonging to the earl. There is an entry on a wardrobe account of Queen Margaret, second wife of Edward I, however, which reveals a bequest in his will to the four great orders of Friars (P.R.O. Exchequer Accounts, K.R., Wardrobe and Household, 361/3, m. 1. I am indebted to Professor Hilda Johnstone for this reference). This bequest took the form of a magnificent gold cross, weighing over 24 ounces and studded with 160 precious stones, to be divided among the Friars Preacher, the Friars Minor, the Carmelites and the Augustinians. The earl's instructions were that the cross should be broken up and sold, and the proceeds divided, so that the Dominicans and Franciscans should share equally in three-quarters of the amount, while of the remaining quarter, two-thirds was to go to the Carmelites and the remaining twelfth to the Augustinians. For every penny of the purchase price one mass should be said for the repose of Edmund's soul within one year of his death. But Queen Margaret could not endure that so precious an object should be destroyed, and wished to possess it herself. Four of the most expert goldsmiths of London were summoned to inspect it at Berkhamsted, and valued it at £237 9s. Margaret then kept the cross and distributed its equivalent in money. She also paid £2 for the goldsmiths' expenses in coming from London, and bore the cost of the journeys of two Franciscan friars to their Provincial Minister, to gain his consent to these arrangements.

^{page xvi note 2} C.C.R. 1296–1302, p. 441Google Scholar; below, p. 78.

^{page xvi note 3} See below, p. 101.

^{page xvi note 4} C.C.R. 1292–1301, p. 63Google Scholar. By the end of 1289 disagreement between them had reached such a pitch that the archbishop of Canterbury and even the pope himself had been drawn in to help to make peace and to abate the scandal (Reg. epist. Joh. Peckham (R.S.), iii. 969Google Scholar). Eventually, in 1294, Edmund assigned these lands, to the value of £800 yearly, to his wife ‘who desired to live in chastity and freely and with his consent to devote her life to the service of God’.

^{page xvi note 5} C.C.R. 1292–1301. pp. 63–5.Google Scholar

^{page xvii note 1} P. xxi.

^{page xvii note 2} On 25 September the king ordered the celebration of exequies for the soul of the earl of Cornwall lately deceased (C.C.R. 1296–1302, p. 417Google Scholar; Foedera, i. 922Google Scholar), and on the following day issued a writ to the escheators to take possession of his lands (C.F.R., i. 433Google Scholar). The steward of Oakham, how ever, when presenting his account for the year after the earl's death dated it ‘a crastino sancti Michaelis anno xxviii⁰ quo die dictus comes obiit’ (Pipe roll 29 Edw. I, m. 31d.); while ‘rumor vulgaris fuit quod kal. Octobris Edmundus comes Cornubiae raptus fuit subito de hac vita, relinquens regem haeredem suum’ (Annals of Worcester (Ann. num., iv), p. 547).

^{page xvii note 3} Todd, History of the college of Bonhommes at Ashridge.

^{page xvii note 4} C.C.R. 1296–1302, p. 480Google Scholar; Kennett, White, Parochial antiquities, i. 483.Google Scholar

^{page xvii note 5} Foedera, i. 922.Google Scholar

^{page xvii note 6} Cf. Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 456Google Scholarseq.

^{page xvii note 7} See above, p. vii.

^{page xvii note 8} See P.R.O. Exchequer T.R. Misc. Books, 57.

^{page xviii note 1} P.R.O. Chancery Inquisitions post mortem, Henry III, file 42; Cal. ing p.m., i. 273–5.Google Scholar

^{page xviii note 2} C.P.R. 1266–72, p. 640.Google Scholar

^{page xviii note 3} Ibid., p. 647.

^{page xviii note 4} Excerpta e rot. fin. 1246–72, p. 563.Google Scholar

^{page xviii note 5} C.P.R. 1266–72, p. 641.Google Scholar

^{page xviii note 6} Cf. Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 456–7.Google Scholar

^{page xviii note 7} They were so grouped by Professor Tout in the Historical atlas of modern Europe, ed. R. L. Poole, map xviii.

^{prage xix note 1} Half of them, namely for Berkhamsted, Mere, Wallingford, and St. Valery are printed in this volume.The other half, Eye, Oakham, Knaresborough,Devon, and Cornwall will be printed in a second volume. References to these later accounts will here be given by the membrane number, followed by ‘in vol. ii’.

^{page xix note 2} has been impossible, owing to the present difficult circumstances, to produce a more exhaustive survey of the earldom and of peculiarities of tenure.

^{page xix note 3} See below, pp. 83, 129–30, 149.

^{page xix note 4} Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 463.Google Scholar

^{page xix note 5} Ibid., p. 460.

^{page xix note 6} Accts., m. 17d in vol. ii.

^{page xix note 7} Cf. Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 462–4.Google Scholar

^{page xx note 1} See below, pp. 6—12; Lysons, Magna Britannia, Beds., p. 138.

^{page xx note 2} See below, pp. 27–30, and V.C.H. Bucks., iii. 288.Google Scholar

^{page xx note 3} Cat. inq. p.m., iii. 482, 487Google Scholar. But a fragment of an undated account states that Geoffrey de Cornubia received this manor on Thursday next before the feast of St. Lucy the Virgin, i.e. about 13 December. Mins. Accts. 863/6. For an account of the family of Cornwall, later known as barons of Burford, see The Genealogist, iii (1879), 225Google Scholaret seq.

^{page xx note 4} See above, pp. xiii–xiv.

^{page xx note 5} Mins. Accts., 1089/10, 11, 12, 13.

^{page xx note 6} Ibid., 1089/13. Cf. Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 416.Google Scholar

^{page xx note 7} Mins. Accts., 1089/11, 13.

^{page xx note 8} See below, pp. 84–131.

^{page xx note 9} See below, p. 91.

^{page xx note 10} V.C.H. Bucks., iii. 47.Google Scholar

^{page xx note 11} See below, pp. 99, 130.

^{page xx note 12} See above, p. xiv.

^{page xxi note 1} Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 464Google Scholaret seq.

^{page xxi note 2} In 1296–7 Simon de Grenehull was steward of both honours, and in 1277–8 Geoffrey de Russel. Mins. Accts., 1095/10; 955/2.

^{page xxi note 3} Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 467–8, 479.Google Scholar

^{page xxi note 4} Pp. x–xii, xiv above.

^{page xxi note 5} Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 482, 483, 487, 488.Google Scholar

^{page xxi note 6} C.P.R. 1292–1301, p. 63Google Scholar; and see above, pp. xvi–xvii.

^{page xxi note 7} For knights' fees, etc., pertaining to the honour see Cal. ing. p.m., iii. 477–8.Google Scholar

^{page xxi note 8} Ibid., ii. 348, 407. Thomas was then aged 13.

^{page xxi note 9} Accts. m. 15, in vol. ii.

^{page xxi note 10} Ibid., m. 16d; C.C.R. 1288–96, p. 479.Google Scholar

^{page xxi note 11} Mins. Accts. 996/12.

^{page xxi note 12} C.C.R. 1296–1302, p. 426.Google Scholar

^{page xxii note 1} Cf. Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 469, 474Google Scholar; Accts. mm. 17–18 in vol. ii.

^{page xxii note 2} Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 460, 461.Google Scholar

^{page xxii note 3} Ibid., 472–3.

^{page xxii note 4} For this loan see C.C.R. 1288–96, p. 203Google Scholar; C.P.R. 1292–1301, pp. 145, 188.Google Scholar

^{page xxii note 5} C.C.R. 1296–1302, p. 426.Google Scholar

^{page xxii note 6} Ibid. Cf. Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 470–2.Google Scholar

^{page xxii note 7} Ibid., 456, 474–5.

^{page xxii note 8} See Accts., m. 21, in vol. ii.

^{page xxiii note 1} Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 456–8.Google Scholar

^{page xxiii note 2} Ibid., 475–7.

^{page xxiii note 3} Accts., mm. 22–25, in vol. ii.

^{page xxiii note 4} V.C.H. Devon, i. 570Google Scholar; Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 456–8Google Scholar. See also Rev. Reichel, O. J., ‘The early descent of the Devonshire estates belonging to the honours of Mortain and Okehampton’, in Trans. Devonshire Assocn., xxxviii (1906), 337–56.Google Scholar

^{page xxiii note 5} Cal. inq, p.m., iii. 456–8Google Scholar. The original inquisitions, here as elsewhere, give full details of extents of manors and of the classes of tenants on the individual manors. For a study of the tenancies on the Cornish manors see MissCoate, M., ‘The Duchy of Cornwall: its history and administration’, Trans. R. Hist. Soc., 4th ser. x (1927), 137Google Scholaret seq.

^{page xxiv note 1} Cf. P.R.O. Exch. T.R. Misc. Books, 57, passim.

^{page xxiv note 2} Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 483, 488.Google Scholar

^{page xxiv note 3} Accts. m. 23, in vol. ii; Mins. Accts. 811/1.

^{page xxiv note 4} The stannaries of Cornwall, along with the county, had been granted to Richard earl of Cornwall on 10 August 1231, for the service of five knights. C. Chart. R., i. 139.Google Scholar

^{page xxiv note 5} C.P.R. 1272–1307, p. 90Google Scholar. See also Exch. L.T.R., Originalia roll, 6 Edward I, m. 4. It was delivered to him by the executors of the late keeper, Matthew de Egglesheyle.

^{page xxiv note 6} Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 457.Google Scholar

^{page xxiv note 7} Lewis, G. R., The Stannaries: a study of the English tin miner (Harvard Economic Studies, Vol. III), p. 89.Google Scholar

^{page xxv note 1} Exch. K.R. Accounts, Various (Mines), 260/1.

^{page xxv note 2} Cf. Lewis, , op. cit.Google Scholar, citing this roll of accounts for 1297. An earlier account (Mins. Accts. 816/9), probably relating to 1288, though fragmentary and defaced yet suggests that even then there were no proceeds from the stannary of Foweymore.

^{page xxv note 3} Mr. Lewis suggests that stannary courts were instituted so that tinners should not have their work interrupted by the need to attend ‘secular’ courts; further that they were under mining laws and courts much as a soldier is subject to military courts. Op. cit., p. 88.

^{page xxv note 4} Ibid., p. 90.

^{page xxv note 5} Exch. K.R. Accts. Various (Mines), 260/1.

^{page xxvi note 1} Compare Mins. Accts. 811/2 with Pipe roll 146 (29 Edw. I) mm. 30d–31d, both giving the account of Thomas de la Hyde for Cornwall. In the former the fines of tin and the stannary perquisites are given without explanation. The amounts of the summe are not given, and the account is cancelled by a line drawn from head to foot of the membrane. The account as entered on the Pipe roll is full of detail, the summe are added up and the account is balanced.

^{page xxvi note 2} Lewis, , op. cit., pp. 96, 133Google Scholar; Accounts, mm. 22, 22d, 23, in vol. ii. The manor of Helston appears repeatedly in the accounts as paying this tax, but was not mentioned as owing toll of tin at the earl's death in 1300.

^{page xxvi note 3} See Pipe roll 146 (29 Edw. I), mm. 30d–31d; Mins. Accts. 816/9, 811/1, 811/2; mm. 22–23, in vol. ii. The toll of tin from Helston for 1297, 1298, and 1301 was respectively 6d., 35., and 33.; for Tywarnhail, 43. 2d., 12d., and 2S.; while Tewington showed the greatest variation with 20s., 12d., and 29s. 1d.

^{page xxvi note 4} P. xxvii.

^{page xxvii note 1} Pipe roll 146. The hundred of Pyder was in the earl's hands, with the remaining eight, except one-third of Penwith.

^{page xxvii note 2} See m. 23, in vol. ii.

^{page xxvii note 3} Mins. Accts. 811/1, 811/2, 816/9, Accts. m. 23, in vol. ii. But cf. Pipe roll 146, where it is given as us. od. Mr. Lewis, however, states that ‘dublet’ was collected from five tithings in Penwith and Kerrier. He suggests that the name may be derived from oblata. Op. cit., p. 139.Google Scholar

^{page xxvii note 4} Cf. Mins. Accts. 811/1, 811/2.

^{page xxvii note 5} C.C.R. 1313–18, p. 178Google Scholar. Mr. Lewis gives the five coinage towns as Lostwithiel, Bodmin, Helston-in-Kerrier, Truro, and Liskeard. Op. cit., P. 45.

^{page xxvii note 6} In 1304 a writ of Edward I seems to imply that stamping took place twice a year, at Michaelmas and All Saints (C.P.R. 1301–07, p. 326Google Scholar). There is no trace on our roll of the ‘fine of tinners’ or ‘post-groats’, an extra 4d. on every hundredweight, if tin were stamped at supplementary or ‘post’ coinages (Lewis, , op. cit., p. 153).Google Scholar

^{page xxvii note 7} The fragment was the perquisite of the assayer, and was usually redeemed for id. (ibid., 150–2). If the tin were below standard, its price was fixed accordingly.

^{page xxviii note 1} Lewis, , op. cit. p. 138Google Scholar. A thousandweight weighed 1200 lbs., a hundredweight 112 lbs. For accounts of the systematic attempts made to evade the payment of this duty by smuggling the tin abroad, by the use of false stamps, and by illicit smelting and moulding into small and easily negotiable bars, see Lewis, , op. cit., pp. 153–4Google Scholar; C.C.R. 1313–18, p. 178.Google Scholar

^{page xxviii note 2} Pipe roll 146. This ‘shovel-money’ is said to have been levied at the rate of ½d. per head per year, in some cases (Lewis, , op. cit., p. 140).Google Scholar

^{page xxviii note 3} Accts. m. 23, in vol. ii; Mins. Accts. 811/1, 811/2.

^{page xxviii note 4} Pipe roll, 146.

^{page xxviii note 5} An account of the perquisites of courts from 5 July to 29 September 1279, drawn up by the sheriff and steward of Cornwall, shows that the four stannaries, Blackmore, Penwith and Kerrier, Foweymore, and Tywarnhail, each had a court, apparently meeting once a month (P.R.O. Exch. Accts. Various (Mines), 260/1).

^{page xxviii note 6} Cf. Lewis, , op. cit., p. 142Google Scholar; C.C.R. 1307–13, p. 481.Google Scholar

^{page xxviii note 7} Accts. m. 23, in vol. ii; Mins. Accts. 811/1.

^{page xxviii note 8} Pipe roll 146, m. 31d; Accts. ut sup.

^{page xxviii note 9} C.F.R. 1272–1307, p. 90.Google Scholar

^{page xxix note 1} Accts. m. 21, in vol. ii.

^{page xxix note 2} Pipe roll 146. For the organization and customs of the Devon stannary, see Lewis, , op. cit.Google Scholar, passim; Exch. Accts. Mines, 260/2, 260/15; Pipe roll 137 (20 Edw. I); 140 (22 Edw. I), m. 9d; 146 (29 Edw. I), m. 16. There was only one stannary district in Devon, with four coinage towns, namely Chagford, Tavistock, Plympton, and Ashburtou (Lewis, , op. cit., p. 45Google Scholar), though, apparently, Exeter was sometimes added to this number (ibid., p. 134).

^{page xxix note 3} Pipe roll 118 (2 Edw. I), m. 10. This was the first account since Richard's death. It is difficult to reconcile with this evidence the views put forward by Professor W. A. Morris (The mediaeval English sheriff to 1300, p. 181Google Scholar) and supported by the list of sheriffs in the Report of the Deputy Keeper of Public Records, no. 31, p. 273Google Scholar, that Edmund recovered, in 1278, this office that had been held by his father until 1272; or the second view, indicated in P.R.O. Lists and indexes, ix (List of sheriffs), that Edmund's connection did not begin until Michaelmas 1288, from which time he appointed deputies to carry out the work for him.

^{page xxix note 4} Pipe roll 123 (7 Edw. I), m. 1.

^{page xxix note 5} Ibid., 118, 123, 127, 131, 132, 133. In the last of these, for 1287–8, Roger de Ingepenne, sheriff of Earl Edmund, himself appeared by proxy in the person of John clerk of Wodhull.

^{page xxix note 6} Ibid., 134, 136, 138, 139, 144.

^{page xxx note 1} See above, p. xxiii.

^{page xxx note 2} Accts. m. 23d, in vol. ii.

^{page xxx note 3} E.g. Pipe roll 124 (8 Edw. I), m. 12d. This was the first account presented for Rutland since the accession of Edward I. The county had not appeared on the Pipe rolls since 56 Hen. III (Pipe roll 116), when the accountant answered for £140, the farm for that and the preceding thirteen years.

^{page xxx note 4} Professor Morris considers that he held it before the death of Henry III, presumably from the time of Earl Richard's death (op. cit., 182).

^{page xxx note 5} A search of the Memoranda rolls might solve the problem.

^{page xxx note 6} Pipe roll 134 (17 Edw. I). See also Deputy Keeper's 31st Kept., p. 332Google Scholar, and Lists and Indexes, ix.Google Scholar

^{page xxx note 7} Mins. Accts. 964/1 (probably for 13–14 Edw. I).

^{page xxxi note 1} Accts. mm. 17–18d, in vol. ii.

^{page xxxi note 2} Ibid., m. 18d.

^{page xxxi note 3} For disquisitions on medieval manorial accounting, see Young, N. Denholm, Seignorial administration in England (Oxford Historical Series: 1937), pp. 120–61Google Scholar, and the late Professor Levett, A. E.'s Studies in manorial history, (1938), pp. 41Google Scholaret sqq.

^{page xxxii note 1} In 1297 this was ‘about 11 November’ (Accts., mm. 18d, 19d, in vol. ii). In other years the date was ‘about 20 Nov.’ (Mins. Accts., 816/9, 1085/5) or ‘about 1 Nov.’ (ibid., 1095/11).

^{page xxxii note 2} The only specific reference to auditores compoti comes at the end of the account of Eye (m. 16d, in vol. ii), but it is clear that they sat regularly at Berkhamsted.

^{page xxxii note 3} Such interpolations are marked in the printed text between asterisks.

^{page xxxii note 4} Printed in the second volume of this book.

^{page xxxii note 5} See p. xix above.

^{page xxxiii note 1} Baldwin, J. F., ‘The household administration of Henry Lacy and Thomas of Lancaster’, English Historical Review, xlii. 183.Google Scholar

^{page xxxiii note 2} Annales Londinienses, 100Google Scholar; Flores Historiarum, iii. 84Google Scholar; C.P.R. 1281–92, pp. 489, 515, 520.Google Scholar

^{page xxxiii note 3} ‘Allocaciones’, passim.

^{page xxxiii note 4} Cal. inq. misc. 1307–49, p. 842.Google Scholar

^{page xxxiii note 5} Reg. epist. J. Peckham, i. 379.Google Scholar

^{page xxxiii note 6} ibid., ii. 563, 564, 578, 584.

^{page xxxiii note 7} Cf. P.R.O. Lists and Indexes, ix.Google Scholar

^{page xxxiii note 8} C.C.R. 1296–1302, p. 478.Google Scholar

^{page xxxiii note 9} Ibid., p. 599.

^{page xxxiii note 10} C.P.R. 1272–81, p. 375.Google Scholar

^{page xxxiii note 11} Ibid.

^{page xxxiii note 12} Ibid., 1281–92, pp. 272, 275.

^{page xxxiii note 13} See above, p. xx, n. 3.

^{page xxxiv note 1} P.R.O. Exch. T.R. Misc. Books 57, passim; C. Chart. R., passim.

^{page xxxiv note 2} See below, p. 131. Cf. Cal. inq. p.m., iii. 479.Google Scholar

^{page xxxiv note 3} Described as ‘Cornwall, Earldom and Duchy of’. Giuseppi, Guide to the public records, i. 89Google Scholar. The other document in this class is the ‘Captio seisinae ducatus Cornubiae’. They are numbered respectively E. 119/1, E. 119/2.

^{page xxxiv note 4} Pp. xxxviii–xxxix.

^{page xxxiv note 5} Below, pp. 130, 132–5.

^{page xxxv note 1} See p. xxi above, and mm. 15, 16 in the second volume of these accounts.

^{page xxxv note 2} See Accts. (E. 119/1), mm. 9–12, and Ministers' Accounts, 1095/14, for the following year, 1297–8.

^{page xxxv note 3} Accts., mm. 17, 18.