^{page xvi note a} Mr. Dimock, a late vicar-choral of Southwell, to whose research the dates of the architecture of the church above given are due, has carefully collected from the White Book all the datings of documents “in capitulo” or “in domo nostra capitulari” of Southwell. From his list it appears that the earliest document dated “in capitulo” (one of the earliest in the book) is in 1266. There is however one so dated in 1260. The next so dated is not till 1291, from which time till 1352 frequent examples remain. From thence onwards the usual dating was “in domo nostra capitulari.” Is it not a legitimate inference that the old chapter-house was burnt or otherwise destroyed or pulled down in or shortly after 1266, and that the new chapter-house was finished in 1291 ? As some of the later documents dated “in capitulo” (which undoubtedly means “chapter-house” as well as “chapter”) are contemporaneous with the earlier documents dated “in domo capitulari,” it would not appear that the change into the later formula from the earlier shows any change of house.

^{page xviii note a} The latest attempt in this direction is to say that “Tioyul” was dropped and “Fingeceaster” corrupted into “Finster” or “Mster,” “ton” was then tacked on and so Fikerton, a village on the Trent near Southwell, is arrived at. This is almost as bad as Dickinson's etymology “of Saxon Tielo, industry, Roman vulgus, multitude, Saxon Fengan (whence finger), to lay hands on, and Roman Castrum. i.e. the place where much industry was employed in laying hands on the multitude”! Besides, Fiskerton belonged to Thurgarton Priory, not to Southwell Minster. And, if the derivation were correct, after all, Fiskerton, a village three miles off, is not Southwell. Fiskerton is far more probably the town, as Fiskargate, now Fiahergate, at York, was the street of fishermen.

^{page xix note a} So spelt in the document itself.

^{page xx note a} Canon Raine kindly allowed me to see the original copy in the White Book. Undoubtedly it is Eagelr'. It is suspicious that in this book the grant of Eadwy is placed after the grant from Edgar.

^{page xxi note a} Thurgarton.

^{page xxi note b} Cropwell (Bishop) and Hickling.

^{page xxii note a} This however is, I think, open to doubt. As far as Domesday is concerned there is no evidence that the canons of Waltham had separate prebends ; though in the Inventio Crucis it is absolutely stated that they had. That being so, it is very probable that, though not specifically appearing, other colleges and cathedrals had prebends too. In all probability the canons of Hereford had, since at Preston we find “two canons” holding land. The evidence that the canons of St. Paul's, Bedford (afterwards moved to Newenham and made Augustinian), had prebends is of the same kind as that for St. Paul's, London, viz., the names of the canons holding lands are given. At Holy Trinity Twynsham, afterwards, when made Augustinian, Christ Church, Hants, there is similar evidence. At St. Mary's, Stafford, it is distinctly stated that the king has thirteen canons with prebends (canonicos prcbendarios).

^{page xxix note a} See p. liii. post.

^{page xxix note b} At Wells the Prior of Muchelney had a prebend and place in chapter. At Chichester the Prior of Wilmington, or his superior, the Abbot of Grestein in Normandy, had a stall. But these were definite foundations and appropriations for the purpose.

^{page xxx note a} It is noteworthy that though this Ball was in fact the fundamental charter of the church, and apparently the earliest written evidence of its privileges, the scrihe, in entering it in the White Book, omitted the words in brackets, though they are absolutely needed to make the sentence sense, and they are only inserted on the fly-leaf in another and later hand. The authentic charters mentioned in it, except the letter of Archbishop Thomas before quoted, seem to hare disappeared, if they ever existed.

^{page xxxvi note a} In Brit. Mus, Cart. Harl. 83 F. 46, however, there is a confirmation by William, son of Maurice de Kelum, of grants to Rufford Abbey to which are witnesses in the following order : Robert de Muscham, Bartholomew canon de Suella, Master Richard de Walesbi, Magister Hug’ de Suella, chaplain (capell’) of Hokerton, “Hug’ Decano Suelliaæ,” “and many others.”

^{page xxxix note a} They all occur repeatedly in the Beverley Chapter Register ; on the very first page of the Provost's Book, compiled in 1418, now in possession of the Rev. H. E. Nolloth, Vicar of Beverley Minster; frequently in Poulson's Beverlac in extracts from accounts in the Augmentation Office, and in which the Sacrist is sometimes called Treasurer; their stalls are placed in Dugdale, vi., p. 1309. They were not also Canons.

^{page xxxix note a} This is wrongly described in Dickinson's History of Southwell as a contest about the presentation of a scholar.

^{page xliv note a} At Lincoln, according to the “ancient customs” as stated in the Black Book in 1440, the Residentiary “in course” for a week, like a Winchester prefect, had to dine on Sunday twenty-two ministers of the Church, every day deacon and subdeacon and vicar choral in course as rector chori; and breakfast two bellringers. On certain feasts the numbers were even larger.

^{page xlv note a} The York resilience is rather mysterious. In the first year the “greater residence” implied twenty-six weeks continuously sleeping in his house in York, and presence at all hours. The “lesser residence” seems to be fixed at twenty-four weeks, twelve in each of the halves of the year. But in 1291, when a residentiary had made his greater and lesser residence and obtained the first vacant farm or lease of chapter lands, he had only to reside twelve weeks.

^{page l note a} This is described as “a benefice with cure [of souls] and [therefore] not compatible with another benefice with cure.” The prebends are described as without cure of souls and compatible.

^{page li note a} This he says he has resigned.

^{page lviii note a} This was perhaps only $1 a year, the amount fixed by Archbishop Walter Gray at York half a century before, 1252.

^{page lxii note a} The explanation perhaps is that a special set having been made against Thomas’ saintship his chapel in the Burgage had been destroyed, and the chauntry converted into one to Thomas the Apostle, in the church.

^{page lxix note a} Some of the most interesting documents of this book have already been printed by Dugdale and Dickinson, and have not therefore been included here. There are a great many more which might be printed with advantage, but the White Book really requires a separate volume to do justice to its contents. I have only printed the earliest document in it, one which shows the position of the church as a parish as well as collegiate, church, and the pre-Reformation Statutes, which were very inaccurately printed by Dickinson, and with many lacunaæ.

^{page lxxxiii note a} That the felony was not Bethank's offence above noted is clear. It was one in which four vicars and three chauntry priests were concerned.

^{page lxxxiv note a} At Lincoln the period seems to have been a fortnight. Novum Registrum, ed. Bp. Wordsworth, p. 42.

^{page xciii note a} They were sworn to first in 1400, but it would seem that they had been made and revised before then. The New College, Oxford, statutes, which contain the same words, were first sworn to in 1390.

^{page xciv note a} Usibus is, no doubt, used in the sense which it bore till the Statute of Uses, for what we now call “trusts.”