^{page 402 note 1} The references given, unless otherwise stated, are to chapters in Book II.

^{page 402 note 2} See the notes to cc. 92 and 93 infra, App. D, p. 418.

^{page 402 note 3} See the text and notes of ch. 118.

^{page 403 note 1} For the subject of exemption from episcopal control in England see further Lobel, M. D., Oxford Essays in Medieval History presented to H. E. Salter (1934), pp. 122 ffGoogle Scholar. and cf. Knowles, Monastic Order, p. 578. For a similar problem attending the claim of Bury St Edmunds see Harmer, Writs, pp. 140–45.

^{page 403 note 2} See Book III, ch. 37 and Henry of Huntingdon, Hist. Anglorum, p. 302.

^{page 403 note 3} See Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 44 and Henry I's charter printed in Miller, Ely, p. 280.

^{page 403 note 4} Ibid., pp. 168 ff.

^{page 403 note 5} See Book III, ch. 106.

^{page 403 note 6} Op. cit., p. 168, n. 3.

^{page 403 note 7} References hereafter, unless otherwise stated, are to chapters in Book III.

^{page 405 note 1} Printed by Miller, Ely, p. 280. Cf. ibid., pp. 168–89.

^{page 405 note 2} See supra, Book III, ch. 48.

^{page 405 note 3} Ibid., ch. 54.

^{page 405 note 4} Some of the missing dates and many valuable comments have been supplied by Holtzmann, Papsturkunden in England, ii, 222–31, 233–37, 238–39, 241–45, 251–54, and a summary of the case is given in Saltman, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, pp. 146–48. Both authors differ in some details from this reconstruction.

^{page 405 note 5} See John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, ed. Poole, R. L. (1927), pp. xviii, xxiv.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 6} Ch. 108.

^{page 405 note 7} Ch. 104.

^{page 405 note 8} After the ‘ famous synod ’ which can be identified, with that mentioned by Henry of Huntingdon under 1151 (Papsturkunden in England, ii, 231).

^{page 406 note 1} Cf. cc. 103 and 104. The compiler's sequence is therefore to be preferred to the re-arrangement suggested by Holtzmann, who makes ch. 100 precede ch. 99 (op. cit., ii, 233–34).

^{page 406 note 2} The second letter mentioned in ch. 97.

^{page 406 note 3} Ch. 97.

^{page 406 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 406 note 5} Ch. 100.

^{page 406 note 6} According to Henry's claim reported in ch. 108.

^{page 406 note 7} Part of his complaint seems to have been that his charter had not been returned to him, and he later blamed the convent's representatives for its loss (ch. 103).

^{page 406 note 8} Ch. 97.

^{page 406 note 9} Ch. 108.

^{page 406 note 10} Ch. 97.

^{page 407 note 1} Ch. 100.

^{page 407 note 2} As Eugenius III later explained (ch. 104).

^{page 407 note 3} Ch. 104.

^{page 407 note 4} Cc. 103–04.

^{page 407 note 5} Ch. 104.

^{page 407 note 6} Ch. 108.

^{page 407 note 7} Ch. 109.

^{page 407 note 8} Cc. 109–11.

^{page 407 note 9} Pipe Roll 16 Henry II, pp. 1, 3, 13–14.

^{page 407 note 10} Pipe Rolls 16 Henry II, p. 95; 17 Henry II, pp. 115–17; 18 Henry II, pp. 115–17; 19 Henry II, pp. 161–62.

^{page 408 note 1} Cf. Cheney, C. R., ‘King John's Reaction to the Interdict in England’, Transactions of the Royal Hist. Soc., Fourth Series, xxxi, 129–50, especially p. 144Google Scholar.

^{page 407 note 2} Liber M, p. 84.

^{page 407 note 3} Cf. Graham, R., ‘The Administration of the Diocese of Ely during the Vacancies of the See, 1298–9, 1302–3’, Transactions of the Royal Hist. Soc., Fourth Series, xii, 49–74Google Scholar.

^{page 407 note 4} Liber M, p. 84, quoted supra.

^{page 407 note 5} Miller, Ely, p. 173.

^{page 407 note 6} See cc. 54, 56, 85, and for Longchamp's charter Ely, D. and C., Cart. no. 57.