^{page xi note 1} Cal. Close Rolls, Edw. I., 1288–1296, p. 17; Cal. Pat. Rolls, Edw. I., 1281–1292, p. 318; Fœdera, I. part ii. p. 711.

^{page xi note 2} Cal. Close Rolls, Edw. I., 1279–1288, p. 395; Fœdera, I. part ii. p. 665.

^{page xii note 1} Fœdera, I. part ii. p. 715 ; Cal. Close Rolls, Edw. I., 1288–1296, p. 55.

^{page xiii note 1} Hengham was still described as a justice on 18 Jan., 1290, as was William de Saham; Solomon de Rochester was still a judge on 4 Jan. (Cal. Patent Rolls Edward I., 1281–1292, p. 395.) On 15 Jan., 1290, Lovetot, Brompton, Roger de Leicester, and Littlebury were the judges before whom Adam de Stratton was arraigned. (Ann. London, p. 98.) Stratton, like Weyland, had his fate settled before the fall of his colleagues.

^{page xiii note 2} Annales Londonienses, p. 97 ; Annals of Dunstable, p. 355–357; Bartholomew Cotton, Hist. Anglicana, pp. 171–173, 175–176, 180 ; T. Wykes, Chronicon, pp. 319–322; Annals of Waverley, p. 408 ; Annals of Bermondsey, p. 467; Flores Historiarum, iii. p. 70; Peekham Letters, iii. p. 968 (all in Rolls Series); Walter of Hemingburgh, Chronicon, ii. p. 16 (Eng. Hist. Soc).

^{page xiii note 3} Stubbs, Constitutional History, ii. p. 125; Pauli, Geschichte von England, iv. 50–51; Seeley, Life and Réign of Edward I., pp. 75 and 76. This latter account may be considered an evidence of the need for further investigation. It accepts without hesitation the case against the judges as ‘ fearful,’ but gives no more detailed crimes than ‘ the judges were corrupt, and for bribes would release the robber and the murderer.’

^{page xiv note 1} An example occurs in 541 b, m. 21, where the clerk's attention to the heated and triumphant reply of John de Cave to William de Saham leads him to set down the exact words: the accused has made a statement ‘ before you, the auditors, who have record and who represent the person of the King.’ He then falls once more into the third person. The extract is quoted on p. 44.

^{page xiv note 2} Liberate Roll, Michaelmas, 18 and 19 Edw. I., No. 55, m. 2.

^{page xv note 1} Liberate Roll, Michaelmas, 18 and 19 Edw. I., No. 55, m. 3.

^{page xv note 2} £10 acoording to Liberate Roll, Michaelmas, 19 and 20 Edw. I. No. 59, m. 1 : but only £5 according to Issue Roll (Pells), Michaelmas, 19 & 20 Edw. I., No. 51, m. 1.

^{page xv note 3} Liberate Roll, Michaelmas, 18 and 19 Edw. I., No. 55, m. 2.

^{page xv note 4} Ibid., 19 and 20 Edw. I., No. 59, m. 2.

^{page xx note 1} Cf. membrane 29, roll 541 b, dated quindene of Hilary in dorso and quindene of Purification in recto. Yet the assumption would be in many cases correct, as we know from internal evidence. In roll 541 b, for instance, m. 10 is dated Hilary 1291. On the dorso an entry acknowledges receipt of money from Roger de Leicester by Hugh de Gosebeke. This money we know was to be paid at Hilary, 1291 (m. 33). In dorso, therefore, as in recto, the date of m. 10 is Hilary 1291. This assumption, if invariably safe, would often help to determine dates. In 541 b, again, m. 4 is dated ‘ the morrow of All Souls and St. Andrew,’ without the addition of the year. An entry upon it records the non-appearance of Chertsey in the case of Reed v. Chertsey, and an order to the Bishop of Ely to produce him by fifteen days after Hilary. On membrane 3d his appearance is recorded, and if we may assume that 3d is the same date as 3, the appearance was in Hilary 1292. The year 1291, then, may be added to ‘ the morrow of All Souls ’ as the date of the order to the Bishop.

^{page xxi note 1} These terms are calculated according to Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History, p. 385.

^{page xxii note 1} The fact that no formal record on the rolls survives does not absolutely exclude the possibility of new appointments. Cf. Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia, Gasquet, vol. i., p. 185, where letters of protection to the Abbot of Shap. dated 26 Oct., 1466, are given. These, though of undoubted authenticity, were never entered in the patent roll for the year. It is rash to assume any negative from the silence or carelessness of a mediæval clerk.

^{page xxii note 2} Not dated.

^{page xxiii note 1} On this and the former occasion the commissioners were doubtless in or near Scotland, with the King, who was often in the border district during these years, intent upon the business of the Scottish succession. See, for Edward's constant sojourns in the north between 1290 and 1292, Gough, Itinerary of Edward I., ii., 73–76, 79–85, 93–104. Edward was away from London from April 1292 to April 1293.

^{page xxiii note 2} Chronicles of Edw. I. and Edw. II., Rolls Series, i. 97.

^{page xxv note 1} Liberate Roll, Michaelmas, 19 and 20 Edw. I., No. 59, m. 1.

^{page xxv note 2} Lib. Roll, Easter, 20 Edw. I., No. 61, m. 1.

^{page xxv note 3} Lib. Roll, Easter, 21 Edw. I., No. 65, m. 2.

^{page xxv note 4} Lib. Roll, Michaelmas, 19 and 20 Edw. I., No. 59, m. 1.

^{page xxv note 5} Lib. Roll, Michaelmas, 20 and 21 Edw. I., No. 63, m. 1.

^{page xxv note 6} Lib. Roll, Easter, 21 Edw. I., No. 65, m. 1.

^{page xxv note 7} Ibid. m. 2.

^{page xxv note 8} Lib. Roll, Michaelmas, 21 and 22 Edw. I., No. 64, m. 1.

^{page xxvi note 1} Liberate Rolls, Michaelmas, 18 and 19 Edw. I., No. 55, m. 3. He is described as ‘ clamator coram auditoribus nostris querelarum.’ Yet the commissioners were not appointed until the autumn of 1289. Why, then, ‘ the quindene of Hilary, 1289’ ? His salary for acting as crier before other tribunals was probably counted along with what he received for discharging this function for the special commission. Compare also Nicholas de Tickhill's term o office (supra, page xv).

^{page xxvi note 2} B. m. 27d.

^{page xxvi note 3} ‘ De transgressionibus et querelis coram vobis audiendis et terminandis post ultimam transfretacionem nostram usque adventum nostrum in partibus Anglie et non ultra, secundum formam vobis inde traditam, habetis intromittere.’ B. m. 19.

^{page xxvi note 4} A. m. 35.

^{page xxvii note 1} A. m. 22d. Thurtone v. Alevent.

^{page xxvii note 2} A. m. 38. Tannour v. Draper.

^{page xxvii note 3} A. m. 22d. Orfevre v. Louthis.

^{page xxvii note 4} This is a curiously unwarrantable extension of Edward I.'s anti-feudal policy. It shows a strange twist of mind to declare that, because a man possesses the franchise of return of writs, he is for that very reason minister of and responsible to the King. The quo warranto movement had ascertained exactly what franchises existed. Here we have an indication of a possible further step, the assumption that such franchises were not grants from the Crown, but privileges held strictly under its surveillance. There is, however, no evidence in the roll to suggest that this view was officially accepted by the commissioners.

^{page xxviii note 1} A. m. 22d. Thos. de la More v. John de Olivestede.

^{page xxviii note 2} A. m. 31. Robt. de Stafford v. Robt. le Blaunch.

^{page xxviii note 3} Cf. Wykes, p. 321. ‘ Non solum ministri qui regi familiarius adhæserunt, sed et forinseci, ut puta justitiarii Judæorum, justitiarii forestæ, forestarii tarn feodatarii quam temporales, et omnes qui de transgressione venationis oonvinci poterant, vicecomites et custodes maneriorum, quocumque titulo ballivorum fruebantur.’

^{page xxix note 1} There are useful biographies of most of these judges in Foss, Judges of England. His statements, however, are not always decisive. At times statements in the Judges of England are contradicted in its abridgment, the Biographia Juridica. Brompton's fine, e.g., appears in the former as 3,000, in the latter as 6,000 marks.

^{page xxix note 2} See article in the Dictionary of National Biography by Professor T. F. Tout.

^{page xxx note 1} See article in the Dictionary of National Biography by Mr. J. M. Rigg.

^{page xxx note 2} See Mr. Hubert Hall in the preface to the Red Book of the Exchequer, Vol. iii., pp. cccxv–cccxxx, and article in Dictionary of National Biography.

^{page xxxi note 1} Foss, Biographia Juridica.

^{page xxxi note 2} Flores Hist. vol. iii., pp. 82 and 83, Rolls Series.

^{page xxxii note 1} Cal. Pat. Rolls, Edw. I, 1281–1292, p. 421. Lovetot's pardon is copied on membrane 5 of Roll B.

^{page xxxii note 2} There is no life of Bray in the Dictionary of National Biography, and he is therefore dealt with here rather more fully than his colleagues.

^{page xxxii note 3} Cal. Pat. Rolls, Edw. I., 1272 1281, pp. 294 and 339.

^{page xxxiii note 1} Wykes, p. 321.

^{page xxxiii note 1} Cotton, p. 175–6.

^{page xxxiv note 1} Cotton, p. 176, ‘ Alii facti sunt exules, et alii, bonis omnibus denudati ac prosoripti, de divitibus facti sunt pauperes, alii facti sunt obprobrium vicinis suis valde et timor notis suis. Et qui videbant eos foras fugerunt: oblivioni dati sunt, nee est qui consoletur eos ex omnibus caris suis.’

^{page xxxiv note 2} Compare Hemingburgh, ii. 37 (Eng. Hist. Soc).

^{page xxxiv note 3} Hemingburgh, ii. 16 (Eng. Hist. Soc).

^{page xxxiv note 4} Flores Hist. iii. 70 (Rolls Series).

^{page xxxiv note 5} Wykes, 319–322 (Rolls Series).

^{page xxxiv note 6} B. Cotton, 171 (Rolls Series).

^{page xxxiv note 7} Annals of Dunstable, p. 355 (Rolls Series). Also Trivet, p. 16 (Eng. Hist. Soc.).

^{page xxxv note 1} Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, ii. 561–563.

^{page xxxvi note 1} B. m. 3. Case 6, p. 24. Compare Feet of Fines, 15 Edw. I., case 215, file 39, No. 117.

^{page xxxvii note 1} P. 173. Cf. also Wykes, p. 321 (Rolls Series).

^{page xxxvii note 2} Compare, however, the statement in the schedule printed on p. 39, that Hengham's fine was 8,000 marks and Saham's 2,000 marks. The table shows that the smaller fine was exacted to the uttermost, but that Hengham was never compelled to pay all that he had promised.

^{page xxxvii note 3} Receipt Rolls (Pells), Nos. 72, 73, 74, 76, 78, 80, 83, 84 (2 for each year, 18 to 21 Edward I.).

^{page xl note 1} B. m. 16. Case 8, pp. 27–40.

^{page xl note 2} B. m. 38.

^{page xl note 3} B. m. 25d. Case 2, pp. 5–11.

^{page xl note 4} B. m. 6. Case 10, pp. 49–51.

^{page xli note 1} Cf. Thos. de Goldington v. Nich. de Stapleton, B. m. 17 and 17d. Case 18, pp. 81–84.

^{page xli note 2} Cf. Guy de Stanham v. Will, de Sahara, B. m. 29d.

^{page xli note 3} Cf. Henry, son of Nicholas, v. S. de Rochester, B. m. 30d. Case 14, pp. 67–70.

^{page xli note 4} Cf. B. m. 10, 10d, 6d, etc.

^{page xli note 5} B. m. 39d. Case 11, pp. 51–53.

^{page xlii note 1} B. m. 33d.

^{page xlii note 2} Cf. also B. m. 5d, 11, 29, 30, 36d.

^{page xlv note 1} Compare, for instance, Hengham's extraordinary statement (printed on p. 35). According to him, ‘ breuia nunquam facta erant quousque capta esset inquisicio, set si clerici ignorabant de ponendo rectam datam, propter hoc non fuerunt breuia vitiosa ; quia in cancellaria et alibi in uno et eodem die unus clericus ponat unam datam et alius aliam.’

^{page xlvi note 1} It should be noted that the discovery of this extra membrane affects the numeration on pages xiv, xxxi, xxxii, xxxv, xxxix. The membrane is undated.