^{page vii note 1} For the final volumes of Dr. T. F. Tout's Chapters in the Administrative History of Mediœval England.

^{page vii note 2} Rymer, Fœdera, III (i), 489 § xiv, 515 § xiii.

^{page vii note 3} Sixteen carts were commissioned to take his luggage from London to Dover. Fœdera, III (1), 501Google Scholar. The Exchequer rarely used more than twenty when travelling between Westminster and York.

^{page viii note 1} In A History of the Revenues of the Kings of England, 1066–1399, II, pp. 232–3, Sir James H. Ramsay says that John's ransom “would not swell the Pell Receipts,” but “would be stowed away in some treasury, probably at the Tower.” That scarcely puts the case accurately, for though as it happened the first payment and another later payment were stored in the Tower with no record in the Receipt Roll, a record of the receipt and storage ought to have been made in the Receipt Roll, as we shall see.

^{page viii note 2} Fœdera, III (1), 533.

^{page ix note 1} Delachenal, R., Histoire de Charles V, II, pp. 325–31Google Scholar. As far as I know, this excellent short account is the only attempt yet made to discuss the payments in any detail. The original quittances, with some orders to collect and letters of assignment, are preserved in the Archives Nationales. Most of these were enrolled in the French Rolls of the English Chancery (now P.R.O. Treaty Rolls, Chancery enrolments), from which Rymer printed extracts in Fœdera, III (1) and (11) passim. For some reference to the various amounts paid, see SirRamsay, James H., Genesis of Lancaster, I, pp. 457–8Google Scholar, and A History of the Revenues of the Kings of England, 1066–1399, II, pp. 232–3, 249, 287–8Google Scholar. Sir James' statement in the former, that with the 107,000 crowns the payments of the ransom ended, is misleading in the light of the payments made later by Charles, and his further statement in the latter, that only 198,200 crowns of the second million were paid, is incorrect, because it ignores the payments made towards the second million by John, in the 93,000 crowns he paid in assignments. 198,200 crowns represent the amount of the second million paid by Charles to the Exchequer: the least total amount paid on the second million was, therefore, 291,200 crowns. Cf. pp. xiii, xxiv, below.

^{page xi note 1} Receipt Rolls, Michaelmas, 40 Edward III. See p. 35, below.

^{page xi note 2} Fœdera, III (11), 784–5.Google Scholar

^{page xi note 3} The order was to pay 100,000 crowns, 93,000 to complete the first million, and 7,000 crowns towards the first payment of the second million crowns. Delachenal, loc. cit., II, p. 327.

^{page xi note 4} I am inclined to believe that the fourteenth-century confusion on this point, like that of the twentieth century, was due to the close similarity of the 93,000 crowns assigned from the second million crowns, and the 93,800 crowns needed to complete the payment of the first million.

^{page xi note 5} Fœdera, III (11), 671, 678Google Scholar; Archives Nationales, J. 641, nos. 13¹, 11¹, and 12¹. Quittances for these amounts and for the 400 crowns assigned to Dormans on 8 December, 1362, were given to John by Adam of Bury for the 60,000 crowns (acte notarié) on 22 December, 1362 (Paris); by Chandos for the 30,000 crowns (acte notarié) on 16 March, 1363 (Thouars); by Audrehem for the 3,000 crowns (royals) on 24 July, 1363; by Dormans for the 400 crowns on 21 February, 1363 (Paris). Delachenal, M., loc. cit., II, 327Google Scholar, refers briefly to the bundles in which these assignments and quittances are preserved, giving only the dates of the letters of assignment and the dates of the quittances, namely, “Archives Nationales, J. 641, nos. 13 à 13¹⁰ (30 Juillet—22 Dec. 1362), nos. 11 à 11⁴ (6 Oct., 1362–24 Juillet 1363), nos. 18 à 18⁴ (8 Dec. 1362–21 Février 1363).” I am much indebted toM. Samaran of the Archives Nationales, who has most kindly verified these references for me (giving me number, date, and a summary of each quittance), and has also had made for me transcripts of the letters of assignment issued to Audrehem and on behalf of Dormans. These two letters have not been, as far as I can find, enrolled in the English Chancery Rolls, and I therefore print them below. I take this opportunity of expressing to M. Samaran my gratitude for his generous help.

^{page xiii note 1} Delachenal, , loc. cit., II, pp. 328–9.Google Scholar

^{page xii note 2} Fœdera, III (11), 826, 836.Google Scholar

^{page xiii note 1} Cf. John's payment of 93,000 crowns by assignment from the second million crowns, before he had fully paid the first million due.

^{page xiii note 2} Fœdera, III (11), 785Google Scholar; Receipt Rolls and Issue Rolls, Michaelmas term, 40 Edward III. See also p. 35, below.

^{page xiii note 3} Fœdera, III (11), 698, 718, 780, 787.Google Scholar

^{page xiv note 1} There was, therefore, a Treasury in the Tower as late as 1364. In 1339 “the Treasury of the Tower” was in the custody of the Exchequer, one of whose Chamberlains kept the keys. Its proximity to the Mint doubtless made the Tower a useful place of storage of specie. C.C.R., 1337–9, p. 291Google Scholar. For this reference I am indebted to Dr. Tout.

^{page xvi note 1} In spite of the deplorable effect upon the Exchange in the Tower of London, of the establishment at Calais of the Staple and Exchange in February and March, 1363, recoining still went on in the Tower. There, from time to time, part of the French ransoms was converted into English money, for which the Warden of the Tower Mint received due seignorage. Differences of opinion soon arose as to the respective value of English and French currency. As early as January 1361, Edward had appointed a commission to assay “all the money struck in the Tower of London and elsewhere within the King's realm and power,” because the French had complained of there being too much alloy in the English coins. Later, the French were obliged to make additional payments to Edward because in the process of reminting, the coin they had paid in ransom had proved worth less than it ought. C.P.R., 1358–61, p. 582Google Scholar; C.C.R., 1364–8, pp. 115, 235, 474, 508Google Scholar; E.H.R., XXXIX, p. 413Google Scholar; Unwin, Finance and Trade under Edward III, pp. 244–6, 334–6, 350.Google Scholar

The King's Exchange or Mint in the Tower had been reorganized under expert Florentine direction, Walter de' Bardi being “Master of the King's moneys in the Tower of London,” and John of Thorp Warden and accounting officer. For the coinage operations of this period, see Tables of Bullion coined under Edward I, II, III, compiled by Mr. C. G. Crump and Mr. C. Johnson, and published in the Numismatic Chronicle, Fourth Series, Vol. XIII (reprinted separately 1913). They summarize the information contained in the accounts of the Keepers of the London and Calais Exchanges, which up to 42 Edward III were enrolled on the Pipe Rolls and afterwards in the Foreign enrolments of the Exchequer. Being limited to a record of the amounts of bullion coined, they do not discuss the administrative problems involved. Particulars of the sources can be gathered from P.R.O. Lists and Indexes, XI, pp. 46, 59Google Scholar; and XXXV, pp. 132–3, 177, 181. The important period in the present connection is that of Thorp's keepership of the Tower Mint (17 June, 1360, to 24 September, 1375), and Brantingham's keepership of the Calais Mint (20 February, 1363, to 20 March, 1368). Bardi was Master under Thorp, from 5 March to 20 June, 1361, when he was replaced by Robert Portico, but he was back in office before n February, 1363. Fœdera, III (11), 620Google Scholar; C.C.R., 1360–4, p. 528Google Scholar. I have to thank Dr. Tout for the foregoing.

^{page xvii note 1} The Pope's letters stated that the money was to be paid to the King or his Chamber, but Chamber here means no more than the King's Treasury.

^{page xviii note 1} Fœdera, III (11), 643, 644, 647, 714, 776Google Scholar. Delachenal, loc. cit. For each instalment he paid in, Keteringham received a billa under the Exchequer seal. On the last payment these were exchanged for one acknowledging receipt of the whole 90,000 crowns, and on the authority of this he was given letters of acquittance under the great seal.

^{page xviii note 2} Exchequer Accounts E 101/27/39; Pipe Roll 206, m. 52d.

^{page xix note 1} Delachenal, , loc. cit., p., 325Google Scholar, “à nostre manoir de Wodestoke le darrein jour de Decembre.”

^{page xix note 2} Fœdera, III (1), 555.Google Scholar

^{page xix note 3} He was appointed 30 January, 1361, according to the indenture drawn up at his appointment. Exchequer Accounts E 101/28/10, m. 2.

^{page xix note 4} Chancery Rolls, Treaty Rolls, 44, m. 18. I have not found the letters issued to Chandos printed. I therefore include them among the documents I print below.

^{page xix note 5} Fœdera, III (11), 598.Google Scholar

^{page xx note 1} Archives Nationales, J. 641^17bis. For this reference I have to thank M. Samaran.

^{page xx note 2} Delachenal, , loc. cit., pp. 327–8Google Scholar; Sir J. H. Ramsay, Genesis of Lancaster, I., p. 458.

^{page xx note 3} Exchequer Accounts E 101/28/6, 10; Pipe Rolls, 206, m. 49d; 207, m. 41; Memoranda Rolls, K.R. 139, Breuia directa baronibus and Communia (Recorda), Michaelmas term; Receipt Rolls E 401/464, 465; Issue Rolls E 403/409. Some of these I print below.

^{page xx note 4} C.C.R., 1360–4, p. 448Google Scholar; Issue Roll E 403/409, 8 October (defaced). Malewaynand Eccleshall had died before this, but their executors acted in their stead.

^{page xxii note 1} English Historical Review, XXXIX, pp. 404–19.Google Scholar

^{page xxii note 2} C.C.R., 1364–8, pp. 114–25.Google Scholar

^{page xxiii note 1} See, for instance, Issue Rolls 41 Edward III, Michaelmas term, 3 March, 1367, where part of David Bruce's ransom is recorded as being handed over to the King's Chamber; and Receipt Rolls and Issues Rolls for this period, passim.

^{page xxiii note 2} Fœdera, III (11), 718.Google Scholar

^{page xxiii note 3} Receipt Rolls and Issue Rolls 38–43, Edward III, passim. Even after the inquiries, constant watchfulness was necessary if money was to be prevented from going to the Chamber without the Exchequer's having record of it. For example, it was not until May, 1369, that a sum paid into the King's Chamber by the Duke of Bourbon in the previous December, was entered in the rolls. Receipt Rolls and Issue Rolls 43 Edward III, 7 December, 1368, and 5 May, 1369.

^{page xxiv note 1} Delachenal, , loc. cit., II, p. 327.Google Scholar

^{page xxiv note 2} Above, p. xiii.

^{page xxiv note 3} Cf. Delachenal, , loc. cit., II, pp. 328–9.Google Scholar

^{page xxv note 1} Below, A. (v) (a).

^{page xxv note 2} E101/29/9.

^{page 1 note 1} Exchequer documents, in this reign, are dated according to the Exchequer year, which ran from Michaelmas to Michaelmas, so that, for instance, 35 Edward III is Michaelmas 1360 to Michaelmas 1361, from the Exchequer point of view.

^{page 1 note 2} For the convenience of printing, left-hand marginal notes have usually been placed in the right-hand margin.

^{page 1 note 3} Sic ms.

^{page 2 note 1} Sic ms.

^{page 2 note 2} The manuscript gives millesimo ccclx, but this is obviously wrong, and both Originalia Roll 123 (m.xxvj), and Treaty Roll 47 (Fœdera, III (ii), 721Google Scholar) give the correct date, 1361.

^{page 3 note 1} The manuscript gives Maij, but the Receipt Roll entry is under the date of 8 March.

^{page 3 note 2} 100,000 marks = £66,666 135. 4d. When the £123 were added to that sum the total would be £66,789 13s. 4d., and I do not understand from where the extra 9½d. in the Memoranda Roll calculation comes, unless it is in some way connected with the calculations referred to in the Issue Roll under 2 April, 1364; see the extract of that date printed on pp. 11, 12, below.

^{page 4 note 1} The manuscript reads Camerar', but that is clearly an error.

^{page 4 note 2} Sic ms.

^{page 4 note 3} Sic ras.

^{page 6 note 1} E401/461. To save space, the left-hand marginal headings and notes of the records have been omitted here. These are almost always the same for each entry; the usual formula being: Redempcio Regis Francie. Inde habet acquietanciam de magno sigillo. Sometimes Redempcio Regis Francie is written in a second time, and twice Inde habet acquietanciam is omitted. Again, when several entries have been extracted from one Receipt Roll or Issue Roll, a footnote reference to the specific document from which they have been taken has been made to the first extract only, and the date of each entry in modern form has been placed in the text.

^{page 7 note 1} E 401/464.

^{page 7 note 2} Issue Rolls, E 403/408, 10 July, 1361.

^{page 7 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 7 note 4} E 401/467.

^{page 7 note 5} Issue Rolls, E403/410, 21 July, 1362, part of a larger sum issued to John. Ibid, 14 July, 1362.

^{page 8 note 1} This sum was disbursed with a sum “received” on the same day from the 108,800 crowns: see below, B (II). 26 July, 1362.

^{page 8 note 2} E401/470.

^{page 8 note 3} E401/472.

^{page 8 note 4} Issue Rolls, E403/415, 12 May, 1363.

^{page 10 note 1} E401/475.

^{page 10 note 2} This receipt is bracketed with others for disbursement, as the marginal notes, given here, show.

^{page 10 note 3} Issue rolls, E403/417, 30 January, 1364.

^{page 10 note 4} Devon (Frederick), in Issues of the Exchequer, King Henry III to King Henry VI inclusive (London, 1837), pp. 181–2Google Scholar, printed a translation of these Receipt and Issue Rolls' entries for 2 April, 1364, but he made the per Rotulum Memorandorum Scaccarij de anno xxxixo inter Recorda de termino sancte Trinitatis (see * in the transcript) of the Receipt Rolls apply to the following 123li., instead of to the previous 29,981li. 8s., as it undoubtedly does; he gave the Receipt Rolls' total of the three items as 47,197li. 3s. 11d., which is the total in the rolls of all the Receipt transactions for that date, not merely of the money received from France; and he translated the Nee vuli idem rex (see * in the transcript) of the Issue Rolls, as the king is willing.

^{page 11 note 1} E401/477.

^{page 11 note 2} The Receipt Roll reads 4d., but the Issue Roll 3d., which is obviously the correct figure.

^{page 11 note 3} E403/418.

^{page 12 note 1} Sic ms.

^{page 12 note 2} Sic ms.

^{page 12 note 3} Ms. compot'.

^{page 12 note 4} See note 4, p. 10.

^{page 12 note 5} Translated in Devon, loc. cit., pp. 182–3.

^{page 12 note 6} E401/499.

^{page 12 note 7} Issue Rolls, E403/438, 14 June, 1369.

^{page 12 note 8} The manuscript gives s., but that must be a slip.

^{page 13 note 1} Exchequer L.T.R., Originalia Rolls, No. 121, m.xxxvij. The quittance quoted there is printed in Fœdera, III (II), 647Google Scholar from Treaty Roll No. 45, in which it was enrolled.

^{page 13 note 2} Sic ms.

^{page 13 note 3} Omitted from the K.R. roll, and inserted above the line in the L.T.R. roll.

^{page 14 note 1} The K.R. roll reads, wrongly, 2500 marcas.

^{page 14 note 2} Sic ms.

^{page 14 note 3} The K.R. roll reads predicto, the L.T.R. roll reads predicte.

^{page 15 note 1} The K.R. roll reads 7.000li, which is wrong.

^{page 16 note 1} The K.R. rolls reads ad recepta.

^{page 16 note 2} E401/467.

^{page 16 note 3} See note 1, p. 7.

^{page 16 note 4} Issue Rolls, E403/410, 14 June, 1362.

^{page 17 note 1} Issue Rolls, E403/410, 26 July, 1362—these disbursements also apply to the entry immediately above, with which this second entry is bracketed.

^{page 17 note 2} I have not succeeded in tracing on the Issue Rolls this first item, but it would be paid out in a number of sums.

^{page 17 note 3} E401/470.

^{page 17 note 4} E401/472.

^{page 17 note 5} This entry is bracketed with the receipt of 2944li. 1d. from Picard—see above, A (III) under this date.

^{page 18 note 1} Issue Rolls, E403/415, 3 June, 1363. This was a prest, which was repaid fully by 40 Edward III (1365–6); see Receipt Rolls and Issue Rolls, Michaelmas term 38 Edward III (1363–4) to Michaelmas term 40 Edward III (1365–6), 18 March and 22 October, 1364, and 12 May, 30 October, and 6 November, 1365.

^{page 18 note 2} Issue Rolls E403/415, 3 June, 1363.

^{page 18 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 18 note 4} For disbursement with the two ransoms' receipts of 15 April, and 3 June, 1363 are bracketed, 200li., and 33li. 6s. 8d. from London Customs and Subsidies.

^{page 18 note 5} E401/470.

^{page 18 note 6} The left-hand marginal note to this entry is: Inde habet billam sub sigillo officij. This phrase forms part of the note to the subsequent extracts in this group, in place of the phrase, Inde habet acquietanciam de magno sigillo.

^{page 18 note 7} E401/472.

^{page 19 note 1} E401/475.

^{page 19 note 2} E401/477.

^{page 20 note 1} Issue Rolls, E403/418, 6 June, 1364.

^{page 20 note 2} Ibid. 26 July, 1364, part of a larger sum.

^{page 20 note 3} This item is not cancelled, yet it was not counted among the receipts at the inquiry, and if it was actually paid, then 100li. too much were collected and paid in by Robert.

^{page 20 note 4} Issue Rolls, E403/418, 26 August, 1364.

^{page 20 note 5} E401/479.

^{page 21 note 1} In the left-hand margin only the phrase, Redempcio Regis Francie, occurs.

^{page 21 note 2} Issue Rolls, E403/421, 2 March, 1365.

^{page 21 note 3} E401/481.

^{page 21 note 4} There is no left-hand marginal note to this entry.

^{page 21 note 5} As note 1, above.

^{page 21 note 6} Bracketed with 10li. from the hanaper, for the Bishop of London.

^{page 21 note 7} Issue Rolls, E403/422, the sum paid to the bishop was 25/2.

^{page 22 note 1} E401/483.

^{page 22 note 2} Only the note, Redempcio Regis Francie, is written in the left-hand margin.

^{page 23 note *} Lined through.

^{page 24 note 1} Memoranda Rolls, K.R. 138, L.T.R. 134. Communia (Recorda).

^{page 24 note 2} Ibid. K.R. 137, L.T.R. 133. Communia (Recorda).

^{page 24 note 3} Issue Rolls, E403/403, 5 March, 1361, issues to William Farley.

^{page 25 note 1} Old style, 1361 new style.

^{page 26 note 1} This is the figure given by the manuscript, undoubtedly in error for 40,000.

^{page 27 note 1} See notes 1 and 2, p. 24 above.

^{page 30 note 1} Sic Ms.

^{page 31 note 1} The manuscript reads 13,266li. 13s. 4d., but that can only be a mistake made in copying.

^{page 31 note 2} E401/464.

^{page 32 note 1} I do not understand the meaning of this marginal note: possibly it has no connection with the entry, but was simply a note made by the clerk for his own use. The figures are lined through.

^{page 32 note 2} E401/465.

^{page 32 note 3} This note does not occur in E401/466, the only other survivor of the triplicate, and the figures are lined through.

^{page 32 note 4} Issue Rolls, E403/409, 8 October, 1361, for a record of the disbursement of this sum to Chandos.

^{page 35 note 1} E401/483.

^{page 35 note 2} See note 1, p. 7.

^{page 36 note 1} E401/489.

^{page 36 note 2} See note 1, p. 7. Instead of Redempcio Regis Francie, the one word Francia is used here.

^{page 36 note 3} E403/433.

^{page 37 note 1} E401/495.

^{page 37 note 2} The date of issue given in this entry differs slightly from the date of the Issue Roll record, as will be observed when the two are compared. See p. 7, note 1, and page 36, note 2.

^{page 37 note 3} E401/493.

^{page 37 note 4} See notes 1, p. 7, and 2, p. 36.

^{page 37 note 5} E403/434.

^{page 38 note 1} E401/495.

^{page 38 note 2} The left-hand marginal heading to this entry and the next is Francia. See Issue Rolls, E403/436 Michaelmas term, 43 Edward III, for issue to the Black Prince under this date. Cf. Devon, loc. cit. p. 192.

^{page 38 note 3} Ibid, 6 March, 1369.