^{page 1 note 1} I.e. Bixbrand, one of the manors of Bix in Oxfordshire.

^{page 12 note 1} Hamelrise or Hamble on Southampton Water.

^{page 13 note 1} This is quite illegible : probably it should be “ij° fo ”.

^{page 14 note 1} Perhaps for “pondere ”.

^{page 27 note 1} [ ] these words have been struck through.

^{page 27 note 2} en … Oxon, interlineated.

^{page 32 note 1} The reading is doubtful.

^{page 32 note 2} Or perhaps “mes Michel,” for Michaelmas.

^{page 35 note 1} There is a hole in the MS.

^{page 37 note 1} Probably an error for “loci ”.

^{page 39 note 1} “hyt ” afterwards erased.

^{page 46 note 1} Blank in original.

^{page 48 note 1} “Predicti filii mei; ” but only Thomas has so far been named.

^{page 49 note 1} The last three have been struck out and viij. li. xiij. s. iiij. d. substituted.

^{page 49 note 2} These have been struck out.

^{page 49 note 3} I.e. in Kent.

^{page 58 note 1} I.e. Domerham and Merton, now Damerham and Marten.

^{page 60 note 1} Hampton wrote “dayng ” with an otiose abbreviation mark at the end (as also appears in “ffyndyng ” and “Kyng ” lower down); he probably meant “derayne ”.

^{page 64 note 1} The first column ends here.

^{page 64 note 2} From this point the original has only “M.,” no doubt for Modbury.

^{page 65 note 1} The second column ends here.

^{page 76 note 1} The record of this action appears in Hilary Term 1466, in Placita de Banco, Roll, 818, m. 251: Devon. Johannes Frende per attornatum suum optulit se iiij^to die versus Ricardum Fortescu de Ermyngton in comitatu predicto, gentilman, Thomam Horne de Ermyngton in comitatu predicto, husbondman, Willelmum Screche nuper de Ermyngton in comitatu predicto, grome, et Johannem Saunder de Ermyngton in comitatu predicto, souter, de placito quare vi et armis in ipsum Johannem Frende apud Ermyngton insultum fecerunt et ipsum verberaverunt, vulneraverunt, imprisonaverunt et male tractaverunt, et ipsum ibidem sic in prisona contra legem et consuetudinem regni Regis Anglie diu detinuerunt, et alia enormia &c., ad grave dampnum &c, et contra pacem Regis &c. Et ipsi non venerunt, et preceptum fuit Vicecomiti quod attachiet eos &c. Et de prefato Ricardo mandat Vicecomes quod attachiatus est per plegia Johannis Lok et Ricardi Cok. Ideo ipsi in manu &c. Et distringatur quod sit hic a die Pasche in xv dies &c. Et de prefatis Thoma, Willelmo, et Johanne Saunder mandat Vicecomes quod nichil habent &c. Ideo capiantur quod sint hic ad prefatum terminum &c. Ad quem diem Vicecomes non misit breve. Ideo tam predictus Ricardus sicut prius distringatur, quam predicti alii defendentes capiantur quod sint hic in crastino Sancti Johannis Baptiste. There appears to be no entry in the Roll for Trinity Term, and the proceedings in the Common Pleas were presumably dropped.

^{page 79 note 1} diplois, a doublet or jack.

^{page 79 note 2} Radulphus, Coram Rege.

^{page 80 note 1} The words in brackets, which are missing in Chancery Misc., are supplied from the Roll.

^{page 80 note 2} Subsequenter, Chancery Misc. But the scribe seems to have been doubtful.

^{page 81 note 1} octavo, Coram Rege Roll. The scribe of Chancery Misc. first wrote “oc” and then erased it.

^{page 82 note 1} This seems to be an error for “xij ”.

^{page 82 note 2} This seems to be an error for “xij ”.

^{page 86 note 1} The original entry on the Roll ended here.

^{page 92 note 1} Entry erased.

^{page 92 note 2} Left blank.

^{page 95 note 1} For a lawsuit by his executors see Placita de Banco, 818, m. 41.

^{page 96 note 1} Apparently an error for “xviij ”.

^{page 99 note 1} The reading is doubtful, perhaps ultimo.

^{page 101 note 1} The total does not agree with the particulars ; possibly an item has been lost at the beginning.

^{page 102 note 1} Apparently some item has been omitted.

^{page 102 note 2} Clearly the first slip attached hereto.

^{page 111 note 1} These three words are only faintly legible, and so are bracketed.

^{page 115 note 1} grace, om. MS.

^{page 118 note 1} In the original my most is repeated.

^{page 120 note 1} Written above the line ; apparently the receipts for Shipton.

^{page 121 note 1} Probably meaning a writ of “Testatum Capias ” for execution by the sheriff.

^{page 122 note 1} Sic : meaning “yefe ” (= give).

^{page 132 note 1} wych, om. MS.

^{page 136 note 1} “entailled … generall ” has been inserted.

^{page 139 note 1} Omitted in MS.

^{page 144 note 1} Originally “frumenty or ” was written; “frumenty ” was struck out and “browes of capons ” inserted.

^{page 144 note 2} Originally “sode beeff and moton, pigge and vele ”.

^{page 144 note 3} Originally “venison, grene geesse &c.”

^{page 144 note 4} Originally “iiij li.”

^{page 146 note 1} I.e. fanon, a maniple.

^{page 151 note 1} ? Fingest, Bucks., near Stonor.

^{page 158 note 1} The MS. is defective.

^{page 158 note 2} Fauquembergue.

^{page 158 note 3} 21st July.

^{page 159 note 1} Guisnes.

^{page 160 note 1} In this monogram the lower part of the S forms the o, and Stonor is read by beginning at the top and then to the right, the centre coming in after t and n.

^{page 162 note 1} Jane Stonor claimed this wardship “wherof her said husband was possessed ”.

^{page 163 note 1} She also claimed: “to have for terme of her lyfe, by the wylle of her seyd husband, certain lande purchased by her said husbande in Horton to þe yerely value of xx. s., also to have seurtie of þe said William or þe full performyng of þe last wille of his said ffader ”. See Thomas Stonor's Will, No. 137.

^{page 163 note 1} Jane Stonor claimed: “to be satisfied for thexpenses of þe said William Stonore and of his servauntes at diverges tymes, coming to þe said Johane, and for thexpenses and wages of servauntes of husbandrie at Stonor payd by her sethen the decease of her seyd husband : also to have the embloyment of þe lande of her said husband sowen the tyme of his deceasse ”. William's claim included allowance “for greynes and catalles expended by þe said Johane after þe deceasse of her said husband “.

^{page 163 note 1} William Stonor claimed: “to be satisfied of xlvj. s. viij. d. of þe price of the wolle of cxl. shepe, late of þe said Thomas Stonor, his ffader, by þe said Johane sold: also of þe somme of … by þe said Johane received of thissues of þe … tenementes underwriten”. The claim is very imperfect, and only the item “of þe Manoir of Ryderfeld Pyperd xj. li.” now appears.

^{page 164 note 1} This part of William's claim is missing.

^{page 164 note 2} William claimed: “a sawter now in þe kepyng of þe said Johane, perteignyng to þe Chapell of Stonore ”.

^{page 164 note 3} “A blak boke conteigning thaccomptes and debtes due to þe said Thomas Stonor.”

^{page 164 note 4} “An obligacion of Makeney of þe somme of xl. li. made to the said Thomas, wherof xx. li. is yet due.” As to this see note on No. 190.

^{page 164 note 5} As claimed by William.