^{page 142 note 1} Déprez, E., Études de diplomatique anglaise (1908).Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 1} F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, History of English Law, ii. 86–7, accept Brunner's thesis that the Anglo-Saxon charter was dispositive; Hazeltine in his preface to D. Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, pp. xiii–xiv, regards it as evidential; for later discussions, cf. Economic History Review, vi. 64, and the review of recent literature by de Boüard, A., Manuel de diplomatique (1948), ii.Google Scholar passim.

^{page 144 note 1} Year Book 21 & 22 Edward I (Rolls Series), p. 404; note the inclusion of fines in the remark.

^{page 144 note 2} Cf. Hazeltine, op. cit., p. xiii, n. 1.

^{page 144 note 3} Bracton, De Legibus, fo. 169 b.

^{page 145 note 1} V. H. Galbraith, ‘Monastic Foundation Charters’, Cambridge Historical Journal, iv. 205. As to witnesses ex post facto, see Sir Cyril Flower's Introduction to the Curia Regis Rolls (Selden Society), lxii. 281, and cf. the remarks of Brunel in Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, lxxi. 606–7.

^{page 145 note 2} Coke, Reports, x. 1.

^{page 145 note 3} Year Book 20 & 21 Edward I (Rolls Series), p. 184.

^{page 145 note 4} Ibid., pp. 456–8.

^{page 146 note 1} Year Book 30 & 31 Edward I (Rolls Series), p. 2.

^{page 146 note 2} In the second case the further point was made that the charter presumes that A was seised since the ancestor's death; that in itself would exclude A from bringing mort dancestor.

^{page 146 note 3} Year Book 30 & 31 Edward I (Rolls Series), p. 12.

^{page 146 note 4} Sir Cyril Flower first made this distinction: Selden Society, lxii. 358.

^{page 148 note 1} Year Book 20 & 21 Edward I (Rolls Series), p. 314.

^{page 148 note 2} Ibid., pp. 430–2.

^{page 148 note 3} Supra, p. 145, n. 4; the defendant professed to use the charter to abate the writ, not as a bar.

^{page 148 note 4} Year Book 20 & 21 Edward I (Rolls Series), p. 258: the judge held (but with obvious difficulty) that the father died seised, notwithstanding the charter.

^{page 149 note 1} The process had already begun in 1267 with the statute of Marlborough, c.9 (cf. my Legislation of Edward I, pp. 63 ff.). The need for a charter lay at the root of the qua waranto controversy, and was reinforced (though not in express terms) by De Donis.

^{page 149 note 2} Y.B. I Henry VI, Michs. no. 31; cf. Y.B. 22 Henry VI, Pasch. no. 32.

^{page 150 note 1} Year Book II Richard II (Ames Foundation), pp. 12–14, and my commentary, Ibid., pp. xliii–xlvi.

^{page 150 note 2} Year Book 30 & 31 Edward I (Rolls Series), p. 158.

^{page 150 note 3} Year Books of Edward II (Selden Society), vii. 9; xx. 122.

^{page 150 note 4} Ibid., vi. 154.

^{page 150 note 5} N. Denholm-Young, Seignorial Administration, p. 18.

^{page 150 note 6} Jacob, E. F. in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th series, x (1927), 27.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 7} 35 Edward I; cf. Dom Berlière, Revue Bénédictine, xxxviii. 288 ff.

^{page 151 note 1} Year Book 20 & 21 Edward I (Rolls Series), p. 66.