^{page 25 note 1} Cf. Levett, A. E., ‘The financial organization of the manor’, Economic History Review, 1(1927),CrossRefGoogle Scholar reprinted in her Studies in manorial history(Oxford,1938); Denholm-Young, N., Seignorial administration in England (Oxford,1937), PP. 120–30.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 1} By Cunningham, W. in Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc, New Series, ix (1895), pp. 220–21.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 2} Saunders, H. W., An introduction to the obedientiary and manor rolls of Norwich cathedral priory (Norwich, 1930), made known the Norwich evidence, but travestied it. Denholm-Young, op. cit., pp. 128–30, is perfunctory.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 3} Saunders, op. cit., entirely misses this chronological progression; hence, the illusory contrast between the calculations recorded on manorial accounts and those recorded in the Register of Profits kept by the camera prioris.

^{page 26 note 4} Elmham account, 22 S[imon of]E[lmham, prior]. Cf. Taverham account, 22 SE: ‘Summa proficui hoc anno £12 5s. od.’ References to MSS., unless otherwise stated, are to MSS. in the custody of the dean and chapter of Norwich.

^{page 27 note 1} Dean and Chapter Library, Canterbury: Assisæ Scaccarii, no. I; cf.nos. 2–5, which preserve a similar record during the next ten years.

^{page 27 note 2} Ibid., no. 8.

^{page 28 note 1} Repairs did not contribute to profectus: e.g. account of Sandwich in Assisæ Scaccarii 18 (1263-64), ibid.

^{page 28 note 2} E.g. ‘Et sic est profectus £50 IIs. 3¾d. cum 42 summis frumenti remanentibus in grangia per estimacionem’; Great Chart account, 26–27 Ed. I, ibid.

^{page 28 note 3} E.g. ‘Ex omnibus hiis subtrahi debent £12 quas recepit de thesaurariis. Et sic est profectus …’; Assisæ Scaccarii, no. 8 (Caruca Bertone), ibid.

^{page 28 note 4} So it would seem from: ‘Inde subtrahi debent 40s. pro defectu stauri… Et sic est profectus de Denge…’; ibid.

^{page 28 note 5} Saunders, op. cit., recognizes the inclusion of grain liveries, but never considers money liveries, wrestling vainly instead with ‘total bailiffs’ receipts' (pp. 51, 55), or with receipts (excluding arrears) less expenses (including liveries of money) (p. 54), or ignoring money altogether, as in the hypothetical case on p. 51. All other considerations, such as inter–manorial liveries, are ignored.

^{page 29 note 1} Cf. Catton accounts, nos. 11, 12, with corresponding entries in Register of Profits (cited as RP). At Canterbury see, for example, Ass. Scacc, no. 20 (‘Haltone’).

^{page 29 note 2} Cartulary of Oseney Abbey, ed. Salter, H. E., vi (Oxford Hist. Soc, 1936), pp. 185–207. The Beaulieu (Faringdon) evidence printed (very inaccurately) by Denholm-Young, op. cit., pp. 173–76, agrees with Norwich and Canterbury.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 3} RP: entries for Plumstead (precentor's), 13, 14 H[enry of[akenham, prior].

^{page 29 note 4} Ibid., Taverham, 7 HL; Plumstead (prior's), 11 HL.

^{page 29 note 5} Ibid., 6, 12 HL.

^{page 29 note 6} Less obvious forms of subsidy were noticed: e.g. a note that no deduction had been made for manure supplied from Norwich; RP, Plumstead (prior's), 7, 8 HL.

^{page 29 note 7} Ibid., Gnatingtone, 12 HL. TRANS. 5TH S.–VOL. 12–C

^{page 30 note 1} Miss Levett's attempt to read off the profit of a manor from the money side of the account, though correctly based on money livery, would give absurd results for nearly all the important manors of Norwich cathedral priory, because (a) there were large supplies of produce to Norwich and (b) the accounts belong to the common type in which such liveries figure only in the grain-and-stock side of the account. Her method would work only if (a) there were no supplies to the household or (A) if the accounts belonged to the other common type, in which such supplies are treated as sales and entered on the money side of the account. Even so, it would have been judged too crude by thirteenth-century accountants.

^{page 30 note 2} Sedgeford account, 8 R[oger of] S[carning] (giving the profit of the manor, also); Eaton account, 8 RS (giving, exceptionally, profit of wainage alone).

^{page 30 note 3} The fact that the accounts for Gnatingtone, Plumstead (prior's) and Taverham for 8 RS record the profit of the manor alone, and that Gnatingtone accounts have only this figure until after 1272, may suggest that calculations of wainage were something of a novelty in the 1260's.

^{page 31 note 1} Profit Roll for 10–15 W[illiam of] K[irby, prior], cited as PR; Drawer 4.

^{page 31 note 2} Cunningham, loc. cit. Despite the different approach, there is a distinct affinity in spirit between this calculation and the fully developed Norwich system (after 1289).

^{page 31 note 3} There are rare cases in which a figure for wainage, instead of being the outcome of deduction, is the last deduction in a sum (otherwise normal) of which the outcome is a figure for profit from tithes: PR, Elmham, 13 WKj Elmham account, no. 7 (16 WK); RP, Martham (cellarer's) and Carton (commoner's), 9 HL. These cases may reflect the occasional use of some direct method of calculating wainage, but are more probably the result of a clerk's transposing the last two items of the sum.

^{page 31 note 4} Failure to grasp this fact is responsible for the deepening muddle in Saunders, op. cit., pp. 54–55. The near accuracy ofhis six exemplary sums for Martham, fiemsby and Hindringham in 1272 is readily explained: convenient values have been assigned to the liveries of wheat and ‘barley’ (recte malt). The values are said to be taken from ‘the prices shown in “corn sold”’, but no wheat or malt was, in fact, sold from any of the three manors in that year. The values used by the monks were probably those of the ‘consueta taxatio’ we hear of: 4s. a quarter for wheat, 3s. for malt. The comparison of Hemsby material on pp. 52-53 is pointless, because, inter alia, the RP section does not refer to the Hemsby acct. used, but to the next year.

^{page 32 note 1} Hence the discrepancies that are a problem ibid., p. 55, between, on the one hand, the deductions for rent, the court and ‘exitus manerii’ and, on the other hand, the receipt under these heads in manorial accounts.

^{page 32 note 2} Exceptionally, a deduction of income from the sale of sheep appears: PR, Eaton, 15 WK

^{page 32 note 3} Sedgeford account, 1 WK. A deduction ‘de stauro vendito’ appears, exceptionally, in Hemsby account, 1 WK and in PR, Grangie Monachorum, 10–11 WK. This anticipates a deduction made regularly after 1289.

^{page 32 note 4} Denholm-Young, op. cit., fails to distinguish between manor and wainage: e.g. the reference (p. 128) to both types of calculation as estimates of ‘farming–profits’. Saunders, op. cit., p. 55, describes wainage as ‘the gross profit on the manor’.

^{page 33 note 1} ‘de stauro vendito plusquam empto’; a straight calculation from the manorial account, sheep excluded

^{page 33 note 2} Hence, sometimes greater than the value of the clip (as in example below, Appendix) but often less: e.g. RP, Plumstead (prior), 14 HL; Sedgeford, 15 HL. If the clip were not reckoned towards proficuum, this item would comprise other proceeds and costs of sheep farming. It could be a loss either way: e.g. RP, Eaton, 9, 11 HL.

^{page 33 note 3} ‘de vaccis prout dimitti [or dimissi] potuerunt per patriam’; 2s. for each cow with calf, is. for a barren cow. Milking ewes might be included: e.g. RP, Sedgeford, 10 HL (96 ewes = 8 cows).

^{page 33 note 4} ‘de operibus captis ad sustentacionem wainagii et appreciatis in denariis’. The fanciful interpretation of this item in Saunders, op. cit., has an excuse in the common formula ‘de operibus captis et appreciatis ad sustentacionem wainagii’.

^{page 33 note 5} ‘de pratis et pasturis captis ad sustentacionem wainagii et appreciatis in denariis’. An alternative, ‘de pratis et pasturis appreciatis in denariis ad sustentacionem wainagii’, is an excuse for the misinterpretation ibid. There are numerous variants. The figure was more or less rounded and conventional, but not always unthinking: e.g. RP, Hemsby, 10 HL, where the figure of £5 IOs. 6d. (there had earlier been a standard deduction of £6 IOs. 2d., which is unusually un–rounded) has the note, ‘et non plus quia pasturant vij vaccas in estate pro denariis et vendunt ij s. herbagii hoc anno’. However, the reduced figure, though justified here by particular circumstances, established itself; it was still in use in 1340.

^{page 33 note 6} ‘de decimis dominicorum’; a very laborious estimate to make, calculated (apparently) from the issue recorded on the grain–and–stock side of a manorial account. The deduction was made only if tithe had not been paid.

^{page 34 note 1} The valuation was occasionally altered. In Henry of Lakenham's time a valuation of 12d. an acre was used once (7 HL) for the demesnes of Sedgeford and Gnatingtone, instead of their usual valuation of 8d.; there was a single change (downward) for the demesnes of Cressingham, Arminghall and Lakenham. Valuations were not always the same as those in current manorial extents: e.g., RP uses 3s. for Martham (prior's); 2s. IOd. is used in the extent of 4 HL, B[ritish] M[useum], Stowe MS. 936, fo. 37. But RP agrees with, e.g. Plumstead extent (earlier), ibid., fo. 36V.

^{page 34 note 2} RP: comparison not made 6 HL (Hindolveston, Newton), 7 HL (Eaton, Thornham), 8 HL (Eaton, Hindolveston); comparison made 7 HL (Newton), 9 HL (Eaton, Hindolveston), 10 HL (Elmham, Gateley, Monks Granges) and thereafter.

^{page 35 note 1} But they were not always valued at current sale prices; sometimes the cost of hired labour was the criterion. See RP, Lakenham, 11 HL, where winter works are valued at sale price, but autumn works above sale price; for the reasoning, see Newton account, 1 HL: ‘hoc anno appreciatur per verum valorem ij d., quia sic potuerunt homines conduci’, referring to autumn work. Cf. RP, Taverham, 14 HL: ‘de operibus nichil, quia capiunt bladum fere ad valorem operis.’

^{page 35 note 2} RP, Lakenham 6 HL; Scratby, Bawburgh, 7 HL.

^{page 35 note 3} PR, Hindolveston, Hindringham, Sedgeford, 13 WK. Earlier evidence shows that the problem had been bothering the calculators for some time.

^{page 36 note 1} First seen in RP, Eaton, 11 HL (fold and stock losses). First sign of concern in RP, Gnatingtone, two years earlier (note on minus rent). Conviction that something had to be done is common from 13 HL, but not invariable (see example in Appendix, below).

^{page 36 note 2} The most persistent attempts were for Elmham, one of the two properties the camera prioris had in this class: PR, 13, 14 WK; RP, 10, 11, HL and occasionally later. But the camera prioris made no attempt for Denham. For obedientiaries' estates see RP, Henley (sacrist), 6, 8, 9 HL; Attlebridge (almoner), Wicklewood (almoner), 8 HL; Catton (commoner), 9HL.

^{page 36 note 3} There was an enrolled record as well, as before. Several of the rolls survive from the years 7–20 HL; they appear to be the source of the Register's entries.

^{page 37 note 1} Catton account, no. 3 (for the commoner's rectory there, 1 WK); Henley (sacrist) account, IO - II WK (a simple case of proficuum=money livery plus et debet).

^{page 38 note 1} Except for three places, for which there is only a proficuum; they come into line in the next two years.

^{page 39 note 1} The changes (first year in brackets): Eaton (8d.) iod.; Gnatingtone (iod.) 8d.; Sedgeford (i2d.) 8d.; Taverham (iod.) 8d.; Thornham (i2d.) i8d. Eaton later reverted. Gateley later came into line: (6d.) I2d.

^{page 39 note 2} Valuations of produce are a notable exception; see below, pp. 43–44.

^{page 39 note 3} Taverham account, no. 27.

^{page 39 note 4} Holmes, G. A., The estates of the higher nobility in fourteenth–century England (Cambridge, 1957), App. 3, Table 5.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 1} E.g. Lakenham account, 39–40 Ed. Ill (chamberlain).

^{page 40 note 2} The yield of seed was still being calculated and not only for the demesnes of the camera prioris. In this matter, however, there had been a retreat from the extreme elaboration of Henry of Lakenham's day. Then (from 9 HL inclusive) the Register had recorded (for the demesnes of the camera prioris) yield by the grain and by the acre; under William of Claxton and later the monks were content to work out yield by the grain only.

^{page 40 note 3} Discussion will be confined to the camera prioris.

^{page 40 note 4} The clearest evidence is the occasional recording of a figure for wainage without one for the profit of the manor. Norwich examples come from the early stages: Eaton account, 8 RS; Catton account, no. 5 (9 WK); Monks Granges account, 9 WK. There are later examples elsewhere: e.g. Dean and Chapter Library, Canterbury, Meopham account, 7–8 Ed. II.

^{page 41 note 1} References to comparison with an extent are very rare at Norwich. Comparison is implicit in the following note on a profectus: ‘Et sic in dampno hoc anno £18’; Hindolveston account, 3–4 Ric. II. Cf. below, p. 42.

^{page 41 note 2} B.M., Stowe MS. 936.

^{page 41 note 3} Newton extent 4 WK: aggregate value of demesne, less than £17 (later additions would bring it over £19). Mean wainage 10–15 WK: over £24. Eaton extent 5 WK has two valuations of arable, one twice as high as the other. Aggregate value of demesne at higher valuation of arable: £11 8s. Iod. plus unvalued pasture. Mean wainage 10–13, I5 WK: over £16. Hindolveston extent (temp. WK): aggregate value of demesne, under £10. Mean wainage 10–13, 15 WK: over £12. But Plumstead extent (with additions to 1282): aggregate value of demesne, over £16. Mean wainage 10–13, 15 WK: over £I3.

^{page 42 note 1} Losses on wainage, quite commonly (on some manors) found by the new method, were rarely found by the old: e.g. only one case in PR 10–15 WK (Gateley, 12 WK).Christ Church, Canterbury, using the older Norwich method, occasionally found losses on wainage: e.g. Barksore accounts, 22–23 Ed. I, 30–31 Ed. I.

^{page 43 note 1} Of some £77 spent on acquiring land by Robert of Dunwich as magister celarii (working head of camera prioris) 8–16 W[illiam of] Cl[axton, prior— the bulk was spent at Newton; camera prioris account, no. 38 at end (defence of his conduct in office).

^{page 43 note 2} Wainage figures (before comparison with extent) since ₁ WC1. Thornham: minus £2 18s. 7¾d.; £1 7s. 8½d.; minus £3 14s. 4d.;£1 10s. 5d. Hindringham: £19 13s. 11d.; £3 15s. 10d.; £5 19s. 6d.; minus £4 13s. 2d.; minus £7 17s. 11¼d. Hindolveston: £10 10s. 6d.; minus £3 7s. id.; £18 os. 9¾d.; minus £2 3s. 7½d. (after special credits for bringing 40 acres of land back into cultivation); minus £5 8s. 4¾d.; £5 5s. 5¼d.; minus £17 3s. io¾d.

^{page 43 note 3} Thornham: firma £14 13s. 4d. (£13 6s. 8d. at first?); highest proficuum manerii 1–5 WC1 £9 18s. o½d. Hindringham: firma £45; proficuum manerii 1–5 WC1 £31 15s. 8d., £33 os. 8d., £35 12s. od., £36 14s. 7d., £46 3s. 4d. Hindolveston: firma £26 13s. 4d.; proficuum manerii 1–7 WC1 £20 10s. od., £14 8s. 7d., £37 12s. od., £21 6s. 2d., £22 13s. 11¾d., £27 5s. 10¼d., £7 15s. 2¼d. (mean profit £21 14s. 6d.). From RP.

^{page 44 note 1} Actual income (including curial and arrears): Hindolveston (8–13 WC1) £36 18s. 1½d., £23 6s. 8d., £23, £33 10s. od., £22 6s. 8d., £26 13s. 4d. (mean £27 12s. 5½d.); Hindringham (8–13 WC1) £47 13s. 6¾d., £50 5s. od., £53 12s. 6d., £30, £35 4s. od., £18 6s. 8d. (cf.firma alone, £45, £40, £41, £30, £15, £18 6s. 8d.); Thornham (8–15 WC1) £12 16s. 8d., £14 17s. 4d., £12 8s. 11d., £10, £8, £7 11s. od., £8 4s. id. From camera prioris account, no. 38.

^{page 45 note 1} Camera prioris account, no. 38.

^{page 45 note 2} Note, however, the effect of even small variations on Hemsby, which might send more than 200 quarters of wheat and more than 400 quarters of malt; or on Newton, which sent 510 quarters of malt in 13 WC1.

^{page 45 note 3} Denham account, 16 Ed. I.

^{page 45 note 4} Elmham account, 22 SE: wheat at 6s. 8d.

^{page 45 note 5} Camera prioris account, no. 12.

^{page 45 note 6} Ibid.

^{page 45 note 7} RP, which states the quantity wrongly as 58½ quarters.

^{page 45 note 8} E.g. a series of ‘et non plus quia’ comments on Wicklewood in RP, 10–12 HL, followed by an ‘et tantum quia’ in 14 HL, when much higher valuations were used.

^{page 45 note 9} After 1357, instead of a tendency towards under-valuation, there is a tendency towards optimistic valuation: the valuations are sometimes above the prices paid by the camera prioris. TRANS. 5TH S.–VOL. 12–D

^{page 46 note 1} For this comparison in use (circa 1282) see The Red Book of Worcester, ed. Hollings, M. (Worcestershire Hist. Soc, 1934–1950), pt. 2, p. 231 and elsewhere.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 2} Hindringham again provides a striking example: profectus 37–38 Ed. III, £16 2s. 3d.; 5–6 Ric. II, £26 8s. 4d. Demised at farm for –12 Ric. II, £34 18s. 6d.; 16–17 Ric.II, £30 3s.4d. (Hindringham accounts).

^{page 46 note 3} E.g. Hindolveston account, no. 52 (8-9 Ric. II). The monks of Canterbury cathedral priory calculated the profectus of their manors as late as 1427, though all the manors were then at farm; Bodl. Lib., Corpus MS. 256, fos. 88-9. (This was brought to my notice by Mr K. B. McFarlane.)

^{page 47 note 1} ‘… coment vos carues e voster estor se proue’ (Rule 22); Lamond, E., Walter of Henley's Husbandry (London, 1890), p. 140.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 2} Ibid., Rule 24; cf. Rules 4, 7.

^{page 47 note 3} Estimates of produce, as recommended in Rule 4 (ibid.), survive at Norwich from the priorates of Henry of Lakenham, William of Claxton and Simon Bozoun (Drawer 4); they are misinterpreted in Saunders, op. cit.

^{page 47 note 4} My assumption is that, if wainage were being calculated in addition to the profit of a manor, we should not find regular record of the latter without mention of the former.

^{page 47 note 5} Clare calculations in the early fourteenth century invite comparison with the fully developed Norwich system, but they have one feature that is not obvious at Norwich: the inclusion in the proficuum manerii of the value of the year's lambs (e.g. P.R.O., S.C. 6/1008/9).

^{page 47 note 6} Above, p–30, n. 2. Worcester (bishopric) practice might be considered yet another; above, p. 45, n. 1.

^{page 47 note 7} E.g. in Duchy of Lancaster valors of the late fourteenth century, where the problem is not approached through the liveries to the household.

^{page 47 note *} Deduction not made or other item not present before 1289.

^{page 47 note †} No exact equivalent before 1289.