^{page 45 note 1} See Jenkinson, H., “Financial Records of the Reign of King John “ in Magna Carta Commemoration Essays, pp. 244Google Scholar ff.; MissMills, M. H., “Experiments in Exchequer Procedure (1200–1232)“ in Trans. R. Hist. Soc., Fourth Series, VIII. 151Google Scholar ff.; Powicke, F. M. in Cambridge Medieval History, VI. 225 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 45 note 2} Cf. Jenkinson, , op. cit., pp. 268Google Scholar ff.; Mills, , op. cit., pp. 153 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 46 note 1} The evidence has been examined by . DrTout, T. F. (Chapters in Mediæval Administrative History, I. 86–8)Google Scholar and again by . MrWhite, G. H. (Trans.R. Hist. Soc, Fourth Series, VIII. 64–72)Google Scholar. The former is dubious whether Nigel ever held the office of treasurer, while the latter concludes that he was treasurer for the first time under Stephen. The concurrence, however, of the Dialogus de Scaccario, the Red Book of the Exchequer, the Historia Eliensis and the Cluny charter of 1131 seems conclusive for Nigel's treasurership in the latter part of Henry I's reign, especially if it is admitted (a) that the Pipe Roll of 1130 is evidence of expert clerical supervision over the exchequer and (b) that the Constitutio Domus Regis is evidence of “a single dignified official treasurer.”

^{page 46 note 2} According to Newcourt (Repertorium, I. 130) and Neve, Le (Fasti (ed. Hardy, ), II. 371)Google Scholar, William of Ely died in 1223. Newcourt further states that he held the office of treasurer until his death. Both these statements are accepted by Hale, (Domesday of St. Paul's, p. lxii.)Google Scholar and by Stubbs, (Diceto, R. de, Opera, I. lxxxv.)Google Scholar. But the sole authority for William of Ely's death is Paris, Matthew (Chron. Maj., III. 74)Google Scholar, who notes it sub anno 1222 (followed in Flores Historiarum, II. 175): here he is called thesaurarius Anglie, but this does not imply that Matthew Paris believed him to have died in office. A glance at the list appended to Madox's History of the Exchequer would in any case have shown that another treasurer was in office early in Henry III's reign. It had been indicated also by Philipot, John (A Catalogue of the Lord Treasurers of England (1636), pp. 5 f.)Google Scholar that he had ceased to hold office before his death.

^{page 46 note 3} Stubbs, , Constitutional History (VI ed.), I. 468Google Scholar, 680, citing preface to Red Book of the Exchequer; Pearce, E. H., Monks of Westminster, p. 46Google Scholar. Cf. Hall, H., Red Book of the Exchequer, I. xxvGoogle Scholar n.

^{page 47 note 1} The authority is the deed of gift of Richard of Ely, printed below, Appendix I.

^{page 47 note 2} Hall, H., Red Book of the Exchequer, I. xxvGoogle Scholar. The only document known hitherto in which he is mentioned appears to be that cited by Madox, (op. cit., I. 215Google Scholar n (d)) from Matthew Hutton's extracts from St. Paul's Liber B., which, except for a fragment in the Bodleian (printed by Hale, , Domesday of St. Paul's, pp. 109 ff.)Google Scholar, has now disappeared. Hutton's extracts will be found in Harl. MS. 6956, the document in question being at fo. 84.

^{page 47 note 2} “Willelmus Anglicus frater Thesaurarii ” of this document must, I think, be identified with Willelmus Anglicus of the exchequer, a contemporary of William of Ely; see Appendix VI.

^{page 47 note 4} St. Paul's MS. A. 34/806.

^{page 47 note 5} Westminster Abbey Domesday, fo. 603b, 617b.

^{page 47 note 6} Harleian, charter 83. C. 21 (printed Monasticon, IV. 86, no. 26)Google Scholar; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on Various Collections, VII. 29Google Scholar (three instances); Cartularium Monasterii S. Iohannis Baptiste in Colecestria (Roxburghe Club), p. 88.

^{page 47 note 7} St. Paul's MS. W.D. 4 (Liber L.), fo. 57; Westminster Abbey MS. no. 16738; Cotton MS. Nero C. III, fo. 201; Cotton charter xiii. 18, no. 7. Cf. St. Paul's MS. A. 19/226 (date 1193–4) which is witnessed by bishop Richard and master Alard and William of Ely, canons of St. Paul's.

^{page 47 note 8} Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on Various Collections, VII. 29Google Scholar; Round, , Calendar Documents France, p. 428Google Scholar; St. Paul's MSS. A. 30/440, A. 40/1432, A. 41/1468 (printed Newcourt, Repertorium, II. 231 n.); Ely Cathedral Register M., fo. 159; Harleian, MS. no. 3697, fo. 39; Cartularium Monasterii S. Iohannis Baptiste in Colecestria, pp. 86Google Scholar, 90.

^{page 48 note 1} Westlake, H. F., Westminster, pp. 18Google Scholar f.; London County Council, Survey of London, XIII. 3Google Scholar: there are some mistakes in detail here.

^{page 48 note 2} Printed below, Appendix I.

^{page 48 note 3} St. Paul's MSS. A. 30/440. This is witnessed by William of Ely, treasurer of king Richard, and master Alard, canons of St. Paul's. In the deed of gift Alard signs as archdeacon of London.

^{page 48 note 4} Feet of Fines of Henry II and Richard I (Pipe Roll Soc), p. 21. The “Barones domini Regis“ who made the order governing the procedure to be adopted certainly included bishop Richard of London (p. 20): but, if we construe strictly the note which records the order and the placing in the treasury of the first foot of a fine written under the new procedure, we ought probably to conclude that the treasurer to whom the document was handed over was not one of these barons. The treasurer's name is not given, and it is not perhaps beyond dispute that the writer of the note meant to exclude the treasurer from the “baronibus inscriptis.”

^{page 48 note 5} Below, Appendix III.

^{page 48 note 6} As others of the bishop's clerks and chaplains were probably employed; below, p. 62.

^{page 48 note 7} Red Book of the Exchequer, pp. xxxviii f.: but some of the identifications here are uncertain.

^{page 49 note 1} Red Book of the Exchequer, p. 4.

^{page 49 note 2} This seems to be a legitimate deduction from the terms of his grant to Westminster Abbey (Appendix VIII); he would hardly have mentioned Henry II specifically if he had not been in his service.

^{page 49 note 3} As shown by this same grant.

^{page 49 note 4} English Historical Review, XLIII. 162.

^{page 49 note 5} Pipe Roll 23 Hen. II, p. 144.

^{page 49 note 6} Ibid., 6 Ric. I, p. 36.

^{page 49 note 7} Pipe Roll no. 44, m. 9; English Historical Review, XLIII. 162 n. Although I am not myself prepared to do so, it might be argued that the evidence points to the existence of two treasurers during the latter years of Richard I's reign.

^{page 50 note 1} Pipe Roll no. 56 (12 John), m. 18.

^{page 50 note 2} Below, p. 51.

^{page 50 note 3} Pipe Roll no. 56 (12 John), m. 18 and 18d.

^{page 50 note 4} Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, I. 193; Pipe Roll no. 60 (16 John), m. 1. No information is supplied by the roll for 17 John.

^{page 50 note 5} Pipe Roll no. 62 (2 Hen. III;, m. 7. Faukes seems to have become possessed of them irregularly, see , K.R. Memoranda Roll 3 Hen. III, p. 475Google Scholar: I cite the edition printed by Cooper, C. P. in the Proceedings of H.M. Commissioners on Public Records, June 1832–August 1833, pp. 287–97Google Scholar, 382–92, 455–80. The present reference to the original roll is E. 159/2.

^{page 50 note 6} Pipe Roll 14 Hen. III (Pipe Roll Soc), pp. 142 f. Subsequently the men of Essendon and Bayford held the manors at ferm for a time, see Pipe Roll 26 Hen. III (ed. Cannon, H. L.), p. 232Google Scholar. Cf. V. C. H. Hertford, III. 420.

^{page 50 note 7} Hence the regrant to Richard of Ely in 1195 can hardly be used as evidence of the date when he ceased to hold office as treasurer, as suggested by MrsStenton, in her introduction to Pipe Roll 6 Ric. I, pp. xxv fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 50 note 8} Rotuli Chartarum, p. 49.

^{page 51 note 1} de Houeden, R., Chronica, IV. 159Google Scholar, s.a. 1201.

^{page 51 note 2} Rotulus Cancellarii, 3 John, pp. 14f (also on Pipe Roll (no. 47), m. 16d). There is here perhaps a reference to the nominee of the dean and chapter, Hugh Murdrac, who had apparently been excommunicated before the office was offered to William of Ely (Howden, loc. cit.). This incident appears to have been overlooked by the biographers of archbishop Geoffrey.

^{page 51 note 3} Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, I. 48.

^{page 51 note 4} Ibid., 73b. For the value of the prebend see Taxatio Ecclesiaslica P. Nicholai, p. 53a; V. C. H. Bedford, III. 408.

^{page 51 note 5} Rotuli Chartarum, p. 183b.

^{page 51 note 6} Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 112. Here, as elsewhere (Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 36; Westminster Abbey MS. no. 17315), he is termed Willelmus Thesaurarius Lond[oniensis].

^{page 52 note 1} Wendover, , Flores Historiarum, III. 229Google Scholar; Adams, G. B., Political History, II. 414Google Scholar; Norgate, K., John Lackland, p. 136Google Scholar; Ramsay, , Angevin Empire, p. 434Google Scholar. Other chroniclers allege that a Geoffrey of Norwich was concerned in the conspiracy of 1212 and died in prison: this story doubtless derives from the same source as Wendover's tale (cf. de Coggeshall, R., Chronicon, p. 165Google Scholar; Annales Monastici, III. 34). There seems nothing to connect this man with the exchequer officer who served as justice of the Jews and who witnessed a charter of John's on 4 June, 1212 (Rot. Litt. Pat,, p. 38; Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 20b, 36b, 76, 89, 103b, 112b; Rot. de Oblatis, p. 425; Cole, Documents, p. 317Google Scholar; Rot. Chartarum, p. 187).

^{page 52 note 2} Complete Peerage (1929), VII. 133Google Scholar n.

^{page 52 note 3} Rot. Chartarum, p. 74b.

^{page 52 note 4} Rot. Litt. Claus., II. 42b; Historia Eliensis in Anglia Sacra, I. 635.

^{page 52 note 6} Hunter was unable to find him mentioned as a member of the court in any fine levied before 10 John, (Fines 1195–1214 (Record Commission), I. lxv.)Google Scholar. If, however, an imperfect transcript of a fine in a Chertsey cartulary can be trusted, he was among the barons of the exchequer before whom a fine was levied at Westminster ad Skaccarium in 4 John, (Chertsey Abbey Chartularies (Surrey Record Soc.), p. 112)Google Scholar. He appears on a still earlier occasion among the justices and barons who witness an agreement between Richard Basset and Laund Priory which, by comparison with a fine between the same parties, must, it would seem, have been executed at the Easter exchequer of 1201 (Sloane Charter XXXI. 4 (1), (2)). He is found as a witness to John's charters four times between April and November 1212 (Rotuli Chartarum, pp. 187, 189), but I can trace no earlier instance.

^{page 52 note 6} The surviving fines of Henry II suggest that Richard of Ely sat regularly in the curia regis in the latter part of that reign: English Historical Review, XII. 300 (c. 1170); Harl. MS. no. 3697, fo. 1326 (6 November, 1180); Hist. MSS. Commission, Report on MSS. of Duke of Rutland, IV.22 (10 10, 1181)Google Scholar; Feet of Fines Henry Hand Richard I (Pipe Roll Soc.), pp. 1–3 (1182–1189)Google Scholar; Cotton, , Ch. ii. 3 (British Museum Facsimiles, no. 63) (1 05, 1182)Google Scholar; Farrer, , Early Yorkshire Charters, II. 494 (16 10, 1182)Google Scholar; Douglas, , Feudal Documents from Bury St. Edmunds, pp. 185–8 (1182–1185, 27 04, 1186, 5 November, 1188)Google Scholar; Westminster Abbey Domesday, fo. 479 (23 April, 1183); Galba E. ii., fo. 71b (27 October, 1184, 23 and 30 October, 1188); Madox, , Formulare, p. 217, no. ccclviii. (31 05, 1185)Google Scholar; Cartulary of St. Frideswide's (Oxford Hist. Soc.), II. 156 (27 01, 1188)Google Scholar. See also Faustina B. ii., fo. 33b, for an agreement executed in the king's court recording the presence of Richard the treasurer among the justices at Westminster (1175–88): for a similar reference, dated at the Easter exchequer 1181, see Report on MSS. of Duke of Rutland, IV. 6; for one of 1186–9, “apud Westmonasterium coram iusticiariis regis et baronibus scaccarii,” see Add. MS. 28024, fo. 39; and for another of about the same date, see Wolley, Ch. I. 46 B. That he was sitting continuously in the curia regis at Westminster from 1190 onwards is clear from the printed feet of fines (op. cit., pp. 4 ff.); see also P.R.O., Ancient Deeds, L.S., no. 50, a grant made “in festo apostolorum Philippi et Iacobi in curia Domini Regis apud Westmonasterium anno Regni Regis Ricardi tercio.”

^{page 53 note 1} The following charters of Richard I show that bishop Richard was with the king in September, October and November 1189 and January and March 1190: Cal. Charter Rolls, I. 184, 324, II. 66, 328, III. 56, IV. 146, 266, V. 195, 434; Cal. Documents France, p. 385; Monasticon, IV. 365; Cotton. MS., Faustina A vii., fo. 81b, 82; Harleian charter 43 c. 29; Additional charter no. 16353. He was again with the king in April 1194: Cal. Charter Rolls, IV. III, V. 445; Foedera, I. 63; Munimenta Gildhallae Lond. (Rolls Series), II. 249. Practically no other opportunities presented themselves which would have permitted bishop Richard to be in attendance upon the king.

^{page 53 note 2} According to Swereford this change was made in the roll of 8 Richard I (Red Book of the Exchequer, p. 659). The pipe roll for this year has not survived, but there is no change in the chancellor's roll. The pipe roll of 9 Richard I does, however, contain a statement of the ferm of each county at the head of each account: see . MrsStehton's, Introduction to the printed roll, p. xxvGoogle Scholar. Swereford gives an impossible reason for the change, which he says he heard from William of Ely himself: cf. Poole, , Exchequer in the Twelfth Century, p. 130Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 1} Houeden, , Chronica, IV. 152Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 2} Mills, , op. tit., p. 156Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 3} Above, p. 48.

^{page 54 note 4} Maxwell-Lyte, , Book of Fees, pp. 70Google Scholar, 73, 78, etc. Cf. Red Book of the Exchequer, II. 469.

^{page 54 note 5} Red Book of the Exchequer, I. 5.

^{page 54 note 6} Curia Regis Rolls, II. 299 (Trinity term 1203): there is no question that the original reads “rotulos magni scaccarii.”

^{page 55 note 1} Curia Regis Rolls, III. 248 (Hilary term 1205).

^{page 55 note 2} Ibid., III. 86 (Hilary term 1204). For an earlier search for a foot of a fine, see ibid., I. 208 (Trinity 1200).

^{page 55 note 3} As indicated by Pipe Roll no. 61 (17 John): cf. Mills, , op. cit., pp. 161–3Google Scholar.

^{page 55 note 4} Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 217, 219–21b, 225, 225b: Rot. de Finibus, pp. 557–9. 562.

^{page 55 note 5} Ibid., 227b.

^{page 55 note 6} Ibid., 224.

^{page 56 note 1} The two and a half years from Easter 1215 to Michaelmas 1217 were recognized as the period of war in respect of which no account could be, at least in the majority of cases, demanded by the exchequer. Perhaps the best evidence is afforded by the Memoranda Roll 3 Hen. III, pp. 384, 388, 459, 465, 468, 476–8. For the pipe rolls, see Mills, loc. cit.

^{page 56 note 2} From the evidence of the close rolls it would appear that such writs were issued continuously until October 1216 (Rot. Lift. Claus., I. 225, 234, 240–1, 244–8, 247, 251–2, 254, 257–62, 265–7, 271, 275–6, 279, 284, 287, 289, 291): a few are noted in the close roll in 1217 commencing in January (ibid., I. 295, 298, 300, 308, 319, 329). Cf. Turner, G. J., “Minority of Henry III” in Transactions R. Hist. Soc., New Series, XVIII. 285Google Scholar, and Powicke, F. M. in Cambridge Medieval History, VI. 250Google Scholar f.

^{page 56 note 3} Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 330 (14 10, 1217)Google Scholar.

^{page 56 note 4} For an account of his career see my forthcoming article in the English Historical Review on “Letters of the Legate Guala.”

^{page 56 note 5} Annales Monastici, III. 51; Histoire… des Rois d'Angleterre, pp. 171, 197. His election is attested also by the St. Paul's document cited, p. 57, n. 7 below. It was, of course, irregular and was disregarded by the legate.

^{page 56 note 6} Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, I. 137.

^{page 57 note 1} Annales Londonienses, s.a. 1215, in Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II (Rolls Series), I. 17.

^{page 57 note 2} For these changes, see Liber de Antiquis Legibus, p. 4.

^{page 57 note 3} As one of the Twenty-four, the mayor of London presumably did homage with the barons (Rot. Lift. Pat., p. 143b). The precise date when Serle was replaced by Hardel is not known, but apparently after Michaelmas when the new sheriffs came into office.

^{page 57 note 4} This fact appears to be recorded solely in the Merton Annals (PetitDutaillis, , Étude sur la Vie et le Règne de Louis VIII, p. 514)Google Scholar. Cf. Liber de Antiquis Legibus, p. 202.

^{page 57 note 5} Cf. Annales Monastici (Waverley, ), II. 287Google Scholar: “ Lodovicus… iterum a Londoniensibus homagia recepit.”

^{page 57 note 6} Iacobus Aldermannus tunc Maior Londoniarum, Willelmus Blundus et Benedictus Campanarius tunc Vicecomites Londoniarum (St. Paul's MS. A. 16/159).

^{page 57 note 7} Ibid., no. 160. This document ends: Et hanc sentenciam fecit Geruasius tunc Decanus, presentibus executoribus dicti testamenti, Willelmo de Hely Thesaurario, Reginaldo et Roberto capellanis eiusdem ecclesie, in capitulo Sancti Pauli, presente choro.

^{page 58 note 1} In the treaty of peace he was therefore required to deliver to the king “rotulos de scacario, cartas iudeorum et cartas factas de libertatibus tempore regis Iohannis … et omnia alia scripta de scacario que habet” (Durand, Martène et, Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum, I. 857)Google Scholar. It should be noted that the barons and Louis appointed sheriffs for the areas under their control, and Louis seems to have collected the regular revenue so far as he was able (K. R. Memoranda Roll, 2 Hen. III (E. 159/1), m. 3; L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 2–3 Hen. III (E. 368/1), m. 4d).

^{page 58 note 2} Louis, however, according to the continuator of William of Newburgh, had ransacked the treasury at Westminster, (Chronicles of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I (Rolls Series), II. 523)Google Scholar.

^{page 58 note 3} On this question as a whole, see the article in the English Historical Review cited above, p. 56, n. 4.

^{page 58 note 4} He seems first to be mentioned on 4 November (Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 340). It is not quite certain how soon the exchequer reopened. . MrTurner, G. J. believes that it was after Martinmas (Minority of Henry III, p. 287Google Scholar; see also Mills, , op. cit., pp. 161–2)Google Scholar: but instructions had already been given for payments for writs to be made at All Saints (Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 325) and, as noted above (p. 56), payments out of the exchequer had been authorized on 14 October. The fact that the Adventus Vicecomitum was fixed for the morrow of Martinmas (L. T. R. Memoranda Roll, 2–3 Hen. III (E. 368/1), m. 4) shows that the officers of the exchequer were at work well before that date.

^{page 59 note 1} The evidence for his employment from the beginning of John's reign is ample: Hunter, , Fines, p. lxivGoogle Scholar; Curia Regis Rolls, I. 385, III. 7, 334, V. 120; Rot. Cartarum, pp. 86, 93; Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 16, 32, 77. But there appears to be a gap in the available information between 1214, when he is clearly with the king (Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 207–10, 213), and 1217 when he appears as treasurer. We must assume that he remained faithful.

^{page 59 note 2} Elected 25 February, 122L.

^{page 59 note 3} Red Book of the Exchequer, I. 3 ff. It is to be noted also that Swereford barely mentions Eustace of Fauconberg's successor, Walter Mauclerc, bishop of Carlisle, under whom he was writing.

^{page 59 note 4} Appendix VIII.

^{page 60 note 1} Westminster Abbey Domesday, fo. 347. Since this deed is witnessed by Ralf de Neville, elect of Chichester, it may be dated between I November, 1222, when the king assented to his election, and 21 April, 1224, when he was consecrated.

^{page 60 note 2} London County Council, Survey of London, XIII. 4, where there are abstracted three deeds from Cartæ Antiquæ Roll (C. 52) no. 34/3, 5, 6.

^{page 60 note 3} Appendix IX.

^{page 60 note 4} St. Paul's MS. W.D. I, fo. xxii a. The grantor is described as Willelmus Domini Regis Thesaurarius and the grantee as Agnes de Ely filia Willelmi. The witnesses are omitted from the transcript and the deed cannot be precisely dated.

^{page 60 note 5} Two actions relating to Caddington brought by William of Ely, the treasurer, in Trinity and Michaelmas terms 1200, must relate to the prebendal manor (Curia Regis Rolls, I. 231, 351, 360). He is concerned in another action relating to Caddington in 1206 (ibid., IV. 154, 275).

^{page 60 note 6} For Herbert le Poer as fermor of these manors see Domesday of St. Paul's (Camden Soc.), pp. 12, 110 f.

^{page 61 note 1} Domesday of St. Paul's, pp. 2, 3, 6, 8, 12.

^{page 61 note 2} He held them in 1222 (ibid., pp. 1, 7). His death is noticed by Paris, Matthew (Chron. Maj., III. 74)Google Scholar, who did not obtain the information from Roger of Wendover (Flores Historiarum (ed. Coxe, ), V. 229)Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 3} Dugdale, , History of St. Paul's (ed. Ellis, ), pp. 310Google Scholar, 317.

^{page 61 note 4} Appendix VII.

^{page 61 note 5} Rotuli Hugonis de Welles (Canterbury and York Soc), I. 153.

^{page 62 note 1} After he became treasurer he bought a messuage at Enedhithe (the later Endive) (Westminster Abbey Domesday, fo. 342): this may be the stable mentioned in Appendix VIII.

^{page 62 note 2} “Specula que est iuxta fluuium Thamensem” (Dialogus, p. 59). It does not, however, seem possible to establish whether or not Richard of Ely had acquired this property by 23 Henry II.

^{page 62 note 3} John of Stortford: see below, p. 81.

^{page 62 note 4} Louis of Rockingham: see below, p. 84. It may be noted that the three exchequer officers in charge of treasure sent to Normandy on one occasion in 1199 were Elyas serviens thesaurarii, Alexander clericus Iohannis de Wika and Ricardus filius Terrici serviens Roberti Malduit: on another occasion the third was Iohannes homo Garini filii Geroldi (Rot. de Oblatis, p. 72). John of Wyke appears to have been an usher of the exchequer: see below, p. 84. Warin fitz Gerald was, of course, chamberlain of the exchequer.

^{page 63 note 1} Appendices II, VIII.

^{page 63 note 2} Appendix VI.

^{page 63 note 3} Ibid. V.

^{page 63 note 4} The numerous deeds relating to this Westminster property of the Mauduits are entered in the Beauchamp cartulary. Additional MS. no. 28024, fo. 46b–48a.

^{page 63 note 5} Ibid., fo. 48a. One of the witnesses is Geoffrey, clerk of Hubert Walter, and it is probable therefore that the latter was not yet dean of York, an office he obtained in 1186. Two other deeds of William Mauduit's, which cannot of course be later than 1195, have some witnesses in common with that mentioned above, but again no exchequer officers witness either of them (ibid., fo. 46b, 47b).

^{page 63 note 6} Appendix VI.

^{page 64 note 1} Westminster Abbey Domesday, fo. 629. The eight are Henry Foliot, John fitz William, Thomas of Chemillé, William de Castello, John of Stortford, Robert of Bassingbourn, Alexander, Louis: it is doubtful whether the description “clerici de Scaccario” which follows applies to all the eight. A few details may be given of those who are not dealt with in the notes in the Appendix. “Petrus homo Henrici Foliot ” is described in 1207 as one of the “servientes thesaurarii et camerariorum” (Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 87), and this seems to imply that Henry Foliot held office in the exchequer. In 1219 money is delivered to Henry Foliot wherewith to acquit the king's expenditure at Wallingford (ibid., p. 391): at the same period he is acting as attorney in the exchequer of the Jews (Cole, , Documents illustrative of English history in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, pp. 289Google Scholar, 302, 310, 319). John fitz William is one of the companions of Peter of Ely when transporting treasure in 1204 (Rot. de Liberate, p. 100). Robert of Bassingbourn is described as a clerk of the exchequer in November 1220 (Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 441) and he appears with a group of clerks, who seem all to be exchequer clerks, in 1208 (ibid., 112).

^{page 64 note 2} Appendix V.

^{page 64 note 3} Fusor or le Fundur: Appendix VIII; Westminster Abbey MSS. nos. 17314, 17372, 17374.

^{page 64 note 4} Harleian charters 50 A. 32, 51 C. 47.

^{page 64 note 5} Appendix IV; Additional MS. no. 28024, fo. 45–46b.

^{page 64 note 6} Appendices II, III, VI.

^{page 64 note 7} Besides William of Avenay and Norman Burel mentioned in Appendix IV, and Robert of Claygate in Appendix VI, we may find Richard fitz Terric (Additional MS. no. 28024, fo. 45, 46: above p. 62, n. 4) and Geoffrey of Claygate (ibid., fo. 46a: Rot. de Liberate, pp. 37, 62, 101; Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 36, 37).

^{page 65 note 1} Not all, however, found accommodation so near. Alexander Swereford, for example, held of the abbot of Westminster a house between Ludgate and Fleet Bridge (Westminster Abbey Domesday, fo. 561).

^{page 65 note 2} As, for example, Richard the melter (Pipe Roll 7 Ric. I, p. 210; Appendix V); and compare the bargain made by Andrew of the Exchequer with Joia the widow of William the melter who lived at Winchester (Pipe Roll 4 Ric. I, p. 299; Appendix IV).

^{page 65 note 3} St. Paul's MS. A. 33/769. This is a quitclaim which was executed at the exchequer: I have printed it in the Law Quarterly Review, XLVIII. 422–3.

^{page 65 note 4} Appendix IV.

^{page 65 note 5} Additional MS. no. 28024, fo. 22, 27, 51b, 52; Northants Record Society, Facsimiles of Early Charters, nos. VIII and X. With the palæo-graphical aspect of the surviving original deeds I hope to deal elsewhere.

^{page 66 note 1} Curia Regis Rolls, III. 183, 233, 301, IV. 53.

^{page 66 note 2} Ibid., IV. 215.

^{page 66 note 3} Ibid., I. 277, 303, 337, 475, IV. 274, V. 9, 91.

^{page 66 note 4} Ibid., II. 139, 175.

^{page 66 note 5} Ibid., I. 87, 179, 188, II. 161, 292, 310, III. 7, 32, 50–2.

^{page 66 note 6} Below, pp. 70, 84.

^{page 66 note 7} Curia Regis Rolls, I. 237, 240.

^{page 66 note 8} Ibid., II. 248.

^{page 66 note 9} Ibid., 41. Note that he is given as an alternative to Martin the Clerk mentioned below.

^{page 67 note 1} Curia Regis Rolls, III. 311.

^{page 67 note 2} Ibid., I. 25, III. 87, IV. 255, 313.

^{page 67 note 3} Ibid., II. 103, 229, 248, III. 41, 43, 238, 305, IV. 97: for other Alexanders, see below, p. 88.

^{page 67 note 4} Rot. Curiœ Regis, II. 115, 182; Curia Regis Rolls, I. 129, 140, 364, II. 41, 119, IV. 252; Earliest Lincolnshire Assize Rolls, pp. 211, 218, 261; Earliest Northamptonshire Assize Rolls, pp. xxvii, 106, 141. In treating these passages as referring all to Martin of Pattishall, an identity is assumed which is not perhaps unchallengeable: another contemporary Martin the Clerk is known who became sheriff of Middlesex.

^{page 67 note 5} Rot. Curies Regis, I. 35, II. 44, 106, 148; Curia Regis Rolls, I. 218, 290, III. 62, 290, V. 280, 291, 300, 317, 326.

^{page 68 note 1} Pipe Roll 18 Hen. II, p. 84.

^{page 68 note 2} Ibid., 22 Hen. II, p. 12.

^{page 69 note 1} Pipe Roll 23 Hen. II, p. 175.

^{page 69 note 2} Ibid., p. 198.

^{page 69 note 3} Ibid., 24 Hen. II, p. III.

^{page 69 note 4} Ibid., p. 128.

^{page 69 note 5} Dialogus de Scaccario (Oxford Ed.), pp. 62–3.

^{page 69 note 6} Round, J. H., Introduction to Pipe Roll 33 Hen. II, p. xxiGoogle Scholar n.

^{page 70 note 1} Pipe Roll 18 Hen. II, p. 84; 19 Hen, II, p. 51; 20 Hen. II, p. 134; 22 Hen. II, p. 12; 24 Hen. II, p. III.

^{page 70 note 2} Ibid., 20 Hen. II, p. 133; 21 Hen. II, p. 198.

^{page 70 note 3} Ibid., 19 Hen. II, pp. 53, 54; 20 Hen. II, pp. 133, 135; 21 Hen. II, pp. 16, 198, 200; 23 Hen. II, pp. 175, 198; 24 Hen. II, pp. III, 128; 25 Hen. II, p. 106; 26 Hen. II, p. 137. On one occasion he has no title, but there is no question of his identity: Pipe Roll 22 Hen. II, p. 12.

^{page 70 note 4} Eyton, Itinerary of Henry II, pp. 183, 184; Tout, , Chapters in Mediœval Administrative History, I. 116Google Scholar.

^{page 70 note 5} For two instances where cam' undoubtedly represents the oblique cases of camerarius and where this word stands for a chamberlain of the exchequer, see Pipe Roll 7 Hen. II, p. 26; 13 Hen. II, p. 194.

^{page 70 note 6} Dialogus de Scaccario, Introduction, p. 22. The editors seem to have been misled by supposing that Madox had cited the names of all those engaged in supervising the transit of treasure.

^{page 70 note 7} Above, p. 66.

^{page 70 note 8} Pipe Roll 20 Hen. II, p. 135: he appears to be identical with Radulfus clericus de Scaccario of the Pipe Roll of the preceding year (p. 71) and also with Randulfus of 1177 (above, p. 69).

^{page 70 note 9} Chapters in Medicœeval Administrative History, I. 116. It is here stated that in the pipe roll of 1165 (p. 39) “we find Radulfus clericus acting with Geoffrey Monk in receiving moneys into the chamber.” Actually they received £9 3s. 6d. “ad negotia regis,” which is not the same thing.

^{page 71 note 1} Pipe Roll 16 Hen. II, p. 26.

^{page 71 note 2} Ibid., 23 Hen. II, pp. 175, 198; 24, Hen. II, pp. m, 128; 26 Hen. II, p. 137. Cf. Pipe Roll 27 Hen. II, p. 129. Richard could not have been the weigher or miles argentarius of the Dialogus, as the editors suggest (p. 22). It is just possible that he may have been the treasurer's clerk: below, p. 78. The weigher was, in fact, Gervase of Windsor or “de Thesauro” who is mentioned in the pipe roll of 1156 (pp. 55, 59, 60) and frequently thereafter (cf. Round, , “The Weigher of the Exchequer,” in English Historical Review, XXVI. 724 ff.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar The office appears to have been granted, or rather confirmed, to him very early in Henry II's reign (see Coker, J., Survey of Dorsetshire (1732), p. 15)Google Scholar. By 1192 he was succeeded by Thomas of Windsor (Pipe Roll 4 Ric. I, p. 298).

^{page 71 note 3} Ibid., 19 Hen. II, p. 54; 23 Hen. II, p. 175.

^{page 71 note 4} Ibid., 20 Hen. II, p. 135; 21 Hen. II, p. 200.

^{page 71 note 5} Haskins, , Norman Institutions, p. 180Google Scholar; Tout, loc. cit. But he is not in the entry cited called homo camere nor even homo camerariorum, a description that applies to William Picot and Hugh fitz Hervey who accompanied him on this occasion. It should further be noted that he did not, as Tout states, travel with Ralf the chamberlain's clerk; for while the latter was in charge of treasure transported in the esnecca, Walter of Coutances and his companions travelled on a different day in a ship hired from Robert of Bayonne (Pipe Roll 20 Hen. II, p. 135).

^{page 71 note 6} Delisle, , Actes de Henri II, Introduction, p. 108Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 7} Pipe Roll 14 Hen. II, p. 7; 17 Hen. II, pp. 40, 55, 148; 18 Hen. II, pp. 48, 84; 19 Hen. II, pp. 51, 183; 21 Hen. II, p. 198; 22 Hen. II, pp. 12, 47; 24 Hen. II, p. 128. A connexion with William Mauduit is suggested by his presence at Hanslope (below, p. 73). A Richard of Falaise, also one of the chamberlains’ sergeants (Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 4, 6b, 16, 20, 63b), is found at Hanslope witnessing a deed of Robert Mauduit's in 1219 (Additional MS. no. 28024, fo. 26b). It is tempting to identify Eudes of Falaise with Odo filius Vitalis, who is found in 1180 farming the prévôté of Falaise (Stapleton, , Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniae, I. 50)Google Scholar.

^{page 72 note 1} Pipe Roll 18 Hen. II, p. 84; 19 Hen. II, p. 51; 22 Hen. II, pp. 12, 47. His name indicates his connexion with the fitz Geralds (below, p. 73).

^{page 72 note 2} Ibid., 20 Hen. II, pp. 133, 134; and see below, p. 84.

^{page 72 note 3} Ibid., 16 Hen. II, p. 126; 20 Hen. II, pp. 133, 135.

^{page 72 note 4} Ibid., 20 Hen. II, p. 134.

^{page 72 note 5} Ibid., p. 135.

^{page 72 note 6} Auen’, Henry de who accompanied Walter of Coutances (Pipe Roll 21 Hen. II, p. 200)Google Scholar and Eude Pil' who accompanied de Barentin, Alexander (Pipe Roll 24 Hen. II, p. 112)Google Scholar. Adam of “Ykebuef” who is found in charge of the treasure of the young king, (Pipe Roll 22 Hen. II, p. 200)Google Scholar was a member of his household (cf. Round, , Cal. Documents France, pp. 8Google Scholar, 118, 378). The position of the cambitores concerned with the great recoinage of 1180 was, of course, quite exceptional (Pipe Roll 27 Hen. II, pp. 156–7: and see below, p. 74, n. 5).

^{page 72 note 7} The earliest occasion upon which three names are given is in the pipe roll of 1174 (p. 133), where however there is added “et alios seruientes de thesauro”: for a similar entry see Pipe Roll 22 Hen. II, p. 12. Three men only are named in Pipe Roll 23 Hen. II, pp. 175, 198; 24 Hen. II, p. 128: in Pipe Roll 27 Hen. II, p. 129, three clerks are found transporting the king's gold. Two of the chamberlains’ men accompanied Walter of Coutances in 1174, but this case is not perhaps strictly relevant (Pipe Roll 20 Hen. II., p. 135).

^{page 72 note 8} Dialogus de Scaccario, p. 62; above, p. 69.

^{page 73 note 1} Rot. de Liberate, Rot. Litt. Claus. I, passim. Actually we can be sure that this was the rule from 1199, but it should be noted that Elias, sergeant of the treasurer, is one of the three on one occasion in this year (Rot. de Oblatis, p. 72). Peter of Ely, another of the treasurer's sergeants, is constantly engaged in this employment from 1201 onwards (below, p. 89). In 1205 on an exceptional occasion (Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 20) five men are mentioned as being in charge of a convoy of treasure: two of these, Thomas de Camera (see Tout, , Chapters in Mediœval Administrative History, I. 161)Google Scholar and John fitz Hugh (see Foss, , Judges, II. 60–2)Google Scholar, were not connected with the receipt of the exchequer. Four men are mentioned in 1208 (Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 1146), and in 1212 two (ibid., I. 116b, 117, 118) or even one only (ibid., I. 120b).

^{page 73 note 2} Pipe Roll 2 Hen. II, p. 52.

^{page 73 note 3} Ibid., 14 Hen. II, p. 7. With this should be compared the entry under Buckinghamshire in the roll of 1171 (p. 55): Et in conductu hugie de thesauro per Odonem de Falesia; and see also Pipe Roll 18 Hen. II, p. 48. Both entries seem to signify a stay at Hanslope.

^{page 73 note 4} Itinerary of Henry II, p. 107 n.

^{page 73 note 5} Pipe Roll 2 Hen II, p. 35; Red Book Exchequer, p. 355. Cf. ibid., p. 664; Book of Fees, pp. 341, 737. These are the authorities referred to by Round, , Commune of London, p. 83Google Scholar.

^{page 74 note 1} Hanslope was acquired by William Mauduit, together with the hand of Matilda daughter of Michael of Hanslope, then dead, about 1131 (Add. MS. no. 28024, fo. 21: Fairer, Itinerary of Henry I, no. 661). It was confirmed to him by duke Henry in 1153 (Add. MS. no. 28024, fo. 21b: Round, , Commune, p. 82)Google Scholar, and it passed to William Mauduit III not later than 1158 (Add. MS. no. 28024, fo. 22: Eyton, , Itinerary of Henry II, p. 34)Google Scholar. This William is called “camerarius de Hameslepe” in 1185 (Rotuli de Dominabus (1913), p. 43).

^{page 74 note 2} The charter of 1153 reads: “reddidi eidem camerariam mei thesauri”, and not as Round quoted it.

^{page 74 note 3} Eyton, , op. cit., p. 107Google Scholar n., citing Liber Niger Scaccarii, p. 352: the version in the Red Book (p. 811) gives him two sumpter horses only.

^{page 74 note 4} Pipe Roll 7 Hen. II, p. 26: Et pro j.runcino ad portandum thesaurum regis xxvij. s. per Henricum filium Geroldi camerarium.

^{page 74 note 5} Ibid., 6 Hen. II, p. 47; 13 Hen. II, pp. 193–4. I do not mention in the text the journeys, apparently in the autumn of 1180, made by John Cumin and William Mauduit, for these were obviously exceptional, and the “treasure” on these occasions seems undoubtedly to have been the new coinage: Pipe Roll 26 Hen. II, pp. 60, 82, 137; 27 Hen. II, pp. 67–8.

^{page 74 note 6} Ibid., 7 Hen. II, p. 28.

^{page 74 note 7} Ibid., 19 Hen. II, p. 54. This Robert Mauduit was presumably William Mauduit's brother, as to whom see Northants Record Soc., Facsimiles of Early Charters, p. 90Google Scholar: for a charter of Richard regis filius in which he is mentioned, apparently after his death, see Add. MS. no. 28024, fo. 28b. He is himself occasionally called chamberlain (Eyton, , Itinerary of Henry II, pp. 193, 218)Google Scholar.

^{page 75 note 1} Pipe Roll 24 Hen. II, p. 112. For his office see Madox, , Formulate, pp. 47Google Scholar (no. 86), 295 (no. 508).

^{page 75 note 2} Ibid., 30 Hen. II, p. 80.

^{page 75 note 3} For what appear to be similar instances under Richard I, see Pipe Roll 2 Ric. I, p. 131; 6 Ric. I, p. 176.

^{page 75 note 4} Ibid., 27 Hen. II, p. 129.

^{page 75 note 5} See following quotation.

^{page 75 note 6} Pipe Roll 28 Hen. II, p. 139.

^{page 75 note 7} Ibid., 29 Hen. II, p. 147.

^{page 75 note 8} Ibid., p. 148. Camerar' is here extended as camerarii.

^{page 75 note 9} Ibid., 30 Hen. II, p. 80. There is a similar entry at p. 92.

^{page 75 note 10} Ibid., p. 138: the word “thesaurarii” is interlined.

^{page 76 note 1} Pipe Roll 30 Hen. II, p. 87.

^{page 76 note 2} Ibid., 32 Hen. II, p. 49.

^{page 76 note 3} Ibid., 33 Hen. II, p. 203.

^{page 76 note 4} Ibid., 1 Ric. I, p. 206.

^{page 76 note 5} Ibid., p. 223.

^{page 76 note 6} As Round suggested, Pipe Roll 33 Hen. II, Introduction, p. xxi n. Cf. Dialogus, p. 62: “qui et camerarii dicuntur quia pro camerariis ministrant”.

^{page 77 note 1} Cf. Tout, , Chapters in Mediœoeval Administrative History, I. 146Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 2} Pipe Roll 5 Hen. II, p. 45.

^{page 77 note 3} Ibid., 13 Hen. II, pp. 193–4.

^{page 77 note 4} Ibid., 19 Hen. II, p. 54.

^{page 77 note 5} Ibid., 29 Hen. II, p. 148.

^{page 77 note 6} Ibid., p. 149. This and the previous entry refer to occasions on which a ship was employed other than the esnecca, the normal crew of which was probably considered adequate in most cases.

^{page 77 note 7} Numbers are not always given. Cf. Pipe Roll 30 Hen. II, p. 87, where an unspecified number of hired sergeants accompany on two occasions the clerks of the treasurer and chamberlains. On another occasion an unspecified number of strenui naute are engaged (Pipe Roll 31 Hen. II, p. 216).

^{page 78 note 1} Cf. Stenton, F. M., First Century of English Feudalism, pp. 142Google Scholar ff.

^{page 78 note 2} John of Waltham appears to be the first mentioned by name in the pipe roll of 1190; the treasurer's clerk first mentioned as being in charge of treasure in transit appears to be Hugh of Winchester in the roll of 1195: see below, p. 80.

^{page 78 note 3} He is probably to be identified with the canon of St. Paul's who appears early in Richard of Ely's episcopate (Cart. Mon. S. Iohannis Baptiste in Colecestria, I. 88; Nero C. Ill, fo. 201; Westminster Abbey Domesday, fo. 603b). He is mentioned in the pipe roll of 1178 (p. 128) as accompanying Eudes of Falaise and the clerk Andrew who were attached to the chamberlains, but in the same roll (p. iii) he is included with Andrew among the servientes thesauri. I am inclined to doubt whether at this time the treasurer had a clerk of his own whose duty it was to accompany treasure in transit: in the roll of 1176 (p. 12) where Waleran of Cricklade, Eudes of Falaise and Andrew are mentioned together, we probably have a reference to a journey undertaken by three men all of whom were certainly attached to the chamberlains. Before 1174 it seems usual for treasure to be in charge of a single officer of the treasury, usually Eudes of Falaise, but sometimes Andrew or Baldwin (see references above, pp. 70–1): only on three occasions does more than one officer seem to be mentioned (Pipe Roll 16 Hen. II, p. 16; 18 Hen. II, p. 84; 19 Hen. II, p. 51). Even in 1174 and 1175 we find Andrew and Ralf, both clerks of the chamberlains, mentioned singly as being solely in charge of treasure (Pipe Roll 20 Hen. II, p. 135; 21 Hen. II, pp. 16, 200). All this is in harmony with our other evidence pointing to the special responsibility of the chamberlains for the treasure.

^{page 79 note 1} Faustina A. III ends witnesses here and omits date.

^{page 80 note 1} Richard of Ely was elected bishop of London on 15 September, 1189, and consecrated on 31 December following. Since we do not know whether he reckoned his pontificate from his election or consecration, the limits of date of this charter cannot be placed nearer than 15 September, 1195–30 December, 1196. Among the witnesses the following call for remark. Hugh of Winchester “clericus thesaurarii” is found in Pipe Roll 7 Ric. I, p. 205, and John of Waltham “clericus thesaurarii” in Pipe Roll 2 Ric. I, p. 8. The next witness may be “Willelmus de Hadfeld' clericus Huberti Cantuarensis archiepiscopi”(Chancellor's Roll 8 Ric. I, p. 290: cf. Pipe Roll 6 Ric. I, p. 176). Thomas of Chemillé is included among the “clerici de scaccario” in a deed entered in Westminster Abbey Domesday, fo. 629 (see above, p. 64, n. 1), and appears among a group of exchequer clerks in 1208 in Rot. hilt. Claus., I. 112: for other references to him see Rot. de Liberate, p. 52, Rot. Lift. Pat., pp. 47, 49, 60, 78. Robert of Barneville was Richard of Ely's nephew, see Hist. MSS. Commn., Ninth Report, App. p. 33 (no. 440)Google Scholar, Report on Various Collections, vii. 29. Albinus is probably the computator of other documents. Appendix V. and Westminster Abbey Domesday, fo. 352. Roger Enganet later acquired a messuage from William of Ely situate either in this or adjoining property (Hardy, and Page, , Calendar to Feet of Fines for London and Middlesex, I. 214Google Scholar; Chancellor's Roll 3 John, p. 105).

^{page 81 note 1} No less than six of the witnesses to this document attest Appendix I also: this cannot therefore be much later in date and the abbot must be William Postard (1191–1200). The first witness, master Ernulph, is termed elsewhere “frater abbatis” (Westminster Abbey Domesday, fo. 352). Thomas of Newgate and John of Stortford will be found in Appendix III writing the pipe and chancellor's rolls in 1197. John of Stortford is presumably identical with the chaplain of that name who witnesses a charter of bishop Richard's on 21 March, 1195 (Monasticon, IV. 82, no. 7). William de Castello appears as a clerk of the exchequer under John, and Henry, III (Rot. de Liberate, p. 62Google Scholar; Rot. Lift. Claus., I. 98, 112, 116, 368, 441): he lived in the “vicus de Westmuster” the later King Street (Westminster Abbey MS. no. 17315). The fact that the treasurer has a private chaplain should be noted.

^{page 82 note 1} The entry on the chancellor's roll ends here: see Chancellor's Roll 8 Ric. I (Pipe Roll Soc), p. 164.

^{page 82 note 2} Cu^rce.

^{page 83 note 1} The pipe roll of 8 Richard I is lost. The entry of this fine on the chancellor's roll is incomplete. The original fine, which has survived in a mutilated state, presents some interesting variants (printed Hunter, , Fines, I. 157–8Google Scholar, and Feet of Fines 7 and 8 Ric. I (Pipe Roll Soc), pp. 145–7). It will be noted that the fine was entered on the great roll of the exchequer a week after it had been levied in the curia regis. The composition of the court on each occasion should be remarked: Hugh Bardulf, only, appears to be present on both occasions.

^{page 83 note 2} The copy of the deed in the Beauchamp cartulary (Add. MS. no. 28024) is from Robert Mauduit's counterpart.

^{page 83 note 3} The abbot of this grant must be William Postard (1191–1200): abbot Walter was his immediate predecessor. Simon of Pattishall who attests after William of Ely is the well-known justice. John of Wyke appears to have acted as usher of the exchequer in 1195–6 (Chancellor's Roll 8 Ric. I, p. 290: cf. Madox, , History of the Exchequer, II. 274)Google Scholar. Andrew of the Exchequer had recently bought the rights of William the melter during the minority of his heirs (Pipe Roll 4 Ric. I, p. 299). Thomas of Windsor was the weigher (above, p. 71, n. 2). William of Avenay is found in charge of treasure in transit from 1199 onwards (Rot. de Oblatis, p. 72; Rot. de Liberate, pp. 24, 61, 101) and Norman Burel in like employment in 1205 (ibid., p. 126). John son of William son.of Robert may perhaps be John fitz William the exchequer clerk (above, p. 64, n. 1). Roger Enganet and Albinus we have met as witnesses to Appendices I and II. Louis of Rockingham is in some ways the most interesting of the witnesses. He was undoubtedly an exchequer clerk (Westminster Abbey Domesday, fo. 629: above, p. 64, n. 1) and was employed like others in transporting treasure under John: he seems to be last mentioned in this connexion in 1207 (Rot. de Liberate, pp. 96, 107; Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 74, 88) although he was apparently still employed in the exchequer in April 1208 (ibid., p. 112) and was living under Henry III (Add. MS. no. 28024, fo 21b). He seems to have been regularly employed by Robert and Isabel Mauduit to write their deeds (above, p. 65). One deed has survived (Westminster Abbey Charter no. 17108) which he wrote for someone apparently unconnected with the Mauduit household.

^{page 85 note 1} Edward the reeve witnessed two Westminster deeds of William Mauduit III (Additional MS. no. 28024, f0. 46b, 47b) which cannot therefore be later than 1195, by which year he was succeeded by Robert Mauduit. Nine of those who attest this deed we have already met in Appendices I, II, IV. The present document is doubtless of about the same date as those, while the presence of Gervase scriptor suggests a date not later than 1197. Gervase was the writer of the great roll of the exchequer, as we learn from grants of the land he owned near the castle of Munfichet in London (Hist. MSS. Commn., Ninth Report, App. p.15Google Scholar (nos. 1349,1359); Cal. Docts. France, pp. 152–3). He is mentioned in the pipe roll of 1191 and previous years (Pipe Roll 3 and 4 Ric, pp. 112, 314; 2 Ric, p. 112; 1 Rid, p. 187). He has been identified on the one hand with the chancellor's clerk of the early years of Henry II and on the other with Gervase chaplain of Westminster who survived into the thirteenth century: see Stubb's Introduction to Gervase of Canterbury, pp. xxxix–xli. That Gervase scriptor was also called Gervase the chaplain is certain, but these identifications are conjectural, and Appendix III shows that two other clerks were writing the great roll in 1197. Jocelin Marshal who attests after William of Ely was a person of some importance in the exchequer. He appears to be the ‘Magister Iocelinus de Scaccario’ who witnesses a deed of Henry Marshal bishop of Exeter which can be dated 1194–8 (Westminster Abbey MS. no. 17312). He is included among the king's justices in 1201 (Chancellor's Roll 3 John, p. 14). He was a clerk of William Marshal's (ibid., pp. 37, 107) and Madox was doubtless right in seeing in him the marshal of the exchequer (Hist. Exchequer, II. 284): but he is magister and a beneficed clerk (Rot. Lift. Claus., 1.112, 189) and not miles as the marescallus scaccarii had been under Henry II (Dialogus de Scaccario, pp. 69, 71, 72). Master Jocelin seems frequently to have been engaged as attorney in the curia regis (Curia Regis Rolls, I. 277, 303, 337, 475, IV. 274, V. 9, 91), on one occasion for the earl Marshal (ibid., IV. 215). On other occasions he is found conveying the orders of the justiciar in connexion with the business of the court (ibid., II. 139, 175). With other officers of the exchequer he witnesses John's charters in 1213 (Rot. Chartarum, p. 189), and—if we may identify him with Jocelin of the Exchequer—he was dead by August 1216 (Rot. Lilt. Pat., p. 193). There is a reference to the “ executores testamenti Magistri Iocelini Mariscalli “ in 1219 (L.T.R. Mem. Roll 2—3 Hen. Ill (E. 368/1), m. 3d). Adam the bishop's nephew is doubtless the Adam Nepos R. Episcopi Wintoniensis who witnessed the purchase by William of Ely of a messuage at Enedhithe (Westminster Abbey Domesday, fo. 3426), and this suggests that Adam also was connected with the exchequer, for his uncle was Richard of Ilchester. He is also called Adam de Westmonasterio films Henrici (Additional MS. no. 28024, f°- 466, 48a). The presence should be remarked of three tellers and a melter, besides Andrew of the Exchequer who held a melter's office. For Ricardus Fusor see Pipe Roll 7 Ric. I, p. 210.

^{page 87 note 1} The seal remains with the inscription S.WILL' LE ANGLEIS DECHECOER. This William seems identifiable with Willelmus Anglicus, a sergeant of the exchequer, who is found transporting treasure in the early years of John (Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 12, 13, 16, 46, 59, 60, 63, 88; Rot. de Liberate, pp. 96, 107), and also with Willelmus Anglicus frater Thesaurarii mentioned in 1184 (above, p. 47, n. 2), who is possibly the Willelmus Anglicus who accompanied William de Bendenges to Normandy in 1179–80 (Pipe Roll 26 Hen. II, p. 148). The last mention of him seems to be in 1207, when he may be presumed to have died. The name, of course, was a common one: a contemporary was keeper of the king's wines (Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 44, 57, 69, 138), and a little later we find a carpenter of the same name (ibid., 178–9, 347, 356, 358, 368, 370).

^{page 87 note 2} When Robert of Moulsham was prior is not precisely known, but he was precentor 1197–8 and prior apparently under abbot Arundel (1200–14): see Pearce, E. H., Monks of Westminster, p. 46Google Scholar. Three of the witnesses attest also Appendix II, and it is probable that the present deed is not much later in date.

^{page 88 note 1} From his position among other exchequer officers, it is probable that Alexander the clerk was employed there, but it is impossible to identify him. He is probably the Alexander Clericus who acts as attorney in the curia regis in the early years of John's reign (Curia Regis Rolls, II. 103, 229, 248, III. 41, 43, 238, 305, IV. 97). He might be Swereford, but there was more than one exchequer clerk called Alexander, e.g. Sawbridgeworth and, probably, Refham, (Rot. Lift. Claus., I. 112Google Scholar, 441). Louis the clerk is doubtless Louis of Rockingham (see Appendix IV). Odo aurifaber, who is a frequent witness in Westminster Abbey deeds, is the well-known keeper of the works at Westminster: he owned property adjoining William of Ely's house (London County Council, Survey of London, XIII. 4, citing Cartæ Antiqusæe Roll (C. 54) no. 34/5). He served his turn as reeve of Westminster (Harleian Charters 50 A. 32, 51 C. 47). Robert of Claygate is found in charge of treasure in transit in 1200 and 1206 (Rot. Normanniae, p. 24; Rot. Litt. Claus., I. 74).

^{page 88 note 2} This document is doubtless of a date little after Sunday following the feast of SS. Peter and Paul 11 John, that is 5 July, 1209. The curious ungrammatical forms will be noted. The deed was presumably drawn up on behalf of Peter of Omonville by an unskilful hand. Both William of Ely and the archdeacon of Huntington were members of the chapter of Lincoln cathedral, upon whose behalf they are here obviously acting.

^{page 88 note 3} Sic MS.

^{page 89 note 1} The date of this deed falls between Eustace of Fauconberg's appointment as treasurer in the autumn of 1217 and his election to the see of London on 25 February, 1221: the probabilities point to the beginning of this period. It may be noted that three of the witnesses, John fitz William, William de Castello, and Odo the goldsmith, attest a deed dated 18 June, 1219 (Memoranda Roll 3 Hen, III, pp. 464–5). The presence of Thomas of Chemillé, who is also found as a witness in Appendix I, will be remarked. Among other exchequer officers Peter of Ely should be noticed: he was one of the treasurer's sergeants and throughout the reign of John he was constantly engaged in transporting treasure (Rot. de Liberate, pp. 24, 33, 37, 43, 53, 61, 66, 74, 100, 101; Rot Litt. Claus., I. 20, 36–7, 63, 75, 87–8, 90, 105, 113–14, 116–18, 120, 127, 209). He owned a messuage at Westminster which had belonged formerly to Richard of Ely's chamberlain (Westminster Abbey Domesday, fo. 555b): this may have been identical with the property in the road to Charing opposite Enedhithe which on another occasion he granted away (Westminster Abbey MS. no. 17317).

^{page 90 note 1} The date of this document is evidently earlier than 19 February, 1227, when Hubert de Burgh was created earl of Kent. The deed which conveyed William of Ely's property to Hubert can be dated between November 1222 and April 1224 (above, p. 60, n. 1), and the conveyances of adjoining properties are witnessed by Richard fitz Renger, mayor of London (1222—7) (Cartæ Antiquæ Roll (C. 52) no. 34/5a, 5c). It will be noted that the four named witnesses to the present deed are all justices.