neglect and corruption, and to the ' manor' of Clarendon (nos. 209, 210). At the latter the cost of the repairs was estimated at no less than £1,850; in this historic' manor' we have mention of the chamber called' Antioche', chapels for the king, the queen, and the household,' the chamber for the chancellor and the clerks of chancery, the. chamber of the nhftpl«.in« and clerks of the king and queen, the treasurer's chamber', and so forth. The particulars as to castles a -Tt <\ other royal

more »

... ngs are among the-most valuable information afforded by these volumes. They deserve the careful attention of historical students, even though such statements as that of a Somerset jury that Taunton Priory was founded by ' William Gyffard, somrthne bishop of Winchester, before the time of Sing Edmund Iryneside* betray an almost incredible ignorance. It is a pleasure to praise the careful and scholarly work of the late Mr. Bland in the index to vol. ii. He is not responsible for that persona fitta,' Baldwin son of Gilbert Wake' (no. 107), who is compounded (as we are reminded by no. 255) out of Baldwin son of Gilbert (de Clare) and Hugh Wake. The points one has noted for correction are very few. ' Bessemere' is not an unknown place in Ipswich, but Bushmere, close to Westerfield ; in two consecutive entries the hundreds of Wizamtree (Bedfordshire) and Wixoe (Suffolk) are assigned to Essex; the court of the Honour of Boulogne at' Wycham', as the text reads it (no. 127), was held not at . Wickhambreux (Suffolk), but at Witham (Essex). In Sussex ' Hongetone' (sic), named with Chancton (no. 1823), was not the far-off Hangleton, but the neighbouring Buncton (Bongetone) in Ashington. It is regrettable that Patrick and wiilia.m t earls of Salisbury, should have been indexed under Devereux. ' Gilbert de Baiocis', whose fees are analysed in no. 405, was Gilbert de BaHiol; but this may be a scribal error. It is worth noting that the old name of' Edulvesnasse by Waleton.' (no. 406) still persisted in 1319, though not here identified as the Naze, for it was no longer the n*me of a lordship. ' Samford, co. Suffolk' (no. 300), was not a place, but a hundred, of which the bailiff was Boger de ' Wyvermers' (not Wynermers), L e. Withermarsh in Stoke by Nayland. Is it certain, by the way, that ' leagues 'should be so rendered ? Wefindinthetext(no.l708)Battlesden described as ' 15 leagues from Ipswich', though the distance is just about 15 miles, as the crow flies. The point is of some importance. J. H. BOUND. VOL. xnm.-NO. cxxxi. D d at University of Tennessee ? Knoxville Libraries on August 17, 2015 http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from 402 REVIEWS OF BOOKS July raises a good many interesting questions of medieval law and social custom. When there is such a large proportion of good work there is little to say for a reviewer save a few hearty iTn»« of general commendation. Such warm praise Mr. Bolland fully and entirely deserves. If the great bulk of what follows deals with more or less minute points of criticism, it must not be thought that they have any material effect in detracting from the merits of a solid and well-executed edition. Many of them are more in the way of corrigenda than of complaint, and nearly all are trivial. Some incuriousnesa or lack of knowledge of the non-legal sources of history is perhaps Mr. BoQand's worst weakness, which he is correcting by degrees. Thus his return to his discussion in a previous introduction as to the right of the archbishops of Dublin,' not being Irishmen', to present to the deanery of Penkridge, though interesting as revealing that he has now discovered the Charter Bolls in the Public Becord Office, still shows no knowledge that the charter in question has been in print in the Rotuii Cartanm of John for some eighty years. And other easily accessible sources, such as the Calendars of the Patent and Close Bolls, would have enabled him to supplement the proof that there were deans of Penkridge, by no means all of the archbishops' appointment, for the forty years before 1259. We welcome, however, Mr. J. G. Wood's new addition to the list in Elias (p. mix). Another correction might have been made by Mr. Bolland with reference to the keepers of the Tolls of the common bench. On p. xvii he suggests that the John of the Moor who sent the transcript of a record from the roll of the bench to the justices in eyre was the actual custos ntuioram et breumm it banco in 6th Edward EL This, however, is not the case, as John Bacon held that office from 1292 to February 1313, and was succeeded by William Baven. 1 As these appointments were made by patent, there should have been no need to make guesses in the matter. Indeed in Mr. Bolland's own' Note from the Becord' of one of his cases, we actually find Bacon acting as keeper of the records of the bench down to Easter term 5 Edward IL S The whole problem is, however, puzzling, and the suggestion that rolls of the bench only remained for * limited time in the possession of the bench or of its individual judges, and were then deposited in the exchequer, hardly satisfies one as complete. It is true that the evidence that the exchequer kept copies of plea rolls is overwhelming. But what was the ' keeper of the rolls of the bench' for, if he also did not keep transcripts of these records ? Is it possible that, as the common bench nor» mally sat at Westminster, hard by the quarters of the exchequer, they were deposited in that great centre of records for safe custody, just as modern government offices send their records from time to time to the Public Becord Office ? If the exchequer needed these judicial records for practical purposes; the judges of the common bench would surely have had a still more immediate need to have them .easily accessible for themselves.