^{page 59 note 1} I am grateful to Professor Helen Cam for help in preparing this paper. To avoid ambiguity a distinction is made throughout between franchise and liberty. Franchise means a royal privilege enjoyed by a subject, whereas liberty describes an aggregate of such privileges or the area within which they are enjoyed.

^{page 59 note 2} The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, 1898), 1, pp. 644–45, 583.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 3} Helen, Cam, Law-Finders (andLaw-Makers in Medieval England) (1962), p. 31, n. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 1} C(uria) R(egis) R(olls), 8, p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 2} Ibid., ix, pp. 134, 137.

^{page 60 note 3} Cazel, F. A., ‘The Last Years of Stephen Langton’, Eng. Hist. Rev., 79 (1964), p. 675.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 4} Bench Roll printed by Pipe Roll Soc, N.S. 31 (1955), p. 107. C.R.R., ii, p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 5} Yorks(hire) Eyre, (1218-19) (Selden Soc, 56, 1937), no. 1145Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 6} Cal. Inq(uistions) Miscellaneous), 1, no. 131.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 7} C.R.R., 10, pp. 2, 9.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 8} Writ files J.I. 4/1/1, 112 and K.B. 136/1/4, 6. See p. 63, n. 2, below.

^{page 60 note 9} Chronica Majora (Rolls Series, 1882), 6, p. 255.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 10} Pleas before the King or his Justices (Selden Soc, 67, 1948), 1, no. 3530.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 1} Yorks. Eyre, nos. 251, 1125.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 2} C.R.R., 9, pp. 340–1.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 3} Ibid., ii, p. 70.

^{page 61 note 4} Rotuli Chartarum (Record Commission, 1837), p. 132.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 5} Clanchy, M. T., ‘Magna Carta, Clause Thirty-Four’, Eng. Hist. Rev., 79 (1964), pp. 546–7.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 1} C.R.R., 5, p. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 2} Ibid., pp. 33-4.

^{page 62 note 3} For the abbot of Ramsey's Norfolk liberty, cf. Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia (Rolls Series, 1884), 1. p. 261.Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 4} Cf. Miller, E., (The Abbey and Bishopric of) Ely (Cambridge, 1951), pp. 216–17.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 1} A few ‘returns’ survive from Henry III's reign in Cal. Inq. Misc., 1, nos. 523, 469, 2079, 254, 274 (chronological order). The earliest one (c. 1242) concerns Hormer hundred.Google Scholar

^{page 63 note 2} (Cal.) Charter Rolls, 1226-57, p. 209. The official paraphrase of B₂₄ is inaccurate, as the manuscript reads ‘nisi per retorna eorundem brevium facta eidem Abbati’ (C. 66/53, m. 8).

^{page 63 note 3} The few extant writ files of Henry III (cf. C.R.R., 14, p. 535)Google Scholar have only recently become available for inspection in the Public Record Office, and I am grateful to Mr C. A. F. Meekings for an introduction to them. The following have been consulted: J.I. 4/1/1 (Berkshire eyre, 1248); J.I. 4/1/2 (Roger de Thurkelby's Assize Writs, 1250-56); K.B. 136/1/3 (Coram Rege, 1257); ibid., 1/4 (1266); ibid., 1/5 (1272); C.P. 52/1/1A (Bench, 1272); E. 202/1/1 (Exchequer, Henry III: miscellaneous years); ibid., 1/2 (1260). For Edward I/s reign I have used the unsorted exchequer writs in box E. 202/1.

^{page 63 note 4} In 1293 the conveyors of a return to the Dunwich bailiffs claimed to be royal messengers (Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench (Selden Soc, 57, 1938), 2, p. 144).Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 1} Two other variations have been found: ‘Aturnatum est ballivo de Hornemere/ (J.I. 4/1/1, 89) and ‘Demandatum fuit ballivo de Holdernesse qui habet retorna brevium’ (K.B. 136/1/5, 19).

^{page 64 note 2} K.B. 136/1/3, 35, 36, 37, 38, 86; 1/4, 13, 14.

^{page 64 note 3} C.P. 52/1/1A, Part 2, 20.

^{page 64 note 4} Ibid., Part 1, 13/3; E.202/1/2, 5, 6, 7.

^{page 64 note 5} E. 202/1/2, 14, 16.

^{page 64 note 6} C.P. 52/1/1A, Part 2, 64; E. 202/1, files for 3 Edw. I, 2, venire facias in Yarmouth. The same formula omitting et execucionem eorundem: C.P. 52/1/1A, Part 1, 25; Part 2, 65; Part 3, 44, 45,46; E. 202/1, files for 3 Edw. I, 2, seizure of chattels in the liberty of St Ethelreda, venire facias in Orford.

^{page 65 note 1} Memoranda, Roll E.. 368/25, m. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 2} E. 368/26, m. 8. The doubt arises because part of the memorandum has been erased.

^{page 65 note 3} Chronica Majora, 5, p. 339.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 4} Ballard, A. and Tait, J., (British) Borough Charters, (1216-1307) (Cambridge, 1923), p. 171.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 5} Charter Rolls, 1226-57, p. 427; ibid., 1300-26, p. 58 (inspeximus).

^{page 65 note 6} E. 159/28, m. 9d; cf. Paris, Chronica Majora, 5. p. 488, and Close Rolls, 1254-6, p. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 7} Annales Monastici (Rolls Series, 1864), 1, p. 338.Google Scholar

^{page 65 note 8} Ibid.

^{page 65 note 9} Ballard, and Tait, , Borough Charters, pp. 171-2. Tait omitted Kings Lynn.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} Ballard, and Tait, , Borough Charters, pp. 171–2 and Close Rolls, 1254-6, p. 114.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 2} E. 159/29, m. 16, marginated Pro Rege. Canterbury 100 marks (E. 159/30 m. 9d); Derby 70 (Ballard, and Tait, , Borough Charters, p. 172, n.);Google Scholar Dunwich 120 (E. 159/29, m. 18); Kings Lynn 80 (Close Rolls, 1254-6, p. 416); Kingston-on-Thames 50 (ibid., 1256-9,p. 298); Northampton 40 (E. 159/30, m. iod); Norwich 50 (Close Rolls, 1254-6, p. 416); Scarborough 60 (ibid., 1256-9,ipp. 23-4, III); Worcester 90 (ibid., p. 358); Yarmouth 60 (E. 368/31 m. 15d).

^{page 66 note 3} E. 159/30, m. 1d.

^{page 66 note 4} Chronica Majora, 5, pp. 588–9Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 5} E. 159/30, m.3; Madox, T., Firma Burgi (1726), p. 159. Cf. Appendix B13.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 6} E. 159/30, m. 5d; Close Rolls, 1256-9, p. 24.

^{page 66 note 7} Ballard, and Tait, , Borough Charters, p. 171.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 8} E. 159/30, m. iod.

^{page 66 note 9} King Henry III and the Lord Edward (Oxford, 1947), 1, p. 326.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 1} De Legibus (et Consuetudinibus Angliae), ed. Woodbine, G. E. (New Haven, 1915-1942), 2, fo. 34, p. 109, fos. 55b–56, pp. 166-8.Google Scholar Bracton was a justice of the court Coram Rege 1247-51 and 1253-57 (Meekings, C.A.F., Coram Rege Rolls and Writs: Henry III (P.R.O. Round Room, typescript, 1957), pp. 10, 12). He was one of the councillors involved in the ‘Sicilian business’ in 1255 (Patent Rolls, 124JS8, p. 451).Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 2} Chronica Majora, 5, pp. 210–11.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 3} Ibid., vi, p. 364; Annales Monastici, 1, pp. 420–21; cf. Cam, Law-Finders, pp. 40-41.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 4} Chronica Majora, 6, pp. 364–65.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 5} De Legibus, ii, fo. 14, p. 58, fo. 56, p. 167; Kantorowicz, E. H., The King's Two Bodies (Princeton, 1957), pp. 169–70.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 6} Ballard, and Tait, , Borough Charters, pp. 155–56.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 7} The clauses are set out in succession by Penson, E., Eng. Hist. Rev., 35 (1920), p. 558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The non intromittat clause in the grant to Worcester (Ballard and Tait, op. cit., p. 158) differs from the others (ibid., p. 159) because it is earlier, but it was brought into line when Worcester was regranted return of writs in 1264 (Charter Rolls, 1257-1300, p. 48). In the revised clauses non ingrediatur was preferred to non intromittat because it was more precise.

^{page 68 note 1} Rotuli Hundredorum (Record Commission, 1812, 1818), 2, p. 59.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 2} Ibid., p. 78.

^{page 68 note 3} Charter Rolls, 1257-1300, pp. 6-7. These scripta autentica are referred to also in Worcester annals sub anno 1257 (Annales Monastici, 4, pp. 444–45) and in a writ close dated 31 December 1257, rehearsing their contents to other sheriffs (Close Rolls, 1256-9, PP. 181-82). A writ duly returned to the bishop's bailiff of Oswaldslaw hundred survives from 1260 (E. 202/1/2, 45).Google Scholar A later agreement of this type is noted by Helen, Cam, (The) Hundred and (the) Hundred Rolls (1930), pp. 208-9.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 4} Annales Monastici, 1, p. 395.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 5} Ibid., v, index entries at pp. 24 and 396-97.

^{page 68 note 6} E. 159/28, m. 6.

^{page 68 note 7} Annales Monastici, 4, p. 444. A similar agreement of 1242 between the same sheriff and the abbot of Evesham referred to ‘extractas et alia precepta que consueverunt deferri ad portam abbacie de Evesham' exequanda’Google Scholar (Cata logue of Ancient Deeds, 3, p. 419, no. D. 134;Google ScholarMorris, W. A., The Early English County Court (Berkeley, 1926), pp. 172–73).Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 1} The rule was applied against a subsequent bishop of Worcester in 1285 (infra p. 71).

^{page 69 note 2} Rotuli Hundredorum, 1, p. (13): ‘Qui eciam alii a Rege clamant habere returnum vel extractas brevium.’Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 3} The bishop of Durham claimed it in his Yorkshire manors by virtue of their grant by William the Conqueror cum omnibus dignitatibus et libertadbus regiis (P(lacita de) Q(uo) W(arranto) (Record Commission, 1818), p. 187).Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 4} Claim of Roger Bigod in Sussex (ibid., p. 755).

^{page 69 note 5} Claims of the archbishop of York (ibid., p. 197) and of the abbot of St Mary's, York (ibid., p. 201); Sutherland, D. W., Quo Warranto Proceedings (in the Reign of Edward I, 1238-94) (Oxford, 1963), p. 77.Google Scholar

^{page 69 note 6} P.Q. W., p. 348.

^{page 69 note 7} Appendix B₂₃.

^{page 69 note 8} Sutherland, op. cit., p. 74.

^{page 70 note 1} Charter Rolls, 1257–1300, p. 226; The Great Chartulary of Glastonbury (Somerset Rec. Soc, 59, 1944), 1, pp. 219–24, 226; Cal. Fine Rolls, 1272-1307, p. 142.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 2} P.Q. W., p. 771; Sutherland, op. cit., p. 119. The prior obtained a charter in 1285 (infra, p. 76).

^{page 70 note 3} P.Q.W., p. 804. In this eyre many liberty-holders disclaimed return of writs, which suggests that they knew it ‘would be subjected to a specially exacting scrutiny’ (Sutherland, op. cit., p. 75, n. 3).

^{page 70 note 4} P.Q.W., p. 429; Sutherland, op.cit., p. 89.

^{page 70 note 5} P.Q.W., p. 429.

^{page 70 note 6} Rotuli Hundredorum, 1, p. 354.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 1} E. 202/1, file 2, Easter term 1275.

^{page 71 note 2} Cal. Chancery Warrants, 1244-1326, p. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 3} ‘Hoc fuit per occupacionem et purpresturam ballivorum ipsius domini Edwardi factam super Coronam et non in forma approbata’ (P.Q.W., p. 430).

^{page 71 note 4} Ibid., p. 430; J.I. 1/498, m. 21 (not m. 18, as in P.Q.W.).

^{page 71 note 5} Close Rolls, 1279-88, p. 89.

^{page 71 note 6} P.Q.W., p. 783; Sutherland, op. cit., pp. 80, 82, n. 1. The bishop obtained royal authorization to have return of writs in March 1285 (Register of Bishop Godfrey Giffard (Worcs. Hist. Soc, 1902), 2, p. 323). As recorded, Selby's plea ignored the historical development of franchises which the judgment against Warenne had taken into account (cf. Sutherland, op. cit., p. 119).Google Scholar

^{page 72 note 1} Close Rolls, 1279-88, p. 89.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 1} In Warenne's case it was adjudged that the earl had had return of writs per malam permissionem Vicecomitis (P.Q.W., p. 430).

^{page 73 note 2} K.B. 136/1/4, 20.

^{page 73 note 3} Statutes of the Realm (Record Commission, 1810), 1, pp. 90–1.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 4} Corrected edn. (Oxford, 1962), pp. 30-4.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 5} Op. cit., p. 32.

^{page 74 note 1} Appendix A1, A3, A4, A5.

^{page 74 note 2} C.R.R., 2, pp. 70 (Lincoln), 71 (co. Suffolk), 79 (Bristol), 80 (co. Norfolk).Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 3} De Legibus, 4, fo. 442, p. 372.Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 4} Op. cit., p. 32.

^{page 74 note 5} C.R.R., 2, p. 70 (Lincoln).Google Scholar

^{page 74 note 6} De Legibus, 4, fo. 442b, p. 372.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 1} Helen, Cam, Liberties and Communities in Medieval England (Cambridge, 1944), pp. 176–7;Google ScholarSutherland, , Quo Warranto Proceedings, p. 82, n. 2, and the works there cited.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 2} Although Kirkby's Quest was not technically a quo warranto proceeding, its terms of reference (Feudal Aids (H.M.S.O., 1899), i, pp. xii-xiii) were sufficiently similar to allow a chronicler to describe it as such.

^{page 75 note 3} Feudal Aids, 4, p. 2. In 1302-3 Warenne's bailiffs explicitly refused access to royal commissionersGoogle Scholar (ibid., pp. 129, 131).

^{page 75 note 4} V(ictoria) C(ounty) H(istory) (of) Yorkshire (1912), 2, pp. 258–59.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 5} Select Cases in the Exchequer of Pleas (Selden Soc, 48, 1931), pp. 109–10.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 6} Sutherland, op. cit., pp. 83-84. Another conquest theory advanced by the French nobility in 1247 was noted by Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, 4, p. 593.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 7} The abbot of Chertsey, infra, pp. 76-7.

^{page 75 note 8} P.Q.W., pp. 232, 813. According to the author of Flores Historiarum (Rolls Series, 1890), 3, pp. 49–50, the abbot's right had been challenged by the king in 1278.Google Scholar

^{page 76 note 1} P.Q.W., pp. 235, 283.

^{page 76 note 2} Ibid., p. 232.

^{page 76 note 3} J.I.4/1/2, 12/1.

^{page 76 note 4} P.Q. W., pp. 23-25.

^{page 76 note 5} J.I. 1/541A, m. 39.

^{page 76 note 6} To the bishops of Winchester and Bangor (Charter Rolls, 1257–1300, pp. 273, 279).

^{page 76 note 7} Charter Rolls, 1257-1300, p. 322. The four others were: confirmations of Henry III's grants to Dunwich and Yarmouth (ibid., pp. 315, 318); a grant to Amesbury priory (ibid., p. 287); a confirmation of the earl of Cornwall's grant to Ashridge college (ibid., p. 325).

^{page 76 note 8} Supra p. 70.

^{page 77 note 1} Charter Rolls, 1253-1300, p. 306; paraphrased (inaccurately) in V.C.H. Surrey, 3, p. 396,Google Scholar and in Surrey Rec. Soc, 12 (concluded) (1963), p. 374. Per returnum brevium means ‘through the rehearsal of writs’; cf. Appendix C₂ and the Westminster charter of 1243 (supra p. 63).Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 2} Seignorial Administration in England (Oxford, 1937), p. 88, n. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 3} (Studies in the History of the) English Feudal Barony (Baltimore, 1943), p. 116, n. 97.Google ScholarFeudalism and Liberty (Baltimore, 1961), pp. 178–84.Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 4} P.Q.W., p. 744.

^{page 77 note 5} Cal. Inq. Misc., 1, no. 1221 (my italics).Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 6} By 5 May 1280 (Patent Rolls, 1272-81, p. 369).

^{page 77 note 7} Harmer, F. E., Anglo-Saxon Writs (Manchester, 1952), pp. 205–10.Google ScholarDugdale, W., Monasticon Anglicanum (London, 1817), 1, p. 433. The abbot had paid 100 marks for this confirmation (Close Rolls, 1256-9, pp. 193-94).Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 8} To St. Leonard'hospital, York (Charter Rolls, 1253-1300, p. 438).Google Scholar

^{page 77 note 9} To Amesbury priory (ibid., p. 331), Ashridge college (ibid., p. 357), Westminster abbey (ibid., pp. 411, 425).

^{page 77 note 10} Ibid., p. 472.

^{page 78 note 1} Hull (ibid., p. 475), ‘Ravenserod’ (ibid., p. 476), Berwick-upon-Tweed (ibid., 1300-26, p. 27).

^{page 78 note 2} The bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (ibid., 1257-1300, p. 476) and the abbot of Peterborough (ibid., p. 486).

^{page 78 note 3} Rotuli Parliamentorum (1783), 1, p. 211, no. 97; noted by Cam, Hundred and Hundred Rolls, p. 214.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 4} Charter Rolls, 1300-26, p. 82.

^{page 78 note 5} Evidence of this later usage is available in the printed Parliamentary Writs (Record Commission, 1827-1934),Google Scholar utilized by Ludwig, Riess, The History of the English Electoral Law in the Middle Ages, ed. Wood-Legh, K. L. (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 30–32.Google Scholar

^{page 78 note 6} ‘Et idem Comes, quesitus si quid aliud velit dicere, dicit quod videtur ei sufficienter respondisse’ (P.Q.W., p. 430).

^{page 78 note 7} Miller, , Ely, p. 241.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 1} P.Q.W.,p. 121.

^{page 79 note 2} Rotuli Parliamentorum, 1, p. 57, petition 146.Google Scholar