| Library | Reference
| Teaching | General
| Links | About
ORB | HOME
The Men Behind the Masque:
Office-holding in East Anglian boroughs, 1272-1460
The Officers of Borough Government
1 I cannot verify the statement that Henry Godyear was
bailiff, made by Rickword (Trans. E.A.S., IX, 134) who is
unreliable in some other attributions.
2 The date of fitz William and Adam de Castro to this
year (Red Paper Bk., 74) is almost certainly a mistaking of 10/11 Ed.I
for 10/11 Ed.II.
3 From an undated deed (Red Paper Bk., 71) of tempore
Edward I; it is Rickword (op. cit., 144) who gives the precise
date, without substantiation.
4 Possibly alias le Clerk
6 The number of coroners was reduced from four to two from
7 The names of chamberlains are rarely recorded in the
8 It is not quite clear whether these men are chamberlains
or sergeants; see G.C.R. 22-23 Ed.III, m.1.
9 No qualificative epithet is placed after the Starling name
henceforth, so it may be that one (presumably Geoffrey senior) had died.
10 See chapter 1.
11 Thus Add.Ms. 30158 f.14, although Bacon gives William
Winter and Robert Hall as treasurers.
12 According to Harrod, from the evidence of deeds.
13 But possibly William de Karleton; see KL/C50/Be 204.
14 Not all identities are certain, due to damage to the
source document (Red Reg. f.61; see also Arundel Castle Ms. MD 428).
15 Only two chamberlains were elected this year.
16 Based on Saul (who follows Le Strange, who in turn used
Swinden) and on Palmer (using Swinden and Manship), with amendments and
additions (including chamberlains' names) from primary evidence.
17 However, an entry in Cal.Memo.Rolls 1326-27 (p.145) lists
these bailiffs for that year.
18 Thus C.P.R 1343-45, 166 (for 20 November 1343). Le Strange
and Palmer state that the bailiffs of 1341/2 were re-elected in the next
two years, however.
19 Although Palmer gives Richard de Wymondham, E101/507/30
gives Gimingham; it is not certain whether the two names might represent
20 Thus Add.Ms. 14965 (dated 3 February 1365). Le Strange
gives a different set (without citing his authority), whilst Swinden and
Palmer leave this year blank.
21 Although Le Strange and Palmer say Thomas Hall, the
parliamentary return (C219/15/2) gives Hillys.
22 Ipswich, Lynn, and Yarmouth (as well as Norwich) are known
to have been represented in parliament as early as 1268, but no names
of members are known until 1295. Maldon is not known to have been
represented before 1332.
23 Although Lynn, at least, is known to have been represented
(KL/C37/1 m.20r), Henry Barsham being a likely representative.
24 Possibly alias de Massingham.
25 Alias de Ormesby.
26 Prorogued to November.
27 Although Thomas Stace and Gilbert Robert are known to have
journeyed to this parliament (C.Cl.R. 1313-18, 271), it is not clear
whether as formal representatives.
28 The former pair were named on the return, but the latter
pair were paid in the borough account.
29 I.e. of the Haraud family.
30 Prorogued to February.
31 Possibly an error for John? I find no other biographical
data on a Richard Jordan.
32 We cannot be certain that Maldon was summoned to every
parliament during this period.
33 Although Lynn paid Roger de Buttele, Geoffrey Drewe and
Thomas de Massingham for attending a 'Council' of this year.
34 Hypothesis from a surname ending '--lle': all that remains
of the writ. N.B. that Warin atte Welle died in 1349.
35 Summoned by name, not elected. McKisack thought it was
Tolbooth who attended the June parliament, but the chamberlains' account
clearly pays Botkesham for attending the Winchester session, and names
Tolbooth and Botkesham together in relation to an unspecified (but
doubtless the February) parliament.
36 Replaced Nicholas de Swerdestone, who was originally
elected, before the October prorogation.
37 The name is only partially legible on the writ.
38 Thus the original return, but the Red Register f.161b
records the election of Hugh de Ellingham, not that of Morton.
39 Prorogued to January.
40 John Bilney and James Nicholasson had originally been
41 Walter Curson according to one source, but this is probably
42 Confirmed from the original returns; the suggestion by
Palmer/Le Strange of Gaynes and Elys is incorrect.
43 This pair was hypothesised by History of Parliament:
Biographies, 652, on rather flimsy evidence.
44 Hypothesis, on the grounds that the Paston letters refer
to Heydon in connection with these parliaments, and Yarmouth is the most