Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:06:07.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anglo-Irish shire government in the thirteenth century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The organization of the medieval Anglo-Irish lordship was designed to reproduce as exactly as possible the administrative system of England, but it was not introduced suddenly or all at once. Of the eleven shires which were governed by royal sheriffs at the end of the thirteenth century, Dublin is the only one which can be traced back to the twelfth century, and even then does not appear in the records till the 1190’s. It seems probable that at this date no other shire yet existed in Ireland, though it is possible that Waterford, with Cork, was already organized as a shire.

Type
Articles
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 17 , March 1946 , pp. 1 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1946

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page no 1 note 1 Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 272, and see H. G. Richardson, ‘Norman Ireland in 1212’, in I.H.S., iii. 149.

page no 1 note 2 The city of Waterford with ‘all the surrounding province’ had been granted in custody to Robert le Poer in 1177, and the original grantees of the kingdom of Cork died in 1182 and 1185 (see Orpen, Normans, iii 371 ’ iii. 39–50). It is possible that Waterford and Cork were organized as a single custody soon after this, and that, as Mr Richardson remarks in the article cited above, ‘John’s visit in 1185 may have been more effective than has been supposed’. It should be observed that Thomas Bloet, sheriff of Waterford in 1211–12, had apparently married the heiress of Miles de Cogan, one of the first grantees of Cork (see Orpen, Normans, ii. 49, n. 3, and ‘The Irish pipe roll of 14 John ed. O. Davies and Quinn, D.B., in U.J.A., ser. 3, vol. 4, supplement, July 1941, p. 48).Google Scholar

page no 2 note 1 The falsity of this belief was exposed by Orpen, , Normans, 2. 270–7.Google Scholar

page no 2 note 2 See Pipe roll, 14 John, p. 49, where the sheriff accounts for various sums ‘as contained in the roll of the eleventh year’, while he seems to have been responsible for Cork as early as 1207, since he accounts for arrears of the 11th and 12th years, and of the preceding year.

page no 2 note 3 The occasion of the establishment of Munster as a shire may well have been the final forfeiture of William de Braose, for which see Orpen,. Normans, ii. 236 ff.

page no 2 note 4 The earliest pipe roll which survived in the Public Record Office in 1922 was that for 13 Henry III, and it, with the six others of that reign which then remained, is calendared in P.R.I. rep. D.K. 35.

page no 2 note 5 Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, nos 576, 580, 584, 1060, 1107, 1108, 1292, 1462, 1502, 1969.

page no 3 note 1 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, nos 629, 1474, 1912, 2215, 2217.

page no 3 note 2 P.R.I, rep. D.K. 35, p. 37

page no 3 note 3 Cal doc. Ire., 1285–92, nos 16, 17, 18, 1051. Thomas did not get seisin of his inheritance till 1284 (ibid., 1252-84, nos 2215, 2217). He exercised the sheriff ’s function of collecting the king ’s debts in Waterford and Kerry, and presumably also in Cork, for a short time after this (ibid., 1285–92, nos 45, 251). For the serjeanties, see below, pp. 22–3.

page no 3 note 4 Ibid., 1285–92, nos 1048, 1050, 1051.

page no 3 note 5 P.R.I. rep. D.K. 35–47, passim. The medieval county lay north of Desmond proper, but was evidently included in the grant.

page no 4 note 1 Above, p. 2; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 611; P.R.I, rep. D.K 35, P. 36.

page no 4 note 2 A Serjeant of Munster was appointed as late as Jan. ,1251 (Cat doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 3106), and the sheriff of Limerick is referred to in Feb. 1254 as having been in existence some time earlier (ibid 1252–84, no. 318). Limerick had been regarded as a separate shiil within Munster as early as 1235 (P.R.I. rep. D.K. 35, p. 35), when presumably had its own county court, presided over by the sheriff of Munster.

page no 4 note 3 Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 2909. It may have been formed much earlier, as a mandate of 1236 is addressed to ‘constables, sheriffs farmers, castellans, and all the king ’s other bailiffs in Connaught Thomond, and elsewhere in Ireland ’ (ibid., no. 2339).

page no 4 note 4 Ibid., 1285–92, no. 1148, and see Orpen, , Normans, 4. 109–11.Google Scholar

page no 4 note 5 After Walter de Lacy ’s death in 1241 his liberty of Meath was partitioned between his two granddaughters, who married respective Geoffrey de Geynville and John de Verdun. De Geynville succeeded ii obtaining a grant of the liberties enjoyed by de Lacy in 1252 (Cal. doc Ire., 1252–84, nos 69, 78; Gormanston Reg., p. 178), and his liberty] of Trim was on the whole successfully maintained throughout the century The same liberties were claimed by the de Verduns, but, though the apparently obtained them for a time, they were recovered for the crown 1280 by legal process, and it must have been then that the de Verdun lands became part of co. Dublin (Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, nos 740, 810, 1645, 1666, 1670, 1673; P.R.I. rep. D.K. 35 and 36, passim).

page no 4 note 1 The Crosslands were the lands held by the church dricrly form the crown and were exempt from liberty jurisdiction:see below, pp.7–8

page no 5 note 2 For examples, see Cal. justic. rolls Ire., passim. Writs intended for the liberties of Leinster were directed to the sheriff of Dublin, who forwarded them to the seneschal concerned. In the liberty of Trim the lord of the liberty was entitled to have royal writs directed immediately to him or to his seneschal, though this right was not always respected by the authorities in Dublin : see e.g. Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, no. 1666.

page no 5 note 3 The baronies of Upper and Nether Cross later represented that part of die liberty which lay in the modern co. Dublin : see Civil Survey, vii. xxiii–xxvi.

page no 5 note 4 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, pp. 196–8.

page no 5 note 5 See e.g. Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 216–17, 249.

(page no 6 note 1) Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, p. 438. For sheriffs of Dubli and Meath, see P.R.I, rep. D.K. 38, pp. 60–2.

(page no 6 note 2) Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, p. 194.

(page no 6 note 3) Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 167–208.

(page no 6 note 4) Cal. doc. Ire., 1302–7, nos 367, 617; Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1305-pp. 251, 356, 358, 392–3, 395.

(page no 6 note 5) Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, p. 242.

page no 7 note 1 See Orpen, Normans, iii, ch. xxi; iv, ch. xxxvi.

page no 7 note 2 Ibid., iv. 259-61; Curtis, Med. Ire. (2nd ed.), ch. ix.

page no 7 note 3 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., passim.

page no 7 note 4 Ibid., and Cal. doc. Ire., passim.

page no 7 note 5 See e.g. Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 102–3.

page no 7 note 6 See above, p. 5. Under Edward III separate sheriffs appear for the crosses of each liberty, perhaps because the growth in the number of liberties had made the old arrangement impracticable.

page no 7 note 7 For the parallel case of frankalmoign tenure, in which the rights of an overlord remained unless by his express grant, see Kimball, ‘Tenure in frankalmoign and secular services’, in E.H.R., xliii. 341–53.

page no 8 note 1 Cal. doc. Ire., 1293–1301, nos 22, ιοί, 145, 146, and the parallel dispute about an advowson (ibid., nos 26, 42, 141, 146). See also the series of complaints against de Vescy in ibid., no. 106. There was clearly a personal enmity between de Vescy and the abbot.

page no 8 note 2 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1305–7, p. 391. See also Cal. doc. Ire., 1285–92, nos 452, 1075.

page no 9 note 1 This is of course a well-known secondary use of the term hundred— see M. Bateson, Borough customs, passim. There were a great many small boroughs associated with manors in Ireland, which never really became towns. Territorial hundreds are mentioned in a few early grants, but these do not seem to correspond to any administrative reality (Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, i, 80, 274; ii, 162; Butler, C.M. and Bernard, J.H., ‘The charters of the abbey of Duiske’, in R.I.A. Proc. 35, sect, c, p. 18 Google Scholar; Ir. mon. deeds, 1200–1600, p. 100; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 2282), and are probably to be accounted for by the automatic use of English formulae.

page no 9 note 2 Hogan, James, ‘The tricha cet and related land-measures’, in R.I.A. Proc, 38, sect, c, no. 7.Google Scholar The Welsh connections of many of the Norman settlers in Ireland are sufficiently well-known, and it is interesting to observe that in the thirteenth century analogies based on conditions in the marches of Wales were being applied to the conditions of border warfare in Ireland (Gormanston reg., p. 181). It should be observed that the cantred was not quite universal : the liberties of Trim and Wexford had honors and baronies respectively in the late thirteenth century, and in Dublin we hear of serjeanties which sound as if they might have been organized round the royal manors of that county—the serjeanties of the vale of Dublin on the side of Leinster in the regions of Taxagard and Newcastle of Lyouns, Bree and Newcastle M ’Kynegan, Fynegal on one side of the water of Gouere and Fynegal on the other side of the water of Gouere (temp. Edward II and Edward III, P.R.I, rep. D.K. 39, PP. 53, 69; 42, pp. 29, 52 ; 43, p. 32; 44, P. 18). Cf. H. M. Cam, ‘Manerium cum hundredo ’, in Liberties and communities in medieval England. A document of c. 1514, printed by Professor Hogan, op. cit., p. 233, equates cantred with hundred or barony.

page no 9 note 3 See below, p. 17.

page no 9 note 4 The existence of a court for each cantred is implied not only by the existence of the sheriff ’s tourn, but also by the communal responsibility of the cantreds for amercements (P.R.I. rep. D.K. 38, p. 29; Cal. doc. Ire., 1293–1301, pp. 249, 294; Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1305–7, pp. 410, 412), and its separate representation in the eyre (Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, PP. 167, 170, 173, 176).

page no 10 note 1 Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 272.

page no 10 note 2 Ibid., 1171–1251, no. 2282; 1285–92, p. 312; 1293–1301, no. 605; N.L.I., MS Harris Collectanea, i. 288 (a petition from the archbishop of Armagh, asking that he may be freed from the burden of suit to the county court for a manor which he has recently acquired); Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 246, 402; 1305–7, p. 112.

page no 10 note 3 Ibid., 1171–1251, no. 2909; 1252–84, nos 631, 1125, 1185, 1414; 1285–92, nos 123, 602, 654, 734, 1048, 1050. The exchequer ordinance of 1293 states that sheriffs and other bailiffs have often been appointed under the English great seal (Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, p. 190).

page no 10 note 4 It was stated c. 1285 that ‘ almost no one can be in any office in the exchequer, nor in any shrievalty or custody of a castle, unless he gives or sells land to the justiciar, or bestows on him a moiety of his fee … This is so in respect to Walter Uncle and the profits of the co. of Tipperary, who every year gives more in horses than he answers to the king for the profits of the county’ (Cal. doc. Ire., 1285–92, pp. 3–4). Uncle had a grant of the custody of the county under the English great seal in 1282 (ibid., 1252–84, no. 1979). See also ibid., 1252–84, no. 2194; 1285-92, nos 16, 17, 18, 19, 120. The county of Tipperary was let to Roger de Penbrok ‘in full exchequer ’ at £100 a year (ibid., 1285–92, no. 999).

page no 10 note 5 Ibid., 1252–84, nos 1021, 1025.

page no 11 note 1 In 1281 the treasurer wrote to the king that ‘ as for the sheriffs sent to Ireland, as Thomas de Mynimes, Henry Picot and others, who have nothing, they are injurious to the king and more to the people, because they receive the king ’s money and then go away, having nothing to be distrained by. And because their malice cannot be borne with they embroil the Irish settlers with their friends in England, calumniating the former ’ (Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, nos 1881, 1882). Thomas de Mynimes or Mymmys was sheriff of Louth in 1276–7 (P.R.I, rep. D.K. 36, p. 38). In 1280, having ‘laudably and long served the king in Ireland’, he was granted an annuity of 6d. a day for life, payable at the exchequer, Dublin (Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, no. 1719).

page no 11 note 2 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, p. 190.

page no 11 note 3 Cal. doc. Ire., 1302–7, nos 10, 24, 274.

page no 11 note 4 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1305–7, p. 119.

page no 11 note 5 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, nos 1730, 1733, 2297.

page no 12 note 1 Hist. & mun. doc. Ire., pp. 528–9.

page no 12 note 2 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, passim.

page no 12 note 3 Cal. doc. Ire., 1285–92, no. 622.

page no 12 note 4 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1305–7, p. 175.

page no 12 note 5 Cal. doc. Ire., 1293–1301, nos 107, 212, 213. He was granted a respite of this amercement in 1295, in return for his service in the Welsh war.

page no 13 note 1 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., passim; Cal. doc. Ire., 1302–7, nos 4, 30, 344; T.C.D., MS F 3, 13, 31 Edward I. (a seventeenth century collection of notes from the Irish pipe rolls and plea rolls).

page no 13 note 2 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, p. 219; Cal. justic. rolls, Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 13–14, 51, 233; P.R.I. rep. D.K. 38, p. 91 ; Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, no. 2257; 1285–92, p. 316.

page no 13 note 3 Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 1536. Ralph de Trubleville represents that the sheriff of Dublin exacts from him 100s. for livery of seisin of the land of Balimadan. As it is the custom of England that no sheriff shall exact anything for giving seisin, save an ox, which Ralph has rendered, he is to have peace concerning the 100s.

page no 13 note 4 See e.g. the career of Hugh Canoun.

page no 14 note 1 P.R.I. rep. D.K. 38, pp. 29, 54

page no 14 note 2 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, nos 1979, 2329; 1285–92, nos 734, 999.

page no 14 note 3 Ibid., 1252–84, no 2329.

page no 14 note 4 Generally speaking the sheriff collected all revenue except that from those towns which had the right of farming themselves and were to a great extent exempt from his jurisdiction (at the end of the thirteenth century these were Dublin, Waterford, Cork, Limerick, and the two Droghedas); from those magnates who had the right to answer themselves at the exchequer for their liberties; from the new custom, and from general subsidies, which were separately administered; and from lands which were in the king’s hand as wardships, escheats, or the property of vacant bishoprics and religious houses, for which the escheator was responsible.

page no 14 note 5 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, p. 190; Hist. & mun. doc. Ire., pp. 528–9. They were to swear to appoint only bailiffs for whom they were willing to answer, as in England. For instances of the enforcement of this responsibility, see P.R.L rep. D.K. 38, p. 91, and Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1305–7, PP. 220, 509.

page no 15 note 1 See P.R.L rep. D.K. 35–47, passim.

page no 15 note 2 For sheriffs ’ payments, see the receipt rolls printed in Cal. doc. Ire., 1285–92; 1293–1301; and 1302–7, passim.

page no 15 note 3 See, e.g., Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1305–7, pp. 167–8.

page no 16 note 1 A set of writs relating to the Meath eyre of 1322 was printed Wood, H., ‘The muniments of Edmund de Mortimer’, in R.I.A. Proc 40, sect, c, pp. 338–41.Google Scholar

page no 16 note 2 See Cal. justic. rolls Ire., passim.

page no 16 note 3 See Cal. justic. rolls Ire., passim, and Cal. rot. pat. Hib., p. 4 : — there is now no prison in co. Connacht where prisoners can be safe kept, the sheriff is given power to release them on sufficient security provided that those accused of arson or malicious homicide shall make fi for this grace.

page no 17 note 1 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, p. 194; Cal. doc. Ire., 1285–92, p. 312; Cal. justic. rolls Ire. 1295–1303, pp. 71, 303–4, 411. For these local subsidies, see Clarke, M.V., Mediaeval representation and consent, pp. 44–54.Google Scholar

page no 17 note 2 E.g., the appeal brought by John Harold, sheriff of Limerick, in his county court against the earl of Ulster and others of the death of his son and robbery of his goods (Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 120–1).

page no 17 note 3 Some fifteenth century records of the sheriff ’s tourn in the liberty of •Tipperary are calendared in Ormond deeds, 1413–1509. The articles of the tourn, apparently of the late thirteenth century, are printed in Reg. Tristernaghy pp. 32–3.

page no 17 note 4 Arson, rape, treasure-trove, and forestalling were reserved to the crown in all the Irish liberties; the minor pleas of the crown belonged to the lord of the liberty

page no 18 note 1 Cal. doc. Ire., 1293–1301, no. 801.

page no 18 note 2 Barony is apparently here the feudal, not the later territorial, barony. The territorial unit in Tipperary at this time was certainly the cantred, and the tourn was probably held in each cantred : see above, p. 9.

page no 19 note 1 Cal. doc. Ire., 1285–92, p. 316; Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 52, 377- Geoffrey de Geneville ’s charter to the magnates of Meath, - 1262-70, provides that the sheriff of Trim shall hold his tourn in the ordship of the magnates twice a year, or oftener if necessary (Gormanstonreg P. 176).

page no 19 note 2 P.R.I, rep. D.K. 35, pp. 30, 35; 36, p. 38; Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, no. 2792; 1252-84, nos 631, 1038, 1125, 1242, 1258, 1698, 1907; 1285–92, no. 169.

page no 19 note 3 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1305–7, pp. 242–3.

page no 19 note 4 P.R.I. rep. D.K. 38, p. 88.

page no 19 note 5 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 7, 60, 74, 147; 1305–7 pp. 3, 479.

page no 19 9note 6 Ibid., 1295–1303, PP. 74, 350; 1305–7, pp. 2.

page no 19 note 7 Ibid., 1295–1303, p. 72.

page no 20 note 1 Cal. doc. Ire., 1293–1301; nos 16, 481; 1302–7, no. 411; Cal. justic. rolls Ire., passim.

page no 20 note 2 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1305–7, pp. 85, 325–6.

page no 20 note 3 Ibid., 1295–1303, pp. 60, 71, 411; 1305–7 p. 174.

page no 20 note 4 Stat. Ire., John-Hen. V, p. 194. On this occasion (the parliament of 1297), the sheriffs were required not only to have knights elected in their county courts, but also to attend parliament themselves, but this does not seem to have been repeated.

page no 20 note 5 E.g., the statute of false money, Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303 p. 265.

page no 20 note 6 Ibid., p. 175; 1305–7, p. 192.

page no 20 note 7 Ibid., 1305–7, P. 259.

page no 20 note 8 Ibid., 1295-1303, pp. 131–2; 1305–7, P. 132.

page no 20 note 9 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, no. 2310; 1285–92, no. 169.

page no 20 note 10 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 84, 112, 328.

page no 21 note 1 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, no. 157 7 P.R.I. rep. D.K. 38, p. 54; Cal. ustic. rolls Ire., 1305–7, pp. 250, 414–5.

page no 21 note 2) Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 22, 26, 49, 202, 375, 424; 1305–7, pp. 160, 209, 250, 509; T.G.D., MS F 3. 13, 29 Edward I.

page no 21 note 3) Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 1, 25, 48, 49, 82, 426; 1305–7, P. 119–21; Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, no. 2108.

page no 21 note 4) A receiver appears in Kerry (Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, p. 53), nd Tipperary (ibid., p. 349; 1305–7, PP 54, 115, 460).

page no 21 note 5) Cal justic, rolls Ire., 1305–7, PP.T93–4, 269, 319.

page no 21 note 6) Ibid., pp. 207–8.

page no 22 note 1 Cal. doc. Ire., 1293–1301, no. 363 ; Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, PP. 17, 81, 318; 1305–7, p. 337; P.R.I rep. D.K. 38, p. 91.

page no 22 note 2 Cal. doc. Ire., 1171–1251, nos 318, 570, 3106.

page no 22 note 3 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., passim; Gormanston reg., p. 118; Ormond Deeds, 1350–1413, p. 131; 1413–1509, p. 95.

page no 22 note 4 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., passim; Cal. Chancery Warrants, p. 513. I owe this reference to the kindness of Mr H. G. Richardson.

page no 22 note 5 Lynch, , Feudal dignities, pp. 105–6,Google Scholar where it is stated that the office was held under a grant from John. See also Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, no. 2310; 1285–92, no. 149; 1293–1301, nos 21, 363; Cal. justic. rolls Ire., passim. In 1297 Richard de Crus, while remaining chief Serjeant of Leinster, got leave to enfeoff his brother Nicholas of the serjeanty of Louth, to hold of the king in chief (ibid., 1295–1303, p. 81).

page no 22 note 6 See above, pp. 2–3.

page no 22 note 7 Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, nos 2194, 2329; 1293–1301, nos 21, 329, 391, 550, 587, 658, 825; 1302–7, nos 58, 12.

page no 23 note 1 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, p. 295; 1305–7, pp. 71, 120–1, 162, 211.

page no 23 note 2 Ormond deeds, 1413–1500, pp. 32-6.

page no 23 note 3 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., passim.

page no 23 note 4 See, e.g., ibid., 1295–1303, pp. 16-18. When, exceptionally, a Serjeant in co. Waterford was appointed by the sheriff, not by the chief Serjeant, it was because Thomas fitz Maurice ’s widow had granted him her life-interest in that serjeanty (ibid., p. 424; 1305–7, pp. 120–1).

page no 23 note 5 See, e.g., ibid., 1295–1303, pp. 280, 300.

page no 23 note 6 Ibid., 1295–1303, p. 167; Cal. doc. Ire., 1293–1301, no. 481.

page no 23 note 7 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, p. 167.

page no 24 note 1 Cal. doc. Ire., 1152–84, no. 2329.

page no 24 note 2 Ibid., 1293–1301, no. 550.

page no 24 note 3 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, p. 17; P.R.I. rep. D.K. 38, p. 91.

page no 24 note 4 Cal. doc. Ire., 1293–1301, no. 551.

page no 24 note 5 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, p. 424.

page no 24 note 6 Ibid., 1305–7, p 23.

page no 24 note 7 Ibid., 1295–1303, pp. 18, 133; 1305–7, PP. 286–7.

page no 25 note 1) Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 19, 20, 32, 34, 35, 45, 64, [07, 234, 280, 281, 296, 298, 342, 394; 1305-7, PP. 55, 117, 238, 267, 288, μ4-5; P.R.I. rep. D.K. 38, pp. 52, 75–6, 91–2.

page no 25 note 2 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 172, 280.

page no 25 note 3 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., passim.

page no 25 note 4 Cal. doc. Ire., 1285—92, nos 598, 830 : the chief serjeant of co. Dublin was sent with an open letter under the seal of the exchequer to ROSS, Waterford, Youghal, Cork, and Limerick.

page no 25 note 5 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1305–7 p. 482.

page no 25 note 6 Ibid., 1305–7, pp 193, 337, 34I.

page no 26 note 1 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. ι, 17, 55; 1305–7, p. 46.

page no 26 note 2 Ibid., 1295–1303, p. 17; PP. 337, 341.

page no 26 note 3 Ibid., 1295–1303, PP. 16–17.

page no 26 note 4 Ibid., 1295–1303, pp. 167 and passim. The earliest reference to coroners in Ireland that I have found occurs in the inquisitions taken as to the liberties of the archbishops of Dublin, c. 1264, which imply that there were coroners in the time of archbishop John Comyn (11821212), and there is no reason to doubt this, though the surviving records do not mention them till towards the end of the reign of Henry III. McNeill, C., ‘The secular jurisdiction of the early archbishops of Dublin’, in R.S.A.I. Jn., 45. 81–108, especially p. 103.Google Scholar

page no 26 note 5 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, pp. 60, 71, 411 ; 1305–7, pp. 174–5; Cal. doc. Ire., 1293–1301, no. 72.

page no 27 note 1 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, p. 103.

page no 27 note 2 Ibid., 1295–1303, pp. 34, 174, 405–6; 1305–7, p. 513.

page no 27 note 3 Ibid., 1305–7, p.437

page no 27 note 4 Ibid., 1295–1303, pp. 120–1; P.R.I. rep. D.K. 38, p. 75. See also Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, p. 387; 1305–7, p. 92. When the sheriff himself was appealed in the county court, it was the coroner who took charge of the proceedings (ibid., 1295–1303, p. 348).

page no 27 note 5 Ibid., 1295–1303, pp. 2.4, 106, 255; 1305–7, PP. 271, 513; Cal. doc. Ire., 1302–7, no. 411.

page no 28 note 1 Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1305–7, pp. iii, 518; P.R.I, rep. D.K. 38, pp. 64, 99; Cal. rot. pat. Hib., p. 5; Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, nos 2241, 2310; 1285-92, no. 169; 1302-7, no. 58. The sums levied by the sheriff of Limerick for keeping the country in 1295 and paid to those assigned to keep the country were presumably for the keepers of the peace (Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1295–1303, p. 40). The earliest reference I have been able to find is to a conservator of the king ’s peace in the vale of Dublin in 1283 (Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, no. 2241; 1285–92, no. 169).