¹⁴¹ Sayles, , ‘The Seizure of Wool at Easter 1297’, 543.Google Scholar

¹⁴² No. 7.

¹⁴³ C.P.R., 1292–1301, p. 239.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Nos. 8, 51; C.C.R., 1296–1302, pp. 25–7.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Nos. 50, 72.

¹⁴⁶ Denton, , ‘The Crisis of 1297 from the Evesham Chronicle’, 578Google Scholar. The figures are not quite accurately reported by the chronicler.

¹⁴⁷ Nos. 104, 111.

¹⁴⁸ Appendix, p. 200.

¹⁴⁹ Treaty Rolls, i, 133–4.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ No. 98; Denton, , ‘The Crisis of 1297 from the Evesham Chronicle’, 577Google Scholar; Wilkinson, , Constitutional History, i, 193–5.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ No. 111; Denton, , ‘A Worcester Text of the Remonstrances of 1297’, 518–19Google Scholar; see no. 98. Note in the third paragraph the insertion of ausi bien des clers com de lays.

¹⁵² Wilkinson, , Constitutional History, i, 208.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Harriss, , King, Parliament and Public Finance, p. 70.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Edwards, , ‘Confirmatio Cartarum and Baronial Grievances in 1297’, 161.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Nos. 98, 131.

¹⁵⁶ No. 151.

¹⁵⁷ No. 155. This clarity did not, of course, extend to definition of the consenting body, and it may be that the phrase ‘common assent of all the realm’ was deliberately imprecise. Harriss, following Gaines Post, argues that the role of representatives in assenting to taxes was a very limited one (King, Parliament and Public Finance, pp. 52–3Google Scholar). For a different view of the powers of representatives, which seems more plausible, see Brown, E. A. R., ‘Representation and Agency Law’, Viator, iii (1972), 329–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 363. From the inclusion in De Tallagio of knights, burgesses and other freemen in the clause regarding taxation, it would seem that the opposition probably expected representatives to participate in the grant of taxation.

¹⁵⁸ Harriss, , King, Parliament and Public Finance, p. 425.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Infra, nos. 173, 174. Fora further discussion of the constitutional issues regarding the maltolt, see Lloyd, , English Wool Trade, pp. 95–6.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Nos. 119, 133. Appeal to necessity was also made by the king on 19 August when he forbade the bishops to excommunicate ministers taking prises (Foedera, I, ii, 875Google Scholar; C.C.R., 1296–1302, p. 124).Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ C.P.R., 1202–1301, p. 237.Google Scholar

¹⁶² No. 88.

¹⁶³ Cotton, Historia Anglicana, p. 245.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ No. 104.

¹⁶⁵ No. 111; Harriss, , King, Parliament and Public Finance, p. 65.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ No. 126; Harriss, , King, Parliament and Public Finance, pp. 161–2Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ For difficulties in the 1290s, see Brown, , ‘Representation and Agency Law’, 357–9Google Scholar; for the later ‘skeptical and parochial reaction to royal assertions of “necessity”’, see Henneman, J. B., Royal Taxation in Fourteenth Century France (Princeton, 1971), pp. 321–4.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ The fullest discussion of these negotiations is by Rothwell, , ‘The Confirmation of the Charters, 1297’, 177–81.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Edwards, , ‘Confirmatio Cartarum and Baronial Grievances in 1297’, 273–300Google Scholar; Roth-well, , ‘The Confirmation of the Charters, 1297’, 300–15.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Denton, , ‘The Crisis of 1297 from the Evesham Chronicle’, 565–7Google Scholar; infra, no. 152.

¹⁷¹ No. 154.

¹⁷² Nos. 151, 155. Guisborough, p. 311Google Scholar. The problem of regarding the Confirmatio as an addicio is discussed by Rothwell, , ‘The Confirmation of the Charters, 1297’, 181, n. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ No. 203.

¹⁷⁴ Brown, E. A. R., ‘Royal Salvation and Needs of State’, Order and Innovation in the Middle Ages, pp. 369–70Google Scholar. Although Edward I sent for a copy of his will in 1297, an act which may reveal something of his state of mind, he did not make a new will (no. 117).