[484] Ordericus, ii., 185.
[485] Benedict of Peterborough, i., 70. The Justiciar, Richard de Lucy, threw up a siege castle against it.
[486] “Pro uncis ad prosternandum palicium de Hunted, 7s. 8d. In operatione novi castelli de Hunted, et pro locandis carpentariis et pro croccis et securibus et aliis minutis rebus, 21l.” Pipe Rolls, 20 Henry II., pp. 50, 63. It is clear that the operatio was in this case one of pulling down. Giraldus (Vita Galfredi, iv., 368, R. S.) and Diceto (i., 404, R. S.), both say the castle was destroyed.
[487] Mon. Ang., vi., 80.
[488] Leland tells us that Launceston was anciently called Dunheved. Itin., vii., 122.
[489] “Ibi est castrum comitis.” D. B., i., 121b. “Hæc duo maneria [Hawstone et Botintone] dedit episcopo comes Moriton pro excambio castelli de Cornualia.” D. B., i., 101b, 2.
[490] There are no entries for Launceston except repairs in the reigns of Henry II. and his sons.
[491] Murray’s Guide to Cornwall, p. 203.
[492] “Olim 20l.; modo valet 4l.” D. B., i., 121b.
[493] D. B., ii., 157, 163, 172. The first entry relating to this transaction says: “Hoc totum est pro escangio de 2 maneriis Delaquis.” The second says: “Pertinent ad castellum Delaquis.” It is clear that Lewes is meant, as one paragraph is headed “De escangio Lewes.” I have been unable to find any explanation of this exchange in any of the Norfolk topographers, or in any of the writers on Domesday Book.