[75] For Henry II.'s charter to Lincoln see Stubbs, Select Charters, 166.
[76] See Gross, Gild Merchant, i. 244-257; Bateson, "Laws of Breteuil," Eng. Hist. Rev., xvi.; Tait, Mediæval Manchester, 43-4.
[77] Nottingham and Winchester received a grant of particular customs after the pattern of Coventry. London was taken as a model by Norwich. See Hudson, Rec. Norwich, i. 12.
[78] Dugdale assigns this charter to Blondvil, and I see no reason to differ. If Blondvil were the grantor, then the date would lie between the years 1181, that of Earl Hugh's death, and 1189, the date of the death of Henry II., who confirmed it. I am inclined to think that the charter should be assigned to 1181-2, in which year the men of Coventry paid 20 marks to the king.
[79] Corp. MS. B. 2. The charter is dated "apud Merlebergam" = Marlborough. This charter was first printed by the late Mary Bateson in "Laws of Breteuil," Eng. Hist. Rev., xvi. 98-9.
[80] The townsfolk had not yet power to commute the fines and forfeitures for a fixed sum, called fee-ferm.
[81] For the association of the feudal lord's representative and the chosen official of the townsfolk in a town court see the case of Totnes (Green, Town Life, i. 252).
[82] We infer from analogy that presentments were made by a jury in this court. Norwich was—for judicial purposes—divided into four leets. Each leet was divided into sub-leets, these latter divisions being composed of as many parishes as would furnish twelve tithings. The head-man, or "capital pledge" of every tithing—a band of ten, twelve, or more citizens responsible for one another—made the presentment of anything, which had happened in his tithing, which came under the cognizance of the court. See Hudson, Leet Jurisdiction in Norwich (Selden Soc., vol. v.), xii.-xxvi.
[83] It is not clear whether the townsfolk at this period attended the earl's leet or the sheriff's court. They certainly attended the latter court in the time of Edward III. (Madox, Firma Burgi, 108-9).
[84] i.e. has to be amerced, or fined.