EARLY HISTORY 49 



ever brought to proof, and no mention is made of the pro- 

 ceedings by any English or French historian. There seems to 

 be no doubt of the authenticity of the record. It is in the 

 handwriting of the time, is preserved among the public records, 

 and agrees with other circumstances elsewhere recorded. On 

 the other hand, even the most complete copy l is only a draft, 

 as Selden states, without date or seals; the admiral's initials 

 only are given, and the citation of the first article of the 

 treaty at Paris is not on a separate schedule as the text states, 

 but is part of the text. Selden gives it as his opinion that it 

 was a matter "of such moment" that it was thought better 

 to make an end of it by agreement than to bring it to a 

 trial. 



Light is thrown on the above record by another of the 

 proceedings before the Auditors deputed by the kings of 

 England and France for the redress of the grievances between 

 the subjects of the two countries, 27-33 Edward I. 2 It consists 

 of a series of libels or complaints, which, as Mr Salisbury of 

 the Record Office has been good enough to inform me, are 

 in the handwriting of the time of Edward I., and are doubt- 

 less those, or part of those, on which the De Superioritate 

 roll is based. 3 The complaints are sixteen in number, and they 

 refer to the seizure of a number of ships and the removal of 

 goods from them, between May 1298 and September 1303, at 

 various places, the foreland of Thanet, the mouth of the 

 Thames, off Blakeney, off Kirkele, Scarborough, Dover, and 

 Orfordness, the goods, and sometimes the vessel, being taken 

 to Calais. Most of the vessels were freighted from London to 

 Brabant, or from the latter place to London, one from Win- 

 chelsea to Dieppe, another from Antwerp to London, a third 

 from Berwick to London, a fourth from Scotland to Brabant, 

 a fifth from Lynn to Scotland, a sixth from Antwerp to 

 England, and another from Yarmouth to London ; in two cases 

 the crews were killed, and the ships as well as the goods dis- 

 posed of. In most cases the complaints are laid against Johan 

 Pederogh or John de Pederogue (see p. 45), Michel de Navare, 

 and others, who appear to have been under Grimbald, but in 

 some instances they are against the latter. The first is by 



1 See Appendix A. 2 Chancery Miscel. Rolls, France, Bdl. 5, No. 6. 



3 See translation in Appendix B. 



D 



