Canterbury’s Missing Burghmote Minute Book (1602-1630)
The extensive archival record of Canterbury’s civic history has a notable gap: it is missing the Burghmote minute book for the period 1602-1630. Canterbury Cathedral Archives catalogue carries a note that it was ‘lost in the civil war’. Using evidence largely gathered incidentally during research into the institutional culture of the seventeenth-century city corporation, this short article revisits this idea and offers a potential alternative fate for the missing book. First, the documentary context of the missing book is established before examining pamphlet evidence of Canterbury’s Christmas Day riots of 1647 in relation to the civil war claim.[pg337]
Subsequently, the case for an alternative fate is set out, beginning with a general consideration of institutional document storage and use, then highlighting instances of removal of minute books from their usual place in the town hall. Finally, dated references implying use of the missing book – crucially including post-civil war evidence – are presented which, though not conclusive, allow for the possibility that the missing book survived into at least the early eighteenth century.
Canterbury’s Early Minute Books
Minute books, along with Chamberlains’ Accounts, are the key working documents of a city corporation. Minutes comprise detailed notes of agreed actions or orders relating to urban governance from each meeting of a town’s mayor, aldermen and common council – in Canterbury, the Burghmote. Such documents are invaluable when researching any aspect of a town’s history and a significant gap in the record is frustrating and disappointing.
Canterbury’s collection of minutes (CCA-CC/A/C/1-83, series reference here- after AC) dates from 1418, however, fifteenth and early sixteenth-century records are patchy. The first item, AC/1 (1418-1548), consists of 108 separate elements bound together in the 1950s. Of these, sixty-nine are Burghmote court records. The second item in the series (AC/2, 1542-1578) marks the beginning of a more organised collection. Here, minutes were entered into a large book (30 x 20 x 7cm, 334 text-filled folios) bought specifically for the purpose in 1542. Consistency of watermarks confirm it as a single book which has been rebound, though the damaged original rear board is retained alongside it. Its provenance is given by a first-page inscription: ‘This boke gevyn of Robert Browne Sherif of the Citie of Cantorbury In the xxxiiijth yere of the Reigne of owre Sovereigne lorde kyng Henry the viijth’. The first minute is dated 24 October 1542, likely the first meeting of the mayoral year which began at Michaelmas (29 September). The last minute is dated 8 April 1578.
On completion of AC/2, another new book was purchased (AC/3, 1578-1602). AC/3 has the remnants of an original soft brown leather binding, lightly decorated with thin, inserted strips of vellum and including a leather strap with a buckle. There is no inscription concerning its provenance or entry in the accounts for its purchase. The first entry is dated 7 October 1578, indicating that perhaps five months are missing between the end of AC/2 and the beginning of AC/3. The book ends on 14 September 1602, recording the election of mayor Richard Gaunt due to take office at Michaelmas and emphasising the desire to start afresh in a new book for a new mayor. Incidentally, this neatly ties in with a change of monarch six months later (accession of James I on 24 March 1603). There are no blank pages at the beginning or the end of the book.
No catalogue number is assigned to the missing minute book of 1602-1630 given its long-term absence from the collection. There is no evidence of civic outlay in the city accounts for a new book as AC/3 became full, suggesting the missing book may have been privately purchased by the incoming or outgoing mayor or other officer. The only minute record from this time is a few pages of rough minutes from 1617/18 which have survived.[fn1] These detail routine civic events such as granting leases, establishing committees, and elections to certain civic roles but also give an insight [pg338]into rarer events like establishing a scavenger to clear rubbish in the south of the city, and problems with the sergeants-at-mace. Their survival may be coincidental, or at some much later date, their value as minutes from an otherwise undocumented period was recognized resulting in purposeful preservation. There also exists a city order book of c.1636-1643 which contains a note of the location of several orders within the missing minute book: ‘In libro Burghemot incept Anno 1602: Strangers fol’ 304 / Watch: fol: 226.191.14’.[fn2] A probable aide-mémoire pointing to the missing book still being in active use in the immediate pre-civil war period.
The subsequent extant minute book, AC/4 (1630-1658), is another large, bound book (35 x 23 x 9cm, 446 text-filled folios, 17 blank). It presents in a modern binding and in this case, there is a purchase entry in the city accounts for 1629-30. In fact, the entry details the purchase of two new minute books from city funds, usefully providing an explanation as to why the double purchase was necessary: ‘Paid for ye newe Burgmoth booke x s and ij s that was lost by an other yt was bought & disliked of.[fn3] It seems, therefore, that a problematic cheap book was bought for two shillings before a better quality, more expensive, one replaced it.
The impact of these decisions can perhaps be observed in AC/4, the more expensive replacement. The book has no formal dedication and begins with eleven almost entirely blank pages; they contain only a couple of short, later-dated notes. The main minute text begins virtually unheralded on the verso side of the eleventh folio where there is simply an unassuming headline stating that it is during the mayoralty of William Watmer. Beneath, the first entered meeting is dated 13 April 1630, oddly mid-way through the mayoral year. It may be surmised that the preceding empty pages were to be filled with meeting minutes previously written into the ‘cheap’ book which probably began in September 1629 with the new mayor. Sadly, they were never backfilled, and the cheap book has, perhaps unsurprisingly, not survived. AC/4 may rightly date from 1629 but lacklustre civic administration means that minutes for the short period Sept 1629-Mar 1630 are irretrievably lost.
‘Lost in the Civil War’
The origin and evidential basis for the catalogue note is unknown but could possibly be an informed comment by an earlier Cathedral Archivist such as William Urry (archivist 1948-1969) for which evidence has not yet been found. Canterbury, as elsewhere, was undoubtedly subject to turbulent events during the civil war period, suffering a string of disturbances including iconoclasm in the cathedral in 1642 and 1643 and destruction of the city’s market cross by order of Burghmote in 1645.[fn4] However, the most likely incident to have allowed unauthorised access to Burghmote records within the town hall was during the upheaval of the Christmas Day riots in December 1647, an event recorded in several published pamphlets though with some overlap of copied text.
The riot erupted because of conflict between those supporting the opening of shops and markets on Christmas Day under state orders banning festivities and those determined to celebrate the nativity.[fn5] People were chased through the town and beaten – including the mayor and certain aldermen – a man was shot, and there was looting of shops: [pg339]
… finding where the shops were open, they did violently breake into them, and seiz- ing on those goods which lay most open to sale, they did scatter them in scorn up and down the streets. The Masters could not rescue their goods, nor defend their owne persons from violence, so great was the confusion.[fn6]
Domestic property of the elite was also targeted: ‘They have beat down all the windows of M. Maiors House, burnt the Stoups at the coming in of his dore’.[fn7] There was a forced surrender of the keys of the prison from the town clerk, and release of prisoners caught by the Puritan mayor and his entourage on at least two separate occasions.[fn8] Furthermore, the rioters were seen to ‘seize upon the Magazine and all the Utensils of Warre that the Town-hall could afford them’, a detail noted in more than one pamphlet.[fn9] There is no doubt that the town hall was a key site in the rioting – and the brokering of peace which followed.
Nevertheless, despite rioting on two separate days (December 25 & 27, not the Sabbath between), and several recorded accounts, there is no indication in any telling of the story that the records of the town hall were targeted. This does not prove it didn’t happen. However, given the salacious detail pamphlet authors did include, it might be considered that taboo access to, or destruction of, civic documents would have been mentioned by at least one author. Similarly, if the minute book and other records had been stolen, it seems plausible that an order seeking their retrieval might have been recorded in the active minute book. There are no entries in AC/4 which shed any light on the guildhall incursion. Indeed, the only direct reference to the event in official documents is the addition of a note at the end of the 1647/8 annual accounts: ‘during the yeare of this Accompt there hapned divers Insurreccons in the Cittie of Canterburie, and Countie of Kent’.[fn10]
It could be that the uncertainties of governance at this time were of greater importance than recording the loss of a book. However, meetings of the Burghmote continued with usual regularity after the riots, though perhaps under strain. The first post-riot Burghmote meeting on 28 Dec 1647 records only those present at the meeting – eleven, including two aldermen, the town clerk and eight common councilmen – rather than the usual list of absentees.[fn11] In AC/5, a post-Restoration Burghmote order of April 1663, establishes a committee ‘To inquire out certaine Ancient and other Publique bookes belonging unto the Maior and Cominalty ... and in whose custody the same are ...’, an order which could conceivably include a missing Burghmote book ‘lost in the civil war’[fn12] Otherwise, there is an absence of clear contemporary evidence in support of this assertion. Furthermore, this 1663 order should be viewed in the context of long-term issues with document storage and use.
Document Storage and Use
The city chamberlain was largely responsible for city documents and the usual storage arrangement for core civic items, including royal charters by which the institution held authority, and the civic seal by which they endorsed it, was that they were ‘laid up’ in the town hall – the courthouse home of the Burghmote – in a large, strong, wooden chest. Four keys were held by the mayor, the chamberlain and two other aldermen, thus tightly restricting physical access to the items within. It is possible that the minute books were also stored within the chest but more [pg340]likely that they rested on a shelf or in a cupboard in a room away from the main court hall and so not publicly accessible.
There is extended evidence that general storage of papers in the town hall was slightly shambolic. In November 1635, it was ordered that ‘the upper Chamber of the Court hall wherin liye divers Aunchent records of this Cittie which doe lie unfittyng ther shall be made Cleane and that there shall be shelves made in the said Chamber in some Convenient place there where uppon to laie the said records for the better preservyng of them’.[fn13] In April 1657, there was an order for the chamber to ‘be made fit & putt in order’ with ‘boxes drawers & shelves’, and in March 1694 when the town hall was enlarged, it was noted that the new upper chamber ‘is and will be much safer and better for the keeping of the Records Charters books and writings of the said Citty’.[fn14]
It is also clear that records were sometimes officially removed from the town hall. All manner of city documents were used as evidence or source material for lawyers pleading a case on behalf of the city corporation, though gaining access to certain items often required an order of Burghmote. Between 1630-1694, Canterbury’s minute books record twenty-nine orders for charters to be taken out of the chest either for immediate perusal and return, for use by a city official within the city, or for use in London by the Recorder or other counsel. In January 1676/7, Benjamin Agar, who had been allowed documents to work on a boundary dispute concerning the borough of St Martin, delivered no less than eighteen charters back to ‘be laid upp and safely kept in the Chamber of the said Citty according to custome’, along with one other document, ‘one old bagg 1602 papers [and] two other baggs of writings’.[fn15] Some years later, in April 1677, Sir Thomas Hardres (then Recorder) ‘did bring and deliver unto the Chamberlaine …one blacke box with severall writings’ comprising a variety of records.[fn16] And, in September 1688, it was ordered that ‘Mr Chamberlaine shall enquire after the Charter of King James the first in whose hands it is and to receive the said Charter and to cause it to be laid upp in the Chest’.[fn17] During the 1630s, local Antiquarian William Somner was finalising his history of the city, The Antiquities of Canterbury, and allowed access to city records though his book, published in 1640, makes no mention of a missing minute book, something he may have thought to comment on. Since charters and other items, including the Burghmote books, were working documents which underpinned the extent of the corporation’s authority, their usefulness to the town clerk or lawyers working for the city is obvious.
Given that chamberlains served for only two years and mayors for one, it is perhaps in some way understandable that continual handoffs led to uncertainty over the return of loaned documents, and it was not only a problem in Canterbury. Robert Tittler describes how, in 1612, Henry Manship organised a committee in Great Yarmouth which spent two months retrieving and organising a range of town documents before he was able to undertake his writing of a history of the town.[fn18] But such working practices occasionally resulted in serious issues of retrieval. Thomas Denne, retained as counsel by Canterbury corporation since 1617, refused to return borrowed documents, exhibiting persistent reluctance or incompetence. In late 1636, the city corporation began a series of attempts to recall city charters and documents from him.[fn19] In January 1636/7, after searching the chamber for a note ‘signifying his [Denne’s] receipt of this Cittyes Charters’ and other documents, [pg341]they took the step of taking advice from an alternative counsel for their recovery ‘out of the hands of the said Mr Denn’.[fn20] The process dragged on until on 18 September 1638 when documents were finally returned. The Burghmote court ordered that the details of everything received from Denne were to be entered into the Burghmote book (AC/4 in use).[fn21] Sadly, this list does not appear in any existing minute or account book, and we remain ignorant of the documents Denne had borrowed and returned.
Of relevance, however, is that in Canterbury, evidence of the removal and possible long-term loan of records from the town hall extends to the Burghmote minute books. For example, on 20 April 1627, ‘Gibson the post’ was paid eighteen pence ‘for Cariage of divers Court books and one Burmoth booke’ to London for a hearing concerning a Quo Warranto case in the King’s Bench.[fn22] On 10 May the same year, he was paid to bring books and documents weighing a hefty 70lb back to Canterbury after the hearing, almost certainly including the Burghmote book.[fn23] The King’s Bench records have not yet been investigated, but this could have been AC/2, AC/3, or even the missing minute book in use at that time.
An order of 31 December 1633, slightly predating the issues with Thomas Denne but perhaps connected, is an emphatic attempt to control the whereabouts and obviously lax attitude to the minute book – possibly the one in current use (AC/4): ‘Allso at this Court yt ys ordred that the Burgmott booke wherin the actes & decres of the Court of Burghmott are written & entered shall not from henceforth be caried out of the Court hall or Chamber of this Cittie but ther to remayne except yt be by order of the Court of Burghmott’.[fn24] The point is that Burghmote books, like other records, could be taken out of the town hall to be used in other places, be it court cases in London or local use by the chamberlain, town clerk, or other counsel. Despite the city corporation’s generally protective instincts towards their most private documents, the picture is one of a lack of strict control and regular opportunities for books and papers to be removed from their usual storage in the town hall, at least during much of the seventeenth century. Under these circumstances, specific references to use of the missing book are of interest.
Dated References to the Missing Book
Usefully, the Burghmote minute books contain orders relating to conducting searches within them for evidence of prior events or precedents for regulations, though most do not specify an actual book. Orders such as that of 13 December 1636 concerning money paid to Thomas Denne give a general edict to search ‘Burghmote books’; given Denne’s employment from 1617, this likely relates to the missing book and/or AC/4.[fn25] Other examples include searches ordered in connection with renewal of the city charter (4 June 1667) and another King’s Bench case between ex-alderman Thomas Enfield and Alderman Avery Hilles.[fn26] Here, a series of orders between November 1677 and January 1677/8, provided for Enfield and city lawyer Edward Hurst to have access to all ‘Charters writings Records and Burghmote bookes as shall be necessary’.[fn27]
Sometimes, orders specify searches in older books. On 28 August 1677, the town clerk is ordered to search the ‘old Burghmote bookes’ for fine payments of the city sergeants.[fn28] And in May 1699, a committee is established to search [pg342]‘the Ancient Burghmote Bookes in the Chamber’ for information concerning the grounds for disenfranchisement of freemen.[fn29] There are also Burghmote orders of later seventeenth-century dates which specifically demand a search in the previous Burghmote book to that in use: a 26 October 1675 order is for a search of the ‘last Burghmote booke [AC/5]’ concerning lands belonging to Henry Oxinden; another specific search in AC/5 is dated 6 June 1676 when the chamberlain is ordered to ‘cause the last Burghmote booke to be brought and produced heere’.[fn30] None of the above mention, or even hint at, a missing book.
There are several earlier entries, however, which directly imply the missing book’s existence. The first is an order in AC/4 (28 June 1636): ‘Upon the peticon’ of Thomas Wilkinson it is ordered that the old Burgmott book shalbe searched for the order concerning the wallon Goldsmith & strangers made about 17 yeares past’.[fn31] Seventeen years previous is 1619, suggesting the book’s existence in 1636. More convincing evidence of use is dated 26 April 1642 (AC/4): ‘It is ordered that the Burghmott book anno 1600 and soe forward for 7 years may be examined to find howe the composicon of Barton lands were severed from the County of this Citty & after paid with Kent’.[fn32] Thus, the book would appear to have been available to the corporation in the early 1640s and this entry hints at the rich details lost to us. One further entry in AC/4, dated 6 April 1647, just eight months before the Christmas Day riots, could also signal the book’s use. It is an order to examine books in relation to the corporation’s financial responsibilities during ‘Osborne’s minority’.[fn33] If Osborne was only sixteen or seventeen in 1647 this order may have been satisfied by a search of AC/4 alone, nevertheless, no indication is given that it was not possible to search an earlier book if needed.
To date, the most convincing evidence noting the book’s absence comes from around 1794. Canterbury alderman Cyprian Rondeau Bunce, whose portrait now hangs in the Cathedral Archives and whose small, handwritten, explanatory notes are often found added to all manner of documents, undertook to provide an ‘Abridgment of the Decrees of the Court of Burghmote’ during his term of office.[fn34] On the Abridgement title page he states he has covered the ‘ten several books’ but significantly adds: ‘(excepting the Orders and Decrees passed between 1602 and 1630, which are not here abridged, by reason that the Book (No 3) [Bunce’s numbering] containing such Orders is lost, and having been long missing, it is apprehended is now irrecoverable)’. This is definitive, but his words suggest that it is only time which has made the book ‘irrecoverable’. Had the book been ‘lost in the civil war’, might such a story have been passed on through a series of corporation officers over the years to Bunce? If he had known something of the book’s fate, then perhaps he would have worded his comment accordingly. As an aside, however, Bunce’s statement helpfully rules out that the missing book was amongst city documents purloined by troublesome mayor Francis Bennett- Goldney in the early twentieth century.[fn35]
The most intriguing – and confusing – evidence predates Bunce by about fifty- six years. In 1738, city alderman William Gray, born in the city in 1695, was compiling a notebook comprising city records and events. On 20 Jun 1738, he entered a minute from a Burghmote meeting of 25 October 1688 concerning the King’s proclamation for restoration of corporate privilege.[fn36] After this text he adds that he copied from ‘minutes of Burghmote found in the Chamber on loose papers [pg343]wrote by Leonard Lovelace then Townclerk’, and the original loose papers are bound into the back of his notebook.[fn37] However, he continues: ‘the Burghmote Books of that time are missing’.[fn38] There is no doubt that the Burghmote book covering 1688 exists as AC/7 and includes the specified proclamation minute under the October date.[fn39] Is it possible Gray was mistaken about which book was missing and does his use of the plural suggest a number of books were absent? Given his otherwise dedicated and detailed work, it seems likely that, for whatever reason, AC/7 at least was not available to him but subsequently reappeared.
It is appealing, then, to imagine that one of Gray’s missing ‘Books’ was the one still missing today. However, the situation is complicated by another entry: ‘3 December 1611 in the Burghmot Book is an order to admit Thomas Collar of Saint Martins to be free upon his Bond to keep a Poor Orphan at his own charge’.[fn40] This entry, probably written c.1738-41, implies that perhaps around this time Alderman Gray had sight of the missing 1602-1630 Burghmote minute book.
It must be considered that the term ‘Burghmot book’ could represent a broader descriptor than our modern usage and refers to a different book though the weight of evidence, including that above, indicates this term relates to the minute books. Or, given that it was usual for there to be an order in the minute book granting freedom and an account entry recording payment for the privilege, perhaps it was Gray’s intention to reference the account book for Thomas Collar’s freedom. However, his use of the word ‘order’ is consistent with minute book entries and in other notes on the same page he clearly references his sources, which include the Chamberlains’ Accounts.
There is a relevant entry in the city account book for 1611 to which he surely had access but a small detail perhaps suggests he did not simply mistake his source. Gray uses the name ‘Thomas Collar’ whilst the accounts use ‘Thomas Colly’.[fn41] The crucial question, therefore, is did he ‘interpret’ or mistranscribe the name Collar from the accounts or copy it directly from the minutes? Additionally, the account entry does not directly mention Collar/Colly’s ‘Bond’ or that it is ‘at his own charge’, though it may be argued that these are implied. The enrolment of six-year old orphan Stephen Dewlove as Collar/Colly’s apprentice is also given separately in the accounts but again, uses the name ‘Collye’ and ‘Colly’ and does not mention St Martin’s.[fn42] These discrepancies are enough to give reasonable doubt that Gray obtained his information from the account book.
One other entry in Gray’s notebook – a note of the election of Ralph Grove as a councilman could also have come from the missing book. Gray notes Grove as living within the bounds of St Gregory’s and that he was ‘Elected and Sworn Common Council man Anno: Dom: 1610’.[fn43] It is possible that a separate list of elected members with dates of election and swearing in was available to him but also the case that the Burghmote minute books record both the election and oath- taking of members. In summary, Gray’s early eighteenth-century notebook points to a lack of access to AC/7 but tantalisingly hints at his use of the now-missing minute book.
If this were true, then the book could not have been lost in the civil war but disappeared sometime between Alderman Gray and Alderman Bunce’s eighteenth- century eras of service. In this case and given the environment of regular use but poor control over loans, what emerges is the distinct chance that, at some point, the [pg344]missing Burghmote minute book was legitimately removed from the town hall for a legal or administrative purpose but never returned home. Accounting for Bunce’s comment about time, it is likely that in this scenario the loss occurred early in the c.1738-94 period.
Conclusion
The evidence presented here is not conclusive concerning the fate of the missing Burghmote book. Furthermore, it results largely from a considered collation of gathered references – mostly seventeenth century – noted whilst researching other topics; a more exhaustive, targeted search – especially of eighteenth-century records – may reveal further evidence. However, with raised awareness of the missing book perhaps attention will be paid by researchers to similar references in the city – or other – archives which could, one day, yield some useful clue as to the certain fate of the 1602-1630 Burghmote minute book. Whilst it remains possible that the book was destroyed in civil war rioting – or even succumbed to commonplace damage or decay necessitating disposal – it is tempting to hope that it could yet lie lost in an uncatalogued collection of legal documents in London or elsewhere beyond Canterbury.
Avril Leach
[fn]1|CCA-CC/A/D/1/A, B.|Image[/fn]
[fn]2|CCA-CC/J/Q/O/1, last page of the first-bound book.|Image[/fn]
[fn]3|CCA-CC-F/A/23, fol. 496v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]4|See, Patrick Collinson, ‘The Protestant Cathedral, 1541-1660’, in A History of Canterbury Cathedral, ed. by Patrick Collinson, Nigel Ramsay, and Margaret Sparks (OUP, 1995), 154-203 (pp. 194-203); CCA-CC-A/C/4 (hereafter AC/), fol. 203v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]5|‘June 1647: An Ordinance for Abolishing of Festivals’ in Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660, ed. by C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait (London, 1911), p. 954.|Image[/fn]
[fn]6|The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, Dec 28-Jan 4 (London, 1647), p.786.|Image[/fn]
[fn]7|Canterbury Christmas or, A True Relation of the Insurrection in Canterbury on Christmas day last (London, 1648), p.4.|Image[/fn]
[fn]8|Canterbury Christmas, p. 3.|Image[/fn]
[fn]9|Intelligencer, p. 786. For example, see also: John Rushworth, ‘Proceedings in Parliament, December 6th 1647-January 1st 1648’, in Historical Collections of Private Passages of State: Volume 7, 1647-48 (London, 1721), pp. 923-952 (28 Dec 1647). www.british-history.ac.uk [accessed 13 September 2023]; Matthew Carter, A most true and exact relation of that as honourable as unfortunate expedition of Kent, Essex, and Colchester (London, 1650), p. 4; Mercurius Pragmaticus 28 Dec to Jan 4 (London, 1648), Q2.|Image[/fn]
[fn]10|CC-F/A/25, fol. 445v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]11|AC/4, fol. 260v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]12|AC/5, fol. 73r.|Image[/fn]
[fn]13|AC/4, fol. 108v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]14|AC/4, fol. 420v; AC/7, fols 263v-264r.|Image[/fn]
[fn]15|AC/6, fol. 67v. This entry includes a complete list of the returned charters.|Image[/fn]
[fn]16|AC/6, fol. 72r.|Image[/fn]
[fn]17|AC/7, fol. 110v.|Image[/fn][pg345]
[fn]18|Tittler, Robert, Townspeople and Nation: English Urban Experiences, 1540-1640 (Stanford University Press, 2001), pp. 128-129.|Image[/fn]
[fn]19|Andrew Thrush, ‘Thomas Denne (1577-1656)’, The History of Parliament online. Such issues were not restricted to civic government as Paul Griffiths describes similar issues in the parish in ‘Secrecy and Authority in Late Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century London’, The Historical Journal, 40 (1997), pp.925-951.|Image[/fn]
[fn]20|AC/4, fol. 123v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]21|AC/4, fol. 140v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]22|CC-F/A/23, fol. 339r.|Image[/fn]
[fn]23|CC-F/A/23, fol. 339v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]24|AC/4, fol. 78r.|Image[/fn]
[fn]25|AC/4, fol. 122r.|Image[/fn]
[fn]26|AC/5, fol. 162r.|Image[/fn]
[fn]27|AC/6, fols 84v, 86v, 87v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]28|AC/6, fol. 80v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]29|AC/8, fol. 140v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]30|AC/6, fol. 47r; AC/6, fol. 54v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]31|AC/4, fol. 116v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]32|AC/4, fol. 168r.|Image[/fn]
[fn]33|AC/4, fol. 244r.|Image[/fn]
[fn]34|CCA-CC/Z/5, preface declaration.|Image[/fn]
[fn]35|John Boyle, Portrait of Canterbury (Phillimore, 2009), 4th edn, p. 116.|Image[/fn]
[fn]36|CCA-CC/SuppMs/6, p. 86.|Image[/fn]
[fn]37|CC/SuppMs/6, p. 356.|Image[/fn]
[fn]38|CC/SuppMs/6, p. 86.|Image[/fn]
[fn]39|AC/7, fols 115v-116v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]40|CC-Supp/Ms/6, p. 96.|Image[/fn]
[fn]41|CC-F/A/22/1, fol. 49r.|Image[/fn]
[fn]42|CC-F/A/22/1, fol. 51v.|Image[/fn]
[fn]43|CC-Supp/Ms/6, p. 30.|Image[/fn]