The Register
Italian bankers; sea-wrack

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

Francis Grainger & W.G. Collingwood (editors)

Year published

1929

Supporting documents

Pages

86-87

Citation Show another format:

'The Register: Italian bankers; sea-wrack', Register & Records of Holm Cultram (1929), pp. 86-87. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=49524 Date accessed: 02 October 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Italian Bankers.

252. (C. p. 209; added in a later hand).—The names of our merchants. Hubertus Dosii, Brachius Gerardi, Bonicentrus Jacopi and Josphus Bonagwyde, de societate Pullicum et Rambertinorum. [c. 1294. Further mention is made in no. 294 of this Florentine firm of Pulci and Rembertini; also in Bishop Halton's Register, i, 150ff. Reyner Bellinzonis was employed in 1294; others were recommended in 1295 by Pope Boniface in connexion with the crusade of Edward I, among whom was Abracha or Abrachio Gerardi, apparently the Brachius Gerardi here named.]

Sea-Wrack.

253. (C. p. 210).—Pleas before the king, 15 days after Easter 8 Edward I [1280]: Sea-wrack (de wrecco maris). The abbot of Holm was summoned for taking sea-wrack in Cumberland. He claimed it by immemorial usage. The trial was fixed for the fortnight after Michaelmas. William de Gysingham on the king's behalf said that the abbot had exercised the right only since the time of King Richard. The abbot asked by attorney for an enquiry, and the sheriff was ordered to summon a jury of twelve, a month after Easter, to try the case of the King v. the abbot of Holme re sea-wrack; and the abbot was ordered to produce his foundation-charter with mention of sea-wrack. On the third day of Pentecost the king ordered that all who could show undisturbed possession before and after the time of King Richard should enjoy the same, but those who had lost their liberties since last Easter by the said writ should have restitution [1280–81. For further proceedings see nos. 263–264. In a note to his MS. Canon James Wilson remarked on the importance of the above entry, with its statement of a statute on the subject. He thought that the statute was probably later than 8 Edward I; perhaps about 21 Edward I (1292–3).]