A vindication of the Parliament of England, in answer to a book written by William Molyneux of Dublin, Esq., intituled, The case of Irelands being bound by acts of Parliament in England, stated by John Cary ...

YOUR Book Entituled, The Case of Ireland's being Bound by Acts of Parliament in Eng∣land, Stated, I have seen, and read over with some thought; and because I cannot agree with you in your Opinion, I design this as an Answer, to shew you the reason why I differ from you.

But before I proceed farther, I shall pre∣mise and grant with you, That Ireland hath long had a Parliament; and I am apt to think that your mistake arises from this, that you Build too much on the Name, not considering the Power that Parliament Le∣gally

hath: For this is no more then our Foreign Plantations, and great Corporati∣ons in England have; in the former, the Governours represent the King, the great Men or Council the Lords, and the Com∣mons are represented by such as they elect, and send from their several Districts: In the latter, these three Estates are likewise Re∣presented by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the several Cities or Corporations; these make Laws for their better Order and Government, yet all sub∣servient to the great Council or Parliament of this Nation; from whose Jurisdiction those Priviledges do not in the least set them free, but they pay a due Obedience to their Laws, especially those made with an Inten∣tion to bind them.

The Dispute now between you and me is, Whither Ireland can be Bound by our Eng∣lish Acts of Parliament? This you deny, and I affirm; I will therefore proceed to enquire into your Arguments.

And because I intend as much Brevity as possible I can, I will pass by all that in your Book, which I apprehend doth not con∣cern the Matter in Dispute. Your Stile is good, and your Language like a Gentle∣man; but with this fault, that under that, you sometimes endeavour to cloud your Design, and represent it to the Reader

quite different from your own Inten∣tion.

Page 4 You tell us, That the Subject of your present Disquisition shall be, how far the Parliament of England may think it reasonable to intermeddle with the Affairs of Ireland, and bind you up by Laws made in their House. This you might have inform∣ed your self from our Statute-Books, which begin with the Laws of Henry III. about Five hundred years since; and you will find, that in that King's Reign, and ever since, in the Reigns of his Successors, the Parliament of England have thought it rea∣sonable to Bind up Ireland by Laws made here, so often as they saw there was occa∣sion; and no doubt they did the same, or at least had Power so to do, in the Reigns of Henry II. Richard I. and King John, who all preceded King Henry III. and Reigned after Ireland came under the Eng∣lish Government. Now, were that all the Question in Dispute, I could soon answer you, that what the Parliaments of England did Five hundred years past, and have done ever since, the present Parliaments think reasonable to suppose themselves impow∣ered to do, because they make Precedents of former times their Rule and Government; so that 'tis not the Will, but the Power of the Parliament of England in this Matter,

that you Dispute; and this appears more plainly in your next Paragraph, where you call it a pretended Right, founded only on the imaginary Title of Conquest, or Purchase, or on Precedents, and Matters of Record.

I do not think it very material for me to consider, on which of these imaginary Titles, as you call them, they pretend to this Power, the Question will not turn on that; 'tis enough, if I assert and prove, that the Parliaments of England did exer∣cise this Power, ever since Ireland hath been under the English Government; and I think it will lye on you to prove, that either they did not, and then to show when they first Usurp'd it, or that it was an Usurpati∣on from the Beginning; therefore your first, second, and third general Heads, seeming to be of no great Moment in this Dispute, I shall say the less to them; your fourth, fifth, and sixth, seem more to re∣late to the matter before us.

Under the first of these, speaking of Henry II. you say, Page 11, and 12. That all the Archbishops, Bishops, and Abbots of Ireland, came to the King of England, and received him for King and Lord of Ire∣land, swearing Fealty to him and his Heirs for ever; the Kings also, and Princes of Ireland, did in like manner receive Henry King of England for Lord of Ireland, and

became his Men, and did him Homage, and swore Fealty to him and his Heirs against all Men, and he received Letters from them, with their Seals Pendent, in manner of Char∣ters, confirming the Kingdom of Ireland to him and his Heirs; and testifying, That they in Ireland had ordained him and his Heirs to be their King and Lord of Ireland for ever. This was Anno 1173. Now, either this Resignation they made to him was Abso∣lute or Limited, if the latter, I conceive it must be exprest in those Charters you mention, and it had very much concerned your Argument to have got them perused, (if any there are) and to have shewed, how far the Parliaments of England have broke through those Original Compacts.

And herein, I think I have granted as much as you desire in your second Head; it seems to me all one as to the present Case, whether Henry II. be considered, Page 13. as Conquestor Hiberniae, or as Dominus Hi∣••erniae, I shall draw no Arguments from either, a Submission you have acknowledg∣ed. You say, Page 15. That all came in peaceably, and had large Concessions made them, of the like Laws and Liberties with the People of England; here again it would have been necessary for you to have produ∣ced some of those Concessions, that you might have made it appear to the Parlia∣ment

of England, what they were; not that I do make any Demur to the freedom of the People of Ireland, I take them to be so, both in their Lives, Liberties, and Properties, as much, and as far, as any People in England; and I take them to be the more so, because they are subject to an English Parliament, and so have all the Priviledges of an English People, which the Subjects of Scotland have not; I take every Subject of the Kingdom of England to be Born Free, and to carry this Charter of his Freedom about him, let him remove where he will, within the Dominions of England; and that he cannot be divested thereof, but by the Laws of this Land, made by his Representatives in Parliament, in the Election whereof, he either hath, or may have a Voice, if he qualifies himself as those Laws doe direct. This I willing∣ly grant, because I would not be thought to argue against the Liberty and Property of English Men, wherever they are settled: But still, I think it had been necessa∣ry for you to have produced a Transcript of those Concessions; for either they were made, or they were not; if they were, you live in a Kingdom, whose Interest it was to preserve them, and they must give great light into the present Controversy; if none appears, how do you know what

those Concessions were? I insist the more on this, because you say, they had Conces∣sions, of the like Laws, and Liberties, with the People of England; now whe∣ther by this you mean, the same Laws and Liberties, or such as were very like them, I am in the dark; if the latter, they must be either more, or less; they cannot be more, for I take the People of England to be as free as any People in the Universe; if they were less, then I grant you more then you desire; for I take the People of Ireland, to stand on the same footing with the People of England, and yet I am afraid you are not content; therefore I should gladly see a Transcript of those Concessions, because I am apt to think we differ in this; I say they were to be subject to all the Laws of England in general, you exempt them from the Statute-Laws; but I expect to find you fuller on this, in your Fourth Parti∣cular.

As to your third Particular, What Title Conquest gives by the Laws of Nature and Reason, Page 18. I shall say little to it, sup∣posing it hath no relation to this Contro∣versy; for I do grant, that the People of Ireland are a free People, and that they are, as you say, Page 20. The Progeny of the English and Britains, that from time to time went over into that Kingdom. I add, who

before they went hence were subject to the Statute Laws of England; and then the Question will be, what were those Con∣cessions that discharged them, from ren∣dring Obedience to the Legislative Power of this Kingdom.

This brings me to your Fourth Particu∣lar, pag. 28. What Concessions and Grants have been from time to time made to the Peo∣ple of Ireland? But the latter part of that Particular, pag. 5. By what Degrees the English Form of Government, and the Eng∣lish Statute Laws came to be received in Ire∣land; which you say, was wholly owing to the Consent of the People and Parliament of Ireland, I deny, and you are to prove; and I conceive, this cannot better be done, than by producing some Concessions or Grants, whereby they are discharged by the Legislative Power of England, from the Obedience they owed, and always paid, to the Statute Laws of this Kingdom, before they removed into Ireland.

And now we are arrived at the true State of the Controversy; you suppose, that the People of Ireland cannot pay Obedience to the Statute Laws of this Kingdom, ex∣cept they subject themselves to a State of Bondage; and I believe they ought to do it, especially, when those Laws are design∣ed to bind them, and that this consists

with the State of Liberty and Freedom; I will therefore examin what you say on this Fourth Particular.

The First Precedent you produce, is on∣ly an Account, that Matth. Paris, Histori∣ographer to King Henry III. gives, (who, by the way, please to note, wrote above Sixty Years after King Henry II. took Pos∣session of Ireland) That Henry the Second, a little before he left Ireland, in a Publick Assembly and Council of the Irish at Lismore, did cause the Irish to receive, and swear to be governed by the Laws of England, pag. 28. I desire to know, whether the Statute Laws were then part of the Laws of England? If they were, (which I sup∣pose you will not deny, for you confess Parliaments to be before that time, pag. 39.) then please to inform me, Whether the People of Ireland consented to the making those Laws? If not, by your own Ar∣gument, here is the Slavery, which you so much fear and exclaim against through your whole Book, introduced on them in the original Contract, for he saith, that the King caused them to receive, and swear to be governed by the Laws of England.

But in your next Precedent, you seem to qualify the Severity of that King's Orders, by what Sir Edward Cook says, viz. That he settled the Laws of England in Ireland, by

the voluntary Acceptance and Allowance of the Nobility and Clergy, pag. 29. And he did likewise allow them the Freedom of holding Parliaments in Ireland, as a separate and di∣stinct Kingdom from England. Please to note, that Sir Edward Cook wrote about Five Hundred Years after King Henry II. went into Ireland, and about Four Hundred and Fifty after Matt. Paris wrote, and you would now bring his Opinion against the constant Practice of the Parliaments of Eng∣land, for Five Hundred Years; Besides you say, p. 80, and 116. That Sir Edward Cooke was of Opinion, that Ireland was to be governed by the Statute Laws made in Eng∣land, where it was specially named therein; and in the last of these Pages you exclaim against him for this his Opinion. I shall not examine your Quotations, whether they agree with the Originals or no, my Pro∣fession being not the Law, I am not fur∣nish'd with those Books, nor do I think it much to the purpose what Sir Edward Cook saith in this matter; yet I must take notice, that you pen the Words, Holding of Par∣liaments in Ireland, in a different Character from the following Sentence, As a separate and distinct Kingdom from England, which gives me reason to suppose the last was 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉

vour to find out the Original, did the De∣cision of this Controversy depend upon Sir Edward Cook's Opinion.

Sir Edward Cook, in this Case, should have given a Transcript of that Grant, and you should have transcribed it, as you do afterwards, the Modus how to hold their Parliaments, pag. 29. and yet then, there would have arose this Question, Whether the Kings of England can legally exempt their English and British Subjects (for so you call the People of Ireland, pag. 20.) from their Obedience to the Legislative Power of this Kingdom, by any Charters or Grants whatsoever; I am sure I never heard of any such Precedent, but on the contrary, it is charged as a Crime on the late King James, in an Act made Primo G. & M. Cap. 2. That he assumed and exercised a Power of dispencing with, and suspending of Laws, and the Execution of Laws, with∣out Consent of Parliament.

But here I see you will raise this Objecti∣on against my manner of expressing my self, and say, That when Grants are made by a King to any Country that doth submit it self to his Authority, all Persons who shall afterwards settle themselves therein, though before subject to other Laws are now ••o∣〈1 line〉〈1 line〉

try; therefore the People of England, when they setled Ireland, were to be governed by the Laws granted to Ireland; to this I an∣swer, That the Constitution of the Go∣vernment to which this Submission is made, ought specially to be considered; and then there will arise this 2d Question, Whether a Submission made to the K. of England, doth not include a Submission to the Legislative Authority of England? I am apt to think it does, and I believe it will appear by what fol∣lows in this Discourse, that the Parliaments of England have ever been of the same Opi∣nion; But be this how it will, Ireland you allow submitted it self on the Terms of be∣ing governed by the Laws of England, so this Objection seems rather to be formal, than material, as to the Subject we are upon.

This Modus, you say, pag. 30. For the most part agrees with the Modus tenendi Parl' in England, which is a loose Argu∣ment; for you know, that one Word in a Grant, may alter the whole Sence, and we both agree, that the Parliament of Ireland may make Laws, but the Question is, whether Ireland is not bound by the Statute Laws of England, as all our Plantations are?

Yet after all, you confess, pag. 30. That this very Modus, though strenuously asserted by Sir Edward Cook, is disputed by Mr. Selden and Mr. Pryn, two learned Antiqua∣ries,

will you then bring it as an Argument against the constant Practice of the Parlia∣ment of England, for Five Hundred Years past? But grant it had not been disputed at all, I do not see what it will make for your purpose.

One Reason, you say, why Mr. Pryn doubts this Modus to be sent over by King Henry the Second, is, because there were no Sheriffs established in Ireland in Henry the Second's Time, pag. 31. Yet the Word Vice∣comes is in it; all you answer is, pag. 32. That perhaps the King intended to constitute Sheriffs; and yet, the first you find esta∣blish'd there, were in the Days of King John; which was about Fifty Years after; and you say, pag. 30. That where this Form was altered from the Modus tenendi Parl' in England, 'tis only to fit it the better for the Kingdom of Ireland; if so, 'tis strange the Word Vice-comes had not been left out, see∣ing there was then no such Officer in Ireland.

But pag. 36. you are pleased to allow, that there is reason to doubt the certainty of this Record, unless we will depend on the Credit of the Bishop of Meath; there∣fore you return to your former Argument, viz. that there were Parliaments early in the Kingdom of Ireland; which may be probable; but whether the Parliament of England then lost their Power there, is the

thing I dispute, and you do not prove. You say, pag. 36, 37. That Henry the Se∣cond held a General Council of the Clergy at Cashall, wherein he rectifyed many Abuses in the Church, and established sundry Ecclesiasti∣cal Laws, agreeable to those in the Church of England; this in England we call a Con∣vocation, not a Parliament.

You say, pag. 37. Pari desiderio Regis Imperio se subjiciunt, omnibus igitur hoc modo consummatis, in Consilio habito apud Lismore Leges Anglicae ab omnibus sunt gra∣tantur receptae, & juratoriâ cautione praestitâ confirmatae, saith Matth. Paris; from hence you infer, pag. 38. That they should enjoy the like Liberties and Immunities, and be governed by the same mild Laws, both Civil and Ecclesiastical, as the People of England; and I see no Reason to the contrary; all we differ in is, whether they were thereby discharged from being subject to the Statute Laws made in England; this seems contra∣ry to the Judgment of the Parliament in Henry the Third's Days, to whom Matth. Paris was Historiographer; else, certainly they would not have made Laws to bind Ireland, as I shall by and by show they did.

You proceed pag. 38. thus, From all which it is manifest, that there were no Laws imposed upon the People of Ireland, by any

Authority of the Parliament of England; nor any Laws introduced into that Kingdom by King Henry the Second, but by the Consent and Allowance of the People of Ireland; and the Reason you give for it is this; For both the Civil and Ecclesiastical State were set∣led there, Regiae sublimatis authoritate; Solely by the King's Authority, and their own good Wills, as the Irish Statute 11 Eliz. Cap. 1. expresses it. What the Irish Statutes ex∣press, I think hath no great Weight in this Debate; the Question is, by what Power the People of Ireland (for so I will now call them) threw off that Subjection, they once owed to the Legislative Power of Eng∣land? If they think their bare Denial is enough, to warrant them free from such a Subjection, the People of England may ex∣pect the like on the same Argument; if be∣cause they are not present at our Elections, I will answer that in the following Dis∣course.

We proceed now to pag. 39. To see •••• what farther Degrees the Government of Ire∣land grew up conformable to that of England, which are your own Words; you say, that about the twenty third year of Henry II. (which was within five years after his return from Ireland) he created his younger Son John King of Ireland, at a Parliament held at Oxford; and from this you would

infer, Page 40. That by this Donation of the Kingdom of Ireland to King John, Ire∣land was most eminently set apart again, as a separate and distinct Kingdom by it self from the Kingdom of England; but you do not set forth that Grant, and our Statute-Books are not so old; this had been neces∣sary for many reasons; you say, Page 40. That by this Donation King John made di∣vers Grants and Chartes to his Subjects of Ireland; does this alone shew a Regal Au∣thority? and might it not have been done by a Lord-Deputy, still subject to the Crown of England? Pray let me ask you, was he at his return to England (which you say was a little after his first going over) received here by his Father as a Brother-King? and did he take Precedence of his elder Brother Richard? 'Tis much this young King had not punished his Subjects of Ireland, for being angry at his deriding their long Beards, at which, you say, they took such Offence, that they departed in much Discontent; I say 'tis much he had not pu∣nished their Undutifulness, but rather chose to come away in a Pet, and thereby to ab∣dicate his new Kingdom; for you do not shew, that he left the Administration of the Government with any one else: All that can be said in his Defence is, that he was young, about Twelve Years old, pag. 39

and perhaps the obstinate Humour, which the Barons of England afterwards found in him, might grow up with him, and become an Infirmity of Age; and during King John's being in England, did the Kingdom of Ireland govern its self? For if his Fa∣ther, King Henry the Second, sent over any other to succeed him, all your Argu∣ment is lost.

But after all, I find his granting Char∣ters is not of such moment, as to prove him a King; for this he did to the City of Bristol, whilst he was Earl of Moreton, (which I believe was long after the time you mention) and I find by the exemplifi∣cation of that Charter, that his Son, King Henry the Third, in his Inspeximus, con∣firms it, as granted by his Father, King John, when he was Earl of Moreton, without mentioning that he was then also King of Ireland; and Princes do not use to abate any thing of their Titles, especially when they are of so great Importance as this. No body doth believe, that King John, whilst Earl of Moreton, had such a Royal Autho∣rity in Bristol, as to discharge it from an obediential Subjection to the Legislative Power of England.

The Statute Primo G. & M. Cap. 9. ss. 2. saith, Ireland is annexed and united to the Imperial Crown of England, as well by the

Laws of this Kingdom, as those of Ireland; and I am sure, there is a great deal of dif∣ference between being part of the Imperial Crown of England, as Wales is, and a se∣parate Kingdom, as Scotland is; I find like∣wise that Henry the Third never wrote him∣self more than Lord of Ireland, and 'tis strange, if Ireland was established a sepa∣rate Kingdom in John Earl of Moreton, and his Heirs, that the Title had not been con∣tinued in his Son; and how comes it to pass, that we have ever since been at the Charge of supporting that Kingdom with our Treasure, without keeping a separate Account of our Expences laid out on it, which doubtless we should have done, had we thought it a separate Kingdom?

But to proceed; on searching Sir Richard Baker's Chronicle, I cannot find that he takes any Notice of King Henry IId's send∣ing over his Son John about the Twenty Third Year of his Reign, as you say Page 39. which 'tis much he should omit, see∣ing it was on so memorable an Occasion as his being made King of a separate Kingdom by his Father, in a Parliament at Oxford; but he saith, that in the Thirty First Year of his Reign, he sent his Son John over to Ire∣land, to be Governour there; and afterwards, in the Reign of Richard I. (Son to Henry II.

and Brother to this John) he, speaking of the great Kindnesses shewed by the said King Richard I. to his Brother John, hath these Words, To whom he made appear, how much the Bounty of a Brother was better than the Hardnesses of a Father; and afterwards, he names the several Earldoms which he conferred on him, viz. Cornwall, Dorset, Somerset, Nottingham, Darby, and Lanca∣ster; then treating of Affairs in England, during the King's Absence on his Voyage to the Holy Land, saith, he left William Long∣shamp, Bishop of Ely, in chief Place of Au∣thority, at which his Brother was disgusted, whom he calls there, Duke John; and in another Place he says, that the King after his Return from the Holy Land, took from him all the great Possessions he had given him, and afterwards the said John submitted him∣self to the King his Brother.

Now, does this agree with the Honour and Dignity of a King, who had a separate Kingdom? or were the Grants of those several Earldoms from his Brother, which you see were liable to be taken away again at the King's Pleasure, to be accounted a greater Largess, than the Bounty of his Fa∣ther, if he had made him King of a sepa∣rate Kingdom, and setled it in Parliament, as you affirm? Besides, if any such thing was done by Henry II. in the Twenty Third

Year of his Reign, it appears, if Baker be in the right, that that Grant was recalled, for he saith plainly, that he sent him over in his One and Thirtieth Year, to be Gover∣nor of Ireland. How indeed saith, to be Lord of Ireland; but neither of them men∣tion any thing of what was done in the Parliament at Oxford. Well, suppose it to be, Dominus Hiberniae, on which Word you seem to build so much, pag. 40, 41. Is this Title any thing greater than Lord Lieutenant, or Lord Justice, which hath, for ought I can perceive, been used ever since? Does a Title granted in a Patent from the King, discharge any Persons, or the Places they govern, from Obedience to the Legislative Authority of England? If it doth, I should think That granted by Henry IV. to Sir John Talbot would go a great way in it, which you give us, pag. 33. in these Words, Dilecti & fidelis nostri Johannis Talbot, de Hallom shire Chevaler, locum nostrum tenentis terrae nostrae Hiberniae, which you interpret, pag. 32. Lord Lieute∣nant of Ireland, and it is not to be doubted, but Henry IV. thought he had not divested himself of his Regal Authority in Ireland thereby; for though we do not find any Statutes made in his Reign to bind that Kingdom, yet we do in the Reign of his Son Henry V. and those Kings who succeed∣ed

him; if then, John, Earl of Moreton, was never created King of Ireland, nor That made a separate Kingdom in the Parliament at Oxon (as you alledge, but do not prove) then all your Arguments drawn thence, pag. 41, 42, 43, 44. beginning with this Paragraph, Let us then suppose that, &c. fall to the Ground.

As for its being annext to the Imperial Crown of England by several Acts of Parlia∣ment both here and there, which you menti∣on pag. 43. I do agree to the Reason you give for it, pag. 44. as one, viz. That it should not be alienated or separated from the Kings of England; But I hope you will not draw any Inference from this, that Ire∣land therefore is not subject to our Legisla∣tive Power; it seems to me a greater Ar∣gument that it is, and those Acts made in Ireland, look like an Acknowledgement of it, seeing the Members there, knew the Opinion of the Parliament of England, by their continued Practice of making Laws to bind it.

I am the longer on this Subject of Henry the Seconds making his Son John King of Ireland, and That a separate Kingdom, be∣cause I find you insist upon it, as a thing unquestionable, through your whole Book, and I am willing to clear it here, to pre∣vent often Repetitions.

I will proceed with you to King John's going over into Ireland, after he became King of England, pag. 44. for which you quote Mat. Paris, who saith, Cum venisset ad Dublinensem civitatem occurrerunt ei ibi∣dem plusquam 20 Regul'•• illius Regionis, qui omnes timore maximo praeteriti, Homagium ei & fidelitatem fecerunt. Fecit quoque Rex ibidem, construere Leges & Consuetudines Anglicanas, ponens Vice cometes, aliosque mi∣nistros, qui populum Regni illius juxta Leges Anglicanas judicarent. This you know was long after that Amicable Concession, or Ori∣ginal Compact, you mention, pag. 37. to be made between Henry II. and the People of Ireland, and long after the same King John was made King of Ireland by his Father; and yet your Author says, fecit quoque Rex ibidem, &c. which I English thus, He appoin∣ted Officers to govern them by the English Laws, wherein he caused them to be in∣structed; So that here is a second original Compact, if you will call it so, viz. That they must be govern'd by the English Laws and Customs; and now I think we are agreed the Matter, viz. That they were to be govern'd by the English Laws.

Let us see then where we differ; for I am very willing to part Friends with a Gentleman of your Parts, your Fault is,

that you would willingly make more from things then was ever intended by them.

Page 45. You proceed to speak of a Magna Charta, granted by Henry III. to Ireland, dated at Bristol the 12th of No∣vember, in the first year of his Reign, which, you say, is agreeable to the Magna Charta granted to England; I have not seen it, nor have you set it forth, so I can say no∣thing to its Contents; I will only ask you whither it doth discharge Ireland from be∣ing subject to the Legislative Power of Eng∣land, which is the matter in hand; and if it does, whether it was confirmed by Par∣liament; I will not differ with you whose Seals were put to it, whether the King's own, or the venerable Persons you there mention; if it doth not discharge from Obedience to Laws made by the Parliament of England, and was not confirmed by them, I examine no farther.

And I do not remember I ever heard of a Parliament held at Bristol, nor doth this seem to be one, because you say, it was by advice of his Council of England, whose Names are particularly recited, which I there∣fore take to be the Privy Council, in oppo∣sition to the great Council or Parliament of England; and the rather, because I find this was the usual Form of granting Char∣ters

in those days: I shall only Note, that this (you say) was eight years older then that which he granted to England.

Page 46. You set forth another Charter, sent them by the said King in February fol∣lowing, the Substance whereof you give us Page 47. Volumus quod in Signum fidelita∣tis vestrae tam praeclarae tam insignis libertati∣bus Regno nostro Angliae a Patre nostro & no∣bis concessis de gratia nostra & dono in Reg∣no nostro Hiberniae Gaudiatis vos & vestri Haeredes in Perpetuum. This was made by advice of his Common Council, and Seal∣ed with their Seals, as it follows in the same Page; Quas distincte in Scriptum re∣ductas de communi Concilio omnium sidelium nostrorum vobis mittimus, signatas sigillis Do∣mini nostri, G. Apostolicae sedis Legati, & fidelis nostri Com. W. Maresc. Rectoris nostri & Regni nostri, quia sigillum nondum habui∣mus, easdem processu temporis de majori Con∣cilio proprio sigillo signaturi.

Teste apud Glouc. 6 Febru.