duplicates which will be again alluded to, only EIGHTY-TWO seals are to be found, neither of which is now attached to the letter; and though from two to six seals occur on the same string, not the slightest remains exist of the labels or names noticed by Vincent. It is thus certain, that thirteen seals have been lost, and it is no less positive, that many of those which are extant have been much mutilated since the drawings of them were taken. In a former part of these observations it has been presumed, that the copy of the letter published in the Appendix to the I. and II. Peerage Report was a verbatim et literatim copy from the original in the Chapter House; such however is not the case, for although the sense appears to have been strictly preserved, several words are abbreviated which in the original are written at length, and in a few instances the names both of persons and places are differently spelt. Moreover it is impossible to give so perfect a copy as is there printed, for many parts of the letter are so much torn, that an hiatus in several places, especially towards the end, would be unavoidable. This fact is not otherwise important than as it tends to prove, that no verbatim et literatim copy of the original has as yet been published. Why the variations which are to be found in the copy printed in the Appendix to the Peerage Report were made, it would be useless to inquire, nor can the object even be guessed at which pro The thirteen seals which are not now to be found, are those of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex; Ralph de Monthermer, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford; Henry of Lancaster, William de Roos, Henry de Grey, Henry de Percy, Edmond de Mortimer, Robert Fitz-Payne, John Fitz-Reginald, Fulk Fitz-Warine, Ralph Fitz-William, Nicholas de Meynhill, and Walter de Mouncy. Whislt this loss, together with the manifest injury which the record has sustained since 1624, cannot be too much regretted, it is at the same time very satisfactory to reflect, that the zeal of the gentlemen to whose custody that document is now so judiciously entrusted, no less than the exertions of the Commission for the Preservation of the Public Records, may be confidently relied on to prevent any further deterioration in a muniment of so interesting and important a nature; and hence it cannot be doubted, that such measures will speedily be adopted as must ensure its better preservation. For many reasons an accurate transcript of the document in its present state, by the authority of the Con mission, would be highly desirable. 1 duced abbreviations and contractions in a copy which do not exist in the original. Vincent expressly asserts, that eight Barons, whose names will be found in p. 778 never affixed their seals to the letter, and the state in which he describes the document in 1624 perhaps rendered it positive that they did not do so; but at this moment it would be impossible to say, whether those whose seals are not to be found ever sealed, or whether the seals of the Barons i question have been lost; however, as we have proof that thirteen seals existed in that year, of which no vestige is now to be found, the conclusion from the existing state of the record would be, that they were originally affixed to it, but that they have since been destroyed or taken away. It has been just noticed, that duplicates of three seals are now extant, namely, those of the Earl of Arundel, of Aymer de Valence, and of William de Leyburne. To what cause this curious fact is to be attributed we have no evidence by which to decide; conjecture may therefore be offered, and the most natural suggestion appears to be, if Vincent's statement is correct that eight Barons named as parties to the letter never affixed their seals to it, that one of them was represented by the Earl of Arundel, and two others by Valence and Leyburne, who consequently were their proxies; nor is it improbable that the remaining five who did not seal, were represented by five other Barons in a similar manner; for notwithstanding that no other duplicates are to be found, they might not only have been originally attached to the letter, but even have existed when Vincent copied the record, for be takes no notice of the duplicate seals above mentioned. This is however an hypothesis which has no other foundation that the absence of a more satisfactory cause, and the circumstance of there being nothing which can be urged in contradiction to it. Before these observations are concluded, a record which is printed in the Fœdera*, and alluded to in the 1st and 2d Report + of the Lords' Committees, before cited, requires a slight notice. It appears that in the 2d of Edw. II. Writs tested at Westminster on the 21th of June were issued to the Bishops and Abbots, to eight Earls, and 69 Barons, and to the Judges, commanding them to meet at Stamford, on Edition 1816, tome II. p. 84. + P. 258. the Sunday next after the feast of St. James the Apostle *, "tractatu & colloq'ium v'ituri no'r'mque co'siliu' impe'su'ri." But, in the margin, the word Parliament does not occur, as it is only noted, "Summonitio de veniendo ad tractandum cum rege." It is doubtful, the Report observes, "whether this meeting was properly a Common Council of the Realm assembled in Parliament, or only a great Council;" but as, in subsequent writs the meeting is expressly styled a PARLIAMENT, as the Writs by which the Nobility were summoned are similar to former writs, marked in the margin as Summonses to Parliaments, and still more as a statute called the Statute of Stamford, appears in the authorised Collection of the Statutes of the Realm, it is presumed that that meeting was a regular Parliament. At this assembly a Letter was agreed to be sent to the Pope for remedy of the grievances and oppressions to which the kingdom was subject; and to this Letter, the King issued a Writ†, tested on the 6th of August, 3 Edw. II. 1309, fourteen days after that on which the Peers were ordered to meet at Stamford, commanding the Earls and Barons to affix their seals. The cause of this notice being taken of the circumstance is the impression created in the Editor's mind, that this Letter, of which not even a copy appears to be extant in this country, is probably preserved among the records of the Holy See; in which case it would perhaps be worthy of inquiry, whether the seals of the Barons who were summoned by Writs tested on the 11th June were affixed to that document; and if so, whether that circumstance is not evidence of their having on that occasion sat in Parliament. No notice of the Meeting at Stamford occurs on the Rolls of Parliament, nor are any Writs extant to the Commons; but notwithstanding these facts, it is submitted that the express designation of the assembly as a PARLIAMENT in the Writ just alluded to, as well as in another Writ cited in the Report from the Close Roll of the 3d Edw. II. m. 1 dorso, together with the circumstance of a Statute having been enacted by that assembly, would tend to establish that the meeting at Stamford in the 3d Edw. II. and in which the Letter alluded to is said to have been written, was a regular PARLIAMENT. 27 July, 1309, third Edw. II. + Fœdera, II. p. 84. + Vide note to p. 805. *The Names printed in Italics occur on the Rolls of Par Ap Adam, 768 ARTOIS, ROBERT DE, 722 note AUDLEY, 746, 747, 750 bis. BADLESMERE, 719 BARDOLF, 721, 727,728, 729, Bardolf, 764 BASSET, 720, 721, 728, 729 BEAUCHAMP DE BERGEVENNY, 736, 740 BEAUCHAMP, WALTER DE, Beauchamp of Hacche, 765 725, 737, 738, 739,748 bis. BOTETOURT, 718*, 728 745, 746 ter. 747 bis. 749, 757 * Vide a note to p. 895. Cadurcis, 715 CAMOYS, 736 bis. 737, 738, bis. 744, 746, 754, 755 DACRE OF GILLESLAND, 754, DARCY, 723, note, 720, 728, 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, EGREMONT, 755 FANHOPE 749 bis. 750 ter. FERRERS OF Groby, 736, 738, FITZ-HUGH 737, 740, 742, FITZ-WALTER, 728 bis. 729, * Vide a note to p. 805. |