Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 8.djvu/347

 l!i:.MARKS ON ONK OF THE GREAT SEALS OF EDWAIM) 111. 255 K were theii existiiiii, it v;is eitiiei' t;ikeii alti-oad l»v the kiiitr or ilepositcd in the Treasury. TaHI.E of I'kUIODS IX Wiinil SF.AL E was CiaiTAINLV IN USE. A.n. A.K. A.D. A R. From June 22 to Dec. 1 1340 14 From July 2 . . 134G 20 From Oct. 4. . . . 1342 IG to Oct.' 15 . . . 1347 21 to March 4 . . . 1343 17 From Oct 29 to Nov. 17 1348 22 From July 3 to July 30 1345 19 From Oct. 14 . . . 1359 33 to May 19 . . . 1360 34 ■'•,," When the subject of this unpubhshed great seal of Edward III. was brought before the inoiitlily meeting of the Institute in London, it attracted the attention of W. S. Walford, Es(]., wlio felt that he was obhged to differ tVoni me in some of the conclusions to which, after a careful perusal of the documents relating to it in Rymer, I had arrived. My only object being the elucidation of facts, I recjuested him to write a statement of his view of the matter, which he readily and courteously consented to do. As that gentleman's knowledge of the subject entitles his opinion to every possible respect, I expressed a wish that he would allow his remarks to be published, and, by his kind per- mission, they ai-e here submitted to the readers of the Joui'iial. I also desire to take this opportunity of acknow- ledging my obligations to him for some valuable assistance in my own investigations. w. H. G. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE SAME SUBJECT, UY W. S. WALFORD, ESQ. In investigating the claims of the newly discovered great seal of King Edward III., to be the missing seal E, the memorandum in Rymer, (iii., p. 8G8,) of what took place respecting the seals on the 1 1th June, 1369, is certainly an important document, unless the incompleteness of the second paragraph nmst be regarded as destruc- tive of its credit. Since the examination of the record itself has verified the printed copy, it is evident some words were accidentally jomitted by the clerk who entered the memorandum on the roll ; and the icorrection of it by any higher authority is now hopeless. Still, after a careful study of the entire document as it stands, 1 can but credit it so far las to believe that two great seals were at that time taken out of the Itreasury, and that their legends ditlered as there stated. The version of iit by Professor Willis does not indicate any defect or ob.seurity in the original. He, 1 presume, was content to give what he considered its