Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 8.djvu/349

KEMARKS ON OXK OF THE OHEAT SEALS OF EDWAIU) III. S.')? pftyiiient of 3/. to W. Murctoii in 1356, for makiiii; a certain seal for tlin king's use (Prof. Willis's paper, p. 23, note) might have been for a new great seal ; hut the sum is jicrhaps too small, anil, supposing it an instalment, I apprehend a great seal would not iiave hecn so designated. 4. An alteration of the insc'rip(i<»n only was less likely to be noticed in any documiMit than the making of a new seal ; and as the payment for it would he trifling, it ma}- have formed part of some item in whieli it was not spocifiod. 1 find no good reason to tiiink that such an alteration would lead to a transposition of the arms, so as to phtce those of I'^ngland before those of France. 5. In August, 1372, the king went abroad again (Kymer, iii., p, 9G2), and from his return in October, 1347, till that time, there is no indication of the destruction or loss of any great seal, or of the coexistence of two great seals of absence ; and the memorandimi on that occasion (which was after G had been made, and before it was altered, j goes very far to show that there were then three great seals, viz., E, F, and G, and no more ; and that W and E are to be referred to the same matrix, with dillerent legends. For as the king, whose absence was shorter than he had reason to expect, no doubt took with him one great seal, and most likely F, the seal which was given up by the Chancellor and deposited in the treasury must, I conceive, have been E ; and the seal delivered to him for use in the king's absence we know was G. Had E and W been distinct matrices, there would have been four seals, and either E or W would in all prol)ability have been loft with the Chancellor rather than G, which was singularly inappropriate, since the word " Francie " was not upon it. This will more clearly appear on referring to the memorandum, which is given by Mr. Gunner, p. 254, n. 3. Whether the seal delivered to Tliorpe, Chancellor, on the 26th March, 1371, was E or F, is not clear ; for supposing W and E were two distinct matrices, then W may have been the great seal with " Francie et Anglie " upon it, which was delivered up to the king on the 2Sth March, 1371, and F the seal which had been connnitted to Thorpe on the 26th of the same month. But the reasons above advanced to show that W and E were one matrix, incline me to coincide with Professor Willis in thinking that E was delivered to Thorpe, and not F ; and this anomaly, as it appears, mav seem less if we advert to another circumstance not a little singular. In the often n-.entioned docutnent in Rymer, (iii., p. 868,) we find on the 11th June, 1369, two great seals were taken by or delivered to the Chancellor when we should have expected he would have had only one, and that F. Now as the king did not then contemplate leaving England, I would suggest, by way of explanation of this, that one seal was intended for English, and the other for foreign affairs, which were then likely to require its use ; a practice probably then commencing in conse(]ucnce of the improbability of the king having to go abroad again ; ' and that as F was the .seal known abroad, it was best adapted for foreign affairs, and thus E would become a seal for the rule of England even when the king was ])roscnt. That some change in the use of the seals had taken place is, I think, shown by ' Edward was then barely fifty-seven, any, apprehension was entertained of the bnt he had no reiison to anticipate the malady provin;; incurable ; and his bi-o- Ireverse of fortune which rapidly ensued. thers John and Edmund, influenced by The Black Trince was in the zenith of his example, had shown no want of ability Ihis glory, and though his health was im- in military affairs. pau^d by his Sj^anibh campaign, little, if