Miss Norgate, _John Lackland_, p. 234, acquiesces in the view generally received, fixing Monday as the day on which the final concord was arrived at, but she relies for evidence on a more than doubtful interpretation of what is undoubtedly an error in the copy of a writ by King John appearing on the _Patent Rolls_. This writ, which as copied in the _Rolls_ bears to be dated 18th June (erroneously as will immediately be shown), is addressed to Stephen Harengod (in terms closely resembling those of the writ already cited from the _Close Rolls_ addressed to William of Cantilupe), announcing _inter alia_ that terms of peace had been agreed upon “last Friday.” Miss Norgate contends with reason that there must be a mistake somewhere, since on the Friday preceding the 18th, negotiations had not even begun. She is confident that "the ‘die Veneris’ which occurs three times in the writ is in each case an unquestionable, though unaccountable, error for ‘die Lunae.’" Yet, it is unlikely that a scribe writing three days after so momentous an event could have mistaken the day of the week. It is infinitely more probable that in writing xxiij. he formed the second “x” so carelessly that it was mistaken by the enrolling clerk for a “v.” The correct date is thus the 23rd, and the reference is to Friday the 19th. This presumption becomes a certainty by comparison with the words of the writ to William of Cantilupe, dated the 21st (of the existence of which Miss Norgate was probably not aware). A comparison between the two documents shows few changes of importance in the tenor.[45] ----- Footnote 45: Blackstone, _Great Charter_, xviii., has given a careful analysis of the points of difference. ----- The one outstanding addition is the insertion, in an emphatic form, both at the beginning and at the end of the Charter, of a general declaration in favour of the freedom and rights of the Church. The inference seems to be that a new influence was brought to bear, between the preparation of the draft and that of the Charter. It was the Archbishop of Canterbury and his friends who thus converted the original baronial manifesto into something more nearly resembling a declaration of rights for the nation at large. One or two minor alterations seem slightly to benefit the Crown,[46] while several others, rightly viewed, suggest an influence at work unfavourable to the towns and trading classes.[47] ----- Footnote 46: _E.g._ chapters 48 and 52. For alterations directed against the trading classes, see chapters 12, 13, 35, and 41 _infra_. Footnote 47: