I have read through, not once or twice, but time after time, with the greatest care, Miss Norgate’s article defending the authenticity of the “Bull,” and I cannot find that this distinction has even dawned upon her mind. Yet, to adapt her closing words, “one who fully accepts the first” of these propositions “may yet dare to say” of the other, _non sequitur_. To the first of the above questions I give no negative answer: I merely quote the two passages on which the assertion rests: Ad preces meas illustri regi (privilegium) quod idem rex Anglorum Henrico secundo ab Adriano papa Alexandri (Adrianus) concessit et dedit decessore antea perquisierat, per Hiberniam jure hereditario Johannem Salesberiensem, possidendam; sicut literæ ipsius postmodum episcopum Karnotensem, testantur in hodiernum diem. Romam ad hoc destinatum. Per Nam omnes insuæ, de jure quem etiam idem papa Anglorum antiquo, ex donatione regi annulum aureum in Constantini ... dicuntur ad investituræ signum præsentavit; Romanam ecclesiam pertinere. qui statim, simul cum privilegio, Annulum quoque per me transmisit in archivis Wintoniæ repositus aureum, smaragdo optimo fuerat.[375]--GIRALDUS decoratum, quo fieret CAMBRENSIS. investitura juris in gerenda Hibernia; idemque adhuc annulus in curiali archivo publico custodiri jussus est.--JOHN OF SALISBURY. As I only described, at the outset, the documents, I have not hitherto touched on the passage in the ‘Metalogicus.’ But it should be observed that just as Miss Norgate confuses two distinct questions, so Father Gasquet attacks “Laudabiliter” for a statement found, not in that document, but in this passage from the pen of John of Salisbury.[376] It is with the second of the above two questions that I am immediately concerned. Assuming for the present that a document was actually granted by Adrian, what ground have we for believing that the text in the ‘Expugnatio’ is authentic? Between the appearance of her ‘England under the Angevin Kings’ and that of her article in the ‘Review,’ Miss Norgate seems to have discovered from Pflugk-Harttung, that there was no copy of it, as she had imagined, “in the Vatican archives.”[377] She admitted, therefore, that “the letter actually rests upon the testimony of Gerald of Wales and the writer of the last chapter of Metalogicus.” But here we see that confusion of thought of which I have spoken above. The authenticity of the letter given in the ‘Expugnatio’ rests on the authority of Gerald, and on his alone.