quia, sicut tuæ magnitudinis sane Hiberniam et omnes insulas excellentia [? cognoscit], ... ad jus beati Petri et Romana ecclesia aliud jus habet sacrosanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ, in Insula quam in terra magna quod tua etiam nobilitas et continua, etc. recognoscit, non est dubium pertinere. The very fact that these coincidences are rather suggestive than verbal, favours, I think, the theory of concoction. But I am chiefly influenced by the fact that “Laudabiliter” does little more than paraphrase and adapt the contents of Alexander’s letter. Even its clause as to Peter’s pence might be based on Alexander’s insistence that Henry was not only to guard “jura beati Petri,” but “si etiam ibi non habet (jura)”--as was the case with Peter’s pence--to establish them himself. And now as to my third question: ‘Was there a conspiracy?’ I doubt if sufficient attention has been paid to the remarkable words of the ‘Gesta Henrici,’ followed as they were by Hoveden.[416] That they were introduced of set purpose is evident from their repetition.[417] It should be observed that the story told in the ‘Metalogicus’ of Adrian and in the ‘Gesta’ of Alexander is to the same effect: METALOGICUS. GESTA HENRICI. regi Anglorum Henrico secundo summus pontifex ... confirmavit (Papa) concessit et dedit ei et heredibus suis regnum Hiberniam jure hæreditario illud, et eos imperpetuum possidendam. reges constituit. Neither the letters in the ‘Liber Niger’ nor even the documents given by Giraldus can justify these expressions. Yet this must have been what we may term the view officially adopted. As the Black Book letters of Alexander III. could not be made to support this view, its upholders preferred to fall back on the alleged grant by Adrian, as the source of Henry’s title, and to pretend that his successor Alexander had merely confirmed it. “Laudabiliter” did not, it is true, go so far as was required, but it carried back the title to Adrian’s action, and, so far, supported the story. * * * * * The subsequent attitude of Rome towards the English story is a matter of obvious interest, but, as yet, of much obscurity. Cardinal Moran relied on the personal information of Theiner for the statement that nowhere in the private archives, or among the private papers of the Vatican, or in the ‘Regesta’ which Jaffé’s researches have made so famous, or in the various indices of the Pontifical letters, can a single trace be found of the supposed Bulls of Adrian and Alexander.[418]