The _Pensions_ exacted by the Court of _Rome_ were still more directly Simoniacal: they are thus alluded to in the Preamble of an Act[51] passed in the Reign of King _Henry_ VIII., where the Commons, addressing the King, say: “That where your Subjects of this your Realm, and of other Countries and Dominions being under your Obeysance, by many Years past have been, and yet be greatly decayed and impoverished by such intolerable Exactions of great Sums of Money as have been claimed and taken, and yet continually be claimed to be taken out of this your Realm, and other your said Countries and Dominions, by the Bishop of _Rome_, called the Pope, and the See of _Rome_, as well in Pensions, Censes, Peter-pence, Procurations, Fruits, Suits for Provisions, and Expeditions of Bulls for Archbishopricks and Bishopricks, &c.... It may, therefore, please your most noble Majesty, for the Honor of Almighty God, &c.... That no Person or Persons of this your Realm, or of any other your Dominions, shall from henceforth pay any Pensions, Censes, Portions, Peter-pence, or any other Impositions to the Use of the said Bishop, or of the See of _Rome_.” PAGE xxiv. line 2. smale. This Word in the MS. is written apparently “samle,” which must be an Error. The Editor has ventured to adopt a conjectural Emendation, and print it “smale,” i. e. _small_. This, at least, will make Sense; for, the Author’s Argument is, that if there were nothing of a Simoniacal Nature in the Reservation of Benefices, the small Benefices would be as often made the Subjects of the Papal Provisions and Reservations, as the “fatte” or more valuable Livings; but the contrary being the Case, it follows that the Income of the Benefice is the real Object, and, therefore, that all these Exactions of the Court of _Rome_ are Simoniacal in their Origin. Ibid. line 4. Joachur. An evident mistake of the Scribe for _Joachim_. In another Place, by a different Error, we find the Abbot called _Joachrin_. See p. xxvi. Ibid. In his book of þe seedis of profetis, &c. Whether one Book or more be here referred to seems doubtful. The Editor is disposed to think that three different Works are intended;—the first, _Of the Seedis of Profetis_; the second, _Of the Seyingis of Popes_; and the third, _Of the Chargis of Profetis_. In another Place (p. xxvi) we find _Joachim_ quoted “in his Book _of the Deedis of Profetis_;” and (p. xxix) “_Joachim_ in the Book _of the Seedis of Prophetis_.” Again (p. xxx) “the _Bookis_” of _Joachim_ are spoken of in the plural Number, and “the Book _Of the Charge of Prophetis_” is quoted, as distinct from the rest.