There can be no reasonable doubt that the series of dates so carefully given in our fullest and most strictly contemporary account of the transactions connected with the treaty between Henry and Louis--the account in the _Histoire des Ducs de Normandie_--is correct. One of the best contemporary English authorities, the Chronicle of Merton, is in accord with it as to the dates on which the treaty was made and Louis was absolved: “Hoc anno” (1217) “facta est pax ... in quadam insula extra Kingestune, feria tercia ante Exaltationem S. Crucis” (_i.e._, Tuesday, 12th September), “et in vigilia Exaltationis” (Wednesday, 13th September) “absolutus est dominus Lodowicus in eadem insula” (_Chron. Merton_, _apud_ Petit-Dutaillis, pp. 514–515). Nearly all the other English chroniclers give a wrong date to the peace; some make it 11th September, others 13th September. The Patent Roll of 1216–17 settles the point against them all; “Si Reginaldus de Cornhill terminos redempcionis suae, statutos ante _diem Martis proximam ante Exaltacionem Sanctae Crucis_ anno regni nostro primo, _qua pax reformata fuit_ inter nos et Lodovicum domini regis Franciae primogenitum, servaverit,” etc. (_Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 95, 25th September, 1217). The Barnwell annalist (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 239) gives no date for the peace, but says Louis was absolved “die Mercurii proxima post Exaltationem S. Crucis,” _i.e._, 20th September. Curiously enough, the copy of the treaty printed by D’Achéry (_Spicilegium_, ed. 1723, vol. iii. pp. 586–7) appears to have borne the date “Lamech, anno ab Incarnatione Domini MCCXVII, XX die Septembris.” Rymer, whose text (_Foedera_, I. i. p. 148) corresponds almost _verbatim_ with D’Achéry’s in all other respects, has the word _undecimo_ instead of the numerals XX. The title of “treaty of Lambeth,” by which--in defiance of all our authorities--the agreement is commonly known, is derived solely from the dating clause as printed by Rymer and D’Achéry. No original copy of the treaty appears to be now known. In the eighteenth century three versions of it were printed, one by Rymer, one by D’Achéry, a third by Martène and Durand (_Thesaurus Anecdotorum_, vol. i. pp. 857–859, ed. 1717). As to the source of Rymer’s copy we know absolutely nothing. D’Achéry’s text was taken from the cartulary of the monastery of S. Giles at Pontaudemer, that of Martène and Durand--which has no date at all--“ex MS. illustrissimi Marchionis Daubais.” Both of these must obviously have been mere copies; and they differ so widely from each other that they cannot have been derived, even remotely, from one and the same original. The Daubais text not only omits several clauses entirely, as well as all mention of place, date, witnesses, and seals, and gives other clauses in a shortened form, but it inserts one interesting clause of which there is no trace anywhere else--that about the Exchequer documents (above, footnote 315). The