(2) The difficulty about the dates, both of time and place, practically disappears if we adopt the second theory. The date in Rymer can hardly be explained away as a transcriber’s error, because the word _undecimo_ is given in full; it must be either correct, or a downright blunder. Now, we know from _Hist. Ducs_ (p. 203) that 11th September was the day on which Malaunay carried back to Louis the “form of peace drawn up in writing” (R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30; cf. above, pp. 56, 57) for his acceptance. The Pontaudemer text may have been transcribed from a copy in which the word had been translated into numerals, and if so, “XI” might easily become “XX” in transcription. As for the place, we know that King and regent were at Chertsey every day from 6th September to 12th September, both days inclusive, and we possess no other notice of their having gone to Lambeth on the 11th; but there is no reason why they should not have done so; a prolongation of the truce till the 14th had been guaranteed on the 10th, and it would be quite safe and practicable for the Marshal and the Legate to bring their royal charge as near to London as Lambeth for a few hours, if they found it convenient to do so as a means of saving time in communicating with Louis. Mr. G. J. Turner (“Minority of Henry III,” part I, _Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc._, series II, vol. xviii. p. 288, note 3) says, “The treaty was in two parts, of which the text in the _Thesaurus_ is the part executed by Louis.” I do not understand on what grounds this inference is based, as the Daubais (or _Thesaurus_) text has no attestations, and the formulae employed in it are precisely the same as those in the Rymer-Pontaudemer text, which purports to be attested by the English party. Indeed, I cannot bring myself to believe that the Daubais text can possibly represent the form in which the treaty was “executed” at all. Save for the one clause which is peculiar to it, it is a mere summary, and a very imperfect one, of some--by no means all--of the conditions which the Rymer-Pontaudemer text sets forth in detail. My inference from a comparison of the two texts is that the Daubais text is a mere scribe’s epitome of a third text, now lost, which probably was the true text of the treaty actually executed at Kingston on 12th September, and consisted of the substance of the preliminary draft (the Rymer-Pontaudemer text) _plus_ the article about the Exchequer records. NOTE VI THE TENURE OF CROWN OFFICES DURING THE MINORITY