[506] “Liberate de thesauro nostro Waltero aurifabro qui fecit sigillum nostrum v marcas pro argento sigilli nostro ponderante v marcas; et pro opere mercedem suam ita reddatis quod de jure contentus esse debeat,” _Close Rolls_, vol. i. p. 381 b, 7th November 1218. The sum finally decided upon as that “wherewith he ought by rights to be content” was forty shillings, which another writ addressed to the treasurer and chamberlains on 2nd December authorised them to pay “Waltero de Ripa aurifabro in mercedem operis sigilli nostri quod fecit”; _ib._ p. 383. [507] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 177. This letter has no date; but it heads the Roll of 3 Hen. III, and is entitled, “Primae litterae novi sigilli domini regis, de cartis vel litteris patentibus non faciendis; et hic incepit sigillum domini regis currere.” In the Close Roll of the same year (vol. i. p. 381) there is a note, “Hic incepit sigillum domini regis currere,” inserted between the abstract of a letter dated 3rd November and that of a letter dated 5th November. The earliest dated document expressly stated in the Rolls to be “sealed with our seal” is a patent of 4th November, _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 207. [508] On 3rd September, 1220, Henry writes to Almeric of Limoges: “Sciatis quod cum dominus Gualo titulo S. Martini presbyter cardinalis Legatus esset in Anglia, juratum fuit in praesentia ipsius per dominum Wintoniensem episcopum, et cancellarium nostrum, et Hubertum de Burgo justiciarium nostrum, necnon et per commune concilium nostrum, quod ipsi nos custodient et tenebunt in seisina omnium terrarum quae fuerunt in manu domini Johannis Regis patris nostri die qua guerra primo mota fuit inter ipsum et barones suos Angliae, et quod nec aliquid fiet de terra aliqua conferenda vel alienanda, quamdiu infra aetatem fuerimus, quod cedere possit alicui ad perpetuitatem,” _Foedera_, I. i. p. 163. It is possible that this transaction, of which I have found no other mention, may have taken place at the council of Bristol in November, 1217; but if it had we should have expected the Marshal to be named among those who took the oath. The date which I have suggested for it seems therefore more probable. [509] _Chron. Melrose_, a. 1218, p. 134. [510] _Pat. Rolls_, vol. i. p. 177. The statement of the Waverley Annals, a. 1218, that the Charter was again re-issued after Michaelmas, is clearly erroneous; this supposed confirmation is, as Professor Powicke says (“Chancery,” _Eng. Hist. Rev._, vol. xxiii. p. 234), “obviously that of 1217.”