belongs to the ecclesiastical forum, we order you, having assembled before you  those who ought to be assembled, to enquire diligently into the truth of the matter,  and to make known to our justices at Westminster by your1 letters patent the  inquest which you make. Witness etc.
Of the duty of the ordinary.
 2When the ordinary has received the letters of the lord king, he ought to proceed  to hold the inquest3 in this way, according to the consultation of Martin. On this  matter Peter des Roches, then bishop of Winchester, consulted the same Martin,  who replied that no matter in what diocese he who puts forward the exception has  his domicile, let such notice be given him by the ordinary that he may appear, if he  wishes, on the day the ordinary has appointed for him, ready to speak, in whatever  way seems most advantageous to him, in disproof of the marriage. Whether he then  appears or not, let the witnesses the woman has produced on her own behalf to  prove the marriage be admitted, those, that is, against whom no valid objection  can be raised. When they have taken an oath, let their statement be made in public,  and the truth having been inquired into without any great legal solemnity, so to  speak, summarily,4 let the inquest be returned to the lord king or to his justices,  according to the form of the mandate, nor will an appeal be allowed in this case any  more than in an inquest of bastardy, because if such were permitted the affair could  be protracted indefinitely and the woman, losing hope, would withdraw from  her suit, her business unfinished. And because, the inquest is entrusted only to the  persons and ordinaries named in the letters of the lord king, jurisdiction does not  extend to other persons, least of all beyond the realm, for if a bishop, on an appeal  made by either party to the lord pope, were to halt the proceedings [that] further  inquiry be made,5 a situation prejudicial to the lord king would thereby be created,  for in that way, in cases of this kind, the pope could judge of lay fee by reason of  matrimony, without distinguishing the two and, as it were, indirectly,6 because the  marriage is incidental, and not it but the lay fee is the principal matter. But since it  is said7 that where there is no marriage there is no dower, and conversely, where  there is marriage there is dower, and [where] there is a marriage at the outset, there  is dower as long as the marriage lasts, and when it fails the exaction of dower fails,8  we therefore must see the marriage from which an exaction of dower follows.  [Suppose] that a man has a legitimate concubine and has issue by her in concubinage,  and afterwards contracts a clandestine marriage with her, and then has a child by  her, and then marries her publicly, in the face of the church, and endows her at the  church door. In this case he will be legitimate who was born of the clandestine  marriage,