(a clerk or a layman) a claim being made, as you say, to the ninth1 sheaf from the land  of the same B., once conferred in perpetual alms on the aforesaid A. the prior and convent,  is committed to your consideration by the authority of letters of the lord pope,  and though by authority of the said letters you have already begun to proceed in the  same cause, the same B. has produced to you prohibitory letters of the lord king forbidding  you to proceed with respect to his lay fee in court christian, as to which you  ask (or seek) our counsel, whether you are to proceed or desist in that cause. To  which we have thought fit to answer in this way to you (or to your consultation or  in another way: Being anxious or wishing therefore to satisfy your desire we have  thought fit to reply to your consultation in this matter thus) that if the aforesaid A.  the prior and the convent at some time took that ninth2 sheaf and were in peaceful  possession thereof for some time and were wrongfully despoiled thereof, you may, if  this seems to you to be the truth, proceed safely in the ecclesiastical forum with  respect to the restitution of that ninth3 sheaf notwithstanding the royal prohibition.  But if they have not been in possession nor recently wrongfully despoiled,4 then it is  better that you desist than proceed, for if you were to proceed it would be to the  prejudice of the royal dignity.5 A reply to a consultation is sometimes made in the  name of the king, sometimes in the name of a justice. A shorter and more concise reply  may be made to consultations of the judges after examination in this form. To such  judges, greeting. Having inspected and fully understood the letters you have sent us,  we have thought fit, without prejudice to a more considered judgment, to reply to  your consultation [in this way], that if the matter is such as you have set out in your  consultation, it seems to us that you may well proceed in that cause notwithstanding  the royal prohibition. There is also another kind of consultation and reply (made by  Martin of Pateshull) that a prohibition does not lie between ecclesiastical persons, as  where men of religion are bound by charter and oath to a clerk for the payment of an  annual rent, and the clerk wishes to sue in the ecclesiastical forum.
Another writ of a different kind in the same matter, if clerk sues clerk.
 To such a one N. and his fellow judges, such persons, greeting. I have graciously  received your letters of consultation and read them with due diligence, having examined  and understood them I have thought fit to reply to your consultation in this  way, that