[16] _Chron. Henry IV._, 7, 8; _Annales Henrici Quarti_, 323-330; _Lond. Chron._, 86; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 243-245; Higden, f. 150vo; _Chronique des Pays Bas_, 316-325.

[17] _Rot. Pat., 2 Henry IV._, Part ii. m. 22.

[18] See _Cal. Rot. Pat._, 245-249, 251, 256; _Rot. Parl._, iii.

670.

[19] _Queen's Remem. Ward. Acct._, printed in Wylie, iv. 205; Devon, _Issue Roll_, 294.

[20] Waurin, ii. 61.

[21] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 258; Gregory, 103; Elmham, _Vita_, 7.

[22] Beltz, p. clv. Humphrey's name occurs as a creation of Henry IV. in the list in Ashmole, _Order of the Garter_, 506.

[23] Anstis, _Order of the Garter_, i. 14.

[24] Beltz, p. clv.

[25] _Ibid._

[26] Rymer, IV. i. 76.

[27] _Ibid._, IV. i. 106; cf. _Chron. Henry IV._, 49.

[28] Capgrave, _Chron. of Eng._, 292; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii.

274; _Chron. Henry IV._, 49.

[29] Leland, _Collectanea_, vi. 300, 301.

[30] _Duc. Lanc. Accounts (Various)_, Bundle iv. No. 1.

[31] _Ibid._; _Receiver Gen. Rec._, 1 _Henry IV._ Holkham MS., p. 7, says that Humphrey was 'instructed in the fundamentals of good literature' by Sir Lewis Clifford, but there is no known authority for this statement.

[32] Bale (1559 edition), 583. He does not mention it in his 1548 edition, which seems to imply that he was using some newly acquired authority, though of course implicit confidence cannot be placed in the statement. Leland, _Commentarii_, 422, follows Bale's later statements.

[33] Rymer, iv. ii. 14, 15.

[34] Waurin, ii. 162.

[35] May 7, 1413. _Rot. Pat._, 1 _Henry V._, Part iii. m. 44.

[36] Such at least were the duties of the Chamberlain under Edward IV.; _Ordinances of the Household_, 29.

[37] _Rot. Pat._, 1 _Henry V._, Part v. m. 8.

[38] _Ibid._, Part iv. m. 4.

[39] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 297.

[40] _Rot. Pat._, 6 _Henry IV._, Part i. m. 25.

[41] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 17, 443.

[42] _Ibid._, iv. 270.

[43] _Ibid._, iv. 17.

[44] _Ibid._, iv. 24.

[45] Basin, i. 5, 6; St. Remy also hints this.

[46] The original MS. of this treaty is preserved at Dijon. See De Beaucourt, i. 132, 133.

[47] Des Ursins, 502.

[48] Rymer, IV. i. 77, 79, 80; Des Ursins, 500.

[49] Des Ursins, 500.

[50] See St. Remy, 586.

[51] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 305; St. Remy, 387, 388; St.

Denys, v. 499.

[52] _Ordinances_, ii. 153.

[53] _Memorials of London_, 604, 605, doc.u.ment printed from the City of London Letter Book, i. f. cl. London lent Henry 10,000 marks, Rymer, IV. ii. 141.

[54] Capgrave, _De Ill.u.s.tribus Henricis_, 114; Lydgate's poem printed in _Lond. Chron._, Appendix, p. 216.

[55] Monstrelet, 361, 362; St. Denys, v. 501.

[56] An earlier emba.s.sy to France had reported that the French were behaving treacherously (Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 301), whilst these French envoys reported on their return that Henry had never meant to come to terms (St. Denys, v.

531-533). Such distrust of each other's intentions made an agreement impossible.

[57] Monstrelet, 363; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 305; St. Denys, v. 513-525; St. Remy, 387, 388; Redmayne, 32-37.

[58] Holkham MS., p. 13, ascribes the discovery of the conspiracy to the 'prudence and careful circ.u.mspection' of Gloucester.

[59] Edmund, Earl of March, was the grandson of Philippa, daughter of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III., and so had a claim to the throne of England as a descendant of that King by an elder line than Henry V., who claimed through John of Gaunt, the younger brother of Lionel, Duke of Clarence.

[60] St. Remy. 389.

[61] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 306, 307.

[62] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 65; Stowe, 346, 347.

[63] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 66. Probably the Duke of York was made to serve in order to minimise the dynastic aspect of the plot.