^{page v note a} Fortnightly Review, New Series, xlvi. 448. I was able, however, afterwards to cite the positive testimony of this chronicle in the Introduction to the first volume of the Paston Letters, p. lv.

^{page v note b} “And the Kinge came to the Blacke Hethe with his lordys. They hirynge of this jorney anone the lordis meyne went togeder and said, bnt the kynge wolde do excussyon on suche traytors as were named, else they wolde turne to the capteyn of Kent.” (p. 67.)

^{page vi note a} William Wyrcestre, after mentioning the retreat of the rebels to Rochester, says only, “Et super hoc postea eodem anno Alexander Iden factus est in officio vicecomitis.”

^{page vii note a} Collection of a London, Citizen, 194.Google Scholar

^{page vii note b} The question whether the capture took place in Kent or Sussex is very fully discussed in Furley, 's History of the Weald of Kent, ii. 386–396Google Scholar; where the author, notwithstanding his original prepossession in favour of Kent, decides that it must have been in Sussex.

^{page vii note c} Lesley, 's Hist. of Scotland, 11.Google Scholar

^{page vii note d} Nicolas, 's Privy Council Proceedings, vi. 248–9.Google Scholar

^{page viii note a} Hearne, 's Fragment at the end of Sprott, 292Google Scholar. Pabyan, , 654.Google Scholar

^{page viii note b} Stevenson, 's Wars of the English in France, i. 446, 502.Google Scholar

^{page viii note c} Vol. i. p. 387 (new ed.)

^{page viii note d} Collections of a London Citizen, 199.Google Scholar

^{page viii note e} Vol. i. Nos. 331, 339.

^{page xi note a} pp. 121–2.

^{page xi note b} p. 136.

^{page xii note a} pp. 128,133.

^{page xii note b} pp. 135,136.

^{page xiii note a} pp. 138–9.

^{page xiv note a} p. 140.

^{page xiv note b} p. 143.

^{page xiv note c} pp. 123–5, 144–7.

^{page xiv note d} p. 134.

^{page xiv note e} p. 137.

^{page xiv note f} pp. 134–5.

^{page xvii note a} “Anno Domini Mcccc.lix^o (1460), et anno Regis Henrici vj^tixxviij^o, mense Julii venerunt comes de Warwyk, comes de March, et comes de Salisbery; quia cum prius venissent ad Northampton (Ludlow), et audito quod Rex erat præsens clam fugierunt ad mare,” &c.

^{page xvii note b} Carelessness, however, is contagious, and I take this opportunity both to confess and to explain a curious slip of my own occasioned by the slovenly character of the MS. At page 159, in the account of the sieges in Northumberland in 1462, occurs the sentence:—“At the seege of Hem sunt comes de Wyceter, comes de Arundel, dominus de Ogyl, et dominus de Muntegew cum x. M¹.” I could not but suppose when I transcribed the MS. that “Hem” was a place, though I was unacquainted with it. I find, however, the word should have been spelt with a small h, “hem” being here a personal pronoun referring to the Duke of Somerset and others, who were keeping Bamborough Castle for Henry VI., as mentioned in the preceding sentence! Of all writings in the world illiterate writings are certainly the easiest to misinterpret.

^{page xviii note a} The Dukes of Exeter and Somerset, the Earls of Cumberland and Shrewsbury, Lords Scales, Willoughby, and Roos. “Dominus Henricus de Bokyngham” is probably an eighth; for I imagine the person intended was the Duke of Buckingham, afterwards beheaded by Richard III., whose succession to the title was not yet acknowledged, his grandfather from whom he inherited it having been slain at Northampton in the preceding year. In the list of knights slain also we meet with ’Dominus R. de Percy,” probably Sir Ralph Percy who was killed three years later at Hedgley Moor, and Sir Ralph Gray who also survived for three years and was beheaded for treason in 1464. The error in the case of Sir Ralph Gray was however discovered and the name is accordingly erased. At page 161. again we have another list of those slain in this battle, including, as the former one did, the Earl of Devonshire. Yet the Earl of Devonshire is stated on the saine page to have been beheaded after the battle, which of course is more accurate.

^{page xix note a} See Paston Letters (new edition), ii. 5.Google Scholar

^{page xix note b} Paston Letters, ii. 6Google Scholar. Here in this Ely MS. we are told with beautiful precision that the number of the slain “was reckoned at 35,091, as it was reported” (perœstimationem xxxvm¹.iiijxx et xj, ut dicebatur), and a little lower that it was 33,000 and more (quasi xxxiij milia et plures).

^{page xx note a} The word dimidii here followed, but is erased.

^{page xxi note a} Warkworth's Chronicle, pp. 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46.Google Scholar

^{page xxii note a} Page 173.

^{page xxii note b} I had written this without referring to any other work upon the subject, but I find the same opinion put forward in a note in Smith's Antiquities of Westminster, p. 258Google Scholar; and it appears from a reference there to Bailey, 's Antiquities of London and Westminster, p. 240Google Scholar (ed. 1734), that this marble chair was believed to be still in existence at the beginning of the last century, though it was then hidden from view, being built over by the two Courts of Chancery and the King's Bench. What has become of it? My friend Mr. Henry Brewer, who has always taken much interest in the architectural history of Westminster Hall, believes that Bailey was labouring under a mistake, and that the chair had been destroyed before his time. See note B at the end of this Preface.

^{page xxiii note a} W. Wyr. 497.

^{page xxiii note b} Rolls of Parliament, v. 497.Google Scholar

^{page xxiv note a} Page 177.

^{page xxiv note b} Page 178.

^{page xxv note a} Coll. of a Lond. Citizen, 224. Rolls of Parl. v. 511.Google Scholar