^{page 57 note a} It is right to state that the list of City Officers in this Chronicle is not altogether trustworthy; bnt instead of correcting individual inaccuracies in footnotes we reserve our remarks on this subject for an Appendix.

^{page 58 note a} Fontevraud.

^{page 58 note b} So in MS., meaning the 6th.

^{page 59 note a} thas MS.

^{page 61 note b} John repeated in MS.

^{page 62 note a} So in MS. The chronicler doubtless intended to have mentioned the bringing into England of the Cross of Bromholm, of which Matthew Paris gives an account in the year 1223. To that year of our Lord it is also assigned in the text of the Chronicle of London, printed by Nicolas, which a good deal resembles our present Chronicle; but still under the same mayor and sheriffs, and in the 5th year of Henry III.

^{page 63 note a} Here in the margin of the MS. is written “Nota bene,” in another hand.

^{page 63 note b} Meaning the Sheriffwick.

^{page 63 note c} Fabyan says 400l.

^{page 64 note a} So MS. The words “pass toll free” should be supplied.

^{page 64 note b} So in MS. The writer should have said, “of their goods.”

^{page 66 note a} So in MS.

^{page 66 note b} So in MS. The word is unintelligible, and a blank has been left for it in the old English Chronicle in MS. Cott. Vitellius A. XVI., which at this period follows the text of our Chronicle pretty closely. The Chronicle in Julius B. I. mentions the matter as follows:—“This yere was Seint Edmond of Pountney translatid, et uen' (venarum?) sanguis depositus fuit in hospicio Sancti Thomas apud Conductum usque ad festum Sancti Edwardi; quo die dominus Rex cum honorabili processione renera-biliter apud Westmonasterium deposuit.”

^{page 68 note a} So in MS., instead of 1258.

^{page 68 note b} A jakes.

^{page 70 note a} So in MS., though the battle of Eresham has already been noticed under its true date in the 49th year of Henry III., A.D. 1265.

^{page 73 note a} So in MS.

^{page 75 note a} So in MS.

^{page 75 note b} In the margin in another hand is written “Nota the hunger in Hynglonde.

^{page 77 note a} So in MS.

^{page 77 note b} Omitted in MS.

^{page 77 note c} Southwark.

^{page 79 note a} Omage to the kyng for, repeated in MS.

^{page 79 note b} Richmond.

^{page 81 note a} Omitted in MS.

^{page 82 note a} So in MS., repeated.

^{page 83 note a} So in MS. The name is Kislingbury or Kilsingbury in other Chronicles.

^{page 85 note a} The Due d'Athenes or Duke of Athens.

^{page 86 note a} they fonde. The Chronicle in Vit. A. XVI. reads the Fend. The Chronicle published by Nicolas says, “And the devell in mannes lyknes spak to men goynge be the weye.”

^{page 86 note b} skynne. Evidently a transcriber's error. Harl. 565 has “a blody reyne,” and so other authorities.

^{page 87 note a} Omitted in MS.

^{page 88 note a} Najara.

^{page 88 note b} Henry of Trastamare.

^{page 90 note a} shulde, repeated in MS.

^{page 91 note a} Robert Hawle, or Hauley, according to all other authorities.

^{page 91 note b} Omitted in MS.

^{page 92 note a} Omitted in MS.

^{page 92 note b} mo repeated in MS.

^{page 93 note a} hothe, MS.

^{page 94 note a} These figures are erroneous. William Stawnden was elected mayor in the sixteenth year according to what has just been stated in the text; and both he and the two sheriffs, whose names are given opposite, held office for one year only. This error has disturbed the numeration of the years which follow in the MS., which, however, we have corrected in the text.

^{page 94 note b} So in MS.

^{page 94 note c} From the 17th to the 21st year of this reign each year is wrongly numbered in the MS., except the 18th, which, strangely enough, is given correctly. Thus the 17th is numbered xix°, the 19th xxj°, the 20th xxij°, and the 21st xxiij°. The 22nd is numbered correctly, notwithstanding that it follows the year numbered xxiij°.

^{page 94 note d} “viij schore,” MS. which of course is an error.

^{page 95 note a} See note ^c on page 94.

^{page 95 note b} Syn Thomas. These words are struck through with the pen by a later hand.

^{page 96 note a} The beginning of this word is defaced and illegible.

^{page 96 note b} and. The MS. has “in” instead of “and” by an inadvertence of the scribe.

^{page 97 note a} We ought certainly to read “And that same year of the king, the Duke of Hereford and the Duke of Norfolk,” &c.

^{page 97 note b} i.e. disinherited.

^{page 98 note a} confernyde, MS.

^{page 98 note b} The word “Pope” is smeared through with a pen in these places.

^{page 98 note c} youre, MS., which is certainly an error. This petition is given more accurately in the Chronicle in Julius B. i., which we refer to in the footnotes following by the letter J. There is another copy in Vitell. A. xvi., which we refer to as V.; but it, also, is very corrupt.

^{page 98 note d} Our MS. here runs on as if the sentence were continued.

^{page 98 note e} bisechen, J.

^{page 98 note f} And. J. reads “that,” continuing the sentence.

^{page 98 note g} and. as, J.

^{page 99 note a} conjecturys. Conjecturacions of aomme men, and of many evil doers of the seid cite, J.

^{page 99 note b} the. to, J.

^{page 99 note c} there of, they of, MS.; thereof, J.

^{page 99 note d} Omitted in MS. J. reads “which malfaisours or evil doers.”

^{page 99 note e} the. J. reads “here,” i.e. their.

^{page 99 note f} wyckyd. lither, J.

^{page 99 note g} youre. you oure, J.

^{page 99 note h} wylle. welle, J.

^{page 99 note i} where of. Not in J., and clearly superfluous.

^{page 99 note k} So written as one word.

^{page 99 note l} a-boye. obeie, J.

^{page 100 note a} Supplied from J. and V.

^{page 100 note b} sufficiantly—ful ande. These words are supplied from J., being omitted both in our MS. and V. In the former the words following, viz., “suffyeyente auctoryte,” are absurdly made to begin a new paragraph.

^{page 100 note c} Supplied from J.

^{page 100 note d} lowen, J.; loven, V.

^{page 100 note e} malengyne, J. and V.

^{page 100 note f} ended at, ajourned to, J.

^{page 100 note g} Supplied from J.

^{page 100 note h} desiren, J.

^{page 100 note i} Supplied from J.

^{page 100 note k} procure, procerne, MS,; procure, J. and V.

^{page 102 note a} The Chronicle in Vitell. A. xvi. has a curious variation here. Instead of the foregoing clause it reads: “And Sir John Holand, Duke of Excestre, was take in Essex atte Putelwelle in a mille, and he was beheded atte Bristowe.”

^{page 102 note b} he. This word is clearly superfluous.

^{page 103 note a} the. ther, MS.

^{page 103 note b} Claryng done, MS., the last two syllables being disjoined.

^{page 103 note c} sayle. So in MS., but the reading ought certainly to have been slain.

^{page 104 note a} Should be Broke or Brooke.

^{page 105 note a} Percy. A clerical error. “Harry Prince of Wales” is the reading in other Chronicles.

^{page 106 note a} ne. ve in MS., struck out and corrected into “ne.”

^{page 106 note b} fides. So in our MS. and in Harl. 565. J. reads fidos, which of course is better grammar. Fabyan has fidem.

^{page 106 note c} Satel, i.e. Satan. The word is omitted in our MS., but occurs in all the similar MS. Chronicles, and in the first two editions of Fabyan.

^{page 107 note a} So in MS.

^{page 107 note b} The words between ^{b b} are repeated in the MS.

^{page 108 note a} His name is given as Maister “John Tybbay, clerk,” in Harl. 565. It is “Tykey, preest,” in Vit. A. xvi.

^{page 108 note b} So in MS., but apparently a transcriber's error for “viagyd.”

^{page 108 note c} So in MS.; but doubtless we should supply here, as the beginning of a new sentence, “And the mayor.”

^{page 109 note a} Omitted in our MS., but supplied from Vit. A. xvi.

^{page 109 note b} Camborowe. Conysborugbe in Vit.

^{page 109 note c} Sawcorte in oar MS. by a misreading; Gawconrte in Vit.

^{page 110 note a} But if, i. e. unless.

^{page 110 note b} whythe. withoute, Vit.

^{page 111 note a} that repeated in MS.

^{page 111 note b} So in MS.

^{page 112 note a} Thomas Arblastier. He was one of the retinue of Sir William Bourchier. See Nicolas's Battle of Agincourt, 360.

^{page 113 note a} Should be Winchester. Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, afterwards Cardinal. The title is given correctly in Vit.

^{page 113 note b} Joan of Navarre, widow of Henry IV.

^{page 113 note c} Sigismund.

^{page 116 note a} Notwithstanding that the mayor and sheriffs for the sixth year are given at the head of this chapter, almost the whole of it is devoted to events of the fifth year omitted in their proper place.

^{page 116 note b} Should be Martin the Fifth.

^{page 116 note c} Molene. Melone in Vit. The name is Meulhon in Rymer.

^{page 117 note a} Fayete. Our MS. reads, lorde of feyfty capytaynys; but Vit. more accurately, “lord Fayete, eapteyns.”

^{page 117 note b} Omitted in MS.; J. reads “hem.”

^{page 117 note c} the lord of Gamulle. This reading is taken from J. The name is written in the same way on Norman Roll, 5 Hen. V., m. 2, from which the treaty is printed in Kymer, and perhaps it may be read, as Rymer reads it, “Ganville.” Our MS. reads absurdly, “they of Gaunte.” Perhaps the person intended was the Sire de Graville, who a few months later (4 July, 1418) disputed with the English the passage of the Seine at Pont de l'Arche.—;Williams's “Gesta Henrici V.,” 122.

^{page 117 note d} which, with, MS.

^{page 117 note e} entretid. encresyd, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 117 note f} Supplied from J.

^{page 117 note g} suche. The MS. reads “whiche,” an evident error, which is corrected from Vit.

^{page 117 note h} “the town and,” V.

^{page 117 note i} that, there, V.; that there, J.

^{page 118 note a} be fore repeated in MS.

^{page 118 note b} Supplied from J.

^{page 118 note c} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J. and V.

^{page 118 note d} J. reads, “be it to sommone, requiren, or asken.”

^{page 118 note e} Omitted in MS.; supplied from V.

^{page 118 note f} at. and, MS.; at, J.

^{page 118 note g} tretys. tyme, J.; trete tyme, V.

^{page 118 note h} any. J. reads, “eny goodes of them of the castel undre the colour and shadowe of her owne goodes of the towne, ne undre the colour of this present trete.”

^{page 119 note a} emynucyon. enjoie, J. A blank is left for the word in V.

^{page 119 note b} Omitted in MS.

^{page 120 note a} This is a repetition of a former article which will he fotmd in its right place on p. 118.

^{page 120 note b} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 120 note c} J. adds, “forseen alweys that it be understanden that the castel of Faloys, ne non theryn, be comprehendid ne taken in this present abstinence.”

^{page 121 note a} havyng fully hyr poyntys. han fulfillid here promyse, J.

^{page 121 note b} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 121 note c} grete. gretter, J.

^{page 121 note d} J. gives also the text (translated) of the articles for the surrender of the castle, which are dated on the 1st Feb., and of which the two first are printed in Rymer, ix. 541, in the original French. See Appendix.

^{page 122 note a} Rouen.

^{page 122 note b} Should be the 13th.

^{page 122 note c} Robert. Robesard, J.

^{page 122 note d} [these folowyng]. Omitted in MS.; supplied from J. Nevertheless it is clear there is a further omission, even in J.

^{page 122 note e} howre, The h of this word is struck out in all these places.

^{page 123 note a} See note^e, p. 122.

^{page 123 note b} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 123 note c} So in MS. The first “othyr” seems to mean “or.”

^{page 123 note d} This clause is repeated in the MS. with the variation, “non of the fore sayde cyttezyns or othyr.”

^{page 123 note e} any. every, J.

^{page 123 note f} goodys. Evidently a transcriber's error for dedys. J. reads dede.

^{page 123 note g} xxiij. Should be 24th. See Rymer, ix. 665.

^{page 123 note h} Here several articles are omitted which may be seen in Rymer. They are given in the English in J.

^{page 124 note a} enjoined.

^{page 124 note b} receyve. resome, MS.; receyve, V.; receyven, J.

^{page 124 note c} or about diches, J.

^{page 124 note d} penurye, femurye, MS.; penurie, J. Vit. reads “fere.”

^{page 124 note e} whom, whanne, MS.

^{page 125 note a} The conclusion of the sentence is omitted not only in our MS. but also in J. and V. In the Latin it is, “ipse in ipsa non recipietur, seu providebitur eidem per dominum nostrum Regem de salvo conductu.”

^{page 125 note b} Whiche. The MS. has “with the” written as if it were the continuation of the previous sentence.

^{page 125 note c} malygny. malengyne, J.

^{page 125 note d} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 125 note e} for to sen, i. e. foreseen, provided.

^{page 125 note f} remoeve. remayne, MS., corrected from J.

^{page 125 note g} See page 123, note ^c.

^{page 126 note a} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 126 note b} to. and, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 126 note c} services, sermoys, MS.

^{page 126 note d} This word is clearly superfluous.

^{page 127 note a} The end of this sentence and the beginning of the next are omitted in our MS., which runs on without a break from the word “lorde” to “the kyngys behalve' as if it were one sentence.

^{page 127 note b} of strenyger the day of parte, of steryng the day of pietie, J. These are strange corruptions. The Latin has ex instinctu, Diwinæ pietatis.

^{page 127 note c} They are mentioned in the preceding clause in the original treaty; but their names are omitted in the MS.

^{page 127 note d} 19th Jan.

^{page 128 note a} thoughe. thoroughe, MS.

^{page 128 note b} borne no. These words are taken from J., and are a true rendering of the text of the original treaty (see Rymer, ix. 895). Our MS. reads, “hare ben frwte,” following perhaps some other translation in which the word “without” has been omitted. Vit. reads, still more absurdly, “have ben frendes.”

^{page 129 note a} procede. A transcriber's error for “possede,” i.e. possess.

^{page 129 note b} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 129 note c} of the whiche repeated, MS.

^{page 129 note d} ofte. We should certainly read, “of the oath;” but the words do not occur even in J.

^{page 129 note e} of owre sayde realme repeated in MS.

^{page 129 note f} Omitted in MS.

^{page 129 note g} worthe. with, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 130 note a} Supplied from J.

^{page 130 note b} befnelle. Should be besaile, i. e. great-grandfather, or proavus. The readings in J. and V. are equally corrupt.

^{page 130 note c} Supplied from J.

^{page 130 note d} and. Omitted both in our MS. and in J. and V., all which begin a new sentence or paragraph with the word “also.”

^{page 130 note e} the. that, J.

^{page 131 note a} owre. J. reads more correctly “here,” i.e. their.

^{page 131 note b} hem. hym, MS.; hem, J.

^{page 131 note c} able. alle maner, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 131 note d} demaynes. demaytys, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 131 note e} Omitted in our MS. and in J. and V.

^{page 131 note f} at. So in MS., though the word should certainly be “of.” Yet J. reads “that” and V. “atte.”

^{page 132 note a} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 132 note b} that, thei, J.

^{page 132 note c} Supplied from J.

^{page 132 note d} whome. whenne, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 132 note e} us. as, MS.

^{page 133 note a} inobedientes. in obedyens, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 133 note b} Omitted in MS.

^{page 133 note c} Supplied from J.

^{page 134 note a} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 134 note b} ayther. every, MS.

^{page 134 note c} Should be diminution.

^{page 134 note d} Supplied from J.

^{page 134 note e} name, same, MS.

^{page 134 note f} This word is superfluous.

^{page 134 note g} given.

^{page 135 note a} Omitted in MS.

^{page 135 note b} other. any, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 135 note c} Omitted in MS. and in J.

^{page 135 note d} So in MS., meaning, “We shall not put impositions.”

^{page 135 note e} non. Should be “nor.”

^{page 135 note f} teseyng. the seiyng, J. The Latin is dictamen.

^{page 135 note g} three. thys, MS.

^{page 135 note h} othyr. of the, J.

^{page 136 note a} that bene, i.e., that it may be.

^{page 136 note b} frome. for, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 136 note c} The reading here is very corrupt, and ought to be as in J. “oure, from thens, terme of oure liffe; and from thens forward,” &c.

^{page 136 note d} severally, soverenly, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 136 note e} Supplied from J.

^{page 136 note f} eythyr. other, J.

^{page 136 note g} puttyng. partyng, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 136 note h} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 136 note i} same. So in MS.

^{page 137 note a} confyderyd. consyderyd, MS.

^{page 137 note b} fro. for, MS.

^{page 137 note c} we wylle declare by oure letters to hem that wylle. The text here is peculiarly corrupt, but we forbear to alter it. The true reading is in J.: “woll declare by here (i.e. their) lettres that thei wol.”

^{page 137 note d} ys. This word is superfluous, but the following words, which appear in J., have been omitted: “bene comprehendid undre the bondes, suerties, and accorde of this peas.”

^{page 137 note e} Viennes.

^{page 137 note f} and, in MS.

^{page 137 note g} othyr. the thre, J., which is the right reading.

^{page 137 note h} Omitted in MS.

^{page 138 note a} to. This word is superfluous in both these places.

^{page 138 note b} able. alle, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 138 note c} [thei]. Supplied from J.

^{page 139 note a} J. says, “Therles brother of Suffolk, cup berer.”

^{page 139 note b} amyner. J. reads “avener.”

^{page 139 note c} at the other tables, J.

^{page 140 note a} Anne, daughter of Thomas of Woodstock Duke of Gloucester, who married, first, Thomas Earl of Stafford, and afterwards his brother Edmund, who succeeded him in the title.

^{page 140 note b} Anne, daughter of Edmund Earl of Stafford, second husband of the lady mentioned in the preceding note. She married, as her first husband, Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March.

^{page 140 note c} Elizabeth, fifth daughter of Thomas Holland, Earl of Kent, was the wife of John Lord Neyill, son of Ealph Nevill, first Earl of “Westmoreland. Her husband died in 1423, during his father's life.

^{page 140 note d} Margaret Mowbray, daughter of Thomas first Duke of Norfolk (who was banished by Richard II.), and sister of John Earl of Nottingham and Earl Marshal, who was not restored to the dukedom of Norfolk till 1424.

^{page 140 note e} Margaret, daughter of John de Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, the son of John of Gaunt. She married Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire.

^{page 141 note a} Alice, sole daughter of Thomas de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury. She was married to Richard Nevill, third son of Ralph first Earl of Westmoreland, and after her father's death her husband was created Earl of Salisbury.

^{page 141 note b} roget. roches, J.

^{page 141 note c} of douce, de ewe douce, J.

^{page 141 note d} The description of this coronation and banquet, especially the latter, is more full in J., but as that account has already been printed by Nicolas in the “Chronicle of London,” pp. 162–6, I haye refrained from noting the omissions in footnotes.

^{page 142 note a} At the battle of Beaugé.

^{page 143 note a} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J. These articles are also printed in Rymer, x. 212.

^{page 143 note b} i.e. beau fils.

^{page 143 note c} hem. Supplied from J. and Eymer.

^{page 143 note d} Gamcelys. de Gamoches, J. and Rymer.

^{page 143 note e} Damoy. Dannoy, Bymer and J.

^{page 143 note f} Romys Termagyn. Roumos Treemayn, Rymer; Roumes Tremagyn, J.

^{page 143 note g} Domerville. de Merville, Rymer; Tromervil, J.

^{page 143 note h} Motte. Mette, MS.

^{page 144 note a} all. tylle, MS.

^{page 144 note b} Denys. Venys, MS.

^{page 144 note c} de Raynys. Roumes, Rymer; de Roumes, J.

^{page 144 note d} So here.

^{page 144 note e} be. or, MS.

^{page 144 note f} Brienne. Bayne, MS.

^{page 144 note g} Omitted in MS.

^{page 145 note a} Omitted in MS.

^{page 145 note b} This article is not in Rymer.

^{page 145 note c} other. the, Rymer and J.

^{page 145 note d} Also. Alle, MS.

^{page 146 note a} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 146 note b} dystryde. discovrind, Rymer; distournid, J.

^{page 146 note c} Supplied from J.

^{page 146 note d} consentauntes. consentmentys, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 146 note e} coupabyle. compabyle, MS.

^{page 146 note f} the. of, MS.

^{page 146 note h} preson. So in MS.

^{page 147 note a} predyjusse. So in MS.

^{page 147 note b} ne. in, MS.

^{page 147 note c} thei shul make—thei shul take. These words are from J. Our MS. reads absurdly, “cherchefulle makyng”—“cherchefulle takynge.”

^{page 147 note d} Supplied from J.

^{page 147 note c} fro. for, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 148 note a} Barrowe. Warm, in Rymer; Verrue, J.

^{page 148 note b} wherof. whos of, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 148 note c} and. “have,” MS.; corrected from J. and Rymer.

^{page 148 note d} Some names are here omitted, for which see Rymer, xii., 214.

^{page 148 note e} Frosche. Fosse, J. and Rym.

^{page 149 note a} the. So in MS.; J. reads “during iij. yere,” and V. “duryng the terme of v. yere after.” The subsidy was really granted only for two years. See Rolls of Parliament, iv. 173.

^{page 149 note b} J. reads “first” in both these places; which agrees best with what follows.

^{page 150 note a} Stonys. Strones, J.

^{page 150 note b} and othyr mo othyr dyvers. and John of Marle, ordeyned, J.

^{page 150 note c} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 150 note d} the. his, J.

^{page 150 note e} areryd, strengythe. arraied and strengthid, J.

^{page 151 note a} So in MS.; J. reads, “in the most great.”

^{page 151 note b} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 151 note c} or callyd ellys Scarbrey. on callid Stararay, J.

^{page 151 note d} Bone beaute. Barnabroyt, J.

^{page 151 note e} Lawny. Lannoy, J.

^{page 151 note f} So in MS.

^{page 151 note e} J. reads, “and my lord the Regent aforeseid, hymself my seid lord.the Regent of his grace shall receyve, hem,” &c.

^{page 152 note a} This word is superfluous.

^{page 152 note b} to done and fullefylle. that that done arid fulflllid, J.

^{page 152 note c} caucion. aunsyon, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 152 note d} Omitted in MS.

^{page 153 note a} seale. So in MS.; J. reads “take.”

^{page 153 note b} the for sayde. for the sayde, MS.; corrected according to J.

^{page 153 note c} thinges. kyngys, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 153 note d} For the text of this treaty in the original French, see Rymer, x. 280.

^{page 153 note e} covered. So in MS.; J. reads “have bene, brought, seen and redde,” which agrees with the text in Rymer.

^{page 154 note a} This word is superfluous.

^{page 154 note b} Rymer gives his name Jehan le Brius.

^{page 154 note c} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 154 note d} othyr—a. So in MS.

^{page 154 note e} Arture Duke. Arture of the Duke, MS.

^{page 155 note a} Omitted in MS.; supplied from J.

^{page 155 note b} folke of schotte. “gens de trait” in the original French.

^{page 155 note c} forke. So in MS.

^{page 155 note d} grete. gretter, J.

^{page 155 note e} oure. othyr, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 155 note f} by. se; corrected from J.

^{page 156 note a} for. or, MS.; corrected from J.

^{page 156 note b} i. e. yet.

^{page 156 note c} whythe any wyse .… offende. J. reads, more intelligibly, and according to the original, “withouten ever to done the contrarie in any maner.”

^{page 156 note d} Par. Pur, MS., in both these places; corrected by J. and Rymer.

^{page 156 note e} Omitted in MS.; supplied from Rymer.

^{page 157 note a} Syr Thomas. The name should be Sir John.

^{page 157 note b} So in MS.

^{page 158 note a} There appears to be an omission here in the MS. We ought doubtless to read, “and for all the prentices of the Inns of Court.” In V. the corresponding passage is, “and he sent to the Innes of Court for to come to hym.”

^{page 159 note a} October, according to V.

^{page 159 note b} that he shulde. Repeated in MS.

^{page 161 note a} one of hem. upon hem, V.

^{page 161 note b} m ¹. ij^ml, V.

^{page 161 note c} Pope. This word is crossed through.

^{page 162} Pope. This word crossed through, and “bishope” written over in a later hand.

^{page 163 note a} This is the action commonly spoken of as “the battle of Herrings.”

^{page 163 note b} John Duke of Bourbon, who had been a prisoner in England since the battle of Agincourt.

^{page 164 note a} shulde repeated in MS.

^{page 165 note a} Bishop of Chester, i. e. of Coventry and Lichfield. His name was William Heyworth.

^{page 165 note b} John Langdon.

^{page 166 note a} ferrea. feria, MS. Psalm ii. 9.

^{page 166 note b} Accingere. Accinge, MS.

^{page 166 note c} Psalm xliv. 4 (xlv. 3).

^{page 167 note a} Sic.

^{page 168 note a} Omitted in MS.

^{page 169 note a} Gely. Goly, MS.

^{page 169 note b} which is. with hys, MS.

^{page 170 note a} Sythe Harry—Knyghte. Sithen Henry the v^th so noble a knyght was founde, J.

^{page 170 note b} These verses are not written in lines, and were evidently transcribed from another copy which was not written in lines either. The copyist has consequently made some mistakes. Among other things he seems to have thought that “myghte” and “knyghte” were rhymes in the poem.

^{page 170 note c} So in MS. Fabyan reads “Shedyth;” J. reads “Shewith of grace on hym your hevenly light.”

^{page 170 note d} The reading both in Fabyan and in J. is, “His tender youth with virtue doth avaunce.”

^{page 171 note a} David de Montferrand.

^{page 172 note a} Crossed out, and “byschope” written in a later hand.

^{page 172 note b} “his” inserted in a later hand.

^{page 173 note a} spiritu. spiritus, MS.

^{page 175 note a} Jesse. Perhaps the writer meant “Geste,” a history; but more probably he has left out some words. Fabyan speaks here of “the sprynge of Jesse, wherin was shewyd the genelogy of our blessed Lady.”

^{page 175 note b} Angelis suis. Angelus suus, MS.

^{page 175 note c} de. This word is crossed through as if it were positively inaccurate, and the sentence read “Angelus suus mandarit te.”

^{page 175 note d} Longitudinem—in eum. So in MS.

^{page 175 note e} meum. eum, MS.; see Ps. xc. (xci.) 11, 16.

^{page 175 note f} aldyrmen. aldyrman, MS.

^{page 176 note a} The heretics of Prague in Bohemia.

^{page 176 note b} The writer means, apparently, a renegade, as Fabyan calls him.

^{page 176 note c} whym. The writer probably meant to have written “with them.”

^{page 176 note d} Therouenne.

^{page 177 note a} Robert FitzHugh, LL.D. He was appointed bishop in 1431, and consecrated on the 16th September in that year.

^{page 177 note b} John Langdon.

^{page 178 note a} Harfleur.

^{page 180 note a} Joan of Navarre, widow of King Henry IV.

^{page 180 note b} Sigismund.

^{page 181 note a} John Kemp, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury.

^{page 181 note b} Thomas Brown.

^{page 181 note c} Thomas Rodeburn.

^{page 181 note d} Rheims.

^{page 182 note a} Vendôme.

^{page 182 note b} Omitted in MS.

^{page 182 note c} Constantinople. John Paltælogus, Emperor.

^{page 182 note d} Armenia.

^{page 183 note a} Necromancy.

^{page 185 note a} Strumpets.

^{page 185 note b} Probably the Translation of St. Edward the King and Confessor, which was on the 13th October.

^{page 186 note a} Here a blank was left for the name, but has been improperly filled up by the rubricator inserting a mark indicative of a new paragraph.

^{page 187 note a} James Butler, fourth Earl.

^{page 187 note b} Thomas Fitzgerald, grandson of Thomas Earl of Kildare, was at this time Prior of the Knights of St. John at Kilmaiuham in Ireland.

^{page 187 note c} Adam de Moleyns, Bishop of Chichester.

^{page 188 note a} The word “servants” appears to be omitted.

^{page 188 note b} of the, i. e. of that.

^{page 189 note a} The 26th year is omitted.

^{page 189 note b} was repeated in MS.

^{page 189 note c} Omitted in MS.

^{page 190 note a} So in MS.

^{page 191 note a} Omitted in MS.

^{page 192 note a} Unsought?

^{page 192 note b} The Translation of St. Martin of Tours.

^{page 193 note a} Omitted in MS.

^{page 193 note b} yn. ym, MS.

^{page 193 note c} John Kemp, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury.

^{page 193 note d} John Stafford.

^{page 193 note e} William Warnflete.

^{page 196 note a} Todenham.

^{page 196 note b} what repeated in MS.

^{page 197 note a} So in MS.

^{page 197 note b} The Christian name “Will.” is added by a somewhat later hand. The date “1451” is also added in the margin in a hand decidedly more modern.

^{page 198 note a} What is recorded under this year, viz. the battle of St. Alban's, really took place in the thirty-third year of Henry VI., but the mayor and sheriffs of that year are omitted, and all the remaining years of this reign are wrong numbered, that which is called the thirty-third year being really the thirty-fourth, and so on.

^{page 198 note b} Sir James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond. The writer is wrong in saying that he was made Earl of Wiltshire after the battle. He was created Earl of Wiltshire in 1449, and succeeded to the earldom of Ormond in 1452.

^{page 199 note a} Should be “xxxiv.” See page 198, note ^a.

^{page 199 note b} Omitted in MS.

^{page 200 note a} Omitted in MS.

^{page 201 note a} ys. So in MS. for “if.”

^{page 202 note a} Should be “xxxv.” See page 198, note _a.

^{page 202 note b} Should be “XXXYj.”

^{page 203 note a} So in MS.

^{page 203 note b} kiss.

^{page 204 note a} Should be “xxxvij.” See p. 198, note ^a.

^{page 204 note b} Omitted in MS.

^{page 205 note a} Should be “xxxyiij.” See as before.

^{page 205 note b} he repeated in MS.

^{page 206 note a} This is really the date of the breaking up of their camp at Ludlow, not of their leaving England.

^{page 206 note b} Jaquetta, widow of the Regent Bedford. She was the daughter of Peter of Luxemburg, Count of St. Pol, and soon after her first husband's death married Sir Richard Woodville, who was created Baron Rivers by Henry VI. in 1448, and Earl Rivers by Edward IV. (who was his son-in law) in 1466.

^{page 207 note a} Should be “xxxix.” See page 198, note ^a.

^{page 208 note a} So in MS.

^{page 208 note b} Omitted in MS.

^{page 208 note c} evil.

^{page 209 note a} Omitted in MS.

^{page 210 note a} Apparently the writer intended to say “commonly.”

^{page 211 note a} So in MS.

^{page 211 note b} Haverfordwest.

^{page 211 note c} saw.

^{page 215 note a} the repeated in MS.

^{page 216 note a} whithe repeated after with iu MS.

^{page 217 note a} Ralph Bigot, Lord Mauley.—See Paston Letters (new ed.) ii. 6. His name is not given in Nicolas' Peerage, but he was evidently the son or grandson of Sir John Bigot and Constance his wife, sister of Peter Lord Mauley, who died in 1415.

^{page 217 note b} This seems undoubtedly to be the celebrated Sir John Fortescue, though why he is called Lord I cannot tell. See Rolls of Parl. v. 477.

^{page 220 note a} De Brézé.

^{page 220 note b} This figure is struck out.

^{page 221 note a} July 25. But there are privy seals of this year dated at Northampton on the 18th and 19th July.

^{page 221 note b} So in MS., evidently an error for “King.”

^{page 222 note a} So in MS.

^{page 222 note b} saw.

^{page 224 note a} April 25. This was the battle of Hedgley Moor.

^{page 225 note a} let to be smyte of. he smot let to be smyte of, MS.

^{page 225 note b} Copclyffe. Should be Topcliff. See extract at end of Warkworth's Chronicle from Arundel MS. No. 5, f. 170, at the College of Arms.

^{page 226 note a} Sir William Tailboys, of South Kyme, Lincolnshire, who had been already attainted with others of the Lancastrian party. See Rolls of Parl. v. 477, 480.

^{page 226 note b} Omitted in MS.

^{page 227 note a} That is to say, no quarter angels.

^{page 228 note a} Originally written “Waldon” and afterwards corrected.

^{page 228 note b} We should probably supply “in hope”.

^{page 229 note a} He was appointed Bishop of Carlisle in 1468, and was translated to Chichester in 1478.

^{page 229 note b} Omitted in MS.

^{page 229 note c} John Alcock, afterwards Bishop of Ely.

^{page 230 note a} George Nevill, Archbishop of York.

^{page 230 note b} thys repeated in MS.

^{page 230 note c} The Cathedral School of St. Paul's, not the present St. Paul's School, which was founded at a later date by Dean Colet and dedicated to the Child Jesus.

^{page 231 note a} Pope. Altered into “busshope” in a later hand, both here and in several instances after.

^{page 231 note b} hyr repeated in MS.

^{page 232 note a} “Bisshope” is written orer in a later hand in all these instances.

^{page 232 note b} Omitted in MS.

^{page 233 note a} Omitted in MS.

^{page 234 note a} Saw.

^{page 234 note b} i. e. a half-penny worth.

^{page 235 note a} Probably Alfonso, who was proclaimed King of Castile on the deposition of his brother Henry the Impotent, in 1465.

^{page 235 note b} Frederic III.

^{page 235 note c} It is uncertain which Duke of Burgundy is here intended. Duke Philip died on the 15 June, 1467, and was succeeded by his son Charles the Bold.

^{page 235 note d} Ferdinand I.

^{page 235 note e} Borso Duke of Ferrara (not Count) is doubtless intended.

^{page 235 note f} “Bishop” in later hand written over.

^{page 236 note a} Saw.

^{page 237 note a} Ric. Beauchamp.

^{page 237 note b} So in MS.

^{page 237 note c} Burgundy.

^{page 238 note a} and, so in MS.

^{page 238 note b} “Bisshope” as before.

^{page 238 note c} yenchys. The initial y is dotted both above and below, perhaps to indicate that it should be struck out.

^{page 239 note a} Saw.

^{page 239 note b} Here the MS. breaks off abruptly at the bottom of the page; but some leaves are certainly lost.