56. Cp. Ann. Ric. II, p. 202 (Rolls Series, 28. 3) ‘iurans suo solito iuramento, per sanctum Iohannem Baptistam, quod nihil mali pateretur in corpore, si se pacifice reddere voluisset.’
69 f. In the Annales Ricardi II it is definitely stated that Warwick came to the king’s banquet and was arrested after it (p. 202). According to Gower’s account there was no banquet at all, and Gloucester was arrested before Warwick; and this agrees with the accounts given in the Chronique de la Traïson, p. 9, and by Froissart, vol. xvi. p. 73 (ed. Lettenhove).
85 ff. From this account we should gather that the king officially announced the death of the duke of Gloucester to parliament before it had occurred; but this was not so. Parliament met on Sept. 17, and on Sept. 21 a writ was sent in the king’s name to Calais, ordering the earl of Nottingham to produce his prisoner. This was replied to, under date Sept. 24, with the announcement that he was dead (Rot. Parl. iii. 378). It is certain, however, that a report of the duke of Gloucester’s death was circulated and generally believed in the month of August, and equally certain that this was done with the connivance of the king, who probably wished to try what effect the news would produce upon the public mind. Sir William Rickhill, the justice who was sent over to extract a confession from the duke of Gloucester, received on Sept. 5 a commission from the king to proceed to Calais, no purpose stated, the date of the commission being Aug. 17. On arrival he was presented by the earl of Nottingham with another commission from the king, also with date Aug. 17, directing him to examine the duke of Gloucester. He expressed surprise, saying that the duke was dead and that his death had been ‘notified’ to the people both at Calais and in England. On the next day he saw the duke and received his so-called confession (Rot. Parl. iii. 431). When this confession was communicated to parliament, the date of it was suppressed, and things were so arranged as to favour the opinion that the interview with Rickhill took place between the 17th and 25th of August, the latter being the accepted date of Gloucester’s death; cp. the article by Mr. James Tait in the Dict. of National Biography, vol. lvi. pp. 157 f.
It is probable enough that the duke of Gloucester was still living when parliament met, as Gower seems to imply. Unfortunately John Halle, who confessed that he was present at the murder of the duke (Rot. Parl. iii. 453), gave no precise date. The statement of Gower that the king waited until he had secured his condemnation, may mean only that he satisfied himself of the temper of Parliament before taking the final and irrevocable step.
101 ff. The body seems first to have been laid in the Priory of Bermondsey: then it was buried by Richard’s command in Westminster Abbey, but apart from the royal burial-place. Afterwards the body was transferred by Henry IV to the place chosen by Gloucester himself, between the tomb of Edward the Confessor and that of Edward III (Adam of Usk, p. 39).
121 f. For the insults levelled against the earl of Arundel see Ann. Ric. II, p. 215, Adam of Usk, p. 13.
With regard to the events of this parliament generally, it is worth while here to observe that Adam of Usk must certainly be regarded as a first-hand authority and his account as a contemporary one. It has usually been assumed that, though he says himself that he was present at the parliament (‘In quo parliemento omni die presensium compilator interfuit’), he actually borrowed his account of it from the Monk of Evesham. This assumption rests entirely on the statement of the editor of Adam of Usk’s Chronicle, that he must have written later than 1415, a statement which is repeated without question by Potthast, Gross, and others. It may be observed, however, that the evidence adduced for this late date is absolutely worthless. It is alleged first that Adam of Usk near the beginning of his Chronicle alludes to the Lollard rising in Henry V’s reign, whereas what he actually says is that the Lollards planned an attack on Convocation, but were deterred by the resolute measures of the archbishop of Canterbury, at the time of the second parliament of Henry IV, that is the year 1401, when Convocation was engaged in an endeavour to suppress the Lollards and the archbishop procured the execution of William Sawtree; secondly we are told that the chronicler refers (p. 55) to the death of the dauphin Louis, which happened in 1415, whereas actually his reference is obviously to the death of the dauphin Charles, which took place at the beginning of the year 1402. Mr. James Tait in the Dict. of National Biography, vol. xlviii. p. 157, has already indicated that an earlier date than 1415 is necessary, by his reference to p. 21 of the Chronicle, where the chronicler speaks of Edmund earl of March as a boy not yet arrived at puberty, which points to a date not later than 1405. It seems probable that the Monk of Evesham had before him Adam of Usk’s journal of the parliament of 1397, to which he made some slight additions from other sources, introducing into his account a political colour rather more favourable to Richard II. The close correspondence between them is confined to the proceedings of this parliament at Westminster. It may be added that the account given by Adam of Usk is full of graphic details which suggest an eye-witness.
129. The pardon pleaded by the earl of Arundel had already been revoked by parliament, therefore the plea was not accepted. From the attempts made by the king to recover Arundel’s charter of pardon, even after his execution (Rot. Claus. 21 Ric. II. pt 2, m. 18 d.), we may perhaps gather that some scruples were felt about the revocation of it.
135 ff. Cp. Annales Ric. II, pp. 216 f.
155 f. Annales Ric. II, p. 219.