^{page v note 1} E.g. pour alternates with pur : infra, nos. II, XII, L.

^{page v note 2} E.g. letters and reports to Edward III from his ambassadors at Avignon, Oct.-Dec. 1344 (Déprez, E., “La Conférence d'Avignon, 1344 ”, in Essays … presented … to T. F. Tout, (Manchester, 1925), pp. 301–20Google Scholar) ; Nicholas Dubosc's dossier for the Leulinghem conferences, 1383–6 (Martene, and Durand, , Voyage littéraire de deux religieux bénédictins …, ii (1724), pp. 307–60Google Scholar) ; journal of the proceedings of the English ambassadors sent to the Marches of Calais in 1439 (Nicholas, H., Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, v. 334–407Google Scholar). For Beckington's mission to Aquitaine, 1442–3, see infra, p. viii, n. 3.

^{page vi note 1} Nos. XXXIII, XLII; notes preceding nos. XXXVIII and LXIII, following nos. LI to LVII.

^{page vi note 2} The argument of Sudbury's sermon (no. XV) ; a whole paragraph of the abbot of St. Vaast's “credence ” (no. LVII. ii. 6) ; the name of the Roman emperor quoted by the same abbot (no. LVII. iii. 2).

^{page vi note 3} See a letter of his, Bruges, 7 May 1378 (B.M., MS. Cotton Caligula D III, fo. 130), and other documents quoted by Perroy, E., L'Angleterre et le Grand Schisme d'Occident (1933), pp. 134, n. 2 ; 142, n. 4Google Scholar.

^{page vi note 4} Letter of Pileo to Charles V and Louis de Male, exhorting them to support Urban VI, Venice, 15 Dec. 1378 (Rinaldi, , Annales, vii. 399, misdated 1379Google Scholar).

^{page vi note 5} Guggenberger, K., Die Legation des Kardinals Pileus in Deutschland, 1378–82 (Veröffert-Hchungen aus dem Kirchen-hist. Seminar München, 2nd series, XII, 1907)Google Scholar.

^{page vii note 1} Perroy, L'Angleterre et le Grand Schisme, pp. 149–53.

^{page vii note 2} This collection was examined in an unpublished paper read by Prof. E. F. Jacob at the Anglo-French Historical Conference in Paris in April 1934. Dr. Jacob kindly supplied me with some notes on the subject, which I have freely used in this and the next paragraph.

^{page vii note 3} This is not the place to discuss the problem of the possible survival, after the beginning of the Hundred Years War, of the office of the Custos Processuum, lately studied by Dr.Cuttino, G. P., English Diplomatic Administration, 1259–1339 (Oxford Historical Studies, 1940)Google Scholar, and who was responsible not only for keeping the archives of the formal diplomatic documents relating to French affairs, but also for compiling various collections of similar documents, such as Liber A and Liber B (Edward I), the Gascon Calendar and Bishop Stapledon's Calendar (Edward II). A possible link with later collections is afforded by Rylands MS. Lat. 404 (Bock, F., “An Unknown Register of the Reign of Edward III ”, in Eng. Hist. Review, xlv (1930), pp. 353–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; “Some New Documents illustrating the Early Years of the Hundred Years War ”, in Bull, of the John Rylands Library, xv (1931), pp. 84–99Google Scholar). Nothing, however, has survived of similar undertakings for the later years of Edward III and the whole reign of Richard II, for the formularies or books of precedents, mainly compiled from Privy Seal or Signet archives, and used by Perroy, E., The Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II (Camden Third Series, xlviii, 1933)Google Scholar, are clearly not official, nor are they confined to diplomatic documents (e.g. Cambridge University Library, MS. Dd III 53 ; Edinburgh University Library, MS. Laing 351). Still further away from official sources are dictamina such as All Souls MS. 182 (Legge, Dominica, Anglo-Norman Letters and Petitions from All Souls MS. 182, Anglo-Norman Texts, iii, 1941Google Scholar).

^{page vii note 4} Edited by B. Williams (English Historical Society, 1850). On the authorship, see Galbraith, V. H., The St. Albans Chronicle, 1406–20 (1937), P. xxiii, n. 2Google Scholar.

^{page vii note 5} Dr. Jacob points out the following references, seven in all, which show that the so-called Liber recoriorum included (1) the alliances made in 1414 by Henry V with Sigismund, the king of Aragon, and “other Christian princes” ; (2) an exemplification (July 1415) of the 1412 agreement with the French princes ; (3) documents relating to the surrender of Harfleur; (4) the names of the French killed at Agincourt; (5) the confirmation of the alliance made with Sigismund in May 1416 ; (6) the rights of the Crown of England in Scotland ; (7) the letters creating Dorset duke of Exeter (Nov. 1416).

^{page vii note 5} A first group consists of B.M. MSS. Cotton Tiberius B XII, Harley 861 and 4763, together with a seventeenth-century copy of one of them in MS. Ashmole 1114 (section 11). The material here contained relates to the English claims to the Crown of France and to Thomas Beckington's diplomatic missions. A close study of their contents and of their possible relations with B.M. MS. Cotton Tiberius B VI, MSS. Bodley 710 and 885 (these last two relating only to Aquitaine), and P.R.O. Exchequer L.T.R. Misc. Books, Vol. 188, as well as Cotton MS. Julius EIV (section 5), would be well worth doing.

^{page viii note 1} Otway-Ruthven, J., The King's Secretary and the Signet Office in the XV Century (1939), pp. 118–20Google Scholar.

^{page viii note 2} Official Correspondence of Thomas Bekyngton (Rolls Series), i. Introd. xii–xiii. See also the chronological table, pp. cxxvii–cciii.

^{page viii note 3} Printed ibid., ii. 177–247. A selection of letters, not to be found in MS. Lambeth 211, is also printed, from Ashmole 789 (fos. 172 v., 210 v., 212 v., 233, 234, 242 and 320), ibid., i. Introd. cxxi ; ii. 248–69.

^{page viii note 4} Delachenal, R., Hist, de Charles V, iv (1928), pp. 552–67Google Scholar, by overlooking some of the evidence and misdating a few of the remaining documents, is not very helpful.

^{page ix note 1} Gregory to William Wittelsey, archbishop of Canterbury, 12 Jan. 1371 (Arch. Vat., Reg. Vat. 263, fo. 7 ; Cal. of Papal Reg., iv (1902), p. 92Google Scholar).

^{page ix note 2} Gregory to Charles V, asking for safe-conducts, 21 Feb. ; to the count of Flanders, for the nuncios who will pass through his dominions on their way to England, 1 April (Reg. Vat. 263, fos. 18v, 28 ; 282, fo. 192 ; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 92, 93, 169–70Google Scholar).

^{page ix note 3} Gregory to Lancaster and Cambridge, 10 April; to Thomas Felton, seneschal of Aquitaine, 12 April (Reg. Vat. 263, fo. 30v–31v; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 93–4Google Scholar). The nuncios were John de Reveillon, bishop of Sarlat, and Armand, lord of Langeac.

^{page ix note 4} Chron. des règnes de Jean II et de Charles V, ed. Delachenal, R. (Soc. Hist. France), ii (1916), pp. 156–7Google Scholar.

^{page ix note 5} Sir Arnold Sauvage and Sir Hugh Segrave were at Calais from 3 to 31 May 1371 “pro diuersis negociis ab ipso Rege domino cardinali Cantuariensi deferendis ” (Déprez, E. and Mirot, L., “Les ambassades anglaises pendant la Guerre de Cent Ans ”, Bibl. de l'Ecole des Charles, lx (1899), no. 300)Google Scholar.

^{page ix note 6} Gregory to the English bishops, 28 July, complaining that some prelates and councilors had been influential in refusing the cardinal's safe-conduct; to Edward III and the cardinal of Beauvais, 30 July (Reg. Vat. 263, fos. 83v, 86 ; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 94).

^{page ix note 7} After having again asked Edward III to favour peace (25 Sept.), Gregory thanked him for the reception given to the cardinal of Canterbury (13 Nov.), and on 20 Nov. sent similar thanks to Simon Sudbury (Reg. Vat. 263, fos. 112v, 130, 132 ; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 96, 97, 98; Foedera (Record edn.), iii (ii), p. 929).

^{page ix note 8} Gregory to Langham, 23 Jan. 1372 : “in kalendis marcii proximo futuri prope Kalesium ”; 31 Jan.: “prima die marcii” (Reg. Vat. 268, fos. 6, 109v; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 113, 114). Nowhere is Bruges mentioned, as asserted by Delachenal, , Hist, de Charles V, iv. 558–9Google Scholar, who wrongly dates 1372 a bull of 3 Jan. 1373.

^{page ix note 9} 19 Feb. 1372 (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 934).

^{page ix note 10} Safe-conducts for them, 3 March (ibid., 935).

^{page x note 1} The presence in English archives of a bull (23 Jan. 1372) accrediting Bertrand de Veyrac to the two cardinals indicates that this messenger must have come to England (ibid., 930).

^{page x note 2} On 7 Feb., Langham was empowered to issue safe-conducts for the Flemish ambassadors who were to come to Calais, whither he may have already crossed (ibid., 932).

^{page x note 3} Letter of protection for him and his following, 23 Jan. (ibid., 930–1). Dormans was in poor health and had to surrender the seals to his brother William in February, before the opening of the negotiations, which he may not have attended in person.

^{page x note 4} Sauvage was absent from 21 Feb. to 9 April, and Shepeye from 22 Feb. to 7 April (Deprez and Mirot, “Les Ambassades ”, nos. 306–7).

^{page x note 5} Foedera, iii (ii), pp. 920 sqq.Google Scholar ; Quicke, F., Les Pays-Bas à la veille de la période bourguignonne, 1356–84 (1947) PP. 162, 413Google Scholar.

^{page x note 6} Froissart, ed. Luce (Soc. Hist. France), viii (1888), p. xix.

^{page x note 7} In July 1371, John Grove of Mark was sent from Calais to Flanders “pro nouis de statu et ordinacione partium illarum inquirendis … causa guerre inter dominum Regem et comitem Ffiandrie tune temporis mote ” ; other spies were despatched to Ypres and Ghent, while in December a messenger came from London to Calais “pro diuersis memorandis querendis de lanis Ffiandrie in eadem villa causa guerre … mote arrestandis ad monstrandum consilio domini Regis ” (accounts of William Gunthorp, treasurer of Calais, May 1371-May 1372, John Rylands Library, MS. Lat. 240, fo. 5).

^{page x note 8} Infra, Appendix I. The document is undated, and Delachenal (op. cit., iv. 563–5) seems to think it was drafted for the meeting of January–Feb. 1374, which, however, as we shall see, was neither planned nor held. February 1372 is the only possible date when a meeting in Picardy was held by the two cardinals.

^{page x note 9} The house of La Motte was reinforced “ex causa rumoris currentis in partibus illis de aduentu Hugonis de Chastillon et aliorum Francorum versus partes predictas, ex assignatione dominorum episcopo London', Guidonis de Brien, Rogero de Bello Campo et aliorum de consilio Regis apud Calesium existencium ”, the additional soldiers serving for 28 days. Other expenses included the manning of their churches by several curates of the countryside, and were authorized by the same councillors as well as warranted by privy seal letters of 12 April 1372 ; the attack must have been planned immediately after the breakdown of the negotiations (John Rylands MS. Lat. 240, fos. 4v, 5).

^{page xi note 1} Their mission was already planned on 29 Jan. 1372; but their credentials were only given on 7 March (Reg. Vat. 264, fo. 95v; 283, fo. 2v ; 268, fos. 115v, 117, 241 ; Cal. of Papal Reg., iv. 101, 170, 115, 119).

^{page xi note 2} Infra, App. II.

^{page xi note 3} They were absent from 16 April to 2 May 1372 (Deprez and Mirot, “Les Ambassades ”, no. 309).

^{page xi note 4} On the point of leaving England (27 June), they obtained a letter of passage (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 951).

^{page xi note 5} Letter of passage for Bertrand de Chavanhac and Ralph de Lestrange, crossing from Dover to Calais towards the bishop of Carpentras, 14 Sept. 1372 (ibid. 963).

^{page xi note 6} From 27 Aug. to 14 Oct. (Tout, T. F., Chapters in the Administrative History of Mediaeval England, iv (1928), p. 283)Google Scholar.

^{page xi note 7} Infra, App. III.

^{page xi note 8} An undated draft of Edward's safe-conduct for the two cardinals is endorsed : “Memorandum quod ista littera missa fuit cancellario per cardinalem Cantuariensem ad consignandum sub magno sigillo Regis, set loco presentis littere alia littera de conductu facta fuit et consignata, portans tenorem littere de conductu Karoli aduersarii Regis Ffrancie, que facta fuit sub signo dicti Karoli pro nunciis Regis Anglie, que quidem littera de conductu dicti domini Regis Anglie irrotulatur in rotulo Ffrancie de data viii. Januarii anno xlvi^to (P.R.O., Chanc. Misc. 28/6, no. 18). The actual letter bears a restrictive clause : the cardinal of Beauvais is allowed to travel in order to join Langham, but not to cross over to England except by special permission of the King (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 969).

^{page xii note 1} ibid., 969–70. The accounts of Ferrers and Sudbury are in Deprez and Mirot, “Les Ambassades ”, nos. 314–15.

^{page xii note 2} Infra, App. III.

^{page xii note 3} A letter from Eloi Surrien, receiver of Flanders, to Thibaut de Bourmont, councillor of Yolande de Bar, lady of Cassel, dated 1 Febr., says : “Les gens des ii. Roys de Franche et d'Engleterre sont a Bruges, mais on tient de vray qu'ils doyuent venir a Gand par deuers Monsieur de Flandres auant qu'il se partachent ” (Arch. Dep. Nord, Chambre des Comptes de Lille, B 3226, no. 14,738). The year 1373 can be deduced from the date “le marquedi lendemain du jour Saint Pol ” (26 Jan.) referred to earlier in the letter.—The part played by Louis de Male in the Anglo-French negotiations of these years has been unduly minimized by Delachenal, (Hist, de Charles V, iv. 556, 558, 567)Google Scholar. As early as 1 Aug. 1371, Gregory had asked for his mediation, and the count's increasingly pro-English leanings were pointing to him as a convenient arbiter (Reg. Vat. 263, fo. 90; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 95).

^{page xii note 4} Sudbury and Ferrers were back in London on 24 Feb. (Deprez and Mirot, “Les Ambassades”, nos. 314–15). The viscount of Turenne had not attended the conference; he was at Avignon by 9 Feb. 1373 (Huillard-Breholles, , Titres de la Maison ducale de Bourbon, i (1867), no. 3236)Google Scholar.

^{page xii note 5} Perroy, L'Angleterre et le Grand, Schisme, pp. 29–30.

^{page xii note 6} From 27 Nov. 1372 to 3 Jan. 1373, the pope had written for peace to the kings, princes, magnates and councillors of both sides (Reg. Vat. 268, fos. 208v, 230, 235v, 236v–239 ; Cal. Of Pap. Reg., iv. 116, 117, 118, 119).

^{page xii note 7} Reg. Vat. 269, fos. 149v, 150, 152, 248v ; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 123, 128.

^{page xii note 8} Perroy, L'Angleterre et le Grand Schisme, pp. 31–2.

^{page xiii note 1} Delachenal, , Hist, de Charles V, iv. 429–40, 444, 478–80Google Scholar.

^{page xiii note 2} The first orders for the preparations of the intended campaign were issued on 28 April (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 975).

^{page xiii note 3} Delachenal, op. cit., iv. 485–95.

^{page xiii note 4} Froissart (ed. Luce), viii. 166–70.

^{page xiii note 5} 13 to 20 Sept. 1373 (Reg. Vat. 269, fos. 212v, 215, 216v–218 ; Reg. Vat. 265, fos. 158v, 160 ; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 125, 126, 107).

^{page xiii note 6} This was granted only on 13 Feb. 1374 (P.R.O., Chanc. Misc. 30/8, no. 11). This draft was not enrolled in the French or Gascon Rolls ; the letter of appointment was probably never actually issued.

^{page xiii note 7} Delachenal, , Hist, de Charles V, iv. 496Google Scholar.

^{page xiv note 1} Huillard-Bréholles, , Titres de la Maison ducale de Bourbon, i, no. 3251Google Scholar.

^{page xiv note 2} Devic, Dom and Vaissete, Dom, Hist, générale du Languedoc, ed. Privat, , x (1885), cols. 1497–8Google Scholar.

^{page xiv note 3} His presence in Languedoc is vouchsafed for from 29 Nov. He then went to stay with the pope at Avignon till 13 Dec, spent Christmas at Nîmes, and from then till Easter did not move much from Toulouse, being already busy preparing for the 1374 campaign (ibid., ix. 837 ff. ; x, cols. 1514–15).

^{page xiv note 4} We may dispose here, once for all, of the alleged peace conference of Bruges (Jan.-March 1374), on which Delachenal comments at length (Hist, de Charles V, iv. 561–6), but which never took place, although several authors (including the present writer), on the authority of Delachenal, have not doubted its existence (Coville, A., L'Europe occidentale de isyo à 1380 (in Hist, générale, ed. Glotz, G., Hist, du Moyen Age, vi (ii), 1940), p. 630Google Scholar ; E. Perroy, L'Angleterre et le Grand Schisme, p. 36 ; La Guerre de Cent Ans (1945), p. 140). Delachenal founds his narrative on three sets of documents :

(a) The instructions for the French envoys about to meet the English under the aegis of the cardinals of Beauvais and Canterbury in Picardy (infra, App. I), issued in Feb. 1372, not 1374.

(b) The accounts of Richard Stafford and Edmund Mortimer, sent to Bruges to treat with the French between 7 Jan. and 24 Feb. 1374, according to Déprez and Mirot, “Les Ambassades ”, nos. 325–6. The originals (Exch. Various Accounts, Bdle 316, nos. 31, 25) bear 1373 and tally with the other surviving accounts of Sudbury and Ferrers, who took part in the same embassy (supra, p. xii, nn. 1 and 4).

(c) The stream of other envoys, “moins qualifiés mais plus rompus aux subtilités juridiques ”, who “vinrent d'Angleterre, dans la mêoe année, prêtér leur concours aux premiers ambassadeurs” : a misleading description of the prelates, diplomats, clerics, lawyers and doctors (including Wyclif) who tarried at Bruges between July 1374 and Jan. 1375 in order to settle outstanding ecclesiastical disputes with specially appointed nuncios (Perroy, L'Angleterre et le Grand Schisme, pp. 36–7). We can therefore assert that there was no peace conference at Bruges o—or elsewhere—between Feb. 1373 and March 1375.

^{page xiv note 5} For Lancaster's main force, as Delachenal conclusively shows (op. cit., iv. 496–500), never went across the mountains of Auvergne, but marched round through La Marche and Lower Limousin.

^{page xiv note 6} Letter of pardon for Maumont, July 1374, published by Clément-Simon, G., La rupture du traité de Brétigny et ses conséquences en Limousin (1898), p. 102Google Scholar.

^{page xv note 1} Lancaster's message had been brought through the viscount of Turenne to the pope, who immediately sent to Bordeaux Bertrand de Chavanhac, 21 Jan. 1374 (Reg. Vat. 270, fo. 205v ; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 135).

^{page xv note 2} Delachenal, , Hist, de Charles V, iv. 501Google Scholar.

^{page xv note 3} See the malignant comments of Walsingham, Historia Anglicana (Rolls Series), i. 316.

^{page xv note 4} 9 March 1374. The minute of the decision is in Arch. Nat., X 1^a 1470, fo. 110 . The truce seems nevertheless to have been observed (John of Gaunt's Register, ed. Smith, Armitage (Camden Third Series, xx–xxi, 1911), i. no. 42)Google Scholar.

^{page xv note 5} Ayala, , Cronicas de los Reyes de Castilla (ed. Rivadeneyra, , 1877), ii. 23Google Scholar.

^{page xv note 6} Delachenal, op. cit., iv. 510.

^{page xv note 7} 10 March 1374 (Reg. Vat. 266, fo. 75v ; Reg. Vat. 270, fos. 86v–89 ; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 108, 131).

^{page xv note 8} Lancaster issued letters from Bordeaux on 15 Feb., 26 March (1373 old style : Easter fell on 2 April), 4 and 8 April 1374 ; he was back at the Savoy on 15 May (John of Gaunt's Register, i, no. 42 ; ii, nos. 724, 864, 1766).

^{page xv note 9} Delachenal, op. cit., iv. 511–16.

^{page xvi note 1} The well-known article 12 of Brétigny provided that Edward III should renounce his claims to the French Crown and John of France his sovereignty over Aquitaine and other territories surrendered to the English. The article was left out of the treaty of Calais and embodied in a separate agreement, which, provided that the exchanges should take place by 31 Oct. 1361 at the latest.

^{page xvi note 2} Infra, no. XV. The French case is stated at length in App. I and XI.

^{page xvi note 3} Supra, p. v, n. 2.

^{page xvii note 1} Infra, nos. XV to XIX.

^{page xvii note 2} Infra, nos. XX to XXIX.

^{page xvii note 3} Infra, no. XXX.

^{page xviii note 1} Infra, nos. XXXI and XXXVIII.

^{page xviii note 2} This explains the exchange of letters between Anjou and Lancaster, infra, no. XL.

^{page xviii note 3} Infra, no. XLI.

^{page xviii note 4} Infra, nos. XLVII, XLVIII, App. VIII.

^{page xviii note 5} Infra, no. LIV.

^{page xviii note 6} Infra, no. LVII.

^{page xix note 1} Infra, nos. LVIII–LXII.

^{page xix note 2} Infra, no. LXIII.

^{page xix note 3} Infra, App. XI (34).

^{page xix note 4} Infra, App. XI (29).

^{page xix note 5} My thanks are due to the many scholars who kindly answered my queries. Dr. E. F. Jacob's knowledge of fifteenth-century collections of diplomatic documents was unselfishly placed at my disposal. Prof. B. A. Pocquet du Haut-Jusse and Y. Renouard solved some knotty problems of Breton or Gascon history. M. J. F. Lemarignier and Mile M. Boulet helped to trace legal quotations, and Prof J. Heurgon corrected a spurious quotation of Valerius Maximus.

^{page 1 note 1} Not ‘lately departed ’, but ‘on my latest departure ’. A first visit had taken place in June and July (infra, App. IV), a second in October. Pileo obtained letters of passage on 20 Oct. (Foedera (Record edn.), iii (ii), p. 1015). The present letter was thus nearly two months overdue. Lancaster made gifts to the nuncio while he was in England (John of Gaunt's Register, ed. Smith, Armitag (Camden Third Series, xx–xxi, 1911), ii, no. 1431)Google Scholar.

^{page 1 note 2} From Chancery datings, it seems that Charles V spent most of October and November 1374 in or near Melun. He was back at Vincennes on 24 Nov., but left Paris on that day for a short trip to Creil and Royaumont (Petit, E., ‘Les Sejours de Charles V ’, Bull. hist, et philologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques, 1887, p. 234)Google Scholar.

^{page 2 note 1} Philip of Burgundy left his duchy shortly after 15 Nov., travelling by easy stages to Paris, which was reached on the 27th. Two days later, he joined the king at Royaumont, and both went soon back to Paris where the duke stayed through most of the winter (Petit, E., Itiniraites de Philippe le Hardi et de Jean sans Peur, dues de Bourgogne, 1363–1419 (Docs. Inédits, 1888), pp. III ff.Google Scholar). Anjou, who was back at Toulouse from the La Réole campaign early in October, spent 8–30 Oct. at Nîmes and went from there to Avignon, where he entertained fifteen cardinals on 27 Nov. He does not seem to have travelled to Paris and was back at Nîmes on 7 Jan. 1375 (Devic, Dora and Vaissete, Dom, Hist, générale du Languedoc, edn. Privat, ix (1885), p. 845Google Scholar ; Froissart, ed. Luce (Soc. Hist. France), viii (1888), p. cxiii, note 2)Google Scholar.

^{page 2 note 2} During Pileo's first visit, Edward had consented to a general truce, to last till Easter 1375 (infra, App. IV, p. 76, n. 2). He now favoured a local truce only.

^{page 2 note 3} 13 Jan. 1375.

^{page 3 note 1} Before Pileo's departure from London, Oudin de Mirol and Hermann of Cologne, the archbishop's familiares, were granted a safe-conduct to come to England on their master's errands, 19 Oct. 1374 (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 1015). On Oudin's previous journey, see infra, App. IV.

^{page 4 note 1} 9 Feb. 1375.

^{page 4 note 2} 13 Jan. 1375.

^{page 5 note 1} Hugh de Chatillon had succeeded his brother John in the lordship of Dampierre, their father's estate, and that of Rollaincourt, inherited from their mother. As master of the crossbowmen he succeeded Baudouin d'Anequin, slain at Cocherel in 1364 (Du Chesne, A., Hist, de la Maison de Chastillon sur Marne (1621), pp. 384–90Google Scholar).

^{page 5 note 2} Enguerrand d'Eudin, a Picard knight, had assumed the title of lord of Châteauvilain between 1366 and 1369, through his marriage to Joan de Châteauvilain, widow of her third husband, the notorious captain Arnold de Cervole, alias L'Archiprêtre (Du Chesne, A., Hist, de la Maison de Broyes et de Chasteauvillain (1631), p. 52 ; preuves, p. 46Google Scholar).

^{page 5 note 3} Burley had succeeded Roger Beauchamp as captain of Calais on 28 Oct. 1373, and was reappointed on 20 Nov. 1374 (Foedera, iii (ii), pp. 992, 1017).

^{page 5 note 4} Harleston, captain of Guines since 10 July 1370, reappointed on 20 Aug. 1374 (ibid., pp. 898, 1009). His garrison was a small one : 20 esquires and 40 archers in 1371–2 (John Rylands Library, MS. Lat. 240, fo. 3).

^{page 5 note 5} 22 April 1375.

^{page 5 note 6} 24 June 1375, that is, up to the signing of the general truce.

^{page 6 note 1} This probably refers to his previous mission for the conclusion of the local truce (supra, nos. V–VII).

^{page 6 note 2} Supra, nos. III–IV.

^{page 6 note 3} Infra, no. X.

^{page 7 note 1} 11 March 1375. Earlier dates had been first thought of : 13 Jan. (supra, no. I) ; 9 Feb. (supra, no. II). The conference actually opened on 27 March (infra, no. XV). Gregory XI had been kept informed of these preliminary negotiations, but with some delay : on 8 Jan. he asked Lestrange to carry on his work with Pileo de Prata and to write as often as he could ; on 9 Feb., having heard of the impending meeting of ambassadors, he sent new appeals for peace to the kings, the dukes the nuncios and the ambassadors ; on 20 March, he was thinking that the delegations had already reached Bruges (Cal. of Papal Reg., iv (1902), pp. 137, 142)Google Scholar.

^{page 7 note 2} Edward's safe-conducts and ratification were issued on 2 and 3 March (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 1027).

^{page 8 note 1} From the Savoy, Lancaster paid a short visit to Dover on 7 Feb., but went back to London where he seems to have spent the rest of the month. His and the other ambassadors' appointments were issued on 20 and 21 Feb. (Foedera, iii (ii), pp. 1024–5), while he obtained letters of passage and attorney on 1 March (ibid., p. 1026). He was at Canterbury on 4–5 March, at Dover on the 8th and 9th (John of Gaunt's Register, i, nos. 174–5 . ii nos 1744 1751 1759) John Shepeye, the clercial expert, had left London on 28 Feb. (Déprez, and Mirot, , ‘Les Ambassades Anglaises pendant la guerre de Cent Ans ’, Bibl. de l'Ec. des Chartes, lx (1899), no. 343)Google Scholar.

^{page 8 note 2} This initial is a misreading of the copyist. Lancaster's chancellor was then Ralph Erghum, soon to be promoted to the bishopric of Durham.

^{page 9 note 1} Fo. 55V has been filled with irrelevant matter by a fifteenth-century hand.

^{page 9 note 2} Burgundy, who was granted on 24 Dec. 1374 the sum of 1,000 gold francs a month for the duration of his embassy, and a further monthly sum of 5,000 francs on 26 Jan. 1375 (Petit, E., Dues de Bourgogne de la Maison de Valois : i. Philippe le Hardi, 1363–80 (1909), p. 301)Google Scholar, left Paris on 6 March, stayed with Charles V at Senlis, then travelled to Ghent, where from 17 March he was the guest of his father-in-law, the count of Flanders, and from there reached Bruges (E. Petit, Itinfraires, pp. 115–16).

^{page 9 note 3} Nicholas Dubosc, promoted bishop of Bayeux by papal provision on 21 Jan. 1375 (Eubel, , Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi, i (2nd edn., 1913), p. 125)Google Scholar, was to be consecrated at Bruges on 20 May 1375 at the expense of the duke of Burgundy (Petit, Philippe le Hardi, p. 304).

^{page 9 note 4} On the 25th, Burgundy entertained at dinner the two papal nuncios, the members of the French delegation, the burgomasters and several knights and burgesses of Bruges (Petit, Itiniraires, p. 116).

^{page 10 note 1} Rev. xxii, 21.

^{page 10 note 2} Ps. lix (Vulg. lx). 13.

^{page 10 note 3} End of the line left blank.

^{page 10 note 4} MS.: mediis.

^{page 11 note 1} During the first part of the conference, the English government was constantly in touch with Bruges. Geoffrey de Seneycle, esquire, was sent to Flanders from 10 March to 13 April ‘ad reportandum concilio Regis de expedicione tractatus ’ ; from 26 March to 30 April, Reginald de Neuport went to Lancaster with letters of privy seal (Déprez and Mirot, ‘Les Ambassades ’ nos. 344, 346).

^{page 12 note 1} MS.: contractum.

^{page 12 note 2} MS.: mediis.

^{page 13 note 1} The see of Canterbury was vacant since the death of William Wittelsey (June 1374) and was probably coveted by William Courtenay, bishop of Hereford. Gregory wanted to promote Sudbury from London to Canterbury (infra, no. XVII), translating Courtenay to London and John Gilbert from Bangor to Hereford. The bulls for the two latter were issued on 12 Sept. 1375 (Eubel, , Hierarchia Catholica, i. 274, 311Google Scholar), and they were given their temporalities on 2 and 4 Dec. (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 1043).

^{page 13 note 2} Roger de Beaufort, the pope's other, with his nephew John de La Roche, had been taken prisoner at the sack of Limoges in Sept. 1370 (Delachenal, , Hist, de Charles V, iv. 288–9, 295–6Google Scholar). Ever since Sept. 1371, Gregory had tried to obtain their release, asking even Alice Perrers to intervene in their favour (Cal. of Papal Reg., iv. 96–7). In March and April 1375 he renewed his demarches, writing to the Princess of Wales, William Latimer and Henry Wakefield, keeper of the wardrobe (ibid., p. 146).

^{page 13 note 3} Bureau de La Rivière brought this letter himself to Bruges ; on 2 April he had dinner with Burgundy (Petit, Itinéraires, p. 116).

^{page 13 note 4} John de Grailly, captal of Buch, to whom Roger de Beaufort had surrendered at Limoges, was in his turn taken prisoner by the French at the skirmish of Soubise in Aug. 1372 (Delachenal, op. cit., iv. 428).

^{page 13 note 5} Having received this report, Gregory XI sent to the nuncios a bunch of letters to be forwarded to the kings and their ambassadors ; he expounded a new argument for the rapid conclusion of the peace : messengers had come from the East alleging that a very small Christian force could defeat the Infidel. On that account, his appeal was renewed on 18 May (Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 138–9).

^{page 14 note 1} From 8 April 1375.

^{page 14 note 2} He left before 15 April, for his name does not appear in the list of guests at a dinner given on that day by Burgundy to the bishop of Carpentras and the French delegation, including Dubosc, Sarrebruck and Arnaud de Corbie (Petit, Itinéraires, p. 116). He reported to the French Council that the English were insisting on having full sovereignty over that part of Aquitaine which would be left to them, and a Great Council comprising ‘tant des seigneurs de son sane comme prelaz, nobles, clers, maistres en theologie et en decréz et grant nombre d'autres sages ’ decided unanimously to reject this claim (Chron. des régnes de Jean II et de Charles V, ed. Delachenal, (Soc. Hist. France, 1916), ii. 176)Google Scholar.

^{page 14 note 3} Latimer and Shepeye were back in London on 14 April (Déprez and Mirot, ‘Les Ambassades ’, no. 343). Geoffrey de Seneycle was immediately sent on a new errand to Bruges, 18 April-8 May (ibid., no. 347).

^{page 14 note 4} The ‘quindena ’ ended on 6 May. Burgundy had taken the opportunity of this break in the negotiations for spending Easter at Ghent with his father-in-law, from 16 April to 3 May (Petit, Itinéraires, p. 117).

^{page 15 note 1} Latimer and Shepeye left London for Bruges on 30 April 1375 (Déprez and Mirot, ‘Les Ambassades’, no. 349).

^{page 15 note 2} In spite of this diplomatic tension. Burgundy kept on his stately functions. Great jousts were organized by him at Bruges, the awards being proclaimed on 15 May (Petit, Philippe le Hardi, p. 305).

^{page 16 note 1} Sudbury's bull of translation to Canterbury is dated 4 May 1375 (Wilkins, , Concilia, iii. 97Google Scholar ; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 147Google Scholar).

^{page 16 note 2} Walerand of Luxemburg, count of St. Pol, was taken prisoner by an esquire from Guelders in a skirmish outside Ardres in the later days of Jan. 1375 (Froissart, ed. Luce, viii. 184–7) and was soon sold to Latimer (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 1024). His inclusion in the list of exchanges may be attributed to the eagerness of the pope to overcome Charles V's reluctance at the release of the captal of Buch ; his name, however, was dropped from the later agreements on the matter (infra, nos. XXVII, XXVIII).

^{page 16 note 3} On 31 Dec. 1374 Gregory had issued orders for the collection of a subsidy on the English clergy, which had been several times postponed since 1372. In March 1375 he had asked his nuncios at Bruges and the English episcopate to hasten a settlement on the matter; on 15 July he was to order the collection of the first half (60,000 florins), as had been agreed at Bruges between the nuncios and the representatives of the English clergy, that is probably Sudbury alone (Perroy, L'Angleterre et le Grand Schisme, pp. 37, 40).

^{page 17 note 1} Arnold Gamier had left England for a visit to the Roman curia in June 1374 (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 1007). Although his return had been announced on 25 Jan. 1375, he did not leave Avignon until after 20 March. On that date he was entrusted with instructions from the pope to the nuncios dealing with the question of the subsidy (Reg. Vat. 271, fo. 116 ; 281, fo. 119 ; 278, fo. 21 ; Col. of Pap. Reg., iv. 142, 153. 160).

^{page 18 note 1} Fo. 64r left blank.

^{page 20 note 1} 22 July 1375. From this we may infer that all the foregoing proposals were put forward before 26 May, at which date the truce was formally agreed upon, and drafted. Even a two-month adjournment was a short time for the delegations to report home and receive new instructions. As it happens, we do not know which of the ambassadors were sent to their respective kings. At any rate, Lancaster thought it necessary to obtain a new letter of appointment formally empowering him to conclude a general truce (infra, no. XXII). Meanwhile, proceedings at Bruges were held back by the news of the agreement entered upon by the garrison of St. Sauveurle- Vicomte on 21 May, by which the place was to surrender to the French on 3 July, if not relieved by this date (Delisle, L., Hist, du château et des sires de St. Sauveur-le-Vicomte (1867), pp. 197–200)Google Scholar.

^{page 20 note 2} In June, the negotiations having somewhat slackened, Burgundy made frequent absences from Bruges, as far as Ghent, Male and Ypres (Petit, Itinéraires, pp. 117–18). John of Gaunt' Register (ii, nos. 1753, 1773, 1760) contains three writs dated from Bruges, 18, 22 and 25 May, but none in June.

^{page 21 note 1} The initial is wrong. The document was not countersigned by Peter Blanchet, Charles V's secretary, but by John Blanchet, councillor to the duke of Burgundy, who had accompanied his master in Flanders (infra, no. XXV; Petit, Philippe le Hardi, p. 305, note 2).

^{page 21 note 2} The truce was proclaimed in England on 15 July and formally ratified by Edward on 25 Aug. (Foedera, iii (ii), pp. 1036–7).—Fo. 76V is left blank.

^{page 22 note 1} St. Sauveur having surrendered to the French on 3 July, before the truce had been heard of or published in Cotentin (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 1034), the place was not handed to the nuncios or to their appointees. But Charles V apparently accepted Bureau de La Rivière as keeper of the place, for he gave him the revenues of the viscounty (Delisle, Hist, de St. Sauveur-le-Vicomte, Preuves, p. 297). Edward III tried with little apparent success to exact from the French the 40,000 francs referred to infra, nos. XXV–XXVI : on 21 May 1376 he appointed Harleston, captain of Guines, Ermyn, treasurer of Calais, and John Organ, merchant of London, to receive the money. Two months later, Harleston and his colleagues were ordered to hand over the receipt that had been prepared for them to the bishop of Hereford and the other ambassadors leaving for Bruges (infra, no. XLIV), who were entrusted with the task of obtaining the sum (Foedera, iii (ii), pp. 1051, 1059). The outcome of their efforts is not known.

^{page 22 note 2} A French captain who had served with the garrison of La Roche-Posay in 1370 (Froissart, ed. Luce, viii. 259).

^{page 23 note 1} Whether this conditional release was effected or not is doubtful. Froissart has it that Charles V persistently refused to set free the Captal unless he promised to turn French or at least not to make war on the French, and that the prisoner died before having accepted the proposal (ed. Luce, viii. 239–41). The Chron. des Quatre Premiers Valois (ed. Luce, Soc. Hist. France, 1862), p. 259Google Scholar, places this death at the Louvre (other sources say the Temple of Paris) in Sept. 1376. More likely, John de Grailly died after May 1377 (see next note).

^{page 23 note 2} In May 1377 the two prisoners sent to England one of their relatives, William de la Roche, archdeacon and papal collector, to negotiate their ransom ; their captor, the Captal, is not specified as deceased (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 1078). About that time, Charles V was still hoping to obtain their release (infra, App. XI, 33).

^{page 23 note 3} John, lord of Gommegnies, captain of Ardres, since 8 July 1373, reappointed on 26 Oct. 1374 (Foedera, iii (ii), pp. 982, 1016). His surrender at Ardres to the French on 7 Sept. 1377 and subsequent impeachment are well known (Froissart, ed. Luce, viii. 187–92, 237, 241–51 ; Rot. Parl., iii. 11–12).

^{page 24 note 1} Sir John Devereux was captain of Brest; his exploits in western Brittany during the spring of 1375 have been popularized by Froissart (ed. Luce, viii. 201–3).

^{page 24 note 2} Sir John Austin had won fame in protecting the duchess of Brittany at Auray after her husband's flight in 1373 (Froissart, ed. Luce, viii. 125). In Aug. 1376 lie was one of the keepers of the castle of Brest for the English (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 1062). Fol. 82V is blank.

^{page 24 note 3} On 1 July the duke of Burgundy had entertained at dinner Lancaster and the other English envoys. He left Bruges the next day, reaching Paris and joining Charles V on the n t h (Petit, Itiniraires, p. 118). The date of Lancaster's return in England is not known. His earlier writ afterwards was issued at the Savoy on 15 July (John of Gaunt's Register, i, no. 15).

^{page 24 note 4} Anjou, after taking part in the sitting of the Paris Parlement where, on 21 May 1375, was published and registered the ordinance on the majority of the kings of France (Delachenal, , Hist, de Qharles V, iv. 543Google Scholar), had reached Villeneuve-lez-Avignon by 13 June, and was still there on 29 July, when he summoned a meeting of the Estates of Languedoc, in order to provide for the defence of the province against the Companies, now that‘treuga est et esse speratur inter … Regem … et Regem Anglie ’ (Devic, and Vaissete, , Hist, générale du Languedoc, edn. Privat, ix. 846, note 6; x.1512–22Google Scholar). From there again he ordered the publication of the truce on 18 Aug. (ibid., ix. 848).

^{page 24 note 5} On Lestrange's departure from the curia, Gregory XI wrote again to Charles V, Anjou, Burgundy, the Prince, the bishop of Amiens and the French ambassadors (20 Sept. 1375), asking them to further the cause of peace (Reg. Vat. 271, fos. 140-–2 ; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 144).

^{page 25 note 1} The meeting had first been decided for 15 Sept. (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 1034 ; supra, no. XXI), then for 6 Oct. (infra, App. VI). Anjou, who had issued a letter at Roquemaure (Gard) on 9 Sept. (Hist. gin. du Languedoc, x. 1523–5), had passed through Lyons later in the month (Huillard-Breholles, , Titres de la Maison ducale de Bourbon, i (1867), no. 3320)Google Scholar ; he was at St. Omer on 12 Oct. (Arch. Nat., KK 242, fo. 29), but left it early in November for a short visit to his wife's estates at Guise (Froissart, ed. Luce, viii, p. cxvii, note 1). Burgundy left Paris much later, on 29 Oct., and did not reach St. Omer till the evening of 31 Nov., when the difficulties about the place of meeting were nearly over, for five days later he left for Bruges (Petit, Itinéraires, p. 122).

^{page 25 note 2} On the council held by Edward III on or after 22 Sept. for the drafting of their instructions, see infra, App. VI. Lancaster, Sudbury, Cambridge, Salisbury, Latimer and Cobham were appointed ambassadors on 20 Sept. and received additional powers on 10 Oct. (Foedera, iii (ii), pp. 1037–9), while safe-conducts were issued for Anjou, Burgundy, Lagrange, Tancarville and Sarrebruck on 23 Sept. (ibid., p. 1038). Lancaster, Salisbury, Cambridge, Cobham and Shepeye were paid their wages on 6 Oct. (Issue Roll 459, m. 2). Salisbury left London on 10 Oct. (Déprez and Mirot, ‘Les Ambassades ’, no. 377, misdated 1376). On that date, Lancaster was still at the Savoy; he issued letters at Dover from 21 to 29 Oct. (John of Gaunt's Register, i, no. 749 ; ii, nos. 1762, 1788–9), where Latimer, who had been paid by the Exchequer on the 27th (Issue Roll 459, m. 6), must have joined him. They arrived at Calais in the early days of November at the latest, for on the 8th the king's council sent to them ‘in Flandria ’ the messenger Geoffrey de Seynecle (Issue Roll 459, m. 11).

^{page 25 note 3} Froissart has heard of this incident, and dramatizes it as usual, while he wrongly places it in the spring of 1375. He asserts that Anjou had come to St. Omer with a strong retinue of Breton men-at-arms (including Duguesclin), and refused to go further for fear of being attacked by the English (ed. Luce, viii. 190–1). Delachenal stops his narrative of the negotiations with the truce of June 1375 and starts again with the conferences of the spring of 1377, thus passing over eighteen months of vital discussions (Hist, de Charles V, iv. 556–79 ; v. 2–4, 8–17).

^{page 25 note 4} The English went to Bruges before the French had finally consented to join them there. A letter from Lancaster is dated Bruges, 7 Dec. (John of Gaunt's Register, ii, no. 1794). All the time, the English government was kept informed of the preliminary difficulties : they sent over Sir William Neville and Sir Thomas Despenser, 1 Dec, and Richard Hereford, 5 Dec. (Issue Roll 459, mm. 16, 17).

^{page 26 note 1} See a letter of Charles V to Louis de Male, Senlis, 25 Oct. 1375, asking him to mediate between the French and the English, and the count's answer, Ghent, 8 Nov. (wDelisle, L., Mandements et actes divers de Charles V (Docs. Inedits, 1874), no. 1174 AGoogle Scholar; Moranvillé, H., in Chronographia Regum Francorum (Soc. Hist. France, 1896), ii. 361Google Scholar, note 1). On 28 Nov., probably after having heard of the incident, Gregory sent to his nuncios a new series of letters to be delivered to Anjou, Burgundy, Lancaster and the other ambassadors, as well as to the kings and to the count of Flanders, asking them in vague terms to foster the work of peace (Cal. of Pap. Reg.,i ) 5)

^{page 26 note 2} John de Lagrange was promoted cardinal on 25 Dec. 1375 and received the hat after his return to Avignon on 26 June 1376 (Eubel, , Hierarchia Catholica, i. 22)Google Scholar. This memorandum was thus written a few months after the events it recalls.

^{page 26 note 3} Peter d'Orgemont, chancellor since 20 Nov. 1373.

^{page 26 note 4} The Bruges meeting began on 28 Dec, according to the Chron. des règnes de Jean II et de Charles V, ed. Delachenal, , ii. 179Google Scholar, but Burgundy arrived at Bruges only the day after (Petit, Itinéraires, p. 123).

^{page 26 note 5} The copy of this draft treaty and of the following document (no. XXXII) which had been sent to the king of France was still kept in the early eighteenth century among the archives of the Paris Chambre des Comptes, from where it was published by Morice, Dom, Mém. pour servir de preuves a I'hist. eccUsiastique et civile de Bretagne, ii (1744), cols. 87–98Google Scholar. It bore marginal notes embodying the decisions and remarks of the French council.

^{page 27 note 1} Marginal note : ‘Passe comme dit est’.

^{page 27 note 2} Marginal note : ‘Diet fu que Ten verroit les aliances d'Escoce.’—See infra, no. XXXVIII (2): l'en verra la declaracion qui se fera des alliéz ’.

^{page 27 note 3} Words between these two points are omitted by Dom Morice.

^{page 27 note 4} Marginal note : ‘Soit adjouté que pendant le temps des xl. ans le Roy d'Angleterre ne se portera ne appellera Roy de France.’—See infra, no. XXXVIII (3) : ‘Et oultre dient les Francois …’

^{page 27 note 5} Marginal note : ‘Soient declarees les forteresses enclauees et selon ce procedent les tracteurs.’— See infra, no. XXXVIII (4) : ‘Les Francois welent qu'il soit baillié par escript … ’

^{page 28 note 1} Words between these points are omitted by Dom Morice.

^{page 28 note 2} Marginal note : ‘Soit veu et considere comme les autres articles se passeront; et selon ce le opinion … est d'aller jusques a un million.’—See infra, no. XXXVIII (5), where the French offered twelve hundred thousand francs.

^{page 28 note 3} Marginal note : ‘Conseille est que l'en die que l'en payera par annees egalement et que, se le Roy veut payer a une fois pour plusieurs annees, faire le pourra, et n'est pas conclu se l'en dira par quel terme le payement se fera.’—See infra, no. XXXVIII (5, 6), where the French offered to pay by two yearly instalments.

^{page 28 note 4} 24 June 1376.

^{page 28 note 5} Marginal note : ‘Adjouste soit: depuis ceste nouuelle guerre et au deuant des treues.’—The addition was accepted, infra, no. XXXVIII (7).

^{page 28 note 6} Marginal note : ‘Adjosté soit que s'il y auoit aucun preslat suspect du Roy qui loins s'en seit, ne li deuroit pas estre restitué, mes au [pape] pour y pourueoir seurement.’—See infra, no. XXXVIII (8) : ‘Les Francois welent …’

^{page 29 note 1} Marginal note : ‘Passe, roes que Ten oste ce ou est la parenthese.’—The words ‘mais ou dit cas… tient le parti ’ are within brackets in Dom Morice. This small alteration was insisted upon by the French, infra, no. XXXVIII (9).

^{page 29 note 2} Marginal note : ‘Conseille est que l'en ne rende aucune forteresse prise par force.’—See infra, no. XXXVIII (10), in fine, where the decision on the matter was postponed.

^{page 29 note 3} Dom Morice : ‘durant ledit temps des xl. ans ’.

^{page 29 note 4} See supra, nos. XXIV–XXVI.

^{page 29 note 5} Marginal note : ‘passé ’.

^{page 30 note 1} Dom Morice : ‘terres ’.

^{page 30 note 2} Marginal note : ‘Passé, mais bien soit dit comme le tout ira et comme i procedera.’—The last two articles were not questioned by the English either.

^{page 30 note 3} Marginal note : ‘Conseillé que par expres les Estats d'Escoce soient compris en ceste pais, ou que l'en die par termes generaux toutes les alliances par nous faictes auec quelconques.’—This last suggestion was accepted and embodied in a separate article, infra, no. XXXVIII (13).

^{page 31 note 1} Marginal note : ‘Passé, mais que l'on declare comme les enclaues qui seront baillees retourneront.’

^{page 31 note 2} Marginal note : ‘Passé, mes que Ton die des armees.’—The last two articles were passed without the French additions, infra, no. XXXVIII (14, 15).

^{page 31 note 3} Dom Ḿorice : ‘fourni ’.

^{page 32 note 1} Marginal note : ‘Passé, mes que l'en pouruoie sur les Esco[ts] ainsi comme au xiii. Article est conseillé.’—The suggestion was adopted, infra, no. XXXVIII (16, 17).

^{page 32 note 2} Marginal note : ‘Passé comme le precedent.’

^{page 32 note 3} Marginal note : ‘Passé et aussi soit parlé comme les conseillers et [omciers] des Roys jurront.’—This addition was also adopted, infra, no. XXXVIII (18).

^{page 32 note 4} Each of the last three articles is noted : ‘Passé.’—However, they were dropped later, infra, no. XXXVIII (19, 20, 21).

^{page 32 note 5} In Dom Morice, this article is headed : ‘Item de Bretaine.’

^{page 33 note 1} Dom Morice : ‘faite ’.

^{page 33 note 2} Dom Morice adds : ‘le Pape ’.

^{page 33 note 3} Marginal note : ‘Conseillé que premier que commencer Ten oufire oudit due qui fu, que le Roy li oufire de faire droit en sa court et i appeller ses pers, et si deura mius dire audit due qui fu et a ses gens et conseil que li sera par maniere de prouision chescun an pendant le plet la somme de (blank) ; et si il ne veult, encore veult le Roy qu'il soit compris en la treue de xl. ans, et chescun [an] aura la somme de (blank) si plaist au Roy que les iiii. arbitres par commission du Roy en congnoissent et en determinent.’—The demand for a trial by the duke's peers was not pressed by the French ; but the arbiters were also abandoned, and the only suggestion accepted was that the duke should be included in the forty-year truce. As for the pension, the French offered 20,000 francs yearly, infra, no. XXXVIII (22, 23, 24).

^{page 33 note 4} Marginal note : ‘Conseillé que Ten die qu'il tendra les domainnes seulement sans fief, arriere fief o autre obissance, et que l'en mette que lesdits fief, obeissance, brief et toutes autres noblesses demourront au Roy nostre sire.’—The English did not agree on this infra, ibid.

^{page 34 note 1} 29 Sept. 1376.

^{page 34 note 2} 29 March 1377.

^{page 34 note 3} Marginal note : ‘Le Roy doit dire a Monsieur la somme, le mois et le jour que… l'en paiera.’—‘Monsieur ’ is probably the duke of Anjou, whose clerk took down the decisions of the Council. The French offered to pay twice yearly at Bruges, infra, ibid.

^{page 34 note 4} The incident must have taken place between April and June 1373, when the French stormed most Breton towns, including Vannes. The chronology of this campaign is obscured by the unreliable accounts of d'Orville, Cabaret, Chron. du bon due Loys de Bourbon (ed. Chazaud, , Soc. Hist. France, 1876), pp. 42 ff.Google Scholar, and Froissart (ed. Luce), viii., 127–32.

^{page 34 note 5} Marginal note : ‘Passé’

^{page 34 note 6} Montfort and Edmund of Cambridge had landed at St. Mathieu de Fineterre on 25 April 1375 (Delachenal, , Hist, de Charles V, iv. 516)Google Scholar. While Cambridge returned to England soon after the conclusion of the truce of Bruges, Montfort stayed behind, joining his wife at Auray (Froissart, ed. Luce, viii. 212). He was still in his duchy on 2 Sept. (see next note). The next we hear of him is at the Flemish court in March 1376 (Petit, Philippe le Hardi, p. 315 ; infra, App. IX, X).

^{page 34 note 7} Duguesclin had already alleged that, according to the truce of Bruges, the duke ought to have left Brittany and reduced the garrison of his castles to 200 men-at-arms. The duke challenged this contention in a letter dated Brest, 2 Sept. 1375 (Dom Morice, op. cit., ii. 99).

^{page 34 note 8} Dom Morice : ‘partie ’.

^{page 34 note 9} Dom Morice : ‘leuent ’.

^{page 34 note 10} Marginal note : ‘Conseillé que l'en mette clerement toutes… ce sont, mes lez… le Roy fera paier, et lui si soit mis en le article qu'il ne puisse retourner ne y demourer jusques autrement en soit ordené.’—This was not accepted, infra, no. XXXVIII (25, 26).

^{page 34 note 11} Marginal note : ‘Passé.’

^{page 34 note 12} Dom Morice : ‘mené ’.

^{page 35 note 1} Dom Morice adds : ‘en Bretagne ne ’.

^{page 35 note 2} Marginal note : ‘Passé.’—See infra, no. XXXVIII (28).

^{page 35 note 3} In Dom Morice, this article is headed : ‘Item Castelle.’

^{page 35 note 4} The last two articles do not bear notes from the French Council; they were dropped later from the treaty, infra, no. XXXIX.

^{page 35 note 5} Saturday, 8 Feb. 1376.

^{page 35 note 6} Duguesclin ended up the campaign of 1375 by the capture of Bergerac on 1 June (Delachenal, , Hist, de Charles V, iv. 548)Google Scholar. We do not know for certain of his movements during the following months. An anecdote of the Chron. des Quatre Premiers Valois (ed. Luce, , 1862), p. 257Google Scholar, confirms his presence on the Gascon border in the spring of 1376.

^{page 36 note 1} Dom Morice : ‘pour ’.

^{page 36 note 2} Dom Morice : ‘personnes ’.

^{page 36 note 3} Words between those two points omitted by Dom Morice.

^{page 36 note 4} Florimond de Lesparre had been made prisoner at the naval battle off La Rochelle, June 1372 (Froissart, ed. Luce, viii, p. xxvii, note 2 ; Walsingham, , Hist.-Anglicana (R.S.), i. 314Google Scholar) ; he was soon released and acted as Lancaster's lieutenant in Aquitaine in June 1374-June 1375 (Arch. Historiques de la Gironde, xii (1873), pp. 336–40Google Scholar), then was appointed keeper of the truce in Agenais in June 1375 (supra, no. XXIX). The circumstances of his new captivity seem unknown. He was to be taken again by the Spanish in 1377 (J. Rabanis, , ‘Notice sur Florimont, sire de Lesparre ’, in Actes de I’ Académie de Bordeaux (1843), pp. 27–9Google Scholar).

^{page 36 note 5} Lancaster stayed behind at Bruges, where he issued a writ on 20 Jan. 1376 (John of Gaunt's Register, ii, no. 1805Google Scholar), and where the king of England sent to him Geoffrey de Seynecle on a new mission on 21 Feb. (Issue Roll 459, m. 26). This may account for the fact that no letter of appointment was issued by the English Chancery (infra, no. XXXIV), while Charles V gave new credentials to Anjou and Burgundy on 18 Feb. (infra, no. XXXVI). The negotiations were actually adjourned on 21 Jan. at the latest : on that day, Burgundy left Bruges for a tour through Flanders and a long stay with his wife at Arras, from where he came back on 1 March (Petit, Itineraires, pp. 124–5).

^{page 39 note 1} This knight had received 500 livres tournois a year as captain of Pont-L'Abbé in Cotentin on 15 June 1375 (Delisle, , Mandements et actes divers de Charles V, no. 1132)Google Scholar.—Appointed Admiral of France on 27 Dec. 1373, John de Vienne had commanded in chief at the siege of St. Sauveur.

^{page 40 note 1} Montfort was then staying in Flanders as the guest of Louis de Male, his first cousin ; between 31 March and 3 April, Philip of Burgundy wound up the proceedings by offering great jousts at Ghent, at which the dukes of Lancaster, Anjou and Brittany were present (Petit, Philippe le Hardi, p. 315). Froissart (ed. Luce, viii. 218) incorrectly places them at the beginning of the conference, but mentions as other guests Albert, duke of Bavaria, later count of Holland and Hainault, Wenceslas of Luxemburg, duke of Brabant, and the duchesses of Bavaria, Brabant and Burgundy.

^{page 41 note 1} These writs were sold to all ships trading with Brittany and exempted them from seizure of shipwreck by the duke. See du Haut-Jussé, B. A. Pocquet, ‘Les Plantagenets et la Bretagne ’, Annales de Bretagne, liii (1946), pp. 23–4Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 2} William de Lestrange had been translated to the archbishopric of Rouen by papal provision on 22 Dec. 1375 (Eubel, , Hierarchia Catholica, i. 426Google Scholar). On 13 Feb. 1376, as papal nuncio, he had been granted the continuance of the privileges enjoyed by him while bishop of Carpentras (Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 227).

^{page 41 note 3} See supra, no. XXXI (29, 30), and infra, no. XL.

^{page 42 note 1} Edward Ill's confirmation of the extended truce was issued on 1 April, and Charles V's much later, on 6 May (supra, nos. XXXV, XXXV).

^{page 43 note 1} Salisbury, one of the English ambassadors, was back in England on 10 April 1376 (Déprez and Mirot, ‘Les Ambassades ’, no. 377, where the date 1377 is wrong, for he is said to have been sent with the archbishop of Canterbury, who was not to take part in any conference after the spring of 1376).

^{page 43 note 2} The meeting had been planned for 1 July. As usual, there was a slight delay : John Gilbert, Cobham, Lesorop and Shepeye were paid their wages before leaving England on 5 July; on the same day, Reginald de Neuport was sent ‘versus partes Fflandrie cum litteris Regis de priuatosigillo directis archiepiscopo Rauennatensi, episcopo Carpentr’ (sic : archiepiscopo Rothomagensi), comiti Fflandrie et burgensibus villarum de Bruges, Ipres and Gaunt in Fflandria ’, no doubt announcing the impending arrival of his envoys (Issue Roll 460, m. 18).

^{page 44 note 1} See Chanc. Misc. 30/8, no. 13 (the copy of this document sent to Edward III).

^{page 45 note 1} On 3 and 16 June 1376, alleging encroachments to the truce committed by the French against his subjects, Edward III had ordered the arrest of all French goods in his dominions (Foedera, iii (ii), pp. 1051–2). He nevertheless ordered afresh the publication of the extended truce in Aquitaine (27 May) and England (18 June). A new publication in England followed the present agreement, 7 Aug. (ibid., 1060).

^{page 45 note 2} Chanc. Misc. 30/8/13 corrects over the line : ‘Halestone capitein de Guynes et mess^r. Raui de Sutton, chastellein de Oye.’

^{page 45 note 3} 16 Aug. 1376. As usual, the date was not kept. But on 7 Dec, Ralph Ferrers left England for the parts of Picardy, on a mission for the enforcement of the truce (Déprez and Mirot, ‘Les Ambassades’, no. 382). With his colleague John Harleston, he met the two French commissioners, John de Longvillers, lord of Engoudsent (lately captain of Boulogne; Froissart, ed. Luce, viii. 183), and John, lord of Sempy, captain general of Picardy for the French. On 12 Dec. they reached at Marquise an agreement which was ratified by Edward III on 8 Jan. 1377 (Foedera, iii. (ii), pp. 1068–9).

^{page 46 note 1} 29 Sept. 1376. The date was not kept either, and Edward III asked for a month's delay (infra, no. L). We do not know who were the commissioners and if they actually met, but the duke of Brittany protested against the project (infra, App. IX).

^{page 46 note 2} Thomas Felton, William Elmham and the Soudan de la Trau had been appointed keepers of the truce, obviously in Gascony, on 28 June 1376 (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 1059). Like the meetings of Picardy and Brittany, the Gascon one was belated : John Falstof was away ‘in partes transmarinas ’ for the enforcement of the truce from 5 Nov. to 31 Dec. 1376 (Déprez and Mirot, ‘Les Ambassades ’, no. 381).

^{page 46 note 3} Chanc. Misc. 30/8/13 ends there.

^{page 47 note 1} It is not clear why the letter of appointment of 28 June (supra, no. XLIII) had to be renewed on 5 Aug. There does not seem to have occurred any break in the negotiations between July and September.

^{page 47 note 2} The material principalis probably included proposals for the partition of Guyenne that were slightly different from those embodied in the memorandum of 1 Sept. (infra, no. XLVIII). On 11 Aug., Reginald de Neuport was again sent with letters from the king to his envoys in Flanders, and was paid again at the end of his mission on 13 Sept. (Issue Roll 461, mm. 24, 25 ; infra, App. VIII). From the French side, we possess a curious letter of the count of Sarrebruck to Yolande de Bar, lady of Cassel, written from Bruges, 20 Aug. 1376. Amidst a lot of political gossip, he dismisses his own labours in a few contemptuous words : ‘Quant aus nouelles de par dessa sus le fait dez traitiers, veritablement je ne vous say ancore que escripre ; nous auons eu et auons de jour en jour tout plain de paroles auecques les legas mais ancores ni at il chose la ou se puisse gramment atendre de finable conclusion’ (Arch. Dép. Nord, Chambre des Comptes de Lille, B 3266bis, no. 10,573 ; publ. by Finot, J., ‘Le train de maison d'une grande dame au XlVe siècle ’, Bull. hist, et philologique du Comite des Travaux Historiques, 1888, pp. 199–200Google Scholar).

^{page 48 note 1} 31 Oct. 1376. The first meeting actually took place on 14 Nov. (infra, no. LI).

^{page 48 note 2} Richard of Bordeaux. The Black Prince had died on 8 June 1376.

^{page 51 note 1} Other copies, undated, in Edinburgh University Library, MS. Laing 351, fo. 91r, and Cambridge University Library, MS. Dd III 53, fo. 86r ; published from the latter by Lemoine, J., ‘Duguesclin à Jersey’, Revue Historique, lxi (1896), pp. 59–60Google Scholar.

^{page 51 note 2} MS. Dd III 53 bears marginal notes : ‘Excusacio nunciorum non veniencium ad tractatum die statuto.—De redempcione insule de Jereseye.’

^{page 51 note 3} MS. Dd III 53 : ‘pur cause de contrariousetee ’.

^{page 51 note 4} Ibid. : ‘méz d'une moys deinz apres –.

^{page 51 note 5} ibid., omits ‘seront’.

^{page 51 note 6} Supra, no. XLV.

^{page 51 note 7} Duguesclin's raid on Jersey had taken place in the spring or summer of 1373 (Delachenal, , Hist, de Charles V, iv. 476Google Scholar).

^{page 51 note 8} MS. Dd III 53 : ‘incarcerons ’ (sic).

^{page 52 note 1} Neither this letter nor the one it superseded are included in Rymer's Foedera. Cobham left London on 31 Oct., and Shepeye on 2 Nov. (Déprez and Mirot, ‘Les Ambassades ’, nos. 378–9).

^{page 54 note 1} Richard of Bordeaux having been created Prince of Wales on 20 Nov. 1376, it is improbable that the nuncios had heard of this five days later. More likely, the Black Prince's son was commonly referred to under this unofficial title.

^{page 55 note 1} John Le Fevre, monk of St. Vaast since 1363, abbot of Tournus (1368), then of St. Vaast (1370), had lately entered Charles V's council as an expert lawyer. His first known mission took place in Aug. 1376, when he went to Avignon with Ferry de Metz (whom he met again at Bruges), in an endeavour to dissuade Gregory XI from leaving for Rome (Coville, A., La Vie intellectuelle dans les domaines d'Anjou-Provence de 1380 a 1435 (1944a), pp. 95–102Google Scholar).

^{page 56 note 1} 8 Dec. 1376.

^{page 56 note 2} Published, with a few omissions and errors, in Mémoires de l'Acadimie d'Arras, 1943–4, pp. 81–90.

^{page 57 note 1} The quotation ought to run : ‘Infamibus portae non pateant dignitatum ’ (Corp. Iur. Canon., Sext., De regulis iuris, v. 12, cap. 87).

^{page 57 note 2} On the appeals of Guyenne, 1368–9, see Delachenal, , Hist, de Charles V, iv. 60–90Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 3} Rom. i. 14.

^{page 57 note 4} The quotation, which should read : Tu debitor mihi in iusticia, is not from Valerius Maximus, but from John of Salisbury's Policraticus, v. 8 (ed. Schaar-Schmidt, , p. 143)Google Scholar. See Paris, Gaston, La Légende de Trajan (1878), p. 261Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 5} A Great Council had been held on 30 June 1368 (Delachenal, op. cit., iv, 85–91). Charles later sent for advice to the Universities of Bologna, Montpellier, Toulouse and Orléans, all centres of Roman law studies (ibid., 93). On 9–11 May 1369, the Estates were convened in the Great Chamber of the Paris Parlement to approve of the king's policy (ibid., 137–44).

^{page 58 note 1} Although commonplace sayings in medieval treatises and charters, this and the next three Latin quotations are difficult to trace to any definite author.

^{page 58 note 2} See note 1.

^{page 58 note 3} See note 1.

^{page 58 note 4} The Dauphin Charles (VI) was born on 3 Dec. 1368, and Louis, count of Valois (later duke of Touraine and Orléans), on 13 Feb. 1372.

^{page 59 note 1} See p. 58, note 1.

^{page 59 note 2} Half a page left blank.

^{page 60 note 1} Blank space for a word.

^{page 60 note 2} The growing antagonism between the Black Prince and Lancaster had led, even before the Good Parliament, to rumours about John of Gaunt's ambitions for succeeding his father as king of England : see an undated document, probably written during the Bruges conferences of 1375 or early in 1376, in which the Flemish ambassadors sent to Navarre assert that Lancaster has concluded a secret treaty with Charles V, and by promising his help for the peace, has enlisted the support of France to obtain from the pope a declaration of illegitimacy against the Prince's children (publ. by Kervyn de Lettenhove in his edition of Froissart, Chroniques, viii (1869), pp. 460–2)Google Scholar. Walsingham's slanderous allegations are well known (Chron. Angliae (Rolls Series), p. 82). Le Fèvre is repeating here what must have been current gossip by the end of 1376.

^{page 61 note 1} Supra, nos. LV, LVI.

^{page 61 note 2} Supra, no. LIV.

^{page 62 note 1} Supra, no. LIV.

^{page 66 note 1} Valencia in Spain, not Valence in southern France. Giles Sanchez Munionis, provost of Valencia, along with the bishops of Pampeluna and Sinigaglia, had been the chief papal negotiator of the abortive concordat with England (Bruges, 1374). In Sept. 1375 he was sent again to Bruges in order to extend for a further period the provisional agreement reached between the two courts, and acted as a subordinate to Prata and Lestrange (Perroy, L'Angleterre et le Grand Schisme, p. 41 ; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 143, 147, 218–19). The Vatican Registers are defective for 1376, and do not help in tracing this nuncio's later movements.

^{page 66 note 2} Between the 14th (supra, no. LXIII) and the 27th, at which date Cobham and John Shepeye arrived back at London (Déprez and Mirot, ‘Les Ambassades ’, nos. 378–9).

^{page 66 note 3} The naval preparations of the French alarmed the English, government a few weeks after this letter : from the beginning of March were issued orders for the defence of the south coast (Foedera, iii. (ii), pp. 1073–9). Preparations on land were not yet so far advanced ; most retinues, including Duguesclin's, were not contracted for until 21 June (Delachenal, , Hist, de Charles V, v. 50Google Scholar). We do not hear of the Castilian intrigues at the French court, referred to in the nuncios' letter to Lancaster, but Charles V had sent emissaries to Castile, in order to enlist the support of the Spanish fleet (Froissart, ed. Luce, viii, p. cxliii, note 1).

^{page 67 note 1} They would expire on 1 April 1377 (supra, nos. XXXIV–XXXVII)

^{page 68 note 1} The same as in the preceding conference, namely Gilbert, Cobham, Montague and Shepeye ; they were appointed on 20 Feb. 1377 (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 1073) ; among the French were the count of Sarrebruck, Hugh de Chatillon and Philibert de Lespinasse. The parley did not last long ; during Lent (18 April at the, latest), they decided to extend the truce till 1 May and to return to the kings (Froissart, ed. Luce, viii. 225–6). For events till the resumption of war, in June 1377, see infra, App. XI.

^{page 69 note 1} Additions and corrections by a later hand are here within square brackets.

^{page 70 note 1} The treaty of Brétigny, as corrected at Calais.

^{page 70 note 2} A roll of complaints given by Edward III to the French ambassadors who had come to England in the early months of 1369 (Delachenal, , Hist, de Charles V, iv. 128–31Google Scholar). The original (Arch. Nat., J 255, no. 37) bears the endorsement : ‘Iste rotulus vocatur bille, que fuit tradita pro responsione per Regem Anglie seu eius consilium domino (William) de Dormanno, (James Le Riche) decano Parisiensi et aliis ambassiatoribus Regis, qui fuerunt missi in Angliam super certis articulis et responsionibus obtinendis anno Domini mccclxviii et est signata signo Branquetre in fine ultime linee.’ Both the bill and the ‘justifications ’ or answers of the French Council (Arch. Nat., J 254, no. 4) were transcribed in the official Chron. des règnes de Jean II et de Charles V, ed. Delachenal, , ii. 76–116Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 1} The county of Ponthieu was occupied by the French during the last days of May and the early weeks of June 1369 (Delachenal, op. cit., iv. 134). In Guyenne, the conquest of Rouergue and Quercy had started in January (ibid., 163–76 ; Anglo-Norman Letters and Petitions from All Souls MS. 182, ed. Legge, M. Dominica (Anglo-Norman Texts, iii, 1941), no. 138Google Scholar).

^{page 71 note 2} 2 May 1369 (Delachenal, op. cit., iv. 136–45).

^{page 73 note 1} Digest, viii. 1 : De seruitutibus, 11 and 8.

^{page 73 note 2} Digest, xlv. 1 : De verborum obligationibus, 140.

^{page 74 note 1} The renunciations ought to have been exchanged at Bruges on 30 November 1361 at the latest.

^{page 74 note 2} Probably Digest, iv. 8 : De receptis, 23.

^{page 75 note 1} Probably Bruges, in the early days of Jan. 1373.

^{page 75 note 2} 23 Dec. 1372.

^{page 75 note 3} William de Beaufort was already in Paris on 2 Dec. 1372 (Huillard-Bréholles, , Titres de la Maison ducale de Bourbon, i, no. 3231)Google Scholar. Cf. Ancient Corr., XL, no. 168, a mutilated letter from the cardinal of Beauvais to the same, dated Paris, 24 [Dec.].

^{page 76 note 1} Oudin de Mirol. See supra, nos. I, II.

^{page 76 note 2} On 2 June 1374 Gregory XI had again asked Edward III to consent to the opening of a conference where a son of the king and a brother of Charles V could discuss the conditions of a lasting peace ; he gave credence to Pileo de Prata and William de Lestrange ; the latter, who had returned to the pope, was again leaving Avignon (Reg. Vat. 270, fo. 112v ; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 133). Pileo crossed alone to England, having received a safe-conduct on 8 June, to last till 11 Nov. (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 1004). During this first visit he obtained Edward's consent to the conclusion of a general truce till Easter 1375, and to the holding of a peace conference at Bruges (Gregory to Charles V, 12 Aug. 1374, Reg. Vat. 270, fo. 137v; Cal. of Pap. Reg., iv. 133–4).

^{page 77 note 1} 6 Oct. 1375.

^{page 77 note 2} 22 Sept. 1375. Lancaster, head of the English delegation, may have attended this council. He had been away in the North during the whole of August, then turned west to Cirencester (8 Sept.) and Kingston in Dorset (10, 17 and 19 Sept.). He was back at the Savoy on the 20th (John of Gaunt's Register, i, nos. 371, 375, 717 ; ii, nos. 1765, 1786, 1795).

^{page 77 note 3} Privy seal warrants were issued at Blatherwycke on 21 and 24 Aug. 1375 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, PP. 134. 162, 164, 167).

^{page 78 note 1} The old king had been for some time in failing health. This may refer to the grave illness which overtook him in Jan. 1377 during his Jubilee's celebrations, or to some earlier ailment unrecorded by chroniclers.

^{page 80 note 1} The French delegation, which stayed at Montreuil and Boulogne during the whole of May and June 1377, comprised the bishops of Laon and Bayeux (Giles Aycelin de Montaigu and Nicholas Dubosc), Enguerrand lord of Coucy (Edward III's son-in-law), the count of Sarrebruck, the chancellor (Peter d'Orgemont) and Nicholas Braque : the last named made three journeys from Paris to Montreuil and Boulogne (Delisle, , Mandements et actes divers de Charles V, no. 1425Google Scholar). To these, Froissart adds Nicholas (rectius John) Le Mercier (ed. Luce, viii. 226). Before the drafting of the present instructions, both delegations had agreed to extend the truce another month, more precisely till 24 June (Chron. des régnes de Jean II et de Charles V, ed. Delachenal, , ii. 180Google Scholar).

^{page 80 note 2} Adam Houghton, bishop of St. Davids (chancellor of England since 11 Jan.), John Gilbert, bishop of Hereford, William de Montagu, earl of Salisbury, Robert Ashton, Guichard d'Angle, Aubrey de Vere and Hugh Segrave, knights, Walter Skirlawe and John Shepeye had been appointed on 26 April 1377 (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 1076). Ashton was absent from 30 April to 4 June, and Salisbury from 4 May to 27 June (Déprez and Mirot, ‘Les Ambassades ’, nos. 396–7) ; while from 17 May to 1 June George Felbrigge was sent to them ‘super negociis Regis ’ (ibid., no. 398). Houghton surrendered the seal on his leaving for Calais, 4 May (Cal. Close Rolls, 1374–7, P. 546).

^{page 80 note 3} The homage was rendered at Amiens on 14 April 1329 (Easter occurring on 23 April).

^{page 80 note 4} Froissart (ed. Luce, viii. 227) asserts that the delegations never met, having failed to agree on a convenient meeting-place between Montreuil and Calais ; the papal nuncios travelled to and fro.

^{page 82 note 1} See Delachenal, , Hist. de Charles V, iv. 113–22Google Scholar. After having notified to the Prince the letters of citation to the French Parlement (Jan. 1369), Palot and Chaponval, on their way back to Toulouse, had been arrested by the English seneschal of Quercy, Thomas de Walkefare (and not John Le Moine, seneschal of Agenais, as wrongly stated by Froissart, ed. Luce, vii. 97–8). The duke of Anjou later (Sept. 1370) took vengeance on Walkefare by putting him to death (Hist. générale du Languedoc, ix. 821Google Scholar).

^{page 82 note 2} Supra, App. I (26, 29).

^{page 82 note 3} The seneschal of Toulouse had been defeated by a company, doubtless reinforced by the English garrison of Montauban, at La Villedieu, sometime before Oct. 1366 (Foedera, iii (ii), p. 808 ; Delachenal, op. cit., iii. 362–3).

^{page 82 note 4} The incident seems to have escaped the notice of contemporary chroniclers. The place itself is not identified.

^{page 82 note 5} Unidentified.

^{page 82 note 6} The Najera campaign, 1367.

^{page 83 note 1} These allegations are not substantiated by any documentary evidence. Amanieu de Pommiers, a Gascon knight, together with his relative the Soudan de la Trau, fought nevertheless with the French at Cocherel against the Captal and his Anglo-Navarrese forces ; both were rewarded by Charles V with pensions. In 1377, Pommiers, after his nephew had been beheaded as a traitor by Thomas Felton, left Gascony for good and turned French (Delachenal, , Hist. de Charles V, iii. 50–1Google Scholar). His wife, however, on her death-bed, proclaimed her allegiance to the Roman pope (Boutruche, R., La crise d'une société. Seigneurs et paysans du Bordelais pendant la guerre de Cent Ans (1947), p. 274Google Scholar).

^{page 83 note 2} 16 May 1364.

^{page 83 note 3} Louis of Navarre (younger brother of Charles II) and Eustache d'Auberchicourt, appointed lieutenants to the king of Navarre in Normandy in place of the prisoner Captal (July 1364), managed to cross Gascony and Auvergne, to shut themselves up in La Charite, which was vainly besieged by the duke of Burgundy (September), and then to reach Normandy where they tried, with little success, to resist Duguesclin (ibid., iii. 141–4).

^{page 83 note 4} Contrary to the clauses of the treaty of Brétigny-Calais, an English garrison remained at La Roche Posay in Poitou and was only forced to surrender between May and August 1369, after the resumption of the war ; it was then strongly garrisoned by the French (ibid., iii. 43–4 ; iv. 190, 224–5).

^{page 83 note 5} On the treaty ‘of the lilies ’ concluded in Nov. 1362 with Edward by the hostages of royal blood for their conditional release and transfer to Calais, see ibid., ii. 340–50.—Guy de Blois actually sold the county of Soissons to Enguerrand de Coucy, Edward's son-in-law; whether under English pressure or in order to pay for his ransom is not known.

^{page 84 note 1} An appeal court (curia magnorum dierum) had been established in Guyenne in 1365, on the transference of the duchy to the Black Prince. After the resumption of war, in 1370, it became the Curia Superioritatis Aquitanie (Lodge, Eleanor C., Gascony under English Rule (1926), pp. 96, 149Google Scholar).

^{page 84 note 2} Froissart (ed. Luce, viii. 227), who seems to have been well informed of these last conferences, speaks of twelve cities in Aquitaine.

^{page 85 note 1} A match, according to Froissart (ibid., p. 226), between Richard of Bordeaux and Mary of France, daughter of Charles V ; the princess, born on 27 Feb. 1371, had already been affianced to the count of Hainault; she died later in the year 1377.

^{page 85 note 2} Charles of Blois's children.

^{page 85 note 3} In 1374 Edward III had refused to enter into general truces, and only accepted local ones, in order to facilitate the holding of the Bruges conference (supra, no. I). Now Charles V, being ready for an offensive both in Aquitaine and on sea, refuses any further extension of the general truce. As it was, on 24 June, the war was resumed on all fronts, and within a few days a French naval raid took place against Rye (Delachenal, , Hist. de Charles V, v. 26–33Google Scholar).

^{page 85 note 4} The official Chron. des réignes de Jean II et de Charles V (ed. Delachenal, , ii. 180–2Google Scholar) asserts that the English envoys, on being handed Charles's offer, asked for a delay to report home and promised to come back with an answer on 15 Aug., leaving Calais on 23 June ; they did not keep the appointment, and the war went on.