nne's 4th Register, p. 302, 311.

[139] Walsingham, p. 200, says pene omnes; but the list published in
Prynne's 4th Register induces me to qualify this loose expression. Alice
Perrers had bribed, he tells us, many of the lords and all the lawyers
of England; yet by the perseverance of these knights she was convicted.

[140] Rot. Parl. vol. ii. p. 374.

[141] vol. iii. p. 12.

[142] Rot. Parl. vol. iii. p. 12

[143] Rot. Parl. p. 35-38.

[144] Id. p. 57.

[145] See p. 47 of this volume.

[146] Nevertheless, the commons repeated it in their schedule of
petitions; and received an evasive answer, referring to an ordinance
made in the first parliament of the king, the application of which is
indefinite. Rot. Parl. p. 82.

[147] p. 73. In Rymer, t. viii. p. 250, the archbishop of York's name
appears among these commissioners, which makes their number sixteen. But
it is plain by the instrument that only fifteen were meant to be
appointed.

[148] Rot. Parl. 5 R. II. p. 100.

[149] Rot. Parl. 5 R. II. p. 104.

[150] The commons granted a subsidy, 7 R. II., to support Lancaster's
war in Castile. R. P. p. 284. Whether the populace changed their opinion
of him I know not. He was still disliked by them two years before. The
insurgents of 1382 are said to have compelled men to swear that they
would obey king Richard and the commons, and that they would accept no
king named John. Walsingham, p. 248.

[151] Walsing. p. 290, 315, 317.

[152] Rot. Parl. 5 R. II. p. 100; 6 R. II. sess. 1, p. 134.

[153] p. 145.

[154] Rot. Parl. 9 R. II. p. 209.

[155] Ib. p. 213. It is however asserted in the articles of impeachment
against Suffolk, and admitted by his defence, that nine lords had been
appointed in the last parliament, viz. 9 R. II., to inquire into the
state of the household, and reform whatever was amiss. But nothing of
this appears in the roll.

[156] Knyghton, in Twysden x. Script. col. 2680.

[157] Upon full consideration, I am much inclined to give credit to this
passage of Knyghton, as to the main facts; and perhaps even the speech
of Gloucester and the bishop of Ely is more likely to have been made
public by them than invented by so jejune an historian. Walsingham
indeed says nothing of the matter; but he is so unequally informed and
so frequently defective, that we can draw no strong inference from his
silence. What most weighs with me is that parliament met on Oct. 1,
1387, and was not dissolved till N