^{page 81 note 1} B[ibliothèque] N[ationale, Paris], MS. Franc. 15490, fo. 27b. I wish to make grateful acknowledgment of a grant from the Central Research Fund of the University of London, which enabled me to pursue my researches in the French archives.

^{page 81 note 2} Anglo-Norman Letters and Petitions, ed. Legge, M. D. (Oxford, 1941), p. 243.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 1} ‘Conférences entre la France et l'Angleterre, 1388–93’, Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes, 1 (1889), 355–80.

^{page 82 note 2} The Hundred Years War, pp. 196–7.

^{page 82 note 3} B[ritish] M[useum], MS. Cotton, Caligula D. iii, fo. 112. This document, a contemporary copy, is badly worn in places; but the illegible portions can be supplied from two copies, which differ only verbally from the Cotton manuscript, made for Henry V in 1419. They are to be found in: P.R.O., Exchequer T.R., E. 36/188, fos 39V-42 and 69–73.

^{page 83 note 1} Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, ed. H. N. Nicolas, i, 20–3.

^{page 83 note 2} B.M., MS. Cotton, Caligula D. iii, fo. 112.

^{page 83 note 3} P.R.O., Exchequer T.R., Diplomatic Documents, E. 30/316.

^{page 84 note 1} B.M., Add. MS. 24512, fo. 89.

^{page 84 note 2} Chronique du Religieux de St Denys, ed. L. Bellguet, ii, 82; P.R.O., Treaty Roll, C. 76/77, m. 2; ibid., 78, m. 18.

^{page 84 note 3} E. 36/188, fos 42–42V.

^{page 84 note 4} Treaty Roll, C. 76/78, m. 15.

^{page 84 note 5} T. Rymer, Foedera, vii, 753.

^{page 84 note 6} Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II, ed. Perroy, E. (Camden Soc., 1933), no. 197.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 7} Chroniques, ed. K. de Lettenhove, xv, 122–5.

^{page 85 note 1} Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden, ed. J. R. Lumby (Rolls Ser., 1886), ix, 282.

^{page 85 note 2} Anglo-Norman Letters and Petitions, p. 244.

^{page 85 note 3} S. Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt, p. 370.

^{page 86 note 1} P.R.O., Gascon Roll, C. 61/101, mm. 7–6. Enrolled twice. The first entry, cancelled, does not contain the clauses quoted; the second is the full text, as in Foedera, vii, 659–60,

^{page 86 note 2} Moranvillé, op. cit., p. 371.

^{page 87 note 1} B.N., Nouv. Acquis. Franc. 6215, fo. 48: ‘Item que la duche de Guienne seroit tenue de la couronne de france; aussi ladit conte de poitou quant elle venra aux mains du due de guienne…’ The document presented by Lancaster does not survive. The version published by Moranvillé (loc. cit.), which does not contain this clause, was taken from a seventeenth-century transcript which, in its turn, was probably copied from a copy (B.N., MS. Franc. 15490, fos 15–38) made in 1471. The manuscript cited above is an independent, and probably earlier, copy of the original.

^{page 88 note 1} Higden, ix, 267.

^{page 88 note 2} B.M., MS. Cotton, Caligula D. iii, fo. 112.

^{page 88 note 3} Littré, E., Dictionnaire de la Langue Française (Paris, 1956), i, 804.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 1} Higden, ix, 282.

^{page 89 note 2} The account of the parliamentary debate in Rot. Par., iii, 315b—316, though official, does suggest that there had been opposition from the Commons over the question of homage. The record is so vague that little of value can be extracted from it. There may, however, be some significance in the phrase ‘it was agreed that homage should be done for lands in Guyenne’ where one might expect ‘it was agreed that the king should do homage… (etc.)’. It should also be noted here that another matter brought before this session—the attack on John of Gaunt by the earl of Arundel—lends general support to the view that there was something suspicious about the treaty. One of the charges presented by Arundel accused Gaunt of some unspecified treason in negotiating the peace, while another accused him of misconduct, again unspecified, in allowing himself to be created duke of Aquitaine.

^{page 90 note 1} P.R.O., Exchequer T.R., Diplomatic Documents, E. 30/1232, m. 3. This document is a notarial instrument, drawn up in March 1395, recording the actions taken by the Gascons in their quarrel with the king and the duke of Lancaster between 1390 and 1395. It contains transcriptions of many original letters.

^{page 91 note 1} Foedera, vii, 687–8.

^{page 91 note 2} E. 30/1232, m. J.

^{page 91 note 3} Ibid., m. 2.

^{page 91 note 4} Foedera, vii, 727–8.

^{page 92 note 1} Chronique du Religieux de St Denys, ii, 82.

^{page 92 note 2} E. 30/1232, m. 5.

^{page 92 note 3} Loc. cit.

^{page 92 note 4} Lewis, P. S., ‘Decayed and Non-Feudalism in Later Medieval France’, Bull. Inst. Hist. Research (Nov. 1964), 167.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 5} Ibid., appendix no. 6.

^{page 92 note 6} E. 30/1232, m. 7.

^{page 92 note 7} Loc. cit.

^{page 93 note 1} Ibid., mm. 6–7.

^{page 93 note 2} Chroniques, xv, 135–16. Froissart would not normally be accepted as a reliable witness for English affairs, but there is reason to allow his testimony here. He obtained first-hand knowledge of the dispute over Aquitaine during his visit to England in 1395, and the fact that he carefully names the councillors present at the investiture of 1394 suggests that he may have learnt the details of this event during that visit.

^{page 93 note 3} Loc. cit.

^{page 93 note 4} Livre des Bouillons, ed. H. Barckhausen (Archives Municipales de Bordeaux, i), pp. 244–45.

^{page 93 note 5} E. 30/1231, m. 7.

^{page 93 note 6} Livre des Bouillons, pp. 257–58.

^{page 93 note 7} Ibid., pp. 259–67.

^{page 94 note 1} E. 30/1232, m. 7.

^{page 94 note 2} Froissart, Chroniques, xv, 182.