M. Bémont explains that Coke confused the ‘Modus’ with the treatise on the Marshal’s office, but this is not, we shall find, quite the right explanation; nor is it the case that the Gilbert in question “vivait au temps de Richard II., non de Henri II.” As Coke’s error as to Gilbert has been very widely followed, it may be well to dispose of it once for all by tracing it to the source of his error. We must turn for this to two MSS., the Cottonian Nero D. vi., and the MS. lat. 6,049 in the Bibliothèque Nationale (from which is taken Hardy’s, and consequently Dr. Stubbs’, text of the ‘Modus.’) Although M. Bémont has given us a brief analysis of both, he seems not to have observed that, for all purposes, they are duplicates, giving the same documents, as they do, in the same order. Now, the very fine Cottonian MS., which is of the time of Richard II., contains the claims to do service at his coronation (1377) as made before John of Gaunt sitting as High Steward.[606] Among them was that of Margaret, daughter and heiress of Thomas “of Brotherton,” marshal of England, who claimed to discharge that office by her deputy. I have italicised the important words: Item quoad officium marescalli Anglie Margareta Marschall Comitissa Norff’ porrexit peticionem suam coram prefato Domino Senescallo in hec verba “A tres honure seignur le Roy de Castille et de Leon, Duc de Lancastre, et Seneschall’ Dengleterre supplie Margarete file et heir Thomas Brotherton’ nadgaires Conte de Norff’ et mareschall dengleterre destre accepte a loffice de mareschalcie ore al coronement nostre s^r le Roy come a son droit heritage apres la mort le dit Thomas son piere fesante loffice par son depute _come Gilbert Mareschall Conte de Strogoil fist as coronement le Roy Henri second_, cestassavoir de paiser debatz en meson le Roy au iour de son coronement et faire liveree des herbergages et de garder les hoesses du chambre le Roy, pernant de chescun Baron et Conte faitz Chivaler au cel iour un palfrey ove une sele.” Supra quo audita peticione predicta, dictum fuit pro domino Rege ibidem quod officium illud in persona domini Regis in feodo remansit ad assignandum et contulendum cuicumque ipsi Regi placeret. Et supra hoc auditis tam pro domino quam pro prefata Comitissa pluribus racionibus et allegacionibus in hac parte pro eo quod curie quod finalis discussio negocii predicti propter temporis brevitatem ante coronacionem predictam fieri non potuit Henricus de Percy ex assensu et precepto ipsius Regis assignatus fuit ad officium predictum faciendum, etc., etc. (fo. 65_d_). We have clearly here the origin of Coke’s error, when he writes: