[640] “Sciatis quod, cum carissimum fratrem nostrum Thomam de Holand, comitem Kancie de _officio marescalli Angl[ie]_, quod nuper habuit ex concessione nostra, exoneraverimus, Nos ea de causa dilectum consanguineum et fidelem nostrum Thomam Comitem Notyngh’ ad _dictum officium_ ordinavimus, habendum cum feodis et omnibus aliis ad officium illud spectantibus ad totam vitam ipsius,” etc. (Pat. 9 Ric. II., part 1, m. 38). [641] Dictionary of National Biography. [642] Dictionary of National Biography. [643] The witnesses were the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of London and Winchester, John of Gaunt, the dukes of York and Gloucester, the earls of Arundel, Stafford, and Suffolk, Hugh de Segrave the treasurer and John de Montacute steward of the household. [644] p. 311 above. [645] It seems to have become in the Parliamentary confirmation of 1397 “Earl Marshal of England.” [646] Mr. Kingsford, in the ‘Dictionary of National Biography’ (xxxvi. 232), complicates the matter further by writing of Walter earl of Pembroke: “The office of Marshal passed through his eldest daughter to the Bigods, earls of Norfolk, and through them to the Mowbrays, and eventually to the Howards,” etc. The Mowbrays, of course, obtained it under a new creation, and in no way through the Bigods. [647] Derby was the Steward’s son and heir. [648] Dr. Stubbs observes that “from the king’s later action, it is clear that both parties had in view the measures taken for the deposition of Edward II.” But there is more direct evidence. On the Rolls of Parliament (III. 376) it is one of the charges against the Lords Appellant that they “firent chercher Recordes deins votre Tresoree de temps le roi Edward vostre besaiel coment vostre dit besaiel demist de sa Couronne, Et monstrerent en escript a Vous,” etc., etc. [649] M. Bémont, who approached the question from the standpoint of the MSS., claimed that only one (Vesp. B. vii.) of them could possibly be as old as the days of Edward II., and that even this must be proved “par des raisons paléographiques.” The officials of the MS. department, Brit. Mus., kindly examined it for me, and pronounced it to be clearly of the reign of Richard II., which confirms his conclusion. M. Bémont, however, held that the MSS. “ont été composés et écrits dans les premières années de Richard II., ou dérivent de manuscrits rédigés à cette époque,” on account of the prominent place assigned in them to Richard’s coronation. I should place the date a few years later. [650] “The Present Status and Prospects of Historical Study” (‘Lectures in Mediæval and Modern History,’ pp. 41–2). [651] See my article on “Historical Research,” in ‘Nineteenth Century,’ December, 1898. Transcriber’s Notes: 1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been corrected silently. 2. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have been retained as in the original.