“They had no sooner shaked hands together, but a knight was sent straight- “ways from the Archbishop to bring word to the people that there was a “Peace concluded, commanding each man to lay aside arms, and resort home “to their homes. The people beholding such tokens of peace as shaking of “hands, and drinking together of the Lords in loving manner, brake up their “field and returned homewards: but in the mean time, while the people of “the Archbishop’s side drew away, the number of the contrary part increased, “according to order given by the Earl of Westmoreland. And yet the “Archbishop perceived not he was deceived till the Earl of Westmoreland “arrested him and the Earl Marshall, with divers other. Their troops being “pursued, many were taken, many slain, and many spoiled of that they had “about them, and so permitted to go their ways.” * i.e. That of Northumberland, Hastings, Mowbray and Archbishop Scroop--with a view to the suppression of which Falstaff and others were now marching into Yorkshire. Now, I am happy to say, that with all his faults, Sir John Falstaff was guiltless of participation in this infamous transaction. From the Shak-spearian account of the occurrence (which does not materially differ from that of the elder and more prosaic chronicles), it is clear that Falstaff and his troops were not among those who treacherously “increased,” according to orders from the Earl of Westmoreland, while the people of the Archbishop’s side “drew away.” Sir John did not make his appearance on the shameful field till the heat of action was past and the disgraceful pursuit abandoned. It is true that the fact is on record, that on our hero’s reaching the skirts of Gaultree Forest, he met with a runaway rebel, by name Colevile of the Dale, whom he immediately challenged, and who, as quickly surrendered himself prisoner, on the mere suspicion that his challenger was no other than the redoubted Sir John Falstaff. This circumstance, whilst adding another to the thousand existing proofs that our knight was a man of acknowledged bravery and martial renown--at the same time, seems a little to weaken my theory, that Sir John is entitled to credit for having withheld his countenance and assistance from the treacherous “subtiltie” of Westmoreland and Lancaster. It looks rather as though he had come a little late for the scramble, and was anxious to make up for lost time in the pursuit and plunder of stragglers. Colevile, however, seems to have fallen in his way most temptingly, and from the alacrity with which he gave himself into custody, he would seem to have been an individual ambitious for the distinction of being led captive at the wheels of Sir John Falstaff’s car of triumph. The following conversation explains the circumstances of the capture *:-- * Henry IV. Part II., act iv. scene 2. Sir John Falstaff. What is your name, sir? Of what condition are you; and of what place, I pray?