There were other charges besides direct loans that the citizens were forced to support that they might pleasure the members of the royal house. The Dukes of Gloucester and Bedford came frequently to the royal castle of Fullbrook, which lay some four miles beyond Warwick, and the good folk of the town felt called upon to furnish them with appropriate gifts. Thus, in 1434, a sum of 50 marks, with a silver cup, was presented to the Duchess of Bedford, and an offering to the Duke, of 24 pike, 12 bream, 12 tench, and a ton of red wine.[232] These presents were often not without some political significance. Thus, in 1431, the year wherein the protector Gloucester made a progress through England on the track of the Lollards, the Coventry men, who were, it seems, not free from the suspicion of holding unorthodox tenets, sent to the duke and duchess at Fullbrook a silver cup, 40 marks, and a plentiful supply of fish and wine.[233] FOOTNOTES: [Footnote 197: This castle, afterwards rebuilt, fell into decay, and was let out into tenements. Cheylesmore, where the De Mohaut's lived, had originally been a nursery for the Earl of Chester's children (Stowe in Harl. MS. 539, No. 4: see also Corp. MS. C. 61).] [Footnote 198: The borough sent two members to the 1295 parliament, but remained unrepresented from 1315 to 1452.] [Footnote 199: Stubb's _Const. Hist._, ii. 49.] [Footnote 200: Sharp, _op. cit._, 179.] [Footnote 201: The name of Ball occurs in Coventry deeds. It is, of course, a common name.] [Footnote 202: On the Trinity guild enclosure of 1384, see _Leet Book_, 6; on the formation of the first of the defiant artizan guilds about this year, see above and _Vict. County Hist., Warw._, ii. 154.] [Footnote 203: Berners, _Froissart's Chron._ (1901) ii. 224.] [Footnote 204: Warwickshire may have been a county addicted to Lollardry. John Lacy, vicar of Chesterton, near Warwick, was charged with receiving and harbouring the famous Oldcastle, Lord Cobham (_Diocesan Hist. Worcester_, 103).] [Footnote 205: Trevelyan, _Age of Wycliffe_, 315; Knighton, _Chron._ ii. 198.] [Footnote 206: _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. 447.] [Footnote 207: Trevelyan, _op. cit._, 310; _Dict. Nat. Biog._, _s.v._ Hereford, Nicholas.] [Footnote 208: _Vict. Coun. Hist._, ii. 84.] [Footnote 209: Knighton, _Chron._ ii. 235.] [Footnote 210: _Leet Book_, 3.] [Footnote 211: Green, _op. cit._, i. 209.] [Footnote 212: Holinshed, iii, 494.] [Footnote 213: Dugdale, _Warw._, i. 142. The only reference to Coventry in the business of this parliament is a petition from the convent against the men of Coventry, who injured the conduit built by the people of the priory (Corp. MS. B. 34).] [Footnote 214: Trokelowe and Blaneforde, _Chron. S. Albani_ (ed. Riley), 394.] [Footnote 215: _Leet Book_, 70. _Issue Roll of Exchequer_, H. III.-VI., 402.] [Footnote 216: Shakespeare I. _Hen._ IV. iv. 2.] [Footnote 217: _Ib._, iii. 2. See my letter in _Athenæum_ 4330, p. 489.]