286 Broughton Gifford. 
moned to Parliament, where his title is “John de Arundel.” 
He and his son John must not, however, be confounded with 
the Earls of Arundel,! who took so leading a part against 
Richard II. and in the establishing Henry IV. on the throne. ° 
The husband of Eleanor Maltravers, being sent in aid of the 
Duke of Brittany, perished at sea when returning home 6th Dec., 
1379. His son is the John Arundel Lord Maltravers mentioned 
as superior here 1413. He died 29th April, 1421, and then we 
find the fee in the hands of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester. I am 
not aware of Lord Maltravers having ever been declared a traitor: 
but the fee would seem by some means to have been placed at the 
King’s disposal, and to have been granted by him to his brother, 
the Duke, whom he had also named Protector of England. From 
his castle of Devizes (mentioned in the inquisition) the Duke went 
to attend that Parliament, in which his ruin had been pre-deter- 
mined, and which, in order to effect this purpose the better, was 
summoned to meet, not at Westminster where the accused was 
popular, but at Bury St. Edmunds where he was at the mercy of 
the Court. Arrested on a charge of high treason and committed 
to close custody, he was, seventeen days afterwards, found dead in 
his bed, without external marks, but not without most reasonable 
suspicions, of violence. Thus perished the good Duke of Gloucester, 
son, brother, and uncle to Kings, and the actual ruler of the realm 
for 25 years, “not only noble and valiant in all his doings, but 
sage, politique, and notably well skilled in the civil lawe.”? He 
was followed to the grave, within six weeks, by his rival and uncle 
the Cardinal Beaufort ; and thus the two main props of the house 
of Lancaster were removed, and an opening made for the ambition 
of York. Gloucester was declared a traitor, and, though his 
friends laboured to clear his memory by introducing a bill decla- 
1 This confusion is caused by the circumstances, first, that Sir John and his 
son were both styled ‘‘of Arundel;” and secondly, that the grandson (the third 
Sir John) really was Earl of Arundel, the eleventh Earl, on failure of male issue 
in the elder branch, 
2 This is Sir Thomas More’s praise of him in the Dialogue concerning religion, 
where is also told the story of the Duke’s detection, of a pretended blind man as 
an impostor, by his knowledge of colours. 
