Percy, Henry (1342-1408) (DNB00)
PERCY, HENRY, first Earl of Northumberland (1342–1408), son of Henry, third baron Percy of Alnwick [see under Percy, Henry, second Baron], by his first wife, Mary, daughter of Henry, earl of Lancaster (1281?–1345) [q. v.], was born in 1342. In 1359 he married Margaret, daughter of Ralph Neville, fourth Baron Neville of Raby [q. v.], and widow of William, lord Ros of Hamlake, or Helmsley; in that year and the next he was a leader of troops in the French war, and was knighted before October 1360, in which month he appears as one of the guarantors of the treaty of Bretigny at Calais (Fœdera, iii. 518, 531). He was appointed to treat with David Bruce in 1362, being then a warden of the marches towards Scotland (ib. pp. 645, 659). In 1366 he was made a knight of the Garter (Beltz), and the next year was a warden of the east marches towards Scotland. On the death of his father in 1368 he succeeded to his barony, and did homage for his lands, was appointed a warden of the east marches towards Scotland, and constable of Jedburgh Castle (Doyle). When the war with France broke out again in 1369 he was ordered to go with others to secure Ponthieu, but the French took possession of the province before the expedition sailed (Froissart, i. ii. c. 262). He crossed with the Duke of Lancaster to Calais in August, and took part in his campaign in France. In 1370 he was appointed a warden of the west, as well as the east, marches towards Scotland (Fœdera, iii. 896). He joined the abortive expedition undertaken by Edward III in 1372 in the hope of relieving Thouars. Disputes having arisen between him and William, first earl of Douglas (1327?–1384) [q. v.], in 1373, with reference to Jedburgh Forest, the king appointed commissioners to settle their quarrel (ib. pp. 971, 1011). In that year he bought the constableship of Mitford Castle, Northumberland, of the crown, and the wardship of the lands of the heirs of the Earl of Atholl in that county, and in the summer took part in the expedition of Lancaster against France. On the meeting of the ‘Good parliament’ in April 1376, the commons having requested to be assisted in their deliberations by the lords, Percy was one of the magnates chosen to advise with them; they upheld the commons in their resolve to make supply dependent on redress of grievances. He was held to be specially zealous in his desire for the public good, and brought before parliament an accusation against Lord Latimer [see Latimer, William, fourth Baron], the king's chamberlain, whom he charged with suppressing a letter sent to the king from Rochelle, and with imprisoning the bearer. At first Latimer tried to avoid producing the prisoner, and the Londoners were highly indignant at seeing Percy confounded through his having taken up the cause of a man whom he could not find (Chronicon Angliæ, pp. 81, 82). When the parliament was dissolved, Percy was won over by Lancaster to the court party by the promise of the marshal's office. He was believed to have dissuaded the duke from taking the life of Sir Peter de la Mare [q. v.], the late speaker, but his defection from the popular cause was bitterly resented, and made him as much disliked as he had before been loved (ib. pp. 105, 108). He entered on the marshal's office on or about 1 Dec., though his formal appointment is dated later.
In common with Lancaster he took up the cause of Wiclif, and when on 19 Feb. 1377 Wiclif was summoned before the bishops at St. Paul's, Percy walked before him as marshal, and used violence to the people in order to clear the way through the crowd in the church. The bishop of London [see Courtenay, Wiliam] declared that he would have no such doings in the church, and an altercation ensued. When the lady-chapel was reached, Percy demanded that Wiclif should be allowed to sit before his judges, saying that the more the charges were that he had to answer, the more need he had of a comfortable seat. On this he and the bishops came to high words. On that day he and Lancaster had advised the king to supersede the mayor by appointing a captain over the city, and to authorise the marshal to execute his office within the city; and this, together with their insults to the bishop, greatly excited the citizens against them. The next day Lord Fitzwalter appeared before the common council, and declared that a prisoner was detained in the Marshal's house contrary to law, and warned the citizens that if they let such things pass they would live to repent it. The citizens took arms, broke into the marshalsea, brought the prisoner out, burnt the stocks in which he had been set, and searched every room to find the marshal. Not finding him, they rushed to the duke's palace, the Savoy, thinking to find him there. Percy and the duke were dining together at the house of a certain William Ypres. They were warned of their danger by one of the duke's knights, and escaped by water to Kennington, to the house of the Princess of Wales, who gave them shelter. When a day or two later Percy returned to parliament, he went to Westminster attended by an armed retinue (ib. pp. 117–30). On 8 May he received his formal appointment as marshal of England, and was further made captain in the marches of Calais (Fœdera, iii. 1078). Shortly before the king's death Sir John Menstreworth, lying in the marshal's prison under sentence of death, entrusted him with a letter to the king, and it was believed that Percy suppressed it.
On 15 July the young king, Richard II, the influence of Lancaster being in the ascendant, created Percy Earl of Northumberland, and he thus became earl-marshal. Nevertheless Margaret, elder daughter of Thomas of Brotherton (1300–1338) [q. v.], second son of Edward I, who had been earl of Norfolk and earl-marshal, asserted her right to the office, and claimed to execute it by deputy at the coronation. It was, however, declared that the office was in the king's gift, and, forasmuch as there was no time to hear and finally decide the case, that Percy should hold the office temporarily, saving the rights of all concerned (Liber Custumarum, p. 548). The new earl therefore acted as marshal at the coronation on the 16th, and on that and the preceding day showed so much courtesy and forbearance to the crowd that he regained no small part of his former popularity. He then resigned the marshal's staff, alleging the pressure of his private affairs, and being, it was thought, unwilling to contest the office with the Countess Margaret (Chron. Angliæ, p. 165). His presence was needed in the north, for the Scots, under the Earl of Dunbar, pillaged and burnt Roxburgh. Northumberland retaliated by entering Scotland with a large force and wasting the lands of Dunbar, burning everything that he came across in three days' march. On 12 Dec. he was again appointed a warden of the east and west marches, and on 22 Oct. 1378 a joint commissioner to treat with Scotland. Hearing towards the end of November that the Scots had surprised Berwick, he, in company with his eldest son, Sir Henry, called Hotspur [q. v.], attacked the place, and retook it after a fierce struggle. In 1380 he had a dispute with the men of Newcastle and Hull about a Scots ship which they had taken, and which he claimed as a prize, either wholly or in part, on behalf of the crown. The ship was finally taken possession of by a Hull man, and the earl's claim failed (ib. p. 267). A serious inroad of the Scots was made across the border in the summer; they wasted parts of Cumberland and Westmorland, pillaged Penrith, threatened Carlisle, and carried off great booty, doing the earl damage to the amount of more than one thousand marks. He was preparing to take vengeance on them when he was forbidden to proceed by the king. He at once went to the council at London, was received with flattering words, and was bidden to wait and bring his complaint before the next marchers' court (ib. p. 270). In June 1381 he was appointed captain against the rebels in Yorkshire (Doyle). On the outbreak of the villeins' insurrection the Duke of Lancaster made a truce with the Scots. This seems to have offended the earl, who probably thus lost the power of forcing them to make him amends; he thwarted the duke, and did him a serious disservice [see under John of Gaunt]. A violent quarrel ensued; it seems probable that the earl, seeing that the duke was unpopular and that his power in England was lessened, was not unwilling to break with him. Lancaster laid his complaints against him before the king, and the earl was summoned to appear before the council at Berkhampstead, which was attended by nearly all the earls in the kingdom. Lancaster kept his temper, and stated his charges quietly; but the earl behaved with the vehemence characteristic of his race (‘more gentis suæ’), answered him with abuse, and refused to be silent when the king bade him. His disobedience was punished by arrest, as though he had been guilty of treason; but he was bailed by the Earls of Warwick and Suffolk. He attended parliament in November, accompanied by armed followers, and was received with favour by the Londoners, with whom he was again popular. The duke was also attended by an armed force, and the peace of the kingdom was endangered. Vain efforts were made in parliament for some time to compose their quarrel, and at last the king interfered and compelled them to be reconciled (Chron. Angliæ, pp. 327–30).
Writs were again issued appointing the earl a warden of the marches towards Scotland, and in November 1383 he was made admiral of the north, and held that office for fourteen months (Doyle). In that year he made a raid into Scotland in company with the Earl of Nottingham, and wasted the country as far as Edinburgh. The Scots revenged themselves later by ravaging his lands. In December 1384, while he was attending parliament, the Scots, through the treachery of his lieutenant, obtained possession of Berwick Castle, which was in the earl's custody. Lancaster is said to have gladly seized this opportunity of spiting his enemy, and to have procured that the lords should pronounce sentence of forfeiture against him for having thus lost one of the royal castles; but the king remitted him all penalty. He gathered an army and besieged the castle. The garrison soon surrendered on condition of receiving two thousand marks of English gold, and being allowed to march off with their goods. Again, in 1385, the Scots and their French allies invaded England, destroyed the villages round Alnwick, and did much mischief in Northumberland, but retreated on hearing that the earl and other English lords were marching to meet them (Froissart, ii. c. 235). The earl took part in the king's invasion of Scotland which followed. In 1387 the king, who was set upon overthrowing the party of reform then in power, sent Northumberland to arrest one of its leaders, the Earl of Arundel, at Reigate Castle. Northumberland, however, found the earl at the head of a strong force, and did not therefore carry out his commission. He was probably not anxious to do so, for when in November the king contemplated resisting Gloucester and the other lords by war, Northumberland told him plainly that they were loyal, and were acting for his good, but were aggrieved by his evil advisers, and urged him to behave wisely and to invite them to state their grievances (Knighton, col. 2698).
In March 1388 he was appointed to treat with the Scots. In the summer the Scots made a great raid across the border under the Earls of Douglas, Dunbar, and Moray, and ravaged the land to the gates of Durham, intending to return by way of Newcastle. The earl sent his sons, Sir Henry and Sir Ralph, to Newcastle, while he himself remained at Alnwick, thinking that he might thus take them on both sides. His sons met the Scots in battle at Otterburn, near Woolley [see under Percy, Sir Henry, (1364–1403)]. In 1389 he was appointed captain of Calais, and in 1390 was a commissioner to treat with Flanders (Doyle). He was recalled from Calais in February 1391, and was again appointed to guard the east Scottish march (Walsingham, ii. 203). The Scots made a raid across the east march in 1393, carried off much booty, and slew some men of note. The earl was much blamed for not keeping stricter ward, for he received seven thousand marks a year from the treasury for his expenses (Annales Ricardi II, p. 164). He was present at the interview between the kings of England and France at Guisnes in October 1396, and was one of the four great English lords that acted as the French king's escort. When Richard took vengeance on his enemies and assumed despotic power in 1397, he reckoned on the earl's support. In February 1398 he was appointed by the parliament of Shrewsbury as one of the committee empowered to execute the functions of parliament. He soon became indignant at Richard's violent proceedings, and both he and his son Henry spoke strongly of the king's misgovernment. Their words were reported to Richard when he was about to set sail for Ireland. The king was wroth, and sent a special summons to the earl to come to him, besides the summons that he had already received to attend him to Ireland. The earl did not obey, and the king sentenced him and his son to banishment. He made arrangements to take refuge in Scotland, but the king's departure caused him to delay (Froissart, iv. c. 70; Traïson, p. 34), and on the landing of Henry of Lancaster [see Henry IV] in July 1399 he joined him in Yorkshire with a large force. Richard sent the Duke of Exeter from Conway to Henry, who was then at Chester, requesting him to send the earl to him with a message (Annales Ricardi, p. 249). On his way the earl, it is said, left his armed retinue in ambush, and proceeded to Conway with only a few attendants. There he had a conference with Richard, persuaded him to ride with him to meet Henry, and it was asserted received from him a declaration that he was ready to renounce the crown (ib.; Traïson, pp. 50–2). He brought Richard as a captive to Henry at Flint on 19 Aug., and rode with Henry and the fallen king to London. On 29 Sept. he recited before Henry and a great council of the magnates of the kingdom the promise of abdication which he asserted that he had received from Richard, and Henry was the next day accepted as king by parliament. On the same day the new king made the earl constable of England, and shortly afterwards gave him the Isle of Man to hold by carrying at the coronation the sword that Henry wore on landing. Northumberland also received certain lands and constableships in Wales and the border, before held by Roger, earl of March, the captaincy of Carlisle, and the wardenship of the west march, with an income of 1,500l. to maintain it in time of peace (Wylie, Henry IV, i. 25–6; Doyle; Dugdae, Baronage, i. 278; Annales Henrici IV, p. 311).
To Northumberland Henry largely owed the success of his attempt on the crown. For a time the earl was one of the new king's chief supporters, and seems to have been regarded with affection by him. Northumberland was continued in his membership of his privy council, and was, in common with the king, blamed for the leniency shown to the evil counsellors of Richard. He was soon busy with the affairs of the Scottish march, for in August 1400 the king invaded Scotland. On Henry's return the Scots attempted to retaliate, and in December the earl urged the necessity of strengthening Berwick and Carlisle. In February 1401 he was appointed a joint commissioner to treat with the envoys of the king of the Romans, then in London, concerning a proposed marriage between Henry's daughter Blanche and their master's eldest son (Fœdera, viii. 176). In March, April, and May he was engaged in negotiations for peace with Scotland (Wylie, i. 191–2), and in October met the Earl of Douglas [see Douglas, Archibald, fourth Earl] at a conference at Yetham, in Roxburghshire (Royal Letters, Hen. IV, i. 53). Nothing was effected, and war began again on the border. Douglas in 1402 sent to Henry declaring that the renewal of the war was due to Northumberland; but this Henry, after consulting with the earl, refused to admit; and he gave the earl authority, together with his son and the Earl of Westmorland, to treat with Scotland at a fitting time, and meanwhile to endeavour to win over to the English side any of the Scottish nobles that were inclined to it (ib. p. 64; Fœdera, viii. 251; Wylie, i. 237). In August a large army of Scots, under Douglas and Murdoch Stewart, ravaged Northumberland and Durham, and on their way home were intercepted by an English army under the earl, his son Henry, and the Earl of March on 14 Sept. The Scots took their station on Homildoun, or Humbledon, Hill, near Wooler, the English being drawn up at Millfield-on-the-Till. The English won a complete victory, utterly routing the enemy, and taking a large number of prisoners of high rank, among whom were Douglas and Murdoch Stewart, the Earls of Angus, Moray, and Orkney, and many barons (Annales Henr. p. 344; Scotichronicon, ii. 433; Wyntoun, ii. 401; Wylie, i. 292; Lancaster and York, i. 47–8). On the 22nd Henry issued an order that the prisoners were not to be ransomed or set free, promising, however, to respect the rights of the captors (Fœdera, viii. 278). The earl attended the parliament opened on the 30th; the commons, on 16 Oct., requested the king to show him special favour in consideration of his late victory, and on the 20th he presented some of his principal prisoners to the king in parliament (Rolls of Parliament, iii. 485 sq.) When, however, the commons, discontented at the demand for grants, asked what had become of the last king's treasure, Henry replied that the earl and others had had it. The commons asked that an official inquiry should be made into the matter, but the king refused (Eulogium, iii. 395). On 2 March 1403 the earl received from the king a grant of all the lands of the Earl of Douglas, which may roughly be described as the country south of the Tweed, with Galloway. This vast territory, though declared to be annexed to England, was not in Henry's power, and he granted it to the earl that he might conquer it. An attempt to take possession of it was checked by the resistance of two fortresses, and the earl agreed that the sieges should be suspended until 1 Aug., on which date the garrisons, if not relieved, were to surrender. In May he pressed the king for supplies; the Scots were preparing to relieve the fortresses; he must have the money that the king owed to him and his son. Again, on 26 June, he wrote urgently, representing the disgrace that would befall the kingdom if he were not enabled to take the places, and declaring that, though it was reported that he and his son had had 60,000l. of the king since his accession, more than 20,000l. of that amount was then due to him. He signed this letter ‘Your Mathathias,’ thus comparing himself and his sons to the patriotic heroes of the Maccabæan house (Proceedings of the Privy Council, i. 203–4). It has been calculated that the Percys, the earl, his brother Thomas, Earl of Worcester, and his son Henry, called Hotspur, had received from the king, in money, 41,750l., besides the profits of their lands, and anything that they may have had from Richard's treasure (Lancaster and York, i. 57). On the other hand, there seems no reason to doubt that this sum was exhausted in the continual wars that they waged against the national enemies. Early in July the king marched northwards with a force to support them.
The Percys rose in revolt. Henry Percy had special grievances against the king, in which his father had some share. Northumberland was thwarted by the king's inability to supply him with the money that he needed for the war with the Scots, he had been treated somewhat shabbily with respect to the Scottish prisoners, he had good reason to suspect the king of endeavouring to represent him and his family as the cause of the poverty of the realm, and he was probably also jealous of the Earl of Westmorland, the earl's nephew by his first wife and the head of the rival house of the Nevilles of Raby. He made an alliance with Owen Glendower [q. v.], raised a large force, and joined his brother and son in putting out a manifesto declaring that the king had obtained the throne by fraud, demanding that the public ills should be redressed by the employment of wise counsellors, and complaining that the money raised by taxes was not used for the good of the kingdom, and was spent uselessly (Annales Henr. p. 361; Hardyng, p. 352). Henry Percy was defeated and slain at the battle of Shrewsbury on the 21st, and his uncle, the Earl of Worcester, was beheaded. The earl, who was marching to join his son a few days after this battle, found his way barred by the Earl of Westmorland, and retreated to Newcastle, where the burgesses at first shut the gates against him, and later would only allow him to enter with his personal attendants, refusing to admit his army. From Newcastle he retired to his castle of Warkworth, where he received a summons from the king to meet him at York, with a promise that he should not be harmed before he had made his defence in parliament. He appeared before the king on 11 Aug., was received coldly, and excused himself by declaring that in the late rising and much else his son had acted without his approval (Eulogium, iii. 398). The king took him with him to Pontefract, where he agreed to give up his castles to be commanded by officers appointed by the king; he was deprived of the office of constable, and was sent to Baginton, near Coventry, where he was kept in custody until February 1404, when he was brought before parliament. The lords held that his acts did not amount to treason, but only to a trespass, which might be punished by a fine. At his own request he took an oath of fealty to the king in parliament on the cross of St. Thomas, and the king pardoned him the fine. On the 9th the commons thanked the king for showing him mercy, and he and Westmorland were publicly reconciled (Rot. Parl. iii. 524). He was restored to his dignities, though not to the constableship, and to his possessions, with the exception of grants made by the king, as the lordship of the Isle of Man (Annales Henr. p. 379). The captains of several of his castles refused to admit the king's officers, and in May Henry went northwards to enforce their submission. After repeated summonses the earl appeared before him at Pontefract about midsummer, bringing with him his three grandsons in order to remove all suspicion; he agreed to give up the castles of Berwick and Jedburgh, an equivalent being promised to him, and departed in peace (ib. p. 390; Wylie, i. 450, 452). This arrangement was afterwards cancelled by the king, and the earl retained the castles (ib. ii. 56–7).
In profession he was at this time loyal, though he was really discontented and ready for mischief, his uncertain attitude adding in no small degree to the political difficulties of the kingdom. When summoned to the council in January 1405, he wrote a letter to the king excusing himself on the score of age and health, and signing it ‘your humble Matathyas.’ On 28 Feb. he made an agreement with Owen Glendower and Sir Edmund Mortimer partitioning England and Wales between them, in the belief that an old prophecy concerning the division of Britain was to be fulfilled; his own share was twelve northern and eastern counties (Chronicon, ed. Giles, pp. 39–42). In March he attended the privy council at Westminster. Before the end of April his treaty with Owen Glendower seems to have been known, and the king declared him a traitor. A message from the king was sent to him early in May, and he put the messenger into prison (Wylie, ii. 178). About the same time, finding that his rival Westmorland, whom he was in the habit of accusing of spite and ingratitude, was staying at a castle which Mr. Wylie identifies with that of Witton-le-Wear, belonging to Sir Ralph Eure [see Neville, Ralph, sixth Baron Neville of Raby and first Earl of Westmorland] (ib.), he marched by night with four hundred armed men in the hope of surprising him; but Westmorland was forewarned, and left before he arrived. Northumberland was busy fortifying and victualling his castles when he received a visit from Lord Bardolf, with whom he was already in treasonable communication, joined himself with him and Sir William Clifford, and before the end of the month was in open revolt. The insurrection was crushed while he was bringing his forces to aid the rebels, and he, with Bardolf and a small following, fled to Berwick, where the castle was held by his men. The mayor at first refused to admit him into the town, but did so on the earl's assurance that he was loyal to the king, and was merely at feud with his neighbours. The king advanced northwards, taking some of his castles. At his coming, the earl and Bardolf fled to Scotland, where they were received by Sir David Fleming, and were lodged first at St. Andrews and then at Perth. The earl's possessions were confiscated and his castles taken or surrendered. Early in 1406 the Scots offered to deliver him up to the king; but Fleming informed him of their intention, and he and Bardolf escaped to Wales, where they were received by Owen Glendower (to this date has been referred the partition treaty between the earl, Owen, and Mortimer, ib. pp. 375–81; but the only authority that records it dates it, as above, 28 Feb. 1405, and expressly states that it was divulged before the earl's flight to Scotland). Later in the year they went to France, the earl, before entering Scotland, having attempted to open negotiations with the Duke of Orleans; they appeared before the king and his council, and asked for help against King Henry, declaring that they were supporters of the young Earl of March. They were refused, and seem to have gone thence to Holland, and in the summer of 1407 again took refuge in Scotland (Juvenal des Ursins, an. 1406; Chronique de St. Denys, iii. 427; Monstrelet, i. c. 27; Hardyng, p. 364; Lancaster and York, i. 112). Believing that King Henry was so generally hated, and that popular feeling would be so strong in their favour that adherents would quickly join them, they crossed the border in February 1408, and advanced to Thirsk, where they put out a proclamation that they had come to relieve the people from unjust taxation. Thence they marched to Grimbald Bridge, near Knaresborough, where they found Sir Thomas Rokeby, the sheriff of Yorkshire, at the head of the forces of the shire, holding the passage of the Nidd; they turned aside to Wetherby, and on the 19th were at Tadcaster. They gave Rokeby battle on Monday the 20th on Bramham Moor, in the neighbourhood of Tadcaster; their troops were defeated and the earl was slain in the battle. His head was cut off and stuck upon a stake on London Bridge, where its venerable grey hair excited no small sorrow among the people (Otterbourne, pp. 262–3; Walsingham, ii. 278); his body was quartered, parts being sent for exposure to London, Lincoln, Berwick, and Newcastle; but they were afterwards delivered to his friends for burial (Dugdale).
Northumberland was magnificent in his daily life, gracious in manner, and given to courting popularity. Over a large part of northern England, where the feudal tie was stronger than in the south, he had almost kingly power; he kept great state, and was faithfully served by his knights and retainers. Prompt and fearless in war, he was the hero and champion of the English of the northern marches in their almost ceaseless strife with the Scots (see the ballad of ‘Chevy Chase’). He probably desired good and vigorous government, and was not wholly insincere in his profession of anxiety for the public welfare. At the same time his actions were really the results of selfish motives, of ambition, jealousy of the rival house of Neville, anger, pride, or mortification. Though he was exceedingly crafty, his temper was violent, and his policy devoid of wisdom. Proud, passionate, unstable, and faithless, he was never to be relied on except when his own interests were to be served or his feelings gratified by his adherence to the cause he had adopted. His desertion of the popular cause in 1377 was shameful. For his desertion of Richard II there were valid reasons; but his conduct towards his fallen master was base, and merely dictated by his wish to place the new king under overwhelming obligations, and reap a rich harvest from his gratitude. That he had cause for discontent in 1403 seems certain. But he failed to make allowance for the king's financial difficulties; he was impatient, and perhaps incapable of appreciating the position of affairs. When he was bereft of his sons and others, as his brother Thomas Percy, earl of Worcester [q. v.], that were near to him, when he found that the king had learnt to distrust him, saw his rivals advancing in favour and power, and knew that his greatness was slipping from him, his heart became bitter; and, though he retained his capacity for guile, he lost his judgment, and acted with a lack of wisdom and a recklessness that reached their highest point in his last mad expedition. He gave the hospital of St. Leonard at Alnwick to the abbey there, is said incorrectly, as it seems, to have founded a hospital at Scarborough, to which he was perhaps a benefactor, did good service to St. Alban's Abbey, and gave largely to its cell, the priory of Tynemouth (Notitia Monastica, pp. 398, 416, 687; Trokelowe, App. p. 436). By his first wife, Margaret, daughter of Ralph, fourth baron Neville of Raby [q. v.], he had three sons—Sir Henry, called Hotspur [q. v.]; Sir Thomas, married Elizabeth, elder daughter and coheiress of David, earl of Atholl, and died in Spain in March 1387, leaving a son Henry; and Sir Ralph, who was taken prisoner at Otterburn in 1388, acted efficiently as warden of west march in 1393, and probably died soon afterwards—and a daughter. In 1384 he married his second wife, Maud, daughter of Thomas de Lucy of Cockermouth, and eventually sole heir of her brother Anthony, last baron Lucy, and widow of Gilbert de Umfraville, earl of Angus, by whom he had no issue, and who died on 24 Dec. 1398. A portrait of the earl is to be found in Harleian MS. 1318, and is given in Doyle's ‘Official Baronage.’[Chron. Angliæ, 1328–88, Liber Custumarum ap. Mun. Gildhallæ Lond., Walsingham's Hist. Angl., Ann. Ric. II et Henr. IV ap. J. de Trokelowe, &c., Royal Letters, Henr. IV, Eulogium Hist. (all Rolls Ser.); Rymer's Fœdera (Record edit. and ed. 1704–35); Rot. Parl. Proc. of Privy Council, ed. Hunter, Rot. Scotiæ (all Record publ.); Traïson et Mort de Ric. II (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Knighton's Chron. ed. Twysden (Decem Scriptt.); Adam of Usk's Chron. ed. Thompson; Otterbourne's Chron. ed. Hearne; Hardyng's Chron. ed Ellis; Stowe's Annales; Chron. anon. ed. Giles; Bower's Scotichron. ed. Goodall; Wyntoun's Chron. ed. 1795; Froissart's Chron. ed. Buchon; J. des Ursins ap. Mémoires, Michaud; Chron. du religieux de St. Denys, ed. Bellaquet; Monstrelet's Chron. ed. Johnes; Wylie's Hist. of England under Henr. IV; Ramsay's Lanc. and York; Stubbs's Const. Hist.; Burton's Hist. of Scotland; Dugdale's Baronage, Doyle's Off. Baronage; Beltz's Hist. of Garter; Tanner's Notitia Monast., ed. 1744; De Fonblanque's Annals of the House of Percy.]