ded in a court of the peers, who, having satisfied
themselves by carefully examining the record of the conviction of the
prisoners, Scrope and Cambridge, adjudged them to death. They were
both executed within a few hours of this judgment. The head of Scrope
was ordered to be affixed on one of the gates of York and the (p. 136)
head of Grey to be stuck up at Newcastle upon Tyne, to mark the baseness
of their ingratitude, who had enjoyed so closely the confidence and
friendship of Henry.[108]

[Footnote 108: The King's writ, dated Southampton,
8th of August, orders "the head of Henry Lescrop de
Masham to be stuck up at York, and the head of
Thomas Grey de Heton to be stuck up at Newcastle
upon Tyne."--Close Roll, 3 Henry V. m. 16.]

Nothing is recorded officially of any bribe from France, but the fact
of "one million of gold" having been promised as the wages of their
treason is asserted by historians. "These lords, for lucre of money,"
(to use the words of a manuscript[109] apparently contemporary with
the event,) "had made promise to the Frenchmen to have slayne King
Henry and all his worthy brethren by a false trayne [treason?]
suddenly or they had beware. But Almighty God, of his great grace,
held his holy hand over them, and saved them from this perilous meyne
[band]. And for to have done this they received of the Frenchmen a
million of gold, and that was there proved openly."

[Footnote 109: Cotton MS. Claudius A. viii. 2.]

As to the guilt or innocence of the Earl of March himself, no proof
can be drawn from the fact of his having obtained a full and free
pardon[110] a few days after the event. "Such pardons" (as Dr. Lingard
rightly observes) "were frequently solicited by the innocent as a
measure of precaution to defeat the malice and prevent the (p. 137)
accusations of their enemies." Sir Harris Nicolas indeed suggests,
"that it would be difficult to show an instance in which they were
granted in favour of a person who was not strongly suspected, or who
had not purchased them at the expense of his accomplices." But it
requires little more than a cursory glance at our authentic records to
be assured that Dr. Lingard's view is the more correct. Take, for
example, the pardon granted in 1412 to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
and couched in almost the same words. There is indeed in this pard