[q. v.] and others, to seek her assistance. The scandal which she had caused no doubt contributed also to their unpopularity. When the Good parliament met in April 1376, one of the first acts of the commons was to petition the king against her, and to inform him that she was married to Windsor, now deputy of Ireland. Edward declared with an oath that he did not know Alice was married, and begged them to deal gently with her. A general ordinance was passed forbidding women to practise in the courts of law, and under this Alice was sentenced to banishment and forfeiture. She is alleged to have sworn on the cross of Canterbury to obey the order, but after the death of the Prince of Wales, and recovery of power by Lancaster, she returned to court, and the archbishop feared to put the sentence of excommunication in force against her (Chron. Angliæ, pp. 100, 104). She joined with Sir Richard Sturry and Latimer in procuring the disgrace of Sir Peter De la Mare [q. v.] The Bad parliament met on 27 Jan. 1377, and reversed the sentences against Alice and her supporters (Rolls of Parliament, ii. 374). She resumed her old practices, interfered on behalf of Richard Lyons, who had been condemned in the previous year; prevented the despatch of Nicholas Dagworth to Ireland, because he was an enemy of Windsor; and protected a squire who had murdered a sailor, as it is said, at her instigation. Even William of Wykeham is alleged to have availed himself of her aid to secure the restitution of the temporalities of his see (ib. iii. 12b–14a; Chron. Angliæ, pp. 136–8). Edward was manifestly dying, but Alice buoyed him up with false hopes of life, until, when the end was clearly at hand, she stole the rings from off his fingers and abandoned him. In his last moments Edward is stated to have refused her proffered attentions (ib. pp. 143–4; but in the Ypodigma Neustriæ, p. 324, she is stated to have been with him till his death).
In the first parliament of Richard II Alice Perrers was brought before the lords, at the request of the commons, on 22 Dec. 1377, and the sentence of the Good parliament against her confirmed (Rolls of Parliament, iii. 12b). In the following year her husband appealed for leave to sue for a reversal of judgment, on the ground that she had been compelled to plead as ‘femme sole,’ though already married, and by reason of other informalities (ib. iii. 40–1). On 14 Dec. 1379 the sentence against her was revoked (Pat. Roll, 3 Richard II), and on 15 March 1380 Windsor obtained a grant of the lands that had been hers (Gesta Abbatum, iii. 234). In 1383 Alice had apparently recovered some of her favour at court. In the following year her husband died, in debt to the crown. His nephew and heir, John de Windsor, vexed Alice with lawsuits. She could obtain no relief from her husband's debts, though in 1384 the judgment against her was repealed so far as that all grants might remain in force (Rolls of Parliament, iii. 186b). Her dispute with the abbey of St. Albans as to Oxeye still continued (Gesta Abbatum, iii. 249). In 1389 she had a lawsuit with William of Wykeham as to jewels which she alleged she had pawned to him after her indictment. Wykeham denied the charge and won his case. In 1393 John de Windsor was in prison at Newgate for detaining goods belonging to Alice de Windsor, value 3,000l., and to Joan her daughter, value 4,000l. (Notes and Queries, 7th ser. vii. 451). In 1397 Alice once more petitioned for the reversal of the judgment against her, and the matter was referred for the king's decision, apparently without effect (Rolls of Parliament, iii. 367 b). Her will, dated 20 Aug. 1400, was proved on 3 Feb. 1401. She directed that she should be buried in the parish church of Upminster, Essex, in which parish her husband had property (Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta, pp. 152–3). Her heirs were her daughters Jane and Joane; the latter, at all events, seems to have been Windsor's daughter, for in 1406, as Joan Despaigne or Southereye, she successfully claimed property at Upminster.
In judging Alice's character it must be remembered that the chief witness against her is the hostile St. Albans chronicler. But other writers refer to her as Edward's mistress (e.g. Malverne ap. Higden, viii. 385, Rolls Ser.); and though the charges of avarice and intrigue may be exaggerated, it is impossible to doubt the substantial accuracy of the story. Still, some historians have taken a favourable view of her character (Barnes, History of Edward III, p. 872; Carte, History of England, ii. 534), and it has been ingenuously suggested that she was only the king's sick-nurse (Notes and Queries, u.s.). Sir Robert Cotton, in a similar spirit, speaks of ‘her mishap that she was friendly to many, but all were not friendly to her.’ In any case, Alice had used her position to acquire considerable wealth, and, in addition to the grants made to her, could purchase Egremont Castle before her marriage (ib. u.s.), and also owned house property at London. In her prosperity John of Gaunt had given her a hanap of beryl, garnished with silver gilt; after her fall he obtained
