APPENDIX, No. III.
AUTHENTICITY OF THE MANUSCRIPTS
Sloane 1776, and Reg. 13, c. 1.
It will be borne in mind that the only document which contains the charge brought against Henry of Monmouth of unfilial conduct and cruel behaviour towards his afflicted father is a manuscript, two copies of which are preserved in the British Museum; and that a thorough examination of the authenticity of that manuscript was reserved for the Appendix. Every right-minded person will agree that the magnitude and dark character of a charge, so far from justifying a prejudice against the accused, should induce us to sift with more scrutinizing jealousy the evidence alleged in support of the accusation.
It will require but a very brief inspection of the two MSS., Sloane 1776, and Reg. 13, c. 1.,[311] to be assured that they are either both transcripts from one document in that part of the volume which contains the history of Henry IV, or that one of these is copied from the other.[312] Unless, therefore, an intimation be given to the contrary, it will be understood that reference is made to the Sloane MS., which, though not copied with equal correctness in point of orthography and grammar, is still far superior to the King's in the clearness of the writing.
The Sloane MS. 1776,[313] appears to consist of four portions, though the same hand copied the whole.
The first portion extends from the commencement to page 40.
The second from page 40 to the end of the account of Henry IV. at page 49.
The third from the commencement of the reign of Henry V. page 50, to his second expedition to France, mentioned in page 72.
The fourth from that point to the end, at page 94, b.
1. The first portion embraces that part of the reigns of Richard II. and Henry IV. which falls within the range of the chronicle of the Monk of Evesham; ending with an account of the marriage of Edmund Mortimer with a daughter of Owyn Glyndowr, and two cases of sacrilege.
2. The second carries on the history of Henry IV. to the beginning of his thirteenth year, and contains the passage which charges Henry V. with the unfilial attempt to supplant his father on the throne. These first two parts must be examined together, and in detail; the last two will require only a few remarks, and may then be dismissed.
That the history which commences at p. 50 of the Sloane MS. was the work of an ecclesiastic who attended Henry V. in his first expedition to France, is made evident at a much earlier point of the narrative than the translation of it by Sir Harris Nicolas, in the Appendix to his "Battle of Agincourt," would enable us to infer. The passage "After having passed the Isle of Wight, swans were seen," should have been rendered, "After we left the shores of the Isle of Wight behind, swans appeared." The writer was at the battle of Agincourt, stationed with the baggage, and with his clerical associates praying for God's mercy to spare themselves and their countrymen.
That he was not the same person who wrote the history of Richard II. and Henry IV, now found in the same fasciculus, seems to be placed beyond doubt; his style is very different, and his tone of sentiment directly at variance with what is found in the preceding portion. He is a devoted admirer of Henry V, a characteristic which no one will ascribe to the writer of the preceding page.[314]
This writer had composed his history before the year 1418; for of Sir John Oldcastle he says, "that he broke prison after his condemnation, and lurked in caves and hiding-places, and is still lurking."[315] This portion of the MS. offers evidence in almost every page that its author was an eye-witness of what he describes. Probably no doubt will be entertained that it is the genuine production of an ecclesiastic in attendance on the King. But his work evidently ceases at page 72, where he offers a prayer that the Almighty "would give good success to his master, then going on his second expedition, and grant him victory as he had twice before; and fill him with the spirit of wisdom, and heavenly strength, and holy fear."
After the close of the Chaplain's narrative, the MS. loses almost all its interest: it carries on the history through the first years of the reign of Henry VI, and is evidently only part of what the volume once contained.[316]
The two former portions of the volume now claim our careful examination; and, of these two, especially the second.
It has been already intimated, that the first part of the MS. contains that portion of the history of Richard II. and Henry IV. which is embraced by the memoirs of the Monk of Evesham. A careful examination of both, and a comparison of each with the other, have induced the Author to conclude (with what degree of probability he must leave others to decide) that the writer had the work of the Monk before him, and copied from it very largely, but made such alterations as we should expect to find made by a foreigner, and one whose feelings were opposed to the Lancastrian party; a supporter rather of the cause of Richard, and the French, and the other enemies of Bolinbroke's house. The Monk's work bears every mark of being the genuine production of one who witnessed Henry IV.'s expeditions to Wales, and who was in all his sentiments and prejudices an Englishman and a Lancastrian. The Author fears he may be considered too minute and tedious on this point; but, since the circumstance of the writer of the manuscript bear immediately upon the authenticity of the charge, he trusts he shall be excused a detail which, except for that consideration, would be superfluous.
1. They both record the execution of a Welshman, who preferred death to treachery. The Monk adds this comment: "We English too [possumus et nos Angli] may derive an example here; to preserve our fidelity, &c. even to death." The MS. thus expresses its comment: "All English servants may contemplate an example of fidelity towards their own masters from the conduct of that Welshman."
2. Thus too, in mentioning the introduction of the fashion into England of wearing long sleeves like a bagpipe, the two MSS. of the Monk most clearly write "Bagpipe." Of the MSS. in question, the Sloane writes Bagebyte, the Reg. "Babepipæ;"—evidently the writer in neither case knowing the meaning of the English word which he attempted so unsuccessfully to copy.
3. In relating the capture of Lord Grey, the Monk adds, "which we grieve to say." The MS., without any such, expression of sympathy or sorrow, says that "he fell into the snare which he had prepared for others."[317]
4. The Monk merely records the return of Isabel to France; the MS. reflects strongly on her return without her dower, and her feelings of repugnance against receiving any boon from Henry, whom she regarded as Richard's enemy.
5. Speaking of the battle of Homildon, the Monk says, "Of our countrymen only five were slain;" and adds, "We praise thee, O God, because thou hast been mindful of us." The MS. says, "And of the English scarcely five were slain;" but adds no word of praise.
6. The Monk says, "From this time Owyn's cause seemed to grow and prosper, ours to decrease." This is omitted in the MS.
7. Whereas the Monk (describing the character of Richard in the very words—and many are unusual words—adopted by the MS.) records that Richard was in the habit of sitting throughout the night till the morning in drinking, and "other occupations not to be named:" the MS. omits the latter phrase. The Monk says there were two points of excellence in Richard's character; the MS., though confining itself to the two specified by the Monk, calls them "very many," "plura."
8. In recording the commencement of Owyn Glyndowr's rebellion, the Monk, speaking of it as "an execrable revolt," says that the Welsh elected Owyn against the principles of peace [contra pacem elegerunt]. The MS. says that the Welsh elected a respectable and venerable gentleman to be their leader and prince.
Our attention is now especially called to some points in which the MS. seems to be so full of historical mistakes and improbabilities as to render any statement of a fact, especially of an improbable fact, not supported by other evidence, suspicious.[318]
1. Froissart (who appears to be well acquainted with the proceedings of Bolinbroke till he left the coast of France, but to have been altogether mistaken as to his proceedings from that hour,) states, with the greatest probability, that Bolinbroke left Paris under plea of visiting his friend the Duke of Brittany, and having been well received and assisted by him, set sail from some port of Brittany [intimating that his embarkation was (as was natural) carried on in secret, for he "had only been informed" that it was from Vennes].[319] The MS., on the contrary, with the greatest improbability, roundly asserts that Bolinbroke went to Calais, obtained money from the treasurer, though against his will, and seized all the ships which he could find in the port. The improbability that Bolinbroke should have excited the suspicions of the authorities of Calais not in his interest, from which a single boat in a few hours could have carried the news of his hostile attempts to Richard's friends in England, and the absurdity of making him seize all the ships in the port of Calais to carry over his handful of friends, can impress the reader with no favourable idea of this writer's accuracy.
2. No fact is more undeniably certain than that Henry IV. made his eldest son (our Henry V.) Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall in the parliament held immediately upon his accession; whereas the MS. declares that Henry V. was so created in the year of the Emperor of Constantinople's visit to England, and in the parliament which began at the feast of St. Hilary, during which Sautre was burned for a heretic;—that is, a year and a quarter later.
3. The MS. account of Hotspur's rebellion is quite inconsistent with facts, and altogether, in other respects, as improbable as it is singular. The MS. says that Hotspur,[320] about Candlemas, was commissioned to go against the Welsh rebels; but when he reached the country with his forces, and found it to be mountainous, and fit neither for horse nor infantry, he made a truce with Owyn, and went to London to take the King's pleasure upon it. The reception he met with at court drove him to his own country; and the King, as soon as he heard of Percy gathering his people, collected those whom he believed to be faithful to him, and hastened to meet him near Shrewsbury. Whereas the fact is, that Henry Percy had been resident as Chief Justice in North Wales, Constable of Caernarvon, &c. at least three years; had besieged Conway with his own men; had routed the rebels at Cader Idris, and most zealously persevered in his attempts to suppress the rebellion; and had returned from the Principality at least a year and a half before the Candlemas (1403), at which the MS. says that he was first commissioned to go there.
The next point to which the attention of the reader is solicited will perhaps be considered by many to involve a greater improbability than the Author may himself attach to it. Every one who has ever read, or heard, or written about the "Tripartite Indenture of Division" made between Glyndowr, Mortimer, and Northumberland, fixes it, as Shakspeare does, before the battle of Shrewsbury.[321] The scene in the house of the Archdeacon of Bangor is too exquisite for any one to desire it to be proved a fable. But (as the Author believes) this MS. is the only document extant which professes to record the words of that treaty; and yet this document fixes it to a date long after the Percies lost that "sorry field." It is represented to have been made in the February of the year of Pope Innocent's election: if before that election, it was made in 1404; if after it, in 1405. And certainly the tradition is general that Northumberland, after his flight to Scotland, visited Wales.
Another point deserving consideration is the account of the conspiracy of Mowbray and the Archbishop of York. That account is drawn up in a manner most unfavourable to Henry IV. The MS. boldly also records the miracle wrought in the field of the Archbishop's execution, and states that various miracles attracted multitudes to his tomb daily. It also affirms that, on the very day and hour of the Archbishop's execution, Henry IV. was struck with the leprosy.[322]
Perhaps too it may appear strange to others, as the Author confesses it has appeared to himself, that, up to the very last chapter of this history of Richard II. and Henry IV, no mention whatever is made of Henry of Monmouth, except in the unaccountable anachronism of his creation as Prince of Wales. It is curious that an historian should state that the young Duke of Gloucester was sent for from Ireland, and not allude to the circumstance of the Prince being in prison with him, and being sent for back at the same time.[323]
We are now arrived at the very last chapter, the chapter containing the charge on which Henry of Monmouth's character has been so severely, and, if that charge be true, so justly arraigned. The chapter professes to record the transactions of the thirteenth year of Henry IV. The question is one of such essential importance as far as Henry's good name is at stake, and (as the Author cannot but think) in point too of the philosophy of history, involving principles of such deep interest to the genuine pursuer of truth, that he would not feel himself justified were he to abstain from transcribing the whole chapter.
"In the thirteenth year there was a great disturbance between the Duke of Burgundy and the Duke of Orleans. Wherefore the Duke of Burgundy sent to the Lord Henry, Prince of England,[324] for aid to oppose the Duke of Orleans: who sent to his succour the Earl Arundell, John Oldcastle the Lord of Cobham, the Lord Gilbert Umfravill, the Lord of Kyme, and with them a great army; by whose prowess at Senlow [Reg. 'Senlowe'], near Paris, the Duke of Orleans was vanquished, and cruelly routed from the field, and his followers crushed, routed, and slain. And the same Duke of Orleans thought how he could avenge himself against the Duke of Burgundy; and immediately he sent to King Henry of England a great sum of gold, together with William Count Anglam [Reg. "de Anglam">[, his brother, as a hostage or surety for a greater sum, to obtain succour from the King of England himself. And the King did not put off sending him succour; and he appointed Lord Thomas, his second son, Duke of Clarence, and conferred on him the dukedom (or, as it was of old time, the earldom) of Albemarle; and Edmund, who before was Duke of Albemarle, then, after the death of his father, he advanced to be Duke of York. And Lord John Cornwall, who married his sister, the Duchess of Exeter, and whom the King appointed Captain of Calais, he sent towards the parts of France with a great power of men. And when they landed in Normandy, near Hogges, forthwith the Lord de Hambe, with seven thousand armed men, went up against the English to oppose them, and thus on that day there was a great slaughter of men; for on the part of the Duke of Burgundy eight hundred men were taken, and four hundred slain: and thus at length victory was on the side of the English. After which the Duke, with his army, turned off towards the country of Bourdeaux,[325] [ ] destroying [ ] of the countrymen, collecting great sums of money, at length arrived at Bourdeaux, and from thence they returned to England about the vintage."
The reader's especial attention is here called to the confusion of facts and dates, the mistakes historical, geographical, chronological, biographical, with which this short section abounds to the overflow. It will perhaps be difficult to find a page in any author, ancient or modern, more full of such blunders as tend to destroy confidence in him, when he records as a fact what is not found in any other writer, nor is supported by ancillary evidence. The MS. states that all these events took place in the thirteenth year of Henry IV: the MS. writes it at length, "Anno decimo tertio," which began on the 20th September 1411. Now, allowing to the writer every latitude not involving positive confusion, it is impossible for us to suppose, when he crowds all these events within one year, that he had any such information on the affairs of England as would predispose us to regard him as an authority.
1. The first application by the Duke of Burgundy for English auxiliaries was in August 1411; and the battle of St. Cloud (the place which the MS., evidently ignorant of its situation and name, calls Senlow) was fought on the 10th of November 1411. The Duke of Orleans, at the beginning of the following year, 1412, made his application to the English court for aid against the Duke of Burgundy, but it was not till the 18th of May 1412 that the final treaty was concluded between Henry IV. and the Duke of Orleans; and it was not till the middle, or the latter end of August 1412, that the Duke of Clarence was despatched to aid the Duke of Orleans; and he remained in France till he received news of his father's death, in April 1413; when, and not before, he returned to England after his expedition to aid the Duke of Orleans.[326] Yet all these events are stated in the MS. to have fallen within the same year.[327]
2. The MS. says that the English, after their victory over the Duke of Burgundy's forces, returned to England at the time of vintage. The English returned to England at the end of autumn; not after their struggle against the Duke of Burgundy, but after their victory over the Duke of Orleans at the bridge of St. Cloud, a year and a quarter at least before their return from the expedition against the Duke of Burgundy.
3. Again, the MS. says that the Duke of Orleans sent, immediately after the battle of St. Cloud (the Senlow of the MS.), a large sum of money to the King of England, together with his brother, the Earl of Angouleme, as a hostage or pledge for the payment of a greater sum, to induce the King to comply with his request. This is utter confusion. The Earl was sent as an hostage,—not beforehand, to induce Henry IV. to send auxiliaries,—but afterwards, to insure the payment of large sums which the Duke of Orleans stipulated to pay to the English after they had been some time in France, on condition of their quitting it. The Earl of Angouleme was sent as an hostage to England somewhat before January 25, 1413; the MS. says, at the end of 1411.
4. Again, the MS. having dated the death of John, Earl of Somerset, Captain of Calais, in the preceding year, says that the King then made John Cornwall Captain of Calais. Whereas the fact is, that John Beaufort, Captain of Calais, died on Palm Sunday, 1410, and Prince Henry was appointed to succeed him on the following Tuesday. His appointment, by writ of privy seal, bears date March 18, 1410; and he continued to be Captain of Calais till he succeeded to the throne.
The MS. having recorded the marriage of the Duke of Clarence with the Countess of Somerset, and the dispute between him and the Bishop of Winchester, in which Prince Henry took the Bishop's part against his brother, as having taken place in this same year, proceeds with the passage, for the purpose of ascertaining the accuracy and authenticity of which we have been led to make so many prefatory observations.
"In the same year,[328] on the morrow of All Souls, began a parliament at Westminster; and because the King, by reason of his infirmity, could not in his own person be present, he appointed and ordained in his name his brother, Thomas Beaufort, then Chancellor of England, to open, continue, and prorogue it. In which parliament Prince Henry desired from his father the resignation of his kingdom and crown, because that his father, by reason of his malady, could not labour for the honour and advantage of the kingdom any longer; but in this he was altogether unwilling to consent to him,—nay, he wished to govern the kingdom, together with the crown and its appurtenances, as long as he retained his vital breath. Whence the Prince, in a manner, with his counsellors retired aggrieved; and afterwards, as it were through the greater part of England, he joined all the nobles under his authority in homage and pay. In the same parliament the money, as well in gold as in silver, was somewhat lessened in weight in consequence of the exchange of foreigners, &c."
Now, there can be no doubt (1) that a parliament was held on the morrow of All Souls, in the thirteenth year of Henry IV. (1411); (2) that it was opened, continued, and prorogued by Thomas Beaufort, the Chancellor, by commission from the King, in his absence; (3) that an alteration in the coin was agreed upon in that parliament; and (4), moreover, that the King declared in that parliament his determination to allow of no innovations, nor of any encroachments on his prerogative, but to maintain the rights and privileges of his crown in full enjoyment, as his royal predecessors had delivered them down.
A superficial glance at these facts would doubtless suggest a strong confirmation of the details of the MS. in other points, and thus predispose us to receive the statement with regard to Prince Henry's unfilial conduct on the authority of this document alone. But, on close examination, these very facts, which the records of the realm place beyond doubt, coupled with others equally indisputable, to which we shall presently refer, demonstrate to the Author's mind that no dependence whatever can be placed on this MS., and that the statement is altogether apocryphal, and founded on palpable confusion.
The parliament met on the morrow of All Souls, Tuesday, November 3, 1411, (13th Henry IV,) and was opened, continued, and prorogued by the Chancellor; but not on account of the King's indisposition, or inability to be present. The Rolls of Parliament are most explicit on this point. They state that the King, having been informed that very many lords, spiritual and temporal, knights of the shire, and burgesses, who ought to attend that parliament, had not assembled on the appointed day, commissions the Chancellor to open the parliament, and to prorogue it till the following day. And on the following day, Wednesday, (the Lords and Commons then being in the presence of the King,) the Chancellor, by the King's command, recited the reasons for convening the parliament, and charged the Commons to retire and elect their Speaker.
Not only so. On the Thursday (Nov. 5), the Commons came before the King and the Lords, and presented Thomas Chaucer as their Speaker. And the Speaker prayed liberty of speech, &c.: and the King granted the request, but declared that he would admit of no innovation nor encroachment on his prerogative, but resolved to maintain his rights as fully as his predecessors had done. On this the Speaker prayed him to grant to the Commons, till the day following, time for putting their protest, &c. in writing. To this the King agreed. But, forasmuch as the King could not attend on the Friday in consequence of diverse great and pressing matters, the time was postponed to the following day, Saturday; when the Commons came before the King, and presented their prayer, &c.
The fact is, that the King was repeatedly present at this parliament, from the day before the Speaker was chosen to the very last day. On a subsequent occasion, the Prince of Wales also, as well as the King, is recorded to have been present, (as doubtless he was on various occasions throughout,—probably an habitual attendant,) in what character, and under what circumstances, whether as the supplanter of his father or not, perhaps the words of the record may, to a certain extent at least, enable us to pronounce.
"On Monday, the last day of November, the Speaker, in the name of the Commons, prayed the King to thank my Lord the Prince, the Bishops of Winchester and Durham, &c. who were assigned to be of council to the King in the last parliament, for their great labour and diligence; for, as it appears to the said Commons, my said Lord the Prince, and the other Lords, have well and loyally done their duty according to their promise in that parliament. And upon that, kneeling, my Lord the Prince, and the other Lords, declared, by the mouth of my Lord the Prince, how they had taken pains, and labour, and diligence, according to their promise, and the charge given them in parliament, to their skill and knowledge. This the King remembered well [or made good mention of], and thanked them most graciously. And he said besides, that he was well assured, if they had had more than they had, in the manner it had been spoken by the mouth of my Lord the Prince, at the time the King charged them to be of his council in the said parliament, they would have done their duty to effect more good than was done in diverse parts for the defence, honour, good, and profit of him and his kingdom. And our Lord the King also said, that he felt very contented with their good and loyal diligence, counsel, and duty, for the time they had been of his council."
This took place on the 30th of November, a month (saving two days) after the parliament had assembled, and within less than three weeks of its termination. It would scarcely be credible, even had the report come through a less questionable channel, that Henry of Monmouth up to that time had been guilty of the unfilial delinquency with which the MS. charges him. Nor could he have made the "unnatural attempt to dethrone his diseased father" at any period through the remaining three weeks of the session of that parliament. At all events, such a proceeding appears altogether irreconcilable with the conduct both of the parliament and of the King on the very last day of their sitting. "On Saturday, December 20th, (say the Rolls,) being the last day of parliament, the Speaker, recommending the persons of the Queen, of the Prince, and of other the King's sons, prayeth the advancement of their estates; for the which the King giveth hearty thanks."
Had any such transaction taken place during this parliament as the MS. records, would the King, on the last day of the session, without any allusion to it, have given hearty thanks to the Commons for their recommendation of the Prince's person (coupled with the name of his Queen and his other sons), and their prayer for further provision for his dignity and comfort?
There are, however, two or three more circumstances upon which it may appear material to make some observations; or even, should these closing observations not seem altogether indispensable, yet, since this is all new and untrodden ground, it may yet be thought safer to anticipate conjectures, than to leave any questions unopened and unexamined on this point—a point which the Author trusts may be set at rest at once, and for ever.
The Author then is ready to confess his belief that both the MS. and its commentator, the modern historian, have confounded this parliament of November 1411 with the parliament of February 3, 1413, which was opened in the illness of the King, and which he never was able to attend. But if it be attempted to engraft on this fact the surmise that it might have been in the latter parliament that the Prince demanded the surrender of the throne, and that it is after all a mere mistake of dates, the material fact being unshaken and unaffected,—to this suggestion he replies, that there is no evidence, directly or indirectly bearing on the subject, in support of such a surmise. The only statement in printed book or manuscript known, is that which we have now been sifting; and which with a precision, as though of set purpose, minute and pointed, fixes the alleged transaction to the year 1411.[329] Not only so. We have, on the contrary, reason to believe that before the meeting of the next parliament, February 1413, all differences had been made up between the King and his son; and that from the day of their reconciliation they lived in the full interchange of paternal and filial kindness to the end. For that jealousies and alienations of confidence, fostered by the malevolence of others,[330] had taken place between them in the course of the preceding year, the very mention of the "ridings of gentils and huge people with the Prince," twice recurring in the Chronicle of London, seems of itself to force upon us. The accounts, at all events, such as they are, which chroniclers give of their reconciliation, fix the date of that happy issue of their estrangement to a period antecedent to the last parliament of Henry IV. February 3.—Cras. Purif. 1413.
Although the life and reign of Henry IV. continued more than a year and four months after the passing of the ordinance respecting the coin, with an account of which this MS. abruptly closes, yet (excepting what is involved in the extract above cited) not one single word is said of the foreign and domestic affairs of the kingdom, or of the life of the King, or of his death; though much of interesting matter was at hand, and though a parliament was summoned, and actually met fourteen months after the alteration of the coin. And such is the close of a document, not like a yearly chronicle, or general register of events, satisfied with giving a summary of the most remarkable casualties in the briefest form; but a narrative which transcribes, with unusual minuteness, the very words (at full, and with all their technicalities,) of some of the most unimportant and prolix statutes of Henry IV.'s reign.[331] It is not that the MS. is mechanically cut short by loss of leaves, or other accident; the Sloane ends with an "etc." in the very middle of a page, and the King's at the foot of the first column.
We need not encumber this inquiry (already too long) by any reflections on the avidity with which this passage of the MS. has been seized, and made the groundwork of charges against Henry of "unfilial conduct," "unnatural rebellion" towards his father, and "the unprincipled ambition of a Catilinarian temper," with other hard words and harder surmises; because we are trying the value of testimony. If that testimony is sound, modern historians may doubtless build upon it what comments seem to them good; if we utterly destroy the validity of the evidence, their foundation sinks from under their superstructure.
The reader, however, has probably already determined that, unless there be in reserve some other independent, or at least auxiliary source of evidence, the palpable contradiction and manifest confusion reigning through this part of the MS., together with the high degree of improbability thrown over the whole statement by the undoubted records of the very parliament in question, justify the rejection of the passage altogether from the pale of authentic history. The Author confesses that he has step by step come to that conclusion.
THE END.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY,
Dorset Street, Fleet Street.
Footnote 1: Close Roll.[(back)]
Footnote 2: "The high esteem which the nation had of Henry's person produced such an entire confidence in him, that both houses of parliament in an address offered to swear allegiance to him before he was crowned, or had taken the customary oath to govern according to the laws. The King thanked them for their good affections, and exhorted them in their several places and stations to employ all their power for the good of the nation. He told them that he began his reign in pardoning all that had offended him, and with such a desire for his people's happiness, that he would be crowned on no other condition than to make use of all his authority to promote it; and prayed God that, if he foresaw he was like to be any other than a just and good king, he would please to take him immediately out of the world, rather than seat him on the throne, to live a public calamity to his country."—Goodwin. See Stowe. Polyd. Verg. Elmham.[(back)]
Footnote 3: Elmham.[(back)]
Footnote 4: Not Palm Sunday, but the fifth Sunday in Lent, was called Passion Sunday.[(back)]
Footnote 5: "With mickle royalty."—Chron. Lond.[(back)]
Footnote 6: Chroniclers record that the day of his coronation was a day of storm and tempest, frost and snow, and that various omens of ill portent arose from the circumstance.[(back)]
Footnote 7: Henry had excited feelings of confidence and admiration in the minds of foreign potentates, as well as in his subjects at home. Among the embassies, with offers and pledges of friendship and amity, which hastened to his court on his accession, are numbered those of John of Portugal, Robert Duke of Albany, Regent of Scotland, John King of Castile, John Duke of Brittany, Charles King of France, and Pope John XXIII.[(back)]
Footnote 8: Sir Edward Coke, in his 4th Inst. ch. i. declares that this act was disavowed in the next parliament by the Commons, for that they never assented. The Author has searched the Parliament Rolls in vain for the authority on which that assertion was founded.[(back)]
Footnote 9: The Monday after Corpus Christi day; which feast, being the Thursday after Trinity Sunday, fell in the year 1413 on June 22.[(back)]
Footnote 10: This Dr. Walden (so called from the place of his birth in Essex) was so able a disputant that he was called the Netter. He seems to have written many works, which are either totally lost, or are buried in temporary oblivion.[(back)]
Footnote 11: Goodwin. Appendix, p. 361.[(back)]
Footnote 12: Minutes of Council, 29 June 1413.[(back)]
Footnote 13: Many original petitions addressed to Henry are still preserved among our records. In one, which may serve as a specimen of the kind of application to which this custom compelled him to open his ear, Richard Hunt appeals to him as a "right merciable lord, moved with pity, mercy, and grace." "In great desolation and heaviness of heart," the petitioner states that his son-in-law, Richard Peke, who had a wife and four children, and had been all his life a true labourer and innocent man, and well-beloved by his neighbours, had been detected in taking from a vessel goods not worth three shillings; for which crime his mortal enemies (though they might have their property again) "sued to have him dead." He urges Henry to grant him "full noble grace," at the reverence of Almighty God, and for passion that Christ suffered for all mankind, and for the pity that he had on Mary Magdalene. The petitioner then promised (as petitioners now do) to pray for endless mercy on Henry; he adds, moreover, what would certainly sound strange in a modern petition to a monarch, "And ye, gracious and sovereign lord, shall have a good ox to your larder." Henry granted the petition. "The King woll that this bill pass without any manner of fine, or fees that longeth to him."[(back)]
Footnote 14: The Pell Rolls acquaint us with the very great expense incurred on this occasion.[(back)]
Footnote 15: Dugdale's Baronage.[(back)]
Footnote 16: Minutes of Council, 21 May and 10 Dec. 1415. Addit. MS. 4600. Art. 147.[(back)]
Footnote 17: Pell Rolls, Mich. 4. Hen. V. Many documents also in Rymer refer to this transaction.[(back)]
Footnote 18: Roger Mortimer, fifth Earl of March, son and heir of Philippa, daughter and heiress of Lionel Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III, died in 1398; leaving two sons, Edmund, of whom we are here speaking, then about six years of age, and Roger, about a year younger.[(back)]
Footnote 19: In a previous section of these Memoirs, brief mention has been made of the abortive attempt to carry off into Wales this young Earl of March and his brother, and of the generous conduct of Henry of Monmouth in his endeavour to restore the Duke of York to the King's favour, which he had forfeited in consequence of his alleged participation in that bold design. A manuscript has since been brought under the Author's notice, which places in a very strong light the treasonable and murderous purpose of those who originated the plot, and would account for the most watchful and jealous caution on the part of the reigning family against a repetition of such attempts. Henry must have been fully aware of his danger; and the fact of his throwing off all suspicion towards the young Earl, and receiving him with confidence and friendship, enhances our estimate of the generous and noble spirit which actuated him. The document, in other points curious, seems to deserve a place here:
"The Friday after St. Vallentyne's day, anno 6 Henrici Quarti, ye Erll of Marche's sons was secretly conveyd out of Wyndsor Castell yerly in ye morninge, and fond af[ter?] by diligent serche. But ye smythe, for makyng the key, lost fyrst his lands; after, his heed. Ye Lady Spenser, wydow to the Lord Spenser executed at Bristow, and syster to ye Duke of York, was comytted cloase prysonner, whare she accused her brother predict for the actor, for ye children predict; and that he sholde entend to breake into the King's manor att Eltham ye last Crystmas by scaling the walles in ye nighte, and there to murther ye Kinge; and, for better proaffe hereof, that yf eyther knight or squyer of England wold combatt for her in the quarrell, she wold endure her body to be burned yf he war vanquished. Then W. Maydsten, one of her sqyres [undertook?] his Mrs. quarrell with gage of his wheed [so], and was presently arrested by Lord Thomas, ye Kyng's son, to the Tower, and his goods confyscatt. Thomas Mowbray, Erll Marshall, accused to be privy to the same, butt was pardoned."—Lansdown, 860 a, fol. 288 b.[(back)]
Footnote 20: 14 Nov. 1414. MS. Donat. 4600. Reference is made there to June 9, 1413, not three months after Henry's accession.[(back)]
Footnote 21: 1417, July 20, at Porchester. 1418, 2 June, at Berneye. December 1418, in the camp before Rouen. 11 June 1416.—Rymer.[(back)]
Footnote 22: In the summer after the battle of Agincourt the King "takes into his especial care William of Agincourt, the prisoner of his very dear cousin Edmund Earl of March."[(back)]
Footnote 23: This parliament was summoned to be at Leicester on the 29th of February, but was prorogued to the 30th of April. At this period parliaments were by no means uniformly held at Westminster.[(back)]
Footnote 24: In this parliament we find a petition loudly complaining of the outrages of the Welsh.[(back)]
Footnote 25: About this time there seems to have been entertained by the legislature a most determined resolution to limit the salaries of chaplains in private families. Many sumptuary laws were made on this subject. Provisions were made repeatedly in this and other parliaments against excessive payments to them. The origin of this feeling does not appear to have transpired. Probably it was nothing more than a jealousy excited by the increasing wealth of the church.—Parl. Rolls, 2 Henry V.[(back)]
Footnote 26: When his determination to recover his rights was announced in parliament, he was twenty-seven years of age.[(back)]
Footnote 27: The answer which Bishop Oldham is said to have made on this occasion is chiefly remarkable for the intimation it conveys, that the downfall of the monasteries was anticipated a quarter of a century before their actual dissolution. "What, my lord, shall we build houses and provide livelihoods for a company of bussing monks, whose end and fall we may ourselves live to see? No, no; it is more meet that we should provide for the increase of learning, and for such as by their learning shall do good to the church and commonwealth."—Anthony Wood.[(back)]
Footnote 28: Henry had much at heart the maintenance of the truth of the Christian religion, such as he received it. Of this he is thought to have given early proof, by confirming a grant of fifty marks yearly, during pleasure, to the prior and convent of the order of Preachers in the University of Oxford, to support the doctrine of the Catholic faith. It will be said that this was merely to repress the Lollards. Be it so, though the original document is silent on that point. It proves, at least, that he wished to maintain his religion by argument rather than by violence. The circumstance, however, of its being merely a confirmation of a grant, which even his father found in existence when he became King, takes away much from the importance of the fact.—Pell Rolls, 1 Henry IV.[(back)]
Footnote 29: The present Duke and Duchess kindly searched out and visited the remaining sisters in Staffordshire.[(back)]
Footnote 30: Dugdale; ed. 1830.[(back)]
Footnote 31: April 11, 1415.[(back)]
Footnote 32: In the early part of his father's reign, an ordinance was made, charging the King's officers not to suffer aliens to bring bulls or other letters into the kingdom, which might injure the King or his realm.—Cleop. F. III. f. 114.[(back)]
Footnote 33: November 7, 1413.[(back)]
Footnote 34: By a statute (4 Hen. IV. 1402), after the Legislature had complained that the Convents put monks, and canons, and secular chaplains into the parochial ministry, by no means fit for the cure of souls, it is enacted, that a vicar adequately endowed should be everywhere instituted; and, in default of such reformation, that the licence of appropriation should be forfeited.[(back)]
Footnote 35: Henry III. is said to have assigned to Louis IX. this reason for his preference of devotional exercises to sermons.[(back)]
Footnote 36: It is curious at the same time to observe what extraordinary notions the Commons, who presented this petition, had formed of freedom; how jealous they were of the lower orders, and how determined to exclude them from sharing with themselves the good things of the church's temporalities. The Commons pray that (no nief or vileyn) no bondswoman or bondsman, be allowed to send a son to school with a view of being advanced in the church; and that for the maintenance and safety of the honour of all the free men of the land.[(back)]
Foonote 37: 15 Richard II. (1391.)[(back)]
Footnote 38: Some persons would probably be surprised, among the facts recorded in this cause, (all which however are confirmed by the ecclesiastical registers,) to find that by a sort of retrograde promotion, according to our usual ideas of episcopal preferment, a Bishop of London, Nicoll Bubwith, was translated from London to Salisbury, and from Salisbury to Bath and Wells. The pleading also reminds us of a curious fact with regard to Bishop Hallam's promotion, not generally known. The record merely states that "the Bishop of Sarum, that now is, was translated from York to the church of Sarum." This latter translation, however, (if such it can be properly called,) admits of a more easy solution than the preceding. The fact is, that Hallam was actually appointed by the Pope to the archbishopric of York; to which appointment the King objected. The nomination of the Pope was not persisted in, and Hallam was consecrated Bishop of Salisbury.[(back)]
Footnote 39: "Jeo ne ferra disputation del poiar l'appost', mes jeo ne scay veier coment il par ses bull' changer, le ley d'Engleterre."[(back)]
Footnote 40: See Year Book, "Anno xi. Hen. IIII."—Term. Mich. fol. 37; Hilar. fol. 38; Pasc. fol. 59; Trin. fol. 76.[(back)]
Footnote 41: "L'appost'." "Nostre Saint Pier l'appost'." "Bulls fait par Saint Pier."[(back)]
Footnote 42: It is very painful to reflect on the intolerant spirit of this very Sigismund, who was so anxious to reform the abuses of the church; but it is forced upon us whilst we are inquiring into the times of Henry. Sigismund had paid (as we shall see) a visit to Henry, and he meditated another. But he never put that design into execution. A letter from Heretong Van Clux, Henry's minister, informed his master that he must not expect to see the Emperor, for he had employment at home in putting down the followers of Huss. "Now I know well he might not come, for this cause, that many of the great lords of Bohemia have required him for to let them hold the same belief that they are in. And thereupon he sent them word, that rather he would be dead than he would sustain them in their malice. And they have answered him again, that they will rather die than go from their belief. There is a great power of them, lords, knights, and esquires; but the greatest power is of the commoners. Therefore the Emperor gathers all the power that he may, to go into Bohemia upon them."—See Ellis's Original Letters.[(back)]
Footnote 43: This council seems to have entailed, first and last, on England, a very considerable expense. Within a week of the date of the commission, the Pell Rolls record the payment of 333l. 6s. 8d. (a large sum in those days) "to Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, sent as the King's ambassador to the General Council held at Constance before our lord the Pope, the Emperor, and others, there assembled for the salvation of Christian souls." Payments also to others are recorded.[(back)]
Footnote 44: Bishop Hallam died at Constance, Sept. 5, 1417. On which day the Cardinal des Ursins addressed a letter to Henry, praying him to appoint as Hallam's successor at Salisbury, John Ketterich, Bishop of Lichfield, to whose ability and zeal and worth the Cardinal bears strong testimony. This same Cardinal had a personal interview with Henry in 1418, just before the taking of Rouen.
Le Neve leaves it in doubt whether Bishop Hallam was buried at Constance, or in Westminster Abbey. But the Author has been kindly furnished by Sir Francis Palgrave, who visited Constance last year, with the following interesting particulars relative to the resting-place of that excellent man. "The monument of Bishop Hallam consists of a slab inlaid with brass, in the usual style of English memorials of the same period, but quite unlike those of Germany; and I have no doubt but that the brasses were sent from England. He is represented at full length in the episcopal dress, his head lying between two shields, the royal arms of England within the Garter, (as Chancellor of the order,) and his own bearings. But the tomb being placed exactly in front of the high altar, the attrition to which it has been exposed in this part of the church has nearly effaced the engravings." His funeral, we are told, was attended by the assembled princes and prelates and nobles of the council, who followed him to the grave with every demonstration of respect and sorrow.[(back)]
Footnote 45: Anthony à Wood, referring to the alleged resolution of the University of Oxford in favour of Wickliff and his doctrines, refers to this Bishop Hallam, though with some mistake. "The prime broacher," he says, "of this testimonial, of which we have nothing in our registers, records, or books of epistles, was John Husse in the first tome of his works, and from him John Fox. Against the former of whom it was objected in the Council of Constance, that he had openly divulged the said commendatory letter in behalf of John Wickliff, falsely conveyed to Prague, under the title of the University of Oxford, by two students, one a Bohemian, the other an Englishman. Whereupon those of England who were present at the council, of whom, if I mistake not, Robert Hallam, about these times Bishop of Oxford [Salisbury], was one, produce another letter under the seal of the University, wherein, on the contrary, the members thereof as much denounce against him as the other was in behalf of him, and referred the matter to the council to judge of it as they thought fit; but how it was decided I find not."[(back)]
Footnote 46: In his arguments on this article Dr. Ullerston offers some excellent reflections upon the use and abuse of singing in the church. The sentiments of Augustin, which he quotes, are truly judicious and edifying. That eloquent father lamented that often the beauty of the singing withdrew his mind from the divine matter and substance of what was sung; but when he remembered how, on occasions of peculiar interest to him, psalmody carried his soul towards heaven in holy raptures, he could not help voting for its continuance in the church service. Ullerston quotes also two lines, not indeed specimens of classical accuracy, but the spirit of which should never be absent from the mind of a Christian worshipper, whether a Protestant or in communion with the see of Rome:
"Non vox sed votum, non musica chordula sed cor,
Non clamor sed amor, sonat in aure Dei."[(back)]
Footnote 47: Thomas Gascoyne, a contemporary writer, born 1403, ordained 1427, who gives us a deplorable view of the ignorance and immorality of the clergy of his time, mentions the appointment of Walden as Henry's chaplain, in confirmation of his position that he never could find that any King of England retained any bishop after consecration as his confessor or resident chaplain till the time of Henry VI. "When (he says) Henry IV.'s confessor was made a bishop, he sent him to his cure and his bishopric; and Henry V, who was a very prudent King indeed, and terrible to many nations, had with him one doctor proficient in divinity, Thomas Walden, as his confessor, who was burdened with no cure of souls. Thus were Kings and Lords accustomed to retain as their chaplains persons who were free from all cure of souls."[(back)]
Footnote 48: Pell Rolls, Mich. 7 Hen. V, he is paid for his expenses in an embassy to the King of Poland.[(back)]
Footnote 49: L'Estrange, Counc. Constance, vol. ii. p. 282; and Van der Hardt, tom. i. p. 501.[(back)]
Footnote 50: Not 1418, as it has been supposed, but 1417. The date is fixed by the specifying of Wednesday the 27th January, as also by the mention of the Genoese ships. These ships were hired, and they fought under the French against the English, and were beat in July 1417, after a severe engagement.[(back)]
Footnote 51: Cott. MSS. Cleopatra, t. vii. p. 148.[(back)]
Footnote 52: Cardinalis Camaracensis, or Cardinal of Cambray.[(back)]
Footnote 53: "Collation" meant discourse, or speech, generally of a laudatory character.[(back)]
Footnote 54: The Spaniards, the French, and others were jealous of the English enjoying the privilege of ranking and voting single-handed as one of the nations, and insisted upon their being regarded only as a part of a larger section of Europe, just as Austria was only part of Germany. But the English resisted, and preserved their privilege.[(back)]
Footnote 55: This alludes to the intention of putting a stop to the rich and numerous commendams which were then heaped on bishops. Our English prelates were determined to carry on the reformation, though at their own personal sacrifice.[(back)]
Footnote 56: This negotiation was successful. The French hired a fleet of long ships of the Genoese.[(back)]
Footnote 57: Orator.—Petitioner, one who prayed for the welfare of another.[(back)]
Footnote 58: A curious entry occurs (11th July 1390) in the Pell Rolls of 10l. ordered by the King (Richard II.) to be paid to the clerks of the parish churches, and other clerks in the city of London, on account of the play of the Passion of our Lord and the Creation of the World, by them performed at Skynnerswell after the feast of Bartholomew last past.[(back)]
Footnote 59: For satisfaction on this point, the reader is especially referred to the chapter entitled, "Was Henry of Monmouth a religious persecutor?"[(back)]
Footnote 60: In this petition of the University, Henry is told, that what Constantinus, Marcianus, and Theodosius had been in the East, that was he in the West; by his eminent Christian piety resisting the accomplices of Satan, and preventing the western church from sinking utterly. By his wise and peaceable government of the church he was (they say) best providing for the peace and security of the state, whilst he cut off and cast away the rank, luxuriant offshoots of offences as they grew. In marking out the most notable defects and abuses, they obeyed (they say) his sacred commands; and they prayed him to exert his authority in correcting them.[(back)]
Footnote 61: There was also a prayer to prohibit the practice of confiscating the goods of Jews and heathens at their baptism, a practice tending to debar them from offering themselves at the font.[(back)]
Footnote 62: Cotton. Tiber. B. vi. F. 64.[(back)]
Footnote 63: The fact is, that Henry, during his wars in France, suffered Pope Martin to exercise his pretended prerogative in the disposal of benefices to an extent, if not unprecedented, certainly most unjustifiable. The Chapter of York gave the first blow to this growing usurpation by refusing to admit, in obedience to the Pope's mandate, Richard Fleming, Bishop of Lincoln, into the archiepiscopal see.[(back)]
Footnote 64: The people of England gave frequent proofs of their desire to seize every opportunity of reaping glory from conquests in France. When the Duke of Burgundy and the confederated princes, in the struggle to which we have before referred, applied in the first instance for assistance to Henry IV, Laboureur tells us that Henry replied to the latter that he was compelled to accept the offer of the Duke of Burgundy, to avoid the irritation and discontent of his subjects, which would be raised if he neglected so favourable an opportunity of forwarding the national interests.[(back)]
Footnote 65: The "Chronicles of England" record, that, "in the second year of King Henry's reign, he held a council of all the lords of his realm at Westminster; and there he put to them this demand, and prayed and besought them of their goodness, and of their good counsel and good-will, as touching the right and title that he had to Normandy, Gascony, and Guienne—the which the King of France withheld wrongfully and unrightfully—the which his ancestors before him had by true title of conquest and right heritage—the which Normandy, Gascony, and Guienne the good King Edward of Windsor, and his ancestors before him, had holden all their life's time. And his lords gave him counsel to send ambassadors unto the King of France and his council, demanding that he should give up to him his right heritage,—that is to say, Normandy, Gascony, and Guienne,—the which his predecessors had holden before him, or else he would win it with dint of sword in short time with the help of Almighty God."[(back)]
Footnote 66: "Abrégé Historique des Actes Publics d'Angleterre," which now accompanies the foreign edition of Rymer's Fœdera.[(back)]
Footnote 67: Sir H. Nicolas.[(back)]
Footnote 68: The only measures mentioned in the "Fœdera," before April 1415, indicative of Henry's expectation that the negociations with France would not terminate pacifically, are, that on September 26, 1414, the exportation of gunpowder was prohibited; whilst, on the 22nd, Nicholas Merbury, the master, and John Louth, the clerk of the King's works, guns, and other ordnance, had been commanded to provide smiths and workmen, with conveyance for them; that, on the 18th of the following March, Richard Clyderowe and Simon Flete were directed to treat with Holland for ships; and, on the 22nd, the Sheriff of London was ordered to summon knights, esquires, and valets, who held fees, wages, or annuities by grant from the King or his ancestors, to repair forthwith to London, and, on pain of forfeiture, to be there by the 24th of April at the latest.—Sir H. Nicolas.
The Pell Rolls record the payment of "2,000l. to Richard Clitherow and Reginald Curtys, (27th February 1415; ordered by the King himself to go to Zealand and Holland, for the purpose of treating with the Duke of Holland and others to supply ships for the King's present voyage,) therewith to pay divers masters and mariners, who were to accompany him abroad, whither he was going in his own person."[(back)]
Footnote 69: The Author has been, in this portion of his work, chiefly assisted by the authors of the "Abrégé Historique," above referred to.[(back)]
Footnote 70: See vol. i. p. 268.[(back)]
Footnote 71: The Dauphin, eldest son of Charles VI, was born 22nd January 1396, and died before his father, without issue, on the 18th December 1415, in his twentieth year.[(back)]
Footnote 72: The following paragraphs are almost literally extracted from Sir Harris Nicolas's "Battle of Agincourt."[(back)]
Footnote 73: Here, however, the Author begs to state his most unfeigned conviction that, had the Editor of the "Battle of Agincourt" allowed himself more time for reflection and reconsideration of his subject, his love of truth and justice (which evidences itself in various parts of his works) would have induced him to withdraw this triple accusation. The Author sincerely gives that valuable writer full credit for his generous indignation at the idea of any thing savouring of falsehood, as well as for his anxious desire to enlist all our ancient documents, whether published or yet in manuscript, in the cause of historical truth; and he sincerely trusts that not one expression may escape his pen which may give, unnecessarily, the slightest pain to an Editor for the assistance derived from whose labours he will not allow this note to escape him (even at the risk of tautology) without again expressing his obligations.[(back)]
Footnote 74: Sir Harris Nicolas.[(back)]
Footnote 75: That a correspondence took place, there can be no doubt; but very much doubt is thrown upon the accuracy of these documents; they do not appear in such a shape that we can rely upon them as evidence. The Author who gives them says, that he considers them capable of embellishing and adorning his history. The reader is invited to sift this matter thoroughly, if he thinks that the writer of these Memoirs has taken a partial view of the merits of the question; and he is, at the same time, cautioned against regarding the principal work in which these letters are found as the production of M. Laboureur. Into this error he might easily be led by the manner in which the book has been quoted. Laboureur translated the work of an anonymous writer of St. Denis, of whose character nothing is known. The manuscript, in Latin, is said to have been found in the library of M. Le President De Thou. The original author brought the history down to the year 1415, and St. Jean Le Fevre continued it to 1422.[(back)]
Footnote 76: This seems to have been the language of judges, councillors, parliament, poets, and the people at large. The voice of all England seemed to be echoed by Lydgate.
"In honour great; for, by his puissant might,
He conquered all Normandy again
And valiantly, for all the power of France,
And won from them his own inheritance."[(back)]
Footnote 77: The Author does not mean to imply, as the result of his inquiries, that Henry was altogether influenced in his determination to claim the crown of France by the instigations of his people. If, as we believe, he was urged by them to adopt that measure, we believe also that he listened with much readiness to their appeal.[(back)]
Footnote 78: The words of the writer of that history are too clear and forcible to justify us in merely quoting their substance. The very title of his chapter directs our attention to the point. "Henry, King of England, constrained by his subjects to renew his pretension to the crown of France, makes a great movement." "The present year, on the incidents of which I proceed to remark, seems to me not less full of troubles and evils than any of those which preceded it. It commenced by a rumour, sudden but true, and which spread itself everywhere, that the English, impatient of repose, blaming for carelessness and want of heart the repose and inactivity of their King Henry, had compelled him to arouse himself, and to revive by the same means the pretensions of some of his predecessors on the crown of France." "Les Anglais, impatiens de repos à leur ordinance, blâmans de nonchalance et de manque de coeur le repos et l'oisiveté de leur Roi Henri, l'avaient obligé de se reveiller."—M. Laboureur, Life of Charles VI, translated from the Latin of a contemporary ecclesiastic. Whatever be the degree of authority to which this author is entitled, whilst he supplies the letters on which the accusation alone is founded, he as expressly contradicts, by positive assertion, the inference now drawn from those letters.[(back)]
Footnote 79: Among the records of the council, the minutes of one of their meetings held at Westminster in the second year of Henry's reign deserve especial attention. The manuscript is much damaged, but the general meaning is clearly intelligible. The minutes first rehearse that "the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the true and humble lieges and knights of the King's noble realm, were there present, gathered by his royal command." It then proceeds: "Ye, our noble and righteous Lord and King, have in your chivalrous heart and desire determined to stir and labour in your recovery and redintegration of the old rights of your crown, as well as for your righteous heritage ... desiring upon this knightful intent and purpose to have the good and high advice and true meaning of us, your true knights and humble lieges aforesaid. Whereupon, our sovereign Lord, as well our Lords as we have communed by your high commandment in these matters: and known well among us all without [doubt ye are] so Christian a Prince that ye would in so high a matter begin nothing but that were to God's pleasance, and to eschew by all ways the shedding of Christian blood; and that, if algate [at all events] ye should do it, that denying of right and reason were the cause [rather] than wilfulheadedness. Wherefore, our sovereign and gracious high Lord, it thinks, as well our Lords as us in our own hearts, that it were speedful to send such ambassadors to every party as [your] claim requireth, sufficiently instructed for the right and recovery of that is above said. And if ye, our sovereign Lord, at the reverence of God, like of your proper motion, without our counsel given thereto, any mesne [middle] way to offer, that were moderating of your whole title, or of any of your claims beyond the sea; and hereupon your adverse party denying you both right and reason and all reasonable mesne [middle] ways, we trust all in God's grace that all your works in pursuing them should take the better speed and conclusion: and in the mean while that all the works of readiness that may be to your voyage thought or wrought, that it be done by the high advice of you and your noble council; seeing that the surety of your royal estate, the peace of your land, the safe ward of all your [realm] be well and sufficiently provided for above all things. And, these observed, we shall be ready with our bodies and goods, to do you the service that we may to our powers, as far as we ought of right, and as our ancestors have done to your noble progenitors in like case."
This advice appears to have been followed by Henry throughout.
The Minutes of Council, February 2, 1415, after stating the measures proposed for the safeguard of the sea, and the marches of Scotland and Wales, &c. during the King's absence, record this remarkable advice: that Henry would direct his treasurer to bring a clear statement of his debtor and creditor account, the demands of the treasury, and the income; also the debts incurred since the coronation, and the annuities to which he was pledged; "in order that, before the departure of the King, such provision may be made in every part, according to the amount of the charges, that the mind and soul of the King might be set at ease and comfort, that he might depart like a Christian Prince with a good government, and the better accomplish his voyage, to the pleasure of God, and the singular comfort of all his faithful lieges."—Acts of Privy Council, vol. ii. p. 148.[(back)]
Footnote 80: A renewed charge of hypocrisy, brought against Henry by the same pen, will call for a renewed inquiry; and whatever further remarks may be made on that topic, are reserved for the page in which we shall shortly enter upon the investigation of the charges.[(back)]
Footnote 81: Hall says, that "he left for governor behind him his mother-in-law, the Queen." And Goodwin (referring for his authority to Hall and Pat. 3 Hen. V. p. 2. m. 41.) states that he made her regent, and the Duke of Bedford protector. But this seems to have originated in mere mistake.[(back)]
Footnote 82: The particulars of these commissions may be found in Rymer, or in Sir Harris Nicolas's "Battle of Agincourt," to whom the reader is referred for more minute information on the subject.[(back)]
Footnote 83: Abrégé Historique des Actes publics d'Angleterre.[(back)]
Footnote 84: Otterbourne says Henry received the tennis-balls whilst he was keeping his Lent at Kenilworth.[(back)]
Footnote 85: Cotton MS. Claudius, A. viii.[(back)]
Footnote 86: His very last will is not known to be in existence. This testament was made seven years before his death, and was probably soon cancelled.[(back)]
Footnote 87: Among the saints to whose custody he bequeaths his soul, his favourite and patron, John of Bridlington, finds a place. Among the legacies connected with his family history, we meet with a bequest, to the "Bishop of Durham, of the Missal and Portophore which he had received as a present from his dear grandmother Joan, Countess of Hereford." To the same countess a gold cyphus,—a proof that in 1415 his maternal grandmother was still alive. It may be worth observing that, in this will, there is no legacy to the Queen, his father's widow. He had, however, on the 30th June preceding, "granted of especial grace to his dearest mother, Joanna, Queen of England, licence to live, during his absence, in his castles of Windsor, Wallingford, Berkhamstead, and Hertford."[(back)]
Footnote 88: In a few pages further, the same writer thinks himself justified in adding this note on a letter of Henry to Charles, "A translation of this hypocritical letter is given in the Appendix."[(back)]
Footnote 89: See Cott. MS. Julius, E. iv. f. 115.[(back)]
Footnote 90: The Emperor, in the league which he made with Henry, records his resolution to assist him in the recovery of his just rights.[(back)]
Footnote 91: Here we cannot but recal the words with which Henry afterwards, it is said, addressed the Cardinal des Ursins, who was sent by the Pope to mediate between him and Charles just before he laid siege to Rouen. "See you not that God hath brought me here as it were by the hand? There is no longer a King in France. I have a legal right over that realm. All is in confusion there; and no one dreams of opposing me. Can I have a more sensible proof that God, who disposes of crowns, has decreed that I should place on my head the crown of France?" And in his mandate to the Archbishop of Canterbury to array the clergy against the enemies of the church and of the faith, should any appear in his absence, he says, "We are now going to recover our inheritance and the rights of our crown, now a long time, as is evident to all, unjustly kept from us."—Sloane, p. 52.[(back)]
Footnote 92: The Dedication of the Ypodigma Neustriæ claims for itself a place in this work; and to no part can it be more appropriately appended than to this, in which modern charges strongly contrasted with his view are examined. The following is a literal translation of the introduction to this work of Walsingham:—"To the most noble and illustrious King of the French and English, Henry, conqueror of Normandy, most serene Prince of Wales, Lord of Ireland and Aquitain, by God's grace always and everywhere victor, the humblest of his servants who pray for him, Brother Thomas of Walsingham, monk of the monastery of St. Alban, who was first of the English martyrs, with lowly recommendation wisheth health in Him who giveth health to Kings. Whilst I reflected, among the contemplative studies of the cloister, with how great talents of virtue, and titles of victory, God Almighty hath exalted,—with what gifts of especial grace He hath abundantly filled you,—so that even your enemies proclaim your wisdom, admire and everywhere extol your discretion, and celebrate your justice by the testimony of their praise, I confess that I have been filled with pleasure and inward joy, more gratifying far than the choicest dainties. But, in the midst of this, there arises in my mind a kind of cloud, which throws a shade on the glad thought of my heart, whilst I am compelled to fear the general habits of a nation which very often has trifled with the publicly plighted vows and their oath solemnly pledged. And whilst I meditate on past days,—recalling the frauds, crimes, factions, and enormities committed by your enemies,—my soul is made anxious, and my heart is disquieted within me, and my life has well-nigh failed from grief, knowing that to-morrow base deeds may be done as well as yesterday. And fearing lest by any means your innocence may be circumvented, I revolved in my mind what would best minister to your safety in the midst of so many dangers. At length it occurred to me to write something to your Highness (whom my soul cordially loves) by which you may be made more safe at once and more cautious. Love conquers all things; ah! it has wrought in me not to fear, though in an uncultivated and unpolished style, to offer to so wise and glorious a Prince what I reflected upon in my mind, and to open to your serene Highness as I best may what I have conceived in my heart for your royal safety. Hence it is that I have endeavoured to draw up a brief table of events from the commencement of the conquest of Neustria [Normandy] by the Normans down to their conquest of England; which I have carried on to the time when your Majesty, with power and victory, compelled the same Normandy, alienated against right and justice from your ancestors for about two hundred and twenty years, to come under your yoke, and royally to be governed according to your desire. Wherefore, my redoubted Lord and King, in this little work I offer to your inspection past deeds, various wars, mutual covenants of peace; leagues, though confirmed by an oath, violated; the promises, pledges, offerings, treacherously made to your predecessors; the deceit and hypocrisy of the enemy; and whatever the antagonist could with exquisite craftiness invent, by which they might entrap your noble spirit. Wherefore, since it becomes no one to possess knowledge more than a Prince, whose learning may be most beneficial to his subjects,—I, a poor and humble votary, offer (if it be your will) this volume to the inspection of your Highness; giving it the name of Ypodigma Neustriæ, because it especially portrays the events and falls of that country from the time of Rollo the first Duke down to the sixth year of your happy reign, which may God Almighty of his great mercy crown with peace, and preserve in all prosperity! Amen."[(back)]
Footnote 93: But though a person were a volunteer, yet if, after "making his muster," he failed in his duty, the punishment was both summary and severe. In a subsequent expedition of Henry, Hugh Annesley had made his muster in the company of Lord Grey of Codnor, and had received the King's pay from him, but tarried nevertheless in England. He was summoned before the council, and confessed his delinquency; his person was forthwith committed to the Fleet, and his estates seized into the King's hands.[(back)]
Footnote 94: The song will be found in a note on our account of the battle of Agincourt.[(back)]
Footnote 95: Should it occur to any one, that if in this case we allow the poet to have weight when he speaks of what reflects honour on Henry's name, we ought to assign the same credit to Shakspeare; when he tells us of madcap frolics and precocious dissipation, it must be remembered, that on testing the accuracy of Shakspeare by an appeal to history, we established a striking discrepancy between them; and that Shakspeare lived more than a century after the death of Henry; whereas we are led to regard this song of Agincourt as contemporary with the events which it celebrates; and its eulogy harmonizes in perfect accordance with what history might lead us to expect.[(back)]
Footnote 96: Query, Are these counties especially mentioned as being more peculiarly Henry's own? He was Duke of Lancaster, and Earl of Chester and Derby.[(back)]
Footnote 97: Mr. James, in his Naval History of Great Britain, does not seem to have carried back his researches beyond the reign of Henry VIII, to whom he ascribes "the honour of having by his own prerogative, and at his sole expense, settled the constitution of the present royal navy." Much undoubtedly does the English navy owe to that monarch; but he would be more justly regarded as its restorer and especial benefactor, than its founder.[(back)]
Footnote 98: See Hardy's Introduction to the Close Rolls, and Lord Lyttelton's History of Henry II.[(back)]
Footnote 99: "Par long temps a lour grantz custages et despenses." [(back)]
Footnote 100: The Pell Rolls record the payment of a pension which bears testimony to the interest taken by Henry in his infant navy, and to the kindness with which he rewarded those who had faithfully served him. The pension is stated to have been given "to John Hoggekyns, master-carpenter, of special grace, because by long working at the ships his body was much shaken and worsted."[(back)]
Footnote 101: Ellis, Second Series, Letter XXI.[(back)]
Footnote 102: When he sailed from Southampton in his first expedition to France, he went on board his own good ship, the Trinity:
"But the grandest ship of all that went,
Was that in which our good King sailed." Old Ballad.[(back)]
Footnote 103: Pell Rolls, 16 July 1418.[(back)]
Footnote 104: Among the preparations for bringing Henry's corpse with all the solemn pomp which an admiring, grateful, and mourning nation could provide, all ships and vessels on the east coast were impressed, and sent to Calais.—Pell Rolls, Sept. 26, 1422.[(back)]
Footnote 105: To suppose that this conspiracy could have originated, as it has been lately (Turner's History) suggested, in "the resisting spirit which Henry's religious persecutions occasioned, and which led some to wish for another sovereign," is altogether gratuitous, and contrary to fact. He was not carrying on religious persecution, and no resisting spirit on that ground had manifested itself at all.[(back)]
Footnote 106: Richard of Coningsburg, second son of Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, fifth son of Edward III, was high in favour with Henry V, who created him Earl of Cambridge in the second year of his reign. He married Ann, daughter of Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, whose son Richard (aged fourteen in the third year of Henry V,) was heir to Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March. Leland says, that the "main design of the Earl of Cambridge's conspiracy was to raise Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, to the throne, as heir to Lionel, Duke of Clarence; and then, in case that Earl had no child, the right would come to the Earl of Cambridge's wife, (sister to the same Edmund,) and to her issue, as it afterwards did; and this is most likely to be true, whatever hath been otherwise reported."—Lel. Coll. i. 701.[(back)]
Footnote 107: To one of these, Robert Hull, the payment of one hundred marks was ordered to be made, February 7, 1418, for lately holding his sessions in South Wales; and also for his trouble and expenses in delivering the gaol at Southampton of Richard Earl of Cambridge, Henry Lord Scrope, and Thomas Grey, Knight, there for treason adjudged and put to death.[(back)]
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.[(back)]
Footnote 109: Cotton MS. Claudius A. viii. 2.[(back)]
Footnote 110: His pardon is dated 8th August.[(back)]
Footnote 111: Some of the best antiquaries of the present day are disposed to pronounce, that a pardon was never granted, unless there had existed some cause of suspicion or offence,—something, in short, which might have involved in trouble the individual for whom the pardon was obtained.[(back)]
Footnote 112: (Ellis, Second Series, vol. i. p. 44.) "This conspiracy was the first spark of the flame which in the course of time consumed the two houses of Lancaster and York. Richard Earl of Cambridge was the father of Richard Duke of York, and the grandfather of King Edward IV."[(back)]
Footnote 113: The extraordinary prevalence of an opinion that Richard was still alive and in Scotland, has already been noticed. The Chronicle of England informs us of some particulars relative to the means by which the reports concerning him were propagated, and the prompt, severe, and decisive measures adopted by the King and his supporters for suppressing them. "And at this time (5 Henry IV.) Serle, yeoman of King Richard, came into England out of Scotland, and told to divers people that King Richard was alive in Scotland, and so much people believed in his words. Wherefore a great part of the people of the realm were in great error and grudging against the King, through information of lies and false leasing that this Serle had made. But at the last he was taken in the North country, and by law was judged to be drawn through every city and good burgh town in England, and was afterwards hanged at Tyburn and quartered." It is also certain that many members of the monastic orders were executed for spreading similar reports. See Nichols' Leicester, vol. i. p. 368.[(back)]
Footnote 114: It was shortly before he left London on this expedition that Henry made that grant (to which reference was made in the early part of our first volume) of 20l. per annum on Joan Waring, his nurse.—Rol. Pat. 3 Henry V. m. 13. It is dated June 5th.[(back)]
Footnote 115: At the place also where he encamped, he solemnly celebrated the festival of the Assumption [so called] of the Virgin Mary, a feast observed, in the countries on the Continent in communion with Rome, with great rejoicings and religious ceremonies, in the present day.[(back)]
Footnote 116: See Chronicler A, and St. Remy, p. 82, quoted in Nicolas' Agincourt.[(back)]
Footnote 117: Sloane MS. 1776.[(back)]
Footnote 118: A very curious turn has been given inadvertently to this circumstance by the translation of the ecclesiastic's sentence, and the comment upon it, now found in the Appendix to the "Battle of Agincourt." "Rege præsente, pedes ejus tergente post extremam unctionem propriis manibus,"—words which can only be translated so as to represent the King, "after extreme unction, wiping the feet" of the Bishop,—the Editor of that work, by the careless blunder of an amanuensis, or some unaccountable accident, is made to render by the strange sentence, "covering his feet with extreme unction;" and he is then led, as a comment upon that text, to observe, that "the Bishop received from Henry's own hand the last offices of religion." Extreme unction, the last of the seven sacraments of the see of Rome, was administered doubtless by an attendant priest.[(back)]
Footnote 119: Cotton MS. Cleopatra, C. iv. f. 24.[(back)]
Footnote 120: Monstrelet informs us that the treasure found by Henry at Harfleur was immense. A letter to Henry from two of his officers, "counters of your receipt," specifies that they were then in possession for the King of treasure to this amount: of coined gold, 30,000l.; in silver coined, 1,000,000l.; and in wedges of silver, drawing by estimation to half a ton weight; at the same time desiring to receive instructions as to the mode of conveying it to Rouen. This letter, dated 19th of May, must belong to the year 1419, in the January of which Rouen was taken.—Ellis's Letters, xxvi.[(back)]
Footnote 121: Abrégé Historique.[(back)]
Footnote 122: Ibid. p. 114.[(back)]
Footnote 123: There is a doubt whether it is the xvi. or the xxvi.—the first x in the manuscript having, perhaps, been obliterated by the fire which damaged it.—Fœd. vol. ix. 313.[(back)]
Footnote 124: On the 4th of October fishermen in different parts were ordered to go with all speed, taking their tackle with them, to Harfleur, to fish for the support of the King and his army.[(back)]
Footnote 125: This is a very curious fact, not generally known. The battle of Agincourt, humanly speaking, would not have been fought, had it not been for the falsehood of a Frenchman.[(back)]
Footnote 126: Shakspeare makes use of this anecdote, and fixes the robbery on Bardolph.[(back)]
Footnote 127: Sir William Bardolf, Lieutenant of Calais, hearing of the King's danger, sent part of his garrison to his assistance; but that little body, consisting of about three hundred men-at-arms, were either destroyed or taken prisoners by the men of Picardy.[(back)]
Footnote 128: After quitting Bonnieres, Henry passed unawares beyond the place intended by his officers for his quarters; but, instead of returning, he replied that, being in his war-coat, he could not return without displeasing God. He therefore ordered his advanced guard to take a more distant position, and himself occupied the spot which had been intended for them. This anecdote is recorded as an instance of the care with which Henry avoided whatever might appear of ill omen. Probably he only followed the usual maxims of an army in march; that maxim originating, it may be, in superstition.[(back)]
Footnote 129: And yet there were so many priests present (with the baggage) during the battle, that the chaplain calls them the clerical army, whose weapons were prayers and intercessions, "Nos qui ascripti sumus clericali militiæ."[(back)]
Footnote 130: In the "History of Agincourt," the translator of the Chaplain's Memoir (Sloane 1776) has given a far more faint representation than the original will warrant of the sufferings to which the English troops were exposed through this night of present fatigue and discomfort, and of anxious preparation for so tremendous a struggle as awaited them on the morrow. The ecclesiastic, who was himself among the sufferers, and who has furnished a very graphic description of the whole affair, says, "The King turned aside to a small village, where we had houses, but very few indeed, and gardens and orchards to rest in." "Ubi habuimus domos sed paucissimas, hortosque et pomaria pro requiescione nostra." This the translator renders, "Where we had houses to rest in, but very scanty gardens and orchards." The scanty supply was not of gardens and orchards, but of houses to rest in. Consequently, except such as those very few houses could accommodate, the English soldiers were all compelled to bivouac, exposed to the drenching rains which fell through the night. Of orchards and gardens there was doubtless an abundant supply, but they afforded little shelter from the weather, and no means to the troops of taking refreshing rest.[(back)]
Footnote 131: St. Remy.[(back)]
Footnote 132: The statement that Henry offered to repair all the injury he had done to France, is deservedly considered unworthy of credit.[(back)]
Footnote 133: The present reading in Monstrelet, who details these circumstances with much life and clearness, reports the word used by the English warrior to have been "Nestroque," which has been, with much probability, considered a corruption of "Now strike!" Whether the word is now read as the Author wrote it, is very questionable; many French words in Monstrelet have been mistaken and corrupted by his copyists.[(back)]
Footnote 134: It must be remembered that the arrival of fresh reinforcements was by no means an improbable occurrence. Anthony, Duke of Brabant, had only reached the field with his men just before the tide of battle turned finally and fatally against the French; nor could Henry possibly know what forces were yet hastening on to dispute with him for the victory afresh.[(back)]
Footnote 135: One author alone, Jean Le Fevre, states that some of the English, who had taken the prisoners of greatest note and wealth, hesitated to execute the order, from an unwillingness to lose their ransom; and that two hundred archers were commissioned to perform the dreadful office in their stead.[(back)]
Footnote 136: The passage of M. Petitot, in his History, published in the year 1825, vol. vi. p. 322, which contains this accusation, is as follows: "The Duke of Alençon fought hand to hand with the King of England, and fell gloriously. Towards the end of the struggle, some hundreds of peasants of Picardy, commanded by two gentlemen of the country, believing that the English were vanquished, came to plunder their camp. Henry, fancying that he was about to be attacked by a reinforcement, whose march had been concealed from him, ordered the massacre of the prisoners, and only excepted the princes and generals. This barbarous order was put into execution, and tarnished his victory."[(back)]
Footnote 137: In the printed copies of Monstrelet the reading is "de la hart," a mistake, it is presumed, for mort. Many such errors occur in his work.[(back)]
Footnote 138: The Author is compelled to express his regret that some of our own modern writers (among others Goldsmith and Mackintosh) have been led to take a different estimate of the character of this transaction. Whether their judgments were formed after a careful weighing of the several accounts furnished by contemporary authors and eye-witnesses of the conflict, or whether they allowed their feelings of philanthropy, and their abhorrence of cruelty, to dictate their sentence in this case, the Author cannot refer to their works without appealing from them to the facts as they stand in those undisputed records which were accessible alike to them and to ourselves. On this subject Rapin, Carte, Holinshed, Nicolas, with others, may be consulted.[(back)]
Footnote 139: It is quite impossible to reconcile the different accounts of the loss on the part of the English. Walsingham speaks of thirty only having fallen; De Fenin reports them to have been four or five hundred; whilst Monstrelet raises the number to sixteen hundred.
On the part of the French, Le Fevre says, that from a hundred to six score princes fell, and about seven or eight thousand of noble blood. In the Annales Ecclesiastici of Baronius, continued by Raynaldus, the statement of Theodoric Niemius is quoted, who says (unquestionably without authority) that Henry advanced from Harfleur with sixty thousand men, besides two thousand in attendance on the carriages. He affirms that the French had one hundred thousand men; among whom were one thousand Italians, commanded by Buligard, who had long governed Genoa in favour of the French. He says, moreover, that more than five thousand five hundred French nobles were slain; and fifteen hundred taken prisoners, and carried to England.[(back)]
Footnote 140: Hume, with his usual inaccuracy, asserts that the French army at Agincourt was headed as well by the Dauphin, as by all the other princes of the blood. The Dauphin wished to assist his countrymen, when they resolved to intercept the invaders; but, as we are expressly told by Le Fevre (c. 59), was not suffered to join the rendezvous. This is not the only mistake into which Hume has fallen in his account of this battle. In one paragraph he reports Henry to have been under the necessity of marching by land from Harfleur to Calais, in order to reach a place of safety from which he might transport his soldiers back to England; in another paragraph he represents him (with the same temerity which had been evinced by his predecessors before the battles of Poictiers and of Cressy) to have ventured without any object of moment, and merely for the sake of plunder, so far into the enemy's country as to leave himself no retreat. He tells us, moreover, that "Henry was master of fourteen thousand prisoners," whom he afterwards says that the King "carried with him to Paris, thence to England." Hume took this also without inquiry. Walsingham says, "Henry took (as they say—ut ferunt,—as though even that estimate required to be supported by common report,) seven hundred prisoners;" and of his prisoners, how many soever they were, he transported (as Des Ursins tells us) only the most considerable to England, dismissing the rest under promise to bring their ransom to him in the field of Lendi, on the feast of St. John in the summer, and, if he were not there, they should be discharged of the debt.[(back)]
Footnote 141: Of this gallant Welshman, the following account is taken from the Appendix of the "Battle of Agincourt." "Dr. Meyrick (now Sir Samuel) says, Davydd Gam, i.e. Squint-eyed David, was a native of Brecknockshire, and, holding his land of the honour of Hereford, was a strenuous supporter of the Lancastrian interests. He was the son of Llewellyn, descended from Einion Sais, who possessed a handsome property in the parishes of Garthbrengy and Llanddeu. In consequence of an affray in the high street of Brecknock, in which he unfortunately killed his kinsman, he was compelled to fly into England to avoid a threatened prosecution, and became the implacable enemy of Owain Glyndowr, whom he attempted to assassinate. Gam, it may be supposed, was his nick-name, as he called himself David Llewellyn; and there are good grounds for supposing that Shakspeare has caricatured him in Captain Fluellin. His descendants, however, conceiving that his prowess more than redeemed his natural defect, took the name of Game. Sir Walter Raleigh has an eulogium upon his bravery and exploits on the field of Agincourt, in which he compares him to Hannibal. He was knighted on the field with his two companions in glory and death, Sir Roger Vaughan, of Bedwardine in Herefordshire, and Sir Walter, or rather Watkin Llwyd, of the lordship of Brecknock. Sir Roger had married Gwladis, the daughter of Sir David Gamme, who survived him, and became the wife of another hero of Agincourt, Sir William Thomas of Raglan; and Sir Watkin was by his marriage related to Sir Roger."
The Author gives this passage as he finds it, without having attempted to verify the statement as to David Gamme's descent or history. Certainly the testimony which Sir Samuel Meyrick makes Sir Walter Raleigh bear to his "bravery and exploits on the field of Agincourt," cannot be fairly extracted from Sir Walter's own words: "But if Hannibal himself had been sent forth by Mago to view the Romans, he could not have returned with a more gallant report in his mouth than Captain Gamme made unto King Henry the Fifth, saying, 'That of the Frenchmen there were enow to be killed, enow to be taken prisoners, and enow to run away!'" We have no doubt of Captain Gamme's gallant bearing at Agincourt; but Raleigh refers to nothing beyond his report of the numbers of the enemy.—Raleigh, book v. sect. 8.[(back)]
Footnote 142: The fact is recorded in the Patent Rolls, P. 2, 3 Hen. V.[(back)]
Footnote 143: The spot from which the battle of Agincourt took its name has been confounded with a place named Azincourt, near the town of Bouchain in French Flanders. On the position of the real field of battle, and its present condition, the Author has much satisfaction in making the following extract from a paper read before the Royal Society of Literature, April 4, 1827, by John Gordon Smith, M.D. who had visited and examined the spot under circumstances of peculiar interest:
"Perhaps I may be pardoned for relating that I had the honour to receive a Waterloo medal on the field of Azincour, or rather, that I had the fortune to belong to one of the British regiments that signalized themselves in the campaign of 1815, and which afterwards was invested with the above-mentioned mark of their sovereign's approbation on the very spot which, nearly four hundred years before, was the scene of the scarcely less glorious triumph of Harry the Fifth of England. In 1816 a portion of the British army was cantoned in the immediate neighbourhood of this celebrated field, and the corps in which I then served made use of it during several months as their ordinary drill-ground.... We amused ourselves with reconnoitring excursions, comparing the actual state of the localities with authentic accounts of the transactions of 1415. The changes that have taken place have been singularly few, and an attentive explorer would be able to trace with considerable accuracy the greater part of the route pursued by the English army in their retreat out of Normandy towards Calais. The field of Azincour remains sufficiently in statu quo to render every account of the battle perfectly intelligible; nor are those wanting near the spot, whose traditionary information enables them to heighten the interest with oral description, accompanied by a sort of ocular demonstration.
"Those who travel to Paris by way of St. Omer and Abbeville, pass over the field of the battle, which skirts the high road to the left, about sixteen miles beyond St. Omer; two on the Paris side of a considerable village or bourg named Fruges; about eight north of the fortified town of Hesdin; and thirty from Abbeville. All accounts of the battle mention the hamlet of Ruisseauville, through which very place the high road to Paris now passes.
"Azincour is a commune or parish consisting of a most uninteresting collection of farmers' residences and cottages, once however distinguished by a castle, of which nothing now remains but the foundation. The scene of the contest lies between this commune and the adjoining one of Tramecour, in a wood belonging to which latter the King concealed those archers whose prowess and vigour contributed so eminently to the glorious result. Part of the wood still remains; though, if I remember rightly, at the time of our visit, the corner into which the bowmen were thrown had been materially thinned, if, indeed, the original timber had not been entirely cut down, and its place been scantily supplied by brush or underwood. Some of the trees, however, in the wood of Tramecour were very old in 1816.
"The road above mentioned is the great post-road; the old road, now degenerated into a mere cart-track, from Abbeville to the once celebrated city of Therouanne, passes over the scene of action, and must have been that by which the French army reached the ground before the English, who had been compelled to make a great circuit."—Vol. i. part ii. p. 57.[(back)]
Footnote 144: Before his departure from Calais, a dispute arose between him and two noblemen, who had been taken prisoners at Harfleur, and set at liberty on condition of surrendering themselves at Calais. The merits of the case cannot now be known. The one, De Gaucourt, brought an action against the representatives of the other, after his death, and after the death of Henry, to recover what he paid for that other's [D'Estouteville's] ransom. To give a colouring to his case, he charges Henry with refusing to confirm the stipulations made by his representatives at Harfleur, and with other harsh conduct. But an ex parte statement at that time, and under those circumstances, can form no ground of suspicion against a third party.[(back)]
Footnote 145: See "Battle of Agincourt."[(back)]
Footnote 146: Various entries occur in the Pell Rolls of money paid for masses for the souls of those who fell in these wars. Among the rest are specified (26th September 1418) Lord Grey of Codnor and Sir John Blount. Two thousand masses were ordered for the souls of Lord Talbot and another. See extracts in English, translated lately, from the Pell Rolls, by Mr. F. Devon. This work, whilst it acquaints the student with the sort of information and evidence which the Pell Rolls may supply, will in other respects assist him in his inquiries; for many valuable and interesting facts are presented to him in the volume: but, to ascertain what those documents really do contain, it is necessary (as in all other cases) to apply at the fountain-head.[(back)]
Footnote 147: Fœd. viii. 236.[(back)]
Footnote 148: The second line of this song is variously read. Probably the original words are lost. The reading in the text is conjectural.[(back)]
Footnote 149: Dr. Burney has here fallen into a most extraordinary mistake. In the very page to which he refers, Elmham, in his turgid manner, assures us that at Henry's coronation the tumultuous clang of so many trumpets made the heavens resound with the roar of thunder. He then describes the sweet strings of the harps soothing the souls of the guests by their soft melody; and the united music of other instruments also, by their dulcet sounds, in which no discord interrupted the harmony, inviting the royal banqueters to full enjoyment of the festival.[(back)]
Footnote 150: Thomas de Elmham, Vit. et Gest. Hen. V. edit. Hearne, Oxon. 1727, cap. xii. p. 23.[(back)]
Footnote 151: Burney's History of Music, vol. ii. p. 382.[(back)]
Footnote 152: For dread neither of least nor of greatest.[(back)]
Footnote 153: Mr. Turner.[(back)]
Footnote 154: Another view might be taken of the cause of this delay on the part of Henry. Perhaps he was acting prudently by allowing time for his enemies to weaken each other, and to exhaust their resources by the insatiable demands of civil warfare. Meanwhile, he was not himself idle.[(back)]
Footnote 155: Lord Talbot was to be associated with the Captain of Calais to receive the Emperor in that city. At Dover, the Duke of Gloucester, with the Lords Salisbury, Furnival, and Haryngton, were to welcome him to the English shores; at Rochester, the Constable and Marshal of England, the Earl of Oxford, and others; at Dartford, the Duke of Clarence, with the Earls of March and Huntingdon, Lord Grey of Ruthing, Lord Abergavenny, and others, were to meet him. At Blackheath, the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and good people of London were to await his arrival; whilst Henry himself was to receive Sigismund between Deptford and Southwark, at a place called St. Thomas Watering.—"Privy Council," April 1416, Pour la venue de l'Empereur.[(back)]
Footnote 156: The Archbishop of Canterbury commanded all his suffragans to take especial care that prayers be offered in all congregations for the good estate of Sigismund.—Rymer's Fœd. 1416.[(back)]
Footnote 157: Henry was at Smalhithe in Kent (August 22), superintending the building of some ships, when news of this success reached him. He hastened to join the Emperor, who was at Canterbury, and both went to the cathedral together to return thanks for the victory. This happened a week subsequently to their signing of the league of amity mentioned below.[(back)]
Footnote 158: Rymer, H. V. An. iv.[(back)]
Footnote 159: The various expedients to which both Henry and his father were driven to raise supplies in any way commensurate with their wants, have repeatedly reminded the Author of the similar means to which their unhappy successor Charles, in his days of far more urgent need and necessity, had recourse. The reader may perhaps be interested by the following document. It is a copy of the letter in which Charles applies to the Provost and Fellows of Oriel College for a loan of their plate. The King's letter is dated January 6th, 1642; and the society, assembled in the chapel on the 8th, vote unanimously to put their silver and gilt vessels at the disposal of their sovereign, scarcely retaining one single piece of plate. (Allocata sunt ad usum serenissimi vasa argentea et deaurata pæne ad unum omnia.) The one retained is said to have been the chalice for the holy communion.
(Extracted from the Register of Oriel College.)
"To our trusty and well-beloved the Provost and Fellowes of Oriel Colledge, in our University of Oxon: Charles R.
"Trusty and well-beloved, wee greete you well. Wee are so well satisfied with your readiness and affection to our service, that wee cannot doubt but you will take all occasions to expresse the same; and as wee are ready to sell or engage any of our land, so have wee melted downe our plate for the paiment of our army, raised for our defence, and the preservation of our kingdome. And having received severall quantityes of plate from divers of our loving subjects, we have removed our mint hither to our citty of Oxford, for the coyning thereof.
"And we do hereby desire you that you will lend unto us all such plate, of what kind soever, which belongs to your colledge; promising you to see the same iustly repaid unto you after the rate of 5 s. the ounce for white, and 5 s. 6 d. for guilt plate, as soon as God shall enable us: for assure yourselves wee shall never let persons of whom wee have so great a care suffer for their affection to us, but shall take speciall order for the repaiment of what you have already lent us, according to our promise, and also of this you now lend in plate; well knowing it to bee the goods of youre colledge that you ought not to alien, though no man will doubt but in such a case you may lawfully lend to assist youre King in such visible necessity. And wee have entrusted our trusty and well-beloved Sir William Parkhurst, Knt. and Thomas Bushee, Esq. officers of our mint, or either of them, to receive the said plate from you; who, uppon weighing thereof, shall give you a receipt under theire or one of their hands for the same.
"And wee assure our selfe of your willingness to gratify us herein; since, beside the more publiche considerations, you cannot but know how much your selves are concerned in our sufferings. And wee shall ever remember this particular service to your advantage.
"Given at our Court at Oxford, the 6 day of January 1642."[(back)]
Footnote 160: In the letter from Constance, dated the preceding February, Henry was informed that the French had sent a large sum to Genoa to wage [hire] ships to fight with England.[(back)]
Footnote 161: The Muster Roll of this expedition is preserved in the Chapter-house, Westminster, and is pronounced to be one of the most interesting records of military history now extant.—See Preface to the Norman Rolls, by T.D. Hardy, Esq.[(back)]
Footnote 162: A long list of the clergy, and of the churches then taken by Henry under his protection, is preserved in the Norman Rolls.—Hardy's edition, p. 331.[(back)]
Footnote 163: These letters did not come within the Author's knowledge before he had written these brief memoirs of the last years of Henry. It is very satisfactory to find them all confirmatory of his previous views. He has taken especial care to make every, the slightest, correction in his narrative, suggested by authorities from which there is no appeal.[(back)]
Footnote 164: Norman Rolls, preserved in the Tower, edited by T.D. Hardy, Esq.[(back)]
Footnote 165: Henry's own letter to the Mayor and Aldermen of London (Liber F. fol. 200), written on the 5th of September, the day after the surrender of Caen, represents the loss on the part of the English to have been very trifling. "On St. Cuthbert's day, God, of his high grace, sent unto our hands our town of Caen by assault, and with right little death of our people, whereof we thank our Saviour as lowly as we can; praying that ye do the same, and as devoutly as ye can. Certifying you also that we and our host be in good prosperity and health, thanked be God of his mercy! who have you in his holy keeping."[(back)]
Footnote 166: This letter of the King's is only a fragment, without date: who were the persons addressed does not appear; probably he wrote it to his council in 1417 or 1418. Sir Henry Ellis opens his second series of Original Letters with this of Henry V. It is found in MS. Cotton. Vesp. F. iii. fol. 5.[(back)]
Footnote 167: Probably the mammet, or mawmet, [puppet,] (a corruption, they say, of Mahomet,) of Scotland, was the pretended Richard, the deposed King, whom even now many believed to be still alive there.[(back)]
Footnote 168: The Duke of Exeter was then governor of Harfleur, but was in England recruiting soldiers to reinforce the King's army in Normandy.[(back)]
Footnote 169: It is curious to observe, that the Duke of Bedford is reported to have been engaged at his devotions at Bridlington in Yorkshire; and that, on hearing of the invasion, he threw away his beads, and marched with all the forces he could muster to meet the Scots. John of Bridlington seems to have been in an especial manner the patron saint of Henry IV.'s family.[(back)]
Footnote 170: On the 12th of February 1418, an order is issued to press horses, carts, and other means of conveyance, to carry the jewels, ornaments, and other furniture of the King's chapel to Southampton.[(back)]
Footnote 171: Henry's own words, in a letter, 21 July 1418, sent from Pont de Larche to the Mayor of London, are: "Since our last departing from Caen, we came before our town of Louviers, and won it by siege; to which place came to us the Cardinal of Ursin from our holy father the Pope, for to treat for the good of peace betwixt both realms, and is gone again to Paris to diligence there in this same matter; but what end it shall draw to we wot not as yet." In this letter he informs us that the attack on Pont de Larche was on the 4th of July; and that, though the enemy had "assembled in great power to resist us, yet God of his mercy showed so for us and for our right, that it was withouten the death of any man's person of ours." He adds that he had just heard of the decidedly hostile intentions of the Duke of Burgundy towards him; so "we hold him our full enemy. He is now at Paris." The King then tells them that he needs not to refer to the death of the Earl of Armagnac, and the slaughter that hath been at Paris; for he was assured that they had full knowledge thereof. He alludes to the massacre of the Armagnac faction by the partisans of the Duke of Burgundy, June 12, 1418. Two thousand persons were murdered in a very brief space of time. The mob dragged the bodies of the Constable and Chancellor through the streets (as Monstrelet tells us) for two or three days.[(back)]
Footnote 172: Henry's army had received various reinforcements. One accession is recorded by an item in the Pell Rolls, of rather an interesting character, showing that both the Irish and the ecclesiastics of Ireland gave him good and acceptable proof of the interest they took in his success. It is the payment of 19l. 17s. on the 1st of July 1418, "to masters and mariners of Bristol for embarking the Prior of Kilmaynham with two hundred horsemen and three hundred foot-soldiers from Waterford in Ireland, to go to the King in France." An entry also occurs in the following October: "To the Prior of Kilmaynham coming from Ireland to Southampton, with a good company of men, to proceed to Normandy to serve the King in the wars, 100l." An order from the King to his Chancellor, the Bishop of Durham, to expedite ships from Bristol for the transport of these men from Waterford to France, is preserved among the miscellaneous records in the Tower. It is dated June 3rd, at Ber-nay; to which a postscript was added on the next day, urging the utmost expedition, as the troops were tarrying only for the means of sailing.—See Bentley's Excerpta Historica, p. 388.[(back)]
Footnote 173: One Glomyng was charged with having said, "What doth the King of England at siege before Rouen? An I were there with three thousand men, I would break his siege and make them of Rouen dock his tail." He said, moreover, that "he were not able to abide there, were it [not] that the Duke of Burgundy kept his enemies from him."—Donat. MS. 4601.[(back)]
Footnote 174: In a very long minute of the Privy Council, the reasons assigned by Henry for wishing to negociate an alliance with the Dauphin are given at length; and ambassadors were appointed to treat with that prince on the 26th of October 1418.—Fœd. ix. p. 626.[(back)]
Footnote 175: The Author, assisted by his friends, has made diligent inquiry, both in England and on the Continent, for a portrait of Katharine, with a copy of which he was desirous of enriching this volume; but his inquiries have ended in an assurance that no portrait of her is in existence.[(back)]
Footnote 176: Large cargoes of provisions of every kind were forwarded from England; among others, "stock fish and salmon" are enumerated in the Pell Rolls, 3rd July 1419.[(back)]
Footnote 177: Monstrelet says, that when Henry made his entry into Rouen, he was followed by a page mounted on a black horse, bearing a lance, at the end of which near the point was fastened a fox's brush by way of streamer, which afforded great matter of remark. Elmham and Stowe give the explanation of this. In 1414, he kept his Lent in the castle of Kenilworth, and caused an arbour to be planted there in the marsh for his pleasure, among the thorns and bushes, where a fox before had harboured; which fox he killed, being a thing then thought to prognosticate that he should expel the crafty deceit of the French King.—See Ellis, Original Letters.[(back)]
Footnote 178: See Sir H. Ellis, Orig. Let. xix.[(back)]
Footnote 179: Moryson, in his Travels, book iv. c. 3, gives a most extraordinary and disgusting account of the habits of the Irish. The story of a Bohemian Baron, who visited Morane, one of the native princes, represents the Irish from the highest to the lowest to have continued in the most degraded state of barbarism. In their food, their dwellings, their clothing, (those who had any to wear,) and their general habits, if the accounts in Moryson are not exaggerated, the Irish were not removed many degrees from the wildest savages on earth.[(back)]
Footnote 180: It is remarkable, that among the many names affixed to this memorial, not one savours of Irish extraction. They all betray their Saxon or (some) their Norman origin.[(back)]
Footnote 181: This John Talbot, called by courtesy Lord Talbot by right of his wife, was appointed Lieutenant in Ireland in the first year of Henry's reign. He had been employed in the wars of Wales, and was the person against whom the Mayor of Shrewsbury shut the gates. He was conspicuous also as a warrior in the reign of Henry IV.[(back)]
Footnote 182: Lord Furnival had petitioned in the spring of the preceding year, 1416, for the payment of one thousand marks disallowed by the then late treasurer, the Earl of Arundel. Henry, who presided himself in council, gave his decision that the question should be submitted to the Barons of the Exchequer, who, after examining the indenture made between the King and the said lord, should ordain what the justice of the case required.
The Lieutenant had also applied for a reinforcement of men-at-arms and archers, and for a supply of cannon. The King allows him to make such provision with regard to additional soldiers as he thinks best at his own cost, and agrees to let him have some cannon from the royal stores.—Acts of Privy Council, 1416.[(back)]
Footnote 183: This Prior seems to have been Thomas Botiller, the brother of the Earl of Ormond. He is said to have died during the siege. He and his men are reported to have been sent over by Lord Furnival, the Lord Lieutenant. See Excerpta Historica above referred to.[(back)]
Footnote 184: Mons. vol. i. c. 95.[(back)]
Footnote 185: Archbishop Chicheley's letter to Henry is preserved among the manuscripts of the British Museum. MS. Cotton, Vesp. F. xiii. fol. 29.[(back)]
Footnote 186: Gebennis, xv. kal. Sept. Pontif. nost. ann. I. (August 18, 1418.) Rymer.[(back)]
Footnote 187: A letter from T.F., dated Evreux, (March 27th, 1419,) addressed to his friends in England, tells us that "the Dauphin made great instance sundry times to have personal speech with the King, for the good of peace between both realms;" and, on obtaining the King's consent, "he fixed on the third Sunday in Lent (March 19th), at his own desire and instance, making surety by his oath and his letters sealed to keep that day. The foresaid Rule Regent hath broke the surety aforesaid, and made the King a Beau Nient [made a fool of him]; so that there may be no hope had yet of peace.... And so now men suppose that the King will henceforth war on France; for Normandy is all his, except Gysors, Euere, the Castle Gaylard, and the Roche."
This writer gives us to understand that he and his friends were heartily tired of the Continental warfare, which had so long kept them from the comforts of their home, and they longed to revisit the white cliffs of Britain. "Pray for us, that we may come soon out of this unlusty [unpleasant] soldier's life, unto the life of England."—MS. Donat. 4001. Sir H. Ellis assigns this to the year 1420; but it must have been written March 27th (the Monday before Passion Sunday), 1419, just eight days after the Dauphin had broken his word.
The same writer speaks in no very measured terms of the intrigue and duplicity of foreign courts. "And certes, all the ambassadors that we deal with are incongrue, that is to say, in old manner of speech in England, 'they be double and false;' with which manner of men, I pray God, let never no true men be coupled with."
The reasons which had induced Henry some time previously to wish for an alliance with the Dauphin are found in the Cot. MS.—See "Acts of Privy Council," vol. ii. p. 350.[(back)]
Footnote 188: Katharine of Valois, the youngest child of Charles VI. of France, (he had twelve children,) was born on the 27th of October 1401; just two months subsequently to her elder sister Isabel's return from England after the death of her husband, the unfortunate King Richard. Consequently, at the date of this interview, May 30th, 1419, she was only in her eighteenth year; Henry himself was in his thirty-second year.[(back)]
Footnote 189: This treaty is recorded in Rymer, vol. ix. p. 776. The circumstances of outward courtesy, and concealed suspicion, and want of faith, with which the contracting parties met, deliberated, and separated on this occasion, are detailed by Goodwin, p. 237.[(back)]
Footnote 190: The Author is fully aware that the brief notice he is able to take of many of the transactions of this period, whether diplomatic or military, (especially with reference to the proceedings of the different parties in France,) must leave his readers unfurnished with information on many points, and in some instances may cause the accounts which he thought indispensable in this work to appear obscure and confused. He could not, however, have avoided such a result of his plan in these Memoirs, without changing their character altogether. Goodwin, whose labours seem scarcely to have been ever duly appreciated, has filled up the outline here given, generally in a satisfactory manner, though many original documents which have been brought to light since his time have been employed.[(back)]
Footnote 191: See Monstrelet, c. 211.[(back)]
Footnote 192: Goodwin thus comments on his death:—"Thus fell the Duke of Burgundy, who, as he had caused the Duke of Orleans to be assassinated in the streets of Paris, so, by the requital of divine justice, his own life was abandoned to vile treachery." How very unwise and unsafe are such comments upon the dispensations of Providence is most clearly evinced here. Never was a more foul murder, or more desperate defiance of all law, human and divine, than the Dauphin was guilty of on the bridge of Montereau: and yet, instead of "his life being abandoned to vile treachery by the requital of divine justice," he lived forty-two years after his deed of blood, succeeded to the throne of his father, rescued his kingdom from the hands of the English, and died through abstinence from food, self-imposed from fear of poison. Far more wise and more pious is it to leave such speculations, and to refer all to that day of final retribution, when the righteousness of the supreme Ruler of man's destinies shall be made as clear as the light, and his just dealing as the noon day.[(back)]
Footnote 193: This was Thomas Langley, who was elected Bishop of Durham in 1406. He succeeded Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, as Chancellor, on the 23rd of July, 1417, and continued in that office till July 1424, when Henry Beaufort succeeded him. Thomas Langley was in possession of the see of Durham from May 17th, 1406, till his death in November 1437. Dugdale, (Orig. Judic.) by mistake, refers Bishop Langley's appointment as Chancellor to 1418. It was July 23rd, 5 Henry V. in 1417.[(back)]
Footnote 194: October 28, 1419. The Pell Rolls record payment of 10l. to Master Peter Henewer, physician, appointed by the King and his council to go to the King in Normandy. Probably he felt his constitution even then giving way. But as early as 13th October 1415, after the battle of Agincourt, payment is made for "diverse medicine, as well for the health of the King's person as for others of his army," sent to Calais.[(back)]
Footnote 195: A curious and interesting instance of Henry's personal attention to business in its most minute details, when many of his subjects would have been quite satisfied with the report of another, is preserved among some of the driest and most formal acts of the Privy Council. Certain auditors are instructed to examine, with greater accuracy than before, the accounts of the late Master of the Wardrobe; and to make an especial report to the council, most particularly (potissimè) of such items as they shall find marked in the King's own hand "ad inquirendum." Reference is also made to those sums against which a black mark has been placed by the King's hand. The date of this minute (4th July 1421), and the place (Calais) in which it states that these accounts were examined by the King, add considerably to the strength of this example. Henry had then just left England suddenly on hearing the sad news of a disastrous defeat of part of his army, and the death of his brother, the Duke of Clarence, in battle; and he was at Calais on his road to put himself again at the head of his forces.[(back)]
Footnote 196: Cotton. Julius, B. vi. f. 35.[(back)]
Footnote 197: The Author cannot undertake to pronounce how far beyond general instructions the King himself interfered in each of these transactions. The letters on the subject of Brittany and of Oriel College bear internal evidence that they were dictated by Henry himself. But the correspondence, still preserved, is too voluminous for us to believe that he dictated more of the letters than such as were most important or most interesting to himself. Still it must be borne in mind, that we have indisputable evidence of Henry having minutely examined accounts, at a time when he "had great occupation otherwise," directing in his own hand-writing inquiries to be made as to various items.[(back)]
Footnote 198: Cotton. Vespasian, C. xii. f. 127 b.[(back)]
Footnote 199: Bib. Cotton. Galba, B. i. f. 131. [(back)]
Footnote 200: The English merchants (Henry says) valued their goods captured at 10,000l. the Genoese estimated them at 7,180l. and they are willing "for to stand in our good grace and benevolence, to pay without any exception 4,000l. at reasonable times; our subjects and our merchants of our land having hereafter free coming and going to Genoa, as they of Genoa desire to have into our realm of England."[(back)]
Footnote 201: A letter addressed by Henry, whilst he was at Mante, to one Thomas Rees and other merchants of Bristol, (October 11th, 1419,) shows what accurate information he received of even minute affairs in England. He tells them that they have imported goods from Genoa, and he desires to select from them such as he might wish to have, promising to pay for them honestly.[(back)]
Footnote 202: It is thought right to subjoin the following transcript of this epistle in its primitive garb, except the abbreviations.
"BY THE KYNG.
"Worshipful fader yn God oure right trusty and welbeloved, we grete yow wel. And forasmuche as we lete sende for Maistre Richard Garsedale oon of the contendentes of the prevoste of the Oriell to that ende that for his partie shulde no thyng be poursuyd neither at the courte of Rome ne elleswhere, but that that contraversie shulde be put in respit unto oure comyng hoom with Goddes grace, for oure occupacion is such that we mow nat wel entende to suche also Lentwardyn, come afore you, and that ye take surety matteres here. Wherefore we wol that ye make boothe the said Garsdale whiche cometh now hoom be oure leve, and also Lentwardyn com afore you, and that ye take seurte soufficeant of bothe the partiees, that neither of hem shal make ferther poursuyt of appelle at courte of Rome ner no manere of poursuyt there or elleswhere as touching the said contraversee unto oure comynge as before, at whiche tyme oure entent ys to put the same contraversie to a goode and rightwyse conclusion, and the said partie yn rest. And yf any of hem have ye saide poursuyt of apelle hangyng yn courte that they abate hit and sende to revoke hit yn al haste, and that thay make al suche as been thaire attornes or doeres yn court spirituel or temporel to surcesse. And we wol ferthermore as touching oure said college of the Orielle that ye put hit yn suche governance as semeth to yowre discrecion for to doo unto oure comyng. And God have you yn his keping. Yeven under oure signet in oure town of Mante, ye vii. day of Juyll.
"To ye worshipful fader yn God our right trusty and welbeloved ye Bisshop of Duresme oure Chaunceller of England."[(back)]
Footnote 203: These articles were signed on the following January during the armistice.[(back)]
Footnote 204: About this time, John, Duke of Bedford, the King's brother, had an offer of the reversion of the crown of Naples; but the negociations ended in no successful issue.[(back)]
Footnote 205: The heartfelt satisfaction and joy with which this peace between the two countries was generally hailed as a new and unexpected blessing, is conveyed to us in a most lively manner by the letter which Sir Hugh Luttrell wrote to the King on the occasion, and which bears at the same time incidental testimony to Henry's condescending and kind attention to his old comrade in arms. Sir Hugh was the Lieutenant of Harfleur, and Henry had himself sent him an account of the happy issue of his struggle.... He ascribes it to the providence of the Creator that Henry had concluded a perpetual peace between two realms which ever, out of mind of any chroniclers, had been at dissension; and had brought to an end what no man had hitherto wrought; "thanking God," he continues, "with meek heart, that he hath sent me that grace to abide the time for to see it, as for the greatest gladness and consolation that ever came into my heart; not dreading in myself that He who hath sent you that grace in so short a time, shall send you much more in time coming."—Ellis's Original Letters, xxviii.[(back)]
Footnote 206: On this subject, T.D. Hardy, Esq. in his Introduction to the Charter Rolls, just published by the Record Commission, gives the following clear and satisfactory information:—Until the 9th of April 1420, Henry V. styled himself in his charters and on his great seal, "Henricus Dei gratia Rex Angliæ et Franciæ et Dominus Hiberniæ" And on the Norman Roll of the fifth year of his reign he is sometimes styled Duke of Normandy, in conjunction with his other titles, as "Henry par le grace de Dieu, Roy de Fraunce et d'Engleterre, Seigneur de Irlande, et Duc de Normandie." On the above 9th of April he relinquished the title of King of France during the life-time of his father-in-law, Charles, preliminary to the treaty of Troyes, which was signed the 21st of May, 1420; and during the remainder of his life he styled himself, "Henricus Dei gratia Rex Angliæ, Heres et Regens Franciæ, et Dominus Hiberniæ."
Notwithstanding an article in the agreement of the 9th of April, that during the life of Charles, Henry V. should not assume the title of King of France; yet within ten days he issued a precept from Rouen relative to the Norman coinage, upon one side of which was to be inscribed, "Henricus Francorum Rex." As Henry had not then signed the article of peace at Troyes, it did not perhaps occur to him that he was thus breaking his agreement with France.—Rot. Chart. p. xxi.[(back)]
Footnote 207: It is said, but whether on good authority does not appear, that Henry placed English attendants about the Queen's person; allowing only five French to wait on her, of whom three were matrons and the other two young ladies. Her confessor was John Boyery (query Bouverie?), doctor in theology.—Pell Rolls, 18th June 1421.[(back)]
Footnote 208: See Goodwin.[(back)]
Footnote 209: Among the forces which he had drawn together, were a body of chosen men and archers from the parts of Wales; but whether they were natives of the Principality, or English soldiers drawn from the garrisons there, does not appear.—Pell Rolls, 3rd June, 8 Henry V. i.e. 1420.[(back)]
Footnote 210: "The English colour." See Goodwin.[(back)]
Footnote 211: In the parliament (2nd December 1420), Humfrey, Duke of Gloucester, being Lieutenant of the kingdom, provision was made that, should the King arrive, the parliament should continue to sit without any new summons: the reason also is given; because the King, being heir and Regent of France during the life-time of his father-in-law, and King after his death, would often be in England and often also in France. In this parliament a prayer is preferred against the Oxford scholars, who in vast numbers and armed attacked gentlemen in the counties of Oxford, Bucks, and Berks, and robbed them.[(back)]
Footnote 212: On 30th January, the Pell Rolls record payment of 20 l. for bows, arrows, and bowstrings, a present from Henry to his father-in-law, the King of France.[(back)]
Footnote 213: Walsingham says, that she was crowned on the first Sunday in Lent, which in that year fell on the 9th February. But the Pell Roll (Mich. 8 Hen. V.) contains a payment to divers messengers sent through England, to summon the spiritualty and laity to assist at the solemnizing of the coronation of Katharine Queen of England, at Westminster, on the third Sunday in Lent.[(back)]
Footnote 214: There is so much inconsistency in the accounts of chroniclers as to the royal proceedings on this occasion, that to attempt to reconcile them all seems a hopeless task. The Author, however, having been furnished with the following facts ascertained from the "Teste" of several writs and patents preserved in the Tower, is able to recommend, with greater confidence in its accuracy, the adoption of the journal offered in the text.
In the year 1421, King Henry V. was
January, from 1 to 31, at Rouen.
February 1, " Dover.
2 to 28, " Westminster.
March 1 to 5, " Westminster.
5 to 14, " Uncertain.
15, " Coventry.
27, " Leicester.
From March 28 to April 2, " Uncertain.
April 2 to 4, " York.
15, " Lincoln.
18, " York.
From 18 to 30, " Uncertain.
May 1 to 31, " Westminster.[(back)]
Footnote 215: Rapin says, but, as it should seem, without reason, that Henry's aim was, under colour of shewing the country to the Queen, to procure by his presence the election of members for the parliament who would be favourable to him.[(back)]
Footnote 216: MS. Cott. Domit. A. 12.[(back)]
Footnote 217: Elmham says, that, in 1414, Henry kept his Lent in the castle of Kenilworth, and caused an arbour to be planted in the Marsh there, for his pleasure, amongst the thorns and bushes where a fox before had harboured, which he killed.[(back)]
Footnote 218: Walsingham says, that Henry put off the celebration of the feast of St. George, (which, being the 23rd of April, must have fallen on a day after he had left York,) and directed it to be celebrated at Windsor on the Sunday after Ascension-day.[(back)]
Footnote 219: His visits to the hallowed resting-places of these saints are not at all inconsistent with the opinion which we have ventured already to give, that he was never heard to address in the language of prayer or thanksgiving any other being than the one true God. A similar feeling of love for the holy men of God, whether he could testify that love to the living, or merely record it for the memory of the dead, might have led him to the installation of the Bishop of Lincoln, and to the tomb of John of Bridlington and John of Beverley. Henry was not a Protestant by profession; but, compared with the hierarchy by whom he was surrounded, he approached almost, if not altogether, this fundamental point of difference between the two churches, the rejection of the adoration of any being, save the one only God.[(back)]
Footnote 220: Henry's prisoners of war were dispersed among various castles and strong places throughout the kingdom in England and Wales. Payment is recorded, July 10, 1422, to John Salghall, Constable of Harlech, of 30l. for the safe custody of thirty prisoners, conveyed by him from London.—Pell Rolls, 9 Henry V.[(back)]
Footnote 221: Holinshed and others.[(back)]
Footnote 222: The Author has invariably discarded the assertions of the chroniclers, however positively affirmed, or frequently reiterated, whenever they have appeared to be incompatible with ascertained facts, or inconsistent with what would otherwise be probable. In the present instance, after a review of all the circumstances, and an examination of all the documents with which he is acquainted, though the supposition here adopted may be deemed ideal and fanciful, he is inclined to think that the acquiescence in that view will be attended with fewer difficulties than the adoption of any other.[(back)]
Footnote 223: But whilst Henry was thus actively employed in visiting his subjects, and spreading the blessing which a good King can never fail to dispense wherever his influence can be felt, his ministers of state sought his directions on all important matters for the management of his affairs on the Continent. Thus a despatch addressed to the Treasurer by William Bardolf, Lieutenant of Calais, is forwarded with all speed to the King in Yorkshire, that his especial pleasure might be taken thereon. Payment of the messenger appears in the Pell Rolls, April 1, 9 Hen. V.[(back)]
Footnote 224: Casaubon, quoted by Sir Walter Raleigh.[(back)]
Footnote 225: Monstrelet says, that the flower of the English chivalry, who were with the Duke, fell in that field, and, besides knights and esquires, from two to three thousand men; and that, with the Earl of Somerset and others of noble and gentle blood, about two hundred were taken prisoners. There was also, he says, a dreadful slaughter of the French. The English, under the Earl of Salisbury, recovered the body of the Duke from the enemy, and it was carried with much ceremony to England, and there buried.[(back)]
Footnote 226: In this Parliament a statute was passed, the enactment, but more especially the preamble of which presents a very formidable view of the drain which Henry's continental campaigns had made upon the English gentry.
"Whereas by the statute made at Westminster, the 14th year of King Edward III, it was ordained and established, that no Sheriff should abide in his bailiwick above one year, and that then another convenient should be set in his place, which should have lands sufficient within his bailiwick, and that no Escheator should tarry in his office above a year; and whereas also, at the time of making the said statute, divers valiant and sufficient persons were in every county of England, to occupy and govern the same offices well towards the King and all his liege people; forasmuch that as well by divers petilences within the realm of England, as by the wars without the realm, there is now not such sufficiency; it is ordained and stablished that the King by authority of this Parliament may make the Sheriffs and Escheators through the realm at his will until the end of four years."—9 Hen. V. stat. 1, c. v.[(back)]
Footnote 227: This vote does not appear on the Rolls of Parliament. Walsingham asserts that a fifteenth was voted. Holinshed distinctly says, that the "commonaltie gladly granted a fifteenth." But he is no authority in such a case. The Parliament, in the following December, granted a tenth, and a fifteenth.[(back)]
Footnote 228: Three days after landing his forces, he despatched the Earl of Dorset with twelve hundred men to relieve his uncle, the Duke of Exeter, who was closely blockaded in Paris.[(back)]
Footnote 229: Rot. Pat. ix. Henry V.[(back)]
Footnote 230: Preparations had been made as early as January 26th, 1422, for the Queen to leave England, and meet the King at Rouen, but she did not start till April.[(back)]
Footnote 231: The King, his father-in-law, survived Henry not quite two months: he died October 21st, 1422.[(back)]
Footnote 232: A description and history of this castle will be found in a work entitled, "Histoire du Donjon et du Chateau de Vincennes, par L. B.," published at Paris in 1807. The Author refers to the sojourn made in this castle by Henry's son (King Henry VI.) at the close of the year 1431, when he visited France for the purpose of being crowned.[(back)]
Footnote 233: Elmham says, Henry added several codicils to his Will, leaving large sums to discharge the debts not only of himself, but also of his father, and also to reward many of his faithful servants.[(back)]
Footnote 234: Elmham.[(back)]
Footnote 235: Sloane, 64.[(back)]
Footnote 236: It is satisfactory to find, even among the mere details of expenditure, testimony borne to his love of the Holy Scriptures. Among his last domestic expenses is this interesting item: "To John Heth 3l. 6s. for sixty-six quarterns of calfskins, purchased and provided by the said John, to write a Bible thereon for the use of the King."—Pell Rolls, February 23, 1422, just six months before his death.[(back)]
Footnote 237: Acts of Privy Council. Cleopatra, F. iv. f. I. a.[(back)]
Footnote 238: Hume's Hist. vol. iii. ch. xix.[(back)]
Footnote 239: Fabyan, 388.[(back)]
Footnote 240: Annales Ecclesiastici, vol. xii. Ann. 1517. See much interesting matter relating to the whole of this subject in these Annales Ecclesiastici of Baronius, continued by Raynaldus.[(back)]
Footnote 241: Florentiæ, iv. idus Julii, anno 3. Annales Eccles. v. viii.[(back)]
Footnote 242: Raynaldus, Annales Ecclesiastici, vol. viii. p. 556. [(back)]
Footnote 243: It is not to be forgotten that Henry of Monmouth had from his very childhood been interested by accounts of the state of Palestine. His father, as we have seen, went himself to the Holy Sepulchre; and, even during Henry's wars in France, his uncle, the Bishop of Winchester, visited Constance as he was proceeding in the guise of a pilgrim to the Holy Land.[(back)]
Footnote 244: Mr. Granville Penn's interesting paper was read before the Royal Society of Literature at their first meeting in the year 1825, and is recorded in the first volume of their Transactions.[(back)]
Footnote 245: This same interesting subject is far more elaborately discussed by that excellent antiquary the Rev. John Webb; whose Introductory Dissertation and Illustrative Notes, (in the Archæologia, vol. xxi. p. 281,) abound with most valuable information. The title prefixed to Lannoi's work is this:
"The Report made by Sir Gilbert de Lannoy, Knight, upon surveys of several cities, ports, and rivers, taken by him in Egypt and Syria, in the year of grace of our Lord 1422, by order of the most high, most puissant, and most excellent prince, King Henry of England, heir and Regent of France, whom God assoil." The whole of Mr. Webb's paper well deserves perusal.[(back)]
Footnote 246: The Bible is always and everywhere the standard of divine truth; but to condemn an individual for wilful ignorance of its heavenly doctrines, to whom no opportunity has been afforded of learning them, would be unreasonable and unjust. A corresponding principle applies to the interpretation of the Bible. Our responsibility in every case increases with our privileges and opportunities.[(back)]
Footnote 247: It will be borne in mind, that the question here is not whether there be not one immutable principle, nor whether there ought not to be one uniform interpretation of that principle; we are inquiring only into the nature of that rule by which we may equitably judge of the moral and religious characters of men.[(back)]
Footnote 248: The attachment of Henry to the See of Rome, and the countenance given by him to the encroachments of the Pope, have been greatly exaggerated. Rapin took a different view of his measures. "The proclamation" (he says) "made by Henry, prohibiting the Pope's provisions, was a death-blow to the court of Rome." On the death of Henry, the Pope wrote a letter of condolence to the council, in which he says, "We loved our son of famous memory, Henry King of England, for there were many and royal virtues in that Prince for which he ought to be loved;" and then adds a strong appeal to the council to abrogate the obnoxious statutes which had so materially entrenched upon his assumed prerogative. In a letter to Henry himself (Kal. Nov. xiv. An. iv.) nearly two years before his death, the Pope refers to a promise made by Henry that he had no desire to curtail the authority of the Roman See in his new dominions; and also to an undertaking that he would bring the obnoxious statutes under the notice of his parliament; and that, "if they could not be supported on honest and lawful grounds," he would satisfy the Pope in that particular. Surely these are not the expressions of one who was "the slave of the Popedom."—See "Annales Ecclesiastici."[(back)]
Footnote 249: Milner's Church History, vol. iv. p. 196.[(back)]
Footnote 250: This view of heresy we find to have been at a very early date propagated and encouraged by the Pope and the See of Rome. Walsingham records, that, three years before Richard II.'s deposition from the throne, "the Pope wrote to him with a prayer (orans) that he would assist the prelates of the church in the cause of God, and of the King himself, and of the kingdom, against the Lollards; whom he declared to be traitors, not only of the church, but of the throne. And he besought him with the greatest urgency (obnixiùs) to condemn those whom the prelates should have declared heretics.—Ypod. Neust. 1396.[(back)]
Footnote 251: For Christians of the present age, and in our country, to pass through life without partaking in any persecution, such as once disgraced our legislature and the executive government, does not necessarily imply a freedom of the conscience from a persecuting spirit. The Christian can now evince the real tone and temper of his mind only in his behaviour towards his fellow-creatures, and by the sentiments to which he gives utterance. The Author hopes he may be pardoned, if he ventures, in further illustration of his principles on this subject, to make an extract from his sermon lately preached at the consecration of the Bishop of Salisbury. "In his intercourse with those Christians whose sentiments do not coincide with our own, the Christian minister will never by laxity of expression or conduct encourage in any an indifference to truth and error, nor countenance the insidious workings of latitudinarian principles. He will ever maintain the truth, but never with acrimony; and, whilst his duty compels him to banish and drive away all false doctrine, he will feel and show towards the persons of such as are in error compassionate indulgence and forbearing tenderness. He knows that truth can be only on one side, but he acknowledges that sincerity may be on both; and he will set his mind on winning back again by mild argument and conciliatory conduct those who have gone astray, rather than by severity in exposing their faults, and a cold, forbidding, and hostile bearing, indispose them to examine their mistaken views, and confirm them in their spirit of alienation."[(back)]
Footnote 252: Owen Feltham.[(back)]
Footnote 253: Bishop Taylor's "Liberty of Prophesying," 13.[(back)]
Footnote 254: This work, "published by William Prynne, Esq. a Bencher of Lincoln's Inn, 1657," is ascribed by him to Cotton; but it proves not to have been written by Cotton, but by the two brothers William and Robert Bowyer. See manuscript note, by Francis Hargrave, at the commencement of his copy in the British Museum. What notes and observations came from the author, whether Cotton or one of the Bowyers, and what were added and interwoven by Prynne, it seems impossible to determine. This passage (p. 456) apparently carries with it internal evidence that it was penned by Prynne.[(back)]
Footnote 255: Much doubt and many mistakes seem to have prevailed as to the real state of the law in England before the statute 2 Hen. IV. cap. 15. It is said by the annotator on Fitzherbert that, "before the time of Henry IV. no person had been put to death for opinions in religion in England;" but the same author himself tells us that, among the crimes to be punished by burning by the common law, heresy is enumerated. "No Bishop, indeed, by the common law, could convict of heresy, as to loss of life, but only as to penance, and for the health of the soul, 'pro salute animæ.' In the case of life, the conviction by the common law ought to have been before the Archbishop in convocation." Much information is found on this subject in Fitzherbert's Book, De Naturâ Brevium.[(back)]
Footnote 256: Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. iii. p. 134.[(back)]
Footnote 257: An antiquary well versed in such matters says, that for many years previous to this petition there are several mandates upon the Patent Rolls, ordering the apprehension of heretics, (who appeared to have been all monks,) in consequence of complaints made to the King in council by the various monasteries. He had never met with any entry affecting the parochial clergy.[(back)]
Footnote 258: The clergy could not have prevented its appearance on the Roll, but the judges (it is said) might have done so.[(back)]
Footnote 259: See, however, Fitzherbert, De Naturâ Brevium, p. 601.[(back)]
Footnote 260: Wilkins' Concilia, Ex reg. Arundel, i. fol. 15.[(back)]
Footnote 261: De Roos, Master of the Rolls, was at the first meeting, and a large number (multitudo copiosa) of the laity and clergy.[(back)]
Footnote 262: The house (the Friars' Preachers) where they met, was a place in which the Prince at this time often presided at the council. On the 10th of the following June, for example, he met the Chancellor, and the Bishops of Durham, Winchester, and Bath, with others, at this house.[(back)]
Footnote 263: Dictoque die, immediatè post prandium, ex decreto regio, apud Smythfield, præfatus Joh. Badby, in suâ obstinaciâ perseverans usque ad mortem, catenis ferreis stipiti ligatus, ac quodam vase concavo circumplexus, injectis fasciculis et appositis ignibus, incineratus extitit et consumptus.[(back)]
Footnote 264: Fox makes a curious mistake here. He says, the examination in London began on Sunday, the 1st of March. But the 1st of March was not on a Sunday, but on a Saturday, in that year, 1410. Fox derives his information chiefly from the Latin record (v. Wilkins' Concilia) preserved in Lambeth; and there we find that the date is Die Sabbati, i.e. Saturday, not, as Fox mistakenly renders it, Sunday. The computation in these Memoirs is made of the historical, not the ecclesiastical year.
The King's writ is dated March 5th, and informs us that Badby was of Evesham in Worcestershire.[(back)]
Footnote 265: The chronicler adds, "A versifier made of him in metre these two verses:
"Hereticus credat, ve perustus ab orbe recedat,
Ne fidem lædat: Sathan hunc baratro sibi prædat."[(back)]
Footnote 266: Monk of St. Alban's.[(back)]
Footnote 267: Monk of Evesham.[(back)]
Footnote 268: The Pell Rolls (22d May 1398) contain an item of 20l. paid to Thomas Duke of Surrey on account of Lord Cobham, then his prisoner.[(back)]
Footnote 269: Records of Privy Council.[(back)]
Footnote 270: The states of Europe were much convulsed about this time by an apprehension of political revolutions.[(back)]
Footnote 271: King Richard seems to have employed the Irish prelates on many occasions in his intercourse with Rome. Thomas Crawley, Archbishop of Dublin, was sent to Pope Urban (1398, May 22nd,) "for the safe estate and prosperity of the most holy English church;" and John Cotton, Archbishop of Armagh, was sent to Rome, (31st of August,) in the same year, "on the King's secret affairs."—Pell Rolls.[(back)]
Footnote 272: Otterbourne.[(back)]
Footnote 273: The Chronicle of London states that the convocation assembled on the day of St. Edmund the King, and continued until December; and "that the archbishop and bishops, at St. Paul's Cross, accursed Sir John Oldcastle on the Sunday, after the dirge was performed royally at Westminster for Richard II., on the removal of his remains."[(back)]
Footnote 274: Archbishop Arundel (says Anthony à Wood), who never proceeded beyond the degree of bachelor of arts in this University [Oxford] or any other, decreed by a provincial council, 1404, that none should preach except privileged or licensed.[(back)]
Footnote 275: Carte suggests that Lord Cobham might have been one of Henry's [supposed] rakish companions. But such a supposition as would stain his memory with debauchery, is altogether at variance with his character. Carte has no doubt of the reality of Cobham's conspiracy in St. Giles' Field.[(back)]
Footnote 276: Henry V.'s own chaplain declares, "that Oldcastle attempted to infect the King's highness himself with his deadly poison by his crafty wiles of argument." If the King argued the points with Oldcastle, how could that confessor have done otherwise than strenuously endeavour to bring his liege Lord to the same views of doctrine which he entertained himself?[(back)]
Footnote 277: Lingard speaks of "a mandate to the Archbishop of Canterbury to proceed against the fugitive according to law. The spiritual powers of that prelate were soon exhausted. Oldcastle disobeyed the summons, and laughed at his excommunication; but was compelled to surrender to a military force sent by the King, and was conducted a prisoner to the Tower." The same author (but on what authority it does not appear) tells us that Oldcastle was at St. Alban's, and prophesied that he should rise on the third day; which is in itself most improbable.[(back)]
Footnote 278: Milner.[(back)]
Footnote 279: Mr. Southey builds upon this circumstance a very unfavourable and unmerited reflection on Henry in comparison with other monarchs of England. "The Edwards' would have rejoiced in so high-minded a subject as Lord Cobham. But Henry V. had given his heart and understanding into the keeping of the prelates, and he refused to receive the paper, ordering it to be delivered to them who should be his judges."[(back)]
Footnote 280: It is painful to read the marginal notes of Fox here. "Lord Cobham would not obey the beast." Thomas Arundell, "Caiaphas sitteth in consistory. The wolf was hungry; he must needs be fed with blood. Bloody murderers." With many others, yet more ungentle. The justice of the judgment cannot but be questioned when the feelings of the historian give themselves vent in such language as this. Still we must make great allowances for the times.
There are many other points in which Fox, who, be it remembered, refers us to the Archbishop's Memoir for evidence of the truth of his narrative, gives a turn and colour to minor circumstances calculated to prejudice the reader, but by no means sanctioned by that Memoir. Thus Fox says, the Archbishop swore all on the Mass Book: the Archbishop says, he caused them all to be sworn on the Holy Evangelists.[(back)]
Footnote 281: Minutes of Council, 27th May 1415. Item, touching Commission "to the Archbishops and Bishops to take measures each in his own diocese to resist the malice of the Lollards." "The King has given it in charge to his Chancellor."[(back)]
Footnote 282: It is impossible not to observe upon the great inaccuracy of Fox's translation of the Archbishop's words, for he professes it to be a translation, and the unfair turn and tone given to his sentiments, together with the unjustifiable addition which he has made to his definitive sentence.
| Fox's Translation. | Arundel's Words.. |
| "We sententially and definitively, by this present writing, judge, declare, and condemn him for a most pernicious and detestable heretic, convicted upon the same, and refusing utterly to obey the church: again committing him here from henceforth to the secular jurisdiction, power, and judgment, to do him thereupon to death." | "Him, convicted of and upon such a detestable offence, and unwilling to return penitently to the unity of the church, we sententially and definitively have judged, declared, and condemned for a heretic, and to be in error in those things which the holy church of Rome and the universal church teaches, hath determined, and preacheth, and especially in the Articles above written; leaving the same as a heretic henceforth to the secular power." |
"To do him unto death," may be the horrible implication; but it is not, as Fox unwarrantably represents it to be, part of the sentence.
Another instance occurs in the translation of the passage in which the Archbishop gives his reasons for making this public and authoritative statement of the transaction.
| Fox. | Arundel. |
| "That, upon the fear of this declaration, also the people may fall from their evil opinions conceived now of late by seditious preachers." | "That the erroneous opinions of the people, who perhaps have conceived on this subject otherwise than as the truth of the fact stands, may by this public declaration be reversed." |
The Archbishop declares his object to be the substitution of the true statement of the affair of Lord Cobham's condemnation, in place of the false opinions which were abroad; not a word about "fear," or "evil opinions from seditious preachers."[(back)]
Footnote 283: In the Lambeth account Sautre's condemnation is dated, according to the ecclesiastical reckoning, February 1400; but that, according to our reckoning, is 1401.[(back)]
Footnote 284: The writ is dated March 5, 1410.—Rymer.[(back)]
Footnote 285: His escape must have been, at the furthest, within fifteen days of his sentence; for, on the 10th October, messengers were sent about, forbidding any one to harbour "John Oldcastle, a proved and convicted heretic."—Pell Rolls.[(back)]
Footnote 286: If Cobham's escape was winked at by the King, and he knew of the King's kindness, it is very improbable that he would immediately after have been so basely ungrateful as to imagine the death of his sovereign and benefactor. It is, however, most probable that, had the King favoured his escape, the royal interference would have been kept a profound secret, as well from the prisoner, as from the people at large.[(back)]
Footnote 287: Walsingham (as quoted by Milner) says that the Archbishop applied to the King for a respite for fifty days for Lord Cobham. "If this be so," Milner says, "the motives of Arundel can be no great mystery. It was thought expedient to employ a few weeks in lessening his credit among the people by a variety of scandalous aspersions;" Milner then quotes the forged recantation, of which we speak in a subsequent note. It did not occur to that writer, that the space of fifty days might be required to forward his appeal to Rome, and receive the Pope's judgment upon it.[(back)]
Footnote 288: Soon after the affair of St. Giles' Field much pains seem to have been taken to discover the retreat of Cobham. The Pell Rolls, February 19, 1414, record payments to constables and others for their careful watch and endeavours to take him; and "chiefly for having found and seized certain books of the Lollards in the house of a parchment-maker;" and one hundred shillings as an especial reward "for the great pains and diligence exercised by Thomas Burton, (the King's spy,) for his attentive watchfulness to the operations of the Lollards now lately rebellious; also because he fully certified their intentions to the King for his advantage." This document (for ignorance of which no former historian may deserve blame, though its existence should caution every one against drawing hasty conclusions from negative evidence,) proves that at the Exchequer the Lollards were considered as having been lately rebellious, and as having had designs against the King. In a deed too, signed and sealed by the tenants of Lord Powis, who themselves took Lord Cobham, both heresy and treason are specified as the crimes of which he had been convicted "that was miscreant and unbuxom to the law of God, and traitor convict to our most gracious sovereign and his." The Patent Rolls record grants of ten pounds per annum to John de Burgh, carpenter, because he had discovered and delivered up certain Lollards. There are other similar grants. Pat. p. 5. 1 Hen. V.[(back)]
Footnote 289: No day ever was appointed.[(back)]
Footnote 290: The day was not January 6th, but Wednesday the 10th.—"Die mercurii proximo post Festum Epiphaniæ."—Pat. 2 Hen. V. p. 3. m. 23.[(back)]
Footnote 291: Milner's statement, "that it is extremely probable that popish emissaries mixed themselves among the Lollards for the express purpose of being brought to confession," is mere surmise.[(back)]
Footnote 292: The Patent Rolls of this year shew that the King's offer was gladly and gratefully accepted by numbers who applied for his pardon.[(back)]
Footnote 293: Any reference to the opinions of past writers would be imperfect which should omit Fuller's; he had access, it should seem, to little if any other data than Fox supplied him with, and yet the conclusion to which he came is this: "For mine own part, I must confess myself so lost in the intricacies of these relations, that I know not what to assent to. On the one side, I am loath to load the Lord Cobham's memory with causeless crimes, knowing the perfect hatred the clergy in that age bare unto him, and all that looked towards the reformation in religion. Besides, that twenty thousand men should be brought into the field, and no place assigned whence they should have been raised,[293-a] or where mustered, is clogged with much improbability, the rather because only the three persons as is aforesaid are mentioned by name of so vast a number.
"On the other side (continues Fuller), I am much startled with the evidence which appeareth against him. Indeed I am little moved with what T. Walsingham writes, (whom all later authors follow, as a flock the bell-wether,) knowing him a Benedictine monk of St. Alban's, bowed by interest to partiality; but the records in the Tower, and acts of parliament therein, wherein he was solemnly condemned for a traitor as well as a heretic, challenge belief. For with what confidence can any private person promise credit from posterity to his own writings if such public documents be not entertained by him for authentical? Let Mr. Fox therefore be Lord Cobham's compurgator; I dare not. And, if my hand were put on the Bible, I should take it back again; yet so that, as I will not acquit, I will not condemn him, but leave all to the last day of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God."—Fuller's Church History, An. 1414.[(back)]
Footnote 293-a: Fuller either had not read, or had forgotten, that the twenty thousand men were to be raised in the city, and to be mustered in St. Giles' Field; but that the timely closing of the city gates is said to have prevented their junction with the party beyond the walls: and he was not aware of the many persons mentioned by name in indictments, proclamations, and pardons.[(back)]
Footnote 294: The "Ecclesiastical Annals" attributing the respite of fifty days to the interposition of the Archbishop, add, "And in the course of that period Oldcastle escaped from prison, and excited all the followers of Wickliffe to arms, for the purpose of destroying the King and the clergy."—Annales Ecclesiastici, vol. viii. p. 362.[(back)]
Footnote 295: How far these accounts of Walsingham and Otterbourne are confirmed by the authority of the Pell Rolls, the reader will weigh carefully. In the October and November of this year, payment is made "to the serjeant of the sheriff of Southampton for taking Wyche and Wm. Browne, chaplains, and bringing them to make disclosures about certain sums belonging to Sir John Oldcastle. Also to the escheator of the county of Kent, riding sometimes with twenty, sometimes with thirty horsemen, for fear of the soldiers and other malefactors obstinately favouring Sir John Oldcastle."[(back)]
Footnote 296: The warrant by the council, dated December 1, 1417, authorized Edward Charleton to bring the body of John Oldcastle, then in Pole Castle. On February 3, 1422, the wife and executor of the said Edward Charleton received part payment of one thousand marks for the capture of Sir John Oldcastle. There is also payment for the capture of certain of his clerks and servants. He was taken near Broniarth in Montgomeryshire, on a property now belonging to Mr. Ormsby Gore, among whose muniments there is said to be traditionary evidence that the manor of Broniarth was granted to one of its former possessors as a reward for securing Sir John Oldcastle. The place in which he is said to have been taken, is called "Lord Cobham's Field" to this day.
There are, we are told, in the Welsh language original verses referring unquestionably to Lord Cobham's residence in Wales, among persons who entertained the same religious views with himself, and also to his return to England. The religion of Rome is called in these verses "the Faith of the Pharaohs."[(back)]
Footnote 297: There can be no doubt that George Gurmyn, a baker, was burnt for heresy this year, 1415, and probably in the same fire with John Claydon. Fox mentions the name as Turming; but, not having been able to ascertain the truth of the tradition, he leaves the whole matter in uncertainty. In the Pipe Rolls, 3 Henry V, the sheriffs state they had expended twenty shillings about the burning of John Claydon, skinner, and George Gurmyn, baker, Lollards convicted of heresy. The Author has searched the records in St. Paul's Cathedral, but without success, for any account of the proceedings against Gurmyn. He is said to have been convicted before the Bishop of London.[(back)]
Footnote 298: Printed in "Wilkins' Concilia."[(back)]
Footnote 299: "The person who shall be burnt for heresy ought to be first convict thereof by the Bishop who is his diocesan, and abjured thereof; and afterwards, if he relapse into that heresy, or any other, then he shall be sent from the clergy to the secular power, to do with him as it shall please the King. And then it seemeth, the King, if he will, may pardon him the same; and the form of the writ is such.
"The King to the Mayor and Sheriffs of London, greeting. Whereas the venerable father, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Legate of the Apostolic See, with the consent and assent of the Bishop and his brothers, the suffragans, and also of the whole clergy of his province in his provincial council assembled, the orders of law in this behalf requisite being in all things observed, by his definitive sentence pronounced and declared W. Sautre (some time chaplain, condemned for heresy, by him the said W. heretofore in form of law abjured, and him the said W. relapsed again into the said heresy) a manifest heretic, and decreed him to be degraded; and hath for that cause really degraded him from all clerical prerogative and privilege; and hath decreed him the said W. to be left, and hath really left him, to the secular court, according to the laws and canonical sanctions set forth in this behalf; and holy mother, the church, hath nothing further to do in the premises. We, therefore, being zealous for justice, and a lover of the Catholic faith, willing to maintain and defend holy church, and the rights and liberties thereof; and, as much as in us lies, to extirpate by the roots such heresies and errors out of our kingdom of England, and to punish heretics so convicted with condign punishment; and being mindful that such heretics, convicted in form aforesaid, and condemned according to law, divine and human, by canonical institutes on and in this behalf accustomed, ought to be burnt with a burning flame of fire; we command you most strictly as we can, firmly enjoining, that you commit to the fire the aforesaid W. being in your custody, in some public and open place within the liberties of the city aforesaid, before the people publicly, by reason of the premises, and cause him really to be burnt in the same fire in detestation of this crime, and to the manifest example of other Christians. And this you are by no means to omit under the peril falling thereon. Witness," &c.
But by the statute of Henry IV. c. 15, it is enacted that every Bishop in his diocese may convict a man of heresy, and abjure him, and afterwards convict him anew thereof, and condemn him, and warn the sheriff or other officer to apprehend him and burn him; and that the sheriff or other officer ought to do the same by the precept of the Bishop, and without any writ from the King to do the same.
And note by 29 Car. II., c. 9, this writ de heretico comburendo is abolished. "Laus Deo!"—This last note is by an Editor. Fitzherbert, de Naturâ Brevium, p. 601.[(back)]
Footnote 300: William Taylor had been cited March 9th, 1409, when he treated the citation with contempt.—Archbishop's Register.[(back)]
Footnote 301: Quisquis suspenderit ad collum suum aliquod scriptum, ipso facto tollit honorem soli Deo debitum, et præbet Diabolo.[(back)]
Footnote 302: The Canonists seem to have made some distinction between the first and the second of these sentences.[(back)]
Footnote 303: Consequently he was then, in 1421, as much, as afterwards in 1423, a relapsed heretic, subject to the punishment of death.[(back)]
Footnote 304: The Minutes of Council, 27th May, 1415, record that the King should be advised, as to issuing a commission to the Archbishops and Bishops, to take measures, each in his own diocese, to resist the malice of the Lollards. The King replied, that he had committed the subject to the charge of the chancellor.[(back)]
Footnote 305: It will be remembered, that those who were put to death in 1414, after the affair of St. Giles' Field, were sentenced by the civil courts on a charge of treason.[(back)]
Footnote 306: Pat. p. 5, 1 Henry V.[(back)]
Footnote 307: This refers to the resolution which Henry is said to have made, and to have declared to his men immediately before the battle: That, as he was a true King and knight, England should never be charged with the payment of his ransom on that day, for he had rather be slain.—MS. Cott. Cleop. C. iv.[(back)]
Footnote 308: The two first words of this line are different in the original.[(back)]
Footnote 309: Quede, or quade,—evil, bad.—See Glossary to Chaucer.[(back)]
Footnote 310: In hey,—in haste, speedily.[(back)]
Footnote 311: See Sloane, p. 27. King's, p. 11, b. The same gap between "nominati" and "fratris," &c.[(back)]
Footnote 312: The volume in the King's Library is made up of a great variety of documents independent of that history and of each other.[(back)]
Footnote 313: The Sloane MS. is assigned in the Catalogue to Higden. By Sir H. Ellis, it is attributed, though not correctly, to a Chaplain of Henry V; a small portion only having been the work of that eye-witness of the field of Agincourt. By Mr. Sharon Turner, it is attributed, without a shadow of reason, to Walsingham. Mr. Turner, however, has, though in a very inadequate manner, attempted in one part of his new edition to rectify the error, leaving it altogether unacknowledged where the correction is most needed, in the passage where he grounds upon its testimony his severe charge against Henry's character. See Turner, third ed. vol. ii. p. 373 and p. 398.[(back)]
Footnote 314: In p. 48, b, the writer speaks of "Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham," being sent as a military commander to aid the Duke of Burgundy. In p. 50 the same person is spoken of as Johannes de Veteri Castro. In the former parts the word used for the enemy is "æmuli;" the Chaplain employs "adversarii."[(back)]
Footnote 315: Latitavit et latitat.[(back)]
Footnote 316: From this point the manuscript proceeds, in the very words of Elmham, to describe Henry's second expedition.[(back)]
Footnote 317: In the MS. the word is "lacum," probably a mistake for "laqueum."[(back)]
Footnote 318: The Author on the whole is rather disposed to think that, whilst the Monk records accurately what fell within his own knowledge, both he and the author of the Sloane MS. in this part borrowed from some common document, probably more than one; for in some points they vary from each other in a way best reconciled by that supposition. Thus, whilst the Sloane MS. tells us that Richard II. on his landing came to a place called Cardech, from which he started for Conway, the Monk (not differing from him in other points) says that he came to the castle of Hertlowli. They both have fallen into the error of making the Earl of Salisbury accompany Richard, whereas he had undoubtedly been sent on before from Dublin to Conway. They are both equally wrong about the relative positions of Flint and Conway, and make the parties all cross and recross the bridge at the castle of Conway, where a noble suspension bridge is now thrown over the arm of the sea. After the period, however, at which the Monk's narrative closes, the writer of the manuscript seems to be seldom free from error.[(back)]
Footnote 319: The Monk of Evesham makes no mention of Bolinbroke's proceedings before he landed in England.[(back)]
Footnote 320: This account of Hotspur's mission to Wales is the first circumstance mentioned by the manuscript after the chronicle of the Monk of Evesham ends.[(back)]
Footnote 321: The Sloane MS. says that it was on the 28th day of February; the King's MS. assigns it to the 18th.[(back)]
Footnote 322: There are similar statements in Maydstone, Ang. Sac. vii. 371.[(back)]
Footnote 323: The MS. and Monk here agree.[(back)]
Footnote 324: This is another sign that it was written by a foreigner. No Englishman would have been likely to call Henry the Prince of England. He was either called Prince of Wales, or more frequently the Prince.[(back)]
Footnote 325: The Author confesses his inability to discover the meaning of the words which fill up the gaps left in this translation of the passage "Per suas patenas de patriotis," &c. The passage seems to him altogether corrupt.[(back)]
Footnote 326: The Duke of Clarence was at Bourdeaux, February 5, 1413, and signed an acquittance there, April 14, 1413. (See Rymer; and Additional Charters.)[(back)]
Footnote 327: The words are written in one MS. at length, "decimo tertio."[(back)]
Footnote 328: Bibl. Reg. 13, C. i. 10. An. 13 Hen. IV. "Eodem anno in Crastino Animarum incepit parliamentum apud Westmonasterium. Et quia Rex ratione suæ infirmitatis non poterat in personâ propriâ interesse, assignavit et ordinavit in nomine suo fratrem suum Thomam Beuforde, Cancellarium tunc Angliæ, ad inchoandum, continuandum, et prorogandum; in quo parliamento Henricus Princeps desidevavit à patre suo regni et coronæ resignacionem, eo quod pater ratione ægritudinis non poterat circa honorem et utilitatem regni ulteriùs laborare; sed sibi in hoc noluit penitùs assentire; ymmo regnum unà cum coronâ et pertinenciis, dummodo haberet spiritus vitales, voluit gubernare: unde Princeps quodammodo cum suis consiliariis aggravatus recessit; et posteriùs quasi pro majori parte Angliæ omnes proceres suo dominio in humagio et stipendio copulavit. In eodem parliamento moneta tam in auro quam in argento fuerat aliqualiter in pondere minorata ex causà permutationis extraneorum, qui in suis partibus ratione cambii magnum sibi cumulabant emolumentum, et Regi et suis mercatoribus Angligenis in magnum dispendium et detrimentum, &c."[(back)]
Footnote 329: It cannot, however, be supposed that this anonymous writer fabricated the story; he must have copied it from some other writer, or put down what he had learned by hearsay.[(back)]
Footnote 330: The Author confesses his own opinion to be that a party was formed at court (headed probably by the Queen), jealous of the Prince's influence, and determined to destroy his power with his father. That, to oppose this party, the Prince summoned his friends, and made a demonstration of his power; (it is possible that he might have expressed his readiness to act again in the government for his father, as he had undoubtedly done before:) and that, after much coldness and alienation, father and son were fully reconciled.[(back)]
Footnote 331: Sloane, p. 42. The statute for assigning certain imposts for the King's household is transcribed at full length, word for word. So, too, in the seventh year, the statute relative to the succession is copied verbatim. Of the same character is the copy of the Tripartite Indenture of Division.[(back)]