Transcriber's Note
In this verson, italics are rendered using the _underscore_ character.
The sole use of superscript is the abbreviation 'vo', which is simply
left as '8vo'. The 'oe' ligature is rendered as separate characters.
The page headers on the odd pages of Chapters I to VIII of the original
text provided a running account of the year and topic discussed. These
are retained as highlighted notes such as "14XX] TOPIC" In Chapters IX
and X, there are no dates in these topic notes.
Please see the Notes at the end of this text for more detailed
discussion on any changes or corrections.
HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER
[Illustration: HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER.
_From an Arras Manuscript._]
HUMPHREY
DUKE OF GLOUCESTER
A Biography
BY
K. H. VICKERS, M.A.
EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD
LECTURER IN MODERN HISTORY AT UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, BRISTOL
ORGANISER AND LECTURER IN LONDON HISTORY FOR THE
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL
LONDON
ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE AND COMPANY
LIMITED
1907
Edinburgh: T and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty
TO
THOSE KIND FRIENDS WITHOUT WHOSE
SYMPATHY AND KINDNESS THIS
BOOK WOULD NEVER HAVE
BEEN BROUGHT TO
COMPLETION
PREFACE
The following pages have been written amidst many interruptions and
completed amidst great difficulties. The excuse for their existence is
to be found in the total absence of any adequate biography of their
subject, and the attraction (to the author at any rate) of a varied and
interesting career. My indebtedness to those who have made a study of
the fifteenth century is acknowledged in the bibliography, but my
obligations extend much further. My thanks are due to many librarians
who have given me every facility to inspect manuscripts in their care,
but to Mr. Falconer Madan of the Bodleian Library at Oxford I am under
no ordinary debt of obligation. His consistent kindness and interest has
made many paths smooth that would otherwise have been rough. I am
indebted to Lord Leicester for his kindness in allowing me to examine a
manuscript life of the Duke which forms part of his Library, and to Mr.
Yates Thompson for a similar permission with regard to the Duke's
Psalter. Still more do I desire to thank Dean Kitchin for his courtesy
and kindness in sending me a transcript of a letter in a Durham
manuscript, whilst Professor Oman has given me the great encouragement
of his sympathy and advice. To Dr. Morris of Bedford I owe assistance on
some points of difficulty, and Sir Alfred Scott-Gatty, Garter, was kind
enough to answer several questions with regard to the Duke's armorial
bearings. To my mother, who has spent many weary hours in copying my
manuscript; to my sister, who is largely responsible for the index; and
to my friend, Mr. H. W. Ward of Frenchay, whose assistance, both
clerical and critical, has been freely given, the mere record of my
gratitude is not sufficient.
Mr. E. Alfred Jones has kindly allowed me to reproduce the photograph of
a cup which once belonged to Duke Humphrey, and which forms part of the
collection he has made for his book on _The Old Plate of the Cambridge
Colleges_, whilst the possessor of the manuscript copy of Beccaria's
dedication to Duke Humphrey, prefaced to his translation of Boccaccio,
was good enough, through the kind instrumentality of Mr. Strickland
Gibson of the Bodleian Library, to allow me to photograph this unique
document.
K. H. V.
FRENCHAY, _August 1907_.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION, xvii
CHAPTER I
EARLY LIFE
Birth of Humphrey: his parents--The change of
dynasty--The Order of the Bath--Plot to kill Henry
IV. and his sons--Humphrey made a Knight of the
Garter--Visit to Abbey of Bardney--Accession of
Henry V.--Humphrey created Earl of Pembroke and
Duke of Gloucester--Negotiations between England
and France--Preparations for war--The Southampton
Conspiracy: its warning--Gloucester's retinue in
the 1415 campaign--The siege of Harfleur--March
from Harfleur to Agincourt--The battle of
Agincourt--The King's return to England, 1-32
CHAPTER II
THE WAR IN FRANCE
Various phases of Gloucester's career--The Emperor
Sigismund's visit to England: reception by
Gloucester--The Treaty of Canterbury--Gloucester
hostage at St. Omer for the safety of the Duke of
Burgundy visiting Henry V. at Calais--Gloucester
and Sigismund: a contrast in characters--Renewal of
the war--The siege of Caen--Gloucester's military
qualities--The sieges of Alençon and
Falaise--Gloucester despatched to subdue the
Côtentin--The Côtentin expedition--The siege of
Cherbourg--Gloucester joins Henry V. at the siege
of Rouen--Gloucester's negotiations for a
wife--Further military undertakings: the capture of
Ivry--Gloucester returns to England, 33-80
CHAPTER III
THE EVOLUTION OF GLOUCESTER'S POLICY
Gloucester Regent of England: terms of his
commission--State of the country at this time; the
rise of the Middle Classes and their support of
Gloucester--The King of Scotland and
Gloucester--The Treaty of Troyes proclaimed in
England--Influence of this treaty on Gloucester's
policy--Restlessness of Parliament--The return of
Henry V. to England--Coronation of Queen
Catharine--The misfortunes of Jacqueline of
Hainault: her arrival in England and meeting with
Gloucester--Henry V.'s policy with regard to
Jacqueline--Third French campaign--The siege of
Dreux--Gloucester's second Regency of
England--Death of Henry V.: his wishes for the
government of his kingdoms--Claimants for the
Protectorate: Henry Beaufort, Bedford, and
Gloucester: their qualifications--Opposition to
Gloucester's claims: his removal from the
Regency--Appointment to the Protectorate: the
limitations placed on Gloucester's power and their
effect--Alliance between Gloucester and Bedford and
its significance--Dissensions in the Regency
Council--Execution of Sir John Mortimer and death
of the Earl of March, 81-124
CHAPTER IV
GLOUCESTER AND HAINAULT
Jacqueline's treatment in England--Her marriage to
Gloucester--Visit of Gloucester and Jacqueline to
St. Albans--Burgundy objects to Gloucester's
pretensions to govern Hainault--Attempted
arbitration between Gloucester and
Burgundy--Gloucester's claim--His departure with
Jacqueline for Hainault--Renewed attempts at
arbitration--March from Calais to
Hainault--Reception in Hainault: attitude of
Mons--The Estates of Hainault accept Gloucester as
Regent--Complaints of the behaviour of the English
soldiers--Papal procrastination in deciding
Jacqueline's divorce appeal--Burgundy prepares for
armed interference--Siege of
Braine-le-Comte--Gloucester's
inactivity--Correspondence of Gloucester and
Burgundy who agree to a duel--Increased hostility
to Gloucester in Hainault--Gloucester returns to
England--The motive and wisdom of his Hainault
policy, 125-161
CHAPTER V
THE PROTECTORATE
Gloucester's reception in England: attitude of the
Council--Jacqueline loses ground in Hainault--The
duel between Gloucester and Burgundy
forbidden--Gloucester loses interest in Hainault
affairs: failure of an expedition to relieve
Jacqueline--The quarrel between Gloucester and
Beaufort: Beaufort summons Bedford to
England--Gloucester's position before and after
Bedford's return--Council of St. Albans--Parliament
of Leicester: Gloucester's attack on Beaufort: the
decision of the Lords--The Council asserts its
rights: its communication to Gloucester--Results of
Bedford's intervention--Gloucester suppresses
lawlessness--Jacqueline seeks assistance: money
voted by the Council for her relief--Abandonment of
the contemplated expedition--Public feeling hostile
to Gloucester--The Pope refuses the
divorce--Gloucester marries Eleanor
Cobham--Disturbances in the Midlands--Beaufort
attacked for accepting the Cardinalate--Coronation
of Henry VI., 162-215
CHAPTER VI
GLOUCESTER AS FIRST COUNCILLOR
The end of the Protectorate--The Forty Shilling
Franchise--Gloucester made Regent--Henry VI. goes
to France--Parliament of 1431--The rising of 'Jack
Sharpe': its significance--Gloucester seeks more
power: intrigues against Beaufort--Increase of the
Regent's salary--Results of the
Regency--Ministerial changes--Beaufort returns to
the attack: brings forward grievances against the
Government--Lord Cromwell and
Gloucester--Gloucester goes to Calais to negotiate
peace--Bedford comes to England--More ministerial
changes--Bedford petitioned to remain in England:
the conditions on which he agrees to do
so--Gloucester propounds a scheme for carrying on
the war--Quarrel of Gloucester and Bedford--Death
of Bedford--Defection of Burgundy from the English
alliance--Gloucester appointed Lieutenant of
Calais: he relieves it when besieged by
Burgundy--Gloucester's raid into Flanders, 216-254
CHAPTER VII
DISGRACE AND DEATH
Gloucester's waning interest in political life: his
appearance as a patron of letters--Negotiations for
peace with France: Gloucester's opposition; his
manifesto against Beaufort and Cardinal Kemp: his
manifesto against the release of the Duke of
Orleans, and the King's reply--Gloucester's
declining importance--Trial and imprisonment of the
Duchess of Gloucester for sorcery and
treason--Consequent loss of influence to
Gloucester--The marriage of Henry VI. to Margaret
of Anjou--Gloucester's war policy--Triumph of the
Beaufort faction--The Parliament of Bury--Arrest
and death of Gloucester, 255-294
CHAPTER VIII
SOME ASPECTS OF GLOUCESTER'S CAREER
The nature of Gloucester's death: growing conviction
that he was murdered--The trial of his servants for
treason--The effect of his death on English
politics--His policy in Hainault--The nature of his
rule in England: charges of oppression: tribute of
his servants--His war policy--His ecclesiastical
policy: relations with the Papacy--His connection
with St. Albans Abbey--His character, 295-339
CHAPTER IX
THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE IN ENGLAND
Nature of the Renaissance, and its influence on
Gloucester--State of English
scholarship--Gloucester's qualifications for the
career of a patron of letters: his early
education--his relations with the Italian
Humanists--His friendship with Zano, Bishop of
Bayeux--Connection with Leonardi Bruni: its abrupt
ending--Correspondence with Pier Candido Decembrio:
the translation of Plato's _Republic_: books bought
for Gloucester in Italy--Gloucester and Piero del
Monte--Lapo da Castiglionchio works for
him--Antonio Pasini--Friendship with Alfonso of
Naples--Antonio di Beccaria his secretary in
England--Titus Livius of Ferrara and his Vita
Henrici Quinti--Gloucester's physicians, 340-382
CHAPTER X
THE REVIVAL OF ENGLISH SCHOLARSHIP
Gloucester and the English Scholars--Abbot
Wheathampsted his literary friend--John Capgrave's
_Commentary on Genesis_--Nicholas Upton and Thomas
Beckington--The English Poets--John Lydgate's
numerous poems and his tribute to Gloucester's
learning--John Russell, George Ashley, and Thomas
de Norton--The English version of the _De Re
Rustica_ of Palladius--Gloucester's patronage of
the University of Oxford--Correspondence with the
University--Gifts of books to Oxford--Arrangements
for their safe keeping--Gloucester's literary
tastes: the books he collected--His literary
position and understanding--Influence of
Gloucester's life on English scholarship, 383-425
APPENDICES
PAGE
A. BOOKS ONCE BELONGING TO GLOUCESTER STILL EXTANT, 426-438
B. THE TOMB OF HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER, 439-441
C. GLOUCESTER'S WILL, 442-443
D. GLOUCESTER'S RESIDENCES, 444-446
E. PORTRAITS OF GLOUCESTER, 446-450
F. A LEGEND OF GLOUCESTER'S DEATH, 450-452
G. GLOUCESTER'S ARMS, BADGES, AND SEALS, 452-455
SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES
I. PRINTED BOOKS, 456-471
II. MANUSCRIPT AUTHORITIES, 471-475
INDEX, 477-491
ILLUSTRATIONS
Portrait of the Duke of Gloucester. From Bibliothèque
de la Ville d'Arras MS., 266, _Frontispiece_
[See pp. 446-447.]
PAGE
Cup bearing the Arms of the Duke of Gloucester and his
wife Eleanor in enamel, now in the possession of
Christ's College, Cambridge. From a photograph kindly
lent by Mr. E. Alfred Jones, 90
The Duke of Gloucester and his wife Eleanor being
received into the Fraternity of St. Albans. Cotton MS.,
Nero, D. vii., 206
[See p. 447.]
The Siege of Calais (1436). From the _History of the
Life and Acts of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick.
Illustrated by Drawings by John Ross of Warwick_.
Cotton MS., Julius, E. iv., Art. 6, 250
A page from the Duke of Gloucester's Psalter. Royal MS.,
2, B. i., 322
[See pp. 432-433, 447-448.]
The Duke of Gloucester's Autograph and a Label from one
of his Books. Harleian MS., 1705, and Harleian MS., 33, 360
[See p. 430 and pp. 429-430.]
Capgrave presenting his _Commentary on Genesis_ to
Gloucester. Oriel College MS., xxxii., 386
[See pp. 428, 447.]
Drawing of the Old Divinity Schools, Oxford, dating from
1566. MS. Bodley, 13, 408
A page from the Duke of Gloucester's copy of 'Le Songe
du Vergier,' once part of the Library of Charles V..
of France. Royal MS., 19, C. iv., 416
[See p. 432.]
Several photographs for the above Illustrations have been kindly
lent by Mrs. Maude C. Knight, Richmond, Surrey.
ERRATA
P. 27, l. 10, for 'Abbéville' read 'Abbeville.'
P. 45, note 6, for 'Stowe' read 'Stow.'
P. 75, l. 5, for 'Ponte' read 'Pont.'
P. 92, l. 23, for 'Dowager-Duchess' read 'Dowager-Countess.'
P. 314, l. 13, for 'Northampton' read 'Northumberland.'
P. 366, l. 2, for 'Festus Pompeius' read 'Pomponius Festus.'
P. 378, l. 22, for 'Villari' read 'Villani.'
INTRODUCTION
It was Polydore Vergil who first drew attention to the fatality of the
Gloucester title. It was borne by luckless King John, Thomas of
Woodstock earned a violent death, Thomas le Despenser was beheaded,
while in days later than those treated of in this volume, King Richard
III. found that the hand of fate was against him. Humphrey Plantagenet
of the House of Lancaster was no exception to this rule. His life was
violent, his death suspicious, and even after this his misfortunes did
not desert him; for though the tradition of the 'Good Duke' lingers in
some quarters even to the present day, his importance is not recognised
by the historian. His selfishness and his lack of statesmanship have
made him a byword in fifteenth-century history, and his true title to
fame has been forgotten amidst the struggles which prepared the way for
the Wars of the Roses.
'It is rather remarkable,' wrote Bishop Creighton in 1895, 'that more
attention has not been paid to the progress of Humanism in England, and
especially to the literary fame of the Duke of Gloucester.' It is
certainly strange that this Duke should have found as his literary
executors only two men, both Germans, and they even have not devoted
more than a passing attention to his fame. Whilst there is no little
interest to be found in the story of his public career, the main
importance of his life is centred in his position as a literary patron.
He was unique in the history of his country and age, in taking an
interest in the classical authors of Greece and Rome, who had lain
buried beneath the accumulated dust of the Middle Ages, and to him we
can trace the renaissance of Greek studies in England, and the revival
of Litteræ Humaniores in the University of Oxford. The fifteenth
century, with all its foibles and all its baseness, has been disregarded
by many who prefer an age of heroism or an age of material progress. Yet
the picturesque is not lacking in Duke Humphrey's career, and his
influence is felt even at the present day. In his life we can trace the
spirit of his age, though many of the characters which flit across the
stage are indefinite, and bear few striking qualities.
This is particularly true of Gloucester himself. Few personal touches
are to be found in the historical writers of the period, and his
character is often elusive, his actions often uncertain. The present
volume aims at tracing the salient events of his career in relation to
the history of his times, and at showing his relationship to
fifteenth-century literary aspirations, both in Italy and in England. A
hero no biographer can make him in spite of his many virtues, but at
least he should be relieved of the universal blame cast upon him. In his
life he was typical of his age, in his death the outward failure of his
career was clearly evident; but as the first English patron of those
scholars who were to revolutionise the mental attitude of the world, he
deserves recognition and remembrance, if not reverence.
HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER
CHAPTER I
EARLY LIFE
On the north-east border of the German-speaking races, there existed in
the latter days of the fourteenth century one of those old religious
military orders, which had been founded to carry on war against the
infidel in the Holy Land. Here, where German met Slav, and Christian met
Pagan, the Knights of St. Mary found a new sphere of usefulness, after
the military orders had become discredited, and in their war against the
heathen Lithuanians they attracted many of the adventurous spirits of
Christendom. Thus King John of Bohemia, who fell at Crécy, had lost his
eyesight fighting in these North German marches, and the adventurous
Henry of Bolingbroke, son and heir of John of Gaunt, spent some of his
energies in helping the Teutonic knights in their wars. It was on one of
these expeditions that at Königsberg news was brought to the future King
Henry IV. of England that his wife had borne him a son who had been
named Humphrey.[1] It was on November 1, 1390, that the sailor who
carried this news received his reward as the bringer of good tidings, so
the birth was probably in the preceding August or September.[2]
Humphrey was the fourth son of the union of Henry of Bolingbroke and
Mary Bohun, who was co-heiress to the princely inheritance of the Earls
of Hereford and Essex. This marriage had been one of the romantic
episodes of the time, and had brought John of Gaunt's eldest son
prominently forward during the reign of Richard II. The Bohun
inheritance had cast its glamour over the man who had thus secured a
part thereof, and he never neglected an opportunity of emphasising his
pride in the Bohun connection. Thus he adopted the badge of the Swan,
which was a Bohun cognisance, and in choosing the names of his sons he
only once, in the case of Thomas, selected one which was decidedly not
taken from his wife's family. In the case of his fourth and youngest son
this was especially marked, for Humphrey was a favourite Bohun name.[3]
Of the last six Earls of Hereford, five had borne it, so its youngest
recipient was made at his birth the inheritor of Bohun traditions--
traditions which spoke of a life which would be active, if not
turbulent, and which amidst some constitutional actions would have many
elements of ambition and self-seeking. The Earls of Hereford had taken a
prominent part in the past history of England, and this last inheritor
of their name, if not of their title, was not to be unknown in the
public life of his country. From his mother's family it may be that with
his name he inherited some part of that restless and unstable character
which was to influence his actions all through his life.
1399] ACCESSION OF HENRY IV.
Of the place of young Humphrey's birth we have no record, but much of
his childhood was spent at Eaton Tregoes, a place situated not far from
Ross on the banks of the Wye, and part of the Hereford inheritance.[4]
Here he was left in the care of Sir Hugh Waterton, along with his two
sisters, Blanche and Philippa, when his father was banished by the
capricious Richard II.[5] Here he mourned the death of his
grandfather,[6] and hence, too, in all probability he went to welcome
his father's triumphant return, since he did not accompany his brother
Henry to Ireland in the train of King Richard.[7]
The change of dynasty naturally had an influence on the life of Henry's
son. Hitherto Humphrey had been a child of little importance, the son of
a leading nobleman, and indeed a member of the blood royal, but this
last was a not uncommon distinction in the days when Edward III.'s
numerous descendants peopled the country. Of late, too, owing to his
father's banishment, he had been kept in seclusion by his faithful
guardian, waiting for happier days, which had now come. By the
parliamentary sanction of Henry of Bolingbroke's claim to the throne,
Humphrey became a prince in the line of succession, and the consequent
honours pertaining to a king's son fell to his lot. Accordingly he was
selected, together with his brothers Thomas and John, to gild the
inauguration of a new order of knighthood. The new Lancastrian dynasty
had not as yet secured a firm hold on the kingdom. John of Gaunt had
never been taken very seriously as a statesman, and his son was but
little known in his native land save for his short period of opposition
to Richard II. Something must be done to give stability to the new royal
house, and to borrow for it some of that outward respectability of
appearance which usually only comes with age. One of the expedients to
this end was the creation of a new order of knighthood, which should do
for the Lancastrians what the Order of the Garter had done for their
predecessors. Many have denied that the Order of the Bath owes its
inception to Henry IV., and it must be allowed that the ceremonial of
bathing on the eve of receiving knighthood dates back to Frankish
times, and by now had become hallowed by the Church and enforced by the
chivalric code which had come to soften the rough corners of Feudalism.
Nevertheless, no earlier mention of a definite Order of the Bath can be
found, and it was with the intention of giving dignity to this new
corporation of knights that the King's three youngest sons headed the
first list of creations.[8] On the Eve of the Translation of St. Edward
the knighthoods were conferred,[9] and when the Mayor and citizens of
London came to escort the King to Westminster, preparatory to his
coronation on the morrow, the new knights were assigned a place of
honour in the procession, riding before the King in long green coats,
with the sleeves cut straight and the hoods trimmed with ermine.[10] The
Feast day itself witnessed the coronation of Humphrey's father as King
Henry IV.[11] Though only nine years old the young prince had received
that inauguration into the ranks of men which the dignity of knighthood
conferred, and to emphasise this fact certain landed possessions were
given to him by the King. On December 2 were bestowed upon him the
manors of Cookham and Bray, near Maidenhead in Berkshire, to which were
added the manors of Middleton and Merden in Kent, all given to him for
himself and the heirs of his body.[12] Within these manors and hundreds
he received all royal as well as proprietory rights,[13] and some days
later he was relieved of all fees and fines payable on the receipt of
letters-patent and writs.[14] About the same time provision was made for
him in the shape of 'coursers, trotters, and palfreys' provided for his
use.[15]
1400] PLOT AGAINST THE NEW DYNASTY
Joy and sorrow, triumph and danger, were to succeed one another in
striking contrast all through Humphrey's life, and he was quickly to
learn that it was no untainted privilege to be numbered among kings'
sons. He had just received his first initiation into the pomps and
glories of royal state; he had taken part in one of those triumphal
processions which were the delight of his later years; he had begun to
realise, boy though he was, the pleasant side of high rank and popular
homage; almost immediately he was to learn that there was another side
to the picture, and to experience the first of those frequent attacks
from which the Lancastrian dynasty was never entirely free. After the
coronation festivities were over, he had been taken down to Windsor
together with his brothers and sister, and there his father kept the
Feast of Christmas, surrounded by his family. But all the time a plot
was brewing, and plans were being made for taking the King unawares at a
'momynge,' and destroying both him and his four sons. Warned in time,
Henry hastened to avert the blow. Humphrey and his brothers were taken
in the dead of the night of January 4 to London, and there safely housed
in the Tower, while their father sallied forth to subdue the rebels.
When the conspirators arrived at Windsor they found their quarry had
escaped. Their plans were not sufficiently organised to enable them to
meet this contingency; an attempt to raise the country in the name of
Richard II. failed; they scattered and fled, only to meet their death,
some at the hands of the mob, and others on the scaffold.[16] Humphrey
was too young to realise the import of this unsuccessful plot; indeed,
its lack of success would render it insignificant were it not the
precursor of many similar attempts. It speaks of the strong undercurrent
of opposition to the Lancastrian dynasty, which never ceased to flow
even during the seeming popularity of Henry V.; it shows tendencies
which Humphrey himself would have to face in later life, and which the
lack of statesmanship which was to characterise him and so many of his
house was not calculated to stem. For the present the failure of the
conspiracy only helped to increase his worldly possessions, and he must
have delighted in the tapestry hangings and other spoils taken from the
condemned traitor, the Earl of Huntingdon, which were his share of the
goods forfeited by the conspirators.[17] His property steadily increased
from other sources also, and from time to time we find him the recipient
of some castle or manor at the King's hands.[18]
We hear very little of the events in the life of the boy, but we get an
occasional glimpse of him. Thus he was present at the marriage of his
father to his second wife, Joan of Navarre, widow of the Duke of
Brittany, at Winchester in the early part of 1403, and he welcomed his
future step-mother with a tablet of gold as a wedding present.[19] The
scene soon changed from marriage celebrations to war, and Humphrey now
had his first experience of a battle. The rising of Sir Edmund Mortimer
with the Welsh and Harry Hotspur of the House of Percy called the King
to the north in July, and we are told that his youngest son took part in
the famous battle of Shrewsbury.[20] As the boy was but twelve years old
it is unlikely that he took any active share in the battle, though his
elder brother was grievously wounded;[21] but he was introduced to the
perils which beset the House of Lancaster, even amongst those whom they
had counted as friends, and to the methods of warfare he was later to
practise himself.
1403] HUMPHREY RECEIVES THE GARTER
The battle of Shrewsbury was an indirect means of conferring yet another
honour on Humphrey. It is probable that he had been elected a Knight of
the Garter early in the reign, at the same time as his eldest brother,
the Prince of Wales, but at that time there was no vacancy for him to
fill.[22] There are no extant records of elections earlier than the
reign of Henry V., in whose first year we find robes provided for
Thomas, John, and Humphrey.[23] These princes, however, were undoubtedly
Knights of the Garter at an earlier date than this, and it is recorded
in the Windsor tables that John succeeded to the stall of the Duke of
York, who died on August 1, 1402.[24] If the three younger sons of Henry
were elected together, and waited to obtain their stalls in order of
age, the first vacancy after John's enrolment would come in 1403, when
Humphrey probably succeeded to the stall of Edmund, Earl of Stafford, or
to that of Hotspur himself, who both fell in the battle of
Shrewsbury.[25] In any case, it is very doubtful that Humphrey had to
wait till a later date than this to be finally received into the Order
of the Garter.
Humphrey had now passed from the state of childhood; two years later we
find him with an establishment of his own at Hadleigh Castle, in
Essex;[26] and again in the following year his position in the line of
succession was definitely arranged.[27] Nevertheless we only catch an
occasional glimpse of him. In 1406 he accompanied his father as escort
to his sister Philippa to Lynn on her way to join her future husband,
the King of Denmark.[28] From Lynn father and son went on a visit to the
Abbey of Bardney, in Lincolnshire, where they arrived on August 21. They
were met at the gates by the Abbot and monks, before whom the King
knelt, and then, rising, proceeded to the High Altar; there the Abbot
delivered a speech of welcome, and Henry, having kissed the relics,
proceeded through the choir and the cloisters to the Abbot's room, where
he was to spend the night. Early in the morning the King heard Mass,
and, accompanied by his sons Thomas and Humphrey and the attendant lords
and clergy, joined a solemn procession round the Abbey. The day ended
with feasting, and on the morrow the King spent much time in the library
amidst the valuable books which the monks had collected or written
themselves. Here, if anywhere, he was accompanied by that youngest son
who was later to be known as the great patron of learning.[29] The early
training of Humphrey, we must remember, was more that of the scholar
than of the soldier or politician.
Having lost both his mother and his father's mother when he was not four
years old, Humphrey had no near relation to whom to look for guidance;
his father was far too deeply concerned in matters of state. He had been
handed over from his earliest years to the tender mercies of one
Katharine Puncherdon, who ministered to his bodily wants,[30] while a
certain priest, by name Thomas Bothwell, was appointed his tutor.[31] Of
his further education we know but little, though it is very probable
that he studied both rhetoric and _res naturales_ at Balliol College,
Oxford.[32]
1413] ACCESSION OF HENRY V.
During the reign of Henry IV. Humphrey took no definite part in public
life; however, we find record of one official appearance when, with his
brothers, he agreed to observe the treaty made in 1412 between the King
of England and the Dukes of Berri, Orleans, and Bourbon.[33] At the time
of his father's death he was present at Westminster, and accompanied the
body in its journey down the river to Gravesend, and thence overland to
Canterbury. After the funeral he returned with his brother, now King
Henry V., to London.[34] At the very beginning of the new reign he was
made Chamberlain of England,[35] an office which entailed his presence
at court 'at the five principall festes of the yeare to take suche
lyvery and servyse after the estate he is of,'[36] and added yet further
to his already extensive possessions lands situated in South Wales,[37]
together with an annuity of five hundred marks for himself and the heirs
male of his body, till such time as an equivalent in land was given
him.[38] Personal danger there was, too, even as there had been when
Henry IV. ascended the throne; an abortive rising of the Lollards
threatened for a moment the lives of the King and his brothers.[39]
The accession of Henry V. increased his youngest brother's dignity, for
besides bringing him a step nearer to the throne, it placed him more on
an equality of age and standing with those in whose hands the government
of the country rested. It may be, too, that the death of his father
changed his future life materially, for his entire absence from all
political functions, and his inactivity, whilst his brothers, little
older than himself, had taken an active part in the management of public
affairs, suggest the impression that he was not destined for a political
career. Moreover, for the first year of his brother's reign, Humphrey de
Lancaster, as he had hitherto been styled,[40] does not appear at all
prominently in public life, and it was not till he was twenty-three
years old--for those times a somewhat advanced age--that he took his
place definitely among the great men of the kingdom. On May 16, 1414,
letters-patent were issued creating him Earl of Pembroke and Duke of
Gloucester, at the same time that his brother John was made Earl of
Kendal and Duke of Bedford. Though only raised to the peerage at this
time, John had already taken his share in the duties of government, and
before this had represented the King in several important offices of
trust. The peerage thus conferred on Humphrey was for life only, and was
accompanied by a modest allowance of £60 to be paid out of the proceeds
of the county of Pembroke; of this £40 was for the maintenance of his
dignity as Duke, and the remaining £20 in respect of his Earldom.[41] At
once the new duke passed from insignificance to prominence. He had had
no education in the duties and responsibilities of high rank and
executive power, but by a stroke of the pen he became one of the chief
men of the kingdom, and by reason of his royal blood took precedence in
the peerage and in the kingdom of the holders of titles of longer
standing.[42]
1414] HENRY V.'s FRENCH POLICY
Humphrey was not slow to enter upon the duties of his new rank, and on
the very day of his elevation to the peerage he took his seat in the
Parliament then sitting at Leicester.[43] Here he witnessed the
enactment of severe measures for the repression of the Lollards,[44] in
pursuance of a policy which he himself was later to carry out: heresy,
it must be remembered, was under the Lancastrians a political danger,
for Henry IV. had usurped the throne as the champion of the Church. It
may be, too, that the newly created duke took part in a debate which
dealt with matters of more pressing interest. It has been said that the
negotiations which were proceeding with France were discussed at this
time, but the Rolls of Parliament bear no record of this; be this as it
may, the question of English relations with France had appeared on the
horizon to herald that second phase of the Hundred Years' War, which,
beginning in all its glory with the first appearance of Humphrey of
Gloucester in public life, was to end with its full complement of
disgrace and disaster almost simultaneously with his life.
To Henry at Leicester had come ambassadors from France--two rival
embassies in the interest of the two rival factions in that country.
With an insane king at the head of affairs, France was distraught by the
struggle of Burgundian and Armagnac for the control of the government.
The origin of this bitter strife dated some years back to the murder of
the Duke of Orleans in the streets of Paris at the instigation of the
Duke of Burgundy, in revenge, it is said, for the seduction of his wife
by the murdered man.[45] This personal hatred had rapidly developed into
a political struggle, and it had continued with varying successes till
at the present time Burgundy had been driven from Paris and declared to
be a rebel and an enemy to the kingdom. Thus the Armagnac faction, as
the party of the Orleanists was now called, was for the time supreme,
and it may naturally be supposed that Henry V., if he wished to take
advantage of these internal dissensions in the French kingdom, would
hope to secure more favourable terms from the exiled party, than from
those who held the supremacy. Thus at Leicester the envoys from the Duke
of Burgundy received a warmer welcome than their rivals, and agreed to
sign a defensive and offensive treaty with the English King, whereby
their master promised to help Henry in any attack he might make on
Armagnac territory.[46] The terms of this treaty, however, were not
revealed, and Burgundy denied the existence of any hostile alliance when
he came to a temporary agreement with the Armagnac faction at the Treaty
of Arras in February 1415.[47] The King of England, too, did not cease
to intrigue with both parties, for he was not slow to realise the
advantage which these dissensions gave him. He had meddled in French
politics before he came to the throne, not always to his father's
satisfaction, and now in the spirit of the old crusaders he meant to
take advantage of the sins of France, while at the same time he
fulfilled a divine commission to punish the transgressors. In him France
was to find her true redeemer, the healer of her internal wounds, and to
this end he continued his intrigues with both parties, offering to marry
both Catherine of France and Catherine of Burgundy as a means to
establish his purely illusory claim to the French throne.[48]
1414] GLOUCESTER'S FOREIGN POLICY
Meanwhile, in England, men's minds were turning to war. The martial
glories of Edward III.'s reign were not entirely forgotten, and the
trade interests of the kingdom were not inclined to oppose a policy
which might tend to stop the depredations of French privateers. The
Church, if not absolutely encouraging the war, as has been asserted by
later writers, did nothing to oppose it; dissentients there were, of
course, but for the King's councillors the only question was, with the
help of which party should Henry enter France. The King himself, with
Bedford and the Beauforts, looked to Burgundy as the most likely ally,
whilst Clarence, supported by Gloucester and the Duke of York, favoured
an Armagnac alliance.[49] This divided opinion was a renewal of the
disagreements which had arisen in the court of Henry IV. The younger
Henry had always inclined to the Burgundian alliance which his father
had opposed, and which now was no more favoured by his two brothers. In
the career of Humphrey it is interesting to note that on the first
occasion on which he definitely asserted his opinion he found himself in
opposition to the policy of the Beauforts, who were to be his bitterest
enemies through life, and in alliance with the House of York, the only
family which supported him in the later years of humiliation. Above all,
we must not ignore the fact that he here showed his distrust of
Burgundian methods and Burgundian policy, and that he now opposed an
alliance with a house whose strongest enmity he was to incur at a later
date; that, on the other hand, he advised an Armagnac alliance which was
to form an essential part of his policy in the days when this King
Henry's son was seeking to strengthen himself by a French marriage.
Nothing could give a more accurate forecast of his future life and
policy than the line which Humphrey took on this question, and it helps
to give a strange consistency to his career; to borrow something akin to
prophecy from the darkness of the unknown future.
It is probable that, in spite of his embassies and overtures, Henry
never expected to come to terms with either party; at any rate his
demands from the French King were too preposterous to be taken seriously
as an overture of peace,[50] and at home he never ceased to prepare for
war on a large scale. Ships were secured from Holland and Zealand; money
and munitions of war were collected for the great undertaking;
indentures were entered into with the chief men of the kingdom to serve
abroad with the King, and amongst these we find the names of the Dukes
of Clarence, Gloucester, and York.[51] With these preparations the time
wore on, Humphrey taking his share of the work. In April he appears as a
member of the King's Privy Council for the first time,[52] and in the
previous March he was employed to bring home to the city fathers the
immense advantages of English aggrandisement on the Continent.
Accompanied by the Dukes of Bedford and York, the Archbishop of
Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester, he went to the Mayor and
Aldermen of the City of London, and, showing great deference to these
civic magnates, joined his associates in persuading them to support the
war with a substantial gift of money.[53] Thus early in his career he
was brought into close contact with the Londoners, who were to prove his
best and most faithful friends.
Though preparations for war had gone so far, negotiations with France
were still pending. The Dauphin, who had taken the place of his demented
father, after exasperating the English with his present of tennis balls
in the previous year,[54] had taken no steps to meet the danger which
threatened his country, and it was only at the instance of the Duke of
Berri, whom he had recently called to his councils, that an embassy was
despatched to meet Henry at Winchester on June 30.[55] The King was
holding his court in the bishop's palace, and there, with his three
brothers standing on his right and Chancellor Beaufort on his left, he
received the ambassadors with all pomp and ceremony. Both this and the
next day were occupied with formal receptions, wherein Gloucester was
specially prominent, for he alone of all the temporal peers was allotted
a special seat at the official banquet, being placed on the King's right
hand. When business began in earnest the Archbishop of Bourges and the
Bishop of Lisieux--'_vir verbosus et arrogans_,' says Walsingham--were
spokesmen for the French, whilst Beaufort spoke for the King of England.
The negotiations lasted till July 6, and were marked by a somewhat more
conciliatory attitude on the English side, but from the first they were
doomed to failure, for neither party meant to give way,[56] and at
length Henry broke up the meeting and dismissed the envoys with every
courteous attention.[57]
1415] THE SOUTHAMPTON CONSPIRACY
War had now become a mere matter of days. After a brief visit to London,
Henry went down to Southampton, whither probably Gloucester had gone
direct from the negotiations at Winchester, and the last preparations
for the expedition against France were being completed, when the young
Earl of March waited on the King, and laid before him the details of a
conspiracy against the House of Lancaster.[58] The Earl of Cambridge--a
worthless brother of the Duke of York--Henry Lord Scrope, and Sir Thomas
Grey of Heton were the authors of the plot, and their plan was to
proclaim an impostor who pretended to be Richard II., and was then in
Scotland, or in default of him the Earl of March himself.[59] At the
time of the discovery the scheme had not been fully developed, as it was
not intended that the matter should come to a head till Henry was safely
employed in France; indeed the only reason that definite action had
been taken, in so far as the Earl of March had been approached, was to
prevent the latter from accompanying the army.[60] There were, however,
traces that the conspiracy was spreading, and rumours were afloat that
the Lollards were going to seize the opportunity of internal
disturbances to strike a blow for their religion.[61] The King was not
slow to act on the information given him. On July 21 he issued a
commission to inquire into the matter, and on August 2 a jury was
empanelled, which indicted the three conspirators for plotting against
the King and his three brothers, the Dukes of Clarence, Bedford, and
Gloucester.[62] Cambridge and Grey confessed their guilt, and threw
themselves on the King's mercy, but Scrope denied any traitorous intent.
Grey as a commoner was executed at once, but the two lords were reserved
for the trial of their peers. Clarence was commissioned to summon a jury
of peers for this purpose, and among those who were called to take part
in the trial were the Duke of York--the brother of one of the
accused--and Gloucester--one of those against whom the conspiracy was
aimed.[63] The accused were condemned to death, and executed the same
day outside the North Gate of Southampton,[64] but the whole procedure
was so irregular that it was considered necessary to legalise it in the
next Parliament.[65]
1415] THE FRENCH WAR
The danger was past, but there was a lesson and a warning to be gathered
from the plot, though it passed unheeded. Humphrey, now on the threshold
of his public career, was brought face to face with an event which might
have taught him much, but which he failed to understand. This first
Yorkist conspiracy stood in the way, as did the prophets of old, and
foretold destruction and disaster to dynasty and kingdom if this
iniquitous and foolish French war were really undertaken. It showed that
there was a party in England which was opposed to the Lancastrian House,
and it pointed unmistakably to the time when civil war would drive out
the reigning dynasty. That Henry could have foreseen all the results of
his mistaken policy is impossible, but no ruler with the slightest claim
to be considered a statesman would have set up the false idea of foreign
conquest as an antidote to dissensions at home. This policy was no
remedy; it postponed the struggle only to enhance its bitterness and to
aggravate its disastrous results. Henry was blind to the signs which had
appeared on the political horizon to herald the coming storm, but this
very inability to gauge the significance of events has made him the idol
of successive generations of his countrymen, who care not for his policy
and its results, but appreciate only the dramatic setting of his life.
It was just this dramatic quality of the French wars which appealed to
Henry's youngest brother. In an age when the artistic side of life was
totally ignored by Englishmen, he was beginning to breathe the
atmosphere of new ideas, which rendered him susceptible to the charm of
large conceptions and dramatic episodes. He was at once attracted by the
brilliant aspect of this French policy with its splendid dreams of
territorial aggrandisement. But while Henry adopted the French war as a
policy, Humphrey saw in it not so much a policy as an idea, an idea
which he worshipped to the day of his death. Thus in estimating
Gloucester's later actions we must remember whence they took their
origin, and we must not forget his training in the policy of his eldest
brother. Both were blind to the folly of attacking France, but while the
King was to die before the results of his actions appeared, Humphrey was
to live on till the fields were ripe for harvest, and to die only on
the eve of that day when the harvest was gathered in. Thus from the
Southampton conspiracy he might have learnt the dangers which the French
war would foster, he might have learnt the lesson that a united aim and
common action were necessary for the prosperity of the House of
Lancaster, but he was deaf to the teaching of the incident. To
understand Gloucester's life-history, therefore, we must carefully
consider the early years of his active life, the training he received in
the wars of Henry V., and the attractiveness to a man of his temperament
of the false ideals taught him by his famous brother.
1415] GLOUCESTER'S RETINUE
The discovery of the Southampton plot only delayed Henry so long as was
necessary to punish the offenders, and on August 7 he left the castle of
Porchester, where he had been staying, and embarked on board his ship
_The Trinity_. His preparations were now complete, and by Sunday the
11th, all the vessels he had called together for the transhipment of the
army had arrived, to the number of at least fifteen hundred sail.[66]
Never before had so large or so strong a fleet ridden in Southampton
Water,[67] and yet they were barely sufficient for the men they had to
carry, for the army consisted of some two thousand men-at-arms and six
thousand mounted and unmounted archers, though the accounts of the
numbers vary considerably.[68] We can only approximately estimate the
proportion which Gloucester's retinue bore to the whole; his indenture
has not survived, but we have evidence from other sources. When making
his indentures, or contracts for service, with the leading noblemen of
the kingdom, Henry had paid them in advance for the first quarter, and
had deposited jewels with them for the second quarter.[69] To his
youngest brother there were pledged two purses of gold 'garnished with
jewels' valued at £2000 each,[70] and from this one authority calculates
that he was intended to serve with a hundred and twenty-nine lances and
six hundred archers.[71] However, in the unpublished collections for
Rymer's _Foedera_ the retinue is estimated at two hundred men-at-arms
and six hundred horse archers,[72] which seems to be more proportionate
to the money paid to Humphrey. If we take the wages of a man-at-arms to
be one shilling a day and that of an archer sixpence, the sum-total with
allowances for higher payments to bannerets and knights, and to the Duke
himself, comes to something approaching £3000. The surplus of £1000
might be accounted for by the fact that in some cases wages might be on
a higher scale; indeed by 1437 a horse archer was often in receipt of
eightpence a day.[73] Moreover, it may be that in view of the fact that
the army was not to be permitted to plunder the country through which it
might pass, a wider margin than usual was allowed to those who
contracted for men. Edward III. in his wars had liberally compensated
for losses in the campaign, even to the length of paying for horses lost
in action, and it may be that Henry V. made allowance for this in his
contracts. There seems therefore to be ample evidence that the indenture
of jewels speaks to a retinue which numbered approximately two hundred
lances and six hundred archers, thus preserving the ratio between the
two kinds of soldiers usual at the time, though later in the French wars
the lances became a still smaller percentage of the sum-total of
fighting men. Conflicting evidence to this is found in a muster of
Humphrey's men held at Mikilmarch near Romsey on July 16, where only six
hundred and sixty-eight names appear on the register,[74] but as on that
day several captains had only one or two men serving under them, and
two had none at all, it is very probable that their numbers were not the
same as when they sailed almost a month later. Still further reason for
accepting the larger number as accurate is given by the record we have
of Gloucester's retinue at Agincourt. Here he was at the head of a
hundred and forty-two lances and four hundred and six archers,[75] and
this alone would refute the estimate of a hundred and twenty-nine lances
and six hundred archers. Moreover, it is recorded that at Harfleur he
lost two hundred and thirty-six men,[76] though some of these were
_valets_ and _garçons_ who did not rank as combatants, but were the
grooms of the men-at-arms and the attendants of the baggage horses.
According to these figures his original retinue must have numbered about
seven hundred and fifty men, and so we may reckon that he sailed from
Southampton with close on eight hundred fighting men, that is roughly
the two hundred lances and six hundred archers of the Rymer collections.
It was on Tuesday, August 13, that the ships bearing the English army
entered the mouth of the Seine and cast anchor near the 'Chef de Caux,'
about three miles from the town of Harfleur.[77] Caux was a little
fortress strengthened by nature and the arts of war,[78] and besides
this outpost Harfleur had a protection against the advancing English in
a series of dikes and earthworks thrown diagonally across the line of
approach.[79] Scouts, however, reported that these lines were totally
unguarded, whether from lack of men or from the Constable d'Albret's
contempt of the enemy.[80] With the danger attending a landing of his
troops thus removed, Henry disembarked on the vigil of the Assumption
together with his two brothers, falling on his knees as he reached the
dry land and praying to God to uphold his cause. His men were encamped
on some rising ground, and edicts for the government of the army were
issued, chief amongst which were strong prohibitions against the
molestation of non-combatants and clergy, and against the spoliation of
churches.[81]
1415] BEGINNING OF THE CAMPAIGN
Humphrey had now fairly embarked on his first campaign. Ignorant of war,
and unused even to military methods and the life of the field, we shall
not meet with him very frequently in the operations of this year. He was
learning the lessons not only of war, but of all public life and
deportment, for as the youngest son of Henry IV. he had been kept in
greater seclusion than his brothers. Clarence, though only three years
his senior, had had experience in the management of men and in the
conduct of affairs as lieutenant of the King both in Ireland and in
Aquitaine, but Humphrey was new to all this, and the campaign is useful
to us, not so much as the scene of his activity, but as the school in
which he learnt the soldier's trade. It was a hard school too, for the
English needed stout hearts; they were embarking on an expedition which
might take them far from their base, and this, too, at a time of year
when military operations would be made difficult by the wintry weather.
For four days Henry remained inactive, resting his troops and bringing
up the heavy guns and siege apparatus from the ships. Then, having kept
the feast of the Assumption in due form, he advanced towards Harfleur on
August 17.[82] The Duke of Clarence commanded the van, while Michael de
la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, led the rear;[83] Gloucester was presumably
with the King and the main body of the army. Though a small town,
Harfleur was well fortified, and had been recently provisioned. It stood
a little back from the estuary of the Seine, with the river Lazarde
running through its midst, and possessed good strong walls with three
gates, one on the western side, where the English army first appeared,
and two on the east.[84] The English were at first unable to blockade
the town entirely, as they could not at once reach the eastern side,
owing to the damming of the river, which had consequently spread into a
large lake round the northern wall. The delay caused by this inundation
enabled the Sire de Gaucourt to enter Harfleur with reinforcements, and
so to prevent any further help from reaching the garrison Clarence was
despatched on the night of August 18 with orders to march round the
floods, and invest the eastern side of the town. On the way he met and
defeated still further reinforcements and munitions of war on their way
to Harfleur, and by the next day he had entirely shut in that part of
the walls for which he was responsible.[85] On the sea side the English
ships came to the mouth of the harbour, which was strongly protected by
two towers on either side of the entrance, and by a chain drawn across
from tower to tower. However, all attempts made by the garrison to drive
off these ships were fruitless, while the floods to the north were
patrolled by English boats,[86] so that by these means all communication
with the city by water was cut off, and, with the King's division
enclosing the western walls, the blockade was complete.
1415] SIEGE OF HARFLEUR
It was with the King's division that Gloucester had his station, and to
him the care of the siege on this side was committed, with the Duke of
York and the Earl Marshal near him.[87] His chief duty was the
bombardment of the town, from which it would seem that he had already
shown his readiness to espouse new ideas, and that his later fame as a
patron of scholars was preceded by a study of the art of war and of the
new engines which now made siege work so much more possible than
formerly. At any rate, in the hand-to-hand fighting of the old style,
which took place when the besieged sallied forth from the town, we find
other captains in command, though we read that where the fighting was
heaviest, there did the King station his youngest brother.[88]
Humphrey's chief work was to organise and direct the attack on his side
of the town, and it may seem strange that one, who had had no experience
of war in the past, should be given so important a post. The explanation
of the trust thus placed in Gloucester may be twofold. He had had no
opportunity hitherto of showing his capabilities, and the King may have
wished to try his metal at this early stage of the campaign, to know how
far he could trust him. It is also just possible that he had a more
complete grasp of the theory of military operations, and in especial of
the use of cannon, than the untrained nobles of the English army, and
that it was therefore as a student more than as a soldier that he won
his first laurels in the field.
We hear a good deal of the siege engines which Humphrey made use of at
the siege of Harfleur. They were of heavier metal and threw larger
missiles than any guns hitherto seen in an English army, and they
bombarded the barbicans before the gate and the walls to such good
effect, that it was only the valiant pertinacity of the besieged that
prevented an almost immediate surrender.[89] Moreover, the gunners
worked in relays, so that the cannonade was kept up incessantly
throughout the day, and were protected by shelters so constructed that
they could be lowered for the purpose of taking aim and then raised
again,[90] new methods possibly due to the ingenuity of Gloucester. On
the east, Clarence carried on operations by means of mines, and the King
directed similar operations on his side, but these had to be begun in
the open under the fire of the besieged, and were met by countermines
from the town, which defeated their object.[91] Throughout his excellent
account of the siege, the author of the _Gesta Henrici Quinti_ tries the
merits of the tactics employed on the English side by the maxims of one
'Magister Ægidius.'[92] This 'Master Giles' must have been Ægidius
Romanus who wrote _De Regimine Principum_, a work very popular at the
time, though it dated from a period before cannon were used. It was
probably from this book that Gloucester obtained some of his knowledge
of military matters, for when in later life he presented his books to
the University of Oxford, a copy of this treatise was found amongst the
volumes which comprised the gift,[93] and he at the same time retained a
French copy of the work in his private library.[94]
1415] FALL OF HARFLEUR
For a month the siege was strenuously carried on, the defence being as
determined as the attack. The breaches in the walls were filled up with
faggots and tubs of earth, clay was spread in the streets to prevent the
splintering of the missiles that fell there,[95] and on one occasion an
English bastion was captured and fired.[96] But time began to tell on
the brave little garrison, and they sent an urgent appeal for help to
Paris. No relief came, and the English were gradually drawing nearer to
the town, till on September 16 part of the outworks was captured.[97] On
the next day Henry summoned Harfleur to surrender, even as he had done
at the beginning of the siege, but though negotiations were opened they
came to nothing, and the English prepared for a great assault on the
morrow. Meanwhile, Gloucester's cannon were kept busily at work, so that
the besieged might have no rest. The assault, however, was never made,
for during the night the French determined to acknowledge defeat, and in
the morning De Gaucourt agreed to surrender the town if not relieved
before the next Sunday, September 22. At the same time, with the
permission of the English, another appeal for relief was sent to
Paris,[98] but again it was disregarded, to the everlasting shame of the
French Government says even an Armagnac chronicler.[99] There was
therefore no sign of the approach of a relieving force, when, on the
appointed Sunday, Henry entered his first conquest on French soil.[100]
Thus fell what Waurin calls 'the chief port of Normandy and the best
base the English could have for their military operations,'[101] but the
pomp and grandeur with which Henry made his entry into the town, did not
serve to conceal the way the siege had thinned the rank of besiegers as
well as besieged. The warm days of August and September, together with
the stagnant water which lay around the town, had done their worst, and,
if we can believe a French chronicler, the food of the English had not
been of the best, as the sea had tainted their provisions.[102] At all
events fever and dysentery had raged in the camp, and among those who
had died were Richard Courtenay, Bishop of Norwich, and the Earl of
Suffolk.[103] Moreover, the Duke of Clarence was too ill for further
campaigning, and he was accompanied by a large number of the soldiers
when he went back to England, leaving the heavier siege guns at Calais
on his way.[104] The army was still further thinned by the loss of the
contingent assigned to the Earl of Dorset, who was made Captain of
Harfleur.[105] The captive town was treated with justice, if not with
leniency. Thirty of the principal citizens were held to ransom, whilst
the minor citizens were given the option of taking the oath of
allegiance or of departing with their goods.[106] The captain and his
principal followers were allowed at large on condition of surrendering
on November 11 at Calais.[107]
Henry spent a fortnight at Harfleur, making arrangements for the
security of the town, and awaiting an answer to a bombastic and wholly
superfluous challenge to personal combat which he had sent to the
Dauphin.[108] On October 8 he set out to march from Harfleur to
Calais,[109] with some 900 men-at-arms and 5000 archers.[110] Of this
number Gloucester's share must have been the 142 lancers and 406
archers, which we find in his retinue at Agincourt.[111] With this small
army it was very rash to challenge the forces of France, and a council
of war had asserted it in no measured terms, but Henry felt that in
honour he could not recede, and, putting his trust in God and in his
righteous cause--as we are told--he set forth to invite a pitched battle
with the enemy.[112]
1415] MARCH TO AGINCOURT
The story of this memorable march has been so often told that it is
unnecessary to give a detailed account of it here, more especially as
Gloucester took no part in the management of the army; not once does his
name appear in the pages of any chronicler till the day of Agincourt.
His post till then was with the main body under the King himself, while
Sir John Cornwall led the van, and the Duke of York with the Earl of
Oxford commanded the rear.[113] Passing Fécamp and Arques, the English
army met with some slight resistance at Eu,[114] but without delaying
there went on towards Abbeville, where Henry had intended to cross the
Somme. News, however, came through a Gascon prisoner that the bridges
over the river were broken down, and that the ford of Blanche-Taque was
guarded by the French, so there was no alternative but to march inland
and to seek for a passage higher up the Somme.[115] The French
chroniclers declare that this report was untrue, and one complains
bitterly of the mistake, which ultimately procured the defeat of France
in a battle that, had it not been for the Gascon's story, would never
have been fought.[116] The English army, therefore, having turned to the
right, left Amiens on the left, and passed by Boves and Corbie to the
neighbourhood of Nesle, preparing all the time for French resistance,
and the archers in particular providing themselves with those sharp
stakes, which were to stand them in such good stead in the day of
battle.[117] Meanwhile, the eight days' food that the soldiers had
brought with them from Harfleur was exhausted, and besides present
shortage of provender they anticipated worse things when they reached a
district harried by the French cavalry.[118] Near Nesle, however, a ford
was found, and though a marsh flanked him on one side and the river on
the other, Henry got his men along the two narrow causeways which led to
the crossing and across the Somme itself without interference from the
enemy, who probably thought that their opponents were as numerous as the
French chroniclers afterwards declared them to have been.[119] The Somme
was crossed on the 19th, and disregarding a challenge from the Armagnac
chiefs, Henry continued steadily on his way to Calais by way of Peronne,
where he fell in with the tracks of the French army, and learnt for the
first time the large numbers he would have to fight.[120] Nothing
daunted, he encouraged the flagging spirits of his men, and on Thursday,
October 24, he lay at Maisoncelles with his army encamped around
him.[121] The French lay within earshot, and both armies endured the
full force of the rain and storm of a wild night, but while revel and
rejoicing prevailed among the French soldiers, the English knew that on
the morrow they would have to meet the alternative of victory or
annihilation, and the King's command to be silent and watchful was
rigidly obeyed.[122]
1415] BATTLE OF AGINCOURT
The day of Crispin and Crispinian broke bright and clear to find the
English army already preparing for the battle, which was now inevitable,
since the French lay across the road which led to Calais. About a mile
divided the two armies, which were both on slightly elevated ground.
Both sides were at a disadvantage from one point of view, for while the
French were numerous and confined within a narrow strip of open ground
between two stretches of woodland, the English were few and had a large
front to cover; consequently the former were drawn up in three lines and
huddled together, while the latter, stretched across in one thin line,
brought their full force into action at the same time.[123] The French
were disorganised, and their leaders quarrelled not only as to the
advantage of offering battle, but also as to their respective positions
in the fight.[124] Ultimately those in favour of action prevailed, and
the Constable d'Albret took command of the first division of dismounted
cross-bowmen and archers, these last, however, being put behind the
first line and thus rendered useless. Next came the Dukes of Bar and
Alençon leading the second division, and behind them again were the
Counts of Marle, Dammartin, and Fauquenberg. Cavalry were posted on
either flank.[125] The Duke of Burgundy was unrepresented in the army,
as he had forbidden his vassals to serve under any one but himself, and
we are told that his son Philip never ceased to bewail this enforced
absence from the battle.[126]
On the English side the archers were drawn up in wedges pointing towards
the enemy, with the men-at-arms in line between them. On the right was
the van under the command of the Duke of York, Lord Camoys with the
rearguard held the left, while the King commanded the centre, where,
among others, Gloucester led a squadron of his own.[127] All the
English, noble as well as humble, fought on foot, and though the chief
men were fully armed as was the King, the archers were almost entirely
without protective armour.[128] Beyond a few soldiers with the baggage,
all Henry's men were concentrated in the one fighting line,[129] for
there is not sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the ambushed
archers on the wings described by some writers.[130] The English
advanced to within half a mile of the enemy, and there halted, while
heralds were sent forward to offer terms of peace, but the refusal of
Henry to renounce his claim to the French throne proved an insuperable
obstacle to any pacification.[131] It was thus ten o'clock before the
King gave the final order to attack, and with a shout the archers
advanced again, this time to within bowshot, and opened fire. The French
cavalry failed in their attempt to ride them down, thanks to the stakes
planted between them and their opponents, and they fled back to spread
confusion in the first line.[132] This division, splitting into three
parts, advanced before d'Albret gave the word, but after a brief
moment's success, only to be shattered by the concentrated fire of the
English archers. Seizing the advantage thus given him, Henry ordered his
men to charge, and they, discarding the protection of their palisade,
rushed out, the men-at-arms with their lances, the archers with axes and
other promiscuous weapons. With the cry of 'Saint George and merry
England,' they pierced the first line of the enemy, and engaged the
second in hand-to-hand combat.[133] The French could not withstand this
rush, and hampered by their close array, broke and fled.
In the forefront of this charge was Humphrey at the head of his men,
exposing himself to every danger and fighting like a lion.[134]
'The Duke of Glowcestre also that tyde,
Manfully with his mayne,
Wonder he wroght ther wondere wyde.'[135]
1415] VALOUR OF GLOUCESTER
But his courage, bordering on rashness,[136] took him too far in advance
of his men, and when Alençon, having rallied some of the second
division, together with those of the third division who had not fled
without striking a blow, broke into the English ranks and caught him
unawares, Gloucester fell severely wounded 'in the hammes,' and lay
helpless on his back with his feet towards the enemy. His men would have
left him for dead, had not the King rushed forward with reinforcements,
and standing between his brother's legs, kept the enemy at bay till the
wounded duke had been removed to a place of safety.[137]
By the time that this was accomplished the day was won. The last effort
of the French, which had almost proved fatal to Humphrey, had been
checked, and Alençon himself lay dead upon the field. Beyond a scare
caused by the belief that some of the flying enemy who sacked the
English baggage in the rear were reinforcements sent from Paris--a
mistake which caused the cold-blooded murder of many French prisoners of
war--the day was thereafter devoid of incident.[138]
The English had fought valiantly, and though their King had set them a
great example, it is Gloucester whom several chroniclers pick out for
special praise. Henry's chaplain, to whom we owe much of our knowledge
of the campaign, thanks God fervently for his escape,[139] whilst others
speak of his deeds of valour and Lydgate writes:
'The Duke of Gloucestre that is so nay
That day full worthyly he wroughte,
On every syde he made good way,
The Frenshemen faste to grounde he brought,'[140]
and his somewhat fervid biographer of a later date quaintly assures us
that though 'he lost much blood and his spiritts spent with toils and
labour, yett was not his manly courage at all abated, nor his strong
stomach at all quelled.'[141] This was the only pitched battle in which
Humphrey ever took part, and he acquitted himself valiantly therein. His
impetuous temperament had come near to costing him his life, and it is
well that we have this definite and indisputable evidence of his
courage, for in one episode of his later life he came near to incurring
the accusation of cowardice; indeed, were it not for this and other
evidences of his personal valour in war, we should be entirely misled as
to the true meaning of his failure when in command of his own army in
his own quarrel.
The English losses were but few, though even hardened soldiers were
appalled at the heaps of French dead lying on the field, including the
Constable d'Albret, the Admiral Dampierre, and the Dukes of Alençon,
Bar, and Brabant, the last being Burgundy's brother who had only reached
the battle when the day was lost.[142] On the English side the Duke of
York and the Earl of Suffolk--son of the man who died before
Harfleur--were the only notable victims.[143] Early next morning the
army moved off, bearing Gloucester with them, and three days later the
King entered Calais. On November 16 he sailed for England, but
Gloucester was left behind to recover from his wound, so that he did not
take part in Henry's reception at Dover, or in his triumphal entry into
London when the city turned out in force to welcome its conquering
King.[144]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Prutz, p. lxx.
[2] See Bolingbroke's _Chamberlain's Accounts_, Prutz, 99;
_Expeditions of Derby_, 107. _William of Worcester_, ii. 443,
gives the date of Humphrey's birth as 1390. Holkham MS., p.
7, ventures on the entirely imaginary date of June 3, 1393.
[3] See Doyle, ii. 317, and under the title 'Hereford.'
[4] _Duchy of Lancaster Accounts_ (_Various_), Bundle i. No. 6.
[5] _Duchy of Lancaster Accounts_ (_Various_), Bundle iv. No. 1.
[6] _Ibid._
[7] Elmham, _Vita_, 5.
[8] See Anstis, _Order of the Bath_ (Observations Introductory).
[9] _Liberatio Pannorum in Magna Garderoba_, printed in Anstis,
_Order of the Bath_, 22. Cf. Fabyan, 565; Holinshed, iii. 3.
[10] Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. f. 45. Cf. Froissart's _Chronicle_,
Book iv. C. 16.
[11] Gregory, 102; Fabyan, 565.
[12] _Rot. Pat., 1 Henry IV._, Part iv. m. 7; Add. MS. 15,664, f.
15.
[13] _Rot. Pat., 1 Henry IV._, Part viii. m. 1.
[14] _Ibid._, Part v. m. 24.
[15] _Lord Treasurer's Remembrancers_, Roll xi. m. 12, printed in
Wylie, iv. 219.
[16] _Chron. Henry IV._, 7, 8; _Annales Henrici Quarti_, 323-330;
_Lond. Chron._, 86; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 243-245;
Higden, f. 150vo; _Chronique des Pays Bas_, 316-325.
[17] _Rot. Pat., 2 Henry IV._, Part ii. m. 22.
[18] See _Cal. Rot. Pat._, 245-249, 251, 256; _Rot. Parl._, iii.
670.
[19] _Queen's Remem. Ward. Acct._, printed in Wylie, iv. 205; Devon,
_Issue Roll_, 294.
[20] Waurin, ii. 61.
[21] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 258; Gregory, 103; Elmham,
_Vita_, 7.
[22] Beltz, p. clv. Humphrey's name occurs as a creation of Henry
IV. in the list in Ashmole, _Order of the Garter_, 506.
[23] Anstis, _Order of the Garter_, i. 14.
[24] Beltz, p. clv.
[25] _Ibid._
[26] Rymer, IV. i. 76.
[27] _Ibid._, IV. i. 106; cf. _Chron. Henry IV._, 49.
[28] Capgrave, _Chron. of Eng._, 292; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii.
274; _Chron. Henry IV._, 49.
[29] Leland, _Collectanea_, vi. 300, 301.
[30] _Duc. Lanc. Accounts (Various)_, Bundle iv. No. 1.
[31] _Ibid._; _Receiver Gen. Rec._, 1 _Henry IV._ Holkham MS., p. 7,
says that Humphrey was 'instructed in the fundamentals of
good literature' by Sir Lewis Clifford, but there is no known
authority for this statement.
[32] Bale (1559 edition), 583. He does not mention it in his 1548
edition, which seems to imply that he was using some newly
acquired authority, though of course implicit confidence
cannot be placed in the statement. Leland, _Commentarii_,
422, follows Bale's later statements.
[33] Rymer, iv. ii. 14, 15.
[34] Waurin, ii. 162.
[35] May 7, 1413. _Rot. Pat._, 1 _Henry V._, Part iii. m. 44.
[36] Such at least were the duties of the Chamberlain under Edward
IV.; _Ordinances of the Household_, 29.
[37] _Rot. Pat._, 1 _Henry V._, Part v. m. 8.
[38] _Ibid._, Part iv. m. 4.
[39] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 297.
[40] _Rot. Pat._, 6 _Henry IV._, Part i. m. 25.
[41] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 17, 443.
[42] _Ibid._, iv. 270.
[43] _Ibid._, iv. 17.
[44] _Ibid._, iv. 24.
[45] Basin, i. 5, 6; St. Rémy also hints this.
[46] The original MS. of this treaty is preserved at Dijon. See De
Beaucourt, i. 132, 133.
[47] Des Ursins, 502.
[48] Rymer, IV. i. 77, 79, 80; Des Ursins, 500.
[49] Des Ursins, 500.
[50] See St. Rémy, 586.
[51] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 305; St. Rémy, 387, 388; St.
Denys, v. 499.
[52] _Ordinances_, ii. 153.
[53] _Memorials of London_, 604, 605, document printed from the City
of London Letter Book, i. f. cl. London lent Henry 10,000
marks, Rymer, IV. ii. 141.
[54] Capgrave, _De Illustribus Henricis_, 114; Lydgate's poem
printed in _Lond. Chron._, Appendix, p. 216.
[55] Monstrelet, 361, 362; St. Denys, v. 501.
[56] An earlier embassy to France had reported that the French were
behaving treacherously (Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 301),
whilst these French envoys reported on their return that
Henry had never meant to come to terms (St. Denys, v.
531-533). Such distrust of each other's intentions made an
agreement impossible.
[57] Monstrelet, 363; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 305; St. Denys,
v. 513-525; St. Rémy, 387, 388; Redmayne, 32-37.
[58] Holkham MS., p. 13, ascribes the discovery of the conspiracy to
the 'prudence and careful circumspection' of Gloucester.
[59] Edmund, Earl of March, was the grandson of Philippa, daughter
of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III., and so
had a claim to the throne of England as a descendant of that
King by an elder line than Henry V., who claimed through John
of Gaunt, the younger brother of Lionel, Duke of Clarence.
[60] St. Rémy. 389.
[61] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 306, 307.
[62] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 65; Stowe, 346, 347.
[63] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 66. Probably the Duke of York was made to
serve in order to minimise the dynastic aspect of the plot.
[64] _Eng. Chron._, 40. See also Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii.
305-307; Redmayne, 41. Certain hitherto unused matter with
regard to this conspiracy is to be found in the Deputy
Keeper's Forty-third Report, 579-594.
[65] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 64.
[66] _Gesta_, 13; Hardyng's _Journal_, 389; Walsingham, _Hist.
Angl._, ii. 307. Cotton MS., Claudius, A. VIII. f. 2, says
there were only three hundred and twenty sail.
[67] Elmham, _Vita_, 35.
[68] For discussion of probable number of army, see Ramsay, i. 200,
and Kingsford, 137, note.
[69] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 320.
[70] _Ordinances_, iii. 9.
[71] Hunter's _Tracts_, i. 21, 22.
[72] Printed in Nicholas's _Agincourt_, 373.
[73] _Ordinances_, v. 26.
[74] Hunter's _Tracts_, i. 21, 22.
[75] Nicholas's _Agincourt_, 333-336.
[76] Hunter's _Tracts_, i. 22.
[77] _Gesta_, 13; Elmham, _Vita_, 36, 37.
[78] Elmham, _Vita_, 40.
[79] _Gesta_, 15; Hardyng's _Journal_, 389.
[80] So at least says St. Denys, v. 535.
[81] Elmham, _Vita_, 37-39; _Gesta_, 15; Livius, 8; Walsingham,
_Hist. Angl._, ii. 307; Hardyng's _Journal_, 389.
[82] _Gesta_, 15, 19; Hardyng's _Journal_, 389; Elmham, _Vita_, 38,
39; St. Denys, v. 537; Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, 217, No. CCCXXIX.
[83] Livius, 8.
[84] _Gesta_, 16, 17.
[85] Elmham, _Vita_, 38-41; _Gesta_, 20; Livius, 9; Hardyng's
_Journal_, 389.
[86] Elmham, _Vita_, 42; Livius, 10.
[87] Elmham, _Vita_, 42. Livius, 9, says that Gloucester was given
control over the whole siege. He is followed by Stow, 348.
This, however, is very improbable.
[88] Elmham, _Vita_, 42.
[89] Hardyng's _Journal_, 389; Elmham, _Vita_, 43.
[90] St. Denys, v. 537; _Gesta_, 21.
[91] _Gesta_, 22, 24, 25; Hardyng's _Journal_, 389; Livius, 10;
Waurin, ii 184.
[92] _Gesta_, 26.
[93] _Epist. Acad._, 237. For a short account of Ægidius de Columna
(Romanus), who lived from 1296 to 1316, see W. Cave,
_Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria_ (Oxford,
1743), ii. 340.
[94] Cambridge University Library MS., Ee. 2. 17.
[95] _Gesta_, 23, 24.
[96] _Ibid._, 27.
[97] _Ibid._, 28.
[98] _Gesta_, 29-32; Elmham, _Vita_, 46, 47; Hardyng's _Journal_,
390; Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, 217, No. CCCXXIX.
[99] St. Denys, v. 542.
[100] St. Rémy, 391. The two castles at the mouth of the harbour
held out for two more days; Waurin, ii. 187.
[101] 'Le souverain port de toute Northmandie, et le plus
prouffitable pour leur guerre mener en ce quartier'; Waurin,
ii. 184.
[102] Monstrelet, 367. Elmham, _Vita_, 44, denies the scarcity of
provisions.
[103] _Gesta_, 26, 27, 31.
[104] Waurin, ii. 187; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 309. The Earls
of March and Arundel and the Earl Marshal also returned home.
[105] Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, 217, No. CCCXXIX.; Livius, 11.
[106] Livius, 10.
[107] _Gesta_, 34; St. Rémy, 391. Complaint of the Sieur de Gaucourt
printed in Nicholas's _Agincourt_, App. VI. p. 25.
[108] Rymer, IV. ii. 147.
[109] _Gesta_, 36, which, however, gives October 7 in another place.
Hardyng gives October 1, but he is a week too early all
through. Waurin, ii. 188, says the English stopped a
fortnight at Harfleur.
[110] So _Gesta_, 36; Hardyng's _Journal_, 390; but Waurin, ii. 188,
gives 2000 lances and 14,000 archers, an absurd estimate.
_See_ Nicholas's _Agincourt_, 78, where it is concluded that
Henry had between six and nine thousand men.
[111] Roll of men at Agincourt printed in Nicholas's _Agincourt_,
336.
[112] _Gesta_, 36; Livius, 11, 12.
[113] Waurin, ii. 188.
[114] _Gesta_, 37; Elmham, _Vita_, 52: Livius, 13.
[115] _Gesta_, 39; Hardyng's _Journal_, 390; Waurin, ii. 191;
Monstrelet, 371.
[116] St. Rémy, 393. Cf. Waurin, ii, 191.
[117] _Gesta_, 42. Stow, 349, attributes these stakes to the
forethought of the Duke of York.
[118] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 310.
[119] _Gesta_, 43, 44; St. Rémy, 393; Waurin, ii. 193; Monstrelet,
371.
[120] Livius, 14; Elmham, _Vita_, 54, 55; Waurin, ii. 195; _Gesta_,
45.
[121] Monstrelet, 373; St. Rémy, 396; Elmham, _Vita_, 58, 59.
[122] _Gesta_, 47; Livius, 16; St. Rémy, 396.
[123] St. Rémy, 397, 399.
[124] Des Ursins, 518.
[125] Waurin, ii. 211; St. Rémy, 399; _Gesta_, 49.
[126] Monstrelet, 369; St. Rémy, 395. For the letters which passed
between the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France at this
time, see Des Ursins, 510-518.
[127] _Gesta_, 50; St. Rémy, 397; Redmayne, 43.
[128] St. Rémy. 400.
[129] _Gesta_, 50; Basin, i. 20.
[130] St. Rémy, 398. Cf. Des Ursins, 520.
[131] Des Ursins, 518.
[132] _Gesta_, 52; St. Rémy, 400.
[133] _Gesta_, 53; St. Rémy, 400.
[134] Livius, 20; _Gesta_, 59.
[135] _Polit. Songs_, ii. 125. This poem is also printed in
Nicholas's _Agincourt_, 281.
[136] _Dux incautius_, Livius, 20. _Indiscreet hardiness_, Holkham
MS., p. 14.
[137] Livius, 20; Elmham, _Vita_, 67; _Gesta_, 59; Redmayne, 47. Cf.
Stow, 350; Holkham MS., p. 15.
'Hic frater Regis Humfredus nobilis est Dux Inguine percursus;
defluit ense cruor Huic ad humum presso Rex succurrendo
superstans Fratris defensor hoc in agone fuit.'
Elmham, _Liber Metricus_, 121.
[138] _Gesta_, 55; Livius, 20; Elmham, _Vita_, 68; St. Rémy, 401.
[139] _Gesta_, 59.
[140] Poem printed in Nicholas's _Agincourt_, 323, and also at the
end of _Lond. Chron._
[141] Holkham MS., p. 15.
[142] _Gesta_, 58; Basin, i. 23.
[143] _Gesta_, 58; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 313.
[144] St. Rémy, 402; _Lond. Chron._, 102; _Gesta_, 59; Elmham,
_Vita_, 71. There is a long account of the entry into London
in the _Gesta_, 61-68, and in Lydgate's poem printed in
_Lond. Chron._, 231-233.