CHAPTER III

THE EVOLUTION OF GLOUCESTER'S POLICY

After landing in England Gloucester had not long to wait before he took

up his new duties. On December 30, 1419, his commission to be 'guardian

and lieutenant of England' in the place of Bedford, who was about to go

to France, was sealed at Westminster, and his powers in this office were

defined. He was to preside at the meetings of Parliament and Council,

and to summon the lords and the commonalty of the kingdom for

consultation. The executive power was put into his hands, and he was

empowered to do all things necessary for the welfare of the country,

with the assent of Parliament and the Council; whilst he was also to

exercise the royal prerogative in ecclesiastical matters, giving

licences to elect to vacancies, and his assent or veto to these

elections when made. The commission concluded with emphatic instructions

that the Regent 'shall carry out all matters of governance with the

assent of and after deliberation by the Council, and not

otherwise.'[334] Meanwhile, Bedford was in England, and he did not leave

for France until the spring,[335] but the control of affairs was in the

hands of his brother. This was the first time that Gloucester had been

brought into official contact with English politics, though he had been

a member of the Council and of Parliament since his elevation to the

peerage in 1414. The country was in that state of peace which so often

precedes a violent storm. Of internal strife there had been none since

Sir John Oldcastle had been captured and executed in December 1417,[336]

and the threatening of revolution which had preceded Henry's first

expedition to France had passed away. On the other hand, the war was

beginning to outlive its popularity. The steady successes of Henry had

none of the glamour of such a victory as Agincourt, which alone could

kindle the enthusiasm of the people at home. There were signs that the

soldiers themselves were tiring of the successive sieges,[337] while in

England men did not grasp with what determination the military genius

and the patient diplomacy of Henry were working up to the approaching

culmination of the Treaty of Troyes. Moreover, the French prisoners in

England, for whom Gloucester now became responsible, had been showing

signs of restlessness, and Orleans for one had been discovered in

intrigue with the Scotch.[338]

1419] RISE OF MIDDLE CLASSES IN ENGLAND

The most notable aspect of England, however, when Gloucester took up the

reins of government in 1419, was the development of the power of the

great middle class. The dangers which Henry IV. had had to meet amongst

the rebellious nobility had driven him to rely on the class which would

give him the support he needed, and this increased the importance of the

trader and the townsman, whose influence was still further expanded by

the absence of almost the whole nobility and a large proportion of the

ecclesiastical hierarchy in France. The constitutional aspect of

Parliament was becoming more than a name in the days of Gloucester's

first regency, and public opinion was beginning to mirror the interests

of the money-making portion of the community. Ever since the days of the

Black Death this change had been slowly moving to its completion, and

the success of the archers in the French wars announced the fact that

the old fixed state of society had come to an end. Now for the first

time appeared the ambition of men of one class to raise themselves to

the level of the next; now for the first time poverty and incompetence

became a disgrace. These all were the outward signs of a great

industrial revolution. Till the middle of the fourteenth century England

had been a mere producer of raw material; now she was on the high-road

to take a definite place as the manufacturer of finished goods in all

the chief markets of Europe. A striking instance of this change is to be

found in the way the export of wool dropped, whilst its production

increased, for the manufacture of broadcloth was no longer confined to

the foreign buyers of English wool. This increased production entailed a

corresponding increase in the number of traders and carriers of English

produce, and it is at this time that such companies as the Merchant

Adventurers rose to great power. This change from the production of raw

material to the manufacture of the finished article not only gave a new

power to the middle classes, but it had its influence also in bringing

the English town into greater prominence. 'Mediæval economy, with its

constant regard to the relations of persons, was giving place to the

modern economy, which treats the exchange of things as fundamental,' and

this resulted in increased power to those corporate bodies which were

favoured by this change. New and substantial town-halls were being built

in all parts of England, and the towns themselves were becoming an

important factor in English life. The days when a group of nobles

enjoyed the whole political influence of the community were at an end,

and a foreign observer could declare that the nation 'consists of

churchmen, nobles, and craftsmen, as well as common people.'[339]

Moreover, it now came first to be realised that England could have a

commercial interest in foreign politics, as well as a purely dynastic

one.[340] English merchants now began to have a direct influence on the

policy of the crown, and they could make it felt through the immense

sums which the Government was compelled to borrow from them.[341]

1420] GLOUCESTER REGENT IN ENGLAND

This then was the state of society which Gloucester found when the

government was committed to his care, and he was not slow to realise

this change. Some years later a Carthusian monk, when consulted by the

Duke of Buckingham on the probability of his succession, declared that

his only hope of aggrandisement was 'to obtain the love of the community

of England';[342] and this was a truth understood earlier by the Duke of

Gloucester. We do not know by what means it was done, but Humphrey soon

became the darling of the middle classes, and by the time that Henry V.

died he had won the enthusiastic support of the London citizens. It will

be seen, therefore, that it was to the growing powers in England that he

appealed for sympathy and encouragement, to those who were gradually

working out the progress of England towards freedom from aristocratic

control, to those who were content to ignore the quarrel of prince with

prince and noble with noble, whilst they quietly based the future

strength of the kingdom on a wealth born of trade and private exertions.

It was in the towns that Humphrey found his friends; in the towns where

the middle classes were gaining the predominance, and not in the country

where the nobility still reigned supreme, and where the science and

prosperity of agriculture remained stationary throughout the fifteenth

and sixteenth centuries. The citizen class never failed him. They did

not look to the upstart house which had forgotten its origin in the new

title of Duke of Suffolk, but throughout his life they supported their

'Good Duke,' and genuinely mourned his death. What is called

statesmanship in others is dismissed as 'pandering to the populace' in

Humphrey by those who cannot allow any good to reside in an unsuccessful

politician, but it seems a more just estimate of this side of

Gloucester's policy to acknowledge the foresight and wisdom of one who

abandoned the effete nobles, and looked for support to those who were

soon to prove themselves a power that must be taken into consideration.

This citizen support cannot have been welcome to the other members of

the governing class, and it is probably due to it that so much

opposition was shown to Gloucester in the early days of the reign of

Henry VI. In the outward events of the regency there are few signs of

the policy which Humphrey pursued, but we shall see its fruits as the

story of his life proceeds. It must have been at this time, however,

that his line of action was initiated.

The days of Gloucester's first regency were even more peaceful and

uneventful than those of Bedford's, and he found that his duties did not

exceed the ordinary official business of the kingdom, and the

representation of the King at ceremonial functions. Thus by right of his

position of Regent we find him presiding at a Chapter of the Order of

the Garter which was very sparsely attended owing to the large number of

knights who were serving abroad. Even Bedford, who had not yet left

England, was absent, being fully occupied with his preparations for

departure.[343]

During his regency Humphrey was brought into contact with the young King

of Scotland, then a prisoner in England. According to a French

chronicler it was during the year 1420 that James, the son of David of

Scotland, who during his father's lifetime had been given a safe-conduct

by Henry V. to go to Jerusalem, came to England, and was there most

graciously received by Gloucester. In the meantime his father died, and

the Regent took immediate steps to acquaint his royal brother with the

fact of James's presence in England. Henry promptly ordered him to be

detained and sent under escort to the English army before Melun.[344] In

the whole story there is only one grain of truth. James had been a

captive in England ever since 1406, and his father, Robert (not David),

had died on hearing the news of his detention. However, it is true that

the unfortunate Scotch king was sent to the siege of Melun, leaving

England in July, and for this doubtless Gloucester made the

arrangements.[345] All that the story can tell us is that it points to a

probable friendship between James and Humphrey who had been boys

together at the court of Henry IV.[346]

Meanwhile English history was being made in France. The balance of

parties had been changed. Before Gloucester had crossed the Channel the

whole world had been shocked by the cold-blooded and treacherous murder

of the Duke of Burgundy at the bridge of Montereau.[347] Nothing could

have been more impolitic from the Armagnac point of view, for revenge

was far sweeter than patriotism to the Frenchmen of the fifteenth

century, and the King and Queen of France with that most marketable

commodity, their daughter Catherine, were under the influence of Philip,

the new Duke of Burgundy. What was more natural than that the

negotiations of Meulan should be resumed and brought to a successful

issue? Neither the Queen nor St. Pol, the governor of Paris, even waited

for the prompting of Philip, but sent envoys to Henry without delay,

and by December 25 a treaty was made between the Kings of England and of

France.[348] This treaty formed the basis of the more famous one signed

on May 21 by both contracting parties at Troyes. Henry was to marry

Catherine and to succeed to the French throne, meanwhile acting as

regent for the demented Charles VI. Each country was to preserve its own

laws and customs, and Henry, Charles, and Burgundy all promised not to

undertake any independent negotiations with the Dauphin.[349] The

English chroniclers, oblivious of the fact that Gloucester was Regent of

England, state that he was present at these negotiations,[350] but this

is entirely disproved by a letter written to him by Henry on the day

after the treaty was signed. Gloucester and the Council were herein

informed of the culmination of Henry's ambitions, and commanded to

proclaim the peace and the King's betrothal in England. He further

instructed them to destroy his seals, and to strike new ones bearing the

inscription 'Henry by the grace of God Kyng of England, Heire and Regent

of the Rowne of France, and Lord of Ireland.'[351] On June 14 Gloucester

signed the warrant for the proclamation of the good news, and the same

day a solemn procession was made in honour of the marriage of the King,

during which the proclamation was read at St. Paul's Cross.[352]

1420] TREATY OF TROYES

The Treaty of Troyes was the high-water mark of English success in

France, and it seemed to crystallise the unhappy principles with which

Gloucester had been impressed during the early years of his active life.

The only statesmanship that his royal brother could teach him was the

mistaken ideal of a self-righteous war. Unfortunately the mobile and

impressionable character of Humphrey was only too prone to receive the

imprint of this policy. Henceforth he stood by the clauses of the Treaty

of Troyes with a constancy worthy of a better cause, and in this

particular his line of action was definitely marked out. Though a man of

intellect and perception in theoretical matters, he was not endowed with

sufficient powers of statesmanship to see the disastrous consequences of

a war policy; quick to grasp the details of a scheme, he failed to

discern its wider significance, and so his policy was tainted by the

false brilliancy of his brother's successes. Had he been less

impressionable and more cool-headed, he would have been able to grasp

the essentials, and would not have been blinded by successes which could

only be transitory. In all cases Humphrey's policy was to be formed by

his emotions, hard facts had no influence upon him, and at this very

time he failed to understand the warning which came from the first

Parliament over which he presided, and which he opened on December 2.

Two days later all the formalities had been performed, and Roger Hunt

had been chosen Speaker and accepted by the Regent.[353]

1421] RETURN OF HENRY V. TO ENGLAND

It was not long before it became amply evident that there was

considerable discontent at the King's prolonged absence. It was now more

than three years since he had visited England, and the country was

beginning to feel that foreign ambitions were absorbing too much of

their ruler's attention. The Parliaments of 1417 and 1419, which had

been called by Bedford, had been marked by no act of constitutional

importance. In one Oldcastle had been condemned to death;[354] in both,

money was granted.[355] In 1420, however, the aspect of affairs was

changed. In the first place no money was asked for, as it was well

understood that it would not be granted, for men were beginning to

grumble at its scarcity.[356] One of the first acts of this Parliament

was to petition Gloucester to use all his influence to induce the King

and his Queen to return home as soon as possible, to which request the

Regent assented readily.[357] This petition must not be taken as

betraying any mistrust of the conduct of the regency government. It

simply reflects a growing fear that the kingdom of England would become

a mere appanage to the throne of France, and stands as a protest against

the conquest of France being the means of depreciating English prestige.

The constitutional troubles in this Parliament show a mistrust of

Henry's intentions, but convey no censure on the administration. It was

in this spirit therefore that it was enacted that though the Regent's

commission was to terminate on the return of the King, Parliament was

not to be considered to be dissolved by that event; that the statute of

Edward III. securing English liberties in case the English King required

a new title was revived; and that provision was made that petitions

should not be engrossed until they had been sent to the King for his

assent.[358] Thus the session closed amidst constitutional fears, which

for this time at least Gloucester had had no hand in creating.

England had not long to wait for the return of her King, who was anxious

to introduce his newly wedded wife to her English subjects. The petition

of Parliament was therefore quickly answered, and on Candlemas Day 1421

the royal couple landed at Dover, where the Barons of the Cinque Ports

were ready to welcome them. Humphrey was presumably too busy to be

present at this greeting, but he probably took part in the reception

which London accorded the King on February 14,[359] and in the high

festival and gorgeous processions with which a week later the Queen

entered the capital. It was a more subdued welcome that Henry now

received than that which marked his triumphal return from Agincourt, but

every token of respect and affection was offered to the Queen.[360] On

Sunday, February 23, Catherine was crowned at Westminster, and

immediately afterwards she presided at a banquet held in the 'greet

halle.' In spite of the Lenten season and the almost total absence of

meat, a splendid feast was spread, and the menu with its various

'soteltes' has been preserved for us.[361] In the absence of the King,

whom etiquette forbade to appear, the Queen presided, with the

Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester on her right, the

King of Scotland, the Duchess of York, and the Countess of Huntingdon on

her left. The Earl Marshal and the Earl of March knelt on either side of

the Queen, each holding a sceptre, while the Countess of Kent and the

Countess Marshal sat at the feet of the Queen 'under the table.' Bedford

was present as Constable of England, Warwick officiated as Steward in

the absence of Clarence, and the Earl of Worcester in the capacity of

Earl Marshal--Mowbray being otherwise engaged--rode up and down the hall

to keep order. Carver, cupbearer, and butler each performed his

appointed duties, and bareheaded before the Queen stood Gloucester as

'supervisour'[362] of the feast by right of his office of Great

Chamberlain. It was in the organisation of pageants such as this that

Gloucester was most efficient. All his tastes for ancient learning and

his love of display, in which he proved himself a true child of the

Renaissance, were given full scope. At any rate, his arrangements so

impressed the chroniclers, that they all describe this pageant in

unusually elaborate detail.[363]

[Illustration: CUP BEARING THE ARMS OF THE DUKE OF GLOUCESTER AND HIS

WIFE ELEANOR.]

Soon after the coronation Henry and his bride went off on a royal

progress through the country, the ostensible reason being a series of

pilgrimages to various shrines, the real one a hope of restoring the

confidence of the country in their King, and to encourage fresh

sacrifices of men and money for a new campaign.[364] The necessity for

renewed effort became still more apparent when, on leaving the shrine of

St. John of Beverley, news reached them that Clarence had been defeated

and slain at Beaugé in March.[365] Having celebrated the Feast of St.

George somewhat later than the appointed day,[366] Henry opened a

Parliament on May 2,[367] and immediately began to prepare for another

expedition to France. Gloucester, of whom we have heard nothing since

the coronation feast, also began to make his preparations for war, but

before he left England an event happened which was to have considerable

influence on the course of his life during the next few years, and to

mould his policy in the near future.

* * * * *

1421] JACQUELINE OF HAINAULT

It was fated that England should be interested in the affairs of

Hainault and Holland for some time to come, and the whole history of

this interest is bound up with the story of Gloucester's infatuation for

Jacqueline, Countess of Holland, Zealand, and Hainault. This lady was

daughter and heiress of that Count William who visited England whilst

the Emperor Sigismund was in the country.[368] She had lost her father

and her first husband John, Dauphin of France, within a few weeks of

each other during the spring of the year 1417. With no natural

protector, she had been left to face the factions of Hooks and Cods in

her patrimony, and between them there was bitter strife; the former

being the supporters of her late father, and the latter his bitter

opponents.[369] But in the politics of these states of the Low Countries

there was a still more potent factor than the internal divisions of

party feuds. John, Duke of Burgundy, devoted his life to consolidating

his territorial power, as well as in advancing claims to political

ascendency in France, and in furtherance of the former ambitions he

desired to add the inheritance of Jacqueline to his already extensive

possessions. Not only would this acquisition strengthen his hands by

increasing his territory, but it would also increase his line of

seacoast in Zealand and Holland, and serve to join up his southern and

northern possessions. Thus he would be able to show a stronger front to

the Emperor, who regarded the increased power of his nominal vassal on

the confines of the empire as a threatening danger.

With the direct object of attaining this end, John the Fearless set

himself to arrange a marriage between Jacqueline and her neighbour the

Duke of Brabant, hoping thereby to bring about a childless match and the

acquisition to himself of the coveted territory, which, in the absence

of children, he would inherit. In this project he was supported by the

Princess's mother, Margaret, Dowager-Countess of Hainault, who was his

sister.[370] John of Brabant was a despicable weakling, much older than

his proposed bride, and possessing qualities which would make the life

of a young and spirited woman wholly unbearable. However, considerations

of policy induced her relatives to force Jacqueline into this

undesirable alliance, with the result which might have been expected.

John fell entirely into the hands of his Brabançon followers, who

induced him to add insult to the neglect with which he treated his

young wife, and the culminating-point was reached when in Jacqueline's

absence he arranged for the disposal of her territory for a term of

years to John of Bavaria.[371]

Among her few faithful followers the unhappy Countess found one whom the

chronicler names 'Robessart lord of Escaillon,' who, though a Hainaulter

by origin, was English in sympathies.[372] Doubtless he was one of that

family of Robsarts of which more than one served in the French

wars.[373] It was the Lord of Escallion who befriended Jacqueline when

she fled from the insults of her husband to Valenciennes, and it was to

him that she confided her intention to turn to England for help. He

received the news with joy, and encouraged the idea, painting this land,

which was unknown to his liege lady, in the brightest colours, not

forgetting to lay emphasis on those brothers of Henry V., who were yet

unmarried. At the same time he undertook to arrange her escape thither,

so that she might safely reach Calais before any one knew of her

intentions, and together they matured their plans.[374]

1421] JACQUELINE ARRIVES IN ENGLAND

In thus determining to throw herself on the mercy of Henry, Jacqueline

was appealing to a relationship which dated back to Philippa, the wife

of Edward III., and it is a sign that she had definitely determined to

break with the husband whom she had never wanted to marry, and that she

was in earnest in those preparations which she had already made for a

divorce. If she had hopes of a third husband from amongst the brothers

of Henry V., we must suppose that her past experiences had not taught

her wisdom, and it is probably with a knowledge of subsequent events

that one chronicler asserts an agreement of marriage with Humphrey

before ever she left Valenciennes,[375] though the idea of an English

alliance of this kind was quite natural, when we remember that Bedford

had been a candidate for her hand in 1418.[376] Be this as it may,

Jacqueline and her friend Escallion made their preparations for flight

to Calais. Already on March 1, 1421, Henry had granted a passport to

herself and her mother to visit her territories in Ponthieu, and this

carried with it the right to enter Calais.[377] It was therefore

probably in April that she told her mother at Valenciennes that she

would leave her for a few days while she paid a visit to Bouchain. She

had left the town but a short distance on this proposed journey when

Escallion met her with a company of sixty men, and took her under his

protection. Together they made for Calais, where they arrived at the end

of the second day after leaving Valenciennes, and were courteously

received as though their arrival had been expected. From Calais

Jacqueline sent messengers to Henry to ask permission to land on the

shores of England, and meanwhile spent the interval which must elapse

before an answer could be received in quiet repose, mounting the

bastions daily, and gazing across to the white cliffs of Dover, dreaming

of the land and of the men of whom she had heard such glowing accounts,

and welcoming every sail that appeared on the horizon as the bearer of

the desired permission to put the truth of these stories to the test. At

length a warm welcome was brought from King Henry, and with bright hopes

the princess crossed the Channel, to be met at Dover by one of those

unmarried brothers of the English King of whom she had been told.[378]

For it fell to the lot of Humphrey, as Warden of the Cinque Ports, to

meet this distinguished visitor, just as some five years before he had

met the Emperor Sigismund. It was a meeting fraught with great

consequences for both parties concerned. Little did the light-hearted

Humphrey think, when he placed his charge on her palfrey, and escorted

her to London, that he had met a woman who would deeply affect his

destinies, and earn him the reputation of putting his private ambitions

before the public weal.

Henry emphasised his hearty invitation to Jacqueline by the marked

graciousness of his reception of her; and though he was on the eve of

departure to France, he promised to help her, and made arrangements,

completed on July 10, that £100 a month should be allotted to the

Countess so long as she remained in England.[379] To Henry belongs the

responsibility of bringing her over, and we cannot doubt that he saw the

political significance of his action. He knew the state of affairs in

the Low Countries, and he looked on the discontented Countess as a

valuable asset in his schemes of French conquest; through her he might

obtain some hold on his shifty ally Burgundy, who, like his father,

looked to inherit the much-desired districts of Zealand, Holland, and

Hainault. Whether he had hopes of a divorce for Jacqueline so that she

might marry one of his brothers is doubtful--he was too near the end of

his career for us to be able to fathom his intentions with regard to

her; but that he was responsible for her presence in England, and

consequently also partly responsible for the results of this visit,

cannot be denied.[380] As for Humphrey, we have nothing to tell us of

the growth of his plans, or of his first impressions of Jacqueline. It

was probably towards the end of April that he first saw her, and it is

unlikely that he had any time for love-making before his departure for

France. It is therefore improbable that the project which later took

shape in his expedition to Hainault had occurred to him when he left

England, for he had probably never met the lady before, though he had

known her father, and his attention was at this time concentrated on the

French campaign.[381]

1421] THIRD FRENCH CAMPAIGN

As Warden, Humphrey had to see that the Barons of the Cinque Ports

provided ships to the number of fifty-seven for the transport of the

army;[382] at the same time he was busy collecting his own contingent.

He entered into indentures with the King for one hundred lances, with

their complement of archers, which would bring the numbers up to about

four hundred men according to the usual computation; but he had not a

full contingent by the time he left England.[383] However, he received

reinforcements from England all through the campaign,[384] and by July

his men were in full force.[385] On May 26 his passport was signed,[386]

and he probably then went down to Dover to supervise the preparations

for embarkation, which were ordered to begin on May 27.[387] Exactly a

fortnight later Henry sailed from Dover, and landed the same day at

Calais,[388] accompanied by Gloucester and the Earls of March and

Warwick, with rather over a thousand men.[389]

The defeat at Beaugé had not been without its effect both in encouraging

the French and in distressing the English. It had not been easy to raise

men in England, as Gloucester had found, and it was necessary in many

cases to resort to impressment. Accordingly Henry took the precaution of

sending his ships back to England, for fear that deserters from his army

might by their help regain their native land.[390] In Normandy the Earl

of Salisbury had done something to restore the prestige of the English

arms; but round Paris the French were becoming very dangerous, for the

Dauphin was threatening Chartres and an advance on the capital.[391]

Under these conditions Henry abandoned the idea of spending some time in

Picardy, and the whole army marched down the seacoast to Abbeville. Here

the passage of the Somme would have been disputed had it not been for

the good offices of the Duke of Burgundy, who had joined the army at

Montreuil, and induced the citizens of Abbeville to allow the English to

pass.[392] Without any pause Henry pushed on by way of Beauvais to

Gisors, where he left the army under the command of Gloucester, and went

on to Paris to consult with Exeter.[393] Gloucester took the army to

Mantes, where the King rejoined him, and Burgundy, who had left the

English at Abbeville, also came up with reinforcements. Henry had hoped

to bring the Dauphin to fight a pitched battle, but on his way to Mantes

he learned with great regret that the French had raised the siege of

Chartres and had retired into Touraine.[394] With a clear field before

him Henry determined to besiege Dreux, a strong castle near the Norman

border, which had been harassing its neighbours for some time.

1421] SIEGE OF DREUX

By this time the army had been considerably reinforced. The lords who

had come over with Henry had contrived to make up their appointed

numbers, Gloucester at all events having his full complement of four

hundred men,[395] and several of the English captains, already in

France, had brought their contingents to the main body.[396] Since the

death of Clarence Gloucester had been practically second in command.

Hitherto his elder brother had taken precedence of him, not only by

reason of his age, but also on account of his greater experience, though

it would seem that in siege operations Gloucester had always been

regarded as the better soldier. At any rate the siege of Dreux was now

committed to his care, though Henry himself was with the army.[397] With

Gloucester the King of Scots was associated in command, but it would

seem that this had a political rather than a military significance;

James had never seen a siege in his life, save as an unwilling spectator

of the fall of Melun, but as a captain in Henry's army he was meant to

exemplify the rapprochement between the English and Scotch, which had

been initiated whilst Henry was at home. The young King's long captivity

was nearing a close; he was to have three months' leave of absence in

Scotland at the end of the campaign, which was to be a preliminary to

his final enlargement. Moreover, on behalf of the Scotch the Earl of

Douglas had agreed to enter the English service with four hundred men in

the ensuing year.[398]

Though James was nominally joint commander, the burden of the siege

naturally fell on Gloucester, and he invested the town on July 18. The

fortifications were particularly strong, and situated as it was under

the brow of a rocky eminence of considerable height, with an almost

impregnable castle on the summit and a double moat around it, the task

seemed no easy one. Gloucester, however, found a vineyard adjoining the

castle which, though strengthened by a wall and tower, was the weak spot

of the defences. While keeping a close watch around the rest of the

town, he concentrated his attack on this point, and by means of diligent

mining under cover of a heavy cannonade he was able to drive the

defenders out of the vineyard, and so secured a better position from

which to attack the town itself. On August 8 the garrison, being hard

pressed, and despairing of help from the Dauphin, who showed no sign of

leaving his position behind the Loire, agreed to surrender if not

relieved within twelve days. On August 20 the English troops entered the

town.[399]

Hitherto Henry's military operations had not extended beyond Normandy,

for the siege of Dreux had only been undertaken to safeguard the Duchy.

Now he began to see that it was impossible to secure France by the same

means that he had employed to secure Normandy. Already his forces were

thinned by the necessity of garrisoning the towns that he had taken, and

he could not attempt to garrison the whole of France in this way. On the

other hand, the disastrous results of his grandfather's famous march

through France showed him the danger of any operation far removed from

his base. His one hope was to goad the Dauphin to action. He had hoped

that the siege of Dreux might draw the French to attempt its

relief,[400] and that was one reason why he had confided the attack to

the care of Gloucester, while he himself awaited a relieving force.

These tactics having failed, he determined to seek out the Dauphin, and

compel him to give battle. Only the prestige of a second Agincourt could

make his title of 'Regent of France' anything but a name, or induce

Frenchmen generally to accept him as their future King. It was with joy,

therefore, that he learned towards the end of August that the French

were collecting their forces on the Loire not far from Beaugency, and he

hastened to move from Dreux to meet the enemy.

We have no evidence to prove that Gloucester took part in this

expedition, for he is not once mentioned by the chroniclers after the

siege of Dreux, though we know that he was still in France in March

1422,[401] and that the operations of the English were confined to the

main body under Henry. In all probability, therefore, Gloucester took

part in the march on Beaugency and shared the King's disappointment on

learning that the French troops had dispersed. For fifteen days the

English waited for a French attack, whilst the Earl of Suffolk tried to

get in touch with the enemy on the south side of the river. The Armagnac

refused to offer battle, for they had not forgotten the method by which

the armies of Edward III. had been driven from France, and Henry had to

rest content with the capture of Beaugency. Further tarrying in this

'unfruitful country' had now become impossible; men and beasts were

dying of starvation; so with a heavy heart Henry turned eastwards. The

suburbs of Orleans were captured, but an attack on the town itself was

deemed impossible, and the army passed on to Villeneuve-le-Roi, which

surrendered on September 22. By October 6 the English had invested the

town of Meaux.[402]

1421] GLOUCESTER'S RETURN TO ENGLAND

Throughout this siege, which lasted for five months, we find no mention

of Gloucester, even in the pages of the chronicler Elmham. It is very

improbable that this would have been the case if he had been present at

the siege, for not only was he second in command of the army, but his

prowess in siege operations was such that some important post must have

been assigned to him had he been there. It seems possible that before

the army advanced to Meaux, Gloucester was sent to protect Paris and its

environs. Exeter, its former governor, was now with the army, and

Gloucester may have been deputed to guard the capital, and at the same

time keep up communication between the English army and its Norman

base.[403] This, however, is nothing more than conjecture, for we lose

sight of him entirely till about March, when he crossed over to

England.[404]

Gloucester's journey to England was undertaken to exchange posts once

more with Bedford. When Henry had sailed from Dover in the previous

year he had left the kingdom in his brother's care, and Catherine, who

was expecting her confinement, had been left behind also. On December 6

the future King Henry VI. had been born,[405] and the Queen had prepared

to rejoin her husband as soon as her health should permit her to travel.

Bedford was commissioned to accompany her, and so his younger brother

was sent to replace him in England.[406] As early as February 7

Gloucester's lieutenant at Dover had had instructions to prepare ships

for the voyage,[407] but Bedford and the Queen did not actually sail

till May,[408] and before this Gloucester had taken over the management

of the kingdom. His commission as Regent has not survived, and the

earliest document signed during this regency is dated May 25,[409] but

before this, on St. George's Day (April 23), he had presided at a

Chapter of the Garter as the King's representative, and had supervised

the arrangements made for the fees now allotted to the Garter

King-of-Arms, whose office had been created by Henry to commemorate the

victory of Agincourt.[410]

This last campaign in France was but an isolated incident in the life of

Duke Humphrey. His future policy was not affected thereby, but his

return to England, and his position of independence in close proximity

to the fascinating Countess of Hainault, was to make its influence felt.

The regency was outwardly quite uneventful, but it left its mark on

Gloucester's life. Henry cannot have foreseen the danger of putting his

brother in the way of temptation, probably he did not regard it as a

temptation, and still more probable is it that he had not the faintest

conception of the hidden elements in Humphrey's character. He had known

him only as an able soldier and a careful administrator under his

direction. The forces which were moulding the Duke's attitude had not

yet all appeared, and so it was with no misgivings for the future that

the King once more appointed his youngest brother his representative in

England. It is, however, probable that during the short four months of

this regency Humphrey began to dream of ambitions over seas in the midst

of pleasant dallyings with Jacqueline. At least Duke and Countess had

every opportunity to become better acquainted, till in August the former

had to postpone his hopes of continental aggrandisement, since his

position and rights at home became the question of the moment, when

England learnt the death of her beloved King.

1422] DYING WISHES OF HENRY V.

The last moments of Henry V., and his instructions to those who gathered

round his bedside, are important for their bearing on the arrangements

for the government of the country during the minority of his son.

Considerable doubt has been cast on the details of the arrangements

which Henry decreed from his death-bed, but with no great reason, for

the chroniclers are almost unanimous in their assertions. The Dukes of

Bedford and Exeter with other lords were gathered round the dying King,

who reasserted his right to the crown of France, and urged them to fight

to the end in defence of those righteous claims which were now to pass

to his son, commanding them to keep the Duke of Orleans a prisoner in

England till the future King should be of age. He then described his

wishes for the government of the inheritance. Bedford was to be Regent

of the kingdom of France and the Duchy of Normandy; Gloucester was to be

Regent in England, and no qualification of the latter's power was so

much as suggested. There is less unanimity amongst the chroniclers as to

the personal guardians appointed for the young King, but Exeter,

Warwick, and the Bishop of Winchester were all probably mentioned. With

the prophetic instinct of approaching death Henry besought his hearers

to give no cause of offence to the Duke of Burgundy, and to repeat this

warning to Gloucester.[411]

Having delivered his last injunctions to those who stood by, Henry's

strength rapidly failed, but after a period of quiet he rose up in

agony, and with the words 'Thou liest, thou liest, my portion is with

Jesus Christ,' the pride of England and the scourge of France passed

away to a Tribunal where men's actions are judged by their motives and

not by the professions of their mouth. It seemed, so says the

chronicler, as though in his last moments he fought with evil

spirits;[412] certainly for many years to come England's portion was to

be with the evil spirits of faction and disaster, spirits which might

have been powerless to do harm, had Henry V. adopted the course of true

patriotism, and not 'busied restless minds with foreign quarrels.'

A fresh page of history begins with the death of Henry V., and new

personalities appear in the forefront of politics. The character of the

young King Henry VI. is a negligible quantity, for he was only nine

months old: 'Vae cujus terræ rex puer est,' quotes Walsingham,[413] and

indeed it was mainly the youth of the King which gave such a character

to his reign, as to fully justify Hall's description thereof; it was in

very truth to be 'the troubleous season of Kyng Henry the Sixt.'[414]

Three men stand out as the chief actors in the first period of the

reign--the two next heirs to the throne, Bedford and Gloucester, and the

Bishop of Winchester, head of the semi-legitimatised family of Beaufort.

1422] BEAUFORT AND BEDFORD

Of this Henry Beaufort, who was henceforth to play an important part in

the story of Humphrey's life, we must take some notice, for he has not

hitherto come across our path. As the legitimatised son of a royal

prince, his birth had taught him to push himself forward. A man of great

ability, he soon made himself a power that must be reckoned with, and as

Chancellor he had influenced the policy of the kingdom as early as 1404.

Till now he had had no commanding position such as the minority of Henry

VI. promised him; the field of his ambitions was now enlarged, and if we

cannot say that he was 'one of the pillars of the house of

Lancaster,'[415] his importance must not be minimised. As a man he was

unscrupulous, imperious, and impatient of control; as an ecclesiastic,

he was more ostentatious than clerical. Even as Baldassare Cossa had

exchanged the life of an Italian condottiere for the papal chair, so was

Beaufort ever ready for an excuse to exchange the mitre for the helmet.

The future was to find him the belated exponent of a wise foreign

policy, and money-lender in chief to the dynasty; but we cannot fail to

see in him much of that factious spirit which produced the Wars of the

Roses. Such a man, of royal blood yet outside the succession, was no

reassuring element for those who weighed the chances of a successful

reign for Henry VI. Of quite another stamp was John, Duke of Bedford.

Far above all his contemporaries did he stand out in greatness of

character and statesmanship. He had none of the charm and personal

magnetism which gilded the career of his royal brother in the eyes of

contemporaries, but he had all the more solid qualities which stand for

greatness without glamour. A wise and careful, if not brilliant, general

he was to show himself; a level-headed administrator he had already

proved to be during the long absences of Henry V. His death was to

remove the only obstacle to French victory, and the only element of

strength which the House of Lancaster possessed. With a strong affinity

to Henry V. in some qualities, he despised that politic self-deception

which enabled the latter to pose as the apostle of reform, and it cannot

be doubted that he alone of all men might possibly have saved England

from the disasters which threatened her internal peace.

His brother Humphrey, on the contrary, was in no way cut out to guide

the destinies of a nation in a 'troubleous season.' Versatile and

brilliant, endowed with the more taking but superficial qualities of his

brother Henry, he had shown himself an able soldier, an efficient

regent, but he had had no real training in statesmanship, and possessed

no natural aptitude in this direction. Above all, he had not sufficient

strength of character to meet opposition with a determination which

could not be gainsaid; unlike Bedford, he could not assume a judicial

attitude, but by his assertions of power only irritated, where he should

have soothed, the conflicting ambitions which took the place of

statesmanship in the days of Henry VI. No personal force, no

determination, he became a party man, when he should have dominated all

parties, merely an item among discordant factions. As yet these failings

of character which rendered such great abilities useless were not

clearly apparent, indeed Henry V., above all things a judge of good

instruments for his work, had chosen him to govern England. All through

the late King had felt a growing confidence in his youngest brother; to

say that he trusted Bedford thoroughly, but Gloucester only so far as it

was necessary,[416] is an unfair summary of his reign. Again and again

did Henry trust Humphrey with important work, not once do we find that

the trust was misplaced, whether at the siege of Cherbourg, or during

his two short regencies in England. No signs of that factious spirit

which party politics produced in him were as yet apparent, and a

comparison between his and Bedford's past records at this period shows

no balance one way or another. If Henry was indeed the statesman he is

said to have been, he must have known that the government of England

was a more important post both for ruled and ruler, than the already

shaky government of France, and yet he confided the chief task to

Humphrey. Evidence as to his distrust of Gloucester is found in his

warning to him not to alienate Burgundy, but the warning was given to

all who were present, and they were commissioned to hand it on to the

only man not present who had a large stake in the kingdom. Henry did not

distrust his youngest brother, and perhaps some indication of his

increasing regard for him may be found in the fact that, whereas in his

first will he left him a mere trifle,[417] by his second will he

bequeathed to him the considerable legacy of all the royal castles in

the south of England.[418]

1422] BEAUFORT'S PAST RECORD

The history of Humphrey's future career has one central theme running

through every aspect of his public life--the rivalry with Henry

Beaufort, a man whom Henry had no reason to trust in the way he trusted

his brother. On the eve of starting for France in 1417, after all

arrangements had been made, we find the sudden resignation of the

Chancellorship by the Bishop of Winchester[419] under circumstances

which point to royal compulsion; on the very day of resignation a full

pardon for all offences whatsoever was granted to him, a grant which

suggests offences which it was unwise to make public in the interests of

the dynasty.[420] When about to embark on the history of the famous

quarrel of Gloucester and Beaufort, let us remember that the former had

been trusted by Henry V., and that the latter had not.

Thus the personality that had dominated English history for the last

nine years had passed away, and the field was thrown open to other

leaders. To Gloucester the change was full of significance. On the one

hand, the power which had controlled the Bishop of Winchester was

removed, Beaufort ambitions might now have full play, and would

naturally be directed against such a possible rival as Duke Humphrey. On

the other hand, the man who had leant more than he knew on the strength

of his oldest brother was left to face life without this support.

Henceforth Humphrey must stand alone, and very rapidly the weaknesses of

his character begin to show themselves. Hitherto we have seen little

more than a machine carrying out its work under strict guidance,

henceforth we can discover the real man, and the inward workings of his

mind. His volatile nature, his incapacity at a period of crisis, his

inability to prosecute any venture to its legitimate end now begin to

appear. Hitherto we have had to explain his actions by reference to the

future, henceforth his true characteristics are manifest. His character

does not alter under changed circumstances, only its weakness, hitherto

concealed, is now revealed. Under the compulsion of independent action

we shall find him displayed in his true colours, a man guided by his

passions and yet hindered by a growing lassitude, a man with good

intentions but no stability, a man who lives for the moment and cannot

see into the future. Under the most favourable circumstances he might

possibly have escaped failure, but the Fates were against him. Already

Jacqueline had come to mould his policy in one false direction, already

he had imbibed false ideas as to the ethics of the war with France, now

he was about to meet with that opposition which was to reduce him to the

ranks of a factious politician. Yet in spite of his failures he was

tenacious of fixed principles, he had a sense of justice and right, and

had he been left to govern England unmolested it is probable that his

love of law and order, which was part of his Lancastrian inheritance,

would have enabled him to leave a far worthier record on the pages of

English history than the historian can now give him. He had all the

negative virtues of weakness, he was open-handed, simple-minded, and

incapable of a deep-laid scheme, but his instability marred all his

efforts. Ambition came to him suddenly at the death of Henry V., and he

had no power to deck out this ambition with strength, and to make men

feel that he had any right to his immense pretensions.

1422] OPPOSITION TO GLOUCESTER

The death of Henry V. was not generally known in England till September

10. At that time, as we have seen, Gloucester was Regent, and it would

have seemed natural that he should continue as such until Parliament

could meet to arrange matters. This, however, was not to be the case.

From the very outset of the reign the struggle for supremacy in the

kingdom of the infant boy began. The Bishop of Winchester had behind him

the experience gained under three successive kings, he had held official

positions, and he enjoyed a large and powerful family connection. All

this strength was at once used to prevent Gloucester's influence in the

kingdom being anything but a name. The note of the sad years that were

to follow was thus struck when Beaufort's influence was brought to bear

on the Council, and the Regent was given to understand that the kingdom

was no longer under his control.[421] This early interference shows the

true nature of the struggle which was to circle round the infant King.

There was no reason to distrust Humphrey at this time, so the action of

the Bishop of Winchester was obviously a personal move, dictated by his

private desires to control the policy of the kingdom. He had the

magnates and the Council at his back; it is possible that Humphrey was

already so much the friend of the people and the lower gentry as to

arouse the opposition of the nobility; at any rate everything was done

to show the late Regent that he had no importance, save as the uncle of

the King. On September 28 Bishop Langley resigned the Chancellorship,

and though in deference to his rank as premier peer then in England

Gloucester was allowed to receive the Seal from the Bishop's hands, he

was obliged to do so at Windsor in the presence of the baby Henry, so

that it might be emphasised that the act was his nephew's, not his

own.[422] Also, when the writs were issued for summoning Parliament,

they were sealed 'Teste Rege,' not 'Teste Custode,' as had been the

custom of Bedford and Gloucester when they had been regents for Henry

V.; and the first writ was addressed to Gloucester as first lay lord,

whereas under the regency the Regent had had no writ addressed to

him.[423]

Thus, though Gloucester's position as chief of the King's subjects then

in England was admitted, he was allowed no further power either by right

of his past regency, or in view of the fact that at his death Henry V.

had left to him the care of the realm. The Council undertook all the

executive work, and though Gloucester was supported by the general

public opinion of the lesser gentry and commonalty, he did not venture

to oppose this abrogation of power. However, when the Council met on

November 6, he registered a protest against the terms in which his

commission for the summons of Parliament was drawn up. He was

commissioned to open, carry on, and dissolve Parliament, 'and to perform

all royal functions therein by assent of the Council.'[424] To this

clause he objected as prejudicial to his position; it was, he urged, a

departure from precedent, for no such limitation had been laid on him

in the commissions under which he had summoned Parliaments during the

reign of Henry V. Under the present arrangement, he argued, the Lords of

the Council could keep Parliament in session for a whole year against

his will, should they wish to do so; and this was a direct denial of his

rights. In turn, each Lord was asked for his judgment, and one by one

they answered that, owing to the youth of the King, they could not take

it upon them to omit the words to which Gloucester objected, as they

regarded them as a safeguard both to Gloucester and themselves.[425]

Against such a decided and unanimous answer Gloucester was powerless,

and was obliged to admit defeat; his position was realised by his

contemporaries, for when speaking of his presidency of Parliament

Walsingham calls him 'prius custos Angliae.'[426] On November 7, the day

after this Council meeting, Henry V. was buried in Westminster Abbey. A

large number of nobles had brought his body to Calais by way of Rouen;

funeral services were said for him at St. Paul's, at Canterbury

Cathedral, and at Westminster, and with great pomp and ceremony he was

carried to his last resting-place, a waxen effigy lying on the coffin

dressed in the full glory of the regalia.[427]

Before Parliament assembled at Westminster on November 17,[428] it was

quite evident that Gloucester desired to become Protector in accordance

with the wishes of Henry V., and that he hoped for a position

untrammelled by 'assent of the council' or other constitutional

restrictions.[429] He had already received one rebuff, but he still had

an easy confidence either in the rightfulness of his claim, or in his

power to enforce his wishes. He does not seem to have realised the

difficulties that lay in his way, nor to have had more than the faintest

conception of the strength of the opposition to his pretensions: his

incapacity to gauge the trend of events was for the first time made

manifest. Bedford, too, had definitely put forward his claim to the

position, and on October 26 had written a letter to the Mayor and

Aldermen of London, saying that he was informed on reliable authority

that 'by the lawes and ancient usage and custume of the reaume,' the

government of England fell to him as eldest brother of the late King,

and next in succession to Henry VI. He urged them not to prejudice his

claims by an act of theirs, assuring them that he acted from no desire

for 'worldly worship,' but only because he wished in every way to obey

and fulfil the law of the land.[430] This claim to the Protectorate

based on right of birth was quite inadmissible, as was proved later in

Parliament, but it is probable that Bedford was sincere in his

professions of disinterestedness, for he was never jealous of his

brother, and really had at heart the good of the kingdom. Evidently the

letter was aimed rather at the pretensions of Beaufort than at

Gloucester's ambitions, for it was a kindred claim to that of his

brother, and did not preclude the possibility of Humphrey's regency in

his absence. Perhaps also Bedford knew himself to be 'the one strong man

in a blatant land,' and wished to secure some hold on his volatile

brother, a hold which was to prove useful at a later date; at all events

he made his appeal to those who were accounted Gloucester's surest

supporters.

1422] APPOINTMENT OF THE PROTECTOR

Such was the state of parties when Gloucester on November 9 opened

Parliament as the King's Commissioner. Beaufort, with the support of the

baronial party, stood for Conciliar government, which meant his own

preponderance in the kingdom; Gloucester, also playing for his own hand,

demanded the Protectorate. Between the two stood Bedford with a policy

which seemed to doubt the wisdom of either party, and a desire for the

good of the kingdom, which others in their haste had totally ignored.

Archbishop Chichele delivered the opening speech of the session, and

outlined its business, which was to provide for the good governance of

the King's person and the safety of the realm, besides certain matters

of form, such as the reappointment of the late King's Chancellor,

Treasurer, and Privy Seal, which were soon accomplished.[431] However,

the important business of the session was not settled till December

5,[432] the interval being probably spent in intrigue and

counter-intrigue, of which no record survives. The struggle was not one

of constitutional questions, though it assumed that appearance. Humphrey

stated his claim simply by appealing to his right as next-of-kin to the

King, and to the dying wishes expressed by Henry V.[433] The period was

one when theory had outgrown practice in the constitution, and so the

Beaufort faction could assume a most moral and upright position when

they urged an examination of precedents. The Lords therefore replied to

Gloucester's claims that they could find among the arrangements made

during previous minorities no justification for his claim of priority of

blood, nor any indication that the King could dispose of the government

after his death, save with the consent of the Estates. With great

ingenuity the Beaufort party had put the Lords on their mettle, and had

induced them to regard Henry's dying commands as an infringement of

their rights. Their victory was complete, and their chance of meddling

in the affairs of the kingdom was assured. The whole thing was a party

move, and cannot be construed as a vote of no confidence in the Duke of

Gloucester. The reply of the Lords was equally hostile to Bedford's

claim, and was inspired by a desire to curb the power of the man who

held the office of Protector, irrespective of who that individual might

be. The personal struggle between Gloucester and Beaufort had not yet

begun, for there are not the slightest signs of any earlier rivalry. The

struggle was one for position, and would have been initiated by Beaufort

whoever had laid claim to the Protectorate. Later, indeed, the personal

element comes to the front, but never once during the whole controversy

did it dominate the political ambitions of either party.

Beaufort having won the day, Parliament decided that Bedford should be

'Protector et Defensor' of the kingdom and first Councillor of the King

when he was at home; and that when he was not, Gloucester should take

the same position, with the same condition about being in the kingdom.

Both commissions were made out 'during the King's pleasure.'[434] To

this Act Gloucester gave his consent, declaring that he did so without

prejudice to his brother, who was in France.[435] Yet another Act which

made elaborate provisions to prevent the misuse of the Protector's power

was passed. He was given the patronage of the smaller offices, such as

those of foresters and park-keepers, of benefices rated at not more than

thirty marks, and of prebendaries in the royal chapels ordinarily in the

King's gift; but the deaneries in such chapels were not to be in his

presentation. Even in the cases just cited the Protector's power was

limited by the fact that all commissions to these offices had to be

given under the great seal, which was kept by the Chancellor.[436]

Beyond this the Protector had no independent power, in all else he was

controlled by a Council of which all the best-known men of the period

were members, for with Gloucester were associated the Archbishop of

Canterbury, the Bishops of London, Winchester, Norwich, and Worcester;

the Duke of Exeter, and the Earls of March, Warwick, and Westmoreland;

the Earl Marshal, and the Lords Fitzhugh, Cromwell, Hungerford, Tiptoft,

and Beauchamp.[437] To this Council was given the real control of the

executive; indeed the Protector seems to have had no veto, nor even any

right to be specially consulted, excepting on those matters concerning

which it was customary to consult the King.[438] It was the Council who

had the presentation to the major benefices and the nomination of

sheriffs, justices of the peace, controllers, custom officers and the

like, subject always to the consent of the Protector. The Council also

had the management of wardships, marriages, and ferms.[439] To remove

any possibility of the Protector being able to evade the wishes of the

Council, it was enacted that a quorum of six, or at the least four, was

necessary for the legal transaction of business, and for a matter of

great importance a majority of the whole Council.[440] The Duke of

Exeter was made Guardian to the King, but owing to the tender age of the

child he was left for the time being under the control of his

mother.[441]

These heavy restrictions must have been extremely galling to Gloucester,

and it is doubtful whether they were wise. Without claiming for him any

high degree of statesmanship, or any real gift for administration, we

must admit that these provisions left him with a smaller share in the

government than he might reasonably have expected. Not only was he

reduced to the position of an ordinary councillor, with a certain

priority which his rank, apart from his office as Protector, would have

given him, but he was provided with a Council in which his influence was

not predominant. The Beaufort influence was in the ascendant there, and

the two chief members of that family, Henry of Winchester and the Duke

of Exeter, both had seats at the Council Board. On paper, therefore,

Beaufort's efforts to restrain the Protector's power were eminently

successful, yet it was prejudicial to his own interests, and disastrous

to the internal peace of the kingdom, to throw down the glove thus

early. Had Gloucester's power been less openly restrained, and had his

opponents been less ready to bind him with Acts of Parliament, he would

not have been compelled to act on the aggressive from the first. The

result of the Beaufort policy was not to reduce the Protectorate to a

mere name, but to convulse the kingdom by giving every encouragement to

Gloucester's factious tendencies. The challenge had been given, and we

cannot blame Gloucester for accepting it. It might perhaps have been

unwise to place full power in the hands of such a volatile man; but a

partially restricted power, which, while giving play to his ambitions,

should yet prevent any disastrous domination of English politics, would

have delayed and modified those factious fights which are so dangerous

during a minority, which were to prove of no advantage to the house of

Beaufort, and which opened the way for a devastating civil war. It was,

in a word, a grave political miscalculation that led Henry Beaufort to

inspire this aggressive policy towards Gloucester, for the Protector was

not friendless. He was supported by a strong feeling in the kingdom, and

the Bishop was yet to learn the weight of hostile London opinion when he

attacked their 'Good Duke.' On the other hand, nothing could be wiser

than the provision that Bedford should be in a position of authority

over his brother. Though it gave little promise of a stable and similar

policy in France and England, yet it gave a certain strength to English

politics, and, for the Beauforts at least, was to prove extremely useful

before long.

1422] ALLIANCE OF GLOUCESTER AND BEDFORD

Notwithstanding the rebuff in the matter of the Protectorate, Gloucester

set to work energetically, for though technically his powers were small,

he had a fund of energy which, while it lasted, carried him over great

obstacles; and his personal influence, due to his general popularity and

his near relationship to the throne, stood him in good stead. He busied

himself with putting the 'inward affaires' of the country in order, and

also in making arrangements for the support of Bedford in France.[442]

Matters were complicated there by the death of Charles VI. on October

22, 1422.[443] This meant the loss of an ally who, imbecile though he

was, must command the allegiance of the majority of Frenchmen. The

Dauphin from being the head of a faction had suddenly sprung into the

position of rightful King of France, and Bedford found the difficulty

hard to face. Indeed so hard pressed was Paris, that it sent a special

embassy to England to demand help to resist the advances of the new

King, Charles VII.[444] For the time Gloucester was working in perfect

harmony with Bedford, for he needed his support to strengthen his hands

in England, and it seems probable that it was about this time that what

might be called terms of alliance between the two brothers were drawn

up. There is no evidence that this document was ever signed, but at

least it indicates an inclination of the two brothers to work together.

The treaty begins with some general remarks about the advantages enjoyed

by a state, if its chief men are bound together in bonds of friendship.

The two contracting parties therefore agree that they will be loyal to

the King, and promote his good to the best of their ability; and next

to the King they will be loyal to one another, not assisting each

other's enemies, but rather warning each other against any danger that

threatens them. They agree to turn a deaf ear to mischief-makers, who

would sow distrust between them, and to treat each other with perfect

frankness. Finally, each agrees to enter into no alliance without the

consent of the other.[445]

This alliance between the two brothers has great significance. It goes

far to prove that Bedford's sympathies were on Gloucester's side during

the Protectorate quarrel, as indeed they well might be, as his interests

were also at stake therein. Still more clearly does it point to the fact

that it was personal ambition, and that alone, which led Beaufort to

take his pseudo-constitutional course. Bedford realised that the

grasping Bishop of Winchester wanted his power to increase in proportion

to his purse, and he wished to prevent this by strengthening the hands

of a man who was now in some ways his representative in England.

Obviously Beaufort had been trying to create bad blood between the two

brothers, as their refusal to listen to tales against one another

proves; but he had failed, and it was not till Humphrey had prejudiced

his case completely by his expedition to Hainault, that Bedford ceased

to support his political ambitions. The struggle, therefore, in spite of

petty restrictions on his power, which Gloucester would feel more than

Bedford, was still not personal. It was a fight for supremacy between

the legitimate and the illegitimate descendants of John of Gaunt.

1423] GLOUCESTER'S SALARY AND OFFICES

In the new year Gloucester's salary as Protector was definitely settled.

On February 12 it was decreed by an ordinance of the Privy Council, that

so long as he remained Protector he should receive eight thousand marks

(£5333, 6s. 8d.) a year, dating from the death of the late King. Four

thousand marks of this was to be drawn from the issues of the Duchy of

Lancaster, and nine hundred marks from possessions in the King's

hands.[446] In the previous December Gloucester had been given a present

of £300 and the revenues of foresters, park-keepers, and keepers of

warrens which were vacant. These revenues were not given to the Duke in

his private capacity, but were attached to the office of Protector, for

Bedford was to receive them whenever he was in England.[447] On March 3

the first instalment of Gloucester's salary was paid,[448] and, besides

these financial advantages, he was made Constable of Gloucester Castle

soon after the rebuff of his limited protectorship, and reappointed

Chamberlain of England for life, together with other offices which he

had held under Henry V.[449] Also on April 30, 1423, he was given the

lordship of Guisnes for fourteen years, dating from the Feast of St.

Michael (Michaelmas Day, September 29) next following, and for this

privilege he was to pay nine hundred marks a year to the King, and to

agree to keep a garrison of fifty men-at-arms and fifty archers in the

castle.[450] In May the indentures for this were signed,[451] and at the

same time he was given a tenth of the revenues of 'Fruten, Calkwell,

Galymot, Ostrewyk, Balynton,' and other towns.[452] This accumulation of

offices and revenues suggests that the victory of the Beaufort party

had not proved so complete as at first they had thought. The Protector

was able to secure a strong official position in the kingdom, and to

increase his revenues considerably; possibly his recovering strength was

due to the support he had received from Bedford. From another aspect it

shows a new phase of Gloucester's character. Under the determined

attacks of Beaufort, fresh developments and characteristics appear.

Rapidly the soldier gives place to the intriguing politician, and the

necessity of being prepared for future attacks develops a grasping trait

in the Duke's character. Henceforth every opportunity for increasing his

official importance or adding to his rent-roll is readily seized with a

view to gaining an ever-growing preponderance in the affairs of the

kingdom. Thus opposition brings to the fore all the worst sides of the

'Good Duke's' character, and under its influence his policy is moulded.

1423] DIVISIONS IN THE COUNCIL

On the eve of St. George's Day (April 22) Gloucester, exercising the

functions of the sovereign, held the first chapter of the Order of the

Garter at Windsor, and according to the wardrobe account Jacqueline was

the only lady who received robes this year for the celebration of the

Feast of St. George.[453] On October 20 Parliament met at Westminster,

and the session was opened by Gloucester, acting as before on the

authority of a special commission, which empowered him to preside over

its deliberations and dissolve it, subject, of course, to the sanction

of the Council.[454] During a part of the proceedings on November 17 the

young King was present, sitting on his mother's lap, though at an

earlier date he had resisted removal from Staines so energetically, that

he had to be carried back into the house.[455] The session, though it

lasted more than three months, was not eventful, but there were renewed

efforts to curb the power of the Protector; and probably the

introduction of the King was part of this policy, in that it served to

remind Gloucester that he was there only as the representative, not as

the governor, of his little master. A strong protest was lodged against

the practice of individual members of the Council answering petitions on

their own responsibility. It was therefore enacted that neither

Gloucester, nor any other councillor, should grant either Bills of

Right, of Office, or of Benefice in answer to a petition made to him,

but must refer the matter to the rest of the Council.[456] In a new set

of regulations for the Council evidence is also found that matters were

not running smoothly in that body. There were evidently

misunderstandings on the subject of foreign policy, and the various

members were forbidden to go behind the action of the Council, and to

express opinions contrary to the decisions arrived at.[457] All this

helps to prove the strength of the opposition to Gloucester amongst the

magnates of the realm, both in and out of the Council. It seems also to

point to the fact that Beaufort's challenge had had the effect which was

to be expected. Hampered by the restrictions on his power, Gloucester

was too impatient to work against them quietly, and had evidently defied

the Council in any way he could. The not unnatural result was

exasperation on both sides. The second cause of complaint, with its

distinct mention of 'into strange countrees oure soverain Lord shal

write his letters by th' advyse of his Counsail,' may have reference to

Gloucester's Hainault policy, which was rapidly reaching the stage of

war, and of which we shall speak later.

On the other hand, Gloucester's efforts towards procuring a treaty with

Scotland were the subject of sincere thanks in this Parliament, and the

wording of the note seems to imply that he had taken a very active part

in the negotiations.[458] It was now almost eighteen years since James

of Scotland had been taken prisoner, and it is probable that Humphrey

and he had been fast friends ever since their boyhood. It was natural,

therefore, that the Protector should take a leading part in the

negotiations which were leading up to his release. On September 10 a

treaty was signed at York, in which the Scotch agreed to pay £40,000 for

their King's maintenance in England, and to withhold further support

from the French; allusion was also made to a conditional marriage with

some high-born English lady.[459] James had fallen deeply in love with

Lady Joan Beaufort, daughter of John, late Earl of Somerset;[460] in the

following February he married her, and the April of 1424 found him a

free man confirming the treaty as King of his country.[461] Gloucester

can hardly have welcomed this choice of a bride, for he could not know

how little the unfortunate lady would strengthen the hands of her

family.[462]

1423] THE EARL OF MARCH

Before Parliament rose it was called upon to pass an Act of Attainder

against Sir John Mortimer, cousin of the Earl of March, who had been

arrested on suspicion of treason in 1421. He had tried to escape from

the Tower, apparently being instigated thereto by emissaries of the

Government. For this offence he was condemned to death by a special Act

of Parliament, and executed.[463] From the deposition of William King,

who was instructed by the Lieutenant of the Tower to win Mortimer's

confidence, it would seem that the latter's escape was to be a prelude

to a rising in Wales in conjunction with the Earl of March, and that

the Protector's life was threatened. March was to usurp the throne, and

the Bishop of Winchester was also marked out for distinction, 'for

Mortymer wolde pley with his money.'[464] How far these statements were

true, and how far part of an organised attempt to remove a dangerous

prisoner cannot be said, but at least it is clear that the Earl of March

had already caused anxiety to Gloucester owing to the suspiciously large

retinue he had brought with him to the meeting of Parliament, and the

ostentation with which he kept open house at the residence of the Bishop

of Salisbury.[465] It may be that a conspiracy was indeed on foot, and

that Humphrey once more received a warning of the dangers which beset

the house of Lancaster. If so, the warning was forgotten by the removal

of the conspirators. Mortimer we have seen was put to death, and March

was ordered to his government in Ireland, where shortly afterwards he

died of the plague. His lands went to swell the already extensive

possessions of Richard, Duke of York,[466] who, however, was a minor,

and the custody of those lands which March had held from the King in

chief was given to Gloucester, to be held by him so long as they

remained in the hands of the King, that is to say, until Richard came of

age.[467]

Thus Humphrey was launched on his independent career. With no one in

direct authority over him he was the master of his own policy, and that

policy had been slowly developing during the last nine years. Three

great influences had come to mould his character and dictate his line of

action. The crusading zeal of his brother Henry had wedded him to the

idea of French conquests, without giving him the intellectual force to

organise or help such a project. The flight of Jacqueline to England

had thrown in his way one who, appealing to the desire for foreign

dominion and roving knight-errantry he inherited from his ancestors, was

to draw him away from his ordered line of policy and show up all the

weaknesses of his character. The opposition of Beaufort had compelled

him to face a new set of circumstances, and had aroused those factious

instincts that had hitherto lain dormant. These three facts dominated

all his future life. His policy was formed by them, and henceforth he

followed whithersoever they led. Little he cared that they did not

agree, that to follow one enterprise he must sacrifice the other two

endeavours on which he had set his heart. His ruling passion was

ambition, but he did not know how to satisfy it. Thus his future life

will be found to be consistent in so far as it is governed by one

overwhelming desire, but totally inconsistent in detail. To conquer

Hainault was to abandon his position at home; to carry on the French war

successfully was to resign his claim on Hainault; to concentrate his

energies on the government of England was to abandon Jacqueline to her

fate. All these he did in turn, and thus, unless we dip down into the

fundamental facts of his character, we shall be unable to divine what

led him into these extraordinary inconsistencies. His policy of

self-aggrandisement was fixed, but his unsettled mind could not decide

how best to satisfy his ambitions.

FOOTNOTES:

[334] Rymer, IV. iii. 146.

[335] He arrived in Rouen on his way to join Henry on April 17,

1420. Cochon, 439.

[336] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 108.

[337] An ordinance, issued at Mantes on November 13, 1419, points to

the fact that deserters were becoming unpleasantly numerous.

_Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 42, App. 355.

[338] Ellis, _Original Letters_, 1st Series, i. 1.

[339] _Herald's Debate_, 61.

[340] See 'The Libel of English Policy,' _Political Songs_, ii.

187-205.

[341] In 1415, for instance, crown jewels were pledged to London for

the loan of 10,000 marks; Rymer, IV. ii. 141.

[342] _Third Rep. of Deputy Keeper of the Public Records_, 232,

Trial of Edward, Duke of Buckingham.

[343] Anstis, _Order of the Garter_, ii. 70.

[344] Waurin, ii. 331, 332.

[345] Devon, _Issue Roll_, 362, 363.

[346] This idea is supported by the fact that in 1425 a rumour was

abroad that James was going to help Gloucester in Hainault

with 8000 Scotch. Dynter, iii. 465.

[347] Waurin, ii. 280-294; St. Rémy, 439-442; Monstrelet, 460-465;

Des Ursins, 553, 554.

[348] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 42, App. 337; Chastellain, 25-29;

_Gesta_, 134, 135.

[349] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 42, App. 374.

[350] _Gesta_, 137; Elmham, _Vita_, 252; Harleian MS., 2256, f. 196;

Chastellain, 44. Livius does not mention Gloucester as being

there. Probably the chroniclers confuse Meulan and Troyes.

[351] Rymer, IV. iii. 175.

[352] Rymer, IV. iii. 179; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 335.

[353] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 123.

[354] _Ibid._, iv. 107.

[355] _Ibid._, iv. 107, 117.

[356] Stubbs, iii. 90. Ramsay, i. 228, thinks that money was asked

for but refused. See Wake, 355.

[357] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 125.

[358] _Ibid._, iv. 124, 127, 128.

[359] London Chron., 188; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 336;

Elmham, _Vita_, 296.

[360] _Gesta_, 148.

[361] _London Chron._, 164, 165.

[362] _London Chron._, 162; Gregory, 139, calls him 'ovyr seer';

_Short English Chron._, 57, calls him 'surveour'; Fabyan

calls him 'overloker' and gives a long description of the

feast, 586-588; Holinshed, iii. 125, calls him overseer.

[363] _London Chron._, 162-165; _Short English Chron._, 57; Gregory,

139.

[364] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 337; Waurin, ii. 344; Elmham,

_Vita_, 300-1.

[365] Elmham, _Vita_, 304; St. Rémy, 454; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._,

ii. 339.

[366] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 339.

[367] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 129.

[368] See above, p. 38.

[369] See Chastellain, 69. As a rule the Cods (Kabbeljan) were the

citizen party, and the Hooks (those who were to catch them)

consisted of nobles.

[370] St. Rémy, 453.

[371] For the causes of quarrel between John of Brabant and

Jacqueline see Chastellain, 69.

[372] Chastellain, 69; see also Monstrelet, 497.

[373] According to another chronicler, this was Lewis Robsart 'per

Lodowicum Robishert voluntarie de ducta' (_Chron. Henry VI._,

6). A certain 'Lewis de Robstart' was left by Henry as his

representative with Catherine between the Convention of

Troyes and his marriage (St. Rémy, 443). Also a certain

'Lodovico Robersart' was an executor of Henry V.'s will

(_Rot. Parl._, iv. 172), and this man was also a supervisor

of the Duke of Exeter's will (_Testamenta Vetusta_, i. 210).

Lewis Robsart had indented for men in the 1415 campaign (L.

T. R., _Foreign Accounts, 10 Henry V._). This almost looks as

if Henry had helped to engineer the flight. On the other

hand, there is a possibility that the chronicler quoted above

mistook the Christian name, for in 1424 we shall find Sir

John Robsart accompanying Gloucester and Jacqueline to St.

Albans (_St. Alban's Chron._, i. 8), and admitted to the

confraternity of the monastery at this time (Cotton MS.,

Nero, D. 7, f. 147); also a Sir John Robsart was naturalised

on October 20, 1423 (Rymer, IV. iv. 103). There was a John de

Robsart whom we have seen serving under Gloucester in the

Côtentin expedition. If this is the man who brought

Jacqueline over, the inference is that Gloucester was partly

responsible for her flight to England. A Sir Lewis Robsart

also took part under Gloucester in the fighting before

Cherbourg, so in either case the Duke's complicity seems

possible.

[374] Chastellain, 70.

[375] St. Rémy, 453.

[376] _Ordinances_, ii. 241.

[377] Rymer, IV. iv. 8.

[378] Chastellain, 70, 71.

[379] Waurin, ii. 356; _Ordinances_, ii. 291; Rymer, IV. iv. 34.

[380] Letters discovered at Lille seem to prove that Henry not only

encouraged Jacqueline to flee to England, but also favoured

her marriage with Gloucester as a help towards his policy of

strengthening his position in France. See Beiträge, i. 48.

[381] Miss Putnam (_Mediæval Princess_, p. 86) suggests that

Gloucester had met Jacqueline on the way home from Dordrecht.

Leopold Devilliers in the preface to vol. iv. of

_Cartulaire_, p. xxvi, says, 'Leur liaison remontait à

l'Epoque où ils s'étaient vus en France pour la première

fois,' but he does not say when this hypothetical meeting

took place.

[382] Rymer, IV. iv. 24, 25.

[383] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 320. In theory three archers went to every

man-at-arms, but this was often exceeded. In Henry IV.'s wars

in Wales, and later in the French wars, there were often as

many as four or five archers to each man-at-arms.

[384] See _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 44, App. 624-635.

[385] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 320.

[386] _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 44, App. 624; Rymer, IV. iv. 27.

[387] Rymer, IV. iv. 27. Miss Putnam (_Mediæval Princess_, 89),

following Löher (Beiträge, i. 48), says that Gloucester

sailed on the day that his passport was granted--a fortnight

before Henry--and that this was arranged in order to remove

him from the attractions of Jacqueline. There is no evidence

that Gloucester sailed before Henry. Others, _e.g._ the Earl

of March, got their passports at this time, and it seems

likely that they were given them merely because the

embarkation was beginning.

[388] June 10. Elmham, _Vita_, 308; _Gesta_, 153; St. Rémy, 445;

Monstrelet, 503; Waurin, ii. 348; Chastellain, 79. The French

chroniclers all give it as St. Barnabas Day, June 11.

[389] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 340; cf. Add. MS., 4003, quoted

in Ramsay, i. 295. The French chroniclers give 4000

men-at-arms and 24,000 archers; St. Rémy, 455; Chastellain,

79.

[390] Chastellain, 79.

[391] Monstrelet, 503.

[392] Chastellain, 79.

[393] Elmham, _Vita_, 309.

[394] Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, p. 231, No. CCCLXIII.; Monstrelet, 504.

[395] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 320. Gloucester's men were arrayed on July

13. _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 42, App. 427.

[396] Chastellain, 80.

[397] Elmham, _Vita_, 311.

[398] _Rot. Scot._, ii. 228-230.

[399] Elmham, _Vita_, 310, 311; _Gesta_, 153; Chastellain, 94.

[400] Chastellain, 94.

[401] _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 44, App. 635.

[402] For this campaign see Elmham, _Vita_, 312-314; Monstrelet,

512, 513; _Gesta_, 153, 154; Chastellain, 95, 96; Waurin, ii.

398-400.

[403] When Henry first landed in 1424 Chastellain says that

Gloucester was governor of Paris. This, of course, is a

mistake, for the post was at that time held by Exeter, who,

however, joined the army at Mantes. It is possible that this

is merely a mistake of date and that Gloucester took Exeter's

place, and if this is so, it may be that he went thither

straight from the siege of Dreux, and did not take part in

Henry's campaign on the Loire. See Chastellain, 79.

[404] After March 27 mention of Gloucester ceases in the French

Rolls; _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 44, App. 635.

[405] _Lond. Chron._, 110; _Chron. Henry VI._, 1.

[406] Harleian MS., 2256, f. 197.

[407] Rymer, IV. iv. 50.

[408] Cotton MS., Cleopatra, C. iv. f. 32.

[409] Rymer, IV. iv. 66; see Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 342.

[410] Ashmole MS., 1109, ff. 146, 147.

[411] _Gesta_, 159, 160; Livius, 95; Elmham, _Vita_, 333;

Chastellain, 112. According to Waurin, ii. 422, and

Monstrelet, 530, the regency of England was given to the Duke

of Exeter. Waurin also says that the regency of France was to

devolve on the Duke of Burgundy, but if he refused, Bedford

was to take his place, and this chronicler goes on to say

that Bedford only undertook the office after Burgundy's

refusal to accept the post.

[412] _Gesta_, 160.

[413] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 344.

[414] Hall, 114.

[415] Ramsay, ii. 78.

[416] Stubbs, iii. 94.

[417] Rymer, IV. ii. 139. By this will Gloucester was left a bed and

£100.

[418] _Testamenta Vetusta_, i. 21.

[419] Rymer, IV. iii. 8.

[420] Rymer, IV. iii. 7. Ramsay, i. 246, while allowing that no

chronicler gives any reason for the breach between Henry V.

and the Bishop of Winchester, suggests that it may have been

due to a possible demand of the latter for some security for

the money he had lent to the former. Security had been given

on July 18, but there is nothing in this to explain the

Chancellor's resignation. At any rate, if these two men could

not agree as to this debt, it is obvious that they had no

confidence in one another.

[421] Hardyng, 391.

[422] Rymer, IV. iv. 80.

[423] _Lords' Reports_, iii. 856; _Ordinances_, iii. 3.

[424] _Ordinances_, iii. 6; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 169; Rymer, IV. iv.

82.

[425] 'Ad parliamentum illud finiendum et dissolvendum de assensu

concilii nostri plenam commisimus potestatem.' _Ordinances_,

iii. 7. Stubbs thinks that it is probable that 'de assensu

concilii nostri' alludes to the last three words, that

Gloucester misconstrued the sentence, and that the Council

accepted his misconstruction for their own ends (Stubbs, iii.

96, _n._ 3); but judging from their general attitude to

Gloucester it seems more likely that the lords intended to

put a check on him all along, else why introduce words which

had not occurred before? It is more than possible that they

wished Gloucester to accept it in the way Stubbs reads it,

and at a later date to construe them to their own advantage.

Gloucester's only chance was to try to preclude this

possibility. He threw his stake and lost.

[426] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 345.

[427] _Ibid._, ii. 345, 346.

[428] Rymer, IV. iv. 82; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 170.

[429] Hardyng, 390.

[430] Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, No. CCCLXVII. p. 233.

[431] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 171, 172.

[432] _Lords' Reports_, v. 192.

[433] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 326.

[434] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 174; Rymer, IV. iv. 83; _Lords' Reports_, v.

192; Hall, 115; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 346.

[435] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 175.

[436] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 175; _Ordinances_, iii. 15, 16.

[437] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 178.

[438] _Ordinances_, iii. 18.

[439] _Ibid._, iii. 16, 17, 18; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 176.

[440] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 176.

[441] Polydore Vergil, 2.

[442] Hall, 115; Polydore Vergil, 2.

[443] Monstrelet, 533.

[444] _Ibid._, 538; Waurin, iii. 6, 7.

[445] _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 139-143. This document has no

date, but it was evidently drawn up early in the reign.

Stubbs, iii. 102, puts it as probably occurring before the

Parliament at Leicester in 1426, and points to the last

clause for evidence that Gloucester's Hainault expedition was

alluded to. On the other hand, this may have been dictated by

a presentiment of Gloucester's intentions in Hainault, which

became evident soon after the opening of the reign, if not

before. Bedford probably wanted to restrain Gloucester, and

Gloucester must have desired the support of his powerful

brother. There is also ample evidence that Bedford was in the

hands of Beaufort in 1426, certainly till after the

Parliament of Leicester, and therefore would not at that time

ally himself with his brother.

[446] _Ordinances_, iii. 26, 27; Rymer, IV. iv. 86; _Cal. Rot.

Pat._, 269.

[447] _Ordinances_, iii. 10, 15.

[448] _Ibid._, iii. 51.

[449] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 174; _Cal. Rot. Pat._, 269.

[450] _Ordinances_, iii. 69, 77.

[451] _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 48, p. 226.

[452] Carte, ii. 250.

[453] Beltz, pp. lxi, lxii. Wardrobe accounts, however, are not

always reliable.

[454] Rymer, IV. iv. 102; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 197; _Cal. Rot. Pat._,

270.

[455] _London Chron._, 112 and 165.

[456] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 200.

[457] _Ibid._, iv. 201. _Ordinances_, iii. 151, where an additional

paragraph decrees that any matter of dispute between any

members of the Council is to be submitted to the judgment of

the rest.

[458] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 299.

[459] Rymer, IV. iv. 98.

[460] _Chron. Henry VI._, 4, 5.

[461] Rymer, IV. iv. 115. It was not long before Gloucester was

remonstrating with James for giving support to the French in

1424. Polydore Vergil, 11.

[462] Later in the reign Gloucester complained that this marriage

was an insidious attempt by Beaufort to increase the power of

his house.

[463] Harleian MS., 2256, f. 198; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 202.

[464] Cotton MS., Julius, B. i. f. 68.

[465] _Chron. Henry VI._, 6.

[466] Harleian MS., 2256, f. 198vo; _Chron. Henry VI._, 6.

[467] _Ordinances_, iii. 169. March died January 19, 1425.