CHAPTER V

THE PROTECTORATE

With Humphrey's return from Hainault the second phase of his life ends

and the third begins. His early life had been that of a soldier; he had

celebrated the death of his brother by making a bid for the position of

an independent prince; now he was to devote the rest of his days to

political intrigue, and it is perhaps in this last phase that his career

assumes its greatest interest. Undoubtedly his actions during the

minority of his nephew have more importance in the history of his

country than those of his earlier years, and from them we are enabled to

realise more clearly the various threads of his policy and the governing

influences in his life. Henceforth Humphrey's whole energies are devoted

to English politics. His discarded Duchess may flit across the stage,

for a brief moment he may revert to his early participation in the

French war, but these are merely unimportant incidents in a busy

political career. The rest of his life, too, is entirely moulded by the

opposition he experiences. The spirit which had inspired the limitation

of the Protector's power was to meet him at every turn, and throughout

the next twenty years all English history was to find its central theme

in the great struggle between the Duke of Gloucester and the Beaufort

faction. Barely six months after his departure from England, Humphrey

had returned to find preparations being made for the holding of

Parliament, and it is probable that he had timed his departure from

Hainault so as to be present at this meeting, fearing lest some hostile

move should be made against him in his absence. On April 27 the young

King was brought up from Windsor, and, being met at the west door of St.

Paul's by Gloucester and Exeter--the protectors of his kingdom and his

person respectively--was lifted out of his chair by them and escorted to

the choir, where he was 'borne up and offred.'[596] Three days later he

was present at the opening of Parliament, that his uncle might remember

that he was the servant, not the master of the realm.[597]

1425] ATTITUDE OF THE COUNCIL

After so inglorious and impolitic a proceeding as his recent campaign

Humphrey might well have expected criticism of no light kind from the

strong faction opposed to him, and if we are to believe the French

chroniclers, such criticism he did receive at the hands of the

Council,[598] but no traces of this are to be found in the official

records. Nay more, there is ample evidence that the Protector's

influence both in Parliament and Council was considerable. Not only in

the face of a revenue deficit of £20,000 did Parliament grant him a loan

of 40,000 marks to be paid within four years, but the Lords of the

Council agreed to act as sureties for its repayment;[599] in a dispute

between the Earl Marshal and the Earl of Warwick for precedence

Parliament decided in favour of the former, who was not only a supporter

of Gloucester, but had also commanded his troops in Hainault;[600]

finally the wardship of the estates which devolved on the young Duke of

York by the death of the Earl of March was given to the Protector.[601]

It seems hardly credible that Gloucester would have been given so much,

or have championed his friend so successfully had his influence not been

predominant. That he had met with some opposition cannot be doubted,

for the six months' power enjoyed by the Bishop of Winchester during his

nephew's absence was not likely to make him content with a secondary

position, and therefore bitter, and undoubtedly justified, criticism was

probably levelled at Humphrey by his rival. It may be that high words

passed between them; at any rate it was not to be long before their

mutual recriminations became a danger to the state. It is about this

time, therefore, that the struggle between the two chief men in the

kingdom passed from the stage of political rivalry to that of personal

competition. Gradually Gloucester and Beaufort become bitter personal

enemies, and the state of distrust inaugurated at the beginning of the

reign, now becomes a contest which the full bitterness of individual

dislike tends to increase every day. Henceforth no stone is left

unturned by either of the men to damage the position and reputation of

his rival.

1425] JACQUELINE DESERTED

Nevertheless there is no evidence that Gloucester's Hainault policy had

reaped that universal condemnation in England which it so richly

deserved. Bedford, it is true, saw the danger of alienating Burgundy,

and he had done his best, first to avert the provocation of his anger,

and secondly to minimise the effects of that provocation, but even he

seems to have felt considerable sympathy for his brother,[602] and

perhaps he remembered that the late King might be held largely

responsible for the turn of events. Englishmen generally seem to have

looked with kindly eyes on this mad expedition, for there was about it

some of the glamour of mediæval romance in appearance if not in reality,

whilst Jacqueline herself had won golden opinions in England, where her

unhappy lot had obtained universal sympathy.[603] For Gloucester,

however, the romance of his marriage with Jacqueline, such as it had

been, was quite worn off, and he had already transferred his affections

to the lady who was to bring him far greater disaster than did his

foreign bride. Amongst Jacqueline's ladies-in-waiting there had been a

certain Eleanor Cobham, daughter of Reginald Cobham of Sterborough in

Kent,[604] and she had accompanied her mistress to Hainault. When

Humphrey had returned to England he had brought her with him, and it

seems that it was about this time that she became his paramour.[605] At

any rate Hainault ambitions play henceforth but a very small part in

Humphrey's life, for though we shall find that later he took some steps

to send aid to his unfortunate wife, yet he never showed the slightest

inclination to return to her side, a fact which caused no small scandal

at a later date.

Meanwhile at Mons things had been going ill for Jacqueline. Her husband

had no sooner turned his back, than the Brabanters rose again, and the

citizens of Mons, unmindful of their recent promise, refused to support

her.[606] On June 6 she wrote a most pathetic letter to Gloucester,

telling him how the citizens had come to her on the third of that

month,[607] and had shown her a treaty signed by the Dukes of Brabant

and Burgundy, uniting her dominions under the rule of the former, and

confiding the care of her person to the latter. In spite of her

entreaties all help had been refused her, and she pointed out how her

sufferings were due to the love she bore her English husband, begging

him therefore to come to her help, though he seemed to have forgotten

her existence.[608] In a second letter of the same date she alluded to a

suggestion made by Gloucester that she should once more flee to England,

a course which she declared it was now too late to adopt. Indeed, this

was soon proved to be the case, for these letters were intercepted by

Burgundian emissaries,[609] and within five days she was being conducted

a prisoner to Ghent.[610]

1425] DUEL WITH BURGUNDY FORBIDDEN

Though Jacqueline's letters never reached their destination, the news of

her imprisonment soon came to England, and Parliament promptly showed

its sympathy with her by petitioning that ambassadors should be sent to

treat with Burgundy for the release of 'my Ladies' persone of

Gloucester,'[611] and at the same time the Chancellor was empowered to

draw up letters-patent under the great seal appointing the

queens-dowager of England and France, and the Duke of Bedford as

mediators between Burgundy and Gloucester, with a view to the

abandonment of the duel that had been arranged.[612] To neither of these

provisions would Humphrey make any objection, for though he had not been

the challenger in the matter of the duel, yet he had doubtless welcomed

it as a way of securing his retreat, and had never intended to take it

seriously; at any rate he made no preparations for the fray, whilst his

opponent had gone into strict training, and was having special armour

made for the occasion.[613] This attitude on the part of Duke Philip

points to a strong personal dislike of Gloucester, a dislike which dated

probably from the days when he had been slighted at St. Omer;

nevertheless, it is strange that he had ever thought that such a duel

would be allowed to take place. Bedford, ever ready to appease the

strife which had arisen over this Hainault affair, gladly undertook the

duty assigned to him by Parliament, and when in September he summoned a

council of arbitration to meet at Paris, his brother willingly nominated

the Bishop of London as his representative thereat, whilst Burgundy

grudgingly appointed the Bishop of Tournay to guard his interests.[614]

Bedford tried to avert the duel as eagerly as he had endeavoured to

reconcile the conflicting claims of Brabant and Gloucester earlier in

the story of the Hainault struggle,[615] and his efforts were assisted

by a papal Bull, which forbade the personal combat in no measured

terms.[616] Armed with this authority, the council at Paris decided on

September 22 that a perusal of the letters written by the two parties in

the dispute convinced them that neither side had any right to demand

satisfaction from the other,[617] a decision which disgusted the

Burgundian envoy, but which afforded entire satisfaction to Gloucester's

representative.[618]

From this time forward Gloucester seems to have abandoned all idea of

securing his hold on the government of his wife's inheritance. He did

not resign all claim to Holland and Hainault, nor did he refrain from

occasional assistance to Jacqueline, or from attempts to secure the

recognition by Rome of the legality of his marriage; but he had come to

realise that personal intervention on the Continent would mean

political extinction at home, where he needed all the prestige of his

popularity amongst the commonalty and the power conferred by his

position and lineage to withstand the manoeuvres of his great rival,

Henry Beaufort. For Beaufort was entrenched in a strong position. A man

of determined will and restless energy, with powerful family

connections, of royal blood, if not in the line of succession, and well

versed by long experience in the affairs of the kingdom, he stood in

marked contrast to his nephew, who was lacking in resolute purpose, and

had spent most of his active life in the French wars, with few

opportunities of gaining political experience. Above all, whilst

Beaufort was constantly lending money for purposes of state, Gloucester

was equally constant in his demands for royal loans or an increased

salary, a fact which gave the former an immense financial hold on the

kingdom. Such a power as that wielded by the Bishop of Winchester was

not to be despised, nor was it to be left unopposed by one who aspired

to be the chief governing power in the state; but there was yet another

reason which impelled Humphrey to confine his main efforts towards

maintaining and improving his position in England, the roots of which

lay in his own character. When he had set out light-heartedly to assert

his right to control the dominions of Jacqueline, he had thought it to

be an easy task. He now knew that it was only by a prolonged effort that

he could succeed in Holland and Hainault. Such an effort he was totally

incapable of making, for he had none of that determination which

characterised his father and at least two of his brothers. Brilliant and

versatile as he was, these qualities preordained him to prefer a life of

political intrigue to that of hard fighting against a firm and steadfast

foe. His fickle nature delighted in the kaleidoscopic changes of party

warfare, and to that warfare he devoted the best part of the rest of his

life, forgetting his dreams of foreign dominion in that strife where the

interests of the moment predominated. He was a child of circumstance,

and lived only for the passing moment, and as such he found his true

_milieu_ in the faction fights which preceded the Wars of the Roses.

1425] EXPEDITION TO HAINAULT

Yet while he devoted himself mainly to matters of English politics,

Humphrey did not abstain from all interference in Hainault affairs.

There was no question with him of abandoning an enterprise fraught with

danger to his country. So long as Jacqueline could keep up the struggle,

he would encourage her, in the hope that some day he might reap the

advantage, and it was in this spirit that he wrote to Martin v.,

complaining that the divorce decree against Brabant had not yet been

granted, and urging him in the interests of Europe generally to hasten

the matter to a conclusion favourable to the Countess.[619] At the same

time the situation in Hainault looked more promising. The exertions of

English ambassadors to secure Jacqueline's release had been rendered

unnecessary by her escape from her captors,[620] and she had signalised

her regained freedom by a victory over her assailants at the little

village of Alfen. The Duke of Brabant was rendered still more anxious by

rumours which reached him to the effect that a force of some 20,000

strong, under the personal leadership of Gloucester, was about to

reinforce his enemies, that the Scotch King, in remembrance of his

recent marriage alliance with the House of Lancaster, was coming with

8000 more, and that contingents from Ireland and the English army in

Normandy were destined to join the victorious troops of his militant

Countess.[621] The exaggeration of this report was obvious, but,

nevertheless, a force was being collected in England, and towards the

end of the year it sailed under the leadership of Lord Fitzwalter, in

all some thousand men. In the early days of 1426 these troops landed on

the coast of Zealand, only to be almost annihilated with the majority

of Jacqueline's native troops in the neighbourhood of Zierikzee by the

Burgundian forces. The remainder straggled back to England, having

'prevayled nothing.'[622]

1425] THE BEAUFORT QUARREL

Before this expedition had sailed, however, Gloucester was entirely

absorbed in affairs nearer home. The rivalry between himself and

Beaufort, which had been simmering ever since the Protector's return,

now boiled over, and for a moment threatened civil war. The Chancellor

had made great efforts during his short period of government to

strengthen his own hands, welcoming Gloucester's absence abroad as an

opportunity for weakening his power. Some disorderly riots and seditious

manifestations in London had afforded a pretext for inducing the Council

to place one Richard Wydeville in command of the Tower,[623] and he had

used this appointment to strengthen his position in the capital, where

he was notoriously unpopular. He gave Wydeville strict injunctions that

he was to admit no one 'stronger thanne he' within the Tower, and later

mentioned the Protector as one of those who must be excluded, pointing

to his popularity in the city as evidence of his seditious

intentions.[624] It was not likely that such proceedings would pass

without a protest from Gloucester, and there is every reason to

believe--from an undated entry in the minutes of the Council, which

records a meeting held towards the end of the third year of the

reign--that the quarrel between the two rivals had become acute by the

July or August after his return. We learn from this that an ordinance

was being prepared for the consideration of the next Parliament, which

required that every peer should take an oath not to disturb the King's

peace by revenging by force any ill done to him, but to have recourse to

'pesible and restful weyes of redress.' At the same time an oath of

secrecy and a promise to give honest advice without obstructing any

matter under discussion was exacted from all who sat at the Council

board.[625] All this tends to prove that the struggle between the two

claimants for power was already raging fiercely.

Nevertheless, we find no actual disturbances recorded till the Bishop

roused Gloucester's suspicions by filling Southwark, where his house was

situated, with Lancashire and Cheshire archers.[626] Then, fearing lest

he should be attacked by this force and taken unprepared, the Protector

sent a message post-haste to the Mayor and Aldermen, asking them to be

on their guard for fear lest an attack on the city should be made from

the other side of the river. The message found the civic magnates at the

banquet with which they were wont to celebrate the election of the new

Mayor, but they promptly acceded to Gloucester's request, and the city

was carefully guarded all through that night, as though a siege was

imminent.[627] This was on October 29, the day after the feast of St.

Simon and St. Jude,[628] and on the morrow events justified the

Protector's precautions, for a large body of Beaufort's men appeared

outside the gate on the south side of London Bridge about eight or nine

o'clock in the morning, and were surprised to find all entrance

forbidden them. Nothing daunted, they waited till more of their fellows

had come up, and then proceeded to attack the gate 'with shot and other

means of warre,' attempting by these means to force an entrance into the

city.

The news that the Chancellor was in arms against their beloved Duke

Humphrey spread like lightning amongst the citizens, and within an hour

all shops were shut, and the streets leading to the bridge were thronged

by men willing and anxious to keep the bishop out, and to resist the

'King's enemies.' So determined was this opposition that the attempted

assault was abandoned, and it was with the greatest difficulty that the

Mayor restrained the angry citizens, who wanted to sally out and exact

vengeance for the presumptuous attack, whilst the Archbishop of

Canterbury and the Duke of Coimbra--one of Gloucester's Portuguese

uncles--offered their services as mediators. This self-imposed task

proved no sinecure, and eight times did they ride backwards and forwards

between the two parties ere peace was secured, and Beaufort had to be

content with his side of the river, whilst the Protector remained in

possession of the city.[629] 'All London a rose with the Duke a yenst

the forsaide Bysshope,' writes a contemporary chronicler,[630] and

indeed Gloucester had reason to be grateful for the support of the

citizens at a critical time. It was not the rabble--as Beaufort later

declared--which rose to champion him, but the sober burgher class,

headed by Sir John Coventry, their Mayor, that had produced the

discomfiture of the Chancellor, and that ever henceforward formed the

most important section of Gloucester's supporters. The tone of the

London chroniclers also suggests, that the action of Beaufort was

considered by them at least as a direct blow dealt both at the city and

at the peace and security of the kingdom at large, and that in

supporting Gloucester the citizens were taking a line which was

patriotic both as regards their city and as regards the nation.

1425] BEDFORD SUMMONED TO ENGLAND

The truce between Humphrey and his uncle could not be a final settlement

of the bad blood that had been aroused, and on All-hallows Even[631] the

latter wrote to Bedford in hurried, but emphatic, terms, urging him to

come to England without delay, 'for by my troth,' he wrote, 'if you

tarry, we shall put this land in adventure with a field,[632] such a

brother you have here; God make him a good man.'[633] He forgot to

mention that it was he that had taken the first step to 'put this land

in adventure with a field,' for even as he had been the first, in the

days when the Protector's privileges were being arranged, to provoke

that duel for power which, in its later manifestation, was to develop

into the Wars of the Roses, so was he now the first to appeal to armed

force as a means of emphasising the righteousness of his cause. The

statement that Gloucester made the first move to arms cannot be

substantiated.[634] It was against the force which Beaufort had already

mustered in the suburbs of Southwark that he appealed to the Mayor of

London, and in so doing he acted as any wise Protector of the kingdom

would have done, when he saw the capital threatened by the armed

retainers of a too powerful subject. Moreover, while Beaufort's force

was specially organised, Gloucester was prepared with no retainers to

protect himself or his ambitions, but in the time of need he was forced

to appeal on the spur of the moment to the loyalty of the citizens. In

point of fact, too, the first hostile move was made by the Bishop, for

the action of the Mayor in guarding the gates of the city was merely a

defensive precaution, unknown to the Beaufort retainers, who did not

expect to meet with any resistance when they tried to cross the bridge.

Thus both the hostile intent and the hostile action originated with the

Chancellor, while the support given to the Protector, apart from the

guarding of the gates overnight, was entirely spontaneous on the part of

the great mass of the citizens.

The fact that Beaufort so promptly appealed to the arbitrament of

Bedford has also been counted unto him for righteousness,[635] whereas

it merely displays the cleverness of his play in the game of politics.

From Bedford he might hope for support, since the folly of the Hainault

campaign would tend to make the Regent in France suspicious of his

brother's actions, and ready to believe that the fault of the recent

disturbances lay with him. Moreover, no one knew better than Bedford the

usefulness of the Bishop's purse, and the impolicy of alienating one who

could always produce ready money, while Humphrey had no such claim to a

statesman's consideration. Beaufort also had nothing to lose, and a

possibility of much to gain, by this appeal. Public opinion in London

had spoken against him; it is more than probable that this feeling

extended outside the city, and for the time at least he had to

acknowledge defeat. On the other hand, if it is true that the Protector

refused to formulate complaints against his opponent when asked to do so

by envoys from his brother,[636] it was only natural that he should

adopt such an attitude. He looked on himself, both by right of birth and

by right of the will of Henry V., as the lawful Protector of England,

and though he was compelled to accept the restrictions imposed on him by

Parliament, he was not likely to acknowledge the supremacy of his

brother more than he could help. To indict Beaufort before Bedford would

not only be a confession of weakness, but also, in his eyes, an insult

to his position. By law as well as by right he was Protector in England

so long as Bedford remained in France, and under the circumstances he

could recognise no superior tribunal; he had no wish to bring Bedford to

England to settle the matter, and thus be compelled to take the second

place. Though this attitude was undoubtedly selfish, and based on too

high an opinion of his own importance, it does not therefore prove that

in the quarrel with Beaufort he was in the wrong.

1425] RETURN OF BEDFORD

For the time being Gloucester's power was undisputed. On the same day

that the letter of summons to England was despatched to Bedford the

Council met at the Protector's own house,[637] a fact which has its

significance. It was probably with the consent of the Council that the

Protector, with the Duke of Coimbra, journeyed down to Eltham on

November 5, and brought the young King back to London to strengthen the

hands of the executive there.[638] The same day yielded another

illustration of Gloucester's influence, when the Council, in

consideration of his 'great necessity,' agreed to lend him five thousand

marks on promise of repayment, when the King should reach his fifteenth

year,[639] a sum probably used for the expedition to Hainault already

described. Beaufort, it is to be presumed, took no part in these

transactions, but was compelled to view his rival's success in silence,

eagerly awaiting the return of Bedford, who on December 20 landed on

English soil. By virtue of his return Bedford became Protector of the

kingdom, receiving the salary of eight thousand marks a year, which in

his absence had been enjoyed by his brother,[640] who now was reduced to

the rank of first councillor to the King, with an income of three

thousand marks only.[641] The Bishop of Winchester hastened to meet

Bedford, and together they entered London on January 10, proceeding at

once to Westminster, where the new Protector was lodged in the King's

palace, while the Chancellor lay near by at the Abbey, desiring to keep

watch over his nephew, lest any influence hostile to himself should be

brought to bear on him.[642] So successfully did he put his case and

justify the policy of his appeal to the Regent in France, that Bedford

showed marked hostility to his brother, and when the citizens of London

came to greet him on the morrow of his arrival, and presented him with a

pair of 'silver gilt basins,' they received but a cold reception, in

view of the hostility they had recently shown to the Chancellor and his

proceedings.[643]

1426] COUNCIL AT ST. ALBANS

Already steps had been taken to summon Parliament, which was to meet on

February 15 at Leicester,[644] the choice of this town being probably

due to the Chancellor's fears that in London public opinion would be too

strongly against him, and in the meantime vigorous attempts were made to

effect a reconciliation before the meeting took place. On January 29 a

Council was held under the presidency of Bedford at St. Albans, whence a

deputation, consisting of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Earl of

Stafford, Lords Talbot and Cromwell, and Sir John Cornwall, was sent to

Gloucester, who had refused to attend the meeting, though he might have

counted on the support of public opinion in the neighbourhood of his

chosen abbey. This deputation was commissioned to inform the Duke that

another Council was to be held at Northampton on the 13th of the next

month, and to offer him a pressing invitation to attend there, as the

matters in dispute between him and the Chancellor were to be discussed

with a view to a reconciliation, assuring him that 'justice and reason

shal duely and indifferently be mynystered unto him in all things that

he hath said or shal say as for occasion or matter of the displesaunce

or hevynesse abovesaid.' To the demand which Humphrey had made, that as

a condition of his coming the absence of his opponent must be assured,

the Council gave a decided refusal, pointing out that there was no

danger of a riot between the retainers of the respective parties, as the

Bishop had agreed to restrain his men, and the King would 'settle such

rewle' that peace would be maintained throughout the town. It is,

however, probable that Gloucester feared more the hostile bias in

Bedford's mind produced by the machinations of his uncle, than personal

violence to himself, and preferred a direct appeal to the Lords in

Parliament, with whom his influence was much stronger than it had been

earlier in the reign, to a judgment by the Council, now under the

domination of his opponents.

This changed attitude of the Council, which before Bedford's landing had

been controlled by Gloucester, is seen in a secret instruction to the

deputation. Should the Duke steadily refuse to go to Northampton under

the assurances mentioned above, the commissioners were empowered to add,

that at the request of Bedford and the Council Beaufort had promised to

dismiss some of his men, and only bring such as were fitting for his

position, on condition that Gloucester should do likewise. It is very

strange that this condition should be kept in the background, and only

produced under compulsion, for it seems a natural concession, and one

which could only be refused by a man who was not acting in perfect

honesty. If the Council had suspected the large retinue of the Earl of

March in 1423, why should not the Chancellor's evidently large body of

retainers incur the same suspicion? It would be, of course, absurd to

suggest that, had Gloucester gone to Northampton, the drama of 1447 at

Bury St. Edmunds would have been anticipated; the mere presence of

Bedford would refute such a suggestion; but this 'card up the sleeve'

policy does not speak well for the honesty of those who adopted it.

If after their last magnanimous offer Gloucester still persisted in his

refusal to attend if Beaufort were present, the messengers of the

Council were to point out that it would be unreasonable in Gloucester,

even if he were the King--surely a malicious insinuation--to refuse any

man a hearing, and also that if he wished 'to be esed as towards his

griefs, as the Council assured him was their honest intention, it must

be done either by an act of justice, or by a reconciliation, either of

which required the presence of both parties. Moreover, to Gloucester's

demand that the Chancellor should resign the custody of the seals, it

was answered that this was an attempt to coerce the King--for no

official was ever dismissed except by the King's wish, by his own

request, or owing to some fault proved against him.[645] In their

refusal of this request the Council were undoubtedly justified, and

there is much that is wise and statesmanlike throughout the

instructions, due undoubtedly to the influence of Bedford. But there is

also ample evidence of Beaufort influence, and we cannot blame

Gloucester if he regarded this communication more as a manifesto from

his opponents than as a genuine offer of arbitration, and refused to go

to Northampton, preferring to wait till the Parliament should be

summoned at Leicester. One thing should not pass unnoticed in this offer

of the Council. Though the Bishop had summoned Bedford from France,

Gloucester had now assumed the rôle of accuser. It was as such that he

was to appear at Leicester, having herein outmanoeuvred his opponent,

who, thinking to act on the aggressive, had been compelled to fall back

on a defensive attitude.

1426] PARLIAMENT OF LEICESTER

The Parliament which met at Leicester on February 18,[646] has been

handed down to posterity as the 'Parliament of Battes,' because, as all

weapons had to be discarded by the members and their retainers, they

came armed with staves and 'battes,' which did not come under the

category of weapons.[647] No allusion was made to the quarrel in the

Chancellor's opening speech, although it was the most important matter

before the assembly, and indeed it seemed at first as though there would

be little progress made in the work of the session. For ten days nothing

was done; the Speaker was not even chosen; and during that time

Leicester must have been the scene of much diplomacy and intrigue, of

which we have no record. At length on the 28th the Commons took the

initiative by sending up a petition to the Lords, asking them to take

steps to heal the divisions which had occurred in their body,[648] a

request which was answered by a promise, made by the peers on March 4,

to deal honestly between Gloucester and the Bishop.[649] The consent of

the two parties to this mediation had now to be secured, and at the

urgent request of Bedford the Duke consented, three days later, to

submit all his grievances to a Commission, composed of Archbishop

Chichele, the Dukes of Exeter and Norfolk; the Bishops of Durham,

Worcester, and Bath; Humphrey, Earl of Stafford; Ralph, Lord Cromwell,

and William Alnwick, Keeper of the Privy Seal and Bishop-elect of

Norwich, though it was provided that any matter touching the King was to

be referred to the Council.[650] Beaufort gave a similar consent.[651]

This Commission could not have been more fairly chosen. The Archbishop,

if slightly inclined to resent the ambitions of his brother of

Winchester, was eminently impartial and well versed in the art of

pacification; the two Dukes each represented one of the rivals, for

whilst Exeter was the brother of the Bishop, Norfolk was the friend of

Gloucester;[652] Lord Cromwell was inclined to the Beaufort

faction,[653] but the bishops were mostly impartial, though probably the

Bishop of Bath was another of Beaufort's followers.[654]

It was with his usual easy confidence that Gloucester proceeded to draw

up his indictment of the Chancellor. He complained that Beaufort had

instructed Wydeville to refuse him entrance to the Tower, though he was

Protector of the realm, and had afterwards shielded this man from the

consequences of this action. Nay, more, Beaufort had plotted to

undermine the Protector's power by attempting to remove the King from

Eltham, thinking to secure thereby a hold over the government of the

kingdom. At the same time he had hindered Gloucester from going to

frustrate these plans by barricading the Southwark end of London Bridge,

and posting armed men in the houses of the district, thus trying to kill

the Protector and disturb the King's peace. Further, Gloucester accused

his adversary of maligning him to Bedford in his letter of October 31 by

saying that he was harassing the Kings subjects. Not content with the

recent misdemeanours of the Chancellor, his accuser made an excursion

into past history, and brought up an old story that an attempt had been

made on the life of Henry V., when Prince of Wales, by a man who

confessed himself Beaufort's agent, and together with this was joined

the incompatible, but more likely story, that Beaufort had advised the

same Henry to assume the crown whilst his father was lying dangerously

ill.[655]

1426] INDICTMENT OF BEAUFORT

The tenor of these accusations at once establishes the motive of the

quarrel. From them it is evident that Gloucester looked on the whole

matter as a personal question, and did not realise that there was a

possible constitutional aspect of the case. There was nothing which

betrayed the statesman in this indictment, which merely complained of

insults to his dignity, attacks on his position, and concluded with

impertinent statements as to the past career of his rival. Throughout it

showed considerable ingenuity, but at the same time it betrayed an

inability to understand the constitutional pose which the better

politician of the two had assumed. In Beaufort's answer the refutation

of the very first accusation shows the different methods of the two men.

Though his policy was one of mere self-seeking, the Bishop of Winchester

knew how to use the language of the new constitutional theories which

had developed under the two preceding Lancastrian kings. He asserted

that in the Tower incident he was fully justified in the advice he had

given Wydeville not to admit the Protector within its walls. He declared

that before the Hainault expedition it had been decided in Council, in

the presence of Gloucester, to garrison and provision the Tower, but

that this had never been done; that during the absence of the Protector

certain seditious risings, levelled, it would seem, mainly against

foreigners, had disturbed the peace of the capital, and that Wydeville

had been placed in command of the Tower to strengthen the hands of the

Executive. Such being the case, Gloucester on his return had ingratiated

himself with the citizens by sympathising with them for having a castle

fortified against them in this manner, and had done his utmost to

stultify the action of the Council in this matter. Moreover, a question

of privilege had been raised by the refusal of Humphrey to deliver up a

certain Friar Randolph who had been committed to the Tower on a charge

of treason, and whom the Protector had removed from the Lieutenant's

custody, declaring that his command was a sufficient warrant of

discharge for the custodian of the prisoner, 'in the which thing above

seyd yt was thought to my lorde of Winchestre that my seyde lorde off

gloucestre toke upon himsylff fferrer thanne his auctorite stretched

unto, and causid him fforto doute and drede, leest the Toure hadde be

stronge he wolde have proceded fferther.'[656]

The arguments thus used by the Bishop in reply to this charge are

specious to a degree, and appealed to principles of ministerial control,

an attitude which has stood him in good stead with the historians of a

democratic age. Nevertheless, this favourable appearance was but

skin-deep. The Chancellor had had practically complete control of the

kingdom whilst Gloucester had been abroad, and now he was disgusted to

find that his precedence was no longer recognised. If the title of

Protector was anything beyond a name, its holder was entitled to enter a

royal castle at his will, and no plea of expediency could be pleaded by

a Chancellor who took upon himself to deny such a right. The truth which

lies beneath the fair exterior of the reply to this first charge is on

careful examination quite evident. Beaufort feared that, in spite of the

strict limitations put upon his power, Gloucester would prove to be

stronger than had been expected, and his instructions to Wydeville were

dictated by no fears for the safety of the kingdom, but fears for the

permanency of his own ascendency in the councils of the nation. The

stories about the Londoners and the traitor friar were in all

probability true, but those who would sympathise with Beaufort as leader

of the constitutional party against the encroachments of the Protector

can here find no arguments to support their theory, for he had worked in

opposition to his own chief, and had persuaded an officer to disobey his

superior. Only so far as all who oppose governments are called

constitutionalists can this term be applied to the Bishop of Winchester

and his party. On the other hand, it seems hard to understand why

Gloucester should deliberately give a handle to his opponent by removing

Friar Randolph from custody. This action, if not exactly illegal at this

time, was undoubtedly unwise, though it may be that some unexplained

reason--possibly the Protector's known affection for the unhappy Queen

Joan, whose confessor and alleged accomplice Randolph was[657]--impelled

him to take it.

1426] BEAUFORT'S ANSWER

The answer to the second and third counts, which accused Beaufort of

attempting to secure the King's person for his own ends, and of

preventing Gloucester from going to visit his nephew at Eltham, give us

a further insight into the events of the famous Tuesday on which the

retainers of the Chancellor came to blows with the Londoners. If we are

to accept Beaufort's version of the matter--and it is to some extent

corroborated by the terms of Humphrey's accusation--the trouble between

the two princes had been brewing for some time. The Chancellor declared

that as early as the time when the last Parliament was sitting he had

been warned that Gloucester was contemplating a personal attack on him,

and that certain of the London citizens of the baser sort had announced

their intention of throwing him 'in Temyse, to have tauht him to swymme

with wengis.' Furthermore, on the Sunday which preceded the call to

arms, a deputation from the Council had waited upon the Protector to

know whether it was true that he bore the Chancellor ill-will, and if

so, the reason of his so doing; and Gloucester had acknowledged the

truth of the report. With an assumed air of innocence Beaufort recounted

how the city had stood to arms all through the Monday night, and had

assumed a threatening attitude towards him, although, as we know, both

he and his men were ignorant of this till they attempted to cross the

bridge on the following morning. On the Tuesday, it appears, the

Protector had also wished to cross the river with a company of three

hundred horse provided by the civic authorities, to go to Eltham to see

the King, and the Chancellor had prevented this by force of arms,

defending this action by saying that his rival wished to remove the King

from his present abode without securing the consent of the Council--an

act which he declared to be illegal and high-handed to the last

degree.[658]

Thus both parties accused the other of the same intent with regard to

the King, but as Beaufort on his side pointed out, and it was equally

true from the point of view of his rival, no useful end was to be

attained by securing the King's person.[659] There was no obvious

felonious intent in the Protector wishing to visit the child for whom he

was acting, and no objection was taken by the Council to his removal to

London on November 5. Beaufort's assumed constitutional fears as to the

danger attending his removal from Eltham are discounted by his

declaration that the possession of the young King's person was for him a

useless burden. The truth seems to be that Gloucester, established in

London, and with the citizens espousing his cause, was in so strong a

position that Beaufort felt he must do something to counteract it. He

therefore collected troops, and failing to effect an entrance into the

city, was determined that at least Humphrey should not cross to his side

of the river. The fundamental reason for the quarrel was the rivalry of

two ambitious men, each desirous of governing the kingdom, but of the

two Beaufort was undoubtedly the aggressor. It was he that had appealed

to force to aid his cause, and though he declared that he considered the

kingdom in great danger from Duke Humphrey, it never occurred to him to

summon Bedford from France to restore order till he himself had been

worsted in his attempt at armed interference. Humphrey cannot be

accused of provoking the appeal to arms. His modest escort of three

hundred men was no large force in view of the existence of an enemy on

his road, also it was quite uncharacteristic of him to appeal to such

means. In spite of his stormy political career, in no case do we find

him making any appeal to force of arms. He was by nature a political

schemer, but he had seen too much of war on a grand scale, and the

disasters which militant parties bring on themselves as well as on their

country, to make use of such methods. Beaufort, on the contrary, was

turbulent where his opponent was factious; he dabbled in the pomp and

the language of war, and was far more ready to bring the country to the

venture of a 'field' than the party opposed to him. It was Beaufort, not

Gloucester, who was responsible for the first blood spilt in that great

struggle for the control of the incapable Henry VI.'s policy, the last

stages of which neither were to live to see.

Beaufort's answer to the accusation of plotting against Henry IV. and

Henry V. was a denial, and an offer to stand his trial on this

count;[660] but the rights of the case are of no importance here, for

this was only a diplomatic move on the part of the Protector to blacken

the other's character. The Bishop's justification of his remarks in his

letter to Bedford, however, have considerable interest. He stated that

in it was to be found proof of his desire for a good government of the

kingdom, and of his anxiety to escape provoking a civil war, arguments

which came ill from one who had tried force and had failed; but his

chief point was that Gloucester had encouraged rather than restrained

the seditious action of some of the London artisans, who had resisted

some wage regulations made by the mayor and aldermen with the consent of

the Council.[661]

This last reply was a skilful move intended to discredit Gloucester's

case by proving the disreputable character of his supporters, but we can

hardly believe that the civic authorities would so loyally have

supported any one who had encouraged a disregard of their decrees.

Nothing speaks more strongly for the fact that the Protector, rather

than the Chancellor, stood for the cause of good government than the

undivided support which the long-headed, peace-loving burgesses of

London gave to the former. In point of fact, both Gloucester and

Beaufort were ambitious men, and neither was over-burdened with

principles. Yet we must not forget that the Protectorate was in the

hands of Gloucester, and that the Bishop, as Chancellor, was attacking a

power which was legal, though to him obnoxious. He had inspired the

limitations of the Protector's power at the beginning of the reign; he

had secured that the absent brother should be supreme; and he resented

the discovery that, after all, Gloucester was not a mere subject for his

Chancellor's diplomacy, and that he was supported by a strong party in

the nation. Beaufort's action here was a bid for power, not a protest

against bad government; and, while in no way praising the Protector for

an enlightened policy, it would be unfair to brand his government of the

nation as corrupt and merely turned to his own advantage, because an

ambitious man strove to occupy the position which he held. Throughout

the struggle there was no question of principle, whether moral or

constitutional; it was merely a fight as to who should govern England.

1426] RECONCILIATION

The arbitrators adopted a policy of conciliation. In accordance with

their award of March 12, the Bishop of Winchester solemnly declared in

Parliament that he had always borne true allegiance to Henry IV., Henry

V., and Henry VI.; and, in answer, Bedford, in the name of the King and

Council, declared him to be a true and loyal subject. Next, the Bishop

swore that he had no designs on the 'persone, honour, and estate' of

Gloucester, who replied, 'Beal Uncle, sithen ye so declare you such a

man as ye say, I am ryght glad yat hit is so, and for suche I take

yowe.' After these formalities the two opponents shook hands.[662]

Though this award allayed the difficulties of the moment, the

reconciliation thus brought about rang hollow, and there still remained

much 'prive wrath' between the two men.[663] It was considered

impossible for both to remain in office, and the day after the award

(March 13) Beaufort resigned the Seal, and the Bishop of Bath followed

on the 18th with his resignation of the Treasurership.[664] Thus

Gloucester had secured a decided victory, and, for the time at least, he

was free from Beaufort factions. A really strong man would never have

permitted matters to reach the pitch they had attained, but we must not

allow any of his later actions to colour our opinion of his behaviour at

this time. He cannot be said to have invited the contest, and it is a

revelation to those who remember only the discredited politician of

later years, that there was a time when he could command the support of

a strong section of the community and resist a deliberate and

well-planned attack. Doubtless much of his success was due to the

prestige of the position which he held, and to the fact that there was

an instinctive dread--well justified in the light of subsequent

events--of any change of government. To remove Gloucester from the

Protectorate, though he only held it during the King's pleasure, would

be to cause a disastrous struggle, if not civil war.

* * * * *

Gloucester was victorious, and his position was naturally strengthened

thereby. After the great 'Debaat' between him and Beaufort had been

brought to a peaceful conclusion, little more was done in Parliament

before the Easter adjournment beyond filling the vacant offices. John

Kemp, Bishop of London, was made Chancellor, and Lord Hungerford

succeeded the Bishop of Bath as Treasurer,[665] appointments to which,

it must be presumed, Gloucester made no objection. However, the time was

to come when Humphrey would class Kemp only second to Beaufort among his

most prominent opponents. On the 20th of March Parliament was prorogued

till the 29th of the following month, and Gloucester left Leicester

forthwith, intending, it would seem, to spend Easter at London or

Greenwich. On the 22nd he passed through St. Albans, whence the monks,

to show their pleasure at the discomfiture of the Bishop of Winchester

and the success of their patron, escorted him as far as Barnet, where he

spent the night; on his return journey to Leicester for the reopening of

Parliament he spent three nights at the abbey.[666] Nothing of

administrative importance occurred during this second session, but on

Whit-Sunday a great ceremony was made of the knighting of the young King

by his uncle Bedford. Immediately afterwards Henry himself knighted

thirty-six other young men, including Richard, Duke of York. Amongst

these new knights we find the six-years-old Earl of Tankerville,

Gloucester's future son-in-law, and Reginald Cobham, his future

brother-in-law.[667] A week later steps were taken to ensure the seven

years' truce with Scotland which had been made two years earlier. It

seems that the borderland between the two countries had been the scene

of considerable disturbances, and to check these a strong commission was

appointed to preserve the truce and punish infractions of it. At the

head of this commission stood the Duke of Gloucester.[668] On June 1

Parliament was dissolved.

1427] THE COUNCIL ASSERTS ITS RIGHTS

Bedford was in no hurry to leave England, for he remained fifteen months

in the country, and during this time the government was in his hands.

Gloucester took no active share in the administration, and he seems to

have lived in retirement, only emerging to attend the obsequies of the

Duke of Exeter at St. Paul's early in January 1427.[669] Almost

immediately after attending this ceremony he fell ill, and was still

confined to his 'inne' when a Council was held on January 18 in view of

the approaching departure of Bedford, who was especially asked to attend

this meeting. It was opened by a speech from Chancellor Kemp, now

Archbishop of York, in which, after some complimentary remarks, he

broached the reason for this invitation. He enlarged on the

responsibility for the good governance of the kingdom which lay on the

lords spiritual and temporal assembled in Parliament, or, when

Parliament was not sitting, on the Council, showing how, though the King

was titular sovereign, his youth compelled the full weight of government

to fall on the Council, except in so far as Parliament had given

definite and special powers to the Protector. He reminded Bedford that

the Council might be called in question for the government and for the

use of its authority, and under the circumstances they could not do

their duty unless they were 'free to governe by the said auctorite and

aquite hem in al thing that hem thought expedient for the King's behove

and the good publique of the said roialmes.' Thus, though they had no

desire to curtail the Protector's privileges of birth or position, the

Council, realising that their rights were being infringed, demanded of

him a declaration of his policy, and a promise to abide by the

arrangement under which he held office.[670] Bedford, with a suspicious

readiness, thanked the Council for their plain speaking, and declared

himself ready to be 'advised, demened and reuled' by them in all things,

asking them to point out any defects in his conduct, and then proceeding

unasked to take an oath on the Testament to abide by their

decisions.[671]

Gloucester, 'being deseased with syknesse,' was not present at this

meeting, so on the following day the Lords of the Council visited him at

his 'inne,' and repeated to him what they had said to his brother. They

feared that a favourable answer was not so likely in this quarter, for

they remembered his answer to certain 'overtures and articles' they had

recently laid before him, and how 'sayng and answeryng as he had doon at

divers tymes afore,' he had declared that if he had done anything

disloyal he would answer to none but the King himself when he came of

age. They reminded him of this answer, and further remarked how they had

heard that he had said, 'Let my brother governe as hym lust whiles he is

in this land, for after his going overe into Fraunce I will governe as

me semeth good.' They then recounted the proceedings of the day before,

and laid great stress on Bedford's gracious answer to their request.

Thus confidently expecting a like answer from him--so they assured

him--they asked to know his intentions.[672]

1427] GLOUCESTER AND THE COUNCIL

Gloucester found himself in an awkward position. He had evidently been

so elated by his victory over Beaufort that he had been more incautious

than usual, and while in no way interfering with the government of his

brother, had unwisely asserted his intention to profit by his success.

Bedford was too wise not to be alarmed at this avowed policy, not merely

because he could not trust the judgment of Gloucester, but also and

mainly because he saw that it would raise such opposition, that the

dissensions he had just appeased would again recur. It is more than

probable that he had instigated the action of the Council, and had

taken advantage of Gloucester's indisposition. His prompt acceptance of

the proposals proves that they were not unexpected, and the fact that he

had taken an oath to be governed by the Council would make it

practically impossible for one who was merely his substitute to refuse

his consent. Thus everything was safely arranged and carried out before

Gloucester knew anything about it. There was no jealousy of his brother

in this action of Bedford's; he knew the temper of the kingdom and the

dangers with which it was threatened, better probably than any man

living; he saw that Beaufort and Gloucester with their selfish policies

were almost equally dangerous, and while he was moving one from the

scene of his activities,[673] he desired to warn the other, who could

not be removed, of the folly of his course. Beaufort's influence, though

his reputation in the country at large had doubtless suffered by his

defeat at Leicester, was still no negligible quantity, and there is

every reason to suppose that he still retained the partial confidence of

Bedford. It may be that it was absolutely on his own initiative that

Bedford took this action, but it was prompted by the distrust of his

brother which Beaufort had instilled into his mind--a distrust, be it

owned, which Humphrey had done little or nothing to remove.

Gloucester was compelled to make the best of his diplomatic defeat. His

absence from the Council meeting had put all protest out of the

question, and he thanked his visitors for having come to 'advertize hym'

as they had done, and begged them always to treat him so in the future.

If in any way he should break the law of the land, he would submit to be

'corrected and governed by them,... and not by his owne wit ne

ymaginacion.' He even digressed into instances of the advantage of this

course, and the disasters which might ensue from a contrary attitude.

In conclusion he solemnly promised to be governed by the Council in

everything which touched the King, even as Bedford had promised.[674]

That this was only a temporary attitude of conciliation was to be proved

before very long.

Having done his best to secure the safety of England, Bedford turned his

attention to France, where the defection of Brittany had not improved

the outlook. On March 19 he set sail, taking with him the Bishop of

Winchester, whom he thought it best not to leave in England. As far back

as the previous May Beaufort had obtained leave from the Council to go

on a pilgrimage,[675] and he now availed himself of this permission,

probably at the instance of Bedford, who had prepared a sop for his

dignity. On the Feast of the Annunciation (March 25) the Duke and

Duchess of Bedford were present in the Church of Our Lady at Calais,

when the Bishop of Winchester was created a Cardinal by the authority of

a Bull of Martin V., and the Duke with his own hands placed the

long-coveted hat on the new Cardinal's head.[676] This honour had been

long desired by Beaufort, and indeed the original Bull of creation dated

from the days of the Council of Constance, but Henry V. supported

Archbishop Chichele in his objection to the presence of a Cardinal

Legate in England.[677] Now at last the necessary permission had been

given, and while Bedford applied himself to the French wars, Beaufort

went off as Papal Legate to wage war on the revolted Hussites in

Bohemia.

1427] RESULT OF BEDFORD'S INTERVENTION

Whether this additional dignity conferred on the Bishop of Winchester

was calculated to advance the peace of England may well be doubted.

Bedford had worked hard to restore peace between the various parties in

England; he had produced a compromise which tended to favour Humphrey;

he had as a counter-blast secured a definite acknowledgment by the

Protector of the authority of the Council; finally he had greatly

strengthened the hands of the Protector's enemy by giving him the

prestige and power which attached to the cardinalate. His action in

England had all the vicious characteristics of a compromise. Even as in

war a victory won by either side inevitably leads to a third battle, so

in politics the successes won alternately by Gloucester and Beaufort

must open the way to another conflict. It could not be expected that the

new Cardinal would spend the rest of his life out of England, his

political proclivities were too strong for this, and on his return he

would almost inevitably reopen the old struggle which had nearly

resulted in civil war. Bedford accurately diagnosed the disease from

which England was suffering, but he failed to prescribe the right

remedy. The only hope of peace lay in the crushing of one of the rivals,

and though this might have been impossible, it was not even attempted.

Each was in turn humbled, but only to such an extent as to make him

still more ambitious, and the sole definite bit of policy to be found in

Bedford's action in England was the emphasising of the power of the

Council and the developing of those constitutional theories of

government, which by reason of their precocity were bound to bring

disaster both to the kingdom and the dynasty. Bedford's interference in

English politics had no healing effect; it only postponed the coming

struggle by the temporary diversion of Beaufort's ambitious energies to

the Hussite war. On the latter's return the substitution of the

cardinalate for the chancellorship was not calculated to weaken his

position, whilst the strengthening of that of the Council would tend to

induce Gloucester to use all the means in his power to undermine its

authority.

1427] SUPPRESSION OF LAWLESSNESS

Meanwhile in England Gloucester had been seriously ill, and it was not

till April that he was sufficiently recovered to journey to St. Albans;

there on St. Mark's Day, escorted by the usual procession headed by the

Abbot, he gave thanks for his recovery, and presented his gift of

gratitude on the High Altar.[678] Having visited the cell of Sopwell, he

returned to Langley.[679] Here he busied himself in the affairs of the

kingdom, being made Justiciar of Chester and of North Wales on May 10,

an office which he was allowed to delegate to a substitute for whose

actions as well as his own he must answer to the King.[680] Indeed,

Gloucester seems to have been very energetic in executing his duties as

Protector, and to have turned to the administration of the government

that restless energy, which circumstances and his own ambitious nature

had drawn lately to less worthy occupations. In June we find him at

Norwich to strengthen by his presence the hands of the justices who had

to try a case of lawlessness which had gone unpunished during the

disturbed state of affairs in official circles. On the last night of

1423 certain felons to the number of eighty or more had attacked the

house of John Grys of Wighton in the county of Norfolk, and he being

'somewhat heated with wassail,' had been dragged out to a gallows a mile

away, where with his son Gregory and a servant he had been butchered for

lack of a rope to hang them. It would seem that the two principals in

this outrage had been Walter Aslak and Richard Kyllynworth, who tried

after this to establish a reign of terror in Norfolk, and so threatened

William Paston by manifestoes openly posted in public places, that 'the

seyd William, hese clerkes and servauntz by longe time after were in

gret and intollerable drede and fere.' Paston had indicted these men

before Gloucester as Protector, and on April 5, 1425, the matter had

been referred to arbitration. The award of the arbitrators had been

ignored by Aslak, and under the protection of Sir Thomas Erpingham he

had further annoyed Paston at the Parliament of Leicester. Gloucester

now presided in person at the trial of the offenders, and six men were

condemned for this outrage and put to death.[681]

Before the end of the month the Protector was back in London, holding a

council, at which matters of some moment were up for discussion. The

truce with Scotland for which Gloucester was one of the guarantors had

not been very well observed, and the question of heresy had also come to

the fore.[682] Shortly before Gloucester's visit to St. Albans a certain

William Wawe--_latro mirabilis_ the chronicler quaintly calls him--had

attacked the neighbouring nunnery of Sopwell and plundered its contents.

Rightly or wrongly this was considered to be part of a Lollard scheme of

opposition to the Church, and it was as a heretic as well as a

'wonderful robber' that Wawe, after a period of confinement at St.

Albans, was arraigned before Gloucester in London. We cannot in any way

judge of the rights of the case, as we have only a very one-sided

account of the event, but it is quite possible that it was more the

heated imaginations of the ecclesiastics, who had not forgotten the

incidents connected with Oldcastle, than any real heretical inclinations

on the part of the prisoner, which produced the charge. Wawe was

condemned and hanged.[683]

In these two cases of summary judgment we find displayed a side of the

Protector's character which has been given but scant justice by

historians. Though crafty and self-seeking, Gloucester was in no sense

turbulent. His justice thus meted out cannot be dismissed as a standard

of ethics to which he himself did not conform. We have no instance in

which he appealed to brute force except when he was compelled to do so,

for in the case of the quarrel with Beaufort he was not the aggressor,

nor can we believe the stories of armed conspiracy which surround his

mysterious death. His energy was devoted at this time at least towards

keeping the peace. We have seen his recent journeys into the country

districts to settle matters which might cause disturbance, and in

September he was at Chester,[684] whither he had probably gone in his

capacity as Justiciar of that district, not being content to leave his

duties there to a delegated representative, as the terms of his

appointment had allowed. As Protector he meted out justice impartially,

and though he may have helped to shatter the foreign policy of his

country, his home government shows a strange contrast to the other more

prominent but by no means more essential incidents of his life. It is,

however, by the terms of his Hainault policy that he has been judged, a

policy which, with all its far-reaching consequences, occupied but a

small part of his life, and to the last stages of which we must now

refer.

* * * * *

Whilst Gloucester had been devoting his time to the assertion of his

personality in English politics, Jacqueline had been carrying on her

uphill struggle against the superior forces and the boundless resources

of the Duke of Burgundy. Her English husband, though his attention was

devoted to other matters, was still prosecuting his cause at the Court

of Rome, and even during the stormy days of the Parliament at Leicester

we find a reference to his attempt to secure a recognition of the

legality of his marriage.[685] But all hope of papal favour was now very

remote, for at this very time we find an edict, issued on February 27,

1426, by the papal commissioner who was examining the case, declaring

the desertion of Brabant by Jacqueline to be quite illegal, and

committing her to the care of her kinsman Amadeus of Savoy until the

ultimate decision was given by the Pope.[686] Though this edict had not

the authority of a papal Bull, yet it showed which party the decision of

the Pope would favour, and the chroniclers agree in taking this date as

the final decision of the matter.[687] Nevertheless pressure was still

brought to bear on the Pope, and in October of the same year the English

Council agreed to desist from prosecuting the Bishop of Lincoln under

the act of Præmunire, on condition that he should do his utmost to

expedite the cause of the Duke of Gloucester at Rome.[688]

1427] JACQUELINE SEEKS ASSISTANCE

Jacqueline had no intention of returning to her former husband, or of

resigning herself to the keeping of her kinsman of Savoy, and in view of

the greater difficulties which now attended her owing to the defection

of some of her none too numerous supporters, she turned her thoughts

again to the country which had befriended her in the past, where dwelt

the man whom she claimed as her husband, though he seemed to have

forgotten her existence. From Gouda, where she was making a last

desperate resistance against her enemies, she sent Lewis de Montfort and

Arnold of Ghent to the Council in England with a letter which was

written on April 8, 1427. She recalled therein the friendship of Henry

V., and assured them that he would never have left her to her fate; she

begged for help, _comme pour femme desolée_, and begged them to lay her

sad plight before her husband, and induce him to come to her help, or at

least to send her some assistance.[689] She had evidently given up hope

of any spontaneous support from Humphrey. She no longer wrote to him

personally, as she had done earlier, and she realised that her only hope

of relief was to lay stress on the moral obligation laid on the nation

by the action of Henry V. In answer to her letter ambassadors were sent

from England, bearing an answer written in the name of the King, and to

this Jacqueline replied agreeing to the desire for peace expressed by

Henry VI., but pointing to Burgundy's unreasonableness as an impossible

bar to any pacific arrangement. Again she asked for help in the name of

Henry V.'s friendship for her.[690]

1427] ENGLISH SYMPATHY FOR JACQUELINE

Before this last letter had been despatched a change had come over the

state of affairs. The Duke of Brabant had brought his poor mean life to

an end in a halo of sanctity,[691] and the Duke of Burgundy could no

longer wage war in his name. This was no obstacle to the unscrupulous

Philip, who declared that, as formerly, he had been the regent of John

of Brabant in his wife's dominions, so now he was by inference regent

for that wife herself. The dummy which had stood as an excuse for

interference in Hainault was now removed, and we can see the state of

affairs clearly, untrammelled by diplomatic fictions. All along, in

point of fact, the struggle had been between Jacqueline and her powerful

cousin, now it was so in theory also. Under these altered conditions the

Countess made yet another appeal to the English Council on June 6,

alluding to the recent events, and imploring assistance.[692] At the

same time she sent ambassadors with written instructions both to the

Council and to Gloucester.[693] Letter and messages were delivered

towards the end of June,[694] and at length these constant appeals began

to make an impression. Gloucester began to bestir himself, seeing that

he would probably have public opinion on his side, and that he was free

from the interference of Bedford. He appealed to Parliament for the sum

of 20,000 marks to enable him to equip an army to assist

Jacqueline,[695] and this body replied willingly to the request by

petitioning the Council to take steps to alleviate her position, whether

by treaty or some other means, laying stress on the perilous position in

which she found herself, as recorded in letters both to her husband and

to the estates of the realm; they also backed up Gloucester's request

for 20,000 marks. The matter was seriously considered by the Council,

and it was ultimately decided that 9000 marks should be granted to

Gloucester, 4000 marks of which was to consist of the immediate payment

of half his yearly salary as Protector, the other 5000 marks being a

grant for the maintenance of his Duchess.[696]

This money was given for a definite purpose, and for that purpose alone;

it was to furnish an expedition to Holland, which should relieve and

garrison the towns which still remained obedient to Jacqueline. Part of

the forces were to be told off to escort the Countess to England, whilst

the remainder were to stay behind in Hainault and protect such places as

they had relieved. Under no conditions were they to act on the

offensive, or attack any place in Holland, Hainault, or Zealand held by

any one but Jacqueline. As though they feared that the money would not

be directed to its destined use, the Council arranged that it should be

paid to two persons appointed by Gloucester to receive it, with the

proviso that if no soldiers could be induced to go, the receivers were

to hold the money for the King's use, while all soldiers that were

enlisted were to be paid directly by them.[697]

Thus, though a grant was made, it was hedged in with conditions which

betray no desire on the part of the Council to assist Gloucester to a

continental dominion. Jacqueline had an undoubted claim on the sympathy

of Englishmen, and a desire for her safety was expressed on all sides,

yet under the circumstances it was not desirable, from the point of view

of English politics, that she should be enabled to prolong her

resistance to Burgundy. The visit of Bedford to England had not been in

vain, for it had taught Englishmen the danger of Burgundian

complications, and the necessity for refraining from undue intervention

in the politics of Hainault. This money for armed assistance to

Jacqueline was not intended to prolong the struggle, but to procure a

peace between the opposing parties in Hainault; the terms on which the

grant was made plainly indicate that it was her safety only that was to

be procured; she was to be removed and brought back to an asylum in

England. No thought of helping Humphrey lay therein. As the husband of

the lady he was to carry out the commission, but it was made impossible

for him to extract any territorial or monetary advantage therefrom.

However galling this position might be to Gloucester, he began to

prepare an army to fulfil the commands of the Council, and he received

ready support from the Earl of Salisbury. This famous general had been

distinguishing himself in the wars in France; he had served with

distinction under Henry V.; at Verneuil he had been conspicuous for his

bravery,[698] and since then he had established a great military

reputation. He was now ready to put his abilities at the service of the

Duke of Gloucester, for he had sworn to avenge himself on Burgundy who

had seduced his wife, and he was joined under Humphrey's banner by many

of the chief men of the kingdom.[699] From this readiness to undertake

hostilities against Burgundy we may gather that the ill-will between

Philip and his English allies was not entirely due to the reckless

action of Gloucester, and that there were many who were ready to help

on the discomfiture of a man who had done little to make his alliance

effective, and who more than once had intrigued with both parties in

France in the hope of securing some personal advantage.

1427] INTERVENTION OF BEDFORD

This expedition to Hainault was not, however, to take place. Ten days

after they had agreed to grant Humphrey the 9000 marks, the Council

wrote to Bedford and explained what they had done. They described how

strong was public opinion in favour of Jacqueline, and how they had

determined to give her support, but they besought the Regent of France

to do his utmost to bring about peace by inducing Burgundy to abstain

from his wrongful oppression of the Duchess of Gloucester and her

husband.[700] Bedford was naturally dismayed at this news. Knowing

Philip as he did, he realised that even purely defensive interference by

English troops in Hainault would be regarded as an unforgivable act of

hostility. At the best of times Burgundian fidelity to the English

alliance hung by a mere thread, and with this excuse nothing would

prevent Philip from coming to an agreement with the Dauphin, in favour

of whom public opinion in France was slowly turning. To prevent such a

result he promptly answered the Council's letter, stating that Philip

was ready to treat with Gloucester, and pointing out the dangers which

would attend English intervention in the matter; the King was young, and

the alienation of Burgundy under these conditions was very undesirable,

and might bring terrible disasters on the English cause in France.

Moreover, it was not fair to condemn Philip unheard, and, in any case,

the rights of the matter must be decided in Rome and not in London.[701]

He also wrote to Humphrey, declaring his affection for him in the most

brotherly terms, and begging him in the name of England's safety not to

carry out his mad intention, but to listen to the advice of those who

wished him well. At the same time he offered to use all his influence to

bring about a peace, which would not reflect in any way on his brother's

honour.[702] Not content with letters, he sent over ambassadors to

impress on the Council the impolicy of allowing Gloucester to go to

Hainault, and to procure, if possible, the abandonment of the idea.[703]

Meanwhile he turned his attention to Duke Philip himself, who was

already busy preparing forces to resist the expected invasion.[704] A

meeting between the two Dukes at Lille proved abortive, but since the

expedition had been delayed in spite of a protest from Jacqueline

received in September,[705] and no signs of its approach were apparent,

a truce with the promise of a future settlement was at length concluded

between Burgundy and Gloucester at Paris.[706]

1428] GLOUCESTER CENSURED

Thus Humphrey allowed the year to close without having done anything to

help the lady who could hardly be called his wife, and on January 9 in

the new year the Pope finally issued a Bull, whereby the marriage of

Jacqueline with Brabant was definitely recognised as valid, and any

marriage contracted by the former in the lifetime of the latter was

declared to be illegal.[707] Gloucester was weary of the whole affair.

He had not protested against Bedford's opposition to the last projected

expedition to Hainault, for he had given up all hope of a continental

dominion from the day when he first turned his back on Hainault. He was

too deeply occupied in asserting himself in English politics to trouble

his mind over a matter which had passed so entirely out of his

thoughts, and his preparations in answer to the grant of 9000 marks had

been spiritless and unconvincing. Now, though Jacqueline lodged a

protest against the final decision of the Court of Rome, he took no

action, and on March 17 procured the cancelling of the bonds of the 9000

marks loan of the previous year.[708] This callous behaviour with regard

to his former wife seems to have shocked his contemporaries. On March 8

the Mayor and Aldermen of London appeared before Parliament, and said

that they had received letters from Jacqueline, whom in defiance of the

papal Bull they called Duchess of Gloucester as well as Countess of

Holland and Zealand, in which she appealed to them for help. They

declared that the nation ought to rescue her, and said that they were

ready to help within reason.[709]

More definite than this implied censure on Gloucester was another scene

enacted within the precincts of Parliament about this time.[710] A woman

from the Stocks Market,[711] which occupied the present site of the

Mansion House, and was so called from the stocks which stood there, came

openly into Parliament, bringing with her some other London women, and

handed letters to Gloucester, the two Archbishops and other lords there,

censuring the Duke for not taking steps to relieve his wife from her

danger, and for leaving her unloved and forgotten in captivity, whilst

he was living in adultery with another woman, 'to the ruin of himself,

the kingdom, and the marital bond.'[712] The women of London at this

time were apt to assert their right to a voice in public matters. In the

very next year we find the wives and daughters of the citizens of

Aldgate taking the law into their own hands, and killing a Breton

murderer by pelting him with stones and canal mud in spite of the

intervention of the constables who were escorting the prisoner to the

coast.[713] In this case the victim of the murderer was an old widowed

lady who had shown him much charity, and it would seem that it was only

in matters which affected their own sex that the London women took an

interest. The story of the women's petition to Parliament is handed down

to us in the pages of a chronicler of the friendly house of St. Albans,

though the entry has been cancelled by another hand; it therefore helps

us to understand the intense sympathy felt in England for Jacqueline,

when the men and women of London both came to censure their 'Good Duke.'

It is possible that news of the ultimate declaration of the Court of

Rome had not yet reached England, for we find Jacqueline termed Duchess

of Gloucester in an official document of March 18 in this year,[714] but

this did not detract from the blame which the Duke had incurred by his

neglect of the woman whom he had claimed as his wife for the last six

years. We cannot but find the censure of the market-women well deserved.

In the hope of increasing his possessions and his power Humphrey had

made a questionable marriage with Jacqueline, but this could be forgiven

him if, when he had done so, he had been loyal to his wife, who at one

time at all events had loved him for himself. It was not the perception

of the political complications which would result from further action

that restrained him, but the realisation that the prize was not worth

the energy needed to win it, coupled with the fact that he had become a

slave to what was perhaps the one real passion of his life.

1428] ELEANOR COBHAM

We have seen how Gloucester was accompanied home from Hainault by one of

Jacqueline's English ladies-in-waiting, and how he had fallen a victim

to her charms. Eleanor Cobham was of great beauty, so the gossiping

Æneas Sylvius tells us, whilst Waurin bears testimony to her wonderful

charm and courage,[715] but her honour had been besmirched before

Gloucester made her acquaintance.[716] Notwithstanding this, she had

gained a complete ascendency over her royal lover, to whom she had

probably borne two children by this time, and the superstition of the

age did not hesitate to say that it was through potions provided by the

Witch of Eye that this ascendency had been secured.[717] Throughout

these last years it had been the attractions of this woman that had

caused Gloucester to forget Jacqueline, and he now carried his

infatuation so far as to marry her. Freed from all obligations to his

former wife by papal decree, he hastened to legalise his relations with

Eleanor, whence 'arose shame and more disgrace and inconvenience to the

whole kingdom than can be expressed,' says a contemporary

chronicler,[718] whilst a later writer says, 'and if he wer unquieted

with his other pretensed wife, truly he was tenne tymes more vexed by

occasion of this woman--so that he began his marriage with evill, and

ended it with worse.'[719] Monstrelet also looks askance at the

marriage,[720] and even the poet Lydgate raised his voice against the

'Cyronees,' who tempted

'The prynci's hert against al goddes lawe

Frome heos promesse truwe alle to withdrawe

To straunge him, and make him foule forsworne

Unto that godely faythfull truwe pryncesse.'[721]

Eleanor was an ambitious woman, who had undoubtedly had this end in

view, but that she had been used by Bedford and Beaufort as a counter

attraction to Jacqueline is a statement supported by no evidence, and

merely suggested by the dramatic instinct of a poet. There was nothing

unusual in this action of Gloucester's, and if he married his mistress,

it was no more than his grandfather had done before him. Even if he did

not encourage the marriage, Beaufort could not object to it, for what

claims he had to legitimacy were based upon such a union.

Henceforth the history of Jacqueline ceases to be bound up with that of

Gloucester, and a few months later she was compelled to agree to a

treaty with Burgundy, whereby she acknowledged the illegality of her

former marriage. Bereft of her English husband, her life assumed a

calmer aspect, and for the remaining years that she had to live she

could not regret the loss of one for whom she had suffered so much, and

from whom she had received so little.

* * * * *

[Illustration: THE DUKE OF GLOUCESTER AND HIS WIFE ELEANOR BEING

RECEIVED INTO THE FRATERNITY OF ST. ALBAN'S ABBEY.]

1428] THE PROTECTOR'S POSITION

While Jacqueline was making her last stand against her enemies, and

sending her last appeals for help across to England, Humphrey was

occupied with ambitions far nearer home and totally unconnected with his

now forgotten Hainault policy. The Parliament of 1427, which had been

opened by the little King in person on October 13, had been prorogued on

December 8 by the Protector on the authority of letters-patent from the

King,[722] and on both occasions the subordination of the Protector to

the rules laid down for him were thus fully emphasised. Gloucester began

openly to resent these limitations of his power, and even before the

adjournment he had made some protest against the merely nominal

privileges which he enjoyed.[723] No notice had been taken of this

protest, and he was therefore left to reflect on the matter during

the recess. Christmas he spent at his favourite monastery, and the St.

Albans chronicler tells us of the splendid style in which he celebrated

the Feast. When Epiphany was past, he moved on to Ashbridge near

Berkhampsted for a stay of three days, and thence he returned to London

for the reopening of Parliament.[724] His mind was made up. In spite of

the previous ignoring of his protest, he now, on March 3, requested that

the Lords should define his powers, and did so in such a way as to imply

a demand for more extended rights and privileges than he at present

possessed. He declared his intention of abstaining from attendance in

Parliament till this matter was settled, and arrogantly declared that

during his absence other questions might be discussed but not

settled.[725]

The motive underlying the request is evident. Bedford was safely

employed in the French wars and in Burgundian negotiations; Beaufort was

also absent, and it seemed to Gloucester to be an ideal time to

strengthen his hands against the Cardinal. Possibly he had been betrayed

into the belief that he held the ascendency in Parliament by the

alacrity with which that body had sanctioned the recent loan to him.

Short-sighted as before, he could not distinguish between sympathy for

Jacqueline's sad plight and sympathy with his personal ambitions, and he

did not realise that other men's memories were longer than his. In point

of fact he could not have chosen a worse time for this attempt to secure

increased power in the kingdom, for the Lords would have less

compunction in refusing anything to the 'Good Duke' at a time when his

conduct was being openly censured even by his London supporters, than

when his popularity was not under a shadow. As it was, the demand

produced the inevitable result. The Lords took their stand on the

arrangements made in the first Parliament of the reign, recalling how

at that time Humphrey had claimed the government of the kingdom, both by

right of birth and by the right of the will of Henry V., how records had

been searched and precedents consulted, with the result that the claim

was found to be unsupported by any legal authority, whilst the right of

Henry V. to give away the government of the country after his death was

also found to have no legal basis. Yet for the sake of peace and to

'appese' Gloucester, he had been made chief councillor of the King as

long as Bedford remained abroad, and to distinguish him from the other

councillors the name of 'Protector and Defender' was 'devised' for him,

which should not 'emporte auctorite of governaunce of ye land,' but

merely carry with it a personal duty to provide for the defence of the

kingdom both from external and internal dangers, giving him therewith

certain powers which were enumerated at the time. That was the intention

of Parliament five years ago, and beyond this the Lords would not now

go; indeed at the time Gloucester had agreed to the arrangement. In

Parliament Humphrey had no rights beyond those of any other duke, and it

was merely as Duke of Gloucester that he was summoned there. The Lords

declared themselves surprised at his recent demands, and they told him

pretty bluntly that he must be content with such power as he had got,

even as was Bedford. In conclusion they expressed a hope that he would

take his seat in Parliament, and make no more ado about his position

there.[726]

Nothing could show us more plainly than this the suspicion in which were

held any attempts by Gloucester to monopolise the governmental power,

and the surprisingly advanced state of constitutional theory. Yet we

must not be tempted to dismiss this incident merely as an indication of

Humphrey's ambition, and of the patriotic endeavour of Parliament to

maintain constitutional government in the face of expiring despotism.

Humphrey's ambitious nature is, of course, beyond dispute, but among his

motives there may have been some hope of giving the kingdom a strength

it lacked under the present government. It is a platitude to say that

under the Lancastrian kings England had advanced in constitutional

theory much further than in administrative efficiency. The elements of

constitutional monarchy had been attained, and they are nowhere better

expressed than in the answer to Gloucester's demands, but parliamentary

government at this time was not what we understand by that term now. The

Parliament of Henry VI. was not representative of the kingdom in the

modern sense of the word; it was largely a reflection of the desires of

the English nobility, or rather of a certain dominant clique therein.

The government of this clique had not proved a blessing to England, and

we have already seen something of the lawlessness and disorder of the

kingdom generally. In September of the following year the Chancellor in

opening Parliament was very despondent about the moral state of the

country, declaring that acts of lawlessness and oppression were everyday

occurrences, and arose from the absence of any real administration of

justice.[727]

To Humphrey was given all the hard work of keeping the peace, with none

of the rewards for those labours, or the prestige which would make his

influence efficient. As it was, the divisions in the government had

disastrous effects; the country was not ready for a divided sovereignty.

The only remedy for this state of affairs was that the central power

should be in the hands of one man, who should make his personality felt

at a time when personality had far more influence on men's minds than

any theory of government. We cannot suggest that Humphrey was the ideal

man to exert this personal power, yet we must not forget his past

attempts to administer the law for the benefit of the injured, or his

later efforts to prevent sedition and internal strife. He could not

belong to the House of Lancaster without inheriting some of the

administrative qualities of his family; to this was added his popularity

with the people, and his position as a member of the royal family. Owing

to this position his influence must be great, and it would have been to

the advantage of the country that this influence should be exerted on

the side of law and order, rather than at the head of a discontented

opposition. On paper the theories contained in the Lords' reply were

excellent, but in practice they needed a more advanced state of society

than that which obtained in fifteenth-century England. The country,

though it knew it not, was on the eve of a civil war of the worst kind,

and a man untrammelled by the limitations of a none too wise oligarchy

might have saved it many years of bloodshed. Humphrey was not a strong

character, yet with his advantages of birth to support him, he was no

weaker than any other individual of the time in England, and far

stronger than the divided rule of a Regency Council.

As a mitigation of the rebuff of this refusal to increase his powers,

Gloucester was granted the payment for forty-eight days' service in

1415, which had hitherto been refused by the officials of the

Exchequer;[728] and when Parliament had ceased to sit he went off to

Merton, where he kept the Feast of Easter.[729] The King meanwhile was

taken to keep the Feast at Hertford, where he was visited by Warwick,

who had been brought back from France to fill a post wherein he might

act as another check on the power of the Protector.[730] The death of

the Duke of Exeter in January 1427 had left the post of tutor to the

King vacant, and hitherto this vacancy had not been filled. Now,

however, fearing that in the absence of an authorised tutor Gloucester

might influence his royal nephew, the Council determined to give to

Warwick the place of Exeter, thus fulfilling the wishes of the late King

in this respect, though they had lately refused to do so in the matter

of the Protectorate. On June 1 the writ empowering Warwick to exercise

the office of tutor to Henry VI. was signed by Gloucester and eleven

other Lords of the Council.[731]

1428] DISTURBANCES IN THE MIDLANDS

In the same month we find Humphrey hearing petitions in the Star Chamber

at Westminster with other members of the Council,[732] but he was called

away shortly afterwards to settle a dispute which threatened the peace

of the Midlands. From some paltry retainer's quarrel a feud had sprung

up between John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and John Holland, Earl of

Huntingdon, and matters had gone so far that each had collected a

considerable force, and a pitched battle seemed imminent. Hearing of

this the Protector hastened to leave London, and on August 19 reached

St. Albans, where the monks greeted him with the usual joyful

processions. He did not, however, delay here, but the next morning,

having paid his respects to the Holy Martyr, he set off in the direction

of Bedfordshire, so that he might get in touch with the two opponents,

and probe the reasons for their quarrel. Though an actual fight was

averted, no settlement could be arranged, as the Duke of Norfolk refused

to appear before the Protector.[733] Here again we find an instance of

the undesirable effects of government by the Privy Council. Both Norfolk

and Huntingdon were councillors, and naturally resented the interference

of a man whose power in the government was subordinate to theirs, but

their feelings of patriotism and responsibility were not enough to

induce them to keep the peace which they were supposed to enforce on

others. No better example could be found of the emptiness of

constitutional theory in those days of turbulence and violence.

Finding himself powerless to restore peace in Bedfordshire, Gloucester

turned south, and by way of St. Albans reached London, where he prepared

to welcome his old rival Beaufort on his return from the Continent.[734]

This was the Bishop of Winchester's first appearance in England as a

cardinal, and he was met on September 1 outside London by the Mayor and

citizens 'reverently arrayed in red hoods and green vestments.' The

Abbot of St. Albans and many of the regular clergy were there also to

meet him, but of the bishops his Lordship of Salisbury was the only

representative.[735] Gloucester cannot have received the Cardinal with

unalloyed pleasure, for he thoroughly disapproved of the policy which

had allowed the acceptance of the cardinal's hat. However, he joined in

the official reception, when the Cardinal rode into the city with that

pomp and magnificence which he loved so well.

1429] BEAUFORT'S CARDINALATE

The year passed to its close without further incident, though on

November 19, the Eve of St. Edmund, King and Martyr, we find the

Cardinal again seizing the opportunity of displaying his newly acquired

dignity. A solemn procession round the city was headed by Beaufort,

accompanied by the two Archbishops, the Mayor, and the Protector

himself, who, for the time, seems to have been on good terms with his

uncle.[736] As Christmas drew near, Gloucester went down to Greenwich,

there to celebrate the festival in the house which he had acquired after

the death of the Duke of Exeter, and which he was later to transform

into a famous palace.[737] But with Beaufort in England once more, he

was on the lookout to curb the power of his old antagonist, and the

opportunity was offered him by the cardinalate which the latter had

accepted.

It has been said that Beaufort made 'the great mistake of his life' when

he accepted this dignity;[738] at all events it gave the Protector an

excuse for attacking him. He had come back from the Continent with a

papal commission to raise men and money for the crusade against the

Hussites, and he was permitted to make an expedition to Scotland for

this purpose.[739] During his absence Gloucester raised the question as

to whether he had not vacated his bishopric by accepting the cardinal's

hat, since it exempted him from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of

Canterbury,[740] and on his return the Cardinal, in order that the

matter might be settled forthwith, petitioned the King to be allowed to

exercise his functions as prelate of the Garter, by right of his

bishopric of Winchester, at the approaching Feast of St. George, the

patron saint of the Order and of the kingdom. The matter was discussed

before the King at Westminster on April 17, and the peers, prelates, and

abbots present agreed to ask the new cardinal to refrain from attending

the festival on this occasion at any rate.[741]

By thus playing on the fears of the majority of Englishmen, who looked

with great dislike on any one who even seemed to suggest papal

interference in the country, Gloucester had made a skilful, if somewhat

revengeful, move, but we must not forget that Beaufort had taken the

first step that led to the state of mutual mistrust which prompted this

action. For the time Gloucester held the ascendence over his rival, and

in the hope of getting him out of the country again, raised no objection

to the permission granted to the Cardinal to raise forces for the

campaign against the Hussites,[742] and this in spite of the fact that

Bedford was asking for reinforcements. However, the defeat of the

English at Patay on the same day that the permission to Beaufort was

given could not be overlooked, and the Cardinal was induced to lead his

forces to the help of Bedford, and to postpone his crusading zeal.[743]

In June he crossed the Channel and landed in France.[744]

1429] CORONATION OF HENRY VI

Bedford, however, wanted more than reinforcements. In the face of the

French successes under the influence of the enthusiasm engendered by the

Maid of Orleans, and the favour with which Frenchmen generally were

beginning to look on the hitherto despised cause of the 'King of

Bourges,' it was necessary to do something to rehabilitate the

Lancastrian cause in France. It was with this object that the Regent

earnestly asked the English Council to send the little King to be

crowned at Paris.[745] When Parliament met on September 22 it agreed to

comply with this request, and preparations were rapidly made so that

Henry's coronation in England might first take place. Gloucester

naturally took a large share in these preparations; it was always with

zest that he arranged a great function. On October 10 he was appointed

to act as Steward of England for the occasion,[746] whilst he was

allowed to appoint a deputy to perform his duties as Great

Chamberlain.[747]

It was on St. Leonard's Day, Sunday, November 6, that the coronation

took place, shorn of some of its glories by reason of the haste with

which preparations for it had been made. Archbishop Chichele, assisted

by the Cardinal Bishop of Winchester, who had returned from France for

the occasion, performed the ceremony, which ended with a banquet in

Westminster Hall, such as Gloucester had supervised nearly ten years

before on the occasion of Queen Catherine's coronation.[748]

FOOTNOTES:

[596] _Lond. Chron._, 166.

[597] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 462.

[598] See Monstrelet, 575; St. Rémy, 476; Waurin, iii. 188. This

last says that a demand for men and money made by Gloucester

was refused.

[599] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 289.

[600] _Ibid._ iv. 267-274.

[601] _Ordinances_, iii. 169. The date of this gift is May 22, 1425.

[602] See the tone of Bedford's letter to the Pope urging the

divorce of Jacqueline from the Duke of Brabant. Stevenson,

_Letters and Papers_, ii. 388, 389.

[603] See Ashmole MS., 59, ff. 57-60, where Lydgate voices the

universal sympathy for Jacqueline, and also the action of the

London women below.

[604] Commonly called Lord Cobham, because both his father and

grandfather had been summoned to Parliament, though he

himself never was. See Nicolas, _Historic Peerage_, and G. E.

C., _Peerage_, under his name. He is possibly the Reginald

Cobham who commanded part of Gloucester's retinue in 1417,

and served under him in the Côtentin.

[605] Monstrelet, 571; _Chron. Henry VI._, 7.

[606] Harleian MS., 2256, f. 198vo. Mons had already petitioned

Burgundy to take Jacqueline under his protection, that is,

assume control over her. _Cartulaire_, iv. 465.

[607] Monstrelet says June 13, an obvious mistake. _Cartulaire_, iv.

475.

[608] Monstrelet, 573: Waurin, iii. 182, 183. In a letter written to

Jacqueline from Calais, on his homeward journey, he had

promised her to return to Hainault speedily. See

_Particularités Curieuses_, 112.

[609] Waurin, iii. 183.

[610] Monstrelet, 574; St. Rémy, 477.

[611] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 277.

[612] _Ibid._

[613] Monstrelet, 576, describes Burgundy's measures, 'tout en

abstinence de sa bouche, comme en prenant peine pour lui

mettre en haleine.' See also Waurin, iii. 190; St. Rémy, 477.

[614] Monstrelet, 577.

[615] Besides the attempt to settle the dispute by arbitration

before the campaign to Hainault which we have already

mentioned, Bedford had been in constant communication with

his brother, in the hope of bringing the incident to a close.

See Stevenson's _Letters and Papers_, Appendix to

Introduction, 1. pp. lxxxii and lxxxv; Devon, _Issue Roll_,

390.

[616] This Bull was published on May 1 at Rome; _Cartulaire_, iv.

296. Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 412-414, gives the

date as April 24.

[617] Planché, _Preuves_, IV. pp. lii, liii, Document No. XLVI.

Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 412-414, gives the date

of this decision as September 24.

[618] Monstrelet, 577; St. Rémy, 477. Waurin, iii. 196, says that

both dukes were angered at this decision.

[619] Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 407-409.

[620] Monstrelet, 577; St. Rémy, 480.

[621] Dynter, iii. 465.

[622] Rastell, 258; Waurin, iii. 200-204; Fabyan, 595. Monstrelet,

578, gives the number of men as 500; Pierre de Fénin, 604,

gives 1000; and St. Rémy, 480, estimates the expedition at

1500 men.

[623] _Ordinances_, iii. 167. The appointment is dated February 26,

1425.

[624] Beaufort himself confessed to this action of his when

answering his opponent's charges at the Parliament of

Leicester; Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. ff. 74vo, 75vo; Hall,

131, 132.

[625] _Ordinances_, iii. 174-177.

[626] _Lond. Chron._, 114; Cotton MS., Cleopatra, C. iv. f. 34;

Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. f. 72.

[627] Gregory, 159; Fabyan, 595.

[628] Gregory gives the date as September 29, but this is obviously

a mistake, for _Eng. Chron._, 53, and Cotton MS., Vitellius,

A. xvi. f. 83, both give October 29. It was the custom at

this time to elect the Mayor on the feast of St. Simon and

St. Jude (October 28), but falling as it did this year on a

Sunday the ceremony was postponed till the Monday. See

_Chronicles of London Bridge_, 235. Cf. Harleian MS., 2256,

f. 198vo.

[629] Gregory, 159; _Eng. Chron._, 53, 54; Fabyan, 595, 596. See

also Monstrelet, 578, and _Chronicles of London Bridge_, 235.

[630] _Short Eng. Chron._, 59. The authorities above cited all

emphasise Gloucester's popularity in London. For this, see

also _Chron. Henry VI._, 7.

[631] October 31.

[632] _i.e._ battle.

[633] Hall, 130; Fabyan, 596; MSS. of the Duke of Sutherland, _Hist.

MSS. Report_, v. App. p. 213. Cf. Holkham MS., p. 28.

[634] Ramsay, i. 361, asserts that Gloucester was the aggressor.

[635] Ramsay, i. 362, note 3. The suggestion that this was a

commendable action, however, originates with the Bishop of

Winchester himself. See Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. f. 80.

[636] This is stated by Ramsay, i. 362, note 1, but he gives no

authority for the statement, nor can I find any.

[637] _Ordinances_, iii. 178.

[638] Gregory, 160.

[639] _Ordinances_, iii. 179.

[640] _Ibid._, iii. 197.

[641] _Ibid._, iii. 210.

[642] Gregory, 160; Harleian MS., 2256, f. 200; Hall, 130.

[643] Fabyan, 596.

[644] _Lords' Reports_, iv. 863.

[645] These instructions to the messengers of the Council are to be

found in _Ordinances_, iii. 181-187. Cf. Fabyan, 596.

[646] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 296.

[647] Gregory, 160; Fabyan, 596.

[648] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 296.

[649] _Ibid._

[650] _Ibid._, iv. 297.

[651] _Ibid._, iv. 298.

[652] He had accompanied Gloucester to Hainault.

[653] We find him at variance with Gloucester later. See below, pp.

230, 234.

[654] He resigned the treasurership at the same time that Beaufort

resigned the chancellorship, after the judgment.

[655] Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. ff. 72vo-74; Arnold's _Chron._,

287, 288; Hall, 130, 131; Fabyan, 597. There is a copy of

these articles also in the MSS. of the Inner Temple, MS. 538,

17, f. 45vo; _Hist. MSS. Rep._, xi. App. VII. p. 238.

[656] Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. ff. 74, 75vo; Hall, 132.

[657] Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. f. 68vo.

[658] Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. ff. 76, 77vo; Hall, 132, 133.

[659] Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. f. 76.

[660] Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. f. 78; Hall, 133.

[661] Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. ff. 78-80; Hall, 132, 133. Arnold's

_Chron._, 288-295, also gives the whole account. Holkam MS.,

pp. 30-32.

[662] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 298, 299; Cotton MS., Julius, B. ii. ff.

80-86; Hall, 135, 136; Arnold's _Chron._, 296-300.

[663] _Eng. Chron._, 54.

[664] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 299, says March 13 for Beaufort and March 18

for Bath. _Ordinances_, iii. 212, 213, says March 16.

[665] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 299. March 16, Rymer, IV. iv. 119.

[666] _St. Alban's Chron._, i. 8, 9.

[667] _Chron. Henry VI._, 9; Hall, 138

[668] _Rot. Scot._, ii. 256; Rymer, IV. iv. 121.

[669] _St. Albans Chron._, i. 11. Exeter died in the last days of

1426. After the obsequies at St. Paul's his body was taken to

Peterborough and buried there. See Harleian MS. 2256, f. 199.

[670] _Ordinances_, iii. 327-329; _Rot. Parl._, v. 409, 410.

[671] _Ordinances_, iii. 239, 240; _Rot. Parl._, v. 410.

[672] _Ordinances_, iii. 240, 241.

[673] Beaufort was about to accompany Bedford to France and to go on

a pilgrimage. See below, p. 192.

[674] _Ordinances_, iii. 242; _Rot. Parl._, v. 410, 411.

[675] _Ordinances_, iii. 195, 196.

[676] _Lond. Chron._, 115; Fabyan, 597; _Chron. Henry VI._ 9; Short,

_Eng. Chron._, 59, 60; Harleian MS., 2256, f. 199vo.

[677] Wharton, _Anglia Sacra_, i. 800.

[678] _St. Albans Chron._, i. 12, 13.

[679] _Ibid._, i. 13.

[680] _Ordinances_, iii. 267.

[681] _Paston Letters_, i. 12-17; _St. Albans Chron._, i. 16. Aslak

does not appear to have been one of the six men executed, for

he is spoken of in the _Paston Letters_ as alive after 1427.

[682] _St. Albans Chron._, i. 16.

[683] _Ibid._, i. 12-17.

[684] _Bibliothèque Nationale MS. français_, 2, f. 511. See Appendix

A.

[685] _Paston Letters_, i. 24-26.

[686] _Cartulaire_, iv. 539-541.

[687] Waurin, iii. 213; Monstrelet, 584.

[688] _Ordinances_, iii. 211. On March 16, 1426, the Pope's nephew,

Prospero de Colonna, was given permission to hold benefices

in England, a concession for which Martin v. had sought

Gloucester's good offices two years earlier; Rymer IV. iv.

119. This was probably a propitiatory offering to Rome.

[689] _Cartulaire_, iv. 579-582.

[690] _Cartulaire_, iv. 590-593. Letter dated May 27.

[691] Dynter, iii. 480; Monstrelet, 586; Waurin, iii. 223.

[692] _Cartulaire_, iv. 598-601.

[693] _Ibid._, iv. 601.

[694] _Ibid._, iv. 614.

[695] Rymer, IV. iv. 128.

[696] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 139; _Ordinances_, iii. 271.

[697] _Ordinances_, iii. 272-276.

[698] Waurin, iii. 113, 114.

[699] Pierre de Fénin, 604; Waurin, iii. 212, 213; Monstrelet, 580.

[700] _Cartulaire_, iv. 622-624, July 11.

[701] _Ibid._, iv. 265, July 21.

[702] _Cartulaire_, iv. 635, 636; August.

[703] Monstrelet, 580; Waurin, iii. 212, 213. It is probably to

these messengers that the _St. Albans Chronicle_ refers, when

it says that about All-Saints'-Day (November 1), 1427,

foreign envoys appeared before the Council, asserting that a

peace between Burgundy and Jacqueline was a necessity; _St.

Albans Chronicle_, i. 19. The names differ from those of

Bedford's embassy.

[704] _Cartulaire_, iv. 632.

[705] _Ibid._, iv. 638, 639.

[706] Monstrelet, 580; St. Rémy, 485; Pierre de Fénin, 604, 605.

[707] _Cartulaire_, iv. 648.

[708] _Ordinances_, iii. 291, 292.

[709] Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, Introduction, p. lxxv, quoting Reg. K.,

folio 50vo. Cf. Guild Hall Archives.

[710] 'After Christmas and before Easter.' Easter fell on April 20.

[711] The Market 'called the Stokkys' was begun in 1410. Fabyan,

575.

[712] _St. Alban's Chron._, i. 20.

[713] Cotton MS., Cleopatra, C. iv. f. 35.

[714] Rymer, IV. iv. 147.

[715] Æneas Sylvius, _De Viris Illustribus_, p. 52; Waurin, iii.

177.

[716] Monstrelet, 585.

[717] _Eng. Chron._, p. 59. This legend is copied by Robert Burton

in his _Anatomy of Melancholy_. Cf. Shakespeare and Drayton.

[718] _Chron. Henry VI._, 7.

[719] Hall, 129.

[720] Monstrelet, 585.

[721] Ashmole MS., 59, f. 592.

[722] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 317.

[723] _Ibid._, iv. 326.

[724] _St. Albans Chron._, i. 19.

[725] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 326.

[726] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 326, 327.

[727] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 335. 'Pro defectu justicie superhabundat

injuriarum et oppressionum nephanda perversitas.'

[728] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 320, 321.

[729] _St. Albans Chron._, i. 20.

[730] _Ibid._, i. 20-22.

[731] _Rot. Parl._, v. 411; Devon, _Issue Roll_, 407.

[732] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 334.

[733] _St. Albans Chron._, i. 25.

[734] _St. Albans Chron._, i. 25.

[735] _Ibid._, i. 26; Harleian MS., 2256, f. 200vo.

[736] _St. Albans Chron._, i. 31.

[737] _Ibid._, i. 32.

[738] Stubbs, iii. 108.

[739] _Ordinances_, iii. 318; _St. Albans Chron._, i. 33, 34.

[740] Beltz, p. lxv.

[741] _Ordinances_, iii. 323, 324; Rymer, IV. iv. 143.

[742] _Ordinances_, iii. 330-332.

[743] _Ibid._, iii. 339.

[744] Fabyan, 599.

[745] _Ordinances_, iii. 322.

[746] Cotton MS., Vespasian, C. xiv. f. 118, contains the original

warrant. Rymer, IV. iv. 150; _Cal. Rot. Pat._, 275;

_Ordinances_, iv. 14.

[747] Rymer, IV. iv. 151.

[748] Gregory, 168. Fabyan, 599-601, gives a detailed account of the

banquet. _Eng. Chron._, 54; _St. Albans Chron._, i. 44.