CHAPTER VIII

SOME ASPECTS OF GLOUCESTER'S CAREER

In spite of the circumstantial story which records the events of the

last few days of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, there hangs over the

manner of his death a cloud which no existing evidence can entirely

remove. Was he murdered, or was his death the result of natural causes?

Such is the question to which the circumstances surrounding his last

days give rise. Of contemporary chroniclers who give their opinion the

Englishmen mostly agree in a quiet acceptance of the idea that arrest

and disgrace so worked on an already weakened frame, that some kind of

seizure was followed by collapse and death. Richard Fox, who gives the

most detailed account of the tragedy of Bury, never for a moment

suggests foul play, whilst Wheathampsted, the friend and follower of the

dead man, clearly states that he died of sickness brought on by grief at

his arrest.[1022] Hardyng carries this theory still further by

describing the disease of which the Duke died as a sort of 'parlesey,'

stating that he had been similarly attacked before,[1023] but an

anonymous chronicler of Henry VI.'s reign, while describing the illness

much in the same way as Fox and Hardyng--a paralysis of both mind and

body--does not hesitate to hint fairly broadly that the disease did not

take its origin from the natural state of the Duke's health.[1024] The

author of the _English Chronicle_ reserves judgment. The truth about

Gloucester's death, he declares, is not yet known, but he quotes the

Gospel to prove that there is nothing hid which shall not be made

manifest;[1025] the London chronicler declares darkly that he was

treacherously treated.[1026] Foreign contemporary writers go still

further, and with one voice proclaim that Gloucester was murdered.

Waurin states this as a bare fact, but his statements are not beyond

dispute, for he adopts the same version as the continuator of the

_Historia Croylandensis_, who says that the Duke was found dead in bed

on the morning after his arrest.[1027] Mathieu de Coussy and Basin, both

of whom were alive at the time, aver that it was a case of murder, and

so it was generally believed on the Continent.[1028]

NATURE OF GLOUCESTER'S DEATH

As time passed on, the growing unpopularity of Suffolk unloosed men's

tongues, and the idea that Gloucester had been murdered gradually arose,

and became a firm belief. It was obvious to all that the Duke's death

had been desired by Suffolk to increase his power, and within three

years of the Parliament at Bury another Parliament was clamouring for

the disgrace of this upstart, who with the help of the Queen had

monopolised the government of the kingdom, and it was but a very thinly

veiled accusation of murder which lay behind the articles of impeachment

that he 'wase the cause and laborer of the arrest, emprisonyng and

fynall destruction of the most noble valliant true Prince, your right

obeisant uncle the Duke of Gloucester.'[1029] That this was no more

than an accusation of complicity in Humphrey's disgrace which

indirectly produced his last illness is an interpretation which the

words cannot bear when we consider the facts of the case, for at the

same time Gregory records that among the charges brought against Suffolk

that of murdering 'that nobylle prynce the Duke of Gloucester' was

one.[1030] Whatever the words of the impeachment may imply to us, it is

plain that they bore but one meaning to the men of the time, and in view

of the coming disgrace of the Queen's favourite, public opinion was

beginning to assert itself, for it is to be noticed that, when recording

the death of Humphrey, Gregory ignored any question of murder.[1031]

We may well suspect that the murder of Suffolk by the sailors of the

Kentish coast had for its prompting some thought of revenge for the

death of the man who had held the command of Dover and the Cinque Ports.

The people were beginning to find their voices, and when the Kentish men

followed Jack Cade in his march on London, they invoked the wrongs of

Duke Humphrey, as one of the reasons of their rebellion. They demanded

the punishment of the false traitors 'which counterfetyd and imagyned'

Gloucester's death, and they declared the charges which had been brought

against him at Bury to be false.[1032] Moreover, in one of the popular

songs connected with this rising there is distinct mention of 'two

traitors ... Pulford and Hanley that drownyd ye Duke of

Glocester,'[1033] a possible allusion to the two yeomen of the guard who

were Humphrey's custodians after his arrest, and who may have been more

than suspected of being the instruments of his enemies' treachery. It

was at this time also that Lord Saye de Sele met his violent end at the

hands of the mob, who accused him of many acts of treason 'of whyche he

knowlachyd of the dethe' of Gloucester.[1034] As hostility to the

existing regime increased, the belief in the murder grew

proportionately, and became complete assurance on the triumph of the

Yorkist party. Thus one of the political poems which paved the way for

this turn of events declared roundly that 'This Fox (Suffolk) at Bury

slowe our grete gandere' (Gloucester),[1035] and the manifesto which the

Duke of York issued from Calais referred to 'the pytyous shamefulle and

sorrowfulle murther to all Englonde, of that noble werthy and Crystyn

prince Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, the Kynges trew uncle, at

Bury.'[1036]

A few years later a political song stated that

'The good duc of Gloucestre, in the season

Of the Parlement at Bury beyng,

Was put to dethe,'[1037]

and the general acceptance of the fact of murder was so universal that

under the year 1446 (O.S.) a compiler of historical notes, writing in

the latter days of the fifteenth century, put down without comment or

hesitation 'interfectio ducis Gloucestriae.'[1038] Fabyan, another

writer of this period,[1039] mentions the theory that Humphrey had been

put to death as an accepted fact, adding that 'dyverse reportes ar made,

which I passe over.'[1040] Subsequent writers and historians have all

followed this opinion,[1041] till within recent years some doubts have

been cast on this universally accepted reading of the events.

We cannot accept the verdict of murder as conclusive without an

examination into the facts of the case. Obviously it may have been more

a political move than a firm conviction of the murder that induced the

Yorkist party to throw out these accusations with regard to Gloucester's

end, but in this respect it cannot have been very fruitful, and it is

stated in a manner which implies that the facts of the case were common

property. To support the theory there is the strong hint of the Latin

chronicler of Henry VI.'s reign, and the suspiciously judicial attitude

of the author of the _English Chronicle_. The testimony of Wheathampsted

as the friend of Gloucester deserves attention, yet we must remember

that the late Abbot of St. Albans had passed entirely into private life

in 1447, and did not emerge therefrom till four years later when he

resumed the Abbacy. Moreover, his information was probably gained from

Richard Fox of the House of St. Albans, a man who brought no critical

power to bear on his narrative, and who merely recorded the official

account of the Duke's last illness; all personal access to the prisoner

had been forbidden save to the royal officials, who had him in charge,

and at the best Fox must have recorded what he was told at the time by

those who had the care of his master. Evidence of a more definite and

less refutable kind is the statement of John Hardyng. By him the illness

is given a definite name, and allusion is made to earlier attacks. This

is supported by a report on the Duke's health made some twenty-three

years earlier by his physician, which describes him in a weak state of

health, though the details of the report do no more than point to

certain excesses in his manner of living, and a temporary lack of

health, and do not in any way suggest a hopelessly decayed constitution,

which some would deduce therefrom.[1042] Only once do we hear of the

Duke suffering from illness, and the activity of his life, in which he

combined the avocations of a soldier, a politician, and a man of

letters, in itself refutes the suggestion. Humphrey showed no signs of

bodily decay; he was perfectly well, and able to make a long journey on

the eve of his imprisonment, and if his health was so undermined at the

age of thirty-four, how was it that he survived to more than complete

his fifty-seventh year, no mean age at that time? He survived all his

brothers; one died in battle, Henry at the age of thirty-six succumbed

to an attack of camp fever, Bedford only attained his forty-sixth year,

while his grandfather, John of Gaunt, who was looked on as an old man

for his time, lived but one year longer than himself, and his father

only reached the age of forty-seven. Indeed of all his relations

Cardinal Beaufort alone lived to be really old, though his exact age is

uncertain. The statement of Hardyng must not, therefore, be considered

as entirely corroborated by the physician's report, and by itself it

stands as a statement of no more value than those which roundly assert

that Gloucester was murdered, for the chronicle was written about the

year 1463 by a man who had served the House of Lancaster from the battle

of Shrewsbury onward. Perhaps the strangest of all evidences on this

point is that given by Chastellain, the Burgundian chronicler, who wrote

_Le Temple de Bocace_ for Margaret of Anjou when in 1463 she retired

into exile in the county of Bar. In this collection of stories dealing

with the sad fate of many famous people, a sort of continuation of

Boccaccio's Latin work which was introduced to English readers by John

Lydgate's _The Falls of Princes_, a terrible picture of Humphrey's

violent end is drawn, and the methods used to give the appearance of a

natural death are described. When we remember that Margaret was a

prominent member of the faction at whose bidding such a deed must have

been performed, the version of the story here given is the more

startling.[1043]

Apart from all statements of chroniclers, whether contemporary or

otherwise, there lies the probability of the case. Gloucester was in the

way of the plans of Suffolk and Margaret; he had already been accused of

treason, an accusation which might be hard to prove; armed preparations

had been made against him; he was under arrest at the time of his death.

More important than this is the way he was isolated from his followers;

his chief retainers were arrested, and his personal servants were

removed from attendance on him,[1044] and thus the officers appointed by

his enemies could arrange what they liked. The way his body was exposed

after death to prove that no violence had cut short his days was itself

an invitation to suspicion, and this negative method of proof was not

unknown in the cases of other royal victims of political murder. The

whole story of the case supports the supposition that some kind of slow

poison was used, a method of assassination quite possible under the

circumstances, and for which it would almost seem that provision had

been made. Murder, therefore, is the most probable explanation of the

Duke's sudden demise, his relapse into a comatose state might very well

be the result of a poison taken with his food, and when an unscrupulous

party so desired his death, the conclusion is obvious.

'Who finds the partridge in the puttock's nest,

But may imagine now the bird was dead,

Although the kite soar with unbloodied beak?

Even so suspicious is this tragedy.'[1045]

Whatever opinion is held with regard to the immediate cause of

Humphrey's death, it is beyond doubt that his destruction was planned,

if not carried out. On Suffolk and Lord Saye de Sele falls the chief

suspicion, and in the latter's case the count is strengthened by the

fact that he received on the very next day after the death of the Duke

some of the offices which the victim had held.[1046] 'Pole' that 'fals

traytur' was openly accused of part responsibility,[1047] and Fabyan

says, 'The grudge and murmour of ye people ceased not agayne the Marquis

of Suffolke, for the deth of the good duke of Gloucester, of whos murdre

he was specially susspected.'[1048] Foreign chroniclers all attribute

the murder to the 'faction of Suffolk,'[1049] and in this indictment the

Queen cannot be excepted. She, together with Suffolk and Lord Saye de

Sele, shared in the lands and emoluments which reverted to the King on

his uncle's demise,[1050] and girl though she was, she had a

predominating influence among those who had allied themselves against

Gloucester. One more fact both points to the existence of a

determination to make away with their rival on the part of the dominant

party of the Court, and strengthens the suggestion of murder; so

complete were the preparations in view of the death, that on the very

day that Gloucester died, a grant was made of his property to Henry's

foundation of King's College, Cambridge,[1051] and further grants of the

same kind were made on the following day.[1052]

Final proof of the care with which Gloucester's death was organised is

to be found in the treatment meted out to his followers, of whom in all

forty-two were arrested and imprisoned in thirteen different

castles.[1053] On July 8[1054] five of these men, including the Duke's

natural son Arthur, were arraigned before Suffolk at Deptford and

condemned to be drawn to Tyburn, hanged, disembowelled, beheaded, and

quartered for plotting treason against the King. The charge against them

was that they had held a seditious meeting at Greenwich on February 7

last, where they had agreed to kill King Henry VI., and place Gloucester

and his imprisoned wife upon the throne. Four days later, having

collected a large body of men, they had marched out towards Bury, hoping

that the country would join them.[1055] Besides this definite charge,

rumours were spread abroad that Humphrey had been organising a rebellion

in his own favour in Wales,[1056] a legend based on nothing more

substantial than the fact that many of the imprisoned retainers bore

Welsh names,[1057] but sufficiently elaborated to induce the Parliament

at Bury to re-enact 'all statutes made against Welshmen.'[1058]

The absurdity of the whole story is obvious. A great army this escort of

eighty men to start a rebellion of all England, and to bring about the

removal of the King! There is not one shred of evidence to prove even

the likelihood of such a plot. We are definitely told that Humphrey came

to Bury with a clear conscience,[1059] and had his intentions been

treasonable he would not have entered the town after the warning he

received from the King's message. He made not the slightest show of

resistance, save, if we can except the statement of a foreign

chronicler, that he used strong language to his jailers about those who

dominated the King.[1060] If the plot had been hatched on February 7,

why was it that Suffolk had collected an army of 60,000 men at Bury some

time before the opening of Parliament on February 10, and had gone

through the form of taking elaborate precautions for the safety of the

King on his way thither? The details of the trial of these retainers

also give cause for suspicion, for no office that Suffolk held entitled

him to sit as judge at Deptford, and he was probably acting under a

special writ, issued to ensure the condemnation of the prisoners. The

whole proceeding was meant to throw dust in the eyes of those who might

question the manner of Gloucester's death, and to remove the possibility

of any one championing the fallen Duke, who was thus proved to have died

with the guilt of treason on his conscience. Having established his

case, Suffolk tried to win favour with the people by appearing at the

execution and producing a reprieve from the King. Though already strung

up at Tyburn, when the reprieve was read they were promptly cut down,

and their lives were saved.[1061] They and the rest of the prisoners

were set at large, and their goods were returned to them.[1062] Had

there been any truth in the charge for which they were condemned, the

men would certainly not have been reprieved, and this bid for popularity

proved fruitless, for in spite of it 'the grudge and murmur of ye people

ceased not agayne the Marquys of Suffolke.'[1063] Violence was not one

of Humphrey's crimes; he had appealed to force of arms once only, and

then it was merely to act on the defensive. This imagined plot was

totally at variance with all his former conduct. Plot there was, but it

was formed by Suffolk and his partisans to destroy their rival, whose

death becomes still more suspicious in the light of their vain attempt

at justification.

* * * * *

EFFECTS OF GLOUCESTER'S DEATH

With Gloucester dead, and his memory tainted by an accusation of

treason, Margaret and Suffolk thought they had secured safety for their

plans and security for the House of Lancaster. But this was far from

being the case. Besides casting an indelible slur on the dynasty which

had connived at the disgrace and removal of one of its own

representatives, they had inaugurated a period of strife and disaster

that ended only with the triumph of the rival claimants to the throne of

England. A foreign observer of English politics dated all the

disturbances which followed from the time of Gloucester's death,[1064]

and an English chronicler wrote: 'Thus began the trouble of Engelonge

for the deth of this noble duke. All the comyns of this reame began for

to murmure, and were not content.'[1065] A political ballad writer, too,

saw how things had gone when he wrote, that since the tragedy of Bury

'Hath been in Engeland, gret mornyng with many a scharp schoure

Falshode, myschef, secret synne upholdyng,

Whiche hathe caused in Engeland endeley langoure.'[1066]

The government of Henry VI., or rather that of those who had his ear,

was already unpopular, and we have seen how still more hostile to it the

nation became after 1447, and how Humphrey's reputation increased as

that of his opponent's diminished. Jack Cade invoked the name of

Gloucester as one of the justifications of his hostility to the

Government, and it is a significant fact that the three men who were

suspected of complicity in the murder, namely Suffolk, Adam Moleyns, and

Lord Saye de Sele, all met violent deaths at the hands of the people.

But mere unpopularity was not the worst danger which the Government had

to fear, as a result of Gloucester's death, and to understand this

aspect of the matter we must recall the history of the two parties in

the State since the death of Henry V. The reign of Henry VI. had opened

with a declaration of party war. From the first there had been two

distinct parties in the kingdom, each fighting to secure the supreme

control, the one headed by Gloucester, the other by Cardinal Beaufort,

both of whom were members of the House of Lancaster, though the latter's

family was excluded from succession to the throne. Gloucester's position

as 'lymyted protector,' as a contemporary ballad writer calls it,[1067]

had been at once a source of some strength to him and a point of attack

for his enemies. Throughout the period of the King's minority the

struggle had been for the control of the Council of Regency, Gloucester

asserting his privileges as Protector, Beaufort denying them and trying

to secure further limitations of his power. So the struggle had worn on

with varying success, till with Henry's coronation in 1429 the

Protectorate had come to an end. Thenceforward the contest had been

between the same parties on a somewhat different field. Henry, as he

gradually increased in understanding and knowledge, had been besieged by

Gloucester and Beaufort, each trying to influence him in his own favour,

and so it had continued till the great triumph of the Beaufort policy in

the release of the Duke of Orleans and the marriage of the King to

Margaret of Anjou. Hereafter the scene had changed. The Bishop of

Winchester had passed out of public life,[1068] leaving the control of

his party to his two nephews, John and Edmund, successively Dukes of

Somerset. The Earl of Suffolk, apart from the fact that he was the

ablest member of the Beaufort faction, is a negligible quantity in this

history of party division. On the other hand, the Duke of York had come

to the front as the opponent of the Beauforts and as a follower of Duke

Humphrey, though he never came anywhere near to supplanting the latter

as leader of the opposition to the existing state of government.

Throughout this long struggle, hostile as it was to the peace of the

kingdom and to the good government of either party, there had never been

on either side any suggestion of hostility to the House of Lancaster as

such. Were not both leaders members of that House, and were not their

best interests bound up with the preservation of the throne to Henry

VI.? The fall of the King would have meant annihilation for both of

them, and not for a moment had the possibility of such a thing occurred

to the rivals. They had forgotten the shakiness of the Lancastrian

House; they had forgotten the claims of York; they had forgotten that

the present Duke of York was the son of a condemned plotter against the

throne. Their rivalry had been merely one of ambitious men who strove

for the mastery, the one with the claim of seniority, the other with

the claim of a personal stake in the welfare of the kingdom. The story

of that long-protracted struggle is not creditable to either Beaufort or

Gloucester, though we must remember that the challenge had come from the

former, who was excluded from the succession and had no such claim to

have a preponderating influence in the kingdom as had the brother of

Henry V. The Cardinal Bishop of Winchester has appealed to the sympathy

of posterity by reason of his supposed constitutional attitude, but his

pose cannot be taken seriously. Keen to see his own advantage, he had

supported the rights of the Council merely as a means to curtail the

power of the Protector, and thereby increase his own, but whether we

take his constitutional attitude seriously or not, we must condemn his

policy. On the other hand, Gloucester inadvertently had stumbled on a

policy, which was the only possible one that could save England from

internal disorder. In claiming the fullest powers as Protector he had

probably no idea beyond asserting what he considered to be his just and

legal rights, and obtaining a position which would satisfy his ambitious

nature; but his policy was sound. The one hope for England was a

government concentrated in the hands of one man, who would not be

hampered by opposition at the very fountainhead of justice, who would be

able to deal out summary retribution to the wrong-doer. Under these

conditions the government of Henry VI.'s favourites would not have

become a byword in the country, and have given a handle to the rival

House of York.

Thus the rivalry of Beaufort and Gloucester was more personal than

political, in no sense was it dynastic, and though it weakened the hold

of the House of Lancaster on the country, yet in itself it did not

threaten the throne of Henry VI. Still less was this the case when the

Beaufort faction had won their final victory, and had definitely placed

Gloucester in permanent opposition, where he acted as safety-valve to

the reigning dynasty. Just as so many years later the House of Hanover

was strengthened by the opposition of successive Princes of Wales, so

did Gloucester's opposition secure the House of Lancaster. He, it must

be remembered, was heir to the throne, for the marriage of Henry VI. had

not yet produced a son who would supplant him. Round him the

discontented elements in the nation circled, the Duke of York and his

following owned him as their leader. In the country at large he was

still popular, and no faction could rise to drive Henry from his throne

with any prospect of success if it had not the support of 'the good Duke

Humphrey.' On the other hand, the Duke of York and his claim had to be

kept in the background so long as Gloucester stood as heir to the throne

and leader of the opposition to the maladministration of the governing

clique. Moreover, the adhesion of York to Gloucester's party was a

guarantee against civil war, for those two men who worked together had

totally antagonistic claims to the throne of England.

We have here the chief reason why the death of Humphrey was at the same

time the death-blow to the House of Lancaster. The Duke of York was not

dangerous so long as Humphrey lived, for though their interests in the

kingdom were divergent, they had acted together through the last years

of Beaufort's domination. Both alike had been excluded from the Council

of the King, and both alike had made common cause in the name of order

and a different policy. We have seen the various shifts which had been

used to minimise Gloucester's influence with the King, York had been

intrigued against by the Beauforts whilst in command in France, and

finally he had been sent off to Ireland, so that he could not make his

voice felt in the councils of the nation.[1069] His connection with the

King's uncle was of long standing. Gloucester had held the guardianship

of the lands that he inherited from the Earl of March, he had supported

him in 1437, when it was proposed to put the Earl of Warwick in his

place as Commander-in-Chief of the army in France,[1070] and he had

complained bitterly in his indictment of Cardinal Beaufort that the Duke

of York had been alienated from the King.[1071] In return for this the

Yorkist party had supported Gloucester in opposition; after his death

they helped to bring home the guilt of his murder to those who had

contrived it, and as soon as they obtained the ascendency they

vindicated his memory by a public act. In the Parliament which met after

the first battle of St. Albans, under the auspices of the Duke of York,

the question of Humphrey's good fame, which had often been

unsuccessfully mooted before, was again raised; a petition was framed by

the Commons asking the King, in remembrance of his uncle's services to

the Crown, and of the fact that he had been accused of treason by

certain wicked persons, to declare the aspersions cast on his good name

to be unfounded. This petition, quite spontaneous on the part of the

Commons, was taken up by the Duke of York, and by his help and favour it

was granted.[1072] This attitude on the part of York has its

significance. It was a declaration that the policy which he espoused,

the policy of good government and justice, was the policy of Humphrey;

it was a party cry too, an appeal to the favour of the people, who

believed that the good Duke had done his utmost for the good government

of the kingdom.

HAINAULT POLICY

When we come to examine the facts of the case, and the right which

Gloucester had to the reputation for good government, we must confess

that, though the adulation of the seventeenth-century chroniclers may

seem excessive, it is no more exaggerated than the obloquy which has

been heaped on his memory by more recent historians. His campaign in

Hainault and his whole policy in that matter, quite apart from his

behaviour to Jacqueline, is worthy of the heaviest censure. Blind to the

effects of his actions, he did nothing to minimise them when he had

tardily realised the possible alienation of Burgundy from the English

Alliance. He had allowed his personal interests and ambition to take

precedence of the advantage of his native country. Yet even here we must

reflect before we ascribe all the failures of the English in France to

his action. Signs are not wanting after the death of Henry that the Duke

of Burgundy was not the warm supporter of his English allies that he had

been in the past; the English also were not devoted to the Burgundian

alliance, the Earl Marshal made no objection to leading the Hainault

expedition, and the Earl of Salisbury, enraged by an outrage offered to

his wife, came over to offer his services to Gloucester.[1073] Nor did

the Council treat the matter very seriously. Humphrey on his return

received no reprimand, despite the statement to this effect by certain

foreign chroniclers. If Gloucester erred, he did so along with much of

the public opinion of his time, and had he proved more faithful to the

course he had undertaken, one might be inclined to judge his line of

action in Hainault less hardly. Nevertheless, apart from all matters of

foreign policy, he must be condemned for leaving his infant nephew at

home unguarded save by a man whom he most profoundly distrusted. This,

far more than the more obvious count of alienating Burgundy, must

condemn him in our eyes, if we look at the matter from his point of

view.

Apart from this lapse from honour and wisdom in his government of the

country as Protector, what shall we say of Gloucester's action in home

policy? To deny the evil effects of the struggle for power between

himself and the Cardinal Bishop of Winchester would be to blind

ourselves to a clear historical truth, but we must remember--and in the

light of the modern judgment on Humphrey it cannot too often be

reiterated--that the struggle did not originate with him. He claimed the

Protectorate as his right, even as Bedford did, and it cannot be said to

have been a more ambitious move on the part of the one brother than on

that of the other. It was the late King's wish that he should be

Protector, and it was a wise arrangement. He distrusted Humphrey's

capacity as a general with an independent command, but he had reason to

believe that the man who had governed England quietly and well for him,

was the proper person to whom to confide the kingdom during his son's

minority. Apart from that disastrous struggle for supremacy over his

uncle the Cardinal and his party, how did Humphrey comport himself as

Protector, and later as chief Councillor?

HOME POLICY

The details of Gloucester's home government are hard to extract from the

central theme of party strife, but more than once we find him the

fearless supporter of the arm of the law. The kingdom was in a state of

potential upheaval all through the period of his power. Henry IV. might

say to his son, when speaking of the crown of England:

'To thee it shall descend with better quiet,

Better opinion, better confirmation;

For all the soil of the achievement goes

With me into the earth.'[1074]

But this was not true of Henry IV.'s grandson. 'De male acquisitis non

gaudebit tertius heres,' quotes an old chronicler,[1075] and leaving the

ethics of the case aside, this was undoubtedly true of poor misguided

Henry VI. Ever since the feudal barriers which restrained the great

lords had begun to disappear, the too powerful subject had been a

problem to be faced. Henry IV. had found this when confronted with the

insurrection of the men who had helped to place him on the throne. The

wars of Henry V. had aggravated the danger by increasing the wealth of

the nobles, who made fortunes by means of the armed men they provided

for the King. With a minor on the throne this development became still

more dangerous, and Humphrey had to meet it. He did his best. The

pretensions of the Earl of March were nipped in the bud by his dismissal

to Ireland: later the quarrel which almost grew into a private war

between Norfolk and Huntingdon was interrupted by his action, and his

appearance in the neighbourhood doubtless restrained these lords. He

issued warnings against the use of retinues of unnecessary strength, and

took a personal interest in the precautions which were to ensure peace

between the lords who accompanied the King to France. His reputation as

an enforcer of the King's peace must have been great, for at the time

when power was slipping from his hands, his enemies agreed to his

appointment as Chief-Justice in South Wales, a difficult and unsettled

district, and he held the same office at Chester[1076] on the

border-land, where the work of the Justice can have been no sinecure. In

minor breaches of the peace, such as those of 1427, he showed himself

eager to put down all kinds of lawlessness, and by his prompt action he

nipped the movement of Jack Sharp in the bud, a movement which, in spite

of its insignificant appearance in the pages of history, might well have

developed into a rebellion against the House of Lancaster. In all these

instances it was by no deputed power that Humphrey enforced the majesty

of the law, but by personal exertions and visits to the centres of

disturbance.

Nothing bears greater testimony to the success of Gloucester's rule than

the change which came over the state of the country as soon as he was

driven from power. Under his government there had been disturbances,

but nearly always for some definite reason. When Beaufort became

supreme, however, the country degenerated steadily into anarchy, not on

account of personal claims or dynastic troubles, but simply because the

central government had lost all control over the people. In the west a

private war of some magnitude raged between the Earl of Devon and Sir

William Bonville, Wales was in revolt, York and Norwich were the scenes

of considerable disturbances, Northampton was at war with Lord Grey of

Ruthyn, riots occurred in London, Salisbury, and Derbyshire. Beaufort's

firm ally, Archbishop Kemp, was attacked by the men of his diocese and

the Earl of Northumberland, whilst to still further complicate affairs,

the finances were in an even worse state than when Gloucester was in

power.[1077] If Gloucester was not an ideal ruler, Beaufort and his

faction fell still further short of that ideal, and if we judge by

results, we must conclude that England was happier and better governed

under the ex-Protector, than under the party which supplanted him.

CHARGES OF OPPRESSION

Stern represser of revolt, and enforcer of the law, was Gloucester

himself a defaulter in these respects? Accusations to this effect there

are, but few and of doubtful importance. In Parliament, together with

other lords, he was complained of as illegally exacting the royal right

of purveyance,[1078] but his position as heir to the throne may form

some excuse for his action, and the complaint was made at a time when

his enemies were closing their coils around him. More detailed and

circumstantial is an account of how one John Withorne had his lands

seized by Gloucester, who claimed him as _nativus suus_, and was taken

off to spend the remaining seven years of his pretended master's life in

prison in Wales. At the end of that time, blind, decrepit, a wreck of

humanity, he was released by the order of the King.[1079] The story may

be true, but it dates from immediately after the death of Gloucester,

and looks suspiciously like an attempt by his enemies to justify their

opposition to him, a theory supported by the mention of Wales, that wild

land whence he was to lead his mythical hordes to dethrone the King, and

establish himself in his nephew's place. Further there are the charges

of undue severity imposed on prisoners recorded as part of his

indictment by some later chroniclers,[1080] but the strongest argument

against this and all other charges is to be found in the fact that there

are not the slightest signs of a genuine detailed indictment of the Duke

by his enemies, who had to rest content with poisoning the King's mind

with regard to his uncle. Nevertheless some truth may be found in the

story of the imprisoned villein, for rapacity was a vice which Humphrey

shared with his uncle of Winchester, and an anonymous chronicler tells

us how his wife Eleanor wrongfully deprived the Hospital of St. John of

Pontefract of certain lands belonging to them.[1081] This fact is

attested by a grant dated February 27, 1447, whereby certain lands in

Norfolk, including the Manor of Sculthorpe, lately belonging to

Gloucester, were given to the Hospital of St. John,[1082] and when we

remember that Sir Robert Knollys, the founder of this institution, lived

and died at the manor-house of Sculthorpe, the probability of the charge

becomes a certainty.

Only one other complaint do we find of Gloucester's behaviour, and that

is by the unknown continuator of the Croyland chronicle, who complains

that, when interviewing the Protector on several occasions with regard

to a lawsuit with the men of Spalding, the Abbot of that monastery was

harshly and unjustly treated by him.[1083] That this means anything

more than that the Abbot failed to substantiate his case we may well

doubt; at all events, even were all these charges true, they are but a

mild indictment of a man who lived in the first half of the fifteenth

century amidst so many temptations to excess, a man, too, against whom

any accusations would have been welcomed by the faction in power during

the last few years of his life.

Before concluding this estimate of his public character as Protector and

heir to the throne, let us remember that, when issuing an edict

forbidding certain lords to come to Parliament with too extensive

retinues, he named Huntingdon among the number, a man who supported him,

and consequently found himself neglected and estranged from the King in

the days when Humphrey made his famous protest against the

administration of the Bishop of Winchester. Personal motives, therefore,

did not always overrule his sense of justice; it cannot be for nothing

that Gloucester earned the title of the 'Good Duke,'[1084] and it is

impossible to believe that he would have been so popular with the

people, if he had been guilty of frequent acts of oppression. Taken with

the facts of his career, it is more likely that this popularity sprang

not from a mere charm of manner, but from the fact that he alone of the

great men of his time tried to curb the licence of the nobles and the

depredations of the lawless. He was not the inspirer of disturbances,

nor the author of the Wars of the Roses. By his very existence he was

what Sandford calls 'a grand prop of the Red Rose tree,'[1085] and

this--strange paradox--by reason of his alliance with the leader of the

White Rose cause. Gloucester was not the first Yorkist--his instincts

and his interests alike prevented this; he was not the subverter of the

Lancastrian dynasty. On the contrary, it was his death that created the

Yorkist party, and paved the way for the downfall of his nephew.

TRIBUTE OF GLOUCESTER'S SERVANTS

Humphrey was no traitor to his King, nor enemy of his father's House,

quite the reverse. He had done services to his country, which are

forgotten amid the factious surroundings of his career. Biassed though

they may be, there is much to be said for the truth of the statements

made in the lament put into the mouths of his followers, when they had

buried their master. 'Now,' they cried, 'the right hand of the King has

gone, the right arm of his strength has withered, he has lost him, who

in the day of his necessity was both wall and rampart to him. Who but

his uncle put down internal risings against the throne when they

occurred, or went forth to fight, when enemies from without threatened

him? He at last has laid aside his arms, and has retired to that region

where there is peace and rest, and sorrow is no more. Who but the Duke

of Gloucester, during the King's infancy, drove the Duke of Burgundy

from Picardy? Who but that Duke, during the same King's boyhood, brought

the enemies of the Cross of Christ to destruction? Who but he, in the

King's full age, gave peace to the people in every quarter? Who but he,

in a word, throughout the King's nonage, was his faithful foster-father

and foster-mother alike? And now he is said to be a traitor, he who in

the past had so many opportunities to do that which he is accused of

doing in the present. Nay, that accusation is a lie most false, devised

by those greedy devourers, who kill virtue when it is exalted, and who

seek occasion to suffocate the innocent, that they may increase their

plunder! Wherefore shall we his servants, who moved in the same

surroundings as he, who were cognisant of all his secrets, who knew all

his actions, shall we then allow a prince so illustrious, a duke so

tireless in doing his duty, a soldier so trusty and prudent, one too

guiltless of any crime, to be thus torn by dogs, thus stung by

scorpions? Be this thought far from us and from those who favour justice

and piety, for the great Duke himself both loved, nurtured, and enforced

justice, and it is a pious work to champion one who can no longer

defend himself.'[1086]

Such is the one estimate of Gloucester's services to the body politic,

but we must not look merely on one side of the picture. Humphrey claimed

to guide the ship of state, and in many cases his policy was right, and

his actions were just, but he lacked that touch of greatness which might

have lifted him above the wrangles of party politics. His statesmanship

was at fault. He had no power of gauging a man's worth, or weighing a

policy in the balance. He rushed blindly into a compromising war at

Hainault, a position from which there was no retreat, and he cut but a

sorry figure when he abandoned the whole enterprise. He could not

sustain a definite line of action, and drive steadily to the end he had

in view. He complicated his policy with too many endeavours, and brought

none of them to good effect. He could not keep an unswerving course, as

Protector, or disassociate himself from the tricks of party warfare; in

opposition he could not maintain a steady attack, but contented himself

with fitful outbursts of impotent wrath.

WAR POLICY

Yet, apart from this, his policy had a consistency which his actions

lacked. When the second stage of the Hundred Years' War was about to

begin, he adopted an attitude which he maintained throughout his life.

He then voted against the Burgundian alliance; at St. Omer he showed his

dislike of such an alliance in the scant courtesy with which he treated

the Count of Charolais; he defied the same Count when Duke of Burgundy

with an animosity both personal and political; he encouraged the

defiance which England flung at this same Duke after the congress of

Arras; he resisted the release of Orleans partly because it was a

Burgundian suggestion. Again, in 1415, he favoured an Armagnac alliance,

and we find him voicing the same principle when it was a question of a

marriage for Henry VI. with a daughter of the Armagnac or Angevin House.

In the matter of the war, too, he was consistent to the extent of folly.

His active life had begun in the French wars; he had accompanied his

brother Henry V. on his expeditions to France. Henceforth he accepted

the war as part of his political creed, and would not move one

hair's-breadth therefrom. At a time when no useful advantage could be

gained by the prolongation of hostilities, he opposed the wise, pacific

movement of Cardinal Beaufort, and did much to defame his political

character with posterity by this dogged persistence of principle. Yet he

could not devise a scheme for carrying on the war, and though he offered

to undertake the command, he did not persist in his suggestion.

There is a possible view of Gloucester's war policy, which may explain,

if not justify, his attitude. In a political poem of the period, well

known as the 'Libel of English Policy,' the principle, that command of

the narrow seas was necessary for the safety of English commerce, is

insisted on at some length.[1087] This command, it is to be presumed,

was only to be maintained by a secure hold on both sides of the Channel,

and the continuance of the war was considered necessary for this

purpose. Calais, however, even in those days, was a sufficient guarantee

for the openness of the Channel; but the supposition that trade

considerations had their influence on Gloucester's war policy is

strengthened by his well-known connection with trade interests in the

country. His popularity with the Londoners must have taken its origin

from this side of the Duke's policy, and from certain discussions at the

Parliament at Leicester in 1426 it seems likely that the riotous

tendencies in London, that led to the garrisoning of the Tower in 1425,

had some connection with a movement against foreign traders in the

capital.[1088] Gloucester, it will be remembered, had supported the

Londoners in their objections to the garrison, and we may perhaps deduce

from this a tendency to, what we may call, an 'All British Policy,' a

trace of the modern Jingo politician. Humphrey had other connections

besides this with the trading interests in the country. He had some

intercourse with the weavers of York,[1089] and his wife was interested

at one time in a petition from one of the glovers of that city.[1090] We

also find a letter addressed to Gloucester during the reign of Henry VI.

from an English merchant at Amiens, asking for his protection in matters

commercial.[1091] The Duke had realised the strength of that new power

which was arising in England, the power of the middle classes, the

traders, and herein he foreshadowed the subsequent commercial policy of

the first Yorkist King.

* * * * *

Gloucester began life as a soldier, he ended it as a politician. In the

first capacity he showed ability to adapt himself to the new methods of

warfare. His military skill was greater than subsequent historians have

realised; he was a trusted Captain of Henry V.'s army, and was specially

skilful in the management of a siege--the story of his attack on

Cherbourg is a sufficient guarantee of his power in this sphere. But

again his lack of persistency marred an otherwise promising talent, and

as an independent general, save in short, detached expeditions, he was a

dismal failure, coming near to be suspected of downright cowardice. But

it is as a politician that he will be remembered, as the man who

struggled with Cardinal Beaufort, the man whose ambition led him to

demand what his fellows would not grant him. The world of politics was

the scene of Gloucester's greatest failure, for a failure his life

certainly was. A man with more strength of character would have risen

triumphant over the difficulties placed in his way, he would have

secured the substance, if not the appearance of power. As it was, his

ambition, his craft, his domineering instincts were called into play,

and all the petty weaknesses of his character came to the front. We

follow him from one poor shift to another, all aimed at satisfying his

desire to be supreme over his rival. Herein lies the tragedy of his

life. A man of great abilities, and destined by birth to take a

prominent part in the affairs of his country, he nevertheless wasted his

life in an endeavour to satisfy his personal ambitions. He cast aside

the splendid opportunity to rise triumphant over opposition, and in a

world of pigmies he failed to dominate them by his personality. He was

not that great man who 'aiming at a million misses an unit'; he was not

even that low man who 'goes on adding one to one.' He spent his life and

his abilities in aiming at the petty gratification of his lust for

power, and in so doing failed to grasp the grand opportunity of being

the saviour of the Lancastrian dynasty.

* * * * *

ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY

No comprehensive view of Gloucester's policy can be attained without

some reference to his relations with the various ecclesiastical bodies

and the church problems of his time. Above all things, through thick and

thin, in the midst of the vagaries of a lax life, and the uncanonical

marriage that he made with Jacqueline, he was essentially orthodox. His

seventeenth-century biographer spends much time in combating this

opinion, and states that from his youth up he 'favoured those that hold

the opinion of Wickliff';[1092] indeed at the end of the treatise it is

evident, that its main object is to prove that its hero was the morning

star of the Reformation. This contention is obviously absurd. 'Amator

virtuties et rei publicæ, sed principue clericorum promotor

singularis'[1093] is the character given to Humphrey by a contemporary,

who therein gave utterance to the opinion of his day. It could hardly be

otherwise. As a boy the future Duke of Gloucester had been surrounded by

those whose orthodoxy was part of their political programme. Henry IV.

had snatched his crown from the head of Richard, who was strongly

suspected of Lollardy, and he resolutely refused to comply with the

movement in favour of remitting the statutes passed against the

Lollards.[1094] His successor had adopted the rôle of God's messenger to

the wicked Frenchmen, and had kept up his part all through his campaign,

so much so that in 1418 he had retired to Bayeux to keep Lent, whilst

his brothers fought his battles for him. In earlier years, too, as

Prince of Wales, he had played the missionary to heretical

criminals.[1095] No wonder, then, that Humphrey adopted the orthodox

attitude of his House, and was punctilious in the performance of his

religious duties.[1096]

[Illustration: A PAGE FROM THE DUKE OF GLOUCESTER'S PSALTER.]

ORTHODOXY

Gloucester was not only orthodox himself, but also a stern opponent of

the Lollards, and more than once we have seen him following the example

of his brother Bedford, who as Regent condemned Oldcastle to death, and

executing summary justice on those who attacked the Church. In this he

doubtless looked to the political as well as the religious side of the

Lollard movement, but this only confirms the fact, that his private

opinion and the interests of the dynasty alike impelled him to adopt a

strictly orthodox attitude. The story of the condemnation of his wife

may seem to some to contradict this statement, but whether Gloucester

had any part in the witchcraft or not, it was not in those days

impossible to combine the grossest superstition with the strictest

orthodoxy. That Humphrey dabbled in alchemy and astrology there is no

doubt, but he did so in company with the monks of the strictly

orthodox House of St. Albans.[1097] It was after the disgrace of

Eleanor Cobham that the University of Oxford wrote, that the greatest

splendour attaching to his name came from his persistent suppressions of

the enemies of Holy Church,[1098] and when dedicating his _Commentary on

Genesis_ to his patron, Capgrave did not hesitate to call him 'the most

glorious defender of the Faith and diligent extirpator of

heresies.'[1099] Moreover, it was not only in England that Gloucester

owned a reputation for orthodoxy, for when writing to him on behalf of

Pier Candido Decembrio, the Archbishop of Milan, devoted about half his

letter to bewailing the strife and dissension within the Church, ending

with a fervent appeal that his correspondent would use his influence to

restore peace, since he was known everywhere as the chiefest friend and

preserver of Holy Church.[1100]

With regard to Humphrey's marriage to a lady who already possessed a

husband, we must remember that a very plausible and strictly legal case

was made out against the legality of her earlier marriage. We have no

evidence that an answer to Gloucester's argument was ever filed, and the

history of the proceedings at Rome, where Robert Sutton and Vincent

Clement represented his interests,[1101] points to the fact that the

legal aspect of the case was never given a thought, and that the whole

matter was decided by intrigue and personal considerations. The long

delay in giving a decision convicts Martin V. of neglecting the rights

and wrongs of the case, for had it been a mere matter of law, no such

delay was necessary.

THE POPE AND PRÆMUNIRE

The secret history of these negotiations at Rome is unknown, and will

probably never be revealed, but subsequent events point strongly to the

intervention of Beaufort influence. The key to the whole matter is to be

found in a quarrel which began some years later between the Pope and the

Archbishop of Canterbury. The Bishop of Winchester was no stranger to

Martin V.; indeed, the Pope had every reason to be grateful to one who

had had no small share in his election, for it was the arrival of Henry

Beaufort at Constance, when the College of Cardinals could come to no

decision, that turned the tide in favour of Oddo Colonna. An intimacy

probably sprang up between the two, and the Pope was anxious to bestow a

Cardinal's hat on his friend, but this Henry V. refused to allow. We

hear no more of Beaufort's ecclesiastical ambitions during the rest of

this reign, but when troubles and disturbances began to surround the

Court of the younger Henry, then Beaufort was to the fore. He had not

lost touch with the Court of Rome, and it cannot be doubted that his

handiwork may be seen in a letter which in 1427 the Pope wrote to

Archbishop Chichele. Martin V. had exalted ideas as to the importance of

the papal power, and on this occasion he wrote in severe terms with

regard to the existence of the statute of Præmunire, which limited his

powers in England. Chichele was not blind to the meaning of this attack,

which blamed him for placing patriotism to his country before loyalty to

his Church.[1102] In his reply he did not beat about the bush, but

plainly told the Pope that both the Duke of Gloucester and he himself

had been maligned, if His Holiness regarded them as hostile to him in

any way whatsoever. He added that were he able to undertake the journey

he would gladly visit Rome, and explain the evil intentions of that

faction which was attempting to drive him from his See.[1103] It was

useless for the Pope to retort with increased anger that Chichele had no

right to introduce the name of his 'beloved son Humphrey, Duke of

Gloucester,' as no charge had been made against him.[1104] The inference

is obvious. The faction of which the Archbishop complained was clearly

the Beaufort party, else Gloucester would not have been mentioned as

sharing the brunt of the attack made upon him. Chichele had not the

unlovely graces and deceptions of diplomacy, and he retorted frankly to

the spirit and not to the letter of the papal communication that he had

received.

Moreover, the Pope was at the same time harassing the Duke on the same

subject. In a letter, dated October 13 of this same year, he complained

bitterly of the ill treatment and imprisonment which his Nuncio and

Collector, John de Obizis, had experienced in England, and he declared

that he understood that the Protector was the instigator of these

proceedings. Beaufort had doubtless stirred up this cause of quarrel,

and was also at the bottom of the demands with which the letter

concluded. Martin asserted that the King had promised to call a

Parliament to consider 'the execrable statute against ecclesiastical

liberty,' and urged Gloucester, as next in importance to the King, to

use his influence on the side of repeal.[1105] Thus was Humphrey drawn

into the quarrel, and though it would seem that he tried to pacify the

Pope by releasing the papal collector,[1106] there are no signs that he

abandoned his old friend Chichele on the question of Præmunire. The tone

of the papal letter addressed to the Protector, though couched in civil

language, contains a decided threat, especially when we remember that

the case of Jacqueline's divorce was still pending at Rome. It is

therefore impossible to doubt from the evidence before us that the

attack on Humphrey and the offenceless Archbishop was the work of the

Bishop of Winchester, meant to serve his own personal ends, and to

gratify his political ambitions in England.

The excuse and foundation for this attack on Archbishop Chichele are not

far to seek. The Bishop of Lincoln had been recently translated to the

See of York by papal provision, and had been indicted for accepting this

promotion under the statute of Præmunire. However, he had come to terms

with the Lords of the Council, and in return for a promise to stay all

proceedings against him and to reappoint him to the See of Lincoln, he

had agreed to renounce all claims to the See of York, and to do his

utmost to expedite the cause of the Duke of Gloucester at the Court of

Rome, the cause being the divorce of Jacqueline, as yet undecided.[1107]

This action on the part of the Council had enraged the Pope and annoyed

Beaufort, the former because the statute of Præmunire had been employed

to curb his power in England, the latter because it spoke of the

influence which his rival had over the Council. Moreover, the Bishop had

no desire to see the objectionable statute made use of against himself,

for he had just been nominated a Cardinal for the second time,[1108] and

was looking for a favourable opportunity to accept the honour without

incurring the penalties of the law, penalties which would incur not only

loss of power in the kingdom, but also the forfeiture of all those

worldly possessions which he loved so dearly. He therefore used this

opportunity for his advantage, and urged the Pope to attack Chichele,

and through him Gloucester, who, with characteristic cunning, was not

mentioned in the accusing letter.

The details of the struggle are, from Gloucester's point of view,

unimportant, as his name was sedulously excluded from the later stages

of the controversy. Blustering epistles and the threat of an interdict

shook Chichele's resolution, but the nation stood firm, and beyond the

personal satisfaction of having caused the Archbishop considerable

anxiety, Martin gained nothing by his interference.[1109] Not so the

Beaufort faction. The compromise with regard to the See of York was

finally settled by the appointment of John Kemp, Bishop of London, a man

who had made some show of friendship for Gloucester,[1110] but who was

to join the party of his opponents before very long; besides this, the

Bishop of Winchester was ultimately enabled, by means of the influence

exercised on Bedford, to accept the cardinalate without incurring the

penalties of Præmunire.

RELATIONS WITH PAPACY

In connection with this episode in the struggle between Gloucester and

Beaufort, a correspondence, which took place between Humphrey and the

Pope in the year 1424, may have some bearing. The Duke complained that

one, Simon da Taramo, papal collector in Ireland, had been traducing him

to the Pope, and he had also exchanged letters with Simon on the

subject. Simon declared that he had a complete answer to the

charge,[1111] but he had undoubtedly meddled in Jacqueline's divorce

suit, and seemingly had made unauthorised promises in the name of

Gloucester, possibly at the instigation of Beaufort.[1112] It is likely,

though no definite opinion can be given on the subject, that this

complaint made by Humphrey had some connection with the later attack on

Archbishop Chichele, and that the intrigues of Beaufort were first

levelled direct at his chief rival, and then diverted into fresh

channels in an attempt to reach this rival through his friend and

supporter. In detail the story is obscure, but the deduction is

obvious. Regardless of the national spirit, which had asserted the

independence of the Anglican branch of the Church Catholic from undue

papal interference from the very earliest days of English history,

Beaufort had entered into alliance against the long-established

ecclesiastical liberties of England; he had disregarded the patriotic

scruples of other great Englishmen, and had embarked on a policy in

which patriotism was subordinated to private interest. Are we to blame

Humphrey if he tried to prevent the government of the kingdom from

falling into the hands of such an one as this? On the other hand,

Gloucester himself had adopted a line of action in accordance with the

accredited policy of England, he had shown himself the upholder of a

method of procedure in which orthodoxy refused to yield to patriotism,

even as earlier he had caused Martin V. to complain of his lack of

energy in procuring the Archdeaconry of Canterbury for another papal

nominee.[1113] This attitude was not chosen with any idea of gaining

popularity in the kingdom, for he did not thrust his share in the

quarrel to the front, and was content to limit his action to quiet,

unobtrusive resistance to papal claims.[1114]

Later in life we see Gloucester's interest in matters ecclesiastical

exemplified in his relations to the Council of Basel.[1115] On July 4,

1437, he wrote a letter to the Council telling them of the excellent

manner in which their emissaries had conducted themselves in England,

and of the despatch with which he had secured an audience for

them.[1116] Though strife was running high at the time between Pope and

Council, their disputes had not yet reached the last extremity, so we

cannot deduce from this evidence that Humphrey supported the Council

against the Pope. Probably he was slow to withdraw the sympathy he felt

for the Council, for we find a letter written to him in the following

February by Eugenius IV., setting forth the reasons of his action in

summoning the Council to sit at Ferrara,[1117] which would lead one to

believe that he was trying to convert his correspondent to his views.

However, there seems no reason to doubt that Gloucester's hereditary

orthodoxy led him to follow the example of the English King, who

protested strongly against the action of the Council in refusing to

acknowledge the Pope,[1118] and at a later date referred to the 'rageous

demenyng of theyme of Basyle.'[1119]

RELATIONS WITH MONASTIC HOUSES

Humphrey's ecclesiastical interests were mainly devoted to the monastic

foundations of England. He was a member of the Fraternity of St. Edmund

at Bury;[1120] it was to him that the Priory of Launceston appealed

when, in 1430, there arose a dispute on the election of their

Prior,[1121] and from him also the Prior of Binham Abbey sought support

when the Bishop of Norwich found cause of complaint against that

foundation.[1122] In this last case Wheathampsted, the famous Abbot of

St. Albans, had acted as intermediary between the Prior and the Duke,

since Bynham was a cell of St. Albans, and it was with this man, and the

Abbey over which he ruled, that Gloucester had the most intimate

connection of all.

The Abbey of St. Albans was one of the most fashionable monastic

establishments in England. Queen Joan was accustomed to visit it from

her palace at Langley; the Duchess of Clarence--Gloucester's

sister-in-law--was its friend and patroness, and was received into its

Fraternity; Cardinal Beaufort visited it more than once, and was

received with processions and rejoicings as befitted a prince of the

Church; the Earl of Warwick, too, was here nursed by the monks through

an attack of tertian fever.[1123] But Gloucester was the most consistent

visitor of all; we have frequently seen him entertained by the

monastery; he and his two wives were admitted to the Fraternity, and at

one time he resided at the Manor of the Weald, on the hill close by,

which at the present time practically corresponds to the parish of St.

Stephen's.[1124] From time to time he gave costly presents to the Abbey,

and even in 1436 these had assumed considerable proportions. He had made

eight distinct presentations, mostly of vestments and hangings for the

altar, culminating in the gift of a shrine with a figure of the Virgin

bearing her Son in her arms in the centre, and several figures grouped

around standing on an ornamental pedestal, all surmounted by the

Crucifixion, with the Virgin and St. John standing on either side.[1125]

Besides gifts to the Abbey, Humphrey gave some of his goods into the

keeping of the monks, and at the time of his death many of his jewels

were found in their hands.[1126] The presents were not all on his side;

we find many entries in the accounts of the monastery recording payment

made to the Duke and to his retainers at the time when the renewal of

the charter of the Abbey was procured through his mediation with the

King.[1127] Soon after this Wheathampsted resigned the Abbey, but before

long Humphrey was summoned as chief patron to adjudicate between the

late Abbot and his successor, John Stoke, since they had quarrelled over

the former's right of maintenance out of the revenues of the

Abbey.[1128] After the retirement of Wheathampsted there is no recorded

visit of Gloucester to the Abbey; he seems to have been there for the

last time to celebrate the renewal of the Charter in 1440; but he did

not forget the monastery of his choice, and less than four years before

his death he bequeathed to it the alien Priory of Pembroke, in return

for which masses were to be said for his soul and for that of Eleanor

his wife.[1129]

ST. ALBANS MONASTERY

As we have seen, it was in St. Albans Abbey that Gloucester found his

last resting-place, in a tomb built for him before his death by Abbot

Stoke at the considerable cost of £433, 6s. 8d.[1130] The tomb is still

to be seen at the south side of the shrine of St. Alban, and though

considerably mutilated on the north face, it still remains a very fine

specimen of Perpendicular workmanship. It bears Humphrey's arms with

supporters, and the canopied niches above have once held figures, still

to be seen on the south side, but impossible to identify, more

especially as they seem to have been moved from their original places.

It is possible that they are meant to represent the royal benefactors of

the Abbey, most of whom would be in some way related to Humphrey. In

1703, while digging a grave for Mr. John Gape, the vault of the tomb was

discovered, and the Duke's body was found 'preserved in a kind of

pickle' and enclosed in coffins of lead and wood.[1131] The tomb and

body became thenceforth one of the sights of the place, and Lady Moira

recounts that in 1747 she 'took from the skull of Humphrey, Duke of

Gloucester, in his vault at St. Albans Abbey a lock of hair which was so

perfectly strong that I had it woven into Bath rings.'[1132] Others were

no more particular about spoiling the dead than Lady Moira, and in 1789

only the lead coffin and bones were left,[1133] and even some of the

last have been removed, and are to be found in the possession of private

persons. There are still some of the remains of Humphrey, Duke of

Gloucester, lying in the vault in which they were reverently laid by

those who knew and who loved him, and there still may be seen the faded

remains of a picture of the Crucifixion painted on the wall at the foot

of the coffin.

PRIVATE CHARACTER

Of Gloucester's personal appearance we have little information. No

contemporary gives us any description of him, and though we have some

fairly authentic portraits, they are not sufficiently definite to give a

clear conception of his personality.[1134] The utmost we can be sure of

is that he had a somewhat emaciated face, and was clean shaven. His

countenance, so far as we can know it, bears no sign of his

individuality, and we must fall back on the scanty notices of the

chroniclers for a description of his character. Later generations

regarded Humphrey almost as a saint; he is eulogised in the pages of

Camden;[1135] all the virtues he obviously lacked are attributed to him

by Holinshed;[1136] Hall and Sandford unite in calling him the father of

his country;[1137] his biographer, John Cooper, not to be outdone,

declares that he was a 'miracle of wisdom and goodness.'[1138] There

seems to have been no divided opinion on the subject, probably due to

his undoubted popularity with the people, and a writer who was perhaps

born soon after the Duke's death speaks of his 'honourable fame' and of

his 'liberalite.'[1139] Amongst his contemporaries, too, there is no

lack of praise for his merits, though the unrestrained style of later

centuries is modified. Mathieu de Coussy declares him to be the wisest,

most powerful, and best loved prince in all England,[1140] and even

Waurin, the follower of the Duke of Burgundy, turns aside from his

account of the quarrel of Gloucester and Duke Philip, to say, 'car pour

verité, sans personne blasmer, il estoit prince de grant virtu, large,

courtois sage et très vaillant chevallier de corps, hardy de

ceur.'[1141] Wheathampsted, his friend and supporter, was possibly

biassed in his favour when he says:

'Fidior in regno Regi Duce non fuit isto.

Plus ne fide stabilis, aut maior amator honoris.'[1142]

It cannot be doubted that Humphrey had many knightly qualities, and that

there are many actions in his life which may be regarded as creditable,

if not great. His personal character was spoilt by an entire lack of

concentration and purpose. He had no philosophy of life, and no

substitute for one. He accepted certain canons of policy and conduct,

but could not live up to them, and this weakness was entirely due to the

taint in his moral character which made him the victim of his passions.

A weakness in itself, this indulgence drained all the life-blood from

his actions, and increased year by year his inability to carry out a set

purpose. He became more and more a producer of high-flown phrases, which

sounded large and meant little owing to the lack of power behind them.

This was especially evident in those sporadic bursts of energy during

the last few years of his life, and there is much truth in the verdict

of Pope Pius II., who declared him to be more suited to a life of

letters and lust than to a life of arms, and accused him of never

justifying his vast pretensions and of caring more for his life than

for his honour.[1143] This unfavourable summary of his character was

provoked by Humphrey's actions in Hainault, and therefore was made under

circumstances most unfavourable to him, and at a moment when his

conflict with the canon law would colour the judgment of a papal writer.

Nevertheless, Pius II. with unerring instinct placed his finger on the

weak spot in the Duke's character, and laid stress on just that element

which spoilt his whole life.

CHARACTER

Equally to the point is the sketch given by an anonymous chronicler who

wrote in England, one that bears the impress of truth from its obvious

impartiality, and sums up the situation in the best possible manner.

'Duke Humphrey excelled all the princes of the world in knowledge, in

comeliness of appearance and in fame, but he possessed an unbalanced

mind, was effeminate and given over to sensual pleasures, a tendency

which vitiated all his actions, prompted though they were by his many

other good qualities. Moreover, he did not desist from his sensual

indulgences either at this present time (the time of his marriage to

Eleanor), or in the future, for which he received his due reward.'[1144]

There could be no juster estimate of the man. That he had exhausted

himself by indulgences, even as early as his twenty-fifth year, is

established by the testimony of his physician Kymer,[1145] though too

much emphasis may be laid on this dietary, for Humphrey was probably

passing through a stage very common to young men in his position. To

expect strict morals from him in the age in which he lived is to create

a public opinion which did not exist, and we must remember that both his

brothers Thomas and John left illegitimate children. Nevertheless, much

of that instability of character which wrecked his life may be traced

to indulgence in his besetting sin, an indulgence which seemed excessive

even to his contemporaries, and it may well have been with his great

patron in his mind that Lydgate penned the words:

'Loke wel aboute, ye that lovers be;

Let not your lustes lede you to dotage.'[1146]

We must not gather from Humphrey's volatile nature that he had no strong

affections; even as he had a hatred of the Duke of Burgundy, so had he,

in spite of his infidelities, a strong affection for his second wife. He

did not forget her even after her disgrace, and set out on his last

journey to Bury in the hope of obtaining her release from prison. She

had been his evil genius since the day he met her among the ladies of

Jacqueline. Ambitious and haughty, she had mixed in affairs of

state,[1147] she had performed illegal acts, the effects of which were

felt by her husband, and in her disgrace she brought the heaviest blow

that had yet fallen upon him. She left no legitimate issue, but she may

have been the mother of the two children who called Humphrey father. The

son, Arthur, was one of those arrested at Bury, but neither before nor

after this is there any trace of him.[1148] Of the daughter we know

more. In accordance with her father's classical tastes she was named

Antigone, and in 1437 she married Henry Grey, Earl of Tankerville, a

peer of no importance, who was never summoned to Parliament.[1149] Their

son dropped the title, and the last of the line married the daughter of

Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk.[1150] Antigone survived her husband,

and a year after his death we find her the wife of Jean d'Amancier,

Esquire of the Horse to Charles VII of France.[1151] It is a strange

paradox that Humphrey's daughter should marry a man in the service of

the King with whom he had advocated an endless war.

Besides incontinence, there are other blots on the Duke's private

character, and they also had their influence on his public career. If he

was not habitually oppressive, he was none the less rapacious. His

expenses as a prince who loved display, and a patron who kept many

scholars in his service, were very great, and he never lost an

opportunity of adding to his rent-roll, or of securing money by other

more dubious methods. We have seen him accepting a heavy bribe from the

Abbey of St. Albans for his services in securing for them a renewal of

their charter; in his earlier days he had accepted another bribe from

the Earl of Berkeley for his good offices with Henry V. in obtaining the

Castle of Berkeley for that Earl;[1152] he tried to use his powerful

position and the value of his protection to induce the Prior of Ely to

disburse money for the Hainault campaign;[1153] and the Cinque Ports, of

which he was Warden, had to pay him in hard cash for the renewal of

their charter from the King.[1154] His rapacity in an age which produced

Cardinal Beaufort was not unique, yet it shows a lack of restraint, and

explains how much the tendencies of his private character moulded his

career as a statesman.

Together with rapacity Humphrey harboured a pride which dictated many of

his most unfortunate actions, and this pride was closely connected with

an impetuosity which led him to discard wisdom for the pleasures of the

moment. In battle he exposed himself to every danger, and even his

epistolary style became infected with this characteristic, for in

speaking of Simon da Taramo he alludes to the 'venomous suggestion of

this second Judas.'[1155] All through his life Gloucester was governed

by his emotions, and he always obeyed the impulse of the moment, were it

good or bad. Thus his love of order and his disgust at any kind of

outrage so possessed him when he discovered that his retainers had been

poaching at St. Albans, that he seized the nearest weapon to his hand

and belaboured one of the wretched criminals as he sat in the

stocks.[1156] Indeed the secret of the Duke's character lay in the

preponderating influence his emotions possessed over every action of his

life. This partly explains his unstable nature, and accounts for his

high-flown ideas and ill-considered plans, but when the power of the

emotion had passed, all the vitality had gone from his undertakings. His

emotions took him to Hainault, and their reaction produced his failure;

his emotions produced those fitful attacks on his great rival Beaufort,

but were not enough to construct for him a definite policy. The energy

of his life all went to waste, because there was no strength of will to

control his impressionable nature. Yet there were times when this

impetuosity led to good results as well as to ill. It helped him to

quell all tentative efforts at sedition, it kept him going in his

warlike undertakings when they were not too prolonged; above all, it

enabled him to broaden his interests, and to embrace the life of a

patron of letters as well as that of a soldier and a politician. Yet

sometimes he was able to restrain his ardour. During the Côtentin

expedition he showed unexpected determination, and on occasions he could

try persuasion when force was useless. The man who could burst into fits

of rage under the influence of political disappointment, and jeopardise

the safety of his country for the whim of the moment, could also stoop

to argue with an irate prelate, and 'doff his cap' to the Bishop of

Norwich when interceding for the liberties of the Prior of Binham.[1157]

The man who is governed by his emotions is seldom worthy of respect, but

he has a charm which is all his own. This charm Gloucester undoubtedly

possessed. Though in many ways a sore trial to Bedford, he did not lose

his brother's affection till an impetuous outburst produced a quarrel,

which was never healed. All through the Hainault trouble the French

Regent had borne with his brother, and his letters had shown affection

even when they found fault. Even after the Parliament of Leicester he

had manifested a tactful feeling for his brother's tastes, and had sent

him a beautifully adorned volume from the famous royal library of

France.[1158] Others who had been brought into close contact with Duke

Humphrey were warm in their praise of him; Wheathampsted and his St.

Albans friends were faithful to him even after his death.[1159] The

Bishop of Bayeux spread glowing reports of his generosity and kindliness

throughout Italy, as is attested by more than one Italian

humanist,[1160] and his personal charm exerted a strong influence on

such men as Piero del Monte. This last spoke in warm terms of the happy

intercourse he had had with the Duke of Gloucester while in

England,[1161] and it was not therefore mere fulsome flattery which made

Lapo da Castiglionchio declare that in conversation he was courteous and

kind, and in every walk of life affable and genial.[1162] We have more

than one indication of the goodness of Humphrey's heart, apart from the

possibly suspect statements of admirers, and it was no mere caprice that

made him befriend the unhappy Queen Joan, who was left to eke out a

life of honourable detention totally neglected by all the other

prominent personages in the kingdom.

As we turn the last page of Humphrey's political life, it is with a

feeling of regret that we remember his career. We see brilliant

abilities and immense possibilities for useful work all thrown away

because the fire of genius burnt only in fitful gleams. Moral stamina

was denied to an otherwise promising character, and the concentration

which might have moulded his life's work into a useful policy was

lacking. He had done nothing to carry England further along the

high-road to strength and fame, he had lived in a decadent age and had

been overwhelmed by the spirit of his times. Yet his life was not in

vain. No man has left a greater mark on the progress of English thought

than this Duke Humphrey, and in the realm of ideas, whither we must now

follow him, he did the good work he failed to do in the realm of action.

FOOTNOTES:

[1022] Whethamstede, i. 179.

[1023] Hardyng, 400. Another rhymer of the same period says:

'For shame and anguishe off whiche jealousy

It toke hym sone after and soo lowe brought hym dawne

That in short while after it caused hym to dye.'

Rawlinson, MS., Classis, C. 813, f. 12vo.

[1024] _Chron. Henry VI._, 34.

[1025] _Eng. Chron._, 63. Cf. _Polychronicon_, f. 338vo. _Short Eng.

Chron._, 65, says, 'And sone after he disseyed, the sykness

howe God knoweth.'

[1026] _Lond. Chron._, 135.

[1027] Waurin, v. 3. Cf. _Hist. Croyland. Contin._, i. 521.

[1028] Mathieu de Coussy, 30; Basin, i. 190. The latter adds that a

report that he died of natural causes was circulated to

disarm suspicion.

[1029] _Rot. Parl._, v. 226.

[1030] Gregory, 189.

[1031] It is possible that this second allusion to Gloucester's

death is the work of Gregory's continuator.

[1032] Stow's _Memoranda_, 97, evidently the transcript of an

original document. Cf. Stow (_Annales_), 390, and also a

proclamation by Jack Cade at the same time. 'It is a hevy

thynge that ye good Duke of Gloucester was apeched of treason

by a fals traytour alone, and so was murderyd and might never

come to his answer.' Stow's _Memoranda_, 95.

[1033] 'The Dyrge of the Commons of Kent,' printed in _Three

Fifteenth Century Chronicles_ (Camden Series), p. 103.

[1034] Gregory, 193.

[1035] _Political Songs_, ii. 224.

[1036] _Eng. Chron._, 88.

[1037] _Political Songs_, ii. 268.

[1038] _Brief Notes_, 149.

[1039] He is said to have finished his chronicle in 1493.

[1040] Fabyan, 619.

[1041] See, for instance, Polydore Vergil, 73; Hall, 209; Leland,

_Collectanea_, I. ii. 494; Speed, 622; Weever, _Ancient

Funeral Monuments_, 555; Tanner, _Bibl. Brit._, 421;

Sandford, _Genealogical Hist._, 309. Cf. Cotton MS.,

Vitellius, A. xvi. f. 210.

[1042] See Kymer's _Dietarium_ in _Liber Niger Scaccarii_, ii.

550-559. Cf. Sharon Turner, ii. 299, note 35.

[1043] George Chastellain, _OEuvres_ (ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove,

Bruxelles, 1865), vii. 87.

[1044] Ramsay, ii. 76, giving as a reference _Eng. Chron._, 118 (the

account of Fox), says, 'It is more material to point out that

two Chaplains and twelve gentlemen of the Household remained

with Gloucester through his illness and followed him to his

grave.' The writer quoted does not say this, he merely states

that these retainers followed the body to St. Albans, and it

is definitely established by Cotton MS., Vitellius, A. xvi.

f. 105, that all Gloucester's servants were removed from

attendance on him after his arrest. This is not contradicted

by the assertion that some of them followed him to the grave

after his death. It may be noticed, by the way, that the

account of Fox is not quite accurate, for he places Richard

Nedam among the mourners who followed the coffin, a man who

was then under arrest at Winchester, and later condemned to

death and reprieved.

[1045] Second Part of Shakspeare's _King Henry VI._, Act III. Scene

ii.

[1046] _Rot. Pat._, 25 _Henry VI._, Part ii. m. 1.

[1047] Stow's _Memoranda_, 95.

[1048] Fabyan, 619.

[1049] Waurin, v. 4; Mathieu de Coussy, 30; Basin, i. 190. Cf.

_Chron. Henry VI._, 34.

[1050] Suffolk as his share of the plunder received the title of

Earl of Pembroke with some of Gloucester's possessions in

South Wales, including Pembroke, Tenby, and Kilgerran

Castles; _Lords' Reports_, v. 254, 255; _Cal. Rot. Pat._,

285. He was also created Chamberlain; _Rot. Pat._, 25 _Henry

VI._, Part ii. m. 35. The same membrane gives his appointment

as Constable of Dover and Warden of Cinque Ports in

succession to Gloucester, but another membrane gives the

appointment of Lord Saye de Sele to this office on the same

day, which is more probably the effective gift; _Rot. Pat._,

25 _Henry VI._, Part ii. m. 1. Margaret's share consisted of

the Manor of Middleton and the Hundreds of Middleton and

Merden, the Castle and Lordship of Colchester and the Hundred

of Tendring, the Castle, Town, and Lordship of Marlborough,

with the forest of Savernake and the office of Constable of

Gloucester Castle. All these had belonged to Humphrey. Rymer,

V. i. 170. See also _Duchy of Lancaster Accounts (Various)_,

Bundle v. No. 8.

[1051] _Rot. Parl._, v. 132.

[1052] _Inquisitiones Post Mortem_, 25 _Henry VI._, No. 26, m. 8;

_Rot. Pat._, 25 _Henry VI._, Part ii. m. 1 and m. 35; Rymer,

V. i. 170. Another grant of Gloucester's possessions was made

on February 27; _Rot. Pat._, 25 _Henry VI._, Part i. m. 5.

[1053] Ellis, _Letters_, 2nd Series, i. 108. Gregory, 188, says 38

servants.

[1054] So Rymer, V. i. 179, but Gregory, 188, says July 14 at

Westminster.

[1055] Rymer, V. i. 179; _Cal. Rot. Pat._, 290; Gregory, 188; _Short

Eng. Chron._, 65; Leland, _Collectanea_, I. ii. 494.

[1056] _Eng. Chron._, 62. Eleanor was at this time imprisoned in

Wales, so the accusation may have seemed plausible at first;

_Brief Notes_, 154.

[1057] See list of prisoners in Ellis, _Letters_, 2nd Series, i.

108.

[1058] _Statutes of the Realm_, ii. 344.

[1059] _Chron. Henry VI._, 33.

[1060] Mathieu de Coussy, 30.

[1061] Gregory, 188; Richard Fox, 118; _Short Eng. Chron._, 65. For

pardons see Rymer, V. i. 179, and _Cal. Rot. Pat._, 290, 291.

Cf. _Excerpta Historica_, 281-390.

[1062] Richard Fox, 118.

[1063] Fabyan, 619.

[1064] Mathieu de Coussy, 30.

[1065] _Polychronicon_, f. 338vo. Whethamstede, i. 182, says much

the same thing.

[1066] _Political Songs_, ii. 268. Cf. Leland, _Collectanea_, I. iv.

494.

[1067] Rawlinson MS., Classis, C. 813, f. 126.

[1068] His last recorded presence at the Council Board was in June

1443.

[1069] _Chron. Henry VI._, 35; Waurin, iv. 353, 354; _Ordinances_,

vi. 89.

[1070] Beaucourt, iii. 10.

[1071] See above, p. 262.

[1072] _Rot. Parl._, v. 335; Whethamstede, i. 181. Cf. Speed, 667.

[1073] Stow, 365, puts this event as the first sign of the breaking

up of the Burgundian alliance.

[1074] Shakespeare's Second Part of _King Henry IV._, Act IV. Scene

v.

[1075] Waurin, ii. 423.

[1076] Harleian MS., 139, f. 206; _Rot. Pat._, 5 _Henry VI._, Part

ii. m. 16.

[1077] For this state of anarchy and distress see Ramsay, ii. 51-53.

[1078] _Rot. Parl._, v. 115.

[1079] _Rot. Parl._, v. 448.

[1080] Polydore Vergil, 72; Holinshed, iii. 211.

[1081] _Chron. Henry VI._, 30.

[1082] _Rot. Pat._, 25 _Henry VI._, Part i. m. 5 and m. 19.

[1083] _Hist. Croyland. Contin._, i. 517.

[1084] Gregory, 188.

[1085] Sandford, _Genealogical History_, 309.

[1086] Whethamstede, i. 179-181. A free translation of the Latin

original. For a like opinion, cf. Rastell, 262.

[1087] _Political Songs_, ii. 157, 205.

[1088] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 300, 301.

[1089] _Accounts (Exchequer Q. R.)_, Bundle 515, No. 7.

[1090] _Ancient Correspondence_, vol. lvii. No. 97.

[1091] _Ibid._, vol. xliv. No. 40.

[1092] Holkham MS., p. 27.

[1093] William of Worcester, 463.

[1094] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._ ii. 283.

[1095] _Ibid._, ii. 282.

[1096] Cf. _St. Albans Chron._, i. 31, _et passim_.

[1097] See Ashmole MSS., 1796, in the Bodleian Library, a book

dealing with astrological subjects, written at St. Albans.

[1098] _Epist. Acad._, 217. It is perhaps worth noticing that when

addressing letters to Bedford and Gloucester in support of

the candidature of Thomas Chace to the Bishopric of Meath,

the University of Oxford dwelt at some length in the letter

to Gloucester on the energy with which this man, when

Chancellor of the University, had extirpated heresy, but did

not allude to this favourable trait in his character to

Bedford; _Epist. Acad._, 105. This would seem to imply that

Gloucester's orthodoxy was known to be more rigid and

unbending than that of Bedford.

[1099] Oriel MS., xxxii. f. 1vo.

[1100] Durham MS., C. iv. 3, f. 7.

[1101] _Paston Letters_, i. 24; _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 223.

[1102] Wilkins, _Concilia_, iii. 471.

[1103] Wilkins, _Concilia_, iii. 472.

[1104] _Ibid._, iii. 473.

[1105] _Papal Letters_, vii. 36.

[1106] A papal collector was released from the Tower in 1427. _St.

Albans Chron._, i. 16, 17.

[1107] _Ordinances_, iii. 211.

[1108] May 24, 1426. See Creighton's _Papacy_, ii. 158.

[1109] The letters exchanged are to be found in Wilkins's

_Concilia_, iii. 471-486. See also Creighton's _Papacy_, ii.

158, 159, and Hook's _Lives of the Archbishops of

Canterbury_, v. 91-103.

[1110] See _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 281.

[1111] See various letters in _Beckington Correspondence_, i.

279-284.

[1112] _Papal Letters_, vii. 29.

[1113] _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 284, 285.

[1114] However, Wheathampsted, Gloucester's friend, wrote to Martin

V. excusing the Archbishop's conduct, Cotton MS., Claudius,

D. 1, f. 1, and 1vo.

[1115] He was evidently interested in the conciliar movement, for

among his books was a volume containing records of all the

doings, both public and secret, at the Council of Constance.

Cotton MS., Nero, E. v.

[1116] Martène and Durand, _Amplissima Collectio_, viii. 816, 817.

Cf. Harleian MS., 826, f. 15.

[1117] Add. MS., 26, 784 f. 30vo.

[1118] _Beckington Correspondence_, ii. 37.

[1119] See Henry's justification of the release of Orleans,

Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 451-460.

[1120] Register Curteys, in _Archæologia_, xv. 70, 71.

[1121] Tanner MS., 196, f. 40vo.

[1122] Amundesham, _Annales_, i. 308.

[1123] _St. Albans Chron._, _passim_.

[1124] Newcome, _Hist. of the Abbey of St. Albans_, 510.

[1125] Amundesham, _Annales_, ii. 189, 190.

[1126] _Ibid._, i. 65; _Rot. Parl._, v. 307.

[1127] Amundesham _Annales_, App. A, ii. 265; App. D, ii. 295. Cf.

Arundel MS. 34, ff. 66vo, 67, and Whethamstede, i. 26.

[1128] Amundesham, _Annales_, App. B, ii. 278-290.

[1129] Charter printed in Dugdale's _Monasticon_, ii. 244, 245;

Whethamstede, i. 94.

[1130] Cotton MS., Claudius, A. viii. f. 195. Gough, in his addition

to Camden's _Britannia_, i. 348, wrongly attributes the

building of this tomb to Wheathampsted.

[1131] Camden's _Britannia_ (Gough's additions), i. 348; Grainger's

_Biographical History of England_, i. 121.

[1132] _Archæologia_, viii. 104.

[1133] Camden's _Britannia_ (Gough additions), i. 348.

[1134] See App. E.

[1135] Camden's _Britannia_, ii. 73.

[1136] Holinshed, iii. 211, 212.

[1137] Hall, 212; Sandford, _Genealogical Hist._, 308. They follow

Polydore Vergil.

[1138] Holkham MS., p. 63.

[1139] Fabyan, 619.

[1140] Mathieu de Coussy, 30.

[1141] Waurin, iii. 214.

[1142] Whethamstede, i. 183.

[1143] _Pii Secundi Pontificis Maximi Commentarii_ (Rome, 1584),

414.

[1144] _Chron. Henry VI._ A paraphrase of the original Latin.

[1145] See his Dietary printed in _Liber Niger Scaccarii_, 552-559.

Cf. Hearne MS. Diary, cxvii. ff. 136, 137, and cxvii. f. 37;

Sharon Turner, ii. 299, _n._ 35.

[1146] 'A Ballade: Warning men to beware of Deceitful Women,' by

John Lydgate. Printed in _Chaucerian and other Pieces_,

edited by W. W. Skeat as a supplement to _The Complete Works

of Chaucer_.

[1147] _Ancient Correspondence_, vol. lvii. No. 97.

[1148] _Chron. Henry VI._, 30.

[1149] Sandford, _Genealogical Hist._, 311; Brooke's _Catalogue of

the Nobility_, 170; Doyle, iii. 511.

[1150] Dugdale, ii. 284.

[1151] List of letters of legitimisation printed in Beaucourt, v.

331.

[1152] _Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire

Archæological Society_, iii. 308; Dugdale, i. 362. Dugdale

quotes an old MS. in Berkeley Castle as his authority.

[1153] MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Ely, _Hist. MSS. Rep._, xii.

App. IX. 95.

[1154] MSS. of the Corporation of Hythe, _Hist. MSS. Rep._, iv. 435.

[1155] _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 279.

[1156] _St. Albans Chron._, i. 139.

[1157] Amundesham, _Annales_, i. 308.

[1158] Bibliothèque de Sainte Geneviève, MS. français, 777.

Inscription on last folio.

[1159] Whethamstede, i. 179.

[1160] See Chapter IX.

[1161] Bodley MS., 3618. f. 2.

[1162] _Cod. Laurentiano_, Plut., lxii. 30, f. 2.