REBELLION OF NORTHUMBERLAND AND BARDOLF. -- EXECUTION OF THE
ARCHBISHOP OF YORK. -- WONDERFUL ACTIVITY AND RESOLUTION OF THE KING.
-- DEPLORABLE STATE OF THE REVENUE. -- TESTIMONY BORNE BY PARLIAMENT
TO THE PRINCE'S CHARACTER. -- THE PRINCE PRESENT AT THE COUNCIL-BOARD.
-- HE IS ONLY OCCASIONALLY IN WALES, AND REMAINS FOR THE MOST PART IN
LONDON.
1405-1406.
Whilst the Prince was thus exerting himself to the utmost in keeping
the Welsh rebels in check, the King resolved to go once again in person
to the Principality with as strong a force as he could muster; and with
this intention he set forward, probably about the end of April. On the
8th of May he was at Worcester, when he was suddenly informed of the
hostile measures of his enemies in the north. The preface to "The Acts
of the Privy Council" gives the following succinct and clear account
of the proceedings:--"The most memorable event in the sixth year of
Henry IV. was the revolt, in May 1405, of the Earl Marshal, Lord Bardolf,
and the Earl of Northumberland, who had been partially restored to the
King's confidence after the death of his son and brother in (p. 208)
1403.[203] Henry was at that moment at Worcester; and the earliest notice
of the rebellion is contained in a letter from the council to the King,
which, after treating of various matters, concluded by stating that they
were then just informed by his Majesty's son, John of Lancaster, that
Lord Bardolf had privately withdrawn himself to the north; at which they
were much astonished, because the King had ordered him to proceed into
Wales. To guard against any ill consequences which might arise from
this suspicious circumstance, the council instantly despatched in the
same direction Lord Roos and Sir William Gascoyne, the Chief Justice,
as the individuals in whom the King placed most confidence; and,
thinking that Henry might be in want of money, the council borrowed
and sent him one thousand marks. With his accustomed promptitude and
activity, the King lost not a moment in setting off for the north, to
meet the rebellious lords in person; and on the 28th of May he wrote
to his council from Derby, acquainting them with the revolt, and (p. 209)
desiring them to hasten to him at Pomfret with as many followers
as possible."
[Footnote 203: A review of this "aged Earl's"
behaviour, from the first occasion on which he is
introduced to our notice in these Memoirs to the
day of his death, supplies only a melancholy
succession of acts of broken faith. On the 7th of
February 1404, before the assembled estates of the
realm, on receiving the King's pardon for the past,
he most solemnly swore upon the cross of Canterbury
to be true and faithful to his sovereign Henry IV:
he "swore also, on the peril of his soul, that he
knew of no evil intentions on the part of the Duke
of York, or of the Archbishop; and that the King
might place full trust and confidence in them as
his liege subjects."]
The Editor of the Proceedings of the Privy Council says nothing of Scrope,
Archbishop of York, who had risen in open rebellion against the royal
authority; but we cannot pass on without some notice of him. Early in
June, King Henry laid hands on that unfortunate prelate, surrounded by
followers, and armed in a coat of mail; and he commanded Gascoyne, who
was with him, to pass sentence of death upon his prisoner in a summary
way. The Chief Justice refused,[204] with these words: "Neither you,
my lord the King, nor any of your lieges acting in your name, can
lawfully, according to the laws of the kingdom, condemn any bishop to
death." The King then ordered one Fulthorp to sentence him to
decapitation, who forthwith complied; and the Archbishop was carried
to execution with every mark of disgrace, on Whitmonday, June 8th.
Many legends shortly became current about this warlike prelate, who
was one of the most determined enemies of the House of Lancaster. Of
the stories propagated soon after his death, one declares that in the
field of his last earthly struggle the corn was trodden down, and
destroyed irremediably, both by his enemies, who were preparing for
his execution, and by his friends and poor neighbours, who came (p. 210)
to weep and bewail the fate of their beloved chief pastor. The Archbishop,
seeing the destruction which his death was causing, spoke with words
of comfort to the multitude, and promised to intercede with heaven
that the evil might be averted. The field, continues the story, brought
forth at the ensuing harvest six-fold above the average crop. The same
page tells that the King was smitten with the leprosy in the face on
the very hour of the very day in which the Archbishop was beheaded.
The manuscript adds, that many miracles were shown day by day by the
Lord at the tomb of this prelate, to which people flocked from every
side. The enemies of the King endeavoured to exalt this zealous son of
the church into a saint; and to propagate the belief that the King's
disease, which never left him, was a signal and miraculous visitation
of Heaven, avenging the foul murder of so dauntless a martyr.[205]
[Footnote 204: Gascoyne does not appear to have
been even suspended from his office in consequence
of his refusal to sentence the Archbishop; he
continued Chief Justice till after the King's
death.]
[Footnote 205: Sloane, 1776.]
Pope Innocent, in the course of the year, sent a peremptory mandate to
the Archbishop of Canterbury to fulminate the curse of excommunication
against all those who had participated in the prelate's murder: but
the Archbishop did not dare to execute the mandate; for both the King
and a large body of the nobility were implicated more or less directly
in Scrope's execution, and must have been involved in the same general
sentence. The King, on hearing of the decided countenance thus (p. 211)
given by the Pope to his rebellious subjects, despatched a messenger
to Rome, conveying the military vest of the Archbishop, and charged
him to present it to his Holiness; delivering at the same time, as his
royal master's message, the words of Jacob's sons, "Lo! this have we
found; know now whether it be thy son's coat, or no." A passage in
Hardyng seems to imply that, during the life of Henry IV, the devotions
of the people to this warrior bishop were forbidden; for he records,
apparently with approbation, the permission granted by his son Henry
V, to all persons to make their offerings at the shrine of their
sainted prelate:
"He gave then, of good devotion,
All men to offer to Bishop Scrope express,
Without letting or any question."
"Before the end of the next month (June),[206] Henry was engaged in
besieging the Earl of Northumberland's castles; and in a letter to the
council, dated Warkworth, on the 2nd of July, he informed them that
Prudhoe Castle had immediately surrendered: but that the Castle of
Warkworth, being well garrisoned, refused to obey his summons; the
captain having declared as his final answer that he would defend it
for the Earl. The King had therefore ordered his artillery to be brought
against it, which were so ably served, that at the seventh (p. 212)
discharge the besieged implored his mercy, and the fortress was delivered
into his hands on the 1st of July. All the other castles had imitated the
example of Prudhoe, excepting Alnwick, which he was then about to attack."
[Footnote 206: This is extracted from the Preface
of Sir Harris Nicolas, p. 56.]
"The exhausted state of the King's pecuniary resources," continues the
Preface, "and the distress endured by the soldiers and others engaged
in his service, are forcibly shown by the letters of the Prince of Wales,
the Duke of York, and others. The Duke of York, and his brother
Richard, described their retinues in Wales as being in a state of
mutiny for want of their wages; and the Duke had evidently made every
personal sacrifice within his power to satisfy them. He entreated them
to continue there a few weeks longer, authorised them to mortgage his
land in Yorkshire, pledged himself "on his truth, and as he is a true
gentleman," not to receive any part of his revenues until his soldiers
were paid, and promised that he would not ask them to continue longer
than the time specified. Every source of income seems to have been
anticipated; and it is scarcely possible to conceive a government in
greater distress for money than was Henry IV's at this point of time.
Nothing but the wisdom and indomitable energy for which that monarch
was distinguished could have enabled him to surmount the difficulties
of his position; and the facts detailed in this volume[207] entitle
Henry to a high rank among the most distinguished of European (p. 213)
sovereigns both as a soldier and as a statesman. No sooner had he
suppressed rebellion in one place than it showed itself in another;
and, for many years, the Welsh could barely be kept in check by the
presence of the Prince of Wales and a large army. By France he was
constantly annoyed; and, if he was not actually at war with the
Scotch, it was necessary to watch their conduct with great anxiety and
suspicion. To add to his embarrassment, the great mass of his own
subjects were tempted to revolt by the distracted condition of the
country, by the existence of the true heir to the throne, and by
reports that their former sovereign was yet alive. Henry's treatment
of them was necessarily firm, but conciliatory. He dared not recruit
his exhausted finances by heavy impositions on the people; and the
generous sacrifices made by the peers to avoid so dangerous an
expedient had reduced them to poverty."
[Footnote 207: The Acts of the Privy Council.]
Such is the clear and able representation given to us of the state of
the kingdom at large, and of the difficulties with which Henry IV. and
his supporters had to struggle, whilst Henry of Monmouth was exerting
himself to the very utmost in repressing the rebels in Wales.[208] His
means were, indeed, very limited; he seldom had a "large army" (p. 214)
at his command; and his measures were lamentably embarrassed by the
exhausted state of the treasury. The King endeavoured from time to
time, in some cases successfully, at others with a total failure, to
remedy these evils, and to supply his son with the power of acting in
a manner worthy of himself, and the importance of the enterprise in
which he was engaged. On the 31st of May he despatched a letter to his
council from Nottingham, which contains many interesting particulars;
whilst the total inability of his ministers to comply with his
directions speaks very strongly of the trying circumstances in which
the Prince was trained. The King begins by reminding the council that
it was by the advice of them and other nobles, and the commons of the
realm, that the defence of Wales was committed to his very dear and
beloved son the Prince, as his lieutenant there; at the time of whose
appointment it was agreed, that since he had in his retinue a certain
number of men-at-arms and archers, though for the protection of the
realm, yet living at his expense, he should receive a certain
proportion of the subsidy voted at the last parliament. The King then
representing to them the vast mischiefs which would befal the marches,
and by consequence the whole realm, if the rebels were not effectually
resisted, strictly charges and commands his council, with all possible
speed to make payment in part of whatever the Prince was to receive
from the King on that account. And though the Prince had under him (p. 215)
the Duke of York living there for the safeguard of the country,
nevertheless the King desired that the money paid for the whole
country of Wales should be put wholly and exclusively into the hands
of the Prince himself, to be employed and disbursed at his discretion,
with the advice of his council. The reason for this last order he
alleges to be the assurance given to him that the sums on former
occasions paid to others under the Prince for his use had not been
expended properly to the profit of the marches, nor agreeably to the
intention of the King and council. He ends his letter by enjoining
them, for the love they bore to him, and the confidence he placed in
them, to pay hearty attention to this subject. Notwithstanding this
urgent appeal, the council reply that the assignments already made,
and the payments absolutely indispensable, together with the failure
of the supplies, would not suffer them to meet his wishes. This answer
was written on a Monday, probably the 8th of June. On the 12th we find
the King (it may be, to make some little compensation for this
disappointment,) assigning to the Prince, in aid of his sustentation,
the castle and estates of Framlyngham, which had fallen to the crown
by forfeiture from Thomas Mowbray.
[Footnote 208: The extraordinary distress of the
King from the want of pecuniary means cannot be
questioned: though (independently of taxes and
subsidies) large sums must have been flowing into
the royal treasury, as well from the immense
possessions belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster, as
from the forfeited estates of the rebels. Still the
King's coffers were drained.]
The rapid movements of the King in those days of incessant alarm are
quite astonishing. Just as in the battle of Shrewsbury he impressed
the enemy with an idea of his ubiquity throughout the whole field, (p. 216)
so at this time, from day to day, he appears in whatever part of the
kingdom his presence seemed to be most needed. On the 7th of August he
was at Pontefract, whither tidings were brought to him that the French
admiral, Hugevyn, had arrived at Milford to aid the Welsh rebels; and
he sent a commission of array to the sheriff of Herefordshire to meet
him. On the 4th of September[209] we find him at Hereford, attended by
many nobles and others, where he issued a warrant to raise money by
way of loan, to enable him to resist the Welsh.
[Footnote 209: Rymer's Foed.]
In less than three weeks from this time the King was resident near
York, and promulgated an ordinance on the 22nd of September to the
sheriffs of Devon and other counties to meet him on the 10th of October
at Evesham; the body of this ordinance contained a very interesting
report which the King had received from "his most dear first-born
son," Henry Prince of Wales, whom he had left in that country for the
chastisement of the rebels. "Those," he says, "in the castle of
Llanpadarn have submitted to the Prince, and have sworn on the body of
the Lord, administered to them by the hands of our cousin Richard
Courtney, chancellor of Oxford, in the presence of the Duke of York,
that if we, or our son, or our lieutenant, shall not be removed from
the siege by Owyn Glyndowr between the 24th October next coming at
sunrising, and the Feast of All Saints the next to come (1st (p. 217)
November), in that case the said rebels will restore the castle in the
same condition; and for greater security they have given hostages.
Wishing to preserve the state and honour of ourself, our son, and the
common good of England, which may be secured by the conquest of that
castle, (since probably by the conquest of that castle the whole
rebellion of the Welsh will be terminated, the contrary to which is to
be lamented by us and all our faithful subjects,) we intend shortly to
be present at that siege, on the 24th of October, together with our
son, or to send a sufficient deputy to aid our son. We therefore
command you to cause all who owe us suit and service to meet us at
Evesham on the 10th of October."
Towards the close of this year we are reminded again of the deplorable
state of the King's revenue, by the urgent remonstrance of Lord Grey
of Codnor, and the recommendation of the council in consequence. Lord
Grey complained that he could obtain no money from the King's receivers,
though they had warrants and commands to pay him: that he had pawned
his plate and other goods; and that, without redeeming them, he could
not remove from Caermarthen to Brecon.[210] He then prays that (p. 218)
means may be adopted for payment of his debts and the wages of his men,
if the royal pleasure was for him to remain in those parts, or else to
allow him to be excused. The council advise the King to make him
Lieutenant of South Wales and West Wales, considering his vast trouble
in bringing his people from England; to direct payment to be made to
him from the revenues of Brecknock, Kidwelly, Monmouth,[211] and
Oggmore, belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster; and to grant him the
commission to be Justice of those parts during the time of his
lieutenancy. He was appointed lieutenant on the 2nd of December 1405,
and continued so till the 1st of February 1406. The council also
complained that the people of Pembrokeshire had not done their duty in
resisting the rebels, and recommended the King to charge Lord Grey to
make inquisition of the defaulters.[212]
[Footnote 210: In the Minutes of a previous
Council, probably in the spring of 1405, Lord Grey
is directed to take charge of Brecon with forty
lances and two hundred archers, and of Radnor with
thirty lances and one hundred and fifty archers.]
[Footnote 211: The council inform the King that the
council of his Duchy had made an exception of the
lordship of Monmouth, which should bear the most
substantial of all the assignments.]
[Footnote 212: On the 3rd of March 1406, the
Commons speak of those castles in Wales "which,
with God's blessing, might be hereafter reduced."]
In the following year, on the 22nd of March 1406, Henry Beaufort Bishop
of Winchester, was commissioned to treat anew for a marriage between
Prince Henry and some "one of the daughters of our adversary of
France." But the negociation seems to have failed. On the 18th of this
month permission was given by the King to Edmund Walsingham to (p. 219)
ransom his brother Nicholas. The document gives a brief but most
significant account of the treatment which awaited Owyn's captives.
Walsingham, who was taken prisoner near Brecknock, was plundered and
kept in ward in so wretched and miserable a state that he could
scarcely survive. His ransom was to be 50_l._[213]
[Footnote 213: MS. Donat. 4596.]
On the 3rd of April the Commons prayed the King to send his honourable
letters under his privy seal, thanking the Prince for the good and
constant labour and diligence which he had, and continued to have, in
resisting and chastening the rebels.
On the 5th of April a commission was given by the King to Lord Grey
and the Prior of Ewenny to execute "all contracts and agreements[214]
made by the Prince our dear son, whom we have appointed our Lieutenant
of North and South Wales, and have authorized to receive into
allegiance at his discretion our rebels up to the Feast of St. Martin
in Yeme."[215]
[Footnote 214: The Minutes of Council, at the end
of March or the beginning of April, record a
recommendation that the fines of the rebels as well
as the rents and issues from their land, be
expended on the wars in Wales: and John Bodenham
was appointed comptroller of these fines.]
[Footnote 215: St. Martin in the winter.]
Very few events are recorded as having taken place through this spring
and summer which tend to throw light on the character or proceedings
of Henry of Monmouth. He remained in Wales, probably without (p. 220)
leaving it for any length of time. The crown had been already settled
upon him and his three brothers in succession; but on the 22nd of
December this year, in full parliament, at the urgent instance of the
great people of the realm, the succession was again limited to Henry
the Prince and his three brothers, and their heirs, but not to the
exclusion of females.
The French made a more feeble attempt to assist Glyndowr, in 1406,
with a fleet of thirty-six vessels, the greater part of which was
shipwrecked in a storm.[216] They had been more successful on their
former invasions of Wales: but they found in that wild and
impoverished country little to induce them to persevere in a struggle
which promised neither national glory nor individual profit; and they
left Owyn to drag out his war as he best could, depending on his own
resources.
[Footnote 216: The French about this time made a
sort of piratical attack on the Isle of Wight.]
It is with unalloyed satisfaction that we are able to record the
testimony which the Commons of England at this time, by the mouth of
their Speaker, bore to the character of Henry of Monmouth. It may seem
strange that no use has been made of this evidence by any historian,
not even by those who have undertaken to rescue his name from the
aspersions with which it has been assailed. The tribute of praise and
admiration for his son, then addressed to the King on his throne, (p. 221)
in the midst of the assembled prelates, and peers, and commons of the
whole realm, is the more valuable because it bears on some of those
very points in which his reputation has been most attacked. The vague
tradition of subsequent chroniclers, the unbridled fancy of the poet,
the bitterness of polemical controversy, unite in representing Henry
as a self-willed, obstinate young man, regardless of every object but
his own gratification, "as dissolute as desperate," under no control
of feelings of modesty, with no reverence for his elders, discarding
all parental authority, reckless of consequences; his own will being
his only rule of conduct, his own pleasures the chief end for which he
seemed to live. These charges have been adopted, and re-echoed, and
sent down to posterity with gathered strength and confirmation, by our
poets, by our historians, civil and ecclesiastical, by the ornaments
of the legal profession,--even one of our most celebrated Judges
adding the weight of his name to the general accusation. It is not the
province of this work to vindicate the character of Henry from charges
brought against him: truth, not eulogy, is its professed object, and
will (the Author trusts) be found to have been its object not in
profession only. But, before the verdict of guilty be returned against
Henry, justice requires that the evidence which his accusers offer be
thoroughly sifted, and the testimony of his contemporaries, solemnly
given before the assembled estates of the realm, must in common (p. 222)
fairness be weighed against the assertions of those who could have had
no personal knowledge of him, and who derived their views through
channels of the character and purity of which we are not assured. The
evidence here offered was given when Henry was towards the close of
his nineteenth year.
The Rolls of Parliament record the following as the substance of the
opening address made by the Speaker, on Monday, June 7, 1406, "to the
King seated on his royal throne." "He made a commendation of the many
excellencies and virtues which habitually dwelt [reposerent] in the
honourable person of the Prince; and especially, first, of the humility
and obedience which he bears towards our sovereign lord the King, his
father; so that there can be no person, of any degree whatever, who
entertains or shows more honour and reverence of humbleness and
obedience to his father than he shows in his honourable person.
Secondly, how God hath granted to him, and endowed him with good heart
and courage, as much as ever was needed in any such prince in the
world. And, thirdly, [he spoke] of the great virtue which God hath
granted him in an especial manner, that howsoever much he had set his
mind upon any important undertaking to the best of his own judgment,
yet for the great confidence which he placed in his council, and in
their loyalty, judgment, and discretion, he would kindly and graciously
be influenced, and conform himself to his council and their (p. 223)
ordinance, according to what seemed best to them, setting aside
entirely his own will and pleasure; from which it is probable that, by
the grace of God, very great comfort and honour and advantage will
flow hereafter. For this, the said Commons humbly thank our Lord Jesus
Christ, and they pray for its good continuance." Such is the preface
to the prayer of their petition that he might be acknowledged by law
as heir apparent.
It may be questioned, after every fair deduction has been made from
the intrinsic value of this testimony, on the ground of the complimentary
nature of such state-addresses in general, whether history contains any
document of undisputed genuineness which bears fuller or more direct
testimony to the union in the same prince of undaunted valour, filial
reverence and submission, respect for the opinion of others, readiness
to sacrifice his own will, and to follow the advice of the wise and
good, than this Roll of Parliament bears to the character of Henry of
Monmouth. And when we reflect to what a high station he had been
called whilst yet a boy; with what important commissions he had been
intrusted; how much fortune seems to have done to spoil him by pride
and vain-glory from his earliest youth, this page of our national
records seems to set him high among the princes of the world; not so
much as an undaunted warrior and triumphant hero, as the conqueror of
himself, the example of a chastened modest spirit, of filial (p. 224)
reverence, and a single mind bent on his duty. To all this Henry added
that quality without which such a combination of moral excellencies
would not have existed, the believing obedient heart of a true Christian.
This last quality is not named in words by the Speaker; but his immediate
reference to the grace of God, and his thanks in the name of the
people of England to the Almighty Saviour for having imparted these
graces to their Prince, appear to bring the question of his religious
principles before our minds. Whilst in seeking for the solution of
that question we find other pages of his history, equally genuine and
authentic, which assure us that he was a sincere and pious Christian,
or else a consummate hypocrite,--a character which his bitterest
accusers have never ventured to fasten upon him.[217]
[Footnote 217: The Author must now add with regret,
that even hypocrisy has been within these few last
years laid to Henry's charge most unsparingly; with
what degree of justice will be shewn in a
subsequent chapter.]
* * * * *
On the same day, June 7, 1406,[218] the Commons pray that Henry the
Prince may be commissioned to go into Wales with all possible haste,
considering the news that is coming from day to day of the rebellion
of the Earl of Northumberland, and others. They also, June 19, (p. 225)
declare the thanks of the nation to be due to Lord Grey, John Greindore,
Lord Powis, and the Earls of Chester and Salop. Henry probably returned
to the Principality without delay; but there is reason to infer that,
towards the autumn of this year, Owyn Glyndowr felt himself too much
impoverished and weakened to attempt any important exploit; resolved
not to yield, and yet unable to strike any efficient blow. The Prince
was thus left at liberty to visit London for a while; and, on the 8th
of December 1406, we find him present at a council at Westminster.
This council met to deliberate upon the governance of the King's
household; which seems to have drawn to itself their serious attention
by its extravagance and mismanagement.[219] They requested that good
and honest officers might be appointed, especially a good controller.
They even recommended two by name, Thomas Bromflet and Arnaut Savari;
and desired that the steward and treasurer might seek for others. (p. 226)
They proposed also that a proper sum should be provided for the household
before Christmas. The council then proceeded to make the following
suggestion, which probably could have been regarded by the King only
as an encroachment on his personal liberty and prerogative, a severe
reflection upon himself, and an indication of the unkind feelings of
those with whom it originated. "Also, it seems desirable that, the
said feast ended, our said sovereign the King should withdraw himself
to some convenient place, where, by the deliberation and advice of
himself and his council and officers, such moderate regulations might
be established in the said household as would thenceforth tend to the
pleasure of God and the people."
[Footnote 218: Stowe relates, that the King about
this time, in crossing from Queenborough to Essex,
was very nearly taken prisoner by some French
vessels. He avoided London because the plague was
raging there, in which thirty thousand persons
died.]
[Footnote 219: This dissatisfaction had been
expressed in no very gentle language by the Commons
in Parliament on the 7th of the preceding June, the
very day on which they speak in such strong terms
of the good and amiable qualities of the Prince.
Indeed, we can scarcely avoid suspecting that the
Commons intended to reflect, by a sort of
side-wind, on the want in the King of an adequate
estimate of his son's worth; with somewhat perhaps
of an implied contrast between his excellences and
the defects of his father, whose unsatisfactory
proceedings seem at this time to have been
gradually alienating the public respect, and
transferring his popularity to his son.]
Whether the Prince took any part in these proceedings, or not, we are
left in ignorance. Equally in the dark are we as to his line of conduct
with regard to those thirty-one articles proposed by the Commons, just
a fortnight afterwards; articles evidently tending to interfere with
the royal prerogative, and to limit the powers and increase the
responsibility of the King's council. "The Speaker requested that all
the lords of the council should be sworn to observe these articles;"
but they refused to comply, unless the King, "of his own motion,"
should specially command them to take the oath. This proceeding
respecting the council forms an important feature in its history, as
it proves the very extensive manner in which the Commons (p. 227)
interested themselves in its measures and constitution. Whether we may
trace to these transactions, as their origin, the differences which in
after years show themselves plainly between the King and his son, or
whether other causes were then in operation, which time has veiled
from our sight, or which documents still in existence, but hitherto
unexamined, may bring again to light, we cannot undertake to
determine.[220] Be that as it may, though from this time we find Henry
of Monmouth on some occasions in Wales, yet he seems to have taken
more and more a part in the management of the nation at large; and, as
he grew in the estimation of the great people of the land, his royal
father appears to have more and more retired from public business, and
to have sunk in importance. Few documents[221] are preserved among the
records now accessible which give any information as to the Prince's
proceedings through the year 1407; but those few are by no means (p. 228)
devoid of interest, as throwing some light upon the progress of the
Welsh rebellion, and, in a degree, on Henry's character being at the
same time confirmatory of the view above taken of his occupations.
[Footnote 220: In 8 Henry IV, (that is, between
September 30, 1406, and September 29, 1407,) a
licence is recorded (Pat. 8 Hen. IV. p. i. m. 17.),
by which the King permits "his dearest son Henry,
Prince of Wales, to grant the advowson of the
church of Frodyngham, Lincolnshire,--which was his
own possession--to the abbot and convent of Renesly
for ever." Long subsequently to this, we find no
immediate traces of any coolness between Henry and
his father.]
[Footnote 221: The Prince was present, 23rd January
1407, when his father received from the Bishop of
Durham the great seal of England, and delivered it
to Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, then made
Chancellor. (Claus 8 Hen. IV. m. 23, d.)]
The Prince had laid siege to the castle of Aberystwith, situate near
the town of Llanpadern; but how long he had been before that fortress,
or, indeed, at what time he had returned to the Principality, history
does not record. If, as we may infer, the King did retire, according
to the suggestion of the council, "to some convenient place," the
Prince's presence was more required in London; whilst, Owyn's power
being evidently at that time on the decline, the necessity of his
personal exertions in Wales became less urgent. No accounts of the
proceedings either of Owyn, of the King, or of the Prince, at this
precise period seem to have reached our time. Probably nothing beyond
the siege of a castle, or an indecisive skirmish, took place during
the spring and summer. Among the documents, to which allusion has just
been made, one bears date September 12, 1407, containing an agreement
between Henry Prince of Wales on the one part, and, on the other, Rees
ap Gryffith and his associates. The Welshmen stipulate not to destroy
the houses, nor molest the shipping, should any arrive; and the Prince
covenants to give them free egress for their persons and goods. The
motives by which he professes to be influenced are very curious: (p. 229)
"For the reverence of God and All Saints, and especially also of his
own patron, John of Bridlington;[222] for the saving of human blood;
and at the petition of Richard ap Gryffyth, Abbot of Stratflorida."
[Footnote 222: John of Bridlington.--John of
Bridlington had been very recently admitted among
the saints of the Roman calendar: probably he was
the very last then canonized. Letters addressed to
all nations of safe conduct to John Gisbourne,
Canon of the Priory of Bridlington, who was then
going to Rome to negociate in the matter of the
canonization of John, the late Prior, were given by
Henry IV. as recently as October 4, 1400. And
Walsingham records that in 1404, by command of the
Pope, the body of St. John, formerly Prior of the
Canons of Bridlington, since miracles evidently
attended it, was translated by the hands of the
Archbishop of York and the Bishops of Durham and
Carlisle.]
Eight years after this, 23rd January 1415, a petition, which presents
more than one point of curiosity, was preferred to Henry of Monmouth,
then King, with reference to this siege of Aberystwith. Gerard Strong
prays that the King would issue a warrant commanding the treasurer and
barons of the exchequer to grant him a discharge for the metal of a
brass cannon burst at the siege of Aberystwith; of a cannon called
_The King's Daughter_, burst at the siege of Harlech; of a cannon
burst in proving it by Anthony Gunner, at Worcester; of a cannon with
two chambers; two iron guns, with gunpowder; and cross-bows and arrows,
delivered to various castles." The King granted the petition in all
its prayer. This petitioner was perhaps encouraged to prefer his (p. 230)
memorial by the success with which another suit had been urged, only
in the preceding month (13th December 1414), with reference to the
same period. John Horne, citizen and fishmonger of London, presented
to Henry V. and his council a petition in these words: "When you were
Prince, his vessel laden with provisions was arrested (pressed) for
the service of Lords Talbot and Furnivale, and their soldiers, at the
siege of Harlech;[223] which siege would have failed had those supplies
not been furnished by him, as Lord Talbot certifies. On unlading and
receiving payment, the rebels came upon him, burnt his ship, took
himself prisoner, and fixed his ransom at twenty marks. He was liable
to be imprisoned for the debt which he owed for the cargo." The King
granted his petition, and ordered him to be paid. Henry was then on
the point of leaving England for Normandy; and these reminiscences of
his early campaigns might have presented themselves to his thoughts
with agreeable associations, and rendered his ear more ready to listen
to petitions, which seem at all events to have been presented somewhat
tardily.
[Footnote 223: This, we infer, must have been in
the summer of 1409. Vide infra.]
An important circumstance, hitherto unobserved by writers on these
times, is incidentally recorded in the Pell Rolls. Prince Henry is
there reimbursed, on June 1, 1409, a much larger sum than usual (p. 231)
for the pay of his men-at-arms and archers in Wales; and is in the same
entry stated to have been retained by the consent of the council, on the
12th of the preceding May, to remain in attendance on the person of the
King, and at his bidding. The Latin[224] might be thought to leave it
in doubt whether this absence from his Principality, and constant
attendance on the King, was originally the result of his own wishes,
or his father's, or at the suggestion of the council. But the circumstance
of the consent of the council being recorded proves that Henry's
absence from Wales and residence in London were not the mere result of
his own will and pleasure, independently of the wishes of those whom
he ought to respect; but were at all events in accordance with the
expressed approbation of his father and the council. Probably the plan
originated with the council, the Prince willingly accepting the
office, the King intimating his consent.
[Footnote 224: "Hen. Principi Walliæ retento 12º
die Maii anno 8vo de assensu consilii Regis
moraturo penes ipsum Dominum Regem."]