REPUTED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HENRY AND HIS FATHER EXAMINED. -- HE IS
MADE CAPTAIN OF CALAIS. -- HIS RESIDENCE AT COLDHARBOUR. -- PRESIDES
AT THE COUNCIL-BOARD. -- CORDIALITY STILL VISIBLE BETWEEN HIM AND HIS
FATHER. -- AFFRAY IN EAST-CHEAP. -- NO MENTION OF HENRY'S PRESENCE. --
PROJECTED MARRIAGE BETWEEN HENRY AND A DAUGHTER OF BURGUNDY. -- CHARGE
AGAINST HENRY FOR ACTING IN OPPOSITION TO HIS FATHER IN THE QUARREL OF
THE DUKES OF BURGUNDY AND ORLEANS UNFOUNDED.
1409-1412.
Henry of Monmouth, whose years, from the earliest opening of youth to
the entrance of manhood, had chiefly been occupied within the precincts
of his own Principality in quelling the spirit of rebellion which had
burst forth there with great fury, and had been protracted with a
vitality almost incredible, is from this date to be viewed and examined
under a totally different combination of circumstances. Early in the
year 1409 he was appointed Warden of the Cinque Ports and Constable of
Dover for life, with a salary of 300_l._ a year. Thomas Erpyngham,
"the King's beloved and faithful knight," who held those offices (p. 253)
by patent, having resigned them in favour of the King's "very dear
son."[246] He was made on the 18th of March 1410, Captain of Calais,
by writ of privy seal; and he was constituted also President of the
King's Council.
[Footnote 246: MS. Donat. 4599.]
The character of Henry having been assailed, not only in times distant
from our own, but by writers also of the present age, on the ground of
his having behaved towards his father with unkindness and cruelty
after the date of his appointment to these offices, it becomes necessary,
in order to ascertain the reality of the charge and its extent, as
well as the time to which his change of behaviour is to be referred,
to trace his footsteps in all his personal transactions with his
father, and in the management of the public affairs of the realm, more
narrowly than it might otherwise have been necessary or interesting
for us to do. Every incidental circumstance which can throw any light
on this uncertain and perplexing page of his history becomes invested
with an interest beyond its own intrinsic importance, just as in a
judicial investigation, where the animus of any party bears upon the
question at issue, the most minute and trifling particular will often
give a clue, whilst broad and striking events may not assist in
relieving the judge from any portion of his doubts. On this principle
the following facts are inserted here. They may perhaps appear too (p. 254)
disjointed for a continuous narrative; and they are cited only as
separate links which might form a chain of evidence all bearing upon
the question as to Henry's position from this time with his father.
Early in the year 1409, the King, in a letter to the Pope, when speaking
of the Cardinal of Bourdeaux says, "He came into the presence of us
and of our first-born son, the Prince of Wales, and others, our prelates."
At this period we are informed by the dry details of the royal
exchequer, that the King was anxiously bent on the marriage of his
son. To Sir William Bourchier payment is made, (17th May 1409,) on
account of a voyage to Denmark and Norway, to treat with Isabella,
Queen of Denmark, for a marriage between the Lord Henry, Prince of
Wales, and the daughter of Philippa of Denmark; and on the 23rd of the
same month[247] a payment is made to "Hugh Mortimer, Esq., lately
twice sent by the King's command to France, to enter into a contract
of marriage between the Prince and the second daughter of the King's
adversary, the King of France." In the August of 1409 the council
assembled at Westminster, resolved, with regard to Ireland, that,
should it be agreeable to the King and the Lord Thomas, it would be
expedient for Lord John Stanley to be appointed Lieutenant, he paying
a stipulated sum every year to the Lord Thomas. Before the council
broke up, the Prince, who presided, undertook to speak on this (p. 255)
subject, as well to the King his father, as to his brother the Lord
Thomas. At this time it would appear that, so far from any coldness,
and jealousies, and suspicions existing between the Prince and the
members of his family, he was deemed the most fit person to negociate
an affair of much delicacy between the council and his father and his
brother.
[Footnote 247: The payments prove nothing as to the
dates of the debts incurred.]
On the 31st of January 1410, the King, in the palace of Lambeth,
"delivered the great seals to Thomas Beaufort, his brother, in the
presence of the Archbishop, Henry of York, and my lord the
Prince."[248] On the 5th of March following, the King's warrant was
signed for the burning of John Badley. The Prince's conduct on that
occasion, which has been strangely misrepresented, but which seems at
all events to testify to the kindness of his disposition, and his
anxiety to save a fellow-creature from suffering, is examined at some
length in another part of this work, where his character is
investigated with reference to the sweeping charge brought against him
of being a religious persecutor. On the 18th of that month, when he
was appointed Captain of Calais, his father at the same time made him
a present for life of his house called Coldharbour. It must be here
observed that the disagreement which evidently arose and (p. 256)
continued for some time between the King and the Commons, though the
Prince was compelled to take a part in it, seems not to have shaken
the King's confidence in him, nor to have alienated his affections
from him at all. On the 23rd of March the Commons require the King to
appoint a council; and on Friday, the 2nd of May following, they ask
the King to inform them of the names of his council: on which occasion
this remarkable circumstance occurred.[249] The King replied that many
had been excused; that the others were the Prince, the Bishops of
Worcester, Durham, and Bath, Lords Arundel, Westmoreland, and Burnell.
The Prince then, in the name of all, prayed to be excused, if there
would not be found money sufficient to defray the necessary charges;
and, should nothing adequate be granted, then that they should at the
end of the parliament be discharged from all expenses incurred by
them. Upon this they resolved that the Prince should not be sworn as a
member of the council, because of the high dignity of his honourable
person. The other members were sworn. It is to this stipulation of the
Prince that the King refers at the close of the parliament in 1411,
when, after the Commons had prayed the King to thank the Prince and
council, he says, "I am persuaded they would have done more had they
had more ample means, as my lord the Prince declared when they were
appointed."
[Footnote 248: These insulated facts may be thought
to prove little of themselves; but they throw light
(it is presumed) both on Henry of Monmouth's
occupations, through these years of his life, and
especially on the point of any rupture existing
between himself and the King his father.]
[Footnote 249: Parl. Rolls, 1410.]
It has often been a subject of wonder what should have brought (p. 257)
the Prince and his brother so often into East-Cheap; and the story of
the Boar's Head in Shakspeare has long associated in our minds Henry
Prince of Wales with a low and vulgar part of London, in which he
could have had no engagement worthy of his station, and to which,
therefore, he must have resorted only for the purposes of riot and
revelry with his unworthy and dissolute companions. History records
nothing of the Prince derogatory to his princely and Christian
character during his residence in Coldharbour; it does indeed charge
two of the King's sons with a riot there, but they are stated by name
to be Thomas and John. Henry's name does not occur at all in connexion
with any disturbance or misdoing. The fact, however, (not generally
known,) of Henry having his own house, the gift of his father, in the
heart of London, near East-Cheap, (the scene indeed of Shakspeare's
poetical romance, but really the frequent place of meeting for the
King's council whilst Henry was their president,) might seem to call
for a few words as to the locality of Coldharbour and its circumstances.
The grant by his father of this mansion, dated Westminster, March
18th, 1410, is couched in these words: "Know ye, that, of our especial
grace, we have granted to our dearest son, Henry Prince of Wales, a
certain hostel or place called Coldharbour, in our city of London,
with its appurtenances, to hold for the term of his life, without (p. 258)
any payment to us for the same."[250] These premises, we learn, came
into Henry IV.'s possession by the right of his wife. Stowe, who
supplies the materials from which we safely make that inference, does
not seem to have been aware that it was ever in the possession of
either that King or his son. He tells us it was bought in the 8th of
Edward III. by John Poultney, who was four times mayor, and who lived
there when it was called Poultney Inn. But, thirteen years afterward
(21 Edward III.), he, by charter, gave and confirmed it to Humfrey de
Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, as "his whole tenement called
Coldharbour, with all the tenements and key adjoining, on the way
called Haywharf Lane (All Saints ad foenum), for a rose at Midsummer,
if demanded. In 1397, John Holland, Earl of Huntingdon, lodged there;
and Richard II, his brother, dined with him. It was then counted a
right fair and stately house."[251]
[Footnote 250: Rym. Foed. vol. vii.]
[Footnote 251: Stowe's London, ii. 206.]
We are led to infer, though the formal grant of this house to Prince
Henry was made only in the March of this year, yet that it had been
his residence for some time previously; for, on the 8th of the
preceding February, we find a council held there, himself present as
its chief.
It does not appear by any positive statement that the Prince visited
Calais immediately on his appointment to its captaincy, but we (p. 259)
shall probably be safe in concluding that he did so; for, very soon
afterwards, we find letters of protection[252] for one year (from
April 23) given to Thomas Selby, who was to go with the Prince, and
remain with him at Calais. At all events, he was resident in London by
the middle of June, and had apparently engaged most actively in the
affairs of government. On the 16th of that month we find him president
at two sittings of the council on the same day:[253] the first at
Coldharbour, in which it was determined that three parts of the
subsidy granted to the King on wools, hides, &c. should be applied to
the payment of the garrison of Calais and of the marches thereof; the
second, at the Convent of the Preaching Friars, when an ordinance was
made for the payment of the garrison of Berwick and the East March of
Scotland.
[Footnote 252: Rymer's Foed.]
[Footnote 253: Acts of Council.]
The Prince presided at a council, on the 18th of June, in Westminster;
and, on the 19th, in the house of the Bishop of Hereford. To this
council his brother Thomas of Lancaster presented a petition praying
for reformation of certain tallies, by default of which he could not
obtain the money due to him. The preamble, as well as the body of this
petition, proves that at this time the Prince was regarded not merely
as a member of the council, but as its president, to be named and
addressed individually and in contradistinction to the other (p. 260)
members. "The petition of my lord Thomas of Lancaster, made to the
very honourable and puissant lord the Prince, and the other very
honourable and wise lords of the council of our sovereign lord the
King. First, may it please my said lord the Prince, and the other
lords of the council," &c.--That up to this time no jealousy had
arisen in the King's mind in consequence of the growing popularity and
ascendency of his son, is evidenced by the record of the same council.
That document tells us plainly that the King was cordial with him, and
employed him as his confidential representative: it shall speak for
itself. "And then my said lord the Prince reported to the other
members of the council, that he had it in command from his very good
lord and father to ordain, with the advice of the others of the said
council, that the Lord Thomas Beaufort, brother of our said lord the
King and his chancellor of England, should have such gratuity for one
year beyond his fees as to them should seem reasonable. On which, by
our said lord the Prince, and all the others, it was agreed that the
said chancellor should receive for one year, from the day of his
appointment, 800 marks."
The next council, at which also we find the Prince acting as
president, was held on the 11th of July. Between the dates of these
two last councils, that disturbance in the street took place which the
Chronicle of London refers to merely as "an affray in East-Cheap (p. 261)
between the townsmen and the Princes Thomas and John;" but which Stowe
records with much of detail and minuteness. Many, it is believed, may
be disposed to regard it as the foundation chosen by Shakspeare on
which to build the superstructure of his own fascinating imagination,
and on which other writers more grave, though not more trustworthy as
historians, have rested for conclusive evidence of the wild frolics
and "madcap" adventures of Henry of Monmouth. Stowe's account is this:
"In the year 1410, upon the eve of St. John the Baptist, (i.e. June
23,) the King's sons, Thomas and John, being in East-Cheap at supper,
or rather at breakfast, (for it was after the watch was broken up,
betwixt two and three of the clock after midnight,) a great debate
happened between their men and other of the court, which lasted an
hour, even till the mayor and sheriffs, with other citizens, appeased
the same: for the which afterwards the said mayor, aldermen, and
sheriffs were sent for to answer before the King; his sons and divers
lords being highly moved against the city. At which time, William
Gascoigne, chief justice, required the mayor and aldermen, for the
citizens, to put them in the King's grace.[254] Whereunto they
answered that they had not offended, but according to the law had done
their best in stinting debate and maintaining of the peace: upon
which answer the King remitted all his ire and dismissed them." (p. 262)
It must be observed that not one word is here said of Prince Henry
having anything whatever to do with the affray: whether "other of the
court" meant some of his household, or not, does not appear; neither
are we told that the two brothers had been supping with the Prince.
And yet, unless some facts are alleged by which the mayor and the
chief justice may be connected with him in reference to some broil, we
may well question whether the current stories relating to his
East-Cheap revelries have any other foundation than this. At all
events, the Prince seems to have been most regular during this summer
in his attendance at the council-board. On the 22nd, 29th, 30th of
July, we find him acting as president. The last council was held at
the house of Robert Lovell, Esq. near Old Fish Street in London; at
which 1400_l._ was voted to the Prince for the safeguard of Calais, to
be repaid out of the first receipts from the duties on wools and
skins.[255]
[Footnote 254: That is, that they should ask the
King's pardon.]
[Footnote 255: On the 7th of September the King
commissions his very dear son the Prince, or his
lieutenant, to punish the rebels of Wales.]
On the 18th of November we find a mandate directed to the Prince, as
Warden of the Cinque Ports, to see justice done in a case of piracy;
and on the 29th, the King, being then at Leicester, issues to Henry
the Prince, as Captain of Calais, and to his lieutenant, the same
commission, to grant safe-conducts, as had been given to John (p. 263)
Earl of Somerset, the late captain.[256]
[Footnote 256: The Earl died on Palm Sunday, 16th
of March 1410; immediately on whose demise the
Prince was appointed captain. Minutes of Council,
16th June 1410.]
Where the Prince passed the winter does not seem to be recorded. In
the following spring we find this minute of council. "Be it
remembered, that on Thursday, the 19th of March, in the twelfth year
of our sovereign lord the King, at Lambeth, in presence of our said
lord the King, and his very dear son my lord the Prince, the following
prelates and other lords were assembled."[257] It cannot escape
observation, that, instead of the Prince being mentioned as one of the
council, or as their president, his name is coupled with the King's as
one of the two in whose presence the others were assembled.[258]
[Footnote 257: There are many curious items of
expenditure in the minutes of this council; one
which few perhaps would have expected: "Item, to
John Rys, for the lions in his custody per annum
120_l._"]
[Footnote 258: In a minute of the council, about
April this year, we find an item of expense which
proves that Wales still required the presence of a
considerable force: "Item, to my lord the Prince,
for the wages of three hundred men-at-arms and six
hundred archers who have lived and will live for
the safeguard of the Welsh parts, from the 9th day
of July 1410, to the 7th day of April then next
ensuing, 8000_l._"
In this month the King implores the Archbishops of
Canterbury and York to pray for him, and to urge
all their clergy to supplicate God's help and
protection of himself, his children, and his realm.
And many prayers, and processions, and masses are
ordered; and all in so urgent a manner as would
lead us to think that there was some especial cause
of anxiety and alarm, or some severe affliction
present or feared.--Rymer.
On the 18th of August, a warrant is issued for the
liberation of Llewellyn ap David Whyht, and Yon ap
Griffith ap Lli, from the Tower.--MS. Donat. 4599.
In the parliament, at the close of this year,
grievous complaints are made by the Border counties
against the violence and ravages and extortions of
the Welsh; and an order is sought "to arrest the
cousins of all rebels and evil-doers of the Welsh,
until the malefactors yield themselves up; for by
such kinsmen only are they supported."
The cruelties of the Welsh are described in very
strong colours by the petitioners; but it is not
evident what was the result of their prayer. The
rebels and robbers, they say, carry the English off
into woods and deserts, and tie them to trees, and
keep them, as in prison, for three or four months,
till they are ransomed at the utmost value of their
goods; and yet these malefactors were pardoned by
the lords of the marches. The petitioners pray for
more summary justice. Rolls of Parl.]
Early in the autumn of this year a negociation was set on foot (p. 264)
for a marriage between Prince Henry and the daughter of the Duke
of Burgundy. Ambassadors were appointed for carrying on the treaty;
and on September 1st, 1411, instructions were given to the Bishop of
St. David's, the Earl of Arundel, Lord Francis de Court, Hugh Mortimer,
Esq. and John Catryk, Clerk, or any two or more of them, how to
negociate without finally concluding the treaty, and to report to
the King and Prince.
The instructions may be examined at full length in Sir Harris Nicolas'
"Acts of the Privy Council" by any who may feel an interest in (p. 265)
them independently of Henry of Monmouth's character and proceedings;
to others the first paragraph will sufficiently indicate the tenour of
the whole document. "First, inasmuch as our sovereign lord the King,
by the report of the message of the Duke of Burgundy, understood that
the Duke entertains a great affection and desire to have an alliance
with our said sovereign by means of a marriage to be contracted, God
willing, between our redoubted lord the Prince and the daughter of the
aforesaid Duke, the King wishes that his said ambassadors should first
of all demand of the Duke his daughter, to be given to my lord the
Prince; and that after they have heard what the Duke will offer on
account of the said marriage, whether by grant of lands and
possessions, or of goods and jewels, and according to the greatest
offer which by this negociation might be made by one party or the
other, a report be made of that to our said lord the King and our said
lord the Prince by the ambassadors." The other instructions relate
rather to political stipulations than pecuniary arrangements. These
negociations met with the fate they merited; and all idea of a
marriage between the Prince and the daughter of the Duke of Burgundy
was abandoned. But since Henry's behaviour in the transaction has been
urged as proof of his having then discarded parental authority, and
acted for himself in contravention of his father's wishes, thereby
incurring his royal displeasure, and sowing the seeds of that (p. 266)
state of mutual dissatisfaction, and jealousy, and strife which is
said to have grown up afterwards into a harvest of bitterness, the
subject assumes greater importance to those who are anxiously tracing
Henry's real character; and must be examined and sifted with care, and
patience, and candour.
* * * * *
The question involved is this: "In the quarrel between the Dukes of
Burgundy and Orleans, did Prince Henry send the first troops from his
own forces under the command of his own friends to the aid of the Duke
of Burgundy, against the express wishes of his father; or did the
contradictory measures of England in first succouring the Duke of
Burgundy, and then the Duke of Orleans his antagonist, arise from a
change of policy in the King himself and the English government,
without implying undutiful conduct on the part of the Prince, or
dissatisfaction in his father towards him?" The former view has been
recommended for adoption, though it reflects upon the Prince's
character as a son; and it has been thereupon suggested that, "instead
of denying his previous faults, we should recollect his sudden and
earnest reformation, and the new direction of his feelings and
character, as the mode more beneficial to his memory."[259] But in
this work, which professes not to search for exculpation, nor to deal
in eulogy, but to seek the truth, and follow it to whatever
consequences it might lead, we must on no account so hastily (p. 267)
acquiesce in the assumption that Henry of Monmouth was on this
occasion undutifully opposed to his father.[260] However rejoiced we
may be to find in a fellow-Christian the example of a sincere penitent
growing in grace, it cannot be right to multiply or aggravate his
faults for the purpose of making his conversion more striking and
complete. We may firmly hope that, if he had been a disobedient and
unkind son in any one particular, he repented truly of that fault. But
his biographer must sift the evidence adduced in proof of the alleged
delinquency; instead of admitting on insufficient ground an
allegation, in order to assimilate his character to general fame, or
to heighten the dramatic effect of his subsequent course of virtue.
[Footnote 259: Turner's Hist. Eng.]
[Footnote 260: The character of the manuscript, on
the authority of which this and another charge
against Henry of Monmouth have been grounded, will
be examined at length, as to its genuineness and
authenticity in the Appendix.]
In discussing this question it will be necessary to attend with care
to the order and date of each circumstance. By a temporary
forgetfulness of this indispensable part of an historian's duty, the
writers who have adopted the view most adverse to Henry as a son, have
been led to give an incorrect view of the whole transaction,
especially as it affects the character and filial conduct of the
Prince.
The first application for aid was made to the King by the Duke of
Burgundy, who offered at the same time his daughter in marriage (p. 268)
to the Prince. This was in August 1411; and doubtless, if he found the
King backward or unfavourably inclined, he would naturally apply to
the Prince for his good offices, who was personally most interested in
the result of the negociation; not to induce him to act against his
father, but to prevail upon his father to agree to the proposal. This
course was, we are told, actually pursued, and Prince Henry was
allowed by his father to send some forces immediately to strengthen
the ranks of Burgundy. They joined his army, and remained at Paris
till provisions became so dear that they resolved to procure them from
the enemy, who were stationed at St. Cloud. Here, at the broken
bridge, the two parties engaged; and Burgundy, by the help of the
English auxiliaries, completely routed the Duke of Orleans' forces.
The English subsequently received their pay; and, their services being
no longer required, returned at their leisure by Calais to their own
country. The Duke of Orleans learning that these troops were dismissed
unceremoniously by his antagonist, and conceiving that Henry's
resentment of the indignity might make for him a favourable opening,
despatched ambassadors to England with most magnificent offers; but
this was not till the beginning of the next year after the battle of
St. Cloud, which took place[261] on the 10th November 1411. That the
King himself contemplated the expediency of sending auxiliaries (p. 269)
to the Duke of Burgundy in the beginning of September, is put beyond
doubt by the instructions given to the ambassadors. Even so late as
February 10, 1412, the King issued a commission to Lord Grey, the
Bishop of Durham, and others, not only to treat for the marriage of
the Prince with that Duke's daughter, but to negociate with him also
on mutual alliances and confederacies, and on the course of trade
between England and Flanders; the King having previously, on the 11th
of January, signed letters patent, to remain in force till the Feast
of Pentecost, for the safe conduct and protection of the Duke's
ambassadors with one hundred men. With a view of enabling the reader
more satisfactorily to form his own judgment on the validity of this
charge of unfilial and selfwilled conduct on the part of Henry of
Monmouth, the Author is induced, instead of confining himself to the
general statement of his own views, or of the considerations on which
his conclusion has been built, to cite the evidence separately of
several authors who have recorded the proceedings. He trusts the
importance of the point at issue will be thought to justify the
detail.
[Footnote 261: Monstrelet says distinctly, that the
Duke of Burgundy left Paris, at midnight, on the
9th of November.]
Walsingham, who is in some points very minute when describing these
transactions, so as even to record the very words employed by the King
on the first application of the Duke, does not mention the name of the
Prince of Wales throughout. He represents the King as having (p. 270)
recommended the Duke to try measures of mutual forgiveness and
reconciliation; at all events, to let the fault of encouraging civil
discord be with his adversaries; but withal promising, in case of the
failure of that plan, to send the aid he desired. The same writer
states the mission of the Earl of Arundel, Lord Kyme, Lord Cobham,
(Sir John Oldcastle,) and others, with an army, as the consequence of
this engagement on the part of the King.[262] He then tells us that,
in the next year after these forces had been dismissed by the Duke of
Burgundy, the Duke of Orleans made application to the King.
[Footnote 262: "Transmissi sunt _ergo_;" without
the slightest intimation of any interference on the
part of the Prince.]
Elmham, who mentions the successful application of Burgundy to the
Prince, and the consequent mission of an English force, represents the
Prince as having recommended himself more than ever to his royal
father on that occasion.[263]
[Footnote 263: These chroniclers show clearly the
general opinion in their day to have been that
there was for a time an alienation of affection
between Henry and his father, brought about by
envious calumniators; but that they were soon
cordially reconciled: "Non obstante quorundam
detractatione et accusatione multiplici, ipse,
invidis renitentibus, suæ piissimæ benignitatis
mediis, &c". Elmham, thus ascribes the cause of the
temporary interruption of cordiality to the malice
of detractors, and its final and lasting
restoration to Henry's filial and affectionate
kindness.]
Titus Livius, who says that the Duke of Burgundy applied to the
Prince, and that he sent some of his own men to succour him, (p. 271)
distinctly tells us that he did it with the good-will and consent of
his father. He adds, (what could have originated only in an oversight
of dates,) that the Prince was made, in consequence of his conduct on
this occasion, the chief of the council, and was always called the
dear and beloved son of his father. He intimates, (but very
obscurely,) that, by the aspersions of some, his fame sustained for a
short time some blemish in this point.[264]
[Footnote 264: "Etsi nonnullorum detrectationibus
in hoc _aliquantisper_ fama sua læsa fuerit." Some
writers have built very unadvisedly on this
expression. It is at best obscure, and capable of a
very different interpretation; and, even at the
most, it only implies that the Prince was then the
object of calumny at the hand of some persons who
could not effect any lasting wound on his fame.]
Polydore Vergil[265] says distinctly that, on the Duke of Burgundy
first opening the negociation, the King, anticipating good to himself
from the quarrels of his neighbours, willingly promised aid, and as
soon as possible sent a strong force to succour him. He then records
the victory gained by Burgundy at the Bridge of St. Cloud, and the
dismissal of his English allies with presents; adding, that King Henry
thought it a weakness in him to send them home prematurely, before he
had finished the struggle. And when the Duke of Orleans, on (p. 272)
hearing of this hasty dismissal, entered upon a counter negociation,
the King willingly listened to his proposals, having felt hurt at the
conduct of the Duke of Burgundy towards those English auxiliaries.
[Footnote 265: The testimony of these later authors
is only valuable so far as they are believed to
have been faithful in copying the accounts, or
extracting from the statements, of preceding
writings, the works of many of whom have not come
down to our times.]
The Chronicle of London tells us that, when the King would grant no
men to the Duke of Burgundy, he applied to the Prince, "who sent the
Earl of Arundel and the Lord Cobham, with other lords and gentles,
with a fair retinue and well-arrayed people."
Whilst we remark that in these several accounts no allusion whatever
is made to any opposition to his father on the part of the Prince, or
any sign of displeasure on the part of the King in this particular
point of his conduct, the simple facts are decidedly against the
supposition of any such unsatisfactory proceeding. In February 1412,
more than three months after the Earl of Arundel's dismissal by the
Duke of Burgundy, the King was still engaged in negociations with that
Duke: nor was it till three months after that,--not till May
18th,--that the final treaty between the King and the Duke of Orleans
was signed.[266] And it is very remarkable that, within two days, the
Prince[267] himself, as well as his three brothers, in the (p. 273)
presence of their father, solemnly undertook to be parties to that
treaty, and to abide faithfully by its provisions.
[Footnote 266: The King had issued a proclamation
at Canterbury, addressed to all sheriffs, and to
the Captain also of Calais, forbidding his subjects
of any condition or degree whatsoever to interfere
in this foreign quarrel. April 10, 1412.]
[Footnote 267: Rymer Foed.]
We are compelled, then, to infer, that there is no evidence whatever
of Prince Henry having acted in this affair in contravention of his
father's will. He very probably used his influence to persuade the
King, and was successful. And as to the application having been made
to him by the Duke of Burgundy, and not to the King, we must bear in
mind that, at this period, it was to him that even his brother Thomas
presented his petition, and not to his father; and that the Pope sent
his commendatory letters to him, and not to the King.[268]
[Footnote 268: On February 9th, in the third year
of his pontificate (1413), Pope John recommends
John Bremor to the kind offices of the Prince; and,
on the kalends of March (1st of March), the same
pontiff sent Dr. Richard Derham with a message to
him by word of mouth.]
The French historians, though their attention has naturally been drawn
to the introduction of English auxiliaries into the land of France,
rather than to the authority by which they were commissioned, enable
us to acquiesce with increased satisfaction in the conclusion to which
we have arrived. Whether contemporary or modern,[269] they seem all to
have considered the original mission of Lord Arundel and the troops
under his command as the act of King Henry IV. himself.[270] They
inform us, moreover, that, on the arrival in England of the (p. 274)
subsequent embassy of the Duke of Burgundy, so late as March
1412,[271] his representatives were received with every mark of
respect and cordiality, not only by the Prince, but by the King also,
and his other sons. They lead us also to infer that, when the
confederate French princes made their application for succours "to the
King and his second son,"[272] the Prince withheld his concurrence
from the change of conduct adopted by his father, and endeavoured to
the utmost of his power to prevent the contemplated expedition under
the Duke of Clarence from being carried into effect. A comparison of
these authors with our own undisputed documents supplies a very
intelligible and consistent view of the whole transaction; and so far
from representing Henry of Monmouth as an undutiful son, obstinately
bent on pursuing his own career, reckless of his father's wishes,
bears incidental testimony both to his steadiness of purpose, and to
his unwillingness to act in opposition to his father. In conjunction
with the King he originally espoused the cause of Burgundy, and was
afterwards averse from deserting their ally. He was anxious also to
dissuade his father from adopting that vacillating policy on which he
saw him bent. But within two days after the King had irrevocably taken
his final resolve, and had joined himself to the Duke of Orleans, and
the other confederated princes by a league, offensive and defensive,
against the Duke of Burgundy, instead of persevering in his (p. 275)
opposition to that measure, or defying his father's authority, within
two days he made himself a party to that league, and pledged his faith
to observe it.
[Footnote 269: M. Petitot.]
[Footnote 270: Jean Le Fevre, Morice, Lobineau.]
[Footnote 271: Monstrelet.]
[Footnote 272: Laboureur.]
Although Prince Henry seems to have had little to do with these
continental expeditions beyond the first mission of Lord Arundel and
his forces, yet it is impossible not to suspect (as the French at the
time anticipated) that this decided interference, on the part of
England, with the affairs of France, may have been a prelude to the
enterprise of the next reign. Who can say that the battle and victory
at St. Cloud passed away without any influence on the course of events
which made Henry V. heir to the King of France?
We must not leave the mention of this battle without repeating the
testimony borne by the chroniclers of the day to the courage and
humanity of the English, though we lament, at the same time, the act
of cruelty on the part of the French, with which the character of our
forefathers stands in such strong contrast. When the victory was won,
the Duke of Burgundy, with the usual ferocity of civil warfare,
commanded his officers to put their prisoners to death. The English
generals resisted this sanguinary mandate,[273] declaring they would
die with their captives rather than see them murdered; at the (p. 276)
same time forming their men in battle-array to support, with their
lives, their noble resolution.
[Footnote 273: Hardyng has thus recorded this
gratifying exhibition of generous feeling and noble
resolve on the part of the English:
"He commanded then eche capitayn
His prisoners to kill them in certayn.
To which, Gilbert Umfreuile, Erle of Kyme,
Answered for all his fellowes and their men,
They should all die together at a tyme
Ere theyr prisoners so shulde be slayn then;
And, with that, took the field as folk did ken,
With all theyr men and all theyr prysoners,
To die with them, as worship it requires.
He said they were not come thyther as bouchers
To kyll the folke in market or in feire,
Nor them to sell; but, as arms requires,
Them to gouern without any dispeyre."
Hardyng's Chron.]
It was about the Feast of the Assumption (August 25) that the King
sent his son Thomas Duke of Clarence[274] to aid the Duke of Orleans
against the Duke of Burgundy: "many persons," says Walsingham,
"wondering what could be the sudden change, that in so short a (p. 277)
space of time the English should support two opposite contending
parties." The Duke of Orleans failed to join them in time, and the
English committed many depredations as in an enemy's country. At last,
the two generals meeting, the Duke of Orleans consented to pay a large
sum to the Duke of Clarence on condition that the English should
evacuate the country: and the Earl of Angouleme[275] was given as a
hostage for the due payment of the stipulated sum. The Duke of
Clarence did not return to England till after his father's death.
[Footnote 274: There is some discrepancy in the
accounts of the time of Clarence's departure. The
Chronicle of London puts it nearly a month earlier
than Walsingham: "And then rode Thomas, the King's
son, Duke of Clarence, and with him the Duke of
York, and Beauford, then Earl of Dorset, towards
[South] Hampton with a great retinue of people; and
on Tuesday rode the Earl's brother of Oxenford, and
on the Wednesday rode the Earl of Oxenford; and
they all lay at Hampton, and abode in the wynde
till on the Thursday, the 1st day of August. The
which Thursday, Friday, and Saturday they passed
out of the haven XIIII ships,--were driven back on
Sunday,--and after landed at St. Fasters, near
Hagges, in Normandy."]
[Footnote 275: In the "Additional Charters," now in
the British Museum, purchased of the Baron de
Joursanvault, we find letters patent from Charles
VI, reciting that, by his permission, a treaty had
been made with the Duke of Clarence and other
English, who agreed to evacuate the country without
making war; the Duke of Orleans giving to them the
Earl of Angouleme as a hostage, for whose ransom
the Duke was put to vast charges. Letters also are
preserved from the Duke to his chancellor, reciting
that a large sum was to be paid to the English, and
in particular a hundred crowns of gold were to be
paid to John Seurmaistre, chancellor of the Duke of
Clarence, who was going to Rome on the affairs of
the Duke of Clarence. This bears date, Blois, Nov.
20, 1412. His mission to Rome was, no doubt, to
negociate for the dispensation necessary to enable
the Duke to marry his uncle's widow. In the March
of the next year, the same document acquaints us
with the present of a head-dress from the Duke of
Orleans to that lady, then Duchess of Clarence.]