UNFOUNDED CHARGE AGAINST HENRY OF PECULATION. -- STILL MORE SERIOUS
ACCUSATION OF A CRUEL ATTEMPT TO DETHRONE HIS DISEASED FATHER. -- THE
QUESTION FULLY EXAMINED. -- PROBABLY A SERIOUS THOUGH TEMPORARY
MISUNDERSTANDING AT THIS TIME BETWEEN THE KING AND HIS SON. -- HENRY'S
CONDUCT FILIAL, OPEN, AND MERCIFUL. -- THE "CHAMBER" OR THE "CROWN
SCENE." -- DEATH OF HENRY THE FOURTH.
1412-1413.
Two other accusations brought against the fair fame of Henry of
Monmouth in reference to his conduct in the very year before his
accession to the throne, must be now carefully weighed. The first,
indeed, is fully refuted by the selfsame page of our records which
contains it: the second, unless some new light could be thrown upon
this dark and mysterious page of his life, can scarcely have failed to
make an unfavourable impression on the minds of every one whose heart
has ever felt the bond of filial duty and affection.
With regard to the first accusation, we cannot do better than quote
the words of the antiquary who has first brought both the calumnious
charge and its refutation to light. "The general impression (p. 279)
(says that writer) which exists respecting the character of Henry V,
and especially whilst Prince of Wales, is so opposed to the idea that
he could possibly be suspected of a pecuniary fraud, that it excites
surprise that he should have been accused of appropriating to his own
use the money which he had received for the payment of his soldiers.
In the Minutes of the Council, between July and September 1412, the
following entry occurs: 'Because my lord the Prince, Captain of the
town of Calais, is slandered in the said town and elsewhere, that he
should have received many large sums of money for the payment of his
soldiers, and that those sums have not been distributed among them,
the contrary is proved by two rolls of paper being in the council, and
sent by my said lord the Prince; it is ordered that letters be issued
under the privy seal, explanatory of the fact respecting the Prince in
that matter.'"
Although it may excite our wonder that the character of Henry of
Monmouth should have been assailed for appropriating to other purposes
money received for the payment of his troops, yet such an acquaintance
with the exhausted state of the treasury of England at that day, as
even these pages afford, will diminish the surprise.[276] The
probability is, that, of the "large sums" voted by parliament, (p. 280)
a very small proportion only was immediately forthcoming; and that, as
in Wales, so in Calais, he could with great difficulty gather from
that exhausted source enough from time to time to keep his men
together. Persons not acquainted with this fact, hearing of the large
sums voted, might naturally suspect that there was not altogether fair
and upright dealing. However, the above extract is the only document
known on the subject; and the same sentence which records the
"slander," contains also his acquittal. He had forwarded his debtor
and creditor account in two rolls, and by them it was proved that the
slander was unfounded; and a writ of privy seal declaring his
innocence was immediately issued. The fact is, that, at that very
time, there was due to the Prince for Calais no less a sum than
8689_l._ 12_s._; besides the sum of 1200_l._ due for the wages of
sixty men-at-arms and one hundred and twenty archers, who were still
living at Kymmere and Bala for the safeguard of Wales; whilst the
council at the same time declared, that they knew not how to raise the
money for the wages of the men who were with the Prince. The affairs
of Calais seem to have fallen into some confusion before the Prince
was appointed Captain, as the Minutes of Council speak of the ancient
debts incurred whilst the Earl of Somerset was captain, as well as the
more recent expenses; and record that Robert Thorley, the treasurer,
and Richard Clitherowe, victualler, were charged to come, with (p. 281)
their accounts written out, on the morrow of All Souls next ensuing,
specifying the persons to whom the several sums were paid, and the
dates of payment. The King, also, in a council at Merton, on October
21st, orders certain changes to be made in the mode of collecting the
duties on skins and wools; "to the intent that my lord the Prince, as
Captain of the town of Calais, may the more readily receive payment of
the arrears due to him and his soldiers, living there for the safeguard
of the said town." We have seen that, in Wales, the Prince was driven
by necessity to pawn the few jewels in his possession, in order to pay
the soldiers under him; and, as Captain of Calais, he appears to have
had a great difficulty in obtaining payment of the sums assigned to
him.[277] No one can any longer wonder that the soldiers were not
paid, or that their complaints should offer themselves in the form of
accusation. The Prince stands entirely free from blame, and clear of
all suspicion of misdoing.
[Footnote 276: The Prince's appointment (when he
took charge of the town) is dated March 18, 1410,
which was the Tuesday before Easter; at which time
there was due a debt, incurred before Henry had
anything whatever to do with Calais, of not less
than 9000_l._--Minutes of Council, 30th July 1410.]
[Footnote 277: Within a year of the Prince's
accession to the throne, the Pell Rolls, January
27, 1414, record the payment of 826_l._ 13_s._
4_d._ to the Bishop of Winchester, lent to the King
when he was Prince of Wales.]
Though these causes are of themselves more than enough to account for
the depressed state of Henry of Monmouth's finances; yet there was
another drain, the pecuniary difficulties of his father, which, though
hitherto unnoticed, must not be suppressed in these Memoirs. (p. 282)
It is not necessary more than to refer to the causes of the pecuniary
difficulties of Henry IV; as the public and authentic documents of his
reign suggest a suspicion of want of economy in his more domestic
expenditure, and leave no doubt as to the extent to which he
endeavoured to meet his increasing wants by loans from spiritual and
municipal bodies, as well as from individuals. Among others, his son
Henry's name occurs, not once or twice, but repeatedly. Whilst some
loans, with reference to the then value of money, must be considered
large; others cannot fail to excite surprise from the smallness of
their amount.[278]
[Footnote 278: Pell Rolls, 9 Hen. IV. 17th July,
&c.]
* * * * *
A charge, however, more vitally affecting Henry's character than any
other by which it has ever been assailed, requires now a patient and
thorough investigation. The groundwork, indeed, upon which the
accusation is built, is of great antiquity, though the superstructure
is of very recent date. Were it sufficient for a biographer, who would
deal uprightly, merely to contradict the evidence by demonstrating its
inconsistency with indisputable facts, the business of refutation in
this instance would be brief, as the accusation breaks down in every
particular, from whatever point of view we may examine it. But the
province of these Memoirs must not be so confined. To establish the
truth in these points satisfactorily, as well as to place clearly (p. 283)
before the mind the total inadequacy of the evidence to substantiate
the charge, will require a more full and detailed examination of the
value of the Manuscript on which the charge is made to rest, than
could be conveniently introduced into the body of this narrative. The
whole is therefore reserved for the Appendix; and to a careful,
dispassionate weighing of the arguments there adduced, the reader is
earnestly invited.
But the Author, as he has above intimated, does not think his duty
would be performed were he merely to prove that the charge against
Henry is altogether untenable upon the evidence adduced; though that
is all which the accusation so unsparingly now in these late years
brought against him requires or deserves. The very allusion to such an
offence as undutiful, unfilial conduct in one whose life is otherwise
an example of obedience, respect, and affection towards his father,
requires the biographer to take up the province of inquisitor, and
ascertain what ground there may be, independently of that inadequate
evidence alleged by others, for believing Henry to have once at least,
and for a time, forgotten the duties of a son; or what proceedings,
not involving his guilt, might have given rise to the unfounded
rumour, and of what satisfactory explanation they may admit.
The charge is this: That, in the parliament held in November 1411,
Prince Henry desired of his father the resignation of his crown, on
the plea that the malady under which the King was suffering (p. 284)
would not allow him to rule any longer for the honour and welfare of
the kingdom. On the King's firm and peremptory refusal, the Prince,
greatly offended, withdrew from the court, and formed an overwhelming
party of his own among the nobility and gentry of the land, "associating
them to his dominion in homage and pay." Such is the statement made
(not indeed in the form of an accusation, but merely as one of the
occurrences of the year,) in the manuscript above referred to. The
modern comment upon this text would probably never have been made, if
the writer had given more time and patient investigation to the
subject; and now, were such a suppression compatible with the thorough
sifting of Henry's character and conduct, the quotation of it might
well have been spared in these pages. A few words, however, on that
comment, and recently renewed charge, seem indispensable. "The King's
subsequent death (such are the words of the modern historian)
prevented the final explosion of this unfilial conduct, which, as thus
stated, deserves the denomination of an unnatural rebellion; and shows
that the dissolute companion of Falstaff was not the gay and
thoughtless youth which his dramatic representation exhibits to us,
but that, amid his vicious gaieties, he could cherish feelings which
too much resemble the unprincipled ambition of a Catilinarian
temper."[279]
[Footnote 279: Turner's History.]
These are hard words; and, if deserved, must condemn Henry of Monmouth.
That they are not deserved; that he was not guilty of this offence (p. 285)
against God and his father; that the page which records it condemns
itself, and is contradictory to our undisputed public records; that
the manuscript which contains the charge carries with it no authority
whatever; and that the inference which has lately been fastened upon
the original report is altogether inconsistent with the acknowledged
facts of the case, are points which the Author believes he has
established beyond further controversy in the Appendix; and to that
dissertation he again with confidence refers the reader. But every
reader whose verdict is worth receiving, will agree that our abhorrence
of a crime should only increase our care and circumspection that no
innocent person stand charged with it. If Henry were guilty, his
character must remain branded with an indelible stain, in the
estimation of every parent and every child, incomparably more
disgraceful than those "vicious gaieties" with which poets and
historiographers have delighted to stamp his memory.--At a time when
disease was paralysing all a father's powers of body and mind, and
hurrying him prematurely to the grave, that a first-born son, instead
of devoting himself, and all his heart, and all his faculties, to his
parent; strengthening his feeble hands, supporting his faltering
steps, guiding his erring counsels, bearing his heavy burden,
protecting him from the machinations of the malicious and designing,
cheering his drooping spirits, making (as far as in him lay) his (p. 286)
last days on earth days of peace, and comfort, and calm preparation
for the change to which he was hastening;--instead of this, that a
son, who had always professed respect and affection for his father,
should thrust the most painful thorn of all into the side of a
sinking, broken down, dying man, is so abhorrent from every feeling,
not only of a truly noble and generous spirit, but of mere ordinary
humanity,--is so utterly "unprincipled," "unfilial," and
"unnatural,"--that though in such a case we might hope, after a life
of sincere Christian penitence, the stain might have been removed from
his conscience; yet, in the estimation of the wise and good, he could
never have obtained the name of "the most excellent and most gracious
flower of Christian chivalry."
Although for the real merits of the question, as far as relates to the
manuscript, we refer to the argument in the Appendix; and although, if
the foundation of original documents be withdrawn, it matters little
to the investigator of the truth what superstructure modern writers
have hastily run up; yet such a positive assertion as that "the King's
subsequent death prevented the final explosion of this unfilial
conduct and unnatural rebellion" of the Prince, who cherished
"feelings resembling the unprincipled ambition of a Catilinarian
temper," does seem to call for a few words before we proceed with the
narrative. It is difficult to say whether the confused views of the
manuscript, or of its modern commentator, be the greater. The (p. 287)
manuscript, (to mention here only one specimen of its confusion,)
in the very page which contains the accusing passage, represents the
expedition to France in the summer of 1411; the battle of St. Cloud,
which was fought November 10, of the same year; the expedition under
the Duke of Clarence, which was undertaken after Midsummer 1412; and
the return of the Duke and his forces to England, which was not till
the spring of 1413, as having all taken place in the thirteenth year
of Henry IV. And the commentator who tells us that the King's death
prevented the final explosion of Henry's unfilial conduct, by confounding
(as the manuscript had also done) the parliament in November 1411,
with the parliament in February 1413, has entirely overlooked the
facts which give a direct contradiction to his statement. The King's
death did not occur till March 1413, more than a year and a quarter
after the parliament ended in which the Prince is said to have been
guilty of this act. The session of that parliament began on the 3rd of
November, and broke up on the 20th of December; and the King, nearly
half a year after its dissolution, declares his fixed[280] purpose, in
order to avoid the spilling of human blood, to go in his own (p. 288)
person to the Duchy of Guienne, and vindicate his rights with all
possible speed."[281] Surely the web of his father's life left Henry
no lack of time and opportunity for the execution of any measures
which the most reckless ambition could devise, or the most "Catilinarian"
temper sanction. But, leaving this ill-advised statement without
further observation, it remains for us to proceed with our narrative,
entirely free from any apprehensions or misgivings that our researches
and reflections may tend only to elucidate the character of one who,
in the midst of splendid sins, would sacrifice his own father to
unbounded, reckless ambition, and unprincipled self-aggrandizement.
[Footnote 280: This resolution of the King is
embodied in his letter to the Burgomasters of
Ghent, &c. dated May 16, 1412; in which he tells
them that the Dukes of Berry, Orleans, and Bourbon
had offered to surrender to him such lands of his
as they held in the Duchy of Guienne, and to assist
him in recovering the remainder. He prays the
Burgomasters not to impede him in his designs.]
[Footnote 281: On the 18th of April 1412, a warrant
was issued to press sailors for the King's intended
voyage.]
* * * * *
Henry of Monmouth had now for a long time been virtually in possession
of the royal authority. He was not only President of the Council, but
his name is united with the King's when both are present; and everything
seems to have proceeded smoothly, with the best feelings of mutual
confidence and kindness between himself, his father, and his brothers.
Whether the King's own inclination, uninfluenced by the representations
of his parliament, would have led him to put the reins of government
into his son's hand, or whether he was induced by the complaints (p. 289)
and urgent suggestions of the council (of which many broad and deep
vestiges remain on record) to transfer the executive and legislative
functions of the royal prerogative to a son in whom the people had
entire confidence, may admit of much doubt. Probably both causes, his
own increasing infirmities, and his people's dissatisfaction at the
mismanagement of the court, expressed in no covert language, co-operated
in producing that result. Hardyng (as he first wrote on this subject)
would lead us to adopt the former view:
"The King fell sick then, each day more and more;
Wherefore the Prince _he_ made (as it was seen)
Chief of Council, to ease him of his sore;
Who to the Duke of Burgoyne sent, I ween;"
whilst the petitions presented to him, and some subsequent events
which must hereafter be noticed, make us suspect that the behaviour of
the Commons might have hastened his resolution.
At the close of the year, (from recounting the transactions of which
this serious charge against Henry's character induced us to digress,)
the parliament met in the first week in November. It was to have been
opened on the morrow of All Souls, (November 3, 1411,) but the peers
and commoners were so tardy in their arrival, that the King postponed
his meeting the parliament till the next day. In those times, the
monarch seems to have been in the habit of attending the (p. 290)
parliamentary deliberations, and receiving the petitions, and taking
part generally in the proceedings in person. Through this session
Henry IV. was repeatedly present; and the Prince alone, of all his
sons, appears to have attended also. Towards the close of this
parliament, (the very parliament in which the alleged unfilial conduct
of the Prince is represented to have occurred,) proceedings are
recorded, which, though referred to in the Appendix for the sake of
the argument, seem to require notice here also in the way of
narration.
"Also, on Monday the last day of November, the said Speaker, in the
name of the Commons, prayed the King to thank my lord the Prince, the
Bishops of Winchester, of Durham, and others, who were assigned by the
King to be of his council in the last parliament, for their great
labour and diligence. For, as it appears to the said Commons, my lord
the Prince, and the other lords, have well and loyally done their duty
according to their promise in that parliament.[282] And upon that, my
lord the Prince, kneeling, with the other lords, declared by the mouth
of my lord the Prince how they had taken pains and diligence and labours,
according to their promise, and the charge given them in parliament,
to their skill and knowledge. This the King remembered well, and (p. 291)
thanked them most graciously. And he said besides, that 'he was well
assured, if they had possessed larger means than they had, in the
manner it had been spoken by the mouth of my lord the Prince at the
time the King charged them to be of his council in the said parliament,
they would have done their duty to effect more good than was done, in
divers parts, for the defence, honour, good, and profit of him and his
kingdom.' And our lord the King also said, that he felt very contented
with their good and loyal diligence, counsel, and duty, for the time
they had been of his council." This took place about a month after the
Parliament had first met, and within less than three weeks of its
termination. On the very last day of this same parliament, "the
Speaker recommending the persons of the Queen, of the Prince, and of
other the King's sons, prayeth the advancement of their estates. For
which the King giveth hearty thanks." The question unavoidably forces
itself upon the mind of every one.--Could such a transaction as that,
by which the fair fame of the Prince is attempted to be destroyed for
ever, have taken place in this parliament? It may be deemed
superfluous to add, that, though the records of this parliament are
very full and minute, not the most distant allusion occurs to any such
conduct of the Prince.
[Footnote 282: Sir Robert Cotton, in his
Abridgement of the Rolls of Parliament, seems to
think (though without assigning any reason) that
the "thanks were for well employing the treasure
granted in the last parliament."]
But whilst, as we have seen, there had arisen much discontent (p. 292)
among the people with regard to the royal expenditure and the government
of the King's household, the King in his turn had entertained feelings
of dissatisfaction towards his parliament; in consequence, no doubt,
of the plain and unreserved manner in which they had given utterance
to their sentiments. When two parties are thus on the eve of a rupture,
there never are wanting spirits of a temper (from the mere love of
evil, or in the hope of benefiting themselves,) to foment the rising
discord, and fan the smoking fuel into a flame. Such was the case in
this instance, and such (as we shall soon see) was the case also in a
course of proceedings far more closely united with the immediate
subject of these Memoirs. On the same day, the last of the parliament,
the Lords and Commons, addressing the King by petition, express their
grief at the circulation of a report that he was offended on account
of some matters done in this and the last parliament; and they pray
him "to declare that he considers each and every of those in the
estates of parliament to be loyal and faithful subjects," which
petition the King of his especial grace in full parliament granted.
This submission on the part of the parliament, and its gracious
acceptance by the King, seem to have allayed, at least for a time, all
hostile feeling between them.
The prayer of the parliament to the King, that he would express his
own and the nation's thanks to the Prince and the other members of his
council, has been thought to imply some suspicion on their part (p. 293)
that the royal favour was withdrawn from the Prince, that the King was
jealous of his influence, and was therefore backward in publicly
acknowledging his obligations to his son. Be this as it may, two
points seem to press themselves on our notice here:--first, that up to
the May of the following year, 1412, no appearance is discoverable of
any coolness or alienation of regard and confidence between the Prince
and the King;--the second point is, that it is scarcely possible to
read the disjointed records of the intervening months between the
spring of that year and the next winter, without a strong suspicion
suggesting itself, that the cordial harmony with which the royal
father and his son had lived was unhappily interrupted for a time, and
that misunderstandings and jealousies had been fostered to separate
them. The subject is one of lively interest, and, though involved in
much mystery, must not be disposed of without investigation; and,
whilst we claim at the hands of others to "set down nought in malice,"
we must "nothing extenuate," nor allow any apprehension of
consequences to suppress or soften the very truth. The Author feels
himself bound to state not only the mere details of facts from which
inferences might be drawn, but to offer unreservedly his own opinion,
formed upon a patient research, and an honest weighing of whatever
evidence he may have found. The results of his inquiries, after (p. 294)
looking at the point in all the bearings in which his own reflections
or the suggestions of others have placed it, is this:
Henry of Monmouth was assigned on the 12th of May 1407, with the
consent of the council, to remain about the person of the King, that
he might devote himself more constantly to the public service; probably
the declining health of the King even then made such a measure
desirable. From the hour when the Prince became president of the
council, his influence through every rank of society naturally grew
very rapidly, and extended to every branch of the executive government.
Petitions were presented to him by name, not only by inferior applicants,
but even by his brothers. Letters of recommendation were addressed to
him by foreigners; and, in more than one instance, his interest was
sought even by the Pope himself. When the King was personally present
in the council, the record states, that the business was conducted "in
the presence of the King, and of his son the Prince." The father
retained the name, the son exercised the powers of sovereign. Such
pre-eminence, as long as human nature remains the same, will give
offence to some, and will engender envyings and jealousies and
oppositions: nor was the Prince suffered long to enjoy his high station
unmolested. Who were the persons more especially engaged in the unkind
office of severing the father from his son, is matter of conjecture;
so is also the immediate cause and occasion of their disunion. One of
the oldest chroniclers[283] would induce us to believe that a (p. 295)
temporary estrangement was effected in consequence of some malicious
detractors having misrepresented the Prince's conduct with reference
to the Dukes of Burgundy and Orleans. Some may suspect that the
appointment of his brother Thomas to take the command of the troops in
the expedition to Guienne, when their father's increasing malady
prevented him from putting into execution his design of conducting
that campaign in person, might have given umbrage to the Prince, and
led to an open rupture. And undoubtedly it would have been only
natural, had the Prince felt that, in return for all his labours and
his devoted exertions in the field and at the council-board, the
honourable post of commanding the armament to Guienne should have been
assigned to him as the representative of his diseased parent.[284]
But, perhaps, this was not in his thoughts at all. Certainly no (p. 296)
trace in our histories or public documents is discoverable of any
coolness or distance[285] prevailing afterwards between himself and
his brother Thomas, as though he regarded him as a rival and
supplanter. Hardyng (the two editions of whose poem, brought out at
distant times, and under different auspices, in many cases give a very
different colouring to the same transaction,) represents the time of
the Prince's dismissal from the council, and the temporary quarrel
between him and his father, to have followed soon after the return of
the English soldiers sent to aid the Duke of Burgundy. His second
edition, however, paints in more unfavourable colours the opposition
of the Prince to his father, and sinks that voluntary return to filial
obedience and regard which his first edition had described in
expressions implying praise. In the Lansdowne manuscript, or first
edition, an original marginal note directs the reader to observe "How
the King and the Prince fell at great discord, and soon accorded."
[Footnote 283: Elmham.]
[Footnote 284: It may, moreover, be very fairly
conjectured that the presence of the Prince at home
was regarded by the people as far too important at
this time to admit of his leaving the kingdom on
such an expedition. It will be remembered that one
of the first requests made by the parliament on the
accession of his father was, that the Prince's
life, and the welfare of the nation, might not be
hazarded by his departure out of the kingdom; and
subsequently, on his own accession, one of the
first recommendations of his council was that he
would remain in or near London. It is very probable
that a similar wish might have interposed, had he,
and not his brother, been commissioned to conduct
the expedition to Guienne. Calais was so identified
with the kingdom of England that his residence
there is no exception to the rule.]
[Footnote 285: In the Sloane manuscript, indeed,
we are told that on a pecuniary dispute arising
between Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, and
Thomas Duke of Clarence, with reference to the will
of the late Duke of Exeter, brother of the Bishop,
who was his executor, and whose widow the Duke of
Clarence had married, the Prince took part with the
Bishop, and so the Duke of Clarence failed of
obtaining his full demand.]
"Then came they home with great thanks and reward, (p. 297)
So, of the Duke of Burgoyne without fail.
Soon after then (befel it afterward)
The Prince was then discharged of counsaile.
His brother Thomas then, for the King's availe,
Was in his stead then set by ordinance,
For which the _Prince_ and _he_ fell at distance.
With whom the King took part, in great sickness,
Again[st] the Prince with all his excellence.
But with a rety of lords and soberness
The Prince came into his magnificence
Obey, and hole with all benevolence
Unto the King, and fully were accord
Of all matters of which they were discord."
In his later publication, the same writer gives a very different
colouring to the whole proceeding on the part of the Prince; robbing
him of his hearty good-will towards reconciliation, and representing
his return to a right understanding with his father as the result
rather of defeat and compulsion; but this was at a time when the star
of the house of Lancaster had set, and when the house of York was in
the ascendant.
"The King discharged the Prince from his counsail,
And set my lord Sir Thomas in his stead
Chief of council, for the King's more avail.
For which the Prince, of wrath and wilful head,
Again[st] him made debate and froward head;
With whom the King took part, and held the field
To time the Prince unto the King him yield."
Either of these representations of Hardyng will fully account for
Shakspeare's
"Thy place in council thou hast rudely lost, (p. 298)
Which by thy younger brother is supplied:"[286]
though the poet, by fixing the interview between Henry and his father
before the battle of Shrewsbury, has made the expulsion of the Prince
from the council precede his original admission into it by four years,
and his withdrawal from it by at least eight or nine years. It must
here be remarked, that no historical document records the presence of
Thomas Duke of Clarence as a member of the council-board: though, at
the same time, the records in which we might have expected to find his
presence registered, by observing a similar silence with regard to the
Prince, seem to leave little doubt that Henry had ceased to attend the
board a year before his father's death. Some strong though obscure
passages, moreover, in the Chronicles of the time, would go far to
suggest the probability of a demonstration of his power and (p. 299)
influence through the country having actually taken place on the part
of the Prince. Thus the Chronicle of London records, that "on the last
day of June the Prince came to London with much people and gentles,
and remained in the Bishop of Durham's house till July 11th. And the
King, who was then at St. John's house, removed to the Bishop of
London's palace, and thence to his house at Rotherhithe."[287] But the
Chronicle suggests no reason for these movements and ambiguous
proceedings. Thus, too, on the 23rd of September, the mere fact is
stated that "Prince Henry came to the council with a huge people,"
supplying no clue as to the meaning and intention of the concourse. It
cannot, moreover, escape observation, that, though the King held a
council at Rotherhithe on the 8th and on the 10th of July, the Prince
was not present: on the 9th, also, when his brother Thomas was (p. 300)
created Duke of Clarence and Earl of Albemarle, though the Bishop
of Durham, at whose house the Prince was staying, witnessed the
creation, the Prince was not himself one of the witnesses. This
circumstance, indeed may be so interpreted as to remove all idea of
open hostility prevailing at that time between the King and the
Prince. The prelate, it may fairly be supposed, would scarcely have
been a welcome attendant at Rotherhithe, if he were showing all kind
and free hospitality to a rebellious son, who was acting at that very
time in menacing defiance of his father, and evincing by the
demonstration of his numerous and powerful friends the fixed purpose
of avenging himself for whatever insults he might believe himself to
have received from the court party.
[Footnote 286: A passage which the Author has
lately discovered in the Pell Roll, 18th February
1412, will not admit of any other interpretation
than that the Prince, at the date of payment, had
ceased to be of the King's especial council.
Members of that board (as appears by various
entries) were paid for their attendance. In the
Easter Roll, for example, of the previous year,
payment on that ground "to the King's brother, the
Bishop of Winchester," is recorded. The payment to
the Prince is thus registered: "To Henry Prince of
Wales 1000 marks,--666_l._ 13_s._ _4d._--ordered by
the King to be paid in consideration of the
labours, costs, and charges sustained by him at the
time when he _was_ of the council of our lord
himself the King,"--"tempore quo fuit de consilio
ipsius Domini Regis."]
[Footnote 287: Perhaps more importance than the
reality would warrant has been attached to the
circumstance that the King on this occasion went to
Rotherhithe, as though he withdrew from his son for
safety to so unwonted and retired a place. It was
not unusual for Henry IV. to hold his council at
Rotherhithe. A year before this muster of the
Prince's friends, the instructions given to the
Earl of Arundel and others on their embassy to
treat with the Duke of Burgundy for a marriage
between his daughter and the Prince were signed by
the King at Rotherhithe. In these instructions the
Prince is mentioned throughout as though he and his
father were inseparably united in the issue of the
proceeding. "Till the report be made to the King
_and_ his very dear son the Prince." "Our lord the
King is well disposed, _and_ his very dear son my
lord the Prince, to send aid." And Hugh Mortimer,
one of the ambassadors, was chamberlain to the
Prince.]
Equally in the dark do our records leave us as to the persons who were
the fomentors of this breach between father and son. The oldest
historians intimate that there were mischief-makers, whose malicious
designs were for a time successful. Subsequent events (referred to
hereafter in these volumes) compel us to entertain a strong suspicion
that the Queen (Johanna) was at the head of a party resolved, if
possible, to check the growing and absorbing interest of her
son-in-law in the national council, to diminish his power, and tarnish
his honour.[288] Be this as it may, there are, to be placed in the (p. 301)
opposite scale, facts at which we have already slightly glanced,
seeming to imply that things were going on smoothly between Henry and
his father, even through that brief interval of time about which alone
any doubts can be reasonably entertained. A Minute of the Council,
apparently between the July and September of this year (1412), records
that "it is the King's pleasure for my lord the Prince[289] to have
payment on an assignment for the wages of his men still in his pay in
Wales:" and on the 21st of October, in a council at Merton, "the (p. 302)
King wills that the treasurer of Calais shall not interfere with any
receipt or payments henceforward till otherwise advised; and that the
treasurer of England shall receive all the monies arising from the
third part of the subsidy on wools, to be paid by him from time to
time at his discretion to the treasurer of Calais, with such intent
that my lord the Prince, Captain of the town of Calais, might the more
readily receive payment of what is in arrear to him and his soldiers
living with him, according to the agreement; and also for the increase
of his soldiers by the ordinance of the King beyond the number
comprised in that agreement."
[Footnote 288: Who were the inferior agents in this
ungracious and mischievous proceeding we have not
discovered. Perhaps, however, the Author would not
be justified in suppressing a suspicion which has
forced itself on his mind, that, among those who
entertained no kind feeling towards the Prince, was
Richard Kyngeston, then late Archdeacon of
Hereford, for a long time employed in the King's
household, and through whose administration the
expenses seem to have swollen very much; to control
which was one of the principal causes for the
appointment of the Prince, the Bishop of
Winchester, and others, to be members of the
especial council of the King. This suspicion was
first suggested by the absence of all allusion to
the Prince in the Archdeacon's letters to the King
from Hereford in the early years of the Welsh
rebellion, though Henry was close at hand; and the
very ambiguous expression, "Trust ye nought to no
lieutenant," when the Prince himself was virtually,
if not already by indenture, Lieutenant of Wales.]
[Footnote 289: We have already seen that in the
month of May the Prince in his own person (with his
brothers) ratifies the league entered into between
the King and the Dukes of Orleans, Berry, and
Bourbon. Jean le Fevre dates it May 8th, 1412.]
On the whole of this extraordinary and mysterious passage of Henry of
Monmouth's life, the Author must confess that it will be no surprise
to him to find (with a mass of other matter more voluminous and
important than we may now anticipate) new evidence affecting Henry's
character, probably to his utter exculpation, possibly to his
disadvantage, yet forthcoming from the countless treasures of
unpublished records. Meanwhile, he can now, after a patient
examination of all the books and manuscripts, original documents and
subsequent histories, with which it has been his lot to meet, only
return a verdict upon the evidence before him. And the inferences in
which alone he has been able satisfactorily to acquiesce, are
these:--First, that, after the Prince had for some time been most (p. 303)
active and indefatigable President of the Council; he ceased to
retain that office in consequence of a misunderstanding between
himself and his father, fostered by some persons whose interest or
malicious pleasure instigated them to so unworthy an expedient:
Secondly, that after a demonstration of his strength in the affections
and devotedness of the people, for the purpose (not of acting with
violence or intimidation towards the King,[290] but) of convincing his
enemies that the machinations of jealousy and detraction would (p. 304)
have no power permanently to blast his reputation, and crush his
influence, the alienation was soon happily terminated by the frank and
filial conduct of the Prince, who as anxiously sought a full
reconciliation as his father willingly conceded it: Thirdly, that,
through the last months of his life, the King was free from all
uneasiness and disquietude on that ground; and that the illness which
terminated his earthly career, instead of being aggravated by the
Prince's undutiful demeanour, was lightened by his affectionate
attendance; and the dying monarch was comforted by the tender offices
of his son.
[Footnote 290: Among the conjectures which may
suggest themselves as to the possible origin of the
manuscripts' charge, that the Prince sought to
obtain from his father a resignation of his crown,
it might not be unreasonably surmised, nor would
the supposition reflect unfavourably at all on
Henry's character, that, finding his father to be
in the hands of unworthy persons, preying upon his
fortune, misdirecting his counsels, rendering the
monarch personally unpopular, and bringing the
monarchy itself into disrepute, (of all which evils
there is strong evidence,) the Prince might have
urged on his father the necessity of again
intrusting the management of the public weal (which
disease had incapacitated him from conducting
himself) to the hands of the same counsellors who
had before served him and the realm to the
acknowledged profit and honour of both. The Prince
might, influenced only by the most honest, and
upright, and affectionate motives, have professed
his willingness to undertake the duties again from
which he had (with his colleagues) been as it
should seem causelessly discharged. And such a
proceeding on his part might easily have been so
misrepresented as to constitute the charge
contained in the manuscript. The representations of
Elmham, to which we have already briefly referred,
and which are confirmed by other early writers, are
so express with reference to these points, that
they seem to require something more than a mere
reference in this place. "When his father was
suffering under the torture of a grievous sickness,
the Prince endeavoured with filial devotedness to
meet his wishes in every possible way; and
notwithstanding the biting detraction and manifold
accusations of some, which (according to the
prevalence of common opinion) made efforts to
diminish the kind feeling of the father towards his
son, the Prince himself, by means of his own most
affectionate kindness, succeeded finally in
securing with his father favour, grace, and
blessing, though those envious persons still
resisted it."--Cum idem pater gravissimis
ægritudinis incommodis torqueretur, eidem juxta
omnem possibilitatem, totis conatibus, filiali
obsequio obedivit, et non obstante quorundam
detractatione mordaci et accusatione multiplici quæ
(prout vulgaris opinio cecinit) paterni favoris in
filium moliebantur decrementa, ipse invidis
renitentibus, suæ piissimæ benignitatis mediis,
apud patrem, favorem, gratiam et benedictionem
finaliter consequi merebatur.]
On the whole (allowing for inaccuracies as well of addition as of
omission, which, though incapable of any specific correction, must
perhaps exist in so detailed a narrative,) we shall not be far (p. 305)
from the truth if we accept in its general outline the relation of
this event as we find it in Stowe.
"Henry, the Prince, offended with certain of his father's family, who
were said to sow discord between the father and the son, wrote unto
all the parts of the realm, endeavouring himself to refute all the
practices and imaginations of such detractors and slanderous people;
and, to make the matter more manifest to the world, he came to the
King, his father, about the Feast of Peter and Paul, with such a
number of his friends and wellwishers, as a greater had not been seen
in those days. He was straightway admitted to his father's presence,
of whom this one thing he besought of him, that if such as had accused
him might be convicted of unjust accusation, they might be punished,
not according to their deserts, but yet, after their lies were proved,
they might somewhat taste of that which they had meant, although not
to the uttermost. The which request the King seemed to grant; but he
told him that he must tarry a parliament, that such might be tried and
punished by judgment of their peers."[291] Stowe refers to the work
ascribed to Otterbourne, the sentiments of which he faithfully
represents, and then proceeds with the further narrative. "The King
had entertained suspicions in consequence of the Prince's excesses,
and the great recourse of people unto him, of which his court (p. 306)
was at all times more abundant than his father's, that he would
presume to usurp the crown; so that, in consequence of this suspicious
jealousy, he withdrew in part his affection and singular love from the
Prince.[292] He was accompanied by a large body of lords and
gentlemen; but those he would not suffer to advance beyond the fire in
the hall, in order to remove all suspicion from his father of any
intention to overawe or intimidate him. As soon as the Prince had
declared to his father that his life was not so desirable to him that
he would wish to live one day to his father's displeasure, and that he
coveted not so much his own life as his father's pleasure and welfare,
the King embraced the Prince, and with tears addressed him: 'My right
dear and heartily beloved son, it is of truth that I had you partly
suspect, and, as I now perceive, undeserved on your part. I will have
you no longer in distrust for any reports that shall be made unto me.
And thereof I assure you upon my honour.' Thus, by his great wisdom,
was the wrongful imagination of his father's hate utterly avoided, and
himself restored to the King's former grace and favour."
[Footnote 291: Stowe's Annals.]
[Footnote 292: How far we ought to believe the
strange story about the Prince visiting his father
in a mountebank's disguise, and praying the King to
stab him with a dagger which he presented to him,
is very problematical. There is much about it, and
its circumstances, which gives it the air of great
incredibility. Stowe here assumes, without good
ground, that the suspicions of the King were
excited by Henry's excesses.]
Stowe then reports that after Christmas the King called a (p. 307)
parliament (on the morrow of the Purification, February 3,) to the end
of which he did not survive. During his illness, which became much
worse from about Christmas, he gave most excellent advice to Henry;
the particulars of which, as recorded by Stowe, are probably more the
fruits of the writer's imagination than the faithful transcript of any
recorded sentiments. Still the possibility of their having existed in
documents since lost, may perhaps be deemed a sufficient reason for
assigning to them a place in this work.
"'My dear and well-beloved son, I beseech thee, and upon my blessing
charge thee, that, like as thou hast said, so thou minister justice
equally, and in no wise suffer them that be oppressed long to call
upon thee for justice; but redress oppressions, and indifferently and
without delay: for no persuasion of flatterers, nor of them that be
partial, or such as have their hands replenished with gifts, defer not
justice till to-morrow if that thou mayest do justice this day, lest
peradventure God do justice on thee in the mean time, and take from
thee thine authority. Remember that the wealth of thy body and thy
soul and of thy realm resteth in the execution of justice: and do not
thy justice so that thou be called a tyrant; but use thyself in the
middle way between justice and mercy in those things that belong to
thee. And between parties do justice truly, to the consolation of thy
poor subjects that suffer injuries, and to the punishment of (p. 308)
them that be extortioners and doers of oppression, that others thereby
may take example; and in thus doing thou shalt obtain the favour of
God, and the love and fear of thy subjects; and therefore also thou
shalt have thy realm more in tranquillity and rest, which shall be
occasion of great prosperity within thy realm, which Englishmen
naturally do desire; for, so long as they have wealth and riches, so
long shalt thou have obeisance; and, when they be poor, then they be
always ready at every motion to make insurrections, and it causeth
them to rebel against their sovereign lord; for the nature of them is
such rather to fear losing of their goods and worldly substance, than
the jeopardy of their lives. And if thou thus keep them in subjection,
mixed with love and fear, thou shalt have the most peaceable and
fertile country, and the most loving, faithful, and manly people of
the world; which shall be cause of no small fear to thine adversaries.
My son, when it shall please God to call me to the way decreed for
every worldly creature, to thee, as my son and heir, I must leave my
crown and my realm; which I advise thee not to take vainly, and as a
man elate in pride, and rejoiced in worldly honour; but think that
thou art more oppressed with charge to purvey for every person within
the realm, than exalted by vain honour of the world. Thou shalt be
exalted unto the crown for the wealth and conservation of the realm,
and not for thy singular commodity and avail. My son, thou (p. 309)
shalt be a minister unto thy realm, to keep it in tranquillity and to
defend it. Like as the heart in the midst of the body is principal and
chief thing, and serveth to covet and desire that thing that is most
necessary to every of thy members; so, my son, thou shalt be amongst
thy people as chief and principal of them, to minister, imagine, and
acquire those things that may be most beneficial unto them. And then
thy people shall be obedient unto thee, to aid and succour thee, and
in all things to accomplish thy commandments, like as thy ministers
labour every one in his office to acquire and get that thing that thy
heart desireth: and as thy heart is of no force, and impotent, without
the aid of thy members, so without thy people thy reign is nothing. My
son, thou shalt fear and dread God above all things; and thou shalt
love, honour, and worship him with all thy heart: thou shalt attribute
and ascribe to him all things wherein thou seest thyself to be well
fortunate, be it victory of thine enemies, love of thy friends,
obedience of thy subjects, strength and activeness of body, honour,
riches, or fruitful generations, or any other thing, whatever it be,
that chanceth to thy pleasure. Thou shalt not imagine that any such
thing should fortune to thee by thine act, nor by thy desert; but thou
shalt think that all cometh only of the goodness of the Lord. Thus
shalt thou with all thine heart praise, honour, and thank God for all
his benefits that he giveth unto thee. And in thyself eschew (p. 310)
all vainglory and elation of heart, following the wholesome counsel of
the Psalmist, which saith, 'Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us! but unto
thy name give the praise!' These, and many other admonitions and
doctrines, this victorious King gave unto this noble Prince his son,
who with effect followed the same after the death of his father,
whereby he obtained grace of our Lord to attain to great victories,
and many glorious and incredible conquests, through the help and
succour of our Lord, whereof he was never destitute."
* * * * *
For the exquisitely beautiful picture of Shakspeare, called by some
'The Chamber Scene,' by others 'The Crown Scene,' the materials
probably were gathered from Monstrelet, whose narrative is the only
evidence we now have of the incident. That narrative, indeed, is not
contradicted by any other account; still its authenticity is very
questionable. It is, perhaps, impossible not to entertain a suspicion
that a French writer would, without much enquiry, admit an anecdote by
which Henry IV. is made to disclaim all title to the English throne,
and, by immediate consequence, all title to the English possessions in
the fair realm of France. It is also improbable either that Henry IV.
would have uttered this sentiment in the presence of a witness, or
that his son would have made it known to others. Monstrelet's
anecdote, nevertheless, being the source of so inimitable a (p. 311)
scene as Shakspeare has drawn from it, deserves a place here: "The
King's attendant, not perceiving him to breathe, concluded he was
dead, and covered his face with a cloth. The crown was then upon a
cushion near the bed. The Prince, believing his father to be dead,
took away the crown. Shortly after, the King uttered a groan, and
revived; and, missing his crown, sent for his son, and asked why he
had removed it. The Prince mentioned his supposition that his father
had died. The King gave a deep sigh, and said, 'My fair son, what
right have you to it? you knew I had none.'--'My lord,' replied Henry,
'as you have held it by right of your sword, it is my intent to hold
and defend it the same during my life.' The King answered, 'Well, all
as you see best; I leave all things to God, and pray that he will have
mercy on me.' Shortly after, without uttering another word, he
expired."[293]
[Footnote 293: Monstrelet, viii.]
Henry IV. expired on Monday, March 20, 1413; and his remains were
taken to Canterbury, and there interred near the grave of his first
wife. Clement Maidstone[294] testifies to his having heard a man swear
to his father, that he threw the body into the Thames between Barking
and Gravesend; but, on a late investigation, under the superintendence
of members of the cathedral, the body was found still to be in the
coffin, proving the falsehood of this foolish story.[295] (p. 312)
The funeral was celebrated with great solemnity; and Henry V. attended
in person to assist in paying this last homage of respect to the
earthly remains of his sovereign and father.
[Footnote 294: Anglia Sacra, vol. ii. p. 371.]
[Footnote 295: Archæologia.]