MODERN TRIPLE CHARGE AGAINST HENRY OF FALSEHOOD, HYPOCRISY, AND
IMPIETY. -- FUTILITY OF THE CHARGE, AND UTTER FAILURE OF THE EVIDENCE
ON WHICH ALONE IT IS GROUNDED. -- HE IS URGED BY HIS PEOPLE TO
VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF HIS CROWN, HIMSELF HAVING A CONSCIENTIOUS
CONVICTION OF THE JUSTICE OF HIS CLAIM. -- STORY OF THE TENNIS-BALLS.
-- PREPARATIONS FOR INVADING FRANCE. -- HENRY'S WILL MADE AT
SOUTHAMPTON. -- CHARGE OF HYPOCRISY AGAIN GROUNDED ON THE CLOSE OF
THAT TESTAMENT. -- ITS FUTILITY. -- HE DESPATCHES TO THE VARIOUS
POWERS OF EUROPE THE GROUNDS OF HIS CLAIM ON FRANCE.
At this point of his work, the Author finds the painful duty devolved
upon him of investigating a triple charge, now for the first time
brought against Henry by a living writer. He must not shrink from the
task, though he enter upon it with a consciousness that, if
established, the charge must brand Henry's memory with indelible
disgrace, whilst his acquittal may imply censure on his accuser.[73]
He feels, nevertheless, that only one course is open for him to (p. 090)
pursue; he must follow up the inquiry fully, fearlessly, and
impartially, whatever may be the result; and, whether he looks to
Henry or his accuser, he must adhere rigidly to the golden maxim,
"Friends are dear, but truth is dearer!"
[Footnote 73: Here, however, the Author begs to
state his most unfeigned conviction that, had the
Editor of the "Battle of Agincourt" allowed himself
more time for reflection and reconsideration of his
subject, his love of truth and justice (which
evidences itself in various parts of his works)
would have induced him to withdraw this triple
accusation. The Author sincerely gives that
valuable writer full credit for his generous
indignation at the idea of any thing savouring of
falsehood, as well as for his anxious desire to
enlist all our ancient documents, whether published
or yet in manuscript, in the cause of historical
truth; and he sincerely trusts that not one
expression may escape his pen which may give,
unnecessarily, the slightest pain to an Editor for
the assistance derived from whose labours he will
not allow this note to escape him (even at the risk
of tautology) without again expressing his
obligations.]
An Author,[74] then, to whom (as we gladly and gratefully acknowledge)
we are largely indebted for many helps supplied to the biographer and
historian, and from whom we have borrowed copiously in this part of
our work, brings a wide and violent charge against Henry's character
in those very points on which the general tenour and complexion of his
whole life would lead us to regard him as of all least assailable. He
charges him with _falsehood_, _hypocrisy_, and _impiety_. The
groundwork on which he founds these accusations is a series of letters
recorded in M. Le Laboureur's History of Charles VI. of France.
[Footnote 74: Sir Harris Nicolas.]
To ascertain more satisfactorily whether the charge is really (p. 091)
substantiated, or whether it has been built upon an unsound
foundation, we will first extract the whole passage as it stands in
his work, "The Battle of Agincourt," and then sift the evidence which
the writer alleges in support of so grave an imputation.
"On the 7th April, Henry is said to have addressed the King of France
on the subject of his claims, and in reference to the embassy which
Charles had signified his intention of sending to discuss them. No
part[75] of the correspondence on this occasion occurs in the
Foedera, and it is very slightly alluded to by our historians. "To
the first of those letters Charles replied on the 16th of April, and
to the last on the 26th of that month; it is therefore evident (p. 092)
that Henry did not wait for the answer to the first before the second
was written. These documents occur in contemporary writers; and, as
the internal evidence which they contain of being genuine is very
strong, there is no cause to doubt their authenticity. Their most
striking features are falsehood, hypocrisy, and impiety; for Henry's
solemn assurance that he was not actuated by his own ambition, but by
the wishes of his subjects, is rendered very doubtful by the fact
that, on the day after the Chancellor had solicited supplies for the
invasion of France, the Commons _merely stated_ that they granted
_them for the defence of the realm, and the safety of the seas_. The
justice claimed was, that France should be dismembered of many
important territories; and that, with the hand of Katharine, Henry
should receive a sum as unprecedented as it was exorbitant. But this
was not all, for his first demand was the crown of France itself; and
it was not until he was convinced of the impossibility of such a
concession, that he required those points to which his letters refer.
If then there was FALSEHOOD in his assertion that his demands were
dictated by the wishes of his people rather than by his own, there was
HYPOCRISY in the assurances of his moderation and love of peace, and
IMPIETY in calling the Almighty to witness the sincerity of his
protestation, and in profaning the holy writings by citing them on
such an occasion. These letters, which were probably dictated by
Cardinal Beaufort, are remarkable for the style in which they (p. 093)
are written; in some places they approach nearly to eloquence, and they
are throughout clear, nervous, and impressive."
[Footnote 75: That a correspondence took place,
there can be no doubt; but very much doubt is
thrown upon the accuracy of these documents; they
do not appear in such a shape that we can rely upon
them as evidence. The Author who gives them says,
that he considers them capable of embellishing and
adorning his history. The reader is invited to sift
this matter thoroughly, if he thinks that the
writer of these Memoirs has taken a partial view of
the merits of the question; and he is, at the same
time, cautioned against regarding the principal
work in which these letters are found as the
production of M. Laboureur. Into this error he
might easily be led by the manner in which the book
has been quoted. Laboureur translated the work of
an anonymous writer of St. Denis, of whose
character nothing is known. The manuscript, in
Latin, is said to have been found in the library of
M. Le President De Thou. The original author
brought the history down to the year 1415, and St.
Jean Le Fevre continued it to 1422.]
In this threefold indictment, the first charge is "falsehood." The
falsehood is made to consist in Henry's assertion, that he was
stimulated to prosecute his claim by the wishes of his people; and the
only evidence alleged to sustain this charge of falsehood, is the fact
that parliament, in granting the supplies, so far from specifying that
the grant was made for the purpose of recovering the King's rights in
France, merely stated that it was "_for the defence of the realm, and
the safety of the seas_."
Before a charge, fixing an indelible stain on the character of a
fellow-creature, whether the individual were a king leading his armies
to victory, or the humblest subject in his realm, were made on such
grounds as these, it had been well,--well for the cause of truth, and
well for the satisfaction of the accuser,--had the nature and force of
the evidence adduced been first more carefully examined. The slightest
acquaintance with the language of parliament at that time, and the
most cursory comparison of the words of its members with their
conduct, must satisfy every one that not a shadow of suspicion is
suggested of any unwillingness on the part of the Commons to support
the King in demanding his supposed rights, and vindicating them by
arms. On the contrary, the very records of parliament themselves, (p. 094)
which are cited to maintain against Henry the charge of falsehood,
carry with them a full and perfect refutation of the accusation,
complete in all its parts; and compel us to lament that it has been
brought so hastily, unadvisedly, and inconsiderately. Our first point
is to ascertain the force of those words in the grant alone cited to
substantiate the charge of falsehood against Henry,--what meaning was
attached to them by the Commons themselves. We shall find that the
subsidy was granted in the usual formal words, "for the defence of the
realm of England and so forth." In the first parliament of Henry for
example, the subsidy is granted in these words: "To the honour of God,
and for the great love and affection which your poor Commons of your
realm of England have to you our dread sovereign Lord, for the good of
the realm and its good governance in time to come, we have, with the
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, granted to you _for
defence of your realm of England_," and so forth,--specifying a
subsidy from wools and other merchandise; and then, in voting an
entire fifteenth and a tenth, they add, "for _the defence of the
realm, and the safeguard of the seas_." With precisely the same
justice might it be argued in this case that the Commons would not
vote the subsidy for "the support of the King's dignity and high
estate," (though that was one of the especial grounds on which he
appealed himself to the liberality of his parliament,) as it can (p. 095)
be inferred, from the same words used in the parliament of 1415,
that the Commons of England were not forward to promote the expedition
to France. In that parallel case, however, we are quite sure the
argument would be fallacious; because in the very same session they
voted that the King's own allowance should take precedence of all
other payments of annuities and other demands, to the amount of
10,000_l._ annually.
Another instance occurs in the parliament which met October 19, 1416,
the King himself presiding: though the Chancellor, after referring
with exultation to the victories of Harfleur, "the key of France," and
of Agincourt, "where greatest part of the chivalry of France had
fallen in battle," asks for new supplies _for the express purpose_ of
carrying on the wars in France; the Commons, in voting those supplies,
as expressly state that they grant them "_for the defence of your
realm of England_."
The same conclusion is warranted by the grants of 1417 and 1419;
excepting that in these the Commons make the argument intended to
support the charge against Henry's veracity still less tenable, by
inserting a phrase which might seem to exclude the very object for
which application for the subsidy was made. The application was made
especially for the supplies necessary to carry on the war abroad; the
Commons vote the subsidy "for the defence of the realm of England _in
especial_."
But, to remove all possible doubt as to the true intent and (p. 096)
meaning of the people of England in the grant in 1414 of two entire
tenths and two entire fifteenths, we need only refer to the first act
of the next parliament, which, after rehearsing the impossibility of
the King effectually carrying on his wars abroad unless one tenth and
one fifteenth made by the former parliament, payable on the 2nd of
February, should be collected before that time, decrees that subsidy
to be due and payable on the feast of St. Lucie in the next coming
December. Nor is this all. The next act of this same parliament would
of itself prove the utter futility of the charge against Henry, as far
as that charge rests upon the evidence adduced. The parliament first
state the necessity of supplying the King with more efficient means
_for pursuing his campaign in France_, and then vote one entire tenth
and one entire fifteenth,--for what? not for the purpose which they
have expressly specified, but "_for the defence of his said realm of
England_." The preamble, however, of this act shows so clearly what
were the views and feelings of his subjects on this very point, as
well as on the justice of his claim, that a transcript of it seems
indispensable in this place.
"The Commons of the realm, in this present parliament assembled,
considering that the King our sovereign lord, for the honour of God,
and to avoid the shedding of human blood, hath caused various requests
to be made to his adversary of France to have restitution of his
_inheritance_ according to _right and justice_;[76] and for that (p. 097)
end there have been diverse treaties, as well here as beyond the
sea, to his great costs; nevertheless he hath not, by such requests
and treaties, obtained his said inheritance, nor any important part
thereof: and since the King, neither by the revenues of his realm, nor
by any previous grant of subsidy, hath had enough wherewith to pursue
_his right_; yet, always _trusting in God_ that in his JUST _quarrel_
he shall be upheld and supported, of his own good courage hath
undertaken an expedition into those parts, pawning his jewels to
procure a supply of money, and in his own person hath passed over, and
arrived at Harfleur, and laid siege to it and taken it, and holds it
at present, having placed lords and many others there for its defence;
and then of his excellent courage, with few people in regard to the
power of France, he marched by land towards Calais, where, on his
route, many dukes, earls, and other lords, with the power of the realm
of France, to an exceeding great number, opposed him, and gave him
battle; and God, of his grace, hath given victory to our King, to the
honour and exaltation of his crown, of his own fair fame, the (p. 098)
singular comfort of his faithful lieges, to the terror of all his
enemies, and probably to the lasting profit of all his realm."
[Footnote 76: This seems to have been the language
of judges, councillors, parliament, poets, and the
people at large. The voice of all England seemed to
be echoed by Lydgate.
"In honour great; for, by his puissant might,
He conquered all Normandy again
And valiantly, for all the power of France,
And won from them HIS OWN INHERITANCE."]
We may safely leave the issue to the verdict of any impartial mind.
The argument drawn from the language of parliament to convict Henry of
falsehood falls to the ground; it has no colour of reason in it; and
no other argument is even alluded to by the accuser. It is, moreover,
much to be regretted that the Editor of "The Battle of Agincourt,"
when he was translating so large a portion of the Chaplain's memoir,
which with great reason he implicitly follows, had not begun the work
of translation a few sentences only before its present commencement.
Our countrymen would then have seen that, from whatever sources that
Editor drew the evidence on which to build his triple charge of
hypocrisy, falsehood, and impiety against Henry V, those who knew him
best, and had the most ample opportunities of witnessing his character
and conduct, expressed at least a very opposite opinion on the point
at issue. The following are the genuine words of one who accompanied
Henry from his native shores to France, was with him at the battle of
Agincourt, and returned with him in safety to England. "Meanwhile,
after the interchange of many solemn embassies between England and
France, with a view to permanent peace, when the King found that very
many negociations and most exact treaties had been carried on in (p. 099)
vain, by reason that the council of France, _clinging to their own
will, which they adopted as their law_, could be induced to peace by
no just mean of equity, without immense injury to the crown of
England, and perpetual disinheritance of some of the noblest portions
of his right in that realm, though for the sake of peace he was ready
to make great concessions, seeing no other remedy or means by which he
could come to his right, had recourse to the sentence of the supreme
judicature, and without blame sought to recover by the sword what the
blameworthy and unjust violence of the French had struggled so long to
usurp and keep.... He determined to regain the duchy of Normandy,
which had for a long time been _kept, against God and all justice, by
the violence of the French_."
There is, however, one declaration contained in the very volume from
which these alleged letters of Henry are extracted, which makes the
charge brought by the commentator on those letters still more
surprising.[77] It is in that very volume positively asserted, with
regard to the first rumour through France of Henry's intended
invasion, that "his subjects _had strongly_ remonstrated with (p. 100)
him for his love of peace and rest, and his dislike of active
measures, and had _now_ INSISTED upon his undertaking the
expedition."[78]
[Footnote 77: The Author does not mean to imply, as
the result of his inquiries, that Henry was
altogether influenced in his determination to claim
the crown of France by the instigations of his
people. If, as we believe, he was urged by them to
adopt that measure, we believe also that he
listened with much readiness to their appeal.]
[Footnote 78: The words of the writer of that
history are too clear and forcible to justify us in
merely quoting their substance. The very title of
his chapter directs our attention to the point.
"Henry, King of England, constrained by his
subjects to renew his pretension to the crown of
France, makes a great movement." "The present year,
on the incidents of which I proceed to remark,
seems to me not less full of troubles and evils
than any of those which preceded it. It commenced
by a rumour, sudden but true, and which spread
itself everywhere, that the English, impatient of
repose, blaming for carelessness and want of heart
the repose and inactivity of their King Henry, had
_compelled him_ to arouse himself, and to revive by
the same means the pretensions of some of his
predecessors on the crown of France." "Les Anglais,
impatiens de repos à leur ordinance, blâmans de
nonchalance et de manque de coeur le repos et
l'oisiveté de leur Roi Henri, l'avaient obligé de
se reveiller."--M. Laboureur, Life of Charles VI,
translated from the Latin of a contemporary
ecclesiastic. Whatever be the degree of authority
to which this author is entitled, whilst he
supplies the letters on which the accusation alone
is founded, he as expressly contradicts, by
positive assertion, the inference now drawn from
those letters.]
The charge of hypocrisy is made to rest "on Henry assuring the French
monarch of his moderation and love of peace, whereas he must have been
conscious that he was immoderate in his demands, and was not desirous
of peace." To prove that his demands were immoderate, is not enough to
sustain this accusation; to constitute him a hypocrite, he must
_himself have been conscious_ that his demands were immoderate. (p. 101)
But how stands the probability? He was fully persuaded that the crown
of France was his own; and he first demands the full surrender of his
alleged rights. The Commons declare that what he sought was "the
restitution of his inheritance according to _right and justice_," and
testify that he "trusted in God for support in his _just quarrel_." He
then, agreeably to the advice of his council,[79] (who acknowledge
that what he sought to recover was "his righteous heritage, (p. 102)
the redintegration of the old rights of his crown,") withdrawing his
full demand, proposes other terms, unreasonable, no doubt, as we (p. 103)
may view them now, but, if regarded as a substitute for the fair
kingdom of France, far from stamping on Henry the brand of hypocrisy,
when he made a profession of moderation and a love of peace.[80]
[Footnote 79: Among the records of the council, the
minutes of one of their meetings held at
Westminster in the second year of Henry's reign
deserve especial attention. The manuscript is much
damaged, but the general meaning is clearly
intelligible. The minutes first rehearse that "the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the true and
humble lieges and knights of the King's noble
realm, were there present, gathered by his royal
command." It then proceeds: "Ye, our noble and
righteous Lord and King, have in your chivalrous
heart and desire determined to stir and labour in
your recovery and redintegration of the old rights
of your crown, as well as for your righteous
heritage ... desiring upon this knightful intent
and purpose to have the good and high advice and
true meaning of us, your true knights and humble
lieges aforesaid. Whereupon, our sovereign Lord, as
well our Lords as we have communed by your high
commandment in these matters: and known well among
us all without [doubt ye are] so Christian a Prince
that ye would in so high a matter begin nothing but
that were to God's pleasance, and to eschew by all
ways the shedding of Christian blood; and that, if
algate [at all events] ye should do it, that
denying of right and reason were the cause [rather]
than wilfulheadedness. Wherefore, our sovereign and
gracious high Lord, it thinks, as well our Lords as
us in our own hearts, that it were speedful to send
such ambassadors to every party as [your] claim
requireth, sufficiently instructed for the right
and recovery of that is above said. And if ye, our
sovereign Lord, at the reverence of God, like of
your proper motion, without our counsel given
thereto, any mesne [middle] way to offer, that were
moderating of your whole title, or of any of your
claims beyond the sea; and hereupon your adverse
party denying you both right and reason and all
reasonable mesne [middle] ways, we trust all in
God's grace that all your works in pursuing them
should take the better speed and conclusion: and in
the mean while that all the works of readiness that
may be to your voyage thought or wrought, that it
be done by the high advice of you and your noble
council; seeing that the surety of your royal
estate, the peace of your land, the safe ward of
all your [realm] be well and sufficiently provided
for above all things. And, these observed, we shall
be ready with our bodies and goods, to do you the
service that we may to our powers, as far as we
ought of right, and as our ancestors have done to
your noble progenitors in like case."
This advice appears to have been followed by Henry
throughout.
The Minutes of Council, February 2, 1415, after
stating the measures proposed for the safeguard of
the sea, and the marches of Scotland and Wales, &c.
during the King's absence, record this remarkable
advice: that Henry would direct his treasurer to
bring a clear statement of his debtor and creditor
account, the demands of the treasury, and the
income; also the debts incurred since the
coronation, and the annuities to which he was
pledged; "in order that, before the departure of
the King, such provision may be made in every part,
according to the amount of the charges, that the
mind and soul of the King might be set at ease and
comfort, that he might depart like a Christian
Prince with a good government, and the better
accomplish his voyage, to the pleasure of God, and
the singular comfort of all his faithful
lieges."--Acts of Privy Council, vol. ii. p. 148.]
[Footnote 80: A renewed charge of hypocrisy,
brought against Henry by the same pen, will call
for a renewed inquiry; and whatever further remarks
may be made on that topic, are reserved for the
page in which we shall shortly enter upon the
investigation of the charges.]
There remains the charge of impiety, which is made to rest on Henry
having called the Almighty to witness a falsehood, and quoted
Scripture in support of what he affirmed. It was undoubtedly too much
the practice then, as unhappily it is now, for Christians, on trivial
occasions, to appeal to Heaven, and to quote the sanction of Scripture
in very questionable matters of worldly policy. But Henry does not
appeal presumptuously, nor quote lightly; he appeals solemnly, and he
quotes reverently, in a matter of very great importance to both
kingdoms, and in a cause which he believed to be founded in right and
justice. He appealed to Heaven to witness what he regarded as true.
The page we have been examining accuses Henry of falsehood, hypocrisy,
and impiety: the evidence of facts, and the testimony of his
contemporaries, represent him to us in the character of an honest,
undisguised, and pious King.
On Tuesday, April 16, Henry held a council at Westminster, at (p. 104)
which the Chancellor, Henry Beaufort, briefly explained the
proceedings of the great council, enumerating the causes which induced
their King, in the name of God, to undertake in his own person an
expedition for the recovery of his inheritance. On the next day the
Chancellor informed the council that the King had appointed the Duke
of Bedford to be lieutenant of England[81] during his absence; with
the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Winchester, and other
prelates and lay lords to form his council.
[Footnote 81: Hall says, that "he left for governor
behind him his mother-in-law, the Queen." And
Goodwin (referring for his authority to Hall and
Pat. 3 Hen. V. p. 2. m. 41.) states that he made
her regent, and the Duke of Bedford protector. But
this seems to have originated in mere mistake.]
As early as May 26, an order was issued to suspend the assizes through
England during the King's absence, lest his lieges who accompanied him
might be subjected to inconvenience and injustice. The defence of the
country towards Scotland and Wales was provided for, and the rate of
wages payable to his retinue and soldiers was fixed. Every duke was to
receive 13_s._ 4_d._, every earl 6_s._ 8_d._, every baron 4_s._, and
every knight 2_s._, every esquire being a man-at-arms 12_d._, every
archer 6_d._ each day; whilst for every thirty men-at-arms a reward
was assigned of one hundred marks a quarter; together with some other
stipulations.
In the spring and summer the King issued[82] commissions to hire (p. 105)
ships from Holland and Zealand; to press sailors to navigate his
vessels; to provide workmen to make and repair bows; to procure carts
and waggons for the conveyance of his stores; also a supply of masons,
carpenters, and smiths, together with the materials of the respective
trades. The sheriffs of different counties were ordered to buy cattle;
and the sheriff of Hampshire was to cause bread to be baked, and ale
to be brewed, at Winchester and Southampton, and the parts adjacent,
for the use of the army.
[Footnote 82: The particulars of these commissions
may be found in Rymer, or in Sir Harris Nicolas's
"Battle of Agincourt," to whom the reader is
referred for more minute information on the
subject.]
The King not only thus took effective measures for the transport and
supply of his forces, but commanded also the Archbishop and the other
prelates to array the clergy for the defence of the kingdom at home
during his absence. Every sheriff also was to proclaim that a nightly
watch should be kept till All-Saints' Day; and no taverner was to
allow any stranger to remain in his house more than one day and night,
without knowledge of the cause of his delay; and all suspicious
persons were to be committed to prison.
Though parliament had granted a liberal supply, the King, finding his
expenses to exceed his means, made a direct and powerful appeal to all
his loving subjects for a loan, with promise of repayment; and (p. 106)
a considerable sum was raised in consequence of that appeal, but
still not enough. He was, therefore, compelled to pawn his plate and
jewels, (as he had done with his small stock in early youth during the
Welsh rebellion,) and to have recourse to all expedients for raising
the necessary sums. These expedients were often totally incompatible
with our present notions of the royal dignity; but no intimation
appears anywhere of the least unfair and dishonourable dealing on the
part of the King. His appeals to the people much resembled those of
Charles I, under still more urgent circumstances, in after ages.
A curious fact is recorded in the minutes of a council held May 25,
1415, respecting a demand for money from the companies of foreign
merchants resident in London. They were summoned before the council,
and informed that it was usual for merchants who traded in any other
country than their own to lend the government such sums as they could
bear, or else be committed to prison during pleasure. This custom was
justified on the ground of many and great privileges secured to them
in their traffic by the King's favour, from which they derived great
wealth. Certain sums were demanded, and sufficient pledges of gold,
silver, and jewels were offered; but the merchants of Florence,
Venice, and Lucca [de Luk] refused to comply, and were committed to
the custody of the warden of the Fleet Prison. From the merchants (p. 107)
of Florence was required 1,200_l._, from those of Venice 1,000_l._,
from those of Lucca 200_l._ These strong measures seem to have worked
their intended effect, for all those guilds granted loans afterwards.
Having now effected every preparation in his power, the King passed
through London, accompanied by the Mayor and citizens (who attended
him as far as Kingston); and having made an offering at St. Paul's,
and taken leave of his mother-in-law the Queen, he proceeded on his
way towards Southampton, where all his ships and contingents were
directed to await his arrival.
Reaching Winchester, he remained there for some days from June 26th,
probably to give audience to the French ambassadors, who were
presented to him on the 30th. The Archbishop of Bourges headed that
embassy, and the Bishop of Winchester was Henry's representative and
spokesman. Much of negociating and bartering ensued, and at first many
conciliatory communications were made on both sides; the French
yielding much, the English adhering to their original demands, or
remitting little from them. At length, the reply of the Archbishop put
an abrupt end to further discussion; and Henry commanded the
ambassadors to depart, with a promise that he would soon follow them.
It is here again painful to read the unkind and unjustifiable language
of the same author, whose triple charge against Henry's religious (p. 108)
and moral character we have just investigated, when he describes the
surprise of the French monarch and his court on the return of these
ambassadors. "Until that moment," he says, "the French court, either
_cajoled_ by Henry's _hypocrisy_, or lulled into security by a
mistaken estimate of his power, had neglected every means for
resisting the storm which was about to burst upon their country."
Henry stands convicted of no hypocrisy; and his accuser alleges no
evidence on which an impartial mind would pronounce him guilty. It is
curious as it is satisfactory to lay side by side with this unguarded
calumny the version of the circumstances of that time, made by an
unprejudiced foreigner, and a very sensible well-versed historian.[83]
"France was then governed by the Dauphin Louis, a young and
presumptuous prince, who had up to this point thought himself able to
amuse Henry by feigned negociations. Nevertheless, the preparations
going on in England having opened the eyes of his council, a
resolution was taken to send to England twelve ambassadors, at the
head of whom was the Archbishop of Bourges."
[Footnote 83: Abrégé Historique des Actes publics
d'Angleterre.]
Several contemporary writers, as well as general tradition, state
that, on occasion of one of the various embassies sent to and fro
between the courts of London and Paris, the Dauphin, then about
eighteen or nineteen years of age, sent an insulting present (p. 109)
to Henry of a tun of tennis-balls, with a message full of contempt and
scorn,[84] implying that a racket-court was a more fit place for him
than a battle-field. It is well observed, that such an act of wilful
provocation must have convinced both parties of the hopelessness of
any attempts towards a pacific arrangement; and, since the
negociations were carried on to the very last, some discredit has
thence been attempted to be thrown on the story altogether. But it
must be remembered (as the author of the Abrégé Historique justly
remarks) that these negociations were continued, on the part of
France, merely to gain time, and withdraw Henry from his purpose;
whilst Henry, on the other side, by his renewed proposals for the hand
of Katharine, (an union on which he appears from the first to have
been heartily bent,) kept up in his enemies the hope that, to gain
that object, he would ultimately relax from many of his original
demands. Henry certainly afterwards challenged the Dauphin to single
combat, as though he had a quarrel with him personally; and nothing
can fairly be inferred against the truth of the tradition, from the
silence in the challenge on the point of such an insult having been
offered. On the whole, the evidence is decidedly in favour of the
reality of the incident; whilst Henry's reported answer is very
characteristic: "I will thank the Dauphin in person, and will (p. 110)
carry him such tennis-balls as shall rattle his hall's roof about his
ears." And they, says the contemporary chronicler,[85] were great
gunstones for the Dauphin to play withal.
[Footnote 84: Otterbourne says Henry received the
tennis-balls whilst he was keeping his Lent at
Kenilworth.]
[Footnote 85: Cotton MS. Claudius, A. viii.]
* * * * *
Anxious to proceed in our narrative without further allusion to such
sweeping and unsupported charges, we must, nevertheless, here
introduce (though reluctantly) the remarks which have been suffered to
fall from the same pen, as its chief comment on the closing words of
Henry's last Will, made at this time.[86] He signed that document at
Southampton, July 24th, just three days after discovering the
conspiracy of which we must soon speak. Probably a sense of the
uncertainty of life, and the necessity of setting his house in order
without delay, were impressed deeply upon him by that unhappy event.
He felt not only that he had embarked in an enterprise the result of
which was doubtful, in which at all events he must expose his life to
numberless unforeseen perils; but that the thread of his mortal
existence might at a moment be cut asunder by the hands of the very
men to whom he looked for protection and victory. Compared with the
wills of other princes and nobles of that day, there is nothing (p. 111)
very remarkable in Henry's. From first to last it is tinctured with
the superstitions of the corrupt form of our holy religion, then
over-spreading England.[87]
[Footnote 86: His very last will is not known to be
in existence. This testament was made seven years
before his death, and was probably soon cancelled.]
[Footnote 87: Among the saints to whose custody he
bequeaths his soul, his favourite and patron, John
of Bridlington, finds a place. Among the legacies
connected with his family history, we meet with a
bequest, to the "Bishop of Durham, of the Missal
and Portophore which he had received as a present
from his dear grandmother Joan, Countess of
Hereford." To the same countess a gold cyphus,--a
proof that in 1415 his maternal grandmother was
still alive. It may be worth observing that, in
this will, there is no legacy to the Queen, his
father's widow. He had, however, on the 30th June
preceding, "granted of especial grace to his
dearest mother, Joanna, Queen of England, licence
to live, during his absence, in his castles of
Windsor, Wallingford, Berkhamstead, and Hertford."]
The subscription to this testament is couched in these words: "This
is my last Will subscribed with my own hand. R.H. Jesu Mercy and
Gramercy Ladie Mary Help:" and on these words the same author makes
this observation: "According to all the biographers of Henry,
extraordinary piety was a leading trait in his character, from which
feeling the addition to his Will appears to have arisen. It seems
indeed difficult to reconcile the _lawless ambition_, much less the
_hypocrisy_,[88] which Henry displayed in his negociations, with an
obedience to the genuine dictates of Christianity; but as he (p. 112)
rigidly observed every rite of the church, was bountiful towards its
members, and uniformly ascribed success to the Almighty, it is not
surprising that his contemporaries should have described him as
eminently pious."
[Footnote 88: In a few pages further, the same
writer thinks himself justified in adding this note
on a letter of Henry to Charles, "A translation of
this _hypocritical_ letter is given in the
Appendix."]
On this passage the biographer of Henry had rather that his readers
should form their own comment, than that he should express the
sentiments which he cannot but entertain: he invites, however, the
lover of truth to compare this charge of _lawless ambition and
hypocrisy_ with the actual conduct of Henry at this very time.
Whilst resident in the Abbey of Tichfield,[89] about ten miles from
Southampton, he despatched to the Council of Constance, addressing
himself chiefly to the Emperor Sigismund and the other princes
assembled there, copies of the treaties between Henry IV. and the
French court relative to the restoration of Aquitain to the English
crown; remarking upon the wrong that was done to him by the gross
violation of those treaties. This shows at all events that he was not
conscious of being actuated by lawless ambition, or of acting the part
of a hypocrite; it proves that he was desirous of having the merits of
his quarrel with France examined and understood: and he seems to have
felt an assurance that those who made themselves acquainted with the
real grounds of his intended invasion would pronounce his quarrel to
be just. Otherwise he would scarcely have gone out of his way to (p. 113)
draw the eyes of assembled Europe, (not to the boldness of an
enterprise, nor to the splendour of conquests, but) to a calm
investigation of the righteousness of his cause.[90]
[Footnote 89: See Cott. MS. Julius, E. iv. f. 115.]
[Footnote 90: The Emperor, in the league which he
made with Henry, records his resolution to assist
him in the recovery of his just rights.]
The words of his chaplain in recording this measure of Henry deserve a
place here. Indeed, every page of contemporary history proves that the
King himself had no misgivings as to the uprightness and justice of
his cause, and was ready to refer the whole to the judgment of
Christendom. "The King caused transcripts of all treaties to be
forwarded to the general council, to the Emperor Sigismund and other
Catholic princes, to the intent that all Christendom might know how
great injuries the duplicity of the French had inflicted upon him, and
that he was, reluctantly and against his will, compelled, as it were,
to raise his standard against the rebels."[91]
[Footnote 91: Here we cannot but recal the words
with which Henry afterwards, it is said, addressed
the Cardinal des Ursins, who was sent by the Pope
to mediate between him and Charles just before he
laid siege to Rouen. "See you not that God hath
brought me here as it were by the hand? There is no
longer a King in France. _I have a legal right over
that realm._ All is in confusion there; and no one
dreams of opposing me. Can I have a more sensible
proof that God, who disposes of crowns, has decreed
that I should place on my head the crown of
France?" And in his mandate to the Archbishop of
Canterbury to array the clergy against the enemies
of the church and of the faith, should any appear
in his absence, he says, "We are now going to
recover our inheritance and the rights of our
crown, now a long time, as is _evident to all_,
unjustly kept from us."--Sloane, p. 52.]
Nor can we here omit to observe, (though it be anticipating what (p. 114)
must hereafter be again referred to in the course of the history,)
that the behaviour of the Emperor, when, in the spring of the
following year, he made a personal voyage to England on purpose to
visit Henry, and the solemn declaration of the Duke of Burgundy, (of
whose sincerity, however, no one can speak without hesitation,) "that
he had at first thought Henry unjust in his demands, but was at length
convinced of their justice," show that in the estimation of
contemporaries, and those neither churchmen nor his own subjects, who
may be suspected of partiality, Henry's character deserved better than
to be stamped with the imputation of "lawless ambition and hypocrisy."
It is very easy for any one to charge a fellow-creature with immoral
and unchristian motives; and it may carry with it the appearance of
honest indignation, and of an heroic love of virtue, religion, and
truth, when one can tear off the veil of conquest and martial glory
from the individual, and expose his naked faults to pity, or contempt,
or hatred. But a good judge, in forming his own estimate of the
motives which may have given birth to acts which fall under his
cognizance, or in guiding others to return a righteous verdict, will
not consider the most ready method of solving a difficulty to be
always the safest. Take for granted that Henry's conduct towards (p. 115)
France is intelligible on the ground of lawless ambition and gross
hypocrisy, (though there is no proof of either,) it is equally, at
least, intelligible on the supposition of his full and undoubting
conviction of his right to all he claimed. And just as open would any
individual plaintiff be to the charge of hypocrisy, who, after having
insisted upon his full rights, and given notice of trial, and
collected his witnesses, should, on the very eve of the issue being
tried, write to the defendant, urging him to yield, and avoid the
expense and irritation of a protracted law-suit, offering at the same
time a remission of some portion of his claim,--as Henry is in
fairness chargeable with hypocrisy because he wrote to his "adversary
of France," urging him to yield, and avoid the effusion of blood. On
the very eve of his departure for the shores of Normandy, many facts
and circumstances assure us that Henry acted under a full persuasion
that he demanded of France only what was in strict justice his due
when he laid claim to those territories and honours which had been so
long withheld from the Kings of England, his predecessors. Facts are
decidedly against the charge of hypocrisy; but, even were the facts
doubtful, his general character for honesty, and openness, and manly
straightforward dealing, (to which history bears abundant evidence,)
would make the scale of justice preponderate in his favour.
In dismissing this subject, parallel with these modern accusations (p. 116)
of Henry on the ground of "cajoling hypocrisy" we may lay the
testimony borne by his contemporary, Walsingham,[92] to the
unsuspecting simplicity of his mind, which exposed him to the (p. 117)
overreaching designs of the unprincipled and crafty. In his Ypodigma
Neustriæ, a work expressly written for the use and profit of Henry,
and with a view of putting him upon his guard against the intrigues
of foreign courts, he refers to his "innocence liable to be (p. 118)
circumvented, and his noble character likely to be deceived, by the
cunning craftiness and hypocritical fraud and false promises of his
enemies."
[Footnote 92: The Dedication of the Ypodigma
Neustriæ claims for itself a place in this work;
and to no part can it be more appropriately
appended than to this, in which modern charges
strongly contrasted with his view are examined. The
following is a literal translation of the
introduction to this work of Walsingham:--"To the
most noble and illustrious King of the French and
English, Henry, conqueror of Normandy, most serene
Prince of Wales, Lord of Ireland and Aquitain, by
God's grace always and everywhere victor, the
humblest of his servants who pray for him, Brother
Thomas of Walsingham, monk of the monastery of St.
Alban, who was first of the English martyrs, with
lowly recommendation wisheth health in Him who
giveth health to Kings. Whilst I reflected, among
the contemplative studies of the cloister, with how
great talents of virtue, and titles of victory, God
Almighty hath exalted,--with what gifts of especial
grace He hath abundantly filled you,--so that even
your enemies proclaim your wisdom, admire and
everywhere extol your discretion, and celebrate
your justice by the testimony of their praise, I
confess that I have been filled with pleasure and
inward joy, more gratifying far than the choicest
dainties. But, in the midst of this, there arises
in my mind a kind of cloud, which throws a shade on
the glad thought of my heart, whilst I am compelled
to fear the general habits of a nation which very
often has trifled with the publicly plighted vows
and their oath solemnly pledged. And whilst I
meditate on past days,--recalling the frauds,
crimes, factions, and enormities committed by your
enemies,--my soul is made anxious, and my heart is
disquieted within me, and my life has well-nigh
failed from grief, knowing that to-morrow base
deeds may be done as well as yesterday. And fearing
lest by any means your innocence may be
circumvented, I revolved in my mind what would best
minister to your safety in the midst of so many
dangers. At length it occurred to me to write
something to your Highness (whom my soul cordially
loves) by which you may be made more safe at once
and more cautious. Love conquers all things; ah! it
has wrought in me not to fear, though in an
uncultivated and unpolished style, to offer to so
wise and glorious a Prince what I reflected upon in
my mind, and to open to your serene Highness as I
best may what I have conceived in my heart for your
royal safety. Hence it is that I have endeavoured
to draw up a brief table of events from the
commencement of the conquest of Neustria [Normandy]
by the Normans down to their conquest of England;
which I have carried on to the time when your
Majesty, with power and victory, compelled the same
Normandy, alienated against right and justice from
your ancestors for about two hundred and twenty
years, to come under your yoke, and royally to be
governed according to your desire. Wherefore, my
redoubted Lord and King, in this little work I
offer to your inspection past deeds, various wars,
mutual covenants of peace; leagues, though
confirmed by an oath, violated; the promises,
pledges, offerings, treacherously made to your
predecessors; the deceit and hypocrisy of the
enemy; and whatever the antagonist could with
exquisite craftiness invent, by which they might
entrap your noble spirit. Wherefore, since it
becomes no one to possess knowledge more than a
Prince, whose learning may be most beneficial to
his subjects,--I, a poor and humble votary, offer
(if it be your will) this volume to the inspection
of your Highness; giving it the name of Ypodigma
Neustriæ, because it especially portrays the events
and falls of that country from the time of Rollo
the first Duke down to the sixth year of your happy
reign, which may God Almighty of his great mercy
crown with peace, and preserve in all prosperity!
Amen."]