CHAPTER XXXII. (p. 393)

THE CASE OF JOHN CLAYTON, OF GEORGE GURMYN, AND OF WILLIAM TAYLOR,

EXAMINED. -- RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. -- HENRY'S KINDNESS AND

LIBERALITY TO THE WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF CONVICTED HERETICS. --

REFLECTIONS.

Henry of Monmouth's name seems never to have been associated by our

historians with the death of any one condemned to the flames as a

heretic, except in the case of those two persons the circumstances of

whose last hours have been examined at length in this inquiry,--Badby,

whom he endeavoured to save even at the stake, and Oldcastle, whose

execution he respited, and for whose death he never issued the

warrant. There are, however, three prosecutions for heresy, which,

though hitherto unconnected with the question discussed in these

chapters, seem to claim a patient consideration before this inquiry is

closed, and the final answer be returned to the question, Was Henry a

persecutor for religious opinions? The names of the three persecuted

for maintaining opinions different from the dogmas of the church (p. 394)

of Rome, to whose convictions and deaths our attention is here drawn,

are John Clayton, or Claydon, George Gurmyn,[297] and William Taylor.

[Footnote 297: There can be no doubt that George

Gurmyn, a baker, was burnt for heresy this year,

1415, and probably in the same fire with John

Claydon. Fox mentions the name as Turming; but, not

having been able to ascertain the truth of the

tradition, he leaves the whole matter in

uncertainty. In the Pipe Rolls, 3 Henry V, the

sheriffs state they had expended twenty shillings

about the burning of John Claydon, skinner, and

George Gurmyn, baker, Lollards convicted of heresy.

The Author has searched the records in St. Paul's

Cathedral, but without success, for any account of

the proceedings against Gurmyn. He is said to have

been convicted before the Bishop of London.]

The case of John Clayton, whether we look to it merely as a

well-authenticated fact of history, or seek from it ancillary evidence

as to the principles and conduct of Henry in the matter of religious

persecution, involves subjects of deep interest. The satisfaction with

which it is believed many may view it, as one of the incidents which

seem to imply that Henry was an unwilling, reluctant executor of the

penal laws of his kingdom, and took the lead of his people in

liberality and toleration, must be mingled with pain sincerely felt on

witnessing the stewards of the word of life becoming the zealous and

relentless exactors of a cruel and iniquitous law, straining to the

very utmost its enactments to cover their deeds of blood, and

sacrificing their fellow-creatures to the image they had set up. The

case of Clayton puts the excessive enormities of the hierarchy (p. 395)

of that day in a more striking point of view than many others of the

more generally cited instances of persecution. Clayton's was not the

case of a powerful man like Cobham, whose very character and station,

and rank and influence, made him formidable: Clayton's was not the

case of a learned man, or an eloquent preacher, or an active, zealous

propagator of those new doctrines from which the see of Rome

anticipated so much evil to her cause. His was the case of a

tradesman, unable to read himself, and engaging another to read to him

out of a book which seemed to give him pleasure; the place of reading

being a private room in a private house, the time of reading being the

Lord's day, and other festivals of the church; and the witnesses

against him being his own servant and his own apprentice. Had the

record of this sad persecution been written by an enemy to the

priesthood, we should have suspected that the whole case was

misrepresented, that a colouring had been unfairly given to the

proceedings, to make them more odious in our sight; and though, at the

best, such proceedings must be detestable, we should have deemed that

in this case the facts had been distorted to meet the prejudiced views

of the writer. But the proceedings are registered in the authentic

records of the Archbishop of Canterbury,[298] and are minutely (p. 396)

detailed in all the circumstances of time, and place, and person.

[Footnote 298: Printed in "Wilkins' Concilia."]

John Clayton was a currier, or skinner, living in the parish of St.

Anne's, "Aldrychgate." In those days few tradesmen could read, and he

was not an exception. But he had at an early period formed a very

favourable opinion of the new doctrines; the preaching of Wickliffe's

followers, or, it may be, of Wickliffe himself, had made so deep an

impression on his mind, that nothing could shake the firmness and

constancy of his belief to the day of his death. His predilection for

"Lollardy," as the profession of the new doctrines was called, became

known to the ecclesiastical rulers long before the statute for burning

heretics was passed in England; and his religious opinions exposed him

to great troubles and hardships, even in the reign of Richard II. He

was arrested on suspicion of heresy, and carried before Braybrook,

Bishop of London. The consequence of his conviction was imprisonment,

first in Conway Castle for two years, and subsequently in the Fleet

for the term of three years more. He then renounced the errors alleged

against him, and abjured them at the time when "Lord John Searle" was

chancellor of England, about the year 1400. Through the reign of Henry

IV, and the two first years of Henry V, Clayton seems to have remained

unmolested. No sooner, however, had Henry left England on his first

expedition to France, than Clayton was seized, tried, and (p. 397)

condemned. There seems to have been unusual despatch evinced in every

stage of the proceedings. Clayton was not cited by regular process.

The Mayor of London arrested him, and brought him before the

Archbishop's consistory, on Saturday, August 17th, when he was

examined, and remanded till the next Monday, August 19th. On which day

he was brought up again, and finally condemned as a wilful relapsed

heretic.

At that very time, Henry, having dismissed his ships, was first

commencing the siege of Harfleur; he had left England only the

preceding Sunday. Whether the time selected for Clayton's arrest and

trial was merely accidental, or whether the civil and ecclesiastical

authorities (for both were equally eager for the blood of their

victim) seized upon the opportunity of Henry's first absence from

England, is a question which ought not to be decided before all the

circumstances attending both Clayton's execution and the proceedings

against Taylor (which will be next examined) shall have been carefully

weighed. One of the witnesses, who testified to overt acts of heresy

(such as those on which he was condemned) having been seen in

Clayton's conduct a year before the time of trial, was living in the

house of the Mayor of London; and that functionary seems to have

hurried on the prosecution with more zeal than considerateness, and to

have kept the young man in readiness to give his testimony whenever a

favourable opportunity offered. Such circumstances cannot be (p. 398)

contemplated without suspicion. At all events, the plain fact is,

that, on the very Saturday after Henry sailed from England, Clayton

was brought under arrest, not under process of citation, before the

ecclesiastical judges by the Mayor of London, who was ready with his

witnesses.

The charges brought against Clayton were, that, having renounced

heresy, he had again been guilty of the same crime, by associating

with persons suspected of heresy, and by having heretical books in his

possession. To establish these facts, in addition to his own

confession that he "had been imprisoned in the time of Bishop

Braybrooke on a charge of heresy, and had subsequently renounced in

the time of Chancellor Searle, and had heard read about one quarter of

the book then produced," they proceeded to examine two witnesses who

had been inmates in Clayton's family.

The first witness swore that he had been, some time past, a servant

and apprentice of John Clayton; that he had seen one John Fuller, a

fellow-servant of his, reading the book, which he then identified, to

his master, in St. Martin's Lane, on certain festival days since

Easter; that in the book were the ten commandments in English, but

what else it contained he knew not; that John Clayton seemed to be

delighted with the book, and to regard it as sound and Catholic.

Another witness, Saunder Philip, a lad fifteen years old, a (p. 399)

servant of Clayton's, but living at the time of the trial in the house

of the Mayor of London, testified that he saw the book brought into

Clayton's house about the middle of the preceding Lent; that he heard

Clayton, his master, say that he would rather pay three times the

price of the book than be without it; and that, on several occasions,

through the year before, he saw and heard persons suspected of heresy

conversing with Clayton.

To what miserable, degrading expedients were these persecutors obliged

to condescend in compassing their designs! compelling those who ate of

the bread of the accused, and drank of his cup, and were his own

domestic servants, and confidential inmates of his home, to bear the

testimony of death against him: verifying among Christians what the

Lord of Christians prophesied as the result of pagan opposition to the

Gospel itself, "A man's foes shall be those of his own household."

The poor man himself confessed that he believed he had heard about

one-fourth part of the book read. The book produced, and identified by

the witnesses, was called "The Lantern of Light;" in which the

ecclesiastical judges pronounced many gross and wicked heresies to be

contained. Among other articles objected to, some of which were

doubtless in a more palpable manner adverse to the favourite doctrines

of Romanism, we find the following criterion of the lawfulness and

virtue of alms-giving. The author maintained that alms were (p. 400)

neither lawful nor virtuous, unless four conditions were observed in

the distribution of them.

1.--Unless they be given to the honour of God.

2.--Unless they be given from goods justly gotten.

3.--Unless they be given to one whom the donor believed to be in a

state of Christian charity.

4.--Unless they be given to such as in very deed, without dissembling

or pretence, are in need.

That the parts of the book which contained the heretical doctrines

were ever read to Clayton, does not seem to have been elicited at the

examination. The witnesses could only depose to having heard the

Decalogue read in English, but nothing more; and the poor man's own

confession acknowledged only that he had heard about one quarter of

the work read. Still, on this confession and this evidence, and for

this offence, John Clayton was convicted of heresy, was condemned as a

relapsed heretic, and left without mercy to the secular power. Fox,

who quotes no authority, adds only, that he "was by the temporal

magistrates not long after had to Smithfield and burnt."

The ecclesiastical record contains no information after the sentence

passed on Monday the 19th of August, and our historians seem not to

have made any inquiries as to the fate of this man. Recent researches,

however, into original documents have been made by the Author, (p. 401)

with the view of facilitating the present inquiry, and rendering it

more satisfactory; and the successful result of those researches

enables him to throw some additional light on the subject under

investigation. The following facts deserve especial attention. Shortly

after the above sentence was passed by the ecclesiastical authorities,

the Mayor and citizens of London wrote a letter to King Henry,

rehearsing the judgment of the ecclesiastical court on John Clayton,

and expressing their intention to make an example of the convict by

carrying the sentence into execution. But they desired the King to

send them his especial directions on the subject, as they were

desirous to avoid giving offence in this as well as in all other

affairs. The answer of Henry to this request, if it was ever made, is

certainly not recorded. The strong probability is that the execution

took place before there had been time for the King's answer, if he

ever sent one, to reach London. The sheriffs of London state in this

same year that "they had expended 20_s._ about the burning of John

Claydon, skinner, and George Gurmyn, baker, Lollards convicted of

heresy," though the day of the execution is not recorded.

It must here be remembered, that the Mayor himself arrested Clayton,

and produced the witnesses against him; that the King's writ[299] was

not necessary to authorize execution after judgment passed by (p. 402)

the ecclesiastical authority in convocation; and that, even if it had

been necessary to procure the royal sanction, the Duke of Clarence was

left in England with full powers, as Henry's representative. Yet, in

order to avoid giving offence, though they were determined to make an

example of Clayton, they were afraid to proceed to the extreme penalty

of the law without first taking the instructions of the King. This

would scarcely have been necessary, nor would any hesitation, or (p. 403)

scruple, or misgiving have arisen in their minds, had they not been

under a strong practical persuasion that the execution of this man

would have given their King displeasure. And when we know what

employment awaited Henry from the very day of Clayton's conviction

till his return home,--the siege of Harfleur, the harassing march

through France, the battle of Agincourt,--we cannot wonder at no

answer being recorded. Perhaps he made no answer; perhaps the (p. 404)

letter never reached him in the midst of his struggles and dangers;

probably he did not interfere, but allowed the law to take its course.

Whatever took place between the condemnation and the death of Clayton,

every stage of the transaction, from the first arrest of the accused

on the very Saturday after Henry sailed for France, makes it quite

clear that, in the opinion of the magistrates of London, Henry would

be no willing abettor of persecution.

[Footnote 299: "The person who shall be burnt for

heresy ought to be first convict thereof by the

Bishop who is his diocesan, and abjured thereof;

and afterwards, if he relapse into that heresy, or

any other, then he shall be sent from the clergy to

the secular power, to do with him as it shall

please the King. And then it seemeth, the King, if

he will, may pardon him the same; and the form of

the writ is such.

"The King to the Mayor and Sheriffs of London,

greeting. Whereas the venerable father, Thomas,

Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England,

and Legate of the Apostolic See, with the consent

and assent of the Bishop and his brothers, the

suffragans, and also of the whole clergy of his

province in his provincial council assembled, the

orders of law in this behalf requisite being in all

things observed, by his definitive sentence

pronounced and declared W. Sautre (some time

chaplain, condemned for heresy, by him the said W.

heretofore in form of law abjured, and him the said

W. relapsed again into the said heresy) a manifest

heretic, and decreed him to be degraded; and hath

for that cause really degraded him from all

clerical prerogative and privilege; and hath

decreed him the said W. to be left, and hath really

left him, to the secular court, according to the

laws and canonical sanctions set forth in this

behalf; and holy mother, the church, hath nothing

further to do in the premises. We, therefore, being

zealous for justice, and a lover of the Catholic

faith, willing to maintain and defend holy church,

and the rights and liberties thereof; and, as much

as in us lies, to extirpate by the roots such

heresies and errors out of our kingdom of England,

and to punish heretics so convicted with condign

punishment; and being mindful that such heretics,

convicted in form aforesaid, and condemned

according to law, divine and human, by canonical

institutes on and in this behalf accustomed, ought

to be burnt with a burning flame of fire; we

command you most strictly as we can, firmly

enjoining, that you commit to the fire the

aforesaid W. being in your custody, in some public

and open place within the liberties of the city

aforesaid, before the people publicly, by reason of

the premises, and cause him really to be burnt in

the same fire in detestation of this crime, and to

the manifest example of other Christians. And this

you are by no means to omit under the peril falling

thereon. Witness," &c.

But by the statute of Henry IV. c. 15, it is

enacted that every Bishop in his diocese may

convict a man of heresy, and abjure him, and

afterwards convict him anew thereof, and condemn

him, and warn the sheriff or other officer to

apprehend him and burn him; and that the sheriff or

other officer ought to do the same by the precept

of the Bishop, and _without any writ from the King

to do the same_.

And note by 29 Car. II., c. 9, this writ de

heretico comburendo is abolished. "LAUS DEO!"--This

last note is by an Editor. Fitzherbert, de Naturâ

Brevium, p. 601.]

* * * * *

A case, however, of no ordinary character as a matter of historical

record, and doubly important to those who take an interest in the

result of the present investigation, requires to be examined in all

its bearings (especially with reference to the dates of its several

stages) with greater care than has hitherto been bestowed upon it.

In the July of 1416, whilst the Emperor Sigismund and Henry were both

in England, Archbishop Chicheley gave evidence of his zeal by issuing

most stringent mandates, directing his suffragan bishops to make

diligent search for heretics, to report the names and circumstances of

all who were suspected of heresy under seal to the metropolitan, and

to institute process against them according to law. On the publication

of these injunctions, a most strict and searching inquisition took

place through the country. Still no one suffered the extreme penalty

of the law as a heretic convict. In the next year, no sooner (p. 405)

was Pope Martin V. elected at Constance, than, complaining bitterly of

the neglect and apathy of the ecclesiastical and civil authorities,

the new Pontiff addressed every argument, both of encouragement and of

intimidation, to the laity and the clergy alike, urging them to unite

as one man in the work of extirpating heresy. He even applied to the

English church, that, in their overflowing zeal for the Apostolic See,

they would raise a subsidy in aid of the war then being carried on

against the heretics in Bohemia. Among those who had fallen under

suspicion of heresy, and who were watched with jealous vigilance by

the ecclesiastical authorities, was one William Taylor, who had

proceeded to his degree of Master of Arts in one of the Universities,

and had been admitted into the order of priest in the church. Taylor

was cited to appear before the consistory; and on Monday, February 12,

1420, he confessed before Archbishop Chicheley that in the time of his

predecessor (Arundel) he had been suspected of heresy; and for not

appearing, or for not answering to the charge brought against him, he

had been excommunicated, and had remained under that sentence for

fourteen years.[300] Upon his expression of sorrow and repentance, he

was commanded to appear on the following Wednesday at Lambeth, where,

in the great chapel, he received the pardon of the church on (p. 406)

certain stipulated conditions. He was bound by solemn promises, and by

an oath on the Gospels (thrice repeated), not to offend again; and he

promised to appear in person or by his proctor at the next

convocation, there to confess his penitence. He was then set at

liberty.

[Footnote 300: William Taylor had been cited March

9th, 1409, when he treated the citation with

contempt.--Archbishop's Register.]

Taylor, however, was not long allowed to remain unmolested. Agreeably

to the call of the sovereign Pontiff at Rome, and the peremptory

injunctions of his metropolitan, agreeably also (as it too evidently

appears by the sequel) to his own views of duty, Philip Morgan, Bishop

of Worcester, denounced the same William Taylor in full convocation,

May 5, 1421, as a person vehemently suspected of heresy. The King was

then in London, but was on the eve of leaving the kingdom; and fully

occupied in preparing to proceed forthwith to wipe off the disgrace

which had fallen on the English arms, and to restore confidence to his

troops, then much depressed by the unexpected discomfiture of their

countrymen, and the death of the Duke of Clarence in battle. On

Saturday, May 24, Taylor was put upon his trial, being produced before

the court as the Bishop of Worcester's prisoner, who had caused him to

be arrested. Of the three opinions savouring of heresy, (errorem et

hæresin sapientes,) he pleaded guilty to having entertained the two

last, but of the first he seems to have had no knowledge; indeed, (p. 407)

it is very difficult to say what meaning could have been attached

to it.

He was charged with having maintained at Bristol.

First, That whosoever suspends on his neck any writing, by that act

takes away the honour due to God only, and renders it to the

Devil.[301]

[Footnote 301: Quisquis suspenderit ad collum suum

aliquod scriptum, ipso facto tollit honorem soli

Deo debitum, et præbet Diabolo.]

Secondly, That Christ was not to be prayed to in his character of man,

but only as God.

Thirdly, That the saints of heaven were not to be addressed in prayer.

On the next Monday, May 26th, he was pronounced guilty of heresy, and

condemned to perpetual imprisonment for the term of his life. So

dreadful a punishment (to which, whatever it might be, he had on his

previous release sworn to submit,) suddenly struck him to the very

heart, and caused him to show some signs of a subdued mind. On which

the Archbishop mitigated that sentence by adding to it an alternative,

"Unless he shall be able to give bail, to the satisfaction of the

Chancellor of England."

We have already intimated that Henry's thoughts were at this time

fully and anxiously occupied in preparing for an immediate expedition

to France; and it is to be observed that, on the very day after

Taylor's condemnation, the King issued his writ to the sheriffs,

commanding them to publish his proclamation for all persons to hasten

with the greatest speed to join the King in his voyage. Taylor (p. 408)

left the court in custody, as the prisoner of the Bishop of Worcester,

to end his days in a dungeon, unless he should be able to produce the

required bail; in which case the Bishop was authorized by the court to

release him.

When Henry left London, on the Monday after Taylor's condemnation, he

left it never to return. His death, as we have seen, took place on the

last day of August 1422. That Henry knew anything of the prosecution

of this person, does not appear; and, if he had been made acquainted

with the intended proceedings, whether he expressed any opinion upon

them in favour of maintaining the faith by the secular arm, or in

favour of the gentle and mild means of persuasion,--is a matter lost

to history, and all inquiry into any of those points must be

fruitless. Nor are we informed whether the poor man could produce the

required bail, or whether he remained a prisoner till his death. Some

expressions in the record of the subsequent transactions would induce

us to infer that he had, after his condemnation, been at large and was

again taken into custody (sub custodiâ carcerali iterum arrestatus).

The striking fact, however, is this,--that Henry had not been dead six

months before this same priest was brought up a prisoner in the

custody of a jailor, and tried before the same court for a repetition

of the very same offence; or rather, perhaps, for the very same (p. 409)

individual act for which, a year and three quarters before, he had

been condemned to perpetual imprisonment. The same accuser, the Bishop

of Worcester, charged him with having, _since his abjuration

aforesaid_, written, maintained, and communicated with a certain

priest, named Thomas Smyth, living at Bristol, on paper in his own

hand-writing, the alleged heretical opinions. Here it must be

observed, that the charge was made by the same accuser, the Bishop of

Worcester, before the same Judge Chicheley; that the place in which he

was said to have held these doctrines was in each case the same,

Bristol; that in each case the doctrines were said to have been

conveyed by writing; and that, as to the time of the offence, the

Bishop did not say it was after his previous condemnation, but only

after his recantation, which took place in February 1420, just a year

and a quarter before his sentence of imprisonment. And if we examine

the four heretical opinions which were extracted, in 1423, by the

Canonists out of his written communication to Thomas Smyth, we shall

find them in substance nothing more or less than two of the opinions

on which he was before condemned to imprisonment in 1421.

1.--All prayer which is a petition for any supernatural or gratuitous

gift, is to be offered to God alone.

2.--Prayer is to be addressed only to God.[302] (p. 410)

[Footnote 302: The Canonists seem to have made some

distinction between the first and the second of

these sentences.]

3.--To pray to any creature is to commit idolatry.

4.--The faithful ought to address their prayers to God, not in

reference to his humanity, but only with regard to his Deity.

This was the sum of his offence, involving precisely the identical

opinions of which he had been pronounced guilty in 1421, after his

recantation in 1420.[303]

[Footnote 303: Consequently he was then, in 1421,

as much, as afterwards in 1423, a relapsed heretic,

subject to the punishment of death.]

After Lynewood had given his opinion that a relapsed heretic was to be

left to the secular court, without hope of pardon, and without being

heard as to the corporal punishment, his judges proceeded to the

extreme execution of the law. Taylor was degraded on Monday the 1st of

March, 1423, in the first year of Henry VI; and, the writ for his

burning being issued on the same day, he suffered death in Smithfield.

* * * * *

How far these circumstances may be pronounced to bear on the subject,

and to conspire in acquitting Henry of Monmouth of the charge with

which his name has been unsparingly assailed, of having been in spirit

and conduct a persecutor for religious opinions, deserves serious

consideration. When it is borne in mind that the Lollards were (p. 411)

certainly represented to Henry as the enemies of his throne and of the

peace of the realm; that the Pope and the hierarchy of England were

loud and incessant in their appeals to the authorities to extirpate

such poisonous weeds from the garden of the Lord's heritage; that the

Emperor Sigismund was most zealous in obeying such calls of the

church, and caused his own land to flow with blood; that Henry's

prelates made a direct personal appeal to him to prosecute heretics;

that his council deemed it necessary to remind him of his duty in that

point;[304] that his own chaplain openly charged him with want of zeal

and with apathy in that good cause; that no single warrant for the

execution of any one condemned for heresy alone was ever signed, or,

as far as we can ascertain, was ever sanctioned, by him; that the only

victims of the priesthood actually burnt for heresy alone during his

reign were condemned and executed in Henry's absence from the kingdom;

and that one person sentenced to imprisonment during Henry's life was,

within a few months after his death, condemned to the flames, and

actually burnt for the same offence; when all these points are fairly

weighed, probably few will not feel satisfied that the judgment (p. 412)

passed upon Henry, on the charge of persecution, is inconsistent with

the soundest principles of historical investigation.

[Footnote 304: The Minutes of Council, 27th May,

1415, record that the King should be advised, as to

issuing a commission to the Archbishops and

Bishops, to take measures, each in his own diocese,

to resist the malice of the Lollards. The King

replied, that he had committed the subject to the

charge of the chancellor.]

* * * * *

The Author, however, is induced to confess that a comparison of the

events of Henry's reign with those which preceded his accession, and

followed his death, has compelled him to form more than a merely

negative opinion on Henry of Monmouth's principles and conduct and

influence. In addition to the circumstances detailed in these

chapters, he would solicit attention to one fact, which no historical

writer seems to have noticed. During the last years of Henry IV. a

greater number of persons appear to have suffered in the fires of

martyrdom than the accounts of our chroniclers would lead us to

suppose.[305] By the cruel operation of the law, the goods and

chattels of convicted heretics were escheated to the crown; and when

Henry came to the throne, several widows and orphans were suffering

severely from the effects of that ruthless enactment. No sooner had he

the power of relieving their distress, than, in the exercise of the

most divine prerogative of the kingly office, he restored to many

their confiscated property. The most correct notion of the motives

which influenced him will be conveyed by the language itself of (p. 413)

the several grants: "We, compassionating the poverty of Isabella,

widow of Richard Turner, who was convicted and put to death for

heresy, of our especial grace have granted to the said Isabella all

the goods and chattels to us forfeited, for the maintenance of herself

and of her children."[306] Similar grants are recorded, and all in the

first year of his reign, to Alice widow of Walter Yonge, Isabella

widow of John Horewood, and Matilda widow of John Fynche; their

several husbands having suffered for maintaining opinions then

pronounced heretical. This fact seems to be not only confirmatory of

the views we have taken of Henry's tender-heartedness and sympathy

with the afflicted and helpless, but indicative also of the absence of

whatever approaches a persecuting and vindictive spirit towards those

who had incurred the extreme penalty of the law for conscience-sake.

The Author cannot but infer that Henry's dislike of persecution placed

a considerable check on the fierceness with which it raged, both

before and after his reign; that the sanguinary intentions of the

priesthood were, to a very considerable degree, frustrated by his

known love of gentler means; and that in England a greater portion of

religious liberty was enjoyed during the years through which he sat on

the throne, than had been tolerated under the government of his

father, or was afterwards allowed through the minority of his son.

[Footnote 305: It will be remembered, that those

who were put to death in 1414, after the affair of

St. Giles' Field, were sentenced by the civil

courts on a charge of treason.]

[Footnote 306: Pat. p. 5, 1 Henry V.]

The Author entered upon the subject of the three last chapters (p. 414)

with the view of ascertaining, on the best original evidence, the

validity or the unsoundness of the charge of persecution for religion

brought against Henry of Monmouth. Independently of the result of that

investigation, he confesses himself to have risen from the inquiry

impressed with mingled feelings of apprehension and of

gratitude:--gratitude for the blessings of the Reformation; and

apprehension lest, in our use of those blessings, and in the return

made to their Almighty Donor, we may be found wanting. For no maxim

can be more firmly established by the sound deductions of human

wisdom, or more unequivocally sanctioned by the express words of

revelation, than the principle that to whom much is given, of them

will much be required. And on this principle how awfully has our

increase of privileges enhanced our responsibility! By the

Reformation, Providence has rescued us from those dangers which once

attended an honest avowal of a Christian's faith; has freed us from

those gross superstitions which once darkened the whole of

Christendom; and has released us from that galling yoke under which

the disciples of the Cross were long held in bondage. The bestowal of

these blessings exacts at our hands many duties of indispensable

obligation. The Author hopes he may be pardoned, if, in closing this

subject, he refers to some of those points which press upon his (p. 415)

own mind most seriously.

Those who are intrusted with a brighter and a more pure light of

spiritual truth, are, first of all, bound to prove by their lives that

religion is not in them a dead and inoperative letter; but a vivifying

principle, productive of practical holiness and virtue. Enlightened

Christians are bound to show forth their principles by the exercise of

every Christian excellence, and so to prove to the world that God is

with them of a truth.

Another indispensable duty is, that those who possess the truth should

individually and by combined exertions labour to spread its heavenly

influence throughout the whole mass of their fellow-creatures, not

only in every corner of their own land, but to the utmost coasts of

the civilized world, and through the still numberless regions of

barbarism and idolatry. "Freely ye have received, freely give."

Again, it were a narrow view of our duty were we to feel an anxiety

for the preservation, through the period only of our own existence

upon earth, of the benefits which we now enjoy. To be satisfied with

the assurance that provision is made for our own times, is a principle

altogether unworthy a philanthropic and a Christian mind: and the more

valuable and essential the blessing, the more steady and vigorous

should be our labour in providing for its permanency and its future

increase. If we are honest in our own choice, we believe that (p. 416)

by delivering down to posterity, in its integrity and pureness, the

blessing which has been committed to us in especial trust, we are

transmitting not a state-device (as its enemies delight to call it),

but an institution founded on the surest principles of true philosophy

and of revelation, with a view to the best interests of the whole

human race. If, aided by the Divine Founder of the church, we resign

to those who come after us the fostering and mild, but firm and

well-grounded establishment of the Protestant faith, removed equally

from latitudinarian indifference and from the intolerance of bigotry,

with an ungrudging spirit sharing with others the liberty of

conscience we claim for ourselves, we shall transmit an inheritance

which may be to future ages what it has proved itself to be towards

many among ourselves, and of those who have gone before us,--the

instructor and guide of their youth, the strength and stay of their

manhood, the support and comfort of their declining years;--an

institution which is the faithful depository of Christian truth; the

surest guardian of civil and religious liberty; the parent of whatever

is just, and generous, and charitable, and holy. ESTO PERPETUA!

APPENDIX. No. I. (p. 417)

To those, as we are led to believe, contemporary poems, which appear

in the body of the work, the Author is induced to subjoin a "Ballad of

Agincourt," of much later date indeed, but which, for the noble

national spirit which it breathes throughout, and the vigour of its

description, cannot easily be exceeded: it is not so generally known

as it deserves to be; though some of its expressions may sound

strangely and quaintly to our ears. It will be found in Drayton's

Works, p. 424.

"Fair stood the wind for France,

When we our sails advance;

Nor now to prove our chance,

Longer will tarry;

But, putting to the main,

At Kaux, the mouth of Seine,

With all his martial train,

Landed King Harry.

And taking many a fort,

Furnished in warlike sort,

Marcheth towards Agincourt,

In happy hour.

Skirmishing day by day, (p. 418)

With those that stopped his way;

Where the French general lay

With all his power.

Who, in the height of pride,

King Henry to deride,

His ransom to provide,

To the King sending:

Which he neglects the while,

As from a nation vile;

Yet with an angry smile

Their fall portending.

And turning to his men,

Quoth our brave Henry then,

Though they to one be ten,

Be not amazed.

Yet have we well begun,

Battles so bravely won

Have ever to the sun

By fame been raised.

And for myself, quoth he,

This my full rest shall be:

England ne'er mourn for me,

Nor more esteem me.

Victor I will remain,

Or on this earth be slain;--

Never shall she sustain

Loss to redeem me.[307]

Poitiers and Cressy tell, (p. 419)

Where most their pride did swell;

Under our swords they fell;--

No less our skill is,

Than when our grandsire great,

Claiming the regal seat,

By many a warlike feat

Lopped the French lilies.

The Duke of York so dread,

The eager vaward led;

With the main Henry sped

Amongst his henchmen.

Exeter had the rear,

A braver man not there!

How fierce and hot they were[308]

On the false Frenchmen!

They now to fight are gone,

Armour on armour shone;

Drum now to drum did groan--

To hear was wonder;

That with the cries they make,

The very earth did shake;

Trumpet to trumpet spake,

Thunder to thunder.

Well it thine age became,

O noble Erpingham!

Who didst the signal aim

To our hid forces;

When, from a meadow by,

Like a storm suddenly,

The English archery

Stuck the French horses.

With Spanish yew so strong, (p. 420)

Arrows a cloth-yard long,

That like to serpent stung,

Piercing the weather.

None from his fellow starts,

But playing manly parts,

And, like true English hearts,

Stuck close together.

When down their bows they threw,

And forth their bilbows drew,

And on the French they flew;--

Not one was tardy;

Arms were from shoulders sent,

Scalps to the teeth were rent;

Down the French peasants went:--

Our men were hardy.

This while our noble King,

His broad sword brandishing,

Down the French host did ding,

As to o'erwhelm it.

And many a deep wound lent,

His arms with blood besprent;

And many a cruel dent

Bruised his helmet.

Gloucester, that Duke so good,

Next of the royal blood,

For famous England stood

With his brave brother;

Clarence, in steel so bright,

Though but a maiden knight,

Yet in that famous fight

Scarce such another.

Warwick in blood did wade,

Oxford the foe invade,

And cruel slaughter made,--

Still as they ran up;

Suffolk his axe did ply; (p. 421)

Beaumont and Willoughby

Bare them right doughtily;

Ferrers and Fanhope.

Upon St. Crispin's day,

Fought was this noble fray;

Which fame did not delay

To England to carry;

Oh! when shall English men

With such acts fill a pen,

Or England breed again

Such a King Harry!"

[Footnote 307: This refers to the resolution which

Henry is said to have made, and to have declared to

his men immediately before the battle: That, as he

was a true King and knight, England should never be

charged with the payment of his ransom on that day,

for he had rather be slain.--MS. Cott. Cleop. C.

iv.]

[Footnote 308: The two first words of this line are

different in the original.]

APPENDIX, No. II. (p. 422)

To the miseries which fell upon the inhabitants of Rouen during the

siege, a brief reference has been made in the body of this work. The

following lines, by an eye-witness, record a very pleasing

circumstance indicative of Henry's piety and benevolence. The wretched

inhabitants, who could contribute no aid in the defence of the town,

were driven by the garrison beyond the gates with the most unmerciful

hardheartedness. On Christmas-day Henry offered, in honour of the

festival, to supply all the inhabitants, great and small [meste and

least], with meat and drink. His offer was met very uncourteously by

the garrison, and his benevolent intentions were in a great degree

frustrated. The poem called "The Siege of Rouen" may now be read in

the Archæologia, vol. xxi, with an interesting introduction by the

Reverend William Conybeare.

SIEGE OF ROUEN.

"But then, within a little space,

The poor people of that same place

At every gate they were put out,

Many a hundred on a rout.

It was great pity them for to see,

How women came kneeling on their knee;

And their children also in their arms,

For to save them from harms.

And old men came kneeling them by, (p. 423)

And there they made a doleful cry;

And all they cried at once then,

'Have mercy on us, ye English men!'

Our men gave them some of their bread,

Though they to us were now so quede.[309]

Harm to them we did none,

But made them again to the ditch gone:

And there we kept them all abache,

Because they should not see our watch:

Many one said they would liefer be slain,

Than turn to the city of Rouen again.

They went forth with a strong murmuration,

And ever they cursed their own nation;

For the city would not let them in,

Therefore they did full great sin;

For many one died there for cold,

That might full well their life have hold.

This was at the time of Christmas:

I may you tell of a full fair case,

As of great meekness of our good King;

And also of meekness a great tokening.

Our King sent into Rouen on Christmas day,

His heralds in a rich array;

And said, because of this high feast,

Both to the meste and to the least

Within the city, and also without,

To tell, that be scanty of victuals all about,

All they to have meat and drink thereto,

And again safe-conduct to come and to go.

They said, 'Gramercy!' all lightly,

As they had set little prize thereby;

And unnese [scarcely] they would grant any grace

To the poor people that out put was,

Save to two priests, and no more them with,

For to bring meat they granted therewith;

'But an there come with you and mo [more], (p. 424)

Truly we will shoot you too.'

All on a row the poor people were set,

The priests come and brought them meat;

They ate and drank, and were full fain,

And thanked our King with all their main;

And as they sate, their meat to fong,

Thus they talked them among:

'O Mightiful Jesu!' they said then,

'Of tender heart is the Englishmen;

For see how this excellent King,

That we have been ever again standing;

And never would we obey him to,

Nor no homage to him would we never do;

And yet he hath on us more compassion,

Than hath our own countrymen;

And therefore, Lord Jesu, as Thou art full of mercy,

Grant him grace to win his right in hey.'[310]

And thus the poor people that time spake,

And full good tent thereto was take;

But when they had eaten and went their way,

The truce adrew, and war took his way."

[Footnote 309: _Quede_, or quade,--evil, bad.--See

Glossary to Chaucer.]

[Footnote 310: _In hey_,--in haste, speedily.]

APPENDIX, No. III. (p. 425)

AUTHENTICITY OF THE MANUSCRIPTS

Sloane 1776, and Reg. 13, c. 1.

It will be borne in mind that the only document which contains the

charge brought against Henry of Monmouth of unfilial conduct and cruel

behaviour towards his afflicted father is a manuscript, two copies of

which are preserved in the British Museum; and that a thorough

examination of the authenticity of that manuscript was reserved for

the Appendix. Every right-minded person will agree that the magnitude

and dark character of a charge, so far from justifying a prejudice

against the accused, should induce us to sift with more scrutinizing

jealousy the evidence alleged in support of the accusation.

It will require but a very brief inspection of the two MSS., Sloane

1776, and Reg. 13, c. 1.,[311] to be assured that they are either both

transcripts from one document in that part of the volume which

contains the history of Henry IV, or that one of these is copied from

the other.[312] Unless, therefore, an intimation be given to the

contrary, it will be understood that reference is made to the Sloane

MS., which, though not copied with equal correctness in point of (p. 426)

orthography and grammar, is still far superior to the King's in the

clearness of the writing.

[Footnote 311: See Sloane, p. 27. King's, p. 11, b.

The same gap between "nominati" and "fratris," &c.]

[Footnote 312: The volume in the King's Library is

made up of a great variety of documents independent

of that history and of each other.]

The Sloane MS. 1776,[313] appears to consist of four portions, though

the same hand copied the whole.

[Footnote 313: The Sloane MS. is assigned in the

Catalogue to Higden. By Sir H. Ellis, it is

attributed, though not correctly, to a Chaplain of

Henry V; a small portion only having been the work

of that eye-witness of the field of Agincourt. By

Mr. Sharon Turner, it is attributed, without a

shadow of reason, to Walsingham. Mr. Turner,

however, has, though in a very inadequate manner,

attempted in one part of his new edition to rectify

the error, leaving it altogether unacknowledged

where the correction is most needed, in the passage

where he grounds upon its testimony his severe

charge against Henry's character. See Turner, third

ed. vol. ii. p. 373 and p. 398.]

The first portion extends from the commencement to page 40.

The second from page 40 to the end of the account of Henry IV. at page

49.

The third from the commencement of the reign of Henry V. page 50, to

his second expedition to France, mentioned in page 72.

The fourth from that point to the end, at page 94, b.

1. The first portion embraces that part of the reigns of Richard II.

and Henry IV. which falls within the range of the chronicle of the

Monk of Evesham; ending with an account of the marriage of Edmund

Mortimer with a daughter of Owyn Glyndowr, and two cases of sacrilege.

2. The second carries on the history of Henry IV. to the beginning of

his thirteenth year, and contains the passage which charges Henry V.

with the unfilial attempt to supplant his father on the throne. These

first two parts must be examined together, and in detail; the last (p. 427)

two will require only a few remarks, and may then be dismissed.

That the history which commences at p. 50 of the Sloane MS. was the

work of an ecclesiastic who attended Henry V. in his first expedition

to France, is made evident at a much earlier point of the narrative

than the translation of it by Sir Harris Nicolas, in the Appendix to

his "Battle of Agincourt," would enable us to infer. The passage

"After having passed the Isle of Wight, swans were seen," should have

been rendered, "After _we_ left the shores of the Isle of Wight

behind, swans appeared." The writer was at the battle of Agincourt,

stationed with the baggage, and with his clerical associates praying

for God's mercy to spare themselves and their countrymen.

That he was not the same person who wrote the history of Richard II.

and Henry IV, now found in the same fasciculus, seems to be placed

beyond doubt; his style is very different, and his tone of sentiment

directly at variance with what is found in the preceding portion. He

is a devoted admirer of Henry V, a characteristic which no one will

ascribe to the writer of the preceding page.[314]

[Footnote 314: In p. 48, b, the writer speaks of

"Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham," being sent as a

military commander to aid the Duke of Burgundy. In

p. 50 the same person is spoken of as Johannes _de

Veteri Castro_. In the former parts the word used

for the _enemy_ is "_æmuli_;" the Chaplain employs

"_adversarii_."]

This writer had composed his history before the year 1418; for of Sir

John Oldcastle he says, "that he broke prison after his condemnation,

and lurked in caves and hiding-places, _and is still lurking_."[315]

This portion of the MS. offers evidence in almost every page that its

author was an eye-witness of what he describes. Probably no (p. 428)

doubt will be entertained that it is the genuine production of an

ecclesiastic in attendance on the King. But his work evidently ceases

at page 72, where he offers a prayer that the Almighty "would give

good success to his master, then going on his second expedition, and

grant him victory as he had twice before; and fill him with the spirit

of wisdom, and heavenly strength, and holy fear."

[Footnote 315: Latitavit et latitat.]

After the close of the Chaplain's narrative, the MS. loses almost all

its interest: it carries on the history through the first years of the

reign of Henry VI, and is evidently only part of what the volume once

contained.[316]

[Footnote 316: From this point the manuscript

proceeds, in the very words of Elmham, to describe

Henry's second expedition.]

* * * * *

The two former portions of the volume now claim our careful

examination; and, of these two, especially the second.

It has been already intimated, that the first part of the MS. contains

that portion of the history of Richard II. and Henry IV. which is

embraced by the memoirs of the Monk of Evesham. A careful examination

of both, and a comparison of each with the other, have induced the

Author to conclude (with what degree of probability he must leave

others to decide) that the writer had the work of the Monk before him,

and copied from it very largely, but made such alterations as we

should expect to find made by a _foreigner_, and one whose feelings

were _opposed to the Lancastrian party_; a supporter rather of the

cause of Richard, and the French, and the other enemies of

Bolinbroke's house. The Monk's work bears every mark of being the

genuine production of one who witnessed Henry IV.'s expeditions to

Wales, and who was in all his sentiments and prejudices an Englishman

and a Lancastrian. The Author fears he may be considered too minute

and tedious on this point; but, since the circumstance of the (p. 429)

writer of the manuscript bear immediately upon the authenticity of

the charge, he trusts he shall be excused a detail which, except for

that consideration, would be superfluous.

1. They both record the execution of a Welshman, who preferred death

to treachery. The Monk adds this comment: "_We English_ too [possumus

et _nos Angli_] may derive an example here; to preserve our fidelity,

&c. even to death." The MS. thus expresses its comment: "_All English

servants_ may contemplate an example of fidelity towards their own

masters from the conduct of that Welshman."

2. Thus too, in mentioning the introduction of the fashion into

England of wearing long sleeves like a _bagpipe_, the two MSS. of the

Monk most clearly write "Bagpipe." Of the MSS. in question, the Sloane

writes Bagebyte, the Reg. "Babepipæ;"--evidently the writer in neither

case knowing the meaning of the English word which he attempted so

unsuccessfully to copy.

3. In relating the capture of Lord Grey, the Monk adds, "which we

grieve to say." The MS., without any such, expression of sympathy or

sorrow, says that "he fell into the snare which he had prepared for

others."[317]

[Footnote 317: In the MS. the word is "lacum,"

probably a mistake for "laqueum."]

4. The Monk merely records the return of Isabel to France; the MS.

reflects strongly on her return _without her dower_, and her feelings

of repugnance against receiving any boon from Henry, whom she regarded

as _Richard's enemy_.

5. Speaking of the battle of Homildon, the Monk says, "Of _our

countrymen_ only five were slain;" and adds, "We praise thee, O God,

because thou hast been mindful of us." The MS. says, "_And of the

English_ scarcely five were slain;" but adds no word of praise.

6. The Monk says, "From this time Owyn's cause seemed to grow (p. 430)

and prosper, _ours_ to decrease." This is omitted in the MS.

7. Whereas the Monk (describing the character of Richard in the very

words--and many are unusual words--adopted by the MS.) records that

Richard was in the habit of sitting throughout the night till the

morning in drinking, and "other occupations not to be named:" the MS.

omits the latter phrase. The Monk says there were _two_ points of

excellence in Richard's character; the MS., though confining itself to

the two specified by the Monk, calls them "very many," "_plura_."

8. In recording the commencement of Owyn Glyndowr's rebellion, the

Monk, speaking of it as "an execrable revolt," says that the Welsh

elected Owyn against the principles of peace [contra pacem elegerunt].

The MS. says that the Welsh elected a respectable and venerable

gentleman to be their leader and prince.

Our attention is now especially called to some points in which the MS.

seems to be so full of historical mistakes and improbabilities as to

render any statement of a fact, especially of an improbable fact, not

supported by other evidence, suspicious.[318]

[Footnote 318: The Author on the whole is rather

disposed to think that, whilst the Monk records

accurately what fell within his own knowledge, both

he and the author of the Sloane MS. in this part

borrowed from some common document, probably more

than one; for in some points they vary from each

other in a way best reconciled by that supposition.

Thus, whilst the Sloane MS. tells us that Richard

II. on his landing came to a place _called

Cardech_, from which he started for Conway, the

Monk (not differing from him in other points) says

that he came to the castle of Hertlowli. They both

have fallen into the error of making the Earl of

Salisbury accompany Richard, whereas he had

undoubtedly been sent on before from Dublin to

Conway. They are both equally wrong about the

relative positions of Flint and Conway, and make

the parties all cross and recross _the bridge_ at

the castle of Conway, where a noble suspension

bridge is now thrown over the arm of the sea. After

the period, however, at which the Monk's narrative

closes, the writer of the manuscript seems to be

seldom free from error.]

1. Froissart (who appears to be well acquainted with the (p. 431)

proceedings of Bolinbroke till he left the coast of France, but to

have been altogether mistaken as to his proceedings from that hour,)

states, with the greatest probability, that Bolinbroke left Paris

under plea of visiting his friend the Duke of Brittany, and having

been well received and assisted by him, set sail from some port of

Brittany [intimating that his embarkation was (as was natural) carried

on in secret, for he "_had only been informed_" that it was from

Vennes].[319] The MS., on the contrary, with the greatest

improbability, roundly asserts that Bolinbroke went to Calais,

obtained money from the treasurer, though against his will, and seized

all the ships which he could find in the port. The improbability that

Bolinbroke should have excited the suspicions of the authorities of

Calais not in his interest, from which a single boat in a few hours

could have carried the news of his hostile attempts to Richard's

friends in England, and the absurdity of making him seize all the

ships in the port of Calais to carry over his handful of friends, can

impress the reader with no favourable idea of this writer's accuracy.

[Footnote 319: The Monk of Evesham makes no mention

of Bolinbroke's proceedings before he landed in

England.]

2. No fact is more undeniably certain than that Henry IV. made his

eldest son (our Henry V.) Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall in the

parliament held immediately upon his accession; whereas the MS.

declares that Henry V. was so created in the year of the Emperor of

Constantinople's visit to England, and in the parliament which (p. 432)

began at the feast of St. Hilary, during which Sautre was burned for a

heretic;--that is, a year and a quarter later.

3. The MS. account of Hotspur's rebellion is quite inconsistent with

facts, and altogether, in other respects, as improbable as it is

singular. The MS. says that Hotspur,[320] about Candlemas, was

commissioned to go against the Welsh rebels; but when he reached the

country with his forces, and found it to be mountainous, and fit

neither for horse nor infantry, he made a truce with Owyn, and went to

London to take the King's pleasure upon it. The reception he met with

at court drove him to his own country; and the King, as soon as he

heard of Percy gathering his people, collected those whom he believed

to be faithful to him, and hastened to meet him near Shrewsbury.

Whereas the fact is, that Henry Percy had been resident as Chief

Justice in North Wales, Constable of Caernarvon, &c. at least three

years; had besieged Conway with his own men; had routed the rebels at

Cader Idris, and most zealously persevered in his attempts to suppress

the rebellion; and had returned from the Principality at least a year

and a half before the Candlemas (1403), at which the MS. says that he

was first commissioned to go there.

[Footnote 320: This account of Hotspur's mission to

Wales is the first circumstance mentioned by the

manuscript after the chronicle of the Monk of

Evesham ends.]

The next point to which the attention of the reader is solicited will

perhaps be considered by many to involve a greater improbability than

the Author may himself attach to it. Every one who has ever read, or

heard, or written about the "Tripartite Indenture of Division" made

between Glyndowr, Mortimer, and Northumberland, fixes it, as (p. 433)

Shakspeare does, before the battle of Shrewsbury.[321] The scene in

the house of the Archdeacon of Bangor is too exquisite for any one to

desire it to be proved a fable. But (as the Author believes) this MS.

is the only document extant which professes to record the words of

that treaty; and yet this document fixes it to a date long after the

Percies lost that "sorry field." It is represented to have been made

in the February of the year of Pope Innocent's election: if before

that election, it was made in 1404; if after it, in 1405. And

certainly the tradition is general that Northumberland, after his

flight to Scotland, visited Wales.

[Footnote 321: The Sloane MS. says that it was on

the 28th day of February; the King's MS. assigns it

to the 18th.]

Another point deserving consideration is the account of the conspiracy

of Mowbray and the Archbishop of York. That account is drawn up in a

manner most unfavourable to Henry IV. The MS. boldly also records the

miracle wrought in the field of the Archbishop's execution, and states

that various miracles attracted multitudes to his tomb daily. It also

affirms that, on the very day and hour of the Archbishop's execution,

Henry IV. was struck with the leprosy.[322]

[Footnote 322: There are similar statements in

Maydstone, Ang. Sac. vii. 371.]

Perhaps too it may appear strange to others, as the Author confesses

it has appeared to himself, that, up to the very last chapter of this

history of Richard II. and Henry IV, no mention whatever is made of

Henry of Monmouth, except in the unaccountable anachronism of his

creation as Prince of Wales. It is curious that an historian should

state that the young Duke of Gloucester was sent for from Ireland, and

not allude to the circumstance of the Prince being in prison with him,

and being sent for back at the same time.[323]

[Footnote 323: The MS. and Monk here agree.]

We are now arrived at the very last chapter, the chapter (p. 434)

containing the charge on which Henry of Monmouth's character has been

so severely, and, if that charge be true, so justly arraigned. The

chapter professes to record the transactions of the thirteenth year of

Henry IV. The question is one of such essential importance as far as

Henry's good name is at stake, and (as the Author cannot but think) in

point too of the philosophy of history, involving principles of such

deep interest to the genuine pursuer of truth, that he would not feel

himself justified were he to abstain from transcribing the whole

chapter.

"In the thirteenth year there was a great disturbance between the Duke

of Burgundy and the Duke of Orleans. Wherefore the Duke of Burgundy

sent to the Lord Henry, Prince of England,[324] for aid to oppose the

Duke of Orleans: who sent to his succour the Earl Arundell, John

Oldcastle the Lord of Cobham, the Lord Gilbert Umfravill, the Lord of

Kyme, and with them a great army; by whose prowess at Senlow [Reg.

'Senlowe'], near Paris, the Duke of Orleans was vanquished, and

cruelly routed from the field, and his followers crushed, routed, and

slain. And the same Duke of Orleans thought how he could avenge

himself against the Duke of Burgundy; and immediately he sent to King

Henry of England a great sum of gold, together with William Count

Anglam [Reg. "de Anglam"], his brother, as a hostage or surety for a

greater sum, to obtain succour from the King of England himself. And

the King did not put off sending him succour; and he appointed Lord

Thomas, his second son, Duke of Clarence, and conferred on him the

dukedom (or, as it was of old time, the earldom) of Albemarle; and

Edmund, who before was Duke of Albemarle, then, after the death (p. 435)

of his father, he advanced to be Duke of York. And Lord John Cornwall,

who married his sister, the Duchess of Exeter, and whom the King

appointed Captain of Calais, he sent towards the parts of France with

a great power of men. And when they landed in Normandy, near Hogges,

forthwith the Lord de Hambe, with seven thousand armed men, went up

against the English to oppose them, and thus on that day there was a

great slaughter of men; for on the part of the Duke of Burgundy eight

hundred men were taken, and four hundred slain: and thus at length

victory was on the side of the English. After which the Duke, with his

army, turned off towards the country of Bourdeaux,[325] [               ]

destroying [               ] of the countrymen, collecting great sums

of money, at length arrived at Bourdeaux, and from thence they

returned to England about the vintage."

[Footnote 324: This is another sign that it was

written by a foreigner. No Englishman would have

been likely to call Henry the Prince of England. He

was either called Prince of Wales, or more

frequently the Prince.]

[Footnote 325: The Author confesses his inability

to discover the meaning of the words which fill up

the gaps left in this translation of the passage

"Per suas patenas de patriotis," &c. The passage

seems to him altogether corrupt.]

The reader's especial attention is here called to the confusion of

facts and dates, the mistakes historical, geographical, chronological,

biographical, with which this short section abounds to the overflow.

It will perhaps be difficult to find a page in any author, ancient or

modern, more full of such blunders as tend to destroy confidence in

him, when he records as a fact what is not found in any other writer,

nor is supported by ancillary evidence. The MS. states that all these

events took place in the thirteenth year of Henry IV: the MS. writes

it at length, "Anno decimo tertio," which began on the 20th September

1411. Now, allowing to the writer every latitude not involving

positive confusion, it is impossible for us to suppose, when he (p. 436)

crowds all these events within one year, that he had any such

information on the affairs of England as would predispose us to regard

him as an authority.

1. The first application by the Duke of Burgundy for English

auxiliaries was in August 1411; and the battle of St. Cloud (the place

which the MS., evidently ignorant of its situation and name, calls

Senlow) was fought on the 10th of November 1411. The Duke of Orleans,

at the beginning of the following year, 1412, made his application to

the English court for aid against the Duke of Burgundy, but it was not

till the 18th of May 1412 that the final treaty was concluded between

Henry IV. and the Duke of Orleans; and it was not till the middle, or

the latter end of August 1412, that the Duke of Clarence was

despatched to aid the Duke of Orleans; and he remained in France till

he received news of his father's death, in April 1413; when, and not

before, he returned to England after his expedition to aid the Duke of

Orleans.[326] Yet all these events are stated in the MS. to have

fallen within the same year.[327]

[Footnote 326: The Duke of Clarence was at

Bourdeaux, February 5, 1413, and signed an

acquittance there, April 14, 1413. (See Rymer; and

Additional Charters.)]

[Footnote 327: The words are written in one MS. at

length, "decimo tertio."]

2. The MS. says that the English, after their victory over the Duke of

Burgundy's forces, returned to England at the time of vintage. The

English returned to England at the end of autumn; not after their

struggle against the Duke of Burgundy, but after their victory over

the Duke of Orleans at the bridge of St. Cloud, a year and a quarter

at least before their return from the expedition against the Duke of

Burgundy.

3. Again, the MS. says that the Duke of Orleans sent, immediately

after the battle of St. Cloud (the Senlow of the MS.), a large (p. 437)

sum of money to the King of England, together with his brother, the

Earl of Angouleme, as a hostage or pledge for the payment of a greater

sum, to induce the King to comply with his request. This is utter

confusion. The Earl was sent as an hostage,--not beforehand, to induce

Henry IV. to send auxiliaries,--but afterwards, to insure the payment

of large sums which the Duke of Orleans stipulated to pay to the

English after they had been some time in France, on condition of their

quitting it. The Earl of Angouleme was sent as an hostage to England

somewhat before January 25, 1413; the MS. says, at the end of 1411.

4. Again, the MS. having dated the death of John, Earl of Somerset,

Captain of Calais, in the preceding year, says that the King then made

John Cornwall Captain of Calais. Whereas the fact is, that John

Beaufort, Captain of Calais, died on Palm Sunday, 1410, and Prince

Henry was appointed to succeed him on the following Tuesday. His

appointment, by writ of privy seal, bears date March 18, 1410; and he

continued to be Captain of Calais till he succeeded to the throne.

The MS. having recorded the marriage of the Duke of Clarence with the

Countess of Somerset, and the dispute between him and the Bishop of

Winchester, in which Prince Henry took the Bishop's part against his

brother, as having taken place in this same year, proceeds with the

passage, for the purpose of ascertaining the accuracy and authenticity

of which we have been led to make so many prefatory observations.

"In the same year,[328] on the morrow of All Souls, began a parliament

at Westminster; and because the King, by reason of his infirmity,

could not in his own person be present, he appointed and ordained (p. 438)

in his name his brother, Thomas Beaufort, then Chancellor of England,

to open, continue, and prorogue it. In which parliament Prince Henry

desired from his father the resignation of his kingdom and crown,

because that his father, by reason of his malady, could not labour for

the honour and advantage of the kingdom any longer; but in this he was

altogether unwilling to consent to him,--nay, he wished to govern the

kingdom, together with the crown and its appurtenances, as long as he

retained his vital breath. Whence the Prince, in a manner, with his

counsellors retired aggrieved; and afterwards, as it were through the

greater part of England, he joined all the nobles under his authority

in homage and pay. In the same parliament the money, as well in gold

as in silver, was somewhat lessened in weight in consequence of the

exchange of foreigners, &c."

[Footnote 328: Bibl. Reg. 13, C. I. 10. An. 13 Hen.

IV. "Eodem anno in Crastino Animarum incepit

parliamentum apud Westmonasterium. Et quia Rex

ratione suæ infirmitatis non poterat in personâ

propriâ interesse, assignavit et ordinavit in

nomine suo fratrem suum Thomam Beuforde,

Cancellarium tunc Angliæ, ad inchoandum,

continuandum, et prorogandum; in quo parliamento

Henricus Princeps desidevavit à patre suo regni et

coronæ resignacionem, eo quod pater ratione

ægritudinis non poterat circa honorem et utilitatem

regni ulteriùs laborare; sed sibi in hoc noluit

penitùs assentire; ymmo regnum unà cum coronâ et

pertinenciis, dummodo haberet spiritus vitales,

voluit gubernare: unde Princeps quodammodo cum suis

consiliariis aggravatus recessit; et posteriùs

quasi pro majori parte Angliæ omnes proceres suo

dominio in humagio et stipendio copulavit. In eodem

parliamento moneta tam in auro quam in argento

fuerat aliqualiter in pondere minorata ex causà

permutationis extraneorum, qui in suis partibus

ratione cambii magnum sibi cumulabant emolumentum,

et Regi et suis mercatoribus Angligenis in magnum

dispendium et detrimentum, &c."]

Now, there can be no doubt (1) that a parliament was held on the (p. 439)

morrow of All Souls, in the thirteenth year of Henry IV. (1411);

(2) that it was _opened_, _continued_, and _prorogued_ by Thomas

Beaufort, the Chancellor, by commission from the King, in his absence;

(3) that an alteration in the coin was agreed upon in that parliament;

and (4), moreover, that the King declared in that parliament his

determination to allow of no innovations, nor of any encroachments on

his prerogative, but to maintain the rights and privileges of his

crown in full enjoyment, as his royal predecessors had delivered them

down.

A superficial glance at these facts would doubtless suggest a strong

confirmation of the details of the MS. in other points, and thus

predispose us to receive the statement with regard to Prince Henry's

unfilial conduct on the authority of this document alone. But, on

close examination, these very facts, which the records of the realm

place beyond doubt, coupled with others equally indisputable, to which

we shall presently refer, demonstrate to the Author's mind that no

dependence whatever can be placed on this MS., and that the statement

is altogether apocryphal, and founded on palpable confusion.

The parliament met on the morrow of All Souls, Tuesday, November 3,

1411, (13th Henry IV,) and was opened, continued, and prorogued by the

Chancellor; but not on account of the King's indisposition, or

inability to be present. The Rolls of Parliament are most explicit on

this point. They state that the King, having been informed that very

many lords, spiritual and temporal, knights of the shire, and

burgesses, who ought to attend that parliament, had not assembled on

the appointed day, commissions the Chancellor to open the parliament,

and to prorogue it _till the following day_. And on the following day,

Wednesday, (the Lords and Commons then being in the presence of (p. 440)

the King,) the Chancellor, by the King's command, recited the reasons

for convening the parliament, and charged the Commons to retire and

elect their Speaker.

Not only so. On the Thursday (Nov. 5), the Commons came before the

King and the Lords, and presented Thomas Chaucer as their Speaker. And

the Speaker prayed liberty of speech, &c.: and the King granted the

request, but declared that he would admit of no innovation nor

encroachment on his prerogative, but resolved to maintain his rights

as fully as his predecessors had done. On this the Speaker prayed him

to grant to the Commons, till the day following, time for putting

their protest, &c. in writing. To this the King agreed. But, forasmuch

as the King could not attend on the Friday in consequence of diverse

great and pressing matters, the time was postponed to the following

day, Saturday; when the Commons came before the King, and presented

their prayer, &c.

The fact is, that the King was repeatedly present at this parliament,

from the day before the Speaker was chosen to the very last day. On a

subsequent occasion, the Prince of Wales also, as well as the King, is

recorded to have been present, (as doubtless he was on various

occasions throughout,--probably an habitual attendant,) in what

character, and under what circumstances, whether as the supplanter of

his father or not, perhaps the words of the record may, to a certain

extent at least, enable us to pronounce.

"On Monday, the last day of November, the Speaker, in the name of the

Commons, prayed the King to thank my Lord the Prince, the Bishops of

Winchester and Durham, &c. who were assigned to be of council to the

King in the last parliament, for their great labour and diligence;

for, as it appears to the said Commons, my said Lord the Prince, and

the other Lords, have well and loyally done their duty according to

their promise in that parliament. And upon that, kneeling, my Lord the

Prince, and the other Lords, declared, by the mouth of my Lord (p. 441)

the Prince, how they had taken pains, and labour, and diligence,

according to their promise, and the charge given them in parliament,

to their skill and knowledge. This the King remembered well [or made

good mention of], and thanked them most graciously. And he said

besides, that he was well assured, if they had had more 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 diverse 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 on the 30th of November, a month (saving two days)

after the parliament had assembled, and within less than three weeks

of its termination. It would scarcely be credible, even had the report

come through a less questionable channel, that Henry of Monmouth up to

that time had been guilty of the unfilial delinquency with which the

MS. charges him. Nor could he have made the "unnatural attempt to

dethrone his diseased father" at any period through the remaining

three weeks of the session of that parliament. At all events, such a

proceeding appears altogether irreconcilable with the conduct both of

the parliament and of the King on the very last day of their sitting.

"On Saturday, December 20th, (say the Rolls,) being the last day of

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 the which the King giveth hearty thanks."

Had any such transaction taken place during this parliament as the MS.

records, would the King, on the last day of the session, without any

allusion to it, have given hearty thanks to the Commons for their

recommendation of the Prince's person (coupled with the name of (p. 442)

his Queen and his other sons), and their prayer for further provision

for his dignity and comfort?

There are, however, two or three more circumstances upon which it may

appear material to make some observations; or even, should these

closing observations not seem altogether indispensable, yet, since

this is all new and untrodden ground, it may yet be thought safer to

anticipate conjectures, than to leave any questions unopened and

unexamined on this point--a point which the Author trusts may be set

at rest at once, and for ever.

The Author then is ready to confess his belief that both the MS. and

its commentator, the modern historian, have confounded this parliament

of November 1411 with the parliament of February 3, 1413, which was

opened in the illness of the King, and which he never was able to

attend. But if it be attempted to engraft on this fact the surmise

that it might have been in the latter parliament that the Prince

demanded the surrender of the throne, and that it is after all a mere

mistake of dates, the material fact being unshaken and unaffected,--to

this suggestion he replies, that there is no evidence, directly or

indirectly bearing on the subject, in support of such a surmise. The

only statement in printed book or manuscript known, is that which we

have now been sifting; and which with a precision, as though of set

purpose, minute and pointed, fixes the alleged transaction to the year

1411.[329] Not only so. We have, on the contrary, reason to believe

that before the meeting of the next parliament, February 1413, _all

differences had been made up between the King and his son_; and that

from the day of their reconciliation they lived in the full

interchange of paternal and filial kindness to the end. For that (p. 443)

jealousies and alienations of confidence, fostered by the malevolence

of others,[330] had taken place between them in the course of the

preceding year, the very mention of the "ridings of gentils and huge

people with the Prince," twice recurring in the Chronicle of London,

seems of itself to force upon us. The accounts, at all events, such as

they are, which chroniclers give of their reconciliation, fix the date

of that happy issue of their estrangement to a period antecedent to

the last parliament of Henry IV. February 3.--Cras. Purif. 1413.

[Footnote 329: It cannot, however, be supposed that

this anonymous writer fabricated the story; he must

have copied it from some other writer, or put down

what he had learned by hearsay.]

[Footnote 330: The Author confesses his own opinion

to be that a party was formed at court (headed

probably by the Queen), jealous of the Prince's

influence, and determined to destroy his power with

his father. That, to oppose this party, the Prince

summoned his friends, and made a demonstration of

his power; (it is possible that he might have

expressed his readiness to act again in the

government for his father, as he had undoubtedly

done before:) and that, after much coldness and

alienation, father and son were fully reconciled.]

Although the life and reign of Henry IV. continued more than a year

and four months after the passing of the ordinance respecting the

coin, with an account of which this MS. abruptly closes, yet

(excepting what is involved in the extract above cited) not one single

word is said of the foreign and domestic affairs of the kingdom, or of

the life of the King, or of his death; though much of interesting

matter was at hand, and though a parliament was summoned, and actually

met fourteen months after the alteration of the coin. And such is the

close of a document, not like a yearly chronicle, or general register

of events, satisfied with giving a summary of the most remarkable

casualties in the briefest form; but a narrative which transcribes,

with unusual minuteness, the very words (at full, and with all their

technicalities,) of some of the most unimportant and prolix statutes

of Henry IV.'s reign.[331] It is not that the MS. is mechanically (p. 444)

cut short by loss of leaves, or other accident; the Sloane ends with

an "etc." in the very middle of a page, and the King's at the foot of

the first column.

[Footnote 331: Sloane, p. 42. The statute for

assigning certain imposts for the King's household

is transcribed at full length, word for word. So,

too, in the seventh year, the statute relative to

the succession is copied verbatim. Of the same

character is the copy of the Tripartite Indenture

of Division.]

We need not encumber this inquiry (already too long) by any

reflections on the avidity with which this passage of the MS. has been

seized, and made the groundwork of charges against Henry of "unfilial

conduct," "unnatural rebellion" towards his father, and "the

unprincipled ambition of a Catilinarian temper," with other hard words

and harder surmises; because we are trying the value of testimony. If

that testimony is sound, modern historians may doubtless build upon it

what comments seem to them good; if we utterly destroy the validity of

the evidence, their foundation sinks from under their superstructure.

The reader, however, has probably already determined that, unless

there be in reserve some other independent, or at least auxiliary

source of evidence, the palpable contradiction and manifest confusion

reigning through this part of the MS., together with the high degree

of improbability thrown over the whole statement by the undoubted

records of the very parliament in question, justify the rejection of

the passage altogether from the pale of authentic history. The Author

confesses that he has step by step come to that conclusion.

THE END.

LONDON

PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY,

Dorset Street, Fleet Street.

End of Project Gutenberg's Henry of Monmouth, Volume 2, by J. Endell Tyler