Henry of Monmouth, Volume 1

J >> J. Endell Tyler >> Henry of Monmouth, Volume 1

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28

[Footnote 120: On Monday, October 16, 1402, the
Commons "thank the King for his great labour in
body and mind, especially in his journey to
Scotland; and because, on his return, when he heard
at Northampton of the rebellion in Wales, he had at
_that_ time, and _three times_ since, with a great
army (as well the King as my lord the Prince)
laboured in divers parts." When Owyn is represented
by Shakspeare as recounting the various successful
struggles in which he had tried his strength with
Bolinbroke, the poet had solid ground on which to
build the boastings of the Welsh chieftain:

"Three times hath Henry Bolinbroke made head
Against my power: thrice from the banks of Wye
And sandy-bottom'd Severn have I sent him
Bootless home, and weather-beaten back."]

[Footnote 121: The regular appointment bears date
31st March 1402.]

The record of this council is remarkably interesting on more than one
point. It throws great light on the state of Owyn's mind, and his
attachment to the Percies; on the confidence still reposed by the
King's government in Percy, and on the condition of Prince Henry
himself. The several chastisements which Owyn and his party had
received from the Prince, from Percy, from Lord Powis and others, had
perhaps at this time made him very doubtful of the issue of the struggle,
and inclined him to negociate for his own pardon, and the peace of the
country. The Minute of Council says, "To know the King's will (p. 120)
about treating with Glyndowr to return to his allegiance, _seeing his
good intention at present thereto_". His readiness to treat is
accompanied, as we find in the same record, with a declaration that he
was not himself the cause of the destruction going on in his native
land, nor of the daily captures, and the murders there; and that he
would most gladly return to peace. As to his inheritance, he protests
that he had only received a part, and not his own full right. And even
now he would willingly come to the borders, and speak and treat with
any lords, provided the commons would not raise a rumour and clamour
that he was purposed to destroy "_all who spoke the English language_".
He seems to have been apprehensive, should he venture to approach the
marches to negociate a peace, that the violence and rage of the people
at large would endanger his personal safety. No wonder, for his
footsteps were to be traced everywhere by the blood of men, and the
ashes of their habitations and sacred edifices. At the same time, he
expressed his earnest desire to carry on the treaty of peace through
the Earl of Northumberland, for whom he professes to entertain great
regard and esteem, in preference to any other English nobleman.

Whether any steps were taken in consequence of this present opening
for peace, or not, we are not told. But we have reason to suppose that
Wales was in comparative tranquillity through the following (p. 121)
winter[122] and spring. The rebel chief, however, again very shortly
carried the sword and flame with increased horrors through his devoted
native land. We read of no battle or skirmish till the campaign of the
next year.

[Footnote 122: The Pell Rolls contain many items of
payment about this time to the Prince of Wales; one
of which specifies the sum "of 400_l._ for one
hundred men-at-arms, each 12_d._ per day, and four
hundred archers at 6_d._ per day, for one month,
who were sent with despatch to Harlech Castle to
remove the besiegers." Probably they had been sent
some considerable time before the date of this
payment, Dec. 14, 1401.]

The questions relating to Prince Henry, which were submitted to this
council, inform us incidentally of the important fact, that though he
was now intrusted with the command of the forces against the Welsh,
and was assisted in his office (just as was the King) by a council,
yet it was deemed right to appoint him an especial governor, or tutor
(maistre). He was now in his fifteenth year. These Minutes also make
it evident that the soldiers employed in his service looked for their
pay to him, and not to the King's exchequer. We shall have frequent
occasion to observe the great personal inconveniences to which this
practice subjected the Prince, and how injurious it was to the service
generally. But the evil was unavoidable; for at that time the royal
exchequer was quite drained.

"As to the article touching the governance of the Prince, as well (p. 122)
for him to have a tutor or guardian, as to provide money for the support
of his vast expenses in the garrisons of his castles in Wales, and the
wages of his men-at-arms and archers, whom he keeps from day to day
for resisting the malice of the rebels of the King, it appears to the
council, if it please the King, that the Isle of Anglesey ought to be
restored to the prince, and that Henry Percy[123] should agree, and
have compensation from the issues of the lands which belonged to the
Earl of March; and that all other possessions which ought to belong to
the Prince should be restored, and an amicable arrangement be made
with those in whose hands they are. And as for a governor for the
Prince, may it please the King to choose one of these,--the Earl of
Worcester, Lord Lovel, Mr. Thomas Erpyngham, or the Lord Say; and, for
the Prince's expenses, that 1000_l._ be assigned from the rents of the
Earl of March, which were due about last Michaelmas." We have reason
to believe that the Earl of Worcester, Thomas Percy, was appointed
Henry of Monmouth's tutor and preceptor. He remained in attendance
upon him till, with the guilt of aggravated treachery, he abruptly
left his prince and pupil to join his nephew Hotspur before the battle
of Shrewsbury.

[Footnote 123: The whole of Anglesey was granted to
Hotspur for life. 1 Hen. IV, 12th October
1399.--MS. Donat. 4596.]

We are not informed how long Prince Henry remained at this period (p. 123)
in Wales, after Percy had left it. Probably (as it has been already
intimated) there was an armistice virtually, though not by any formal
agreement, through that winter and the spring of 1402. The next undoubted
information as to the Prince fixes him in London in the beginning of
the following May, when being in the Tower, in the presence of his
father, and with his consent, he declares himself willing to contract
a marriage with Katharine, sister of Eric, King of Norway;[124] and on
the 26th of the same month, being then in his castle of Tutbury, in
the diocese of Lincoln, he confirms this contract, and authorises the
notary public to affix his seal to the agreement. The pages of authentic
history remind us, that too many marriage-contracts in every rank of
life, and in every age of the world, have been the result, not of
mutual affection between the affianced bride and bridegroom, but of
pecuniary and political considerations. Perhaps when kings negociate
and princes approve, their exalted station renders the transaction
more notorious, and the stipulated conditions may be more unreservedly
confessed. But it may well be doubted whether the same motives do not
equally operate in every grade of life; whilst those objects which
should be primary and indispensable, are regarded as secondary (p. 124)
and contingent. Happiness springing from mutual affection, may doubtless
grow and ripen, despite of such arrangements, in the families of the
noble, the wealthy, the middle classes, and the poor; but the chances
are manifold more, that coldness, and dissatisfaction, and mutual
carelessness of each other's comforts will be the permanent result. We
must however bear in mind, when estimating the moral worth of an
individual, that negociations of this kind in the palaces of kings
imply nothing of that cold-heartedness by which many are led into
connexions from which their affections revolt. The individual's
character seems altogether protected from reprobation by the usage of
the world, and the necessity of the case. State-considerations impose
on princes restraints, compelling them to acquiesce in measures which
excite in us other feelings than indignation or contempt. We regret
the circumstance, but we do not condemn the parties. Henry IV. of
England, and Eric of Norway, fancied they saw political advantages
likely to arise from the nuptials of Henry's son with Eric's sister;
and the document we have just quoted tells us that the boy Henry, then
not fifteen, and still under tutors and governors, gave his consent to
the proposed alliance.

[Footnote 124: He was present in the Castle of
Berkhamsted on the 14th of May, at the sealing of
the marriage contract of his sister Philippa with
King Eric.--Foed. viii. 259, 260.]

The more rare however the occurrence, the more general is the admiration
with which an union in the palaces of monarchy is contemplated when mutual
respect and attachment precede the marriage, and conjugal love and (p. 125)
domestic happiness attend it. And here we are irresistibly tempted to
contemplate with satisfaction and delight the unsuccessful issue of
this negociation, whilst Henry was yet a boy; and to anticipate what
must be repeated in its place, that, to whatever combination of
circumstances, and course of events and state-considerations, the
marriage of Henry of Monmouth with Katharine of France may possibly be
referred, he proved himself to have formed for her a most sincere and
heartfelt attachment before their union; and, whenever his duty did
not separate them, to have lived with her in the possession of great
conjugal felicity. Even the dry details of the Exchequer issues bear
most gratifying, though curious, testimony to their domestic habits,
and their enjoyment of each other's society.

Whilst the King was thus negociating a marriage for his son, he was
himself engaged by solemn espousals to marry, as his second wife, Joan
of Navarre, Duchess of Brittany. As well in the most exalted, as in
the most humble family in the realm, such an event as this can never
take place without involving consequences of deepest moment and most
lively interest to all parties,--to the husband, to his wife, and to
their respective children. If he has been happy in his choice, a man
cannot provide a more substantial blessing for his offspring than by
joining himself by the most sacred of all ties to a woman who will (p. 126)
cheerfully and lovingly perform the part of a conscientious and
affectionate mother towards them. If the choice is unhappy; if there
be a want of sound religious and moral principle, a neglect, or
carelessness and impatience in the discharge of domestic duties; if a
discontented, suspicious, cold, and unkind spirit accompany the new
bride, domestic comfort must take flight, and all the proverbial evils
of such a state must be realized. The marriage of Henry of Monmouth's
father with Joan of Navarre does not enable us to view the bright side
of this alternative. Of the new Queen we hear little for many
years;[125] but, at the end of those years of comparative silence, we
find Henry V. compelled to remove from his mother-in-law all her
attendants, and to commit her to the custody of Lord John Pelham in
the castle of Pevensey.[126] She was charged with having entertained
malicious and treasonable designs against the life of the King, her
son-in-law. The Chronicle of London, (1419,) throwing[127] an air of
mystery and superstition over the whole affair, asserts that Queen
Joanna excited her confessor, one friar Randolf,[128] a master in (p. 127)
divinity, to destroy the King; "but, as God would, his falseness was
at last espied:" "wherefore," as the Chronicle adds, "the Queen
forfeited her lands."[129] Of this marriage of Henry IV. with Joan of
Navarre very little notice beyond the bare fact has been taken by our
English historians. Many particulars, however, are found in the
histories of Brittany. It appears that the Duchess, who was the widow
of Philip de Mont Forte, Duke of Brittany, by whom she had sons and
daughters, was solemnly contracted to Henry by her proxy, Anthony Rys,
at Eltham, on the 3rd of April 1402, in the presence of the Archbishop
of Canterbury, the Earl of Somerset, the Earl of Northumberland and
his son Hotspur, the Earl of Worcester, Thomas Langley, Keeper of the
Privy Seal, and others. Having appointed guardians for her son, the
young Duke of Brittany, she left Nantes on the 26th December, embarked
on board one of the ships sent by Henry, at Camaret, on the 13th (p. 128)
January, and sailed the next day, intending to land at Southampton.
After a stormy passage of five days, the squadron was forced into a
port in Cornwall. She was married on the 7th, and was crowned at
Westminster on the 25th, of February following.[130] By Henry she had
no child.

[Footnote 125: Our history supplies very scanty
information as to the family of this royal lady. In
the year 1412 a safe conduct is given to Giles of
Brittany, son of the Queen, to come to England, to
tarry and to return, with twenty men and
horses.--Rymer, May 20, 1412.]

[Footnote 126: Otterbourne.]

[Footnote 127: "By sorcerye and nygrammancie."]

[Footnote 128: The Pell Rolls (27th Sept. 1418)
leave us in no doubt that John Randolf's goods were
forfeited, a circumstance strongly confirming the
report of his conspiracy. Payment is also made to
certain persons for carrying (Feb. 8, 1420) John
Randolf, of the order of Friars Minor, Shrewsbury,
from Normandy to the Tower.]

[Footnote 129: No doubt can remain as to the
accuracy of the London Chronicle in this
particular: several payments are on record,
expressly declared to have been made out of the
lands and property of this unhappy woman. Thus, the
issue of a thousand marks to the Abbess of Syon
(9th May 1421) is made from "the monies issuing
from the possessions of Joanna, Queen of
England."]

[Footnote 130: See Acts of Privy Council, vol. i.
p. 185. The Editor quotes Lobinau's Histoire de
Bretagne, tom. ii. pp. 874, 878; and Morice's
Histoire Ecclesiastique et Civile de Bretagne, tom.
i. p. 433.]

CHAPTER VII. (p. 129)

GLYNDOWR'S VIGOROUS MEASURES. -- SLAUGHTER OF HEREFORDSHIRE MEN. --
MORTIMER TAKEN PRISONER. -- HE JOINS GLYNDOWR. -- HENRY IMPLORES
SUCCOURS, -- PAWNS HIS PLATE TO SUPPORT HIS MEN. -- THE KING'S
TESTIMONY TO HIS SON'S CONDUCT. -- THE KING, AT BURTON-ON-TRENT, HEARS
OF THE REBELLION OF THE PERCIES.

1402-1403.

If Owyn Glyndowr, as we have supposed, allowed Wales to remain undisturbed
by battles and violence through the winter[131] and spring, it was only
to employ the time in preparing for a more vigorous campaign. The first
battle of which we have any historical certainty, was fought June 12,
1402, near Melienydd, (Dugdale says, "upon the mountain called Brynglas,
near Knighton in Melenyth,") in Radnorshire. The whole array of
Herefordshire was routed on that field. More than one thousand (p. 130)
Englishmen were slain, on whom the Welsh were guilty of savage,
unheard-of indignities. The women especially gave vent to their rage
and fury by actions too disgraceful to be credible were they not
recorded as uncontradicted facts. For the honour of the sex, we wish
to regard them as having happened only once; whilst we would bury the
disgusting details in oblivion.[132] Owyn was victorious, and took
many of high degree prisoners; among whom was Sir Edmund Mortimer, the
uncle of the Earl of March. Perhaps the most authentic statement of
this victory as to its leading features, though without any details,
is found in a letter from the King to his council, dated
Berkhampstead, June 25.

[Footnote 131: At the opening of the year 1402
(January 18), one hundred marks were paid by the
treasury to the Bishop of Bangor, whose lands had
been in great part destroyed.--Pell Rolls. This
prelate was Richard Young, who was translated to
Rochester in 1404.]

[Footnote 132: To the present day the vestiges of
two temporary encampments (army against army) are
visible; and there are barrows in the
neighbourhood, which, according to the tradition of
the country, cover the bones of those who fell in
this battle, not less, they say, than three
thousand men. The remains of Owyn Glyndowr's camp
are found at a place called Monachdy, in the parish
of Blethvaugh; and about two miles below, in the
parish of Whittow, is the earthwork supposed to
have been thrown up by Sir Edmund Mortimer.
Half-way between is a hill called Brynglas, where
the battle is said to have been fought. In the
valley of the Lug are two large tumuli, which are
believed to cover the slain.]

"The rebels have taken my beloved cousin,[133] Esmon Mortymer, and
many other knights and esquires. We are resolved, consequently, to go
in our own person with God's permission. You will therefore (p. 131)
command all in our retinue and pay to meet us at Lichfield, where we
intend to be at the latest on the 7th of July." The proclamation for
an array "to meet the King at Lichfield, and proceed with him towards
Wales to check the insolence and malice of Owyn Glyndowr and other
rebels," was issued the same day. On the 5th of July,[134] the King,
being at Westminster, appointed Hugh de Waterton governor of his children,
John and Philippa, till his return from Wales. An order of council at
Westminster, on the last day of July, the King himself being present,
seems to leave us no alternative in deciding that Henry made two
expeditions to Wales this summer; the first at the commencement of
July, the second towards the end of August. This appears to have
escaped the observation of historians. Walsingham speaks only of one,
and that before the Feast of the Assumption, August 25; in which (p. 132)
he represents the King and his army to have been well-nigh destroyed
by storms of rain, snow, and hail, so terrible as to have excited the
belief that they were raised by the machination of the devil, and of
course at Owyn's bidding. This order of council is directed to many
sheriffs, commanding them to proclaim an array through their several
counties to meet the King at Shrewsbury,[135] on the 27th of August at
the latest, to proceed with him into Wales.[136] The order declares
the necessity of this second array to have originated in the
impossibility, through the shortness of the time, of the King's
chastising the rebels, who lurked in mountains and woods; and states
his determination to be there again shortly, and to remain fifteen
days for the final overthrow and destruction of his enemies. How
lamentably he was mistaken in his calculation of their resistance, and
his own powers of subjugating them, the sequel proved to him too
clearly. The rebellion from first to last was protracted through
almost as many years as the days he had numbered for its utter
extinction. The order on the sheriff of Derby commands him to go (p. 133)
with his contingent to Chester, "to our dearest son the Prince," on
the 27th of August, and to advance in his retinue to Wales. On this
occasion,[137] it is said that Henry invaded Wales in three points at
once, himself commanding one division of his army, the second being
headed by the Prince, the third by Lord Arundel. The details of these
measures, under the personal superintendence of the King, are not
found in history. Probably Walsingham's account of their total failure
must be admitted as nearest the truth. That no material injury befel
Owyn from them, and that neither were his means crippled, nor his
resolution daunted, is testified by the inroads which, not long after,
he made into England with redoubled impetuosity.

[Footnote 133: A general mistake has prevailed
among historians with regard to this prisoner of
Owyn's. Walsingham, Stowe, Hall, Rapin, Hume,
Sharon Turner, with others, have uniformly
represented Edmund Earl of March to have been the
notable warrior then captured by Glyndowr; whereas
he was only ten years of age, and a prisoner of the
King. Dr. Griffin, a Monmouthshire antiquary,
pointed out the mistake many years ago.]

[Footnote 134: On the 14th of July the council
issue commands to the Archbishop of Canterbury and
the Bishop of Norwich to array their clergy for the
defence of the realm; a measure seldom resorted to,
and only on occasions of great emergence and alarm.
A fortnight before this order (30th June), the King
had written from Harborough to his council,
acquainting them with the victory gained for him
over the Scots at Nisbet Moor by the Scotch Earl of
March, and commanding them to protect the marches.]

[Footnote 135: The Monk of Evesham says that in
this year, about August 29, (Festum Decollationis
Johannis Bapt.) the King went again with a great
force into Wales, and after twenty days returned
with disgrace.]

[Footnote 136: An order, dated Ravensdale, is made
on the sheriff of Lincoln to be ready,
notwithstanding the last order, to go towards the
marches of Scotland; and, if the Scots should not
come, then to be at Shrewsbury on the 1st of
September.]

[Footnote 137: Walsingham's words would seem to
apply more fitly to this second and more important
expedition of 1402 than the preceding one in July:
"Tantus armorum strepitus."]

The following winter, we may safely conclude, was spent by the Welsh
chieftain in negociations both with the malcontent lords of England,
and with the courts of France and Scotland; in recruiting his forces
and improving his means of warfare;[138] for, before the next
midsummer, (as we know on the best authority,) he was prepared to
engage in an expedition into England, with a power too formidable (p. 134)
for the Prince and his retinue to resist without further reinforcement.
During this winter also a most important accession accrued to the
power and influence of Owyn by the defection from the royal cause of
his prisoner Sir Edmund Mortimer, who became devotedly attached to
him. King Henry had, we are told, refused to allow a ransom to be paid
for Mortimer, though urged to it by Henry Percy, who had married
Mortimer's sister. The consequence of this ungracious refusal[139]
was, that he joined Glyndowr, whose daughter, as the Monk of Evesham
informs us, he married with the greatest solemnity about the end of
November.[140] In a fortnight after this marriage, Mortimer announced
to his tenants his junction with Owyn, and called upon them to forward
his views. The letter, written in French, is preserved in the British
Museum.

[Footnote 138: On 20th October 1402, a commission
issued to receive into their allegiance and amnesty
the rebels of Usk, Caerleon, and Trellech, in
Monmouthshire.]

[Footnote 139: Leland, in his Collectanea, quotes a
passage from another chronicler, which records the
very words of Percy and the King on this occasion.
Percy asked the King's permission for Mortimer to
be ransomed, to whom the King replied that he would
not strengthen his enemies against himself by the
money of the realm. Percy then said, "Ought any man
so to expose himself to danger for you and your
kingdom, and you not succour him in his danger?"
The King answered in wrath, "You are a traitor; do
you wish me to succour the enemies of myself and of
my kingdom?"--"I am no traitor," rejoined Percy;
"but a faithful man, and as a faithful man I
speak." The King drew his rapier against him. "Not
here," said Percy, "but in the field;" and
withdrew.]

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28