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

That Owyn gladly promised to co-operate with the Percies, there is
every reason to regard as time; that he undertook to be with them at
Shrewsbury on that day of battle cannot, it should seem, be true.
Probably he never heard of any expectation of such an engagement, (p. 165)
and the first news which reached him relating to it may have been
tidings of Percy's death, and the discomfiture of his troops. The
Welsh historians unsparingly charge him with having deceived his
northern friends on that day: and some assert that he remained at
Oswestry, only seventeen miles off; others that he came to the very
banks of the Severn, and tarried there in safety, consulting only his
own interest, whilst a vigorous effort on his part might have turned
the victory that day against the King. This is, perhaps, within the
verge of possibility; but is in the highest degree improbable. That
the reports have originated in an entire ignorance of Owyn's probable
position at the time, and of the sudden, unforeseen, and unexpected
character of the struggle to which Bolinbroke's instantaneous decision
forced the Percies, will evidently appear, if, instead of relying on
vague tradition, we follow in search of the reality where facts only,
or fair inferences from ascertained facts, may conduct us.

It appears, then, to be satisfactorily demonstrable by original
documents, interpreted independently of preconceived theory, that,
four days only before King Henry's proclamation against the Percies
was issued at Burton upon Trent, Owyn Glyndowr was in the extreme
divisions of Caermarthenshire, most actively and anxiously engaged in
reducing the English castles which still held out against him, and by
no means free from formidable antagonists in the field, being (p. 166)
fully occupied at that juncture, and likely to be detained there
for some time. It must be also remembered that the King published his
proclamation as soon as ever he had himself heard of Hotspur's movements
from the north, and that even his knowledge of the hostile intentions
of the Percies preceded the very battle itself only by the brief space
of five days. This circumstance has never (it is presumed) been noticed
by any of our historians; and the examination of the whole question
involves so new and important a view of the affairs of the Principality
at that period, and bears so immediately on the charge made against
the great rebel chieftain for dastardly cowardice or gross breach of
faith, that it seems to claim in these volumes a fuller and more
minute investigation than might otherwise have been desirable or
generally interesting. The documents furnishing the facts on which we
ground our opinion, are chiefly original letters preserved in the
British Museum, and made accessible to the general reader by having
been published by Sir Henry Ellis.[159] That excellent Editor,
however, has unquestionably referred them to an earlier date than can
be truly assigned to them.[160] Independently of the material fact
which they are intended to establish, they carry with them much
intrinsic interest of their own; and although the detail of the (p. 167)
evidence in the body of the work might seem to impede unnecessarily
the progress of the narrative, the dissertation in its detached form
is recommended to the reader's careful perusal. Should he close his
examination of those documents under the same impression which the
Author confesses they have made on himself, he will acquiesce in the
conclusion above stated, and consider this position as admitting no
reasonable doubt,--That, a few days only before the fatal battle of
Shrewsbury, Owyn Glyndowr was in the very extremity of South Wales,
engaged in attempts to reduce the enemy's garrisons, and crush his
power in those quarters; with a prospect also before him of much
similar employment in a service of great danger to himself. And when
we recollect that probably Henry Percy as little expected the King to
meet him at Shrewsbury, as the King a week before had thought to find
him or his father in any other part of the kingdom than in
Northumberland, whither he was himself on his march to join them; when
we recollect the nature and extent of the country which lies between
Pembrokeshire and Salop; and reflect also on the undisciplined state
of Owyn's "eight thousand and eight score spears, such as they were;"
instead of being surprised at his absence from Shrewsbury on the 21st
of July, and charging him with having deserted his friends and sworn
allies on that sad field, we are driven to believe that his presence
there would have savoured more of the marvellous than many of his (p. 168)
most celebrated achievements. The simple truth breaks the spell of the
poet's picture, and forces us to unveil its fallacy, though it has
been pronounced by the historian of Shrewsbury to "form one of the
brightest ornaments of the pages of Marmion." To whatever cause we
ascribe the decline of Owyn's power, we cannot trace its origin to a
judicial visitation as the consequence of his failure in that hour of
need. The poet's imagination, creative of poetical justice, wrought
upon the tale as it was told; but that tale was not built on truth.
The lines, however, deserve to have been the vehicle of a less
ill-founded tradition.

[Footnote 159: Original Letters, Second Series.]

[Footnote 160: Those documents, with the Author's
remarks and reasonings upon them, will be found in
the Appendix.]

"E'en from the day when chained by fate,
By wizard's dream or potent spell,
Lingering from sad Salopia's field,
Reft of his aid, the Percy fell;--
E'en from that day misfortune still,
As if for violated faith,
Pursued him with unwearied step,
Vindictive still for Hotspur's death."[161]

[Footnote 161: Quoted by Scott in his Notes on
Marmion from a poem by the Rev. G. Warrington,
called "The Spirit's Blasted Tree."]

Those who feel an interest in tracing the localities of this battle
with a greater minuteness of detail in its circumstances than is
requisite for the purpose of these Memoirs, will do well to consult
the "Historian of Shrewsbury." The following is offered as the
probable outline of the circumstances of the engagement, together (p. 169)
with those which preceded and followed it.

* * * * *

The Earl of Northumberland and his son Hotspur were engaged in collecting
and organizing troops in the north, for the professed purpose of
invading Scotland as soon as the King should join them with his
forces. Taking from these troops "eight score horse," Hotspur[162]
marched southward from Berwick at their head, and came through (p. 170)
Lancashire and Cheshire, spreading his rebellious principles on every
side, and adding to his army, especially from among the gentry. He
proclaimed everywhere that their favourite Richard, though deposed by
the tyranny of Bolinbroke, was still alive; and many gathered round
his standard, resolved to avenge the wrongs of their liege lord. The
King, with a considerable force, the amount of which is not precisely
known, was on his march towards the north, with the intention of
joining the forces raised by the Percies, and of advancing with them
into Scotland, and, "that expedition well ended," of returning to
quell the rebels in Wales. He was at Burton on Trent when news was
brought to him of Hotspur's proceedings, which decided him[163]
instantly to grapple with this unlooked-for rebellion. Hotspur was
believed to be on his road to join Glyndowr, and the King resolved to
intercept him.

[Footnote 162: Hardyng represents the variance
between Henry IV. and the Percies to have
originated in three causes:--in their own refusal
to give up certain prisoners of rank who had been
taken at the battle of Homildon; in the King's
refusal to let Sir Edmund Mortimer pay a ransom;
and in the displeasure which the King had felt in
consequence of an interview between Hotspur and
Glyndowr, which had excited his suspicions. A
commission was issued on the 14th March 1403, at
the instance of the Earl of Westmoreland, to
inquire about the prisoners taken at Homildon or
"Humbledon."--Rym. Foe The Pell Rolls acquaint
us with the great importance attached by Henry and
the nation to this victory, by recording the
pension assigned to the first bringer of the
welcome news: "To Nicholas Merbury 40_l._ yearly
for other good services, as also because the same
Nicholas was the first person who reported for a
certainty to the said lord the King the good,
agreeable, and acceptable news of the success of
the late expedition at Homeldon, near Wollor, in
Northumberland, by Henry, late Earl of
Northumberland. Four earls, many barons and
bannerets, with a great multitude of knights and
esquires, as well Scotch as French, were taken; and
also a great multitude slain, and drowned in the
river Tweed." This act of gratitude was somewhat
late, if the entry in the Roll records the first
payment. It is dated Nov. 3, 1405. At the date of
this payment Percy is called the _late_ Earl,
because he had forfeited his title.]

[Footnote 163: Walsingham records that the Earl of
Dunbar, urging Henry to strike an immediate blow,
quoted Lucan. He probably uttered the
sentiment,--the quotation being supplied by the
chronicler:

"Tolle moras; nocuit semper differre paratis,
Dum trepidant nullo firmatae robore partes."]

So far from inferring, as some authors have done, from the smallness
of the numbers on either side, that the country considered it more a
personal quarrel between two great families than as a national concern,
we might rather feel surprise at the magnitude of the body of men (p. 171)
which met in the field of Shrewsbury.[164] It must be remembered that
the King did not "go down" from the seat of government with 14,000
men; but that the army with which he hastened to crush the rising
rebellion consisted only of the troops at the head of whom he was
marching towards the north, of the body then under the Prince of Wales
on the borders, and of those who could be gathered together on the
exigence of the moment by the royal proclamation. It must be borne
also in mind that (according to all probability) barely four days
elapsed between the first intimation which reached the King's ears of
the rebellion of the Percies, and the desperate conflict which crushed
them. As we have already seen, the King, only on the 10th of July,
(scarcely eleven days before that decisive struggle,) believed himself
to be on his road northward to join "his beloved and loyal"
Northumberland and Hotspur against the Scots.

[Footnote 164: Mr. Pennant, in his interesting
account of Owyn Glyndowr's life, (though he appears
to have been very diligent in collecting
traditionary materials for the work,) represents
King Henry to have "made an expeditious march to
Burton on Trent, on his way _against the northern
rebels_," _the Percies_; when, on hearing of
Hotspur having come southward, he turned to meet
him.]

The Prince of Wales, who, as we infer, first apprised the King of this
rising peril, was on the Welsh borders, near Shrewsbury; and he formed
a junction with his father,--but where, and on what day, is not known.
Very probably the first intimation that Henry of Monmouth himself (p. 172)
had of the hostile designs of the Percies, was the sudden departure of
the Earl of Worcester, his guardian, who unexpectedly left the Prince's
retinue, and, taking his own dependents with him, joined Hotspur.

At all events, delay would have added every hour to the imminent peril
of the royal cause, and probably Hotspur's impetuosity seconded the
King's manifest policy of hastening an immediate engagement; and thus
the "sorry battle of Shrewsbury" was fought by the united forces of
the King and the Prince on the one side, and the forces of Hotspur and
his uncle the Earl of Worcester on the other, unassisted by Glyndowr.

That the opposed parties engaged in "Heyteley Field,"[165] near that
town, is placed beyond question. With regard to their relative position
immediately before the battle, there is no inconsiderable doubt. Some
say that the King's army reached the town and took possession of the
castle on the Friday, only three hours before Hotspur arrived: others,
following Walsingham, represent Hotspur as having arrived first, (p. 173)
and being in the very act of assaulting the town, when the sudden,
unexpected appearance of the royal banner advancing made him desist
from that attempt, and face the King's forces. Be this as it may, on
Saturday the 21st of July, the two hostile armies were drawn up in
array against each other in Hateley Field, ready to rush to the struggle
on which the fate of England was destined much to depend. Whether any
manifesto were sent from Hotspur, or not, it is certain that the King
made an effort to prevent the desperate conflict, and the unnecessary
shedding of so much Christian blood. He despatched the Abbot of
Shrewsbury and the Clerk of the Privy Seal to Hotspur's lines, with
offers of pardon even then, would they return to their allegiance.
Hotspur was much moved by this act of grace, and sent his uncle, the
Earl of Worcester, to negociate. This man has been called the origin
of all the mischief; and he is said so to have addressed the King, and
so to have misinterpreted his mild and considerate conversation, "who
condescended, in his desire of reconciliation, even below the royal
dignity," that both parties were incensed the more, and resolved
instantly to try their strength. The onset was made by the archers of
Hotspur, whose tremendous volleys caused dreadful carnage among the
King's troops. "They fell," says Walsingham, "as the leaves fall on
the ground after a frosty night at the approach of winter. There (p. 174)
was no room for the arrows to reach the ground, every one struck a
mortal man." The King's bowmen also did their duty. A rumour, spreading
through the host, that the King had fallen, shook the steadiness and
confidence of his partisans, and many took to flight; the royal presence,
however, in every part of the engagement soon rallied his men. Hotspur
and Douglas seemed anxious to fight neither with small nor great, but
with the King only;[166] though they mowed down his ranks, making
alleys, as in a field of corn, in their eagerness to reach him. He
was, we are told, unhorsed again and again; but returned to the charge
with increased impetuosity. His standard-bearer was killed at his
side, and the standard thrown down. At length the Earl of Dunbar
forced him away from the post which he had taken. Henry of Monmouth,
though he was then no novice in martial deeds, yet had never before
been engaged on any pitched-battle field; and here he did his duty
valiantly. He was wounded in the face by an arrow; but, so far from
allowing himself to be removed on that account to a place of safety,
he urged his friends to lead him into the very hottest of the conflict.
Elmham records his address: whether they are the very words he (p. 175)
uttered, or such only as he was likely to have used, they certainly
suit his character: "My lords, far be from me such disgrace, as that,
like a poltroon, I should stain my noviciate in arms by flight. If the
Prince flies, who will wait to end the battle? Believe it, to be carried
back before victory would be to me a perpetual death! Lead me, I
implore you, to the very face of the foe. I may not say to my friends,
'Go ye on first to the fight.' Be it mine to say, 'Follow me, my
friends.'" The next time we hear of Henry of Monmouth is as an agent
of mercy. The personal conflict between him and Hotspur, into the
description of which Shakspeare has infused so full a share of his
powers of song, has no more substantial origin than the poet's own
imagination. Percy fell by an unknown hand, and his death decided the
contest. The cry, "Henry Percy is dead!" which the royalists raised,
was the signal for utter confusion and flight.[167] The number of the
slain on either side is differently reported. When the two armies met,
the King's was superior in numbers, but Hotspur's far more abounded in
gentle blood. The greater part of the gentlemen of Cheshire fell on
that day. On the King's part,[168] except the Earl of Stafford and (p. 176)
Sir Walter Blount, few names of note are reckoned among the slain.

[Footnote 165: That the battle was fought in
Hateley Field is proved by a document containing a
grant by patent (10 Hen. IV.) of two acres of land
for ever to Richard Huse (Hussey), Esquire, for two
chaplains to chant mass for the prosperity of the
King during his life, and for his soul afterwards,
and for all his progenitors, and for the souls of
them who died in that battle and were there
interred, and for the souls of all Christians, in a
new chapel to be built on the ground. See Sir
Harris Nicolas' preface to vol. i. p. 53.]

[Footnote 166: The story that Henry adopted the
unchivalrous expedient of fighting in disguise,
arraying several persons, especially the Earl of
Stafford and Sir Walter Blount, in royal armour,
seems altogether fabulous.]

[Footnote 167: The Scots fled, the Welshmen ran,
the traitors were overcome; then neither woods
letted, nor hills stopped, the fearful hearts of
them that were vanquished.--Hall.]

[Footnote 168: Hume says, most unadvisedly, "the
persons of greatest distinction who fell on that
day were on the King's side."]

The Earl of Worcester, Lord Douglas, and Sir Richard Vernon, fell into
the hands of the King; they were kept prisoners till the next Monday,
when Worcester and Vernon were beheaded. The Earl's head was sent up
to London on the 25th (the following Wednesday), by the bearer of the
royal mandate, commanding it to be placed upon London bridge.

Thus ended the "sad and sorry field of Shrewsbury."[169] The battle
appeared to be the archetype of that cruel conflict which in the (p. 177)
middle of the century almost annihilated the ancient nobility of England.
Fabyan says, "it was more to be noted vengeable, for there the father was
slain of the son, and the son of the father."

[Footnote 169: The Pell Rolls, so called from the
pells, or skins, on rolls of which accounts of the
royal receipts and expenditure used to be kept, are
preserved both in the Chapter House of Westminster,
and also in duplicate at the Exchequer Office in
Whitehall. The Author had every facility afforded
him of examining them at his leisure; and doubtless
these documents contain much valuable information,
throwing light as well on the national affairs of
the times to which they belong, as on the more
private history of monarchs and people. This is
evident to every one on inspecting the records of
any one year. But at the same time they read a
lesson, clear and sound, on the indispensable
necessity of constant care, and circumspection, and
sifting scrutiny, before reliance be placed on them
as evidence conclusive, and beyond appeal. The
Author of these Memoirs entered upon an examination
of the original documents, fully aware that the
date of payment with reference to any fact could
never be adduced in evidence that the event took
place at the time the entry was made, but only that
it had taken place before that time. Thus, a debt
due to the Prince, or one in command under him, at
the siege of a castle in Wales, or to tradesmen and
merchants for supplying the forces with provisions,
or to messengers sent with all speed bearing
despatches to the castle during the siege, might
remain unpaid for several years. He was, however,
at the same time under an impression that the sum
was recorded on the day of payment; at all events,
that payments with reference to any insulated fact
could not have been recorded as having been made
before that fact had transpired. In both these
points, however, he was mistaken. Payments were
registered not only long after the day on which
they were made, but absolutely _before the event
had taken place_ to which they refer, and which
could not have been anticipated by any human
foresight. Thus, not only is payment recorded as
having been made to Hotspur nearly five months
after his death, and to the Earl of Worcester,
twelve weeks after he was beheaded, for expenses
incurred by him in bringing the King's consort from
Brittany to England in the January preceding, but
absolutely the payment of messengers sent
throughout the kingdom to announce Henry Percy's
death and the defeat of the rebels near Shrewsbury,
and to order all ferries and passages to be watched
to prevent the escape of the rebels, is recorded as
having been made on the 17th of July 1403, FOUR
DAYS BEFORE THE BATTLE TOOK PLACE, and the very day
on which the King wrote to his council, informing
them of the rebellion, before he could himself
possibly have anticipated the place or time of any
engagement, much less the successful issue of such
a struggle with the rebels. The fact is, these
accounts were not kept with the regularity of a
modern banking-house; and the entries of what may
have been omitted were made at the audits, from
rough minutes and account-books. Thus mistakes as
to the date of actual payment probably were not
rare. The Pell Rolls are useful assistants; they
must not be followed implicitly as guides.]

CHAPTER IX. (p. 178)

THE PRINCE COMMISSIONED TO RECEIVE THE REBELS INTO ALLEGIANCE. -- THE
KING SUMMONS NORTHUMBERLAND. -- HOTSPUR'S CORPSE DISINTERRED. -- THE
REASON. -- GLYNDOWR'S FRENCH AUXILIARIES. -- HE STYLES HIMSELF "PRINCE
OF WALES." -- DEVASTATION OF THE BORDER COUNTIES. -- HENRY'S LETTERS
TO THE KING, AND TO THE COUNCIL. -- TESTIMONY OF HIM BY THE COUNTY OF
HEREFORD. -- HIS FAMOUS LETTER FROM HEREFORD. -- BATTLE OF GROSSMONT.

1403-1404.

No sooner had the King gained the field of Shrewsbury than he took the
most prompt measures to extinguish what remained of the rebellion of
the Percies. On the very next day he issued a commission to the Earl
of Westmoreland, William Gascoigne, and others, for levying forces to
act against the Earl of Northumberland. That nobleman, as we have seen,
remained in the north, probably in consequence of a sudden attack of
illness, when Hotspur made his ill-fated descent into the south: but
the King had good reason to believe that he was still in arms against
the crown; and although he despatched that commission of array to the
Earl of Westmoreland within only a few hours of the battle, yet (p. 179)
he resolved to march forthwith in person,[170] and crush the rebellion
by one decisive blow. On Monday the 23rd, the Earl of Worcester was
beheaded; and on the same day all his silver vessels, forfeited to the
King, were given to the Prince.[171] On the Tuesday the King must have
started for the north; for we find two ordinances dated at Stafford, a
distance of thirty miles from Shrewsbury, on Wednesday the 25th.
Whilst one of these royal mandates savours of severity, the other not
only is the message of mercy and forgiveness, but recommends itself to
us from the consideration of the person to whom the exercise of the
royal clemency was intrusted with unlimited discretion. Henry of
Monmouth, perhaps, left Shrewsbury after the battle, and proceeded
with his father on his journey northward; but we conclude Stafford to
have been, at all events, the furthest point from the Principality to
which he accompanied him. Whether the measure of mercy originated with
the King or the Prince, certainly both the King believed that his son
would gladly execute the commission, and the Prince felt happy in (p. 180)
being made the royal representative in the exercise of a monarch's
best and holiest prerogative. An ordinance was made by the King at
Stafford, investing the Prince of Wales with full powers to pardon the
rebels who were in the company of Henry Percy. The Prince probably
remained in or near Shrewsbury for the discharge of the duties assigned
to him by this commission. The King, having despatched messengers
throughout the whole realm announcing Henry Percy's death and the
defeat of the rebels, and commanding all ports to be watched that none
of the vanquished might escape, proceeded northward. On the 4th of
August we find him at Pontefract, from which place he issued an order
to the Sheriff[172] of York, which certainly indicates anything rather
than a thirst of vengeance on his enemies. It appears that many
persons, reckless of justice and confident of impunity, had laid
violent hands on the goods of the rebels; and different families had
thus been subjected to most grievous spoliation. The King's ordinance
conveys a peremptory order to the Sheriff of Yorkshire to interpose
his authority, and prevent such acts of violence and wrong, even upon
the King's enemies. On the 6th, we find him still at Pontefract, (p. 181)
and again on the 14th. Official documents, without supplying any matter
which needs detain us here, account for him through the intervening days.
Walsingham also relates that the King proceeded to York, and summoned
the whole county of Northumberland to appear before him. The Earl, who
had started with a strong body a few days after the battle, either in
ignorance of his son's failure, or to meet the King for the purpose of
treating with him for peace, had been resisted by the Earl of
Westmoreland, and compelled to retire to Warkworth. On receiving the
King's summons, leaving the commonalty behind, he approached the royal
presence with a small retinue, and, in the humble guise of a
suppliant, besought forgiveness.[173] The King granted him full
pardon, on the 11th of August;[174] and then began his return towards
Wales. We find him, from the 14th to the 16th,[175] at Pontefract; on
the 17th, at Doncaster. On the 18th, at Worksop; on the 26th, at (p. 182)
Woodstock; and on the 8th of September, at Worcester.[176]

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