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

Whether the Prince took any part in these proceedings, or not, we are
left in ignorance. Equally in the dark are we as to his line of conduct
with regard to those thirty-one articles proposed by the Commons, just
a fortnight afterwards; articles evidently tending to interfere with
the royal prerogative, and to limit the powers and increase the
responsibility of the King's council. "The Speaker requested that all
the lords of the council should be sworn to observe these articles;"
but they refused to comply, unless the King, "of his own motion,"
should specially command them to take the oath. This proceeding
respecting the council forms an important feature in its history, as
it proves the very extensive manner in which the Commons (p. 227)
interested themselves in its measures and constitution. Whether we may
trace to these transactions, as their origin, the differences which in
after years show themselves plainly between the King and his son, or
whether other causes were then in operation, which time has veiled
from our sight, or which documents still in existence, but hitherto
unexamined, may bring again to light, we cannot undertake to
determine.[220] Be that as it may, though from this time we find Henry
of Monmouth on some occasions in Wales, yet he seems to have taken
more and more a part in the management of the nation at large; and, as
he grew in the estimation of the great people of the land, his royal
father appears to have more and more retired from public business, and
to have sunk in importance. Few documents[221] are preserved among the
records now accessible which give any information as to the Prince's
proceedings through the year 1407; but those few are by no means (p. 228)
devoid of interest, as throwing some light upon the progress of the
Welsh rebellion, and, in a degree, on Henry's character being at the
same time confirmatory of the view above taken of his occupations.

[Footnote 220: In 8 Henry IV, (that is, between
September 30, 1406, and September 29, 1407,) a
licence is recorded (Pat. 8 Hen. IV. p. i. m. 17.),
by which the King permits "his dearest son Henry,
Prince of Wales, to grant the advowson of the
church of Frodyngham, Lincolnshire,--which was his
own possession--to the abbot and convent of Renesly
for ever." Long subsequently to this, we find no
immediate traces of any coolness between Henry and
his father.]

[Footnote 221: The Prince was present, 23rd January
1407, when his father received from the Bishop of
Durham the great seal of England, and delivered it
to Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, then made
Chancellor. (Claus 8 Hen. IV. m. 23, d.)]

The Prince had laid siege to the castle of Aberystwith, situate near
the town of Llanpadern; but how long he had been before that fortress,
or, indeed, at what time he had returned to the Principality, history
does not record. If, as we may infer, the King did retire, according
to the suggestion of the council, "to some convenient place," the
Prince's presence was more required in London; whilst, Owyn's power
being evidently at that time on the decline, the necessity of his
personal exertions in Wales became less urgent. No accounts of the
proceedings either of Owyn, of the King, or of the Prince, at this
precise period seem to have reached our time. Probably nothing beyond
the siege of a castle, or an indecisive skirmish, took place during
the spring and summer. Among the documents, to which allusion has just
been made, one bears date September 12, 1407, containing an agreement
between Henry Prince of Wales on the one part, and, on the other, Rees
ap Gryffith and his associates. The Welshmen stipulate not to destroy
the houses, nor molest the shipping, should any arrive; and the Prince
covenants to give them free egress for their persons and goods. The
motives by which he professes to be influenced are very curious: (p. 229)
"For the reverence of God and All Saints, and especially also of his
own patron, John of Bridlington;[222] for the saving of human blood;
and at the petition of Richard ap Gryffyth, Abbot of Stratflorida."

[Footnote 222: John of Bridlington.--John of
Bridlington had been very recently admitted among
the saints of the Roman calendar: probably he was
the very last then canonized. Letters addressed to
all nations of safe conduct to John Gisbourne,
Canon of the Priory of Bridlington, who was then
going to Rome to negociate in the matter of the
canonization of John, the late Prior, were given by
Henry IV. as recently as October 4, 1400. And
Walsingham records that in 1404, by command of the
Pope, the body of St. John, formerly Prior of the
Canons of Bridlington, since miracles evidently
attended it, was translated by the hands of the
Archbishop of York and the Bishops of Durham and
Carlisle.]

Eight years after this, 23rd January 1415, a petition, which presents
more than one point of curiosity, was preferred to Henry of Monmouth,
then King, with reference to this siege of Aberystwith. Gerard Strong
prays that the King would issue a warrant commanding the treasurer and
barons of the exchequer to grant him a discharge for the metal of a
brass cannon burst at the siege of Aberystwith; of a cannon called
_The King's Daughter_, burst at the siege of Harlech; of a cannon
burst in proving it by Anthony Gunner, at Worcester; of a cannon with
two chambers; two iron guns, with gunpowder; and cross-bows and arrows,
delivered to various castles." The King granted the petition in all
its prayer. This petitioner was perhaps encouraged to prefer his (p. 230)
memorial by the success with which another suit had been urged, only
in the preceding month (13th December 1414), with reference to the
same period. John Horne, citizen and fishmonger of London, presented
to Henry V. and his council a petition in these words: "When you were
Prince, his vessel laden with provisions was arrested (pressed) for
the service of Lords Talbot and Furnivale, and their soldiers, at the
siege of Harlech;[223] which siege would have failed had those supplies
not been furnished by him, as Lord Talbot certifies. On unlading and
receiving payment, the rebels came upon him, burnt his ship, took
himself prisoner, and fixed his ransom at twenty marks. He was liable
to be imprisoned for the debt which he owed for the cargo." The King
granted his petition, and ordered him to be paid. Henry was then on
the point of leaving England for Normandy; and these reminiscences of
his early campaigns might have presented themselves to his thoughts
with agreeable associations, and rendered his ear more ready to listen
to petitions, which seem at all events to have been presented somewhat
tardily.

[Footnote 223: This, we infer, must have been in
the summer of 1409. Vide infra.]

An important circumstance, hitherto unobserved by writers on these
times, is incidentally recorded in the Pell Rolls. Prince Henry is
there reimbursed, on June 1, 1409, a much larger sum than usual (p. 231)
for the pay of his men-at-arms and archers in Wales; and is in the same
entry stated to have been retained by the consent of the council, on the
12th of the preceding May, to remain in attendance on the person of the
King, and at his bidding. The Latin[224] might be thought to leave it
in doubt whether this absence from his Principality, and constant
attendance on the King, was originally the result of his own wishes,
or his father's, or at the suggestion of the council. But the circumstance
of the consent of the council being recorded proves that Henry's
absence from Wales and residence in London were not the mere result of
his own will and pleasure, independently of the wishes of those whom
he ought to respect; but were at all events in accordance with the
expressed approbation of his father and the council. Probably the plan
originated with the council, the Prince willingly accepting the
office, the King intimating his consent.

[Footnote 224: "Hen. Principi Walliae retento 12º
die Maii anno 8vo de assensu consilii Regis
moraturo penes ipsum Dominum Regem."]

CHAPTER XI. (p. 232)

PRINCE HENRY'S EXPEDITION TO SCOTLAND, AND SUCCESS. -- THANKS
PRESENTED TO HIM BY PARLIAMENT. -- HIS GENEROUS TESTIMONY TO THE DUKE
OF YORK. -- IS FIRST NAMED AS PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL. -- RETURNS TO
WALES. -- IS APPOINTED WARDEN OF THE CINQUE PORTS AND CONSTABLE OF
DOVER. -- WELSH REBELLION DWINDLES AND DIES. -- OWYN GLYNDOWR'S
CHARACTER AND CIRCUMSTANCES; HIS REVERSES AND TRIALS. -- HIS BRIGHT
POINTS UNDERVALUED. -- THE UNFAVOURABLE SIDE OF HIS CONDUCT UNJUSTLY
DARKENED BY HISTORIANS. -- REFLECTIONS ON HIS LAST DAYS. -- FACSIMILE
OF HIS SEALS AS PRINCE OF WALES.

1407-1409.

Though our own documents fail to supply us with any further information
as to the proceedings of Henry of Monmouth through the year 1407, and
though he might have been allowed some breathing time by the decreased
energy of the Welsh rebels, yet Monstrelet informs us that he was
actively engaged in a campaign at the other extremity of the kingdom.
The historian thus introduces his readers to this affair: "How the
Prince of Wales, eldest son of the King of England, accompanied (p. 233)
by his two uncles and a very great body of chivalry, went into Scotland
to make war." He then commences his chapter by the not very usual
assurance that he is about to relate a matter of fact. "Then it is the
truth that at this time, 1407, about the Feast of All Saints (1st
November), Henry Prince of Wales[225] mustered an army of one thousand
men-at-arms and six thousand archers; among whom were his two uncles,
the Duke of York, the Earl of Dorset, the Lords Morteines, de Beaumont,
de Rol, and Cornwal, together with many other noblemen; who all
marched towards Scotland, chiefly because the Scots had lately broken
the truce between the two kingdoms, and done great damage by fire and
sword in the duchy of Lancaster, and the district around Roxburgh. The
Scots were not aware of their approach till they were near at hand,
and had committed great devastation. As soon as the King of Scotland,
who was at the town of Saint "Iango" (Andrew's) in the middle of his
kingdom, heard of it, he issued orders immediately to his chiefs; and
in a few days a powerful army was assembled, which he sent under the
command of the Earl of Douglas and Buchan towards the Marches. But,
when they were within six leagues, they learnt that the English (p. 234)
were too strong for them. They consequently sent ambassadors to the
Prince of Wales and his council, who brought about a renewal of the
truce for a year; and thus the aforesaid Prince of Wales, having done
much damage in Scotland, returned into England, and the Scots
dismissed their army."

[Footnote 225: The Pell Rolls record payment (16th
November 1407) to the Prince, by the hand of John
Strange, his treasurer of war, for one hundred and
twenty men-at-arms and three hundred and sixty
archers, then remaining at the abbey of
Stratfleure, to reduce the rebels, and give battle
in North and South Wales.]

Soon after his return from Scotland we find Henry with his father at
Gloucester,[226] where a Parliament was held in the beginning of December;
the records of which enable us to carry on still further the testimony
borne to the Prince's character by his contemporaries, and to speak of
an act of generosity and noble-mindedness placed beyond the reach of
calumny to disparage. The King, on the 1st of December issued a commission
for negociating a peace with France; alleging, as the chief reason for
hastening it, his desire to have more time and leisure to appease the
schism in the church. On the last day of their sitting, the Parliament
prayed the King to present the thanks of the nation to the Prince of
Wales for his great services; in answer to which the King returned
many thanks to the Commons. Immediately on receiving this testimony of
public gratitude, "the Prince fell down upon his knees before the (p. 235)
King, and very humbly mentioning that he had heard of certain
evil-intentioned obloquies and detractions made to the slander of the
Duke of York,[227] declared that, if it were not for the Duke's good
advice and counsel, he, my lord the Prince himself, and others in his
company, would have been in great peril and desolation." "Moreover,"
(continued the Prince,) "the Duke, as though he had been one of the
poorest gentlemen of the realm who would have to toil and struggle for
the acquirement of his own honour and name, laboured, and did his very
best to give courage and comfort to all others around him. He affirmed
also, that the Duke was in everything a loyal and valiant knight."[228]
This generous conduct towards one on whom the royal displeasure had
fallen, but who seems to have always conducted himself as a brave and
faithful and honourable subject, naturally raised in all who witnessed
it a still higher admiration of the character of the Prince, whose
conduct had repeatedly called for their grateful thanks and (p. 236)
warmest eulogies. The Parliament would not separate without first praying
the King, that all who adhered steadily and faithfully to the Prince
of Wales might be encouraged and rewarded, and all who deserted him,
and left his company without his permission, might be punished.

[Footnote 226: The reason assigned by Henry IV. for
convening this Parliament at Gloucester, must not
be overlooked.--He believed that the nearer he
himself, and his nobles, and his court, were to
"his dear son, then commissioned to reduce the
rebels in Wales," the greater probability there was
of a successful issue of the Prince's campaign.]

[Footnote 227: By the Author published as
Otterbourne, we are told, that the Lady Le
Despenser charged the Duke of York with having been
the author of the plot for stealing away the sons
of the Earl of March, and also for attempting the
King's life. On the Pell Roll, beginning Friday,
October 3rd, 1407, payment is recorded to divers
messengers sent to seize for the King's use all the
goods and chattels of Edward, Duke of York, and
Lord Le Despenser: and, subsequently, payment to
one Leget, for the safe conveyance of Lord Le
Despenser from London to the castle of
"Killynworth." The year before this, Edward, Duke
of York, was the King's Lieutenant of South Wales.]

[Footnote 228: Rolls of Parliament, 8 Hen. IV.]

The records of the year 1408 are particularly barren of facts with
regard either to the affairs of the kingdom at large, to the state[229]
of the Principality, or to the occupations and proceedings of Henry of
Monmouth. Shortly after Midsummer he was present as a member of a
council held in the church of St. Paul, when an indenture of agreement
between the King and his son, Thomas of Lancaster, afterwards Duke of
Clarence, was submitted to them for confirmation. Besides the stipulated
conditions on which the Lord Thomas should engage to execute the office
of Viceroy in Ireland, together with the sources of his allowance and
the mode of payment, this agreement contains also a provision that the
Prince[230] should first be paid what was assigned to him for the (p. 237)
safeguard of Wales. The record of this council concludes by adding,
"And it was agreed by my lord the Prince, and the other lords of the
council, and by them promised to the said Lord Thomas, that, as much
as in them lay, the assignments made to him, and specified in that
indenture, should not be revoked or stopped in any way." The closing
paragraph of this minute of the council is very important and interesting,
especially in one particular, presenting Henry of Monmouth to us under
a new aspect: it is the first instance in which we find the name of
the Prince mentioned by itself individually, in contradistinction to
the other members of the council; a practice for some time afterwards
generally observed.

[Footnote 229: A minute of council (20th of
February) states the bare fact that Owyn, late
secretary to Glyndowr, had been committed to the
custody of Lord Grey, from November 4, 1406, and
had remained in ward four hundred and seventy-three
days; and that Gryffyth of Glyndowrdy, (Owyn
Glyndowr's son,) whom the Constable of the Tower
had delivered to the same lord on the 8th of June,
had been in custody two hundred and fifty days.]

[Footnote 230: The custody of the Earl of March and
his brother was given to the Prince of Wales on
February 1st, 1409; and, since he had received
nothing for their sustentation, an assignment of
five hundred marks a year was made to him from the
duties of skins and wool. On the 3rd of July, the
King granted to him "the manors belonging to
Edmund, son and heir of Roger Mortimer, Earl of
March," during the young man's minority. The
Prince's revenues seem to have been scanty in the
extreme, and his father had recourse to many of the
various modes of raising money usually adopted in
those days.]

Henry began at this time, in consequence, no doubt, of the requisition
of the council, to take a prominent part in the government of the
kingdom at large, and to enter upon that life of political activity
which gained for him the confidence and admiration of the great
majority of the people, whilst it exposed him to the envy and jealousy
of some individuals; yet he was not immediately released from the
cares and anxieties and expenses which the disturbed state of his (p. 238)
Principality involved. For in the early part of the autumn of this
year we find him again present at Caermarthen:[231] we have reason,
nevertheless, to believe that, when the winter closed in, he quitted
Wales, never to return to it again either as Prince or King.

[Footnote 231: On the 23rd of September, Henry
executed a deed by which of especial grace he gave
"for the term of life to William Malbon, our valet
de chambre, the office of Raglore [Qu: Regulator?]
of the commotes of Glenerglyn and Hannynyok in our
county of Cardigan. Given under our seal in our
castle of Caermarthen, in the ninth year of the
reign of our lord and father."]

After the Prince, however, had withdrawn from personally exerting
himself in the suppression of the insurgents, Owyn Glyndowr still
carried on a kind of desultory warfare, rallying from time to time his
scattered and dispirited adherents, heading them in predatory
incursions upon the property of his enemies, laying violent hands on
the persons of those who resisted his authority, and depriving them of
their liberty or their lives, as best suited his own views of policy.
On the 16th of May 1409, a mandate issued by the King at Westminster,
to Edward Charleton, Lord Powis, with others,[232] is couched in
language which draws a frightful picture of the terror and confusion
and misery caused by these reckless rebels; conveying, nevertheless,
at the same time the idea of a lawless band of insurgents (p. 239)
resisting the authority of the government to the utmost of their power,
but no longer of an army headed by a sovereign and struggling for
independence. The preamble of the commission runs thus: "Whereas, from
the report of many, we understand that Owyn de Glyndowrdy, and
John,[233] who pretends that he is Bishop of St. Asaph, and other our
rebels and traitors in Wales, together with certain of our enemies of
France, Scotland, and other places, have now recently congregated afresh,
and gone about the lands of us, and of others our lieges, in the same
parts of Wales, day and night wickedly seizing upon some of the said
lands; and capturing, scourging, and imprisoning our faithful lieges;
consuming,[234] carrying away, and devastating their property, (p. 240)
and committing many other enormities against our peace: We, willing to
resist the malice of the aforesaid Owyn, and the aforesaid pretended
Bishop, and to provide for the peace and repose of Wales, give you
this command."

[Footnote 232: The same commission is sent to the
Duke of York, Lords Arundel, Warwick, Reginald Grey
of Ruthyn, Richard Grey of Codnor, Constance, wife
of the late Thomas Le Despenser, William Beauchamp,
and others.]

[Footnote 233: This prelate was John Trevaur, who
was consecrated in 1395, and deposed in 1402. Much
doubt hangs over the appointment of his immediate
successor. Some say David, the second of that name,
was appointed to the see in 1402. Robert de
Lancaster was consecrated in 1411. A similar doubt
exists as to the successor of Richard Young, Bishop
of Bangor. Whether a prelate named Lewis
immediately followed him on his translation to
Rochester in 1404, or not, is very uncertain.]

[Footnote 234: Sir Henry Ellis, having represented
the mischief done to Wales by Owyn to have been
incalculable, enumerates a few instances of the
misery he caused: Montgomery deflourished, (as
Leland expresses himself,) Radnor partly
destroyed,--"and the voice is there, that when he
won the castle he took threescore men that had the
guard, and beheaded them on the brink of the castle
yard." "The people about Dinas did burn the castle
there, that Owyn should not keep it for his
fortress." The Haye, Abergavenny, Grosmont, Usk,
Pool, the Bishop's castle and the Archdeacon's
house at Llandaff, with the cathedrals of Bangor
and St. Asaph, were all either in part or wholly
victims of his rage. The list might be much
augmented. At Cardiff, he burnt the whole town,
except the street in which the Franciscan monks
dwelt. These brethren were reported to have
contributed large sums to support Glyndowr's cause,
and to enable him to invade England.]

Ten Welsh prisoners, under a warrant dated October 18th, were delivered,
as it is supposed for execution, by the Constable of Windsor to
William Lisle, Marshal of England. From this circumstance some writers
have inferred that a considerable engagement took place this summer;
but it may be doubted whether the measures adopted in accordance with
the above commission would not sufficiently account for even a far
greater number of prisoners being at the disposal of the King: for he
strictly charged all those lords and sheriffs to whom his commission
was directed "not to quit Wales till Owyn and the pretended Bishop
should be utterly routed, but to attack them with the whole posse of
the realm night and day." No doubt can be entertained that both their
duty and their interest would induce these persons to put the King's
mandate into execution promptly and vigorously; and probably many of
Owyn's partisans fell into the hands of the government in the (p. 241)
course of the present summer and autumn: Owyn himself, also, either
sued for a truce, or acceded to the proposals made to him. The persons
to whom the King delegated the duty of crushing him, either influenced
by a sense of the misery caused far and wide by the depredations and
havoc carried on by the Welsh rebels on every side, or growing tired
of a protracted struggle which brought to them neither glory nor
profit, made a truce with Owyn without any warrant from the King. So
far, however, was he from sanctioning their proceeding that he
annulled the truce altogether, and (November 23rd, 1409,) issued a new
mandate to divers other persons to hasten with all their powers
against the rebels.

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