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 250: Rym. Foed. vol. vii.]

[Footnote 251: Stowe's London, ii. 206.]

We are led to infer, though the formal grant of this house to Prince
Henry was made only in the March of this year, yet that it had been
his residence for some time previously; for, on the 8th of the
preceding February, we find a council held there, himself present as
its chief.

It does not appear by any positive statement that the Prince visited
Calais immediately on his appointment to its captaincy, but we (p. 259)
shall probably be safe in concluding that he did so; for, very soon
afterwards, we find letters of protection[252] for one year (from
April 23) given to Thomas Selby, who was to go with the Prince, and
remain with him at Calais. At all events, he was resident in London by
the middle of June, and had apparently engaged most actively in the
affairs of government. On the 16th of that month we find him president
at two sittings of the council on the same day:[253] the first at
Coldharbour, in which it was determined that three parts of the
subsidy granted to the King on wools, hides, &c. should be applied to
the payment of the garrison of Calais and of the marches thereof; the
second, at the Convent of the Preaching Friars, when an ordinance was
made for the payment of the garrison of Berwick and the East March of
Scotland.

[Footnote 252: Rymer's Foed.]

[Footnote 253: Acts of Council.]

The Prince presided at a council, on the 18th of June, in Westminster;
and, on the 19th, in the house of the Bishop of Hereford. To this
council his brother Thomas of Lancaster presented a petition praying
for reformation of certain tallies, by default of which he could not
obtain the money due to him. The preamble, as well as the body of this
petition, proves that at this time the Prince was regarded not merely
as a member of the council, but as its president, to be named and
addressed individually and in contradistinction to the other (p. 260)
members. "The petition of my lord Thomas of Lancaster, made to the
very honourable and puissant lord the Prince, and the other very
honourable and wise lords of the council of our sovereign lord the
King. First, may it please my said lord the Prince, and the other
lords of the council," &c.--That up to this time no jealousy had
arisen in the King's mind in consequence of the growing popularity and
ascendency of his son, is evidenced by the record of the same council.
That document tells us plainly that the King was cordial with him, and
employed him as his confidential representative: it shall speak for
itself. "And then my said lord the Prince reported to the other
members of the council, that he had it in command from his very good
lord and father to ordain, with the advice of the others of the said
council, that the Lord Thomas Beaufort, brother of our said lord the
King and his chancellor of England, should have such gratuity for one
year beyond his fees as to them should seem reasonable. On which, by
our said lord the Prince, and all the others, it was agreed that the
said chancellor should receive for one year, from the day of his
appointment, 800 marks."

The next council, at which also we find the Prince acting as
president, was held on the 11th of July. Between the dates of these
two last councils, that disturbance in the street took place which the
Chronicle of London refers to merely as "an affray in East-Cheap (p. 261)
between the townsmen and the Princes Thomas and John;" but which Stowe
records with much of detail and minuteness. Many, it is believed, may
be disposed to regard it as the foundation chosen by Shakspeare on
which to build the superstructure of his own fascinating imagination,
and on which other writers more grave, though not more trustworthy as
historians, have rested for conclusive evidence of the wild frolics
and "madcap" adventures of Henry of Monmouth. Stowe's account is this:
"In the year 1410, upon the eve of St. John the Baptist, (i.e. June
23,) the King's sons, Thomas and John, being in East-Cheap at supper,
or rather at breakfast, (for it was after the watch was broken up,
betwixt two and three of the clock after midnight,) a great debate
happened between their men and other of the court, which lasted an
hour, even till the mayor and sheriffs, with other citizens, appeased
the same: for the which afterwards the said mayor, aldermen, and
sheriffs were sent for to answer before the King; his sons and divers
lords being highly moved against the city. At which time, William
Gascoigne, chief justice, required the mayor and aldermen, for the
citizens, to put them in the King's grace.[254] Whereunto they
answered that they had not offended, but according to the law had done
their best in stinting debate and maintaining of the peace: upon
which answer the King remitted all his ire and dismissed them." (p. 262)
It must be observed that not one word is here said of Prince Henry
having anything whatever to do with the affray: whether "other of the
court" meant some of his household, or not, does not appear; neither
are we told that the two brothers had been supping with the Prince.
And yet, unless some facts are alleged by which the mayor and the
chief justice may be connected with him in reference to some broil, we
may well question whether the current stories relating to his
East-Cheap revelries have any other foundation than this. At all
events, the Prince seems to have been most regular during this summer
in his attendance at the council-board. On the 22nd, 29th, 30th of
July, we find him acting as president. The last council was held at
the house of Robert Lovell, Esq. near Old Fish Street in London; at
which 1400_l._ was voted to the Prince for the safeguard of Calais, to
be repaid out of the first receipts from the duties on wools and
skins.[255]

[Footnote 254: That is, that they should ask the
King's pardon.]

[Footnote 255: On the 7th of September the King
commissions his very dear son the Prince, or his
lieutenant, to punish the rebels of Wales.]

On the 18th of November we find a mandate directed to the Prince, as
Warden of the Cinque Ports, to see justice done in a case of piracy;
and on the 29th, the King, being then at Leicester, issues to Henry
the Prince, as Captain of Calais, and to his lieutenant, the same
commission, to grant safe-conducts, as had been given to John (p. 263)
Earl of Somerset, the late captain.[256]

[Footnote 256: The Earl died on Palm Sunday, 16th
of March 1410; immediately on whose demise the
Prince was appointed captain. Minutes of Council,
16th June 1410.]

Where the Prince passed the winter does not seem to be recorded. In
the following spring we find this minute of council. "Be it
remembered, that on Thursday, the 19th of March, in the twelfth year
of our sovereign lord the King, at Lambeth, in presence of our said
lord the King, and his very dear son my lord the Prince, the following
prelates and other lords were assembled."[257] It cannot escape
observation, that, instead of the Prince being mentioned as one of the
council, or as their president, his name is coupled with the King's as
one of the two in whose presence the others were assembled.[258]

[Footnote 257: There are many curious items of
expenditure in the minutes of this council; one
which few perhaps would have expected: "Item, to
John Rys, for the lions in his custody per annum
120_l._"]

[Footnote 258: In a minute of the council, about
April this year, we find an item of expense which
proves that Wales still required the presence of a
considerable force: "Item, to my lord the Prince,
for the wages of three hundred men-at-arms and six
hundred archers who have lived and will live for
the safeguard of the Welsh parts, from the 9th day
of July 1410, to the 7th day of April then next
ensuing, 8000_l._"

In this month the King implores the Archbishops of
Canterbury and York to pray for him, and to urge
all their clergy to supplicate God's help and
protection of himself, his children, and his realm.
And many prayers, and processions, and masses are
ordered; and all in so urgent a manner as would
lead us to think that there was some especial cause
of anxiety and alarm, or some severe affliction
present or feared.--Rymer.

On the 18th of August, a warrant is issued for the
liberation of Llewellyn ap David Whyht, and Yon ap
Griffith ap Lli, from the Tower.--MS. Donat. 4599.

In the parliament, at the close of this year,
grievous complaints are made by the Border counties
against the violence and ravages and extortions of
the Welsh; and an order is sought "to arrest the
cousins of all rebels and evil-doers of the Welsh,
until the malefactors yield themselves up; for by
such kinsmen only are they supported."

The cruelties of the Welsh are described in very
strong colours by the petitioners; but it is not
evident what was the result of their prayer. The
rebels and robbers, they say, carry the English off
into woods and deserts, and tie them to trees, and
keep them, as in prison, for three or four months,
till they are ransomed at the utmost value of their
goods; and yet these malefactors were pardoned by
the lords of the marches. The petitioners pray for
more summary justice. Rolls of Parl.]

Early in the autumn of this year a negociation was set on foot (p. 264)
for a marriage between Prince Henry and the daughter of the Duke
of Burgundy. Ambassadors were appointed for carrying on the treaty;
and on September 1st, 1411, instructions were given to the Bishop of
St. David's, the Earl of Arundel, Lord Francis de Court, Hugh Mortimer,
Esq. and John Catryk, Clerk, or any two or more of them, how to
negociate without finally concluding the treaty, and to report to
the King and Prince.

The instructions may be examined at full length in Sir Harris Nicolas'
"Acts of the Privy Council" by any who may feel an interest in (p. 265)
them independently of Henry of Monmouth's character and proceedings;
to others the first paragraph will sufficiently indicate the tenour of
the whole document. "First, inasmuch as our sovereign lord the King,
by the report of the message of the Duke of Burgundy, understood that
the Duke entertains a great affection and desire to have an alliance
with our said sovereign by means of a marriage to be contracted, God
willing, between our redoubted lord the Prince and the daughter of the
aforesaid Duke, the King wishes that his said ambassadors should first
of all demand of the Duke his daughter, to be given to my lord the
Prince; and that after they have heard what the Duke will offer on
account of the said marriage, whether by grant of lands and
possessions, or of goods and jewels, and according to the greatest
offer which by this negociation might be made by one party or the
other, a report be made of that to our said lord the King and our said
lord the Prince by the ambassadors." The other instructions relate
rather to political stipulations than pecuniary arrangements. These
negociations met with the fate they merited; and all idea of a
marriage between the Prince and the daughter of the Duke of Burgundy
was abandoned. But since Henry's behaviour in the transaction has been
urged as proof of his having then discarded parental authority, and
acted for himself in contravention of his father's wishes, thereby
incurring his royal displeasure, and sowing the seeds of that (p. 266)
state of mutual dissatisfaction, and jealousy, and strife which is
said to have grown up afterwards into a harvest of bitterness, the
subject assumes greater importance to those who are anxiously tracing
Henry's real character; and must be examined and sifted with care, and
patience, and candour.

* * * * *

The question involved is this: "In the quarrel between the Dukes of
Burgundy and Orleans, did Prince Henry send the first troops from his
own forces under the command of his own friends to the aid of the Duke
of Burgundy, against the express wishes of his father; or did the
contradictory measures of England in first succouring the Duke of
Burgundy, and then the Duke of Orleans his antagonist, arise from a
change of policy in the King himself and the English government,
without implying undutiful conduct on the part of the Prince, or
dissatisfaction in his father towards him?" The former view has been
recommended for adoption, though it reflects upon the Prince's
character as a son; and it has been thereupon suggested that, "instead
of denying his previous faults, we should recollect his sudden and
earnest reformation, and the new direction of his feelings and
character, as the mode more beneficial to his memory."[259] But in
this work, which professes not to search for exculpation, nor to deal
in eulogy, but to seek the truth, and follow it to whatever
consequences it might lead, we must on no account so hastily (p. 267)
acquiesce in the assumption that Henry of Monmouth was on this
occasion undutifully opposed to his father.[260] However rejoiced we
may be to find in a fellow-Christian the example of a sincere penitent
growing in grace, it cannot be right to multiply or aggravate his
faults for the purpose of making his conversion more striking and
complete. We may firmly hope that, if he had been a disobedient and
unkind son in any one particular, he repented truly of that fault. But
his biographer must sift the evidence adduced in proof of the alleged
delinquency; instead of admitting on insufficient ground an
allegation, in order to assimilate his character to general fame, or
to heighten the dramatic effect of his subsequent course of virtue.

[Footnote 259: Turner's Hist. Eng.]

[Footnote 260: The character of the manuscript, on
the authority of which this and another charge
against Henry of Monmouth have been grounded, will
be examined at length, as to its genuineness and
authenticity in the Appendix.]

In discussing this question it will be necessary to attend with care
to the order and date of each circumstance. By a temporary
forgetfulness of this indispensable part of an historian's duty, the
writers who have adopted the view most adverse to Henry as a son, have
been led to give an incorrect view of the whole transaction,
especially as it affects the character and filial conduct of the
Prince.

The first application for aid was made to the King by the Duke of
Burgundy, who offered at the same time his daughter in marriage (p. 268)
to the Prince. This was in August 1411; and doubtless, if he found the
King backward or unfavourably inclined, he would naturally apply to
the Prince for his good offices, who was personally most interested in
the result of the negociation; not to induce him to act against his
father, but to prevail upon his father to agree to the proposal. This
course was, we are told, actually pursued, and Prince Henry was
allowed by his father to send some forces immediately to strengthen
the ranks of Burgundy. They joined his army, and remained at Paris
till provisions became so dear that they resolved to procure them from
the enemy, who were stationed at St. Cloud. Here, at the broken
bridge, the two parties engaged; and Burgundy, by the help of the
English auxiliaries, completely routed the Duke of Orleans' forces.
The English subsequently received their pay; and, their services being
no longer required, returned at their leisure by Calais to their own
country. The Duke of Orleans learning that these troops were dismissed
unceremoniously by his antagonist, and conceiving that Henry's
resentment of the indignity might make for him a favourable opening,
despatched ambassadors to England with most magnificent offers; but
this was not till the beginning of the next year after the battle of
St. Cloud, which took place[261] on the 10th November 1411. That the
King himself contemplated the expediency of sending auxiliaries (p. 269)
to the Duke of Burgundy in the beginning of September, is put beyond
doubt by the instructions given to the ambassadors. Even so late as
February 10, 1412, the King issued a commission to Lord Grey, the
Bishop of Durham, and others, not only to treat for the marriage of
the Prince with that Duke's daughter, but to negociate with him also
on mutual alliances and confederacies, and on the course of trade
between England and Flanders; the King having previously, on the 11th
of January, signed letters patent, to remain in force till the Feast
of Pentecost, for the safe conduct and protection of the Duke's
ambassadors with one hundred men. With a view of enabling the reader
more satisfactorily to form his own judgment on the validity of this
charge of unfilial and selfwilled conduct on the part of Henry of
Monmouth, the Author is induced, instead of confining himself to the
general statement of his own views, or of the considerations on which
his conclusion has been built, to cite the evidence separately of
several authors who have recorded the proceedings. He trusts the
importance of the point at issue will be thought to justify the
detail.

[Footnote 261: Monstrelet says distinctly, that the
Duke of Burgundy left Paris, at midnight, on the
9th of November.]

Walsingham, who is in some points very minute when describing these
transactions, so as even to record the very words employed by the King
on the first application of the Duke, does not mention the name of the
Prince of Wales throughout. He represents the King as having (p. 270)
recommended the Duke to try measures of mutual forgiveness and
reconciliation; at all events, to let the fault of encouraging civil
discord be with his adversaries; but withal promising, in case of the
failure of that plan, to send the aid he desired. The same writer
states the mission of the Earl of Arundel, Lord Kyme, Lord Cobham,
(Sir John Oldcastle,) and others, with an army, as the consequence of
this engagement on the part of the King.[262] He then tells us that,
in the next year after these forces had been dismissed by the Duke of
Burgundy, the Duke of Orleans made application to the King.

[Footnote 262: "Transmissi sunt _ergo_;" without
the slightest intimation of any interference on the
part of the Prince.]

Elmham, who mentions the successful application of Burgundy to the
Prince, and the consequent mission of an English force, represents the
Prince as having recommended himself more than ever to his royal
father on that occasion.[263]

[Footnote 263: These chroniclers show clearly the
general opinion in their day to have been that
there was for a time an alienation of affection
between Henry and his father, brought about by
envious calumniators; but that they were soon
cordially reconciled: "Non obstante quorundam
detractatione et accusatione multiplici, ipse,
invidis renitentibus, suae piissimae benignitatis
mediis, &c". Elmham, thus ascribes the cause of the
temporary interruption of cordiality to the malice
of detractors, and its final and lasting
restoration to Henry's filial and affectionate
kindness.]

Titus Livius, who says that the Duke of Burgundy applied to the
Prince, and that he sent some of his own men to succour him, (p. 271)
distinctly tells us that he did it with the good-will and consent of
his father. He adds, (what could have originated only in an oversight
of dates,) that the Prince was made, in consequence of his conduct on
this occasion, the chief of the council, and was always called the
dear and beloved son of his father. He intimates, (but very
obscurely,) that, by the aspersions of some, his fame sustained for a
short time some blemish in this point.[264]

[Footnote 264: "Etsi nonnullorum detrectationibus
in hoc _aliquantisper_ fama sua laesa fuerit." Some
writers have built very unadvisedly on this
expression. It is at best obscure, and capable of a
very different interpretation; and, even at the
most, it only implies that the Prince was then the
object of calumny at the hand of some persons who
could not effect any lasting wound on his fame.]

Polydore Vergil[265] says distinctly that, on the Duke of Burgundy
first opening the negociation, the King, anticipating good to himself
from the quarrels of his neighbours, willingly promised aid, and as
soon as possible sent a strong force to succour him. He then records
the victory gained by Burgundy at the Bridge of St. Cloud, and the
dismissal of his English allies with presents; adding, that King Henry
thought it a weakness in him to send them home prematurely, before he
had finished the struggle. And when the Duke of Orleans, on (p. 272)
hearing of this hasty dismissal, entered upon a counter negociation,
the King willingly listened to his proposals, having felt hurt at the
conduct of the Duke of Burgundy towards those English auxiliaries.

[Footnote 265: The testimony of these later authors
is only valuable so far as they are believed to
have been faithful in copying the accounts, or
extracting from the statements, of preceding
writings, the works of many of whom have not come
down to our times.]

The Chronicle of London tells us that, when the King would grant no
men to the Duke of Burgundy, he applied to the Prince, "who sent the
Earl of Arundel and the Lord Cobham, with other lords and gentles,
with a fair retinue and well-arrayed people."

Whilst we remark that in these several accounts no allusion whatever
is made to any opposition to his father on the part of the Prince, or
any sign of displeasure on the part of the King in this particular
point of his conduct, the simple facts are decidedly against the
supposition of any such unsatisfactory proceeding. In February 1412,
more than three months after the Earl of Arundel's dismissal by the
Duke of Burgundy, the King was still engaged in negociations with that
Duke: nor was it till three months after that,--not till May
18th,--that the final treaty between the King and the Duke of Orleans
was signed.[266] And it is very remarkable that, within two days, the
Prince[267] himself, as well as his three brothers, in the (p. 273)
presence of their father, solemnly undertook to be parties to that
treaty, and to abide faithfully by its provisions.

[Footnote 266: The King had issued a proclamation
at Canterbury, addressed to all sheriffs, and to
the Captain also of Calais, forbidding his subjects
of any condition or degree whatsoever to interfere
in this foreign quarrel. April 10, 1412.]

[Footnote 267: Rymer Foed.]

We are compelled, then, to infer, that there is no evidence whatever
of Prince Henry having acted in this affair in contravention of his
father's will. He very probably used his influence to persuade the
King, and was successful. And as to the application having been made
to him by the Duke of Burgundy, and not to the King, we must bear in
mind that, at this period, it was to him that even his brother Thomas
presented his petition, and not to his father; and that the Pope sent
his commendatory letters to him, and not to the King.[268]

[Footnote 268: On February 9th, in the third year
of his pontificate (1413), Pope John recommends
John Bremor to the kind offices of the Prince; and,
on the kalends of March (1st of March), the same
pontiff sent Dr. Richard Derham with a message to
him by word of mouth.]

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