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

The French historians, though their attention has naturally been drawn
to the introduction of English auxiliaries into the land of France,
rather than to the authority by which they were commissioned, enable
us to acquiesce with increased satisfaction in the conclusion to which
we have arrived. Whether contemporary or modern,[269] they seem all to
have considered the original mission of Lord Arundel and the troops
under his command as the act of King Henry IV. himself.[270] They
inform us, moreover, that, on the arrival in England of the (p. 274)
subsequent embassy of the Duke of Burgundy, so late as March
1412,[271] his representatives were received with every mark of
respect and cordiality, not only by the Prince, but by the King also,
and his other sons. They lead us also to infer that, when the
confederate French princes made their application for succours "to the
King and his second son,"[272] the Prince withheld his concurrence
from the change of conduct adopted by his father, and endeavoured to
the utmost of his power to prevent the contemplated expedition under
the Duke of Clarence from being carried into effect. A comparison of
these authors with our own undisputed documents supplies a very
intelligible and consistent view of the whole transaction; and so far
from representing Henry of Monmouth as an undutiful son, obstinately
bent on pursuing his own career, reckless of his father's wishes,
bears incidental testimony both to his steadiness of purpose, and to
his unwillingness to act in opposition to his father. In conjunction
with the King he originally espoused the cause of Burgundy, and was
afterwards averse from deserting their ally. He was anxious also to
dissuade his father from adopting that vacillating policy on which he
saw him bent. But within two days after the King had irrevocably taken
his final resolve, and had joined himself to the Duke of Orleans, and
the other confederated princes by a league, offensive and defensive,
against the Duke of Burgundy, instead of persevering in his (p. 275)
opposition to that measure, or defying his father's authority, within
two days he made himself a party to that league, and pledged his faith
to observe it.

[Footnote 269: M. Petitot.]

[Footnote 270: Jean Le Fevre, Morice, Lobineau.]

[Footnote 271: Monstrelet.]

[Footnote 272: Laboureur.]

Although Prince Henry seems to have had little to do with these
continental expeditions beyond the first mission of Lord Arundel and
his forces, yet it is impossible not to suspect (as the French at the
time anticipated) that this decided interference, on the part of
England, with the affairs of France, may have been a prelude to the
enterprise of the next reign. Who can say that the battle and victory
at St. Cloud passed away without any influence on the course of events
which made Henry V. heir to the King of France?

We must not leave the mention of this battle without repeating the
testimony borne by the chroniclers of the day to the courage and
humanity of the English, though we lament, at the same time, the act
of cruelty on the part of the French, with which the character of our
forefathers stands in such strong contrast. When the victory was won,
the Duke of Burgundy, with the usual ferocity of civil warfare,
commanded his officers to put their prisoners to death. The English
generals resisted this sanguinary mandate,[273] declaring they would
die with their captives rather than see them murdered; at the (p. 276)
same time forming their men in battle-array to support, with their
lives, their noble resolution.

[Footnote 273: Hardyng has thus recorded this
gratifying exhibition of generous feeling and noble
resolve on the part of the English:

"He commanded then eche capitayn
His prisoners to kill them in certayn.
To which, Gilbert Umfreuile, Erle of Kyme,
Answered for all his fellowes and their men,
They should all die together at a tyme
Ere theyr prisoners so shulde be slayn then;
And, with that, took the field as folk did ken,
With all theyr men and all theyr prysoners,
To die with them, as worship it requires.
He said they were not come thyther as bouchers
To kyll the folke in market or in feire,
Nor them to sell; but, as arms requires,
Them to gouern without any dispeyre."
Hardyng's Chron.]

It was about the Feast of the Assumption (August 25) that the King
sent his son Thomas Duke of Clarence[274] to aid the Duke of Orleans
against the Duke of Burgundy: "many persons," says Walsingham,
"wondering what could be the sudden change, that in so short a (p. 277)
space of time the English should support two opposite contending
parties." The Duke of Orleans failed to join them in time, and the
English committed many depredations as in an enemy's country. At last,
the two generals meeting, the Duke of Orleans consented to pay a large
sum to the Duke of Clarence on condition that the English should
evacuate the country: and the Earl of Angouleme[275] was given as a
hostage for the due payment of the stipulated sum. The Duke of
Clarence did not return to England till after his father's death.

[Footnote 274: There is some discrepancy in the
accounts of the time of Clarence's departure. The
Chronicle of London puts it nearly a month earlier
than Walsingham: "And then rode Thomas, the King's
son, Duke of Clarence, and with him the Duke of
York, and Beauford, then Earl of Dorset, towards
[South] Hampton with a great retinue of people; and
on Tuesday rode the Earl's brother of Oxenford, and
on the Wednesday rode the Earl of Oxenford; and
they all lay at Hampton, and abode in the wynde
till on the Thursday, the 1st day of August. The
which Thursday, Friday, and Saturday they passed
out of the haven XIIII ships,--were driven back on
Sunday,--and after landed at St. Fasters, near
Hagges, in Normandy."]

[Footnote 275: In the "Additional Charters," now in
the British Museum, purchased of the Baron de
Joursanvault, we find letters patent from Charles
VI, reciting that, by his permission, a treaty had
been made with the Duke of Clarence and other
English, who agreed to evacuate the country without
making war; the Duke of Orleans giving to them the
Earl of Angouleme as a hostage, for whose ransom
the Duke was put to vast charges. Letters also are
preserved from the Duke to his chancellor, reciting
that a large sum was to be paid to the English, and
in particular a hundred crowns of gold were to be
paid to John Seurmaistre, chancellor of the Duke of
Clarence, who was going to Rome on the affairs of
the Duke of Clarence. This bears date, Blois, Nov.
20, 1412. His mission to Rome was, no doubt, to
negociate for the dispensation necessary to enable
the Duke to marry his uncle's widow. In the March
of the next year, the same document acquaints us
with the present of a head-dress from the Duke of
Orleans to that lady, then Duchess of Clarence.]

CHAPTER XIII. (p. 278)

UNFOUNDED CHARGE AGAINST HENRY OF PECULATION. -- STILL MORE SERIOUS
ACCUSATION OF A CRUEL ATTEMPT TO DETHRONE HIS DISEASED FATHER. -- THE
QUESTION FULLY EXAMINED. -- PROBABLY A SERIOUS THOUGH TEMPORARY
MISUNDERSTANDING AT THIS TIME BETWEEN THE KING AND HIS SON. -- HENRY'S
CONDUCT FILIAL, OPEN, AND MERCIFUL. -- THE "CHAMBER" OR THE "CROWN
SCENE." -- DEATH OF HENRY THE FOURTH.

1412-1413.

Two other accusations brought against the fair fame of Henry of
Monmouth in reference to his conduct in the very year before his
accession to the throne, must be now carefully weighed. The first,
indeed, is fully refuted by the selfsame page of our records which
contains it: the second, unless some new light could be thrown upon
this dark and mysterious page of his life, can scarcely have failed to
make an unfavourable impression on the minds of every one whose heart
has ever felt the bond of filial duty and affection.

With regard to the first accusation, we cannot do better than quote
the words of the antiquary who has first brought both the calumnious
charge and its refutation to light. "The general impression (p. 279)
(says that writer) which exists respecting the character of Henry V,
and especially whilst Prince of Wales, is so opposed to the idea that
he could possibly be suspected of a pecuniary fraud, that it excites
surprise that he should have been accused of appropriating to his own
use the money which he had received for the payment of his soldiers.
In the Minutes of the Council, between July and September 1412, the
following entry occurs: 'Because my lord the Prince, Captain of the
town of Calais, is slandered in the said town and elsewhere, that he
should have received many large sums of money for the payment of his
soldiers, and that those sums have not been distributed among them,
the contrary is proved by two rolls of paper being in the council, and
sent by my said lord the Prince; it is ordered that letters be issued
under the privy seal, explanatory of the fact respecting the Prince in
that matter.'"

Although it may excite our wonder that the character of Henry of
Monmouth should have been assailed for appropriating to other purposes
money received for the payment of his troops, yet such an acquaintance
with the exhausted state of the treasury of England at that day, as
even these pages afford, will diminish the surprise.[276] The
probability is, that, of the "large sums" voted by parliament, (p. 280)
a very small proportion only was immediately forthcoming; and that, as
in Wales, so in Calais, he could with great difficulty gather from
that exhausted source enough from time to time to keep his men
together. Persons not acquainted with this fact, hearing of the large
sums voted, might naturally suspect that there was not altogether fair
and upright dealing. However, the above extract is the only document
known on the subject; and the same sentence which records the
"slander," contains also his acquittal. He had forwarded his debtor
and creditor account in two rolls, and by them it was proved that the
slander was unfounded; and a writ of privy seal declaring his
innocence was immediately issued. The fact is, that, at that very
time, there was due to the Prince for Calais no less a sum than
8689_l._ 12_s._; besides the sum of 1200_l._ due for the wages of
sixty men-at-arms and one hundred and twenty archers, who were still
living at Kymmere and Bala for the safeguard of Wales; whilst the
council at the same time declared, that they knew not how to raise the
money for the wages of the men who were with the Prince. The affairs
of Calais seem to have fallen into some confusion before the Prince
was appointed Captain, as the Minutes of Council speak of the ancient
debts incurred whilst the Earl of Somerset was captain, as well as the
more recent expenses; and record that Robert Thorley, the treasurer,
and Richard Clitherowe, victualler, were charged to come, with (p. 281)
their accounts written out, on the morrow of All Souls next ensuing,
specifying the persons to whom the several sums were paid, and the
dates of payment. The King, also, in a council at Merton, on October
21st, orders certain changes to be made in the mode of collecting the
duties on skins and wools; "to the intent that my lord the Prince, as
Captain of the town of Calais, may the more readily receive payment of
the arrears due to him and his soldiers, living there for the safeguard
of the said town." We have seen that, in Wales, the Prince was driven
by necessity to pawn the few jewels in his possession, in order to pay
the soldiers under him; and, as Captain of Calais, he appears to have
had a great difficulty in obtaining payment of the sums assigned to
him.[277] No one can any longer wonder that the soldiers were not
paid, or that their complaints should offer themselves in the form of
accusation. The Prince stands entirely free from blame, and clear of
all suspicion of misdoing.

[Footnote 276: The Prince's appointment (when he
took charge of the town) is dated March 18, 1410,
which was the Tuesday before Easter; at which time
there was due a debt, incurred before Henry had
anything whatever to do with Calais, of not less
than 9000_l._--Minutes of Council, 30th July 1410.]

[Footnote 277: Within a year of the Prince's
accession to the throne, the Pell Rolls, January
27, 1414, record the payment of 826_l._ 13_s._
4_d._ to the Bishop of Winchester, lent to the King
when he was Prince of Wales.]

Though these causes are of themselves more than enough to account for
the depressed state of Henry of Monmouth's finances; yet there was
another drain, the pecuniary difficulties of his father, which, though
hitherto unnoticed, must not be suppressed in these Memoirs. (p. 282)
It is not necessary more than to refer to the causes of the pecuniary
difficulties of Henry IV; as the public and authentic documents of his
reign suggest a suspicion of want of economy in his more domestic
expenditure, and leave no doubt as to the extent to which he
endeavoured to meet his increasing wants by loans from spiritual and
municipal bodies, as well as from individuals. Among others, his son
Henry's name occurs, not once or twice, but repeatedly. Whilst some
loans, with reference to the then value of money, must be considered
large; others cannot fail to excite surprise from the smallness of
their amount.[278]

[Footnote 278: Pell Rolls, 9 Hen. IV. 17th July,
&c.]

* * * * *

A charge, however, more vitally affecting Henry's character than any
other by which it has ever been assailed, requires now a patient and
thorough investigation. The groundwork, indeed, upon which the
accusation is built, is of great antiquity, though the superstructure
is of very recent date. Were it sufficient for a biographer, who would
deal uprightly, merely to contradict the evidence by demonstrating its
inconsistency with indisputable facts, the business of refutation in
this instance would be brief, as the accusation breaks down in every
particular, from whatever point of view we may examine it. But the
province of these Memoirs must not be so confined. To establish the
truth in these points satisfactorily, as well as to place clearly (p. 283)
before the mind the total inadequacy of the evidence to substantiate
the charge, will require a more full and detailed examination of the
value of the Manuscript on which the charge is made to rest, than
could be conveniently introduced into the body of this narrative. The
whole is therefore reserved for the Appendix; and to a careful,
dispassionate weighing of the arguments there adduced, the reader is
earnestly invited.

But the Author, as he has above intimated, does not think his duty
would be performed were he merely to prove that the charge against
Henry is altogether untenable upon the evidence adduced; though that
is all which the accusation so unsparingly now in these late years
brought against him requires or deserves. The very allusion to such an
offence as undutiful, unfilial conduct in one whose life is otherwise
an example of obedience, respect, and affection towards his father,
requires the biographer to take up the province of inquisitor, and
ascertain what ground there may be, independently of that inadequate
evidence alleged by others, for believing Henry to have once at least,
and for a time, forgotten the duties of a son; or what proceedings,
not involving his guilt, might have given rise to the unfounded
rumour, and of what satisfactory explanation they may admit.

The charge is this: That, in the parliament held in November 1411,
Prince Henry desired of his father the resignation of his crown, on
the plea that the malady under which the King was suffering (p. 284)
would not allow him to rule any longer for the honour and welfare of
the kingdom. On the King's firm and peremptory refusal, the Prince,
greatly offended, withdrew from the court, and formed an overwhelming
party of his own among the nobility and gentry of the land, "associating
them to his dominion in homage and pay." Such is the statement made
(not indeed in the form of an accusation, but merely as one of the
occurrences of the year,) in the manuscript above referred to. The
modern comment upon this text would probably never have been made, if
the writer had given more time and patient investigation to the
subject; and now, were such a suppression compatible with the thorough
sifting of Henry's character and conduct, the quotation of it might
well have been spared in these pages. A few words, however, on that
comment, and recently renewed charge, seem indispensable. "The King's
subsequent death (such are the words of the modern historian)
prevented the final explosion of this unfilial conduct, which, as thus
stated, deserves the denomination of an unnatural rebellion; and shows
that the dissolute companion of Falstaff was not the gay and
thoughtless youth which his dramatic representation exhibits to us,
but that, amid his vicious gaieties, he could cherish feelings which
too much resemble the unprincipled ambition of a Catilinarian
temper."[279]

[Footnote 279: Turner's History.]

These are hard words; and, if deserved, must condemn Henry of Monmouth.
That they are not deserved; that he was not guilty of this offence (p. 285)
against God and his father; that the page which records it condemns
itself, and is contradictory to our undisputed public records; that
the manuscript which contains the charge carries with it no authority
whatever; and that the inference which has lately been fastened upon
the original report is altogether inconsistent with the acknowledged
facts of the case, are points which the Author believes he has
established beyond further controversy in the Appendix; and to that
dissertation he again with confidence refers the reader. But every
reader whose verdict is worth receiving, will agree that our abhorrence
of a crime should only increase our care and circumspection that no
innocent person stand charged with it. If Henry were guilty, his
character must remain branded with an indelible stain, in the
estimation of every parent and every child, incomparably more
disgraceful than those "vicious gaieties" with which poets and
historiographers have delighted to stamp his memory.--At a time when
disease was paralysing all a father's powers of body and mind, and
hurrying him prematurely to the grave, that a first-born son, instead
of devoting himself, and all his heart, and all his faculties, to his
parent; strengthening his feeble hands, supporting his faltering
steps, guiding his erring counsels, bearing his heavy burden,
protecting him from the machinations of the malicious and designing,
cheering his drooping spirits, making (as far as in him lay) his (p. 286)
last days on earth days of peace, and comfort, and calm preparation
for the change to which he was hastening;--instead of this, that a
son, who had always professed respect and affection for his father,
should thrust the most painful thorn of all into the side of a
sinking, broken down, dying man, is so abhorrent from every feeling,
not only of a truly noble and generous spirit, but of mere ordinary
humanity,--is so utterly "unprincipled," "unfilial," and
"unnatural,"--that though in such a case we might hope, after a life
of sincere Christian penitence, the stain might have been removed from
his conscience; yet, in the estimation of the wise and good, he could
never have obtained the name of "the most excellent and most gracious
flower of Christian chivalry."

Although for the real merits of the question, as far as relates to the
manuscript, we refer to the argument in the Appendix; and although, if
the foundation of original documents be withdrawn, it matters little
to the investigator of the truth what superstructure modern writers
have hastily run up; yet such a positive assertion as that "the King's
subsequent death prevented the final explosion of this unfilial
conduct and unnatural rebellion" of the Prince, who cherished
"feelings resembling the unprincipled ambition of a Catilinarian
temper," does seem to call for a few words before we proceed with the
narrative. It is difficult to say whether the confused views of the
manuscript, or of its modern commentator, be the greater. The (p. 287)
manuscript, (to mention here only one specimen of its confusion,)
in the very page which contains the accusing passage, represents the
expedition to France in the summer of 1411; the battle of St. Cloud,
which was fought November 10, of the same year; the expedition under
the Duke of Clarence, which was undertaken after Midsummer 1412; and
the return of the Duke and his forces to England, which was not till
the spring of 1413, as having all taken place in the thirteenth year
of Henry IV. And the commentator who tells us that the King's death
prevented the final explosion of Henry's unfilial conduct, by confounding
(as the manuscript had also done) the parliament in November 1411,
with the parliament in February 1413, has entirely overlooked the
facts which give a direct contradiction to his statement. The King's
death did not occur till March 1413, more than a year and a quarter
after the parliament ended in which the Prince is said to have been
guilty of this act. The session of that parliament began on the 3rd of
November, and broke up on the 20th of December; and the King, nearly
half a year after its dissolution, declares his fixed[280] purpose, in
order to avoid the spilling of human blood, to go in his own (p. 288)
person to the Duchy of Guienne, and vindicate his rights with all
possible speed."[281] Surely the web of his father's life left Henry
no lack of time and opportunity for the execution of any measures
which the most reckless ambition could devise, or the most "Catilinarian"
temper sanction. But, leaving this ill-advised statement without
further observation, it remains for us to proceed with our narrative,
entirely free from any apprehensions or misgivings that our researches
and reflections may tend only to elucidate the character of one who,
in the midst of splendid sins, would sacrifice his own father to
unbounded, reckless ambition, and unprincipled self-aggrandizement.

[Footnote 280: This resolution of the King is
embodied in his letter to the Burgomasters of
Ghent, &c. dated May 16, 1412; in which he tells
them that the Dukes of Berry, Orleans, and Bourbon
had offered to surrender to him such lands of his
as they held in the Duchy of Guienne, and to assist
him in recovering the remainder. He prays the
Burgomasters not to impede him in his designs.]

[Footnote 281: On the 18th of April 1412, a warrant
was issued to press sailors for the King's intended
voyage.]

* * * * *

Henry of Monmouth had now for a long time been virtually in possession
of the royal authority. He was not only President of the Council, but
his name is united with the King's when both are present; and everything
seems to have proceeded smoothly, with the best feelings of mutual
confidence and kindness between himself, his father, and his brothers.
Whether the King's own inclination, uninfluenced by the representations
of his parliament, would have led him to put the reins of government
into his son's hand, or whether he was induced by the complaints (p. 289)
and urgent suggestions of the council (of which many broad and deep
vestiges remain on record) to transfer the executive and legislative
functions of the royal prerogative to a son in whom the people had
entire confidence, may admit of much doubt. Probably both causes, his
own increasing infirmities, and his people's dissatisfaction at the
mismanagement of the court, expressed in no covert language, co-operated
in producing that result. Hardyng (as he first wrote on this subject)
would lead us to adopt the former view:

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