Henry of Monmouth, Volume 2

J >> J. Endell Tyler >> Henry of Monmouth, Volume 2

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 | 29 | 30

After the close of the Chaplain's narrative, the MS. loses almost all
its interest: it carries on the history through the first years of the
reign of Henry VI, and is evidently only part of what the volume once
contained.[316]

[Footnote 316: From this point the manuscript
proceeds, in the very words of Elmham, to describe
Henry's second expedition.]

* * * * *

The two former portions of the volume now claim our careful
examination; and, of these two, especially the second.

It has been already intimated, that the first part of the MS. contains
that portion of the history of Richard II. and Henry IV. which is
embraced by the memoirs of the Monk of Evesham. A careful examination
of both, and a comparison of each with the other, have induced the
Author to conclude (with what degree of probability he must leave
others to decide) that the writer had the work of the Monk before him,
and copied from it very largely, but made such alterations as we
should expect to find made by a _foreigner_, and one whose feelings
were _opposed to the Lancastrian party_; a supporter rather of the
cause of Richard, and the French, and the other enemies of
Bolinbroke's house. The Monk's work bears every mark of being the
genuine production of one who witnessed Henry IV.'s expeditions to
Wales, and who was in all his sentiments and prejudices an Englishman
and a Lancastrian. The Author fears he may be considered too minute
and tedious on this point; but, since the circumstance of the (p. 429)
writer of the manuscript bear immediately upon the authenticity of
the charge, he trusts he shall be excused a detail which, except for
that consideration, would be superfluous.

1. They both record the execution of a Welshman, who preferred death
to treachery. The Monk adds this comment: "_We English_ too [possumus
et _nos Angli_] may derive an example here; to preserve our fidelity,
&c. even to death." The MS. thus expresses its comment: "_All English
servants_ may contemplate an example of fidelity towards their own
masters from the conduct of that Welshman."

2. Thus too, in mentioning the introduction of the fashion into
England of wearing long sleeves like a _bagpipe_, the two MSS. of the
Monk most clearly write "Bagpipe." Of the MSS. in question, the Sloane
writes Bagebyte, the Reg. "Babepipae;"--evidently the writer in neither
case knowing the meaning of the English word which he attempted so
unsuccessfully to copy.

3. In relating the capture of Lord Grey, the Monk adds, "which we
grieve to say." The MS., without any such, expression of sympathy or
sorrow, says that "he fell into the snare which he had prepared for
others."[317]

[Footnote 317: In the MS. the word is "lacum,"
probably a mistake for "laqueum."]

4. The Monk merely records the return of Isabel to France; the MS.
reflects strongly on her return _without her dower_, and her feelings
of repugnance against receiving any boon from Henry, whom she regarded
as _Richard's enemy_.

5. Speaking of the battle of Homildon, the Monk says, "Of _our
countrymen_ only five were slain;" and adds, "We praise thee, O God,
because thou hast been mindful of us." The MS. says, "_And of the
English_ scarcely five were slain;" but adds no word of praise.

6. The Monk says, "From this time Owyn's cause seemed to grow (p. 430)
and prosper, _ours_ to decrease." This is omitted in the MS.

7. Whereas the Monk (describing the character of Richard in the very
words--and many are unusual words--adopted by the MS.) records that
Richard was in the habit of sitting throughout the night till the
morning in drinking, and "other occupations not to be named:" the MS.
omits the latter phrase. The Monk says there were _two_ points of
excellence in Richard's character; the MS., though confining itself to
the two specified by the Monk, calls them "very many," "_plura_."

8. In recording the commencement of Owyn Glyndowr's rebellion, the
Monk, speaking of it as "an execrable revolt," says that the Welsh
elected Owyn against the principles of peace [contra pacem elegerunt].
The MS. says that the Welsh elected a respectable and venerable
gentleman to be their leader and prince.

Our attention is now especially called to some points in which the MS.
seems to be so full of historical mistakes and improbabilities as to
render any statement of a fact, especially of an improbable fact, not
supported by other evidence, suspicious.[318]

[Footnote 318: The Author on the whole is rather
disposed to think that, whilst the Monk records
accurately what fell within his own knowledge, both
he and the author of the Sloane MS. in this part
borrowed from some common document, probably more
than one; for in some points they vary from each
other in a way best reconciled by that supposition.
Thus, whilst the Sloane MS. tells us that Richard
II. on his landing came to a place _called
Cardech_, from which he started for Conway, the
Monk (not differing from him in other points) says
that he came to the castle of Hertlowli. They both
have fallen into the error of making the Earl of
Salisbury accompany Richard, whereas he had
undoubtedly been sent on before from Dublin to
Conway. They are both equally wrong about the
relative positions of Flint and Conway, and make
the parties all cross and recross _the bridge_ at
the castle of Conway, where a noble suspension
bridge is now thrown over the arm of the sea. After
the period, however, at which the Monk's narrative
closes, the writer of the manuscript seems to be
seldom free from error.]

1. Froissart (who appears to be well acquainted with the (p. 431)
proceedings of Bolinbroke till he left the coast of France, but to
have been altogether mistaken as to his proceedings from that hour,)
states, with the greatest probability, that Bolinbroke left Paris
under plea of visiting his friend the Duke of Brittany, and having
been well received and assisted by him, set sail from some port of
Brittany [intimating that his embarkation was (as was natural) carried
on in secret, for he "_had only been informed_" that it was from
Vennes].[319] The MS., on the contrary, with the greatest
improbability, roundly asserts that Bolinbroke went to Calais,
obtained money from the treasurer, though against his will, and seized
all the ships which he could find in the port. The improbability that
Bolinbroke should have excited the suspicions of the authorities of
Calais not in his interest, from which a single boat in a few hours
could have carried the news of his hostile attempts to Richard's
friends in England, and the absurdity of making him seize all the
ships in the port of Calais to carry over his handful of friends, can
impress the reader with no favourable idea of this writer's accuracy.

[Footnote 319: The Monk of Evesham makes no mention
of Bolinbroke's proceedings before he landed in
England.]

2. No fact is more undeniably certain than that Henry IV. made his
eldest son (our Henry V.) Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall in the
parliament held immediately upon his accession; whereas the MS.
declares that Henry V. was so created in the year of the Emperor of
Constantinople's visit to England, and in the parliament which (p. 432)
began at the feast of St. Hilary, during which Sautre was burned for a
heretic;--that is, a year and a quarter later.

3. The MS. account of Hotspur's rebellion is quite inconsistent with
facts, and altogether, in other respects, as improbable as it is
singular. The MS. says that Hotspur,[320] about Candlemas, was
commissioned to go against the Welsh rebels; but when he reached the
country with his forces, and found it to be mountainous, and fit
neither for horse nor infantry, he made a truce with Owyn, and went to
London to take the King's pleasure upon it. The reception he met with
at court drove him to his own country; and the King, as soon as he
heard of Percy gathering his people, collected those whom he believed
to be faithful to him, and hastened to meet him near Shrewsbury.
Whereas the fact is, that Henry Percy had been resident as Chief
Justice in North Wales, Constable of Caernarvon, &c. at least three
years; had besieged Conway with his own men; had routed the rebels at
Cader Idris, and most zealously persevered in his attempts to suppress
the rebellion; and had returned from the Principality at least a year
and a half before the Candlemas (1403), at which the MS. says that he
was first commissioned to go there.

[Footnote 320: This account of Hotspur's mission to
Wales is the first circumstance mentioned by the
manuscript after the chronicle of the Monk of
Evesham ends.]

The next point to which the attention of the reader is solicited will
perhaps be considered by many to involve a greater improbability than
the Author may himself attach to it. Every one who has ever read, or
heard, or written about the "Tripartite Indenture of Division" made
between Glyndowr, Mortimer, and Northumberland, fixes it, as (p. 433)
Shakspeare does, before the battle of Shrewsbury.[321] The scene in
the house of the Archdeacon of Bangor is too exquisite for any one to
desire it to be proved a fable. But (as the Author believes) this MS.
is the only document extant which professes to record the words of
that treaty; and yet this document fixes it to a date long after the
Percies lost that "sorry field." It is represented to have been made
in the February of the year of Pope Innocent's election: if before
that election, it was made in 1404; if after it, in 1405. And
certainly the tradition is general that Northumberland, after his
flight to Scotland, visited Wales.

[Footnote 321: The Sloane MS. says that it was on
the 28th day of February; the King's MS. assigns it
to the 18th.]

Another point deserving consideration is the account of the conspiracy
of Mowbray and the Archbishop of York. That account is drawn up in a
manner most unfavourable to Henry IV. The MS. boldly also records the
miracle wrought in the field of the Archbishop's execution, and states
that various miracles attracted multitudes to his tomb daily. It also
affirms that, on the very day and hour of the Archbishop's execution,
Henry IV. was struck with the leprosy.[322]

[Footnote 322: There are similar statements in
Maydstone, Ang. Sac. vii. 371.]

Perhaps too it may appear strange to others, as the Author confesses
it has appeared to himself, that, up to the very last chapter of this
history of Richard II. and Henry IV, no mention whatever is made of
Henry of Monmouth, except in the unaccountable anachronism of his
creation as Prince of Wales. It is curious that an historian should
state that the young Duke of Gloucester was sent for from Ireland, and
not allude to the circumstance of the Prince being in prison with him,
and being sent for back at the same time.[323]

[Footnote 323: The MS. and Monk here agree.]

We are now arrived at the very last chapter, the chapter (p. 434)
containing the charge on which Henry of Monmouth's character has been
so severely, and, if that charge be true, so justly arraigned. The
chapter professes to record the transactions of the thirteenth year of
Henry IV. The question is one of such essential importance as far as
Henry's good name is at stake, and (as the Author cannot but think) in
point too of the philosophy of history, involving principles of such
deep interest to the genuine pursuer of truth, that he would not feel
himself justified were he to abstain from transcribing the whole
chapter.

"In the thirteenth year there was a great disturbance between the Duke
of Burgundy and the Duke of Orleans. Wherefore the Duke of Burgundy
sent to the Lord Henry, Prince of England,[324] for aid to oppose the
Duke of Orleans: who sent to his succour the Earl Arundell, John
Oldcastle the Lord of Cobham, the Lord Gilbert Umfravill, the Lord of
Kyme, and with them a great army; by whose prowess at Senlow [Reg.
'Senlowe'], near Paris, the Duke of Orleans was vanquished, and
cruelly routed from the field, and his followers crushed, routed, and
slain. And the same Duke of Orleans thought how he could avenge
himself against the Duke of Burgundy; and immediately he sent to King
Henry of England a great sum of gold, together with William Count
Anglam [Reg. "de Anglam"], his brother, as a hostage or surety for a
greater sum, to obtain succour from the King of England himself. And
the King did not put off sending him succour; and he appointed Lord
Thomas, his second son, Duke of Clarence, and conferred on him the
dukedom (or, as it was of old time, the earldom) of Albemarle; and
Edmund, who before was Duke of Albemarle, then, after the death (p. 435)
of his father, he advanced to be Duke of York. And Lord John Cornwall,
who married his sister, the Duchess of Exeter, and whom the King
appointed Captain of Calais, he sent towards the parts of France with
a great power of men. And when they landed in Normandy, near Hogges,
forthwith the Lord de Hambe, with seven thousand armed men, went up
against the English to oppose them, and thus on that day there was a
great slaughter of men; for on the part of the Duke of Burgundy eight
hundred men were taken, and four hundred slain: and thus at length
victory was on the side of the English. After which the Duke, with his
army, turned off towards the country of Bourdeaux,[325] [ ]
destroying [ ] of the countrymen, collecting great sums
of money, at length arrived at Bourdeaux, and from thence they
returned to England about the vintage."

[Footnote 324: This is another sign that it was
written by a foreigner. No Englishman would have
been likely to call Henry the Prince of England. He
was either called Prince of Wales, or more
frequently the Prince.]

[Footnote 325: The Author confesses his inability
to discover the meaning of the words which fill up
the gaps left in this translation of the passage
"Per suas patenas de patriotis," &c. The passage
seems to him altogether corrupt.]

The reader's especial attention is here called to the confusion of
facts and dates, the mistakes historical, geographical, chronological,
biographical, with which this short section abounds to the overflow.
It will perhaps be difficult to find a page in any author, ancient or
modern, more full of such blunders as tend to destroy confidence in
him, when he records as a fact what is not found in any other writer,
nor is supported by ancillary evidence. The MS. states that all these
events took place in the thirteenth year of Henry IV: the MS. writes
it at length, "Anno decimo tertio," which began on the 20th September
1411. Now, allowing to the writer every latitude not involving
positive confusion, it is impossible for us to suppose, when he (p. 436)
crowds all these events within one year, that he had any such
information on the affairs of England as would predispose us to regard
him as an authority.

1. The first application by the Duke of Burgundy for English
auxiliaries was in August 1411; and the battle of St. Cloud (the place
which the MS., evidently ignorant of its situation and name, calls
Senlow) was fought on the 10th of November 1411. The Duke of Orleans,
at the beginning of the following year, 1412, made his application to
the English court for aid against the Duke of Burgundy, but it was not
till the 18th of May 1412 that the final treaty was concluded between
Henry IV. and the Duke of Orleans; and it was not till the middle, or
the latter end of August 1412, that the Duke of Clarence was
despatched to aid the Duke of Orleans; and he remained in France till
he received news of his father's death, in April 1413; when, and not
before, he returned to England after his expedition to aid the Duke of
Orleans.[326] Yet all these events are stated in the MS. to have
fallen within the same year.[327]

[Footnote 326: The Duke of Clarence was at
Bourdeaux, February 5, 1413, and signed an
acquittance there, April 14, 1413. (See Rymer; and
Additional Charters.)]

[Footnote 327: The words are written in one MS. at
length, "decimo tertio."]

2. The MS. says that the English, after their victory over the Duke of
Burgundy's forces, returned to England at the time of vintage. The
English returned to England at the end of autumn; not after their
struggle against the Duke of Burgundy, but after their victory over
the Duke of Orleans at the bridge of St. Cloud, a year and a quarter
at least before their return from the expedition against the Duke of
Burgundy.

3. Again, the MS. says that the Duke of Orleans sent, immediately
after the battle of St. Cloud (the Senlow of the MS.), a large (p. 437)
sum of money to the King of England, together with his brother, the
Earl of Angouleme, as a hostage or pledge for the payment of a greater
sum, to induce the King to comply with his request. This is utter
confusion. The Earl was sent as an hostage,--not beforehand, to induce
Henry IV. to send auxiliaries,--but afterwards, to insure the payment
of large sums which the Duke of Orleans stipulated to pay to the
English after they had been some time in France, on condition of their
quitting it. The Earl of Angouleme was sent as an hostage to England
somewhat before January 25, 1413; the MS. says, at the end of 1411.

4. Again, the MS. having dated the death of John, Earl of Somerset,
Captain of Calais, in the preceding year, says that the King then made
John Cornwall Captain of Calais. Whereas the fact is, that John
Beaufort, Captain of Calais, died on Palm Sunday, 1410, and Prince
Henry was appointed to succeed him on the following Tuesday. His
appointment, by writ of privy seal, bears date March 18, 1410; and he
continued to be Captain of Calais till he succeeded to the throne.

The MS. having recorded the marriage of the Duke of Clarence with the
Countess of Somerset, and the dispute between him and the Bishop of
Winchester, in which Prince Henry took the Bishop's part against his
brother, as having taken place in this same year, proceeds with the
passage, for the purpose of ascertaining the accuracy and authenticity
of which we have been led to make so many prefatory observations.

"In the same year,[328] on the morrow of All Souls, began a parliament
at Westminster; and because the King, by reason of his infirmity,
could not in his own person be present, he appointed and ordained (p. 438)
in his name his brother, Thomas Beaufort, then Chancellor of England,
to open, continue, and prorogue it. In which parliament Prince Henry
desired from his father the resignation of his kingdom and crown,
because that his father, by reason of his malady, could not labour for
the honour and advantage of the kingdom any longer; but in this he was
altogether unwilling to consent to him,--nay, he wished to govern the
kingdom, together with the crown and its appurtenances, as long as he
retained his vital breath. Whence the Prince, in a manner, with his
counsellors retired aggrieved; and afterwards, as it were through the
greater part of England, he joined all the nobles under his authority
in homage and pay. In the same parliament the money, as well in gold
as in silver, was somewhat lessened in weight in consequence of the
exchange of foreigners, &c."

[Footnote 328: Bibl. Reg. 13, C. I. 10. An. 13 Hen.
IV. "Eodem anno in Crastino Animarum incepit
parliamentum apud Westmonasterium. Et quia Rex
ratione suae infirmitatis non poterat in persona
propria interesse, assignavit et ordinavit in
nomine suo fratrem suum Thomam Beuforde,
Cancellarium tunc Angliae, ad inchoandum,
continuandum, et prorogandum; in quo parliamento
Henricus Princeps desidevavit a patre suo regni et
coronae resignacionem, eo quod pater ratione
aegritudinis non poterat circa honorem et utilitatem
regni ulterius laborare; sed sibi in hoc noluit
penitus assentire; ymmo regnum una cum corona et
pertinenciis, dummodo haberet spiritus vitales,
voluit gubernare: unde Princeps quodammodo cum suis
consiliariis aggravatus recessit; et posterius
quasi pro majori parte Angliae omnes proceres suo
dominio in humagio et stipendio copulavit. In eodem
parliamento moneta tam in auro quam in argento
fuerat aliqualiter in pondere minorata ex causa
permutationis extraneorum, qui in suis partibus
ratione cambii magnum sibi cumulabant emolumentum,
et Regi et suis mercatoribus Angligenis in magnum
dispendium et detrimentum, &c."]

Now, there can be no doubt (1) that a parliament was held on the (p. 439)
morrow of All Souls, in the thirteenth year of Henry IV. (1411);
(2) that it was _opened_, _continued_, and _prorogued_ by Thomas
Beaufort, the Chancellor, by commission from the King, in his absence;
(3) that an alteration in the coin was agreed upon in that parliament;
and (4), moreover, that the King declared in that parliament his
determination to allow of no innovations, nor of any encroachments on
his prerogative, but to maintain the rights and privileges of his
crown in full enjoyment, as his royal predecessors had delivered them
down.

A superficial glance at these facts would doubtless suggest a strong
confirmation of the details of the MS. in other points, and thus
predispose us to receive the statement with regard to Prince Henry's
unfilial conduct on the authority of this document alone. But, on
close examination, these very facts, which the records of the realm
place beyond doubt, coupled with others equally indisputable, to which
we shall presently refer, demonstrate to the Author's mind that no
dependence whatever can be placed on this MS., and that the statement
is altogether apocryphal, and founded on palpable confusion.

The parliament met on the morrow of All Souls, Tuesday, November 3,
1411, (13th Henry IV,) and was opened, continued, and prorogued by the
Chancellor; but not on account of the King's indisposition, or
inability to be present. The Rolls of Parliament are most explicit on
this point. They state that the King, having been informed that very
many lords, spiritual and temporal, knights of the shire, and
burgesses, who ought to attend that parliament, had not assembled on
the appointed day, commissions the Chancellor to open the parliament,
and to prorogue it _till the following day_. And on the following day,
Wednesday, (the Lords and Commons then being in the presence of (p. 440)
the King,) the Chancellor, by the King's command, recited the reasons
for convening the parliament, and charged the Commons to retire and
elect their Speaker.

Not only so. On the Thursday (Nov. 5), the Commons came before the
King and the Lords, and presented Thomas Chaucer as their Speaker. And
the Speaker prayed liberty of speech, &c.: and the King granted the
request, but declared that he would admit of no innovation nor
encroachment on his prerogative, but resolved to maintain his rights
as fully as his predecessors had done. On this the Speaker prayed him
to grant to the Commons, till the day following, time for putting
their protest, &c. in writing. To this the King agreed. But, forasmuch
as the King could not attend on the Friday in consequence of diverse
great and pressing matters, the time was postponed to the following
day, Saturday; when the Commons came before the King, and presented
their prayer, &c.

The fact is, that the King was repeatedly present at this parliament,
from the day before the Speaker was chosen to the very last day. On a
subsequent occasion, the Prince of Wales also, as well as the King, is
recorded to have been present, (as doubtless he was on various
occasions throughout,--probably an habitual attendant,) in what
character, and under what circumstances, whether as the supplanter of
his father or not, perhaps the words of the record may, to a certain
extent at least, enable us to pronounce.

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 | 29 | 30