APPENDIX, No. III.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE MANUSCRIPTS

Sloane 1776, and Reg. 13, c. 1.

It will be borne in mind that the only document which contains the charge brought against Henry of Monmouth of unfilial conduct and cruel behaviour towards his afflicted father is a manuscript, two copies of which are preserved in the British Museum; and that a thorough examination of the authenticity of that manuscript was reserved for the Appendix. Every right-minded person will agree that the magnitude and dark character of a charge, so far from justifying a prejudice against the accused, should induce us to sift with more scrutinizing jealousy the evidence alleged in support of the accusation.

It will require but a very brief inspection of the two MSS., Sloane 1776, and Reg. 13, c. 1.,[311] to be assured that they are either both transcripts from one document in that part of the volume which contains the history of Henry IV, or that one of these is copied from the other.[312] Unless, therefore, an intimation be given to the contrary, it will be understood that reference is made to the Sloane MS., which, though not copied with equal correctness in point of orthography and grammar, is still far superior to the King's in the clearness of the writing.

The Sloane MS. 1776,[313] appears to consist of four portions, though the same hand copied the whole.

The first portion extends from the commencement to page 40.

The second from page 40 to the end of the account of Henry IV. at page 49.

The third from the commencement of the reign of Henry V. page 50, to his second expedition to France, mentioned in page 72.

The fourth from that point to the end, at page 94, b.

1. The first portion embraces that part of the reigns of Richard II. and Henry IV. which falls within the range of the chronicle of the Monk of Evesham; ending with an account of the marriage of Edmund Mortimer with a daughter of Owyn Glyndowr, and two cases of sacrilege.

2. The second carries on the history of Henry IV. to the beginning of his thirteenth year, and contains the passage which charges Henry V. with the unfilial attempt to supplant his father on the throne. These first two parts must be examined together, and in detail; the last two will require only a few remarks, and may then be dismissed.

That the history which commences at p. 50 of the Sloane MS. was the work of an ecclesiastic who attended Henry V. in his first expedition to France, is made evident at a much earlier point of the narrative than the translation of it by Sir Harris Nicolas, in the Appendix to his "Battle of Agincourt," would enable us to infer. The passage "After having passed the Isle of Wight, swans were seen," should have been rendered, "After we left the shores of the Isle of Wight behind, swans appeared." The writer was at the battle of Agincourt, stationed with the baggage, and with his clerical associates praying for God's mercy to spare themselves and their countrymen.

That he was not the same person who wrote the history of Richard II. and Henry IV, now found in the same fasciculus, seems to be placed beyond doubt; his style is very different, and his tone of sentiment directly at variance with what is found in the preceding portion. He is a devoted admirer of Henry V, a characteristic which no one will ascribe to the writer of the preceding page.[314]

This writer had composed his history before the year 1418; for of Sir John Oldcastle he says, "that he broke prison after his condemnation, and lurked in caves and hiding-places, and is still lurking."[315] This portion of the MS. offers evidence in almost every page that its author was an eye-witness of what he describes. Probably no doubt will be entertained that it is the genuine production of an ecclesiastic in attendance on the King. But his work evidently ceases at page 72, where he offers a prayer that the Almighty "would give good success to his master, then going on his second expedition, and grant him victory as he had twice before; and fill him with the spirit of wisdom, and heavenly strength, and holy fear."

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]

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 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. "Babepipæ;"—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]

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 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]

1. Froissart (who appears to be well acquainted with the 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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]

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]

We are now arrived at the very last chapter, the chapter 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 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."

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 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]

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 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 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."

Now, there can be no doubt (1) that a parliament was held on the 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 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.

"On Monday, the last day of November, the Speaker, in the name of the Commons, prayed the King to thank my Lord the Prince, the Bishops of Winchester and Durham, &c. who were assigned to be of council to the King in the last parliament, for their great labour and diligence; for, as it appears to the said Commons, my said Lord the Prince, and the other Lords, have well and loyally done their duty according to their promise in that parliament. And upon that, kneeling, my Lord the Prince, and the other Lords, declared, by the mouth of my Lord the Prince, how they had taken pains, and labour, and diligence, according to their promise, and the charge given them in parliament, to their skill and knowledge. This the King remembered well [or made good mention of], and thanked them most graciously. And he said besides, that he was well assured, if they had had more than they had, in the manner it had been spoken by the mouth of my Lord the Prince, at the time the King charged them to be of his council in the said parliament, they would have done their duty to effect more good than was done in diverse parts for the defence, honour, good, and profit of him and his kingdom. And our Lord the King also said, that he felt very contented with their good and loyal diligence, counsel, and duty, for the time they had been of his council."

This took place on the 30th of November, a month (saving two days) after the parliament had assembled, and within less than three weeks of its termination. It would scarcely be credible, even had the report come through a less questionable channel, that Henry of Monmouth up to that time had been guilty of the unfilial delinquency with which the MS. charges him. Nor could he have made the "unnatural attempt to dethrone his diseased father" at any period through the remaining three weeks of the session of that parliament. At all events, such a proceeding appears altogether irreconcilable with the conduct both of the parliament and of the King on the very last day of their sitting. "On Saturday, December 20th, (say the Rolls,) being the last day of parliament, the Speaker, recommending the persons of the Queen, of the Prince, and of other the King's sons, prayeth the advancement of their estates; for the which the King giveth hearty thanks."

Had any such transaction taken place during this parliament as the MS. records, would the King, on the last day of the session, without any allusion to it, have given hearty thanks to the Commons for their recommendation of the Prince's person (coupled with the name of his Queen and his other sons), and their prayer for further provision for his dignity and comfort?

There are, however, two or three more circumstances upon which it may appear material to make some observations; or even, should these closing observations not seem altogether indispensable, yet, since this is all new and untrodden ground, it may yet be thought safer to anticipate conjectures, than to leave any questions unopened and unexamined on this point—a point which the Author trusts may be set at rest at once, and for ever.

The Author then is ready to confess his belief that both the MS. and its commentator, the modern historian, have confounded this parliament of November 1411 with the parliament of February 3, 1413, which was opened in the illness of the King, and which he never was able to attend. But if it be attempted to engraft on this fact the surmise that it might have been in the latter parliament that the Prince demanded the surrender of the throne, and that it is after all a mere mistake of dates, the material fact being unshaken and unaffected,—to this suggestion he replies, that there is no evidence, directly or indirectly bearing on the subject, in support of such a surmise. The only statement in printed book or manuscript known, is that which we have now been sifting; and which with a precision, as though of set purpose, minute and pointed, fixes the alleged transaction to the year 1411.[329] Not only so. We have, on the contrary, reason to believe that before the meeting of the next parliament, February 1413, all differences had been made up between the King and his son; and that from the day of their reconciliation they lived in the full interchange of paternal and filial kindness to the end. For that jealousies and alienations of confidence, fostered by the malevolence of others,[330] had taken place between them in the course of the preceding year, the very mention of the "ridings of gentils and huge people with the Prince," twice recurring in the Chronicle of London, seems of itself to force upon us. The accounts, at all events, such as they are, which chroniclers give of their reconciliation, fix the date of that happy issue of their estrangement to a period antecedent to the last parliament of Henry IV. February 3.—Cras. Purif. 1413.

Although the life and reign of Henry IV. continued more than a year and four months after the passing of the ordinance respecting the coin, with an account of which this MS. abruptly closes, yet (excepting what is involved in the extract above cited) not one single word is said of the foreign and domestic affairs of the kingdom, or of the life of the King, or of his death; though much of interesting matter was at hand, and though a parliament was summoned, and actually met fourteen months after the alteration of the coin. And such is the close of a document, not like a yearly chronicle, or general register of events, satisfied with giving a summary of the most remarkable casualties in the briefest form; but a narrative which transcribes, with unusual minuteness, the very words (at full, and with all their technicalities,) of some of the most unimportant and prolix statutes of Henry IV.'s reign.[331] It is not that the MS. is mechanically cut short by loss of leaves, or other accident; the Sloane ends with an "etc." in the very middle of a page, and the King's at the foot of the first column.

We need not encumber this inquiry (already too long) by any reflections on the avidity with which this passage of the MS. has been seized, and made the groundwork of charges against Henry of "unfilial conduct," "unnatural rebellion" towards his father, and "the unprincipled ambition of a Catilinarian temper," with other hard words and harder surmises; because we are trying the value of testimony. If that testimony is sound, modern historians may doubtless build upon it what comments seem to them good; if we utterly destroy the validity of the evidence, their foundation sinks from under their superstructure.

The reader, however, has probably already determined that, unless there be in reserve some other independent, or at least auxiliary source of evidence, the palpable contradiction and manifest confusion reigning through this part of the MS., together with the high degree of improbability thrown over the whole statement by the undoubted records of the very parliament in question, justify the rejection of the passage altogether from the pale of authentic history. The Author confesses that he has step by step come to that conclusion.

THE END.

LONDON: PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY, Dorset Street, Fleet Street.

"The Friday after St. Vallentyne's day, anno 6 Henrici Quarti, ye Erll of Marche's sons was secretly conveyd out of Wyndsor Castell yerly in ye morninge, and fond af[ter?] by diligent serche. But ye smythe, for makyng the key, lost fyrst his lands; after, his heed. Ye Lady Spenser, wydow to the Lord Spenser executed at Bristow, and syster to ye Duke of York, was comytted cloase prysonner, whare she accused her brother predict for the actor, for ye children predict; and that he sholde entend to breake into the King's manor att Eltham ye last Crystmas by scaling the walles in ye nighte, and there to murther ye Kinge; and, for better proaffe hereof, that yf eyther knight or squyer of England wold combatt for her in the quarrell, she wold endure her body to be burned yf he war vanquished. Then W. Maydsten, one of her sqyres [undertook?] his Mrs. quarrell with gage of his wheed [so], and was presently arrested by Lord Thomas, ye Kyng's son, to the Tower, and his goods confyscatt. Thomas Mowbray, Erll Marshall, accused to be privy to the same, butt was pardoned."—Lansdown, 860 a, fol. 288 b.(back)

Le Neve leaves it in doubt whether Bishop Hallam was buried at Constance, or in Westminster Abbey. But the Author has been kindly furnished by Sir Francis Palgrave, who visited Constance last year, with the following interesting particulars relative to the resting-place of that excellent man. "The monument of Bishop Hallam consists of a slab inlaid with brass, in the usual style of English memorials of the same period, but quite unlike those of Germany; and I have no doubt but that the brasses were sent from England. He is represented at full length in the episcopal dress, his head lying between two shields, the royal arms of England within the Garter, (as Chancellor of the order,) and his own bearings. But the tomb being placed exactly in front of the high altar, the attrition to which it has been exposed in this part of the church has nearly effaced the engravings." His funeral, we are told, was attended by the assembled princes and prelates and nobles of the council, who followed him to the grave with every demonstration of respect and sorrow.(back)

The Pell Rolls record the payment of "2,000l. to Richard Clitherow and Reginald Curtys, (27th February 1415; ordered by the King himself to go to Zealand and Holland, for the purpose of treating with the Duke of Holland and others to supply ships for the King's present voyage,) therewith to pay divers masters and mariners, who were to accompany him abroad, whither he was going in his own person."(back)

This advice appears to have been followed by Henry throughout.

The Minutes of Council, February 2, 1415, after stating the measures proposed for the safeguard of the sea, and the marches of Scotland and Wales, &c. during the King's absence, record this remarkable advice: that Henry would direct his treasurer to bring a clear statement of his debtor and creditor account, the demands of the treasury, and the income; also the debts incurred since the coronation, and the annuities to which he was pledged; "in order that, before the departure of the King, such provision may be made in every part, according to the amount of the charges, that the mind and soul of the King might be set at ease and comfort, that he might depart like a Christian Prince with a good government, and the better accomplish his voyage, to the pleasure of God, and the singular comfort of all his faithful lieges."—Acts of Privy Council, vol. ii. p. 148.(back)

On the part of the French, Le Fevre says, that from a hundred to six score princes fell, and about seven or eight thousand of noble blood. In the Annales Ecclesiastici of Baronius, continued by Raynaldus, the statement of Theodoric Niemius is quoted, who says (unquestionably without authority) that Henry advanced from Harfleur with sixty thousand men, besides two thousand in attendance on the carriages. He affirms that the French had one hundred thousand men; among whom were one thousand Italians, commanded by Buligard, who had long governed Genoa in favour of the French. He says, moreover, that more than five thousand five hundred French nobles were slain; and fifteen hundred taken prisoners, and carried to England.(back)

The Author gives this passage as he finds it, without having attempted to verify the statement as to David Gamme's descent or history. Certainly the testimony which Sir Samuel Meyrick makes Sir Walter Raleigh bear to his "bravery and exploits on the field of Agincourt," cannot be fairly extracted from Sir Walter's own words: "But if Hannibal himself had been sent forth by Mago to view the Romans, he could not have returned with a more gallant report in his mouth than Captain Gamme made unto King Henry the Fifth, saying, 'That of the Frenchmen there were enow to be killed, enow to be taken prisoners, and enow to run away!'" We have no doubt of Captain Gamme's gallant bearing at Agincourt; but Raleigh refers to nothing beyond his report of the numbers of the enemy.—Raleigh, book v. sect. 8.(back)

"Perhaps I may be pardoned for relating that I had the honour to receive a Waterloo medal on the field of Azincour, or rather, that I had the fortune to belong to one of the British regiments that signalized themselves in the campaign of 1815, and which afterwards was invested with the above-mentioned mark of their sovereign's approbation on the very spot which, nearly four hundred years before, was the scene of the scarcely less glorious triumph of Harry the Fifth of England. In 1816 a portion of the British army was cantoned in the immediate neighbourhood of this celebrated field, and the corps in which I then served made use of it during several months as their ordinary drill-ground.... We amused ourselves with reconnoitring excursions, comparing the actual state of the localities with authentic accounts of the transactions of 1415. The changes that have taken place have been singularly few, and an attentive explorer would be able to trace with considerable accuracy the greater part of the route pursued by the English army in their retreat out of Normandy towards Calais. The field of Azincour remains sufficiently in statu quo to render every account of the battle perfectly intelligible; nor are those wanting near the spot, whose traditionary information enables them to heighten the interest with oral description, accompanied by a sort of ocular demonstration.

"Those who travel to Paris by way of St. Omer and Abbeville, pass over the field of the battle, which skirts the high road to the left, about sixteen miles beyond St. Omer; two on the Paris side of a considerable village or bourg named Fruges; about eight north of the fortified town of Hesdin; and thirty from Abbeville. All accounts of the battle mention the hamlet of Ruisseauville, through which very place the high road to Paris now passes.

"Azincour is a commune or parish consisting of a most uninteresting collection of farmers' residences and cottages, once however distinguished by a castle, of which nothing now remains but the foundation. The scene of the contest lies between this commune and the adjoining one of Tramecour, in a wood belonging to which latter the King concealed those archers whose prowess and vigour contributed so eminently to the glorious result. Part of the wood still remains; though, if I remember rightly, at the time of our visit, the corner into which the bowmen were thrown had been materially thinned, if, indeed, the original timber had not been entirely cut down, and its place been scantily supplied by brush or underwood. Some of the trees, however, in the wood of Tramecour were very old in 1816.

"The road above mentioned is the great post-road; the old road, now degenerated into a mere cart-track, from Abbeville to the once celebrated city of Therouanne, passes over the scene of action, and must have been that by which the French army reached the ground before the English, who had been compelled to make a great circuit."—Vol. i. part ii. p. 57.(back)

(Extracted from the Register of Oriel College.)

"To our trusty and well-beloved the Provost and Fellowes of Oriel Colledge, in our University of Oxon: Charles R.

"Trusty and well-beloved, wee greete you well. Wee are so well satisfied with your readiness and affection to our service, that wee cannot doubt but you will take all occasions to expresse the same; and as wee are ready to sell or engage any of our land, so have wee melted downe our plate for the paiment of our army, raised for our defence, and the preservation of our kingdome. And having received severall quantityes of plate from divers of our loving subjects, we have removed our mint hither to our citty of Oxford, for the coyning thereof.

"And we do hereby desire you that you will lend unto us all such plate, of what kind soever, which belongs to your colledge; promising you to see the same iustly repaid unto you after the rate of 5 s. the ounce for white, and 5 s. 6 d. for guilt plate, as soon as God shall enable us: for assure yourselves wee shall never let persons of whom wee have so great a care suffer for their affection to us, but shall take speciall order for the repaiment of what you have already lent us, according to our promise, and also of this you now lend in plate; well knowing it to bee the goods of youre colledge that you ought not to alien, though no man will doubt but in such a case you may lawfully lend to assist youre King in such visible necessity. And wee have entrusted our trusty and well-beloved Sir William Parkhurst, Knt. and Thomas Bushee, Esq. officers of our mint, or either of them, to receive the said plate from you; who, uppon weighing thereof, shall give you a receipt under theire or one of their hands for the same.

"And wee assure our selfe of your willingness to gratify us herein; since, beside the more publiche considerations, you cannot but know how much your selves are concerned in our sufferings. And wee shall ever remember this particular service to your advantage.

"Given at our Court at Oxford, the 6 day of January 1642."(back)

The Lieutenant had also applied for a reinforcement of men-at-arms and archers, and for a supply of cannon. The King allows him to make such provision with regard to additional soldiers as he thinks best at his own cost, and agrees to let him have some cannon from the royal stores.—Acts of Privy Council, 1416.(back)

This writer gives us to understand that he and his friends were heartily tired of the Continental warfare, which had so long kept them from the comforts of their home, and they longed to revisit the white cliffs of Britain. "Pray for us, that we may come soon out of this unlusty [unpleasant] soldier's life, unto the life of England."—MS. Donat. 4001. Sir H. Ellis assigns this to the year 1420; but it must have been written March 27th (the Monday before Passion Sunday), 1419, just eight days after the Dauphin had broken his word.

The same writer speaks in no very measured terms of the intrigue and duplicity of foreign courts. "And certes, all the ambassadors that we deal with are incongrue, that is to say, in old manner of speech in England, 'they be double and false;' with which manner of men, I pray God, let never no true men be coupled with."

The reasons which had induced Henry some time previously to wish for an alliance with the Dauphin are found in the Cot. MS.—See "Acts of Privy Council," vol. ii. p. 350.(back)

"BY THE KYNG.

"Worshipful fader yn God oure right trusty and welbeloved, we grete yow wel. And forasmuche as we lete sende for Maistre Richard Garsedale oon of the contendentes of the prevoste of the Oriell to that ende that for his partie shulde no thyng be poursuyd neither at the courte of Rome ne elleswhere, but that that contraversie shulde be put in respit unto oure comyng hoom with Goddes grace, for oure occupacion is such that we mow nat wel entende to suche also Lentwardyn, come afore you, and that ye take surety matteres here. Wherefore we wol that ye make boothe the said Garsdale whiche cometh now hoom be oure leve, and also Lentwardyn com afore you, and that ye take seurte soufficeant of bothe the partiees, that neither of hem shal make ferther poursuyt of appelle at courte of Rome ner no manere of poursuyt there or elleswhere as touching the said contraversee unto oure comynge as before, at whiche tyme oure entent ys to put the same contraversie to a goode and rightwyse conclusion, and the said partie yn rest. And yf any of hem have ye saide poursuyt of apelle hangyng yn courte that they abate hit and sende to revoke hit yn al haste, and that thay make al suche as been thaire attornes or doeres yn court spirituel or temporel to surcesse. And we wol ferthermore as touching oure said college of the Orielle that ye put hit yn suche governance as semeth to yowre discrecion for to doo unto oure comyng. And God have you yn his keping. Yeven under oure signet in oure town of Mante, ye vii. day of Juyll.

"To ye worshipful fader yn God our right trusty and welbeloved ye Bisshop of Duresme oure Chaunceller of England."(back)

Notwithstanding an article in the agreement of the 9th of April, that during the life of Charles, Henry V. should not assume the title of King of France; yet within ten days he issued a precept from Rouen relative to the Norman coinage, upon one side of which was to be inscribed, "Henricus Francorum Rex." As Henry had not then signed the article of peace at Troyes, it did not perhaps occur to him that he was thus breaking his agreement with France.—Rot. Chart. p. xxi.(back)

In the year 1421, King Henry V. was January, from 1 to 31, at Rouen. February 1, " Dover. 2 to 28, " Westminster. March 1 to 5, " Westminster. 5 to 14, " Uncertain. 15, " Coventry. 27, " Leicester. From March 28 to April 2, " Uncertain. April 2 to 4, " York. 15, " Lincoln. 18, " York. From 18 to 30, " Uncertain. May 1 to 31, " Westminster.(back)

"Whereas by the statute made at Westminster, the 14th year of King Edward III, it was ordained and established, that no Sheriff should abide in his bailiwick above one year, and that then another convenient should be set in his place, which should have lands sufficient within his bailiwick, and that no Escheator should tarry in his office above a year; and whereas also, at the time of making the said statute, divers valiant and sufficient persons were in every county of England, to occupy and govern the same offices well towards the King and all his liege people; forasmuch that as well by divers petilences within the realm of England, as by the wars without the realm, there is now not such sufficiency; it is ordained and stablished that the King by authority of this Parliament may make the Sheriffs and Escheators through the realm at his will until the end of four years."—9 Hen. V. stat. 1, c. v.(back)

"The Report made by Sir Gilbert de Lannoy, Knight, upon surveys of several cities, ports, and rivers, taken by him in Egypt and Syria, in the year of grace of our Lord 1422, by order of the most high, most puissant, and most excellent prince, King Henry of England, heir and Regent of France, whom God assoil." The whole of Mr. Webb's paper well deserves perusal.(back)

The King's writ is dated March 5th, and informs us that Badby was of Evesham in Worcestershire.(back)

There are many other points in which Fox, who, be it remembered, refers us to the Archbishop's Memoir for evidence of the truth of his narrative, gives a turn and colour to minor circumstances calculated to prejudice the reader, but by no means sanctioned by that Memoir. Thus Fox says, the Archbishop swore all on the Mass Book: the Archbishop says, he caused them all to be sworn on the Holy Evangelists.(back)

Fox's Translation. Arundel's Words..

"We sententially and definitively, by this present writing, judge, declare, and condemn him for a most pernicious and detestable heretic, convicted upon the same, and refusing utterly to obey the church: again committing him here from henceforth to the secular jurisdiction, power, and judgment, to do him thereupon to death." "Him, convicted of and upon such a detestable offence, and unwilling to return penitently to the unity of the church, we sententially and definitively have judged, declared, and condemned for a heretic, and to be in error in those things which the holy church of Rome and the universal church teaches, hath determined, and preacheth, and especially in the Articles above written; leaving the same as a heretic henceforth to the secular power."

"To do him unto death," may be the horrible implication; but it is not, as Fox unwarrantably represents it to be, part of the sentence.

Another instance occurs in the translation of the passage in which the Archbishop gives his reasons for making this public and authoritative statement of the transaction.

Fox. Arundel.

"That, upon the fear of this declaration, also the people may fall from their evil opinions conceived now of late by seditious preachers." "That the erroneous opinions of the people, who perhaps have conceived on this subject otherwise than as the truth of the fact stands, may by this public declaration be reversed."

The Archbishop declares his object to be the substitution of the true statement of the affair of Lord Cobham's condemnation, in place of the false opinions which were abroad; not a word about "fear," or "evil opinions from seditious preachers."(back)

"On the other side (continues Fuller), I am much startled with the evidence which appeareth against him. Indeed I am little moved with what T. Walsingham writes, (whom all later authors follow, as a flock the bell-wether,) knowing him a Benedictine monk of St. Alban's, bowed by interest to partiality; but the records in the Tower, and acts of parliament therein, wherein he was solemnly condemned for a traitor as well as a heretic, challenge belief. For with what confidence can any private person promise credit from posterity to his own writings if such public documents be not entertained by him for authentical? Let Mr. Fox therefore be Lord Cobham's compurgator; I dare not. And, if my hand were put on the Bible, I should take it back again; yet so that, as I will not acquit, I will not condemn him, but leave all to the last day of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God."—Fuller's Church History, An. 1414.(back)

There are, we are told, in the Welsh language original verses referring unquestionably to Lord Cobham's residence in Wales, among persons who entertained the same religious views with himself, and also to his return to England. The religion of Rome is called in these verses "the Faith of the Pharaohs."(back)

"The King to the Mayor and Sheriffs of London, greeting. Whereas the venerable father, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Legate of the Apostolic See, with the consent and assent of the Bishop and his brothers, the suffragans, and also of the whole clergy of his province in his provincial council assembled, the orders of law in this behalf requisite being in all things observed, by his definitive sentence pronounced and declared W. Sautre (some time chaplain, condemned for heresy, by him the said W. heretofore in form of law abjured, and him the said W. relapsed again into the said heresy) a manifest heretic, and decreed him to be degraded; and hath for that cause really degraded him from all clerical prerogative and privilege; and hath decreed him the said W. to be left, and hath really left him, to the secular court, according to the laws and canonical sanctions set forth in this behalf; and holy mother, the church, hath nothing further to do in the premises. We, therefore, being zealous for justice, and a lover of the Catholic faith, willing to maintain and defend holy church, and the rights and liberties thereof; and, as much as in us lies, to extirpate by the roots such heresies and errors out of our kingdom of England, and to punish heretics so convicted with condign punishment; and being mindful that such heretics, convicted in form aforesaid, and condemned according to law, divine and human, by canonical institutes on and in this behalf accustomed, ought to be burnt with a burning flame of fire; we command you most strictly as we can, firmly enjoining, that you commit to the fire the aforesaid W. being in your custody, in some public and open place within the liberties of the city aforesaid, before the people publicly, by reason of the premises, and cause him really to be burnt in the same fire in detestation of this crime, and to the manifest example of other Christians. And this you are by no means to omit under the peril falling thereon. Witness," &c.

But by the statute of Henry IV. c. 15, it is enacted that every Bishop in his diocese may convict a man of heresy, and abjure him, and afterwards convict him anew thereof, and condemn him, and warn the sheriff or other officer to apprehend him and burn him; and that the sheriff or other officer ought to do the same by the precept of the Bishop, and without any writ from the King to do the same.

And note by 29 Car. II., c. 9, this writ de heretico comburendo is abolished. "Laus Deo!"—This last note is by an Editor. Fitzherbert, de Naturâ Brevium, p. 601.(back)