The first application for aid was made to the King by the Duke of Burgundy, who offered at the same time his daughter in marriage (p. 268) to the Prince. This was in August 1411; and doubtless, if he found the King backward or unfavourably inclined, he would naturally apply to the Prince for his good offices, who was personally most interested in the result of the negociation; not to induce him to act against his father, but to prevail upon his father to agree to the proposal. This course was, we are told, actually pursued, and Prince Henry was allowed by his father to send some forces immediately to strengthen the ranks of Burgundy. They joined his army, and remained at Paris till provisions became so dear that they resolved to procure them from the enemy, who were stationed at St. Cloud. Here, at the broken bridge, the two parties engaged; and Burgundy, by the help of the English auxiliaries, completely routed the Duke of Orleans" forces.
The English subsequently received their pay; and, their services being no longer required, returned at their leisure by Calais to their own country. The Duke of Orleans learning that these troops were dismissed unceremoniously by his antagonist, and conceiving that Henry"s resentment of the indignity might make for him a favourable opening, despatched amba.s.sadors to England with most magnificent offers; but this was not till the beginning of the next year after the battle of St. Cloud, which took place[261] on the 10th November 1411. That the King himself contemplated the expediency of sending auxiliaries (p. 269) to the Duke of Burgundy in the beginning of September, is put beyond doubt by the instructions given to the amba.s.sadors. Even so late as February 10, 1412, the King issued a commission to Lord Grey, the Bishop of Durham, and others, not only to treat for the marriage of the Prince with that Duke"s daughter, but to negociate with him also on mutual alliances and confederacies, and on the course of trade between England and Flanders; the King having previously, on the 11th of January, signed letters patent, to remain in force till the Feast of Pentecost, for the safe conduct and protection of the Duke"s amba.s.sadors with one hundred men. With a view of enabling the reader more satisfactorily to form his own judgment on the validity of this charge of unfilial and selfwilled conduct on the part of Henry of Monmouth, the Author is induced, instead of confining himself to the general statement of his own views, or of the considerations on which his conclusion has been built, to cite the evidence separately of several authors who have recorded the proceedings. He trusts the importance of the point at issue will be thought to justify the detail.
[Footnote 261: Monstrelet says distinctly, that the Duke of Burgundy left Paris, at midnight, on the 9th of November.]
Walsingham, who is in some points very minute when describing these transactions, so as even to record the very words employed by the King on the first application of the Duke, does not mention the name of the Prince of Wales throughout. He represents the King as having (p. 270) recommended the Duke to try measures of mutual forgiveness and reconciliation; at all events, to let the fault of encouraging civil discord be with his adversaries; but withal promising, in case of the failure of that plan, to send the aid he desired. The same writer states the mission of the Earl of Arundel, Lord Kyme, Lord Cobham, (Sir John Oldcastle,) and others, with an army, as the consequence of this engagement on the part of the King.[262] He then tells us that, in the next year after these forces had been dismissed by the Duke of Burgundy, the Duke of Orleans made application to the King.
[Footnote 262: "Transmissi sunt _ergo_;" without the slightest intimation of any interference on the part of the Prince.]
Elmham, who mentions the successful application of Burgundy to the Prince, and the consequent mission of an English force, represents the Prince as having recommended himself more than ever to his royal father on that occasion.[263]
[Footnote 263: These chroniclers show clearly the general opinion in their day to have been that there was for a time an alienation of affection between Henry and his father, brought about by envious calumniators; but that they were soon cordially reconciled: "Non obstante quorundam detractatione et accusatione multiplici, ipse, invidis renitentibus, suae piissimae benignitatis mediis, &c". Elmham, thus ascribes the cause of the temporary interruption of cordiality to the malice of detractors, and its final and lasting restoration to Henry"s filial and affectionate kindness.]
t.i.tus Livius, who says that the Duke of Burgundy applied to the Prince, and that he sent some of his own men to succour him, (p. 271) distinctly tells us that he did it with the good-will and consent of his father. He adds, (what could have originated only in an oversight of dates,) that the Prince was made, in consequence of his conduct on this occasion, the chief of the council, and was always called the dear and beloved son of his father. He intimates, (but very obscurely,) that, by the aspersions of some, his fame sustained for a short time some blemish in this point.[264]
[Footnote 264: "Etsi nonnullorum detrectationibus in hoc _aliquantisper_ fama sua laesa fuerit." Some writers have built very unadvisedly on this expression. It is at best obscure, and capable of a very different interpretation; and, even at the most, it only implies that the Prince was then the object of calumny at the hand of some persons who could not effect any lasting wound on his fame.]
Polydore Vergil[265] says distinctly that, on the Duke of Burgundy first opening the negociation, the King, antic.i.p.ating good to himself from the quarrels of his neighbours, willingly promised aid, and as soon as possible sent a strong force to succour him. He then records the victory gained by Burgundy at the Bridge of St. Cloud, and the dismissal of his English allies with presents; adding, that King Henry thought it a weakness in him to send them home prematurely, before he had finished the struggle. And when the Duke of Orleans, on (p. 272) hearing of this hasty dismissal, entered upon a counter negociation, the King willingly listened to his proposals, having felt hurt at the conduct of the Duke of Burgundy towards those English auxiliaries.
[Footnote 265: The testimony of these later authors is only valuable so far as they are believed to have been faithful in copying the accounts, or extracting from the statements, of preceding writings, the works of many of whom have not come down to our times.]
The Chronicle of London tells us that, when the King would grant no men to the Duke of Burgundy, he applied to the Prince, "who sent the Earl of Arundel and the Lord Cobham, with other lords and gentles, with a fair retinue and well-arrayed people."
Whilst we remark that in these several accounts no allusion whatever is made to any opposition to his father on the part of the Prince, or any sign of displeasure on the part of the King in this particular point of his conduct, the simple facts are decidedly against the supposition of any such unsatisfactory proceeding. In February 1412, more than three months after the Earl of Arundel"s dismissal by the Duke of Burgundy, the King was still engaged in negociations with that Duke: nor was it till three months after that,--not till May 18th,--that the final treaty between the King and the Duke of Orleans was signed.[266] And it is very remarkable that, within two days, the Prince[267] himself, as well as his three brothers, in the (p. 273) presence of their father, solemnly undertook to be parties to that treaty, and to abide faithfully by its provisions.
[Footnote 266: The King had issued a proclamation at Canterbury, addressed to all sheriffs, and to the Captain also of Calais, forbidding his subjects of any condition or degree whatsoever to interfere in this foreign quarrel. April 10, 1412.]
[Footnote 267: Rymer Foed.]
We are compelled, then, to infer, that there is no evidence whatever of Prince Henry having acted in this affair in contravention of his father"s will. He very probably used his influence to persuade the King, and was successful. And as to the application having been made to him by the Duke of Burgundy, and not to the King, we must bear in mind that, at this period, it was to him that even his brother Thomas presented his pet.i.tion, and not to his father; and that the Pope sent his commendatory letters to him, and not to the King.[268]
[Footnote 268: On February 9th, in the third year of his pontificate (1413), Pope John recommends John Bremor to the kind offices of the Prince; and, on the kalends of March (1st of March), the same pontiff sent Dr. Richard Derham with a message to him by word of mouth.]
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 emba.s.sy 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 doc.u.ments 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. Pet.i.tot.]
[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 antic.i.p.ated) 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 pa.s.sed 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 n.o.ble resolution.
[Footnote 273: Hardyng has thus recorded this gratifying exhibition of generous feeling and n.o.ble 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 a.s.sumption (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) s.p.a.ce 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 Sat.u.r.day they pa.s.sed 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 doc.u.ment acquaints us with the present of a head-dress from the Duke of Orleans to that lady, then d.u.c.h.ess 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 a.s.sailed 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 doc.u.ment 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 c.l.i.therowe, 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 p.a.w.n 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 a.s.signed 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 doc.u.ments 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 munic.i.p.al 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 a.s.sailed, 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 Ma.n.u.script 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, dispa.s.sionate 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 n.o.bility and gentry of the land, "a.s.sociating 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 ma.n.u.script 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 G.o.d and his father; that the page which records it condemns itself, and is contradictory to our undisputed public records; that the ma.n.u.script 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 circ.u.mspection 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 n.o.ble 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 ma.n.u.script, we refer to the argument in the Appendix; and although, if the foundation of original doc.u.ments be withdrawn, it matters little to the investigator of the truth what superstructure modern writers have hastily run up; yet such a positive a.s.sertion 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 ma.n.u.script, or of its modern commentator, be the greater. The (p. 287) ma.n.u.script, (to mention here only one specimen of its confusion,) in the very page which contains the accusing pa.s.sage, 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 ma.n.u.script 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"