Another letter from Henry Percy to the council, dated June 4, 1401, is very interesting in several points of view. It proves that the negociations "carried in and out," mentioned in a letter written by the chamberlain of Caernarvon to the King"s council, had been successful, and that the Scots had sent aid to the Welsh chieftain: it proves also that Hotspur himself was at this time (though bitterly dissatisfied) carrying on the war for the King in the very heart of Wales, and amidst its mountain-recesses and strongholds; and that Owyn was at that time a.s.sailed on all sides by the English forces, a (p. 112) circ.u.mstance which might probably have led to his "good intention to return to his allegiance," at the close of the present year. Henry Percy declares to the council that he can support the expenses of the campaign no longer. He informs them of an engagement in which, a.s.sisted by Sir Hugh Browe and the Earl of Arundel, the only Lords Marchers who had joined him in the expedition, he had a few days before routed the Welsh at Cader Idris. News, he adds, had just reached him of a victory gained by Lord Powis[114] over Owyn; also that an English vessel had been retaken from the Scots, and a Scotch vessel of war had been captured at Milford. Another letter, dated 3rd July, (probably the same year, 1401,) reiterates his complaints of non-payment of his forces, and of the government having underrated his services; it expresses his hope also that, since he had written to the King himself with a statement of his dest.i.tute condition, should any evil happen to castle, town, or march, the blame would not be cast on him, whose means were so utterly crippled, but would fall on the heads of those who refused the supplies. Henry IV. had certainly not neglected this rebellion in Wales, though evidently the measures adopted against the insurgents were not so vigorous at the commencement as the (p. 113) urgency of the case required. His exchequer was exhausted, and he had other business in hand to drain off the supplies as fast as they could possibly be collected. He was, therefore, contented for the present to keep the rebels in check, without attempting to crush them by pouring in an overwhelming force from different points at once.
[Footnote 114: This n.o.bleman, John Charlton, Lord Powis, died on the 19th of October following, and was succeeded by his son Edward, who, on the 5th of August, (probably in 1402 or 1403,) applied to the council for a reinforcement.--Min. of Coun.]
Towards the middle of this summer, the King marched in person to Worcester. He had directed the sheriffs to forward their contingents thither; but, when he arrived at that city, he changed his purpose and soon returned to London. Among the considerations which led to this change in his plans, we may probably reckon the following. In the first place, he found his son the Prince, Lord Powis, and Henry Percy, in vigorous operation against the rebels; his arrival at Worcester having been only three or four days after the date of Percy"s last letter. In the next place, the council had urged him not to go in person against the rebels: besides, almost all the inhabitants of North Wales had returned to their allegiance, and had been pardoned.
He was, moreover, naturally anxious to summon a parliament, with a view of replenishing his exhausted treasury, and enabling himself to enter upon the campaign with means more calculated to insure success.
In a letter to his council, dated Worcester, 8th June 1401, the King refers to two points of advice suggested by them. "Inasmuch as (p. 114) you have advised us," he says, "to write to our much beloved son, the Prince, and to others, who may have in their possession any jewels which ought to be delivered with our cousin the Queen, (Isabella,) know ye, that we will send to our said son, that, if he has any of such jewels, he will send them with all possible speed to you at our city of London, where, if G.o.d will, we intend to be in our own person before the Queen"s departure; and we will cause to be delivered to her there the rest of the said jewels, which we and others our children have in our keeping." In answer to their advice that he would not go in person against the rebels, because they were not in sufficient strength, and of too little reputation to warrant that step, he said that he found they had risen in great numbers, and called for his personal exertions. He forwarded to them at the same time a copy of the letter which he had just received from Owyn himself. Not from this correspondence only, but from other undisputed doc.u.ments, and from the loud complaints of French writers,[115] we are compelled to infer something extremely unsatisfactory in the conduct of Henry IV. with regard to the valuable paraphernalia of Isabella, the maiden-widow of Richard. To avoid restoring these treasures, which fell into his hands on the capture of that unfortunate monarch, Henry proposed, in (p. 115) November 1399, a marriage between one of his sons and one of the daughters of the French monarch. In January 1400 a truce was signed between the two kingdoms, and the same negociators (the Bishop of Durham and the Earl of Worcester) were directed to treat with the French amba.s.sadors on the terms of the rest.i.tution of Isabella; and so far did they immediately proceed, that horses were ordered for her journey to Dover. But legal doubts as to her dower (she not being twelve years of age) postponed her departure till the next year. She had arrived at Boulogne certainly on the 1st of August 1401; and was afterwards delivered up to her friends by the Earl of Worcester, with the solemn a.s.surance of her spotless purity.
[Footnote 115: Many of our own historians have, either in ignorance or design, very much misled their readers on the subject.]
It is impossible to glance at this lady"s brief and melancholy career without feelings of painful interest:--espoused when yet a child to the reigning monarch of England; whilst yet a child, crowned Queen of England; whilst yet a child, become a virgin-widow; when she was not yet seventeen years old, married again to Charles, Earl of Angouleme; and three years afterwards, before she reached the twentieth anniversary of her birthday, dying in childbed.[116]
[Footnote 116: It is not generally understood, (indeed, some of our historians have not only been ignorant of the fact, but have a.s.serted the contrary,) that this princess was the elder sister of Katharine of Valois, married thirteen years after Isabella"s death to Henry of Monmouth.
Katharine was not born till after Isabella"s restoration from England to her father"s home.
Isabella was born November 9, 1389; was solemnly married by the Archbishop of Canterbury to Richard II. in Calais, November 4, 1397 (not quite nine years old); was crowned at Westminster on the 8th of January following; was married to her second husband, 29th June 1406; and died at Blois, 13th September 1409.--Anselme, vol. i. p. 114.]
By the above letter of the King, which led to this digression, (p. 116) we are informed that the Prince was neither with his father, nor in London; for the King promised to write to him to send the jewels to London. He was probably at that time on the borders of North Wales; or engaged in reducing the Castles of Conway and Rhees, and in bringing that district into subjection. Indeed, that the Prince was still personally exerting himself in suppressing the Welsh towards the north of the Princ.i.p.ality, seems to be put beyond all question by the records of the Privy Council, which state that "certain members of the Prince"s council brought with them to the King"s council the indenture between the said Prince and Henry Percy the son (Chief Justice) on one part, and those who seized the Castle[117] of Conway on the other (p. 117) part, made at the time of the rest.i.tution of the same castle."[118]
[Footnote 117: One of these, Wm. ap Tudor, with thirty-one others, was pardoned July 8. In his pet.i.tion he suggests that in all disputes between the burgesses and themselves, there ought to be a fair inquest, half Welsh and half English. This is supposed to have been the usual law; but probably in these turbulent times it might too often have been dispensed with for a less impartial mode of trial. Besides, among the many severe enactments against the Welsh, the King, in 1400, had a.s.sented to an ordinance proposed by the Commons, to remain in force for three years, that no Englishman should have judgment against him at the suit of a Welshman, except at the hands of judges and a jury entirely English.]
[Footnote 118: The castles in Wales were at this time very scantily garrisoned; indeed, the smallness of the number of the men by whom some of them were defended is scarcely credible. And yet, in the exhausted state of the treasury of the King, of the Prince, of Henry Percy and others, those castles, even in the miserably limited extent of their establishments, could with difficulty be retained. When besieged, the garrison could never venture upon a sally. For example, Conway had only fifteen men-at-arms and sixty archers, kept at an expense of 714_l._ 15_s._ 10_d._ annually: Caernarvon had twenty men-at-arms and eighty archers: Harlech had ten men-at-arms and thirty archers.--See Sir H. Ellis"s Original Letters.]
Owyn appears to have left his own country, in which the spirit of rebellion had received a considerable though temporary check; and to have been at this period exciting and heading the rebels in South Wales, especially about Caermarthen and Gower.
Hotspur himself left Wales probably about the July or August of this year, 1401; for on the 1st of September he was appointed one of the commissioners to treat with the Scots for peace; and he was present at the solemn espousals which were celebrated by proxy at Eltham, April 3, 1402, between Henry IV. and Joan of Navarre. We must, therefore, refer to a subsequent date the information quoted by Sir Henry Ellis from an original paper in the British Museum, "that Jankin Tyby of the north countri bringthe lettres owte of the northe country to (p. 118) Owein, as thei demed from Henr. son Percy." Soon after the departure of Percy, a proclamation, dated 18th September 1401, notifies the rapid progress of disaffection and rebellion among the Welsh: whether it was secretly encouraged by him at this early date, or not, is matter only of conjecture. His growing discontent, visibly shown in his own letters, this vague rumour that Jankin Tyby might be the confidential messenger for his treasonable purposes, and his subsequent conduct, combine to render the suspicion by no means improbable. The proclamation states that a great part of the inhabitants of Wales had gone over to Owyn, and commands all ablebodied men to meet the King at Worcester on the 1st, or, at the furthest, the 2nd of October. Perhaps this, like his former visit to Worcester, was little more than a demonstration of his force.[119] Historians generally say that he made the first of his expeditions into Wales in the July of the following year; the Minutes of Council prove at all events that he was there in the present autumn, but how long or with what results does not appear. The council met (p. 119) in November 1401, to deliberate, among other subjects, upon the affairs of Wales, "from which country (as the Minute expressly states) our sovereign lord the King hath but lately returned,[120] having appointed the Earl of Worcester to be Lieutenant of South Wales, and Captain of Cardigan."[121]
[Footnote 119: The Monk of Evesham states expressly that, towards the end of this year, the King, intending to hasten to Wales for the third time, came to Evesham on Michaelmas-day, September 29, but not with so large a force as before; and on the third day, after breakfast, he proceeded to Worcester, whence, after the ninth day, with the advice of his council, he returned through Alcester to London.]
[Footnote 120: On Monday, October 16, 1402, the Commons "thank the King for his great labour in body and mind, especially in his journey to Scotland; and because, on his return, when he heard at Northampton of the rebellion in Wales, he had at _that_ time, and _three times_ since, with a great army (as well the King as my lord the Prince) laboured in divers parts." When Owyn is represented by Shakspeare as recounting the various successful struggles in which he had tried his strength with Bolinbroke, the poet had solid ground on which to build the boastings of the Welsh chieftain:
"Three times hath Henry Bolinbroke made head Against my power: thrice from the banks of Wye And sandy-bottom"d Severn have I sent him Bootless home, and weather-beaten back."]
[Footnote 121: The regular appointment bears date 31st March 1402.]
The record of this council is remarkably interesting on more than one point. It throws great light on the state of Owyn"s mind, and his attachment to the Percies; on the confidence still reposed by the King"s government in Percy, and on the condition of Prince Henry himself. The several chastis.e.m.e.nts which Owyn and his party had received from the Prince, from Percy, from Lord Powis and others, had perhaps at this time made him very doubtful of the issue of the struggle, and inclined him to negociate for his own pardon, and the peace of the country. The Minute of Council says, "To know the King"s will (p. 120) about treating with Glyndowr to return to his allegiance, _seeing his good intention at present thereto_". His readiness to treat is accompanied, as we find in the same record, with a declaration that he was not himself the cause of the destruction going on in his native land, nor of the daily captures, and the murders there; and that he would most gladly return to peace. As to his inheritance, he protests that he had only received a part, and not his own full right. And even now he would willingly come to the borders, and speak and treat with any lords, provided the commons would not raise a rumour and clamour that he was purposed to destroy "_all who spoke the English language_".
He seems to have been apprehensive, should he venture to approach the marches to negociate a peace, that the violence and rage of the people at large would endanger his personal safety. No wonder, for his footsteps were to be traced everywhere by the blood of men, and the ashes of their habitations and sacred edifices. At the same time, he expressed his earnest desire to carry on the treaty of peace through the Earl of Northumberland, for whom he professes to entertain great regard and esteem, in preference to any other English n.o.bleman.
Whether any steps were taken in consequence of this present opening for peace, or not, we are not told. But we have reason to suppose that Wales was in comparative tranquillity through the following (p. 121) winter[122] and spring. The rebel chief, however, again very shortly carried the sword and flame with increased horrors through his devoted native land. We read of no battle or skirmish till the campaign of the next year.
[Footnote 122: The Pell Rolls contain many items of payment about this time to the Prince of Wales; one of which specifies the sum "of 400_l._ for one hundred men-at-arms, each 12_d._ per day, and four hundred archers at 6_d._ per day, for one month, who were sent with despatch to Harlech Castle to remove the besiegers." Probably they had been sent some considerable time before the date of this payment, Dec. 14, 1401.]
The questions relating to Prince Henry, which were submitted to this council, inform us incidentally of the important fact, that though he was now intrusted with the command of the forces against the Welsh, and was a.s.sisted in his office (just as was the King) by a council, yet it was deemed right to appoint him an especial governor, or tutor (maistre). He was now in his fifteenth year. These Minutes also make it evident that the soldiers employed in his service looked for their pay to him, and not to the King"s exchequer. We shall have frequent occasion to observe the great personal inconveniences to which this practice subjected the Prince, and how injurious it was to the service generally. But the evil was unavoidable; for at that time the royal exchequer was quite drained.
"As to the article touching the governance of the Prince, as well (p. 122) for him to have a tutor or guardian, as to provide money for the support of his vast expenses in the garrisons of his castles in Wales, and the wages of his men-at-arms and archers, whom he keeps from day to day for resisting the malice of the rebels of the King, it appears to the council, if it please the King, that the Isle of Anglesey ought to be restored to the prince, and that Henry Percy[123] should agree, and have compensation from the issues of the lands which belonged to the Earl of March; and that all other possessions which ought to belong to the Prince should be restored, and an amicable arrangement be made with those in whose hands they are. And as for a governor for the Prince, may it please the King to choose one of these,--the Earl of Worcester, Lord Lovel, Mr. Thomas Erpyngham, or the Lord Say; and, for the Prince"s expenses, that 1000_l._ be a.s.signed from the rents of the Earl of March, which were due about last Michaelmas." We have reason to believe that the Earl of Worcester, Thomas Percy, was appointed Henry of Monmouth"s tutor and preceptor. He remained in attendance upon him till, with the guilt of aggravated treachery, he abruptly left his prince and pupil to join his nephew Hotspur before the battle of Shrewsbury.
[Footnote 123: The whole of Anglesey was granted to Hotspur for life. 1 Hen. IV, 12th October 1399.--MS. Donat. 4596.]
We are not informed how long Prince Henry remained at this period (p. 123) in Wales, after Percy had left it. Probably (as it has been already intimated) there was an armistice virtually, though not by any formal agreement, through that winter and the spring of 1402. The next undoubted information as to the Prince fixes him in London in the beginning of the following May, when being in the Tower, in the presence of his father, and with his consent, he declares himself willing to contract a marriage with Katharine, sister of Eric, King of Norway;[124] and on the 26th of the same month, being then in his castle of Tutbury, in the diocese of Lincoln, he confirms this contract, and authorises the notary public to affix his seal to the agreement. The pages of authentic history remind us, that too many marriage-contracts in every rank of life, and in every age of the world, have been the result, not of mutual affection between the affianced bride and bridegroom, but of pecuniary and political considerations. Perhaps when kings negociate and princes approve, their exalted station renders the transaction more notorious, and the stipulated conditions may be more unreservedly confessed. But it may well be doubted whether the same motives do not equally operate in every grade of life; whilst those objects which should be primary and indispensable, are regarded as secondary (p. 124) and contingent. Happiness springing from mutual affection, may doubtless grow and ripen, despite of such arrangements, in the families of the n.o.ble, the wealthy, the middle cla.s.ses, and the poor; but the chances are manifold more, that coldness, and dissatisfaction, and mutual carelessness of each other"s comforts will be the permanent result. We must however bear in mind, when estimating the moral worth of an individual, that negociations of this kind in the palaces of kings imply nothing of that cold-heartedness by which many are led into connexions from which their affections revolt. The individual"s character seems altogether protected from reprobation by the usage of the world, and the necessity of the case. State-considerations impose on princes restraints, compelling them to acquiesce in measures which excite in us other feelings than indignation or contempt. We regret the circ.u.mstance, but we do not condemn the parties. Henry IV. of England, and Eric of Norway, fancied they saw political advantages likely to arise from the nuptials of Henry"s son with Eric"s sister; and the doc.u.ment we have just quoted tells us that the boy Henry, then not fifteen, and still under tutors and governors, gave his consent to the proposed alliance.
[Footnote 124: He was present in the Castle of Berkhamsted on the 14th of May, at the sealing of the marriage contract of his sister Philippa with King Eric.--Foed. viii. 259, 260.]
The more rare however the occurrence, the more general is the admiration with which an union in the palaces of monarchy is contemplated when mutual respect and attachment precede the marriage, and conjugal love and (p. 125) domestic happiness attend it. And here we are irresistibly tempted to contemplate with satisfaction and delight the unsuccessful issue of this negociation, whilst Henry was yet a boy; and to antic.i.p.ate what must be repeated in its place, that, to whatever combination of circ.u.mstances, and course of events and state-considerations, the marriage of Henry of Monmouth with Katharine of France may possibly be referred, he proved himself to have formed for her a most sincere and heartfelt attachment before their union; and, whenever his duty did not separate them, to have lived with her in the possession of great conjugal felicity. Even the dry details of the Exchequer issues bear most gratifying, though curious, testimony to their domestic habits, and their enjoyment of each other"s society.
Whilst the King was thus negociating a marriage for his son, he was himself engaged by solemn espousals to marry, as his second wife, Joan of Navarre, d.u.c.h.ess of Brittany. As well in the most exalted, as in the most humble family in the realm, such an event as this can never take place without involving consequences of deepest moment and most lively interest to all parties,--to the husband, to his wife, and to their respective children. If he has been happy in his choice, a man cannot provide a more substantial blessing for his offspring than by joining himself by the most sacred of all ties to a woman who will (p. 126) cheerfully and lovingly perform the part of a conscientious and affectionate mother towards them. If the choice is unhappy; if there be a want of sound religious and moral principle, a neglect, or carelessness and impatience in the discharge of domestic duties; if a discontented, suspicious, cold, and unkind spirit accompany the new bride, domestic comfort must take flight, and all the proverbial evils of such a state must be realized. The marriage of Henry of Monmouth"s father with Joan of Navarre does not enable us to view the bright side of this alternative. Of the new Queen we hear little for many years;[125] but, at the end of those years of comparative silence, we find Henry V. compelled to remove from his mother-in-law all her attendants, and to commit her to the custody of Lord John Pelham in the castle of Pevensey.[126] She was charged with having entertained malicious and treasonable designs against the life of the King, her son-in-law. The Chronicle of London, (1419,) throwing[127] an air of mystery and superst.i.tion over the whole affair, a.s.serts that Queen Joanna excited her confessor, one friar Randolf,[128] a master in (p. 127) divinity, to destroy the King; "but, as G.o.d would, his falseness was at last espied:" "wherefore," as the Chronicle adds, "the Queen forfeited her lands."[129] Of this marriage of Henry IV. with Joan of Navarre very little notice beyond the bare fact has been taken by our English historians. Many particulars, however, are found in the histories of Brittany. It appears that the d.u.c.h.ess, who was the widow of Philip de Mont Forte, Duke of Brittany, by whom she had sons and daughters, was solemnly contracted to Henry by her proxy, Anthony Rys, at Eltham, on the 3rd of April 1402, in the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Earl of Somerset, the Earl of Northumberland and his son Hotspur, the Earl of Worcester, Thomas Langley, Keeper of the Privy Seal, and others. Having appointed guardians for her son, the young Duke of Brittany, she left Nantes on the 26th December, embarked on board one of the ships sent by Henry, at Camaret, on the 13th (p. 128) January, and sailed the next day, intending to land at Southampton.
After a stormy pa.s.sage of five days, the squadron was forced into a port in Cornwall. She was married on the 7th, and was crowned at Westminster on the 25th, of February following.[130] By Henry she had no child.
[Footnote 125: Our history supplies very scanty information as to the family of this royal lady. In the year 1412 a safe conduct is given to Giles of Brittany, son of the Queen, to come to England, to tarry and to return, with twenty men and horses.--Rymer, May 20, 1412.]
[Footnote 126: Otterbourne.]
[Footnote 127: "By sorcerye and nygrammancie."]
[Footnote 128: The Pell Rolls (27th Sept. 1418) leave us in no doubt that John Randolf"s goods were forfeited, a circ.u.mstance strongly confirming the report of his conspiracy. Payment is also made to certain persons for carrying (Feb. 8, 1420) John Randolf, of the order of Friars Minor, Shrewsbury, from Normandy to the Tower.]
[Footnote 129: No doubt can remain as to the accuracy of the London Chronicle in this particular: several payments are on record, expressly declared to have been made out of the lands and property of this unhappy woman. Thus, the issue of a thousand marks to the Abbess of Syon (9th May 1421) is made from "the monies issuing from the possessions of Joanna, Queen of England."]
[Footnote 130: See Acts of Privy Council, vol. i.
p. 185. The Editor quotes Lobinau"s Histoire de Bretagne, tom. ii. pp. 874, 878; and Morice"s Histoire Ecclesiastique et Civile de Bretagne, tom.
i. p. 433.]
CHAPTER VII. (p. 129)
GLYNDOWR"S VIGOROUS MEASURES. -- SLAUGHTER OF HEREFORDSHIRE MEN. -- MORTIMER TAKEN PRISONER. -- HE JOINS GLYNDOWR. -- HENRY IMPLORES SUCCOURS, -- p.a.w.nS HIS PLATE TO SUPPORT HIS MEN. -- THE KING"S TESTIMONY TO HIS SON"S CONDUCT. -- THE KING, AT BURTON-ON-TRENT, HEARS OF THE REBELLION OF THE PERCIES.
1402-1403.
If Owyn Glyndowr, as we have supposed, allowed Wales to remain undisturbed by battles and violence through the winter[131] and spring, it was only to employ the time in preparing for a more vigorous campaign. The first battle of which we have any historical certainty, was fought June 12, 1402, near Melienydd, (Dugdale says, "upon the mountain called Brynglas, near Knighton in Melenyth,") in Radnorshire. The whole array of Herefordshire was routed on that field. More than one thousand (p. 130) Englishmen were slain, on whom the Welsh were guilty of savage, unheard-of indignities. The women especially gave vent to their rage and fury by actions too disgraceful to be credible were they not recorded as uncontradicted facts. For the honour of the s.e.x, we wish to regard them as having happened only once; whilst we would bury the disgusting details in oblivion.[132] Owyn was victorious, and took many of high degree prisoners; among whom was Sir Edmund Mortimer, the uncle of the Earl of March. Perhaps the most authentic statement of this victory as to its leading features, though without any details, is found in a letter from the King to his council, dated Berkhampstead, June 25.
[Footnote 131: At the opening of the year 1402 (January 18), one hundred marks were paid by the treasury to the Bishop of Bangor, whose lands had been in great part destroyed.--Pell Rolls. This prelate was Richard Young, who was translated to Rochester in 1404.]
[Footnote 132: To the present day the vestiges of two temporary encampments (army against army) are visible; and there are barrows in the neighbourhood, which, according to the tradition of the country, cover the bones of those who fell in this battle, not less, they say, than three thousand men. The remains of Owyn Glyndowr"s camp are found at a place called Monachdy, in the parish of Blethvaugh; and about two miles below, in the parish of Whittow, is the earthwork supposed to have been thrown up by Sir Edmund Mortimer.
Half-way between is a hill called Brynglas, where the battle is said to have been fought. In the valley of the Lug are two large tumuli, which are believed to cover the slain.]
"The rebels have taken my beloved cousin,[133] Esmon Mortymer, and many other knights and esquires. We are resolved, consequently, to go in our own person with G.o.d"s permission. You will therefore (p. 131) command all in our retinue and pay to meet us at Lichfield, where we intend to be at the latest on the 7th of July." The proclamation for an array "to meet the King at Lichfield, and proceed with him towards Wales to check the insolence and malice of Owyn Glyndowr and other rebels," was issued the same day. On the 5th of July,[134] the King, being at Westminster, appointed Hugh de Waterton governor of his children, John and Philippa, till his return from Wales. An order of council at Westminster, on the last day of July, the King himself being present, seems to leave us no alternative in deciding that Henry made two expeditions to Wales this summer; the first at the commencement of July, the second towards the end of August. This appears to have escaped the observation of historians. Walsingham speaks only of one, and that before the Feast of the a.s.sumption, August 25; in which (p. 132) he represents the King and his army to have been well-nigh destroyed by storms of rain, snow, and hail, so terrible as to have excited the belief that they were raised by the machination of the devil, and of course at Owyn"s bidding. This order of council is directed to many sheriffs, commanding them to proclaim an array through their several counties to meet the King at Shrewsbury,[135] on the 27th of August at the latest, to proceed with him into Wales.[136] The order declares the necessity of this second array to have originated in the impossibility, through the shortness of the time, of the King"s chastising the rebels, who lurked in mountains and woods; and states his determination to be there again shortly, and to remain fifteen days for the final overthrow and destruction of his enemies. How lamentably he was mistaken in his calculation of their resistance, and his own powers of subjugating them, the sequel proved to him too clearly. The rebellion from first to last was protracted through almost as many years as the days he had numbered for its utter extinction. The order on the sheriff of Derby commands him to go (p. 133) with his contingent to Chester, "to our dearest son the Prince," on the 27th of August, and to advance in his retinue to Wales. On this occasion,[137] it is said that Henry invaded Wales in three points at once, himself commanding one division of his army, the second being headed by the Prince, the third by Lord Arundel. The details of these measures, under the personal superintendence of the King, are not found in history. Probably Walsingham"s account of their total failure must be admitted as nearest the truth. That no material injury befel Owyn from them, and that neither were his means crippled, nor his resolution daunted, is testified by the inroads which, not long after, he made into England with redoubled impetuosity.
[Footnote 133: A general mistake has prevailed among historians with regard to this prisoner of Owyn"s. Walsingham, Stowe, Hall, Rapin, Hume, Sharon Turner, with others, have uniformly represented Edmund Earl of March to have been the notable warrior then captured by Glyndowr; whereas he was only ten years of age, and a prisoner of the King. Dr. Griffin, a Monmouthshire antiquary, pointed out the mistake many years ago.]
[Footnote 134: On the 14th of July the council issue commands to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Norwich to array their clergy for the defence of the realm; a measure seldom resorted to, and only on occasions of great emergence and alarm.
A fortnight before this order (30th June), the King had written from Harborough to his council, acquainting them with the victory gained for him over the Scots at Nisbet Moor by the Scotch Earl of March, and commanding them to protect the marches.]
[Footnote 135: The Monk of Evesham says that in this year, about August 29, (Festum Decollationis Johannis Bapt.) the King went again with a great force into Wales, and after twenty days returned with disgrace.]