Henry of Monmouth, Volume 2
by James Endell Tyler · English · Gutenberg #20489 · 780,387 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Henry of Monmouth, Volume 2
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Henry of Monmouth, Volume 2
Author: James Endell Tyler
Release date: January 31, 2007 [eBook #20489]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20489
Credits: Produced by Christine P. Travers, Ted Garvin and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HENRY OF MONMOUTH, VOLUME 2 ***
Produced by Christine P. Travers, Ted Garvin and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
[Transcriber's note: Obvious printer's errors have been corrected.
The original spelling has been retained.
Different spelling as been kept, e.g.:
- Ruisseauville and Ruissauville
- Azincour and Azincourt, etc ...
Some words on page 94 were partly unclear / illegible.
- Page 249: ii. vol. changed to vol. ii.
- Page 412: The missing anchor for the footnote 305 has been added.]
[Illustration: Great Seal of Owen Glyndowr as Prince of Wales.
Published by R. Bentley, 1838]
HENRY OF MONMOUTH:
OR,
MEMOIRS
OF THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OF
HENRY THE FIFTH,
AS
PRINCE OF WALES AND KING OF ENGLAND.
BY J. ENDELL TYLER, B.D.
RECTOR OF ST. GILES IN THE FIELDS.
"Go, call up Cheshire and Lancashire,
And Derby hills, that are so free;
But neither married man, nor widow's son;
No widow's curse shall go with me."
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. II.
LONDON:
RICHARD BENTLEY, NEW BURLINGTON STREET,
Publisher in Ordinary to Her Majesty.
1838.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY,
Dorset Street, Fleet Street.
CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. (p. iii)
CHAPTER XVII.
1413-1414.
Henry of Monmouth's Accession. -- National rejoicings. -- His profound
sense of the Awfulness of the Charge devolved upon him. -- Coronation.
-- First Parliament. -- Habits of business. -- He removes the remains
of Richard to Westminster. -- Redeems the Son of Hotspur, and restores
him to his forfeited honours and estates. -- Generous conduct towards
the Earl of March. -- Parliament at Leicester. -- Enactments against
Lollards. -- Henry's Foundations at Shene and Sion. Page 1
CHAPTER XVIII.
1414-1417.
State of the Church. -- Henry a sincere Christian, but no Bigot. --
Degraded state of Religion. -- Council of Constance. -- Henry's
Representatives zealous promoters of Reform. -- Hallam, Bishop of
Salisbury, avowed enemy of the Popedom. -- Richard Ullerston:
primitive views of Clerical duties. -- Walden, his own Chaplain,
accuses Henry of remissness in the extirpation of Heresy. --
Forester's Letter to the King. -- Henry Beaufort's unhappy
interference. -- Petition from Oxford. -- Henry's personal exertions
in the business of Reform. -- Reflections on the then apparent dawn of
the Reformation. Page 32
CHAPTER XIX. (p. iv)
1414.
Wars with France. -- Causes which influenced Henry. -- Summary of the
affairs of France from the time of Edward III. -- Reflections on
Henry's Title. -- Affairs of France from Henry's resolution to claim
his "Dormant Rights," and "Rightful Heritage," to his invasion of
Normandy. -- Negociations. -- His Right denied by the French. --
Parliament votes him Supplies. Page 70
CHAPTER XX.
Modern triple charge against Henry of Falsehood, Hypocrisy, and
Impiety. -- Futility of the Charge, and utter failure of the Evidence
on which alone it is grounded. -- He is urged by his people to
vindicate the Rights of his Crown, himself having a conscientious
conviction of the Justice of his Claim. -- Story of the Tennis-Balls.
-- Preparations for invading France. -- Henry's Will made at
Southampton. -- Charge of Hypocrisy again grounded on the close of
that Testament. -- Its Futility. -- He despatches to the various
Powers of Europe the grounds of his Claim on France. Page 89
CHAPTER XXI.
1415.
Preparations for invading France. -- Reflections on the Military and
Naval State of England. -- Mode of raising and supporting an Army. --
Song of Agincourt. -- Henry of Monmouth the Founder of the English
Royal Navy. -- Custom of impressing Vessels for the transporting of
Troops. -- Henry's exertions in Ship-building. -- Gratitude due to
him. -- Conspiracy at Southampton. -- Prevalent delusion as to Richard
II. -- The Earl of March. -- Henry's Forces. -- He sails for Normandy.
Page 119
CHAPTER XXII. (p. v)
1415.
Henry crosses the Sea: lands at Clef de Caus: lays Siege to Harfleur.
-- Devoted Attendance on his dying Friend the Bishop of Norwich. --
Vast Treasure falls into his hands on the Surrender of Harfleur. -- He
challenges the Dauphin. -- Futile Modern Charge brought against him on
that ground. Page 143
CHAPTER XXIII.
1415.
Henry, with Troops much weakened, leaves Harfleur, fully purposed to
make for Calais, notwithstanding the threatened resistance of the
French. -- Passes the Field of Cressy. -- French resolved to engage.
-- Night before the Conflict. -- FIELD of AGINCOURT. -- Slaughter of
Prisoners. -- Henry, his enemies themselves being Judges, fully
exculpated from every suspicion of cruelty or unchivalrous bearing. --
He proceeds to Calais. -- Thence to London. -- Reception by his
Subjects. -- His modest and pious Demeanour. -- Superstitious
proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Authorities. -- Reflections. --
Songs of Agincourt. Page 156
CHAPTER XXIV.
1415-1417.
Reasons for delaying a Second Campaign. -- Sigismund undertakes to
mediate. -- Reception of Sigismund. -- French Ships scour the seas,
and lay siege to Harfleur. -- Henry's vigorous measures thereupon. --
The Emperor declares for "Henry and his Just Rights." -- Joins with
him in Canterbury Cathedral on a Day of Thanksgiving for Victory over
the French. -- With him meets the Duke of Burgundy at Calais. (p. vi)
-- The Duke also declares for Henry. -- Second Invasion of France. --
Siege of Caen. -- Henry's Bulletin to the Mayor of London. -- Hostile
Movement of the Scots. Page 203
CHAPTER XXV.
1418-1419.
Henry's progress in his Second Campaign. -- Siege of Rouen. --
Cardinal des Ursins. -- Supplies from London. -- Correspondence
between Henry and the Citizens. -- Negociation with the Dauphin and
with the French King. -- Henry's Irish Auxiliaries. -- Reflections on
Ireland. -- Its miserable condition. -- Wise and strong measures
adopted by Henry for its Tranquillity. -- Divisions and struggles, not
between Romanists and Protestants, but between English and Irish. --
Henry and the See of Rome. -- Thraldom of Christendom. -- The Duke of
Brittany declares for Henry. -- Spaniards join the Dauphin. --
Exhausted State of England. Page 221
CHAPTER XXVI.
1419-1420.
Bad faith of the Dauphin. -- The Duke of Burgundy brings about an
Interview between Henry and the French Authorities. -- Henry's first
Interview with the Princess Katharine of Valois. -- Her Conquest. --
The Queen's over-anxiety and indiscretion. -- Double-dealing of the
Duke of Burgundy; he joins the Dauphin; is murdered on the Bridge of
Montereau. -- The Dauphin disinherited. -- Henry's anxiety to prevent
the Escape of his Prisoners. Page 249
CHAPTER XXVII. (p. vii)
1419-1420.
Henry's extraordinary attention to the Civil and Private duties of his
station, in the midst of his career of Conquest, instanced in various
cases. -- Provost and Fellows of Oriel College. -- The Queen Dowager
is accused of Treason. -- Treaty between Henry, the French King, and
the young Duke of Burgundy. -- Henry affianced to Katharine. -- The
Dauphin is reinforced from Scotland. -- Henry, accompanied by his
Queen, returns through Normandy to England. Page 262
CHAPTER XXVIII.
1421-1422.
Katharine crowned. -- Henry and his Queen make a progress through a
great part of his Dominions. -- Arrival of the disastrous news of his
Brother's Death (the Duke of Clarence). -- Henry meets his Parliament.
-- Hastens to the Seat of War. -- Birth of his Son, Henry of Windsor.
-- Joins his Queen at Bois de Vincennes. -- Their magnificent
Reception at Paris. -- Henry hastens in person to succour the Duke of
Burgundy. -- Is seized by a fatal Malady. -- Returns to Vincennes. --
His Last Hour. -- HIS DEATH. Page 286
CHAPTER XXIX.
Was Henry of Monmouth a Persecutor? -- Just principles of conducting
the Inquiry, and forming the Judgment. -- Modern charge against Henry.
-- Review of the prevalent opinions on Religious Liberty. -- True
principles of Christian Freedom. -- Duty of the State and of
Individuals to promote the prevalence of True Religion. -- Charge
against Henry, as Prince of Wales, for presenting a Petition against
the Lollards. -- The merciful intention of that Petition. -- His
Conduct at the Death of Badby. Page 319
CHAPTER XXX. (p. viii)
1413.
The Case of Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham. -- Reference to his
former Life and Character. -- Fox's Book of Martyrs. -- The
Archbishop's Statement. -- Milner. -- Hall. -- Lingard. Cobham offers
the Wager of Battle. -- Appeals peremptorily to the Pope. -- Henry's
anxiety to save him. -- He is condemned, but no Writ of Execution is
issued by the King. -- Cobham escapes from the Tower. Page 348
CHAPTER XXXI.
Change in Henry's behaviour towards the Lollards after the affair of
St. Giles' Field. -- Examination of that affair often conducted with
great Partiality and Prejudice. -- Hume and the Old Chroniclers. --
Fox, Milner, Le Bas. -- Public Documents. -- Lord Cobham, taken in
Wales, is brought to London in a Whirlicole; condemned to be hanged as
a Traitor, and burned as a Heretic. -- Henry, then in France,
ignorant, probably, of Cobham's Capture till after his Execution. --
Concluding Reflections. Page 376
CHAPTER XXXII.
The Case of John Clayton, Richard Gurmyn, and William Taylor, burnt
for Heresy, examined. -- Result of the Investigation. -- Henry not a
Persecutor. -- Reflections. Page 393
APPENDIX.
No. I. Ballad of Agincourt. 417
No. II. Siege of Rouen. 422
No. III. Authenticity of the Manuscripts--Sloane 1776, and
Reg. 13, c. 1. 425
MEMOIRS OF HENRY OF MONMOUTH (p. 001)
CHAPTER XVII.
HENRY OF MONMOUTH'S ACCESSION. -- NATIONAL REJOICINGS. -- HIS PROFOUND
SENSE OF THE AWFULNESS OF THE CHARGE DEVOLVED UPON HIM. -- CORONATION.
-- FIRST PARLIAMENT. -- HABITS OF BUSINESS. -- HE REMOVES THE REMAINS
OF RICHARD TO WESTMINSTER. -- REDEEMS THE SON OF HOTSPUR, AND RESTORES
HIM TO HIS FORFEITED HONOURS AND ESTATES. -- GENEROUS CONDUCT TOWARDS
THE EARL OF MARCH. -- PARLIAMENT AT LEICESTER. -- ENACTMENTS AGAINST
LOLLARDS. -- HENRY'S FOUNDATIONS AT SHENE AND SION.
1413-1414.
HENRY, KING.
Henry IV. died at Westminster on Monday, March 20, 1413, and Henry of
Monmouth's proclamation bears date on the morrow, March 21.[1] Never
perhaps was the accession of any prince to the throne of a kingdom
hailed with a more general or enthusiastic welcome. If serious minds
had entertained forebodings of evil from his reign, (as we (p. 002)
believe they had not,) all feelings seem to have been absorbed in one
burst of gladness. Both houses of parliament offered to swear
allegiance to him before he was crowned: a testimony of confidence and
affection never (it is said) before tendered to any English
monarch.[2] This prevalence of joyous anticipations from the accession
of their young King could not have sprung from any change of conduct
or of principle then first made known. Those who charge Henry most
unsparingly represent his conversion as having begun only at his
father's hour of dissolution. But, before that father breathed his
last, the people of England were ready to welcome most heartily his
son, such as he was then, without, as it should seem, either (p. 003)
hearing of, or wishing for, any change. His principles and his conduct
as a ruler had been put to the test during the time he had presided at
the council-board; and the people only desired in their new King a
continuance of the same wisdom, valour, justice, integrity, and
kind-heartedness, which had so much endeared him to the nation as
their Prince. In his subjects there appears to have been room for
nothing but exultation; in the new King himself widely different
feelings prevailed. Ever, as it should seem, under an awful practical
sense, as well of the Almighty's presence and providence and majesty,
as of his own responsibility and unworthiness, Henry seems to have
been suddenly oppressed by the increased solemnity and weight of the
new duties which he found himself now called upon to discharge. The
scene of his father's death-bed, (carried off, as that monarch was, in
the very meridian of life, by a lingering loathsome disease,) and the
dying injunctions of that father, may doubtless have added much to the
acuteness and the depth of his feelings at that time. And whether he
be deemed to have been the licentious, reckless rioter which some
writers have been anxious to describe, or whether we regard him as a
sincere believer, comparing his past life (though neither licentious
nor reckless) with the perfectness of the divine law, the retrospect
might well depress him with a consciousness of his own unworthiness,
and of his total inability to perform the work which he saw (p. 004)
before him, without the strength and guidance of divine grace. For
that strength and that guidance, we are assured, he prayed, and
laboured, and watched with all the intenseness and perseverance of an
humble faithful Christian. Those who are familiar with the expressions
of a contrite soul, will fully understand the sentiments recorded of
Henry of Monmouth at this season of his self-humiliation, and the
dedication of himself to God, and may yet be far from discovering in
them conclusive arguments in proof of his having passed his youth in
habits of gross violation of religious and moral principle. We have
already quoted the assertions of his biographer, that day and night he
sought pardon for the past, and grace for the future, to enable him to
bend his heart in faith and obedience to the Sovereign of all. And
even during the splendour and rejoicings of his coronation he appeared
to withdraw his mind entirely from the greatness of his worldly state,
thus forced upon him, and to fix his thoughts on the King of kings.[3]
[Footnote 1: Close Roll.]
[Footnote 2: "The high esteem which the nation had
of Henry's person produced such an entire
confidence in him, that both houses of parliament
in an address offered to swear allegiance to him
before he was crowned, or had taken the customary
oath to govern according to the laws. The King
thanked them for their good affections, and
exhorted them in their several places and stations
to employ all their power for the good of the
nation. He told them that he began his reign in
pardoning all that had offended him, and with such
a desire for his people's happiness, that he would
be crowned on no other condition than to make use
of all his authority to promote it; and prayed God
that, if he foresaw he was like to be any other
than a just and good king, he would please to take
him immediately out of the world, rather than seat
him on the throne, to live a public calamity to his
country."--Goodwin. See Stowe. Polyd. Verg.
Elmham.]
[Footnote 3: Elmham.]
But he never seems for a day to have been drawn aside by his private
devotions from the full discharge of the practical duties of his new
station. On the Wednesday he issued summonses for a parliament to meet
within three weeks of Easter. On Friday the 7th of April, he was
conducted to the Tower by a large body of men of London, who (p. 005)
went on horseback to attend him. The next day he was accompanied back
to Westminster, with every demonstration of loyalty and devotedness to
his person, by a great concourse of lords and knights, many of whom he
had created on the preceding evening. On the following morning, being
Passion Sunday, April 9th,[4] he was crowned with much[5] magnificence
in Westminster Abbey.[6]
[Footnote 4: Not Palm Sunday, but the fifth Sunday
in Lent, was called Passion Sunday.]
[Footnote 5: "With mickle royalty."--Chron. Lond.]
[Footnote 6: Chroniclers record that the day of his
coronation was a day of storm and tempest, frost
and snow, and that various omens of ill portent
arose from the circumstance.]
One of the first acts of a sovereign in England at that time was to
re-appoint the judges who were in office at the demise of his
predecessor, or to constitute new ones in their stead. Among other
changes, we find Hankford appointed as Chief Justice in the room of
Gascoyne, at least within ten days of the King's accession. For any
observation which this fact may suggest, so contrary to those
histories which repeat tales instead of seeking for the truth in
ancient records, we must refer to the chapter in which we have already
examined the credibility of the alleged insult offered by Prince Henry
to a Judge on the bench of justice.[7]
[Footnote 7: Henry had excited feelings of
confidence and admiration in the minds of foreign
potentates, as well as in his subjects at home.
Among the embassies, with offers and pledges of
friendship and amity, which hastened to his court
on his accession, are numbered those of John of
Portugal, Robert Duke of Albany, Regent of
Scotland, John King of Castile, John Duke of
Brittany, Charles King of France, and Pope John
XXIII.]
The first parliament of Henry V. met in the Painted Chamber (p. 006)
at Westminster, on Monday, 15th of May. The King was on his throne;
but the Bishop of Winchester, his uncle, then Chancellor of England,
opened the business of the session. On this, as on many similar
occasions, the chancellor, generally a prelate, addressed the
assembled states in an oration, half speech and half sermon, upon a
passage of Scripture selected as a text. On the opening of this
parliament, the chancellor informed the peers and the commons that the
King's purpose in calling them together as the Great Council of the
nation was threefold:--First, he was desirous of supporting the
throne,--"his high and royal estate;" secondly, he was bent on
maintaining the law and good government within his realm; and thirdly,
he desired to cherish the friends and to resist the enemies of his
kingdom. It is remarkable that no mention is made in this parliament
at all on the part of the King, or his chancellor, of either heresy or
Lollardism. The speaker refers to some tumults, especially at
Cirencester, where the populace appear to have attacked the abbey;
complaints also were made against the conduct of ordinaries, and some
strong enactments were passed against the usurpations of Rome, (p. 007)
to which reference will again be made: but not a word in answer
to these complaints would lead to the inference that the spirit of
persecution was then in the ascendant. It was not till the last day of
April 1414, after the affair of St. Giles' Field, that the statute
against the Lollards was passed at Leicester.[8] The chancellor at
that subsequent period speaks of their treasonable designs to destroy
the King having been lately discovered and discomfited; and the record
expressly declares that the ordinance was made with the consent and at
the prayer of the commons.
[Footnote 8: Sir Edward Coke, in his 4th Inst. ch.
i. declares that this act was disavowed in the next
parliament by the Commons, for that they never
assented. The Author has searched the Parliament
Rolls in vain for the authority on which that
assertion was founded.]
But though neither the King nor his council gave any indication, in
his first parliament, of a desire to interfere with men's consciences
in matters of religion, the churchmen were by no means slumbering at
their post. Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, convened a council of
the bishops and clergy, who met by adjournment, in full numbers, at
St. Paul's, on the 26th of June 1413;[9] and adopted most rigorous
measures for the extirpation of heresy, levelled professedly with a
more especial aim against the ringleader of Lollardism, as he (p. 008)
was called, the valiant and unfortunate Lord Cobham. On these
proceedings we purpose to dwell separately in another part of this
work; and, in addition to what we shall there allege, little needs be
observed here by way of anticipation. In leaving the subject, however,
as far as Henry V.'s character is concerned, it may not be out of
place to remark, that historical facts, so far from stamping on him
the mark of a religious persecutor, prove that it required all the
united efforts of the clergy and laity to induce him to put the
existing laws in force against those who were bold enough to dissent
from the Romish faith. So far from his "having watched the Lollards as
his greatest enemies," so far from "having listened to every calumny
which the zeal and hatred of the hierarchy could invent or propagate
against the unfortunate followers of Wickliff," (the conduct and
disposition ascribed to him by Milner,) we have sufficient proof of
the dissatisfaction of the church with him in this respect; and their
repeated attempts to excite him to more vigorous measures against the
rising and spreading sect. By a minute of council, May 27, 1415, we
find that, whilst preparing for his expedition to France, he is
reminded to instruct the archbishops and bishops to take measures,
each within his respective diocese, to resist the malice of the
Lollards. The King merely answered, that he had given the subject in
charge to his chancellor; and we are assured that Dr. Thomas (p. 009)
Walden,[10] one of the most learned and powerful divines of the day,
but very violent in his opposition to the new doctrines, openly
inveighed against Henry _for his great negligence in regard to the
duty of punishing heretics_.[11] To his religious sentiments we must
again refer in the sequel, and also as the course of events may
successively suggest any observations on that head.
[Footnote 9: The Monday after Corpus Christi day;
which feast, being the Thursday after Trinity
Sunday, fell in the year 1413 on June 22.]
[Footnote 10: This Dr. Walden (so called from the
place of his birth in Essex) was so able a
disputant that he was called the Netter. He seems
to have written many works, which are either
totally lost, or are buried in temporary oblivion.]
[Footnote 11: Goodwin. Appendix, p. 361.]
When Henry IV. ascended the throne, parliament prayed that the Prince
might not leave the realm, but remain in England as the anchor of the
people's hopes; and, soon after his own accession,[12] Henry V. is
advised by his council to remain near London, that he might receive
prompt intelligence of whatever might arise in any quarter, and be
able to take immediate steps for the safety of the commonweal. He
seems to have carried with him even from his earliest youth, wherever
he went, a peculiar talent of exciting confidence in every one.
Whether in the field of battle, or the chamber of council,--whether as
the young Prince, just initiated in affairs of war and government, or
as the experienced captain and statesman,--his contemporaries looked
to him as a kind of guardian spirit, to protect them from (p. 010)
harm, and lead them onward to good success. No despondency, nor even
misgivings, show themselves in the agents of any enterprise in which
he was personally engaged. The prodigious effects of these feelings in
the English towards their prince were displayed in their full
strength, perhaps, at the battle of Agincourt; but similar results are
equally, though not so strikingly, visible in many other passages of
his life.
[Footnote 12: Minutes of Council, 29 June 1413.]
Among the various causes to which historians have been accustomed to
attribute the general anticipations of good from Henry's reign, which
pervaded all classes, is the appointment of Gascoyne to the high
station of Chief Justice immediately upon his ascending the throne.
But we have already seen that, however gladly an eulogist would seize
on such an exalted instance of magnanimity and noble generosity, the
truth of history forbids our even admitting its probability in this
place. Henry certainly did not re-appoint Gascoyne. But, whilst we
cannot admit the tradition which would mark the true character of
Henry's mind by his behaviour to the Chief Justice, there is not
wanting many an authentic record which would amply account for his
almost unprecedented popularity at the very commencement of his reign.
Among these we must not omit to notice the resolution which he put in
practice of retiring for an hour or more every day, after his early
dinner, to receive petitions from any of his subjects, however (p. 011)
humble,[13] who would appeal to him for his royal interposition;
to examine and consider the several cases patiently; and to redress
real grievances. Indeed, numberless little occurrences meet us on
every side, which seem to indicate very clearly that he loved the
right and hated iniquity; and that he was never more happy than whilst
engaged in deeds of justice, mercy, and charity. He seems to have
received the golden law for his rule, "See that they who are in need
and necessity have right;" and to have rejoiced in keeping that (p. 012)
law himself, and compelling all within the sphere of his authority and
influence to observe it also.
[Footnote 13: Many original petitions addressed to
Henry are still preserved among our records. In
one, which may serve as a specimen of the kind of
application to which this custom compelled him to
open his ear, Richard Hunt appeals to him as a
"right merciable lord, moved with pity, mercy, and
grace." "In great desolation and heaviness of
heart," the petitioner states that his son-in-law,
Richard Peke, who had a wife and four children, and
had been all his life a true labourer and innocent
man, and well-beloved by his neighbours, had been
detected in taking from a vessel goods not worth
three shillings; for which crime his mortal enemies
(though they might have their property again) "sued
to have him dead." He urges Henry to grant him
"full noble grace," at the reverence of Almighty
God, and for passion that Christ suffered for all
mankind, and for the pity that he had on Mary
Magdalene. The petitioner then promised (as
petitioners now do) to pray for endless mercy on
Henry; he adds, moreover, what would certainly
sound strange in a modern petition to a monarch,
"And ye, gracious and sovereign lord, shall have a
good ox to your larder." Henry granted the
petition. "The King woll that this bill pass
without any manner of fine, or fees that longeth to
him."]
Another incident recorded of Henry of Monmouth at this period,
strongly marking the kindness and generosity and nobleness of his
mind, was the removal of the remains of Richard II. from Langley to
Westminster. Without implying any consciousness, or even suspicion of
guilt, on the part of his father as to Richard's death, we may easily
suppose Henry to have regarded the deposition of that monarch as an
act of violence, justifiable only on the ground of extreme necessity:
he might have considered him as an injured man, by whose fall his
father and himself had been raised to the throne. Instead of allowing
his name and his mortal remains to be buried in oblivion, (with the
chance moreover of raising again in men's minds fresh doubts and
surmises of his own title to the throne, for he was not Richard's
right heir,) Henry resolved to pay all the respect in his power to the
memory of the friend of his youth, and by the only means at his
command to make a sort of reparation for the indignities to which the
royal corpse had been exposed. He caused the body to be brought in
solemn funeral state to Westminster, and there to be buried,[14] with
all the honour and circumstance accustomed to be paid to the earthly
remains of royalty, by the side of his former Queen, Anne, (p. 013)
in the tomb prepared by Richard for her and for himself. The diligent
investigator will discover many such incidents recorded of Henry V;
some of a more public and important nature than others, but all
combining to stamp on his name in broad and indelible letters the
character of a truly high-minded, generous, grateful, warm-hearted
man.
[Footnote 14: The Pell Rolls acquaint us with the
very great expense incurred on this occasion.]
Another instance of the same feeling, carried, perhaps, in one point a
step further in generosity and Christian principle, was evinced in his
conduct towards the son of Sir Henry Percy, Hotspur, the former
antagonist of his house. This young nobleman had been carried by his
friends into Scotland, for safe keeping, on the breaking out of his
grandfather's (Northumberland's) rebellion; and was detained there, as
some say, in concealment, till Henry V. made known his determination
to restore him to his title and estates. The Scots, who were in
possession of his person, kept him as a prisoner and hostage; and
although Henry might have considered a foreign land the best home for
the son of the enemy of his family, yet so bent was he on effecting
the noble design of reinstating him in all which his father's and his
grandfather's treason had forfeited, that he consented to exchange for
him a noble Scot, who had been detained in England for thirteen years.
Mordak of Fife, son and heir of the Duke of Albany, had been taken
prisoner at the battle of Homildon Hill, in 1402, (it is curious to
remark,) by Hotspur, and his father Northumberland; and now (p. 014)
Henry V. exchanges this personage for Hotspur's son, the heir of
Northumberland. This youth was only an infant when his father fell at
the battle of Shrewsbury; his mother was Elizabeth, eldest daughter of
Edmund Mortimer,[15] Earl of March: and thus a king, under the
circumstances of Henry, but with a less noble mind, might have
regarded him with jealousy on both sides of his parentage, and been
glad (without exposing himself to the charge of any positive act of
harshness) to allow him to remain in a foreign country deprived of his
honours and his estates. But Henry's spirit soared above these
considerations; and, in the orphan of a generous rival, he saw only a
fit object on whom to exercise his generosity and Christian charity. A
negotiation was carried on between Henry and some who represented
young Percy; care being taken to ascertain the identity of the person
who should be offered in exchange for Mordak. After certain prescribed
oaths were taken, and pledges given, and the payment of a stipulated
sum, 10,000_l._, the young man was invited to come to Henry's court
with all speed.
[Footnote 15: Dugdale's Baronage.]
There seems to have intervened some considerable impediment to this
proposed exchange.[16] The commission to John Hull and William
Chancellor to convey Mordak to the north bears date 21st of (p. 015)
May; and yet instructions for a negotiation with his father, the Duke
of Albany, then Regent of Scotland, for the exchange, were issued to
Sir Ralph Evre and others, as late as the 10th of the following
December. At the parliament, however, held March 16, 1416, Henry
Percy, in the presence of the King himself, does homage for his lands
and honours. And, before Henry's death, the Pell Rolls record payments
to this Earl of Northumberland, appointed guardian of Berwick and the
East March, as regularly as, in the early part of Henry IV.'s reign,
issues had been made to his father Hotspur, and his grandfather, the
aged Earl, for the execution of the same duties. The lands of the
Percies, on their attainder, were confiscated, and given to the King's
brother, the Duke of Bedford; to whom, on restoring his lands and
honours to the young Earl, Henry made an annual compensation in part
at least for the loss.[17]
[Footnote 16: Minutes of Council, 21 May and 10
Dec. 1415. Addit. MS. 4600. Art. 147.]
[Footnote 17: Pell Rolls, Mich. 4. Hen. V. Many
documents also in Rymer refer to this transaction.]
Another example of generous behaviour in the young King towards those
whom he had in his power, and of whom less noble minds would have
entertained suspicion and jealousy, is seen in his conduct towards the
Earl of March.[18] This young nobleman, by the law of (p. 016)
primogeniture, was rightful heir to the throne; being descended from
Lionel Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III. And so much was he a
cause of apprehension and uneasiness to Henry IV. and his council,
that it was thought necessary to keep him in close custody, and also
near the person of the King, whenever the court removed towards the
borders of the kingdom. It was in the name of this young man that his
uncle Edmund Mortimer excited all his tenantry and dependents to join
Owyn Glyndowr in rebellion against Henry IV; and on all occasions the
malcontents of the whole country, supposing Richard to be dead, held
forth the Earl of March as their liege sovereign. Henry V. could not
have been charged with unwarrantable suspicions or severity, had he
continued the same system of watchfulness over this formidable
personage, which had been observed under the reign of his predecessor.
Provided only that he treated him with kindness, few would have
wondered or complained if he had still kept him as a prisoner on
parole.[19] But Henry, to whose guardianship, whilst Prince (p. 017)
of Wales, the young Earl had been intrusted, was no sooner seated on
the throne, than he admitted this young man into a full share of his
confidence; not with the suspicion of a rival, nor with the fear of an
enemy, but with the openness of an acknowledged and kind master
towards a trustworthy and devoted servant. The references to (p. 018)
him which are found in the authentic records of that time (and they
are not a few) all tend to establish this point.[20] Henry immediately
gave him, on his coming of age, full and free possession of all his
manors, castles, lands, advowsons, and honours; and seems to have had
him continually in his retinue as a companion and friend. On one
occasion we may suppose that Henry's suspicions and apprehensions of
danger from the young Earl must have been roused; and yet we find him
still continued in his confidence, and still left without any
restraint or estrangement. When the conspiracy against Henry was
discovered at Southampton, the Earl of Cambridge, (as we shall see
more in detail hereafter,) in his letter of confession, declares it to
have been the intention of the conspirators to carry the Earl of March
into Wales, and to proclaim him as their lawful king. How far the
young Earl was privy to this conspiracy, or to what extent he was "art
and part" in it, does not distinctly appear. An expression, indeed, in
the early part of the Earl of Cambridge's letter, "Having the Earl of
March by his own consent, and by the assent of myself," should seem to
imply that he was by no means ignorant of the plans of the
conspirators, nor averse to them. How far, moreover, Henry thought him
guilty, is matter of doubt; but certain it is, that he deemed (p. 019)
it necessary to have the King's pardon regularly signed in the usual
manner for all treasons, felonies, and misdemeanors. The instrument
bears date August 7, 1415, at Southampton. This document, however, by
no means proves his guilt: on many occasions such patents of pardon
were granted to prevent malicious and vexatious prosecutions.
Nevertheless, at all events, it shows that Henry's thoughts must have
been especially drawn to the relative circumstances under which
himself and the Earl of March were placed; and yet he continued to
behave towards him with the same confidence and friendship as before.
Two years afterwards, Henry appointed him his lieutenant at sea, with
full powers; yet so as not to supersede the privileges and authority
of the high admiral, the Duke of Exeter.[21] The following year, in
the summer, he was made lieutenant and guardian-general of all
Normandy; and in the December of the same year he was commissioned to
receive the homage and oaths of all in that country who owed suit and
service to the King. He fought side by side with Henry at the field of
Agincourt; and there seems to have grown stronger and riper between
them a spirit of friendship and mutual confidence.[22]
[Footnote 18: Roger Mortimer, fifth Earl of March,
son and heir of Philippa, daughter and heiress of
Lionel Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III,
died in 1398; leaving two sons, Edmund, of whom we
are here speaking, then about six years of age, and
Roger, about a year younger.]
[Footnote 19: In a previous section of these
Memoirs, brief mention has been made of the
abortive attempt to carry off into Wales this young
Earl of March and his brother, and of the generous
conduct of Henry of Monmouth in his endeavour to
restore the Duke of York to the King's favour,
which he had forfeited in consequence of his
alleged participation in that bold design. A
manuscript has since been brought under the
Author's notice, which places in a very strong
light the treasonable and murderous purpose of
those who originated the plot, and would account
for the most watchful and jealous caution on the
part of the reigning family against a repetition of
such attempts. Henry must have been fully aware of
his danger; and the fact of his throwing off all
suspicion towards the young Earl, and receiving him
with confidence and friendship, enhances our
estimate of the generous and noble spirit which
actuated him. The document, in other points
curious, seems to deserve a place here:
"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.]
[Footnote 20: 14 Nov. 1414. MS. Donat. 4600.
Reference is made there to June 9, 1413, not three
months after Henry's accession.]
[Footnote 21: 1417, July 20, at Porchester. 1418, 2
June, at Berneye. December 1418, in the camp before
Rouen. 11 June 1416.--Rymer.]
[Footnote 22: In the summer after the battle of
Agincourt the King "takes into his especial care
William of Agincourt, the prisoner of his very dear
cousin Edmund Earl of March."]
These are a few among the many examples upon record of the (p. 020)
generous and noble spirit of Henry; whilst history may be challenged
to bring forward any instances of cruelty or oppression to neutralize
them. Sir Matthew Hale confessed that he could never discover any act
of public injustice and tyranny during the Lancastrian sway; and the
inquirer into Henry of Monmouth's character may be emboldened to
declare, that he can discover no act of wanton severity, or cruelty,
or unkindness in his life. The case of the prisoners in the day and on
the field of Agincourt, the fate of Lord Cobham, and the wars in
France, require each a separate examination; and in our inquiry we
must not forget the kind, and gentle, and compassionate spirit which
appears to breathe so naturally and uniformly from his heart: on the
other hand, we must not suffer ourselves to be betrayed into such a
full reliance on his character for mercy, as would lead us to give a
blind implicit sanction to all his deeds of arms. In our estimate of
his character, moreover, as indicated by his conduct previously to his
first invasion of France, and during his struggles and conquests
there, it is quite as necessary for us to bear in mind the tone, and
temper, and standard of political and moral government which prevailed
in his age, as it is essential for us, when we would estimate his
religious character, to recollect what were in that age (p. 021)
throughout Christendom the acknowledged principles of the church in
communion with the see of Rome.
On Monday, April 30, 1414, Henry met his parliament at Leicester.[23]
Why it was not held at Westminster, we have no positive reasons
assigned in history;[24] and the suggestion of some, that the
enactments there made against the Lollards were too hateful to be
passed at the metropolis, is scarcely reasonable.[25] The Bishop of
Winchester, as Chancellor, set forth in very strong language the
treasonable practices lately discovered and discomfited; and the
parliament enacted a very severe law against all disturbers of the
peace of the realm and of the unity of the church. It is generally
said that the reading of the Bible in English was forbidden in this
session under very severe penalties; but no such enactment (p. 022)
seems to have been recorded. The prelates, however, were the judges of
what heresy was; and to study the Holy Scriptures in the vernacular
language might well have seemed to them a very dangerous practice; to
be checked, therefore, with a strong hand. The judges, and other state
officers, were directed to take an oath to exert themselves for the
suppression of Lollardism.
[Footnote 23: This parliament was summoned to be at
Leicester on the 29th of February, but was
prorogued to the 30th of April. At this period
parliaments were by no means uniformly held at
Westminster.]
[Footnote 24: In this parliament we find a petition
loudly complaining of the outrages of the Welsh.]
[Footnote 25: About this time there seems to have
been entertained by the legislature a most
determined resolution to limit the salaries of
chaplains in private families. Many sumptuary laws
were made on this subject. Provisions were made
repeatedly in this and other parliaments against
excessive payments to them. The origin of this
feeling does not appear to have transpired.
Probably it was nothing more than a jealousy
excited by the increasing wealth of the
church.--Parl. Rolls, 2 Henry V.]
Again and again are we reminded, through the few years of Henry's
reign, that the cause of liberty was progressive; and any
encroachments of the royal prerogative upon the liberties of the
Commons were restrained and corrected, with the free consent and full
approbation of the King. A petition in English, presented to him in
this parliament, in many respects a curious document, with the King's
answer, bears testimony to the same point. "Our sovereign lord,--your
humble and true lieges that been come for the commons of your land,
beseech unto your right righteousness, that so as it hath ever been
their liberty and freedom that there should be no statute nor law made
otherwise than they gave their assent thereto, considering that the
commons of your land (the which is and ever hath been a member of your
parliament) been as well assenters as petitioners, that from this time
forward, by complaint of the commons of any mischief asking remedy by
mouth of their Speaker, or else by petition written, that there never
be no law made thereupon, and engrossed as statute and law, (p. 023)
neither by addition, neither by diminution, by no manner of term or
terms, the which should change the sentence and the intent asked by
the Speaker's mouth, or the petitions before said, given up in writing
without assent of the aforesaid commons." To this petition the
following answer was made: "The King, of his grace especial, granteth,
that from henceforth nothing be enacted to the petitions of his
commons that be contrary to their asking, whereby they should be bound
without their assent; saving alway to our liege lord his real
prerogative to grant or deny what him lust of their petitions and
askings aforesaid."
This parliament was adjourned from Leicester, and re-assembled at
Westminster on the Octaves of St. Martin, 18th November 1414. The most
gratifying record of this great council of the realm is that which
informs us of the restoration of Henry Percy to his estates and
honours. The most important subject to which the thoughts of the peers
and commons were drawn was the King's determination to recover his
rights in the realm of France.
The motives which influenced Henry to undertake this extraordinary
step can be known only to the Searcher of hearts. Some writers, in
their excessive zeal for Protestantism, anxiously bent on stamping
upon Henry the character of an ambitious tyrant and a religious
persecutor, employ no measured language in their condemnation (p. 024)
of his designs against France. Milner thus gives his summary of the
proceedings of this reign at home and abroad. "Henry Chicheley, now
Archbishop of Canterbury, continued at the head of that see from
February 1414, to April 1443. This man deserves to be called the
firebrand of the age in which he lived. To subserve the purposes of
his own pride and tyranny, he engaged King Henry in his famous contest
with France, by which a prodigious carnage was made of the human race,
and the most dreadful miseries were brought upon both kingdoms. But
Henry was a soldier, and understood the art of war, though perfectly
ignorant of religion; and that ardour of spirit, which in youth[26]
had spent itself in vicious indulgences, was now employed under the
management of Chicheley in desolating France by one of the most unjust
wars ever waged by ambition, and in furnishing for vulgar minds matter
of declamation on the valour of the English nation. While this scene
was carrying on in France, the Archbishop at home, partly by exile,
partly by forced abjurations, and partly by the flames, domineered
over the Lollards, and almost effaced the vestiges of godliness in the
kingdom."
[Footnote 26: When his determination to recover his
rights was announced in parliament, he was
twenty-seven years of age.]
These are very hard words, much more readily written than justified.
Such sentences of condemnation require a much clearer insight (p. 025)
into the workings of the human heart than falls to the lot of any
human being to possess, when he would examine into the motives of a
fellow-mortal. It is very easy by one sweeping clause to denounce the
war as unjust, and to ascribe it to the ambition of Henry, reckless of
human suffering. But truth requires us to weigh the whole matter far
more patiently, and to substitute evidence in the place of
assumptions, and argument instead of declamation. And it is impossible
for the biographer of Henry V. to carry his reader with him through
the scenes of his preparation for the struggle with France, and his
conduct in the several campaigns which chiefly engaged from this time
till his death all the energies of his mind and body, without
recalling somewhat in detail the circumstances of Henry's position at
this time. This, however, will require also a brief review of the
state of France through some previous years of her internal discords
and misery. Reserving them for another chapter, there are some
circumstances of a more private and domestic character which it might
be well for us first to mention in this place.
That Henry was habitually under the influence of strong religious
feelings, though his views of Christian doctrine partook much of the
general superstition of the age, is evident; and one of the first acts
of his government was to satisfy his own conscience, and to give full
testimony to the church of his piety, and zeal, and devotedness, (p. 026)
by founding three religious houses. When, exactly a century later,
Richard Fox, Bishop of Winchester, communicated to his friend, Hugh
Oldham, Bishop of Exeter, his intention of founding a monastery, his
friend, instead of giving him encouragement to proceed with his plan,
remonstrated with him on the folly of building houses, and providing a
maintenance for monks, who would live in idleness, unprofitable to
themselves and to society;[27] urging him at the same time rather to
found a college for the encouragement of sound learning: and the
College of Corpus Christi in Oxford owes its existence, humanly
speaking, to that sound admonition. Perhaps, had Henry V. been
fortunate enough to meet with so able and honest an adviser, Oxford
might have had within its walls now another nursery of religion and
learning,--a monument of his piety and of his love for whatever was
commendable and of good report. Our Oxford chronicles record his
expressed intention both to reform the statutes of the University,
and also to found an establishment within the castle walls, (p. 027)
annexing to it all the alien priories in England for its endowment, in
which efficient provision should be made for the instruction of youth
in all the best literature of the age.[28] Had he first resolved to
found his college, and reserved his religious houses for later years,
his work might still have been flourishing at this day, and might have
yet continued to flourish till the hand of spoliation and refined
barbarism shall be strong and bold enough (should ever such a calamity
visit our native land) to wrest these seminaries of Christian
principles and sound learning from the friends of religion, and order,
and peace. As it is, Henry's establishments survived him little more
than a century; and the lands which he had destined to support them
passed away into other hands, and were alienated from religious
purposes altogether.
[Footnote 27: The answer which Bishop Oldham is
said to have made on this occasion is chiefly
remarkable for the intimation it conveys, that the
downfall of the monasteries was anticipated a
quarter of a century before their actual
dissolution. "What, my lord, shall we build houses
and provide livelihoods for a company of bussing
monks, whose end and fall we may ourselves live to
see? No, no; it is more meet that we should provide
for the increase of learning, and for such as by
their learning shall do good to the church and
commonwealth."--Anthony Wood.]
[Footnote 28: Henry had much at heart the
maintenance of the truth of the Christian religion,
such as he received it. Of this he is thought to
have given early proof, by confirming a grant of
fifty marks yearly, during pleasure, to the prior
and convent of the order of Preachers in the
University of Oxford, to support the doctrine of
the Catholic faith. It will be said that this was
merely to repress the Lollards. Be it so, though
the original document is silent on that point. It
proves, at least, that he wished to maintain his
religion by argument rather than by violence. The
circumstance, however, of its being merely a
confirmation of a grant, which even his father
found in existence when he became King, takes away
much from the importance of the fact.--Pell Rolls,
1 Henry IV.]
The sites which Henry selected for his establishments were, (p. 028)
one at Shene, in Surrey; the other at Sion, in the manor of Isleworth,
on the Thames.
The terms of the foundation-charters of these religious houses, their
rules, and circumstances, and possessions, it does not fall within the
plan of this work to specify in detail. The brothers and sisters
admitted into these asylums appear to have been bound by very strict
rules of self-denial and poverty.
The monastery at Shene, built on the site of Richard II.'s palace,
which he never would enter after the loss of his wife Anne, who died
there, and which on that account he utterly destroyed, was called "The
House of Jesus of Bethlehem," and was dedicated "to the honour, and
glory, and exaltation of the name of Jesus most dear;" Henry
expressing in the foundation-charter, among sentiments less worthy of
an enlightened Christian, and savouring of the superstition of those
days, that he founded the institution in pious gratitude for the
blessings of time and of eternity, which flow only from HIM.
The house of Sion in Isleworth, or Mount Sion, as it is called in the
Pope's bull of confirmation, was dedicated "to the honour, praise, and
glory of the Trinity most High, of the Virgin Mary, of the Disciples
and Apostles of God, of all Saints, and especially of the most holy
Bridget." This house was suppressed by Henry VIII; when the nuns fled
from their native country, and took refuge, first in Zealand, then at
Mechlin, whence they removed to Rouen; at last, fifteen reached (p. 029)
Lisbon in 1594. The history of this little company of sisters is very
remarkable and interesting. In Lisbon they were well received, and
were afterwards supported by royal bounty, as well as by the
benevolence of individuals. They seem to have settled there peaceably,
and to have lived in their own house, and to have had their own
church, for more than fifty years. In 1651 their house and church were
both burnt to the ground; but, through the beneficence of the pious,
they had the happiness of seeing them restored. In 1755 this little
community suffered in common with the other unfortunate inhabitants of
Lisbon, and seem to have lost their all in the earthquake. In their
distress they cast their eyes to the land of their fathers, and
applied for the charity of their countrymen. There is something very
affecting in the language of the petition by which our countrywomen in
their calamity sought to excite the sympathy, and obtain the
benevolent aid, of their fellow-Christians at home.
We, the underwritten, and company, having on the 1st of November
last suffered such irreparable losses and damage by the dreadful
earthquake and fire which destroyed this city and other parts of
the kingdom, that we have neither house nor sanctuary left us
wherein to retire; nor even the necessaries of life, it being out
of the power of our friends and benefactors here to relieve us,
they all having undergone the same misfortune and disaster. So
that we see no other means of establishing ourselves than by
applying to the nobility, ladies, and gentlemen of our (p. 030)
dear country, humbly imploring your tender compassion and pious
charity; that, so being assisted and succoured from your
bountiful hands, we may for the present subsist under our
deplorable misfortune, and in time retrieve so much of our losses
as to be able to continue always to pray for the prosperity and
conservation of our benefactors.
Augustus Sulyard, Eliz. Hodgeskin,
Peter Willcock. Frances Huddleston,
Cath. Baldwin,
_Sion House, Lisbon_, Winifred Hill.
_May 25, 1756_.
Through another fifty years, the little band, still keeping up the
succession by novices from England, remained in the land of their
refuge; till, in 1810, nine of them, the majority, it is said, of the
survivors, fled from the horrors of war to their native island; and
their convent, whose founder was Henry, the greatest general of his
age, became the barracks of English soldiers under Wellington, the
greatest general of the present day. On their first return they lived
in a small house in Walworth; and in 1825, the remainder, now advanced
in years and reduced to two or three in number, were still living in
the vicinity of the Potteries in Staffordshire,--the last remnant of
an English convent dissolved in the time of Henry VIII. There are at
this time mulberry-trees growing at Sion House, one of the Duke of
Northumberland's[29] mansions, which are believed, not only (p. 031)
to have been living, but to have borne fruit, in the time of the
monastery.[30]
[Footnote 29: The present Duke and Duchess kindly
searched out and visited the remaining sisters in
Staffordshire.]
[Footnote 30: Dugdale; ed. 1830.]
Henry seems to have had much at heart the intellectual, moral, and
religious improvement of those who might be admitted to a share of his
bounty in these establishments. The Pell Rolls record a payment "of
100_l._ part only of a larger sum, to the prior and convent of Mount
Grace, for books and other things to be supplied by them to his new
foundation at Sion."[31] Whether the prior and brethren of Mount Grace
had duplicates, or were mere agents, or parted with their own stock to
meet the wishes of their King, the record does not tell.
[Footnote 31: April 11, 1415.]
CHAPTER XVIII. (p. 032)
STATE OF THE CHURCH. -- HENRY A SINCERE CHRISTIAN, BUT NO BIGOT. --
DEGRADED STATE OF RELIGION. -- COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. -- HENRY'S
REPRESENTATIVES ZEALOUS PROMOTERS OF REFORM. -- HALLAM, BISHOP OF
SALISBURY, AVOWED ENEMY OF THE POPEDOM. -- RICHARD ULLESTON: PRIMITIVE
VIEWS OF CLERICAL DUTIES. -- WALDEN, HIS OWN CHAPLAIN, ACCUSES HENRY
OF REMISSNESS IN THE EXTIRPATION OF HERESY. -- FORESTER'S LETTER TO
THE KING. -- HENRY BEAUFORT'S UNHAPPY INTERFERENCE. -- PETITION FROM
OXFORD. -- HENRY'S PERSONAL EXERTIONS IN THE BUSINESS OF REFORM. --
REFLECTIONS ON THE THEN APPARENT DAWN OF THE REFORMATION.
1414-1417.
Some writers, (taking a very narrow and prejudiced view of the affairs
of the age to which our thoughts are directed in these Memoirs, and of
the agents employed in those transactions,) when they tell us, that
Henry was so devotedly attached to the church, and so zealous a friend
of her ministers, that he was called the Prince of Priests, would have
us believe that he "entirely resigned his understanding to the
guidance of the clergy." But his principles and his conduct (p. 033)
in ecclesiastical matters have been misunderstood, and very unfairly
exaggerated and distorted. That Henry was a sincere believer in the
religion of the Cross is unquestionable; and that, in common with the
large body of believers through Christendom, he had been bred up in
the baneful error of identifying the Catholic church of Christ with
the see of Rome, is in some points of view equally evident: but that
he was a supporter of the Pope against the rights of the church in
England and other his dominions, or was an upholder of the abuses
which had then overspread the whole garden of Christ's heritage, so
far from being established by evidence, is inconsistent with the
testimony of facts. The usurpations of the Romish see called for
resistance,[32] and Henry to a certain extent resisted them. The
abuses in the church needed reformation, and Henry showed that he
possessed the spirit of a real reformer, bent on the correction of
what was wrong, but uncompromising in his maintenance of the religion
which he embraced in his heart. He gave proof of a spirit more
Catholic than Roman, more Apostolic than Papal.
[Footnote 32: In the early part of his father's
reign, an ordinance was made, charging the King's
officers not to suffer aliens to bring bulls or
other letters into the kingdom, which might injure
the King or his realm.--Cleop. F. III. f. 114.]
In his very first parliament strong enactments were passed forbidding
ecclesiastics to receive bishoprics and benefices from Rome, on pain
of forfeiture and exile. And on complaints being made against (p. 034)
the ordinaries, Henry's answer is very characteristic of his
principles of church reform: "I will direct the bishops to remedy
these evils themselves; and, if they fail, then I will myself take the
matter into my own hands."
He had been little more than half a year on the throne,[33] when he
sent a peremptory mandate to the bishops of Aquitain, that they should
on no account obey any provision from the court of Rome, by which
preferment would be given to an enemy of England. And in the following
month, Dec. 11, 1413, Henry issued a prohibition, forbidding John
Bremore, clerk, whom the Pope had recommended to him when Prince of
Wales, to return to the court of Rome for the purpose of carrying on
mischievous designs against the King and his people, under a penalty
of 100_l._ And among his own bishops, countenanced and confidentially
employed by himself, were found men who protested honestly and
decidedly against the tyranny and corruption of Rome, and were as
zealously bent on restoring the church to the purity of its better
days, as were those martyrs to the truth who in the middle of the next
century sealed their testimony by their blood. To what extent Henry V.
must be regarded as having given a fair promise that, had he lived, he
would have devoted the energies of his mind to work out such an
effective reformation as would have satisfied the majority of the
people in England, and left little in that way for his successors (p. 035)
to do, every one must determine for himself. In forming our judgment,
however, we must take into account, not only what he actually did, but
also whatever the tone, and temper, and turn of his mind (from such
intimations as we may be enabled to glean scattered up and down
through his life) might seem to have justified persons in
anticipating. It would be vain to build any theory on what might have
happened had the course of Providence in Henry's destinies been
different: and yet we may without presumption express a belief that,
had his life been spared, and had he found himself seated in peace and
security on the united throne of England and France, instead of
exhausting his resources, his powers of body and mind, and his time,
in a fruitless crusade to the Holy Land, (by which he certainly once
purposed to vindicate the honour of his Redeemer's name,) he might
have concentrated all his vast energies on the internal reformation of
the church itself. Instead of leaving her then large possessions for
the hand of the future spoiler, he might have effectually provided for
their full employment in the religious education of the whole people,
and in the maintenance of a well-educated, pious, and zealous body of
clergy, restored to their pastoral duties and devoted to the ministry.
That the church needed a vigorous and thorough, but honest and
friendly reform,--not the confiscation of her property to personal
aggrandizement and secular purposes, but the re-adjustment of what
had degenerated from its original intention,--is proved by (p. 036)
evidence most painfully conclusive. Indeed, the enormities which had
grown up, and which were defended and cherished by the agents of Rome,
far exceed both in number and magnitude the present general opinion
with regard to those times. The Conventual system[34] had well nigh
destroyed the efficiency of parochial ministrations: what was intended
for the support of the pastor, was withdrawn to uphold the dignity and
luxury of the monastery; parsonage houses were left to fall to decay,
and hirelings of a very inferior class were employed on a miserable
pittance to discharge their perfunctory duties as they might.
"Provisions" from Rome had exempted so large a proportion of the
spirituality from episcopal jurisdiction, that, even had all the
bishops been appointed on the principle of professional excellence,
their power of restoring discipline would have been lamentably
deficient. But in their appointment was evinced the most reckless
prostitution of their sacred order. Not only was the selection of
bishops made without reference to personal merit and individual
fitness, whilst regard was had chiefly to high connexions and the
interests of the Papacy; but even children were made bishops, (p. 037)
and the richest dignities of the church were heaped upon them:
foreigners unacquainted with the language of the people were thrust
into offices, for the due discharge of the duties of which a knowledge
of the vernacular language was absolutely necessary. The courts
ecclesiastical ground down the clergy by shameless extortions; whilst
appeals to Rome put a complete bar against any suit for justice. Their
luxury and excesses, their pride and overbearing presumption, their
devotedness to secular pursuits, the rapacious aggrandizement of
themselves and their connexions, and the total abandonment of their
spiritual duties in the cure of souls, coupled with an ignorance
almost incredible, had brought the large body of the clergy into great
disrepute, and had filled sincere Christians (whether lay or clerical,
for there were many exceptions among the clergy themselves) with an
ardent longing for a thorough and efficient reformation. It is true
that their indignation was chiefly roused by the prostitution of the
property of the church, and its alienation from the holy purposes for
which the church was endowed; and that gross neglect of discipline
rather than errors in doctrine called into life the spirit of
reformation: but even in points of faith we perceive in many clear
signs of a genuine love of Evangelical and Catholic truth; among whom
we are not without evidence sufficient to justify us in numbering the
subject of these Memoirs. Henry of Monmouth, whilst he adhered (p. 038)
constantly to the faith of his fathers, yet manifested a sincere
desire to become more perfectly acquainted with the truth of the
Gospel; and spared no pains, even during his career of war and
victory, in providing himself with the assistance of those teachers
who had the reputation of preaching the Gospel most sincerely and
efficiently. Henry's, indeed, was not the religion which would
substitute in the scale of Christian duties punctuality of attendance
on frequent preaching for the higher and nobler exercises of
adoration. Many an unobtrusive incident intimates that his soul took
chief delight in communing with God by acts of confession, and prayer,
and praise. He seems to have imbibed the same spirit which in a
brother-monarch once gave utterance to expressions no less valuable in
the matter of sound theology, than exquisitely beautiful in their
conception:[35] "I had rather pass an hour in conversation with my
friend than hear twenty discourses in his praise." And yet Henry
delighted also in hearing Heaven's message of reconciliation
faithfully expounded, and enforced home.
[Footnote 33: November 7, 1413.]
[Footnote 34: By a statute (4 Hen. IV. 1402), after
the Legislature had complained that the Convents
put monks, and canons, and secular chaplains into
the parochial ministry, by no means fit for the
cure of souls, it is enacted, that a vicar
adequately endowed should be everywhere instituted;
and, in default of such reformation, that the
licence of appropriation should be forfeited.]
[Footnote 35: Henry III. is said to have assigned
to Louis IX. this reason for his preference of
devotional exercises to sermons.]
Whilst, for example, he was pursuing his conquests in Normandy, the
report no sooner reached him of a preacher named Vincentius, (who was
labouring zealously in the cause of Christ in various parts of
Brittany, and who was said by his earnest and affectionate (p. 039)
preaching to have converted many to the Lord their God,) than Henry
sent for him, and took great delight in hearing his faithful
expositions of the word of truth and life. And we have good reason for
believing that the consolations of the pure doctrines of the Gospel,
as a guardian angel ministering the cup of Heaven, attended him
through life and in death.
There is no intimation dropped by historians, nor is it intended in
these Memoirs to intimate, that Henry's eyes were opened to the
doctrinal errors of the church of Rome. But there are circumstances
well worthy of consideration before we pronounce definitively on that
point. When we bear in mind that, in those days, prayers and vows were
habitually made to the Virgin for success, and, after any prosperous
issue of the supplicants' exertions in war or peace, offerings of
thanksgiving were addressed to her as the giver of victory and of
every blessing; and whilst, at the same time, we find in Henry of
Monmouth's letters and words no acknowledgment of any help but God's
only; the question may be fairly entertained, whether he had not
imbibed some portion of the pure light of Gospel truth on this very
important article of Christian faith. The Author is well aware of the
words at the close of his Will, referred to hereafter; and is very far
from saying that he should be surprised to find other instances of a
similar character. Still Henry's silence as to the power and (p. 040)
assistance of the Virgin, the absence of prayer to her in his
devotions, many of which are especially recorded; the absence of
praise to her after victory and success, though he was very far from
taking praise to himself, always ascribing it to God Almighty only,
may seem to justify the suggestion of an inquiry into this point.
For a knowledge of the degraded state to which the church had sunk,
and her inefficiency as the guardian and dispenser of religious truth,
we are not left to the vague representations of declaimers, or the
heated exaggerations of those by whom everything savouring of Rome is
held in abomination. The preambles of the laws which were intended to
cure the evils, bear the most direct and full evidence of their
existence and extent. One parliamentary document, after prefacing that
"Benefices were founded for the honour of God, the good of the
founders, the government and relief of the parishioners, and the
advancement of the clergy," then states "that the spiritual patrons,
the regular clergy throughout the whole realm, mischievously
appropriate to themselves the said benefices, and lamentably cast to
the ground the houses and buildings, and cruelly take away and destroy
divine service, hospitality, and other works of charity, which used to
be performed in the said benefices to the poor and distressed; that
they exclude and ever debar the clergymen from promotion, and
privately convey the treasure of the realm in great sums to the court
of Rome,--to the confusion of their own souls, the grievous (p. 041)
desolation of the parishioners[36] and the whole country, the ultimate
ruin of the clergy, the great impoverishment of the realm, and the
irrecoverable ruin of the holy church of England."[37]
[Footnote 36: It is curious at the same time to
observe what extraordinary notions the Commons, who
presented this petition, had formed of freedom; how
jealous they were of the lower orders, and how
determined to exclude them from sharing with
themselves the good things of the church's
temporalities. The Commons pray that (no nief or
vileyn) no bondswoman or bondsman, be allowed to
send a son to school with a view of being advanced
in the church; and that for the maintenance and
safety of the honour of all the free men of the
land.]
[Foonote 37: 15 Richard II. (1391.)]
A case argued before the judges in the time of Henry IV, very
interesting in itself, and closely connected in many points with the
subject of this chapter, is recorded in the Year Books. The argument
arose on a writ of Quare impedit, directed against Halomm (Hallam)
Bishop of Salisbury and Chichel (Chicheley) Bishop of St. David's,
afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury. The question at issue regarded
the voidance of a prebend in the church of Salisbury, caused by
Chicheley being created Bishop of St. David's, who held that prebend,
to which he had been presented by Richard Medford, a former Bishop of
Sarum. Against the King's claim of right of presentation to the void
prebend, the defendants answered that the Pope had granted to
Chicheley licence to enjoy all the preferments which he held before,
together with his bishopric. For the King's right it was pleaded, (p. 042)
that the creation of Chicheley took place whilst the temporalities of
Sarum were in the hands of the King, on the translation of Hallam from
York to Sarum;[38] but the question at length turned virtually upon
the power of the see of Rome to dispense with the laws of England.
[Footnote 38: Some persons would probably be
surprised, among the facts recorded in this cause,
(all which however are confirmed by the
ecclesiastical registers,) to find that by a sort
of retrograde promotion, according to our usual
ideas of episcopal preferment, a Bishop of London,
Nicoll Bubwith, was translated from London to
Salisbury, and from Salisbury to Bath and Wells.
The pleading also reminds us of a curious fact with
regard to Bishop Hallam's promotion, not generally
known. The record merely states that "the Bishop of
Sarum, that now is, was translated from York to the
church of Sarum." This latter translation, however,
(if such it can be properly called,) admits of a
more easy solution than the preceding. The fact is,
that Hallam was actually appointed by the Pope to
the archbishopric of York; to which appointment the
King objected. The nomination of the Pope was not
persisted in, and Hallam was consecrated Bishop of
Salisbury.]
In the first sitting (Mich. 11 Henry IV.--_i.e._ 1409), Horton for the
defendants alleged, "We continued in possession of the prebend after
Richard Hallam had received the temporalities from the hands of the
King. Subsequently to which, and before we were created Bishop of St.
David's, our Saint Peter the Apostle, reciting by his bulls that we
were elected Bishop of St. David's, granted us licence to enjoy all
our other benefices." On which, Thirning, Justice, observed, "The
grant of the Apostle in this case cannot change the law of the land."
To which Hankford (who proved himself throughout the most zealous
supporter of the omnipotence of the Popedom) merely replied, "The Pope
can do all things;" his use of the Latin words evidently showing that
he was quoting a dictum,--"Papa omnia potest." After some discussion,
and a reference to former precedents chiefly alleged by Hankford,
Thirning rejoins very significantly, "That was in ancient times, and I
will not raise the question as to the power of the Apostle; (p. 043)
but I cannot see how he by his bulls can change the law of
England."[39] In the third deliberation, Culpeper says, "The intention
of the statute is now to be considered; and I conceive that it was
made to protect the King and other patrons in their rights, and to
restrain the encroachment of the Apostle which he makes against the
law." On the third discussion, Till argued, "Since by the law of the
land the creation of a bishop causes a voidance in fact of a benefice
before held, and by such voidance the title of presentation or
collation accrues to the patron, I say that the Apostle can by no
grant beforehand oust the patron of his right, and restrain the title
which ought to accrue to him upon such creation: for if so, he ought
to restrain and change the course of inheritance by the law of the
land; and that he cannot do, no more than if the King wished to (p. 044)
give or grant to a man that he should hold his lands after he has
entered upon a monastic life, and professed; for such grant would be
contrary to the common law of the land, and therefore would be
altogether void. So also in this case." To this argument Horton
replied, among other points, "I take it that the Apostle may grant to
a man to hold three bishoprics at a time;" in which Hankford agreed,
"provided it were with the consent of the patrons." On which Skeene
observed, "If the Pope made such a grant, the King might retain the
temporalities in his own hands, if he wished it." To this observation,
Hankford, among many other things, said, "The Apostle can in many
cases change the course of the law of the land, and prevent the
occurrence of that which ought to follow." The same judge, pressing
again the argument on which he had before relied, asks, "What say ye?
suppose the Apostle, before a man becomes a professed monk, grants him
a dispensation to hold his benefices after his profession?"--"I say,"
replied Hill, "that in such a case he cannot deprive me of my right of
patronage."
[Footnote 39: "Jeo ne ferra disputation del poiar
l'appost', mes jeo ne scay veier coment il par ses
bull' changer, le ley d'Engleterre."]
The question at issue was found to be so difficult of solution, and
the judges viewed the law of the case in such opposite lights, that it
was argued and debated between them by adjournment in four several
terms; at length the advocates of the Pope's omnipotence gave (p. 045)
way, and judgment was given for the Crown.[40]
[Footnote 40: See Year Book, "Anno xi. Hen.
IIII."--Term. Mich. fol. 37; Hilar. fol. 38; Pasc.
fol. 59; Trin. fol. 76.]
Among many memorable facts recorded by the Year Book during the
progress of this cause, most persons probably will regard with
interest the resistance made by the Crown, at this period, against the
encroachments of the Pope,--the boundless power, ecclesiastical and
political, assumed and exercised by the pontiff, and conceded to him
in England,--and, at the same time, the spirit which shows itself on
the part of some of our judges to vindicate the supremacy of the law
of England over the alleged omnipotence of the court of Rome. The
great difference of opinion also as to the power of the Pope,
expressed by the members of the judicial bench, cannot fail to
interest every Englishman, whether lawyer or not; whilst the terms in
which some of the judges speak of the encroachments of the Apostolic
see, against which the legislature of England had deemed it necessary
to enact some stringent laws, are not a little remarkable. But to
Protestants of the present day, perhaps the most surprising feature of
all may appear to be the title ascribed to the Pope by the judges,
whilst publicly and solemnly dispensing the laws of the country. They
do not speak of him as the Pope, except once in the citation of a
Latin dictum; nor do they refer to him as a sovereign pontiff
exercising the delegated authority of the chief Apostle, and (p. 046)
representing him in the church militant on earth: they do not give him
the title of "successor to St. Peter," or "our father filling the
Apostolic chair:"--they speak of him throughout in direct terms as
"the Apostle;" and in some passages they even call him "Saint Peter,"
and "our Saint Peter" the Apostle.[41] It is however very curious, in
tracing the argument in this cause, to lay the strong terms employed
by the advocates of the Pope's paramount authority side by side with
the striking expressions used by others of those high functionaries on
the supremacy of the English law, and the inability of the Apostolic
see in the plenitude of its power to change or dispense with the
common or statute law of the realm.
[Footnote 41: "L'appost'." "Nostre Saint Pier
l'appost'." "Bulls fait par Saint Pier."]
Abuses such as we have referred to in the previous sections of this
chapter prevailed everywhere, and called loudly for vigorous measures
to rectify them. At the same period the church through Christendom was
distracted and torn by contending factions, each supporting a pontiff
of its own.
To put an end to these disgraceful and unhappy feuds, as destructive
of the peace of Europe as they were hurtful to the cause of true
religion, and to effect a full reformation in the church, the Council
of Constance was professedly convened. That synod was summoned
nominally by Pope John XXIII, but in reality by the united voice (p. 047)
of the sovereigns of Europe, especially at the instance of the Emperor
Sigismund himself. It falls not within the province of these Memoirs
to record the proceedings of that council, either in extinguishing the
flame of discord within the pale of the church, or in kindling the
sadder flame of persecution[42] against all who dared to think for
themselves in a matter peculiarly their own, or in its lamentable
forgetfulness of the abuses for the correction of which it was mainly
convened. The records of the Council of Constance, however, abound in
matters of interest in connection with the immediate and professed
object of this work. We infer from them that Henry V. was then taking
a lead in religious matters, and, whilst he was anxious to resist the
overbearing tyranny of Rome, he was at the same time bent on making
the religious establishment within his own kingdom an efficient means
of conveying to all his subjects the blessings of the Gospel; he was
an honest reformer of abuses, but, at the same time, the conscientious
and uncompromising supporter of the religion of his fathers.
[Footnote 42: It is very painful to reflect on the
intolerant spirit of this very Sigismund, who was
so anxious to reform the abuses of the church; but
it is forced upon us whilst we are inquiring into
the times of Henry. Sigismund had paid (as we shall
see) a visit to Henry, and he meditated another.
But he never put that design into execution. A
letter from Heretong Van Clux, Henry's minister,
informed his master that he must not expect to see
the Emperor, for he had employment at home in
putting down the followers of Huss. "Now I know
well he might not come, for this cause, that many
of the great lords of Bohemia have required him for
to let them hold the same belief that they are in.
And thereupon he sent them word, that rather he
would be dead than he would sustain them in their
malice. And they have answered him again, that they
will rather die than go from their belief. There is
a great power of them, lords, knights, and
esquires; but the greatest power is of the
commoners. Therefore the Emperor gathers all the
power that he may, to go into Bohemia upon
them."--See Ellis's Original Letters.]
* * * * *
It was on the 20th of October 1414, that Robert Hallam, Bishop of
Salisbury, the Bishops of Bath and Hereford, the Abbot of (p. 048)
Westminster, the Prior of Worcester, Lord Warwick, and others, were
commissioned by Henry to proceed to Constance, and as his
representatives[43] to treat about the reformation of the universal
church; or, as the Pell Rolls speak, "for the salvation of Christian
souls." Another body of commissioners was subsequently sent, when not
less than four hundred Englishmen went in company of the embassy,
among whom were reckoned two archbishops, seven bishops, and many
other lords and gentlemen. Of those who were first commissioned by
Henry, Robert Hallam (or Allam) was most strenuous in urging (p. 049)
the work of reformation before and above all other matters with which
they had to do. The Cardinals were equally urgent to have the election
of Pope first settled, and then to proceed afterwards to the question
of reformation. The Bishop of Salisbury, acting, doubtless, with the
full approbation, it may be at the immediate suggestion of Henry, was
instant, in season and out of season, in forcing the work of
reformation on the Council. He was called the Emperor's right hand, so
entirely did he and Sigismund co-operate for this purpose. Indeed, the
English generally appear at first to have been among the principal
promoters of reform, and, as long as Hallam lived, to have pursued it
zealously; but on his death[44] they were much less noted for the same
zeal. Previously, however, to that event, a great schism arose (p. 050)
among the English at Constance, and the authority of the bishops
was much disregarded. To remedy these disorders, Henry wrote a
peremptory letter (18 July 1417), commanding all his people to be
obedient to the bishops, and to abstain from all factious conduct;
enjoining them, on pain of forfeiting their goods, either to behave in
a manner becoming his subjects, or to return home; directing also,
that, in all differences of opinion, the minority should conform to
the decision of the majority.
[Footnote 43: This council seems to have entailed,
first and last, on England, a very considerable
expense. Within a week of the date of the
commission, the Pell Rolls record the payment of
333_l._ 6_s._ 8_d._ (a large sum in those days) "to
Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, sent as the
King's ambassador to the General Council held at
Constance before our lord the Pope, the Emperor,
and others, there assembled for the salvation of
Christian souls." Payments also to others are
recorded.]
[Footnote 44: Bishop Hallam died at Constance,
Sept. 5, 1417. On which day the Cardinal des Ursins
addressed a letter to Henry, praying him to appoint
as Hallam's successor at Salisbury, John Ketterich,
Bishop of Lichfield, to whose ability and zeal and
worth the Cardinal bears strong testimony. This
same Cardinal had a personal interview with Henry
in 1418, just before the taking of Rouen.
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.]
Bishop Hallam entertained a most rooted antipathy to the Pope and the
Popedom; and he once gave expression to his sentiments so freely and
unreservedly to the Pope himself, that his Holiness complained
grievously of him to the Emperor: but Sigismund was himself too
heartily bent on reforming the abuses of the Popedom to chide the zeal
and freedom of the English prelate. On one occasion the Bishop
maintained that a General Council was superior to the Pope (a doctrine
subsequently recognised, but then, as it should seem, new and bold);
on another he is reported to have gone so far as to affirm (p. 051)
that the Pope, for his enormities, deserved to be burnt alive. Bishop
Hallam[45] was by no means singular either in the sentiments which he
entertained with regard to the corruptions of the Romish Church "_in
its head and its members_," and the imperative necessity of an
universal reform, or in the unreserved boldness and plainness with
which he published those sentiments. The whole of Christendom rang
with loud and bitter complaints against the avarice, the sensuality,
the overreaching and overbearing tyranny, the total degeneracy and
worthlessness of the Popes, the Cardinals, and the religious orders;
but in no place were the protests against such deplorable (p. 052)
corruptions more unsparingly uttered than at the Council of Constance
itself: and among those who willingly offered themselves to testify,
in their Saviour's name, against such a prostitution of his blessed
Gospel to the purposes of worldly ambition, such gross depravity and
total neglect of duty, the names of many of our own countrymen are
recorded. These pillars of the church, these lights in the midst of
darkness, seem indeed to have entertained sentiments, as to the duties
and responsibilities of the Christian priesthood, worthy of the purest
age. Some of their recorded doctrines are truly edifying, and find a
response in some of the best episcopal charges and admonitions of the
Protestant church at the present day.
[Footnote 45: Anthony à Wood, referring to the
alleged resolution of the University of Oxford in
favour of Wickliff and his doctrines, refers to
this Bishop Hallam, though with some mistake. "The
prime broacher," he says, "of this testimonial, of
which we have nothing in our registers, records, or
books of epistles, was John Husse in the first tome
of his works, and from him John Fox. Against the
former of whom it was objected in the Council of
Constance, that he had openly divulged the said
commendatory letter in behalf of John Wickliff,
falsely conveyed to Prague, under the title of the
University of Oxford, by two students, one a
Bohemian, the other an Englishman. Whereupon those
of England who were present at the council, of
whom, if I mistake not, Robert Hallam, about these
times Bishop of Oxford [Salisbury], was one,
produce another letter under the seal of the
University, wherein, on the contrary, the members
thereof as much denounce against him as the other
was in behalf of him, and referred the matter to
the council to judge of it as they thought fit; but
how it was decided I find not."]
Among these excellent men, Dr. Richard Ullerston, of Oxford, seems to
have taken a most primitive view of the duties of a Christian bishop.
He wrote a treatise in 1408, by way of memorial for Bishop Hallam, his
friend, who urged him to the work, when that uncompromising reformer
went to the Council of Pisa. At the close of a long and powerful
exhortation to provide for the due execution by the Popes of their own
ministerial duties, and for the restoration of discipline in the
church, he thus expresses himself: "Things being thus restored to
their right order, and all abuses being cut away, the Pope will employ
himself, agreeably to the duties of his charge, in procuring peace for
Christians, not only by praying, but by preaching the Gospel (p. 053)
himself, and sending everywhere good preachers, who by their doctrine
and example might urge on princes and people throughout the world
their several duties, and who might make a holy war upon the passions
of mankind, rooting up those sensual desires which, according to St.
James, are the source of wars and divisions in the church and in the
state." This treatise was published in Germany about the year 1700,
from a manuscript in Trinity College, Cambridge; and may be found at
the end of Van der Hardt's work on the Council of Constance. It
consists chiefly of petitions for the remedy of abuses, and is full
from beginning to end of the true spirit of genuine evangelical
religion. Dr. Ullerston remained in uninterrupted and perfect
communion with the church of Rome; and yet no Protestant, who ever
suffered at the stake for his opposition to her, could have more
faithfully exposed the practical grievances under which Christendom
then mourned in consequence of her dereliction of duty, whilst she
assumed to herself all supreme authority, and paralyzed the efforts of
national churches to remedy the crying evils of the time. The heads of
Ullerston's petitions abound with salutary suggestions; by many of the
items we are apprised of the grievances then chiefly complained of, or
the departments in which those grievances were found.
1. On the election of a Pope.
2. On the suppression of simony.
3. On the exaltation of the law of Christ above all human (p. 054)
authority.
4. Against appropriations, _i.e._ assigning the proceeds of parochial
cures to monasteries.
5. On appointing only fit persons to ecclesiastical stations.
6. Against exemptions of monasteries and individuals from episcopal
jurisdiction.
7. Against dispensations,--those, among others, by which benefices and
bishoprics were given to children.
8. Against pluralities.
9. Against appeals to Rome.
10. Against the abuse of privileges.
11. Against the clergy devoting themselves to secular affairs.
12. Against the prerogatives of chanters[46] and other officers in the
houses of the great.
[Footnote 46: In his arguments on this article Dr.
Ullerston offers some excellent reflections upon
the use and abuse of singing in the church. The
sentiments of Augustin, which he quotes, are truly
judicious and edifying. That eloquent father
lamented that often the beauty of the singing
withdrew his mind from the divine matter and
substance of what was sung; but when he remembered
how, on occasions of peculiar interest to him,
psalmody carried his soul towards heaven in holy
raptures, he could not help voting for its
continuance in the church service. Ullerston quotes
also two lines, not indeed specimens of classical
accuracy, but the spirit of which should never be
absent from the mind of a Christian worshipper,
whether a Protestant or in communion with the see
of Rome:
"Non vox sed votum, non musica chordula sed cor,
Non clamor sed amor, sonat in aure Dei."]
13. Generally against extortions. (p. 055)
14. Against excessive expenses in the persons and the families of the
clergy.
15. For a provision for more efficient divine service in parishes.
16. For the restoration of peace through Christendom.
In his reflections on these points there is so much sound sense and
genuine affection for true religion, such an ardent desire pervades
them of promoting the ends for which alone an establishment can be
justified on warrant of Scripture, or is in itself desirable,--the
salvation of souls through Christ for ever,--that, had it not been out
of place, the Author would have gladly transcribed a great part of Dr.
Ullerston's sentiments into these pages. His suggestions savour
throughout of genuine piety and true practical wisdom.
To Ullerston must be added Walter Dysse, who was commissioned by Pope
Boniface IX. to proceed to Spain, Portugal, and Aquitain, to preach a
crusade against the infidels. He was a most deadly enemy to the
followers of Wicliffe, and a devoted friend to the court of Rome; yet
he could not pass over in silence the cause of the divisions and
corruptions of the church, nor the means of their effectual
reformation.
But, perhaps, among all those whom the history of this Council records
as zealous promoters of a real reformation within the church itself,
our more immediate object in these Memoirs would require us (p. 056)
to make especial mention of Thomas Walden, because he was one of Henry
of Monmouth's own chaplains,[47] and was employed by him not only in
domestic concerns, but in foreign embassies.[48] He was called the
Netter, from the expertness and success with which he caught and
mastered his antagonists in argument. He was present at the Council of
Pisa as well as of Constance. He proved himself throughout a most
bitter persecutor of heretics; and (as Van der Hardt expresses
himself) the less imbued he was with any affection towards the
disciples of Huss, or influenced by it, so much the more sincere a
censor was he of the ecclesiastical corruptions of his time. He was
bent on reforming the abuses of the church with a strong hand, and so
far the wishes of his royal master coincided with his own; but he (p. 057)
could not prevail upon the King to go hand-in-hand with him in
persecuting the heretics. Walden was bold enough, in his mistaken
zeal, to charge Henry with a culpable remissness in what was then too
generally supposed to be the duty of a Christian sovereign.[49]
[Footnote 47: Thomas Gascoyne, a contemporary
writer, born 1403, ordained 1427, who gives us a
deplorable view of the ignorance and immorality of
the clergy of his time, mentions the appointment of
Walden as Henry's chaplain, in confirmation of his
position that he never could find that any King of
England retained any bishop after consecration as
his confessor or resident chaplain till the time of
Henry VI. "When (he says) Henry IV.'s confessor was
made a bishop, he sent him to his cure and his
bishopric; and Henry V, who was a very prudent King
indeed, and terrible to many nations, had with him
one doctor proficient in divinity, Thomas Walden,
as his confessor, who was burdened with no cure of
souls. Thus were Kings and Lords accustomed to
retain as their chaplains persons who were free
from all cure of souls."]
[Footnote 48: Pell Rolls, Mich. 7 Hen. V, he is
paid for his expenses in an embassy to the King of
Poland.]
[Footnote 49: L'Estrange, Counc. Constance, vol.
ii. p. 282; and Van der Hardt, tom. i. p. 501.]
* * * * *
A communication made personally to Henry from Constance, in the
beginning of the year 1417,[50] deserves in this place our especial
attention. The letter, written by John Forester,[51] may perhaps be
considered a fair specimen of correspondence between Englishmen of
education at that period. As a vehicle of information on the real
state of feeling in England with regard to the church of Rome, it is
very interesting. It is, moreover, impossible to read it without
inferring that, in the opinion of the writer at least, and of those in
whose behalf he wrote, Henry's earnest desire was to reform the abuses
of the church, and to render churchmen zealous servants of the Gospel.
[Footnote 50: Not 1418, as it has been supposed,
but 1417. The date is fixed by the specifying of
Wednesday the 27th January, as also by the mention
of the Genoese ships. These ships were hired, and
they fought under the French against the English,
and were beat in July 1417, after a severe
engagement.]
[Footnote 51: Cott. MSS. Cleopatra, t. vii. p.
148.]
JOHN FORESTER'S LETTER FROM CONSTANCE TO HENRY V. (p. 058)
"My sovereign liege Lord, and most redoubted Prince Christian to
me on earth. I recommend me unto your high royal and imperial
Majesty with all manner [of] honours, worships, grace, and
goodnesses. My most glorious Lord, liketh you to wit, that the
Wednesday, the third hour after noon, or near thereto, the seven
and twentieth day of January, your brother['s] gracious person
the King of Rome entered the city of Constance with your livery
of the Collar about his neck,--a glad sight for all your liege
men to see,--with a solemn procession of all estates, both of
Cardinals of all nations, and your Lords in their best array with
all your nation. He received your Lords graciously, with right
good cheer. Of all the worshipful men of your nation he touched
their hands, [and theirs] only, in all the great press. And then
went my Lord of Salisbury [Hallam] before heartily to the place
of the general Council, where that royal King should rest; and he
entered into the pulpit where the Cardinal Candacence,[52] chief
of the nation of France, and your especial enemy also, had
purposed to have made the first collation[53] before the
King,[54] in worship of the French nation. But my Lord of
Salisbury kept possession, in worship of you and your nation; and
he made there a right good collation that pleased the King right
well: and forasmuch as the King was fasting at that hour, then
would no man occupy him more that day; but on the morn (p. 059)
(my liege Lord) liketh you to wit, that at nine of the bell all
your ambassadors, with all your nation in their best array, went
to worship him in his palace, and that he gave them glad and
gracious audience. There my Lord of Chester, the president of
your nation, had his words to him in such a wise that it was
worship to him and all our nation; and soon after this they took
their leave of him. And on the morrow he sends after them again
at ten of the clock. There he received them again every man by
hand. Then he made a collation to our nation, and he thanked them
especially that they had been so loving, trusty, and true to his
nation in his absence. Also, he rehearsed there how the
brotherhood [friendship] began between him and my Lord your
father; and how it is now so continued and knit for you and your
successors, with the grace of God, for ever. And he told them so
great worship of your royal person, and such of all my Lords your
brethren; and then of the governance of holy church, divine
service, ornaments, and all state thereof, kept as though it were
in Paradise, in comparison with any place that he ever came in
before; so that from the highest unto the lowest he commended
your glorious and gracious person, your realm, and your good
governance. And then my Lord of Chester, our president, in the
name of all our nation (as belongeth to his office) rehearsed
compendiously, and in a gentle wise, all that ever the Emperor
had said; and gave him an answer to every point so good and so
reasonable, in so short avisement, that he has got him the thanks
of your nation for ever. And also, sovereign liege Lord, as I may
understand, my Lords of Salisbury and Chester are fully disposed,
by the consent of all your other ambassadors, to suive [pursue]
the reformation in the church, in the head and the members,
having no regard to no benefices[55] that they have, (p. 060)
rather than it should be left undone. And of this I doubt me
nought that these two lords will abide hard and nigh, always by
the good advice and deliberation of your brother the King of
Rome. Moreover, liketh you to wit, that on Sunday, the last day
of January, your brother, the King of Rome, wore the gown of the
Garters, with your collar, openly at the high mass; and he was
lereth [learned] that the Duke of Beyer and the borough-grave
should eat with my Lord of London the same day, and he said he
would eat with them. Other tidings be there none, but, as it is
said, the ambassadors of Spain should be here in Constance within
a few days. And, on Candlemas eve, came letters from the French
King, commanding to his nation to put out the ambassadors of the
Duke of Burgundy from their nation; also, as it is said openly,
that the foresaid French King hath sent to the city of Genoa, and
forwarded a great sum of gold to [hire[56]] wage great ships and
galleys, to destroy your ordinance and your navy of England. And
further, the day of making this letter, Master Philip Moyar
entered Constance in good health, thanked be God! The which God,
of his gracious goodness, keep your high, honourable, and
gracious person in his pleasance, and send you sovereignty and
victory of all your enemies. Written at Constance, the second day
of February,
"By your poor, true, and continual
"Orator,[57]
"JOHN FORESTER."
[Footnote 52: Cardinalis Camaracensis, or Cardinal
of Cambray.]
[Footnote 53: "Collation" meant discourse, or
speech, generally of a laudatory character.]
[Footnote 54: The Spaniards, the French, and others
were jealous of the English enjoying the privilege
of ranking and voting single-handed as one of the
nations, and insisted upon their being regarded
only as a part of a larger section of Europe, just
as Austria was only part of Germany. But the
English resisted, and preserved their privilege.]
[Footnote 55: This alludes to the intention of
putting a stop to the rich and numerous commendams
which were then heaped on bishops. Our English
prelates were determined to carry on the
reformation, though at their own personal
sacrifice.]
[Footnote 56: This negotiation was successful. The
French hired a fleet of long ships of the Genoese.]
[Footnote 57: Orator.--Petitioner, one who prayed
for the welfare of another.]
It is curious to remark that, on the very Sunday before this (p. 061)
letter was written, the English bishops caused a sort of pious comedy
to be acted in the presence of the Emperor Sigismund. It was one of
those mysteries, as they were called, which had so long mingled
religious instruction (of a very questionable character) with
amusement. The fruits of these exhibitions were probably very
equivocal in that age in England, as they are on the Continent at this
day. The Germans consider this play, which was the representation of
the Nativity,[58] the Massacre of the Innocents, and the Visit of the
Magi, as the first introduction of that sort of dramatic performance
into their country. The English had caused a rehearsal to be performed
before the authorities of the place three or four times previously, in
order to make the actors perfect for their imperial audience.
[Footnote 58: A curious entry occurs (11th July
1390) in the Pell Rolls of 10_l._ ordered by the
King (Richard II.) to be paid to the clerks of the
parish churches, and other clerks in the city of
London, on account of the play of the Passion of
our Lord and the Creation of the World, by them
performed at Skynnerswell after the feast of
Bartholomew last past.]
About half a year after the date of this letter to Henry, his uncle,
Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, reached Constance in the garb of
a pilgrim, on his journey to the Holy Land. His safe-conduct is dated
July 21, 1417. His arrival at Constance was very prejudicial to the
cause of the reform of the church. The struggle then was between the
imperial party (to which the English were closely attached) (p. 062)
and the Cardinals, whether the Pope should be first elected, or
whether the reformations in the church should take precedence of his
election. Henry Beaufort, to whom all parties seem to have paid the
utmost deference, suggested the expediency of first electing the Pope;
the Cardinals pledging themselves, that done, to proceed forthwith to
the reformation. His advice was followed, and the result must have
been a disappointment to all sincere Christians: a death-blow was
given to the hopes which had been entertained of a reform in
ecclesiastical affairs to be effected by that Council. No sooner was
Pope Martin V. elected, than both himself and the Cardinals frustrated
every attempt to secure a sound reformation; and, after sitting three
years and six months, the Council was dissolved.
The records of this Council of Constance bear incidentally most
valuable evidence to the warm interest taken by Henry in everything
over which he had any control, and in which he could beneficially
employ his power and influence. They prove, moreover, that whilst he
was a sincere promoter of a sound and wholesome reformation, and most
zealously attached to the religion in which he had been brought up,
and in which he was a conscientious believer, he was no persecutor.
Though our souls are harrowed up by the unchristian proceedings
against John Huss and Jerome of Prague, (and, could truth allow it, we
would gladly wipe away so black a stain from the annals of ages (p. 063)
and nations called Christian,) it is a source of great satisfaction to
find that the name of Henry of Monmouth is not at all mixed up with
those deeds of blood: we find him neither encouraging nor approving
them. Not one shadow of suspicion is suggested that the persecuting
spirit, which in that Council displayed itself so outrageously and
inhumanly, found any thoughts in his breast responsive to its cruel
aspirations. We know, indeed, that Thomas Walden, his priest and
chaplain, was actuated by the spirit of persecution towards the
Lollards; but we are equally assured that, so far from being
countenanced and encouraged by his master in acts of persecuting
bigotry, he did not scruple openly in public, and solemnly in a
sermon, to charge him with a want of zeal in extirpating the enemies
of the church. From such a witness the testimony so borne to the
charity and moderation of Henry of Monmouth is very valuable and
satisfactory; abundantly outweighing all the declamation of modern
enthusiastic censors. Henry was a reformer,--he could not be persuaded
to become a persecutor.[59]
[Footnote 59: For satisfaction on this point, the
reader is especially referred to the chapter
entitled, "Was Henry of Monmouth a religious
persecutor?"]
Henry's reputation for having at heart the correction of all abuses in
the church, encouraged the University of Oxford to present to him a
petition, setting forth a multitude of corrupt practices which (p. 064)
were a disgrace to the Christian religion in England; and praying
him, since God had raised him up to such an exalted place in the
church, to put forth his power in effecting a reformation.[60] This
document, preserved in Corpus Christi College in Oxford, abounds in
topics of deep and lively interest; it marks the fearful extent to
which the corrupt practices in the church had been fostered by Rome,
the ardent desire entertained in England for a reformation so early as
the commencement of the fifteenth century, and Henry's anxiety to
bring about such a reform in the discipline of the church as might
safely be adopted without giving countenance and encouragement to the
Lollards, against whom the University seems at this time to have been
decidedly hostile.
[Footnote 60: In this petition of the University,
Henry is told, that what Constantinus, Marcianus,
and Theodosius had been in the East, that was he in
the West; by his eminent Christian piety resisting
the accomplices of Satan, and preventing the
western church from sinking utterly. By his wise
and peaceable government of the church he was (they
say) best providing for the peace and security of
the state, whilst he cut off and cast away the
rank, luxuriant offshoots of offences as they grew.
In marking out the most notable defects and abuses,
they obeyed (they say) his sacred commands; and
they prayed him to exert his authority in
correcting them.]
The points to which Oxford then solicited Henry to direct his especial
care, were partly such as are no longer of general interest among us,
(excepting so far as they remind us of the mass of evils from which
the Reformation rescued us,) and partly such as must be (p. 065)
interesting to Christians of every age.
Among the former grievances were reckoned the Pope's unlimited
creation of cardinals, all to be supported out of the revenues of the
church; the excessive grants of indulgences, by which persons were
encouraged in licentiousness; the privileges and exemptions and
scandalous immorality of the monks. The petitioners complained
bitterly that though the church of England would not admit persons
into sacred orders who were unfit and unworthy, yet the court of Rome
would repeatedly recognise such as lawful ministers.
Among the latter evils were the non-residence of incumbents, the
inadequacy of the stipends of curates, and the commendams of bishops.
The petitioners prayed, that whereas a great number both of regulars
and seculars who were presumptuous and ignorant were ordained, a
decree might be passed that all before ordination should be strictly
examined; and that a remedy should be provided against simony.[61]
They petitioned, also, that foreigners who could not speak English
should have no cures in England; and they complained of the practice
of patrons exacting from the priests whom they nominated to a benefice
a pledge that they would not sue for an augmentation of their (p. 066)
stipend, were it never so small. They closed their petition by
praying that all bishops who were remiss in punishing heresy, and
extirpating Lollardy, might be deposed; and that all magistrates and
officers should be bound by their oath to aid in its extirpation.[62]
[Footnote 61: There was also a prayer to prohibit
the practice of confiscating the goods of Jews and
heathens at their baptism, a practice tending to
debar them from offering themselves at the font.]
[Footnote 62: Cotton. Tiber. B. vi. F. 64.]
Henry, deeply lamenting the gross abuses referred to in this petition,
implored the Pope to suffer them to be redressed. His Holiness agreed
to certain constitutions, by which, if fully acted upon, most of the
evils complained of would have been rectified. The Pope, however,
begged Henry in return to abrogate all the laws which had been enacted
in England to the prejudice of Rome; but the King declared his
inability to meet the wishes of his Holiness.
The extent to which the abuse of the Pope's[63] authority had been
connived at in this country,--a state of things which naturally
indisposed him towards any change for the better,--may be inferred
from two facts: that he (in defiance of the statutes of Edward III.
and Richard II.) had by his own authority created thirteen (p. 067)
bishops in the province of Canterbury in two years; and had appointed
his nephew, Prospero Colonna, a boy of only fourteen years of age,
Archdeacon of Canterbury, with fourteen benefices in England.
[Footnote 63: The fact is, that Henry, during his
wars in France, suffered Pope Martin to exercise
his pretended prerogative in the disposal of
benefices to an extent, if not unprecedented,
certainly most unjustifiable. The Chapter of York
gave the first blow to this growing usurpation by
refusing to admit, in obedience to the Pope's
mandate, Richard Fleming, Bishop of Lincoln, into
the archiepiscopal see.]
* * * * *
Before we leave this subject, we cannot but record an instance
(mentioned by Walsingham) of Henry's personal exertions in reforming
abuses. He had received complaints against the Benedictine monks of
certain grievous corruptions; and, attended only by four persons, he
went into the midst of a full assembly of that order. The meeting
consisted of sixty abbots and priors of convents, and more than three
hundred monks, who were all assembled in the Chapter-house of
Westminster. After a speech from the Bishop of Exeter, (one of those
who accompanied him,) Henry himself addressed them at great length. He
reminded them of the ancient piety of the monks, and the devotion of
his predecessors and others in founding and endowing monasteries; he
expatiated on the negligence and remissness in the discharge of their
sacred duties, which, he said, had become notorious in their times;
and he then exhibited certain articles according to which he required
them to reform themselves; earnestly entreating them to recover the
ancient spirit of religion which they had lost, and habitually to pray
for the King, the country, and the church; assuring them that, if they
followed his directions, they needed fear none of their enemies. (p. 068)
* * * * *
That Henry V, though earnestly desirous of a sound reform in the
discipline of the church, and the lives and ministrations of the
clergy, did never lay the axe to the root of the evil, cannot be
denied. Perhaps he was disheartened by the total failure of the united
efforts of himself and Sigismund, with their honest and zealous
adherents, at Constance. Perhaps he resolved to wait till, at the
close of his continental campaigns, in the enjoyment of peace at home
and abroad, he might be able to devote his concentrated exertions to
an object of such paramount importance. Perhaps the ambition of his
uncle Henry Beaufort, who evidently was looking for personal
aggrandizement in wealth and dignity, and who had given so decided and
unhappy a turn in the council of Constance in favour of the Pope's
party, might have devised some means for seducing his nephew's ardent
thoughts into another channel. To whatever cause we may be disposed to
attribute it, the reality is, that Henry V, when he died, had not
effected reform on any comprehensive scale in his own realm; nor had
he given any decided blow to the dominion and the corruptions of the
church of Rome. His short life was a career of wars and victories.
It pleased the Almighty, in his inscrutable wisdom, to bring (p. 069)
about the reformation of the church in his own way, by his own means,
and at his own appointed time. We recognise his hand in the blessing
which we have inherited, and are thankful.
CHAPTER XIX. (p. 070)
WARS WITH FRANCE. -- CAUSES WHICH INFLUENCED HENRY. -- SUMMARY OF THE
AFFAIRS OF FRANCE FROM THE TIME OF EDWARD III. -- REFLECTIONS ON
HENRY'S TITLE. -- AFFAIRS OF FRANCE FROM HENRY'S RESOLUTION TO CLAIM
HIS "DORMANT RIGHTS," AND "RIGHTFUL HERITAGE," TO HIS INVASION OF
NORMANDY. -- NEGOCIATIONS. -- HIS RIGHT DENIED BY THE FRENCH. --
PARLIAMENT VOTES HIM SUPPLIES.
1414.
WARS WITH FRANCE.
It falls not within the province of these Memoirs to justify the
proceedings of Henry of Monmouth with regard to France, by an
examination into the soundness of his claims, and the abstract
principles on which he and his subjects and advisers rested them. But
it is incumbent on any one who would estimate his character uprightly,
to weigh the considerations by which he was influenced in the
undertaking, neither according to our present standard, nor
independently of all the circumstances of the age in which he lived,
and the sentiments then generally prevalent among men of education and
reputed probity.
Historians have generally represented it as an established fact (p. 071)
that the clergy, especially the Archbishop of Canterbury, alarmed
at the bold and urgent call of the Commons upon the King to seize the
church patrimony, and from its proceeds apply whatever was required by
the exigencies of the state, hit upon the expedient of stimulating him
to claim France as his inheritance; thus withdrawing his mind from a
measure so fatal to their interests. Though the evidence on which such
a tradition rests is by no means satisfactory, we may perhaps receive
it as probable. That the Commons were clamorous for the confiscation
of the ecclesiastical revenues, and that the clergy voluntarily voted
a very large subsidy to aid the King in prosecuting his alleged rights
on the Continent, are matters of historical certainty. That the
ecclesiastics, moreover, originally suggested to him the design of
reviving his dormant claim to an inheritance in the fair realm of
France, and then fostered the thought, and justified the undertaking
by argument, and pledged their priestly word for the righteousness of
his cause, is doubtless no unreasonable supposition. Still the clergy
do not appear to have been in the least more eager in the scheme, or
more anxious to protect themselves and their revenues from spoliation
by such a scheme, than were the laity enthusiastically bent on a
harvest of national glory and aggrandizement from its success.[64] In
a word, the King himself, the nobles, and the people, all seem (p. 072)
to have been equally determined to engage in the enterprise, and
to support each other in the resolution that it was not only
practicable, but most fully justifiable by the laws of God and man.
[Footnote 64: The people of England gave frequent
proofs of their desire to seize every opportunity
of reaping glory from conquests in France. When the
Duke of Burgundy and the confederated princes, in
the struggle to which we have before referred,
applied in the first instance for assistance to
Henry IV, Laboureur tells us that Henry replied to
the latter that he was compelled to accept the
offer of the Duke of Burgundy, to avoid the
irritation and discontent of his subjects, which
would be raised if he neglected so favourable an
opportunity of forwarding the national interests.]
That Henry's high spirit predisposed him to listen with readiness and
satisfaction to the suggestions of his subjects in this behalf, we may
well believe; but that he would have been driven by a dominant
ambition to engage in a war of conquest against the acknowledged
principles of justice, his character, firmly established by undeniable
proofs of a private as well as a public nature, forbids us to admit.
It must never be forgotten that those persons who were then
universally regarded as the best and safest interpreters of law, human
and divine, assured him, on his solemn appeal to them for their
judgment,[65] that the cause in which he was embarking was just; (p. 073)
and, as many incidents in the sequel establish, he did embark in
it without any doubts or misgivings, without the slightest scruple of
conscience; on the contrary, with a full confidence in the entire
righteousness of his cause, and a most unbounded reliance on the arm
of the God of Justice for success.
[Footnote 65: The "Chronicles of England" record,
that, "in the second year of King Henry's reign, he
held a council of all the lords of his realm at
Westminster; and there he put to them this demand,
and prayed and besought them of their goodness, and
of their good counsel and good-will, as touching
the right and title that he had to Normandy,
Gascony, and Guienne--the which the King of France
withheld wrongfully and unrightfully--the which his
ancestors before him had by true title of conquest
and right heritage--the which Normandy, Gascony,
and Guienne the good King Edward of Windsor, and
his ancestors before him, had holden all their
life's time. And his lords gave him counsel to send
ambassadors unto the King of France and his
council, demanding that he should give up to him
his right heritage,--that is to say, Normandy,
Gascony, and Guienne,--the which his predecessors
had holden before him, or else he would win it with
dint of sword in short time with the help of
Almighty God."]
The facts which laid the groundwork for his enterprising spirit to
build upon are very interesting; and, though they may perhaps belong
rather to general history than to Memoirs of Henry of Monmouth, yet a
brief review of them might seem altogether indispensable in this
place.
"The preference given by the States-General to Philip of Valois above
Edward III, when he laid claim to the crown of France, led to that
disastrous war, the prominent incidents of which are familiar to every
one at all acquainted with the history of that time. Edward gained a
naval victory over the French, and conquered Philip at Cressy, and
possessed himself of Calais, which gave him an entrance into (p. 074)
France at all times. After some interval, Edward the Black Prince, his
son, gained the famous battle of Poictiers; where King John, son and
successor of Philip of Valois, was taken prisoner. Whilst that monarch
was a captive in England, Edward entered France at the head of one
hundred thousand men, and marched to the very gates of Paris. This
successful invasion led to the treaty of Bretigny. By the terms of
that peace, Edward recovered all those ancient dependencies of Guienne
which had been wrested from his ancestors. These provinces had fallen
to the Kings of England by the marriage of Eleanor, heiress of
Guienne, with Henry II; but, from the time of John (Lackland) and
Henry III, Philip Augustus and St. Lewis, Kings of France, had so
shorn that vast territory, that nothing remained to England except
Bourdeaux, Bayonne, and Gascony. Besides, by the same treaty, Edward
secured Montreuil and Ponthieu, Calais and Guienne; and all these
possessions were ceded to him in full sovereignty without any suit or
homage due to France. Finally, he stipulated for the sum of three
millions of golden crowns as the ransom of King John. On his side, he
consented to forego all right and claim which he might have on the
crown of France. Especially he renounced all title to Normandy and
other places, which were said to be the heritage of his ancestors, and
to all the sovereignty of Brittany. This treaty was solemnly (p. 075)
executed by King John, and observed during his life, except as to the
ransom, two-thirds of which remained undischarged at his death. But
Charles V, his son and successor, finding this peace very
disadvantageous to France, though he had himself been a party to it,
and had sworn to observe its conditions, broke it on very frivolous
grounds. He declared war against Edward, and in a very few years
recovered all that had been ceded to England by the treaty of
Bretigny, except Calais, Bayonne, Bourdeaux, and part of Guienne. This
second war was interrupted by a truce, which continued till the death
of Edward III. in 1377. During the reign of Richard II, and the
remainder of Charles V.'s life, and the first years of Charles VI, war
and peace followed each other in mutual succession, without any
important or decided advantage on either side. At last, Richard II.
and Charles VI. concluded a truce for twenty-eight years, which was
ratified by the marriage of Richard with Isabel, Charles's daughter.
From the deposition of Richard to the death of Henry IV,
notwithstanding frequent violations of the truce, both sides
maintained that it still subsisted. Such was the state of the two
crowns when Henry of Monmouth mounted the throne. France having broken
the peace of Bretigny, and maintaining that the treaty was void,
evidently the Kings of England were reinstated in all their rights
which they had before that peace. On this principle, immediately
after the disclaimer of that peace on the part of France, (p. 076)
Edward III. resumed the title of King of France, which he had laid
aside; and his successors assumed it also. Since the commencement of
the war which followed the treaty of Bretigny there never had been
peace between the two crowns, but only truces, which do not affect the
rights of the parties. It is evident, therefore, that, when he
ascended the throne, Henry V. found himself under precisely the same
circumstances in point of right in which his great grandfather, Edward
III, was eighty years before, when he commenced the first war. Besides
this, Henry had to allege a solemn treaty, which, after it had been
unequivocally acted upon, France broke on a most trifling pretext."
Such is the representation made by the author of the Abrégé
Historique[66] of the affairs of England; and the Author is desirous
of transferring into his pages this clear and candid statement the
rather because it is written by a foreigner, who seems to have viewed
the transaction with enlightened and unprejudiced eyes.
[Footnote 66: "Abrégé Historique des Actes Publics
d'Angleterre," which now accompanies the foreign
edition of Rymer's Foedera.]
More modern writers, indeed, would teach us to deem it "unnecessary
for them to comment on the absurdity of Henry's claim to the French
crown in right of his descent from Isabella wife of Edward II. For
futile as her son Edward's (III.) pretensions were, Henry's were (p. 077)
still less reasonable, as the Earl of March was in 1415 the heir
of those persons."[67]
[Footnote 67: Sir H. Nicolas.]
The fact on which this reasoning rests is undoubtedly true, and yet
considerations connected with that claim require to be entertained,
and weighed without haste and without prejudice; and the truth itself
warns us not to dismiss the point so summarily. Henry (it must never
be forgotten) had been bred up in the belief that Richard II. had in
the most full and unreserved manner, by his act of resignation,
yielded all his rights into the hands of the people of England, and
that those rights had been as fully and unreservedly conferred by the
nation on Henry's father. Whatever rights, moreover, the Earl of March
possessed as lineal heir to the crown, he had, as far as his own
personal interest was concerned, over and over again, not merely by a
passive acquiescence, but by repeated voluntary acts, virtually
resigned, and made over to Henry as actual King; and, lastly, it is
clear that Henry's claim was always by himself and by the nation
rested on the ground of his being King of England, and, ipso facto, as
such, heir of all his predecessors Kings of England.
On these grounds, and with such an opening offered to his ardent mind
by the distracted state of the realm of France, Henry resolved to
prefer his claim; negociating first for its amicable concession, and,
if unsuccessful in negociation, then pursuing it in the field of
battle. This appears to have been his determination from the (p. 078)
first; but from the first he seems also to have contemplated the
probability of failure by treaty; for, from the first intimation of
his designs, he and his subjects were steadily engaged in making every
preparation[68] for a vigorous invasion of France.
In this part of our treatise a brief outline is required of the
proceedings between the resolution first taken by Henry, and his
appearance in arms on French land; nor can we satisfactorily pass on
without taking a succinct view of the internal state of that kingdom
at the time of Henry's original claim and subsequent invasion.
[Footnote 68: The only measures mentioned in the
"Foedera," before April 1415, indicative of
Henry's expectation that the negociations with
France would not terminate pacifically, are, that
on September 26, 1414, the exportation of gunpowder
was prohibited; whilst, on the 22nd, Nicholas
Merbury, the master, and John Louth, the clerk of
the King's works, guns, and other ordnance, had
been commanded to provide smiths and workmen, with
conveyance for them; that, on the 18th of the
following March, Richard Clyderowe and Simon Flete
were directed to treat with Holland for ships; and,
on the 22nd, the Sheriff of London was ordered to
summon knights, esquires, and valets, who held
fees, wages, or annuities by grant from the King or
his ancestors, to repair forthwith to London, and,
on pain of forfeiture, to be there by the 24th of
April at the latest.--Sir H. Nicolas.
The Pell Rolls record the payment of "2,000_l._ 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."]
SUMMARY OF THE AFFAIRS OF FRANCE. (p. 079)
Charles V, surnamed the Wise, died in 1380.[69] He left to succeed him
his son Charles VI, twelve years of age; and he appointed his three
brothers to govern the kingdom during the minority,--Lewis, Duke of
Anjou, John, Duke of Berry, and Philip, Duke of Burgundy, who by their
ambition and rivalry threw the whole realm into confusion. Charles V.
left also another son, called the Duke of Orleans, who in his time
contributed to the general confusion no less than his uncles. Through
the first days of Charles's (VI.) reign, the three regents, differing
in every other point, agreed only in burdening the nation with taxes;
a circumstance which bred great discontent, and prepared the people
for separating into different factions whenever an opportunity might
occur.
[Footnote 69: The Author has been, in this portion
of his work, chiefly assisted by the authors of the
"Abrégé Historique," above referred to.]
The Duke of Anjou quitted France in 1381, to take possession of his
kingdom of Sicily. The King was of age to be his own master, according
to the will of his father, at fourteen; yet his uncles governed both
his estate and his person till he was twenty. In 1385, he was married
to Isabella, daughter of Stephen, Duke of Bavaria.
In 1388, Charles assumed the reins of government, discharging his
uncles, and keeping about his person his brother, the Duke of Orleans,
then seventeen, and his maternal uncle the Duke of Bourbon.
The Duke of Burgundy could not endure to see the Dukes of (p. 080)
Orleans and Bourbon govern the kingdom in the name of the King; and in
1391 he succeeded in causing the Estates-General to transfer the
government to him under the pretext of aiding his nephew to bear the
burden of the state. Probably the King had already shown symptoms of
that imbecility which afterwards incapacitated him altogether for
managing the affairs of his kingdom. In 1395 his malady increased in
violence; and for some time the Queen his wife, the Dukes of Orleans,
Berry, Burgundy, and Bourbon, each struggled hard to retain the reins
of government in their own hands. At length the Dukes of Orleans and
Burgundy formed two opposite parties; under the banners of which, as
well the members of the court, as the subjects of the kingdom at
large, arranged themselves in hostile ranks. Queen Isabella joined the
Duke of Orleans. The Duke of Berry fluctuated between the two
factions, and had great difficulty in preventing them from coming to
extremities. In these struggles the two chiefs were so equal, and so
determined not to yield either to the other, that they left the
government to the council of the King. The Duke of Burgundy withdrew
to the Netherlands, where he was master of the earldoms of Flanders
and Artois, and the duchy of Brabant: there he died in 1403, leaving
his son John to succeed him, who became Duke of Burgundy and Count of
Flanders and Artois. His brothers shared the residue of their father's
inheritance.
Whilst the new Duke of Burgundy was employed in arranging his (p. 081)
own affairs, the Queen and the Duke of Orleans conducted the
government; but with little satisfaction to the people, who found
themselves grievously oppressed by taxation. Meanwhile, the Duke of
Burgundy married his son Philip, Earl of Charolois, to Michelle, the
King's daughter; and one of his daughters was also espoused to the
Dauphin, Louis, then only nine years of age.
Some time afterwards, Charles VI. finding himself in one of his
intervals of mental health, and hearing complaints from all sides
against his Queen and the Duke of Orleans, convened an assembly of
nobles to deliberate on a remedy; and commanded the presence of the
Duke of Burgundy. On his approach, the Queen and the Duke of Orleans
withdrew, taking with them the young Dauphin. The Duke of Burgundy
followed, and overtook them; and rescued the Dauphin from their
custody. This was a source of open rupture between those princes.
There followed, indeed, an outward show of reconciliation; but their
mutual hatred was deadly still. In 1407 the Duke of Burgundy caused
the Duke of Orleans to be assassinated. He was bold enough to profess
himself the author of the murder, and powerful enough to shield
himself from any punishment, and to procure letters of free pardon.
Next year he was obliged to visit his own territory, and in his
absence his enemies caused the bill of amnesty to be reversed.
Meantime, the Duke gained a victory over the troops of Liege, (p. 082)
and marched at the head of four thousand horsemen direct upon Paris.
The Queen withdrew at his approach, taking the King with her to Tours;
and, finding herself unable to cope with her antagonist, she consented
to an accommodation. The King received Burgundy, and reconciled him in
appearance to the Duke of Orleans, son of the murdered Duke. After
this, the Duke of Burgundy remained master of the government, and of
the person of the King.
It will be remembered that, in 1411, a powerful league was formed in
Guienne against the Duke of Burgundy, by the Dukes of Berry, Orleans,
Alençon, and the Count of Armagnac, who was governor of Languedoc and
father-in-law to the Duke of Berry; and who, being the chief conductor
of the whole affair, gave the name of Armagnacs to the party in
general opposed to Burgundy.[70] At the beginning, the Duke of
Burgundy, having received succours from Henry IV. of England, gained a
great advantage over his opponents. Subsequently, the Armagnacs,
obtaining considerable assistance from the same King, forced the Duke
of Burgundy, who was besieging them in Bourges, to make peace; one
condition of which, however, being that no one of those chiefs should
return to the court, the Duke of Burgundy still remained master of the
King's person. In this state of triumph on the part of the (p. 083)
Duke of Burgundy, and of depression of the Armagnacs, another opponent
arose against the Duke, of whom he seems to have been previously under
no apprehension,--the Dauphin himself, his son-in-law, then only
sixteen years of age. This prince, persuaded that during his father's
illness the government could of right belong to no one but himself,
resolved to secure his own. He gained over the governor of the
Bastille, and seized that fortress. The Parisians flew to arms at the
secret instigation of the Duke of Burgundy. A surgeon, named John of
Troyes, at the head of ten or twelve thousand men, forced the gates of
the Dauphin's palace; and, carrying off the chief friends of that
prince, lodged them in prison.
[Footnote 70: See vol. i. p. 268.]
These events took place at the opening of the year 1413, whilst Henry
IV. was labouring under the malady of which he died. Henry V.
succeeded to the throne, March 20th of that year. At the end of April,
the malcontents of Paris, all of the Burgundian faction, committed
various excesses, and compelled both the King and the Dauphin to wear
the white cap, the badge of their party. The Dauphin[71] betook
himself at last to the Armagnacs, of whom many lived in Paris,
grievously oppressed by the government of the Duke of Burgundy; and he
planned his scheme so well, and so secretly, that at the (p. 084)
beginning of September he found thirty thousand men in Paris ready to
support him. By his sudden and vigorous efforts he struck terror into
the opposite faction, who abandoned the Bastille and other places in
their possession, and thought of nothing but their own personal
safety. The Duke of Burgundy himself withdrew to Flanders. The
Dauphin, however, gained no permanent advantage from this success; for
the King, in one of his favourable intervals, immediately seized the
reins of government, and called his nephew the young Duke of Orleans
to his counsels. This youth induced the King to issue very violent
decrees against the Duke of Burgundy, and to execute a great number of
his partisans.
[Footnote 71: The Dauphin, eldest son of Charles
VI, was born 22nd January 1396, and died before his
father, without issue, on the 18th December 1415,
in his twentieth year.]
Such was the state of affairs in France when Henry of Monmouth first
resolved to prosecute his claims in that kingdom. The Duke of Burgundy
lost no time in endeavouring to secure the assistance of so powerful
an ally; as we find by the many safe-conducts dated before the Duke's
expulsion from Paris, which did not take place till September. Whether
Henry had, before these embassies from the Duke of Burgundy, formed
any design of claiming his supposed rights in France, or not, the
Duke's negociations must have strongly impressed him with the
distracted state of that country, and with an opening offered to the
enterprising spirit of any powerful neighbour who would promptly and
vigorously seize upon that opportunity of invading France.
"Although[72] several negociations had taken place between (p. 085)
September 1413, and the January following, for the purpose of
prolonging the subsisting truce between England and France, it was not
until January 28, 1414, that ambassadors were appointed to treat of
peace. From the engagement then made, that Henry would not propose
marriage to any other woman than Katharine, daughter of the King of
France, until after the 1st of the ensuing May, (which term was
extended from the 18th of June to the 1st of August, and afterwards to
the 2nd of February 1415,) it is evident that a marriage with that
princess was to form one of the conditions of the treaty. But the
first intimation of a claim to the crown of France is in a commission,
dated May 1, 1414, by which the Bishop of Durham, Richard Lord Grey,
and others, were instructed to negociate that alliance, and the
restitution of such of their sovereign's rights as were withheld by
Charles. The principal claim was no less than the crown and kingdom of
France. Concession to this demand, however, being at once declared
impossible, the English ambassadors waived it, without prejudice
nevertheless to Henry's rights. They then demanded the sovereignty of
the duchies of Normandy and Touraine, the earldom of Anjou, the duchy
of Brittany, the earldom of Flanders, with all other parts of the
duchy of Aquitain, the territories which had been ceded to (p. 086)
Edward III. by the treaty of Bretigny, and the lands between the Somme
and Graveline; to be held by Henry and his heirs, without any claim of
superiority on the part of Charles or his successors. To these demands
were added the cession of the county of Provence, and payment of the
arrears of the ransom of King John, amounting to one million six
hundred thousand crowns. It was also intimated that the marriage with
Katharine could not take place, unless a firm peace were also
established with France, and that two millions of crowns would be
expected as her dower.
[Footnote 72: The following paragraphs are almost
literally extracted from Sir Harris Nicolas's
"Battle of Agincourt."]
On March 14, 1415, the French ministers denied Henry's right to any
part of the dominion of their master; but, to avoid extremities, they
offered to cede the counties of Angouleme and Bayonne, with various
other territories. They said that Provence, not being among Charles's
lordships, was not withheld by him. With respect to the arrears of
ransom, they thought that, having offered so much to extend the
possessions of England, with a view of securing peace, the claim ought
to be withdrawn. Touching the marriage, which had been so frequently
discussed, though the Kings of France had been accustomed to give much
less with their daughters than six hundred thousand crowns, which sum
the Duke of Berry had offered with her in the preceding August, yet
that it should be enlarged to eight hundred thousand crowns, besides
her jewels and apparel, and the expense of sending the princess (p. 087)
in a suitable manner to the place where she might be delivered to
Henry. But as the English ambassadors said they were not permitted to
prolong their stay in France, and had no authority to vary their
demands, Charles engaged to send an embassy to England to conclude the
treaty.
During the progress of these protracted negociations Henry grew
dissatisfied; and either from impatience, or with a view of awing
France into submission, issued writs of 26th September 1414, for a
parliament to be held at Westminster after the Octaves of St. Martin,
18th November following. On that day parliament met; and the session
was opened at the command of the King by Henry Beaufort, Bishop of
Winchester, then Chancellor. In a long harangue he informed the
assembly, that their King (who was present in person) had resolved to
recover his inheritance, which had been so long and unjustly kept from
him and his progenitors, Kings of England; and that, for this purpose,
many things were necessary. Taking for his theme the text, "Whilst we
have time, let us do good," he pointed out, with more pedantry than
eloquence, that for every natural thing there were two seasons; and
that just as for the tree there was one time to bud, to flower, and to
bring forth fruit, and another time through which it was left to
repose, so was there given to man a time for peace, and a time for war
and labour: that the King, considering the value of peace and (p. 088)
tranquillity which this kingdom then enjoyed, and also the justice
of his present quarrel, (considerations most necessary for every
prince who had to encounter enemies abroad,) deemed that the proper
time had arrived for the accomplishment of his purpose. But, to attain
this great and honourable object, three things, he said, were wanted;
namely, wise and faithful counsel from his vassals, strong and true
support from his people, and a copious subsidy from his subjects;
which each of them would readily grant, because the more their
prince's dominions were extended, the less would their burdens become;
and, these things being performed, great honour and glory would
necessarily ensue.
This address was not without effect, for the Commons, after electing
Thomas Chaucer (son, as it is said, of the poet) for their Speaker,
"granted the King, for the honour of God, and from the great love and
affection which they bore towards their sovereign, two entire
fifteenths and two entire tenths, _for the defence of the kingdom of
England and the safeguard of the seas_."
CHAPTER XX. (p. 089)
MODERN TRIPLE CHARGE AGAINST HENRY OF FALSEHOOD, HYPOCRISY, AND
IMPIETY. -- FUTILITY OF THE CHARGE, AND UTTER FAILURE OF THE EVIDENCE
ON WHICH ALONE IT IS GROUNDED. -- HE IS URGED BY HIS PEOPLE TO
VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF HIS CROWN, HIMSELF HAVING A CONSCIENTIOUS
CONVICTION OF THE JUSTICE OF HIS CLAIM. -- STORY OF THE TENNIS-BALLS.
-- PREPARATIONS FOR INVADING FRANCE. -- HENRY'S WILL MADE AT
SOUTHAMPTON. -- CHARGE OF HYPOCRISY AGAIN GROUNDED ON THE CLOSE OF
THAT TESTAMENT. -- ITS FUTILITY. -- HE DESPATCHES TO THE VARIOUS
POWERS OF EUROPE THE GROUNDS OF HIS CLAIM ON FRANCE.
At this point of his work, the Author finds the painful duty devolved
upon him of investigating a triple charge, now for the first time
brought against Henry by a living writer. He must not shrink from the
task, though he enter upon it with a consciousness that, if
established, the charge must brand Henry's memory with indelible
disgrace, whilst his acquittal may imply censure on his accuser.[73]
He feels, nevertheless, that only one course is open for him to (p. 090)
pursue; he must follow up the inquiry fully, fearlessly, and
impartially, whatever may be the result; and, whether he looks to
Henry or his accuser, he must adhere rigidly to the golden maxim,
"Friends are dear, but truth is dearer!"
[Footnote 73: Here, however, the Author begs to
state his most unfeigned conviction that, had the
Editor of the "Battle of Agincourt" allowed himself
more time for reflection and reconsideration of his
subject, his love of truth and justice (which
evidences itself in various parts of his works)
would have induced him to withdraw this triple
accusation. The Author sincerely gives that
valuable writer full credit for his generous
indignation at the idea of any thing savouring of
falsehood, as well as for his anxious desire to
enlist all our ancient documents, whether published
or yet in manuscript, in the cause of historical
truth; and he sincerely trusts that not one
expression may escape his pen which may give,
unnecessarily, the slightest pain to an Editor for
the assistance derived from whose labours he will
not allow this note to escape him (even at the risk
of tautology) without again expressing his
obligations.]
An Author,[74] then, to whom (as we gladly and gratefully acknowledge)
we are largely indebted for many helps supplied to the biographer and
historian, and from whom we have borrowed copiously in this part of
our work, brings a wide and violent charge against Henry's character
in those very points on which the general tenour and complexion of his
whole life would lead us to regard him as of all least assailable. He
charges him with _falsehood_, _hypocrisy_, and _impiety_. The
groundwork on which he founds these accusations is a series of letters
recorded in M. Le Laboureur's History of Charles VI. of France.
[Footnote 74: Sir Harris Nicolas.]
To ascertain more satisfactorily whether the charge is really (p. 091)
substantiated, or whether it has been built upon an unsound
foundation, we will first extract the whole passage as it stands in
his work, "The Battle of Agincourt," and then sift the evidence which
the writer alleges in support of so grave an imputation.
"On the 7th April, Henry is said to have addressed the King of France
on the subject of his claims, and in reference to the embassy which
Charles had signified his intention of sending to discuss them. No
part[75] of the correspondence on this occasion occurs in the
Foedera, and it is very slightly alluded to by our historians. "To
the first of those letters Charles replied on the 16th of April, and
to the last on the 26th of that month; it is therefore evident (p. 092)
that Henry did not wait for the answer to the first before the second
was written. These documents occur in contemporary writers; and, as
the internal evidence which they contain of being genuine is very
strong, there is no cause to doubt their authenticity. Their most
striking features are falsehood, hypocrisy, and impiety; for Henry's
solemn assurance that he was not actuated by his own ambition, but by
the wishes of his subjects, is rendered very doubtful by the fact
that, on the day after the Chancellor had solicited supplies for the
invasion of France, the Commons _merely stated_ that they granted
_them for the defence of the realm, and the safety of the seas_. The
justice claimed was, that France should be dismembered of many
important territories; and that, with the hand of Katharine, Henry
should receive a sum as unprecedented as it was exorbitant. But this
was not all, for his first demand was the crown of France itself; and
it was not until he was convinced of the impossibility of such a
concession, that he required those points to which his letters refer.
If then there was FALSEHOOD in his assertion that his demands were
dictated by the wishes of his people rather than by his own, there was
HYPOCRISY in the assurances of his moderation and love of peace, and
IMPIETY in calling the Almighty to witness the sincerity of his
protestation, and in profaning the holy writings by citing them on
such an occasion. These letters, which were probably dictated by
Cardinal Beaufort, are remarkable for the style in which they (p. 093)
are written; in some places they approach nearly to eloquence, and they
are throughout clear, nervous, and impressive."
[Footnote 75: That a correspondence took place,
there can be no doubt; but very much doubt is
thrown upon the accuracy of these documents; they
do not appear in such a shape that we can rely upon
them as evidence. The Author who gives them says,
that he considers them capable of embellishing and
adorning his history. The reader is invited to sift
this matter thoroughly, if he thinks that the
writer of these Memoirs has taken a partial view of
the merits of the question; and he is, at the same
time, cautioned against regarding the principal
work in which these letters are found as the
production of M. Laboureur. Into this error he
might easily be led by the manner in which the book
has been quoted. Laboureur translated the work of
an anonymous writer of St. Denis, of whose
character nothing is known. The manuscript, in
Latin, is said to have been found in the library of
M. Le President De Thou. The original author
brought the history down to the year 1415, and St.
Jean Le Fevre continued it to 1422.]
In this threefold indictment, the first charge is "falsehood." The
falsehood is made to consist in Henry's assertion, that he was
stimulated to prosecute his claim by the wishes of his people; and the
only evidence alleged to sustain this charge of falsehood, is the fact
that parliament, in granting the supplies, so far from specifying that
the grant was made for the purpose of recovering the King's rights in
France, merely stated that it was "_for the defence of the realm, and
the safety of the seas_."
Before a charge, fixing an indelible stain on the character of a
fellow-creature, whether the individual were a king leading his armies
to victory, or the humblest subject in his realm, were made on such
grounds as these, it had been well,--well for the cause of truth, and
well for the satisfaction of the accuser,--had the nature and force of
the evidence adduced been first more carefully examined. The slightest
acquaintance with the language of parliament at that time, and the
most cursory comparison of the words of its members with their
conduct, must satisfy every one that not a shadow of suspicion is
suggested of any unwillingness on the part of the Commons to support
the King in demanding his supposed rights, and vindicating them by
arms. On the contrary, the very records of parliament themselves, (p. 094)
which are cited to maintain against Henry the charge of falsehood,
carry with them a full and perfect refutation of the accusation,
complete in all its parts; and compel us to lament that it has been
brought so hastily, unadvisedly, and inconsiderately. Our first point
is to ascertain the force of those words in the grant alone cited to
substantiate the charge of falsehood against Henry,--what meaning was
attached to them by the Commons themselves. We shall find that the
subsidy was granted in the usual formal words, "for the defence of the
realm of England and so forth." In the first parliament of Henry for
example, the subsidy is granted in these words: "To the honour of God,
and for the great love and affection which your poor Commons of your
realm of England have to you our dread sovereign Lord, for the good of
the realm and its good governance in time to come, we have, with the
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, granted to you _for
defence of your realm of England_," and so forth,--specifying a
subsidy from wools and other merchandise; and then, in voting an
entire fifteenth and a tenth, they add, "for _the defence of the
realm, and the safeguard of the seas_." With precisely the same
justice might it be argued in this case that the Commons would not
vote the subsidy for "the support of the King's dignity and high
estate," (though that was one of the especial grounds on which he
appealed himself to the liberality of his parliament,) as it can (p. 095)
be inferred, from the same words used in the parliament of 1415,
that the Commons of England were not forward to promote the expedition
to France. In that parallel case, however, we are quite sure the
argument would be fallacious; because in the very same session they
voted that the King's own allowance should take precedence of all
other payments of annuities and other demands, to the amount of
10,000_l._ annually.
Another instance occurs in the parliament which met October 19, 1416,
the King himself presiding: though the Chancellor, after referring
with exultation to the victories of Harfleur, "the key of France," and
of Agincourt, "where greatest part of the chivalry of France had
fallen in battle," asks for new supplies _for the express purpose_ of
carrying on the wars in France; the Commons, in voting those supplies,
as expressly state that they grant them "_for the defence of your
realm of England_."
The same conclusion is warranted by the grants of 1417 and 1419;
excepting that in these the Commons make the argument intended to
support the charge against Henry's veracity still less tenable, by
inserting a phrase which might seem to exclude the very object for
which application for the subsidy was made. The application was made
especially for the supplies necessary to carry on the war abroad; the
Commons vote the subsidy "for the defence of the realm of England _in
especial_."
But, to remove all possible doubt as to the true intent and (p. 096)
meaning of the people of England in the grant in 1414 of two entire
tenths and two entire fifteenths, we need only refer to the first act
of the next parliament, which, after rehearsing the impossibility of
the King effectually carrying on his wars abroad unless one tenth and
one fifteenth made by the former parliament, payable on the 2nd of
February, should be collected before that time, decrees that subsidy
to be due and payable on the feast of St. Lucie in the next coming
December. Nor is this all. The next act of this same parliament would
of itself prove the utter futility of the charge against Henry, as far
as that charge rests upon the evidence adduced. The parliament first
state the necessity of supplying the King with more efficient means
_for pursuing his campaign in France_, and then vote one entire tenth
and one entire fifteenth,--for what? not for the purpose which they
have expressly specified, but "_for the defence of his said realm of
England_." The preamble, however, of this act shows so clearly what
were the views and feelings of his subjects on this very point, as
well as on the justice of his claim, that a transcript of it seems
indispensable in this place.
"The Commons of the realm, in this present parliament assembled,
considering that the King our sovereign lord, for the honour of God,
and to avoid the shedding of human blood, hath caused various requests
to be made to his adversary of France to have restitution of his
_inheritance_ according to _right and justice_;[76] and for that (p. 097)
end there have been diverse treaties, as well here as beyond the
sea, to his great costs; nevertheless he hath not, by such requests
and treaties, obtained his said inheritance, nor any important part
thereof: and since the King, neither by the revenues of his realm, nor
by any previous grant of subsidy, hath had enough wherewith to pursue
_his right_; yet, always _trusting in God_ that in his JUST _quarrel_
he shall be upheld and supported, of his own good courage hath
undertaken an expedition into those parts, pawning his jewels to
procure a supply of money, and in his own person hath passed over, and
arrived at Harfleur, and laid siege to it and taken it, and holds it
at present, having placed lords and many others there for its defence;
and then of his excellent courage, with few people in regard to the
power of France, he marched by land towards Calais, where, on his
route, many dukes, earls, and other lords, with the power of the realm
of France, to an exceeding great number, opposed him, and gave him
battle; and God, of his grace, hath given victory to our King, to the
honour and exaltation of his crown, of his own fair fame, the (p. 098)
singular comfort of his faithful lieges, to the terror of all his
enemies, and probably to the lasting profit of all his realm."
[Footnote 76: This seems to have been the language
of judges, councillors, parliament, poets, and the
people at large. The voice of all England seemed to
be echoed by Lydgate.
"In honour great; for, by his puissant might,
He conquered all Normandy again
And valiantly, for all the power of France,
And won from them HIS OWN INHERITANCE."]
We may safely leave the issue to the verdict of any impartial mind.
The argument drawn from the language of parliament to convict Henry of
falsehood falls to the ground; it has no colour of reason in it; and
no other argument is even alluded to by the accuser. It is, moreover,
much to be regretted that the Editor of "The Battle of Agincourt,"
when he was translating so large a portion of the Chaplain's memoir,
which with great reason he implicitly follows, had not begun the work
of translation a few sentences only before its present commencement.
Our countrymen would then have seen that, from whatever sources that
Editor drew the evidence on which to build his triple charge of
hypocrisy, falsehood, and impiety against Henry V, those who knew him
best, and had the most ample opportunities of witnessing his character
and conduct, expressed at least a very opposite opinion on the point
at issue. The following are the genuine words of one who accompanied
Henry from his native shores to France, was with him at the battle of
Agincourt, and returned with him in safety to England. "Meanwhile,
after the interchange of many solemn embassies between England and
France, with a view to permanent peace, when the King found that very
many negociations and most exact treaties had been carried on in (p. 099)
vain, by reason that the council of France, _clinging to their own
will, which they adopted as their law_, could be induced to peace by
no just mean of equity, without immense injury to the crown of
England, and perpetual disinheritance of some of the noblest portions
of his right in that realm, though for the sake of peace he was ready
to make great concessions, seeing no other remedy or means by which he
could come to his right, had recourse to the sentence of the supreme
judicature, and without blame sought to recover by the sword what the
blameworthy and unjust violence of the French had struggled so long to
usurp and keep.... He determined to regain the duchy of Normandy,
which had for a long time been _kept, against God and all justice, by
the violence of the French_."
There is, however, one declaration contained in the very volume from
which these alleged letters of Henry are extracted, which makes the
charge brought by the commentator on those letters still more
surprising.[77] It is in that very volume positively asserted, with
regard to the first rumour through France of Henry's intended
invasion, that "his subjects _had strongly_ remonstrated with (p. 100)
him for his love of peace and rest, and his dislike of active
measures, and had _now_ INSISTED upon his undertaking the
expedition."[78]
[Footnote 77: The Author does not mean to imply, as
the result of his inquiries, that Henry was
altogether influenced in his determination to claim
the crown of France by the instigations of his
people. If, as we believe, he was urged by them to
adopt that measure, we believe also that he
listened with much readiness to their appeal.]
[Footnote 78: The words of the writer of that
history are too clear and forcible to justify us in
merely quoting their substance. The very title of
his chapter directs our attention to the point.
"Henry, King of England, constrained by his
subjects to renew his pretension to the crown of
France, makes a great movement." "The present year,
on the incidents of which I proceed to remark,
seems to me not less full of troubles and evils
than any of those which preceded it. It commenced
by a rumour, sudden but true, and which spread
itself everywhere, that the English, impatient of
repose, blaming for carelessness and want of heart
the repose and inactivity of their King Henry, had
_compelled him_ to arouse himself, and to revive by
the same means the pretensions of some of his
predecessors on the crown of France." "Les Anglais,
impatiens de repos à leur ordinance, blâmans de
nonchalance et de manque de coeur le repos et
l'oisiveté de leur Roi Henri, l'avaient obligé de
se reveiller."--M. Laboureur, Life of Charles VI,
translated from the Latin of a contemporary
ecclesiastic. Whatever be the degree of authority
to which this author is entitled, whilst he
supplies the letters on which the accusation alone
is founded, he as expressly contradicts, by
positive assertion, the inference now drawn from
those letters.]
The charge of hypocrisy is made to rest "on Henry assuring the French
monarch of his moderation and love of peace, whereas he must have been
conscious that he was immoderate in his demands, and was not desirous
of peace." To prove that his demands were immoderate, is not enough to
sustain this accusation; to constitute him a hypocrite, he must
_himself have been conscious_ that his demands were immoderate. (p. 101)
But how stands the probability? He was fully persuaded that the crown
of France was his own; and he first demands the full surrender of his
alleged rights. The Commons declare that what he sought was "the
restitution of his inheritance according to _right and justice_," and
testify that he "trusted in God for support in his _just quarrel_." He
then, agreeably to the advice of his council,[79] (who acknowledge
that what he sought to recover was "his righteous heritage, (p. 102)
the redintegration of the old rights of his crown,") withdrawing his
full demand, proposes other terms, unreasonable, no doubt, as we (p. 103)
may view them now, but, if regarded as a substitute for the fair
kingdom of France, far from stamping on Henry the brand of hypocrisy,
when he made a profession of moderation and a love of peace.[80]
[Footnote 79: Among the records of the council, the
minutes of one of their meetings held at
Westminster in the second year of Henry's reign
deserve especial attention. The manuscript is much
damaged, but the general meaning is clearly
intelligible. The minutes first rehearse that "the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the true and
humble lieges and knights of the King's noble
realm, were there present, gathered by his royal
command." It then proceeds: "Ye, our noble and
righteous Lord and King, have in your chivalrous
heart and desire determined to stir and labour in
your recovery and redintegration of the old rights
of your crown, as well as for your righteous
heritage ... desiring upon this knightful intent
and purpose to have the good and high advice and
true meaning of us, your true knights and humble
lieges aforesaid. Whereupon, our sovereign Lord, as
well our Lords as we have communed by your high
commandment in these matters: and known well among
us all without [doubt ye are] so Christian a Prince
that ye would in so high a matter begin nothing but
that were to God's pleasance, and to eschew by all
ways the shedding of Christian blood; and that, if
algate [at all events] ye should do it, that
denying of right and reason were the cause [rather]
than wilfulheadedness. Wherefore, our sovereign and
gracious high Lord, it thinks, as well our Lords as
us in our own hearts, that it were speedful to send
such ambassadors to every party as [your] claim
requireth, sufficiently instructed for the right
and recovery of that is above said. And if ye, our
sovereign Lord, at the reverence of God, like of
your proper motion, without our counsel given
thereto, any mesne [middle] way to offer, that were
moderating of your whole title, or of any of your
claims beyond the sea; and hereupon your adverse
party denying you both right and reason and all
reasonable mesne [middle] ways, we trust all in
God's grace that all your works in pursuing them
should take the better speed and conclusion: and in
the mean while that all the works of readiness that
may be to your voyage thought or wrought, that it
be done by the high advice of you and your noble
council; seeing that the surety of your royal
estate, the peace of your land, the safe ward of
all your [realm] be well and sufficiently provided
for above all things. And, these observed, we shall
be ready with our bodies and goods, to do you the
service that we may to our powers, as far as we
ought of right, and as our ancestors have done to
your noble progenitors in like case."
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.]
[Footnote 80: A renewed charge of hypocrisy,
brought against Henry by the same pen, will call
for a renewed inquiry; and whatever further remarks
may be made on that topic, are reserved for the
page in which we shall shortly enter upon the
investigation of the charges.]
There remains the charge of impiety, which is made to rest on Henry
having called the Almighty to witness a falsehood, and quoted
Scripture in support of what he affirmed. It was undoubtedly too much
the practice then, as unhappily it is now, for Christians, on trivial
occasions, to appeal to Heaven, and to quote the sanction of Scripture
in very questionable matters of worldly policy. But Henry does not
appeal presumptuously, nor quote lightly; he appeals solemnly, and he
quotes reverently, in a matter of very great importance to both
kingdoms, and in a cause which he believed to be founded in right and
justice. He appealed to Heaven to witness what he regarded as true.
The page we have been examining accuses Henry of falsehood, hypocrisy,
and impiety: the evidence of facts, and the testimony of his
contemporaries, represent him to us in the character of an honest,
undisguised, and pious King.
On Tuesday, April 16, Henry held a council at Westminster, at (p. 104)
which the Chancellor, Henry Beaufort, briefly explained the
proceedings of the great council, enumerating the causes which induced
their King, in the name of God, to undertake in his own person an
expedition for the recovery of his inheritance. On the next day the
Chancellor informed the council that the King had appointed the Duke
of Bedford to be lieutenant of England[81] during his absence; with
the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Winchester, and other
prelates and lay lords to form his council.
[Footnote 81: Hall says, that "he left for governor
behind him his mother-in-law, the Queen." And
Goodwin (referring for his authority to Hall and
Pat. 3 Hen. V. p. 2. m. 41.) states that he made
her regent, and the Duke of Bedford protector. But
this seems to have originated in mere mistake.]
As early as May 26, an order was issued to suspend the assizes through
England during the King's absence, lest his lieges who accompanied him
might be subjected to inconvenience and injustice. The defence of the
country towards Scotland and Wales was provided for, and the rate of
wages payable to his retinue and soldiers was fixed. Every duke was to
receive 13_s._ 4_d._, every earl 6_s._ 8_d._, every baron 4_s._, and
every knight 2_s._, every esquire being a man-at-arms 12_d._, every
archer 6_d._ each day; whilst for every thirty men-at-arms a reward
was assigned of one hundred marks a quarter; together with some other
stipulations.
In the spring and summer the King issued[82] commissions to hire (p. 105)
ships from Holland and Zealand; to press sailors to navigate his
vessels; to provide workmen to make and repair bows; to procure carts
and waggons for the conveyance of his stores; also a supply of masons,
carpenters, and smiths, together with the materials of the respective
trades. The sheriffs of different counties were ordered to buy cattle;
and the sheriff of Hampshire was to cause bread to be baked, and ale
to be brewed, at Winchester and Southampton, and the parts adjacent,
for the use of the army.
[Footnote 82: The particulars of these commissions
may be found in Rymer, or in Sir Harris Nicolas's
"Battle of Agincourt," to whom the reader is
referred for more minute information on the
subject.]
The King not only thus took effective measures for the transport and
supply of his forces, but commanded also the Archbishop and the other
prelates to array the clergy for the defence of the kingdom at home
during his absence. Every sheriff also was to proclaim that a nightly
watch should be kept till All-Saints' Day; and no taverner was to
allow any stranger to remain in his house more than one day and night,
without knowledge of the cause of his delay; and all suspicious
persons were to be committed to prison.
Though parliament had granted a liberal supply, the King, finding his
expenses to exceed his means, made a direct and powerful appeal to all
his loving subjects for a loan, with promise of repayment; and (p. 106)
a considerable sum was raised in consequence of that appeal, but
still not enough. He was, therefore, compelled to pawn his plate and
jewels, (as he had done with his small stock in early youth during the
Welsh rebellion,) and to have recourse to all expedients for raising
the necessary sums. These expedients were often totally incompatible
with our present notions of the royal dignity; but no intimation
appears anywhere of the least unfair and dishonourable dealing on the
part of the King. His appeals to the people much resembled those of
Charles I, under still more urgent circumstances, in after ages.
A curious fact is recorded in the minutes of a council held May 25,
1415, respecting a demand for money from the companies of foreign
merchants resident in London. They were summoned before the council,
and informed that it was usual for merchants who traded in any other
country than their own to lend the government such sums as they could
bear, or else be committed to prison during pleasure. This custom was
justified on the ground of many and great privileges secured to them
in their traffic by the King's favour, from which they derived great
wealth. Certain sums were demanded, and sufficient pledges of gold,
silver, and jewels were offered; but the merchants of Florence,
Venice, and Lucca [de Luk] refused to comply, and were committed to
the custody of the warden of the Fleet Prison. From the merchants (p. 107)
of Florence was required 1,200_l._, from those of Venice 1,000_l._,
from those of Lucca 200_l._ These strong measures seem to have worked
their intended effect, for all those guilds granted loans afterwards.
Having now effected every preparation in his power, the King passed
through London, accompanied by the Mayor and citizens (who attended
him as far as Kingston); and having made an offering at St. Paul's,
and taken leave of his mother-in-law the Queen, he proceeded on his
way towards Southampton, where all his ships and contingents were
directed to await his arrival.
Reaching Winchester, he remained there for some days from June 26th,
probably to give audience to the French ambassadors, who were
presented to him on the 30th. The Archbishop of Bourges headed that
embassy, and the Bishop of Winchester was Henry's representative and
spokesman. Much of negociating and bartering ensued, and at first many
conciliatory communications were made on both sides; the French
yielding much, the English adhering to their original demands, or
remitting little from them. At length, the reply of the Archbishop put
an abrupt end to further discussion; and Henry commanded the
ambassadors to depart, with a promise that he would soon follow them.
It is here again painful to read the unkind and unjustifiable language
of the same author, whose triple charge against Henry's religious (p. 108)
and moral character we have just investigated, when he describes the
surprise of the French monarch and his court on the return of these
ambassadors. "Until that moment," he says, "the French court, either
_cajoled_ by Henry's _hypocrisy_, or lulled into security by a
mistaken estimate of his power, had neglected every means for
resisting the storm which was about to burst upon their country."
Henry stands convicted of no hypocrisy; and his accuser alleges no
evidence on which an impartial mind would pronounce him guilty. It is
curious as it is satisfactory to lay side by side with this unguarded
calumny the version of the circumstances of that time, made by an
unprejudiced foreigner, and a very sensible well-versed historian.[83]
"France was then governed by the Dauphin Louis, a young and
presumptuous prince, who had up to this point thought himself able to
amuse Henry by feigned negociations. Nevertheless, the preparations
going on in England having opened the eyes of his council, a
resolution was taken to send to England twelve ambassadors, at the
head of whom was the Archbishop of Bourges."
[Footnote 83: Abrégé Historique des Actes publics
d'Angleterre.]
Several contemporary writers, as well as general tradition, state
that, on occasion of one of the various embassies sent to and fro
between the courts of London and Paris, the Dauphin, then about
eighteen or nineteen years of age, sent an insulting present (p. 109)
to Henry of a tun of tennis-balls, with a message full of contempt and
scorn,[84] implying that a racket-court was a more fit place for him
than a battle-field. It is well observed, that such an act of wilful
provocation must have convinced both parties of the hopelessness of
any attempts towards a pacific arrangement; and, since the
negociations were carried on to the very last, some discredit has
thence been attempted to be thrown on the story altogether. But it
must be remembered (as the author of the Abrégé Historique justly
remarks) that these negociations were continued, on the part of
France, merely to gain time, and withdraw Henry from his purpose;
whilst Henry, on the other side, by his renewed proposals for the hand
of Katharine, (an union on which he appears from the first to have
been heartily bent,) kept up in his enemies the hope that, to gain
that object, he would ultimately relax from many of his original
demands. Henry certainly afterwards challenged the Dauphin to single
combat, as though he had a quarrel with him personally; and nothing
can fairly be inferred against the truth of the tradition, from the
silence in the challenge on the point of such an insult having been
offered. On the whole, the evidence is decidedly in favour of the
reality of the incident; whilst Henry's reported answer is very
characteristic: "I will thank the Dauphin in person, and will (p. 110)
carry him such tennis-balls as shall rattle his hall's roof about his
ears." And they, says the contemporary chronicler,[85] were great
gunstones for the Dauphin to play withal.
[Footnote 84: Otterbourne says Henry received the
tennis-balls whilst he was keeping his Lent at
Kenilworth.]
[Footnote 85: Cotton MS. Claudius, A. viii.]
* * * * *
Anxious to proceed in our narrative without further allusion to such
sweeping and unsupported charges, we must, nevertheless, here
introduce (though reluctantly) the remarks which have been suffered to
fall from the same pen, as its chief comment on the closing words of
Henry's last Will, made at this time.[86] He signed that document at
Southampton, July 24th, just three days after discovering the
conspiracy of which we must soon speak. Probably a sense of the
uncertainty of life, and the necessity of setting his house in order
without delay, were impressed deeply upon him by that unhappy event.
He felt not only that he had embarked in an enterprise the result of
which was doubtful, in which at all events he must expose his life to
numberless unforeseen perils; but that the thread of his mortal
existence might at a moment be cut asunder by the hands of the very
men to whom he looked for protection and victory. Compared with the
wills of other princes and nobles of that day, there is nothing (p. 111)
very remarkable in Henry's. From first to last it is tinctured with
the superstitions of the corrupt form of our holy religion, then
over-spreading England.[87]
[Footnote 86: His very last will is not known to be
in existence. This testament was made seven years
before his death, and was probably soon cancelled.]
[Footnote 87: Among the saints to whose custody he
bequeaths his soul, his favourite and patron, John
of Bridlington, finds a place. Among the legacies
connected with his family history, we meet with a
bequest, to the "Bishop of Durham, of the Missal
and Portophore which he had received as a present
from his dear grandmother Joan, Countess of
Hereford." To the same countess a gold cyphus,--a
proof that in 1415 his maternal grandmother was
still alive. It may be worth observing that, in
this will, there is no legacy to the Queen, his
father's widow. He had, however, on the 30th June
preceding, "granted of especial grace to his
dearest mother, Joanna, Queen of England, licence
to live, during his absence, in his castles of
Windsor, Wallingford, Berkhamstead, and Hertford."]
The subscription to this testament is couched in these words: "This
is my last Will subscribed with my own hand. R.H. Jesu Mercy and
Gramercy Ladie Mary Help:" and on these words the same author makes
this observation: "According to all the biographers of Henry,
extraordinary piety was a leading trait in his character, from which
feeling the addition to his Will appears to have arisen. It seems
indeed difficult to reconcile the _lawless ambition_, much less the
_hypocrisy_,[88] which Henry displayed in his negociations, with an
obedience to the genuine dictates of Christianity; but as he (p. 112)
rigidly observed every rite of the church, was bountiful towards its
members, and uniformly ascribed success to the Almighty, it is not
surprising that his contemporaries should have described him as
eminently pious."
[Footnote 88: In a few pages further, the same
writer thinks himself justified in adding this note
on a letter of Henry to Charles, "A translation of
this _hypocritical_ letter is given in the
Appendix."]
On this passage the biographer of Henry had rather that his readers
should form their own comment, than that he should express the
sentiments which he cannot but entertain: he invites, however, the
lover of truth to compare this charge of _lawless ambition and
hypocrisy_ with the actual conduct of Henry at this very time.
Whilst resident in the Abbey of Tichfield,[89] about ten miles from
Southampton, he despatched to the Council of Constance, addressing
himself chiefly to the Emperor Sigismund and the other princes
assembled there, copies of the treaties between Henry IV. and the
French court relative to the restoration of Aquitain to the English
crown; remarking upon the wrong that was done to him by the gross
violation of those treaties. This shows at all events that he was not
conscious of being actuated by lawless ambition, or of acting the part
of a hypocrite; it proves that he was desirous of having the merits of
his quarrel with France examined and understood: and he seems to have
felt an assurance that those who made themselves acquainted with the
real grounds of his intended invasion would pronounce his quarrel to
be just. Otherwise he would scarcely have gone out of his way to (p. 113)
draw the eyes of assembled Europe, (not to the boldness of an
enterprise, nor to the splendour of conquests, but) to a calm
investigation of the righteousness of his cause.[90]
[Footnote 89: See Cott. MS. Julius, E. iv. f. 115.]
[Footnote 90: The Emperor, in the league which he
made with Henry, records his resolution to assist
him in the recovery of his just rights.]
The words of his chaplain in recording this measure of Henry deserve a
place here. Indeed, every page of contemporary history proves that the
King himself had no misgivings as to the uprightness and justice of
his cause, and was ready to refer the whole to the judgment of
Christendom. "The King caused transcripts of all treaties to be
forwarded to the general council, to the Emperor Sigismund and other
Catholic princes, to the intent that all Christendom might know how
great injuries the duplicity of the French had inflicted upon him, and
that he was, reluctantly and against his will, compelled, as it were,
to raise his standard against the rebels."[91]
[Footnote 91: Here we cannot but recal the words
with which Henry afterwards, it is said, addressed
the Cardinal des Ursins, who was sent by the Pope
to mediate between him and Charles just before he
laid siege to Rouen. "See you not that God hath
brought me here as it were by the hand? There is no
longer a King in France. _I have a legal right over
that realm._ All is in confusion there; and no one
dreams of opposing me. Can I have a more sensible
proof that God, who disposes of crowns, has decreed
that I should place on my head the crown of
France?" And in his mandate to the Archbishop of
Canterbury to array the clergy against the en
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/20489