[Footnote 45: Anthony a 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 brotherś 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 10l. 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 Abrege 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: "Abrege 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 "2,000l. to Richard Clitherow and Reginald Curtys, (27th February 1415; ordered by the King himself to go to Zealand and Holland, for the purpose of treating with the Duke of Holland and others to supply ships for the King's present voyage,) therewith to pay divers masters and mariners, who were to accompany him abroad, whither he was going in his own person."]

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 "Abrege 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, Alencon, 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 10,000l. 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 a leur ordinance, blamans de nonchalance et de manque de coeur le repos et l'oisivete de leur Roi Henri, l'avaient oblige 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 13s. 4d., every earl 6s. 8d., every baron 4s., and every knight 2s., every esquire being a man-at-arms 12d., every archer 6d. 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 1,200l., from those of Venice 1,000l., from those of Lucca 200l. 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: Abrege 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 Abrege 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."