[Footnote 210: "The English colour." See Goodwin.]

Henry's court was at the Louvre, whilst Charles' was at the Hotel de St. Paul. The two courts were marked by a wide difference in splendour and attendance. The palace of Charles was deserted, whilst Henry's was crowded by almost all the great men of France.

Having now established the government of France, and provided for its maintenance during his absence, Henry proceeded with his royal bride towards England. In Normandy he was well received by the estates, who were assembled at Rouen, and who voted him a subsidy of 400,000 livres. On leaving this place, he constituted the Duke of Clarence his Lieutenant of Normandy, and gave commission to the Duke of Exeter (p. 285) to administer the government in Paris.[211] With his Queen and the Duke of Bedford he reached his native land in safety on the last day of January, or the first of February 1421; and he immediately communicated to the Archbishop his wish for him to appoint a day of public thanksgiving.[212]

[Footnote 211: In the parliament (2nd December 1420), Humfrey, Duke of Gloucester, being Lieutenant of the kingdom, provision was made that, should the King arrive, the parliament should continue to sit without any new summons: the reason also is given; because the King, being heir and Regent of France during the life-time of his father-in-law, and King after his death, would often be in England and often also in France. In this parliament a prayer is preferred against the Oxford scholars, who in vast numbers and armed attacked gentlemen in the counties of Oxford, Bucks, and Berks, and robbed them.]

[Footnote 212: On 30th January, the Pell Rolls record payment of 20 l. for bows, arrows, and bowstrings, a present from Henry to his father-in-law, the King of France.]



CHAPTER XXVIII. (p. 286)

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.

1421-1422.

Henry, now in the enjoyment of peace in England, Ireland, and France, (except only so far as the Dauphin was yet unsubdued,) in the enjoyment, too, of a union with the most beautiful Princess of the age, seems to have reached the highest pinnacle of his ambition and his hopes. The Queen was crowned with great solemnity and magnificence in Westminster Abbey,[213] on the third Sunday in Lent. (23rd February 1421.)

[Footnote 213: Walsingham says, that she was crowned on the first Sunday in Lent, which in that year fell on the 9th February. But the Pell Roll (Mich. 8 Hen. V.) contains a payment to divers messengers sent through England, to summon the spiritualty and laity to assist at the solemnizing of the coronation of Katharine Queen of England, at Westminster, on the third Sunday in Lent.]

After Henry had gratified his royal consort by proving to her how (p. 287) deep and lively an interest the people of England took in her welfare and happiness, he retired with her for a time to Windsor. A combination, however, of various motives, induced him to propose to her to join him in the execution of a design on which he seems to have been bent, and to accompany him[214] in a progress through the kingdom. He was most anxious to ascertain by personal inspection the state and condition of his subjects in various parts of the realm; more especially with the view of satisfying himself that justice (p. 288) was impartially administered, crimes repressed, and innocence protected. He felt also naturally a desire to present his loyal subjects to his Queen, of whom we have many proofs that he was in no ordinary degree proud; and, at the same time, to add to her gratification by visiting in her society those places with which he had early associations of pleasure, or which it would be most interesting to a foreigner to see. He was also influenced, perhaps, in some measure by a desire of visiting, in a sort of pilgrimage, the shrine of the patron saint of his family, John of Bridlington; and that of John of Beverley, the saint to whose merits the hierarchy, as we have seen, so presumptuously ascribed the turn of the battle on the day of Agincourt.

[Footnote 214: There is so much inconsistency in the accounts of chroniclers as to the royal proceedings on this occasion, that to attempt to reconcile them all seems a hopeless task. The Author, however, having been furnished with the following facts ascertained from the "Teste" of several writs and patents preserved in the Tower, is able to recommend, with greater confidence in its accuracy, the adoption of the journal offered in the text.

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

With these motives,[215] combined, it may be, with others, Henry lost no time in carrying his intention into effect. He seems to have always acted under a practical sense of the maxim, never to put off till to-morrow what is to be done, and what may be done, to-day. Without waiting for the summer, or a more advanced stage of the spring,—and, had he delayed for longer days and more genial weather, the journey would never have been taken,—we conclude that, about the beginning of the second week in March, the King and Queen, attended by a large (p. 289) retinue of friends and nobles, began their journey northward.[216] The first place in which we are sure they rested is Coventry, which they reached probably about the 8th of March, and where they were certainly on the 15th of that month, the eve of Palm Sunday. Henry had a house at Coventry, in right of the duchy of Cornwall, called Cheylesmoor; and probably they took up their abode in that mansion during their stay at Coventry. The greater part of the time spent in Warwickshire was perhaps passed in the castle of Kenilworth, a favourite residence of his grandfather, John of Gaunt, who made very great additions to the mansion, always afterwards called the Lancaster Buildings. Henry himself, too, had been much employed in improving this place, and surrounding it with pleasure-grounds and arbours,[217] instead of the thorns and brakes which had formerly been seen there. Just seven years before this visit with his Queen, he had drained and planted the rough land near the castle; and the local historians tells us the spot was called "The Plesance in the Marsh."

[Footnote 215: Rapin says, but, as it should seem, without reason, that Henry's aim was, under colour of shewing the country to the Queen, to procure by his presence the election of members for the parliament who would be favourable to him.]

[Footnote 216: MS. Cott. Domit. A. 12.]

[Footnote 217: Elmham says, that, in 1414, Henry kept his Lent in the castle of Kenilworth, and caused an arbour to be planted in the Marsh there, for his pleasure, amongst the thorns and bushes where a fox before had harboured, which he killed.]

From Kenilworth the royal party went (probably about the 20th of March) to their house at Leicester, where they kept the festival (p. 290) of Easter.[218] Easter Sunday fell that year on the 23rd of March. Could Henry have known of the sad calamity which befel him that very Easter, his rejoicings would have been turned into mourning. It was at that very time that the disastrous conflict took place, in which the English were routed, and the Duke of Clarence, whom Henry had left his representative on the Continent, was slain. Where the King was when the melancholy tidings reached him, and which induced him to cut short his progress, does not appear. We know that the joyful news of Agincourt reached London on the fourth morning after the battle; and probably the sad report of his brother's death, and of the discomfiture of his troops, was posted on to Henry whilst he was at York. Towards this, his northern capital, we conclude that he proceeded from Leicester, about the last day of March. The inhabitants of York had made most costly preparations for the reception of their royal visitors; and on their arrival they welcomed their conquering sovereign, and the partner of his joys and cares, with every demonstration of loyalty and devotedness. The most princely presents were offered to Henry in the most dutiful and cordial spirit of loving and admiring subjects. How many days they remained together (p. 291) amidst the festivities and rejoicings of the province of York, is not recorded; perhaps the limit to this festival was the hour when the gloom which spread over the kingdom on the death of Clarence reached the royal party. It is not improbable that the news of his loss gave a turn to Henry's mind, and induced him with sentiments of piety and mourning to leave the splendour of his court for a while, and, laying aside the feelings of the triumphant monarch, to give himself up to exercises of devotion, and to a preparation for the same awful change which had so unexpectedly stopped the career of his younger brother. Leaving his Queen among his friends and faithful lieges of York, he proceeded on a kind of pilgrimage to Bridlington, Beverley, and Lincoln;[219] but in what order he visited those places it does not appear. He was at York on the 4th of April, and again on the 18th; whilst it is equally certain that on the 15th he was at Lincoln. (p. 292) The author of the manuscript which tells us that his object in going to Lincoln was to be present at the installation of Richard Flemming, then lately elected Bishop, seems to be in error when he adds, that the King rejoined the Queen at Pontefract, and thence proceeded to Lincoln, and thence to London; unless, indeed, the King visited Lincoln once by himself, and once with Katharine; a supposition in the last degree improbable. He certainly returned to York after his sojourn at Lincoln on the 15th. It is very probable that, when he left York, he proceeded first to Bridlington, thence to Beverley, and so, crossing the Humber at Hull, reached Lincoln about the 13th of April, and, having passed two or three days there, returned to York on the 17th. The only other town mentioned by chroniclers is Pontefract. Documents may, perhaps, be hereafter discovered to account for him between the 18th of April, when he was certainly at York, and the 1st of May, when he had returned to Westminster. At present we are left to conjecture: but it cannot be thought improbable if we suppose that, from his castle of Pontefract, (where he would have seen the Duke of Orleans[220], then a prisoner there, whom he always treated with (p. 293) respect and kindness, and whom he indulged with as much relaxation of his confinement as was compatible with his safe custody,) he took the route for Chester, the place where he had formerly landed on his return from Trym Castle. Thence pointing out to his bride the country of Glyndowrdy, in which he passed his noviciate in arms; and the whole line of the Welsh borders, with which he had been long familiar, he would probably have passed on to Shrewsbury, where he might have taken Katharine to the spot in the battle-field on which Hotspur fell. From Shrewsbury, his line would be through Worcester, in which city he had often been stationed during the Welsh rebellion; and so onwards through Oxford, (a place he probably had visited on his journey northward, and where he would have been delighted to show Katharine the "narrow chamber" assigned to him when he studied there,) thus finishing his circuit where it began, at Windsor.

[Footnote 218: Walsingham says, that Henry put off the celebration of the feast of St. George, (which, being the 23rd of April, must have fallen on a day after he had left York,) and directed it to be celebrated at Windsor on the Sunday after Ascension-day.]

[Footnote 219: His visits to the hallowed resting-places of these saints are not at all inconsistent with the opinion which we have ventured already to give, that he was never heard to address in the language of prayer or thanksgiving any other being than the one true God. A similar feeling of love for the holy men of God, whether he could testify that love to the living, or merely record it for the memory of the dead, might have led him to the installation of the Bishop of Lincoln, and to the tomb of John of Bridlington and John of Beverley. Henry was not a Protestant by profession; but, compared with the hierarchy by whom he was surrounded, he approached almost, if not altogether, this fundamental point of difference between the two churches, the rejection of the adoration of any being, save the one only God.]

[Footnote 220: Henry's prisoners of war were dispersed among various castles and strong places throughout the kingdom in England and Wales. Payment is recorded, July 10, 1422, to John Salghall, Constable of Harlech, of 30l. for the safe custody of thirty prisoners, conveyed by him from London.—Pell Rolls, 9 Henry V.]

There are difficulties attending this supposition, to the existence of which the Author is fully alive; but in the whole affair there is only a choice of difficulties. He is aware that the journey from York through Chester and Shrewsbury to Windsor would have required the royal party to travel for fourteen days at the rate of twenty miles on the average each day consecutively. But, on the other hand, without such a supposition, the old chroniclers[221] must be altogether (p. 294) laid aside, (though there is no other evidence to make their statement improbable,) when they assure us that Henry took Katharine to visit his principality, as well as the distant parts of his kingdom.[222] It must, moreover, be borne in mind that although he might have felt a reluctance (notwithstanding the melancholy event which hastened his return to the capital) to break off his intended progress without visiting at least the borders of Wales, yet he was pressed for time, and would therefore not willingly lose a day on the road. Be this as it may, we are assured[223] that, wherever he went, his ears were in all places open to the complaints of the injured and oppressed; he redressed their wrongs, punished the perverters of public trusts, (p. 295) reformed many abuses in the local governments, and established such ordinances as should secure for the future the impartial administration of justice to high and low alike.

[Footnote 221: Holinshed and others.]

[Footnote 222: The Author has invariably discarded the assertions of the chroniclers, however positively affirmed, or frequently reiterated, whenever they have appeared to be incompatible with ascertained facts, or inconsistent with what would otherwise be probable. In the present instance, after a review of all the circumstances, and an examination of all the documents with which he is acquainted, though the supposition here adopted may be deemed ideal and fanciful, he is inclined to think that the acquiescence in that view will be attended with fewer difficulties than the adoption of any other.]

[Footnote 223: But whilst Henry was thus actively employed in visiting his subjects, and spreading the blessing which a good King can never fail to dispense wherever his influence can be felt, his ministers of state sought his directions on all important matters for the management of his affairs on the Continent. Thus a despatch addressed to the Treasurer by William Bardolf, Lieutenant of Calais, is forwarded with all speed to the King in Yorkshire, that his especial pleasure might be taken thereon. Payment of the messenger appears in the Pell Rolls, April 1, 9 Hen. V.]

If, as we are led to believe, Henry returned by the way of Chester, his ardent imagination and pious turn of thought would have reverted with mingled feelings of wonder and gratitude to his journey along the same road two-and-twenty years before; when, returning from his own captivity in Ireland, he accompanied the captive Richard towards his metropolis, to resign his throne there, and soon afterwards to lay down his life. To Henry, indeed, mementos presented themselves on every side of the frailty of all sublunary possessions, the precarious tenure by which king or peasant alike holds any earthly thing; whilst he was himself destined, in the revolution of the next year, to become in his own person a marked example of the same uncertainty. His spirit might seem to address us from the grave, in the words of a reflecting man.[224] "A day, an hour, a moment is sufficient for the overthrow of dominions which are thought to be grounded on foundations of adamant."

[Footnote 224: Casaubon, quoted by Sir Walter Raleigh.]

* * * * *

Where Henry was when the unexpected news arrested his progress is not known. The certainty is, that whilst he was anxiously engaged in reforming abuses, and preparing good laws at home; after he had (p. 296) also just concluded a peace with Genoa, and, by generously releasing the King of Scotland, had bound him by the strongest ties of gratitude and affection; his exertions were suddenly arrested by the sad news of the defeat of his forces at Baugy in Anjou, and the death, in battle, of his brother, the Duke of Clarence.[225] These tidings caused him to shorten his progress, and to return to his capital, where he arrived at furthest on the 1st of May.

[Footnote 225: Monstrelet says, that the flower of the English chivalry, who were with the Duke, fell in that field, and, besides knights and esquires, from two to three thousand men; and that, with the Earl of Somerset and others of noble and gentle blood, about two hundred were taken prisoners. There was also, he says, a dreadful slaughter of the French. The English, under the Earl of Salisbury, recovered the body of the Duke from the enemy, and it was carried with much ceremony to England, and there buried.]

The Bishop of Durham, Chancellor of England, was charged to open the Parliament, which met on the second of that month, Henry himself being present, in the Painted Chamber. The Chancellor's address, though in many points strange, and well-nigh ridiculous, is too interesting to be passed by unnoticed. He began by uttering eulogies on the King, specifying, among other topics of praise, this merit in particular,—that, whilst God had granted him victories and conquests as the fruits of his labour, he never assumed the least merit to himself, but ascribed all the glory to God only, "following in (p. 297) a manner the example of the very valiant Emperor Julius Caesar;" and also because as Job, when news was brought to him of the death of all his children as they were feasting in their eldest brother's house, praised God, saying, "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away, the will of the Lord be done; blessed be the name of the Lord!" so our sovereign Lord the King, when he first heard of the death of the noble prince, the Duke of Clarence, his own dear brother, and of the gallant knights and others slain with him, praised and blessed God for the visitation of that calamity, as he had before had cause to praise Him for all his prosperity. In declaring the cause of summoning this Parliament, he mentions the desire the King had of rectifying, according to right and justice, all abuses and wrongs which had prevailed through the realm since his last passage to foreign lands, especially to the injury of those who had been with him there; and also his wish that all the laws of the realm should be maintained and enforced, and that further provision should be made for the [226]better governance, and peace, and universal good of the realm. The Parliament, it is said, cheerfully voted him a fifteenth,[227] (p. 298) though many persons petitioned against further taxation, and gave utterance to sad complaints of their poverty. The Convocation also met on May 5th, and on the 12th; they voted him a tenth from the revenues of the clergy: and his uncle, the Bishop of Winchester, advanced to him by way of loan twenty thousand pounds. The Parliament guaranteed payment of the loans to all who should advance money to the King for this expedition.

[Footnote 226: In this Parliament a statute was passed, the enactment, but more especially the preamble of which presents a very formidable view of the drain which Henry's continental campaigns had made upon the English gentry.

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

[Footnote 227: This vote does not appear on the Rolls of Parliament. Walsingham asserts that a fifteenth was voted. Holinshed distinctly says, that the "commonaltie gladly granted a fifteenth." But he is no authority in such a case. The Parliament, in the following December, granted a tenth, and a fifteenth.]

Henry, impatient to repair the dishonour of the defeat which his forces had sustained, and to reduce his foreign dominions to peace, issued his writ, on the 27th of May, to the sheriffs of the several counties to publish his proclamation that all persons should (p. 299) hasten with the utmost speed to join the King, and accompany him in his voyage. And now possessing under his command a larger force than he had ever yet raised; after procuring by subsidies and loans as large a sum as the power or inclination of his people supplied; having also appointed his brother, the Duke of Bedford, Regent; he left London (never to return to it alive), on the last day of May, or the 1st of June. From the 1st to the 10th of that month he seems to have passed his days alternately at Canterbury and Dover; though the cause of this delay does not appear to have been recorded. To whatever the postponement of his departure is attributable, though he left the metropolis not later than the 1st, he did not finally quit the English shores till the 10th of June. On the 12th he was at Rouen.[228]

[Footnote 228: Three days after landing his forces, he despatched the Earl of Dorset with twelve hundred men to relieve his uncle, the Duke of Exeter, who was closely blockaded in Paris.]

The Dauphin himself with a large army was at this time besieging Chartres, and Henry having passed by Abbeville, Beauvais, Gisors, and Mante, marched himself with strong hand to raise that siege. On Henry's approach the Dauphin withdrew.

Some of these facts, with others, are contained in a letter which was forwarded from Henry to the mayor and citizens of London, (it is the last we shall have occasion to transcribe,) and which is chiefly remarkable for his language when speaking of the Dauphin. He (p. 300) will not acknowledge him to have any right to the title, and calls him a pretender. Another point of considerable interest is the unqualified manner in which he speaks of the cordial co-operation and sincere attachment of the young Duke of Burgundy.

BY THE KING.

"Trusty and well-beloved, we greet you well. And for as much as we be certain that ye will be joyful to hear good tiding of our estate and welfare, we signifie unto you that we be in good health and prosperity of our person; and so be our brother of Gloucester, and bel-uncle of Exeter, and all the remnant of lords and other persons of our host, blessed be our Lord, which grant you so for to be! Witting, moreover, that in our coming by Picardy we had disposed us for to have tarried somewhat in the country, for to have set it, with God's help, in better governance; and, while we were busy to intend therto, come tidings unto us that he that clepeth him [calleth himself] Dauphin was coming down with a great puissance unto Chartres. Wherefore we drove us in all haste to Paris, as well for to set our father of France, as the said good town of Paris, in sure governance, and from thence unto this our town of Mante, at which place we arrived on Wednesday last, to the intent for to have given succours, with God's grace, unto the said town of Chartres; and hither come unto us our brother of Burgundy with a fair fellowship, for to have gone with us to the said succours; the which our brother of Burgundy we find right a trusty, loving, and faithful brother unto us in all things. But, in our coming from Paris unto this our town of Mante, we were certified upon the way, by certain letters that were sent unto us, that the said pretense Dauphin, for certain causes that moved him, hath raised the said siege, and is gone into the country of Touraine (p. 301) in great haste, as it is said. And we trust fully unto our Lord that, through his grace and mercy, all things here, that we shall have to do with, shall go well from henceforth, to his plesance and worship; who we beseech devoutly that it so may be, and to have you in his keeping!—Given under our signet, in our host, at our town of Mante, the 12th day of July."

Though the Dauphin avoided Henry altogether, he was forced to engage with the Duke of Burgundy's army, and he suffered a most decided defeat near Blanche Tache. Henry, meanwhile, was engaged in reducing Dreux and other towns, still garrisoned for the Dauphin.

The town of Meaux was so strong, and so well manned, that the siege of that one place occupied Henry from the 6th of October through the whole winter, and to the very end of the next April. During this protracted siege, in which the Earls of Dorset, and of Worcester, and Lord Clifford were killed, Henry sent ambassadors to the Emperor Sigismund for succours. He had the satisfaction, meanwhile, to hear that his Queen was delivered of a son, at Windsor, on St. Nicholas' day (December 6th). Whether the common report has any foundation in truth, cannot now be certainly known: his father, however, is said to have omened ill of the young prince when he heard of the place of his birth, and to have spoken thus to Lord Fitz-Hugh, his chamberlain: "My lord, I Henry, born at Monmouth, shall small time reign and get much; and Henry, born at Windsor, shall long reign and lose all: but (p. 302) God's will be done!" Probably this was a prophecy forged after the event, and ascribed to Henry without any foundation in truth.

In the session of Parliament held December 1st, 1421, under the Duke of Bedford as Regent, one fifteenth was voted for prosecuting the war, with this condition appended, that the first half of it should be paid in the money then current. The gold coin had been much lessened in value by clipping and washing; consequently the Parliament, to relieve the people, ordained that the receivers of the tax should take all light pieces, not wanting in weight more than 12d. in the noble. The people, therefore, got rid of their gold as fast as they could, and hoarded up their silver.[229] The Convocation also, which met at York, September 22nd, granted a tenth.

[Footnote 229: Rot. Pat. ix. Henry V.]

After reducing many towns and castles, Henry proceeded to the Chateau Bois de Vincennes, near Paris, to meet his Queen,[230] who had landed at Harfleur, on the 21st of May, with a noble retinue, and under convoy of the Regent himself. Henry and Katharine entered Paris together, where they were magnificently received; the same painful contrast still being felt by Charles between his court and that (p. 303) of his heir-apparent. The young King had put the spirit of the Parisians to the test by a strong measure, in levying a most unpopular tax; but the discontent did not break out into any open tumult. Indeed (as the chroniclers record) their resentments were abated, or rather turned into affection, when they felt the kind influences of King Henry's just and moderate government, and observed his exact administration of justice in redressing wrongs, and punishing without partiality or favour the authors of them. By this just conduct he gained especially the love of the people, who regarded him as their father and protector.

[Footnote 230: Preparations had been made as early as January 26th, 1422, for the Queen to leave England, and meet the King at Rouen, but she did not start till April.]

The Dauphin in the mean time was anxiously bent on recovering a crown from which the victories of Henry, and the displeasure of the King his father, had excluded him. His army was comparatively small, and he therefore, whilst Henry was with an army in the neighbourhood, avoided a battle, keeping always two days' march distant from him. Finding, however, that Henry was now, at length, far away, he laid siege to Cone, a town on the Loire, the garrison of which agreed to surrender on the 16th of August, if they were not by that time relieved by the Duke of Burgundy. The Duke not only sent into Flanders and Picardy to levy troops to raise this siege, but importuned Henry also to strengthen him with English soldiers and officers. The King's answer was that he would come himself at the head of his whole army to (p. 304) the Duke's relief. This was his resolution; but God decreed otherwise.

Very shortly after this resolution, Henry was seized by a disorder, on the exact nature of which historians are not agreed, which proved fatal to him. Yet, though much weakened, he resolved to join his army, which, at the first approach of his disorder, he had commanded the Duke of Bedford to lead on to raise the siege of Cone. With this intention he left the King[231] and Queen of France, and his own beloved Katharine, at Senlis, and proceeded to Melun. His complaint was then making rapid and deadly progress; and, after having been carried in a litter with the intention of passing through his troops, he was compelled to return to Vincennes.[232] The Duke of Bedford, who had raised the siege of Cone without striking a blow, hearing now of the state of danger in which his brother was, left the army, and, accompanied by a few friends, rode full speed towards the castle, where the King lay.

[Footnote 231: The King, his father-in-law, survived Henry not quite two months: he died October 21st, 1422.]

[Footnote 232: A description and history of this castle will be found in a work entitled, "Histoire du Donjon et du Chateau de Vincennes, par L. B.," published at Paris in 1807. The Author refers to the sojourn made in this castle by Henry's son (King Henry VI.) at the close of the year 1431, when he visited France for the purpose of being crowned.]

Henry, sensible that his end was fast approaching, desired the Duke of Bedford, the Duke of Exeter, the Earl of Warwick, Sir Lewis (p. 305) Robessart, and some others, to stand round his bed; to whom we are told he spoke to this effect: "I am come," said he, "to the end of a life which, though short, has yet been glorious, and employed to advance the good and honour of my people. I confess it has been spent in war and blood; yet, since the only motive of that war was to vindicate my rights after I had ineffectually tried milder methods, the guilt of all the miseries it occasioned belongs not to me, but to my enemies. As death never appeared formidable to me in so many battles and sieges, so now, without horror, I regard it making its gradual approach. And since it is the will of my Creator now to put a period to my day, I cheerfully submit myself to his will." He then mentioned two circumstances which tended to make him anxious on leaving the world: the one, that the war was not brought to a close; the other, that his son was an infant. But he was comforted on both these points by the tried friendship and sound principles of the Duke of Bedford, his brother; to whom he gave in charge both his kingdom and his boy. He then desired the Earl of Warwick to undertake the office of preceptor and guide to the young prince in learning and in arms. Henry next left a charge for his brother Humfrey to be careful that no division of affection and interests should take place between them; he conjured them also not to quarrel with the Duke of Burgundy, and enjoined them not to release the Duke of Orleans, and some (p. 306) other prisoners, till his son was arrived at years of discretion.

This was a mournful hour for those noblemen and friends and relatives who surrounded his bed. At length, having given all necessary directions for the government of his kingdom and his family,[233] he fixed his thoughts wholly on another world. He urged the physicians to tell him the real state of his disease; but they evaded any direct answer. Very soon he required them to tell him how long, in all human probability, he had to live. After some consultation, one of them, speaking for the rest, knelt down and said, "Sir, think of your soul; for, without a miracle, in our judgment you cannot survive two hours." His confessor and other ministers of religion then surrounded his bed, and administered the parting rite of the Roman church, as it was at that time and is still practised. He next desired them to join in the seven penitential psalms; and when in the 51st psalm they read, "Build thou the walls of Jerusalem," caught by the words, Henry bade them stop awhile; and with a loud voice declared to them, on the faith of a dying person, that it verily had been his fixed purpose, after settling peace in France, to proceed against the infidels, and rescue Jerusalem from their tyranny, if it had pleased his Creator to (p. 307) lengthen out his days. He then requested them to proceed; and when they had finished their devotions, between two and three o'clock in the morning, he breathed his last.

[Footnote 233: Elmham says, Henry added several codicils to his Will, leaving large sums to discharge the debts not only of himself, but also of his father, and also to reward many of his faithful servants.]

Henry of Monmouth died 31st August 1422; and when he resigned his soul into the hands of his Redeemer, he seemed to fall asleep rather than to expire.[234]

[Footnote 234: Elmham.]

Such a Christian end of his mortal existence is not surprising when we remember (a point on which his own chaplain will not suffer us to doubt,) that every day of his life he read and meditated upon the word of God, for the express purpose of learning how best to fear and serve him; a daily exercise (says the chaplain) from which, when he was engaged in it, no one even of his chief nobles and the great men of his state[235] could withdraw him.[236]

[Footnote 235: Sloane, 64.]

[Footnote 236: It is satisfactory to find, even among the mere details of expenditure, testimony borne to his love of the Holy Scriptures. Among his last domestic expenses is this interesting item: "To John Heth 3l. 6s. for sixty-six quarterns of calfskins, purchased and provided by the said John, to write a Bible thereon for the use of the King."—Pell Rolls, February 23, 1422, just six months before his death.]

The bowels of Henry were buried in the monastery of St. Maur; and his body embalmed, being put into a leaden coffin, was drawn to St. Denis. Before and behind the corpse were two lamps burning; and two hundred and fifty torches gave light to the procession. The Abbot and Monks of St. Denis came out to meet it, and solemnly preceded it to their church, where they performed (p. 308) the office for the dead, the Archbishop of Paris singing the requiem. From St. Denis the procession advanced to Paris, where the body was deposited for a while in Notre Dame; and thence, with great and solemn pomp, it was carried to Rouen. The Queen, from whom the death of her husband had been before concealed, here met the Duke of Bedford; and made preparations for the conveyance of the body to England. In a bed, in the same carriage with the body, was laid the figure of the King, with a crown of gold on his head, a sceptre in his right hand, and a ball in his left. The covering of the bed was vermilion silk embroidered with gold, and over the chariot was a rich silk canopy. The chariot was drawn by six horses in rich harness. The first bore the arms of St. George, the second, the arms of Normandy; the third, those of King Arthur; the fourth, those of St. Edward; the fifth, the arms of France; the sixth, the arms of England and France. James, King of Scots, followed it as principal mourner. The banners of the saints were borne by four lords. The hatchments were carried by twelve captains; and around the carriage rode five hundred men-at-arms, all in black armour,—their horses barbed black, and their lances held with the points downwards. A great company clothed in white, and bearing lighted torches, "encompassed the hearse." Those of the King's household followed, and after them the royal family; the Queen, with a great retinue, followed at a league's distance. Whenever the corpse rested masses were sung from the first dawn of the morning till nine o'clock. The procession passed through Abbeville to Calais; and crossing to Dover, proceeded with the same solemnities towards London. When they approached the capital, they were met by fifteen bishops in their pontifical habits, and many abbots in their mitres and vestments, with a great company of priests and people. The princes of the royal family went mourning next to the hearse. The corpse was buried in Westminster Abbey, among its most valued treasures.

Among the public acts[237] of the realm his death is thus (p. 309) recorded:

[Footnote 237: Acts of Privy Council. Cleopatra, F. iv. f. I. a.]

"DEPARTED THIS LIFE, AT THE CASTLE OF BOIS DE VINCENNES, NEAR PARIS, ON THE LAST DAY OF AUGUST, IN THE YEAR 1422, AND THE TENTH OF HIS REIGN, THE MOST CHRISTIAN CHAMPION OF THE CHURCH, THE BRIGHT BEAM OF WISDOM, THE MIRROR OF JUSTICE, THE UNCONQUERED KING, THE FLOWER AND PRIDE OF ALL CHIVALRY—*HENRY THE FIFTH*, KING OF ENGLAND, HEIR AND REGENT OF FRANCE, AND LORD OF IRELAND."

Here we would have drawn the curtain round the bed of Henry of Monmouth; but truth and justice compel us to tarry somewhat longer in the chamber of death. The tongue and pen of calumny have not suffered the dying hero to pour out his soul with his last breath in prayer and pious ejaculations unmolested; and the accuser's name is too widely known, and has unhappily gained too much influence in the world, for his calumnies to be passed over as harmless. Henry, having "set his house in order," and being certified how short a time he had to live, declares, on the faith of a dying man, that he had been fully resolved (had the Almighty granted him length of days to put his resolve into effect) to proceed in person to the Holy Land, and rescue the city of God from the pollutions and abominations of the infidels. In recording this declaration of the expiring monarch, Hume adds a comment as full of bitter sarcasm as it is tinctured with his characteristic (p. 310) spirit of scepticism. "So ingenious are men in deceiving themselves, that Henry forgot in these moments all the blood spilt by his ambition, and received comfort from this late and feeble resolve; which, as the mode of those enterprises was now past, he certainly would never have carried into execution." Had Hume been as faithful and painstaking in the search of truth, as he was ready to adopt the account of any transaction which was nearest at hand, and unscrupulous in substituting his own hasty remarks in the place of well-weighed reflections on ascertained facts, he never would have suffered so ignorant and ill-founded a comment to disgrace his pages. Hume[238] charges Henry with having left the world, forgetful of the bloodguiltiness by which his soul was stained, and with a sentence of hypocrisy and falsehood on his lips. To the first charge,—that Henry, at the awful moment of his dissolution, deceived himself into a forgetfulness "of all the blood spilt by his ambition,"—needs only to be replied, that so far from his having forgotten the loss of human life attendant upon his wars, the very page on which the historian is so severely commenting, records that Henry spoke of that subject openly and unreservedly to those who stood around his bed, expressing his sure trust that the guilt of that blood did not stain his soul, who sought only his just inheritance; but rested on the heads of (p. 311) those who, by their obstinate perseverance in injustice, compelled him to appeal to the God of battle in vindication of his own rights.

[Footnote 238: Hume's Hist. vol. iii. ch. xix.]

Again, Henry declares, on the faith of a dying Christian Prince, that it had verily been his fixed resolution, as soon as his wars in France had been brought to a favourable issue, to proceed to the Holy Land. Hume says that this was a late and feeble resolve; and the ground on which he rests this charge of falsehood is, that the mode of those enterprises was then past. Hume ought to have known, as an ordinary historian, that the mode of those enterprises was not then past; and Hume might have known that Henry's was not a death-bed resolve, to which the expiring self-deceiver clung for comfort when the world was receding from his sight; but that in his health and strength, and in the mid-career of his victories, he had actually taken preliminary measures for facilitating the execution of that very design.

With regard to the first position asserted by Hume, that "the mode of these enterprises was gone by," the facts of history are so far from authorizing him to make such an assertion, that they combine to expose its rashness and unsoundness. When Henry succeeded to the throne, he found a large naval and military force actually prepared by his father for the proclaimed purpose of executing such an enterprise, the undertaking of which was only prevented by his death.[239] And (p. 312) even a century after, the mode of those enterprises had not yet passed; for Pope Leo X. successfully negociated a league between the chief powers of Christendom, engaging them to unite against the infidel dominion of the Turk. Not only were such crusades subjects of serious and practical consideration in Europe just before Henry's accession to the throne, and a full century after it, but, during the last years of Henry's life, most vigorous and persevering exertions were made by the Sovereign Pontiff to effect an immediate expedition of the confederated powers of Christendom to Palestine, with the avowed purpose of crushing the power of the infidels. The histories of those times bear varied evidence to the same points: we must here, however, confine our attention to some facts more immediately connected with the case before us. In the year 1420,[240] July 12, Pope Martin V, conceiving that Sigismund would very shortly bring the war which he was then waging against the Hussites in Bohemia to an end, in a bull dated Florence calls upon all Kings, Prelates, Lords, and people, adjuring them most solemnly, by the shedding of Christ's blood, to join Sigismund, and under his standard to invade the (p. 313) lands of the Turks, and to exterminate them. He urges the formation of one grand general army, and for all true men to take the cross; with his apostolic promise to all who should so assume the cross, and join the army in their own persons and at their own charges, and also to all who should take up arms with the bona fide intention of joining the army, should they die on their journey, a full remission of all sins of which they should have repented from the heart, and confessed with the mouth; and, "in the retribution of the just, we promise them (says the Pontiff) an increase of eternal salvation."[241]

[Footnote 239: Fabyan, 388.]

[Footnote 240: Annales Ecclesiastici, vol. xii. Ann. 1517. See much interesting matter relating to the whole of this subject in these Annales Ecclesiastici of Baronius, continued by Raynaldus.]

[Footnote 241: Florentiae, iv. idus Julii, anno 3. Annales Eccles. v. viii.]

In the following year the Pope wrote a most urgent letter to Sigismund, pressing upon him, before and above all things, the duty of extirpating the heresy in Bohemia; assuring him that, however brilliant might be his career in other respects, yet by no means could he so well secure the favour of God, renown among men, and the stability of his throne. The Pontiff, in the same year, wrote repeatedly to Henry, King of England, urging him to consent to terms of peace between his country and France. We should have been glad had we been able to contemplate the Pontiff of Rome, in the character of a Christian mediator, urging two contending nations to be reconciled, solely with the Christian desire of stopping the dominion of war and blood, reconciling those who were at variance, checking the (p. 314) violent passions of mankind, and restoring to Europe the blessing of peace. But his desire was to reconcile France and England, in order that the concentrated powers of the faithful in Europe might be turned against the heretics in the north; and, when they were exterminated, then that the same forces might proceed to crush the infidel, and rescue the lands of the faithful from his grasp. The ecclesiastical historian,[242] who records the letters of the Sovereign Pontiff, assures us that Henry, King of England, had been repeatedly admonished by "the vicar of Christ to make peace with the French, and to dedicate to Christ his skill in war against the Turks, those savage enemies of the Gospel; adding (what the facts of the case did not justify him in saying,) that, in the agonies of his last illness, Henry confessed that he was dreadfully tormented with remorse because he had not consecrated his martial powers by waging war against the Mahometans."[243] Surely this testimony is of itself sufficient to rescue Henry's memory from having vowed that he had resolved to do what he knew he never could have done. "The mode of those (p. 315) enterprises was" not "past."

[Footnote 242: Raynaldus, Annales Ecclesiastici, vol. viii. p. 556.]

[Footnote 243: It is not to be forgotten that Henry of Monmouth had from his very childhood been interested by accounts of the state of Palestine. His father, as we have seen, went himself to the Holy Sepulchre; and, even during Henry's wars in France, his uncle, the Bishop of Winchester, visited Constance as he was proceeding in the guise of a pilgrim to the Holy Land.]

But Hume would have it believed that this was a late and feeble resolve of Henry, formed on his death-bed, when he was acting the part of a self-deceiver, forgetful of the lamentable effects of his ambition, and seeking comfort from his self-deception in the last moments of his life. There is strong and clear evidence that he not only had contemplated such a measure, but had actually taken important preliminary steps to facilitate the execution of his design, whenever he might be happily released from his present engagements. "This vindicatory evidence" (to use the words of Mr. Granville Penn)[244] "of the veracity and sincerity of Henry, is a manuscript discovered at Lille, in Flanders, in the autumn of 1819, which proves to positive demonstration, that at the moment when Henry was suddenly arrested in his victorious progress by the hand of death, his mind was actually, though secretly, engaged in projecting an attack on the infidel power in Egypt and Syria, as soon as he should have pacified the internal agitations of France; and that a confidential military agent of high character and distinguished rank had been despatched by him to survey the maritime frontier of those two countries, and to procure, upon the spot, the information necessary towards embarking in so vast an (p. 316) enterprise.

[Footnote 244: Mr. Granville Penn's interesting paper was read before the Royal Society of Literature at their first meeting in the year 1825, and is recorded in the first volume of their Transactions.]

"The manuscript is a small quarto in vellum, in old French, finely written in black character, and richly illuminated; consisting of fifty-four pages, and comprising a succinct military survey of the coasts and defences of Egypt and Syria, from Alexandria round to Gallipoli, made by the command of Henry within the three last years of his life, and completed and reported immediately after his unexpected death, by which death it was rendered unavailing. The confidential author of this survey was Gilbert de Lannoi, counsellor and chamberlain to Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, and that Duke's ambassador to Henry."

The same writer thus expresses himself in conclusion. "His declaration was not the prompting of a sickly conscience striving to procure delusive comfort from 'the late and feeble' resolves of a death-bed, as Hume unworthily asserts; it was the composed and deliberate communication of a dying captain and sovereign, disclosing to those around him, under a strong sentiment of devotion, a secret of that kingly office which he was then on the point of relinquishing for ever. To enter upon an appreciation of the moral value of the enterprise which Henry had then in prospect, would be as much out of place here, as it would be absurd to estimate it by the rule of the present age. In those ages, when all the higher orders of society were either clerical or martial, much real piety of sentiment (p. 317) must, in innumerable instances, have been compounded with the widely-extended romantic spirit which was ardent to hazard life on sacred ground of Judea, rather than to suffer the continuance of its profanation by the avowed enemy of the Christian name.

"The establishment of this point, certifying, as it does an interesting fact hitherto unknown, and effectually repelling and exposing an unjustifiable sarcasm directed against one of the most illustrious princes that have graced the English crown, may acquire in the history of truth the importance to which it might not be able to lay claim in the political history of a people."[245]

[Footnote 245: This same interesting subject is far more elaborately discussed by that excellent antiquary the Rev. John Webb; whose Introductory Dissertation and Illustrative Notes, (in the Archaeologia, vol. xxi. p. 281,) abound with most valuable information. The title prefixed to Lannoi's work is this:

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

In dismissing the immediate subject of this inquiry, the Author of these Memoirs feels himself under the painful necessity of recording his deliberate judgment on the inaccuracies of that celebrated writer, whose reflections upon Henry's dying declaration have been (p. 318) animadverted upon here. Through the whole series of years to the events of which these Memoirs are chiefly limited, he has been able to find very few transactions in recording or commenting upon which Hume has not been guilty of error; whilst the mistakes into which he has fallen (some more, some less, gravely affecting the character of an historian,) are generally such as an examination of the best evidence, conducted with ordinary care, would have enabled him successfully to avoid. Hume, unfortunately, supplied himself without stint from the stream after it had mingled with many turbid and discolouring waters. To draw, in each case of doubt and difficulty, from the well-head of historical truth, would have exacted more time and labour than he was ready to bestow. Had he prescribed to himself a system of research the very opposite to that in which he unhappily indulged, instead of representing Henry of Monmouth to have left the world with the falsehood of a self-deceiver on his tongue, he would have been compelled to record him as a man of piety, mercy, and truth.



CHAPTER XXIX. (p. 319)

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.

WAS HENRY OF MONMOUTH A PERSECUTOR?

In estimating the character of an individual, nothing is more calculated to mislead ourselves, or to subject him to injustice at our hands, than a disregard of the time, and country, and circumstances in which he lived. It is equally unwise, and unfair, and deceitful, for a human judge to establish one fixed standard[246] of excellence in any department whatever of scientific or practical knowledge, and (p. 320) then to try the merits of all persons alike with reference to that one test. The injustice and absurdity of estimating the talents for investigation and acumen, the skill, and industry, and perseverance of a chemical student, many centuries ago, by the knowledge of the most celebrated men of the present day, and to pronounce all who fell below that standard to have been deficient in natural talents, or in a faithful exercise of them, would be seen and acknowledged by all. At this time, errors in navigation would be unpardonable, which would have implicated a pilot in no culpability at all, who lived before the invention of the mariner's compass, and when half our globe was as yet unknown. The same observations are applicable when we would estimate the moral excellence of an individual, his worth in a private or a public capacity, his character as a subject or a governor,—as the framer, or the guardian, or the administrator of the laws. Many a practice in ordinary social intercourse, which would not be tolerated, and would fix a stigma on those who were examples of it as persons to be shunned and excluded from society in one age or country, might in another not only be endured, but be even countenanced and encouraged by those who would take the lead in the improvement and refinement (p. 321) of civilized life. The grand broad fundamental principles of right and wrong must abstractedly be acknowledged always and in every place; but in the interpretation[247] of them, and in their practical application, we shall find in the records of successive ages every conceivable diversity. If, in these days, we are tempted to brand with the mark of ignorance, and superstition, and cruelty, those among our predecessors who enacted laws against witchcraft, and condemned to death those who were found guilty of dealings with the spirit of wickedness, we must at the same time remember that persons who are examples of every Christian excellence, of reverence for God's law, of justice and charity, are now engaged in occupations which those men held in abhorrence. They believed in the reality of witchcraft, and condemned those who were pronounced guilty of the crime; we believe that the crime cannot be committed, that it is merely a creature of the imagination, and we denominate those who pretend to the power of committing it impostors: just as by the Mosaic law they were condemned as deceivers, pretending to possess a power and knowledge independently of the Almighty. Our predecessors considered the lending of (p. 322) money upon interest as an offence against the law of God, and reprobated those who so employed their capital as usurers, who had forfeited all title to the name of merciful Christians;—whilst in the present day the most scrupulous person does not hesitate, as in a matter of conscience, to depend for the means of subsistence on such a source of income. Assuming that in each of these two cases our views are formed on a sounder principle of moral and religious philosophy, we have no more right to disparage the character of any individual, who did his best in the midst of less favourable circumstances, than we should have to reprobate the helmsman of former days, because in the darkness of a starless night he had no compass wherewith to save his ship from wreck.

[Footnote 246: The Bible is always and everywhere the standard of divine truth; but to condemn an individual for wilful ignorance of its heavenly doctrines, to whom no opportunity has been afforded of learning them, would be unreasonable and unjust. A corresponding principle applies to the interpretation of the Bible. Our responsibility in every case increases with our privileges and opportunities.]

[Footnote 247: It will be borne in mind, that the question here is not whether there be not one immutable principle, nor whether there ought not to be one uniform interpretation of that principle; we are inquiring only into the nature of that rule by which we may equitably judge of the moral and religious characters of men.]

These principles must be borne in mind, and acted upon whenever we would examine the spirit and character of any individual on the charge of superstition, bigotry, cruelty, and unchristian persecution. Had not these principles unhappily been laid aside for a time and forgotten, we should scarcely have been pained by so severe a portrait of Henry of Monmouth, as a writer who ought to have known better has drawn, not in the warmth of debate and the hurry of controversy, but in the hour of reflection and quietude. "In the midst of these tragedies died Henry V, whose military greatness is known to most readers. His vast capacity and talents for government have been (p. 323) also justly celebrated. But what is man without the genuine fear of God? This monarch, in the former part of his life, was remarkable for dissipation and extravagance of conduct; in the latter he became the slave of the popedom,[248] and for that reason was called the Prince of Priests. Voluptuousness, ambition, superstition, each in their turn, had the ascendant in this extraordinary character. Such, however, is the dazzling nature of personal bravery and of prosperity, that even the ignorance and folly of the bigot, and the barbarities of the persecutor, are lost or forgotten amidst the enterprises of the hero and the successes of the conqueror. Reason and justice lift (p. 324) up their voice in vain. The great and substantial defects of Henry V. must hardly be touched on by Englishmen. The battle of Agincourt throws a delusive splendour around the name of this victorious King."[249]

[Footnote 248: The attachment of Henry to the See of Rome, and the countenance given by him to the encroachments of the Pope, have been greatly exaggerated. Rapin took a different view of his measures. "The proclamation" (he says) "made by Henry, prohibiting the Pope's provisions, was a death-blow to the court of Rome." On the death of Henry, the Pope wrote a letter of condolence to the council, in which he says, "We loved our son of famous memory, Henry King of England, for there were many and royal virtues in that Prince for which he ought to be loved;" and then adds a strong appeal to the council to abrogate the obnoxious statutes which had so materially entrenched upon his assumed prerogative. In a letter to Henry himself (Kal. Nov. xiv. An. iv.) nearly two years before his death, the Pope refers to a promise made by Henry that he had no desire to curtail the authority of the Roman See in his new dominions; and also to an undertaking that he would bring the obnoxious statutes under the notice of his parliament; and that, "if they could not be supported on honest and lawful grounds," he would satisfy the Pope in that particular. Surely these are not the expressions of one who was "the slave of the Popedom."—See "Annales Ecclesiastici."]

[Footnote 249: Milner's Church History, vol. iv. p. 196.]

It is very painful to read this sentence; but the historian and biographer must not be driven by such sweeping condemnation into the opposite extreme; nor be deterred by the apprehension of unpopularity from laying open his views both of the moral and religious question in the abstract, and also of the acts, and character, and spirit of the individual subject of inquiry.

The principles of religious liberty were ill understood through many years before, and subsequently to, the time of Henry V. The sentiments of persons in every rank of life in those days seem to have been built upon an understanding, that the authorities, ecclesiastical and civil, were bound in duty to expel heresy by force. It was not the case of a dominant party enacting penalties abhorrent from the sympathies of the mass of the people; "the people themselves wished to have it so, and the priests bore rule by their means." So thorough a triumph had the gigantic policy of Rome achieved over the freedom, and the wills, and the judgments of the inhabitants of Europe! Like her other victories, this too was the work of progressive inroads on the liberties (p. 325) of Christians. Never at rest, ever active, the arch-conqueror fastened to her chariot-wheels, one by one, the most valued rights and most solemn duties of responsible agents. The right of private judgment in matters of religion had been resigned by the vast majority of the people of Christendom, and the duty and responsibility in each individual of searching for the truth himself had been laid aside long before Henry V. was called to take a part in the affairs of this world. Bold and noble spirits, indeed, were found in successive periods to assert their own rights and to declare the privileges and the duties of their fellow-creatures, and to think for themselves in a matter which so deeply involved their own individual and eternal welfare; whilst the bulk of mankind in Christendom not only resigned their faith to the absolute control of the priesthood, but exacted also from their fellow-citizens a similar surrender, on pain of losing their share in the protection and advantages of the state. Thus had heresy, in various nations of Europe, become synonymous with rebellion and treason; a rejection of the determinations of the church in matters of doctrine was identified in most men's minds with rejection of the authority of the civil magistrate;[250] and every one who dared to dispute the jurisdiction of Rome was regarded as a dangerous (p. 326) innovator, and an enemy to his own country.

[Footnote 250: This view of heresy we find to have been at a very early date propagated and encouraged by the Pope and the See of Rome. Walsingham records, that, three years before Richard II.'s deposition from the throne, "the Pope wrote to him with a prayer (orans) that he would assist the prelates of the church in the cause of God, and of the King himself, and of the kingdom, against the Lollards; whom he declared to be traitors, not only of the church, but of the throne. And he besought him with the greatest urgency (obnixius) to condemn those whom the prelates should have declared heretics.—Ypod. Neust. 1396.]

That this was a state of things to be deplored by every friend of liberty and lover of truth, is not questioned; that domination over the consciences of men has ever been the object of the church of Rome, and that the spirit of persecution will ever be characteristic of her principles, is not here denied; nor are these observations made for the purpose of softening the feelings of abhorrence with which any persons may be disposed to view the proceedings of a persecuting spirit in those things which concern our most momentous interests so awfully. We refer to these historical reminiscences solely for the purpose of forming a more correct estimate of the individual character of one who lived in those times, and was born, and cradled, and educated in that atmosphere. It is easy to charge Henry V. with "the ignorance and folly of the bigot, and the barbarities of the persecutor;" but it were more worthy of a historian (his eye bent singly on the truth) to substitute inquiry for assumption, and (p. 327) careful weighing of the evidence for indiscriminate condemnation. There is such a thing as persecution, though the dungeon and the stake be not employed for its instruments; and true charity will be tender of the character of a fellow-mortal, though he is removed from this scene of trouble and trial, and has no longer the power of answering the accusations with which his good name is assailed. We may be as honest as those who write most bitterly, in our abhorrence of persecution; and yet think the individual who put its most rigid laws into effect, deserving of compassion and pity that his lot had fallen in such days of bigotry and ignorance, rather than of reprobation for not having discovered for himself a more enlightened path of duty.

It is not because we are obliged to confess that even the outward acts of Henry V. have been those of a persecutor, that these preliminary remarks are offered; it is rather to prepare our minds for a fair examination of his conduct, with reference to the only just and equal standard; for a candid and searching analysis of the evidence drawn from original sources, before it has become turbid and coloured by the channel through which it is often forced to flow; and for an unprejudiced judgment on his character,—a judgment perverted neither, on the one hand, by the dazzling splendour of his victories, nor, on the other, by that very common but most iniquitous principle of (p. 328) adjudication condemns the accused from hatred of the crime laid to his charge. The Author's sentiments on the character of religious persecution in general, and of the persecuting spirit of the church of Rome in particular, need not be disguised. He would never be disposed to acquit Henry V, or any other person, from a feeling of sympathy with the spirit of persecution.

The religion of the Gospel abhors all persecution. The faith of Christ must be maintained and propagated by more holy and heavenly weapons than those which can be forged by human authority and power. Persecution prevails in a Christian community only so far as the genuine spirit of the Gospel is quenched or checked among its members. The church has a power of compelling men to come to Christ, and to embrace the true faith, but its instruments of compulsion must be spiritual only: its sword must be supplied from God's own armoury. The sentence, "Having the terrors of the Lord, we persuade men," conveys an idea of tremendous consequences in store for those who refuse to obey the truth; but the consequences are reserved for the immediate dispensation of Him "who knoweth the thoughts." That believers, when possessed of temporal power, should have recourse to bodily restraint, and torture, and death, as the earthly punishment of those who entertain unsound doctrine, is a monstrous invention, which can (p. 329) derive no countenance from "the Word," and must be supported only by a worldly sword, and the arm of man wielding it. If, indeed, Christians are so far forgetful of the spirit of the Gospel as, on the plea of defending and spreading its genuine doctrines, to disturb the peace, and shake the foundations, and threaten the overthrow of society, the civil magistrate, whether Christian or heathen, will interpose. But neither has he, more than the church, any authority whatever for interfering by violence with the faith of any one. It is the duty of a Christian magistrate to provide for his people the means of religious instruction, and worship, and consolation; but, on the principles which alone can be justified, he must leave them at liberty to reject or to avail themselves of the benefit. Their neglect, or their abuse of it, will form a subject of inquiry at another tribunal; and the final, irreversible judgment to be pronounced there, man has no right to anticipate by pain and punishment on earth. These are the true principles of Christianity, and a church departs from the Gospel whenever these principles are neglected.

In adopting, however, these principles, and making them practically one's own, it must never be forgotten that there is a danger of confounding them, as they are unhappily too often confounded, with the results of a philosophy, falsely so called, which would teach governments to be indifferent to the religion of their people, (p. 330) and would encourage individuals to take no interest in the dissemination of religious truth. East is not more opposed to west, than the spirit of persecution, which would compel others by secular punishments to make profession of whatever doctrines the government of a country may adopt, is opposed to that Christian wisdom which maintains it to be equally the bounden duty of the state to provide for the religious instruction and comfort of its members, as it is the duty of a father to train up his own children in the faith and fear of God. The poles are not further asunder, than that holy anxiety for the salvation of our fellow-creatures which would impel Christians, to the very utmost bound of the sphere of their influence, to promote as well unity in the faith as the bond of peace and righteousness of life, is removed from that narrow bigotry which fixes on those who differ from ourselves the charge of wilful blindness, and obstinate hatred of the truth, to be visited by man's rebuke here, and God's displeasure for ever.[251] A wise and pious writer of our own has said,[252] (p. 331) "Show me the man who would desire to travel to heaven alone, regardless of his fellow-creature's progress thitherward, and in that same person I will show you one who will never be admitted there." The principle applies equally to an individual and a commonwealth. Show me a State which neglects to provide for the spiritual edification and comfort of its members, and in its institutions proves itself unconcerned as to the advancement of religious truth, and in that State you see a commonwealth whose counsels are not guided by the spirit of the Gospel, and therefore on which, however for a time it may shine and dazzle men's eyes with the splendour of conquest, and be making gigantic strides in secular aggrandizement, the blessing (p. 332) of the God of Truth and Love cannot be expected to descend.

[Footnote 251: For Christians of the present age, and in our country, to pass through life without partaking in any persecution, such as once disgraced our legislature and the executive government, does not necessarily imply a freedom of the conscience from a persecuting spirit. The Christian can now evince the real tone and temper of his mind only in his behaviour towards his fellow-creatures, and by the sentiments to which he gives utterance. The Author hopes he may be pardoned, if he ventures, in further illustration of his principles on this subject, to make an extract from his sermon lately preached at the consecration of the Bishop of Salisbury. "In his intercourse with those Christians whose sentiments do not coincide with our own, the Christian minister will never by laxity of expression or conduct encourage in any an indifference to truth and error, nor countenance the insidious workings of latitudinarian principles. He will ever maintain the truth, but never with acrimony; and, whilst his duty compels him to banish and drive away all false doctrine, he will feel and show towards the persons of such as are in error compassionate indulgence and forbearing tenderness. He knows that truth can be only on one side, but he acknowledges that sincerity may be on both; and he will set his mind on winning back again by mild argument and conciliatory conduct those who have gone astray, rather than by severity in exposing their faults, and a cold, forbidding, and hostile bearing, indispose them to examine their mistaken views, and confirm them in their spirit of alienation."]

[Footnote 252: Owen Feltham.]

A Christian legislature is bound by the most solemn of all obligations to supply with parental care the means which, in the honest exercise of its wisdom, it deems best fitted for converting the community into a people serving God; each obedient to his law here, each personally preparing for the awful change from time to eternity. But with each individual member of the community, from those who make its laws or administer them to the humblest labourer for his daily bread, it must ultimately be left to accept or to reject, to cultivate or neglect, the offered blessing. The moment compulsion interferes with the free choice of the individual, the religion of the heart and the outward observance cease to coincide, and hypocrisy, not faith working by love, is the result. "Persecution[253] either punishes a man for keeping a good conscience, or forces him into a bad conscience; it either punishes sincerity, or persuades hypocrisy; it persecutes a truth, or drives into error; and it teaches a man to dissemble and to be safe, but never to be honest."

[Footnote 253: Bishop Taylor's "Liberty of Prophesying," 13.]

* * * * *

With these observations we would proceed to inquire historically into the personal character of Henry V. with regard to religious persecution; a prince who lived when all Christendom was full of (p. 333) the darkness of bigotry and superstition, and when persecution had established its "cruel habitations" in every corner of the land.

The first occasion on which Henry of Monmouth's name is in any way connected with religious intolerance and persecution, is recorded in the Rolls of Parliament, 7 and 8 Henry IV. The circumstance is thus stated by Prynne,[254] or whoever was the author of the passage which is now found in the "Abridgment of Records in the Tower." "At this time the clergy suborned Henry, Prince, for and in the name of the clergy, and Sir John Tibetott the Speaker, for and in behalf of the Commons, to exhibit a long and bloody bill against certain men called Lollards,—namely, against them that taught or preached anything against the temporal livings of the clergy. Other points touching Lollardy I read none; only this is to be marked, for the better expedition in this exploit, they joined prophecies touching the King's estate, and such as whispered and bruited that King Richard (p. 334) should be living; the which they inserted, to the end that by the same subtlety they might the better achieve against the poor Lollards aforesaid. Wherein note a most unlawful and monstrous tyranny; for the request of the same bill was, that every officer, or other minister whatever might apprehend and inquire of such Lollards without any other commission, and that no sanctuary should hold them."

[Footnote 254: This work, "published by William Prynne, Esq. a Bencher of Lincoln's Inn, 1657," is ascribed by him to Cotton; but it proves not to have been written by Cotton, but by the two brothers William and Robert Bowyer. See manuscript note, by Francis Hargrave, at the commencement of his copy in the British Museum. What notes and observations came from the author, whether Cotton or one of the Bowyers, and what were added and interwoven by Prynne, it seems impossible to determine. This passage (p. 456) apparently carries with it internal evidence that it was penned by Prynne.]

The Biographer of Henry V. needs not be very anxious as to the real intention of this petition. The allegation that Prince Henry and the Speaker of the House of Commons were suborned by the clergy, is a pure invention; no proof, or probable confirmation of any part of the charge, is afforded by history. The Speaker is named as the chief member of the House of Commons; the Prince is named as President of the Council, and chief member of the House of Lords; each acting in his official rather than in his individual character.

The petition was presented on Wednesday, December 22, in the parliament 7 and 8 Henry IV. which was dissolved that same day. The Roll records that "The Commons came before the King and Lords, and prayed an interview with the Lords by John Tybetot the Speaker." Different petitions were presented; one touching the succession of the crown, and the petition in question. The petition is not drawn up in the name of the Commons and Lords; it purports to be addressed (p. 335) to the King by "his humble son Henry the Prince, and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in this present parliament assembled;" and the Speaker, in the name of the Commons, prays the King that the petition might be made the law of the land until the next parliament: and the King "graciously assents." Whatever were the real object of this law, if its aim were merciful, the Prince ought to have no additional share of the praise; if it were adding to the severity of the existing law, he deserves no additional blame, from the fact of his name appearing in the petition. In either case it appears there just as the Speaker's does, officially. But what was the real drift of this petition? Suppose it to have been on the side of severity, will it deserve the character assigned to it by the author of the "Abridgment?" Can it be called a "bloody" petition? It prayed that after the feast of Epiphany next ensuing, without any other commission, "Lollards, and other speakers and contrivers of news and lies, might be apprehended and kept in safe custody till the next parliament, and there to answer to the charges against them." Suppose this to have been an extension of a former persecuting law, it gave no power of life or death, or any further severity against the person, than merely safe custody, a power now given to any magistrate against persons accused of any one of a large class of offences usually treated as light and trifling. But we may suppose that the real bearing of this petition were altogether (p. 336) the other way,—that it was intended to mitigate the severity of the existing law,—to deprive the real persecutors of the power, which they would undoubtedly have had, "of citing the suspected heretic, punishing him by fine and imprisonment, and, in the case of a relapsed or obstinate heretic, consigning him to the civil power for death." This power the statute[255] 2 Hen. IV. c. 15, conferred on the diocesans; and the petition in question might have been virtually a suspension of that sanguinary law till the next session. If this be so, we have precluded ourselves from ascribing any individual merit to Henry of Monmouth above the rest of the peers who drew up the petition; but he must share it equally with them; at all events, the charge of his having been suborned by the clergy to present "a long and bloody petition" falls to the ground. On this question, however, it were better to cite the opinion of an author certainly able (p. 337) to take a correct view of such subjects; and who, not having Henry the Fifth's character before him at the time, but only the historical fact, must be regarded as an unprejudiced authority. Mr. Hallam,[256] in his History of the Middle Ages, makes this comment upon the proceeding in question. "We find a remarkable petition[257] in 8 Henry IV. professedly aimed against the Lollards, but intended, as I strongly suspect, in their favour. It condemns persons preaching against the Catholic faith or sacraments to imprisonment against the next parliament, where they were to abide such judgment as should be rendered by the King and peers of the realm. This seems to supersede the burning statute of 2 Henry IV, and the spiritual cognizance of heresy. Rot. Parl. p. 583; see too p. 626. The petition was expressly granted; but the clergy, I suppose, prevented its appearing in the Roll."[258] Certain it is, that, unless the statute framed upon this petition suspended the power of the existing law, the hierarchy had full authority, without the intervention of the civil magistrate, (p. 338) to apprehend any one suspected of heresy, to try him, to sentence him, and to deliver him over to the secular power for death, upon receipt of the King's writ.[259] Certain it also is, that, on those who might be apprehended in consequence of this petition, none of those rigours could be visited: on the contrary, they would be placed beyond reach of the ecclesiastical arm. Surely to talk of Prince Henry being suborned by the priests to present a bloody petition, savours rather of blind prejudice than of upright judgment.

[Footnote 255: Much doubt and many mistakes seem to have prevailed as to the real state of the law in England before the statute 2 Hen. IV. cap. 15. It is said by the annotator on Fitzherbert that, "before the time of Henry IV. no person had been put to death for opinions in religion in England;" but the same author himself tells us that, among the crimes to be punished by burning by the common law, heresy is enumerated. "No Bishop, indeed, by the common law, could convict of heresy, as to loss of life, but only as to penance, and for the health of the soul, 'pro salute animae.' In the case of life, the conviction by the common law ought to have been before the Archbishop in convocation." Much information is found on this subject in Fitzherbert's Book, De Natura Brevium.]

[Footnote 256: Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. iii. p. 134.]

[Footnote 257: An antiquary well versed in such matters says, that for many years previous to this petition there are several mandates upon the Patent Rolls, ordering the apprehension of heretics, (who appeared to have been all monks,) in consequence of complaints made to the King in council by the various monasteries. He had never met with any entry affecting the parochial clergy.]

[Footnote 258: The clergy could not have prevented its appearance on the Roll, but the judges (it is said) might have done so.]

[Footnote 259: See, however, Fitzherbert, De Natura Brevium, p. 601.]

The only other occasion which places Henry of Monmouth, whilst Prince of Wales, before us in conjunction with bigotry, intolerance, and persecution, is the martyrdom of a condemned heretic, executed in Smithfield. Fox, and those who follow him, say, that the martyr was John Badby, an artificer of Worcester, condemned first in his own county, and then definitively sentenced by the Archbishop, the Duke of York, the Chancellor, and others in London; the Chronicle of London records the same transaction, but speaks of the individual as a "clerk, who believed nought of the sacrament of the altar!" There is no doubt, however, that the two accounts, as well as the Archbishop's record, refer to the same individual, though the Chronicle of London is mistaken as to the sphere of life in which he moved. It will be borne in mind that the question is not, whether John Badby ended his life gloriously in defence and in testimony of the truth, nor (p. 339) whether those who charged, and tried, and condemned him, were merciless persecutors; the only point of inquiry immediately before us is, Whether, at the death of John Badby, Henry of Monmouth showed himself to be a persecutor. The circumstances, however, of this martyr's charge and condemnation, independently of that question, are by no means void of interest; though our plan precludes us from detailing them further than they may throw more or less direct light upon the subject of our investigation. The following statement is taken from Archbishop Arundel's record.[260]