Chapter XXI: Appendix: , No. III. (p. 425)

AUTHENTICITY OF THE MANUSCRIPTS

Sloane 1776, and Reg. 13, c. 1.

It will be borne in mind that the only document which contains the charge brought against Henry of Monmouth of unfilial conduct and cruel behaviour towards his afflicted father is a manuscript, two copies of which are preserved in the British Museum; and that a thorough examination of the authenticity of that manuscript was reserved for the Appendix. Every right-minded person will agree that the magnitude and dark character of a charge, so far from justifying a prejudice against the accused, should induce us to sift with more scrutinizing jealousy the evidence alleged in support of the accusation.

It will require but a very brief inspection of the two MSS., Sloane 1776, and Reg. 13, c. 1.,[311] to be assured that they are either both transcripts from one document in that part of the volume which contains the history of Henry IV, or that one of these is copied from the other.[312] Unless, therefore, an intimation be given to the contrary, it will be understood that reference is made to the Sloane MS., which, though not copied with equal correctness in point of (p. 426) orthography and grammar, is still far superior to the King's in the clearness of the writing.

[Footnote 311: See Sloane, p. 27. King's, p. 11, b.
The same gap between "nominati" and "fratris," &c.]

[Footnote 312: The volume in the King's Library is
made up of a great variety of documents independent
of that history and of each other.]

The Sloane MS. 1776,[313] appears to consist of four portions, though the same hand copied the whole.

[Footnote 313: The Sloane MS. is assigned in the
Catalogue to Higden. By Sir H. Ellis, it is
attributed, though not correctly, to a Chaplain of
Henry V; a small portion only having been the work
of that eye-witness of the field of Agincourt. By
Mr. Sharon Turner, it is attributed, without a
shadow of reason, to Walsingham. Mr. Turner,
however, has, though in a very inadequate manner,
attempted in one part of his new edition to rectify
the error, leaving it altogether unacknowledged
where the correction is most needed, in the passage
where he grounds upon its testimony his severe
charge against Henry's character. See Turner, third
ed. vol. ii. p. 373 and p. 398.]

The first portion extends from the commencement to page 40.

The second from page 40 to the end of the account of Henry IV. at page 49.

The third from the commencement of the reign of Henry V. page 50, to his second expedition to France, mentioned in page 72.

The fourth from that point to the end, at page 94, b.

1. The first portion embraces that part of the reigns of Richard II. and Henry IV. which falls within the range of the chronicle of the Monk of Evesham; ending with an account of the marriage of Edmund Mortimer with a daughter of Owyn Glyndowr, and two cases of sacrilege.

2. The second carries on the history of Henry IV. to the beginning of his thirteenth year, and contains the passage which charges Henry V. with the unfilial attempt to supplant his father on the throne. These first two parts must be examined together, and in detail; the last (p. 427) two will require only a few remarks, and may then be dismissed.

That the history which commences at p. 50 of the Sloane MS. was the work of an ecclesiastic who attended Henry V. in his first expedition to France, is made evident at a much earlier point of the narrative than the translation of it by Sir Harris Nicolas, in the Appendix to his "Battle of Agincourt," would enable us to infer. The passage "After having passed the Isle of Wight, swans were seen," should have been rendered, "After _we_ left the shores of the Isle of Wight behind, swans appeared." The writer was at the battle of Agincourt, stationed with the baggage, and with his clerical associates praying for God's mercy to spare themselves and their countrymen.

That he was not the same person who wrote the history of Richard II. and Henry IV, now found in the same fasciculus, seems to be placed beyond doubt; his style is very different, and his tone of sentiment directly at variance with what is found in the preceding portion. He is a devoted admirer of Henry V, a characteristic which no one will ascribe to the writer of the preceding page.[314]

[Footnote 314: In p. 48, b, the writer speaks of
"Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham," being sent as a
military commander to aid the Duke of Burgundy. In
p. 50 the same person is spoken of as Johannes _de
Veteri Castro_. In the former parts the word used
for the _enemy_ is "_æmuli_;" the Chaplain employs
"_adversarii_."]

This writer had composed his history before the year 1418; for of Sir John Oldcastle he says, "that he broke prison after his condemnation, and lurked in caves and hiding-places, _and is still lurking_."[315] This portion of the MS. offers evidence in almost every page that its author was an eye-witness of what he describes. Probably no (p. 428) doubt will be entertained that it is the genuine production of an ecclesiastic in attendance on the King. But his work evidently ceases at page 72, where he offers a prayer that the Almighty "would give good success to his master, then going on his second expedition, and grant him victory as he had twice before; and fill him with the spirit of wisdom, and heavenly strength, and holy fear."

[Footnote 315: Latitavit et latitat.]

After the close of the Chaplain's narrative, the MS. loses almost all its interest: it carries on the history through the first years of the reign of Henry VI, and is evidently only part of what the volume once contained.[316]

[Footnote 316: From this point the manuscript
proceeds, in the very words of Elmham, to describe
Henry's second expedition.]

* * * * *

The two former portions of the volume now claim our careful examination; and, of these two, especially the second.

It has been already intimated, that the first part of the MS. contains that portion of the history of Richard II. and Henry IV. which is embraced by the memoirs of the Monk of Evesham. A careful examination of both, and a comparison of each with the other, have induced the Author to conclude (with what degree of probability he must leave others to decide) that the writer had the work of the Monk before him, and copied from it very largely, but made such alterations as we should expect to find made by a _foreigner_, and one whose feelings were _opposed to the Lancastrian party_; a supporter rather of the cause of Richard, and the French, and the other enemies of Bolinbroke's house. The Monk's work bears every mark of being the genuine production of one who witnessed Henry IV.'s expeditions to Wales, and who was in all his sentiments and prejudices an Englishman and a Lancastrian. The Author fears he may be considered too minute and tedious on this point; but, since the circumstance of the (p. 429) writer of the manuscript bear immediately upon the authenticity of the charge, he trusts he shall be excused a detail which, except for that consideration, would be superfluous.

1. They both record the execution of a Welshman, who preferred death to treachery. The Monk adds this comment: "_We English_ too [possumus et _nos Angli_] may derive an example here; to preserve our fidelity, &c. even to death." The MS. thus expresses its comment: "_All English servants_ may contemplate an example of fidelity towards their own masters from the conduct of that Welshman."

2. Thus too, in mentioning the introduction of the fashion into England of wearing long sleeves like a _bagpipe_, the two MSS. of the Monk most clearly write "Bagpipe." Of the MSS. in question, the Sloane writes Bagebyte, the Reg. "Babepipæ;"--evidently the writer in neither case knowing the meaning of the English word which he attempted so unsuccessfully to copy.

3. In relating the capture of Lord Grey, the Monk adds, "which we grieve to say." The MS., without any such, expression of sympathy or sorrow, says that "he fell into the snare which he had prepared for others."[317]

[Footnote 317: In the MS. the word is "lacum,"
probably a mistake for "laqueum."]

4. The Monk merely records the return of Isabel to France; the MS. reflects strongly on her return _without her dower_, and her feelings of repugnance against receiving any boon from Henry, whom she regarded as _Richard's enemy_.

5. Speaking of the battle of Homildon, the Monk says, "Of _our countrymen_ only five were slain;" and adds, "We praise thee, O God, because thou hast been mindful of us." The MS. says, "_And of the English_ scarcely five were slain;" but adds no word of praise.

6. The Monk says, "From this time Owyn's cause seemed to grow (p. 430) and prosper, _ours_ to decrease." This is omitted in the MS.

7. Whereas the Monk (describing the character of Richard in the very words--and many are unusual words--adopted by the MS.) records that Richard was in the habit of sitting throughout the night till the morning in drinking, and "other occupations not to be named:" the MS. omits the latter phrase. The Monk says there were _two_ points of excellence in Richard's character; the MS., though confining itself to the two specified by the Monk, calls them "very many," "_plura_."

8. In recording the commencement of Owyn Glyndowr's rebellion, the Monk, speaking of it as "an execrable revolt," says that the Welsh elected Owyn against the principles of peace [contra pacem elegerunt]. The MS. says that the Welsh elected a respectable and venerable gentleman to be their leader and prince.

Our attention is now especially called to some points in which the MS. seems to be so full of historical mistakes and improbabilities as to render any statement of a fact, especially of an improbable fact, not supported by other evidence, suspicious.[318]

[Footnote 318: The Author on the whole is rather
disposed to think that, whilst the Monk records
accurately what fell within his own knowledge, both
he and the author of the Sloane MS. in this part
borrowed from some common document, probably more
than one; for in some points they vary from each
other in a way best reconciled by that supposition.
Thus, whilst the Sloane MS. tells us that Richard
II. on his landing came to a place _called
Cardech_, from which he started for Conway, the
Monk (not differing from him in other points) says
that he came to the castle of Hertlowli. They both
have fallen into the error of making the Earl of
Salisbury accompany Richard, whereas he had
undoubtedly been sent on before from Dublin to
Conway. They are both equally wrong about the
relative positions of Flint and Conway, and make
the parties all cross and recross _the bridge_ at
the castle of Conway, where a noble suspension
bridge is now thrown over the arm of the sea. After
the period, however, at which the Monk's narrative
closes, the writer of the manuscript seems to be
seldom free from error.]

1. Froissart (who appears to be well acquainted with the (p. 431) proceedings of Bolinbroke till he left the coast of France, but to have been altogether mistaken as to his proceedings from that hour,) states, with the greatest probability, that Bolinbroke left Paris under plea of visiting his friend the Duke of Brittany, and having been well received and assisted by him, set sail from some port of Brittany [intimating that his embarkation was (as was natural) carried on in secret, for he "_had only been informed_" that it was from Vennes].[319] The MS., on the contrary, with the greatest improbability, roundly asserts that Bolinbroke went to Calais, obtained money from the treasurer, though against his will, and seized all the ships which he could find in the port. The improbability that Bolinbroke should have excited the suspicions of the authorities of Calais not in his interest, from which a single boat in a few hours could have carried the news of his hostile attempts to Richard's friends in England, and the absurdity of making him seize all the ships in the port of Calais to carry over his handful of friends, can impress the reader with no favourable idea of this writer's accuracy.

[Footnote 319: The Monk of Evesham makes no mention
of Bolinbroke's proceedings before he landed in
England.]

2. No fact is more undeniably certain than that Henry IV. made his eldest son (our Henry V.) Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall in the parliament held immediately upon his accession; whereas the MS. declares that Henry V. was so created in the year of the Emperor of Constantinople's visit to England, and in the parliament which (p. 432) began at the feast of St. Hilary, during which Sautre was burned for a heretic;--that is, a year and a quarter later.

3. The MS. account of Hotspur's rebellion is quite inconsistent with facts, and altogether, in other respects, as improbable as it is singular. The MS. says that Hotspur,[320] about Candlemas, was commissioned to go against the Welsh rebels; but when he reached the country with his forces, and found it to be mountainous, and fit neither for horse nor infantry, he made a truce with Owyn, and went to London to take the King's pleasure upon it. The reception he met with at court drove him to his own country; and the King, as soon as he heard of Percy gathering his people, collected those whom he believed to be faithful to him, and hastened to meet him near Shrewsbury. Whereas the fact is, that Henry Percy had been resident as Chief Justice in North Wales, Constable of Caernarvon, &c. at least three years; had besieged Conway with his own men; had routed the rebels at Cader Idris, and most zealously persevered in his attempts to suppress the rebellion; and had returned from the Principality at least a year and a half before the Candlemas (1403), at which the MS. says that he was first commissioned to go there.

[Footnote 320: This account of Hotspur's mission to
Wales is the first circumstance mentioned by the
manuscript after the chronicle of the Monk of
Evesham ends.]

The next point to which the attention of the reader is solicited will perhaps be considered by many to involve a greater improbability than the Author may himself attach to it. Every one who has ever read, or heard, or written about the "Tripartite Indenture of Division" made between Glyndowr, Mortimer, and Northumberland, fixes it, as (p. 433) Shakspeare does, before the battle of Shrewsbury.[321] The scene in the house of the Archdeacon of Bangor is too exquisite for any one to desire it to be proved a fable. But (as the Author believes) this MS. is the only document extant which professes to record the words of that treaty; and yet this document fixes it to a date long after the Percies lost that "sorry field." It is represented to have been made in the February of the year of Pope Innocent's election: if before that election, it was made in 1404; if after it, in 1405. And certainly the tradition is general that Northumberland, after his flight to Scotland, visited Wales.

[Footnote 321: The Sloane MS. says that it was on
the 28th day of February; the King's MS. assigns it
to the 18th.]

Another point deserving consideration is the account of the conspiracy of Mowbray and the Archbishop of York. That account is drawn up in a manner most unfavourable to Henry IV. The MS. boldly also records the miracle wrought in the field of the Archbishop's execution, and states that various miracles attracted multitudes to his tomb daily. It also affirms that, on the very day and hour of the Archbishop's execution, Henry IV. was struck with the leprosy.[322]

[Footnote 322: There are similar statements in
Maydstone, Ang. Sac. vii. 371.]

Perhaps too it may appear strange to others, as the Author confesses it has appeared to himself, that, up to the very last chapter of this history of Richard II. and Henry IV, no mention whatever is made of Henry of Monmouth, except in the unaccountable anachronism of his creation as Prince of Wales. It is curious that an historian should state that the young Duke of Gloucester was sent for from Ireland, and not allude to the circumstance of the Prince being in prison with him, and being sent for back at the same time.[323]

[Footnote 323: The MS. and Monk here agree.]

We are now arrived at the very last chapter, the chapter (p. 434) containing the charge on which Henry of Monmouth's character has been so severely, and, if that charge be true, so justly arraigned. The chapter professes to record the transactions of the thirteenth year of Henry IV. The question is one of such essential importance as far as Henry's good name is at stake, and (as the Author cannot but think) in point too of the philosophy of history, involving principles of such deep interest to the genuine pursuer of truth, that he would not feel himself justified were he to abstain from transcribing the whole chapter.

"In the thirteenth year there was a great disturbance between the Duke of Burgundy and the Duke of Orleans. Wherefore the Duke of Burgundy sent to the Lord Henry, Prince of England,[324] for aid to oppose the Duke of Orleans: who sent to his succour the Earl Arundell, John Oldcastle the Lord of Cobham, the Lord Gilbert Umfravill, the Lord of Kyme, and with them a great army; by whose prowess at Senlow [Reg. 'Senlowe'], near Paris, the Duke of Orleans was vanquished, and cruelly routed from the field, and his followers crushed, routed, and slain. And the same Duke of Orleans thought how he could avenge himself against the Duke of Burgundy; and immediately he sent to King Henry of England a great sum of gold, together with William Count Anglam [Reg. "de Anglam"], his brother, as a hostage or surety for a greater sum, to obtain succour from the King of England himself. And the King did not put off sending him succour; and he appointed Lord Thomas, his second son, Duke of Clarence, and conferred on him the dukedom (or, as it was of old time, the earldom) of Albemarle; and Edmund, who before was Duke of Albemarle, then, after the death (p. 435) of his father, he advanced to be Duke of York. And Lord John Cornwall, who married his sister, the Duchess of Exeter, and whom the King appointed Captain of Calais, he sent towards the parts of France with a great power of men. And when they landed in Normandy, near Hogges, forthwith the Lord de Hambe, with seven thousand armed men, went up against the English to oppose them, and thus on that day there was a great slaughter of men; for on the part of the Duke of Burgundy eight hundred men were taken, and four hundred slain: and thus at length victory was on the side of the English. After which the Duke, with his army, turned off towards the country of Bourdeaux,[325] [ ] destroying [ ] of the countrymen, collecting great sums of money, at length arrived at Bourdeaux, and from thence they returned to England about the vintage."

[Footnote 324: This is another sign that it was
written by a foreigner. No Englishman would have
been likely to call Henry the Prince of England. He
was either called Prince of Wales, or more
frequently the Prince.]

[Footnote 325: The Author confesses his inability
to discover the meaning of the words which fill up
the gaps left in this translation of the passage
"Per suas patenas de patriotis," &c. The passage
seems to him altogether corrupt.]

The reader's especial attention is here called to the confusion of facts and dates, the mistakes historical, geographical, chronological, biographical, with which this short section abounds to the overflow. It will perhaps be difficult to find a page in any author, ancient or modern, more full of such blunders as tend to destroy confidence in him, when he records as a fact what is not found in any other writer, nor is supported by ancillary evidence. The MS. states that all these events took place in the thirteenth year of Henry IV: the MS. writes it at length, "Anno decimo tertio," which began on the 20th September 1411. Now, allowing to the writer every latitude not involving positive confusion, it is impossible for us to suppose, when he (p. 436) crowds all these events within one year, that he had any such information on the affairs of England as would predispose us to regard him as an authority.

1. The first application by the Duke of Burgundy for English auxiliaries was in August 1411; and the battle of St. Cloud (the place which the MS., evidently ignorant of its situation and name, calls Senlow) was fought on the 10th of November 1411. The Duke of Orleans, at the beginning of the following year, 1412, made his application to the English court for aid against the Duke of Burgundy, but it was not till the 18th of May 1412 that the final treaty was concluded between Henry IV. and the Duke of Orleans; and it was not till the middle, or the latter end of August 1412, that the Duke of Clarence was despatched to aid the Duke of Orleans; and he remained in France till he received news of his father's death, in April 1413; when, and not before, he returned to England after his expedition to aid the Duke of Orleans.[326] Yet all these events are stated in the MS. to have fallen within the same year.[327]

[Footnote 326: The Duke of Clarence was at
Bourdeaux, February 5, 1413, and signed an
acquittance there, April 14, 1413. (See Rymer; and
Additional Charters.)]

[Footnote 327: The words are written in one MS. at
length, "decimo tertio."]

2. The MS. says that the English, after their victory over the Duke of Burgundy's forces, returned to England at the time of vintage. The English returned to England at the end of autumn; not after their struggle against the Duke of Burgundy, but after their victory over the Duke of Orleans at the bridge of St. Cloud, a year and a quarter at least before their return from the expedition against the Duke of Burgundy.

3. Again, the MS. says that the Duke of Orleans sent, immediately after the battle of St. Cloud (the Senlow of the MS.), a large (p. 437) sum of money to the King of England, together with his brother, the Earl of Angouleme, as a hostage or pledge for the payment of a greater sum, to induce the King to comply with his request. This is utter confusion. The Earl was sent as an hostage,--not beforehand, to induce Henry IV. to send auxiliaries,--but afterwards, to insure the payment of large sums which the Duke of Orleans stipulated to pay to the English after they had been some time in France, on condition of their quitting it. The Earl of Angouleme was sent as an hostage to England somewhat before January 25, 1413; the MS. says, at the end of 1411.

4. Again, the MS. having dated the death of John, Earl of Somerset, Captain of Calais, in the preceding year, says that the King then made John Cornwall Captain of Calais. Whereas the fact is, that John Beaufort, Captain of Calais, died on Palm Sunday, 1410, and Prince Henry was appointed to succeed him on the following Tuesday. His appointment, by writ of privy seal, bears date March 18, 1410; and he continued to be Captain of Calais till he succeeded to the throne.

The MS. having recorded the marriage of the Duke of Clarence with the Countess of Somerset, and the dispute between him and the Bishop of Winchester, in which Prince Henry took the Bishop's part against his brother, as having taken place in this same year, proceeds with the passage, for the purpose of ascertaining the accuracy and authenticity of which we have been led to make so many prefatory observations.

"In the same year,[328] on the morrow of All Souls, began a parliament at Westminster; and because the King, by reason of his infirmity, could not in his own person be present, he appointed and ordained (p. 438) in his name his brother, Thomas Beaufort, then Chancellor of England, to open, continue, and prorogue it. In which parliament Prince Henry desired from his father the resignation of his kingdom and crown, because that his father, by reason of his malady, could not labour for the honour and advantage of the kingdom any longer; but in this he was altogether unwilling to consent to him,--nay, he wished to govern the kingdom, together with the crown and its appurtenances, as long as he retained his vital breath. Whence the Prince, in a manner, with his counsellors retired aggrieved; and afterwards, as it were through the greater part of England, he joined all the nobles under his authority in homage and pay. In the same parliament the money, as well in gold as in silver, was somewhat lessened in weight in consequence of the exchange of foreigners, &c."

[Footnote 328: Bibl. Reg. 13, C. I. 10. An. 13 Hen.
IV. "Eodem anno in Crastino Animarum incepit
parliamentum apud Westmonasterium. Et quia Rex
ratione suæ infirmitatis non poterat in personâ
propriâ interesse, assignavit et ordinavit in
nomine suo fratrem suum Thomam Beuforde,
Cancellarium tunc Angliæ, ad inchoandum,
continuandum, et prorogandum; in quo parliamento
Henricus Princeps desidevavit à patre suo regni et
coronæ resignacionem, eo quod pater ratione
ægritudinis non poterat circa honorem et utilitatem
regni ulteriùs laborare; sed sibi in hoc noluit
penitùs assentire; ymmo regnum unà cum coronâ et
pertinenciis, dummodo haberet spiritus vitales,
voluit gubernare: unde Princeps quodammodo cum suis
consiliariis aggravatus recessit; et posteriùs
quasi pro majori parte Angliæ omnes proceres suo
dominio in humagio et stipendio copulavit. In eodem
parliamento moneta tam in auro quam in argento
fuerat aliqualiter in pondere minorata ex causà
permutationis extraneorum, qui in suis partibus
ratione cambii magnum sibi cumulabant emolumentum,
et Regi et suis mercatoribus Angligenis in magnum
dispendium et detrimentum, &c."]

Now, there can be no doubt (1) that a parliament was held on the (p. 439) morrow of All Souls, in the thirteenth year of Henry IV. (1411); (2) that it was _opened_, _continued_, and _prorogued_ by Thomas Beaufort, the Chancellor, by commission from the King, in his absence; (3) that an alteration in the coin was agreed upon in that parliament; and (4), moreover, that the King declared in that parliament his determination to allow of no innovations, nor of any encroachments on his prerogative, but to maintain the rights and privileges of his crown in full enjoyment, as his royal predecessors had delivered them down.

A superficial glance at these facts would doubtless suggest a strong confirmation of the details of the MS. in other points, and thus predispose us to receive the statement with regard to Prince Henry's unfilial conduct on the authority of this document alone. But, on close examination, these very facts, which the records of the realm place beyond doubt, coupled with others equally indisputable, to which we shall presently refer, demonstrate to the Author's mind that no dependence whatever can be placed on this MS., and that the statement is altogether apocryphal, and founded on palpable confusion.

The parliament met on the morrow of All Souls, Tuesday, November 3, 1411, (13th Henry IV,) and was opened, continued, and prorogued by the Chancellor; but not on account of the King's indisposition, or inability to be present. The Rolls of Parliament are most explicit on this point. They state that the King, having been informed that very many lords, spiritual and temporal, knights of the shire, and burgesses, who ought to attend that parliament, had not assembled on the appointed day, commissions the Chancellor to open the parliament, and to prorogue it _till the following day_. And on the following day, Wednesday, (the Lords and Commons then being in the presence of (p. 440) the King,) the Chancellor, by the King's command, recited the reasons for convening the parliament, and charged the Commons to retire and elect their Speaker.

Not only so. On the Thursday (Nov. 5), the Commons came before the King and the Lords, and presented Thomas Chaucer as their Speaker. And the Speaker prayed liberty of speech, &c.: and the King granted the request, but declared that he would admit of no innovation nor encroachment on his prerogative, but resolved to maintain his rights as fully as his predecessors had done. On this the Speaker prayed him to grant to the Commons, till the day following, time for putting their protest, &c. in writing. To this the King agreed. But, forasmuch as the King could not attend on the Friday in consequence of diverse great and pressing matters, the time was postponed to the following day, Saturday; when the Commons came before the King, and presented their prayer, &c.

The fact is, that the King was repeatedly present at this parliament, from the day before the Speaker was chosen to the very last day. On a subsequent occasion, the Prince of Wales also, as well as the King, is recorded to have been present, (as doubtless he was on various occasions throughout,--probably an habitual attendant,) in what character, and under what circumstances, whether as the supplanter of his father or not, perhaps the words of the record may, to a certain extent at least, enable us to pronounce.

"On Monday, the last day of November, the Speaker, in the name of the Commons, prayed the King to thank my Lord the Prince, the Bishops of Winchester and Durham, &c. who were assigned to be of council to the King in the last parliament, for their great labour and diligence; for, as it appears to the said Commons, my said Lord the Prince, and the other Lords, have well and loyally done their duty according to their promise in that parliament. And upon that, kneeling, my Lord the Prince, and the other Lords, declared, by the mouth of my Lord (p. 441) the Prince, how they had taken pains, and labour, and diligence, according to their promise, and the charge given them in parliament, to their skill and knowledge. This the King remembered well [or made good mention of], and thanked them most graciously. And he said besides, that he was well assured, if they had had more than they had, in the manner it had been spoken by the mouth of my Lord the Prince, at the time the King charged them to be of his council in the said parliament, they would have done their duty to effect more good than was done in diverse parts for the defence, honour, good, and profit of him and his kingdom. And our Lord the King also said, that he felt very contented with their good and loyal diligence, counsel, and duty, for the time they had been of his council."

This took place on the 30th of November, a month (saving two days) after the parliament had assembled, and within less than three weeks of its termination. It would scarcely be credible, even had the report come through a less questionable channel, that Henry of Monmouth up to that time had been guilty of the unfilial delinquency with which the MS. charges him. Nor could he have made the "unnatural attempt to dethrone his diseased father" at any period through the remaining three weeks of the session of that parliament. At all events, such a proceeding appears altogether irreconcilable with the conduct both of the parliament and of the King on the very last day of their sitting. "On Saturday, December 20th, (say the Rolls,) being the last day of parliament, the Speaker, recommending the persons of the Queen, of the Prince, and of other the King's sons, prayeth the advancement of their estates; for the which the King giveth hearty thanks."

Had any such transaction taken place during this parliament as the MS. records, would the King, on the last day of the session, without any allusion to it, have given hearty thanks to the Commons for their recommendation of the Prince's person (coupled with the name of (p. 442) his Queen and his other sons), and their prayer for further provision for his dignity and comfort?

There are, however, two or three more circumstances upon which it may appear material to make some observations; or even, should these closing observations not seem altogether indispensable, yet, since this is all new and untrodden ground, it may yet be thought safer to anticipate conjectures, than to leave any questions unopened and unexamined on this point--a point which the Author trusts may be set at rest at once, and for ever.

The Author then is ready to confess his belief that both the MS. and its commentator, the modern historian, have confounded this parliament of November 1411 with the parliament of February 3, 1413, which was opened in the illness of the King, and which he never was able to attend. But if it be attempted to engraft on this fact the surmise that it might have been in the latter parliament that the Prince demanded the surrender of the throne, and that it is after all a mere mistake of dates, the material fact being unshaken and unaffected,--to this suggestion he replies, that there is no evidence, directly or indirectly bearing on the subject, in support of such a surmise. The only statement in printed book or manuscript known, is that which we have now been sifting; and which with a precision, as though of set purpose, minute and pointed, fixes the alleged transaction to the year 1411.[329] Not only so. We have, on the contrary, reason to believe that before the meeting of the next parliament, February 1413, _all differences had been made up between the King and his son_; and that from the day of their reconciliation they lived in the full interchange of paternal and filial kindness to the end. For that (p. 443) jealousies and alienations of confidence, fostered by the malevolence of others,[330] had taken place between them in the course of the preceding year, the very mention of the "ridings of gentils and huge people with the Prince," twice recurring in the Chronicle of London, seems of itself to force upon us. The accounts, at all events, such as they are, which chroniclers give of their reconciliation, fix the date of that happy issue of their estrangement to a period antecedent to the last parliament of Henry IV. February 3.--Cras. Purif. 1413.

[Footnote 329: It cannot, however, be supposed that
this anonymous writer fabricated the story; he must
have copied it from some other writer, or put down
what he had learned by hearsay.]

[Footnote 330: The Author confesses his own opinion
to be that a party was formed at court (headed
probably by the Queen), jealous of the Prince's
influence, and determined to destroy his power with
his father. That, to oppose this party, the Prince
summoned his friends, and made a demonstration of
his power; (it is possible that he might have
expressed his readiness to act again in the
government for his father, as he had undoubtedly
done before:) and that, after much coldness and
alienation, father and son were fully reconciled.]

Although the life and reign of Henry IV. continued more than a year and four months after the passing of the ordinance respecting the coin, with an account of which this MS. abruptly closes, yet (excepting what is involved in the extract above cited) not one single word is said of the foreign and domestic affairs of the kingdom, or of the life of the King, or of his death; though much of interesting matter was at hand, and though a parliament was summoned, and actually met fourteen months after the alteration of the coin. And such is the close of a document, not like a yearly chronicle, or general register of events, satisfied with giving a summary of the most remarkable casualties in the briefest form; but a narrative which transcribes, with unusual minuteness, the very words (at full, and with all their technicalities,) of some of the most unimportant and prolix statutes of Henry IV.'s reign.[331] It is not that the MS. is mechanically (p. 444) cut short by loss of leaves, or other accident; the Sloane ends with an "etc." in the very middle of a page, and the King's at the foot of the first column.

[Footnote 331: Sloane, p. 42. The statute for
assigning certain imposts for the King's household
is transcribed at full length, word for word. So,
too, in the seventh year, the statute relative to
the succession is copied verbatim. Of the same
character is the copy of the Tripartite Indenture
of Division.]

We need not encumber this inquiry (already too long) by any reflections on the avidity with which this passage of the MS. has been seized, and made the groundwork of charges against Henry of "unfilial conduct," "unnatural rebellion" towards his father, and "the unprincipled ambition of a Catilinarian temper," with other hard words and harder surmises; because we are trying the value of testimony. If that testimony is sound, modern historians may doubtless build upon it what comments seem to them good; if we utterly destroy the validity of the evidence, their foundation sinks from under their superstructure.

The reader, however, has probably already determined that, unless there be in reserve some other independent, or at least auxiliary source of evidence, the palpable contradiction and manifest confusion reigning through this part of the MS., together with the high degree of improbability thrown over the whole statement by the undoubted records of the very parliament in question, justify the rejection of the passage altogether from the pale of authentic history. The Author confesses that he has step by step come to that conclusion.

THE END.

LONDON PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY, Dorset Street, Fleet Street.

End of Project Gutenberg's Henry of Monmouth, Volume 2, by J. Endell Tyler