Chapter II: The War in France (2)

Gloucester had seen enough both of the strength of the town and the valour of the besieged to realise that there could be no question of a speedy surrender, so copying the tactics of his brother, he built strong huts for his men, and made his camp appear almost like a little town, fortified by a ditch and mound, so that no sortie of the enemy could take him by surprise. He also cared for the comfort of his soldiers by establishing a market within the camp, thus ensuring a constant supply of provisions.[267] At the same time he must have realised that, after the loss of life entailed by recent events, he had not sufficient men for carrying on so important a siege, and though we have no direct evidence that he sent for reinforcements, yet the presumption is strong that he did so, when we find that early in June the King sent the Earl of March, and probably with him the Earl of Suffolk, to bring some fresh levies that had just arrived from England to the assistance of his brother.[268] For this purpose March was made Lieutenant and Warden-General of the marches of the Duchy of Normandy, while Gloucester, to secure his seniority, was made Lieutenant and Captain-General of the same marches, and a strong injunction was issued to the Warden that he was not to interfere with his superior so long as they both remained in that district.[269]

1418] SIEGE OF CHERBOURG

Meanwhile the English commander before Cherbourg had not been idle. Owing to the heavy fire of the enemy a frontal attack on the town was impossible; he therefore devised a plan whereby he might get his troops nearer to the walls, and yet keep them under cover. While his men worked gradually nearer to the enemy under the protection of the usual wooden shelters, he carried out trenching operations on another side of the defences. Long ditches were cut leading from the camp to the walls of the town in an oblique direction, so that as the lines advanced the soldiers were continually sheltered by the sides of their excavation, and the earth which they threw up. By these means the fire of the besieged was rendered nugatory, and the besiegers crept nearer and nearer to the town.[270] The reinforcements had now arrived, and Gloucester probably found himself at the head of something over 2000 men.[271] With this force he considered himself strong enough to make a direct assault. He had tried to drain the water from around the walls, and to this end had cut channels to direct the river from its usual course. This plan, however, was spoilt by the breaking of the sluices which were to keep the stream back, and the difficulty of crossing the moat was as great as ever. With unabated determination Gloucester ordered an assault, while some of the soldiers were told off to bring up material to fill in the ditch, and to make it, if possible, level with the wall. The heavy ordnance of the besieged stood them in good stead, and the English were so disorganised by the storm of cannon balls, that they retired, and the half-finished sluices were threatened by complete destruction when the enemy sallied forth from the town. Sir Lewis Robsart, a young, untried knight, who had lately come up with the reinforcements, saved the situation, and though wounded managed to resist the attacks of the enemy, till a rally of the English brought up more men in a wedge formation, and secured the outworks which they had almost lost.[272]

After the failure of this vigorous attempt the besiegers fell back again on their former tactics of drawing their lines gradually nearer to the walls and strengthening their new rampart, which they brought right up to the edge of the moat. The cannon were now within very short range, and when the English dragged up some of their wooden huts to protect their engines, they were promptly destroyed by the fire from the town. Indeed, so near was the English rampart to the wall that with long hooks the French removed the hurdles which were meant to protect the siege-engines. At the same time Gloucester was making every effort to perfect his sluices, and the river-water was being gradually drawn out of the moat. But the resourcefulness of the besieged enabled them to pump in fresh water as fast as it was taken out, without in any way relaxing the severity of the bombardment.

As time wore on, the determination of the defenders began to slacken, and at the end of five months' siege they offered to treat. But as Gloucester demanded an unconditional surrender, for which the townsmen were not prepared, operations were resumed. Disregarding a second attempt at negotiations, the Duke pressed the attack even more fiercely than before, and for the third time overtures were made.[273] This time the result was an agreement, signed on August 23, whereby the captain, Jean Piquet, agreed to surrender unconditionally on September 29, if not previously relieved.[274] The French chroniclers accuse Piquet of interested motives in this agreement, saying that he sold the town for a sum of money and a safe-conduct,[275] an accusation which seems hardly substantiated in the light of the past history of the siege.

Though hostilities had now ceased pending the surrender, the townsmen had by no means given up hope of escaping capture, and Gloucester anxiously expected to be obliged to fight a relieving force. With this prospect in view he sent off news of the situation to the King, and proceeded to strengthen his position. The market was brought up from its exposed position in the rear, and placed nearer the town, the rampart was continued round the whole camp with a ditch dug in front of it, and long sharpened stakes driven into its sides, all with a view to resisting possible French reinforcements. At the same time he did not forget the town, which, under these circumstances, would be behind him, and to provide against attack in this quarter he built several strong little forts, in which a small garrison would be able to resist a considerable attacking force.[276] In taking these precautions he worked on the system learned in the army of Henry V., though such expedients as the stakes in the rampart and the forts to hold the town in check were additions to the usual plan. The appointed day of surrender drew near, and still no relief came. Just before the expiration of the truce, however, the townsmen saw with joy that a force was approaching the city. Their joy, however, was premature, for they shortly found that it was a band of two thousand men sent over from the western cities of England in ready response to a message from Henry at Rouen. With this additional force all danger to the English passed away, and in due course the town and castle of Cherbourg were handed over to Gloucester on St. Michael's Day.[277]

The town was treated leniently. Gloucester permitted the garrison to march out under arms, those of the townsmen who wished it being allowed to accompany them, but such as remained behind being entirely at the disposition of the English. All property was respected with the exception that the contents of the Governor's house were distributed amongst the troops, together with a certain sum raised from the citizens. Gloucester's biographer goes on to say quaintly, that the citizens found themselves better off than before, 'quickly understanding in a short time the different constitutions of the English, and French governments.'[278] The men of Cherbourg must have had unusually keen perceptions. Still, care was taken for the good government of the city. Lord Grey of Codnor was made governor, and all the other towns were provided with captains.[279] Little as the English conquests have affected northern France, there still remains a memento of Gloucester at Cherbourg, where to this day 'Humphrey Street' recalls the long siege and ultimate capture of the town.

The siege of Cherbourg had proved to be one of the most interesting episodes in the military operations of Henry's second campaign. On the one hand, the decidedly superior metal of the French guns foreshadowed the transference of the best arm from the English to the French side in this war; on the other, the whole siege served to illustrate the peculiar military genius of the Duke of Gloucester. His conduct of the operations betrayed a great knowledge of the theory of siege warfare, while it showed that he had not served under his brother in vain. Again and again we find traces of Henry's tactics adapted with great skill to the needs of the present case by some slight elaboration. Without any of the endowments of character which made the elder brother a great general, the younger had, if possible, more of the qualities of a soldier. A greater grasp of the situation is shown in the operations of the siege of Cherbourg than in the case of any of Henry's sieges, more adaptability to the needs of the moment. Gloucester took his risks and justified them by success. No mere book-learned warcraft would have dared the wedge formation on the day when the English were so hard pressed, but the success of the movement justified its use. Gloucester was an able man and a brave soldier, but he could never have become even a passable commander. Within circumscribed limits he had no equal; there was no captain in the English army who could have surpassed him before Cherbourg, but under no circumstances could he have taken the position which his great brother holds in military history. The natural bent of his mind was inclined to the interests of the moment, and he could never have planned out a campaign, or nursed his men up to a supreme effort, as did Henry on the march to Agincourt. Courage, military skill, and the power to appreciate any situation which confronted him he had in plenty, but in him determination was swallowed up in rashness, and ability fled before constitutional unsteadiness. As a leader of a forlorn hope, or in the performance of a definite piece of work, he was pre-eminent, but his natural characteristics removed any chance of his being in any sense a general. In his military life, even as later in his stormy political career, he displayed great ingenuity and cleverness, but here, as ever, he lacked that vivifying touch of determination which alone could have moulded the incidents of his life into one concentrated policy. At Cherbourg his defects had had but slight chance of display, and it was with increased fame, and with the reputation of a successful commander, that towards the end of October he arrived at Rouen.

* * * * *

While Gloucester had been besieging Cherbourg, and reducing the Côtentin, the King had not been idle. He had spent three months at Bayeux and Caen in creating the machinery for the administration of the duchy, which hitherto had been under military law. At the same time he sent to England for reinforcements, and on their arrival in May he marched eastwards, joining Clarence and Exeter, who had been opening the way to Rouen; the former having completed his work by the capture of the Abbey of Bec Hellouin, the latter having taken Evreux. Taking Louviers and Pont de l'Arche, Henry arrived at Rouen by easy stages on July 29.[280] Rouen had lately turned Burgundian,[281] but this did not entail any inclination to become unpatriotic. Indeed at this moment Burgundy himself was playing the patriotic game, for he had returned to power. The oppression of the Armagnacs, who governed Paris in the name of the Dauphin, together with their unreasonable refusal of terms of agreement with Burgundy, had so enraged the Parisians that a mob revolution in favour of Burgundy and Queen Isabella, who had come to terms with one another in 1417, was made easy. In June Bernard, Count of Armagnac, and many of his adherents were murdered by the populace. Tanneguy du Châtel and the Dauphin escaped from the city with difficulty, and Burgundy was acclaimed with shouts of welcome as he entered Paris.[282] In this position his answer to a pursuivant sent by Henry was a declaration of war.[283]

1418] SIEGE OF ROUEN

The siege of Rouen was more than three months old when Gloucester arrived in November, fresh from the capture of Cherbourg.[284] The abbey and fortress of St. Katharine just outside the town, which had been a great source of inconvenience to the besiegers, keeping open, as it did, communication between the town and the outside world, had capitulated on August 22, and on September 7 Caudebec, which guarded the river approach, surrendered to Warwick,[285] so that now Rouen was shut in on every side. The blockade was strictly kept. Gloucester found the King safely housed in the Carthusian Monastery of Notre-Dame-de-la-Rose, on the east side of the town, about a mile distant from the Porte St. Hilaire, the custody of which was committed to Sir William Porter. Further south, at the Porte Martinville, lay Warwick, with his troops reaching down to the Seine, and behind him the newly acquired fort of St. Katharine. Across the Seine, on the south, Salisbury and Huntingdon guarded 'La Barbacane.' On the west, Clarence lay at the ruined abbey of St. Gervais, guarding the Porte Cauchoise and the walls as far as the river. The Earl Marshal lay opposite the castle on the north-west, with Talbot and Sir John Cornwall joining up his men and those of Clarence. Exeter lay at the Porte Beauvassine on the north, while the Lords Willoughby, Ross, and Fitz Hugh completed the circle of the besiegers to the Porte St. Hilaire.[286] Gloucester himself, on his arrival, was given command of the forces which lay at the Porte St. Hilaire,[287] and he justified his selection for a post of danger and importance by that reckless bravery for which he was already well known. He lay nearer to the enemy than any of the besiegers by '40 rode and more in spas,' and supervised his men with great ability, exposing himself to the fire from the town, and repelling the frequent sorties made on his side.[288] Indeed the fighting seems to have been heaviest at the Porte St. Hilaire, for Gloucester casualties were more numerous than in any other part of the army.[289]

Henry's arrangements for the safety of his army could not have been more carefully or more wisely made. His men were securely entrenched against the daily attacks of the town, whilst he himself, caring neither for fog nor wintry weather, frequently visited the outposts at night. With great care a bridge had been built across the river, thus affording easy and safe communication with Salisbury and Huntingdon. The capture of Caudebec had opened the river, and provisions came pouring in from London;[290] also some of the ships were dragged overland for three miles so as to get above the town bridge, which blocked the way. By this means the French boats were driven to take refuge within the port of Rouen, and while the town lost all hope of a replenished supply of provisions, the English had food in abundance, communication being kept up with England by a fleet lent by Henry's kinsman, King John of Portugal.[291] No assault was made on the town. Henry was far too wise to attempt to take so strong a fortress by any means but starvation, for Rouen had splendid walls, numerous towers, and plenty of guns, with a garrison, so say the French chroniclers, of four thousand soldiers and sixteen thousand armed citizens, and the most courageous and enterprising leader the English had yet met in the person of Guy le Bouteiller.[292]

The English therefore confined themselves to resisting the almost hourly sorties of the besieged, and to harassing the country with the light troops which had been brought from Ireland.[293] As November passed into December the besieged began to feel a shortage of provisions, and they turned out the non-combatants from the city. It could hardly be expected that Henry would let these pass, and they were driven back to the walls, though the English soldiers gave them food to save them from utter starvation.[294] At the same time, however, the garrison was cheered by the news that an old priest had managed to pass the English lines, and to return with a promise of help from Burgundy. This news also reached Henry, who fortified his camp behind as well as before, in case he had to meet a relieving force;[295] yet this was but a measure of precaution, for he well knew that Burgundy was not strong enough to leave Paris open to the Armagnacs whilst he campaigned in Normandy.

Towards Christmas the garrison were in sore straits;

'They etete doggys, they ete cattys,
They ete mysse, horse and rattys,'

we are told by our rhyming Chronicler,[296] and they could not bury their dead, so fast did men die. Another appeal to Burgundy resulted in a promise of relief immediately after Christmas,[297] and on Christmas Day Henry called a truce, and provided food for French as well as English.[298] But the long-promised relief never came, and at length on New Year's Eve the town asked for a parley. This was granted, but even in their distress, with their wretched countrymen lying dead and dying in the ditch hard by, the defenders would not accept Henry's terms. For three days they discussed the matter in tents set up in Gloucester's trenches and guarded by his men,[299] and when they returned to the city despair seized the townsmen. Some tell us that in heroic desperation they determined to throw down the walls, burn the city, and fight their way out,[300] others say that a meeting of the citizens compelled the leaders to reopen negotiations.[301] At any rate, they went to the Porte St. Hilaire and asked to speak with Gloucester, but failing to make him hear, and meeting with the same fate on the side where Clarence lay, they at last succeeded in drawing the attention of the Earl of Warwick, who undertook to communicate their wish to reopen negotiations to the King.[302] This ended in terms of surrender being signed on January 13.[303] If not relieved, Rouen was to surrender in six days, pay an indemnity of 345,000 crowns of gold, and yield up three men who were named. The garrison was allowed to march out unarmed and on foot.[304] On the 19th of January Henry entered Rouen with great pomp, and the Duchy of Normandy was finally won by the capitulation of its capital.[305]

1419] MARRIAGE NEGOTIATIONS

After the conquest of Rouen the English captains were sent with small detachments to clear the country. Salisbury to the north secured Montivilliers, Honfleur, Fécamp, Dieppe, and Eu; Clarence went up the Seine valley taking Vernon and Nantes, and many other smaller towns in the immediate neighbourhood submitted.[306] Gloucester stayed with his royal brother at Rouen, as he had been made captain of the city,[307] and there steps were taken to further organise the administration of Normandy, and to relieve distress in the town itself. At the same time negotiations were being carried on with both French factions. Throughout the recent siege ambassadors had been passing between the various parties, and at one time the Dauphin offered terms,[308] at another the French King, under the influence of Burgundy, sent a portrait of his daughter Catherine, whose name had appeared in most of the negotiations.[309] Conferences at Alençon with Armagnac, or at Pont de l'Arche with Burgundian emissaries, were alike fruitless. Still Henry persevered. Arrangements were made at Rouen for a personal meeting with the Dauphin at Evreux on March 8,[310] but when Henry reached the trysting-place he found that the Dauphin had not kept his word.[311] Nothing daunted, he despatched Warwick on March 28 to arrange an interview with the Burgundian faction for May 15, and Clarence, with Gloucester, took an oath to observe any conditions that might be arranged.[312] But Henry's diplomacy stretched farther than this. Bedford was given permission to seek a wife among the daughters of Frederick of Nuremberg, or among the daughters of the Duke of Lorraine, or indeed among any of the kindred of the Emperor Sigismund.[313] Gloucester, on the other hand, had a more restricted field for marriage negotiations opened for him. He was given permission on April 1 to treat for the hand of Blanche of Sicily, daughter and heiress of Charles III. of Navarre. Acting on this commission, Gloucester appointed his chamberlains, William Beauchamp and John Stokes 'Dr. of Laws,' to care for his interests in that quarter, but his hopes of a wife at that time were to be short-lived.[314] On April 20 Charles de Beaumont, who represented Henry at the court of Navarre, and had recently served under Gloucester in the Côtentin, informed him that negotiations were pending for the marriage of Blanche to Don John of Arragon, asserting that Henry's delays in stating definitely what lands in Guienne he would give Gloucester on his wedding had so annoyed Charles, that it was unlikely that the English marriage would ever come off.[315] In these suspicions Beaumont was fully justified. We hear no more of Gloucester as a prospective suitor for the hand of Blanche, and soon after she was married to his rival, Don John, who ultimately became John II. of Arragon.

1419] CAPTURE OF IVRY

Gloucester had more active work on hand than this somewhat nebulous marriage scheme. He left Evreux early in April, accompanied by the Earl Marshal, John de Mowbray, having been commissioned to take Ivry, which he invested in the customary manner.[316] The town held out with more determination than had been expected, and to save Gloucester's troops from starvation the King had to despatch orders to the bailiff of Evreux to send all sellers of provisions in his bailiwick to Ivry, to hold a market there twice a week so long as Gloucester remained before the town.[317] The town was not of great strength, and was taken by assault in a few days, but the castle was not only well fortified, but situated so as to be hard to attack. With the usual English tactics Gloucester sat down before the impregnable, knowing that famine would do better work than his guns. Once more it was proved that it was not the cowardice of the French garrisons, but the lethargy and rivalries of the French Princes which gave Normandy to the English King. The first panic after Henry's landing at Touques once over, the French had held their position stubbornly, but the English were unhampered in their preparations for sieges and unharassed in the country while they attacked the towns. Thus fortresses which might have replenished their provisions had the attention of the besiegers been divided, were compelled by lack of food and other stores to surrender. Harfleur had proved it, Rouen had proved it, and now in due course the castle of Ivry was compelled to come to terms on May 10, and three days later Gloucester entered the fortress and received the oath of fealty from all in the town.[318]

Having settled matters at Ivry, Gloucester marched towards Mantes, where he joined his brother, probably late in May.[319] Henry was preparing, with growing confidence in an amicable adjustment of his claims, to meet Charles VI. and Burgundy at a conference, wherein the French had consented to take the Treaty of Bretigny as a basis of their discussion.[320] The conference was to be held in a meadow near Meulan, where a little stream, called the Viviers, emptied itself into the Seine. Thus guarded on two sides, the rest was surrounded by a bank and a ditch, and had a pavilion in the centre for the shelter of the two parties. Thither on May 30 came Burgundy with Queen Isabel and her daughter Catherine.[321] Charles VI. was too unwell to be present. From Mantes came Henry, accompanied by his two brothers Clarence and Gloucester, Archbishop Chichele, the two Beauforts, Henry Beaufort of Winchester and the Duke of Exeter, and two thousand five hundred well-appointed soldiers. Nothing beyond ceremonial greetings took place on the first day of the conference, which seem to have been chiefly meant for the introduction of Henry to Catherine, for at later meetings the much-treated-of Princess did not appear.[322] At the next meeting on June 1 Clarence, Gloucester, Chichele, Beaufort, and Exeter were officially appointed to treat for peace with France, and for the King's marriage.[323] Negotiations dragged on, Henry demanding the cession of full sovereignty of the English possessions in France which were assured by the Treaty of Bretigny, the French demanding a renunciation by the English King of his title to the French throne. At the end of a month they were no nearer a settlement than at the beginning, and distrust of each other was becoming evident. Eventually high words passed between Henry and Burgundy, and negotiations were broken off.[324] Even then, Henry does not seem to have lost all hope of an arrangement of these difficulties, for on July 5 we find Chichele and Warwick commissioned to undertake an embassy to the Burgundian party.[325]

1419] MINOR MILITARY OPERATIONS

Nevertheless, Henry knew that his best argument was force, and as soon as the truce expired on July 31, he sent forward a detachment from Mantes, which surprised and took Pontoise.[326] Henry, with Gloucester and the main body of the army, stayed some little time longer at Mantes,[327] and then followed to Pontoise, where Clarence rejoined him, after having reconnoitred right up to the gates of Paris.[328] Hence the whole army moved on August 18, and taking Vancouvilliers on the way, sat down before Gisors on the 31st, which, after a short but sharp siege, surrendered--the town on September 17, the castle six days later.[329] From Gisors Henry went to Mantes, whence he supervised the siege of Meulan, in which Gloucester took part. This town was so situated that the Seine guarded it on one side, and marshes on the other. However, by the use of rafts and floating castles, the English managed to clear the river of the stakes which the French had planted in its bed, and so to press the town, that it surrendered on October 31.[330] Henry had kept up daily communication with the besiegers, and now he came to Meulan, and on November 6 despatched Gloucester to secure the Seine valley further up towards Paris. Poissy was captured on the 13th, and three days later St. Germain succumbed after no serious resistance. On the same day the neighbouring castle of Montjoye voluntarily submitted.[331]

By the middle of the month Gloucester was back with the King at Mantes, and accompanied him to Rouen, for it had been decided to send him home to replace his brother Bedford as Regent of England.[332] It seems impossible to discover any real reason for this exchange of posts between Bedford and Gloucester, unless the King wanted the help of the brother who had had experience in statecraft in the organisation of his newly acquired Duchy, and thought that Gloucester could be more easily spared than Clarence to go to England. At any rate, on November 21, orders were issued at Rouen for the impressment of forty sailors to convey Gloucester to England, and it is probable that he crossed the Channel within a few days of this provision.[333]

FOOTNOTES:

[145] _Gesta_, 59.

[146] _Cal. Rot. Pat._, 265. Llanstephan had belonged to Henry Gwyn,
killed on the French side at Agincourt.

[147] November 27, 1415. The actual patent of appointment is not
given, but it is referred to in a later entry. _Rot. Pat., 4
Henry V._, m. 22.

[148] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 91. Bedford is mentioned as Lieutenant of
England in the same document, and this definitely shows that
it was of a date anterior to the King's return.

[149] December 28, _Rot. Pat., 3 Henry V._, Part ii. m. 16. In the
reign of Henry VI. Gloucester alludes to having the reversion
of Carisbrooke and the Isle of Wight, then in the hands of
the Dowager-Duchess of York (Ancient Petitions, File 85, No.
4220), so no absolute grant of this was made at this time.

[150] Jan. 27, _Rot. Pat., 3 Henry V._, Part ii. m. 12.

[151] See Aschbach, _passim_.

[152] Elmham, _Vita_, 74; _Gesta_, 76.

[153] Rymer, iv. ii. 157.

[154] _Ibid._, iv. ii. 157.

[155] _Ordinances_, ii. 195, 196.

[156] MSS. of Corporation of New Romney, Hist. MSS., Rep. v. 539.

[157] Holinshed, iii. 85. Aschbach, ii. 162, accepts the story.
Windeck, Sigismund's secretary, who might have described the
incident in his _Life_ of the Emperor, did not come over at
the same time as his master, but followed a few days later.
See cap. 59.

[158] Redmayne, 49, gives a variation of the story, placing the
incident at Calais, and Warwick as the actor; but as
Sigismund arrived there by land, this is manifestly
impossible. Hall also gives it in yet another version.

[159] Windeck, cap. 59; Des Ursins, 529, 530.

[160] _Lond. Chron._, 103; Capgrave, _De Illustribus Henricis_, 118;
_Gesta_, 75, 76; Elmham, _Liber Metricus_, 133; Livius, 23;
Cotton MS., Cleopatra, c. iv. f. 28vo, gives May 4 as the day
of arrival at Dover.

[161] _Gesta_, 76.

[162] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 95, 96.

[163] Capgrave, _De Illustribus Henricis_, 118; Elmham, _Liber
Metricus_, 134.

[164] Rymer, iv. ii. 135; Elmham, _Vita_, 87; Capgrave, _De
Illustribus Henricis_, 118.

[165] Caro, _Bundniss von Canterbury_, 57; Aschbach, ii. 164.

[166] A detailed account of the banquet in celebration of
Sigismund's enrolment in the Order of the Garter is given in
_Lond. Chron._, 159.

[167] Elmham, _Liber Metricus_, 134.

[168] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. i. 688; _Cal. of French
Rolls_, Rep. 44, App. 583.

[169] The King at first intended to lead this expedition. _Memorials
of London_, 628; Elmham, _Vita_, 78, 79; Capgrave, _De
Illustribus Henricis_, 120; Livius, 25; Harleian MS., 2256,
f. 180; Rymer, iv. ii. 168. Des Ursins, 532, says that
Gloucester accompanied Bedford.

[170] Windeck, cap. 60.

[171] Sigismund and his followers distributed copies of the
following verses among the citizens of Calais, as a tribute
to their royal reception in England:

'Vale et gaude gloriosa cum triumpho! O tu felix Anglia et
benedicta! Quia quasi angelica natura gloriosa, Laude Jhesum
adorans, es jure dicta. Hanc tibi do laudem quam recte jure
mereris.'

_Gesta_, 93; Capgrave, _De Illustribus Henricis_, 120; Elmham,
_Liber Metricus_, 141.

[172] Elmham, _Vita_, 77; Des Ursins, 532. Cf. Rymer, iv. ii. 17.

[173] Rymer, IV. ii. 178; Elmham, _Liber Metricus_, 142.

[174] Rymer, IV. ii. 176; _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 44, App. 584.

[175] _Gesta_, 100, 101; Gregory, 114; Capgrave, _De Illustrious
Henricis_, 120; Waurin, ii. 236; St. Rémy, 410; Monstrelet,
393.

[176] Waurin, ii. 236, 237; St. Rémy, 410.

[177] Monstrelet, 394, followed by Holinshed, iii. 87.

[178] Monstrelet, 394; Elmham, _Liber Metricus_, 146.

[179] Windeck, cap. 66; Capgrave, _Chron._, 315; Otterbourne, 278;
Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 317.

[180] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 94.

[181] The Sheriff was to have the indentures ready by February 14,
1417; Rymer, IV. ii. 192.

[182] _Ordinances_, ii. 230, 231.

[183] _Ibid._, iii. 9; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 320.

[184] Muster Rolls of the Army, preserved in the Chapter-House at
Westminster, printed in _Gesta_, 265. Livius, 31, gives 100
lances and 300 archers. Stowe, 353, follows Livius. 100
spears and 300 archers in Holkham MS., p. 15. Holinshed, iii.
89, gives 470 lances and 1410 archers.

[185] _Gesta_, 111; Elmham, _Vita_, 96. Harleian MS., 2256, f. 181,
gives Portsmouth as the place of starting.

[186] Livius, 33; _Gesta_, 111; Monstrelet, 406.

[187] Livius, 31, 32, gives a list of the retinues which amounts to
9066 men, though he ends by saying 16,000. _Gesta_, 190,
gives 16,400. See Ramsay, i. chap, xvii., Appendix, pp.
250-252.

[188] Elmham, _Vita_, 97.

[189] Basin, i. 26. See also Waurin, ii. 242; St. Rémy, 429; Livius,
34.

[190] _Rot. Norm._, 316, 317.

[191] Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, p. 219, No. CCCXXXVII.; Livius, 34;
_Gesta_, 111, 112; Stow, 353, followed by Holkham MS., p. 15.

[192] Elmham, _Vita_, 101.

[193] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 321, 322; Elmham, _Vita_, 99,
100.

[194] St. Denys says it was besieged unsuccessfully, but there could
have been no time for this. Cf. Elmham, _Vita_, 98.

[195] Livius, 35; _Gesta_, 113; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 322.

[196] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 322-324; Livius, 35.

[197] Livius, 36.

[198] _Gesta_, 113; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 323.

[199] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 322.

[200] _Chronique de Normandie_, 228.

[201] Elmham, _Vita_, 104; Livius, 36.

[202] Cotton MS., Claudius. A. VIII. f. 6.

[203] Elmham, _Vita_, 105.

[204] Livius, 37.

[205] Livius, 38, 39; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 324; Elmham,
_Vita_, 107-111; _Gesta_, 114. See also Waurin, ii. 244;
Monstrelet, 426; St. Rémy, 429 and 422. On September 5 the
castle agreed to surrender, if not relieved before the 19th.
Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, pp. 220, 221, Nos. CCCXXXIX., CCCXL.

[206] _Rot. Norm._, 164; Carte, i. 247.

[207] _Rot. Norm._, 167; Rymer, IV. iii. 16; _Cal. of Norman Rolls_,
Rep. 41, App. 1. 746.

[208] Elmham, _Vita_, 116; Livius, 40, 41.

[209] Redmayne, 51; Elmham, _Vita_, 116; Livius, 42; _Gesta_, 115.

[210] Redmayne, 51.

[211] Livius, 43, 44; _Gesta_, 116.

[212] Elmham, _Vita_, 117, 118; Livius, 42; _Gesta_, 116.

[213] Livius, 44; Elmham, _Vita_, 122. Elmham says that Clarence was
posted opposite the castle. Stow, 356, says that Gloucester
besieged the castle, while the King besieged the town.
Holkham MS., p. 16, follows Stow.

[214] Livius, 44; Elmham, _Vita_, 122, 123; _Rot. Norm._, 187.

[215] Livius, 45: Elmham, _Vita_, 123, 124; _Gesta_, 117.

[216] Rymer, IV. iii. 23, 24; _Gesta_, 117; Elmham, _Vita_, 124,
125.

[217] List of the captains of castles conquered in 1417; Appendix to
_Gesta_, 275. Holkham MS., p. 16.

[218] Livius, 46.

[219] Elmham, _Vita_, 128. He calls the leader of this expedition
the Duke of York, at the time a boy of only six years old.

[220] Livius, 46.

[221] Ramsay, i. 250, calls this the south side of the town. It is
hardly credible that the gate on the road to Caen would be on
the south side when that town lies north of Falaise.

[222] _Gesta_, 118; Elmham, _Vita_, 128; Livius, 46.

[223] _Rot. Norm._, 312; Gregory, 121.

[224] _Rot. Norm._, 312; Elmham, _Vita_, 129-132; Livius, 46, 47;
_Gesta_, 118.

[225] Otterbourne, 279, says that Henry spent Christmas at Bayeux in
_5 Henry V._, that is, 1417, though in another place he calls
it 1418. Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, also calls it 1418, but
his computations of years are always a little hazy, and he
seems to begin the new year at Christmas. Both authors
mention that it was at this time that Falaise surrendered,
which makes the date 1417.

[226] _Rot. Norm._, 308. Livius, 49, gives the date of the delivery
of the castle as February 6.

[227] Elmham, _Vita_, 133-138; Livius, 49; _Gesta_, 118.

[228] Waurin, ii. 242.

[229] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 248; Walsingham, _Ipodigma
Neustriæ_, 486; Elmham, _Vita_, 139, 140; Gesta, 119, 120;
_Chronique de Normandie_, 182; Gregory, 121.

[230] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 328; Walsingham, _Ipodigma
Neustriæ_, 486; Elmham, _Vita_, 139, 140; Gesta, 119, 120;
_Chronique de Normandie_, 182; Gregory, 121.

[231] _Rot. Norm._, 248; Rymer, IV. iii. 362.

[232] Carte, i. 276.

[233] _Ibid._, 273.

[234] _Ibid._, 273.

[235] _Ibid._, 274, 276.

[236] See p. 64, note 271, for an estimate of his forces in this
expedition. Elmham, _Vita_, 141, calls it a strong force.

[237] Gregory, 121. He includes the Earl of March in the list, who,
however, did not join the expedition till later, as he was at
present in England.

[238] See Commission to the Earl of Huntingdon of March 17, _Rot.
Norm._, 381.

[239] Elmham, _Vita_, 139, 143.

[240] _Gesta_, 120; Elmham, _Vita_, 141. Both these authorities call
this place 'Cawdey,' and are followed therein by Holkham MS.,
p. 16. The editor of the _Gesta_ thinks this is a clerical
error for Hambie. This town, however, was captured after
Vire, and it is hardly likely that both these contemporaries
would have made the same clerical error. Elmham may have
copied from the _Gesta_, but as he was personally acquainted
with Humphrey, and gives by far the fullest account of this
expedition, it is probable that he wrote on good authority,
if not from personal experience.

[241] _Rot. Norm._, 289-292.

[242] Elmham, _Vita_, 141; _Gesta_, 120; Livius, 50.

[243] _Rot. Norm._, 298-300.

[244] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 746

[245] Robsart was at St. Lo before the day of surrender. Rymer, IV.
iii. 41.

[246] _Rot. Norm._, 300-303; Rymer, IV. iii. 41.

[247] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 746; Rymer, IV. iii.
40.

[248] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 746; Rymer, IV. iii.
44.

[249] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 708.

[250] _Rot. Norm._, 381; Elmham, _Vita_, 144.

[251] _Paston Letters_, i. 10.

[252] This place is called 'Noo' in _Gesta_, 120, and is taken by
the editor of that chronicle to be Pont Douve, now called
Pont d'Ouilly. In Elmham, _Vita_, 142, and Livius, 50, it is
called 'Nehoo.' Pont Douve was captured by Gloucester (Rymer,
IV. iii. 44; _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 746),
but it is not the same place as this, which is obviously
Néhou, a place situated four kilometers from St. Sauveur le
Vicomte. I cannot locate Pont Douve, but should gather from
the date of surrender that it was near Carentan on the Douve,
for it fell on March 17, the day after Carentan. This is the
date given in the _Norman Rolls_ and in the text of the
_Foedera_, though in the margin Rymer calls it March 27 and
is followed by Hardy in his syllabus of the _Foedera_,
without any reason being assigned.

[253] For whole campaign see Elmham, _Vita_, 141, 142; Livius, 50;
_Gesta_, 120, 121.

[254] Gregory, 121, who, however, gives the number of castles as
twenty-four. The higher estimate is to be found in a record
of the _Parlimentary Rolls_ in the year 1428. _Rot. Parl._,
IV. 320.

[255] Stow, 356.

[256] Walsingham, _Ipodigma Neustriæ_, 486; Gregory, 120.

[257] Livius, 51; Elmham, _Vita_, 148.

[258] Elmham, _Vita_, 148, 149; Livius, 52.

[259] Waurin, ii. 244; Monstrelet, 426.

[260] Even at the end of the siege there was abundance of corn and
wine in the city. Elmham, _Vita_, 163.

[261] Walsingham, _Ipodigma Neustriæ_, 486; Gregory, 120.

[262] Elmham, _Vita_, 148; Livius, 52.

[263] Elmham, _Vita_, 150; Holkham MS., p. 17.

[264] Elmham, _Vita_, 151; Livius, 52.

[265] _Ibid._

[266] Elmham, _Vita_, 152, 153; Livius, 53.

[267] Elmham, _Vita_, 153; Livius, 53.

[268] They had been brought over to France by the Earl of March,
Harleian MS., 2256, f. 182vo.

[269] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 693; Carte, i. 265.

[270] Elmham, _Vita_, 153; Livius, 54.

[271] When Gloucester reached the King before Rouen at the end of
this campaign, he had 3000 men under his command (_Chron.
Norm._, 241). However, he had then been reinforced by
another force of some 2000 men sent over from England (see
p. 67 below). Whether these last reinforcements followed him
to Rouen, or whether, when their work was done, they
returned to England, we cannot tell, but they were certainly
over and above the numbers he commanded at this present
time. If they became a definite part of his following and
took part in the rest of this year's campaign, as seems most
probable, they would help to fill the gaps in Humphrey's
ranks caused later by casualties before Harfleur, which must
have been severe, and by the garrison left to hold that
town. Perhaps with these deductions they might have
increased his force by some thousand men or more, which
would compel us to conclude that before the siege of
Cherbourg Humphrey had at his disposal some 2000 men. This
is confirmed by taking a list of men serving under the Duke
in the Côtentin. It is compiled from the statements of the
chroniclers and from the official records which give the
names of those who acted for Gloucester in the matter of
signing terms with the various towns. The retinues are taken
from the muster-roll of Henry's army printed in the Appendix
to the _Gesta_ (pp. 265-272). The list, of course, cannot be
taken as exhaustive, as many who are not mentioned may have
taken part in the campaign.

Lances. Archers.

Gloucester's own retinue captained by--Reginald Cobham, 45
114 William Beauchamp, 45 152 The Earl of March, 93 302 The
Earl of Suffolk, 31 90 Lord Grey of Codnor, 51 174 Sir
Walter Hungerford, 91 276 John, Lord Clifford, 50 150 Sir
Gerard Ufflete, 20 67 John de Robsart, 1 3

Total:--427 Lances and 1328 Archers.

This list includes the names of captains who appear before
Cherbourg as well as earlier in the campaign. Charles de
Beaumont, Marshal of Navarre, was also with Gloucester, and
probably had a contingent under his command. The total number
of 1755 men approximates to our 2000 estimate, whilst at the
same time allowance can be made for possible contingents
which, though in the field, are not mentioned. _Chron.
Norm._, 230, tells us that at the beginning of the campaign
Talbot was sent into the Côtentin with 500 or 600 men, and
Gloucester went to open up the road to Rouen. This may be a
mere mistake of names, and so Humphrey may have only had a
small force, little in excess of his own retinue, when he
started out on his expedition, though this is not likely, if
the men who served under him brought their whole contingents.

[272] Elmham, _Vita_, 154, 155; Livius, 54.

[273] Elmham, _Vita_, 155-158; Livius, 54.

[274] Rymer, iv. iii. 64; _Cal. of Norm. Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I.
746.

[275] Waurin, ii. 244; Monstrelet, 426.

[276] Elmham, _Vita_, 159; Livius, 55.

[277] Elmham, _Vita_, 160, 161, 162; Livius, 55, 56.

[278] Holkham MS., p. 17.

[279] List of captains printed in Appendix to _Gesta_, 276.

[280] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 329; John Page, 6; Elmham,
_Vita_, 179; _Gesta_, 123.

[281] Des Ursins, 539, 545.

[282] _Ibid._, 540-542.

[283] Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, 222.

[284] _Chronique de Normandie_, 230, says that Gloucester arrived on
St. Catharine's Day (November 25), but his men were 'arrayed'
at Rouen on November 6; _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App.
I. 718. Cf. Livius, 64.

[285] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 746.

[286] _Paston Letters_, 10; _Gesta_, 123, 124; Elmham, _Vita_, 180,
181; Livius, 61 John Page, 6-8; _Chronique de Normandie_,
238; Harleian MS., 2256, f. 185, 185vo.

[287] Elmham, _Vita_, 191; Livius, 64. _Chronique de Normandie_,
241, says that Gloucester brought with him some three
thousand men.

[288] John Page, 11; Cotton MS., Claudius, A. VIII. f. 8vo;
Harleian MS., 2256, f. 186.

[289] John Page, 16.

[290] Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, 224, 225.

[291] Elmham, _Vita_, 182; Livius, 62.

[292] Waurin, ii. 247; St. Rémy, 431.

[293] Waurin, ii. 249.

[294] John Page, 20; Waurin, ii. 253; Elmham, _Vita_, 192; St. Rémy,
432. St. Rémy says that Henry fired on these people, and both
he and Waurin say that they were ultimately taken back into
the town.

[295] John Page, 16.

[296] John Page, 18.

[297] Waurin, ii. 257; St Rémy. 433.

[298] John Page, 21.

[299] John Page, 33.

[300] Waurin, ii. 261.

[301] Elmham, _Vita_, 199.

[302] Harleian MS., 2256, f. 189.

[303] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 746.

[304] Waurin, ii. 262. Livius, 68, says 300,000 crowns, which is
equal to 150,000 English nobles.

[305] Des Ursins, 545.

[306] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 746; Elmham, _Vita_,
205, 206.

[307] Monstrelet, 450.

[308] Elmham, _Vita_, 191.

[309] Waurin, ii. 252.

[310] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 739.

[311] Rymer, iv. III. 130; Elmham, _Vita_, 209, 210.

[312] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 762; Rymer, IV. iii.
102-104.

[313] _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 44, App. 610.

[314] Rymer, IV, iii. 102. William Beauchamp was the leader of a
company in Gloucester's retinue. Stokes was much employed by
the King in negotiations at this time, and is possibly the
John Stoke who in 1440 became Abbot of St. Albans.

[315] Rymer, IV. iii. 112.

[316] There is considerable uncertainty as to when Gloucester went
to besiege Ivry. Elmham (_Vita_, 210) says that Gloucester
was sent from Vernon, but at this time Elmham was absent with
Warwick (Vita, 215), and so may well have made a mistake. The
_Chronique de Normandie_, 244, says that the siege was begun
by Gloucester in March, on the Friday after the Feast of our
Lady (March 25), and lasted forty days. Ivry surrendered on
May 10, therefore this would mean that Gloucester began the
siege on April 1, marching thither from Evreux, where the
King was on that day. It is inconceivable that Gloucester
would go to Vernon and then back to Ivry, which would be to
make two sides of a triangle. See also Livius, 32, who puts
the expedition immediately after the fall of Rouen. The fact
that Gloucester promised to observe the treaty signed at
Vernon April 7, does not prove that he was there. Clarence
did the same, and he had gone to Mantes long before.

[317] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 42, App. 314.

[318] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 746; Rymer, IV. iii.
52. In Rymer, though the document expressly says May 10,
1419, it is put under May 5, 1418; Elmham, _Vita_, 211;
Livius, 72; _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 776;
Carte, i. 303.

[319] The _Chronique de Normandie_, 244, says that after taking Ivry
Gloucester overran the county of Chartres with a large force.
No other authority mentions this, and it seems unlikely that
Gloucester would have taken the offensive in Chartres, in
view of the truce which he had sworn to observe. The truce
excluded the Duchy of Normandy, so that his operations before
Ivry did not infringe it. See Rymer, IV. iii. 102-104.
Holinshed, iii. 107, follows the _Chronique de Normandie_.

[320] See Beaucourt, _Histoire de Charles VII._, vol. i. pp. 296,
297.

[321] Elmham, _Vita_, 219.

[322] Waurin, ii. 268, 269; Elmham, _Vita_, 222. Elmham takes a long
time to describe in his usual florid style the maiden modesty
with which Catherine received Henry's kiss.

[323] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 783; Rymer, IV. iii.
119.

[324] Elmham, _Vita_, 219-226; _Chronique de Normandie_, 246;
Waurin, ii. 268-270; Monstrelet, 453, 454.

[325] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 41, App. I. 789.

[326] Waurin, ii. 276; Elmham, _Vita_, 227-231; St. Rémy, 438.

[327] He was still at Mantes on August 5, when he wrote to tell the
Londoners of the capture of Pontoise. Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, p.
227, No. CCCLIII.

[328] Elmham, _Vita_, 231, 232.

[329] Elmham, _Vita_, 232-234; Waurin, ii. 276, 277.

[330] _Chronique de Normandie_, 248, says November 6; Elmham,
_Vita_, 239, says October 29; _Gesta_, 132, October 30. Cf.
Livius, 79.

[331] _Chronique de Normandie_, 248. _Gesta_, 132, puts this
expedition before the siege of Meulan; Elmham, _Vita_, 239,
puts it during the progress of the siege of Meulan; Livius,
79, puts it immediately after the Conference of Meulan; Stow,
359, follows Livius.

[332] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 331; Otterbourne, 283.

[333] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 42, App. 331; Carte, i. 527;
Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 331.