Chapter III: The Evolution of Gloucester's Policy (2)

Thus, though Gloucester's position as chief of the King's subjects then in England was admitted, he was allowed no further power either by right of his past regency, or in view of the fact that at his death Henry V. had left to him the care of the realm. The Council undertook all the executive work, and though Gloucester was supported by the general public opinion of the lesser gentry and commonalty, he did not venture to oppose this abrogation of power. However, when the Council met on November 6, he registered a protest against the terms in which his commission for the summons of Parliament was drawn up. He was commissioned to open, carry on, and dissolve Parliament, 'and to perform all royal functions therein by assent of the Council.'[424] To this clause he objected as prejudicial to his position; it was, he urged, a departure from precedent, for no such limitation had been laid on him in the commissions under which he had summoned Parliaments during the reign of Henry V. Under the present arrangement, he argued, the Lords of the Council could keep Parliament in session for a whole year against his will, should they wish to do so; and this was a direct denial of his rights. In turn, each Lord was asked for his judgment, and one by one they answered that, owing to the youth of the King, they could not take it upon them to omit the words to which Gloucester objected, as they regarded them as a safeguard both to Gloucester and themselves.[425] Against such a decided and unanimous answer Gloucester was powerless, and was obliged to admit defeat; his position was realised by his contemporaries, for when speaking of his presidency of Parliament Walsingham calls him 'prius custos Angliae.'[426] On November 7, the day after this Council meeting, Henry V. was buried in Westminster Abbey. A large number of nobles had brought his body to Calais by way of Rouen; funeral services were said for him at St. Paul's, at Canterbury Cathedral, and at Westminster, and with great pomp and ceremony he was carried to his last resting-place, a waxen effigy lying on the coffin dressed in the full glory of the regalia.[427]

Before Parliament assembled at Westminster on November 17,[428] it was quite evident that Gloucester desired to become Protector in accordance with the wishes of Henry V., and that he hoped for a position untrammelled by 'assent of the council' or other constitutional restrictions.[429] He had already received one rebuff, but he still had an easy confidence either in the rightfulness of his claim, or in his power to enforce his wishes. He does not seem to have realised the difficulties that lay in his way, nor to have had more than the faintest conception of the strength of the opposition to his pretensions: his incapacity to gauge the trend of events was for the first time made manifest. Bedford, too, had definitely put forward his claim to the position, and on October 26 had written a letter to the Mayor and Aldermen of London, saying that he was informed on reliable authority that 'by the lawes and ancient usage and custume of the reaume,' the government of England fell to him as eldest brother of the late King, and next in succession to Henry VI. He urged them not to prejudice his claims by an act of theirs, assuring them that he acted from no desire for 'worldly worship,' but only because he wished in every way to obey and fulfil the law of the land.[430] This claim to the Protectorate based on right of birth was quite inadmissible, as was proved later in Parliament, but it is probable that Bedford was sincere in his professions of disinterestedness, for he was never jealous of his brother, and really had at heart the good of the kingdom. Evidently the letter was aimed rather at the pretensions of Beaufort than at Gloucester's ambitions, for it was a kindred claim to that of his brother, and did not preclude the possibility of Humphrey's regency in his absence. Perhaps also Bedford knew himself to be 'the one strong man in a blatant land,' and wished to secure some hold on his volatile brother, a hold which was to prove useful at a later date; at all events he made his appeal to those who were accounted Gloucester's surest supporters.

1422] APPOINTMENT OF THE PROTECTOR

Such was the state of parties when Gloucester on November 9 opened Parliament as the King's Commissioner. Beaufort, with the support of the baronial party, stood for Conciliar government, which meant his own preponderance in the kingdom; Gloucester, also playing for his own hand, demanded the Protectorate. Between the two stood Bedford with a policy which seemed to doubt the wisdom of either party, and a desire for the good of the kingdom, which others in their haste had totally ignored. Archbishop Chichele delivered the opening speech of the session, and outlined its business, which was to provide for the good governance of the King's person and the safety of the realm, besides certain matters of form, such as the reappointment of the late King's Chancellor, Treasurer, and Privy Seal, which were soon accomplished.[431] However, the important business of the session was not settled till December 5,[432] the interval being probably spent in intrigue and counter-intrigue, of which no record survives. The struggle was not one of constitutional questions, though it assumed that appearance. Humphrey stated his claim simply by appealing to his right as next-of-kin to the King, and to the dying wishes expressed by Henry V.[433] The period was one when theory had outgrown practice in the constitution, and so the Beaufort faction could assume a most moral and upright position when they urged an examination of precedents. The Lords therefore replied to Gloucester's claims that they could find among the arrangements made during previous minorities no justification for his claim of priority of blood, nor any indication that the King could dispose of the government after his death, save with the consent of the Estates. With great ingenuity the Beaufort party had put the Lords on their mettle, and had induced them to regard Henry's dying commands as an infringement of their rights. Their victory was complete, and their chance of meddling in the affairs of the kingdom was assured. The whole thing was a party move, and cannot be construed as a vote of no confidence in the Duke of Gloucester. The reply of the Lords was equally hostile to Bedford's claim, and was inspired by a desire to curb the power of the man who held the office of Protector, irrespective of who that individual might be. The personal struggle between Gloucester and Beaufort had not yet begun, for there are not the slightest signs of any earlier rivalry. The struggle was one for position, and would have been initiated by Beaufort whoever had laid claim to the Protectorate. Later, indeed, the personal element comes to the front, but never once during the whole controversy did it dominate the political ambitions of either party.

Beaufort having won the day, Parliament decided that Bedford should be 'Protector et Defensor' of the kingdom and first Councillor of the King when he was at home; and that when he was not, Gloucester should take the same position, with the same condition about being in the kingdom. Both commissions were made out 'during the King's pleasure.'[434] To this Act Gloucester gave his consent, declaring that he did so without prejudice to his brother, who was in France.[435] Yet another Act which made elaborate provisions to prevent the misuse of the Protector's power was passed. He was given the patronage of the smaller offices, such as those of foresters and park-keepers, of benefices rated at not more than thirty marks, and of prebendaries in the royal chapels ordinarily in the King's gift; but the deaneries in such chapels were not to be in his presentation. Even in the cases just cited the Protector's power was limited by the fact that all commissions to these offices had to be given under the great seal, which was kept by the Chancellor.[436] Beyond this the Protector had no independent power, in all else he was controlled by a Council of which all the best-known men of the period were members, for with Gloucester were associated the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London, Winchester, Norwich, and Worcester; the Duke of Exeter, and the Earls of March, Warwick, and Westmoreland; the Earl Marshal, and the Lords Fitzhugh, Cromwell, Hungerford, Tiptoft, and Beauchamp.[437] To this Council was given the real control of the executive; indeed the Protector seems to have had no veto, nor even any right to be specially consulted, excepting on those matters concerning which it was customary to consult the King.[438] It was the Council who had the presentation to the major benefices and the nomination of sheriffs, justices of the peace, controllers, custom officers and the like, subject always to the consent of the Protector. The Council also had the management of wardships, marriages, and ferms.[439] To remove any possibility of the Protector being able to evade the wishes of the Council, it was enacted that a quorum of six, or at the least four, was necessary for the legal transaction of business, and for a matter of great importance a majority of the whole Council.[440] The Duke of Exeter was made Guardian to the King, but owing to the tender age of the child he was left for the time being under the control of his mother.[441]

These heavy restrictions must have been extremely galling to Gloucester, and it is doubtful whether they were wise. Without claiming for him any high degree of statesmanship, or any real gift for administration, we must admit that these provisions left him with a smaller share in the government than he might reasonably have expected. Not only was he reduced to the position of an ordinary councillor, with a certain priority which his rank, apart from his office as Protector, would have given him, but he was provided with a Council in which his influence was not predominant. The Beaufort influence was in the ascendant there, and the two chief members of that family, Henry of Winchester and the Duke of Exeter, both had seats at the Council Board. On paper, therefore, Beaufort's efforts to restrain the Protector's power were eminently successful, yet it was prejudicial to his own interests, and disastrous to the internal peace of the kingdom, to throw down the glove thus early. Had Gloucester's power been less openly restrained, and had his opponents been less ready to bind him with Acts of Parliament, he would not have been compelled to act on the aggressive from the first. The result of the Beaufort policy was not to reduce the Protectorate to a mere name, but to convulse the kingdom by giving every encouragement to Gloucester's factious tendencies. The challenge had been given, and we cannot blame Gloucester for accepting it. It might perhaps have been unwise to place full power in the hands of such a volatile man; but a partially restricted power, which, while giving play to his ambitions, should yet prevent any disastrous domination of English politics, would have delayed and modified those factious fights which are so dangerous during a minority, which were to prove of no advantage to the house of Beaufort, and which opened the way for a devastating civil war. It was, in a word, a grave political miscalculation that led Henry Beaufort to inspire this aggressive policy towards Gloucester, for the Protector was not friendless. He was supported by a strong feeling in the kingdom, and the Bishop was yet to learn the weight of hostile London opinion when he attacked their 'Good Duke.' On the other hand, nothing could be wiser than the provision that Bedford should be in a position of authority over his brother. Though it gave little promise of a stable and similar policy in France and England, yet it gave a certain strength to English politics, and, for the Beauforts at least, was to prove extremely useful before long.

1422] ALLIANCE OF GLOUCESTER AND BEDFORD

Notwithstanding the rebuff in the matter of the Protectorate, Gloucester set to work energetically, for though technically his powers were small, he had a fund of energy which, while it lasted, carried him over great obstacles; and his personal influence, due to his general popularity and his near relationship to the throne, stood him in good stead. He busied himself with putting the 'inward affaires' of the country in order, and also in making arrangements for the support of Bedford in France.[442] Matters were complicated there by the death of Charles VI. on October 22, 1422.[443] This meant the loss of an ally who, imbecile though he was, must command the allegiance of the majority of Frenchmen. The Dauphin from being the head of a faction had suddenly sprung into the position of rightful King of France, and Bedford found the difficulty hard to face. Indeed so hard pressed was Paris, that it sent a special embassy to England to demand help to resist the advances of the new King, Charles VII.[444] For the time Gloucester was working in perfect harmony with Bedford, for he needed his support to strengthen his hands in England, and it seems probable that it was about this time that what might be called terms of alliance between the two brothers were drawn up. There is no evidence that this document was ever signed, but at least it indicates an inclination of the two brothers to work together. The treaty begins with some general remarks about the advantages enjoyed by a state, if its chief men are bound together in bonds of friendship. The two contracting parties therefore agree that they will be loyal to the King, and promote his good to the best of their ability; and next to the King they will be loyal to one another, not assisting each other's enemies, but rather warning each other against any danger that threatens them. They agree to turn a deaf ear to mischief-makers, who would sow distrust between them, and to treat each other with perfect frankness. Finally, each agrees to enter into no alliance without the consent of the other.[445]

This alliance between the two brothers has great significance. It goes far to prove that Bedford's sympathies were on Gloucester's side during the Protectorate quarrel, as indeed they well might be, as his interests were also at stake therein. Still more clearly does it point to the fact that it was personal ambition, and that alone, which led Beaufort to take his pseudo-constitutional course. Bedford realised that the grasping Bishop of Winchester wanted his power to increase in proportion to his purse, and he wished to prevent this by strengthening the hands of a man who was now in some ways his representative in England. Obviously Beaufort had been trying to create bad blood between the two brothers, as their refusal to listen to tales against one another proves; but he had failed, and it was not till Humphrey had prejudiced his case completely by his expedition to Hainault, that Bedford ceased to support his political ambitions. The struggle, therefore, in spite of petty restrictions on his power, which Gloucester would feel more than Bedford, was still not personal. It was a fight for supremacy between the legitimate and the illegitimate descendants of John of Gaunt.

1423] GLOUCESTER'S SALARY AND OFFICES

In the new year Gloucester's salary as Protector was definitely settled. On February 12 it was decreed by an ordinance of the Privy Council, that so long as he remained Protector he should receive eight thousand marks (£5333, 6s. 8d.) a year, dating from the death of the late King. Four thousand marks of this was to be drawn from the issues of the Duchy of Lancaster, and nine hundred marks from possessions in the King's hands.[446] In the previous December Gloucester had been given a present of £300 and the revenues of foresters, park-keepers, and keepers of warrens which were vacant. These revenues were not given to the Duke in his private capacity, but were attached to the office of Protector, for Bedford was to receive them whenever he was in England.[447] On March 3 the first instalment of Gloucester's salary was paid,[448] and, besides these financial advantages, he was made Constable of Gloucester Castle soon after the rebuff of his limited protectorship, and reappointed Chamberlain of England for life, together with other offices which he had held under Henry V.[449] Also on April 30, 1423, he was given the lordship of Guisnes for fourteen years, dating from the Feast of St. Michael (Michaelmas Day, September 29) next following, and for this privilege he was to pay nine hundred marks a year to the King, and to agree to keep a garrison of fifty men-at-arms and fifty archers in the castle.[450] In May the indentures for this were signed,[451] and at the same time he was given a tenth of the revenues of 'Fruten, Calkwell, Galymot, Ostrewyk, Balynton,' and other towns.[452] This accumulation of offices and revenues suggests that the victory of the Beaufort party had not proved so complete as at first they had thought. The Protector was able to secure a strong official position in the kingdom, and to increase his revenues considerably; possibly his recovering strength was due to the support he had received from Bedford. From another aspect it shows a new phase of Gloucester's character. Under the determined attacks of Beaufort, fresh developments and characteristics appear. Rapidly the soldier gives place to the intriguing politician, and the necessity of being prepared for future attacks develops a grasping trait in the Duke's character. Henceforth every opportunity for increasing his official importance or adding to his rent-roll is readily seized with a view to gaining an ever-growing preponderance in the affairs of the kingdom. Thus opposition brings to the fore all the worst sides of the 'Good Duke's' character, and under its influence his policy is moulded.

1423] DIVISIONS IN THE COUNCIL

On the eve of St. George's Day (April 22) Gloucester, exercising the functions of the sovereign, held the first chapter of the Order of the Garter at Windsor, and according to the wardrobe account Jacqueline was the only lady who received robes this year for the celebration of the Feast of St. George.[453] On October 20 Parliament met at Westminster, and the session was opened by Gloucester, acting as before on the authority of a special commission, which empowered him to preside over its deliberations and dissolve it, subject, of course, to the sanction of the Council.[454] During a part of the proceedings on November 17 the young King was present, sitting on his mother's lap, though at an earlier date he had resisted removal from Staines so energetically, that he had to be carried back into the house.[455] The session, though it lasted more than three months, was not eventful, but there were renewed efforts to curb the power of the Protector; and probably the introduction of the King was part of this policy, in that it served to remind Gloucester that he was there only as the representative, not as the governor, of his little master. A strong protest was lodged against the practice of individual members of the Council answering petitions on their own responsibility. It was therefore enacted that neither Gloucester, nor any other councillor, should grant either Bills of Right, of Office, or of Benefice in answer to a petition made to him, but must refer the matter to the rest of the Council.[456] In a new set of regulations for the Council evidence is also found that matters were not running smoothly in that body. There were evidently misunderstandings on the subject of foreign policy, and the various members were forbidden to go behind the action of the Council, and to express opinions contrary to the decisions arrived at.[457] All this helps to prove the strength of the opposition to Gloucester amongst the magnates of the realm, both in and out of the Council. It seems also to point to the fact that Beaufort's challenge had had the effect which was to be expected. Hampered by the restrictions on his power, Gloucester was too impatient to work against them quietly, and had evidently defied the Council in any way he could. The not unnatural result was exasperation on both sides. The second cause of complaint, with its distinct mention of 'into strange countrees oure soverain Lord shal write his letters by th' advyse of his Counsail,' may have reference to Gloucester's Hainault policy, which was rapidly reaching the stage of war, and of which we shall speak later.

On the other hand, Gloucester's efforts towards procuring a treaty with Scotland were the subject of sincere thanks in this Parliament, and the wording of the note seems to imply that he had taken a very active part in the negotiations.[458] It was now almost eighteen years since James of Scotland had been taken prisoner, and it is probable that Humphrey and he had been fast friends ever since their boyhood. It was natural, therefore, that the Protector should take a leading part in the negotiations which were leading up to his release. On September 10 a treaty was signed at York, in which the Scotch agreed to pay £40,000 for their King's maintenance in England, and to withhold further support from the French; allusion was also made to a conditional marriage with some high-born English lady.[459] James had fallen deeply in love with Lady Joan Beaufort, daughter of John, late Earl of Somerset;[460] in the following February he married her, and the April of 1424 found him a free man confirming the treaty as King of his country.[461] Gloucester can hardly have welcomed this choice of a bride, for he could not know how little the unfortunate lady would strengthen the hands of her family.[462]

1423] THE EARL OF MARCH

Before Parliament rose it was called upon to pass an Act of Attainder against Sir John Mortimer, cousin of the Earl of March, who had been arrested on suspicion of treason in 1421. He had tried to escape from the Tower, apparently being instigated thereto by emissaries of the Government. For this offence he was condemned to death by a special Act of Parliament, and executed.[463] From the deposition of William King, who was instructed by the Lieutenant of the Tower to win Mortimer's confidence, it would seem that the latter's escape was to be a prelude to a rising in Wales in conjunction with the Earl of March, and that the Protector's life was threatened. March was to usurp the throne, and the Bishop of Winchester was also marked out for distinction, 'for Mortymer wolde pley with his money.'[464] How far these statements were true, and how far part of an organised attempt to remove a dangerous prisoner cannot be said, but at least it is clear that the Earl of March had already caused anxiety to Gloucester owing to the suspiciously large retinue he had brought with him to the meeting of Parliament, and the ostentation with which he kept open house at the residence of the Bishop of Salisbury.[465] It may be that a conspiracy was indeed on foot, and that Humphrey once more received a warning of the dangers which beset the house of Lancaster. If so, the warning was forgotten by the removal of the conspirators. Mortimer we have seen was put to death, and March was ordered to his government in Ireland, where shortly afterwards he died of the plague. His lands went to swell the already extensive possessions of Richard, Duke of York,[466] who, however, was a minor, and the custody of those lands which March had held from the King in chief was given to Gloucester, to be held by him so long as they remained in the hands of the King, that is to say, until Richard came of age.[467]

Thus Humphrey was launched on his independent career. With no one in direct authority over him he was the master of his own policy, and that policy had been slowly developing during the last nine years. Three great influences had come to mould his character and dictate his line of action. The crusading zeal of his brother Henry had wedded him to the idea of French conquests, without giving him the intellectual force to organise or help such a project. The flight of Jacqueline to England had thrown in his way one who, appealing to the desire for foreign dominion and roving knight-errantry he inherited from his ancestors, was to draw him away from his ordered line of policy and show up all the weaknesses of his character. The opposition of Beaufort had compelled him to face a new set of circumstances, and had aroused those factious instincts that had hitherto lain dormant. These three facts dominated all his future life. His policy was formed by them, and henceforth he followed whithersoever they led. Little he cared that they did not agree, that to follow one enterprise he must sacrifice the other two endeavours on which he had set his heart. His ruling passion was ambition, but he did not know how to satisfy it. Thus his future life will be found to be consistent in so far as it is governed by one overwhelming desire, but totally inconsistent in detail. To conquer Hainault was to abandon his position at home; to carry on the French war successfully was to resign his claim on Hainault; to concentrate his energies on the government of England was to abandon Jacqueline to her fate. All these he did in turn, and thus, unless we dip down into the fundamental facts of his character, we shall be unable to divine what led him into these extraordinary inconsistencies. His policy of self-aggrandisement was fixed, but his unsettled mind could not decide how best to satisfy his ambitions.

FOOTNOTES:

[334] Rymer, IV. iii. 146.

[335] He arrived in Rouen on his way to join Henry on April 17,
1420. Cochon, 439.

[336] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 108.

[337] An ordinance, issued at Mantes on November 13, 1419, points to
the fact that deserters were becoming unpleasantly numerous.
_Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 42, App. 355.

[338] Ellis, _Original Letters_, 1st Series, i. 1.

[339] _Herald's Debate_, 61.

[340] See 'The Libel of English Policy,' _Political Songs_, ii.
187-205.

[341] In 1415, for instance, crown jewels were pledged to London for
the loan of 10,000 marks; Rymer, IV. ii. 141.

[342] _Third Rep. of Deputy Keeper of the Public Records_, 232,
Trial of Edward, Duke of Buckingham.

[343] Anstis, _Order of the Garter_, ii. 70.

[344] Waurin, ii. 331, 332.

[345] Devon, _Issue Roll_, 362, 363.

[346] This idea is supported by the fact that in 1425 a rumour was
abroad that James was going to help Gloucester in Hainault
with 8000 Scotch. Dynter, iii. 465.

[347] Waurin, ii. 280-294; St. Rémy, 439-442; Monstrelet, 460-465;
Des Ursins, 553, 554.

[348] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 42, App. 337; Chastellain, 25-29;
_Gesta_, 134, 135.

[349] _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 42, App. 374.

[350] _Gesta_, 137; Elmham, _Vita_, 252; Harleian MS., 2256, f. 196;
Chastellain, 44. Livius does not mention Gloucester as being
there. Probably the chroniclers confuse Meulan and Troyes.

[351] Rymer, IV. iii. 175.

[352] Rymer, IV. iii. 179; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 335.

[353] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 123.

[354] _Ibid._, iv. 107.

[355] _Ibid._, iv. 107, 117.

[356] Stubbs, iii. 90. Ramsay, i. 228, thinks that money was asked
for but refused. See Wake, 355.

[357] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 125.

[358] _Ibid._, iv. 124, 127, 128.

[359] London Chron., 188; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 336;
Elmham, _Vita_, 296.

[360] _Gesta_, 148.

[361] _London Chron._, 164, 165.

[362] _London Chron._, 162; Gregory, 139, calls him 'ovyr seer';
_Short English Chron._, 57, calls him 'surveour'; Fabyan
calls him 'overloker' and gives a long description of the
feast, 586-588; Holinshed, iii. 125, calls him overseer.

[363] _London Chron._, 162-165; _Short English Chron._, 57; Gregory,
139.

[364] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 337; Waurin, ii. 344; Elmham,
_Vita_, 300-1.

[365] Elmham, _Vita_, 304; St. Rémy, 454; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._,
ii. 339.

[366] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 339.

[367] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 129.

[368] See above, p. 38.

[369] See Chastellain, 69. As a rule the Cods (Kabbeljan) were the
citizen party, and the Hooks (those who were to catch them)
consisted of nobles.

[370] St. Rémy, 453.

[371] For the causes of quarrel between John of Brabant and
Jacqueline see Chastellain, 69.

[372] Chastellain, 69; see also Monstrelet, 497.

[373] According to another chronicler, this was Lewis Robsart 'per
Lodowicum Robishert voluntarie de ducta' (_Chron. Henry VI._,
6). A certain 'Lewis de Robstart' was left by Henry as his
representative with Catherine between the Convention of
Troyes and his marriage (St. Rémy, 443). Also a certain
'Lodovico Robersart' was an executor of Henry V.'s will
(_Rot. Parl._, iv. 172), and this man was also a supervisor
of the Duke of Exeter's will (_Testamenta Vetusta_, i. 210).
Lewis Robsart had indented for men in the 1415 campaign (L.
T. R., _Foreign Accounts, 10 Henry V._). This almost looks as
if Henry had helped to engineer the flight. On the other
hand, there is a possibility that the chronicler quoted above
mistook the Christian name, for in 1424 we shall find Sir
John Robsart accompanying Gloucester and Jacqueline to St.
Albans (_St. Alban's Chron._, i. 8), and admitted to the
confraternity of the monastery at this time (Cotton MS.,
Nero, D. 7, f. 147); also a Sir John Robsart was naturalised
on October 20, 1423 (Rymer, IV. iv. 103). There was a John de
Robsart whom we have seen serving under Gloucester in the
Côtentin expedition. If this is the man who brought
Jacqueline over, the inference is that Gloucester was partly
responsible for her flight to England. A Sir Lewis Robsart
also took part under Gloucester in the fighting before
Cherbourg, so in either case the Duke's complicity seems
possible.

[374] Chastellain, 70.

[375] St. Rémy, 453.

[376] _Ordinances_, ii. 241.

[377] Rymer, IV. iv. 8.

[378] Chastellain, 70, 71.

[379] Waurin, ii. 356; _Ordinances_, ii. 291; Rymer, IV. iv. 34.

[380] Letters discovered at Lille seem to prove that Henry not only
encouraged Jacqueline to flee to England, but also favoured
her marriage with Gloucester as a help towards his policy of
strengthening his position in France. See Beiträge, i. 48.

[381] Miss Putnam (_Mediæval Princess_, p. 86) suggests that
Gloucester had met Jacqueline on the way home from Dordrecht.
Leopold Devilliers in the preface to vol. iv. of
_Cartulaire_, p. xxvi, says, 'Leur liaison remontait à
l'Epoque où ils s'étaient vus en France pour la première
fois,' but he does not say when this hypothetical meeting
took place.

[382] Rymer, IV. iv. 24, 25.

[383] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 320. In theory three archers went to every
man-at-arms, but this was often exceeded. In Henry IV.'s wars
in Wales, and later in the French wars, there were often as
many as four or five archers to each man-at-arms.

[384] See _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 44, App. 624-635.

[385] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 320.

[386] _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 44, App. 624; Rymer, IV. iv. 27.

[387] Rymer, IV. iv. 27. Miss Putnam (_Mediæval Princess_, 89),
following Löher (Beiträge, i. 48), says that Gloucester
sailed on the day that his passport was granted--a fortnight
before Henry--and that this was arranged in order to remove
him from the attractions of Jacqueline. There is no evidence
that Gloucester sailed before Henry. Others, _e.g._ the Earl
of March, got their passports at this time, and it seems
likely that they were given them merely because the
embarkation was beginning.

[388] June 10. Elmham, _Vita_, 308; _Gesta_, 153; St. Rémy, 445;
Monstrelet, 503; Waurin, ii. 348; Chastellain, 79. The French
chroniclers all give it as St. Barnabas Day, June 11.

[389] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 340; cf. Add. MS., 4003, quoted
in Ramsay, i. 295. The French chroniclers give 4000
men-at-arms and 24,000 archers; St. Rémy, 455; Chastellain,
79.

[390] Chastellain, 79.

[391] Monstrelet, 503.

[392] Chastellain, 79.

[393] Elmham, _Vita_, 309.

[394] Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, p. 231, No. CCCLXIII.; Monstrelet, 504.

[395] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 320. Gloucester's men were arrayed on July
13. _Cal. of Norman Rolls_, Rep. 42, App. 427.

[396] Chastellain, 80.

[397] Elmham, _Vita_, 311.

[398] _Rot. Scot._, ii. 228-230.

[399] Elmham, _Vita_, 310, 311; _Gesta_, 153; Chastellain, 94.

[400] Chastellain, 94.

[401] _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 44, App. 635.

[402] For this campaign see Elmham, _Vita_, 312-314; Monstrelet,
512, 513; _Gesta_, 153, 154; Chastellain, 95, 96; Waurin, ii.
398-400.

[403] When Henry first landed in 1424 Chastellain says that
Gloucester was governor of Paris. This, of course, is a
mistake, for the post was at that time held by Exeter, who,
however, joined the army at Mantes. It is possible that this
is merely a mistake of date and that Gloucester took Exeter's
place, and if this is so, it may be that he went thither
straight from the siege of Dreux, and did not take part in
Henry's campaign on the Loire. See Chastellain, 79.

[404] After March 27 mention of Gloucester ceases in the French
Rolls; _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 44, App. 635.

[405] _Lond. Chron._, 110; _Chron. Henry VI._, 1.

[406] Harleian MS., 2256, f. 197.

[407] Rymer, IV. iv. 50.

[408] Cotton MS., Cleopatra, C. iv. f. 32.

[409] Rymer, IV. iv. 66; see Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 342.

[410] Ashmole MS., 1109, ff. 146, 147.

[411] _Gesta_, 159, 160; Livius, 95; Elmham, _Vita_, 333;
Chastellain, 112. According to Waurin, ii. 422, and
Monstrelet, 530, the regency of England was given to the Duke
of Exeter. Waurin also says that the regency of France was to
devolve on the Duke of Burgundy, but if he refused, Bedford
was to take his place, and this chronicler goes on to say
that Bedford only undertook the office after Burgundy's
refusal to accept the post.

[412] _Gesta_, 160.

[413] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 344.

[414] Hall, 114.

[415] Ramsay, ii. 78.

[416] Stubbs, iii. 94.

[417] Rymer, IV. ii. 139. By this will Gloucester was left a bed and
£100.

[418] _Testamenta Vetusta_, i. 21.

[419] Rymer, IV. iii. 8.

[420] Rymer, IV. iii. 7. Ramsay, i. 246, while allowing that no
chronicler gives any reason for the breach between Henry V.
and the Bishop of Winchester, suggests that it may have been
due to a possible demand of the latter for some security for
the money he had lent to the former. Security had been given
on July 18, but there is nothing in this to explain the
Chancellor's resignation. At any rate, if these two men could
not agree as to this debt, it is obvious that they had no
confidence in one another.

[421] Hardyng, 391.

[422] Rymer, IV. iv. 80.

[423] _Lords' Reports_, iii. 856; _Ordinances_, iii. 3.

[424] _Ordinances_, iii. 6; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 169; Rymer, IV. iv.
82.

[425] 'Ad parliamentum illud finiendum et dissolvendum de assensu
concilii nostri plenam commisimus potestatem.' _Ordinances_,
iii. 7. Stubbs thinks that it is probable that 'de assensu
concilii nostri' alludes to the last three words, that
Gloucester misconstrued the sentence, and that the Council
accepted his misconstruction for their own ends (Stubbs, iii.
96, _n._ 3); but judging from their general attitude to
Gloucester it seems more likely that the lords intended to
put a check on him all along, else why introduce words which
had not occurred before? It is more than possible that they
wished Gloucester to accept it in the way Stubbs reads it,
and at a later date to construe them to their own advantage.
Gloucester's only chance was to try to preclude this
possibility. He threw his stake and lost.

[426] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 345.

[427] _Ibid._, ii. 345, 346.

[428] Rymer, IV. iv. 82; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 170.

[429] Hardyng, 390.

[430] Delpit, _Doc. Fr._, No. CCCLXVII. p. 233.

[431] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 171, 172.

[432] _Lords' Reports_, v. 192.

[433] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 326.

[434] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 174; Rymer, IV. iv. 83; _Lords' Reports_, v.
192; Hall, 115; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 346.

[435] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 175.

[436] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 175; _Ordinances_, iii. 15, 16.

[437] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 178.

[438] _Ordinances_, iii. 18.

[439] _Ibid._, iii. 16, 17, 18; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 176.

[440] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 176.

[441] Polydore Vergil, 2.

[442] Hall, 115; Polydore Vergil, 2.

[443] Monstrelet, 533.

[444] _Ibid._, 538; Waurin, iii. 6, 7.

[445] _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 139-143. This document has no
date, but it was evidently drawn up early in the reign.
Stubbs, iii. 102, puts it as probably occurring before the
Parliament at Leicester in 1426, and points to the last
clause for evidence that Gloucester's Hainault expedition was
alluded to. On the other hand, this may have been dictated by
a presentiment of Gloucester's intentions in Hainault, which
became evident soon after the opening of the reign, if not
before. Bedford probably wanted to restrain Gloucester, and
Gloucester must have desired the support of his powerful
brother. There is also ample evidence that Bedford was in the
hands of Beaufort in 1426, certainly till after the
Parliament of Leicester, and therefore would not at that time
ally himself with his brother.

[446] _Ordinances_, iii. 26, 27; Rymer, IV. iv. 86; _Cal. Rot.
Pat._, 269.

[447] _Ordinances_, iii. 10, 15.

[448] _Ibid._, iii. 51.

[449] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 174; _Cal. Rot. Pat._, 269.

[450] _Ordinances_, iii. 69, 77.

[451] _Cal. of French Rolls_, Rep. 48, p. 226.

[452] Carte, ii. 250.

[453] Beltz, pp. lxi, lxii. Wardrobe accounts, however, are not
always reliable.

[454] Rymer, IV. iv. 102; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 197; _Cal. Rot. Pat._,
270.

[455] _London Chron._, 112 and 165.

[456] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 200.

[457] _Ibid._, iv. 201. _Ordinances_, iii. 151, where an additional
paragraph decrees that any matter of dispute between any
members of the Council is to be submitted to the judgment of
the rest.

[458] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 299.

[459] Rymer, IV. iv. 98.

[460] _Chron. Henry VI._, 4, 5.

[461] Rymer, IV. iv. 115. It was not long before Gloucester was
remonstrating with James for giving support to the French in
1424. Polydore Vergil, 11.

[462] Later in the reign Gloucester complained that this marriage
was an insidious attempt by Beaufort to increase the power of
his house.

[463] Harleian MS., 2256, f. 198; _Rot. Parl._, iv. 202.

[464] Cotton MS., Julius, B. i. f. 68.

[465] _Chron. Henry VI._, 6.

[466] Harleian MS., 2256, f. 198vo; _Chron. Henry VI._, 6.

[467] _Ordinances_, iii. 169. March died January 19, 1425.