Chapter IV: Gloucester and Hainault (2)

To this Burgundy after some delay had replied, that what he had said with regard to the acceptance of the conditions by Brabant was true, and that Gloucester had refused to abide by the decision of the Paris tribunal, or to await that of the Pope. With sudden heat he declared that Gloucester had called him a liar, and he therefore challenged him to single combat, offering to accept either the Emperor or Bedford as judge of the fight. This he affirmed would be a more Christian way of settling the dispute, in that it would avoid the killing of their respective adherents.[577] From Soignies Gloucester had written to accept the challenge for St. George's Day with Bedford as judge, adding that his first letter was justified by Burgundy's recent lie in saying that Brabant accepted the terms of the agreement.[578] To this Philip had retorted with another letter reaffirming his former statements. Gloucester had called him a liar, and he had therefore challenged him to personal combat, which had been accepted, and thereby their differences would be definitely settled.[579]

It was on account of the arrangements made in this correspondence that the truce between the two parties had been made, and it is rather strange that a chronicler asserts that Humphrey picked the quarrel to secure his retreat from Hainault.[580] The challenge came from Burgundy, and there is no evidence in Gloucester's first letter that he wished to provoke the quarrel. On the contrary, he was evidently surprised and hurt by the attitude adopted by Philip, though it shows a surprising ignorance of the character and ambitions of the man whom he had first met at St. Omer in 1417. Till he heard of the summons of December 20 he had never doubted but that the struggle lay between himself and Brabant alone, and he had been at great pains to prevent any provocation of Burgundian susceptibilities when passing through Artois. This care was no subtle intention to put his future adversary in the wrong, but was born of an entire inability to grasp the state of the case. He was by nature a scholar, circumstances had transformed him into a politician, but no circumstances could make him a statesman. He could not see the significance of his own actions, and till brought face to face with the facts, could not understand whither his actions would lead him. He ought to have been aware that Burgundy would look on his Hainault policy with no friendly eye, and he had had clear warning that Philip would not stand by to see an alien power within his sphere of influence. Yet blind to these signs, and unconscious that any one could follow out a policy in a more determined way than he could, only now did he realise his true position, and perhaps it was only now that he began to grasp something of the complications which his hot-headed expedition was bringing upon English policy in France. Armagnac and Burgundian had fought side by side in the army before Brain-le-Comte, Burgundian and Englishman had fought against each other when they should have stood shoulder to shoulder in the plains of France. He could not hope for reinforcements, and the troops of Burgundy were arrayed against him when he had thought that the alliance with England would preclude such a possibility. He stood for his own projects, and his expedition was personal, not national, yet this, while leaving him helpless, did not fail to alienate the sympathies of Philip from the nation whose royal family had a member in arms against his treasured projects.

1425] HOSTILITY TO GLOUCESTER

The heyday of Gloucester's ascendency in Hainault was rapidly passing into murky twilight, and the men of Hainault were not slow to apprise the situation. With Burgundy in the field against them, they were surrounded by enemies, and their provisions were cut off both by road and river. They regretted Jacqueline's visit to England, and still more did they regret that she had brought back with her an English husband. They were disgusted at the part they had played in rejecting the Duke of Brabant, and with the exception of the faithful few who clung to their Countess, they all sought how they might propitiate the party that now seemed likely to get the upper hand.[581] The very men who had petitioned the Pope to divorce Jacqueline from the Duke of Brabant,[582] now sought to win favour from him whom they had opposed. Such was the state of public opinion when Gloucester rejoined his wife at Mons after his fiasco at Soignies.[583]

In the capital the citizens had never whole-heartedly welcomed the rule of the foreigner, and had always disliked the regent's English followers. They now decreed that Gloucester was to be received only with a reasonable following, and on condition that he gave a pledge, whereby the labourers might return to work in the fields without being molested by his men.[584] Requests had been supplanted by demands, and the citizens now made terms with the man they had acknowledged as governor, while their hostility to him was still further increased by a peremptory letter from the Duke of Burgundy threatening to send troops to besiege the city unless it returned to the allegiance of the Duke of Brabant.[585] Not only was the loyalty of Mons shaken, but also many of the towns, headed by Valenciennes, had already renounced their allegiance to Jacqueline's governor,[586] and a fresh inroad from Brabant territory[587] convinced Gloucester that his career in Hainault was at an end. Moreover, it is more than probable that the volatile Duke had tired of Jacqueline, so soon as he despaired of ever possessing her territory, and there is strong presumptive evidence that his affections had already strayed to a certain Mme. de Warigny, the wife of one of the Duchess's equerries.[588] As early as February 15, it had been rumoured that the Duke was about to return to England,[589] and now he definitely decided on this course. His hold on Hainault was weakened, if not gone; he had never succeeded in securing even the nominal adherence of Holland and Zealand; quick to undertake a new project, he was as quick to despair of its success, and, perhaps most potent reason of all, he wished to return to England, lest in his absence his uncle should undermine his position there.

1425] RETURN OF GLOUCESTER TO ENGLAND

A safe-conduct through Burgundian territory made this retreat easy, and within four days of his arrival at Mons Humphrey was ready to start.[590] Jacqueline seems to have wished to accompany her husband, but the authorities of Mons, seconded by the Dowager-Countess, interfered, and insisted that their lady should not again leave the country, and Gloucester consented on condition that the citizens of her capital guaranteed her safety.[591] A few soldiers and some cannon were left behind,[592] but almost all the English troops accompanied their master, who early in April rode out to St. Ghislain. Here amidst many tears and protestations Jacqueline bid adieu to her husband, and sorrowfully watched him ride away down the road to Valenciennes and pass out of her life for ever, though at the time she knew it not.[593] By way of Bouchin and Lens he reached Calais, whence he sailed for England on April 12.[594]

Hainault breathed more freely when she saw the English depart, for they had brought nothing but trouble and sorrow in their train. Not content with provoking the wrath of the Duke of Burgundy to fall on the country they had pretended to defend, they had pillaged, slain, and wasted wherever they went. More than once we have had occasion to notice strong protests at their behaviour, and it was a very unsavoury reputation they left behind them. Neither church nor town was safe from their depredations, and the native chronicler cries bitterly 'no soldiers ever did so much harm to the Low Countries as did the English.'[595] Gloucester's inability to keep his men in order is not easily explained. In the French wars he had maintained the strictest discipline; while marching through Artois these very same soldiers had been compelled to restrain their plundering tendencies, and later, too, the Duke was able to lead a short skirmish into the territory of Flanders without ever once letting his men get out of hand. It may be that his health was not sufficiently good to allow him to undertake that personal supervision so necessary for maintaining order, but more probably his soldiers were left unrestrained because their leader did not try to restrain them. Humphrey must have been disgusted at the cold reception he had met with in Hainault, and annoyed at the fact that he was only recognised as his wife's regent, not as joint ruler with her. He had set out with the idea of becoming a continental prince, and he found that he was only grudgingly acknowledged as Jacqueline's representative. What more natural, therefore, than that his imperious and emotional temperament should choose a poor, mean way of revenging himself on those Hainaulters who had disappointed his hopes, and at the same time the cheapest and most effective method of rewarding his troops for their services? Natural it was to Humphrey. He had none of the greatness of spirit which alone could have brought his undertaking to a successful end, and he had but little to be proud of, as he turned from the scene of his least glorious achievements.

1425] GLOUCESTER'S FAILURE

Nothing in Gloucester's whole career has left such a blot on his character as his expedition to Hainault. Not only did he embark on an impolitic course, which came near to wreck the national policy and the schemes of his brother--a policy which he espoused himself in later life, when it had become but an empty dream--but he could not even bring himself to stand by her whom he had undertaken to champion, in the day of her distress. He had alienated the men whom he had attempted to govern, he had shown himself unable or unwilling to control his soldiers, and when thrown on his own resources, he had betrayed his weakness as a general. A soldier of ability and experience, his instability of character had rendered him helpless when he had no controlling power to look up to; an ardent lover, he had soon proved unfaithful, and had betrayed more worldly ambition than unselfishness in his love; a man who claimed to guide the destinies of England, he had shown himself blind to that which must have been clear to any one possessing the merest germs of statesmanship. All his weaknesses came to the front, and none of the virtues to which he could lay claim were apparent; it is by this episode in his life that he is best remembered, as the foolish knight-errant who adopted a mediæval pose, whilst possessing none of the mediæval chivalry which alone could make that pose bearable.

FOOTNOTES:

[468] _Lond. Chron._, 110; Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._, ii. 342;
Harleian MS., 2256, f. 196vo.

[469] _Ordinances_, iii, 10.

[470] Polydore Vergil, 5.

[471] This story is told by Wagenaar, see Beiträge, 48, 49.

[472] _Chron. Henry VI._, 6. Allusion to advice given by Italian
clerics justifying the marriage is made in Jacqueline's claim
that Gloucester should be recognised as Regent of Hainault.
_Particularités Curieuses_, 77. Martin v. also in a letter to
his representatives in England alluded to the existence of an
opinion, signed by many persons under seal, to the effect
that in the question of divorce justice was on the side of
Gloucester. _Papal Letters_, vii. 27.

[473] A Latin chronicler in the Low Countries certainly says 'Quibus
nupciis regaliter in Anglia celebratis' (Beiträge, 16). But
this cannot stand against the unanimous silence of all other
contemporary writers.

[474] _Cartulaire_, iv. 599.

[475] _Ibid._, iv. 318. Also _Particularités Curieuses_, 58.

[476] _Cartulaire_, iv. 328.

[477] Beiträge, 51.

[478] Hall, 116. Stow also, wise after the event, alludes to the
marriage as 'a thing thought unreasonable'; _Annales_ 366.

[479] Rymer, IV. iv. 90.

[480] Dec. 20, 1423. _Rot. Parl._, iv. 242; _Lords' Reports_, v.
197, 198; Rymer, IV. iv. 103. Löher says that before the
marriage of Bedford and Anne of Burgundy Humphrey had been a
candidate for this lady's hand (Löher, _Jakobäa von Bayern_,
ii. 141). He is followed in this statement by Miss Putnam (_A
Mediæval Princess_, 87), but I can find no authority for it.
Probably it is a mistake arising from the fact of Bedford's
early candidature for the hand of Jacqueline.

[481] _St. Albans Chron._, i. 4, 5.

[482] _Ibid._, i. 66. The date given is 1423, but this is old style;
cf. Cotton MS., Nero, D. vii. f. 154.

[483] Waurin, iii. 24-27. The Duke of Brittany was included in this
alliance.

[484] Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 387. This letter is here
attributed to Beaufort, but merely on presumptive evidence.
It is given in fuller form in the _Journal des Savants_,
1899, pp. 192-194. It was sent to the Council through some
English prelate, probably Beaufort.

[485] Beltz, p. lxii.

[486] The University of Paris saw the danger too, and besides the
warning letter to the English Council, referred to above, had
written both to Burgundy and Gloucester, urging them to keep
the peace. _Journal des Savants_, 1899, pp. 189 and 191, 192.

[487] _Cartulaire_, iv. 354, 355, October 8, 1423.

[488] _Ibid._, iv. 341, June 16, 1423.

[489] _Cartulaire_, iv. 340, 341, 355, 356.

[490] Monstrelet, 551; Waurin, iii. 84.

[491] _Cartulaire_, iv. 368.

[492] Monstrelet, 581; Waurin, iii. 89.

[493] _Cartulaire_, iv. 380, 381. Jacqueline agreed to this on May
8, and Gloucester on May 28.

[494] _Ibid._, iv. 373, 374.

[495] _Cartulaire_, iv. 386-388.

[496] _Ibid._, iv. 109.

[497] _Cartulaire_, iv. 388, 389.

[498] _Ibid._, iv. 384-386.

[499] _Ibid._, iv. 391. This judgment was given on June 19, 1424.

[500] Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 388, 389,

[501] _Cartulaire_, iv. 350.

[502] There is no evidence that he asked for it, but he certainly
was not given it, else some record of it would survive.

[503] The Prior of Ely refused to lend £200; MSS. of Dean and
Chapter of Ely. _Hist. MSS. Rep._, xii. App. IX. 395.

[504] _Hist. MSS. Rep._, v. 546; MSS. of Corporation of New Romney.

[505] _St. Albans Chron._, i. 8. This comes under 1426, but
Jacqueline was not in England then. The editor changes it to
1425, and suggests that Jacqueline was over in England at
that time. There is no ground for this suggestion.

[506] _Cartulaire_, iv. 408 find 410; _Particularités Curieuses_,
71.

[507] _Ordinances_, iii. 165; Devon, _Issue Roll_, 395.

[508] Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 397; _Beckington
Correspondence_, i. 281.

[509] _Cartulaire_, iv. 413; _Particularités Curieuses_, 73.

[510] Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 398. Letter of one of
Gloucester's followers to Beaufort. There were other copies
of this letter addressed to other English lords.

[511] Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 398.

[512] Monstrelet, 563; Waurin, iii. 126-128. The terms were
despatched from Paris on October 28; Stevenson, _Letters and
Papers_, ii. 273, 274. Stevenson attributed this document to
1434 for no good reason. Owing to delays it did not reach
Gloucester till November 18; _Ibid._, ii. 400.

[513] Dynter, iii. 854, 855; _Preuves de l'histoire de Bourgogne_,
iv. No. XLVI. p. 53; St. Rémy, 471.

[514] Monstrelet, 563; Waurin, iii. 129-131.

[515] Waurin, iii. 133.

[516] Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, i. 279-285.

[517] _Ibid._, ii. 392, 393.

[518] Desplanque, _Projet d'Assassinat, Preuves_, pp. 57, 59.

[519] For a discussion upon these documents, see the above treatise
in _Mémoires couronnés par l'Académie royale de Belgique_,
vol. xxxii.; and also Cosneau, _Richemont_, 501, 502; De
Beaucourt, ii. 658-660.

[520] Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 399.

[521] _Ibid._, ii. 399; _Cartulaire_, iv. 418.

[522] _Cartulaire_, iv. 418. A letter written to Mons telling of
Gloucester's coming. This corresponds with Eberhard Windeck's
report of 4000 men (Windeck, cap. 215, p. 162). Waurin, iii.
125, says 5000. Holkham MS., p. 8, follows Stow in saying
1200. Pierre de Fénin, p. 601, also says 1200. An entry in
the _Registre de Mons_ of November 27, 1424, says Gloucester
arrived near Mons with between 4000 and 5000 men
(_Cartulaire_, iv. 420), but he had then been joined by some
of the troops belonging to the Dowager-Duchess.

[523] Waurin, iii. 126; Monstrelet, 562.

[524] Kymer's 'Dietary,' in _Liber Niger Scaccarii_, App. vol. ii.
pp. 551-559.

[525] _Cartulaire_, iv. 418; Waurin, iii. 135; Monstrelet, 564.

[526] Waurin, iii. 135; Monstrelet, 564; Pierre de Fénin, 601.

[527] In October 1424 the Duke of Brabant had written to Mons to
announce his intention of resisting Gloucester; _Cartulaire_,
iv. 414. Resistance to Jacqueline and her husband was
therefore a certainty.

[528] St. Rémy, 472.

[529] _Cartulaire_, iv. 419.

[530] _Chron. Henry VI._, 7.

[531] _Cartulaire_, iv. 382, 383.

[532] _Ibid._, iv. 407.

[533] See _Ibid._, iv. 81, 82.

[534] _Ibid._, iv. 419.

[535] _Ibid._, iv. 420.

[536] _Registre de Mons, Cartulaire_, iv. 420.

[537] It is possible that this 'Jan Lorfevre' is none other than the
chronicler Jean Le Fevre Seigneur de St. Rémy, who was with
the English army on the day of Agincourt, but of whom we know
nothing more till he reappears in 1430 as an ambassador from
Burgundy.

[538] _Particularités Curieuses_, 76, 77; _Cartulaire_, iv. 423; St.
Rémy, 472.

[539] _Cartulaire_, iv. 424; _Particularités Curieuses_, 78.

[540] Dynter, iii. 858.

[541] Monstrelet, 564; Waurin, iii. 135.

[542] _Cartulaire_, iv. 425, 426.

[543] _Ibid._, iv. 427.

[544] _Ibid._, iv. 428, 430, 433.

[545] Hal is mentioned by Monstrelet and Waurin, and in an entry in
the archives of Valenciennes as an exception to the rule that
all the Hainault towns accepted Gloucester's rule; but Hal
was in Brabant and therefore was not called on to acknowledge
the new governor of Hainault. See Waurin, iii. 135;
Monstrelet, 564; _Cartulaire_, iv. 421.

[546] _Cartulaire_, iv. 437, 438. On Jan. 9 Gloucester alludes to
this grant as 80,000 pounds tournois; _Cartulaire_, iv. 441.

[547] _Chronique des Pays Bas_, 387.

[548] _Cartulaire_, iv. 428.

[549] _Ibid._, iv. 434. For another protest on the same subject from
the citizens of Mons, see _Particularités Curieuses_, 86.

[550] _Particularités Curieuses_, 92.

[551] _Cartulaire_, iv. 431.

[552] _Ibid._, iv. 438-440.

[553] _Ibid._, iv. 436, December 25, 1424.

[554] February 4, 1425, _Particularités Curieuses_, 86.

[555] _Cartulaire_, iv. 448. The letter reached Mons on February 24,
1425.

[556] _Ibid._, iv. 446, 447.

[557] _Ibid._, vi. 295; _Papal Letters_, vii. 29. Martin V. also
wrote to the papal nuncios in England to the same effect;
_Papal Letters_, vii. 27.

[558] Brabant received the letter on April 29, 1425; Dynter, iii.
866, 867.

[559] Letter to the Bishop of Winchester, dated January 8, 1425, in
Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 416; Dynter, iii. 859.

[560] Pierre de Fénin, 601; Dynter, iii. 859.

[561] Letter as above, Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 410.

[562] _Ibid._, ii. 411.

[563] Monstrelet, 563, 564; St. Rémy, 471.

[564] Stowe MS., 668, f. 32vo; Waurin, iii. 136; Monstrelet, 564.

[565] So Waurin, iii. 164; Monstrelet, 569. Pierre de Fénin, 602,
gives 50,000 men, and Dynter, iii. 861, estimates the army at
60,000.

[566] Pierre de Fénin, 601.

[567] Waurin, iii. 137, 138; Monstrelet, 564; _Chronique des Pays
Bas_, 388; Dynter, iii. 859-861.

[568] Pierre de Fénin, 602; Waurin, iii. 167.

[569] So Monstrelet, 569; Waurin, iii. 165. Pierre de Fénin, 602,
says the siege lasted twelve days.

[570] Dynter, iii. 861-863; Monstrelet, 569; Waurin, iii. 165-167;
Pierre de Fénin, 602.

[571] _Cartulaire_, iv. 451; St. Rémy, 472.

[572] Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 401-404. The letter is
undated, but owing to its allusions to the recent invasion of
Hainault, it seems to have been written at this time.

[573] Dynter, iii. 864.

[574] Monstrelet, 570; Waurin, iii. 170-174; Dynter, iii. 864. The
English forces despatched to follow St. Pol are estimated at
6000 by St. Rémy, 472, 473, while the _Chronicon Zanfleet_ in
'Amplissima Collectio,' v. 416, suggests that the only reason
why St. Pol did not attack those who followed him was because
some of the Brabant nobles in his army were in Gloucester's
pay.

[575] Monstrelet, 570; Waurin, iii. 169, 170.

[576] Stowe MS., 668, ff. 33, 34; Monstrelet, 565; Waurin, iii.
139-145; St. Rémy, 474.

[577] Stowe MS., 668, ff. 34, 35vo; Monstrelet, 566, 567; Waurin,
iii. 145-152; St. Rémy, 474.

[578] Stowe MS., 668, ff. 35, 36vo; Monstrelet, 567, 568; Waurin,
iii. 153-157; St. Rémy, 475, 476. The various authorities
differ as to the dates of the letters. For the first letter
the Stowe MS., Waurin, and Monstrelet have January 12, whilst
St. Rémy has it as January 22. For the second letter the
dates are Waurin and Stowe MS., March 13; Monstrelet, March
3; St. Rémy, March 12. For the third letter, Monstrelet and
St. Rémy give March 16; Stowe MS. and Waurin, March 26. I am
inclined to follow the Stowe MS. all through.

[579] Waurin, iii. 159-163; Monstrelet, 568, 569.

[580] Pierre de Fénin, 603.

[581] Waurin, iii. 161-169.

[582] Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 390, 391.

[583] Waurin, iii. 175; Pierre de Fénin, 603.

[584] _Particularités Curieuses_, 97, 98. This demand was made on
March 21.

[585] _Particularités Curieuses_, 99. The letter reached Mons on
March 29.

[586] Dynter, iii. 864.

[587] _Ibid._, iii. 865.

[588] On a MS. copy of Froissart's _Chronicles_--MS. français, 831,
of the National Library at Paris--these words are written at
the end of the text: 'Plus leid n'y a Jaque de Baviere; la
meins amée est Jaque; plus belle n'y a que my Warigny, nulle
si belle que Warigny.' The interpretation is not plain, but
the inference is that Jeanne de Warigny was the object of
Gloucester's affections while he was in Hainault. This lady
had married Henri de Warigny, one of Jacqueline's esquires,
in 1418, and though she was of no lineage herself, her
husband came of one of the oldest families in Hainault. The
MS. in which this is found once belonged to Richard, Earl of
Warwick, but the writing is not in his hand. For a discussion
of this matter see Kervyn de Lettenhove, Froissart, ii.
260-263, also Beiträge, 274, 275, and Putnam, _A Mediæval
Princess_, pp. 305-309.

[589] _Particularités Curieuses_, 90.

[590] Pierre de Fénin, 603; St. Rémy, 476.

[591] Waurin, iii. 175; Monstrelet, 571; Cotton MS., Cleopatra, C.
iv. f. 33.

[592] St. Rémy, 476; _Cartulaire_, iv. 549.

[593] Waurin, iii. 176; Monstrelet, 571.

[594] This date is established by a letter written by Gloucester to
Jacqueline on his way home; _Particularités Curieuses_, 112.

[595] _Chronique des Pays Bas_, 388.