Humphrey_ Duke of Gloucester_ A Biography Kenneth Hotham Vickers 1345 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Humphrey, Duke of
Gloucester: A Biography
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester: A Biography

Author: Kenneth Hotham Vickers

Release date: November 25, 2012 [eBook #41477]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41477

Credits: Produced by Irma Å pehar, KD Weeks and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HUMPHREY,
DUKE OF GLOUCESTER: A BIOGRAPHY ***

Transcriber’s Note

The page headers on the odd pages of Chapters I to VIII of the original text provided a
running account of the year and topic discussed. These are retained as highlighted notes
such as “14XX] TOPIC” In Chapters IX and X, there are no dates in these topic notes.
Please see the Notes at the end of this text for more detailed discussion on any changes
or corrections.

Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester.
From an Arras Manuscript.

HUMPHREY
DUKE OF GLOUCESTER

A Biography
BY
K. H. VICKERS, M.A.

EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD
LECTURER IN MODERN HISTORY AT UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, BRISTOL
ORGANISER AND LECTURER IN LONDON HISTORY FOR THE
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL

LONDON
ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE AND COMPANY
LIMITED
1907

Edinburgh: T and A. Constable, Printers to His Majesty

TO
THOSE KIND FRIENDS WITHOUT WHOSE
SYMPATHY AND KINDNESS THIS

BOOK WOULD NEVER HAVE
BEEN BROUGHT TO
COMPLETION

PREFACE
The following pages have been written amidst many interruptions and
completed amidst great difficulties. The excuse for their existence is to be
found in the total absence of any adequate biography of their subject, and
the attraction (to the author at any rate) of a varied and interesting career.
My indebtedness to those who have made a study of the fifteenth century is
acknowledged in the bibliography, but my obligations extend much further.
My thanks are due to many librarians who have given me every facility to
inspect manuscripts in their care, but to Mr. Falconer Madan of the
Bodleian Library at Oxford I am under no ordinary debt of obligation. His
consistent kindness and interest has made many paths smooth that would
otherwise have been rough. I am indebted to Lord Leicester for his kindness
in allowing me to examine a manuscript life of the Duke which forms part
of his Library, and to Mr. Yates Thompson for a similar permission with
regard to the Duke’s Psalter. Still more do I desire to thank Dean Kitchin for
his courtesy and kindness in sending me a transcript of a letter in a Durham
manuscript, whilst Professor Oman has given me the great encouragement
of his sympathy and advice. To Dr. Morris of Bedford I owe assistance on
some points of difficulty, and Sir Alfred Scott-Gatty, Garter, was kind
enough to answer several questions with regard to the Duke’s armorial
bearings. To my mother, who has spent many weary hours in copying my
manuscript; to my sister, who is largely responsible for the index; and to my
friend, Mr. H. W. Ward of Frenchay, whose assistance, both clerical and
critical, has been freely given, the mere record of my gratitude is not
sufficient.
Mr. E. Alfred Jones has kindly allowed me to reproduce the photograph of a
cup which once belonged to Duke Humphrey, and which forms part of the
collection he has made for his book on The Old Plate of the Cambridge
Colleges, whilst the possessor of the manuscript copy of Beccaria’s
dedication to Duke Humphrey, prefaced to his translation of Boccaccio, was
good enough, through the kind instrumentality of Mr. Strickland Gibson of
the Bodleian Library, to allow me to photograph this unique document.

K. H. V.
Frenchay, August 1907.

CONTENTS

PAGE

Introduction xvii

CHAPTER I
EARLY LIFE

Birth of Humphrey: his parents—The change of dynasty— 1-32
The Order of the Bath—Plot to kill Henry IV. and his
sons—Humphrey made a Knight of the Garter—Visit to
Abbey of Bardney—Accession of Henry V.—Humphrey
created Earl of Pembroke and Duke of Gloucester—
Negotiations between England and France—
Preparations for war—The Southampton Conspiracy: its
warning—Gloucester’s retinue in the 1415 campaign—
The siege of Harfleur—March from Harfleur to
Agincourt—The battle of Agincourt—The King’s return
to England,

CHAPTER II
THE WAR IN FRANCE

Various phases of Gloucester’s career—The Emperor 33-
Sigismund’s visit to England: reception by Gloucester— 80
The Treaty of Canterbury—Gloucester hostage at St.
Omer for the safety of the Duke of Burgundy visiting
Henry V. at Calais—Gloucester and Sigismund: a
contrast in characters—Renewal of the war—The siege
of Caen—Gloucester’s military qualities—The sieges of

Alençon and Falaise—Gloucester despatched to subdue
the Côtentin—The Côtentin expedition—The siege of
Cherbourg—Gloucester joins Henry V. at the siege of
Rouen—Gloucester’s negotiations for a wife—Further
military undertakings: the capture of Ivry—Gloucester
returns to England,

CHAPTER III
THE EVOLUTION OF GLOUCESTER’S POLICY

Gloucester Regent of England: terms of his commission— 81-
State of the country at this time; the rise of the Middle 124
Classes and their support of Gloucester—The King of
Scotland and Gloucester—The Treaty of Troyes
proclaimed in England—Influence of this treaty on
Gloucester’s policy—Restlessness of Parliament—The
return of Henry V. to England—Coronation of Queen
Catharine—The misfortunes of Jacqueline of Hainault:
her arrival in England and meeting with Gloucester—
Henry V.’s policy with regard to Jacqueline—Third
French campaign—The siege of Dreux—Gloucester’s
second Regency of England—Death of Henry V.: his
wishes for the government of his kingdoms—Claimants
for the Protectorate: Henry Beaufort, Bedford, and
Gloucester: their qualifications—Opposition to
Gloucester’s claims: his removal from the Regency—
Appointment to the Protectorate: the limitations placed
on Gloucester’s power and their effect—Alliance
between Gloucester and Bedford and its significance—
Dissensions in the Regency Council—Execution of Sir
John Mortimer and death of the Earl of March,

CHAPTER IV
GLOUCESTER AND HAINAULT

Jacqueline’s treatment in England—Her marriage to 125-
Gloucester—Visit of Gloucester and Jacqueline to St. 161
Albans—Burgundy objects to Gloucester’s pretensions
to govern Hainault—Attempted arbitration between
Gloucester and Burgundy—Gloucester’s claim—His
departure with Jacqueline for Hainault—Renewed
attempts at arbitration—March from Calais to Hainault
—Reception in Hainault: attitude of Mons—The Estates
of Hainault accept Gloucester as Regent—Complaints of
the behaviour of the English soldiers—Papal
procrastination in deciding Jacqueline’s divorce appeal
—Burgundy prepares for armed interference—Siege of
Braine-le-Comte—Gloucester’s inactivity—
Correspondence of Gloucester and Burgundy who agree
to a duel—Increased hostility to Gloucester in Hainault
—Gloucester returns to England—The motive and
wisdom of his Hainault policy,

CHAPTER V
THE PROTECTORATE

Gloucester’s reception in England: attitude of the Council 162-
—Jacqueline loses ground in Hainault—The duel 215
between Gloucester and Burgundy forbidden—
Gloucester loses interest in Hainault affairs: failure of an
expedition to relieve Jacqueline—The quarrel between
Gloucester and Beaufort: Beaufort summons Bedford to
England—Gloucester’s position before and after
Bedford’s return—Council of St. Albans—Parliament of
Leicester: Gloucester’s attack on Beaufort: the decision
of the Lords—The Council asserts its rights: its
communication to Gloucester—Results of Bedford’s
intervention—Gloucester suppresses lawlessness—
Jacqueline seeks assistance: money voted by the Council
for her relief—Abandonment of the contemplated

expedition—Public feeling hostile to Gloucester—The
Pope refuses the divorce—Gloucester marries Eleanor
Cobham—Disturbances in the Midlands—Beaufort
attacked for accepting the Cardinalate—Coronation of
Henry VI.,

CHAPTER VI
GLOUCESTER AS FIRST COUNCILLOR

The end of the Protectorate—The Forty Shilling Franchise 216-
—Gloucester made Regent—Henry VI. goes to France— 254
Parliament of 1431—The rising of ‘Jack Sharpe’: its
significance—Gloucester seeks more power: intrigues
against Beaufort—Increase of the Regent’s salary—
Results of the Regency—Ministerial changes—Beaufort
returns to the attack: brings forward grievances against
the Government—Lord Cromwell and Gloucester—
Gloucester goes to Calais to negotiate peace—Bedford
comes to England—More ministerial changes—Bedford
petitioned to remain in England: the conditions on which
he agrees to do so—Gloucester propounds a scheme for
carrying on the war—Quarrel of Gloucester and Bedford
—Death of Bedford—Defection of Burgundy from the
English alliance—Gloucester appointed Lieutenant of
Calais: he relieves it when besieged by Burgundy—
Gloucester’s raid into Flanders,

CHAPTER VII
DISGRACE AND DEATH

Gloucester’s waning interest in political life: his 255-
appearance as a patron of letters—Negotiations for 294
peace with France: Gloucester’s opposition; his
manifesto against Beaufort and Cardinal Kemp: his

manifesto against the release of the Duke of Orleans,
and the King’s reply—Gloucester’s declining
importance—Trial and imprisonment of the Duchess of
Gloucester for sorcery and treason—Consequent loss of
influence to Gloucester—The marriage of Henry VI. to
Margaret of Anjou—Gloucester’s war policy—Triumph
of the Beaufort faction—The Parliament of Bury—
Arrest and death of Gloucester,

CHAPTER VIII
SOME ASPECTS OF GLOUCESTER’S CAREER

The nature of Gloucester’s death: growing conviction that 295-
he was murdered—The trial of his servants for treason 339
—The effect of his death on English politics—His
policy in Hainault—The nature of his rule in England:
charges of oppression: tribute of his servants—His war
policy—His ecclesiastical policy: relations with the
Papacy—His connection with St. Albans Abbey—His
character,

CHAPTER IX
THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE IN ENGLAND

Nature of the Renaissance, and its influence on Gloucester 340-
—State of English scholarship—Gloucester’s 382
qualifications for the career of a patron of letters: his
early education—his relations with the Italian
Humanists—His friendship with Zano, Bishop of
Bayeux—Connection with Leonardi Bruni: its abrupt
ending—Correspondence with Pier Candido Decembrio:
the translation of Plato’s Republic: books bought for
Gloucester in Italy—Gloucester and Piero del Monte—
Lapo da Castiglionchio works for him—Antonio Pasini

—Friendship with Alfonso of Naples—Antonio di
Beccaria his secretary in England—Titus Livius of
Ferrara and his Vita Henrici Quinti—Gloucester’s
physicians,

CHAPTER X
THE REVIVAL OF ENGLISH SCHOLARSHIP

Gloucester and the English Scholars—Abbot 383-
Wheathampsted his literary friend—John Capgrave’s 425
Commentary on Genesis—Nicholas Upton and Thomas
Beckington—The English Poets—John Lydgate’s
numerous poems and his tribute to Gloucester’s learning
—John Russell, George Ashley, and Thomas de Norton
—The English version of the De Re Rustica of Palladius
—Gloucester’s patronage of the University of Oxford—
Correspondence with the University—Gifts of books to
Oxford—Arrangements for their safe keeping—
Gloucester’s literary tastes: the books he collected—His
literary position and understanding—Influence of
Gloucester’s life on English scholarship,

APPENDICES
A. Books once belonging to Gloucester still extant, 426-
438

B. The Tomb of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, 439-
441

C. Gloucester’s Will,, 442-
443

D. Gloucester’s Residences 444-
446

E. Portraits of Gloucester, 446-
450

F. A Legend of Gloucester’s Death, 450-
452

G. Gloucester’s Arms, Badges, and Seals, 452-
455

SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES
I. Printed Books, 456-
471

II. Manuscript Authorities, 471-
475

INDEX, 477-
491

ILLUSTRATIONS
Portrait of the Duke of Gloucester. From Bibliothèque de la
Ville d’Arras MS., 266, Frontispiece
[See pp. 446-447.]
PAGE
Cup bearing the Arms of the Duke of Gloucester and his
wife Eleanor in enamel, now in the possession of
Christ’s College, Cambridge.
From a photograph kindly lent by Mr. E. Alfred Jones, 90
The Duke of Gloucester and his wife Eleanor being
received into the Fraternity of St. Albans. Cotton MS.,
Nero, D. vii.,
[See p. 447.] 206
The Siege of Calais (1436). From the History of the Life
and Acts of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick.
Illustrated by Drawings by John Ross of Warwick.
Cotton MS., Julius, E. iv., Art. 6, 250
A page from the Duke of Gloucester’s Psalter. Royal MS.,
2, B. i.,
[See pp. 432-433, 447-448] 322
The Duke of Gloucester’s Autograph and a Label from one
of his Books. Harleian MS., 1705, and Harleian MS.,
33,
[See p. 430 and pp. 429-430.] 360
Capgrave presenting his Commentary on Genesis to
Gloucester. Oriel College MS., xxxii.,
[See pp. 428, 447.] 386
Drawing of the Old Divinity Schools, Oxford, dating from
1566. MS. Bodley, 13, 408
A page from the Duke of Gloucester’s copy of ‘Le Songe 416
du Vergier,’ once part of the Library of Charles V. of

France. Royal MS., 19, C. iv.,
[See p. 432.]

Several photographs for the above Illustrations have been kindly lent by
Mrs. Maude C. Knight, Richmond, Surrey.

ERRATA
P. 27, l. 10, for ‘Abbéville’ read ‘Abbeville.’
P. 45, note 191, for ‘Stowe’ read ‘Stow.’
P. 75, l. 5, for ‘Ponte’ read ‘Pont.’
P. 92, l. 23, for ‘Dowager-Duchess’ read ‘Dowager-Countess.’
P. 314, l. 13, for ‘Northampton’ read ‘Northumberland.’
P. 366, l. 2, for ‘Festus Pompeius’ read ‘Pomponius Festus.’
P. 378, l. 22, for ‘Villari’ read ‘Villani.’

INTRODUCTION
It was Polydore Vergil who first drew attention to the fatality of the
Gloucester title. It was borne by luckless King John, Thomas of Woodstock
earned a violent death, Thomas le Despenser was beheaded, while in days
later than those treated of in this volume, King Richard III. found that the
hand of fate was against him. Humphrey Plantagenet of the House of
Lancaster was no exception to this rule. His life was violent, his death
suspicious, and even after this his misfortunes did not desert him; for
though the tradition of the ‘Good Duke’ lingers in some quarters even to the
present day, his importance is not recognised by the historian. His
selfishness and his lack of statesmanship have made him a byword in
fifteenth-century history, and his true title to fame has been forgotten amidst
the struggles which prepared the way for the Wars of the Roses.
‘It is rather remarkable,’ wrote Bishop Creighton in 1895, ‘that more
attention has not been paid to the progress of Humanism in England, and
especially to the literary fame of the Duke of Gloucester.’ It is certainly
strange that this Duke should have found as his literary executors only two
men, both Germans, and they even have not devoted more than a passing
attention to his fame. Whilst there is no little interest to be found in the
story of his public career, the main importance of his life is centred in his
position as a literary patron. He was unique in the history of his country and
age, in taking an interest in the classical authors of Greece and Rome, who
had lain buried beneath the accumulated dust of the Middle Ages, and to
him we can trace the renaissance of Greek studies in England, and the
revival of Litteræ Humaniores in the University of Oxford. The fifteenth
century, with all its foibles and all its baseness, has been disregarded by
many who prefer an age of heroism or an age of material progress. Yet the
picturesque is not lacking in Duke Humphrey’s career, and his influence is
felt even at the present day. In his life we can trace the spirit of his age,
though many of the characters which flit across the stage are indefinite, and
bear few striking qualities.

This is particularly true of Gloucester himself. Few personal touches are to
be found in the historical writers of the period, and his character is often
elusive, his actions often uncertain. The present volume aims at tracing the
salient events of his career in relation to the history of his times, and at
showing his relationship to fifteenth-century literary aspirations, both in
Italy and in England. A hero no biographer can make him in spite of his
many virtues, but at least he should be relieved of the universal blame cast
upon him. In his life he was typical of his age, in his death the outward
failure of his career was clearly evident; but as the first English patron of
those scholars who were to revolutionise the mental attitude of the world,
he deserves recognition and remembrance, if not reverence.

HUMPHREY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER

CHAPTER I
EARLY LIFE
On the north-east border of the German-speaking races, there existed in the
latter days of the fourteenth century one of those old religious military
orders, which had been founded to carry on war against the infidel in the
Holy Land. Here, where German met Slav, and Christian met Pagan, the
Knights of St. Mary found a new sphere of usefulness, after the military
orders had become discredited, and in their war against the heathen
Lithuanians they attracted many of the adventurous spirits of Christendom.
Thus King John of Bohemia, who fell at Crécy, had lost his eyesight
fighting in these North German marches, and the adventurous Henry of
Bolingbroke, son and heir of John of Gaunt, spent some of his energies in
helping the Teutonic knights in their wars. It was on one of these
expeditions that at Königsberg news was brought to the future King Henry
IV. of England that his wife had borne him a son who had been named
Humphrey.[1] It was on November 1, 1390, that the sailor who carried this
news received his reward as the bringer of good tidings, so the birth was
probably in the preceding August or September.[2]
Humphrey was the fourth son of the union of Henry of Bolingbroke and
Mary Bohun, who was co-heiress to the princely inheritance of the Earls of
Hereford and Essex. This marriage had been one of the romantic episodes
of the time, and had brought John of Gaunt’s eldest son prominently
forward during the reign of Richard II. The Bohun inheritance had cast its
glamour over the man who had thus secured a part thereof, and he never
neglected an opportunity of emphasising his pride in the Bohun connection.
Thus he adopted the badge of the Swan, which was a Bohun cognisance,
and in choosing the names of his sons he only once, in the case of Thomas,
selected one which was decidedly not taken from his wife’s family. In the
case of his fourth and youngest son this was especially marked, for
Humphrey was a favourite Bohun name.[3] Of the last six Earls of Hereford,
five had borne it, so its youngest recipient was made at his birth the
inheritor of Bohun traditions—traditions which spoke of a life which would

be active, if not turbulent, and which amidst some constitutional actions
would have many elements of ambition and self-seeking. The Earls of
Hereford had taken a prominent part in the past history of England, and this
last inheritor of their name, if not of their title, was not to be unknown in
the public life of his country. From his mother’s family it may be that with
his name he inherited some part of that restless and unstable character
which was to influence his actions all through his life.
Of the place of young Humphrey’s birth we have
1399] ACCESSION OF no record, but much of his childhood was spent
HENRY IV. at Eaton Tregoes, a place situated not far from
Ross on the banks of the Wye, and part of the
[4]
Hereford inheritance. Here he was left in the care of Sir Hugh Waterton,
along with his two sisters, Blanche and Philippa, when his father was
banished by the capricious Richard II.[5] Here he mourned the death of his
grandfather,[6] and hence, too, in all probability he went to welcome his
father’s triumphant return, since he did not accompany his brother Henry to
Ireland in the train of King Richard.[7]
The change of dynasty naturally had an influence on the life of Henry’s son.
Hitherto Humphrey had been a child of little importance, the son of a
leading nobleman, and indeed a member of the blood royal, but this last was
a not uncommon distinction in the days when Edward III.’s numerous
descendants peopled the country. Of late, too, owing to his father’s
banishment, he had been kept in seclusion by his faithful guardian, waiting
for happier days, which had now come. By the parliamentary sanction of
Henry of Bolingbroke’s claim to the throne, Humphrey became a prince in
the line of succession, and the consequent honours pertaining to a king’s
son fell to his lot. Accordingly he was selected, together with his brothers
Thomas and John, to gild the inauguration of a new order of knighthood.
The new Lancastrian dynasty had not as yet secured a firm hold on the
kingdom. John of Gaunt had never been taken very seriously as a
statesman, and his son was but little known in his native land save for his
short period of opposition to Richard II. Something must be done to give
stability to the new royal house, and to borrow for it some of that outward
respectability of appearance which usually only comes with age. One of the
expedients to this end was the creation of a new order of knighthood, which
should do for the Lancastrians what the Order of the Garter had done for

their predecessors. Many have denied that the Order of the Bath owes its
inception to Henry IV., and it must be allowed that the ceremonial of bathing
on the eve of receiving knighthood dates back to Frankish times, and by
now had become hallowed by the Church and enforced by the chivalric
code which had come to soften the rough corners of Feudalism.
Nevertheless, no earlier mention of a definite Order of the Bath can be
found, and it was with the intention of giving dignity to this new
corporation of knights that the King’s three youngest sons headed the first
list of creations.[8] On the Eve of the Translation of St. Edward the
knighthoods were conferred,[9] and when the Mayor and citizens of London
came to escort the King to Westminster, preparatory to his coronation on the
morrow, the new knights were assigned a place of honour in the procession,
riding before the King in long green coats, with the sleeves cut straight and
the hoods trimmed with ermine.[10] The Feast day itself witnessed the
coronation of Humphrey’s father as King Henry IV.[11] Though only nine
years old the young prince had received that inauguration into the ranks of
men which the dignity of knighthood conferred, and to emphasise this fact
certain landed possessions were given to him by the King. On December 2
were bestowed upon him the manors of Cookham and Bray, near
Maidenhead in Berkshire, to which were added the manors of Middleton
and Merden in Kent, all given to him for himself and the heirs of his body.
[12]
Within these manors and hundreds he received all royal as well as
proprietory rights,[13] and some days later he was relieved of all fees and
fines payable on the receipt of letters-patent and writs.[14] About the same
time provision was made for him in the shape of ‘coursers, trotters, and
palfreys’ provided for his use.[15]
Joy and sorrow, triumph and danger, were to
1400] PLOT AGAINST succeed one another in striking contrast all
THE NEW DYNASTY through Humphrey’s life, and he was quickly to
learn that it was no untainted privilege to be
numbered among kings’ sons. He had just received his first initiation into
the pomps and glories of royal state; he had taken part in one of those
triumphal processions which were the delight of his later years; he had
begun to realise, boy though he was, the pleasant side of high rank and
popular homage; almost immediately he was to learn that there was another
side to the picture, and to experience the first of those frequent attacks from

which the Lancastrian dynasty was never entirely free. After the coronation
festivities were over, he had been taken down to Windsor together with his
brothers and sister, and there his father kept the Feast of Christmas,
surrounded by his family. But all the time a plot was brewing, and plans
were being made for taking the King unawares at a ‘momynge,’ and
destroying both him and his four sons. Warned in time, Henry hastened to
avert the blow. Humphrey and his brothers were taken in the dead of the
night of January 4 to London, and there safely housed in the Tower, while
their father sallied forth to subdue the rebels. When the conspirators arrived
at Windsor they found their quarry had escaped. Their plans were not
sufficiently organised to enable them to meet this contingency; an attempt
to raise the country in the name of Richard II. failed; they scattered and fled,
only to meet their death, some at the hands of the mob, and others on the
scaffold.[16] Humphrey was too young to realise the import of this
unsuccessful plot; indeed, its lack of success would render it insignificant
were it not the precursor of many similar attempts. It speaks of the strong
undercurrent of opposition to the Lancastrian dynasty, which never ceased
to flow even during the seeming popularity of Henry V.; it shows tendencies
which Humphrey himself would have to face in later life, and which the
lack of statesmanship which was to characterise him and so many of his
house was not calculated to stem. For the present the failure of the
conspiracy only helped to increase his worldly possessions, and he must
have delighted in the tapestry hangings and other spoils taken from the
condemned traitor, the Earl of Huntingdon, which were his share of the
goods forfeited by the conspirators.[17] His property steadily increased from
other sources also, and from time to time we find him the recipient of some
castle or manor at the King’s hands.[18]
We hear very little of the events in the life of the boy, but we get an
occasional glimpse of him. Thus he was present at the marriage of his father
to his second wife, Joan of Navarre, widow of the Duke of Brittany, at
Winchester in the early part of 1403, and he welcomed his future step-
mother with a tablet of gold as a wedding present.[19] The scene soon
changed from marriage celebrations to war, and Humphrey now had his
first experience of a battle. The rising of Sir Edmund Mortimer with the
Welsh and Harry Hotspur of the House of Percy called the King to the north
in July, and we are told that his youngest son took part in the famous battle

of Shrewsbury.[20] As the boy was but twelve years old it is unlikely that he
took any active share in the battle, though his elder brother was grievously
wounded;[21] but he was introduced to the perils which beset the House of
Lancaster, even amongst those whom they had counted as friends, and to
the methods of warfare he was later to practise himself.
The battle of Shrewsbury was an indirect means
1403] HUMPHREY of conferring yet another honour on Humphrey.
RECEIVES THE GARTER It is probable that he had been elected a Knight
of the Garter early in the reign, at the same time
as his eldest brother, the Prince of Wales, but at that time there was no
vacancy for him to fill.[22] There are no extant records of elections earlier
than the reign of Henry V., in whose first year we find robes provided for
Thomas, John, and Humphrey.[23] These princes, however, were
undoubtedly Knights of the Garter at an earlier date than this, and it is
recorded in the Windsor tables that John succeeded to the stall of the Duke
of York, who died on August 1, 1402.[24] If the three younger sons of Henry
were elected together, and waited to obtain their stalls in order of age, the
first vacancy after John’s enrolment would come in 1403, when Humphrey
probably succeeded to the stall of Edmund, Earl of Stafford, or to that of
Hotspur himself, who both fell in the battle of Shrewsbury.[25] In any case,
it is very doubtful that Humphrey had to wait till a later date than this to be
finally received into the Order of the Garter.
Humphrey had now passed from the state of childhood; two years later we
find him with an establishment of his own at Hadleigh Castle, in Essex;[26]
and again in the following year his position in the line of succession was
definitely arranged.[27] Nevertheless we only catch an occasional glimpse of
him. In 1406 he accompanied his father as escort to his sister Philippa to
Lynn on her way to join her future husband, the King of Denmark.[28] From
Lynn father and son went on a visit to the Abbey of Bardney, in
Lincolnshire, where they arrived on August 21. They were met at the gates
by the Abbot and monks, before whom the King knelt, and then, rising,
proceeded to the High Altar; there the Abbot delivered a speech of
welcome, and Henry, having kissed the relics, proceeded through the choir
and the cloisters to the Abbot’s room, where he was to spend the night.
Early in the morning the King heard Mass, and, accompanied by his sons

Thomas and Humphrey and the attendant lords and clergy, joined a solemn
procession round the Abbey. The day ended with feasting, and on the
morrow the King spent much time in the library amidst the valuable books
which the monks had collected or written themselves. Here, if anywhere, he
was accompanied by that youngest son who was later to be known as the
great patron of learning.[29] The early training of Humphrey, we must
remember, was more that of the scholar than of the soldier or politician.
Having lost both his mother and his father’s mother when he was not four
years old, Humphrey had no near relation to whom to look for guidance; his
father was far too deeply concerned in matters of state. He had been handed
over from his earliest years to the tender mercies of one Katharine
Puncherdon, who ministered to his bodily wants,[30] while a certain priest,
by name Thomas Bothwell, was appointed his tutor.[31] Of his further
education we know but little, though it is very probable that he studied both
rhetoric and res naturales at Balliol College, Oxford.[32]
During the reign of Henry IV. Humphrey took no
1413] ACCESSION OF definite part in public life; however, we find
HENRY V. record of one official appearance when, with his
brothers, he agreed to observe the treaty made in
1412 between the King of England and the Dukes of Berri, Orleans, and
Bourbon.[33] At the time of his father’s death he was present at Westminster,
and accompanied the body in its journey down the river to Gravesend, and
thence overland to Canterbury. After the funeral he returned with his
brother, now King Henry V., to London.[34] At the very beginning of the
new reign he was made Chamberlain of England,[35] an office which
entailed his presence at court ‘at the five principall festes of the yeare to
take suche lyvery and servyse after the estate he is of,’[36] and added yet
further to his already extensive possessions lands situated in South Wales,
[37]
together with an annuity of five hundred marks for himself and the heirs
male of his body, till such time as an equivalent in land was given him.[38]
Personal danger there was, too, even as there had been when Henry IV.
ascended the throne; an abortive rising of the Lollards threatened for a
moment the lives of the King and his brothers.[39]

The accession of Henry V. increased his youngest brother’s dignity, for
besides bringing him a step nearer to the throne, it placed him more on an
equality of age and standing with those in whose hands the government of
the country rested. It may be, too, that the death of his father changed his
future life materially, for his entire absence from all political functions, and
his inactivity, whilst his brothers, little older than himself, had taken an
active part in the management of public affairs, suggest the impression that
he was not destined for a political career. Moreover, for the first year of his
brother’s reign, Humphrey de Lancaster, as he had hitherto been styled,[40]
does not appear at all prominently in public life, and it was not till he was
twenty-three years old—for those times a somewhat advanced age—that he
took his place definitely among the great men of the kingdom. On May 16,
1414, letters-patent were issued creating him Earl of Pembroke and Duke of
Gloucester, at the same time that his brother John was made Earl of Kendal
and Duke of Bedford. Though only raised to the peerage at this time, John
had already taken his share in the duties of government, and before this had
represented the King in several important offices of trust. The peerage thus
conferred on Humphrey was for life only, and was accompanied by a
modest allowance of £60 to be paid out of the proceeds of the county of
Pembroke; of this £40 was for the maintenance of his dignity as Duke, and
the remaining £20 in respect of his Earldom.[41] At once the new duke
passed from insignificance to prominence. He had had no education in the
duties and responsibilities of high rank and executive power, but by a stroke
of the pen he became one of the chief men of the kingdom, and by reason of
his royal blood took precedence in the peerage and in the kingdom of the
holders of titles of longer standing.[42]
Humphrey was not slow to enter upon the duties
1414] HENRY V.’s of his new rank, and on the very day of his
FRENCH POLICY elevation to the peerage he took his seat in the
Parliament then sitting at Leicester.[43] Here he
witnessed the enactment of severe measures for the repression of the
Lollards,[44] in pursuance of a policy which he himself was later to carry
out: heresy, it must be remembered, was under the Lancastrians a political
danger, for Henry IV. had usurped the throne as the champion of the Church.
It may be, too, that the newly created duke took part in a debate which dealt
with matters of more pressing interest. It has been said that the negotiations

which were proceeding with France were discussed at this time, but the
Rolls of Parliament bear no record of this; be this as it may, the question of
English relations with France had appeared on the horizon to herald that
second phase of the Hundred Years’ War, which, beginning in all its glory
with the first appearance of Humphrey of Gloucester in public life, was to
end with its full complement of disgrace and disaster almost simultaneously
with his life.
To Henry at Leicester had come ambassadors from France—two rival
embassies in the interest of the two rival factions in that country. With an
insane king at the head of affairs, France was distraught by the struggle of
Burgundian and Armagnac for the control of the government. The origin of
this bitter strife dated some years back to the murder of the Duke of Orleans
in the streets of Paris at the instigation of the Duke of Burgundy, in revenge,
it is said, for the seduction of his wife by the murdered man.[45] This
personal hatred had rapidly developed into a political struggle, and it had
continued with varying successes till at the present time Burgundy had been
driven from Paris and declared to be a rebel and an enemy to the kingdom.
Thus the Armagnac faction, as the party of the Orleanists was now called,
was for the time supreme, and it may naturally be supposed that Henry V., if
he wished to take advantage of these internal dissensions in the French
kingdom, would hope to secure more favourable terms from the exiled
party, than from those who held the supremacy. Thus at Leicester the
envoys from the Duke of Burgundy received a warmer welcome than their
rivals, and agreed to sign a defensive and offensive treaty with the English
King, whereby their master promised to help Henry in any attack he might
make on Armagnac territory.[46] The terms of this treaty, however, were not
revealed, and Burgundy denied the existence of any hostile alliance when
he came to a temporary agreement with the Armagnac faction at the Treaty
of Arras in February 1415.[47] The King of England, too, did not cease to
intrigue with both parties, for he was not slow to realise the advantage
which these dissensions gave him. He had meddled in French politics
before he came to the throne, not always to his father’s satisfaction, and
now in the spirit of the old crusaders he meant to take advantage of the sins
of France, while at the same time he fulfilled a divine commission to punish
the transgressors. In him France was to find her true redeemer, the healer of
her internal wounds, and to this end he continued his intrigues with both

parties, offering to marry both Catherine of France and Catherine of
Burgundy as a means to establish his purely illusory claim to the French
throne.[48]
Meanwhile, in England, men’s minds were
1414] GLOUCESTER’s turning to war. The martial glories of Edward
FOREIGN POLICY III.’s reign were not entirely forgotten, and the
trade interests of the kingdom were not inclined
to oppose a policy which might tend to stop the depredations of French
privateers. The Church, if not absolutely encouraging the war, as has been
asserted by later writers, did nothing to oppose it; dissentients there were, of
course, but for the King’s councillors the only question was, with the help
of which party should Henry enter France. The King himself, with Bedford
and the Beauforts, looked to Burgundy as the most likely ally, whilst
Clarence, supported by Gloucester and the Duke of York, favoured an
Armagnac alliance.[49] This divided opinion was a renewal of the
disagreements which had arisen in the court of Henry IV. The younger
Henry had always inclined to the Burgundian alliance which his father had
opposed, and which now was no more favoured by his two brothers. In the
career of Humphrey it is interesting to note that on the first occasion on
which he definitely asserted his opinion he found himself in opposition to
the policy of the Beauforts, who were to be his bitterest enemies through
life, and in alliance with the House of York, the only family which
supported him in the later years of humiliation. Above all, we must not
ignore the fact that he here showed his distrust of Burgundian methods and
Burgundian policy, and that he now opposed an alliance with a house whose
strongest enmity he was to incur at a later date; that, on the other hand, he
advised an Armagnac alliance which was to form an essential part of his
policy in the days when this King Henry’s son was seeking to strengthen
himself by a French marriage. Nothing could give a more accurate forecast
of his future life and policy than the line which Humphrey took on this
question, and it helps to give a strange consistency to his career; to borrow
something akin to prophecy from the darkness of the unknown future.
It is probable that, in spite of his embassies and overtures, Henry never
expected to come to terms with either party; at any rate his demands from
the French King were too preposterous to be taken seriously as an overture
of peace,[50] and at home he never ceased to prepare for war on a large

scale. Ships were secured from Holland and Zealand; money and munitions
of war were collected for the great undertaking; indentures were entered
into with the chief men of the kingdom to serve abroad with the King, and
amongst these we find the names of the Dukes of Clarence, Gloucester, and
York.[51] With these preparations the time wore on, Humphrey taking his
share of the work. In April he appears as a member of the King’s Privy
Council for the first time,[52] and in the previous March he was employed to
bring home to the city fathers the immense advantages of English
aggrandisement on the Continent. Accompanied by the Dukes of Bedford
and York, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester, he
went to the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, and, showing great
deference to these civic magnates, joined his associates in persuading them
to support the war with a substantial gift of money.[53] Thus early in his
career he was brought into close contact with the Londoners, who were to
prove his best and most faithful friends.
Though preparations for war had gone so far, negotiations with France were
still pending. The Dauphin, who had taken the place of his demented father,
after exasperating the English with his present of tennis balls in the
previous year,[54] had taken no steps to meet the danger which threatened
his country, and it was only at the instance of the Duke of Berri, whom he
had recently called to his councils, that an embassy was despatched to meet
Henry at Winchester on June 30.[55] The King was holding his court in the
bishop’s palace, and there, with his three brothers standing on his right and
Chancellor Beaufort on his left, he received the ambassadors with all pomp
and ceremony. Both this and the next day were occupied with formal
receptions, wherein Gloucester was specially prominent, for he alone of all
the temporal peers was allotted a special seat at the official banquet, being
placed on the King’s right hand. When business began in earnest the
Archbishop of Bourges and the Bishop of Lisieux—‘vir verbosus et
arrogans,’ says Walsingham—were spokesmen for the French, whilst
Beaufort spoke for the King of England. The negotiations lasted till July 6,
and were marked by a somewhat more conciliatory attitude on the English
side, but from the first they were doomed to failure, for neither party meant
to give way,[56] and at length Henry broke up the meeting and dismissed the
envoys with every courteous attention.[57]

War had now become a mere matter of days.
1415] THE After a brief visit to London, Henry went down
SOUTHAMPTON to Southampton, whither probably Gloucester
CONSPIRACY
had gone direct from the negotiations at
Winchester, and the last preparations for the expedition against France were
being completed, when the young Earl of March waited on the King, and
laid before him the details of a conspiracy against the House of Lancaster.
[58]
The Earl of Cambridge—a worthless brother of the Duke of York—
Henry Lord Scrope, and Sir Thomas Grey of Heton were the authors of the
plot, and their plan was to proclaim an impostor who pretended to be
Richard II., and was then in Scotland, or in default of him the Earl of March
himself.[59] At the time of the discovery the scheme had not been fully
developed, as it was not intended that the matter should come to a head till
Henry was safely employed in France; indeed the only reason that definite
action had been taken, in so far as the Earl of March had been approached,
was to prevent the latter from accompanying the army.[60] There were,
however, traces that the conspiracy was spreading, and rumours were afloat
that the Lollards were going to seize the opportunity of internal
disturbances to strike a blow for their religion.[61] The King was not slow to
act on the information given him. On July 21 he issued a commission to
inquire into the matter, and on August 2 a jury was empanelled, which
indicted the three conspirators for plotting against the King and his three
brothers, the Dukes of Clarence, Bedford, and Gloucester.[62] Cambridge
and Grey confessed their guilt, and threw themselves on the King’s mercy,
but Scrope denied any traitorous intent. Grey as a commoner was executed
at once, but the two lords were reserved for the trial of their peers. Clarence
was commissioned to summon a jury of peers for this purpose, and among
those who were called to take part in the trial were the Duke of York—the
brother of one of the accused—and Gloucester—one of those against whom
the conspiracy was aimed.[63] The accused were condemned to death, and
executed the same day outside the North Gate of Southampton,[64] but the
whole procedure was so irregular that it was considered necessary to
legalise it in the next Parliament.[65]
The danger was past, but there was a lesson and
1415] THE FRENCH WAR a warning to be gathered from the plot, though it
passed unheeded. Humphrey, now on the

threshold of his public career, was brought face to face with an event which
might have taught him much, but which he failed to understand. This first
Yorkist conspiracy stood in the way, as did the prophets of old, and foretold
destruction and disaster to dynasty and kingdom if this iniquitous and
foolish French war were really undertaken. It showed that there was a party
in England which was opposed to the Lancastrian House, and it pointed
unmistakably to the time when civil war would drive out the reigning
dynasty. That Henry could have foreseen all the results of his mistaken
policy is impossible, but no ruler with the slightest claim to be considered a
statesman would have set up the false idea of foreign conquest as an
antidote to dissensions at home. This policy was no remedy; it postponed
the struggle only to enhance its bitterness and to aggravate its disastrous
results. Henry was blind to the signs which had appeared on the political
horizon to herald the coming storm, but this very inability to gauge the
significance of events has made him the idol of successive generations of
his countrymen, who care not for his policy and its results, but appreciate
only the dramatic setting of his life. It was just this dramatic quality of the
French wars which appealed to Henry’s youngest brother. In an age when
the artistic side of life was totally ignored by Englishmen, he was beginning
to breathe the atmosphere of new ideas, which rendered him susceptible to
the charm of large conceptions and dramatic episodes. He was at once
attracted by the brilliant aspect of this French policy with its splendid
dreams of territorial aggrandisement. But while Henry adopted the French
war as a policy, Humphrey saw in it not so much a policy as an idea, an idea
which he worshipped to the day of his death. Thus in estimating
Gloucester’s later actions we must remember whence they took their origin,
and we must not forget his training in the policy of his eldest brother. Both
were blind to the folly of attacking France, but while the King was to die
before the results of his actions appeared, Humphrey was to live on till the
fields were ripe for harvest, and to die only on the eve of that day when the
harvest was gathered in. Thus from the Southampton conspiracy he might
have learnt the dangers which the French war would foster, he might have
learnt the lesson that a united aim and common action were necessary for
the prosperity of the House of Lancaster, but he was deaf to the teaching of
the incident. To understand Gloucester’s life-history, therefore, we must
carefully consider the early years of his active life, the training he received

in the wars of Henry V., and the attractiveness to a man of his temperament
of the false ideals taught him by his famous brother.
The discovery of the Southampton plot only
1415] GLOUCESTER’s delayed Henry so long as was necessary to
RETINUE punish the offenders, and on August 7 he left the
castle of Porchester, where he had been staying,
and embarked on board his ship The Trinity. His preparations were now
complete, and by Sunday the 11th, all the vessels he had called together for
the transhipment of the army had arrived, to the number of at least fifteen
hundred sail.[66] Never before had so large or so strong a fleet ridden in
Southampton Water,[67] and yet they were barely sufficient for the men they
had to carry, for the army consisted of some two thousand men-at-arms and
six thousand mounted and unmounted archers, though the accounts of the
numbers vary considerably.[68] We can only approximately estimate the
proportion which Gloucester’s retinue bore to the whole; his indenture has
not survived, but we have evidence from other sources. When making his
indentures, or contracts for service, with the leading noblemen of the
kingdom, Henry had paid them in advance for the first quarter, and had
deposited jewels with them for the second quarter.[69] To his youngest
brother there were pledged two purses of gold ‘garnished with jewels’
valued at £2000 each,[70] and from this one authority calculates that he was
intended to serve with a hundred and twenty-nine lances and six hundred
archers.[71] However, in the unpublished collections for Rymer’s Fœderathe
retinue is estimated at two hundred men-at-arms and six hundred horse
archers,[72] which seems to be more proportionate to the money paid to
Humphrey. If we take the wages of a man-at-arms to be one shilling a day
and that of an archer sixpence, the sum-total with allowances for higher
payments to bannerets and knights, and to the Duke himself, comes to
something approaching £3000. The surplus of £1000 might be accounted
for by the fact that in some cases wages might be on a higher scale; indeed
by 1437 a horse archer was often in receipt of eightpence a day.[73]
Moreover, it may be that in view of the fact that the army was not to be
permitted to plunder the country through which it might pass, a wider
margin than usual was allowed to those who contracted for men. Edward III.
in his wars had liberally compensated for losses in the campaign, even to
the length of paying for horses lost in action, and it may be that Henry V.

made allowance for this in his contracts. There seems therefore to be ample
evidence that the indenture of jewels speaks to a retinue which numbered
approximately two hundred lances and six hundred archers, thus preserving
the ratio between the two kinds of soldiers usual at the time, though later in
the French wars the lances became a still smaller percentage of the sum-
total of fighting men. Conflicting evidence to this is found in a muster of
Humphrey’s men held at Mikilmarch near Romsey on July 16, where only
six hundred and sixty-eight names appear on the register,[74] but as on that
day several captains had only one or two men serving under them, and two
had none at all, it is very probable that their numbers were not the same as
when they sailed almost a month later. Still further reason for accepting the
larger number as accurate is given by the record we have of Gloucester’s
retinue at Agincourt. Here he was at the head of a hundred and forty-two
lances and four hundred and six archers,[75] and this alone would refute the
estimate of a hundred and twenty-nine lances and six hundred archers.
Moreover, it is recorded that at Harfleur he lost two hundred and thirty-six
men,[76] though some of these were valets and garçons who did not rank as
combatants, but were the grooms of the men-at-arms and the attendants of
the baggage horses. According to these figures his original retinue must
have numbered about seven hundred and fifty men, and so we may reckon
that he sailed from Southampton with close on eight hundred fighting men,
that is roughly the two hundred lances and six hundred archers of the Rymer
collections.
It was on Tuesday, August 13, that the ships bearing the English army
entered the mouth of the Seine and cast anchor near the ‘Chef de Caux,’
about three miles from the town of Harfleur.[77] Caux was a little fortress
strengthened by nature and the arts of war,[78] and besides this outpost
Harfleur had a protection against the advancing English in a series of dikes
and earthworks thrown diagonally across the line of approach.[79] Scouts,
however, reported that these lines were totally unguarded, whether from
lack of men or from the Constable d’Albret’s contempt of the enemy.[80]
With the danger attending a landing of his troops thus removed, Henry
disembarked on the vigil of the Assumption together with his two brothers,
falling on his knees as he reached the dry land and praying to God to uphold
his cause. His men were encamped on some rising ground, and edicts for
the government of the army were issued, chief amongst which were strong

prohibitions against the molestation of non-combatants and clergy, and
against the spoliation of churches.[81]
Humphrey had now fairly embarked on his first
1415] BEGINNING OF campaign. Ignorant of war, and unused even to
THE CAMPAIGN military methods and the life of the field, we
shall not meet with him very frequently in the
operations of this year. He was learning the lessons not only of war, but of
all public life and deportment, for as the youngest son of Henry IV. he had
been kept in greater seclusion than his brothers. Clarence, though only three
years his senior, had had experience in the management of men and in the
conduct of affairs as lieutenant of the King both in Ireland and in Aquitaine,
but Humphrey was new to all this, and the campaign is useful to us, not so
much as the scene of his activity, but as the school in which he learnt the
soldier’s trade. It was a hard school too, for the English needed stout hearts;
they were embarking on an expedition which might take them far from their
base, and this, too, at a time of year when military operations would be
made difficult by the wintry weather.
For four days Henry remained inactive, resting his troops and bringing up
the heavy guns and siege apparatus from the ships. Then, having kept the
feast of the Assumption in due form, he advanced towards Harfleur on
August 17.[82] The Duke of Clarence commanded the van, while Michael de
la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, led the rear;[83] Gloucester was presumably with
the King and the main body of the army. Though a small town, Harfleur
was well fortified, and had been recently provisioned. It stood a little back
from the estuary of the Seine, with the river Lazarde running through its
midst, and possessed good strong walls with three gates, one on the western
side, where the English army first appeared, and two on the east.[84] The
English were at first unable to blockade the town entirely, as they could not
at once reach the eastern side, owing to the damming of the river, which had
consequently spread into a large lake round the northern wall. The delay
caused by this inundation enabled the Sire de Gaucourt to enter Harfleur
with reinforcements, and so to prevent any further help from reaching the
garrison Clarence was despatched on the night of August 18 with orders to
march round the floods, and invest the eastern side of the town. On the way
he met and defeated still further reinforcements and munitions of war on
their way to Harfleur, and by the next day he had entirely shut in that part of

the walls for which he was responsible.[85] On the sea side the English ships
came to the mouth of the harbour, which was strongly protected by two
towers on either side of the entrance, and by a chain drawn across from
tower to tower. However, all attempts made by the garrison to drive off
these ships were fruitless, while the floods to the north were patrolled by
English boats,[86] so that by these means all communication with the city by
water was cut off, and, with the King’s division enclosing the western walls,
the blockade was complete.
It was with the King’s division that Gloucester
1415] SIEGE OF had his station, and to him the care of the siege
HARFLEUR on this side was committed, with the Duke of
York and the Earl Marshal near him.[87] His chief
duty was the bombardment of the town, from which it would seem that he
had already shown his readiness to espouse new ideas, and that his later
fame as a patron of scholars was preceded by a study of the art of war and
of the new engines which now made siege work so much more possible
than formerly. At any rate, in the hand-to-hand fighting of the old style,
which took place when the besieged sallied forth from the town, we find
other captains in command, though we read that where the fighting was
heaviest, there did the King station his youngest brother.[88] Humphrey’s
chief work was to organise and direct the attack on his side of the town, and
it may seem strange that one, who had had no experience of war in the past,
should be given so important a post. The explanation of the trust thus placed
in Gloucester may be twofold. He had had no opportunity hitherto of
showing his capabilities, and the King may have wished to try his metal at
this early stage of the campaign, to know how far he could trust him. It is
also just possible that he had a more complete grasp of the theory of
military operations, and in especial of the use of cannon, than the untrained
nobles of the English army, and that it was therefore as a student more than
as a soldier that he won his first laurels in the field.
We hear a good deal of the siege engines which Humphrey made use of at
the siege of Harfleur. They were of heavier metal and threw larger missiles
than any guns hitherto seen in an English army, and they bombarded the
barbicans before the gate and the walls to such good effect, that it was only
the valiant pertinacity of the besieged that prevented an almost immediate
surrender.[89] Moreover, the gunners worked in relays, so that the

cannonade was kept up incessantly throughout the day, and were protected
by shelters so constructed that they could be lowered for the purpose of
taking aim and then raised again,[90] new methods possibly due to the
ingenuity of Gloucester. On the east, Clarence carried on operations by
means of mines, and the King directed similar operations on his side, but
these had to be begun in the open under the fire of the besieged, and were
met by countermines from the town, which defeated their object.[91]
Throughout his excellent account of the siege, the author of the Gesta
Henrici Quinti tries the merits of the tactics employed on the English side
by the maxims of one ‘Magister Ægidius.’[92] This ‘Master Giles’ must
have been Ægidius Romanus who wrote De Regimine Principum, a work
very popular at the time, though it dated from a period before cannon were
used. It was probably from this book that Gloucester obtained some of his
knowledge of military matters, for when in later life he presented his books
to the University of Oxford, a copy of this treatise was found amongst the
volumes which comprised the gift,[93] and he at the same time retained a
French copy of the work in his private library.[94]
For a month the siege was strenuously carried
1415] FALL OF on, the defence being as determined as the
HARFLEUR attack. The breaches in the walls were filled up
with faggots and tubs of earth, clay was spread in
the streets to prevent the splintering of the missiles that fell there,[95] and on
one occasion an English bastion was captured and fired.[96] But time began
to tell on the brave little garrison, and they sent an urgent appeal for help to
Paris. No relief came, and the English were gradually drawing nearer to the
town, till on September 16 part of the outworks was captured.[97] On the
next day Henry summoned Harfleur to surrender, even as he had done at the
beginning of the siege, but though negotiations were opened they came to
nothing, and the English prepared for a great assault on the morrow.
Meanwhile, Gloucester’s cannon were kept busily at work, so that the
besieged might have no rest. The assault, however, was never made, for
during the night the French determined to acknowledge defeat, and in the
morning De Gaucourt agreed to surrender the town if not relieved before
the next Sunday, September 22. At the same time, with the permission of
the English, another appeal for relief was sent to Paris,[98] but again it was
disregarded, to the everlasting shame of the French Government says even

an Armagnac chronicler.[99] There was therefore no sign of the approach of
a relieving force, when, on the appointed Sunday, Henry entered his first
conquest on French soil.[100]
Thus fell what Waurin calls ‘the chief port of Normandy and the best base
the English could have for their military operations,’[101] but the pomp and
grandeur with which Henry made his entry into the town, did not serve to
conceal the way the siege had thinned the rank of besiegers as well as
besieged. The warm days of August and September, together with the
stagnant water which lay around the town, had done their worst, and, if we
can believe a French chronicler, the food of the English had not been of the
best, as the sea had tainted their provisions.[102] At all events fever and
dysentery had raged in the camp, and among those who had died were
Richard Courtenay, Bishop of Norwich, and the Earl of Suffolk.[103]
Moreover, the Duke of Clarence was too ill for further campaigning, and he
was accompanied by a large number of the soldiers when he went back to
England, leaving the heavier siege guns at Calais on his way.[104] The army
was still further thinned by the loss of the contingent assigned to the Earl of
Dorset, who was made Captain of Harfleur.[105] The captive town was
treated with justice, if not with leniency. Thirty of the principal citizens
were held to ransom, whilst the minor citizens were given the option of
taking the oath of allegiance or of departing with their goods.[106] The
captain and his principal followers were allowed at large on condition of
surrendering on November 11 at Calais.[107]
Henry spent a fortnight at Harfleur, making arrangements for the security of
the town, and awaiting an answer to a bombastic and wholly superfluous
challenge to personal combat which he had sent to the Dauphin.[108] On
October 8 he set out to march from Harfleur to Calais,[109] with some 900
men-at-arms and 5000 archers.[110] Of this number Gloucester’s share must
have been the 142 lancers and 406 archers, which we find in his retinue at
Agincourt.[111] With this small army it was very rash to challenge the forces
of France, and a council of war had asserted it in no measured terms, but
Henry felt that in honour he could not recede, and, putting his trust in God
and in his righteous cause—as we are told—he set forth to invite a pitched
battle with the enemy.[112]

The story of this memorable march has been so
1415] MARCH TO often told that it is unnecessary to give a detailed
AGINCOURT account of it here, more especially as Gloucester
took no part in the management of the army; not
once does his name appear in the pages of any chronicler till the day of
Agincourt. His post till then was with the main body under the King
himself, while Sir John Cornwall led the van, and the Duke of York with the
Earl of Oxford commanded the rear.[113] Passing Fécamp and Arques, the
English army met with some slight resistance at Eu,[114] but without
delaying there went on towards Abbeville, where Henry had intended to
cross the Somme. News, however, came through a Gascon prisoner that the
bridges over the river were broken down, and that the ford of Blanche-
Taque was guarded by the French, so there was no alternative but to march
inland and to seek for a passage higher up the Somme.[115] The French
chroniclers declare that this report was untrue, and one complains bitterly of
the mistake, which ultimately procured the defeat of France in a battle that,
had it not been for the Gascon’s story, would never have been fought.[116]
The English army, therefore, having turned to the right, left Amiens on the
left, and passed by Boves and Corbie to the neighbourhood of Nesle,
preparing all the time for French resistance, and the archers in particular
providing themselves with those sharp stakes, which were to stand them in
such good stead in the day of battle.[117] Meanwhile, the eight days’ food
that the soldiers had brought with them from Harfleur was exhausted, and
besides present shortage of provender they anticipated worse things when
they reached a district harried by the French cavalry.[118] Near Nesle,
however, a ford was found, and though a marsh flanked him on and the
river on the other, Henry got his men along the two narrow causeways
which led to the crossing and across the Somme itself without interference
from the enemy, who probably thought that their opponents were as
numerous as the French chroniclers afterwards declared them to have been.
[119]
The Somme was crossed on the 19th, and disregarding a challenge
from the Armagnac chiefs, Henry continued steadily on his way to Calais
by way of Peronne, where he fell in with the tracks of the French army, and
learnt for the first time the large numbers he would have to fight.[120]
Nothing daunted, he encouraged the flagging spirits of his men, and on
Thursday, October 24, he lay at Maisoncelles with his army encamped

around him.[121] The French lay within earshot, and both armies endured the
full force of the rain and storm of a wild night, but while revel and rejoicing
prevailed among the French soldiers, the English knew that on the morrow
they would have to meet the alternative of victory or annihilation, and the
King’s command to be silent and watchful was rigidly obeyed.[122]
The day of Crispin and Crispinian broke bright
1415] BATTLE OF and clear to find the English army already
AGINCOURT preparing for the battle, which was now
inevitable, since the French lay across the road
which led to Calais. About a mile divided the two armies, which were both
on slightly elevated ground. Both sides were at a disadvantage from one
point of view, for while the French were numerous and confined within a
narrow strip of open ground between two stretches of woodland, the
English were few and had a large front to cover; consequently the former
were drawn up in three lines and huddled together, while the latter,
stretched across in one thin line, brought their full force into action at the
same time.[123] The French were disorganised, and their leaders quarrelled
not only as to the advantage of offering battle, but also as to their respective
positions in the fight.[124] Ultimately those in favour of action prevailed,
and the Constable d’Albret took command of the first division of
dismounted cross-bowmen and archers, these last, however, being put
behind the first line and thus rendered useless. Next came the Dukes of Bar
and Alençon leading the second division, and behind them again were the
Counts of Marle, Dammartin, and Fauquenberg. Cavalry were posted on
either flank.[125] The Duke of Burgundy was unrepresented in the army, as
he had forbidden his vassals to serve under any one but himself, and we are
told that his son Philip never ceased to bewail this enforced absence from
the battle.[126]
On the English side the archers were drawn up in wedges pointing towards
the enemy, with the men-at-arms in line between them. On the right was the
van under the command of the Duke of York, Lord Camoys with the
rearguard held the left, while the King commanded the centre, where,
among others, Gloucester led a squadron of his own.[127] All the English,
noble as well as humble, fought on foot, and though the chief men were
fully armed as was the King, the archers were almost entirely without

protective armour.[128] Beyond a few soldiers with the baggage, all Henry’s
men were concentrated in the one fighting line,[129] for there is not
sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the ambushed archers on the
wings described by some writers.[130] The English advanced to within half a
mile of the enemy, and there halted, while heralds were sent forward to
offer terms of peace, but the refusal of Henry to renounce his claim to the
French throne proved an insuperable obstacle to any pacification.[131] It was
thus ten o’clock before the King gave the final order to attack, and with a
shout the archers advanced again, this time to within bowshot, and opened
fire. The French cavalry failed in their attempt to ride them down, thanks to
the stakes planted between them and their opponents, and they fled back to
spread confusion in the first line.[132] This division, splitting into three
parts, advanced before d’Albret gave the word, but after a brief moment’s
success, only to be shattered by the concentrated fire of the English archers.
Seizing the advantage thus given him, Henry ordered his men to charge, and
they, discarding the protection of their palisade, rushed out, the men-at-arms
with their lances, the archers with axes and other promiscuous weapons.
With the cry of ‘Saint George and merry England,’ they pierced the first line
of the enemy, and engaged the second in hand-to-hand combat.[133] The
French could not withstand this rush, and hampered by their close array,
broke and fled.
In the forefront of this charge was Humphrey at the head of his men,
exposing himself to every danger and fighting like a lion.[134]
‘The Duke of Glowcestre also that tyde,
Manfully with his mayne,
Wonder he wroght ther wondere wyde.’[135]
But his courage, bordering on rashness,[136] took
1415] VALOUR OF
GLOUCESTER him too far in advance of his men, and when
Alençon, having rallied some of the second
division, together with those of the third division who had not fled without
striking a blow, broke into the English ranks and caught him unawares,
Gloucester fell severely wounded ‘in the hammes,’ and lay helpless on his
back with his feet towards the enemy. His men would have left him for
dead, had not the King rushed forward with reinforcements, and standing

between his brother’s legs, kept the enemy at bay till the wounded duke had
been removed to a place of safety.[137]
By the time that this was accomplished the day was won. The last effort of
the French, which had almost proved fatal to Humphrey, had been checked,
and Alençon himself lay dead upon the field. Beyond a scare caused by the
belief that some of the flying enemy who sacked the English baggage in the
rear were reinforcements sent from Paris—a mistake which caused the
cold-blooded murder of many French prisoners of war—the day was
thereafter devoid of incident.[138]
The English had fought valiantly, and though their King had set them a
great example, it is Gloucester whom several chroniclers pick out for
special praise. Henry’s chaplain, to whom we owe much of our knowledge
of the campaign, thanks God fervently for his escape,[139] whilst others
speak of his deeds of valour and Lydgate writes:
‘The Duke of Gloucestre that is so nay
That day full worthyly he wroughte,
On every syde he made good way,
The Frenshemen faste to grounde he brought,’[140]
and his somewhat fervid biographer of a later date quaintly assures us that
though ‘he lost much blood and his spiritts spent with toils and labour, yett
was not his manly courage at all abated, nor his strong stomach at all
quelled.’[141] This was the only pitched battle in which Humphrey ever took
part, and he acquitted himself valiantly therein. His impetuous temperament
had come near to costing him his life, and it is well that we have this
definite and indisputable evidence of his courage, for in one episode of his
later life he came near to incurring the accusation of cowardice; indeed,
were it not for this and other evidences of his personal valour in war, we
should be entirely misled as to the true meaning of his failure when in
command of his own army in his own quarrel.
The English losses were but few, though even hardened soldiers were
appalled at the heaps of French dead lying on the field, including the
Constable d’Albret, the Admiral Dampierre, and the Dukes of Alençon, Bar,
and Brabant, the last being Burgundy’s brother who had only reached the
battle when the day was lost.[142] On the English side the Duke of York and

the Earl of Suffolk—son of the man who died before Harfleur—were the
only notable victims.[143] Early next morning the army moved off, bearing
Gloucester with them, and three days later the King entered Calais. On
November 16 he sailed for England, but Gloucester was left behind to
recover from his wound, so that he did not take part in Henry’s reception at
Dover, or in his triumphal entry into London when the city turned out in
force to welcome its conquering King.[144]

CHAPTER II
THE WAR IN FRANCE
With the battle of Agincourt the days of Humphrey’s apprenticeship end,
and we find him fairly embarked on his public career. That career assumes a
threefold aspect, but at the same time there are certain definite threads of
temperament and character which run through all the web of his life. We
shall find him first busy in the French wars as the capable and trusted
lieutenant of his royal brother; later for a brief space he will be found aping
the ambitions of his grandfather, striving for recognition as prince of an
European state; finally, the third and most lasting phase of his career will
find him amidst the unlovely strife of party politics. Soldier, Pretender,
Politician, in all these rôles Humphrey stands forth as a distinct personality.
Not that he has the great gifts of concentration and consistency, not that he
is one of those happy men who have a gospel to preach and know it; he was
of all men lacking in determination, and if his policy does not waver, his
carrying out thereof is fitful and uncertain. His interests were those of the
moment, his policy was mapped out on no organised plan, but the same
spirit inspires his every action. Ambition and instability were manifest
throughout his life, and though he had always before him the same clear
object—self-aggrandisement—there was no consistency in the methods he
used to secure his end. Thus we shall find him at one moment a patriotic
Englishman, at another nothing less than the subverter of the nation’s
welfare, but before him there was always the same selfish object which was
to destroy his power of usefulness, and make him a patriot only when his
own interests and those of the nation were identical. In the first stage of his
career this influence of his character is not so clearly apparent, but even
here we can trace what eventually became so plain. Till the death of Henry
v. he was dominated by the overpowering personality of his brother, and it
was only when he strove to stand alone that the glaring weakness of his
character became evident. It is then with care and diligence that we must
examine Gloucester’s military career under the guidance of his brother, if
we are to find the connecting-link between his earlier and later actions.

Humphrey’s wound was not so long in healing as might have been
expected,[145] and he was soon back in England. Henceforward he was one
of the King’s trusty warriors, and the war indeed was to monopolise most of
his time for the next few years, though for the present there was a cessation.
In the meantime he received the reward of his services. Part of the forfeited
estates of the late Earl of Cambridge, executed at Southampton, the
adjoining manors of Bristol and Barton, were given to him for himself and
his heirs male, while he added the castle and lordship of Llanstephan to his
already extensive possessions in South Wales.[146] Moreover, the death of
the Earl of Arundel in October had rendered vacant the post of Constable of
Dover and Warden of the Cinque Ports, an office which the King conferred
on his youngest brother within four days of his return to London.[147]
Evidently the appointment had been made before the letters-patent were
signed, since we find reference to Gloucester as Constable and Warden in a
petition of the Parliament before Henry’s return.[148] Towards the end of the
year Humphrey was created Lord of the Isle of Wight and of Carisbrooke,
[149]
and in January he became Warden and Chief-Justice in Eyre of the
Royal Forests, Parks, and Warrens south of the Trent.[150] Henry was
evidently well pleased with his brother’s conduct in the recent campaign,
and had therefore increased his importance and placed him in a position of
greater trust. The Isle of Wight and the Cinque Ports were an important
charge, in view of the French war now in progress.
A lull in the French war gave Gloucester a period
1416] THE EMPEROR of rest before continuing the martial career on
SIGISMUND which he had now entered. While Burgundy
intrigued against Armagnac influence in France,
the chief figure in the political horizon of the two warring nations was
Sigismund of Luxemburg, King of the Romans and Emperor elect.
Sigismund had become Margrave of Brandenburg at the death of his father,
the Emperor Charles IV., and King of Hungary on the death of Lewis the
Great by reason of his marriage with Mary, the daughter of that monarch.
As his brother Wenzel’s weakness had induced the electors to choose
another Emperor, Sigismund, who had been selected for this honour, though
nominally only King of the Romans at this time, bore the burden of the
imperial duties, and was generally recognised as Holy Roman Emperor. He
had conceived a great and far-reaching policy, which included the

unification of Christendom in one fraternal bond of love, and a crusade
against the Turk, who was threatening the Eastern borders of Western
Europe. To this end he had secured the deposition of Pope John XXIII. as a
step towards removing the scandal of two claimants to papal honours, and
he now had turned his attention to the reconciliation of France and England,
as part of his larger policy of Christian unity. To this end he had left the
Council of Constance to visit these two countries, and to try the effects of
his personal mediation.[151] Graciously received at Paris, he had
nevertheless soon found that the gospel of peace was there preached to deaf
ears, and driven thence by the hostility of the mob which had risen against
him, he set his face towards England, reaching Calais at the end of April,
and Dover on the 30th of that month.[152]
As soon as the contemplated visit of the Emperor had become known in
England, preparations had been made for his reception. Early in April
Gloucester, as Warden of the Cinque Ports, had been commissioned to send
ships to Calais to bring over the imperial visitor,[153] and careful
arrangements were made for the journey between Dover and London, with
a special prohibition against charging the visitors for anything they
required,[154] a most welcome provision for the penurious Sigismund, who,
far more than his contemporary Frederick of Austria, deserved the
nickname ‘mit den leeren Taschen.’ Gloucester, accompanied by the Earl of
Salisbury and Lords Harrington and Furnival—the latter more recognisable
under his later title of John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury—went down to meet
Sigismund at Dover, where the castle was made ready for his reception.[155]
This was the Duke’s first official visit to the Cinque Ports, and the occasion
was celebrated by a solemn reception at the Shepway, and a present of £100
from the towns under his command.[156]
On the arrival of the Emperor at Dover, so says a
1416] SIGISMUND IN sixteenth-century chronicler, Humphrey was the
ENGLAND chief actor in a picturesque ceremony. Riding
into the water with drawn sword before
Sigismund had disembarked, he demanded whether he came merely on a
friendly visit, or in his imperial capacity to claim suzerainty over the
country; and it was not till a denial of all imperial rights over King Henry
had been given that the visitor was allowed to land.[157] Though no

contemporary writer mentions this event, there is a strong presumption of
truth in the story. There are traces of the legend earlier than Holinshed,[158]
and it seems very likely that some precaution should be taken, in view of
Sigismund’s well-known claims to the allegiance of all Europe. Only a
short time before he had exasperated French national feeling by knighting a
plaintiff before the Parlement de Paris to secure his right to plead, and it
was universally suspected—with considerable justice too—that imperial
aggrandisement, as much as his desire for peace, had prompted Sigismund’s
European tour.[159] Finally, the fact that the Emperor spent a whole day on
board his ship at Dover before disembarking helps to strengthen the
probability that some kind of negotiation took place, and that Holinshed’s
story is true, and based on some authority which we have now unfortunately
lost.
The landing was accomplished on the evening of May 1, and next day
Gloucester escorted his charge as far as Canterbury, where the Archbishop
welcomed the visitor. The following day, being Sunday, was spent in the
Cathedral city, and on Tuesday the cavalcade moved on, being met at
Rochester by Bedford, and at Dartford by Clarence. The King himself, with
an escort of 5000 gentlemen, and accompanied by the Mayor and Aldermen
of London in ‘rede gownes,’ received Sigismund at Blackheath, and with
great pomp and circumstance the four Lancastrian brothers brought their
guest through the city to Westminster.[160]
Henry had adjourned Parliament till Sigismund’s arrival, hoping to have its
help in the ratification of a peace with France, which the French Embassy
that came over in the train of the Emperor seemed to promise.[161] It is
probable, therefore, that Sigismund was present at the reopening of the
session; but no business of importance was undertaken, and when
Gloucester with other of the lords had given his guarantee for the
repayment of a loan, the meeting was dissolved.[162] On Rogation Sunday,
May 24, the feast of St. George, which had been postponed till the arrival of
the Emperor, was celebrated, and Sigismund was admitted to the Order of
the Garter, attending High Mass in St. George’s Chapel, and the subsequent
banquet in honour of the occasion.[163] Gloucester was amongst those who
received robes of the order on this occasion, and with him we find William,
Count of Holland, the father of the lady he was afterwards to marry.[164]

Count William had been summoned by the Emperor to assist in the peace
negotiations by reason of his relations with the French court, the Dauphin
being his son-in-law; but his stay in England was cut short by the refusal of
Sigismund to grant the investiture of his inheritance to his only child,
Jacqueline, a refusal which induced him to withdraw in a rage.[165]
In spite of the splendour of the feastings at
1416] SIGISMUND Windsor,[166] the object of the imperial visit was
RETURNS HOME
not forgotten, but though Henry was ready to
come to terms, the Armagnac faction at Paris opposed all efforts towards
peace. A French attack on Harfleur and the Isle of Wight[167] threw
Sigismund into the arms of the English, and on August 15 a treaty of
alliance between King and Emperor was signed at Canterbury.[168]
Meantime Bedford had been despatched to relieve Harfleur, in which he
was entirely successful,[169] and he returned on September 4 to find that
Henry, accompanied by Gloucester, had crossed to Calais, whither
Sigismund had preceded them, carrying with him the maledictions of the
London citizens for his failure to procure peace,[170] but himself leaving
behind him a nattering record of the pleasant time he had had in England.
[171]
His mission had failed in its object, but writers of both nations agree
that the fault lay not with the English but with the French.[172]
The journey of Henry and Gloucester to Calais was taken with the definite
object of cementing an alliance with John the Fearless of Burgundy, and of
drawing the vassal duke nearer to his imperial overlord. Ostensibly the
matter of chief importance was a meeting with the envoys from the King of
France, but as might be expected from their recent behaviour, the French
asked ridiculously high terms, and the only result of the conference was a
truce between the two countries till February 2, 1417.[173]
The way was thus cleared for negotiations with
1416] GLOUCESTER Burgundy, but the duke showed himself very
AND COUNT OF doubtful of the good faith of the English, and
CHAROLAIS
demanded elaborate safeguards for his person if
he came to Calais. This difficulty was removed, and on October 1 a safe
conduct was given him for himself and 800 men, only half of whom were to
come further than the gates of the city; Gloucester was to meet him at
Gravelines, and remain with the Count of Charolais as hostage for his safety

till his return.[174] Accordingly on October 3 the French ambassadors were
dismissed by Henry, for one of the most prominent of them, the Archbishop
of Rheims, was very obnoxious to Burgundy, and Humphrey prepared a
‘reasonable escort’ of some 800 men, who were to accompany him to the
Burgundian court. At two o’clock on the morning of October 5 trumpets
sounded in the English quarters, and the little band made ready to
accompany the duke to Gravelines, all unarmed. About four o’clock they
left the city, and followed by a crowd anxious to witness the meeting of the
two dukes, they reached the banks of the river Aa between six and seven,
just as the tide was at its lowest. Lord Camoys and Sir Robert Waterton
were then sent over to secure a signed and sealed security for the safety of
the English prince, and when this had been given the Burgundian troops
came out and faced the English across the river. The retainers of both
parties passed over first, and then the principals, with a touch of that
mediæval ceremonial which characterised the men of the new age, rode into
the water from the opposite sides, and shaking hands in mid-stream, passed
on, Burgundy to be met by the Earl of Warwick and escorted to Calais,
Gloucester to be received with every courtesy by the Count of Charolais,
Burgundy’s eldest son and heir, with whom he went to St. Omer.[175]
For nine days these two men, whom fate was to bring into bitter hostility
before many years had passed, lived together, and when the conference at
Calais came to an end, it was with warm thanks for courteous entertainment
that Gloucester took his leave.[176] Nevertheless a jarring note had been
struck during this visit, for we read that on one occasion, when the Count
came to visit his guest, Gloucester treated him with scant courtesy, ignoring
his presence save for a formal salutation, and continuing his conversation
with his friends.[177] This event is recorded by a man who knew the history
of the Burgundian States from internal observation, and who recorded facts
with a justice unusual amongst many of his contemporaries, and we need
not be slow to credit the story, when we remember Humphrey’s naturally
imperious disposition. That he disliked his commission is at least probable
in the light of his past opposition to a Burgundian alliance, and we may well
find here the seeds of that strong personal hostility which embittered the
later disagreements of the two dukes. To believe this account does not
necessitate the discrediting of the story that Gloucester gave formal thanks
couched in extravagant terms for his treatment at St. Omer, as this would be

only part of the ritual of courtesy which still dominated the relations of the
great men of the time. On October 13 Burgundy and Gloucester once more
appeared at Gravelines, and having observed the same procedure as on the
first occasion, they returned to their respective quarters.[178]
No definite alliance had been made between Henry and Burgundy, but the
first step had been taken towards that policy, which in the hands of that
young Count, whom Gloucester had now met for the first time, was to bring
such loss and disaster to France. The Emperor’s visit to England had borne
no useful fruit. While the complications of his policy and his perpetual
penury prevented any advantage to England from the Treaty of Canterbury,
at Constance his position was only still more complicated than before by
the support of his new English friends, and the honour of being enrolled a
member of the Order of the Garter could not hide the failure of his policy.
To Gloucester fell the duty of escorting Sigismund on the first stage of his
homeward journey, and for this purpose he was provided with four large
English ships. The Emperor and his men, however, hugged the coast in
small boats, and left Humphrey to ride the high seas and protect them from
harm, as they feared an attack from the French in revenge for the Treaty of
Canterbury. Gloucester accompanied Sigismund as far as Dordrecht, and
there the two princes parted with mutual compliments, and presents from
the slightly replenished imperial treasury.[179] They were never to meet
again.
Sigismund and Gloucester have much in
1416] GLOUCESTER common. Both loved pomp and display, and had
AND SIGISMUND equally enjoyed the high festival which had
marked the reception of the Emperor in England;
both scandalised a none too particular age by the laxness of their morals;
both were possessed of that charm of personality which so often
accompanies a lack of moral stamina; both basked in the smiles of the
bourgeois class. In their future life, too, both were to find themselves
opposed to a faction which prated of constitutionalism, and schemed but for
its own aggrandisement. But deep down in the roots of their mental attitude
we see a great dissimilarity. Sigismund lived in a world of ideas conceived
in the spirit of mediævalism; he looked to the past to correct the future. On
the other hand, Gloucester had drunk deep of the new ideas, which had
begun to influence men’s minds; he had grasped that spirit of nationalism,

which was to sweep away the traditional forces of mediævalism, and give
birth to the nations of Europe; he had experience of a campaign, in which
the tactics and the weapons of a new era had been used; he was beginning
to perceive the true significance of the rising importance of the middle
classes. With all his selfishness and with all his instability of character, he
had got the right idea, and the failure of his life, and the impolicy of many
of his actions, will be found due, not to any misconception of his age, not to
any inability to follow the trend of human thought, but to grave defects of
character. Like Sigismund, he had great abilities, but unlike Sigismund, he
could not follow the course he had mapped out for himself. His policy has a
consistency we might not expect to find, but he was not a man whose active
life in any way represented his ideals.

On October 16 Henry returned to England. He realised that peace was not
possible so long as he maintained the justice of his claims on France, and
that for the end he had in view the war must be prosecuted with the utmost
vigour. Peace was desirable, but the only means of procuring it was to
continue the war with redoubled energy; and such was the burden of the
Chancellor’s speech when Parliament opened on October 19.[180]
Seeing no means of evading the demand, Parliament resigned itself to
granting two subsidies for the carrying on of the war; so that by the
beginning of the new year preparations were in full swing. Privy seals were
issued to the nobility and gentry in order to ascertain the probable numbers
of those who were willing to take part in the campaign, and in February the
necessary indentures were prepared.[181] Orders for the strengthening of the
navy were also issued, and it was hoped that the expedition would sail by
May 1.[182] Gloucester was busy probably with his own preparations.
Doubtless he was anxious to guarantee himself against possible loss, for he,
along with many others, had not obtained full payment for the last
campaign. He had returned the jewels which had been pledged to him for
his second quarter’s pay, but the officials of the Exchequer had refused to
pay him for the forty-eight days of that period which he had spent in
England after his return. They argued that this time was not spent in the
service of the King, and ignored his plea that he had been ready to remain

in France and had had to pay his men for the full period.[183] However, he
prepared his retinue, which seems to have consisted of 90 lances and 266
archers under the command of Reginald Cobham and William Beauchamp,
[184]
and by July he had arrived with the other units of the army at
Southampton, the earlier date in May having been found impracticable in
view of all that had to be done. By July 23 the preparations were complete.
Bedford was appointed Regent, the King went on board his ship at
Southampton, and the sails embroidered with the arms of England and
France were hoisted for the voyage.[185]
The dangers of the crossing had been removed
1417] RENEWAL OF THE by the utter defeat which the Earl of Huntingdon
FRENCH WAR had inflicted on the Genoese fleet, completing
the work of Bedford earlier in the year. So by
August 1 Henry had landed at Touques in Normandy, accompanied by his
two brothers, Clarence and Gloucester, seven Earls, and fourteen Barons.
[186]
The army at Henry’s disposal was probably the largest, certainly the
best equipped, that any English king had ever mustered, and its numbers
may be roughly estimated at some 10,000 men.[187] No resistance was
offered to the disembarkation of the troops, for Henry had kept his own
counsel as to his destination,[188] but there seems to be no doubt that a
knowledge of his intended arrival would have brought no troops against
him, for it is hard, says Basin, to describe the absolute terror which the very
name of the English inspired.[189]
No time was lost after landing. Clarence was appointed Constable of the
army,[190] and the castle of Touques, which lay on the estuary of the Seine
exactly opposite Harfleur, was invested by Gloucester as ‘chieftaine of the
King’s avant guard.’ A ‘marvueilously defensible’ fortress this, but reduced
by Gloucester’s ‘gunns and other engines’ by August 9,[191] for the town
was assaulted so continuously, that it was compelled to surrender to escape
a worse fate. From this successful siege Gloucester went to join a council of
war summoned by Henry, at which it was decided to begin the campaign
with an attack on Caen.[192] So, after challenging the Dauphin to single
combat, as he had done in his earlier campaign, and reissuing his
ordinances for the good government of the army, Henry marched on that
town.[193]

Winter weather was now approaching, and Henry looked to Caen, a
residential town with large suburbs, to provide suitable quarters for the
ensuing months. So leaving Honfleur behind him—too hard a nut to crack
just then[194]—and accompanied by Humphrey, who probably still
commanded the van, he took a devious route to his destination. He thereby
avoided the passage of certain little rivers, which would have been
troublesome for so large a force. Leaving Touques on August 13, the army
marched by slow stages through Fontenes and Estouteville to Caen, which
was reached on August 13.[195] On their arrival, Clarence, who had been
sent on in advance, was found to be in possession, of the Abbey of St.
Stephen, situated on a hill just outside the walls, well fortified, and
commanding the southern defences of the town.[196] It was in order to
secure this position, and to save the suburbs of the town from being burnt,
that Clarence had followed a shorter route along the coast-line, for Henry
wanted shelter for his men.
Caen stands on the left bank of the river Orne,
1417] THE SIEGE OF which washes its south-east wall, while a
CAEN tributary, the Odon, flowing through the town,
joins the main stream just outside.[197] The castle
and the strongest sides of the defences were approached from the south,
where the Abbey of St. Stephen, which Clarence had occupied before
Henry’s arrival, commanded the town, if not the castle itself. This Abbey
had been founded by William the Conqueror, who was buried there; and it
was to a sister foundation of Queen Matilda’s, the Abbey of Holy Trinity, to
the north-east of the town, that Clarence was sent when Henry superseded
him at St. Stephen’s.[198] Between these two points, on the south-west, the
Earl Marshal was given his post, and further north again were Lord Talbot
and Sir Gilbert Umfraville; Lords Neville and Willoughby continued the
ring of the besiegers up to the Abbey of the Holy Trinity. On the opposite
side of the town to the south-east were the Earls of Huntingdon and
Warwick and Sir John Grey, the father of Gloucester’s future son-in-law.
[199]
The Norman Chronicle tells us that Gloucester was stationed at
Vaucelles.[200] He seems to have had no regular post in the blockading of
the town, but to have been given the command of the siege-engines,[201]
which Henry landed from the fleet that had coasted from Touques.

In the course of the siege Gloucester and his guns did royal work. They kept
up an incessant fire, and although the French returned it with interest, the
large guns ‘beat down both walls and towers, and slew much people in their
houses and eke in the streets,’[202] but no firing on the churches of the town
was allowed.[203] Besides the bombardment, numerous mines were driven
under the town, but they were counter-mined by the defenders, and many a
fierce fight was fought underground. In the direction of the siege Henry was
most energetic, bestowing his chief interest on the side where Gloucester
was engaged with the heavy cannon.[204] By September 3 the besiegers
were ready for the grand assault, and Henry summoned the town to
surrender, but met with a refusal. A council of war was called, and orders
issued to each captain to keep his counsel, but to be ready for the assault on
the morrow; the men were to be drawn up in three divisions, each to act in
support of the others. Next day the assault was begun on all sides. Clarence,
who was opposed by the weakest side of the defence, and had previously
undermined the wall, fought his way into the town and across the bridge
that spanned the Odon, and took those who were resisting the King’s attack
in the rear. In spite of a false alarm that a relieving force was approaching,
the English pressed their advantage home, and after a sharp fight the town
was finally captured, though the castle held out for some days longer.[205]
The soldiery were given a free hand with the proviso that churches, women,
and unarmed priests were to be respected. Thus in the hour of victory Henry
did not forget that he claimed to be a king subduing rebellious subjects, and
at the same time the willing agent of the anger of God.

We do not know what part Gloucester took in the
1417] GLOUCESTER’S actual assault, but his important work had been
MILITARY QUALITIES done during the fortnight which had prepared the
way for the storming of the town. He was no
longer the raw soldier of two years ago. He had gained experience of siege
operations at Harfleur, he had taken part in a pitched battle at Agincourt,
and he had been intrusted with the short, sharp siege of the castle of
Touques. No great experience in sum, but he seems to have used it well, for
he had played no unimportant part in the fall of Caen. He seems indeed to
have enjoyed a natural military gift, and we have now still more reason to
believe that it was more as an artilleryman than in any other capacity that he
was particularly prominent. The suggestion of this given at the siege of
Harfleur is confirmed by the fact that he was immediately appointed to the
command of the guns in this second campaign; his genius was not that of
the mediæval soldiers. New forces had come to change the world and to
help on the evolution of the race. In later life Humphrey was to shine forth
as the patron of the new learning which was the most important of these
forces; in his earlier life he showed that he was ready to accept new military
methods and to use his great mental qualities in the practical as well as the
theoretical sides of human activity. In later days men praised him for this
wonderful combination of the pursuits of the student and the man of action,
but it was not an extraordinary phenomenon that this should be so. The
restless activity which was the motive-power of his life led him to throw
himself enthusiastically into the projects of the moment, even if he had not
the determination to persevere in his undertakings, and to win fame by the
successful prosecution of his aims. Unsustained impetuosity was the chief
characteristic of Humphrey’s life, and if in military matters his nature might
sometimes betray him into taking too great risks, he combined with this
quality that absolute carelessness of personal danger which we have seen
him display at Agincourt, and for which he was conspicuous at a later stage
of these French wars. It was this quality, so essential in warfare when a
commander led his men into action, that endeared him to his men, and
helped to create his military fame among his contemporaries. So
successfully had he fought before Caen, that Henry immediately despatched
him on an independent expedition, as a further test of his capacity.

With a detachment from the royal army Gloucester set out for Bayeux,
where he found the town well fortified but demoralised, and his attack met
with such success that by September 16 the garrison was ready to treat.
Having no power to grant terms, he allowed four of the citizens to seek the
King at Caen, where permission was given to eight others to attempt to
procure forces for the relief of the town.[206] The chances of relief, however,
were very small, since Burgundy was threatening Paris from the bridge of
St. Cloud, but if such a force came it would serve Henry’s purpose very
well, as it would have to fight a pitched battle with his army before it could
reach Bayeux. However, the chances of the garrison were so minute that on
September 19 Gloucester was authorised to treat for the surrender of the
town, which yielded on the 23rd.[207] According to instructions the town
was very generously treated. Gloucester promised them good and just
government and every liberty that they had enjoyed under the rule of
Charles VI., and for their defence he repaired the fortifications.[208] Probably
some days were spent here in settling the affairs of the town, and in
receiving the submission of the whole country-side, which hastened to
acknowledge the supremacy of the English arms.
Leaving Bayeux Humphrey led his men eastwards, and passing by Caen
reduced the country round Lisieux. This town and the castle of ‘Newby’
surrendered without resistance, and numerous other fortified places gave in
their allegiance to the English King.[209] Having settled the country and left
small garrisons in the towns, with Sir John Kirkby in command at Lisieux,
[210]
Gloucester rejoined his brother, who having left Caen on October 1,
had sat down before Alençon on the 15th of that month.[211] All through this
expedition Gloucester was never out of touch with the main body of the
army, but was entirely under the control of the King. Except at the short
siege of Bayeux, he had met with practically no resistance. So great indeed
was the severity of Henry to those who withstood him, that when his
brother reached Lisieux, he found but one old man and one old woman in
possession of the town, and so many took advantage of the English King’s
proclamation at Caen promising his protection to all who swore allegiance
to him,[212] that this little excursion partook more of the nature of a pacific
procession than of a warlike campaign.

Alençon, before which Gloucester now found
1417] THE SIEGE OF himself, was a position of considerable strength,
ALENÇON fortified by stout walls, numerous towers, and a
castle which nature and the skill of man had
made almost impregnable; added to this during the first few days of the
siege the garrison entertained hopes of relief, and their resistance was
proportionately determined. Gloucester was stationed at the hottest place of
the attack, just opposite the castle, and had to take his share in repelling the
frequent sorties of the garrison.[213] However, when the fallacy of their
hopes of relief became evident, and the reports of the universal surrenders
to the English on all sides reached them, the besieged began to tire; they
agreed to surrender on honourable terms, and on October 24 Henry entered
the city.[214] Immediately various captains were sent out, carrying their
successes into the heart of Maine and Perche; Bellesme and Fresnoy
surrendered, and the whole country up to and including La Marche
acknowledged the English supremacy.[215]
Gloucester did not take part in these expeditions, but stayed with the King,
who spent some time in Alençon. Negotiations were pending with the
French court, which had returned a conciliatory answer to the challenge
from Caen, whilst the Duke of Brittany, frightened by the success of the
English troops, proceeded to Alençon and there on November 16 signed a
truce, which was to last till the following Michaelmas, on behalf of himself
and of the young titular King of Sicily, whose possessions in Maine and
Anjou were threatened.[216] It was a niece of this Lewis who in later years
was to marry Henry’s yet unborn son, and who was to prove the bitterest of
Humphrey’s many enemies.
Towards the end of November Henry moved from Alençon; Gloucester
accompanied him, leaving Sir Roland Lyntall in his place as lieutenant of
the town, for of this last conquest the King had made him captain.[217]
On December 1 the English army appeared
1417] THE SIEGE OF before Falaise, which had been left untouched on
FALAISE the way to Alençon, as Henry had thought it too
well fortified to be attacked before the
surrounding country was secured. Certainly Falaise was no easy nut to
crack. Beside excellent fortifications a deep natural moat surrounded the

town, into which flowed numerous streams from the mountains, thus
forming a natural lake which prevented a near approach; high upon a rock,
just outside but connected with the walls, stood the castle in a position
which was considered quite impregnable[218]—that same castle which to-
day with its added Talbot tower is one of the most interesting mediæval
relics in northern France. The Earl of Salisbury had preceded the King to
Falaise lest the garrison, warned by the French ambassadors returning from
Alençon, should evacuate the town before the arrival of the English; so at
least runs one theory,[219] though a more probable object was to prevent the
garrison from laying in stores, which would enable them to prolong the
siege.[220] The siege proper began on Henry’s arrival, and he took up his
position opposite the gate on the Caen road on the north side of the town;
[221]
Clarence was placed opposite the castle; Gloucester held the west side
of the town—an honourable position, says one chronicler.[222]
The garrison of Falaise was not of the unheroic type that the English had
met so far in this campaign, due probably to the fact that the French were
commanded by such a leader as they had not hitherto found. Led by the
captain, the Sire Olivier de Manny, numerous attacks were made on the
besiegers, and Henry came to realise the hardness of the task before him.
With wise prudence for the safety and comfort of his men he built wooden
huts for their shelter from the severities of the winter, now at its height, and
this little town was protected by a strong rampart, a ditch and a palisade. In
addition to all this, a regular market was established in the midst of the
camp, so that the soldiers were never in want of food; wise precautions
which did not pass unnoticed by Humphrey, who later adopted them all
when besieging Cherbourg.
The bombardment of the town had never ceased since the siege began, and
counter attacks on the part of the besieged were frequent and fierce, so that
many lives were lost on either side, but at length the pertinacity of the
English attack began to tell, and a strong party in the town clamoured for
surrender. To this suggestion their captain offered a determined opposition,
and when at length, on December 20, the town agreed to surrender if not
relieved,[223] he with his men retired into the castle and defied the English,
even after January 2, when the town had passed into their hands.[224]

The attention of the besiegers was now concentrated on the castle, and the
command devolved on Clarence, since the King had left the army after the
terms of surrender had been signed.[225] On the side where it was
unapproachable guns were kept firing continually, whilst on the town side
the moat was filled up, and sappers were employed to undermine the wall.
From the castle burning straw was thrown into the moat, and boiling pitch
was poured on the heads of the men who were working at the mines, but in
spite of these tactics the English gained ground, and Olivier was compelled
to sign terms of surrender on February 1. On the 16th the King, who had
returned from Bayeux, took possession of the castle.[226] With a lack of
appreciation of a brave foe, born of his theory that he was rightful King of
France, Henry treated Olivier harshly, and kept him in prison till he had
paid for the restoration of the castle he had defended so bravely.[227]
Henry had now established his power over a long strip of territory,
extending from Bayeux and Touques on the north to Bellesme and Le Mans
on the south, no inconsiderable achievement for seven months’ work. At the
outset his avowed intention had been to conquer Normandy,[228] and to
accomplish this he must now move eastwards and secure Rouen—the key
to the whole duchy. But before bringing his full strength to bear at this
point, a more secure hold upon those districts which lay behind him, and a
more open approach to the city itself, were desirable. He determined
therefore to divide his army, and to send different detachments to secure
these ends before the final advance eastwards. Moreover, much had to be
done for the good administration of those districts already conquered, and
the approaching season of Lent suggested to him that both secular and
religious advantages might be obtained, if he himself refrained from any
active participation in the war for the present.[229] Arrangements therefore
were made in accordance with these intentions before the King left Falaise.
To Clarence was confided the task of opening up the approach to Rouen;
Warwick was sent to capture Domfront, and to secure the south-eastern
corner of the duchy; Gloucester was to reduce the Côtentin to obedience.
[230]

All this had been planned by the King while the
1418] THE CÔTENTIN castle of Falaise was still untaken, for he signed
EXPEDITION Gloucester’s commission on February 16, the

very day on which he entered into possession of that fortress. By virtue of
this commission Humphrey was given power to take all towns and fortified
places in the Duchy of Normandy, to receive into the King’s peace all those
who should submit to him, and to restore their lands and possessions to
them under his own seal.[231] At the same time he was empowered to issue
ordinances for the good government of his detachment, and to punish any
who should transgress them,[232] also the right to levy tribute in the
Côtentin was confined to himself and his representatives.[233] Meanwhile
preparations for the three expeditions were being hurried on, orders for the
mustering of the men of the respective commanders were issued,[234] and
Gloucester, acting on a writ issued for that purpose, appointed John Asheton
to organise the muster of his division.[235] This muster has not survived, so
that we have no definite information as to the number under his command,
but they probably did not exceed 1500 men.[236] Amongst his followers
were Lord Grey of Codnor, John Lord Clifford, and Sir Walter Hungerford,
the steward of the King’s household.[237]
Humphrey was sent on this expedition with full powers. He was entitled by
virtue of his various commissions to exercise almost royal authority in the
districts under his command, even to the granting of pardons, and all
commissions granted to others were to lapse when they came in contact
with his sphere of power.[238] The trust thus reposed in him was deserved.
Through this campaign we have caught but fleeting glimpses of him, but
these incidental notices generally find him either in command of a
detachment, as at Touques or Bayeux, or stationed at some particularly
important part of a siege, as at Caen. Nevertheless there are indications that
Henry felt less confident of his brother when he was compelled to rely
entirely on his own resources, for when he determined to establish himself
in such a position that he might bring help to the various detachments he
had sent out, should this prove to be necessary, he chose the town of
Bayeux for this purpose.[239] This town was far nearer to the scene of
Gloucester’s activity than to the districts in which Clarence and Warwick
were operating, and yet Cherbourg was the only place in the Côtentin that
was likely to give serious opposition. However, by April Henry was
satisfied of his brother’s reliability, and returned to Caen. His suspicions,
nevertheless, were well founded, for Gloucester’s inability for sustained
action made it probable that he could not for long rely on his own resources.

But in a case such as this, where he could look to a higher authority not far
away, full scope was given to his genuine military ability.
Gloucester lost no time in making his preparations, for he probably left
Falaise on the same day as his commission was signed. Crossing the river
Orne, he worked up the bank of a small tributary stream named the Noireau,
and gained his first success in the capture of the little town of Condé-sur-
Noireau.[240] Marching still further west he reached Vire, a place of
considerable strength, situated on the river of that name. A short siege
convinced the town that they could have no hope of relief, and it capitulated
on February 21. Sir John Robsart and William Beauchamp acted as
commissioners for Gloucester in arranging terms, and they agreed with the
captain of Vire that the castle and town should be surrendered whenever the
Duke should demand it, and that an English garrison should be put therein.
The captain, soldiers, and inhabitants yielded themselves up to the mercy of
the English King. During the interval between this agreement and the day of
surrender the captain and garrison promised to keep their provisions,
artillery, and other muniments of war intact, neither deporting nor
destroying them, and all English prisoners and the supporters of Henry’s
cause were to be delivered up forthwith. During this same interval no one
was to enter or leave the city without Gloucester’s consent. With regard to
the inhabitants, all who should take the oath of allegiance to Henry were to
have safety of life and limb, with permission to reside in the town, and keep
their furniture and other possessions contained therein; property outside the
walls was also to be preserved to them unless it had been granted away
before the date of the agreement. On the other hand, those of the inhabitants
who should refuse to take the oath of allegiance to Henry were to be
allowed to depart unharmed, so long as they had left by the time of Vespers
on the day that the English occupied the town, but their personal
possessions, furniture, and other belongings were to be collected into one
house, their arms into another within the castle, and these, with their horses,
were all to be forfeited to the conquerors. Provision was made to prevent
those who remained in the town from sheltering the goods of those who
went away, on the pretence that they were their own, under a penalty of
forfeiture of all possessions. Eight knights and four squires were to be
hostages in English hands for the performance of the treaty, and no
hostilities were to take place before the surrender was accomplished.[241]

When he had taken possession of the town, Gloucester turned due north and
marched along the right bank of the river Vire to St. Lo, passing by
Thorigny, which surrendered without resistance, having no mind to stand a
siege at the hands of the victorious English.[242] St. Lo was less timorous,
but it did not hold out long after Gloucester had established his troops in its
extensive suburbs, and on March 12 it followed the example of Vire and on
the same conditions.[243] Meanwhile, a detachment acting to the left of the
main body under Sir John Robsart, had secured Hambie two days earlier,
[244]
and after this division had rejoined him at St. Lo,[245] Gloucester
continued his march down the river Vire, and across it to Carentan, which
surrendered on the 10th on slightly better terms than the other towns. The
garrison was allowed to depart with horses and arms except the artillery,
and ‘de sa gentilesse’ Humphrey allowed the ladies of the town to take their
personal property with them.[246] On the same day Le Hommet, to the south
of Carentan, surrendered to Charles de Beaumont, Marshal of Navarre, who
had led part of the English troops down the other side of the river Vire.[247]
Gloucester had now swept up both sides of the country, and had reached
that narrow neck of land which ends in the Cap de la Hogue. Here he
concentrated his forces, and marched along the river Douve as far as St.
Sauveur le Vicomte, which surrendered on March 25.[248] Here, in
accordance with instructions from Bayeux, he issued a proclamation
pardoning all rebels—so Henry called them—who should swear fealty to
the King before April next.[249] Meanwhile the Earl of Huntingdon had been
sent to the south-east of Normandy, and on March 16 he had secured
Gloucester’s rear by the capture of Coutances. His expedition was
independent of the commander in the Côtentin, but the likelihood of their
joining forces seems to be recognised by the terms of Huntingdon’s
Commission.[250] However, no such union took place, as before long the
latter was hurrying eastward to take part in the siege of Rouen.[251]
Still marching northward from St. Sauveur le Vicomte, Gloucester took
Néhou,[252] Bricquebec, and Valognes, thus having reduced the whole
district with the exception of the town of Cherbourg.[253] In all, it was
estimated, he had taken thirty-two castles in six weeks, with very little
trouble and hardly any loss of life.[254] One of the hardest sieges of the war,
however, was still before him, A later chronicler tells us that at this stage he

went to interview his brother at Bayeux,[255] but the dates do not allow of
this, for St. Sauveur le Vicomte was captured on Good Friday, and a few
days later Gloucester in person laid siege to Cherbourg.[256]
It was here that the French had determined to
1418] SIEGE OF make a stand. Men and provisions had been
CHERBOURG collected from the country round, and the
extensive suburbs burnt to remove any possible
shelter they might offer to the besiegers.[257] Indeed, it had been no
cheering report that Gloucester’s scouts had brought back after
reconnoitring the town. They reported that the situation of the place was
one of great strength. The sea flowed up to the walls on the north, and on
the other side the river Divette wound round a large part of the town, thus
making all access a matter of great difficulty; where nature had neglected to
complete her work, a deep moat drained part of the water of the river round
the otherwise unprotected wall; the fortifications were of great strength, for
the walls had been recently improved, guns had been mounted on the
numerous towers round the city, the castle with sixteen strong towers and a
double wall was almost impregnable, and all round the town outside the
walls there was a thick stone rampart crowned by castellated forts furnished
with artillery. Indeed, the garrison felt quite able to resist any attack and to
meet any mischance that should occur.[258] Though perhaps it was not the
strongest place in all Normandy, as the French chroniclers tell us,[259] yet it
was undoubtedly a formidable fortress, and had an abundance of provisions
to withstand a prolonged siege.[260]
Nothing daunted by the reports of the scouts, Gloucester advanced towards
Cherbourg with the full determination of becoming master of the town, and
having driven back the French outposts he began preparations for the siege
in the latter days of March.[261] He had come up to the town from the east,
and at the outset found his difficulties increased by the destruction of the
bridge over the river.[262] To increase his discomfiture still more the stream
had overflowed its banks, which added to the natural obstacles which he
had to face, and as he was unable to get his men across to the other side of
the town, he sent a strong detachment into the country to prevent any
reinforcements reaching the garrison. But his troubles were not to cease
here. A large unbroken stretch of level ground surrounded the town, with

not even a clump of trees to give shelter to an attacking force, nor any rising
ground on which to plant the siege-engines.[263] It was indeed no easy task
which lay before the English commander.
With fervid and characteristic energy Gloucester set himself to overcome
the obstacles in the way. A bridge was quickly built across the river, and a
detachment of his forces was drafted off to complete the blockade of the
town on the other side, while a special guard was detailed to protect the
bridge night and day, thus preventing all egress from or ingress into the
town, and keeping a connecting-link between the necessarily divided forces
of the besiegers, while it gave a certain quality of continuity to the attack.
Not forgetting the openness of the sea-approach Gloucester procured from
England a fleet which, using the islands of Jersey and Guernsey as a base,
prevented any help from reaching the besieged by water.[264] The siege had
now begun in earnest but by no means on equal terms, for while the French
were safely ensconced behind particularly strong walls the English had no
shelter, as they were prevented from pitching tents by the severity of the
sandstorms which had followed on the subsidence of the floods. Besides
this the besieged swept the exposed plain with their cannon, so that there
could be no question of attacking the town with any success till some kind
of cover was found for the men working the guns. Nay, more, Gloucester’s
forces stood in imminent danger of extinction as they lay before the town,
for the French guns were good and the French gunners better trained than in
the previous sieges of the war.[265] Some distance behind the besiegers lay
some wooded country, and Gloucester sent thither every third man of his
forces with axes to cut down trees and brushwood, with a strong reminder
to keep out of sight of the enemy. On a dark night logs and bundles of
faggots were packed on carts, brought to the English lines, and with
feverish haste thrown up as the groundwork of a bastion. The men worked
with a will, and by daylight a rampart of some considerable strength had
been built. The morning showed the French what had been the night work
of their assailants, and though surprised at the rapidity with which the
English had worked, they were nothing daunted, and immediately trained
their guns on this obstruction. Then ensued a fierce contest. The besieged
brought the whole weight of their artillery to bear on the unfinished bastion,
while, now under partial cover, the besiegers worked with might and main
to preserve their night’s work, and to strengthen it so that no future attack

on it could be successful. Both sides put all their strength into an encounter
which they realised was the crucial event of the siege, for if the English
failed, all chance of continuing the attack was at an end. Finding their
cannonade not sufficiently destructive, the French began to use an engine
which threw red-hot balls and burning materials, and a large part of the
bastion was soon in flames. With unremitting energy the English
extinguished the flames with water, and, still under the heavy fire of the
besieged, brought up more timber and reconstructed the demolished
portions of their protecting rampart. In the end the victory lay with the
besiegers, and the English soldiers could work securely behind the shelter
that had cost them so dear.[266]
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]

Meanwhile the English commander before
1418] SIEGE OF Cherbourg had not been idle. Owing to the heavy
CHERBOURG 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]
The siege of Rouen was more than three months
1418] SIEGE OF ROUEN 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]
After the conquest of Rouen the English captains
1419] MARRIAGE were sent with small detachments to clear the
NEGOTIATIONS 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.
Gloucester had more active work on hand than
1419] CAPTURE OF IVRY 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]
Nevertheless, Henry knew that his best argument
1419] MINOR MILITARY was force, and as soon as the truce expired on
OPERATIONS 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]

CHAPTER III
THE EVOLUTION OF GLOUCESTER’S
POLICY
After landing in England Gloucester had not long to wait before he took up
his new duties. On December 30, 1419, his commission to be ‘guardian and
lieutenant of England’ in the place of Bedford, who was about to go to
France, was sealed at Westminster, and his powers in this office were
defined. He was to preside at the meetings of Parliament and Council, and
to summon the lords and the commonalty of the kingdom for consultation.
The executive power was put into his hands, and he was empowered to do
all things necessary for the welfare of the country, with the assent of
Parliament and the Council; whilst he was also to exercise the royal
prerogative in ecclesiastical matters, giving licences to elect to vacancies,
and his assent or veto to these elections when made. The commission
concluded with emphatic instructions that the Regent ‘shall carry out all
matters of governance with the assent of and after deliberation by the
Council, and not otherwise.’[334] Meanwhile, Bedford was in England, and
he did not leave for France until the spring,[335] but the control of affairs
was in the hands of his brother. This was the first time that Gloucester had
been brought into official contact with English politics, though he had been
a member of the Council and of Parliament since his elevation to the
peerage in 1414. The country was in that state of peace which so often
precedes a violent storm. Of internal strife there had been none since Sir
John Oldcastle had been captured and executed in December 1417,[336] and
the threatening of revolution which had preceded Henry’s first expedition to
France had passed away. On the other hand, the war was beginning to
outlive its popularity. The steady successes of Henry had none of the
glamour of such a victory as Agincourt, which alone could kindle the
enthusiasm of the people at home. There were signs that the soldiers
themselves were tiring of the successive sieges,[337] while in England men
did not grasp with what determination the military genius and the patient
diplomacy of Henry were working up to the approaching culmination of the

Treaty of Troyes. Moreover, the French prisoners in England, for whom
Gloucester now became responsible, had been showing signs of
restlessness, and Orleans for one had been discovered in intrigue with the
Scotch.[338]
The most notable aspect of England, however,
1419] RISE OF MIDDLE when Gloucester took up the reins of
CLASSES IN ENGLAND government in 1419, was the development of the
power of the great middle class. The dangers
which Henry IV. had had to meet amongst the rebellious nobility had driven
him to rely on the class which would give him the support he needed, and
this increased the importance of the trader and the townsman, whose
influence was still further expanded by the absence of almost the whole
nobility and a large proportion of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in France. The
constitutional aspect of Parliament was becoming more than a name in the
days of Gloucester’s first regency, and public opinion was beginning to
mirror the interests of the money-making portion of the community. Ever
since the days of the Black Death this change had been slowly moving to its
completion, and the success of the archers in the French wars announced
the fact that the old fixed state of society had come to an end. Now for the
first time appeared the ambition of men of one class to raise themselves to
the level of the next; now for the first time poverty and incompetence
became a disgrace. These all were the outward signs of a great industrial
revolution. Till the middle of the fourteenth century England had been a
mere producer of raw material; now she was on the high-road to take a
definite place as the manufacturer of finished goods in all the chief markets
of Europe. A striking instance of this change is to be found in the way the
export of wool dropped, whilst its production increased, for the
manufacture of broadcloth was no longer confined to the foreign buyers of
English wool. This increased production entailed a corresponding increase
in the number of traders and carriers of English produce, and it is at this
time that such companies as the Merchant Adventurers rose to great power.
This change from the production of raw material to the manufacture of the
finished article not only gave a new power to the middle classes, but it had
its influence also in bringing the English town into greater prominence.
‘Mediæval economy, with its constant regard to the relations of persons,
was giving place to the modern economy, which treats the exchange of
things as fundamental,’ and this resulted in increased power to those

corporate bodies which were favoured by this change. New and substantial
town-halls were being built in all parts of England, and the towns
themselves were becoming an important factor in English life. The days
when a group of nobles enjoyed the whole political influence of the
community were at an end, and a foreign observer could declare that the
nation ‘consists of churchmen, nobles, and craftsmen, as well as common
people.’[339] Moreover, it now came first to be realised that England could
have a commercial interest in foreign politics, as well as a purely dynastic
one.[340] English merchants now began to have a direct influence on the
policy of the crown, and they could make it felt through the immense sums
which the Government was compelled to borrow from them.[341]
This then was the state of society which
1420] GLOUCESTER Gloucester found when the government was
REGENT IN ENGLAND committed to his care, and he was not slow to
realise this change. Some years later a
Carthusian monk, when consulted by the Duke of Buckingham on the
probability of his succession, declared that his only hope of aggrandisement
was ‘to obtain the love of the community of England’;[342] and this was a
truth understood earlier by the Duke of Gloucester. We do not know by
what means it was done, but Humphrey soon became the darling of the
middle classes, and by the time that Henry V. died he had won the
enthusiastic support of the London citizens. It will be seen, therefore, that it
was to the growing powers in England that he appealed for sympathy and
encouragement, to those who were gradually working out the progress of
England towards freedom from aristocratic control, to those who were
content to ignore the quarrel of prince with prince and noble with noble,
whilst they quietly based the future strength of the kingdom on a wealth
born of trade and private exertions. It was in the towns that Humphrey
found his friends; in the towns where the middle classes were gaining the
predominance, and not in the country where the nobility still reigned
supreme, and where the science and prosperity of agriculture remained
stationary throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The citizen class
never failed him. They did not look to the upstart house which had forgotten
its origin in the new title of Duke of Suffolk, but throughout his life they
supported their ‘Good Duke,’ and genuinely mourned his death. What is
called statesmanship in others is dismissed as ‘pandering to the populace’ in

Humphrey by those who cannot allow any good to reside in an unsuccessful
politician, but it seems a more just estimate of this side of Gloucester’s
policy to acknowledge the foresight and wisdom of one who abandoned the
effete nobles, and looked for support to those who were soon to prove
themselves a power that must be taken into consideration. This citizen
support cannot have been welcome to the other members of the governing
class, and it is probably due to it that so much opposition was shown to
Gloucester in the early days of the reign of Henry VI. In the outward events
of the regency there are few signs of the policy which Humphrey pursued,
but we shall see its fruits as the story of his life proceeds. It must have been
at this time, however, that his line of action was initiated.
The days of Gloucester’s first regency were even more peaceful and
uneventful than those of Bedford’s, and he found that his duties did not
exceed the ordinary official business of the kingdom, and the representation
of the King at ceremonial functions. Thus by right of his position of Regent
we find him presiding at a Chapter of the Order of the Garter which was
very sparsely attended owing to the large number of knights who were
serving abroad. Even Bedford, who had not yet left England, was absent,
being fully occupied with his preparations for departure.[343]
During his regency Humphrey was brought into contact with the young
King of Scotland, then a prisoner in England. According to a French
chronicler it was during the year 1420 that James, the son of David of
Scotland, who during his father’s lifetime had been given a safe-conduct by
Henry V. to go to Jerusalem, came to England, and was there most
graciously received by Gloucester. In the meantime his father died, and the
Regent took immediate steps to acquaint his royal brother with the fact of
James’s presence in England. Henry promptly ordered him to be detained
and sent under escort to the English army before Melun.[344] In the whole
story there is only one grain of truth. James had been a captive in England
ever since 1406, and his father, Robert (not David), had died on hearing the
news of his detention. However, it is true that the unfortunate Scotch king
was sent to the siege of Melun, leaving England in July, and for this
doubtless Gloucester made the arrangements.[345] All that the story can tell
us is that it points to a probable friendship between James and Humphrey
who had been boys together at the court of Henry IV.[346]

Meanwhile English history was being made in France. The balance of
parties had been changed. Before Gloucester had crossed the Channel the
whole world had been shocked by the cold-blooded and treacherous murder
of the Duke of Burgundy at the bridge of Montereau.[347] Nothing could
have been more impolitic from the Armagnac point of view, for revenge
was far sweeter than patriotism to the Frenchmen of the fifteenth century,
and the King and Queen of France with that most marketable commodity,
their daughter Catherine, were under the influence of Philip, the new Duke
of Burgundy. What was more natural than that the negotiations of Meulan
should be resumed and brought to a successful issue? Neither the Queen nor
St. Pol, the governor of Paris, even waited for the prompting of Philip, but
sent envoys to Henry without delay, and by December 25 a treaty was made
between the Kings of England and of France.[348] This treaty formed the
basis of the more famous one signed on May 21 by both contracting parties
at Troyes. Henry was to marry Catherine and to succeed to the French
throne, meanwhile acting as regent for the demented Charles VI. Each
country was to preserve its own laws and customs, and Henry, Charles, and
Burgundy all promised not to undertake any independent negotiations with
the Dauphin.[349] The English chroniclers, oblivious of the fact that
Gloucester was Regent of England, state that he was present at these
negotiations,[350] but this is entirely disproved by a letter written to him by
Henry on the day after the treaty was signed. Gloucester and the Council
were herein informed of the culmination of Henry’s ambitions, and
commanded to proclaim the peace and the King’s betrothal in England. He
further instructed them to destroy his seals, and to strike new ones bearing
the inscription ‘Henry by the grace of God Kyng of England, Heire and
Regent of the Rowne of France, and Lord of Ireland.’[351] On June 14
Gloucester signed the warrant for the proclamation of the good news, and
the same day a solemn procession was made in honour of the marriage of
the King, during which the proclamation was read at St. Paul’s Cross.[352]
The Treaty of Troyes was the high-water mark of
1420] TREATY OF English success in France, and it seemed to
TROYES crystallise the unhappy principles with which
Gloucester had been impressed during the early
years of his active life. The only statesmanship that his royal brother could
teach him was the mistaken ideal of a self-righteous war. Unfortunately the

mobile and impressionable character of Humphrey was only too prone to
receive the imprint of this policy. Henceforth he stood by the clauses of the
Treaty of Troyes with a constancy worthy of a better cause, and in this
particular his line of action was definitely marked out. Though a man of
intellect and perception in theoretical matters, he was not endowed with
sufficient powers of statesmanship to see the disastrous consequences of a
war policy; quick to grasp the details of a scheme, he failed to discern its
wider significance, and so his policy was tainted by the false brilliancy of
his brother’s successes. Had he been less impressionable and more cool-
headed, he would have been able to grasp the essentials, and would not
have been blinded by successes which could only be transitory. In all cases
Humphrey’s policy was to be formed by his emotions, hard facts had no
influence upon him, and at this very time he failed to understand the
warning which came from the first Parliament over which he presided, and
which he opened on December 2. Two days later all the formalities had
been performed, and Roger Hunt had been chosen Speaker and accepted by
the Regent.[353]
It was not long before it became amply evident
1421] RETURN OF that there was considerable discontent at the
HENRY V. TO ENGLAND King’s prolonged absence. It was now more than
three years since he had visited England, and the
country was beginning to feel that foreign ambitions were absorbing too
much of their ruler’s attention. The Parliaments of 1417 and 1419, which
had been called by Bedford, had been marked by no act of constitutional
importance. In one Oldcastle had been condemned to death;[354] in both,
money was granted.[355] In 1420, however, the aspect of affairs was
changed. In the first place no money was asked for, as it was well
understood that it would not be granted, for men were beginning to grumble
at its scarcity.[356] One of the first acts of this Parliament was to petition
Gloucester to use all his influence to induce the King and his Queen to
return home as soon as possible, to which request the Regent assented
readily.[357] This petition must not be taken as betraying any mistrust of the
conduct of the regency government. It simply reflects a growing fear that
the kingdom of England would become a mere appanage to the throne of
France, and stands as a protest against the conquest of France being the
means of depreciating English prestige. The constitutional troubles in this

Parliament show a mistrust of Henry’s intentions, but convey no censure on
the administration. It was in this spirit therefore that it was enacted that
though the Regent’s commission was to terminate on the return of the King,
Parliament was not to be considered to be dissolved by that event; that the
statute of Edward III. securing English liberties in case the English King
required a new title was revived; and that provision was made that petitions
should not be engrossed until they had been sent to the King for his assent.
[358]
Thus the session closed amidst constitutional fears, which for this time
at least Gloucester had had no hand in creating.
England had not long to wait for the return of her King, who was anxious to
introduce his newly wedded wife to her English subjects. The petition of
Parliament was therefore quickly answered, and on Candlemas Day 1421
the royal couple landed at Dover, where the Barons of the Cinque Ports
were ready to welcome them. Humphrey was presumably too busy to be
present at this greeting, but he probably took part in the reception which
London accorded the King on February 14,[359] and in the high festival and
gorgeous processions with which a week later the Queen entered the capital.
It was a more subdued welcome that Henry now received than that which
marked his triumphal return from Agincourt, but every token of respect and
affection was offered to the Queen.[360] On Sunday, February 23, Catherine
was crowned at Westminster, and immediately afterwards she presided at a
banquet held in the ‘greet halle.’ In spite of the Lenten season and the
almost total absence of meat, a splendid feast was spread, and the menu
with its various ‘soteltes’ has been preserved for us.[361] In the absence of
the King, whom etiquette forbade to appear, the Queen presided, with the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester on her right, the
King of Scotland, the Duchess of York, and the Countess of Huntingdon on
her left. The Earl Marshal and the Earl of March knelt on either side of the
Queen, each holding a sceptre, while the Countess of Kent and the Countess
Marshal sat at the feet of the Queen ‘under the table.’ Bedford was present
as Constable of England, Warwick officiated as Steward in the absence of
Clarence, and the Earl of Worcester in the capacity of Earl Marshal—
Mowbray being otherwise engaged—rode up and down the hall to keep
order. Carver, cupbearer, and butler each performed his appointed duties,
and bareheaded before the Queen stood Gloucester as ‘supervisour’[362] of
the feast by right of his office of Great Chamberlain. It was in the

organisation of pageants such as this that Gloucester was most efficient. All
his tastes for ancient learning and his love of display, in which he proved
himself a true child of the Renaissance, were given full scope. At any rate,
his arrangements so impressed the chroniclers, that they all describe this
pageant in unusually elaborate detail.[363]

Cup bearing the Arms of the Duke of Gloucester
and his Wife Eleanor.

Soon after the coronation Henry and his bride went off on a royal progress
through the country, the ostensible reason being a series of pilgrimages to
various shrines, the real one a hope of restoring the confidence of the
country in their King, and to encourage fresh sacrifices of men and money
for a new campaign.[364] The necessity for renewed effort became still more
apparent when, on leaving the shrine of St. John of Beverley, news reached
them that Clarence had been defeated and slain at Beaugé in March.[365]
Having celebrated the Feast of St. George somewhat later than the
appointed day,[366] Henry opened a Parliament on May 2,[367] and
immediately began to prepare for another expedition to France. Gloucester,
of whom we have heard nothing since the coronation feast, also began to
make his preparations for war, but before he left England an event happened
which was to have considerable influence on the course of his life during
the next few years, and to mould his policy in the near future.

It was fated that England should be interested in
1421] JACQUELINE OF the affairs of Hainault and Holland for some time
HAINAULT to come, and the whole history of this interest is
bound up with the story of Gloucester’s
infatuation for Jacqueline, Countess of Holland, Zealand, and Hainault.
This lady was daughter and heiress of that Count William who visited
England whilst the Emperor Sigismund was in the country.[368] She had lost
her father and her first husband John, Dauphin of France, within a few
weeks of each other during the spring of the year 1417. With no natural
protector, she had been left to face the factions of Hooks and Cods in her
patrimony, and between them there was bitter strife; the former being the
supporters of her late father, and the latter his bitter opponents.[369] But in
the politics of these states of the Low Countries there was a still more
potent factor than the internal divisions of party feuds. John, Duke of
Burgundy, devoted his life to consolidating his territorial power, as well as
in advancing claims to political ascendency in France, and in furtherance of

the former ambitions he desired to add the inheritance of Jacqueline to his
already extensive possessions. Not only would this acquisition strengthen
his hands by increasing his territory, but it would also increase his line of
seacoast in Zealand and Holland, and serve to join up his southern and
northern possessions. Thus he would be able to show a stronger front to the
Emperor, who regarded the increased power of his nominal vassal on the
confines of the empire as a threatening danger.
With the direct object of attaining this end, John the Fearless set himself to
arrange a marriage between Jacqueline and her neighbour the Duke of
Brabant, hoping thereby to bring about a childless match and the acquisition
to himself of the coveted territory, which, in the absence of children, he
would inherit. In this project he was supported by the Princess’s mother,
Margaret, Dowager-Countess of Hainault, who was his sister.[370] John of
Brabant was a despicable weakling, much older than his proposed bride,
and possessing qualities which would make the life of a young and spirited
woman wholly unbearable. However, considerations of policy induced her
relatives to force Jacqueline into this undesirable alliance, with the result
which might have been expected. John fell entirely into the hands of his
Brabançon followers, who induced him to add insult to the neglect with
which he treated his young wife, and the culminating-point was reached
when in Jacqueline’s absence he arranged for the disposal of her territory
for a term of years to John of Bavaria.[371]
Among her few faithful followers the unhappy Countess found one whom
the chronicler names ‘Robessart lord of Escaillon,’ who, though a
Hainaulter by origin, was English in sympathies.[372] Doubtless he was one
of that family of Robsarts of which more than one served in the French
wars.[373] It was the Lord of Escallion who befriended Jacqueline when she
fled from the insults of her husband to Valenciennes, and it was to him that
she confided her intention to turn to England for help. He received the news
with joy, and encouraged the idea, painting this land, which was unknown
to his liege lady, in the brightest colours, not forgetting to lay emphasis on
those brothers of Henry V., who were yet unmarried. At the same time he
undertook to arrange her escape thither, so that she might safely reach
Calais before any one knew of her intentions, and together they matured
their plans.[374]

In thus determining to throw herself on the
1421] JACQUELINE mercy of Henry, Jacqueline was appealing to a
ARRIVES IN ENGLAND relationship which dated back to Philippa, the
wife of Edward III., and it is a sign that she had
definitely determined to break with the husband whom she had never
wanted to marry, and that she was in earnest in those preparations which
she had already made for a divorce. If she had hopes of a third husband
from amongst the brothers of Henry V., we must suppose that her past
experiences had not taught her wisdom, and it is probably with a knowledge
of subsequent events that one chronicler asserts an agreement of marriage
with Humphrey before ever she left Valenciennes,[375] though the idea of an
English alliance of this kind was quite natural, when we remember that
Bedford had been a candidate for her hand in 1418.[376] Be this as it may,
Jacqueline and her friend Escallion made their preparations for flight to
Calais. Already on March 1, 1421, Henry had granted a passport to herself
and her mother to visit her territories in Ponthieu, and this carried with it the
right to enter Calais.[377] It was therefore probably in April that she told her
mother at Valenciennes that she would leave her for a few days while she
paid a visit to Bouchain. She had left the town but a short distance on this
proposed journey when Escallion met her with a company of sixty men, and
took her under his protection. Together they made for Calais, where they
arrived at the end of the second day after leaving Valenciennes, and were
courteously received as though their arrival had been expected. From Calais
Jacqueline sent messengers to Henry to ask permission to land on the shores
of England, and meanwhile spent the interval which must elapse before an
answer could be received in quiet repose, mounting the bastions daily, and
gazing across to the white cliffs of Dover, dreaming of the land and of the
men of whom she had heard such glowing accounts, and welcoming every
sail that appeared on the horizon as the bearer of the desired permission to
put the truth of these stories to the test. At length a warm welcome was
brought from King Henry, and with bright hopes the princess crossed the
Channel, to be met at Dover by one of those unmarried brothers of the
English King of whom she had been told.[378] For it fell to the lot of
Humphrey, as Warden of the Cinque Ports, to meet this distinguished
visitor, just as some five years before he had met the Emperor Sigismund. It
was a meeting fraught with great consequences for both parties concerned.
Little did the light-hearted Humphrey think, when he placed his charge on

her palfrey, and escorted her to London, that he had met a woman who
would deeply affect his destinies, and earn him the reputation of putting his
private ambitions before the public weal.
Henry emphasised his hearty invitation to Jacqueline by the marked
graciousness of his reception of her; and though he was on the eve of
departure to France, he promised to help her, and made arrangements,
completed on July 10, that £100 a month should be allotted to the Countess
so long as she remained in England.[379] To Henry belongs the
responsibility of bringing her over, and we cannot doubt that he saw the
political significance of his action. He knew the state of affairs in the Low
Countries, and he looked on the discontented Countess as a valuable asset
in his schemes of French conquest; through her he might obtain some hold
on his shifty ally Burgundy, who, like his father, looked to inherit the much-
desired districts of Zealand, Holland, and Hainault. Whether he had hopes
of a divorce for Jacqueline so that she might marry one of his brothers is
doubtful—he was too near the end of his career for us to be able to fathom
his intentions with regard to her; but that he was responsible for her
presence in England, and consequently also partly responsible for the
results of this visit, cannot be denied.[380] As for Humphrey, we have
nothing to tell us of the growth of his plans, or of his first impressions of
Jacqueline. It was probably towards the end of April that he first saw her,
and it is unlikely that he had any time for love-making before his departure
for France. It is therefore improbable that the project which later took shape
in his expedition to Hainault had occurred to him when he left England, for
he had probably never met the lady before, though he had known her father,
and his attention was at this time concentrated on the French campaign.[381]
As Warden, Humphrey had to see that the Barons
1421] THIRD FRENCH of the Cinque Ports provided ships to the number
CAMPAIGN
of fifty-seven for the transport of the army;[382]
at the same time he was busy collecting his own contingent. He entered into
indentures with the King for one hundred lances, with their complement of
archers, which would bring the numbers up to about four hundred men
according to the usual computation; but he had not a full contingent by the
time he left England.[383] However, he received reinforcements from
England all through the campaign,[384] and by July his men were in full

force.[385] On May 26 his passport was signed,[386] and he probably then
went down to Dover to supervise the preparations for embarkation, which
were ordered to begin on May 27.[387] Exactly a fortnight later Henry sailed
from Dover, and landed the same day at Calais,[388] accompanied by
Gloucester and the Earls of March and Warwick, with rather over a
thousand men.[389]
The defeat at Beaugé had not been without its effect both in encouraging
the French and in distressing the English. It had not been easy to raise men
in England, as Gloucester had found, and it was necessary in many cases to
resort to impressment. Accordingly Henry took the precaution of sending
his ships back to England, for fear that deserters from his army might by
their help regain their native land.[390] In Normandy the Earl of Salisbury
had done something to restore the prestige of the English arms; but round
Paris the French were becoming very dangerous, for the Dauphin was
threatening Chartres and an advance on the capital.[391] Under these
conditions Henry abandoned the idea of spending some time in Picardy, and
the whole army marched down the seacoast to Abbeville. Here the passage
of the Somme would have been disputed had it not been for the good offices
of the Duke of Burgundy, who had joined the army at Montreuil, and
induced the citizens of Abbeville to allow the English to pass.[392] Without
any pause Henry pushed on by way of Beauvais to Gisors, where he left the
army under the command of Gloucester, and went on to Paris to consult
with Exeter.[393] Gloucester took the army to Mantes, where the King
rejoined him, and Burgundy, who had left the English at Abbeville, also
came up with reinforcements. Henry had hoped to bring the Dauphin to
fight a pitched battle, but on his way to Mantes he learned with great regret
that the French had raised the siege of Chartres and had retired into
Touraine.[394] With a clear field before him Henry determined to besiege
Dreux, a strong castle near the Norman border, which had been harassing its
neighbours for some time.
By this time the army had been considerably
1421] SIEGE OF DREUX reinforced. The lords who had come over with
Henry had contrived to make up their appointed
numbers, Gloucester at all events having his full complement of four
hundred men,[395] and several of the English captains, already in France,

had brought their contingents to the main body.[396] Since the death of
Clarence Gloucester had been practically second in command. Hitherto his
elder brother had taken precedence of him, not only by reason of his age,
but also on account of his greater experience, though it would seem that in
siege operations Gloucester had always been regarded as the better soldier.
At any rate the siege of Dreux was now committed to his care, though
Henry himself was with the army.[397] With Gloucester the King of Scots
was associated in command, but it would seem that this had a political
rather than a military significance; James had never seen a siege in his life,
save as an unwilling spectator of the fall of Melun, but as a captain in
Henry’s army he was meant to exemplify the rapprochement between the
English and Scotch, which had been initiated whilst Henry was at home.
The young King’s long captivity was nearing a close; he was to have three
months’ leave of absence in Scotland at the end of the campaign, which was
to be a preliminary to his final enlargement. Moreover, on behalf of the
Scotch the Earl of Douglas had agreed to enter the English service with four
hundred men in the ensuing year.[398]
Though James was nominally joint commander, the burden of the siege
naturally fell on Gloucester, and he invested the town on July 18. The
fortifications were particularly strong, and situated as it was under the brow
of a rocky eminence of considerable height, with an almost impregnable
castle on the summit and a double moat around it, the task seemed no easy
one. Gloucester, however, found a vineyard adjoining the castle which,
though strengthened by a wall and tower, was the weak spot of the
defences. While keeping a close watch around the rest of the town, he
concentrated his attack on this point, and by means of diligent mining under
cover of a heavy cannonade he was able to drive the defenders out of the
vineyard, and so secured a better position from which to attack the town
itself. On August 8 the garrison, being hard pressed, and despairing of help
from the Dauphin, who showed no sign of leaving his position behind the
Loire, agreed to surrender if not relieved within twelve days. On August 20
the English troops entered the town.[399]
Hitherto Henry’s military operations had not extended beyond Normandy,
for the siege of Dreux had only been undertaken to safeguard the Duchy.
Now he began to see that it was impossible to secure France by the same
means that he had employed to secure Normandy. Already his forces were

thinned by the necessity of garrisoning the towns that he had taken, and he
could not attempt to garrison the whole of France in this way. On the other
hand, the disastrous results of his grandfather’s famous march through
France showed him the danger of any operation far removed from his base.
His one hope was to goad the Dauphin to action. He had hoped that the
siege of Dreux might draw the French to attempt its relief,[400] and that was
one reason why he had confided the attack to the care of Gloucester, while
he himself awaited a relieving force. These tactics having failed, he
determined to seek out the Dauphin, and compel him to give battle. Only
the prestige of a second Agincourt could make his title of ‘Regent of
France’ anything but a name, or induce Frenchmen generally to accept him
as their future King. It was with joy, therefore, that he learned towards the
end of August that the French were collecting their forces on the Loire not
far from Beaugency, and he hastened to move from Dreux to meet the
enemy.
We have no evidence to prove that Gloucester took part in this expedition,
for he is not once mentioned by the chroniclers after the siege of Dreux,
though we know that he was still in France in March 1422,[401] and that the
operations of the English were confined to the main body under Henry. In
all probability, therefore, Gloucester took part in the march on Beaugency
and shared the King’s disappointment on learning that the French troops
had dispersed. For fifteen days the English waited for a French attack,
whilst the Earl of Suffolk tried to get in touch with the enemy on the south
side of the river. The Armagnac refused to offer battle, for they had not
forgotten the method by which the armies of Edward III. had been driven
from France, and Henry had to rest content with the capture of Beaugency.
Further tarrying in this ‘unfruitful country’ had now become impossible;
men and beasts were dying of starvation; so with a heavy heart Henry
turned eastwards. The suburbs of Orleans were captured, but an attack on
the town itself was deemed impossible, and the army passed on to
Villeneuve-le-Roi, which surrendered on September 22. By October 6 the
English had invested the town of Meaux.[402]
Throughout this siege, which lasted for five
1421] GLOUCESTER’S months, we find no mention of Gloucester, even
RETURN TO ENGLAND in the pages of the chronicler Elmham. It is very
improbable that this would have been the case if

he had been present at the siege, for not only was he second in command of
the army, but his prowess in siege operations was such that some important
post must have been assigned to him had he been there. It seems possible
that before the army advanced to Meaux, Gloucester was sent to protect
Paris and its environs. Exeter, its former governor, was now with the army,
and Gloucester may have been deputed to guard the capital, and at the same
time keep up communication between the English army and its Norman
base.[403] This, however, is nothing more than conjecture, for we lose sight
of him entirely till about March, when he crossed over to England.[404]
Gloucester’s journey to England was undertaken to exchange posts once
more with Bedford. When Henry had sailed from Dover in the previous
year he had left the kingdom in his brother’s care, and Catherine, who was
expecting her confinement, had been left behind also. On December 6 the
future King Henry VI. had been born,[405] and the Queen had prepared to
rejoin her husband as soon as her health should permit her to travel.
Bedford was commissioned to accompany her, and so his younger brother
was sent to replace him in England.[406] As early as February 7 Gloucester’s
lieutenant at Dover had had instructions to prepare ships for the voyage,[407]
but Bedford and the Queen did not actually sail till May,[408] and before this
Gloucester had taken over the management of the kingdom. His
commission as Regent has not survived, and the earliest document signed
during this regency is dated May 25,[409] but before this, on St. George’s
Day (April 23), he had presided at a Chapter of the Garter as the King’s
representative, and had supervised the arrangements made for the fees now
allotted to the Garter King-of-Arms, whose office had been created by
Henry to commemorate the victory of Agincourt.[410]
This last campaign in France was but an isolated incident in the life of Duke
Humphrey. His future policy was not affected thereby, but his return to
England, and his position of independence in close proximity to the
fascinating Countess of Hainault, was to make its influence felt. The
regency was outwardly quite uneventful, but it left its mark on Gloucester’s
life. Henry cannot have foreseen the danger of putting his brother in the
way of temptation, probably he did not regard it as a temptation, and still
more probable is it that he had not the faintest conception of the hidden
elements in Humphrey’s character. He had known him only as an able

soldier and a careful administrator under his direction. The forces which
were moulding the Duke’s attitude had not yet all appeared, and so it was
with no misgivings for the future that the King once more appointed his
youngest brother his representative in England. It is, however, probable that
during the short four months of this regency Humphrey began to dream of
ambitions over seas in the midst of pleasant dallyings with Jacqueline. At
least Duke and Countess had every opportunity to become better
acquainted, till in August the former had to postpone his hopes of
continental aggrandisement, since his position and rights at home became
the question of the moment, when England learnt the death of her beloved
King.
The last moments of Henry V., and his
1422] DYING WISHES OF instructions to those who gathered round his
HENRY V. bedside, are important for their bearing on the
arrangements for the government of the country
during the minority of his son. Considerable doubt has been cast on the
details of the arrangements which Henry decreed from his death-bed, but
with no great reason, for the chroniclers are almost unanimous in their
assertions. The Dukes of Bedford and Exeter with other lords were gathered
round the dying King, who reasserted his right to the crown of France, and
urged them to fight to the end in defence of those righteous claims which
were now to pass to his son, commanding them to keep the Duke of Orleans
a prisoner in England till the future King should be of age. He then
described his wishes for the government of the inheritance. Bedford was to
be Regent of the kingdom of France and the Duchy of Normandy;
Gloucester was to be Regent in England, and no qualification of the latter’s
power was so much as suggested. There is less unanimity amongst the
chroniclers as to the personal guardians appointed for the young King, but
Exeter, Warwick, and the Bishop of Winchester were all probably
mentioned. With the prophetic instinct of approaching death Henry
besought his hearers to give no cause of offence to the Duke of Burgundy,
and to repeat this warning to Gloucester.[411]
Having delivered his last injunctions to those who stood by, Henry’s
strength rapidly failed, but after a period of quiet he rose up in agony, and
with the words ‘Thou liest, thou liest, my portion is with Jesus Christ,’ the
pride of England and the scourge of France passed away to a Tribunal

where men’s actions are judged by their motives and not by the professions
of their mouth. It seemed, so says the chronicler, as though in his last
moments he fought with evil spirits;[412] certainly for many years to come
England’s portion was to be with the evil spirits of faction and disaster,
spirits which might have been powerless to do harm, had Henry V. adopted
the course of true patriotism, and not ‘busied restless minds with foreign
quarrels.’
A fresh page of history begins with the death of Henry V., and new
personalities appear in the forefront of politics. The character of the young
King Henry VI. is a negligible quantity, for he was only nine months old:
‘Vae cujus terræ rex puer est,’ quotes Walsingham,[413] and indeed it was
mainly the youth of the King which gave such a character to his reign, as to
fully justify Hall’s description thereof; it was in very truth to be ‘the
troubleous season of Kyng Henry the Sixt.’[414] Three men stand out as the
chief actors in the first period of the reign—the two next heirs to the throne,
Bedford and Gloucester, and the Bishop of Winchester, head of the semi-
legitimatised family of Beaufort.
Of this Henry Beaufort, who was henceforth to
1422] BEAUFORT AND play an important part in the story of
BEDFORD Humphrey’s life, we must take some notice, for
he has not hitherto come across our path. As the
legitimatised son of a royal prince, his birth had taught him to push himself
forward. A man of great ability, he soon made himself a power that must be
reckoned with, and as Chancellor he had influenced the policy of the
kingdom as early as 1404. Till now he had had no commanding position
such as the minority of Henry VI. promised him; the field of his ambitions
was now enlarged, and if we cannot say that he was ‘one of the pillars of
the house of Lancaster,’[415] his importance must not be minimised. As a
man he was unscrupulous, imperious, and impatient of control; as an
ecclesiastic, he was more ostentatious than clerical. Even as Baldassare
Cossa had exchanged the life of an Italian condottiere for the papal chair, so
was Beaufort ever ready for an excuse to exchange the mitre for the helmet.
The future was to find him the belated exponent of a wise foreign policy,
and money-lender in chief to the dynasty; but we cannot fail to see in him
much of that factious spirit which produced the Wars of the Roses. Such a
man, of royal blood yet outside the succession, was no reassuring element

for those who weighed the chances of a successful reign for Henry VI. Of
quite another stamp was John, Duke of Bedford. Far above all his
contemporaries did he stand out in greatness of character and
statesmanship. He had none of the charm and personal magnetism which
gilded the career of his royal brother in the eyes of contemporaries, but he
had all the more solid qualities which stand for greatness without glamour.
A wise and careful, if not brilliant, general he was to show himself; a level-
headed administrator he had already proved to be during the long absences
of Henry V. His death was to remove the only obstacle to French victory,
and the only element of strength which the House of Lancaster possessed.
With a strong affinity to Henry V. in some qualities, he despised that politic
self-deception which enabled the latter to pose as the apostle of reform, and
it cannot be doubted that he alone of all men might possibly have saved
England from the disasters which threatened her internal peace.
His brother Humphrey, on the contrary, was in no way cut out to guide the
destinies of a nation in a ‘troubleous season.’ Versatile and brilliant,
endowed with the more taking but superficial qualities of his brother Henry,
he had shown himself an able soldier, an efficient regent, but he had had no
real training in statesmanship, and possessed no natural aptitude in this
direction. Above all, he had not sufficient strength of character to meet
opposition with a determination which could not be gainsaid; unlike
Bedford, he could not assume a judicial attitude, but by his assertions of
power only irritated, where he should have soothed, the conflicting
ambitions which took the place of statesmanship in the days of Henry VI.
No personal force, no determination, he became a party man, when he
should have dominated all parties, merely an item among discordant
factions. As yet these failings of character which rendered such great
abilities useless were not clearly apparent, indeed Henry V., above all things
a judge of good instruments for his work, had chosen him to govern
England. All through the late King had felt a growing confidence in his
youngest brother; to say that he trusted Bedford thoroughly, but Gloucester
only so far as it was necessary,[416] is an unfair summary of his reign. Again
and again did Henry trust Humphrey with important work, not once do we
find that the trust was misplaced, whether at the siege of Cherbourg, or
during his two short regencies in England. No signs of that factious spirit
which party politics produced in him were as yet apparent, and a
comparison between his and Bedford’s past records at this period shows no

balance one way or another. If Henry was indeed the statesman he is said to
have been, he must have known that the government of England was a more
important post both for ruled and ruler, than the already shaky government
of France, and yet he confided the chief task to Humphrey. Evidence as to
his distrust of Gloucester is found in his warning to him not to alienate
Burgundy, but the warning was given to all who were present, and they
were commissioned to hand it on to the only man not present who had a
large stake in the kingdom. Henry did not distrust his youngest brother, and
perhaps some indication of his increasing regard for him may be found in
the fact that, whereas in his first will he left him a mere trifle,[417] by his
second will he bequeathed to him the considerable legacy of all the royal
castles in the south of England.[418]
The history of Humphrey’s future career has one
1422] BEAUFORT’S PAST central theme running through every aspect of
RECORD his public life—the rivalry with Henry Beaufort,
a man whom Henry had no reason to trust in the
way he trusted his brother. On the eve of starting for France in 1417, after
all arrangements had been made, we find the sudden resignation of the
Chancellorship by the Bishop of Winchester[419] under circumstances which
point to royal compulsion; on the very day of resignation a full pardon for
all offences whatsoever was granted to him, a grant which suggests offences
which it was unwise to make public in the interests of the dynasty.[420]
When about to embark on the history of the famous quarrel of Gloucester
and Beaufort, let us remember that the former had been trusted by Henry V.,
and that the latter had not.
Thus the personality that had dominated English history for the last nine
years had passed away, and the field was thrown open to other leaders. To
Gloucester the change was full of significance. On the one hand, the power
which had controlled the Bishop of Winchester was removed, Beaufort
ambitions might now have full play, and would naturally be directed against
such a possible rival as Duke Humphrey. On the other hand, the man who
had leant more than he knew on the strength of his oldest brother was left to
face life without this support. Henceforth Humphrey must stand alone, and
very rapidly the weaknesses of his character begin to show themselves.
Hitherto we have seen little more than a machine carrying out its work
under strict guidance, henceforth we can discover the real man, and the

inward workings of his mind. His volatile nature, his incapacity at a period
of crisis, his inability to prosecute any venture to its legitimate end now
begin to appear. Hitherto we have had to explain his actions by reference to
the future, henceforth his true characteristics are manifest. His character
does not alter under changed circumstances, only its weakness, hitherto
concealed, is now revealed. Under the compulsion of independent action we
shall find him displayed in his true colours, a man guided by his passions
and yet hindered by a growing lassitude, a man with good intentions but no
stability, a man who lives for the moment and cannot see into the future.
Under the most favourable circumstances he might possibly have escaped
failure, but the Fates were against him. Already Jacqueline had come to
mould his policy in one false direction, already he had imbibed false ideas
as to the ethics of the war with France, now he was about to meet with that
opposition which was to reduce him to the ranks of a factious politician. Yet
in spite of his failures he was tenacious of fixed principles, he had a sense
of justice and right, and had he been left to govern England unmolested it is
probable that his love of law and order, which was part of his Lancastrian
inheritance, would have enabled him to leave a far worthier record on the
pages of English history than the historian can now give him. He had all the
negative virtues of weakness, he was open-handed, simple-minded, and
incapable of a deep-laid scheme, but his instability marred all his efforts.
Ambition came to him suddenly at the death of Henry V., and he had no
power to deck out this ambition with strength, and to make men feel that he
had any right to his immense pretensions.
The death of Henry V. was not generally known
1422] OPPOSITION TO in England till September 10. At that time, as we
GLOUCESTER have seen, Gloucester was Regent, and it would
have seemed natural that he should continue as
such until Parliament could meet to arrange matters. This, however, was not
to be the case. From the very outset of the reign the struggle for supremacy
in the kingdom of the infant boy began. The Bishop of Winchester had
behind him the experience gained under three successive kings, he had held
official positions, and he enjoyed a large and powerful family connection.
All this strength was at once used to prevent Gloucester’s influence in the
kingdom being anything but a name. The note of the sad years that were to
follow was thus struck when Beaufort’s influence was brought to bear on
the Council, and the Regent was given to understand that the kingdom was

no longer under his control.[421] This early interference shows the true
nature of the struggle which was to circle round the infant King. There was
no reason to distrust Humphrey at this time, so the action of the Bishop of
Winchester was obviously a personal move, dictated by his private desires
to control the policy of the kingdom. He had the magnates and the Council
at his back; it is possible that Humphrey was already so much the friend of
the people and the lower gentry as to arouse the opposition of the nobility;
at any rate everything was done to show the late Regent that he had no
importance, save as the uncle of the King. On September 28 Bishop
Langley resigned the Chancellorship, and though in deference to his rank as
premier peer then in England Gloucester was allowed to receive the Seal
from the Bishop’s hands, he was obliged to do so at Windsor in the presence
of the baby Henry, so that it might be emphasised that the act was his
nephew’s, not his own.[422] Also, when the writs were issued for
summoning Parliament, they were sealed ‘Teste Rege,’ not ‘Teste Custode,’
as had been the custom of Bedford and Gloucester when they had been
regents for Henry V.; and the first writ was addressed to Gloucester as first
lay lord, whereas under the regency the Regent had had no writ addressed
to him.[423]
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.

Such was the state of parties when Gloucester on
1422] APPOINTMENT OF November 9 opened Parliament as the King’s
THE PROTECTOR 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.

Notwithstanding the rebuff in the matter of the
1422] ALLIANCE OF Protectorate, Gloucester set to work
GLOUCESTER AND energetically, for though technically his powers
BEDFORD
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.
In the new year Gloucester’s salary as Protector
1423] GLOUCESTER’S was definitely settled. On February 12 it was
SALARY AND OFFICES 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.
On the eve of St. George’s Day (April 22)
1423] DIVISIONS IN THE Gloucester, exercising the functions of the
COUNCIL 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]
Before Parliament rose it was called upon to pass
1423] THE EARL OF an Act of Attainder against Sir John Mortimer,
MARCH 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.

CHAPTER IV
GLOUCESTER AND HAINAULT
No sooner were the discussions and heartburnings of the settlement of the
Protectorate over, than the volatile nature of Humphrey drew him off on
another venture which, though dictated by his main characteristic—
ambition, was entirely inconsistent with his desire to be supreme in
England. It may be that disgust and disappointment at his partial failure in
his first struggle with Beaufort impelled him to abandon his English
ambitions for a time, but it is quite obvious that if he wished to direct and
control English policy, it was not to his interest to leave the country to the
tender mercies of his enemies, while he prosecuted an impossible attempt to
dominate and govern Jacqueline’s Netherland dominions. It is also possible
that with high hopes of success in Hainault he hoped to establish himself
there quite definitely, and to abandon for ever his attempts to assert his
position in England. Whatever may have been his motive, it is plain that so
far as his English ambitions were concerned it was folly to embark on any
undertaking which would take him away from England. However,
considerations of policy never deterred Duke Humphrey; ever confident
that what he wished to do was wise, he had already taken the first step
towards his new undertaking before the question of the Protectorate was
finally settled, and we must therefore pick up the thread of this policy, and
his relations with the fugitive Countess of Hainault, who was the pivot on
which this part of his career turned.
The Duke of Burgundy had deeply resented the asylum given to Jacqueline
by Henry V., and his indignation had been still further increased by the
rumour that a new marriage with the King’s brother, Humphrey, was under
consideration. To the Duke’s protest, however, Henry had practically turned
a deaf ear, for he seems to have put no check upon his brother’s actions;
else he would not have sent him back to England in 1422, and thus placed
him in near proximity to such dangerous attractions. More than this, he had
gone out of his way to honour the lady, and it must have been with his
consent that she was chosen to hold his infant son at the font, and to stand

sponsor for him at his baptism in 1421.[468] This policy of favour to
Jacqueline was not abandoned after his death, for her allowance of £100 a
month—a really princely sum—was continued.[469]
Meanwhile Humphrey had not delayed his
1422–3] MARRIAGE TO wooing. We have no definite evidence as to the
JACQUELINE personal appearance of the object of his
attentions, for though the chroniclers allude to
her beauty and attractive qualities, her portraits, such as they are, give us a
rather heavy-faced woman with but moderate features. That she was lively
and full of spirits none can doubt, and there may have been in her some
strong attraction for the rather susceptible Duke, yet as Polydore Vergil
shrewdly suggests, the territories which she claimed were probably a more
potent attraction to Humphrey than the charms of her person.[470] Whatever
his motives Gloucester had soon come to an understanding with Jacqueline,
and their marriage was probably arranged before Henry V.’s death. The
Countess had ordered declarations that her former marriage was null and
void to be posted on the church doors throughout Hainault and Holland, and
there exists a legend that the two lovers applied to the Antipope Benedict
XIII., who had been deposed by the Council of Constance, for a dissolution
of her marriage with John of Brabant, a request with which the prisoner of
Peniscola immediately complied.[471] In proof of this statement there is not
sufficient documentary evidence, yet in the absence of any action by Martin
V., some form of divorce seems to have been gone through, and a
contemporary writer, by no means favourable to the Duke, declares that
Jacqueline was properly divorced by law after a complete examination of
the question by learned doctors, and this before her third marriage.[472]
When exactly this marriage took place is uncertain. Certainly no public
ceremony was performed, since such an event must have attracted universal
attention,[473] and there is considerable disagreement among the various
writers as to even the approximate date of the occurrence. That the marriage
did not take place before Henry V.’s death on 31st August 1422 we know
from a definite statement to this effect by Jacqueline herself in 1427;[474]
but it must have been shortly after this that the two became man and wife.
Even by October 25 a rumour had reached Mons, that the Duke of Brabant
had received news that his wife had ignored his rights, and had married

Gloucester, that she was already with child, and wished to come to Quesnoy
for her confinement.[475] That this is no more than a story, inspired by the
known intentions of Jacqueline, is shown by the obvious untruth of the last
statement; but on February 9 following a writ was received at Mons from
the Countess convening a meeting of the Estates, at which her marriage was
to be announced.[476] All this goes to prove that Cocqueau spoke the truth
when he wrote, ‘Gloucester married Jacqueline in the month of January of
this 22nd year (O.S.), as I have seen in a letter belonging to John Abbot of
St. Vast, notifying that the said Gloucester had written to the Duke of
Burgundy telling him that he had married the said lady, whereby her
territories belonged to him.’[477]
In spite of the declaration of a sixteenth-century writer that this marriage
was ‘not only wondered at of the comon people, but also detested of the
nobilite, and abhorred of the clergie,’[478] it seems to have aroused no
adverse comment at the time. Gloucester’s new title was recognised as early
as the March following,[479] and later in the year his new wife was
recognised as Duchess of Gloucester, when she was made a denizen of
England by Act of Parliament with the full rights of an English-born
subject, at the same time as Bedford’s newly married wife, Anne of
Burgundy, had the same privileges conferred upon her.[480] It is apparent
from this that no distinction was made between the wives of the two dukes,
and that at a time when Humphrey was being opposed in his ambitions at
home no opposition was raised to his daring and uncanonical marriage with
a foreign princess. It is strange to notice that on the same day were
completed the last formalities of confirmation in the matter of two royal
marriages—that of Bedford, of which the whole and avowed object was the
maintenance of the Burgundian alliance, and that of Gloucester, which was
to bring that alliance so near to a definite rupture. We must gather from this
that as yet the significance of Humphrey’s action had not been realised, and
that Jacqueline was still regarded—even as Henry V. had regarded her—as a
valuable political asset, rather than as a possible stumbling-block in the way
of English aggrandisement in France.
No sooner were the formalities of Jacqueline’s
1423] CHRISTMAS AT ST. naturalisation accomplished, than she was taken
ALBANS by her husband to visit that monastery where

above all Gloucester was popular owing to his friendship with the famous
Abbot of St. Albans, John Bostock, better known as Wheathampsted, a
name borrowed from his birthplace. They were accompanied by three
hundred attendants, some English, and some ‘Teutonici,’ a term which
alludes probably to the Dutch, Flemish, and possibly German retainers,
whom Gloucester had collected in preparation for his coming campaign in
Holland. At St. Albans Jacqueline was acknowledged as Humphrey’s true
and legitimate wife, and they were met at the entrance by the Prior, who,
representing the Abbot, at that time absent at the Council of Pavia, led a
procession to welcome the visitors as they approached the monastery on
Christmas Eve. The festivities of the season were there celebrated, though
they were somewhat marred by the disorderliness of some of Gloucester’s
servants, who took to poaching in the neighbouring woods, and were found
in possession of a goodly collection of roebucks and hinds which they had
already flayed. One of the offenders was secured and put into the stocks by
the authorities, but this did not satisfy the impetuous Duke, who seized a
mattress-beater and broke his unruly servant’s head, ordering at the same
time the slaughter of his greyhound. ‘Thus,’ says the admiring chronicler,
‘he set at rest this evil appetite on the part of his servants by one striking
example.’[481]
Jacqueline and Gloucester stayed at St. Albans for a fortnight, and having
kept the Feast of the Epiphany there, they were the following day received
into the fraternity. This admission into the brotherhood imposed no
monastic severities, nor did it confer any new civil rights, but it was
regarded as a mark of honour, and those admitted were allowed to vote in
the Chapter. On the monastery itself it had a more important bearing, for
Wheathampsted had restored the custom, long in disuse, in order to procure
funds for the house over which he ruled. This was the last event of
Gloucester’s visit, and having presented the monastery with two pipes of
‘good red wine’ as an acknowledgment of their splendid entertainment
during the Christmas festivities, husband and wife left St. Albans.[482]
However gratifying the acknowledgment in
1424] BURGUNDY AND England of Jacqueline’s right to be called his
GLOUCESTER wife might be to Gloucester, he was determined
to assert his right to control her territories
abroad, and nothing would induce him to lay aside this project. At the same

time it was beginning to dawn on the minds of Englishmen that the
objection of Burgundy to Humphrey’s pretended rights was insurmountable,
and that the assertion of those rights would jeopardise the Anglo-
Burgundian alliance concluded in the preceding April at Amiens, and
cemented by the marriage of Bedford to Duke Philip’s sister Anne.[483]
Indeed the Council had already received a letter from the University of
Paris warning them of the impending danger, and emphasising the fact that
the position held by England in France had its ‘root and origin’ in
Burgundian support.[484] It was at this time, too, that Burgundy gave a clear
indication of the course of action he intended to pursue. As far back as
March 14, 1422, during the siege of Meaux, Henry V. had secured his
election to the Order of the Garter at a chapter held for that purpose in
France. Philip, however, had not formally accepted the nomination when
Henry V. died, and he then put off the acceptance on the ground that the
Order demanded a strict union of its members and forbade them to bear
arms against one another. For two years his doubts continued, until, in
answer to a peremptory requisition from the Chapter at Windsor, he excused
himself from accepting the honour conferred upon him, lest he should be
reduced thereby to the dishonourable alternative of either violating the
revered statutes of the Order, or infringing the sacred rights of kinship.[485]
In such a way did the Duke assert his intention of resisting Gloucester’s
claims on Hainault.
Bedford was now fully alive to the danger attending his brother’s ambitions,
and he initiated a series of attempts to settle the matters in dispute between
the Dukes of Brabant and Gloucester, with himself and the Duke of
Burgundy as arbitrators.[486] To this end it was necessary to secure the
consent of the two parties concerned, and in October 1423 John of Brabant
published a formal acceptance of such arbitrament,[487] but at the same time
gave to the world an agreement which he had signed with Burgundy in the
previous June.[488] In this document, while accepting Burgundy and
Bedford as arbitrators, and agreeing not to ally with any of the former’s
enemies before the decision had been given, he at the same time stipulated
that if his rival refused to follow the same course in the matter of
arbitration, he himself should be absolved from this agreement. On the
other hand, Burgundy agreed to certain stipulations which seem to bind him
in a way that makes him appear as a very partisan arbitrator. He promised

on oath that in the discussion of the case ‘he would ordain, appoint, and
determine nothing which should not be with the knowledge, consent, and
wish of the Lord of Brabant,’ and that if Gloucester refused to place his case
in the hands of the arbitrators, he would help his cousin of Brabant to resist
the attacks of his opponent, so long as the said cousin would agree not to
make peace with Gloucester without his ally’s consent.[489]
It is hardly surprising that Humphrey hesitated to put his case in the hands
of judges, when one of them was already bound to his opponent, and
moreover he regarded his case as quite beyond dispute, and resented any
suggestion that his brother should consider that there could be any question
of right or wrong in the matter of his marriage. However, after an
unsuccessful meeting between Bedford and Burgundy in the latter days of
1423,[490] the former induced his brother to acknowledge the court of
arbitration, and to issue a formal declaration to that effect on 15th February
1424, with the proviso that the matter must be settled before the end of
March.[491] Another attempt was made to bring about a reconciliation at
Amiens, but the matter was again postponed until Trinity Sunday.[492]
Bedford to satisfy Burgundy ceded certain French territories to him, and at
the same time induced both Gloucester and Jacqueline to agree to the
arbitrament, if matters were settled before the end of June;[493] but in the
meantime Burgundian disinterestedness was put still more in doubt by the
recognition of Duke Philip as the heir of the weakling John of Brabant.[494]
However much we may condemn the way in which Humphrey was sowing
discord between England and her ally, and helping to rob his country of the
fruits of the victory of Verneuil, we cannot but understand his hesitation in
submitting his case for decision to two men, one of whom was bound to
gain by his loss, whilst the other was led by the single desire of conciliating
his fellow-arbitrator.
Of the justice of his cause Humphrey was quite convinced, he was equally
determined to assert his supposed rights, and he did not see that any
advantage would accrue from these discussions. Nevertheless he sent
representatives to the Council to be held in France, stating his case plainly
in the instructions that he sent with them, and emphasising the fact that this
was the second time that he had been put to the trouble of sending
ambassadors about these affairs, for when he was represented at Bruges,

Brabant was not. The basis of his case lay on the unalterable contention that
he and Jacqueline were true man and wife by the laws of the Church, and
that this marriage entailed for him the government not only of his wife’s
person, but also of her dominions. Brabant, having contracted an illegal
marriage with the heiress of Hainault, was now in wrongful possession of
her lands. There were three reasons why this marriage was illegal. In the
first place, consanguinity in the second degree was a bar to the union, since
the parties concerned were first cousins; further there was the obstacle of
affinity in the third degree through the relationship of the Dauphin John,
Jacqueline’s first husband, to the Duke of Brabant—a relationship, be it
noted, that also existed between her and this same first husband; besides all
this, the fact that Jacqueline’s mother was also godmother to John of
Brabant created a spiritual relationship between the two, which, according
to the laws of the Church constituted a third obstacle. To the argument that
these objections were removed by papal dispensation it was answered, that
the dispensation was procured by fraud, and by the suppression of the truth,
and that within four days it was revoked, Brabant being notified of this fact.
If it were argued still further that reconfirmatory letters were received at a
still later date, it was obvious that they were useless, for the revocation of
the dispensation was absolute, and could not be rescinded save by a new
dispensation; moreover the marriage was consummated before these last
letters arrived, so that the actual marriage must have been illegal, and was
so still, as no new ceremony had been performed.[495] It cannot be denied
that, as a point of strict law, there is much to be said for this presentment of
the case. The dispensation had originally been signed and sealed on
December 22, 1417,[496] and the revocation had followed, under pressure
from the Bishop of Liége, better known as John of Bavaria, and the
Emperor Sigismund, on the following 5th of January, whilst it was not till
September 5, when the Pope had left Constance and Imperial influence
behind him, that he signed the letters which re-enacted the dispensation.
Thus the statement of Humphrey was true and formed an arguable case, and
he put aside all counter-arguments based on the ground of consent by the
assertion that Jacqueline had retired to her mother’s protection so soon as
she had realised the enormity of her offence.
By these means was the legality of Jacqueline’s last marriage to be proved,
and the case was strengthened by the assertion, that at the time when

negotiations for breaking off the Brabant marriage were on foot Duke John
had agreed that the contracting parties were to be free, if no papal Bull to
the contrary was issued before a certain date, and, since no such Bull had
arrived, Jacqueline had acted honestly, as well as lawfully in the matter. As
to the territories which were the main cause of dispute, Brabant had
promised not to alienate them, and since he had broken his promise,
Gloucester demanded their surrender to him with the income derived
therefrom during this unlawful possession.[497]
These instructions contain an uncompromising demand for all the rights
that Humphrey claimed, a demand which is strengthened by Brabant’s
rejoinder. He does not dispute the foregoing arguments, but merely
stipulates that, if the estates are adjudged to Gloucester, he must recognise
all existing appointments, both ecclesiastical and secular, besides all
judgments, laws, contracts, and pardons, and that he himself shall not be
responsible for a dower for the Countess, for debts incurred in Hainault, nor
for any further expenses at the Court of Rome.[498] In the light of these
stipulations, which are in themselves a confession of defeat, it is the more
surprising that the commissioners could not come to a decision. They
declared that the evidence on both sides was insufficient to justify a definite
judgment, and they recommended an appeal to the Court of Rome both on
the question of the marriage, and on the question of the territories. The most
they could do was to promise to forward an earnest request to the Pope to
settle the matter out of hand should both parties agree to this course, and to
notify his decision to them before August 1.[499]
The reasons for this equivocal reply are not far to seek. On the evidence
produced Humphrey had an overwhelming case, but the interests of
Burgundy, who meant to inherit the disputed dominions from his
submissive cousin of Brabant, forebade a decision in the Englishman’s
favour. Bedford, on the other hand, probably refused to consent to a verdict
against his brother when the case against him was practically unsupported.
The Duke of Brabant cared not what happened, so long as his safety and his
pocket were secured, and henceforth he passed out of the struggle, which
now became a contest between the two Dukes of Burgundy and of
Gloucester, the former for a reversion, the latter for immediate possession
of Jacqueline’s inheritance. Politically the policy of Humphrey was now
more reprehensible than before. It was evident that Duke Philip intended to

make it a matter personal to himself, and yet personal ambition was allowed
to swallow up the advantage of a nation, and the man who later called for a
continuance of the French war was now about to do his utmost to hamper
its prosecution. We have no evidence whether the suggestion made by the
arbitrators was followed, but we have a letter which was written by Bedford
to the Pope at this time urging him to carry through the divorce of
Jacqueline and Brabant very quickly, and pointing out the deplorable loss of
life and the horrors of war likely to result if he did not do so.[500] Bedford at
least had gauged the situation. He saw that his brother had a strong case, on
paper at any rate, and that he meant to profit by it to the utmost of his
power, but at the same time he realised that the only means of coercing
Burgundy was to approach him under the shadow of a papal Bull.
Meanwhile Gloucester had been preparing to
1424] DEPARTURE FOR assert his claims by force of arms. For some time
HAINAULT past he had been in communication with the
towns of Hainault,[501] and he had not been
behindhand in collecting men in England. Unable to get any support from
the Privy Council,[502] he had to fall back on his own resources, and he
managed to raise a considerable body of troops, though in some cases his
efforts to borrow money met with a curt refusal.[503] On the other hand, he
used his position as Warden of the Cinque Ports to secure ships to transport
his soldiers,[504] and when the arbitrators had acknowledged their inability
to arbitrate, both he and his Duchess considered themselves absolved from
their promise to await its decision, a promise, too, which had expired at the
end of June.
All things were now ready, but before setting out on their expedition
Gloucester and his wife went to take farewell of one, who in her sad
confinement could sympathise with the luckless fate of the exiled
Jacqueline. On September 14, the day of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross,
the Duchess of Gloucester passed through St. Albans after vespers with an
escort of twenty-four horse on her way to Langley to visit Queen Joan, and
two days later her husband, accompanied by ‘John Robessart,’ followed in
the same direction.[505] By September 29 both Duke and Duchess were at
Dover, where an embassy from Mons found them,[506] and Gloucester
proceeded to turn his back on England, where in his absence the Bishop of

Winchester, as Chancellor, was left to carry on the work of the Protector.
[507]
It is characteristic of Gloucester that this new attraction had made him
forget his political ambitions at home, and that for the time he was content
to leave the kingdom in the hands of his rival. For some days hostile winds
kept him in port, but before long they veered round, and at ten o’clock on
the morning of October 16 he set sail from Dover with forty-two ships,
reaching Calais between three and four o’clock of the same day, in spite of
a severe storm encountered on the way.[508]
At Calais Duke and Duchess rested for some time, as they had only brought
over the vanguard of their army. But they were not idle. Immediately on
arrival they each despatched letters to Mons, the capital of Hainault, in
which they announced their safe arrival at Calais and their intention to
come and take possession of their dominions; meanwhile the town was to
make every preparation for their honourable reception.[509] At the same time
speculation was rife in the neighbourhood of Calais as to the route which
Gloucester would take in his advance on Hainault. On the day after
disembarkation, ambassadors appeared from Flanders, and at an audience
granted them on the 18th, urged the Duke not to pass through their territory,
as it would be inconvenient to them, and since the roads were narrow, the
bridges dangerous, and the waterways frequent, to him also. They were told
that no decision had yet been taken, but that in any case their country would
be unhurt. Following these came other ambassadors from Artois, who in
quite another strain begged Humphrey to make use of their country as a
means of access to Hainault. Both embassies were courteously received.[510]
To Calais also came messengers from Bedford
1424] GLOUCESTER AT with the news that Brabant had sent envoys to
CALAIS Paris to appeal once more to the arbitrators, and
with an invitation from the English Regent in
France to his brother to meet him at some convenient place to discuss the
matter.[511] Gloucester, however, had made up his mind to proceed with his
undertaking, and he returned an evasive reply. Nevertheless a Council was
called in Paris, mainly it would seem to pacify Burgundy, who was furious
at this interference in what he considered his own happy hunting-ground,
and after mature consideration terms of agreement were drawn up and sent
to the contending parties, Ralph de Boutillier and the Abbot of Fécamp

being commissioned to bear them to Humphrey.[512] Though Brabant
accepted the terms, neither the Duke nor the Duchess of Gloucester would
have anything to do with them, and this last attempt at a settlement failed.
[513]
We have no record of what these terms were, but it seems likely that
they were highly favourable to Burgundy’s protégé, for on hearing of their
rejection Duke Philip flew into a mighty passion, and declared roundly to
Bedford that he would resist the English claimant with all his forces, a
course he could easily take as he had just signed a truce with the Dauphin.
With a sad heart Bedford bore with the angry Duke, and attempted to
appease his wrath by a round of dancing and jousting. Paris was very gay in
her attempt to bolster up the Anglo-Burgundian alliance.[514] For a time
these measures were successful, and though he coquetted with the party of
the Dauphin, Burgundy did not abandon his friendship with England.[515]
Meanwhile Gloucester had had some correspondence with the Pope, partly
with reference to the slanders which he thought a certain Simon de Taramo
had uttered against him, and partly on the subject of the delay in admitting
Martin V.’s nephew, Prospero Colonna, to the Archdeaconry of Canterbury,
a delay probably fostered by Gloucester, as a hold over the man who could
make his marriage undeniably legal.[516] The correspondence on both sides
was of a most friendly nature, and in one letter the Duke urged a speedy
granting of the divorce, which he desired not only because of his great love
for Jacqueline, but also because of the underhand behaviour of his
opponents.[517] This complaint of underhand dealings would be hardly
justified were we to accept as genuine another correspondence attributed to
this time, and preserved in the Archives at Lille. According to these letters,
a plot, to which Bedford was privy, was on foot between Gloucester,
Suffolk, and Salisbury to murder the Duke of Burgundy, much in the same
way as his father had met his end at the Bridge of Montereau. Much
circumstantial evidence is to be found therein, showing that Gloucester’s
motive was to prevent Burgundian interference with his Hainault plans.[518]
It is, however, beyond dispute that these letters were the work of one
William Benoist, who forged them at the instigation of the Constable de
Richemont for the latter’s political purposes.[519] Neither Bedford nor
Gloucester would have stooped to such an expedient, for though the
younger of the two brothers might be unscrupulous and ambitious, yet

murder was a crime of which no one could imagine him guilty. With all his
faults he would never have thus tarnished his fair name.
The month of October was now passed, and the
1424] MARCH FROM Earl Marshal had arrived in the early morning of
CALAIS TO HAINAULT November 2 with forty-two sail and the second
detachment of Gloucester’s army, and on the
evening of the same day four more ships arrived. A week later the troops
marched out as far as the castle of Guisnes, there to await the last
contingent which was now due. They had not long to wait, for on
November 13 twenty-two more ships arrived at Calais, and immediately
preparations were made for the start.[520] Early in the morning of November
18 Gloucester led out his men on the first stage of the march to Hainault.
[521]
The vanguard consisted of 1100 horse, or thereabouts, with 800 horse
and 300 men-at-arms in the main battle, while the rearguard comprised
2000 men, in all, therefore, the force consisted of some 4200 troops.[522]
Over this army the Earl Marshal had supreme command.[523] It is strange
that with his military experience Gloucester did not undertake to lead his
troops in person, but the explanation may be found in the report of his
physician as to his state of health, which seems to have been anything but
good at this time.[524] The route chosen for the march was through Artois,
by way of Thérouaune and Béthune, and passing to the north of Lens, the
army reached Hainault territory, making its first halt therein at Bouchain.
[525]
All through the county of Artois, which was Burgundian territory, the
utmost care was taken to keep the soldiers in strict order; neither were the
people annoyed nor was the country injured by the passage of the English
forces.[526] All this was done to the end that no personal injury should
induce Duke Philip to resist the invasion of those territories which were
claimed by the Duke of Brabant.
In Hainault there was no rejoicing when the return of their long absent
princess was announced. The traders and merchants of the towns had
increased their prosperity during the Regency of John of Bavaria, the able
and unscrupulous ex-Bishop of Liége, to whom Brabant had yielded the
government of Jacqueline’s dominions for a term of years. Whatever might
be the private convictions of the citizen class, they cared for nothing so
much as for peace, and this new invasion, though undertaken in the name of

hereditary right and good government, only promised a long civil war and
the consequent disturbance of trade and commerce.[527] The nobles might
champion Jacqueline, or range themselves under the banner of Brabant, but
they were not the most important factor in the country. It was on the support
of the towns that any governmental authority must be based, for these
strong trading communities had been enabled to strengthen themselves
against the rural nobility by superior organisation and co-operation, and by
superior wealth. All that they needed was a strong hand to govern the
country with impartiality and justice, to keep the turbulent nobility in check,
and to give untrammelled opportunities for expanding commerce and
acquiring wealth. This ideal had been practically realised under the
government of John of Bavaria—though his energies had been devoted
more to Holland and Zealand than to Hainault—a realisation which was not
expected from the rule of Jacqueline and her unknown English husband. It
was in this spirit, therefore, that the town of Valenciennes refused to admit
her Countess within her walls,[528] and that the citizens of Mons sent an
urgent embassy to the Dowager-Countess, asking her to use her influence to
induce her daughter not to enter their city, nor to bring ‘Monsieur de
Gloucester’ with her;[529] indeed, if we are to believe an English chronicler,
the various states of Jacqueline’s heritage had united in offering Humphrey
an annual tribute of £30,000 to be left in peace.[530]
Both the Dowager Margaret and the Count of St.
1424] RECEPTION AT Pol, Brabant’s younger brother, had done their
MONS utmost to avert the invasion of Hainault by
Gloucester,[531] and the former had sent an
urgent embassy to England for this purpose, to the expenses of which the
various towns had contributed;[532] but when all chances of keeping the
peace had passed away, she threw in her lot with her daughter, and seems to
have entered into cordial relations with her new-found son-in-law.[533] The
Mons embassy was therefore sent in vain, and in reply to their request the
citizens learnt that the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and their mother
intended to enter their capital in triumph on the following Sunday.[534]
Resistance was out of the question when on Monday the 27th Humphrey,
with a force of about 5000 men, and accompanied by Jacqueline and her
mother, left Crespin and appeared before the gates of the city. Making the
beat of a bad business, the citizens determined to welcome their princess

and her new husband, but they steadfastly refused to admit the whole army
within the walls. After some discussion it was arranged that the soldiers
should find accommodation in the suburbs outside the fortifications, and
that an escort of not more than 300 horse should be admitted within the city,
among which there were hardly any English, their number being mainly
made up of the Dowager’s Hainault troopers, whom she had brought with
her to swell the invading army.[535]
Thus early was Gloucester brought face to face with the fact that his wife’s
subjects did not regard him as the saviour of their country, but rather as a
foreign intruder, and one whose intentions were suspected. Yet, however
suspicious they might be of Humphrey’s intentions, the men of Mons had
quickly made up their minds to accept the inevitable and to make the best of
it. On the Tuesday they waited on their lady and her husband at the
Naasterhof, where they were lodged, and paid their respects to them,
presenting the former with two butts of wine, the one idea of an acceptable
present in the Netherlands of the fifteenth century, it would seem. At the
same time the Estates of Hainault were summoned to meet on December 1,
and the interval was spent by Gloucester in exploring the city. On the
Wednesday he accompanied his wife on a visit to the garden of the archery
guild, where he gave six nobles towards the completion of the chapel;
thence they went to see the view from the hill in the park, and finished their
tour of inspection at the castle.[536]
On the day appointed the Estates assembled at
1424] RECOGNITION OF the Naasterhof at ten o’clock in the morning, and
MARRIAGE the business of the meeting was begun by a
speech from Jan Lorfevre,[537] ‘subprior of the
church of the scholars,’ who was appointed to set forth the grounds upon
which Jacqueline and Gloucester based their united claims to the estates of
the late Count William of Holland. The arguments he used against the
marriage of the princess and the Duke of Brabant were the same as had
been laid before the court of arbitration, and he added that Jacqueline had
always disliked the alliance, and bitterly repented her of the sin she had
committed in ever consenting to it. For this sin she had done penance, both
in monetary payments and in bodily sufferings, and had received
absolutions; then after having consulted several famous Italian ecclesiastics
and other wise men as to the legality of the proceeding, she had married the

Duke of Gloucester. In the light of these facts, as here set forth, she now
demanded that her husband should be recognised as Regent and Protector of
Hainault by reason of this marriage.[538] The Hainaulters were now
compelled to make a definite decision between the two parties, and it
seemed obvious to many that their only means of safety, for the present at
any rate, was to acknowledge Humphrey to be the true and only husband of
Jacqueline, and to throw in their lot with the party which could command
the five thousand or more soldiers encamped hard by. Nevertheless, there
was a strong minority which objected strongly to the English prince, and
showed its objection by abstention from the meeting of the Estates. It was
therefore three days before a quorum could be secured to transact any
business, but finally on December 4 the Estates determined to recognise
their lady’s last marriage, and to send letters to the Duke of Brabant
renouncing all allegiance to him.[539] Thus Hainault officially decided to
support the claims of Gloucester, though Holland and Zealand, at a safe
distance from the reach of his forces, refused to have any part in these
proceedings, and threw in their lot with the Duke of Brabant.[540]
The Hainaulters, however, were by no means unanimous as to the step that
had been taken. The hesitation of so many members of the Estates was a
reflection of the attitude of the whole county, and there was still ample
evidence that there was no abatement of the feud of Hook and Cod, which
distinguished the supporters of Jacqueline from their hereditary enemies.
Though the towns might follow the lead of the Estates, and yield a grudging
acknowledgment of their lady’s claims, there was still a very powerful
nobility to be counted with, of which body prominent members openly
defied the new ruler. Whilst the nobles as a whole dissembled their
opposition, there were certain notable exceptions to this rule, for the Count
of Conversan, his kinsman Messire Engilbert d’Edingen, and the Lord of
Jeumont refused to accept the new state of affairs, and declared themselves
firm adherents of the Brabant cause.[541]
To all appearance, however, Humphrey’s power was supreme, and he
decided to make a tour of inspection round the towns which had accepted
his rule, even as Jacqueline herself had done when she first succeeded to
her inheritance. He first took the oaths in the name of his wife as Countess,
and for himself as governor of the county at Mons on December 5,
receiving the usual present of wine after the ceremony,[542] and then, having

appointed the Lord of Hainau to be bailiff of Hainault,[543] he left for
Soignies, where he renewed his oaths next day. In turn he visited
Manbeuge, Le Quesnoy, and Valenciennes, promising to guard the citizens
and to respect the laws, and receiving in exchange the acknowledgment of
his position as regent.[544] All the other towns seem to have followed the
lead of these principal cities, and yielded obedience to Humphrey,[545] but it
must be noticed that the authority acknowledged was merely that of regent
for his wife. Nowhere do we find a suggestion that Gloucester had any
power of his own right, or that his description as Count of Hainault was
anything but a titular honour, and it may be that it was hoped by this means
to avert the intervention of the Duke of Burgundy. Under the present
arrangement there would be no obstacle to prevent the Duke from acquiring
the Hainault inheritance on Jacqueline’s death, except in the now
improbable event of the birth of a child, and it is likewise possible that in
taking this precaution both Count and Countess thought that they had
averted all chance of Burgundian interference, in spite of the threats of
Duke Philip at Paris, which we must suppose had reached their ears.
The bare acknowledgment of his position as regent to his wife did not
satisfy Gloucester, who had not undertaken the assertion of her rights with
any single-minded or chivalrous intention of giving justice to the wronged,
and on his return to Mons he summoned the Estates of Hainault, and
demanded a grant of forty thousand French gold crowns to recoup him for
his expense in bringing an army to Hainault. To this demand the
representatives of the towns demurred, for they had never asked for this
army, with which they would much rather have dispensed, and a stormy
debate on the subject on December 28 failed to result in any decision. On
the following day, however, the delegates were brought to realise that, left
to themselves, they would be helpless now that they had defied Brabant,
and they agreed to the grant on condition that it was reduced by only
counting forty ‘sols’ to the crown.[546]
This half-hearted consent to Gloucester’s demands was wrung from very
unwilling subjects. The English troops were not popular in Hainault. They
had shown themselves but little under control, and had fully justified the
fears felt with regard to them when they first appeared outside Mons.[547] At
Soignies Gloucester had received urgent messages from the capital, begging
him not to allow any of his English troops, except those of his household, to

re-enter the town,[548] and again at Valenciennes he had been requested to
put some restraint on the ravages of his men.[549] Discontent at the outrages
perpetrated by their so-called protectors was increased by the unsettled state
of affairs, and the lack of energy displayed by the regent; at St. Ghislain his
officers had been refused admission, though only accompanied by four
men.[550] Moreover, Gloucester’s authority was defied, at least in one
instance, on the plea that a grant by Jacqueline overruled his commands.
[551]
Thus the oaths which Gloucester had sworn to keep law and order in
the county were proved to be useless, and it was in vain that Mons insisted
on their renewal in the most solemn manner,[552] when a divided authority
and a reckless unrestrained soldiery combined to bring the horrors of war to
the doors of the unfortunate Hainaulters.
It is not surprising, therefore, that projects for mediation between the two
Dukes came to the front, and that the citizens of Mons appealed to their
fellows of Valenciennes to join with them in invoking the towns of Ghent
and Namur to intervene for the purpose of bringing about a reconciliation.
[553]
Such a reconciliation was the only hope for the wretched Hainaulters,
who on the one hand would court disaster should they rise against the
dominant power of Gloucester, whilst on the other they reaped a bitter
harvest from their association with his cause. To strengthen this movement,
further efforts at mediation came in the shape of another embassy from
Burgundy and Bedford, which arrived at Mons in February under the
leadership of the Archbishop of Arras.[554] Mediation, however, whether by
towns or Dukes, proved equally abortive, as it was not likely that either side
would consent to conditions so long as each hoped to secure a papal
decision in its favour.
Martin V. was still hesitating as to whether or no
1425] INDECISION OF he should grant the divorce. It mattered little to
THE POPE him that a distracted people eagerly looked for a
judgment that might give them relief; and he
thought that by delay he might secure some great concession from one side
or the other, or at least he might wait till he could see which party was
likely to gain the upper hand. Besides, it must be remembered that immense
possibilities—far greater than the question of the rights of a petty Princess
of Hainault—lay behind this decision. The course of the war between

France and England might lie in the balance which hung between the
contending Dukes, and a verdict on the divorce appeal, given at a critical
moment, might help to end that long-protracted struggle. Be this as it may,
rumours, born of this long waiting for a judgment, arose in the Low
Countries, and it was reported that a Bull of divorce between the Duke of
Brabant and Jacqueline had been granted by the Holy See, a report which
reached as far as Zealand, where the citizens of Zierkzee wrote to the
authorities at Mons, asking for a confirmation of the report if it were indeed
true.[555] Before long these rumours reached Rome, and on February 13
Martin wrote to Brabant, declaring the Bulls of divorce now circulating in
the dioceses of Utrecht, Liége, and Cambray to be absolute forgeries.[556] At
the same time he sent letters to Gloucester in which he asserted that the
opinion that Jacqueline’s English marriage was undoubtedly legal, currently
attributed to him, had never been expressed, and that all he had said was,
that he hoped that it might be proved so.[557] Rome was still shuffling,
though the purport of the two letters was calculated to improve the position
of Brabant rather than that of Gloucester, but for the present this did not
affect the course of affairs, for the first letter at least did not reach its
destination till Humphrey had turned his back for ever on Hainault.[558]
While Gloucester had been steadily alienating the sympathies of the men of
Hainault, and attempting to justify his invasion of the country, his troops
had not been idle. In December the Earl Marshal had invaded the territory
of Brabant, and had ravaged the country with fire and sword, penetrating as
far as Brussels and carrying off much booty and many prisoners.[559] No
organised resistance was made to the inroad. The Duke of Brabant, weak
and unenterprising as usual, took no interest in the defence even of his
hereditary duchy[560]; so little did he bestir himself that a rumour was
spread abroad that he was dead.[561] Though this was untrue, a further
report that John of Bavaria had died was substantiated,[562] for the energetic
ex-bishop had fallen down dead suddenly at the very beginning of 1425,
[563]
and thus, from the death of one John and the inertia of the other, there
seemed to be every likelihood that Hainault at least would pass definitely
under Gloucester’s rule.
There was one man, however, who had to be counted with, one who would
brook no interference within his sphere of influence, and this was the Duke

of Burgundy. The titular principals in this drama
1425] BURGUNDIAN have retired to the back of the stage; Jacqueline
INTERVENTION and the Duke of Brabant give place to Humphrey
of Gloucester and Philip of Burgundy. The plot,
too, has widened, and has ceased to be confined to the mere states under
dispute; it has become a personal question with an European significance.
When Philip had left Paris vowing that he would resist the ambitions of
Gloucester, he meant what he said. A truce concluded with the party of the
Dauphin had enabled him to devote his whole attentions to this end, and on
December 20 he had issued letters from Dijon to his vassals in Picardy,
Artois, and the neighbouring territories summoning them to arm for the
defence of Hainault under the leadership of John of Luxembourg.[564] By
this means a considerable force was despatched to join the troops which the
Count of St. Pol was collecting under the auspices of Burgundy in Brabant,
and by the beginning of the new year a body of some forty thousand men,
so the chroniclers tell us,[565] was ready to invade Hainault under the
brother of Duke John, who himself was too much of a lay figure to
command the troops in person.[566] As a preliminary to the attack on
Hainault, the frontier towns in Brabant territory were garrisoned, and from
these bases frequent predatory expeditions were made across the borders,
thus inflicting on the unfortunate Hainaulters the twofold burden of an
enemy’s devastation and a so-called friend’s foraging parties.[567]
Gloucester had already garrisoned many of the towns under his command,
and the two forces were constantly meeting in skirmish and counter-attack,
till early in March St. Pol crossed the frontier, and invested the town of
Braine-le-Comte.
St. Pol’s army was a heterogeneous collection of men from various sources.
Round him were gathered nobles of Brabant, and the discontented from
Hainault, Burgundian troops, Brabantine levies, and even Frenchmen from
amongst those who espoused the cause of the Dauphin, all comprising a
powerful but somewhat unwieldy and undisciplined force.[568] In Braine
there was an English garrison of two hundred men, but the numbers of the
defenders were swollen by the citizens, who took up arms to resist the
invader. For eight days[569] a spirited defence was maintained, but
superstitious fear quelled the ardour of the Englishmen when they seemed
to see their patron saint St. George riding his white horse among the

besiegers. On March 11 terms were offered and accepted; the English were
to be allowed to march out with the honours of war, taking with them their
private property, whilst the townsmen were to be immune from molestation
in return for a certain monetary payment. This agreement, however, was not
kept, for the wild, undisciplined levies of Brabant, enraged at the loss of so
goodly a chance of spoil, broke into the town under cover of the truce, and
pillaged, burnt, and slew, while their captains tried in vain to assert their
authority. Thus the town was utterly destroyed, and citizen and soldier alike
were butchered in the streets.[570]
While these events were happening at Braine,
1425] INACTIVITY OF Gloucester had hurried forward with the main
GLOUCESTER army, which had joined him again after its
expedition into Brabant. He left Mons on March
5, and advanced as far as Soignies within four miles of the beleaguered
town, but further than this he did not go, for he was advised not to attack
the besiegers.[571] Such abstention is inexplicable in the impetuous
Humphrey. True, St. Pol had the numerically stronger army, but the English
troops were experienced soldiers, whilst their opponents were for the most
part raw levies or unmanageable volunteers, and laboured under the
disadvantage of having to protect their rear if they were compelled to turn
and fight a relieving force. Whether it was that ill-health had sapped
Humphrey’s initiative, or that the tactics of the Earl Marshal were over-
cautious, the fact remains that nothing was done, and the Duke spent the
time that he lay idle at Soignies in writing another letter to the Pope, in
which he clamoured for a speedy decision of the divorce proceedings,
urging the mischief caused by the delay and the blood which was being
shed. He declared that he had entered Hainault, and had been well received,
but that the troops of the Duke of Brabant had invaded his territory. The
blood of the killed in this struggle was not on his head. He had sent three
separate embassies to procure a pacification, but in each case without effect,
and now as a devoted son of the Holy See he must urge that the time for
delay was passed, and that the Pope must settle the matter by a prompt
decision.[572]
While this none too courageous appeal for the help of the spiritual arm
against the invaders was being despatched, Braine had fallen, and to cover
his supine conduct, which might well suggest cowardice, Gloucester sent a

herald to the victorious general challenging him to fight then and there,[573]
a challenge which, had it been sent a few days earlier, might have saved
both the town and the murdered garrison. St. Pol gladly accepted the
defiance, and he waited several days in the neighbourhood expecting to be
attacked. At length, as there were no signs of the enemy, and fearing to
venture another siege in the inclement state of the weather, he began to
draw off, and it was only then that a party of some eight or ten hundred
English was sent to harass his retreat. St. Pol in anticipation of a general
attack drew up his forces on a hill, as did also the English commander on
some rising ground opposite, and a series of skirmishes took place in the
intervening valley. This, however, did not develop into a general
engagement, and in the evening the English drew off, quite unaware that the
Brabant levies had thrown the opposing army into confusion by a
precipitate flight. Relieved of his foes, St. Pol was enabled to march off the
rest of his troops under cover of the darkness, and Humphrey had lost an
excellent chance of securing a decisive victory.[574]
On the evening of the same day as this averted engagement, it was
announced to both the English and Brabant commanders that a truce had
been declared between Burgundy and Gloucester,[575] and to such an extent
was it realised that the struggle lay between these two, and that the Duke of
Brabant was merely a lay figure in the dispute, that a general cessation of
hostilities ensued. For some little time past the two Dukes had been in
communication. As soon as he had learnt of Burgundy’s summons to arms
of December 20 Humphrey had written an expostulatory letter to him, in
which he complained that his actions had been misrepresented, and that he
could not accept the propositions of peace suggested at Paris, as they were
prejudicial to his interests, adding further that it was untrue to say that
Brabant had on his side accepted the terms. He declared Philip’s support of
Brabant to be iniquitous, seeing that Jacqueline was a nearer relation of his
than was the Duke, and that he was already bound to support the English
cause on the Continent by treaty. Moreover, every step had been taken to
respect Burgundian rights, and in passing through Artois the territory and its
occupants had been respected. The letter concluded with an appeal to Philip
to abstain from further hostilities.[576]
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
1425] BURGUNDY AND of the Paris tribunal, or to await that of the Pope.
GLOUCESTER 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.
The heyday of Gloucester’s ascendency in
1425] HOSTILITY TO Hainault was rapidly passing into murky
GLOUCESTER 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.
A safe-conduct through Burgundian territory
1425] RETURN OF made this retreat easy, and within four days of
GLOUCESTER TO his arrival at Mons Humphrey was ready to start.
ENGLAND [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.
Nothing in Gloucester’s whole career has left
1425] GLOUCESTER’S such a blot on his character as his expedition to
FAILURE 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.

CHAPTER V
THE PROTECTORATE
With Humphrey’s return from Hainault the second phase of his life ends
and the third begins. His early life had been that of a soldier; he had
celebrated the death of his brother by making a bid for the position of an
independent prince; now he was to devote the rest of his days to political
intrigue, and it is perhaps in this last phase that his career assumes its
greatest interest. Undoubtedly his actions during the minority of his nephew
have more importance in the history of his country than those of his earlier
years, and from them we are enabled to realise more clearly the various
threads of his policy and the governing influences in his life. Henceforth
Humphrey’s whole energies are devoted to English politics. His discarded
Duchess may flit across the stage, for a brief moment he may revert to his
early participation in the French war, but these are merely unimportant
incidents in a busy political career. The rest of his life, too, is entirely
moulded by the opposition he experiences. The spirit which had inspired the
limitation of the Protector’s power was to meet him at every turn, and
throughout the next twenty years all English history was to find its central
theme in the great struggle between the Duke of Gloucester and the
Beaufort faction. Barely six months after his departure from England,
Humphrey had returned to find preparations being made for the holding of
Parliament, and it is probable that he had timed his departure from Hainault
so as to be present at this meeting, fearing lest some hostile move should be
made against him in his absence. On April 27 the young King was brought
up from Windsor, and, being met at the west door of St. Paul’s by
Gloucester and Exeter—the protectors of his kingdom and his person
respectively—was lifted out of his chair by them and escorted to the choir,
where he was ‘borne up and offred.’[596] Three days later he was present at
the opening of Parliament, that his uncle might remember that he was the
servant, not the master of the realm.[597]
After so inglorious and impolitic a proceeding as his recent campaign
Humphrey might well have expected criticism of no light kind from the

strong faction opposed to him, and if we are to
1425] ATTITUDE OF THE believe the French chroniclers, such criticism he
COUNCIL did receive at the hands of the Council,[598] but
no traces of this are to be found in the official
records. Nay more, there is ample evidence that the Protector’s influence
both in Parliament and Council was considerable. Not only in the face of a
revenue deficit of £20,000 did Parliament grant him a loan of 40,000 marks
to be paid within four years, but the Lords of the Council agreed to act as
sureties for its repayment;[599] in a dispute between the Earl Marshal and
the Earl of Warwick for precedence Parliament decided in favour of the
former, who was not only a supporter of Gloucester, but had also
commanded his troops in Hainault;[600] finally the wardship of the estates
which devolved on the young Duke of York by the death of the Earl of
March was given to the Protector.[601] It seems hardly credible that
Gloucester would have been given so much, or have championed his friend
so successfully had his influence not been predominant. That he had met
with some opposition cannot be doubted, for the six months’ power enjoyed
by the Bishop of Winchester during his nephew’s absence was not likely to
make him content with a secondary position, and therefore bitter, and
undoubtedly justified, criticism was probably levelled at Humphrey by his
rival. It may be that high words passed between them; at any rate it was not
to be long before their mutual recriminations became a danger to the state.
It is about this time, therefore, that the struggle between the two chief men
in the kingdom passed from the stage of political rivalry to that of personal
competition. Gradually Gloucester and Beaufort become bitter personal
enemies, and the state of distrust inaugurated at the beginning of the reign,
now becomes a contest which the full bitterness of individual dislike tends
to increase every day. Henceforth no stone is left unturned by either of the
men to damage the position and reputation of his rival.
Nevertheless there is no evidence that
1425] JACQUELINE Gloucester’s Hainault policy had reaped that
DESERTED universal condemnation in England which it so
richly deserved. Bedford, it is true, saw the
danger of alienating Burgundy, and he had done his best, first to avert the
provocation of his anger, and secondly to minimise the effects of that
provocation, but even he seems to have felt considerable sympathy for his

brother,[602] and perhaps he remembered that the late King might be held
largely responsible for the turn of events. Englishmen generally seem to
have looked with kindly eyes on this mad expedition, for there was about it
some of the glamour of mediæval romance in appearance if not in reality,
whilst Jacqueline herself had won golden opinions in England, where her
unhappy lot had obtained universal sympathy.[603] For Gloucester, however,
the romance of his marriage with Jacqueline, such as it had been, was quite
worn off, and he had already transferred his affections to the lady who was
to bring him far greater disaster than did his foreign bride. Amongst
Jacqueline’s ladies-in-waiting there had been a certain Eleanor Cobham,
daughter of Reginald Cobham of Sterborough in Kent,[604] and she had
accompanied her mistress to Hainault. When Humphrey had returned to
England he had brought her with him, and it seems that it was about this
time that she became his paramour.[605] At any rate Hainault ambitions play
henceforth but a very small part in Humphrey’s life, for though we shall
find that later he took some steps to send aid to his unfortunate wife, yet he
never showed the slightest inclination to return to her side, a fact which
caused no small scandal at a later date.
Meanwhile at Mons things had been going ill for Jacqueline. Her husband
had no sooner turned his back, than the Brabanters rose again, and the
citizens of Mons, unmindful of their recent promise, refused to support her.
[606]
On June 6 she wrote a most pathetic letter to Gloucester, telling him
how the citizens had come to her on the third of that month,[607] and had
shown her a treaty signed by the Dukes of Brabant and Burgundy, uniting
her dominions under the rule of the former, and confiding the care of her
person to the latter. In spite of her entreaties all help had been refused her,
and she pointed out how her sufferings were due to the love she bore her
English husband, begging him therefore to come to her help, though he
seemed to have forgotten her existence.[608] In a second letter of the same
date she alluded to a suggestion made by Gloucester that she should once
more flee to England, a course which she declared it was now too late to
adopt. Indeed, this was soon proved to be the case, for these letters were
intercepted by Burgundian emissaries,[609] and within five days she was
being conducted a prisoner to Ghent.[610]

Though Jacqueline’s letters never reached their
1425 DUEL WITH destination, the news of her imprisonment soon
BURGUNDY FORBIDDEN came to England, and Parliament promptly
showed its sympathy with her by petitioning that
ambassadors should be sent to treat with Burgundy for the release of ‘my
Ladies’ persone of Gloucester,’[611] and at the same time the Chancellor was
empowered to draw up letters-patent under the great seal appointing the
queens-dowager of England and France, and the Duke of Bedford as
mediators between Burgundy and Gloucester, with a view to the
abandonment of the duel that had been arranged.[612] To neither of these
provisions would Humphrey make any objection, for though he had not
been the challenger in the matter of the duel, yet he had doubtless
welcomed it as a way of securing his retreat, and had never intended to take
it seriously; at any rate he made no preparations for the fray, whilst his
opponent had gone into strict training, and was having special armour made
for the occasion.[613] This attitude on the part of Duke Philip points to a
strong personal dislike of Gloucester, a dislike which dated probably from
the days when he had been slighted at St. Omer; nevertheless, it is strange
that he had ever thought that such a duel would be allowed to take place.
Bedford, ever ready to appease the strife which had arisen over this
Hainault affair, gladly undertook the duty assigned to him by Parliament,
and when in September he summoned a council of arbitration to meet at
Paris, his brother willingly nominated the Bishop of London as his
representative thereat, whilst Burgundy grudgingly appointed the Bishop of
Tournay to guard his interests.[614] Bedford tried to avert the duel as eagerly
as he had endeavoured to reconcile the conflicting claims of Brabant and
Gloucester earlier in the story of the Hainault struggle,[615] and his efforts
were assisted by a papal Bull, which forbade the personal combat in no
measured terms.[616] Armed with this authority, the council at Paris decided
on September 22 that a perusal of the letters written by the two parties in
the dispute convinced them that neither side had any right to demand
satisfaction from the other,[617] a decision which disgusted the Burgundian
envoy, but which afforded entire satisfaction to Gloucester’s representative.
[618]

From this time forward Gloucester seems to have abandoned all idea of
securing his hold on the government of his wife’s inheritance. He did not

resign all claim to Holland and Hainault, nor did he refrain from occasional
assistance to Jacqueline, or from attempts to secure the recognition by
Rome of the legality of his marriage; but he had come to realise that
personal intervention on the Continent would mean political extinction at
home, where he needed all the prestige of his popularity amongst the
commonalty and the power conferred by his position and lineage to
withstand the manœuvres of his great rival, Henry Beaufort. For Beaufort
was entrenched in a strong position. A man of determined will and restless
energy, with powerful family connections, of royal blood, if not in the line
of succession, and well versed by long experience in the affairs of the
kingdom, he stood in marked contrast to his nephew, who was lacking in
resolute purpose, and had spent most of his active life in the French wars,
with few opportunities of gaining political experience. Above all, whilst
Beaufort was constantly lending money for purposes of state, Gloucester
was equally constant in his demands for royal loans or an increased salary, a
fact which gave the former an immense financial hold on the kingdom.
Such a power as that wielded by the Bishop of Winchester was not to be
despised, nor was it to be left unopposed by one who aspired to be the chief
governing power in the state; but there was yet another reason which
impelled Humphrey to confine his main efforts towards maintaining and
improving his position in England, the roots of which lay in his own
character. When he had set out light-heartedly to assert his right to control
the dominions of Jacqueline, he had thought it to be an easy task. He now
knew that it was only by a prolonged effort that he could succeed in
Holland and Hainault. Such an effort he was totally incapable of making,
for he had none of that determination which characterised his father and at
least two of his brothers. Brilliant and versatile as he was, these qualities
preordained him to prefer a life of political intrigue to that of hard fighting
against a firm and steadfast foe. His fickle nature delighted in the
kaleidoscopic changes of party warfare, and to that warfare he devoted the
best part of the rest of his life, forgetting his dreams of foreign dominion in
that strife where the interests of the moment predominated. He was a child
of circumstance, and lived only for the passing moment, and as such he
found his true milieu in the faction fights which preceded the Wars of the
Roses.
Yet while he devoted himself mainly to matters of English politics,
Humphrey did not abstain from all interference in Hainault affairs. There

was no question with him of abandoning an
1425 EXPEDITION TO enterprise fraught with danger to his country. So
HAINAULT long as Jacqueline could keep up the struggle, he
would encourage her, in the hope that some day
he might reap the advantage, and it was in this spirit that he wrote to Martin
V., complaining that the divorce decree against Brabant had not yet been
granted, and urging him in the interests of Europe generally to hasten the
matter to a conclusion favourable to the Countess.[619] At the same time the
situation in Hainault looked more promising. The exertions of English
ambassadors to secure Jacqueline’s release had been rendered unnecessary
by her escape from her captors,[620] and she had signalised her regained
freedom by a victory over her assailants at the little village of Alfen. The
Duke of Brabant was rendered still more anxious by rumours which reached
him to the effect that a force of some 20,000 strong, under the personal
leadership of Gloucester, was about to reinforce his enemies, that the Scotch
King, in remembrance of his recent marriage alliance with the House of
Lancaster, was coming with 8000 more, and that contingents from Ireland
and the English army in Normandy were destined to join the victorious
troops of his militant Countess.[621] The exaggeration of this report was
obvious, but, nevertheless, a force was being collected in England, and
towards the end of the year it sailed under the leadership of Lord Fitzwalter,
in all some thousand men. In the early days of 1426 these troops landed on
the coast of Zealand, only to be almost annihilated with the majority of
Jacqueline’s native troops in the neighbourhood of Zierikzee by the
Burgundian forces. The remainder straggled back to England, having
‘prevayled nothing.’[622]
Before this expedition had sailed, however,
1425] THE BEAUFORT Gloucester was entirely absorbed in affairs
QUARREL nearer home. The rivalry between himself and
Beaufort, which had been simmering ever since
the Protector’s return, now boiled over, and for a moment threatened civil
war. The Chancellor had made great efforts during his short period of
government to strengthen his own hands, welcoming Gloucester’s absence
abroad as an opportunity for weakening his power. Some disorderly riots
and seditious manifestations in London had afforded a pretext for inducing
the Council to place one Richard Wydeville in command of the Tower,[623]

and he had used this appointment to strengthen his position in the capital,
where he was notoriously unpopular. He gave Wydeville strict injunctions
that he was to admit no one ‘stronger thanne he’ within the Tower, and later
mentioned the Protector as one of those who must be excluded, pointing to
his popularity in the city as evidence of his seditious intentions.[624] It was
not likely that such proceedings would pass without a protest from
Gloucester, and there is every reason to believe—from an undated entry in
the minutes of the Council, which records a meeting held towards the end
of the third year of the reign—that the quarrel between the two rivals had
become acute by the July or August after his return. We learn from this that
an ordinance was being prepared for the consideration of the next
Parliament, which required that every peer should take an oath not to
disturb the King’s peace by revenging by force any ill done to him, but to
have recourse to ‘pesible and restful weyes of redress.’ At the same time an
oath of secrecy and a promise to give honest advice without obstructing any
matter under discussion was exacted from all who sat at the Council board.
[625]
All this tends to prove that the struggle between the two claimants for
power was already raging fiercely.
Nevertheless, we find no actual disturbances recorded till the Bishop roused
Gloucester’s suspicions by filling Southwark, where his house was situated,
with Lancashire and Cheshire archers.[626] Then, fearing lest he should be
attacked by this force and taken unprepared, the Protector sent a message
post-haste to the Mayor and Aldermen, asking them to be on their guard for
fear lest an attack on the city should be made from the other side of the
river. The message found the civic magnates at the banquet with which they
were wont to celebrate the election of the new Mayor, but they promptly
acceded to Gloucester’s request, and the city was carefully guarded all
through that night, as though a siege was imminent.[627] This was on
October 29, the day after the feast of St. Simon and St. Jude,[628] and on the
morrow events justified the Protector’s precautions, for a large body of
Beaufort’s men appeared outside the gate on the south side of London
Bridge about eight or nine o’clock in the morning, and were surprised to
find all entrance forbidden them. Nothing daunted, they waited till more of
their fellows had come up, and then proceeded to attack the gate ‘with shot
and other means of warre,’ attempting by these means to force an entrance
into the city.

The news that the Chancellor was in arms against their beloved Duke
Humphrey spread like lightning amongst the citizens, and within an hour all
shops were shut, and the streets leading to the bridge were thronged by men
willing and anxious to keep the bishop out, and to resist the ‘King’s
enemies.’ So determined was this opposition that the attempted assault was
abandoned, and it was with the greatest difficulty that the Mayor restrained
the angry citizens, who wanted to sally out and exact vengeance for the
presumptuous attack, whilst the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Duke of
Coimbra—one of Gloucester’s Portuguese uncles—offered their services as
mediators. This self-imposed task proved no sinecure, and eight times did
they ride backwards and forwards between the two parties ere peace was
secured, and Beaufort had to be content with his side of the river, whilst the
Protector remained in possession of the city.[629] ‘All London a rose with
the Duke a yenst the forsaide Bysshope,’ writes a contemporary chronicler,
[630]
and indeed Gloucester had reason to be grateful for the support of the
citizens at a critical time. It was not the rabble—as Beaufort later declared
—which rose to champion him, but the sober burgher class, headed by Sir
John Coventry, their Mayor, that had produced the discomfiture of the
Chancellor, and that ever henceforward formed the most important section
of Gloucester’s supporters. The tone of the London chroniclers also
suggests, that the action of Beaufort was considered by them at least as a
direct blow dealt both at the city and at the peace and security of the
kingdom at large, and that in supporting Gloucester the citizens were taking
a line which was patriotic both as regards their city and as regards the
nation.
The truce between Humphrey and his uncle
1425] BEDFORD could not be a final settlement of the bad blood
SUMMONED TO that had been aroused, and on All-hallows
ENGLAND
Even[631] the latter wrote to Bedford in hurried,
but emphatic, terms, urging him to come to England without delay, ‘for by
my troth,’ he wrote, ‘if you tarry, we shall put this land in adventure with a
field,[632] such a brother you have here; God make him a good man.’[633] He
forgot to mention that it was he that had taken the first step to ‘put this land
in adventure with a field,’ for even as he had been the first, in the days when
the Protector’s privileges were being arranged, to provoke that duel for
power which, in its later manifestation, was to develop into the Wars of the

Roses, so was he now the first to appeal to armed force as a means of
emphasising the righteousness of his cause. The statement that Gloucester
made the first move to arms cannot be substantiated.[634] It was against the
force which Beaufort had already mustered in the suburbs of Southwark
that he appealed to the Mayor of London, and in so doing he acted as any
wise Protector of the kingdom would have done, when he saw the capital
threatened by the armed retainers of a too powerful subject. Moreover,
while Beaufort’s force was specially organised, Gloucester was prepared
with no retainers to protect himself or his ambitions, but in the time of need
he was forced to appeal on the spur of the moment to the loyalty of the
citizens. In point of fact, too, the first hostile move was made by the
Bishop, for the action of the Mayor in guarding the gates of the city was
merely a defensive precaution, unknown to the Beaufort retainers, who did
not expect to meet with any resistance when they tried to cross the bridge.
Thus both the hostile intent and the hostile action originated with the
Chancellor, while the support given to the Protector, apart from the
guarding of the gates overnight, was entirely spontaneous on the part of the
great mass of the citizens.
The fact that Beaufort so promptly appealed to the arbitrament of Bedford
has also been counted unto him for righteousness,[635] whereas it merely
displays the cleverness of his play in the game of politics. From Bedford he
might hope for support, since the folly of the Hainault campaign would tend
to make the Regent in France suspicious of his brother’s actions, and ready
to believe that the fault of the recent disturbances lay with him. Moreover,
no one knew better than Bedford the usefulness of the Bishop’s purse, and
the impolicy of alienating one who could always produce ready money,
while Humphrey had no such claim to a statesman’s consideration. Beaufort
also had nothing to lose, and a possibility of much to gain, by this appeal.
Public opinion in London had spoken against him; it is more than probable
that this feeling extended outside the city, and for the time at least he had to
acknowledge defeat. On the other hand, if it is true that the Protector
refused to formulate complaints against his opponent when asked to do so
by envoys from his brother,[636] it was only natural that he should adopt
such an attitude. He looked on himself, both by right of birth and by right of
the will of Henry V., as the lawful Protector of England, and though he was
compelled to accept the restrictions imposed on him by Parliament, he was

not likely to acknowledge the supremacy of his brother more than he could
help. To indict Beaufort before Bedford would not only be a confession of
weakness, but also, in his eyes, an insult to his position. By law as well as
by right he was Protector in England so long as Bedford remained in
France, and under the circumstances he could recognise no superior
tribunal; he had no wish to bring Bedford to England to settle the matter,
and thus be compelled to take the second place. Though this attitude was
undoubtedly selfish, and based on too high an opinion of his own
importance, it does not therefore prove that in the quarrel with Beaufort he
was in the wrong.
For the time being Gloucester’s power was
1425] RETURN OF undisputed. On the same day that the letter of
BEDFORD summons to England was despatched to Bedford
the Council met at the Protector’s own house,
[637]
a fact which has its significance. It was probably with the consent of
the Council that the Protector, with the Duke of Coimbra, journeyed down
to Eltham on November 5, and brought the young King back to London to
strengthen the hands of the executive there.[638] The same day yielded
another illustration of Gloucester’s influence, when the Council, in
consideration of his ‘great necessity,’ agreed to lend him five thousand
marks on promise of repayment, when the King should reach his fifteenth
year,[639] a sum probably used for the expedition to Hainault already
described. Beaufort, it is to be presumed, took no part in these transactions,
but was compelled to view his rival’s success in silence, eagerly awaiting
the return of Bedford, who on December 20 landed on English soil. By
virtue of his return Bedford became Protector of the kingdom, receiving the
salary of eight thousand marks a year, which in his absence had been
enjoyed by his brother,[640] who now was reduced to the rank of first
councillor to the King, with an income of three thousand marks only.[641]
The Bishop of Winchester hastened to meet Bedford, and together they
entered London on January 10, proceeding at once to Westminster, where
the new Protector was lodged in the King’s palace, while the Chancellor lay
near by at the Abbey, desiring to keep watch over his nephew, lest any
influence hostile to himself should be brought to bear on him.[642] So
successfully did he put his case and justify the policy of his appeal to the
Regent in France, that Bedford showed marked hostility to his brother, and

when the citizens of London came to greet him on the morrow of his
arrival, and presented him with a pair of ‘silver gilt basins, they received
but a cold reception, in view of the hostility they had recently shown to the
Chancellor and his proceedings.[643]

Already steps had been taken to summon
1426] COUNCIL AT ST. Parliament, which was to meet on February 15 at
ALBANS Leicester,[644] the choice of this town being
probably due to the Chancellor’s fears that in
London public opinion would be too strongly against him, and in the
meantime vigorous attempts were made to effect a reconciliation before the
meeting took place. On January 29 a Council was held under the presidency
of Bedford at St. Albans, whence a deputation, consisting of the Archbishop
of Canterbury, the Earl of Stafford, Lords Talbot and Cromwell, and Sir
John Cornwall, was sent to Gloucester, who had refused to attend the
meeting, though he might have counted on the support of public opinion in
the neighbourhood of his chosen abbey. This deputation was commissioned
to inform the Duke that another Council was to be held at Northampton on
the 13th of the next month, and to offer him a pressing invitation to attend
there, as the matters in dispute between him and the Chancellor were to be
discussed with a view to a reconciliation, assuring him that ‘justice and
reason shal duely and indifferently be mynystered unto him in all things that
he hath said or shal say as for occasion or matter of the displesaunce or
hevynesse abovesaid.’ To the demand which Humphrey had made, that as a
condition of his coming the absence of his opponent must be assured, the
Council gave a decided refusal, pointing out that there was no danger of a
riot between the retainers of the respective parties, as the Bishop had agreed
to restrain his men, and the King would ‘settle such rewle’ that peace would
be maintained throughout the town. It is, however, probable that Gloucester
feared more the hostile bias in Bedford’s mind produced by the
machinations of his uncle, than personal violence to himself, and preferred
a direct appeal to the Lords in Parliament, with whom his influence was
much stronger than it had been earlier in the reign, to a judgment by the
Council, now under the domination of his opponents.
This changed attitude of the Council, which before Bedford’s landing had
been controlled by Gloucester, is seen in a secret instruction to the
deputation. Should the Duke steadily refuse to go to Northampton under the
assurances mentioned above, the commissioners were empowered to add,
that at the request of Bedford and the Council Beaufort had promised to
dismiss some of his men, and only bring such as were fitting for his
position, on condition that Gloucester should do likewise. It is very strange

that this condition should be kept in the background, and only produced
under compulsion, for it seems a natural concession, and one which could
only be refused by a man who was not acting in perfect honesty. If the
Council had suspected the large retinue of the Earl of March in 1423, why
should not the Chancellor’s evidently large body of retainers incur the same
suspicion? It would be, of course, absurd to suggest that, had Gloucester
gone to Northampton, the drama of 1447 at Bury St. Edmunds would have
been anticipated; the mere presence of Bedford would refute such a
suggestion; but this ‘card up the sleeve’ policy does not speak well for the
honesty of those who adopted it.
If after their last magnanimous offer Gloucester still persisted in his refusal
to attend if Beaufort were present, the messengers of the Council were to
point out that it would be unreasonable in Gloucester, even if he were the
King—surely a malicious insinuation—to refuse any man a hearing, and
also that if he wished ‘to be esed as towards his griefs,’ as the Council
assured him was their honest intention, it must be done either by an act of
justice, or by a reconciliation, either of which required the presence of both
parties. Moreover, to Gloucester’s demand that the Chancellor should resign
the custody of the seals, it was answered that this was an attempt to coerce
the King—for no official was ever dismissed except by the King’s wish, by
his own request, or owing to some fault proved against him.[645] In their
refusal of this request the Council were undoubtedly justified, and there is
much that is wise and statesmanlike throughout the instructions, due
undoubtedly to the influence of Bedford. But there is also ample evidence
of Beaufort influence, and we cannot blame Gloucester if he regarded this
communication more as a manifesto from his opponents than as a genuine
offer of arbitration, and refused to go to Northampton, preferring to wait till
the Parliament should be summoned at Leicester. One thing should not pass
unnoticed in this offer of the Council. Though the Bishop had summoned
Bedford from France, Gloucester had now assumed the rôle of accuser. It
was as such that he was to appear at Leicester, having herein outmanœuvred
his opponent, who, thinking to act on the aggressive, had been compelled to
fall back on a defensive attitude.
The Parliament which met at Leicester on
1426] PARLIAMENT OF February 18,[646] has been handed down to
LEICESTER
posterity as the ‘Parliament of Battes,’ because,

as all weapons had to be discarded by the members and their retainers, they
came armed with staves and ‘battes,’ which did not come under the
category of weapons.[647] No allusion was made to the quarrel in the
Chancellor’s opening speech, although it was the most important matter
before the assembly, and indeed it seemed at first as though there would be
little progress made in the work of the session. For ten days nothing was
done; the Speaker was not even chosen; and during that time Leicester must
have been the scene of much diplomacy and intrigue, of which we have no
record. At length on the 28th the Commons took the initiative by sending up
a petition to the Lords, asking them to take steps to heal the divisions which
had occurred in their body,[648] a request which was answered by a promise,
made by the peers on March 4, to deal honestly between Gloucester and the
Bishop.[649] The consent of the two parties to this mediation had now to be
secured, and at the urgent request of Bedford the Duke consented, three
days later, to submit all his grievances to a Commission, composed of
Archbishop Chichele, the Dukes of Exeter and Norfolk; the Bishops of
Durham, Worcester, and Bath; Humphrey, Earl of Stafford; Ralph, Lord
Cromwell, and William Alnwick, Keeper of the Privy Seal and Bishop-elect
of Norwich, though it was provided that any matter touching the King was
to be referred to the Council.[650] Beaufort gave a similar consent.[651] This
Commission could not have been more fairly chosen. The Archbishop, if
slightly inclined to resent the ambitions of his brother of Winchester, was
eminently impartial and well versed in the art of pacification; the two
Dukes each represented one of the rivals, for whilst Exeter was the brother
of the Bishop, Norfolk was the friend of Gloucester;[652] Lord Cromwell
was inclined to the Beaufort faction,[653] but the bishops were mostly
impartial, though probably the Bishop of Bath was another of Beaufort’s
followers.[654]
It was with his usual easy confidence that Gloucester proceeded to draw up
his indictment of the Chancellor. He complained that Beaufort had
instructed Wydeville to refuse him entrance to the Tower, though he was
Protector of the realm, and had afterwards shielded this man from the
consequences of this action. Nay, more, Beaufort had plotted to undermine
the Protector’s power by attempting to remove the King from Eltham,
thinking to secure thereby a hold over the government of the kingdom. At
the same time he had hindered Gloucester from going to frustrate these

plans by barricading the Southwark end of London Bridge, and posting
armed men in the houses of the district, thus trying to kill the Protector and
disturb the King’s peace. Further, Gloucester accused his adversary of
maligning him to Bedford in his letter of October 31 by saying that he was
harassing the Kings subjects. Not content with the recent misdemeanours of
the Chancellor, his accuser made an excursion into past history, and brought
up an old story that an attempt had been made on the life of Henry V., when
Prince of Wales, by a man who confessed himself Beaufort’s agent, and
together with this was joined the incompatible, but more likely story, that
Beaufort had advised the same Henry to assume the crown whilst his father
was lying dangerously ill.[655]
The tenor of these accusations at once
1426] INDICTMENT OF establishes the motive of the quarrel. From them
BEAUFORT it is evident that Gloucester looked on the whole
matter as a personal question, and did not realise
that there was a possible constitutional aspect of the case. There was
nothing which betrayed the statesman in this indictment, which merely
complained of insults to his dignity, attacks on his position, and concluded
with impertinent statements as to the past career of his rival. Throughout it
showed considerable ingenuity, but at the same time it betrayed an inability
to understand the constitutional pose which the better politician of the two
had assumed. In Beaufort’s answer the refutation of the very first accusation
shows the different methods of the two men. Though his policy was one of
mere self-seeking, the Bishop of Winchester knew how to use the language
of the new constitutional theories which had developed under the two
preceding Lancastrian kings. He asserted that in the Tower incident he was
fully justified in the advice he had given Wydeville not to admit the
Protector within its walls. He declared that before the Hainault expedition it
had been decided in Council, in the presence of Gloucester, to garrison and
provision the Tower, but that this had never been done; that during the
absence of the Protector certain seditious risings, levelled, it would seem,
mainly against foreigners, had disturbed the peace of the capital, and that
Wydeville had been placed in command of the Tower to strengthen the
hands of the Executive. Such being the case, Gloucester on his return had
ingratiated himself with the citizens by sympathising with them for having a
castle fortified against them in this manner, and had done his utmost to
stultify the action of the Council in this matter. Moreover, a question of

privilege had been raised by the refusal of Humphrey to deliver up a certain
Friar Randolph who had been committed to the Tower on a charge of
treason, and whom the Protector had removed from the Lieutenant’s
custody, declaring that his command was a sufficient warrant of discharge
for the custodian of the prisoner, ‘in the which thing above seyd yt was
thought to my lorde of Winchestre that my seyde lorde off gloucestre toke
upon himsylff fferrer thanne his auctorite stretched unto, and causid him
fforto doute and drede, leest the Toure hadde be stronge he wolde have
proceded fferther.’[656]
The arguments thus used by the Bishop in reply to this charge are specious
to a degree, and appealed to principles of ministerial control, an attitude
which has stood him in good stead with the historians of a democratic age.
Nevertheless, this favourable appearance was but skin-deep. The Chancellor
had had practically complete control of the kingdom whilst Gloucester had
been abroad, and now he was disgusted to find that his precedence was no
longer recognised. If the title of Protector was anything beyond a name, its
holder was entitled to enter a royal castle at his will, and no plea of
expediency could be pleaded by a Chancellor who took upon himself to
deny such a right. The truth which lies beneath the fair exterior of the reply
to this first charge is on careful examination quite evident. Beaufort feared
that, in spite of the strict limitations put upon his power, Gloucester would
prove to be stronger than had been expected, and his instructions to
Wydeville were dictated by no fears for the safety of the kingdom, but fears
for the permanency of his own ascendency in the councils of the nation. The
stories about the Londoners and the traitor friar were in all probability true,
but those who would sympathise with Beaufort as leader of the
constitutional party against the encroachments of the Protector can here find
no arguments to support their theory, for he had worked in opposition to his
own chief, and had persuaded an officer to disobey his superior. Only so far
as all who oppose governments are called constitutionalists can this term be
applied to the Bishop of Winchester and his party. On the other hand, it
seems hard to understand why Gloucester should deliberately give a handle
to his opponent by removing Friar Randolph from custody. This action, if
not exactly illegal at this time, was undoubtedly unwise, though it may be
that some unexplained reason—possibly the Protector’s known affection for

the unhappy Queen Joan, whose confessor and alleged accomplice
Randolph was[657]—impelled him to take it.
The answer to the second and third counts,
1426] BEAUFORT’S which accused Beaufort of attempting to secure
ANSWER the King’s person for his own ends, and of
preventing Gloucester from going to visit his
nephew at Eltham, give us a further insight into the events of the famous
Tuesday on which the retainers of the Chancellor came to blows with the
Londoners. If we are to accept Beaufort’s version of the matter—and it is to
some extent corroborated by the terms of Humphrey’s accusation—the
trouble between the two princes had been brewing for some time. The
Chancellor declared that as early as the time when the last Parliament was
sitting he had been warned that Gloucester was contemplating a personal
attack on him, and that certain of the London citizens of the baser sort had
announced their intention of throwing him ‘in Temyse, to have tauht him to
swymme with wengis.’ Furthermore, on the Sunday which preceded the call
to arms, a deputation from the Council had waited upon the Protector to
know whether it was true that he bore the Chancellor ill-will, and if so, the
reason of his so doing; and Gloucester had acknowledged the truth of the
report. With an assumed air of innocence Beaufort recounted how the city
had stood to arms all through the Monday night, and had assumed a
threatening attitude towards him, although, as we know, both he and his
men were ignorant of this till they attempted to cross the bridge on the
following morning. On the Tuesday, it appears, the Protector had also
wished to cross the river with a company of three hundred horse provided
by the civic authorities, to go to Eltham to see the King, and the Chancellor
had prevented this by force of arms, defending this action by saying that his
rival wished to remove the King from his present abode without securing
the consent of the Council—an act which he declared to be illegal and high-
handed to the last degree.[658]
Thus both parties accused the other of the same intent with regard to the
King, but as Beaufort on his side pointed out, and it was equally true from
the point of view of his rival, no useful end was to be attained by securing
the King’s person.[659] There was no obvious felonious intent in the
Protector wishing to visit the child for whom he was acting, and no
objection was taken by the Council to his removal to London on November

5. Beaufort’s assumed constitutional fears as to the danger attending his
removal from Eltham are discounted by his declaration that the possession
of the young King’s person was for him a useless burden. The truth seems
to be that Gloucester, established in London, and with the citizens
espousing his cause, was in so strong a position that Beaufort felt he must
do something to counteract it. He therefore collected troops, and failing to
effect an entrance into the city, was determined that at least Humphrey
should not cross to his side of the river. The fundamental reason for the
quarrel was the rivalry of two ambitious men, each desirous of governing
the kingdom, but of the two Beaufort was undoubtedly the aggressor. It was
he that had appealed to force to aid his cause, and though he declared that
he considered the kingdom in great danger from Duke Humphrey, it never
occurred to him to summon Bedford from France to restore order till he
himself had been worsted in his attempt at armed interference. Humphrey
cannot be accused of provoking the appeal to arms. His modest escort of
three hundred men was no large force in view of the existence of an enemy
on his road, also it was quite uncharacteristic of him to appeal to such
means. In spite of his stormy political career, in no case do we find him
making any appeal to force of arms. He was by nature a political schemer,
but he had seen too much of war on a grand scale, and the disasters which
militant parties bring on themselves as well as on their country, to make use
of such methods. Beaufort, on the contrary, was turbulent where his
opponent was factious; he dabbled in the pomp and the language of war,
and was far more ready to bring the country to the venture of a ‘field’ than
the party opposed to him. It was Beaufort, not Gloucester, who was
responsible for the first blood spilt in that great struggle for the control of
the incapable Henry vi.’s policy, the last stages of which neither were to live
to see.
Beaufort’s answer to the accusation of plotting against Henry IV. and Henry
[660]
V. was a denial, and an offer to stand his trial on this count; but the
rights of the case are of no importance here, for this was only a diplomatic
move on the part of the Protector to blacken the other’s character. The
Bishop’s justification of his remarks in his letter to Bedford, however, have
considerable interest. He stated that in it was to be found proof of his desire
for a good government of the kingdom, and of his anxiety to escape
provoking a civil war, arguments which came ill from one who had tried
force and had failed; but his chief point was that Gloucester had encouraged

rather than restrained the seditious action of some of the London artisans,
who had resisted some wage regulations made by the mayor and aldermen
with the consent of the Council.[661]
This last reply was a skilful move intended to discredit Gloucester’s case by
proving the disreputable character of his supporters, but we can hardly
believe that the civic authorities would so loyally have supported any one
who had encouraged a disregard of their decrees. Nothing speaks more
strongly for the fact that the Protector, rather than the Chancellor, stood for
the cause of good government than the undivided support which the long-
headed, peace-loving burgesses of London gave to the former. In point of
fact, both Gloucester and Beaufort were ambitious men, and neither was
over-burdened with principles. Yet we must not forget that the Protectorate
was in the hands of Gloucester, and that the Bishop, as Chancellor, was
attacking a power which was legal, though to him obnoxious. He had
inspired the limitations of the Protector’s power at the beginning of the
reign; he had secured that the absent brother should be supreme; and he
resented the discovery that, after all, Gloucester was not a mere subject for
his Chancellor’s diplomacy, and that he was supported by a strong party in
the nation. Beaufort’s action here was a bid for power, not a protest against
bad government; and, while in no way praising the Protector for an
enlightened policy, it would be unfair to brand his government of the nation
as corrupt and merely turned to his own advantage, because an ambitious
man strove to occupy the position which he held. Throughout the struggle
there was no question of principle, whether moral or constitutional; it was
merely a fight as to who should govern England.
The arbitrators adopted a policy of conciliation.
1426] RECONCILIATION In accordance with their award of March 12, the
Bishop of Winchester solemnly declared in
Parliament that he had always borne true allegiance to Henry IV., Henry V.,
and Henry VI.; and, in answer, Bedford, in the name of the King and
Council, declared him to be a true and loyal subject. Next, the Bishop swore
that he had no designs on the ‘persone, honour, and estate’ of Gloucester,
who replied, ‘Beal Uncle, sithen ye so declare you such a man as ye say, I
am ryght glad yat hit is so, and for suche I take yowe.’ After these
formalities the two opponents shook hands.[662]

Though this award allayed the difficulties of the moment, the reconciliation
thus brought about rang hollow, and there still remained much ‘prive wrath’
between the two men.[663] It was considered impossible for both to remain
in office, and the day after the award (March 13) Beaufort resigned the
Seal, and the Bishop of Bath followed on the 18th with his resignation of
the Treasurership.[664] Thus Gloucester had secured a decided victory, and,
for the time at least, he was free from Beaufort factions. A really strong man
would never have permitted matters to reach the pitch they had attained, but
we must not allow any of his later actions to colour our opinion of his
behaviour at this time. He cannot be said to have invited the contest, and it
is a revelation to those who remember only the discredited politician of
later years, that there was a time when he could command the support of a
strong section of the community and resist a deliberate and well-planned
attack. Doubtless much of his success was due to the prestige of the
position which he held, and to the fact that there was an instinctive dread—
well justified in the light of subsequent events—of any change of
government. To remove Gloucester from the Protectorate, though he only
held it during the King’s pleasure, would be to cause a disastrous struggle,
if not civil war.

Gloucester was victorious, and his position was naturally strengthened
thereby. After the great ‘Debaat’ between him and Beaufort had been
brought to a peaceful conclusion, little more was done in Parliament before
the Easter adjournment beyond filling the vacant offices. John Kemp,
Bishop of London, was made Chancellor, and Lord Hungerford succeeded
the Bishop of Bath as Treasurer,[665] appointments to which, it must be
presumed, Gloucester made no objection. However, the time was to come
when Humphrey would class Kemp only second to Beaufort among his
most prominent opponents. On the 20th of March Parliament was
prorogued till the 29th of the following month, and Gloucester left Leicester
forthwith, intending, it would seem, to spend Easter at London or
Greenwich. On the 22nd he passed through St. Albans, whence the monks,
to show their pleasure at the discomfiture of the Bishop of Winchester and
the success of their patron, escorted him as far as Barnet, where he spent the

night; on his return journey to Leicester for the reopening of Parliament he
spent three nights at the abbey.[666] Nothing of administrative importance
occurred during this second session, but on Whit-Sunday a great ceremony
was made of the knighting of the young King by his uncle Bedford.
Immediately afterwards Henry himself knighted thirty-six other young men,
including Richard, Duke of York. Amongst these new knights we find the
six-years-old Earl of Tankerville, Gloucester’s future son-in-law, and
Reginald Cobham, his future brother-in-law.[667] A week later steps were
taken to ensure the seven years’ truce with Scotland which had been made
two years earlier. It seems that the borderland between the two countries
had been the scene of considerable disturbances, and to check these a strong
commission was appointed to preserve the truce and punish infractions of it.
At the head of this commission stood the Duke of Gloucester.[668] On June
1 Parliament was dissolved.
Bedford was in no hurry to leave England, for he
1427] THE COUNCIL remained fifteen months in the country, and
ASSERTS ITS RIGHTS during this time the government was in his
hands. Gloucester took no active share in the
administration, and he seems to have lived in retirement, only emerging to
attend the obsequies of the Duke of Exeter at St. Paul’s early in January
1427.[669] Almost immediately after attending this ceremony he fell ill, and
was still confined to his ‘inne’ when a Council was held on January 18 in
view of the approaching departure of Bedford, who was especially asked to
attend this meeting. It was opened by a speech from Chancellor Kemp, now
Archbishop of York, in which, after some complimentary remarks, he
broached the reason for this invitation. He enlarged on the responsibility for
the good governance of the kingdom which lay on the lords spiritual and
temporal assembled in Parliament, or, when Parliament was not sitting, on
the Council, showing how, though the King was titular sovereign, his youth
compelled the full weight of government to fall on the Council, except in so
far as Parliament had given definite and special powers to the Protector. He
reminded Bedford that the Council might be called in question for the
government and for the use of its authority, and under the circumstances
they could not do their duty unless they were ‘free to governe by the said
auctorite and aquite hem in al thing that hem thought expedient for the
King’s behove and the good publique of the said roialmes.’ Thus, though

they had no desire to curtail the Protector’s privileges of birth or position,
the Council, realising that their rights were being infringed, demanded of
him a declaration of his policy, and a promise to abide by the arrangement
under which he held office.[670] Bedford, with a suspicious readiness,
thanked the Council for their plain speaking, and declared himself ready to
be ‘advised, demened and reuled’ by them in all things, asking them to
point out any defects in his conduct, and then proceeding unasked to take an
oath on the Testament to abide by their decisions.[671]
Gloucester, ‘being deseased with syknesse,’ was not present at this meeting,
so on the following day the Lords of the Council visited him at his ‘inne,’
and repeated to him what they had said to his brother. They feared that a
favourable answer was not so likely in this quarter, for they remembered his
answer to certain ‘overtures and articles’ they had recently laid before him,
and how ‘sayng and answeryng as he had doon at divers tymes afore,’ he
had declared that if he had done anything disloyal he would answer to none
but the King himself when he came of age. They reminded him of this
answer, and further remarked how they had heard that he had said, ‘Let my
brother governe as hym lust whiles he is in this land, for after his going
overe into Fraunce I will governe as me semeth good.’ They then recounted
the proceedings of the day before, and laid great stress on Bedford’s
gracious answer to their request. Thus confidently expecting a like answer
from him—so they assured him—they asked to know his intentions.[672]
Gloucester found himself in an awkward
1427] GLOUCESTER position. He had evidently been so elated by his
AND THE COUNCIL victory over Beaufort that he had been more
incautious than usual, and while in no way
interfering with the government of his brother, had unwisely asserted his
intention to profit by his success. Bedford was too wise not to be alarmed at
this avowed policy, not merely because he could not trust the judgment of
Gloucester, but also and mainly because he saw that it would raise such
opposition, that the dissensions he had just appeased would again recur. It is
more than probable that he had instigated the action of the Council, and had
taken advantage of Gloucester’s indisposition. His prompt acceptance of the
proposals proves that they were not unexpected, and the fact that he had
taken an oath to be governed by the Council would make it practically
impossible for one who was merely his substitute to refuse his consent.

Thus everything was safely arranged and carried out before Gloucester
knew anything about it. There was no jealousy of his brother in this action
of Bedford’s; he knew the temper of the kingdom and the dangers with
which it was threatened, better probably than any man living; he saw that
Beaufort and Gloucester with their selfish policies were almost equally
dangerous, and while he was moving one from the scene of his activities,
[673]
he desired to warn the other, who could not be removed, of the folly of
his course. Beaufort’s influence, though his reputation in the country at
large had doubtless suffered by his defeat at Leicester, was still no
negligible quantity, and there is every reason to suppose that he still
retained the partial confidence of Bedford. It may be that it was absolutely
on his own initiative that Bedford took this action, but it was prompted by
the distrust of his brother which Beaufort had instilled into his mind—a
distrust, be it owned, which Humphrey had done little or nothing to remove.
Gloucester was compelled to make the best of his diplomatic defeat. His
absence from the Council meeting had put all protest out of the question,
and he thanked his visitors for having come to ‘advertize hym’ as they had
done, and begged them always to treat him so in the future. If in any way he
should break the law of the land, he would submit to be ‘corrected and
governed by them,... and not by his owne wit ne ymaginacion.’ He even
digressed into instances of the advantage of this course, and the disasters
which might ensue from a contrary attitude. In conclusion he solemnly
promised to be governed by the Council in everything which touched the
King, even as Bedford had promised.[674] That this was only a temporary
attitude of conciliation was to be proved before very long.
Having done his best to secure the safety of England, Bedford turned his
attention to France, where the defection of Brittany had not improved the
outlook. On March 19 he set sail, taking with him the Bishop of Winchester,
whom he thought it best not to leave in England. As far back as the previous
May Beaufort had obtained leave from the Council to go on a pilgrimage,
[675]
and he now availed himself of this permission, probably at the instance
of Bedford, who had prepared a sop for his dignity. On the Feast of the
Annunciation (March 25) the Duke and Duchess of Bedford were present in
the Church of Our Lady at Calais, when the Bishop of Winchester was
created a Cardinal by the authority of a Bull of Martin V., and the Duke with
his own hands placed the long-coveted hat on the new Cardinal’s head.[676]

This honour had been long desired by Beaufort, and indeed the original Bull
of creation dated from the days of the Council of Constance, but Henry V.
supported Archbishop Chichele in his objection to the presence of a
Cardinal Legate in England.[677] Now at last the necessary permission had
been given, and while Bedford applied himself to the French wars, Beaufort
went off as Papal Legate to wage war on the revolted Hussites in Bohemia.
Whether this additional dignity conferred on the
1427] RESULT OF Bishop of Winchester was calculated to advance
BEDFORT’S the peace of England may well be doubted.
INTERVENTION
Bedford had worked hard to restore peace
between the various parties in England; he had produced a compromise
which tended to favour Humphrey; he had as a counter-blast secured a
definite acknowledgment by the Protector of the authority of the Council;
finally he had greatly strengthened the hands of the Protector’s enemy by
giving him the prestige and power which attached to the cardinalate. His
action in England had all the vicious characteristics of a compromise. Even
as in war a victory won by either side inevitably leads to a third battle, so in
politics the successes won alternately by Gloucester and Beaufort must
open the way to another conflict. It could not be expected that the new
Cardinal would spend the rest of his life out of England, his political
proclivities were too strong for this, and on his return he would almost
inevitably reopen the old struggle which had nearly resulted in civil war.
Bedford accurately diagnosed the disease from which England was
suffering, but he failed to prescribe the right remedy. The only hope of
peace lay in the crushing of one of the rivals, and though this might have
been impossible, it was not even attempted. Each was in turn humbled, but
only to such an extent as to make him still more ambitious, and the sole
definite bit of policy to be found in Bedford’s action in England was the
emphasising of the power of the Council and the developing of those
constitutional theories of government, which by reason of their precocity
were bound to bring disaster both to the kingdom and the dynasty.
Bedford’s interference in English politics had no healing effect; it only
postponed the coming struggle by the temporary diversion of Beaufort’s
ambitious energies to the Hussite war. On the latter’s return the substitution
of the cardinalate for the chancellorship was not calculated to weaken his
position, whilst the strengthening of that of the Council would tend to

induce Gloucester to use all the means in his power to undermine its
authority.
Meanwhile in England Gloucester had been
1427] SUPPRESSION OF seriously ill, and it was not till April that he was
LAWLESSNESS sufficiently recovered to journey to St. Albans;
there on St. Mark’s Day, escorted by the usual
procession headed by the Abbot, he gave thanks for his recovery, and
presented his gift of gratitude on the High Altar.[678] Having visited the cell
of Sopwell, he returned to Langley.[679] Here he busied himself in the affairs
of the kingdom, being made Justiciar of Chester and of North Wales on
May 10, an office which he was allowed to delegate to a substitute for
whose actions as well as his own he must answer to the King.[680] Indeed,
Gloucester seems to have been very energetic in executing his duties as
Protector, and to have turned to the administration of the government that
restless energy, which circumstances and his own ambitious nature had
drawn lately to less worthy occupations. In June we find him at Norwich to
strengthen by his presence the hands of the justices who had to try a case of
lawlessness which had gone unpunished during the disturbed state of affairs
in official circles. On the last night of 1423 certain felons to the number of
eighty or more had attacked the house of John Grys of Wighton in the
county of Norfolk, and he being ‘somewhat heated with wassail,’ had been
dragged out to a gallows a mile away, where with his son Gregory and a
servant he had been butchered for lack of a rope to hang them. It would
seem that the two principals in this outrage had been Walter Aslak and
Richard Kyllynworth, who tried after this to establish a reign of terror in
Norfolk, and so threatened William Paston by manifestoes openly posted in
public places, that ‘the seyd William, hese clerkes and servauntz by longe
time after were in gret and intollerable drede and fere.’ Paston had indicted
these men before Gloucester as Protector, and on April 5, 1425, the matter
had been referred to arbitration. The award of the arbitrators had been
ignored by Aslak, and under the protection of Sir Thomas Erpingham he
had further annoyed Paston at the Parliament of Leicester. Gloucester now
presided in person at the trial of the offenders, and six men were
condemned for this outrage and put to death.[681]
Before the end of the month the Protector was back in London, holding a
council, at which matters of some moment were up for discussion. The

truce with Scotland for which Gloucester was one of the guarantors had not
been very well observed, and the question of heresy had also come to the
fore.[682] Shortly before Gloucester’s visit to St. Albans a certain William
Wawe—latro mirabilis the chronicler quaintly calls him—had attacked the
neighbouring nunnery of Sopwell and plundered its contents. Rightly or
wrongly this was considered to be part of a Lollard scheme of opposition to
the Church, and it was as a heretic as well as a ‘wonderful robber’ that
Wawe, after a period of confinement at St. Albans, was arraigned before
Gloucester in London. We cannot in any way judge of the rights of the case,
as we have only a very one-sided account of the event, but it is quite
possible that it was more the heated imaginations of the ecclesiastics, who
had not forgotten the incidents connected with Oldcastle, than any real
heretical inclinations on the part of the prisoner, which produced the charge.
Wawe was condemned and hanged.[683]
In these two cases of summary judgment we find displayed a side of the
Protector’s character which has been given but scant justice by historians.
Though crafty and self-seeking, Gloucester was in no sense turbulent. His
justice thus meted out cannot be dismissed as a standard of ethics to which
he himself did not conform. We have no instance in which he appealed to
brute force except when he was compelled to do so, for in the case of the
quarrel with Beaufort he was not the aggressor, nor can we believe the
stories of armed conspiracy which surround his mysterious death. His
energy was devoted at this time at least towards keeping the peace. We have
seen his recent journeys into the country districts to settle matters which
might cause disturbance, and in September he was at Chester,[684] whither
he had probably gone in his capacity as Justiciar of that district, not being
content to leave his duties there to a delegated representative, as the terms
of his appointment had allowed. As Protector he meted out justice
impartially, and though he may have helped to shatter the foreign policy of
his country, his home government shows a strange contrast to the other
more prominent but by no means more essential incidents of his life. It is,
however, by the terms of his Hainault policy that he has been judged, a
policy which, with all its far-reaching consequences, occupied but a small
part of his life, and to the last stages of which we must now refer.

Whilst Gloucester had been devoting his time to the assertion of his
personality in English politics, Jacqueline had been carrying on her uphill
struggle against the superior forces and the boundless resources of the Duke
of Burgundy. Her English husband, though his attention was devoted to
other matters, was still prosecuting his cause at the Court of Rome, and
even during the stormy days of the Parliament at Leicester we find a
reference to his attempt to secure a recognition of the legality of his
marriage.[685] But all hope of papal favour was now very remote, for at this
very time we find an edict, issued on February 27, 1426, by the papal
commissioner who was examining the case, declaring the desertion of
Brabant by Jacqueline to be quite illegal, and committing her to the care of
her kinsman Amadeus of Savoy until the ultimate decision was given by the
Pope.[686] Though this edict had not the authority of a papal Bull, yet it
showed which party the decision of the Pope would favour, and the
chroniclers agree in taking this date as the final decision of the matter.[687]
Nevertheless pressure was still brought to bear on the Pope, and in October
of the same year the English Council agreed to desist from prosecuting the
Bishop of Lincoln under the act of Præmunire, on condition that he should
do his utmost to expedite the cause of the Duke of Gloucester at Rome.[688]
Jacqueline had no intention of returning to her
1427] JACQUELINE former husband, or of resigning herself to the
SEEKS ASSISTANCE keeping of her kinsman of Savoy, and in view of
the greater difficulties which now attended her
owing to the defection of some of her none too numerous supporters, she
turned her thoughts again to the country which had befriended her in the
past, where dwelt the man whom she claimed as her husband, though he
seemed to have forgotten her existence. From Gouda, where she was
making a last desperate resistance against her enemies, she sent Lewis de
Montfort and Arnold of Ghent to the Council in England with a letter which
was written on April 8, 1427. She recalled therein the friendship of Henry
V., and assured them that he would never have left her to her fate; she
begged for help, comme pour femme desolée, and begged them to lay her
sad plight before her husband, and induce him to come to her help, or at
least to send her some assistance.[689] She had evidently given up hope of
any spontaneous support from Humphrey. She no longer wrote to him
personally, as she had done earlier, and she realised that her only hope of

relief was to lay stress on the moral obligation laid on the nation by the
action of Henry V. In answer to her letter ambassadors were sent from
England, bearing an answer written in the name of the King, and to this
Jacqueline replied agreeing to the desire for peace expressed by Henry VI.,
but pointing to Burgundy’s unreasonableness as an impossible bar to any
pacific arrangement. Again she asked for help in the name of Henry V.’s
friendship for her.[690]
Before this last letter had been despatched a
1427] ENGLISH change had come over the state of affairs. The
SYMPATHY FOR Duke of Brabant had brought his poor mean life
JACQUELINE
to an end in a halo of sanctity,[691] and the Duke
of Burgundy could no longer wage war in his name. This was no obstacle to
the unscrupulous Philip, who declared that, as formerly, he had been the
regent of John of Brabant in his wife’s dominions, so now he was by
inference regent for that wife herself. The dummy which had stood as an
excuse for interference in Hainault was now removed, and we can see the
state of affairs clearly, untrammelled by diplomatic fictions. All along, in
point of fact, the struggle had been between Jacqueline and her powerful
cousin, now it was so in theory also. Under these altered conditions the
Countess made yet another appeal to the English Council on June 6,
alluding to the recent events, and imploring assistance.[692] At the same time
she sent ambassadors with written instructions both to the Council and to
Gloucester.[693] Letter and messages were delivered towards the end of
June,[694] and at length these constant appeals began to make an impression.
Gloucester began to bestir himself, seeing that he would probably have
public opinion on his side, and that he was free from the interference of
Bedford. He appealed to Parliament for the sum of 20,000 marks to enable
him to equip an army to assist Jacqueline,[695] and this body replied
willingly to the request by petitioning the Council to take steps to alleviate
her position, whether by treaty or some other means, laying stress on the
perilous position in which she found herself, as recorded in letters both to
her husband and to the estates of the realm; they also backed up
Gloucester’s request for 20,000 marks. The matter was seriously considered
by the Council, and it was ultimately decided that 9000 marks should be
granted to Gloucester, 4000 marks of which was to consist of the immediate

payment of half his yearly salary as Protector, the other 5000 marks being a
grant for the maintenance of his Duchess.[696]
This money was given for a definite purpose, and for that purpose alone; it
was to furnish an expedition to Holland, which should relieve and garrison
the towns which still remained obedient to Jacqueline. Part of the forces
were to be told off to escort the Countess to England, whilst the remainder
were to stay behind in Hainault and protect such places as they had
relieved. Under no conditions were they to act on the offensive, or attack
any place in Holland, Hainault, or Zealand held by any one but Jacqueline.
As though they feared that the money would not be directed to its destined
use, the Council arranged that it should be paid to two persons appointed by
Gloucester to receive it, with the proviso that if no soldiers could be
induced to go, the receivers were to hold the money for the King’s use,
while all soldiers that were enlisted were to be paid directly by them.[697]
Thus, though a grant was made, it was hedged in with conditions which
betray no desire on the part of the Council to assist Gloucester to a
continental dominion. Jacqueline had an undoubted claim on the sympathy
of Englishmen, and a desire for her safety was expressed on all sides, yet
under the circumstances it was not desirable, from the point of view of
English politics, that she should be enabled to prolong her resistance to
Burgundy. The visit of Bedford to England had not been in vain, for it had
taught Englishmen the danger of Burgundian complications, and the
necessity for refraining from undue intervention in the politics of Hainault.
This money for armed assistance to Jacqueline was not intended to prolong
the struggle, but to procure a peace between the opposing parties in
Hainault; the terms on which the grant was made plainly indicate that it was
her safety only that was to be procured; she was to be removed and brought
back to an asylum in England. No thought of helping Humphrey lay therein.
As the husband of the lady he was to carry out the commission, but it was
made impossible for him to extract any territorial or monetary advantage
therefrom.
However galling this position might be to Gloucester, he began to prepare
an army to fulfil the commands of the Council, and he received ready
support from the Earl of Salisbury. This famous general had been
distinguishing himself in the wars in France; he had served with distinction

under Henry V.; at Verneuil he had been conspicuous for his bravery,[698]
and since then he had established a great military reputation. He was now
ready to put his abilities at the service of the Duke of Gloucester, for he had
sworn to avenge himself on Burgundy who had seduced his wife, and he
was joined under Humphrey’s banner by many of the chief men of the
kingdom.[699] From this readiness to undertake hostilities against Burgundy
we may gather that the ill-will between Philip and his English allies was not
entirely due to the reckless action of Gloucester, and that there were many
who were ready to help on the discomfiture of a man who had done little to
make his alliance effective, and who more than once had intrigued with
both parties in France in the hope of securing some personal advantage.
This expedition to Hainault was not, however, to
1427] INTERVENTION OF take place. Ten days after they had agreed to
BEDFORD grant Humphrey the 9000 marks, the Council
wrote to Bedford and explained what they had
done. They described how strong was public opinion in favour of
Jacqueline, and how they had determined to give her support, but they
besought the Regent of France to do his utmost to bring about peace by
inducing Burgundy to abstain from his wrongful oppression of the Duchess
of Gloucester and her husband.[700] Bedford was naturally dismayed at this
news. Knowing Philip as he did, he realised that even purely defensive
interference by English troops in Hainault would be regarded as an
unforgivable act of hostility. At the best of times Burgundian fidelity to the
English alliance hung by a mere thread, and with this excuse nothing would
prevent Philip from coming to an agreement with the Dauphin, in favour of
whom public opinion in France was slowly turning. To prevent such a result
he promptly answered the Council’s letter, stating that Philip was ready to
treat with Gloucester, and pointing out the dangers which would attend
English intervention in the matter; the King was young, and the alienation
of Burgundy under these conditions was very undesirable, and might bring
terrible disasters on the English cause in France. Moreover, it was not fair to
condemn Philip unheard, and, in any case, the rights of the matter must be
decided in Rome and not in London.[701] He also wrote to Humphrey,
declaring his affection for him in the most brotherly terms, and begging him
in the name of England’s safety not to carry out his mad intention, but to
listen to the advice of those who wished him well. At the same time he

offered to use all his influence to bring about a peace, which would not
reflect in any way on his brother’s honour.[702] Not content with letters, he
sent over ambassadors to impress on the Council the impolicy of allowing
Gloucester to go to Hainault, and to procure, if possible, the abandonment
of the idea.[703] Meanwhile he turned his attention to Duke Philip himself,
who was already busy preparing forces to resist the expected invasion.[704]
A meeting between the two Dukes at Lille proved abortive, but since the
expedition had been delayed in spite of a protest from Jacqueline received
in September,[705] and no signs of its approach were apparent, a truce with
the promise of a future settlement was at length concluded between
Burgundy and Gloucester at Paris.[706]
Thus Humphrey allowed the year to close
1428] GLOUCESTER without having done anything to help the lady
CENSURED who could hardly be called his wife, and on
January 9 in the new year the Pope finally issued
a Bull, whereby the marriage of Jacqueline with Brabant was definitely
recognised as valid, and any marriage contracted by the former in the
lifetime of the latter was declared to be illegal.[707] Gloucester was weary of
the whole affair. He had not protested against Bedford’s opposition to the
last projected expedition to Hainault, for he had given up all hope of a
continental dominion from the day when he first turned his back on
Hainault. He was too deeply occupied in asserting himself in English
politics to trouble his mind over a matter which had passed so entirely out
of his thoughts, and his preparations in answer to the grant of 9000 marks
had been spiritless and unconvincing. Now, though Jacqueline lodged a
protest against the final decision of the Court of Rome, he took no action,
and on March 17 procured the cancelling of the bonds of the 9000 marks
loan of the previous year.[708] This callous behaviour with regard to his
former wife seems to have shocked his contemporaries. On March 8 the
Mayor and Aldermen of London appeared before Parliament, and said that
they had received letters from Jacqueline, whom in defiance of the papal
Bull they called Duchess of Gloucester as well as Countess of Holland and
Zealand, in which she appealed to them for help. They declared that the
nation ought to rescue her, and said that they were ready to help within
reason.[709]

More definite than this implied censure on Gloucester was another scene
enacted within the precincts of Parliament about this time.[710] A woman
from the Stocks Market,[711] which occupied the present site of the Mansion
House, and was so called from the stocks which stood there, came openly
into Parliament, bringing with her some other London women, and handed
letters to Gloucester, the two Archbishops and other lords there, censuring
the Duke for not taking steps to relieve his wife from her danger, and for
leaving her unloved and forgotten in captivity, whilst he was living in
adultery with another woman, ‘to the ruin of himself, the kingdom, and the
marital bond.’[712] The women of London at this time were apt to assert
their right to a voice in public matters. In the very next year we find the
wives and daughters of the citizens of Aldgate taking the law into their own
hands, and killing a Breton murderer by pelting him with stones and canal
mud in spite of the intervention of the constables who were escorting the
prisoner to the coast.[713] In this case the victim of the murderer was an old
widowed lady who had shown him much charity, and it would seem that it
was only in matters which affected their own sex that the London women
took an interest. The story of the women’s petition to Parliament is handed
down to us in the pages of a chronicler of the friendly house of St. Albans,
though the entry has been cancelled by another hand; it therefore helps us to
understand the intense sympathy felt in England for Jacqueline, when the
men and women of London both came to censure their ‘Good Duke.’
It is possible that news of the ultimate declaration of the Court of Rome had
not yet reached England, for we find Jacqueline termed Duchess of
Gloucester in an official document of March 18 in this year,[714] but this did
not detract from the blame which the Duke had incurred by his neglect of
the woman whom he had claimed as his wife for the last six years. We
cannot but find the censure of the market-women well deserved. In the hope
of increasing his possessions and his power Humphrey had made a
questionable marriage with Jacqueline, but this could be forgiven him if,
when he had done so, he had been loyal to his wife, who at one time at all
events had loved him for himself. It was not the perception of the political
complications which would result from further action that restrained him,
but the realisation that the prize was not worth the energy needed to win it,
coupled with the fact that he had become a slave to what was perhaps the
one real passion of his life.

We have seen how Gloucester was accompanied
1428] ELEANOR home from Hainault by one of Jacqueline’s
COBHAM English ladies-in-waiting, and how he had fallen
a victim to her charms. Eleanor Cobham was of
great beauty, so the gossiping Æneas Sylvius tells us, whilst Waurin bears
testimony to her wonderful charm and courage,[715] but her honour had
been besmirched before Gloucester made her acquaintance.[716]
Notwithstanding this, she had gained a complete ascendency over her royal
lover, to whom she had probably borne two children by this time, and the
superstition of the age did not hesitate to say that it was through potions
provided by the Witch of Eye that this ascendency had been secured.[717]
Throughout these last years it had been the attractions of this woman that
had caused Gloucester to forget Jacqueline, and he now carried his
infatuation so far as to marry her. Freed from all obligations to his former
wife by papal decree, he hastened to legalise his relations with Eleanor,
whence ‘arose shame and more disgrace and inconvenience to the whole
kingdom than can be expressed,’ says a contemporary chronicler,[718] whilst
a later writer says, ‘and if he wer unquieted with his other pretensed wife,
truly he was tenne tymes more vexed by occasion of this woman—so that
he began his marriage with evill, and ended it with worse.’[719] Monstrelet
also looks askance at the marriage,[720] and even the poet Lydgate raised his
voice against the ‘Cyronees,’ who tempted
‘The prynci’s hert against al goddes lawe
Frome heos promesse truwe alle to withdrawe
To straunge him, and make him foule forsworne
Unto that godely faythfull truwe pryncesse.’[721]
Eleanor was an ambitious woman, who had undoubtedly had this end in
view, but that she had been used by Bedford and Beaufort as a counter
attraction to Jacqueline is a statement supported by no evidence, and merely
suggested by the dramatic instinct of a poet. There was nothing unusual in
this action of Gloucester’s, and if he married his mistress, it was no more
than his grandfather had done before him. Even if he did not encourage the
marriage, Beaufort could not object to it, for what claims he had to
legitimacy were based upon such a union.

Henceforth the history of Jacqueline ceases to be bound up with that of
Gloucester, and a few months later she was compelled to agree to a treaty
with Burgundy, whereby she acknowledged the illegality of her former
marriage. Bereft of her English husband, her life assumed a calmer aspect,
and for the remaining years that she had to live she could not regret the loss
of one for whom she had suffered so much, and from whom she had
received so little.

The Duke of Gloucester and his wife Eleanor being
received into the fraternity of St. Alban’s Abbey.

While Jacqueline was making her last stand against her enemies, and
sending her last appeals for help across to England, Humphrey was

occupied with ambitions far nearer home and
1428] THE totally unconnected with his now forgotten
PROTECTOR’S POSITION Hainault policy. The Parliament of 1427, which
had been opened by the little King in person on
October 13, had been prorogued on December 8 by the Protector on the
authority of letters-patent from the King,[722] and on both occasions the
subordination of the Protector to the rules laid down for him were thus fully
emphasised. Gloucester began openly to resent these limitations of his
power, and even before the adjournment he had made some protest against
the merely nominal privileges which he enjoyed.[723] No notice had been
taken of this protest, and he was therefore left to reflect on the matter during
the recess. Christmas he spent at his favourite monastery, and the St. Albans
chronicler tells us of the splendid style in which he celebrated the Feast.
When Epiphany was past, he moved on to Ashbridge near Berkhampsted
for a stay of three days, and thence he returned to London for the reopening
of Parliament.[724] His mind was made up. In spite of the previous ignoring
of his protest, he now, on March 3, requested that the Lords should define
his powers, and did so in such a way as to imply a demand for more
extended rights and privileges than he at present possessed. He declared his
intention of abstaining from attendance in Parliament till this matter was
settled, and arrogantly declared that during his absence other questions
might be discussed but not settled.[725]
The motive underlying the request is evident. Bedford was safely employed
in the French wars and in Burgundian negotiations; Beaufort was also
absent, and it seemed to Gloucester to be an ideal time to strengthen his
hands against the Cardinal. Possibly he had been betrayed into the belief
that he held the ascendency in Parliament by the alacrity with which that
body had sanctioned the recent loan to him. Short-sighted as before, he
could not distinguish between sympathy for Jacqueline’s sad plight and
sympathy with his personal ambitions, and he did not realise that other
men’s memories were longer than his. In point of fact he could not have
chosen a worse time for this attempt to secure increased power in the
kingdom, for the Lords would have less compunction in refusing anything
to the ‘Good Duke’ at a time when his conduct was being openly censured
even by his London supporters, than when his popularity was not under a
shadow. As it was, the demand produced the inevitable result. The Lords

took their stand on the arrangements made in the first Parliament of the
reign, recalling how at that time Humphrey had claimed the government of
the kingdom, both by right of birth and by the right of the will of Henry V.,
how records had been searched and precedents consulted, with the result
that the claim was found to be unsupported by any legal authority, whilst
the right of Henry V. to give away the government of the country after his
death was also found to have no legal basis. Yet for the sake of peace and to
‘appese’ Gloucester, he had been made chief councillor of the King as long
as Bedford remained abroad, and to distinguish him from the other
councillors the name of ‘Protector and Defender’ was ‘devised’ for him,
which should not ‘emporte auctorite of governaunce of ye land,’ but merely
carry with it a personal duty to provide for the defence of the kingdom both
from external and internal dangers, giving him therewith certain powers
which were enumerated at the time. That was the intention of Parliament
five years ago, and beyond this the Lords would not now go; indeed at the
time Gloucester had agreed to the arrangement. In Parliament Humphrey
had no rights beyond those of any other duke, and it was merely as Duke of
Gloucester that he was summoned there. The Lords declared themselves
surprised at his recent demands, and they told him pretty bluntly that he
must be content with such power as he had got, even as was Bedford. In
conclusion they expressed a hope that he would take his seat in Parliament,
and make no more ado about his position there.[726]
Nothing could show us more plainly than this the suspicion in which were
held any attempts by Gloucester to monopolise the governmental power,
and the surprisingly advanced state of constitutional theory. Yet we must not
be tempted to dismiss this incident merely as an indication of Humphrey’s
ambition, and of the patriotic endeavour of Parliament to maintain
constitutional government in the face of expiring despotism. Humphrey’s
ambitious nature is, of course, beyond dispute, but among his motives there
may have been some hope of giving the kingdom a strength it lacked under
the present government. It is a platitude to say that under the Lancastrian
kings England had advanced in constitutional theory much further than in
administrative efficiency. The elements of constitutional monarchy had
been attained, and they are nowhere better expressed than in the answer to
Gloucester’s demands, but parliamentary government at this time was not
what we understand by that term now. The Parliament of Henry VI. was not
representative of the kingdom in the modern sense of the word; it was

largely a reflection of the desires of the English nobility, or rather of a
certain dominant clique therein. The government of this clique had not
proved a blessing to England, and we have already seen something of the
lawlessness and disorder of the kingdom generally. In September of the
following year the Chancellor in opening Parliament was very despondent
about the moral state of the country, declaring that acts of lawlessness and
oppression were everyday occurrences, and arose from the absence of any
real administration of justice.[727]
To Humphrey was given all the hard work of keeping the peace, with none
of the rewards for those labours, or the prestige which would make his
influence efficient. As it was, the divisions in the government had disastrous
effects; the country was not ready for a divided sovereignty. The only
remedy for this state of affairs was that the central power should be in the
hands of one man, who should make his personality felt at a time when
personality had far more influence on men’s minds than any theory of
government. We cannot suggest that Humphrey was the ideal man to exert
this personal power, yet we must not forget his past attempts to administer
the law for the benefit of the injured, or his later efforts to prevent sedition
and internal strife. He could not belong to the House of Lancaster without
inheriting some of the administrative qualities of his family; to this was
added his popularity with the people, and his position as a member of the
royal family. Owing to this position his influence must be great, and it
would have been to the advantage of the country that this influence should
be exerted on the side of law and order, rather than at the head of a
discontented opposition. On paper the theories contained in the Lords’ reply
were excellent, but in practice they needed a more advanced state of society
than that which obtained in fifteenth-century England. The country, though
it knew it not, was on the eve of a civil war of the worst kind, and a man
untrammelled by the limitations of a none too wise oligarchy might have
saved it many years of bloodshed. Humphrey was not a strong character, yet
with his advantages of birth to support him, he was no weaker than any
other individual of the time in England, and far stronger than the divided
rule of a Regency Council.
As a mitigation of the rebuff of this refusal to increase his powers,
Gloucester was granted the payment for forty-eight days’ service in 1415,
which had hitherto been refused by the officials of the Exchequer;[728] and

when Parliament had ceased to sit he went off to Merton, where he kept the
Feast of Easter.[729] The King meanwhile was taken to keep the Feast at
Hertford, where he was visited by Warwick, who had been brought back
from France to fill a post wherein he might act as another check on the
power of the Protector.[730] The death of the Duke of Exeter in January
1427 had left the post of tutor to the King vacant, and hitherto this vacancy
had not been filled. Now, however, fearing that in the absence of an
authorised tutor Gloucester might influence his royal nephew, the Council
determined to give to Warwick the place of Exeter, thus fulfilling the wishes
of the late King in this respect, though they had lately refused to do so in
the matter of the Protectorate. On June 1 the writ empowering Warwick to
exercise the office of tutor to Henry VI. was signed by Gloucester and
eleven other Lords of the Council.[731]
In the same month we find Humphrey hearing
1428] DISTURBANCES petitions in the Star Chamber at Westminster
IN THE MIDLANDS
with other members of the Council,[732] but he
was called away shortly afterwards to settle a dispute which threatened the
peace of the Midlands. From some paltry retainer’s quarrel a feud had
sprung up between John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and John Holland,
Earl of Huntingdon, and matters had gone so far that each had collected a
considerable force, and a pitched battle seemed imminent. Hearing of this
the Protector hastened to leave London, and on August 19 reached St.
Albans, where the monks greeted him with the usual joyful processions. He
did not, however, delay here, but the next morning, having paid his respects
to the Holy Martyr, he set off in the direction of Bedfordshire, so that he
might get in touch with the two opponents, and probe the reasons for their
quarrel. Though an actual fight was averted, no settlement could be
arranged, as the Duke of Norfolk refused to appear before the Protector.[733]
Here again we find an instance of the undesirable effects of government by
the Privy Council. Both Norfolk and Huntingdon were councillors, and
naturally resented the interference of a man whose power in the government
was subordinate to theirs, but their feelings of patriotism and responsibility
were not enough to induce them to keep the peace which they were
supposed to enforce on others. No better example could be found of the
emptiness of constitutional theory in those days of turbulence and violence.

Finding himself powerless to restore peace in Bedfordshire, Gloucester
turned south, and by way of St. Albans reached London, where he prepared
to welcome his old rival Beaufort on his return from the Continent.[734] This
was the Bishop of Winchester’s first appearance in England as a cardinal,
and he was met on September 1 outside London by the Mayor and citizens
‘reverently arrayed in red hoods and green vestments. The Abbot of St.
Albans and many of the regular clergy were there also to meet him, but of
the bishops his Lordship of Salisbury was the only representative.[735]
Gloucester cannot have received the Cardinal with unalloyed pleasure, for
he thoroughly disapproved of the policy which had allowed the acceptance
of the cardinal’s hat. However, he joined in the official reception, when the
Cardinal rode into the city with that pomp and magnificence which he loved
so well.
The year passed to its close without further
1429] BEAUFORT’S incident, though on November 19, the Eve of St.
CARDINALATE Edmund, King and Martyr, we find the Cardinal
again seizing the opportunity of displaying his
newly acquired dignity. A solemn procession round the city was headed by
Beaufort, accompanied by the two Archbishops, the Mayor, and the
Protector himself, who, for the time, seems to have been on good terms
with his uncle.[736] As Christmas drew near, Gloucester went down to
Greenwich, there to celebrate the festival in the house which he had
acquired after the death of the Duke of Exeter, and which he was later to
transform into a famous palace.[737] But with Beaufort in England once
more, he was on the lookout to curb the power of his old antagonist, and the
opportunity was offered him by the cardinalate which the latter had
accepted.
It has been said that Beaufort made ‘the great mistake of his life’ when he
accepted this dignity;[738] at all events it gave the Protector an excuse for
attacking him. He had come back from the Continent with a papal
commission to raise men and money for the crusade against the Hussites,
and he was permitted to make an expedition to Scotland for this purpose.
[739]
During his absence Gloucester raised the question as to whether he had
not vacated his bishopric by accepting the cardinal’s hat, since it exempted
him from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury,[740] and on his

return the Cardinal, in order that the matter might be settled forthwith,
petitioned the King to be allowed to exercise his functions as prelate of the
Garter, by right of his bishopric of Winchester, at the approaching Feast of
St. George, the patron saint of the Order and of the kingdom. The matter
was discussed before the King at Westminster on April 17, and the peers,
prelates, and abbots present agreed to ask the new cardinal to refrain from
attending the festival on this occasion at any rate.[741]
By thus playing on the fears of the majority of Englishmen, who looked
with great dislike on any one who even seemed to suggest papal
interference in the country, Gloucester had made a skilful, if somewhat
revengeful, move, but we must not forget that Beaufort had taken the first
step that led to the state of mutual mistrust which prompted this action. For
the time Gloucester held the ascendence over his rival, and in the hope of
getting him out of the country again, raised no objection to the permission
granted to the Cardinal to raise forces for the campaign against the Hussites,
[742]
and this in spite of the fact that Bedford was asking for reinforcements.
However, the defeat of the English at Patay on the same day that the
permission to Beaufort was given could not be overlooked, and the Cardinal
was induced to lead his forces to the help of Bedford, and to postpone his
crusading zeal.[743] In June he crossed the Channel and landed in France.
[744]

Bedford, however, wanted more than
1429] CORONATION OF reinforcements. In the face of the French
HENRY VI successes under the influence of the enthusiasm
engendered by the Maid of Orleans, and the
favour with which Frenchmen generally were beginning to look on the
hitherto despised cause of the ‘King of Bourges,’ it was necessary to do
something to rehabilitate the Lancastrian cause in France. It was with this
object that the Regent earnestly asked the English Council to send the little
King to be crowned at Paris.[745] When Parliament met on September 22 it
agreed to comply with this request, and preparations were rapidly made so
that Henry’s coronation in England might first take place. Gloucester
naturally took a large share in these preparations; it was always with zest
that he arranged a great function. On October 10 he was appointed to act as

Steward of England for the occasion,[746] whilst he was allowed to appoint a
deputy to perform his duties as Great Chamberlain.[747]
It was on St. Leonard’s Day, Sunday, November 6, that the coronation took
place, shorn of some of its glories by reason of the haste with which
preparations for it had been made. Archbishop Chichele, assisted by the
Cardinal Bishop of Winchester, who had returned from France for the
occasion, performed the ceremony, which ended with a banquet in
Westminster Hall, such as Gloucester had supervised nearly ten years
before on the occasion of Queen Catherine’s coronation.[748]

CHAPTER VI
GLOUCESTER AS FIRST COUNCILLOR
The coronation of Henry VI. had its significance at home as well as abroad;
for Gloucester it meant the abandonment of the title which he had held
since the death of Henry V. The festivities were barely over when
Parliament declared that, since the King was now crowned, he had taken the
responsibility of the government on himself, and that therefore the
Protectorate was at an end: on November 15 Humphrey resigned his office,
stipulating that by this action he did not prejudice the right of his brother
Bedford.[749] In this premature ending of the Protectorate we cannot fail to
see the hand of Beaufort and the jealousy of the Regency Council. To say
that a child, who had not attained the age of eight, had become capable of
governing the country simply because a ceremony, which might have been
performed with equal justice seven years earlier, had taken place, was on
the face of it absurd. It may be that Beaufort had suggested the coronation
to Bedford when he was in France with this end in view; certainly this
summary ending of the Protectorate shows that the Council were
determined to limit the power of the man who was nominally at the head of
affairs, thereby hoping to increase their own importance. The lords had just
told Gloucester that the title of Protector was nothing but a title, and now
they proceeded to take away even that, and to reduce him to the rank of
First Councillor. There was neither logic nor policy in this action. Whilst it
could not serve to help on the good government of the kingdom, it only
added another reason for the discontent and factiousness of the man it was
meant to curb.
We find Gloucester’s protest against his compulsory resignation of the
Protectorate in this very same Parliament, when it was questioned whether a
cardinal had a right to be a member of the Council. Beaufort secured
another victory when the Lords decided that not only was it allowable but
very desirable that he should attend the meetings of the Council on all
occasions, except when matters connected with the Papal See were under
discussion.[750]

The Bishop of Winchester had now considerably
1430] THE FORTY more power than his rival, and we may see traces
SHILLING FRANCHISE of the antipathy to Gloucester prevalent amongst
the Lords of Parliament in a famous measure
passed in the second session of this same Parliament. The representatives of
the counties in Parliament were chosen in the County Court, and Henry IV.
had taken steps to make this representation adequately reflect the wishes of
all who had access to that court. A reaction against this wide qualification
for the franchise now set in, and it was ordained that none but those who
possessed a freehold of the value of forty shillings a year, and resided
within the county, could vote for the knights of the shire who sat in
Parliament.[751] It is to be noticed that, whilst driving the theory of
constitutional government to an extreme, Parliament was now limiting the
possibilities of its claim to represent the nation: the reason is obvious. The
more limited the franchise, the more powerful would be the lords who
desired to rule the country, and the less powerful would be Gloucester, who
numbered his supporters amongst the rank and file of the commonalty now
excluded from the franchise. The Bill spoke of the riot and disturbance
caused ‘by great attendance of people of small substance and no value
whereof every of them pretended a voice equivalent, as to such elections,
with the most worthy knights and squires resident,’[752] and the true
meaning of this complaint does not lie far below the surface. Humphrey
may be indicted on many counts, but he cannot be said to have championed
the lords against the people. What strength he had was based on his
personal popularity with the ‘people of small substance,’ and his opponents
were the men who, working under the pretence of desiring a stronger
Parliament, were attempting to secure absolute domination over the country.
Having secured a preponderance in the kingdom, they proceeded to quarrel
among themselves, since the inevitable result of conciliar government was
at this time civil war. Gloucester, with all his faults, stood for the rights of
the people, not perhaps from disinterested motives, but because the people
were ready to support him. Neither lords nor commons had an exclusive
right to govern the kingdom during a minority, nor had they the political
capacity to do so, but this limitation of the franchise was a measure aimed
by the nobility at Gloucester and the commons at once. Supported by
Beaufort, who thought himself able to control them, the lords shut the door
on those who alone could check their turbulence, and weakened the position

of a man, who with a less limited power might have given strength to the
kingdom and dynasty, even although he was almost entirely selfish in his
aims. Beaufort was not able to control them, and the ultimate result of their
quarrels was civil war.
While these measures to prevent the ascendency
1430] GLOUCESTER of Gloucester in the councils of the nation were
MADE REGENT being taken, preparations were being made for
the journey of the young King to France; they
were pervaded by a spirit of precaution. The articles for the regulation of
the Council, which had been made in the first Parliament of the reign, were
re-enacted and expanded so that there should be no possibility of the
conciliar government being weakened by the machinations of the First
Councillor.[753] At the same time careful arrangements were made for the
government of the kingdom in the King’s absence; all were agreed that it
was impossible to leave the kingdom in the hands of any one but
Gloucester, yet his powers as Regent must be limited. Cardinal Beaufort
was induced to escort Henry VI. to France, and the Council was divided into
two parts, one to accompany the King, the other to remain in England.
These two divisions were to be independent of one another except in
matters of the greatest importance, but the Regent of England was
prevented from turning the English Council into a body composed of his
own supporters by the provision that no councillor could be dismissed save
with the consent of both Councils.[754] At the same time the weakness of the
Council as a governing body was made manifest by the steps taken to
prevent the Duke of Norfolk and the Earls of Huntingdon and Warwick
from attacking one another whilst accompanying the King. Humphrey took
his own precautions to prevent armed dissensions in this Council, and
exacted an oath from these three lords that they would not in person resent
any injury done them, but bring any dispute among themselves before the
Council.[755]
In spite of the proceedings of his opponents, it is evident that the abolition
of the Protectorate had not shorn Gloucester of all his power. In this quarrel
of the lords he had successfully asserted his right to impose order and to
keep the peace, and on December 23 of the previous year he had secured a
handsome allowance for his exertions as First Councillor. For his
attendance at the Council whilst the King was still in England, he was paid

at the rate of two thousand marks a year, and as Regent in the King’s
absence he was to receive double that sum. A proviso was also added that if
he should be put to extra expense or trouble in some matter in which he had
the consent of the Council, he was to have an extra grant, and if, by reason
of the urgency of the matter, he should be compelled to act without the
consent of that body, he was to be paid therefor at their next meeting.[756]
Whilst the last preparations for the journey were being made, Gloucester
had accompanied his nephew as far as Canterbury on his way to the coast.
There Easter had been kept, and it was there also that Gloucester took the
steps already recorded towards securing peace amongst the lords who were
to accompany their young sovereign to France.[757] There, too, in his
capacity of Warden of the Cinque Ports, he had prepared for the
transhipment of the expedition by ordering ships to be in readiness to carry
the King across the Channel.[758] On April 23 his commission as Regent
during the King’s absence was signed. By it he was authorised to hold
Parliaments and Councils, and with their assent to ordain such things as
were necessary for the welfare of the King and the realm. He might also
exercise the royal authority in all matters pertaining to ecclesiastical
elections, but he was to do everything by the advice of the Council and not
otherwise.[759] Next day the little King set sail on his way to secure the
empty honour of the crown of France, whilst his uncle turned back to
undertake the cares of that other kingdom, which was in the end to prove an
almost equally illusory possession.[760]
The first year of Gloucester’s regency passed without any incident of
interest. The government was quietly conducted, and the discussions which
continually arose when Beaufort was in the country were for the time
forgotten. Negotiations were carried on with Scotland, in which Lord
Scrope, a supporter of Gloucester, seems to have acted with energy and
ability.[761] But despite several journeys to the north, and a seeming
readiness on both sides to come to an understanding,[762] no definite
settlement was made, and he was again sent to Scotland in November.[763]
Thus the year passed quickly away, and there was found to be no need for
the summoning of Parliament till early in 1431.[764]
The session which then began was even more uneventful than that of the
preceding year, though Beaufort came over to attend it,[765] and the lack of

political quarrels speaks for the good
1431] MEETING OF government of the Regent and the powerlessness
PARLIAMENT of the Cardinal when his turbulent supporters
were absent in France. Only one event in
Parliament is worthy of record, and this points to the financial distress of
the country and to the waning affection for the war. In response to the
Pope’s efforts in the direction of peace, the Lords and Commons joined
with hearty goodwill in an attempt to further his wishes by appointing the
King’s three uncles, Bedford, Gloucester, and Beaufort, to treat of peace
with the envoys of France and of Rome, and by instructing them to agree to
any terms they might think reasonable, saving the liberties of the King’s
subjects.[766] According to a later chronicler the powers thus conferred were
the occasion of an amicable meeting between the Regent and the Cardinal
on matters of foreign policy.[767] At any rate, Beaufort returned to France
without any fresh cause of dispute having arisen between him and his
nephew.
When Parliament had been dissolved Gloucester
1431] SEDITION OF went down to Greenwich to spend Easter, and on
‘JACK SHARPE’ St. George’s Day he presided at a Chapter of the
Order of the Garter at Windsor.[768] He was
suddenly called away by disturbances in the Midland Counties. A certain
William Perkyns, otherwise known as William Maundyvyll, who for the
purposes of his agitation called himself ‘Jack Sharpe of Wygmoreland,’ had
lately been distributing pamphlets in London, Coventry, and Oxford, which
took the form of a petition to the King and Lords of Parliament, showing
the waste which ensued from the possession of temporalities by the bishops,
abbots, and priors of the Church, and praying for their resumption by the
Crown. It was suggested that the proceeds of this confiscation should be
devoted to the endowment of a hundred almshouses and the financing of a
certain number of earls, knights, and squires, but that the confiscations
themselves should only affect the high dignitaries of the Church.[769] The
mention of ‘Wygmoreland’ savoured too much of the House of Mortimer
for the Regent to ignore the movement, while the prelates were in a frenzy
at this attack on their coveted possessions. The idea thus propounded was
no new one, for in the Parliament of 1410 this resumption of ecclesiastical
temporalities had been suggested, and the future Henry V. had opposed it,

[770]
while at a later date Oldcastle had circulated pamphlets recommending
such a course.[771] In remembrance of this incident the cry of heresy and
Lollardy was raised, and it was declared that Jack Sharpe with his ‘fals
feleshipp’ wished to destroy the Church.[772] Thus political security and
religious orthodoxy both summoned Gloucester from his ease, and he
hastened to Abingdon, in which neighbourhood the malcontents were said
to be assembled. By the help of one William Warberton, Jack Sharpe with
many of his associates was found in hiding at Oxford, where the Chancellor
and bailiffs arrested him on the Thursday before Whitsunday.[773] Brought
before the Regent, he was condemned to death and executed at Abingdon,
and his head was placed on London Bridge.[774]
In the part he took in the suppression of ‘Jack Sharpe’ Gloucester was
actuated as much by a desire to enforce the arm of the law on all disturbers
of the peace, and on all who might be thought to threaten the House of
Lancaster, as by the claims of the higher clergy to be protected. About this
time, however, he further countenanced the extinction of heresy by being
present at the burning at Smithfield of an old priest who denied the validity
of the sacraments of the Church.[775] In this he was merely carrying out the
general policy of the Government, for instances of the execution of Lollards
and other heretics were of comparatively frequent occurrence.
The danger to Church and State was over, and the movement of the man of
‘Wygmoreland’ had been suppressed by the Regent’s quick and decided
action, yet the very assumption of this name showed that the House of
Lancaster was not free from the danger which had threatened in the
Southampton conspiracy of 1415, and in the later pretensions of the Earl of
March. The inevitable dynastic struggle was only postponed till a time
when a weak and vacillating king in the hands of unintelligent advisers
should find himself unable to cope with a movement which this time had
been nipped in the bud.
After the execution of ‘Jack Sharpe’ Gloucester visited several other places
in the kingdom, making inquisitions concerning certain heretics, traitors,
and rebels, and punishing them according to their demerits.[776] Indeed
during the Regency executions for illegal acts and Lollardy were frequent;
now it was a courtier punished for the misuse of a patent seal, now a
Lollard who by his faith threatened the House of Lancaster. All through

Humphrey’s justice seems to have been firm and true, and during the time
of his government of the kingdom one chronicler at least appears to hint at a
more drastic and organised government by the number of executions that he
records.[777] At the same time there is no record of any serious disturbance
in the kingdom, and the rising of Jack Sharpe is peculiar, not because of its
existence, but because of the summary justice meted out to it. By November
Humphrey was back again to London and in attendance at the Council. The
days of the Regency were now drawing to a close. The King was now, after
many delays, on the eve of his coronation in Paris,[778] and his return to
England at the beginning of the New Year was certain. With him would
come Beaufort and his supporters in the Council, and Gloucester feared that
fresh attacks would be made on his position. He therefore prepared to meet
them by a counter-movement, to be made whilst he was still governing the
country and had a complete ascendency over the Council, and it was to this
end that the question of Beaufort’s cardinalate was again raised.
At a meeting of the Council on November 6 the
1431] INTRIGUE King’s Serjeant and Attorney presented a petition
AGAINST BEAUFORT which requested that Beaufort should be
deprived of his see of Winchester on the ground
of his having accepted a cardinal’s hat. In support of this petition it was
argued that Archbishops Langham and Kilwardby had been deprived for
this reason, and that the good of the kingdom demanded compliance with
these precedents. The Regent, who evidently inspired this action on the part
of the legal officials of the Crown, asked the Bishop of Worcester whether it
was true that the Cardinal had procured from Rome an exemption for
himself, his city, and his see from the jurisdiction of the Primate. After
much hesitation the Bishop was compelled to acknowledge that the Bishop
of Lichfield had told him that he had acted for Beaufort in the purchase of
such an exemption from the Pope. After debate the matter was referred to
the judges, who were instructed to search the records and give their decision
on the legal point. Meanwhile nothing further was to be done till the
Cardinal returned to justify his action.[779]
Though to us this attack may seem trivial, and its occurrence, at a time
when its object was not in the country to defend himself, unfair, we must
not forget that the Cardinal had laid himself open to the gravest suspicion
by invoking the interference of Rome in a matter of purely English

importance. It is also to be noticed that Beaufort had realised the probability
of losing his English benefices when created cardinal, as at the time of his
appointment he had procured a papal Bull which enacted that ‘he schuld
have an reioyse all the benefyces spirituell and temporell that he hadde had
in Englond.’[780] Thus he had laid himself open to the pains and penalties of
the statute of Provisors, which forbade the acceptance of letters from the
Pope appointing people to benefices in England, and showed that
Gloucester’s suspicion that he was using the papal alliance for furtherance
of his ambitions at home was fully justified. Jealousy of papal power had
ever been one of the chief tenets of the Englishman’s creed, and had a less
powerfully connected ecclesiastic than Beaufort ventured on such a step, his
punishment would have been swift and sure. Indeed the only voice raised in
protest against the action of the Council in this matter was that of the
Bishop of Carlisle,[781] a man well known to be a minion of the Beaufort
party, and one to whose appointment to his present see both Gloucester and
Lord Scrope had objected strongly only a few years before.[782] The
decision of the judges seems to have been hostile to the Cardinal, for on
November 20 the Council ordered writs of Præmunire and attachment upon
the Statute to be sealed against him, though they were not to be executed till
the King came back.[783]
Thus Gloucester thought that he had successfully clipped the wings of his
rival, and his ascendency in the Council was still further emphasised by a
movement to increase his salary as Regent. According to the existing
arrangement he received two thousand marks per annum as First Councillor,
and four thousand marks whilst he was Regent in the King’s absence. It was
the Treasurer, Lord Hungerford, who now proposed in the Great Council,
on the same day as the writ of Præmunire was issued, that in consideration
of the great expenses that Gloucester had incurred in the past, both in
preserving the kingdom from the malice of rebels and traitors, and
‘especially of late concerning the taking and execution of the most horrible
heretic and impious traitor to God and the said Lord King, who called
himself John Sharp, and of many other heretical malefactors his
accomplices,’ he should receive an increase of two thousand marks per
annum for his services as Regent, returning to his usual salary when the
King came back.[784]

That this was an evasion of a demand for
1431] GLOUCESTER’S increased pay by Gloucester seems to be evident,
SALARY INCREASED as the Regency was drawing to a close, and
therefore no material benefit would accrue to the
Regent by this motion. Moreover, the excuse of the expense of putting
down the rising of John Sharp was merely a formal plea, as a payment of
five hundred marks had already been made in this respect on July 17.[785] It
was not to be expected that Hungerford should propose any measure of
great advantage to the Regent, for he had sided throughout with the
Chancellor in opposing Gloucester, even as he had been intended to do
when appointed to office by the influence of the Beaufort faction. Now he
evidently wished to conciliate Humphrey at small expense. Lord Scrope,
however, who was a steady supporter of the Regent, proposed an
amendment to the effect that Gloucester should have five thousand marks a
year in his capacity of First Councillor after the King’s return, as well as the
six thousand marks of his proposed salary as Regent. After considerable
discussion this last suggestion was agreed to, though it was strongly
opposed by Chancellor Kemp, the Bishop of Carlisle, and Lords
Harrington, De la Warr, Lovell, and Botreaux. The Treasurer accepted the
amendment, probably in the hope of conciliating one who proved to have
such strong supporters. One qualification, however, was secured by
Gloucester’s opponents, when it was arranged that the salary now voted
should cover all expenses he might incur in the King’s service.[786]
The result of all this was a decided victory for the Regent, and he was made
secure of an exceedingly handsome allowance, which he felt to be
necessary owing to his expensive and luxurious habits, and the charges
which he incurred as a patron of letters. The sum was not excessive, for in
the past both Bedford and himself had received annual salaries of four to
eight thousand marks as First Councillors.[787] Nevertheless this was not a
time to wring money from an already depleted exchequer. The Lancastrians
had always been poor, and now especially the constant sinking of money
into the bottomless morass of the French wars had reduced the dynasty and
kingdom to a very low financial state. Once more Gloucester showed that
personal gratification was more to him than patriotic considerations.
Throughout his regency he had shown the same traits of character we have
found in other parts of his career. Administrative power, good government,

a determination to punish sedition and violence speedily and efficiently, all
may be seen in this brief tenure of office. Criminals were brought to justice;
in the face of seething discontent and the growing violence of the barons,
peace reigned. Yet, despite all this, the government was subordinate in
Humphrey’s eyes to his own personal aggrandisement. He had used his
spell of power to strengthen his position in the kingdom irrespective of his
executive duties, which were treated more as isolated incidents than as part
of a constructive policy. He had taken advantage of the Cardinal’s absence
to direct an attack on his position in the kingdom; he had struck at the very
foundation of Beaufort’s power when he had tried to deprive him of some
of his possessions; he had levelled against him a charge which, if
successful, would entail his banishment from the kingdom. At the same
time he had taken steps to strengthen his own position by increasing his
income, and these monetary considerations remind us of the new era that
was dawning, the approach of that time when no longer birth or hereditary
position were to define a man’s power, but the length of his purse and his
capacity to command the services of others by purchase. Humphrey’s
Regency, therefore, is important partly for the added indications of his
power of administration, but more so for the stage it marks in his attempt to
undermine the power of his great enemy.
The increase of his income was the last
1432] RETURN OF important event for Gloucester before the return
HENRY VI. of the King, who landed at Dover on February 9,
[788]
and on Thursday 21 entered London in
triumph. The Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, and Aldermen, clad in their fur-lined
scarlet cloaks, were there to receive him, and amid song and pageant, in
which champions with drawn swords and ‘maidens very celestialle’ took
part, Gloucester escorted his nephew to St. Paul’s and thence to
Westminster.[789] A bright interlude this in the struggles for ascendency
which surrounded the boy-king’s throne, struggles which, dating from
Henry V.’s untimely death, were to continue with varied success, now to this
side, now to that, for so long a period. The rivalry of Gloucester and
Beaufort had been the central thread of the tangled web of the King’s
minority, and now that Henry was a crowned King and claimed personal
obedience in two countries, this rivalry did not lose its importance. The

internal history of England is still the history of the faction fight which had
marred the peace of the first nine years of the reign.
The struggle between, the two uncles enters at this period on a new phase.
Hitherto it had been chiefly confined to the sphere of Parliament and the
Council Chamber, now the interest centres more in the King’s person.
Henry VI., though only ten years old, was beginning to assert his position,
for he was ‘growen in yeares, in stature ... and also in conceyte of his hiegh
and royale auctoritee,’ as his tutor, Warwick, complained to the Council,[790]
and under these circumstances it became every year more necessary for
each party to gain the King’s ear. Beaufort had not come back with the royal
escort, so Gloucester had an opportunity to use the King’s return for his
own ends. He was not at all satisfied with the officers of state whom his
opponents had placed in office. Chancellor Kemp had opposed the increase
of his salary, and Hungerford, the Treasurer, had only assented to the
measure at the last moment; the first step, therefore, was to secure their
dismissal, which he had been unable to procure before under the terms of
his regency patent. No time was lost; on February 28, only four days after
Henry’s arrival in London, Archbishop Kemp resigned the Seals to
Gloucester, who for the moment became Lord Keeper. On March 1 they
were delivered to the King, who handed them forthwith to the Bishop of
Bath and Wells.[791] Lord Scrope, the ardent supporter of Gloucester,
succeeded Lord Hungerford as Treasurer, while care was taken to displace
men of Beaufort sympathies from positions which entailed personal
attendance on the King. Accordingly Lord Cromwell was dismissed from
the post of Chamberlain in favour of Sir William Philip, and Lord Tiptoft,
the Steward of the Household, made way for Sir Robert Babthorp, who had
instructions to make all haste to take up his office at once.[792] Thus with
the greatest expedition possible the personnel around the King was
changed, and the new officers were chosen, as far as possible, from
amongst those who would support Gloucester’s claim to a preponderance in
the politics of the kingdom.
These changes in the crown officials were safely effected before Parliament
met on May 12, by which date Beaufort had arrived in England. The
turbulence of the great nobles is illustrated by the fact that writs were issued
to the Duke of Norfolk, the Earls of Suffolk, Huntingdon, Stafford,
Northumberland, and Salisbury, together with Lord Cromwell, enjoining

them not to come to Parliament with more than their usual number of
retainers.[793] To say that this ‘intimation under the circumstances must
have sounded very like a declaration of war’ on the part of Gloucester[794] is
a total misreading of the matter. Precautions of much the same nature had
been taken by Bedford at the Parliament of Leicester without provoking
comment, and it was well known that at least two of those to whom the
writs were addressed were at enmity with one another, and that Lord
Cromwell was enraged at his loss of office. Added to all this, Huntingdon
was certainly not of the Beaufort faction, as he subsequently appears as the
supporter of Duke Humphrey.[795] It was merely a precautionary measure,
and serves to prove the unreliability of those by whom the government of
the kingdom was supposed to be dominated, for these lords, with the
exception of Salisbury, were all Councillors.
When Parliament did meet, Beaufort was there to
1432] DISCUSSIONS IN look after his own interests. On the second day
PARLIAMENT Gloucester addressed the Lords, saying that it
was desirable that the Commons should know
that the Lords spiritual and temporal were in agreement, and that, therefore,
a declaration to this effect should be made. So far as he himself was
concerned, though by right of birth and by Act of Parliament he was First
Councillor to the King whilst Bedford was absent yet he would never do
any state business except with the consent of the Lords, or of a majority of
them. He therefore called upon his hearers to give their best advice, and he
would abide by it. To this suggested declaration the Lords assented,
promising their advice, and praying Gloucester ‘for the reverence of God
and the good of the King and the realm to observe his part of the agreement
to the best of his ability.’ The Commons were accordingly solemnly
informed of the state of absolute concord existing amongst those whom
they knew to be turbulent and divided.[796] The object that Humphrey had in
view was to secure an acknowledgment of his position, and an acceptance
of the state of things as they then stood. His position was one of greater
importance than he had enjoyed for some years, and he wished it to be
clearly understood that he would not abandon that position without a
determined struggle. At the same time, if his power was not assailed, he
would not ignore the opinions of others. He could point to his recent
successful regency as evidence of the good results of his rule, yet he

definitely promised not to go outside his powers so long as his
preponderance in the councils of the nation was accepted. He had warned
the turbulent nobles in the writ addressed to them with respect to their
retinues, and he now wished to impress upon them collectively, that he
stood for good government against the divided rule of the Council. Whether
this declaration was entirely disinterested may well be doubted, and that his
government would be good in our sense of the word was hardly probable,
but he was choosing the least turbulent way of asserting himself, and his
administration could not well be worse than that of the faction that opposed
him.
This warning Beaufort took as a challenge, and
1432] BEAUFORT’S retorted in Parliament by an assumption of
COMPLAINTS injured innocence. He rose in his place and
explained that whilst on his way to Rome, a
journey undertaken by the permission of the King, he had been told that he
had been accused of treachery to his royal nephew. He now demanded that
he should be confronted with his accuser, and declared himself ready to
meet him, however exalted his rank might be—a broad hint at his rival, for
no one but Gloucester in England at that time was of superior rank to the
Cardinal. The matter was discussed in the King’s presence, and finally
Gloucester, as representing the Councillors there present, declared the
King’s entire belief in Beaufort’s loyalty, and emphatically announced that
no one had accused him of anything, nor to the best of their knowledge did
any one desire to do so.[797] Whether there was any truth in the Cardinal’s
statement, or whether he was referring to the writ of Præmunire issued
against him, must remain uncertain. At all events his attempt to make a
scene failed, and with it his first attack on Gloucester’s new position.
But the Cardinal had another cause of complaint, and he proceeded to
ventilate this second grievance. Certain of the King’s jewels pledged to him
for a loan had been seized by the royal officials when he landed at
Sandwich, and he now demanded their restoration.[798] On what plea these
jewels were confiscated we cannot discover, but that the Regent had some
just cause for his action may be argued from the fact that Parliament only
agreed to this restoration on condition that £6000 more were deposited for
them, and a promise made by the Cardinal to lend the King thirteen
thousand marks in addition.[799] Beaufort had undoubtedly not suffered any

loss from the sums he had lent to the King in the past, and it is possible that
he had overreached himself in his desire for increased profit; moreover,
Gloucester himself seems to have had some personal claim on the jewels,
[800]
which had probably been pledged to him at some former time, but not
fully redeemed, as had been the case when four years earlier he had
received a belated payment for the campaign of 1415. If there was any
insinuation that the Regent had been robbing under the shadow of the law, it
failed to reach the mark, and the jewels were only secured by a heavy
payment, though ultimately the Cardinal managed to creep out of the
engagements he had made.[801] Taking all this into consideration, it is hard
to deduce from these proceedings in Parliament that Beaufort gained a
victory over his rival,[802] though he did secure an exemption from all
liabilities incurred by him under the Acts of Provisors and Præmunire.[803]
Yet another attack on Gloucester was made in this Parliament by his
opponents, when on June 10 Lord Cromwell complained before the Lords
that he had been dismissed from his office of Chamberlain contrary to the
Ordinances of 1429. He declared that it was a slight on his honour, as no
reason had been assigned for this action,[804] and he demanded to be told for
what fault he had been dismissed. It was not likely that, where the Cardinal
had failed, his follower would succeed, and Cromwell was politely told by
Gloucester that he had done no wrong, but was removed merely because he
himself and the Council wished it.[805] Thus Gloucester had been successful
all along the line. The various, scarcely veiled, attacks made upon him in
this Parliament had been repulsed, and his power had been in no way
lessened by the return of the King. His position was recognised, and in
October of the same year we even find him described as ‘Custode Angliæ’
in an official document,[806] a title of considerably greater importance than
that of ‘First Councillor.’

Gloucester had so far asserted his strength that
1433] NEGOTIATIONS no open attempt to challenge his authority was
FOR PEACE made for some time, and in this interval of
security he spent what time he could spare from

public affairs in rebuilding his house at Greenwich in magnificent style, and
making a park around it of some two hundred acres.[807] From this pursuit
he was called away at the beginning of 1433 by the negotiations for peace
which were going on between England and France under the care of the
Pope’s representative, the Cardinal of St. Croix. The French had requested
that the prisoners in England might be sent over to confer with their fellow-
countrymen on the question of peace, and the Council at length agreed to
send them as far as Dover, where every facility of communication with their
friends across the Channel would be given them.[808] At the same time it
was arranged that several important councillors should proceed to Calais,
there to discuss the matter with accredited representatives of Charles of
France. At their head went Gloucester accompanied by the Chancellor, who
deposited the Great Seal with the Clerk of the Rolls on April 15th
preparatory to his departure.[809] Humphrey had been making his
preparations to cross the Channel ever since February,[810] and on the 22nd
of April he started out for Calais.[811] There he was met by Beaufort and
Bedford, the latter having brought with him his newly married wife. Anne
of Burgundy had died in November,[812] and her husband had delayed but
these few months before marrying Jacquetta of Luxemburg, sister of the
Count of St. Pol and niece of John of Luxemburg, the Duke of Burgundy’s
chief captain. The Duke was much displeased at the action of the Regent of
France, not merely for the slight that it cast on his sister’s memory, but also
because the marriage with his vassal’s daughter had been contracted
without his leave.[813] Among the many influences that tended to alienate
Burgundy from England it must be remembered that the marriage of John of
Bedford played its part, though it was inferior in importance to the earlier
marriage of his brother Humphrey.
At Calais Gloucester remained for a month, though no envoys came from
the French King, and consequently the business he had gone there to
perform could not be undertaken. Together with his brother he induced
Beaufort to lend another five thousand marks to the King,[814] and at this
time he seems to have been at peace with his uncle, a curious interlude in
the bitter rivalry. So far did this good feeling extend at this time, that
Humphrey issued a manifesto declaring his readiness to submit his still
outstanding differences with the Duke of Burgundy to the arbitrament of
Beaufort and Bedford.[815] This declaration is of interest in itself, since it is

possible that it was meant as an act of conciliation towards Burgundy, who
was obviously wavering in his English alliance. If this interpretation be
correct, it shows a strange turning of the tables. Humphrey was now to try
to undo the mischief caused by John of Bedford’s rash marriage. On May
23 Gloucester returned to England,[816] to be followed in June by the Duke
and Duchess of Bedford, who crossed on Midsummer’s Eve.[817]
The meeting of Parliament had been postponed
1433] BEDFORD IN owing to the absence of Gloucester and the
ENGLAND Chancellor in France, but on their return it was
summoned to meet in July. The session opened
on the 8th of that month, and on the same day Gloucester, who had
surrendered his existing life-peerage to the King, received it back entailed
to the heirs male of his body.[818] Bedford and the Cardinal both took their
places in Parliament, and on the 13th the former addressed the House,
saying that he had learnt that he had been falsely accused of treachery, and
that the English reverses in France were attributed to his neglect. As
Beaufort had done before him, he asked that he might be confronted with
his accusers.[819] On what authority Bedford made this statement we cannot
tell, whether he really had reason to suspect treachery on the part of his
brother, or whether it was merely the machinations of the Cardinal, who had
poured into his nephew’s ear some invention of his own, that induced him
to make this protest, it is impossible to say. The striking similarity of the
method to that which Beaufort had adopted would support the second
supposition. It was not the first time that the Bishop of Winchester had
implanted distrust of Humphrey in Bedford’s mind to serve his own
purposes.
Whatever prompted the protest, it had no further effect than to satisfy
Bedford’s honour, for he was assured by the Chancellor that no report such
as he spoke of had reached the ears of the Duke of Gloucester, the Council,
or even the King himself, who regarded his uncle as his faithful and true
liege.[820] Bedford was not satisfied, and, prompted by Beaufort, he brought
his influence to bear on the officials of the Crown. Lord Scrope was
compelled to yield his place to Lord Cromwell, whilst the Earl of Suffolk
supplanted Sir Robert Babthorp as Steward of the Household;[821] changes
which implied the substitution of men of the Beaufort faction, who had

been warned against turbulence only a year ago, for men who were known
supporters of Gloucester and his policy. Under Bedford’s guidance,
however, Cromwell threw himself with energy into the work of his new
office, and proceeded to collect statistics concerning the finances of the
kingdom, which were in a very bad condition. Meanwhile Parliament was
prorogued through fear of an attack of the plague till October 13.[822]
Once again Bedford had come over to England to check his brother’s
power, and it is more than probable that he had been instigated to take this
course by Beaufort, who however was this time too cunning to commit to
paper his appeal for help to the Regent of France. There was no obvious
excuse for this interference. The country was not suffering from the rule of
Gloucester, and therefore it is the more likely that it was only the Bishop of
Winchester’s diminished power that caused this intervention. Beaufort had
been much abroad of late, and had had ample opportunity to poison
Bedford’s mind against his brother, and the latter’s complaint in Parliament,
coupled with the removal of all Gloucester’s friends from office, seems to
show that some underhand influence was at work. Strong man though he
was, Bedford was unable to grasp all the varied aspects of English politics.
He knew his brother to be ambitious and unsteady, but he did not realise
that to curb his power was to make him far more dangerous than when in a
position of trust. Beaufort was his banker and the source of the money with
which he conducted the French war; Beaufort had the gilded tongue of the
wily ecclesiastic, and so his suggestion that Gloucester in power spelt
anarchy at home and disaster abroad found a ready listener. Defeated in his
aims, the Bishop of Winchester reverted to his old policy of sowing discord
between the two Lancastrian brothers so as to advance himself, and he
continued this policy as long as Bedford was in England.
When Parliament met again, the Commons insisted that the Lords should
sign a declaration against the maintenance of criminals. Bedford and
Gloucester both appended their signatures to this declaration,[823] but there
was a prevalent opinion that there was a still better method of ensuring
peace and quietness in the kingdom. The presence of Bedford in England
was felt as a quieting influence, and the turbulence of the nobles was kept in
check by the one strong man of his age.[824] He alone of the great men of
the time stood aloof from the party strife which surrounded the throne of
Henry VI. In all her troubles England looked to the one man who would not

play for his own hand, and who put the safety, honour, and welfare of the
country before any personal advantage.

It was because they realised this fact that the
1433] BEDFORD’S Commons declared in a petition presented to the
ATTITUDE King on November 24, that the Duke of Bedford
was too precious to the kingdom to be allowed to
return to France. The country had been so well governed and so quiet since
his return, that in the hope of continued peace they desired above all things
that he should remain at the head of affairs. To this petition the King replied
by ordering the Chancellor to summon Gloucester, Beaufort, the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and certain other Lords to discuss the
matter, and their report induced the King to request Bedford to remain in
England.[825] This request and the action of the Commons must have been
gratifying to Bedford, and he was too great a statesman not to realise the
significance of the position thus offered to him. He saw that England was
divided into two camps, that on one side stood the Beaufort interest, and on
the other those who supported Gloucester; he saw that it was impossible for
either of these two parties to govern the kingdom quietly and well, for the
most honest intentions would be thwarted by the factious opposition of the
party not in power, and hampered by the necessity of guarding against
attack. Looking back over the eleven years of the reign, short periods of
comparative peace might certainly be found, but they were times when the
preponderance of Gloucester in the affairs of the kingdom was undisputed,
and when the Cardinal was posing as a soldier-priest in the Hussite crusade,
or devoting his energies to one of his many other interests. No prolonged
quiet was possible whilst all political England was divided into two distinct
and militant parties, and it was evident to a man of Bedford’s clear
understanding, that some one uninfluenced by these storms must guide the
ship of state through the troubled waters in which she found herself. So to
the petition of the Commons and the request of the King Bedford gave
answer, that he was the King’s servant in all things, and entirely at his
disposal.[826]
On the following day Bedford, in view of the low state of the finances of
the kingdom, agreed to accept an income of £l000 a year as Chief
Councillor, with a provision of £500 for every journey to and from France,
[827]
and Gloucester hastened to follow suit, accepting £1000 in lieu of the
five thousand marks (£3333, 6s. 8d.) which he was then receiving.[828] The
lead thus given was followed by others who voluntarily resigned their

incomes, for the detailed report that Lord Cromwell had presented to
Parliament had shown a heavy deficit.[829] These financial straits cannot be
ascribed to maladministration, but rather to the parsimony of Parliament,
which by an annual grant of a fifteenth could have placed the finances of
the kingdom on a sure footing.[830] Some attempt at organisation was made
by appointing a commission of revenue, whereby Bedford, Gloucester, and
certain other lords, including Beaufort and others named, were to examine
the books of the King’s revenue, and to arrange how the yearly charges
were to be borne and the debts paid, and to whom preference in payment
was to be given.[831]
Having arranged his salary as Chief Councillor,
1434] BEDFORD AND Bedford proceeded to lay down the conditions
THE COUNCIL under which he would consent to carry on the
government of the kingdom. They were agreed
to by Parliament, and it is interesting to note the degree of power which he
thought necessary for himself, if he were to be able to govern the kingdom
successfully. He desired to know the names of those who would be chosen
to serve on the standing council, and stipulated that without his consent and
that of the Council none of them should be removed, thereby demonstrating
that he would not be content to be merely one of the Councillors with prior
rank, a position which when taken up by Humphrey was regarded with
suspicion by his contemporaries, and decried as self-seeking by later
historians. By insisting that he should be consulted, wherever he might
chance to be, on such matters as the calling of Parliament and the
appointment of bishoprics,[832] he showed that he desired a hold on the
government, which in Humphrey’s case would have been dismissed as an
attempt to influence the elections, and to pack the episcopal Bench with his
supporters. Bedford saw that conciliar government was not what the
country needed, and while respecting the feelings of Councillors, he
insisted on a preponderance for himself in the councils of the nation. We
have no evidence beyond the well-known ambition of his character that
Gloucester desired more than this, though owing to the opposition he
encountered he had to invoke more questionable means of gaining his ends
than a mere demand laid before Parliament.

When Parliament was dissolved, the King went to spend Christmas at the
Abbey of St. Edmund at Bury, and probably Gloucester accompanied him.
At all events, when Henry returned thither for the Feast of the Purification,
and spent the whole of the Lenten season at the Abbey, we find that
Humphrey was there during the Easter celebrations, and that when the time
came to return to London, he and other nobles asked to be admitted into the
Fraternity. The request was gladly granted, and before he left the monastery
the King was induced by his uncle to repay the Abbot for the expenses
incurred in entertaining him and his suite.[833]
Through all this time Gloucester had had no
1434] BEDFORD AND outlet for his energies, for with his brother in
GLOUCESTER QUARREL possession of the government he had neither the
cares of office nor the excitement of opposition,
so he turned his attention to matters outside England, and began to evolve
theories on the conduct of the war in France. In a great Council held in the
Parliament Chamber at Westminster on a Saturday in April[834] he made
some observations on this subject, and Bedford, taking offence at what his
brother had said, demanded that it should be put into writing. This
accordingly was done, and on the following Monday it was read in full
Council, and provoked Bedford to demand a copy for himself, as he
considered that certain statements therein affected his honour; he added that
at a fit time he would declare his sentiments before the King and the whole
Council.[835] Gloucester’s remarks seem to have contained an offer, which
he had also committed to writing, to serve the King in France under certain
unrecorded conditions, and the Council considered the proposition. On May
5, however, they decided on the impracticability of the suggestion, adding,
however, that had it been possible, it would have been most desirable. After
great discussion the lords, knights, and squires of the great Council had
decided that the forty-eight or fifty thousand pounds necessary for the
undertaking could not be raised in so short a time, especially as the
commissioners lately appointed to raise a loan in the shires had reported
that no one was ready to lend, and as the Treasurer, who of course would
favour no scheme of Humphrey’s, declared the finances to be in a very bad
state. They went on to say that a rumour was abroad that Bedford and
Gloucester had offered to carry out the proposed expedition in such a way
that neither ‘taille nor talliage’ would have to be raised for many years, and

that the great Council had ignored this offer. If such a procedure were
possible, they would be only too pleased to consider it, if Gloucester would
lay it before them, and they concluded with a request that the King should
order the Chancellor to consult with Gloucester as to whether the people of
the land should be called ‘in form accustomed to discuss the matter.’[836]
It would seem from this that Humphrey, with his large ideas and his
imperfect grasp of the details that alone make a scheme possible, had
propounded a plan which it was impossible to carry out, though we must
not therefore suppose that he had not an honest intention of serving the
King in France whilst his brother governed at home. The impracticability of
the idea does not, in Humphrey’s case, prove a lack of genuine intention,
for he was a man who lived with great ideas, the essentials of which he was
incapable of understanding or of carrying out. Quite unwittingly, in all
probability, he had offended his brother by his suggestion, and it is not
unlikely that in view of the disastrous course of the war Bedford was rather
sore on the question of its conduct, and looked on every suggestion of the
new procedure as a slight on himself. It is, of course, also possible that
Humphrey was deliberately trying to annoy his brother, and to discredit his
policy. There is, however, nothing to support this theory, save the Duke’s
known factiousness. It is quite likely that he desired some new outlet for his
energies, now that the government was in the hands of a man whose prior
claims he had never denied, and there is nothing in the past relations of the
two to suggest that bad blood had ever before risen between them.
The quarrel which originated in the scheme was not laid to rest by the
latter’s rejection by the Council, and Humphrey probably considered the
refusal to accept it as instigated by his brother. On May 7, therefore, he
appeared in Council at a meeting held in the palace of the Bishop of
Durham, and desired that the observations that he had committed to writing
might be returned to him, a request which was granted, and the next day
Bedford sent in a written reply to Gloucester’s remarks. These were read in
full Council by the Chancellor, and provoked a reply from Gloucester, who
in his turn asked for a copy of Bedford’s answer, and for a day to be
appointed for his retort. On the advice of the Council, however, the King
declared that the matter must not proceed further, and taking the statements
of both parties in his hands, he declared them null and void, saying, that in
neither was there anything prejudicial to the honour of either Duke, and that

he considered them both to be his affectionate uncles. The incident was thus
closed, both Bedford and Gloucester agreeing to sign the decision.[837]
This unfortunate misunderstanding came almost
1435] DEATH OF at the end of Bedford’s stay in England. He had
BEDFORD already made up his mind to return to the scenes
of his former labours, for he could not stand by
and see the kingdom that Henry V. had won pass out of English hands,
without doing his utmost to prevent it. On June 20 he took leave of the
Council,[838] and shortly after left England for the last time.[839] His life’s
work was done. Burgundy, who had been an unsatisfactory ally for many
years past, was drawing closer and closer to the French King, and the Pope,
having brought his influence to bear on the contending parties, induced
them to hold a European Congress at Arras in August 1435.[840] In spite of
the conciliatory offers of the French, Beaufort and the other English
delegates based their demands on the Treaty of Troyes—at this stage of the
war an absurdly impossible attitude—and, perceiving that a Burgundian
alliance with France was inevitable, they left the Congress on September 5.
[841]
This alliance was completed by the end of the month,[842] but not
before Bedford’s death on September 14.[843]
With the death of Bedford and the defection of Burgundy, even the most
shadowy hope of retaining his hold on France passed from the King of
England, and the claims, first raised by Edward III., and resuscitated by
Henry V., were to end in the disaster which had been inevitable from the
first. Of all the men to whom Henry of Monmouth had confided the care of
his son and of his kingdom, Bedford alone was worthy of his implicit trust.
He had fought an uphill and impossible fight in France, and on two
occasions he had turned his attention to the internal affairs of England. He
had played a difficult rôle with as much success as was to be expected, and
we can only guess at what might have been the destiny of England had it
secured his undivided attention. Had he been settled in England as
Protector, his power would doubtless have been less than on the occasions
when he came to readjust the balance of parties in 1426 and 1433, for he
would not then have received the support of the Beaufort faction, which
only looked on him as a useful tool to use when Gloucester’s ascendency
became too secure. At his death the one steadying and exterior influence in

English politics was gone, and the party strife, which had been the curse of
England for the last thirteen years, pursued its course unhindered.
From the time of the death of Bedford and the Treaty of Arras onwards a
change comes over the internal politics of England. Hitherto the war in
France had been carried on by the French Regent almost without reference
to the authorities at home, and questions of foreign policy had not made
their way into the bickerings of Beaufort and Gloucester. But now that the
strong hand in France was removed, and the defection of the Duke of
Burgundy had at last become definite, it was impossible for the Council, in
the face of both occurrences, to ignore any longer the fact that the country
was at war. This was emphasised by the appearance of Burgundian envoys
in London, who came to announce the peace made between the Duke of
Burgundy and Charles of France, and to seek to procure peace with England
also.[844] The country in general was too angry with the Duke to realise the
advantages of his neutrality. His envoys therefore were denied the
privileges of their position, their peace propositions were scouted by the
Council, and they were not even vouchsafed a definite answer.[845] Both
Beaufort and Gloucester emphasised their objections to peace with
Burgundy, and the Treasurer pointed out what he considered to be the
insulting omission of the title ‘souverain seigneur’ in addressing the King.
[846]
In Parliament, which met on October 10, the Chancellor, John Stafford,
delivered a virulent attack on Burgundian policy, and the assembly was
induced to agree readily enough to the continued prosecution of the war,
and to the inclusion of the Duke of Burgundy among the King’s enemies.
[847]
Council and Parliament therefore, led by both Beaufort and Gloucester
as well as by the rest of the royal officers, threw down the gauntlet to
Burgundy, and it is well to remember this when in the light of subsequent
events we find Gloucester attacked for leading the nation to war at this
time.[848]
The death of Bedford naturally increased
1435] GLOUCESTER Humphrey’s strength in the kingdom. He now
LIEUTENANT OF CALAIS stood next in succession to the throne as heir-
presumptive to his young nephew, and he was
freed from the domination of a superior authority, to which in time of need
his enemies could appeal. His influence may be traced in the appointment
of the Duke of York to the command in France. Hitherto this Duke had not

been seen in English politics, being at this time only twenty-four years old,
but he had been brought into close contact with Humphrey, who had been
granted the administration of his land during his minority, and whose good
name he championed later in life. At this time men looked to the Duke of
Gloucester as the chief man in England, and it was to him that the Bishop of
Bayeux addressed himself when begging for help for the distressed Duchy
of Normandy.[849]
Such being Gloucester’s position, it was natural that he should receive some
of the offices and responsibilities vacated by his brother. His former idea of
taking the command in France was not resuscitated, as he doubtless wished
to guard his interests at home, but on November 1 he succeeded Bedford as
Lieutenant of the King in the town, marches, and castle of Calais, to which
were added the regions of Picardy, Flanders, and Artois. The appointment
bore civil as well as military obligations, and was a challenge to the Duke
of Burgundy in that certain of his territories were included in the grant.[850]
Calais itself was an important command quite apart from strategic reasons.
It was the town where the wool staple was established, though this was a
fact of declining importance; more than this, it was regarded as the
safeguard of English trade, for so long as England kept the command of the
narrow seas between Dover and Calais, she might rule the world’s
commerce, as all trade from north to south had to pass that way.[851] Besides
the government of Calais, Gloucester received another of Bedford’s
possessions when on November 23 the Council presented him with the
islands of Jersey and Guernsey, in exchange for which Humphrey resigned
the annuity of five hundred marks, given to him by Henry V. for himself and
his heirs until lands of an equal value should be given him.[852]
For a time the political quarrels of the two
1436] RELIEF OF CALAIS factions were silenced by their common anger at
the desertion of Burgundy and by the pre-
eminence of Gloucester in the kingdom. Two instances of his
preponderance appeared in the following year, when his wife Eleanor
received her first public recognition as Duchess of Gloucester by being
provided with robes of the Order of the Garter wherewith to keep the Feast
of St. George at Windsor,[853] and when in the May following the Duke of
Orleans was transferred from the custody of the Earl of Suffolk, who had
been ordered to France, to that of Sir Reginald de Cobham, Gloucester’s

father-in-law.[854] Matters other than those of home politics, however, were
to occupy Gloucester in the near future. Early in June it was known in
London that Burgundy had begun hostilities, and was advancing against
Calais, and preparations were hurriedly made to save the city which
Englishmen cherished above all their other possessions in France. Orders
were given for the preparation of supplies and munitions of war for the
garrison, and provisions for an army which was being mustered to serve
under Gloucester.[855] The Earl of Huntingdon was commissioned to raise
men to accompany the expedition,[856] the Cardinal was induced to lend
nine thousand marks to defray the costs, armourers and victuallers were
forbidden to raise their prices in view of the demand on their wares, and all
men who wished to serve under Gloucester were ordered to be at Sandwich
by the 22nd of July.[857] Delays, however, were inevitable, and it was not
till the 27th that Gloucester received his special commission as Lieutenant-
General of the army going to the defence of Calais, followed three days
later by a writ conferring on him the County of Flanders.[858] By the 2nd of
August all things were ready, and on that day he transported his army in
five hundred ships from Winchester to Calais.[859]
Humphrey had been retained to serve the King, with one Duke besides
himself, two Earls, eleven Barons, twenty-three Knights, four hundred and
fifteen men-at-arms, and four thousand and forty-five archers,[860] but the
full number of his army when joined by the retinue of the Duke of Norfolk
and the Earls of Huntingdon, Devon, Stafford, and Warwick[861] who
accompanied him, is uncertain. The chroniclers estimate the strength of the
army variously between ten thousand and sixty thousand men,[862] of which
the lowest figure is probably nearer the truth, since it was given by one who
himself saw the army,[863] and at such short notice it would have been
impossible to raise a force in any way approaching the larger estimate.
When Gloucester reached Calais he found the siege already raised.
Burgundy with thirty thousand men[864] had invested the place on July 9,
[865]
but from the first the valiant defenders, under their captain, Sir John
Radcliffe,[866] had had the best of the encounter. An attempt to obstruct the
harbour failed, and a blockade was out of the question,[867] so the besieged
were able to supply themselves with every necessity from the sea,[868] a

state of affairs which encouraged them to make several sorties, and to
capture a bastion raised against them and held by the men of Ghent.[869]
The majority of Burgundy’s army consisted of raw Flemish levies, who
were constantly in a state of insubordination,[870] and their discontent
increased when the Earl of Huntingdon and Lord Camoys relieved the
garrison with troops levied for the French war.[871] Moreover, the further
reinforcements with Gloucester were expected, for the Duke had sent a
challenge to his old enemy, calling on him to do battle before Calais, though
excusing himself from fixing a date as wind and weather could not be
reckoned on.[872] However, when news came that their approach was
imminent, the Flemings incontinently broke up their camp and fled leaving
stores and guns as prizes for the enemy.[873]
‘For they had very knowyng
Off the duk off Gloceters cumyng,
Caleys to rescue.’[874]
And another rhymer tells how
‘Ffor fere they turned backe and hyede feste;
Mi lorde of Gloucestre made hem so agaste
Wyth his commynge.’[875]
It was a bitter pill for Duke Philip to be compelled to follow his disorderly
troops, fleeing as he did before the man whom above all others he had
learned to hate, and whom he had boldly promised to meet in arms before
the city.[876]

The Siege of Calais in 1436.
From a Drawing.
Gloucester had declared through his herald that,
1436] RAID ON if Burgundy were not before Calais to meet him,
FLANDERS
he would pursue him,[877] and on hearing that the
Duke had retired to Lille, and had fortified the border fortresses,[878] he
prepared to fulfil his word. Leaving Calais on August 3,[879] he advanced to
Merck in the neighbourhood of Oge, and there spent the night in the fields,
passing on the next day to the neighbourhood of Gravelines.[880] On August
6 he crossed over into Flanders, even as he had done nearly twenty years
before to meet John the Fearless in midstream, and led his army to
Mardyke, which was pillaged and burned. The reason for thus making for

the coast may have been to open communications with the fleet, which had
been ordered to cruise off the coast of Flanders and to co-operate with the
invading army, but the sailors, unsupported by men-at-arms on board,
feared to encounter a hostile fleet, and put back into the harbour of Calais.
[881]
Unable, therefore, to draw supplies from the fleet, Gloucester turned
due south, and marched inland, meeting with no resistance,[882] but
followed by a detachment from Gravelines, which sought to pick off
stragglers and to take the invaders unawares. The excellent order kept by
the invaders thwarted their plans, and the detachment returned to
Gravelines.
Meanwhile Gloucester pursued his way to Bailleul, burning everything as
he went,[883] and throwing out a part of his troops under the Earl of
Huntingdon to take and sack Poperinghes on his left.[884] Arrived at
Bailleul, he lodged outside the walls, at the Abbey of St. Anthony, which
was spared, though the town where his men lay and the surrounding country
were utterly devastated. Retracing his steps from this point, he picked up
the detachment under Huntingdon at Poperinghes, where much booty had
been secured, and passing by Neu-Châtel, he burnt Rimesture and Valon-
Chapelle, then entering Artois he met with some slight resistance.
Skirmishes were fought round Arques and Blandesques, till the army
reached St. Omer, burning and harrying all that came in its way, so that
Duke Philip from his refuge at Lille could see the light of the fires on the
horizon, though he was quite powerless to help those who cried to him for
aid, as the soldiers he had summoned had not yet arrived.[885]
The English did not penetrate into the town of St. Omer, as it was securely
held, but Gloucester lodged at the Abbey of Blandesques outside the walls,
whilst his men were encamped along the banks of the river Aa, where
Waurin himself saw them, when he stole out from Gravelines on the night
of August 15.[886] Some attempt was made to harass the invaders as they lay
here, and the captains both of St. Omer and Arques tried to pick off the
stragglers, but with little success, for Gloucester was so careful that he
could not be taken by surprise. On the morning of August 15 the English
moved on with care for fear of ambushes,[887] and having met with
somewhat more determined resistance than they had hitherto experienced
from the captains of Tournehem, Espreleques, and Bredenaide, they found

their way to Guisnes somewhat distressed by a sickness caused by a lack of
bread.[888] Everywhere the supporters of Burgundy had been pillaged, and
large herds of cattle and other booty had fallen into the hands of the
soldiers, but so distressed were the latter for the lack of bread, that to some
women, who presented them with a little, they gave large herds of cattle,
which, by reason of the bands of the enemy that followed behind them,
were more an encumbrance than an advantage.[889] At Calais Gloucester
was received with joy, and, having rested his men a while, about August 24
he recrossed the Channel with much booty, leaving his prisoners behind in
safe keeping.
On landing the troops were dismissed, and Humphrey proceeded to
London, where he was given a great reception,[890] for he had struck a
heavy blow at the prosperity of the Burgundian territories, and the anger felt
by the English against their recent ally was appeased when they thought of
Gloucester’s expedition, and how
‘In Flanders he soght hem fer and ner,
That ever they may yt rew.’[891]
Though, we cannot look on this devastating campaign of Gloucester’s as a
great military achievement, yet it is not necessary to dismiss it with the
contempt it has received on the authority of the rhyming chronicler:
‘The protectour with his flete at Calys then
Did lande, and rode in Flaunders a little waye,
And little did to counte a manly man.’[892]
We have the evidence of an eye-witness to prove the skill with which he
protected his men from falling victims to the enemy’s bands, and the strict
discipline which he kept in his ranks. Even if it was but for a short time that
he defied the Duke of Burgundy, we must not forget that his men were only
enlisted for a month’s service,[893] and that they were probably raw recruits,
since the experienced soldiers had all gone to make up the contingents of
York and Mortain. Nay more, as it is unfair to blame Gloucester for the
nature of this campaign, so it is equally unfair to blame him for allowing the
Earl of Mortain to relieve Calais before him.[894] His preparations had only
been begun after the news of the investment of Calais had reached England.
His commission was signed on July 27, and he was in Calais on August 3.

On the other hand, the Earl had been preparing his troops as far back as the
previous October, and was naturally quite ready to take the offensive after
so long a period of preparation. Humphrey was not a great general, but,
within the restricted limits of such a commission as this, there was no other
captain in England who could have excelled him.

CHAPTER VII
DISGRACE AND DEATH
The expedition to Calais and Flanders was the last military enterprise
undertaken by the Duke of Gloucester, indeed the active part of his life
abruptly ends with his return to England. Hitherto there had been no
question of public policy which had not attracted his attention, his
boundless restlessness had made his biography the mirror of the English
history of his time. Henceforth, however, the habits of his life undergo a
change, the last stage of his career has been reached. With all the limitations
put upon him, and with all the opposition he had encountered, he had
always maintained a position of importance in the kingdom, and the
national policy had at all times been largely under his influence. In spite of
his inconsistency of method he had never relaxed his attempts to dominate
all who came in his way, but now his energies in this direction seem to
slacken. His character does not alter, but his struggles, like those of a dying
man, became more intermittent, and in spite of occasional bursts of energy,
his interests were not chiefly confined to matters political. That this sudden
change was entirely due to a loss of physical power is hardly likely; it is
possible that with his usual impetuosity he had devoted himself to other
pursuits, and that politics no longer occupied the prominent place in his
thoughts that they had hitherto enjoyed.
On his return to England Gloucester rested from his labours, and together
with his Duchess went down to his house at Greenwich. They both received
New-Year’s gifts from the King. To Gloucester was given ‘a tabulet of gold
with an image of oure Ladye hanging by three cheynes,’ whereon were six
imitation diamonds, six sapphires, and one hundred and sixty-four pearls,
whilst his wife’s present consisted of a ‘brouche maad in maner of a man
garnished with a fayre great ball,’ set with five large pearls, one large
diamond, and three ‘hangers’ adorned with rubies and pearls—by far the
finest and costliest gifts among the numerous New-Year’s presents given on
that occasion by the King.[895] The return of Gloucester did not herald more
dissensions in the Council. He was for the time predominant in the country,

and the death of the Queen-Mother on January 2, 1437, removed one who
might have counteracted his influence with the King.[896] Indeed at one time
Catherine had evinced a desire to marry Edmund Beaufort, Earl of Mortain,
but Gloucester, fearing increased importance would accrue to the Beaufort
party thereby, induced the Council to forbid it. At her death, however, it
transpired that she had not been content to remain single, but had married a
simple gentleman named Owen Tudor, and by him had had three sons and
daughters. Owen was arrested by Gloucester on the strength of the Act
which forbade such a marriage without permission under the penalty of
forfeiture of life and possessions, but he succeeded in making his escape.
[897]

Throughout the year 1437 Gloucester’s name
1437-9] INACTIVITY OF occasionally appears in official records as though
GLOUCESTER his influence in the kingdom was considerable,
and a special room was set apart at the end of
Westminster Hall for himself and his council.[898] In Parliament, which met
in January, the Speaker, in declaring the grant of a fifteenth and a tenth,
added some words of strong commendation of his recent action with regard
to Calais, and of his campaign in Flanders,[899] and the Commons took up
the question of the payment of the soldiers at Calais, when the Duke
complained that they were not being paid in accordance with the indentures
under which he held the command of that town.[900]
The session passed without any signs of party strife, and we see little of
Gloucester during the rest of the year. In August both he and his Duchess
attended the funeral of yet another Queen of England, Joan, the unfortunate
second wife of Henry IV.,[901] to whom in the past Humphrey had shown
some courtesy in spite of her virtual imprisonment and disgrace at Langley.
In November he seems to have been at Calais arranging some matter
concerning his command there,[902] and he was probably not in England
when on the thirteenth of the month the King assumed the government of
the kingdom, and appointed his own Council to advise him. At the head of
these Councillors stood Gloucester and Beaufort, and the former was to
draw a salary of two thousand marks a year for life, other members of the
Council receiving payment on a much lower scale.[903]

The next two years passed by without any signs of internal dissension
among the King’s chief Councillors, and the name of the Duke of
Gloucester is not met with frequently during this interval. In March he was
appointed chief guardian of the Truce for nine years with Scotland,[904] but
undoubtedly most of his time was spent in the collection and study of those
rare manuscripts which about this time he began to give to the University of
Oxford.[905] Never consistently pursuing any particular course of action for
long, he had abandoned the stormy scenes of party politics, never more to
enter the lists again save in a sudden outbreak of energy and anger, yet the
one real passion of his life, interrupted though it had been by his political
ambitions, still remained, and in his retirement he used the lull in the
political tempest to ‘study in Bookys of antiquyte,’[906] and to encourage
the advancement of the new learning as it found its way feebly and slowly
to England.
In this retirement, however, Gloucester did not forget that a patron of letters
needs a long purse, and he secured several additions to his already large
possessions. His ferm of the lands of the young Duke of Norfolk, which he
had held since 1432, expired about this time,[907] but he acquired the
Hundred of Wootton and the Manors of Woodstock, Handborough,
Stonesfield, and Wootton, all in the neighbourhood of Oxford; while in
Norfolk he was given the Manor of Stanhoe, situated near Burnham; near
Tunbridge he received the Manors of ‘Jevele,’ ‘Havendencourte,’ and
Penshurst,[908] at the last of which he spent some portion of his time
amongst his precious books.[909] From this period of peace Gloucester
roused himself in 1440 to protest against a policy which he considered most
injurious to the welfare of the kingdom, and to stir up the turmoil of party
warfare once more by an attack on his old rival, Cardinal Beaufort.
The opinions of the King’s advisers had changed
1440] NEGOTIATIONS since the days when, in blind fury after the
FOR PEACE defection of the Duke of Burgundy at Arras in
1435, they had determined on war to the death,
and it was realised that peace with France was the only solution of the
monetary difficulties of the King and the universal distress throughout the
kingdom. As early as March 1438 plenipotentiaries to discuss the basis of a
peace had been appointed,[910] and during June, July, and August of the

following year an embassy under Cardinal Beaufort had treated with French
envoys under the mediating supervision of the Duchess of Burgundy. The
terms demanded by the English were ridiculously pretentious, and in spite
of considerable modifications therein, negotiations were broken off; Henry
VI. and his Council could not realise how desperate was the cause of
England in France, and that terms, which would have been humiliating in
the days of Henry V., were now almost generous.[911]
The failure of these negotiations has been unhesitatingly attributed to
Gloucester, but his share in their rejection is by no means proved, and is
chiefly suggested by the facts of his later conduct. Be this as it may,
Beaufort had entirely changed his front, and though he clamoured with the
rest for war in 1435, he now, four years later, was the most prominent
advocate for peace. Gloucester, on the other hand, was the leader of the
party which desired the war to continue, but it is unjust to jump to the
conclusion that it was merely to oppose his old rival that he adopted this
attitude. He, almost alone of those who stood at the head of the nation,
could remember the fleeting glories of the reign of Henry V., and he
naturally could not bring himself to agree to the surrender of that which he
had helped to acquire. To the day of his death, Bedford had never favoured
the withdrawal of the Lancastrian claim to the throne of France, and his
brother, born and bred in the same school, shared his opinion. The Cardinal,
though an older man, had had no share in the military exploits of his
nephew’s reign, and had contented himself with posing as a soldier of
Christ in the army which in the name of religion had fought for the
restoration of Sigismund to his Bohemian throne. He was a politician and,
when he liked a statesman, and his keen insight taught him to apprehend the
situation free from all the prejudices of the men of his own generation. In
his desire for peace he was undoubtedly justified, but this does not condemn
the morality of those who opposed him.
Though he had failed in his first attempt to negotiate, Beaufort was not the
man to despair, and his next step was to urge the release of the Duke of
Orleans, who had been a captive in England ever since the battle of
Agincourt, in the hopes that his mediation might help to bring about the
much-desired peace. There was yet a deeper intention than lay on the face
of this suggestion, for the Duke of Burgundy favoured the scheme, hoping
that Orleans might join the league of Princes which he was trying to form

with the object of limiting Charles VII.’s growing power and that of his
bourgeois officials.[912]
To a man who had seen half France conquered
1440] ATTACK ON owing to the dissensions of the French Court this
BEAUFORT method of crippling England’s enemy must have
seemed a chance not to be missed. Whatever the
unacknowledged motive of the project, the question of the moment was the
release of Charles of Orleans, and it was this which brought Humphrey
from the seclusion of his books, once more to mix in the party politics
which he had for the time abandoned. However honest Gloucester’s
objection to the peace policy might be, his dislike of his uncle, and the
traditions of fifteen years’ faction fight, could not be forgotten; he strongly
resented the position of authority which the recent negotiations had given
Beaufort in the councils of the nation, and his first step towards asserting
himself once more in party politics was to draw up a heavy indictment of
the Cardinal, his policy, and his adherents.[913] He drew up a lengthy
document, in which—probably as a taunt to the Duke of Burgundy—he
styled himself Duke of Gloucester, Holland, Zealand, and Brabant, Earl of
Pembroke, Hainault, and Flanders, and addressed the King with a warning
that some were imposing on his youth, ‘in derogation of your noble estate.’
He began his attack by a renewal of the old complaint that Beaufort had
accepted the Cardinal’s hat which Henry V., well knowing his pride and
ambition when merely a Bishop, had denied him. He took his stand on the
rights of the see of Canterbury, declaring that Henry V. would not have
objected to one who was not a Bishop becoming a Cardinal. Though the
King might summon a Cardinal to his Council Board, yet in Parliament he
ought to be present merely as a Bishop and in no other capacity; moreover,
the Statute of Provisors had been infringed by the licence to retain his
bishopric obtained by Beaufort from the Pope. The Cardinal had
manœuvred to get the crown-jewels into his possession by encouraging the
war, and he had secured rights in Southampton in such a way as to
constitute a standing danger and disgrace to the kingdom. He had procured
the release of James of Scotland without the consent of Parliament, and had
turned this to his advantage by marrying his niece to the Scotch King; he
had wrongfully recovered his jewels when forfeited to the Crown; he had
evaded paying the dues of his cathedral church at Winchester, and by

securing grants of land he was rapidly stripping the King of his possessions.
From whence came all this wealth, which could not be drawn from his see,
nor from an inherited patrimony which he did not possess? He had become
wealthy from the sale of offices in France and in England, and, grown
arrogant by these ill-gotten gains, he had assumed the pomp and
magnificence of royalty, though he neither had nor could have any interest
in the Crown.
Together with Beaufort in this indictment was included the Archbishop of
York, who also had recently received a Cardinal’s hat. It was generally
accepted in the country, so Humphrey maintained, that together they were
practically governing the kingdom, and had estranged the King from
himself, the Duke of York, the Earl of Huntingdon, and the Archbishop of
Canterbury, the last of whom by his position ought to be counted amongst
the King’s chief advisers. The policy of these two men was injurious to the
kingdom, for had they not procured the sending of ambassadors to Arras,
where the only results had been an enormous expense to the nation and the
reconciliation of the Duke of Burgundy with Charles of France? More
recently other envoys had been sent to Calais, without his knowledge or
sanction, where Burgundy and Orleans had been allowed to make up their
differences. Had not also the Archbishop with the connivance of Beaufort
encouraged the King to renounce all his claims on France, when the French
ambassadors were lately at Windsor, and what but evil results could come
from the forthcoming negotiations in March, for it was rumoured that these
two prelates intended to release the Duke of Orleans, whom Henry V. had
ordered in his will to be kept in confinement till the conquest of France was
complete? The whole foreign policy of the King’s advisers was unwise and
corrupt, for, though he himself had frequently offered his services for the
defence of France, Beaufort had always secured the refusal of the offer,
sending in his stead favourites of his own with unfortunate results. This
long ‘complaynte’ concluded with an urgent appeal for the dismissal of the
two Cardinals from the Council.[914]
No stronger evidence than is afforded in this indictment could be found to
prove Beaufort’s complete ascendency over the policy of the nation, and
though we may hesitate to acquit the Cardinal of many of the charges off-
hand, the whole document betrays the hopeless incapacity of its composer
to take a broad and statesmanlike view of affairs, and shows him to be the

mere politician which he had already proved himself. The inquiry as to
whence came the Cardinal’s wealth is pertinent, and has never been
adequately answered; in his contention that the Bishop had been despoiling
the King of his possessions, Humphrey was supported by that eminent
observer, Sir John Fortescue,[915] but the question of the cardinalate had
been discussed and settled, and no useful end could be reached by its
resuscitation, and the attempt—if attempt it was—on the part of the
Cardinal to increase the power of his house by the marriage of Joan
Beaufort to the unhappy King of Scotland had ended in such dismal failure
that it might well be left out of the reckoning. It was, however, in the matter
of foreign policy that Gloucester so patently showed his lack of insight.
Without touching on the question of the release of Orleans, to which
reference will be made later, it cannot be denied that the Cardinal’s peace
policy was wise, and if so far it had not met with success, it was owing to
misfortune rather than to any inherent defect, whilst Gloucester’s opposition
to it was based on a blind misreading of the lessons taught by past events.
Nevertheless the inference to be drawn from the language of the indictment
is that hitherto the Duke had had but little part in the rejection of the French
terms, though he acknowledged that he had refused his consent to the
suggestion that Henry should surrender his title of King of France. The
complaint as to the waste of money at the Congress of Arras was amply
justified, for the fabulous sum of £22,000 was spent on the Conference.[916]
Still it must be confessed that the document as a whole is violent beyond
the limits of judiciousness, and it seems to be the appeal of an angry man to
a larger audience than that to which it was addressed.[917] In view of
Gloucester’s recent retirement from active life it is inexplicable, unless that
retirement was the result of compulsion and not of choice, and together with
his protest against the release of Orleans, which quickly followed, it stands
as the last cry of a disappointed and helpless man.
No answer was vouchsafed to this ebullition of
1440] RELEASE OF wrath, but more attention was paid to the protest
ORLEANS which followed it. The release of the Duke of
Orleans was already decided upon, and in June
Humphrey demanded that his objections to such an act should be registered
under the Great Seal, for he declared that, were it not officially made quite
clear, no one would believe that a step of such importance would be taken

without his consent. ‘I protest’—so runs this document—‘for myn Excuse
and my Discharge, that I never was, am, nor never shall be Consentyng,
Conseiling, nor Agreyng to his Deliverance or Enlargissement, nor be noon
other manere of Meen, which shuld take effect, otherwise than is expressed
in my seid Lord my Brother’s Last Will (whom God assoille), or els suerte
of so grete good whereby my Lorde’s both Realmes and Subyetts shuld be
encresed and easid.’ Clearly and succinctly he detailed the reasons which
compelled him to oppose the policy of the King’s advisers at a time when
Charles of France wanted men of ‘discretion and judgment to order his
affairs.’ The advent of Orleans to his councils would give the necessary
stability to the government, and help to reconcile those factions at the
French Court which so greatly aided the English cause. Moreover, when
once released, Orleans would be confronted with the alternative of breaking
either his oaths to Henry, or his oaths to the man whom he considered to be
his own sovereign, and if the articles of agreement between the two Kings
were not observed, what remedy had Henry got? The English were
defenceless, for it was more than probable that the men of Normandy, who
had been put to great expense in carrying on the war, would revolt when the
news of Orleans’ release reached them, whilst the recall of Huntingdon left
Guienne, ‘his Majesties ancient heritage,’ defenceless. Besides this, the
King had no alliance with any Christian prince save the youthful King of
Portugal, a fact which emphasised the folly of releasing one who was likely
to prove a ‘capital enemy’ to the crown of England. The project was not
only contrary to the expressed wish of the late King, but was inimical to all
the best interests of the kingdom, and if release was necessary, at least there
might be an exchange of English prisoners for this prince of the blood royal
of France. In any case such a step should not be taken without some kind of
consultation with the French and Norman subjects of the King.[918]
Such were the arguments Gloucester brought against the release of Orleans
from his confinement in England. It is easy to feel pity for the prisoner of
war, who through no fault of his own had been kept in bonds in a strange
country for the last twenty-five years, but it was no humanitarian spirit
which suggested to the King’s advisers the project of his release. The war
had become both a failure and a burden, and most men were agreed that
some means of ending the long struggle must be found. The people had
long since ceased to pine for those military glories which the sanctimonious
ambition of the late King had taught Englishmen to regard as their

birthright, and Humphrey could not be expected to be heard by willing ears
if he preached a policy of mere aggression. In this second manifesto,
therefore, there are no signs of that cry against all movement towards peace,
which had characterised the indictment against Beaufort. On the contrary,
the need for peace is treated almost as though it were a necessity, and
objection is taken only to the method employed to reach that end; the
success of the French forces is so far recognised that Charles is alluded to
as the King of France. Humphrey has changed his ground; the Jingo policy
of war to the bitter end has been abandoned, and the attack is levelled at the
methods, not at the aims of his opponents. Viewed in this light it would be
hard to deny that Gloucester was right; though the most disastrous result
which he predicted would follow the release did not come to pass, none of
the advantages urged by the other party resulted. The Duke of Orleans
patched up his old quarrel with the House of Burgundy, and cemented it
with a marriage; he received as a result the cold shoulder at the Court of his
royal master, and he then retired to the quiet of a country retreat, and
became famous as the centre of one of the most literary and polite societies
of his age. His release did no good to England, whilst his retention might
have been a strong card in the hands of English negotiators, and though we
may rejoice that a simple soul found freedom, we must not, with modern
sentimentality, condemn the man who did his best to spoil the idyll of the
Court of Charles of Orleans.
Though Gloucester’s indictment of Beaufort and his opposition to the
policy of peace had left the country cold, his arguments against the release
of the Duke of Orleans had produced an effect, which the men who
controlled the King hastened to counteract.[919] The King drew up a
manifesto, impelled thereto, so he said, by the report that his people were
complaining that so important a prisoner had been set at liberty. He desired
it to be understood quite clearly that what had been done had been done at
his own initiative, and that no one else was responsible for it, an assertion
so emphatic and so contrary to his character, as to raise our doubts as to its
veracity. His one object, he asserted, was to bring to an end this war, ‘that
longe hath contyned and endured, that is to saye, an hundreth yeeres and
more,’ and his arguments in favour of peace were obvious and convincing.
Edward III. had failed, his father had been checked before he died, and his
own efforts had met with but poor success. The best way to secure peace
was to release Orleans, who would use his influence in the French councils

to this end, and would remove the desire for a continuance of war amongst
those in power in France, who only looked on the prolongation of the
struggle as a means of keeping Orleans safely out of the way as a prisoner
abroad. He argued that Orleans knew nothing of English plans, and
therefore could not betray them even if he so desired, and he concluded
with a pious declaration about the immorality of keeping a prisoner of war
in perpetual confinement, probably the only sentiment uninspired by others
in the whole manifesto.[920]
The fact that this refutation was considered necessary points to a strong
public opinion in support of Gloucester, but the advocates of release had
their way, and on All-Saints’ Day a solemn service was held, whereat
Orleans swore on the Sacrament never to bear arms against England, in the
presence of the King and the assembled Lords. Gloucester was there too,
but to mark his disapproval of the whole proceedings, ‘qwan the Masse
began he toke his barge,’ and left the scene of what he considered to be an
act which could only assist the undoing of his country.[921] On November 3
the indentures were signed, and the Duke of Orleans was ready to return to
his native land.[922]
Though defeated in the matter of foreign policy,
1441] DECLINING Gloucester was still a power to be considered,
IMPORTANCE for he was an active member of the King’s
Council,[923] and possessed no inconsiderable
following in the country. To pacify his anger at his reverse he had been
made Chief-Justice of South Wales in February,[924] a post which was no
sinecure owing to the disturbed state of that district, and which necessitated
a visit thither in August and September, when assizes were held in Cardigan
and Carmarthen. Even when most in disfavour at Court, use was made of
Humphrey’s well-known ability in the suppressing of disturbances, and a
special grant of two hundred marks for his exertions in this direction was
given him.[925] At this time, too, his influence was instrumental in procuring
the renewal of the charter to St. Albans Abbey,[926] and there was even some
idea of employing him in the French wars. At any rate, the Council of
Rouen was informed that he was shortly to be sent over to France, and his
non-appearance created great discontent in the Duchy of Normandy.[927]
That the Council ever seriously contemplated such a step must remain very

doubtful, especially when we find that in the beginning of the next year he
was superseded in his Calais command by his namesake Humphrey, Earl of
Stafford.[928] Nevertheless his influence was sufficient to secure the
appointment of his friend the Duke of York to be Lieutenant-General of
France and Normandy for five years, though no steps were taken to enable
him to take up his command immediately.[929] Humphrey therefore, in spite
of his decreased importance, had some share in the management of the
kingdom, but his lack of perseverance and his impetuous nature had caused
him to throw away the natural advantages of his position. His power had
appreciably diminished in the four years which had passed since his
invasion of Flanders. The fire had gone out of his life, and he was now to
receive the most severe check he had ever experienced. His wife Eleanor
had never been a help to him in his political ambitions, now she was to
expose him to the barbed shafts of his enemies.
The old order was passing away in fifteenth-century England, yet there was
very little of the modern spirit in the mental attitude of the majority of
Englishmen. It came, therefore, as no surprise when it was rumoured abroad
that proceedings were to be taken against certain practisers of the Black Art,
who had been conspiring to kill the young King by means of incantations
and witchcraft. The age was superstitious, and only a year earlier than this
crowds had surrounded the scene of a Lollard burning, and the people had
offered money and waxen images before the ashes of the victim, Richard
Wyche, whom they considered to be a saint.[930] The monkish chronicler
Walsingham, writing a few years later, gravely describes the appearance of
the Devil in a church in Essex, and the thunderbolt which struck the
building while the evil spirit was there,[931] whilst still more circumstantial
is a story told by the St. Albans chronicler. A Lollard tiler was burnt at
Waldon in 1430, and afterwards a neighbour picked up one of his bones,
which had not been consumed by the flames. With this bone he accidentally
pricked his finger; his hand and arm immediately swelled up, and his life
was only saved by the prompt removal of the limb—a sign of remarkable
vindictiveness on the part of that Lollard, says our chronicler.[932] Public
opinion was therefore quite prepared to turn the full force of its indignation
on those who had invoked the powers of darkness to procure the death of
the young King, who had won his way to the hearts of his subjects, though
he was never able to command their respect.

The accused were two clerks, Roger Bolingbroke, an Oxford priest, and
Thomas Southwell, canon of St. Stephen’s, Westminster. The accusation of
using the ‘crafte of egremauncey’ against the life of the King was prepared
against Roger as the principal, and Thomas as the assister and abettor. Both
men were cast into the Tower, and on Sunday, July 16,[933] the former was
brought out, and placed in the midst of his instruments of magic on a
platform erected in St. Paul’s Churchyard, where, after the sermon, he
abjured the Black Art. Such a public penance drew men’s attention to the
matter, but the real interest in the case was not revealed till three days later
the news got abroad that Roger, under examination before the King’s
Council, had confessed that he had been instigated to the course of action in
which he had been discovered by no less a person than the Duchess of
Gloucester, who that same day had fled to sanctuary at Westminster.[934] At
once the matter assumed a political importance it would never have reached
had the accusation been confined to two insignificant priests. Roger was
known to have some connection with the household of Gloucester, and his
statement that the Duchess had instructed him to find by divination ‘to what
estate in life she should come,’ together with the consequent implication
that she had sought to procure the death of the King by witchcraft, and thus
procure for her husband the crown which she desired to share with him,
gained ready credence.
Steps were immediately taken to bring Eleanor
1441] DISGRACE OF to justice, for sanctuary was no protection for the
DUCHESS OF crimes of heresy and witchcraft of which she was
GLOUCESTER
now accused. On July 22 she was cited to appear
before the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of
Winchester and Salisbury, and though she essayed to find safety in flight
down the river, she was captured while making the attempt, and brought
before her judges on the 25th in the Chapel of St. Stephen at Westminster.
Many charges of heresy and witchcraft were laid against her, and Roger,
brought from the Tower for the purpose, gave evidence. The charges were
considered so serious that a remand was ordered till October 21, when she
was to appear again before the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the meanwhile
she was committed to the Castle of Leeds in Kent under the care of Sir John
Stiward and Sir John Stanley, whither she was removed on August 11.[935]

While active proceedings were thus postponed, a special commission, on
which the Earls of Stafford, Suffolk, and Huntingdon, together with Lords
Cromwell, Fanhope, and Hungerford, and certain judges of both benches
served, was appointed to inquire into all matters of sorcery; and before them
Bolingbroke and Southwell were arraigned together with Eleanor as an
accomplice. Herein we may trace an effort on the part of Gloucester’s
enemies to bring his wife into the clutches of a secular court.
At this trial yet another accomplice was produced in the person of the
‘Witch of Eye,’ whose sorceries Eleanor had long used, and from whom, it
was said, she had procured love-potions wherewith to ensnare the affections
of Humphrey. Before this court had come to any decision, interest shifted to
the Ecclesiastical Court, before which Eleanor was brought to stand an
independent trial on October 21. Her judges here were the Bishops of
London, Lincoln, and Norwich, commissioned thereto by Archbishop
Chichele, who excused himself from further participation in the trial; the
prosecution was in the hands of Adam Moleyns, the clerk of the King’s
Council. Moleyns read out an exhaustive list of accusations, to the gravest
of which the Duchess returned an uncompromising denial, without,
however, denying her guilt on all the counts, that is, she acknowledged
recourse to the Black Art, but denied the treasonable encompassing of the
King’s death. The trial was prorogued to the 23rd, when witnesses were
heard and the verdict of guilty returned, since she refused to contradict the
evidence brought against her, and ‘submitted only to the correction of the
Bishops.’ Four days later she abjured her heresies and witchcraft before the
Bishops, who ordered her to appear before them on November 9, when
sentence would be passed.[936]
The punishment that was ordered was no light one, and consisted of public
penances through London on three different days. On Monday, November
13, she came down the river on her barge to Temple Stairs, and thence, by
way of Temple Bar, she walked on foot to St. Paul’s, ‘openly barehede with
a Keverchef on her hede beryng,’ and ‘with a meke and a demure
countenance’—so the Bishops ordained—bearing in her hand a taper of two
pounds in weight, which she offered at the High Altar. On two subsequent
days similar pilgrimages were made to different churches. On the following
Wednesday she landed at Swan Stairs in Upper Thames Street, and by way
of Bridge Street, Gracechurch Street, and Leadenhall she came to

Christchurch, Aldgate, whilst on the Friday she landed at Queenhithe, ‘and
so forth she went unto Chepe, and so to Seynt Mighell in Cornhull.’ On
each occasion the Mayor of London with the Sheriffs and craftes of the City
met her at the place of landing, and escorted her along the road of penance.
[937]
Of her companions in misfortune, ‘Margery Jourdemain,’ known as the
‘Witch of Eye,’ was burnt at Smithfield; Bolingbroke underwent the full
sentence of hanging, beheading, and quartering; whilst Southwell found a
mercifully early death in prison.[938] On the completion of her penance,
Eleanor was committed to prison for life under the care of Sir Thomas
Stanley[939] and Sir John Stiward. At first she was confined in her original
place of detention, Leeds Castle in Kent,[940] but early in the New Year she
was removed to Chester,[941] whence she was taken in October or December
1443 to Kenilworth.[942] In July 1446 Sir Thomas Stanley was directed to
take her to the Isle of Man,[943] and in the following year we find her a
prisoner somewhere in Wales,[944] probably in Flint Castle, where she died
after eighteen long years’ imprisonment.[945] Her confinement was probably
no more than honourable detention, for she was provided with a large
number of personal servants, and with a private allowance of one hundred
marks a year.[946] Her relations with her jailers seem to have been quite
cordial, and to at least one of them she made a present of one of her
trinkets,[947] but as a personality she had passed from history, and as an
individual her rank was not recognised, for she is described in all official
documents as ‘Eleanor, lately called Duchess of Gloucester.’[948]
The disgrace of Gloucester’s wife is a strange story, and in spite of the
ample evidence to be found in contemporary chroniclers, it must be
accepted with some reserve. It was the cause célèbre, of the period, and
even chroniclers who pass over the years with the scantiest summary of
events pause awhile to tell of the fall of a great lady. Yet not once is
Humphrey mentioned, and it is only a sixteenth-century historian who tells
us that ‘the Duke of Gloucester toke all these thyngs paciently and said
little.’[949] Nevertheless there is a strong presumption that Humphrey did
make some efforts to save his second wife, in spite of his base desertion of
Jacqueline, a presumption which is fortified by an edict forbidding
interference with the proceedings against Eleanor,[950] and by the abstention
of Chichele—Gloucester’s friend and ally—from taking part in the later

proceedings. Moreover, the greatest care was taken to guard the prisoner on
her way to the scene of her confinement, as though some effort at rescue
was feared.[951]
Any defence of the Duchess was hampered by her own confession to the
truth of some of the charges, and by the strong evidence against her. That
she was guilty of dabbling in the Black Art can hardly be doubted, and it is
more than probable that she had used the sciences to foretell the future, an
act which, though not in itself treasonable, might nevertheless be regarded
with strong suspicion in one who was only divided by one frail life from the
position of Queen. There still exists one of her books, a semi-medical, semi-
astrological work translated from the original Arabic,[952] and it is
undoubtedly established that Humphrey himself was interested in those
sciences which bordered on the heretical. Roger Bolingbroke had a great
reputation for knowledge of the Black Art, and his connection with Eleanor
was known long before any suspicion of treason arose.[953] One of the
accusations, too, seems probable in the light of Humphrey’s knowledge of
the ancient classics, for it was said that the time-worn system of roasting a
waxen image of the doomed King before a fire had been one of the
treasonable witchcrafts employed,[954] a system which is to be found
described in all its details in the classical authors which Duke Humphrey
studied.
Behind Dame Eleanor stood her husband, and his character and reputation
could not but have their influence on public opinion. It is to be remembered
that both husband and wife had been friends with Queen Joan, who had
been accused on a similar charge, and those who could cast their memories
back to the early years of Henry VI.’s reign might remember another
incident which might suggest that Humphrey took an interest in witchcraft
and sorcery. When in 1425 he had almost come to blows with the Bishop of
Winchester, one of the causes of quarrel was that he had removed from
custody a certain ‘Ffrere Randolff,’ who had been in prison for treason.
Friar Randolph was the man who had played the part of Bolingbroke in the
Queen Joan scandal, the practiser of the Black Art, who was accused of
casting spells to encompass the late King’s death.[955] Is it surprising, then,
that men were ready to believe that the Duke of Gloucester was indeed
guilty of practising witchcraft, when he had in the past championed one of
its votaries in so autocratic a manner? It is more than probable that

Humphrey devoted himself to a study of the art from a purely scientific
point of view. All branches of learning—if, indeed, we may so call it—
appealed to his inquiring mind, but he most likely approached it from the
same standpoint as many at the present day approach spiritualism. His wife,
being of a lower mental calibre, interested herself in the study of her
husband, but treated it in a practical and not in a theoretical spirit. With this
dangerous weapon in her hands it would be in no way surprising if she used
it for concrete ends, and little by little came to try its efficacy in restoring
some of the lost power of her husband. There is no evidence or suggestion
that Humphrey himself knew of these treasonable practices, or that, had he
known, he would have taken them seriously.
Evidence and probability therefore both speak for the guilt of the Duchess,
who increased the appearances against her by her flight to sanctuary instead
of bravely facing the charges; and though the people sympathised with her
in her trouble,[956] they do not seem to have doubted for a moment that she
was guilty. Her pride and ambition were well known, and were dwelt on in
the poem entitled ‘The Lament of the Duchess of Gloucester,’[957] whilst
another contemporary rhymer writes:
‘Thy ladye was so proud and highe of harte
that she hur selffe thought pereless of estate
and yet higher faynd she wold have starte
butt sodenlye she ffell as was hur fate.’[958]
Whatever we may think of Eleanor’s guilt, it is obvious that the whole case
was exploited by Gloucester’s enemies to injure the man who had so lately
opposed their plans. The Duchess was known to have considerable
influence over the King,[959] who at the time of her trial showed a great
desire to save her life,[960] and we have seen how the object of both parties
was to secure the royal ear. To strike Eleanor was to strike her husband, for
in spite of the inauspicious beginning of her connection with Gloucester,
she had succeeded in establishing her position as the first lady of the
kingdom. Of late grants to Humphrey had been made to himself and his
wife;[961] she had been permitted to wear the robes of the Garter; she was
petitioned as one who held a position of importance, and had interfered in
matters of state administration;[962] the Pope had acknowledged her position
and had issued a Bull in her favour;[963] the Monastery of St. Albans had

admitted her into its fraternity;[964] she had been singled out for particular
favours by the King when distributing his New-Year’s gifts. She was indeed
no weakling whose insecure position might be safely attacked, but a woman
who had claimed, and had justified her claim, to be accounted of in the
kingdom.
To convict Eleanor of treason, then, was to injure her husband in no small
degree, and the whole history of the case points to the fact that it was
engineered by his enemies. Unusual publicity was given to the charges
against Bolingbroke; he was publicly paraded before the citizens of
London; and then, when the ground had been carefully prepared, the charge
was extended to the first lady in the land. Special commissioners were
organised, and every effort made to bring her under the secular arm, and if
she escaped with her life, it was not through any fault of her accusers. To
strengthen this contention it is well to take the striking parallel of Queen
Joan. The charge of sorcery was often used in the fifteenth century as a
means to remove political opponents; the trumped-up charge against the
Maid of Orleans is an obvious instance;[965] but the fate of Henry IV.’s
unhappy Queen bears too striking a likeness to the disgrace of Eleanor
Cobham to be lightly passed over. She, too, was accused on the confession
of her chaplain, Father Randolph, of having ‘compassed and imagined the
King’s death in the most horrible manner that could be devised,’[966] and to
this end she was said by the chroniclers to have used sorcery, which
Randolph practised at her suggestion.[967] She, too, was imprisoned for life,
but the more ignominious part of Eleanor’s punishment was spared her, and
she was later released from confinement.
It was the public penance, perhaps, more than anything else, which betrayed
the political animus which lay behind the condemnation of Gloucester’s
wife, and which justifies the assertion of Fabyan, that the attack on the
Duchess was part of an organised plan to overthrow the Duke.[968] Eleanor
had doubtless made many personal enemies. Born of a family of no great
standing, she had not by her early conduct improved her position. Since her
marriage to a Prince of the blood royal, her pride, fanned by the success of
her ambitions, had increased, and had given offence to many who regarded
her as an upstart. But this was not enough to account for the degrading
details of her fall. It was her husband at whom the blow was aimed, and it
was he that suffered as well as his wife.

‘Now thou dost penance. Look! how they gaze.
See! how the giddy multitude do point,
And nod their heads, and throw their eyes on thee.’[969]
The loss of prestige to Humphrey was very great,[970] and it came at a time
when his power in the kingdom was beginning to wane. Never again does
he appear as a man of influence in the councils of the King; all the old fire
of the days of the Protectorate is gone, and it is probable that he leaned far
more on his wife than has ever been suspected. Till her disgrace young
Henry seems to have had a strong affection for his uncle, but thereafter the
simple-minded King, separated from the woman who had influenced him,
turned from his uncle to other advisers, who had fewer claims to his regard,
and no wiser heads than the discredited Humphrey. Indeed this incident is a
definite milestone on the road to complete disgrace which the Duke was
now treading. Ever since the time when he began to drop out of public life
his influence in the kingdom had been slowly passing away. He had tried to
reinstate himself in the popular favour, and thus strengthen his hands
against his enemies, by his attack on Beaufort and on the policy of releasing
Orleans, but the attempt missed its mark, and had only provoked this act of
retaliation from his opponents. Hitherto the cry against him had been
merely one of mismanagement and factiousness, but here we find the first
signs of the charge of treason, with which he was ultimately assailed. It
would seem that the Beaufort faction had now decided not only on his
humiliation, but on his ultimate removal, for if he were to succeed to the
throne, their power would be gone. Humphrey had not the determination
nor the strength to meet this new attack, and he gradually gave way before
the organised assault he had now to face. He had come to the critical time of
his life, and his weak character, still further weakened by his moral failings,
was unable to cope with the situation. His face was set towards the
shadows, he knew it, and yet he had no strength to fight his way back to
light and power. Though his physical capacities were unimpaired, all signs
of moral force had disappeared from his character.
Gloucester continued to attend the Council, but
1442-4] LOSS OF we see very little recorded beyond his mere
INFLUENCE presence; occasionally he would act as a
guarantor for a loan from that prince of money-
lenders, Cardinal Beaufort,[971] or throw in sarcastic comment when the

same cardinal used his position to exact special conditions under which the
loans were made.[972] Most of his time was probably spent at his manor of
‘Plaisance’ at Greenwich, in the house on which he had spent so much
money, and surrounded by the park which he had himself enclosed. It was
here, at any rate, that in September 1442 he dated his decision in the matter
of a dispute which had arisen at the Monastery of St. Albans.[973] For the
rest, he seems to have devoted his attention to the care of his soul. He was
already assured that masses would be said for him in perpetuity at Oxford,
and in 1442 we find him in the rather strange company of the Archbishop of
York and others, securing by the gift of certain manors a perpetual chaplain
to pray for the souls of the donors themselves and of their children at the
Church of St. Katharine at Gosfield.[974] The bitterness of strife was over,
the political game was passing into other and younger hands, and these two
old rivals made up their differences in a united hope for eternal salvation.
[975]
A year later Humphrey determined to devote the alien Priory of
Pembroke, which had been given him by Henry V., to the same purpose of
masses for his soul, but there seems to have been some doubt as to where he
should place the gift. Adam Moleyne, Dean of Salisbury—he who had acted
for the Council in accusing Eleanor—had the intention of securing the
Priory of Pembroke for the Dean and Chapter of Salisbury, and went so far
as to request and obtain from the Council a licence for this transfer.[976]
Humphrey, however, refused to be driven to alienate his property in any
way of which he did not approve, and three months later we find a charter
assigning the alien Priory of Pembroke to the Abbey of St. Albans in
accordance with a Royal Licence obtained as far back as 1441.[977] In spite
of his inactivity, Gloucester did not entirely retire from public life, but his
influence was gone, and the petition of the Parliament of 1442 that ladies of
rank should have the same privilege as their husbands, and be tried by the
peers for indictable offences,[978] shows his weakness, for this petition,
which became a statute, is by way of a censure on the judicial system that
had allowed the Duchess of Gloucester to escape with her life.
But if Gloucester was passing into the
1442–4] MARRIAGE OF background, so were also the chief actors who
HENRY VI. had flourished with him on the political stage,
though no cloud hung over them as over the late
Protector. Archbishop Kemp, as we have seen, was beginning to think more

of the next world than of this; Lord Cromwell’s day was passing, and the
great Cardinal himself was now content to direct others in scenes where he
had been formerly the chief actor. The Beaufort party was now represented
in the forefront of the battle by the Duke of Somerset and the Marquis of
Dorset, both nephews of the Bishop of Winchester, and in close alliance
with them was William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk. This last had served in
the French wars ever since the death of his brother at Agincourt, but of late
he had been turning his attention to home politics. He had steadily increased
the importance of his position, and by his connection with the House of
Beaufort he now found himself one of the chief of those who so jealously
surrounded the King. He it was, therefore, who was chosen to be head of an
embassy to France,[979] which was to carry through a piece of Beaufort
manœuvring. The King had reached a marriageable age, and it was
considered advisable that he should look to France for a bride. The question
remained, to whom should overtures be made? The embassy to France was
to pave the way for the carrying out of a scheme proposed by the Duke of
Orleans, that Henry should marry Margaret of Anjou, daughter of René,
Duke of Lorraine and titular King of Sicily and Jerusalem. Though a man of
no personal possessions, René was in the innermost circle of the French
Court, owing to the fact that his sister was Queen of France, and his brother,
Charles of Anjou, one of the King’s chief advisers. Such a marriage,
therefore, presupposed some kind of agreement between the nations at war,
and Suffolk was chosen to procure such an agreement.
The idea of the marriage was unpopular in England, as Suffolk himself
acknowledged,[980] and it is probable that this unpopularity was based on
the resistance to the match made by Gloucester. This time it was no
factiousness in Gloucester that led him to oppose the plans of his
opponents, for he was adhering to a policy which he had favoured from the
first, when he warmly supported the project of a marriage with one of the
daughters of the Count of Armagnac. This match, as well as the Anjou
alliance, had been proposed by Orleans at a time when he was in alliance
with the discontented Princes of the Praguerie, and was intended to draw
Armagnac into an alliance with the English, part of a large scheme for
uniting the discordant elements of the French kingdom with the English
invaders. This idea was the product of the Beaufort policy which had
released the Duke of Orleans, a reversion, in fact, to the methods of Henry

V., who had won France with the help of Burgundy. Steps had been taken to
open negotiations, and in 1442 an embassy, of which Thomas Beckington,
formerly Gloucester’s Chancellor and now the King’s Private Secretary, and
Sir Robert Roos, one of the Duke’s literary friends, were the heads, was
despatched to Bordeaux for this purpose.[981] The French forces had
invaded Gascony, and John of Armagnac, with the enemies of England
encamped on his borders, had to tread warily in the matter of an English
alliance. Delay was inevitable, and in spite of the best intentions on the
Armagnac side, the negotiations were for the time abandoned.[982]
Gloucester had heartily supported the whole idea, since it was conceived in
the same spirit as that alliance with Burgundy which had helped to bring
half France under the dominion of Henry V. Though we may well doubt the
wisdom of this plan, we must acknowledge that it was consistent with
Gloucester’s past policy, and that in this instance he did not sacrifice what
he thought to be right to his desire to oppose his rivals. It may be that he
had learnt wisdom; it may be that recent events had taught him his
increasing weakness, and had led him to a less narrow view of party
politics. He certainly espoused this plan put forward by the party he had
opposed so long, and took a personal interest in details of the embassy, for
he was kept informed of the progress of affairs by Beckington, who, as soon
as he returned, went down to Greenwich to tell him what had been done and
what had been left undone.[983]
Humphrey, therefore, had chosen the better part, and had concurred in a
policy of which he was not the originator, but the Beaufort party showed no
signs of following this good example. They knew that Henry’s marriage
would have an immense bearing on home politics, and that his wife would
probably be able to influence him as she liked. They must therefore provide
him with a bride entirely of their own choosing, and one who would not be
acceptable to Gloucester, whose influence was to be counteracted by their
nominee to the position of Queen of England. It was for this reason that
they had changed their policy, and now were advising the marriage with
Margaret of Anjou. Notwithstanding the popular opposition, Suffolk carried
out his instructions; the marriage was arranged, and a truce was signed with
France,[984] but it was no good augury for the usefulness of this marriage
alliance that it could not be brought to form the basis of a final peace. To
the last Humphrey urged that it was dishonourable to abandon the

negotiations begun with the Count of Armagnac,[985] but when matters were
finally settled, he determined to accept the situation, and was the most
prominent of those lords and gentlemen who escorted Margaret to London
after her marriage at Titchfield Abbey.[986] On this occasion he had with
him a guard of honour consisting of five hundred men, dressed in his livery.
[987]
Later, too, when Suffolk was thanked in Parliament for his recent
labours in negotiating this marriage, Humphrey delivered a speech in favour
of the man who had brought to England one who was to prove a firebrand
in the country, and to be numbered amongst his own chief opponents.[988]
This sweet reasonableness is not a trait hitherto found in any of Duke
Humphrey’s actions, and it suggests that more and more he was coming to
realise that he was playing a losing game. He thought it best to bow before
the storm, for we cannot believe that, had he thought it to his own personal
advantage, he would have abandoned a plan merely for the sake of the
internal peace of the kingdom. We have here yet another indication that he
was unable to summon to his aid even one of those fitful bursts of energy
which earlier he had commanded, but if we are to believe the report of an
historian who wrote in the early part of the sixteenth century, his natural
impetuosity led him to give the lie to his weak behaviour, and to show that
he still held by the principles with regard to English policy on the Continent
that he had always voiced. We are told that he delivered a speech in
Parliament, urging that it was necessary to defy all conventions and break
the truce agreed to, which was, he declared, a mere subterfuge on the part of
France to gain a breathing space, an interval during which to recoup her
strength.[989]
There is, however, no absolute inconsistency
1445] MARRIAGE OF between his recent actions and this speech. He
HENRY VI. had accepted the state of affairs when he
welcomed Margaret to her new English home,
but that did not necessarily imply a cessation of the war; marriage, which
the historian generally accepts as the final confirmation of the treaty of
peace, was in this case regarded as a mere preliminary to a possible, but
rather improbable pacification. The truce was short, and the end of the war
was not to be yet. The marriage of Margaret to Henry was an isolated
incident, not part of a policy, in its effect at least, though it might be in its
intention.

Humphrey had all along argued for the
1445] GLOUCESTER’S continuance of the war; he believed in its
WAR POLICY righteousness and in its advantages at home as
well as abroad. Even as it was rumoured that
Henry V. had embarked on foreign conquest as an antidote to internal
dissension, so Humphrey, feeling the spirit of strife which was abroad—a
spirit, be it confessed, that he had fostered—looked to the war to distract the
nobles from conflict at home, and a French chronicler of the time was the
first to realise this aspect of the Duke’s policy.[990] It was not a new idea. It
had been Henry V.’s, as we have seen; more important still, it was
mentioned as a maxim of government in one of those books which it was
Gloucester’s joy to study. Ægidius, in his De Regimine Principium, writes:
‘Guerra enim exterior tollit seditiones, et reddit cives magis unanimes et
concordes. Exemplum hujus habemus in Romanis quibus postquam
defecerunt exteriora bella intra se ipsos bellare coeperunt,’[991] and a copy
of this book was among Humphrey’s gifts to the University of Oxford. It is
a wrong principle; to us it is even absurd; but the absurdity was not then
obvious. It contains the too common fallacy of confounding cause and
effect, for though the war for a time might distract the turbulent noble’s
attention, it made him all the more turbulent when his new employment, the
cause of his distraction, was removed. But contemporaries did not see this.
Basin, the historian, who divined the motives of Gloucester’s war policy,
has nothing but praise for the underlying principle.[992] Suffolk was no
enthusiastic advocate for peace, and the Beaufort faction had espoused a
peace policy in the past merely because it suited their private plans—plans,
too, which were not to increase the internal peace of the kingdom—and
because their nominees were totally incapable of carrying on the war, as had
been lately proved by the failure of the incompetent Somerset.[993] If
Gloucester followed the wrong policy in advocating war, we could not
expect it to be otherwise when we remember his early training. It is a truism
—like so many truisms, too often forgotten in practice—to say that a man
must not be judged by the standards of an age that is not his own, and it is
absurd to condemn Humphrey’s war policy when we look at the attitude of
his contemporaries to the same subject. Advantage there was none for him
to be reaped from the continuance of the war; factiousness is no longer a
possible explanation of his motive; his attitude therefore may be attributed