Volume I Part 13 (2/2)
[Footnote 253: Acts of Council.]
The Prince presided at a council, on the 18th of June, in Westminster; and, on the 19th, in the house of the Bishop of Hereford. To this council his brother Thomas of Lancaster presented a pet.i.tion praying for reformation of certain tallies, by default of which he could not obtain the money due to him. The preamble, as well as the body of this pet.i.tion, proves that at this time the Prince was regarded not merely as a member of the council, but as its president, to be named and addressed individually and in contradistinction to the other (p. 260) members. ”The pet.i.tion of my lord Thomas of Lancaster, made to the very honourable and puissant lord the Prince, and the other very honourable and wise lords of the council of our sovereign lord the King. First, may it please my said lord the Prince, and the other lords of the council,” &c.--That up to this time no jealousy had arisen in the King's mind in consequence of the growing popularity and ascendency of his son, is evidenced by the record of the same council.
That doc.u.ment tells us plainly that the King was cordial with him, and employed him as his confidential representative: it shall speak for itself. ”And then my said lord the Prince reported to the other members of the council, that he had it in command from his very good lord and father to ordain, with the advice of the others of the said council, that the Lord Thomas Beaufort, brother of our said lord the King and his chancellor of England, should have such gratuity for one year beyond his fees as to them should seem reasonable. On which, by our said lord the Prince, and all the others, it was agreed that the said chancellor should receive for one year, from the day of his appointment, 800 marks.”
The next council, at which also we find the Prince acting as president, was held on the 11th of July. Between the dates of these two last councils, that disturbance in the street took place which the Chronicle of London refers to merely as ”an affray in East-Cheap (p. 261) between the townsmen and the Princes Thomas and John;” but which Stowe records with much of detail and minuteness. Many, it is believed, may be disposed to regard it as the foundation chosen by Shakspeare on which to build the superstructure of his own fascinating imagination, and on which other writers more grave, though not more trustworthy as historians, have rested for conclusive evidence of the wild frolics and ”madcap” adventures of Henry of Monmouth. Stowe's account is this: ”In the year 1410, upon the eve of St. John the Baptist, (i.e. June 23,) the King's sons, Thomas and John, being in East-Cheap at supper, or rather at breakfast, (for it was after the watch was broken up, betwixt two and three of the clock after midnight,) a great debate happened between their men and other of the court, which lasted an hour, even till the mayor and sheriffs, with other citizens, appeased the same: for the which afterwards the said mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs were sent for to answer before the King; his sons and divers lords being highly moved against the city. At which time, William Gascoigne, chief justice, required the mayor and aldermen, for the citizens, to put them in the King's grace.[254] Whereunto they answered that they had not offended, but according to the law had done their best in stinting debate and maintaining of the peace: upon which answer the King remitted all his ire and dismissed them.” (p. 262) It must be observed that not one word is here said of Prince Henry having anything whatever to do with the affray: whether ”other of the court” meant some of his household, or not, does not appear; neither are we told that the two brothers had been supping with the Prince.
And yet, unless some facts are alleged by which the mayor and the chief justice may be connected with him in reference to some broil, we may well question whether the current stories relating to his East-Cheap revelries have any other foundation than this. At all events, the Prince seems to have been most regular during this summer in his attendance at the council-board. On the 22nd, 29th, 30th of July, we find him acting as president. The last council was held at the house of Robert Lovell, Esq. near Old Fish Street in London; at which 1400_l._ was voted to the Prince for the safeguard of Calais, to be repaid out of the first receipts from the duties on wools and skins.[255]
[Footnote 254: That is, that they should ask the King's pardon.]
[Footnote 255: On the 7th of September the King commissions his very dear son the Prince, or his lieutenant, to punish the rebels of Wales.]
On the 18th of November we find a mandate directed to the Prince, as Warden of the Cinque Ports, to see justice done in a case of piracy; and on the 29th, the King, being then at Leicester, issues to Henry the Prince, as Captain of Calais, and to his lieutenant, the same commission, to grant safe-conducts, as had been given to John (p. 263) Earl of Somerset, the late captain.[256]
[Footnote 256: The Earl died on Palm Sunday, 16th of March 1410; immediately on whose demise the Prince was appointed captain. Minutes of Council, 16th June 1410.]
Where the Prince pa.s.sed the winter does not seem to be recorded. In the following spring we find this minute of council. ”Be it remembered, that on Thursday, the 19th of March, in the twelfth year of our sovereign lord the King, at Lambeth, in presence of our said lord the King, and his very dear son my lord the Prince, the following prelates and other lords were a.s.sembled.”[257] It cannot escape observation, that, instead of the Prince being mentioned as one of the council, or as their president, his name is coupled with the King's as one of the two in whose presence the others were a.s.sembled.[258]
[Footnote 257: There are many curious items of expenditure in the minutes of this council; one which few perhaps would have expected: ”Item, to John Rys, for the lions in his custody per annum 120_l._”]
[Footnote 258: In a minute of the council, about April this year, we find an item of expense which proves that Wales still required the presence of a considerable force: ”Item, to my lord the Prince, for the wages of three hundred men-at-arms and six hundred archers who have lived and will live for the safeguard of the Welsh parts, from the 9th day of July 1410, to the 7th day of April then next ensuing, 8000_l._”
In this month the King implores the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to pray for him, and to urge all their clergy to supplicate G.o.d's help and protection of himself, his children, and his realm.
And many prayers, and processions, and ma.s.ses are ordered; and all in so urgent a manner as would lead us to think that there was some especial cause of anxiety and alarm, or some severe affliction present or feared.--Rymer.
On the 18th of August, a warrant is issued for the liberation of Llewellyn ap David Whyht, and Yon ap Griffith ap Lli, from the Tower.--MS. Donat. 4599.
In the parliament, at the close of this year, grievous complaints are made by the Border counties against the violence and ravages and extortions of the Welsh; and an order is sought ”to arrest the cousins of all rebels and evil-doers of the Welsh, until the malefactors yield themselves up; for by such kinsmen only are they supported.”
The cruelties of the Welsh are described in very strong colours by the pet.i.tioners; but it is not evident what was the result of their prayer. The rebels and robbers, they say, carry the English off into woods and deserts, and tie them to trees, and keep them, as in prison, for three or four months, till they are ransomed at the utmost value of their goods; and yet these malefactors were pardoned by the lords of the marches. The pet.i.tioners pray for more summary justice. Rolls of Parl.]
Early in the autumn of this year a negociation was set on foot (p. 264) for a marriage between Prince Henry and the daughter of the Duke of Burgundy. Amba.s.sadors were appointed for carrying on the treaty; and on September 1st, 1411, instructions were given to the Bishop of St. David's, the Earl of Arundel, Lord Francis de Court, Hugh Mortimer, Esq. and John Catryk, Clerk, or any two or more of them, how to negociate without finally concluding the treaty, and to report to the King and Prince.
The instructions may be examined at full length in Sir Harris Nicolas'
”Acts of the Privy Council” by any who may feel an interest in (p. 265) them independently of Henry of Monmouth's character and proceedings; to others the first paragraph will sufficiently indicate the tenour of the whole doc.u.ment. ”First, inasmuch as our sovereign lord the King, by the report of the message of the Duke of Burgundy, understood that the Duke entertains a great affection and desire to have an alliance with our said sovereign by means of a marriage to be contracted, G.o.d willing, between our redoubted lord the Prince and the daughter of the aforesaid Duke, the King wishes that his said amba.s.sadors should first of all demand of the Duke his daughter, to be given to my lord the Prince; and that after they have heard what the Duke will offer on account of the said marriage, whether by grant of lands and possessions, or of goods and jewels, and according to the greatest offer which by this negociation might be made by one party or the other, a report be made of that to our said lord the King and our said lord the Prince by the amba.s.sadors.” The other instructions relate rather to political stipulations than pecuniary arrangements. These negociations met with the fate they merited; and all idea of a marriage between the Prince and the daughter of the Duke of Burgundy was abandoned. But since Henry's behaviour in the transaction has been urged as proof of his having then discarded parental authority, and acted for himself in contravention of his father's wishes, thereby incurring his royal displeasure, and sowing the seeds of that (p. 266) state of mutual dissatisfaction, and jealousy, and strife which is said to have grown up afterwards into a harvest of bitterness, the subject a.s.sumes greater importance to those who are anxiously tracing Henry's real character; and must be examined and sifted with care, and patience, and candour.
The question involved is this: ”In the quarrel between the Dukes of Burgundy and Orleans, did Prince Henry send the first troops from his own forces under the command of his own friends to the aid of the Duke of Burgundy, against the express wishes of his father; or did the contradictory measures of England in first succouring the Duke of Burgundy, and then the Duke of Orleans his antagonist, arise from a change of policy in the King himself and the English government, without implying undutiful conduct on the part of the Prince, or dissatisfaction in his father towards him?” The former view has been recommended for adoption, though it reflects upon the Prince's character as a son; and it has been thereupon suggested that, ”instead of denying his previous faults, we should recollect his sudden and earnest reformation, and the new direction of his feelings and character, as the mode more beneficial to his memory.”[259] But in this work, which professes not to search for exculpation, nor to deal in eulogy, but to seek the truth, and follow it to whatever consequences it might lead, we must on no account so hastily (p. 267) acquiesce in the a.s.sumption that Henry of Monmouth was on this occasion undutifully opposed to his father.[260] However rejoiced we may be to find in a fellow-Christian the example of a sincere penitent growing in grace, it cannot be right to multiply or aggravate his faults for the purpose of making his conversion more striking and complete. We may firmly hope that, if he had been a disobedient and unkind son in any one particular, he repented truly of that fault. But his biographer must sift the evidence adduced in proof of the alleged delinquency; instead of admitting on insufficient ground an allegation, in order to a.s.similate his character to general fame, or to heighten the dramatic effect of his subsequent course of virtue.
[Footnote 259: Turner's Hist. Eng.]
[Footnote 260: The character of the ma.n.u.script, on the authority of which this and another charge against Henry of Monmouth have been grounded, will be examined at length, as to its genuineness and authenticity in the Appendix.]
In discussing this question it will be necessary to attend with care to the order and date of each circ.u.mstance. By a temporary forgetfulness of this indispensable part of an historian's duty, the writers who have adopted the view most adverse to Henry as a son, have been led to give an incorrect view of the whole transaction, especially as it affects the character and filial conduct of the Prince.
<script>