Full text of "The reign of Henry the Fifth"

See other formats

•

THE REIGN OF
HENRY THE FIFTH

Cambridge University Press
Fetter Lane, London

O^eiv Tork

'Bombay, Calcutta, (^Madras

Toronto

Macmillan

Tokyo

Maruzen-Kabushiki-Kaisha

THE REIGN OF
HENRY THE FIFTH

JAMES HAMILTON WYLIE, M.A., Litt.D.

late h.m. divisional inspector of schools
ford's lecturer in the university of oxford, 1899

AND
WILLIAM TEMPLETON WAUGH, M.A., F.R.S.C.

KINGSFORD PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN
McGILL UNIVERSITY

VOLUME III

(1415-1422)

Cambridge / c\

at the University Press
1929

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

PREFACE

WHEN Dr J. H. Wylie died, early in 19 14, he had com-
pleted the first volume of his Reign of Henry V and
had corrected 96 pages of proof for the second. He left a
great mass of manuscript, and much of this, thanks to the
courageous devotion of members of his family, was printed in
vol. 11, which appeared in 1919. But a good deal still remained
unpublished, and as the editors of vol. 11 felt unable to continue
their work, this eventually came into my hands. After dis-
cussion with Dr Wylie's publishers, it was agreed that I should
prepare it for the press, and that, in order to complete the
work, I should myself deal with such phases of the subject
as Dr Wylie had not touched. It was stipulated that I should
omit such parts of the manuscript as were not strictly relevant
to the main theme and that the appendices, in particular,
should be severely compressed.

The manuscript entrusted to me contained a narrative be-
ginning with the departure of the Emperor Sigismund from
Constance in July, 141 5, and ending with the capitulation of
Melun in November, 1420. On the greater part of the period
covered Dr Wylie had apparently completed his researches.
Very little of the manuscript, however, had undergone literary
revision. Dr Wylie's style, it is true, was somewhat uncon-
ventional, and it would have been unpardonable to amend it
according to text-book rules of English composition; but his
draft abounded with colloquialisms and solecisms, which he
would certainly not have wished to be printed under his name.
Consequently, while the matter of chapters xlviii— lxi is sub-
stantially his, the form is partially mine, though I have kept
his exact words whenever it was possible. Here and there
I have corrected palpable slips; sometimes I have drawn atten-
tion to the results of research conducted since Dr Wylie's
death; and I have inserted one or two passages on topics to
which he had given little or no attention. Whenever I could
do so without bewildering the reader, I have enclosed my own

vi Preface

contributions in square brackets. It will of course be under-
stood that I have not tried to verify all Dr Wylie's references;
for to do this would have been to repeat research on which he
had spent many years. In point of fact, however, I have collated
much of the manuscript with his original authorities.

After chapter lxi Dr Wylie's manuscript degenerated in both
matter and style, evidently representing a comparatively early
stage of his work on the topics concerned. Chapters lxii— lxv
are thus almost as much mine as his, though I have based them
on his researches as far as I could and have tried to give
expression to his opinions on the subjects treated, even when
I did not wholly agree.

At the end of chapter lxv Dr Wylie's manuscript failed me.
For chapters Ixvi— Ixxv I alone am responsible.

The Appendices have caused me much perplexity. Some
seventy were promised in vols, i and n. For most of them
the manuscript in my hands contained no material whatever
or none that could be used; and in many cases I failed to
discover what kind of information Dr Wylie had intended to
supply. Whenever his notes for appendices contained some-
thing that seemed interesting and valuable, I tried to use it;
and I have myself written two appendices on subjects which
seemed to call for special treatment. But it would have been
absurd to concoct appendices which to me seemed unnecessary
and which would doubtless have been quite different from those
which Dr Wylie had in mind. I hope that this explanation will
mitigate the disappointment of any readers who may have been
led by vols, i and n into expecting a long series of original
essays on a variety of recondite subjects.

The compilation of the bibliography presented many diffi-
culties. It of course includes not only works cited in the notes
of this volume, but also those cited in vols, i and n. Dr Wylie
left a catalogue of books he had used; but though very long,
it was not exhaustive, and his curt method of referring to
sources sometimes made it very hard to identify a work omitted
from his list, or, if the work could be ascertained, the particular
edition which had been employed. Despite resolute investiga-
tion, I have to confess myself beaten by a few of his references.

My task has proved harder and taken much longer than I
expected when I undertook it. This is due partly to my own
faulty estimate of its character, but partly to obstacles and inter-

Preface vii

ruptions which I could not have foreseen. I need hardly say
that the work would never have been completed at all but for
the assistance which I have received from many quarters. To
name all who have helped me would make this preface unduly
long. A few, however, must not be passed over without a
special tribute of thanks. By reading my proofs, Dr James
Tait, once my teacher, later my colleague, always my friend,
has placed at my service his unsurpassed knowledge of
mediaeval history. It was at the instance of Dr T. F. Tout that
I was given the opportunity of undertaking the work, and I am
particularly gratified that he has written for this volume a short
memoir of Dr Wylie, whom he knew well. I also owe much to
the kindly help of another former colleague, Professor F. M.
Powicke. My friends Mr V. H. Galbraith and Mr A. P. R.
Coulborn have saved me time and trouble by transcribing docu-
ments in the Public Record Office and the British Museum.
I have to thank Major Algar Howard, Windsor Herald, for
his courtesy and kindness in promoting my researches at the
College of Arms; and I am greatly indebted to M. le Maire of
Bauge for his readiness to furnish information to a stranger.
To Miss Constance Harvey, of the administrative staff of
McGill University, I am grateful for valuable help. During
the past years I have of course worked in many libraries, public
and academic; and I have nearly always found that those whose
duty it was to aid me have interpreted that duty in the most
generous spirit. While reluctant to make distinctions, I cannot
forbear mentioning the Library of Harvard University, where
visiting scholars are welcomed, assisted, and trusted with a
liberality which immensely increases the advantages derived
from access to the Library's splendid resources.

From beginning to end my wife has been my constant helper,
crowning her manifold contributions to this work by compiling
an exceptionally troublesome index.

I cannot withhold an acknowledgment of the patience and
consideration with which I have been treated by the Syndics of
the Cambridge University Press and its successive Secretaries.
Nor should I conclude my task without testifying to its effect
in confirming the admiration and respect which I have long
felt for the distinguished scholar with whom, though I did not
know him in life, I have had the honour to collaborate. Every
page of his manuscript bears witness to his indefatigable in-

viii Preface

dustry in research, his unquenchable thirst for knowledge, and
his unswerving zeal for historical truth. He was, it should be
remembered, an amateur in the best sense of that honourable
though much abused designation. The work which this volume
completes was, in the words of the preface to vol. n, "the sole
occupation of his leisure and the last thing in his thoughts
when he died." What he would think of this volume I dare
not surmise, but I am glad to have been the means of preserving
from loss some of the fruits of his devoted labours.

W. T. W.

Montreal, Que.
October 28, 1928

CONTENTS

MEMOIR by T. F. Tout, D.Litt., F.B.A. .

CHAPTER

XLVIII Sigismund in France

XLIX Sigismund and Henry

L Henry's Second Expedition: Prepara-
tions .....

LI Henry's Second Expedition: Normandy
Invaded .....

LII Conquest in Lower Normandy

LIII Civil Strife in France .

LIV The Fate of Oldcastle .

LV Abortive Diplomacy

LVI The Conquest of Lower Normandy com-
pleted .....

LVII The Siege of Rouen
LVIII Rouen in English Hands

Further Bargaining

The Conference of Meulan

LIX

LXI

Diplomatic Failure and Military Sue-

LXII The Duke of Burgundy's Skull

LXIII The Treaty of Troyes

LXIV The Dauphinist Resistance

LXV Three Years in England

PAGE

I
9

5°
65
77
85
97

107
118

143

150

161

171
184
196
207
219

Contents

CHAPTER

LXVI

LXVII

LXVIII

LXIX

LXX

LXXI

LXXII

LXXIII

LXXIV

LXXV

Henry in Paris ....

Normandy, 1420— 1422 .

Henry's Last Visit to England

Bauge ......

The Anglo-Burgundian Recovery .

Meaux ......

The Indefatigable Diplomatist

The Regent of France .

The Close of the Reign in England

"In manus tuaSj Domine"

Appendices A— Z2 ....

List of Printed Books to which refer
ence is made ....

List of Manuscript Authorities used

Index ......

PAGE
224

235
265

293

311

337

35%
378

393
406

427
449

538

MEMOIR

Sy T. F. TOUT, D.LITT., F.B.A.

MY friendship with Wylie goes back to 1890, the year in
which I settled in Manchester. I had already made great
use of his first volume of the History of Henry IF because it had
fallen to my lot to write the life of that King for the Dictionary
of National Biography. I well remember the occasion on which
I first met him personally. It happened that I took down the
proofs of my article to the Chetham Library to verify some
references. There I found Wylie at work and we soon got into
conversation. He was immensely interested in my errand, asked
to see my proofs, made a few suggestions about them and did
not in the least mind the rather guarded commendation which
my bibliography bestowed on his first volume. It is no great
distance from Manchester to Rochdale and our interest in
mediaeval history, and membership of the same Oxford College,
brought us so closely together that we remained great friends
until the end. He even robbed himself of hours normally de-
voted to Lancastrian history in a hopeless attempt to teach me
the elements of golf. But I learnt a great deal from him his-
torically, and shall ever cherish the memory of his kindliness,
devotion and learning, and shrewd sense. I gladly pay what
tribute I can to his memory.

James Hamilton Wylie was born in London on 8 June, 1 844.
He was educated at Christ's Hospital, whence he went with a
scholarship to Pembroke College, Oxford, where he obtained
a first class in classical moderations and a second in Literae
Humaniores, graduating B.A. in 1868 and M.A. a few years
later. He was subsequently an assistant master at Trinity Col-
lege, Glenalmond, resigning in 1874 when he was appointed
an Inspector of Schools. In the same year he married Miss
Agnes Maclaren.

The Inspectorate claimed Wylie for the next thirty-five years.
It was a time when inspectors of schools were less frequently
moved about than in these later days and he was stationed at
Rochdale between 1877 and 1895. Thence he was transferred
to the Welsh March, residing successively at Shrewsbury and

xii Memoir

Hereford. In 1901 he was moved to London where he had
charge of a large district in the East End. In 1906 he was
promoted to be Divisional Inspector in the North Eastern
Counties, and shifted his quarters to Bradford without giving
up his house in Hampstead. On his retirement in 1909, he
settled down at Hampstead until his death on 28 Feb. 19 14.
Mrs Wylie, two sons and two daughters still survive him.

Wylie was a good inspector, conscientiously discharging all
his official work, zealous in promoting educational develop-
ments and taking a kindly interest in the schools and their
teachers within his district. Though never pushing himself for-
ward, he played a not unimportant part in the local concerns
of his neighbourhood. It was largely on his advice that the
surplus of a subscription for the erection of a statue to John
Bright in Rochdale was devoted to the establishment of a small
fellowship for the study of English Literature at Manchester
University. Yet generally he restricted his non-official activities
as far as possible. Even before he entered the service of the
Education Office, he had taken up a lifelong task from which
he seldom allowed himself to be diverted. This was the writing
with minute care and from the best sources the detailed history
of England from the accession of Henry IV onwards. It was
difficult enough to put together such a work "during," as he
said, "the broken intervals of a busy official life, often at a
distance from original sources of information." It could only
be done by utilising every scrap of leisure, and by concentrating
himself on it with rare self-devotion. He reduced his social
obligations to a minimum, and his holidays to what was neces-
sary for the health of a young family. By twelve years of self-
denial and by the strictest control of his leisure hours, he was
able to publish his first volume.

What circumstances led Wylie to become the historian of
fifteenth century England it is hard to say. His historical educa-
tion at Oxford had not brought him nearer to the Middle Ages
than the early Roman Empire, and there is little evidence of
the motives that turned his interests into this particular channel.
There is a family legend to the effect that, when still a school-
master in Scotland, he entered into an agreement to write a
chapter upon Henry IV in a little elementary history book.
He gradually got so interested in his task that the little book
was forgotten and he had stumbled accidentally into his life's

Memoir xiii

work. It was lucky that his appointment to Rochdale in 1877
put the venerable Chetham Library at Manchester within easy
distance of his home. There he established himself as soon as
his official task was over for the day; there he found most of
the printed authorities for his subject and a sympathetic helper
in Sir Henry Howorth, then one of the most active of the
Chetham feoffees, who did his best to add to the library new
books that helped his work. Wylie's dedication of his first
volume to Humphrey Chetham's memory shows his apprecia-
tion of the companionship of his books "in the quiet seclusion
of the college preserved to us by his liberality as a relic of the
Lancastrian age."

The first volume of the History of England under Henry IV
was published in 1884 by Messrs Longmans. Though it only
ranged from 1399 to 1404, a sanguine title page declared the
work to be "in two volumes." As a matter of fact four were
found necessary. They appeared in 1894, 1896 and 1898.
Including the twelve years of preparation, their composition
involved the work of twenty-six years.

During this long period Wylie worked out for himself the
method of investigation to which he remained faithful for the
rest of his life. His aim was to collect in chronological order
the detailed story of the years he was investigating. He seldom
paused to generalise or recapitulate. If he were diverted from
his course, it was through the lure of some strange word or
phrase, or by the attraction of some incident that lay remote
from the general current of his work. Critics have expatiated
upon his excessive love of detail, his digressions, and his rather
"modernist" attitude to mediaeval civilisation. But he was
deaf to the written or spoken exhortations of his advisers. It
was his own method; it suited him; it enabled him to cover
the ground and he was not going to alter it. Yet within these
lines he showed a real development in his historical power.
The inadequacies of execution found in the early part of the
first volume are scarcely to be found in his later work. His
grasp over his material became greater; his acquaintance with
unprinted sources became deeper and he trusted more and more
to the material contained in the Public Record Office. Starting
with little knowledge of any history outside his period, he learnt
history by writing it and saw more and more clearly the general
tendencies of his time. After all he had no reason for dissatis-

xiv Memoir

faction. A solitary scholar, starting with little help or encourage-
ment, he succeeded in doing for the reign he made his own
more than any historian has done for any other corresponding
period of our mediaeval history. Even the first volume in-
spired competent scholars to express the wish that every reign
in mediaeval history should have its annals set forth with the
same thoroughness that Wylie had devoted to the early years
of Henry IV.1 But the best of his critics noted in later instal-
ments a "marked advance in thoroughness and historical
grasp" and declared his book "the only monograph in the
last two centuries in English medieval history which can
compare in thoroughness of research with the corresponding
volumes of foreign historians."2 There are few mediaevalists
who would dissent from this opinion.

Recognition slowly came with the completion of Wylie's
work. In 1899 he was elected Ford's Lecturer on English
History at Oxford, and in 1902 Manchester University gave
him the honorary degree of Litt.D. He still went on with his
historical work, publishing in 1 900 the six Ford lectures on The
Council of Constance to the Death of John Hus (Longmans). This
was perhaps the least successful of his writings. It is not lacking
in thoroughness, insight and learning, but his method of de-
tailed chronological narration was particularly ill-adapted to
lecture conditions. He was, however, soon at work on lines
more congenial to his habits. His ambition now was to deal
with the reign of Henry V in the same elaborate fashion with
which he had examined that of his father. Somewhat hampered
for want of books when stationed at Shrewsbury and Hereford,
he welcomed his establishment in London as giving him easy
access to the Record Office and British Museum. He now
gave himself a little more leisure to look around, and a few
valuable notes in the English Historical Review showed the lines
on which he was working3. He also made a report on the
records of the Corporation of Exeter, for the Historical MSS.
Commission, which was published after his death in 19 16.
As previously, he covered most of the ground before he pub-
lished anything, but after 1909 his release from official duty
enabled him to devote his whole time to his new venture. At

1 See, for instance, Dr Charles Plummer's review of vol. I in Eng. Hist. Rev. i,
786-8.

2 Prof. Tait in lb. ix, 761-5; XII, 351-3; XIV, 557.

3 lb. xix, 96; xxi, 723; xxiv, 84; xxix, 322.

Memoir xv

last in 1 9 14 the Cambridge Press issued in stately form his
Reign of Henry F> 141 3- 141 5. This was the last book which
he himself saw through the press. It was quickly followed
by a breakdown in health which made further work difficult.
However, he had his second volume ready for the press and had
corrected the proof sheets of nearly a quarter of it when death
came on 28 Feb. 19 14. The war delayed its publication until
1 9 1 9 and his family saw it through the press. But the rest of
his manuscript was far from complete, and required almost
complete recasting, while the last period of the reign involved
still more drastic treatment. It is a matter of congratulation to
all lovers of good scholarship that this work, "the sole occupa-
tion of his leisure and the last thing in his thoughts when he
died," has now been given to the world, supplemented and
brought to a conclusion by the care of a younger fellow-worker
in the same field.

CHAPTER XLVIII

SIGISMUND IN FRANCE

There is no need to recount the events1 which led up to the
journey of King Sigismund from Constance westward in his
vain endeavour to induce Pope Benedict to submit himself to
the decision of the Council. Leaving Constance on July 18,
141 5, he arrived at Perpignan on Sept. 192, and left it again on
Nov. 5. The story of the fruitless conferences that took place
there belongs to the ecclesiastical rather than to the secular
history of the time. But in undertaking the journey Sigismund
had other plans in view besides the healing of the Schism.
Five days before leaving Constance3 he had called a meeting of
the four nations and addressed them in reference to the purpose
of his coming journey. He said that his heart was set not only
on securing the union of the Church4 but on establishing peace
between the kings of France and England5, between the dukes
of Orleans and Burgundy, and between the Teutonic Order
and the Poles, so that the way might be cleared for a crusade
against the blaspheming Turks in the Holy Land6. But this
programme was far too heavy to be carried out, and it is not
surprising to find it subjected to repeated modification. On
Aug. 307, when at Narbonne, he declared that his chief purpose
was to secure the submission of Benedict; that accomplished,
he would go back to Constance at once. Four days later8 it was
rumoured that the English had captured Harfleur and were
already besieging Rouen, whereupon he decided that he would
certainly visit Paris after sending a bishop or two beforehand
to urge a suspension of hostilities till he should arrive, and
about the same time he told envoys of the duke of Brabant that

1 They are fully treated in Wylie, Constance, chap. iv.

2 [Finke, Acta, ii. 49]; Valois, iv. 333. 3 Martene, Anec. ii. 1640.

4 "Pour le fait de l'eglise et autres choses de leurs affaires," Cagny, 103.

5 Morosini, ii. 56, 92; Rym. ix. 373; Janssen, i. 297; Gesta, 75; Elmham, Lib. Metr.
132. For his previous despatch of envoys to the kings of France and England notifying
his wish to make peace see Tit. Liv. 23; Vita, 73; Kingsford, Lit. 327; Wylie, Constance,
14.

6 Niem, Vita, 41; Caro, Kanzlei, 121.

7 Dynter, iii. 290 sq. 8 Ibid. 292.

Win t

2 Sigismund in France [ch. xlviii

he depended on their master to join him in Paris and help in
the task of reconciliation1. Then for some months his attention
was mainly given to the wearisome negotiations which cul-
minated in the conference at Narbonne on Dec. 13, 1 4 1 5, when
it was agreed that the potentates who had hitherto upheld
Benedict should send representatives to the General Council,
authorising them to join in any proceedings against him if he
still remained obdurate. It was now generally hoped that
Sigismund would go back to Constance and wind up the busi-
ness of the Council; but as not less than three months must
elapse before the Spanish contingent could arrive there, he
decided at least to visit Paris and see what could be done in the
cause of peace2. On hearing of the fall of Harfleur, he had
despatched Hartung van Clux and Nicholas of Reibnitz3 to the
French headquarters, offering to mediate for a truce, but by the
time they arrived at Rouen the French were confident that they
had Henry in their power and were fully resolved to fight4.
The envoys were therefore detained until it was too late to dis-
cuss the matter. Sigismund used to say afterwards that if the
French had allowed them to proceed, there need have been no
Agincourt at all.

On leaving Narbonne Sigismund made his way by easy
stages to Avignon, where he stayed three weeks, enjoying
dances and tourneys and living with his suite at free quarters,
while the townsmen made him a present of 3000 gulden5.
During his stay word came in that the dauphin was dead and
that the duke of Burgundy was likely to force his way into the
capital. This staggering news upset his plans, and when he
announced that he would halt at Lyons it was believed that
he would after all return at once to Constance6. It was therefore
with somewhat uncertain prospects that the party moved up
the Rhone7. On Jan. 22, 141 6, they entered Lyons, where
they spent a fortnight8, while the chronicler, Eberhard
Windecke, was despatched to Geneva to endeavour to raise
money. At Lyons Sigismund was visited by envoys from both

1 Dynter, iii. 293; Altmann, i. 126. 2 Pulka, 43.

3 Pray, ii. 261. Both could speak English (Windecke, 87).

4 "Sie woken striten und nit anders thiin," Windecke, 87.

5 Valois, iv. 358; Windecke, 64.

6 Pulka, 40; Aschbach, ii. 430; A. Leroux, 170.

7 Martene, Anec. ii. 1659; Mansi, xxviii. 920; Dvorak, 100.

8 For documents dated at Lyons from Jan. 26 to Feb. 5, see A. Leroux, 170; Altmann,
i. 129.

141 5~i 6] Paris 3

the duke of Burgundy1 and the government in Paris, the latter
offering him 300 crowns a day if he would come and lend his
help in bringing about an understanding with England2; and
on receipt of this message he decided to go forward. But in the
meantime the count of Savoy (Amedee VIII) was pressing his
claim to a dukedom, and as the French king's officials refused
to allow the investiture to take place on French soil, a move
had to be made across the Saone to the castle of Montluel3,
where an edict was issued creating the count the first duke of
Savoy. Thence the party moved eastward to Chambery4, where
the formal investiture took place with great ceremony on
Feb. 195. The duke paid 12,000 crowns for his new dignity6.
Returning to Lyons, Sigismund now set his face definitely
towards Paris. The exact route that he followed is not clear, but
he seems to have touched the Loire at Nevers7, and he certainly
approached Paris from the south. The duke of Burgundy had
by now withdrawn his troops ; the road was safe and open, and
the capital wholly in the power of the Armagnacs. Sigismund's
cavalcade numbered from 800 to 1000 men8, mounted on
small horses9 and wearing over their armour black jupons which
displayed on front and back the double or apostolic upright
cross of Hungary10 in ashen grey, with the motto of the Order
of the Dragon, "O quam misericors est Deus11." The provost
and some of the citizens of Paris rode out to meet them at
Etampes and Longjumeau, and at Bourg-la-Reine they were
welcomed by the duke of Berry, the count of Armagnac, and
cardinal Louis, duke of Bar12. Sigismund fell on the duke of
Berry's neck and kissed him, and the two rode on together,

1 Mirot, D'Orgemont, 168.

2 Windecke, 64; Gesta, 76; Caro, Kanzlei, 109; Janssen, i. 296; Beaucourt, i. 262.

3 Monstr. iii. 172; Waurin, ii. 239; Paradin, Bourgogne, 616; Guichenon, ii. 31;
Bonal, 563 sq.; Mezeray, ii. 571.

4 Reading "Camberiacum" for "Chanteriacum" in Aen. Sylv., Orat. iii. 179. Cf.
"in castro Chamberiaci" (Cibrario, Altacomba, 154) and "Camberii" (Pingone,
Augusta, 6 1). For a letter of Sigismund dated at Chambery, Feb. 10, 1416, see Curteys,
f. 166 a [125].

5 Leibnitz, Codex, i. 309-313; Guichenon, ii. 31, iv. 252; Grillet, ii. 42; Altmann,
i. 130; Sickel, 189; Cordeliers, 232; Caro, Kanzlei, 65; J. H. Costa de Beauregard, i. 250,
344; A.Leroux, 172, quoting Staindel, Chronicon, inRerumBoicarumScriptores,i.529.

6 Justinger, 236. 7 Windecke, 165.

8 Le Fevre, i. 277; Monstr. iii. 135; Aschbach, ii. 155.

9 Monstr. iii. 137.

10 For the cross of Hungary as Sigismund's arms, see Hardt, v. 28.

11 Monstr. iii. 137; Windecke, 130; Pray, Hist. ii. 199.

12 Bouvier, 431; Gilles, 223; Mamerot, 272; Monstr. iii. 135; Le Fevre, i. 277; Gall.
Christ, ix. 895.

1-2

4 Sigismund in France [ch. xlviii

entering the city in great state by the Porte St Jacques on
Sunday, March I . They went first to the palace on the island,
where the king, who was then fairly sensible, was brought out
on to the steps in the courtyard to bid a formal greeting1.
Thence they passed on to the Louvre, where Sigismund and
all his suite were lodged during the greater part of his stay2.

This reception was encouraging, and indeed Sigismund's
hosts did their best to make his stay pleasant. The University
solemnly presented him with an address of welcome3; he saw
the sights of Paris and the suburbs4; valuable gifts were be-
stowed on him and costly banquets given in his honour5; and
throughout his visit he lived at free quarters6. Nevertheless he
soon took a dislike to the place, for there was continual faction-
fighting between the Armagnacs and the Burgundians, who
were always cutting one another's throats in the street7. Nor
was it long before the Parisians grew tired of Sigismund. They
were disgusted with his dirty and shabby clothing, his shame-
less and promiscuous amours8, his greed and meanness9,
though for this last defect he was not wholly to blame, seeing
that he was, as usual, very short of money. Certain incidents
seem to have caused special offence. Thus, at a banquet and
dance, given at the duke of Berry's expense, to which 120 of
the most honourable ladies of Paris had been invited10, Sigis-
mund is said to have got drunk and behaved indecently11. Even
more indiscreet was his conduct when on March 1 6 he visited
the Palace and listened to the pleadings in the Parlement. Not
content with being allowed to occupy the king's seat above the
president, he caused some murmuring by wanting to preside in

1 Baye, ii. 241; Denifle, Auctarium, ii. 205; St Denys, v. 744; Bourgeois, 69;
Juv. 529; Douet d Arcq, i. 382; Gesta, 76; Chron. Giles, 67.

2 Monstr. iii. 135; Le Fevre, i. 278; Caro, Kanzlei, 106.

3 Launoi, i. 123; Denifle, Auctarium, ii. 205; [Finke, Acta, iv. 457].

4 Bourgeois, 6911.; Basler Chron. v. 162; Altmann, 132; Valois, iv. 358; Gall.
Christ, vii. 142.

5 Mirot, 272 sq.; Juv. 529; Montreuil, 1444; Valois, iv. 357.

6 Montreuil, 1444. ' Windecke, 65; St Denys, vi. 48. 8 Montreuil, 1449.
9 Bourgeois, 69 n.; Valois, iv. 358. [But cf. Finke, Acta, iv. 455, n. 1].

10 Bourgeois, 69; Juv. 530; St Denys, v. 746.

11 Montreuil, 1448 sqq. Jean de Montreuil's account of Sigismund's conduct in
Paris, which is very bitter and scurrilous, has been regarded by most modern writers
as almost wholly untrue; but the writer was in Paris at the time and there is nothing
in his story inconsistent with what we know of the character of Sigismund. Jean de
Montreuil was a canon of Notre Dame and Rouen and provost of St Pierre at Lille (see
Finke, Kleinere Quellen, 465 sqq.; Grude, i. 556; Foppens, ii. 698; Paquot, ii. 262;
A. Thomas, Joh. de Monsterolio, 3 sqq.; Feret, iv. 143; Piaget, Cour, 430).

14 1 6] Peace-making 5

person1. It happened that a cause was before the court in which
a Provencal, Guillaume Seignet, lord of Vaucluse, and Guy
Pestel were contending for the stewardship of Beaucaire. The
former being at a disadvantage because he was not yet a knight,
Sigismund asked him in Latin if he would like to be made one,
and borrowing a sword from one of his attendants, knighted the
man forthwith. The court could not conceal its amazement at
this unmannerly encroachment on the prerogative of their
absent king2; but in the end French politeness prevailed3, and
the incident stands entered in the official register without any
sign of protest. The court, it is true, was afterwards severely
blamed by the Council for allowing such a flagrant defiance of
the legal maxim that the king was emperor in his own realm4;
but the dignity conferred was never cancelled, and two years
afterwards the new knight was despatched to Prague5 as an
official representative of the king of France.

It must not be supposed, however, that the five weeks spent
by Sigismund in Paris were altogether given up to gaiety and
sight-seeing. From the very day of his arrival he was constantly
conferring6 with French politicians in the hope of making
peace, and according to his own account7 he offered to marry
his only child and heiress Elizabeth, who was but seven years old,
to one of the French king's sons if this would forward the desired
end. There are, indeed, serious difficulties in accepting this state-
ment, for the dauphin was married and his brother betrothed,
while Elizabeth herself had been promised more than four years
previously to her future husband, Albert IV, duke of Austria8.
But the statement is in keeping with the careless spirit in which
Sigismund approached his thorny task. He seems to have
thought that he had only to ask and to have, that Harfleur and
all the French prisoners would be given up by England, and
that the two countries would then join him in driving out the
Turks9. The opinion among his suite was that there might be
a truce for four or five years, and that at the end of that time

1 Baye, ii. 244; St Denys, v. 744; Juv. 529; Douetd'Arcq, i. 382; Boulay, v. 299.

2 Sauval, ii. 5.

3 "Sous dissimulation," Monstr. iii. 138; Bourgeois, 69.

4 For Charles Vs resentment of any claim to overlordship when the emperor
Charles IV visited Paris in 1378, see Beaucourt, i. 261.

5 Beaucourt, Les Chartier, 17; D. Delaunay, 81, from Pasquier, lib. vii. ch. xxxviii.

6 "Apres plusieurs parlements," Monstr. iii. 136. Cf. Altmann, i. 131.

7 Caro, Kanzlei, 120.

8 Fejer, x. 5, 155, 171; Windecke, 23; Lindner, ii. 283. 9 Caro, Kanzlei, 121.

6 Sigismund in France [ch. xlviii

a new generation of Frenchmen would be growing up who
might choose between revenge and a final peace1. But at a
council meeting towards the end of his stay Sigismund himself
kept saying that he was tired of these endless quarrels and of
this scandalous imprisonment of so many princes of the lilies —
he would very soon have them all back, and he quite hoped to
see a peaceful ending to it all as soon as he had had a talk with
the king of England2.

Sigismund awaited the return of certain messengers sent to
raise money in Brussels, Bruges, Louvain, and other important
towns, and then, on April 13, set out from St Denis, where he
had been staying for some days3. That night the party slept in
the castle at Beaumont, and on the 1 5th, after crossing the
Oise, they reached Beauvais. Here they were joined by Renaud
de Chartres, the young archbishop of Rheims, who proceeded
with them to England4. Sigismund was lodged in the bishop's
palace, and stayed at Beauvais to keep his Easter5. Leaving the
city on April 21, the party took the road to Abbeville, whither
Sigismund had already sent messengers notifying his approach;
but when it was known that English envoys wearing the cross
of St George were with the party, these harbingers were re-
ceived with open insult and narrowly escaped with their lives6.
Sigismund and his suite therefore crossed the Somme at
Pont Remy, and rode on to the great Benedictine abbey of
St Riquier7. Thence they proceeded by Montreuil to Etaples8,
turning aside to visit the croix coupee at St Josse, where Sigis-
mund, though received with the utmost honour by the abbot
and convent, was not moved by the sight of the saint's body to
leave so much as a penny behind9. Evidently the feeling shown
at Abbeville was spreading; the captain of Boulogne had been
out to Montreuil to see how the party would be received there10;

1 Juv. 530.

2 St Denys, v. 746; "sese sublimando jactitabat," Montreuil, 1449; Gilles, 223;
Bourgeois, 623; Boulay, v. 316. On Feb. 10 he had written to the duke of Orleans
and other leading French prisoners in England promising that he would labour for
their release, Curteys, f. 166 a [125].

3 Windecke, 65; Basler Chron. v. 162; Monstr. iii. 136; Altmann, i. 132; Lenz, 83.

4 Gesta, 76; Tit. Liv. 23; Vita, 76; Monstr., loc. cit. ; Pray, ii. 262; Kingsford, Lit.
327; Champollion-Figeac, Lettres, ii. 362; Gall. Christ, ix. 135. For a safe-conduct
for the archbishop, dated April 26, 1416, to last till Aug. 1, see Rym. ix. 342; Beau-
court, i. 263.

5 Basler Chron. v. 162; J. Meyer, 248; Monstr., loc. cit.

6 Caro, Kanzlei, 114; Monstr. iii. 136. 7 J. Meyer, 248.

8 Windecke, 65, 200; J. Meyer, 248; Monstr. iii. 137.

9 J. Meyer, 248; Baye, ii. 276. 10 E. Dupont, 130.

141 6] Departure 7

and when they reached Boulogne on April 24, the townsfolk,
though they sent out presents of food, refused to admit Sigis-
mund within the walls unless his retinue was reduced to 200
mounted men1. At this he showed great indignation and told
the captain to take the gifts away, as he had enough provisions
of his own. He stayed for a meal in the lower town by the
waterside2, and then moved on. Six hundred horsemen came
out of the town, with trumpeting and other music, to escort
him honourably on his way; but he sent them an angry message
to be gone3. This embarrassing episode brought down upon the
people of Boulogne a letter from the duke of Berry4. Its terms
are not known, but they may well have been severe, for Sigis-
mund regarded the behaviour of the townspeople as a scandalous
insult5, and contrasting as it did with the splendid welcome that
awaited him at Calais, it could not fail to have a marked effect
upon the temper in which he continued the negotiations.
English territory was entered on April 25s; the English gar-
risons on his route had been instructed to receive him in their
very best array7; and a mile from Calais the cavalcade was met
by the governor — the earl of Warwick — with a splendid escort
of knights and archers8. Sigismund had already had proof of the
earl's skill in the lists, and now, delighted at his reception, he
declared that Warwick was second to none for wisdom, good
breeding and valour9.

In this pleasant fashion began the second stage of Sigismund's
peacemaking tour, from which so much had been expected.
Meanwhile his own kingdom of Hungary was in imminent
danger from the Turks, and the Council at Constance was crying
aloud for the return of its only hope10. But throughout Sigismund
went about his business in the same leisurely and casual way,
spending no less than a year and a half away from Constance.
The truth seems to be that he stayed wherever he was comfort-
able, and that once in he was usually unable to get out for want
of the necessary funds to carry him on. His estimates of time
and distance were in any case ridiculous. Thus, when on April 5,

1 Windecke, 93. 2 E. Dupont, 162.

3 Aschbach, ii. 161.

4 Received May 3: "faisans mencion surle fait du Roy desRommans," E. Dupont, 92.

5 Caro, Kanzlei, 114. 6 Altmann, i. 132.
7 *Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 193. 8 Monstr. iii. 137.

9 Rous, 366; Carysfort, p. xxxiv; Worcester, Itin. 354; Dugdale, Baronage, i. 245,
Warwicksh. i. 407.
10 Vrie in Hardt, I. c. 189 sqq.; Lenz, 77.

8 Sigismund in France [ch. xlviii

1416, he summoned his vicegerent, John Kanitza, archbishop
of Gran, to come from Buda-Pest with Hermann, count of
Cilly, and take part in the negotiations, he added that he would
probably be back in Constance by Whitsuntide, and, having
brought the Council to a satisfactory conclusion, would return
to Hungary before the end of the year1.

1 Marine, Anec. ii. 1662; Altmann, I. 131.

CHAPTER XLIX

SIGISMUND AND HENRY

Before Sigismund had left Paris, it was known in England
that his arrival might soon be looked for, and on April 7 the
sheriffs were ordered to summon all knights and squires to be
in London by the 1 6th to give him a welcome1. It was believed
that he was already at Calais, and 300 vessels were hastily sent
over from Dover to bring the party across2. All the arrange-
ments were put into the hands of Sir Walter Hungerford, and
the royal officers posted down to Dover to arrange that all
expenses should be charged to the king's account3. On April 26
a safe-conduct was issued for one of Sigismund's secretaries4,
but some days were still to elapse before Sigismund himself
landed. Thus there was plenty of time to complete the pre-
parations. Beds were mended and repaired for the visitors'
use5. The royal barge was covered with scarlet cloth and
furnished with cushions of imperial and Lucchese cloth of
gold6. All towns on the route were ordered to supply provisions
to the visitors without taking any money from them7.

It took several days to get Sigismund's horses and baggage
on board at Calais, but on May i8 he made the passage in
five hours and landed the same night at Dover9. As his ship
neared the land, the duke of Gloucester and other magnates
rode into the water with drawn swords, and the duke, as
Constable, declared that they would resist his landing unless
he disclaimed all imperial rights over England10. Sigismund of

1 Rym. ix. 339; Lett. Bk. I, pp. xxviii, 160.

2 Rym., loc. cit.; Tit. Liv. 23; Kingsford, Lit. 327. The Council had already
advised that the clerk of the king's ships should be provided with funds for this purpose,
Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 194.

3 Rym. ix. 340. 4 Ibid. 342. 5 Exchequer Accts. 406/26.
6 Ibid. 7 Rym> ix_ 340-

8 Altmann, i. 132. The date is wrongly given as April 30 by Windecke (66) and as
April 28 by Monstrelet (iii. 137). Cf. Gesta, 76; Elmham, Lib. Metr. 133; Tit. Liv. 23.

9 Windecke, 66; Tit. Liv. 23; Vita, 75; Kingsford, Lit. 327. Windecke, who
followed on May 3, took two days and two nights to cross from Calais to Sandwich,
and landed "well-nigh drowned."

10 This story has been generally discredited by modern writers, who thought that it
rested on no better authority than that of Hall, Holinshed, and Redman, but the incident
is described by the "Translator of Livius," who had the story from "the honnorable

io Sigismund and Henry [ch. xlix

course declared that he came merely as the king's friend and as
a mediator, and was then formally welcomed and lodged in the
castle. Next day the party reached Canterbury, where they
were received by Archbishop Chichele and stayed three days,
visiting the churches and Becket's shrine1. It had been ar-
ranged by the Council that at each of the two halting-places
between Canterbury and London Sigismund should be met
by one of the king's brothers with a number of nobles and
warriors just returned from the victory, who would afterwards
fall in and swell the train as it moved onwards to London2. So
at Rochester3 the party were received by the duke of Bedford,
together with the earl of Oxford, the lords Camoys and Powys,
and Sir William Bourchier, the constable of the Tower, and at
Dartford4 the duke of Clarence was awaiting them, accom-
panied by the earls of March and Huntingdon, the lords Grey
of Ruthin, Poynings, and Abergavenny, and Sir John Corn-
wall. On May 75 the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of London
came out to join the escort at Blackheath, and the king him-
self was posted at St Thomas' Watering6 attended by 5000
magnates in their richest array. The two monarchs kissed and
did much obeisance each to each7, and the long procession
moved on, the "most victorious" king riding with his "most
superillustrious brother8" on his right and Archbishop Chichele
on his left9. At Southwark they crossed the bridge, and entered
the crowded and beflagged city, where the people thronged
every street to catch a glimpse of the "unknown king10." After

Earle of Ormonde" (Kingsford, First Life, 67). [The ident ty of the earl and the
value of the material ascribed to him are discussed in Appendix Z2.] Another chronicle
discovered by Mr Kingsford, who regards it as a compilation of the year 1447, shows
that by the middle of the century there was a legend that Sigismund had demanded
tribute of Henry: "tempore istius Regis Henrici Sigismundus Imperator Romanorum
venit in Angliam tributum petere a dicto Rege Henrico, et de quo tenebat terras suas
diligenter inquirendo. Cumque hoc audisset predictus Rex extracto ense Imperatori
dicit: Quod a nullo homine vel principe tenebat nisi per solum gladium. Quod Im-
perator audiens deinceps non petiuit tributum, set precipue desiderabat vt fieri posset
Miles de la Garture." (E.H.R. xxvi. 750 sqq.) This looks like a distortion of the story
preserved in the First Life.

1 Windecke, 66, 200; Basler Chron. v. 163. 2 Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 194.

3 Gesta, 76 sq.; W. B. Rye, 5; Archaeol. Cant. vi. 47; not at Canterbury, as Kings-
ford, Chron. 124.

4 Gesta, 77; Capgrave, De Illustr. Hen. 118; Kingsford, loc. cit.

5 Wals. ii. 315; Chron. Lond. 103, 159; Kingsford, Chron. 71, 124; Riley, Mem. 627;
Lett. Bk. I, p. xxviii; Basler Chron. v. 162; Altmann, i. 132.

6 Brut, ii. 381; Kingsford, Chron. 124, Lit. 299.

7 Ibid. 300. 8 Gesta, 78; Chron. Giles, 67.
9 Chron. Lond. 103; Lib. Met. 133.

10 Basler Chron. v. 163; Monstr. iii. 144; Waurin, ii. 232; Tit. Liv. 24; Vita, 76.

1416] English Hospitality 11

a halt for a Te Deum at St Paul's, they passed on to West-
minster, where the palace was given up to the visitors1. King
Henry crossed to the archbishop's palace at Lambeth, which
was to be his residence as long as his guests should stay2. What
Sigismund thought of his reception does not appear from any
recorded words of his own, but an English chronicler declares
that he was delighted3, and one of his suite declared that no
king was ever more handsomely received, and that Sigismund
lacked words to express his admiration for the splendour of the
horses and the magnificence of the noble and lovely women
who came out to meet him in their costliest gowns4. But the
best proof of Sigismund's satisfaction is afforded by the length
of his stay. If his own estimate is to be trusted, he meant to
remain but a few days in order to be back in Constance by
Whitsuntide, and it is true that many of his retinue took passage
for home within a month5. He himself, however, stayed nearly
four months and put Henry's hospitality to the severest strain6.
Four days after his arrival an item of £1666. 13J. \d. occurs in
the Exchequer records as the cost of his journey from Calais
to London7. Throughout his visit the choicest wines and meats
were set before him every day, and the royal servants waited
at his table. Honours and gifts were showered upon him. He
received presents wherever he went. King Henry gave him
5000 nobles in two gilt basins, a gold head, two silver-gilt cups,
and a gold mixer, together with rubies, pearls, and amethysts
believed to be worth 40,000 crowns8. Horses with splendid
harness and trappings were presented to him and to members
of his suite9, though, to do them justice, they gave a number

1 Gesta, 77; Wals. ii. 315; Kingsford, Chron. 124; Brut, ii. 381; Exch. Accts.
406/26. So completely was the emperor's convenience studied that a separate entrance
was made for the king to pass into the Exchequer without disturbing the privacy of
his guest (Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Pasch., July 24, 1416).

2 Gesta, 77; Wals. ii. 316; Kingsford, Chron. 124; Chron. Giles, 68; Brut, ii. 381;
Riley, Mem. 627.

3 Vita, 75. 4 Windecke, 66.

5 Payments for shipping for their passage are recorded in Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Pasch.,
June 3, 5, 1416.

6 Contemporary opinion was much impressed by the expense to which Henry
was put by Sigismund's visit; cf. Vita, 75; Usk, 130; Strecche, 268; Brut, ii.
381, 559; Kingsford, Lit. 278; [E.H.R. xxix. 511 (from a Latin chronicle from the
Creation to 14 18, extracts from which have been printed by Mr Kingsford in an article
entitled "An Historical Collection of the Fifteenth Century," E.H.R. xxix. 50559.)].

7 Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Pasch., May 11, 1416; Exch. Accts. 328/6, May 9, 1416;
ibid. 106/24 (1).

8 Exch. Accts. 406/26; Windecke, xxx. 82 sq.; Justinger, 237; St Denys, vi. 54.

9 For. Accts. 52, A.

1 2 Sigismund and Henry [ch. xlix

of horses to the English king1. Henry even gave Sigismund his
collar of SS, which he henceforth wore in public on all cere-
monial occasions2. He was lavishly entertained at banquets by
the great nobles and other notable Englishmen3; the king's
horses were placed at his disposal, and he hunted in the forests
to his heart's content4. King Henry took him about to see the
country. Parliament, which had really finished its business
before Easter, actually re-assembled in honour of his visit5.
Everything, in short, had to give way to his convenience, and
it is pleasing to learn that Sigismund greatly admired all he
saw, pronouncing the land to be one of great nobility and
worthiness, and plenteous of good and rich people, and blessed
of governance, with abundance of all worthy commodities6.

Of all the honours lavished upon Sigismund, by far the
greatest in contemporary estimation was his admission to the
Order of the Garter. Four vacancies in the Order had occurred
during the previous year through the deaths of Henry Lord
Scrope, who had been executed at Southampton, the earl of
Arundel, who had died on his return from Harfleur, the duke
of York, who had been killed at Agincourt, and Sir John
Dabridgecourt7. It had been decided that the gaps should be
filled by Sir William Harington8, the earls of Huntingdon and
Oxford, and William Lord Zouche of Harringworth ; but the
last had died in November, 141 59, and a vacant stall thus re-
mained at the king's disposal. St George's Day was the proper
day for the annual chapter and the admission of new knights,
but it was customary to postpone the festival if April 23 fell
within fifteen days of Easter10. The date fixed for this year was
May 2411, and preparations were made for an installation of
exceptional magnificence. On May 1 8 orders were given that
the best lodgings in the castle and the college at Windsor
should be made ready for Sigismund and his suite12. The garter

1 Exch. Accts. 106/24 (1).

2 Wals. ii. 316; Rym. viii. 165, ix. 434 sq., 441; cf. Montreuil, 1444.

3 Waurin, ii. 234. 4 Vita, 76. 5 See vol. ii. 322.
6 Kingsford, Lit. 300. 7 See vol. i. 317.

8 Harington succeeded Scrope. He died March 12, 1440 (Beltz, pp. lvi, clvii, clx).

9 See vol. i. 40, n. 1.

10 See Statutes of Hen. V in Ashmole, Instit., App.

11 "Die dominico in clavibus rogationum," Gesta, 78; Curteys, f. 166 b; Lett. Bk. I.
pp. xxviii, 161; Riley, Mem. 627; Basler Chron. v. 163.

12 Anstis, i. 29; Ashmole, App. clxxii, which should be dated 4 (not 7) Hen. V;
Tighe and Davis, i. 284, from Ashmole MS. 1125, f. 101 b.

1 4i 6] The Garter 13

and the blue silk mantle were supplied as required by the
statutes, and on Friday, May 22, they journeyed down,
escorted by the existing knights, each booted and spurred and
in his habit1. On the following day the earl of Suffolk con-
ducted the candidate to the bath2, and he was then ushered in
to the chapter-house to be invested as a knight elect, a gentle-
man of blood and without reproach amongst the mightiest
and most illustrious princes and the most powerful nobles
of England3. The installation took place on the Sunday in
St George's Chapel4. At this ceremony King Henry took care to
occupy the chief place both in the procession and at the Mass;
but at the feast which followed in the great hall, Sigismund
was invited to preside at table5, having on his right King Henry,
with Louis duke of Brieg and Nicholas of Gara, the count
palatine or ban of Hungary, and on his left the duke of Bedford
with Bishops Beaufort and Langley6, the former as prelate of
the Order7. Of these occupants of the high table only Sigis-
mund and Henry were served with the three great "subtleties,"
which represented St George being armed by the Virgin,
fighting the dragon, and entering a castle accompanied by a
king's daughter leading a lamb8. That Sigismund alone shared
these dainties with Henry was probably intended as a mark of
gratitude for a gift which Sigismund had made. He had a
special interest in St George: in 1408 he had founded the
Order of the Dragon9; and he had somehow obtained possession
of what purported to be the champion's heart. When the earl

1 Kingsford, Chron. 124.

2 Cf. Statutes of Henry V in Ashmole, Instit., App.; Exch. Accts. 406/26, which
is the document marked "ex rot. de computis garderobie, penes earner" in Rym. ix.
334 sq. It contains payments for covering the bed "post balneam," for covering the
king's chair with baudekin, and for covering the bath inside, in front, and in the bottom,
for the earl of Suffolk and his servant. For the earliest known example (1377) of the
bath as part of the process in the creation of knighthood, see Shaw, i, p. xiii.

3 Basler Chron. v. 163.

4 Originally called the chapel of St Edward, but rebuilt and renamed by Edward III.
The present chapel dates from the reign of Henry VII.

5 "The Emperour kept the state at the mete," Three Fifteenth Cent. Chron. 55;
Fabyan, 581; Anstis, ii. 65. In Curteys (f. 166 b), however, Henry seems to preside,
with Sigismund on his right.

6 Reading "Dunelm" for "Develyn" in Chron. Lond. 159, and "Dyvelyn" in
Three Fifteenth Cent. Chron. 55.

7 Ashmole, 235, 514; Beltz, lii; Chron. Lond. 159; Greg. Chron. 113; Fabyan,
581.

8 Three Fifteenth Cent. Chron. 55; Tighe and Davis, 284.

9 On the occasion of his marriage with Barbara of Cilly, Dec. 12. Pray, Hist.
ii. 149; Fejer, x. 4, 683; Aschbach, i. 263; Caro, Kanzlei, 16, 23.

14 Sigismund and Henry [ch. xlix

of Warwick fought before him in the lists at Constance1, he
offered him this holy relic to take back with him to England.
The earl, however, had requested that Sigismund would retain
it and bring it with him on his projected visit. This he had now
done. At Windsor they had only one of the saint's bones, a
piece of his arm, and part of his skull2, so that his heart was
a very welcome present. What has become of it no one knows,
but it was certainly shown to some Bohemian visitors in 14663,
and was carried in procession every year down to the time of
Henry VIII4. To the modern historian, however, St George's
heart is less interesting than the statutes promulgated at this
chapter, which are our earliest authority for the regulations of
the Order, all previous ones having wholly perished5.

Sigismund had not entirely neglected the object of his
mission during the first weeks of his sojourn in England; for
the terms of the alliance projected two years before had been re-
examined, and the question of peace had also been debated
between the two kings and their counsellors6. Serious con-
sideration of this, however, had deliberately been deferred in
the expectation of the early arrival in England of William, count
of Holland, Zealand and Hainault7. The count had married
Margaret, daughter of Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy; his
only daughter and heiress, Jacqueline, was the wife of the
dauphin Jean8. He had always been on good terms with
Sigismund, and was regarded as a common friend of France,
England, and the Empire. Although his family connections
must have rendered him suspect to the dominant party in
Paris, it was at the suggestion of the king of France that he
had been invited to mediate. The count, who was a knight
companion of the Garter9, had intended to be present at the
installation of Sigismund; but owing to stress of weather10 it
was not until May 28 that he and his imposing retinue reached

1 Rous, Hist. 269.

2 Monast. vi. 1364 sq.; Tighe and Davis, i. 232; Anstis, ii. 40.

3 Rozmital, 45.

4 Rous, 367; Anstis, i. 29, ii. 40, 450; Beltz, lviii; Tighe and Davis, i. 284; E.H.R.
xxvi. 751. Capgrave (313) says that Sigismund presented an image of St George made
of pure gold.

5 Beltz, xlviii; for text, see Ashmole, App.; Anstis, ii. 64. Mr St John Hope believes
them to be merely a revise of the original statutes of Edward III (Stall-Plates, 8, 13).

6 Wylie, Constance, 15; St Denys, vi. 54; Gesta, 77; Chron. Giles, 68.

7 St Denys, v. 748. 8 Cf. vol. ii. 292.
9 Since 1390, Beltz, xvi.

10 Goldast, Statut. i. 148, Const. Imp. i. 390; Mieris, iv. 372.

141 6] Mediation 15

London1. The chief members of the party were lodged in the
bishop of Ely's hostel in Holborn2; and the king's new guests
shared in the sumptuous festivities in honour of Whitsuntide
and Trinity Sunday3.

On the count's arrival the peace question was at once taken
up in earnest4. The French envoys and the leading French
prisoners played a very active part in the negotiations, the
purpose of the latter being to regain their freedom at any cost5.
On June 4 Sigismund, with his customary optimism, expected
that an understanding between England and France would be
reached in two days6. But Henry, while professing willingness
to agree to peace, insisted not only that the French should leave
him in possession of Harfleur and a belt of adjacent country
sufficient to support its garrison, but also that they should
yield all that had been conceded to Edward III by the treaty
of Bretigny7. In other words, he would waive his claim to the
crown in return for the whole of western France except Brittany.
The French envoys had been led to suppose that Sigismund
would secure much better terms than these for their country,
and there were consequently "manifold and divers discussions."
A proposal that met with some favour was that while negotia-
tions were in progress the town of Harfleur should be handed
over to Sigismund and the count of Holland, all measures for
its recapture or defence being suspended8; and it was also
suggested that the principal prisoners should be released on
giving hostages for their return in case the negotiations should
break down. Neither plan was adopted; the proposal about
Harfleur was very unpopular, and it was currently believed that
the French envoys and prisoners had been convicted of
treacherous intentions9. It was however agreed that, subject to
the approval of the French king, commissioners should at once
arrange for a three years' truce, and that within five weeks from

1 Basler Chron. v. 163; Capgr. 313; Gesta, 8211.; Kingsford, Chron. 125; Lenz,
97. They came up the river to Lambeth, Kingsford, loc. cit. ; Hardyng, 376.

2 Exch. Accts. 406/26; Chron. Lond. 104; Kingsford, Chron. 125; Chron. Ric. II
-Hen. VI, 43; Brut, ii. 381.

3 Gesta, 82; Waurin, ii. 232; Le Fevre, i. 279.

4 Cotton MS. Cleop. C. IV. f. 29 sq.

6 Cousinot, 136; Caro, Kanzlei, 115, 119; Rym. ix. 427.

6 Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, xvi. 449; cf. Caro, Kanzlei, 112.

7 Rym. ix. 787; Champollion-Figeac, Lettres, ii. 362.

8 Rym. ix. 362.

9 Kingsford, Chron. 125; Gesta, 79 sq. Lett. Bk. I. pp. xxix, 152, shows that the
proposal about Harfleur had failed before June 13. See also Valois, iv. 361.

1 6 Sigismund and Henry [ch. xlix

the conclusion of the truce the kings of England and France,
together with Sigismund and the count of Holland, should
meet on the frontier of the march of Calais1. Armed with
these proposals, the archbishop of Rheims and his colleagues
returned to France2 accompanied by the lord of Gaucourt3, who
was authorised to speak on behalf of the French prisoners. They
had been preceded by Nicholas of Gara, the archbishop of
Gran, and several of Sigismund's suite, who presented the
proposals at Paris in a tentative way4.

It was of ill omen that the count of Holland had already fallen
out with both Sigismund and Henry. He had asked the former
to recognise his daughter Jacqueline as heir to his titles and
power; but Sigismund replied that the rule of women was not
for the good of the State, and asked if the count had no cousin
or brother to succeed him5. Of course he had a brother, the
bishop of Liege; but this was the very man he wanted to
exclude. In his annoyance, he left England abruptly, on June
21, telling Henry that if the invasion of France were renewed,
his standard-bearer would be in the field against the English6.
Politics were now suspended. On June 26 Henry left London
for Southampton7, and on the same day Sigismund set out for
Leeds castle8, where he spent a month9. Two days later Ralph
Rochford, Robert Waterton, and Master Philip Morgan were
commissioned to represent England in the negotiations10.

The English envoys left London on July 3. Before they
reached Paris the French king had assented to the agreement
made in London, and had named Beauvais as the meeting-
place of the conference which should settle the terms of the

1 St Denys, vi. 18, 20, 24; Rym. ix. 787; Champollion-Figeac, Lettres, ii. 362;
Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 24,062, f. 193 b.

2 Tit. Liv. 24; Vita, 77; the archbishop's safe-conduct is dated June 20 (Rym. ix.

364)-

3 Rym. ix. 426; Monstr. iii. 146 sq.

4 Gesta, 82; St Denys, vi. 16; Valois, iv. 360. For the text of the proposals see
St Denys, vi. 18-22; cf. Caro, Kanzlei, 21, 99, 108, Bundniss, 25; Lenz, 105; Bess,
Biindniss, 651, 655.

5 Windecke, 69; Wagenaar, iii. 406; Snoy, 134.

6 Leyden, 344; Le Petit, i. 351.

7 Cf. vol. ii. 355. Chap, xliv above should be read in conjunction with the account
of the negotiations with France.

8 Devon, 346; Chron. Lond. 104; Kingsford, Chron. 126; Reichstagsakten, vii. 133.

9 Basler Chron. v. 164. His removal to Leeds from Westminster cost £300 (Exch.
Accts. 328/6, June 27, 1416; Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Pasch., July 4, 1416; Brit. Mus. Add.
MS. 24,513, f. 13); and another £300 had been paid for his expenses before July 6
(Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Pasch., July 6, 1416).

10 Rym. ix. 366.

141 6] Disappointment 17

truce. News of Charles' decision soon spread far and wide,
often much embellished1; Sigismund was overjoyed on hearing
it2, and even Henry seems to have been sufficiently impressed
by it to abandon his intention of sailing for the relief of Harfleur
in person and actually to have contemplated disbanding his
fleet3.

All this confidence was misplaced. Charles VI, indeed, was in
earnest, and at a Council held in Paris on July 1 5 the majority of
those present, headed by the duke of Anjou, were about to con-
sider arrangements for a personal interview between the rival
kings4. Then, however, the count of Armagnac rose, and used all
his fiery eloquence to defeat the whole project. What did they
know about the terms that would be offered for a final peace ?
They could only be sure, from their experience of Sigismund,
that they would be in favour of the English. And what was
this three years' truce ? Nothing but a means for saving Harfleur
from its present desperate plight. But give him his way, and
God's head ! he would starve it out in three months5. So far
he carried the Council with him6, and it was known that he
had the university and the city of Paris at his back7; but when
he urged that they should refuse even to receive an English
embassy, feeling was against him, and it was resolved to affect
a serious interest in the plan and to spin out the negotiations
for a truce, while a grip was still kept on Harfleur in the hope
of its speedy surrender. Accordingly safe-conducts were issued
for the three English envoys, who duly arrived at Beauvais on
July 178. There they were met by the archbishop of Rheims,
Gontier Col, Guillaume le Bouteiller, and Simon de Nanterre,
and futile talk was kept up till the month was nearly out. The
Frenchmen said that they must consult the king of Castile
before they could enter into a three years' treaty, and thought
that a truce of one year would be enough: the Englishmen
required time to ask advice from home9; they complained that
they had been insulted and prevented from leaving their
lodgings, and that the negotiations were only being continued
to gain time and to ensure the capitulation of Harfleur, now

1 For the reports that reached Bruges and Venice, see Morosini, ii. 98.

2 Caro, Kanzlei, 116. [Cf. Finke, Acta, iv. 463]. 3 Gesta, 83. Cf. vol. ii. 356.

4 Rym. ix. 378; Ordonnances, x. 371; Baye, ii. 257; Cousinot, 136.

5 St Denys, vi. 24; Windecke, 142. 6 Morosini, ii. 100.
7 Cousinot, 138. 8 St Denys, vi. 26.
9 Caro, Kanzlei, 21, 103, 107, 108, 109, 117, Biindniss, 43, 103.

win 2

1 8 Sigismund and Henry [ch. xlix

believed by the French to be imminent1. On July 29 it was
arranged that representatives of both sides should be at Calais
and Boulogne respectively before Aug. 1 6 and that further dis-
cussion should then take place2; but the truth was that the
negotiations had so far failed, and the struggle for Harfleur was
allowed to take its course. When it was believed that nothing
more was to be looked for, Henry threw all the blame on the
French Council3, while Sigismund, who entirely exonerated the
English, wept tears of mortification and anger at having been
duped by the French, who were trying, he complained, to
wreck the Council of Constance and destroy the Holy Roman
Empire4. Contemporary English writers with one voice de-
claim against the bad faith and arrogance of the French5, and
when Gaucourt returned to London, he found himself actually
in danger of his life6. The French on their part blamed Sigis-
mund for the failure7, and at Constance it was evidently be-
lieved that many Englishmen were of the same opinion, for
rumours were abroad that his life too was in jeopardy — some
said indeed that he had been poisoned8. As a matter of fact,
to all outward seeming his relations with Henry were more
friendly than ever. He had left Leeds on July 27, and on the
following day had reached Eltham9, where he stayed till
Aug. 9, and it was probably towards the end of this time
that he began to suspect that the negotiations in France were
likely to fail, for on his departure he set his face for the coast10.
Accompanied by Henry he entered Canterbury on Aug. 1211,
and on the 15th — the very day on which the French and
English fleets were at death blows in the Seine — the two
kings signed a treaty of mutual help and alliance12, the

1 Gesta, 84; Elmham, Lib. Metr. 137; Capgrave, De Illustr. Hen. 119.

2 Morosini, ii. 10 1 n. 3 Champollion-Figeac, Lettres, ii. 362.

4 Rym. x. 14; Kingsford, Lit. 278; Windecke, 67; Caro, Biindniss, 47, 55, Kanzlei,
108, 120; Lenz, in; Beaucourt, i. 265; Valois, iv. 363.

5 Gesta, 104, 107; Elmham, Lib. Metr. 146; Tit. Liv. 27; Vita, 83; Chron. Giles, 92;
Kingsford, Chron. 125, Lit. 287; Capgrave, Chron. 315, De Illustr. Hen. 120; Bodl.
MS. 496, f. 2246.

6 Cousinot, 138; Leyden, 344. 7 Rym. ix. 519; Caro, Biindniss, 40.
8 Hardt, I. i. 190; Aschbach, ii. 166. 9 Basler Chron. v. 164; Gesta, 85.

10 Basler Chron., loc. cit. Sigismund's horses had already been sent across to Dordrecht
(Goldast, Statut. i. 148, Const. Imp. i. 390; Mieris, iv. 372), and his jewels had long ago
been packed (Rym. ix. 365). [The fourth volume of Finke's Acta Concilii Constan-
ciensis, which appeared after the first proofs of this book had been passed, throws new
light on Sigismund's negotiations in the summer of 1416. On Aug. 22, while admitting
his disappointment at what had happened, he hoped for a speedy and fruitful resumption
of discussions between the French and the English (p. 465).]

11 Basler Chron., loc. cit.

12 Rym. ix. 377-381. [It was some time before the treaty became generally known.]

Hi 6] The Treaty of Canterbury 19

sole visible fruit of his protracted visit. In the preamble
Sigismund stated that his whole heart was set on restoring
unity to the Church, and to further this end he had put forth
great efforts to reconcile France and England. He was, how-
ever, utterly disappointed. He had put steady pressure^on the
king of France, had sent him formal articles agreed on by
himself and the count of Holland, and had nearly got them
accepted by the French royal family and the French Council,
when the king, a lover of discord and child of schism, had
rejected them in order that he might break up the unity of the
Church with his pestiferous devices, as he had ever done. His
emissaries had been at the root of all the opposition encountered
by Sigismund at Perpignan, his greedy hands had robbed the
Empire of many fiefs and rights, and now that Sigismund had
come to help his brother of England to recover his due, the
French offered him nothing but jeers and mockery. At last,
therefore, he had made up his mind to stop these machinations,
and in the name of the Lord had resolved to make with his
injured brother an alliance on the following terms:

(a) He and his successors would from henceforth and for
ever be friends, allies, and confederates of Henry and his sons,
or, if Henry should have no son, then with his brothers the
dukes of Clarence, Bedford, and Gloucester or whoever should
succeed him, to resist attacks from every power and every
person, save only from the Church and the pope;

(b) Merchants and craftsmen of either party should have
free access to the dominions of the other, provided that they
paid the customary dues and submitted to the existing laws1;

(c) Neither party should harbour traitors, rebels, or exiles
banished from the lands of the other, or go to war against the
other except in direct self-defence, but each would help the
other in recovering their respective rights from France.

Soon after Sigismund reached London in May, 141 6, there
arrived there a number of ambassadors from the duke of
Burgundy2. One object of their presence was the arrangement
of a trade truce3; but they also concluded a general truce
between Henry and the duke, which was to last from July 13
to Michaelmas, 141 74. When they left they took with them

1 This was one of the terms offered by Henry IV when he sent envoys to Sigismund
in 141 1, Simonyi, v. 147.

2 Monstr. iii. 144. 3 Cf. vol. ii. 299. 4 Rym. ix. 383.

2-2

20 Sigismund and Henry [ch. xlix

a letter for the earl of Warwick, captain of Calais, which he
was to communicate with all haste to the duke of Burgundy1.
Henry, in fact, while sanguine of the success of the negotiations
with the Armagnacs, was careful to insure against their failure,
and while the prospects of an agreement still seemed good, the
earl of Warwick2 and the duke of Brieg had been instructed to
visit the duke of Burgundy together on behalf of their respective
sovereigns. They started from Calais with a large company of
"wise and honourable men3," and reached Lille on July 204,
where they were received with great honour by the duke and
his son, the count of Charolais. They were splendidly enter-
tained, and had many interviews with the duke and his coun-
sellors during their stay of eight days5. They had brought the
duke an invitation to be present at the conference which was
expected to take place near Calais in the coming October6, and
this the duke readily accepted, to the amazement of many7,
who were shocked at such dealings between a subject and the
enemy of his sovereign. Such astonishment was intensified
when a few days later the men of Picardy refused to obey an
order from Paris bidding them attack the English, pleading
that the duke had forbidden them to take up arms against those
with whom he had a truce except at his express command8.
On Aug. 12 the Council repeated its order9, but at nightfall of
that very day a large force of Burgundians from Picardy,
Champagne, and the Thierache threatened the very gates of
Paris. They had come up suddenly by forced marches10, hoping
to be admitted during the night by their friends inside the
walls. Disappointed in this, they waited till sunrise, and then
for four hours swept the ground without the walls like a
hurricane, carrying off or destroying everything that came in
their way, while the garrison, as if stupefied, let them work
their will unopposed11. After plundering between Dammartin

1 A copy was deposited in the Exchequer on June 26 (Kal. and Inv. ii. 95). The
safe-conducts of the envoys were dated June 24 (Rym. ix. 364). For £66. 13X. ^d.
paid to Warwick as ambassador to the duke of Burgundy, see Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V,
Pasch., June 27, 1416.

2 £40 was paid to the earl's receiver for his journey and wages (Devon, 347; July 29,
1416; For. Accts. 49, B; Exch. Accts. 328/6, July 29, 1416).

3 Tit. Liv. 28. * kin. 427.
6 Ibid. 428; Gachard, 233.

6 Tit. Liv. 28; Kingsford, Lit. 330. 7 Monstr. iii. 147.

8 News of the refusal reached Paris on Aug. n (Baye, ii. 263 sq.).

9 St Denys, vi. 42. 10 Baye, ii. 266.
11 Ibid. 265; Felibien, iv. 562; Douet d'Arcq, i. 385.

i4l6l Farewell 21

and St Denis, they moved off to Beaumont on the Oise, where
they entered the castle of the duke of Orleans, killed the
captain, slaughtered the garrison, threw twenty-eight of the
townsfolk into the river, and then decamped by the bridge as
suddenly as they had come. Later they obtained admission into
Nesle, whence they carried off a hundred cartloads of plunder1.
Soon afterwards the duke of Burgundy was declared a rebel2.

Meanwhile Sigismund had at last left England. He had
been present at a solemn service in Canterbury cathedral to
give thanks for the great naval victory3, and his servants
quietly let fall along the streets of the city some singular fare-
well lines in Latin acrostic bidding angelic England rejoice in
her glorious victory4, and Englishmen felt flattered at the
compliment, even though it was flung over the horse's tail5.
On Aug. 23 the two kings travelled together to Dover6, and
on the 25th Sigismund and his suite took ship and crossed
with a fair wind to Calais7, where he was lodged in the Prince's
Inn in the Staple buildings8.

It had originally been intended that Henry should also cross
from Dover9, but the naval activity of the French had caused
a change in the arrangements, word having been sent to the
Cinque Ports to have a strong fleet assembled at Sandwich to
convoy the king across by the longer route10. After Sigismund
had sailed Henry therefore betook himself to Sandwich11,
where quarters had been prepared for him at the Carmelite

1 St Denys, vi. 44. 2 On Aug. 30 (D. Sauvage, 246).

3 The news reached Henry on Aug. 21. He was on his way to Canterbury from
Smallhythe, where he had been on business relating to vessels building there. He rode
straight to Canterbury, and the service apparently took place the same day (Gesta,
89sqq.).

* Gesta, 93; Chron. Giles, 80; Elmham, Lib. Metr. 141; Usk, 130, 315; [E.H.R.
xxix. 510 ("An Historical Collection of the Fifteenth Century," ed. Kingsford)].

5 "Post caudas equorum suorum projecit," Strecche, 268.

6 Basler Chron. v. 164; Reichstagsakten, viii. 124.

7 Basler Chron., loc. cit. The date is incorrectly given by many contemporary and
modern writers. For a letter of Sigismund's dated Calais, Aug. 26, see Reichstagsakten,
vii. 315.

8 The Prince's Inn was near the south-west corner of the market-place (Dillon, 303,
305, 320). Some of its rooms had been repaired against the visit of "the Emperor of
Germany," and it had been furnished with two new stoves (Exch. Accts. 187/6). For
a picture of the Staple buildings, afterwards called the Hotel de Guise, see Lennel, 13.

9 His retinue had been ordered to assemble there by Aug. 19 (Lett. Bk. I. 164; Rym.
ix. 376).

10 Tit. Liv. 29.

11 Documents were dated at Sandwich on Sept. 1, 3, 4 (Cal. Pat. 1416-22, pp. 43,
48, 53, 82; Claus. 4 Hen. V, 15; Chanc. Warr. 664/684).

22 Sigismund and Henry [ch. xlix

friary1. The town was crowded with notables. Archbishop
Chichele was there2, and Bishops Beaufort and Langley,
together with Henry Fitzhugh, Gilbert Talbot, JohnHarington,
and many other barons3. Beaufort was lodged at St Clement's
vicarage, and as he was crossing with Henry, he handed over
the great seal on Sept. 4 to a clerk of the Chancery, John
Mapleton4, who was to deliver it to Simon Gaunstede, the new
keeper of the chancery rolls5, in whose custody it was to remain
at the Converts' House in London till the chancellor's return.
On the same day the duke of Clarence was appointed keeper of
the kingdom during the king's absence6.

Forty vessels were now ready in the harbour, and about noon
on this same day the king went on board7. Soon after the fleet
sailed, however, the wind dropped, and before long the sailors
had to take to their oars in a dead calm. Nevertheless, with the
help of the tide, they made the passage in twelve hours. At
Calais Sigismund was waiting on the beach; the two kings
embraced, and passed up through the town, chatting and joking
"as Imperial Highnesses should8." It was in a conversation
about this time that Sigismund told Henry that he looked upon

1 On the south-west of the town, between the ramparts and New Street (Hasted,
iv. 260, 2685 Monast. vi. 157).

2 On Sept. 1, in a document dated "in hospitio nostro" at Sandwich, he appointed
prior Woodnesburgh, of Christ Church, Canterbury, as his vicar during his absence
(Cone. iii. 379).

3 Rym. ix. 385.

4 In the subsidy roll of 14 12 he appears as owning property in London yielding 40J.
a year (Archaeol. Journ. xliv. 75). He was a receiver of petitions for Gascony in the
parliament of March, 1416 (Rot. Pari. iv. 70). In 1417 he appears as claiming 10 marks
from the estate of Richard Prentys deceased (Claus. 5 Hen. V, 9 d;cf. Wylie, ii. 3 3 1 , n . 9) .
He was chancellor of Queen Joan, and at his death in 1432 was rector of Broadwater,
near Worthing, where his brass is still to be seen (Antiquary, xviii. 96; Macklin, 147).

5 He was appointed on June 3, 1415 (Foss, Judges, iv. 320). On July 4, 1416, he had
letters of general attorney for Beaufort, who was going abroad with the king (Rym. ix.
370). Gaunstede had been in the service of the duchy of Lancaster (Wylie, iv. 186 ; Due.
Lane. Accts. Various, 27/6). At various times he held prebends of York (Le Neve,
iii. 174), Lincoln (ibid. ii. 137), and Chichester (Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 125), and in
1418-19 he was made archdeacon of Nottingham (Le Neve, iii. 154). He was a receiver
of petitions in the parliaments of 1419 and 1420 (Rot. Pari. iv. no, 123). For his
accounts as keeper of the Domus Conversorum from June 3, 1415, to Feb. 9, 1422,
during which time he was keeper of the chancery rolls, see Exch. Accts. 251/19 (in
a pouch). His will was proved in 1423 (Challoner Smith, i. 220; Hennessy, p. clxi), and
his successor as keeper of the rolls was appointed on Oct. 28, 1423 (Foss, Judges, iv.
316). In 1412 he owned property in London yielding £6. 9/. Sd. a year (Archaeol.
Journ. xliv. 73).

6 Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 48.

7 Rym. ix. 385; Gesta, 93; Capgrave, de Illustr. 120.

8 There is no evidence that Sigismund spoke English, but both he and Henry had
a good knowledge of French. Cf. Wylie, iii. 332, 401.

141 6] Calais 23

Calais as his greatest jewel1, and gave him the famous advice
that if he wished to secure an easy crossing to France for the
recovery of his rights, he must keep both Calais and Dover as
sure as his two eyes2.

During his six weeks' stay in Calais, King Henry was lodged
in the castle3, where a new stone house had been specially built
for his suite within the bailey adjoining the north wall4. Work-
men had been busy for some time past making good the walls
and barriers; houses had been new tiled and buildings generally
tidied up, so that Sigismund might have a good impression as
he passed through the town5. Before either Henry or Sigis-
mund had left England, £1000 had been allotted for their
household expenses in Calais6, and £2894. 13^. \d. had been
paid for wine7 and ^1000 for salt fish and stockfish8 to be
ready against the king's arrival. Spices to the value of £200
were bought from Calais merchants9. Silks, damasks and arras
were sent across10. There were tents and pavilions draped with
cloth of gold11, one of which was arranged as a chapel in front
of the castle, and another as a hall12. Henry took £4000 in
cash with him13, and an additional 2000 marks were sent over
from London on Oct. 4 to meet the expenses of the king's
chamber14. Provision had also to be made for military con-
tingencies: for instance, £280 was paid for saltpetre on
Sept. 315, and on the 1 8th order was issued that all who had
lately been in the retinue of the duke of Bedford should cross
to Calais with all speed16.

1 Hym thought it was a jewel most of alle,
And so the same in Latin did it calle.

(Pol. Songs, ii. 192; Pauli-Hertzberg, 54.)

2 Pol. Songs, ii. 158; Gesta, 94; Pauli-Hertzberg, 9; D.K.R. xliv. 543. Among
those who heard Sigismund give this counsel was probably Walter Hungerford, the
steward of the household, who twenty years afterwards read the "Libell" which contains
the anecdote, and pronounced it as true as the Gospel (Pol. Songs, ii. 205; Pauli-
Hertzberg, 64).

3 The castle was on the north-west side of the town, separated from it by a large
ditch ; see Sandeman, 30.

4 The house was 70 ft. long, 23 wide, and 20 high (Exch. Accts. 187/6).

5 Ibid. i.e. the account of William Caxton, controller of Calais, dated June 8, 14 18,
which supplies much valuable material for the history of Calais from 14 13 to 14 18.

6 Exch. Accts. 328/6, Aug. 10, 1416.

7 Ibid. July 18, 1416; Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Pasch., June 5, July 23, 1416.

8 Ibid. Aug. 10, 1416. 9 Ibid. Mich., Nov. 4, 1416.

10 Devon, 347. n Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Pasch., Sept. 3, 14 16.

12 Gesta, 98.

13 Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Pasch., Aug. 10, Sept. 3; Devon, 348.

14 Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Mich., Nov. 4. 15 Ibid. Pasch., Sept. 3.
16 Claus. 4 Hen. V, I3 d.

24 Sigismund and Henry [ch. xlix

The greater part of the visit was given up to momentous
diplomatic negotiations. These were mostly shrouded in mystery,
and contemporary writers differ greatly in their guesses as to
the real nature of what went on. Some said that Henry had
gone across because he was so keen for peace that he would not
leave the French the least excuse for continuing the war1; but
such a view is untenable in face of the Canterbury treaty.
Others supposed that he went to Calais as a compliment to
Sigismund, or perhaps to stimulate the loyalty of the place by
a personal visit and "for other matters which he perhaps
determined to transact at the same time2." But the presence
of the archbishop, the chancellor, the keeper of the privy seal
and a full court is evidence that the "other matters" were of
supreme moment. The negotiations with France had not been
irrevocably broken off, and it may be that the altered position
at Harfleur had made the French really anxious to treat for
terms. When it was known that Sigismund was about to cross
the strait, messengers from Rouen and Abbeville arrived at
Boulogne seeking news as to the coming of the king of
England3. The French Council instinctively felt that Henry's
arrival was a presage of mischief4. Nevertheless, it was not long
before negotiations were resumed, and though neither Charles
nor any exalted substitute for him was expected to appear, the
archbishop of Rheims, Gontier Col, and others had reached
Calais by Sept. 9 with full instructions to treat further with
Henry5. They were received with all respect and had interviews
with both Henry and Sigismund ; but in retaliation for the way
in which the English envoys had been treated at Beauvais6,
neither they nor their suite were permitted to leave their
lodgings without special leave. They lived at their own cost,
and if one of their servants had to go out to buy provisions he
was accompanied by the master of the hostel in which they
were quartered7. Such studied insult, however, did not prevent
business, which was conducted on the English side by Arch-
bishop Chichele, the earl of Dorset, and Rochford, Waterton,
and Morgan, the three envoys who had been at Beauvais8. The

1 Wals.ii.316, Hypodig. 471; Capgrave, 315; Kingsford, Lit. 287.

2 Vita, 88. 3 Regnoult, 89; Deseilles, Inv. Somm. 416.

4 For a letter of the dauphin dated Sept. 27, calling upon all to heal divisions and
resist the king of England, see Luzarche, 4.

5 Rym. ix. 387. Their commission was dated at Paris, Aug. 28 (ibid. 398); their
safe-conducts were dated Aug. 14 and Sept. 6 (ibid. 377, 386).

6 "Haec sunt acta suis quia talia sunt data nostris," Elmham, Lib. Metr. 142.

7 Gesta, 94; Chron. Giles, 81; Capgrave, De Illustr. 120. 8 Rym. ix. 387.

Hi 6] Truce with France 25

proposals of the French were embodied in a schedule formally
addressed to Sigismund as the originator of the effort to restore
peace. They offered to re-open the marriage question (which
they had previously declined to consider as long as the English
were in Harfleur)1 and to pay down a large sum of money; and
should the English not agree, they begged that Sigismund
would lend them substantial aid from the Empire or at least
send them some message of advice, for they badly wanted
peace, or, failing that, a long truce with the restoration of
Harfleur. This puzzling memorandum2 appears without date
or explanation in a volume of the Cotton Collection which has
been much damaged by fire and water; it purports to be a
supplement to other proposals already communicated3; but
unless these went very much further, they had no chance of
success. Nevertheless the conversations were continued for
some three weeks, until the impending arrival of another visitor
rendered advisable the departure of the French. Their pass-
ports were indeed drawn up on Sept. 29*, before their efforts
had yielded any fruit; but on Oct. 1 powers were issued to
Chichele and his colleagues to treat more definitely for a truce5.
The French had come prepared to consent to a truce of a year6,
but they were unable to obtain more than a short one to last
from Oct. 9 to the following Candlemas7, and even this trivial
achievement is said to have been due to the special intervention
of Sigismund8. The truce was to apply to the whole sea route
from the entrance to the Mediterranean to the coasts of Nor-
way9, a special proviso being inserted that no vessel should
benefit by it unless the owner or master made a declaration
of acceptance and received a certificate from a specially ap-
pointed authority in Calais or Boulogne10. The truce was

1 Morosini, ii. 118. [Sigismund had throughout had great hopes of a marriage
alliance between the rival countries (Finke, Acta, iv. 458).]

2 Rym. ix. 387, from Cotton MS. Calig. D. v; nothing of it is now decipherable in
MS.

3 "Juxta ea quae verbo et scripto eidem Regiae Majestati plenius communicata
fuere," ibid.

4 D.K.R. xliv. 583. [There is no ground for the suggestion that any secret had been
made of the duke of Burgundy's consent to meet Henry and Sigismund. It must have
been well known at Constance (Finke, Acta, iv. 465, 471 sq.).]

5 Rym. ix. 389, 397. Henry Ware, keeper of the privy seal, was now substituted for
the earl of Dorset on the commission. 6 Rym. ix. 397.

7 Ibid. 397, 422; Cal. Dipl. Doc. 318. For order of the duke of Clarence to
proclaim this truce (dated Oct. 13, not Oct. 3 as Rym. ix. 402), see Lett. Bk. I. 164.

8 Morosini, ii. 116, 122. See letter of the duke of Anjou written in Paris, Oct. 10
(Bouche, ii. 438)

9 Rym. ix. 399. w Ibid. 402.

26 Sigismund and Henry [ch. xlix

formally ratified on Oct. 201, but it was a hollow sham, which
merely covered Henry's preparations for the winter and left
him free to pounce with the return of spring. It looks, in fact,
as if the English accepted it merely to have a pretext for ending
the negotiations and getting rid of the French envoys, for no
sooner was it signed than they were escorted over the frontier
to the west2, just as the duke of Burgundy was approaching
Calais from the east.

The duke had not been allowed to forget his acceptance of
the invitation to attend the conference at Calais. On Aug. 5
Bishop Caterick, who was about to leave for Constance, was
commissioned with two squires to meet his representatives and
arrange the details of the interview3. On Aug. 19 they arrived
at Lille, where they stayed eight days4. It was, however, con-
sidered advisable to make provision against a possible failure
of the duke to appear in person5. The Burgundians in fact were
doubtful whether it was wise of their lord to commit himself
to the treacherous English; when, as the time of the meeting
approached, he moved towards the rendezvous, he kept a
large body of troops near at hand; and finally his council
demanded that at least two dukes and four earls should be
delivered up by the English as hostages for his personal safety.
The messengers who presented this proposal at Calais were
received most graciously by Henry, who talked them into con-
senting that the sole pledge should be his brother Humphrey6.
On Oct. 1 a safe-conduct to hold good for fifteen days was
issued in favour of Duke John : he might enter Calais with 800
armed men, while the duke of Gloucester swore that he would
remain at Gravelines with the count of Charolais until the duke
of Burgundy had actually returned7.

At four o'clock on the morning of Oct. 4 Gloucester, accom-

1 Rym. ix. 404. 2 Cf. Tit. Liv. 29: "abire jussi sunt."

3 Rym. ix. 374. 4 Itin. 428; Gachard, 233.

5 On Aug. 30, Hugh Mortimer, John Hovingham, Philip Morgan and others were
authorised to take the duke's homage in case he should not be willing to meet Henry
in person. They were to fix the rate of payment that his men would receive if they helped
the English. Boulogne, Hesdin, and a third place, the name of which cannot be de-
ciphered, were to be garrisoned in his interest, but would be given up as soon as the
towns of Eu, Alencon, and Clermont had been captured. Other points were left for
future discussion (Cotton MS. Calig. D. vii. f. 11; the document is only partially
legible). [On Aug. 22 Sigismund expected the duke to be in Calais by the end of the
month (Finke, Acta, iv. 465). On Sept. 8 it was believed that he would arrive in a few
days (ibid. 471).] 6 Gesta, 95, 96.

7 Rym. ix. 390 sq.; Coussemaker, 182; Dehaisnes-Finot, i. 319; Brut, ii. 559.

i4l6] Duke John at Calais 27

panied by about 800 men, left Calais and passed along the shore
to the river Aa, which formed the eastern limit of the English
march. They ranged themselves along the bank, while Lord
Camoys, Master Henry Ware (keeper of the privy seal), and
Robert Waterton went forward into Gravelines to exchange
and ratify documents. This done, the duke of Burgundy came
out and stood on the French bank; then at a signal both he and
the English duke advanced and shook hands in the bed of the
stream. Each then passed on, Gloucester being received by the
count of Charolais and Burgundy by the earl of Salisbury. The
English duke was conducted to St Omer, where he was splen-
didly entertained, though he wellnigh caused a rupture by an
act of rudeness to the count. Meanwhile the duke of Burgundy,
escorted by 200 mounted men, rode on to Calais. The earl of
Warwick and Sir Thomas Erpingham came out to meet him
and conducted him to the hostel that had been prepared for his
reception. His first visit was to Sigismund, and much interest
was stirred as to the manner in which he would be received,
for Sigismund had an old grudge against him over the repay-
ment of the ransom money of Nicopolis, and a far sorer point
was the question of the duchy of Brabant, which Sigismund had
set his heart on recovering for the House of Luxemburg. But
old antipathies on both sides had been previously smoothed:
the duke had bound himself to give satisfaction respecting the
ransom by a definite date, and his readiness for the interview
may have been quickened by recent events at Canterbury. As
he came into the imperial presence he bowed twice and would
have made a deeper obeisance but that Sigismund stepped for-
ward, embraced him, and set him at his side. After taking
spice, they said farewell, and the duke made his way to the
castle, where he was received by King Henry with similar
ceremonial in the large hall. The two afterwards retired to an
inner apartment, where they remained closeted together till
nightfall. Three days were spent in discussion, and on Oct. 8
the king entertained the duke at a great banquet in the tent in
front of the castle. Then four more days were passed in con-
ferences of the strictest privacy, and on Oct. 1 3 the duke re-
turned to his own land, the duke of Gloucester was restored1,
and the fate of France was sealed for a generation.

1 Monstr. iii. 162 sq.; Waurin, ii. 237; Cordeliers, 235; Basler Chron. v. 165;
Luzarche, 16; Barante, ii. 67, 70; Gesta, 100 sqq.; Capgrave, 215; Hall, 76; Holinshed,
iii. 558.

28 Sigismnnd and Henry [ch. xlix

When Elmham wrote the notes which are our chief guide to
these momentous events, he could only say that the outcome of
the interview was a mystery1. Some held that the duke had
taken an oath to be Henry's subject2; there was also a rumour
that Sigismund had pressed for the marriage of one of the duke's
daughters to the duke of Bedford3 ; but the general belief was
that the duke had been playing with the king and that he would
prove a double-dealer4. We are now, however, in possession
of a document which supplies the key to the whole situation5.
In it the duke declared himself convinced of the justice of
Henry's claim to the crown of France and ready to support
him in prosecuting it. He acknowledged him as his sovereign,
but preferred to postpone his formal homage till some con-
siderable part of France had been conquered. In the meantime
he would help him by all secret means, and be ready, as soon
as he was called upon, to act openly with all his force, while if
for form's sake he should have to make the usual exception
about not taking arms against the actual king of France, it
would be understood on both sides that such a stipulation
really meant nothing. In return for all this treason no recom-
pence whatever appears as having been offered by Henry, but
it is stated by a contemporary that the duke was promised a
share in the gains of the coming conquest6. So scandalous is
the whole transaction that it is not surprising that Burgundian
chroniclers have shrunk from admitting that the duke really
gave his consent to it7, though they are constrained to confess
that the king and court at Paris had no doubt that the duke
had committed himself to an alliance with the king of England8.
As for modern writers, they have mostly supposed that the
document, although footed as "written and signed with our
own hand and sealed with the privy seal of our arms at Calais
the day of October9," was only a draft never actually

1 Gesta, 103; Elmham, Lib. Metr. 146.

2 For this supposition, see Coke, 91, 176.

3 The rumour was current at Venice, Morosini, ii. 118.

4 "Scio qui scribo quod opinio populi dat eum tenuisse regem nostrum toto isto
tempore in amphiboliis et ambagibus, et sic reliquisse, et quod finaliter more omnium
Gallicorum invenietur duplex: unus in publico et alius in occulto," Gesta, 103 sq. Cf.
Elmham, Lib. Metr., loc. cit.

5 Rym. ix. 395 sq.

6 Monstr. iii. 163.

7 Ibid.; Waurin, ii. 237.

8 Monstr. iii. 164; Waurin, ii. 237; Le Fevre, i. 284.

9 The day of the month is left blank in Rym. ix. 396.

14 1 6] Burgundian Treachery 29

signed1. But the fact that the duke had sent no help against
the English when called upon to do so in the summer of this
very year, that he expressly told his officers in Picardy to refuse
to act unless they received orders directly from himself, and
that he had been entertaining English envoys at Lille and
talking over the very details that appear in the document is
damning evidence that he was a party to the agreement in
spirit2, whether he actually put his seal to it or not. Henry's
view of the duke's position is revealed in a message which he
sent in the summer of 141 8 asking the duke how he could
explain his conduct in view of the "trewes taken bitwix us and
hym3."

The duke, it seems, played false with Sigismund as well as
with Charles VI. It is well attested that he did homage to
Sigismund for his possessions in the counties of Burgundy and
Alost4; but no sooner had he left than he entered into negotia-
tions with the estates of Brabant and undertook to defend them
against any attempts that Sigismund might make to bring
them back into dependence on the Empire5.

Immediately after the departure of the duke of Burgundy,
there arrived in Calais a messenger from his bitterest enemy,
the duke of Anjou6; but why he came and what he did we do
not know, for the business of the conference was now regarded
as ended, and there was a speedy exodus of the leading men
concerned in it. Beaufort, the chancellor, had returned to
London by Oct. 127, and the king set sail in the early morning
of Oct. 168. He and Sigismund took leave of each other on the
shore, embracing several times with tears and kisses9. Sigis-
mund distributed 1000 crowns among the Englishmen who
had formed part of his suite during his visit, each man of gentle
blood, we are told, receiving twelve marks and each valet six10.
Handsome presents were given by Henry to all the visitors,

1 So Barante, iii. 190 ("projet de traite");Beaucourt, i. 140 ("sous forme de minute");
Kingsford, 175 ("a document ready drafted for signature but not actually signed");
Lenz, 130; Kervyn de Lettenhove, iii. 91.

2 Above, p. 20. 3 Delpit, 222; Gesta, 123 n.

4 Wals. ii. 317; Nasmith, 350, from "liber magistri Breuster cum Ricardo Beauchamp
nobile comite Warwici"; Windecke, 68; Monstr. iii. 163; Waurin, ii. 237.

5 Dynter, 324, 770.

6 For his safe-conduct, dated Oct. 6, see Rym. ix. 401.

7 Rym. ix. 385.

8 Basler Chron. v. 165; Nicolas, Navy, ii. 428, whose alternative date, Oct. 9, is
certainly wrong.

9 Montreuil, 1444. 10 E.H.R. xxix. 511.

30 Sigismund and Henry [ch. xlix

though the English were accused of having been less liberal
than the French1. Henry's passage was tempestuous2, but on
the 1 8 th he was back at Lambeth3 in readiness for the opening
of parliament next day4. The chief business was the confirma-
tion and publication of the treaty of Canterbury5, so that hence-
forth the position of the parties concerned could not possibly be
misunderstood.

As soon as King Henry had left Calais, there was nothing to
justify Sigismund's further absence from Constance. Some
initial delay was caused by the emperor's breach with the count
of Holland, who now failed to carry out an undertaking to
provide ships for the transport of Sigismund and his suite to
Dordrecht6. An overland journey through Flanders was con-
templated, but the mutual suspicions of Sigismund and the
duke of Burgundy frustrated the former's efforts to secure a
satisfactory safe-conduct7. In the end ships were hired at
Dordrecht, and, sailing to Calais, took Sigismund's party on
board as soon as the prevailing rough weather abated. They
put to sea on Oct. 24 accompanied by the duke of Gloucester,
Sir John Tiptoft, and other notables; but, although convoyed
by four large English ships under the command of Peter
Carew, they hugged the shore timidly and took ten days over
the voyage8. They were met by representatives of the count at
Dordrecht, whence the English escort went home, loaded with
gifts for themselves and Henry9. Sigismund's unwonted
liberality, however, had evidently reduced him to grave straits,
for he negotiated a loan with some Hanse merchants who
happened to be in the town10, and also sent EberhardWindecke,
the chronicler, to Bruges to see what he could raise on the
collar of the Garter, together with some valuable jewels and
all the presents that the English had given him at Calais.
A handsome amount was secured, including 10,000 crowns on

1 Montreuil, 1412. 2 Kingsford, Lit. 330.

3 Brut, ii. 381. 4 Rym. ix. 403.

5 Ibid. 404; Cal. Dipl. Doc. 318; Rot. Pari. iv. 96sqq.; Reichstagsakten, vii. 295,
337; Gesta, 105; Chron. Giles, 91.

6 Windecke, 69; Wagenaar, iii. 406; Aschbach, ii. 165.

7 Windecke, 79.

8 Ibid.; Basler Chron. v. 165; Reichstagsakten, vii. 135; Otterbourne, 278; Wals.
ii. 317; Gesta, 104; E.H.R. xxix. 511; Devon, 348.

9 Engelbrechtsz, 211; Gesta, 107; [E.H.R. xxix. 511, where it is said that Sigismund
sent to the king many precious gifts, including garments of cloth of gold and a unicorn's
horn more than six feet long].

10 Stieda, 64.

1416-17] Return to Constance 31

the collar, but it was with difficulty that Windecke, after his
master's return to Constance, got out of him the money to
redeem the pledges1.

On Nov. 7, after three days in the town, Sigismund and his
party left Dordrecht2. His departure marks the end of his
ambitious attempt to act as arbiter of western Europe. Even
now, however, he seemed in no hurry to return to the General
Council. He spent eight days at Nymegen, three weeks at
Aachen, five days at Cologne, nine at Liege, and fifteen at Luxem-
burg3. Here he had a conversation with John Tiptoft, who
had been despatched by Henry to make arrangements for his
co-operation in the approaching campaign in France. Tiptoft
was accompanied by Philip Morgan and Hartung van Clux;
but, though all three had been commissioned to conduct im-
portant diplomatic business at Constance, Tiptoft and Clux
went back to England, leaving Morgan to go on alone4. The
emperor's slow progress hitherto had been partly due to the
necessity of trying to compose certain political differences that
were vexing the Netherlands and the Rhineland. But when he
left Luxemburg on Jan. 21, 141 7, he was evidently determined
to press forward, for after calling at Metz and Strasbourg, he
crossed the Black Forest so quickly that he reached Constance
on the 27th5. As he rode into the city he had round his neck
King Henry's SS collar, which had become part of his customary
ceremonial dress6, and on the following Sunday he wore the
blue mantle of the Garter at High Mass7. Two days after his
arrival he sent for the members of the English "nation," shook
hands with them, and made a speech in which he praised the
king and his brothers and commended the whole realm. He
had been specially charmed with the way in which divine
service was conducted in the English churches; the vestments
and ornaments had made him think himself in Paradise: but

1 Windecke, 82 sq.

2 Reichstagsakten, vii. 135; Basler Chron. v. 165; Altmann, i. 136.

3 Reichstagsakten, loc. cit.; Basler Chron. 165 sqq.; Windecke, 69; Hegel, ii. 61;
Altmann, i. 136, 138 sq., 140; Dynter, iii. 326.

4 Caro, Kanzlei, 128 sq., Biindniss, 86; For. Accts. 51, A, C; Rym. ix. 410 sqq.,
436.

5 Windecke, 69; Altmann, i. 140; Aschbach, ii. 175; Hardt, iv. 1090; [Finke, Acta,
ii. 86].

6 "Zowre Livere of the Coler abowte hys necke," Rym. ix. 434; "assidua Angliae
regis ordinis seu torquis latione," Montreuil, 1444; "liberatam seu devisam continue
deferentis," Rym. ix. 441.

7 Rym. ix. 435.

32 Sigismund and Henry [ch. xlix

this may have been no more than a piece of the cajolery
characteristic of his speeches to ecclesiastics1.

There has been much discussion of the fruits of Sigismund's
enterprise. That Henry intended to make the treaty of Canter-
bury a working instrument of policy is shown by the fact that
on Dec. 2, 141 6, he authorised his representatives at Constance,
together with John Tiptoft, Philip Morgan, and Hartung van
Clux, to approach any of the electors or princes of the Empire
and to attach them to his interest by accepting their homage in
return for grants of money2, as he had recently done with Die-
trich von Mors, archbishop of Cologne, whose predecessors
had occupied a similar position in regard to previous kings
of England3. In the following August, moreover, Tiptoft,
Morgan, and Clux were again in Germany, and apparently
remonstrated with Sigismund, then at Constance, on his
failure to render military help to the English, extracting from
him a promise to be on the French frontier with a large force
on May 1, 14184.

As for Sigismund, his purpose in concluding the treaty has
been interpreted in every conceivable way. Some have sup-
posed that Henry dominated him by his superior diplomatic
skill, and thus in a moment became the arbiter of European
politics5. Others have regarded the treaty as a non-committal
document containing no promise of actual assistance on either
side, and that therefore Sigismund looked upon it with

1 A letter written to Henry by John Forester, who was present, gives an account of
what passed (Rym. ix. 434). The writer is probably the same as John Forest or
Forst or Forster (Rot. Pari. iv. 494), who was one of the delegates of Archbishop
Chichele (Cone. iii. 369). He was archdeacon of Surrey from Aug. 30, 1414, to 1417
(Le Neve, iii. 29), and dean of Wells from 1425 to his death in 1446 (ibid. i. 152;
Monast. ii. 283). Cf. for his letter Usk, 315.

2 Rym. ix. 412; Cal. Dipl. Doc. 318; Reichstagsakten, vii. 296, 338. Cf. Rym.
ix. 437. For £90 sent through Tiptoft to two "milites de Ducheland" at Constance
in the spring of 1417 "of the king's gift," see Devon, 351, May 25, 1417.

3 Thus in 1397 Archbishop Frederick of Saarwerden did homage to Richard II and
declared himself his vassal in consideration of an annual payment of £1000 (Rym. viii.
2 sqq.; Gall. Christ, iii. 703). He undertook to protect all Englishmen trading with
Cologne and to furnish 500 men-at-arms when required for active service with the
English king, who would pay all their expenses. Little seems to have come of the
compact, and there is no evidence that the allowance was ever paid under Henry IV;
but in 1416 the arrangement was renewed (though the fee was now only 1000 nobles),
and while Sigismund was in London representatives of the archbishop did homage
on his behalf. See Rym. ix. 343, 346, 347, 459; Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 191; Devon, 368.

4 Caro, Kanzlei, 129, 130, 132, Bundniss, 87.

5 This view is favoured, e.g. by Pauli (Bilder, 294, 296), Beaucourt (i. 265), Lindner
(ii. 297), Valois (iv. 363).

1417] Sigismund' s Intentions 33

indifference1. Others again have thought that, whatever its
meaning, Sigismund never had any intention of carrying it out,
but signed it to secure an escape from England, where his
position was becoming dangerous owing to the refusal of the
count of Holland to supply him with ships for his return. This
is the view of his own panegyrist2, who says that he had to
flatter King Henry and sign a number of promises in order to
keep on good terms with him and get away quietly; while the
French believed that he accepted the treaty as the only means
of raising money enough to carry him home3. A modern
writer has argued that an alliance with England was vital to
the success of the Council of Constance4; but England's in-
terest in the union of the Church was not increased by the con-
clusion of the treaty, nor is there any evidence that it was likely
to decline without it. It has also been contended that it was
Sigismund who imposed his wishes on Henry, hoping to make
use of the power of England in recovering the lost provinces
of the Empire5 or perhaps even in conquering France herself6.
Of all these views the last seems to me the most probable. On
Sigismund's arrival at Dordrecht he at once wrote to Henry
assuring him that he should certainly have his assistance against
France, while Henry promised him in return that he would
take no step without first informing him of it7; and when at
Luxemburg in the following January he declared to Tiptoft
that he would be on the French borders with a large force by
the following midsummer8. That he was in earnest9 is proved
by the fact that on his way back to Constance and at the Council
itself he did his best to induce the princes and electors of
Germany to take sides with England10 and wrote to the Genoese
in the hope of detaching them from the French alliance, actually

1 So Bess, Biindniss, 654; Stubbs, iii. 93.

2 Windecke, 69. Cf. Zeller, vii. 55; Caro, Biindniss, 59. Lenz (102) contemptuously
rejects this explanation, but Bess (Biindniss, 652), while sneering at it as the notion of
a "lackey," admits that it may not be far from the truth.

3 Montreuil, 1449; St Denys, vi. 56.

4 Caro, Biindniss, 61. Cf. A. Leroux, 150.

5 Gollut, 1015; Rapin (Tindal), i. 517.

6 Lenz, 103; Beaucourt, i. 267; J. Meyer, 248, who adds "utinam totam Galliam
imperio unde ablata est valuisset reddere."

7 Rym. ix. 427, 430. 8 Caro, Biindniss, 86.

9 For the view that Sigismund was all along sincere, being justly enraged by the
deceit and intrigue of the French at Beauvais, see Gierth, 43; Caro, Kanzlei, 98,
Biindniss, 45, 63.

10 St Denys, vi. 56; Montreuil, 1444; Rym. ix. 607. They all agreed and offered to
raise 3000 lances.

will •?

34 Sigismund and Henry [ch. xlix

persuading them to put two carracks at Henry's disposal1. On
March 22, 141 7, he wrote to the French king telling him
outright that he had allied himself with England in order to
recover the rights of the Holy Empire2, and he sent a copy
of the treaty to the Count Palatine and other German lords3.
On May 2 he formally ratified it at Constance4; eleven days
later he made a public declaration that he had signed it5; and
when on June 10 envoys from the Hanse towns were urging
him to support a claim for 10,000 marks which they had against
England, he broke into a rage and told them that whoever was
against his brother was against him too6. When Henry was
preparing for his invasion of Normandy in 14 17, it was com-
monly believed in Paris that Sigismund was ready to confer the
province of Dauphine on one of Henry's brothers in order to
assert his rights over it as part of the old kingdom of Aries7.
[On April 29, indeed, he entered into a military alliance with
the duke of Burgundy, and though the duke would not under-
take to aid Sigismund against Charles VI, Sigismund was
apparently bound to help the duke against his enemies in
France8.]

Nevertheless, though he seems honestly to have meant to
send 3000 men-at-arms to help the English9, he replied with
mere promises of what he would do next spring10 when Henry
definitely applied for the "brother's assistance that he hoped
to have of him11," and in the end Henry was left to struggle on
alone. At Constance, indeed, no one took him seriously, and
when he indignantly reproached Pope Martin V for not re-
garding him as an enemy of France, the pope said that he had
always regarded this enmity as an affair of words12. It is true
that in March, 141 9, Henry still spoke of his alliance with
Sigismund as indissoluble13, and that Sigismund, for all his
inactivity, never repudiated the treaty of Canterbury, and as
late as July, 1420, claimed that his "brotherhood, league, and

1 Reichstagsakten, vii. 296, 353; Caro, Biindniss, 85, Kanzlei, 134. In St Denys,
vi. 56, however, it is stated that the Genoese treated his suggestions with contempt.

2 Reichstagsakten, vii. 296, 341; Rym. x. 14.

3 Ibid. ix. 607; cf. Martial de Paris, 40.

4 Reichstagsakten, vii. 298, 341. 5 Ibid. 344.

6 Hansrecesse, vi. 431. 7 Ordonnances, x. 414.

8 [For the text of the treaty, see Finke, iv. 479 sqq. It is summarised by Valois,

iv. 378-]

9 Rym. ix. 607; Reichstagsakten, vii. 353. 10 Caro, Biindniss, 87, Kanzlei, 132.

11 In July, 1417, Caro, Kanzlei, 129; Rym. ix. 430.

12 Ibid. 569. 13 Ibid. 710 sq.

14 1 7] A Fruitless Mission 35

confederacy" with the king of England was an actual fact1.
But in reality the treaty achieved nothing, and proved no
compensation for his failure to approve himself the arbiter of
Europe and the peace compellor between France and England.
He had taken his ambition very seriously, and was deeply
chagrined at the fruitlessness of his mission2. He had, however,
no one to blame but himself. He had over-estimated his power
of handling an exceedingly delicate problem, and in trying to
play off one side against the other, he had over-reached himself.
He made himself distrusted and hated by the French, who pur-
sued him with an outburst of venomous scurrility3. In England,
it must be admitted, while his oddities excited laughter4, his
boisterous geniality won him popular favour, which was in-
creased by the prevalent belief that he and the king were
kindred spirits5. But though he was liked, there is no indication
that he was much respected or that his visit made a deep im-
pression on men's minds. Stories of his visit to England are
singularly scarce, especially when one reflects that no mediaeval
emperor had ever come to the country before. In fact, the
most notable memento of Sigismund's stay in England is his
sword, which is now one of the insignia of the corporation of
York6.

1 Rym. x. 14.

2 See e.g. Caro, Kanzlei, iiij Goldast, Stat. i. 148; Gesta, 104; Rym. x. 14; Korner,
394; Persona, 222.

3 Montreuil, 1443-52 passim; St Denys, vi. 34, 56; Boulay, V. 317; Beaucourt, i. 268,
quoting Preuves des Libertez de l'figlise Gallicane, i. 129.

4 Montreuil, 1452.

5 "Nunquam major erat amor aut affectio regum," Elmham, Lib. Metr. 146;
"nam similis similem sequitur," ibid.; "qui alternas prosperitates ut fratres uterini in
opinione omnium ambierunt," Gesta, 89. Cf. Vita, 89; Chron. Giles, 77; Bekynton, i.
247; Rym. ix. 435, 710 sq.

6 When Sigismund was admitted to the Order of the Garter, his sword, helmet, and
crest were, in accordance with custom, fixed above his stall. At his death they were
taken down and, together with his mantle (Ashmole, Hist. 495 sq.), offered at the altar
when Mass was sung for his soul. The helmet and crest have disappeared, but after
the Mass the sword became the perquisite of the dean of St George's, who sold it to
Master Harry Hunslap, a canon of Windsor, who on May 5, 1439, presented it to his
native city of York. When Hunslap bought it, the sword had a scabbard covered with
ruby-coloured velvet on which red dragons were worked in silk, but a new scabbard
was provided for it in 1478 and again in 1580. When it was furbished up in 1586 the
mayor had an inscription put upon the blade recording the origin of the sword —
Sigismundi imperat' M.C. Eb. 1439 ornat. Henri May Maior. 1586 — and the records
of the city leave no doubt that the claim was justified and that the sword is the very
weapon worn by Sigismund at his installation (Jewitt-Hope, ii. 447 sqq.; Drake, 362,
365)-

3-2

CHAPTER L

HENRY'S SECOND EXPEDITION: PREPARATIONS

While the king was at Sandwich on his way to Calais he had
issued writs1 for a parliament to meet at Westminster on Oct,
19, 1 4 1 6, and, as we have seen, he was back just in time for the
opening. Thirty-seven temporal lords were summoned, those
appearing for the first time being the earl of Northumberland,
who had just been restored to his grandfather's title, and the
earls of Dorset and Arundel, the latter's first appearance being
also his last2. Of the judges William Skrene drops out, and is
replaced by a north-countryman, John Strangways3. Of the
writs summoning the commons only three have been preserved:
one contains the names of the knights of the shire for Rutland,
the second the names of the two burgesses returned by Dun-
wich, and the third those of the four representatives of London4.

The king was present at the opening in the Painted Chamber
on Oct. 195. After he had taken his seat on a stepped couch,
the chancellor, Bishop Beaufort, addressed the assembly on the
text "Study to be quiet6." He drew attention to the fact that
though the king had been less than four years on the throne,
this was his sixth parliament. God had rested after six days,
and so must their earthly lord7. The last five parliaments had
been one long struggle for peace, constantly thwarted by the

1 Dated Sept. 3, Rept. Dign. Peer, iv. 835 sqq.

2 Cf. vol. ii. 71 sq. His claim was challenged by John Mowbray, Earl Marshal, who
was a son of a sister of the late earl (ibid. 71; Rot. Pari. iv. 441; Doyle, ii. 582). Hence
arose a famous suit, which dragged along for seventeen or eighteen years, during which
the title was in abeyance. In the meantime both claimants died, the tomb of John Lord
Matravers, who died in 142 1, being still to be seen in the choir of Arundel church.
In 1433 the dispute was settled in favour of his son John (Rot. Pari. iv. 443; Cotton,
Abridg. 610; Dugd. i. 322; Report Dign. Peer, i. 426); but a re-echo of it early in the
nineteenth century led to the compilation of the famous report on "the Dignity of a
Peer of the Realm."

3 From Whorlton in Cleveland. He is known to have been a friend of Hotspur (Ord.
Priv. Co. i. 151, 152), and became a serjeant-at-law in 141 1 (Foss, Judges, iv. 361).

4 Return Pari., App. p. xx, i. 288; Letter Bk. I. 158.

5 Rot. Pari. iv. 94, 104; Stat. ii. 196; Elmham, Lib. Metr. 143, 147; Chron. Lond.
105; Otterbourne, 278.

6 1 Thess. iv. 11. 7 Rot. Pari. iv. 94.

141 6] Sinews of War 37

Frenchmen's pride, and this one must be final. The wise man
had said that we make war to have peace, and as all treaties with
France had failed, peace could only be procured by taking refuge
in God's justice and the arbitrament of the sword1. After this
speech the commons withdrew to the refectory of the abbey, and
on Oct. 21 they presented as their speaker Roger Flower of
Oakham2, who had twice been sheriff of Rutland3 and had six
times before represented the shire in parliament4. It was of
course the need of money which had caused the summons of
this parliament. It showed as much generosity as could reason-
ably be expected, granting two tenths and two fifteenths, three-
quarters of which was to be payable next Candlemas and the
remainder at the following Martinmas — Nov. 11, 141 75.
Again, however, it was found necessary to exempt Northumber-
land, Cumberland, and Westmorland6, and evidence of de-
clining zeal is seen in the stipulation made that no more money
should be asked for before the second instalment of the grant
now voted became due, and that there should be no requests
for prepayment in the meantime7. The dukes of Clarence,
Bedford, and Gloucester made a joint declaration that in case
Henry should die before Martinmas, 14 17, the terms should
be strictly carried out, while parliament undertook that the
last payment should certainly not be deferred beyond that date.

Apart from the question of money, the only important matter
brought before parliament was the treaty of Canterbury. Only
two statutes worthy of mention were enacted, one being a
stringent re-assertion of the principle that no Irishman should
hold an Irish benefice, and the other laying down that masters
were not to be fined for paying wages to their farm-servants
in excess of the scale fixed by the Statute of Cambridge in
13888.

Parliament was dissolved on Nov. 189. On that day the
king bestowed the title of duke of Exeter, with ^1000 a year
for himself and his heirs, on his uncle Thomas Beaufort, earl

1 Gesta, 106.

2 Rot. Pari. iv. 94; Return Pari. i. 303. Cf. Fifty English Wills, 55; J. Wright,
Rutland, 97, 136.

3 Sheriffs' List, 112.

4 Return Pari. i. 253, 259, 263, 267, 282, 284.

6 Rot. Pari. iv. 95. For estimate that in 4 Hen. V, the fifteenths from all England
yielded £37,930. os. 6\d. "en clere," without collectors' expenses (£322. 6s. %d.), see
Lansdowne MS. 762, Art. 3.

6 Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 53. 7 Rot. Pari. iv. 95.

8 Stat. ii. 197 sq.; Rot. Pari. iv. 102. 9 Ibid. 96, 113.

38 Henry's Second Expedition: Preparations [ch. l

of Dorset1, though to many this seemed but a poor return for
his great services at Harfleur2. The position of the new duke
was not altogether easy, for the son of the last holder of the
title, who had been attainted and beheaded seventeen years
before, had likewise, as earl of Huntingdon, rendered signal
service throughout the French campaign, and had a strong
claim to be restored to his father's rank and name. His lands
were to be granted to him when he came of age on March 29,
141 73. It was perhaps understood that the title was not to pass
to Beaufort's heirs4; but it is another proof of the commanding
personal influence of the king that the transaction did not lead
to renewed intrigue and rebellion.

The convocation of Canterbury met on Nov. 9, and granted
two tenths to be paid within a year5. On Nov. 13 writs were
issued for the northern convocation to meet before the next
Epiphany6. It assembled on Jan. 5, 141 7, and after voting a
tenth, dispersed on Jan. 127.

Parliament and the convocations had thus provided the king
with the money needed for his contemplated campaign in
France. To do him justice, he employed some of his new re-
sources in discharging old obligations. Thus the 10,000 marks
which the city of London had advanced for the Agincourt
campaign8 were repaid on Nov. 4, 141 69. Further, on Dec. 6,
141 6, the sheriffs were ordered to summon to the Exchequer
all persons who still held valuables in pawn for the payment of
the second quarter's wages in the expedition of 141 510. If
ready money could not be found to meet all claims, the custody
of lands in ward was sometimes offered as an alternative11; but
on March 9 such resources were apparently failing, for there
was issued a peremptory order that all pledge-holders should
come to a reasonable agreement12.

1 Rot. Pari. iv. 96; Dugd. ii. 125; Claus. 4 Hen. V, 10; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, pp. 50, 53.

2 Wals. ii. 317. 3 Rot. Pari. iv. 100, no. 4 Doyle, i. 710.

5 Cone. iii. 377; Usk, 130, 316; Wals. ii. 317; Duck, 75; Wake, 352; Rec. Roll
4 Hen. V, Mich., Mar. 5, 1417, 5 Hen. V, Mich., Oct. 10, 1417.

6 For payments to messengers, see Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Mich., Nov. 17, 1416; Claus.
4 Hen. V, 10 d.

7 Wake, 353,411; Kitchin, Records, 135; Cone. iii. 380; Anc. Corr.lvii.41; Iss. Roll
4 Hen. V, Mich., Jan. 29, 1417.

8 Vol. i. 474. 9 Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Mich.

10 Rym. ix. 416.

11 e.g. on May 1, 1416, Henry Lord Fitzhugh had returned pledged jewels on re-
ceiving the custody of lands of John Lord Lovel, deceased (Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 37).

12 Memoranda Roll, Hilary 4 Hen. V, m. 33; Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 225, 228.

141 6-i 7] The French Prisoners 39

Meanwhile, the possibility of peace was not altogether for-
gotten. Very soon after Sigismund had left a change came
over the feelings of the leading French prisoners in England1.
Baulked of their release through the unexpected obduracy of
the count of Armagnac, they began seriously to reconsider
their position. To all previous overtures on his part the English
king had affixed the condition that they should recognise him.
as their lawful sovereign. Hitherto they had refused2, but the
French defeat in the Seine had completely altered the outlook,
and on Henry's return from Calais the duke of Bourbon asked
for an interview, which took place in strict privacy, no one
being present besides the parties and Richard Dereham, long
a confidential agent of the English court3. The duke said that
after repeated messages had passed between himself and his
friends at home, he had come to take a new view of Henry's

1 The most notable were the dukes of Orleans and Bourbon, the counts of Vendome
and Eu, Arthur of Richemont, the famous Marshal Boucicaut, and the lords of Gau-
court and Estouteville. References to them are numerous in the records of the time.
See Rym. ix. 318 sqq., 326, 327, 442; D.K.R. xliv. 577, 578, 590; and for the names
of persons entitled to the ransoms of prisoners, see Nicholas, App. 61. Whatever may
have been asserted in France as to the hardships they were enduring (St Denys, vi. 46 ;
Beaucourt, i. 436), their captivity was not rigorous. They had their coursers, hawks,
and hounds (Rym. ix. 320 sq., 337; Huillard-Breholles, Rancon, 42), their varlets,
barbers, falconers, and chaplains (Rym. ix. 326, 327, 331, 336, 337). They visited the
king at Eltham, Windsor, Westminster, the Tower, and elsewhere, and state beds were
specially prepared for them with sheets of Champagne linen, silken fringes and other
costly appointments, while the necessary expenses for their upkeep include payments
for bread, beef, mutton, fish, wine, beer, spices, wax, candles, rushes, litter, fuel, and
the hire of horses, carts, and boats (Devon, 353; Exch. Accts. 48/1, 406/29; Add. MS.
24,513, f. 13). When the weather changed they got sumpter-loads of cloth, summer
gowns, and other articles of comfort and luxury sent across from France (Rym. ix. 321 ;
Piton, 542) ; and it is remarkable that before they had been three days in London the
shops were supplying them with cloth of gold at fancy prices (Riley, Mem. 622). They
were given opportunities for recreation and sport (Orig. Lett. Ser. I. i. 2; Nichols,
Autographs, 3, 4; Tit. Liv. 99). At least one formed a liaison with an English girl, by
whom he had a son who afterwards cut some figure in French history as the Bastard of
Vendome (Petigny, i. 329; Anselme, i. 323). The cost of food for the ordinary French
prisoner was from 3^. \d. to \s. a week (Rym. ix. 3 18), but for the important men under
consideration such sums as ys. iod., 13s. 4^., or even zos. a day were not regarded as
out of the question (Rym. ix. 318; Rot. Pari. iv. 436; Devon, 450; Ord. Priv. Co.iii. 77,
iv. 44, 51; J- Stevenson, Wars, ii. 419). Every facility for raising their ransoms was
given them ; messengers were allowed to cross to and from France in their service, and
not seldom a prisoner was permitted to visit France and try to make his own arrange-
ments (Rym. ix. 319, 320, 326, 327, 331, 337, 422, 442 sqq.etal.; D.K.R. xliv. 576 et
passim; Kal. and Inv. ii. 97; Devon, 361; cf. infra, p. 40). Nevertheless, all save two of
those named above were still prisoners at Henry's death. The exceptions were Arthur of
Richemont, who in 1420 was allowed to return to France on terms to be described
below (pp. 2i7sq.), and Marshal Boucicaut, who died at Methley on June 29, 142 1 (Exch.
Accts. 49/17; For. Accts. 56, Ev°).

2 "Thai myght ne cowd not Answer," Rym. ix. 428.

3 Wylie, iii. 351.

40 Henry's Second Expedition: Preparations [ch. l

claim to the throne of France. He had been given to under-
stand that the English king might perhaps renounce that claim,
provided that he were assured of the immediate possession of
all the lands specified in the treaty of Bretigny, with the addition
of Harfleur1. This he considered to be a "great and reasonable
proffer" and speaking in the name of all the leading prisoners,
he declared that if he might cross to France, he would do his
best to get it accepted there. He was willing to leave his two
sons and other hostages in England2 and to find merchants who
would give security to the amount of 200,000 crowns for his
prompt return3. For himself, he said that if the French king
would not agree to the terms proposed, he would do homage
to Henry, merely stipulating that his promise should be kept
secret, at least until his return, or his life might be in danger.
He hinted not obscurely that most of the other prisoners were
disposed to take the same view. Henry at once agreed that he
might go as soon as suitable merchants could be found to stand
bail, and with the interview fresh in his mind, he wrote to
Tiptoft, who had been sent on an errand to Sigismund, in-
structing him to inform the emperor of what was on foot,
promising further news as events progressed, and showing the
conditions under which the duke would start4. He was to be
accompanied by the lord of Gaucourt, who was authorised to
speak on behalf of the duke of Orleans5 and Marshal Boucicaut,
who shared Bourbon's opinions. It was widely believed not only
that the release of the prisoners was near at hand but also that
a lasting peace with France was likely to follow. Yet on the
very day on which their safe-conducts were drawn up, Henry
was so shameless as to write to Tiptoft, "I wol not leve my
voyage for any Tretee that they make6." In the event, the
duke of Bourbon seems not to have crossed, probably owing to

1 Rym. ix. 428.

2 For documents relating to his release, his son Louis being left as a hostage, see
Harl. MS. 4763, f. 174 b; Cotton MS. Tiberius, B. xii. ff. 143 b-148.

3 Rym. ix. 426.

4 The letter was dated Jan. 25, 1417, Rym. ix. 425 sqq. It is doubtful whether
Sigismund ever saw it (see above, p. 31).

5 For servants of the duke of Orleans crossing from England to France (safe-conduct
of May 10, 1417), see Rym. ix. 453.

6 Rym. ix. 430 (Jan. 25). [The word "tretee" is almost certainly used in the sense of
"negotiations," as it generally was at this time (cf. Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 255, 257, 260).
It was no more "shameless" for Henry to continue his operations than it was for the
Allies to go on fighting in November, 19 18, while the terms of the Armistice were being
considered by the Germans.]

14*7] More Futile Talk 41

the difficulty of finding satisfactory securities, but Gaucourt
really did go, after the dukes of Bourbon and Orleans had
given bail in the sum of 40,000 crowns that he would be back
by March 311.

While these transactions were in progress, measures were
taken for the prolongation of the truce signed in the autumn
at Calais. On Jan. 18, 14 17, William Bardolph, lieutenant of
Calais, and two others2 were authorised to extend it for six
weeks or two months; ten days later safe-conducts were issued
for three French envoys to come to Calais3 ; and there seems to
have been no difficulty in arranging that it should continue till
March 154. No further agreement seems to have been made
before that date; but the truce was apparently maintained by
tacit consent. On March 12, Henry Ware, William Bardolph,
and Ralph Rochford were appointed to resume negotiations
for peace5; they left London on March 23s, and in April met
at Calais three French envoys — the archbishop of Rheims,
Guillaume Seignet, and Gontier Col — who had come by sea
from Dieppe7. It was expressly stated by Henry that these
efforts after peace had been much helped by a letter previously
written by the count of Holland8. Their outcome, however,
is not known; apparently they were wholly abortive.

In England the winter passed quietly. The king, except for
a visit of several weeks to Kenilworth9, where he spent Christ-
mas, remained in or near London10. Meanwhile preparations
for the new expedition were being pressed forward. The need
for ready cash was as usual met by borrowing, and the pledges
that had recently been redeemed seldom remained in the king's
hands for long. Thus, on Jan. 8, 141 7, the Pusan collar, which
had been returned in the previous May before the repayment
of the loan for which it was a security, was taken out of the

1 Rym. ix. 424, 425, 4265 Anc. Corresp. Ivii. 79 — a letter which Mr Kingsford is
certainly wrong in ascribing to 14 16 (Lit. 216).

2 John Pickering and Thomas Stephens, canon of Exeter (Rym. ix. 422; Iss. Roll
4 Hen. V, Mich., 18 Jan. 1417).

3 Rym. ix. 432. 4 Ibid. 438.

5 Ibid. 6 Exch. Accts. 321/34.

7 For their safe-conducts, dated April 3, 14 17, see Rym. ix. 445. Ware was back in
London by May 9, Exchequer, L.T.R., Misc. Enrolled Accts. 6/16.

8 Rym. ix. 438.

9 He arrived before Dec. 18, 1416, and stayed till late in January (Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V,
Mich., Dec. 17 and 18, 1416; Otterbourne, 278; Wals. ii. 317; Chanc. Warr.
1364/22-28).

10 The Chancery and Council records all point to this conclusion.

42 Henry's Second Expedition: Preparations [ch. l

Jewel House to raise 5000 marks from the citizens of London1;
jewels and a Spanish sword were handed to them as security
for a further loan of 10,000 marks on March 82; while to
Bishop Beaufort, who lent 21,000 marks, Henry pledged the
crown3. The public revenues were of course used for the same
purpose. On March 3 the Londoners lent 5000 marks on the
security of half the subsidy in the port of London4; Bristol
advanced 1000 marks on the security of the customs there5;
while Bishop Beaufort's loan was, if possible, to be repaid from
the customs at Southampton6. These transactions were but a
few among many. Urgent letters under the privy seal were
sent out, pressing for immediate loans in cash wherever money
was to be found7. A supply of ready money was kept up by
constant loans at short notice, and the rolls are full of entries
of small and large sums borrowed from abbots, priors, parsons,
cities, towns, gilds, and private individuals. There is evidence
that the peremptory tone of the king's requests for aid caused
some resentment8, but it must be said on Henry's behalf that
at the last parliament the commons had implicitly and the lords
expressly approved his action9 and that most of the short-date
loans were punctually repaid10. The security usually offered for

1 Rec. Roll 4 Hen. V, Mich., Jan. 8.

2 Ibid. Mar. 8; Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, i. 261. 5000 marks were repaid
on Oct. 4, 1417 (Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V, Mich., Oct. 4).

3 Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 112; Rot. Pari. iv. in; Gesta, 106 n.

4 Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 67; Letter Bk. I. 176. [Since Dr Wylie's death Professor
R. A. Newhall has published his important book, The English Conquest of Normandy,
1416-1424. In Chap. IV of that work he investigates the financial side of Henry's
enterprise. On the revenue of the year 1416-17 his statements are of much the same
tenor as Dr Wylie's. He says, however, that on March 8 a second sum of 5000 marks
was borrowed from London (p. 145, n. 7, citing Iss. Roll 629, i.e. 4 Hen. V, Mich.,
Mar. 19, 1417)-]

5 Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 1 iii 6 Gesta, loc. cit.
7 Ibid.; E.H.R. xxix. 511 sq. 8 Ibid. 511.

9 Rot. Pari. iv. 95.

10 Towns lending small sums, averaging about £20, were Windsor, Newbury,
Thame, Reading, Henley, Shaftesbury, Wallingford, Wantage, Abingdon (£60), Bath,
Salisbury, Canterbury, Devizes, Witney, Sandwich, Bridgewater, Northampton, and
Derby (£82). Larger loans are entered from the cathedral chapters of Wells and
Salisbury, from the abbots of Abbotsbury, Abingdon, Dorchester, Glastonbury, Hales,
Malmesbury, Netley, Osney, Reading, Shaftesbury, and Woburn, from the priors of
Bath, Bradenstoke, Bruton, Montacute, Southwick, and Wallingford, and from the
gilds of Corpus Christi and the Trinity at Coventry. All these transactions appear in
Rec. Roll 4 Hen. V, Mich., Jan. 29, Feb. 4, March 8, 1417, and Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V,
Mich., Feb. 3, 6, 8, 14, 24, March 11, 18. For the repayment of £503. 13X. 4^. lent
by the town of Nottingham and various persons in Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, see
Devon, 350, April 21, 1417. The bishop of Ely lent £100 and the bishop of Lincoln
£200, both sums being repaid in 1419 (Iss. Roll 7 Hen. V, Pasch., May 27, 1419).

1 4 17] The Exchequer 43

these loans was the half-tenth and half-fifteenth due next
Martinmas; but the money voted by parliament seems to have
been collected with unwonted expedition, some of the instal-
ments not really due till the following November having come
in as early as April 61. The pressure of work at the Exchequer
must have been very severe. It stands recorded in the rolls that
3282 writs, each with its separate seal, were sent out from the
Exchequer between April 12 and July J2, and this was ap-
parently not quite the busiest time. It is no wonder that
bonuses for overtime were granted to many members of the
staff, besides special rewards to the collectors for their extra
zeal3.

In February alone £77,242 came into the Exchequer, while
on March 8 £8557 more was received. From the occurrence
of these large sums, a modern investigator has been led to infer
that the receipts for this term reached "the highest sum of any
term in the reign," the estimate being that the receipts for this
half-year alone — i.e. from Michaelmas, 141 6, to Easter, 141 7
— amounted to £134,000 as compared with an average of
£142,500 for a whole year's gross receipt4, while the expendi-
ture for the half-year is given as £1 1 9,072, as against an average
yearly expenditure of £i22,ooo5. But the inference may be
safely disregarded. The king was always pressing for the pro-
ceeds of taxation before they were actually due; and it must be
remembered that the totals given are estimates only and not
based upon an actual enumeration. Both outgoings and receipts,
moreover, are fictitiously swollen by the entry of short loans
and of repayments, which sometimes followed within a few
days.

As fast as the money came in, it was allotted to the prepara-
tions for the coming campaign. Before the end of 14 16,
numerous lords, knights, and squires had been approached

1 Rec. Roll 5 Hen. V, Pasch., April 21, 1417 et passim.

2 Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V, Pasch., July 15, 1417.

3 e-S- £5 was granted to the collectors of London, and proportionate amounts to
the officials of other ports (Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V, Mich., Dec. 15, 1417).

4 Ramsay, i. 243, 316.

5 Antiquary, viii. 99. To the half-year's expenditure, according to Ramsay, must be
added £108,830 to make the total for the year £227,902. [Professor Newhall's estimate
(p. 144, n. 3) of the total revenue for the year 1416-17 (Easter to Easter) is £216,868,
of which £101,893 came in taxes from the laity, £34,837 in taxes from the clergy, and
£23,425 in loans. He estimates the expenditure for the same period as £256,885, of
which £97,483 went to the royal household, and £81,185 was spent on maintaining
the conquests of 1415.]

44 Henry1 s Second Expedition: Preparations [ch. l

with a view to the securing of their services1, and Jan. 12, 1 4 1 7,
was fixed as the date by which they were to supply information
as to how many men they could put into the field2. Feb. 14
was then named as the day on which they should come before
the Council and sign indentures3. On Feb. 1 the sheriffs of
London were ordered to make a return of the number of
archers and men-at-arms that the city could furnish4. On
Feb. 9 all London knights belonging to the king's retinue were
ordered to present themselves before the Council at the Black
Friars5. On March 1 1 more than ^30,000 was paid over at
the Exchequer to leaders who had signed indentures, and on
the same day a payment of £1 933 was made for 400 Lancashire
and Cheshire archers who were serving in the king's retinue6.
Gascon crossbowmen had already arrived from Bayonne7. But
the preparations, as usual, took longer than had been expected.
At one time, it seems, the muster of the army at Southampton
was fixed for Feb. 1 8 ; it was then postponed for a month8; but
so absurdly sanguine was even this arrangement that the earl
of Salisbury, who was ordered to go in advance to Harfleur
to assist in meeting any emergency that might arise there, found
less than half his force at Southampton on March 19, the
appointed muster day9.

Meanwhile munitions and stores were being assiduously
collected. Thus, master craftsmen were specially brought over
from St Sever to make steel crossbows10; arrowheads were
ordered in England11; and on Feb. 10, 141 7, the sheriffs were

1 For payment of messengers despatched for this purpose with writs under the privy
seal, see Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Mich., Dec. 18, 1416.

2 Rym. ix. 433.

3 Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Mich., Feb. 6, 1417; Rym. ix. 433 sq.; Lett. Bk. I. 175.
For the indenture of the duke of Clarence, signed Feb. 8, see Rym. ix. 545; for that of
John Lord Clifford of Skipton, with fifty men-at-arms and 150 archers, signed on the
same day, see Whitaker, Craven, 316.

4 Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, i. 261.

5 Riley, Mem. 645.

6 Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Mich., March 1 1, 14 17. [On signing their indentures, captains
usually received a quarter's wages — in some cases two quarters' — for themselves and
their men (Newhall, op. cit. 191 sq.)].

7 Under the lord of St Pierre (near St Jean de Luz, Basses Pyrenees) and Menauton
de Sainte Marie: see order dated Dec. 31, 1416, in Chanc. Warrants, Ser. 1, 1364/22.
[Cf. Newhall, 191, n. 2.]

8 Claus. 4 Hen. V, 6, 7; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 85.

9 Salisbury undertook to furnish 100 men-at-arms and 300 archers (Tit. Liv. 32);
but only 27 men-at-arms and 190 archers were ready, and most of these belonged to
other retinues (Cal. Pat. 1416-22, pp. 74 sq.; Brequigny, 7).

10 Chanc. Warr., Ser. 1, 1364/22.

11 Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 82; Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Mich., March 18, 1417.

i4 17] Command of the Sea 45

instructed to have six of the wing feathers plucked from every
goose, except breeders, and to have them packed and forwarded
to London for winging arrows1. Enormous quantities of corn
and gammons of bacon "without number" were collected2,
though an attempt to get corn from the Baltic was unsuccessful,
all export of grain from ports belonging to the Teutonic Order
having been prohibited owing to the bad harvest3.

The delay in the start of the expedition was largely due to
the difficulty of securing adequate shipping. The king's ships
of course were few4. In February officers were appointed to
requisition vessels in every port for the shipment of troops5;
but it proved necessary to allot many of the ships furnished by
the west and south to Thomas Carew, Pons lord of Castillon,
and John Mortimer, who were commissioned to keep the sea
for six months with a force of more than 600 men-at-arms and
1200 archers. They undertook to safeguard the sea until the
autumn, making war not only on the shipping of France, but
on that of Castile, Scotland, and Genoa, unless they received
express instructions to the contrary6. They appear to have
performed their task with zeal, for a letter dated London,
May 7, mentions that sixty vessels were "in the strait," where
Carew and his fellows were not suffering any enemy to pass7,
and in the early summer they captured four Spanish ships with
valuable cargoes8.

The necessity of maintaining so large a force to keep the seas
compelled Henry to hire ships from abroad, the principal source
being the Netherlands9. From lists that remain we are able to
make out the names of about 120 of these vessels, of which
ninety-one are called cogs, fourteen crayers, six ships, two
busses, and two balingers, the rest being very small craft.

1 Rym. ix. 436; E.H.R. xxix. 512.

2 Ibid.; cf. Rym. ix. 437; Claus. 4 Hen. V, 7.

3 Hansrecesse, vi. 362. 4 See vol. ii. 378. B Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 208.

6 Ibid.; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, pp. 85, 141; Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Mich., passim; For.
Accts. 1 Hen. VI, E. Carew's muster roll is extant, and shows that he had in his own
retinue 311 men-at-arms and 656 archers, the names of all being recorded. They were
carried on eleven vessels, the largest being a carrack which took 208, the smallest a barge
which had only twelve (Exch. Accts. 48/14). Pons of Castillon and Mortimer were
each to have 150 men-at-arms and 300 archers (Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 85).

7 Alart, i. 12 b.

8 Exch. Accts. 48/12, 13. The spoil included forty-eight barrels of iron, wool in
"pokes," and one hundred carcases of salt beef.

9 For commission of Henry Clitherowe to hire ships in Holland and Zealand, see
Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Mich., Feb. 15, 1417.

46 Henry's Second Expedition: Preparations [ch. l

Goes supplied twenty-seven, Haarlem twenty-one, Dordrecht
fourteen, Rotterdam thirteen, Middelburg twelve, Bergen-op-
Zoom five, and a few other towns furnished yet smaller con-
tingents. The first of these vessels was not engaged until Feb. 2 1
— three days after the date originally fixed for the muster at
Southampton1. There are still to be read indentures and re-
ceipts given by twenty-three of the masters. One of these
documents refers to a crayer of one hundred tons portage,
manned by six seamen and one paget; the rest concern cogs of
much smaller capacity, ranging from forty to eighty tons
portage. A master's pay was 6d. a day, a seaman's 3^. with a
bonus (regardurn) of 6d. a week, and a paget's \\d. a day. The
engagements recorded, which begin at various dates from
March to June, were all to terminate on Sept. 1 or 21, 1417.
All the men received instalments of pay at London or South-
ampton, but an unpaid balance remained unsettled for several
years2.

Venetian trading ships were forcibly pressed into service.
Payment was offered in the usual way, but refused by the
masters3, who at once wrote to the Signory. Thereupon a
resolution was passed in the Venetian Senate that an envoy
should be sent to France and England to protest that they had
not consented to the employment of their ships in the English
service4. As no one, however, would undertake the mission
the Senate had to be content with sending letters; and it is
not surprising that the French regarded the presence of
Venetians among the English forces as evidence of unfriend-
liness on the part of their government, and attacked Venetian
commerce on the high seas whenever occasion offered5. The
unrewarded punctiliousness of the Venetians was not imitated
by the Genoese, who readily agreed to the chartering of six
of their merchantmen for 10,000 gold crowns6.

Early in March a number of ships had collected in the
Thames, and £900 had already been paid to their crews in
wages7. On March 9 all ships in the king's service were

1 Exch. Accts. 48/15.

2 Ibid. 48/28-49/9.

3 Morosini, ii. 130; Ven. State Papers, i. 58.

4 Ibid.; Perret, i. 128.

5 Ven. State Papers, i. 58 sq.; Morosini, ii. 154.

6 Ibid. 128.

7 Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Mich., March 11, 13, and 19.

141 7] " They also Serve" 47

ordered to be at Southampton on April 1 51. By this time troops
were assembling there, for on March 16 ,£83,000 was sent
down from London for wages under a guard of mounted
archers. Of this sum ^24,000 was paid at Salisbury to the
king's retinue, and the rest was taken to Southampton for the
forces there2. It was clearly to the interest of the authorities
to transport the troops as soon as possible. First, however, the
date for the assembling of the ships was postponed to May 1,
then to May io3, then to May 20 "without any fail4." It did
indeed seem as though a start might soon be made when on
Hock Tuesday, April 27, the king rode in from Westminster
to St Paul's, where he made an offering, and then passed through
London saying farewell to small and great and asking for their
prayers. The mayor accompanied him across the bridge to
St George's church, where he made another offering, and then
he went his way5. Nevertheless another three months were
wasted while Henry moved about from place to place in the
south, visiting, for instance, Reading in May, and Salisbury,
Bishop's Waltham, and Titchfield in June and July6. It was
not until the last days of July that he left inland regions for
good, but then signs of an imminent start began to multiply.
On July 21 he made what may be called his second will7;

1 Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 230.

2 Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V, Pasch., July 15, 1417.

3 Ibid. 4 Hen. V, Mich., March 17, 1417.

4 Ibid. 5 Hen. V, Pasch., May 3, 1417. Strecche (271 b) says that large numbers of
ships had assembled at Portsmouth about May 6.

5 First Life, 77; Brut, ii. 382; Kingsford, Lit. 303.

6 Chanc. Warr., Ser. I, 666/821-848, 1364/29; Exch. Accts. 187/10.

7 It is written in English and lacks the customary pious phraseology, being limited
to business details. Henry confirms all the provision of the will made before the ex-
pedition of 1415 (cf. vol. i. 539 sqq.), but he concerns himself mainly with the Lancaster
property, with which Archbishop Chichele and others had been enfeoffed on July 22,
1415 (ibid. 543). This arrangement was to stand, but Henry expressed a wish that the
feoffees would re-enfeoff him with the estates in question if he should desire it in a sub-
sequent will. Inasmuch, however, as six of the original feoffees were dead, he directed
that if death should reduce the number to three, the survivors should enfeoff two from
a list of twelve included in this instrument, who should then re-enfeoff the survivors of
the original feoffees and add to them the rest of the twelve named. He gave instructions,
further, that if he should die and if his executors should not have sufficient from other
sources to meet all expenses, the feoffees should make up the amount and then surrender
what remained to Henry's son if he had one. Otherwise they were to divide the estate
geographically on Henry's death, giving the northern half to the duke of Bedford and
the southern to the duke of Gloucester. If either should die without male issue, his
portion should thereafter be annexed to the crown. It is remarkable that in this, as in
his former will, Henry makes no mention of his eldest brother, the duke of Clarence
(Wills of Kings, 236 sq.; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 118).

48 Henry's Second Expedition: Preparations [ch. l

on the 25th he appointed the duke of Bedford to act as his
lieutenant during his absence, with a salary of 8000 marks
a year1 ; and on the next day he transacted business on board
his ship at Portsmouth2.

The causes of the king's dilatoriness are not evident. Many
ships and soldiers were unpunctual3, but it is clear that a vast
force of both had been assembled at Southampton for months,
at great cost to the nation, and at some loss to the strength of
the expedition, for as early as June 5 measures had to be taken
to check desertion4. The musters were held in various places
in Hampshire — Chilworth5, Knoldenhall6, Wallopforth7,
Tichbourne Down8, Beaulieu Heath9, Portsdown10, and others
— and the countryside must have suffered in many ways from
the presence of such large numbers of soldiers under imperfect
discipline and with nothing definite to do.

Notwithstanding the disadvantages of delay, it was perhaps
well for those concerned in the expedition that it was held back
until, owing to a notable English success, it could put to sea
in security. At daybreak on June 2911, the earl of Huntingdon,
who was cruising in the Channel to protect vessels making their
way to Southampton, fell in with a fleet of twenty-six ships
under the command of Percival, a bastard son of Louis II,
duke of Bourbon12. The French commander had with him nine
large Genoese carracks13, and 1 500 or 1 600 Biscayans and other
Spaniards, with 700 or 800 picked Genoese crossbowmen and
lances, and his squadron had for the last three months been
watching the mouth of the Seine14. As the fleets neared, the
English suffered grievously from the unerring bolts of the

I Rym. ix. 475. 2 Chanc. Warr. 1364/30, 31.

3 e.g. troops from Hants., Wilts., Dorset, and Sussex, ordered to muster at South-
ampton on June 3, were none of them present on that date, and the proclamation was
repeated for June 10 (Claus. 5 Hen. V, 15 d).

4 Claus. 5 Hen. V, 14. 5 Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 24,704, f. 1.

6 Gesta, App. 266.

7 Ibid. 267. Perhaps near Over Wallop or Nether Wallop, not far from Stockbridge.

8 Ibid. 269. 9 Ibid. 268. 10 Ibid. 271.

II Chron. Lond. 105; Kingsford, Chron. 71, Lit. 288, 331 (Latin Brut); Morosini,
ii. 137.

12 He was knighted on Sept. 6, 1415 (Anselme, i. 303). The French commander has
usually been identified with Alexander, son of Duke John, then a prisoner in England
(ibid. i. 304; Ronciere, ii. 226; Vallet de Viriville, i. 55). Contemporaries call him simply
the "bastard of Bourbon" (cf. Norm. Chron., Hellot, 27; Otterbourne, 278; Kings-
ford, Chron. 71).

13 Ibid. 71.

14 Morosini, ii. 36; Tit. Liv. 31; Vita, 93.

1417] A Timely Victory 49

Genoese, but fortune turned when they grappled at close
quarters. Both sides fought fiercely and lost heavily, some 150
men being drowned or killed. After a three hours' fight, the
English captured four of the carracks, together with the
Bastard and a large sum of money which he had with him to
pay three months' wages to the crews. The rest of the French
ships escaped1. The four prizes were renamed and added to the
king's ships2, three being of the enormous portage of 1 200 tons
and one of 8003.

1 St Denys, vi. 96; Juv. 536; Norm. Chron. (Williams), 176; Kingsford, Chron. 71;
Tit. Liv. 31; Vita, 93.

2 Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 142; Woodward, ii. 253; Morosini, ii. 138; Rondure, ii. 227.

3 "His in locis ante id tempus non visae," Tit. Liv. 30. There is no good account of
the fight, which was overshadowed by the events which immediately followed and in
some sources confused with the naval battle of the previous year.

win

CHAPTER LI

HENRY'S SECOND EXPEDITION: NORMANDY INVADED

Thanks to the exploit of the earl of Huntingdon, the great
armament, when on July 301 it at last put to sea, was able to
make the passage in full confidence and security. Of all the
foreign expeditions of English kings in the Middle Ages, this is
perhaps the most interesting to the modern student, for more
is known of the personnel, equipment, and organisation of
this than of any other. Not only, as we have seen, do we possess
an exceptional amount of information about the composition of
the great fleet, numbering some 1 500 craft, great and small,
which had assembled at or near Southampton2, but there still
exists, in an excellent state of preservation, a bulky roll con-
taining the names of over 7000 of the combatants who passed
muster at Southampton, a document of such value that one
wonders why its contents have not long been published in full.
For many years it was assumed that the roll contained the names
of men who had fought in 141 5, and many writers who had
never seen the original were content to refer to it as the Roll of
Agincourt3. An examination of its contents, however, proves
beyond doubt that it belongs to the year 141 7, to which it is
correctly attributed by two modern writers4 who have described
and analysed it. Each of them has counted the names in the
roll, with the result that one gives the total as 7767 and the
other as 7 8 94s. It is greatly to be hoped that the roll will soon
be printed6.

1 Chron. Lond. 106; Kingsford, Chron. 71; Elmham, Lib. Metr. 150. Livius and
most modern writers give a wrong date.

2 Gesta, no; Tit. Liv. 31; Vita, 92 sq.

3 It was unfortunately described as such for some time in the catalogue of the Public
Record Office. [It is now catalogued as Exch. Accts. 51/2.]

4 B. Williams, Gesta, App. 265 sqq.; Ramsay, i. 251.

6 Williams gives 1792 lances, 59 n archers, and 64 unspecified (Gesta, 273); Ramsay
gives 182 1 lances and 6073 archers (loc. cit.). [The most recent examination of the roll
has been made by Professor R. A. Newhall. The results appear in his book, The English
Conquest of Normandy, 1416-1424. The typewritten thesis on which this work is
based (Harvard University Library, HU 90 . 12 15) contains in App. vn a summary of
the contents of the roll. Here the numbers of each retinue are given, the total amounting
to 1770 men-at-arms and 6069 archers.]

6 In Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 24,704 there is a partial transcript of the roll, which con-
tains the names verbatim down to John Nevil, kt., but stops after giving the first
twenty-eight of his lances.

H 17] Numbers 51

It has sometimes been supposed that we have in the roll an
enumeration of the whole of Henry's force, and it has even been
asserted that neither in 141 5 nor in 141 7 was England able
to ship to France an army of more than 8000 fighting men1.
This statement, however, is refuted by the contents of the roll
itself, which in its present form is certainly not complete. It
has been suggested2 that it contains only the musters from the
south and west, those from the rest of England having been lost.
However that may be, the roll omits the retinues of the king,
the duke of Clarence3, Gilbert Lord Talbot4, the earl of Oxford5,
and Edmund Lord Ferrers of Chartley6, and we know too of
several knights and squires who were with the expedition but
whose names the roll fails to mention7. Livius, copied by the
author of the Vita, puts the number of fighting men at 1 6,400,
and adds particulars of the larger retinues which yield a total
of 91 1 8 8, but his details are frequently in disagreement with
those on the roll. A letter written in London on May 7, 14 17,
estimates that there would be more than 25,000 men-at-arms9
— an absurd computation. Contemporary French writers
naturally exaggerate the size of the army: Cagny magnifies the
figures to 3000 or 4000 men-at-arms and 25,000 or 30,000
archers10, Juvenal des Ursins gives the total as 50,ooon, while
the chronicler of St Denis names that figure as the number of
the archers alone12. On the whole, however, we are not likely
to go far wrong if we accept the English estimate of 16,400;
it is certainly better supported than the lower figures that have
recently found favour13.

1 Ramsay, in E.H.R. xviii. 624. It may be mentioned that Wolsey, in a letter of
Aug. 30, 1523, referred to the duke of Suffolk's army of 12,300 men as the largest that
had left England for the last hundred years (Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, iii.
pp. cclxxv, 1360).

2 Gesta, 109 n. [The suggestion is manifesdy absurd, as the roll records the musters
of the earl of Northumberland, Lord Clifford, Lord Grey of Codnor, Gilbert Umfra-
ville, and other notable men of the north and midlands.]

3 Cf. Tit. Liv. 31. 4 Rym. ix. 486; cf. Carte, Rolls, i. 150.
5 Fr. Roll 4 Hen. V, 20. 6 Tit. Liv. 32.

7 Cf. Rym. ix. 595; Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 232; Feudal Aids, i. 59; Wals. ii. 324. It
should be noticed that a few days after the landing in Normandy the king spoke of his
force as the men "ordained to go with us for the first passage," which suggests that a
good many were left behind (Riley, Mem. 654). [It need not be supposed, however,
that all the men named in the roll sailed in July.]

8 Livius, 31 sqq.; Vita, 92. 9 Alart, Invent. Somm. i. 126.
10 Cagny, 109. u Juv. 534.

12 St Denys, vi. 100.

[13 I leave Dr Wylie's opinion on record. But, having studied Professor Newhali's
detailed analysis of the composition of Henry's army (Harvard University Library,

4-2

52 Normandy Invaded [ch. li

The fighting men were accompanied by iooo smiths and
carpenters1, and by skilled miners and pioneers2 from
Dinant3 and Liege4, besides the hordes of servants that were
never expected to do any combatant service. The force was
well found in all necessaries for conducting sieges, and con-

HU 90 . 1215, App. vn), I am convinced of the substantial correctness of his contention
that when it sailed to France in 1417, "its total fighting strength was some 10,000 men"
(English Conquest, 192). In his published book his argument is meagre and confused,
and fails to do justice to his case. This rests on an investigation of the career of every
captain who is known to have served in Henry's army from 1417 onward. He has
compiled a list that must be very nearly, if not quite, exhaustive, and it has consequently
become clear that we have on record the size of almost all the contingents that crossed the
Channel in 14 17.

The muster-roll described by Dr Wylie (Exch. Accts. 51/2) yields a total of 7839.
The particulars of three big retinues — those of Clarence, Ferrers of Chartley, and Gilbert
Talbot — were omitted from the roll but are supplied by Livius; they add 1440 men.
From Add. MS. 4601 and Stowe MS. 440, both in the British Museum, Professor
Newhall has extracted details of a few retinues, which increase the total by 301.
Altogether we have 9580 men.

There were in addition the men attached to the king's household. Their numbers
seem not to be recorded; in the army of 1415 there were 152. We have, too, the names
of eight captains who had retinues of unknown strength (D.K.R. xliv. 587-596, 598,
599). Besides these, fifteen men who were afterwards captains in France may have
commanded contingents in the summer of 14 17, though there is no evidence that they
did (ibid. xli. 711, 713, xliv. 587-596, 598, 599). But apart from these doubtful
cases, there can hardly have been a single captain in the force whose existence is
not on record. To the total of 9580 there must thus be added the men of the king's
household, and at least eight, and perhaps twenty-three, retinues, but no more. Now the
twenty-three men in question were for the most part of no great consequence. Even if,
as is most improbable, they were all captains in July, 14 17, they would scarcely have
mustered 1000 men between them. I feel sure, at any rate, that the total number of
combatants in the expedition cannot have reached 1 1,000.

How then, it may be asked, did Livius get his figure of 16,400? The text of the
passage where it occurs is corrupt, and his arithmetic is manifestly weak. But, not to
dwell upon evasions of the difficulty, it is likely that he was led astray by his belief that
"lance" in an English indenture meant three mounted men (p. 31, "cum lanceis sive
militum triadibus ducentiset quadraginta"). This mistake would naturally cause him
to treble the actual number of men-at-arms. Livius gives particulars of a number of
retinues which yield a total of 2281 men-at-arms and 6830 archers. It is true that
adding 4562 men-at-arms would make a total of less than 13,700; but he may also
have been taking into account the king's household, the numbers of which he does not
mention, the 840 archers from Lancashire and Cheshire who appear in the muster-roll
but are not among the contingents noticed by him, and the smiths, sappers, and other
members of the large labour corps, about which he seems to have known a good deal.
In any case the figure 16,400 rests on his unsupported authority, which, I think, must
bow to the conclusions drawn from the researches of Professor Newhall.]

1 Tit. Liv. 33; Vita, 92; Nicolas, Navy, ii. 428. For £1000 paid for wages of masons,
carpenters, and divers other artisans, see Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V, Pasch., April 29, 14 17, and
£138. 15X. 6d. paid to William Strete, master-carpenter, and fifty-nine carpenters,
ibid. May 8, 1417.

2 Goodwin, 158.

3 Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V, Mich., Oct. 4, 14 17. Nicholas Swyr and twenty foreign miners
left London for Southampton on July 21, 1417 (For. Accts. 51, C).

4 Devon, 352; Gesta, 114.

1 4 17] Touques 53

temporaries seem to have been impressed by the amount of
food transported1.

The start was made to the sound of trumpet and clarion, with
a favouring wind, the lead being taken by two of the royal ships,
known as the Kings Chamber and the Kings Hall2. It must
have been a brilliant spectacle, for after the fashion of the time
the ships were resplendent with heraldic devices, painted on
their sails and capstans, or set up on their castles and mast-
heads3. The earl of Huntingdon was appointed "to govern the
fleet," that is, presumably, to direct its movements, the appoint-
ment, it is carefully stated, being made without prejudice to the
rights of the duke of Exeter as admiral4. To the last the destina-
tion of the fleet was kept a secret even from the king's most
intimate friends5. While the French expected it to make for
Harfleur6, where a safe landing was now assured, some pre-
parations for defence had been made at Ardres, Boulogne,
Dieppe, Le Crotoy, and St Valery7: but after two smooth days
at sea the English sailed into the haven at the mouth of the
little river Touques8, on the south side of the estuary of the
Seine, where the pleasure-seekers of Trouville now do their
marketing. Five hundred horsemen had assembled on the
shore, and made a rush to oppose the first landing-party, but
on their leader being killed by the English archers, all resistance
was abandoned in despair. So the whole force disembarked on
the same day (Aug. 1). After giving thanks to God for this
hopeful beginning, the king knighted forty-eight of his prin-
cipal followers, and formally appointed the duke of Clarence
constable of the host9. Tents were pitched anywhere in the
marshes that lay to the west of the river10, and the king and the
leading captains took up their quarters in some houses near the
shore11.

1 Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V, Pasch., passim; Brut, ii. 382, "gonnez, tripgettis, Engynez,
sowez, Bastillez, bryggez of lethir, scaling laddres, mallis, spadez, shouyllez" ; Kingsford,
Lit. 303.

2 Tit. Liv. 33. 3 Gesta, mn.; Nicolas, Navy, ii. 446.
4 Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 112. 5 Vita, 96; Tit. Liv. 33.

6 Basin, iv. n. 7 Trahisons de France, 130.

8 Gesta, in; Kingsford, Chron. 126, Lit. 331; Brut, 382; Basin, iv. 111; Blondel,
i. 445; Tit. Liv. 33.

9 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 316; Rym. ix. 551, 594; Gesta, 112; Elmham, Lib. Metr.
150; Tit. Liv. 33; Wals. ii. 321; Chron. Lond. 106; Kingsford, Chron. 71, 126, Lit. 303,
First Life, 81; Brut, ii. 382; Chron. Ric. II-Hen. VI, 45; Waurin, ii. 241; Cordeliers,
254; Cousinot, 162; Cochon, 278; Bee Chron. 82, 225; Basin, i. 26; Blondel, i. 263;
J. Meyer, 250; Marest, 143; Goodwin, 155; Anstis, i. 323.

10 Waurin, ii. 241; Cordeliers, 240. u Tit. Liv. 33.

54 Normandy Invaded [ch. li

After a day or two the king moved into the town of Touques1,
beyond which, at a distance of about a mile, stood the great castle
of Bonneville2, one of the strongest posts in Normandy3.
Already the earl of Huntingdon had been sent forward with
a detachment of troops to summon the garrison to surrender.
Their hearts failed them at the first threat of siege, and on
Aug. 3 the commander agreed to submit if the place were not
relieved within six days4. He sent word to the dauphin at
Rouen that he could not hold out without help, but the mes-
senger was hanged for bringing such craven tidings5. The
garrison consequently surrendered on Aug. 96, and were
suffered to depart, leaving their victuals and artillery7. The
French government marked its sense of the disgrace by be-
heading Jean Bonenfant, an esquire who had helped to arrange
the capitulation without striking a blow8. King Henry at once
communicated his success to the mayor of London in a letter
which was received with transports of joy9. The capture of
Bonneville laid open all the rich vicomte of Auge10. The garrison
of Auvillars had already offered terms, and they surrendered to
the earl of Salisbury on Aug. 1411.

Welcome plunder was soon brought in by foraging parties,
before whom the peasants at first fled in panic to the towns12.
In the next generation it was represented that the English were
a ragged rabble and regarded as wild beasts rather than men13.
But this view, if ever entertained by the Normandy peasants,
was soon given up. Henry was not there as a raider but as the

1 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 145 sq., 149.

2 Then known as the castle of Touques and so called in the principal English
sources. It has been supposed that there was a separate castle at Touques, but there is
no doubt that Bonneville is the castle referred to (see Delarue, ii. 534, Nouveaux Essais,
ii. 264).

3 Bouvier, 433; Gesta, 112; Tit. Liv. 34; Vita, 99; Serres, i. 993.

4 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 145, 284; Rym. ix. 479, where the English signatories are
John Cornwall and William Porter. The names of the garrison, 106 in number, are
given in Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 147.

5 Tit. Liv. 34; Vita, 99.

6 Gesta, 112; Tit. Liv. 34; Vita, 99.

7 Wals. ii. 321.

8 Juv- 533 5 Rot- Norm. (Hardy), 284.
8 Riley, Mem. 654; Delpit, 219.

10 Auge was granted to the duke of Clarence before Sept. 26, 14 17 (Rot. Norm., Hardy,
157; Rym. ix. 496).

11 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 146, 157, 285; Rym. ix. 480 sq., 495; Wals. ii. 321; Tit.
Liv. 34; Vita, 99. Robert Hornby was appointed captain (Gesta, 276).

12 Blondel, i. 263.

13 Basin, i. 27, 33; Cochon, 277.

i4 1 7] Lisieux 55

lawful king of the land1. First he announced that any man
who robbed a monk or a priest should be hanged2, whereupon
many country people donned priests' garments, tonsured their
crowns, and circulated unmolested in the English camp. Soon,
however, the need for this subterfuge was removed by a further
proclamation against outrages on women and the plundering
of people who voluntarily submitted3.

When Henry left Touques on Aug. 13, he marched along
the coast towards Caen4. He left behind, however, at Bonne-
ville a garrison under John Keighley, a Yorkshire knight5; and
it is probably to Keighley and his men6 that the English owed
the capture of Lisieux during September7. The resistance
offered must have been but slight; in fact, in the next genera-
tion there was a tradition that when the English entered, they
found the city deserted save for one old man and one young
woman8. This story has been readily accepted by modern
French writers, but its absurdity is manifest when we re-
member that Lisieux was a cathedral city containing a large
number of churchmen, a class whose interests were notoriously
well cared for by the invader, that the townsmen had already
declared for the duke of Burgundy9, that it was not, as modern
writers have asserted10, an open town, and that a contemporary
French chronicler expressly states that the citizens were over-
come11.

1 See Rym. ix. 551 for pardon to two squires in the English army who had been
condemned to death for plundering people under the king's protection.

2 Vita, 97. 3 Wals. ii. 322. 4 Ibid.

5 Gesta, 275; Brut, ii. 383; Champollion-Figeac, Lettres, ii. 339; Whitaker, Craven,
205.

6 Keighley became captain of Lisieux (Gesta, 276).

7 In Gesta (115), Tit. Liv. (42), Vita (116), the capture of Lisieux is placed towards
the end of Sept. 1417. In St Denys, vi. 162, it is said to have occurred im-
mediately after the fall of Caen. The date has generally been given as May 17, 14 18
(cf. Lefevre-Pontalis, liv. 496, quoting Norm. Chron., ed. Hellot, 34), but this is certainly
too late, for on Jan. n, 1418, a muster of English troops was ordered to be held at
Lisieux (Rot. Norm., Hardy, 359), on Jan. 12 the king granted a prebend in the cathedral
(ibid. 232), and an English captain was appointed there before Feb. 9 (ibid. 365).

8 Basin, i. 27; J. Meyer, 250; Delarue, Nouv. Ess. ii. 263. Basin was bishop of
Lisieux from 1447 to 1474.

[Newhall (57 and n. 114), citing Cousinot, 150, and Basin, i. 27, attributes the
capture of Lisieux to Clarence and dates it Aug. 4. His authorities, however, are not
very weighty in this context, and we may be sure that the fall of Bonneville would have
been less advertised if it had been preceded by the capture of so important a place as
Lisieux.]

9 Delarue, Nouv. Ess. ii. 262.

10 So Puiseux, 23; Sarrazin, Cauchon, 173. The town was certainly walled when the
French recaptured it in 1449 (Blondel, Reductio, 70). u Ibid. 71.

56 Normandy Invaded [ch. li

The obscurity in which the capture of Lisieux is shrouded is
doubtless due in part to the fact that when the place fell all
eyes were turned on Caen. Since its capture by Edward III
some seventy years before, when it was almost unfortified1,
Caen had been surrounded by a wall six or seven feet thick,
pierced with twelve gates, bastioned with thirty-two towers2,
and covered on three sides by deep water-ditches3. On the
south the town was protected by the river Odon, which flows
through the meadows in many channels, forming islands at its
junction with the Orne. One of these, the lie St Jean, was in-
dependently fortified, so that the Odon flowed between two
towns, each able to stand a siege of its own4. Within the circuit
of the town walls, on the rising ground to the north-east, stood
the great castle, begun by William the Conqueror and enlarged
by his son Henry, with its huge square keep and its moat hewn
out of solid rock, rightly accounted one of the finest and strongest
fortresses in Normandy5, while to the English it seemed an-
other town as large as Caen itself6. And that was saying much,
for an earlier chronicler had reckoned that except for London
England had no town exceeding Caen in size7. A modern
writer estimates the population of those days as at least 40,000s.
The town's chief industry was the manufacture of cloth, in
particular woollen serge9. There was good pasturage for sheep
close at hand, and woad for dyeing grew abundantly in the
meadows near the town10. Twenty-five trades besides the
weavers were represented in the Whitsuntide processions11, and
among them a special importance was claimed by the porters12
who carried goods to and from the vessels that came up the
Orne to the harbour just outside the walls.

The wealth of Caen is further indicated by the extraordinary
number of its ecclesiastical foundations. With thirteen or
fourteen parish churches and nearly thirty religious houses, it

1 Lechaude d'Anisy, 408, 410; Soc. Ant. Norm. xi. 206.

2 Vaultier, 196-205; Huet, 64, 80; E. Beaurepaire, 505.

3 Tit. Liv. 36, 40; Vita, 103, 113.

4 Tit. Liv. 36; Vita, 103; Vaultier, 198.

5 Froiss. i. 223; Blondel, Reductio, 219; Bouvier, Recouvrement, 352.

6 Brut, ii. 384. 7 Avesbury, 359.

8 Puiseux, 13, 72. 9 Ibid. 73; Froiss. i. 223.

10 Puiseux, 15, 71. The town was specially noted for its pockets, called "tasques"
(ibid. 15; Trebutien, 317; Delarue, ii. 328, 450; Vaultier, 273).

11 Bras, 41.

12 Puiseux, 72; Formeville, 295.

1417] Caen 57

is no wonder that it was known as the city of churches1. Be-
sides the establishments within the town itself, there stood
outside the walls the two world-famous abbeys of St Stephen
and the Trinity, in one of which lay the body of William the
Conqueror, in the other that of his wife Matilda. The latter,
commonly called the Abbaye des Dames2, from the high social
standing of the nuns, stood on the high ground of St Gilles
near the castle, was fortified with a strong wall3, and was known
as Trinity Fort4. The abbey of St Stephen was just outside the
wall on the western side of the town, and like its sister was
strongly fortified5. Close to the castle, furthermore, stood the
collegiate church of St Sepulchre, built in the twelfth century,
which was also separately enclosed to form a third detached
stronghold6.

When King Henry left Touques, on Aug. 13, he sent for-
ward the duke of Clarence with 1000 picked men. Pressing on
by the shortest route, this force reached Caen next day just in
time to save the suburbs, which the French had already begun
to fire, after the usual practice, in order to deprive the besiegers
of cover near the walls7. Clarence found the Trinity abbey aban-
doned and at once occupied it as his headquarters. The garrison
of the town and castle was too scanty to attempt to hold the out-
lying defences, and an order had been given that both abbeys
should be demolished. The sudden arrival of the English saved
the one, but all preparations were in hand for firing the other,
the pillars of the nave of the church being already undermined.
But one of the monks, who loved his church rather than his
country, crept out of St Stephen's in the darkness of the night,
crawled on all fours to the abbey of the Trinity, and sought out
the duke of Clarence, whom he found lying asleep in his armour
in a garden, with his head resting on a stone. Falling on his
knees he implored the duke's intervention to save the great
abbey that his forefathers had built, offering to guide him to
a spot where the wall was weakly guarded. Clarence straight-
way got together a scaling party, and with the help of the monk

1 Puiseux, 17.

2 "Abbaye de Dames," Bouvier, Recouvrement, 348; "l'abbaye des Dames,"
Gruel, 212.

3 Erected between 1354 and 1359, Vaultier, 8, 54, 64; cf. St Denys, vi. 104.

4 Delarue, ii. 25; Puiseux, 77; Soc. Antiq. de Norm. xi. 192; Vita, 102.

5 Apparently at the same time as the other, Vaultier, loc. cit.

6 Soc. Antiq. de Norm. xi. 192; Puiseux, 77.

7 Tit. Liv. 35; Vita, 102; Chron. Lond. 106; Gregory, 115.

58 Normandy Invaded [ch. li

effected an easy entrance to the abbey. The few occupants were
captured, but all were allowed to go free, except one whom the
duke hanged for sacrilege because he was caught removing the
bars from the windows of the church1.

Meanwhile the king, with the main army, was approaching.
On the day of his departure from Touques, he sent to the king
of France a letter in which he called God to witness that he had
striven for peace ever since he came to the throne, while his
cousin had fed him with leaves but no fruit; and he now called
upon him for the last time to give up the crown and kingdom
of France, or worse evil would certainly come upon him2. Then
he advanced to Dives3, where he spent the night; the following
day he reached Grentheville, where he stayed over the next day,
which was Sunday and the feast of the Assumption4; on the
Monday he moved on to Fontenay-le-Tesson5, lodging at the
abbey; on Aug. 17, after crossing the Orne at Allemagne6,
he halted at Eterville; and on the 1 8th his force encamped
before the walls of Caen7.

Henry took up his quarters within the precincts of St
Stephen's8. He mounted guns on the roofs and towers of the
abbey buildings, whence he could see everything that went on
in the town9. The biggest of his guns he disposed between the
abbey and the western wall, under the direction of the duke of
Gloucester10. Much artillery was also stationed in the fortress
of the Trinity11. The whole force was divided into four sections.
The earls of Huntingdon, Salisbury, and Warwick, Lord Grey
of Codnor, and Sir John Cornwall occupied the meadows on
the right. On the left the Earl Marshal and Lord Matravers lay
in the faubourg close to St Nicholas' church. The northern side
was held by Gilbert Lord Talbot, Gilbert Umfraville, John
Neville, and Robert Lord Willoughby, while to the east the
duke of Clarence fronted the castle from his vantage-ground in
the fortress of the Trinity12. Thus the town was beset from the
south-west to the north-east, the section to the south and south-

1 Wals. ii. 322 sq.; Tit. Liv. 35 sq.; Vita, 102.

2 Rym. ix. 482 sq.

3 Villa Sancte Salvatoris de Tyfe (Wals. ii. 322; Delarue, Nouv. Ess. ii. 262).

4 Ibid.; Wals. loc. cit.

5 [The place is now called St Andre de Fontenay.]

6 Delarue, ii. 334. 7 Wals. loc. cit.
8 Ibid. 323; Vita, 103; Gesta, 113. 9 Wals. ii. 322.

10 Vita, 104; Tit. Liv. 36.

11 St Denys, vi. 104. 12 Wals. ii. 322.

1417] Storm 59

east being unapproachable owing to the various channels of the
Orne, though passage of the river could be maintained by a
bridge of hides, which had been sent from Harfleur1.

The defence was conducted by William de Montenay2, who
had under him a force of the famous Genoese crossbowmen.
The walls were protected by mounds of earth hastily thrown
up; engines were mounted at points of vantage; and on every
side a gallant resistance was offered. But the big guns of the
English, some of which were brought up the Orne by ship,
proved terribly effective, doing great destruction among the
buildings of the town, though Henry refrained from battering
a weak spot in the wall lest the church of St Stephen, which
stood just within, should be damaged3. After about a fortnight
of bombardment, mining, and other activities, an assault was
planned for Sept. 4, the commander of the defence having
refused Henry's demand for surrender. On the appointed day
the king was up early, and found time to hear three Masses
before the signal for attack was given by bugle from the royal
tent. Answering calls rang out from the several camps, and the
first scaling parties sprang forward to plant their ladders beyond
the moat, into which quantities of faggots had been cast. The
defenders on their part had manned the walls to the call of
horns and trumpets, and as the assailants mounted struck them
down, hurled stones on them, blew quicklime into their eyes,
or poured upon them boiling water mixed with oil and fat.
But the English, attacking in three waves, could not be stayed,
though many of the ladders proved too short and dropped
uselessly into the moat4. One of the newly-made knights,
Edmund Springhouse by name, was in the forefront of a
scaling party, but he missed his footing and fell into a breach
of the wall, where the defenders flung their fire on him and

1 For. Accts. 57, C. It had been made at Plymouth by John Janyn, one of the
king's master-carpenters, who had under him sixteen or eighteen carpenters, smiths,
and cobblers, their first instalment of wages being paid at Plymouth on Aug. 19, 1415.
Janyn had is. a day and the rest gd. The amount paid was £14. 13J. ^d. The bridge
was shipped in sections to Harfleur, where it was stored for a year. It was used again
in the sieges of Louviers, Pont de l'Arche, and Rouen.

2 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 153; Rym. ix. 490; Delarue, ii. 285.

3 Tit. Liv. 37; Vita, 105; StDenys, vi. 104; Delarue, Nouv. Ess. ii. 268; Bras, 38;
Huet, 252; Puiseux, 45. The roof of St Stephen's was nevertheless badly damaged.
For grant in aid of the chaplains of the church, whose revenues were immensely reduced
by the war, see Rym. ix. 548; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 282.

4 Tit. Liv. 38 sq.; Vita, 108 sqq.; Elmham, Lib. Metr. 153; Wals. ii. 323; Capgr.,
De Illustr. 121; Cochon, 278; Blondel, i. 264, 446; Riley, Mem. 657; Puiseux, 49.

60 Normandy Invaded [ch.li

burned him alive. The king, it is said, was heavy and sorry on
hearing of his death, but the sight of his fate spurred the courage
of his comrades, and at the point where he fell the attack was
pressed with redoubled vigour1. It was the duke of Clarence
who first broke through the defence, the king having with-
drawn some of the troops on his side in order to meet a relief
force which was reported to be approaching but did not appear2.
Clarence gained a footing on the He St Jean at the end of the
Rue Neuve3 ; a certain Harry Ingles is remembered as the first
Englishman to get in4. Fighting in the streets followed, the
English slaying all the men they met, priests excepted, and
after a hard struggle they reached the bridge near the Black
Friars. This they rushed, headed by the earl of Warwick, who,
on reaching the great tower called the "little castle" mounted
a ladder shouting "A Clarence, a Clarence, a St George !" and
was the first on the battlements, where he planted the royal
banner. There ensued a terrible conflict in the streets and
houses, but Clarence's men forced their way through the town
and drove the French from the battlements on the far side5.
More than 1800 Frenchmen6 were slaughtered in the streets;
but, while many English perished during the siege7, we know
from a letter of the king's that the whole dreadful business of
the assault was effected "with right little death of our people8."
When resistance had ceased and the streets were piled with dead
and dying, the victors turned to the inevitable sack and plunder,
and King Henry, who had returned and entered through a gate
thrown open by Clarence's troops, rode to St Peter's church to
give thanks9.

1 Wals. ii. 324; Brut, ii. 384; Peter Chron. 488; Kingsford, Lit. 124.

2 Tit. Liv. 38.

3 "Par malvese garde," Cochon, 2785 Delarue, Nouv. Ess. ii. 270; Rev. Anglo-Fr.
v. 270. The street is now the Rue Neuve St Jean (Mancel, 16; Puiseux, 52).

4 Worcester, Itin. 373.

5 Tit. Liv. 38 sq.; Vita, 111; Wals. ii. 324; Gesta, 113 n.; Brut, ii. 384; Chron.
Ric. II-Hen. VI, 45; Norm. Chron. 179; Blondel, i. 264; Vaultier, 9; Delarue, i. 126,
Nouv. Ess. ii. 270; Bras, 59.

6 From document dated 1464 in Martyrologe or Charter Book of Caen in Lechaude
d'Anisy, Chartes, ii. 410. Cf. Delarue, Nouv. Ess. ii. 272; Puiseux, 52; Vaultier, 9.
"Maxima in copia trucidati sunt," Blondel, i. 264. Basin, i. 27, gives the same impres-
sion. On the other hand, Monstrelet (iii. 242) gives 600 as the figure, and Le Fevre
(i. 320) puts it at no more than 500.

7 Tit. Liv. 37; Monstr. iii. 242; Morosini, ii. 146.

8 Riley, Mem. 657; Delpit, 220. Sir James Harington was among those killed
(Kingsford, Lit. 289; cf. vol. i. 478).

9 Tit. Liv. 40. [The author of the "First English Life" says (p. 92) that when order
was restored Henry had all the valuables yet unplundered brought together into "a

1417] C'est la Guerre 61

The butchery at Caen has sometimes been regarded by
modern writers1 as due to the calculated design of a ruthless
conqueror to strike terror at the outset of his gigantic task and
thus to lighten its succeeding stages; and this was certainly its
effect. But to contemporaries it seemed nothing but a sad
necessity. The garrison had deliberately refused to yield, and
they were bound to take the usual consequences2. Taking this
for granted, the English chroniclers claim special praise for
the king in that he issued orders that no woman should be
outraged, no priest molested, and no church plundered3 — in-
junctions which unquestionably had some effect, though with
all his discipline Henry could not prevent his men from some-
times getting out of hand. Yet it would have been far better for
his fame had he forbidden all massacre and pillage as soon as
resistance had ceased; and if such heroic forbearance is too
much to look for in those callous and bloody days4, common
prudence might nevertheless have taught him leniency towards
the people whom he aimed at making his subjects. It is
humiliating to our pride in a national hero to read the language
of those who suffered under his heavy hand, for when the
broken spirit of the French began to revive, the foul massacre
of Caen was ever foremost in their minds5.

The town being completely in his hands, King Henry turned
to the reduction of the castle, where the defence was rendered
well-nigh desperate by the addition of about a thousand useless
mouths that had fled for refuge into the enclosure6. Indeed,
within five days of the capture of the town, the castle came to
terms, having undergone neither assault nor bombardment7.
On Sept. 9, a document was signed in which the garrison agreed
to capitulate if no relief should come before Sept. 19. Their
lives were to be spared; every man might keep his horse, ar-
mour, and clothing; and a sum of money not exceeding 2000
crowns might be retained and shared by the men according to

greate and stronge house," and gave them to Clarence, reserving for himself only "a
goodly French Booke." The duke distributed much of the property among his men.
This is one of the stories for which the earl of Ormonde is named as the narrator's
authority.]

1 [As, for instance, by Newhall, op. cit. 59 sq.]

2 Cf. St Denys, vi. 134. 3 Tit. Liv. 39, 40; Vita, in, 113.

4 [I leave Dr Wylie's words, written before 19 14.]

5 See esp. Blondel, Reductio, 220 sq. 6 Delarue, Nouv. Ess. ii. 273.

7 Rym. ix. 490; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 287 sqq.; Lechaude d'Anisy, 217; Riley,
Mem. 657; Delpit, 220; Cagny, no.

62 Normandy Invaded [ch. li

their rank: but everything else was to be left behind. An
armistice was granted in order that the garrison might appeal
to Rouen for help; but their cry fell on deaf ears. On Sept. 20,
therefore, a rich silken tent was pitched before the castle, and
there the king sat in state while the governor, kneeling, de-
livered up the keys and the garrison passed out1. A thousand
of them were allowed to go without their arms to Falaise2,
where the English were to meet them again. The English said
that the women in the castle, disregarding the terms of the
capitulation, carried off a quantity of money in leathern bottles,
while a fire, which the French were suspected of having started,
destroyed all the stuff that had not been taken away3.

The king took up his quarters in the palace that William the
Conqueror had erected in the castle bailey4, and there he resided
till Oct. i, arranging for the settlement of the town. In a letter,
dated Sept. 1 1 , the duke of Clarence had reported to the mayor
of London the fall of many places besides Caen, and had stated
his belief that in a short while the king's whole purpose would
be achieved and that nothing was now wanted but people to
settle in the captured towns and hold them5. Settlers were soon
invited from England to Caen, and confiscated houses were
allotted to them6. A contemporary writer, who was in Paris
at the time, says that 25,000 persons were driven out in one
day7. Diligent search, however, has revealed the names of only
102 who refused to accept Henry's authority, and these were
drawn, not merely from Caen, but from a wide area around8.
Modern French writers have estimated the number of the
refugees at 30009. Many no doubt did prefer flight to sub-
mission, but all the available evidence shows that the great
majority of the townsfolk remained and accepted the new con-
ditions. It is typical of the complete resignation of most of
the inhabitants that one of the earliest official documents met
with after the capture of the town records permission for the

1 Rym. ix. 493; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 165; Tit. Liv. 41; Vita, 115; StDenys, vi. 106.

2 Rym. ix. 393, 394; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 166.

3 Wals. ii. 325.

4 Rym. ix. 495 sqq.; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 154-17 1 passim; Gesta, 115.

5 Delpit, 220. 6 Vita, 113.

' StDenys, vi. 108. This estimate has been accepted by many later writers, while some
treat it as too low. It has even been supposed that 100,000 people fled from Normandy
to Brittany (Masseville, iv. 62).

8 Puiseux, Emigration, 102.

9 So Delarue, ii. 334, and Vaultier, 273.

14 1 7] The People of Caen 63

daughter of a Caen burgess to marry an Englishman1. But if
some resistance still found place among the laity, there is no
room for doubt as to the attitude of the clergy. Among seculars
and regulars alike, Henry's offer of protection found a ready
welcome, and a list2 is extant which shows that 123 ecclesiastical
submissions were received as soon as Caen was in his possession.
The list includes a number of abbeys, priories, and parish
priests in the region already occupied by the English.

Meanwhile events of much interest had been occurring
elsewhere. Before Henry left England, he had appointed the
earl of March to take command of the transports as soon as
they should have disembarked the troops at Touques and
return with them to England to fetch part of the army for
which he apparently had not been able to find room3. Ac-
cordingly all the ships save those that carried artillery were sent
back from Touques at the first possible moment4. Some of
them must speedily have returned to France, for at Caen on
Sept. 1 Henry granted their discharge to 117 Dutch vessels
and 122 English ones5. The earl of March, however, after
cruising for a while in the Channel6, sailed early in September
for La Hogue with the second instalment of the expeditionary
force under the convoy of Thomas Carew and his squadron7.
Landing at St Vaast, the earl marched through the Cotentin,
plundering as he went. He attacked St L6, but was beaten off,
and passed on to join the king at Caen8.

While Henry was at Caen, detachments of his army gained
some useful successes. In the middle of August the earl of
Huntingdon, Gilbert Talbot, and Gilbert Umfraville were

1 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 184, Sept. 30, 1417. The chronicler of St Denis suggests that
favourable treatment was offered to those who consented to marry Englishmen (vi. 164).

2 Dated Sept. 7 (Rym. ix. 488 sqq.; Rot. Norm., Hardy, 331 sqq.).

3 Rym. ix. 466 sq. Yet twelve of the king's ships, including the Genoese prizes,
were left in the Hamble, manned with skeleton crews (Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 144).

* Tit. Liv. 34. 5 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 320 sqq.

6 Brut, ii. 383, 385.

7 On Sept. 1, 1417, Thomas Carew received verbal orders from the king to convoy
the earl of March and others to "Hogges" (Ord. Priv. Co. iii. 126; Exch. Accts.
48/12, 13). For £266. ly. %d. paid for ships for the transport of the earl of March and
other lords, with their retinues, going "in presentiam regis," see Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V,
Pasch., Sept. 20, 1417. [This force is taken into account above (p. 51, n. 13) in the
discussion of the strength of Henry's army.]

8 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 181, 231, (Hello t) 33. The chronology of March's
voyage and subsequent exploits is the subject of much confusion in the chronicles,
some of which ascribe his return to France to the following spring. But the references
in note 7 above seem incontrovertibly to place it in September.

64 Normandy Invaded [ch. li

empowered to attack enemy strongholds1. By Aug. 22
Creully, with a number of dependencies, had passed into
English hands2, and on Aug. 25 Villers-Bocage came to terms
with Huntingdon3 — acquisitions which went far to secure
Henry against any attempt to relieve Caen from the west.
September witnessed the actual surrender of Lingevres4 and
Tilly-sur-Seulles5, and the signing of capitulations by Thury-
Harcourt6 and Lamotte-de-Cesny7. Much more important,
however, was the capture of Bayeux. The city had recently been
fortified with high walls and deep moats, and a strong castle
stood at its south-west corner8. Nevertheless, it offered no
serious resistance to the duke of Gloucester, who was sent
against it. By Sept. 8 terms of surrender had been signed, and
on the 19th the town was occupied by the English without
further trouble9. Next day, a Lancashire man, John Ashton,
was appointed seneschal of Bayeux10; but the completeness of
the submission was such that many subordinate offices, in-
cluding that of vicomte^ were forthwith entrusted to French-
men11. All the cathedral revenues were taken into the king's
hand, and he appointed a cathedral treasurer12, but great
numbers of clergy in the city and its neighbourhood had
accepted English rule even before its occupation, and on making
formal submission the dean and chapter soon received their
own again13. On Oct. 20 Ashton was authorised to issue tickets
bearing his seal to those who should apply for them within
eight days; others were to be treated as enemies14.

1 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 150, 286.

2 Ibid. 151. 3 Ibid. 152, 286.

4 Ibid. 163; Postel, 16, 17.

5 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 162 sq.; Lechaude d'Anisy, 218, 221.

6 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 158, 172.

7 Ibid. 172; Delarue, Nouv. Ess. ii. 278; Caumont, Journal, 301, 302; Postel, 7.

8 Ibid. 23, 30; cf. Norm. Chron. (Hellot), 35; Beziers, Mem. 212-215. The garrison
numbered at least 200 men-at-arms and 50 crossbowmen (Rot. Norm., Hardy, 153 sq.).

9 Ibid. 153, 164, 167; Rym. ix. 493; Tit. Liv. 40; Vita, 114, 116; Wals. ii. 325.

10 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 320; Delisle, Baillis, 40, 109; Pezet, 384; Postel, 47, 125.
He was lord of the manor of Ashton-under-Lyne (Baines, Lane. i. 424), and had been
made a knight of the Bath in 1399 (Kingsford, Chron. 48).

11 Carel, 264, 271, 276, 298, 302, 305, 316, 322; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 218;
Brequigny, 14.

12 Rym. ix. 541; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 232.

13 Rym. ix. 530, 531, 575; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 219, 371; Postel, 76, 124.

14 Rym. ix. 504; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 187.

CHAPTER LII

CONQUEST IN LOWER NORMANDY

Having appointed Gilbert Umfraville captain of the town,
Henry left Caen on Oct. i 1. On Oct. 2 and 3 he was at St Pierre-
sur-Dives2, where he had news of the capitulation of the castle
of Courcy3 : on the next day he was at Trim4, and by Oct. 5
he was before the strong fortress of Argentan. The townsfolk
made no stand, but offered terms as soon as the English ap-
peared5. All the inhabitants might have stayed and occupied
their homes in peace; but 500 burgesses preferred to emigrate
to Brittany, Anjou, or Maine6.

It needed no long experience to convince the Normans that
they were being abandoned to their fate, and they had no
wish for a carnage such as had just fallen on the people of
Caen7. They knew that the duke of Burgundy, then the
triumphant man in France, was really allied with the English8;
they saw that there was a prospect of just treatment under the
English king, and that taxation would be lighter9; and so, in
spite of a considerable number of irreconcilables, the bulk of
them decided to submit, and if they did not (as an English
chronicler asserts)10 flock in with boisterous delight, they no
doubt saw where their interest lay. The king entered Argentan
on Oct. 911, and the next few days were spent in arranging the
capitulation of the castles of Chailloue12, Exmes13, Laigle14,
Chambois15, O16, and others, together with the town of
Essay17. At the populous city of Sees, with its noble

1 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 159; Tit. Liv. 43; Vita, 119.

2 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 172, 173. 3 Tit. Liv. 43; Vita, 119.

4 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 174.

5 Tit. Liv. 43; Vita, 119, 120; Cagny, no; Juv. 534.

6 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 175; Lechaude d'Anisy, 230; Puiseux, Emigr. 18.

7 St Denys, vi. 160; Blondel, i. 35, 129.

8 Juv- 535- 9 Tit. Liv. 43.

10 Gesta, 115. u Puiseux, Emigr. 911.

12 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 176; Caumont, Journal, 301.

13 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 177. 14 Ibid. 306; Rym. ix. 501.

15 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 177, 191. >

16 At Mortree, near Alengon, Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 178.

17 Ibid. 180; Gesta, 116; Gall. Christ, xi. 742.

win c

66 Conquest in Lower Normandy [ch. lii

cathedral and other important ecclesiastical foundations —
some of which had been negotiating before the English arrived
— the fortified abbey of St Martin made a show of resistance,
but this was not long maintained, and the abbot came in for
the same favourable treatment as his fellows elsewhere1. On
Oct. 20 arrangements were in progress for the bishop to make
his submission2, and by the spring he had been restored to the
enjoyment of his temporal possessions and spiritual jurisdic-
tion3, though his ecclesiastical court was transferred to Falaise4.
A notable exception to the general attitude was afforded by the
Cistercian abbey of La Trappe, at Soligny, the abbot of which,
though a safe-conduct was issued on Nov. 10 for him to come
and confer5, took to flight and was treated as a rebel. One of
the monks, however, was pliable enough to be considered safe,
and to him the belongings of the abbey were entrusted on
Feb. 1, 141 86. Meanwhile the laity were little if at all behind-
hand, and lists of submissions received between Oct. 24 and
287 seem to show that they came in faster than they could be
dealt with.

From Argentan the army moved on to Alencon, where the king
arrived on Oct. 158, and dated documents indicate his presence
in the camp or the castle there till the beginning of December9.
The fortifications of both the town and the castle were of quite
exceptional strength10, but although the place was well supplied
with all requisites for sustaining a prolonged siege11, yet even
before Henry arrived on the ground still known as the King's
Field12, the now familiar colloquies had begun, and as a result
the English were admitted on Oct. 22, not a blow having been
struck13. Meanwhile the English were rapidly extending their
hold on the region to the east of the main advance, and by the
end of the month they were in possession of Verneuil and
Mortagne14. The fall of Alencon, moreover, was followed by

1 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 179, 195, 334, 351, 352; Rym. ix. 501, 509, 551; Tit. Liv.
44; Vita, 120; Brequigny, 206; D.K.R. xli. 686.

2 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 183, 196, 239; Rym. ix. 504; Gall. Christ, xi. 698.

3 Rym. ix. 578, 586; L. Hommey, iii. 256.

4 Galeron, Stat. i. 89. 6 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 196; Rym. ix. 509.

6 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 241; Brequigny, 265.

7 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 347-350. 8 Tit. Liv. 44; Vita, 122.

9 For documents dated before or in Alencon, see Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 181-217;
Gesta, 117 n.;. For. Accts. 57 E; Hist. MSS. Rept. iv. 459.
10 Tit. Liv. 44; Vita, 122. n Cagny, 112.

12 Odolant-Desnos, i. 4; L. Hommey, iii. 255.

13 Cagny, in n., 112. 14 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 181, 183, 192, 193; Tit. Liv. 44.

1417] Brittany 67

a rapid push southward, which speedily gave them Beaumont-
le-Vicomte, Dangeul, Nouans, and Belleme1. Indeed the whole
domain of the dukes of Alencon was reduced to subjection in
less than fifteen days2.

The young duke, John II, was only eight years of age. After
his father's death at Agincourt, he had been removed from
Argentan to join the party of the Armagnacs, with whom the
late duke had been so closely identified. His mother Marie,
who was still only twenty-six, was the eldest daughter of Queen
Joan, the widow of Henry IV, and the sister therefore of the
duke of Brittany. Whether this relationship had any connection
with the events that followed is only matter for guessing; but
it is certain that the duke of Brittany had already expressed a
desire for a meeting with the invader, and no sooner had Alencon
surrendered than a safe-conduct was issued guaranteeing him
free access to King Henry at any time before Oct. 27s.

The duke of Brittany has received great praise for keeping
his lands out of the range of the disastrous conflict that de-
vastated all the rest of northern France and securing for his
people a period of steady progress while his neighbours were
a prey to destruction; but the trimming, whereby this restful
time was gained, was far from high-souled or chivalrous, and
while the duke was regarded with irritation by his relatives in
England, he was no favourite with his neighbours in France4.
Nine years before he had made a treaty with the late duke of
Alencon, but the friendship of his ally turned afterwards to
undisguised contempt5. His absence from the field of Agin-
court was certainly only part of an understanding with the
duke of Burgundy which developed later into a direct treaty
of alliance, according to which they were to be brothers in
arms, in honours, in prerogatives, and in profits6. By King
Henry he was regarded with special dislike7, and the enmity
between England and Brittany was naturally not abated when
he issued letters of marque authorising Breton ships to prey
upon English trade8. But circumstances had changed, and the

1 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 191, 194, 202; Tit. Liv. 45; Kingsford, Lit. 307 ; Brut, ii. 386.

2 Cagny, loc. cit. 3 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 183; Rym. ix. 503.

4 For a favourable contemporary opinion of him, see St Denys, vi. 52; for an un-
favourable one, see Blondel, Reductio, 17.

5 Odolant-Desnos, i. 461.

6 i.e. on Feb. 18, 1417, Blanchard, Introd. p. cxxiii, no. 1235; cf. ibid. no. 1316 and
Itin. 431, 432.

7 Jurade, 329. 8 Blanchard, ii. 205.

5-2

68 Conquest in Lower Normandy [ch. lii

sinister alliance with the duke of Burgundy had led him to seek
an interview with Henry in the previous spring. A safe-conduct,
dated April 13, 141 7, had authorised him to cross to England
with a large following of bishops, counts, barons and knights1;
many English lords had been summoned to Reading to arrange
a ceremonial reception for him2; and four English ships had
been sent to bring him from St Malo to Southampton3. The
visit is referred to by no contemporary annalist, English or
Breton, and there is no trace of it in the published4 itinerary of
the duke. One might conclude therefore that it never actually
took place were it not that entries in the Issue Rolls record
payments of expenses for the duke's voyage to England5. It
is, however, improbable that he got further than Southampton,
and what passed between him and Henry is wholly unknown.
Whatever his previous relations with the king may have been,
he was evidently in a suspicious temper when negotiations, as
we have seen, were resumed, for he refused to avail himself of
his safe-conduct until a supplementary document had been
issued6 containing a specific command to Henry's "allies" that
no harm was to be done to the duke's lands while he was away.
Before October was out, however, he arrived at Alencon with
a large retinue7. Valuable presents were exchanged8, but all
accounts agree that Henry was in no hurry to get to business.
When at length an interview was arranged and the duke knelt
on entering the king's presence, it was noticed that it was some
time before Henry motioned him to rise9. Nevertheless, a truce
was signed in the castle of Alencon on Nov. 16, 14 17, to last
till Michaelmas, 141 810. It was expressly stated to have been
brought about by the influence of Queen Joan. Henry agreed
not to molest the duke or his lands or to suffer anyone else to
do so, while the duke on his part would see that his subjects
abstained from all acts of war against the English, an under-
taking which Frenchmen rightly interpreted as disloyalty to

1 Rym. ix. 446; Morice, i. 462.

2 For payments to messengers to them, see Iss. Roll 4 Hen. V, Mich., March 18, 1417.

3 Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V, Pasch., May 25, 1417; ibid. 6 Hen. V, Pasch., Sept. 27, 1418.

4 By Blanchard, Introd. pp. cxix sqq.

5 In Iss. Roll 6 Hen. V, Pasch., Sept. 27, 14 18, there are entries of payments to pilots
(lodemanni) for bringing him from St Malo to Southampton "ad presentiam regis."

6 On Oct. 27, 1417, Rym. ix. 506; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 189.

7 Blanchard, no. 1284; cf. Lobineau, i. 533, ii. 925.

8 Ibid. ii. 922; Vita, 125. 9 Juv. 534.

10 Rym. ix. 511, 516; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 208, 214; Tit. Liv. 45. During the
duke's stay at Alencon his expenses were borne by the English purse.

1417] Neutrals 69

his sovereign, even though he never admitted that he had
actually become an ally of England1. At the same time he
negotiated a similar agreement2 on behalf of Yolande, duchess
of Anjou, as guardian of her young son Louis, who had just
succeeded to the dukedom at fourteen years of age. Very soon
after his father's death he had been contracted in marriage to
the duke of Brittany's eldest daughter Isabel3 ; but Yolande's
policy is remarkable, for her daughter Marie was betrothed to
the new dauphin Charles, who was closely identified with the
interests of the Armagnacs. Her husband, however, had
counselled reconciliation on his death-bed; and indeed the
French king had given her permission to negotiate with the
invader with the object of securing her son's possessions from
molestation4. As for Henry, glad no doubt to secure the
neutrality of a powerful opponent on the southern confines of
his conquests, he agreed to abstain from any further attack upon
Anjou and Maine. One curious result of these agreements was
that Henry and his troops henceforth enjoyed a steady supply
of fresh lampreys from Nantes5, but fresh lampreys were as
nothing compared with the freedom he secured for a move-
ment east to strike at the heart of all remaining opposition6.

The autumn, however, was over, and according to the military
practice of the time Henry should have put his men into warm
quarters and spent the winter months in preparing for a spring
campaign. Such a course was the more advisable as his army,
small as it was at first, had been diminished as each capture
drew off a substantial portion to act as garrison, while deser-
tions, which had been numerous since the very landing, were
still being reported daily even after the fall of Caen7. But the
great rock fortress of Falaise still remained uncaptured, and
thither, in his unresting zeal, Henry despatched the army. The

1 Juv. 534, 538. 2 Rym. ix. 513; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 212.

3 On July 3, 14 1 7 (Blanchard, nos. 1244, 1277; Morice, i. 463). The marriage never
took place.

4 On Nov. 10, 1417 (Morice, i. 464; Ramet, iii. 75, E. 179; Cosneau, Connetable,
50). Yolande was very much in earnest: her envoys arrived within a few days to arrange
details (Rym. ix. 515; Rot. Norm., Hardy, 215), and she pledged all her lands to the
duke of Brittany as security for her full performance of her side of the bargain (Ramet,
iii. 75). In some quarters in France she was applauded for acting upon sound advice
("salubri usa consilio," St Denys, vi. 162).

5 Rym. ix. 644; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 249.

6 Friendly negotiations with Brittany and Anjou continued (Rym. ix. 550; Rot.
Norm., Hardy, 307).

7 Ibid. 329.

70 Conquest in Lower Normandy [ch. lh

earl of Salisbury, who was sent in advance to prevent the in-
habitants from leaving the town, had some sharp fights before
the main force arrived. On Dec. I Henry took up his quarters
before the gate on the road to Caen1. On his right at Guibray2
was the duke of Gloucester, while the duke of Clarence faced
the castle on the north3. The town of Falaise, with its walls and
towers and the majestic castle on the cliff, was redolent of the
story of Duke William the Bastard and his mother Arlette, who
dwelt at the tannery on the Ante in the valley below. All the
chances were in favour of the besieged had there been any hope
of ultimate relief. The castle and the projecting rock were
practically impregnable, and the winter was setting in with
exceptional severity. Moreover, the garrison was heartened by
the presence of many refugees from Caen and other places, who
were resolved to make a desperate resistance. But Henry was
undismayed. He put up huts made of logs bound with withies
and roofed with turf, and his force was thus shielded from the
worst rigours of the weather. He trenched his camp and fenced
it with a palisade. Then, having secured an ample supply of
good provisions, he sat down with the fixed resolve to starve
the Frenchmen out. Again and again they sallied forth to
break the blockade, but the English were more than ready for
them, and each time they fell back baffled. Within the defences
the ground was frozen hard, and hailstorms brought torrents
of discomfort, while the guns played on the broken roofs and
walls from the high ground of Guibray. Some of the gun-stones,
found in the moat, are startling in their enormous size4, and it
is no wonder that the clock-tower, the conduits, churches, and
houses, crashed under them as they fell5. Then came the in-
evitable disheartenment and disunion, and in spite of the
determination of Olivier de Mauny6, who was charged with
the defence of the place, resistance grew feebler when the walls
were breached, and it was not long before negotiations for

1 Tit. Liv. 46; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 227.

2 Galeron, 25, 66, Statistique, i. 5, 8; Norm. Chron. (Hellot), 33.

3 Tit. Liv. 46; Vita, 128.

4 Galeron, Stat. i. 86. Three which lay at the castle entrance in 1904 each measured
about 2 ft. in diameter.

5 For repairs to walls, clock, and conduits, see Rym. ix. 565; Galeron, Stat. i. 89.
See also ibid. i. 350 for the destruction of the tower and nave of the church of the
Trinity. The nave was rebuilt in 1438 (ibid. i. 95, 351). The fury of the bombardment
seems to have impressed itself on contemporary opinion (cf. Wals. ii. 327; St Denys,
vi. 164 sq.).

6 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 245, 251, 308; Vita, 132; St Denys, vi. 166.

1 4 1 7 -i 8] Falaise 7 i

surrender were opened1. On Dec. 20 an appointment was
drawn up by which it was agreed that the town should yield if
no relief came by the morning of Jan. 2. Refugees from places
previously captured by the English were to be at the king's
mercy; English prisoners held in the town were to be freely
released; the town garrison were to depart, leaving behind their
bows and artillery; and in the meantime everything in the town
should as far as possible be left as it was. It was expressly
stipulated that, save for the release of the prisoners, the castle
was not to be considered as included in the compact2. No help
came within the appointed time3, and after spending Christmas
in the camp, the king entered Falaise on Jan. 2, 141 8, and soon
afterwards took up his quarters within the town.

His energy was now devoted to the reduction of the castle4,
the position of the two sides being henceforth reversed, for the
English had to attack from the lower ground, and their guns
could make no impression on the castle walls, which towered
high out of effective range. Mining was likewise useless, for
the castle rested on the solid rock. So the attackers bridged the
moat on the town side, pushed up shelters to the foot of the
walls, and set to work with pick and hammer to loosen the
bottom course of stones, creeping into the base of the walls after
one or two stones had been removed and working away in the
shelter thus secured until they had enlarged the breach to a
width of forty yards. The besieged, inspired by Olivier de
Mauny, made a gallant defence, lowering lighted faggots on
chains to smoke out the English at their work; but the at-
tackers unhooked and extinguished the faggots and persisted
in their undertaking. Finding themselves outmatched at all
points, the garrison beat a parley and on Feb. 1 agreed to
surrender if not relieved within fifteen days5. Accordingly, the
English were admitted to the castle on Feb. 166, and all

1 The foregoing narrative is based mainly on Livius (46 sqq.), who gives by far the
best account of the siege. The Vita Henrici (129 sqq.) follows him closely, but adds
one or two details of interest. 2 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 312 sqq.

3 The French, however, had made some overtures for peace while the siege was pro-
ceeding (Champollion-Figeac, Lettres, ii. 362).

4 Tit. Liv. (48 sq.) is still our main authority, supplemented as before by Vita, 133 sqq.

5 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 308; Vita, 137; Greg., Chron. 258; Kingsford, Chron. p.xv.

6 For a document dated in the castle at Falaise on Feb. 16, see Rym. ix. 544. Among
those who stood out to the last was a Welshman, Edward ap Griffith, who refused to sur-
render with the town and kept up the fight in the castle. He was tried, found guilty, and
executed ; his body was quartered and the pieces were sent to be fixed on the gates of Caen,
Lisieux, Alencon, and Verneuil (Rot. Norm., Hardy, 364; Lechaude" d'Anisy, vii. 284).

72 Conquest in Lower Normandy [ch. lii

resistance was at an end. Contrary to the usual custom Olivier
de Mauny and the garrison were retained as prisoners1, though
six days after the surrender he received a safe-conduct to pro-
ceed to Paris, on the understanding that he would be back by
April 32. On March 24, 141 8, the king restored all the ancient
privileges of the town3, and soon afterwards4 made grants from
the proceeds of the salt-tax to pay for repairing damage wrought
to the walls and towers during the siege, subsequently sanction-
ing the levy of a tax on wine, beer, cider, and other drinks for
the same purpose5. To strengthen the defences he extended
some pools that the besieged had dug at the southern base of
the cliff, and one of these exists as a horse-pond to this day6.
The late captain received his liberty on June 28, 141 8, by
which time he had taken a vigorous part in repairing the ditches
and walls of the castle, according to one of the terms of the
capitulation7.

By the end of February the king was back at Caen8; but
he soon moved to Bayeux9. Contemporary writers assert that
this visit to the cathedral city was for the purpose of prayer,
fasting and Lenten devotion10; but though this motive may have
had its influence, more worldly considerations were as usual
uppermost. Henry, in fact, wished to keep in touch with
important military operations that were taking place towards
the west.

On Oct. 1 Gilbert Talbot had been appointed captain-
general of the Marches of Normandy11, a term which apparently
meant the region on the right flank of the main English advance.
Some time in the winter he led a raid into the Cotentin with
500 or 600 men. As they returned they were overtaken by the
tide while attempting to cross the bay of Les Veys opposite
Isigny, got entangled in the shifting sands, and though by hard

1 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 309; Tit. Liv. 49. 2 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 251.

3 Brequigny, 67; Galeron, Stat. i. 89. For a detailed statement of them, dated
April n, 14 1 8, see Brequigny, 15.

4 In May, 14 18 (Rym. ix. 589; Caumont, Journal, 307; Vautier, 27).
6 On April 3, 1419 (Brequigny, 67).

6 Tit. Liv. 46; Vita, 127; Galeron, Stat. i. 69. The great round tower, which is now
the most striking feature of the castle ruins, dates from the English occupation of the
next thirty years. Its name recalls the great John Talbot, who likewise decorated the
walls of some of the rooms and rebuilt the chapel of St Prix in the keep (Freeman, ii. 176;
Galeron, 70, 71, 78; D. Turner, ii. 268; Duchesne, Antiquitez, ii. 396).

7 Brequigny, 208; Galeron, Stat. i. 94; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 309; Juv. 538.

8 For documents dated at Caen, Feb. 24-28, see Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 254; Chanc.
Warr., Ser. 1, 1364/45. 9 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 262.

10 Tit. Liv. 50; Vita, 165. u Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 171.

141 8] The Cotentin 73

fighting they escaped from the plunderers who swarmed out
of Carentan to harass their retreat, they suffered some loss of
life and were compelled to abandon their baggage1. It was
probably because of this incident that Talbot was relieved of
his post on Jan. 2 82. Soon afterwards, however, the duke of
Gloucester was sent west with a considerable force, and sur-
renders followed wherever his troops appeared. Vire capitu-
lated on Feb. 213. By March 10 the castle of Hambye had
surrendered4; the town of St L6 followed on the 12th5. Four
days later they were followed by Le Hommet6, Carentan7, and
Coutances, the last falling to the earl of Huntingdon, who had
been specially commissioned to operate in that region8. St
Sauveur-le-Vicomte submitted on March 2 59, Pont d'Ouve two
days afterwards10; and about the same time a similar fate befell
the castles of Torigny11, Valognes12, Bricquebec13, Nehou14, and
La Haye du Puits15. Avranches, Pontorson, and other places
in the vicinity had been occupied by April 1 616. About this time
Henry went back to Caen17.

[Nearly all Lower Normandy was now in English hands, and
Henry had shown that he meant to act, not as a foreign con-
queror, but as the kindly lord of territory that was lawfully his.
Civil government was already working in the way familiar to
the Normans. By the time that Henry set out on his summer
campaign there were four English baillis — John Popham for
Caen18, Roland Lenthall for Alencon19, John Ashton for the
Cotentin20, and John Radcliffe for Evreux21. These bailliages
were divided into fourteen vicomtes, all, or nearly all, of which

1 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 180, (Hellot) 32; Adam of Usk, 131.

2 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 373. 3 Ibid. 289.

4 Rym. ix. 553. It is near Gavray (Manche). On March 13 it was granted to the
earl of Suffolk (Rot. Norm., Hardy, 319).
6 Ibid. 298 sqq.

6 Rym. ix. 555. On March 29 it was granted to Edward count of Mortain (Bre-
quigny, 10).

7 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 300 sqq. 8 Ibid. 296 sqq., 382 sq.
9 Rym. ix. 565; Gesta, 120; Delisle, 248, 334.

10 Rym. ix. 566. u Tit. Liv. 50; Vita, 51.

12 Tit. Liv. 50; Norm. Chron. 182.

13 Tit. Liv. 50; Vita, 142. It was granted to the earl of Suffolk (Rot. Norm., Hardy,
319). u Tit. Liv. 50; Gesta, 120.

15 Granted to John Cheyne (Br6quigny, 12).

16 D.K.R. xli. 708. 17 D.K.R. xli. passim; Vita, 165.

18 Appointed Dec. 24, 1417, Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 23isq.

19 Appointed March 8, 1418, ibid. 278 sq.

20 Appointed March 14, 1418, Brequigny, 61.

21 Appointed May 2, 1418, some weeks before the town was taken (D.K.R. xli. 713).

74 Conquest in Lower Normandy [ch. lii

were administered by Normans1. The central government of
the conquered area was provided for by the appointment of
Philip Morgan as chancellor2 and the establishment of a
chambre des comptes at Caen, with John Tiptoft as president3.

Henry was manifestly anxious to reconcile the Normans to
their changed lot. On April 12 a general pardon was offered
to all whose annual income was under £60 a year, provided
that they took the oath of allegiance before June 1 . For a fee
of \od. anyone might get a sealed ticket testifying to his sub-
mission; even escaped prisoners were to have the full benefit
of the offer4. During the winter and spring many religious
houses received back their temporalities5. Henry, indeed, was
slow to bestow Norman estates, whether clerical or lay, on his
followers. Towards the end of the winter, however, grants of
land to Englishmen begin to appear frequently in the Norman
rolls, though before May 1 their number was only about forty6.
The calendar of Norman rolls in the 41st and 42nd reports of
the Deputy-keeper of the Public Records fails to indicate the
most important part of each grant, and has given the impression
that the Englishmen who received lands commonly owed
nothing in return save some trivial object like a dagger, a pole-
axe, a belt, or a hawk. In point of fact, however, those whose
property included a castle were usually required to man it
adequately7, while others were generally laid under the obliga-
tion of defending some neighbouring stronghold or town at
their own expense with all their available men whenever they
were called upon to do so8. Later it was usually stipulated in
addition that the recipient of a grant of land should serve in the
field when required with a certain number of men-at-arms and
archers9, so that Henry was provided with a force which cost
the Treasury nothing and could be used either for the defence

1 D.K.R. xli. 710 et passim. 2 Rym. ix. 571.

3 See below, p. 250. The early arrangements for the government of the English
conquests are in many respects obscure. On this subject Dr Wylie left no material that
could be used, and detailed examination is best deferred until it can be made in the
light of Henry's final adjustment of Norman administration.

4 Rym. ix. 573. 5 Ibid, passim.

6 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), passim; D.K.R. xli. passim.

7 e.g. Rot. Norm. 6 Hen. V, p. 1, mm. 31, 33, 38, 40.

8 Rot. Norm. (Hardy) and Rot. Norm. 6 Hen. V, passim. "High justice" was
reserved by the king except in the case of one or two great men such as the duke of
Clarence (Rot. Norm., Hardy, 318) or John Grey (ibid. 281). Frenchmen who
received back their lands had as a rule to render merely the customary services.

9 This proviso appears once or twice in grants prior to May 1, 14 18 (Rot. Norm.,
Hardy, 319 sq.; Rot. Norm. 6 Hen. V, p. 2, m. 13), but as yet it was rare.

1418] Organisation 75

of Normandy or for the reinforcement of the army with which
he was prosecuting his conquests.

Henry's reluctance to dispose of the lands he had conquered
was doubtless due to his hope that the entire population of
Normandy would accept his rule, and as an additional induce-
ment he announced, early in May, an important modification
of the unpopular gabelle or salt-tax. Henceforth there were to
be no salt-garners save those of the government. All salt im-
ported into Normandy was to be taken to one or other of these,
where a tax of 25 per cent, ad valorem would be exacted from
purchasers. This was no abolition of the gabelle, as some have
described it, but it greatly reduced the tax, which had been
50 or even 75 per cent., and, what was even more important,
once the tax had been paid the salt might be freely sold at
whatever price it would fetch. Most welcome of all, however,
was the removal of the obligation to buy a certain quantity of
salt every three months whether one wanted it or not. It may
be doubted, nevertheless, whether the Normans considered
the reform sufficient to warrant the grandiloquent contrast
between the tyrannous Charles and the benevolent Henry
which was drawn in the proclamation announcing it1.]

While King Henry was at Caen, he was visited by Vincent
Ferrer, the famous saint, preacher, and reformer. Vincent had
been at Constance, and had then moved westward across France
in response to letters of the duke of Brittany, who had invited
the holy man to come and instruct him and his subjects2. He
entered Brittany in February, 141 8, and began what proved
to be his last evangelistic tour. In April he arrived at Rennes,
and while he was there a herald came bearing an invitation for
him to visit King Henry in Normandy3. The invitation was
accepted, and it is calculated that he was at Caen for some time
after May 4, 141 84. Only two English chroniclers mention
his visit to Henry, and one of these says that it occurred during
the siege of Rouen5; but circumstantial details are supplied by
witnesses who gave evidence at the enquiry held with a view
to his canonisation, which took place in 1455. The saint preached

1 Rym. ix. 584 sq. For the gabelle, see Viollet, Institutions, iii. 451; Perouse, 92, 98.

2 Le Mene, Diocese, i. 397; Fages, ii. 207 sq.; Blanchard, nos. 1272-4; Lobineau,
Saints, ii. 195.

3 Ranzani, 480.

4 Mouillard, 41; Blanchard, Vincent, 385.

5 Otterbourne, 280; First Life, 130 sqq.

76 Conquest in Lower Normandy [ch. lii

before the king, performed a notable miracle in his presence,
and, it is said, predicted the death of the count of Armagnac,
which happened in June1. [The writer of the "First English
Life of Henry V" has an interesting account2, which he gives
on the authority of the earl of Ormonde, and which ought not
to be wholly discredited by the fact that he makes Vincent's
visit an episode in the siege of Rouen. He says that Vincent
came uninvited and preached before the king with "mar-
uelous audacitie," denouncing him for destroying "even
Christians that had not offended him." The king heard him
quietly to the end, but afterwards, summoning Vincent to his
presence, declared himself to be the scourge of God, sent to
punish God's people for their sins. He then conversed with the
friar alone for two or three hours. As Vincent passed through
the hall on leaving, he spoke to those who were present,
among them some of the chief English captains, and exhorted
them to serve the king well; for, so far from being the tyrant
Vincent had supposed him, he was the best man present that
day, and his quarrel was so just and true that undoubtedly
God was with him. It is difficult to believe that there is no
truth in this story, but one's attitude towards it must depend
on one's general view of the credibility of those passages in
the "First English Life" which are derived from the earl of
Ormonde3. The saintly and (it appears) rather guileless Vincent
returned to Brittany, where in less than a year he died.]

1 Fages, ii. 216 sq., 218 sq., 226, 246 sq.; Mouillard, 203, 226; Otterbourne, 280.

2 Pages 130 sqq. 3 On this see App. Z2.

CHAPTER LIII

CIVIL STRIFE IN FRANCE

While Henry was working out his comparatively easy task
in Normandy, his work elsewhere was being done for him by
the French themselves. Warnings of the coming invasion had
certainly reached Paris more than five months before Henry
landed1, but instead of preparing resistance on the coast the
French directed their efforts to strengthening the defences of
the capital and taking other measures to enable it to stand a
siege2, the enemy they really had in mind being not the English
but the duke of Burgundy3. Frightful lawlessness prevailed
throughout the land. Life and property were unsafe in town
and country alike, and brigands made travelling almost im-
possible.

The king had sunk into incurable decay4. After the death
of the dauphin Louis in December, 14 15, all intrigues had
as their object the capture and control of the new dauphin
John. For the moment the game was in the hands of the duke
of Burgundy, who had the nine points of possession. The
boy was barely eighteen, yet for ten years he had been kept
away from France and brought up in Hainault under the eye
of the duke's sister Margaret, who had just married him to her
only daughter Jacqueline. In the autumn of 141 6 the Council,
which the death of the duke of Berry had left under the influence
of the duke of Anjou, summoned the new heir to come to Paris
without the duke of Burgundy5, and an effort at reconciliation
was made, the mediators being the count of Holland and the
duke of Brittany, the former as a friend of France and the
father of the dauphin's wife and the latter as a friend of both
Burgundy and Anjou. The duke of Burgundy showed himself

1 [Le Moyen Age, ser. II, xx. 31 sq.]

2 Ordonnances, x. 407, 420 sq.; Douet d'Arcq, i. 390; St Denys, vi. 84, 86.

3 Monstr. iii. 204 sq., 207 sq.; Le Fevre, i. 307; Loher, i. 276. [Cf. Le Moyen Age,
ser. 11, xx. 318 sqq.]

4 [On Charles VTs insanity see Dodu, 161 sqq., the most recent discussion of the
subject.]

5 This was apparently in November (Monstr. iii. 167).

j8 Civil Strife in France [ch. liii

but little disposed towards peace, and Anjou retired to Angers
about Christmas1. The count of Holland, however, showed
some independence, refused, not for the first time, to hand
over the dauphin to the duke, and, with the latter's consent,
took the dauphin and Jacqueline towards Paris2. Great caution
was observed by all parties. For many weeks the count's
company lay at Compiegne, whence they treated with Queen
Isabel, who had come as far as Senlis. No progress, however,
was made; and a visit of the count's to Paris in the hope of
accelerating an agreement was abruptly terminated owing, as
he said, to the discovery of a plot against his freedom. On his
return to Compiegne he found the dauphin grievously sick of
a mysterious ailment, and a few days later, on April 4, 141 73,
he died. It was asserted and widely believed that he had been
poisoned by the Armagnacs. The truth of the matter seems
unattainable ; what is certain is that the accusation exacerbated
party feeling, already bitter enough. To make the prospects of
peace still worse, if that was possible, the count of Holland died
a few weeks later at Bouchain in consequence of a bite of a
dog4. The duke of Burgundy visited him on his death-bed and
was accused of having poisoned him5.

The duke had already begun reprisals for the death of the
dauphin. In most of the towns of northern France his partisans
were getting the upper hand, for as the exactions of the
Armagnacs increased the townsmen turned to him for relief.
On April 25, 1417s, he issued a manifesto to his supporters at
Rouen, charging the Armagnacs with having poisoned the
dauphin, likening them to Judas, and declaring that he would
relieve the country of taxes and recover her liberty. Letters in
the same strain were sent to Amiens, Auxerre, Chalons, Rheims,
and Troyes7, while his followers roamed at will through Cham-
pagne, Burgundy, Picardy, and Brie8. The duke pushed his

1 St Denys, vi. 50.

2 Monstr. iii. 166; D. Sauvage, 247; Barante, iii. 190; Morosini, ii. 120.

3 St Denys, vi. 58; Monstr. iii. 168; Marest, 29; D. Sauvage, 248; Paradin, Bour-
gogne, 605; Loher, i. 271.

4 On May 30. Dynter, iii. 342; Monstr. iii. 173; Impens, 358; Zantfliet, 408;
Locre, 500.

5 Itin. 433; Monstr. iii. 203 sqq.; Cordeliers, 234.

6 St Denys, vi. 74; Juv. 533; Monstr. iii. 184 sqq. For full text, see D. Godefroy,
Charles VI, 679.

7 St Denys, vi. 78; Juv. 533.

8 St Denys, vi. 64.

141 7] A Burgundian Offensive 79

preparations forward while negotiating a marriage between the
widowed Jacqueline and his nephew the duke of Brabant. The
Flemish towns granted him 100,000 gold crowns1; he hired
20,000 men from Savoy2; and about the time when Henry
landed at Touques he marched westward from Arras at the
head of more than 30,000 fighting men3. At Amiens, Beauvais,
and Senlis4 he was tumultuously welcomed. Resistance was
first encountered at the bridge over the Oise at Beaumont, but
on Sept. 5 the place was reduced, owing partly to the treachery
of the lord of L'Isle Adam, and the duke thus secured one of
the main approaches to Paris from the north. Six days later
Pontoise fell5. The army then crossed the Seine by the bridge
at Meulan. The duke's purpose was to starve Paris into sub-
mission, and he speedily captured Mantes, Versailles, and
Montlhery6. For some time the Armagnacs were content to
remain behind the walls, and refused to make a sortie even
when the Burgundians occupied St Cloud, Vaugirard, and
Chatillon, and the duke set up his standard on the heights of
Montrouge7. The many partisans of Burgundy in the city were
kept under strict control and given no opportunity of aiding
the besiegers8. Food, however, became very dear, and the
anxieties of the authorities must have been increased by a
despairing appeal for help from Caen to which they could only
reply by barren exhortations to courage9. Nevertheless on Sept.
30 the Armagnacs plucked up heart and captured the bridge at
Beaumont-sur-Oise10 — an event which greatly dashed the spirits
of the Burgundians, already depressed by the delay before the
capital. An attack of the Burgundians on the bridge over the
Seine at St Cloud was foiled, and breaking up from there they
tried to secure the bridge at Corbeil and thus to stop the
transport of supplies to Paris from the east11. But here again they
failed, and the duke, fearing that his army would melt away
under the rigours of winter12, was contemplating retreat when he
was offered an unexpected chance of retrieving his fortunes.

1 Roye, 172; J. Meyer, 252. 2 Trahisons de France, 132.

3 Plancher, iii. 472-475, 590-595.

4 Monstr. iii. 191, 209, 211; Le Fevre, i. 298, 300, 309, 310; Cordeliers, 235;
St Denys, vi. 80, 86; Itin. 435; Flammermont, 200; Thierry, ii. 70.

6 St Denys, vi. 116; Itin. 435. 6 St Denys, vi. 122; Itin. 436.

7 St Denys, vi. 130. 8 Ibid. 131 sq.
9 Ibid. 108. 10 Ibid. 136.

11 Cousinot, 165; Cordeliers, 241; Dognon, 496.

12 Monstr. iii. 226; Cousinot, 166; Raoulet, 160; Trahisons, 134.

80 Civil Strife in France [ch. liii

The troubles of the time, which had driven the government
to exact ruinous taxes and forced loans and even to strip the
shrine of St Louis of its gold and jewels1, had wrought no
abatement in the luxury and extravagance of the court, where
the profligacy of Queen Isabel became more and more scanda-
lous. She had long ceased to live with her husband, who had
taken a violent dislike to her and comforted himself with
Oudine or Odette de Champdivers — a harmless and colourless
creature very different from the romantic heroine that modern
imagination has made of her. Though forty-seven years old,
the queen became increasingly the slave of pleasure, till at
length the king became for a moment jealous of his honour,
ordered the arrest of Louis Bosredon, master of the queen's
household and reputed to be one of her lovers, and a few days
later had him tied up in a sack and thrown into the Seine. It
was thought advisable to send the queen away, and about the
end of May, 141 72, she was removed first to the castle of Blois
and then to that of Tours3, where she was cut off from all chance
of interfering with the government, no letters being allowed to
reach her, and lived, as she said, "in great misery and dis-
pleasure4." Vast sums of money which she had amassed and
much of her jewellery and other property were seized by the
government5. Hitherto Isabel had cordially hated the duke of
Burgundy6, but desire for revenge now led her to send him an
offer of co-operation against a common enemy7. The duke,
who was then at Chartres meditating a withdrawal from before
Paris, eagerly accepted the alliance, and a well-laid scheme
resulted in his rescuing Isabel from her guards at the abbey of
Marmoutier, just outside Tours, as she was hearing Mass
there on All Souls' day8. A secret understanding was at once
signed, and the duke returned to Chartres, where the queen
joined him9. While the duke had been passing along the valley

1 Ordonnances, x. 437; St Denys, vi. 224, 226; Juv. 533; Boutiot, ii. 380. The monks
of St Denis, moreover, had to pawn their relics and sell much of their treasure in order
to raise 3000 crowns demanded by the government; they also thought it wise to hide
the great shrine enclosing the body of St Denis (St Denys, vi. 68).

2 Bourgeois, 78.

3 Juv- 533> 537 » Le Fevre, i. 242; Monstr. iii. 176.

4 Ordonnances, x. 424, 437; Boutiot, ii. 381; Cousinot, 164.
8 Ibid. 165; Petigny, 330; Vallet de Viriville, Isab. 237.

6 St Denys, vi. 140; Belleforest, Chron. 322; Thibault, 426.

7 Monstr. iii. 227 sqq.

8 Ordonnances, x. 427; Juv. 537; Vallet de Viriville, i. 74.

9 Itin. 436; Le Fevre, i. 317.

14 1 7] Queen Isabel 81

of the Loir, he had been on the very flank of the English force
that was operating against the fortresses of Maine, but he
gave no sign of any desire to resist it; and while he was at
Chartres after his return, his ally the duke of Brittany was
making terms with Henry at Alencon, some sixty miles away.

The duke now appeared again before Paris, having reason
to expect that the gates would be opened to him by his partisans
in the town. The plot, however, had been discovered and
stamped out1, and the bishop of Paris excommunicated the
duke at Notre Dame on the very day when he had hoped to
enter the city2. It is true that the plight of Paris was bad,
despite plundering raids in the neighbourhood by the Armag-
nacs3; but the duke of Burgundy, despairing of speedy
success, moved eastward in December, and, accompanied by
the queen, entered Troyes two days before Christmas4.

At Chartres Isabel had issued a manifesto announcing that
she took upon herself the regency of France and that she would
support the duke of Burgundy in his effort to save the country5.
She set up a high court at Amiens to take the place of the
Parlement of Paris for the bailliages of Amiens, Vermandois,
Senlis, and Tournay, and for Ponthieu6, and as money began
to come in, there seemed some hope of the establishment of a
settled government. At Troyes the queen continued her
attempt to capture all political authority. She issued an
ordinance dismissing the Parlement of Paris, and created a
substitute of her own, the officers of which were all to be
appointed by herself7. She made the duke of Burgundy
governor of the kingdom, and bestowed the office of constable
on Charles duke of Lorraine8. She was visited by ambassadors
from Hainault9 and Brittany10 and even from the kings of
Castile11 and Portugal12. Her most notable triumphs, however,

1 Juv- 537 SCW Monstr. iii. 237 sq.; Le Fevre, i. 318; Denifle, Chart, iv. 331; Douet
d'Arcq, i. 393.

2 Ordonnances, x. 428; St Denys, vi. 156; Beaucourt, i. 27; Felibien, iv. 574;
Denifle, Chart, iv. 332.

3 St Denys, vi. 142; Bourgeois, 80, 81. 4 Itin. 437; Gachard, 238.
6 Monstr. iii. 230 sqq.; Le Fevre, i. 318.

6 Monstr. iii. 234 sq. Philippe de Morvilliers was chancellor of this court and had
a seal with the queen's effigy. For the seal, see Pasquier, 59; Thierry, ii. 77.

7 Ordonnances, x. 436-442.

8 Plancher, III. pp. cccii, 481, 482; Gachard, 286; Boutiot, ii. 378, 379.

9 Itin. 438; Gachard, 238. 10 Itin. 439.

11 On Jan. 28, 14 18 (ibid. 438).

12 March 26, 1418 (ibid. 439).

w in 6

82 Civil Strife in France [ch. Lin

were gained in southern France. Languedoc, where the governor
was John viscount of Lomagne, eldest son of the count of
Armagnac, was seething with discontent on account of the
heavy taxation1, and quite ready to listen to envoys from the
queen advising refusal to pay. For the last year the governor
had had his hands full with attempting to repel the English,
who were making inroads on the western side of the province.
Far down the Garonne he had been trying to expel them from
La Reole. He had indeed succeeded in driving them out of
the town by April 5, 141 7, but they still held out in the castle,
and as he was very short of both materials and men, he had to
trust to the slow process of a blockade. On April 1 2 he wrote
to Albi for help2, and a month later, knowing that the English
were looking for a rescue, he sent to Carcassonne asking for
the loan of its big gun, at the same time issuing orders for the
repair of the roads to let it pass3. By July 7 the English had
promised to submit if no help should reach them before the
end of August4, and they eventually surrendered5. In the
autumn, however, the new tactics of the duke of Burgundy
began to brighten English prospects. From a letter written on
Oct. 10, 141 7, we know that a large English force was then
atPuylagarde (Tarn-et-Garonne), and threatening Albi6; while
another force pushed northwards across the Charente7, cap-
tured the castles of Montbron (Charente) and Aixe-sur-Vienne
(Haute-Vienne), and plundered up to within two leagues of
Limoges, where the fortifications had been allowed to fall into
decay8. It was while the governor was struggling with these
dangers in the west that the emissaries of the queen entered his
province from the east. They were soon followed by Louis de
Chalon, eldest son of the prince of Orange, who was sent with
500 armed men to abolish taxation. He entered the province
on April 2, 141 8, and at once began a victorious progress9.
Very few places resisted him. He was received with joy at

1 Vaissete, ix. 1035, 1037.

2 Compayre, 263.

3 Vaissete, ix. 1037, x. 1893; Mahul, v. 356.

4 Vaissete, ix. 1038.

5 Drouyn, Guienne, i. 138. 6 Compayre, 264.

7 For payment to a messenger in 14 17 for reporting that the English "passoient la
Charente a grant force" and were coming to plant their standards before the walls of
St Jean d'Angely, see Aussy, Reg. iii. 239.

8 Ordonnances, x. 443.

9 Ibid. 431, 433; Compayre, 264; Dognon, 44.8.

1 41 8] Intricate Diplomacy 83

Nimes, Aigues Mortes, Montpellier, and Narbonne1. Carcas-
sonne tried to preserve neutrality2, and soon the only consider-
able town in the hands of the Armagnacs was Toulouse, where
their position was precarious. Their last hopes vanished at the
news of the slaughter of their leaders in Paris. JohnofArmagnac
had already approached the authorities at Bordeaux, offering
to do homage to the king of England in order to secure a
respite on that side, and a truce between him and the lord of
Albret on the one hand, and the English on the other, was
concluded before Sept. 1, 141 83.

For some time after the queen and the duke of Burgundy
had set up their government at Troyes, it looked as if they
would secure recognition throughout the country. The in-
evitable lack of money, however, soon made itself felt, and the
ardour of the keenest Burgundians began to cool under the
demands which the government at Troyes was driven to make.
France again resounded with clamour for settlement and
compromise. As a matter of fact, quite early in the winter
negotiations had been opened between Armagnac envoys at
Montereau and Burgundian envoys at Bray; but after two
months' talk they could do no more than arrange that a meeting
should take place at La Tombe after Easter4. In the interval
an envoy of the duke of Burgundy had conferred with the earl
of Warwick at Bayeux and on March 24, 1 4 1 8, arranged a pro-
longation till Michaelmas of the truce between his master and
Henry5, while the duke himself left Troyes on April 5 for
Dijon6, whence he moved on to Montbeliard in Franche-
Comte, where towards the end of May he had a four days'
interview with the emperor Sigismund. Nothing is known of
the political business discussed7, but it was not likely to be to
the advantage of France, seeing that Sigismund was preparing

1 Dognon, 454, 477.

2 Vaissete, ix. 1042.

3 Rym. ix. 597, 625; Le Fevre, i. 338; Cordeliers, 260; Barante, iii. 252.

4 Moranville, Extraits, 433; St Denys, vi. 172; Le Fevre, i. 324; Cousinot, 168;
Monstr. iii. 246 sq.; Belleforest, Chron. 323; Plancher, iii. 484.

5 Rym. ix. 561 sqq. The truce had previously been extended from Michaelmas,
1417, to the following Easter (Rym. ix. 527 sq.; D.K.R. xliv. 595, 598).

6 Itin. 439; Gachard, 238.

7 For documents of the duke dated at Montbeliard from May 8 to 29, see Plancher,
iii. 485, 492; Barante, iii. 237. For documents of Sigismund dated at Mompelgard,
May 25-28, see Altmann, i. 229. It is known that many notable men were present, and
that Sigismund brought his heralds and his fools, one of whom tumbled and played the
guitar to amuse the duke (Itin. 612; Monstr. iii. 249).

6-2

84 Civil Strife in France [ch. liii

to assert by force a claim to Dauphine and other eastern pro-
vinces of France1 and intended to invade France with a large
army and join Henry in Normandy2 — a project which came
to nothing owing to the Hussite rising in Bohemia and the
hostility of some of the German princes3.

1 On June 2, 14 18, the estates of Dauphine were ordered to assemble and to resist
Sigismund (Ordonnances, x. 414).

2 Rym. ix. 604, 605.

3 Lenz, 196, 200.

CHAPTER LIV

THE FATE OF OLDCASTLE

If we judged merely from the documents printed by Rymer
in the Fcedera^ we might suppose that on the departure of the
king from Southampton the interest of Englishmen in the life
of their own country was entirely suspended, for with the
exception of some letters from the Council of Constance and
records of the appointment of one or two bishops, what he has
printed refers solely to affairs in Normandy. But a very different
impression would probably have been given by a report from
the duke of Bedford, who had been left behind as lieutenant,
keeper, or protector of the kingdom1. Of his personal influence
we have few traces. The affairs of the nation were being smoothly
administered from Westminster. Under the deputy-treasurer,
William Kynwolmersh2, money came in with complete regu-
larity; receipts were large and domestic expenditure small, so
that, notwithstanding the invasion of Normandy, the revenue
for the year seems to have been sufficient to cover the out-
goings3.

Nevertheless, there was an uneasy sense of danger in the
country. Wales, indeed, was quiet, the death of Owen Glen-
dower having been followed by the surrender of his son
Meredith; but Oldcastle was still at large and Scotland still
aggressive. In spite of the violent preaching of several of the
higher clergy4, it is clear that many priests continued to favour
Oldcastle5, and no person or community had ventured to lay
hand on him despite the enormous rewards offered. For nearly

1 "Lieutenant au Roi et gardein d'Engleterre," Rot. Pari. iv. in; "custos," Rym.
ix. 600, 601; "gardianus," Cotton MS. Cleop. E. 11. f. 332 d. He received an allowance
of 8000 marks a year (Iss. Roll 8 Hen. V, Mich., Nov. 14, 1420 et passim).

2 Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 218, 239. He had been appointed by Henry Fitzhugh, July 8,
1417, and confirmed in the office next day (Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 109).

3 [Dr Wylie and Professor Newhall (p. 144) both reached this conclusion, though
the totals which they extracted from the Issue and Receipt Rolls differ. In any case
such calculations have little value.]

4 For sermons preached against him by Bishop Mascal in Herefordshire and Shrop-
shire, see Diet. Nat. Biogr. xxxvi. 406.

5 John Prest, vicar of Chesterton in Warwickshire, actually harboured him early in
August, 1415 (Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 372; Claus. 9 Hen. V, m. 14 d).

86 The Fate of Oldcastle [ch. liv

four years he had hidden in the hills and solitudes of the west,
though where he stayed cannot be exactly ascertained. Some
say that he went to Wales1, others that he haunted the neigh-
bourhood of Oswestry and Shrewsbury2, while tradition still
connects him with an ancient house in the Darval or Deerfold
to the west of Wigmore in Herefordshire. But though
Lollardy as typified in its hunted leader dared not show itself
in the open, yet its fire was ever ready to burst into flame.
When the king was leaving for Harfleur in 141 5, Oldcastle
was astir in the midlands, but the timely discovery of Scrope's
plot at Southampton ruined all chance of a Lollard success3.
There were more alarms in the winter of 1416— 1417. When
the king was at Kenilworth for Christmas it was discovered
that one of Oldcastle's squires was plotting to kill him4. On
Dec. 16 seditious schedules were found fixed on the windows
of the principal houses in Reading, Northampton, and St
Albans5, and no one could trace their origin, while at the same
time many similar writings were dropped with impunity even
in the streets of London6. On Jan. 23, 141 7?, proclamations
were issued renewing the offer of 1000 marks reward for
Oldcastle's capture, together with perpetual exemption from
taxation for any city or borough which should give him up,
or a grant of ^20 a year to any person doing so. The offers of
pardon to repentant Lollards that had been made at the time
of Oldcastle's escape had already been repeated8, with an
intimation that the offer would hold good if submissions were
made within a fortnight after Michaelmas, 141 7. Neither
announcement, however, had a§ yet produced any result. The
Lollards, in fact, became bolder than they had been for some
time. A member of a west-country family well known for their
Lollard leanings, Henry Greindor9 of Clowerwell in the Forest
of Dean, approached the king with a petition that he would
take all the Church's property into his own hand, merely it
seems to assert his abstract right to it, for Greindor was willing

1 Hardyng, 372; "in Powysia," Usk, 131.

2 Strecche, 266 a. 3 Vol. i. 519 sqq.

4 Wals. ii. 317.

5 Ibid.; Elmham, Lib. Metr. 147, 151.

6 Otterb. 278; Elmham, Lib. Metr. 151.

7 Claus. 4 Hen. V, 7 d; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 83; Cotton MS. Cleop. E. ii. f. 319.
The proclamations were published only in the midlands and the west.

8 On Nov. 16, 1416 (Claus. 4 Hen. V, 12 d).

9 Referred to by Elmham (Lib. Metr. 148) as Oldcastle's "preco."

14 1 7] Lollard Activity 87

that he should re-grant it to the Church. Henry had him sent
to prison for the bare suggestion, saying that he might as well
do the same with the property of every one of his subjects and
that he would rather be cut to pieces than lay a hand on the
Church's goods1. Not long afterwards Oldcastle himself
ventured within a few miles of London. At Barnet the tenants
of the abbot of St Albans showed disaffection, which eventually
came to rioting, and led to the appointment of a commission
of enquiry2. It was believed in the abbey that Oldcastle had
been staying for some days in the house of a peasant near
St Albans; and though he managed to escape when the secret
leaked out, many of his sympathisers were caught and clapped
into the abbot's prison. Compromising tracts were likewise
found, together with primers in which the nimbus round
saints' heads had been scratched off and the names of the
Virgin and saints rubbed out in many places. One of these
books was sent to the king, who forwarded it to Archbishop
Chichele with orders that the mutilated pictures should be
publicly exposed during sermon time at Paul's Cross as
a warning of the lengths to which Lollard frenzy could
go3.

Meanwhile the Scots were making great preparations to re-
cover lost ground on the border as soon as the king had left
for France. In England it was believed that Oldcastle had had
an interview with William Douglas at Pontefract4, and it was
even said that he had entered into a written agreement with
the duke of Albany5. It is certain that an understanding did
exist, that the duke of Albany was beginning to tire of main-
taining the pseudo-Richard at his own expense6, and that
Lollard emissaries were passing busily about inciting the dales-
men of Yorkshire and Northumberland to be ready to acclaim
King Richard as soon as he should appear amongst them.
Prominent among these emissaries was a Yorkshire squire

1 Elmham, loc. cit.; Capgr., De Illustr. 121. [The story rests on very slender
authority.]

2 Dated Sept. 17, 1417 (Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 143). Cf. Monast. ii. 198.

3 Wals. ii. 326. 4 Ibid. 325.

6 Otterb. 278, who states that the actual documents had been found; Stow, 355.

6 A note appears in the Scottish Exchequer Rolls under date of July 12, 1417,
showing that the governor — i.e. the duke of Albany — had received no money at all
for the custody of Richard king of England since the death of Robert III eleven years
before, his claims now amounting to £733. 6s. %d. or one hundred marks per annum
(Exch. Rolls, Scot. iv. 289; Menteith, i. 229).

88 The Fate of Oldcastle [ch. liv

named Henry Talbot, from the Forest of Bowland1. He had
already got into trouble owing to intrigues in 141 32, and in
141 5 had almost succeeded in getting the duke of Albany's
son Murdach out of the hands of the English as they were
conducting him to the border3. On both of these occasions he
had escaped scot-free, but this time he fell into the hands of
the king's officers. Enquiries held by the earl of Westmorland
and two judges4 at Newcastle and at Masham fully established
his treason, and he was sent to London. On May 1, 141 7, he
was brought to Westminster, where he admitted his guilt,
saying that he had acted at the instigation of some of the
bishops and other churchmen in order to destroy sin in
England. Brought up again on May 4, he was personally
questioned by the king, and then pleaded that at the last
examination he had been frightened and did not know what he
was saying. He then put himself on the country, but on June 1 3
he was sentenced to be drawn from the Tower to Tyburn and
there to be beheaded. His head was exposed on London
Bridge, and his quarters, wrapped in wax-cloth, were sent in
sacks to be exposed on the gates of Chester, Lancaster, New-
castle, and York5.

The government continued to be active against Lollardy.
On July 23 Thomas Brook, the husband of Oldcastle's step-
daughter, had to find security that he would not promote
gatherings of his tenants in Somerset or communicate with
Oldcastle within the next six months6. And about the time
that Henry sailed orders were issued to the sheriff of Hamp-
shire for the arrest of two priests, Richard Wyche and William
Brown, who were suspiciously connected with money be-
longing to Oldcastle7.

Some time before the king sailed messengers8 had arrived
with news that the Scots were threatening Roxburgh, and these
were soon followed by John Bertram, one of the commanders

1 Goodwin, 168. 2 Vol. i. 34. 3 Ibid. 515.

4 Richard Norton and James Strangways, Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 4601/103 (135).

5 These details are known from the record of the charges made by Robert Whitting-
ton and John Coventry, the sheriffs of London, who carried out the arrangements for
the execution (For. Accts. 51, C).

6 Claus. 5 Hen. V, 18 d.

7 Devon, 352, shows that they had been captured before Oct. 21, 1417. Wyche had
already been in trouble for heresy, and was destined to die at the stake in 1440 (Wylie,
iii. 463 sqq.; Fascic. Ziz. 501; Kingsford, Chron. 147, 153, 312; Fabyan, 613; Mon.
Fran. ii. 171; Stow, Chron. 378).

8 For payments to them, see Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V, Pasch., Aug. 3, 14 17.

1417] The Foul Raid 89

of the place, who came in person to Southampton to press for
the payment of the wages of his men1. The warning came none
too soon, for in the middle of August two large bodies of Scots
were in the field, one under the earl of Douglas prepared for an
attack on Roxburgh, the other under the duke of Albany being
directed against Berwick2. Despite timely warnings from the
north3, these movements appear to have taken the English
Council by surprise, for as late as Sept. 5 the king was still
under the belief that a truce was being arranged for the winter
and that troops that would otherwise be needed in the north
would thus be available to strengthen the army in Normandy4.
The duke of Albany, however, found Berwick no easy task to
handle. The place was defended with great determination by
Robert Umfraville, and the alarm spread with exceptional
speed throughout England. No sooner was it known that the
Scots were in motion than all England north of the Trent
rushed to arms. The duke of Exeter had started a round of
pilgrimages, with the intention of visiting York, Durham, and
Bridlington5, but on hearing of the danger he hastily collected
a force and marched northward to the rescue. Archbishop
Bowet was drawing near his end; his sight was failing and he
was breaking up with age6; but his old spirit of fight awoke
at the crisis: putting himself at the head of some thousands of
his tenantry, and accompanied by Stephen Scrope, archdeacon
of Richmond7, he drove straight to the scene of danger8.

1 He received £1000 at Southampton (Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V, Pasch., June 21, 30, and
Aug. 3, 1417). He and John Elton were appointed wardens of Roxburgh, with powers
"infra bundas de Tevythale" on Jan. 19, 1416 (Rot. Scot. ii. 214).

2 Gesta, 121.

3 On July 3 1 the earl of Northumberland, warden of the East March, wrote from
Warkworth that the duke of Albany was purposing to attack Berwick, and on Aug. 3
Robert Umfraville, writing from Berwick itself, said that Albany's force numbered
60,000 men and that the siege would probably begin in twenty days (Feed. ix. 307, 310;
the documents can belong to no other year than 14 17, in spite of the difficulty raised
by their being written in the king's own name).

4 This appears from a letter written from Caen to the chancellor, Bishop Langley,
in which he expresses a wish that the duke of Exeter shall cross to Normandy and give
help in the campaign there (Chanc. Warr., Ser. I, 1364/37).

6 Tit. Liv. 56; Gesta, 121; Wals. ii. 325.

6 Gesta, 121; Elmham, Lib. Metr. 152; Holinsh. Hi. 560. Cf. "pro paredespektakeles
de argento et de aurato," which his executors value at zos., Test. Ebor. iii. 70; Raine,
Hist. York, iii. 312; Wylie, ii. 351.

7 Elmham, Lib. Metr. 152. He was nephew of Archbishop Scrope and brother of
Henry Scrope, executed for treason in 1415. He was archdeacon of Richmond from
March 18, 1402 to his death on Sept. 5, 14 18 (Le Neve, iii. 139).

8 Tit. Liv. 56; Stow, Chron. 355.

90 The Fate of Oldcastle [ch. liv

This independent action was well supported by the government.
On Aug. 14 and 24 Bedford had called for troops to meet him
at Leicester and march thence against the Scots1. The duke was
at the rendezvous by Sept. 202. When the whole force mustered
under the lead of the earls of Northumberland and Westmorland
at Barmoor near Lowick, its numbers were very great3, and the
duke of Exeter is reported to have said that a large proportion
of the men were as good as any that were serving in France4.
In face of such opposition the Scots withdrew precipitately
from Berwick, leaving their siege train behind. On the way
back Albany set fire to Norham5, but this was all the satis-
faction that the Scots could reap from what was long remem-
bered as the Foul Raid6. At Roxburgh the earl of Douglas had
already commenced mining7 and was confident that the place
could not hold out for more than another fortnight8, but he
withdrew as soon as he heard of the failure at Berwick9. The
Scots now sought for peace10, but the tables were turned, and
Robert Umfraville not only harassed their retreat from
Berwick, but for the next two years harried them at Hawick,
Selkirk and Jedburgh, while all Ettrickdale, Lauderdale, and
Teviotdale lay defenceless at his mercy11.

To the Council at Westminster the news of the discomfiture
of the Scots must indeed have been welcome, but even more
so must have been the messenger who brought news from
Wales that John Oldcastle was at last under lock and key. It
happened that a parliament, summoned by writs of Oct. 5,

1 Rym. ix. 307, 310.

2 Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V, Pasch., Sept. 20, 1417; cf. Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 118.

3 Otterb., 278, who gives the number as 60,000; Wals. ii. 325 (100,000); Elmham,
Lib. Metr. 151 (100,000); Tit. Liv. 56 (100,000); Vita, 163 (100,000); Hardyng, 380;
Stow, Chron. 355. The numbers quoted are of course absurd, but it was evidently
believed everywhere that the force was an exceptionally large one. Mr Kingsford thinks
that Hardyng was present (E.H.R. xxv. 463).

4 Wals. ii. 326. Walsingham says that the duke applied his remark to 40,000 men.

5 Hardyng, 380 sq.; Otterb. 279.

6 Scotichron. (Hearne), iv. 1186; Ridpath, 385; Douglas Book, 8, 385; Hume
(Godscroft), 125. 7 Wals. ii. 325.

8 Otterb. 279. The narrow escape of Roxburgh led the English government to
strengthen the defences, provide large supplies of weapons, and pay arrears of wages to
the garrison (Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 146; Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V, Mich., Dec. 7, 27, 1417,
Feb. 1, March 1 and 5, 1418; ibid. 6 Hen. V, Pasch., June 1, Sept. 28, July n, 1418;
Cal. Doc. Scot. iv. 176).

9 Money was also spent on the strengthening of Berwick (For. Accts. 52, B; Iss.
Roll 6 Hen. V, Pasch., April 4, May 9, 1418; ibid. Mich., Oct. 10, 1418).

10 Hardyng, 381.

11 Ibid. 382; Goodwin, 169.

1417] " Take Comfort" 91

met at Westminster on Nov. 161. Only one duke — Exeter —
and three earls — Northumberland, Westmorland, and Devon —
were summoned, and only fourteen barons, none of whose
names is new. For the commons there are returns for
twenty-six counties and sixty-seven boroughs2; none of the
individual members is specially notable. On the opening day
Bishop Langley addressed the whole parliament in the Painted
Chamber on the words "Take comfort, be men ! and ye shall
be glorious3." He sang the praises of the king, who had now
added to his previous triumphs by conquering many walled
towns and castles in Normandy, urging that it was for the
country to support the expedition in France and check the
malice of the Scots. Then the commons chose Roger Flower to
be their speaker for the second time, and the sittings were
continued from day to day till Dec. 17 when the members
separated after granting two tenths and two fifteenths, one
payable at Candlemas next and the other a year later4. The
southern convocation met at St Paul's on Nov. 26, and sat
till Dec. 205, when it granted two tenths, to be levied at
the same intervals as those of the commons. The northern
convocation met at York on Jan. 20, 141 8, granted a tenth,
and broke up on Jan. 2 66. No statute of any kind resulted
from the meeting of this parliament, but the southern con-
vocation made an attempt to remedy an acknowledged
grievance. For some years complaints had been growing that
graduates of the English universities found no preferment in
the Church such as they claimed should be their reward after
their long years of study7. To obviate this evil and check the
decay from which the universities were suffering, an order, to
hold good for ten years, was promulgated by Archbishop
Chichele that every spiritual patron must henceforward select
a graduate to fill the first and every third subsequent vacancy

1 Claus. 5 Hen. V, n d; Rot. Pari. iv. 106.

2 Return Pari. i. 289 sqq. No returns have been found for Lancashire, Leicestershire,
Lincolnshire, Rutland, Hampshire, Staffordshire, Suffolk, Warwickshire, Westmorland,
Worcestershire, or Yorkshire.

3 1 Sam. iv. 9 — not 1 Cor. xvi. 13, as the speech shows. Neither passage contains the
words "et gloriosi eritis."

4 Rot. Pari. iv. 107; Usk, 130, 131; Rec. Roll 6 Hen. V, Pasch., April 4, 1418;
ibid. Mich., Feb. 14, 1419; Dep. Keep. Rept. 2, App. 11. p. 187.

5 Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 4601/145 (184); Cone. iii. 381; D.K.R. 2, App. II. p. 188.

6 Cone. ii. 389; Wake, 353.

7 Rot. Pari. iv. 81.

92 The Fate of Oldcastle [ch. liv

in each of his benefices, elaborate provisions being laid down to
ensure that those of the most exalted academic rank should get
the best positions1. The proposal, however, encountered ob-
jections on the part of the graduates themselves, as it would
have entailed certain drastic reforms in the conditions under
which degrees were then conferred2. Little if anything can
have come of the measure, as further legislation was deemed
advisable in 14213.

But if the legislative fruit was scanty, yet the sittings of both
parliament and convocation will ever be memorable for the
tragedy which marked their close. The belief that Oldcastle
was in collusion with the Scots had apparently led the govern-
ment to redouble its efforts to capture him. When the duke of
Bedford was passing through the midlands on his way back
from the Border, he had many Lollards seized and thrown into
prison4. About the middle of October he despatched to John
Merbury in Wales a letter which doubtless had its bearing on
subsequent events5. Early in November the sheriff of Kent
was ordered to seize Oldcastle's goods, which long ago had
been declared forfeited — a task in which he was resisted by
organised bands and required the support of an armed guard6.
About the same time fresh writs for Oldcastle's arrest were
sent to all the sheriffs7, while his wife Joan and one of her
servants named Simon Clere were sent to the Tower8. On
Dec. 1 the news of his capture was known in London. The
honour of effecting it fell to four Welshmen, two of whom are
described as gentlemen and two as yeomen9. All were tenants of
Edward Charlton lord of Powys10. The scene of the arrest is said
to have been in Powysland, and the only precise statement from
a contemporary places it at Welshpool11. There is a tradition,

I Cone. iii. 381 sq. 2 Ibid. 383 sq.

3 See below, pp. 282 sq. 4 Elmham, Lib. Metr. 152.

5 For payment to the messenger, see Iss. Roll 5 Hen. V, Mich., Oct. 21, 1417.

6 Devon, 353. 7 Ibid. 349.

8 Claus. 5 Hen. V, 7.

9 "Jevan and Gruffuth sones of Gruffuth ap Jevan ap Madoc ap Gwennoys of
Powys Londe gentilmen and Hoel ap Gruffith ap David ap Madoc and Dero ap Jevan
ap Jorum ap Ada of the same Lond, Zemen" (Orig. Lett. 2nd Ser. i. 87). The father
of the two gentlemen is called Sir Griffith Vaughan, lord of Burgedin, in Arch.
Cambrensis, Ser. 1, i. 47.

10 For a document of June 6, 1420, in which Charlton rewards them for their achieve-
ment, see ibid.

II "In villa Walshpole," Strecche, 266 a, who however dates the capture in "Anno
IV."

14 1 7] Arrest 93

however, that Oldcastle was taken at Broniarth in the parish
of Guilsfield, where an enclosure is still known as Cobham's
garden1. His arrest was not achieved without a violent struggle,
for he was a man of great bodily strength2, but at length he was
badly wounded3, overpowered, and carried to the castle at
Welshpool, a story soon being current that he was knocked
down by a blow from a footstool aimed at his shin by a woman4.
On Dec. 1 orders were issued to Charlton to bring his prisoner
to London with all speed that his case might be taken in hand
by the Council5. Wounded and broken, Oldcastle was placed
in a horse-litter6, and, accompanied by a clerk who had been
privy to all his secrets, was sent to the capital under a strong
guard and lodged in the Tower. On Dec. 147 he was brought
before parliament, where the Chief Justice, William Hankford,
produced the record of the indictment under which he had been
adjudged a traitor four years before. Then Archbishop Chichele
read the pronouncement of his excommunication. He was asked
if he had any reason to show why these sentences should not
take effect. At the outset he appealed to the God of mercy,
and cried out that all who would be like God must put mercy
before justice, and leave vengeance to Him. At this those
present grew impatient and the Chief Justice urged the regent
not to tolerate such waste of time. Told to keep more to the
point, Oldcastle, after a short silence, exclaimed, "With me it
is a small thing that I should be judged of you or of man's day8,"
and then wandered off again into the same irrelevancies9.
When the Chief Justice called for his final answer, he said
defiantly that he recognised no judge there, for his proper judge,
King Richard, was in Scotland10. No witnesses were called or
needed; parliament at once declared that he should be drawn,
hanged, and burnt; and the sentence was executed without
delay11. Taken back to the Tower, he was tied down to the

1 Arch. Camb., loc. cit.; Montgomeryshire Collections, 290; Robinson, Castles, 4;
Tyler, ii. 391, who calls it Lord Cobham's Field and refers to a tradition that it was
granted to one of the ancestors of the Ormsby-Gore family as a reward for the
capture.

2 Wals. ii. 291; Capgr., De Illustr. 122.

3 Leland, Coll. ii. 488; Chron. Ric. II-Hen. VI, 46.
* Capgr., loc. cit.; cf. Elmham, Lib. Metr. 158.

6 Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 145; Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 4601/142 (181); Tit. Liv. 219.

6 Elmham, Lib. Metr. 158; Chron. Ric. II-Hen. VI, 46; Brut, ii. 386; Greg.,
Chron. 116.

7 Rot. Pari. iv. 108. 8 1 Cor. iv. 3. 9 Wals. ii. 328.

10 Cf. Elmham, Lib. Metr. 158. n Ibid. 159; Otterb. 280.

94 The Fate of Oldcastle [ch. liv

hurdle, and drawn through the streets to St Giles' Field1, where
a vast crowd had assembled2. The regent, who was present
with many other notables, urged him to confess to some priest,
but he answered that if the apostles Peter and Paul themselves
were there, he would not have them3; and he adjured Sir
Thomas Erpingham, who once had been a Lollard like himself,
to say a word for his surviving fellows when he had risen again
on the third day4. A gibbet had already been erected, and
faggots piled below; an iron chain was passed about his body5;
the fire was kindled; and they hung him roasting slowly above
it till the flames consumed his body and the gallows as well6.
No cry escaped him7, as he swung in torture so intolerable to
modern imagination that some writers have supposed the fire
to have been lighted only after he had been hanged. In favour
of this view is the evidence of a nearly contemporary authority,
who asserts that Oldcastle was "first drawn and hanged, after-
wards disembowelled, and cut into pieces, and lastly consumed
in the fire8." But apart from the fact that no other writer makes
any reference to dismembering or disembowelling, it is certain
that fire and chain were meant to be two separate portions of
a double punishment9. Oldcastle had often been spoken of by
his friends as Elijah10, an extravagance which now drew the jeer
that he had gone in a chariot of fire to hell11. Remembering his
oft-repeated saying that he would rise again on the third day,
a crowd assembled two days after his punishment to see if this
would come to pass. Finding that no resurrection had taken
place, the martyr's friends gathered handfuls of the ashes to
rub upon their eyes, which (according to a triumphant canon)
only sent them stone blind12. Such gibes were but a reflex of
the callous feeling of England as a whole. For it is clear that
his fate roused little passion in the country, and there was none

1 Grey Friars Chron. 166; Peter. Chron. 488; Kingsford, Chron. 72; For. Accts.
52, A.

2 Strecche, 266 a. 3 Elmham, Lib. Metr. 159; Capgr., De Illustr. 122.
4 Wals. ii. 328. 5 Kingsford, Chron. 72, Lit. 318; Brut, ii. 386.

s Usk, 131; Chron. Lond. 106; Kingsford, Chron. 126; Three Fifteenth Cent.
Chrons. 56; Caxton, 229.

7 Elmham, Lib. Metr. 159. 8 Capgr., De Illustr. 123.

9 Gilles de Rais was "pendu et brule vif" in 1440 (Bossard, 329). In 1538, at
Smithfield, Dr Forest was "hanged in chains by the middle and armholes al quicke and
under the galowes was made a fire," Halle, 825.

10 Elmham, Lib. Metr. 151, 158.

11 Capgr., De Illustr. 122; Foxe, iii. 543.

12 Strecche, 266 a; cf. Kingsford, Lit. 41.

1 417] " Oldcastle died a Martyr" 95

to fill his place. Six days after his death the mayor of London
wrote to the king without mentioning his name, asserting that
the capital stood in as great peace and tranquillity as ever did
city in the absence of its sovereign lord1.

The lady Joan was still a prisoner in the Tower when her
husband was executed, but she was released a few days after-
wards, three knights — John Pelham, Thomas Erpingham, and
Simon Felbrigge — giving bonds of 200 marks each that she
would come up before the Council within twenty-one days of
being summoned2. As for the rewards to the captors, parlia-
ment had reported on Dec. 17 that the 1000 marks should be
paid to Charlton3; but the Welshmen who had personally
effected the capture had also to be considered. Their claims
were not settled till March, 142 14; they were, however, more
fortunate than Charlton, who died before receiving payment,
and it was not until 1422 that even a portion of the money was
paid to his widow5.

To the modern mind it is doubtless disheartening to find
that the leader of the inevitable struggle so nobly begun on
behalf of the emancipation of the human mind should have
ended by entangling himself with secular movements of re-
bellion. This feature of his career proved indeed so disconcerting
to his admirers in the sixteenth century that for a long time it
was denied that he was ever a rebel or intrigued with his
country's enemies. But the facts are now incontestably proved,
and if extenuation is required, it must be looked for in the
temper of the age. Both sides looked to force to further their
opinions, and if it is true that the bishops' remedy was to burn
the Lollards, it is no less true that the Lollards' remedy was to
kill the bishops. In the eyes of contemporaries, however, his
heresy bulked far more largely than his treason, and far worse
than his intrigue with the Scots and the puppet "Richard" was
his denial of the efficacy of prayer to the Virgin and the saints,
of the necessity or value of confession to a priest, and of the

1 Riley, Mem. 659. 2 Claus. 5 Hen. V, 7.

3 Rot. Pari. iv. 111. 4 Orig. Lett., Ser. II, i. 87.

5 Devon, 370. [Henry Oldcastle, the Lollard's only surviving son, succeeded to part
of his father's property in Herefordshire, and probably recovered the manor of Almaly
and other possessions in 143 1; but it cost him much trouble to establish his claim, and
in 1438 some of his father's land in the county was still in the king's hand (Cal. Pat.
1422-29, pp. 546 sqq.; ibid. 1429-36, pp. 177 sq.; ibid. 1436-41, p. 309; G.E.C. yi.
1 19). Henry Oldcastle became a man of some account, and represented Herefordshire in
the parliaments of 1437, 1442, and 1453 (Return Pari. i. 329, 333, 347).]

g6 The Fate of Oldcastle [ch. liv

change of the substantial bread into the body of God. It was
such opinions that gave him a motive for open spiritual revolt,
and if in the tumult he attempted to secure his end by in-
surrection and sedition, the whole course of his career proves
that he was no mere ambitious demagogue, but a single-
minded enthusiast whose conscience forced him to head the
rising movement of religious discontent and whose downright
earnestness compelled him to pursue his purpose by every
means and at any cost against a persecuting dynasty whose
claim to govern England rested upon no better ground than a
recent and successful revolution1.

1 [Dr Wylie evidently felt strongly on the subject of Oldcastle, and whenever possible
I have retained the exact words of those passages of his MS. which treat of Sir John's
death, character, and motives. With some of his conclusions and opinions, however, I
cannot agree.]

CHAPTER LV

ABORTIVE DIPLOMACY

The clash of arms had not altogether silenced the voice of
diplomacy since Henry had landed at Touques. Communica-
tion had very soon been opened with the French court with a
view to a possible compromise of the dispute. Henry had
written to Charles on Aug. 13, 141 7, and Charles had replied
from Paris on Aug. 311. Formal debates as to the abstract
legality of Henry's claim had actually been conducted by
heralds on each side up to the eve of the day when Caen was
carried by assault2; and while Henry was at Caen, letters had
been received from the French king expressing a desire for
peace3. On Sept. 24, 141 7, the archbishop of Rheims,
Gontier Col, Jean de Wailli (President of the Parlement of
Paris), and four other negotiators were granted safe-conducts
to come to some place between Honfleur and Touques4, and
on Oct. 1 the earl of Warwick and five others were appointed
to treat with them5. The French envoys received their formal
appointment in Paris on Oct. 26, their safe-conduct was re-
newed on Oct. 227, and by Nov. 10 two of them were in Falaise
commanding the garrison there and preparing for the expected
English attack8. On Nov. 10 safe-conducts were issued for the
archbishop of Rheims and one of his fellow-envoys to approach
the presence of Henry, together with the two who were organis-
ing the defence of Falaise9, and yet another safe-conduct was
issued for the archbishop on Dec. 2310. These inconclusive
arrangements show that negotiations were never allowed to
drop, though we are almost wholly ignorant of what occurred.
We know, on the authority of a French contemporary11, that
the French envoys were courteously received by the English

1 Coll. of Arms, Arundel MS. xxix. f. 55; Black, 43.

2 Ibid. 37, from Arundel MS. xxvi.

3 Rym. ix. 497, 517. 4 Ibid. 494sq.

5 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 168, 170. 6 Rym. ix. 498.

7 Ibid. 505. 8 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 197, 312.

9 Ibid. 197. 10 Ibid. 222.
11 Juv. 535.

Will 7

98 Abortive Diplomacy [ch. lv

king, but that it was found that his conditions were impossible
of acceptance. There is, however, a record of one of the meetings
which shows that the feeling on both sides was too irritated to
make a friendly arrangement at all probable. The parties met
on Nov. 281 at the manor house of Barneville-le-Bertrand in
the woods between Honfleur and Touques2. The party were
seated on chairs, and the French case was stated by the arch-
bishop of Rheims, who referred to the readiness expressed on
both sides to come to terms, but pointed out that he and his
colleagues had been kept waiting for at least six weeks at
Honfleur, while heralds which they had sent to the English
king had been arrested and detained. Against this disregard
of the sanctity of safe-conducts he most earnestly protested and
begged that the English envoys would do their best to see that
the heralds were released. To this Master Philip Morgan
politely replied, denying that his side was responsible for the
failure of previous negotiations or that the present delay was
due to any fault of theirs. On the contrary, he said, the blame
rested altogether with the French, who had failed to issue proper
safe-conducts. As for the arrest of the heralds, he had no in-
structions, but there must have been some good reason for
their detention. The archbishop replied that he did not want
to insist on past grievances. For the failure at Beauvais the
year before, Sigismund was responsible. As a guarantee of
good faith, the French exhibited their commissions. Here the
document breaks off, and what follows is a commission of two
years later. We are thus unable to say whether any serious
business was transacted at this meeting, but from another
source we learn that the Frenchmen left with an assurance that
it would not be long before they returned and that the war
would soon be at an end3. As a matter of fact, they were back
in Paris by Dec. 21, 141 74, and soon afterwards visited King
Henry during the siege of Falaise, though peace of course was
quite beyond hope5.

Just before the king sailed in 141 7, Bishop Beaufort re-
signed the chancellorship and received a safe-conduct to enable

1 Rym. ix. 517, from Cotton MS. Tiberius, E vi. f. 104. No year is specified in the
document, but the mention of Walter Hungerford, Thomas Chaucer, John Kemp,
and Philip Morgan as the English negotiators seems to fix it as belonging to 14 17, as
does the presence of the archbishop of Rheims and Gontier Col among the French.

2 Vita, 126. , 3 Tit. Liv. 45.

4 St Denys, vi. 108. 5 Tit. Liv. 45; Vita, 126; Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 222.

14 1 7] The Schism Ended 99

him to go abroad, asserting that he was about to visit the Holy
Land1. He gave up the great seal to the king in the chapel
over the porch of the priory church at Southwick. The king
straightway handed it to Thomas Langley, bishop of Durham,
who remained chancellor of England for the next seven years2.
This change has sometimes been spoken of by modern writers
as Beaufort's "fall," as though he had for some reason lost
favour with Henry, but there seems no reason for any such
supposition, for he had just lent the king £ 14,000s, and the
sequel shows that he had merely resigned the great seal to fly
at higher game. On leaving England he made his way to the
Council of Constance. At Ulm he was met by Bishop Caterick
with a special letter of welcome from Sigismund, who had sent
two Italian noblemen to attend upon him4. When he reached
Constance about the beginning of October he was received by
the emperor and three of the cardinals5. In the dispute then
raging as to whether the election of a pope should precede
reform, he threw his influence on the side of an immediate
election6, and little more than a month after his arrival the
conclave was held which resulted in the election of Martin V.
The rapidity with which this great step in the direction of
official unity, hitherto opposed by Sigismund, followed upon
Beaufort's arrival led to the suspicion that there was an under-
standing between the two that the bishop himself should be
the new pope, for Sigismund had made no secret of his deter-
mination to have either a German or an Englishman elected7.
But the strength of the French element in the college precluded
any chance of his election, and the English threw their weight
on the side of Cardinal Colonna, who was eventually chosen8.
Beaufort was offered consolation by Martin V in the shape of
a cardinal's hat with the office of legate in Wales and Ireland;
but moved by Archbishop Chichele's remonstrances9, the king
forbad him to accept either offer; and he did not become a

1 Rym. ix. 472; D.K.R. xliv. 599; Wals. ii. 319.

2 Rym. x. 340. 3 Rot. Pari. iv. 132.

4 Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 236; Lenfant (trans.), ii. 143; [Finke, Acta, ii. 147].

5 [Fillastre's journal shows that he arrived between Sept. 27 and Oct. 9, Finke, Acta,
ii. 147.]

6 Lenfant, ii. 442; Otterbourne, 279; Walsingham, ii. 319; Angl. Sacr. i. 800.
[According to Fillastre, however, the English representatives, acting under instructions
from Henry, had inclined towards this policy before Beaufort's arrival, Finke, Acta,
ii. 139.]

7 Finke, Forsch. 227, Acta, ii. 148; St Denys, vi. 58. 8 [Finke, Acta, ii. 158.]
9 Duck, Vita Chich. 78 sq.;. Stevenson, Wars, ii. pt. 2, 441.

7-2

ioo Abortive Diplomacy [ch. lv

cardinal till 1426. Beaufort himself refused a request that he
would take over the custody of the deposed John XXIII1; and
when winter drew towards its end, he set out for Venice,
astonishing many people who had thought his pilgrimage a
mere pretext2. Accompanied by Abbot Spofford of St Mary's,
York, and sixty mounted attendants, he arrived in the city on
March 18, 141 83. He was honourably welcomed by the Doge
and entertained with great respect, as was fitting in the case
of a man with an income of 100,000 gold ducats4. His journey
to Jerusalem, however, was marked by no pomp, for his
personal suite consisted of but eight persons when he set sail
from Venice on April 10, accompanied by fifteen or sixteen
pilgrims, all of whose expenses he paid. He had given special
orders that no word should be forwarded about his journey,
so that he might be quite unexpected on his arrival; and in
fact, but for the Venetian records, we should know virtually
nothing about the pilgrimage and might have been tempted to
regard the English safe-conduct as nothing but a blind5. Five
months later Beaufort returned in a Rhodes galley, landing at
Venice on Sept. io6. On his way home he seems to have halted
at Mantua for another interview with Pope Martin V. There
he took up in his train one of the most notable Italians of the
Renaissance, Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini, who accom-
panied Beaufort in the hope of bettering his prospects7.

One of the first efforts of the new pope Martin V was
directed towards the reconciliation of France and England. He
despatched two of the leading cardinals — Orsini and Fillastre —
whose first instructions were issued at Constance on March 1 8,
141 88. They did not, however, leave Constance till April 29;
and in the meanwhile Sigismund had remonstrated so strongly
against his omission from the terms of pacification that supple-
mentary instructions, dated April 3, were drawn up10. By
April 24 the two cardinals had reached Troyes, then the head-
quarters of the government of Queen Isabel and the duke of
Burgundy. Here they prepared to take part in the negotiations

1 Rym. ix. 540. 2 Cal. Pap. Lett. vii. 6; [Finke, Acta, ii. 148].

3 Morosini, ii. 158. 4 Ibid.

5 For a reference to his journey to Jerusalem, see Otterbourne, 279.

6 Morosini, ii. 164; Sanuto, 923.

7 Morosini, ii. 166 n.; Shepherd, in sq.; Walser, 71.

8 Rym. ix. 558 sqq.; Cal. Pap. Lett. vii. 7.

9 [Finke, Acta, ii. 168.] 10 Rym. ix. 569.

14 1 8] Papal Mediation 101

with the Paris government that were proceeding at La Tombe,
and at the same time they wrote to King Henry requesting that,
owing to the insecurity of the roads, separate safe-conducts
might be made out for one hundred attendants with each of
them1. The safe-conduct for Cardinal Orsini was issued on
May 142, ten days before Henry left Caen for his summer
campaign. But before setting out for Normandy Orsini
went to Paris, and it was not until the middle of June
that he set out thence to visit Henry at Louviers, where he
arrived on June 24, just as the siege was over3. He was
honourably received and given a respectful hearing, though
after what had lately happened in Paris Henry was more than
ever convinced that he had been chosen by God to chastise the
sinful French4. Orsini was soon joined by Fillastre5, and
negotiations were still proceeding on July 216. In the end,
however, the cardinals found the task of peace-making quite
beyond their powers. They had to content themselves with
minor successes — such as obtaining favour for Jean Langret,
bishop of Bayeux, who was then at Constance and had indicated
his readiness to do homage to Henry7, and for Nicolas de
Clemanges, cantor of the cathedral, famous for his denuncia-
tions of the corruption of the Church8.

In the meantime there had been sensational happenings among
the French. After several meetings at La Tombe the claims of
each party were set forth in a couple of state papers dated April 2 5,
141 89. These made it evident that there was no basis of agree-
ment; and neither side in its reply did anything to improve the
situation. About this time there arrived cardinals Orsini and
Fillastre, who conferred with the representatives of both parties10.
Cardinal Fillastre then went forward to Paris with the archbishop
of Rheims to explain the purpose of his mission to the king11, his
exhortations being sympathetically heard by the Council, which

I Rym. ix. 578. 2 Ibid. 588. 3 St Denys, vi. 250; Tit. Liv. 58; Goodwin, 178.

4 Vita, 170; St Denys, vi. 250. See below, pp. 102 sqq.

5 D.K.R. xli. 693. 6 Delpit, 222; Gesta, 123.

7 Rym. ix. 567. The bishop seems never to have presented himself before Henry,
but died at Paris in July, 1419 (Gams, 507; Eubel, i. 127).

8 Rym. ix. 577; D.K.R. xli. 692; Beziers, Hist. App. 17, Mem. i. 380; Puiseux,
Emigr. 29.

9 St Denys, vi. 208-226; Beaucourt, i. 80-85.

10 Belleforest, Chron. 323 a; Monstr. iii. 256; Juv. 540.

II Cordeliers, 252; Monstr. iii. 256; Douet d'Arcq, i. 397; [Bibl. £c. Chartes, xlix.
435; Valois, iv. 431 sq.].

102 Abortive Diplomacy [ch. lv

of course gave him to understand that the obstacle to peace
was the duke of Burgundy. He soon rejoined his colleague at
Montereau, and the two assiduously attended the discussions
of the hostile factions. How it happened is not clear, but
within a few days the two sides had entered into a pro-
visional agreement1, which was duly signed by the envoys,
who thereupon departed to secure its ratification by their
respective chiefs. Naturally the duke of Burgundy was quite
content2 and the population of Paris received the king's envoys
with great rejoicing3. But the count of Armagnac refused to
look at the agreement, and when the bishop of Paris got a
council called together by the dauphin, he refused to attend4.
Nevertheless a three weeks' truce was officially announced in
Paris on May 27s, and this, together with the fact that a com-
promise should have been seriously considered at all, shows
that a great rift had been made in the power of the count of
Armagnac, who no longer had the city in his grasp. A few
weeks before he had returned discredited from a vain attempt
to reduce one of the smallest fortified towns in the neighbour-
hood6, which defied him even after a two months' siege. Mean-
while, Paris was full of disease, food had risen to famine prices,
robbery and violence were rife, and fiendish cruelties were
perpetrated in the streets. Yet with all this misery and dis-
content prevailing, the constable relaxed nothing of his severity,
forcing his will upon the Parisians as though they were slaves.
He seized the stuff of the workmen's looms for tents and
pavilions7, and when the workmen clamoured for their pay,
told them in his brutal Gascon that they ought to have a penny
to buy a halter8. Sooner than entertain the thought of peace
with Burgundy he would sell Paris to the English9.

The announcement of a mere truce instead of the expected
peace seems to have been the last straw. Nine desperate men,
two of them priests, sent a secret message to the Burgundians,
assuring them that once they could get a foothold in the city

1 "Tomberent en un appointement," Paradin, 624; "tombent d'accord," Vanden-
broeck, 133; St Denys, vi. 228; Juv. 540.

2 Cordeliers, 253.

3 St Denys, vi. 228; Boulay, v. 331.

4 Monstr. iii. 257; Denifle, Chart, iv. 346.

5 Felibien, ii. 786, 792; Juv. 540.

6 i.e. Senlis. Cordeliers, 248-251; Flammermont, 206, 278; St Denys, vi. 198;
Bourgeois, 85 sq.; Paradin, 626; Felibien, iv. 566.

7 Bourgeois, 86. 8 Ibid. 92 sq. 9 Ibid. 87, 97.

14 1 8] The Burgundian Terror 103

all danger would be over, for all Paris would be with them and
many of the Armagnacs were absent in the field against the
English1. Early in the morning of Sunday, May 29, 600 or
700 horsemen from Pontoise, under Jean de Villiers, lord of
L'Isle Adam, were clandestinely admitted at the Porte St
Germain2. They were soon joined by 400 well-armed townsmen,
who were in readiness. These raised the shout, "Our Lady and
the peace !" the partisans of Burgundy poured from the houses,
and the streets were soon thronged with thousands of men
armed with any old weapon or tool that came to hand3, wearing
the St Andrew's cross of the duke of Burgundy4, and shouting,
"Long live the king, the dauphin and the peace5!" The houses
of Armagnacs were plundered, and their occupants seized and
murdered in the streets or flung into the prisons. The constable
escaped in disguise to the cottage of a bricklayer6, who however
gave him up, and he was taken to the Little Chatelet7 and after-
wards lodged in the Round Tower of the Palace8. The king,
who was sunk in inertia, was treated by the lord of L'Isle Adam
and his associates with profound respect; for his part he re-
ceived them graciously9 and on the day after their entry suffered
himself to be taken by them through the streets amid the cheers
of the populace10. When the alarm was given, Tanneguy du
Chastel, the prevot of Paris, managed to rush the dauphin to
the Bastille of St Antoine11, whence he was conveyed to a place
of safety at Melun12.

Fifty Armagnacs in the Bastille kept up a lively fire on the
Burgundians and held them at bay until, three days later, an
Armagnac force, 1400 strong, entered the city from St Denis13

1 Longnon, 34; Bourgeois, 87 sq.; Norm. Chron. (Hellot), 37; Raoulet, 160.

2 Felibien, iv. 566, 569; Mart. Anec. ii. 1950; Monstr. iii. 260 sq.; Juv. 540;
Cousinot, 169; St Denys, vi. 230; Norm. Chron. 184; Vallet de Viriville, Instruction,
362; Denifle, Auctarium, ii. 244; Anselme, vii. 10; Longnon, 21; Beaucourt, i. 86, 99.

3 St Denys, vi. 232.

4 Felibien, iv. 567; Gabriel Daniel, iii. 892, 894.

5 Bourgeois, 89. "Vive le roi et le due de Bourgogne; que ceux qui veulent la
paix se joignent a nous" (St Denys, vi. 232). Cf. Monstr. iii. 262; Juv. 540.

6 St Denys, vi. 234; Juv. 540.

7 Felibien, iv. 567; Bourgeois, 92, n. 1.

8 On June 6, Barante, iii. 235, 240; Felibien, iv. 569.

9 Cordeliers, 255; Bouvier, 435; Norm. Chron. 184; St Denys, vi. 232.

10 Ordonnances, x. 477; Le Fevre, 329; Felibien, iv. 566, 568; Barante, iii. 235, 237.

11 Raoulet, 161; Cordeliers, 260; Monstr. iii. 262; Le Fevre, i. 328; St Denys, vi. 232;
Pastoralet, 802; Barante, iii. 233; Beaucourt, i. 99.

12 Fenin, 269; Garnier, Documents, 48; Juv. 540; St Denys, vi. 234; Monstr. iii. 264.

13 Felibien, iv. 567; Longnon, 22; Garnier, 49; Beaucourt, i. 91.

104 Abortive Diplomacy [ch. lv

and at first made some progress, slaughtering and plundering
without mercy as they advanced with shouts of "Long live the
king, the dauphin, and the king of England ! Slay all ! Slay
all1 ! " But within the last days the Paris mob had been properly
armed, and now, headed by the new prevot Guy de Bar, the
town troops met the intruders and drove them slowly back in
bloody fighting2. Seeing the failure of the enterprise, the
Armagnacs three days later evacuated the Bastille3, and hence-
forth the Burgundians had Paris firmly in their grasp.

The populace, however, remained liable to panic — a state of
mind which led to ghastly consequences. In the evening of
Sunday, June 12, an alarm was raised that the Armagnacs were
getting in, and crowds gathered at the gates shouting, "Nous
sommes trahis !" Finding no trace of any enemy, they headed
frantically for the Maison de Ville on the Place de Greve.
Then arose a cry, "Slay, slay the Armagnac dogs!" and there
was a general rush for the prisons. The Armagnacs detained
at the Louvre escaped because the king was living there under
direct Burgundian protection ; but at all the other prisons they
were mercilessly butchered, and their bodies flung into the
streets to be mutilated and stripped. Among the victims were
four bishops4, two presidents of the Parlement^ and many
doctors of medicine and theology from the university. But the
most notable of those who perished was the count of Armagnac,
whose naked corpse lay for three days in the court-yard of
the Palace, subject to all manner of savage indignities5. The
number of persons killed in that terrible night was very variously
estimated; but one is not likely to be far wrong in accepting the
figure of 1 5 1 8 given by a chronicler who was present in the
city and entered particulars of current events in a journal day
by day6.

1 Bourgeois, 90. Monstr. (iii. 265) substitutes "le connestable d' Armagnac" for
the king of England, but on this point the "Bourgeois" is the better authority.

2 Norm. Chron. 185; St Denys, vi. 236; Cousinot, 171; Gaguin, cxiii; Felibien,
iv. 567, 572, 576. 3 Monstr. iii. 266.

4 Guillaume de Cantiers, of EVreux (Gall. Christ, xi. 601; Gams, 550; Eubel, i.
244, 283), Jean d'Achery, of Senlis (Gall. Christ, x. 1432; Gams, 628; Juv. 541;
Cousinot, 170), Pierre Fresnel, of Lisieux (Norm. Chron. 186; Gall. Christ, xi. 791;
Gams, 566; Eubel, i. 317) and Jean de Marie, of Coutances (Gall. Christ, xi. 890;
Eubel, i. 213).

5 Ordonnances, x. 478; Pastoralet, 807, 810; Norm. Chron. (Williams) 186, (Hellot)
38; G. Paradin, 630; Cordeliers, 259; Cagny, 113; Monstr. iii. 271; Le Fevre, i. 332;
Juv. 541; Raoulet, 162.

6 Bourgeois, 98.

i4l8J More Atrocities 105

Then began a month of gloom and terror. All the city gates
but two were barred, and trade was almost at a standstill.
Everyone longed for the arrival of the duke of Burgundy,
which alone could restore order and confidence. His counsellors
indeed had long been urging him to quit all other business and
hasten to Paris1; but he showed little concern at what was
passing, returned from Montbeliard by easy stages, spending
some time hunting and merry-making at Dijon2 and staying
for nearly a fortnight at Troyes3. At length, on July 14, he
entered Paris with great pomp and ceremony, accompanied by
the queen and the prince of Orange, amid the tumultuous
jubilation of the people4. The poor king received them kindly,
as he did everybody, and even thanked the duke for the kind-
ness he had shown to the queen5. The duke for his part at once
took steps to make the most of his precarious tenure of power,
securing money for the payment of his troops6 and filling all
offices, to the very humblest, with his nominees7. But he did
nothing in restraint of the Paris mob : indeed his conduct in
this relation lends colour to the charge that his delay in arriving
had been prompted by the hope that the Parisians would
lighten his task by making short work of the Armagnacs while
he could still deny responsibility for what happened8. However
that may be, the duke's arrival was followed by the arrest of
numerous alleged Armagnacs, and the prisons were again full
when on Aug. 20 there occurred another terrible outburst of
Parisian brutality; and for the whole of a night and part of a
day the butchery went on till at least 3500 victims had perished.
The murderers met with no opposition, except at the Chatelet,
where the prisoners sold their lives dearly, and at the Bastille,
where the duke of Burgundy himself pleaded in vain for some
restraint9.

1 Gamier, 50; Chastellux, 83. 2 Itin. 440; Gachard, 239.

3 Itin. 442.

4 Itin. 443; Bourgeois, 104; St Denys, vi. 252; Le Fevre, i. 332; Cordeliers, 260;
Monstr. iii. 272 sq.; Juv. 542. A member of the duke's suite wrote an account of the
pageant two days later. It has been published more than once — e.g. by A. Longnon
in the Bulletin de la Societe de l'Histoire de Paris, i. (1874), 104-109.

5 Fenin, 94, 95; Longnon, 107.

6 Plancher, iii. 494, 495, cccix.

7 Ordonnances, x. 459, 463; Cordeliers, 261; Fenin, 94 sq.; St Denys, vi. 260;
Norm. Chron. 186.

8 Cousinot, 173.

9 Felibien, iv. 569, 570; St Denys, vi. 248, 262; Bourgeois, 107 sqq.; Le Fevre,
*• 338j Juv. 543; Norm. Chron. 186; Denifle, Auct. ii. 252; Cousinot, 171, 173.

106 Abortive Diplomacy [ch. lv

It was perhaps this episode which determined the duke to
make a serious effort to secure peace. The Armagnacs, in any
case, were powerful; they had recovered to some extent from
the debacle of June; they held the person of the dauphin;
Tanneguy du Chastel had assumed the leadership; and they
had become aggressive and gained some minor successes in the
Loire valley1. Here the duke of Brittany, acting in the interests
of the dukes of Alencon and Anjou as well as his own, had been
trying to mediate between the two factions2; and it was while
he was engaged in these efforts that on Aug. 24 he received
from Paris an invitation to go there and lend his services to the
cause of a general reconciliation. Fearing to enter Paris itself
because of the pestilence raging in the city, he took up his
quarters at St Maur-des-Fosses, where, after conferences be-
tween him and the duke of Burgundy, "a kind of treaty3" was
arranged on Sept. 16, whereby the past was to be forgotten,
and Duke John and the dauphin were to join hands against the
common enemy. The terms of the agreement were read in the
Parlemenfi, the king signified his assent, and the Parisians again
lit bonfires5. But when the schedule was presented to the
dauphin for his ratification, it appeared that he had become
intractable. The duke of Brittany, he said, had overstepped his
powers, and he vowed that he would have no terms but the
punishment of the murderer who had killed his uncle and
multitudes of his loyal subjects6. He followed this up on
Sept. 21 by a violent manifesto, in which he denounced the
duke of Burgundy for approving of the Paris massacres, and
set up a Parlement of his own at Poitiers7. Civil peace in France
was more remote than ever.

1 Juv. 544; Delaville le Roulx, 179, 186; D. Sauvage, II, lxxi ; Belleforest, Chron. 325.

2 Delaville le Roulx, 170, 186-188.

3 "Une paix telle quelle," Bourgeois, 114; "une espece de traite," Gabriel Daniel,
iii. 894; cf. Ordonnances, x. 473, 476; Itin. 443; Plancher, iii. 500; Juv. 544.

4 Bourgeois, 114, n. 5; Felibien, iv. 571. For the text see St Denys, vi. 278 sqq.

5 Ibid. 282; Juv. 544; Fenin, 273.

6 Ibid. 272 sq.; Delaville le Roulx, 193; Cagny, 115.

7 Ordonnances, x. 477; Felibien, ii. 793; Cousinot, 151, 172; Gabriel Daniel,
iii. 895; Neuville, 4, 6.

CHAPTER LVI

THE CONQUEST OF LOWER NORMANDY COMPLETED

Despite some activity on the part of a bastard son of the late
duke of Alencon, who recaptured Fresnay-le-Vicomte, Beau-
mont-le-Vicomte, and about a dozen other strongholds on the
northern confines of Maine1, only three fortresses held out in
western Normandy when Henry left Caen for his summer
campaign. These were Domfront, Cherbourg, and Mont-St-
Michel. Though there was little hope of their being relieved,
they could render great service to their country by detaining
English forces before their walls. Mont-St-Michel, however,
was never seriously attacked by Henry V, and need hardly be
taken into account as a factor in the contest. Domfront, on the
other hand, could not be ignored. The castle, perched high on
a rock, defied mines, missiles, and ladders, and the earl of
Warwick, who was entrusted with the operations, resolved to
reduce it by hunger2. The blockade began early in April, but
the process was a tedious one, for the besiegers were kept on
the alert by frequent attacks from the garrison, while their
supplies were exposed to raids by bands of desperadoes who
lurked in the woods under the leadership of the Bastard of
Alencon3. Time, however, was on the side of the English. By
June 29 the town had fallen into their hands4, and on July 10
the castle agreed to surrender if no effective help should arrive
within twelve days; and at the end of that time, the garrison
marched out quietly with their arms and harness, leaving be-
hind their cannon and bombards5.

Meanwhile, another force, under the duke of Gloucester,
had been occupied with the strong fortress of Cherbourg. The

1 Juv. 540. Fresnay and Beaumont were taken between May 12 and Aug. 4 (D.K.R.
xli. 710; Triger, Beaumont, 31, n. 1).

2 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 183, 190, (Hellot) 35,45; Caillebotte, 19; Tit. Liv.
515 Vita, 144 sqq. On March 30, 1418, the earl of Warwick was ordered to seize all
castles, etc., "quae contra regem manu forti tenentur" (Brequigny, 210). For a nearly
contemporary picture of the siege of Domfront by the earl of Warwick, see Strutt,
Manners, ii. 126, Plate XLIII; Kingsford, 224.

3 Vita, 145; Juv. 540. * A. Collins, viii. 107.
5 Rym. ix. 601; Tit. Liv. 51; Vita, 146.

108 Conquest of Lower Normandy Completed [ch. lvi

town of Cherbourg stands on a low sandy flat at the foot of
steep hills, where the little river Divette empties itself into the
sea. It had long been defended on its northern side by a castle
which Froissart classed as among the strongest in the world1.
The castle, which lay altogether within the town walls, con-
tained accommodation for iooo men and storage for supplies
sufficient for a long siege2. The town walls, which had not been
completed till the middle of the fourteenth century, were from
five to six feet in thickness. At every tide the sea came up to
the walls, and at high floods the town was almost surrounded
by water owing to the deep ditches, cut in the underlying rock,
which hemmed it in on the south3. It is no wonder that the
place was thought impregnable4, and when after its capture a
proposal was made to strengthen it further, the English captain
argued that nothing need be done, as it was stronger than Caen,
Rouen, or any other place captured by the English5.

After sending forward some knights to report on the pro-
spects of success, the duke of Gloucester proceeded to plan his
attack. The east side of the town was inaccessible, the bridge
across the harbour having been destroyed at the first warning
of the approach of the English6. The main portion of the army
was therefore encamped on the flat land to the west. Here the
chief difficulty arose from the constant shifting of the hum-
mocks of loose sand. The suburbs had been burned, but every
building that remained was eagerly turned into quarters for the
leaders. The main body of the force, however, was exposed to
the full fury of the town guns as it lay on the wind-swept and

1 Froiss. ii. 41.

2 The castle was completely demolished by Vauban, who, however, at one time thought
of preserving it and so had careful drawings made. These are still to be seen at the
Mairie. They show that it had a strong keep and four large towers and that it occupied
the ground lying between the Quai du Port, the Place Briqueville, the Rue Quai du
Bassin, the Rue du Chateau, and the Rue Notre Dame (Menant, 6, 16, 18; Gerville,
197; Voisin la Hougue, 63; Amiot, 126; Vita, 162).

3 Fleury-Vallee, 23, 54, 62, 64; Menant, 5, 15; Voisin la Hougue, 81; Gerville, 212.
The walls and ditches have disappeared, and the course of the river has been diverted,
but the plan of the defences has been clearly made out by the industry of local anti-
quaries.

4 Tit. Liv. 52; Blondel, Reductio, 232, 236; Pontaumont, Documents, 363; Voisin
la Hougue, 69; Gerville, 206. Since the completion of the walls the place had been
twice besieged, but though it had been pledged to the English by the king of Navarre
in 1378 and held by them for fifteen years, it had never yet yielded to force (Voisin la
Hougue, 66; Amiot, 165; Gerville, 205; Coville-Lavisse, iv. i. 248; Blondel, 257, 438,
439; Ann. Ric. II, 164; Wals. ii. 214).

5 Vita, 149.

6 Tit. Liv. 52, 54; Vita, 148; First Life, 109; Menant, 19, 71.

141 8] Cherbourg 109

ever shifting sand1. The English, working by night in groups
of three, gathered stones and brushwood from the hillsides to
the south, and each gang brought down its sledge-load and
floated it to the front by cross-cuts dug among the water-
courses, hoping thus to form a shelter against the hail of stones2.
But as fast as the wattle was erected, the besieged set it on fire
with balls of flaming tow shot from their engines3 or tore it up
by means of barbed claws flung out from the walls4. Despairing
of a rapid success, the duke of Gloucester then resolved to starve
the garrison into submission5. He therefore fortified his lines
strongly with towers and ditches6, built huts for his men out
of range of the guns, laid down great stores of provisions, and
brought up a fleet of ships from Jersey and Guernsey to block
the sea front and stop the entrance of supplies. He gathered
delvers from the countryside to turn the course of the river,
but the spring-tides broke through at the new moon7, and all
the labour was in vain. Spades, ploughs and harrows were
pressed into service, and the soil was thrown up into enormous
mounds which overtopped the walls, and up these the attackers
swarmed only to find that their tortoises were no match for the
stones rained on them from the engines on the battlements. In
one place the English sows rooted underground and made a
royal mine, which caused the defenders much alarm, bringing
on a fight in which, according to the English account, they had
the worse of it; but in the end the miners were baffled by the
rock and unstable sand8. A vulnerable part of the walls was
found on the northern front, but it was not possible to bring
the guns to bear upon it9. The earl of March had pushed an
engine close to the walls and covered it with a bulwark. On
Midsummer Day the French made a determined sally, burnt
the bulwark, and damaged the engine badly; but they failed to
break through the blockading line, and the harm they did was

1 Tit. Liv. 52.

2 Ibid. 53; First Life, in; Duchesne, Antiq. ii. 406.

3 Tit. Liv. 53. 4 Vita, 156.

5 Ibid. 153; Tit. Liv. 53.

6 Ibid. 53, 55.

7 Ibid. 54.

8 A. Collins, viii. 107; Blondel, Reductio, 234.

9 Ibid. 232 sqq.; Duchesne, Antiq. ii. 406. The later story (Voisin la Hougue, 81)
that the English dragged guns into position against the weak point when the tide ebbed
and removed them when the sea returned is supported by no contemporary evidence
and is probably due to confusion of this siege with that of 1450, when the place was re-
taken by the French.

no Conquest of Lower Normandy Completed [ch. lvi

speedily repaired1. The besieged sent messages of ever in-
creasing urgency to the court at Paris by means of runners who
swam the estuary at its mouth2; but when no help was sent and
food began to fail, the garrison showed signs of disaffection .
Nevertheless, the first overtures for a capitulation proved
fruitless, as the spirit of resistance was as yet by no means
broken. One day, however, a fleet of thirty vessels was seen
in the offing. For a moment the hopes of the French rose
high with the thought that help had come at last; but when
the ships drew nearer they discovered that they were really
bringing strong reinforcements from England to help in
the reduction of the town. Then at length they yielded to
despair: and on Aug. liz an appointment was drafted whereby
the earl of March, John Lord Clifford, Walter Hungerford,
Gerard Usflete, John Robsart, and William Beauchamp,
acting on behalf of the duke of Gloucester, entered into
an agreement with the garrison that they should have till
Michaelmas to apply for help to the French king, but if
no relief arrived by that date, they should surrender4. The
English used the interval to make preparations to beat off any
relieving force that might appear. None, however, attempted
a rescue; and so when Michaelmas came Cherbourg made an
honourable surrender after five months of heroic isolation. It
is usual to speak of this surrender as an act of treachery, and
among the French it became a tradition that an officer of the
garrison, Jean d'Angennes, accepted money from the English5.
It is certain that when he left the place, he had a safe-conduct
to go where he pleased and that he went to Rouen, where he
was subsequently beheaded by order of King Henry6. During
the siege the English had lost heavily, but the loss was repaid
by the value of the capture, which moreover released 3000
seasoned troops to help forward the attack on Rouen7.

Like most other Norman towns Cherbourg did not take long
to accommodate itself to the new situation. Within a few weeks
of the surrender the great abbey of Our Lady of the Vow, built

1 A. Collins, viii. 107. 2 Vita, 157.

3 Rym. ix. 618; Briquigny, 34.

4 Tit. Liv. 56} Vita, 162.

5 Monstr. iii. 242 sq.; Waurin, ii. 244; Voisin la Hougue, 75. He is commonly
styled the commander, but erroneously (Rym. ix. 618).

6 Cheruel, 66.

7 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 191, (Hellot) 46.

141 8] Clarence's Exploits in

by the Empress Matilda in fulfilment of a vow made by William
the Conqueror, received back its possessions1. Immigrants
flocked in from all parts of England and Ireland2; houses and
tenements were freely granted to the new-comers3; the names
of the streets were altered4; the church of the Trinity, which
still stands on the sea front, was completed5; the castle was
repaired and garrisoned with 40 men-at-arms and 120 archers6;
and in 141 9 Cherbourg was made the chief town of its vicomte
instead of Valognes7. It was one of the last places to be re-
covered by the French.

In the meantime great progress was being made with the
main campaign to the east. At the end of February Clarence
had been placed in command of the troops on the eastern
confines of the territory in English occupation8: the govern-
ment of the vicomtes of Auge, Orbec, and Pont-Audemer had
been entrusted to him, subject to the authority of the bailli and
the Norman Echiquier9: and, saving to Henry the homage and
military service of the feudal tenants, the right of taxation, and
the control of woods and forests, he had been granted the lord-
ship of the royal demesne in these vicomtes and that of Pont-
Authou10. Early in March he consolidated the English hold of
the valley of the Touques by the capture of Courtonne11,
Chambrois12, and Faugnernon13, and by the surrender of La
Riviere de Thibouville on March 14 he secured a passage
across the Risle14. On April 9, after a fifteen days' siege, he
reduced the strong castle of Harcourt, where he found an
exceptionally rich treasure of money, jewels, and other valu-
ables15. But he met with an unusually defiant resistance at the
great Benedictine abbey of Bee, which was held by a garrison
of desperate Frenchmen. They had stripped the neighbouring
region bare, so that great numbers of homeless people took
refuge in the fortified enclosure of the abbey, bringing with
them their cattle and whatever food they could carry16. The

1 Rym. ix. 653. 2 Luce, i. 296.

3 Brequigny, 108, 117, 128.

4 e.g. Humphrey street, named from the duke of Gloucester in 1420 (ibid. 150).

5 The choir, the chapels, and the tower were finished about 1423.

6 Luce, i. 297. 7 Delisle, Baillis, 9; Brequigny, 91.
8 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 254. 9 Ibid. 259 sq.

10 Ibid. 317 sqq. n Ibid. 303; Tit. Liv. 49.

12 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 294 sq.; Tit. Liv. 49. The place is now called Broglie.

13 Ibid.; Vita, 140. 14 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 292.

15 Brequigny, 7 (where the capitulation is misdated); Poree, ii. 176; Verneuil, 220.

16 Bee Chron. 82, 87.

ii2 Conquest of Lower Normandy Completed [ch. lvi

abbey was enclosed by a strong wall, and the monks had to
watch with dismay the demolition by the garrison of their out-
lying buildings, including the old chapel of their saintly founder
Herlouin. The recently appointed abbot, Robert de Valee, re-
mained at Paris or Pontoise during the siege1. The hope of the
defenders lay in the dauphin, who as usual did nothing. They
nevertheless held out manfully for some time; but after the fall
of Harcourt, the duke of Clarence brought up the whole of his
force and assailed them day and night2. About three weeks
later they lost heart, and after setting fire to most of the abbey
buildings3, they opened negotiations which led to their sur-
render on May 4, the garrison being permitted to go away
with nothing but the clothes they stood in4. The wretched
monks had been grievously pillaged by the defenders, they had
nothing but the grist of their mills on which to support them-
selves and their servants, and even when they had sent to all
their distant granges5, they could not raise half enough to
satisfy the English demands, the victors being particularly
stern in their treatment of the monks, doubtless because the
new abbot showed no sign of submission6. On June 19
custody of the abbey's temporalities was restored to them; but
all the profits had still to go to the king, and the monastery was
occupied by an English garrison of twenty men-at-arms and
sixty archers7.

The fate of Bee apparently had its effect on the defenders of
Evreux, the next place to be besieged, since it capitulated to the
duke of Exeter on May 20, only four days after he had been
commissioned to reduce it8.

In consequence of the operations of the duke of Clarence,
the first stages of the king's eastward progress were peaceful.
He was at Lisieux by May 27s; on June 2 and 3 he was at
Bernay10, where he appointed the earl of March his lieutenant

1 Bee Chron. 85, 86, 225; Poree, ii. 176.

2 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 182, (Hellot) 34; Bee Chron. 86.

3 Ibid. 83; Poree, ii. 174.

4 Bee Chron. 86, 87, 226; Poree, ii. 177, 179; Monstier, 470; Brequigny, 19.

5 Bee Chron. 88.

6 He did not take the oath of fealty till Feb. 12, 1419 (Gall. Christ, xi. 236; Monstier,

470-

7 Rym. ix. 598.

8 Ibid. 589; Brequigny, 24; Otterbourne, 281; Wals. ii. 329; Norm. Chron. 192.

9 Chanc. Warr., Ser. I, 1364/56.
10 Ibid. 57-59.

i4l8J Louviers 113

and general warden for all Normandy1. He then visited
Bee2 and Le Neubourg3, and by June 8 had reached
Louviers4.

On the same day the king issued orders that musters of all
available forces were to be held as soon as possible5. To what
extent the numbers of his troops had increased since the landing
at Touques can only be guessed. We know, indeed, that large
reinforcements, numbering at least 500 men-at-arms and 1 500
archers, had been sent from England under the duke of
Exeter6; but though many writs are extant7 showing the names
of the officials responsible for the inspection now ordered and
the captains whose forces came under review, there is no record
of the numbers returned.

Louviers had only recently been fortified8, but the duke of
Clarence described it as a very strong town9, and it justified his
words by holding out for the better part of three weeks. During
the siege the king had a narrow escape from a stone shot that
passed close to him and smashed the pole of his tent as he was
talking with the earl of Salisbury at the door. It remains a dark
blot on his fame that when the siege was over he hanged eight
of the gunners, a ninth being spared only at the intercession of
Cardinal Orsini, and even then being condemned to imprison-
ment for life10. The feeling of the townspeople was strongly

1 Rym. ix. 592.

2 Chanc. Warr., Ser. I, 1364/59, 60; Brequigny, 29, 213; Bee Chron. 87; Poree, ii.
177; Gesta, 126.

3 Brequigny, 29. 4 Chanc. Warr., Ser. I, 1364/61.

5 Rym. ix. 595; Vita, 166.

6 Tit. Liv. 56; Vita, 164; Wals. ii. 328. One estimate gives their numbers as 15,000,
an absurd figure, but an indication that the force was really a big one. We know that
great care had been taken to keep open communication between England and Nor-
mandy. Early in February a force of 361 men-at-arms and 672 archers was told off to
safeguard the sea under the duke of Exeter or John Arundel his deputy (Iss. Roll
5 Hen. V, Mich., Feb. 14, 1418, March 1, 1418, March 5, 1418; Cal. Pat. 1416-22,
p. 148; Devon, 355), while there is evidence that another squadron, consisting of four
barges and four balingers, was at sea for the same purpose, under Richard Lord Scrope
of Bolton (ibid.). About the middle of April the regent ordered that musters should be
held of various contingents about to cross to France (Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 201).
They belonged to Henry Lord Fitzhugh (80 men-at-arms, 240 archers), Gilbert
Umfraville (60 and 180), Edward Holland, count of Mortain (40 and 120), the duke
of Exeter (260 and 780), and the duke of Clarence (60 and 180). All were retained for
one year. The payment of a quarter's wages to them is recorded in Iss. Roll 6 Hen. V,
Pasch., June 1, 1418. On May 9 the same roll records payment of wages for the ship-
ment of the duke of Exeter and other lords going to Normandy with their retinues.

7 Rym. ix. 595. 8 Morin, i. 103, 116, 125.
9 In a letter dated July 5 (Delpit, 22).

10 Tit. Liv. 58; Vita, 169; Strecche, 271; Kingsford, Lit. 41.

will 8

ii4 Conquest of Lower Normandy Completed [ch. lvi

Burgundian1, and this doubtless curtailed resistance. By-
June 20 the English were in possession of the town, where the
king stayed a few days, appointing officers to administer and
defend it2, and arranging for the payment of a fine of 8000
crowns, in return for which the inhabitants would be allowed
to retain their possessions3.

Little time, however, was wasted, and by June 27* the army
was before Pont de l'Arche, at the confluence of the Seine and
the Eure. Here orders were given for further musters to be
held by July 23s. The king took up his quarters at the
Cistercian abbey of Bonport6, founded by Richard the Lion-
Heart. The abbot at once made his submission, and was
accorded the king's protection7.

The town of Pont de l'Arche, encircled with its walls and
ditches, formed a strong fortress at the southern end of the
famous bridge8 that had long been the only passage of the
Seine for miles around. On a small island close to the bridge-
head on the opposite bank stood a square fort built in very
early days to protect the passage from attack from the north9.
The task before the English was thus a new and formidable
one. To their right was the fortified town of Pont de l'Arche,
backed by the river Eure about half a mile away, and in front
of them the wide deep Seine flowing swiftly amidst grassy
islands, while thousands of enemies, with perfect freedom of
movement, awaited them on the further shore10. Nothing,
however, could daunt the resolution of the English, and during
the first fortnight in July the town was subjected to a series
of vigorous assaults11. These all failed, and the besiegers now
saw that if success was to be achieved, they would have to
secure both banks of the river. The exploit of crossing the
Seine seems for some reason to have made a great impression

1 Norm. Chron. 183.

2 e.g. William Pailleux was appointed bailli of Louviers on July 12 (Brequigny, 32,

37)-

3 Ibid. 31.

4 Wals. ii. 329; Vita, 170; Gesta, 123.

5 Rym. ix. 595.

6 Brequigny, 31; Cochon, 279; Monstr. iii. 2755 Tit. Liv. 58; Vita, 172.

7 Brequigny, 208; Gall. Christ, xi. 668.

8 Built in the thirteenth or fourteenth century in place of the old one which dated
from the time of Charles the Bald.

9 Tit. Liv. 58; Vita, 171; Nagerel, 10; Duranville, Pont de l'Arche, i. 9.

10 Delpit, 222; Cochon, 279; Monstr. iii. 276.

11 Norm. Chron. 187.

1418] Pont de V Arche 115

on the mind of the English, and soon gave rise to picturesque
stories from which it is difficult to disentangle what really
happened. According to one of these accounts, the besiegers
were pestered by shouting bands of Frenchmen, who ap-
parently hovered on the opposite bank of the river and caused
constant night alarms. The king presently sent John Cornwall
to Jean Malet, lord of Graville, who was conducting the de-
fence1, requesting him to put a check on these "noisy jabbering
yokels2." Malet replied that he had no power over them,
whereupon Cornwall made him a bet that before next day he
would be over the river himself to see what could be done.
"If I succeed," he said, "you shall give me your best courser,
with saddle, bridle, and gilt harness; but if I fail, I will give
you 2000 crowns to buy a bonnet for your wife3." When
Cornwall reported what had passed, the king at once called a
council and ordered that boats should be got ready for an
immediate crossing. The English had certainly brought with
them pontoons and other apparatus for crossing rivers, and
these were supplemented with boats made out of wicker and
covered with hides. Very early on the following morning
5000 men put across in the darkness, while the attention of the
French was diverted by a group of swimmers who splashed and
shouted in the water some three miles down stream4. Among
the first to push off was Cornwall himself, who had with him
sixty men in eight small boats and a horse carrying small guns
and other necessaries for attack. He disembarked on a small
island, where he planted archers to cover the main landing. This
statement is hard to accept, seeing that all the islands there-
abouts are far nearer to the southern than to the northern bank.
Such, however, is the story, and it is added that Cornwall
knighted his son on the island5, though the boy was only
thirteen years old. The important fact is that the English did
get across the river by July 146, and we know on the authority
of the duke of Clarence that the feat was accomplished without
the loss of a man7. The French irregulars on the northern bank

1 Cordeliers, 261; Fenin, 568. For an account of him, see Duranville, i. 36, ii. 41.

2 "Rustici garruli et clamosi," Strecche, 272.

3 Ibid. Monstrelet (iii. 275 sq.) has the story in a shorter form, with some un-
important differences in details.

4 Tit. Liv. 57. 5 Le Fevre, i. 343.

6 News of the crossing had reached Paris by July 15 (St Denys, vi. 260).

7 Delpit, 222.

n6 Conquest of Lower Normandy Completed [ch. lvi

at once melted away1. The English kept up communications
by means of two bridges, which they constructed at Bonport
and Les Damps, about a mile below and above the town re-
spectively. Once on the other bank, Gilbert Umfraville built
a strong bulwark close to the fort at the bridge-head and set up
his banner as a challenge. Upon this a Scotsman shouted in
defiance from the walls that the banner would be taken before
night, and 5000 men streamed out to capture it. But Umfraville
with eighty men drove them all in again, and following them
up before they had time to raise the drawbridge, slew crowds
of them by shooting through the bars of the portcullis2. So,
at any rate, it was believed in Kenilworth priory. What is
certain is that the garrison soon recognised that resistance was
hopeless3, and the town formally capitulated on July 204.

It may well have been a revelation to King Henry to find
that the "jabbering yokels" who had plagued him on the north
bank were under the command of the lord of Chastellux5, who
had just helped to seize Paris for the duke of Burgundy. He
at once sent a herald to the duke to demand an explanation. The
reply left Henry in no doubt as to the actual position. The duke,
he saw, was preparing to give battle, and must henceforth be
reckoned a "full enemy6." For the two cardinals had so far
succeeded in their efforts that during their conferences at La
Tombe the Armagnacs had agreed to co-operate with the
Burgundians in resisting the expected attack on Rouen. To
this end the Armagnac admiral Robert de Braquemont was
empowered to negotiate with the Burgundian commander at
Rouen with a view to securing a united front against the English
attack. An arrangement was accordingly signed on June 5,
whereby up to next Michaelmas each side, while retaining its
badges, was to render help to the other against the common
enemy. If the English should appear first before Pont de
l'Arche, where the garrison was Armagnac, the men of Rouen
were to come to the rescue. If on the contrary Rouen were first
assailed, the men of Pont de l'Arche would send help. It was

1 Norm. Chron. 187; St Denys, vi. 258; Monstr. iii. 276; Cochon, 279.

2 Strecche, 271.

3 There seem to have been negotiations earlier (Delpit, 221).

4 Ibid. 222; Tit. Liv. 60; Vita, 176; Gesta, 123; Cochon, 279, 342; Bourgeois, 105.
For safe-conducts issued to the garrison on July 19, see Rym. ix. 602; Brequigny, 208.

5 He was made captain-general of Normandy on June 26 (Chastellux, 83).

6 See the letter of Henry dated July 21 (Delpit, 222). Cf. Gesta, 123.

1 4 1 8] Burgundy Hostile 117

also stipulated that the Burgundians were to be recognised as
the ruling power in Rouen, and that the peasants were to be
unmolested in the fields; and provision was made against the
possibility of defeat1. But the compact was too hollow to last.
Even before the siege of Pont de l'Arche the duke of Burgundy
appointed a new admiral2; and though Braquemont took part
in the defence of Pont de l'Arche3, he withdrew from military
activity after the surrender4. The two parties were soon at each
other's throats with envenomed bitterness, but the compact had
served some purpose in stiffening the resolve of the garrison of
Rouen to resist to the death.

The English had already raided far afield to the north of the
river, reaching the very outskirts of Rouen5; and as soon as
Pont de l'Arche was in his hands, King Henry sent the duke of
Exeter with heralds to summon the city to surrender. But the
garrison sallied out upon them, and many of the English were
slain, complete disaster being averted only by the coolness of
the English leader6. When news of this insult reached the
king, he swore that he would be at Rouen in three days7, and
he was as good as his word. The army moved forward from
Pont de l'Arche on July 29, and that night the king arrived on
the flat ground on the eastern side of Rouen8.

1 C. Beaurepaire, Accord, 309 sqq. 2 Anselme, vii. 826.

3 D.K.R. xli. 695. 4 See below, p. 152.

5 Cochon, 279; Monstr. iii. 277.

6 J. Page, 2; Chron. Ric. II-Hen. VI, p. 46; Strecche, 272; Brut, ii. 387, 394.

7 Strecche, 272.

8 This date is given by Strecche (272), who is confirmed by Page ("The Friday
before Lammas Day, the king remevyd in riche array," xii. 6); cf. Gesta, 123; Brut,
ii. 387, 395. Strecche says that on the following day the king allotted stations to his
various captains; so that the statement (Vita, 179; and many modern writers) that the
siege began on July 29 is not strictly accurate.

CHAPTER LVII

THE SIEGE OF ROUEN

In dealing with the topography of Rouen at the time of the
siege by Henry V, we are fortunate in possessing an accurate
picture of the town as seen from the south bank in 15251.
Whatever may have happened in the meantime, the external
appearance of the city had certainly altered but little. Next in
value comes a minute description of the city in 1588 by a
Franciscan, Nicholas Taillepied2. But above all we have de-
tailed specifications as to the repairing and rebuilding of the
eastern portion of the wall between 1405 and 14093; these are
preserved in the city archives and have been worked over with
great thoroughness by a band of local antiquaries.

Thanks to these and other sources, we know that King Henry
had before him the task of besieging a city enclosed with a high
wall some five miles in circumference, rising from the flats by
the river to the vine-clad4 slopes that encircled it immediately
to the west, north, and east, while on the fourth side the wall
followed the line of the Seine, where several gates opened on
to the quays5. On the land side the walls were pierced by five

1 At this date Jacques le Lieur, one of the echcvins, who was interested in a scheme
for securing a better water supply for the town, drew up exact plans of the buildings
abutting on the streets beneath which the new water-pipes were laid. These plans were
written on parchment and bound in a book, which is now among the municipal
archives in the Hotel de Ville. It has justly been called "one of the most precious
documents in the history of a town that it is possible to conceive." The whole has been
published in reduced facsimile (Adeline, Rouen au XVI siecle). The picture referred to
appears in this work and has also been reproduced by Sarrazin (Rouen, 195, Jeanne
dArc, 145) and by Cook (320). Sarrazin, Rouen, 58, reproduces a picture of Rouen
dating from about 1450, but this is of much less value.

2 Taillepied, 19. His account of the fortifications, which had been little altered since
the time of Henry V, is particularly interesting. A good impression of the strength of
the defences can also be obtained from two journals kept during the siege of the town
by Henry IV of France in 159 1-2, one by a member of the defending force, and one by
a captain of the English force that was aiding the king (Farin, i. 156; Coningsby, 7;
Richard, 123-128).

3 See esp. Richard, 48, $5, 64, 277 et alibi.

4 Cochet, Culture, 340; Grisel, 25, 89.

5 Several gates on this side were built afterwards, till the number reached thirteen;
but not more than seven seem to have existed in the days of Henry V (C. Beaurepaire,
Invent. Rouen, 38; Periaux, Diet. 477, 488; Adeline, 2, Quais, Plate 31; Normandie
Monumentale, 4).

1 4i 8] Topography 119

strong gates, each fortified with flanking towers and covered
by outworks beyond the moat1. The wall, except of course on
the river front, was protected by a deep ditch2. More than
sixty towers stood at frequent intervals between the gates3,
each furnished with three guns, while smaller engines were
mounted on the intervening spaces4. The great enceinte was
built by Philip Augustus in place of a much smaller one that
had protected the town in Norman times. The same king built
the strong castle on the slope of the hill of Bouvreuil at the
north-west angle of the walls. It had a great donjon and a
strongly fortified bailey, and could be held even though an
enemy were in possession of the city that lay at its feet5. Of
all this elaborate system of defences nothing now survives save
the donjon of the castle and some stretches of wall on the
northern and eastern sides, though the whole circuit can still
be traced by following the line of the modern boulevards, the
position of the five gates being marked by open spaces.

Viewed from without, the city seemed a forest of towers and
spires, for within its walls, besides the renowned cathedral, were
no fewer than thirty-five parish churches and thirty-four re-
ligious houses, representing every variety of regular life, chief
among which were the abbeys of St L6, St Amand, and St Ouen.
Another of the wonders of the place was the great stone bridge
built by the Empress Matilda. It spanned the Seine from the
Porte du Pont, in the centre of the river front, to the suburb
of Emendreville (now St Sever)6. Of its fifteen arches, the four
nearest the northern bank were built of wood7, so that they
might easily be destroyed in case of emergency. These had

1 The names of the gates, from west to east, were the Porte Cauchoise, the Porte
Bouvreuil, the Porte Beauvoisine, the Porte St Hilaire, and the Porte Martainville
(Periaux, Diet. 488; Normandie Monumentale, 3; Puiseux, 6; Richard, 301; C.
Beaurepaire, Invent. Rouen, 30; J. Page, 5; Gesta, 124; Vita, 177).

2 J. Page, 4; cf. Puiseux, 5.

3 Ibid. 3 sqq.; cf. Vita, 177; Periaux, 165.
* J. Page, 5; Monstr. hi. 285.

5 This castle replaced the old fortress of the dukes of Normandy, which stood near
the water side on the ground now occupied by the market-place (Farin, Chateau, 32).
It was mostly demolished in 1590; but we fortunately have Jacques le Lieur's picture
of it as it was in 1525 (E. H. Langlois, Note, 103; Farin, i. 99; Ballin, 340. The picture
is reproduced in Adeline, I. ii.).

6 Joliment, 8; Duranville, 169, 170. For pictures of it in 1608, see Adeline, Quais,
nos. 23, 24, 26. Three arches had fallen before 1525, and subsequent representations
nearly always show it in ruins. In 1836 it was replaced by a suspension bridge, which
rested pardy on the old piers, and this in its turn made way for an iron bridge in 1888 .

7 Cheruel, Dom. Ang. i. 4.

1 20 The Siege of Rouen [ch. lvii

been badly damaged by floods in 13821, and if, as seems likely,
they remained unrepaired, the value of the bridge was largely
destroyed for both sides in the coming struggle. When Henry
began his siege, the southern end of the bridge terminated in
a barbican known as the Bridge Castle, which was separately
fortified on an islet communicating by a drawbridge with the
river bank2; and it seems to have caused some apprehension to
the besiegers, who stationed a large section of their forces in
front of it. In the suburb of Emendreville were several re-
ligious houses. No attempt was made to defend these, and the
French abandoned and destroyed the famous Galley Close3, an
important dockyard on the southern bank, for long famous,
though little used for some years past.

Three streams — the Renelle, the Robec, and the Aubelte —
flowed through the city, and supplied water for its domestic
and industrial needs. For Rouen was a manufacturing town,
with a lively external trade. By means of the Seine it had easy
communication with Paris on the one hand and the English
Channel on the other, and the dues paid to the Vicomte de VEau
by ships leaving the port amounted to a vast sum every year4.
As at Caen, the importance of the gild of porters5 is a strong
indication of the great volume of its trade. There were numerous
other gilds, but by far the most powerful and masterful was
that of the drapers, whose statutes, framed in 14246, yield a
picture of the industry from which the wealth of the town was
chiefly derived. The craft was divided roughly into three
branches — weaving, fulling, and shearing — and every appren-
tice was to be instructed in each branch during his three years'
term.

By 1 1 75 the citizens had secured recognition of their
rights as a commune under their own mayor7, and ever since
they had struggled to maintain and extend their liberties
in opposition to the claims of archbishops and kings. The

1 Adeline, Quais, no. 26; Periaux, Diet. 468.

2 Duranville, Rouen, 49, 167, 170; A. Duchesne, Scriptores, 1208; Farin, i. 100;
Valdory, 20; Richard, 80; Puiseux, 91; J. Page, 13.

3 Norm. Chron. 189.

4 In 1407 they amounted to 4666 liv. 13 sols (C. Beaurepaire, Vicomte, 71). For
the text of the Coutumier de la Vicomte de l'Eau, see ibid. 266, 277. For the trade of
Rouen with Paris, Brittany, Spain, Portugal, England and Flanders, see Cheruel, ii.
488; C. Beaurepaire, Notes, iii. 246-272. Cf. Ordonnances, ix. 413.

5 C. Beaurepaire, Vicomte, 256, 356.

8 Ordonnances, xiii. 69; E. H. Langlois, 205-215.
7 Cal. Doc. Franc, pp. xxii, 8.

1417] Sedition 121

government of the city had been in the hands of a mayor,
echevins, and a council of 100 burgesses known as peers1. But
the disputes of the townsfolk with the king culminated in 1382,
when they broke into the famous "Harelle," a rising which was
only suppressed after fearful havoc and slaughter, and which
was followed by the suppression of the commune2. It was,
however, a time when royal authority was weak; the city soon
recovered its defiant spirit, and within a few years Rouen was
again governed by its own echevins3. Thus when Henry appeared
before its walls, the place was virtually in possession of its old
privileges. There was a de facto mayor, the citizens chose their
own officials, and organised their own forces for the defence of
the walls4.

With such a record, it is small wonder that Rouen was hotly
Burgundian. When in May, 1417, the duke of Burgundy's
manifesto against the Armagnac government was posted on the
church doors5, wild rioting broke out in the streets, and it was
in vain that the bishop of Lisieux and Guillaume lord of Bacque-
ville strove to bring the citizens to reason6. Towards the end of
July it became known that the dauphin was approaching at the
head of a strong force7. Thereupon the citizens rose, murdered
the bailli, Raoul de Gaucourt, and flung his deputy over the
bridge into the Seine8. When the dauphin appeared before the
town next day (July 25), he was refused admission9; but after
a part of his forces had been admitted to the castle, which re-
mained loyal, negotiations were opened, with the result that
he pardoned the rebellious townsmen and was suffered to enter
the city as an assertion of his authority10, though his foreign
mercenaries, eager for plunder, had to remain outside11. The
city paid a tallage of 1 6,000 livres and advanced a loan of 1 200,

1 Cheruel, Commune, i. 269; C. Beaurepaire, Vicomte, 279, 328, 332.

2 Cheruel, Commune, ii. 435 sqq., 551, pt. II. 115; Periaux, Diet. 660.

3 Cheruel, Commune, ii. 475.

4 C. Beaurepaire, Invent. Rouen, 28, 30, 35, 39, 40; Felix, I. p. xv; Cheruel,
Commune, ii. 496, App. 48.

5 Cagny, 108; Bouquet, Notice, 185.

6 Norm. Chron. 177; Masseville, iv. 59; Hellot, Martel, 102.

7 Cochon, 341; Vallet de Viriville, 1. 53.

8 Norm. Chron. 177; Cagny, 108; St Denys, vi. 94; Cheruel, Commune, ii. 523.
Gaucourt had been appointed bailli of Rouen in December, 14 15 (Baye, ii. 230). He
was lord of Argicourt and Maisons-sur-Seine (Anselme, viii. 367; Cheruel, Dom. Ang.
pt. 11. 14; Fallue, ii. 318), and must not be confounded with the defender of Harfleur.

9 St Denys, vi. 92, 93; Norm. Chron. 178; Fenin, 5915 Le Fevre, i. 296.

10 For the agreement, see Cheruel, Dom. Ang. i. 30, pt. II. 23 sqq.

11 Cochon, 341.

122 The Siege of Rouen [ch. lvii

and the castle was put under the command of Jean d'Harcourt,
count of Aumale, nephew of the archbishop1. But the dauphin
had to hurry away to defend Paris from the duke of Burgundy,
and no sooner had he gone than the townsfolk again declared
for the duke and no taxation2. Before the end of the year they
entered into communication with Guy le Bouteiller, commander
of the Burgundian garrison at Dieppe. He brought over 1400
or 1500 men, drove out the Armagnacs from the castle, and
became captain of Rouen, the citizens paying the wages of his
troops3. The new-comers were at first regarded as "more
English than French4," but when Paris was in the power of
the Burgundians and Henry's army was believed to be ap-
proaching, garrison and townsfolk alike were for offering
resistance. Early in the spring, indeed, some of the burgesses
had presented themselves before the count of Charolais at
Amiens asking for help against the English, who were hourly
expected to begin the siege; but though the count promised
aid, he sent none5. However, as soon as the revolution had been
effected in the capital, urgent messages were sent thither, and
promptly answered by the despatch of 600 fighting men, in-
cluding 300 archers6.

It is usual nowadays to say that the position of Rouen, com-
manded as it is by a half-circle of hills, is such as to render
defence hopeless; and under modern conditions of warfare
this is doubtless true. But in the Middle Ages the very con-
verse was the fact. The hills, it is true, were very near; but the
range of artillery was short, and so far from being at the mercy
of an attacker, Rouen might fairly claim to have been un-
conquered. In the eleventh century French attempts to take
it had twice been repelled. It had indeed yielded to Philip
Augustus in 1204 after forty days' resistance; but the inhabit-
ants were disgusted at their abandonment by King John and
had no zeal for his cause. During the rising of 1382 the royal
troops had never been expelled from the castle, and the king
therefore had no great difficulty in recovering the town. But
with town and castle in the same hands there is no doubt that

1 Cheruel, Dom. Ang. i. 315 Beaucourt, i. 73; cf. Juv. 539.

2 Cousinot, 164. The dauphin left about Aug. 5 (Beaucourt, i. 72).

3 St Denys, vi. 148; Norm. Chron. 183; Bourgeois, 84; Juv. 539; Cochon, 340;
Cheruel, Dom. Ang. i. 36, pt. 11. 22; Puiseux, Diet. 62; Th. Bouquet, 312.

4 Cochon, 278. 5 Monstr. iii. 250.
6 St Denys, vi. 290; Cordeliers, 261.

1418] The Defence Organised 123

the English had before them a gigantic task. The dissensions
of a year before were buried, and all in the town were ready to
obey the instructions of the duke of Burgundy. As chief civil
officer they elected Jean Segneult, who regularly signed his
proclamations as "having the justice and jurisdiction of the
office of mayor1." The military defence was in the hands of
Guy le Bouteiller, together with Guillaume Houdetot2, who was
bailli, Alain Blanchard3, who had planned the rising of the
previous year and was now captain of the crossbowmen, and
Jean Jourdain, who commanded the gunners4. The clergy were
as Burgundian in their sympathies as the townsfolk5. The
archbishop, Louis d'Harcourt6, who was identified with the
Armagnacs, kept quite away, and the leadership of the clergy
fell into the hands of Master Robert de Livet, one of the
cathedral canons, who in spite of his sixty-five years, threw
himself heartily into the spirit of the defence and pronounced
the excommunication of the English king7. As soon as Rouen
had been restored to Burgundian control in the previous winter,
an order from Troyes had commanded the destruction of all
churches and other buildings in the suburbs that might afford
shelter to the English8. These drastic measures were doubtless
postponed till the last moment, but when the duke of Exeter
arrived, he found all churches, houses, and hedges outside
the walls levelled with the ground, the suburbs stripped "as
bare as my hand," and their inhabitants huddled within the
town9.

That the inhabitants did not anticipate a long siege is shown
by their admitting enormous numbers of outsiders just before
the gates were finally closed. The figures given by English

1 Sarrazin, Jeanne d'Arc, 152, 155; Th. Bouquet, 192. It had been the official
formula before the mayoralty was abolished (Cheruel, Commune, pt. II. 35, 38), and
in the capitulation Segneult is called mayor (ibid. App. 48; Rym. ix. 667).

2 Cheruel, Dom. Ang. i. 33; A. Martin, Fecamp, i. 124; Fallue, ii. 328.

3 Cheruel, Dom. Ang. i. 22, pt. II. 33 sqq. Monstrelet (iii. 305) calls him "capitaine
du menu commun," and Waurin "le capitaine du menu peuple," ii. 262.

4 Monstr. iii. 305. 5 Fallue, ii. 325.

6 Third son of John, third count of Harcourt (Pommeraye, 340), born in 1382
(Gall. Christ, xi. 85), chosen archbishop by the chapter "propter natalium splendorem"
in 1407 (Gams, 614; Eubel, i. 448). Owing to disputes with the pope, he did not make
his entry into Rouen till 1416.

7 Cheruel, Dom. Ang. i. 21; Waurin, ii. 262; Monstr. I.e.; C. Beaurepaire, Invent.
Rouen, 43, 45.

8 Dated Jan. 30, 1418 (Periaux, 169; Cheruel, Dom. Ang., pt. 11. 3; Puiseux, 56).

9 J. Page, 3; Strecche, 272; Brut, ii. 395; Archaeologia, xxii. 385; Norm. Chron.
189; Sarrazin, Jeanne d'Arc, 353.

124 The Siege of Rouen [ch. lvii

writers are no doubt greatly exaggerated1, but they bear witness
to the general impression among the besiegers that the town
was terribly overcrowded. As for its normal population, a
census of heads of households in thirty-three parishes, taken in
1 274s, affords reason for the belief that the population then was
about 70,ooo3. There followed a period of prosperity, when the
town certainly grew, but the Black Death inflicted frightful
loss4 and the troubles of the Harelle had further reduced the
number of inhabitants. We know from an official statement of
1409 that many houses had been demolished and the popula-
tion had greatly diminished5, while two years later the city was
said to be in great part uninhabited and in danger of being
abandoned by traders6. Henry V, on th^ other hand, described
it as "the most notable place in France save Paris7," and though
he had a motive for exaggerating its greatness, his words suggest
that perhaps its decline had not really been so disastrous as the
reports just cited make out. Modern writers have been as free
as contemporaries with estimates of the number of people in
the city during the siege, but their figures are only guesswork.
It is certain that the town was very full, and that at first all
were full of confidence and so free from apprehensions of famine
that bread was allowed to be sold in the market on every week-
day, instead of on Fridays only, as was the rule in normal times8.
Little is known of the siege of Rouen from the standpoint of
the defenders, for the records of the deliberations of the town
officials are missing from Feb. 28, 141 2 to April 18, 14479.

1 J. Page (14) gives 410,000, including the garrison, which he estimates at about
30,000. Otterbourne, whose figure is 270,000, is one of the most modest (p. 282).

2 Cheruel, Commune, i. 284.

3 So Puiseux, 15, and Coville, Recherches, 386. The estimate of Periaux, however,
is only 40,000 to 50,000 (Diet. p. xii).

4 Puiseux, 16, though it is impossible to believe his statement that 100,000 people
perished in four months.

5 Ordonnances, ix. 413; C. Beaurepaire, Vicomte, 72; Puiseux, 14; E. Freville, i. 270.

6 Ordonnances, ix. 413; Cheruel, Dom. Ang., pt. II. 2; Periaux, 165 sq.; cf. Puiseux,
14; Coville, Recherches, 398.

7 In a letter, dated Aug. 10, 1418, to the mayor of London (Delpit, 223); Cheruel,
Dom. Ang., pt. II. 159.

8 Orders had been given that all should lay in supplies for ten months (Monstr. iii.
282; Waurin, ii. 246), but doubtless this only affected the regular inhabitants.

9 Called "Livres de Deliberations des Echevins," the extant volumes of which are
preserved in the Hotel de Ville (cf. La Queriere, 26; Lefevre-Pontalis, lvii. 9). It has
long been supposed that the missing books were carried off by the English, but the
lacuna begins seven years before the English occupation and ends a year or two before
their departure. No trace of the missing books has been found in England ; there is more-
over another gap from 1396 to 1403 (C. Beaurepaire, Invent. Rouen, 46; Richard, 69)

1 41 8] John Page 125

But from the standpoint of the besiegers we have information
of quite exceptional interest. In the first place we have a
description of the siege by Titus Livius, whose direct personal
intercourse with the duke of Gloucester and other leaders who
were present gave him excellent opportunity for compiling an
accurate account. The elaborate academic dress of his narrative,
however, not only fatigues the reader, but leaves the impression
that the author thought more of his style than his facts. Very
different is an account of the siege written in homely English
by a plain soldier named John Page, who was in the English
force throughout the operations against the town1. Under his
hand the story quickens into instant life, and plants us under
the very walls of the beleaguered city. Who Page was nobody
has been able to discover2. But he was evidently a man with
eyes to see and the wit to tell what he saw. He tells his tale
plainly, and himself says that he wrote it down in a hurry, but
meant to mend it after the war if he came through alive3. But
it instantly took the fancy of the Londoners, who read it greedily,
and a generation later a skinner named William Gregory of
Aldermary, who became mayor of London in 14514, had every
word of it copied in a commonplace book, which is now pre-
served in the British Museum5. Contrary to what is usual in
such cases of literary good intentions, Page did live to amend his
poem, and we are able to read it also in its more polished form6;

1 J- Pa£e> PP- x'> 1 '■> Archaeologia, xxi. 44, 48.

2 Apparently the only man of the name who figures in the Great Roll of 1417
was an archer in the retinue of Philip Leche (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 24,704,
f. 102).

3 "All in raff and not in rime

Bycause of space he hadde no tyme,

And when thys werre ys at an hende

And he have lirFe he wylle hit a mende." J. Page, 46.

4 Greg., Chron. pp. iv, 197.

6 Egerton MS. 1995. The first version of the poem is printed in "Historical
Collections of a London citizen" (Cam. Soc), 1-45, to which reference is made.

6 Partly printed by J. Conybeare in 1827 in Archaeologia, xxi. 48-78, from Bodl.
MS. 124, and completed by F. Madden in 1829 (ibid. xxii. 361-384), from Harl. MSS.
753 and 2256. References to the duke of Clarence and to the king show that the first
version must have been written before the batde of Bauge, and the second version
between that event and Henry's death. (Cf. J. Page, 25, and Archaeologia, xxi. 70.)
A sixteenth-century copy of the second version, made for a London alderman, is at
Balliol College, Oxford (Balliol MS. 354 [38], fol. 128). The text is not identical with
that of Conybeare, as supposed by Coxe, Balliol, 112, and Brie, 72. The MS. is de-
scribed by E. Fliigel in Anglia, xxvi. (1903), 94. The manuscript was afterwards
collated with the others by Dr R. Dyboski, who generously communicated the
results.

1 26 The Siege of Rouen [ch. lvii

but, as might have been expected, his first version is certainly
the better1.

Like every Englishman of his time, Page believed that the
French were keeping King Henry out of his right2. He had a
profound admiration for the king, whom he regarded as "the
child of God" and "the royallest prince in Christendom3,"
and for his brothers the dukes of Clarence and Gloucester4.
From his frequent mention of Sir Gilbert Umfraville, it seems
likely that he was stationed under him on the south bank of the
river. He had a chivalrous respect for the valour of the enemy5,
though he denounces their demolition of churches and religious
houses as a "cursed deed6."

It seems impossible to ascertain the exact strength of the
force under King Henry when he began his uphill task, but it
was certainly small, and without the reinforcements that after-
wards arrived he would probably have failed. It was recognised
from the outset that lives must not be wasted in assaults and
that the city must be starved into surrender. Some days were
spent in securing the ground before the walls, which had been
set with caltrops and other entanglements7, and many lives were
lost before the blockade was complete. On Aug. 1, however,
an order was issued that each captain should occupy his
appointed ground8, and when all was ready, the king took up
his quarters in the new Charterhouse, lately built at the foot
of Mont Gargane, about a mile away from the walls on the
eastern side9. Here he established his staff of non-combatants
and transacted official business, but for fighting purposes he
set up his pavilion close to the Porte St Hilaire, opposite the
north-eastern corner of the enceinte. The duke of Clarence lay

1 Page's work was perhaps used by Otterbourne, who finished his chronicle in 1420
(cf. Otterbourne, 282, with J. Page, 18; Archaeologia, xxii. 393). A long extract from
the second version is embodied in the Brut, ii. 404-422. The Agincourt ballad, printed
in Nicolas, ends with fourteen lines from Page's poem (p. 77). His work was certainly-
used by Strecche (272), Gesta (127), Tit. Liv. (65), Vita (195), Peter. Chron., Rous,
and of course by several of the sixteenth-century chroniclers. For a modern estimate
of Page's poem, see Kingsford, Lit. 116 sqq.

2 J. Page, 22, 26, 33. 3 Ibid. 26, 27.
4 Ibid. 7, 11, 25. 5 Ibid. 14.

6 Ibid. 3. 7 Ibid. 5.

8 Ibid. 6.

9 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 191, (Hellot) 46; Monstr. iii. 283; Le Fevre, i. 344;
Waurin, ii. 219; Cochon, 280. The house was founded by Archbishop Guillaume de
Lestrange in 1384 (Farin, pt. V. 127). The wall which surrounded it still remains, but
nothing of the building is left save the four walls of the chapel. The monastery had
apparently been spared by the townsfolk because of its distance from the fortifications.

1418] St Catherine's 127

at the ruined abbey of St Gervaix fronting the Porte Cauchoise,
and covered all the ground on the west as far as the river bank1.
The castle and the Porte Bouvreuil were watched by the Earl
Marshal, the slopes outside the Porte Beauvoisine by the duke
of Exeter2. Communication between these four great camps
was maintained by deep shelter-trenches3. The flat ground to
the south of the Seine was held by a large force under the earl
of Huntingdon4.

The first task of the besiegers was to isolate the abbey of
St Catherine's, which stood on the top of the steep hill to the
east of the town. This hill was separated from the wall by about
a mile of flat marshy land known as the Martainville Fields,
across which a causeway eight or ten feet high formed the only
means of communication5. To the north of the causeway the
ground was intersected by the channels of the Aubelte and the
Robec, while to the south6 it was exposed to floods from the
Seine. The great and famous abbey of St Catherine7 had
recently been enclosed by a strong wall, with towers and
fortified gates, and thenceforward it was commonly known as
St Catherine's Castle8. In later days it became a maxim that
whoever held St Catherine's held Rouen in his hand9; but in
the early fifteenth century this was not yet true. Still, the
capture of the place was vital to the English, for until this was
effected they could not effectually blockade the eastern side of
the town — the very quarter from which relief was expected to
arrive. For some time after the other gates were blockaded,
communications passed between the abbey and the town by the
Martainville gate in spite of the vigilance of the earl of Salisbury,

1 J. Page, 3, 6; Norm. Chron. (Williams) 187, (Hellot) 41; Strecche, 272; Paston
Lett. i. 10; Brequigny, 73.

2 J. Page, 42. 3 Monstr. iii. 284; Le Fevre, i. 344.

4 Dugdale, Baronage, i. 245; Le Fevre, i. 344; Monstr. iii. 284; Brut, ii. 388. The
lodgments of the different leaders, as described above, are all originally given in Page
(7, 23). They appear also in Tit. Liv. (61), Vita (180), Strecche (273), Peter. Chron.
(448), Paston Lett. (i. 10), Monstr. (iii. 283 sq., with variations), Norm. Chron. (187,
with variations). For various discrepancies, see Archaeol. xxii. 386.

5 For a description of the ground and the causeway, see Richard, 77, 80, 83 et
passim.

6 Now the Champ de Mars (Richard, 185).

7 Gall. Christ, xi. 124.

8 Tit. Liv. 60; Vita, 180; Gesta, 124; Rym. ix. 619; Periaux, 170, Diet. 600;
Coningsby, 27, 29, 40. Fifteenth-century pictures of it are reproduced by Montfaucon,
iii. 240, and Sarrazin, 130. It was destroyed in 1597 (Langlois, Forteresses, 102), and
few traces of it are left.

9 Taillepied, 23.

1 28 The Siege of Rouen [ch. lvii

who was posted with a strong force in a precarious position at
the foot of the hill1. Resolved to stop this intercourse, the
English chose a dark night and planted strong shelters on the
ground between the hill and the city, and from these launched
a vigorous assault on the abbey. The approach over the pre-
cipitous ground was all against the attackers, the alarm was
given in the abbey, and the attack was beaten off2. But the
mere attempt was evidence to the garrison that a vital point
had been lost, and finding his communications with Rouen
severed, the captain resolved to capitulate while there was yet
time. Accordingly on Aug. 3 1 3 a document was signed whereby
the garrison were to evacuate the place, leaving their horses,
armour, artillery, and other munitions of war, on the under-
standing that the abbey and its relics should be spared and its
lands and other property remain in undisputed possession of
the abbot4. The English marched in on Sept. 1, and henceforth
the earl of Salisbury's detachment was set free to strengthen the
chain that was tightening round the city.

From the first it had been evident that the besiegers must
draw largely upon England for their supplies, and the records
contain plenty of evidence of the passage of beer, wine, victuals,
utensils, and munitions of war5. Most of these supplies were
shipped to Harfleur, a fleet of vessels supplied by the friendly
king of Portugal being stationed at the entrance of the Seine
to keep the waterway open6. From Harfleur they were for-
warded in smaller craft under convoy as far up the river as
possible7, but at first they were exposed to great risk of capture
at Caudebec, where the river was dominated by the fortress on

1 Nagerel, 172; Norm. Chron. (Hellot) 41. Salisbury had with him Edward Holland
count of Mortain (Brequigny, 35; Brut, ii. 388), Henry Lord Fitzhugh (Rym. ix. 619),
and Philip Leche of Chatsworth (Puiseux, 83; Cook, 180).

2 Tit. Liv. 62 sq.; Norm. Chron. 189.

3 Rym. ix. 619; Pommeraye, 34; Monstr. iii. 284; Le Fevre, i. 345; Waurin, ii. 249.
For safe-conduct to Jean Noblet, who had conducted the defence as lieutenant for the
captain of Rouen, see D.K.R. xli. 697. After the siege of the town was over, the bul-
warks of St Catherine's were demolished, some of the material being given to the abbot
to repair the steeple of the abbey church and the rest used for the various new works
that the king took in hand to strengthen his hold on the city (D.K.R. xli. 801).

4 Guillaume le Mesle (Brequigny, 43; D.K.R. xli. 705; Puiseux, 104; Gall. Christ.
xi. 129).

5 e.g. Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 204; Iss. Roll 6 Hen. V, Pasch., Aug. 1, 1418; ibid.
6 Hen. V, Mich., Oct. 27, 1418, Feb. 24, 1419; ibid. 7 Hen. V, Pasch., July 3, 1419.
On Sept. 8, 14 18 the mayor of London despatched great plenty of victuals from
Gravesend, together with thirty butts of sweet wine, 1000 pipes of ale, and 2500 cups,
for "your hoste to drink of," Delpit, 225; Puiseux, 112.

6 Tit. Liv. 62. 7 Delpit, 223; Tyler, ii. 225, 226.

1418] Blockade 129

the northern bank and blocked by vessels sent from Rouen1.
It therefore became imperative to reduce Caudebec, and with
this object the earl of Warwick (who had just arrived from
Domfront) was sent thither with Gilbert Talbot and a body
of troops2. So pressing was the need that the king is said to
have gone with the force to direct operations3. Some modern
writers have supposed that Caudebec made a heroic resistance,
and indeed it would have rendered an inestimable service to
Rouen by doing so. As a matter of fact, however, six days
sufficed to bring the garrison to terms4, and on Sept. 9 it was
agreed that the fate of Caudebec should be that of Rouen, and
until this was decided it should abstain from any hostile action
and, while retaining its English prisoners, should treat them
well5. As a guarantee for the execution of this singular treaty,
the garrison gave hostages, who were kept in St Catherine's
abbey6. The earl of Warwick transferred his men to strengthen
the besieging force at Rouen.

Some time before, the English had gained an important
success at Quillebeuf, on the south bank of the Seine, by the
dispersal of a band of 400 desperadoes who had been inter-
cepting supplies coming up the river, eighty of them, including
three prominent leaders, being captured on Aug. 167. Thus
after the neutralisation of Caudebec the way was clear for the
passage of a whole fleet of vessels, and ere long 100 ships were
at anchor off Croisset and Quevilly8.

Attempts were made to run the blockade from outside and
in. Armed vessels for this purpose were equipped at Le Crotoy
and Abbeville with the special object of getting food into
Rouen9. But the English stationed armed craft in mid-stream to
pounce upon any French vessel that tried to approach or leave
the town10. Above the bridge, about a gunshot from the town,
chains were stretched from bank to bank, either buoyed on
casks or fastened to piles11. To guard the upper reaches of the

1 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 190, (Hellot) 44.

2 J. Page, 7; Norm. Chron. (Williams) 190, (Hellot) 45.

3 Peter. Chron. 489, but this is not mentioned by J. Page.

4 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 190, (Hellot) 45; cf. J. Page, 10.

6 Rym. ix. 620. 6 D.K.R. xli. 707.

7 Tit. Liv. 64; Vita, 190; Wals. ii. 329, Hypodig. 486.

8 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 190, (Hellot) 44; Strutt, Manners, ii. 126, Plate XLIII;
Chron. Ric. II-Hen. VI, 47; Brut, ii. 389, 396; J. Page, 10; Peter. Chron. 489.

9 Itin. 614. lu Tit. Liv. 61.

11 Norm. Chron. (W'illiams) 189, 240, (Hellot) 43; Strecche, 273; J. Page, 10;
Monstr. iii. 284; Le Fevre, i. 344.

W III q

130 The Siege of Rouen [ch. lvii

river the English dragged ships overland across the intervening
flats on the south side and then launched them again in the
reaches beyond St Catherine's1. To secure his communications
Henry threw a wooden bridge across the river from Lescure,
where he could take advantage of certain islands, to a point
between Sotteville and St Etienne du Rouvray, the planks being
laid on chains made fast to piles that were driven into the bed
of the stream2. Such measures offer striking evidence of Henry's
determination to render complete the isolation of the garrison.

One or two minor successes in other parts were gained by
the English during August, 141 8. On the 18th 400 French-
men entered the suburbs of Evreux, but were chased out by
the small English garrison, who killed twelve of them, and
captured four prisoners and forty horses3. Two days later a
French force 1000 strong appeared before the walls of Louviers,
where they had established an understanding with some of the
townsfolk4; but, according to an English writer, the English
commander sallied out with one hundred men and beat them
off, taking 180 prisoners, all men of consideration5. These
successes, with that at Quillebeuf, fell within the Octave of the
Assumption, and were attributed to the special intervention of
the Virgin, to whom Henry always paid special reverence6.
It is improbable, however, that the French forces engaged were
much more than bands of marauders. The approach of an
organised body of 1000 men must have drawn off some of the
troops besieging Rouen.

Meanwhile the inhabitants of Rouen were looking in vain
for the expected relief. In September came a letter from the
University of Paris, which told that their case had often been
brought to the notice of the king and the duke of Burgundy,
who had always returned a gracious reply: in fact, a force had
already been set on foot to help them and relieve Caudebec. For
the present let them take heart and defend themselves, for the

1 Tit. Liv. 61 sq. Strecche (273) says that they dragged them for two miles over the
roads with their sails set. Cf. Vita, 182.

2 Cochon, 280; Tit. Liv. 61; Vita, 182; J.Page, 10; Brut, ii. 388. John Janyn, who
had made the hide pontoons (see above, p. 59, n. 1), was employed both on the barrier
of chains and on this bridge (For. Accts. 57, C). There is a record of his charge
"ad iaciendam unam magnamcathenamferream super pilis ultraaquamadcustodiendam
aquam de Seen." The chain was forged on the spot, though the order for it had been
given at Westminster on Feb. 8, 14 17. It was afterwards used at several other sieges.

3 Wals. ii. 329. Walsingham says that the English force numbered eleven.

4 D.K.R. xli. 716. 6 Wals. ii. 329. « Ibid.

141 8] Reinforcements 131

fall of Rouen would mean the irrevocable loss of all that region
and would imperil the safety of the rest of the kingdom1. But
nothing is known of the relieving force mentioned in the letter,
unless it were the body of 2000 men which got within ten miles
of the city before being cut up by John Cornwall, who had
been sent with 600 mounted men to deal with them2. The
prospects of the defenders in fact grew steadily worse. After
the siege of Caudebec the earl of Warwick was stationed at the
Martainville gate, having under him John Neville and Edmund
Lord Ferrers of Chartley3. Not long afterwards the king's
division was reinforced by the arrival of 3000 men from
Cherbourg under the duke of Gloucester, who had with him
Lord Abergavenny and the earl of Suffolk. Though the front
lines of the besiegers were in general but a bow-shot from the
ramparts4, Gloucester's force was posted nearer the walls than
any other detachment and was much exposed to missiles of all
kinds from the town5. Late in the autumn there also arrived
a force of some 1500 Irish kernes under the command of
Thomas Butler, the fighting prior of the Knights Hospitallers
at Kilmainham near Dublin6. There were already Irish troops
in the king's army, but the arrival of Butler's men excited special
interest, for they were dressed and equipped in Irish fashion7.
They wore no breeches and went with one foot bare8. Their
arms were a targe, a bundle of small darts, and a great knife
carried at the waist. The few mounted men rode their little
nags cleverly, using pads instead of saddles "like a corn-
chandler9." The French, whom they greatly astonished, over-

1 Denifle, Chart, iv. 350; Boulay, v. 334. 2 Fenin, 105; Monstr. iii. 301 sq.

3 J- Page, 9, 10, 11; Strecche, 273; Brut, ii. 389, 396; Paston Letters, i. 10; Rous
(Hearne), 367; Monstr. iii. 283.

4 Cochon, 280.

5 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 191, (Hellot) 46; J. Page, 11, 16; Tit. Liv. 64; Vita, 190.

6 J- Page> I2? Brut, ii. 389, 397. For Butler, see Wylie, ii. 130, iii. 169 sqq. He seems
to have been acquitted of the charges brought against him at the end of the reign of
Henry IV (ibid. iii. 171; Rot. Pari. iv. 199; Cal. Rot. Hib. i. 211, 213). The arrival of his
troops had evidently been eagerly awaited, for in June, 14 18, the king ordered that
shipping should be sent from Bristol to Waterford to transport the prior and his men
(Chanc. Warr., Ser. 1, 1364/59; Excerpt. Hist. 388), and soon afterwards certain masters
and sailors of Bristol received money for embarking the prior, 200 men-at-arms,
and 300 archers (Devon, 356, July 1, 14 18). These can hardly have been the Irish
kernes, but in the autumn the prior received £100 to bring them to Southampton (Iss.
Roll 6 Hen. V, Mich., Oct. 17, 1418); and on Oct. 27 an order was issued to the mayor
and bailiff of that port to provide shipping to carry him and his retinue to France
(Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 202).

7 J- PaSe> I2- 8 Monstr. iii. 284 sq.
9 Ibid. 285; Le Fevre, i. 345; Waurin, ii. 249.

9-2

132 The Siege of Rouen [ch. lvii

estimated their numbers1 and under-estimated their military
value2. They were at any rate expert foragers, and swept to
some purpose the country-side near Rouen, where men long
remembered the spectacle they presented as they came back
from their raids, with beds, baggage, and even babies in cradles
tied to the backs of the cattle they were driving. They did not
take kindly to Henry's discipline, and after a time the king
had to send to prior Butler a sharp message that if they did
not conform to orders they would be flogged and otherwise
punished3. They were at first posted on the north side of the
town4.

As at Harfleur, the king exercised a close supervision over
the minutest details. He issued a code of rules for the dis-
cipline of the army and saw to it that they were put into effect.
He personally directed the despatch of armed detachments to
convoy and protect provisions gathered from the adjacent
country. Night and day, in storm and calm alike, he went the
round of the camps, contriving and correcting with sleepless
activity5. If any tents were pitched too far afield, his eye
detected what was wrong and he had them moved nearer to
the lines. When his orders were disobeyed, he hanged the
offenders6.

Meanwhile the French rained showers of stones and quarrels
among the English tents, the guns and engines on the walls
sometimes discharging a hundred shots in an hour7. Time
after time the defenders broke out from all the gates at once
in solid masses of 1000 men, but in hand-to-hand fighting the
English drove them back to the shelter of their walls and towers,
though they often revenged themselves when the pursuers had
been lured on to the treacherous ground, set with pitfalls and
caltrops, near the gates8. At every such repulse, however, the
defence weakened, and King Henry rendered sorties still more
hopeless by encircling the town with a trench fenced with
sharp stakes and mounting on its ramparts guns to play on the

1 Monstrelet (iii. 284 sq.) gives their numbers as 8000, while Waurin (ii. 249) puts
them at 20,000.

2 Monstr. iii. 285; Waurin, ii. 250. 3 D.K.R. xli. 720; Gesta, 125.
4 J. Page, 12. 5 Tit. Liv. 63; Vita, 188.

6 For Thomas Croware and John Calf, lately hanged "pro offensis factis contra
Regem," see D.K.R. xli. 296.

7 Tit. Liv. 62; Vita, 184, 186; J. Page, 15; Norm. Chron. (Hellot), 42.

8 Tit. Liv. 62; Vita, 185; Monstr. iii. 285; Le Fevre, i. 344, 345; Waurin, ii. 246;
Fenin, 569; J. Page, 8, 15.

1418] Famine 133

ground between it and the walls1. As usual in mediaeval sieges,
personal challenges passed from one side to the other, and
operations were sometimes suspended while both sides watched
a single-handed fight. Such an incident occurred at the very-
beginning of the siege, when John Blount, lieutenant of the
duke of Exeter at Harfleur, challenged the captain of the Porte
Cauchoise to break three lances with him. The Frenchman
accepted the challenge, came out to the lists with thirty
comrades, unhorsed his enemy, and pierced him through the
body. The corpse was then dragged within the walls and only
given up for burial on payment of 400 nobles2. As the siege
went on, however, a growing exasperation manifested itself on
both sides, and a spirit of brutality developed. The English
tried to frighten the besieged by hanging prisoners on the
gibbet that stood in full view on the northern heights; while
the French fastened dogs to the beards and necks of any
Englishmen they could catch and hanged them on a gallows
which they fixed up in the ditch beneath the walls3, or tied
them in sacks and flung them into the Seine4.

The townsmen soon began to suffer. The water supply was
seriously reduced when the English effectually dammed the
Renelle before it reached the town5. By the beginning of
October the stock of food was giving out6. All grain and meal
had been consumed, and such bread as could be had was made
of bran7. None was exposed in the market, and such sales as
took place were made secretly, for if food was seen in the
streets, the hungry mob fell on it and could not be beaten off8.
A slice of bread the size of one's hand could not be had for less
than a franc, and young girls would sacrifice their honour to
get one9. Leeks and turnips sold for a shilling each. Docks
were eaten root and rind. Water tinged with vinegar had to
serve for wine. For flesh meat the besieged ate not only their
skinny horses, but also cats, rats, dogs, mice and any such

1 J. Page, 17; Strecche, 273; Monstr. iii. 284; Le Fevre, i. 344; Waurin, ii. 248.
It was perhaps to help in digging and fortifying the trench that Henry brought from
Harfleur the 200 labourers and carpenters who on Oct. 3, 1418, were owed £258. i%s. id.
in wages (Iss. Roll 6 Hen. V, Mich.).

2 Monstr. iii. 286. The Frenchman was the Bastard of Arly. Blount's death oc-
curred before Aug. 9 (Rym. ix. 595).

3 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 189, (Hellot) 43; La Qyeriere, Notice, 173.

4 Otter bourne, 128. 5 La Qyeriere, Fontaines, 55.
6 Monstr. iii. 299. 7 J. Page, 18.

8 Monstr. iii. 300. 9 Le Fevre, i. 353.

134 The Siege of Rouen [ch. lvii

vermin as they could lay their hands on, all commanding a high
price1.

As time went on, communication between the city and the
outer world became more and more difficult. Towards the end
of October, however, messengers got out, made their way to
Paris, and on the 27th appeared before the Council, where
with broken voices they implored the duke of Burgundy not
to abandon them2. In point of fact, the ban and arriere-ban
had already been proclaimed with a view to the relief of Rouen,
and the University of Paris had exhorted the cities not to stand
on their privileges, but to do whatever they could to aid the
besieged city3. The duke therefore declared (to the surprise of
the envoys) that if the men of Rouen would hold out a little
longer, he would certainly come to their help and take the king
with him. This announcement was welcomed with great joy in
Paris; the excommunication under which the duke lay was
annulled; and the king went solemnly to Notre Dame to pray
for a blessing on the coming rescue4. On Nov. 1 7 he took the
oriflamme at St Denis5, and on Nov. 24 went out with the
queen and the duke to join a large force that had gathered at
Pontoise6. As for the messengers from Rouen, they returned
home and told that the duke was coming with 300,000 men to
the rescue, that he was less than twenty miles away, and that
next Friday would see him before the walls7. The bells, which
had been silent since the siege began, rang out wild peals of
joy; the churches were thronged with townsfolk giving thanks;
and the streets echoed with shouts of exultation8. Outside the
walls the prospect of sharp fighting was hailed with delight.
The king's heart leapt up, for he felt that a decisive battle
might be coming at last. He called his captains together and
said, "Fellows, be merry9!" The Irish troops were posted on

1 "For xxx d. went a ratte, For ii nobles went a catte," J. Page, 18. Cf. Paston
Lett. i. 10; Tit. Liv. 65, 66; Vita, 195 sq.; Gesta, 196; Otterbourne, 282, reading
"mures" for "sues," where the prices given differ from those of Page; Strecche, 274;
Nicolas, App. 77; Heron, 78; Verneuil, 220; Fenin, 569; Basin, i. 32; Monstr. iii. 299;
Le Fevre, i. 352.

2 St Denys, vi. 299, 304. The besieged had already appealed to the dauphin, but his
answer must have been a sham, for he was all the time bargaining with the English
(Juv. 545).

3 Ordonnances, x. 482; Denifle, Chart, iv. 356.

4 Monstr. iii. 286; Vallet de Viriville, i. 141. 5 St Denys, vi. 300.

6 Fauquembergue, i. 202; Felibien, ii. 795, iv. 575; Comines, i. 370.

7 J. Page, 16. 8 Ibid.; Tit. Liv. 65. 9 J. Page, 16.

1 41 8] Hope Deferred 135

the road to the east leading to the Forest of Lyons, so as to be
the first in touch with any relieving force. Every man lay in his
harness through the night1. The king strengthened his position
on the northern side of the city, where rumour said the attack
would come, as the quarter presenting most difficulty to the
besiegers2. Where the approach to the trench was open, it was
fortified with banks and wooden towers, on which were
mounted guns and engines3. But the Burgundians never came.
Henry had letters forged and conveyed into the town by pre-
tended messengers in order to fill the defenders with false hope4.
He also bade some of his men don the St Andrew's cross and
rush out of a wood towards the English lines, his object being
to entice the garrison to sally out to their assistance — a ruse
which wholly failed. The truth was that the force at Pontoise
was paralysed by disaffection. Some held that the time of year
was not fit for campaigning5; others were secretly on the side of
the dauphin, whose men were in possession of Soissons and
Compiegne6 and threatened to oppose the relieving force. In
any case the army was much smaller than it should have been,
many of the nobles having disobeyed the summons to appear7.
Money was also short, despite the imposition of a new tax on
wine and an attempt to raise a loan of 10,000 livres8; and it was
to little purpose that on Dec. 1 2 the University of Paris, after
hearing a piteous letter from Rouen, voted 1000 livres towards
its relief9. After five weeks spent idly at Pontoise10, the army
moved north to Beauvais in search of food, their own provisions
having all been eaten, but they found that the Armagnacs had
swept the ground bare and were barring the roads against any
traders that were ready to sell to them11. To Beauvais came

1 J. Page, 16. 2 Ibid. 12; Archaeol. xxi. 58; Pottier, in Puiseux, 243.

3 Tit. Liv. 65; Vita, 194. 4 Basin, i. 33.

6 St Denys, vi. 294.

6 Cordeliers, 262; Monstr. iii. 279 sq., 292; Champion, 7.

7 Ordonnances, x. 501; Felibien, iv. 575; Denifle, Chart, iv. 360, where the king
states that Paris has sent more men than all the other towns of France together. It
was in vain that proclamations were issued threatening defaulters with the confiscation
of their fiefs (St Denys, vi. 292).

8 Ordonnances, x. 502; Bourgeois, 120; St Denys, vi. 292. As the royal domain in
Normandy was offered as part security for the loan, it is not surprising that the scheme
aroused bitter mirth in Rouen (Norm. Chron. [Williams] 188, [Hellot] 42; Blondel,
i. 20; Nagerel, 172).

9 Denifle, Chart, iv. 356.

10 Nov. 24-Dec. 28 (Itin. 444; Denifle, Chart, iv. 357; Gachard, 240).

11 Monstr. iii. 298; Le Fevre, i. 351; Itin. 444.

136 The Siege of Rouen [ch. lvii

Rouen's last cry for help, brought by four gentlemen and four
bourgeois1.

Meanwhile death stalked in the streets of Rouen. No city
could boast more burial-grounds, but they were too few, and
the people died faster than they could be buried. Rather than
face a lingering death the inhabitants stole out one by one to
fall into the hands of the English, who at first would not
believe the tales they brought, so stout a show of resistance was
still maintained2. But this brave front had to be given up, and
soon the weak and useless were thrust out by hundreds at a
time3. Women with infants in their arms and old men came
crying on their knees for pity. The English gave them food,
but would not let them pass the lines. They would not, however,
be gainsaid until the leisurely discharge of a few shots amongst
them sent them thronging back with curses on their own people,
who would not let them into the town4. For days their only
shelter was the ditch, where they lay huddled in the pitiless
rain. Many women were overtaken in labour, and their little
babes were hoisted up the wall in baskets for their baptism and
then sent back to die in nameless horrors5. But Christmas was
at hand, and Henry could not keep the feast with all this
wretchedness before his eyes. He called a truce and sent into
the city heralds offering food to all whose stores were done6.
Any such who would come out should have meat enough for
the high feast and safe-conduct to come and go; but the captain
would have none of it and barely granted the one day's truce.
He did, however, grudgingly allow two English priests and
three men with them to carry food to the poor wretches in the
ditch, and this gracious stroke of generous policy did much to
smooth the way for the coming surrender7. Before the end
came, however, a last sortie was planned, and a large force
provided with food for two days prepared for a desperate
attempt to break out. At a given signal 2000 issued from the
Porte St Hilaire and flung themselves vainly upon the king's
camp. Another body was to attack through the Castle Gate,
but the stanchions of the drawbridge had been secretly cut

1 Monstr. iii. 299. 2 J. Page, 19.

3 Ibid. 20; Tit. Liv. 64; Vita, 192; Monstr. iii. 299; Le Fevre, i. 352; Waurin, ii. 253;
Rym. ix. 665.
i J. Page, 20.

5 Ibid. 35; Archaeol. xxii. 356; Chron. Ric. II-Hen. VI, 47.

6 V. Freville, 99; J. Page, 21. 7 J. Page, 27.

1418-19] Despair 137

through, and as the mass of men emerged from the gate it
gave way and many were precipitated into the moat. Those
behind fell back in confusion and raised the cry that it was the
captain Guy le Bouteiller who had sawn the stanchions, while
the death of his popular colleague the Bastard of Arly com-
pleted their discomfiture1. The morale of the garrison was
probably much lowered by this disaster, and ere the year was
out hunger broke down the stone walls, and the townsmen had
their way. On New Year's Eve a cry went up in the night from
every gate in turn2. The English gave no answer save on the
south, where young Gilbert Umfraville approached the Bridge
Gate3 to ascertain what it meant. "Send us a baron or a knight
of our stock4," was the reply. "I am a knight," said Umfra-
ville, and when they heard his name, the omen encouraged
them5, and they begged that twelve of them might come out
and see the king. Then Umfraville sped in the darkness to the
duke of Clarence and the other captains watching the gates.
Everywhere his tidings were received with delight. When
morning broke he sought the king, whom he found willing to
receive the suppliants. The day was spent in conferences be-
tween "the states" and Umfraville at the Bridge Gate, and on
the morrow at prime four knights, four clerks, and four
burgesses6, all dressed in black7, came forth from the Porte
St Hilaire. There they were met by Umfraville and a party of
the king's squires and yeomen, who escorted them to the
Charterhouse, Umfraville having warned them to make no
shrewd speeches and to weigh well what they said, for one
unguarded word might wreck all8. When they reached the
Charterhouse, the king was hearing Mass, and they waited
till the service was done. The writer who describes the inter-
view praises Henry for his clemency and grace; but when the
Frenchmen fell on their knees before him, there was little
graciousness in the scowl with which he haughtily regarded

1 Monstr. iii. 296 sq.; Le Fevre, i. 349; Waurin, ii. 254.

2 Brut, ii. 404. 3 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 191, (Hellot) 46.

4 J. Page, 22.

5 Ibid. 23; Brut, ii. 404; Strecche, 274. The Umfravilles sprang from Amfreville
near St Mere Fglise in the Cotentin.

6 Monstrelet (iii. 304) and Le Fevre (i. 356) say that there were two of each class
and that they made straight for the king's tent but were sent some to the quarters of
Archbishop Chichele, some to those of the earl of Warwick.

7 J. Page, 28; Tit. Liv. 65.

8 "For one worde wrong and owte of warde

Myght cause you alle to fare fulle harde." J. Page, 27.

138 The Siege of Rouen [ch. lvii

them1. Still kneeling, they held out to him a bill, which he
handed to the duke of Exeter to read. When he found that
they petitioned to be heard, he told them to say on. They
prayed him for the love of Jesus and the Virgin to have pity
on the poor people that lay dying in the ditch; but with un-
moved countenance he replied, "Fellows, who put them there ?
They abode in the city while they might. Let them find that
they have sought2." Then he told them that they had kept
from him his city and his inheritance, and they answered that
they had been charged to keep the city by that king whose born
liegemen they were, but that many among them were willing
to become his lieges if he would give them leave to go and
excuse themselves before the duke of Burgundy. Then Henry's
pride broke out. Their French king and their duke of Burgundy
knew well enough that he meant to have this city. He had had
messages enough from them. No more were wanted, nor
should any be sent3. In their despair4 the Frenchmen forgot
Umfraville's caution, and a knight ventured to say that Rouen
with all its people would be a fair city to win. "It is mine,"
replied the king emphatically, "and I will have it. Let those
within prepare themselves, for men shall speak of me till
the day of doom5." No more was to be said, and with the
memory of Caen in their minds, the messengers could only
offer up their city and pray that the conqueror would be
merciful. At this Henry turned to confer with the duke of
Clarence6; and, his anger having abated, he gave them time
to treat, with a promise that if they did well they might have
grace. When they again pleaded for the sufferers in the
ditch, he said that upon this matter he would take advice7.
With that he bade adieu and left them. They walked back to
the city with Umfraville, praising on the way the king's looks,
demeanour, and wisdom.

What happened in the city is described in French sources,
though the story is not contemporary and looks somewhat like
an afterthought. The men of Rouen, it is said, would not listen
to Henry's terms, but made preparations for setting fire to the

1 Archaeologia, xxii. 366. 2 J. Page, 30; cf. Tit. Liv. 67; Vita, 199.

3 J. Page, 31; Archaeol. xxi. 76.

4 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 191, (Hellot) 46.

5 Archaeol. xxi. 76; cf. Tit. Liv. 67. 6 Basin, i. 34.

7 J. Page, 33; Monstr. iii. 304 sq. This account is based mainly on Page, who was
of course not present, but seems to be reporting the description of someone who was.

i4J9] Submission 139

city and making a desperate attempt to break out during the
night, whereupon Henry made some concessions in order that
he might get the city undamaged1. However this may be, it is
certain that next day two tents were pitched in the duke of
Gloucester's camp2, and the negotiations began. In the English
pavilion were seven commissioners — the earls of Salisbury and
Warwick, Lord Fitzhugh, Walter Hungerford, John Robsart,
Gilbert Umfraville, and a Portuguese, Joao de Vasques of
Almada3, whose presence is a singular evidence of the intimacy
of the relationship between the two countries and a striking
recognition of the help rendered by the Portuguese ships in
the Seine. The French were represented by the abbot of
St George de Boscherville, three clerks (one of them being
Master Simon de Rondeman), three knights, three squires,
and fourteen others, or twenty-four in all4. The bargaining
went on for days. The English demanded much, the French
offered little5, and at length the tents were struck, and the
French envoys went sorrowfully back to the town. Here they
were met by an infuriated crowd, who threatened to fire the
gates and let the English in rather than face the horrors of the
siege for another day6. On this they mounted the Porte St
Hilaire and raised a shout, and when John Robsart approached,
they begged him to tell the king that they were ready to give in.
The duke of Gloucester and the king conferred, and Archbishop
Chichele came down from St Catherine's with an offer to
mediate with the clergy in the city. Two tents were again
pitched, with a third for the archbishop between them. When

1 Monstr. iii. 305; Le Fevre, i. 356; Waurin, ii. 261. A curious tradition about the
end of the siege survived among the English. In Rouen, it was said, in accordance with
the old Twelfth Night custom each household made its eldest son a king. As the day
drew near, the "great heirs of the suburbs" came and begged Henry to allow them to
carry out this practice. The king consented, and when the festival came sent for the
"kings" that he might see their array. A French knight who was present was reminded
of an old prophecy that Rouen should never be won till there should come against it
a king with thirty kings in his retinue. Then said the king, "At thy word I will let
go the net," and the town surrendered next day (Brut, ii. 598 ; cf. Kingsford, First Life,
xlv, xlvi, Lit. 126). If there is anything in the story, the episode must have occurred
after negotiations had been opened.

2 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 191, (Hellot) 46.

3 Rym. ix. 664. For their commission, dated Jan. 3, 14 19, and the safe-conducts of
the French envoys, see Brequigny, 43.

4 Rym. ix. 664.

5 J. Page, 34, 36, 193. The people of Rouen crowded to the town walls and the
English stood about in knots watching the heralds in their blazonry passing with
messages from tent to tent (J. Page, 34).

8 J- Page> 38-

140 The Siege of Rouen [ch. lvii

daylight failed candles and torches were lit, and the talk went
on far into the night. For four more days conversations con-
tinued, and on Jan. 13 a settlement was at last reached1. The
city was to submit itself wholly to the king's mercy if not
relieved by noon on Jan. 1 9. In case relief should be attempted,
no help was to be extended to the rescuers from within the
town. If it were not relieved, the town would pay 300,000
crowns and surrender all horses, harness, armour, artillery,
powder, and other material of war. All English prisoners
would be released. All Normans in the garrison were to be
held as prisoners; other soldiers might depart leaving all their
possessions. The town should enjoy the privileges2 granted to
it before the reign of Philip VI, and those citizens who were
prepared to take the oath of allegiance to the English king
might keep their property. Eighty substantial hostages were
given, and messengers were despatched to bear the news to
Charles VI and the duke of Burgundy3. The great supplies of
food in the English camp were laid open for the needs of the
famished city4. It had been stipulated that the people in the
ditches before the town were to be taken back and fed. The
streets were to be cleansed and all dead bodies buried before
the English entered5. The messenger6 who took the news to
the French king did not take long to make up his mind as to
the possibility of rescue. Before he could reach Beauvais, the
duke of Burgundy had left with the king and queen, and
he must have had his interview at Beaumont-sur-Oise, where
the royal party stayed from Jan. 1 3 to 1 57. The duke expressed
admiration for the heroism of Rouen, and blamed the dauphin
for the fact that he was not strong enough to attempt a rescue;
he advised the citizens to capitulate on such terms as they
could get8. Then, ignoring the protests of deputations from
unprotected Paris9, he moved further east, and on Jan. 22

1 The Latin text is in Rymer, ix. 664 sqq. The English text is in Greg., Chron.
122 sqq.

2 Rym. ix. 666. 3 J. Page, 40.

4 Monstr. iii. 306. 5 Rym. ix. 666.

6 The Lombard known as Big Jacques (Cheruel, Dom. Ang. i. 35; "graunt Jaket"
or "Jakys," J. Page, 14, 41; Archaeol. xxi. 59; cf. Kingsford, Lit. 318).

7 Itin. 445; Fenin, 570.

8 J- Page> 41; Monstr. iii. 303; Le Fevre, i. 353; Waurin, ii. 260; cf. Ordonnances,
x. 490.

9 Denifle, Chart, iv. 359 sq. News of the capitulation of Rouen did not reach Paris
till Jan. 17 (Bourgeois, 120, n. 2).

1419] " Our King's own Right" 141

reached Provins, where the party stayed four months, most of
the army having already been disbanded1.

The messenger did not return to Rouen, but sent word that
no relief could be expected2, and on St Wulfstan's day, Jan. 1 9,
the drama reached its end. The king was seated in great state
in the Charterhouse, and Guy le Bouteiller, attended by a group
of citizens, kneeled before him and delivered up the keys,
which the king handed to the duke of Exeter, who had been
appointed captain of the town3. The duke took the keys and
rode to his camp at the Porte Beauvoisine. The gate was
opened, and as the first party rode in, with horses neighing,
banners fluttering, and pipes, clarions, and trumpets blaring,
they shouted, "St George," and, "Welcome, Rone, our king's
own right!" and a crowd of emaciated Frenchmen answered
"Welcome4!" It had not been possible to remove all the
corpses, and many lay in the streets among the living who cried
feebly for bread. The new captain entered the castle and then
went the round of the walls and towers, and having set the
guard and hoisted the banners of St George, the Queen of
Heaven, and the Trinity, he posted strong bodies of men about
the town to prevent looting5, and made all ready for the king's
entry on the following day.

On the morning of Jan. 206 King Henry rode with great
ceremony to the Porte Beauvoisine, where he was met by three
bishops, seven abbots, and a great throng of lesser clergy
bearing relics and crosses. Archbishop Chichele was there
with holy water. The king kissed some of the crosses7, and then
went forward. But as in his passage through London two years
before he would have no ostentatious glorification of his own
person. No pipe or clarion pealed his victory, and it is re-
markable that the writer who describes the scene in greatest
detail spends all his eloquence on the king's black horse, with
its gold breast-cloth and housings of black damask8. Henry
rode sadly through the crowded streets, amid the clangour of

1 Itin. 445, 446; Monstr. iii. 303; Le Fevre, i. 355; Waurin, ii. 259. [Next day
Charles VI wrote to Rheims apologising for the withdrawal (Le Moyen Age, ser. 11, xx.
331 sqq.).] _ 2 J. Page, 41.

3 Heron, 78; Twisden, 2291; Paston Lett. i. 10; Usk, 132, 318; Chron. Lond. 107;
J. Stone, 19; Kingsford, Chron. 126; Greg., Chron. 127; Three Fifteenth Cent. Chrons.
56; Bodl. MS. 496 (2159), fol. 224. On the same day Walter Beauchamp was set over
the bailliage of Rouen (D.K.R. xli. 725). 4 J. Page, 42 sq.

6 Tit. Liv. 68. 6 J. Page, 44; Cochon, 281; Bourgeois, 120; Verneuil, 220.

7 J. Page, 44. 8 Ibid. 45.

142 The Siege of Rouen [ch. lvii

bells1, bringing up the long procession of chanting clergy2, and
followed by a page bearing a lance with a fox's brush fastened
to the end, "whereby some wise men noted many things3,"
though they might have spared their conjectures had they
known that it was merely one of the badges of his family4. He
alighted at the west door of the cathedral, and the clerks of his
chapel went before him up the nave chanting the antiphon
"Who is so great a lord5?" He knelt in prayer at the high
altar and offered thanks to God, and when Mass was done and
the offering made, he rode to the castle, where he spent the
night6.

1 And, according to Page (44), the cheers of the spectators.

2 Norm. Chron. 191; Monstr. iii. 307; Worcester, Itin. 35.

3 Monstr. iii. 307; Le Fevre, i. 359; Waurin, ii. 263.

4 For the fox's brush as one of Henry IV's badges, see Wylie, i. 41, ii. 30 n. It
appears also on the frame of the Cassiobury portrait (Macfarlane-Thomson, i. 702).

5 Archaeol. xxii. 383.

6 J. Page, 45; Monstr. iii. 307; Norm. Chron. 191.

CHAPTER LVIII

ROUEN IN ENGLISH HANDS

There is a general tendency among modern French writers
to represent the conquests of Henry V as having been made at
the expense of an irreconcilable people, who merely submitted
sullenly to force majeure. This, however, is to ascribe wholly
modern sentiments to the French of the fifteenth century.
Heroic as the defence of Rouen unquestionably was, its leading
motive was not the patriotic zeal which animates the French
of to-day. Ever since the establishment of their commune, the
life of the burgesses of Rouen had been a long struggle against
the pretensions of their archbishops and kings, and now that
they had been betrayed in their hour of need, they settled down
without a murmur under the sway of a descendant of their
ancient dukes. Even when Henry was dead and the national
spirit was beginning to awake, there were many Frenchmen
who would not join in the denunciations of the English king
as a grasping tyrant, and we have the curious statement of a
cautious opportunist who could not make up his mind whether
he really was a tyrant or after all a just claimant to a title that
was sound1. No such doubts, however, agitated the citizens
of Rouen when Henry entered their city. Knowing well what
their fate might have been, they welcomed him with gratitude
and hailed him not only as duke but as king. Under the treaty
of surrender, nine persons had been excluded from the king's
mercy. One of them was an Italian, whose subsequent fate
does not seem to be known. The others were French — the
bailli (Guillaume Houdetot), the mayor (Jean Segneult), the
archbishop's vicar-general (Robert de Livet), the captain of
the crossbowmen (Alain Blanchard), the bailli of Valmont,
and three unnamed persons, two of whom were fishmongers
(piscetters), while the third is called "that person who spoke
the foul words2," a reference apparently to some insult shouted

1 "Ou tyran par crudelite ou juste prosecuteur de son bon et vray titre a Dieu j'en
laisse la distinction," Chastellain, ii. 157.

2 Rym. ix. 667; cf. Greg., Chron. 127. Tradition added the name of Jean Jourdain,
captain of the gunners, but his name does not appear in the official list.

144 Rouen in English Hands [ch lviii

from the walls, which it was justifiable, according to the
military etiquette of that time, to wash out in blood. Whether
the man of offensive tongue was ever given up we do not
know, but of the rest, Houdetot, Segneult, and the fish-
mongers saved their necks by money payments and soon
fell in with the new regime1. Robert de Livet was sent
to England, where he was long supposed to have died in
prison2, but recent research among the Chapter records at
Rouen proves that by Oct. 1 1, 1424, he was again in possession
of his canonry and that he spent his remaining years in the
city3. Alain Blanchard, however, who is charged by English
writers with having perpetrated acts of special savagery on
such prisoners as fell into his hands4, could look for no
clemency. Immediately after the king's entry he was brought
out and executed5. Modern writers usually denounce Henry's
action as an indelible stain on his memory: but contemporary
authorities lend no countenance to the view that he was actuated
by mere wanton vindictiveness — conduct quite inconsistent
with his usual policy towards the defenders of a captured town;
and it is probable that he really wished to mark his indignation
at some gross breach of the laws of honourable warfare6.

Many of the defenders of Norman strongholds fell under
suspicion of treason, and this blot has besmirched the name of
Guy le Bouteiller. It is at least certain that three days after the
king's entry he received safe-conduct to go where he liked7;

1 Le Fevre, i. 358; Waurin, ii. 264; Norm. Chron. (Hellot), 211. Segneult actually-
held the office of King's Advocate at Rouen in 1422 (Cheruel, Dom. Ang. ii. 53).

2 Tit. Liv. 64, 68; Vita, 192.

3 Cheruel, Dom. Ang. i. 21, ii. 48, 53; Puiseux, 203.

4 Otterbourne, 282; Vita, 200.

5 Beheaded, according to Monstrelet (iii. 307); but English writers say that he was
hanged (Otterbourne, 282; Tit. Liv. 68, whose "cruci est affixus" is Renaissance
affectation for "suspensus est").

6 Two centuries later a French writer treated him as a martyr to his patriotism
(Serres, i. 994; Perrin, 51). A story grew up that the English offered to let him off
with a fine, but he answered that he had nothing to pay with, and even if he had, would
not give it to save an Englishman from his dishonour (the story appears in Saint-Foix,
iii. 190, written in 1759, and in many later works). In 1825 the story of Blanchard
was dramatised and performed with success in both Rouen and Paris, Guy le Bouteiller
figuring as the high-born villain; and two years later an effort was made to erect a
monument to Blanchard at Rouen (Perrin, 51). But the moment was unpropitious,
for a learned loyalist had been looking into the authorities, and finding that a year
before the siege Blanchard had murdered the king's representative, he denounced him
as "the chief of a band of assassins," and stigmatised the whole legend as "pure in-
vention" and "a lying allegation" (Licquet, 169, 175, 177 sq.). Many writers have
since tried to rehabilitate the cult but with little success.

7 D.K.R. xli. 707.

1419] Compliance 145

within a few weeks he took the oath of allegiance1 ; in March
he received grants of confiscated lands2; and in April he was
receiving the surrender of Normans loyal to Charles VI3. It
is no wonder that he was "much blamed and reproached4."
A contemporary who wrote at the court of the dauphin says that
very few of the Norman nobility ever submitted to the con-
queror5; and though his statement is contradicted by official
records6, it is true that some nobles suffered confiscation of
their lands rather than recognise English rule7. Still, the
number of knights and squires who submitted was enough for
Henry to deem it convenient to summon them to Rouen in
two divisions when he wished to communicate to them certain
newly enacted ordinances8. The clergy were no less amenable.
Within two months of the fall of Rouen the king had come to
terms with most of the monasteries and other religious founda-
tions of the diocese for the restitution of their property9. By
the day after the king's entry the incumbents of fifteen parishes
to the north had applied to be allowed to come with their
parishioners and make their submission10, and we know of
131 other clergy who submitted before two months were out,
special facilities being offered to those who could not travel by
reason of infirmity or poverty11. This general compliance met
with its reward, for within a year it was decreed12 that the clergy
of the province of Rouen were to remain free from all dues on
corn, wine, beer, and other beverages, were not to be required
to help in keeping watch and ward or in cleaning and repairing
public ditches.

Many Normans of humble birth accepted minor appoint-
ments under the English13, and a considerable number donned

1 Monstr. iii. 308; Waurin, ii. 264.

2 For grants to him dated March 16, 14 19, see Brequigny, 62; D.K.R. xli. 744;
Cheruel, Dom. Ang. i. 78; Lefevre-Pontalis, lvii. 7.

3 D.K.R. xli. 771. 4 Monstr. iii. 308; Fenin, 569. 5 Juv. 545.

6 For submissions by many knights and squires, Feb. 24-March 20, 14 19, see
Brequigny, 56, 58, 60, 62 sq., 216, 217, 218, 219, 220; D.K.R. xli. 743, 759, 765, 767.
Cf. "y eut plusieurs Normans qui se rendirent Englez," Fenin, 106.

7 On Feb. 9 a proclamation was issued confiscating the lands of laymen and ec-
clesiastics who had not yet submitted (Brequigny, 53; D.K.R. xli. 751).

8 The first meeting, for those of the new bailliages of Upper Normandy, was sum-
moned for Feb. 28, the second, for those of Lower Normandy, for March 7 (Brequigny,
54; D.K.R. xli. 754).

9 Lists appear in Rym. ix. 684; D.K.R. xli. 734, 754, 759.

10 Ibid. 725. n Rym. ix. 672 sqq., 755; D.K.R. xli. 721, 748, 775.

12 On Jan. 20, 1420 (Rym. ix. 850; D.K.R. xlii. 342).

13 For many of these, see Brequigny, 48 sqq. et passim; D.K.R. xli. 751 sqq.

w III 10

146 Rouen in English Hands [ch. lviii

the St George's cross and joined the English forces in raiding
the French1. As for the citizens of Rouen there is no question
of their readiness to accept the lessons of the siege. It was
about fifteen days before the mortality began to abate, but in an
incredibly short time Rouen had returned to its normal life,
a vast multitude of citizens taking the oath without scruple2.
The day after the king's entry such of the garrison as were not
Normans and all who refused to swear allegiance marched out
on foot, leaving all their horses, arms, and equipment. They
were conducted along the north bank of the river as far as St
George's bridge, recently made by the English near Pont de
l'Arche. Here every man was searched and deprived of every-
thing save his clothes, two shillings and a staff3. They were
then turned adrift. Most went home, but a few reported
themselves to the duke of Burgundy at Provins4.

The king remained two months at Rouen and at once applied
himself to organising the administration both of the town and
of the duchy. There is a consensus of evidence that Henry's
treatment of the town was conciliatory and that the changed
conditions were accepted with equanimity by the inhabitants.
Their immediate concern was the payment of the town's
enormous ransom. As might have been expected, it proved
impossible to collect, and stories issuing from the dauphin's
entourage asserted that the citizens were pitilessly pilled and
fleeced to meet the king's demands5. But the evidence shows
that he really exercised great moderation, postponing his claims
till the people had had a breathing space. During the negotia-
tions he had insisted that in estimating the indemnity of
300,000 crowns, the crown should be valued at 25 sous or
shillings. The French representatives urged that it should be
reckoned at the customary rate of 20 sous, but "by smooth
words and promises" they were induced to agree to the English

1 Monstr. iii. 309.

2 Tit. Liv. 69; Vita, 202; Monstr. iii. 309.

3 Ibid. 307 sq.; Le Fevre, i. 357; Waurin, ii. 262, 264; Juv. 545. J. Page, 41,
says that Henry gave each of them a gown; but the truth seems to be that if any had
a costly gown, it was taken from him and a poorer one provided in its place. Many
of those at the rear of the column dropped their belongings into the river when they
learned what was taking place. The valuables confiscated were estimated to be worth
12,000 crowns (Cheruel, Dom. Ang., App. 68).

4 Monstr. iii. 307; Le Fevre, i. 358; Waurin, ii. 264; Fenin, 104. On Feb. 2 the
duke of Burgundy gave a dinner to four captains and many "gentilhommes et etrangers
nouvellement venus de la garnison de Rouen," Itin. 446.

5 Juv. 545; St Denys, vi. 308.

1 4i 9] Conciliation 147

demand, on the understanding, as they vainly pleaded after-
wards, that they should really pay at the lower rate1. The
agreement provided that half the amount should be paid when
the English entered the town, and the rest a month later. But
it at once became obvious that the conditions could not be
fulfilled. Six months after the surrender, a large sum was still
unpaid2, and on July 23 the earl of Warwick and others were
commissioned to treat with the citizens for a composition3, and
subsequently it was agreed that they should pay an annual sum
of 80,000 crowns4. It was obvious that many were removing
from the town in order to escape their liability5, and it was
ordered that no one was to be allowed to leave Rouen without
a billet for which four sous had to be paid6. Additional hostages
were required to guarantee the payment of the sum annually
due, and these were kept in the castle, or at Pont de l'Arche,
or in other strong places7, though the rigour of their treatment
was modified after a few months8. Despite all the pressure
applied, instalments came in very slowly, and after twelve
years more than 40,000 crowns remained unpaid9.

One valuable reform introduced at once into his new domains
by Henry was the imposition of a uniform standard of weights
and measures for the whole of Normandy, instead of the per-
plexing diversity that had previously prevailed. By a pro-
clamation dated Feb. 15, 141 9, he established the Rouen
standard for grain, the Arques standard for liquids, the Paris
ell as the measure for cloth, and the Troyes mark as the standard
of weight10.

It had been stipulated in the capitulation that the king might
take a plot of land, within or without the walls, on which to

1 "Nous aurions le rabbais," Cheruel, Dom. Ang. ii. 65. [That the English in-
sisted on the higher rate is clear from For. Accts. 69, F.]

2 Cheruel, Dom. Ang. ii. 55 sq. 3 Brequigny, 103.

4 Chron. Ric. II-Hen. VI, p. 48. 5 Brequigny, 98; Puiseux, 211.

6 Monstr. iii. 309 sq.

7 Brequigny, 112; D.K.R. xli. 809; Puiseux, 202, 214, 303. They numbered 33
(ibid. 209).

8 Many of the hostages suffered in health owing to their strict confinement (Bre-
quigny, 112). Their deaths would of course have defeated the purpose for which they
had been imprisoned, and on Nov. 19, 1419, an order was issued that all except those
at Pont de l'Arche should be allowed to return to Rouen, there to remain prisoners in
their own homes during the king's pleasure, other citizens going bail for them (D.K.R.
xli. 809).

9 i.e. 40,817 on Nov. 7, 1430 (Farin, i. 147; Cheruel, Dom. Ang. ii. 70; Puiseux,
189, 208, 213).

10 Rym. ix. 691; Brequigny, 54.

10-2

148 Rouen in English Hands [ch. lviii

build a palace, provided that he should compensate the dis-
possessed owner1. He accordingly purchased a site on the
waterside, just within the walls at the south-west corner of the
city2. Here he built a strong fortress3. It was designed by
Jeanson Salvart, the cathedral architect4, and was to have been
completed in eighteen months5, a large number of carpenters,
sawyers, and other workmen being brought from England to
assist in the work6. In 1444, however, it was still unfinished7,
and in 1447 Salvart died8. It had nevertheless a long history.
Henry V had intended it to be a safe residence, which might
defy any rising in the city; he constructed a covered way
connecting it with the castle9, and long after the latter was in
ruins, it was the strongest place in Rouen10. In addition, Henry
rebuilt the barbican at the southern end of the bridge11, trans-
forming it into a rectangular fort flanked by four towers12,
henceforth known as the Little Castle13.

Owing to the excellent commissariat of the English, their
losses during the siege were slight compared with those of the
French. Nevertheless a number of important men perished.
Among these were the prior of Kilmainham14, Gilbert Talbot15,

1 Rym. ix. 665, 714; Farin, i. 100, 103.

2 Tit. Liv. 68; Archaeol. xxii. 378; Cheruel, i. 67; [For. Accts. 69, 1]. On March 13,
1419, he paid 2630 livres for it (Deville, Revue, 28). The site is now occupied by the
Place Henri IV, the rue St Jacques, the rue d'Harcourt, and the rue de la Seine (Nor-
mandie Monumentale, 9).

3 It was known at first as the Royal or New Palace (Masseville, iv. 383; Jolimont, 2;
Puiseux, 219; Lefevre-Pontalis, lvii. 15; Vita, 200), but after the present Palais de
Justice was built, in 1499, it was called the Old Palace (C. Beaurepaire, Notes, 23;
Zeiler, pt. viii. 22; Grisel, B. 65).

4 Rym. ix. 745; Deville, Rev. 30; Brequigny, 169. He had been appointed master-
mason at the cathedral in 1398 (Deville, Rev. 36), and "conducteur des travaux" in
1406 (Lefevre-Pontalis, lvii. 13, 47). He was afterwards "Maitre de Maconnerie" of
the castle and the city (ibid. 16; cf. Deville, Revue, 31).

5 J- Page, 40.

6 Iss. Roll 7 Hen. V, Mich., Oct. 2, Nov. 13, 16, 20, 1419, Feb. 22, 1420.

7 Farin, i. 10 1.

8 Deville, Revue, 33; Richard, 51.

9 Puiseux, 220; Holinshed, iii. 568; Stow, Chron. 357.

10 It was destroyed in 1793, and no trace of it remains. There is a picture of it in a
charter of Rouen dated 1458 (Cheruel, App. I. 1) and in a fifteenth-century window in
the church of St Jean (Revue de Rouen, 1833, i. 112), besides a number of later ones.

11 Vita, 204; Norm. Chron. (Hellot), 48; Cochon, 344; Cheruel, 69; Puiseux, 218;
Farin, i. 100; Duranville, 174.

12 Puiseux, 3.

13 It was demolished in 1779 (Duranville, 80; Jolimont, 8).

14 Four Masters, iv. 841; O'Flanagan, i. 80; Kingsford, Lit. 289.

16 J- Page, 7. The king ordered 2000 Masses to be said for his soul as well as for
that of Edward Holland (Devon, 357, Oct. 22, 1418).

1 4 1 8] Casualties 149

and Edward Holland, count of Mortain1. Talbot's death caused
a vacancy in the order of the Garter, in which there were at
the time three other gaps — one occasioned by the death of the
count of Holland in 141 7, the second by that of Richard Lord
Grey of Codnor on Aug. 1, 141 82, and the third by that of
John Blount3, killed in single combat at Rouen as described
above.

1 His death occurred between Oct. 6 and 22 (D.K.R. xli. 717; Devon, 357). Cf.
J. Page, 8.

2 Inq. post mort. iv. 33; G.E.C. (ed. Gibbs), vi. 129; Beltz, clviii; Kingsford, Lit.
289.

3 He had succeeded to the stall of the earl of Oxford on Feb. 15, 14 17 (Beltz, clviii).

CHAPTER LIX

FURTHER BARGAINING

When the envoys from Rouen spoke of communicating
with the duke of Burgundy before they could surrender, Henry
replied that the duke already knew all that he needed to know,
for messengers had often passed between them during the
siege1. It will be remembered, however, that before the siege
began, Henry had been forced to recognise the duke as an
enemy, and it was not long before the Armagnac party took
advantage of the new position. On Sept. 18, 141 8, Guillaume
de Baus, master of the household to the dauphin, had been sent
from Niort to confer with the duke of Clarence before Rouen2,
and on Oct. 3 he was granted a safe-conduct for an interview
with the king3. Eleven days later further safe-conducts were
made out for the archbishop of Tours (Jacques Gelu) and
Jean de Norry, with other representatives of the dauphin,
who were prepared to treat for peace and an alliance with
England4. On Oct. 26 fourteen exalted personages were
appointed to confer with them on the English side5.

An important document still extant6 shows that at this
particular moment these overtures from the dauphin were very
welcome to Henry. He saw that his hold on his conquests was
insecure. No single lord of any consequence had come over
to him, while the land was full of "brigands" who attacked
such people as had submitted to the English. If no terms were
made, he would have to go further and further on his career of
conquest, while if he concentrated on the defence of Normandy
— the soundest policy — he would have to pay his troops
regularly, whereas he was depending upon plunder to keep

1 J. Page, 31. 2 Beaucourt, i. 283.

3 Rym. ix. 624.

4 Brequigny, 209; D.K.R. xli. 701; Beaucourt, i. 283. A secretary of the duchess
of Anjou, Guiot de Pressy, was granted a safe-conduct on the same day (Rym., loc. cit.;
D.K.R. xli. 699). He was again with Henry on Dec. 15, when he received a safe-conduct
to go back to the duchess of Anjou and to return (Rym. ix. 659; D.K.R. xli. 704).

5 Rym. ix. 626; D.K.R. xli. 701. Their number was afterwards reduced to seven.

6 Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 350 sqq.

1418] Henry's Demands 151

down their demands1. His envoys were therefore instructed2
to treat for a marriage between himself and the French king's
daughter Catherine, and to ascertain what dowry she would
bring. It was to be understood that Normandy must not be
a subject of bargaining; any offer of territory on the part of the
French must refer to lands not yet in Henry's possession. In
effect he would be satisfied with nothing less than the terms of
the treaty of Bretigny, together with the cession of Flanders
and the coast between Gravelines and the Somme. Even if
such an offer were made, it would be doubtful whether the
dauphin was strong enough to give effect to it. A truce there-
fore would be more acceptable than a so-called peace; and
seeing that during a truce Henry would suspend his claim to
the French crown, the other side ought to give him something
substantial in return. As to the duke of Burgundy (with whom
he had no alliance), though his party seemed to be the strongest
power in France, yet with God's help Henry would shake his
authority in one day, believing as he did that he was almost
impotent in Paris. And lastly, if the dauphin should agree to
Henry's demands, the English envoys were to ask how and
when the unconquered parts should be handed over. More-
over, should an alliance be formed and English troops be used
to break the power of the Burgundians, would the English be
allowed to have Flanders, Artois, and the Boulonnais (or at
least St Omer) in full sovereignty for their pains ? A separate
truce had just been concluded with the young count of
Armagnac3 and the lord of Albret4, who had given an under-
taking that they would submit to King Henry even though these
negotiations should come to nothing5; and it was expressly
arranged that their representatives should not be allowed to
take part, though they were to be honourably treated and
induced if possible to further the king's views. Armed
with these instructions seven English envoys6 proceeded to
Alencon, where on Nov. 10 they were met by six representa-

1 Cf. A. Collins, viii. 106, which shows that some of the captains who left England
in August, 1417, had received no pay on June 29 of the next year.

2 Rym. ix. 626 sqq.

3 See above, p. 83.

4 For the form of homage of the "lord of Labret," Sept. 23, 1418, see Harl. MS.
4763, ff. 151-152; Cotton MS. Tiberius, B xii, f. 119 b.

5 Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 352.

6 The earl of Salisbury, Lord Grey, Walter Hungerford, Philip Morgan, Roland
Lenthall, William Alington, and Master John Stokes (Rym. ix. 632).

152 Further Bargaining [ch. lix

tives of the dauphin1, headed by Jean de Norry. Others of
the deputation were Robert de Braquemont, ex-admiral of
France, and Louis de Chalon, who had just been dispossessed
of his county of Tonnerre by the duke of Burgundy2. No
special representatives of the duchess of Anjou seem to have
been included.

An extremely curious report of the proceedings has been
preserved3. For a while, it is stated, both sides sat perfectly
silent. At length Master Philip Morgan introduced himself
and his colleagues by name, and begged the French to be good
enough to state what they had to propose. Thereupon they
withdrew for a while, and when they came back much time was
spent in discussing whether they should converse in Latin or
another tongue. Then, credentials having been verified, the
English withdrew to arrange what should be done next; and
on their return Morgan said that he gathered that the dauphin
was inclined for peace and he would be glad to hear his in-
tentions. The French asked for time, and it was agreed to
adjourn till next morning.

When the proceedings were resumed, Morgan, after another
long silence, urged that as the dauphin had been the first to
open negotiations, it was only reasonable that his representa-
tives should begin by making some definite proposal. Again
the other side withdrew, and on their return Jean de Norry,
speaking in French, disclaimed any special desire for peace on
the part of the dauphin, who had merely sent to Henry on
hearing that he was willing to treat. Surely then the first
proposal should come from the English king. Next the English
urged that all speeches should be in Latin, and after more
deliberation apart, there followed a further altercation as to
who should begin. At length, however, the French produced
a written statement, in which they offered to give up Saintonge,
Agenais, Perigord, the Limousin, Angoumois, Rouergue, and
Poitou, but were silent as to Touraine, Maine, Anjou, and
Lower Normandy, which was already in Henry's possession.
The English envoys had no hesitation in replying that the
offer was altogether insufficient; much more had been offered
when the French lords wanted help against the duke of

1 "Une bien notable ambassade," Juv. 545. For their instructions dated at Chinon,
Nov. 2, see Tillet, Recueil, 124 b, 125.

2 Rym. ix. 633; Beaucourt, Meurtre, 425.

3 Rym. ix. 632 sqq.; cf. D.K.R. xlv. 319.

i4J8] French Offers 153

Burgundy in 141 21. The French dilated upon the immense
size of the territory they were willing to cede — a district as
large as Aragon or Navarre — to which the English answered
that it mattered not how large it was; what they looked to was
its size compared with that of the rest of France, and if this were
regarded it was insufficient and small. After this they separated
for the night.

Next day began with the usual silence, the rest of the
morning being spent in arranging in what order the different
parts of the question should be approached. That afternoon
and the whole of the following day were wasted in fruitless
talk. The morning session of the 14th opened with the usual
sulky silence till at length Jean de Norry rose, apparently with
something new to say. But first he wanted an assurance that
Henry really wished to ally with the dauphin and help him to
put down his enemies, to which the English circumspectly
replied that they could not deal with that until they knew more
about the "offer." The deadlock was again got over by the
skill of Philip Morgan, Norry agreeing to proceed on receiving
an assurance that what he was about to say would be kept a
profound secret. He then added to the previous offer all
Upper Normandy north of the Seine, except the city and
bailliage of Rouen, and promised that if the united forces
should capture Artois and Flanders, the English should have
a share of the winnings. After having the terms put down in
writing the English party rejected them as one-sided and in-
adequate. Next day the French made another offer. If they
might keep Poitou and Saintonge, they would let Henry have
an equivalent amount of land in Normandy. Norry had spoken
in French and "somewhat diffusely," and the English, not
being sure whether they had correctly understood him, asked
if the offer was identical with the treaty of Bretigny, and he
said that it was. The proposal having been written down was
debated till nightfall, but next day the English, having
looked carefully into the terms, pointed out that they did
not correspond at all to the treaty. Norry excused himself
lamely on the ground that he had not been quite sure of the
boundaries defined in the treaty, and suggested modifications
of his proposals to the accompaniment of running criticisms
from the English. At length Morgan asked if by "holding"

1 Rym. ix. 641; Wylie, iv. 69.

154 Further Bargaining [ch. lix

the lands, the French meant holding as a vassal or in full
sovereignty. Next day, when an answer was to be given, Norry
said that this question was so difficult that they had better deal
with some of the other points first; he supposed, however, that
the English king, being a just and conscientious man, did not
wish to hold the provinces concerned differently from his for-
bears. Morgan pointed out that Henry was rightful king of
France — a title never claimed by the earlier dukes of Normandy ;
in France therefore he would recognise no overlord but God;
nor would he accept as part of a bargain what he had in his
power already. The French could only say that on the question
of vassalage they had no instructions; but no doubt if a personal
meeting could be arranged between the dauphin and the
English king, the matter could be settled. It was, however,
answered that such a meeting would be useless until pre-
liminaries had been fully discussed; whereupon the French
urged that the English should say what sort of offer they were
looking for. Then followed more idle conversation, and pro-
ceedings were adjourned for several days, till Nov. 21. In the
interval the English were approached by the two agents who
had first opened negotiations at Rouen; these said that the
French spokesmen really had further powers which they had
not divulged. This statement did not make for mutual con-
fidence, nor were prospects improved when Norry, on the
resumption of discussion, likened the English envoys to the
devil1. Nevertheless, he now declared that he offered all the
concessions of the treaty of Bretigny, after which the English
suggested that to prevent subsequent misunderstanding it
would be well to discuss in detail what the terms of the "Great
Peace" exactly implied. The ensuing debate, however, only
emphasised the fact that no agreement was possible unless the
dauphin would hand over the ceded lands in full sovereignty. The
French again said that they lacked instructions on this point;
the English reiterated their king's claim to the throne, hinted
that he might abate his demands if the negotiations went on, but
declared that in any case the French must give him complete
lordship over Touraine, Anjou, Maine, and Flanders, together
with the lordships of Beaufort and Nogent2. The French begged

1 "Nos temptantes Insidiatoris more," Rym. ix. 640.

2 On Beaufort, now Montmorency (Aube), and Nogent, i.e. Nogent l'Artaud
Aisne), see above, i. 420.

1418] Idle Talk 155

that something more reasonable might be put forward; where-
upon Morgan asserted that their master had offered still more
some time ago, as he could prove in writing, and that after all
the English king was only asking for what his predecessors had.
Thereupon all got out of their seats, and talked and talked till
the English managed to put the question : Supposing the
negotiations continued, would the French try to induce their
side to accept Henry's terms ? The reply was that they could
not go a step further than they had done. Following his in-
structions, Morgan put one more point: Supposing an agree-
ment were after all arranged, what steps would the dauphin
take to have it carried out? The answer was that the lands in
question belonged to the dauphin, and he could do what he
liked with them. But the English rejoined that the dauphin
was still under age, that he might revoke everything afterwards
on the ground that his father was the real king, that most of the
French nobility were against him, and that even if he really were
regent, the king could cancel his appointment at any time. The
French then spent some time trying to prove that the principal
nobles, except of course the duke of Burgundy, were on the
dauphin's side. Then, as though despairing of a successful
issue, Morgan called Heaven and Earth to witness that the
bloodshed that must follow would be on the dauphin's head,
but ended feebly by asking if there were anything else on which
the French were authorised to speak. They replied that they
had instructions regarding the suggested marriage between
King Henry and the princess Catherine, but as the larger
matter had broken down, they preferred now not to enter upon
the smaller one. Moreover, the term specified on their safe-
conducts would expire in six days and they must depart.
Nevertheless they met once again on the next day, when Morgan
said that experience had now taught them what the French
really meant. They might rest assured that such proposals as
they had been putting forward would never lead to peace.
Still, the Frenchmen would not give up hope. Why should
there not be a short truce to last (say) till Candlemas? "Put
your suggestions in writing," said Morgan; but unless they
had something better to say than what he had just heard, it
was virtually certain that nothing would come of it. Thereupon
the Frenchmen rose and abruptly took their leave.

The curious report just summarised is signed by a notary,

156 Further Bargaining [ch. lix

Richard Cowdray, who afterwards became clerk to the king's
Council. If it were not for the king's own statement that the
English envoys had full powers1, we should be inclined to look
upon the proceedings at Alencon as informal preliminaries
rather than a serious attempt to conclude a definitive peace.
At any rate the whole of the original fourteen envoys were still
treated as if they were the only authorised spokesmen for
England, and while the altercations at Alencon were in progress
an additional paper of instructions, dated Nov. 14, was sent to
them2.

In all probability Henry did not regard these negotiations
very seriously. For on Oct. 16 — the very day when he gave
his careful instructions to the Alencon envoys — he wrote to
the duke of Burgundy3 offering to give a fair hearing to any
reasonable terms he might propose. On Nov. 1 the duke
returned a reply asking for safe-conducts for nine envoys who
would discuss a settlement. The safe-conducts were issued on
Nov. 34, and by Nov. 175 eight envoys were accredited to
negotiate for peace with the king of England on behalf of the
duke of Burgundy. The embassy was headed by Bernard de
Chevenon, bishop of Beauvais, who was authorised to speak in
the name of the king of France, and was accompanied by
Cardinal Orsini6, who was still trying to mediate. The English
were represented by Archbishop Chichele, Bishop Langley
the chancellor, the earl of Warwick, and others, including
Hungerford, Morgan, and Stokes, who had been at Alencon7.
The conference opened at Pont de l'Arche at the beginning of
December8. From the outset the old trifling again appeared.
The French wanted to use their own tongue instead of Latin,
and though Cardinal Orsini wrote to Henry bringing his
personal influence to bear, the king took a serious view of the
demand, and in a letter of Dec. 4 urged the cardinal to dissuade
the French from pressing this "unwonted thing9." Latin was
the universal diplomatic language, while neither he, his
council, nor his envoys could properly write, understand, or

1 " Rationabiliter et plenarie instructos," Rym. ix. 651.

2 Ibid. 646 sq.

3 Ibid. 631; Beaucourt, i. 293. 4 Rym. ix. 632; D.K.R. xli. 702.

5 Rym. ix. 648. 6 Champollion-Figeac, Lettres, ii. 362.

7 Rym. ix. 654; Cordeliers, 205; Monstr. iii. 295, 445; Norm. Chron. (Williams)
189, (Hellot) 44.

8 Rym. ix. 654 sq. 9 Ibid. 655 sq.

1418] The Language Question 157

speak French1. Days were consumed over this academical
dispute, and on Dec. 9 the cardinal went in person to St
Catherine's abbey, and had a four hours' conversation with
Henry2. They discussed the language question and the ex-
tension of the safe-conducts, which would soon expire; but the
king would not agree to treat for peace until the New Year had
opened, hoping that by then Rouen would have fallen. On the
language dispute, seeing the cardinal still inclined to support
the French, he gave way so far as to agree that the French
envoys might speak French, provided that his might speak
English and that all proposals when reduced to writing should
be accompanied by a Latin translation. The cardinal had
brought with him a picture of the princess Catherine. It was
painted from life3, and Henry liked it very much4. But he had
asked for 1,000,000 gold crowns5 as a dowry, together with
Normandy, Aquitaine, Ponthieu and other lordships named in
the treaty of Bretigny, and with regard to this he was in no
mood for discussion6. It was growing dark when the conversa-
tion drew to a close, and as Henry asked the cardinal not to
leave that night, Orsini sent off a message announcing what
had occurred, and requesting the French envoys to let him
have their decision by eleven o'clock next morning. The
message was delivered at Pont de l'Arche at two in the morning
of Dec. 10. The envoys were called together at daybreak, and
at once accepted the conditions as to language; with regard to
the dowry, however, they asked for an extension of time, for
the duke of Burgundy could not take the responsibility of
agreeing to the demands respecting the king's inheritance7.
They withdrew to Pontoise to explain the state of affairs to the
king, the queen, and the duke8, while the cardinal, who seems
to have been anxious to go home, returned at once to Italy to
report his failure to the pope9.

Henry has been credited with "an astute diplomacy which
kept the French divided while Rouen perished10," and modern
writers alternate between admiration of his skill and condemna-
tion of his duplicity. But the truth apparently is that both

1 "Qui Gallicam scribere nesciunt intelligere penitus neque loqui," Rym. ix. 656.

2 Ibid. 657, 659. 3 Waurin, ii. 252.

4 Monstr. iii. 295; Le F£vre, i. 348. 5 Ibid.; Waurin, ii. 252.

6 Monstr. iii. 295 sq. 7 Rym. ix. 657; Monstr. iii. 296.

8 Ibid.; Waurin, ii. 258. 9 Monstr. iii. 296.
10 Kingsford, 249.

158 Further Bargaining [ch. lix

Armagnacs and Burgundians were bidding strongly against
each other for English help, and Henry was willing to grant it
to whichever of them was the readier to accept his terms.

The fall of Rouen caused a renewed eagerness for Henry's
friendship. During the siege, indeed, a safe-conduct had been
issued for the duke of Brittany1; on Jan. 12, 141 92, the truce
with him was prolonged till Nov. 1 ; a further safe-conduct for
him was issued on Feb. 123, and on March 5 he came to Rouen
with 500 horsemen, was received with special magnificence4,
and after much friendly converse arranged for the prolongation
of the truce in an amended form till Christmas5, with the
understanding, it is said, that even after that date neither party
should make war on the other except after six months' notice6.
While he was at Rouen the duke despatched messengers both
to the dauphin at Montargis and to King Charles and the duke
of Burgundy at Provins, so that there can be no doubt that all
those interested were kept informed of what was occurring7.
The duke returned through Caen and Bayeux, and was at Dol
by March 28 s. He left at Rouen Henri du Juch to act as
intermediary in any further dealings9, and probably intended
to make another visit to Rouen soon afterwards10. The course
of events, however, led him to change his purpose.

About the same time the duchess of Anjou was likewise
bargaining for an extension of the truce which protected her
lands from attack. Envoys from her were at Rouen early in
February, and by the 15th had secured a prolongation of the
agreement to the Octaves of Easter11. The count of Armagnac
and the lord of Albret were also resolved to cling to English
help. On Feb. 15 the truce with them was prolonged from
Easter to the ensuing midsummer, and safe-conducts were
issued for these great Gascon lords to go where they would in
"France or Normandy12."

Such dealings with the invader indicate the complete collapse
of all Armagnac resistance and the utter feebleness of the party.

1 Brequigny, 210; D.K.R. xli. 703. 2 Rym. ix. 663; Morice, i. 468, ii. 976.

3 Rym. ix. 688. 4 Tit. Liv. 71; Vita, 206.

6 Brequigny, 251. 6 Tit. Liv. 71; Vita, 207.

7 Morice, i. 468; Lobineau, i. 536, ii. 930; Blanchard, no. 1344.

8 Morice, ii. 981; Lobineau, i. 536, ii. 930, 931, 936. 9 Ibid. ii. 930.

10 A safe-conduct for him was made out on April 11 (Rym. ix. 729 sq.; D.K.R. xli.
769).

11 Rym. ix. 675, 692; D.K.R. xli. 722, 751.

12 Rym. ix. 661, 690, 695; D.K.R. xli. 727.

1 4 1 8 - 1 9] The Dauphin again 159

The failure of recent negotiations did not prevent the dauphin
from renewing his effort to reach an understanding with the
English. The suggestion of a personal interview between him
and Henry, put forward by his envoys at Alencon, had already
been made by him in a letter to the English king written on
Nov. 15, 141 81, and received on Nov. 24. In his reply, dated
Nov. 25, Henry said that no such meeting could be considered
till Rouen was in his hands, and if it ever did take place, he
would expect something different from the paltry offers that
had just been made at Alencon2. By Christmas, however,
arrangements for a renewal of the negotiations were well
advanced, and on Jan. 1, the day when Rouen began to treat
for surrender, permits were issued for the dauphin's emissaries
to come to Louviers3. On the 15th, however, they were
granted safe-conducts for a visit to Rouen4, and on Jan. 21,
Archbishop Chichele, Bishops Ware and Beaufort, Walter
Hungerford, John Kemp, and Richard Cowdray were com-
missioned to treat with them for a final peace5. Various inter-
views took place in the church of the Black Friars, and on
Feb. 126 it was agreed that a personal meeting between Henry
and the dauphin should take place on Mid-Lent Sunday,
March 26; before then the English envoys would be at Evreux
and the French envoys at Dreux to make final arrangements
for the interview at some place midway between the two7. In
the meantime an armistice was arranged for the whole of the
country between the Seine and the Loire. It was to last till
April 23, and the necessary officers were appointed to deal with
infractions of its terms8. On March 9 Archbishop Chichele and

1 Rym. ix. 647; Beaucourt, i. 291; Delaville-Leroux, Domination Bourguignonne,
201.

2 Rym. ix. 651.

3 Brequigny, 213; D.K.R. xli. 705. For the instructions of these envoys, dated
Dec. 26, 1418, see Tillet, Recueil, 125.

4 Brequigny, 214; D.K.R. xli. 707.

5 Rym. ix. 670, 687, 704; cf. D.K.R. xli. 741. Beaufort's name, however, does not
appear in the subsequent negotiations.

6 On Jan. 3 1 the safe-conducts had been extended for a fortnight. The French envoys
at that date were Jean de Norry, the count of Tonnerre, Guillaume Seignet, knight,
Jean de Vailly, president of the Parlement of Tours, Jean Tudert, dean of Notre Dame,
Paris, and Jean de Villebreme, one of the dauphin's secretaries (Rym. ix. 676).

7 Ibid. 686, 687, 701, 788; D.K.R. xli. 738; Orig. Lett., Ser. II, i. 77; Brit. Mus.
Add. MS. 24,062, f. 194; Beaucourt, i. 294. [The English bishops were instructed
by Chichele to have prayers offered for the success of the conference (Reg. Hereford,
63 sq.).]

8 Rym. ix. 692; D.K.R. xli. 731, 732.

160 Further Bargaining [ch. lix

Bishop Beaufort were authorised to issue passes for the dauphin's
envoys1, and King Henry arrived at Evreux on the 25th2. But
there was no dauphin at Dreux; in fact no meeting-place had
been fixed3; and all the plans for the interview melted away.
In the first week of April the English court moved on to
Vernon, where the king remained quietly in the castle till
nearly the end of May4.

The English chroniclers cry out upon the faithlessness and
treachery of the dauphin5, and an interesting private letter,
written by an English soldier at Evreux on April 3s, takes the
view that the king had been fooled, denounces "all the ambas-
sadors that we deal with" as "double and false," and gloomily
opines that there is now no prospect of peace. Though Henry
afterwards made much diplomatic use of the dauphin's breach
of faith, he could afford to regard it with equanimity, for he
was already deep in another intrigue with the duke of
Burgundy.

1 Rym. ix. 704; D.K.R. xli. 740. They received instructions from the dauphin on
March 6 (Tillet, Recueil, 125).

2 Rym. ix. 714.

3 Ibid. 788; Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 24,062, f. 194; Tit. Liv. 71; Vita, 208.

4 For documents dated at Vernon from April 5-May 26, see Rym. ix. 727 sq.;
D.K.R. xli. 762 sqq.; Brequigny, 68 sqq.

8 e.g. Tit. Liv. 71; Vita, 209.

6 Orig. Lett., Ser. II, i. 76. The writer signs himself "T. F.," but his identity is
unknown.

CHAPTER LX

THE CONFERENCE OF MEULAN

Just as the dauphin refused to accept the failure at Alencon
as final, so the duke of Burgundy did not allow the fruitlessness
of the conference at Pont de l'Arche to discourage him. Even
before Rouen fell envoys of his were on their way for an audience
at St Catherine's1. On Feb. 14 it was known that ambassadors
were coming from the king of France2, and on Feb. 23 the
earl of Warwick, John Grey, and Masters John Kemp
and John Stafford were commissioned to confer with them3.
The French envoys — the duke of Brittany, Jean de Vergy,
Regnier Pot, and six others — were appointed at Provins on
Feb. 2 64; safe-conducts for them, except the duke, were issued
on March 1 85; and after meetings at Mantes without the duke,
the two parties held at Rouen several discussions in which he
took part6. The details of the negotiations were kept a profound
secret at the time7, but we know all about them now. The
English pressed for the lands ceded by the treaty of Bretigny,
the duchy of Normandy, and whatever else they held in France,
all in full sovereignty8; and the French agreed to submit this
demand to the duke. The result was that at Mantes, on
March 30, three French commissioners offered to yield the
lands in question, though they said nothing as to the terms on
which they were to be held, and declared their willingness to
treat further for a permanent peace and a marriage alliance, it
being understood that Henry was prepared to modify his claim
to the crown9. On April 7 representatives of the two sides met
again at Vernon, whither Henry had transferred his quarters,
and agreed that the English king should meet the king and
queen of France and the duke of Burgundy on May 15 at some
place between Mantes and Pontoise, the princess Catherine
being present. In the meanwhile a truce was to be observed

1 D.K.R. xli. 705. 2 Rym< jx_ 6g9#

' Ibid. 696 sqq. * Ibid. 722.

Ibid. 709. 0 ibid. 722.

St Denys, vi. 314. 8 Rym. jx. jZ^, 789.

Ibid. 723; Brequigny, 2ci.

W III ! 1

1 62 The Conference of Meulan [ch. lx

in all the region between the Seine and the Somme and up to
the walls of Calais, as well as in that part of the country between
the Seine and the Loire that was actually in the obedience of
the duke of Burgundy. But the benefits of the truce were not
to apply to places in Normandy which had not yet submitted,
to other towns then being besieged, or to persons of the
Armagnac party1.

These preliminaries — for they were no more — having been
settled, the earl of Warwick and other commissioners were
despatched with an armed escort to interview the duke of
Burgundy at Provins2. The Armagnacs were roaming with
little check over the country north and east of Paris, and at
Charmes the party was ambushed by Tanneguy du Chastel, the
assailants, however, being beaten off with a loss of forty killed3.
On April 10 Warwick reached Provins4; next day he was
entertained at supper by the duke5; but he soon returned to
Vernon, whence, with a further commission dated April 2 2,
he went to Troyes, whither the king and queen had gone for
Easter6. At Troyes on April 1 8 Charles had issued a document
making arrangements for the truce agreed upon at Vernon7.
Warwick and his fellows were authorised to take sureties, to
make final arrangements for the coming meeting, and to settle
details as to dowry in view of a possible marriage of Henry and
the princess Catherine8. May 1 5 had been fixed as the date of
the interview between the kings, but on May 6 three French
envoys asked for a postponement on account of the sickness
of Charles. Henry consented, and the date was altered to
May 309.

On May 9 the commissioners decided that the meeting
should take place in a large field10 just outside the west gate of
Meulan11. The spot is minutely defined in the official document

1 Rym. ix. 723 sqq. Gisors, though not yet conquered, was to enjoy the advantages
of the truce.

2 Ibid. 721, 726.

3 Brut, ii. 560; Chron. Ric. II-Hen. VI, 48; Monstr. iii. 313; Waurin, ii. 266.

4 Tit. Liv. 73; Vita, 213. 5 Gachard, 240.

6 Rym. ix. 734; Monstr. iii. 318; Waurin, ii. 266; Boutiot, ii. 392.

7 Rym. ix. 733.

8 Ibid. 734; D.K.R. 774, 780; Brequigny, 252; Tit. Liv. 73; Vita, 216.

9 Rym. ix. 746 sq., 749, 750, 752; D.K.R. 774, 783; Felibien, ii. 797.

10 Called "La Chat" in Rym. ix. 752. This probably means L' Achat, i.e. something
purchased.

11 Rym. ix. 753, 759; Tit. Liv. 73; Vita, 216; Monstr. iii. 318 sq.; Le Fevre, i. 360;
St Denys, vi. 326; Brut, ii. 560; Chron. Ric. II-Hen. VI, 49.

1419] Preparations 163

as lying opposite an island in the Seine1, with the river for its
boundary on the south, a marsh on the north, a stream bi-
secting it from north to south, and the road that entered the
town by the Porte de Meulan traversing it from west to east2.
The whole space was to be enclosed with wooden palisades,
while sharp stakes were to be driven into the river bed from the
ends of the palisade to the island. Across the enclosed area
two trenches were to be dug, dividing it into three parts, of
which the one nearest Meulan was to be for the French, the
one farthest away for the English. Each nation was to keep
to its own ground, which would be trenched and paled like a
separate camp, the only difference between the two being that
on the side facing the centre the English fence was only one
foot high, while that of the French was much higher in order
to serve as a protection in case of an attack by the English
archers, a danger from which the English were free, as the
French had no long bows3. Neither side was to bring more
than 1500 armed men4. The middle space was reserved for
the negotiators, and was entered by three fenced passages from
either side, each guarded by fifty soldiers, and when on the
opening day of the proceedings a foolhardy Englishman,
wishing to show off, jumped into the forbidden area, he was
promptly gibbeted by order of the marshal. It was also pro-
claimed that any man would be beheaded if he used offensive
words, or tried to seize another for debt or breach of faith, or
started wrestling or putting the stone, or doing anything that
might tend to uproar5. In the middle of the field there were
two tents where the monarchs could confer apart with their
counsellors, and at the very centre, thirty-six measured feet
from each tent, draped with gold cloth and rich hangings
embroidered with lilies and leopards, and enclosed within a
further palisade, was the pavilion where the meeting was
actually to take place6.

It was probably on May 2 6 that Henry moved out from Vernon

1 i.e. the Isle Belle.

2 The site is now covered by the suburb of Hardicourt, but the features mentioned
may be readily identified.

3 Rym. ix. 752; Monstr. iii. 319; Le Fevre, i. 360; Waurin, ii. 267; Gesta, 136 n.;
Juv. 550.

4 Juv. 549. Other figures are given by other writers.

5 Ibid. 550; Tit. Liv. 74; Vita, 218.

6 St Denys, vi. 326; Kingsford, Lit. 333; Tit. Liv. 73; Juv. 549 sq.; Monstr. iii.
319 sq.

11-2

164 The Conference of Meulan [ch. lx

and took up his quarters at Mantes1, which had long since sub-
mitted to the duke of Clarence, the leading townsmen having
come out to meet him and hand over the keys at the news of his
approach2. On the same day the king of France, Queen Isabel,
and the duke of Burgundy left Provins, reaching Pontoise on
the evening of May 2 83. Meantime the field at Meulan was
busy with preparations. The English portion was full of tents4
bright with gold lilies, leopards, and other gay devices, while
at the other end the French had made their camp like a town,
with streets and passages between the lines5. On May 29
representatives of each side received from the principals an
oath that there should be no underhand dealing at the meeting6.
Next day7 Henry was early on the field accompanied by his two
brothers, the duke of Exeter, the earl of Warwick, and many
other notables. At two o'clock loud trumpeting and minstrelsy
announced the arrival of Queen Isabel in a rich litter, accom-
panied by her damsels and attended by the duke of Burgundy.
Charles VI could not appear, for he was suffering from one of
his periodical fits of frenzy8. When the queen had alighted,
the earl of Warwick was sent to inform her of the order of the
day's proceedings. From each side sixty lords and knights and
sixteen councillors were to be admitted to the deliberations.
When their names had been called and verified9, a signal was
given, and Queen Isabel and King Henry left their tents at the
same moment, and preceded by their counsellors in procession
two by two, walked slowly to a spot marked with a stake. Here
Henry kissed the queen's hand, while the duke of Burgundy
bowed his head and slightly crooked his knee as the king
embraced him. Henry then led the queen into the central
pavilion, where two thrones were set up about twelve feet
apart. When both were seated, the earl of Warwick, speaking
in French, explained to the queen the purpose of the meeting.
Little else was done that day, and though the proceedings lasted

1 For documents dated at Mantes, May 26-Aug. 5, 14193 see D.K.R. xli. 775 sqq.,
786 sqq.; Brequigny, 97 sqq.; Rym. ix. 756 sqq.

2 D.K.R. xli. 723; Tit. Liv. 70; St Denys, vi. 310.

3 Plancher, iii. 512; Itin. 447; Gachard, 241; Juv. 549.

4 Rym. ix. 756; D.K.R. xli. 775. 5 Tit. Liv. 73 sq.; Vita, 217 sq.
6 Rym. ix. 756, 758; D.K.R. xli. 783, 787. 7 Rym. ix. 759.

8 Ibid. 761; Tit. Liv. 74; Vita, 220; Monstr. iii. 319; Juv. 549; Norm. Chron.

I94-

9 Juv. (549) gives the names of those on the French side, the most notable being the
archbishop of Sens, Henri de Savoisy.

1419] Sweet Kate 165

till seven o'clock they seem to have consisted mostly of feasting
and ceremonial. At the close Henry departed to Mantes and
Isabel to Pontoise1.

Two days later all met again, and this time the princess
Catherine was present2. She was escorted by the duke of
Burgundy's young nephew, the count of St Pol3, and very
charming she must have looked, for 3000 florins had been
spent upon her dresses and other finery for the day, in spite of
the destitution of the country4. The English marked the sweet-
ness of her maiden blush as Henry kissed her and took her
hand before following her into the tent5. Catherine did not
appear again at Meulan, but Henry was conquered at first
sight, and three months later, when he heard of the murder
at Montereau, his first cry was that now he would have the
lady Catherine, for whom he had so greatly longed6. Other
meetings followed on June 5 and 87, and each time there
was dinner and great ceremony. At the first meeting it had
been decided that the conferences should be continued until
some final decision was taken about the conclusion of peace, and
that if nevertheless they should fail to attain this end, at least
eight days' notice should be given before the resumption of
hostilities8. In the actual negotiations the English king was
to be represented by a committee consisting of Archbishop
Chichele, Bishop Beaufort, and the dukes of Clarence, Glou-
cester, and Exeter, who were fully empowered to treat for a
final peace and a marriage between Henry and Catherine9.
But no sooner were vital questions approached than it appeared
that in spite of all preliminary discussion, there was still a great
difference of opinion on fundamentals. When Henry claimed
that his hold on Normandy and all the territory covered by the
treaty of Bretigny must be absolutely independent10, the French
raised objections. When on the other hand they required that
he should renounce all claims to Touraine, Anjou, Maine,

1 Tit. Liv. 74; Vita, 222 sq.; Gesta, 130; Chron. Ric. II-Hen. VI, 49; Monstr. iii.
320; Le Fevre, i. 361; Waurin, ii. 268; Juv. 550; Delpit, 227.

2 Itin. 448. 3 Waurin, ii. 268.

4 H. Moranville, 436.

5 Tit. Liv. 74; Vita, 222; Kingsford, Lit. 333.

6 Waurin, ii. 286. 7 Itin. 448; Tit. Liv. 74; Vita, 223.

8 Champollion-Figeac, Lettres, ii. 372.

9 Their commissions were dated June 1 (Rym. ix. 791; D.K.R. xli. 783).

10 Ri'm. ix. 779, 789; Champollion-Figeac, Lettres, ii. 362, 365; St Denys, vi. 326;
Juv. 550 sq.; J. Chartier (Vallet de Viriville), iii. 217.

1 66 The Conference of Meulan [ch. lx

Brittany and Flanders, and that he should give up his claims
in Ponthieu and Montreuil in return for an equivalent in
Aquitaine, he refused to listen. When they insisted that any
final peace should apply to the allies of both parties, Henry
would not hear of the inclusion of the Scots. When they argued
that from the 800,000 crowns promised as Catherine's dowry
there should be deducted 600,000 that should have been
returned with Richard IPs queen, Isabel of France, on that
king's deposition, he said that this matter should be considered
in connection with the English claim for the arrears of the
ransom of King John; and on their demanding a further rebate
of 400,000 crowns on account of Isabel's jewels, he said that
they were not worth a quarter of that sum. The French after-
wards blamed Henry for making extraordinary demands1, but
from the outset he knew that the duke of Burgundy was in-
clining towards an alliance with the dauphin, and quite early
in the conference it was known that Tanneguy du Chastel and
other envoys from the dauphin had arrived at Pontoise bent on
wrecking the negotiations2. Each night as the principals re-
turned from Meulan to Pontoise, the arguments of the day
were minutely scanned and the most was made of difficulties.
The duke seemed wavering, and sought the advice of two
learned clerks of his own party. One of them, Nicolas Raolin3,
urged that they must perforce conciliate the king of England
if France was not to change her lord. He was too powerful,
and his conquests must be accepted as accomplished facts.
Besides, everybody knew that the dauphin had been treating
with him, and the best course therefore was to be beforehand.
When the bargain was completed, the dauphin would certainly
come into line, and Paris and other cities would follow Rouen
and recognise the inevitable. The other clerk, Jean Rapiout,
took up the opposite attitude. "The king of France," he said,
"cannot give away rights inherited from his forbears," and
even if he could, why should he give them up to the son of a
usurper4, whose contracts would all be annulled when the
avenger overthrew his dynasty? Besides, how did they know
that the vassals affected would be content to change their

1 Monstr. iii. 321; Waurin, ii. 269. 2 Monstr. iii. 321; Juv. 551.

3 Ibid. He was one of the mattres des requetes of the duke of Burgundy (La Barre, ii.
194; Fauquembergue, i. 280 n.).

4 Juv- 55 *• Rapiout was one of the presidents of the Parlement of Paris (Fauquem-
bergue, i. 141 et passim).

141 9] Failure 167

allegiance ? The treaty of Bretigny had broken down before,
and how could they expect to revive it now? This speech made
the greater impression on the duke. It is clear that Henry's
full terms had not previously been disclosed to the duke's
supporters1, and now that the facts were getting out, he began
to see that his attitude towards Henry's claims was viewed with
undisguised apprehension by many of his own party; and we
have it on the authority of Queen Isabel herself that though
Henry's terms were agreeable to her and the duke, they were
warned that to accept them publicly would cause all the nobles
and towns among their supporters to go over to the dauphin2.
The duke at once began to withdraw from his difficult position.
When the time came to formulate in writing the promises
that he had been willing to make by word of mouth3, he
raised objections, and wanted Henry to bind himself never to
accept the crown of France, whether by purchase, cession,
transfer, or in any other way whatsoever. Henry regarded this
demand as prejudicial to his rights and derogatory to his
honour4. At a private interview with the duke at Meulan, he
told him hotly5 that his actions showed that the conference was
only talk. The dauphin's agents, he knew, were busy at
Pontoise, and he must have a final answer6. For himself, he
would gladly go forward with the bargain and the marriage
scheme, "but if this is not to be, we will hustle the king out
of his kingdom and you with him !" "Sire," retorted the duke,
"you will be pretty tired ere you fling us out. Be very sure of
that7!" The exact date of this meeting is not known8; but a
note of discord was struck on June 10 when Henry ordered
that no food should be sent out of Normandy, as merchants
from Paris and elsewhere were coming to buy provisions pre-
sumably to victual French towns and strongholds9. When the
French arrived at the conference ground on June 1 3, they found
the English drawn up with spears and banners at the very edge

1 Cf. "le traitie secretement comenchie par Monseigneur (i.e. Charles VI) et vous
(Henry)," Beaucourt, i. 186 sqq.

2 See her letter to Henry V dated Troyes, Sept. 20, 14 19 (Beaucourt, i. 299).

3 Rym. ix. 789; Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 24,062, f. 194 b.

4 Rym. ix. 790. 5 Monstr. iii. 321.

6 Juv. 551. 7 Monstr. iii. 321 sq.; Le Fevre, i. 362.

8 The date has been given as June 5 (Plancher, iii. 512), but after such a stormy
conversation, serious negotiations would have been impossible for some time. The
interview probably took place just before the final breach.

9 Rym. ix. 765.

1 68 The Conference of Meulan [ch. lx

of their encampment, rumours having been circulated that they
might be attacked. Nevertheless the day passed pleasantly, with
the usual dinner, and at the next conference, on June 16, King
Henry made amends by feasting not only his own men but the
French also, giving them specially good fare1. Suspicion, how-
ever, continued to grow, and the air was full of disturbing
rumours. The principals met again on June 11 and June 302;
but this was the end of discussion. For when Henry came on
the ground according to arrangement on July 3, neither the
queen nor the duke appeared3. On the 5th Archbishop Chichele
and the earl of Warwick were deputed to proceed to Pontoise
to ascertain on what day it would be convenient to have another
personal interview about the marriage4. But the duke refused
to see them, alleging that the English proposals were vague,
unreasonable and obscure5. Thus the conference ended, its only
result being that Henry's eagerness for the marriage was in-
creased6. In England the view was officially promulgated that
a treaty of peace had been arranged before the meeting at
Meulan — presumably at Mantes and Vernon — that in this
Henry had agreed to accept less than his full rights, but that
the French would not agree to any reasonable final arrange-
ment7.

The explanation of the duke's conduct lies partly in his relations
with the dauphin. In the latter part of the winter the Armagnac
troops had been very aggressive. On Feb. 25 they captured
Beaumont-sur-Oise8, on March 8 Soissons9. It was doubtless
this activity that led the duke of Burgundy to send messengers
to the dauphin with proposals for a truce, which was concluded,
though in somewhat vague terms, on May 1 410. In consequence,
emissaries of the dauphin, as we have seen, were able to make
mischief at Pontoise during the conferences at Meulan. Mean-
while, a complete reconciliation was being promoted by Alan

1 Tit. Liv. 74 sq.; Vita, 224. 2 Itin. 448.

3 Kingsford, Lit. 334; Tit. Liv. 75; Vita, 225; Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 24,062, f. 195.

4 Rym. ix. 776; D.K.R. xli. 789.

5 Rym. ix. 789 sq.; Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 24,062, f. 194 b.

6 Immediately after the end of the conference Henry sent Catherine presents of
jewellery said to have been worth 100,000 crowns; they were, however, captured by
the enemy before they reached her (St Denys, vi. 364; also Abrege in J. Chartier [Vallet
de Viriville], iii. 212, 225).

7 Rot. Pari. iv. 116. 8 Vallet de Viriville, i. 147.
9 St Denys, vi. 318.

10 Juv. 548. Juvenal des Ursins was at this time at Poitiers and had excellent means
of getting to know what was proceeding in the inner councils of the dauphin's party.

1419] Loving Cousins 169

of Kerabret, bishop of St Pol de Leon, who had lately returned
from the Council of Constance commissioned by the pope to
compose the feuds of France by any possible means1. Under
his influence the duke on June 28 sent envoys to the dauphin,
then at Melun, to arrange a meeting2. On July 7 he left
Pontoise3; next day he visited the dauphin at the fortress of
Pouilly near Melun4; and on the 9th they discussed peace in
a hut which had been erected for the purpose on a bridge over
the Biherel about three miles north-west of Melun5. No agree-
ment was reached, and a subsequent meeting was equally
abortive. The attempt was on the point of being abandoned,
but the principals were persuaded to make one more effort6,
and this time their conversation led to an understanding7,
which after further debate ripened into a formal treaty
of peace, signed on July 1 1 8. The duke agreed that the past
should be forgotten, that he would submit himself to the
dauphin, behave as his true and loyal kinsman, help him to
maintain his estate, and aid him against any who should make
war upon him. The dauphin on his side consented to cherish
his very dear cousin the duke and defend him against any man
living. All past offences were to be blotted out and all heritages
restored. The faction names of Burgundian and Armagnac
should cease. The two chiefs would henceforth live in harmony,
help jointly in all the business of the kingdom, make no treaty
or alliance with the enemies of their king on pain of excom-
munication and would repudiate any such already made.

On July 17 the duke of Burgundy was back at Pontoise9.
Two days later a royal ordinance was issued confirming all that
had been done10. All offences were to be pardoned, all confisca-

1 Ordonnances, xii. 268, 274; St Denys, vi. 332, 336.

2 Barante, iii. 279. 3 Ibid.; Itin. 448.

4 Ibid.; Monstr. iii. 322; Le Fevre, i. 364; Waurin, ii. 271.

5 Rym. ix. 779; St Denys, ix. 328, 342, 344; J. Chartier (Vallet de Viriville), iii.
218; Waurin, ii. 271; Felibien, ii. 797; Barante, iii. 279; Plancher, iii. 513, 514.

6 This seems to have been accomplished mainly by the mediation of Jeanne, mother
of Pierre de Giac, one of the duke's escort. She was one of the queen's ladies of honour,
had known the dauphin from his childhood, had great influence with the duke, and
was withal a "venerable and prudent lady" (Cordeliers, 280; St Denys, vi. 332;
Monstr. iii. 322; Le Fevre, i. 364; Waurin, ii. 271).

7 St Denys, vi. 332; Le Fevre, i. 364; Ordonnances, xii. 274; Champollion-Figeac,
Lettres, ii. 356; Rym. ix. 756, 778.

8 Ordonnances, xii. 263; Plancher, iii. 515; Beaucourt, Meurtre, 230; Chastellain, i.
32. The text is given in Rym. ix. 776; St Denys, vi. 334 sqq.; Monstr. iii. 324 sqq.

9 Itin. 449.

10 Ordonnances, xii. 263, 275; Tillet, Recueil, 124 b.

170 The Conference of Meulan [ch. lx

tions annulled, all garrisons set free to operate against the
English. The Parlement at Poitiers was recognised as the
supreme court1, and the queen, the duke and the dauphin were
to share alike in advising and deliberating in the royal Council.
Meanwhile news of the reconciliation had been trumpeted
abroad, and Paris had abandoned itself to demonstrative
rejoicing2.

1 Ordonnances, xi. 15.

2 J. Chartier (Vallet de Viriville), iii. 221 (Abrege); Douet d'Arcq, i. 403.

CHAPTER LXI

DIPLOMATIC FAILURE AND MILITARY SUCCESS

It must not be supposed that Henry's diplomatic activity
was concerned solely with the French. It was a time when the
relations between England and the papacy were somewhat
critical. Martin V owed his election largely to the influence
of Bishop Beaufort, and he seems to have thought that in
Henry he had a willing tool. The king had been in communica-
tion with him in the early days of the siege of Rouen1, and
early in 14 19 Bishop Caterick had a private interview with him
at Mantua2. At this the pope was much moved; he declared
himself convinced that Henry really did love him, and said that
all the theologians in the world could not have touched him so
much as the king's divine eloquence. The purport of this
eloquence can only be conjectured; but there is little doubt that
Henry was seeking help of some kind against the French, for
Martin promised that he would be Henry's "secretarius," and
that his recent letter should not fall into French hands. On
his side he had sent two letters to the king, enclosed in one to
Chichele, with injunctions that the contents should be kept
strictly secret and that the letters should be burnt as soon as
they had been read. What the pope offered is not known, but
it is probable that part of the price at least was to be the repeal
of the Statute of Provisors. It is likely that Henry had raised
hopes that the statute might be annulled, but when in the
summer of this year the pope formally pressed for this3, the
king pointed out that neither he nor his father had been in
any way concerned in the passing of the statute and that it
could not be repealed without the consent of the "Three
Estates4."

The same months saw the promotion to the episcopate of
two of the most faithful agents of Henry's diplomacy. On
March 2, 141 9, Thomas Peverell, bishop of Worcester, died5.

1 Rym. ix. 680. 2 Ibid.

3 Ibid. 806. * Ibid. 808.

5 Bund, 405, 407.

172 Diplomatic Failure and Military Success [ch. lxi

The king having granted the conge d'elire1, the monks of
Worcester, on April 24s, elected Philip Morgan, archdeacon
of Norfolk, and chancellor of the duchy of Normandy.
Meanwhile, the see of Rochester having fallen vacant by the
death, on Oct. 28, 141 8, of Richard Yonge3, the chapter had
chosen John Kemp4, archdeacon of Durham and keeper of the
privy seal. Martin V, requested to confirm both elections,
followed the usual practice of the papacy at this time, and pro-
vided Morgan and Kemp to the sees in question5. On Dec. 3,
14 1 9, both were consecrated in Rouen cathedral by the bishops
of Arras and Hebron6.

Negotiations for papal support were of course in the usual
order of things in the Middle Ages. Less conventional were
some of Henry's other dealings, notably those with Naples,
which have been strangely neglected by modern historians, per-
haps because they led to nothing, though they afford evidence
of the extraordinary boldness and range of the king's ambition.
Naples was ruled by Queen Joan II, who had succeeded her
brother Ladislas in 14 14. She was then forty-four years old, a
widow, and notorious for her licentious life. She was childless,
and it seemed as though with her the Durazzo line of the house
of Anjou would come to an end. It was for a time doubtful
whether she would choose an Englishman or a Frenchman as
her second husband7; but in 141 5 her choice fell on Jacques,
count of La Marche. In 141 8, however, after violent quarrels,
he escaped from the imprisonment to which Joan had con-
signed him, and after many vicissitudes returned to France.
Joan had already begun to consider the adoption of some
powerful personage as her heir, and had had some dealings
with Henry's representatives at Constance. Eventually she
offered to adopt John duke of Bedford. On Feb. 28, 141 9,
Henry signified his assent8, and on March 12 Thomas Polton
and Agostino de Lante of Pisa were formally appointed to con-

1 At £vreux, on March 25 (Rym. ix. 714; Bund, 406). 2 Bund, 405.

3 Le Neve, ii. 565; Gams, 196; Eubel, i. 444.

4 Le Neve, ii. 566; Eubel, i. 444. 5 Cal. Pap. Lett. vii. 133.

6 Bund, 390; Stubbs, Reg. 86.

7 Albizzi, i. 267. It is, however, probably a mistake to suppose that the "orator
principis Galilee" who was at Florence in Oct., 14 14, in order to get the support
of the Signory for his master's suit for Joan's hand, had anything to do with the prince
of Wales, as Faraglia (45) assumes. The suitor was probably Henri de Lusignan, prince
of Galilee, son of James I, king of Cyprus.

8 Rym. ix. 701.

1419] A Mother for Bedford 173

duct the consequent negotiations1. Polton does not appear to
have gone to Naples in person, but he drew up a schedule of
instructions for his two colleagues, Agostino de Lante and
John Fitton, who were to conduct the discussions with the
queen. They were to ascertain the exact strength of the parties
that respectively favoured her and her husband and the con-
ditions under which Bedford might hope to succeed to the
throne. They were to press for an allowance to him of not less
than 60,000 ducats a year, while certain harbours were to be
reserved to him.

After conversations between the English agents and those
of the queen, it was agreed that nothing should be finally
settled until the consent of the pope had been obtained. Sub-
ject to this, however, and in consideration of the likelihood that
the French would resist the treaty by force, the English would
pay the queen 50,000 ducats, which would be deposited at
Gaeta and must not be touched until Reggio and Brindisi had
actually been handed over to Bedford's representatives. Within
eight months after that the duke would come to Naples,
bringing 1000 men-at-arms and 2000 archers, whose wages he
would himself pay for six months. The queen would make
him duke of Calabria (a title bestowed only on the heir to the
throne), with full power over that province, and place in his
hands all the strongholds in her possession. Bedford, further-
more, should have as his own all that he could conquer from
the queen's enemies, and should be declared her successor,
not only in the kingdom of Naples but also in the county of
Provence2, which was actually held by the duchess of Anjou,
who belonged to the rival line.

Nothing seems to have come of this agreement. The queen
had papal support and in Oct. 141 9 was crowned at Naples3.
Perhaps she no longer felt the need of English aid. In 1420,
indeed, she seems to have been inclined to reopen negotiations
with Bedford4; but the result cannot have been encouraging,
for in 1 42 1 she adopted as her heir the young king of Aragon,
Alfonso V.

Meanwhile Henry was trying to find the duke of Bedford a

1 Rym. ix. 705; D.K.R. xli. 742; Iss. Roll 7 Hen. V, Pasch., April 20, 1419. Polton
was at the court of Rome (Lenz, 186).

2 Rym. ix. 706 sq. 3 Ametller y Vinyas, i. 39, 41; Giannone, ii. 304.

4 Rym. ix. 865, where she commissions Agostino de Lante to carry a message from
her to the duke.

174 Diplomatic Failure and Military Success [ch. lxi

wife as well as a mother. He was now thirty, and after Henry's
successes might look as high as he pleased. Four years before,
indeed, a marriage with a princess of Aragon had been pro-
posed1, and when in 141 7 the young widow, Jacqueline of
Hainault, was in difficulties with her uncle the bishop of Liege,
his name was put forward as that of a possible sharer of her
country and fortunes. But when Jacqueline married the duke
of Brabant, Bedford had to look elsewhere. On March 18,
141 9, Henry despatched John Colvile and Richard Leyot,
dean of St Asaph, to make a round of the suitable courts
of Germany and see what could be done2. They were to visit
the duke of Lorraine, who had two little daughters, Isabel and
Catherine, though the envoys seem to have been so ill-informed
that they fancied there was only one3. They were to ask for the
hand of Isabel, the elder, who was only eight years of age. They
found, however, that the duke, though a strong Burgundian,
had just arranged a marriage between her and Rene the third
son of the duchess of Anjou4. Accordingly they went on to
see what could be done with the margrave of Brandenburg,
Frederick of Hohenzollern. As Vicar of the Empire in Sigis-
mund's absence he had held a Diet at Nordlingen in Franconia
in April5. The envoys were to approach him as one of those
included with Sigismund in the Canterbury treaty, and to ask
for the hand of his only daughter; but nothing came of the
suggestion, and it is not even known whether they had an
interview with him. According to their commission they were
next to approach Sigismund himself to see if he had any kins-
woman available. But Sigismund was by this time back in
Hungary6, and no one knows if he so much as received a
message from the envoys. After all the duke of Bedford re-
mained a bachelor four years longer, in the end marrying Anne
daughter of John duke of Burgundy.

In all these transactions there seems to be strong evidence
of Henry's ambition to ring France round with enemies by
means of marriage alliances and other Napoleonic methods.
He was allied with Sigismund. He had in his pay the three

1 Cf. vol. i. 97. 2 Rym. ix. 710 sq.; Calmet, iii. 533.

3 Rym. ix. 710.

4 It was formally announced on May 20, 1419 (Calmet, iii. 533; Vallet de Viriville,
i. 151; Lecoy de la Marche, i. 55).

5 Brandenburg, 80; Reichstagsakten, vii. 383.

6 Altmann, i. 268-272; Aschbach, ii. 482; Lenz, 202.

14 1 9] The Marriage- Market 175

great elector archbishops of Cologne1, Mainz, and Trier2. Nego-
tiations were pending to win over the Genoese. Their repre-
sentatives had been approached at Constance as to a renewal
of friendly relations3, and on Feb. 26, 14 19, William Bardolph
and other commissioners were appointed to treat with them
at Calais4, but, notwithstanding prolonged negotiations, no
agreement was reached5. At the same time, too, Henry was
trying to secure for Humphrey of Gloucester the hand of
Blanche, daughter of Charles III of Navarre and widow of
Martin of Aragon, king of Sicily, which was governed in her
name. The matter had long ago been broached, and in Navarre
had received favourable consideration ; but Henry had not been
able to make up his mind. The king of Navarre demanded,
as the price of his consent, some rectification of the boundary
between his kingdom and Guienne, and Henry could not bring
himself to part with any of his land. His interests were repre-
sented at Olite by Charles Beaumont6, standard bearer of
Navarre, a Frenchman by birth but devoted to the English
cause. On April 28, 1 4 1 9, he sent Henry a message expressing
the hope that English envoys would soon arrive, as repre-
sentatives of both Aragon and Castile were coming to ask the
hand of Blanche, the estates of Navarre were pressing the king
to come to a settlement, and it was all he could do to secure
further delay7. Henry had on April 3 approved of Gloucester's
appointment of William Beauchamp and John Stokes to
negotiate the match8. It is doubtful, however, whether they
even set out, and in any case the project was fruitless, for on
Nov. 5 Blanche was married to John, second son of Ferdinand
king of Aragon.

Notwithstanding the negotiations in which he was engaged,
Henry's first care after the fall of Rouen was to complete the
conquest of Normandy. The dukes of Clarence and Exeter,
the earl of Salisbury, and others9, were authorised to arrange
for the capitulation of walled towns and castles, and fully
occupied they were with the task. Caudebec, as we have seen,
had undertaken to share the fate of Rouen, and on Jan. 23

1 Cf. ante, p. 32. 2 Rym. ix. 715; D.K.R. xli. 763.

3 Rym. ix. 414 sqq. 4 Ibid. 700.

5 Ibid. 758; Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 245 sq., 255 sqq., 266 sq.

6 Cf. Wylie, iii. 72. 7 Rym. ix. 741.

8 Ibid. 716.

9 D.K.R. xli. 723, 724, 728; Tit. Liv. 70.

176 Diplomatic Failure and Military Success [ch. lxi

Lewis Robsart and Roger Fiennes were commissioned to
receive its submission, the former being appointed captain of
the place1. With it fell fourteen other places in the vicinity
that were bound by a similar contract2, and then "all the
residue of Normandy yielded3." A French account says that
thirty-five towns and castles surrendered shortly after the fall
of Rouen, and the number is probably not exaggerated4. The
town of Montivilliers, which for more than two years had held
out as a standing menace to the English at Harfleur, yielded to
Hugh Lutterell on Jan. 23s. On Jan. 3 1 Lillebonne6, on the next
day Fecamp7 and Etrepagny surrendered8. Tancarville yielded
about the same time9, Vernon on Feb. 310, Mantes, forestalling
attack, on Feb. 511. Dieppe submitted on Feb. 812; Arqueshad
already done so13. Gournay and Neufchatel-en-Bray gave in on
the 9th14. On Feb. 15 Eu with several adjacent castles, sur-
rendered to the duke of Exeter15, the whole county being
granted to William Bourchier, in whose family the title "count
of Eu" remained for at least 250 years16. Honfleur had
baffled the English attack in 141 7, but it capitulated on Feb. 25
after a short siege by the earl of Salisbury17. These and other
surrenders of less note placed all Normandy in English hands18,
with the exception of the frontier fortresses of Mont-St-Michel,
Chateau Gaillard, Gisors, La Roche Guyon, and Ivry. Of these
La Roche Guyon, though regarded as impregnable, was the first
to fall. It was defended against the earl of Warwick for two

1 D.K.R. xli. 708; Brequigny, 44. 2 Stow, Chron. 357; Puiseux, 106.

3 Peter. Chron. 489. Cf. Gesta, 129; Norm. Chron. 191; Waurin, ii. 265; Monstr.
iii. 309; St Denys, vi. 320; Fenin, 106.

4 Monstr. iii. 309.

5 Rym. ix. 674; Tit. Liv. 70; Vita, 205.

6 Rym. ix. 677.

7 Ibid.; Brequigny, 47, 214; Vita, 205.

8 Rym. ix. 678; Brequigny, 47.

9 D.K.R. xli. 751. On the same day it was granted to John Grey of Heton (Bre-
quigny, 47; D.K.R. xli. 723).

10 Rym. ix. 679; Brequigny, 47. At Vernon a temporary truce had been arranged
in the previous autumn in order that the vintage might be gathered (Brequigny, 209 ;
D.K.R. xli. 697; Gachard, 663 a). William Porter was made captain (Rym. ix. 693;
D.K.R. xli. 731).

11 [Durand and Grave, 270; Newhall, 127 sq.]; Bourgeois, 121; Norm. Chron. 192.

12 Rym. ix. 682; Brequigny, 58; D.K.R. xli. 742, 746; Vita, 205. Dieppe was placed
in the keeping of William Bourchier (D.K.R. xli. 727, 7305 Brequigny, 52).

13 D.K.R. xli. 727. 14 Rym. ix. 683; Brequigny, 53.

15 Rym. ix. 695; Brequigny, 55, 78, 104; D.K.R. xli. 728, 746, 765.

16 Brequigny, 99; Yorks. Arch, and Topog. Journ. ix. 401 sqq.

17 Rym. ix. 698; Brequigny, 57; D.K.R. xli. 746; Blondel, Reductio, 154.

18 Orig. Lett., Ser. II, i. 76.

141 9] " The Residue of Normandy" 177

months by the lady of the place, Perette de la Riviere, who
beat off many assaults. But, on the advice of Guy le Bouteiller,
the former captain of Rouen, Warwick enlarged the caves in
the cliff on which the castle stood, and with its foundations thus
undermined, it surrendered by May 1, the lady being allowed
to leave with her sons after refusing an offer of marriage with
le Bouteiller, to whom the place was subsequently granted1.
Ivry was besieged by the duke of Gloucester towards the end
of March2. After much fighting the town was stormed, but
the castle, which was very strong, held out for some time longer3.
On May 10, however, the worn-out garrison capitulated, and
four days later the fortress passed into the hands of the English4,
who were now able to raid far and wide in the Chartrain5.
As for Chateau Gaillard, though the duke of Exeter was
ordered to attack it in April6, it was not reduced till the
following autumn, while for the present Gisors was left alone.
The resistance of these places did not deter Henry from
pressing his invasion far beyond the limits of Normandy.
Though the negotiations at Meulan had done little to promote
the cause of peace, they had given him and the duke of Bur-
gundy an opportunity of arranging a truce which should last
till July 2 97. The interval was used by Henry to attempt the
renewal of the discussions. Though the English at Mantes
knew all about the meeting of the duke and the dauphin8,
Henry on July 19 sent representatives to the duke, who was
again at Pontoise, to ask that negotiations might proceed9, and
on the 22nd safe-conducts were issued for four envoys to come
to Mantes10, two of them being Armagnacs who had been with
the dauphin at Pouilly. The French seem to have met English
commissioners, and to have advised delay until the duke and

1 Brequigny, 93, 13 15 D.K.R. xli. 800; Tit. Liv. 72; Vita, 212; Champollion-
Figeac, Lettres, ii. 341; Monstr. iii. 337; Fenin, 569; St Denys, vi. 312; Juv. 545.
The lady has been much praised for refusing to keep her possessions at the price of her
patriotism, but it is worthy of remark that within three months she received, at her own
request, a safe-conduct for an interview with Henry (Rym. ix. 773).

2 Norm. Chron. 193. 3 Ibid.; Tit. Liv. 72; D.K.R. xlii. 314.

4 Brequigny, 20 sq.; Tit. Liv. 72; St Denys, vi. 326. The terms of the capitulation
were incorrectly entered in the Norman roll of 6 Hen. V.

5 Norm. Chron. 193. [They got as far south as Janville, Newhall, 132, citing Brit.
Mus. Add. Ch. 76.]

6 Rot. Norm. 7 Hen. V, p. 1, m. 12. 7 Rym. ix. 782.

8 This appears from a letter written at Mantes on July 14 by a certain R. Prior, of
whose position we know nothing (Rym. ix. 779).

9 Ibid. 782.

10 Ibid. 783; Beaucourt, Meurtre, 221, 226.

win 12

178 Diplomatic Failure and Military Success [ch. lxi

the dauphin had met again ; they explained that though Henry's
proposals were very welcome, it would be difficult to get the
nobles and the towns to accept them unless the dauphin had
done so1. But it at once became apparent that the duke had no
serious intention in resuming relations with Henry, for on
July 23 he and the royal party left Pontoise for St Denis2.

If the duke thought that he was making Henry his dupe, he
was grievously mistaken. The truce expired on July 293. Next
day4 the king ordered the gates of Mantes to be kept shut, and
suffered no civilians to pass out. At mid-day a strong body of
his personal guard left the town, none knew whither. Another
force, provided with scaling ladders, left at nightfall, and it
now became clear that a dash was to be made for Pontoise. The
attackers, numbering in all 3000 men5, were divided into two
sections, one under Gaston de Foix, who had just been made
count of Longueville6, the other under the earl of Huntingdon.
The suburbs of Pontoise had all been burnt in anticipation of
an attack by the Armagnacs, and the lie of the ground was
known to many Englishmen who had visited the place during
the recent negotiations7. It was garrisoned by a force of 1000
men-at-arms and 2000 crossbowmen8 under the lord of L'Isle
Adam, and owing to the presence of the court had recently
been provisioned for about two years. All went well with the
force under Gaston de Foix, who left their horses at a little
distance from the town, crept up under cover of darkness, and
lay concealed in the trenches of some vineyards near the
western wall. Here they waited for a signal from the earl of
Huntingdon, whose force had made a wide detour to the east
to bar the road to Paris. But the earl had lost his way and got
entangled in a marsh, so as sunrise approached the count's

1 Beaucourt, i. 186, where is quoted in full a letter of Queen Isabel to Henry written
at Troyes on Sept. 20, 1419.

2 Barante, iii. 286.

3 A proclamation was issued on the 30th stating that it had ended (Tit. Liv. 75;
Vita, 227; Gesta, 130).

4 Kingsford, Lit. 334; Sharpe, London, iii. 364; Delpit, 227; Monstr. iii. 332;
Waurin, ii. 273; Le Fevre, i. 366.

5 Monstr. iii. 332; St Denys, vi. 312.

6 On June 11 (Rym. ix. 766, 772; D.K.R. xli. 789). He was the second son of
Archambaud de Grailly, count of Foix, who had abandoned the English connection
(Wylie, ii. 316), and brother of Jean, count of Foix at this time. He held the family
lands in Gascony and the title of Captal de Buch (ibid. 315; Anselme, iii. 371, 381;
Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 266, 268).

7 Le Fevre, i. 366.

8 St Denys, vi. 312; Monstr. iii. 330, 333.

1419] Pontoise 179

party determined to run the risk alone. About four in the
morning1 some of them sprang from their hiding and planted
their ladders2 against the wall, which they found almost un-
guarded, the watch having come down to attend their early
Mass and take their morning drink3. The storming party flung
open one of the gates, through which the rest streamed rapidly,
snouting "St George ! Ville gagnee4 ! " The garrison, recovering
from their surprise, made a dangerous rally, but the gate was so
smashed that it could not be closed. For a short time both sides
fought savagely in the streets; but the attackers gained in
numbers, the sound of Huntingdon's trumpets was heard
approaching, the townsfolk busied themselves with hiding their
effects, and when the captain shouted "Sauve qui peut!" from
the wall, the garrison, already much demoralised, flung away
their crossbows, opened all the gates, and beat a hasty retreat,
those who fled across the bridge falling into the hands of the
earl's party, while those who took the Beauvais road were
robbed by Burgundian plunderers5. All looting was for-
bidden at the great abbeys of St Martin and Maubuisson
in the suburbs6, but the town itself was given up to pillage,
the inhabitants lost almost all that they possessed7, and vast
stores were captured, valued according to one account at
2,000,000 crowns8. Henry was delighted at the success of this
coup de main\ he had a Te Deum sung and on Aug. 5 wrote
to the mayor of London saying that for charm and wealth
and commanding position he had as yet made no conquest
that could equal Pontoise9. It was the most notable capture
which he had made in "France" as distinguished from Nor-
mandy, and in subsequent negotiations he absolutely refused
to consider its surrender.

1 Douet d'Arcq, i. 404; Worcester, Itin. 351; Martial de Paris, i. 33.

2 Largely made of rope (St Denys, vi. 346).

3 Le Fevre, i. 366; cf. Monstr. hi. 333; Douet d'Arcq, i. 404.

4 Monstr. iii. 333.

5 Tit. Liv. 75sqq.; Vita, 226 sqq.; St Denys, vi. 350 sq.; Monstr. iii. 333; Trou,
119.

6 St Denys, vi. 352. 7 Rym. x. 55.

8 Juv- 552» cf- Le Fevre, i. 367; Waurin, ii. 274; Monstr. iii. 333; Worcester, Itin.
351, where it is said that thirty-two knights were captured.

9 Delpit, 227; cf. Wals. ii. 330. For a similar letter to the mayor from the duke of
Clarence, see Sharpe, iii. 364. L'Isle Adam was very naturally accused of treachery,
it being said that he gave up the fight as soon as his money and valuables had been
safely removed (St Denys, vi. 352). On the other hand, Jean Juvenal (552) praises the
valour he showed in the defence of the town.

12-2

180 Diplomatic Failure and Military Success [ch. lxi

On Aug. 6 Henry moved from Mantes and transferred his
headquarters to his new possession, where he stayed in the
castle for a week or two1. Strategically, indeed, he had scored
a signal success. He had the whole of the Vexin in his hands;
he had vastly replenished his stores; and by seizing the bridge
of Pontoise he had removed the last obstacle that barred his way
to Paris2. Nevertheless, his position was beset with dangers.
Peace, which but a few weeks ago seemed to be standing at the
door3, had now vanished into the remote distance, and with it
the hopes of a marriage with the princess Catherine. There
was no choice but to go further and further with the war, which
was every day growing more irksome and distasteful to Henry's
people. What was worse, alarming reports kept pouring in
showing that the more he advanced towards the east, the weaker
became his hold on his earlier conquests. In June there was a
formidable invasion of the Cotentin4, Avranches and Pontorson
being captured by the French5. Salisbury, who was lieutenant
of Normandy south of the Seine6, came to repel the raiders; the
feudal levy of the Cotentin was called out7; and on July 14
Avranches was recovered8, though Pontorson probably re-
mained in French hands for some months9. There were, too,
disquieting signs of disaffection nearer Henry's headquarters.
At Beaumont-le-Roger the bailli was unable to exercise his
jurisdiction owing to the prevalence of brigandage, and ar-
rangements had to be made for him to hold his court in the
castle of La Riviere de Thibouville10. Formidable conspiracies
were being hatched at Rouen11 and Dieppe12. On Aug. 1 8 the
king issued orders to captains of fortified towns to see that all
the soldiers of their garrisons lived and slept within the walls13.
The eastern frontier of the duchy was the scene of much
fighting. In August St Martin-le-Gaillard was recovered by

1 Brequigny, 104; D.K.R. xli. 792. 2 Delpit, 227; Rym. ix. 790.

3 Ibid. 789. 4 Brequigny, 100.

5 Mont-St-Michel, i. 22; Juv. 552. 6 Rym. ix. 739.

7 Brequigny, 100. 8 Ibid. 33.

9 The earl of Suffolk, appointed captain of Pontorson on June 12 (Brequigny, 99),
did not draw any money in that capacity up to the following May 1 (Exch. Accts.
187/14). 10 Brequigny, 105.

11 Tit. Liv. 75; Vita, 226. On Sept. 6 orders were issued denning more clearly the
duties of the captain in supporting the civil officers in maintaining order (Brequigny,
106).

12 Ibid., where directions, dated Sept. 8, are given for crushing a conspiracy at
Dieppe.

13 Ibid. 104.

14 1 9] Varied Fortune 181

the French and relieved by the lord of Gamaches from Com-
piegne when the English tried to recapture it. The approach
of superior forces, however, compelled the French to withdraw,
and immediately afterwards the earl of Huntingdon led a raid
far into enemy country and burned Breteuil1. On the Maine
frontier fortune was still more capricious. Ambroise de Lore,
who was making a name for himself among patriotic French-
men, inflicted a sharp reverse on a force commanded by the
earl of March, and even took Sees, though he did not try to
hold it. Not long afterwards, however, he was defeated and
captured by Gilbert Halsall, bailli of Evreux, who was raiding
in Maine2. To counterbalance this, the English were in August
worsted in a fight near Mortain, many prisoners and banners
being sent to Paris in consequence3.

Much more serious than the vicissitudes of frontier warfare
were the diplomatic successes of the dauphin's party. Towards
the end of 141 8 both he and the duke of Burgundy had been
in negotiation with the Scots4; there were already a few Scottish
troops serving under the dauphin5 and possibly some in the army
of the duke6. Before the end of March, 141 9, further help
had been promised to the dauphin by a Scottish embassy, more
Scots had arrived, and a French mission had gone to Castile to
try to secure transport for a big force7. In May Sir William
Douglas was retained by the dauphin with 1 50 men-at-arms and
300 archers8, and there were more than 300 other Scots in his
service9. The Scottish envoys had gone to Spain, and, adding
their arguments to those of the French, they prevailed on the
king of Castile to sign a convention, dated at Segovia on June
28, whereby he undertook to provide for the transport of troops
from Scotland 40 armed ships and 20 galleys, with 200 men-
at-arms and 4000 mariners and crossbowmen. They were to
go at once to Belle Isle, whence, under Admiral Braquemont,
they should proceed to Scotland10. A fresh embassy from the
dauphin was sent thither to make the most of the Scottish

1 Norm. Chron. 194 sq.; Monstr. iii. 335 sq.; Juv. 546.

2 Juv. 546. [The chronology of these events is quite obscure, though Professor New-
hall gives reason for believing that Lore was captured in May, 14 19 (p. 137)-]

3 St Denys, vi. 362; Juv. 552. 4 Beaucourt, i. 306 sqq.
5 Forbes-Leith, i. 153; Beaucourt, i. 429. 6 Ibid. i. 306 sq.

7 Ibid. 308; Daumet, Alliance, 73 sq.; [Newhall, 136].

8 Forbes-Leith, i. 153. 9 Ibid.; Beaucourt, i. 429.

10 Ibid. 311; Daumet, Alliance, 74; Circourt, 356, 361, 368 sqq.; Rym. ix.
783 sq.

1 82 Diplomatic Failure and Military Success [ch. lxi

offer1, and by the beginning of September the number of
Scots in the dauphin's army had considerably increased2,
though the main expedition had not yet sailed. Meanwhile, a
Castilian force had crossed the Pyrenees, overrun the county
of Labourd, and plundered to the walls of Bayonne3.

There can be little doubt that these proceedings were all
carried out with the connivance of the duke of Burgundy. In
March he had sent three esquires to Scotland4, and in April the
bishop of Orkney and two Scottish lords visited him at Provins,
where they stayed several weeks and were treated with special
honour5. Nor can the duke have made any effort to conceal his
relations with them, for English envoys were in the town at
the same time6. Henry, indeed, seems to have been fully alive
to the danger that threatened him. A large fleet was assembled
at Southampton under Hugh Courtenay, son of the earl of
Devon, who had collected a force of 380 men-at-arms and 760
archers. He had under him two knights, Thomas Carew and
John Arundel, together with John Hawley of Dartmouth and
Henry Fortescue, all experienced and dashing sailors. He
received £ij6o to pay the wages of his men for three months
from May 1 7, during which he was to bear the title of " Captain
of our Navy" and to exercise large powers "according to
maritime law8," provided that he did not encroach on the
jurisdiction of the admiral, the duke of Exeter. The fleet in-
cluded four carracks, five naves, and eight balingers (all king's
ships), manned altogether by 1 103 seamen and 50 pagets, with
four constables and four carpenters, their wages amounting
altogether to more than ^797 for the three months. About the
end of July, however, Henry got to know of the plans of the
Castilian fleet from documents captured by a balinger of
Bayonne, observing no doubt with interest that it was in-
structed to do no injury to the duke of Burgundy9; and on
Aug. 12 and 2410 Bedford issued orders to collect more ships
to intercept the enemy fleet on its way to Scotland. At the

1 Beaucourt, i. 320. 2 Forbes-Leith, i. 153 sq.

3 Rym. ix. 794 sq. The letter in which the inhabitants announce this news and beg
Henry for help is dated Sept. 5.

4 Beaucourt, i. 309 sq.

5 They dined with the duke on April 1 1 (Gachard, 240; Itin. 447), and did not leave
Provins till May 8 (ibid. 446). Cf. Beaucourt, i. 310.

6 Cf. ante, p. 162. 7 Iss. Roll 7 Hen. V, Pasch., May 20, 14 19.
8 Cal. Pat. 1416-22, pp. 181 sq. 9 Rym. ix. 783 sq.

10 Ibid. 791, 792.

1 419] Scots in France 183

same time the forces of the northern counties were called out to
guard against a possible landing by the foreigners1. Despite
these precautions, however, the Castilian fleet, reinforced by
ships of La Rochelle, reached Scotland in September, em-
barked 6000 men under the earls of Buchan and Wigtown, and
landed them safely2. On Oct. 29 the two commanders were at
the dauphin's court at Bourges3. Their troops were stationed
in Touraine4. Reinforcements under the earl of Mar were
expected, and a fleet was already being prepared to bring
them5.

1 Rym. ix. 793. [It may have been the concern caused by the projected expedition
from Scotland that led Henry, in August, 1419, to write twice to Lewis, Count
Palatine of the Rhine, urging him to supply military aid to the English in the spring
of 1420. Henry had evidently given up all hope of an early peace, and was at pains
to convince Lewis that he was not to blame for the rupture of the recent negotiations
(Finke, Acta, iv. 489 sqq.).]

2 Forbes-Leith, ii. 198; Beaucourt, i. 320 sq.; Scotichron. (Hearne), iv. 1210;
Pluscard. 353 sq.; Monstr. iii. 357. John Stewart, second son of the duke of Albany,
was created earl of Buchan in 1406 (Exch. Rolls of Scotland, iv. p. clxxxii). Archibald
Douglas, eldest son of the fourth earl of Douglas, was Buchan's brother-in-law ; his title
of earl of Wigtown seems to have been held by courtesy and not to have been used
until he was on the point of leaving for France (Fraser, Douglas Book, i. 399, 401, 404;
ii. 407 sq., 413).

3 Forbes-Leith, ii. 198.

4 Scotichron. (Hearne), iv. 12 10; Pluscard. 354.

5 Forbes-Leith, ii. 199; Beaucourt, i. 331.

CHAPTER LXII

THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY'S SKULL

The duke of Burgundy, with the king and queen of France,
arrived at St Denis on July 23, 141 91. On the morning of the
31st a crowd of fugitives brought the news that Pontoise had
fallen2, and the duke at once rushed the king and queen away3,
arriving that same night at Lagny, where he remained for a
week4. Here he must have received Henry's reply to a message,
sent off as soon as the capture of Pontoise was known, asking
him once more to consider an offer of peace. Henry's answer
took the form of a long despatch5, in which he summarised the
previous course of the negotiations, and expressed his willing-
ness to proceed, provided that his first conditions were ac-
cepted, with the addition that Pontoise, and consequently the
whole Vexin, should remain in his hands. Apparently such a
demand was too much for the duke, who left Lagny on Aug. 7,
and hastening eastward reached Troyes on the 11th6, so that
no use seems to have been made of safe-conducts issued on the
6th7 for two envoys from the duke to approach Henry. The
duke's flight from St Denis was well-advised, for on Aug. 2
the duke of Clarence presented himself with a large English
force before the gates of Paris8, where the citizens were in the
wildest alarm. It was of course only a demonstration, and after
two or three days he returned to Pontoise9. Paris, however,
remained in evil plight, for the loss of Pontoise meant the
stoppage of the daily supply of many necessaries10, prices went
up to five times the normal, and the writer of the chronicle of
St Denis declared that he had never known such frightful
dearth in all the seventy years of his life11.

1 Itin. 449; Monstr. iii. 330; Gachard, 241.

2 St Denys, vi. 352; Le Fevre, i. 367. 3 St Denys, vi. 354; Monstr. iii. 334.
4 Plancher, iii. 517. 5 Rym. ix. 787 sqq.

6 Plancher, iii. 517; Boutiot, ii. 394. 7 Rym. ix. 785; D.K.R. xli. 792.

8 Longnon, 212.

9 Tit. Liv. 77; Vita, 231; Gesta, 130. It is said that the duke asked to be allowed to
pay a visit of devotion to the shrine of St Denis, and when after being refused he went
away, he exclaimed, "What you refuse to-day I shall get some other day whether you
will or no!" (Juv. 552).

10 St Denys, vi. 350. n Ibid. 366.

1419] The Bridge of Montereau 185

The chief hope of Paris and the French lay in the execution
of the treaty between the dauphin and the duke, according to
which they were to meet again within a month to agree upon
a plan for pacifying local feuds and driving back the English1.
Hitherto neither side had displayed much interest in this
arrangement or much zeal for disbanding its garrisons. On
reaching Troyes, however, the duke of Burgundy wrote to the
dauphin urging that the meeting should be held as soon as
possible. Meanwhile the citizens of Paris, angry at being
deserted by the duke, had sent a deputation to the dauphin at
Tours, offering to welcome him as their lord2. Recognising
what might be gained by a conciliatory attitude to popular
desires, the dauphin issued a manifesto in which he declared
himself ready to fulfil all the terms of the recent reconciliation,
and wrote to the duke of Burgundy suggesting that the meeting
should take place on Aug. 26 at Montereau3, at the junction
of the Seine and the Yonne. The dauphin was there on the day
named4; but the duke of Burgundy had objected to the place
of meeting5, and it was only three days later that he arrived
at Bray on the Seine, which he made his headquarters during
the negotiations that ensued6. After several days' discussion it
was arranged that the interview should take place on the bridge
at Montereau on Sept. io7. Both sides, however, still had mis-
givings8; and it was only the urgent need for peace9, the
pressure of some of his leading supporters10, and the offer of
the dauphin to hand over the castle of Montereau11, that led the
duke to carry out his part of the undertaking.

On the day fixed, the duke, with a number of his principal
followers and 700 fighting men, arrived at Montereau and was
admitted to the castle12. Then, with the ten attendants allowed
by the agreement, he passed through the elaborate barrier
erected at the end of the bridge and entered the fenced en-
closure where the interview was to be held. Precisely what

1 Monstr. iii. 352; Juv. 552; Beaucourt, i. 186, Meurtre, 226.

2 The dauphin received them on Aug. 8 (St Denys, vi. 370).

3 Juv- 553 5 Beaucourt, i. 150, 159. 4 Juv. 553.

5 Beaucourt, Meurtre, 227. 6 Plancher, iii. 522.

7 Juv- 533-

8 Beaucourt, Meurtre, 227, 233; Douet d'Arcq, i. 405; Chastellain, i. 31.
8 Douet d'Arcq, i. 405; La Marche, i. 87, 201.

10 Monstr. iii. 340 sq.

11 Juv. 552 sq.; Barante, iii. 291; Beaucourt, Meurtre, 226.

12 Monstr. iii. 341; Trahisons, 144.

1 86 The Duke of Burgundy's Skull [ch. lxh

followed will never be known. Many stories are extant, ranging
from the Armagnac version which states that the duke was only-
attacked after offering violence to the dauphin1, to the official
Burgundian account, according to which the duke was cut
down from behind as he knelt before the dauphin on entering
his presence2. But, however the deed was done, it is certain
that the duke's head was cleft with an axe, that Armagnac
troops which had been ready for emergencies in houses near at
hand rushed on to the bridge3, captured the duke's attendants,
save one4, and attacked the Burgundians drawn up before the
castle5. Most of these fled in panic6, and a few who took refuge
in the castle found it devoid of artillery or provisions and saved
their lives by surrendering at the first threat of bombardment7.
The duke's body was rescued from insult by the priest of
Montereau, who next day had it buried in the parish church8.
There has been endless debate about the murder. Most
modern French writers, jealous of the good name of the prince
who delivered his country from the English, have tried to ex-
culpate him or at least to palliate the crime. Some credence9, in-
deed, has been attached to the contention of the dauphin's council
that if there was any premeditated plot, it was formed by the
duke, who meant to kidnap the dauphin and owed his death to his
own folly10. But this view never obtained general credit with con-
temporaries, who called what was done a vile and treacherous
murder11. Six years had not passed when Tanneguy du Chastel,
who probably struck the first blow12, showed himself ashamed
of his connection with the deed13, and in after years the dauphin
himself, while always protesting his personal innocence, did not

1 Beaucourt, i. 181 sqq., Meurtre, 223, 227.

2 Chastellain, i. 32; La Marche, i. 198; Beaucourt, i. 188, Meurtre, 231. [One of
the most vivid accounts is that of the Relation inedite de la mort de Jean sans Peur,
printed from a Leyden MS. by Kervyn de Lettenhove (Compte rendu de la commission
royale d'histoire de Belgique, Ser. in, torn, viii, 1866, pp. 92-96). It is violently
Burgundian in tone.]

3 Rel. ined. 95; La Barre, i. 280, 284, 287, 288, 291; St Foix, iii. 232.

4 Monstr. iii. 344; La Barre, i. 287. 5 Ibid.

6 Ibid. 291; Itin. 251; Gachard, 242. 7 Monstr. iii. 345 sq., 348 sqq.

8 La Barre, i. 224. 9 See e.g. Beaucourt, i. 172.

10 La Barre, i. 298.

11 Ibid. 281, 283, 287; Waurin, ii. 287; Chastellain, i. 22; Trahisons, 144; Denifle,
Chart, iv. 371 sqq.; Bourgeois, 129; Wals. ii. 330; Vita, 225; Kingsford, Chron. 73;
Chron. Lond. 107; Pol. Songs, ii. 136.

12 Monstr. iii. 343; Rel. ined. 95.

13 In 1425, when he protested his innocence and his statement was accepted by Duke
Philip (Juv. 555; St Foix, iii. 237).

1419] Cut bono? 187

scruple to call it a detestable crime1. Whatever view is taken,
however, discussion of the dauphin's personal responsibility is
beside the mark. The boy was only sixteen years of age and
too young to withstand the machinations of those around him.
He doubtless fell in with the scheme of vengeance that others
had planned, and when the plot had succeeded was powerless
to repudiate it even had he been minded to do so.

As for the victim, men forgot his crimes in the affection born
of pity. They called him the "good duke2," the "glorious
martyr3," the "only hope for peace4." But when they cried for
God's mercy on his soul because he had renounced his alliance
with the English5, they forgot the infamy of his ever having
made it.

It is at least certain that not a single Englishman had a hand
in the devilry that so opportunely removed the ever shifty duke
of Burgundy from King Henry's path. One of the last recorded
utterances of the duke was a boast that the world would now
soon know which was the stronger man — "Hennatin of
Flanders" (himself) or Harry of Lancaster6; and when he
heard what had happened to Hennatin, Harry at once grasped
what the crime meant to himself. He mourned the death of
"a good and loyal knight and honourable prince7," but he saw
that it had put him at the top of his desire, and that now by the
help of God and St George he would have the lady Catherine,
though every Frenchman should say him nay8. The prior of the
Charterhouse at Dijon was right when he said more than a
hundred years later that through the hole in the duke's skull
the English entered into France9.

News of the duke's fate was speedily carried to the court at
Troyes, his widow at Dijon, his son Philip at Ghent, and the
prevot and echevins of Paris and other Burgundian towns. At
Troyes the guiding spirit was unquestionably Queen Isabel,
who on Sept. 20 wrote to King Henry urging him to avenge
the death of the duke and asking him to receive representatives
who should resume the negotiations broken off at Meulan10.

1 At the peace of Arras in 1435 (J. Chartier (Vallet de Viriville), i. 194).

2 Bourgeois, 129, 131, 132; Trahisons, 144; Leroux de Lincy, Chants Hist. 19.

3 Chastellain, i. 22, 35; Pastoralet, 835. 4 Denifle, Chart, iv. 371.

5 Cordeliers, 281. 6 Juv. 553, 555; Barante, iii. 292.

7 Waurin, ii. 286. 8 Ibid.; Chastellain, i. 72.

9 The famous remark is said to have been made when in 152 1 Francis I was shown the
duke's skull while on a visit to Dijon (Courtepee, ii. 253).
10 Beaucourt, i. 186-189, Meurtre, 226 sqq.; Boutiot, ii. 404.

1 88 The Duke of Burgundy's Skull [ch. lxi

On Oct. 23 she was treating with Duke Philip on matters so
confidential that they could not be put in writing1. The duchess
of Burgundy gave orders that the king and queen should be
protected at Troyes2, sent ambassadors to put her case against
the dauphin before the pope, the cardinals, King Sigismund,
and many other potentates in both France and the Empire3,
took measures for the defence of the duchy of Burgundy against
the dauphinists4, wrote repeatedly to the University of
Paris to stir it to avenge its benefactor5, and in an interview
with her son Philip in the following spring urged him to
press her demand for justice without remission6. Otherwise
she seems to have had little share in shaping the course of
events.

As for the new duke, Philip, later known as "the Good,"
when his first transports of grief7 were over, he settled down
into a fixed determination to exact vengeance for his father's
death. He soon became confident that he could count on the
support of the principal towns of Flanders and Artois8. The
most important members of his family — his cousin the duke of
Brabant, his uncle John, ex-bishop of Liege, and his aunt
Margaret, countess of Hainault — all advised alliance with the
English9. From Paris came a deputation, headed by Philippe
de Morvilliers, First President of the Parlement, begging his
protection and setting forth the plight of the country. After
conversation with them, he promised to take measures to hold
his supporters together and to send an embassy to Henry to
secure a truce10. An assembly of leading men and towns of
the Burgundian party was summoned to meet at Arras on
Oct. 1711.

For Henry, as we have seen, the whole outlook was completely
changed by the crime of Montereau, and as' soon as Queen
Isabel's friendly overtures had been received, the way was open
for patching up old quarrels and striving for a lasting agree-
ment. On Sept. 24, Henry, then at Gisors, nominated envoys
with full authority to meet the representatives of the king of

1 Chastellain, i. 70 n. 2 Boutiot, ii. 404.

3 La Barre, i. 227; Plancher, iii. 530. 4 Ibid. 537.

5 Denifle, Chart, iv. 371 sq., 375; Chastellain, i. 68; Plancher, iii. 533.

6 Barante, iv. 117.

7 These seem to have been violent and genuine (Chastellain, i. 49 sqq.).

8 Ibid. 64, 67, 68; La Barre, 230. 9 Ibid.; Barante, iv. 5

10 Chastellain, i. 81; Monstr. iii. 359 sq.

11 Ibid. 360; Chastellain, i. 70, 77.

1419] Mastery 189

France and arrange conditions of peace1. The English com-
missioners were Bishop Kemp, Gilbert Umfraville, and Richard
Cowdray, and with them were associated four Frenchmen —
Guy le Bouteiller (described as ' ' dominus de la Roche Guyon ' '),
Jean Seignet, Jean Alespe, and Roger Mustel junior, the two
first having been concerned in the defence of Rouen. Before
they could do much, Duke Philip, on Oct. 1, appointed six
representatives to negotiate an alliance with the English2.

Their safe-conducts were dated Oct. 93, and, in company
with the count of St Pol, governor of Paris, they were received
by Henry at Mantes on Oct. 26*. They stated that they had
come to open discussion as to an alliance5. The king listened in
silence to what they had to say, and then, without rising from
his seat, addressed them in his old haughty style6. He ex-
pressed his sorrow at the murder and commended Philip's
resolve to take vengeance; but if Philip thought to play on him
as his father had done, he must at once disillusion himself, for,
come what would, the English would go on with their con-
quests. There were, he said, at Pontoise envoys from the
dauphin waiting for his answer to similar overtures : the people
of Paris, as he understood, were ready to call him in : he would
give the duke until Martinmas to come into line with them : and
if Paris should fall into his hands in the meantime, he would
hold himself free to act as he saw fit7. On the next day (Oct. 27)
the envoys had another interview, in which Henry explained
that if he married the princess Catherine, no cost should fall on
her relatives8, and that he was willing that King Charles should
keep his title of king of France and Queen Isabel her estate,
provided that immediately on the death of the former, the
crown of France should fall to him and his heirs, and that, as
Charles was ill, he himself should govern the country in the
meanwhile. If the duke of Burgundy would agree to these
conditions, Henry would take steps to secure the punishment
of the murderers, and would make arrangements for the

1 Rym. ix. 796 sq.

2 Ibid. 828. The commissioners were Martin Poree bishop of Arras, John lord
of Thoulongeon, Gilbert de Lannoy (captain of Sluys), Simon de Formelles, who had
often been employed before in diplomatic .business with England, Henri de Chaufeur,
a member of the duke's council, and George of Ostend, the duke's secretary.

3 Rym. ix. 803; Chast. i. 71.

4 Ibid. 72 n.; Norm. Chron. (Williams) 196, (Hellot) 52; Kingsford, Lit. 334.

5 Chast. i. 71. 6 Ibid. 71 sq.; Vita, 238.

7 Chast. i. 71 sqq. 8 "Sans charge de ses parents."

190 The Duke of Burgundy 's Skull [ch. lxii

marriage of one of his brothers to a sister of the duke. The
bishop of Arras urged that these were big questions, and the
count of St Pol said that they had no power to deal with them.
Henry answered that the duke and King Charles had only to
say "Yes" or "No," adding that he was willing to continue
negotiations, but that if the duke had any designs on the crown
for himself, he would make war upon him to the death, and
that he would far rather see the duke of Orleans on the
throne than the duke of Burgundy. The bishop of Arras, who
drew up a report from which these details are derived1, says
that Henry's words utterly disconcerted the envoys2. Some
of them who knew him personally spoke with him apart
and begged for more friendly treatment or at least another
interview. The only concession they obtained, however, was
that while some went back to report, the rest might remain
at Mantes, provided that the duke did not delay his reply too
long.

Meanwhile, on Oct. 1 7, there had met at Arras an assembly
of nobles, captains, clergy, and burghers, who had consented
to support the duke in an enterprise which he was about to
undertake for the good of the realm, no secret, it seems, being
made of his plan of allying with the English3. When, however,
the envoys returned from Mantes with their report of Henry's
demands, it was thought advisable to take further counsel
with a number of lords, spiritual and temporal, who were
invited to state their views freely4. On behalf of Philip's
policy, it was urged that Henry in alliance with him would be
able to unite all Frenchmen into a single body, not as his
subjects but as his good neighbours; it was also pointed out
that the cause of the murdered duke had not yet been taken up
by the pope, with whom Henry had great influence, and his
friendship would be of much value to the Burgundian interest
at the curia5. It was contended, on the other hand, that if they
did secure him as an ally, there was a risk of his driving out the
king, the queen, and all the French people, and bringing over
barons, knights and clerks from England to take their place.
But these forebodings were disregarded by the "saner part6"

1 Now in the Bibliotheque nationale (Chastellain, i. 72, where no exact reference is
given).

2 Ibid. 75. 3 Monstr. iii. 360 sq.; Chast. i. 78.
* Monstr. iii. 362; Chast. i. 85. ° Ibid. 84 n.

6 Ibid. 85. Cf. Monstr. iii. 362 sq.

1419] Henry triumphant 191

of the meeting, who also rejected a middle course of temporisa-
tion and the negotiation of a short truce1.

Events now moved quickly. On Nov. 7 King Charles gave
authority to the duke to conclude in his name a truce or
armistice with the English, with whom he purposed to treat
for peace2. Envoys from the duke went back to Mantes
bearing an offer to negotiate on the basis of Henry's terms.
They were graciously received, and told that Henry would
forthwith send an embassy to Arras to discuss an alliance3.
Some of them were ready to leave on Nov. 1 94, but others re-
mained to conclude an armistice, dated the following day,
which created a neutral zone round Paris and practically ended
hostilities between English and Burgundians5. On Nov. 21
the earl of Warwick, Bishop Kemp, and five others were com-
missioned to arrange a general truce with the French king6.
They were received with great distinction by the duke at
Arras, and seven days were spent in busy debate7, until on
Dec. 2 Philip solemnly accepted the terms on which Henry
was willing to make peace — namely, that he should marry
Catherine, be regent until Charles VI's death, and then become
king8. On Dec. 7 the duke commissioned the bishop of Arras,
Philippe de Morvilliers, and others to negotiate a truce with
Henry on behalf of Charles VI and a treaty for himself9. The
envoys went to Rouen, where on Dec. 24 they concluded a
truce between the two kings which was to last till March, the
dauphinists not being covered by it10; and on Christmas Day
Henry formally signed a treaty of alliance between himself and
Philip. The text stated that the duke had asked for an alliance
in order that peace between the realms might be promoted, and
that it was understood not only that Henry should marry
Catherine but also that one of his brothers should marry a
sister of the duke's. The treaty established a mutual defensive
alliance. Henry, moreover, would try to secure the punish-

1 This was urged by Gilbert de Lannoy (Chast. i. 84 n.).

2 Rym. ix. 820 sq. 3 Monstr. iii. 363; Chast. i. 85 sq.

4 Rym. ix. 811.

5 Ibid. 812 sq. Originally designed to last till Dec. 4, it was afterwards extended
to Dec. 12 (ibid. 816). The plenipotentiaries on the English side were Bishop Morgan,
Henry Fitzhugh and Walter Hungerford, and on the French side the bishop of Arras,
the lord of Courtivron, and Master Jean Doule (ibid. 813; cf. 806, 810).

6 Ibid. ix. 813 sq.

7 Monstr. iii. 363; Chastellain, i. 85 sq.

8 Tillet, Recueil, 125; Rym. ix. 816, 818.

9 Ibid. 821, 828 sq. 10 Ibid. 822 sq.

192 The Duke of Burgundy's Skull [ch. lxii

ment of the dauphin and his accomplices for the Montereau
murder and the grant to the duke by Charles VI of lands worth
20,000 /iv. par. a year — a gift which he would make himself
as soon as he became king if Charles had not already done so1.
The signing of the treaty was followed by a great Christmas
feast, at which Henry was extremely merry2, as well he might
be. On Jan. 5 the agreement was ratified by the duke at
Arras3.

In looking for a scape-goat on which to lay the blame for
the policy which led to this result, French writers have generally
been disposed to be specially severe on Queen Isabel, whose
German birth has told heavily against her during the last
hundred years. Next to her in order of blame comes Duke
Philip, who is denounced for sacrificing his country to his
unbridled passion for revenge. But, however culpable the
queen and the duke may have been, an equal share of the re-
sponsibility must lie with the Parlement, the University, and the
citizens of Paris. When news of the murder reached the capital,
it was received with the utmost consternation and alarm4. The
populace would probably have massacred every Armagnac but
that orders were issued forbidding any man to carry sword
or knife5. The whole city again donned the badge of the
St Andrew's cross6 — a practice discontinued since the recon
ciliation of the previous July. Solemn services for the dead duke
were held in every church7. Many Armagnacs were seized and
executed8, and the rest were closely watched9. A conciliatory
manifesto from the dauphin, in which he gave his version of
the episode and emphasised the need for peace, was disregarded10,
and at a large meeting those present bound themselves to
resist the designs of such as wished to destroy the peace and
unity of France — in other words, the dauphin and his party11.

1 Rym. ix. 825 sqq. 2 Norm. Chron. 198.

3 Rym. ix. 842. [The chronology of the negotiations which led to the Anglo-
Burgundian alliance is most perplexing. Dr Wylie had not given much thought to it,
and for the order of events in the text I alone am responsible.]

4 Felibien, iv. 580; Monstr. iii. 355; Waurin, ii. 287 (277).

5 St Denys, vi. 374; Longnon, 267.

6 Felibien, ii. 798, iv. 580. 7 Ibid. 798.

8 Monstr. iii. 356; cf. Ordonnances, xii. 281.

9 J. Chartier (Vallet de Viriville), iii. 234; Ordonnances, xii. 272.

10 Felibien, ii. 797, iv. 580; Monstr. iii. 352 sqq.; Juv. 554; Denifle, Chart, iv. 368;
Beaucourt, i. 194.

11 Monstr. iii. 355 sq. Similar meetings were held at Auxerre, Langres, Macon,
Troyes, and other towns (Plancher, iii. 530).

1419] Help from Paris 193

As we have seen, a deputation headed by the First President of
the Parlement, soon set out to take counsel with the new duke1.
News of these doings must speedily have been communicated to
Henry, for before the end of September, 14 19, he despatched
the earl of Warwick to Paris with an assurance of his readiness
to treat2, and the city promptly replied by sending an embassy
to the English king3. In the next three months there was much
going and coming between king, duke, and city4, and Henry
afterwards specially recognised the great efforts the Parisians
had made to bring about peace5.

While diplomacy had been achieving these momentous
results, arms, though less effectual, had not been idle. After
the fall of Pontoise, Henry had stayed there from Aug. 6 to
Aug. 186. He then sent troops northward to clear the country
between Pontoise and Gisors. He himself was with them
before both Lavilletertre and the neighbouring fortress of
Bouconvillers7. These places, which are close to Chars, had
surrendered before the end of the month. The king's army
then moved on for the reduction of Gisors. He arrived before
the town on Aug. 318, taking up his quarters at the castle
of Trie9. On Sept. 1 1 the town garrison undertook to
surrender if not relieved before Sept. 1710, and, though
deemed impregnable, the castle yielded on the 23rd11. From
Gisors Henry removed to Mantes, where he remained till late
in November12. Thence he sent out three separate detach-
ments to reduce Meulan, Montjoie, and St Germain. To each
of these sieges he paid personal visits, and one after the other
the strongholds yielded very soon after operations seriously
began. At Meulan, where the castle was situated on an island
in the Seine, he began to build timber towers on flat-bottomed
boats, the bridge being protected from a boat attack by stakes
driven into the bed of the stream. The place, however,
surrendered tamely to the earl of March and the Earl Marshal

1 Chast. i. 81. 2 St Denys, vi. 378.

3 D.K.R. xli. 799.

4 Rym. ix. 802, 805 sq., 8 10, 8 1 1, 82 1 ; Chast. i. 8 1 n.

5 Rym. ix. 855. e Tit. Liv. 77; Vita, 232; Gesta, 131.

7 Rot. Norm. 7 Hen. V, p. 1, mm. 14, 21.

8 Tit. Liv. 77; Vita, 233, 235.

9 Brequigny, 105 sq.; Delpit, 229; D.K.R. xli. 799, xlii. 325.

10 [Newhall, 141 n., citing Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,043, no. 5419.]

11 Vita, 234; Gesta, 131.

12 D.K.R. xli. 800, 803, 807; xlii. 328-331; Brequigny, 107-111.

win I3

194 The Duke of Burgundy's Skull [ch. lxii

by Oct. 301. Montjoie and St Germain likewise made little
resistance2, though on his way to attack the former the duke
of Gloucester was held up at the bridge of Poissy and spent
seven days reducing the place3. From Mantes the king,
towards the end of November, went to the castle at Vernon,
where he stayed till the middle of December4. While he was at
Vernon there occurred the fall of Chateau Gaillard, which had
held out since the previous spring, defying assaults and mines.
The dauphinist garrison had made many spirited sorties, and,
according to a Burgundian authority, only yielded when their
ropes were worn out and they could no longer draw water
from the well. The English took possession on Dec. 8, Lord
Roos being appointed captain5. After leaving Vernon the king
made a solemn entry into Rouen, being met at St Paul's
church, at the foot of Mont St Catherine, by the clergy of the
city, after which he rode through the streets in solemn pro-
cession. At the cathedral, where the canons and chaplains met
him with their most precious relics, he heard Mass, and then
took up his quarters in the castle6.

[Henry remained at Rouen for three months. The admini-
stration seems to have been working fairly smoothly. The
Council and Echiquier of Normandy had been established at
Rouen, the chambre des comptes and the treasury remained at
Caen7. New baillis had been appointed for Caux8, Gisors9, and
Mantes10 as Henry's conquests extended, and during 14 19 the
central government had been strengthened by the appointment
of a seneschal and a treasurer-general11. The collection of
revenue was being accomplished as easily as could be expected.
In the fiscal year beginning May 1, 141 9, 72,900 livres tournois
were received under the head of demesne, 26,600 from the salt-

1 D.K.R. xli. 805. 2 Tit. Liv. 79; Gesta, 132; Vita, 239.

3 Poissy surrendered between Nov. 7 and 20 (Vallet de Viriville, i. 189). During
the siege the king visited the priory, where he was received by the French king's daughter
Marie, the prioress, and presented rich gifts to the house (Norm. Chron. [Williams] 196,
[Hellot] 53).

* D.K.R. xli. 807, 808, xlii. 331.

5 Tit. Liv. 80; Vita, 242 sq.; Monstr. iii. 336 sq.; Norm. Chron. 197; D.K.R. xli.
803. Two authorities — Norm. Chron. (193) and Wals. (ii. 330) — date the fall in
September. The former subsequently contradicts itself, the latter is almost certainly
confusing Chateau Gaillard with Gisors.

6 Tit. Liv. 81; Vita, 244; Gesta, 133; Cochon, 283.

7 See below, ch. LXVU. 8 D.K.R. xli. 707.
9 Ibid. 754. 10 Ibid. 769.

11 See below, p. 243.

1419-20] Norman Administration 195

tax, and 37,800 from the quartage on beverages and the sales-
tax, or imposition joraine^ of one sou on the pound of other com-
modities. The total receipts in money of the Norman treasury
exceeded the expenditure — 155,300 liv. tourn. — by more than
5100 liv. tourn.^ most of the money disbursed going to the
maintenance of the English garrisons1. All things considered,
the financial situation was satisfactory, though it was regrettable
that the coins issued by Henry from the mints at Rouen and
St L6 were of very poor standard2. Still, as long as Charles VI,
the dauphin, and the duke of Burgundy continued to strike
base coins, it would have been idle for Henry to make good
ones3.]

By this time all hope of successful resistance seems to have
died out in Normandy, and as the king's stay at Rouen neared
its close, an enormous number4 of persons received back lands
and possessions which had been forfeited since the day when
the English landed at Touques. On April 15, 1420, fresh
powers were given to the treasurer of Normandy, William
Alington, to issue safe-conducts to all who were prepared to
come in; and the Norman Rolls record 700 such submissions
about this time5, and 791 more before the end of the year6.
At Easter, as a thank-offering for his wonderful success, the
king released all prisoners confined in the archbishop's gaol7.

1 Exch. Accts. 187/14.

2 On the coinage struck in Normandy by Henry V, see Hewlett, 18 1 sqq. ; Hoffmann,
Plate XXIX. The St L6 mint was not re-opened till April, 1420 (Hewlett, 191; Bail-
hache, 66 sq.).

3 On the general condition of the French coinage at this time, see Dieudonne in
Bibl. Ec. des Chartes, lxxii. 486 sqq.

4 Cf. "fere infiniti," Rym. ix. 867. 5 D.K.R. xlii. 360, 365, 370.

6 Ibid. 375-404, passim. 7 Rym. ix. 882; D.K.R. xlii. 373.

13-2

CHAPTER LXIII

THE TREATY OF TROYES

Though the alliance between England and Burgundy was
now formally signed, the first attempts at co-operation were far
from promising. Even before agreement was reached the
two parties had tried to work together. A composite force
had attacked the tower of Tremblay, whence the Armagnac
garrison escaped by night, and then a quarrel arose as to which
part of the attacking force had shown the more bravery.
The two contingents consequently separated1; but such a
breach could not be countenanced by Henry, and when a
Burgundian force was about to undertake the re-capture of
Roye, surprised by the Armagnacs from Compiegne on Dec.
io2, the earl of Huntingdon was ordered to put himself at the
disposal of the duke of Burgundy for the purpose of aiding the
enterprise. Pressed by the Burgundians, the Armagnacs at
Roye surrendered in the night of Jan. 183 to John of Luxem-
burg, who guaranteed them their lives and granted them a
safe-conduct to return to Compiegne. Before they had been
an hour on the road, there arrived a force of 2000 English,
under the earl of Huntingdon and John Cornwall, intending to
take part in the siege. Finding how the case stood, they turned
and followed in pursuit, came up with the Armagnacs, who
were straggling carelessly, scattered them with great slaughter,
and then retired with their prisoners to the village of Amy,
between Roye and Lassigny4. There John of Luxemburg soon
arrived, protesting vehemently against the violation of his safe-
conduct. High words followed between the English and
Burgundian leaders, John Cornwall even striking Hector de
Saveuse on the arm with his mailed fist. In the end the
Burgundians had to give way in face of superior numbers; the
affront was sugared with good cheer, though it was never really

1 Abrege des grandes Chroniques, in J. Chartier (Vallet de Viriville), iii. 234 sq.

2 Monstr. iii. 365 sq.; Fenin, 121.

3 Monstr. iii. 368; Abrege, in J. Chartier (Vallet de Viriville), iii. 235.

4 Monstr. iii. 368 sq.; Chast. i. 97; Trahisons de France, 147; Fenin, 123.

i42°] Unfortunate Incidents 197

forgotten1. Two of the Armagnac prisoners were actually-
sent to England and kept there till they had paid a heavy
ransom2.

After this incident the English commanders went westward,
captured the castle of La Fontaine-la-Vaganne near Grand-
villiers and laid it in ruins after a three weeks' siege3, and having
made an ineffectual attempt on the strong castle of Clermont-
en-Beauvaisis4, returned to Normandy. As for John of
Luxemburg, after placing garrisons at La Fere and Nouvion-
le-Comte he went back to his castle of Beaurevoir near St
Quentin5. If these operations brought little glory to the English,
still worse was their fortune at sea, for in January a Castilian
fleet appeared before La Rochelle, where it engaged and de-
feated an English naval force, destroying or capturing many
ships, killing 700 men, and taking many prisoners, some of
whom were landed at the town and slaughtered by the Bastard
of Alencon6.

That the high-handed insolence of the English at Roye did
not cause a rupture of their alliance with the Burgundians is a
measure of the value of their support to Duke Philip. It would
be folly to let a single regrettable incident prevent the fulfil-
ment of the purpose of all his doings since his father's death.
Both Henry and the duke now began to exploit the alliance
according to their respective aims. Thus, on Jan. 17 a pro-
clamation was issued at Troyes in which King Charles directly
charged the dauphin with the murder at Montereau, called
upon Frenchmen to pay no heed to his commands nor to regard
him as lord of any lands in France, and declared him unworthy
to be heir to the French crown, adding that the king's troops
would now sweep the country and render life and property
secure7. On Jan. 24 King Henry, in response to a petition from
the citizens of Paris, assured them that there should be no
interference with their rights after he succeeded to the throne
of France8. The truce with Charles VI was prolonged from
time to time, until on April 24 it was announced that it should

1 Chast. i. 97, 99, 10 1 ; Trahisons, 146; Fenin, 124.

2 Monstr. iii. 371; Chast. i. 97, 102.

3 Monstr. iii. 372; Waurin, ii. 295; Chast. i. 103.

4 Ibid. 105. 5 Ibid. 102; Monstr. iii. 371.

6 Juv- 55^ > St Denys, vi. 398; Circourt, 353, 373; Beaucourt, i. 312.

7 Ordonnances, xii. 276 sq.

8 Rym. ix. 854; D.K.R. xlii. 338.

198 The Treaty of Troyes [ch. lxiii

last until eight days after denunciation by either party1. In
February the duke officially announced his negotiations with
the English, and then moved southwards, being joined near
Bapaume by several thousand fighting men2 and at St Quentin
by the earl of Warwick, the Earl Marshal, Lord Roos, Gilbert
Umfraville, and Lewis Robsart, who came as representatives
of the English king, with an escort of 200 lances and 300
archers3. Nearly a fortnight was spent near Laon while the
Burgundians reduced the castle of Crepy-en-Laonnais, whence
a garrison of 500 Armagnacs had been harrying the district4.
Then, encountering but little opposition, the force passed
through Laon, Rheims, and Chalons5, and, amid boisterous
shouts of welcome, entered Troyes on March 23s. Next day
Duke Philip was received with great ceremony by the king and
queen, who had hitherto been unable to leave the city for fear
of the Armagnac bands in the neighbourhood7. There followed
several conferences, attended not only by the English envoys
but also by seven masters from the University of Paris8. The
issue was already cut and dried; no difficulty was apprehended;
and there were only points of detail to settle9. On April 9,
1420, the fateful document was drawn up10. It was agreed that
Henry should marry Catherine without imposing any burden
on her parents or the French and that she should receive the
usual dowry of an English queen — 40,000 crowns a year. He
would suffer Charles and Isabel to retain the state and dignity
of king and queen of France; for the rest of Charles's life, he
would never style himself king of France, and in places subject
to the French crown all writs and grants of privileges, pardons,
offices, or benefices should be drawn in Charles's name. Im-
mediately after Charles's death, however, the crown of France
should belong to Henry, to pass to his heirs for ever; and in
the meanwhile, seeing that Charles's health was bad, the

1 Rym. ix. 857 sq., 864, 874, 889. It had been extended to cover the sea from
Flanders to Caen (ibid. 852 sq.).

2 Monstr. iii. 374, 377; Waurin, ii. 298 (287).

3 Rym. ix. 890; Worcester, Itin. 352; Le Fevre, i. 383; Waurin, ii. 296 (286).
Robsart had been sent in January on a mission to the dowager duchess of Burgundy
(Chast. i. 117).

4 Monstr. iii. 374 sqq.; Waurin, ii. 297; Chast. i. 105, in; St Denys, vi. 394;
Abrege, in J. Chartier (Vallet de Viriville), iii. 236.

5 Monstr. iii. 377; Chast. i. 113.

6 Boutiot, ii. 412; Waurin, ii. 298 (287); Le Fevre, i. 383.

7 Bourgeois, 134. 8 Denifle, Chart, iv. 379.
9 Chast. i. 116. 10 Rym. ix. 877 sqq.

1420] Terms of Peace 199

regency should be exercised by Henry, with the counsel of the
nobles and wise men of France. He would strive to reduce to
obedience all France then subject to the dauphin, especially
those parts to the right of the Loire; all his conquests over the
dauphinists outside Normandy should be to the advantage of
the French crown, and on his becoming king, Normandy and
all his other conquests in France should be subject to it1.
Persons in territory conquered by Henry, if obedient to Charles
and willing to swear to the Treaty, should be restored to their
possessions, unless Henry had already granted them to others.
Henry would appoint good and fit officers to govern the
kingdom, rule it according to existing laws and customs,
maintain the Parlement in its authority and all churches,
colleges, and universities in their privileges.

These conditions were to be sworn to by all the nobles, lords
(both lay and spiritual), universities, colleges, cities, and towns
of France. It was further agreed that a personal meeting for
the formal interchange of letters patent confirming these terms
should take place between King Henry and King Charles, with
the queen and the duke of Burgundy, at some place between
Nogent-sur-Seine and Troyes and not more than eighteen
miles from the latter. Each side might bring 2500 armed men,
the English being allowed to occupy Provins, Nogent, and
either Lagny-sur-Marne or Charenton before the meeting, on
the understanding that they would depart as soon as the treaty
was signed. The French king agreed to remain at Troyes till
July 1 to give time for everything to be carried out.

On April 1 3 seven envoys2 were despatched to communicate
further with King Henry. Taking Paris on their way, they
addressed a large meeting in the Parlement chamber in the
Palace on April 29. The room was packed with representatives
of the Parlement) the administrative departments, the Univer-
sity, the chapter of Notre Dame, and the civic authorities of
Paris, besides many private citizens; and when the spokesman,
Jean le Clerc, explained to them the terms that had been pro-
visionally drawn up and asked if they agreed, the whole assembly

1 The clauses about the status of Henry's conquests are vague and indeed ambiguous,
and suggest that it was not possible to reach agreement about the limits of the area over
which Henry was at once to exercise sovereign authority.

2 They were Lourdin lord of Savigny, Hue de Lannoy, Jean lord of Mesnil,
Masters Jean le Clerc and Pierre de Marigny, with Jean de Rinel and Jean Milet, two
of the king's secretaries (Rym. ix. 885; Boutiot, ii. 413, 425).

200 The Treaty of Troyes [ch. lxiii

shouted "Yes1." Fortified with this demonstration of una-
nimity, and accompanied by the chancellor of France (Eustache
de l'Aitre), the First President of the Parlement (Philippe de
Morvilliers), and Guillaume le Clerc, they passed on next day
to interview Henry at Pontoise2. Back again in Paris, they
were asked to describe this conquering Englishman, and they
expatiated on his handsome face, his medium height, and his
haughty bearing at his first entry, which changed to kindness
and affability as the talk proceeded. They found him frank and
open, but sparing of words, with his mind fully made up on
certain points. What struck them greatly was the strict
discipline he enforced on his men : he would have no prostitutes
about his camp as the French did. If reverses came he kept an
even mind, for the only way to command fortune is to keep
a steady heart through all. Very notable was the favour he
showed to churchmen, especially to those who conducted his
daily services. With such a prince they might at least be sure
that if he promised help he meant to give it3. And it was
indeed help that Paris then needed. For on the northern and
western sides the city was beset by the English, whose savagery
was outdone by the Armagnacs who ravaged the country on
the south4. Food and fuel could only be got into the city at
night and under escort5. The price of corn had risen to famine
height6, and at Easter no fresh meat was to be had7. Thus the
populace was daily becoming more eager for their rulers to
come to terms with the English8.

Henry, having left Rouen towards the end of March, spent
some time at Mantes, and in the last week of April moved on to
Pontoise9, where he received the envoys from Troyes. Meanwhile,
however, the English representatives at Troyes, with the excep-
tion of Lewis Robsart, had returned to the king to report10, and
on April 28a new commission, consisting of the earl of Warwick,
Bishop Kemp, Lord Roos, Gilbert Umfraville, and William

1 Fauquembergue, i. 358 sqq.; Denifle, Chart, iv. 378; Cosneau, 101; Felibien, ii.

799-

2 Rym. ix. 891; Fauquembergue, i. 362. 3 St Denys, vi. 380.

4 Bourgeois, 131, 135 sqq.; St Denys, vi. 390, 396; Juv. 556.
6 Bourgeois, 135, 143; St Denys, vi. 396.

6 Juv- 556> Felibien, ii. 798.

7 Bourgeois, 138. 8 Chast. i. 81.
9 D.K.R. xlii. 367 sqq.

10 Chast. i. 1 17 n.; Le Fevre, i. 384; Waurin, ii. 300 (288). They left Troyes on April
17. Robsart stayed to attend upon the princess Catherine.

1420] The March to Troyes 201

Porter, together with Dr Thomas Brons and Richard Cowdray,

king's secretary, was sent back to Troyes to witness the taking

of the oath to observe the agreement by the king, the queen,

and the duke of Burgundy, and to make final arrangements for

the conference1. Then, on May 82, accompanied by a large

force3, Henry set out on his memorable journey to Troyes.

Avoiding towns, the English camped at night4, and moved in

fighting order through the day, for the Armagnacs were on the

watch and boasted that they meant to fight5. Both then and

afterwards it struck observers as strange6 that Henry should

have agreed to travel so far into the heart of France instead of

insisting that his bride should be brought to him. Some said

that it was because of Charles VI's madness: but this had not

prevented the meeting at Meulan in the previous year. Others

explained that it was not safe for Charles and his queen and

daughter to journey out for fear of the dauphinists, of which

there were said to be 14,000 within a short distance of Troyes.

Others again believed that there was a plot to entrap the English

king; but if so, it altogether failed. On the first night the

English force halted at St Denis, and Henry made a visit of

devotion to the abbey7. Next day (May 9) they marched in

fighting order close under the walls of Paris, where the citizens

on the battlements watched them file proudly past the Porte

St Martin, the king's tilting helm being borne before him with

the fox's brush embroidered on his device8. The sight gave

them great delight9, and in spite of the dearth in the city, the

Parisians managed to send him out four carts loaded with

their very best wine; but Henry received the present with his

usual lofty indifference10. Marching on he reached Charenton,

where he spent the night. He now proceeded to Provins,

leaving at Charenton a small force under William Gascoigne

to keep open the passage of the Marne11. He met with some

1 Rym. ix. 890.

2 Tit. Liv. 82; Vita, 249; Gesta, 135; Fenin, 138.

3 Contemporary estimates of their numbers vary greatly. Waurin gives 15,000,
mostly archers (ii. 304 [291]); others put the number of archers at 7000 (Bourgeois, 139).
Monstrelet says that there were 16,000 fighting men with Henry (iii. 388).

4 St Denys, vi. 408. 6 Bourgeois, 140.

6 The explanations are discussed in Vita, 248, the writer adding that he does not
altogether believe any of them.

7 Wals. ii. 334.

8 Tit. Liv. 82; Chast. i. 130; Bourgeois, 139.

9 Wals. ii. 334. 10 Bourgeois, 139; Felibien, ii. 799.
11 Monstr. iii. 388; Cordeliers, 285; Wals. ii. 334.

202 The Treaty of Troyes [ch. Lxm

resistance as he passed through Brie; but he beat it down by
a vigorous assault on one of the opposing castles, hanged some
of the defenders, and carried others with him as captives1 ; and
so he arrived at Provins on May 142. He notified his willing-
ness to attend at the rendezvous within the stipulated three
days; but by the 19th3 it was arranged that the meeting should
take place at Troyes itself, and thither the army moved on.
They crossed the Seine by the bridge at Nogent4, and as they
neared the walls of Troyes, the duke of Burgundy, attended by
many bishops and a throng of citizens, came out to meet them5.
The duke saluted respectfully without dismounting, and amid
shouts of welcome the two rode on chatting together to the
hostel appointed for Henry in the city6.

Arrangements had been made for the English troops to be
quartered in a portion of the city by themselves in view of the
possibility of collisions with the French; but the part allotted
to them proved to be not nearly large enough, and many had
to be billeted in the villages round about7. Always on the alert
against the demoralisation of his men, Henry issued an order8
that none were to drink the strong and heady wine for which
Champagne had long been famous without mixing it with
water, and the fact that the order was obeyed by so drunken
a set as the English troops is striking testimony to the strength
of his personal control over the army.

After escorting Henry to his hostel, the duke of Burgundy
rode on to announce the arrival to Charles VI at the palace of
the Counts on the river bank. Henry himself followed soon
afterwards. The poor invalid was seated on the dais of the
great hall, which was thronged with lords and courtiers. As
soon as he set foot within the door Henry doffed his cap, but
Charles showed no sign of recognition. Henry then walked
firmly up the floor; and the tension became extreme as Charles
remained apathetic. When, however, the English king reached
the edge of the dais, Charles raised himself a very little, while
Henry bent his knee and uttered some gracious and humble
words. His demeanour was a most favourable surprise to the
bystanders; but the king paid little heed and merely said,

1 Tit. Liv. 82; Vita, 250. 2 Rym. ix. 893.

3 Ibid. 894. 4 Kingsford, Lit. 335; Vita, 250.

5 Chast. i. 130; Monstr. iii. 388 sq.; Vita, 250.

6 Tit. Liv. 83; Vita, 250. 7 Tit. Liv. 8 3 ; Trahisons, 155.
8 Tit. Liv. 83; Vita, 251.

142 o] " Perpetual Peace " 203

"Oh, it's you? You're very welcome since it is so ! Greet the
ladies1." Every one was relieved that a distressing contretemps
had thus been averted, for Charles was at the time "in his
malady2," and Henry himself must have been glad to obey the
king and turn to the queen and her daughter. The queen
raised him when he knelt before her, and kissed him. Then,
turning to Catherine, he bowed low and kissed her with "great
joy," and the three talked pleasantly together for a short time3,
after which Henry returned to his hostel for the night.

Next day, May 21, the councils of the two kings and the
duke deliberated together, and the treaty was finally sealed in
the cathedral4. Substantially it corresponded to the terms
agreed upon in April5. The marriage of Henry and Catherine,
however, is treated as settled, and Henry promises that he will
try to secure for her the sum of 40,000 crowns a year from
England during her widowhood, should she survive him, while
the French undertake to provide 20,000 in that contingency6.
It was agreed that Burgundians whose property had been con-
fiscated and given away by Henry should be compensated from
territory thereafter to be conquered from the dauphinists7. In
an entirely new clause it is laid down that Henry shall strive to
secure from the "Three Estates" of both England and France
an ordinance that from the time when he shall become king,
the crowns shall be united in the same person, each realm,
however, retaining its own laws and neither being subject to
the other8. There is to be perpetual peace, defensive alliance,
and freedom of trade (subject to customs duties) between the
two kingdoms. Allies of either side who shall give their assent
to the treaty within eight months may enjoy such of its benefits
as affect them9. Neither Charles, Henry, nor the duke of
Burgundy shall enter into any negotiations for peace with the

1 "Or ca vous! Soyez le tres bien venu, puisque ainsy est! Saluez les dames," Chast.
i. 131; Boutiot, ii. 426.

2 Ibid.; Norm. Chron. (Williams) 199, (Hellot) 56; La Marche, i. 85.

3 Chast. i. 133.

4 Rym. ix. 904, x. 15, 30; D.K.R. xlii. 374; Tit. Liv. 85; Vita, 252; Wals. ii. 334;
Kingsford, Chron. 127, Lit. 335; Fenin, 138.

_ 6 For the text of the treaty in Latin and French, see Rym. ix. 895 sqq.; Ordonnances,
xi. 86 sqq. The Latin text is also given in St Denys, vi. 410 sqq.; Vita, 253 sqq.;
Gesta, 137 sqq. The French text is given, e.g. in Cosneau, Traites, 102 sqq.; Godefroy,
Charles VI, 696; Barante, iv. 17 sqq.; Monstr. iii. 390 sqq.; Le Fevre, ii. 3 sqq.;
Waurin, ii. 304. The English text is in Rym. ix. 916; Greg., Chron. 128 sqq.
6 Rym. ix. 896, 916 sq. » Ibid. 900, 918 sq.

8 Ibid. 901 sq., 919. 9 Ibid. 902, 919 sq.

204 The Treaty of Troyes [ch. Lxn

dauphin, save with the consent of all and also of the Three
Estates of both France and England1.

Charles was not personally present, and the queen and the
duke were authorised to act on his behalf2. The treaty was
sworn to, not only by them and Henry, but also by a number
of prelates, lords, and other notable Frenchmen3. It was at
once proclaimed in both French and English4, and published
throughout the city and in the English army. An order was
put forth in the name of the French king requiring all his
subjects to submit to it5. On the following day (May 22) the
First President of the Parlement of Paris, the bishop and the
bailli of Troyes, the abbots of Montier-la-Celle, St Loup, and
St Martin-es-Aires, the deans of the churches of St Paul,
St Stephen, and St Urban at Troyes, the archdeacon of Sezanne,
eleven priests, forty-seven lawyers, and about 1500 of the
leading inhabitants met in St Paul's church, and swore on the
gospels to observe it6. Henry wrote on the same day to Duke
Humphrey and the Council in England, enclosing a copy of
the treaty, announcing that it had been signed and would bring
"perpetual peace," and requiring that the terms of it should be
proclaimed throughout the country7, with his new title of
"king of England, heir and regent of France, and lord of
Ireland," which was also to be engraved "on the scripture of
our seals," with the exception of the word "regent8," for which
there was probably not sufficient room. On May 24 Henry
despatched Ralph Cromwell and William Swinburne, to-
gether with a secretary, Richard Cowdray, to announce the
terms of the peace in Paris, where it was proclaimed on May
27s. Next day there were processions and a solemn thanks-
giving, and on May 30 the treaty was publicly read and
registered in the Parlement of Paris, where the officers of the
Parlement^ of the University, and of the City came up one by
one and had the oath administered to them by the First
President10. All hands were upraised to Heaven in transports
of joy11; but by way of extra caution the English envoys, being

1 Rym. ix. 903, 920.

2 Ibid. 894, 9065 Felibien, ii. 799, iv. 584; Kingsford, Lit. 335.

3 Leibnitz, Codex, i. 332 sqq.; Rym. ix. 904.

4 Vita, 267. 6 Ordonnances, xii. 284. 6 Rym. ix. 905 sq.
7 Ibid. 906 sqq. 8 Ibid. 906, 915. 9 Ibid. 910, 911.

10 Ibid. 911; Ordonnances, xii. 284; Denifle, Chart, iv. 380; Cosneau, 102; G. Picot,
£tats Generaux, i. 298.

11 St Denys, vi. 432.

1420] Marriage 205

uncertain of their French1, asked the First President to trans-
late what was being said. Further official publications took
place at the Chatelet on June 1, in the church of St Mathurin
before the university faculties of theology, law, and medicine
on June 3, and before the Rector of the University and the
proctors of the four nations on June 42. In London it was pro-
claimed on June 14, when there was a solemn procession to
St Paul's and a sermon at Paul's Cross3.

Meanwhile, another step had been taken towards Henry's
complete triumph. On the day on which the treaty was signed,
he was solemnly betrothed to the princess Catherine in the
cathedral of Troyes4, and thenceforth he spoke of Charles VI
as "our father" and Catherine as "our wife5," though the
actual marriage did not take place for another twelve days. The
interval was occupied by festivities, banquet following banquet
and gift being answered with gift6. On Trinity Sunday,
June 27, the marriage ceremony was performed with great
pomp. To reconstruct the scene is difficult; for the great
market-place, which Henry had to cross from his hostel on the
western side8 to the parish church of St Jean opposite9, has
since been covered with narrow streets. The church, too, has
been much altered, the east end having been rebuilt after a
great fire early in the sixteenth century and the west end partly
concealed by a porch in the most debased Renaissance style.
Only the ill-proportioned nave, dating from the fourteenth
century, remains substantially as it was when Henry passed
up it to the high altar. It was agreed that the ceremony should
be "according to the French custom10." The coach of the bride
and her mother was drawn by eight snow-white English hobbies,

1 Felibien, ii. 799, iv. 584.

2 Ordonnances, xi. 90; Cosneau, 115; Denifle, Chart, iv. 380.

3 Wals. ii. 335. The treaty was accepted by Sigismund at Prague on July 31, and
he desired to be included in it as an ally of England (Rym. x. 14). Lewis Count Palatine
of the Rhine accepted it on the same date as "alligatus et confederatus" (ibid. 15).

4 Rym. ix. 907; Felibien, iv. 584; Boutiot, ii. 426; Fenin, 136; Norm. Chron.
(Hellot) 59; Wals. ii. 334; Vita, 252; Chron. Lond. 161; Greg., Chron. 128; Kingsford,
Chron. 127; Short Chron. 56.

5 Rym. ix. 906; Gesta, 137. 6 St Denys, vi. 410.

7 Rym. ix. 910; Bourgeois, 140; Norm. Chron. (Hellot) 59; Juv. 557; Cosneau, 103;
Chast. i. 133; Kingsford, Chron. 73, Lit. 289; Capgr., De Illustr. 123.

8 Chast. i. 115 n., 133.

9 The marriage took place here because Henry's hostel lay in the parish of St Jean
(Monstr. iii. 389; Waurin, ii. 303 (291); Le Fevre, ii. z; Chast. i. 134; Vita, 267; Pol.
Songs, ii. 137). For an account of the church, see Grosley, £phem. ii. 235.

10 Juv. 557; Monstr. 479; Le Fevre, ii. 1; Chast. i. 133.

206 The Treaty of Troyes [ch. lxiii

a gift of the bridegroom, and preceded by numerous minstrels1.
The numbers of those admitted to the church were restricted2;
but to left and right were ranged tokens of the vast wealth of
England and Flanders3, the only sombre touch being afforded
by the duke of Burgundy, who was clad in black from head
to foot4. The ceremony was performed by Henri de Savoisy,
archbishop of Sens5; the royal couple offered three nobles each
with the candle6; and instead of the customary thirteen pence,
the bridegroom put thirteen nobles on the book, and gave 200
more to the church. The day ended with the wine-cup and the
blessing of the bed7.

1 Chast. i. 134 n.; Trahisons, 156.

2 Ibid.

3 Monstrelet (iii. 389 sq.) gives a list of the notable Burgundians present.

4 Chast. i. 134. 5 Juv. 557; Stone, 19.

6 Juv- 557- . ,

7 "Les souppes au vin et la lict beni," Juv. 557; Trebuchet, 99; Grosley, Ephem.
ii. 240, Mem. i. 305.

CHAPTER LXIV

THE DAUPHINIST RESISTANCE

By one of the clauses of the treaty of Troyes King Henry had
undertaken to reduce all cities and other places in France that
were disobedient to his "father," "beying...of that Partye
comonely called Dalphin or Ermynak1." At Troyes the streets
had resounded with merriment since the day of his betrothal,
and on the day after the wedding2 he gave a "royal and passing
solemn feast" to the great lords, with plenty of entertainment
for the populace3. The general expectation of more jousts and
festivities was, however, disappointed; for Henry announced
that such things must now cease, and that he would start
early next day for real warfare, where those eager for tourneys
might display their hardihood as they would, seeing that there
was no prowess in the world equal to doing justice on male-
factors and helping the poor to live4. Catherine was to go with
him; perhaps because he had married her "without charge to
her parents," he appointed the officers of her household, not
one of whom was a Frenchman, though she was allowed three
French ladies and two French maids to wait upon her5. The
king and queen were to go too, and many English and French
ladies.

Early on June 46 the army accordingly left Troyes. The two
kings rode together, with the duke of Burgundy at their side7.
The operations of Burgundian columns had already to a great
extent cleared the country near Troyes8, and little opposition
was to be apprehended as the force crossed the forest of Othe.
A body of troops was left to reduce Villeneuve l'Archeveque,
which was still in Armagnac hands9, and the main army

1 Rym. ix. 917. Though previously the party opposed to the Burgundians had been
generally known as "Armagnacs," henceforth the fashion set in to call them "Dau-
phinists," either with or without the old title as an alternative.

2 Brut, ii. 425; Boutiot, ii. 433. 3 Fenin, 137.

4 Bourgeois, 140. 5 Wals. ii. 335.

6 Rym. ix. 910; Vita, 268; Gesta, 142. 7 Chast. i. 138.

8 Details of their operations are given in Chast. i. ii7n., 118, 121, 124, i26;Monstr.
iii. 380 sq., 382 sq.; Fenin, 129, 131; Trahisons, 152, 153.

9 The place was reduced by the lord of L'Isle Adam on June 7, the garrison, it is
said, being in terror of a celebrated gun called Passe-volant, which wrought great
destruction with its first and only shot (Trahisons, 157, 158).

208 The Dauphinist Resistance [ch. lxiv

marched to Sens1. Here they found the bridges cut and the
suburbs destroyed. The siege began on June 52, and in a letter
written next day3 by an Englishman in the camp, Sens is
described as "a great town and a notable, holden strong with
great number of Ermynaks." But the townsmen were in no
mood for resistance4; the garrison made little stand5; and after
about a week6 an unkempt, unshaven man came out to parley.
John Cornwall, who had been commissioned to treat with the
defenders, would not see him at first, saying that he must have
his beard trimmed before he could be heard7. Nevertheless
Sens surrendered on June 1 1 8, and as Henry rode into the city
with his queen, he turned gaily to the archbishop saying, "You
have given me my bride; I now give you yours9." The garrison
were forced to don the St Andrew's cross and to swear not to
serve in future against the duke of Burgundy; but many of
them, as soon as they were out of danger, made straight for
Montereau to join the dauphinists there10.

Henry's army moved northward without delay. At Bray,
where the English arrived by June 1 6, King Charles and the ladies
were left behind11, as rough work was expected at Montereau.
A force of Burgundians was detached to effect the conquest of
several places in Brie, between Bray and Melun, a task which
was accomplished without much trouble, the garrisons sur-
rendering readily to the lord of L'Isle Adam, who was in
command, because he was their "neighbour" and more to be
trusted than English, Picards, or Burgundians12. On the 16th
the main force arrived at Montereau13. The sight of the scene
of the murder of Duke John inflamed them to a fury. Montereau
was reputed to be so strong that a handful of men might hold

1 For documents dated at Sens on June 4, 6, 9, 12, see Rym. ix. 913; D.K.R. xlii.
388, 389.

2 Rym. ix. 910.

3 Ibid. 910. The writer was John Ofort, of whom nothing more is known. It is
possible that he is to be identified with John Offord, a clerk of the king's signet under
Henry IV (Cal. Pat. Hen. IV, ii. 264, hi. 20, 113) and clerk of the privy seal in Nor-
mandy in 1420 (Claus. 8 Hen. V, 18, May 3, 1420).

4 St Denys, vi. 442; Juv. 557 sq.

5 Tit. Liv. 89, though in Vita, 269, hard and repeated assaults are mentioned.

6 Vita, 269. 7 Fenin, 138.
8 Juv- 5585 Bourgeois, 140. 9 Juv. 558.

10 Monstr. iii. 403; Chast. i. 141.

11 Rym. ix. 920, 921; Le Fevre, ii. 13; Waurin, ii. 322 (307); Norm. Chron. (Williams)
201, (Hellot) 60.

12 Trahisons, 158. 13 Gesta, 143; Vita, 271.

1420] Revenge at Montereau 209

it against the world; but on June 24 a small scaling party got
across the moat and rushed the walls. The town was then carried
by assault and the garrison driven helter-skelter across the
bridge to the castle on the tongue of land at the confluence of
the Yonne and the Seine1. The victors made their way to the
parish church2, where Duke John had been buried. At his
son's command, some knights and squires lifted the coffin
from the earth, and not one of those present could restrain his
tears as he gazed on the face of the dead man, looking, as he
did, but little altered. The body was laid in another coffin packed
with salt and spices for removal to a more honourable home in
the Charterhouse at Dijon3.

Henry and Duke Philip transferred their headquarters to the
right bank of the Yonne, and planted their big guns4 to beset
the castle, strengthening their communications by throwing a
temporary bridge across the Seine5. In the rush that followed
the seizure of the town eleven gentlemen had been captured,
and Henry threatened to hang them all if they did not bring
about the surrender of the castle6. Kneeling on the edge of the
ditch, they implored the defenders to capitulate as they knew
that their case was hopeless, while their own lives would be
forfeit if the garrison held out. But the captain, Guillaume de
Chaumont, lord of Guitry7, told them that if a man is taken in
war he is under sentence, and they must take their chance8.
Then they prayed that they might see their wives, children,
and kinsfolk before they died, and firing ceased as these
mounted to the battlements to wave a farewell. On the morrow
a gibbet was set up and all were hanged in full view of the
castle walls. It is notable that no one blamed Henry; indeed,
what most struck contemporaries was his strict justice in
hanging on the same gibbet a favourite groom, who usually
held his horse's rein, for killing an English knight9. It is the
captain of the castle who in contemporary opinion was culpable
for holding out when he knew his situation was hopeless10; and

1 Monstr. iii. 403 sq.; Waurin, ii. 318 (304); Le Fevre, ii. 10; Fenin, 140; Chast. i.
142.

2 Monstr. iii. 404; Chast. i. 144.

3 Ibid.; Monstr. iii. 404; Fenin, 141; Trahisons, 158.

4 "Force et multitudes d'engins," Chast. i. 146. 5 Ibid.

6 Fenin, 140, 141; cf. Monstr. iii. 404; Le Fevre, ii. 12; Chast. i. 146.

7 Ibid. 141, 146; Bourgeois, 141; Juv. 561.

8 "Es faits de guerre ne gist qu'un hasart; qui est pris, il est attaint," Chast. i. 146.

9 Ibid.; Fenin, 142; Monstr. iii. 406. 10 Chast. i. 148; Fenin, 141.

w in I4

210 The Dauphinist Resistance [ch. lxiv

indeed it soon appeared that the lives of the prisoners had been
needlessly thrown away, for on July i1 the castle surrendered,
and the garrison of 500 men2, including a number of Scots3,
were suffered to depart in safety, a humiliating anti-climax for
which they received no praise from friend or foe4.

After a short stay at Montereau, during which measures were
taken for victualling and garrisoning the place5, King Henry
moved down the Seine for the reduction of Melun. At Sens
and Montereau the garrisons had used brave words which had
no backing from the townsmen. But at Melun Henry's calcu-
lations were altogether at fault, for the place made a heroic
stand for over four months. The town may be regarded as
divided into three parts by the Seine. The most populous
portion — the quarter of St Aspais — was on the north bank,
and was enclosed by strong walls. On the opposite shore was
the extensive suburb of St Ambroise, containing the citadel,
while between the two in mid-stream lay the long island of
St Etienne, on the north shore of which stood the castle. Each
of these three parts was enclosed with a wall, and the three were
connected by a long bridge, which stretched from bank to bank
and bisected the island. The siege began on July 136, and
probably for reasons of policy the English and the Burgundians
were kept almost entirely apart, the English being for the most
part encamped on the flat ground on the south bank towards
the Gatinais, and the Burgundians on the north towards Brie7,
though the earls of Warwick and Huntingdon were stationed
on this side to assist, and perhaps in reality to control, the duke
of Burgundy8. For the Burgundians the siege opened fiercely.
One of their captains in defiance planted his banner in front of
a bulwark built near the abbey of St Pere, and on the very first
day the garrison sallied out and captured it9. Soon afterwards,
however, a party of English, supported by Savoyards, Picards,
and Burgundians, made a desperate rush and took a strong
outpost constructed by the defenders on the outer side of the
moat10, and held it tenaciously throughout the siege, though it
cost them many lives both to capture and to retain it. Among
the Englishmen who fell at this point was Philip Leche, who

1 Bourgeois, 141 n. 2 St Denys, vi. 458.

3 Vita, 270. 4 Juv. 558.

6 Monstr. iii. 406; Waurin, ii. 322. 6 Vita, 277; Gesta, 145.

v Norm. Chron. (Hellot) 61; Tit. Liv. 89; Vita, 277.

8 Ibid. 278. 9 Fenin, 143; Trahisons, 159.

10 Monstr. iii. 410 sq.; Waurin, ii. 327; Le Fevre, ii. i6;Chast.i. 154; Trahisons, 159.

1420] Melun 211

had earned the high opinion of the duke of Burgundy for his
soldierly qualities1.

After this incident both sides settled down to the orthodox
routine of a siege. Each section of the attacking force was
entrenched within a strongly fortified enclosure2 surrounded
with a ditch and palisade and approached through four en-
trances, which were heavily barricaded and guarded night and
day3; communication between the several camps was kept up
by means of a temporary bridge across the Seine4. The defence
was in the hands of a Gascon, Arnaud Guillaume, lord of
Barbazan5, with a force of only 600 or 700 men, including many
townsfolk6. Outside the place great efforts had been made to
collect a relieving force, and some 16,000 men were actually
assembled in the neighbourhood of Chateaurenard, near
Montargis, about thirty miles away, but spies who penetrated
to the English lines reported them to be so strong that an
attack would have no chance of success7; and the Armagnacs
therefore resolved to play a waiting game and to avoid a battle
in the open8, though harassing attacks on the besieging army
were constantly kept up, both from the south-west and from
the Armagnac garrisons at Meaux and other places in Brie and
Champagne.

At the beginning of the siege the English were reinforced
by 800 men-at-arms and 2000 archers under the duke of
Bedford, who had crossed from England to Normandy in
April and May9. About the same time Henry's brother-in-

1 Monstr. iii. 411; Fenin, 143.

2 Juv. 558; Monstr. iii. 411; Waurin, ii. 327. 3 Fenin, 143.

4 Vita, 278; Monstr. iii. 411; Chast. i. 155, who says that it was "passable a pied et
a cheval."

5 St Denys, vi. 446; Juv. 558; Waurin, ii. 301 (289); Le Fevre, i. 385; Fenin, 145;
Trahisons, 159; Tit. Liv. 89.

6 Monstr. iii. 410. Among the defenders was Louis Juvenal des Ursins, brother of
the chronicler, from whom probably came the story of the Austin friar who picked
off sixty lances with his crossbow, not to mention lesser game (Juv. 558, 559 sq.).

7 Ordonnances, xi. 103; Juv. 558; cf. Vita, 282. 8 Fenin, 139.

9 Monstr. iii. 407; Waurin, ii. 323 (307); Chast. i. 149; Ordonnances, xii. 285.
Bedford arrived at Rouen on April 18 (Cochon, 283). His own retinue consisted of
120 men-at-arms and 360 archers. With him, or a little later, arrived other con-
tingents, which brought the force up to a strength of 299 and 897 (Iss. Roll 8 Hen. V,
Pasch., May 9, 1420). The remainder of the troops which he brought to Melun seem
to have sailed about the middle of May (see the duke of Gloucester's letter to Henry,
printed in Kluge, 51, from H. James, Facsimiles of the National MSS. pt. 1, no. xxxvi).
[There is still extant a muster roll, dated May 6, of 282 men-at-arms and 993 archers
about to sail to France (Newhall, 208, n. 7, citing Exch. Accts. 49/36). Professor
Newhall's investigations have led him to conclude that the reinforcements sent from
England in 1420 numbered altogether some 2200 men.]

14-2

212 The Dauphinist Resistance [ch. lxiv

law, Lewis Count Palatine of the Rhine1, came from Germany
with 700 men, whose wages were paid by Henry2. James
king of Scots was also present3; he was brought from his
English prison, not to add to Henry's prestige in French
eyes, but for a purpose which only became evident at the end
of the siege. Charles VI and the ladies remained at Corbeil4,
about six miles away, while the duke of Burgundy withdrew at
intervals to divert himself at the castle of Blandy, six miles or
so to the east5. Henry often went over to Corbeil6; but when
the siege had been in progress for some time he had a house
built and furnished near his tent, and there Catherine stayed
for a month7. Every day at sunrise and sunset eight or ten
English minstrels, with horns and other instruments, enter-
tained her with sweet music for about an hour8.

It must not be supposed, however, that Henry allowed his
attention to be diverted from his military obligations. Through-
out he took a very active share in the direction of the siege9. The
Anglo-Burgundian force was provided with guns of exceptional
size, which played upon the walls night and day10; but the be-
sieged showed extraordinary energy in making up the gaps with
barrels filled with earth, timber, or refuse11. The besiegers also
mined beneath the moat, but the defenders heard them and
countermined. When the two sides met with only a breast-
work of soil between them, the trumpets rang out, the church
bells pealed, and champion after champion rode down into the
galleries to break a lance with the enemy by the light of lamps
or torches12. Even King Henry, the duke of Burgundy, and the
English dukes performed subterranean feats of arms against
Barbazan and other leaders of the garrison13. Nevertheless, the
siege began to drag. Although the army was said to be the

1 D.K.R. xlv. 320; Juv. 558; Monstr. iii. 410; Waurin, ii. 326 (310); Le Fevre, ii. 15;
Chast. i. 154; Bourgeois, 144; Fenin, 135. Cf. Orig. Lett. in. i. 6ysqq.

2 Vita, 280. 3 Devon, 362, 363; Cal. Doc. Scot. iv. 181; Gesta, 143.

4 Monstr. iii. 410; Waurin, ii. 344 (325); Le Fevre, ii. 21; Vita, 275; Norm. Chron.
(Hellot) 61; Chast. i. 154.

6 Fenin, 142; Trahisons, 158. 6 Chast. i. 158.

7 Monstr. iii. 412; Fenin, 144; Chast. i. 160; Vita, 285.

8 Monstr. iii. 412 sq. For £8. ly. ^.d. paid for harps for the king and queen, see
Devon, 363, Oct. 2, 1420. 9 Monstr. iii. 413.

10 Ibid. 410; Fenin, 144; Chast. i. 154; Vita, 279. u Chast. i. 155.

12 Vita, 279, 285, 286; Juv. 559 sq.; Waurin, ii. 328 (311); Fenin, 144; Chast. i. 157.

13 Vita, 286. [Mr Kingsford's recovery of the "First English Life of Henry V" has re-
habilitated the famous story which tells how Henry and Barbazan, each being unknown
to the other, fought for a long time in a mine, and how Barbazan, on learning the name
of his adversary, ordered the barriers in the mine to be closed and refused to fight
further (First Life, 168 sq.; Holinshed, ed. 1807-8, iii. 122).]

1420] Friction 213

largest with which Henry ever conducted a siege1, yet week
after week passed in leisurely blockade. Quite early in the
siege2 the unfortunate Charles was brought over in order to
appeal to the loyalty of the garrison ; but in reply to his demand
for admittance, the besieged declared that though they would
gladly receive him as their French liege lord, no English king
should ever have their obedience — an answer which greatly
nettled Henry, who sent word that the time was coming when
they would have to obey an English king whether they wished
or no3. It was much worse, however, that disaffection should
appear in the Burgundian camp. Many now scrupled to accept
the English king as the real ruler of France, though they had
sworn to the treaty of Troyes because at the moment no other
course seemed open4. At one time it even seemed as though
the alliance was in danger5, and it became hard to keep the
Burgundian captains at their posts. The count of Conversen
departed for his castle of Brienne beyond Troyes, though he
was captured by the Armagnacs on the way6; and when sick-
ness was raging in the camp, the prince of Orange, with many
other leaders, departed abruptly, and neither Henry nor the
duke of Burgundy was able to prevent them7. Even before the
siege, too, disturbances had occurred between the English and
the quarrelsome Picards, and it was necessary to keep the two
contingents apart8. Disease of course was causing heavy
casualties, as it always did in long mediaeval sieges. Neverthe-
less time was on the whole on the side of the besiegers, and the
duke of Burgundy himself remained staunch. It was with his
consent that Henry, alarmed at symptoms of disaffection
among the Parisians, placed English garrisons in the Bastille,
the Louvre, the Hotel de Nesle, and the castle of Bois de
Vincennes, Clarence being appointed captain of Paris in place of
the count of St Pol9. And in order to repair the losses suffered

1 [There is not enough extant evidence for even an approximate estimate of its size;
but numerous captains, both French and English, were present (Coll. of Arms, MS.
M 9, ff. 40 sqq.; Halle, 102), and while we are told nothing about the strength of their
several retinues, it is plain that the force must have been very formidable.]

2 e.g. on July 18 and 23 (Ordonnances, xi. 95). Cf. Chast. i. 159; Monstr. iii. 412.

3 Chast. i. 158. * Fenin, 137.

6 Vita, 282. 8 Monstr. iii. 413; Waurin, ii. 330 (313).

7 Chast. i. 180; Monstr. iv. 10; Waurin, ii. 339; Le Fevre, ii. 18; Juv. 560; Vita, 282.
The English afterwards accused the duke of cowardice (ibid. 281). 8 Fenin, 139.

9 Monstr. iv. 1 sq. The Bastille was in the hands of the English by Sept. 7 (D.K.R.
xlii. 390 sq.). If the author of the Vita is to be believed, they seized it by means of a
trick carefully planned by Henry, who expected resistance on the part of the Burgundian
garrison (Vita, 282).

214 The Dauphinist Resistance [ch. lxiv

by the besiegers of Melun, Duke Philip ordered John of
Luxemburg, who was at his castle of Beaurevoir, to bring up
what forces he could from Picardy. John collected a force at
Peronne, hurried with them across the Oise at Pont St Maxence,
and pushed on with all speed towards Melun. When on Oct. 1 8
the besieged saw them approach in battle order across the high
ground to the north, they took them for the long-expected
relieving force. The bells rang, the walls were manned, and the
English and Burgundians were derisively exhorted to saddle
up, as they would soon be shifted. But as the new-comers
drew near, the defenders saw the truth, and with drooping
heads they left the ramparts1. This disappointment must
have had a grave moral effect, especially as the town was
beginning to suffer terribly from famine. Bread gave out
about this time2, and for the next month the people in the
town ate horses, dogs, cats, rats, mice, and anything, however
repulsive, that could be used for food3. Even now, however,
Henry never risked an assault on the breaches that were
made4. Appeals to the dauphin for aid5 brought a final answer
that he lacked sufficient men to attempt the relief of the town,
with the advice that the defenders had better make what terms
they could. So at length hunger and pestilence prevailed; the
inevitable parley began ; on Nov. 1 7 Walter Hungerford, with
two notable Burgundians, Jean de Roubaix, lord of Herzelles,
and Jean de Courcelles, was commissioned to conclude final
terms6; and the actual surrender took place next day7. All
those in the town, whether members of the garrison or civilians,
were to leave their arms undamaged in the castle, and were to
be held as prisoners till their ransoms had been paid; their
lives were to be spared, but before their release they would have
to give security that they would never serve again under the
enemies of the French king. Two groups, however, were ex-
cepted from these terms; Englishmen or Scotsmen who had
taken part in the defence were to be at Henry's mercy, and
those who were in any way implicated in the murder at
Montereau were to be put to trial8. The occasion, too, served
to illustrate Henry's stern zeal for discipline. A favourite
captain of his, Bertrand de Chaumont, who had lands in Guienne
and had fought on the English side at Agincourt, was charged

1 Chast. i. 181; Monstr. iv. iosq.; Waurin, ii. 340 (321). 2 Juv. 560.

3 Fenin, 145; Waurin, ii. 340; Monstr. iv. 11; Chast. i. 177. 4 Juv. 558.

5 Monstr. iv. 11 sq.; Le Fevre, ii. 19. 6 Rym. x. 29 sq. 7 Ibid. 30.

8 The terms of surrender are given in Monstr. iv. 12 sq.

1420] A Stern Victor 215

with having been bribed to connive at the escape of some of the
suspects. When Henry heard the report he was much disturbed,
and said that he would rather have given 50,000 nobles than that
such disloyalty should have occurred. The duke of Burgundy
pleaded and the duke of Clarence went down on his knees in
behalf of the culprit ; but Henry only answered, " By St George,
fair brother, had it been yourself we should have done the same."
He gave the offender time for shrift and then had his head struck
off, saying that he would have no traitors about him if he knew it1.
In strict accordance with the terms of the capitulation 500 or
600 emaciated prisoners, including many citizens of the town,
were sent under escort in boat-loads to Paris, where they were
incarcerated in the Palais, the Chatelet, the Temple, the Bastille,
the Hotel de Nesle and other places, where many who could not
find a ransom died2. Early in 142 1 those who were accused of
being concerned in the murder of John the Fearless were tried
by the Parkment, and three were hanged3. Barbazan was at first
imprisoned in Paris4, but was afterwards removed to Chateau
Gaillard, where he remained till the French recaptured the castle
in 14305. He was accused of complicity in the crime of Mon-
tereau, but was acquitted6. The conditions of the surrender, as
reported by Burgundian chroniclers7, fully justify Henry's
action ; but they were misunderstood, wilfully or not, by writers
on the other side, who accuse Henry of a breach of faith such as
would have disgraced the veriest tyrant8. One may well regret
that the terms were not more generous, but they savour more
of Philip's lust for vengeance than of Henry's soldierly mag-
nanimity, which had constrained him during the siege to express
his admiration for the courage of the garrison9. While, how-
ever, the usual charges against Henry in this connection are
beside the mark, he may in one respect be justly blamed in the
bitterest terms. Among the defenders of Melun were twenty

1 Monstr. iv. 14 sq.; Le Fevre, ii. 24; Waurin, ii. 343 (324); Fenin, 146; Chast. i.
184, 185; Juv. 561. 2 St Denys, vi. 448; Juv. 561.

3 Fauquembergue, ii. 3, 12, 13, 14, 16; Felibien, iv. 585.

4 Norm. Chron. (Williams) 203, (Hellot) 62. 5 Fenin, 145; La Barre, i. 305.

6 For his trial in 1424 on the charge of being concerned in the murder of Duke John,
see Colbert MS. 9681, 5, fol. 125, quoted in Raoulet, 169. [The story in the "First
Life," given on the authority of the earl of Ormonde, is that Henry would have had
Barbazan executed, but that he appealed "to the Judgement of the officers of armes,"
on the ground that, having fought in single combat, he and the king were brothers-
in-arms and therefore the one might not put the other to death — a contention upheld
by the heralds (p. 170).]

7 Monstr. iv. 12 sqq.; Chast. i. 178. The latter says that the terms would have been
harder if the real straits of the defenders had been known.

8 Juv. 564; J. Chartier (Vallet de Viriville), iii. 247. 9 Juv. 560.

2i 6 The Daaphinist Resistance [ch. lxiv

Scottish mercenaries with their captain. No suspicion of being
implicated in the Montereau tragedy could possibly attach to
them; but just as the dummy king of France had been brought
forward to put Frenchmen in the wrong, so the captive king of
Scotland was used to work the ruin of the Scots. On his arrival
King James had summoned them to surrender on their allegiance.
They refused; and when the siege was over, Henry had them
all hanged for disobedience to their king1.

[Apart from the sieges of Sens, Montereau, and Melun, the
English had done little fighting in 1420. Early in the year
they had begun an offensive in Maine, under the direction of
the earl of Salisbury. Beaumont-le-Vicomte was soon re-
covered2. Ballon fell on Feb. 28. On March 3 the castle and
town of Montfort-le-Rotrou were taken and burned3. On the
same day a force of French and Scots, which had left Le Mans
with the object of relieving Fresnay-le-Vicomte, was ambushed
by an English detachment under the earl of Huntingdon, and
cut to pieces, the marshal de Rieux and the war-chest of the
Scots being captured4. Fresnay fell soon afterwards5. On the
other hand, the dauphinist garrison of Dreux, raiding north-
ward, took Croisy on the Eure, liberating Ambroise de Lore,
who was imprisoned in the castle6. Lore's release perhaps
explains the check which the English soon afterwards suffered
in Maine, where on May 10 the garrison of Le Mans killed
sixty-three and took fifty-eight prisoners7. After this the
military situation in Maine seems to have changed but little
till the following year.]

Meanwhile civil strife had broken out in Brittany. After the
murder at Montereau, the duke of Brittany had hesitated for
a while, but in December, 141 9, he signed a treaty which

1 Scotichron. (Hearne), iv. 12 17; Waurin, ii. 342. James seems to have lent himself to
these proceedings willingly (Kluge, 52). A few of the defenders may have been treated
in a way contrary to the terms of the surrender. Two monks were executed. One
writer supposes that this was because they were apostates or guilty of irregular conduct
(Chast. i. 184). Another, however, says that they had shown great zeal in the defence
of the town, one having shot at least sixty Englishmen (Norm. Chron. [Hellot] 62).

2 Triger, Beaumont, 31, n. 3. 3 Charles, Invasion, 24, n. 3.

4 F. Michel, i. 118, n. 1, citing Bodl. MS., Digby, 201, f. 281 r°; Rym. ix. 885;
Wals. ii. 331; Vita, 244 sq.; cf. Juv. 546.

5 Charles (Invasion, 24) gives the date as April 9, Triger (Une forteresse du Maine,
87) as April 19; but a pardon recorded in the Norman rolls (8 Hen. V, pt. 3, m. 28)
shows that Fresnay was in English hands before Easter Sunday, April 7.

6 Bourgeois, 137; Juv. 556. It was probably at this time that an abortive attack was
made on Mantes (Grave, Archives, 17 sq.).

7 Charles, Invasion, 25, n. 1. The affair is probably to be identified with the fight
on the Sarthe noticed by Jean Juvenal (p. 546).

1420] Strife in Brittany 217

definitely ranged him on the side of Burgundy1. Thereupon
the dauphin's advisers entered into an intrigue with Olivier de
Blois, count of Penthievre, head of the family which had long
disputed with the ruling Montforts the right to the ducal title2.
The outcome was that on Feb. 13, 1420, the duke and his
brother Richard were treacherously kidnapped by the count,
who, after inflicting many indignities upon them, placed them
in close confinement at his castle of Champtoceaux3. It is
likely that if the Bretons had shown general approval of the
stroke, the duke and his brother would soon have died. It was
not long, however, before the futility of the plot became
manifest. The duke's Council took vigorous action, proclaiming
the ban and arriere-ban1^. The duchess made a spirited appeal
to the Breton Estates, who were fully sympathetic with her5;
and embassies were sent to King Henry, asking for the release
on parole of the duke's brother Arthur of Richemont6, and to
the dauphin, begging him to use his good offices on behalf of
the duke himself7. Henry's reply was friendly but vague8:
the dauphin temporised, but privately exhorted the count to
keep a firm hold of his captive9. Meanwhile, however, the
troops of the Montfort party were vigorously reducing such
strongholds as adhered to Olivier de Blois10, and before long
the duke and his brother were removed from Champtoceaux
and taken from place to place in Poitou, the Limousin, and
Saintonge11. But Champtoceaux was vigorously besieged, and
in the hope of securing lenient terms for himself, the count,
about the beginning of July, brought the duke back to Brittany
and liberated him, though he did not thereby avert condemna-
tion of himself as a traitor or the confiscation of his property12.
The duke's release removed the principal reason for per-
mitting his brother Arthur to return to France. Negotiations

1 Blanchard, no. 138 1 ; Beaucourt, i. 202. 2 Cosneau, Connetable, 53.

3 Cagny, 117; Luce, Mont-St-Michel, i. 22; Morice, Preuves, ii. 1000 sq., 1070 sqq.;
Blanchard, no. 1456.

4 Morice, Preuves, ii. 948, 1000; Blanchard, no. 1475.

5 Morice, Hist. i. 475, Preuves, ii. 1001; Trevedy, 23; Cosneau, Connetable, 54.

6 The envoys were the bishop of Nantes, the lord of Montauban, Henry du Juch, and
Raoul le Sage (Morice, Hist. i. 472, Preuves, ii. 1037 sq.; Devon, 362; Ord. Priv. Co.
ii. 277, 279; Rym. ix. 876; Gruel, 20 sq.). 7 Rym. x. 2.

8 Ibid. ix. 876; Morice, Hist. i. 478, Preuves, ii. 10 16; Trevedy, 24.

9 Rym. x. 2; Cosneau, Connetable, 494.

10 Blanchard, iii. nos. 1422, 1442, 1449; Morice, Preuves, ii. 1003; Bossard, 20.

11 Blanchard, Introd. p. cxxv, no. 1449; Morice, Hist. i. 477; Bossard, 19; Rym.
x. 2; Monstr. iv. 31.

12 Morice, Hist. i. 478, 479; Blanchard, nos. 1449, 1456; Gruel, 21; Cosneau,
Connetable, 57; Trevedy, 24.

2i 8 The Dauphinist Resistance [ch. lxiv

on the matter had, however, gone some way1; and Henry
allowed them to proceed, perhaps thinking that Arthur's
presence might be useful in case the duke should waver in his
loyalty to the Burgundian cause2. When he gave his word to
Henry not to escape and promised to go back to England at
Michaelmas, 1422, if his ransom had not been paid3, he was
escorted across the Channel and taken to the king, who was then
before Melun, where he arrived on Oct. 28, 14204.

With Brittany in confusion, there was little danger to
Normandy from the west. In January, 1420, the English seem
to have expected a raid5, but nothing came of it, probably
because of the kidnapping of the duke. For their part, the
English were closing in on Mont-St-Michel, constructing a
fort at Ardevon and placing a garrison on the rock of Tom-
belaine6. The abbot had already had dealings with the English7,
and he was now replaced as captain of the Mount by the count
of Aumale, who took over the command on May I8. He soon,
however, went away, taking with him many valuables, which
the English believed him to have divided among his men,
regardless of the claims of the dauphin. On June 15 John
Ashton, bailli of the Cotentin, reported to Henry that the
garrison of Mont-St-Michel numbered no more than one
hundred men, that their water-cistern was broken, and that the
place might speedily be reduced. The frontier, he said, was
quiet, and he hinted that a raid on Anjou might be made with
every prospect of success, for the inhabitants of the country
were alienated from the dauphin by the depredations of his
troops and the Scots9. Henry, however, encouraged no such
pretentious enterprises, and the frontier of Lower Normandy
remained astonishingly peaceful for the rest of the year10.

1 Rym. ix. 884, x. 2, 9 sq.; Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 275; Exch. Accts. 49/17; Morice, Hist.
i.478.

2 The duke showed no eagerness to accept the treaty of Troyes, though he was in-
vited to do so by Henry (Rym. ix. 15 sq.), and he was soon in negotiation with the earl
of Buchan, who visited him in October (Blanchard, nos. 1433, 1464).

3 Rym. x. 12; Gruel, 20 sqq., 27.

4 Morice, Hist. i. 481; Cosneau, Connetable, 58; Devon, 367; Ord. Priv. Co. ii.
278. There are many interesting details of the journey in For. Accts. 54, C.

6 [Newhall, 270, n. 6.] 6 Ibid. nn. 7, 8.

7 D.K.R. xli. 775; cf. Luce, Mont-St-Michel, i. 94 n. 8 Ibid. 22.

9 Orig. Letters, 11. i. 72 sqq. Ashton's report is also printed by Brequigny, 254.
Ellis ascribes it incorrectly to 1419, Brequigny to 142 1. The internal evidence is de-
cisively in favour of 1420.

10 Pontorson seems not to have been recovered by the English on May 31, 1420
(Luce, i. 100, where there is no mention of it in the list of Suffolk's dignities, though he
was titular captain of the place), but it was probably taken before the end of the year
(For. Accts. 61, Bv°).

CHAPTER LXV

THREE YEARS IN ENGLAND

After the capture of Oldcastle the domestic history of
England was very uneventful for nearly two years. Bedford
remained warden or lieutenant till the end of 141 9, when he
was succeeded by his brother Humphrey1. No parliament was
summoned till the autumn of 141 9, when the lords and com-
mons assembled at Westminster on Oct. 1 62. No new temporal
lords were summoned, and of those who had received writs for
the previous parliament, Gilbert Talbot was dead. Of the
lords spiritual Archbishop Chichele, who was abroad with the
king, received no summons. Thirty-seven counties and seventy-
nine boroughs returned representatives, none of whom call for
special notice3. Among the judges William Babington appears
for the first time4.

When the members assembled, five weeks had elapsed since
the murder of John the Fearless ; but the full significance of
that event was not yet manifest, and the chief fact before the
estates was that the failure of the Meulan conference had forced
Henry to go on with the war. The chancellor accordingly
addressed them on the text, "Let us not be weary in well-
doing5." The king had been doing well; his enemies were
keeping his inheritance from him, but he wanted peace and
had gone in person to secure it; nevertheless he had failed;
money was wanted to safeguard the sea, to defend Calais, and
to carry on the war; unless it was forthcoming the war would
have to be stopped, which God forbid6! Next day Roger
Flower was chosen Speaker for the third time. Parliament
continued till Nov. 137, when it voted a tenth and a fifteenth

1 Humphrey was appointed on Dec. 30, 1419 (Rym. ix. 830, 831).

2 Rot. Pari. iv. 116. 3 Return Pari. i. 291 sqq., App. p. xxi.

4 Babington, who came from East Bridgeford, Notts., had been made king's attorney
in 1414 and a serjeant-at-law in 1418 (Rot. Pari. iv. 107). He was appointed Chief
Baron of the Exchequer on Nov. 4, 1419, and became a Justice of the Common Pleas
on June 30, 1420 (Foss, iv. 284; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 295; Ord. Priv. Co. iii. 70).
He died in 1455 (Cal. Inq. post mort. iv. 263, 298).

5 Gal. vi. 9. 6 Rot. Pari. iv. 116.
7 Ibid. 117.

220 Three Years in England [ch.lxv

to be paid at Candlemas next and a further third of a tenth
and fifteenth payable at the succeeding Martinmas. The king,
it had been announced, was specially anxious to know how the
country had been faring and what amendments (if any) were
needed in the laws. But parliament made little use of the
opportunity thus offered. It was resolved that, as large quan-
tities of English coins were passing out of the country and the
supply for ordinary purposes was running short, there should
be a fresh issue of coinage; that when the money voted in taxes
should come in, it should be spent in England on corn, cloth,
and other necessaries for the army in France; and that as many
sacks of wool as the king should desire should also be bought
in the country and shipped direct to Normandy1 instead of
being sent through Calais, as required by the Statute of the
Staple. Otherwise, parliament's main achievement was to
confirm a statute of 1389 limiting the right to keep sporting
dogs to landowners and well-to-do clergymen2.

The southern convocation met on Oct. 303. Like parlia-
ment, its chief business was the grant of money. But the
clergy, like everybody else, were beginning to be tired of the
war4, and it took much debate for them to make up their
minds, for in many cases the contributions due for the envoys
to Constance were still unpaid. On Nov. 20, however, they
agreed to a tax of a twentieth on benefices and 6s. %d. from
chantry chaplains5. They then adjourned. The northern con-
vocation met at York from Jan. 13—18, 14206. Those present
pleaded that there was great poverty in the north of England
owing to drought, murrain, and invasion, but they also
ultimately granted a twentieth of their incomes, from whatever
ecclesiastical source, to be payable on May 1 7.

About this time there were numerous rumours of attempts
on the king's life by witchcraft. During a recent visit to

1 Rot. Pari. iv. 118. 2 Ibid. 122.

3 Cone. iii. 393. 4 Ibid.

5 Ibid. iii. 395; Wake, 354; D.K.R. ii., App. 11. 189.

6 Cone. iii. 396.

7 Rym. ix. 855. The chapter of York was to be excused payment of half the amount
due from them, in order that they might not be hindered in rebuilding the choir of the
minster. Several religious houses claimed a similar remission, among them being Meaux,
which was as usual suffering from floods, and Selby, which was weighed down by debt
and was actually raided by robbers while Convocation was sitting. Many other houses,
such as Drax, Mattersey, Felley, Rufford, Watton, Ellerton, Eggleston, and Kirkham,
and every church in Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmorland pleaded total
inability to pay.

141 9] Witchcraft and Heresy 221

England, Archbishop Chichele had issued a circular to the
bishops, dated Sept. 25, 1 4 1 9, stating that the king had ordered
that prayers should be offered for his protection against necro-
mancers, and he accordingly announced forty days' remission
of penance to all who should attend the masses and bi-weekly
processions instituted when the king went abroad in 141 7,
seeing that these solemnities had lost their novelty. The bishops
were to publish the announcement before All Saints' Day1.
At the meeting of convocation in the same autumn, the arch-
bishop announced that the reform of abuses among the clergy
must be considered2; but attention seems to have been diverted
from this subject to the dangers arising from the black art and
Lollardy. On Nov. 9 the assembly had before it a chaplain
named Richard Walker, who had been charged with practising
witchcraft in the diocese of Worcester and convicted at a
visitation held by the prior in Worcester cathedral. In proof of
the charges there were produced two books containing written
spells and pictures savouring of magic3, a box containing a beryl
cunningly suspended in black leather4, three little schedules
and two little figures in yellow wax. Walker pleaded guilty
and declared himself willing to recant; and an impressive
penance was arranged for him. On Nov. 16, at Paul's Cross
in presence of the archbishop, several bishops, and a large
crowd, the bishop of Llandaff5 preached a sermon at Walker,
who stood there with the books, the box, and the wax images.
When the bishop had finished, the penitent declared his magic
to be false and accursed in deed and word. Then the books were
fastened round his neck, one in front and one behind, with the
pages open for everyone to see the bad pictures, and he was
marched bare-headed all down the Cheap and back to the south
side of the churchyard, where the books and other exhibits
were burned. After this Walker was allowed to go.

The heresy hunt was not yet over. On Nov. 20, three more
chaplains came up for judgment — Ralph Outrede, William
Brown, and Richard Wyche6. All had been in prison for some
years charged with heresy, and they were now called upon
publicly to recant. After canonical punishment had been fully

1 Cone. iii. 392. 2 Ibid. 393.

3 "Artem magicam sapientes."

4 "Lapis de berillo artificialiter in corio nigro suspensus."

5 John Zouche, 1408-1422 (Stubbs, Reg. 89, 239).

6 Cone. iii. 394 sq.

222 Three Years in England [ch. lxv

explained to them, so that they might know what to expect in
the event of relapse, Outrede and Brown were set free on giving
security for their good behaviour in future. Wyche, however,
whose touching story remains in his own words, was reminded
of his trial at Bishop Auckland eighteen years before1. After
long imprisonment in the north he had recanted and been sent
to the Chancery at Westminster, where he was required to give
the customary caution and then set free. He was, however, re-
arrested with William Brown when the king sailed for France
in 141 72, and imprisoned in the Fleet, where he had since
remained. His case was now reserved for further consideration.
How long he continued in prison we do not know; but he
certainly made a full submission and secured his release, only
to fall again into heresy and to perish at the stake in 14403.

But the most notable figure affected by this outbreak of
religious panic was the king's stepmother Queen Joan, from
whom he had parted on perfectly friendly terms. Though she
had been resident in England for over sixteen years, neither
she nor her children seem ever to have been popular with
the English people, and as English traders were continually
suffering from the attacks of the Breton pirates, she and the
members of her household were exposed to periodical outbursts
of national resentment. Such a time was the present, and the
first result was that all foreigners about her were expelled from
England on the ground that they were carrying treasure out of
the country and giving information to the enemy4. On Sept.
27, 141 9, an order was issued that all her dowry and other
belongings should be taken into the hand of the Treasurer of
England, except a portion for the reasonable expenses of her
maintenance5; and on Oct. 1 she was put under arrest and
detained in the manor-house of Rotherhithe until her case
should be further considered6. The suddenness of the event
has given rise to various speculations as to its cause. Some have
supposed7 that it was due to a desire for additional security for
the good behaviour of Joan's son, the duke of Brittany; but
there seems to have been little friendliness at the time between

1 Cf. Wylie, iii. 463. 2 Devon, 352.

3 Greg., Chron. 183; Three Fifteenth Cent. Chrons. 63. In 1434 he became rector
of Leaveland, near Faversham (Cal. Pat. Hen. VI, ii. 342), which he exchanged in 1436
for the vicarage of Harmondsworth, near West Drayton in Middlesex (ibid. iii. 32, 426;
Stow, Annals, 378).

4 Rot. Pari. iv. 306. 5 Ibid. 118.

6 Brut, ii. 444. 7 Trebuchet, 96.

1419-20] Henry's Stepmother 223

the two. On the whole the most convincing explanation is
the contemporary one, that she was believed to have practised
magic against the king. Implicated in the same charge were
her confessor, John Randolf, a Franciscan friar from Shrews-
bury1, Roger Colles, another Shrewsbury man, and Pernel
Brocart, both members of her household2. Randolf was
captured in Guernsey3, taken to Normandy and imprisoned in
Chateau Gaillard, and afterwards sent back to England and
lodged in the Tower4. As for Queen Joan herself, we have
evidence that some of her possessions were seized by the
sheriffs in whose counties they lay5, and that others were farmed
by various persons soon after her arrest6. The royal Council
appointed Thomas Lilbourne to act as clerk of her household
and his account for the first ten weeks of her captivity is ex-
tant7. During most of this time she was at the king's manor
of Rotherhithe. It was intended that she should spend Christ-
mas at Leeds, and with this intention she journeyed thither,
arriving on Dec. 7. She stayed there only three days, however,
and then returned to Rotherhithe. On Dec. 1 5 she was handed
over to the custody of John Pelham8, who acted as her governor
till Mar. 8, 1420, during which time she was no doubt at
Pevensey9. In addition to the confiscation of her lands she had
to submit to the removal of all the members of her household10.
But a sufficient number of attendants were selected to replace
them, and the king's Portuguese physician, Pedro de Alcobaca,
was appointed to attend on her, the rare and costly medicines
he prescribed being all bought for her. In fact, Lilbourne's
account shows that Joan must have lived in great comfort
during her detention.

1 Cotton, Abridg. 557; Brut, ii. 422 sq., 444, 491; Rot. Pari. iv. 118; Devon, 365.

2 Rot. Pari. iv. 118. 3 Brut, ii. 422.

4 Devon, 365; Brut, ii. 423.

5 e.g. Rec. Roll 7 Hen. V, Mich., Jan. 18, 1420 (Wilts.); Iss. Roll 8 Hen. V, Mich.,
Feb. 18, 1421 (Hereford); Rec. Roll 8 Hen. V, Pasch., July 7, 1420 (Cornwall); ibid.
June 25, 1420 (Devon); ibid. Mich., Feb. 17, 142 1 (Essex).

6 e.g. Rec. Roll 7 Hen. V, Mich., Jan. 19, 1420.

7 Exch. Accts. 406/30.

8 Ibid.; Wals. ii. 331. 9 Ibid.; Stow, Chron. 358.
10 Wals. ii. 331; Stow, Chron. 358.

[At this point Dr Wylie s contribution to the
text ceases. — W. T. W.]

[For the form and content of Chapters LXVI—LXXV
I am solely responsible. — W. T. W.]

CHAPTER LXV1

HENRY IN PARIS

When Melun had fallen, Henry and Duke Philip granted
leave to many of their troops, who had been severely tried
during the siege. They then joined Charles VI at Corbeil,
whence the three, at the head of a large force, went to Paris.
Henry, there can be little doubt, had been to Paris before, but
this was to be his formal entry into his prospective capital, and
the Parisians prepared an imposing welcome. On Dec. I the
magistrates and the leading burgesses (all clad in red), the
Parlement) the University, and almost the whole body of clergy
were to meet the august visitors outside the city, though the
chapter of Notre Dame, whose relations with Henry were
strained, refused to go farther than the Hotel Dieu, which
almost adjoined the cathedral. The streets along which the
procession was to pass were as bravely decorated as the poverty
of the citizens permitted. Unfortunately the kings arrived
earlier than was expected and before those who were to greet
them outside the walls had set forth1. Nevertheless, they made
an impressive entry, welcomed by the enthusiastic crowds
which lined the Rue St Denis2. In front rode the two kings
side by side in royal apparel, Henry, who was on Charles's
left3, regarding the people with calm and impassive mien4. On
the left side of the street rode the duke of Burgundy by himself;
but while he thus emphasised his independence, he symbolised
his loyalty by allowing the kings to keep a horse's length in
advance of him5. He was followed by the knights and squires

1 Monstr. iv. 15; Fenin, 1495 Chast. i. 187 sq.; Fauquembergue, i. 389; Grassoreille,
124, n. 3, 125 n. 1.

2 Bourgeois, 144; Monstr. iv. 16; Chast. i. 188; Juv. 561; Fauquembergue, loc. cit.

3 Monstr. iv. 16; Chast. i. 187; Cordeliers, 288.

4 "Moult se contenoit fierement et regardoit le peuple d'ung estrange ceil," Chast. i.
187. Chastellain, it must be remembered, wrote long after the duke of Burgundy had
abandoned the English alliance, and he persistently represents Henry as a haughty
tyrant.

5 "Tenant son renc seul, et apres, chevaucha a senestre coste de la rue, un peu moins
avant que les deux roys, environ le long de leurs chevaulx," Chast. i. 187. Chastellain's
testimony to Burgundy's place in the procession is very weighty, for it must have gone
against his grain to put the duke in the second rank.

1420] Welcome 225

of his household, who carefully held themselves apart from the
English and other Frenchmen. Most of them, like the duke,
wore black. On the other side of the street, immediately be-
hind the kings, rode the dukes of Clarence and Bedford, and
then came a great array of English nobles and knights, con-
spicuous among them being the duke of Exeter and the earls
of Warwick, Huntingdon, and Salisbury1. At the cross-roads
which the cavalcade passed, it was met by processions of clergy
singing Te Deum and Benedictus qui ventt and offering relics for
the kings to kiss, this welcome deriving added solemnity from
the fact that it was Advent Sunday. Each time that relics were
presented to Charles he signed to Henry to kiss first, but
Henry, raising his cap and bowing, motioned to Charles to
precede him, a pantomime repeated several times as they made
their way to Notre Dame, where they dismounted and prayed
before the high altar2. It was now nearly dark: Burgundy
escorted Charles to the Hotel St Pol, whence he himself went
to his own Hotel d'Artois; Henry and his brothers were lodged
in the Louvre; and the rest of the English found quarters where
they could, some of the soldiers being billeted in villages near
Paris3.

Next day there arrived the two queens, accompanied by
many noble ladies, mostly English4. They were met by Duke
Philip, Henry's brothers and other English lords, and the
notables of Paris. They entered by the Porte St Antoine, and
were received by the populace with an enthusiasm little less
than that shown the day before. Numerous gifts were offered
to the kings and queens, especially to Henry and Catherine.
All day and night fountains of wine and rose-water played in
the streets, and the citizens of Paris, after their volatile fashion,
abandoned themselves to rejoicing5. There is no reason to
doubt that they were genuinely glad to welcome Henry as a
saviour from disorder and famine6. It was only a later generation

1 Monstr. iv. 15 sq.; Chast. i. 187 sq.; Cordeliers, 288 sq.

2 Bourgeois, 144; Monstr. iv. 16; Chast. i. 187, 188; Grassoreille, 125, n. 1. In the
Rue de la Calandre, between the Palace and the cathedral, on platforms one hundred
paces long, was a "pageant" of the Passion, as represented on the walls of the choir of
Notre Dame. It was a piteous spectacle, and all who saw it were touched to the heart
(Bourgeois, 144).

3 Ibid.; Monstr. iv. 16.

4 Bourgeois, 145; Monstr. iv. 17; Juv. 561; Fauquembergue, i. 389 sq.

5 Monstr. iv. 17; Chast. i. 192 sq.; Bourgeois, 144 sq.; Grassoreille, 125, n. 1.

6 The kings were "moult joyeusement et honnorablement receuz " (Fauquembergue,
i. 389). The author of the "Journal d'un Bourgeois" (loc. cit.) is still more emphatic.

Will 15

226 Henry in Paris [ch. lxvi

of Frenchmen that felt constrained to make excuses for their
jubilation and to hint that they would have been no less joy-
ful if the duke of Burgundy had come alone1. But it cannot
have been long before their optimism began to cool. No sooner
had the royal visitors arrived than the price of bread, already
very high, rose sharply; and a loaf weighing twenty ounces and
consisting mainly of bran cost twenty-four deniers parisis2.
Before Christmas bread doubled in price, and could not be had
unless one went to the bakers' shops before daybreak and stood
drinks to masters and men. The poor lived mainly on cabbages
and turnips, for after standing long in a queue at a baker's
women often had to go away with nothing. The dunghills of
Paris were covered with children dying of hunger and cold3.

Meanwhile Henry was showing his customary activity. As
long as his triumph was incomplete he could take no rest. The
machinery of government was kept working as usual4. Im-
mediately after the entry of the two kings, the count of St Pol
was sent to Picardy and other parts of the north to receive from
those under obligation to take it the oath to observe the treaty
of Troyes5. The efficiency of the army was, as ever, one of the
king's prime concerns, and on Dec. 5 he issued a number of
commissions for holding musters of English troops, including
reinforcements lately come from Wales6. He instituted an
enquiry into the munitions of war then available in Paris and into
the possibility of producing more7. At the same time Henry was,
as usual, supplementing force by diplomacy; he was negotiating
with the famous dauphinist leader Pierron de Luppe, captain
of Montaigu8, while Hue de Lannoy was despatched at the
head of an embassy to treat for an agreement with Castile9.

At this time, however, most of Henry's thoughts were
claimed by the States-General, which, summoned some weeks
previously, met on Dec. 6 in the lower hall of the Hotel St Pol10.

1 Chast. i. 188. 2 Bourgeois, 145. 3 Ibid. 146.

4 The Parlement, for instance, held a well-attended session on Dec. 2, though it was
a day of general festivity for the arrival of the queens (Fauquembergue, i. 388).

5 Cordeliers, 289. 6 D.K.R. xlii. 393.

7 Chast. i. 189 sq., n., 198 sq., n., where two long contemporary documents are
printed by the editor, Kervyn de Lettenhove. They reveal Henry's interest in artillery
and also the unshakable confidence of the French in the crossbow.

8 Rym. x. 33. The subject of discussion is not known.

9 D.K.R. xlii. 388.

10 Rym. x. 30; Juv. 561. The summons was originally for Nov. 12 and had evidently
been sent at very short notice (G. Durand, Inv. somm. des Arch, comm, d'Amiens, ii.
34; Flammermont, 276).

1420] The States-General 227

There were of course no representatives of the dauphinist
party or the regions under its control ; but there is no reason to
doubt that Charles VI and Henry intended the assembly to be
a full meeting of the Three Estates1. The French king was
present at the opening session, when the chancellor, Jean le
Clerc, speaking from the somewhat depressing text, "Audita
est vox lamentationis et planctus Syon," expounded the causes
of the summons2. He recounted recent events, emphasised the
necessity of confirming and executing the treaty of Troyes, and
asked for the advice of his audience as to the best means of
restoring public order, reforming the currency, and providing
money for the war and other burdens on the state. Good laws,
he added, were to be enacted by the government, and all con-
cerned in the murder of the duke of Burgundy to be punished3.
When the chancellor had read the treaty to the Estates, Charles
declared that he had sworn to observe it, since it had been made
for the good of the realm, and that all his subjects must do the
like and promote its enforcement4. After further speeches
addressed to the Estates, they were told to depart, discuss the
matters which had been submitted to them, and return on the
10th with their answers. On the appointed day, in the presence
of the two kings and their counsellors, a single spokesman de-
clared on behalf of all the Estates that they approved of the
treaty as beneficial to France and all Christendom and promised
that they and their heirs would uphold it for ever. They begged
that all Charles's subjects should be called upon to swear
loyalty to it, that those who refused should be treated as rebels,
and that it should be deemed part of the law of France5. Their
spokesman, further, laid before the kings the principal evils
from which France was suffering, and asked for remedies6.
As for the coinage, they would accept whatever the king and
his Council should ordain7. They offered suggestions as to the
best ways of raising revenue, urging in particular that the
burden of taxation should be equally distributed8.

1 Ordonnances, xi. 122; Douet d'Arcq, i. 417; Rym. x. 30. The towns sometimes
tried to avoid sending as many deputies as they were called upon to elect. Thus, Amiens
sent four instead of eight (G. Durand, ii. 34), and Senlis three instead of four (Flam-
mermont, loc. cit.). Abbeville elected only one deputy, but was almost certainly called
upon for more (A. Ledieu, Inv. somm. des Arch, municip. d'Abbeville, p. 9).

2 Juv. 561 sq.

3 Rym. x. 30 sq.; Ordonnances, xi. 109; Juv. 561 sq.; Vita, 290.

4 Rym. x. 31. 5 Ibid. 31, no. 6 Vita, 291.
7 Juv. 562. 8 Ordonnances, xi. no.

15-2

228 Henry in Paris [ch lxvi

The outcome of these proceedings was the issue of several
ordinances, of course in the name of Charles VI, though
everyone knew that Henry was their real author1. One of
these enactments gave effect to the requests of the Estates
respecting the treaty: while all Frenchmen were bound to take
the oath to observe it, if required, it was always to be exacted
from those entering upon ecclesiastical benefices or public
office and those doing homage for their lands2. The members
of the States-General themselves took the oath, even those who
had done so before3.

Another ordinance, dated Dec. 19, was designed to inform
the public of the intentions of the authorities and to prepare
their minds for the taxation to which the Estates had agreed.
In all districts bordering on foreign or dauphinist territory,
there was to be appointed a knight who, backed by an armed
escort and assisted by the bailli and other local notables, would
inspect all the fortresses of the region, garrison those belonging
to the crown with troops who should be properly paid, and
cause all others to be demolished unless they were of military
value and the king or their owner was willing to provide gar-
risons for them. Small churches and monasteries were to be
treated on the same principles. To carry out these measures,
however, and to enable the king to accomplish his purpose of
coining good money, the assistance of the people was necessary,
for the revenue of the domain was insufficient to meet the
expense and the new money would be so good that the crown
would make nothing on it. So, for a year as from Feb. 1, in
accordance with the advice of the Estates, the quartage on wine
should be levied, as in former times, and the gabelle should be
exacted throughout the kingdom. Moreover, a sales-tax of
twelve deniers in the livre was to be levied on all merchandise
save food. The money raised by these means was to be ex-
pended exclusively in the interests of the crown. It would be
necessary, if the situation of public affairs was to be improved,
to appoint numerous officials and employ a large force of well-
paid troops, while it was essential that all Frenchmen should
do their part in preventing the imminent ruin of the country.
The taxes just authorised would not cover the cost of the pro-
posed remedial measures, but Henry and the duke of Burgundy
had promised to aid with all their resources of men and goods.

1 Vita, 291. 2 Rym. x. 31 sq., no. 3 Fenin, 149.

1420] Finance 229

The new taxes were to be farmed at auction whenever possible.
It is strange that this ordinance, which was evidently meant to
reconcile public opinion to the government's demands, was not
proclaimed till Jan. 18, 14211.

On Dec. 1 9 orders were also given for the coinage of the
new money. The royal mints were to strike gold crowns which
should circulate at 11s. 6d. tournois^ and silver coins worth
respectively twenty, ten, and five deniers. Copper coins were
to be made at the discretion of the masters of the mints. The
standard of the new coins was to be extremely good. The
price of the mark of gold was fixed at seventy-two livres
toumois, that of the mark of silver at seven2.

In order to provide the mints with the necessary bullion the
Estates agreed to a general levy of silver. Everyone except the
very poor was to be assessed, according to his wealth, at so
many silver marks or fractions of a mark. Payment might be
made in coin, plate, ornaments, or in any form convenient to
the individual3. This exaction affected clergy as well as laity.
The University of Paris, according to the dauphinist, Jean
Juvenal, begged Henry for exemption, but being snubbed
thought it well to hold their peace, since anyone who resisted
or criticised the authorities was liable to be regarded as an
Armagnac4. The chapter of Notre Dame had already decided
to bear its share of the burden of taxation5.

The Estates were not suffered to depart until they had taken
part in the formal proceedings which were now at length
initiated against those involved in the murder of Montereau.
Duke Philip, it is said, would have brought his case forward
at Troyes, but that Charles had not been attended by a fitting
number of councillors6. Henry, too, may have hoped that some
of the dauphinist leaders might be led to surrender on the tacit
understanding that nothing more was heard of their share in
the crime. It was now evident, however, that Armagnac re-
sistance would have to be broken down by force, and the
solemn condemnation of their leaders for murder might perhaps

1 Ordonnances, xi. 109-111. 2 Ibid. 107 sq.

3 Ibid. 123; Douet d'Arcq, i. 414 sqq.

4 Jean Juvenal (p. 562) states that the government paid for the silver collected at the
rate of 7 1. 1. the mark; but there is no allusion to this in extant official records bearing
on the matter, which include the accounts of two of the collectors in Paris (Douet
d'Arcq, loc. cit.).

6 Grassoreille, 126, n. 1.
6 Chast. i. 194.

230 Henry in Paris [ch. lxvi

influence public opinion against them. Moreover, while the
king was at Paris, accompanied by Henry and his brothers,
with the Parlement at hand and the Estates assembled, the pro-
ceedings could be invested with all the gravity and dignity that
their importance required.

The trial took place on Dec. 231 in the hall of the Hotel St
Pol. Charles VI sat on the judge's bench, with Henry beside
him2. Just below were Jean le Clerc, chancellor of France,
Philippe de Morvilliers, First President of the Parlement, and
other notable men of the king's Council. Near the middle of
the hall sat Duke Philip, on the same bench as Henry's two
brothers, but above them. He was clad in black, and accom-
panied by several bishops and others of his Council3. There
were also in attendance a number of members of the States-
General, which was deemed to be officially present4. The pro-
ceedings were opened by Nicolas Raolin, advocate in Parlement
and maitre des requetes in the duke's household, who on behalf
of the duke, his mother, and his sisters5, charged with the
murder of Duke John the dauphin and several of his leading
supporters, among them being the lord of Barbazan,Tanneguy
du Chastel, Guillaume le Bouteiller, and Jean Louvet, president
of Provence. He asked that these offenders might be carried
in tumbrils, on three Saturdays or holidays, to all the cross-
roads of Paris, where each, bare-headed and with a lighted
candle in his hand, should confess with a loud voice that he
and the others had basely murdered Duke John without pro-
vocation. Later they should repeat their confession on the
scene of the crime, where they should be required to erect a
collegiate church, the clergy of which should pray perpetually
for the duke's soul. Similar churches should be built by the
murderers at Paris, Dijon, Ghent, Rome, Santiago de Com-
postella, and Jerusalem6.

This was but the formal opening of the case. Raolin was
followed by Pierre de Marigny, advocate of the king in Parle-
ment, and Jean Aguenin, Charles's procureur-general, who urged
that all the accused should be executed when caught, that
meanwhile they should be outlawed and sentenced to total
forfeiture of lands and goods, and that the dauphin should be

1 Juv. 562. 2 Monstr. iv. 17; Chast. i. 194.

3 Monstr. iv. 17 sq.; Chast. i. 195. 4 Rym. x. 34.

6 Monstr. iv. 185 Rym. x. 33; La Barre, ii. 194.
6 Monstr. iv. 18 sq.; cf. Tit. Liv. 90.

1420] Justice 231

declared incapable of succeeding to the crown. Next came a
speech by John Larcher, doctor of theology, who had been
chosen by the University to support the plea of the duke.
Spokesmen of the authorities and people of Paris and of the
Estates were also heard1. The chancellor replied that Charles,
by the grace of God and with the advice of Henry, would do
what justice required2.

The same day letters-patent were drawn up announcing that
having heard the demands for justice against those guilty of the
murder, Charles had consulted his Council, and had closely
examined the terms of the agreement concluded between Duke
John and the dauphin in the summer of 141 9. In view of this
and of the sequel at Montereau, and on the advice of his
"Grant Conseil," the presidents and lay members of the Parle-
ment, and others of his counsellors, he now declared those guilty
of the crime to have committed treason and to be incapable of
holding or inheriting any dignities, honours, prerogatives, or
property3. They had incurred, moreover, the penalties pre-
scribed in the agreement of July, 141 9, and their subjects and
vassals were consequently freed from all obligations towards
them. All this was without prejudice to charges which
Burgundy had brought against certain individuals by name
and to proceedings which might thereafter be initiated against
others concerned in the crime. The king's councillors, the
Parlement^ and all his judges and officers, were ordered to render
justice to the complainants and the king's procureur^. This
document, stern though it sounds, was not of much practical
consequence; it laid down how the guilty were to be punished,
but expressed no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of those
named by Burgundy's counsel5.

1 It is not easy to make out the precise order of the proceedings. The account given
is based on a comparison of the official statement (Rym. x. 34) with the relevant passages
in Monstrelet (iv. 19), Jean Juvenal (562), and Tit. Liv. (90 sq.). Marigny, though
apparently he appeared for the crown, was one of the duke's chamberlains (La Barre,
ii. 180). Aguenin had been appointed Second President of the Parlement on Dec. 11,
but presumably continued to act as procureur-general pending the appointment of a
successor (Fauquembergue, i. 387, 389). Raolin and Larcher got fifty francs each from
the duke for their speeches (La Barre, ii. 181, n. e).

2 Monstr. iv. 19 sq.

3 "Inhabiles et Indignes de toutes Successions, directes et allaceaulx, et de toutes
Dignnitez (sic), et Honneurs, et Prerogatives quelconques."

4 It was doubtless this announcement which caused the dowager-duchess of Bur-
gundy and her daughters, on Jan. 14 and 16, 142 1, to appoint a number of procureurs,
among them Raolin and Marigny, to act against the dauphin and others (La Barre,
i. 344 sqq.). 6 Rym. X; 33-35.

232 Henry in Paris [ch.lxvi

All the notable visitors celebrated Christmas in Paris. The
occasion seems to have cost Henry some of his popularity.
For Charles and Isabel, at the Hotel St Pol, were attended
by only a few old servitors and other folk of humble estate, so
that some of the leading citizens of Paris, who came to pay their
respects, went away much grieved. Henry and Catherine, on
the other hand, feasted in great magnificence at the Louvre,
surrounded by English lords and ladies and visited by many
Frenchmen, eager to parade their devotion1. There is no reason
to doubt the substantial truth of this celebrated descrip-
tion, though it is necessary to be on one's guard against the
statements of historians like Chastellain, who wrote after the
English had been expelled, and who gives accounts of their
tyrannical and overbearing behaviour at this time which are
supported by no contemporary evidence2. It was soon believed
that Henry had removed numerous officers appointed by
Charles VI and by Dukes John and Philip, substituting for
them creatures of his own3. We have not sufficient evidence to
subject this assertion to a thorough test, but such appointments
as are noted in contemporary authorities are all in favour of
Frenchmen, except for two or three military commands4. No
doubt the favoured Frenchmen could be trusted to uphold
English interests; but it can no longer be believed that Henry
seized the first opportunity to place the civil administration of
France in the hands of Englishmen. Haughty and over-
bearing he may have been, but to the end he retained enough
prudence to restrain him from the grosser forms of tyranny.

Nevertheless, Henry's relations with the Parisians were not
comfortable. Even in England it was recognised that he was
not loved in the French capital and that its populace must be
kept in awe by a display of force5. Just at this time, too, Henry

1 Monstr. iv. 22. Cf. Norm. Chron. (Hellot), 62 sq., which gives a less gloomy-
impression of the plight of the French king.

2 Chast. i. 198 sqq.

3 Monstr. iv. 22 sq.; Fenin, 151. Fenin implies that Henry was particularly ruthless
with officials appointed by Duke Philip.

4 e.g. on Dec. 26, 1420, Hugues le Coq was appointed prevot of the merchants of
Paris (Bourgeois, 147). A few days earlier, Jean du Mesnil had been sworn as prenjot of
Paris (Bourgeois, 147; Fauquembergue, i. 390). Within three weeks of Christmas, five
new baillis were appointed — for Melun, Vermandois, Amiens, Meaux, and Chartres.
All were Frenchmen, or at least had French names (Fauq. i. 390, 391, ii. 21). New
councillors retained to serve Charles VI on Jan. 9, 142 1, were all French (ibid. 21 sq.).
For the military appointments, see below, p. 381.

6 Wals. ii. 336.

1420] Strained Relations 233

experienced a rebuff from the chapter of Notre Dame. The
bishop of Paris, Gerard de Montaigu, a firm Armagnac, who
since 141 8 had dwelt, exiled from his see, at Bois-Malesherbes,
died in September, 1420. The few canons who had remained
in residence shared the political views of their bishop, and the
new ones nominated by the duke of Burgundy rarely came to
Paris. On Montaigu's death the duke wished to secure the
election of Philibert de Montjeu, a member of his Council, who
had been provided to the bishopric of Amiens, though the
resistance of the chapter had prevented him from gaining
possession of that see. Agents of Charles VI, Henry, and the
duke at once began to put pressure on the canons of Notre
Dame, who sought to gain time by insisting that their absent
fellows must be summoned to take part in the election. When,
however, the bishops of Beauvais and Worcester renewed the
attempt to coerce the chapter, they were plainly told that bishops
ought not to be nominated by kings, that the canons intended
to take St Ambrose as their example, and that the decrees of
the Council of Constance must be obeyed and the election
canonically conducted. It says much for Henry's fairness that
he overrode the Burgundian officials who refused safe-conducts
to the messengers sent to summon the absent canons, though
it must be admitted that none of them was able to accomplish
the purpose of their mission. It is asserted, on the other hand,
that the chapter was privately warned that if it did not choose
Philibert, Henry would make things unpleasant for the new
bishop and his church. Whether this report was true or not,
the canons refused to be moved, and on Dec. 27, twelve of
them, with the succentor, elected Jean Courtecuisse, king's
almoner, and a strong supporter of the conciliar movement — a
man, so far as can be ascertained, very worthy of the honour1.
Henry was beginning to feel the full weight of the burden
he had imposed on himself. It was obviously undesirable for
him to leave Paris at the moment; but affairs in Normandy
demanded his attention, and he had already arranged a visit
to England, where he had not been for three and a half years
and where his subjects were clamouring for his presence2. He
evidently concluded that he might safely carry out his plans,
and the event on the whole justified his forecast; for whatever

1 Grassoreille, in sqq., 116 sqq., 126 sqq., 131; Bourgeois, 147 and n. 2, 164, n. 2.

2 Vita, 293; Rot. Pari. iv. 123, 125.

234 Henry in Paris [ch.lxvi

disaffection might exist, it was not from the regions which
accepted the treaty of Troyes, but from the dauphinists, that
serious trouble arose in his absence. Clarence was left in
command of the English troops and others of Henry's subjects
in the territories of Charles VI1, and Exeter was made military
governor of Paris, with charge of the king's person2. A few
days after Henry's departure, the dauphin was solemnly
summoned to the Marble Table. Of course he failed to appear.
He was consequently pronounced contumacious, sentenced to
banishment, and declared incapable of succeeding to the crown
or his personal estates3. The judgment was pronounced by the
royal Council and the Parlement, and even Chastellain admits
that it was just4, though by that epithet he perhaps means what
we should call "legal." Many of the Parisians were highly
pleased, for they feared the dauphin greatly5.

Queen Catherine left Paris on Dec. 27, after a piteous leave-
taking, especially from her father — at least so it was popularly
believed6. If Henry did not accompany her he probably
followed very shortly afterwards, for the two entered Rouen
together on Tuesday, Dec. 3 1 7. The duke of Burgundy, who
was anxious to visit his own lands, remained in Paris only a few
days longer, and on Jan. 10 left for Artois and Flanders8.

1 Brequigny, 253; Vita, 293.

2 Fauquembergue, ii. 9; Monstr. iv. 35; Vita, 293.

3 Godefroy, Charles VI, Annotations, 703; Plancher, iv. p. civ; Monstr. iv. 36;
Chast. i. 218 sq.; Fenin, 149; Tit. Liv. 91; Vita, 291. Attempts of modern writers to
prove that no such sentence was ever passed are due to a perverse patriotism and do
violence to the evidence. Even if the authenticity of the record quoted by Godefroy
be challenged, the curious treatise printed by Plancher would be decisive.

4 "Juste definitive sentence," i. 218.

5 Monstr. iv. 37; Chast. i. 219. 6 Bourgeois, 148.

7 Cochon, 285.

8 Plancher, iv. 26; cf. ibid. p. xii. The chroniclers give the impression that Burgundy
left Paris before Henry, but the documents cited by Plancher show that he must have
stayed there some days longer (Monstr. iv. 23; Chast. i. 204; Fenin, 150; Cordeliers,
291; Tit. Liv. 91). According to Monstrelet the duke travelled <vid Beauvais, where
he attended the celebrations occasioned by the entry into his see of the new bishop,
Pierre Cauchon. He then made his way to Ghent, stopping at Amiens, Doullens, and
Lille. He was at Arras on Jan. 16 (Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,043, no. 5582).

CHAPTER LXVII

NORMANDY, 1420-1422

Henry's stay in Normandy lasted nearly three weeks. It
was his first visit to the duchy since the treaty of Troyes had
made provision for its future. It is true that the treaty evaded
express approval of Henry's occupation of Normandy, and
while by implication it accepted his sovereignty over it, there
was a stipulation that on the death of Charles VI the duchy
should be re-united to the French crown, the English supre-
macy over it being thus limited to a term of incalculable
duration1. Nevertheless, Henry now knew that for the present
he was not to govern Normandy in the capacity of king of
France, or as sovereign lord of a great tract of French territory
definitively ceded to him. On the other hand, though he would
have been within his rights in treating it as part of his English
kingdom, he knew that he might not do so permanently. He
could thus overhaul the machinery of government with a clearer
idea of its future functions and burdens than he had hitherto
possessed.

It must not be forgotten that the French territory over which
Henry exercised sovereign power from May, 1420, to his
death, comprised more than Normandy proper. It was officially
described by various phrases — "Normandy and our conquest,"
"Our duchy of Normandy and other parts of France subject
to us," or words to like effect2. What was covered by such
descriptions seems nowhere to have been authoritatively de-
fined. Henry's right to sovereignty over regions outside

1 Henry's sovereignty over Normandy may be inferred from clauses 14—18 of the
treaty (Rym. ix. 799 sq.). It was stipulated in clause 18 that when Henry or his heir
became king of France, "ducatus Normanniae, necnon omnia et singula Loca per
ipsum in Regno Franciae conquisita, erunt sub Ditioni, Obedientia, et Monarchia
Coronae Franciae" (ibid. 900). Even after the treaty, Henry seems still to have based
his claim to Normandy on the right of divinely-aided conquest: "Come, par la grace
de Dieu, par nostre Conqueste, Nous soions Paisiblement en Possessions et vraies Saisines
du Duchie de Normendie et de nostre Conquest. . ." (24 Jan. 1421, ibid. x. 56).

2 See previous note. Cf. also "In Ducatu nostro Normanniae et aliis locis Con-
questus nostri" (ibid. 106); "La duchie de normendie Et ailleurs du pays conquiz"
(Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 1); "Normandie et autres pays de nostre conquest" (Brequigny,
160); "Conquestus de Ducatu nostro Normanniae et aliis partibus nobis subjectis"
(Rym. x. 142; cf. ibid. 103, 225); "Senescallum ducatus nostri Normannieet aiiarum
partium Francie nobis subjectarum" (Brequigny, 159).

236 Normandy, 1 420-1 422 [ch. lxvii

Normandy was even more vaguely dealt with in the treaty of
Troyes than his claim to the duchy itself1; later, indeed, Philip
the Good denied that it had ever been admitted at all2. Ap-
parently Henry demanded absolute control over everything
which he had won by the sword before the treaty was signed;
but it seems never to have been explained whether he meant
merely the territory of which the English were in effective
occupation on May 21, 1420, or whether, besides this, he
claimed areas which they had once overrun and afterwards lost.
Further, while it was laid down in the treaty that Henry's
subsequent conquests from the dauphinists should be restored
to the obedience of the crown of France3, the town of Dreux,
first captured by the English in August, 1 42 1 4, was placed under
the captaincy of Gilbert Halsall, bailli of Evreux, and treated
as part of Henry's "conquest5." Evidently the frontier of
"Normandy and the Conquest" was both uncertain and
variable. It is thus impossible to give more than a rough in-
dication of it.

It was in the direction of the French capital that English
jurisdiction had been carried farthest beyond the limits of
Normandy proper. The English bailli of Mantes exercised
authority over the viguerie of Mantes and the prevotes of
Meulan, Poissy, St Germain-en-Laye, and Montjoie, his sway
extending to places within a dozen miles of the heart of Paris6.
From St Germain the frontier of the bailliage ran west to the
Eure, which it struck not far south of Anet7. North of the
Seine, the bailli of Gisors had jurisdiction over Pontoise, Beau-
mont-sur-Oise, and Chaumont8. In other quarters, however,

1 Clause 14 might be taken as accepting Henry's claim to Normandy, but other
regions already conquered are not dealt with at all (Rym. ix. 899). Clause 17 admits
that there are parts of France outside Normandy where his rule is de facto established.
Clause 18 is too ambiguous to prove anything (ibid. 900).

2 La Barre, i. 342. 3 Clause 14, Rym. ix. 899.

4 See below, p. 327.

5 D.K.R. xlii. 432, 437; For. Accts. 61, C; Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,044, no- 5677.
Dreux was nevertheless still regarded as belonging to the bailliage of Chartres (Martene
and Durand, Anec. i. 1757 sq.). This is the more remarkable since in the middle of the
fourteenth century Dreux had belonged to the bailliage of Mantes (Prentout, ii. 30).

6 C. Beaurepaire, £tats, 8; D.K.R. xlii. 397, 431, 448; Exch. Accts. 188/7, if. 5 V0,
17. 7 D.K.R. xlii. 435.

8 Rym. x. 160 sq.; Brequigny, 184, 195; D.K.R. xlii. 397, 408. Nominally he
had authority over the bailliage of Senlis (Rot. Norm. 9 Hen. V, m. 17; D.K.R. xlii.
397, 408, 427) to which Chaumont properly belonged (Rot. Norm. 7 Hen. V, pt. 2,
m. 6 d). But the city of Senlis was never actually captured by the English, and was
always under a French bailli (Fauquembergue, ii. 27; cf. Flammermont, 229 sqq., 276).

1421] The " Conquest" 237

English power was not firmly established for any great distance
beyond the limits of the duchy. To the north of Gournay it
reached hardly, if at all, beyond the eastern frontier1. South of
Alencon, it is true, English arms had on various occasions
penetrated far into Maine, and at the beginning of 142 1
Henry's authority extended some way south of Beaumont-
le-Vicomte2. But the English possessions in Maine were
insecurely held, as events were soon to show.

Henry's main purpose in visiting Rouen was apparently to
meet the Three Estates of Normandy and the other conquered
territories, which of course had not been concerned in the
recent doings of the States-General at Paris. It is not known
how many representatives were summoned or attended, or how
those present had been chosen. The proceedings began towards
the middle of January and were very like those of the States-
General. Henry urged the members of each Estate to observe
the treaty of Troyes, pointed out the evils arising from the
badness of the currency, and asked for advice on this topic
and on the general welfare of the duchy. The Estates retired
to deliberate. According to Henry, it was on their advice that,
some days later, he ordained that all his subjects — especially
ecclesiastics receiving preferment and office-holders on ap-
pointment to their posts — should swear loyalty to the treaty.
He also announced a reform of the coinage, the necessary metal
for which, it was agreed, should be obtained by a levy of silver
from all save the very poor, at the rate of one mark for every
one hundred liv. tourn. of income, the government promising
to pay for every mark thus contributed seven livres of the
new money within a month of its manufacture. The Estates,
it seems, grumbled about the disturbed state of the country,
and this gave Henry a good opening for requesting a grant
of money. The clergy agreed to pay two tenths, and the
towns consented to a tattle sufficient to bring the total
grant to 400,000 liv. tourn. Nobles, those bearing arms, and
the destitute were to be exempt. The Estates admitted that the

1 An entry in the Calendar of Norman Rolls (D.K.R. xlii. 448) gives the impression
that in April, 1422, there were English garrisons in Picardy. The original text, however,
refers only to "garrisiones nostras in marchiis et versus marchias Picardie existentes"
(Rot. Norm. 10 Hen. V, m. 25 d). In April, 1422, land at Tully in Vimeu was included
in a grant made by Henry; but as other property concerned was undoubtedly beyond
the limits of Henry's conquests, it cannot be inferred that Tully was under English rule
(Brequigny, 199).

2 D.K.R. xlii. 387; Brequigny, 156.

238 Normandy, 1420-1422 [ch. lxvii

task of maintaining good government in Normandy and pro-
viding for its defence would require twice the amount voted,
but pleaded their poverty in justification of not offering more.
Henry at once made arrangements for collecting the money.
The clerical grant was to be paid in two instalments, at dates
to be announced later. The lay tax would be collected in three
instalments, 100,000 liv. tourn. being due before March 1.
The basis of the assessment was to be a charge of twenty sous
on each hearth, "the strong aiding the weak." William Aling-
ton, the treasurer-general, was charged to take the necessary
steps for carrying out these arrangements1.

At this assembly the earl of Salisbury did formal homage
for the county of Perche and Arthur of Richemont for the
county of Ivry2. There were also present in Rouen at this time
envoys from Charles lord of Albret and the lord of St BaZeille
and from the count of Foix3. The nature and outcome of their
business may be more conveniently considered elsewhere. To
Henry it must have seemed highly important; it certainly in-
volved careful consideration of intricate details; and it is
another instance of the king's untiring energy that he was
able to attend to these complicated negotiations at a moment
when he was not only confronting the Norman Estates but
also making a careful enquiry into the administration of his
territory.

The Norman Rolls abound with appointments of new officials
made during this visit of Henry's. Few positions of high rank
were affected, however, until near the end of his stay, when he
had heard the advice and complaints of the Estates and knew
what financial support they were prepared to give him. On
Jan. 14, John Keighley was appointed to the bailliage of
Rouen, vice Walter Beau champ4; and on the 18 th Richard
Walkstede was made bailli of Caux, John Burgh bailli of
Gisors, and William Tirwhit bailli of Mantes5. Their respective
predecessors were Roger Fiennes6, Richard Woodville7, and
Michel Guernier8. Fiennes and Guernier may perhaps have
been removed for misconduct; but Beauchamp and Woodville
were transferred to higher posts, the former becoming keeper

1 Brequigny, 160, 162, 163; Rym. x. 58, 85; Vita, 294; Wals. ii. 336.

2 Norm. Chron. (Hellot), 64. 3 Rym. x. 42 sqq.
* D.K.R. xlii. 388. 5 Ibid. 397.

6 Ibid. xli. 707, xlii. 374. 7 Ibid. xli. 806.

8 Ibid. xli. 769, 791; Brequigny, 130.

1421] Final Arrangements 239

of the wardrobe and treasurer of war1, the latter seneschal of
Normandy2. This office had been held by Hugh Lutterell, who
had been suffering from ill-health3. On the same day the duke
of Clarence was given authority to call up not only all English
subjects in France but also all inhabitants of the parts conquered
by Henry and to employ them in military operations anywhere
in Charles VI's or Henry's territories. In the commission be-
stowing these powers no title is given to Clarence; he was not,
in fact, appointed to an office, but simply invested with the
military authority of the king of England during the latter's
absence4. Over the French in the territory where Henry was
merely regent he still had no control whatever5.

None of these appointments, with the doubtful exception of
Woodville's6, changed the system of government already
established. Henry had decided — wisely, it would seem — to
govern his conquered territory as a separate state, to try to
make it pay for itself, and to make use of the existing political
institutions. The arrangements which he sanctioned during his
visit remained unaltered for the rest of his life, and may thus
be conveniently surveyed at this point.

No attempt was made to introduce English institutions into
the regions under Henry's sovereignty. The system of local
government remained essentially as it had been before the

1 Iss. Roll 8 Hen. V, Mich., Feb. 17, 1421, 9 Hen. V, Pasch., July 17, 1421, Mich.,
Oct. 20, 1421; For. Accts. 69, I.

2 Brequigny, 159 sq. The date of his appointment was Jan. 18, not 8 as in Newhall,
246.

3 Brequigny, 103; Rot. Norm. 8 Hen. V, p. 1, m. 28 d; D.K.R. xlii. 379;
Orig. Lett., Ser. II, i. 85 sq. From the summary of a document of Jan. 16, 1421
(D.K.R. xlii. 401), it would appear that on that date John Tiptoft was seneschal of
Normandy. "Normandy," however, is evidently a slip for "Aquitaine," of which
Tiptoft really was seneschal and where he was at the time (For. Accts. 56, F v°; Rym. ix.
914, 915; Jurade, 438, 443, 455, 467, 505, 507; Chanc. Warr., Ser. I, File 667/933,
938; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, pp. 278, 319, 320, 324).

* Rym. x. 49 sq. Clarence's position perplexed the chroniclers. The author of the
Vita says that Henry appointed Clarence his lieutenant in the realm of France and else-
where (292), an almost accurate description, for the title locumtenens, used in relation to
the king, generally had a military significance (cf. below, pp. 245 sq.). Livius makes him
"regent" of Normandy (91), and thus ascribes to him civil authority, for which there
is no good evidence. In Brut, ii. 225, he is lieutenant of Normandy and the rest of the
conquered territory, in Monstr. iv. 24, captain-general of Normandy — both de-
scriptions understating his real powers.

6 This is evident from the terms of the commission, and also from the document
giving the duke of Exeter authority over all Henry's subjects from overseas within the
territory of Charles VI when Clarence was absent (Brequigny, 253).

6 The authority bestowed on Woodville (Brequigny, 159 sq.) was much wider than
that granted to Lutterell in a writ of April 17, 1420 (Rot. Norm. 8 Hen. V, p. i,m. 28 d).
If Lutterell possessed further powers, the record of them seems to have been lost.

240 Normandy, 1 420-1 422 [ch. lxvii

English invasion. There were eight bailliages — Cotentin, Caen,
Alencon, Evreux, Rouen, Caux, Gisors, and Mantes1. After
Jan. 18, 142 1, all the baillis were Englishmen2. But the civil
officers of lower rank, including the lieutenants of the baillis3,
were almost all French. Of the vicomtes or prevote's, upwards of
thirty in number4, into which the bailliages were divided, none,
to judge from the names in the records, was administered by
an Englishman. And scarcely an English name appears in the
numerous extant documents appointing receivers, sergeants,
guernetiers, procureurs, money-changers, officers of the mints,
surveyors of weights and measures, keepers of seals, to mention
no others5. Few Normans, it is evident, would ever encounter
an English civil official.

On the other hand, the military administration remained
almost, if not quite, exclusively in English hands. It may be
estimated that at the beginning of 1421 the troops serving in
royal castles or the bodyguards of royal officials in the con-
quered territory numbered altogether about 4700 men. On
or near the route connecting Cherbourg, Caen, and Evreux,
there were approximately 950. On the southern frontier,
between Avranches and Verneuil, there might be 1600. The
protection of the Seine valley absorbed 1100; the eastern
boundary, from Pontoise to Eu, 950 or thereabouts6. In

1 Exch. Accts. 188/7; For. Accts. 61, Fv°; D.K.R. xlii., passim. Dieppe, which
belonged to the archbishop of Rouen and enjoyed valuable privileges and immunities,
had a so-called bailli -of its own, who was evidently exempt from the authority of the
bailli of Caux and dealt directly with the central government of the duchy (Rot. Norm.
7 Hen. V, p. 1, m. 77 d, 65; Exch. Accts. 188/7, ff. 2 v°, 13; Brequigny, 145, 168 sq.,
184; D.K.R. xlii. 325, 356, 428, 433; Rym. x. 153, 195, 242). The so-called bailli of
Eu was appointed as the king's agent in the comte of Eu while its lord, Henry Bourchier,
was under age (Rym. x. 195 sq.; Brequigny, 195; D.K.R. xlii. 423; G.E.C. i. 393;
Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,044, no. 561 1; Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical
Journal, ix. 401 sq., 410). He, however, was expressly subordinated to the bailli of
Caux (Rot. Norm. 9 Hen. V, m. 7).

2 D.K.R. xli. 744, xlii. 354, 388, 397, 407; For. Accts. 61, C.

3 Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 30 sq.; Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,044, nos. 5638, 5640, 5643,

5646-

4 The names and boundaries of the vicomtes and prevotes seem to have varied some-
what in the last years of Henry's rule (cf. a mandate of Aug. 10, 142 1, in D.K.R.
xlii. 432, and Alington's fourth account, Exch. Accts. 188/7).

5 D.K.R. xlii., passim.

6 The retinues of the seneschal and the treasurer-general (see below, p. 243) must
often have been on the move from one part of the duchy to another. A number
of royal garrisons might be reinforced, when need arose, by the men of lords and
soldiers on whom Henry had bestowed Norman lands. Thus, when the government
gave the word, sixty landowners, at their own expense, had to rally with all their
tenants and dependants to the defence of Rouen, sixty to that of Caen, and forty-three
to that of Cherbourg.

1420-2] Defence 241

addition, there were the garrisons of about sixty enfeoffed
castles. As a rule it was for the tenant to decide how large a
garrison to maintain; but, though most of these enfeoffed
castles were small, few of them could have safely been left
without a guard of at least ten men. It is known, furthermore,
that recipients of Norman land from Henry were bound to
furnish, at their own expense, mounted contingents totalling
some 1400 men, who might be used anywhere and at any time.
It seems safe to estimate, therefore, that, besides those paid by
the king, there were in Normandy 2000 soldiers, nearly all of
whom must have been English1. The old feudal levy, though
Henry asserted the right to employ it, was but little used2, and
it seems impossible to calculate the numbers it could yield.

The captains of the garrisons, royal or other, were almost all
English. So were their lieutenants, an important consideration,
for it often happened that a garrison captain was summoned to
serve with the field army without being required to relinquish
his command, and in that case the lieutenant became responsible
for the defence of the town or castle concerned3.

1 The conclusions just put forward are based on a number of authorities, the most
important of which are the Norman Rolls, passim; For. Accts. 56, E v°, 59, K, 61,
Bv°sqq.; Exch. Accts. 187/14, 188/7; and Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 25,766, 26,043,
26,044, nouv. acq. 1482. It will be noticed that my calculations differ somewhat from
those of Professor Newhall (op. cit. 216 sqq.). Having carefully studied his figures,
both in his book and also in App. VIII of his typewritten thesis in the library of
Harvard University (HU 90 . 12 15), I think that he has exaggerated the punctuality
and regularity with which wages of garrisons were paid by the Norman Treasury, and
has thus underestimated the numbers for which the disbursements on record were meant
to provide. A more serious source of error is his pardonable omission to examine the
original Norman Rolls; he has consequently left out of account most of the 1400 men
due from the recipients of Norman lands, whose obligation to furnish troops is never
indicated in the Calendar of Norman Rolls and rarely by Brequigny, even when he
prints parts of documents in which it appears. For the most part, of course, my
authorities are the same as Professor Newhall's, though I have followed a different
method in reaching my results.

2 It was called up in the bailliage of Caen on March 16, 141 8 (Newhall, 210, citing
Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,042/5259), throughout the conquered territory in February
and probably in April, 1419 (Newhall, 210, citing Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,042/5365;
Rot. Norm. 7 Hen. V, p. 1, m. 65 d), in the Cotentin in June, 1419 (Brequigny, 100),
throughout the conquered territory in August and November, 142 1 (Rot. Norm.
9 Hen. V, m. 26 d; Brequigny, 188) and perhaps in May, 1421, and January and April,
1422 (Rot. Norm. 9 Hen. V, mm. 12 d, 36 d; Rym. x. 201 sq.). The writs do not
always make it clear to the modern reader whether the whole feudal host was concerned
or only a part.

3 D.K.R. xli., xlii., passim; Exch. Accts. 50/10, n, 12, 15; For. Accts. 61, B v°sqq.,
69, G, G v°. With the possible exception of John Guernier (For. Accts. 61, Cv°;
Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 23), alias Gerner (D.K.R. xli. 751), captain of Tancarville in
1422, all the captains of royal garrisons seem to have been English, but one or two
Frenchmen, notably Guy le Bouteiller, were feudal tenants of casdes (D.K.R. xli. 797,

win 16

242 Normandy, 1420- 1422 [ch. lxvii

About the central government of Henry's conquests in-
formation is scanty, and insufficient to supply answers to many
questions that suggest themselves. The whole area was at least
nominally under civil rule, and the military, though their
services were in frequent demand, were supposed to obey the
civil authorities1. The chief administrative official was the
chancellor, John Kemp, bishop of Rochester, who, before
Henry's death, was translated successively to Chichester and
London2. The Norman Chancery was established at Rouen3.
Kemp was assisted by a clerk, John Stopyndon, who had charge
of the Norman Rolls4, and there was a keeper of the hanaper of
the Norman Chancery5, but contemporary records throw no
further light on the personnel of its staff. The chancellor was
of course responsible for the great seal of Normandy6; but he
is seldom mentioned in contemporary records, and it is im-
possible to estimate how much influence he actually exerted on
the course of administration.

In organising the central government of his French posses-
sions, Henry could not make much use of existing institutions.
He did not, however, look to England for inspiration. If he
consciously imitated anything at all, which is not certain, it
was the administration of Normandy in the days of the
Plantagenets. Under Henry II, the most powerful official in
Normandy had been the seneschal7. His office was suppressed

800). The lieutenants were presumably chosen by their respective captains, for their
appointments do not appear in the Norman Rolls. We consequently do not possess a
complete list of them. It is a further disadvantage that the arbitrary orthography of
the Norman Chancery and Treasury sometimes leaves one in doubt as to the nationality
of a man named in their records. It seems likely, however, that the following were
French: John Jaquemyn, lieutenant of Gisors in May and September, 142 1 (D.K.R.
xlii. 425, 433; cf. xli. 772, xlii. 427), and Thomas Gargante, lieutenant of Chateau
Gaillard in May, 1422 (Exch. Accts. 188/7, f- 17 v°). Peter "de Lye," lieutenant of
Arques in April, 1421 (D.K.R. xlii. 428), whom I surmised to have been a Frenchman
in my paper, "The Administration of Normandy, 1420-22" (Essays in Medieval
History presented to Thomas Frederick Tout, 352, n. 5), proves on further investigation
to have been Peter de Legh, an Englishman (Exch. Accts. 50/10, 15; Stowe MS. 440,
f. 48; For. Accts. 69, G v°; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, pp. 168, 249).

1 Rym. x. 107.

2 Ibid. 142, 151; For. Accts. 61, Cv°; Cal. Pap. Letters, vii. 161, 191; Le Neve,
i. 245.

3 Rym. x. 155; For. Accts. 69, F. Apart from specific allusions the attesting clause
of thousands of letters in the Norman Rolls is enough to establish the fact.

4 D.K.R. xlii. 437; For. Accts. 69, F.

5 Rym. ix. 686. In December, 142 1, and in 1422 this office also was held by Stopyn-
don (Rot. Norm. 9 Hen. V, m. 14 d).

6 Rot. Norm. 6 Hen. V, p. 1, m. 35 d; Rym. x. 195, 216 sq.; Rot. Pari. iv. 171
For. Accts. 69, F; Claus. 1 Hen. VI, m. 19 d. 7 Powicke, 70 sq.

1420-2] Civil Administration 243

after the duchy had been seized by the French crown1. But
even before the conquest of Normandy was complete Henry
revived it, at least in name2. What authority was attached to
it at first we do not know; but after January, 142 1, at all events,
its importance was great; for Woodville's commission con-
ferred on him the supervision of all officers, civil and military,
in the parts subject to Henry. He was empowered to hold
musters of garrisons whenever he saw fit, reporting thereon to
the treasurer-general; to enquire into the adequacy of the food
and munitions in fortified places; to investigate abuses of power
by captains, punishing them himself unless they were serious,
when he was to refer them to the Council. The seneschal, who
might not delegate his functions, was to have a retinue of
twenty men-at-arms and sixty mounted archers, and was to
receive the substantial remuneration of 13J. \d. a day3. Until
November, 1421, Woodville was also captain of Gisors and
Chaumont, and he apparently took an active part in the open
warfare of the year, even as far afield as Maine4.

The seneschal, though a great man, did not enjoy that pre-
eminence which had distinguished his office in the twelfth
century. In particular, he was excluded from all concern with
finance. The Norman Treasury remained at Caen5, despite the
establishment of the Chancery at Rouen. The posts of treasurer-
general and receiver-general continued for some time to be held
by William Alington6. Alington had four livres tournois a day,
with a bonus of £100 sterling a year, and was provided with
an escort of eight mounted men-at-arms and twenty-four
mounted archers7. He was responsible for the collection and
receipt of most of the revenue of Henry's conquests8. He also

1 Viollet, Institutions, iii. 258.

2 At any rate before July 14, 1419 (Brequigny, 33). The document, though in the
roll for 6 Hen. V, belongs to the following year, as the text itself shows (Rot. Norm.
6 Hen. V, p. 2, m. 1). Unfortunately the MS. is much damaged, and while a mention
of the seneschal of Normandy is legible, his name has disappeared. We only know that
in the following April the office was held by Hugh Lutterell (Rot. Norm. 8 Hen. V,
p. r, m. 28 d).

3 Brequigny, 159 sq.; For. Accts. 59, K. Woodville's pay seems afterwards to have
been reduced to 10/. a day (For. Accts. 61, B v°).

4 For. Accts. 59, K; Brequigny, 177.

5 Rym. x. 40, 203; Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 25 v°.

6 For. Accts. 61, B v°; Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 1. Alington's appointment, originally
dating from May 1, 14 19 (Brequigny, 86; Rot. Norm. 7 Hen. V, p. 1, m. 77 d; Exch.
Accts. 187/14), had been renewed on Nov. 13, 1420 (Brequigny, 151).

7 Exch. Accts. 188/7, ff. 23 v°, 25 v°; For. Accts. 61, C v°.

8 Exch. Accts. 188/7; For. Accts. 61, B v°sqq.; Brequigny, 160; D.K.R. xlii. 429.

16-2

244 Normandy, 1 420-1 422 [ch. lxvii

paid out money in accordance with royal writs, mostly under
the privy seal, but it is evident that he was allowed some
discretion in the disposal of the sums due from vicomtes and
other collectors of revenue, much of which was applied to the
needs of the locality where it was raised, without being
sent to Caen at all1. A few items of Norman revenue escaped
Alington's cognisance, and were paid direct to Henry's
treasurer of war2; they were not, however, of great signifi-
cance. Alington was assisted by several tellers and a number
of clerks, and by the summer of 1422 he had been relieved
of the office of receiver-general, which was held by one John
Dalton3.

The Treasury was subject to the control of the chambre des
comptes, also located at Caen4, the distinction between the two
corresponding roughly to that between the Exchequer of
Receipt and the Exchequer of Account in England. There was
a permanent president of the chambre des comptes^, and it is
noteworthy that this office had long been filled by a Norman
knight, Louis Burgeys, who, after being taken prisoner at the
capture of Caen, had soon given his allegiance to Henry6.
Alington's accounts for 142 1 and 1422 mention Raoul le Sage,
a knight with lands in Normandy and Picardy7, and Roger

1 Exch. Accts. 188/7, passim; Brequigny, 184; Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,044, nos.

5677-9> 5735-

2 For. Accts. 69, F, F v°.

3 Exch. Accts. 188/7, ff. 24 V0, 25, 27 v°, 28 v°, 32.

4 Rym. x. 40; Exch. Accts. 187/14, 188/7, f. 10 v°; Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,044,
nos. 5639, 5649.

5 Rym. x. 32, 39. The office had existed as far back as Nov. 18, 1418 (Rot. Norm.
6 Hen. V, p. 1, m. 7 d).

6 Brequigny, 193; Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 28; For. Accts. 61, C v°. He received his
salary in full for the fiscal year beginning May 1, 1419 (Exch. Accts. 187/14), though
he was not yet appointed to the presidency on May 3 (Brit. Mus. Add. Ch. 11,452).
For the relations of Burgeys to Henry in the early days of the invasion, see Rot. Norm.
(Hardy), 195, 375; D.K.R. xli. 760. In 1421-22 his salary was zool.t. a year.

7 For. Accts. 61, C v°. Cf. Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 198, 242; D.K.R. xlii. 378, 381;
Brequigny, 179, 180. Le Sage was hereditary marshal of Ponthieu and lord of St
Pierre-Eglise (dep. Manche, arr. Cherbourg) and Laviers-le-Grand (dep. Somme, arr.
Abbeville). — Luce, Chron. de Mont-St-Michel, i. 282 n., 314 n. 2; Demay, Inventaire,
ii., no. 8141. In 1409 he was maitre des requites de I hotel to Charles VI (Luce, op.
cit. i. 282 n.). For some years prior to June, 1420, if not later, he was a councillor of
the duke of Brittany (Blanchard, nos. 1321, 1348, 1364, 1401, 1403, 2663), and he
had been engaged on the Breton side in the negotiations with Henry for the release
of Arthur of Richemont (Rym. x. 2, 4 sq., 8 sqq.). He did not belong to the chambre
des comptes until after May 1, 1420; indeed, he seems not to have made his peace with
Henry till the summer of that year (D.K.R. xlii. 378). He received a "fee" of lool.t.
a year and a "reward" of 300 (For. Accts. 61, C v°).

1420-2] Norman Finance 245

Waltham1, described as seigneurs de la chambre des comptes^ Yves
de Bordenast and Benedict Couteiller, called gentes de camera
in 142 1— 14222, and John Brinkeley, auditor of accounts3. To
this body Alington had to account from time to time4. It
evidently had a good conceit of itself, and on at least one
occasion refused to accept a royal writ, presumably issued by
the Chancery at Rouen5. After Henry's death, however, it was
abolished, and the fiscal officers of Normandy once more came
under the supervision of the chambre des comptes of Paris.

The most dignified military officer in the conquered lands
was the king's lieutenant, Thomas Montagu, earl of Salis-
bury, whose authority, at first limited to regions south of
the Seine, was extended over the whole area in November,
14206. His powers are not very clearly indicated in the docu-
ments appointing him to his office; but it was his duty to defend
Henry's territory against invasion, and he was apparently per-
mitted to make counter-attacks on enemy country7. As
lieutenant he seems to have had at his command a mobile force
of some strength8. He was, too, captain of five castles near the

1 Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 24 V0. When first appointed, on April 7, 1419, Waltham
was styled magister of the camera compotorum (Rot. Norm. 7 Hen. V, m. 55). In
1422 he had the same remuneration as Raoul le Sage (Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 24 V0).

2 For. Accts. 61, C v°. Yves de Bordenast is no doubt identical with the Ivo "de
Boiz de Vaast," who was consiliarius in the camera compotorum as early as March 1 1,
1418 (Rot. Norm., Hardy, 279). He and Couteiller each had 50/. t. a year. Cf. D.K.R.
xlii. 336. When first appointed, on Jan. 19, 1420, Couteiller was, like Waltham, styled
magister of the camera (Rot. Norm. 7 Hen. V, p. 2, m. 45). Couteiller was a Norman
(D.K.R. xli. 738).

3 For. Accts. 61, C v°; Exch. Accts. 188/7, f- 24 V0. He had an annual "reward"
of xool.t. Cf. D.K.R. xli. 765. Brinkeley was appointed on April 12, 1419 (Exch.
Accts. 187/14).

4 In Alington's commissions of May 1, 1419, and Jan. 24, 1420, it is laid down that
as treasurer-general he is to account every year to the English Exchequer (Brequigny,
86, 121). In each of the years 1420, 1421, and 1422, however, he received a special
mandate to present his accounts to the chambre des comptes (Rot. Norm. 8 Hen. V, p. r,
m. 15 d, 9 Hen. V, m. 4d; Brequigny, 253; Exch. Accts. 187/14, 188/7, f. 1). His
responsibility to the English Exchequer was nevertheless maintained, and to it his last
account was presented (For. Accts. 61, B v°).

5 Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,044, no. 561 1. It was alleged by the chambre des comptes
that what the writ ordered was counter to Norman custom.

6 Rym. ix. 739 sq., x. 29; Brequigny, 39, 177. He was often styled lieutenant of
Normandy, even in official records, before his powers were extended over the whole
duchy (cf. e.g. Rym. ix. 698; Brequigny, 33, 57).

7 Rym. x. 131.

8 "Ses gens darmes et archiers de ses Retenues Si bien de luy en son dit office existant
comme sur la sauvegarde desdites chasteaux et villes," Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 22. The
large amounts which he received from the Norman Treasury indicate that he must have
had to pay many men besides those of the garrisons under his command (ibid.; cf. For
Accts. 61, B v°).

246 Normandy, 1420- 1422 [ch. lxvii

southern frontier1. But neither the men of other garrisons nor
the contingents due from feudal lords were under his orders,
and if he wanted to draw upon them, he had to secure the
intervention of the civil authority2. His title of "lieutenant,"
indeed, is somewhat misleading, for Salisbury, even in strictly
military affairs, was a great deal less than the locum tenens of the
king. In fact, his authority over the English troops in Nor-
mandy and the annexed regions was ordinarily not so great as
that of the seneschal.

Of the admiral of Normandy, the earl of Suffolk, there is
little to say. He was invested with all the powers which the
admiral of France had possessed within the duchy3, though the
government was not quite sure what they were, and in January,
1 42 1, had to commission Alington to enquire4. He was re-
sponsible for the safeguard of the coast5, but apparently per-
formed his nautical functions by deputy, for he was also captain
of the very important and exposed garrisons of Avranches and
Pontorson6, and in September, 1421, became in addition
governor of the marches of Lower Normandy7. As we shall
see, he discharged his military duties in person and was also
prominent in diplomatic work.

All officials alike were subject to Henry's Council at Rouen,
sometimes called the Grant Consei/8. In the king's absence it
directed the administration and defence of his French territory.
The chancellor was its president9; the seneschal and the lieu-
tenant doubtless belonged to it, though their attendance must
have been irregular; the treasurer-general, however, seems not
to have been a member10; and the only councillors whose names
appear in the records of the last two years of the reign are

1 Alencon, Essay, Exmes, Bonsmoulins, and Verneuil (Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 22;
For. Accts. 61, B v°). The total strength of the garrisons was 432 men (Brit. Mus. Add.
Ch. in; Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 25,766, no. 797).

2 Rym. x. 99, 201 sq.; Brequigny, 177, 188; D.K.R. xlii. 457.

3 Rym. ix. 753. On the admiral of France, see Viollet, Institutions, ii. 444 sqq.

4 Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,044, no. 5594.

5 D.K.R. xlii. 323, 407.

6 He was appointed to Pontorson on June 12, 1419 (D.K.R. xli. 788) and to Av-
ranches on Aug. 27, 1419 (ibid. 794).

7 For. Accts. 61, B v°; D.K.R. xlii. 434.

8 Rym. x. 82, 142, 157; Brequigny, 175, 179, 184; Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 26; Bibl.
nat., MS. franc. 26,044, no. 5740.

9 Rym. x. 142; Exch. Accts. 50/9.

10 "Cancellario et Consiliariis nostri Magni Concilii et Scaccarii in Ducatu
Normanniae, ac etiam gentibus compotorum nostrorum et Thesaurario " (Rym.
x. 142).

1420-2] The Echiquier 247

Raoul le Sage1, already noticed as a member of the chambre des
comptes, and Master (or Doctor) Thomas Brons2. The coun-
cillors permanently retained in Henry's service were apparently
few, but, if occasion required, they might of course be re-
inforced by any of his subjects whom he chose to summon.

A matter of some mystery is the fate of the Norman
Echiquier, an institution highly prized by the Normans as
the most notable survival of the organs of ducal government.
Though maintained by Philip Augustus and his successors,
the Echiquier had in course of time changed greatly in both
character and functions. Originally the curia ducis, with a close
resemblance to the contemporary curia regis of England, it had
become a court of the king of France, subordinate, first to the
Parlement of Paris, and afterwards partly to that body and
partly to the king's chambre des comptes. For by the end of the
fourteenth century, if not earlier, it was divided into two
branches — the Echiquier des causes or Echiquier ordinaire, the
functions of which were primarily judicial, and the Echiquier
des comptes. Both were held twice a year, the former by delegates
of the Parlement of Paris, the latter by members of the royal
chambre des comptes, who received and audited the accounts of
the fiscal officials of Normandy3. Now for the years 141 7— 1422
records of the Norman Echiquier are wholly lacking, and it has
been inferred that in the days of Henry V it ceased to exist,
though the Echiquier ordinaire was revived by the duke of
Bedford in the first year of his regency4.

This view seemed to be confirmed when the Calendar of the
Norman Rolls from 141 8 to 1422 was published. There the
word Exchequer is of frequent occurrence, and, except when
the English Exchequer is meant, it plainly refers to the
financial authority set up by Henry at Caen. Now if this
institution, a very different thing from either branch of the
Echiquier normand, was officially termed Exchequer, one would
naturally suppose that the Echiquier normand had ceased to
exist. The truth is, however, that in the Calendar the word

1 For. Accts. 61, Bv°; Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 26; Brequigny, 179, 180. He had a
retaining fee of 1000/. t. a year. He was apparently made a councillor during Henry's
visit to Normandy in January, 1421 (Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 26).

2 For. Accts. 61, C v°. He received 6s. Sd. a day for his services as councillor. Cf.
p. 201.

3 On the twelfth-century Echiquier, see Powicke, 67, 85, and on the Echiquier in the
later Middle Ages, see Floquet, Parlement de Normandie, i.; Viollet, Institutions, iii.
344 sq., 379 sq. 4 Floquet, i. 220 sq.

248 Normandy, 1420- 1422 [ch. lxvii

Exchequer, when applied to a Norman institution, is always
a deplorable translation of camera compotorum or its French
equivalent1. In the Norman Roll of 5 Henry V, there is indeed
one passage where the word scaccarium is used with apparent
reference to a financial institution2. But the document belongs
to a date very early in the English conquest; the word is never
used again in a parallel context3 ; a few weeks previously it had
figured in a most important commission with quite a different
meaning4; and in all probability its use with reference to a
fiscal organ was due to the inadvertence of an English clerk,
familiar with the significance of scaccarium in England.

The financial authority at Caen, then, was officially called
the camera compotorum or chambre des comptes, not the scaccarium
or Echiquier. But there still was something in Normandy called
the scaccarium, though allusions to it are rare. On Nov. 1,
141 7, John Tiptoft was appointed president of the Norman
scaccarium and other judicial tribunals in the duchy, and
also treasurer-general in the same duchy and other places
subject to Henry5. Now here the scaccarium is a judicial insti-
tution, and it appears that the functions of its president are
specifically distinct from those of the treasurer-general. Four
months later, on Feb. 27, 141 8, the scaccarium appears in the
documents granting Clarence jurisdiction and lands in four
vicomte's of Lower Normandy: its functions are again regarded
as judicial6. It figures, also as a judicial institution, in the grant
of privileges to Dieppe, dated Jan. 1, 1420, and the consequent
mandate of the following July 247. And on July 14, 1421, a

1 This is the case in D.K.R. xli. 683, 688, 689, 715, 716, 719, 721, 748, 792, xlii. 319,
320, 323, 336, 355, 372, 381, 392, 393, 437, 439, 448. In Alington'js account for
1419-20, "les chequiers" in England is expressly contrasted with the "chambre des
comptes" in Normandy (Exch. Accts. 187/14. Cf. also Rot. Norm. 8 Hen. V, p. 1,
m. 15 d, 9 Hen. V, m. 4 d; Brequigny, 253).

2 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 220. Grant of the wardship of certain lands at an annual
rent of four livres tournois to be paid "ad scaccarium nostrum Cadomi." The date is
Dec. 22, 1417.

3 Cf. e.g. Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 260; Rym. ix. 623.

4 See the following paragraph.

5 "Sciatis quod nos de probitate. . .Johannis Tiptoft plenam fiduciam optinentes
constituimus ordinavimus et prefecimus ipsum presidentem nostrum tarn in scaccario
nostro Normannie quam aliis pro tribunalibus sedibus judicialibus quibuscumque et
ubicumque infra ducatum nostrum predictum necnon thesaurarium nostrum generalem
infra eundem ducatum et aliis locis ditioni nostre subjectis" (Rot. Norm., Hardy,
205). Professor Newhall has involved himself in some perplexity and confusion (p. 168,
n. 112, p. 169, n. 118) by his failure to notice that Tiptoft was appointed treasurer-
general as well as president of the scaccarium.

6 Rot. Norm. (Hardy), 259, 318. 7 Rym. ix. 832; Brequigny, 145.

1420-2] The Echiquier 249

writ was addressed to the chancellor and counsellors of the
great council and scaccarium in the duchy of Normandy and
likewise the gentes compotorum and treasurer1. In this case
again there is an express distinction drawn between the
scaccarium and the financial authorities. Here, however, it is
closely associated with the Council; indeed, it is implied that
the personnel of the two is the same. Now the Council directed
the administration, and issued ordinances in the king's name.
What functions were left for the scaccarium save judicial ones ?
In this relation, furthermore, it is worth noting that on June 8,
1422, Jacques de Calez was appointed king's counsel in "notre
court souveraine" at Rouen2; for the "sovereignty" of their
Echiquier, earnestly asserted by the Normans in 1 3 1 5, had been
conceded in their famous charter3; and a manuscript of 1480
mentions "la court souveraine de l'Eschiquier de Normandie4."
Slight though the evidence is, it warrants, I think, the con-
clusion that the scaccarium of the records just cited was the old
Echiquier des causes, now conducted by Henry's councillors and
presumably presided over by the chancellor. Henry, of course,
could not continue the practice of having its proceedings con-
ducted by delegates of the Parlement of Paris, and, for that
matter, the subordination of the Echiquier to the Parlement,
though well established at the beginning of the fifteenth
century, was contrary to the Norman charter of 1 3 1 5. That the
business of the Echiquier was conducted by the king's Council
might have been commended to the Normans as an approxima-
tion to the state of affairs under the dukes of the twelfth
century; but there is no reason to suppose that Henry ever
thought of it in that light. As for the Echiquier des comptes,
its functions were exercised by the camera compotorum and the
Treasury5; here no attempt was made to preserve the institution
existing at the time of Henry's invasion ; but the Echiquier des
comptes was a comparatively new organ of administration6, and
it cannot be supposed that its suspension caused any widespread
discontent. It is significant that the conciliatory Bedford, while
he bestowed on the Echiquier des causes an independence which

1 "Cancellario et Consiliariis nostri Magni Concilii et Scaccarii in Ducatu Norman-
niae, ac etiam gentibus compotorum nostrorum et Thesaurario . . .'* (Rym. x. 142).

2 D.K.R. xlii. 449. 3 Viollet, Institutions, ii. 246, iii. 345; Floquet, i. 96 sqq.
4 Viollet, op. cit. iii. 345, n. 2.

6 Exch. Accts. 188/7; For. Accts. 61, B v°sqq.
6 Viollet, op. cit. iii. 379.

250 Normandy, 1 420-1422 [ch. lxvii

it had not enjoyed since the thirteenth century, made no attempt
to revive the Echiquier des comptes1.

What part Henry meant to allot to the Estates of the
conquered territory it is impossible to say for certain. He
summoned them only once; but it would have been idle to call

1 Floquet, i. 225, 239. Under Bedford the Echiquier des causes was held by com-
missioners of the king, not by delegates of the Parlement of Paris.

The early growth of the organisation described above is very obscure, owing partly
to lack of evidence and partly to the ambiguity of the word Exchequer. Dr Wylie
gave little attention to the subject; Professor Newhall's account is impaired by his
failure to notice several relevant documents — a failure due, it seems, to that disregard
of Rymer which is too common among modern historians; and M. Roger Doucet's
article, "Les Finances Anglaises en France a la Fin de la Guerre de Cent Ans" (Le
Moyen Age, ser. II, xxvii. 265 sqq.), adds nothing of consequence to Professor Newhall's
researches on Henry Vs finances, and is marred by much inaccuracy. What happened
cannot, I fear, be precisely ascertained; but it may be useful to bring together the
salient facts on record, even though most of them have already been mentioned. Perhaps
such a summary will suggest to others conclusions which I have been unable to deduce.

On Nov. 1, 141 7, John Tiptoft was appointed president of the scaccarium and other
judicial tribunals of Normandy and also treasurer-general of the duchy (Rot. Norm.,
Hardy, 205). On March n, 1418, there is the first extant reference to the camera com-
potorum (Rot. Norm., Hardy, 279), which is frequently mentioned in the following
months (Rymer, passim). On April 8 came the appointment of Philip Morgan as
chancellor (ibid. ix. 571). John Golafre became receiver-general on May 20 (D.K.R.
xli. 710; cf. Mirot, Dom Bevy, 357, though the eighteenth-century inventory there
cited was evidently drawn up carelessly), and under the same date Tiptoft is styled
"president and treasurer" of Normandy (Rym. ix. 588. It is to be noticed that he is
not called "president of the Exchequer"). On Nov. 18, 1418, comes the first express
mention that I have found of the president of the chambre des comptes (Rot. Norm.
6 Hen. V, p. 1, m. 7 d — writ to "presidentiet gentibus de camera nostra compotorum").
Though in the next few months more than one document is addressed to the same
official, his name is never given (ibid. m. 3 d, p. 2, mm. 38 d, 46 d). That he was John
Tiptoft, who was still sometimes called "president of Normandy," is, however, shown
by a record of the following May (Brit. Mus. Add. Ch. 11,452; cf. Exch. Accts.
187/14). On the 3rd of that month Tiptoft, though "president of Normandy,"
is no longer styled treasurer, William Alington having been made treasurer-general and
receiver of Normandy on May 1 (Brequigny, 86; Rot. Norm. 7 Hen. V, p. 1, m. 77 d).
Tiptoft, moreover, must soon afterwards have been succeeded by Burgeys in the office
of president (Exch. Accts. 187/14). Golafre, hitherto receiver-general, evidently made
trouble (Rot. Norm. 7 Hen. V, p. 1, m. 77 d ; cf. Mirot, loc. cit.), but on June 2 1 handed
over the money in his possession (Exch. Accts. 187/14). By July 14 there was a seneschal
of Normandy (see above, p. 243) and with the gradual extension of the lieutenant's
authority over the whole duchy (seeabove,p. 245), the framework described above became
complete. It should not be overlooked, however, that though Alington united in his
person the offices of treasurer- and receiver-general for a long time, there was in 1422 a
separate receiver-general, who seems, however, to have been only a subordinate official
(Exch. Accts. 188/7, ff. 25 v°, 27 v°).

It may be conjectured that at first, whatever titles Tiptoft might bear, there was little
differentiation in practice between departments of government. Then, just as in twelfth-
century England, it became necessary to create a body that specialised in finance —
hence the chambre des comptes. A little later a chancellor was appointed, and it seems
probable that he took charge of general administration and justice, while Tiptoft, who
remained treasurer, was now president, not of the scaccarium, but of the chambre des
comptes. When, on the fall of Rouen, Upper Normandy came under Henry's rule, the
task of the central authorities became far greater. The seneschal was appointed to lighten
some of the burdens of the chancellor, while the functions of the president of the chambre
des comptes and of the treasurer-general were placed in separate hands.

1420-2] Henry's Circumspection 251

them together either before or after the occasion on which they
actually met, and it is to be remarked that Henry did assemble
them at the first opportunity after the treaty of Troyes. The
business transacted on this occasion was, as we have seen, of
the highest moment, and the Estates seem to have been
courteously and considerately treated by Henry. It is to be
noted that he did not attempt to levy direct taxes on his
French subjects except with the consent of the Estates. The
indirect taxation imposed by previous French kings he never-
theless considered himself free to exact without any show of
consent on the part of the payers, and since 14 19 he had been
collecting the gabelle, the quartages^ and impositions foraines1.
Probably he preferred to raise money and to shape policy with
the countenance of his subjects, to whom, as long as they were
amenable, he was ready to give opportunities of expressing
their views on the needs of the region under his sovereignty:
but it would be foolish to suppose that he would ever have
suffered any abatement of his authority out of regard for so-
called popular rights.

Whatever may be thought of Henry's arrangements for the
government of Normandy, he cannot be justly accused of
wantonly disregarding the susceptibilities of the inhabitants.
Not only were the lower administrative posts filled almost
entirely by Frenchmen — mainly, no doubt, Normans — but
there were Frenchmen at the Treasury2, in the chambre des
comptes, and on the Council. There was no attempt to make
Normandy an English colony. Many officers and men of
Henry's army received lands forfeited by defiant Normans, and
at Harfleur, Honfleur, Caen, and Cherbourg a number of houses
were granted to English settlers3; but the English element thus
introduced was very small in relation to the total popula-
tion. Nor did Henry try to establish a spiritual garrison of
English clergy. Among the very numerous appointments to
ecclesiastical offices or benefices which are recorded in the
Norman Rolls for 142 1 and 1422, there are only twenty in
favour of men with what seem to be English names, and
but three of these concern parish churches4. It need hardly

1 Brequigny, 89 sq., 130, 252. On these impositions, see pp. 75, 195, 258.

2 Exch. Accts. 188/7, ff. 28 v°, 32. 3 D.K.R. xli., xlii., passim.

4 Ibid. 410, 414, 422. One of the benefices in question was the chaplaincy of
a garrison, which consisted of English troops (ibid. 399). Two governorships of
hospitals, the treasurership of Rouen cathedral, the archdeaconry of Le Neubourg,
and eight cathedral or collegiate prebends were filled by Englishmen (ibid. 396, 398,
410, 411, 414, 415, 420, 421, 422).

252 Normandy, 1420-1422 [ch. lxvii

be added that no attempt was made to alter existing law and
custom1.

After Henry's departure for England, the energies of the
Norman government were largely devoted to maintaining
order in the conquered territory and providing for its defence
against organised attack. If it was to succeed in either task,
however, the money voted by the Estates must be collected
and the promised reform of the currency accomplished. Henry
had decided that the first instalment of the faille, amounting
to 1 00,000/. /., was to be paid by March 1 . The treasurer-
general informed each vicomte of the sum expected from his
sphere of jurisdiction. He in his turn, consulting the king's
■procureur, the sergents of the vicomte, and perhaps a few others,
apportioned the required sum among the sergenteries and then
among the parishes. The burden was distributed among in-
dividuals by assessors, generally, if not always, men of the
parish concerned, who were appointed by the vicomte or his
representative. Their list was given to two collectors, also men
of the parish, who were responsible to the vicomte. The basis of
the levy was a tax of ^os. t. on every hearth. "Hearth" meant
in practice a head of a family, but it is evident that there was
much guess-work in the apportionment of the total among the
vicomtes, sergenteries, and parishes, or else that a conventional
scheme was followed, for it was only after the contribution of
a parish had been fixed that it was ascertained how many of
its inhabitants were liable to be taxed. Then, if lol.t. were
to be found, ten "hearths" were assessed at various sums,
averaging 1/. /., to make up the total2. Other heads of families
were classed as poor or mendicants3 and escaped contri-
bution. It is plain that the incidence of taxation must have
varied greatly from place to place. Further, it is evident
that many Normans contributed to one or two instalments
of the faille and not to the rest. Thus, since the second
levy of 60,000/. t.\ like the first of 100,000, was assessed

1 This is well illustrated by a petition of the executors of William Bourchier, count
of Eu, in which it is assumed that the government will follow Norman custom as to
the heritability of wardships if only it can ascertain what the custom is (Bibl. nat., MS.
franc. 26,044, no. 56 n).

2 C. Beaurepaire, Etats, 120 sq., 178 sqq.; Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 25,907, passim,
26,044, nos. 5658-62; Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 11 v° sqq. The assessors and collectors were
sometimes elected by the parishioners with whom they were to be concerned.

3 C. Beaurepaire, Etats, 179, 181; Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 25,907, no. 1168 et passim.

4 Brequigny, 181 sq.

1421-2] The Taille 253

at the rate of 1/. /. a hearth, 40,000 families who had paid
the first escaped the second1. And a very large number were
never required to pay anything at all. For instance, in the
parishes of Bouafles and Mousseaux twenty-eight were exempt
from paying the second instalment, while three contributed2,
so that even when Henry demanded 120,000/./. all at once,
those who escaped outnumbered those who paid by twenty-five
to six. This was no doubt an exceptional case, but other examples
indicate that the number of exempt was very high3.

Considering the haste with which the collection was made,
the government were probably lucky to get 85,000/./. of the
first instalment by Aug. 204. They were, however, disappointed
when the first levy of the clerical tenths, which was made in
May, yielded only 12,000/. /., and next month the bishops and
vicars-general called in the aid of the secular arm, ecclesiastical
censures having failed of their effect5. At the same time a
second levy of the lay grant, designed to produce 60,000/. /.,
was made; before Aug. 20 it brought in 55,000/. /.6 It is to
be noticed, however, that in April the value of the coin called
the gros had been officially reduced from 2o<^. /. to $d. /.7, so
that the sums raised in May were really very much greater than
those collected as the first instalment. Nevertheless, the in-
habitants were still under the obligation of finding nearly
250,000/./. In August, Henry, recognising that to raise this

1 Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 25,907, nos. 10 14, 11 10, et al.

2 Ibid. no. 1 168.

3 Thus, even when the heavy first instalment was being collected, the parish of
Epegard had nine exempt/im as against ten which paid, while in the case of the adjacent
parish of Marbeuf the figures were ten and eighteen (C. Beaurepaire, Stats, 178 sqq.).
Professor Newhall (op. cit. 186) seems to have underestimated the number of exempt,
and to have overlooked the fact that while in January, 142 1, Henry demanded
100,000/. t., in August he demanded 1 20,000. I do not think that the extant documents
relating to the taille are of much service in an attempt to estimate the total population
of Normandy at this time.

4 Brequigny, 181 sq. Arrears of the first instalment continued to be collected during
the following winter (Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 25,907, nos. 1206, 1208, 1263 et al.).

5 Brequigny, 182; Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 17 v°; Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,044, no.
5634. In Brequigny, 182, March is named as the month in which the first instalment
of the clerical tenths was levied ; but the other authorities cited show this to be a slip for
May.

6 Brequigny, 181 sq.; Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 25,907, no. 1014 et passim; Rym. x.
101. Professor Newhall is mistaken (p. 175, n. 150) in supposing that the 12,000/. r.
from the clergy was included in the 55,000/. t. Had this been so, 260,000/. t. would
still have been payable.

7 Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 17 v°; Brequigny, 182, 253; Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 25,907,
no. 1174; Chron. Rouennaise, 343.

254 Normandy, 1420-1422 [ch. lxvii

at one stroke would be excessively harsh, announced that the
laity should discharge their dues in two further instalments.
The first of these, which was to produce 120,000/. /., was to be
raised at once1. How much it yielded cannot be precisely
computed, but a comparison of the various records relating to
the subject suggests that about 70,000/. /. came in2. Included
in the final instalment was to be the second half of the clerical
tenths and the arrears of the first, which were considerable, the
secular officials having been slack in coercing the dilatory3.
But before any of this was collected, the government reduced
the value of the gros from §d. t. to i\d. /.4, and thus made still
more formidable the task of paying what remained due. On
Dec. 14 the bishops were ordered to raise the second instalment
of the clerical tenths, and the attempt began in January, 14225.
It encountered great opposition, and even when the civil power
once more intervened in support of the ecclesiastical au-
thorities6, the results were derisory. By May 1 less than
1000/. /. had been collected, and though in the following four
months over 5000/. /. were paid in, the total was of course far
less than had been looked for7. It is also worth noting that of
this 5000/. /., 3400/. /. came from the diocese of Rouen alone,
and that in the same period nothing whatever was received
from the dioceses of Evreux, Sees, Bayeux, and Avranches8.
Still more disheartening was an attempt made in April, 1422,
to collect in the diocese of Bayeux arrears of the tenth which
the Norman clergy had voted to Charles VI shortly after the
English landed at Touques9 : for there is no record in Alington's
accounts of any receipts from this source. It is evident that the
favour with which Henry had at first been regarded by the
clergy wore thin as soon as material sacrifices were demanded
of them.

1 Brequigny, 182; Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,044, nos. 5658-62.

2 From May 1, 1421, to Aug. 31, 1422, Alington received 168,000/. r. from the
taille on the laity (Exch. Accts. 61, B v°). Of this, we are told, 55,000/. t. was raised
as the second instalment (Brequigny, 182). From May 1 to Aug. 31, 1422, the taille
brought in 50,000/./. (Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 17). Some of this doubtless represented
arrears of the third instalment, the yield of which would thus appear to be approximately
70,000/. t.

3 Brequigny, 182; Rot. Norm. 9 Hen. V, m. 9 d. 4 Brequigny, 189.
6 D.K.R. xlii. 434; Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 17 v°.

6 Rot. Norm. 9 Hen. V, m. 9 d.

7 For. Accts. 61, B v°; Exch. Accts. 188/7, ff. 17 v°, 18; Brequigny, 182.

8 Exch. Accts. 188/7, ff. 17 v°, 18. In the dioceses of Evreux, Sees, and Avranches
no one was willing to collect the money (Chron. Rouennaise, 343, n. 1).

9 Rym. x. 203.

1 42 1 -2] The Taille 255

The indifferent success of the attempt to collect the third
instalment of the lay grant apparently convinced Henry that
what remained due had best be raised in two further stages.
Thus, an instalment, designed to yield 60,000/. /., was de-
manded in May, 14221; and from the beginning of that month
to the end of August Alington received 50,800/. /. from the
collectors, part of this amount no doubt representing arrears
of instalments levied on easier terms2. That the collection of
this sum was attended by serious difficulties is shown by the
fact that in July, 1422, the Council at Rouen granted a respite
until Christmas to the inhabitants of the county of Ivry, who
had protested their inability to pay owing to dauphinist raids3.
Yet another instalment was raised after Henry's death, but
how much it produced is not known4. So far as can be ascer-
tained, Henry obtained about 270,000/./. out of the promised
400,000/. /.5 In the circumstances, the result does credit to
the zeal and efficiency of the officials concerned with the collec-
tion of the money.

The problem of the currency, to judge by Henry's proclama-
tions, was approached with great confidence by the government.
The coinage in circulation, mostly from French mints, was
extremely bad, and prices were exorbitant6. Henry promised
to issue good money, and, as we have seen, the Estates con-
sented to a levy of silver, which was to be made before Feb. 1 57.
For some time, at all events, the baillis took little notice of the
ordinance enjoining the payment of the impost8, and there
seems to be no means of judging how far it was obeyed. Before
new coinage could be issued, it was of course necessary to
regulate the value of the money actually in circulation. In
April, therefore, the common silver coin called the gros or
royal, the exchange value of which had of late been is. %d. /.,
was officially proclaimed to be worth only $d. /.9 The gold
noble was to be equivalent to 40J. /., the gold crown to 30J. /.,

1 D.K.R. xlii. 449; Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 10 v°. It was due at Michaelmas, 1422
(Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 25,907, no. 1308). Arrears were still coming in during February,
1423 (ibid. no. 133 1).

2 Exch. Accts. 188/7 ff., 10 v°, 17.

3 Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,044, no. 5740. 4 Newhall, 176.

6 Brequigny, 181 sq.; For. Accts. 61, B v°; Exch. Accts. 188/7, ff. 17, 18.
6 Chron. Rouennaise, 343. 7 Brequigny, 162.

8 Ibid. 168 sq.

9 "Chescun piece de monoye presentement appelle et ayant cours pour gros ou ryal
sera prinse et bailie pour un petit blanc vaillant v deniers tournoys soulement," Brequigny,
253. Cf. Exch. Accts. 188/7, f. 1.

256 Normandy, 1420-1422 [ch. lxvii

and the coin popularly styled mouton d'or to 20s. t. All com-
modities were to be priced in terms of the petit blanc1, a coin
worth $d. /., to which the gros in circulation was now deemed
equivalent.

On May 6, 1421, the keepers of the mints of Rouen and
St L6 were ordered to set to work on the new coinage. This was
to consist of a gold coin worth 22s. 6d. /., and a silver gros and
demz-gros, the former worth u. 8d. t. The quality of the coins
was to be good2. The production of the new money, however,
was delayed by many hindrances. The hereditary guild of
coiners in Normandy was not able to furnish enough workmen,
and it was decided in July that new coiners should be appointed
with only a life-interest in the craft3. More serious still were
the doings of the dauphinist mints, which were producing vast
quantities of base coins, similar in appearance to the gros being
made in Normandy, with a face value of is. Sd. /., though
intrinsically they were worth far less4. It soon became certain
that they would drive the new money out of the country.
Meanwhile, despite the government's regulations, the gold
noble was being accepted as equivalent to 20/. t. and the gold
crown as worth 10/. /. The continued badness of the money
circulating, together with the attempts of the authorities to
alter its exchange value, gave rise to much confusion and caused
catastrophic fluctuations in the wealth of individuals5. On
Nov. 30 therefore the government admitted the failure of its
plans and had recourse to new measures. The current gros were
now to be valued at only 2\d. t. The gold crowns last struck
in France were to circulate at 22s. 6d. /., the moutons at 15^. /.,
English gold nobles at 455. t.6 A comparison of these regula-
tions with those of the previous April enables one to form an
idea of the confusion that must have reigned in the trade of
Normandy. Simultaneously it was announced that, instead of

1 "Toutes denrees, vitailles, et autres marchandises soient ramenez audit pris du petit
blanc qui se vendoit un gros dessusdit," Brequigny, 253.

2 Sixty-four gold coins were to be given for the mark of gold, and the silver
coins were to be "sur la pes de monnoye xxxme " (Brequigny, 175 sq.). It is not
known whether any of the gold coins were ever made. The gros ordered is known to
numismatists as the gros au leopard. It was never circulated and is very rare (J. Bailhache,
"La Monnaie de St L6," Revue Numismatique, 1925, pp. 71 sq.; Dieudonne, Bibl.
de l'£c. des Chartes, lxxii. 498). For pictures of it, see Hoffmann, PL XXIX, 5;
Hewlett, PL XII, 7. The latter wrongly ascribes the order for its issue to 1420. No
examples of the demi-gros have been found.

3 Brequigny, 254. 4 Ibid. 189.

5 Chron. Rouennaise, 343. 6 Brequigny, 188 sq.

1 42 1 -2] The Currency 257

the money that had been promised, there would be issued gold
saluts, worth 25J. /., and half-saluts, and coins called doubles
tournoiS) made of a silver-coated alloy and worth id. /., together
with demi-doubles or petits deniers 1. The small coins were put
into circulation early in 1422, but, though their current value was
made to correspond with their intrinsic value, were not regarded
with much favour2 . The reduction in the value of the gro j, followed
by the demand of the government that all taxes should be paid in
4 ' forte monnaye ' ' — that is to say, according to the value officially
attributed to the various coins — caused great indignation3.

It cannot be claimed that Henry's attempt to reform the
Norman currency met with much success. Parallel efforts at
Paris, as we shall see, were no more fruitful. Indeed, until the
authorities at Rouen and Paris were able to coin sufficient good
money for the needs of the areas under their jurisdiction, to
make it the sole legal tender, and to exclude counterfeit money,
the best-laid schemes of monetary reform, however terrifying
the sanctions whereby they were supported4, could not but fail.
Meanwhile, the abortive attempts greatly irritated public
opinion. It must be recognised, however, that Henry's measures
were a step in the right direction, and he deserves praise for
having checked the reckless debasement of the coinage to
which France had long resorted when in financial trouble.

Notwithstanding difficulties in collecting the tattle and im-
proving the currency, the finances of Normandy, as revealed
by the treasurer-general's account for the last sixteen months
of the reign5, were less unsatisfactory than might have been
expected. Despite restorations and gifts of landed property,
the income from the royal domain and from regalian rights
over churches and abbeys remained large, amounting to

1 Brequigny, 189; Dieudonne, lxxiii. 263; Bailhache, op. cit. 73 sq. There are
pictures of the salut (an excellent coin), double, and petit denier in Hoffmann, PI. XXIX,
4, 11, 12, and in Hewlett, PI. XII, 4, 10, 11, where the issue is misdated.

2 Norm. Chron. (Hellot), 64; Chron. Rouennaise, 343. The intrinsic value of one of
the new coins was more than five times as great as that of a coin of the same denomina-
tion belonging to the old currency (Rym. ix. 9205 Bailhache, op. cit. 69, 73 sq.).

3 Ibid.

4 Those who contravened the ordinances on currency or did anything calculated to
frustrate them were liable to very severe penalties (Brequigny, 189, 253).

5 For. Accts. 61, B v°sqq. We have also a draft account of Alington's, incomplete
but entering into greater detail, for the last four months of the reign. It is rarely safe
to use this as the basis of exact calculations, but it affords much information of very
high value (Exch. Accts. 188/7). Alington's account for 1420-21 somehow got to the
chambre des comptes in Paris, where it still existed in the eighteenth century (Mirot,
Dom Bevy, 357). It was probably burned at the Revolution.

w III 1 7

258 Normandy, 1 420-1422 [ch. lxvii

7 9 , 9 5 5/. /. , and the revenue under this head for the twelve months
beginning May 1 , 1 42 1 , was greater by 3000/. /. than that for the
corresponding period of 1419— 14201. From May, 142 1, to
August, 1422, the salt-garners yielded 64,045/. t. The quartages
and the impositions foraines produced 47,556/. /.The taille
brought in 168,092/. /., the ecclesiastical tenths 18,992/./. Alto-
gether in these sixteen months Alington accounted for 3 8 8,942/. /.
under the head of receipts2. Nor must it be forgotten that many
towns received Henry's permission to levy "aides" on their
inhabitants3. These were generally taxes on sales, especially of
beverages ; and from the proceeds the townsfolk were as a rule
required to keep the fortifications of the place in repair4, often
to defray the cost of municipal government5, and sometimes to
pay the wages of the captain of the garrison6. Frequently these
imposts were farmed at auction, but sometimes, at any rate,
account had to be rendered to a royal official7. It is not possible
to compute the amount raised by such local taxes, but it is evident
that a considerable part of the sum they produced was devoted
to purposes which would otherwise have made demands on the
Norman treasury.

During the period May, 142 1, to August, 1422, the total
expenditure of Alington was returned as 396,915/. /.8 There
was thus an adverse balance of nearly 8000/. /. This, however,
was rather apparent than real. In the total expenditure were
included 23,000/. /. lost to the treasury owing to the deprecia-
tion of the current coinage9; while 32,000/. /. were spent on
the purchase of oxen and sheep for Henry's household10, and
72/. /. on the safe-keeping of prisoners from Meaux11. Further,
sums amounting to 19,900/. /. were paid direct from Norman
sources to William Philip, Henry's treasurer of war after
Oct. 1, 1 42 1, without coming within Alington's cognisance12.

1 For. Accts. 61, B v°; Exch. Accts. 187/14, 188/7, f. 5.

2 For. Accts. 61, B v°. The total is that given by Alington, but the account has been
carelessly entered on the roll and the several items if added together yield a different
figure.

3 In 142 1 and 1422 (up to Henry's death) such "aides" were levied by Pontoise
(Rym. x. 55), Falaise (ibid. 5 1 ; D.K.R. xlii. 447), Dieppe, Gaillefontaine, Montivilliers,
Carentan (Rym. x. 51 sq.; Brequigny, 195, 201), Neufchatel, Vire (Rym. x. 51 sq.),
Gisors (Brequigny, 147 sq.), Argentan (ibid. 160, 196), Louviers (ibid. 174 sq.), Caen
(ibid. 195 sq.), Rouen (ibid. 197 sq.), Bayeux (ibid. 198), Mantes (D.K.R. xlii. 438),
Lisieux (Newhall, 172, n. 134).

4 Seee.g. Rym. x. 51 sq., 55; Brequigny, 174 sq., 197 sq.; D.K.R. xlii. 438, 447.

5 Rym. x. 51; Brequigny, 197, 198. 6 ibid. 174 sq., 197 sq.
7 See e.g. Brequigny, 195, 198. 8 For. Accts. 61, D.

9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. C v°. u Ibid. 12 Ibid. 69, F.

1421-2] The Burden of War 259

It is thus evident that Normandy easily supported itself. This,
it is true, was due to the taille\ but even without the taille^ the
revenue had increased since 141 91.

On the other hand, the accounts of Alington and Philip
lend no colour to the belief that in Henry's last years the burden
of paying for his military operations was mainly borne by
Normandy2. Alington's accounts are concerned with all the
important sources of Norman revenue, and Philip could not
have drawn directly on any of these without throwing the
financial administration of the conquered territory into hope-
less confusion. Of the money which Alington expended, all
save 32,000/. /. was devoted to the administration and defence
of Normandy3. As for Philip, he acknowledges the receipt from
the issues of the great seal of Normandy, from the Rouen
indemnity4, and from profits of the Rouen mint, of the
19,900/. /. already noticed, and he also states that part of a sum
of £5200 sterling came from Norman officials5. There is no
reason to suppose that the Norman contribution to the latter
was large. The remainder of Philip's receipts were drawn
almost entirely from the English Exchequer6, and what little
was not derived thence came in all probability from the
revenues of the French crown7. All things considered, it is
unlikely that the contribution of Normandy and ' ' the Conquest ' '
to the cost of Henry's campaigns and sieges after his return
to France in June, 142 1, came to more than 70,000/./., or
between £10,000 and £1 1,000. And on the other side of the
account is to be set a contribution, probably amounting to
more than £1000, made by Philip to the cost of building
Henry's new palace at Rouen, and repairing and equipping
the castle there8.

1 From May i, 142 1, to April 30, 1422, Alington's receipts, exclusive of the taille
and clerical tenths, came to 191,538/. t. For the corresponding period of 1419-20, they
totalled 160,437/. t. (For. Accts. 61, B v°; Exch. Accts. 187/14, 188/7, ff- - sqq-)-

2 "From 1418 on, the real burden of the war was being gradually shifted to Nor-
mandy," Newhall, 151; cf. ibid. 243. For a somewhat similar view, see Mowat, 260.

3 It is true that the 59,000/. t. received by the earl of Salisbury and the 13,000/. t.
received by Ralph Butler (For. Accts. 61, B v°, C) were probably spent in part on
military operations outside Normandy, but these were largely defensive in purpose (see
below, pp. 313 sq., 354sq.).

4 For. Accts. 69, F. 5 Ibid. F v°.

6 See below, pp. 390 sq.

7 One would naturally have assumed that Henry used these for his own purposes,
even if the duke of Burgundy had not afterwards made it a grievance (La Barre, i. 341).

8 For. Accts. 69, I.

17-2

260 Normandy, 1420- 1422 [ch. lxvii

No doubt it was disappointing to Henry that Normandy was
unable to give him more help. And, for that matter, when
Alington's accounts are analysed closely, they suggest that
there was much amiss in Henry's conquered territories. In
the first place, it was obviously difficult to raise revenue in the
frontier bailliages. Of the 79,900/./. derived from the "do-
main" in sixteen months, over 40,000 came from the bailliages
of Rouen and Caen. These two furnished 49,000/. /. of the
64,000 yielded by the salt-garners, and 32,000 of the 47,000
produced by the quartages and impositions foraines. Their share
of the tattle was not so notable; yet they contributed 72,000/. t.
of the 168,000 raised from the eight bailliages. Under these
four heads, the total yielded by Rouen was 1 05,000/. /., by Caen
90,000. In striking contrast are Gisors, which produced in all
13,000/. /., Evreux, which yielded 8300/. /., Alencon, whence
came 32,600/. /., of which 28,700 were accounted for by the
tattle ; and Mantes, which contributed 5100/. /. Caux and the
Cotentin, two comparatively well-protected bailliages, produced
respectively 40,400/. t. and 46,800/. t.1

Rouen and Caen might be expected to yield more revenue
than any of the other bailliages, but their natural advantages
cannot explain so great a disparity between them and their
neighbours. And the impression left by the figures just cited
is confirmed when one turns to the details of expenditure. By
far the greater part of the money raised in Normandy was, as
we have seen, spent there. That so little could be spared for
Henry's needs elsewhere was due to the military establishment
in the conquered territory, which cost upwards of 291,000/. /.
during the last sixteen months of the reign2. That the earl of
Salisbury should have required 59,000/. t. is not surprising;
nor was 15,500/./. an excessive wages bill for the earl of
Suffolk, in command on the exposed Breton frontier3, still less
was 13,200/./. for Ralph Butler, who, as will be seen, was
entrusted with arduous duties on the borders of Vimeu4. But
it is somewhat astonishing to find that the garrison of Rouen
cost 15,800/./. from May, 1421, to Henry's death, and that
in 1422 it numbered 240 men; that the garrisons of Cherbourg
and Regneville required jointly 11,702/./.; that Caen, the

1 For. Accts. 6 1, B v°. The pre-eminence of Rouen and Caen was not so marked in
1419-20 (Exch. Accts. 187/7).

2 For. Accts. 61, C v°, D. 3 Ibid. B v°.
* Ibid. C.

142 1 -2] Difficulties 261

defence of which cost 10,600/./., needed in the summer of
142 1 a garrison of 1 2 1 men ; and that at the same time Harfleur
was held by 1601. It is evident that the force which was
maintained in Normandy at the beginning of 142 1 cannot
have been much reduced before the end of the reign and that
the English felt insecure even in districts remote from the
frontier.

The difficulties of the authorities in the conquered territory
arose not merely from attacks by external enemies — which
indeed were frequent and formidable — but also from internal
disorder. How ubiquitous and continual this was appears from
testimony of very various kinds. When Henry was at Rouen
in January, 1421, it was unsafe for an official of the duke of
Exeter to journey thence to Thury Harcourt2. This same per-
sonage, the vicomte and receveur of La Carneille in Exeter's
county of Harcourt, found it next to impossible to collect his
lord's dues during the following years. Into many parts of his
sphere of jurisdiction he dared not go. The whole area was
terrorised by "brigands"; agriculture was gravely hindered,
minor official posts could not be filled, and when rents were
collected, it was only with the support of English soldiers from
the garrison of Falaise3. The region in question is hilly and
offered many advantages to fugitive rebels; but it was some way
from the frontier, was never reached by dauphinist raiding
parties, and had within it Falaise, one of the most notable
strongholds of Normandy. The acts of the Rouen government,
furthermore, betray the extent of open disaffection. Im-
mediately after Henry's departure for England the export of
grain from Normandy was forbidden because Normans had
been selling it to Compiegne, Dreux, Meaux, and other
dauphinist garrisons4. On June 4, 1421, all holding land of
the crown were ordered to appear before the chancellor or the
treasurer-general by midsummer5. Some three weeks later,
enquiry was to be made concerning Normans who had broken
their oath of allegiance to Henry and joined the enemy or
turned brigands6. In August it was decreed that all the goods
of rebels in the conquered lands should be sold for the advantage

1 For. Accts. 61, C; Exch. Accts. 50/3, 6, 9.

2 Chatel, Inventaire des Archives departmentales. Calvados. E 1, p. 169.

3 Ibid. pp. 167 sq.

4 Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,044, no. 5595.

6 D.K.R. xlii. 429. 6 Brequigny, 178.

262 Normandy, 1420-1422 [ch. lxvii

of the king1. Apparently the dauphinist successes of the early
summer had emboldened many Normans to reveal their true
feelings towards Henry. Sometimes they left their wives in
charge of their estates, and on Dec. 2 the government pro-
claimed that all women whose husbands refused the oath must
join them within eight days, and that their possessions were to
be seized2. This was followed by an ordinance, dated Dec. 8,
that all inhabitants of the conquered lands should swear
allegiance by Feb. 2, 1422, on pain of being declared incapable
of holding property within the area concerned, a measure which
indicates that the number of rebels had of late increased and
that the authorities were loth to proceed to extremities3. In
February an inquisition was ordered into the property of
absentees4. But the measures taken seem not to have had much
effect. On Jan. 1, 1422, the keeper of the seals of recognisances
in the vicomte of Auge was given permission to reside at
Lisieux because of the prevalence of brigandage5. Between
May 1, 1 42 1, and the end of the reign, rewards were paid for
386 brigands captured and convicted6, ninety-nine being paid
during the last four months of Henry's life7.

The country lying immediately to the south-west of Rouen
seems to have been more infested than other regions, and in the
summer of 1 42 2 some of the inhabitants of the vicomtes of Pont-
Audemer, Auge, and Orbec petitioned that a special police force
might be maintained there at the expense of the population.
In July, therefore, the Rouen authorities allotted to the area in
question forces totalling forty mounted and seventy unmounted
men, whose duty would be the hunting of brigands. Each
vicomte concerned was to consult the nobles and other important
men in his sphere of jurisdiction; if they were favourable,
the inhabitants were to be assessed to provide the wages of
both officers and men8; otherwise, it seems, the vicomte would
have to forgo their services. Evidently those who defied the
English authorities were not always popular with their fellow-

1 D.K.R. xlii. 431. 2 Brequigny, 230. 3 Rym. x. 159.

4 D.K.R. xlii. 437. 5 Ibid. 436.

6 For. Accts. 61, C v°, D. The person responsible for the capture of a brigand
subsequently executed received 61. t.

7 Exch. Accts. 188/7, ff. 30 sq. The victims came from all parts of the duchy. Only
152 "brigands" had been executed in 1419-20 (ibid. 187/14). The increase, however,
may have been due to greater efficiency on the part of officials rather than greater
lawlessness.

8 Bibl. nat., Portefeuilles de Fontanieu, 111-112, ff. 260 sqq.

1 42 1 -2] Disaffection 263

countrymen, and indeed Normans often helped to capture dis-
turbers of the peace1.

The difficulty of collecting the clerical tenths, noticed above,
revealed a temper among the clergy which comes to light in
various authorities. At the beginning of 142 1, only the bishops
of Sees, Coutances, and Avranches had accepted Henry2. None
of the obdurate bishops ever gave way; but Martin V had just
provided Nicolas Habart to Bayeux, and he took the oath of
fealty, receiving almost all his temporalities after some delay3.
The shortage of bishops made it difficult to remedy the shortage
of lower clergy4. In March, 142 1, the government renewed
its attempt to constrain to residence those ecclesiastics who
remained in dauphinist territory and refused the oath to the
treaty of Troyes5; and in the summer the bishop of Bayeux
was rebuked for his remissness in dealing with such6. On May
1, 1422, the government asserted that many Norman clergy,
pretending that they had sworn to the treaty, passed freely
to and from dauphinist regions, their revenues, when they were
absent, being kept for them by sympathisers; and it was laid
down that all benefice-holders were to furnish the ecclesiastical
authorities with written evidence of their having taken the oath,
while none were to leave their dioceses without letters testi-
monial of their bishops or to visit dauphinist regions without
the special licence of the king7. In the following August,
however, it was officially admitted that many of the clergy in
the diocese of Bayeux had not yet sworn loyalty to Henry or
to the treaty8.

The extent of the disaffection and disorder must not be
exaggerated. After, as before, January, 142 1, the rolls contain
hundreds of names of Normans who have sworn the required
oath and received back their possessions9. There are still, too,
numerous records of the submission of religious houses, with

1 Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,044, no. 5701; Exch. Accts. 188/7, ff. 30 sq.

2 Rym. x. 84 sq.

3 Ibid. 147, 150 sq., 157, 172; Gams, 507; Eubel, i. 127. Paul de Capranica, whom
in 1420 Martin V had provided to EVreux, never appeared in Normandy during Henry's
life (Eubel, i. 244; Rym. x. 143, 147).

4 Denifle, i. nos. 1030, 103 1. It should be remembered that bishops in all parts of
France used the troubles of the time as a pretext for absenting themselves from their
sees (ibid. i. 569).

6 Rym. x. 84 sq.; cf. Brown, Fasc. Rer. Expetend. 11. viii. sq.

6 Rym. x. 147. 7 Ibid. 209. 8 Ibid. 235 sq.

9 D.K.R. xlii., passim. The dating of the lists is not sufficiently precise to admit of

264 Normandy, 1420-1422 [ch. lxvii

consequent restoration of their property and confirmation of
their charters; and scores of Norman clergy were willing to
comply with the conditions attached to preferment by Henry1.
Nor does it appear that the English authorities provoked in-
subordination by tyrannous conduct. On the contrary, they
did what they could to prevent the excesses which are perhaps
inevitable when a large body of soldiery is quartered in a
foreign land. A few days after Henry left Rouen, a proclama-
tion was issued admitting that some of the English had been
guilty of extortion and forbidding the acceptance of gratuities
by the porters of towns or castles, the levy of horses or mer-
chandise save with the consent of the owner, or the arbitrary
exaction of passage money by the captains of fortified posts2.
These articles were afterwards repeated and supplemented3,
and there can be no doubt that the authorities at Rouen were
seriously concerned, if only for reasons of policy, to keep the
troops well in hand. Nor do contemporary writers complain
of the behaviour of the English soldiers or officials. They dis-
liked the heavy taxation, grumbled at the attempted reforms of
the currency, and lamented the scarcity of victuals in 1421;
but it is admitted that next year, despite a terrible drought,
conditions were better4. Nevertheless, it cannot be pretended
that the English brought order and prosperity to the regions
they had conquered. In the autumn of 1421, the abbot of Bee
asserted that the neighbourhood had been largely depopulated
and agriculture suspended, though it must be recognised that
it was to his interest to exaggerate5. It was officially stated in
1422 that wolves had greatly increased in Normandy since its
conquest by Henry6 — striking testimony to the dislocation that
had befallen rural life. Yet it would be rash to suppose that
conditions in Normandy were more anarchical than elsewhere
in France. Disorder was endemic in all mediaeval countries;
and civil strife intensified it as quickly and surely as foreign
invasion. There is at all events no evidence that the prevalence
of "brigandage" was caused by outraged nationalism.

an exact computation of the numbers concerned, but there were considerably more
than a thousand. Most of them were of humble rank. A number of esquires appear,
but few of higher status. l Rym. x., passim; D.K.R. xlii., passim.

2 Rym. x. 57 sq. 3 Ibid. 106 sq., 112, 160 sq.

4 Chron. Rouennaise, 344 sqq.; Norm. Chron. (Hellot), 63.

5 Denifie, i. no. 1034. 6 Rym. x. 224.

CHAPTER LXVIII

HENRY'S LAST VISIT TO ENGLAND

In the previous autumn it had apparently been expected in
England that the king would return before Christmas, a hope
that was not altogether abandoned when parliament met on
Dec. 21, 1420. In his opening speech the chancellor recognised
the general desire for Henry's presence; and when they became
convinced that he would not arrive in time to meet them, the
commons petitioned Gloucester to urge him and Catherine to
come as soon as they could2. The temporal lords present were a '
identical with those who had attended the parliament of 141 93;
there were returns for thirty-seven counties and eighty-three
boroughs4, and in the absence of writs de expensis, we are not
tempted to speculate as to the number of members who were
actually present. The Speaker was Roger Hunt, esquire, one
of the members for Bedfordshire5. There seems to have been
a feeling that in the circumstances it was vain to attempt much
business, and the parliament must have been one of the dullest
on record. There was no request for money. The chancellor
said that the English people had special cause to thank God
because of the favour which He had shown to their king, who
desiring above everything the prosperity of the realm and con-
sidering the distress and poverty into which his subjects had
of late fallen, mainly through the scarcity of money in the land,
wished the commons, with the advice of the other estates, to
apply their minds to the provision of remedies6. It cannot be
claimed that their deliberations were very fruitful. Several of
the common petitions aimed at securing a supply of the precious
metals for the mints; two of them were embodied in the short
statute of the year7, but cannot have produced much effect.

1 Parliament was summoned on Oct. 21 (Rept. Dign. Peer, iv. 845) ; the first common
petition (Rot. Pari. iv. 124) contemplates the possibility of the king's arrival during the
session.

2 Ibid. 125 (no. n). 3 Rept. Dign. Peer, iv. 843, 846.

4 Return Pari. i. 294 sq.

5 Rot. Pari. iv. 123; Return Pari. i. 294. He had been returned for Hunts, in
November, 1417, and in 1419 (ibid. 289, 292).

6 Rot. Pari. iv. 123.

7 Ibid. 125 sq. (nos. ill, IV, VII, x); Statutes, ii. 203.

266 Henry's Last Visit to England [ch. lxviii

Among the other petitions was one which asked for the revival
of a treaty whereby the counts of Flanders were supposed to
have forbidden their subjects to import any save English wool1,,
another which, alleging that the king and his progenitors had
been lords of the sea and pointing out that he now ruled both
coasts of the Channel, proposed that all foreigners using it
should be required to contribute towards its defence2, and a
third which asked for further protection for English ships in
northern waters in view of the depredations of the Scots, who
had been taking troops to France and wool to Flanders in
captured English vessels3. All these were answered evasively,
that is to say, refused. More interesting and creditable are
three petitions in which the commons show concern lest the
king's new status in France should prove derogatory to the
interests of England. It was ordained in response to one that
neither this parliament nor any summoned in future by a
regent should be dissolved by the arrival of the king in England
during its proceedings4. The commons further begged for the
re-enactment of the statute of 1340 which declared that the
realm of England should never be in subjection to the crown of
France, the reply being that the statute should be maintained5.
Some of the lords had asserted that the petitions presented by
the commons to Gloucester were to be sent overseas to be dealt
with by the king, and the regent was asked to ordain that all
such petitions should be disposed of within the realm during
parliament, any left unanswered at the dissolution to be treated
as void, a rule which was to hold good in all future parliaments6.
This suggestion was politely refused, but it was a sound instinct
that prompted the commons to make it.

It was perhaps on Jan. 19 that Henry left Rouen on his
journey to England7. The staff of his chapel had left ten days
before and were already across the Channel8, and the equip-
ment of the king's chamber was sent by sea to Southampton9.
It is therefore not likely that Henry's choice of route was due

1 Rot. Pari. iv. 125 (no. v). 2 Ibid. 126 (no. Vl).

3 Ibid. 127 (no. XI). 4 Ibid. 124; Statutes, ii. 203.

5 Rot. Pari. iv. 127 (no. XIV). The statute in question is incorrectly cited in the
printed Rolls of Parliament ; it is Statute iii. of 14 Edw. Ill (Statutes, i. 292).

6 Ibid. 128 (no. XVI).

7 The number of important appointments dated Rouen, Jan. 18, suggests, though
it does not prove, that Henry was still there on that day (Rym. x. 49 sq.; D.K.R. xlii.
397, 398), and he can hardly have reached Amiens in less than two days.

8 Proc. Priv. Co. ii. 326. 9 Iss. Roll 8 Hen. V, Mich., 17 Feb. 1421.

142 1 ] Welcome Home 267

to the insecurity of the Channel ; probably he wished to see for
himself the state of affairs at Calais and to gauge the feeling of
the populace in the region between that town and Normandy.
Accompanied by Catherine, the king of Scots, the duke of
Bedford, the Earl Marshal, the earls of March and Warwick,
and a substantial force of fighting men, he passed rapidly
through Caux, and on Jan. 21 arrived at Amiens. Here he
met with an honourable welcome, rich gifts being offered to
Catherine and himself, and was lodged in the house of the
newly-appointed bailli Robert le Jeune, a strong partisan of the
English, in whom Henry was believed to have much confidence1.
Thence he made his way through Doullens, St Pol, and
Therouanne, being politely received everywhere2. When he
approached Calais, the merchants of the Staple and the clergy
came forth at the head of the townsfolk in festal array, bearing
precious gifts for the queen3. After some days Henry set sail
with a favouring wind and on Feb. 1 landed at Dover, where
he was welcomed tumultously by vast crowds from the
adjacent country and by many nobles from remoter parts4.
Some of the barons of the Cinque Ports, indeed, were so carried
away by enthusiasm that they rushed into the sea and bore
Henry and Catherine to land on their shoulders5. The royal
party at once went forward to Canterbury, to be received there
too by exultant crowds with rich presents6. Devotional exer-
cises and sight-seeing doubtless occupied the next few days,
and then Henry, who regarded time as a precious gift of God
(as one of his biographers apologetically explains)7, went on to
London without Catherine. He was probably at Westminster
by Feb. 88. He was welcomed, we are told, with great ceremony

1 Monstr. iv. 24; Fenin, 151, 190 sq.; Norm. Chron. (Hellot), 64; Vita, 295; Wals. ii.
336; Durand, i. 53. Le Jeune had taken the oath as bailli on Dec. 30, 1420 (Fauquem-
bergue, i. 391).

2 Monstr. iv. 24; Fenin, 151; Vita, 295. 3 Ibid.

4 Exch. Accts. 106/25; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 318; Wals. ii. 336; Vita, 295 sq.;
Monstr. iv. 24; Brut, ii. 425. 6 Vita, 296.

6 Wals. ii. 336; Brut, ii. 425; Northern Chron. (Kingsford, Lit.), 289.

7 Vita, 296.

8 Several London chroniclers, whose information on the point doubtless comes
ultimately from a common source, give Feb. 14 as the date of Henry's arrival in London
(Brut, ii. 492; Kingsford, Chron. 127; Gregory, 138; Chron. Lond. 108; Fabyan,
586); but under Feb. 8 the Issue Roll records a payment made to a recluse at
Westminster by command of the king ore tenus, and also the payment of the expenses
of a messenger sent with a letter de signeto from London to Plymouth. This, indeed,
is not decisive evidence that the king had reached Westminster by the date in question,
but it points strongly to that conclusion.

268 Henry's Last Visit to England [ch. lxviii

and joy1, but the official festivities were deferred for the arrival
of the queen.

On Friday, Feb. 21, Catherine, who had reached Eltham
and been met there by Henry2, set out thence for London. The
mayor and aldermen awaited them on Blackheath, attended by
a vast number of London craftsmen clad in white with red
hoods or caps, each gild having its distinguishing badge, while
clarions and "all maner of lowde mynstrelsie" attested their
loyalty3. The concourse escorted Catherine to the city, which
had exerted to the full its ingenuity in her honour. The
splendour and pageantry, indeed, seem to have been scarcely
inferior to the display which celebrated the victory of Agin-
court. The author of the Vita Henrici Quinti calls up his last
resources of verbiage and bombast in his endeavour to describe
the scene. Giants guarded the city gates and bowed in reverence
as the queen entered. Lions rolled their eyes. Here was a row
of castles manned with armed warriors, there were gleaming
thrones encompassed with chanting angels. Bands of apostles,
martyrs, confessors, and virgins sang a melodious welcome.
The conduits ran with wine; the streets were strewn with green
branches, the houses hung with costly draperies4. Through
these bewildering manifestations of friendliness Catherine was
led to the Tower5, where she passed the night. Next day, clad
in white, she was carried to Westminster in a gorgeous coach,
attended by a procession of noblemen, city magnates, and
craftsmen in their best clothes, the streets being decked as on
the previous day6.

On Sunday, Feb. 23, Catherine was crowned in the Abbey
church by Archbishop Chichele7. She was then led into the
palace and enthroned8. Afterwards "alle maner rialtees of
metis and drynkys" were to be had in the palace for the asking9.

1 Vita, 296; Wals. ii. 336. 2 Vita, 296; Brut, ii. 426, 492.

3 Ibid. 426. 4 Vita, 297 sq.; Strecche, 278 a.

5 Brut, ii. 426. 6 Ibid.; Vita, 299; Wals. ii. 336.

7 Brut, ii. 427; Wals. ii. 337; Vita, 299. Titus Livius (91) says that Henry was eager
to have the queen crowned because "sine coronatione proventus dotis pactos possidere
non poterat." This explanation is of course false, as Henry had waived all claim to a
dowry (see above, p. 198). The date of the coronation is not quite certain. The prelates
and magnates had been ordered to be at Westminster on the third Sunday in Lent —
Feb. 23 — when the coronation was to be held (Rym. x. 63; cf. Devon, 364), but
only two chroniclers state that it actually took place on that day (Chron. Lond. 108;
Kingsford, Lit. 289). However, several writers who give other dates say that the
ceremony was performed on a Sunday (Wals. ii. 336 sq.; Brut, ii. 426 sq., 445, 563),
and no other Sunday will suit the facts.

8 Vita, 300. 9 Brut, ii. 427.

142 1 ] Catherine crowned 269

There was also a solemn banquet in Westminster Hall, which
seems to have made a great impression on the citizens of
London who received invitations, for one of them, and prob-
ably more, preserved the menu and made elaborate notes of the
proceedings and the arrangement of the tables. It would have
been contrary to etiquette for Henry to be present, for the seat
of honour belonged that day to Catherine. On her right sat the
archbishop and the bishop of Winchester, who were served
next after her ; on her left was King James, who was served after
the two prelates. The remaining seats at the high table were
occupied by four countesses. The duke of Gloucester, who was
"overlooker" of the feast, stood before the queen bare-headed,
while to right and left of her knelt the earls of March and
Stafford bearing sceptres. The absence of many great men in
France made it necessary for several honorific functions to be
performed by deputy. Thus, the earl of Warwick took the place
of the duke of Clarence as Steward of England, while his own
office of panterwas filled for the occasion by Lord Clifford. The
earl of Worcester performed the duties of the Earl Marshal and
rode about the hall on a great charger, keeping order with the
aid of a number of tipstaves. Notwithstanding the war, how-
ever, there was an impressive attendance of the English nobility.
Bedford was present in his capacity of Constable of England;
the earls of Northumberland and Westmorland were among the
supervisors of the feast; while mere barons were too numerous
to count. Besides the high table there were four others. The
outer one to the queen's right was occupied by the benchers of
Chancery and the barons of the Cinque Ports. At the next
table sat ten bishops, the abbot of Waltham, the judges, and a
number of ladies, knights and esquires. The third table seems
to have been occupied entirely by ladies, those accounted noble
sitting at the upper end. At the table on the extreme left,
"next unto the cupborde," were the mayor, aldermen and
notable citizens of London1. As it was Lent the meal consisted
almost entirely of fish and confectionery2, and the royal cooks
had devised a most elaborate bill of fare, in which, besides

1 The foregoing description is based on the accounts of Brut, ii. 445 sq.; Chron.
Lond. 162 sqq.; Gregory, 139 sqq.; Fabyan, 586 sq. They differ in details but agree
on nearly all important points. Most of their information is evidently derived from
a common source.

2 Brawn with mustard, evidently served as a hors d'cewvre, was the only dish in
which meat appeared.

270 Henry's Last Visit to England [ch. lxviii

whale and porpoise, there figured almost every denizen of
fresh or salt water that is ever seen on a modern table1. There
were three courses, and after each there was served one of
those "subtleties" which were the pride of the mediaeval
pastrycook2.

After Catherine's coronation Henry made a hasty tour of
the chief towns in his kingdom. On Feb. 27 he was at St
Albans3. He then visited Bristol and other towns in the
neighbourhood4. On March 7 he was at Weobley in Here-
fordshire, on March 1 1 at Shrewsbury5. Thence he went to
Kenilworth, where he stayed at his manor of Plesantmaris,
which he had reclaimed from a swamp6. By March 1 5 he had
been joined by the queen, who had travelled from London
through Hertford, Bedford, and Northampton7. On that day
they were at Coventry, where the city gave them handsome
presents8. They then went to Leicester, remaining there over
Easter and for some days afterwards9. Important political

1 The menu, which is of great interest to the angler as well as to the student of
manners and customs, is given in Brut, ii. 447; Chron. Lond. 164 sq.; Gregory,
141; Fabyan, 586 sq. Fabyan's version is the fullest. On Feb. 17, £46. 13^. q.d.
had been paid for fish for the queen's coronation (Iss. Roll 8 Hen. V, Mich., Feb. 17,
1421).

2 The best description of them appears in Chron. Lond. 164 sq. The first
"soteltie" was "a pellican^on hire nest with briddis and an ymage of St. Katerine
with a whele in hire hande disputynge with the Hethen clerks, having this Reason in
hir hande, Madame la Roigne; the Pellican answeryng Cest enseigne; the briddes
answeryng Est du roy pur tenir joie. A tout gent il met sentent." At the end of the
second course came "a Sotelte, a panter with an ymage of Seint Katerine in the same
tariage (sic) and a whele in hire hand, and a Reason in hire other hand. The Reason
was this: La Roigne ma file. The panter answeryng In cest lie: another best answeryng
with this Reason, Of Albion: another best saiyng, Aves Renowne." The third subtlety
is described thus: "A Tigre lokyng in a mirour and a man ridyng on horsebak armed
with a tigre whelp in his barme, and throwying mirours for his defence; and a Reason
writon, Par force saunz Droit Jay pris ce best. Another Reason for thanswere of the
tigre Gile de mirour Ma fait discour."

3 Newhall, 266.

4 Strecche, 278 a; Rym. x. 97.

5 Chanc. Warr., Ser. I, 1365/28, 29. It would appear from the acknowledgment
by Oldcastle's captors, printed in Orig. Lett. 11. i. 88 — a correct transcript from
Claus. 9 Hen. V, m. 24 d — that Henry was at Shrewsbury on March 4. If that
were so, he could hardly have visited Bristol, as there is good reason to believe he
did; and in any case it would be hard to see why he should have gone to Weobley
by way of Shrewsbury and why he should have visited the latter town twice. Perhaps
the document was drawn up and dated some days before it was sealed in the king's
presence.

6 Strecche, 278 a; J. Rous, Hist. Regum Angliae, 209.

7 Strecche, 278 a.

8 Cov. Leet, i. 34; Chanc. Warr., Ser. I, 667/993.

9 Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 362; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, pp. 335, 336, 362, 370; Chanc. Warr.,
Ser. 1, 667/994, 998-1000; Strecche, 278 a; Vita, 300 sq.; Wals. ii. 337.

1421] Royal Tourists 271

business was, it seems, the cause of the length of their stay.
For part of the time, at any rate, the king of Scots was in
the town1; two messengers from Charles VI came thither,
though we do not know their errand2; and Henry was probably
joined by John Stafford, keeper of the privy seal3, and perhaps
by the chancellor, who was certainly with him at a later stage
of his wanderings4. Whatever business was on foot, it was not
sufficiently urgent to require Henry's presence in London.
On leaving Leicester, he and Catherine went by way of
Nottingham and Pontefract5 to York, which they reached by
April 2. They were welcomed with great magnificence and
presented with splendid gifts, and the dean and canons placed
their houses in the Minster close at the disposal of some of the
great people who accompanied Henry, an act of hospitality
which he formally declared was not to be taken as a precedent.
He stayed at York for a few days, transacting business6; then,
leaving Catherine behind, he paid flying visits to the shrines of
Bridlington and Beverley7. When he had gone a short distance
from Beverley, he met a messenger with letters telling of the
battle of Bauge8, the peril of his French conquests, and the
desire of his friends overseas for his speedy return. With the
self-control which was the marvel of those who knew him, he
said nothing about the news till next day, when he told the
magnates who were with him. He and the rest agreed that his
speedy return to France with a powerful force was essential, and
he at once wrote to his officials and captains overseas assuring
them that he would soon be back and charging them on pain
of death not to neglect their duties or to allow any fortified
place to fall into the hands of the enemy9. Henry, however,
did not allow the concern that he must have felt to betray
itself in his movements. After rejoining the queen at Pontefract10,
he went to Lincoln, where he attended the installation of the

1 Devon, 366.

2 Iss. Roll 8 Hen. V, Mich., March 11, 142 1.

3 Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 362; Chanc. Warr., Ser. 1, 667/994, 998-1000. Cf. ibid.
1365/28, 29; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 404.

4 Iss. Roll 9 Hen. V, Easter, April 1, 142 1.

5 Strecche, 278 a.

6 Cal. Pat. 1416-22, pp. 335, 337, 342, 363, 407; Rym. x. 96 sq.; Chanc. Warr.,
Ser. I, 668/ 100 1-4, 1 156/2.

7 Northern Chron. (Kingsford, Lit.), 290; Vita, 304; Strecche, 278 b.

8 Vita, 304; Northern Chron. 290. 9 Vita, 304 sqq.
10 Kingsford, Lit. 290.

272 Henry's Last Visit to England [ch. lxvih

new bishop, Richard Fleming1, and was present on April 1 5
when the bishop gave his decision as arbitrator in certain long-
standing disputes between the dean and the chapter2. He
later visited Lynn, Walsingham, and Norwich on his way to
London3.

Why did Henry undertake this devious journey ? The best
English authority for this part of the reign indicates that its
purpose was mainly devotional and benevolent: the king visited
a number of holy places and shrines, offering generous gifts,
and also heard the complaints of the poor and did justice to the
oppressed4. This is no doubt true, but Henry was an adept at
combining religion with politics, and we may well believe
Monstrelet when he represents Henry as an assiduous pro-
pagandist during his tour, explaining to his subjects what had
been accomplished in France and asking for money and men
to complete the work by the overthrow of the dauphin, who
still held two-thirds of the country5. At Bristol and in York-
shire, and no doubt in the other places he visited, Henry
negotiated loans for the payment of the troops he was about to
take to France6. It is well to bear this in mind, for many
modern writers give the impression that after the treaty of
Troyes a spirit of arrogant optimism seized Henry, that he
visited England in a holiday mood, and that the news of Bauge
came like a bolt from a clear sky and completely changed all
his calculations and plans. As a matter of fact, Henry had
already promised Charles VI and his French supporters that
he would return by midsummer with reinforcements7, and on
April 7, that is to say, before he had heard of Clarence's defeat,
he appointed commissioners in the North and West Ridings
of Yorkshire and in Bristol to summon persons who had not
yet lent money to the king and induce them to do so, seeing
that he was about to return to France and would not have time

1 Northern Chron. (Kingsford, Lit.), 290; Strecche, 278 b.

2 Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 404; Chanc. Warr., Ser. 1, 668/1005, 1oo6.

3 Strecche, 278 b.

4 Vita, 300; cf. Iss. Roll 8 Hen. V, Mich., March 11, 142 1, where there is recorded
the issue of £333. 6s. %d. for the king's offerings and charitable gifts during his journey.

5 Monstr. iv. 25.

6 Rym. x. 96.

7 That Henry gave such a promise was stated by himself a few months later (Brit.
Mus. MS. Cotton, Cleop. E. ii, f. 353 b) ; that it was given before he heard the news of
Bauge appears from a letter written on April 7 by Charles VI to the people of Rheims
(Le Mo yen Age, Ser. II., xxi. 14: the letter is also printed in Le Cabinet Historique,
i. 59).

1421] The King's Intentions 273

to raise by ordinary means enough to pay the troops who were
to accompany him. His composure on hearing of the disaster
and the deliberation of his subsequent movements are thus less
astonishing than they at first appear. He had never meant his
stay in England to be long; measures had already been taken
for raising money and men ; and there was no need for him to
make hurried changes in the arrangements for the next few
weeks. There is no reason to suppose that Henry under-
estimated the difficulties that still confronted him after the
signing of the treaty of Troyes. His conduct after that event,
as well as before it, was marked by great political sagacity.
The catastrophe of Bauge was of course unexpected, but, had
it never occurred, Henry would probably have acted very much
as he in fact did.

The commissions for raising the loan which had been issued
on April 7 were followed a fortnight later by others applying to
fourteen counties and the town of Northampton1. Through
two or three2 of the counties Henry had probably passed,
though there is no evidence that he stayed in them, but most
of them he had not visited at all. In the counties where he
had been able to explain his needs by word of mouth, he
perhaps now relied upon verbal negotiations or appointed
agents under the signet or privy seal. At any rate it is certain
that the demand for loans was not limited to the counties where
commissioners were appointed by letters patent3.

There was indeed urgent need of money. At Lambeth on
May 6 the treasurer submitted to Henry, in the presence of
his principal ministers and councillors, a statement of the
kingdom's finances4. The ordinary revenue — apparently for
the past year — he put at ^55,7005. Of this, indirect taxation
yielded £40,600, £26,000 of which was derived from the
subsidy on wool. The remaining £15,100 came from the
sheriffs, and from feudal incidents or similar windfalls. On

1 Rym. x. 97 sq. 2 Berks, Oxfordshire, and Wilts.

3 We know of a commission appointed for Norfolk and Suffolk and of loans made
by the men of those counties, though the commission was not enrolled among the
letters patent (Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 365; Rec. Roll 9 Hes. V, Pasch., May 10, 1421).

4 The document is written in a contemporary hand and preserved in Cotton MS.
Cleop. F. iii. It is printed in Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 312, and, inaccurately, in Rym. x.
113 sq.

5 I give only round numbers, but the nature of the sums quoted in the original
shows that, when dealing with revenue, the treasurer was reporting actual receipts. On
turning to expenditure, however, he plainly abandons fact for prophecy.

w in 18

274 Henry's Last Visit to England [ch. lxviii

the other side of the account, the expenses of government,
apart from the war in France, would demand £52,200. The
items contributing to this total are some of them astonishing.
£9100, it was reckoned, would suffice for the administration
of England. If the war continued, Calais would demand
£19,100 and the defence of the Scottish border £9500.
Ireland, on the other hand, would require only £1666. An-
nuities payable at the exchequer or chargeable on the customs
would come to £12,000. Then follows an alarming list of
expenses to be met out of the balance of £3500. There were
the royal household, the chamber, the wardrobe1, the king's
ships, the keeper of the lions and constable of the Tower,
munitions, prisoners, envoys and other messengers, and the
duchess of Holland2; while there were outstanding debts of
various departments of government, of Henry IV, and of the
king when prince of Wales.

In these circumstances it was of vital moment that the re-
sponse to the demand for loans should be prompt and generous.
In having recourse to a loan rather than to parliamentary
taxation, Henry was doubtless influenced, as he said, by the
necessity of getting money quickly, but he probably knew also
that grave discontent would be caused, and his prestige
seriously damaged, if he demanded a grant from parliament
just when the nation believed that the treaty of Troyes would
usher in a period of peace and enable the king to lighten the
burdens of his subjects. On the whole his policy was justified
by results. Over £38,000 was received by May 133. It is
true that £17,666 of this came from Bishop Beaufort4, who a
few weeks later lent a further £2ooo5, and that the remainder
was a good deal less than would have been yielded by the usual
parliamentary grant of a fifteenth and a tenth. The money, on
the other hand, came in quickly; the cost of collection must have
been small; and as the clergy not only contributed to the loan
but also voted a tenth in their convocations6, Henry probably
got about as much in the end as if he had appealed to parliament.
It is evident from the wording of the letters patent appointing

1 The "camera regis et reginae" and the "garderoba regis et reginae" appear in the
list as though distinct from their "hospicium."

2 Jacqueline of Hainault: see below, pp. 290 sqq.

3 Rec. Roll 9 Hen. V, Pasch., May 10, 13, 142 1.

4 Ibid. May 13, 1421; Rot. Pari. iv. 132; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 372.

5 Ord. Priv. Co. iii. 42. 6 Wilkins, iii. 399, 403.

142 1] The Loan 275

commissioners to negotiate with possible lenders that con-
siderable pressure was applied to individuals1. Those who were
slow in fulfilling their promises were peremptorily ordered to
pay up or appear before Henry or the Council2; but, to judge
from the scanty evidence on the subject, such delinquents were
not numerous. The Council was authorised by parliament to
give such security as it thought fit3. Of the money lent by Bishop
Beaufort, £14,000 was secured on the customs at South-
ampton4. Many lenders were immediately granted assign-
ments on the clerical tenth or the next parliamentary grant.
The clergy contributed liberally to the loan; but little, if
anything, was offered by the lords temporal. A vast number
of small contributions, however, came from knights, esquires,
and lesser folk, and several shires and towns sent a lump sum5.
The meeting of parliament just as the money was beginning
to come in shows that Henry was quite free from apprehension
lest the raising of the loan should arouse opposition on con-
stitutional or legal grounds. The writs of summons had been
issued on Feb. 26, nearly a month before the battle of Bauge.
The bishops, twenty-three abbots and the prior of Coventry,
the duke of Gloucester, the earls of Northumberland, West-
morland, Warwick, Worcester, March, and Devon, twenty
other lords temporal, and ten justices were summoned in-
dividually6. Seventy-two knights and 176 burgesses figure in
the Sheriffs' Returns7, but how many attended we have no
means of telling. It must have been a fairly experienced parlia-
ment. In only five cases did a shire elect two men who had
never been returned, and forty of the county members had
been chosen at least once before. Only nineteen boroughs out
of eighty-seven selected two novices, and one hundred of the
borough representatives had been elected on at least one pre-
vious occasion since Henry's accession8. Henry was present

1 Rym. x. 96. 2 Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 280. 3 Rot. Pari. iv. 130.

* Ibid. 132 sqq.; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 372.

5 Iss. Roll 9 Hen. V, Pasch., May 12, 14, June 28, 1421; Rec. Roll 9 Hen. V, Pasch.,
May 10, 13, 14, 1421. Queen Catherine lent £1333. 6s. %d. (ibid. May 13, 142 1).

6 Rept. Dign. Peer, iv. 849. No summons was sent to the abbey of St Augustine's,
Canterbury, the papal confirmation of the election of Marcellus, the new abbot, dated
Feb. 14, not having been received when the writs were issued (Cal. Papal Letters, vii.
191). Of the temporal lords summoned to the previous parliament, all save Hugh
Burnell, who was dead, received writs. The eight lords present at this parliament and not
in the previous one had presumably come to England with Henry (Rept. Dign. Peer,
iv. 846, 849).

7 Return Pari. i. 296 sqq. 8 Ibid.

18-2

276 Henry's Last Visit to England [ch. lxviii

in person when parliament was opened in the Painted Chamber
on May 2, the day named in the writs, by the customary
address from the chancellor. The speaker began by com-
mending the king, especially for ascribing his victories to God,
like Julius Caesar, who would hear nothing about his own
exploits for fear of being puffed up. He also likened the king
to Job, for as the patriarch gave thanks to God when he heard
of the fate of his children, so Henry, when he was told of the
death of Clarence and his comrades and the capture of many
men of his company, praised God for the visitation of adversity.
After enlarging on this theme, the bishop explained that the
parliament had been summoned for the redress of wrongs and
excesses committed in the realm during the king's absence,
especially those to the detriment of men in his service overseas,
for the maintenance of the laws and statutes, for the ease and
safety of the people, and for the increase of the general weal,
on which matters the king wished to have the advice of the
"Estates and Commons1." It was not a very instructive oration,
and it is noteworthy that the chancellor seems to have said
nothing about the treaty of Troyes, though the ratification of
that agreement was by far the most important business that
parliament had been summoned to transact.

The chancellor ended his speech with the customary order
that the commons should choose a Speaker, who was to be
presented to the king on May 6. They punctually elected
Thomas Chaucer, one of the members for Oxfordshire, who
was accepted by the king2.

The ratification of the treaty of Troyes gave no trouble,
though the previous parliament had been a little nervous
about it3. The chancellor read the treaty before the "Three
Estates4," and at the king's order they then scrutinised its
terms. How long they spent on this we are not told, nor do we
know whether the treaty was discussed. At all events, it was
authorised and accepted by parliament, the members pro-
mising, on behalf of themselves and their heirs, to observe it
for ever5.

For the rest, the proceedings of this parliament were not of

1 "Les Estats et Communes," Rot. Pari. iv. 129.

2 Ibid. 130; Return Pari. i. 297. 3 Rot. Pari. iv. 127.

4 Defined as the prelates and clergy, the nobles and magnates, and the commons
(Rot. Pari. iv. 135).

5 Ibid.

1421] Parliament 277

great interest or importance. If the king's popularity was
waning and the country becoming discontented, as a famous
passage in Adam of Usk's chronicle1 has led modern writers
to suppose, there is no indication of such a revulsion of feeling
in the official records2. The king's authority appears to have
stood very high. It was laid down, seemingly at Henry's
instance, that such statutes and ordinances as might be made
while he was away on his approaching expedition to France,
should hold good only until the next parliament after his
return3 — a stipulation which was applied to some of the
measures enacted in this parliament4. Parliament agreed, as
we have seen, that the Council might use its discretion in
granting security to those contributing to the loan that was
just being raised5, and the king was empowered, all statutes
and ordinances to the contrary notwithstanding, to remove the
Staple from Calais to whatever place he chose for three years
from the following Michaelmas6. Next to the ratification of
the treaty of Troyes, the most notable measure was one con-
cerning the currency, which, though not in so bad a plight as
that of France, stood in need of improvement. At the instance
of the government it was enacted that after Dec. 24 next all
English gold coins should be valued by weight. Most of the
gold coins in circulation being deficient in weight and quality,
it was desirable to have them all recoined, and the king there-
fore surrendered the profits which he might lawfully claim on
the recoining of gold money which should be brought to the
Tower mint before next Christmas7. Even so, it is evident that
the measure threatened great loss to many.

The common petitions were few. There was the customary
request, favourably answered as usual, for the enforcement of
the Statutes of Labourers8. The commons still hoped that

1 Usk, 133. There had been rumours of plots in Norfolk and Suffolk during the pre-
vious winter (Iss. Roll 8 Hen. V, Mich., Jan. 21, 142 1).

2 It has been stated in modern works (e.g. Newhall, 150, n. 34) that the commons
protested against the expense of the war. Newhall merely refers to Cobbett's "Parlia-
mentary History" (i. 339), and I have been unable to trace the story further back than
Speed's "Historie of Great Britaine." Speed (ed. 1632, p. 803) asserts that the petitions
on the matter came from outsiders and were presented by them to the estates. There
are, however, no such petitions in the printed rolls, though Speed refers to the records
of parliament as authority for his story.

3 Rot. Pari. iv. 130. 4 Ibid. 131, 132.
5 Ibid. 130. 6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.; Statutes, ii. 208 sq.

8 Rot. Pari. iv. 146.

278 Henry's Last Visit to England [ch. lxviii

the alliance with Burgundy might be turned to their commercial
advantage : they asked the king to negotiate with the duke and
his Flemish subjects for the exclusion from Flanders of wool
from Scotland and Spain, which was being worked there in
increasing quantities, or, failing that, for the admission to
Flanders of woollen goods manufactured in England; but the
king merely replied that he would speak to the duke with the
object of securing access for English cloth to the Flemish
markets1. The commons petitioned successfully that the
justices of assize might resume their work (which, in the
interests of the army in France, had been suspended since the
king went abroad in 141 7) though safeguards were provided
for men serving overseas2. An interesting petition represented
that owing to pestilence and war there was a lack of suitable
men for the offices of sheriff and escheator and asked that the
statute limiting their term of office to one year might be
abrogated. The king consented to suspend the statute for four
years, with certain precautions3.

But if the influence of the commons in this parliament was
relatively small, the records offer ample evidence of the import-
ant status they had acquired in public estimation. A great part
of the roll is taken up by petitions presented in the first instance
to the commons, and a great part of the time of parliament must
have been devoted to their consideration. All sorts of people
thought it wise to get the commons to commend their requests
to the king and the lords. If Bishop Beaufort wanted parlia-
mentary ratification of the letters patent securing his loans to
the king4; if Lucy countess of Kent wanted protection against
her late husband's creditors5, or Beatrice, widow of Thomas
earl of Arundel, peaceable enjoyment of her dowry6; if
Griffith Donne wanted dispensation from the laws forbidding
Welshmen to purchase lands in England7; if the abbots and
priors of England wanted exemption from the duty of collecting
clerical tenths outside the district where they dwelt8; if the
fishermen of the Thames wanted its waters to be better pre-
served9; if the earl of Salisbury wanted recognition as heir of

1 Rot. Pari. iv. 146 sq.

2 Ibid. 147; Statutes, ii. 205.

3 Rot. Pari. iv. 148; Statutes, ii. 206.

4 Rot. Pari. iv. 132. 5 Ibid. 143 sqq.
6 Ibid. 130. 7 Ibid. 130 sq.

8 Ibid. 131. 9 Ibid. 132.

1421] The Commons 279

his father's property1; if the inhabitants of Oxfordshire, Berks,
and Bucks wanted drastic action to be taken against violent
and disorderly students from Oxford2; if the men of North-
umberland, Cumberland, and Westmorland wanted new
measures for enforcing order and defending the Marches3; if
the municipal authorities and merchants of Calais wanted the
royal mint to be re-established there4; if the inhabitants of New
Shoreham or Rottingdean wanted their assessment for tenths
or fifteenths to be reduced5 — would the commons ask the king
to grant their requests or remedy their grievances in parliament6.
There was, however, no fixed procedure for the presentation
of petitions. The physicians and surgeons addressed one to the
whole parliament7, the soldiers of the Calais garrison to the
Speaker and the knights of the shires8, while there were still
of course direct petitions to the king9, the great majority of
which have doubtless perished.

It may perhaps be inferred from the records that the petitions
addressed to the commons had four possible fates. They might
adopt them and present them as "common petitions10." Or,
without going so far, they might, as requested, commend the
petition to the favourable consideration of the king or the lords.
In that case, it was read in parliament and apparently considered
there11. The king's answer was given, sometimes "with the
assent of the lords12," sometimes "with the assent of the lords
and commons13," sometimes "by authority of parliament14,"
sometimes without allusion to parliament or any part of it15;
and sometimes it was embodied in the statute of the year16. In
the third place, it might happen that the commons were not
prepared to countenance a petition. Then it might be sent on
to the lords, if haply they might regard it more favourably17.

1 Rot. Pari. iv. 141 sq. 2 Ibid. 131.

3 Ibid. 143. * Ibid. 146.

6 Ibid. 159 sq.

6 In one or two cases the commons are asked to pray the lords to beg the king to
ordain remedies (ibid. 143, § 22, 160, no. 8).

7 Ibid. 158. 8 Ibid. 159.

9 Ibid. 159, 162. Two petitions, addressed to the king, were given to the commons,
who were asked to present them (ibid. 130, § 13, 141, § 21).

10 This seems to have been done with a petition from Calais (ibid. 146, § 27) and
perhaps with No. vi (ibid. 147, § 29).

11 Ibid. 131, § 14, 132, §§ 16, 17, 143, § 22, 144, § 23.

12 Ibid. 132, § 17. 13 Ibid. 144, § 23.
14 Ibid. 131, §§ 14, 15; cf. 132, § 16. 15 Ibid. 143, § 22.
18 Statutes, ii. 208 (cap. 9), 206 sqq. (cap. 7).

17 Rot. Pari. iv. 159, 160 sq.

280 Henry's Last Visit to England [ch. lxviii

But the commons might reject it totally, though this seems to
have been the fate of only one petition presented at the parlia-
ment under consideration, and that was not addressed to the
commons as a whole but only to the Speaker and the knights1.

Some of these petitions had results of public interest.
Oxford students, it had been complained, frequently expelled
from their property inhabitants of the adjacent country,
poached in warrens and woods, and even rescued felonious
clerks from the prisons of the ordinaries. They are, says the
reply, to be proceeded against according to law, and if a student
be outlawed for any of the offences specified in the petition,
the chancellor of the university is to send him down2. The
qualified physicians and surgeons complained that "unconnyng
an unapproved" practitioners are allowed a free hand, "to
grete harme and slaughtre of many men," and asked that no
one except university graduates in medicine be permitted to
practise : it was ordained that the Council should be empowered
to take action against physicians who had not graduated and
surgeons who had not been admitted among the masters of
their art3. Of more political significance were the extension to
Redesdale of measures adopted in 1414 to suppress disorder in
Tynedale and Hexhamshire4, and the recognition of the earl
of Salisbury as heir of his father's possessions, a very timely
acknowledgment of his services in France5. It was in this
parliament, too, that a notable step was taken towards the
settlement of the long-standing dispute about the division of
the Bohun inheritance. In accordance with an agreement
between her and the king, Anne countess of Stafford, Henry's
sousin, had made a division of most of the lands in dispute, and
in presence of the lords offered the choice to Henry, who
selected one part, leaving the other to her. Henry's part, with
consent of both lords and commons, was annexed to the duchy
of Lancaster6.

On the whole this parliament, the last at which Henry was

1 It is not certain that the petition in question was disregarded, but no answer to it
is recorded (Rot. Pari. iv. 159, no. 5).

2 Ibid. 131; Statutes, ii. 207 sq. In the previous year the university had been in
trouble because students had forcibly liberated two prisoners of the archbishop from
Oxford castle. At the instance of the royal Council the academic authorities had
enacted new statutes for the preservation of good order, but these had evidently not
been effectual (Snappe's Formulary, 187 sqq.).

3 Rot. Pari. iv. 130, 158. * Ibid. 143; Statutes, ii. 206 sq.

5 Rot. Pari. iv. 141 sq.

6 Ibid. 135 sqq.; G.E.C. (ed. Gibbs), vi. 473 sq.

1421] Convocation 281

present, was dull and unfruitful. The commons were small-
minded and apathetic. There is no hint that anyone criticised
the treaty of Troyes1 or even asked a question as to the future
relations of England and France, a matter which should have
given parliament much concern. The members acquiesced in
the levy of what was very nearly a forced loan, nay even en-
couraged it, though they must have known that it would of
necessity be repaid from future taxes. There was evidently
much disorder in the country, but the commons had no
remonstrances or suggestions of their own to offer about it.
The record of the parliaments which followed the treaty of
Troyes compares badly indeed with that of the parliaments
which followed the treaty of Bretigny.

The convocation of Canterbury met on May 5, its pro-
ceedings lasting till the 27th. On May 12 it voted a tenth to
the king, half to be collected at the following Martinmas and
the other half a year later. A first charge on the proceeds of
the tax was to be the repayment of loans made by clergy2. One
of the transactions of convocation was to sentence a man to be
flogged through Cheapside for having forged the seals of Arch-
bishop Chichele and others3. Its attention, however, was
principally concerned with the case of William Taylor, a
reputed heretic, and the old question of the best way to secure
ecclesiastical promotion for university graduates.

Taylor had been accused of Lollardy before, under both
Arundel and Chichele. On May 24 he was produced before
convocation in the chapter-house of St Paul's by the bishop of
Worcester, who had long had him in custody for preaching
doubtful doctrines at Bristol. On being questioned, Taylor
denied that he had ever preached or held the opinions ascribed
to him, though he admitted quoting two of them in writing.
He then drew from his bosom a paper which was thought to
contain arguments in favour of these views. He was forthwith
removed and the paper taken from him. The opinions in
question, with the contents of Taylor's paper, were referred

1 The meeting of parliament is noticed by several chroniclers, but not one mentions
the ratification of the treaty of Troyes.

2 Cone. iii. 399; Fine Roll 9 Hen. V, m. 14. £1668 of the grant was forthwith
assigned to contributors to the loan and entered in the Receipt Roll as received from the
collectors (Rec. Roll 9 Hen. V, Pasch., May 12, 142 1). £483 was similarly treated a
few weeks later (ibid. June 28, July 17, 142 1). There could be no better illustration of
the fact that the "receipts" of these rolls were by no means always received.

3 Cone, loc. cit.

282 Henry's Last Visit to England [ch. lxviii

to a committee consisting of the chancellors of the two univer-
sities and John Langdon, doctor of theology, a monk of
Canterbury cathedral, who on May 26, Taylor being present,
reported that the teachings attributed to him savoured of
heresy and were not to be held by any Christian. Taylor con-
curred, but was nevertheless sentenced to imprisonment for
life. Owing, however, to the condign penitence which he dis-
played, the archbishop, with the consent of convocation,
announced that the bishop of Worcester might release him if
he could find security acceptable to the royal Chancery that he
would hold no heretical doctrines in future. He was taken
away in custody of the bishop1, but on June 2 John Sengleton,
of Chart in Kent, gentleman, William Cokirnage, weaver, and
John Aleyn, leather-seller, of London, and John Laurence, of
Feltham in Middlesex, husbandman, went bail in £100 each
that Taylor would appear before the king's Council if sum-
moned and that he would no longer preach or teach error or
heresy2. Taylor was no doubt released, but in 1423 he was
again before Chichele, and being convicted of relapse into
heresy was degraded and handed over to the secular arm on
March I3. While recognising that we have only a summary
record of the case, a record moreover drawn up by Taylor's
enemies, one can hardly escape the conclusion that he was an
unstable and disingenuous man, who was treated by the
ecclesiastical authorities with as much consideration as he had
any right to expect.

It was doubtless the continued enforcement of the Statute of
Provisors with respect to lesser benefices that occasioned the com-
plaint of the chancellors of the universities that these bodies were
still suffering because of the difficulty experienced by graduates
in securing preferment. On May 26 the subject was debated,
and apparently some of the members of convocation seized the
opportunity to criticise certain of the ordinances of the univer-
sities. Eventually it was agreed, with the king's approval, that
if the universities would adopt certain modifications of their
ordinances which the chancellors were prepared to recommend,
a constitution designed to remedy their grievance should be
put into force4. The chancellor of Oxford went home, but soon
returned at the head of a deputation who brought letters ex-

1 Cone. iii. 404 sq. 2 Claus. 9 Hen. V, m. 22 d.

3 Cone. iii. 411 sqq. 4 Ibid. 399.

142 1] Preferment for Graduates 283

pressing the consent of the masters to the proposed amend-
ments, the most important of which permitted members of
religious orders who had been through the full course in
theology at the university, to incept in that faculty without
taking the master's degree in arts. This concession had been
sought by the friars, and represents a success for them in their
continual conflict with the seculars1. Evidently the changes
passed were identical with those desired by convocation, for
the archbishop published a constitution calling upon every
ecclesiastical patron to bestow the next vacant benefice in his
gift and thereafter every third such benefice, on a university
graduate, an arrangement which was to last for ten years2. The
measure, though simpler in form, was very similar in purpose
to the one issued on the same subject in 141 73.

Convocation had also given some consideration to abuses in
the Church. It was decreed that no one taking orders was to be
subject to any fees or charges on the occasion of the ceremony;
the fee for institutions and inductions was fixed; and at the
petition of some of the proctors of the lower clergy, a constitu-
tion of Archbishop Sudbury fixing the stipends of chaplains was
read and it was resolved that it should be republished and
thenceforth treated as binding4.

The capital was indeed the scene of much debate during
May, 1 42 1. For while parliament and convocation were
sitting a great assembly of Benedictine monks was being held
in Westminster abbey. It had been summoned by Henry,
ever zealous in the cause of religion5. He had been told, it was
reported, that Benedictine monasticism had gone far astray
and could be restored to the right path by none but him, some

1 Cone. iii. 399 sq.

2 Ibid. 401. Bachelors were to be reckoned as graduates. We hear nothing of
Cambridge, which presumably adopted the amendments also.

3 See above, p. 92. 4 Cone. iii. 399, 402 sq.

5 The summons to the abbot of Evesham is extant and worth quoting: "Trysti ant
{sic) wel byloued in god, for certeyn matiers chargeable concernyng the worschipe of
god as wel as the goode of youre ordre wyth his grace we wolle and charge yow streitly
that ye do come to gedre not only the fadres bote also tho pat beon clerkes and opere
that beon notable persones yn euery hous of the same ordre yn as gret nombre as is
goodly possible to assemble vnto oure abbeye of Westminster the v. day of may next
comynge. Ant septhe {sic) pat non suche as is byforesaid be excused fro the said
congregacion wyth oute so resonable ant euident a cause pat by alle reson ogthe {sic)
to be except, as yeo ant they bothe desiren to eschue oure indignacion. Yeuen under
oure signet of the Egle yn the absence of oure oper at oure town of Leycestre pe xxv day
of marche" (MS. Cott. Titus C. ix. f. 18). The use of English in a summons to the
heads of a religious order is no less remarkable than the peremptory language employed.

284 Henry's Last Visit to England [ch. lxviii

saying that this libel sprang from certain friars, others that
its author was the prior of the Carthusian house of Mount
Grace, formerly a Benedictine monk himself. Sixty abbots and
conventual priors, with over 300 other monks, were present.
The older monks were perturbed, though willing to admit that
Henry had some ground for his concern, as the order had fallen
under the guidance of young men1. On May 7 the king joined
the assembly as it sat in the chapter-house, and listened to an
address by Edmund Lacy, bishop of Exeter. He himself next
made a speech about the pristine rule of St Benedict, which had
excited the devotion of his ancestors, and modern neglect of it.
He then handed to the monks thirteen articles proposing re-
forms, and begged them to return to their primitive manner of
life and to pray unceasingly for him, the realm, and the Church.
Henry's attitude made a favourable impression on the assembly,
but did not prevent a critical scrutiny of the document which
embodied his suggestions2. It began by asserting flatly that
there were many abuses in Benedictine houses, and went on to
propose reforms on such matters as the monastic habit, the
periodical blood-letting (minutio), the possession of money by
individuals, the use of private apartments, and intercourse with
women. The articles indicate the prevalence of serious laxity
and hint at worse. They are in no way original, but aim
simply at the restoration of the genuine rule of St Benedict3.
They were examined by a committee consisting of three nomi-
nees of the king — the bishop of Exeter, the critical prior of
Mount Grace, and a secretary — and thirty representatives of
the order, headed by the prior of Worcester4. The king's
proposals underwent much criticism, and sub-committees drew
up alternative schemes, but in the end a draft of the abbot
of St Albans found widespread acceptance and after 9ome
amendment was adopted5. Its suggestions were very verbose

1 Wals. ii. 337; Cont. Croyl. 513 sq. Wilkins mistakenly calls the assembly a
provincial chapter, and misplaces it under 1422 (Cone. iii. 413). Cf. Pantin, 217, 221,
who points out that the presence of so many abbots and priors is striking evidence of
the importance which the monks attached to the occasion.

2 Wals. ii. 337 sq.; Cone. iii. 413 sq. 3 Ibid.

4 Cont. Croyl. 514; cf. Wals. ii. 337.

5 Cont. Croyl. 514; Wals. ii. 338; MS. Cott. Titus C. ix. f. 18. The document is
printed by Wilkins (Cone. iii. 414 sq.). There has been much confusion over its date.
In the MSS. from which it was taken by Wilkins it was probably ascribed to 1420 —
"Henrici quinti anno octavo" (MS. Cott. Vitellius E. xii. f. 92; Reyner, App., pt. 3,
p. 170), Wilkins altering the "octavo" to "decimo." But Walsingham and the Con-
tinuator of the Croyland Chronicle leave no doubt that the abbot of St Albans' recom-

142 1 ] The Black Monks 285

and obviously an attempt to evade compliance with Henry's
proposals. When they were more than pious wishes, they were
robbed of their force by qualifications and exceptions1 . And
even these innocuous proposals seem never to have been con-
firmed by any authority with power to legislate for the English
Benedictines. Nevertheless, Henry contented himself with
them2, but the only fruit of his efforts is apparently to be seen
in four constitutions passed by the provincial chapter held at
Northampton in July, 1423, when he had been dead for
nearly a year. One of these constitutions deals with the duties
of abbots; the other three have to do with dress3.

Henry's amazing energy and industry were never more
strikingly illustrated than during this visit of his to England.
For, besides all the domestic business already noticed, the
defence of the realm had caused some anxiety, and dealings
with foreign powers claimed much of his attention. The
dauphinists were active and sanguine and perhaps hoped to
keep Henry in England by threats of invasion. At all events
it was deemed advisable in March to send to sea a powerful
squadron of balingers and barges under William Bardolph,
who had under him a good-sized force of men-at-arms and
archers4. About the middle of the month it was reported that
a large Castilian fleet was about to make a descent on the Isle
of Wight, the inhabitants of which were ordered to hold them-
selves in readiness and promised reinforcements and munitions
in case of need5. The danger, if it ever existed, seems to have
passed over, perhaps because of the activities of Bardolph. There
remained, however, the difficulty of maintaining the defence of
the northern frontier, which was particularly irksome just then.
Though of late years the balance of military success had inclined

mendations were adopted at the assembly of 142 1, a view confirmed by a close examina-
tion of the two Cotton MSS. cited above. The document in Cone. iii. 417 sq. is evidently
a report of one of the sub-committees (cf. Cont. Croyl. 514).

1 Cone. iii. 414 sq.

2 Cont. Croyl. 514.

3 Cone. iii. 426. Cf. Walsingham, ii. 338. He disdains to describe the reforms, which
apparently had not been accepted by the provincial chapter when he wrote. It may
be noted that if the articles approved at Westminster in 142 1 had been given legal
effect, the constitutions passed at Northampton would have been superfluous.

4 Rym. x. 68. Bardolph had at least ten balingers and three barges. Five of the
balingers belonged to the king, among these being the Nicholas de Toure and the Ave
de Toure, each with a crew of one hundred (Iss. Roll 8 Hen. V, Mich., March 1 1 and 19,
142 1). The mariners were impressed for six weeks, the troops were serving for forty days
(ibid.).

5 Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 362.

286 Henry's Last Visit to England [ch. lxviii

towards the English, the border counties were in a sad plight.
Pestilence had supplemented the ravages of war; many inhabi-
tants had fled to more favoured regions ; great tracts of land had
gone out of cultivation ; while the trade of the ports was being
injured by Scottish raiders at sea, and the burden of maintaining
the fortifications of castles and towns was proving too heavy for
those responsible1. It was high time too that something was
done to check the flow of Scottish troops to the dauphinist
regions of France — a consideration that gained new weight
after the battle of Bauge. Henry was in a strong position for
negotiation with the Scots, for not only was their king his
prisoner, but he could now use the name and authority of the
king of France. It is consequently not surprising to find that
he was soon followed to England by Gilles lord of Clamecy
and three other envoys of Charles VI, charged with a mission
to Scotland concerning the advantage of all three realms. In
March they were escorted north by John Colvile2. It was pro-
bably with the object of promoting these negotiations that
Henry took James I with him to the north. The representations
of the Frenchmen seem soon to have borne fruit. Scotsmen
met Henry at York3, and though we do not know for certain
why they were there, it is significant that on April 1 1 safe-con-
ducts were issued in favour of the earls of Douglas and Athol,
who were coming to England4. In the middle of May Douglas
was evidently at Westminster5, and on May 30 he signed an
indenture in which, stating that King James had come to an
agreement with Henry about his release and had ordered him
(the earl) to aid the English king, he promised to do so with
200 knights and esquires and 200 mounted archers, who were
to be ready at Easter next6. Next day Henry announced that,
through the mediation of the earl of Douglas, it had been
agreed that if, within three months of Henry's return from his
expedition to France, James should deliver as hostages a
number of Scottish lords and bishops, who are named, he might
then return to his country7. It was generally believed that
Henry made it a condition of the prospective release that James

1 Rot. Pari. iv. 143; Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 343.

2 Ibid. p. 321; Iss. Roll 8 Hen. V, Mich., March 11, 142 1; Devon, 365.

3 Rot. Scot. ii. 228.

4 Rym. x. 99 sq. The earl of Athol does not seem to have used his safe-conduct.

5 Rot. Scot. ii. 229.

6 Rym. x. 123 sq. It is to be noted that the earl's promises were given to Henry
personally. 7 Ibid. 124.

1421] The Duke of Bourbon 287

should marry Joan Beaufort1, but it was rather Henry's per-
mission than James's consent that was needed for such a match.
The agreement postponed James's release to an undetermined
date; nor, as it seems, did it technically involve a peace or even
truce between the two realms. Its practical effect, however,
was no doubt to establish what passed for peace on the Border2,
and, what was still more important to Henry, recruiting for the
dauphinists in Scotland appears to have been checked3. Indeed,
several Scotsmen evidently engaged to serve Henry with sub-
stantial retinues4, though it is not certain that these undertakings
were actually carried out.

Henry's diplomacy met with other successes about the same
time. On March 17 a treaty was signed at Rouen with the
duke of Bourbon, who, helped by the good offices of the duke
of Savoy, had long been trying to regain his freedom. He
promised to swear to the treaty of Troyes and to make his
subjects do the same. He was to furnish seven hostages, in-
cluding his younger son; to deliver to Henry till Nov. 1, 1422,
six notable places in his lands, the expense of their upkeep and
defence being borne by himself; and to pay a ransom of
100,000 crowns. Sixty thousand of these were to be paid by
Aug. 8 next, and if this condition were fulfilled he would be
released5. The duke tried hard to fulfil the agreement, selling
land, borrowing money, and organising warlike operations
against recalcitrant vassals6, and on April 10 he received the
chancellor of Normandy's quittance for 25,000 gold crowns,
3000 of which were represented by jewels7. The dauphin not
only granted him 100,000/. /. out of his own revenues, but
also sought, though in vain, to induce Lyons to make a
contribution towards the ransom. Beaucourt thinks that the
dauphin cannot have known of the duke's "treachery" in
accepting the treaty of Troyes ; but his grant was not made until
May 198, and it must have been impossible to keep the terms

1 Monstr. iv. 26.

2 Kingsford, Lit. 290; Monstr. iv. 26.

3 It had been expected in dauphinist circles that early in May the earls of Douglas
and Mar would cross to France with six or seven thousand men. But the troops never
came (Beaucourt, i. 336).

4 This seems the explanation of the strangely-worded safe-conducts issued by Henry
at Dover on June 9 in favour of Alexander Seton, lord of Gordon, Alexander and
Fergus Kennedy, Alexander Forbes, and John St Clare (Rym. x. 127, 128).

5 Ibid. 85 sqq.; Huillard-Breholles, Rancon, 47.

6 Ibid. 48 sq.; Rym. x. 70 sq.

7 Huillard-Breholles, Rancon, 48. 8 Beaucourt, i. 373.

288 Henry1 s Last Visit to England [ch. lxviii

of the agreement secret for two months. Probably the dauphin
expected that once Bourbon was at large, his acceptance of the
treaty would not count for much; but, whatever the duke's
intentions, he failed to satisfy the conditions of his release, for
the 35,000 crowns needed to bring the total paid to 60,000,
were not handed over till the following November. No more
was paid during Henry's lifetime1. As it was impossible for
Henry to occupy any places in the duke's lands, neither party
gained much by the agreement, though Henry might boast that,
besides 60,000 crowns, he had secured from one of the greatest
men of the Armagnac faction a formal recognition that the
treaty of Troyes was "good, reasonable, and just2."

Another achievement, equally striking in appearance and
equally fruitless in the event, was the conclusion of a new treaty
between England and Genoa. Two Genoese agents were com-
missioned on Feb. 7 to treat for an alliance with England, the
settlement of all existing claims, and a trade agreement3. Their
arrival must have been delayed, and it was not till May 1 that
the bishop of Worcester, John Stafford, keeper of the privy
seal, and William Alnwick were appointed to negotiate with
them4. The treaty was dated May 29: injuries were to be
mutually forgiven, except that the Genoese were to pay ^6000
compensation to one William Walderne and his fellows for
merchandise which some of their citizens had evidently seized;
neither party should be bound to engage in the wars of the
other, nor should either aid the enemies of the other unless
already in alliance with them; subjects of each party should
have access, under the usual conditions, to the territory of the
other5. Though the treaty was not formally ratified by Henry
until the autumn, an official safe-conduct to all Genoese entering
or leaving England was issued on June 96.

It was a time when international politics were extremely
complicated and the relations of states very unstable. When
the negotiations with Genoa were in progress an envoy from

1 Huillard-Breholles, Rancon, 50 sq., who, without any grounds, charges Henry
with bad faith towards the duke.

2 Rym. x. 85.

3 Ibid. n8sq. In 1420 the negotiations with the Genoese, abortive in 141 9, had
been resumed; but again they bore no fruit (ibid. ix. 860, x. 16; Cal. Pat. 1416-22,
p. 276).

4 Rym. x. 66, 93, 117.

5 Ibid. 120 sqq.

6 Ibid. 128.

1421] Breton Vacillation 289

Alfonso V of Aragon was in England1. Now, Castile being
obdurate in its friendship for the dauphin, it was obviously to
Henry's interest to cultivate an entente with Alfonso, who was
at the time trying to secure the kingdom of Naples in opposition
to the duke of Anjou and was therefore disposed to look with
favour on the Anglo-Burgundian cause. But Aragon was at
enmity with Genoa, which was supporting the Italian ambitions
of Anjou, and in the treaty between Henry and the Genoese,
Aragon is expressly mentioned as one of the enemies of the
latter2. Henry had to choose between the two. Unwisely, as
the sequel proved, he preferred Genoa. But, reluctant to reject
Alfonso's overtures altogether, he despatched an embassy to
express his sense of the king of Aragon's friendly disposition;
to suggest that he might appoint representatives to discuss
with Henry the terms of an alliance ; and to ask if in the mean-
time he would abstain from helping Henry's enemies3. The
meaning of this was transparent, and it is no wonder that
Alfonso let the matter drop.

About the same time two ambassadors from Portugal,
officially an ally of England, were in the country, but the pur-
pose of their errand is not known4.

Far more vital, however, than the establishment of friend-
ship with the states of southern Europe was the maintenance
of Henry's good relations with the dukes of Brittany and
Burgundy, and it happened that during his stay in England his
position in regard to both changed for the worse. In the case
of Brittany the fault was not Henry's. When he left France
the truce with Brittany still held good, though violations of
it by the Bretons seem to have been exceptionally numerous and
serious, and in February envoys had to be sent to urge on the
duke the enforcement of its terms and to seek reparations5.
Apparently they produced some effect, for it was arranged that
commissioners from both sides should meet at Pontorson on
April 20 to discuss the maintenance of the truce, arrange for
the punishment of breaches of it, and hear the complaints of
those who had suffered by them6. But the battle of Bauge
wrought a change in the duke's feelings. Never enthusiastic
for the English, he now came to the conclusion that they were

1 Iss. Roll 9 Hen. V, Easter, June 5, 142 1. 2 Rym. x. 120.

3 Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 285. 4 Rym. x. 121, 134.

5 Ibid. x. 61 sqq.; Iss. Roll 8 Hen. V, Mich., Feb. 8, 1421; Exch. Accts. 321/38.

6 Rym. x. 91 sq.

win 19

290 Henry's Last Visit to England [ch. lxviii

going to lose, and on May 8, after conversations with the
dauphin at Sable, signed a treaty in which, promising to aid
Charles with all his resources against the English and their
allies, he renounced all his treaties with Henry, while the
dauphin undertook to help him against his enemies, especially
Olivier and Charles de Blois, to execute justice upon them for
their recent outrage on him, and (in a secret clause) to remove
from his own court the president of Provence and three others
supposed to have had a hand in it1. In accordance with the
treaty, the duke's younger brother, Richard count of Etampes,
brought a considerable force to the dauphin's army and took
part in the ensuing campaign2. Nevertheless, the duke was
careful not to break completely with England3. While he
was negotiating with the dauphin at Sable, Breton envoys,
headed by the bishop of Nantes, were visiting Henry, who was
at pains to treat them courteously and liberally4. On May 2 1
English commissioners were named to discuss alleged breaches
of the truce with commissioners of the duke5, and friendly
relations between him and Henry seem never to have been
publicly severed. Still, the treaty of Sable added greatly to
Henry's anxieties and to the difficulty of the military situation.
Henry's relations with the Burgundians were not altogether
happy in the autumn of 1420, but outwardly he and the duke
had remained on good terms. Their friendship, however, was
soon subjected to a severe strain by Henry's attitude towards
Jacqueline of Hainault, whose fateful arrival in England
occurred just after Henry had left London for the west. There
is no need to recount in detail the events which led up to
Jacqueline's flight from the Netherlands; but to appreciate its
significance one must remember that her second marriage, to
the wretched duke of Brabant, had been arranged in the in-
terests of Burgundian policy, that her quarrel with her husband
had caused much annoyance to both Duke John and Duke
Philip6, and that just before she fled from Hainault to England
Philip believed that he had persuaded her to go back to her

1 Morice, Preuves, ii. 1091 sq.; Beaucourt, i. 224 sq.; Cabinet Historique, iv. 175}
Bibl. nat., MS. franc. 26,044, nos- 5670-2.

2 Beaucourt, i. 456 (letter of Jean Caille to the inhabitants of Lyons); Morice,
Histoire, i. 487, Preuves, ii. 1086, 1088, 1089.

3 The list of presents in Morice, Preuves, ii. 1163, 1164, is amusing evidence of the
duke's resolve to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

4 He gave the bishop 500 marks and contributed towards the expenses of the other
envoys (Iss. Roll 9 Hen. V, Pasch., May 2, 1421; Rym. x. 116, 117).

5 Ibid. 115.

6 Monstr. iv. 26; Le Fevre, ii. 30 sq.; Chast. i. 210 sq.

1 42 1 ] Jacqueline of Hainault 291

husband at Brussels1. For Henry to harbour Jacqueline and
to encourage her efforts to obtain the dissolution of her
marriage could not but give grave offence to the duke, and, to
make things worse, it was generally believed, probably with
truth, that Henry had known of her intention and had helped
her to carry it out2. In 1427 Jacqueline, when trying to induce
the English government to maintain her cause, repeatedly
asserted that she had come to England at Henry's instance and
in reliance on promises he had made, and that he had pledged
his support in her divorce suit and arranged her marriage with
Gloucester3 — statements which no one seems to have con-
tradicted, though it was to the interest of Henry VI's Council
to do so. The story that her escape was planned at Valenciennes
by Lewis Robsart, a Hainaulter by birth and one of Henry's
most trusty servants4, receives colour from the fact that about
the time of her flight Robsart was sent by Henry with messages
to the duke of Burgundy5. Moreover, when she left Valen-
ciennes, she gave out that she was going to Ponthieu, of which
she was dowager countess6. Now on March 1, over a week
before she crossed to England, Henry issued a request to his
allies and a command to his subjects to assist Jacqueline and
her mother on their projected journey to Ponthieu7. The direct
route from Valenciennes to Ponthieu passed through no
English territory and the "allies" with whom the two travellers
would come in contact would all be subjects of the duke of
Burgundy. It looks then as if Henry were expecting Jacqueline
to arrive at Calais and had made up his mind to risk offending
Duke Philip; the mention of Ponthieu in the safe-conduct
would save his face if she were stopped by Burgundian officers
and might prevent the duke from suspecting her real destina-
tion until she had crossed the Channel. At all events, she left

1 Le Fevre, ii. 31. 2 Ibid.; Loher, Beitrage, i. 44.

3 Ibid. ii. 220, 222 sq., 224, 227, 228 sq., 233.

4 Le Fevre, ii. 31 sq.; cf. Cal. Pat. 1416-22, p. 27. Monstrelet (iv. 27) and Chastel- + m.g
lain (i. 212) call Jacqueline's confidant and protector the seigneur d'Escaillon. So does

the Cordeliers chronicle (29*5, which says that he had come to Valenciennes from
Henry to see his wife. Robsart had letters of denization on March 8, 1417 (Cal. Pat.
1416-22, p. 27), and on May 25, 1420, had been appointed Henry's standard-bearer
(Rot. Norm. 8 Hen. V, p. 2, m. 26).

5 Under date of March 19, 142 1, the Issue Roll (8 Hen. V, Mich.) records payment
of £66. 13^. \d. to Lewis Robsart, sent by the king to declare certain things to the
duke of Burgundy, for his wages and passage. There is no indication whether Robsart
had got back or was about to go ; but it is a singular coincidence that under the very
same date Jacqueline first appears in the Issue Rolls, £100 being paid for her expenses
at Calais and on the way to London.

6 Le Fevre, ii. 32. 7 Rym. x. 67 sq.

19-2

292 Henry's Last Visit to England [ch. lxviii

Valenciennes on March 6, Bouchain next day, and reached
Calais on the 8 th1. After waiting at Calais until messengers
whom she had sent to Henry returned with assurances of
welcome, she was met at Dover by many lords, one of whom
was the duke of Gloucester, and immediately escorted to
London2. Henry must have been away, a fact which perhaps
helped him when he made explanations to the duke of Bur-
gundy, envoys from whom were in London in April3. From
the first Jacqueline was treated as an honoured guest. Her ex-
penses at Calais and on her journey thence were paid by the
Exchequer4, and she lived at the king's charges after her arrival
in London5. On July 8 the Council decided that as from
July 10 she should receive a fixed sum of ^100 monthly for
the expenses of her household6 and this was paid to her for
the rest of the reign7. On July 9, the keeper of the wardrobe
was ordered to deliver to her forty beds and couches for the
nobles and others serving her8. It looks as if the Council had
become convinced that her sojourn in England would be a long
one, but there seems to be no evidence as to what advantage
Henry expected to draw from it. Perhaps he thought that she
might be useful in case the duke of Burgundy became re-
calcitrant, and it is noteworthy that in the treaty with Genoa
she figures in the list of Henry's allies9. But while it is true
that Henry could not foresee the depths of folly into which she
was to tempt his brother Humphrey, it cannot be denied that
his conduct in the affair hardly became an ally of the duke of
Burgundy and that it was foolish to risk a breach of the Anglo-
Burgundian alliance for the problematical benefits which might
be gained through Jacqueline's dependence upon him.

1 Loher, Jakobaa, i. 406; Cordeliers, 292.

2 Monstr. iv. 27; Chast. i. 216 sq. That she stayed some time at Calais is suggested
by Iss. Roll 8 Hen. V, Mich., March 19, 142 1, and 9 Hen. V, Pasch., May 2, 142 1.

3 Ibid. April 23, May 2, 142 1.

4 Ibid. 8 Hen. V, Mich., March 19, 142 1, 9 Hen. V, Pasch., May 2, 142 1.

5 Ibid. April 23, May 2, May 9, June 18, 142 1. Her expenses were included in the
Treasurer's estimates of May 6 (Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 312; see above, p. 274).

6 Ord. Priv. Co. ii. 291; Rym. x. 134. The money was to be drawn from the issues
of the lands of Queen Joan (Iss. Roll 9 Hen. V, Pasch., July 5, 142 1).

7 Iss. Roll 9 and 10 Hen. V, passi

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The reign of Henry the Fifth"

See other formats