CHAPTER VIII

SOME ASPECTS OF GLOUCESTER'S CAREER

In spite of the circumstantial story which records the events of the last few days of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, there hangs over the manner of his death a cloud which no existing evidence can entirely remove. Was he murdered, or was his death the result of natural causes? Such is the question to which the circumstances surrounding his last days give rise. Of contemporary chroniclers who give their opinion the Englishmen mostly agree in a quiet acceptance of the idea that arrest and disgrace so worked on an already weakened frame, that some kind of seizure was followed by collapse and death. Richard Fox, who gives the most detailed account of the tragedy of Bury, never for a moment suggests foul play, whilst Wheathampsted, the friend and follower of the dead man, clearly states that he died of sickness brought on by grief at his arrest.[1022] Hardyng carries this theory still further by describing the disease of which the Duke died as a sort of 'parlesey,' stating that he had been similarly attacked before,[1023] but an anonymous chronicler of Henry VI.'s reign, while describing the illness much in the same way as Fox and Hardyng--a paralysis of both mind and body--does not hesitate to hint fairly broadly that the disease did not take its origin from the natural state of the Duke's health.[1024] The author of the _English Chronicle_ reserves judgment. The truth about Gloucester's death, he declares, is not yet known, but he quotes the Gospel to prove that there is nothing hid which shall not be made manifest;[1025] the London chronicler declares darkly that he was treacherously treated.[1026] Foreign contemporary writers go still further, and with one voice proclaim that Gloucester was murdered. Waurin states this as a bare fact, but his statements are not beyond dispute, for he adopts the same version as the continuator of the _Historia Croylandensis_, who says that the Duke was found dead in bed on the morning after his arrest.[1027] Mathieu de Coussy and Basin, both of whom were alive at the time, aver that it was a case of murder, and so it was generally believed on the Continent.[1028]

NATURE OF GLOUCESTER'S DEATH

As time passed on, the growing unpopularity of Suffolk unloosed men's tongues, and the idea that Gloucester had been murdered gradually arose, and became a firm belief. It was obvious to all that the Duke's death had been desired by Suffolk to increase his power, and within three years of the Parliament at Bury another Parliament was clamouring for the disgrace of this upstart, who with the help of the Queen had monopolised the government of the kingdom, and it was but a very thinly veiled accusation of murder which lay behind the articles of impeachment that he 'wase the cause and laborer of the arrest, emprisonyng and fynall destruction of the most noble valliant true Prince, your right obeisant uncle the Duke of Gloucester.'[1029] That this was no more than an accusation of complicity in Humphrey's disgrace which indirectly produced his last illness is an interpretation which the words cannot bear when we consider the facts of the case, for at the same time Gregory records that among the charges brought against Suffolk that of murdering 'that nobylle prynce the Duke of Gloucester' was one.[1030] Whatever the words of the impeachment may imply to us, it is plain that they bore but one meaning to the men of the time, and in view of the coming disgrace of the Queen's favourite, public opinion was beginning to assert itself, for it is to be noticed that, when recording the death of Humphrey, Gregory ignored any question of murder.[1031]

We may well suspect that the murder of Suffolk by the sailors of the Kentish coast had for its prompting some thought of revenge for the death of the man who had held the command of Dover and the Cinque Ports. The people were beginning to find their voices, and when the Kentish men followed Jack Cade in his march on London, they invoked the wrongs of Duke Humphrey, as one of the reasons of their rebellion. They demanded the punishment of the false traitors 'which counterfetyd and imagyned' Gloucester's death, and they declared the charges which had been brought against him at Bury to be false.[1032] Moreover, in one of the popular songs connected with this rising there is distinct mention of 'two traitors ... Pulford and Hanley that drownyd ye Duke of Glocester,'[1033] a possible allusion to the two yeomen of the guard who were Humphrey's custodians after his arrest, and who may have been more than suspected of being the instruments of his enemies' treachery. It was at this time also that Lord Saye de Sele met his violent end at the hands of the mob, who accused him of many acts of treason 'of whyche he knowlachyd of the dethe' of Gloucester.[1034] As hostility to the existing regime increased, the belief in the murder grew proportionately, and became complete assurance on the triumph of the Yorkist party. Thus one of the political poems which paved the way for this turn of events declared roundly that 'This Fox (Suffolk) at Bury slowe our grete gandere' (Gloucester),[1035] and the manifesto which the Duke of York issued from Calais referred to 'the pytyous shamefulle and sorrowfulle murther to all Englonde, of that noble werthy and Crystyn prince Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, the Kynges trew uncle, at Bury.'[1036]

A few years later a political song stated that

'The good duc of Gloucestre, in the season Of the Parlement at Bury beyng, Was put to dethe,'[1037]

and the general acceptance of the fact of murder was so universal that under the year 1446 (O.S.) a compiler of historical notes, writing in the latter days of the fifteenth century, put down without comment or hesitation 'interfectio ducis Gloucestriae.'[1038] Fabyan, another writer of this period,[1039] mentions the theory that Humphrey had been put to death as an accepted fact, adding that 'dyverse reportes ar made, which I passe over.'[1040] Subsequent writers and historians have all followed this opinion,[1041] till within recent years some doubts have been cast on this universally accepted reading of the events.

We cannot accept the verdict of murder as conclusive without an examination into the facts of the case. Obviously it may have been more a political move than a firm conviction of the murder that induced the Yorkist party to throw out these accusations with regard to Gloucester's end, but in this respect it cannot have been very fruitful, and it is stated in a manner which implies that the facts of the case were common property. To support the theory there is the strong hint of the Latin chronicler of Henry VI.'s reign, and the suspiciously judicial attitude of the author of the _English Chronicle_. The testimony of Wheathampsted as the friend of Gloucester deserves attention, yet we must remember that the late Abbot of St. Albans had passed entirely into private life in 1447, and did not emerge therefrom till four years later when he resumed the Abbacy. Moreover, his information was probably gained from Richard Fox of the House of St. Albans, a man who brought no critical power to bear on his narrative, and who merely recorded the official account of the Duke's last illness; all personal access to the prisoner had been forbidden save to the royal officials, who had him in charge, and at the best Fox must have recorded what he was told at the time by those who had the care of his master. Evidence of a more definite and less refutable kind is the statement of John Hardyng. By him the illness is given a definite name, and allusion is made to earlier attacks. This is supported by a report on the Duke's health made some twenty-three years earlier by his physician, which describes him in a weak state of health, though the details of the report do no more than point to certain excesses in his manner of living, and a temporary lack of health, and do not in any way suggest a hopelessly decayed constitution, which some would deduce therefrom.[1042] Only once do we hear of the Duke suffering from illness, and the activity of his life, in which he combined the avocations of a soldier, a politician, and a man of letters, in itself refutes the suggestion. Humphrey showed no signs of bodily decay; he was perfectly well, and able to make a long journey on the eve of his imprisonment, and if his health was so undermined at the age of thirty-four, how was it that he survived to more than complete his fifty-seventh year, no mean age at that time? He survived all his brothers; one died in battle, Henry at the age of thirty-six succumbed to an attack of camp fever, Bedford only attained his forty-sixth year, while his grandfather, John of Gaunt, who was looked on as an old man for his time, lived but one year longer than himself, and his father only reached the age of forty-seven. Indeed of all his relations Cardinal Beaufort alone lived to be really old, though his exact age is uncertain. The statement of Hardyng must not, therefore, be considered as entirely corroborated by the physician's report, and by itself it stands as a statement of no more value than those which roundly assert that Gloucester was murdered, for the chronicle was written about the year 1463 by a man who had served the House of Lancaster from the battle of Shrewsbury onward. Perhaps the strangest of all evidences on this point is that given by Chastellain, the Burgundian chronicler, who wrote _Le Temple de Bocace_ for Margaret of Anjou when in 1463 she retired into exile in the county of Bar. In this collection of stories dealing with the sad fate of many famous people, a sort of continuation of Boccaccio's Latin work which was introduced to English readers by John Lydgate's _The Falls of Princes_, a terrible picture of Humphrey's violent end is drawn, and the methods used to give the appearance of a natural death are described. When we remember that Margaret was a prominent member of the faction at whose bidding such a deed must have been performed, the version of the story here given is the more startling.[1043]

Apart from all statements of chroniclers, whether contemporary or otherwise, there lies the probability of the case. Gloucester was in the way of the plans of Suffolk and Margaret; he had already been accused of treason, an accusation which might be hard to prove; armed preparations had been made against him; he was under arrest at the time of his death. More important than this is the way he was isolated from his followers; his chief retainers were arrested, and his personal servants were removed from attendance on him,[1044] and thus the officers appointed by his enemies could arrange what they liked. The way his body was exposed after death to prove that no violence had cut short his days was itself an invitation to suspicion, and this negative method of proof was not unknown in the cases of other royal victims of political murder. The whole story of the case supports the supposition that some kind of slow poison was used, a method of assassination quite possible under the circumstances, and for which it would almost seem that provision had been made. Murder, therefore, is the most probable explanation of the Duke's sudden demise, his relapse into a comatose state might very well be the result of a poison taken with his food, and when an unscrupulous party so desired his death, the conclusion is obvious.

'Who finds the partridge in the puttock's nest, But may imagine now the bird was dead, Although the kite soar with unbloodied beak? Even so suspicious is this tragedy.'[1045]

Whatever opinion is held with regard to the immediate cause of Humphrey's death, it is beyond doubt that his destruction was planned, if not carried out. On Suffolk and Lord Saye de Sele falls the chief suspicion, and in the latter's case the count is strengthened by the fact that he received on the very next day after the death of the Duke some of the offices which the victim had held.[1046] 'Pole' that 'fals traytur' was openly accused of part responsibility,[1047] and Fabyan says, 'The grudge and murmour of ye people ceased not agayne the Marquis of Suffolke, for the deth of the good duke of Gloucester, of whos murdre he was specially susspected.'[1048] Foreign chroniclers all attribute the murder to the 'faction of Suffolk,'[1049] and in this indictment the Queen cannot be excepted. She, together with Suffolk and Lord Saye de Sele, shared in the lands and emoluments which reverted to the King on his uncle's demise,[1050] and girl though she was, she had a predominating influence among those who had allied themselves against Gloucester. One more fact both points to the existence of a determination to make away with their rival on the part of the dominant party of the Court, and strengthens the suggestion of murder; so complete were the preparations in view of the death, that on the very day that Gloucester died, a grant was made of his property to Henry's foundation of King's College, Cambridge,[1051] and further grants of the same kind were made on the following day.[1052]

Final proof of the care with which Gloucester's death was organised is to be found in the treatment meted out to his followers, of whom in all forty-two were arrested and imprisoned in thirteen different castles.[1053] On July 8[1054] five of these men, including the Duke's natural son Arthur, were arraigned before Suffolk at Deptford and condemned to be drawn to Tyburn, hanged, disembowelled, beheaded, and quartered for plotting treason against the King. The charge against them was that they had held a seditious meeting at Greenwich on February 7 last, where they had agreed to kill King Henry VI., and place Gloucester and his imprisoned wife upon the throne. Four days later, having collected a large body of men, they had marched out towards Bury, hoping that the country would join them.[1055] Besides this definite charge, rumours were spread abroad that Humphrey had been organising a rebellion in his own favour in Wales,[1056] a legend based on nothing more substantial than the fact that many of the imprisoned retainers bore Welsh names,[1057] but sufficiently elaborated to induce the Parliament at Bury to re-enact 'all statutes made against Welshmen.'[1058]

The absurdity of the whole story is obvious. A great army this escort of eighty men to start a rebellion of all England, and to bring about the removal of the King! There is not one shred of evidence to prove even the likelihood of such a plot. We are definitely told that Humphrey came to Bury with a clear conscience,[1059] and had his intentions been treasonable he would not have entered the town after the warning he received from the King's message. He made not the slightest show of resistance, save, if we can except the statement of a foreign chronicler, that he used strong language to his jailers about those who dominated the King.[1060] If the plot had been hatched on February 7, why was it that Suffolk had collected an army of 60,000 men at Bury some time before the opening of Parliament on February 10, and had gone through the form of taking elaborate precautions for the safety of the King on his way thither? The details of the trial of these retainers also give cause for suspicion, for no office that Suffolk held entitled him to sit as judge at Deptford, and he was probably acting under a special writ, issued to ensure the condemnation of the prisoners. The whole proceeding was meant to throw dust in the eyes of those who might question the manner of Gloucester's death, and to remove the possibility of any one championing the fallen Duke, who was thus proved to have died with the guilt of treason on his conscience. Having established his case, Suffolk tried to win favour with the people by appearing at the execution and producing a reprieve from the King. Though already strung up at Tyburn, when the reprieve was read they were promptly cut down, and their lives were saved.[1061] They and the rest of the prisoners were set at large, and their goods were returned to them.[1062] Had there been any truth in the charge for which they were condemned, the men would certainly not have been reprieved, and this bid for popularity proved fruitless, for in spite of it 'the grudge and murmur of ye people ceased not agayne the Marquys of Suffolke.'[1063] Violence was not one of Humphrey's crimes; he had appealed to force of arms once only, and then it was merely to act on the defensive. This imagined plot was totally at variance with all his former conduct. Plot there was, but it was formed by Suffolk and his partisans to destroy their rival, whose death becomes still more suspicious in the light of their vain attempt at justification.

* * * * *

EFFECTS OF GLOUCESTER'S DEATH

With Gloucester dead, and his memory tainted by an accusation of treason, Margaret and Suffolk thought they had secured safety for their plans and security for the House of Lancaster. But this was far from being the case. Besides casting an indelible slur on the dynasty which had connived at the disgrace and removal of one of its own representatives, they had inaugurated a period of strife and disaster that ended only with the triumph of the rival claimants to the throne of England. A foreign observer of English politics dated all the disturbances which followed from the time of Gloucester's death,[1064] and an English chronicler wrote: 'Thus began the trouble of Engelonge for the deth of this noble duke. All the comyns of this reame began for to murmure, and were not content.'[1065] A political ballad writer, too, saw how things had gone when he wrote, that since the tragedy of Bury

'Hath been in Engeland, gret mornyng with many a scharp schoure Falshode, myschef, secret synne upholdyng, Whiche hathe caused in Engeland endeley langoure.'[1066]

The government of Henry VI., or rather that of those who had his ear, was already unpopular, and we have seen how still more hostile to it the nation became after 1447, and how Humphrey's reputation increased as that of his opponent's diminished. Jack Cade invoked the name of Gloucester as one of the justifications of his hostility to the Government, and it is a significant fact that the three men who were suspected of complicity in the murder, namely Suffolk, Adam Moleyns, and Lord Saye de Sele, all met violent deaths at the hands of the people.

But mere unpopularity was not the worst danger which the Government had to fear, as a result of Gloucester's death, and to understand this aspect of the matter we must recall the history of the two parties in the State since the death of Henry V. The reign of Henry VI. had opened with a declaration of party war. From the first there had been two distinct parties in the kingdom, each fighting to secure the supreme control, the one headed by Gloucester, the other by Cardinal Beaufort, both of whom were members of the House of Lancaster, though the latter's family was excluded from succession to the throne. Gloucester's position as 'lymyted protector,' as a contemporary ballad writer calls it,[1067] had been at once a source of some strength to him and a point of attack for his enemies. Throughout the period of the King's minority the struggle had been for the control of the Council of Regency, Gloucester asserting his privileges as Protector, Beaufort denying them and trying to secure further limitations of his power. So the struggle had worn on with varying success, till with Henry's coronation in 1429 the Protectorate had come to an end. Thenceforward the contest had been between the same parties on a somewhat different field. Henry, as he gradually increased in understanding and knowledge, had been besieged by Gloucester and Beaufort, each trying to influence him in his own favour, and so it had continued till the great triumph of the Beaufort policy in the release of the Duke of Orleans and the marriage of the King to Margaret of Anjou. Hereafter the scene had changed. The Bishop of Winchester had passed out of public life,[1068] leaving the control of his party to his two nephews, John and Edmund, successively Dukes of Somerset. The Earl of Suffolk, apart from the fact that he was the ablest member of the Beaufort faction, is a negligible quantity in this history of party division. On the other hand, the Duke of York had come to the front as the opponent of the Beauforts and as a follower of Duke Humphrey, though he never came anywhere near to supplanting the latter as leader of the opposition to the existing state of government.

Throughout this long struggle, hostile as it was to the peace of the kingdom and to the good government of either party, there had never been on either side any suggestion of hostility to the House of Lancaster as such. Were not both leaders members of that House, and were not their best interests bound up with the preservation of the throne to Henry VI.? The fall of the King would have meant annihilation for both of them, and not for a moment had the possibility of such a thing occurred to the rivals. They had forgotten the shakiness of the Lancastrian House; they had forgotten the claims of York; they had forgotten that the present Duke of York was the son of a condemned plotter against the throne. Their rivalry had been merely one of ambitious men who strove for the mastery, the one with the claim of seniority, the other with the claim of a personal stake in the welfare of the kingdom. The story of that long-protracted struggle is not creditable to either Beaufort or Gloucester, though we must remember that the challenge had come from the former, who was excluded from the succession and had no such claim to have a preponderating influence in the kingdom as had the brother of Henry V. The Cardinal Bishop of Winchester has appealed to the sympathy of posterity by reason of his supposed constitutional attitude, but his pose cannot be taken seriously. Keen to see his own advantage, he had supported the rights of the Council merely as a means to curtail the power of the Protector, and thereby increase his own, but whether we take his constitutional attitude seriously or not, we must condemn his policy. On the other hand, Gloucester inadvertently had stumbled on a policy, which was the only possible one that could save England from internal disorder. In claiming the fullest powers as Protector he had probably no idea beyond asserting what he considered to be his just and legal rights, and obtaining a position which would satisfy his ambitious nature; but his policy was sound. The one hope for England was a government concentrated in the hands of one man, who would not be hampered by opposition at the very fountainhead of justice, who would be able to deal out summary retribution to the wrong-doer. Under these conditions the government of Henry VI.'s favourites would not have become a byword in the country, and have given a handle to the rival House of York.

Thus the rivalry of Beaufort and Gloucester was more personal than political, in no sense was it dynastic, and though it weakened the hold of the House of Lancaster on the country, yet in itself it did not threaten the throne of Henry VI. Still less was this the case when the Beaufort faction had won their final victory, and had definitely placed Gloucester in permanent opposition, where he acted as safety-valve to the reigning dynasty. Just as so many years later the House of Hanover was strengthened by the opposition of successive Princes of Wales, so did Gloucester's opposition secure the House of Lancaster. He, it must be remembered, was heir to the throne, for the marriage of Henry VI. had not yet produced a son who would supplant him. Round him the discontented elements in the nation circled, the Duke of York and his following owned him as their leader. In the country at large he was still popular, and no faction could rise to drive Henry from his throne with any prospect of success if it had not the support of 'the good Duke Humphrey.' On the other hand, the Duke of York and his claim had to be kept in the background so long as Gloucester stood as heir to the throne and leader of the opposition to the maladministration of the governing clique. Moreover, the adhesion of York to Gloucester's party was a guarantee against civil war, for those two men who worked together had totally antagonistic claims to the throne of England.

We have here the chief reason why the death of Humphrey was at the same time the death-blow to the House of Lancaster. The Duke of York was not dangerous so long as Humphrey lived, for though their interests in the kingdom were divergent, they had acted together through the last years of Beaufort's domination. Both alike had been excluded from the Council of the King, and both alike had made common cause in the name of order and a different policy. We have seen the various shifts which had been used to minimise Gloucester's influence with the King, York had been intrigued against by the Beauforts whilst in command in France, and finally he had been sent off to Ireland, so that he could not make his voice felt in the councils of the nation.[1069] His connection with the King's uncle was of long standing. Gloucester had held the guardianship of the lands that he inherited from the Earl of March, he had supported him in 1437, when it was proposed to put the Earl of Warwick in his place as Commander-in-Chief of the army in France,[1070] and he had complained bitterly in his indictment of Cardinal Beaufort that the Duke of York had been alienated from the King.[1071] In return for this the Yorkist party had supported Gloucester in opposition; after his death they helped to bring home the guilt of his murder to those who had contrived it, and as soon as they obtained the ascendency they vindicated his memory by a public act. In the Parliament which met after the first battle of St. Albans, under the auspices of the Duke of York, the question of Humphrey's good fame, which had often been unsuccessfully mooted before, was again raised; a petition was framed by the Commons asking the King, in remembrance of his uncle's services to the Crown, and of the fact that he had been accused of treason by certain wicked persons, to declare the aspersions cast on his good name to be unfounded. This petition, quite spontaneous on the part of the Commons, was taken up by the Duke of York, and by his help and favour it was granted.[1072] This attitude on the part of York has its significance. It was a declaration that the policy which he espoused, the policy of good government and justice, was the policy of Humphrey; it was a party cry too, an appeal to the favour of the people, who believed that the good Duke had done his utmost for the good government of the kingdom.

HAINAULT POLICY

When we come to examine the facts of the case, and the right which Gloucester had to the reputation for good government, we must confess that, though the adulation of the seventeenth-century chroniclers may seem excessive, it is no more exaggerated than the obloquy which has been heaped on his memory by more recent historians. His campaign in Hainault and his whole policy in that matter, quite apart from his behaviour to Jacqueline, is worthy of the heaviest censure. Blind to the effects of his actions, he did nothing to minimise them when he had tardily realised the possible alienation of Burgundy from the English Alliance. He had allowed his personal interests and ambition to take precedence of the advantage of his native country. Yet even here we must reflect before we ascribe all the failures of the English in France to his action. Signs are not wanting after the death of Henry that the Duke of Burgundy was not the warm supporter of his English allies that he had been in the past; the English also were not devoted to the Burgundian alliance, the Earl Marshal made no objection to leading the Hainault expedition, and the Earl of Salisbury, enraged by an outrage offered to his wife, came over to offer his services to Gloucester.[1073] Nor did the Council treat the matter very seriously. Humphrey on his return received no reprimand, despite the statement to this effect by certain foreign chroniclers. If Gloucester erred, he did so along with much of the public opinion of his time, and had he proved more faithful to the course he had undertaken, one might be inclined to judge his line of action in Hainault less hardly. Nevertheless, apart from all matters of foreign policy, he must be condemned for leaving his infant nephew at home unguarded save by a man whom he most profoundly distrusted. This, far more than the more obvious count of alienating Burgundy, must condemn him in our eyes, if we look at the matter from his point of view.

Apart from this lapse from honour and wisdom in his government of the country as Protector, what shall we say of Gloucester's action in home policy? To deny the evil effects of the struggle for power between himself and the Cardinal Bishop of Winchester would be to blind ourselves to a clear historical truth, but we must remember--and in the light of the modern judgment on Humphrey it cannot too often be reiterated--that the struggle did not originate with him. He claimed the Protectorate as his right, even as Bedford did, and it cannot be said to have been a more ambitious move on the part of the one brother than on that of the other. It was the late King's wish that he should be Protector, and it was a wise arrangement. He distrusted Humphrey's capacity as a general with an independent command, but he had reason to believe that the man who had governed England quietly and well for him, was the proper person to whom to confide the kingdom during his son's minority. Apart from that disastrous struggle for supremacy over his uncle the Cardinal and his party, how did Humphrey comport himself as Protector, and later as chief Councillor?

HOME POLICY

The details of Gloucester's home government are hard to extract from the central theme of party strife, but more than once we find him the fearless supporter of the arm of the law. The kingdom was in a state of potential upheaval all through the period of his power. Henry IV. might say to his son, when speaking of the crown of England:

'To thee it shall descend with better quiet, Better opinion, better confirmation; For all the soil of the achievement goes With me into the earth.'[1074]

But this was not true of Henry IV.'s grandson. 'De male acquisitis non gaudebit tertius heres,' quotes an old chronicler,[1075] and leaving the ethics of the case aside, this was undoubtedly true of poor misguided Henry VI. Ever since the feudal barriers which restrained the great lords had begun to disappear, the too powerful subject had been a problem to be faced. Henry IV. had found this when confronted with the insurrection of the men who had helped to place him on the throne. The wars of Henry V. had aggravated the danger by increasing the wealth of the nobles, who made fortunes by means of the armed men they provided for the King. With a minor on the throne this development became still more dangerous, and Humphrey had to meet it. He did his best. The pretensions of the Earl of March were nipped in the bud by his dismissal to Ireland: later the quarrel which almost grew into a private war between Norfolk and Huntingdon was interrupted by his action, and his appearance in the neighbourhood doubtless restrained these lords. He issued warnings against the use of retinues of unnecessary strength, and took a personal interest in the precautions which were to ensure peace between the lords who accompanied the King to France. His reputation as an enforcer of the King's peace must have been great, for at the time when power was slipping from his hands, his enemies agreed to his appointment as Chief-Justice in South Wales, a difficult and unsettled district, and he held the same office at Chester[1076] on the border-land, where the work of the Justice can have been no sinecure. In minor breaches of the peace, such as those of 1427, he showed himself eager to put down all kinds of lawlessness, and by his prompt action he nipped the movement of Jack Sharp in the bud, a movement which, in spite of its insignificant appearance in the pages of history, might well have developed into a rebellion against the House of Lancaster. In all these instances it was by no deputed power that Humphrey enforced the majesty of the law, but by personal exertions and visits to the centres of disturbance.

Nothing bears greater testimony to the success of Gloucester's rule than the change which came over the state of the country as soon as he was driven from power. Under his government there had been disturbances, but nearly always for some definite reason. When Beaufort became supreme, however, the country degenerated steadily into anarchy, not on account of personal claims or dynastic troubles, but simply because the central government had lost all control over the people. In the west a private war of some magnitude raged between the Earl of Devon and Sir William Bonville, Wales was in revolt, York and Norwich were the scenes of considerable disturbances, Northampton was at war with Lord Grey of Ruthyn, riots occurred in London, Salisbury, and Derbyshire. Beaufort's firm ally, Archbishop Kemp, was attacked by the men of his diocese and the Earl of Northumberland, whilst to still further complicate affairs, the finances were in an even worse state than when Gloucester was in power.[1077] If Gloucester was not an ideal ruler, Beaufort and his faction fell still further short of that ideal, and if we judge by results, we must conclude that England was happier and better governed under the ex-Protector, than under the party which supplanted him.

CHARGES OF OPPRESSION

Stern represser of revolt, and enforcer of the law, was Gloucester himself a defaulter in these respects? Accusations to this effect there are, but few and of doubtful importance. In Parliament, together with other lords, he was complained of as illegally exacting the royal right of purveyance,[1078] but his position as heir to the throne may form some excuse for his action, and the complaint was made at a time when his enemies were closing their coils around him. More detailed and circumstantial is an account of how one John Withorne had his lands seized by Gloucester, who claimed him as _nativus suus_, and was taken off to spend the remaining seven years of his pretended master's life in prison in Wales. At the end of that time, blind, decrepit, a wreck of humanity, he was released by the order of the King.[1079] The story may be true, but it dates from immediately after the death of Gloucester, and looks suspiciously like an attempt by his enemies to justify their opposition to him, a theory supported by the mention of Wales, that wild land whence he was to lead his mythical hordes to dethrone the King, and establish himself in his nephew's place. Further there are the charges of undue severity imposed on prisoners recorded as part of his indictment by some later chroniclers,[1080] but the strongest argument against this and all other charges is to be found in the fact that there are not the slightest signs of a genuine detailed indictment of the Duke by his enemies, who had to rest content with poisoning the King's mind with regard to his uncle. Nevertheless some truth may be found in the story of the imprisoned villein, for rapacity was a vice which Humphrey shared with his uncle of Winchester, and an anonymous chronicler tells us how his wife Eleanor wrongfully deprived the Hospital of St. John of Pontefract of certain lands belonging to them.[1081] This fact is attested by a grant dated February 27, 1447, whereby certain lands in Norfolk, including the Manor of Sculthorpe, lately belonging to Gloucester, were given to the Hospital of St. John,[1082] and when we remember that Sir Robert Knollys, the founder of this institution, lived and died at the manor-house of Sculthorpe, the probability of the charge becomes a certainty.

Only one other complaint do we find of Gloucester's behaviour, and that is by the unknown continuator of the Croyland chronicle, who complains that, when interviewing the Protector on several occasions with regard to a lawsuit with the men of Spalding, the Abbot of that monastery was harshly and unjustly treated by him.[1083] That this means anything more than that the Abbot failed to substantiate his case we may well doubt; at all events, even were all these charges true, they are but a mild indictment of a man who lived in the first half of the fifteenth century amidst so many temptations to excess, a man, too, against whom any accusations would have been welcomed by the faction in power during the last few years of his life.

Before concluding this estimate of his public character as Protector and heir to the throne, let us remember that, when issuing an edict forbidding certain lords to come to Parliament with too extensive retinues, he named Huntingdon among the number, a man who supported him, and consequently found himself neglected and estranged from the King in the days when Humphrey made his famous protest against the administration of the Bishop of Winchester. Personal motives, therefore, did not always overrule his sense of justice; it cannot be for nothing that Gloucester earned the title of the 'Good Duke,'[1084] and it is impossible to believe that he would have been so popular with the people, if he had been guilty of frequent acts of oppression. Taken with the facts of his career, it is more likely that this popularity sprang not from a mere charm of manner, but from the fact that he alone of the great men of his time tried to curb the licence of the nobles and the depredations of the lawless. He was not the inspirer of disturbances, nor the author of the Wars of the Roses. By his very existence he was what Sandford calls 'a grand prop of the Red Rose tree,'[1085] and this--strange paradox--by reason of his alliance with the leader of the White Rose cause. Gloucester was not the first Yorkist--his instincts and his interests alike prevented this; he was not the subverter of the Lancastrian dynasty. On the contrary, it was his death that created the Yorkist party, and paved the way for the downfall of his nephew.

TRIBUTE OF GLOUCESTER'S SERVANTS

Humphrey was no traitor to his King, nor enemy of his father's House, quite the reverse. He had done services to his country, which are forgotten amid the factious surroundings of his career. Biassed though they may be, there is much to be said for the truth of the statements made in the lament put into the mouths of his followers, when they had buried their master. 'Now,' they cried, 'the right hand of the King has gone, the right arm of his strength has withered, he has lost him, who in the day of his necessity was both wall and rampart to him. Who but his uncle put down internal risings against the throne when they occurred, or went forth to fight, when enemies from without threatened him? He at last has laid aside his arms, and has retired to that region where there is peace and rest, and sorrow is no more. Who but the Duke of Gloucester, during the King's infancy, drove the Duke of Burgundy from Picardy? Who but that Duke, during the same King's boyhood, brought the enemies of the Cross of Christ to destruction? Who but he, in the King's full age, gave peace to the people in every quarter? Who but he, in a word, throughout the King's nonage, was his faithful foster-father and foster-mother alike? And now he is said to be a traitor, he who in the past had so many opportunities to do that which he is accused of doing in the present. Nay, that accusation is a lie most false, devised by those greedy devourers, who kill virtue when it is exalted, and who seek occasion to suffocate the innocent, that they may increase their plunder! Wherefore shall we his servants, who moved in the same surroundings as he, who were cognisant of all his secrets, who knew all his actions, shall we then allow a prince so illustrious, a duke so tireless in doing his duty, a soldier so trusty and prudent, one too guiltless of any crime, to be thus torn by dogs, thus stung by scorpions? Be this thought far from us and from those who favour justice and piety, for the great Duke himself both loved, nurtured, and enforced justice, and it is a pious work to champion one who can no longer defend himself.'[1086]

Such is the one estimate of Gloucester's services to the body politic, but we must not look merely on one side of the picture. Humphrey claimed to guide the ship of state, and in many cases his policy was right, and his actions were just, but he lacked that touch of greatness which might have lifted him above the wrangles of party politics. His statesmanship was at fault. He had no power of gauging a man's worth, or weighing a policy in the balance. He rushed blindly into a compromising war at Hainault, a position from which there was no retreat, and he cut but a sorry figure when he abandoned the whole enterprise. He could not sustain a definite line of action, and drive steadily to the end he had in view. He complicated his policy with too many endeavours, and brought none of them to good effect. He could not keep an unswerving course, as Protector, or disassociate himself from the tricks of party warfare; in opposition he could not maintain a steady attack, but contented himself with fitful outbursts of impotent wrath.

WAR POLICY

Yet, apart from this, his policy had a consistency which his actions lacked. When the second stage of the Hundred Years' War was about to begin, he adopted an attitude which he maintained throughout his life. He then voted against the Burgundian alliance; at St. Omer he showed his dislike of such an alliance in the scant courtesy with which he treated the Count of Charolais; he defied the same Count when Duke of Burgundy with an animosity both personal and political; he encouraged the defiance which England flung at this same Duke after the congress of Arras; he resisted the release of Orleans partly because it was a Burgundian suggestion. Again, in 1415, he favoured an Armagnac alliance, and we find him voicing the same principle when it was a question of a marriage for Henry VI. with a daughter of the Armagnac or Angevin House. In the matter of the war, too, he was consistent to the extent of folly. His active life had begun in the French wars; he had accompanied his brother Henry V. on his expeditions to France. Henceforth he accepted the war as part of his political creed, and would not move one hair's-breadth therefrom. At a time when no useful advantage could be gained by the prolongation of hostilities, he opposed the wise, pacific movement of Cardinal Beaufort, and did much to defame his political character with posterity by this dogged persistence of principle. Yet he could not devise a scheme for carrying on the war, and though he offered to undertake the command, he did not persist in his suggestion.

There is a possible view of Gloucester's war policy, which may explain, if not justify, his attitude. In a political poem of the period, well known as the 'Libel of English Policy,' the principle, that command of the narrow seas was necessary for the safety of English commerce, is insisted on at some length.[1087] This command, it is to be presumed, was only to be maintained by a secure hold on both sides of the Channel, and the continuance of the war was considered necessary for this purpose. Calais, however, even in those days, was a sufficient guarantee for the openness of the Channel; but the supposition that trade considerations had their influence on Gloucester's war policy is strengthened by his well-known connection with trade interests in the country. His popularity with the Londoners must have taken its origin from this side of the Duke's policy, and from certain discussions at the Parliament at Leicester in 1426 it seems likely that the riotous tendencies in London, that led to the garrisoning of the Tower in 1425, had some connection with a movement against foreign traders in the capital.[1088] Gloucester, it will be remembered, had supported the Londoners in their objections to the garrison, and we may perhaps deduce from this a tendency to, what we may call, an 'All British Policy,' a trace of the modern Jingo politician. Humphrey had other connections besides this with the trading interests in the country. He had some intercourse with the weavers of York,[1089] and his wife was interested at one time in a petition from one of the glovers of that city.[1090] We also find a letter addressed to Gloucester during the reign of Henry VI. from an English merchant at Amiens, asking for his protection in matters commercial.[1091] The Duke had realised the strength of that new power which was arising in England, the power of the middle classes, the traders, and herein he foreshadowed the subsequent commercial policy of the first Yorkist King.

* * * * *

Gloucester began life as a soldier, he ended it as a politician. In the first capacity he showed ability to adapt himself to the new methods of warfare. His military skill was greater than subsequent historians have realised; he was a trusted Captain of Henry V.'s army, and was specially skilful in the management of a siege--the story of his attack on Cherbourg is a sufficient guarantee of his power in this sphere. But again his lack of persistency marred an otherwise promising talent, and as an independent general, save in short, detached expeditions, he was a dismal failure, coming near to be suspected of downright cowardice. But it is as a politician that he will be remembered, as the man who struggled with Cardinal Beaufort, the man whose ambition led him to demand what his fellows would not grant him. The world of politics was the scene of Gloucester's greatest failure, for a failure his life certainly was. A man with more strength of character would have risen triumphant over the difficulties placed in his way, he would have secured the substance, if not the appearance of power. As it was, his ambition, his craft, his domineering instincts were called into play, and all the petty weaknesses of his character came to the front. We follow him from one poor shift to another, all aimed at satisfying his desire to be supreme over his rival. Herein lies the tragedy of his life. A man of great abilities, and destined by birth to take a prominent part in the affairs of his country, he nevertheless wasted his life in an endeavour to satisfy his personal ambitions. He cast aside the splendid opportunity to rise triumphant over opposition, and in a world of pigmies he failed to dominate them by his personality. He was not that great man who 'aiming at a million misses an unit'; he was not even that low man who 'goes on adding one to one.' He spent his life and his abilities in aiming at the petty gratification of his lust for power, and in so doing failed to grasp the grand opportunity of being the saviour of the Lancastrian dynasty.

* * * * *

ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY

No comprehensive view of Gloucester's policy can be attained without some reference to his relations with the various ecclesiastical bodies and the church problems of his time. Above all things, through thick and thin, in the midst of the vagaries of a lax life, and the uncanonical marriage that he made with Jacqueline, he was essentially orthodox. His seventeenth-century biographer spends much time in combating this opinion, and states that from his youth up he 'favoured those that hold the opinion of Wickliff';[1092] indeed at the end of the treatise it is evident, that its main object is to prove that its hero was the morning star of the Reformation. This contention is obviously absurd. 'Amator virtuties et rei publicæ, sed principue clericorum promotor singularis'[1093] is the character given to Humphrey by a contemporary, who therein gave utterance to the opinion of his day. It could hardly be otherwise. As a boy the future Duke of Gloucester had been surrounded by those whose orthodoxy was part of their political programme. Henry IV. had snatched his crown from the head of Richard, who was strongly suspected of Lollardy, and he resolutely refused to comply with the movement in favour of remitting the statutes passed against the Lollards.[1094] His successor had adopted the rôle of God's messenger to the wicked Frenchmen, and had kept up his part all through his campaign, so much so that in 1418 he had retired to Bayeux to keep Lent, whilst his brothers fought his battles for him. In earlier years, too, as Prince of Wales, he had played the missionary to heretical criminals.[1095] No wonder, then, that Humphrey adopted the orthodox attitude of his House, and was punctilious in the performance of his religious duties.[1096]

ORTHODOXY

Gloucester was not only orthodox himself, but also a stern opponent of the Lollards, and more than once we have seen him following the example of his brother Bedford, who as Regent condemned Oldcastle to death, and executing summary justice on those who attacked the Church. In this he doubtless looked to the political as well as the religious side of the Lollard movement, but this only confirms the fact, that his private opinion and the interests of the dynasty alike impelled him to adopt a strictly orthodox attitude. The story of the condemnation of his wife may seem to some to contradict this statement, but whether Gloucester had any part in the witchcraft or not, it was not in those days impossible to combine the grossest superstition with the strictest orthodoxy. That Humphrey dabbled in alchemy and astrology there is no doubt, but he did so in company with the monks of the strictly orthodox House of St. Albans.[1097] It was after the disgrace of Eleanor Cobham that the University of Oxford wrote, that the greatest splendour attaching to his name came from his persistent suppressions of the enemies of Holy Church,[1098] and when dedicating his _Commentary on Genesis_ to his patron, Capgrave did not hesitate to call him 'the most glorious defender of the Faith and diligent extirpator of heresies.'[1099] Moreover, it was not only in England that Gloucester owned a reputation for orthodoxy, for when writing to him on behalf of Pier Candido Decembrio, the Archbishop of Milan, devoted about half his letter to bewailing the strife and dissension within the Church, ending with a fervent appeal that his correspondent would use his influence to restore peace, since he was known everywhere as the chiefest friend and preserver of Holy Church.[1100]

With regard to Humphrey's marriage to a lady who already possessed a husband, we must remember that a very plausible and strictly legal case was made out against the legality of her earlier marriage. We have no evidence that an answer to Gloucester's argument was ever filed, and the history of the proceedings at Rome, where Robert Sutton and Vincent Clement represented his interests,[1101] points to the fact that the legal aspect of the case was never given a thought, and that the whole matter was decided by intrigue and personal considerations. The long delay in giving a decision convicts Martin V. of neglecting the rights and wrongs of the case, for had it been a mere matter of law, no such delay was necessary.

THE POPE AND PRÆMUNIRE

The secret history of these negotiations at Rome is unknown, and will probably never be revealed, but subsequent events point strongly to the intervention of Beaufort influence. The key to the whole matter is to be found in a quarrel which began some years later between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Bishop of Winchester was no stranger to Martin V.; indeed, the Pope had every reason to be grateful to one who had had no small share in his election, for it was the arrival of Henry Beaufort at Constance, when the College of Cardinals could come to no decision, that turned the tide in favour of Oddo Colonna. An intimacy probably sprang up between the two, and the Pope was anxious to bestow a Cardinal's hat on his friend, but this Henry V. refused to allow. We hear no more of Beaufort's ecclesiastical ambitions during the rest of this reign, but when troubles and disturbances began to surround the Court of the younger Henry, then Beaufort was to the fore. He had not lost touch with the Court of Rome, and it cannot be doubted that his handiwork may be seen in a letter which in 1427 the Pope wrote to Archbishop Chichele. Martin V. had exalted ideas as to the importance of the papal power, and on this occasion he wrote in severe terms with regard to the existence of the statute of Præmunire, which limited his powers in England. Chichele was not blind to the meaning of this attack, which blamed him for placing patriotism to his country before loyalty to his Church.[1102] In his reply he did not beat about the bush, but plainly told the Pope that both the Duke of Gloucester and he himself had been maligned, if His Holiness regarded them as hostile to him in any way whatsoever. He added that were he able to undertake the journey he would gladly visit Rome, and explain the evil intentions of that faction which was attempting to drive him from his See.[1103] It was useless for the Pope to retort with increased anger that Chichele had no right to introduce the name of his 'beloved son Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester,' as no charge had been made against him.[1104] The inference is obvious. The faction of which the Archbishop complained was clearly the Beaufort party, else Gloucester would not have been mentioned as sharing the brunt of the attack made upon him. Chichele had not the unlovely graces and deceptions of diplomacy, and he retorted frankly to the spirit and not to the letter of the papal communication that he had received.

Moreover, the Pope was at the same time harassing the Duke on the same subject. In a letter, dated October 13 of this same year, he complained bitterly of the ill treatment and imprisonment which his Nuncio and Collector, John de Obizis, had experienced in England, and he declared that he understood that the Protector was the instigator of these proceedings. Beaufort had doubtless stirred up this cause of quarrel, and was also at the bottom of the demands with which the letter concluded. Martin asserted that the King had promised to call a Parliament to consider 'the execrable statute against ecclesiastical liberty,' and urged Gloucester, as next in importance to the King, to use his influence on the side of repeal.[1105] Thus was Humphrey drawn into the quarrel, and though it would seem that he tried to pacify the Pope by releasing the papal collector,[1106] there are no signs that he abandoned his old friend Chichele on the question of Præmunire. The tone of the papal letter addressed to the Protector, though couched in civil language, contains a decided threat, especially when we remember that the case of Jacqueline's divorce was still pending at Rome. It is therefore impossible to doubt from the evidence before us that the attack on Humphrey and the offenceless Archbishop was the work of the Bishop of Winchester, meant to serve his own personal ends, and to gratify his political ambitions in England.

The excuse and foundation for this attack on Archbishop Chichele are not far to seek. The Bishop of Lincoln had been recently translated to the See of York by papal provision, and had been indicted for accepting this promotion under the statute of Præmunire. However, he had come to terms with the Lords of the Council, and in return for a promise to stay all proceedings against him and to reappoint him to the See of Lincoln, he had agreed to renounce all claims to the See of York, and to do his utmost to expedite the cause of the Duke of Gloucester at the Court of Rome, the cause being the divorce of Jacqueline, as yet undecided.[1107] This action on the part of the Council had enraged the Pope and annoyed Beaufort, the former because the statute of Præmunire had been employed to curb his power in England, the latter because it spoke of the influence which his rival had over the Council. Moreover, the Bishop had no desire to see the objectionable statute made use of against himself, for he had just been nominated a Cardinal for the second time,[1108] and was looking for a favourable opportunity to accept the honour without incurring the penalties of the law, penalties which would incur not only loss of power in the kingdom, but also the forfeiture of all those worldly possessions which he loved so dearly. He therefore used this opportunity for his advantage, and urged the Pope to attack Chichele, and through him Gloucester, who, with characteristic cunning, was not mentioned in the accusing letter.

The details of the struggle are, from Gloucester's point of view, unimportant, as his name was sedulously excluded from the later stages of the controversy. Blustering epistles and the threat of an interdict shook Chichele's resolution, but the nation stood firm, and beyond the personal satisfaction of having caused the Archbishop considerable anxiety, Martin gained nothing by his interference.[1109] Not so the Beaufort faction. The compromise with regard to the See of York was finally settled by the appointment of John Kemp, Bishop of London, a man who had made some show of friendship for Gloucester,[1110] but who was to join the party of his opponents before very long; besides this, the Bishop of Winchester was ultimately enabled, by means of the influence exercised on Bedford, to accept the cardinalate without incurring the penalties of Præmunire.

RELATIONS WITH PAPACY

In connection with this episode in the struggle between Gloucester and Beaufort, a correspondence, which took place between Humphrey and the Pope in the year 1424, may have some bearing. The Duke complained that one, Simon da Taramo, papal collector in Ireland, had been traducing him to the Pope, and he had also exchanged letters with Simon on the subject. Simon declared that he had a complete answer to the charge,[1111] but he had undoubtedly meddled in Jacqueline's divorce suit, and seemingly had made unauthorised promises in the name of Gloucester, possibly at the instigation of Beaufort.[1112] It is likely, though no definite opinion can be given on the subject, that this complaint made by Humphrey had some connection with the later attack on Archbishop Chichele, and that the intrigues of Beaufort were first levelled direct at his chief rival, and then diverted into fresh channels in an attempt to reach this rival through his friend and supporter. In detail the story is obscure, but the deduction is obvious. Regardless of the national spirit, which had asserted the independence of the Anglican branch of the Church Catholic from undue papal interference from the very earliest days of English history, Beaufort had entered into alliance against the long-established ecclesiastical liberties of England; he had disregarded the patriotic scruples of other great Englishmen, and had embarked on a policy in which patriotism was subordinated to private interest. Are we to blame Humphrey if he tried to prevent the government of the kingdom from falling into the hands of such an one as this? On the other hand, Gloucester himself had adopted a line of action in accordance with the accredited policy of England, he had shown himself the upholder of a method of procedure in which orthodoxy refused to yield to patriotism, even as earlier he had caused Martin V. to complain of his lack of energy in procuring the Archdeaconry of Canterbury for another papal nominee.[1113] This attitude was not chosen with any idea of gaining popularity in the kingdom, for he did not thrust his share in the quarrel to the front, and was content to limit his action to quiet, unobtrusive resistance to papal claims.[1114]

Later in life we see Gloucester's interest in matters ecclesiastical exemplified in his relations to the Council of Basel.[1115] On July 4, 1437, he wrote a letter to the Council telling them of the excellent manner in which their emissaries had conducted themselves in England, and of the despatch with which he had secured an audience for them.[1116] Though strife was running high at the time between Pope and Council, their disputes had not yet reached the last extremity, so we cannot deduce from this evidence that Humphrey supported the Council against the Pope. Probably he was slow to withdraw the sympathy he felt for the Council, for we find a letter written to him in the following February by Eugenius IV., setting forth the reasons of his action in summoning the Council to sit at Ferrara,[1117] which would lead one to believe that he was trying to convert his correspondent to his views. However, there seems no reason to doubt that Gloucester's hereditary orthodoxy led him to follow the example of the English King, who protested strongly against the action of the Council in refusing to acknowledge the Pope,[1118] and at a later date referred to the 'rageous demenyng of theyme of Basyle.'[1119]

RELATIONS WITH MONASTIC HOUSES

Humphrey's ecclesiastical interests were mainly devoted to the monastic foundations of England. He was a member of the Fraternity of St. Edmund at Bury;[1120] it was to him that the Priory of Launceston appealed when, in 1430, there arose a dispute on the election of their Prior,[1121] and from him also the Prior of Binham Abbey sought support when the Bishop of Norwich found cause of complaint against that foundation.[1122] In this last case Wheathampsted, the famous Abbot of St. Albans, had acted as intermediary between the Prior and the Duke, since Bynham was a cell of St. Albans, and it was with this man, and the Abbey over which he ruled, that Gloucester had the most intimate connection of all.

The Abbey of St. Albans was one of the most fashionable monastic establishments in England. Queen Joan was accustomed to visit it from her palace at Langley; the Duchess of Clarence--Gloucester's sister-in-law--was its friend and patroness, and was received into its Fraternity; Cardinal Beaufort visited it more than once, and was received with processions and rejoicings as befitted a prince of the Church; the Earl of Warwick, too, was here nursed by the monks through an attack of tertian fever.[1123] But Gloucester was the most consistent visitor of all; we have frequently seen him entertained by the monastery; he and his two wives were admitted to the Fraternity, and at one time he resided at the Manor of the Weald, on the hill close by, which at the present time practically corresponds to the parish of St. Stephen's.[1124] From time to time he gave costly presents to the Abbey, and even in 1436 these had assumed considerable proportions. He had made eight distinct presentations, mostly of vestments and hangings for the altar, culminating in the gift of a shrine with a figure of the Virgin bearing her Son in her arms in the centre, and several figures grouped around standing on an ornamental pedestal, all surmounted by the Crucifixion, with the Virgin and St. John standing on either side.[1125]

Besides gifts to the Abbey, Humphrey gave some of his goods into the keeping of the monks, and at the time of his death many of his jewels were found in their hands.[1126] The presents were not all on his side; we find many entries in the accounts of the monastery recording payment made to the Duke and to his retainers at the time when the renewal of the charter of the Abbey was procured through his mediation with the King.[1127] Soon after this Wheathampsted resigned the Abbey, but before long Humphrey was summoned as chief patron to adjudicate between the late Abbot and his successor, John Stoke, since they had quarrelled over the former's right of maintenance out of the revenues of the Abbey.[1128] After the retirement of Wheathampsted there is no recorded visit of Gloucester to the Abbey; he seems to have been there for the last time to celebrate the renewal of the Charter in 1440; but he did not forget the monastery of his choice, and less than four years before his death he bequeathed to it the alien Priory of Pembroke, in return for which masses were to be said for his soul and for that of Eleanor his wife.[1129]

ST. ALBANS MONASTERY

As we have seen, it was in St. Albans Abbey that Gloucester found his last resting-place, in a tomb built for him before his death by Abbot Stoke at the considerable cost of £433, 6s. 8d.[1130] The tomb is still to be seen at the south side of the shrine of St. Alban, and though considerably mutilated on the north face, it still remains a very fine specimen of Perpendicular workmanship. It bears Humphrey's arms with supporters, and the canopied niches above have once held figures, still to be seen on the south side, but impossible to identify, more especially as they seem to have been moved from their original places. It is possible that they are meant to represent the royal benefactors of the Abbey, most of whom would be in some way related to Humphrey. In 1703, while digging a grave for Mr. John Gape, the vault of the tomb was discovered, and the Duke's body was found 'preserved in a kind of pickle' and enclosed in coffins of lead and wood.[1131] The tomb and body became thenceforth one of the sights of the place, and Lady Moira recounts that in 1747 she 'took from the skull of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, in his vault at St. Albans Abbey a lock of hair which was so perfectly strong that I had it woven into Bath rings.'[1132] Others were no more particular about spoiling the dead than Lady Moira, and in 1789 only the lead coffin and bones were left,[1133] and even some of the last have been removed, and are to be found in the possession of private persons. There are still some of the remains of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, lying in the vault in which they were reverently laid by those who knew and who loved him, and there still may be seen the faded remains of a picture of the Crucifixion painted on the wall at the foot of the coffin.

PRIVATE CHARACTER

Of Gloucester's personal appearance we have little information. No contemporary gives us any description of him, and though we have some fairly authentic portraits, they are not sufficiently definite to give a clear conception of his personality.[1134] The utmost we can be sure of is that he had a somewhat emaciated face, and was clean shaven. His countenance, so far as we can know it, bears no sign of his individuality, and we must fall back on the scanty notices of the chroniclers for a description of his character. Later generations regarded Humphrey almost as a saint; he is eulogised in the pages of Camden;[1135] all the virtues he obviously lacked are attributed to him by Holinshed;[1136] Hall and Sandford unite in calling him the father of his country;[1137] his biographer, John Cooper, not to be outdone, declares that he was a 'miracle of wisdom and goodness.'[1138] There seems to have been no divided opinion on the subject, probably due to his undoubted popularity with the people, and a writer who was perhaps born soon after the Duke's death speaks of his 'honourable fame' and of his 'liberalite.'[1139] Amongst his contemporaries, too, there is no lack of praise for his merits, though the unrestrained style of later centuries is modified. Mathieu de Coussy declares him to be the wisest, most powerful, and best loved prince in all England,[1140] and even Waurin, the follower of the Duke of Burgundy, turns aside from his account of the quarrel of Gloucester and Duke Philip, to say, 'car pour verité, sans personne blasmer, il estoit prince de grant virtu, large, courtois sage et très vaillant chevallier de corps, hardy de ceur.'[1141] Wheathampsted, his friend and supporter, was possibly biassed in his favour when he says:

'Fidior in regno Regi Duce non fuit isto. Plus ne fide stabilis, aut maior amator honoris.'[1142]

It cannot be doubted that Humphrey had many knightly qualities, and that there are many actions in his life which may be regarded as creditable, if not great. His personal character was spoilt by an entire lack of concentration and purpose. He had no philosophy of life, and no substitute for one. He accepted certain canons of policy and conduct, but could not live up to them, and this weakness was entirely due to the taint in his moral character which made him the victim of his passions. A weakness in itself, this indulgence drained all the life-blood from his actions, and increased year by year his inability to carry out a set purpose. He became more and more a producer of high-flown phrases, which sounded large and meant little owing to the lack of power behind them. This was especially evident in those sporadic bursts of energy during the last few years of his life, and there is much truth in the verdict of Pope Pius II., who declared him to be more suited to a life of letters and lust than to a life of arms, and accused him of never justifying his vast pretensions and of caring more for his life than for his honour.[1143] This unfavourable summary of his character was provoked by Humphrey's actions in Hainault, and therefore was made under circumstances most unfavourable to him, and at a moment when his conflict with the canon law would colour the judgment of a papal writer. Nevertheless, Pius II. with unerring instinct placed his finger on the weak spot in the Duke's character, and laid stress on just that element which spoilt his whole life.

CHARACTER

Equally to the point is the sketch given by an anonymous chronicler who wrote in England, one that bears the impress of truth from its obvious impartiality, and sums up the situation in the best possible manner. 'Duke Humphrey excelled all the princes of the world in knowledge, in comeliness of appearance and in fame, but he possessed an unbalanced mind, was effeminate and given over to sensual pleasures, a tendency which vitiated all his actions, prompted though they were by his many other good qualities. Moreover, he did not desist from his sensual indulgences either at this present time (the time of his marriage to Eleanor), or in the future, for which he received his due reward.'[1144] There could be no juster estimate of the man. That he had exhausted himself by indulgences, even as early as his twenty-fifth year, is established by the testimony of his physician Kymer,[1145] though too much emphasis may be laid on this dietary, for Humphrey was probably passing through a stage very common to young men in his position. To expect strict morals from him in the age in which he lived is to create a public opinion which did not exist, and we must remember that both his brothers Thomas and John left illegitimate children. Nevertheless, much of that instability of character which wrecked his life may be traced to indulgence in his besetting sin, an indulgence which seemed excessive even to his contemporaries, and it may well have been with his great patron in his mind that Lydgate penned the words:

'Loke wel aboute, ye that lovers be; Let not your lustes lede you to dotage.'[1146]

We must not gather from Humphrey's volatile nature that he had no strong affections; even as he had a hatred of the Duke of Burgundy, so had he, in spite of his infidelities, a strong affection for his second wife. He did not forget her even after her disgrace, and set out on his last journey to Bury in the hope of obtaining her release from prison. She had been his evil genius since the day he met her among the ladies of Jacqueline. Ambitious and haughty, she had mixed in affairs of state,[1147] she had performed illegal acts, the effects of which were felt by her husband, and in her disgrace she brought the heaviest blow that had yet fallen upon him. She left no legitimate issue, but she may have been the mother of the two children who called Humphrey father. The son, Arthur, was one of those arrested at Bury, but neither before nor after this is there any trace of him.[1148] Of the daughter we know more. In accordance with her father's classical tastes she was named Antigone, and in 1437 she married Henry Grey, Earl of Tankerville, a peer of no importance, who was never summoned to Parliament.[1149] Their son dropped the title, and the last of the line married the daughter of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk.[1150] Antigone survived her husband, and a year after his death we find her the wife of Jean d'Amancier, Esquire of the Horse to Charles VII of France.[1151] It is a strange paradox that Humphrey's daughter should marry a man in the service of the King with whom he had advocated an endless war.

Besides incontinence, there are other blots on the Duke's private character, and they also had their influence on his public career. If he was not habitually oppressive, he was none the less rapacious. His expenses as a prince who loved display, and a patron who kept many scholars in his service, were very great, and he never lost an opportunity of adding to his rent-roll, or of securing money by other more dubious methods. We have seen him accepting a heavy bribe from the Abbey of St. Albans for his services in securing for them a renewal of their charter; in his earlier days he had accepted another bribe from the Earl of Berkeley for his good offices with Henry V. in obtaining the Castle of Berkeley for that Earl;[1152] he tried to use his powerful position and the value of his protection to induce the Prior of Ely to disburse money for the Hainault campaign;[1153] and the Cinque Ports, of which he was Warden, had to pay him in hard cash for the renewal of their charter from the King.[1154] His rapacity in an age which produced Cardinal Beaufort was not unique, yet it shows a lack of restraint, and explains how much the tendencies of his private character moulded his career as a statesman.

Together with rapacity Humphrey harboured a pride which dictated many of his most unfortunate actions, and this pride was closely connected with an impetuosity which led him to discard wisdom for the pleasures of the moment. In battle he exposed himself to every danger, and even his epistolary style became infected with this characteristic, for in speaking of Simon da Taramo he alludes to the 'venomous suggestion of this second Judas.'[1155] All through his life Gloucester was governed by his emotions, and he always obeyed the impulse of the moment, were it good or bad. Thus his love of order and his disgust at any kind of outrage so possessed him when he discovered that his retainers had been poaching at St. Albans, that he seized the nearest weapon to his hand and belaboured one of the wretched criminals as he sat in the stocks.[1156] Indeed the secret of the Duke's character lay in the preponderating influence his emotions possessed over every action of his life. This partly explains his unstable nature, and accounts for his high-flown ideas and ill-considered plans, but when the power of the emotion had passed, all the vitality had gone from his undertakings. His emotions took him to Hainault, and their reaction produced his failure; his emotions produced those fitful attacks on his great rival Beaufort, but were not enough to construct for him a definite policy. The energy of his life all went to waste, because there was no strength of will to control his impressionable nature. Yet there were times when this impetuosity led to good results as well as to ill. It helped him to quell all tentative efforts at sedition, it kept him going in his warlike undertakings when they were not too prolonged; above all, it enabled him to broaden his interests, and to embrace the life of a patron of letters as well as that of a soldier and a politician. Yet sometimes he was able to restrain his ardour. During the Côtentin expedition he showed unexpected determination, and on occasions he could try persuasion when force was useless. The man who could burst into fits of rage under the influence of political disappointment, and jeopardise the safety of his country for the whim of the moment, could also stoop to argue with an irate prelate, and 'doff his cap' to the Bishop of Norwich when interceding for the liberties of the Prior of Binham.[1157]

The man who is governed by his emotions is seldom worthy of respect, but he has a charm which is all his own. This charm Gloucester undoubtedly possessed. Though in many ways a sore trial to Bedford, he did not lose his brother's affection till an impetuous outburst produced a quarrel, which was never healed. All through the Hainault trouble the French Regent had borne with his brother, and his letters had shown affection even when they found fault. Even after the Parliament of Leicester he had manifested a tactful feeling for his brother's tastes, and had sent him a beautifully adorned volume from the famous royal library of France.[1158] Others who had been brought into close contact with Duke Humphrey were warm in their praise of him; Wheathampsted and his St. Albans friends were faithful to him even after his death.[1159] The Bishop of Bayeux spread glowing reports of his generosity and kindliness throughout Italy, as is attested by more than one Italian humanist,[1160] and his personal charm exerted a strong influence on such men as Piero del Monte. This last spoke in warm terms of the happy intercourse he had had with the Duke of Gloucester while in England,[1161] and it was not therefore mere fulsome flattery which made Lapo da Castiglionchio declare that in conversation he was courteous and kind, and in every walk of life affable and genial.[1162] We have more than one indication of the goodness of Humphrey's heart, apart from the possibly suspect statements of admirers, and it was no mere caprice that made him befriend the unhappy Queen Joan, who was left to eke out a life of honourable detention totally neglected by all the other prominent personages in the kingdom.

As we turn the last page of Humphrey's political life, it is with a feeling of regret that we remember his career. We see brilliant abilities and immense possibilities for useful work all thrown away because the fire of genius burnt only in fitful gleams. Moral stamina was denied to an otherwise promising character, and the concentration which might have moulded his life's work into a useful policy was lacking. He had done nothing to carry England further along the high-road to strength and fame, he had lived in a decadent age and had been overwhelmed by the spirit of his times. Yet his life was not in vain. No man has left a greater mark on the progress of English thought than this Duke Humphrey, and in the realm of ideas, whither we must now follow him, he did the good work he failed to do in the realm of action.

FOOTNOTES:

[1022] Whethamstede, i. 179.

[1023] Hardyng, 400. Another rhymer of the same period says: 'For shame and anguishe off whiche jealousy It toke hym sone after and soo lowe brought hym dawne That in short while after it caused hym to dye.'

Rawlinson, MS., Classis, C. 813, f. 12vo.

[1024] _Chron. Henry VI._, 34.

[1025] _Eng. Chron._, 63. Cf. _Polychronicon_, f. 338vo. _Short Eng. Chron._, 65, says, 'And sone after he disseyed, the sykness howe God knoweth.'

[1026] _Lond. Chron._, 135.

[1027] Waurin, v. 3. Cf. _Hist. Croyland. Contin._, i. 521.

[1028] Mathieu de Coussy, 30; Basin, i. 190. The latter adds that a report that he died of natural causes was circulated to disarm suspicion.

[1029] _Rot. Parl._, v. 226.

[1030] Gregory, 189.

[1031] It is possible that this second allusion to Gloucester's death is the work of Gregory's continuator.

[1032] Stow's _Memoranda_, 97, evidently the transcript of an original document. Cf. Stow (_Annales_), 390, and also a proclamation by Jack Cade at the same time. 'It is a hevy thynge that ye good Duke of Gloucester was apeched of treason by a fals traytour alone, and so was murderyd and might never come to his answer.' Stow's _Memoranda_, 95.

[1033] 'The Dyrge of the Commons of Kent,' printed in _Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles_ (Camden Series), p. 103.

[1034] Gregory, 193.

[1035] _Political Songs_, ii. 224.

[1036] _Eng. Chron._, 88.

[1037] _Political Songs_, ii. 268.

[1038] _Brief Notes_, 149.

[1039] He is said to have finished his chronicle in 1493.

[1040] Fabyan, 619.

[1041] See, for instance, Polydore Vergil, 73; Hall, 209; Leland, _Collectanea_, I. ii. 494; Speed, 622; Weever, _Ancient Funeral Monuments_, 555; Tanner, _Bibl. Brit._, 421; Sandford, _Genealogical Hist._, 309. Cf. Cotton MS., Vitellius, A. xvi. f. 210.

[1042] See Kymer's _Dietarium_ in _Liber Niger Scaccarii_, ii. 550-559. Cf. Sharon Turner, ii. 299, note 35.

[1043] George Chastellain, _OEuvres_ (ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, Bruxelles, 1865), vii. 87.

[1044] Ramsay, ii. 76, giving as a reference _Eng. Chron._, 118 (the account of Fox), says, 'It is more material to point out that two Chaplains and twelve gentlemen of the Household remained with Gloucester through his illness and followed him to his grave.' The writer quoted does not say this, he merely states that these retainers followed the body to St. Albans, and it is definitely established by Cotton MS., Vitellius, A. xvi. f. 105, that all Gloucester's servants were removed from attendance on him after his arrest. This is not contradicted by the assertion that some of them followed him to the grave after his death. It may be noticed, by the way, that the account of Fox is not quite accurate, for he places Richard Nedam among the mourners who followed the coffin, a man who was then under arrest at Winchester, and later condemned to death and reprieved.

[1045] Second Part of Shakspeare's _King Henry VI._, Act III. Scene ii.

[1046] _Rot. Pat._, 25 _Henry VI._, Part ii. m. 1.

[1047] Stow's _Memoranda_, 95.

[1048] Fabyan, 619.

[1049] Waurin, v. 4; Mathieu de Coussy, 30; Basin, i. 190. Cf. _Chron. Henry VI._, 34.

[1050] Suffolk as his share of the plunder received the title of Earl of Pembroke with some of Gloucester's possessions in South Wales, including Pembroke, Tenby, and Kilgerran Castles; _Lords' Reports_, v. 254, 255; _Cal. Rot. Pat._, 285. He was also created Chamberlain; _Rot. Pat._, 25 _Henry VI._, Part ii. m. 35. The same membrane gives his appointment as Constable of Dover and Warden of Cinque Ports in succession to Gloucester, but another membrane gives the appointment of Lord Saye de Sele to this office on the same day, which is more probably the effective gift; _Rot. Pat._, 25 _Henry VI._, Part ii. m. 1. Margaret's share consisted of the Manor of Middleton and the Hundreds of Middleton and Merden, the Castle and Lordship of Colchester and the Hundred of Tendring, the Castle, Town, and Lordship of Marlborough, with the forest of Savernake and the office of Constable of Gloucester Castle. All these had belonged to Humphrey. Rymer, V. i. 170. See also _Duchy of Lancaster Accounts (Various)_, Bundle v. No. 8.

[1051] _Rot. Parl._, v. 132.

[1052] _Inquisitiones Post Mortem_, 25 _Henry VI._, No. 26, m. 8; _Rot. Pat._, 25 _Henry VI._, Part ii. m. 1 and m. 35; Rymer, V. i. 170. Another grant of Gloucester's possessions was made on February 27; _Rot. Pat._, 25 _Henry VI._, Part i. m. 5.

[1053] Ellis, _Letters_, 2nd Series, i. 108. Gregory, 188, says 38 servants.

[1054] So Rymer, V. i. 179, but Gregory, 188, says July 14 at Westminster.

[1055] Rymer, V. i. 179; _Cal. Rot. Pat._, 290; Gregory, 188; _Short Eng. Chron._, 65; Leland, _Collectanea_, I. ii. 494.

[1056] _Eng. Chron._, 62. Eleanor was at this time imprisoned in Wales, so the accusation may have seemed plausible at first; _Brief Notes_, 154.

[1057] See list of prisoners in Ellis, _Letters_, 2nd Series, i. 108.

[1058] _Statutes of the Realm_, ii. 344.

[1059] _Chron. Henry VI._, 33.

[1060] Mathieu de Coussy, 30.

[1061] Gregory, 188; Richard Fox, 118; _Short Eng. Chron._, 65. For pardons see Rymer, V. i. 179, and _Cal. Rot. Pat._, 290, 291. Cf. _Excerpta Historica_, 281-390.

[1062] Richard Fox, 118.

[1063] Fabyan, 619.

[1064] Mathieu de Coussy, 30.

[1065] _Polychronicon_, f. 338vo. Whethamstede, i. 182, says much the same thing.

[1066] _Political Songs_, ii. 268. Cf. Leland, _Collectanea_, I. iv. 494.

[1067] Rawlinson MS., Classis, C. 813, f. 126.

[1068] His last recorded presence at the Council Board was in June 1443.

[1069] _Chron. Henry VI._, 35; Waurin, iv. 353, 354; _Ordinances_, vi. 89.

[1070] Beaucourt, iii. 10.

[1071] See above, p. 262.

[1072] _Rot. Parl._, v. 335; Whethamstede, i. 181. Cf. Speed, 667.

[1073] Stow, 365, puts this event as the first sign of the breaking up of the Burgundian alliance.

[1074] Shakespeare's Second Part of _King Henry IV._, Act IV. Scene v.

[1075] Waurin, ii. 423.

[1076] Harleian MS., 139, f. 206; _Rot. Pat._, 5 _Henry VI._, Part ii. m. 16.

[1077] For this state of anarchy and distress see Ramsay, ii. 51-53.

[1078] _Rot. Parl._, v. 115.

[1079] _Rot. Parl._, v. 448.

[1080] Polydore Vergil, 72; Holinshed, iii. 211.

[1081] _Chron. Henry VI._, 30.

[1082] _Rot. Pat._, 25 _Henry VI._, Part i. m. 5 and m. 19.

[1083] _Hist. Croyland. Contin._, i. 517.

[1084] Gregory, 188.

[1085] Sandford, _Genealogical History_, 309.

[1086] Whethamstede, i. 179-181. A free translation of the Latin original. For a like opinion, cf. Rastell, 262.

[1087] _Political Songs_, ii. 157, 205.

[1088] _Rot. Parl._, iv. 300, 301.

[1089] _Accounts (Exchequer Q. R.)_, Bundle 515, No. 7.

[1090] _Ancient Correspondence_, vol. lvii. No. 97.

[1091] _Ibid._, vol. xliv. No. 40.

[1092] Holkham MS., p. 27.

[1093] William of Worcester, 463.

[1094] Walsingham, _Hist. Angl._ ii. 283.

[1095] _Ibid._, ii. 282.

[1096] Cf. _St. Albans Chron._, i. 31, _et passim_.

[1097] See Ashmole MSS., 1796, in the Bodleian Library, a book dealing with astrological subjects, written at St. Albans.

[1098] _Epist. Acad._, 217. It is perhaps worth noticing that when addressing letters to Bedford and Gloucester in support of the candidature of Thomas Chace to the Bishopric of Meath, the University of Oxford dwelt at some length in the letter to Gloucester on the energy with which this man, when Chancellor of the University, had extirpated heresy, but did not allude to this favourable trait in his character to Bedford; _Epist. Acad._, 105. This would seem to imply that Gloucester's orthodoxy was known to be more rigid and unbending than that of Bedford.

[1099] Oriel MS., xxxii. f. 1vo.

[1100] Durham MS., C. iv. 3, f. 7.

[1101] _Paston Letters_, i. 24; _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 223.

[1102] Wilkins, _Concilia_, iii. 471.

[1103] Wilkins, _Concilia_, iii. 472.

[1104] _Ibid._, iii. 473.

[1105] _Papal Letters_, vii. 36.

[1106] A papal collector was released from the Tower in 1427. _St. Albans Chron._, i. 16, 17.

[1107] _Ordinances_, iii. 211.

[1108] May 24, 1426. See Creighton's _Papacy_, ii. 158.

[1109] The letters exchanged are to be found in Wilkins's _Concilia_, iii. 471-486. See also Creighton's _Papacy_, ii. 158, 159, and Hook's _Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury_, v. 91-103.

[1110] See _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 281.

[1111] See various letters in _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 279-284.

[1112] _Papal Letters_, vii. 29.

[1113] _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 284, 285.

[1114] However, Wheathampsted, Gloucester's friend, wrote to Martin V. excusing the Archbishop's conduct, Cotton MS., Claudius, D. 1, f. 1, and 1vo.

[1115] He was evidently interested in the conciliar movement, for among his books was a volume containing records of all the doings, both public and secret, at the Council of Constance. Cotton MS., Nero, E. v.

[1116] Martène and Durand, _Amplissima Collectio_, viii. 816, 817. Cf. Harleian MS., 826, f. 15.

[1117] Add. MS., 26, 784 f. 30vo.

[1118] _Beckington Correspondence_, ii. 37.

[1119] See Henry's justification of the release of Orleans, Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_, ii. 451-460.

[1120] Register Curteys, in _Archæologia_, xv. 70, 71.

[1121] Tanner MS., 196, f. 40vo.

[1122] Amundesham, _Annales_, i. 308.

[1123] _St. Albans Chron._, _passim_.

[1124] Newcome, _Hist. of the Abbey of St. Albans_, 510.

[1125] Amundesham, _Annales_, ii. 189, 190.

[1126] _Ibid._, i. 65; _Rot. Parl._, v. 307.

[1127] Amundesham _Annales_, App. A, ii. 265; App. D, ii. 295. Cf. Arundel MS. 34, ff. 66vo, 67, and Whethamstede, i. 26.

[1128] Amundesham, _Annales_, App. B, ii. 278-290.

[1129] Charter printed in Dugdale's _Monasticon_, ii. 244, 245; Whethamstede, i. 94.

[1130] Cotton MS., Claudius, A. viii. f. 195. Gough, in his addition to Camden's _Britannia_, i. 348, wrongly attributes the building of this tomb to Wheathampsted.

[1131] Camden's _Britannia_ (Gough's additions), i. 348; Grainger's _Biographical History of England_, i. 121.

[1132] _Archæologia_, viii. 104.

[1133] Camden's _Britannia_ (Gough additions), i. 348.

[1134] See App. E.

[1135] Camden's _Britannia_, ii. 73.

[1136] Holinshed, iii. 211, 212.

[1137] Hall, 212; Sandford, _Genealogical Hist._, 308. They follow Polydore Vergil.

[1138] Holkham MS., p. 63.

[1139] Fabyan, 619.

[1140] Mathieu de Coussy, 30.

[1141] Waurin, iii. 214.

[1142] Whethamstede, i. 183.

[1143] _Pii Secundi Pontificis Maximi Commentarii_ (Rome, 1584), 414.

[1144] _Chron. Henry VI._ A paraphrase of the original Latin.

[1145] See his Dietary printed in _Liber Niger Scaccarii_, 552-559. Cf. Hearne MS. Diary, cxvii. ff. 136, 137, and cxvii. f. 37; Sharon Turner, ii. 299, _n._ 35.

[1146] 'A Ballade: Warning men to beware of Deceitful Women,' by John Lydgate. Printed in _Chaucerian and other Pieces_, edited by W. W. Skeat as a supplement to _The Complete Works of Chaucer_.

[1147] _Ancient Correspondence_, vol. lvii. No. 97.

[1148] _Chron. Henry VI._, 30.

[1149] Sandford, _Genealogical Hist._, 311; Brooke's _Catalogue of the Nobility_, 170; Doyle, iii. 511.

[1150] Dugdale, ii. 284.

[1151] List of letters of legitimisation printed in Beaucourt, v. 331.

[1152] _Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archæological Society_, iii. 308; Dugdale, i. 362. Dugdale quotes an old MS. in Berkeley Castle as his authority.

[1153] MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of Ely, _Hist. MSS. Rep._, xii. App. IX. 95.

[1154] MSS. of the Corporation of Hythe, _Hist. MSS. Rep._, iv. 435.

[1155] _Beckington Correspondence_, i. 279.

[1156] _St. Albans Chron._, i. 139.

[1157] Amundesham, _Annales_, i. 308.

[1158] Bibliothèque de Sainte Geneviève, MS. français, 777. Inscription on last folio.

[1159] Whethamstede, i. 179.

[1160] See Chapter IX.

[1161] Bodley MS., 3618. f. 2.

[1162] _Cod. Laurentiano_, Plut., lxii. 30, f. 2.