Part 9

... Sir Simon Burley was Governor of Dover Castle, and, from his situation, received frequent intelligence from France by the fishermen of the town, who related to him what they heard from the French fishermen, as they were often obliged to adventure as far as Wissan or Boulogne to obtain good fish. When the fishermen from France met them at sea, they told them enough, and more than they knew; for, though there were wars between France and England, they were never interrupted in their pursuits, nor attacked each other, but, on the contrary, gave mutual assistance, and bought or sold, according as either had more fish than they were in want of; for, if they were to meddle in the national quarrels, there would be no fishing, and none would attempt it, unless supported by men-at-arms. Sir Simon learnt from the fishermen, that the King of France was absolutely determined on the invasion; that he intended to land one division at or near Dover and another at Sandwich, and that his forces were immense. He, as well as the rest of England, believed all this was true; and one day he set out for Canterbury to visit the abbey, which is very large and handsome; near it is Christ-church, which is also rich and powerful.

The Abbot inquired, "What news?" and Sir Simon told him all he knew, adding: "That the shrine of St. Thomas, so respectable and rich, was not safe in Canterbury, for the town was not strong; and if the French should come, some of the pillagers, through avarice, would make for Canterbury, which they would plunder, as well as your abbey, and make particular inquiries after the shrine, and will take it away, to your great loss. I would therefore advise that you have it carried to Dover Castle, where it will be perfectly safe, though all England were lost." The abbot, and all the convent, were so much angered at this speech, though meant well, they replied: "How, Sir Simon, would you wish to despoil this church of its jewel? If you are afraid yourself, gain courage, and shut yourself up in your castle of Dover, for the French will not be bold enough, nor in sufficient force, to adventure themselves so far." This was the only answer he had; but Sir Simon persisted so long in his proposition, the common people grew discontented, and held him for an ill-inclined person, which, as I shall relate, they afterwards showed more plainly. Sir Simon made but a short stay, and returned to Dover.

... [Meanwhile mismanagement and bad weather were breaking up the French armada at Sluys.] ...

Some of the young princes of the blood-royal, with a desire to display their courage, had indeed made a few cruises near the harbour, saying that they would be the first to land in England, should none others venture thither. In this number were Sir Robert and Sir Philip d'Artois, Sir Henry de Bar, Sir Peter de Navarre, Sir Peter d'Albreth, Sir Bernard d'Armagnac, with many more. These young lords, having once begun, were so impatient to sail in earnest, that a council was held, in the presence of the King, to determine how they should proceed. The Duke of Berry broke up the whole; and gave such well-grounded reasons, that the greater part of those who were the most forward to embark were discouraged; and said it would be folly and madness to advise the King, who was then but a child, to put to sea in such weather, and to make war on a people and country whose roads no one was acquainted with, and which was likewise disadvantageous for warlike exploits. "Now, suppose," said the Duke of Berry, "we were all landed in England, we cannot fight the English unless they like it, and we dare not leave our purveyances behind, for whoever would do so would lose the whole. But if anyone wished to make this voyage, though of no great length, he would do it in the middle of summer, and not in the heart of winter. Summon all the sailors who are here, and they will tell you that what I say is true; and that, notwithstanding the very numerous fleet we have collected, should we put to sea, of the fifteen hundred sail, there would never be three hundred together, or within fight. Now, consider what risks we may run; but I do not say this out of any desire to be excused from being of the party myself, but solely as I believe it sound sense, and that the council, and the majority of France, are of my way of thinking. I am willing, brothers of Burgundy, that you and I undertake this expedition, but I will never advise the King to do so; for, should any accident happen to him, the whole blame would be laid on us for having consented to it." "In God's name," replied the King of France, "I am resolved to go, should no one follow me." The lords laughed, and said the King had a strong inclination to embark.

THE STATE OF ENGLAND (1386).

SOURCE.--Froissart's _Chronicle_ (Hafod Press, 1803), iii. 409-412.

England was, at this period, in greater danger than when the peasants, under Jack Straw, rose in rebellion, and marched to London; and I will tell you the cause. The nobles and gentlemen were unanimous, at that time, in their support of the King, but now there were many serious differences between them. The King quarrelled with his uncles of York and Gloucester, and they were equally displeased with him, caused, as it was said, by the intrigues of the Duke of Ireland [Robert de Vere], the sole confident of the King. The commonalty, in many towns and cities, had noticed these quarrels, and the wisest dreaded the consequences that might ensue; but the giddy laughed at them, and said they were owing to the jealousy of the King's uncles, and because the crown was not on their heads. But others said: "The King is young, and puts his confidence in youngsters: it would be to his advantage if he consulted his uncles more, who can only wish the prosperity of the country, than that puppy, the Duke of Ireland, who is ignorant of all things, and who never saw a battle." Thus were the English divided; and great disasters seemed to be at hand, which was perfectly known all over France, and caused them to hasten their preparations for invading the country, and adding to its miseries....

Parliament was harangued on the subject of the finances, and assured that there was not in the royal treasury more than sufficient to support, even with economy, the usual expenses of the King. The council said there was no other means than laying a general tax on all the country, if they were desirous of paying the great sums the defence of the kingdom had cost.

Those from the Archbishopric of Canterbury, the Bishoprics of Norwich and Warwick, the counties of Devonshire, Hampshire, and Wiltshire, readily assented, because they knew better what had been done, and were more alarmed than those at a greater distance, in Wales, Bristol, and Cornwall, who were rebellious, and said: "We have never seen any enemies come into this country, why therefore should we be thus heavily taxed and nothing done?" "Yes, yes," replied others, "let them call on the King's Council, the Archbishop of York, and the Duke of Ireland, who received sixty thousand francs, for the ransom of John of Brittany, from the Constable of France, which ought to have gone to the general profit of the Kingdom. Let them call on Sir Simon Burley, Sir William Elmham, Sir Thomas Brand, Sir Robert Tresilian, and Sir John Beauchamp, who have governed the King. If they gave a true account of the sums raised in England, or were forced so to do, there would be more than money enough to pay all expenses, and poor people remain in quiet."

The King's uncles were much pleased when these speeches were told them, for those they had named were unfriendly to their interests, and opposed their obtaining any favours from the Court. They encouraged such discourses, and, to gain popularity, said: "The good people who hold such language are well advised in wishing to have an account of the management of the finances, and to refuse to pay their taxes, for, in good truth, there is cash enough in the purses of the King or of those who govern him."

By degrees, this discontent was much increased among the people, who declared against any tax being laid on, and who grew bolder in their language when they saw that the King's uncles, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Earls of Salisbury and Northumberland, with many other great barons, supported them. The ministers, therefore, withdrew the tax, and said nothing should be done in the matter until Michaelmas, when the Parliament would again meet.

THE WONDERFUL PARLIAMENT (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER, 1386).

SOURCE.--_Chronicle of Adam of Usk_ (translated and edited by Sir E. Maunde Thompson, 1904), 142, 143.

Owing to the many ill-starred crises of King Richard's reign which were caused by his youth, a solemn Parliament was holden at Westminster, wherein twelve[51] of the chief men of the land were advanced by full provision of Parliament to the government of the King and the kingdom, in order to bridle the wantonness and extravagance of his servants and flatterers, and, in short, to reform the business of the realm; but, alas! only to lead to the weary deeds which are hereinafter written.

The King, bearing it ill that by this appointment the due freedom of His Majesty should be bridled by his own lieges, and urged by his servants, who were thus set in authority, till the end came in the destruction of the King himself, his abettors, and many of these same rulers.

FOOTNOTES:

[51] The actual number appointed was eleven--namely, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Dukes of York and Gloucester, the Bishops of Winchester and Exeter, the Abbot of Waltham, the Earl of Arundel, John de Cobham, Richard le Scrope, and John Devereux.

RICHARD APPEALS TO THE JUDGES (AUGUST, 1387).

SOURCE.--Henry Knighton's _Chronicle_ (Rolls Series), ii. 236.

At the same time the King came to Shrewsbury, where, by the Royal command, certain of the justices of the kingdom had gathered. Then the aforesaid seducers of the King, Alexander, Archbishop of York, Robert Vere, Duke of Ireland, Michael de la Pole, Robert Tresilian, and others, asked them [the justices] whether it would be lawful for the King to oppose and resist the ordinances made in the last Parliament concerning the King and kingdom by the princes and commons of the realm with the consent of the King, which consent, they said, had been obtained by force. They answered that the King was able to annul and alter such ordinances at pleasure for the bettering of affairs since he was above law.

DEFEAT OF THE KING'S FRIENDS (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER, 1387).

SOURCE.--_Chronicle of Adam of Usk_ (translated and edited by Sir E. Maunde Thompson, 1904), 143-145.

Then the King passed with his mother[52] to Westminster Hall, and there, seated on his throne of state, by her mediation, made his peace with his twelve guardians;[53] yet he did it falsely and with deceit.

Soon afterwards the Earl of Oxford[54] went with royal letters into the county of Chester, and led back with him a great armed power of the men of those parts for the destruction of the twelve. But the Duke of Gloucester and the Earls of Derby, Arundel, Nottingham, and Warwick were forewarned thereof, and arrayed in a glorious host before the men of Chester could reach the King, they routed the earl's army on the eve of St. Thomas the Apostle [December 20] at Radcot Bridge in Oxfordshire. And the earl himself they drove in flight beyond hope of return; for he died beyond seas....

At that time, I, the writer of this chronicle, was at Oxford an "extraordinary" in canon law, and I saw the host of the five lords march through the city on their way to London from the battlefield; whereof the Earls of Warwick and Derby led the van, the Duke of Gloucester the main body, and the Earls of Arundel and Nottingham the rear.

The Mayor of London, hearing of their coming, sent forth to them the keys of the city, and thereafter those same five lords did, on the feast of St. John the Evangelist [December 27], blockade the Tower of London till it yielded: then straightway they placed the King, who was therein, under new governance, and delivered his fawning councillors into divers prisons until the next following Parliament.

FOOTNOTES:

[52] She died in 1385: hence the chronicler must be in error.

[53] Namely, the eleven.

[54] Robert de Vere.

THE MERCILESS PARLIAMENT (FEBRUARY, 1388).

SOURCE.--William Caxton, _The Polychronicon_ (published 1482), ii., fols. 396_b_, 397.

In the eleventh year of his reign was the arising of certain lords in England in destruction of rebels, etc., that is to say Sir Thomas Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, Sir Richard, Earl of Arundell, Sir Richard, Earl of Warwick, Sir Harry of Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby, and Sir Thomas Mowbray, Earl Marshall. These five lords understood the mischief and government of the King's Council, wherefore they, that were that time of the King's Council, fled out of the land, that is to say, Master Alexander Nevill, Archbishop of York, Sir Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk and Chancellor of England, and the Marquis of Dublin, Sir Robert de Vere. These three lords came never again into England, for they died beyond the sea. These five lords abovesaid made a Parliament at Westminster and there they took Sir Robert Tresilian, justice, Sir Nicholas Brember, knight and citizen of London, Sir John Salisbury, knight, and Uske Serjeant, with other more which were judged to death and were drawn to Tyburn and there hanged. Also in the same Parliament, Sir Simon Burley, Knight of the Garter, Sir John Beauchamp, knight, steward of the King's house, and Sir John Berneis were beheaded at Tower Hill. Also Richard Belknap, John Holt, John Cary, William Burgh, Robert Frilthorp, and John Lockton, justices, were exiled into Ireland, there for to dwell all their lifetime.

ON THE TRUCE BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE (1394).

BY EUSTACE DESCHAMPS.

SOURCE.--_Political Poems and Songs_ (Rolls Series), i. 300.

Antre[55] Beauraym et le parc de Hedin, On moys[56] d'Aoust, qu'on soye les fromens,[57] M'en aloye jouer[58] par un matin; Si vi bergiers et bergieres[59] aux champs, Qui tenoient là leurs parliers moult grans,[60] Tant que Bochiers dist à Margot la broingne,[61] Que l'en aloit[62] au traitté à Bouloigne, Et que François et Anglois feront paix. Elle respont: "Foy que doy Magueloigne, Paix n'avez jà s'ilz ne rendent Calays."[63]

Lors vint avant Berthelot du Jardin, Qui respondit: "La paix suis desirans; Car je n'ose descouchier[64] le matin. Pour les Anglois que nous sont destruisans; Mais dire oy, il a passé dix ans.[65] Qu'à leur dessoulz quierent tondis aloingne[66] Pour mettre sus[67] leur fait et leur besoigne, Et puis courent[68] le regne à grans eslays;[69] Maint l'out veu,[70] et pour ce je tesmoigne, Paix n'avez jà s'ilz ne rendent Calays."

Après parla, par grant courroux,[71] Robin A Berthelot, et lui dist: "Tu te mens, Car les François et les Anglois enfin Veulent la paix, il en est dès or temps;[72] Trop a duré la guerre et li contens,[73] Ne je ne voy nul qui ne la ressoingne.[74] Certes, tout ce ne vault une escaloigne."[75] Ce lui respont Henris li contrefais:[76] "Encor faulra chascun (prengne) sa broingne;[77] Paix n'avez jà s'ilz ne rendent Calays.

Car l'autre jour oy maistre Martin,[78] Qui racontoit le roy est mendre d'ans,[79] Et qu'il estoit une loy[80] en Latin Qui deffendoit[81] rien vendre des enfans.[82] En Guyenne sont deux mille et cinq cens Villes, chasteauls,[83] qu'Angleis veulent qu'on doingne.[84] Et grant tas[85] d'or, et que le roy esloigne[86] De roy en duc l'ommaige[87] qui est fais." "Qui fera ce?" respon sote Caroingne;[88] "Paix n'avez jà s'ilz ne rendent Calays."

Guichars si bruns, qui fu nez à Seclin,[89] Dist que cilz faiz est doubreux et pesans:[90] Voire, et qu'Englès y pensent mal engin[91] De retenir ce port, qui est constans. "Se ce ne fust bien se fussent rendans:[92] Mais ils pensent barat,[93] guerre, et alloingne[94] Faire au derrain.[95] Ne le duc de Bourgoingne Et de Berry ne feroient jamais Tel paix à eux. Qui voulra si me perdoingne,[96] Paix n'avez jà s'ilz ne rendent Calays."

ENVOY.

Princes, là fu Bertrisons, et Hersans, Et Alizons, qui moult orent de sens;[97] Et jugierent, quand li parlers fu fait, Que telle paix seroit orde et meschans;[98] Et concluirent aux bergiers eulx disans:[99] "Paix n'avez jà s'ilz ne rendent Calays."

FOOTNOTES:

[55] Between.

[56] Month.

[57] When they reap the wheat.

[58] I went to enjoy myself.

[59] I saw shepherds and shepherdesses.

[60] Very great talk.

[61] Stout.

[62] People were going.

[63] By the faith I owe the Magdalene, you will never have peace unless they restore Calais.

[64] For I do not dare rise from bed.

[65] But I have heard say this ten years gone.

[66] That underneath they seek always delay.

[67] In order to cover.

[68] Overrun.

[69] Rapidity.

[70] Many have seen it.

[71] In great rage.

[72] It is high time for it.

[73] Contention.

[74] Who does not fear it.

[75] Is not worth an onion.

[76] Deformed.

[77] Everyone will still have to take his cuirass.

[78] I heard Master Martin.

[79] A minor.

[80] Law.

[81] Prohibited.

[82] Children's property.

[83] Castles.

[84] Will give.

[85] Heap.

[86] Alienate.

[87] Homage.

[88] Caroingue the fool.

[89] Guichard the brown, who was born at Seclin.

[90] Grave.

[91] It is true that the English have an ill design in their thoughts.

[92] They would restore it.

[93] Strife.

[94] Delay.

[95] To make it last.

[96] Who will, let him pardon me.

[97] Who had much sense.

[98] Disgraceful and injurious.

[99] Saying to them.

SUPPOSED PLOTS (1397).

SOURCE.--Froissart's _Chronicle_ (Hafod Press, 1803), iv. 546, 552, 553.

[This story, given by Froissart and the Monk of St. Denis, both admirers of Richard, seems to be absolutely unfounded.]

The Duke of Gloucester would gladly have seen this nephew, called John, Earl of March, on the throne of England, and King Richard deposed from it, saying he was neither worthy nor capable to hold the government of England; and this opinion he made no secret of to those who were in his confidence.

He invited this Earl of March to come and see him; and, when at Pleshy, he unbosomed himself to him of all the secrets of his heart, telling him that he had been selected for King of England; that King Richard and his Queen were to be confined, but with ample provision for their maintenance, as long as they lived; and he earnestly besought his nephew to believe all he said, for he should make it a point to put his plans into execution, and that he was already joined by the Earl of Arundel, Sir John Arundel, the Earl of Warwick, and many prelates and barons of England.... The King of England had received positive information that the Duke of Gloucester and Earl of Arundel had plotted to seize his person, and that of the Queen, and carry them to a strong castle, where they should be confined under proper guards, but allowed sufficiently for their table and other necessary expenses. That four regents should be appointed over the kingdom, of whom the Dukes of Lancaster and York were to be the chief, and have under them the government of all the northern parts, from the Thames to the Tyne, and as far as the Tweed, that runs by Berwick, and comprehend all Northumberland, and the borders of Scotland. The Duke of Gloucester was to have for his government London, Essex, and that part of the country to the mouth of the Humber, and likewise all the coast from the Thames to the water of Southampton, and westward comprehending Cornwall. The Earl of Arundel was to have Sussex, Kent, Surrey, Berkshire, and all the country from the Thames to Bristol, and the river Severn that divides England from Wales, where there are very extensive lordships, with power of punishing by death all offenders. But their chief design was to find out some means of re-kindling the war with France; and, if the King of France wished to have his daughter again, it might be done, for she was still very young, not more than eight years and a half old, and, perchance, when she was marriageable, she might repent of this connection, for she was innocently, and without her being able to judge for herself, married, and, beside, it was unjust to break off her match with the heir of Brittany; but should she wish to abide by her marriage, she would in justice remain Queen of England, and enjoy her dower, but she should never be the companion of the King of England. Should the King die before she was of a proper age, she was to be sent back to France.

These were the plans that had been concerted by many of the English, particularly the Londoners, for they hated the King, and several now repented they had checked the mobs that attacked London from the different counties of England; for they had determined, according to their confessions when put to death, to murder the King, the Earl of Salisbury, the Earl of Oxford, and the whole of the King's Council.

Had this been done the kingdom would soon have found another head; and the citizens, with the consent of the country, and the aid of the Duke of Gloucester (who took great pains to excite trouble and confusion), have selected a fit person to wear the crown, and place the government and kingdom in a different state to what it then was.

RICHARD'S REVENGE (JULY, 1397).

SOURCE.--Froissart's _Chronicle_ (Hafod Press, 1803), 558-559, 583-591.

The King under pretence of deer-hunting, went to a palace he had at Havering-at-the-bower, in Essex: it is about twenty miles from London, and as many from Pleshy, where the Duke of Gloucester generally resided. The King set out, one afternoon, from Havering, without many attendants, for he had left them behind with the Queen at Eltham, and arrived at Pleshy at about five o'clock; the weather was very hot: and he came so suddenly to the castle, no one knew of it, until the porter cried out, "Here is the King!" The Duke of Gloucester had already supped, for he was very temperate in his diet, and never sat long at dinner or supper. He immediately went out to meet the King in the court of the castle, and paid him all the respect due to his sovereign, as did the duchess and her children.